I,'!

START
Microfilmed by
Department o f Photoduplication
The University o f Chicago Library
Swift Hall
Chicago 37, Illinois

DEJGMaBB BBPtlKiXSQDG'u’O®^ ®0,

© t a © D D e w / a ™ ® o r a ® ^ Trans
Kjaraao/ao. to w hot go moira
'

CJIMIKDtro PQBCaDSOtKDa PB®Cfl

rr-
■uTiaQ aDD'u’GO®® /a\(ZE) B Q P / a B T F [ a □ □ ,u ,
da£\ClT?0CK3 ■u’rau ©CKBBQQo

Thesis N o b 17786
J.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

D atf. December 1,_______________ 19 69

Theodore Hall Partrick_________________oU ^ , I ^ &L 3

Author ^5 Birth Date
V

--------------- Jesug-Pf N ^ a r e t h in Second-Century Gnosticism_____________

T itle o f Dissertation

Divinity School_____________________ Ph.D.___________________ Decemberr, 1969

Department or School Degree Convocation

Permission is herewith granted to the University of Chicago to make copies o f the above title, at its
discretion, upon the request of individuals or institutions and at their expense.

Signature o f w riter

Extensive Quotation or Further Reproduction o f This Material by Persons or

Agencies Other than the University o f Chicago May N o t Be Made without the Express
Permission o f the Writer.

w / o / c r
D ate filmed Number o f pages

N ote:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

JESUS OF NAZARETH IN SECOND-CENTURY GNOSTICISM

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO

THE FACULTY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

BY

THEODORE HALL PARTRICK

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

DECEMBER, 1969

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE. iii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION................................. 1

II. FIRST- AND SECOND-CENTURY GNOSTICTEACHERS ............... 8

III. THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH.................... ... ............. 71

IV. TREATISE ON THE RESURRECTION........................... 91

V. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS............................. 102

VI. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO P H I L I P ............................ 118

VII. THE SOPHIA OF JESUS CHRIST................................135

VIII. IRENAEUS' ARGUMENT WITH THE GNOSTICS. . . . . . . . . . . Ik?

APPENDIX................ I59

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . ............................................ I67

ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PREFACE

Since the end of World War II scholars have renewed theirin­

terest in the Jesus of history and in the essential character of Gnos­

ticism. We shall not try to analyze the reasons behind the first but

simply cite as evidence the flood of literature which has come forth in

the last several years on Jesus of Nazareth. The basic reason for the

renewal of the latter interest is more easily specified: the publica­

tion of the Berlin Papyrus 8502^ and the discovery of a Gnostic library

of papyri at Nag Hammadi in Egypt at the end of World War II. Thus

for the first time since the days of anti-Nicene Christianity we possess

a body of Gnostic literature which enables us to evaluate Gnostic teach­

ings on the basis of the Gnostics' own literature.

The following study concerns itself with the common ground of

Gnostic studies and the place of Jesus of Nazareth in second-century

Christianity, that is, the place of Jesus of Nazareth in second-centupy

Gnosticism.

Except for the work called "Pseudo-Tertullian against all Here­

sies" all of the documents used for this study were written in Greek

but, unfortunately, except for fragments, only the writings of Hippolytus

are extant in that language. The ancient Latin version of Irenaeus' work

against heresies, and the Coptic versions of all the Gnostic manuscripts;

^"Walter C. Till, Die Gnostischen Schriften des Koptischen Papyrus

Berolinensis 8502 ("Texte und Untersuchungen," No. 60; Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1955).

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 as well as the original texts of Hippolytus and Pseudo-Tertullian, have

been consulted in all cases where evidence is set forth to support a

conclusion.

However, in all cases translations into modern languages are

available and are normally used in quotations in this study, with credit,

except in those infrequent cases where the writer has preferred to make

his own translation. I am especially indebted to the following trans­

lators: Robert M. Grant for the notices in Irenaeus1 and for Pseudo-
p
Tertullian Against all Heresies. W. R. Schoedel for the Gospel of
3 l
Thomas, W. W. Isenberg for the Gospel of Truth. Walter Till for the
5 6
Gospel of Philipp and the Sophia of Jesus Christ. Soren Giversen for
n
the Apocryphon of John/ and Malinine and Puech for the Treatise on the

Re surrection.^

My debt to the scholarship of Professor Robert M. Grant is mani­

fest in the footnotes and bibliography of this study. I regret that I

had only eighteen months to study under him. Without his help, encourage­

ment, and patience this could never have been written.

1
Robert M. Grant (ed.), Gnosticism: an Anthology (London: Collins
1961), pp. 23-60.
2
Robert M. Grant, Second-Century Christianity (London: S. P. C. K.
1946), pp. 123-40.
3
Robert M. Grant, with David N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings of
Jesus (New York: i960), pp. 117-97.
4
See Grant, Gnosticism: An Anthology, pp. 146-61.
5
Walter C. Till, Das Evangelium nach Philippos (Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, I963).
Gn m
See Till, Die: Gnostisehen . . . , pp. 195-295.
n
Soren Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis. ("Acta Theologica D anin a ,11 V;
Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1963).
8
Michel Malinine et al., De Resurrectione, Epistula ad Rheeinum
(Zurich: Rascher, 1963), PP« 2-15. ' ’
iv

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to discover the place of the historic

Jesus in second-century Gnosticism and to show that the emerging Catholic

Church attacked it and drove it out of the church because it failed to

find an adequate place for an historic and human Jesus in its systems.

Were the great Gnostic systematizers, the Gnostic writers and com­

pilers, really interested at all in the historic figure, the man Jesus? Did

they believe that authentic traditions about him were available to them?

Did they believe that he had anything to do with founding their movement?

Was there any place in their religious view for a flesh-and-blood figure

in history who showed or, indeed, embodied God's nature and advanced his

purposes? Questions like these do not form the outline of our study but

do form the background for it, that is, they are implicit in all the ques­

tions explicitly put to the materials and provide the purpose of our study.

Area of Investigation

Second-Century Gnosticism

The "second century" may seem to some to form too restrictive a

period, but it is the epoch of the important Gnostic systematizers and

expositors. We do not possess or even know of one single Gnostic docu­

ment before the second century. Dositheus, Simon Magus, Menander, and

Cerinthus may represent something in the first century but we know them

only from the heresiologists of the late second century (Irenaeus, Hippolytus

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 2

and Tertullian) and their successors. Our concern is not whether a

historic Gnosticism pre-dates Christianity, is reflected in the New

Testament positively or negatively, or predominated among Christians;

in certain regions in the early part of the second century. We quite

consciously avoid the endless controversy over the origins of Gnosticism.

Not even our conclusions include a stance in the matter. The conclusions

we arrive at may be used as data for the controversy but are not direcited

towards it.

Our study is based on materials available in writings attributed

to the second-century enemies of Gnosticism mentioned above and on the

published writings dug up at Nag Hammadi about 19^5 • The former place

their real opponents in the second century. The manuscripts of the lat­

ter are later than the second century but the various editors place the

originals of the works we shall be concerned with in the second century.

After the close of the second century the Christian writings,

with few exceptions, considered important enough to be preserved are

concerned with other matters. Thus we conclude that the writers felt

that the crisis over Gnosticism was past. Movements like Manichaeism,

the Mandaeans, and the Paulicians have their Gnostic background and

features but are specific historic developments which fall beyond the

range of this investigation.

We do assume throughout that second century Gnosticism is a

discrete historic movement and is not to be dissolved into a tendency.

Whatever its origins, it was taught and held in its various forms as a

system of religious thought by certain people with specific leaders many

of whose names and teachings we know. They were less diverse and divided

than second-century Judaism, and though they may not have had the ethnic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 3

or literary bonds to hold them together, the ties of common doctrines

were stronger.

Whether "Gnosticism" is the best term can be questioned, as only

one group seems to have adopted the name;"*" but Irenaeus' "gnosis falsely

so-called" is too unwieldy, so we shall use "Gnosticism" as a convenient

and traditional term to include groups like the Simonians, Basilideans,

Ophites and Sethians, and Valentinians.

We exclude Marcion not so much because of his lack of interest

in characteristic Gnostic theogony and cosmology but rather because his

approach to the humanity or historicity of Jesus was quite different.

Whereas the important second-century Gnostics followed the Great Church

in rejecting the out-and-out docetism of, say, Simon or Saturninus and

the unnamed Asiatics attacked by Ignatius and I John, this was the very
2
core of Marcion's Christology. Also, whereas Marcion needed a suffer-
3
ing savior in his soteriology, the Gnostics found him an embarrassment,

as theirs called only for the personal dissolution ("differentiation")

of death.

The Historic Jesus

Our study is an historical investigation and thus christology

and soteriology, as such, are not our concern as theological problems.

^Xhe Naassenes, according to Hippolytus, Refutation V, 2 and

V, 6, 4, Wendland's numbering, Die Griechischen Christlichen Schrift-
steller der eraten dr»i Jahrhunderte. Hippolytus. Dritter Band (Leipzig;
.J. C. Hinrichs, -191$'J>* Eusebius says that Carpocrates was the father
of the heresy of the Gnostics, H.E., VI. 7, 9.
O
Gf. E. C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London: S.P.C.K.,
19*$), chap. v.

5Ibid., p. 100.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 k

Rather, we shall study the Gnostic teachers' treatment of the historic

events associated with the life of Jesus, their understanding of the

relation of Jesus' to their own movements, the role of Jesus of Nazareth

in their systems, and their analysis of his person.

When the emerging Catholic Church defined itself in the second

century it did so in terms of organization, rule of faith, and normative

sacred literature. The organization was traced to the historic Jesus and

the college of Apostles he was supposed to have formed, instructed, and

commissioned. The sacred literature included the Jewish scriptures and

certain writings attributed to these Apostles and consistent with the

rule of faith believed to be a summary of their teachings.

Pride of place and priority of canonization belong to the Gospel

accounts which are built around what they present as historic events in

the life of Jesus. Thus we shall consciously seek parallels; to materials

in the canonical Gospels in Gnostic theories and literature, not to judge

the "historicity" of either or both but simply as a signal of possible

concern with the historic Jesus.

Any saying in a Gnostic source which is attributed to Jesus

which has any reference to Jesus' historic existence or experience will

be likewise studied. On the other hand, sayings which are theological,

cosmological, sacramental or moral will be dealt with only if they have

specifically christological or soteriological content.

Methodology

No material, treating with second-century Gnosticism will be

deliberately ignored but the material which we shall try specifically

to cover will be among the writings of the Church Fathers: (l) Irenaeus'

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Five Books Adversus Haereses, (2) Hippolytus.' Refutation of all Heresy.

(3) Pseudo-Tertullian (Libellus Against All Heresies), with some notice

of the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius,

and Epiphanius, and among the Gnostic writings: The Gospel of Truth,

the Gospel According to Thomas. the Gospel According to Philip, the

Sophia of Jesus Christ, and the Treatise on the Resurrection, all of

which are among the Nag Hammadi documents.

Our study will begin with an analysis of the historic Jesus in

the systems of the Gnostic groups mentioned by the Church Fathers, (on

the whole in the order appearing in Irenaeus) devoting a chapter to sec­

tions on the pre-Valentinians, on Valentinus, and on three; Valentinians:

Ptolemy, Marcus, and Theodotus. There follow chapters on each of the

five Gnostic documents mentioned above. If there exist at this time

other published Gnostic documents which deal with the historic Jesus

they are unknown to the writer. We conclude the investigation with an

analysis of Irenaeus/ argument with the Gnostics. Here we discover that

his basic argument with them is over the historic Jesus. Thus it is

noted that for the emerging Catholic Church— at least with respect to

the Gnostics— the fundamental norm for judging a system is the adequacy

of its treatment of the human, historic. Jesus.

Purposes of the Study

Besides the general purpose stated at the beginning of this in­

troduction we offer four specific purposes:

(l) General analyses of Gnostic teachings require more special­

ized investigations of particular aspects of Gnostic doctrines, both as

a check and a point of departure.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 6

(2) The revival of interest among influential German scholars

in the historic Jesus must have a counterpart in specialized studies <f

the treatment of the historic Jesus in early Christian literature.

Robert M. Grant has recently published The Earliest Lives of Jesus

(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961) in which he analyzes the his­

torical treatment of the Gospel history in the Apostolic Fathers, The

Apologists, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen with special

attention to contemporary methods of historical criticism. Walther

Bauer made an earlier study of the historic Jesus in the New Testament

Apocrypha (known at that time) in his doctoral dissertation (Das Leben

Jesu im Zeitalter der Neutestamentliche Apokrvnhen. Tubingen, 1909).

Our study seeks to do something comparable, in a somewhat different

form, with the Gnostic teachers' treatment of the historic Jesus.

(3) The treatment of the man Jesus by the teachers considered-*"

to be the earliest Christian theologians should be of more than an­

tiquarian interest. It is hard to see how a Christian doctrine of man

could avoid the question of the historic Jesus.

2 3
(k) Also, Carl Jung and Hans Jonas have argued that a complete

Christianity must include a Gnostic element. If this is indeed the case,

the Gnostic understanding of the humanity of Jesus is of crucial importance.

"'"Adolf von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Erste Band

(*fth ed.; Tdbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1909), pp. 250f.
2
Cf. Carl G. Jung, Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans* by
W. S. Dell and C. F. Baynes (New York: Harcourt, Brane and World, 1933)»
chap. x, esp. p. 238.

^Cf. e.g., The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958),

pp. 288f.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 7

The present variants of man's insatiable curiosity about him­

self and, more importantly, his problem of himself make, particularly

for the professing Christian, any study of the man Jesus a live issue,

even if its methodology is historical and literary and its subject mat­

ter second-century Gnosticism.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER II

FIRST-AND SEC0ND-CENTUR3C GNOSTIC TEACHERS

The Pre-Valentinians

Our primary source for pre-Valentinian Gnosticism is Irenaeus*

great work, On the Discovery and Refutation of Gnosis Falsely So-Called,

usually cited as Adversus Haereses. Other continuous descriptions are

to be found in Hippolytus1^ Refutation of All Heresies, sometimes cited

as Philosophumena or as Elenchos but'more often as Refutation, and a

Libellus Against All Heresies transmitted among the works* of Tertullian,

usually cited as Pseudo-Tertullian. which may be a summary outline based

on a lost Syntagma of Hippolytus. Generally speaking Hippolytus follows

Irenaeus quite closely, but he gives quite a different picture of Basilides

and is our only source for the Gnostic Justin.

In the first book of his magnum opus, after an exposition of the

doctrines of the Valentinians;, Irenaeus traces their supposed background

This document, found in I8*f2 at Mount Athos and first printed in

1851, has now come to be generally attributed to Hippolytus. Pierre
Nautin has consistently attacked this attribution since the publication
of his Hippolyte et Josippe. contribution a l*histoire de la litterature
chr^tienne du 3 eme sidcle (Paris? Editions du Cerf. 1947); cf. also his
Hjppolyte Contre les Heresies.(Paris: Editions du Cerf, 19^9)•
He has called into question the modem construction of Hippolytus
as a Roman schismatic and author of several important documents associated
with Rome at the turn of the third century. The authorship of this writ­
ing is not important to our case but rather the fact that it is a late
second-century description written in Rome. Thus our use of the name
"Hippolytus" is simply to identify the document.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 in earlier movements. He prefaces the long concluding section of Book 1

with the following words about the purpose of his work: "We have judged

it necessary, first of all, to give an account of their source and root,

in order that, by getting knowledge of their most exalted Bythus, thou

mayest understand the nature of the tree which has produced such fruits."

The account is to be followed by refutation. Irenaeus does not doubt

that this setting forth of the historical background of his Gnostic op­

ponents will show their folly, just as a candid exposition of their

teachings does.

Simon Magus, Menander, Satuminus

Irenaeus begins his exposition of Simon's teachings by citing

Acts 8 and giving a straightforward interpretation of it. After allud­

ing to Simonas contention with the Apostles^* and to the statue of him

in Rome,^ Irenaeus says:

He was glorified as a god by many, and he taught that he himself

was the one who was to appear among the Jews as Son, would descend
in Samaria as Father, and would come among the other nations as Holy
Spirit. He said that he was the absolute sovereignty; i.e., the _
Father above all, and was willing to be called whatever men call him/
L
Perhaps using another source, Irenaeus adds:

For when the angels misgoverned the world, since each of them
desired the primacy, he came for the reformation of affairs; he
descended, transformed and made like the powers, authorities, and

'LCf. Clementina. Recognitiones. I, 19f£; II, 7ff.; III, passim

in B. Rehm (ed.). Die Pseudo-KLementinien II: rekognitionen in Rufinus
hbersetzung (Berlin! Akademie-Verlag, 1965). '
2
Cf. Justin Apology I 26, 2.

*^A.H. I, 23, 1. Here and hereafter in Irenaeus' description of

the Gnostics' teachings we will use the English translation in Robert
Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology unless otherwise noted.

Ibid.. p. 28.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 10

angels, so that among men he appeared as a man, though he was not

a man, and he seemed to suffer in Judea, though he did not suffer*

Pseudo-Tertullian says:. "He (Simon) had descended in search of a wander­

ing demon, which was wisdom, and . . . he did not suffer among the Jews

in the form of God, but seemed to suffer."

We note in this material certain themes that reappear in the

descriptions of other systems: (l). a descent to rectify a bad (fallen)

situation, (2) transformation into various likenesses, (3) appearance as

a man, but in appearance only, (.k) apparent, but only apparent, suffer­

ing* (5) the search for Wisdom's seed.

3
Justin says that Menander was a Samaritan also and taught in

Antioch. Irenaeus adds that he was Simon's successor and that he claimed

that: "He himself is the one who was sent down by the invisible [aeonsi

as Savior for the salvation of men." Pseudo-Tertullian says that Menander

"taught the same doctrines as Simon, and whatever Simon had called him-
5
self, so Menander styled himself."^ Hippolytus does not mention Menander.

There is nothing new here except that Menander says that he was "sent dawn"

and used the term "savior" (according to Irenaeus). It would appear that

Menander was a rival of Simon rather than the successor and that, far

from being Christians^ both of them thought of themselves as rivals: of

Christianity.

Irenaeus tells us that Saturninus likewise taught in Antioch and

r _______ ______ ________ _____

•hl.H. I, 23, 3 .
2
Sec. 1. Hereafter we will use the English translation in Grant,
Second-Century Christianity.
3
Anol. I, 26.

V h . I, 23, 5. 5Sec. 2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 11

asserted that ’’after death [thel spark of life [sent by a power above]

returns to what is the same nature as itself, and the other elements of

man's composition are dissolved into what they are made from."^ Irenaeus

adds:

He maintained that the Savior is unbegotten, incorporeal, and

without form. He appeared as a man in semblance. The God of the
Jews is one of the angels; and because all of the archons willed;
to destroy their Father, Christ came to destroy the God of the Jews
and to save those who believed in him. These are the ones who have
the spark of life in them. . . . The Savior came for the destruction
of wicked men and demons and for the salvation of the good.^

Hippolytus simply repeats^ this. Pseudo-Tertullian makes this resume:

"Christ did not suffer in a substantial body; he suffered as a phantom.

ii
There is certainly no resurrection of the flesh."

Saturninus is not really represented as a Christian heretic.

He does not speak of Jesus. The unborn and formless "savior" appeared

as a man and came for the salvation of the good, however, and perhaps

Savior is, for Saturninus, a synonym for Jesus.

It seems that for Saturninus Christ is an archon who came to

destroy his father, the god of the Jews, as well as to save those who

believe him; i.e., those with the spark of life. The relation ofSa

to Christ is not clear. It would seem that they are the same, inasmuch

as both "come" and "save," although it is implied that Christ is the son

of the god of the Jews, who is an angel! Pseudo-Tertullian identifies

5
the two, as he does not even mention Savior,

1A.H. I, 2k, 1. 2A4H. I, 2k, 2.

5Ref. VII, 16. **Sec. 3.

^Robert M. Grant suggests that the same being descends as Christ

and Savior for differing missions, Gnosticism and Early Christianity
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1959)"* pp. 103-d .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 12

Carpocrates and Cerinthus

According to Irenaeuss Carpocrates and his followers taught that:

Jesus :waa begotten by Joseph and, having come into existence like
other men, became more righteous than the rest. When his soul became
vigorous and pure it remeinbered what it had seen in its circuit with
the unbegotten god, and therefore power was sent it by him so that
it could escape the world creators [angels much inferior to the un­
begotten Father] by means of it and so that passing through all,
free among them all, it might come to him, similarly accepting what
was like it..
They say that the soul of Jesus was brought up lawfully in Jewish
customs but despised them and therefore received powers through which
it annihilated the passions which are attached to men and punish them.^

Ps eudo-Tertullian ascribes the following teaching to Carpocrates:

Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary, but begotten as a mere
man from the seed of Joseph. Of course he was outstanding in his
pursuit of virtue and integrity of life. He suffered among the Jews.
Only his soul was received into heaven, because it was firmer and
stronger than others.2

On Carpocrates Hippolytus simply follows Irenaeusw

In Carpocrates we do find some new xdeas. First, Joseph was

Jesus! father. Nothing like this had happened since the skeptical people

of Nazareth had asked if Jesus was not Joseph's son (huke 4:22; cf.

John 6:4-2). Second, Jesus/ soul had had a previous existence with the

unbegotten God. Third, a power was sent to Jesus! soul to enable it to

escape the cosmocrators to come to the unbegotten God. This power came
if
at his baptism; inasmuch as Jesus/ soul despised the Jewish law, it

received powers to annihilate and punish human passions. Fourth, if we

trust Pseudo-Tertullian. Jesus suffered among the Jews. Irenaeus goes

1ASH. I, 25. 2Sec. 9.

3Ref. VII, 32, If.

if
Ur, possibly, at his resurrection or his baptism as his resur­
rection, see below, chap. iv.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 on to state'*’ that the Carpocratians claim that "Jesus spoke in a mystery

privately to his disciples and apostles and judged them worthy to trans­

mit these things to those who are worthy and believed them."
2
Irenaeus deals with Cerinthus after Basilides: and the Carpo­

cratians, but he, along with Simon and Menander, should represent some-

thing in the first century. Indeed, according to Irenaeus*^ John actually

wrote his Gospel against him. He seems to have been a Jew who could also
L
be called a Jewish-Christian. Irenaeus places Trim in Asia but Hippolytus,

who otherwise simply follows Irenaeus, says that "he was educated in the
5
way of the Egyptians."'' Dionysius, a third-century bishop of Alexandria,

suggests that Cerinthus was not only not one of the apostles, but not

even a "saint, nor anyone in the Church." Caius, a Roman presbyter of

the late second century, seems to have ascribed the Book of Revelation
n
to Cerinthus. Both he and Dionysius accuse Cerinthus of being a chiliast

whose vision of the "Kingdom of Christ" was very earthy and sensual.

Dionysius adds that this went along with a condoning of immorality.

g
Irenaeus repeats a conventional legendary incident between Cerinthus:

and John the apostle.

Gustave Bardy wrote almost half a century ago a study^ on Cerinthus

in which he concluded: "il faut, semble-t-il, retenir l'idee que Cerinthe

a 6t6 un jud6o-chretien et non un gnostique."^ He asserts that his dhiliasm

1A.H. I, 25, 5. 2AiH. I, 26.

3A.H. Ill, 11, 3. V h . I, 26, 1.

5Ref. VII, 33. 6Eusebius H.E. VII,25.

7Eusebiua- H.E. VII, 25. 8A.H. Ill, 3 , k.

^"Cerinthe," Revue- Blblique. XXX (1921)., 3¥f-73.

1QIbid.. p. 371.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 lb

is simply that of the canonical Book of Revelation and that Irenaeus’

description of Cerinthus' teaching simply reproduces the commonplaces;

of the great Gnostic schools. But almost none of the descriptions of

the teachings of early "Gnostics" contain elements not shared with many

others. We shall apply a healthy reserve in details, but the overall

picture of Cerinthus’ doctrine seems to fit into some sort of development.

Irenaeus reports on Cerinthus' idea of the historic Jesus:

Jesus was b o m not of a virgin but of Joseph and Mary, like all
other men, and became more righteous, more prudent, and more wise
than all. After his baptism, from the Absolute-Sovereignty [the
first god, the Power above all, of whom the world-maker was ignorant]
above all, the Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove; then
he proclaimed the unknown father and worked miracles. At the end
the Christ withdrew from Jesus; Jesus suffered and was raised, but
the Christ remained impassible, since he was spiritual.1

Pseudo-Tertullian summarizes Cerinthus' teachings thus: 11 . . . he states

that Christ [sic] was born of the seed of Joseph, arguing that he was;
2
only a man without any divinity." We must certainly substitute "Jesus"

for "Christ" here. It would thus agree with IrenaeusJ description, al­

though it adds nothing.

This is all similar to Carpocrates’ teachings. In Cerinthus,

however, the "power sent down" is called Christ from the Absolute Sover­

eignty. (cf. Simon) and is specifically associated with the baptism of

Jesus through the descent "in theform of a dove" (cf. Luke 3:22).

Jesus then proclaims the unknown father and works miracles. After

Christ withdraws from Jesusshe can suffer (as, in Carpocrates^ and be

raised. Jesus is passible because he is not spiritual— as is Christ.

The raising of Jesus is quite consistent with chiliasm, and the disjunc­

tion of the human "Jesus" and thespiritual "Christ" might appear to

LA.H. I, 26, 1. 2Sec.10.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 15

justify indifference to sensuality— which could hardly affect the spirit

of a man.

The Mystery of Basilides

Irenaeus; states that Basilides taught in Alexandria^ and main­

tained that:

The unbegotten and unnamed father . . . sent his first-born mind

[Christ] to free those who believe him from the power of those who
fashioned the world. And to their nations he appeared on earth as
a man and worked miracles. Therefore [because he was mind] he did
not suffer, but a certain Simon Cyrene was impressed to carry his
cross for him, and because of ignorance and error he was crucified,
transfigured by him [mind] so that he might be thought to be Jesus:
and Jesus himself2 assumed the form of Simon and, standing by, laughed
at them. Since he was incorporeal power and the mind of the unbegot­
ten Father, he was transfigured in whatever way he wished and thus
ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them because he could not
be held and was invisible to all.’

The Jesus "who came in the form of man and was thought to be crucified

and was called Jesus and was sent by the Father" is to be confessed,

not he who was crucified, for that was really Simon Cyrene. Mind, Christ,

and Jesus seem to be all the same. "Savior" does not appear in this sec-
x 5
tion but may be assumed under the name Jesus. Irenaeus adds that "the

name in which they say the Savior [Irenaeus* term] descended, and ascended

is Caulacau."^ This password plus knowledge of "all the angels and their

sources" makes one invisible and incomprehensible to the hostile powers.

One thus equipped can pass;,unscathed to his true home and destiny.

If we compare Irenaeus' descriptions of the systems of Saturninus

XA.H. I, 2^, 1. 2X.e., Mind.

?A.H. I, 2*f, k. ^Ibid.

^A.H. I, 2*f, 5.
r
Cf. Naassene usage described! in Hippolytus, Ref. V, 8.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 16

and Basilides we find that both are thoroughgoing docetists and in the

same terms used to describe Simon Magus' appearing among men and appar­

ent sufferings* Saturninus speaks of the Savior in the terms attributed

to Menander. "Besilides" introduces the name Jesus in his system, as a

substitute for "Savior." Both systems lack a fall. They are in no way

incompatible but rather complement one another. Indeed the Basilides^

of Irenaeus is much more similar to Saturninus than to the Basilides we

find in Hippolytus.

The system ascribed to Basilides by Hippolytus in his Refutation

is much more full than and quite different from that described by Irenaeus,

to such an extent that it would be deceptive to combine the two. We fol­

low Hort^" in preferring the account in Hippolytus as based on older and

better sources.^

In line with his basic thesis that Gnostic theories are to be

traced back to some philosophical school Hippolytus begins by seeking

to show Basilides' dependence on Aristotle in his doctrine of creation.

His description of the coming and work of Jesus is therefore summary.

■Z
The passages referring to the historic Jesus are as follows:

Refutation VII, 26, 7-9 • It was still necessary to illuminate the form­
less .space, where we live and to reveal the 'mystery not known to former
generations' [Colossians 1:263 to the Sonship which like an abortion had
been abandoned in the formless: space. [There follows an exegetical
parenthesis.3 Then the light came down from the Seven [it had come

^Fenton Jdhn Anthony Hort, "Basilides," Dictionary of Christian

Biography, ed. by William Smith (London:. J. Murray, 1877-87).
2
See Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, pp. l42ff. and
works referred^ to in n. 37 to p. 1^3.
3
Here and throughout this chapter we follow the English transla­
tion in Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology, unless otherwise indicated.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 17

down from the Eight above to the Son of the Seven! upon Jesus the son
of Mary, and he was illuminated and set on fire by the ligjht which shone
upon him* This is what is meant by 'Holy Spirit will come upon you';
it had come from that sonship through the dividing spirit upon the Eight
and the Seven and as far as Mary. And 'Power of the Most High will over­
shadow. yout' the power of Christ-*" from the height above, through the
Demiurge, down to the creation; this power belongs to the son.

VII, 27, 8. After Jesus came into existence in the way which we have
described, everything took place as it is written in the Gospels.
These things happened, so that Jesus might become the first-fruits of
the differentiation2 among confused’ beings.

9. Since the universe is divided into an Eight . . . and into

a Seven . . . and into this space where we live . . . it was necessary
for the confused beings to be differentiated through the differentiation
which Jesus effected.

10. The bodily part of his being suffered; since it came from
formlessness it was restored to formlessness.

The psychic part of his being rose again, since it belonged to

the Seven, and was restored to the Seven.

He raised the part which belonged to the height of the great

Archon,^ and it remained with the great Archon.

He bore above the part which belonged to the dividing Spirit,

and it remained in the dividing Spirit.

11. The Third Sonship was purified through him . . . and it as­
cended to the blessed Sonship (above the dividing Spirit) after passing
through all these levels.

12. Jesus, then, became the first-fruits of the differentiation,

and his suffering took place only for the differentiation of what was
confused.

This system is remarkable in that we find in it a clear exposi­

tion of the work of Jesus which has a place for "everything . . . writ­

ten in the gospels," even the suffering of Jesus. This reminds us of

■^In this place we emend K/> c<r<$ to X p c <r raj as is suggested in

the Ante-Nicene Fathers* V, 108, n. 3.
2 (p U k 0 I £ (7~C ^

3 <r v -fc <c > (// l-£ k o^

if
of the Eight

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 18

the proclamation of the Father, working of miracles, and suffering we

found in Cerinthus1 system.

The need for redemption results from the fact that the third

part of the triple Sonship, "in need of purification,and remaining

2
"in the great heap of the mixture of seeds," has been left below "in

this space of formlessness where we dwell." This reminds us of Simon1s

descent in search of a wandering demon. This sonship also inhabits souls

which it is to benefit by raising them to the place of the Seven, and

is supposed "to adorn and fashion and correct and perfect the souls below
if
which have a nature such as to remain in this space."

The restoration, then, is double. In the first place, at onemd

the same time Jesus ascends to his true home and gives each part of him­

self to its proper place. The Sonship-in-need-of-purification (i.e.,

"differentiation") follows this example, and in theprocess raises the

souls, which are also immortal, it inhabits totheir proper place. This

sounds like the return of the "spark of life . . . to what is of the

same nature as itself" and the dissolution of the other elements of

man!s makeup "into what they are made from."

But there remains the problem that "all beings desire to rise
5
above from below, from the worse to the better,""^ which is all right for

the Sonship destined for the highest regions but is disastrous for those

beings whose destiny fixed by their nature makes this ascent quite im­

possible, or lethal, like air for a fish out of water.

^"We are not told why.

^II, 22, 16. ^VII, 26, 7 and 10.

^VII, 25, 2. ^VII, 2?, 1.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 19

Ihis problem is solved when "God" casts a great "ignorance upon

the whole universe so that everything may remain in accordance with na-
1
ture and nothing may desire anything contrary to nature.H "Everything

which remains in its place is imperishable; it is perishable only if it

2
wants to pass beyond its natural limits," but this is resolved when

"God," in his mercy, will have shed ignorance over everything below.

Ignorance is not only bliss but is also salvation.

It is not our purpose to analyze the whole system of Basilides,

which is obviously filled with speculation about different levels of

being, their origin and their destiny. However, there are several points

of interest to us in his implicit understanding of Jesus.

For Basilides Jesus is a Savior whose special work is the restora­

tion to their true home of the "spiritual beings [who] are sons,"^ trapped

in souls held in this "formless space where we live." Ihe rest of his

work is incidental to this.

In Cerinthus Jesus is a composite being of Jesus and the Christ

who descends into him, but in Basilides Jesus actually seems to be purely

composite. He leaves a part of himself at every level, including the

dividing Spirit (which is the final limit), but is not said to have as­

cended to the place of Sonship above. Indeed we are told expressly that,
I
although "the Gospel" really came into the universe and passed through
4.
all of it, "nothing came down from above and . . . the blessed Sonship

did not depart from that inconceivable and blessed: non-existent God."'*

hit, 22, 16.

^11, 27, 3, emphasis added, of course.

^VH, 25, 2. \ll, 25, 5. 5VII, 25, 6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 20

Thus it would appear that nothing but light really came down from

the uppermost sphere. This is ’’the light of the gospel of the glory of

Christ, who is the likeness of God. • . . For it is the God who said 'Let

light shine out of darkness,' who has shone in our hearts to give the

light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."^ This

is reminiscent of the power sent Jesus' soul by the unbegotten God in

Carpocrates' system.
p
Mary's son, illuminated and set on fire by this light, received

from the Sonship Holy Spirit which he was to bear above to the dividing

line, "power from on high" which belongs to the Sox? and was to be left
4
with the Eight; his psychic part belonged to the Seven and his body to

this "formless space where we live."

Basilides is. in fact an adoptionist, for what wa have here is

an infusion of the son of Mary with elements from the various levels; of

being. This is similar to Jesus.' soul accepting what was like it in

Carpocrates' system and the descent of Christ into Jesus? in Cerinthus'.

The third "Sonship" Cin need of purification) is shown the way by Jesus

and follows him, but in ascending above the "dividing line" it. leaves.

him behind and thus is, in fact, superior to him! Basilides.quotes the
g
prologue to John's Gospel but does not refer to the Logos.^ Bather

there come to dwell in Jesus (1) Holy Spirit and (2) Power of the Son

of the Great Archon.

■*TI Corinthians 4:4a, 6. ^YII, 26, 8.

^The son of the great archon of the Eight is Christ, cf. VII,
26,2.
if
This is Basilides' exegesis of Luke 1:35*

% !! , 22, 4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 21

The historic Jesus, however, is taken with a certain seriousness,

although from Hxppolytus' account it is the circumstances of his birth-

baptism and the distribution of his "parts" at his death-resurrection-

ascension which hold the real interest for Basilides* We have seen that

Jesus was conceived by Mary and bora to her, really suffered, was raised,

and ascended. It would seem that the "illumination" and "setting on fire"

of Jesus would be related to his baptism. This appears to founder on 'the

phrase "as far as Mary"^ in the description of the light's coming down,

as this "light" is the Holy Spirit said to be coming "as far as Mary."

It might mean that the Spirit came upon Mary at the time of the concep­

tion and the Power of the Christ-Son descended at the baptism of Jesus.

On the other hand, the coming of the Holy Spirit on Jesus at the time

of his baptism is crucial in the Synoptics. We note also that accord-

2
ing to Clement of Alexandria the Basilideans celebrate Jesus' baptism

as a great festival, whereas nothing is said of a feast of the Annun­

ciation. We conclude that Basilides' real interest was in Jesus' baptism

rather than his conception. We amend the reading "as far as Mary" to

"as far as the Son of Mary."

Clement of Alexandria present us with two interesting fragments.

3 k
The first is from the twenty-third of Basilides' twenty-four books of

Exegetica which likewise shows interest in the historic Jesus. In it

Basilides is trying, at any cost, to preserve the righteousness of

providence. The problem under discussion is Christian martyrdbm and

^ II, 26, 9» ^Strom. I, 21.

3 h
Strom. II, 17. Eusebius, H.E. IV, 7 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 22

other innocent suffering. An infant has "not previously or actively

sinned at all, but within himself he has the potentiality of sinning.

When he is subjected to suffering he is benefited even though he reaps

many unpleasant results. Just so, even if a perfect man has not sinned

in act or by chance but suffers, his suffering corresponds to that of

the infant." In the following paragraph Basilides specifically treats

of the suffering of Jesus, referring his case to the perfect man and

the infant. He concludes: "And if you should force out my argument

more violently, I will say that any man you may name is a man; the just
1 2
one is God. For 'no one,' as someone said, 'is pure of defilement.’"

Without entering the argument let us note the surprisingly strong af­

firmation of two things: the humanity of Jesus and the reality of his

suffering. Dais accords perfectly with Hippolytus.' account of Basilides'

teaching (but is quite incompatible with Irenaeus-').

3
Clement records^ another interesting fact about the Basilideans:

they "hold the day of (Jesus') baptism as a festival, spending the night

before in readings." Clement goes on to refer to their careful calcula­

tion of the date for this event and for Jesus' passion, although there

were differences on the question of the precise day. It is striking

that they should have been so zealous in making these calculations.

Actually it is quite possible that Clement's insistence on a one-year

ministry for Jesus depends on the Basilideans' calculation! Here again

1Cf. Luke 18:19 and parallels^

^1 John 1:8; Romans 3*22.

3
Whereas; Irenaeus attributes to "heretics," presumably Valen-
tinians, the use of Isaiah 61:2 to prove a one-year ministry for Jesus
(A.H. Ill, 22, l), Clement adduces the same verse as proof.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 23

we find a real interest in at least two historic events in the life of

Jesus: his baptism and his passion* Thus Clement confirms Basilides1

interest in the historic Jesus. Basilides was an adoptionist, not a

docetist. He does not call Mary "Virgin Mary," and did not teach the

virgin birth. Jesus did "come into existence," words reminiscent of

Carpocrates.

Hippolytus? exposition of Basilides is also interesting in that

it has him citing Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalms (and per­

haps Proverbs), Matthew, Luke, John, Homans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians,

Colossians and Ephesians, with possible allusions to Galatians and 1 Timothy.1

We are told that the Archon of the Seven spoke through all the prophets

before the Savior, and he specifically said to Moses the words in Exodus 6:2f.

However, the Gospel is called "that gnosis of the supermundane things which
2
the great Archon did not know," which gnosis is explained to be knowing

that "there is the Holy Spirit, the dividing line and the Sonship and

the non-Existent God, the cause of all these." Thus the Old Testament

is clearly inferior to the New.

We note with interest that Basilides, like Carpocrates and Cerinthus,

took the historic figure behind the Gospels with some seriousness and in­

sisted on his human conception. To fit this into his fantastic cosmology

he had to divide: the person of Jesus into many heterogeneous: and incom­

patible parts. His use of scripture and acceptance of Jesus* humanity

was forced on him in his effort to keep contact with the Great church's

insistence on both.

1Tertullian says that Basilides rejected the Pastorals, apud

Robert M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York:
Harper and How, 19^3V, p. 209* — — — — — — — —— — — ——

27, 7.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 2k

The Ophites, The Gnostic Justin

At the end of Book I of Adversus Haereses. Irenaeus; gives a long

and detailed exposition of a Gnostic system we assume to be Sethian-

Ophite.^ It is much too complicated to recount here and deals largely

with theogony and cosmogony* We will note certain features of interest

to us and conclude with the description of the Incarnation.

The starting point of the system is a triad of (l) First Man

(=First Light in Bythus = Father of All), (2) Son of Man (=Second Man ■

Thought) and (3) First Woman (= Holy Spirit = Mother of the Living).

The first two engender through First Woman the Christ (= the Imperishable

Light s Third Man). These four constitute Imperishable Aeon.

The engendering of Christ (= Bight) is paralleled by an over­

flowing to the "Left" which is the original fall and the coming into

being of Christ’s sister, Prunikos (= Sophia = Left = Male - Female).

Prunikos is mother to Ialdabaoth who engenders lao who engenders Sabaoth

from whom Adonaios, Eioeus, Oreus and Astaphaeus come forth in succesdve

generations, ialdabaoth creates the angelic beings and, sifter a struggle

with his sons, engenders the Serpent whom he then proceeds to cast out

from heaven and paradise.

The major Old Testament figures and events all represent the ef­

forts of ialdabaoth and his generations to get control over the human

race. However, Sophia is always secretly at work to subvert this plan

so that the elect~"the moist nature of light"— can escape. The Old

Testament itself testifies to this struggle, although it is heavily over-

~*~A.H. I, 30.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 25

laden with prophecies inspired by the “lower Seven," i.e., Ialdabaoth

and his generations.

Finally, Sophia calls for help from First Mother who intercedes

with First Man. Christ is emitted. He descends through the seven

heavens, is made like their sons, and deprives them, of their power (the

seven heavens correspond to the "lower Setfen"). The whole "moist nature

of light" is drawn to him. He puts on his sister, Sophia. She had pre­

pared the way by effecting through the unsuspecting Ialdabaoth the emis­

sion of John from the sterile Elizabeth and of Jesus through the Virgin

Mary. She proclaimed; the coming of Christ through John, prepared the

baptism of repentance and

. . . made Jesus suitable in advance so that the descending Christ

might find a pure vessel. . . . Jesus was generated from the virgin
through the working of God [Ialdabaoth]; he was wiser, more pure,
and more righteous than all men; Christ combined with Sophia descended
and thus Jesus became Christ . . . then he [Jesus] began to work
miracles and to heal and to proclaim the unknown Father and to con­
fess. himself openly as the Son of the First Man. Because of this
the powers and the Father of Jesus (i.e., Ialdabaoth) were angry,
and they took steps,to kill him. When he was led to death, the
Christ with Sophia departed to the Imperishable Aeon, while Jesus
was crucified. Christ did not forget what was his own, but from
above sent into him a certain power which raised him in a body which
was both psychic and spiritual; the worldly elements remained in the
world.^

The disciples did not recognize the resurrected Jesus because they as-
■3
sumed that he would rise in a body of flesh and blood. Nor did they

recognize Christ or his descent and ascent, although they admit that

Jesus did nothing remarkable before the baptism or after the ascension.

"^This is probably the original place for Christ's engendering,

as the earlier spot really jars with the idea of an original Three.

2A.H. 1, 30, 12f.

3A.H. I, 30, 13.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 26

They were not only ignorant of the Imperishable Aeon and the Seven but

also of the union of Jesus with the Christ. However, "Jesus remained

for eighteen months after the resurrection and from the perception which

descended into him" learned these things and taught them to a few of his

disciples who could receive such great mysteries. Then he was taken up

into heaven.^

It is interesting that apart from the speculations (which seem

to have a Jewish background) in the area of theogony and cosmogony there

is nothing new to us here. The descent of Christ into Jesus and departure

from him is close to the teaching ascribed to Cerinthus and the descend­

ing light in Hippolytus’ exposition of Basilides. The moral excellence

of Jesus before his baptism closely parallels what Cerinthus is said to

have taught and similar to that of Carpocrates. Jesus' role in the

Ophite system is more passive, however, inasmuch as he is miraculously

engendered and prepared especially by Sophia for receiving the Christ

(cf. Luke 1:35a)* No reference is made to the dove, probably because

this is assumed in the union of Christ with his sister, Sophia, to enter

Jesus. As in Cerinthus, and implicitly in Basilides, Jesus works miracles

and proclaims the unknown Father. The descending Christ takes the like­

ness of each level of being as he descends, as in Carpocrates and "Basilides"

in Irenaeus. The leaving of "the worldly elements . . . in the world" is

reminiscent of Basilides* "dissolution."

The whole picture, in fact, is surprisingly similar to that in

Cerinthus, except, of course, the virginal birth which we now hear of

for the first time. Other new elements are: the preparation of Jesus

^A.H. I, 30, l^f.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 27

by Sophia for the descent of Christ in the baptism, and the eighteen

months school for certain disciples taught by the risen and enlightened

Jesus raised! in a psychic and spiritual body. The latter has some

parallels in Carpocrates. As in Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, and

the pseudo-Clementines Sophia is distinguished from Christ and is the

Holy Ghost. The combining of Sophia and Christ to descend into Jesus

(and ascend at the crucifixion) is also new.

We summarize the Ophite picture of the historic Jesus in the

following way: (l) he was born of the Virgin Mary and had a "worldly

element," (2) he was made holy by the Holy Ghost, (3) he developed moral

excellence, (k) he was baptized, (3 ) he worked miracles, healed and

taught, (6) he was crucified, (7 ) he was raised in a "psychic" and

"spiritual" body, and (8 ) he taught selected disciples for eighteen

months; after being himself instructed by a power sent down to him.

It is notable that Jesus is said to have "become" Christ. This

seems to be an advance over Cerinthus, for whom Christ is always sharply

distinguished from Jesus, although Christ is said to have departed from

Jesus before he was crucified.

Origen contradicts this picture of Ophite doctrine. He denies

that in any sense they are Christians since they "neither acknowledge

Jesus as Savior, nor God, nor teacher, nor Son of God."‘L This statement

is not incompatible with the foregoing except in the denial of a teaching

role for "Jesus." However, Origen also says that they require those who

want to participate in their gatherings to curse Jesus (cf. I Cor. 12:3)

and they "omit even that he was a wise man, or a person of virtuous

^Contra Celsum VI, 30.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 28

character."'*' This simply contradicts Irenaeus* description. Perhaps

we are to conclude that there were Ophites considerably less:. "Christian"

than Irenaeus*.

The Ophites seem to have gone even further than Basilides in

accommodating their christology to the Great Churches.? insistence on

the canonical tradition. They add for the first time the doctrine of

Jesus* virginal conception, and also add healing and teaching during

his earthly ministry to his list of accomplishments.

It is notable, however, that the Ophites are still clearly adop-

tionist (Jesus became Christ at the descent of the combined Christ and

Sophia on him) despite the fact that they taught the virgin birth. They

did not divide the person of Jesus up into quite so complex a being as

Basilides did (they were much closer to Cerinthus), but Christ and

Sophia are quite sharply distinguished from him.

The Gnostic Justin is known to us only in Hippblytust* report in

2
the Refutation. He is said to have sworn his followers to great secrecy,

produced legends and books, and initiated into mysteries. These "inef­

fable mysteries" Hippolytus describes from one of his books, Baruch.

Justin taught three infinite principles or divinities: God,

Elohim (* Father) and Eden (= Israel). Elohim and Eden produce twenty-

four angels of which half are Elohim*s and half Eden's. The third

"paternal" angel is Baruch (» Tree of Life) and the third "maternal"

angel is Naas (= Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil).

Elohim*s angels make man. Eden gives the soul and Elohim the

spirit. Elohim then ascends to the Good. The forsaken Eden retaliates

^Contra Celsum VI. 29. ^V, 23ff.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 29

by persecuting the spirit of Elohim in man by involving it in sexual

disorders and persecutions by Naas.

Elohim sends Baruch on various missions: to warn Adam and Eve

about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to give laws through Moses,

to prophesy through the prophets. Naas frustrates all these efforts

through determined efforts to overwhelm Baruch's accomplishments by

his own.

"Finally, in the days of King Herod, Baruch was sent again by

Elohim, and he came to Nazareth and found Jesus, the son of Joseph and

Mary, feeding sheep, a boy of twelve y e a r s . B a r u c h reveals to him

all the mysteries and begs him not to be seduced by Naas like the prophets;

before him but to "preach this word." If Jesus succeeds, he is assured,

he will ascend1to Good and sit with Elohim (= Father). Jesus obeys and

rebuffs Naas' efforts to seduce him, thus remaining faithful to Baruch.

Naas became angry . . . and had him crucified. He (Jesus) left

his body to Eden by the tree and ascended to Good.For he said to
Eden, 'Woman, you have your son,' that is the psychical and earthly
man, but he ascended, placing the spirit in the hands of the Father.

As for the historic Jesus, then, we find that (l) he was b o m to

Joseph and Mary, (2) at the ageof twelve, he lived inNazareth, (3) he

was a shepherd,^ (k) he taught,(5 ) he was crucified, leaving his soul

and body with "Mother Eden" who was standing b y a s his spirit ascends**

to the Good to sit with "Father Elohim."

"Hi/e are using the translation from Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology.

pp. 98f.
2
Cf. John 10:1^ for Jesus as shepherd.

Cf. John 19*26 as background for "Woman, you have your son."

**Cf. Luke 23*^6 for background for "placing the spirit in the
hands of the Father."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 30

This system shares with Carpocrates and Cerinthus the genera­

tion of Jesus by Joseph and Mary, with Cerinthus and the Ophites the

proclamation of the unknown Father, and with Saturnius, Basilides, and

the Ophites the crucifixion and dissolution into constituent elements.

Baruch is novel and remarkable for substituting an angelic

visitation for the baptism, completely omitting any reference to the

Holy Spirit (in favor of the angel Baruch), the mention of Nazareth,

and making Jesus a shepherd, identifying the destiny of the soul and

body of Jesus, and apparently identifying Elohim-Father with the God

of the Old Testament. Naas is only an interfering, interpolating angel

who represents Satan and the female-psychic (as opposed to the male-

spiritual) and earthly side of reality, i.e., "Eden."

Baruch has no place for the virgin birth. We cannot speak

strictly of adoptionism, however, for there is no christology here.

Jesus' spirit, which is from Elohim (as in the case with all men), goes

(Luke 23*^6) to the Good One (Luke l8:19X, but simply because Jesus:

obeyed Baruch and resisted Naas.

Conclusions

The first Gnostics Irenaeus deals with, Simon and Menander and

Saturninus,^ were thoroughgoing docetists and showed no interest in the

historic Jesus. Indeed, if Irenaeus gives a true picture, Simon and

Menander showed no interest of any kind in Jesus, but rather applied their

docetism and "modalism" to themselves. Saturninus does not mention the

name of Jesus but rather an angelic Christ who comes to destroy his, father,

■^We note that Simon and Menander were Samaritans and that Menander
and Saturninus taught in Antioch.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 31

the angel God of the Jews. Inasmuch as the specific "heresy’1 most clearly

dealt with, and flatly and energetically rejected, in the New Testament

(and Ignatius of Antioch) is also docetism, this would, then, be the

earliest "Gnostic” Christology and that of Syria.

With Carpocrates and Cerinthus we see a shift to what has.; come

to be called "adoptionism." The Carpocratians were hardly Christians

in any sense, of course, as their real interest was in transmigration

of souls and how they can attain their destiny— Jesus' soul simply showed

one way the soul can escape from the hostile world-rulers and his pre­

existence is simply a concrete case of the universal principle of trans­

migration. However, Carpocrates' idea that Jesus was more righteous; than

the rest of mankind and thus merited receiving a power sent down to him

is clearly adoptionist.

Cerinthus shares Carpocrates' novel idea that Joseph sired Jesus;

and also his rudimentary adoptionism. He goes farther, however, when

he says that it is "Christ" that came down into Jesus;,and not simply

a power, and that this Christ departs from Jesus at the end. Thus

Cerinthus avoids docetism, but at the price of sharply dividing "Jesus"

and "Christ."
2
Basilides has a much more developed system, of course, than

those already mentioned. He neither affirms nor denies Joseph's pater­

nity of Jesus, but it is not excluded. He shows no interest in Jesus/

moral excellence prior to his baptism. But Jesus is certainly human in

Basilides' system. His contribution is to elaborate a complete theory

^In the form of a dove, "after" his baptism.

2
We are now using Hippolytus' account exclusively.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 52

of Jesus' composite character, based on his complex cosmology. No

longer is it a question simply of the descent of a power or the Christ

into a merely human Jesusi Bather, he is a composite of all levels of

being"*’ who does his work by "differentiating" the various levelsi and

thus laying the basis for a harmonious and satisfying establishment

2
for all. We call him adoptionist because he teaches that Jesus became

the redeemer as a result of receiving divine powers.

The Ophites also have a developed cosmology. Although they

taught the virginal conception of Jesus, they are still adoptionists,

even more clearly than Basilides, for they emphasized Jesus' moral prq-
3
gress before baptism as well as the descent of Christ on him. He is

just as composite a being as in Basilides' system, but there is no ex­

plicit doctrine of universal restoration. The only clear advance of

the Ophites over Basilides is that adoptionism is clearly shown to be

Zj.
compatible with virginal conception of Jesus.

Justin rejects the virginal conception. In one sense he is the

most patently "adoptionist" of all, for there is no descent into Jesus

of a heavenly power or being. He simply obeys the instructions of the

angel Baruch and thus when he is crucified he is able to divide himself

up between Mother-Eden and Father-Elohim. Presumably we are supposed to

imitate him in obeying Baruch's plan and thus earn the same destiny.

"^Except, it would seem, the highest; i.e., the Sonship. The non­
existent has nothing to do with "being."
2,
To be completed by sending to each level ignorance of what is
superior to it.
3
Now combined with Sophia.
4
Basilides may have thought that Jesus was b o m of a virgin but
he didn't say so. He calls Mary simple "Mary" and not "the Virgin Mary1'—
which was already becoming traditional.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 We conclude that the earliest and Syrian Gnostic "Christology"

was docetist and was built around the idea of the epiphany of an angel

or divine being. This disappeared quickly. We should abandon the no­

tion that the great Gnostic systems are docetist. Developed and Alex­

andrian Gnostic Christology was adoptionist. This was originally com­

bined with Joseph's engendering of Jesus but was shown to be compatible

with a virginal conception, it was also usually combined with the idea

that Jesus merited the coming of Christ upon him to make him Christ,

but Basilides showed that this was not really necessary either.

In rejecting docetism these Gnostics took an interest in the

historic Jesus but at the price of dividing "Christ" and "Jesus," mak­

ing the former's relation to the latter incidental. Thus they, just as

much as the docetists, denied the "union of God and man," to use Irenaeus?

words. In the highly developed systems of Basilides and the Ophites,

Jesus is a purely composite being at his adoption. He has no subjeat

or essential being of his own, but as he completes his work he simply

deals off his constituent elements to the respective levels to which

they belong and from which they came. Thus, for example, in these sys­

tems there would be no possibility of the redeemed's meeting their Lord.

He has simply evaporated.

'The post-docetic Gnostics derived their interest in the historic

Jesus from the traditions which were included in what came to be the

canonical Gospels. Basilides is quite sure that he can interpret »11

the Gospel events to suit his system. The Ophites and Justin showed

that they could also fit at least the major Old Testament events into

their systems. We conclude from this that by their time the place- of

"Scripture" had become so prominent among Christians; that the great

Gnostics had to try at least to appear to take its history seriously.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 3^

Irenaeus says: uSo firm is the ground upon which these Gospels

rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and,

starting from these, each one of them endeavors to establish his own

peculiar doctrine.”^

Earlier he had said: ’’They endeavor to adopt with an air of

probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord,

the sayings of the Prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order
p
that their scheme may not seem altogether without support."

Irenaeus insists, however, that they controvert the plain mean­

ing of scripture by disregarding the order and conviction of the scrip­

ture, transferring passages, and using distorted exegesis "in adapting

the oracles of the Lord to their opinions."

All of this is strong evidence that the second century Gnostics

felt obligated to prove their theories from scripture, especially the

Gospels and Epistles which were to become canonical.

If there was a pre-Christian Gnostic soteriology it would have

had a docetic Savior. By the time the great Gnostics came along, the church’s

rigid rejection of docetism and increasing emphasis on "Scripture" forced

them to appear, at least, to take the historic Jesus seriously. They

did so, but in the process, reduced him to a mere receptacle for Spirit

and Power .from above. Ihis failure to preserve the unity of Jesus; Christ

tells as much about their doctrine of man, of course, as it does about

their theology.

1A.H. Ill, 11, 7.

2A.H. I, 8 , 1.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 35

Valentinus and the Valentinians

It is ironic that we know considerably less of Valentinus'

teachings than of his followers'. He was an Egyptian and had a Hel­

lenistic education. He showed up in Home when Eleutherus was bishop

and was in and out of the Church there.^ He seems to have been an able

man and hoped to become bishop. Tertullian states that anger caused by
2
his being passed over was the occasion for spreading his "poison."

Irenaeus;states that he was still in Rome when Anicetus became bishop.

3
of that city. Valentinus was said to have been a disciple of Theodas,
4
who was a follower of Paul.

Irenaeus gives a brief summary in A.H. I, 11, 1 of Valentinus'

teaching. Whether or not this is really Valentinus' teaching or Irenaeus'

deduction from his knowledge of the Valentinians' teaching,^ we find here

nothing about Jesus of Nazareth.

In his Refutation. Hippolytus says that Valentinus taught that

when the creation was complete and it was time for the unveiling of the

sons of Cod,,

Jesus was born of Mary the virgin according to the declaration

'the Holy Spirit will come upon thee'— Sophia is the spirit— 'and
the power of the Highest will overshadow thee'— the Demiurge is
the Highest— 'wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be
called holy.'

■^Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum. 30. Irenaeus; says

it was under Hyginus. A.H. Ill, 4 3.
2 ^
Adversus Valentinianos, b, A.H. Ill, 4, 3»
L
Clement, Stromateis VII, c. XVII, 106, in Otto Stahlin,
Clemens. Alexandrinus- (Band 3. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1909) , p. 75•
5
K. Heussi affirms the latter in Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte.
7th ed., 1930, apud. Kendrick Grobel, The Gospel of Truth (Nashville:
Abingdon, i960), p. 15.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 36

Those created in Adam's image are from the Demiurge only. But

Jesus is from the Demiurge and Sophia in order that "the Demiurge may

complete the conformation and constitution of his body and that the Holy

Spirit may supply his essence and that a celestial Logos may proceed

from the Ogdoad, being born of Mary."'*'

Hippolytus goes on to say that Valentinus taught that the pur­

pose of this was that "the Savior who was born of Mary (might) rectify

the passions of the soul," just as the Christ from Mind and Truth had

corrected the passions of Sophia, or "for the restoration of this world

of ours." (in Sec. 36.)

2
At another place (in which the description of Valentinus' theo-

gony differs from that in the above section) Hippolytus states that

Valentinus denies that flesh can be saved and calls it a "leather tunic

and the perishable part of man." In De Carne Christi I, Tertullian im­

plies that Valentinus admitted both the flesh and the nativity of Jesus,

interpreting uhem in a strange sense.

Of the fragments of Valentinus, preserved in Clement's Stromata

one (in III, 59» 3) is of interest to us in the matter of Jesus; of

Nazareth: "While enduring everything he was continent. Jesus exercised

his divine nature. He ate and drank in a peculiar way and did not evacu­

ate his food. For he had so great a power of continence that the food

was not corrupted in him, since he himself was not perishable."

Hippolytus preserves a poetic fragment of Valentinus.^

^ I , 55, 2-4.

13, esp. 4-.

^The translation is by Grant in Gnosticism, an Anthology, p. 1*4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 37

In spirit I see all things suspended;

In spirit I see all things borne up;
Flesh suspended from soul,
Soul borne up by air,
Air hanging from ether,
Out of the deep, fruits being borne,
Out of the womb, a child is born.-*-

Eugene de Faye concluded that the authentic fragments of Valen­

tinus give quite a different picture from that of the heresiologists and

infers from the former that Jesus occupies the central place in Valentinus'

system and that the absorption of the historic Jesus into the metaphysical

Christ, in which he is considered only an envelope or human appearance of

the transcendental entity, Christ, is no more marked than in Clement,

or, for that matter, in the traditional teaching which was transforming

the Jesus of history into the metaphysical Christ.

The fact is that we do not know enough of what Valentinus him­

self taught to try to make a careful analysis: of his teaching about the

historic Jesus. Two documents we shall deal with later, the Gospel of

Truth and On the Resurrection, have been tied to the name of Valentinus

but we shall deal with this later. We conclude that we know so very

little about Valentinus that it would not be helpful to exposit at this

point the understanding of Jesus of Nazareth betrayed in these documentsi

as that of Valentinus himself.

Valentinus seems to have taught that Jesus; was born, born of

if.
Mary, i.e., through Mary, passing through her but taking nothing from

‘‘■Ref. VI, 37, 7.

2
Gnostiques et Gnosticisms (2d ed. augm.; Paris: P. Geuthner,
1925), pp. 6>1f.

^E.g., by R. M. Grant, K. Grobel, W. C. van Unnik, H.-Ch. Puech,

and G. Quispel.
4
Tertullian, Adversus Valentinianos. 27.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 her."*-. Jesus’ body was special (so that Valentinus' disciples could con­

clude that it was either psychic or pneumatic) in such a way that he was

able to "exercise his divine nature" through it, so that it was imper­

ishable and did not, say, react to food in the natural way. Valentinus

had a place for the birth and flesh of Jesus, although in his own special

sense. JesusJ eating is no problem, of course, since even the resur-

2
rected Jesus of the Gospel according to St. Luke ate.

The place of Jesus' baptism in Valentinus' teaching does not

seem to have been clear, as the Italian and Oriental Valentinian schools,
•5
according to Hippolytus, seem to have divided on the question as to

whether the spiritual nature of Jesus goes back to his conception or to

his baptism. We have no way of knowing Valentinus' teaching about the

baptism.

There is a place for the crucifixion, so that Jesus; can rectify

passions here in the form of Stauros as Christ had corrected Sophia's

passions as Stauros.
k
Pseudo-Tertullian stateB that Valentinus denied the resurrec­

tion of "this flesh." This is unexceptionable. The universal testimony

of the Valentinians3 to some kind of resurrection of Jesus; i.e., the

"Psychic Christ," and his teaching of esoteric knowledge to specially

selected apostles would indicate that Valentinus dealt with the Gospel

account of Jesus' resurrection. This is only inference, of course, even

if a reasonable one.

*^A.H. Ill, 11, 3, per tubam, cf. Pseudo-Tertullian, Libellus>

Against All Heresies. 12. &

^Luke 24:42f. 3Ref. VI, 35, 5-7.

A
Libellus Against All Heresies. 12.
5
^See below.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 39

We conclude that Valentinus circulated no detailed exposition

of his own system, as his followers did, hoping that he might finally

gain the recognition in the Great Church he had wished’

,and being will­

ing to allow his disciples freedom to develop their own systems. As a

partisan of the Platonism of his day'1’ Valentinus was in no position to

take a positive view of an earthy humanity for the Savior, but, like

other great second-century Christian gnostics, he was forced to deal

with the picture of the historic Jesus presented in the canonical gos­

pels. We do not know enough to say whether he was a docetist or an

adoptionist, but the position of his disciples would strongly suggest

the latter.

Irenaeus (A.H. Ill, 11, 7) states that Valentinus' followers

used the Fourth Gospel "Copiously." But we note above that according

to Hippolytus Valentinus depends on Luke's account of Jesus' baptism

and of his eating after his resurrection to prove his doctrine of In­

carnation.

Ptolemy

"Ptolemaeus was the head of the Valentinian school in Italy

and apparently succeeded Valentinus himself, perhaps about 160. Nothing

is known of his life, but it is evident from his work that he was the
2
greatest systematic theologian of the school." He also wrote a letter

to one Flora, which we possess.

1Cf. de Faye, op. cit.. p. 58, and Gilles Quispel in "La Concep­
tion de l'homme dans la Gnose Valentinienne," Eranos Jahrbuch. XV (19^7),
2^9-86.
2
Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology, p. 162.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 The most explicit and detailed description of a Gnostic, system

which we possess is that of Ptolemy, the Valentinian, in Irenaeus.'

"Great N o t i c e . T h a t this section is Ptolemy's system, with brief

2
excursi describing alternate ideas, is clearly shown by F.-M.-M. Sagnard

who points out, to begin with, that Irenaeus states as much: "I intend,

then, to the best of my ability, with brevity and clearness to set forth

the opinions of these who are now promulgating heresy. I refer especially

to those around Ptolemy^ whose school may be described as a bud from that

of Valentinus." The old Latin versions conclude I, 8 with the words:

"Such are the views of Ptolemaeus."

The description begins with a theogony which describes the com­

ing into being of a thirty-member Pleroma. The perfect son (=Prebeginning=

Forefather*Depth) with his Thought (=Silence=Grace) brings forth pairs

of eons by the principle of syzygy in successive emissions "to the glory

of the Father": Mind (=Only-Begotten=beginning=Father) and Truth, Word

and Life, Man and Church. Thus the ogdoad. Word and Life emit ten other

eons and Man and Church twelve, thus arriving at the fulness=Pleroma.

The last of the thirty, Sophia, conceives from her unfitting

curiosity about the unknown Father but is restrained and supported,

purified and established by limit (=Cross=Redeemer=Emancipator=Definer=

Guide) who restores her to her proper conjunction (syzygy). Her Desire,
9 1
a "spiritual substance . . . but formless^ (“Vt and ugly V&( ) ,n

was separated and expelled.

1ASH. I, 1-8.
2
La Gnose Valentinlenne et le T^mdlgnage de Saint Irenee- (Paris:
J. Vrin, 19^7), esp. pp. 227-32.

3 ~C to V ir £ c // ^ ° ^ tf £ o t,'

^A.H. I, pref. 2.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 kl

Then Christ and Holy Spirit are" emitted by Only-begotten in

accordance with the Father's foreknowledge, and "by them the eons are

made perfect," i.e., by instructing them in the knowledge implicit in

the foregoing. The joy of the eons in the resultant stabilization mo­

tivates the whole Pleroma to weave together and unite their contributions

harmoniously and emit to the honor and glory of Depth an emanation which

is the star of the Pleroma and its perfect fruit, Jesus (=Savior=Christ

and Logos after his origin=All because he is from all).

Sophia's desire, still outside the Pleroma, is pitied by Christ

who, by a kind of crucifying, "forms her according to substance." Now

we can speak of Sophia's desire-outside-the-Pleroma as Achamoth, also

called Sophia (from her mother) and Holy Spirit (from the Spirit with

Christ). She longs for the Logos-Christ who abandoned her to return to

the Pleroma (cf. the Ophite Eden's longing for Elohim) and although she

is prevented by Limit from following Christ, she retains "a certain aroma

of imperishability."’*’
2
From Achamoth's "conversion" came Demiurge and psychic nature,
3
a passible substance. From her "grief" and "fear" at her abandonment

there comes into being "bodiless matter," a bad nature.

Christ, at the supplication of Achamoth, sends the Paraclete

Savior with his angels. He forms her "according to knowledge" and

separates her passions from her and, in fact, creates (according to

■^This whole latter part is similar to what we have seen in

Hippolytus' account of Basilides.
2

3 b'u >• c ^ /Cl 7 r / (& lA

if

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 the principle of the paragraph above). Achamoth conceives and gives

birth to "fruits," from her vision of Savior's angels.

Creation is complete when Demiurge, now created by Achamoth,

separates the two confused substances, psychic and material, and makes

bodies from the badness (although Achamoth had really "projected" them,

being "the cause of his creating"), including man— who is composed of

(l) earthly'*’ man "from the invisible substance, the liquid and flowing

part of matter," similar to but not consubstantial with "God" (the

Demiurge), (2 ) psychic man, breathed in by Demiurge, and (3) the "coat

2
of skin," being the palpable flesh/. The Savior through Achamoth ar­

ranged that Demiurge, unwittingly, breathe in (k) the spiritual man.

3
"This man has his soul from the Demiurge, his body from earth
It
and his flesh from matter but his spiritual man from Mother Achamoth."

It would seem that man would thus have a fourfold nature: flesh, body,

soul, and spirit; but we are immediately told emphatically of the three

elements'* (l) the material, necessarily to be destroyed, (2 ) the psychic,

which can go either way, and (3) the spiritual, sent forth to be formed
6 7
in union with the psychic and educated in conduct' along with it. The
g
psychic needed palpable instruction and therefore the universe was con­

structed and the savior came to this psychic element (which has free will)

to save it.

l V o c /< o5

2
iaj
Sagnard, La Gnose Valentinienne. p. 183.
3 oL '<- x o c X o G C,

5 ^ c. uj 1/ c> </ O v X' uJ V~

6 u ( 1
/ yi i- 7
0 j <J cf• AJI. II, 19.
g
Epiphanius * text suggests that the spiritual needed psychic and
palpable instruction and some editors accept this. We follow Sagnard,
La Gnose Valentinienne. pp. 397f•» however.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 **3

So much for the background. On the Incarnation, we read:

1, 6 1.
Of those he was going to save he took the first-fruits:
1) from Achamoth the spiritual
2) from the Demiurge he put on the psychic Christ
3) from the he took a body, of psychicsubstance,
constructed by ineffable art to be visible, tangible, and
passible.
k) He acquired nothing material at all.

In I, 7*2, we read, from another source:

Some say [the demiurge! also emitted Christ, his own son, also
psychic, and spoke concerning him through the prophets. He passed
through Mary as water passes through a pipe. On him at the baptism
there descended that savior from the pleroma, from all [the aeons},
in the form of a dove • . . [this "our Lord" iB composed of four
elements!:
the spiritual from Achamoth
the psychic^from Demiurge
from the o l /<* v o ^ c ^ , what was constructed by ineffable art
from the Savior, the dove that came down into him. ['ihe Savior}
remained impassible. . . . 'therefore when he was led before Pilate,
that Bpirit of Christ-*- set in him was taken away. /But the seed^
which was from the Mother also did not experience passion. . . .
What suffered was the psychic Christ and the one constructed from
the c> l st o u ^ . . . so that through him the Mother^
might set forth the model of the Christ above, when he was extended
on the cross and had shaped the essential form of Achamoth.

Irenaeus sets I, 7*2 forth clearly as from another source. How­

ever, it is not only compatible with the preceding but is almost necessary

to make any sense from it. I, 6.1 mentions, a "psychic Christ" without

any explanation. Also, although I, 6.1 explains the nature of the "In­

carnation," nothing is said of the suffering or work of this composite

being. It is not clear in either paragraph what is the relationship

between the psychic Christ and the marvelously constructed psychic body-

of-the- a ( /<» i' • ^he second paragraph states that both suffered.

■^Che Savior.
2
'Ihe Spiritual. ^Sophia.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 In the unquestionably Ptolemaic I, 6.1 there is nothing explicit

about the historic Jesus. We have only an analysis, of the composition

of the subject of the gospels. In I, 7.2 we have Cl) an implicit birth

from Mary, who harbored the psychic Christ although she communicated

nothing to him, (2) the baptism, at which time the Savior descended on

this Christ, (3) a trial before Pilate, when the spirit of Christ de­

parted, (4) the suffering by this psychic Christ (and his psychic body),

and (5 ) crucifixion.

We read in I, 1,2: "the Savior did nothing openly for thirty

years; from I, 3, 2f: ... the Savior [had a1 discourse with the scribes

at the age of twelve^- and later those twelve apostles." Ha had an "eighteen

months* stay with the disciples after the resurrection: of the dead." He

"suffered in the twelfth month; for he proclaimed the gospel for one year

after his baptism." The woman with an issue of blood "was healed; by the

coming of the Savior." From X, 7, 3 we learn that Jesusstaught. From

I, 7, ^ tjiat he spoke with the centurion (Matthew 8:9i Luke 7*8). From

X, 8 , 2 we learn that the Savior "came to his passion," raised the twelve-

year-old girl from the dead (Luke 8:^1), spoke from the cross and uttered

the prayer in Gethsemane. In I, 8 , 4 we are told that Simeon "took the

Christ in his arms" and that Anna "saw the Savior."

If we put all this together we come up with thefollowing picture

of the historic Jesus: He comes forth from the womb of Mary with a special

body of psychic nature, is presented in the temple, visits the same at

twelve, is baptized at the age of thirty, calls the twelve; he teaches,

heals, and converses during a one-year ministry; he prays at Gethsemane,

^It is hard to reconcile this with the preceding. It must mean

that this event reported in Luke has only an allegorical significance,
as the historic; personage was still imperfect until the Baptism.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ^5

is brought before Pilate, is crucified, suffering and uttering (at least

one of the) words from the cross; he is raised and is with the disciples

eighteen months.

This is an impressively full picture, but not easy to evaluate.

If the picture in Irenaeus is reliable, Ptolemy seems to be not really

interested in the historic Jesus but in speculation, especially in the

area of numerology and in his own literary exegesis.

The visit to the temple at the age of twelve, the choosing of

the twelve, the suffering in the twelfth month and the twelve-month

duration of Jesus' ministry, the healing of the woman with an issue

of blood for twelve years are all related to the duocecad of eons.

The eighteen months of the risen one completes the thirty eons of the

Pleroma, also signified by JesusJ age at the time of the baptism.

The healing of the twelve-year-old girl refers to the healing

of Achamoth, the woman with the issue of blood to her mother. The

Savior on the cross indicates the passions of Achamoth, his word from

the cross, abandonment by Christ, the prayer of Gethsemane to her grief.

Simeon is a figure of the Demiurge and Anna of Achamoth. "In the last

times of the universe the Savior came to his passion for this reason:

to set forth the passion which took place in regard to the last of the

aeons and through this end to show the operation of the eons."

It seems that everything the subject of the Gospels did or said

was to indicate the number of the aeons or their adventures. The Gospel

accounts (Matthew and Luke are those used) and also the letters of Paul

(I Corinthians3is the favorite) turn out to be mysterious puzzles to which

Ptolemy has the key and which he can show to be detailed descriptions of

the history of the Pleroma, the origin of our universe and the destiny of

all in it.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Strangely, we are not told what the death really amounted to. (or,

even that Jesus died) or what was the destiny of "the psychic Christ."

We may assume it was this psychic Christ who was raised, but we are not

told he was. We may guess that the eighteen months the Risen One was

with his disciples was used to instruct a selection of them, as in the

Ophite system described by Irenaeus. But we are not told this. We m§y

also guess that there was a "differentiation" similar to that in Basilidesi

the Savior (who descended at the Baptism and returned when Jesus was before

Pilate) proceeds with his bride, Achamoth, into the Pleroma, Jesus,
1 spiritual

part having returned to her (or thus returning to her); the psychic Christ

with his marvelously constructed psychic "body" ascends to his father, the

Demiurge, and proceeds with him to the middle, where he is seated at his

right hand. But we are not told this.

Is there in Ptolemy's system a historic figure behind the GospelsV

He could not have been really like us, for he lacked anything of material

nature, but he was palpable and even passible. Actually, the intent of

"The Great Notice" is really theogony and cosmogony, with all the various

elements, especially the nature and destiny of man, but there is a certain

chronological development and movement, and the Incarnation seems to have

a part, as described in the latter half of A.H. I, 6, li "The universe

was constructed and the Savior came for this psychic'*’ element • • « to

save it. . . . The end will come when all that is spiritual is formed aid

perfected in gnosisi . . . about God and initiated into the mysteries of

Achamoth."

^A.H. I, 6, 2: The psychic men have been instructed in psychic

matters. They are established by works., and mere faith, and do not have
perfect knowledge. They belong to the Church.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 47

The Incarnation in Ptolemy's system is the coming together in

Jesus of spiritual and the psychic elements, the material being excluded

as beyond redemption. The basis for this is clearly the close relation­

ship between the psychic and spiritual in man. "The spiritual is sent

forth to be formed in union with the psychic and educated along with it."

If Epiphanius' text is correct, the spiritual, as well as the

psychic, even needs "perceptible"^ instructions. The psychic and the

spiritual (and even the material body for that matter) all derive from

the same phenomenon: the fall of Sophia. They come from similar crea­

tive processes: the Savior through Sophia through the Demiurge.

p
From X, 5 , 6 it would seem that the embryo of spiritual substance

conceived by Achamoth upon beholding the Savior's angelic peers actually

needed to be sown in the souls and material bodies (made by Demiurge) to

"grow and increase in them and . . . become ready for the reception of

the perfect Logos." (This is reminiscent of Basilides' sonship, which

is left below and in need of purification and which gives and receives

benefit.). It would seem that'the "spirits" formed in this way haye a

3
mission to the soul, but also these spirits gain something from the as­

sociation. Experience in this world appears to be educational not only

to the psychic but to the spiritual.

Although the soul does seem to need the flesh provisionally for

"perceptible instruction," Ptolemy cannot find any positive place for

1 pC L <r- <&- X ~ d C

2
This "seed" corresponds to the Church above; i.e., the Ecclesia
of the Ogdoad.
3
Comparable to the Gnostic's mission to his unenlightened brother
of the Great Church.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 li 2
matter or flesh in the consummation (flesh and blood cannot inherit

the kingdom). Thus the Incarnation, although it is understood as a

union of elements, ends up as a synthesis (composition) of only the

spiritual and psychic. The elements in the Incarnation are not really

four but rather two, although the psychic Christ does take a body of

psychic substance in order to be visible, tangible and passible.

Of course, this is not really "incarnation," for the composite

being of Jesus does not include flesh. However, the composite being

with his psychic body does seem to have been able to fulfill all the

parts assigned to him in the synoptics, so that Ptolemy could have said
3
with Basilides, "everything took place as it is written in the Gospels."

It is notable that in the long passage (I, 8 , 5.), in which we see Ptolemy's

exegesis of the prologue to the Fourth Gospel every element is carefully

dealt with except the Word's becoming flesh. Irenaeus is careful to show

in the succeeding chapter that this is not only not accidental but in- .

dicates the fatal flaw in Ptolemy's system. Later, irenaeus, reminds the

reader that according to "none of the heretics was the Word of God made

flesh.

This synthetic being, the Incarnate one, instructs by word and

symbolic act. To those able to receive it he communicates perfect gnosis.

To the dull he accords moral instructions and "mere faith." Interestingly,

this program appears to be exactly that which the Valentinians^ imagined

they found outlined in I Corinthians 2 , although Paul is describing this

as his program, not Jesus'.

1 & > 2 ■.*y>j , X i « f

■^Hippolytus, Ref. VII, 27, 8 .

V h. Ill, 11, 3.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 The place of the traditions of the canonical Gospels in the Great

Church, indeed the place of Old Testament as well, made it necessary for

Ptolemy to trace his doctrines to Jesus and the Jesus of their traditions.

We are reminded here of the Ophites and Baruch.

In his Letter to Flora,^ he announces that he will "draw the

proof of what we say Cabout the origins and the triple division of the

Law]- from the words of the Savior, which alone can lead us without error

to the comprehension of reality." He does cite Matthew 19 *6 and 8 to

show the first two divisions and Matthew 15 *4-9 to show the third. His

use of Jesus.-? words in Matthew 5 to justify the first two Cof three) sub­

divisions within God's own Law is more strained but still claims Jesus'

authority on the basis of the canonical traditions. The third does not

cite Jesus' words themselves but alludes to his teachings as recorded

in Matthew 19*16 and 11:27. On this score, however, he seems really to

find more specific justification in Paul.

When Ptolemy turns to the question of who this God was who or­

dained the law he uses theological arguments rather than scriptural (ex­

cept for a parenthesis alluding to Matthew 19*17) to distinguish this

Demiurge from the God who is good by nature and from the Devil. The

question of how the Good Father is the source of the other two is re­

served for a later time when Flora is "judged worthy of the apostolic

tradition which we too have received by succession." Ptolemy continues:

"for we too are able to prove all our points by the teaching of the Savior.

These words sound like a promise of which the Great Notice is the

fulfillment. The proof in A.H. I, 3 , and 8 sound like an "apostolic

■^Found in Epiphanius, Panarion Haereseon XXXIII, 3i English

Translation in Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology, pp. 184-90.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 50

tradition" of exegesis and they do use canonical traditions exclusively,

although the passages include many citations of Paul and more incidents

in Jesus;' life than "teaching of the Savior." These situations are in­

variably given an allegorical interpretation, and thus it is clear that

Ptolemy's "apostolic tradition" is, in fact, an exegetical method as, of

course it is in Origan."*"

Thus there is in Ptolemy's system a historic figures behind the

gospels but not human, since he lacks one of the three (four in A.H. I,

5 , 6) elements in man, as he assumed only "the primary elements of those

beings he was going to save." Jesus' flesh is interpreted "in a strange

sense" (De Ca m e Christ I) in that it is a body taken from the ,

of psychic substance. We are not even told that Jesus was born of the

Virgin Mary.

As far as the holding on to the concrete historic figure of Jesus

is concerned, this is a backward step from the simple adoptionism of

Carpocrates and Cerinthus and the more subtle adoptionism of Basilides

and the Ophites. These latter two had preserved Jesus' humanity at the

cost of sharply dividing "Jesus" and "Christ." Ptolemy avoids this but

hardly escapes the real problem of docetism:. the loss of Jesus.' concrete

humanity. As Irenaeus said, according to "none of the heretics was the

Word of God made flesh." This was the real basis of the Great Churches

condemnation of Gnosticism in all its forms.

Marcus

"... Marcus . . • was active, perhaps in Gaul, in the latter

2
half of the second century."

~4>e Principiis. Pref. 8 and IV, 9.

2
Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology, p. 191.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 51

One of the more complicated Valentinian systems is that of Marcus

who seems to have been Asiatic?" whose followers were known to Irenaeus

in Gaul. His special contribution seems to have been the practice of

magic and fantastic speculations on words, letters, and the numbers they

represent. We shall confine our exposition to his doctrine of Incarna­

tion and his use of traditions about the historic Jesus.

IrenaeusJ description of Marcus* explanation of the Incarnation

begins in A.H. I, 15, 2 (which is paralleled in Hippolytus* Refutation

VI, 46 ). It is prefaced with an exposition of the "unspeakable" origin

of the "supercelestial Jesus" using word-letter-number calculations to

demonstrate a traditional Valentinian theogony and the special function

of the names "Jesus," "Christ," and "Son." He continues:

2
Before the Episemon of this name appeared, that is Jesus the
Son,3 men were in great ignorance"- and error.5 But when the six-
letter name, which put on flesh to descend to man's sensibility . . .
was manifested, then those who knew him ceased from their ignorance
and rose from death to life, the name becoming for them the way to
the Father of Truth. For the Father of all wanted to end ignorance
and destroy death. For this reason, the man formed (according to
the "economy").® in the image of the power above' according to the
will of God was chosen.

The next section (A.H. I, 15, 5) also begins in a confusing way

g
but we paraphrase it thus:. Powers emanating from the second tetrad

Albert Houssiau, La Christologie De Saint Irenee (Louvain: Pub­

lications Universitaires, 1958), p. 153.
2
The "insignia" which is based on the mysterious numerical quali­
ties of the word "Jesus."
3
I.e., the historic Jesus is the antitype- "Son" of the super­
celestial Jesus.
if K y j/ oc a

5 . TV X VR

6 0 t K 0 I/O 7. -
■ Anthropos.
g
The word appears in Hippolytus but not Irenaeus.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 52

CWord and Life, Man and Church.) thus fashioned'*' "that Jesus who appeared

on earth":

Gabriel took the place of Word

Holy Spirit that of Life
Power-of-the-Highe6t that of Man
the Virgin pointed out^ the place of Church. And thus was
generated by [the Father of all] through Mary that man-in
accordance-with-the 3 whom, as he passed through
the womb, the Father of all chose to [obtain! knowledge by
means of Word.

And on his coming to the water, there descended on him, in the

form of a dove, he who had formerly ascended on high . . .
if
The Savior Jesus-according-to-the o w<- u w <.ol destroyed! death:
he moreover made known the Father Christ Jesus.-5 Jesus is therefore
the name of the man-ac cording- to-the cl ^ : he was formed af­
ter the likeness and form of that Man who was to descend; upon him
(Luke 1: 35). When he received him, he possessed Man, Word, Father,
Unspeakable Silence, Truth, Church and Life, i.e., the whole ogdoad.

Incarnation

This strange passage about the generation of Jesus means that

in the account of the annunciation (Luke 1: 26-38). we can understand

it properly only if we substitute Word for Gabriel, Life for Holy Spirit,

Man for Power of the Highest, and Church for Virgin. The whole passage

is much too long to point out here what this would look like; however,

verse 1: 35 would turn out thus: "And Word answered Church: ’Life will

come upon you, and Man will overshadow you. Therefore what is bora (from

you) will be called holy, son of God.'"

^So Hippolytus; Irenaeus has "generated."

2
So Irenaeus; Hippolytus simply says, that the Virgin similarly
took the place of Church.
3
Hippolytus omits the rest of this sentence,
if j
Qui fuit ex dispositions Salvator Iesus.
5
■“i.e., as the antitype Savior; cf. on "Jesus the Son" in n. 3»
p. 51.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 53

s
Thus, Jesus., the man-according-to-the c L /< o </■o a l l. , that

man generated by the Father of all and chosen by Him to know Him through

Word, is formed by the whole second Tetrad in the following way: He re­

ceives the Church through Mary, the Word through Gabriel's announcement,

and Man and Life through him who was to descend on him in the form of a

dove in the baptism. This double descent in the Baptism, reminiscent

of the Ophite combination of Sophia and Christ which descended into

Jesus (A.H. I, 30, 12) is inferred from the future tenses of Gabriel's

verbs in Luke 1:35» from the prominence of the Holy Spirit (=Idfe) in

the account of the Baptism, and from Marcus’ words (toward the end of

I, 13, 3) about Jesus' formation "after the likeness and form of that

Man, who was about to descend upon Him. Upon receiving this aeon, Man,

Jesus partakes not only of the Tetrad but of the whole Ogdoad.

As to references to the historic Jesus, in a mystical rite called

"redemption" some Marcosianss used the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth."’'' His

reply to his mother when he visited the Temple at the age of twelve is
2 "5
cited. His Baptism is also alluded to in two other contexts. He is
1l c
said to have had twelve apostles. The transfiguration is alluded to.
g
His weeping is mentioned and he is said to have been "nailed to the tree"
7
on the sixth hour of the sixth day. Finally Jesus; is said to have ap-
O
peared to the ten apostles (Thomas being absent) after his resurrection.

2
1A.H. I, 21, 4. A.H. I, 20, 2 .

?A.H. I. 14, 6; I, 21, 2 . V h . I, 18, 4.

3a .e . I. 14, 6. 6a .h . I, 20, 2 .

7a .h . I, 14, 6. 8a .h ., I. 18, 3 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 &

This list looks impressive until we realize that of these

references are used either for numerological purpose or to indicate that

Jesus was announcing a previously unknown Father.

Marcus seems to have made considerable use of the Old Testament.

Genesis; 1-2.3 is made to indicate the two Tetrads and indeed the whole

Triacontad (A.H. I, 18, If). Other passages of Genesis and other his­

torical books are used (I, 18, 3f) to the same purpose. The Prophets

are laid under contribution (as we see in I, 19)j and when (in I, 20)

Irenaeus accuses him of using "apocryphal and spurious writings," he in

fact cites only one instance and really makes his argument against Marcus
I
by showing how he distorts "passages which occur in the Gospels," i.e.,

the canonical Gospels.

We see in Marcus the same features we perceive in Ptolemy: a

rejection of the sharp division characteristic of Basilides and the Ophites

between the humanity and divinity of Jesus, at the cost of surrendering

his concrete humanity, all the while preserving the historic figure. As

in Valentinus, Jesus' conception seems to have been virginal, and now

Jesus is said to have been generated by the Father of all through Mary.

This is a significant advance. We find in Marcus an effort to base his

theories on the Old Testament as well as the canonical traditions. It

iB notable that Irenaeus' account, Jiowever, does not indicate that Marcus

drew heavily on Paul, as Ptolemy did.

What are we to make of the flesh which was put on to "descend to

mein's sensibility?" (Sagnard gives no importance to it, explaining that

it only illustrates the "loi d' enveloppement. . . . C'est le cr < l6

des documents valentiniens, qui, naturellement, n'a ici rien d' hylique

ou de proprement 'charnel.'"'*’ Expressions like "memifested," appeared

1 '
Sagnard, op. cit.. p. 376, n. 1.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 55

on earth,” "man-according-to-the-economy," "born through Mary," and

"passed through the womb" are not surprising, for they are quite com­

patible with other Valentinian notions. But this is the first time we

have met anything like "flesh" except for Valentinus’ special use of it.

May we assume that "flesh" here is equivalent to Ptolemy's wonderfully

/
?
constructed psychic body from the 6 c k o v o ^a . which is somehow visible,

tangible and passible? Yes. There is nothing in Marcus' system to sug­

gest that material substance is redeemable. The same kind of expressions

are used about Mary as we find in the Great Notice and these imply that

Jesus took nothing from her. This is the "flesh of similitude" which we

will find in the Gospel of Truth and with which we deal at more length

in our section on that document.

Baptism

The place of the Baptism of Jesus adds nothing to the Great No­

tice, except in relatively more emphasis, on Man and^Word, who, along with

the rest of the Ogdoad and Triacontad, enter into Jesus. It would seem

that Marcus was somewhat more concerned to come to terms with the "Son of

Man" of the synoptics and the "Word made flesh" of the prologue to John

than were his predecessors.

Theodotus

The man Theodotus and his teaching are known to us only from the
1 2
Excerpts from Theodotus. found among the writings of Clement of Alexandria.

^■"Tous les essais pour l'identifer sont restes vains." Francdis-M.-M.

Sagnard Ced.), Clement d'Alexandria, Extraits de Thfeodote (Paris.: Editions
du Cerf, 19^8), p. 5»
2
There are two recent editions: that cited in the note above and
Robert Pierce Casey, The Bxcerpta Ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria
(London: Christopher's, 1 9 3 * 0 . Casey describes on page 3 the extant manu-
scripts.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 He seems to have been a disciple of Valentinus and wrote about 1^0-160.^

The title of the work goes on with the words "and the so-called oriental

teaching of Valentinus' time." Sagnard has demonstrated the concord

between the authentic fragments of Theodotus and the notice about the

oriental Valentinian school in Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies.

3 k
VI, 35» 7« We follow F.-M.-M. Sagnard's selection of authentic pas­

sages of Theodotus (which is almost identical with Casey's^ which in

turn is largely based on Dibelius' original work).^

n
Sagnard' begins the last paragraph before his presentation of

the text of the Excerpts: "Un autre resultat de cet expose, c'est la

place reservee par Theodote et les Valentiniens aux phases de la vie

de Jesus historique, mysteres ou s'accomplit le salut du pneuma, et

qui figurent ceux de notre propre vie," citing 76, 1 and the allusion

of ^2 , 2 to the "who does not take up his cross and follow me" of

Luke 1^:27 and Matthew 10:38. We shall see what these "phases" are,

but first let us look at Theodotus8 understanding of incarnation; i.e.,

the body or flesh of Jesus.

^Sagnard, Clement d'Alexandrie. Extraits de Theodote. p. 6.

2 ■ > r
Sagnard, La Gnose Valentinienne et le Temoignage de Saint Irenee
and Clement d'Alexandrie. Extraits de Theodote.
3
Wendland's numbering.
2f
Sagnard, La Gnose Valentinienne. pp. f?21ff.
5
Casey, op. cit., p. 3 .
£
0. Dibelius, "Studien zur Geschichte der Valentinianer,"
Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentiche Wise.enschaft. IX. (1908);, 230-4?, 329-40.

"^Sagnard, Clement d'Alexandrie. Extraits de Theodote. pp. b&f.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 57

Incarnation

Five passages'*" interest us:

I, lb Wisdom, he [Theodotus] says, put forth a receptacle of flesh

[ o i' ] for the logos, the spiritual seed Ccf. I Cor. 15;38];
clad^ [ <j"zro> c. cr- c L ^ o c, ] in it the Savior descended.

17i 1 . . . Jesus and the Church and Wisdom are a powerful and complete
mixture [ ^ £C-\ i/ ] of bodies.

26, 1 The visible part of Jesus was Wisdom and the Church ofthe Superior
seeds and he put it on through the flesh [ trrfyp/tzc o ^ ].

42, 3b^ Therefore he [Christ]' took the body of Jesus, which is of the same
substance [ <5^c <i<•.u a-c u j 1 as the Church.

85, 2 For he who conquered [ & mJ ] angels in the flesh was fit­
tingly served forthwith^ [ x. ] by angels.
/

The <r o*-/? /< c o ^ in which Wisdom clothes the Savior is the

Spiritual Seed. The body of Jesus is consubstantial with the Church.

His "visible part" is Wisdom and the Church. Jesus, Church, and Wisdom

constitute a complete mixture of bodies. Thus in some sense Jesus.' flesh,

his body, and his visible part turn out to be identical with Wisdom and

the Church of the Elect, sown by Wisdom through Logos. Hippolytus^ tells

us that the Oriental Valentinians taught that the Savior's body was pneu­

matic (and not psychic) since the Holy Spirit that came upon Mary (Luke 1:35)

^Unless otherwise indicated we use Casey's translation in work

cited in Casey, op. cit.. p. 67.
2
Sagnard: "envelope."
3
We follow Sagnard in accepting this as Theodotus.'; cf., for exam­
ple, La Gnose Valentinienne. p. 523*
4
Casey has "ruled over," Sagnard has "vaincu." 83, 1 and 3 suggests
that it is tempter angels who are referred to here and their being con­
quered in the Temptation of Jesus.
5 *
Casey: "already." Sagnard: "desormais."

6Ref. VI, 35, 7.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 58

was Wisdom and all that the Most High (=Demiurge) did was "fashion”

what Wisdom had given her (Mary). This accords well with Theodotus1

concepts. It is based on speculation about the diverse bodies and

fleshes, mentioned in I Corinthians 15.

This is not really docetism, however, since the Lord was shaken

after his Baptism (85* l) as we are after ours (84), and prevailed over
p /f
the archon and his angels <=- v cr~ < c. f and then is served by

them. (The e- ^ corresponds also to the "cr ^ co of 84.)^

Also Excerpt 2 is important, in speaking of the elect:

/
. . . when the animal ZJy^XL./*^ ] body Ccf. I Cor. 15:443 was
fcushioned C >r a male seed was implanted by the Logos in
the elect soul while it was asleep. . . . This is an effluence of
the angelic [seecG, in order that there may be no gap [ o<rzr<sy’rt/LA 3.
And this worked a leaven, uniting what seemed to have been divided,
soul and flesh, which had also been put forth separately
by Wisdom.

We note that the "male seed implanted by the Logos in the elect

soul" unites soul and flesh, which were separately emitted by Sophia.

Among the elect, then, spirit, soul, and flesh are seen as distinct

emissions but destined for unity in the human person. More importantly,

it is the male (=spiritual) seed, or the spirit, which unites the soul

and flesh of the elect. As, then, the elect are able to achieve a unity

of distinct elements by virtue of the spiritual seed implanted in their

soul by the Logos after the fashioning of their psychic bodies, so Jesus

achieved a unity of his distinct elements by virtue of his spiritual body

put forth by Wisdom and fashioned by Demiurge.

^Sagnard, La Gnose Valentinienne. translates as "l fexterieur" and

Casey as "the outward man"— both taking as indicating the
counterpart of the "inner man" of II Corinthian 4:16.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 59

y
The meaning of the identity of JesuaJ v-'cy><<L ^'(=body=■visible

element) with the spiritual seed (=Church=Sophia) is simply Theodotus1

understanding of Paul1s figure of the Church as the body of Christ.

Cl Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:5; cf. Ephesians *f:12ff). A Valentinian

would assume that this meant that the visible flesh (or body) of Jesus

was spiritually consubstantial with the invisible; i.e., spiritual,

Church, the company of the elect. This does not deny, however, that

Jesus1 flesh was some sort of flesh (cf. Marcus), and a flesh in which

he was "shaken" (=tempted) and in which he overcame the tempter.

Thus we learn in 23, 3 that Paul

. . . preached the Savior from both points of view

~€ e-/? cs 3 : as begotten and passible
C it ^ <l 05 3 for the sake of those on the left [the
Psychic] . . . and in spiritual wise rV, irt/e
Cas] from the Holy Spirit and the virgin, as the angels on the
right know him.

I Corinthians 2 is the principal background for the passage but

the double aspect of the Savior may also depend on Romans 1:4. In any

event "begotten and passible" Savior does not fit with true docetism.

The Demiurge^ fashioning made possible the "begotten and passible" for

the sake of the psychic,, as what was "from Mary" was spiritual.

We see in the case of Theodotus that Oriental Valentimanism, no

less than-the Italian, sought to preserve a historic figure as subject of

the Gospels., as the docetists did not, but refused to divide Jesus like

Basilides and the Ophites. Like Marcus he taught a virginal conception

for Jesus and could use the word "flesh," in an equally special sense,

but not in the same sense, inasmuch as for Theodotus Jesus.

1 body was

spiritual rather than psychic.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 6o

Birth

No historical interest is shown in the birth of Jesus but it

occupies an important place for Theodotus since it is that event that

releases the believer from control of the powers who control him as Fate.

Excerpts 69 to 75 make this situation quite explicit. A commonplace

astrological view is stated; in 69-71'*’* It is that man is hopelessly-

tossed about by contending powers ( ‘S ^ <-i ) , who add up to Heimarmene,

2
whose particular domination is determined by cosmic movement and whose

infallible signs are the seven planets and the Zodiacal signs which they

follow. The Lord rescues us from all this (72)., since the beneficent

powers have been inadequate to their task and man is a weak animal (73, 2f).

74: Therefore the Lord came down bringing the peace which is from
heaven to those on earth as the Apostle^ says: 'Peace on Earth'
and 'glory in the heights' [cf. Luke 2:141. Therefore a strange
and new star arose, doing away with the old astral decree, shining
with a new, unearthly light, which revolved on a new path of sal­
vation, as the Lord himself, men's guide, who came down to earth
to transfer from Heimarmene to his providence [ I those
who believed in Christ.

75*2 For example, the Magi not only saw the lord's star [Matthew 2:9f3
but recognized that a king was born and whose king he was, namely
of the pious. . . .
s
76tl As, therefore, the birth [.tf£ vicrcf ] 0f the Savior released;
us from ■jj 6r and from Heimarmene. . . .

The Matthean account of the birth of Jesus, the astronomical signs

and the visit of the Magi, and Luke's account of the angelic visitation

form the background for this speculation which Theodotus had found ready-
4
made, as we see from Ignatius1

■^Cf. Appendix E in Sagnard, Clement d'Alexandrie, . . . , pp. 224-28.

/ /
2 f< o ^ 6 U < (/ y\ cr t ^

"3 v /
"uasey and Sagnard reject the emendation to »*• y / e A &c
k
Ephesians 19» 2f, and see note ad loc. in Sagnard's edition.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 61

A star shone forth in Heaven above all the stars . . . and its
novelty struck men with astonishment. . . . Hence all magic was
destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance
was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God himself being
manifested in human form C l rr C v u $ } for the newness of
eternal life [Homans 6:4).

We note in contrast with Ignatius, however, that God's appear­

ing humanly is not specifically mentioned here by Theodotus. Likewise,

the destruction of magic is not really the same thing as rescue from

the toils of Fate— indeed, Ignatius may be actually rejecting a kind of

magic which was to flower in the nascent Gnosticism.

However, we note with interest that in Theodotus the transfer

from Fate to the providence of the Lord is not simply an automatic re­

sult of his descent but is open to those "who believed in Christ," i.e.,

the Jews^ who in that epoch were renowned for their piety (75, 2). Thus

faith is not by-passed. "Birth," says Theodotus, "is necessary for the

salvation of the believers." (67, 2)

I
We conclude that Theodotus knew the Matthean and Lucan accounts

of the birth of Jesus, accepted them as historic fact, and was able to

weave them into his Gnostic cosmology and soteriology— specifically men-
I
tioning the angelic visitation to the shepherds, the appearance of the

star, and the visit of the Magi, and the fact of Jesus' birth within the

Jewish nation. The work of the Nativity is the freeing from Heimarmene

of those who believe.

Jesus is said in Excerpt 22, 7 to have progressed in Wisdom

(cf. Luke 2 :*f0).

■*T deduce this from the use of the aorist participle for 7T<
-.<rr & t/

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 62

Baptism

In Excerpt 22 we have an interesting note on Gnostic theory and

sacramental practice. It seems that the "male," "right-hancf'angelic

counterpart destined to complete the "female," "left-hand" spiritual

nature of the Gnostic has undergone "in the beginning" a baptism which

is an "angelic redemption" (or "redemption of the name") in the Name =

the son Monogenes (26, l ) T h e Gnostic needs to be baptized into the

same Name in order to pass Horos and Stauros to enter the Pleroma. Even

Jesus needs this sacramental experience:

22:6b . . . the Name [the son Monogenes] descended upon Jesus in

the dove^ and redeemed him.

22:.7 Redemption was necessary even C f< 3 for Jesus, in order

that, approaching through Sophia, he might not be detained by the
'Enhoia of the Hysterema'3 in which he was inserted.

According to 16, 1, the dove which appeared as a "body" is called

by the Valentinians the spirit of the E v ^ ^ s~ & of the Father

who descended on A
The allusions to the descent of the dove on Jesus and the naming

refer to his baptism, of course. The Baptism of Jesus is directly re­

ferred to in ?6 , 1 and 85 » 1 . It may be that the "no sooner come up from

baptism than called God's servant and master of unclean spirits" for the

believer in 77» 2 alludes indirectly to Jesus' servanthood and mastery

over demons. In any event the Baptism of Jesus is directly referred to

as. well as the two miraculous events: the descent of the dove and the

naming. Theodotus thought that the living voice at the Baptism said:

■^So Sagnard in his edition, p. JLQ3, n. 1.

?
Cf. the relation of the dove to the invisible, inexpressible
name in Marcus, A.H. I, 15, If.

■^See Sagnard's note in his edition, p. 103, n. 6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 0 u c c c, S M o i'ofie vyi c, . The Baptism of Jesus did not have for an

Oriental Valentinian the same importance as for the Italian school, of

course, since he was spiritual upon being conceived according to the

Orientals and did not simply receive a spiritual power* Cor being) at

this baptism.

More interesting is the notion that Jesus, too, needed "redemption.

The meaning is quite clear: just as the Gnostic needs the name as a pass-
1
word to get into the Pleroma, so Jesus needs it to get away from the

Ennoia-of-the-Hysterema. There is no indication that Jesus is a sinner

and thus needs redemption, but it is an interesting corroboration of our

description of Second Century Gnostics as "adoptionists" that Jesus would

need any kind of "redemption."

Temptation

In the next to last of the Excerpts (85) we have, quite by chance,

a clear reference to Jesus' temptations:

/

85:1 Even the Lord after baptism was troubled L<r« ) t u w ] like
as we are and was first with beasts in the desert. Then when he
had prevailed over them and their ruler as if already a true king
[cf. Matthew he was henceforth^ served by angels.-*

It is notable that Jesus.' temptations are mentioned and even more

notable that they are quite simply compared to the "shaking" or being

troubled, of the "outward man" (II Cor. 4:16) of the newly baptized

Gnostic who, even with his foreknowledge which enables him to endure,

longs "for the things from which he Jaas been separated (86b)." Theodotus

seems to have taken seriously the inner struggles of Jesus.

"^Cf. also Excerpt 27.

2 s
Casey: "already." Sagnard:. "desormais,"
3
Only Mark has both the beasts and the ministering of angels.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 64

Incidents

Excerpt 86 is the last in the collection in general and the

X 2
section (76-86) on Baptism in particular. Sagnard says the passage

is "digne de Clement11 and it could be the case that this is Clement's

thought. But the same could be said for most of the Excerpts that

Clement does not specifically contradict.

In the case of the coin that was brought to him,

the Lord did not say 'whose property is it?', but:
whose image and superscription?' . . .

Suffering and Death

Commenting on the "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit

(Luke 23:46), Excerpt 1 explains:

1,2 . . . i n the passion [the savior] deposits Sophia with the

Father in order that he may receive her from the Father and not
be held back here by those who have the power to deprive him . . .

23, 3 Immediately after the Lord's^ passion [Paul] also was sent
to preach . . .

76, 1 As, . . . therefore, the birth of the Savior released us

from 'becoming' and from Heimarmene, so also his baptism rescued
us from fire, and his passion rescued us from passion in order
that we might in all things follow him.

In none of these is Jesus" passion described, but it is clearly

referred to. The parallelism to his birth and baptism in 76, 1 makes, it

clear that this is thought of as the historic event of the Passion.

In Excerpts 30f there are interesting comments on "passion" which

do not directly refer to Jesus' historic suffering but throw an interest­

ing sidelight. Clement is showing that Theodotus has forgotten God's

■^The whole section 66-86 is concerned with birth and baptism and
their two spheres and controlling elements.
2
Clement d'Alexandria. . . . , p. 210 margin.
Tt
We accept the analysis of ibid., pp. 124-27.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 65

glory by impiously teaching that God suffered by teaching that (l). the

Father sympathized with Sige, (2) the Pleroma also sym-pathized with

Sophia, (5) the seeds of the Pleroma who came together to form the

descending Savior sym-pathized with him who suffered, (4) all the aeons,

being educated by means of the twelfth (Sophia) sym-pathized with her.

(3) might seem to refer to the historic passion of Jesus, but by analogy

with (l), (2), and (4), it would refer to the Savior who is the Valen­

tinian Fruit of the Pleroma and who descends before the material creation

to separate Sophia from her abortive passion. But there is implicit

another analogy: as the descending Savior separated Sophia from her pas­

sion by his own passion (31» l)« so the historic Jesus by his passion

separated the Gnostic from his passion (76, l).

In Excerpt 42,^ we find Stauros-Horos speculation: "Stauros is

a sign of Horos in the Pleroma, for it divides the unfaithful from the
2
faithful as [Horos] divides the Cosmos from the Pleroma. Therefore,

Jesus by that sign carries the seed on his shoulders and leads them

into the Pleroma . . . "

The Cross, then, separates the faithful from the unfaithful.

Theodotus takes Paul seriously when the latter separates the believing

elect from unbelieving Greeks. (Gentiles) and Jews on the basis of their

believing the foolish preaching about the Crucified Christ who, for them,

is the power and wisdom of God (I Corinthians 1:21-24). Theodotus con­

tinues his Body-of-Christ speculation (cf. Excerpt l) when he states that

Jesus, when he bore the cross on his shoulders, also was bearing the elect

on into the Pleroma.

^Ibid. 2Cf. I Corinthians l:23f.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 66

This is mystical piety, with a little soteriology, and is not

very much concerned with the historic event of Jesus' crucifixion. It

is referred to, however, and the salvation of the believing elect seems

to be related to it.

Resurrection

There is only one possible direct reference to Jesus' ressur-

rection:

3, 2 : And after the resurrection, by breathing the spirit on the

Apostles1 he was blowing off and removing dust like ashes, but
kindling and giving life to the spark.

There is no description here but it clearly refers to the ac­

count of the resurrection appearance set forth in John 20:22.

2
23, 2b In the type of Paraclete Paul became apostle of resurrec­
tion.

That is, as Jesus was put forth ( T T P > > uj ) by the

of the aeons as a Paraclete for the errant Sophia, Paul was sent forth

( jf u a- z: a y Xu) ) in the type of this Paraclete as apostle of

the resurrection to the spiritual seed wandering in this Cosmos. The

"resurrection" referred to here is the "spiritual resurrection" which is

the waking up or kindling of the spark from the "soul's forgetting" of

the elect soul (2 , 1-3 , l).

In a passage on Baptism Theodotus says.:

80, lb and 2: He whom the Mother generates is led into death and
into the world. He whom Christ regenerates is transferred to life
into the Ogdoad. And they die to the world but live to God, that
death may be loosed by death and corruption by resurrection.

Here the "Christ regenerates" has the force of "Christ raises,"

(the whole of 80 is based on I Corinthians 15) for they are "transferred

^John 20:22. ^My rendering.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 to life in the Ogdoad," "live to God," and are loosed from "corruption

by resurrection." It is notable that it is "Christ" who regenerates.

In 1 we are told that "baptism . . . is also called life fcocr'.X X^«r<ro^

of which (life) he alone is lord." The only other mention of "Christ"

in this section (66-86) is in 7^»-.2 where we read that "the lord him=

self . . . came down to earth to transfer from Fate to his providence

those who believed in Christ." In earlier authentic sectionsTheodotus

speaks of Christ only as Sophia* s pre-cosmic production who fled into tie

Pleroma and there interceded for Sophia, except *t-2 (if we accept it),

where Christ is the head while Jesus is the shoulders of the spiritual

seed. In the concluding section (66-86) "Christ" is the regenerating

lord of life.

We do not have in the authentic Excerpts any other reference

than 3,2 to Jesus' resurrection— only the resurrection. The resurrection

of the Gnostic is the awakening from the soul's sleep of the elect spark

(=seed). What Theodotus thought of Jesus-' resurrection is not at all

made clear in the materials we possess. A bodily or fleshly resurrection

or an empty tomb are never in any sense implied. 3»2 seems to suggest

that the resurrection is something that something else could happen "after.

However, 3*2 actually sounds more like Clement's summary comment than

Theodotus. We conclude, therefore, that the Excerpts do not contain any

reference to Jesus-' resurrection, although the "resurrection" of the

Gnostic is important. It is really the same, however, as regeneration.

H y , 32f} 39; M ,

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 68

Ascension and Session

3813'*' From thence also Jesus was called to help and was seated
with Topos [The Demiurge], so that the spirits might remain and
not rise before him and so that he might conciliate^ [ K y t &-/?« 00 1
Topos and grant the 'seed' passage into the Pleroma.

The pronouns of Excerpt 38 are too imprecisely used to gauge the

y/
force of the & 1/ C-er ^ exactly, but we judge it to be the void, Gehenna,

into which the river flows from under the throne of Topos. Jesus is

called from there to the right hand of Topos to conciliate him3 and to

secure passage for the elect seed who, if they rose prematurely, would

find the sight of Topos lethal to them (35, 2).^

This is a clear allusion to the descensus of the canonical

Petrine literature and to the ascension and session of the Lucan and

Pauline (especially Ephesians and Hebrews) literature. The reference

is not to anything historical, however, and no element in it can really

be understood as an event in the career of the historic Jesus.

J esus1 Companions

(1) 3»2t "And after the Resurrection, by breathing the spirit on

the apostles . . . 11

(2) 66: "The Savior taught the apostles at first figuratively and
mystically, later in parables and riddles and thirdly clearly and
openly.

(3 ) 67, 2: "And when the Savior says to Salome . . . "

(k) 25, 2: "He [Theodotus] says the apostles were substituted for
the twelve signs of the Zodiac, for, as birth is directed by them,
so is rebirth by the apostles."

(5) 76, 3f: "And he commands the apostles:3 'When ye go about,

rendering. ^Casey: "subdue." Sagnard: "adoucir."

3Cf. Romans 8:3^. ^Cf. Excerpt 38 and Hebrews 7*25.

5
Casey, ad loc., has "disciples." This is an error. .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 69

preach and them that believe, baptize in the name of the.Father,

and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' in whom we are born again,
becoming higher than all the other powers."

(l) refers to John 20 :22, a presumably historical event on the

day of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. We question whether this is

Theodotus, however. (3 ) refers to an apocryphal tradition'*' presumed by

Theodotus to be historical. (2) does not pretend to refer to a particu­

lar event but is a general comment on Jesus' teaching to the "Apostles."

2
Its*import is to justify a certain kind of exegesis of dominical sayings.

We may not propose a chronology, for the first two stages cannot be dis­

tinguished in this way, but stage three does look like the secret teach­

ing of the risen Jesus to specially chosen "apostles."

(5 ) alludes to Jesus' command to the "eleven disciples" in

Matthew 28:19-, and seems to suggest that we are reborn in ( £ 5 )

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but could it be that the relative pronoun
£ * ■x
really refers to the apostles, by ( V t o ) whom rebirth is directed (k)l

We reject the parallelism and prefer to assume that the "Apostles" who

direct rebirth, as the twelve Zodiacal signs direct birth, either should

read Aeons (as in 25, l) or that the "Apostles" is the correct reading

but stands for the duodecad. This is good Valentinian doctrine. In any

case the only possible historical reference of (5 ) would be the "Great

Commission" of Matthew 28:19* We note that all identifiable historical

association of Jesus with his companions is post-resurrection.

■*"See Casey's and Sagnard's notes ad loc. in their editions.

2
Cf. Sagnard in his edition, pp. 190f.

^Ibid., p. Ill, n. k.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 70

Conclusions

Valentinus and the Valentinians (being unwilling to return to

a long and seemingly forever discredited docetism) tried to avoid the

dividing up of Jesus and adoptionism of Cerinthus, Basilides, and the

Ophites by teaching that Jesus took the first-fruits of "those he was

going to save." Jesus' historicity is always affirmed and his psychic

nature is said to be even passible and temptable. The oriental Valentinians

made a special effort to avoid adoptionism by having Jesus explicitly born

spiritual. Except for the case of Ptolemy, Jesus is even said to have had

some sort of flesh, but always in a strange sense. Except for Ptolemy

again, the Virgin Mary is always involved, but in no case does Jesus take

anything from her. Ptolemy denies that Jesus took anything "material"

at all. Thus, these efforts to avoid the great Church's condemnation

failed. Valentinus and the Valentinians could avoid docetism, adoption­

ism, and the sharp division of Jesus, at least in their cruder forms but

the specific humanity of the subject of the Gospels: escaped them. He

was not, for them, consubstantial with men, and therefore, there was no

true incarnation.

Valentinian exegesis stuck closer and closer to those documents

rapidly becoming canonical and was hardly more fanciful than most of the

founders of later orthodoxy. However, the Valentians could not come up

with a historic and human Jesus who lay behind the Gospel traditions and

thus the emerging Catholic Church attacked them for this failure and re­

jected their claim to be Christian.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER III

THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH

The Gospel of Truth is the first of the Nag Hammadi documents

we will analyze for their treatment of Jesus of Nazareth. It is found

from page 16, line 31, to page 32 (folios VIII-XVI) and pages 37 to 43,

line 2k (folios XIX-XXII) of the Jung Codex at the Jung Institute in

Zurich. Pages 33-36 (folios XWIIf) are in the Coptic Museum of Old Cairo.

It has no title but is clearly set off from what goes before and what fol­

lows it. It opens with the words, "The Gospel of truth is joy for those . .

and is now commonly called The Gosue1 of Truth and abbreviated as EV

(Eyangelium Veritatis).

That part of the document now at the Jung Institute was purchased

May 10, 1952, and notices of it began to appear in November, 1953.1 In

1956 this part of the document was published in Zurich, edited by Michel

Malinine, Henri-Charles Puech, and Gilles Quispel wider the title Evangelium

Veritatis. This edition includes a facsimile of the manuscript, French,

German, and English translations, a brief introduction, brief notes, and

indices of Greek and Coptic words used, together with a Coptic lexicon.

In the same year Dr. Pabor Labib, director of the Coptic Museum, published
P 1
photographs of pages 33-36. In 1961 the three scholars mentioned above

Henri-Charles Puech and Gilles Quispel, "Funde und Forschungen

zur Gnosis," Neue Ziircher Zeitung. November, 1953.
2
Pahor Labib, Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old
Cairo, Vol. I (Cairo: Government Press, 1956).

71

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 72

and Walter Till published a companion volume^ containing these pages,

this time with an independent translation into English by R. McLean

Wilson. Kendrick Grobel had meanwhile published in i960 a translation,

with continuous commentary, of the entire document. In 1961 W. W. Isen-

3
berg published the English translation we use. In 1962 Jacques E.

Menard published his effort to put the Coptic text into Greek (from

which it was presumed to be translated) with a French translation and a

commentary. Thus the student is provided with ample aids in analyzing

this document.

Our analysis of the place of the historic Jesus in the Gospel

of Truth is divided into sections on Incarnation, the Naming of Jesus,

Jesus' Baptism, Teaching before the Resurrection, Jesus' Suffering and

Death, Jesus' Resurrection, and Conclusions. We will discover that the

document is far from docetist, emphasized the baptism and resurrection

of Jesus, and does not escape the "adoptionism” of Egyptian Gnosticism,

although it does teach an embodiment of the Word. We shall also note

the frequent allusions to the canonical New Testament books, especially

Matthew, Luke, I and II Corinthians, Philippians, Revelation, and, above

all, Hebrews and John.

We cite a large portion of the document before page 33. Uncited

portions up to that point are either expositions of Gnostic cosmology^

^Michel Malinine, H.^Ch. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till (eds.),

Evangelium Veritatis (supplementum) (Zurichi Haschess 1961).
2
Kendrick Grobel, The Gospel of Truth. A Valentinian Meditation
on the Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 19^0).
7
In Grant, Gnosticism. An Anthology (London: Collins, 1961),
pp. 146-61.
||, ^
Jacques E. Menard, L'Evangile de Verite. Retroversion grecque et
commentaire (Paris t Letouzey and An£, 19^2).

517, 2-18, 11; 18, 30-19, 9; 22, 28-23, 17; 24, 10-26, 3; 26, 9-27, 25.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 73

or brief explanatory glosses**" which are Gnostic in flavor. The rest of

the document consists of ethical exhortation (33, 1-33, 39), speculation

on aroma (CTc/«££<) (33, 39-3^, 34), on pleroma (34, 34-36, 17), on chrism

(36, 17-36, 34), on Gnostic cosmogony (36, 34-38, 6), on Name (38, 6-41,

3), and on Place of Rest (41, 3-43, 2). The document concludes with a

personal affirmation and a eulogy of the perfect children of the Father—

the Gnostics.

Incarnation
2
The Jesus of the Gospel of Truth is no more docetic than in

Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Basilides, Valentinus, or the Valentinians.

However, the Word is not said to have become flesh but rather body,

except, surprisingly enough, after the resurrection (cf. Luke 24:39).

We adduce three passages:

A. 23, l8b-24, 9a

His [the Father’s] Wisdom meditates on the Word,

His teaching expresses it.
His knowledge has been revealed, (cf. II Cor. 4:6)
His honor^ is a crown upon it (cf. Hebrews 2:9)
His joy agrees with it,
His glory exalted it, (cf. Hebrews 1:3, 2:9 and
John 13:31, 17:1b and 22)
His image it has revealed (cf. Hebrews 1:3)^
His rest it has received (cf. Hebrews 3:11-4:11)
His love [ o ^ r ^ n ] became body around it,
His trust embraced it.
Thus the Word of the Father goes out into the All,
being the fruit [cf. John 13:8] of his heart and figure of
his will [cf. Hebrews 10:91]• Moreover, It upholds the All
[cf. Hebrews. 1:3] and chooses and takes the figure of the
All. It purifies it [the All] and causes it to return to
the Father, to the Mother.

119, 36-20, 3; 21, 9-24; 32, 4-17; 32, 22-39.

p
Cf. H.-M. Schenke, Die Herkunft des sogennanten Evangelium Veri­
tatis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1959), p. 27.
3
Reading a~cO , meaning unknown. If we reconstruct asa.cc o', it
means "honor” ; if cl o , "restraint.”
4cf. alsoColossians 1:15, but c / ^ T corresponds toXV/w- rather
than £ t£ w 1
/ , vide Walter E. Crum, A Coptic: Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1939), P« 34la.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 74

B. 25, 35-36, 8

For this is the judgment which has come from above and
which has judged every person, a drawn two-edged sword cut­
ting on this side and that [cf. Hebrews 4:12]. When there
appeared the Word, which is in the heart of those who pro­
nounce it, it was not only a sound but it had become a body
[cuj

c. 20, 28-34

He [Jesus] abases himself unto death [cf, Philippians 2i?f]

though he is clothed in eternal life [cf. II Cor. 5 :lb]. Hav­
ing divested himself of these perishable rags [cf. I Cor. 15*42;
II Cor. 5 Jla]» he clothed himself in incorruptibility [cf.
I Cor. 15*42], which no one could possibly take from him
[cf. John 10;17f].

Thus we are told that the Father's love became body around the

Word and that the Word, in fact, became a body. We are told that, although

the Word is the figure of the Father's will, it took, by choice, the fig­

ure of the "All," in order to purify the "All" and cause it to return to

the Father, the Mother. Therefore, the Word took a body which is the

"figure" of the "All." The expression "figure" corresponds to the "ex­

press image" of Hebrews 1:3»^ Jesus is said to be "clothed in eternal

life" even in dying. He is also said, by implication, to have been clothed

in "perishable rags" which he put off to don "incorruptibility" which no

one can take from him.

In our judgment we must not simply identify Word and Jesus in the

Gospel of Truth. On the embodiment of Word our author has in mind John's

prologue, especially verse 14. However, his real interest is in the

1 — — . >
We take the strange expression Al 0 a a/ 2 A' £ 0 to stand for ua/
rather than/^ 0/? li. as in J. Menard, op. cit., p. 46, and, apparently,
Grobel, op. cit., p. 90. W.. W. Isenberg in Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology,
p. 151, translates as "expression" in 24:2 and "form" in 2 4 : 5 * We assume
X o- /> > f' 'i/> at line 2 because it obviously depends on Hebrews 1:3.
We also assume it in line 5 to keep the parallelism we assume to lie be­
tween "figure of the Father's Will" and "figure of the All." We also note
that/C'C/’ 0'K. is used as a loan-word three times on plate 27 (once written
as 0 of A T7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 75

Epistle to the Hebrews, especially Hebrews 1:3, as is obvious from the

number of allusions to it. He avoids alluding to John 1 because he is

not prepared to confess that Word was made flesh. Indeed the fact that

the translator did not use the loan-word/[ o in passages A and B

(as he does on plate 37) might well suggest that the author preferred
<e_ /
the of Hebrews. The body Word used sounds very much like the
y ^
man-according-to-the- of Ptolemy and Marcus.

The passage on Jesus (20:28-3^) is based on II Corinthians 5:1»

with Philippians 2 :3-8 in the background. Jesus' "form of God" of

Bhilippians 2:6 is identified with the "building from God, a house not

made with hands, eternal in the heavens" of II Corinthians 5:1b. The

"perishable rags" are the "form of the servant, . . . likeness of men,

. ... . human shape" of Philippians 2:7f but principally the "earthly

(er-rcy , cf.'I Corinthians 15:*t0) tent we live in" of II Corin­

thians 5:1a. The "incorruptibility" is the ^ w ^ which swallows up

the i/yi'&oi/of II Corinthians 5 ;^, but it is also the yj^X \ of

John 10:1^-18 which Jesus the Good Shepherd lays down and takes up as

he wills, since no one takes it from him. This is what the author as­

sumed that he had found in the New Testament.

Jesus, then, had an earthly tent or terrestrial body, the form

of a servant, human, which was perishable. All the while, however, he

was clothed with his eternal dwelling, life eternal. Thus after his

death he reclothes himself with that incorruptible x which he alone

has power to lay down and take up. This sounds as if Jesus1 body was

psychic although he was always "clothed in eternal life." We note that

the adjective of II Corinthians 5:1 which we judge to be in the author's

mind is £="!Tt % and not X 0 L/< oj, or V . But, Jesus' body was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 76

also perishable. Of. course1 The psychic body is perishable, as we see

if we put I Corinthians 15:42 beside verse

body. Our arguments are set forward in that section.

Haming of Jesus

There seems to be an allusion to Matthew’s account (l:2l) of the

naming of Jesus in 16, 34-17, 1:

. . . the Word come from the pleroma,

immanent in the thought and
mind of the Father,
is the one who is called Savior [c.«-oTiv/«' =
Greek loan-word! since that is the name of
the work which he is to do for the redemption
[c_cO t £ = Coptic! of those who were ignorant
of the Father.

The translator seems to have been able to come up with a play on

words, just as Origen believed the "translator" of Susannah had been

able to.

Jesus’ Baptism

Jesus' baptism is alluded to in two passages:

A. 21, 25b-22, 27a

Those whose name he [the Father! knew first were called last
Ccf. Matthew 20:16 and 19•30!, so that the one who has knowl­
edge is he whose name the Father has pronounced. [A paren­
thetical gloss is inserted here.! Hence if one has knowledge,
he is from above Ccf. John 3:3l!• If he is called, he hears,
he answers, and he turns towards him who called him Ccf.
John 10:3f!, and he ascends to him and knows what he is called.
Since he has knowledge, he does the will of him who called
him Ccf. John 6:37-40!. He desires to please him Ccf. II Cor.
5 :9! and he finds rest Ccf. Hebrews 3:18-4:11!. The name of
an individual C7P 30 cpmes to him. He who thus is going
to have knowledge knows whence he came and whither he is
going Ccf. John 3:8!.

The allusion to the baptism is vague in this passage, but we be­

lieve it is there. The author is speaking of the Gnostics' experience of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 77

the divine calling and naming, but Jesus' calling and naming (as Son)

is the type. The author has the "thou art my son" of the synoptic ac­

count of the Baptism in his mind although he also has in mind the "there­

fore God has . . . bestowed on him the name" of Philippians 2 19 (cf.

Hebrews 1:3b, 4 and John 17*lib, 12a), inasmuch as the recipient of the

name has earned it by doing the will of him who called him and by de­

siring to please him.

The translators have wrestled with the 7f 0 u ^ 1 of 22, 12 and

seem to agree that the sentence means something like "the name of each

comes to him." We suggest that the copyist may have misread 7T H P6

("Son") as 'TfOVCzCr (’'each one"^), so that the sentence would read:

"The nameof the Son comes to him." This would make conclusive our ar­

gument that the Baptism is referred to in this passage (but our argument

does not depend on the emendation).

B. 38, 7-21 (my translation)

7: ... It is he [the Father]

8 : who in the beginning [cf. John 1:1a]
named him who
9* came forth from him [cf. John 16:28]— he is
the same one [cf. John 1:1c]—
10: and he [the Father] begot him as a son.
[cf. Hebrews 1:5 and 5*5a, and Luke 3*22]
11: He gave him his name [cf. Hebrews 1:4; John 17:12;
Philippians 2:9b] which
12: belonged to him . . .
14: He [the Father] has^ the name [and]

^Isenberg in Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology, p. 150 and see

footnote; Menard, on. cit.. p. 42; M. Malinine, H.-Ch. Puech, G. Quispel
ieds.), Evangelium Veritatis (Ztfrich: Rasche**, 1956), pp. 15, 68, 94;
Grobel, op. cit.. p. 78.

^The c^crZoj,of John 6:7 was rendered as Ti'Oy^^ in sahidic and

sub-akhmimic; see Crum, 469b.

"Possesses" in Isenberg in Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology,

p. 158. The Coptic word is the same as in the next line.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 78

15 i he has the son. It is

16: possible for them to see him [the son]; the name,
17i however, is invisible, for
18: it alone is the mystery
19!' of the invisible
20: about to come to ears _
21: completely filled with it. [cf. DUCorinthians2:7-10]

This is the first passage we have studied in theGospel of Truth

where we have to resort to Gnostic sources to decipher the meaning. In

lines 7-9, the Father's naming in the beginning of him who came forth

from him is to be understood in terms of Irenaeus1 exposition of Marcus'

teaching found in A.H. I, l*f, 1:

When first the unoriginated, inconceivable Father . . . willed to

bring forth that which is ineffable to him and to endow with form
that which is invisible, he sent forth the Word similar to himself,
who, standing near, showed him what he himself was, inasmuch as he
had been manifested in the form [cf. Philippians 2:6] of that which
was invisible. Moreover, the pronunciation of his name took place
as follows. . . . Thus took place the enunciation of the whole name,
consisting of thirty [cf. Luke 3:23, which, according to A.H. I,
1, 3, the Valentinians interpreted as referring to the thirty "aeons"]
letters.

Thus lines 7-9 refer to the original procession of the Word from the

Father. This may be demonstrated from the following two passages from

the Gospel of Truth:

(1) 39, 15-23

On the other hand he who has come into existence, came into
existence^ with his name, and he alone knows it [cf. Revela­
tion 19:21] and to him alone the Father gave a name. The Son
is his name. He [the Father] did not, therefore, keep it [the
name] secretly hidden [cf. I Corinthians 2:7], but the Son came
into existence. He [the Father] named only him.

■^Isenberg, ibid.. adds "through his [the Father's] agency."

2 TT £ £ ! /IS 7 €L-if e - T to Try iy 6 0 r //>• Isenberg trans­

lates ibid.: "Nevertheless he who exists also with his name." He fails
to note the adverse character of A'7_<*cu and the main verb. Also uj OoTT
means "become" rather than "exist," as Isenberg indicates in line 22.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 79

(2). 2?, 26-31

If he [the Father] pleases, he reveals him whom he pleases^

by giving him a H o p f n and by giving him a name Ccf.
Philippians 2:6, 9l> and he does give him a name and causes
him to come into being.

Thus we see that the name is revealed through the Son-Word who

came into existence when he was named by the Father. The passages could

mean that Jesus came into existence as Son when the Father named him at

his baptism ("Thou art my son. Today I have begotten thee." Luke 3:22),

but it seems more likely that they refer to the primevalprocession of

the Word. Conceivably they could allude to both.

Line 10 alludes to Hebrews 1:3 and Luke 3*22 in the reading

found in Justin, Clement, and Origen: "Thou art my Son. Today Ihave

begotten thee." Thus line 10 refers to Jesus' baptism.

Lines ll-15a mean that the name given, like the Son, belongs to

the Father. But there is a difference between the name and the son, ac­

cording to lines 15b-21, for the son is visible at the time of the bap­

tism, but the name is invisible, since it is "the mystery of the invisible

about to come to ears completely filled with it." The basis for t-h-ia

is John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God; C0 ( Q Who

is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known," but we must also

turn here to Excerpt 26, 1 from Theodotus: "The visible of Jesus was

Sophia Cand the Church of the superior seeds] whom he put on through the

0- k c o u ’ tIie invisible being the name, which is the son Monogenes

1 7f £ r y Isenberg in Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology,

translates: "anyone whom he desires."

2Ibid.: Kurt Aland et al. (eds.), The Greek New Testament (Stutt­
gart: Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1966), p. 322.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
 80

' a '
[Theodotus read l\ ov'o y£r r/ic, for fj ^ r05 in Luke 3:223." Again in

Excerpt 22, 6 we read of nthe name which descended on Jesus in the dove

Ccf. Luke 3:223 and redeemed him." Thus lines 11-21 also allude to the

baptism of Jesus.

In sum, the passage teaches that the same Father who in the be­

ginning named him who came forth from him begot him as a son in the

baptism of Jesus.

Jesus' Teaching Before the Resurrection

1 2
According to Cerinthus and the Ophites Jesus began to teach

after his baptism. The Gospel of Truth makes only one clear reference

to Jesus' teaching activity before the crucifixion, in 18, 11-20:

That is the gospel of him whom they seek Ccf. John 20:153, which he
Cthe Father3 has revealed to the perfect Ccf. I Corinthians 2:63
through the mercies of the Father, the hidden mystery Ccf. I Corin­
thians 2:7 and Ephesians 3:93, Jesus the Christ. Through him, it
Cthe gospel32 enlightened Ccf. II Corinthians 4:4,63 those who were
.in darkness because of forgetfulness. He enlightened them and gave
them a path. And that path is the truth Ccf. John 14:63 which he
taught them. .For this reason error was angry with him; it perse­
cuted him; it was. distressed, by him; it made him powerless; he was
nailed to a tree. He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father.
He did not, however, destroy because they ate of it Ccf. Genesis 2:173,
He rather caused those who ate of it to be joyful Ccf. John 16:20-223
because of this discovery.

(The reaction of "error" to the "truth which he taught them" re­

flects John 8.) No teachings similar to that found in the Synoptics, or

1A.H. I. 26. 1.. 2A.H. I. 30.

^Isenberg in Grant, Gnosticism. An Anthology, p. 14? translates

the pronoun as "he," but we prefer "it" as "the gospel" because of the
allusion to II Corinthians 4:4, 6.
4
Isenberg, ibid., has "cross" instead of "tree"; this is a
mistake.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 81

in the Gospel of Thomas, are attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Truth.

There are echoes of the parable of the Lost Sheep (Matthew 18:12f =

Luke15:4-6)in 31t 35 ff • and the analogy of getting the sheep out of

the pit onthe sabbath of Matthew 12:11 )cf. Luke 14:5) in 32,l8ff

but they are set forth as Jesus' activity, not his teaching.

Jesus' teaching provoked controversy: " 7f~V^ 1

/^ was angry with

him; itpersecuted him . . . h e was nailed to a tree" Ccf. Marcus' "the

sixth hour in which he was nailed to a tree," A.H. I, 16,63. Thus it

was the "truth" of the "path" Jesus taught the faithful that provoked

his crucifixion.

The following passage could easily refer either to Jesus' teach­

ing before the crucifixion or after the resurrection:

19:10-35:

As one of whom some have no knowledge, he Cthe Father]

desires that they know him and that they love him, for
what is it that the All lacked if not knowledge of the
Father Ccf. Hebrews 8:11 = Jeremiah 31:333? He became
a guide-** Ccf. Matthew 15:14; 26:16 and 243, quiet, and
at leisure. In the middle of a school he came, spoke
cf. the word as a teacher. Those who were wise in their own
Matthew estimation Cl Cor. 1:18-25 and Homans 1 :22] came to put
11:25-27 him to the test Ccf. Matthew 16:1 ; 19:3; 22:353. But
he discredited them as empty-headed people. They hated
him because they really were not wise men. After all
cf. these came the little children, those who possess the
I Corinthians knowledge of the Father. When they were strong they
13:9-12 were taught the aspects of the Father's face Ccf.
Matthew 18:103. They were glorified Ccf. II Corin­
thians 3:18 and I Corinthians 15:433 and they gave glory.
In their heart Ccf. Hebrews 8:10 = Jeremiah 31:333 the
living book of the living was manifest . . . Ccf.
II Corinthians 3:2f3.

The picture of the "wise-in-their-own-estimation" who "put CJesus]

to the test" certainly looks like the various "temptings" of Jesus by

■^Cf. A.H. I, 15, 2 and Excerpts from Theodotus 74. 2. I owe this
note to Malinine, Puech, Quispel, op. cit., p. 52.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 82

the Sadducees (Matthew 16:1) and the Pharisees, (Matthew 19:3 and 22:33) •

However, the coming of the "little children" to be taught sounds like

the school of the risen Jesus. The only content of Jesus' teaching men­

tioned is "the aspects of the Father's face." There is no content even

here, however, since the children are accorded the vision of the Father's

face (which had been denied Moses but granted the angels of the little

ones),'1' rather than simply taught about it.

Jesus,' Suffering and Death

In the Gospel of Truth Jesus is said to have been "patient in

his sufferings," "nailed to a tree," "slain," abasing "himself even unto

death." There is no suggestion that any of these are unreal or purely

symbolic. The author is no docetist in any sense.

l8:24b-29b Ccf. above]:

He was nailed Ccf. Colossians 2:143 to a tree Ccf. Acts 5:30;

10:39 and I Peter 1:243. He became a fruit Ccf. John 12:243
of knowledge of the Father. He did not, however, destroy be­
cause they ate of it Ccf. Genesis 2:173. He rather caused them
who ate of it to be joyful because of their discovery.

20:5-30:

. . . since it Cthe living book (cf. Revelation 3:3; 13:8; 20:15

and Philippians 4:3) of the living] was reserved for him who will
take it and be slain Ccf. Revelation 13:8 ; 5:9; 21:27; 17:83. . . .
For this reason the compassionate, faithful Jesus Ccf. Hebrews 2:173
was patient in his sufferings Ccf. I Peter 2:21-23 and Hebrews. 5:8]
until he took that book, since he knew that his death meant life
for many Ccf. John 10:15; 15:13 and Matthew 20:28; 26:283. Just
as in the case of a which has not yet been opened
Ccf. Hebrews 9:173* • • • For this reason Jesus appeared. He
took that book as his own. He was nailed to a tree Ccf. supra].
He affixed the £ the Father to the Q-'c^up 0$ Ccf.
Colossians 2:143.^ Oh such great teachingI He abases himself

■^Cf. notes ad loc. in Malinine, Puech, Quispel, op. cit., p. 52.

2 /r /
p t ^ a p p e a r s in the New Testament only in Hebrews 11:23,
however.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
 even unto death [cf. Philippians 2:8], though he is clothed in
eternal life Ccf. II Corinthians 5*1» 43.

The sufferings, crucifixion, and death of Jesus are quite real

and historical, even if their meaning is understandable only through a

spiritual interpretation of the events.

Resurrection of Jesus

We adduce the two passages which refer to Jesus' resurrection:

20, 30-21, 8:

Having divested himself of these perishable rags, he clothed

himself in incorruptibility, which no one could possibly take
from him. CCf. II Corinthians 5*1? I Corinthians 15*42;
John 10:17f.3 Having entered into the empty territory of fears
Ccf. Hebrews 9*243, he passed before those who were stripped by
forgetfulness Ccf. Matthew 28:4], being both knowledge and per­
fection, proclaiming the things that are in the heart Cnext two
lines defective]. But those who are to be taught, the living
who are to be inscribed in the book of the living CPhilippians 4:3?
Revelation 13*8], learn for themselves, receiving instructions
from the Father Ccf. John 16:25], turning to him again.

30, 16-32, 4;

And the 4 ✓ e. came to him in haste when it raised him Ccf..

John 3*5-83. Having given its hand to the one lying prone on
the ground, it’placed him firmly on his feet, for he had not
yet stood up. He gave them the means of knowing the knowledge
of the Father Ccf. John 16*253 and the revelation of his Son
Ccf. John 16:13 and Matthew 11:273. For when they saw him^
and listened to him, he permitted them to take a taste of
Ccf. Hebrews 6:4f2] and to smell and to grasp the beloved Son
Ccf. I John 1:1, Luke 24:39? Matthew 28:9? John 20:273. He
appeared Ccf. Luke 24:34], informing them of the Father, the
illimitable one. He inspired Ccf. John 20:22] them with that
which is in the mind, while doing his will Ccf. John 5 *30].
Many received the light and turned towards him Ccf. Matthew 28:17a].
But material C ^ ^ K . 3 men were alien to him and did not discern
his appearance Ccf. John 14:22] nor recognize him CMatthew 2837b
and Luke 24:163. For he came in the likeness of c * p ^ Ccf.
Philippians 2:7; Romans 8:3; I Corinthians 15*393i and nothing
blocked his way because it Chis flesh] was incorruptible and un-
restrainable Ccf.. Luke 24*36-43, especially 393* Moreover, while
saying new things, speaking about what is in the heart of the

■'■"It" according to Isenberg in Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology, p. 154.

^Malinine, Puech, Quispel, op. cit., p. 57 suggests that this may re­
fer to John 6*52ff.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 84

Father Ccf. John 16:25], he proclaimed the faultless word

[Matthew 24:3.5]. He gave them thought and understanding and
mercy and salvation and the Spirit [cf. John 20:22] of strength
coming from the liraitlessness of the Father and sweetness. He
caused punishments and scourgings to cease, for it was they
which caused men in need of mercy to stray from him in error
[cf. Matthew 18:12] and in chains— -and he mightily destroyed them
and derided them with knowledge. He became a path [cf. John 14:6]
for those who went astray [cf. Matthew 18:12],
a knowledge for those who were ignorant,
a discovery for those who sought [cf. Matthew 7:7]1 and
a support for those who tremble,
a purity for those who were defiled.
He is the shepherd who left behind the ninety nine [cf. Matthew
18:12 and John 10:11] sheep which had not strayed and went in
search of that one which was lost. He rejoiced when he had
found it.

We find interesting parallels to both passages in the Excerpts from

Theodotus. 61:1-7:^

That he [Jesus] was other than what he received is clear from

what he professes, 'I am the Life, I am the Truth [cf. John 16:6],
I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). But the spiritual nature,
which he received, and the psychic he thus indicates, 'and the
child grew and advanced greatly' [cf. Luke 2:40, 52], for the
spiritual nature needs wisdom but the psychic needs size. . . .
And when he says 'The Son of Man must be rejected and insulted and
crucified' ,[cf. Luke 9:22; 18:32; 24:7], he seems to be speaking
of another [i.e., a third], that is, of him who has passion. And
he says 'on the third of the days I will go before you into Galilee'
[Matthew 26:32]. For he goes before all and indicated that he will
raise up the soul which is being invisibly saved and will restore
it to the place where he is now leading the way. . . . For when the
body died and death seized it [the withdrawal of the Spirit re­
ceived at baptism], the Savior sent forth the ray of power which
had come upon him and destroyed death and raised up the mortal
body [cf. I Corinthians 15:4] which had put off passion.

We find, then, that in the Gospel of Truth Jesus was raised by

the Spirit who came in haste, gave him his hand, and placed him on his

feet. Jesus had put off the perishable rags (psychic body) to be clothed

with an incorruptible body, "a flesh of similitude," tastable, smellable,

and palpable but, incorruptible and unrestrainable. Hylic men could not

"^Translation of Casey, op. cit.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 85

recognize him in this form, for they were alien to him. But Jesus

breathed on some and many were enlightened and turned towards him. He

proclaimed the things in the heart of the Father— new things, in words

that do not pass away.

It is notable that the author presents this picture of Jesus’

resurrection in the idiom and imagery of the New Testament except for

two peculiar Gnostic teachings: the risen Jesus as Paraclete (put

John 13*20 with John 14:16 and John 14:18) offered a body of new secret

teachings from the Father (cf. John 14:24b, 26; also, John 16:13, 25),

and it was "hylic" men who failed to respond to the risen one.

Conclusions

Docetist or Adoptionist?

Students of the Gospel of Truth have wrestled mightily with

30,16-32,4 to try to decide which stage in Jesus' career it refers to

and what the "flesh of similitude" ( oy <-&/> £ c^ecr) is.'*'

The coming of the Spirit sounds like Jesus' baptism and the "one

lying prone on the ground" suggests the faulty creative work of the seven

angels in Saturninus' system (cf. A.H. I, 24, l) or man's creation as re-

2
ported in the Apocryphon of John. The experience "they" had of "the

Beloved Son" is reminiscent of the Transfiguration. His "appearing" to

1Cf. Sasagu Arai, Die Christologie des Evangelium Veritatis

(Leiden: Brill, 1964), pp. 7^-90• Aral argues against the majority
that the passage refers to the "irdische Jesu." He admits that the
idiom of the passage suggests the resurrected Jesus but states that this
is because the author applies resurrection passages to the "historic
Jesus," as John did (p. 82).
2
See Soren Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis (Copenhagen: Munksgaard,
1963)» PP» 82f. and Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology, p. ?S,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 86

men and the failure of some to discern his "appearance" could refer,

say, to his appearance at the Jordan or on the mount of transfiguration.

We feel, however, that the overall atmosphere is that of the resurrected

Jesus and that Jesus* in-spiring "them" plus the irresistibility and im­

perishability of his flesh argue conclusively that the reference is to

the resurrected Jesus. Echoes of Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration are

hardly surprising, inasmuch as the close relationship between baptism

and resurrection is notorious among the Valentinians, and, as we shall

see, the Treatise on the Resurrection bases its understanding of resur­

rection on the Transfiguration account in the Synoptics. These figures

we generally associate with the "earthly Jesus" are here applied to the

risen Jesus.'*’ We find the proper parallel to the raising of the prone

Jesus to be the Savior's sending forth of a ray of power to raise Jesus'

mortal body (Excerpts from Theodotus„ 6l. 7)— rather than Saturninus' ac­

count of the creation of man, although the author might want to have it

both ways in order to add a creation-resurrection typology, as B. McL.

2
Wilson suggests.

The author's "flesh of similitude" is not necessarily more do­

cetist than Paul's "likeness of sinful flesh" (Boraans 8:3) or "likeness

of men" (Philippians 2:?) which it transparently echoes. However, if

the "flesh of similitude" is associated in the Gospel of Truth with

Jesus' resurrection, it is manifest that JesusJ flesh is to be understood

■*X!f. Arai, op. cit. We have turned Arai's reasoning around. We

agree with Arai that £ / is not docetist but reject his effort to show
this by applying the Cc/Lp^ to the "earthly Jesus."
2
Gf. Bobert McLean Wilson. The Gnostic Problem (London: Mowbray's,
1958), p. 170, n. 83.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 87

in a very special sense, comparable, say, to John's account of Jesus'

flesh which he gives to be eaten (John 6:51 and 53) or to Paul's vari­

eties of flesh (I Corinthians 15*39)• At any rate, resurrectio carnis

seems to have been no impossible problem for this author, as Luke had

shown him a way (Luke 24:39) of dealing with the problem of Jesus' flesh.

Docetism is not the issue but rather adoptionism.

Why do we call the document adoptionist and not docetist? We

do so because of the function of the baptism of Jesus in it and the fact

that the Gnostic is assumed to be consubstantial with the Word; the Word

is not said to have been made flesh; and the Son is said to have come

into existence when he was named.

Emphasis on Jesus' baptism does not necessarily make adoptionism

but it is a common symptom. The Gospel of Truth does not make much of

the baptism as such, but we have seen that the Gnostic's experience of

conversion is seen as the antitype of Jesus' baptism (21,25-22,27)* that

Jesus' receiving the name was his begetting (38,7-21), and that Jesus'

resurrection is also an antitype of his baptism (30,16 et sec.). The

exact parallelism of the conversion of the Gnostic and the begetting of

Jesus as Son suggests an adoptionist view not dissimilar to Carpocrates'.

Adoptionism is quite incompatible with Word-made-flesh. Accord­

ing to the Gospel of Truth the Word was enveloped in the Father's love

as body and was even said to have become a body and to have taken the

figure of the All (23,18-24,9). Jesus is said to have had "perishable

rags" which he could divest himself of. This all makes impossible a

description of the Gospel of Truth as docetist— especially when we note

the straightforward acceptance of the suffering and slaying of Jesus.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 88

However, the Word is not said to have been made flesh and Jesus.' Son-

ship is not understood to be of his essential nature but something he

received. This is what we understand to be the essence of adoptionism.

We are tempted to see proto-Arianism in the coming into existence

of him called Son (39*15-23). This may, indeed, be justifiable, but our

concern is rather that this passage, coupled with 38,7-21, clearly in­

dicates that Jesus' begetting as Son is in no way connected with his

conception but, in parallel ways, with his primeval ("in the beginning,"

cf. 38,8) coming forth and with his baptism (38, 11-21). This is adop­

tionism.

The Gospel of Truth and Holy Scripture

We have noted in the passages cited numerous echoes of the New

Testament. The reader may think us over-zealous in finding them, and,

indeed, it is likely that we are less guilty of omission than of find­

ing echoes which are not really there. However, regardless of the critic's

severity in rejecting many or most of these as authentic allusions, he

will still find the cited portions saturated with the idiom and imagery

of the canonical Gospels, the Pauline corpus and the Apocalypse. The

time was not propitious for appeal to disputed documents for an under­

standing of Jesus of Nazareth. And, in fact, the great theologians of

the New Testament, Paul and John, and the key events of the Synoptic

tradition were found by the author to be adequate to justify his special

concerns in his treatment of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is possible to argue that the Gospel of Truth simply uses.

New Testament language and metaphor as a cover for cosmological and

psychological theories quite distinct from fundamental New Testament

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 doctrine— or even inimical to them. We shall not deal with this ques­

tion here, for our concern is simply the document's treatment of Jesus

of Nazareth. But our conclusion in this matter is that the Gospel of

Truth betrays no real interest in the historic Jesus, even as a teacher.

He is not related in the historic Jesus, even as a teacher. His baptism,

crucifixion, and resurrection seem to be historic events but their sig­

nificance lies only in their being types of the Gnostic's spiritual con­

dition and career. No example of his teaching is given. The document

goes far towards accepting the idiom of the New Testament and the his­

toricity of the principal events in the life of the mature Jesus of

Nazareth as recorded in the Synoptics, but we search it in vain for the

man behind the type..

This may well be related to the total lack of interest shown in

the Old Testament and in Israel. This contrast to the New Testament in

general and the Gospels in particular is just as remarkable as the con­

trast in form to the canonical Gospels— or to the Gospel of Thomas and

the so-called "apocryphal" Gospels for that matter. The context of Jesus'

career is cosmological and psychological, not historical. The Gospel

of Truth is a christological or soteriological homily, not a "Gospel"

in any recognizable sense. And the christology betrays its essential

indifference to the historic Jesus in no clearer way than in its sys­

tematic exclusion of any reference to the historic People of God, their

history, law, teachings, and literature, in favor of the long introduc­

tory passage (16:31-13:11) on the cosmic struggle of truth-knowledge-

discovery against error-ignorance-oblivion in which the revelation of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 90

Jesus as the hidden mystery is decisive. This is the heart of the mat­

ter and furnishes the Church with its real basis for rejecting Gnosticism:

its incapacity to take seriously the historic person of Jesus of Nazareth

and his context.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER IV

TREATISE ON THE RESURRECTION

The third document in the Jung Codex begins at page 43 (Folio

XXII)., line 25, where it is separated from the preceding document (we

call it the Gospel of Truth) only by a design, and runs through page 50

(Folio XXV), line 18, the last two of which read: "Treatise ( A ^ 05 )
*9 *
on the Resurrection (c^va- xt was edited and published

in the Zurich in 1963 as De Resurrectione by the same team (Michel

Malinine, Henri-Charles Puech, Gilles Quispel, Walter C. Till) and in

the same form as the Gospel of Truth but this time with more substan­

tial introduction and notes. Pages 49 and 50 (Folio XXV) are not found

in the Jung Institute but in the Coptic Museum in Old Cairo. This ma-

terial, however, was published in photographic reproduction by Dr. Labib

in 1956 and was included in the team's edition. The document is in the

regular Greco-Roman epistolary form, which fact, coupled with the ease
2
of translating it into Greek, indicates a Greek original. The document,

because of an historical accident, has unfortunately come to be known

3
also as The Epistle to Rheginos, since its first notice was published

^Pahor Labib, Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old

Cairo, Vol. I (Cairo: Government Press, 1956), plates If.

A glance at the document suffices to make these facts clear.

The analysis is given in a summary but convincing way in Michel
Malinine et al., De Resurrectione, Epistula ad Rheginum (Zurich: Rascher,
1963), PP. ixf.
^Henri-Charles Puech and Gilles Quispel, "Les ecrits gnostiques
du Codex Jung," Vigiliae Chris.tianae, VIII (1954), 1-51*

91

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 92

before the last Folio, containing the title, was made available. The

translation is our own, with help from the French translation of Mm.

Malinine and Puech in the official edition.

Incarnation

There is one passage which deals directly with the incarnation,,

44, 13-45, 13 1

"How did the Lord comport himself after he was in^ -^/1^
Barn. 12,10 Ccf. I John 4:2; Galatians 2:20] and had revealed himself
ET. 8c Oxy as Son of God [cf. I John 3*8 and Romans 1 4 3 ? He lived-*-
in ,this Ten 6$ , where you live, speaking against^ the
of ° <rc5 Ccf. Romans 2:14 and Matthew 5*20-
481— I call it the law of death Ccf. Romans 7*10 and
II Corinthians 3*73 *5 e the Son of God, Rheginos, was
Son of Man Ccf. Romans l:3f] and he attained
Ccf. Hebrews 1:43 both, having humanity and divinity, in
order, /*C , to abolish death Ccf. I John 3*8; Acts 2:24;.
II Timothy 1:10 and Hebrews 2:l4b3 as^ Son of God, SI
that by the Son of Man the ^ Ccf. Acts 3*21]
A.H. I, 15,3* might come about inside the ~rrN <*>/*-*- Ccf. Colossians;
"that power 1:193, seeing that he existed first as superior o~ n <£>./*-
which descend- Ccf. Galatians 3*163 of truth before the <r- 6 <r-TTc-a-<.<> existed
ed was the Ccf. Ephesians 1:4 and Romans 1:203. In it lordships and
seed of the divinities^ came into being Ccf. Colossians 1:16 and
Father which X Corinthians 8 :53. . . . But now that the solution
had in itself ) has come forth to leave nothing
both the Fa- hidden Ccf. Matthew 10:26 and I Corinthians 4:33 but to
ther and the reveal Gopenly, to the All, concerning being] the disso-
Son, as well lution^ of the worse Cand] the manifestation^<f^f the
as that power better? it Cthe solution] is the 7T/? & >vC of the Truth
of Sige.:" and the ift/eu/*_ , the X c c, of Truth. "7

Or "wandered"; see note ad loc. in Malinine et al.. De Resurrec­

tione . p. 21. t

^Ibid.

^Puech and Quispel pointed out in the article (Puech and Quispel,
Vigiliae Christianae. pp. 48f.) mentioned above that this particular form
is characteristic of Valentinian writers.
4
Malinine et al., De Resurrectione. p. 24.
^For B tc? V ^ A '-><rcc> cf. Crum 33b.
g
On the problems of translating 44, 8-11, cf. Malinine et al..
De Resurrectione. p. 23.
7 / ^ y
On'TT/t’iy? 6 X w , Truth, and X^/? *S> see Malinine et al..
De Resurrectione. p. 25.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 93

Parallel to this is a passage that refers to the Gnostic be­

liever, in 47, 4-24:

A.H. I, 18,2: "For if you were not [before] in r'cK.f*5 , you have re-
"(man's) earth- ceived [cf. II Corinthians 5 :10](7- 0 -^ 5 when you came
ly part was into this «Vao^ ; why do you not receive the
formed on the <r % , if you ascend into the aeon? What is better
6th day but his [cf. Philippians 1 :23] than the <r is the cause
fleshly part on of its life . . . the afterbirth of the body is old age
the 8th." and you are perishable [cf,. I Corinthians 15:53] • You
lose to gain [cf. Philippians 1 :21], for you do not
abandon the better if you go; the worse requires diminu­
tion but it is grace for him(?)."

So, the Lord was in flesh, according to the writer, and therein

revealed himself as Son of God. The account in "the Gospel" (48, ?f)

of the Transfiguration seems to be in his mind, inasmuch as he not only

refers to the event but emphasizes that the Lord revealed himself as

Son of God after he wasin flesh."*’

More notable is the writer's stress on the two-ness of "the Lord."

He was Son of God and Scm of Man, having "attained" both, and thus had

humanity and divinity. This is reminiscent of Ignatius' paradoxes in

2 "h
his Ephesians. 7 , 2 and Melito of Sardis' "being by nature God and man"

of Peri Pascha 8 and killing "by his spirit . . . the death which kills

men" of Peri Pascha. 66.

Our writer states that the purpose of the two-ness is the abo­

lition of death by the Son of God and the restitution of the pleroma

through the Son of Man since he pre-existed as superior seed of truth

"*Tor my translation of 44, 14-6 cf. J. Martin Plumley, An Intro­

ductory Coptic Grammar (Sahidic Dialect) (London: Home and van Thai,
1948), p. log.'

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 9** •

before there existed the irutr tT^irc^ in which many lordships and divini­

ties came into being.

The Lord is the "Solution" which came forth to leave nothing

hidden but to reveal concerning being, openly and to all, the dissolu­

tion of the worse and the manifestation of the better. This Lord-

"Solution" is the emanation of the Truth and the Spirit, the Grace of

the Truth.

This document is an "epistle" rather than a "goBpel" and thus

is candidly a theological treatise and has to deal only with the spe­

cific questions posed by his correspondent. To try to understand what

the writer means by "in flesh" let us turn to his description of the

Gnostic believer: he pre-existed without flesh which he received when

he entered this fantasy (see *$, 15 and 2?f), the cosmos, which flesh

he retains as he ascends into the Aeon, although the flesh is inferior

to the cause of its life. It is not the flesh but the body (

which ages and perishes. Its loss is gain; it is abandoned; it is "the

worse"; its diminution is grace. The "visible members," this body, are

not saved but the living members within them are raised (V?, 39-*$ i 3).

These "living members" are the "thought of those who are saved . . . the

yaCfc, of those who have known" (*f6 , 21-2*0. The flesh is laid aside,

despite its being taken as the gnostic ascends into the aeon, for when

he is "saved from this <r*c o cy e u v " he takes again "himself as he was

at first" (*f9, 32-36), i.e., an existence without flesh.

What does this tell us about the author's understanding of

Jesus' incarnation? First, he existed before he took flesh to enter

this fantasmic cosmos. Second, he retains this flesh as he ascends.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 95

Third, he did not have a "body," at least, a body like ours, which would

have given, him a non-salvable, aging, perishable, "worse," diminishable

dimension which would have to be abandoned. Fourth, he is "thought" and

" 7 . " Fifth, he does lay aside the flesh to resume his previous

mode of being.

This all looks suspiciously docetist. In reality it is not, for

Jesus had "fleshi" just like the gnostic. His "body" was not the same

as the believer's, but this idea is not docetist unless we are prepared

to say that Origen, for example, was docetist.

Jesus' Earthly Ministry

According to the first passage cited above from our document

"the Lord" lived in the place we live in, spoke against the law of na­

ture (which the translator, or glossator, prefers to call the law of

death), having "come forth" to leave nothing hidden but to reveal "not

only the dissolution of the worse but also the manifestation of the

better" since he is "the emanation of Truth and Spirit"; we may assume

that the writer accepts the transfiguration as historic, fact, as he

takes from it his idea of the resurrected flesh as "truth" rather than

"fantasy" (48, 6-13). There is no allusion to a work or concrete teach­

ing of the historic Jesus.

Suffering and Death

We find only two allusions to Jesus' death.

A. 45, 14-28:

■^Cf., e.g., Origen on the Transfiguration in his Matthew Comment­

ary, XII, 36ff.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 96

"The Savior swallowed up death [of. I Corinthians 15:54 and

IX Corinthians 5:41— you ought not to be ignorant Ccf.
I Corinthians 12:1]— for he laid aside [cf. John 13:4] the
perishable Ccf. I Corinthians 15:53] ^ ° <ryt*-°£ ; he was
changed into an imperishable <*~cuj is [cf, I Corinthians 15:51-53]
and raised himself [cf. Colossians l:15f]. And he has given
us the path Ccf. John 14:3-6] of our immortality Ccf. I Cor­
inthians 15:53f]. Then, as the Apostle said: 'we suffered
with him [cf. Romans 0:17], and we are raised with him
[cf. Colossians 3:1] and we have gone to heaven with him
Ccf. Colossians 3:1-4].'"

B. 46, 14-17: "... the Son of Man . . . has risen from the

dead [cf. I Corinthians 15:20]."

It is not simply stated that the Savior or Son of Man suffered

or died, only that he "swallowed up death," "laid aside the perishable

cosmos" (as Jesus, had laid aside his garments to wash the disciples'

feet), "swallowed the visible," has risen from the dead and that "we

suffered with him." However, it is clear that he assumed that Jesus,

did suffer and die in some sense, for we can suffer with theSavior and

the Son of Man did raise himself from the dead.

The gnostic "dies" because his body is perishable (47, 17-19)

and his visible members die and will not be saved (47, 38-48,1), but it

would be quite illegitimate to extend this to Jesus, for there is no

hint that Jesus had that kind of body, although he did have something

visible which was swallowed by the invisible in him before he was

changed into an imperishable aeon and rose from the dead.

The author is not concerned with Jesus' death, because his real

concern in his epistle is to convince his reader(s) that the resurrection

is a present possession which does not await the gnostic's death.

Resurrection of Jesus

It is striking that there are only two allusions to Jesus' resur­

rection in this Treatise on the Resurrection 46, 14-19:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 97

"For we have known the Son of Man and we have believed Ccf. II Tim­
othy 1:12] that he has risen from the dead [cf. Matthew 17:9 and
I Corinthians 15:203 and this is he who is said to have become
dissolution-*- Ccf. II Timothy 4:63 of death."

We repeat from the foregoing section, 45, 14-21:

"For he [the Savior3 laid aside Ccf. John 13:43 the perishable
[cf. I Corinthians 15:533 ^ <r/<~a$ ; he was changed into an im­
perishable w.l uj i/ [cf. I Corinthians 15:51-533 and raised him­
self, having swallowed Ccf. I Corinthians 15:54 and II Corinthians
5 543 the visible by the invisible [cf. Colossians l:15f3."

As Jesus predicted after the Transfiguration, the Son of Man has

risen from the dead, having become the "77* 3 UJ X of death. The Savior

laid aside the perishable cosmos (which is a fantasy) like a garment and

was changed into an imperishable aeon by swallowing "the visible by the

invisible." What could all this possibly mean?.

The document, as its title would indicate, is really concerned

with what resurrection means for the Gnostic. We cite four key pas­

sages to see what the author's general doctrine of resurrection is and

whether it sheds some light on how he understood Jesus' resurrection.

A. 45, 36-46, 2 :

"We are drawn to heaven by Him (the Savior) like rays by

the sun. Such is the spiritual resurrection which swal­
lows up the psychic just as it does the sarkic."

B. 46, 21-24:

"The thought of those who are saved does not perish, nor
the v'o'o^ of those who have known him."

C. (repeating from our section on incarnation) 47, 6-23:

"Why do you not receive the flesh if you ascend into the
aeon? What is better than the flesh is the cause of its
life. . . . For you do not lay aside the better if you go.
The worse requires diminution . . . "

1 —■ \ « /
For If & ^ A as </-1/</-}■ cf. Crum 33b.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 98

D. **7, 38-49, 36 (we offer a paraphrased summary rather than

a translation):

Our visible members die and are not saved, but the "liv­
ing members in them" are raised (cf. Romans 8:24f). The
resurrection is "the revelation of those who have risen"
(cf. Romans 8:19). The resurrection is like the appearance
of Elijah and Moses (in the Transfiguration) and is not a
fantasy but truth. The cosmos is fantasy; and "those who
live will die, as they live in a fantasy. . . . Everything
changes." The resurrection is "the revelation of that which
is (cf. supra, on "revelation of those who have risen") and
the change of things (cf. I Corinthians 15:5l) and trans­
formation into newness" (cf. Romans 6:4 and 7 :6 ; also, II
Corinthians 5 J17 and Galatians 6:15 and Ephesians 4:24).
The symbols of the resurrection are corruption and incor­
ruption (cf. I Corinthians 15:53), light shining in dark­
ness (cf. John 1:5 and the sun and its rays in 45, 36ff),
and fullness perfecting deficiency.

Thus we are not to understand in part (cf. I Corinthians 13:

12b) nor conduct ourselves "according to this flesh (cf. II
Corinthians 10:2f) because of the unity" but we sire to "come
out (cf. John 11:43) from divisions (cf. Hebrews 4:12) and
bonds" for in this way we already possess the resurrection.
Just as mortal men know they will die, no matter how long
they are in this life, we are to consider ourselves (al­
ready) risen. And if we possess the resurrection "but live
as if [we] were going to die" we know that we have already
died so we are to discipline ourselves and thus be "saved
from this element [cf. Galatians 4:3 and Colossians 2:20]
in order not to err but to resume [cf. John 13:12]" ourselves
as we were at first.

What then is the resurrection? It is being drawn to heaven as

rays are drawn to the sun, with which they are consubstantial; it is

"spiritual"; it swallows up both the sarkic and the psychic; it does not

lay aside "the better," for it is "the worse" that diminishes; it is the

"revelation of those who have risen"; it is like the appearance of Elijah

and Moses at the Transfiguration; it is truth, not fantasy as the cosmos

is fantasy; "everything changes"; it is "the revelation of that which is";

it is change, andyft,£rX ck.^ 6 into newness; it is coming out from

■?/ />• .
divisions and bonds, so that one already ( \ r ) has it; it is the

resumption of one's self as he was at first.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 99

What is raised in the gnostic's resurrection? It is the thought

and /oc/£i of the gnostic, the cause of the flesh's life, the living

members within the visible— as in the case of Elijah and Moses when they

appeared at Jesus' transfiguration.

In sum, one does not die to be raised but is "raised" as soon

as he "comes out" from "divisions and bonds" and lives as if he were

already risen. It is simply a spiritual state wherein one swallows up

the sarlcic and psychic by laying aside "the worse." Although it is

spiritual, it is not fantasy, for, in fact, it is spiritual change and

transformation.

If we applied this to Jesus' resurrection we should conclude

that our document has turned out to be docetist. This would be mistaken,

however, for it is the gnostic's resurrection which is purely spiritual.

Jesus as Son of Man did rise from the dead, having laid down the perish­

able cosmos on the cross. It would be rash to assume that the writer

denied the canonical accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection. We

note again, however, that, as in the case of Jesus' death, the author

is not really interested in Jesus' resurrection but in setting forth

the resurrection of the gnostic as a present possession.

Traditions from Jesus

The epilogue to the epistle begins:

^9>37-50,1: "These I received ungrudgingly from my lord Jesus Christ

[cf. I Corinthians 11:23 and 15:3]•"

This claim for a direct link with Jesus' teaching is related to

the passages in I Corinthians both in form and in the fact that the au­

thor imagined that he received the Lord's teaching in the same way Paul

did. Jesus' "ungrudging" revelations are to be an example to Rheginus

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 100

who is to pass them along similarly, i.e., he is not to withhold the

truth from the inner circle ("those with you" 50,9f). This does not

mean that he is simply to broadcast the revelations or to share them

gratis, however.

Conclusions

This "epistle" does not betray any more real concern with the

historic Jesus than the New Testament epistles in spite of its interest

in resurrection, its explicit reference to the transfiguration and resur­

rection of Jesus and traditions traced to him, and its implicit declara­

tion that Jesus was in the flesh.

Its purpose is to show that resurrection is a spiritual condi­

tion rather than an event which is experienced, a present possession

rather than a hope, the absolute subordination of man's visible mem­

bers (psychic and sarkic) to the thought and mind which are their "liv­

ing members," and a return to the original, true self. Resurrection is

known only by faith and is effected by Jesus.

Paradoxically, Jesus' resurrection does seem to be more of an

historical occurrence than the preceding paragraph might suggest. The

Gnostic's resurrection is set before him as a challenge and exhortation

to be resurrected now; the only future element is the "revelation" of

the resurrected, as in the case of Elijah and Hoses in the Transfigura­

tion. But Jesus' resurrection was a specific event through which he

overcame death: he "swallowed up death, . . . for he laid aside the

perishable world; he was changed into an invisible aeon and raised him­

self. . . . " (**5» 1^-19) This specific event for Jesus is for the Gnostic

a present spiritual experience.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 101

Jesus' pre-existence was not as Son of God or Son of Man, for

he "attained" both of these. Rather it is as "superior seed of truth."

This may be parallel to Theodotus' idea of the "spiritual seed" given

the Word by Sophia as a fleshly covering"*' or to Marcus' definition of

the power that descended on Jesus at his baptism (A.H. I, 15, 3). In

both cases we note that the Gnostics' affinity to Jesus is implied in

their use of the term "spiritual seed." Thus we may assume that Jesus'

pre-existence is not substantially different from the Gnostic's, who

before he was in flesh (V?,4f) had an existence, which he is to take

once again (49,3^-36). Jesus is no more "docetic" than the Gnostic,

and no more pre-existent than he. Jesus' attainment of sonship is con­

sistent with the adoptionism we have found characteristic of developed

Gnosticism, although we do not have enough to go on to label the docu­

ment adoptionist.

"*"Exc. Theod. I, 1 . Gf. note to in Malinine et al.. De

Resurrectione. p. 23.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER V

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS

The Coptic Gospel According to Thomas is found in Codex 11^ of

the documents discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in the 19^*0 's and now
2
found at the Coptic Museum in Old Cairo. It is the second tractate

in the codex and occupies sheet 32 from line 10 to sheet 51 through

line 28. It has been photographically reproduced in Pahor Labib, Coptic

Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo. Volume I (Cairo:

Government Press, 1956), on plates 80 (line 10) through 99 (line 28).

Our identification of passages refers to these plates.

A German translation of this document was published by J.

Leipoldt in 1958. The text we use was published in The Gospel Accord­

ing to Thomas. Coptic text established and translated by A. Guillaumont,

H.wCh. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till and Yassah 'Abd A1 Masih (New York:

Harper and Row, 1959)* with an English translation. The translation we

cite unless otherwise indicated was made by William R. Schoedel and pub­

lished in I960 in Robert M. Grant and David N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings

^"According to the numbering system used by the Coptic Museum.

2
Krause's numbering in Die Drei Versionen des Apooryphon des.
Johannes in Koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo(Wiesbaden: 0. Harrassowitz.
1962 ).
3
"Ein neues Evangelium? Das koptische Thomasevangelium Ubersetzt
und besprochen," Theologische Literaturzeitung. LXXXIII (1958), ^81-96.

102

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 103

of Jesus (Garden City: Doubleday, i960). R. Kasser published in 19&1

a French translation"*" together with what he called "l 1equivalent grec"

2
and commentary. Thus the student is provided an adequate text and

modern translations, although the "critical, scholarly edition" promised

3
by the editors of the text has not yet come forth.

The document begins: "These are the secret words which Jesus

the Living spoke and Cwhich!l Didymus Judas Thomas wrote" (80, 10-12),

and ends with the indication, "The Gospel according to Thomas" (99,2?f)•

The rest of the document is made up of sayings attributed to Jesus,

sometimes as responses to questions or comments. The discovery of such

a document could hardly help but excite great interest. Most of the

sayings parallel sayings in the canonical gospels or other New Testament

passages. Parallels are found in early Christian documents such as

II Clement and certain apocryphal gospels and acts and in passages quoted

in writers like Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus— who actually mentions

the name of Thomas in connection with one echo of the document^— and

Origen.

It would delay us unduly to review expert opinions on such dis­

puted questions as the original language of this document, its place of

^"French translations had earlier been published in Jean Doresse,

Les Livres Secrets des Gnostiques d*Egypte (Paris: Plon, 1959) and in
the official text published in French, L'Evangile selon Thomas (Paris.
1959).
2
L'Eyangile selon Thomas, presentation etcommentaire theologique
(NeuchatelTDelachaux et Niestli, 1961).
3
A. Guillaumont et al., The Gospel According to Thomas (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1959), p. v.
if
Cf. Henri-Charles Puech in E. Hennecke, and W. Schneemelcher
(eds.), Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher ubersetzung, I. Band,
Evangelien (TUbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1939), 2l£>-19,

^Refutation V, 7, 21.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 104

origin, its precise relation to the Oxyrhynchus papyri, its affinities

1 2
with Naassene or Valentinian teachings, or its relation to the canonical

gospels or other similar works as the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel

of the Egyptians, and Tatian's Diatessaron. We will content ourselves

by simply noting that we do possess in the Gospel According to Thomas a

Coptic document of great antiquity from a Gnostic library in Egypt with

close parallels to second-century Christian literature, containing many

Greek loan words, which purports to give more than one hundred sayings

of the "Living Jesus." We might well expect to find substantial evidence

from it of what some Gnostics, at least, thought about Jesus of Nazareth,

the historic Jesus.

A recent study by H. H. Koester^ suggests that such a hope would

be vain, inasmuch as, he argues, "the concern is exclusively with [Jesus']

words. For these, the historical origin is quite irrelevant. Who Jesus
L
was and that he once lived euad died is without importance." Koester

contends that behind our Thomas there is a primitive "kingdom eschatolgy,"

going back to Jesus himself, indifferent to the later framework of credal

"events" in Jesus' ministry, whose only concern is the "mysterious pres­

ence of the Kingdom" in Jesus' words themselves. Thus are we challenged

to find any real interest in the historic Jesus in the Gospel According

to Thomas.

‘‘•Cf. Robert W. Grant, "Notes on the Gospel of Thomas," Vigiliae

Christianae. XIII (1959)» 173f., and his note referring to Doresse, op.
cit., pp. 245-51.
2
Cf. Turner in H.E.W.. Turner and Hugh Montefiore, Thomas and the
Evangelists (London; S.C.M. Press, 1962), pp. 19-21.

^Helmut H. Koester, "One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,"

Harvard Theological Review. LXI (1968), 203-47.
4
Ibid., p. 223.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 105

Incarnation

The document has no narrative of Jesus* genesis but we may in­

fer something of its understanding of Jesus’incarnation fromseveral

sayings.

Jesus had a pre-existence, as the Gnostic does:

8^,17-19: "Jesus said: 'Blessed is he who was before he became1"

89,31-35: "If they say to you, Whence have you come? say to them,
We came from the light, the place where the light came
into existence through itself alone."

One passage clearly refers to Jesus' incarnation:

86,20-22: "Jesus said: I stood in the midst of the world and I

appeared1 to them in flesh."

Jesus not only "appeared to them in flesh" but had parents, for,

according to 97,32-98,1 Jesus' disciples are to hate their fathers and

mothers as Jesus does ("in my way" - V T / i ^ O in order to affirm his

true mother, it would seem (there is a lacuna where "mother" should be),

who gave him life. The hatred of family is unrelieved in Thomas (cf.

also 90,25f), but it is rejection, not denial of existence.

The incarnation passage continues:

86,23-31 "I found all of them drunken; I found none of them thirsty.
And my soul was pained for the children of men, for they
are blind in their hearts and do not see that they came
empty into the world, seeking also to leave the world
empty. But now they are drunken. When they throw off
their wine, then they will repent."

Cf. Bertil Gartner, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas (London:

Collins, 1961), p. l4lf. and Turner in Turner and Montefiore, op. cit.,
p. 88. They suggest that t h 0f the Oxyrhynchus parallel implies
docetism. However, the Coptic Word of Thomas is its usual word for "ap­
peared" and the disuse of w <ps-kv in the New Testament in such contexts
does not prove that Thomas was docetist.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 106

The drunkenness Jesus found was the blindness which could not penetrate

behind the flesh in which Jesus appeared. So Jesus replies to those who

ask him who he is in order to believe in him (96,20f), "you do not know

what is before you" (96,23f), i.e., you do not know the true, inner

Jesus. This essential Jesus is the "light within a light man" of 86,7f

and, in the particular case of Jesus, that which the believer has and

is to beget within himself in order to save himself (93,30f). The true

Jesus is "the one who lives Cor, the living one] before your eyes"

(90,l6f), in contrast to the prophets who are dead, since Jesus has al­

ready begotten his true self within himself.

Jesus thus tries to correct the misunderstanding common among

his followers that his words and his person can be understood according

to their superficial appearance. This veil must be penetrated, so that

they may "know what is before [their] face" so that "what is hidden from

Cthem] will be revealed to Cthem]" (81,11-13). Those who saw Jesus "in

flesh" wereblind "children" of men, not seeing "that they came empty

into theworld, seeking also to leave the world empty" (86,26-29). A

genuine "thirst" on their part would have resulted in their being filled

(cf. 93*27-29 and Matthew 5 *6), i.e., they would have come to know Jesus,

and themselves, in his, and their, essential being. This comes when the

intoxicating wine of superficial judgment is thrown off and the repent­

ance of penetrating discernment is acquired.

The following passage is decisive in understanding the fleshly

Jesus:

86,31-87*2: "If the flesh came into existence for the sake of the
spirit, Cit is] a wonder; but if the spirit [came into
existence] for the sake of the body, it is a wonder of
[wonders]; but I wonder at how [this] great wealth has
dwelt in this poverty."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 107

The miracle was not that Jesus' flesh came into being because his spirit

or vocation required it, and even less that the spirit came into exist­

ence for the sake of his body. The miracle was that such great wealth,

i.e., Jesus' true self, could dwell in such poverty, i.e., his flesh or

body. Flesh and body existed, but spirit is related to neither as source

or destiny.

The "woe to the flesh which hangs upon the soul! Woe to the

soul which hangs upon the flesh!" (99ilO-12) and the "wretched is the

body which hangs upon a body, and wretched is the soul which hangs upon

them both" (96,4-7) indicate that the soul must free itself from any de­

pendence or preoccupation with flesh or body. The Gnostic must know the

body for its true worth and thus get beyond it to the true self, as we

discover when we place three"sayings" side by side:

95:12-15 ' "Jesus said: He who has known the world has found the body,
but he who has found the body, of him the world is not worthy."
90,29-52 "Jesus said: He who has known the world has found a corpse,
and he who has found a corpse, of him the world is not worthy."
99 18-10 "Did not Jesus say: He who will find himself, of him the
world is not worthy?"

When the Gnostic comes to "know the world" and thus "find" the body-corpse,

the world is not worthy of him. Knowing the world is a correct assess­

ment of its worth. Finding the body-corpse is the negative but necessary

side of finding one's self, inasmuch as the discovery of the true self

involves a correct estimate of the body-corpse which has obscured it .1

This understanding of the need of subordinating absolutely the

body to the true self underlies the difficult sayings:

Cf. observations in Grant and Freedman, op. cit.. p. 164 and in

Ga[rtner, op. cit.. pp. 159-61.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 108

81,23-28 "Jesus said: Blessed is the lion which man will eat, that
the lion may become a man; and cursed is the man whom the
lion will eat, that the lion will become a man."
82,19-21 "On the days when you were eating that which is dead, you
were making it as that which lives." (Cf. Hippolytus,
Refutation. V,8,32: "You who have eaten dead things and
brought them to life . . . )

The true, inner self of man must gain absolute mastery over the body;

otherwise, it will be devoured by it. We note that it is not a ques­

tion of destroying the body, for the "lion" eaten by "man" is "blessed"

and "that which is dead" is made to be "as that which lives." The

threqt is not the continued existence of the body but rather its capacity

to overcome the true self unless it is absolutely subordinated to it.

We see, then, that the Gnostic must learn of Jesus that the true, inner

selfcompletely transcends the fleshly or corporal. He cannot properly

understand Jesus, or himself, otherwise.

Both the Gnostic and Jesus are "in flesh" and have a true self.

Is Jesus any different from the Gnostic, then?

9^,22-28 "Jesus said: I am the light which is over everything. I am

the all; (from me) the all has gone forth and to me the all
has returned. Split wood: I am there. Lift up the stone,
and you will find me there."
91,28-30 "I am he whocame into existence from that which is equal;,
I was given the things of my Father."
8^,5-9 "Jesus said: I will give you what eye has not seen and ear
has not heard and hand has not touched and which has not come
into the heart of man."

The Gnostic would make no such claims for himself, although he is to pass

along the gift referred to in the last passage, for Jesus says in 98,

28-30: "He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. It too
will become he and the secrets will be revealed to him."

When Thomas confesses the unspeakable nature of Jesus, he responds:

83 i5-7 "I a® not your master, since you drank [and] became drunk from
the bubbling spring which I have distributed."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 109

Jesus is the source; and yet when the Gnostic discovers Jesus' true

being, and consequently his own, there is no sharp difference between

Jesus and the Gnostic.

We find that the Gospel According to Thomas is adoptionist rathe:

than docetist. His humanity is no more rejected or downgraded than the

Gnostic’s. The affinity of Jesus' humanity to the Ghostic's is never

challenged. But the crucial fact is that Gnostic anthropology could not

find any possible positive relation between the fleshly, corporal Jesus

and his true, inner, divine self. In no sense could the Word, or the

inner being of Jesus, become flesh.

Jesus and the Father

Curiously, the relation of Jesus to the Father is not clear,

and, in fact, the Father seems to play a very vague part in the docu­

ment.^" He is called by Jesus "my Father" three times (91;50; 92,3^f;

97,2^-26) but in none of these is Jesus trying thus to identify him.

Also, in two places (83,31 and 90,3-5) Jesus calls him "your Father,"

inasmuch as those who know themselves are his sons (80,26-81,2); the

persecuted in heart will know him truly (93*25-27); those who keep the

Sabbath properly will see him (86, 191)* and, by implication, the Gnos­

tics are planted within the Father (88,13f). Jesus is the Gnostic's

brother because they share a common Father.

The key passage which concerns Jesus and the Father is in Jesus'

response to Salome's question: "Who are you, 0;,man?"

"'’Ernst Haenchen notes this in Die Botschaft des Thomas-Eyangelimns

(Berlin: Topelmann, 1961), p. 62.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 110

91,28-30 "I am he who came into existence from that which isequal.
X was given the things of my Father."

Jesus is not saying two things but one, for what the Father has, he has,
\

since he equals the Father. One begins to suspect that Jesus' Father

is not really distinct from his (Jesus') true, inner self.This may

well be the meaning of that difficult sayings:

83,27-31 "Jesus said: When you see the one that was not born of woman,
cast yourselves down on your faces, and worship him; He is
your Father."

When you see the true, inner Jesus who was not born of a woman you will

recognize that he is your Father.

The "kingdom" is the Father's. It is never "of God" and, regu­

larly, not "of heaven."^ Most often it is simply "the kingdom," but

this is an abbreviation. It is never of the Son or of Christ. The

Kingdom has nothing to do with God's reign or will but is wholly a

present (cf. 99,1^-f) and inner (cf. 80,25) reality having to do with

the Gnostic's spiritual condition.

Jesus and His Followers

The Gospel According to Thomas seems to be more of a "gospel"

than, say, the Gospel of- Truth not only because of the long catalog of

teachings attributed specifically to Jesus but also because other people

appear and there is some dialogue, even if there is no action of movement.

In the preface (80,10f) Didymus Judas Thomas is referred to, by

implication as the compiler of the document. He would be the "doubting

Thomas" (John 20:2^-29) who provoked a special resurrection appearance

2
from Jesus; he is also called "Judas," a characteristic, it appears of
1
The three exceptions are 8^,27; 90,2^; 99,26. In other parallels
to Matthew it is the Father's kingdom (90,33ff j 9^,l^ff; 97,3ff) or,
simply, "the Kingdom" (85,21ff; 89,10f; 98,31ff).
2For references, cf. Jean Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian
Gnostics, trans. by Philip Mairet (New York: Viking, i960), pp. 339-^0.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Ill

the tradition of Edessa and Syriac Christianity. In the colloquy reported

in 82,30-83,l^f we find Simon Peter, Matthew, and Thomas, who appears in

a much more favorable light than the other two. Mariham (Mary Magdalene)

is Jesus' interlocutor in 84,33ff and her presence is criticized by Peter

at the end (99»l8ff)— which implies that she had been present through­

out. Salome questions Jesus in 91,25ff in a way that suggests that he

was a frequent visitor with her. "James the Just" is designated as the

one to whom the disciples are to go after Jesus departs (82,25ff).

"A woman in the crowd" acclaims Jesus, as in Luke 11:27 (93»3ff)*

Jesus is shown gold in 97,2?ff. "The disciples" question Jesus thirteen

times, ten times in the first half of the document. In two other cases

(96,20ff and 98,10ff) Jesus is questioned, presumably by the same "dis­

ciples" (Greek loan word always used). These appear to be literary de­

vices, as rhetorical questions would have served the purpose equally as

well. The document gives us a picture of Jesus with a circle of fol­

lowers. This indicates some interest in the historic Jesus.

Events and Other People in Jesus' Ministry

The question of paying tribute to Caesar is raised in 97,27-31.

Pharisees are referred to in 98,2-5 as dogs in a manger and they and

scribes in 88,7-13 as those who hid the keys of knowledge and refused

to enter or permit others to do so— thus combining elements found separ­

ately in Luke 11:52 and Matthew 23:13* This seems to be polemic against

the Great Church rather than interest in Jesus' controversies with other

Jewishtteachers— polemic of the same kind we see in the treatment of

Peter not as an intimate of Jesus, like Thomas, Mariham, or Salome, nor

as a leader like James the Just but as inept in both his interventions

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 112

(82,32f£ and 99»l8ff). He also find in 95,34-96,4 a variant of the

saying about the Son of Man's having no place to lay his head "and to

rest." This refers to the Gnostic's inevitable alienation from a cor­

rupt world and does not suggest a fugitive ministry for Jesus.

Finally, Jesus' command to "heal the sick among them" (83,23)

and his citing the proverb, "no physician heals those who know him"

(87,6f), echo Jesus' healing activity, even though their use in Thomas

appear to have only a spiritual significance. Allusions to Jesus' ac­

tivities, contacts, and movements, then, are few and heavily overladen

with spiritual interpretation, but they are there.

Suffering and Cross

The first saying proper of the collection sounds like an out­

line of the Gnostic's progress, based on the career of Jesus:

80,14-19 "Let him who seeks not cease in his seeking until he finds,
and when he finds he will be troubled, and if he is troubled,
he will marvel, and will be a king over the all."

We should like to make something of the "troubled" (y) T y s Crum 397b)

which does not appear in the Oxyrhynchus parallel, but the word seems

to mean no more them "astonished," as the word in the parallel passage

in Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis 2,9,5) is (9a.^<cX5fr<'K**^ the

other hand, the astonishment-troubling stage for Jesus would seem to

be his rejection and suffering.

More to the point, perhaps, Jesus' soul was "pained" (~TKo^C.)

for the children of men" (86,24f, cf. Matthew 26:38); he is accounted

blessed "who has labored and found life" (91,86); and the shepherd

"labored" to find the lost sheep (98,22-27). These expressions suggest

suffering and have some application to Jesus' career.

^Cf. the reconstruction (of the Greek) in Kasser, op. cit., pp. 29f,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 113

One passage refers to the cross, when Jesus declares that he who

will not "carry his cross as I have (in my way) will not become worthy

of me" (90.28f). This is clearly an allusion to Jesus' crucifixion.

The Gnostic would take up his own cross in a special sense, of course,

for he had no positive doctrine of martyrdom, but his spirituality! had a

place for a crucified Jesus.

The only reference to the killing of Jesus is the variant in

93i1-16 of the parable of the wicked husbandmen. The "good man" sent

his son and heir of the vineyard and the husbandmen seized and killed

him. This is just a parable but clearly refers to the violent death

of Jesus. This is heightened by the fact that our document makes the

owner a good man, omits the quotation of Isaiah 5*lf, and the servants

are not killed— as this would have put them on the level of the son—

but only beaten.

It is possible that we have echoes of the crucifixion of Jesus

in the "wretched . . . body which hangs upon a body" in 96,^f or of

the death of Jesus in the "corpse" of 90,311.

The suffering, crucifixion, and death of Jesus are not dealt

with directly in the Gospel According to Thomas. They do, however, find

an echo not only in its terminology but in the framework of its spiritual­

ity. The Gnostic is to be astonished (troubled), to labor, and to take

his cross like Jesus, and the paradigm for this is Jesus' own career

which included suffering, death, cross.

Jesus Disappearance

When Jesus’ disciples say in Thomas: "We know that you will go

away from us" and ask "who will be great over us?" (82,25-29), he re-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 114

sponds that they should resort to James the Just, thus implying that

he is going away. In 88,5-7 Jesus clearly states as much. When he is

asked when he will reappear (87,27-29), Jesus’ reply rejects any time

reference whatsoever— as he does when asked about the day of "the rest

of the dead" (90,7-12) and the coming of the kingdom (99*12-27). Jesus

will "appear" and be "seen" when men put aside all interest in or con­

cern for things of the flesh. Jesus' reappearance has to do with

spiritual awareness, which comes with the closely related perceptions

of who Jesus really is and who the Gnostic really is; there is.no time

reference.

Resurrection

There is no allusion to Jesus' resurrection in the Gospel Ac­

cording to Thomas. This is a little surprising inasmuch as the entire

body of teaching in the document is attributed in the preface to the

"Living Jesus" (80,10), i.e., the resurrected Jesus. Indeed it seems

that Jesus' bodily resurrection is quite specifically denied. The

house Jesus is to destroy (cf. Mark 14:58 and John 2:19-21) can be re­

built by no one (93*54f.). H.-Ch. Puech has urged'*' that the teaching

that "there is nothing hidden which will not be manifest" (8l,13b=

Luke 8 :17a) originally continued "and buried which shall not (from

Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 654F and a shroud from Oxyrhynchus) be raised"

(from the shroud only). His deduction, not shared by all, is that our

document has dropped the phrase deliberately in order to deny the resur­

rection. At any rate resurrection had no positive place in this document—

■*Tn Bulletin de la Societe Ernest Renan, nouvelle serie #3* apud

Kasser, op. cit.. p. 5^. where text readings and additional notes, cf.
n. 1 , are given.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 115

which is not surprising in light of our finding in the section on In­

carnation that the true self is absolutely independent of flesh and

body.

Jesus and Judaism

One measure of interest in the historic Jesus on the part of

ah early Christian document would be its concern for the Jewish con­

text of the traditions about Jesus' ministry.

The Gospel According to Thomas is specifically anti-Jewish.

The "Jews" are dismissed as loving the tree and hating its fruit or

vice versa (88,23-26). To emphasize true, or spiritual, circumcision

plain circumcision is pronounced useless (90,20f). Old Testament al­

lusions in parallel passages in the canonical Gospels are systematically

missing. As we have seen above scribes and Pharisees are unfavorably

mentioned (as in the Gospels of the New Testament, of course). The

virtues of fasting, prayer., almsgiving, dietary restrictions, and

Sabbath observance are either rejected as sinful (83,15-22) or' con­

sidered to have purely symbolic significance (86,17-20).

The Old Testament prophets are dead voices'*" rejected as fore­

tellers of Jesus the living (90,13-18). They are inferior to John the

Baptist who is inferior to the Gnostic who has become a little child and

understands the kingdom (89,6-12, cf. Matthew llsllf.). On the other

hand there are prophets who are to give and receive from the Gnostics

(96,7-12). Also there must be some commensurability between the ser­

vants and the son in the parable of the wicked husbandmen (93*1-16), as

■*"Cf. Augustine, Contra Adversarium Legis et Prophetarum in

Migne, P.L., XLII, 6^7» quoted in Gartner, op. cit.. p. 151.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 116

they were sent by the same "good man." The reference to the weak and

perishable "vine planted outside the Father" (88,13f) looks like Jews.

It could refer to the Great Church or its l e a d e r s b u t the "outside;

the Father" is too strong an expression for this meaning.

We conclude that the attitude of this document to the Jewish

context of Jesus’ career is ambiguous. Judaism itself is rejected out

of hand, but there is a place for Jesus' Israelite predecessors as ser­

vants, doubtless unwitting ones, who brought some gifts, although in

comparison with the Living Jesus they are now dead voices.

Conclusions

The Gospel According to Thomas is a pure sayings-document which

gives no account of Jesus' conception, birth, baptism, piracies, con­

troversies, choosing and commissioning of disciples, transfiguration,

trip to Jerusalem, passion, death, or resurrection. Thus it shows in­

terest in the historic Jesus only by implication and by allusions to

and echoes of such events as those we find recorded in the Synoptic

Gospels.

Jesus is said to have appeared in the flesh and to have had

parents. Although his true self is equal to the Father and is the

source of the Gnostic's true self, the "leveling out" between Jesus; and
p
the Father is matched by the "leveling out" between Jesus and the

Gnostic. Jesus was quite human.

He had a circle of followers and even this post-resurrection

seance of esoteric teaching requires the reader to visualize a scene

1
So Kasser, op. cit., p. 71.
2
Term of Gartner, op. cit.. p. 100.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 in which people are present and some things are going on--Jesus' family

is outside (97,21f), children were being suckled (85,20). There are

echoes of healing and of controversy. Jesus goes through some sort of

agony. He took a cross and was killed. He is to go away.

But Jesus' career, like his humanity, is to be understood ex­

clusively in terms of its inner, hidden significance. His career ac­

complished nothing. As in the case of the Valentinians' teachings-

Irenaeus described, the events of Jesus' career turn out to have only

symbolic meaning. The "wretched is the soul which hangs on a body"

also means: stupid is the Christian who imagines that the events of

Jesus' earthly ministry effected anything! That Jesus was a man and

that the events of the traditional summary of Jesus' life occurred can

be taken for granted, but Jesus and the events have meaning only when

their historicity is absolutely subordinated to their inner meaning.

For this reason we continue to insist that "adoptionism" is a

better term to describe developed Gnostic Christology than "docetism."

Jesus' career is a section of historic reality which the Father adopted

to receive a divine infusion of hidden meaning; it is not an epiphany

of a divine being.

More importantly for us, this document which for its many say­

ings attributed to Jesus should have been so precious was laid aside.

It would be dangerous to try to specify one reason, but it was related

to the fact that the flesh and historic.existence of Jesus of Nazareth,

taken for granted as they were, in this document, at the same time are

rejected as having any positive place in the understanding of his true

nature or mission.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER VI

THE G O S P E L A C C O R D IN G T O P H IL IP

T
-The Coptic Gospel According to Philip is found in Codex II of

the documents discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in the 19*t0 's and now
p
found at the Coptic Museum in Old Cairo. It is the third tractate in

the codex and occupies sheet 51 from line 29 to sheet 86 through line 19.

It has been photographically reproduced in Pahor Labib's Coptic Gnostic

Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo. Volume I (Cairo: Government

Press, 1956), on plates 99 (line 29) through 13*f (line 19). Our iden­

tification of passages refers to these plates,

A German translation of this document was published by Hans-

3
Martin Schenke in 1959* The translation we use, unless otherwise in­

dicated, was published by Robert McLean Wilson in The Gospel of Philip

(New York: Harper and Row, 1962) along with a brief introduction and

substantial notes. The text we have depended on was published by

Walter C. Till in 1963.^ Jacques E . Menard published a French transla-

According to the numbering system used by the Coptic Museum,

Apud James M. Robinson, uThe Coptic Gnostic Library Today,” New Testament
Studies. XII (1968), 381, 389.
2
Krause's numbering in Martin Krause, Die Drel Versionen des
Johannes (Wiesbaden: 0 . Harrassowitz, 1962). See n. 1 above.
3
"Das Evangelium Nach Philippus: Ein Evangelium der Valentinianer
ausdem Funde von Nag-Hamadi,” Theologische Ljteraturzeitung. LXXXIV
(1959), 1-26.
ij.
Das Evangelium Nach Philippos (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co.,
1963).

118

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 119

1 2
tion in 196*t and also a text with introduction and commentary in 1967*

Thus the student is provided access to the text and modern translations.

The documentis scarcely set off from the preceding (The Gospel

According to Thomas) andbegins abruptly: 99t 29 "A Hebrew man makes

La3 Hebrew." It concludes at the last third of line 18, plate 13*t and

the abbreviated line 19: "The Gospel According to Philip," using in

this title Greek loan-words except for the articles. Schenke divided

the document into 127 Spruche, although they are really paragraphs rather

than "sayings." The work does not represent itself as a collection of

Jesus' sayings, although some are attributed^ to Jesus. It is homiletical,

but long for a sermon. Perhaps we should call it a treatise, made up of

many distinct paragraphs of unequal length, which are often hard to re­

late to one another, butwhich in the end achieve a kind of unity fo­

cused on the sacramental concern so manifest in the document^ and com­

ing to its climax with the concluding rhapsody on the mystery of the

Bridal Chamber (plates 130-13*0.

The key to the Ghristology as well as the soteriology of the

Gospel according to Philip is found on plate 119s

^L'Evangile selon Philippe (Montreal: University of Montreal, 196*0.

2
L'Evangile selon Philippe, introduction, texte. traduction, com-
mentaire (Pqri&: L'etouzey et An6 , 1967).
3
In "Das; Evangelium Nach Philippus . . . " Theologische Litera-
turzeitung. op. cit.. pp. 1-26.
A
They have become standard, but we prefer to refer to the plates
in the photographic reproduction.

5E .g ., 1 1 2 ,- 1 0 .

^Cf. E. Segelberg, "The Coptic Gnostic Gospel According to Philip

and Its Sacramental System," Numen. VII (i960), 189-200.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 120

3 "If I may utter a

k mystery, the.Father of the all united
5 with the virgin who came down, and
6 a building^ shone for him [Jesus, see 118,3^] on
2 that day.
7 He Cor it ] revealed the great bridal chamber.
8 Because of this his body which came into being
9 on that day came out of the bridal chamber,
10 in the manner of him who came into being
11 from the bridegroom and the bride. So
12 Jesus established the all
13 in it [the body] through these Cthe bridegroom
and the bride]

The punctuation of this passage is not clearly established (no

two modern translations agreel), but the meaning is clear: at Jesus'

baptism the father-of-the-all united himself with the virgin-who-came-

down and presented him (Jesus) with a body. Thus was revealed the mys­

tery of the bridal chamber, for the body-building produced at that time

came from the bridal chamber as one produced from the bride and groom.

This (TA- 6 -t T dr ) is the way Jesus established the all: in the

building=body through the father-of-the-all and the virgin-who-came-

down.

For "Philip" the sacramental Baptism-Chrism-Bridal Chamber is

the fundamental concern and related to each aspect of the sacramental

action is the new "body," which is also a "garment" or "man." This is

most clearly shown on plate 123, lines 19-25:

When we drink this [''the cup of prayer,' 'full of the Holy Spirit'],
we shall receive for ourselves the perfect man. The living water
is a body* It is fitting that we put on the living man. Because
of this when he is about to go down to the water he unclothe® him­
self, in order that he may put on this one [perfect man=body=living
man], cf. 114, 16-20.

*1
h ^77, Wilson, op. cit.. p. 146, corrects to follow­
ing Schenke.
2
Could be the noun or pronoun of line 6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 121

Thus in 119, 3-12, we have a description of Jesus’ receiving

his body=garment= (perfect) man at his baptism— which turns out to be

a variation of the Ophite system's descent of Christ united with Sophia

into Jesus at his baptism (A.H. I, 30, 12). This "body" he receives; is

"flesh [which] is the logos, and his blood is the Holy Spirit" (105, 6f).

Such flesh and blood will inherit (105,1-3)• Such a "body"-"garment"

is actually superior to the one who dons it "by water and fire (=chrism),"

acontrary, of course, to worldly garments which are inferior to the wearer

(105, 19-25).

Where does Philip get all this? The idea of the mystery comes;

from Ephesiam5^22-32 in which the "two shall become one" of Genesis 2:24

turns out to be a mystery of Christ and his church (=his body), conse­

crated and cleansed "by the washing of water," and "presented before Him

in splendor." This figure of the church=Bride is reinforced in Revela­

tion 21:2 , 9f in which "the holy city, a new Jerusalem" comes down from

heaven (cf. Revelation 3 2 12), "prepared as a bride adorned for her hus­

band," as "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb" (cf. Revelation 19:7-9 ).

The wedding figure is common in Old Testament as well as New, but the

crucial importance of the wedding garment comes from Matthew 22:11-13

(and Revelation 19s7f). The association of the marriage mystery and

chrism is cle&r from the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mat­

thew 25:1-12). The "living" or "perfect" man to be put on would be the

"new man" of Ephesians 4:24 or of Colossians 3*10, in which he is being

renewed "in knowledge." The key resource for Philip, however, is

II Corinthians 5*1-4. Here we learn of the "building =

K ^ T o f 119, 6] from God . . . eternal in the heavens . . . our heavenly

dwelling" to be put on, that thus "further clothed . . . what is mortal

may be swallowed up by life."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 122

As we have hinted above, although Philip sometimes seems to dis­

tinguish between the various sacraments of his sect, even comparing them,

in fact the distinctions are not ultimate. The reason for this is that

Jesus united the experience of baptism, chrism, and bridal-chamber in

his baptism. This comes through most clearly in 122, 12-22:

The chrism is superior to baptism, for from the chrism are we called
Christians, not because of the baptism; and Christ is called because
of the chrism. For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed
the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. He who is anointed7pos­
sesses the all. He possesses the resurrection, the light, the cross,
the Holy Spirit. The Father gave him this in the bridal chamber, he
received.

This all happens to the Gnostic. When? In the chrism? or the bridal

chamber? It is not clear, but this is not important to us. What is im­

portant to us is that Jesus is the key figure in this experience. When

he (the Son) was anointed by the Father in his baptism (nthe ’

Father gave him this in the bridal-chamber!1’) he possessed the all (and)

the resurrection, the light, the cross, the Holy Spirit. This Jesuss

passes along to the apostles and, through them, to us. This process is

clarified in 106, 22-26: ’’The Father makes a son [cf. Luke 3 *22, margin-

i'itoday I have begotten thee'3 and the Son has not the power to make a

son. For he who is begotten has not the power to beget, but the son gets

for himself only brothers, not sons Ccf. Hebrews 2:10-133.”

But why do we associate all this with Jesus' baptism? Not only

because this generally fits the ideas of the document but because our

key passage (119, 3-13) is preceded by these lines, unfortunately defective:

118 3k Jesus revealed

35 J3ordan the 7T X
36 0 of the king3dom of heaven which
37 3 before the all. Ag-
119 1 ain he was begotten. ACgain he was beg3otten as a
2 so [n3.
2. Again he was anounted. ACgain3 he was redeemed. Ag-
3 ain he redeemed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 123

Defective as they are, we sire able to see that at the Jordan Jesus re­

vealed the fulness of the Kingdom in his baptism at which at one and the

same time he was begotten (cf. Luke 3 :22 margin), anointed (cf. Acts 10:

3?f and Hebrews 1:9)» and redeemed (cf. Hebrews 9 :llf). This latter

passage in Hebrews~in which Christ, the high priest of the good, through

the greater and more perfect tabernacle enters the hply place through

his own blood to obtain redemption— underlies this whole key passage,

and others (e.g., 117 > 14-27— the holy of holies where only the priest

entered— the third and greatest temple in Jerusalem = the bridal chamber

which requires redemption to enter; 101, 13f— where it is the good who

are redeemed). But Philip is not thinking about the sacrifice of Jesus

on Calvary; he is thinking of the "redemption" found by Jesus when through

the "tabernacle" of a glorious body (and blood) presented him at his bap­

tism by the bridegroom and bride he enters the "holy place" of the bridal

chamber.

The purpose of what happened at Jesus' baptism— and its back­

ground— is clear. The whole work of Jesus is to heal the primeval separ­

ation which is the cause of death and all evils, e.g., 118, 9-12: "If

the woman had not separated from the man, she would not die with the man.

His separation became the beginning of death." And 116, 22-24: "When

Eve was in Adam, there was no death; but when she was separated from him

death came into being." This is why Christ came: to "remove the separa­

tion which was from the beginning and again unite the two . . . (to) give

life to those who died in the separation, and unite them." (ll8 , 12-17;

cf. 116, 25f.) Adam and Eve were victims of circumstances: "Eve was

separated from Adam because she was not united with him in the bridal

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 124

chamber" (ll8 , 20-22) and "Adam was born of two virgins: from the spirit

and from the virgin earth" (119, 16-18). Christ resolves both of the

difficulties: through his baptism he is born of one virgin (who came

down) to clear up the confusion (119, 18-21). and reveals the mystery

of the bridal chamber in which "the woman is united to her husband," and

"those who have united' in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated"

(118, 17-20).

Incarnation

Mary is the Mother of the Lord (107, 7 and 10), but Mary did not

conceive of the Holy Spirit, since a woman cannot conceive by a woman

(103, 23-26), nor did any power defile the virgin Mary (103, 27f). Also,

the Lord had another father besides the one he had in heaven (103, 53-35)•

Jesus was Joseph’s seed (121, l4f). Christ was born of one virgin, nob

two as in the case of Adam (119, 16-19).

This may seem confusing if not contradictory. This is our solu­

tion: Joseph and Mary were, by normal human processes, the parents of

the Lord Jesus. Luke 1:35 is not to be understood as teaching that the

Holy Spirit or any power could have impregnated Mary. Bather, as in

Basilides, the prophecies of Luke 1:35 will be fulfilled in Jesus' bap­

tism. Christ's birth of a virgin is his coming into being in the Bridal

Chamber at his baptism. But this leaves us with the problem of the vir­

ginity of Mary (103, 27f "Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled"):

our solution:; is that her virginity consisted of the fact that, in con­

trast to Eve's loss of virginity in her seduction by the serpent, Mary

was defiled by no such power.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 125

Did "Phillip" accept a flesh-and-blood Jesus, with, body and soul?

His attitude toward flesh is that there are at least two kinds (cf.

I Corinthians 15•39a): a "true flesh" and a "not true" (116, 35-36),

although at this point of the document its condition makes it impossible

to explain the difference, except that it may relate to the resurrection

of Jesus. Flesh is not to be feared or loved (114, h-6) but transcended

(I2*f, 17) and even destroyed (130, 29). This is the flesh we have,

which will not inherit the kingdom (see I Corinthians 15:50); if we were

raised in it we would really be naked (104, 26-105, la) whereas those

who strip it off are not naked (ibid., and cf. 114, 16-20). But there

is a flesh that will inherit— the flesh that belongs to Jesus, with bis

blood (1051 lb-3). "Philip" proves this by citing and interpreting

John 6:53 (105* 4-7)• eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood means

putting on his flesh-and-blood which is word-and-spirit, "in which

[’flesh’3 everything exists" (105, 19b-20), which flesh will rise

(105, 9f) and in which it is necessary to rise (105* 19a). This is,

of course, our old friend tjie new man = (wedding) garment which we are

to put on through our baptism-resurrection-chrism.

We find the same treatment of the "body": It is the despised

hiding place of the precious soul (104, 25f), so that only the wise

disciple, who looks to the state of the soul, is not deceived by the

bodily fohm (129, 1-6). But "the holy man is altogether holy, down to

his body" and will "purify' his body" (125, 2-7 ). Thus, as Jesus received

a glorious body in baptism, so also the Gnostic in his (123, 21-25).

Jesus had a "precious" soul hidden in a despised body, whose dis­

position the wise disciple discerns as the critical principle rather than

that of the bodily form:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 126

101, 6-13 Not only when he [Christ] appeared did he lay down, the
soul when he wishedt[John 10:183, but from the day the
world came into being he laid down the soul [Ephesians 1:
4, cf. Revelation 13s83. At the time when he wished, then
he came first to take it, since it had been left as a
pledge. It was under the robbers,[Luke 10:30; cf. John 10:83
and had been taken captive [cf. Romans 7*22f3. But he
saved it.

Here is another key passage in our document (although it is really a

parenthesis— ''saying" 9 becomes nicely balanced and coherent when it is

taken out!) Ephesian 1:3-14, John 10:7-18, the parable of the Good

Samaritan— with Colossian 2 and Romans 7— vie in furnishing us with the

predominant themes. We take special note of the following, in a still

obscure passage:

1) The soul Christ (from 100, 35) was to take seems to have had

a special appointing "from the day the world was made." This, pre­

existent soul (112, 10-12 = Gospel According to Thomas 84, 17-19) is

reminiscent of the "circuit" Jesus' soul had made "with the unbegotten

God" according to Carpocrates (A.H. I, 25, l). and with the one soul in

Origen’s system which did not decline and thus became the perfect inter­

mediary for the Logos (De Principiis IV, 2, J>).

1 2
2) This soul was left as a pledge to save (or separate ) all

"those whom he set as pledges in his will" (101, 4-6), i.e., those pre­

destined in the w^y described in the Ephesians I passage. This soul,

however, fell among robbers (Luke 10:30b) who falsely, i.e., prematurely

(John 10:8), took it captive (cf. Romans 7:23; Galatians 4:3, 8f;;

Colossians 2:8, 20-23). So, Christ came in the fulness of time, i.e.,

the time of his own choosing; to take his soul from these robbers and

, as amended by Till, loc. cit.

l , text.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 127

save it from captivity. When? At conception, birth, baptism or resur­

rection? All we have seen so far and the atmosphere of this passage:

would indicate the baptism.

It is at his baptism that body, flesh, soul, Jesus Christ coalesce

into that unity which alone can overcome the lethal separation inherited

from man's first parents. This. complex, assembling of Jesua' constituent

parts, the focus on the baptism of Jesus, and the implicit adoptionism

sire all strikingly similsir to what we found in Hippolytus' account of

BasilidesJ teaching.

It is not surprising that The Gospel According to Philip turns,

out to be, along with the Acts of P e t e r a primeiry witness to the no­

tion that the subject of the gospel stories appeared to each person ac­

cording to his moral and spiritual capacity:

104, 13-15 "The Christ has all things in himself, whether man, or
angel, or mystery, and the Father."

105, 28-106, Ik is too long to quote in full and has lacunae at its most

crucieil points. However, it is quite clear that Jesus "revealed himsdlf

as they would be able to see him . . . to the great as great . . . little

as little, to angels as an angel and to man as a man." The passage goes

on to allude to the Transfiguration (as in the case in the Acts of Peter—

2
and in Origen). In this document the emphasis seems to fall here not

on the challenge to the believer to sharpen his spiritual perceptiveness

but on Jesus' uniting in himself so many diverse elements.

^Vercelli Act, II, in M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament

(Oxford: Oxford, 1924), p. 321; and cf. Acts of John, 89 and 93» ibid..
pp. 251f.
2
See the observations and references in Robert M. Grant, The Earli­
estILivos of Jesus (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961), pp. 80f.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 128

Jesus of Nazareth

The words "Jesus," "Nazareth," and "Christ"-"Messiali" are tfre

subject of etymological-spiritual speculation in 194, 3-13 and 110,

6-17* There is no historical context in either case. The surprise is

the concern for Semitic languages. Nothing is made of the place,

Nazareth, or of difficulties it seems to have caused (cf. Matthew 2:23

and John 1:46; 7:52).

Jesus? Followers

Two of the twelve are mentioned: Levi, as the owner of a dye-

works; (ll:25f), and Philip the Apostle, to whom a saying is ascribed:

(I21:8ff).

As in other Gnostic writings, t)ie women are important, especially

Mary Magdalene. We have a reference to "the three Marys" in 1 0 7 :6 - 1 1 :

"There were three: who walked with the Lord at all times, Mary his Mother

and her sister and Magdalene who was called his consort

For Mary was his sister and his Mother and his consort ( £ u,77’0 . " The

first trio looks like a not unreasonable telescoping of John 19:25 with

the synoptics' picture of a small group of women at the crucifixion,

burial, and tomb. It is possible that in the second trio we have refer­

ences to a heavenly mother = Sophia = spirit, and sister = Sophia-Achamoth,

mysteriously referred to in the synoptics under the figures of Jesus?

Mother and sister(s) and parallelled by an earthly consort, the Magdalene.

Thus the traditional historic context of Jesus' life and ministry reveals

itself in this particular way as stuff of an allegory of a Gnostic cos­

mology. The Gnostic Jesus' predilection for and protectiveness toward

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Mary Magdalene (=Mary of Bethany) appears"*" to be reaffirmed in 111,

33-112, 5 (cf. John 12:1-8; John 11:2 + Luke ?:37; John 11*5; Luke 104

39-^2, the last saying in the Gospel according to Thomas and the con-

elusion to the Gospel of Mary). "Apostles" and "disciples" are dis­

tinguished at 107, 2?f, but it was to "disciples" that he appeared in

glory on the mount (106:5-10). Maybe "Philip" deduced that the apos-

tolate among Jesus’ followers began only with the anointing by the spirit

described in John 20:21f. We read in 122; 16-18: "For the Father anointed

the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us."

It is noteworthy that we find here a real doctrine of "apostolic succes­

sion," in which it is claimed that the Gnostics ("we") stand in the same

relation to the "apostles" that they do to the Son (and the Son does to

the Father). Also, there are reflected in the document traditions from

apostles— the Virgin Mary was a great anathema^ (oath?) for them, in

103, 27-30— and apostolic men— ibid.. and lMf, 29f.

Events, and Other Places

As we have seen, 196, seems to allude to Jesus' transfigura­

tion. In 113, 27ff., we are told that "the Lord did everything in a

mystery: a baptism and a chrism and a euchariat and a redemption and a

bridal chamber." We have noted the basic unity of these five'feacraments"

and that Jesus underwent all in his baptism. We may have allusion here,

however, to Jesus "ordaining" the sacraments of baptism (cf. John 3 and

Matthew 28), of chrism (cf. John 20:21£.), of eucharist (cf. Luke 22),

n
The MS, is damaged, so that M p never comes through.
A
English translation in Grant, Gnosticism. An Anthology, p. 68.
5d./v 0 4 ^

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 130

of bridal chamber (cf. John 2 :1-11), and of redemption (through his;

death? cf. Ephesians 1:7).

As to places, the temple and its veil are alluded to in long

sacramental passages on pages: 117 and 132. 104, 1-3 speaks; of "the

house of my Father," which, according to John 2:l6, would be the Temple.

"Jerusalem" is the only legible word— repeated twice— on 117* 31f•} and

the Jordan is certainly referred to at 118, 35* despite the absence of

the first letters (^ I O ),

Death and Resurrection

In the Gospel According to Philip Jesus died on a cross.. We

have seen that Christ laid down his life (101, 6-9). Animal sacrifice

preceded the slaying of "the man" and was quite unsatisfactory (110,

35-11* 3)* for the live animal died when it was offered, but the dead

man offered to God lived (103* 3-5)* although, paradoxically, "the Lord"

rose before he died (104, 17f.), i.e., he had the sacramental experience

of resurrection when he put on Christ at his baptism--this idea is^

pressed in order to convince the hearer that, he, too, must receive this

sacrament of "resurrection" before he diesj or it will be too late (121,

1-5).

"Jesus came crucifying the world" (ill, 24). This alludes to

Galatians; 6:14 and is advocating the world-denial understood to be im­

plied by Paul. But it also refers to the historic event. The conclu­

sive evidence for this is in 116, 26ff. in which the Matthaean saying

from the cross is quoted as preface to: "He said these words on the

cross." The cross;, we are told in 121, 8-19, was made by Joseph from

trees he had planted in his garden (Tfiy?(V 6 e-c ) and his seed hung

on it, but in the midst of that garden was also "the olive tree from

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 131

which the chrism is made by him for the resurrection." Cross and resur­

rection are characteristically treated together, e.g., in 122, 18-20,

"He who is anointed has all things: he possesses the resurrection, the

light, the cross . . . "

Our document never simply states in any passage clearly pre­

served that Jesus rose from the dead in any historical sense. Its in­

terest in resurrection seems to be purely sacramental and its concern

is to emphasize the necessity of a sacramental resurrection-regeneration

(cf. 115, 12-18) for the believer before death; i.e., here and now.

Il6:26ff. may suggest that Jesus was raised in a true flesh'*'— which would

be of the type of "that which belongs to Jesus with his blood" and "in

which everything exists" and "it is necessary to rise" (105, 2-19). But,

unfortunately, the text is defective. We conclude, frankly, that

"Philip"' is not really interested in Jesus' resurrection other than the

saving and quickening uniting in his baptism of the fatally divided

elements inherited from our primeval parents (ll8 , 13-17)— it is the

indissoluble and eternal who are exalted above the world (101, 21-23).

The Work of Christ

100, 35-101, 2 Christ came to ransom some, to save others, to

redeem others.

118, 13-17 Christ came in order that he might remove the

separation which was from the beginning, and again
unite the two, and that he might give life to those
who died in the separation, and unite them.

101, 20-23 • • • each one will be resolved into its own from
the beginning. But those who are exalted above
the world are indissoluble and eternal.

X
Cf. reconstruction of Schenke and Till as reported in Wilson.
op* ext.. pp. 135f. ’

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 132

In the continuation of the first passage Christ is said to ran­

som and make his own, "those who were strangers," and to save (or separ­

ate)^" "his own, those whom he set as pledges in his will." Then follows

the passage about Christ's laying down, taking up, and saving his soul

v X w ). This work of Christ seems to be the redeeming of the

spirits which are held captive here by hostile powers in an environment

alien to their essential nature. However, we take this to be secondary

to the basic doctrine of the work of Christ in the other two passages:

the removal of the original separation by uniting the divided.

The Fall in Philip is the separation of Eve from Adam in Genesis 2 ,

as is intimated in the way the second is introduced. This defection from

the original androgynous unity of Genesis. 1:27b symbolizes the basic flaw

in existence, which is the shattering of the original unity with a separ­

ateness which, in turn, has resulted in a new series of faulty mixtures

of disparate elements, e.g., spirit, soul and flesh. Thus the work of

Christ involves the breaking up, or differentiation, of faLse and destruc­

tive combinations of incompatible elements. But the end of this is the

restoration of primordial unity.

(There is no hint of it in the Gospel of Philip, but we may as­

sume that this story of fall and restoration has, in the minds of Philip's

readers, its counterpart in the disturbance in the Pleroma created by

Sophia's undue curiosity and the healing of the disturbance by (l) the

separation from her of her curiosity, and (2) the restoration of balance.,

and calm to the Pleroma as in A.H. I, 3, 5f.).

^See Wilson, op. cit., p. 71*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 133

There is no intimation in Philip that this work of Christ is iso­

lated to the historic Jesus or anything he did. We judge that the work

was effected (l) by the "dissolving" or "differentiation" of Jesus into

his constituent elements at the crucifixion, (2) by his communication of

the Gnosis of these things, particularly after the resurrection, and the

correct exegesis of inspired scripture, and (3 ) the effecting of the

mysteries in the believers (Gnostics) in sacramental acts. The work of

the Cross:, may appear to show interest in the historic Jesus.. However,

it amounts to nothing more than a demonstration"*" of the kind of differ­

entiation any Gnostic must accomplish in himself through self-understanding

and mystical participation in Gnostic sacraments.

Conclusions

The special message of the Gospel of Philip is that the fatal

division men have discovered within themselves, which was inherited from

the primeval separation of their first parents, has been healed in prin­

ciple in the baptism-chrism-redemption-resurrection-marriage chamber

which was Jesus,' baptism at Jordan and becomes effective in the Gnostic

as he is instructed in the truth behind the mysterious figures of Christian

tradition and is sacramentally initiated into the mysteries.

The writer seems to draw from traditions in Matthew, Luke, and

John, Acts, and in the Pauline Corpus: Romans, I and II Corinthians,

Galatians, the captivity Epistles and Hebrews.

In dealing with the life and ministry of Jesus he has behind him

a highly ingenious exegesis of the synoptics, which he does not exposit,

"*"We might call it an "audio-visual aid."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 134

which permits him to throw the whole weight of Jesus' person on the

Baptism and reject a literal Virginity for Mary. This is the most

frankly adoptionist document we have examined. Indeed, only in his

baptism does Jesus seem to diverge from the common experience of the

Gnostic, and it would seem that even in this case the Gnostic's sacra­

mental experiences are aimed to close the gap.

We must not imagine, however, that Philip presents us with a

simple and convincing human subject of "everything that happened; in the

Gospels." On the contrary, Jesus is a purely composite figure after

the Baptism— we do not see a pre-Baptism Jesus except as seed of Joseph—

whose words and acts are pure riddles, to be solved by an exegetical

tradition handed down by apostles, principally "Philip," we may assume.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER ¥11

THE SOPHIA OF JESUS CHRIST

This writing is found in Coptic in two manuscripts.^ One is:

found in a Codex acquired in Cairo in 1896 and taken to Berlin, iden­

tified as Codex Berolensis 8502, in which it occupies page 77 > line 8

through page 127, line 12. This is our system of identification of pas­

sages. This was finally published in a critical text with German trans­

lation by Walter C, Till in 1955*^ Till provided; brief notes and in­

troduction, including in the latter (pages 53f) parallel columns which

k
show parallel passages in Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1081, "The Letter of

Eugnostps the Blessed" (=Nag Hammadi Codex III, tractate JyP and the

other manuscript of the document = Nag Hammadi III, 4-. In Till's

critical apparatus in the margins.; all variants in these manuscripts to

^For a convenient summary by Henri-Charles Puech of the history

of the document, see F. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche
Apokryphen . . . (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1959)» PP» 168-70.
2
Carl Schmidt, "En Vorirenaisch.es Gnostisches Originalwerke in
Koptischer Sprache," Sitzungabeichte der Preussischen Akademi de
Wissenschaft (1896)., pp. £39-^7•
3
Walter C. Till, Die Gnostichen Schriften des Koptischen Papyrus
Berolinensis 8502 (Berlin* Akademie-Verlag, 1955)* PP* 195-295.
If
Henri-Charles Puech, "Vortzpg Auf dem G. Internationalen Kongress
fur Papyrologie 19^2," Coptic Studies in Honor of W. E. Crum (Boston:
Byzantine Institute of America, 1950), p. 98, n. 2.
5
Also equals V, 1. We continue to follow the classification
scheme declared to be now standard by James M. Robinson in New Testament
Studies. XII (1968), 380ff. ‘

135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 136

the Berlin text are noted; thus the still unpublished texts of Nag

HamnddiIII, 3 and H I , can be inferred from Till's text.

Discussion^ of the relation of the Sophia of Jesua- Christ

to the Letter of Eugnostos has not yet ceased, for it has become a

test case in the still lively issue as to whether there was a pre-

Christian Gnosticism: the priority of the Sophia of Jesus Christ would,

it seems, indicate that there was present a de-Christianizing tendency

2
in developed Gnosticism, whereas the priority of Eugnostos,1 Letter would

provide the long-awaited evidence of pre- (or at least non-) Christian

3
Gnostic mythsi which were later to be given a Christian coloration. It

is not surprising that the same scholars are debating the same issues

in relation to documents with roughly the same cosmogony; the Apocryphon

of John., and a document Doresse thinks may be a continuation of Eugnostos.'

letter— Nag Hammadi II, 5 C=XIII, 2 )^ which are quite close to the views

of other "Gnostics” as set forth by Irenaeus. in A.H. I, 29 and 30. In­

terest in Jesus of Nazareth is found in the Sophia of Jesus Christ only

■^Summarized conveniently, ibid.. pp. 372ff.

2
Hans-Martin Schenke in "Nag Hamadi Studien II: Das System der
Sophia Jesu Christi," Zeitschrift filr Religions— und Geistesgeschichte.
XIV (1962), 263-78.
3
See M. Krause in "Das Literarische Verhaltnis des Eugnostos
briefes zur Sophia Jesu Christi . . . " in Mullus, Festschrift Theodor
Klauser (Mtinster Westfalen: Aschendorf, 196*0.
*f
J. Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, trans.
by Philip Uhiret(New Yorkt Viking, i960), p. 195*

^See Robinson, op. cit., pp. 373f • and 376f. and Hans-Martin
Schenke, "Die Spitze des dem Apokryphen Johannis und der Sophia Jesus
Christi Zugrundeliegender Gnostischen Systems," Zeitschrift fur Religions—
und Geistegeschishte. XIV (1962), 352-71*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 137

in those passages not paralleled in the Letter of Eugnostos— indeed

Krause argues that the latter contains no Christian ideas— -so our con­

cern is limited to the former, and we shall quite lay aside the question

of anteriority, which, as James M. Robinson notes, must await publica­

tion of the texts involved.

The Sophia of Jesus Christ contains a complex theogony-cosmogony

which takes as its point of departure a previously unknown "God who is

over all" (126, 7f) = a "God, the eternal father of eternal incorrupti­

bility" whom the "perfect Savior" reveals to the mature (126, 8-10).

Sheets 83 to 87 describe this indescribable who is, negatively, without

beginning or birth or name, immortal, eternal, infinite, incomprehensible,

immutable, immaculate, inconceivable, unknowable, immense and unattain­

able and, positively, good, blessed, perfect, ruler of all, completely

mind, consideration, thought, wisdom, power, Father of all. The hier­

archy of being that ensues is not quite as clear as in the related docu­

ments mentioned above but does get us down to the material universe and

the beggarly robber spirits who dominate it. Fortunately, the task of

isolating the implied understanding of the historic Jesus in this docu­

ment is easier than systematizing the theogony— cosmogony and christology—

soteriology.

Sophia of Jesus Christ is presented as an encounter of the risen

Jesus with his followers, "his twelve disciples" (77:11-15)• They had

gone up to Galilee to the mount called "Place of the time of ripening

and of Joy," all in a state of theological, cosmological, and soterio-

logical doubt. The dependence on Matthew 28:16, 17 is obvious— disciples,

^■Robinson, op. cit., pp. 373f.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Galilee, mountain, doubt— although Jesus' opening words are from John

(20*19; 1^:27). But we note that in Sophia of Jesus Christ there are

twelve disciples instead of eleven, plus seven women, and that all were

in doubt.

Of the "twelve disciples" Philip, Thomas, Matthew, and Bartholomew

only are named as interlocutors; of the seven women, only Mariham (Mary

MagaleneO is named. Twice "the disciples" question Jesus, and once, the

"holy apostles." It is surprising that we are told of twelve, not only

because of the gospel tradition of Judas' defection, but also because

we should expect these special revelations to be limited to a select few

among the twelve. We do note that Peter, James and John are not men­

tioned by name. This is also a little surprising in light of the fact

that the transfiguration is alluded to in 79, *t-9 : "a pure and perfect

flesh of his kind as he showed us on the mount called 'of Olives' in

Galilee." One is tempted, however, to think that a writer who could

refer to the transfiguration as on the Mount of Olives in Galilee- might

easily have the risen Jesus appear to the twelve disciples!

Of more interest is the description of Jesus' person. We note

that he is "risen from the dead" (77i9-ll) and that he appeared "not

in his first form (/t_ op ) but in that invisible spirit (7F / g c7 /loc).

His countenance ( 6: f A/ £ , translates 7Tf>o cru> noi/ at Luke 9:29)

was that of a great angel of light (cf. Matthew 28:2bff.); his likeness

(C H 0 X , translates^ 0 p Cp YL in Mark 16:12 but also

%p, o c La/^a. in Philippians 2:?) I cannot describe. No mortal flesh

could contain him, but a pure and perfect flesh of his kind as he showed

us on the Mount." (78, 12-79, 7.)

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 139

We seem to have four levels here: (l) mortal flesh, (2) Jesus’

first form (3) the pure and perfect flesh Jesus showed on the Mount,

and (k) invisible spirit. In our text (l) is contrasted to (3) and (2)

to (4). (l) and (2) seem to be positively related to one another as

are (3) arid (k). Are they identical? We think not, although the cor­

respondence is high. Jesus’ "first form" must have had some kind of

mortality if he was to rise from the dead. Likewise, ’'Jure and perfect

flesh" could serve to explain how "invisible spirit" could "appear."

Sophia of Jesus Christ does not really go beyond the canonical gospels

here in their effort to contrast the appearance of the mortal Jesus with

the transfigured or risen Jesus. It would be unjustified to accuse

Sophia of Jesus. Christ of docetism on this point.

Jesus’ work is clearly stated: He came from the eternal light

(or the first light, 83, 10), "from the place above according to the

will of the great light" (lQif, 7-10), knows about God and the universe

and thus tells his disciples the exact ( c € c. ) truth (8l:

17-82:3). Even the wisest philosophers, being born from the earth could

not guess the truth about God and his ways. No one can know the truth

except through the Master (88:1-3), through whom God reveals himself,

for he is the great soter (83si**-19)• He came from the infinite

( 7r <sv j/r'o*'') to teach all things to his followers (87513-15)*

He is the "interpreter"^ who was sent (cf. John 20:21), who is with you

to the end of the Poverty of the Robber (cf. Matthew 28:20b) and whose

syzygy is Sophia the Great (9*t:16-95 :l)»

1 ( It ? £ '4 /S y , translating I^ 1/ t u zr ^ r
cf. Nag Hammadi III, *f).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 i4o

Having come from the First who was sent, he reveals what was

from the beginning (125:10-14), and leads his disciples from their

blindness>cast over them by Archigenetor who thinks he is God by show­

ing forth the God who is over the all. (125:9-126:5*) Thus Jesus, is

a revealer of esoteric theosophy. But the effect of this revelation

is salutary. He whose countenance is with his disciples (who came into

existence through him) is the savior of the sons of the unbegotten

Father (92:4-15).1

Through Jesus, who corresponds to the immortal who sprang from

/
the light of APXH, "men attained salvation and were awakened (V/l^e-ct')
2
from forgetfulness through the interpreter." ($4:7-16.) "Through this

immortal man, therefore, we [sic] appeared in godliness and kingship."

(95:5-8*) As interpreter of the deep things of God, Jesus "freed the

creation and broke the work of the Robber's Grave. (He) awakened that

'drop' sent from Sophia so that it bore rich fruit through (him). It

became perfect, no longer defective, but bearing fruit. (He) is the

great soterl— so that its glory is manifest; so that Sophia is acquitted

of that spot and her children (cf. Matthew 11:19), no more blemished,
/•
but attaining honor ( i-
/At A. ) and glory, ascend to their father and

know the way of the words of the light (104, 10-105, 9)•

Conclusion

Despite an artificial scenario which includes numbers, names;

and places, we conclude that the interest in the historic Jesus and his

^QSiis whole section is confused. Our reconstruction is largely

based on Eugnostos (and Nag Hammadi III, 4).
2 *— \ ^
( B ^ f translates A <9- or possibly
** A )
0L- y y a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Ikl

historical context is nil. The twelve disciples and the seven women

represent conventional numbers. The speakers who are named are, with

the exception of Matthew, the conventional Gnostic apostles Thomas,

Philip, and Bartholomew and the mysterious Mariham, who is based on

the Mary Magdalene, of the Canonical Gospels. Even the principal

speaker, who certainly has some relation to the historic Jesus, is a

completely composite and ill-defined being. The geography is even more

confused. The 'place of the time of maturity and of joy" is patently

mythological. The "Mount of Olives in Galilee" is the next thing to it.

The mention of Galilee simply reflects the writer's familiarity with

Matthew 28:16.

The work of Jesus Christ is simply that of an interpreter of

esoteric knowledge. He is thus both the type of the Gnostic teacher

and the guarantor that such a one is teaching the authentic secrets,

the knowledge of which will liberate the initiate from the usurping

despotism of body and matter for an eternal, spiritual and unambiguous

existence with kindred spirits.

As to his person, the risen Jesus appears in a light-filled,

indescribable,, pure-and-perfect flesh which somehow contrasted with an

earlier "first-form." This is all that we are told. This is, not in­

compatible with the description of Jesus found in the canonical Gospels,

although it is vague enough to lend itself to interpretations in which

any vestige of humanity as we know it is lost. There is, however, im­

plicit in the risen-from-the-dead and the flesh an anti-docetic tendency.

Sophia of Jesus ChrisA is interested only in theogony and cos­

mology and views the work of Jesus and the salvation of the soul exclu­

sively in terms of the communication of such knowledge. It will concede

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 14?.

all that is necessary not to offend the second-century insistence on an

incarnation as long as it can present its own theories ahout the origin

and hierarchy of spiritual beings, the predicament of the soul, and the

gnosis needed to awaken the drop from its oblivion, so that it can es­

cape from the Eobber's grave; i.e., awaken the prospective gnostic from

his ignorance so as to liberate him for his immortal destiny. A Jesus

who heals, debates moral issues or teaches concern for one's neighbor—

especially a Jesus who suffers, has no place in Sophia of Jesus Christ,

but it would have no objection to him.

In other Gnostic writings we have noted a uniformly "adoptionist"

view of the person of Jesus Christ. There is simply no evidence here

to go on. We only note the figure of the consort Sophia (94, 11-95, 4)

who has usually been associated with the baptism of Jesus and its adop­

tive connotations.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER VIII

IR E N A E U S 1 A R G U M E N T W IT H THE G N O S T IC S

The real issue between emerging Catholicism and developed' Gnos­

ticism was not monotheism, cosmology, ethics, or even soteriology but

the integrity of the historic Jesus. We have seen that developed Gnos­

ticism sought to come to terms with him, abandoning both the docetism

of the earliest Gnostics and the raw dualism of a Carpocrates or Cerinthus.

By ingenious exegesis great Gnostic teachers and writers were likewise

able to come to terms with writings rapidly becoming "canonical.11 But

they could not convince Irenaeus or the Great Church that their theogonies

were not polytheist or that their opposition of Demiurge to Jesus’ Father

was compatible with an adequate understanding of Jesus. When the great

Gnostic teachers denied the continuity of the Great Church with Jesus.
1

commissioning of the apostles and the continuity of Jesus’ central teach­

ings with the rules of faith of the great metropolitan churches this was

a serious threat, but most significant of all was the Gnostics’ denial

of the unity of God and man in Jesus of Nazareth.

The range of disagreement between Irenaeus and the Gnostics is

so wide and complete that we are tempted to wonder if Irenaeus developed:

his theology simply in opposition to Gnosticism. Our thesis is that

Irenaeus’ fundamental argument with the Gnostics is on the question of

the historic Jesus. It is questionable that any one point of contention

can thus be singled out as fundamental, and so we shall try to show

1^3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 simultaneously that there is one basic issue and what it is. Our argu­

ment consists largely of showing that Irenaeus' thought expresses itself

in aseries of unities (all opposed by the Gnostics), which areulti­

mately one; i.e., the unity of God and man in Jesus Christ.

Hie Unity of God and the Covenants

The first of these is the unity of God. At the end ofthe Pre­

face to Book II of his great work against the heresies (A.H.) Irenaeus

announces his intention " . . . to put an end to these hidden alliances,

and to Bythus himself, and thus to obtain a demonstration that he never

existed at any previous time, nor now has any existence."^ Irenaeus

does not hesitate to prove God's unity negatively: there is no unknown

Father over and beyond the Creator (Bythus does not exist); there is no

Ogdoad, no Pleroma or Tricontad; there is no Good God distinguished from

the Just God.

Book II proper opens with the assertion that it will be demon­

strated that there is nothing either above or after the Creator who

created all things by his own free will and who alone contains all things.

This is, simply, the one and only God. Everybody knew this: the ancients

who preserved the tradition from the time of Adam, others who were re­

minded by the prophets, heathens who deduced this from the creation it­

self, and the universal church which received the tradition from the
2
apostles. The idea that there is an unknown Father superior to the

■*”We use the translation, here and hereafter, provided in Volune I

of The Ante-Nicene Fathers . . . American reprint of the Edinburgh
edition (New York: Scribner's, 1926).

2A .H . X II, 9 , 1 .

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 3A5

Creator is a late rumor first circulated by Simon Magus and elaborated

by his successors. This concept is even worse than heathen polytheism

and idolatry which at least give first place to the Creator.^

Irenaeus argues against the Gnostics' breaking God up into an

Ogdoad, arguing that God is a

. . . simple, uncompounded being, without diverse members, and al­

together like and equal to himself, since he is wholly understand­
ing, and wholly spirit, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason,
and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the
whole source of all that is good.^

Or, again "The Ogdoad which they have built up at once falls to pieces"

since Word and Only-begotten, Life and Light, Savior and Christ, and
X
the Son of God and he who became incarnate are one and the same.

There is a succinct statement of the Unity of God in A.H. II,

30, 9, both in its negative and positive aspects. We summarize it thus,

as it is still too long for complete quotation: there is one God, the

Creator, with none beside or above him— no Mother, no second god, no

pleroma, no Bythus, no series of heavens. He is Father and author of

k
all things, is just and good, God of Patriarchs-Law-Prophets, whom

Christ reveals (as his Father) to all who know him, whom the apostles

(i.e., the "apostolic" writings^) proclaim and in whom the Church be­

lieves. Thus, negatively, there is no other God than the Creator and,

positively, he is the one God revealed (l) in all parts of the "Old

Testament," (2) in and by Jesus Christ, (3) in the apostolic writings,

and (4) the public testimony of the Church.

1A.H. II, 9 , 2. 2AsH. II, 13, 3.

3A.H. I, 9 , 3.
k
That is, the Jewish scriptures.
5
That is, roughly, the New Testament.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 lk6

The Gnostic theogony— cosmogonies known to Irenaeus (Valentinian,

Barbelo-Gnostic, Sethian-Ophite) may have been efforts to safeguard the

austere unity of the ineffable abyss of being— Irenaeus seems to say as

much in A.H. I, 22, 1 " . . , almost all the different sects of heretics

admit that there is one God, but then by their pernicious doctrines they

change . . . 11— but for Irenaeus they in fact surrender all unity and

simplicity in God in their effort to get from the ineffable abyss through

intelligence and curiosity to coming-into-being, passion, impurity, con­

fusion and the material universe.

The unity of God is closely related to the unity of revelation

proved by the continuity of scripture, tradition, and the public testi­

mony of the Church. The constantly underlying theme of Book IV of A.H.

is the unity of the Hebrew scriptures and the apostolic writings: "one

and the same householder produced both covenants, the Word of God, our

Lord Jesus Christ, who spoke with Abraham and Moses" (IV, 9 , l). The

Testaments are one, of course, since one God appointed both (IV, 32, 2);

"the author of the Law and the Gospel is shown to be the one and the same"

(IV, 12, 3)• Creation and redemption are united through the Word who

effects both (IV, 10, 2). Old law and new have one author (IV, 11-17,

especially 15f•)•

The unity of the covenants is related to the unity of the uni­

versal church with apostolic churches (III, 2f.), the unity of the

testimony of the apostles (and their disciples, e.g., Mark and Luke),

as seen in the apostolic literature (III, 9ff»)»1 Irenaeus states flatly

that all the apostolic writers (III, 1 , 2) " . . . declared to us that

■*TII, 9 for Mattfeew; 10 for Mark and Luke; 11; 1-6 for John; 11,
7-9 for all four; 12, 1-7 for Peter (and John); 12, 8 , for Philip; 12, 9
for Paul; 12, 10 for Stephen; 12, 11-15 all in Acts; III, 13ff. for Paul
with all the others. See also Appendix.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 147

there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and

the prophets; and one Christ, the Son of God.

It is not our concern here to argue the historical accuracy of

Irenaeus* vision of the unity of God demonstrated in a unity of revela­

tion in Old Testament and New, Jesus and the apostles, the apostles and

churches they founded, the teaching of Jesus and the public testimony

of the churches. We simply want to underline the fact that this sense

of unity is the essence of Irenaeus* thought.

Developed Gnosticism did not reject the Old Testament like

Marcion and either distributed its various levels of teachings to varied

1 2
sources of inspiration, as for example Ptolemy did and the Ophites,

or engaged in the most detailed and intricate exegesis, especially early

chapters in Genesis, as for example we find in the Apocryphon of Johrn

and Nag Hammadi II, 3 (=XHI, 2). This latter technique seems to have

been used on the opening sections of the Gospel of John by the Valentinian

Heracleon who seems to have been the first to compose a continuous com­

mentary on a New Testament book.^ Fundamental to Gnosticism, however,

is the disjunction of the creating and legislating god of the Jewish

scriptures and the divine origin of the Savior. The former cannot on

his own transcend "justice," but his blind and stupid arrogance that

makes him believe "there is none other God than him" does enable his

Mother to slip some patterns and images into his utterances; which enable

^See Letter to Flora in Grant, Gnosticism, an Anthology, pp. 184-90.

2A.H. I, 30, 11.

3
Origen quotes his exegetical notes in his John commentary.
English translation of these is conveniently offered by Grant in Gnos­
ticism, an Anthology, pp. 195-208.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 148

the Gnostic to discern the true spiritual meaning of ’’scripture." This

ability is not possessed by the careful reader or revealed in key pas­

sages in Paul, as is the case in Origen, nor can the wise and clever

discover the exegetical secret. The secret was revealed by Jesus the

interpreter (P6 ^ = (zf/ n . v& v c /15) to selected apostles who passed

it along in an esoteric tradition to contemporary Gnostic teachers.

To such private systems of exegesis or source criticism Irenaeus

opposed the unity of God and His revelation in Hebrew scripture through­

out, in the publicly received apostolic writings, and the public testi­

mony of apostolic churches.

The Unity of History

Basic in Irenaeus’ insistence on the unity of God, of the Testa­

ments, of Jesus, Apostles, Church and tradition, is his belief in one

plan of salvation, or, to state it another way, the unity of history.

Irenaeus sees the whole sweep of human history from the first couple

through Noah and the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets, Jesus and the

apostles, the creation of the universal church through the inclusion of

the nations along with Israel in the new covenant, the perpetuating of

the apostolic community by apostolic men and the elders, as one continu­

ous working out in history of the plan of salvation conceived and ef­

fected by the one and only Creator— God. The sacred literature of old

Israel, the body of apostolic literature ever more widely accepted as

normative, and the consensus on fundamental doctrines found in churches

of apostolic foundation all testify, openly and avowedly, to the unity

and internal harmony of the one plan for history of the one and only God.

Irenaeua did not trouble himself to argue that the nations had

always had their place in this plan. Justin had laid a basis by seeing

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I*f9

the Logois at work in pagan history, especially in the more thoughtful

philosophers. Irenaeus passes over the elaboration of this in his sys­

tem because his argument was with Gnostics who posed the problem to him

only in terms of the relation of Jesus to the God (and history) of the

Old Testament. He left it to Augustine to relate pagan history to sal­

vation history, in this case on the basis of the doctrine of the two

cities. Irenaeus contented himself with ecclesiology and Biblical

theology because of his chiliasm and the simple fact that he long ante­

dated the great divide of church history: the Constantinian settlement.

Irenaeus inherited the notion that historical experience is essentially

one and continuous because there is one Creator God who through and

throughout history is moving the creation to its destiny.

Irenaeus assumed that creation ex nihilo was essential Christian

dogma and that the one creator had a unified purpose for his creation

and therefore a unified destiny for it— immortality. Nothing but God

is unoriginate or uncreated, so eternity in the creature is something

attained rather than given by nature. Irenaeus guarded intact, with a

literalness that embarrassed the later church, the primitive Christian

notion that not only the whole man but the whole creation was destined

for immortality and incorruptibility despite its origin from nothing and

in time.

Irenaeus recognized that appearance in time and the consequent

lack of inherent immortality (necessary being) posed a philosophical

problem for the idea of creaturely immortality. He refused to solve it

by discovering immortal elements embedded in the temporal creation as

totally foreign to the Biblical tradition as he understood it. On the

contrary, the problem provided Irenaeus with the opportunity to demonstrate

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 150

that the recent and inherently mortal creation becomes incorruptible

by the taking up of creaturehood into God in the incarnation of the in­

herently immortal, invisible and impassible Word. Thus Irenaeus retains

the unique inherent immortality Sf God Himself and His Word but discovers

the key to the immortality of the creation as a whole in the Incarnation

in which originally mortal elements are united to immortality and caught

up in it.

It is no more surprising to Irenaeus that bodies can be immortal

than that souls can be, that the flesh (properly understood) can be saved

than that the soul and spirit are. Everything about man and creation is

inherently mortal, so if any part is granted immortality why not all?

For Irenaeus, man is a unity in himself and all men are of one substance.

Therefore, when God enters the historical process, the whole man and all

men are, at least potentially, saved and given immortality.

The Incarnation is the climax of history because it is the cru­

cial act in the one divine plan worked out in history. Previous history,

from the time of Adam, was a preliminary build-up to God’s entrance into

history and transformation of the creation. Irenaeus' key doctrines of

successive covenants, of a gradual paideusis in which God prepares his

creation for its destiny as he leads it towards it, of a series of dis­

pensations, and of recapitulation sill depend on this idea:- one plan of

salvation worked out by the one God in a unified history which leads to

the taking up of the inherently mortal creation into the inherently im­

mortal Word who grants it immortality.

The Unity of Christ

Even more fundamental to Irenaeus1 theology and argument with

the Gnostics are the unities associated with Jesus Christ: the unity

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 of Jesus' life with Old Testament prophecies, Jesus' unity with God, the

unity of Christ, his unity with man (and the unity of man himself), and,

above all, the unity of God and man in Jesus. This last is the heart,

of Irenaeus' positive teaching.

Toward the end of Book IV (Chapters 33-35) we find a long sec­

tion dealing largely with the correspondence between the life of Jesus

and Old Testament prophecy (Irenaeus1 Epideixis. does so in even greater

detail, but we are here concerned with the argument with the Gnostics).

Thus are announced in the Hebrew scripture the birth in Bethlehem and

the healings (A.H. IV, 33, 11), the bearing of infirmity, entry into

Jerusalem on the foal of an ass, the details of his passion and death

(IV, 33, 12), his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation ( , 13), and

the new covenant ( , 14). The "whole conduct, and all the doctrine,

and all the sufferings of our lord were predicted through (the prophets)"

(IV, 34, l). Irenaeus insists on this so strongly that he begins to

wonder whether he may sound as if he has left no place for newness in

the coming and work of Jesus. He insists, however, that the newness: of

being fulfillment as over against prophetic intimation is quite suffi­

cient— using the analogy of the difference between the announcement of

a king's coming and the visit itself. Also he admits that the Jews had

not been able to deduce beforehand an adequate picture of the advent

and its attendant happenings, although Joseph was helped by the Old

Testament to believe that Mary would conceive as a virgin, and for the

same reason the Jews were generally in a better position to accept Jesus

as Lord than Gentiles were.

The unity of the incarnate Word-gon with God is a constant theme

throughout Adversus Haereses. The Old Testament names as Lord only "God

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 152

the Father ruling over all and His son who has received dominion from

His Father over all creation" (III, k, l); the spirit designates both

by the name of God: both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does

anoint, that is, the Father" (ibid.). The apostles and prophets con­

fess the Father and the Son (III, 9, l). Christ confesses the Maker

to be his Father (IV, 2, 2). "The Son is the measure of the Father,

since he also comprehends him" (IV, 2). "Through the Word Himself

who had been visible and palpable was the Father shown forth" for the

Son (is) the visible of the Father (IV, 6, 6). The one almighty God

made all things by His Word (III, 11, l). We need not multiply examples.

This unity of Word and Father is paralleled in the unity of

Christ himself. The Gnostics divided Christ, in a variety of ways since

they did not agree among themselves: The Christ and the Creator's son

are two beings, or Christ-from-above is one and Jesus another, or Monogenes

and Logos are distinct, or Word and Christ and Savior and "the dispen-

sational Jesus" are all distinct (e.g., Ill, 11; cf. IV, pref. 3).

Ill, 16, 8. Therefore, all are outside the dispensation, who, under
pretext of knowledge, understood that Jesus was one, and Chris thanother,
and Monogenes another, from whom again is the Word, and that the
Savior is another . . . [they] lowering and dividing the son of God
in many ways . . . [whereas! Jesus Christ [is! one and the same.

Ill, 17, 4- . . . The Son of God, the onlybegotten, who is also the
Word of the Father [came! in the fulness of time, having become in­
carnate in man for the sake of man, . . . our Lord Jesus Christ be­
ing one and the same, as He Himself the Lord doth testify, as the
apostles confess, and as the prophets announce.

Christ is not only one with God but one with man. "The Word,

who existed in the beginning with God, by whom allthings were made, who

was always present with mankind, was in these last days, according to :the

time appointed by the Father, united to his own workmanship, inasmuch as

he became a man liable to suffering" (III, 18, 2). The Son of God became

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 the Son of man (III, 18, 3) "for in no other way could we have learned

the things of God unless our Master, existing as Word, had become man

. . . (and thus) we may have communion with him (IV, i, i). If the

Word deceived us by not being man as he seemed to be, we should not

expect to find any truth from him (V, 1 , 2). By the principle of re­

capitulation, "the Lord professes himself to be the Son of man (i.e.,

human), comprising in himself that original man out of whom the woman

was fashioned, in order that, as our species went down to death through

a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious

one" (V, 21, l).

Closely associated with this unity of Christ with humanity is

the unity of human personality itself. "Man is a temporatio of soul

and flesh, which was found after the likeness of God" (V, pref. 4).

Irenaeus argues that the bodies of the righteous should be saved and

enter into immortality if the souls are, for the bodies also shared in

the righteousness; (II, 29, If.). In human personalities, souls and

bodies are united (II, 33 > **■)• In the Eucharist we "announce consistently

the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit" (IV, 18, 5)•

Book V is largely concerned with the resurrection of the flesh

and therefore the unity of the human personality. We limit ourselves

to three citations: "man, and not a part of man, was made in the like­

ness of God . . . for the perfect man consists in the commingling and

the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admix­

ture of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God"

(V, 6, l); becoming spiritual "does not take place by a casting away of

the flesh, but by the impartation of the spirit" (V, 8, l), for "our

substance (which is) the union of flesh and spirit (receives) the spirit

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 154.

of God (and thus becomes) the spiritual man" (V, 8 , 2). This unity is

not just characteristic of certain kinds of men "since all men are of

the same nature" (IV, 37, 2).

The final unity in our schematization is that of God and man in

Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word. This, of course, is fundamental in

Irenaeus^1 soteriology and theology of history as it is, indeed, in his

whole thought. Irenaeus notes that despite the wide divergences among

the Gnostic systems, "according to the opinion of no one of the hereties

was the Word of God made flesh" (III, 11, 3)? neither Word nor Savior

nor Christ became flesh; some systems are purely Docetic, others have a

"dispensational Jesus" born of Mery (whether as a virgin or not) but in

none of these latter is there an Incarnation, only an infusion of the

human Jesus by some power or spiritual being. Irenaeus1 teaching is

radically opposed to all this, of course. "Christ Jesus, the Son of

God . . . because of his surpassing love towards His creation condes­

cended to be born of the Virgin, He himself uniting man through Himself

to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and

having been received up in splendor, shall come in glory, the Savior

of those who are saved, and the judge of those who are judged, and send­

ing into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His

Father and the advent" (III, 4, 2).

"Recapitulation" is the key idea of Jesus Christ the Lord, the

only-begotten Word of the true God

. . . who is always present with the human race, united to and

mingled with His own creation, according to the Father's pleasure . . .
became flesh, . . . did also suffer for us, and rose again on our
behalf and . . . will come again . . . to raise all flesh . . . who
came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements, and gathered
together all things in Himself. But in every respect, too, He is.
man, the formation of God; and thus he took up man into himself, the
invisible becoming visible^ . . . and the Word becoming man, thuss
summing up all things in Himself (III, 16, 6).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 155

God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man (III,

18, 7)• It was for this end that the Word of God was made: man, and
He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man having
been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become
the son of God (III, 19, l).

Here is a succinct, classic statement: "The Word of God, our Lord Jesus:

Christ . . . did, through His transcendent love, become what we are,

that he might bring us to be even what He is Himself" (V, pref.). When

the Word became flesh he "assimilated man to the invisible Father through

means of the visible Word" (V, 16, 2) and "attached man to God by His own

incarnation" (V, 1, l).

Thus we see that the historic Jesus becomes: the focus of Irenaeus'

thgught and argument against the Gnostics. The historic Jesus is the key

to understanding the purpose of the whole process of history in which

God is working out his plan of salvation. Indeed this idea is not only

the keystone of Irenaeus.' system but the originating motive.

Irenaeus was not a Jew who had had handed on to him the Old

Testament or the Hebrew‘idea of history as his ethnic and cultural heri­

tage. Nor was monotheism or the identity of the creator with one divine

principle demanded by the intellectual background of Roman Hellenism in

which he was educated. Irenaeus as a prelate in the sphere of the Church

in Rome would certainly be biased in favor of ecclesiastical claims of

continuity with Jesus through the apostles and the churches they founded.

His reading of the New Testament, especially Paul, could have convinced

him of the unity of the Testaments and of the Church and Israel. Paul

had already laid the basis of recapitulation theory and the unified plan

of salvation in Romans. 9-11 and I Corinthians 15, and more clearly in

Colossians and Ephesians. Acts and the Peistoral Epistles would reinforce

the concept of unity and authority in the Church.^ Materials for a theory

See Appendix below.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 156

of providence and paideusis-were at hand in the philosophic schools.

But none of these furnished Irenaeus with his starting point. They

were to be the materials with which he was to build his impressive and

seminal theology of history but none was to be the key or originating

force in his thought. Theologically this originating factor was the

Incarnation of the Word of God in Jesus Christ, but the conviction did

not arise from general theological speculation but rather from an as­

sessment of the historic Jesus.

We are not unaware of the dangers of trying to isolate one as­

pect of a man's thoughts as the fundamental one. Demonstrating this,

can never be really conclusive. We are not suggesting that Irenaeus

built his theory by consciously adopting a starting point and then care­

fully constructing a series of related and buttressing arguments from a

variety of courses. If this were the case, Adversus Haereses might con­

vince us that Irenaeus^' point of departure is the non-existence of Bythus,

inasmuch as this is the way he begins his refutation of the Gnostics.

But Irenaeus is not really interested in rational monotheism so much as

he is in showing that the Father of the historic Jesus is the one and

only creator God.

Irenaeus perceived a providential plan throughout history because

he believed in the plenitude of providential intervention in the historic

Jesus!, not vice versa. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and the Prophets are

seen by Irenaeus to be forerunners and prototypes of the incarnate Word

because the historic Jesus (and his apostles) recognized the authenticity

of their place in the divine plan. For Irenaeus the "new" covenant ef­

fected by the historic Jesus was the starting point for projecting the

notion of progressive covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. If

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 157

the Old Testament is the historic background for Jesus, then it is for

Irenaeus and Irenaeus* theology of history. Jesus' jewishness, or at

least the jewishness of Paul's understanding of the work of Jesus Christ,

made Irenaeus Jewish.

If we turn to our schematization of Irenaeus* unities we see

that the unity of the Testaments is based on the continuity which the

historic Jesus claimed with the teachings and history of the Old Testa­

ment; the unity of church, apostolic sees, apostles and Jesus is based

on the historic Jesus.' selection of apostles and commissioning them to

join and direct a universal church (we are not discussing the historical

accuracy of such a judgment, of course); the unity of creation and re­

demption is based on the fact that the historic Jesus who redeems is the

incarnation of the Word who creates; the unity of the Old Law and the

New is based on Jesus' claim to fulfill the law and his actually doing

so (based specifically on Matthew 5)*

Jesus' unity with God is based on the churches' evaluation of

the teaching and work of the historic Jesus; his unity with man is based

on the acceptance of the authentic historicity of Jesus.

Whether Irenaeus' convictions about the historic Jesus depended

on the historicity of every incident mentioned or the authenticity of

every teaching ascribed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels we shall never

know. He alludes to a very comprehensive range of Gospel passages and

does not intimate any doubt about the historical reliability of any of

them. He insists on the authenticity of the already traditional ascrip­

tions of the canonical four (A.H. Ill, 1, l) and seems to assume that

Matthew, the disciples of Peter and Paul, and the beloved disciple could

only give a completely reliable history in their records. At no point,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 158

however, does he specifically tie his system to a conviction of thorough­

going historical infallibility of the apostolic writings, and we have no

right to assume that he would have done or did do so. His system de­

pends only on the overall historicity of the synoptics' life and teach­

ings of Jesus and the description of earliest church history in the

Book of Acts, the substantial authenticity of the Pauline corpus and the

theological accuracy of at least part of John's Gospel (the prologue

being the minimum).

The ultimate and crucial doctrine for Irenaeus is the unity of

God and man in the historic Jesus which is based on Irenaeus' primary

and determinative assessment of the life, work and teaching of the his­

toric Jesus as thus pictured. The other unities are so much a part of

Irenaeus' system that the omission of any one would seem to us quite

startling if not inconceivable, but without the concept of the unity of

God and man in the historic Jesus, Irenaeus' system would simply dis­

integrate, for it is the cornerstone.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 APPENDIX

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LUKE-ACTS AND IRENAEUS AGAINST GNOSTICISM

C. H. Talbert has argued in a recent book‘d that the purpose and

occasion of Luke-Acts is related to certain special emphases in them

(if not peculiar to them):

2
1) the emphasis on witnessing, in which authenticity of the

writing is guaranteed by the care in calling and training the twelve

and the seventy, their constantly being with Jesus, and the continuity

of the Galilean discipleship from Jesus,

1 baptism right up through the

ascension (cf. Acts 1:22);

2) the identity of Jesus? scripture interpretation with that

3
of the early Church, in which special emphasis is placed on Jesus, as

Christ, the passion of Christ, and the futuregeneralresurrection;

3) the careful control Paul exercised overhischurchesand

k
Jerusalem claimed over all churches, of which the special point is;

the guaranteed succession of apostolic tradition as controlling in the

churches;

h) Jesus? death is not redemptive (pace Acts 20:28b) in Luke-

Acts, but is stressed as showing the solidarity of Jesus with the early

Christian martyrs and, of course, the justification of their martyrdom**

as the laudable evangelism of witness-bearing;

^"C. H. Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics, an Explanation of the

Lucan Purpose (Nashville":Abingdon, 19^6).
2 3
Ibid., chap. i. ^Ibid..chap. ii.
if. c
Ibid., chap. iii. ^Ibid.,chap. v.

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 161

5 ) the silence of Acts on the subject of heresy or controversy

in the early Church testifies'1’ eloquently to Luke's thesis that there

could not possibly have been any heresy in the apostolic age— for Luke,

of course, knew about the Gnostics in Corinth and the Judaizers (also

Gnostics) in Galatia but suppressed this information (and even notice

of Paul's correspondence, which might have put people on to it) in

Acts as it would subvert his theory that heresy is all post-apostolic

and generally recent;

6) the earliest Christian community is idealized in Acts 1-6

(and throughout) and Paul is shown to have done and said the same

things Peter did.

Talbert deduces from all this that the occasion for writing

Luke-Acts was the Gnostic threat of the late first century and that
2
its purpose was to serve as a defense against it, for

1) the "witnessing" focusses on the corporality of Jesus' pas­

sion and exaltation and thus is anti-docetist and therefore anti-Gnostic;

2) the essence of Gnosticism is that Jesus and Christ are dis­

tinct, Christ did not suffer, and there is no general resurrection— the

very things Luke refutes by Jesus' and the apostles' scripture inter­

pretation;

3) the careful effort to show that the churches' teachings were

officially apostolic and complete is directed against Gnostic claims

that Paul and/or others held back Gnosis-Wisdom in their public teaching;

k) depreciation of martyrdom is Gnostic;

^Ibid.. p. vi.
2
Ibid., pp. 13, 16 et passim.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 162

3) the silence in Acts about the Gnosticism Luke knew to have

existed in Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, and Colossae in apostolic times

suggests that Luke wanted to fight Gnosticism by implying that it was

unknown until the Apostles were gone (cf. Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian);

6) the picture in Acts of the marvelous unity among the Apostles

and their unchallenged and careful supervision of all the Churches was

aimed at Gnostic efforts to claim an esoteric apostolic tradition.

Talbert's thesis is overargued both in the sense that Luke's

purposes as discerned by others have been too facilely set aside and

that he is vague about who the "Gnostics” Luke opposed were, where they

were (Ephesus, it would seem, or perhaps Antioch), in what sense they

can be called Gnostic, or how they are related to the Gnostic literature

and heresiarchs we have dealt with in the foregoing.

However, Talbert's six points about Luke's special emphases are

well taken, convincing, and helpful in understanding Irenaeus' argu­

ments, for if we put them all together we find that according to Luke-

Acts Jesus from the outset of his ministry carefully called and trained

an apostolic leadership which would provide a closely controlled link

in witness, preaching, and scripture interpretation from Jesus' baptism

to his ascension and the Spirit-filled Church, and that these Galilean

apostles kept close reins on the development of early Christianity— even

on Paul and his mission. Thus Luke-Acts, in fact, creates the classic

picture of the contemporary Church as absolutely and officially continu­

ous in doctrine with Jesus and the original circle of his chosen followers.

Irenaeus builds his arguments on this Lucan construction.

Actually, Irenaeus is the first writer we know certainly to have

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 163

used the Acts of the Apostles^ which he sought to show (A.H. Ill, 14, l)

to have clearly been written by Luke, inasmuch as the "we passages" imply

that the author was a constant companion of Paul, who Luke alone could

have been (II Timothy 4; lOf. and Colossians 4:1*0. Indeed for Irenaeus

Acts was the proof of the unity among the apostles, of the unity of the

apostolic writings, of the unity of Jesus' teaching with the apostles'

teaching and the unity of these with the teaching of the elders. The

fact that Luke wrote the Gospel and Acts shows the unity of the Jesus

and the original twelve of the Gospels with the Church pictured! in Acts

as established in Jerusalem, Samaria, Antioch and the Pauline churches

of Asia and Europe.

Luke thus combines in himself intimate companionship with Paul

and detailed knowledge of Jesus' origins, of the convoking of the twelve,

of Jesus' teaching, of Jesus' career in Galilee and Judea, of Jesus

passion-death-burial-resurrection-appearances-postresurrection instruc­

tion ascension, of the origins of the Jerusalem Church, of the early

leadership of Peter, of the supervision the Jerusalem Church claimed

over Samaria and Antioch, of the work of Paul, etc. In A.H. Ill, 12

we see that Acts shows that all the Apostles concur in teaching the

unity of the Son and his oneness with the Creator God beyond whom is

no Bythus. So much of the Gospel tradition is found only in Luke's

account that not only Marcion but also Valentinus depend on his special

material (A.H. Ill, 14, 3f.). These many Gospel truths known only from

Luke and esteemed necessary by all are thus providentially preserved,

so that all should find themselves forced to accept this same Luke's

^Robert M. Grant in A Historical Introduction to the New Testa­

ment (New York: Harper and Row, 1963)1 P» 141.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 164

account of the acts and doctrines of the apostles set forth in the Book

of Acts (A.H. Ill, 15, l).

We find that Irenaeus.’ argument in A.H. Ill, 1-15 runs like this;:

a) citing Luke 10:16 he states that the Church imparts to her

sons "the only true and lifegiving faith" which she received from the

Apostles (preface);

b) after proclaiming the Gospel the Apostles handed it down in

scriptures (Matthew and John transcribed theirs, Mark Peter's and Luke

Paul's) after previously being invested with power from on high when

the Spirit came down (Luke 24:49*, Acts 1:8 and Chapter II) (l,l):

c) the heretics argue that tradition is necessary to interpret

scripture but they reject the one tradition "preserved by means of the

successions of elders [cf. Paul to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 and

I Clement] in the Churches" (2 ,2) in favor of their traditions which

were unknown in apostolic (3,l) or post-apostolic (3,3*,4,3) times,

whereas "we" have the tradition traceable to the Apostles, in Rome

(3,3) and Asia (3,4)— indeed in Asia John condemned Cerinthus and

from Asia Polycarp (bishop and companion of apostles) came to Rome to

refute Valentinus and Marcion;

d). citing Luke 5 :31ff• (cf. parallels) Irenaeus shows that

Jesus and the apostles did not frame their responses to suit their

hearers but delivered the truth (Chapter V);

e) after showing that the Old Testament knew only one God the

Father and His Son (Chapter VI) and that II Corinthians 4:5 (Chapter VII)

and Matthew 6:24 (Chapter VIII) cannot be interpreted to the contrary,

Irenaeus shows from the beginnings of Matthew (Chapter IX), Luke (10, 1-4),

Mark (10,5), and John (11, 1-6) that these four proclaim as Father "of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 165

our Lord Jesus; Christ" one Creator God announced by the prophets and

legislator through Moses (ll,7), and all four have to be accepted and

no other may be added (11,8 );:

f) Chapter XII shows from Acts that Peter and John (,1-7)»

Philip (,8 )., Paul (,9)> Stephen (,10-,13), the Apostolic Decree (,14)

all agree in showing that there is no Father God distinct from the

Creator;

g) Paul's own letters betray his unity with Peter and other

apostles (13,1) and the giving place for an hour to the pillar apostles

mentioned in Galatians. 2:5 clearly shows their unity and conforms to

notices in Acts 15 (l3»3);

h) the "we passages" in Acts show that Luke was a close com­

panion to Paul (14,1) who according to Acts 20 held back nothing from

his hearers (l4,2);

i) Luke has so much material found only in his Gospel account

(14,3) that Marcion and Valentinus lean on him and this makes it un­

reasonable for them to ignore Acts and those parts of Luke which would

overthrow their errors;

j) finally, those who reject Paul's authority must also then

eschew Luke's Gospel, since Luke's Acts clearly shows Paul to have been

divinely called and commissioned as an Apostle (15,l).

Beginning with Chapter XVI we find four chapters which purport

to show that all the apostolic writings testify against dividing Jesus

Christ (as, say, Carpocratians and docetists, or Valentinians do, cf.

16,1). Luke If. and 2k feature prominently in the early part of this

argument, although John and Paul and Matthew turn out to have equal

places before this section concludes.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 166

It is clear from a-j above that Luke-Acts is the source for

Irenaeus.' picture of the harmonious, orderly, and always official de­

velopment— it helped that there was no negative in his Galatians 2:5— e

of Great Church leadership from Jesus' baptism to contemporary Asia,

Rome, and, by implication, Gaul. Perhaps Irenaeus' use of Luke-Acts

in this way to counter Gnostic claims convinced Talbert that this was

the original purpose of Luke-Acts.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt et al. (eds.). The Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Wurttemberg
Bible Society, 1966.

Arai, Sasagu. Die Christologie des Evangelium Veritatis: eine religions-

geschichtliche Untersuchung. L e i d e n : E . J. Brill, 196*f.

Bardy, Gustave. "Cerinthe,” Revue Bjblique, XXX (1921), 3^-73•

Bauer, Walther. Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen

Apokryphen. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1909.

Blackman, E. C. Marcion and His Influence. London: S. P. C. K., 19^8.

Casey, Robert Pierce. The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria.

London: Christopher's, 193&.

de Catanzaro, C. J. ’’The Gospel According to Philip,” Journal of TheoU

logical Studies. XIII (1962), 35-71.

Coptic Studies; in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum. Boston: Byzantine In­

stitute of America, 1950.

Crum, Walter Ewing. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1939.

Doresse, Jean. The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics. Translated

by Philip Mairet. New York: Viking, i960.

Faye, Eugene, de. Gnostiques et Gnosticisme. 2eme ed. augm. Parish

P. Geuthner, 1925.

Gartner, Bertil. The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas. Translated by

Eric J. Sharpe. London: Collins, 1961.

Giversen, Soren. Apokryphon Johannis (Acta Theologjca Danica. V).

Copenhagen: Munksgard, 1963.

___________ . ’’Evangelium Veritatis and the Epistle to the Hebrews,”

Studia Theologica. XIII (1959)1 87-96.

Grant, Robert McQueen. The Earliest Lives of Jesua. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 19^ll

. (ed.). Gnosticism: an Anthology. London: Collins, 1961.

167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 168

Grant, Robert McQueen. Gnosticism and Early Christianity. New York:

Columbia University Press, 1959.

___________ _. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. New York:

Harper and Row, 1965.

. "Notes on the Gospel of Thomas," Vigiliae Christianae.

XIII (1959), 245-51.

. Second-Century Christianity. London: S. P.. C. K., 1946.

____________ ,. "Two Gnostic Gospels," Journal of Biblical Literature.

LXXIX (I960), 1-11.

Grant, Robert McQueen, and Freedman, David Noel. The Secret Savings of
Jesus. With an English translation of the Gospel of Thomas by
William R. Schoedel. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., i960.

Grlllmeier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition: from the Apostolic

Age to Chalcedon. Translated by J. S. Bowden. New York: Sheed
and Ward, 1965.

Grobel, Kendrick. The Gospel of Truth: a Valentinian Meditation on the

Gospel. Nashville: Abingdon, i960.

Guillamont, A., et al. (eds.). The Gospel According to Thomas-.: Coptic

Text Established^ and Translated. New York: Harper and Brothers,
1959.

Harnack, Adolf von. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Erste Band. 4th ed.
Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1909.

Haenchen, Ernst. Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums. Berlin: Topelraann,

1961.

Helmbold, Andrew K. The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts and the Bible. ("Baker
Studies in Biblical Archaeology," No. 5 .) Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Book House, 1967.

Hennecke, Edgar, and Schneemelcher, Wilhelm. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen

in deutscher Ubersetzung. 3rd. ed, newly revised. Band I. Evan-
gelien. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1959*

Hort, Fenton John Anthony. "Basilides," Dictionary of Christian Biography.

Edited by William Smith. London: J. Murray, 1877-87.

Houssiau, Albert. La Christologie de Saint Irenee. Louvain: Publica­

tions Universitaires, de Louvain, 1955*

James, Montague Rhodes. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Claren­

don, 1924.

Janssens, Y. "L'Evangile selon Philippe," Le Museon. LXXXI (1-2, 1969),

79-133.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 169

Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion. Boston! Beacon Press, 1938.

Jung, Carl G. M o d e m Man in Search of a Soul. Translated by W. S. Dell

and C. F. Baynes. New York: Hnrcourt, Brace and World, 1933.

Kasser, Rodolphe. L'Evangile selon Thomas: presentation et commentaire

theologique. Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestle, 1961.

Koester, Helmut H. "One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels," Harvard

Theological Review. LXI (1968), 203-47.

Krause, Martin (ed.). Die Drei Versionen des Apokryphon des Johannes: im
Koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo. Wiesbaden: 0. Harrassowitz, 1962.

Labib, Pahor (ed.). Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old
Cairo. Vol. I'. Cairo: Government Press, 1956.

Leipoldt, Johannes. "Ein neues Evangelium? Das koptische Thomasevangelium

ubersetzt und besprochen," Theologische Literaturzeitung. LXXXIII
(1958), 481-96.

Malinine, Michel, et al. (eds.). De Resurrectione: Bpistula ad Rheginum.

Zurich: Raseher, 1963*

Menard, Jacques E. L*Eyangile de Verite: retroversion greque et com­

mentaire. Paris.: Letouzey et Ane, 1962.

____________ . L*Eyangile selon Philippe. Montreal: University of

Montreal, 1 9 6 4 . (A translation of this document into French.)

. L 1Evangile selon Philippe. Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1967*

(Text and translation.)

Montefiore, Hugh, and Turner, H. E. W. Thomas and the Evangelists.

("Studies in Biblical Theology," No. 35•) London: S. C. M.
Press, 1962.

Mullus, Festschrift Theodor Klauser. (Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum

Erganzungsband. l)'. Munster Westfalen: Aschendorf, 1964.

Nautin, Pierre. Hjppolyte et Josippe: contribution a l 1histoire de la

literrature chretienne du 3eme siecle. Paris: Editions du Cerf,
19^1
Plumley, J. Martin. An Introductory Coptic Grammar (Sahidlc Dialect).
London: Home and van Thai, 19481

Puech, Henri-Charles, and Quispel, Gilles. "Les ecrits gnostiques du

Codeai: Jung," Vigiliae Chris tianae. VIII (1954), 1-51.

. "Funde und Forschungen zur Gnosis," Neue: Zurcher Zeitung,

November, 1933.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 170

Puech, Henri-Charles, Quispel, Gilles, and van Unnik, W. C. The Jung

Codex» a newly recovered Gnostic papyrus. Translated and
edited by F. L. Cross. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1955*

Quispel, Gilles. "La Conception de l'homme dans la Gnose Valentinienne,"

Eranos Jahrbuch. Vol.. XV (19V 7).

____________ . "Gnosticism and the New Testament," Vigiliae Chriatianae.

XSTT1965), 65^85.

. "Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas," New Testament

Studies. V (1959), 276-90.

Rehra, Bernhard (ed.). Die Pseudo-Klementinien: rekognitionen in Rufinus

ubersetzung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1965.

Robinson, James M. "The Coptic Gnostic Library Today," New Testament

Studies. XII (1968), 356-^01.

Sagnard, Francois-M.-M. (ed.). Clement d 1Alexandrie. Extraits de Theodote.

Paris: Editions du Cerf, 19^8.

Sagnard, Francois-M.-M. La GnoseValentinienne et leTemoignage de Saint

Irenee. Paris: J. Vrin, 19^7•

Schenke, Hans-Martin. "Das Evangelium nachPhilippus: BinEvangelium

der Valentinianer aus dem Funde von Nag-Hamadi," Theologische
Ljteraturzeitung. LXXXIV (1959), 1-26.

. Die Herkunft des sogenannten Evangelium Veritatis.

Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1959.

Stahlin, Otto. Clemens Alexandrinus. 2. bd. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1906.

Talbert, Charles H. Luke and the Gnostics: an examination of the Lukan

purpose. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.

Till, Walter C. Das Evangelium nach Philippos. Berlin: Walter de

Gruyter and Co., 19*33.

. Die Gnostischen Schriften des Koptischen Papyrue Berolinansis;

8502. (Texte mid Untersuchungen. 66.') Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, *
1955.

van Unnik, W. G. Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings: a preliminary survey

of the Nag Hammadi Find. Translated from the Dutch. London:
S.C.M., i960.

Wendland, Paul (ed.). Hippolytus: V/erke. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1397-1929.

Wilson, Robert McLean. Gnosis and the New Testament. Philadelphia: For­
tress, 1968.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 171

Wilson, Robert McLean. The Gnostic Problem: A study of the relations

between Hellenistic Judaism and the Gnostic heresy. London:

. The Gospel of Philip: translated from the Coptic text,

with an introduction and commentary. New York: Harper and
Row, 19&.

. Studies in the Gospel of Thomas. London: A. R.

Mowbray, I960.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 END
Microfilmed by
Department o f Photoduplication
The University o f Chicago Library
Swift Hall
Chicago 37, Illinois

BfflBfu'CaQB tM P 5X ftI)0(?u ,Q ® a
® B (^ ff£ Y i? 0 ® n PB®Ca, ‘u’CODS
C^TFQtimQ. C D ® ? m D2/a®0
Wl.T.HOUiT PQ[LC3D00Q®m BEXDK1
‘
Duo mmpimmszG
msMmxxa ■uraii©ocaEm
IS No. T17786
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.