'One God, One Bishop': The Politics of Monotheism

[Guest guest]

'One God, One Bishop': The Politics of Monotheism

 

(P.55) The Christian creed begins with the words 'I believe in one God, Father

Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.' Some scholars suggest that this credal

statement was originally formulated to exclude followers of the heretic Marcion

(c.140) from orthodox churches. A Christian from Asia Minor, Marcion was struck

by what he saw as the contrast between the creator-God of the Old Testament, who

demands justice and punishes every violation of his law, and the Father whom

Jesus proclaims - the New Testament God of forgiveness and love. Why, he asked,

would a God who is 'almighty' - all-powerful - create a world that includes

suffering, pain, disease - even mosquitoes and scorpions? Marcion concluded that

these must be two different Gods. The majority of Christians early condemned

this view as dualistic, and identified themselves as orthodox by confessing one

God, who is both 'Father Almighty' and 'Maker of heaven and earth'.

 

When advocates of orthodoxy confronted another challenge - the gnostics - they

often attacked them as 'Marcionites' and 'dualists'. Irenaeus states as his

major complaint against the gnostics that they, like the Marcionites, say that

'there is another God besides the creator'. (P.56) Some of the recently

discovered texts confirm his account. According to the 'Hypostasis of the

Archons', the creator's vain claim [1] to hold an exclusive monopoly on divine

power shows that he

 

is blind ... [because of his] power and his ignorance [and his] arrogance he

said ..., 'It is I who am God; there is none [other apart from me].' When he

said this, he sinned against [the Entirety]. And a voice came forth from above

the realm of absolute power, saying, 'You are mistaken, Samael,' which means,

'god of the blind'.[2]

 

Another text discovered in the same codex at Nag Hammadi, 'On the Origin of the

World', tells a variant of the same story:

 

.... he boasted continually, saying to (the angels) ... 'I am God, and no other

one exists except me.' But when he said these things, he sinned against all of

the immortal ones ... when Faith saw the impiety of the chief ruler, she was

angry ... she said, 'You err, Samael (i.e., 'blind god'). An enlightened,

immortal humanity ['anthropos'] exists before you!'[3]

 

A third text bound into the same volume, the 'Secret Book of John', relates how

 

in his madness ... he said, 'I am God, and there is no other God beside me,' for

he is ignorant of ... the place from which he had come ... And when he saw the

creation which surrounds him and the multitudes of angels around him which had

come forth from him, he said to them, 'I am a jealous God, and there is no other

God beside me.' But by announcing this he indicated to the angels that another

God does exist; for if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous?[4]

 

When these same sources tell the story of the Garden of Eden, they characterize

this God as the jealous master, whose tyranny the serpent (often, in ancient

times, a symbol of divine wisdom) taught Adam and Eve to resist:

 

.... God gave [a command] to Adam, 'From every [tree] you may eat, [but] from the

tree which is in the midst of Paradise do not eat, for on the day that you eat

from it you will surely die.' But the serpent was wiser than all the animals

that were in Paradise, and he persuaded Eve, saying, 'On the day when you eat

from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, the eyes of your mind will be

opened.' And Eve obeyed ... she ate; she also gave to her husband.[5]

 

Observing that the serpent's promise came true - their eyes were opened - but

that God's threat of immediate death did not, the gnostic author goes on to

quote God's words from Genesis 3:22, adding editorial comment:

 

.... 'Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing evil and good.' Then he

said, 'Let us cast him out of Paradise, lest he take from the tree of life, and

live forever.' But of what sort is this God? First [he]envied Adam that he

should eat from the tree of knowledge.... Surely he has shown himself to be a

malicious envier.[6]

 

As the American scholar Birger Pearson points out, the author uses an Aramaic

pun to equate the serpent with the Instructor ('serpent', hewya; 'to instruct',

hawa).[7] Other gnostic accounts add a four-way pun that includes Eve (Hawah):

instead of tempting Adam, she gives life to him and instructs him:

 

After the day of rest, Sophia [literally, 'wisdom'] sent Zoe [literally,

'life'], her daughter, who is called Eve, as an instructor to raise up Adam...

When Eve saw Adam cast down, she pitied him, and she said, 'Adam, live! Rise up

upon the earth!' Immediately her word became a deed. For when Adam rose up,

immediately he opened his eyes. When he saw her, he said, 'You will be called

" the mother of the living " , because you are the one who gave me life.'[8]

 

The 'Hypostasis of the Archons' describes Eve as the spiritual principle in

humanity who raises Adam from his merely material condition:

 

And the spirit-endowed Woman came to [Adam] and spoke with him, saying, 'Arise,

Adam.' And when he saw her, he said, 'It is you who have given me life; you

shall be called " Mother of the living " - for it is she who is my mother. It is

she who is the Physician, and the Woman, and She Who Has Given Birth.' ... Then

the Female Spiritual Principle came in the Snake, the Instructor, and it taught

them, saying,' ... you shall not die; for it was out of jealousy that he said

this to you. Rather, your eyes shall open, and you shall become like gods,

recognizing evil and good.' ... And the arrogant Ruler cursed the Woman ...

[and] ... the Snake.[9]

 

Some scholars today consider gnosticism synonymous with metaphysical dualism -

or even with pluralities of gods. Irenaeus denounced as blasphemy such

caricatures of the conviction, fundamental to the Hebrew Scriptures, that 'the

Lord your God is one God'. But Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus' contemporary,

tells us that there was a 'monadic gnosis'; and the discoveries at Nag Hammadi

also disclose that Valentinian gnosticism - the most influential and

sophisticated form of gnostic teaching, and by far the most threatening to the

church - differs essentially from dualism. The theme of the oneness of God

dominates the opening section of the 'Tripartite Tractate', a Valentinian

treatise from Nag Hammadi which describes the origin of all being. (P.58) The

author describes God as a sole Lord and God...For he is unbegotten...In the

proper sense, then, the only Father and God is the one whom no one else begot.

As for the universe (cosmos), he is the one who begot and created it.[10]

 

A 'Valentinian Exposition' speaks of God who is

 

[Root] of the All, the [ineffable One who] dwells in the Monad. [He dwells

alone] in silence...since, after all, [he was] a Monad, and no one was before

him...[11]

 

According to a third Valentinian text, the 'Interpretation of the Knowledge',

the Savior taught that 'Your Father, who is in heaven, is one.'[12]

 

Irenaeus himself tells us that the creed which effectively screened out

Marcionites from the church proved useless against the Valentinians. In common

with other Christians, they recited the orthodox creed. But Irenaeus explains

that although they did 'verbally confess one God', they did so with private

mental reservations, 'saying one thing, and thinking another'.[13] While the

Marcionites openly blasphemed the creator, the Valentinians, he insists, did so

covertly:

 

Such persons are, to outward appearances, sheep, for they seem to be like us,

from what they say in public, repeating the same words [of confession] that we

do; but inwardly they are wolves.[14]

 

What distressed Irenaeus most was that the majority of Christians did not

recognize the followers of Valentinus as heretics. Most could not tell the

difference between Valentinian and orthodox teaching; after all, he says, most

people cannot differentiate between cut glass and emeralds either! But, he

declares, 'although their language is similar to ours', their views 'not only

are different, but at all points full of blasphemies'.[15] The apparent

similarity with orthodox teaching only made this heresy more dangerous - like

poison disguised as milk. So he wrote the five volumes of his massive

'Refutation and Overthrow of Falsely So-called Gnosis' to teach the unwary to

discriminate between the truth, which saves believers, and gnostic teaching,

which destroys them in 'an abyss of madness and blasphemy'.[16]

 

For while the Valentinians publicly confessed faith in one God,[17] in their own

private meetings they insisted on discriminating between the popular image of

God - as master, king, lord, creator, and judge - and what that image

represented - God understood as the ultimate source of all being.[18] (P.59)

Valentinus calls that source 'the depth';[19] his followers describe it as an

invisible, incomprehensible primal principle.[20] But most Christians, they say,

mistake mere images of God for that reality.[21] They point out that the

Scriptures sometimes depict God as a mere craftsman, or as an avenging judge, as

a king who rules in heaven, or even as a jealous master. But these images, they

say, cannot compare with Jesus' teaching that 'God is spirit' or the 'Father of

Truth'.[22] Another Valentinian, the author of the 'Gospel of Philip', points

out that names can be

 

very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is accurate to what is

inaccurate. Thus one who hears the word 'God' does not perceive what is

accurate, but perceives what is inaccurate. So also with 'the Father', and 'the

Son', and 'the Holy Spirit', and 'life', and 'light', and 'resurrection', and

'the Church', and all the rest - people do not perceive what is accurate, but

they perceive what is inaccurate...[23]

 

 

References:

 

For more technical discussion of this subject, see E.Pagels, 'The Demiurge and

his Archons: A Gnostic View of the Bishop and Presbyters?' in Harvard

Theological Review 69.3-4 (1976), 301-24.

 

[1]Cf. N.A. Dahl, 'The Gnostic Response: The Ignorant Creator', documentation

prepared for the Nag Hammadi Section of the Society of Biblical Literature

Annual Meeting, 1976.

 

[2]Hypostasis of the Archons 86.27-94.26,in NHL 153-8. Note that the citation is

conflated from two separate variants of the story in 86.27-87.4 and 94.19-26; a

third occurs in the same text at 94.34-95.13.Cf.B.Layton, 'The Hypostasis of the

Archons', in Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974),351 ff.

 

[3]On the Origin of the World 103.9-20, in NHL 165. For analysis of the texts,

see F.L. Fallon, The Sabaoth Accounts in 'The Nature of the Archons' (CG11,4)

and 'On the Origin of the World' (CG 11,5): An Analysis (Cambridge, 1974).

 

[4]Apocryphon of John 11.18-13.13, in NHL 105-6.

 

[5]Testimony of Truth 45.24-46.11, in NHL 411.

 

[6]ibid., 47.7-30, in NHL 412.

 

[7]See Excellent discussion by B.A. Pearson, 'Jewish Haggadic Traditions in the

Testimony of Truth from Nag Hammadi, CG IX, 3', in Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia

Geo Widengren oblata (Leiden, 1972), 458-70.

 

[8]On the Origin of the World 115.31-116.8, in NHL 172.

 

[9]Hypostasis of the Archons 89.11-91.1, in NHL 154-5.

 

[10]Tripartite Tractate 51.24-52.6, in NHL 55.

 

[11]A Valentinian Exposition 22.19-23, IN NHL 436.

 

[12]Interpretation of the Knowledge 9.29, in NHL 430.

 

[13]Irenaeus, AH 4.33.3.

 

[14]ibid., 3.16.6.

 

[15]ibid., 3.16.8.

 

[16]ibid., Praefatio 2.

 

[17]ibid., 4.33.3; 3.16.8.

 

[18]For discussion and references, see Pagels, 'The Demiurge and his

Archons'.

 

[19]Irenaeus, AH 1.11.1.

 

[20]ibid., 1.1.1; cf. Tripartite Tractate 51.1 ff., in NHL 55 ff.

 

[21]Heracleon, Frag. 22, in Origen, COMM. JO. 13.19.

 

[22]ibid., Frag. 24, in Origen, COMM. JO. 13.25.

 

[23]Gospel of Philip 53.24-34, in NHL 132-3.

 

 

The Gnostic Gospels, Pg. 55-59

Elaine Pagels

Phoenix Publishers - St. Martin's Lane, London

ISBN 13: 978-0-7538-2114-5