The Valentinian Claim to Esoteric Exegesis of Romans as Basis for Anthropological Theory Elaine H. Pagels Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 26, No. 4. (Dec., 1972), pp. 241-258. Stable URL: http://links,jstororgisieisici=0042-6032% 28 197212%2926%3A4%3C241%3ATVCTEE%3E2.0,CO%3B2-4 Vigitiae Christianae is currently published by Brill Academie Publishers ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hhup:/www.jstororg/about/terms.huml. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hup:/www jstor-org/journals/bap html Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Fri Jul 21 13:05:10 2006Viglige Christanae 26 (1972) 241-258; © North-Holland Publishing Company THE VALENTINIAN CLAIM TO ESOTERIC EXEGESIS OF ROMANS AS BASIS FOR ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY BY ELAINE H. PAGELS Apsteact Investigation of Valentinian exegesis of Romans indicates that certain gnostic theologians claim to have developed their anthropological theory from an esoteric exegesis of Romans, While most Christians read the epistle “literally”, as Paul's discussion ofthe contrast between the revelation to Israel and the revelation in Chris, ‘these exegetes read it allgorically. ‘Accordingly, they claim, what Paul describes as the situation of “the Jews” who stand “inthe law” (ef. Rm. 2.12; 3.19), subject to “sn” and “death” (8.2 allegrically ‘describes the situation of psychic Christians, They, as “Jews”, worship the “God ofthe Jews” (2.29), the demiurge, whose law requites them to eam their salvation “from works” (4.2) ‘Conversely, Paul's discussion of the “Gentiles”, who, “outside the aw”, have in their hearts the “law by nature” (212-15) describes the situation of the preumais. ‘These roozive redemption entirely “apart from the law” (3.21), “without works” (3.28). ‘They are the elect foreordained by the Father (8.29f,), redeemed "through faith", “according to grace” (3.21-30), ‘This analysis sueyets thatthe traditional framework for interpreting gnostic anthro- ppology ~ either in terms of “determinism” (Bultmans, 1941) or of “free will” (L. ‘Schottrof, 1969) ~ proves inadequate. Such anthropological terms as the “natures* (pate) of their designation as “hylic(psychie/pneumati” instead are intended to present a modified theory of election, allegedly Pauline. They are intended to differen~ tiate between the psychics salvation, effected by choice “through works", on the one hhand, and the pneumatics" redemption through divin election onthe other an election received “through faith”, and "by grace” Now that the Nag Hammadi texts are becoming available, we antici- pate the possibility of gaining from them new insights for the analysis of ‘gnostic anthropology. As the investigation of these texts proceeds, how- ‘ever, it becomes crucial to reéxamine the presuppositions of our investiga- Dn Ate we to approach these texts, for example, in terms of the traditional view of gnostic anthropology ~ the view Bultmann has expounded in 1941? Bultmann has claimed that the gnostic terminology of the “natures” (60815) of men teaches a kind of natural determinism. So, he says, the sgnosties teach that “redemption occurs as a great natural process ... them2 ELAINE PAGELS destiny of the soul is determined through its géots.” Their anthropology, Bultmann declares, excludes human freedom and human choice: Faith is not genuine decison, but recognition of one's mythical origin... the gnostic ‘one who is already get ouy6uevos, and the unbeliever i, on the basis of his evil ‘aig, already lost.” This view, of course, has not originated with Bultmann; it is the tradi- tional view of gnostic anthropology that has been taken for granted in the works of such scholars as Henrici, Forster, Von Loewenich, and Sagnard. It claims, indeed, the authorization of Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen, who agree that the gnostics teach a doctrine of “saved and lost, natures”? — in effect, a substantive determinism. H. Langerbeck and L.Schottroff, challenging this view in 1967 and 1969, have offered an opposite interpretation of Valentinian anthro- pology.* They suggest that the interpretation of the géo1g language as “deterministic” actually caricatures gnostic anthropology. This polemical caricature, they claim, has been mistaken by historians for a description. ‘Schottroff concludes from her analysis that the terminology of the three “natures”, far from assuming a “substantive determinism” that excludes {ree will, is intended to describe the different modes of human existence as they are constituted by free will. So, in her words, ‘iye, psyche, and pewma are definitions of essence (Wesensbestimmungen) that describe the essence (Wesen) of mankind in relation to the poles of the dualism ~ salvation and perditon...each one to be saved is defined through hye, psyche, and ‘pneuma .. Tae pneumatic is not exempted from the role of the psychic; he must Secide himself on the bass of free will for salvation or perition.”* Investigation of gnostic (and especially Valentinian)* exegesis of Romans indicates, however, that to analyze gnostic anthropology in terms of either of these alternatives proves misleading. The philosophical question of determinism and free will is not the issue that motivates the development of gnostic anthropology. Our analysis indicates that, as Quispel has suggested, the Valentinian description of the “natures” emerges not from a philosophical determinism so much as from a +R, Bukkmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (G8ttingen 1941/62) 21-24; see also 9665 1 *” Bultmana, 240. Excerpta ex Theod, $6.33 Clem. Al. Strom. 2.102; 4.89; len. Adv. haer. 11.115 1.6.1; Origen, De prin. 3.41.3 Comm. Jo. 214. “HL, Langerbeck, luftatze sur Gnosis (Gottingen 1967) 38f.; L. Schottoft, Anima naturaltersalvandae, in Christentum und Grass ed W. Eltester (Bern 1969) se. Schott, 92-93 * See comment by H.Ch, Puech and G. Quispel, Le Quatritme Berit du Codex Jung, Vieilae Christianae 9 (1955) 73, note 1