2.2 The Valentinian Reading of Creation: Haer. 1.5.1–6 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:21)
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
2.2
The Valentinian Reading of Creation: Haer. 1.5.1–6 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:21) In the opening chapters of Haer. 1, Irenaeus begins his summary of Valentinian cosmology and anthropology with a description of the nature of the Pleroma and the primordial defection of Sophia.12 For the Valentinian these protological matters are necessary prolegomena for any proper reading of Gen 1–3.13
The fall of Sophia, recorded in Haer. 1.2–3, is the crucial event that casts a shadow of ignorance over the subsequent cosmological activities recorded in the Genesis account.14 Sophia errs, according to Irenaeus, by attempting to comprehend the greatness of the perfect Father.15 She also does so apart from the union with her cohort. As a result, she gives birth to the Demiurge that bears the nature of her own ignorance, grief, fear, and bewilderment.16 The outcome of Sophia's passion and the formation of the Demiurge is the infusion of ignorance into all materiality.
This Demiurgic ignorance is Irenaeus' "cardinal objection" to Valentinian cosmology and, more specifically, their reading of Gen 1–3.17 The nature of ignorance and related imagery permeates the description of the Valentinian formation of the world depicted in Haer. 1.5.1–4. In this account, the creation of the world is enacted through the cooperation of Achamoth and the Demiurge, though the Demiurge was ignorant of Achamoth's assistance.18 This ignorance
12 Haer. 1.1–3.6. For a representation of this system see: Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 195–96.
Thomassen divides Valentinian pleromatology into two primary camps distinguished by the "detail" they ascribe to the personal names of the pleromic aeons and their relationship to the initial existence of the Father. Irenaeus falls into the group that ascribes more specificity to the aeons and theorizes about the thirty aeons coupled in syzygic pairs.
Ibid., 193–6.
13 On the debate over the reliability of Irenaeus' presentation see: Pagels, "Conflicting
Versions of Valentinian Eschatology: Irenaeus' Treatise vs. Excerpts from Theodotus," HTR
67 (1974): 35–53. Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 43–50.
14 Hellenistic Jewish sources, such as Philo, never cast the Creator as ignorant. Steenberg,
Irenaeus, 30.
15 Many have pointed to parallels with Gnostic texts such as: Apocryphon of John, On the Origin of the World, and the Hypostasis of the Archons.
16 Haer. 1.2.3.
17 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 24. The scope of this study is only concerned with the scriptural references to Gen 1–3 in Irenaeus' presentation of Gnosis. For an evaluation of the performance of Gen 1–3 in the Gnostic literature see: L. Painchaud, "The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature," JECS 4.2 (1996): 129–46; S. Giverson, "The Apocryphon of John and Genesis," StuTh 17 (1963): 60–76; Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions, 17–81.
18 Haer. 1.5.3.
chapter 2 is made explicit when the Demiurge admires his creation and makes the prideful declaration, "I am God and besides me there is no one" (Ego Deus, et praeter me nemo, Isa 45:5).19 In order for the Gnostics to depict the ignorance of the Demiurge, they turn to language of Isa 45:5. In this sense, Isa 45:5 serves as an illustration of the Demiurgic ignorance and, more so than any other passage, clearly communicates the true nature of the Demiurge's arrogance and ignorance in creation. The means of conflating the Mosaic imagery with later revelation is similar to the methods Irenaeus' employs in the rest of the work, but the nature of the Creator is distinct. The Valentinian account of creation contains only general echoes of Gen 1–3. Some language and images bear a resemblance to the creation accounts, such as the attributes of "heavenly" (caelestia) and "earthly" (terrena) (cf. 1 Cor 15:48), but there is no substantive reference to Gen 1–3 other than the general echoes of creation of the world. The limited use of Genesis here, and in the formation of Adam in the next section, suggests a degree of separation from any dependence upon the Mosaic account for the understanding of cosmology.
In Haer. 1.5.5–6, Irenaeus transitions from a description of Valentinian cosmology and cosmogony to anthropology.20 The Valentinians read the narrative of the formation from the dust in Gen 2:7 in light of the language of the "earthly element" (χοïκός; choicum) drawn from 1 Cor 15:47. The Valentinians deny that Adam was made from the "dry earth" (arida terra, Gen 2:5), but "from the invisible substance and from fusible and fluid matter" (ab inuisibili substantia et ab effusibili et fluida materia).21 The distinction is, as Dunning rightly observes, substantial in nature and not a rejection of materiality altogether.22 In other words, the Valentinians observe a different substance of creation and prefer the Pauline description to the Mosaic substance. In this sense, Paul and Moses are at odds with one another. The language of "earthly" (choicum; χοïκός) describes the true formation from the dust in Gen 2:7 rather than the substance of the dry earth in Gen 2:5. In this type of harmonization, the Valentinian interpretation of the Pauline image amends the Mosaic account, and offers the true
19 Haer. 1.5.4.
20 Holsinger-Friesen compares the Valentinian account with Plato's Timaeus. HolsingerFriesen, Irenaeus, 90–92.
21 Haer. 1.5.5. Although this allusion is not noted in BP or SC, the reference to "dry earth"
(arida terra) in refers to Gen 2:5 prior to God watering the earth in Gen 2:6. cf. Epid 32;
Haer. 3.18.7; Haer. 4.39.2.
22 Benjamin H. Dunning, "Virgin Earth, Virgin Birth: Creation, Sexual Difference, and Recapitulation in Irenaeus of Lyons," JofR, 89.1 (2009): 57–88, 70.
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
formation of the spiritual Adam. These types of emendations are one of the distinguishable features between their competing readings of Gen 1–3.
Within their description of the process of Adam's formation, the Valentinians argue that the Demiurge breathed into this creature the "psychic element" (psychicum), so that the first creature is composed of both an earthly
(Gen 2:7a) and psychic element (Gen 2:7b). They also separate the terms "image and likeness" (imaginem et similitudinem) and apply them to these two elements of the first-created man. The material or "earthly" (choicum) element was created after the "image" (imaginem), while the "psychic" (psychicum) element was after the "likeness" (similitudinem).23 The psychic element was also termed the "spirit of life" (spiritum vitae, Gen 2:7), because it derived from a "spiritual emission" (spiritali defluitione).24 The final stage in the formation of humankind is completed when the creature is clothed in a "skin-like garment"
(dermatinam tunicam, Gen 3:21) that becomes the sensory fleshy substance.25
This complex interpretation of Gen 1:26, Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7, and Gen 3:21 shows that the Valentinians have not completely written off the creation accounts.
Despite the inconsistencies, the Valentinians use the creation imagery to illuminate the understanding of the true narrative behind Adam's formation.
In their reading, the creation of Adam occurs in stages. The imagery of Gen 2:7 depicts the first two phases connected to the image and likeness of God
(Gen 1:26), while the final stage is the application of the fleshy covering. All of these texts are connected through their anthropological imagery, and the way they describe Adam and Eve's formation. This type of intertextual reading takes into account the immediate context of these texts, and, in this sense, offers a careful literary reading of Adam's creation. There is, then some appreciation for the immediate literary context of these passages, though their intertextual reading absorbs this complex arrangement of texts into different understanding of Adam's formation. In this sense, the Valentinians read Gen 1 and Gen 2 sequentially as stages in the process of creation, Irenaeus, as he describes in various places, interprets them concurrently as two accounts of the same act of creation.
Irenaeus provides further background to the Valentinian creation of humankind in Haer. 1.5.6. Unbeknownst to the Demiurge, Achamoth deposits the true
"spiritual man" (spiritalis homo) while the Demiurge breathes in the breath of life (Gen 2:7), or the psychic element. Borrowing middle-platonic imagery, this spiritual deposit is planted as a seed into the soul of the creature and functions
23 Haer. 1.5.5.
24 Haer. 1.5.5.
25 Haer. 1.5.5.