Davide's Notes

I have been rereading Pagels' "The Gnostic Gospels" off and on for a while now. It took me more than I had thought, but it was (is) certainly time well spent. It is now time to recapitulate some of the most important concepts.

Was Resurrection a symbol or an historical event?

Gnosticism gives a variety of answers. But orthodoxy has it that resurrection is not just about the "spirit", or the immortaility of the soul. Orthodox christianity maintains a literal interpretation. Cf. Tertullian, De Resurrectione Carnis, II.12:

Animae autem salutem credo retractatu carere: omnes enim fere haeretici eam, quoquo modo volunt, tamen non negant.

Where does this literal interpretation come from? In the NT there are episodes clearly meant to reinforce it: Lk 24:36-43, or John 20:27. At the same time, there are other stories, e.g. Mk 16:12: "Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them [...]", or Emmaus (Lk 24:13-32), or John 20:11-17 (Mary Magdalene mourning Jesus, seeing him and not recognizing him - immediately before the doubting Thomas episode!), that seem to suggest that the body of the resurrected Jesus was not the body that the apostles had known before his death.

The thesis of Pagels is that the selection of the literal interpretation of the resurrection cannot be explained in religious terms alone; it was selected because it served an important political function: to assert the authority of those who experienced the resurrected Christ (Peter being the first - although he was not, see Mary Magdalene), and of their legitimate heirs. A key point here is that the experience of seeing the risen Christ is closed with the Ascension. This is generally not what happens with the Gnostics, who insist that the Resurrection has to be interpreted in a somewhat symbolic way ("somewhat" meaning: not necessarily entirely symbolic) and therefore

• the resurrection is something that has to be obtained while living
• there is the possibility to encounter the risen Christ in the present.
  

Now, it is clear that if I claim to have seen the risen Christ, I also claim that my authority in asserting so is at least equal to that of the apostles and of their successors. Cf. the Gospel of Mary, and the clash between Peter/Andrew (orthodoxy) and Mary Magdalene (gnostic thought). Peter/Andrew represent the "authorized ones", Mary those who do not formally belong to "the twelve", but nevertheless have been given true teachings that are either not recognized by orthodoxy, or are recognized only after some time and struggle.

The fact that it is not obvious to derive a literal interpretation of the resurrection from the biblical text seems admitted by Pius X who in 1907 in the decree Lamentabili Sane wrote

The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts. (36)

It is interesting to note that this position is not very different from the one proposed by the anonymous author of the Treatise on the Resurrection found at Nag Hammadi:

But if there is one who does not believe, he does not have the (capacity to be) persuaded. For it is the domain of faith, my son, and not that which belongs to persuasion: the dead shall arise!

(although the Treatise makes it very clear that the teaching exposed are directly derived from the Word of Truth revealed by Jesus - but does not explain how)

This treatise was probably written in the late second century. In it, resurrection is neither of the soul alone, nor of the literal flesh alone: resurrection is of a body that maintains certain "inner", and at the same time visible, characteristics (as in the resurrection of Elijah or Moses at Christ's transfiguration). This points to a dualistic doctrine of outer/inner that seems more elaborate than a simple dualism between spirit and flesh. In the words of the text:

This is the spiritual resurrection which swallows up the psychic in the same way as the fleshly

The debate of which "body" one would have after resurrection was one of the frequently asked questions of the time. See for example 1 Cor 15:35-53, which also suggests that resurrection is one of a spiritual type: σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. (v.44) In this sense, there does not seem to be a lot of difference between this gnostic text and orthodox teachings (both ancient and modern) - although one could possibly argue that dualism in pauline anthropology was generally simpler than what is present in the Treatise.

Let's see what the key differences between the Treatise and orthodoxy are, then. According to the Treatise, one does not need to wait for Christ's parousia to be resurrected; one does not even need to wait for one's biological death: resurrection is in the present, once we consider ourselves as dead already, and therefore already participating of the resurrected state. Against this, see 2 Tim 2:17-18:

Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

Resurrection is a sort of enlightenment on the reality of things:

The world is an illusion! [...] [Resurrection] is the revelation of what is, and the transformation of things, and a transition into newness. (48)

Note that this concept often lead Gnostics to theorize devaluation of the bodily form (and this can then range between the two extremes of absolute ascetism and consideration of bodily, esp. sexually, acts as utterly unimportant). As a confirmation of this, consider how much space Tertullian devotes in his De Resurrectione Carnis to explain the instrinsic value of the flesh.

This realized eschatology sounds Valentinian. Cf. Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum:

Aeque tangit eos qui dicerent factam iam resurrectionem : id de se Valentiniani asseuerant. (XXXIII,7)

It has also to be said that this concept is linked in the text to strong predestination:

We are elected to salvation and redemption since we are predestined from the beginning not to fall into the foolishness of those who are without knowledge. (46)

Obviously this self-consciousness of salvation, associated with the revelation of what really is, goes squarely against any claim to external spiritual authority. On the other hand, the concept of some realized eschatology can also be seen in pauline writings:

[...] having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:12)

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. (Col 3:1-3)

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6)

But a common interpretation of these texts is that they mainly (or only) refer to the burial of sins, not to the full significance of resurrection.
The Valentinian character of the Treatise is reinforced by the explicit mention of the restoration of the Pleroma by Christ:

so that on the one hand he [Christ] might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; [...] For imperishability [descends] upon the perishable [note that this verse is essentially 1 Cor 15:53]; the light flows down upon the darkness, swallowing it up; and the Pleroma fills up the deficiency. (44.49)

But who can attain this resurrection, or the enlightenment on the true nature of reality? The gnostics thought that, outside the exoteric teachings offered to "the many", there were other and less public instructions:

[Jesus] told them, "The secret (τὸ μυστήριον) of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables (Mk 4:11)

[Jesus] replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. (Mt 13:11)

And the Gnostics claimed that even Paul had some secret knowledge that he shared only with the "perfects" (translated as "mature" in NIV, NASB, NRSV): Σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις (1 Cor 2:6) Whether Paul really wanted to say what he says is debated among scholars.

Interesting is the fact that, according to the gnostics, the resurrected Jesus does not show his bodily (earthly) form anymore and, even more interestingly, the perceived form depends on the subject observing that form. As the Gospel of Philip (perhaps written in the first part of the third century) has it:

Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which [they would] be able to see him. He appeared to [them all. He appeared] to the great as great. He [appeared] to the small as small. He [appeared to the] angels as an angel, and to men as a man. (57-58)

Incidentally, the Gospel of Philip also supports the idea that resurrection has to be obtained while alive, and expands this concept in a rather obscure way:

Those who say that the lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection he will not die. (56)

Again, this points to an unmediated way of perceiving Jesus, one that is tailored to each and every individual. This is the recognition that God's voice comes as a personal fact and is, it seems to me, not a small spiritual achievement. Pagels goes on to suggest that this individual understanding of and quest for Jesus can also be been in the very title given to Thomas ("didimus" = the twin brother): you, the reader, are Thomas, the brother of Jesus, hence this is said personally to each one of us:

[W]hile you have time in the world, listen to me [...] Now since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and how you will come to be. [note the future] Since you will [future again] be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself. [...] [H]e who has not known himself has known nothing, but he who has known himself has at the same time already achieved knowledge about the depth of the all. (Book of Thomas the Contender writing to the Perfect, 138)

I shall write something more later on about self-knowledge as knowledge of God in the Gnostics. The point here is that we have an attempt to achieve direct experience of God, and this direct experience can also be expressed in the concept of the resurrection.

Now, an important point is that orthodoxy prevailed probably also because aggregational forms of thought have many times proven to be more efficient (in terms of power collected, and of perceived authority) than individual solutions. Irenaeus is very clear: catholicism is defined by a consistent and universally accepted doctrine, whereas heretics exhibit a (sometime confusing and inconsistent) variety of thought systems.

[The Church] believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. (AH, I.10.2)

And the only way to keep on having a consistent set of doctrines is therefore to faithfully follow the authority of the Apostles and of their successors. Heretics are then those who diverge seeking their own direct experience to God.

---

Categories: Church_History