gnosis92

Valentinus (c. 100 - c. 153)

Valentinus states that his teacher is "Theudas" who was a direct pupil of Paul. We have excerpts of Valentinus writings including an attribution by Iraneus of the Gospel of Truth to Valentinus, which presents many Gospel details.
a KIND OF "apostolic succession" iraneus championed, but one for the gnostics.

Valentinus along with Marcion were also familiar with the Pauline corpos and both individuals understood Paul, 2-3 generations after, but still in antiquity, as preaching a HJ rather than MJ.

"His Alexandrian followers said that Valentinus was a follower of Theudas and that Theudas in turn was a follower of St. Paul of Tarsus. Valentinus said that Theudas imparted to him the secret wisdom that Paul had taught privately to his inner circle, which Paul publicly referred to in connection with his visionary encounter with the risen Christ (Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4; Acts 9:9-10), when he received the secret teaching from him. Such esoteric teachings were becoming downplayed in Rome after the mid-2nd century."

Evidently Paul's secret teachings did not include a puerely mythical Jesus as it appears Valentinus knew nothing of the sort, nor Marcion.

There doesn't seem to be any second century Paulinists on record who supports Doherty's Mj interpretation of Paul. Even the forgers of Paul in the deutero Pauline letters seemed to understood Paul as believing in a HJ rather than MJ

robto

I agree - the lack of any sign of MJers (such as Doherty describes) among the "heretical" groups seems to sink the whole idea.

GakuseiDon

But should that be surprising? Anyone in the Second Century who regarded Paul as an authority would naturally claim that Paul taught the same things as them. Thus a gnostic would claim that Paul taught gnosticism, HJers that Paul was a HJer, etc. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that Valentinus and his school wouldn't mention an MJ even if there were one.

Heresologists not mentioning it though would be a separate matter. It would be interesting to know what the gnostics regarded as heretical. This was discussed in an earlier thread IIRC.

jakejonesiv

Behold the presumed Paul!

He is a self-proclaimed Apostle. He knows next to
noting about the man Jesus. At best he has heard a
rumor that a Jew known as Jesus-Christ was crucified
and appeared in visions.

Either Paul, or someone writing in his name, mentions
only the most generic references to the man
Jesus-Christ. He was a Jew of the line of David.
Maybe he had a brother, the text is ambiguous. He was
born of a woman, made of flesh, SARX.

These last two are puzzling. Why make an issue of
something that does nothing to distinguish Jesus from
the rest of humanity? It makes no sense unless someone
is preaching that Jesus wasn’t actually a man.

But after that Paul is faking it. He can’t tell what
Jesus preached, any miracles he performed, why he was
executed, or upon whose orders, or the location of the
crucifixion. He doesn’t mention the names of Jesus’
parents, his birth place, or a single person
Jesus-Christ had a conversation with during his life.
Paul doesn’t know about the gospels or any sources
used to form them.

Instead, it seems that Paul already had a theological
framework of a cosmic redeemer in place. It is a
transcendent being who descends from heaven to die and
rise for the salvation of initiates who, by
vicariously participating in the deeds of the god,
accrue the benefits made available by his divine
ransom. Paul merely plugged the name Jesus-Christ and
the means of death, crucifixion, into the existing
religous structure.

This indicates that the origin of Paulinism was not
Christian, and perhaps not even Jewish except in the
broadest and most Hellenized sense of the word.
Somewhere in the eastern hinterlands, a nascent
Christianity rumorously met a mystery cult, and the
Christ Cults were born, lead by a legendary apostle.

Paul was an obscure figment until multiple authors
began to write in his name.

The Roman church may have heard of this strange brew
religion, but it was held at arms length with
suspicion. It was dearly loved by heretics, and Paul
was the Apostle of the Heretics. This was wild-eyed
and dangerous stuff. The heretics rejected apostolic
succession, the very pillar upon which the Roman
church based the authority of its religion. Instead
these heretics claimed that the truth was made known
exclusively to Paul by means of divine revelation.
This left those who traced their founding back to the
Twelve Apostles or the Family of Jesus out in the
cold.


Jake Jones IV

neilgodfrey

And the only time even these references (davidic descent, flesh...) appear is in a passage of dubious authenticity -- as referenced here recently.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

jakejonesiv

Excellent point.

Paul, as the Apostle of the heretics, was appealed to
by alternative Christianities for other doctrines
that the emerging proto-orthodox found themselves
battling. The Marcionite version of the Pauline
epistles revealed a docetic depiction of Jesus. Jesus
is said to have appeared in the form of a man, in the
likeness of flesh, a man in appearance but not in
actuality.

Those references noted above ("descent of David" “born of a
woman” and “flesh”) are not in the Marcionite version.
These phrases are too vague to lend any specificity to
the life of Jesus, and were never meant too. They were
inserted into the catholic redaction of the Pauline
epistles to counter the doctrine of Docetism, and that
is all they are good for.

Even the contentious phrase "Brother of the Lord" does not appear
in Marcion's Galatians.

Thus, when I noted above "It makes no sense unless someone
is preaching that Jesus wasn’t actually a man," we have the proto-orthodox
correcting the heretic through the pen of Paul.

Clivedurdle

I must have missed something, where is the connection to a human being?

jakejonesiv

Historical vs. Mythical Jesus is a modern distinction.

Leaving aside a few minor groups, the major 2c. contenders of Chrsitianity (proto-Orthodox, Marcionite, and Gnostics) all belived that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being that descended in some manner from heaven. In this respect, none of the contenders believed in the demythologized HJ of liberal Christian scholarship.

Instead, the contention was between a Jesus who incarnated in human form, a Jesus who appeared in Docetic form, like certain OT theophanies in which God appeared to be a man, but was only apparently so, never being born of a woman. Did certain Jews and early Christian consider these theophanies historical? Certainly, but from our vantage point we must doubt them.

Apparently, this is what Marcion argued, that Jesus was of the same order as the OT appearance to Abraham. A divine phantom that only appeared to be a man. Tertullian's response to the long dead Marcion's point is weak; the theophany was real flesh but wasn't born because it didn't need to die. Apparently, God just materialized and dematerialized human flesh from the elements every time He or an agel made an appearnce! WTF??? See Against Marcion, III, chapter IX.

The final option was adoptionist; a spirit Christ possessed a man. This ancient conception is the most amenable to the modern conception if the possession is considered purely psychological.

Gregg

Sorry, not much here in the way of "evidence."

First, you admit that some of the "Pauline" letters are forged. The writers did this to give their works more authority. So what reason is there to trust Valentinus' claim that his teacher, Theudas, really knew Paul in the first place? Valentinus and his students could have been making this claim simply to connect themselves with Paul.

Second, you still haven't explained why all the "gospel details" we have from the NT epistles are the single reference to Pilate (1 Timothy 6:13, a pseudo-Pauline letter written post-Gospels) and the reference to the "Jews who killed the lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 2:15, likely a later interpolation), the crucifixion (who did it, where, when, and why never mentioned by Paul), and the "last supper" scene.

Third, reading the Gospel of Truth, I don't think it's as clear as you imagine that the author regards these events as historical. Here is the extent of the "many" gospel details in this writing:

That is the gospel of him whom they seek, which he has revealed to the perfect through the mercies of the Father as the hidden mystery, Jesus the Christ. Through him he enlightened those who were in darkness because of forgetfulness. He enlightened them and gave them a path. And that path is the truth which he taught them. For this reason error was angry with him, so it persecuted him. It was distressed by him, so it made him powerless. He was nailed to a cross.

...

He became a guide, quiet and in leisure. In the middle of a school he came and spoke the Word, as a teacher. Those who were wise in their own estimation came to put him to the test. But he discredited them as empty-headed people. They hated him because they really were not wise men. After all these came also the little children, those who possess the knowledge of the Father. When they became strong they were taught the aspects of the Father's face. They came to know and they were known. They were glorified and they gave glory. In their heart, the living book of the Living was manifest, the book which was written in the thought and in the mind of the Father and, from before the foundation of the All, is in that incomprehensible part of him.

This is the book which no one found possible to take, since it was reserved for him who will take it and be slain. No one was able to be manifest from those who believed in salvation as long as that book had not appeared. For this reason, the compassionate, faithful Jesus was patient in his sufferings until he took that book, since he knew that his death meant life for many. Just as in the case of a will which has not yet been opened, for the fortune of the deceased master of the house is hidden, so also in the case of the All which had been hidden as long as the Father of the All was invisible and unique in himself, in whom every space has its source. For this reason Jesus appeared. He took that book as his own. He was nailed to a cross. He affixed the edict of the Father to the cross.

...

And the Spirit came to him in haste when it raised him. Having given its hand to the one lying prone on the ground, it placed him firmly on his feet, for he had not yet stood up. He gave them the means of knowing the knowledge of the Father and the revelation of his son. For when they saw it and listened to it, he permitted them to take a taste of and to smell and to grasp the beloved son.

He appeared, informing them of the Father, the illimitable one. He inspired them with that which is in the mind, while doing his will. Many received the light and turned towards him. But material men were alien to him and did not discern his appearance nor recognize him. For he came in the likeness of flesh and nothing blocked his way because it was incorruptible and unrestrainable. Moreover, while saying new things, speaking about what is in the heart of the Father, he proclaimed the faultless word. Light spoke through his mouth, and his voice brought forth life. He gave them thought and understanding and mercy and salvation and the Spirit of strength derived from the limitlessness of the Father and sweetness. He caused punishments and scourgings to cease, for it was they which caused many in need of mercy to astray from him in error and in chains - and he mightily destroyed them and derided them with knowledge. He became a path for those who went astray and knowledge to those who were ignorant, a discovery for those who sought, and a support for those who tremble, a purity for those who were defiled.

He is the shepherd who left behind the ninety-nine sheep which had not strayed and went in search of that one which was lost. He rejoiced when he had found it. For ninety-nine is a number of the left hand, which holds it. The moment he finds the one, however, the whole number is transferred to the right hand. Thus it is with him who lacks the one, that is, the entire right hand which attracts that in which it is deficient, seizes it from the left side and transfers it to the right. In this way, then, the number becomes one hundred. This number signifies the Father.

He labored even on the Sabbath for the sheep which he found fallen into the pit. He saved the life of that sheep, bringing it up from the pit in order that you may understand fully what that Sabbath is, you who possess full understanding. It is a day in which it is not fitting that salvation be idle, so that you may speak of that heavenly day which has no night and of the sun which does not set because it is perfect. Say then in your heart that you are this perfect day and that in you the light which does not fail dwells.

When you read the whole piece, it's easy to find yourself wondering, where is the dividing line between reality and fantasy for people who can write like this and think like this? Does this person really believe the gospel events took place in any historical sense, or are they simply part of his truth and his reality, whether they actually happened on Earth or not? Because this writing style is really not much different from the Sethian Gnostic literature, which does not have any gospel details. It sounds rather like Valentinus, if he is in fact the author of this piece, has simply incorporated the gospel Jesus into a pre-existing mythic framework. We do not know if he regarded the events as truly happening on Earth a couple generations in the past or if the gospels have for him become part of the myth of the Christ. He shifts back and forth between past and present tense. When are these events happening for him?

Even if he did regard the gospels as history, even if he did have a teacher who knew Paul, this doesn't mean he necessarily would "know" Paul was talking about a purely "mythical" Christ and not a historical person, and thus reject either Paul or the gospels on that basis. Paul simply assumed an understanding of where the Christ's crucifixion took place, he gave no specifics. We don't know that information that was passed along included the admonition to "understand that these things took place in the firmament, not on Earth." And even if Valentinus did believe the events took place on Earth, there was still the issue of just how "human" he was.

I think this passage is interesting and am repeating it:

And the Spirit came to him in haste when it raised him. Having given its hand to the one lying prone on the ground, it placed him firmly on his feet, for he had not yet stood up. He gave them the means of knowing the knowledge of the Father and the revelation of his son. For when they saw it and listened to it, he permitted them to take a taste of and to smell and to grasp the beloved son.

He appeared, informing them of the Father, the illimitable one. He inspired them with that which is in the mind, while doing his will. Many received the light and turned towards him. But material men were alien to him and did not discern his appearance nor recognize him. For he came in the likeness of flesh and nothing blocked his way because it was incorruptible and unrestrainable.

What is Valentinus talking about here, the incarnation or the resurrection? Although this comes after his talk of "nailing to a cross," it is several paragraphs later and it doesn't seem like it's intentionally placed in sequence. Some of the things that happen after the "standing up" sound vaguely like some of the post-resurrection events, but on the whole there doesn't seem to be any real sequence; birth, ministry, crucifixion, death, resurrection, ascension. For the writer, these events do not really seem to occupy any specific time or space. In fact, closer to the beginning of the gospel we find this:

For this reason, the compassionate, faithful Jesus was patient in his sufferings until he took that book, since he knew that his death meant life for many. Just as in the case of a will which has not yet been opened, for the fortune of the deceased master of the house is hidden, so also in the case of the All which had been hidden as long as the Father of the All was invisible and unique in himself, in whom every space has its source. For this reason Jesus appeared. He took that book as his own. He was nailed to a cross. He affixed the edict of the Father to the cross.

Oh, such great teaching! He abases himself even unto death, though he is clothed in eternal life. Having divested himself of these perishable rags, he clothed himself in incorruptibility, which no one could possibly take from him.

So the sequence is even more mixed up. BTW, the "these perishable rags" comment is interesting, but does not really prove anything. The whole point is that Jesus was supposed to be humanlike enough in some fashion, even to the point of having a seemingly "perishable" body, that he can suffer and die. This could be believed of a Jesus who only descended to the firmament as well as of a Jesus who descended to Earth itself.

Now, you might say, "Well, maybe that was true for Paul too. Maybe he wrote kind of like a Gnostic, being interested only in Jesus' spiritual nature and not his earthly existence." But again, the problem is that this is seemingly the way it was for ALL Christians right from the beginning. Everyone, for some reason, was only interested in Jesus as a divine being and had not the slightest interest in his earthly incarnation, in anything he said or did beyond establishing the Eucharist and being crucified. Not until post-Mark does anyone begin taking an interest in these things. Valentinus' "many gospel details" are actually rather few and vague, but they seem to place the Christ more firmly on Earth than anything Paul or any other epistle writer says, although not by much. One would think the opposite would be true; early on there would be more interest in Jesus' Earthly incarnation, later there would be less as Jesus became more and more mythologized.

Solo

....or accepted other TLD-affected people's interpretation of postictal "landing" as vision of Jesus:
Psychologically, the subjective need to "explain" the loss of self, in a middle-age onset of temporal lobe dysfunction or major "incident" is huge. There are additionally issues of short-term memory loss quite similar in effect to a degenerative disorder known as Korsakoff syndrome . The confabulatory material compensates for loss of memory during the blackout, helping to restabilize the cognitive apparatus of the patient. A prepared confabulatory structure (such as travels with God, or in the company of J.) was a big therapeautic boon, sort of like paint-by-numbers. You follow Jake ?

The theophanies certainly happened: but the question remains, was there on earth a Jesus who was later said to appear in them or was this simply agreed-on confabulatory form. Look e.g. at the narrated structure of the Transfiguration for an answer.

Jiri