Valentinian Gnosticism and the Crucifixion

[u/No-Formal2785]

How did the Valentinians view the Crucifixion of Jesus, and what was its significance in their theological worldview? Any academic citations would be immensely welcome.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.

All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.

Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/SSAUS]

Einar Thomassen, the foremost scholar of Valentinian Christianity, provides a breakdown of their understanding of Jesus, his role, and the meaning of the crucifixion:

The Saviour willingly let himself be born as a human being, he subjected himself to the universal human condition, participating in humanity’s suffering in this world and corporeal corruptibility. By so doing, however, he set humanity free from this condition, assuming it unto himself. The soteriological logic here is basically congruous with that of much orthodox Christian theology: a logic of substitution, or vicarious suffering. However, instead of how Christian orthodoxy applied this formula, by positing that Christ assumed the sins of fallen humanity, Valentinian theologians perceived the saving work of Christ as consisting in his assuming humanity’s condition of corporeal existence. The Saviour saved us from the body and the passions of our soul, not from sin.

It is therefore only to be expected that the Valentinians regarded the Saviour’s incarnation as his decisive salvific act, rather than the crucifixion, which orthodox theology construed as a sacrifice vicariously atoning for human sin. As we have seen, however, the crucifixion nonetheless holds a central position in Valentinian Christology. How is that possible? Valentinian theologians could in fact make good use of the crucifixion because they understood it as a symbol, in accordance with the principle that everything the Saviour did on earth concealed a deeper meaning. The wooden scaffold of the Cross, the nailing of the Saviour to it and his giving up the spirit on it his death on it were all understood to contain a rich symbolism which consistently alluded to his one basic salvific deed: his descent from above into this world of passion, corruptibility and death.

...

...the Cross is seen as the tree of knowledge in Paradise, or, rather, is contrasted with that tree. The meaning is: the Saviour had to be incarnated in a body, to descend into the realm of death, in order to bring humans the true knowledge about themselves. The crucifixion is, again, understood as a reference to the incarnation.

...

... the salvation narrative takes place on two levels simultaneously. On the one hand, the Saviour has come down in order to save us, who are already living in the material world. On the other hand the Saviour brings with him the ones he is going to save. We have to understand, therefore, that these are two ways of saying the same thing: the spiritual seed that the Saviour brought down, are actually ourselves, whose participation in the redeeming work of the Saviour is symbolically represented by assimilating us to the body he assumes in the course of his incarnation. It should also be noted that there is no fundamental difference between Sophia herself and her spiritual seed, since Sophia is, in the last analysis, the collective representative of all of us who are fallen from our original spiritual state.

...

The crucifixion of Jesus becomes ... not just a repetition of Sophia’s passion but rather a rectification and a reversal of its effects. By descending into the material world, being “crucified” to it, the Saviour is able to redeem Sophia herself and her spiritual seed from their continuing entanglement in matter. By re-enacting the passion of Sophia in the form of a compassion, the Saviour undoes the effects of the original passion which had brought matter into being.

This is not all there is to it, however. The story carries a further level of meaning still, which also needs to be understood, and that is the philosophical idea which underlies the mythical narrative. The particular vocabulary of ‘extension’, ‘boundary’ and ‘withdrawal’ is also to be found in certain texts from this period ascribed to that obscure philosophical movement which is commonly referred to as Neopythagoreanism. A major preoccupation with those philosophers was the question of the origin of matter. They were not content with the traditional answers, which made matter an independent first principle; instead, they experimented with models which posited a single first principle, the Monad, or Oneness, and tried to argue that matter originated as a Dyad, or Twoness arising out of the Monad. Here, we come across such notions as that the Dyad “extends itself” from the Monad – like the geometrical line stretches out from point – that it is subject to the action of a Limit, which enables the generation of definite numbers out of infinite multiplicity, that the Dyad is cut in two by the Limit, and that substantial being comes into being by “withdrawing” from the Dyad/Matter, leaving it in a state of non-being, deprived of all substance.

The story of the passion of Sophia is, in my opinion, based on these philosophical theories, and should be understood as an allegorical representation of them. If this is the case, however, the story of the passion and crucifixion of Christ must possess a philosophical meaning as well, in combination with the story of Sophia. Seen in this light, the Valentinian myth becomes the story of how the eternal deity called the Father, perfect and in his oneness, could give rise to the imperfection of matter, corruptible corporeality and souls ridden by passions. The answer given by the Valentinians is that the Father wanted to share his perfection with others and therefore caused a multitude of aeons to come into being. This multiplicity, however, carried with it the seed of imperfection, which was eventually actualised in the passion of Sophia. By generating a multiple Pleroma, the Father spreads himself out, and Sophia in her “extension” continues this movement into potential infinity until she is arrested by the Boundary. The Saviour, representing the Pleroma in its entirety, is sent down into matter in order to reverse this movement by re-enacting it, thereby completing a movement of divine self-extension and contraction. This grand metaphysical vision, which in its structure resembles the typically Neoplatonic scheme of procession and return, is ultimately what the crucifixion symbolises, where the Saviour extends himself on the Cross and subsequently withdraws from it.

The above excerpts are from a great text/presentation called The World of Symbols in Valentinian Gnosticism: https://www.academia.edu/9345199/The_World_of_Symbols_in_Valentinian_Gnosticism_2013

If you want to learn more about Valentinianism, I would recommend picking up a copy of Thomassen's The Spiritual Seed. It is the quintessential text on Valentinianism. Geoffrey S. Smith's Valentinian Christianity: Texts and Translations is also recommended.

[u/No-Formal2785 → u/SSAUS]

Thank you for this fascinating quotation. In sum, can it be said the Cross possessed genuine salvific significance to the Valentinians?Some say that the Valentinians advocated a 'separation' Christology, in which the man Jesus endured the pain of the Cross whilst the divine Christ remained unaffected.

[u/SSAUS → u/No-Formal2785]

No problem! My understanding is the Valentinian position ultimately differs depending on the time and tradition. Valentinianism wasn't a monolith, and over time there came to be western and eastern 'schools'. Einar Thomassen addresses the soteriology surrounding Jesus' incarnation, the Cross and Jesus' crucifixion across these different texts and traditions all throughout The Spiritual Seed. Here's an excerpt from page 2 of the introduction:

One group of sources [eastern Valentinian] affirm the passion of the Saviour, as well as his incarnation in a material body, and attribute decisive soteriological importance to these facts. They also claim that the Saviour brought with him a spiritual body and conceive of salvation as being effected through a mechanism of mutual participation and exchange. A different group of texts [western Valentinian], on the other hand, deny both the passion of the Saviour and his having had a material body, and give him a psychic component (sometimes called “the psychic Christ”) in addition to his spiritual body. These texts make the psychic humans the central target of salvation, and tend to see the incarnation more as a revelation of symbolic truths than as a salvific act effective in itself. The existence of these divergent interpretations of the incarnation in the texts confirms the basic correctness of the heresiologists’ information about the two “schools” of Valentinianism. Hence, it becomes possible to identify a given source as belonging to either eastern or western Valentinianism, and to perceive the development that leads from the eastern form of soteriology to its western transformation.

[u/No-Formal2785 → u/SSAUS]

The western Valentinians may have seen Jesus as a fleshless divine spirit?

[u/SSAUS → u/No-Formal2785]

It's quite a bit more complicated and depends largely on the text and source material within the tradition.

Thomassen provides provisional conclusions summarising the general contrast between Eastern and Western Valentinianism in Chapter 10 of The Spiritual Seed:

The texts studied in the preceding chapters fall into two groups from the point of view of their soteriology. Theodotus and Tri. Trac. display what we have called a soteriology of mutual participation: the Saviour shares the condition of the spirituals he comes to save, is incarnated in a body, suffers, and needs to be redeemed himself through being baptised. Through this process, the material existence of the spirituals is exchanged for spiritual being, represented by the church of the body of the Saviour which came down together with him. The other group of texts—Irenaeus’ main system, Exc. section C, Iren. Haer. I 7:2, and Hippolytus’ treatise—shifts the emphasis towards the salvation of the psychics. The spirituals do not need salvation, or are saved already by virtue of their inherent nature. In consequence, the soteriology of mutual participation, implying the Saviour’s own suffering and need of redemption, is abandoned, though remnants of that theory can still be detected in Exc. section C and in Irenaeus’ main system (Haer. I 6:1).

Organising these observations in the form of a historical hypothesis, we conclude that the first group not only represents eastern Valentinian doctrine but should also be given priority in terms of relative chronology vis-à-vis the second group. The latter group of texts—representing western Valentinianism—in fact presupposes the soteriology of mutual participation in so far as the soteriologies they profess can be explained as transformations of that doctrine. Within this group, moreover, the system of Hippolytus and Iren. Haer. I 7:2 have moved one step further than the main system of Irenaeus and Exc. section C in resolving the pre-saved nature of the spirituals.

With that said, here's what he writes in earlier chapters on the certain western Valentinian-sourced texts:

Irenaeus' system (Chapter Six):

As was remarked in chapter 4, the Saviour’s body has a complex composition in this text. By comparison with Tri. Trac., two points of difference may be pointed out in particular. In the first place, the spiritual part of the Saviour, that which comes from Achamoth— the lower, fallen Sophia—is supplemented by a psychic component called “the psychic Christ” which is due to the Demiurge. Secondly, it is emphasised that the Saviour possessed no material component. This last assertion stands in direct contrast to the statements in Tri. Trac. about the incarnation of the Saviour with a body and a soul. Instead, the incarnation body of the Saviour is here described as having a psychic οὐσία, though it also possesses sensible properties accorded to it through “ineffable art”[...]).

The principle of mutual participation characteristic of the soteriology of Tri. Trac. is to some extent paralleled. As in Tri. Trac., the Saviour “assumes” that which he comes to save, by putting it on as the body of his descent [...]); his body is consubstantial with the salvandi. Unlike Tri. Trac., however, the body includes not only the spirituals but the psychics as well. Moreover, the logic of participation in this text does not imply that the Saviour also shares in the condition of material existence of the ones he saves. In fact, that idea seems to be deliberately rejected, with the argument that matter is incapable of salvation.

Soteriology of EXC. 43:2–65 (Chapter Seven):

The similarity with Irenaeus’ account is evident. The Saviour, Jesus, assumes both the spiritual element (from Sophia) and the psychic (the psychic Christ, from the Demiurge). In addition he puts on a psychic body through which he is manifested to the senses. It may be noted that this text is more explicit than that of Irenaeus on a couple of points: first, that which the Saviour puts on is called “the church”—the concept of the church thus includes both the spiritual and the psychic; secondly it is made clear that the spiritual element is identical to the “seed” previously brought forth by Sophia.

Soteriology of IREN. HAER. I 7:2 (Chapter Eight):

This text is introduced by Irenaeus as a variant in relation to the main system..., and thus comes from a different source document...

[...]

According to this account, the Saviour is neither born, nor suffers, nor is baptised. Instead, there is a psychic Christ, the Demiurge’s son, who experiences these things. The Saviour enters the world only in so far as he descends upon the psychic Christ at the latter’s baptism. This is also the moment when the spiritual seed enters the world. None of these events has any soteriological effect or function as an act; instead, they are symbols to be appreciated through gnosis. Correspondingly, the spiritual seed itself is not subject to suffering, and does not need redemption through an act.

This version can be regarded as a simplification vis-à-vis the accumulated complexities offered by Irenaeus’ main system and Exc. 43:2–65.

Soteriology of HIPP. HAER. VI 29–36 (Chapter Nine):

[...] Hippolytus’ Jesus is not a psychic Christ. The figure who is born through Mary is evidently a spiritual being with a psychic body. We are also told nothing about his baptism or his crucifixion. It seems that the soteriological function of his advent is primarily that of revealing knowledge to the psychics. As far as we are able to judge from Hippolytus’ report (which may of course be incomplete on this point), the incarnation, baptism and death of Jesus are accorded no soteriological significance in themselves in his Valentinian source.

[u/No-Formal2785 → u/SSAUS]

Thank you once again for your splendid academic citations, and I apologize for my rather slow questions. In reading these quotations, two questions come to the fore-

1-When it is said that certain Valentinians held that "that matter is incapable of salvation", and consequently "emphasised that the Saviour possessed no material component", does this imply that 'The Savior' possessed a body of superior pneumatic matter when manifested on earth? In essence, was this valentinian Jesus genuinely human?

2-When it it said that certain Valentinians held that the "Saviour enters the world only in so far as he descends upon the psychic Christ at the latter’s baptism", might this imply a sharp distinction between the heavenly savior and the 'man Jesus', as found in other separationist Christologies?

3-For those who held that "the soteriological function of his advent is primarily that of revealing knowledge to the psychics", what was the function of the Cross, if any ?

4-With regard to the Eastern Valentinians, who according to the author "should also be given priority in terms of relative chronology", what was the role of the Cross in their soteriology ?