Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:41:18.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Valentinian Interpretation of Baptism and Eucharist — and Its Critique of “Orthodox” Sacramental Theology and Practice*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Elaine H. Pagels
Elaine H. Pagels
Affiliation:
Barnard College, Columbia UniversityNew York, N.Y. 10027
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of how different gnostic Christians interpreted and practiced sacraments — so long limited to the sparse references in the anti-gnostic writers — is being reexamined in the light of recently available gnostic documents. Yet one source long available — the fragments of Heracleon that Origen cites in his own Commentary on John — yields evidence that Heracleon not only interprets the sacraments in terms of Valentinian theology, but also criticized, from this theological standpoint, the sacramental theology and practice of the “great church.” Heracleon's sacramental theology, however, has escaped the notice of those researchers that have limited their investigation to the quoted fragments themselves. Analysis of Origen's commentary as a whole reveals that other statements of Heracleon's doctrine frequently appear apart from the direct quotations. Such statements, recognizable by their concurrence of terminology and doctrine with the quoted fragments, Origen introduces as the opinion of “the heterodox,” 3 or “those who introduce the doctrine of natures,” or in the voice of the imaginary interlocutor. As Heracleon is his principal protagonist, these often set forth his views. Extending our methodology to include investigation of Origen's arguments — which are characteristically structured, in the John commentary, to refute Heracleon's allegations — we discover in the extant debate evidence for a Valentinian theology of baptism and the eucharist.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , April 1972 , pp. 153 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R. M. Grant, The Mystery of Marriage in the Gospel of Phillip, Vig. Christ. Segelberg, E., The Coptic-Gnostic Gospel according to Phillip and its Sacramental System, Numen 7 (1961)Google Scholar; Schenke, H. M., Theol. Literaturzeitung 84 (1959)Google Scholar.

2 Cf. the edition of Brooke, A. E., The Fragments of Heracleon (Cambridge, 1891)Google Scholar; Völker, W., Quellen zur Geschichte der Christlichen Gnosis (Tübingen, 1932)Google Scholar, who refers to the Preuschen ed. in GCS X (Leipzig, 1903), ciiiff.: in these works only direct quotations of Heracleon are cited. The discussions of Heracleon by Förster, W., Von Valentin zu Heracleon (Giessen, 1928)Google Scholar; von Loewenich, H., Das Joh.-Verständnis im Zwtiten Jahrhundert (Erlangen, 1932)Google Scholar; Sagnard, F., La Gnose Valentinienne (Paris, 1947)Google Scholar ; Barth, C., Die Interpretation des N.T. in der valentinianischen Gnosis (T.U. XXXVII, 3, 1911)Google Scholar; and Mueller, K., Beiträge zum Verständnis der vol. Gnosis (1920)Google Scholar, for example, all work exclusively from these fragments.

3 Origen, Comm. Jo., XIX, 3 (Preuschen, GCS X, 300, 20f.).

4 Ibid., XX, 7 (Preuschen, 335, 34f.); XX, 17 (348, 15).

5 Ibid., XX, 21 (Preuschen, 353, 9f) offers a clear example of this, since the interlocutor offers an exegesis Origen explicitly ascribes to Heracleon in XX,28 (365,5f.).

6 Ibid., VI, 20 (Preuschen, 129, 32–132,12).

7 Loc. cit. (129, 1–3).

8 Ibid., VI, 23 (Preuschen, 134, 2–6).

9 Ibid., VI, 20 (Preuschen, 129, 32–130,5).

10 Ibid., VI, 30 (Preuschen, 139,30–140,5).

11 Ibid., VI, 20 (Preuschen, 129, 1–3).

12 Ibid., VI, 60 (Preuschen, 168,29–169,2).

13 Ibid., VI, 39 (Preuschen, 147, 13–15).

14 Ibid., II, 21 (Preuschen, 77, 22–30).

15 Ibid., VI, 39 (Preuschen, 148, 16–19).

16 Op. cit., 1. 6–13.

16a E. Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, forthcoming as monograph in SBL series.

17 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1,21,2 (Harvey, I, 182).

18 Ibid., 1, 21,4 (Harvey, I, 186.).

19 Comm. Jo. XIII, 60 (Pseuschen, 292, 1f.).

20 Adv. Haer. 1,21,1 (Harvey, I, 181).

21 von Harnack, A., History of Dogma, II (New York, Dover, 1961), 140Google Scholar.

22 Hippolytus, Philos. 6,42; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1,13,1 (Harvey, I, 114).

23 Adv. Haer. 1,13,6 (Harvey, I, 123–24).

24 Comm. Jo. XX, 38 (Preuschen, 380,7–19).

25 Adv. Haer. 1, 21, 1 (Harvey, I, 181).

26 Ibid., 1,21,5 (Harvey, I, 187–88).

27 Leisegang, Gnosis, 348ff.

28 Epiphanius, Pan. 36, 3,2–6.

29 I Apoc. Jak., 33,21–35,19, ed. Böhlig, A. and Labib, P., Koptisch-Gnostische Apocalypsen aus Codex V von Nag Hammadi (Halle, 1963), 43–45Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that in each case to which this prayer relates one finds a theological emphasis different from the Valentinian schema of aeons that predominates in Irenaeus' account. So Harvey notes, in relation to these formulae, that Marcus posits a proarchal tetrad antecedent to Bythos and Sigē, which is feminine, and usually expressed as monotēs or henotēs, a tetrad apparently preexistent in relation to the other aeons (cf. Harvey, I, # 1, 127–128). Puech and Quispel suggest, from the Treatise on Three Natures in the Codex Jung, that the author, who they suggest is Heracleon, conceives that the Mother (here described as Ecclesia) and the Son are preexistent and primal in relation to the other aeons (Puech-Quispel, , Le Quatrième écrit gnostique du Codex Jung, Vig. Christ. IX (1955), 65fGoogle Scholar. A similar emphasis on the preexistence of the primal aeon characterizes the I Apoc. Jak. (cf. edition of Böhlig and Labib, 34–54).

30 Ibid., Böhlig and Labib, intr., 32: “Die Quelle des Irenaus wird nicht unserer Schrift sein, sondern beide haben wahrscheinlich kultische Traditions-stücke gnostischen Herkunft verwendet. So nahe sich teilweise der Worlaut kommt, so stark ist beim ersten Teil die wohl selbständige Umgestaltung in einen Dialog … Dennoch ist der Abschnitt valentinianischer Gnosis iiberhaupt zuzuweisen.”

31 Excerpta ex Theodoto, 36, 1–2 (CASEY [London, 1934], 66)Google Scholar.

32 Ibid., 22,1–6 (Casey, 56–58); Adv. Haer. I, 21, 3 (Harvey, I, 183–85).

33 Comm. Jo. XIII, 11 (Preuchen, 235, 18f.).

34 Ibid., XIII, 19 (Preuschen, 243, 12–32).

35 Ibid., VI, 60 (Preuschen, 168, 28–169,2).

36 Ibid., X, 19 (Preuschen, 190,30–191,1).

37 Loc. cit.

38 Adv. Haer, 1,8,2 (Harvey, I, 70).

39 Exc. ex Theod., 31, 1–4 (Casey, 62).

40 Evangelium Veritatis, 20,10–29 (Grobel, 62–66).

41 Sagnard, F., La Gnose Valentinienne (Paris, 1947), 480–520Google Scholar.

42 Adv. Haer. 1,8,2 (Harvey, I, 115–16).

43 Ibid., 1,8,2 (Harvey I, 117).

44 Comm. Jo. X, 33 (Preuschen, 207,1–14).

45 Ibid., XIII, 10 (Preuschen, 234, 31–33).

46 Ibid., II,21 (Preuschen, 77, 22–30).

47 Ibid., XII,49 (Preuschen, 276, 18–277,2).

48 Ibid., XII,50 (Preuschen, 278,33–279,8).

49 Adv. Haer. I, 13,3 (Harvey, I, 118).

50 Comm. Jo. XIII, 11 (Preuschen, 235, 16f.).

51 Comm. Jo. XIII,25 (Preuschen, 263, 14–22).

52 Fragm. 45 from Heracleon, ed. Brooke, A., The Commentary of Origen (Cambridge, 1896), II, 259–60Google Scholar.

53 Comm. Jo. XIII,25 (Preuschen, 248,28–249,4). For Jewish, classical and N.T. background on this doctrine of the syzygos as angelic counterpart of the gnostic initiate, see T. Gaster's article on angel in the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (N.Y., 1962), I, 2550f. For the patristic sources, see Daniélou, J., Les Anges et leur mission d'après les Pères de l'Eglise (Chevetogne, 1953)Google Scholar; for early Coptic and liturgical material, Müller, C., Die Engellehre der Koptischen Kirche (Wiesbaden, 1959)Google Scholar. On the Valentinian doctrine, see Sagnard, F., La Gnose Valentinienne (Paris, 1947), esp. 348–55Google Scholar.

54 Adv. Haer. 1,6,4–1,7,1 (Harvey, I, 58–59).