Redskins!
Newbie
Posts: 4
|
 |
« on: July 05, 2014, 02:10:33 AM » |
|
Lately I've been studying John in ancient Christian literature and the Johannine community. Here's a start to what I've gathered from a synopsis I'm reading on the gospel.
A few differences can be seen between Ptolemy’s prologue and his letter to Flora. In his prologue, John 1:3 takes place within the pleromic sphere and the aions come into being through the logos. Another detail to his prologue is that he takes “all things” to consist of Sophia and the elements. However, in his letter to Flora, Ptolemy has “all things” referring to the cosmos and its contents which come into being through the logos which is similar to Heracleon’s exegesis. A similarity can also be seen in that Ptolemy has the aions coming into being through the logos in both accounts. Von Loewenich believes that Ptolemy may not be the author of the letter whereas Heracleon thinks he may have intended to have a simpler introduction when writing to Flora. Ptolemy takes the opposite approach of the Peratae Exegesis which argues that “nothing came into being apart from him” means that the cosmic order came into being apart from God. Ptolemy’s exegesis is that nothing coming into being apart from God meaning that nothing of the cosmos came into being apart from God.
Heracleon agrees with the Valentinians in his exegesis of John 1:4 as his interpretation has the Logos and Zoe as the primal parents of the next pair of aions, Anthropos-Ecclesia which is the human elect. A more literal understanding of this would be that the Word gives life to those who achieve gnosis. The Logos is the male parent which gives form to the syzygy and Zoe is the female parent who gives life to their offspring or syzygy. This is not to be taken literally because the syzygy is only the archetype or ideal of the human elect that is sown into the human soul and grows to reach perfection as the cosmic antitype of the demonic syzygy. In another part of his exegesis, Heracleon is in agreement with Ptolemy’s letter in that “all things” refers to the cosmos. Finally, Heracleon also views humans who are pneumatics, or part of the elect, as “identical” with the savior. This would be a hint at Thomistic thought which views Thomas the disciple as the savior’s twin.
Theodotus sees John 1:3 taking place in the kenoma rather than the pleroma. Here the savior descends upon Sophia and alienates her from her passions helping her achieve gnosis. This is also reflective of Plato’s theory of the forms where our souls become trapped in bodies due to our passions and throughout our lives we are in a struggle between following our passions and using the rational part of our souls to make wiser decisions. By using reason we are able to make it back to the spiritual realm where the forms or archetypes of all things exist. After descending into Sophia, or wisdom, the savior teaches her the aions in the pleroma up to herself. As Sophia achieves gnosis, she begins to come into existence. Theodotus takes John 1:4 as referring to divine life in the cosmos which is the savior. Only by achieving gnosis can we truly have wisdom and exist.
The Valentinians have been misunderstood by scholars and Christian theologians for centuries. Origen was one of the first by claiming that Heracleon advocates a deterministic theory of salvation where there are spiritual natures from birth and divine life is in these alone while there are also lost natures from birth. Furthermore, Heracleon does not offer any proof. Heracleon does distinguish between two types of people in relation to the savior that entered the cosmos. These are those who receive him, the pneumatics, and those who believe on his name, the psychics. “In him” only includes the pneumatics. And “life” refers to the divine life offered by the logos which is present in pneumatics who stand in special relation to the logos. A primary example of this distinction can be seen with John the Baptist who represents those who go from the lower to the middle form of understanding the logos. Water leading to the forgiveness of sins comes first. However, the forgiveness of sins leading to the Holy Spirit is the second phase that is not seen with John the Baptist. This is why John denounces that he is a prophet to those questioning him. He is more than a prophet.
As opposed to “orthodox” theologians such as Irenaeus and Clement, Heracleon has gnosis and not textual wording is the basis for exegetical context. What he does agree with Irenaeus on is that he interprets the creation in John 1:3 in terms of the cosmic context and that “all things” means the cosmos and its contents. “Nothing came into being” refers to nothing that is in this universe. The creation of the cosmos is the work of the logos himself. This is in opposition to the Peratae who believe that the cosmos is the nothing that came into being apart from the logos. Where Heracleon and Irenaeus differ is where Irenaeus leaves “nothing” out of “all things.” Heracleon views the pleroma as being before the logos and therefore not part of “all things” being created by it. He specifies that the aion, or pleroma and its contents have not come into being through the logos, but that the pleroma originated before the logos. Basically, the pleroma originated before the logos who is the savior and created the cosmos. De Faye points out that Heracleon is not a traditional Valentinian but a theological revisionist with a very monotheist and Christianized theology.
Irenaeus hermeneutic is quite different from Heracleon. His is the “canon of truth” consisting of the apprehension of the faith that the church has experienced through Christ. No special documents are necessary and if the gospel’s author is the Lord’s disciple, then it proves that he refers to the Jesus of history and not syzygies. John was written to refute the errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolations. Irenaeus states that every detail of Christ’s coming was predicted and well known in advance while he rejects the events given in history as a primary medium of revelation. To him, the gospels are an approach to salvation history rather than realities that transcend space and time. However, Irenaeus quotes verses from the gospels selectively and out of context as well as using allegorical forms of exegesis where he does not understand something. While theological presuppositions dictate both the exegesis of the orthodox and Valentinians, the Valentinians are credited as more historically sound than their orthodox counterparts.
|
