The Valentinian Claim to Esoteric Exegesis of Romans as Basis for Anthropological Theory

Author(s): Elaine H. Pagels

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec., 1972), pp. 241-258
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583556 .
Accessed: 04/11/2012 12:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

26 (1972)241-258;? North-Holland
Company
Publishing
VigiliaeChristianae

THE VALENTINIAN CLAIM TO ESOTERIC EXEGESIS

OF ROMANS AS BASIS FOR ANTHROPOLOGICAL
THEORY
BY

ELAINE H. PAGELS
ABSTRACT
of Valentinianexegesisof Romansindicatesthat certaingnostic
Investigation
theoryfroman esoteric
theologiansclaimto have developedtheiranthropological
as Paul's
exegesisof Romans.While most Christiansread the epistle"literally",
ofthecontrast
between
therevelation
to Israeland therevelation
in Christ,
discussion
theseexegetesreadit allegorically.
theyclaim,whatPaul describesas thesituationof "theJews"who
Accordingly,
stand"inthelaw"(cf.Rm.2.12; 3.19),subjectto "sin"and"death"(8.2f.)allegorically
describes
thesituation
ofpsychicChristians.
They,as "Jews",worshipthe"God ofthe
whoselaw requiresthemto earntheirsalvation"from
Jews"(3.29), the demiurge,
works"(4.2).
Paul's discussionof the "Gentiles",who,"outsidethelaw", have in
Conversely,
theirheartsthe"law by nature"(2.12-15)describesthesituationof thepneumatics.
Thesereceiveredemption
works"(3.28).
entirely
"apartfromthelaw"(3.21),"without
Theyare the electforeordained
by the Father(8.29f.),redeemed"throughfaith",
to grace"(3.21-30).
"according
Thisanalysissuggests
thatthetraditional
framework
forinterpreting
gnosticanthro(Bultmann,1941) or of "freewill" (L.
pology- eitherin termsof "determinism"
termsas the "natures"
1969)- provesinadequate.Such anthropological
Schottroff,
as "hylic/psychic/pneumatic"
insteadare intendedto
((pDaot)or theirdesignation

a modified
ofelection,
Pauline.
todifferenpresent
theory
allegedly
Theyareintended
tiatebetween
thepsychics'
effected
on theone
salvation,
bychoice"through
works",
- anelection
divine
andthepneumatics'
election
ontheother
redemption
through
hand,
and"bygrace".
received
"through
faith",

arebecoming
texts
weanticiNowthattheNagHammadi
available,
from
of
of
them
new
for
the
the
gaining
insights
analysis
pate possibility
As
the
of
these
howtexts
gnostic
anthropology. investigation
proceeds,
crucial
toreexamine
thepresuppositions
ofourinvestigaitbecomes
ever,
tion.
interms
forexample,
ofthetraditional
Arewetoapproach
these
texts,
in
viewofgnostic
the
view
Bultmann
has
anthropology
expounded
hasclaimedthatthegnostic
ofthe"natures"
1941?Bultmann
terminology

So, he says,the
(cp6actg)of men teachesa kind of naturaldeterminism.
gnosticsteachthat"redemptionoccursas a greatnaturalprocess... the

242

ELAINE PAGELS

Theiranthropology,
throughits
destinyofthesoul is determined
p96tg.."'
and humanchoice:
Bultmanndeclares,excludeshumanfreedom
... thegnostic
ofone'smythical
butrecognition
Faithisnotgenuine
origin
decision,
andtheunbeliever
is onewhoisalready
is,onthebasisofhisevil
ao)6gevog,
pu6act
lost."2
already
p~6atg,
This view,of course,has not originatedwithBultmann;it is the traditional view of gnosticanthropologythathas been takenforgrantedin
the works of such scholarsas Henrici,Firster,Von Loewenich,and
Sagnard.It claims,indeed,the authorizationof Irenaeus,Clement,and
Origen,who agreethatthe gnosticsteach a doctrineof "saved and lost
a substantivedeterminism.
natures"3- in effect,
L. Schottroff,
and
challengingthis view in 1967 and
H.Langerbeck
of Valentiniananthrooffered
an
have
1969,
opposite interpretation
of
pology.4They suggestthat the interpretation the p96itglanguageas
This polemical
"deterministic"
actuallycaricaturesgnosticanthropology.
caricature,theyclaim,has been mistakenby historiansfora description.
of thethree
concludesfromheranalysisthattheterminology
Schottroff
that
excludes
determinism"
a
"substantive
"natures",farfromassuming
modes of humanexistence
freewill,is intendedto describethedifferent
as theyare constituted
byfreewill.So, in herwords,
that
ofessence(Wesensbestimmungen)
aredefinitions
andpneuma
"Hyle,psyche,
to thepolesofthedualism
inrelation
theessence
describe
(Wesen)ofmankind
and
andperdition
salvation
hyle,
psyche,
through
... eachonetobesavedis defined
ther6leofthepsychic;
from
is notexempted
... Thepneumatic
hemust
pneuma
orperdition."'5
onthebasisoffreewillforsalvation
decidehimself
Investigationof gnostic (and especially Valentinian)6exegesis of
Romans indicates,however,that to analyze gnosticanthropologyin
termsof eitherof thesealternatives
provesmisleading.The philosophical
will
is not theissue thatmotivatesthe
and
free
of
determinism
question
of
development gnosticanthropology.Our analysisindicatesthat, as
Quispel has suggested,the Valentiniandescriptionof the "natures"
emergesnot from a philosophicaldeterminismso much as from a
1

desJohannes
Das Evangelium
R. Bultmann,
21-24; see also
(Gittingen1941/62)

Bultmann,240.

Ecritdu Codex
Le Quatrieme
See comment
byH.-Ch.PuechandG. Quispel,

96f.; 114.

3 Excerptaex Theod.56.3; Clem.Al. Strom.2.10.2;4.89; Iren.Adv.haer.1.1.11;

1.6.1; Origen,De princ.3.4f.; Comm.Jo.2.14f.
zur Gnosis (Gittingen
H. Langerbeck,Aufsditze
1967)38f.; L. Schottroff,
4
ed. W. Eltester(Berlin1969)
undGnosis,
Animaenaturaliter
salvandae,in Christentum
65f.
92-93.
5 Schottroff,
9 (1955) 73, note1.
Jung,VigiliaeChristianae

THEVALENTINIAN
OF ROMANS
CLAIMTO ESOTERIC
EXEGESIS

243

itindicates
thattheValentinians
ofelection.7
Morespecifically,
theology
of thehylic,psychic,
and pneumatic
havedevelopedtheirdescription
as
an
as theythemselves
of
"natures",
exegetical
interpretation
claim,8
Paul'selection-theology.
Fragmentsof Valentinianexegesis,notablythat of Valentinus,
intheaccountsof
andHeracleon,
arepreserved
Ptolemaeus,
Theodotus,
in theExcerptaex Theodoto,
in sectionsof
Irenaeusand Hippolytus,
as the
andOrigen'sexegetical
andin suchwritings
Clement
discussions,9
of
has
Veritatis.
Valentinian
been
attacked
exegesis, course,
Evangelium
andbyscholars
whofollowtheirlead,ofbeing
bothbytheheresiologists

ofsuchexegesis
andcontrived".'0
Whentheextant
fragments
"arbitrary

areanalyzed
however,
theyevincea remarkable
degreeof
comparatively,
a
both
and
coherence
coherence
and
methodological theounanimity
such
from
a comparative
The
studylogical. following
analysis
emerges

inthiscase,oftheexegetical
onRomans.
fragments

TheValentinians
claimtobasetheir
andtheterminology
anthropology,

of
thatinterprets
ofthe"natures"
it,uponan esoteric
interpretation

"scripture"- especiallyof the gospel of Johnand the lettersof Paul.

Every phrase in these writings,apparently,has receiveda symbolic
in theirexegesis.For the purpose of investigating
their
interpretation
limit
ouras
their
of
the
we
it
elucidates
view
three
"natures",
exegesis
selveshereto sketching
thebasic outlineof theirexegesisofRomans1-4.
TheseexegetesclaimthatmostChristiansmakethemistakeofreading
The Valentinian
"the scriptures",
(in thiscase, Romans)onlyliterally.11
agreeswithotherChristiansthatPaul's concernin Romansis to contrast
that salvationeffected"by works", "accordingto the law", with the
redemptiontheelectreceiveapartfromworksand law, "by grace",and
7

Eranos
La Conception
de l'homme
dansla GnoseValentinienne,
G. Quispel,

inOrigen's
inClement's
ofHeracleon's
Cf.fragments
Strom.,
exegesis
preserved

Jahrbuch
15 (1947)249-286.
Cf. Iren.Adv.haer.1.3.5-6.

onJohn(ed. E. Preuschen,
GCS 10); also sectionsofValentinian
exegesis
Commentary
of his
presentin De princ.(ed. P. Koetschau,GCS 5); and especiallythefragments
Le Commentaire
on Romans,ed. J. Scherer,
d'OrigenesurRom.3.5-5.7
Commentary
(Cairo 1957).
des
Iren.Adv.haer.1.11.1; Or. Comm.Jo. 2.21; C.Barth,Die Interpretation
10
inderValentinianischer
NeuenTestaments
Gnosis,TU 37 (1911)46; W.vonLoewenich,
im ZweitenJahrhundert
Das Johannes-Verstdindnis
(Giessen 1932) 76, refersto
in derExegese";J.N. Sanders,TheFourthGospelin the
"die Willkiirder Gnostiker
(Cambridge1943)62f.
EarlyChurch
onJohn13.19(hereafter
citedas Comm.Jo.).
Commentary
11 Heracleon,

244

ELAINE PAGELS

"throughfaith".But most Christiansread the epistleonlyin termsof

the contrastbetweenthe revelationto the Jews,and the revelationin
Christ.Theyfailto see whatPaul clearlystates- thathe does notintend
theterm"Jew"to be takenliterally.It is to be taken"spiritually",
that
as he himselfsaysin Rm. 2.28f.: "He is not a Jew,who
is, symbolically,
is one outwardly... (but) he is a Jewwho is one inwardly,and circumcisionis of theheart,pneumatic,and notliteral."The Valentiniantakes
this verseas an injunctionto symbolicexegesis.While Paul discusses,
he
then,on a literaland exotericlevel,therelationofJewsto Christians,
intendshis wordsto be read also on a "pneumatic"and esotericlevel.
Accordingto such pneumaticexegesis,the terms"Jew"and "Gentile"
- to
are understoodto referallegorically
to different
groupsof Christians
and
Christians
psychic
pneumatic
respectively.
So, accordingto thisexegesis,thoseChristianswho are called "Jews",
or "Jewsoutwardly",are those who worshipthe "God of the Jews"
forthedemiurge.
(Rm. 3.29) - a termtakentechnically
Theyfollowthe
"law" of thedemiurge,who is also called "lawgiver",or "Moses", as in
the phrase "law of Moses". For as the term"Jew"is not to be taken
so thename"Moses" is notto be takenliterally,
as ifit referred
literally,
to an actual historicalperson.The name "Moses", like theothernames
of OT figures,
is understoodto referallegorically
to thedemiurge.12The
different
personalnames designatedifferent
aspectsof his activity.So,
whenthedemiurgeappearsas ruler(as in 1.3) he is represented
as David;
ofmankind"accordingto the
when,as in 4.1, he appearsas "forefather"
as Abraham; when (accordingto Heracleon's
flesh",he is represented
of
Rm.
for
13.1f., example13) he appears as "lawgiver",he is
exegesis
as Moses.
represented
Those called "Jewsoutwardly",
then,are thepsychics,who according
to 2.27, are those who standprovisionally(i.e., duringthe oikonomia)
"in thelaw". Theyreceivethe "literalcircumcision"(2.29) thatsignifies
theirrelationto the demiurge.They are obligatedto keep his law (cf.
3.19) and standunderthepenaltyofdeathforsins; for"thesoul (thatis,
thepsychic)thatsinsshall die".'4
Comm.Jo.20.38,on "Moses" as thedemiurge;
3.10,"Jacob"as thedemiurge;
12
13.60,"Abraham"as thedemiurge;
Hippolytus,
Ref.6.34.4,explainsthat,according
to theValentinians,
u
ydpoboia iuX~Cv"
npooa3a Kai 6 8rltoupy6~
oi~r6q
WXd aitrlj
teot ica' ab5ro S 'AIpadct Kcairatta toi 'A3padgt tdtrcKva.
13

Comm.Jo. 20.38.

Comm.Jo. 13.60: HeracleoncitesMt. 10.28 to show thatpsychicsare "by

nature"mortal;thencitesRm. 7.13 to showthattheystandunderthe"law" which
14

THE VALENTINIAN CLAIM TO ESOTERIC EXEGESIS OF ROMANS

245

Yet Paul continuesin 2.28: "He is (truly)a Jew,who is one inwardly,

and circumcisionis of the heart,pneumatic,not literal."Those called
"Jews inwardly",the Valentinianexplains,are the pneumatics.They
butthe"one God"
worshipnotthe"God oftheJews",notthedemiurge,
of 3.29,who is called "God oftheGentiles",theUningenderedFather.15
withthe Fatheris hiddenfromthe demiurgeand
Because theiraffinity
from psychics,Paul calls the pneumaticsthe "uncircumcised",and
themallegoricallyas the "Gentiles"(2.29) or as the "Greeks"
represents
(1.14).
Once we graspthetechnicalmeaningofthesetermsforgnosticexegesis,
we can understandhow the Valentiniansread Paul's esotericmeaning
when in Rm. 1.5 he proclaimshimselfthe "apostle to the Gentiles".
Origen'sexegeticalopponentsnote herethatin Gal. 2.7 Paul contrasts
hisownmissionto the"Gentiles"(thatis, to thepneumatics)withPeter's
missionto the "Jews"(to the psychics).16As apostle to the "Gentiles",
Paul says in Rm. 1.11 thathe longsto sharewiththemhis "pneumatic
charisma".Neverthelesshe acknowledgesin 1.14 that he is obligated
bothto "theGreeksand to thebarbarians",as he explains,"to thewise"
(the pneumatics)and to the "foolish"(psychics).(It is forthisreason,
thathe hideshis pneumaticmeaningin allegory.)
presumably,
The Valentinianexegetecan explain,then,fromRm. 1.21, how the
psychics,the "foolish",have become "futilein theirimagination",so
that "theirfoolishheartwas darkened".This occurredapparently,in
the processof cosmic creation.In that process,as Valentinusexplains
fromRm. 1.20, the demiurgewas formedas an "image" of the "living
aion".?7For although"whatis knownof God", the "invisiblethingsof
God, His holypowerand divinity... are perceivedclearly... in thethings
thataremade",thepsychicsarethosewhobecomeincapableofperceiving
the Invisible One. Thereforethey have become "foolish",and "unto Rm. 1.23,they
for,as Valentinusexplainswithreference
perceiving",
have "exchangedthegloryof theincorruptible
for
an "image" of
God"
the"corruptible
Theodotus
anthropos" this"image"beingthedemiurge.
confirmsthis interpretation
of the demiurgeas the "image" of the
thattheValentinianscall the
Father;Irenaeusexplainsmorespecifically
deathfor"sins";and finally
he cites1 Cor. 15.53f.to showthatpsychics,
prescribes
although"mortal",can "puton immortality".
15
Scherer,168f.
36 Cf.Scherer,
176; Iren.Adv.haer.3.13.1-3.14.1.
Clem.Al. Strom.4.89.6-90.1.
17

246

ELAINE PAGELS

as "imageof theanthropos",the"imageof themonogenes".18

demiurge,
So also, accordingto vs. 25, theyhave "exchangedthetruthof God"
fora "lie" - apparently,
in Valentinianterms,
(Ptlvakl2fjEtav
tol R&Eob)
for the principleof falsehoodand materiality,
the devil.19As a result
insteadoftheInvisibleOne;
theynowworshipthe"image",thedemiurge,
theyworshipthe "creationand not thecreator"who is "blessedamong
theaions". (IrenaeusexplainsthattheValentiniansconsistently
interpret
to thepleromicaions.Theycan claim,
thetermaion or aionesin reference
thatPaul makesfrequent
and specificreference
to theaions,as
therefore,
theOne who is
theywould claimhe does here.20)Insteadof worshipping
amongtheaions,then,thosewho arepsychicnowworshipthe"creation",
a termthatTheodotus,Basilides,and Heracleontake(as a parallelto the
term"image") as an epithetforthedemiurge.He is, as Theodotussays,
himselfonlythe "creation"of the higherpowers.2"Heracleon,likewise,
explainsfromRm. 1.25 thatthe "Jews",thatis, the psychics,"worship
thecreation"- thedemiurge- and not,in his words,"thetruecreator",
who is the Logos, as he explainsfromJn. 1.3.22Basilides,in a parallel
exegesis,explainsthat the "creation"of Rm. 8.22, which"groansand
laborsin travail"signifies
the GreatArchon,who now suffers
theagony
of his presentignorance.23
In vs. 26 Paul goes on to relatethatGod "gave up" the creatureinto
the "patheof dishonor",so thatthe "females"exchangedtheir"natural
withthe"males"forwhatwas "contrary
affinity"
(tfiyv
quoctKqiv
Xpfltv)
to nature"(nap"
and
the
maleslikewiseabandonedtheiraffinity
ap6ctv)
withthe females.This inappropriatesituation(Til oX1Jipocruvlv)
has
to
vs.
error
occurred,according
27, through
(tfignRtkalVg).
The Valentinianexegete,again, would rejecta priori any "literal"
exegesisof the passage. He would refuse,forexample,to referit to the
of the monogenes;
s18 Iren. Adv. haer. 1.1.9; 2.5.2; demiurgeas "image"
(wtwv)
Exc. 47.3,as "imageoftheFather"
rnatp60).
(bKv
19 Comm. Jo. 20.28.
20
Iren.Adv. haer. 1.3.1.
21
Exc. 47.3.

22
Comm.Jo. 13.19.Heracleonsaysthatthe"Jews"worship"theone whois not
theFather",and refers
to Rm. 1.25: "theyworshipped
thecreation
and notthetrue

creator(t

napd t6v

See also 13.16: Heracleon explains that "the

wcriuCt
Ktrioavra)."
Jews"worship
"thecreation
or
thecreator",
can be disoutthatthetwoterms
pointing
or can serveas equivalents,
bothcharacterizing
theworshipofthepsychic
tinguished
"Jews"incontrast
to thepneumatics'
of"neither
thecreation(wticEt)northe
worship
buttheFatherof truth".
demiurge,
23
Hippol.Refut.7.25.1-27.1.

THE VALENTINIANCLAIM TO ESOTERIC EXEGESISOF ROMANS

247

of mankindintothesexualerrorsof homosexuality
and
degeneration

we lackan extant
Valentinian
of the
exegesis
prostitution.
Although
in
we
five
that
this
terms
bear
technical
passage, mayrecognize
passage
meaningin Valentinian
theology,
namely: dq; 9ppiv/~flug;;
quaotg;

theuse oftheseterms
in extant
By examining
axrllooa6vrl;advrq.
andbycomparing
ofthisexamination
theresults
withan extant
texts,

Naasseneexegesisof Rm. 1.20-27,we maysuggesthowa Valentinian

couldreadthispassage(fordiscussion,
seefootnote
24).

Suchan examination
thatValentinian
ofvs.26-27
suggests
exegesis

shouldshowhow God (the Father)has yieldedthe creatures

"into"

from
which
cosmos
thematerial
was
pathe- thatis,intotheelements

formed.In the process,the "male" and "female"elementsof "theseed"

became separatedfromeach other,violatingthe "nature"(pt6uctg)
of
each. The exegeteshouldindicate,furthermore,
how this"inappropriate
situation"(dayxrlioaovq)has occurredthrough"error"- throughthe
plane thatoperatesin cosmiccreation.
A striking
parallelto thisproposedexegesisof Rm. 1.20-27occursin a
Naassene text.The Naassenes interpret
thispassage as a descriptionof
the"fall" of theprimalAnthropos.The Anthroposwas, theysay,citing
"neithermale nor female" (Gal. 3.28), being
Paul, hermaphroditic,
formedof the primalinvisibleousia. When, however,the Anthropos,
throughplane, came into the pathe, the invisibleousia takingon the
"forms"of materialexistence,themale and femaleelementsof the seed
suffered"unnatural"division.This situation,the exegeteexplains,is
whatis meantbydacrxrlwoarvy.
The exegesisconcludeswiththestatement
24
In thephrase td91rl
theValentinian
couldrecognize
a reference
tothe
dttjLiag
therd0rl,
from
which
thepresent
cosmoswasformed
elements,
(cf.Adv.haer.1.1.7;
Exc.47.1).Theresultant
andalienation
ofthe"females"
from
confusion
the"males"
recall
would
therepresentation
oftheelement
ofthe"seed"that
hasfallen
intothepsychic

toposas "female"(Comm.Jo.6.20; 13.10-11;Exc. 21.1-3;40).Exc.21.1explainshow

thehermaphroditic
oftheAnthropos
hassuffered
ofthe"female"
from
the
division
unity

thatelement
ofthe"seed"which
remains
"male",which
represents
(Exc.
pneumatic
2.1; 40).Asa result,
thefemale
element
oftheseednowexistsina material
condition
toitsnature"
5Kard(p6otvgZXov),
toHeracleon,
andthepneumatic
"contrary
(ob
according
elementof theseed has "beendestroyed
indeepmatter"
(Comm.Jo.13.60;13.10-11).
The resulting
situation
in whichthetwoelements
of theseed,maleand female,have
suffered
Like Paul in Rm. 1.27b,Heracleon
division,Heracleoncalls dakvlgtoa6nvrl.
attributes
thissituationto the instrumentality
of error(irXtvrl)
(Comm.Jo. 13.20).
Fromothersourcesas well(as fromValentinus'
exegesisofthepassage(Strom.4. 89f.)
and fromEvangelium
one can observehow theValentinians
couldreadin
Veritatis)
to theroleof rAdvrl
in cosmiccreation.
thispassagereference

248

ELAINE PAGELS

thatin thesewordsPaul has describedtheNaassenes' "entiresecret,and

a hiddenmystery".25
If,as we suggest,theValentinianexegetereadsthepassagein a similar
way,he mayconcludefromverse28 thattheFathergaveup hiscreatures
to an "opposingmind"- in Valentinianterms,to the devil,principleof
materiality
_26 and subjectedthemto "his servant"- thatis, to the deNow
thatthetwoelementsofthe"seed" havebecomeseparated
miurge.27
in cosmicexistence,
theygiveriseto two different
types(yrvrl)of human
beingor humanexperiencein the presentoikonomia- to thosecharaccalled the
terizedas pneumaticand psychic.The psychics,alternatively
"femaleseed", remainobliviousto this"secret",and perceiveonly the
who appearsto ruleoverall mankind,and to imposehis"law"
demiurge,
on "all alike" (cf. Rm. 3.19). The pneumatics,however,who are of the
"male, angelicseed", receivethe "secretof the anthropos"(Rm. 2.16).
This "secret",belongingto thosewho are "Jewsin secret",revealsthat
theiraffinity
is not withthe demiurgebut with the Father. Unlike the
who
remainunderthedemiurge's
psychics,
jurisdictionand his law, the
areactually,secretly,
and fromhis
pneumatics
exemptfromhisjurisdiction
law. Heracleonexplainsthatit is "everysoul" (ntica xVuX'),thatis, every
psychic,who is enjoinedto remainsubjectto the "higherpowers"(Rm.
13.1f.) and to "Moses" the demiurge.Accordingto Origen,the Valentinianexegeteof Romans concludesfromthis that the psychicsalone
comprisethe"cosmos" thatPaul saysis "to be judged" (3.6; 3.19).
The whole paradigmof law, sins,fear, and judgment,accordingto
Valentinianexegesis,applies onlyto the "Jews",thatis, to psychics.So
Paul explainsin 3.19: "We knowthatwhatthelaw saysit saysto those
in thelaw" - to thepsychic"Jews"- "so thatthewholecosmos"- thatis,
the totalityof psychics- "may become liable beforeGod." As the
exegeteexplains,the idea of sins,liability,andjudgmentemergedialecticallywiththeidea of law. He infersthisfrom3.21,wherePaul himself
saysthat"theconsciousnessof sincomesthroughthelaw".28
wherethereis no idea oflaw, therecan be no idea of sins,
Conversely,
25
26
27

Hippol. Ref. 5.7.19.

Comm. Jo. 13.16; 20.28; Exc. 52.1-53.1.
Cf. Heracleon's exegesisof Rm. 13.1f.; everypsychic(rtoaa uxil) is warned to

in 13.4 who is also called "Moses",and

obeythe "servantof God", thedemiurge,
whodo evil.Comm.Jo.20.38.
"judge",bearingwrathforthose(psychics)
The Valentinian
28
opponentof Origenconsidersthe questionof how such an
can be sustainedin viewof theapparently
universalreference
interrpetation
of,for

THE VALENTINIAN CLAIM TO ESOTERIC EXEGESIS OF ROMANS

249

liability,or judgment.Thereforethe pneumatics,being"Gentiles",and

As evidence,
not"in thelaw", are exemptfromthiswholeparadigm.

theexegetecites4.15: "Wherethereis no law, thereis no transgression,"

and 5.13: "sinis notaccountedwherethereis no law."29 The pneumatics,
as those "Gentiles",who, accordingto 2.14, "not
then,are represented
havingthe law, do by nature(p05at) the thingsin the law. They are
themselveslaw, havingthe effectof the law writtenon theirhearts."
While the psychicsonly become aware of sin externally,
"throughthe
of its effect
law", thepneumaticsbecomeaware "by nature",internally,
"writtenon theirhearts".This inner,"naturallaw" to which"theirown
consciencebears witness",however,differs
entirelyfromthe demiurge's
so-called
"law
of
Moses".
The
the
law,
pneumatic,withPaul, according
in
to Rm. 7.22-23, "delights the law of God" - of the Father,not the
demiurge- "accordingto theinneranthropos".Herewe notea consistent
of Valentinianexegesis: as the termcosmos technically
characteristic
the
designates psychics,so the termanthropostechnically
designatesthe
to
Valentinian
of
the
reading 3.5, thenPaul is
pneumatics.30According
askingwhetherGod could be so unjustas to bear wrath"againstthe
Could He judge the "Gentiles"accordingto the "law of
anthropon".31
Moses"? Paul answersthat this is impossible;if God were indeed so
unjust,how could hejudge thecosmos?Clearly,then,the"law of Moses"
applies onlyto thepsychiccosmos,to the "Jews",and not to the pneumatic anthropos,who are the "Gentiles".The Valentinianexegeteexplains,then,thatas psychicsare relatedto the "God of the Jews",the
demiurge,throughthe "law of Moses", whichis the"literalcircumcision
oftheflesh"(2.28), so thepneumaticsare related"bynature"to the"God
law accuses"all alike",both
example,Rm. 3.9,wherePaul saysthatthedemiurges'
of being"undersin".To answer
andpneumatics,
"Jews"and "Greeks",bothpsychics
of thefollowing
verses(3.10-18)
this,theexegetehas explainedthattheterminology
thatthelaw appliesonlyto psychics.
demonstrates
Theyalonecan be calledin vs. 10
of justice.
cannotbe judged accordingto the criterion
"unjust",sincepneumatics
those"not seekingGod". The
Psychicsalone could be called"lackingintelligence",
as the "wise"; and even in the stateof
conversely,
pneumaticsare characterized,
"seek" the Father(Adv.haer. 1.1.2; Comm.Jo. 13.27-28).
alienation,continually
in vs. 18 fornot"fearing"
God. Fearcharaccouldbe chastised
Finally,onlypsychics
terizestheirrelationas "Jews"to theirLord, whileknowledge(yv6cxng)
and love
characterize
thepneumatics'
relationto theirGod and Father,whomtheylovein the
130f.
love"that"castsoutfear"(1 Jn.4.18).Cf.Scherer,
"perfect
29
Cf. Scherer,136; 200-202.
30
Cf. Comm.Jo.2.21; also Origen'sargument
againstthistechnical
interpretation
124f.
ofanthropos,
Scherer,
31
Scherer,126.

ELAINE PAGELS

250

of the Gentiles",the "Uningendered

Father",throughtheinner,natural
oftheheart".
law whichis the"pneumaticcircumcision
The exegeteplaces this passage in parallel with2 Cor. 3.1f.,where
Paul describesthe "new" pneumaticcovenantwhichabolishesthe "old"
covenantof literallaw. There also, he claims, Paul explains how the
psychic"sons of Israel" remainbound to the "serviceof death".32They
remainunable to see theface of "Moses", of the demiurge,since "their
mindswere blinded". "Even now," Paul says, "the veil is upon their
thepsychicsfromperceiving
thepneumaticrevelahearts,"33
preventing
tion.Paul adds in 2 Cor. 4.3 thatifhis pneumaticgospelis "veiled",it is
"veiled" only "to those who are perishing",whose "mindshave been
blinded"by"the God ofthiscosmos". Butthosewhoarethecommunication "writtenon our hearts"perceivewhat Paul says is "known and
thatis, by all pneumatics.Whattheyknow
recognizedby all anthropoi",
is thattheysharein a "newcovenant",writtennotin literalterms,butin
"thepneumaof theLivingGod". This newcovenant,unliketheold, sets
no requirements,
but freelyconveysdivinegrace,as Paul says in 2 Cor.
3.5:
ofanything,
areconsidered
as forourselves,
butour
worthy
"... notthatweourselves
is from
which
ofthenewcovenant,
servants
God,whomakesusworthy
sufficiency
isnotoftheletter
butofthepneuma."
Whilethepsychics,then,being"Jews",stand"in thelaw", Paul saysin
3.28 "we reason thatthe anthroposis justifiedthroughfaithapartfrom
theworksofthelaw." And itis to theanthropos,
thatis,to thepneumatic,
Paul says that "now the righteousness
of God apart fromthe law has
beenrevealed"(3.22). In thefollowingverse,theexegeteseesPaul drawing
For thosewhomPaul says have "all sinned",must
the same distinction.
be thepsychics,who standunderthelaw and undersin. But thosewho
have "lacked the gloryof God", mustbe the pneumatics,
who although
have
not
of
the
have
lacked
the
"sinned",
they
"glory"
Father.34It is the
to
are
pneumatics,then,who, according 3.24,
"justifiedas a giftof His
grace (t?i aburto-dptit) throughthe redemption
(tfignok
torpdup
co)
thatis in Christ".The exegeteinfersfromthisthatPaul intendsto distinguishthe pneumaticredemption
(dUoot-pcpotg)fromthe salvation
that
must
to
attainthroughthelaw. The basis
strive
psychics
(ootrlpia)
as a
forthisdistinction
Paul revealsin 3.25: for"whatGod foreordained
32
33

Scherer,
174-176;204.

toValentinian
of2 Cor.
6.35:Hippolytus
relates
that,
exegesis
Hippol.
according

3.1-5the1Wj1t6oq(1 Cor. 2.14)is said "evennow"to havethe"veil"on hisheart.

166f.
34
Scherer,

THEVALENTINIAN
CLAIMTO ESOTERIC
EXEGESIS
OF ROMANS

251

as thepsychics
faith"
doesnotrefer,
to
reconciliation
assume,
through

the death of Jesus."What the Father foreordained"is the pneumatic

elect- foreordained"to manifestHis righteousness",
since He redeems
theelectby His grace.35ThereforePaul asks (3.27) "Whereis boasting?"
and answersthat"itis excluded.By whatlaw (v6jiog)?The law ofworks?
No - butthroughthelaw of faith."
theexegeteconcludes,Paul intendshisallegoryof "Jews"
Accordingly,
and "Gentiles" to characterizetwo distinctprocesses.The psychics,
being"undersin",are boundto the"law ofworks".To escapethepenalty
of death forsins,theydo need faith,but theirsis specifically
"faithin
Jesus"(3.26) in the psychicson of the demiurge,who offersthem"forgivenessof sins". Those who repentand believeare forgiven,and admonishedto do "good works".For theprocessoftheirsalvationdepends
on theirown choice and on theirown activity:it operatesaccordingto
whatPaul calls the "law of works".
The pneumatics,on theotherhand,beingof theelect,receiveredemptionentirely"accordingto grace",in the"law of faith"- faithnotin the
psychicJesusbut in the pneumaticChrist.36Unliketheworks-salvation
of the psychicsthe pneumaticredemptionexcludes all human effort
(and hence all "boasting"),as it dependsentirely
upon divineelection.
ThereforePaul asks in 3.29, "is God (to be understoodas) onlythe'God
of theJews'?"- thatis, as thedemiurge?Is He not also the "God ofthe
Gentiles",of the pneumatics- that is the UningenderedFather,who
alone can be called the"one God"?37Paul concludesin 3.29-30 thatthe
"one God", the Father,"justifiesthe circumcised"(the psychic)"from
faith"(ic niorzsco)and the "uncircumcised"
(the pneumatic)"through
faith"(6at Tig niocg8).38 For the psychic'sfaithis limited,and his
salvationmustcome "fromworks" (4.2) as well as "fromfaith".The
Scherer,158-162.
TheValentinian
to thepsychic
as a reference
exegetetakesRm.3.26,apparently,
who "believesin Jesus",on theone hand,and 3.22-24in reference
to thepneumatic
whois redeemed
faith"in Christ.
"through
37
Scherer,168f.
38
thesephrases(K nitirZxog/ 8td Tiq nRiaZoeSwith
Origin's opponentcorrelates
an esotericexegesis of 1 Cor. 11.12 (67TnspydLpflyuv'l ~K to dvv8p6g,
o6rog Kai 6
thattheysayrefers
to thegeneration
of psychics
(as f yvfil)
dvilp8tdzrfgyvatK6og)
35

36

and pneumatics(6 vilp) respectively.As the psychicelement(hI yuvil)comes &K Zro

dv8p6g,fromAdam, so she is saved ic7niaZtors.Conversely,as thepneumaticelement
comes 8td ziIg yovatK6g,that is "throughEve", figureof Sophia, so he is redeemed

170f.Cf.Gal. 3.7,3.26.
byOrigen,Scherer,
itdt
ztg nIiauosg.See discussion

252

ELAINE PAGELS

pneumatic,on the otherhand, is redeemed"throughfaith",since his

at all butonlyofthewilloftheFather
dependsnoton himself
redemption
who elects him. Paul concludesin 3.31 that the pneumatics"abolish
in 3.32 to "esthe law through
faith".Yet he can claim simultaneously
tablishthelaw", sincealthoughthe law is abolishedin relationto the
itis sustainedin relationto thepsychics.39
pneumatics,
set
forththisclear distinction
betweenthe psychics'salvation
Having
and the pneumaticredemption,
Paul asks in ch. 4 about "our father
Abraham accordingto the flesh"- that is, in Valentiniansymbology,
about the demiurge,the psychicgeneratorof mankind,who "forms"
Is the demiurgejustified"fromworks" like
theirphysicalconstitution.
thepsychics,or "throughfaith"like thepneumatics?The exegeteshows
fromRm. 4.3 thatAbraham,thedemiurge,
"believedGod" - the Fatherhis faith"was accountedforrighteousness".
and therefore
Here Origen
accuses his exegeticalopponentsof presupposinga distinctionbetween
the demiurgeand "the God theycall good". They claim, Origensays,
that"theJews"do notbelievein "theGod in whomAbrahambelieved",
who is the One God, the Father.Therefore,
the gnosticsconclude,they
"lack a faithlike Abraham's",and lackinghis faithin the Father,they
ignorantly
worshipthe demiurgehimselfas theirgod.40Whilethedemiin the Father,so that he is justified"throughfaith",the
believes
urge
psychics,who worshiponly the "creation"and "image" of God, the
therefore
remainboundto hislaw,whichis the"law ofworks".
demiurge,
The Valentinianexegetesees Paul drawingthe consequenceof thisin
Rm. 4.4-5: "To the one who works"- that is, to the psychic- "the
rewardis accountednotaccordingto gracebutaccordingto obligation."
Psychics,then,are boundto earnsalvation"fromworks"as the"reward"
of theirown effort.But, accordingto 4.5, "to the one who does not
work"- to the pneumatic- but "believeson Him who justifiesthe unholy"- on theFather- "hisfaithis accountedforrighteousness".
As evidence,Paul citesthe testimony
on "David" in Ps. 32.1-2. The
Valentinian,as suggested
above,sees"David" as a figureforthedemiurge.
In thewordsof his witnesstheexegetesees the same contrastexpressed:
4.7: "Blessedare theywhosetransgressions
are forgiven,
whosesinsare covered;
4.8: blessedis theman(anthropos)
to whomtheLord doesnotimputesin."

To whomdo thesephrasesapply?Since Paul himselfsaysin 4.15 that

174f.
39 Scherer,
40
220f.
Scherer,

THE VALENTINIAN CLAIM TO ESOTERIC EXEGESIS OF ROMANS

253

and in 5.13 that"sin

"wherethereis no law, thereis no transgression,"
is not accountedwherethereis not law," thedescriptionin 4.7 of those
and sinnedcannotapplyto thepneumatic"Genwho have transgressed
tiles".The firstphrase,then,mustapplyto thepsychics,and specifically
whose"sinsarecovered".
to thosepsychicswhohavereceivedforgiveness,
The second phrase,describingthe one "to whom the Lord does not
imputesin",however,can onlyreferto thepneumatic.This identification
is confirmed
ofthe"blessedman" in 4.8 as anthropos
bythedescription
thattermtechnicallyused, as we have seen,to designatethe pneumatic
elect.To make thisevenclearer,Paul has introducedthisversein 4.6 as
the"blessednessoftheanthropos
whomGod accountsrighteous
describing
from
works".
apart
A thirdtextual clue serves to establish,for the Valentinian,this
He notesthat the firstphrase,4.7, refersto those "forinterpretation.
in
the
plural.
given"
Accordingto the presuppositionsof Valentinian
the
connotesthe psychics,who contheology, plural characteristically
a
for
the
stitute plurality;
psychics(accordingto Theodotusand Heracleon) are "the many".41The second phrase, however,refersto the
"blessed anthropos"in the singular,establishingits referenceto the
pneumaticelect, who constitute,in Heracleon's words, the "unique,
unified,
singleformednature"oftheelect.(In thesameway,thedemiurge,
as "servant"of the higherpowers,is describedas being "of many",
specificallynot singular;while the Father remainsuniquelythe "One
God" who alwaysis describedin the singular.)42
Paul goes on to stressin 4.9-11 that Abraham,the demiurge,has
receivedjustifying
faithand the promiseof blessingwhilehe was, like
In receivinghis justification
the pneumaticelect,"still uncircumcised".
- notonlyof "his own",the
he
becomes
the
father
faith",
then,
"through
- the pneuof
"uncircumcised"
but
also
the
psychic"Jews",
(vs. 12)
matics,who "bear the tracesof our fatherAbraham'sfaith,whichwas
his in thestateof uncircumcision".
In 4.16, Paul adds thatAbraham,the demiurge,believed"in spiteof
the deadness of Sarah's womb" - an image that apparentlyrefersto
in
Sophia's abortion,whichbroughtforththe "deadness"of materiality
cosmic existence,43
as it also broughtforththe "dead" - that is, the
Comm.Jo.13.51;Exc. 56.2.
42 Comm.Jo. 13.50;Exc. 53.1.
Scherer,
43
214f.;Exc. 80.1.
41

254

ELAINE PAGELS

psychics.The promisethatthedemiurgereceivedfromthe Father,however,was given,as Paul explainsin 4.13, "to Abrahamand to hisseed".
Who can thismean?The exegetenotes,first,thatthe "seed" cannotbe
the "dead", it cannotreferto the psychicsgeneratedfromSophia. The
thepneumaticseed.44Secondly,
"seed" mustbe the"living",and therefore
sincethepromiseis said to be "certain",it can be givenonlyto the"elect
as Paul explains,it
seed". For ifthepromisedependedon humaneffort,
it mustdependon God's willin
could not be utterly
"certain":therefore
electionalone.45Third,thepromiseis given"throughfaith",and "accordto Gal.
ing to grace",as theelectalone can receiveit. Finally,referring
is described
3.16-17,theexegetenotesthat"Abraham'sseed" specifically
in thesingularand notin theplural,as being"notas of many"(as of the
to thepneumaticelect.
its reference
psychics)but "of one", establishing
as Theodotus explainsfromRm. 11.25-26, the "many"
Nevertheless,
shallbecome"one" whenthe"Jews"and the"Gentiles",the"called" and
the "elect" finallyare restoredtogetherinto unityand harmonywith
each otherand withthe Father.46
WhatmotivatestheValentiniantheologiansto developthistheological
and thehermeneutical
disciplinewherebyit claimsPauline
anthropology
Are
we
as
authority?
reallyconvinced, we so oftenhave been told,that
theirconcernis purely"speculative"and theoretical?
out
We suggest,on thecontrary,
thattheirtheologyemergesprimarily
of theirconcernto articulatetheirexperienceof redemption- the experienceofhavingreceivedjustification
"accordingto grace".Theyclaim
not to presentany new doctrine,but ratherto expoundthe theologyof
electionand grace they claim to findin Paul. His election-language
Those whoapprehend
theysay,thesamepneumaticexperience.
expresses,
and sharein thisexperience- and theyencourageothersto do so - they
includewiththemselvesas being "of pneumaticnature",or, in other
words,as membersof "theelect".
Secondarily,
theyare concernedto oppose theattemptoftheChristian
withJewishreligion
majorityto placethe"gospelof Christ"in continuity
ratherthan in contrastto it, as theybelievePaul has done. They are
reactingagainstwhattheysee as a moralizingof thegospel,and against
44 Scherer,170.

206f.
Scherer,
Cf. Exc. 58.1.The questionof Valentinian
is to be discussedin a
eschatology
article:"Conflicting
Versionsof ValentinianEschatology:Irenaeus'
forthcoming
45
46

Treatise vs. the Excerpta ex Theodoto".

THE VALENTINIAN CLAIM TO ESOTERIC EXEGESIS OF ROMANS

255

those who preachabout "Jesus"in termsof law, sins,forgiveness,

and
works. Such psychicpreachingonly can interpretthe experienceof
conversionin termsof ethicalchoice and action- in termsof the "law
salvation
of works".Those who are "of psychicnature",apprehending
as psychics,can, theyadmit,attainto salvation,but remainon a lower
level of experienceand insight.Electedneitherto gracenor to reprobation,theycan achieve"throughworks"a relationwithGod as creatorand
withGod as Father.
Lord,butfailto attainreunion
oftheprocessof salvationfailsto interpret
Yet thepsychicdescription
the experienceof the pneumaticredemption.The pneumaticdoes not
experiencehimselfas one who,havingheardthepreaching,is "called" to
and to
"repenthis sins" and "believein Jesus",to "receiveforgiveness",
with
he
the
encounter
Christ
works".
Instead
turnto "good
experiences
- an identity
as a recognition
of his own,hidden,unknown,trueidentity
whichhe realizescannotbe achievedthrough"works",or his own effort,
but which he receivesas freely"given". Nor can his experiencebe
he is
describedas an act of his own choiceor decision.On thecontrary,
aware of "havingbeen chosen". He anticipatesnot "salvation"as his
"reward",butreunionwiththeFatheras thegiftof divinegrace.
ofthatpneuThe Valentinianssee in Romans,then,Paul's description
how
he contrasts
and
note
maticexperienceof justification
"by grace",
it withthe "works-salvation"
of "the Jews".Since Paul himselfenjoins
notliterally,
themto exegetepneumatically,
theyconcludethatheintends
of
and the"Jews"those
to represent
this
the
"Gentiles"
through allegory
nature"
on
the
one
are
"of
who,
hand,
beingthe elect,and
pneumatic
thosewhoare "ofpsychicnature"on theother,who stand"in themiddle"
betweenthe two alternativeelectionsto grace and to reprobation.
has suggestedthattheValentiniansmay have introducedthis
Schottroff
of
ofthepsychicsintoan earliertwofoldelection-schema
characterization
church".4"
to
in
her
"as
a
concession
the
words
grace and reprobation
Their view of the psychicnature,as the provisionalcondition(tig
oiKovogla;g)of "thosein the middle"does enable theValentiniansboth
to
to affirm
the validityof the psychicpreaching,and simultaneously
indicateitslimitations.
the
The polemicistsIrenaeus,Clement,and Origen,however,interpret
as evidence
Valentiniandescriptionof thethree"natures"substantively,
thatthegnosticsteach"determinism".
Clementsaysthattheyteachthat
47

93.
Schottroff,

256

ELAINE PAGELS

some are "saved by nature",and others"lost by nature".48In short,he

it implies
givesa polemicalturnto thephraseso that,in his description,
but determinism.
Irenaeusmakes the
not electionas its presupposition
whenhe saysthatthegnosticsclaimto be "pneumaticby
sameimplication
nature".This shows,he adds, theirarroganceand theircontemptfor
"good works"- for "theyclaim to be perfectand elect", and to have
"receivedgraceas theirownspecialpossession"."4Irenaeus,Clement,and
in developingthe counter-theory
of auOrigen become instrumental
fortheuniversatexousia- "freewill" alongwithphilosophicarguments
- to contradict
thegnostics'alleged"determinism".
lityofhumanfreedom
one could agreethat
If one wereto adopt thisphilosophicframework,
- but onlyin the sensethat
is "deterministic"
Valentiniananthropology
it presupposesdivineelection.
of othertexts,such
What can thisanalysisofferfortheinterpretation
as those fromNag Hammadi?We suggest,first,thatit offersclues for
interpreting
specificpassagesin othertextsrelatedto Valentiniantradition. Threeexamplesmay be mentioned:

terms
whatispsychic
andpneumatic
to designate
1. Theuseoftechnical
respectively
(i.e.,theterms"Jew"/"Hebrew",
(as in theEv. Phil.);the
"Gentile"/"Christian"
of the"names",of "thosewho are" and "thosewho havenotyet
terminology
become"(in Ev. Ver.);theterms"cosmos"and "anthropos";thephrases"from
or "twocircumcisions"
(as thelatter
faith",the"twocovenants",
faith"/"through
occurs in Ev. Thom.).

to thePaulineletters
2. Thisanalysisshouldalso serveto elucidategnosticreference
an exegetical
context.
Ev. Ver.)bysuggesting
(as in Ev. Thom.,
of OT figures
3. It shouldelucidatethefunction
(Abraham/Moses/Jacob,
etc.)as
in textsrelatedto Valentinian
tradition.
references
to thedemiurge

Secondly, this analysis criticizesthe currentdiscussion of gnostic

and suggestsan alternative
anthropology,
approachto theinterpretation
who
of the three "natures". Bultmann,Langerbeck,and Schottroff,
discuss the Valentinianview of "natures"in termsof the antithesis
and "freewill" focustheirdiscussionon philobetween"determinism"
sophic categoriesdevelopedin anti-gnosticpolemics.These categories
neitheroccur in the gnostictextsthemselves,nor do theyreflectthe
concernsof Valentiniantheologians.
ofthethree"natures",as it is used in theValentinian
The terminology
The
Pauline anthropology.
exegesisof Romans,is intendedto interpret
relathe
different
threedesignations(psychic/hylic/pneumatic)
express
tionsof mento thedivineelection:
48

49

Exc. 56.3-4.
Iren.Adv.haer.1.1.11-12;Clem.Al. Strom.2.10-2.

THE VALENTINIAN CLAIM TO ESOTERIC EXEGESIS OF ROMANS

257

thosewho are notelected,but

1. The term"psychicnature",then,characterizes
"inthemiddle"between
thealternative
elections
to graceand
standprovisionally
salvation
Theyarethe"called",whoreceivea capacityforattaining
reprobation.
to works".
"according
thoseelectedto reprobation,
whocan also
2. The term"hylicnature"characterizes
be called"lostnatures".
thosewho,beingthe"electofGod",
nature"characterizes
3. The term"pneumatic
thewilloftheFather,receivea "certain"
and "imperishable"
redemption
through
to grace".
"according
APPENDIX

of
Valentinianhermeneutics
proceedaccordingto theirtechnicalinterpretation
terms.The following
certain"scriptural"
examplesfromRom. 1-5 indicatewhich
to psychics(col. 1) and whichto pneumatics
as referring
Paulinetermstheyinterpret
of thepersons(psychics/
(col. 2) These are groupedaccordingto theirdesignation
andthedeity(demiurge/God
theFather).
(salvation/redemption),
pneumatics),
theprocess
PSYCHIC

PNEUMATIC

I. The persons:psychics
pneumatics
has
2.29: the"Jewinsecret"receives
Rm. 2.28: the"Jewexternally"
offlesh"which
"circumcision
oftheheart"which
"circumcision
is "pneumatic"
is "literal"
the"foolish" 1.14: the"Greeks",the"wise"
1.14: the"Barbarians",
1.5; 1.13,etc.:the"Gentile"
1.16; 2.17,etc.: the"Jew"
3.30: "theuncircumcision"
3.30: "thecircumcision"
4.16: "theentire
seed"
4.14: "heirsfromthelaw"
The
salvation
II.
redemption
process:
(aoorlpia)
(udno65tpotaq)
nothavingthelaw,
Rm. 2.17: the"Jew"relies"on thelaw" 2.14: the"Gentiles,
mustobserve
do bynature(cp6sgt)
whatit pre2.25: the"circumcision"
"thelaw"
scribes":
2.27: theone"bynature""uncircumcised"
) "com(1' K p6 GEO&Kpopo3Tctl
pletesthelaw"
2.12: are "without
law"
2.12; 3.19: theyare "in thelaw"
2.14: yet"themselves
8.2: thelaw "ofsinand death"
are law"
2.15: they"receivetheeffect
ofthelaw
ofsin"
3.20: their"consciousness
written
in theirhearts"internally
comesexternally,
"through
to it"
"theirconscience
witnesses
thelaw"
3.23: pneumatics
have"lackedGod's
3.23: psychics
"all havesinned"
glory"
(5.13: "sinis notaccountedapartfrom
law")
3.24: theyare "justified
byhisgrace
in
theredemption
freely
through
Christ"
whom
3.28: pneumatic
is the"anthropos"
3.6: psychics
are "thecosmos"
God justifies
whichis to be "judged"
"apartfromthe
worksof thelaw" (tlKatouoOat
3.19: thepsychic"cosmos"is liable
to thejudgment
XopiqEpyov
nlr-iort
6vOpomnov
v6jpou.)
3.27: pneum.justified
3.27: psychics
by"lawoffaith"
by"lawof
justified
works"

258

ELAINE PAGELS

arejustified 3.30: "uncircumcised"

arejustified
3.30: "thecircumcised"
"fromfaith" (& 7tiTo6ecO))

"throughfaith" (8t6 rfqgritecog)

also justified
4.2: psychics
"from
works"
is "theonewhodoesnot
4.4: psychicis "theonewhoworks";4.5: pneumatic
are
his "wages"
work",butwhose"faithis
accounted
"his due" (KacTaccounted as(ptt~960)
forrighteousness"
by
"grace"(4.4)
o(pPi'lJIQa)
is the"anthropos"
to
4.7: psychics
forgiven", 4.8: pneumatic
"iniquities
whom"theLordwillnotimpute
their"sinsarecovered"
sin"
GodtheFather
III. The deity:thedemiurge
3.29: "God oftheGentiles",
the"One
Rm. 3.29: the"God oftheJews"
God"
1.23: the"gloryoftheIncorruptible
1.23: the"image"(EiKcov)
God"
the
1.25: "truth"(aicksta) of God the
1.25: the"lie" (r6bVi85og))
whois blessedamong
"creator
"creation"(Krrig;) (cf.Exc. 47)
aions"
1.7: "God our Father",the"Uningen1.3; 4.6: "David": 5.14,"Moses":
dered"
4.1f.:"Abraham,ourforefather
to theflesh"
4.3; 4.17: "God in whomAbraham
according
believed"

New York10027,BarnardCollege
ColumbiaUniversity,