2.6 Other Gnostic Readings of Creation: Haer. 1.24.1–2, Haer. 1.28.1, and Haer. 1.30.1–9
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
excluding the possibility that any autonomous being contributed to the work of creation.
Second, Irenaeus also arranges a set of passages that argue for unity of God's creation and economic administration over salvation history. His narratival arrangement includes references to God as the Creator of the world (Gen 1:1), the Creator of humanity (Gen 2:7), the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
(Exod 3:6), and the Father of Jesus (Eph 1:3). Though the shift from Abraham to Christ is dramatic, within the context of the other allusions there is an obvious economic structure to his arrangement. In this case, linking terms are the divine titles, and the identity of God as Creator and Father. Together these passages identify God the Father of Abraham and Christ as the Creator of the both world and humankind, thus demonstrating the same God who has given all things existence in Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:7 administered over all of salvation history from Abraham to Christ. The combination of catchwords, narratival arrangements, and theological identification begins to unveil the complexity of methods employed in Irenaeus' intertextual hermeneutic.
2.6
Other Gnostic Readings of Creation: Haer. 1.24.1–2, Haer. 1.28.1, and Haer. 1.30.1–9 After his brief interlude on the regula in Haer. 1.22.1–2, the remaining portion of his first book (Haer. 1.23–31) describes the tenants of various Gnostic streams that sprouted from the thought of Simon Magus.56 The intertextual readings of Gen 1–3 surface in three instances in these chapters including the views of Saturninus (Haer. 1.24.1–2), Tatian and the Encratites (Haer. 1.28.1), and the Ophites (Haer. 1.30.1–9). The most developed reading is the Sethian Gnostics, the Ophites, who provide a highly detailed recounting of their creation narrative. This includes an intricate web of allusions drawn from Genesis and elsewhere. These descriptions of Gnostic intertextuality continue to develop the intertextual interpretive practices that have characterized their exegesis to this point including the application of prosopological interpretation, narrative readings, and verbal connections.
2.6.1
Saturninus on Creation: Haer. 1.24.1–2 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19) In Haer. 1.24.1–2, Irenaeus recounts the views of Saturninus on the origin and formation of humankind, and he who followed a system similar to that of 56 See Haer. 2.pf.1 and Acts 8:18–24.
chapter 2 Menander.57 Irenaeus' presents his cosmological views as an unmistakable revision of Gen 1–3, which correlates Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, and Gen 3:19 with additional background narratives.58 These reading frame these events sequentially, and they interpret the key figures prosopologically. According to Irenaeus,
Saturninus casts the unknown Father as the Creator of all spiritual realities, but the world and human beings were created by the work of seven angels, one of whom is the God of the Jews.59 These angels witnessed a certain "shining image" (lucida imagine, cf. Gen 1:26) from the sovereign Power above. They are unable to possess the image because it quickly ascended, so they declared to one another, "Let us make man after an image and likeness" (Faciamus hominem as imaginem et similitudinem, Gen 1:26).60 This background presents the command in Gen 1:26 as the proclamation of a gathering of imperfect angels, including the God of the Jews, who are overcome by their desire to possess the image or the supreme Power.
Due to their weakness the angels were not strong enough to create a true, living form so the newly fashioned man could only squirm along the ground like a worm. The supreme Power had pity on the flaccid creature, because "he was made in his likeness" (in similitudiem eius factus esset, Gen 1:26).61 He responds by emitting a "spark of life" (scintillam vitae, Gen 2:7) that immediately enlivened the man and enabled him to stand erect.62 After death the same body fashioned by the angels separates again and decomposes back into the earth
(Gen 3:19), so this spark of life can ascend again. This "spark of life," however, was not implanted into everyone. These angels, Irenaeus reports, actually created two types of individuals. The faithful ascetics that maintain a high degree of temperance and retain the "spark of life," while the wicked, who were created through the assistance of demons, marry and beget children. When the Savior appeared as a man, he came to rescue those who are good, release the spark of life, and destroy the evil angels including the God of the Jews.63
This intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 frames these texts into sequential creative episodes where Adam's creation occurs in distinct phases. The identity
57 Markschies, Gnosis: an Introduction (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 77.
58 BP suggests that death here refers to the command in Gen 2:17, but clearly the nature of the allusion has the description of the dissolution of the flesh in Gen 3:19 in view.
59 Haer. 1.24.2. Saturninus links Menander's unknown Father to Simon Mangus (Haer. 1.23.5).
60 Haer. 1.24.1. The angelic mediation in creation is attested to in a verity of Gnostic texts such as the Apocryphon of John and On Origin of the World.
61 Haer. 1.24.1.
62 Haer. 1.24.1.
63 Haer. 1.24.2. Markschies, Gnosis, 78.
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
of the creators in Gen 1:26 is collection of inept angelic beings, who greedily desire to possess the image of the supreme power. This type of reading resembles the type of prosopological reading that Irenaeus' uses in the remaining books. Their intertextual reading focuses on the identity of the characters in the narrative and the correspondence of particular images from Gen 1–3, such as "image," "spark of life," "death," and "good." Select images, phrase, and segments of the narrative are ascribed to particular characters within their myth.
The image of the "spark of life," in particular, is important to the narrative as the object of salvation, as well as the dissolution of the flesh in Gen 3:19 as the final destiny for the material creation.
2.6.2
Asceticism in Tatian and the Encratites: Haer. 1.28.1 (Gen 1:27–8, Gen 2:7) In Haer. 1.28.1 Irenaeus briefly surveys the views of Tatian and the Encratites, who are known for their rigorous ascetic practices such as vegetarianism and celibacy. They are also known for their theological rejection of Adam's salvation.64 Their beliefs sprout from Marcion, Cerdo, and Saturinus, whom he also reports had their rise from Simon. From this analysis, there appears to have been various forms of Encratism known to Irenaeus, but an essential aspect of their thought is the attention given to asceticism that reflects an anticorporeal dualism.65
Irenaeus' summary focuses on their asceticism, and especially their rejection of marriage. When they abstain from marriage they "reject God's ancient creation" ( frustrantes antiquam plasmationem, cf. Gen 2:7) and rebuke God's purpose for the propagation of the human race intended in the creation of male and female (Gen 1:27).66 The rejection of the physical substance implies a dualistic anthropology similar to what was presented in Saturninus and the other Gnostic accounts of Adam's formation. Tatian takes this a step further when he outright rejects the salvation of the "first-formed man" (primus plasmatus est). Irenaeus reports that Tatian studied under Justin, but after his death he apostatized from the church and invented the doctrine that denies Adam's
64 Cf. Col 2:16. See also Basilides on food in Haer. 1.24.5.
65 William L. Petersen, "Tatian the Assyrian," in A Companion to Second-Century Christian
'Heretics', eds Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 143. Here again
Irenaeus laments the challenge of describing the systems and doctrines of the various
Gnostic sects because of their fluidity and inventive nature. Cf. Haer. 1.21.5; Haer. 1.28.2;
Haer. 1.29.1.
66 The imagery of the "ancient creation" (antiquam plasmationem) is often used to refer to God's creation of Adam in Gen 2:7.
chapter 2 salvation.67 He addresses Tatian's views in more detail in Haer. 3.23.1–8, but in this context he is clear that Tatian's denial of Adam's salvation is his invention.68
Both Tatian and the Encratites read the anthropological texts in Gen 1–3 in a manner similar to their forbearers. They draw out specific elements of the narrative and conform them to their myth. In general they continue to devalue the flesh and deny any notion of a bodily resurrection.
2.6.3
The Ophites on Creation: Haer. 1.30.1–9 Irenaeus concludes his first book with an extended discussion (Haer. 1.30.1–
15) of the Ophites, or Sethian Gnostics, who share many similarities to the Valentinian system mentioned in Haer. 1.1–7.69 The context of Haer. 1.30.1–9 recounts the events of the primeval world that borrows extensively from the terms, images, and passages contained in Gen 1–3. Their reading the scriptures does not strictly follow the chronology of the narrative within the text, but instead they use these images to explain their own story of creation and salvation. The key terms and images are applied to their divine realities and the events surrounding their cosmological activities. Although their dependence on Gen 1–3 concludes with Haer. 1.30.9, the remaining chapters (Haer.
1.30.10–14) frame these passages within a larger recounting of the Ophite history of salvation. In terms of salvation, Sethian Gnosticism "de-temporalized" history into an eternal present where salvation is a self-actualized, ever present reality.70 Therefore, even as the narrative of salvation unfolds, a realized view of salvation becomes actualized through these opening events in the Ophite myth. Their reading of Gen 1–3 utilizes a type of prosopological reading that resembles the way Irenaeus interprets scripture in light of Christ. While the both read passages prosopologically, they maintain different conceptions of the nature of the divine beings functioning in the passages.
67 Haer. 1.28.1.
68 The seedbed of this view is present in Tatian's extant writings. Petersen, "Tatian the Assyrian," 150–52.
69 On the relationship of the Ophites and Valentinians see: Bentley Layton, The Gnostic
Scriptures (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1995) 170; Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1983), 308–326; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus,
51–56.
70 John D. Turner, "Time and History in Sethian Gnosticism," in For the Children, Perfect
Instruction, ed. H.G. Bethge, et al., 203–14 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 213.
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
2.6.3.1
Ophites on the Primeval World: Haer. 1.30.1–3 (Gen 1:2–3, Gen 1:7–8, Gen 3:20) In these opening descriptions, Gen 1:2 is the locus of the origins of the Ophite myth, because it contains the key imagery of the Spirit hovering over the watery chaos. Irenaeus reports that the Ophites assume the highest deities are prosopologically represented in the imagery of this passage. To draw out their identity, they infuse the imagery of Gen 1:2 with the titles of deities drawn from other (especially Pauline) scriptures. They also connect the waters above and the waters below in Gen 1:7–8 with Sophia, and the waters of Gen 1:2. In this instance the connection with the formation of the heavens originates from the watery substance that Sophia assumes in Gen 1:2.
Irenaeus' account of the Ophites begins with a description of Bythus, who is the "Father of all things" (Patrem omnium) or the "First-Man" (Primum
Hominem).71 Bythus emitted the "Second-man" (Secundum Hominem) or "Son of Man" (Filium Hominis) and below these existed the Spirit, who is also called the "First-Woman" (Primam Feminam).72 This Spirit hovered over the four elements of Gen 1:2: "water, darkness, abyss, and chaos" (aquam, tenebras, abyssum, chaos). The First-Woman was also wedded to the First-Man and the Son of Man and they gave birth to an incorruptible Light (cf. Gen 1:3), who is also called Christ. As a result the Woman becomes the "Mother of the living" (Matrem uiuentium, Gen 3:20).73 Therefore, Gen 1:2 is the central text in the description of the primordial world in the Ophite myth. The term "Spirit" in this passage becomes a key figure that emits Sophia and begins the drama of creation. The other titles mentioned above are also scriptural (especially
Pauline): Father of all (Eph 4:6), First Man/Second Man (1 Cor 15:47), and Son of Man (abundant in the prophets and the New Testament). Together with the title "first woman" (cf. Gen 3:20), this conflation of scriptural names with the opening scene of creation in Gen 1:2 allows the Ophite to delineate the origin of their myth.
Then, Christ is caught up to the upper regions where he joins with the Father, Son and, Mother to be the true and holy Church, while the Power, or Sophia, which overflowed from the Woman, descends downwards into the waters and disturbs them (Gen 1:2). From this action she assumes the substance of a fluid body that imprisoned her divine light, so that she nearly became submerged into matter. She desperately wished to ascend back to her Mother, but was held back by her body. However, through the power of her moisture of light, she was
71 Haer. 1.30.1.
72 Haer. 1.30.1.
73 Haer. 1.30.2.
chapter 2 lifted up and spread out her watery body as the visible heavens (Gen 1:7–8).74
She remained under the heavens until she was ultimately freed from the body by the power she received when she was seized by a longing for the higher light.
2.6.3.2
Ophites on the Creator Jaldabaoth and His Sons: Haer. 1.30.4–5 (Gen 1:1, Gen 1:2, Gen 1:26, Gen 3:1–6) The Ophites intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 borrows heavily from scriptural terms and titles as they conform them to their myth. The introduction of the various archons expands the identities of the spiritual realities operating within the Ophite account of creation, and especially the context of Gen 1:2.
They continue to demonstrate their affinity for key terms and titles that they attribute to various deities. These titles are, once again, drawn from passages in Pauline literature and conflated with the imagery in Genesis. These descriptions extend the prolegomena necessary for understanding the nature of creation.
As the narrative continues, Sophia's son, Jaldabaoth, also had an innate desire for incorruption imparted from his Mother. In a similar way he drew upon the waters of Gen 1:2 and emitted a succession of six sons "in the imitation of his Father" (secundum patris imitationem, Gen 1:26).75 These sons are called "Jao," "Sabaoth," "Adoneus," "Eloeus," "Horeus," "Astaphaeus."76 There is debate about the translation and meaning of these names, but clearly they are derived from Hebrew titles for God in the Old Testament.77 He also adds that 74 Haer. 1.30.3.
75 Haer. 1.30.4. The meaning of the name Jaldabaoth is disputed, and scholars cannot agree on its relationship to the various Semitic languages. It was thought to mean, "Son of Chaos" with connections to Gen 1:2, but the Aramaic background is more closely related with the concept of shame instead of chaos so the name could mean "Son of Shame." Matthew
Black, "An Aramaic Etymology for Jaldabaoth?," in The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in honour of Robert Mcl. Wilson, eds A. Logan and A. Wedderburn (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1983): 69–72, 71.
76 Haer. 1.30.4. See also Haer. 2.35.3.
77 The origin and meaning of these names are also disputed. Howard emphasizes the background in Jewish magic traditions, and assumes that Sethian Gnostics wanted to impart an "aura of mystery" to their myth by borrowing Semitic-looking names. Origen made a similar argument in Contra Celsum 6.32. There is no doubt that most of these names are related to the Old Testament: "Jao" could be an abbreviated form of Yahweh, "Sabaoth" is close to the Hebrew word for hosts, "Adoneus" may be derived from the title Adonai, and "Eloeus" must be related to the title Elohim. The names are similar to titles found in the Apocryphon of John, and may also be related to the planets or celestial bodies. Nicola D.
Lewis, Cosmology and Fate in Gnosticism and Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Under Pitiless Skies
(Leiden: Brill, 2013), 46–50. See Rudolph, Gnosis, 23.
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
the sons are the "Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, and Dominions" (Angelos et Archangelos et Virtutes et Dominationes, c.f. Eph 1:21, 6:12) that rule of heavenly and earthly things.78 In the same context he also cites similar terminology including: "Heavens, Virtues, Powers, Angels, and Creators," (Caelos et Areothas et Virtutes et Angelos et Conditores). This list of angelic beings or powers parallels the lists in Eph 1:21 and 6:12 that describe the rulers of the earthly realm in a similar fashion. Eph 1:21 in particular uses the two parallel terms "powers and dominions" (δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος), and argues that Christ has risen above all these powers. The sons sit with Jaldabaoth in heaven according to their birth rank and together they rule over all "the heavenly and earthly things." (caelestia et terrestria, cf. Gen 1:1).79 However, Jaldabaoth became distressed because his sons quarreled amongst themselves over their individual ranks. In his sadness he fixed his desire upon the material substance so that a son called Mind is born. This Mind twisted himself into the form of a serpent and begot all forgetfulness, wickedness, jealousy, envy, and death.80 This is the same serpent that upset the Father Jaldabaoth with his wickedness in heaven and paradise
(cf. Gen 3:1–6).
2.6.3.3
Ophites on the Formation and Disobedience of Adam and Eve:
Haer. 1.30.6 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:16, Gen 2:22, Gen 3:20) At this stage in the Ophite myth, Jaldabaoth makes a rather crucial mistake. In the presence of the other Angels and his Mother, he declares his preeminence over all things with the words of Isa 45:5, "I am the Father and God, and there is no one above me" (Ego Pater et Deus, et super me nemo).81 This passage from Isaiah has particular explanatory power for the Gnostic reading of creation and the nature of the Demiurge. When Jaldabaoth's Mother hears this scandalous proclamation she snaps back, "Do not lie, Jaldabaoth, for there is above you the Father of all things, who is First-Man, and so is that Man who is the Son of Man" (Noli mentiri, Ialdabaoth, est enim super te Pater omnium Primus
Anthropus, et Anthropus Silius Anthropi).82 Since the angels did not know of the Mother's existence, her words frightened them and they began questioning the source of the voice. Jaldabaoth, however, remained unaffected by the voice and moved to corral his rulers with the declaration of Gen 1:26, "Come,
78 Haer. 1.30.4–5.
79 Haer. 1.30.5.
80 Haer. 1.30.6.
81 Haer. 1.30.6. See also the use of Isa 45:5/46:9 by the Demiurge in Haer. 1.5.4 and the Barbelo-Gnostics in Haer. 1.29.4.
82 Haer. 1.30.6.
chapter 2 let us make man to the image" (Vienite, faciamus hominem ad imaginem).83
Hearing of Jaldabaoth's plan, the Mother seized this opportunity and gave the six other angels an idea of the human form so that through the man she could deprive them of their power.84 Borrowing loosely from the imagery of Gen 2:7, the cohort of angels assembled the man that was immense in breadth and length. The man, however, could not manage to stand erect and only wriggled across the ground.85 So the Angels brought him before Jaldabaoth, who acts out the description of Adam's formation in Gen 2:7 and breathes into the man the "spirit of life" (spiritum uitae).86 But the Mother arranged this plan in order that when Jaldabaoth breathed into the man, he unknowingly surrendered his power. After receiving the breath of Jaldabaoth, the newly created man came alive. Immediately, the enlivened man gave thanks to the First-Man and rejected Jaldabaoth his Maker.87
Disturbed by the loss of his power, Jaldabaoth, borrowing from Gen 2:22, created a woman from his own thought in order to deceive the man and take back his power. But no sooner was she created than Sophia deprived her of her power by means of the serpent, when she transgressed the prohibition of Gen 2:16 and ate from the tree of Knowledge.88 What is more, the sons of Jaldabaoth came to admire her beauty and "called her Eve" (uocasse eam Euam,
Gen 3:20) and begat sons with the woman (Gen 6:2).89
This series of events continues to portray the incompetence of the Creator God to manage his own creation and the astuteness of Sophia to recover the power from Jaldabaoth. Irenaeus' description of Adam and Eve's formation in the Ophite narrative relies more directly on the events recorded in Gen 1–2.
They assume the words of Gen 1:26 were uttered by Jaldabaoth to his cohort of angels, as he was trying to impose order over his subjects. Jaldabaoth even reenacts the creation imagery of Adam's formation in Gen 2:7. Even the key dialogical passage of Isa 45:5 is helpful for the Ophites to portray the arrogance
83 Haer. 1.30.6. On the tradition of angelic mediation and the interpretation of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 see Jarl Fossum, "Gen. 1,26 and 2,7 in Judiasm, Samaritanism and Gnosticism," JSJ
16.2 (1985): 203–39.
84 Haer. 1.30.6.
85 Haer. 1.24.1–2. Irenaeus speaks of a worm-like man in Saturnius and Basilides in Haer.
1.24.1.
86 Haer. 1.30.6.
87 Haer. 1.30.6.
88 Like many other titles, the meaning Prounikos is disputed. See SC 264.303; Dominic Unger and John Dillon, St. Irenaeus against Heresies (New York: The Newman Press, 1992), 260;
Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 174.
89 Haer. 1.30.7.
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
of the Creator. In these accounts, their narrative patches together scripture language and images to describe their perspective of creation.90
2.6.3.4
Ophites on the Disobedience and Expulsion of Adam and Eve:
Haer. 1.30.7–9 (Gen 2:7, Gen 2:16–7, Gen 3:1–6, Gen 3:7, Gen 3:20, Gen 3:23) The Ophites interpretation of the temptation account of Gen 3:1–6 follows the text more closely than any previous account. Sophia, working through the serpent, leads Adam and Eve "to transgress the precept of Jaldabaoth" (supergredi praeceptum Ialdabaoth, Gen 2:17).91 This remark assumes that Jaldabaoth uttered the prohibition against eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Gen 2:16–7. In the Ophite reading, however, the outcome is entirely different, they are fortunate that through their disobedience they received the "knowledge of that Power which is above all things" (cognouisse eam quae est super omnia Virtutem, Gen 3:7) and in doing so rejected their Maker.92 With this knowledge, the lie Jaldabaoth uttered when he called himself Father of all (Isa 45:5) was exposed and the malevolent God of Creation is overcome. In the closing lines of Haer. 1.30.15, Irenaeus reports one variation on this account saying that some of the Ophites identify Sophia as the serpent. In this rendering the serpent implanted Adam and Eve with the true knowledge and, as a result, is considered wiser than all others (Gen 3:1).93 While this account is a clear contrast to Irenaeus' reading of the same narratives, the Ophites utilize many of the key images and terms to explain their cosmology.
In Haer. 1.30.8–9a, Irenaeus reports Jaldabaoth threw Adam and Eve out of paradise and into the world because they had transgressed his command (Gen
3:23). Likewise, the serpent was cast into the world and generated six sons, who are the seven devils of the world that oppose humankind. When Adam and Eve were in paradise they had spiritual bodies, but through their transfer into this present world they became encumbered by their physical bodies.
Even their souls, according to Irenaeus, were languid because they only had the "mundane breath" (insufflationem mundialem, Gen 2:7) from their Maker.94
Prounikos sees Adam and Eve in this sluggish and feeble state and has pity upon them. Acting in the in the manner of Gen 3:7, he enlivened them, causing
90 Haer. 1.8.1.
91 Haer. 1.30.7.
92 Haer. 1.30.7.
93 Haer. 1.30.15.
94 Haer. 1.30.9.