a gnostic reading of the acts of john (1995)

1995, Kok Pharos Publishing House P.O. Box 5016, 8260 GA Kampen, the Netherlands Cover by Geert de Koning, Kampen ISBN 90 390 0141 3 1 CIP NUGI 63 1

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

VII. A gnostic reading of the Acts of John

GERARD LUTTIKHUIZEN

Recent scholarship on the Acts of John agrees about the Gnostic character of cc.94-102. For instance, Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, the most recent editors of the text, state: 'I ' etude des ch. 94-102 et 109 met en Cvidence une theologie originale, au carac- tere gnostique trks marquCY.' More in particular they suppose that cc.94-102 must be situated 'dans le voisinage immkdiat, sinon A I'interieur m6me du courant valentinien'.' Knut Schaferdiek, in the introduction to his German translation of the AJ, affirms: '... der Hymnus und die Offenbarungsrede iiber das Kreuzesgeheimnis (the contents of cc.94-102, G.L.) tragen deutlich gnostischen Charakter'.3 Paul G. Schneider, referring to the person who inserted cc.94-102 into the AJ, speaks of 'an unknown Christian gnostic', 'the gnostic interpolator', or, briefly, 'our gnostic'. He is more hesitant, though, about the Valentinian connection for cc.94-

1 E. Junod and J.-D. Kaestli, Acta Iohannis I1 (Turnhout, 1983) 580, 588, and their conclusion on 627: 'Les caractdristiques que nous venons de degager ne laissent subsister aucun doute quant a 1' origine gnostique d' A J 94-102 et 109'. Because of the affinities in content and terminology between c.109 and cc.94-102, the authors consider c.109, too, to be a Gnostic section of the AJ. 2 Junod & Kaestli, 627. Cf. p.629: 'la gnose d'AJ 94-102 et 109 s'ap- parente tout particulibrement avec le valentinisme de 1'6cole orientale'. See also their discussion of previous studies about the Valentinian character of the A J (or esp. cc.94-102 of the AJ), 589-93. 3 K. Schaferdiek, 'Johannesakten', in W. Schneemelcher (ed), Neutes- tamentliche Apokryphen I1 (Tiibingen, 1989') 153.

120 GERARD LUlTIKHUIZEN

102 .~ Given the Gnostic character of AJ 94-102, the question of how

we should imagine the relationship of these chapters to the rest of the Johannine Acts arises. Actually we seem to be dealing here with two issues: a literary-critical question (do the two parts of the text have different origins, and, if so, when, where, by whom, and for what reason were they combined?), and the question I wish to pursue in this paper: what does the Gnostic character of cc.94-102 mean for our understanding of the Johannine Acts as a whole? With respect to these questions there seems to be more divergence of opinion in previous scholarship. I will now briefly summarize the pertinent views of the above-mentioned authors.

I The Gnostic character of cc. 94-1 02

Junod and Kaestli do not detect clear Gnostic features in the religion of the main text of the AJ (680-2). In their opinion this text and the Gnostic chapters date from more or less the same time (the second half of the second century), but they assume that the two portions of the book originated in different areas. While they are inclined to locate the origin of the body of the text in Egypt, they assume that the interpolated Gnostic chapters originated in a Greek environment in Syria (631f and 700). At an early date (in any case before the end of the third century, 700) the Gnostic portions were added to the AJ. The editors suggest two hypothetical explanations for the insertion of these heterogeneous chapters. In the first theory, the author of the AJ himself came across the Gnostic texts about John, and, although the contents of these passages were not in accordance with his own theological views, he adopted them just because they provided further information about the apostle John and his relationship with the Lord. Junod and Kaestli, though, prefer another theory. In this

4 P.G.Schneider, The Mystery of the Acts of John (San Francisco, 1991) 142f, and "'A Perfect Fit": The Major Interpolation in the Acts of John', SBL Seminar Papers 1 99 1, 5 1 8-32, passim.

A GNOSTIC READING 121

explanation it is a Gnostic community, more precisely a Gnostic community affiliated with the Johannine tradition, that combined chapters 94-102 with the rest of the AJ. The editors suggest that the rather simple AJ present features that would have been attractive to people interested in more secret revelations and more complex speculations (700-2). This suggestion, which seems to me highly relevant, is not worked out in any detail by Junod and ~aestli . '

Schaferdiek admits that, in content and form, cc.94-102 differ from the rest of the Acts. Apparently it was as a finished piece of text that these chapters were incorporated into the AJ. On the other hand, he emphasizes that cc.94-102 form an organic part of the book, a part, that is, of the 'alternative' Gospel preaching of John included in the Acts (86-102). For this reason he is convinced that we are not dealing with a secondary addition but with an integral component of the original composition (cf. p.152). Schaferdiek maintains that the book as a whole was composed somewhere in Eastern Syria not before the first half of the third ~ e n t u r y . ~ Its purpose was to present a tradition about the apostle which was different from that of the 'main church'. He alleges that the Gospel preaching in cc.86-102 fits in with this polemical design. He also makes the interesting observation that the Gnostic chapters 94-102 determine the 'Deutungshorizont', within which the other parts of the text should be read (p. 153). He does not elaborate this observation, however, nor does he consider its implications for our interpretation of the Acts.

Schneider sees a disparity between cc.94-6 ('the Lord's secret sacrament') and 97-102 (the revelatory discourse): he assumes that

5 Schneider, "'A Perfect Fit"', 518f. 6 Schaferdieck, 'Johannesakten', 154. The AJ presuppose that the readers were familiar with the tradition of John's activities in Ephesus and Asia Minor. According to Schaferdiek, this precludes a dating before the third century. Cf. also his essay 'Herkunft und Interesse der alten Johan- nesakten', ZNW 74 (1983), 247-67. But see also the Appendices to the contributions by Jan Bremmer and Lalleman in this volume, who discuss this problem more in detail.

122 GERARD LUTnKHUIZEN

whereas according to 94-6 all the disciples had been initiated into the Lord's mystery and attained gnosis through his sacred dance, in cc.97-102 the initiation is resewed for John, and while the disciples received gnosis through their participation in the Lord's dance, John receives gnosis by hearing the revelation. Schneider therefore argues that the major interpolation (cc.94-102) has a more complex genesis than suggested by Junod and Kaestli. In his view, cc.94-6 render a genuine Gnostic sacrament. He is inclined to attribute the revelatory discourse of cc.97-102 to the author of the AJ, i.e. to the person who collected and reworked the stories about John. This author created the discourse in order to integrate the mystery rite into his own composition.'

Against Junod and Kaestli, Schneider stresses the continuity of ideas between cc.94-102 and the rest of the Acts: 'The author of the acts compiled various stories about John's missionary efforts and reworked them so that they could lay the groundwork for his readers to understand the revelatory discourse and accept the legitimacy of the sacrament and its g n ~ s i s ' . ~ Schneider proposes that the author added cc.94-102 to his composition because he saw in the resurrections of John's converts examples of the Gnostics7

spiritual rebirth and transformation into the likeness of the Lord. I will argue below that Schneider does not pursue his attempt to understand cc.94-102 within the present context of the Acts far enough. Schneider also surmises that the Acts were composed at a time of persecution. By introducing Christian readers to the mystery rite, the author offered them an alternative to persecution and martyrdom.

In my own contribution I will first pay attention to the definition of 'gnosis', 'Gnostic', etc. (11). After that I will turn to the structure (111) and the contents of cc.94-102. I will begin with the revelatory discourse in cc.97-102 (IV), since I am convinced that the preceding chapters must be understood in the light of this discourse (V). Finally, I will discuss the question of what the

7 Schneider, Mystery, 214-8; ' A "Perfect Fit"', 518-20. 8 Schneider, Mystery, 218. 9 Mystev, 218-20; cf. '"Perfect Fit"', 530-2.


meaning of the Johannine Acts is if cc.94-102 are read as an integral part of the book (VI).

This chapter will not focus on the sources of the AJ and on the question of why an author or redactor may have inserted cc.94-102 into the Acts but rather on the finished text and its readers. What was the meaning of the Johannine Acts for those readers who found an appropriate expression of their beliefs in cc.94-102? Of course, modem investigators are able to find out if and to what extent an ancient text such as the AJ is composed of heterogeneous materials. On the other hand, we must take it for granted that for the intended readers, the finished text had some consistency. They will hardly have evaluated cc.94-102 as an erratic block.1°

I1 Towards a deJinition of 'gnosis ', 'Gnostics '

What do we mean by 'gnosis', 'Gnostics', and by qualifying a text as 'Gnostic'? I will refer to two different attempts to clarify this terminology. The 'final document' of the international colloquium on the origins of Gnosticism (Messina 1966) proposes that we distinguish between 'gnosis' and 'Gnosticism'. Gnosis is broadly defined here as 'knowledge of the divine mysteries reserved for an tlite', while 'Gnosticism' is viewed as a more limited phenomenon. The document advises that in defining 'Gnosticism' we start from a certain group of systems of the second century AD (systems 'which everybody agrees are to be designated with this term'). It is observed that this limited type of gnosis 'involves a

10 It will be clear that I do not agree with the judgment expressed by Richard Pewo, 'Johannine Trajectories in the Acts ofJohn', Apocrypha 3 (1992) 47-68, esp. 58: 'The distinctive content and theology of ch. 94- 102 add further weight to the hypothesis that these passages are an interpolation into the earlier text of the AcJn. This puts a decisive close to efforts directed at using this material as the normative clue to and key for the theology of the AcJn in its entirety'. As long as there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary, it is fair to start from the assumption that to the final redactor and his readers the finished text conveys a consistent theology.

124 GERARD LUTnKHUIZEN

coherent series of characteristics that can be summarized in the idea of a divine spark in man, deriving from the divine realm, fallen into this world of fate, birth and death, and needing to be awakened by the divine counterpart of the self (on the basis of a call from Above, or a revelation) in order to be finally reintegra- ted'."

Other authors do not try to collect a set of supposedly Gnostic ideas but start from the fact that in the ancient sources the word 'Gnostic' refers to members of a social group or a professional school of thought and not to ideas. They therefore put the question, which groups did call themselves 'Gnostics' or were so called by their environment? The writings and ideas of these people can only be called 'Gnostic' in a secondary way."

The earliest testimonies all occur in works written by adversaries of the Gnostics, notably Irenaeus, Celsus, Clement of Alex- andria, Hippolytus, Plotinus, Porphyry, Epiphanius. They report the rites and doctrines of the Gnostics and in particular a complex and distinctive myth about the constitution of the supramundane world of light, the origin of the material world and its rulers, and the creation and early history of humankind.

Of special importance is Irenaeus' summary of a piece of work which, he reports, belonged to the Gnostics (Adv. haer. 1.29). Thanks to two manuscript findings we now know the title, The Apocryphon of John, and the complete text of this treatise in

11 U.Bianchi (ed), The Origins of Gnosticism (Leiden, 1970) XXVI. These attempts at defining 'Gnosis' and 'Gnosticism' have been criticiz- ed by several authors and for several reasons. Cf. the discussion by U. Bianchi, 'A propos de quelques discussions recentes sur la terminologie, la definition et la methode de 1'Ctude du gnosticisme', in G. Widengren (ed), Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism (Stock- holm, 1977) 16-26. 12 See the provocative paper by M. Smith, 'The History of the Term Gnostikos', in B. Layton (ed), The Rediscovery of Gnosticism I1 (Leiden, 1981) 796-807, who is followed by Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures (New York, 1987) and 'Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism' (unpublished paper).


Coptic. It is contained in the so-called Berlin Codex and in no less than three of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, which suggests that it was highly appreciated among Gnostics. The comparison of this text to Irenaeus' report entitles us to label it 'Gnostic'. We have here a comparatively solid basis for defining ancient Gnosis,I3 for from a comparison with The Apocryphon of John it is possible to determine the Gnostic character of other writings. As I have argued elsewhere, we should not just compare terminological items and isolated motifs and ideas but rather try to find out to what extent the basic thought structure underlying the text in question corresponds to the mythical thought pattern of The Apocryphon of John.14

Among the Nag Hammadi writings and elsewhere we find various texts which appear to be closely related to the mythological Gnosis of The Apocryphon of John, among which are The Apocalypse of Adam (NHC V.5), The Hypostasis of the Archons (NHC 11.4)' The Gospel of the Egyptians (NHC 111.2 and IV.2)' The Three Tablets of Seth (NHC VIM), Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII.I), and the first part of The Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC VIII.2). It will be clear that these texts can properly be called Gnostic. Their distinguishing mark is a complex myth about the origin of the world and the creation of man.15

The question then is how we should designate religious groups or philosophical schools and their writings that are more remotely affiliated with the Gnosis of the Johannine apocryphon. The best solution seems to me to be the one proposed by Bentley Layton. Referring to The Apocryphon of John and related documents he speaks of 'classic Gnostic scripture'. This category more or less coincides with what Hans-Martin Schenke has called 'Sethian

13 I try to avoid the term 'Gnosticism', an 'ism-word' first used in the 17th century, cf. Layton, 'Prolegomena'. 14 See my 'Johannine Vocabulary and the Thought Structure of Gnostic Mythological Texts', in Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschich- te. Festschrift Kurt Rudolph (Marburg, 1995) 175-8 1. 15 As Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 9, alleges, without the myth of origins, classic Gnostic literature could not be recognized.

126 GERARD LUTTIKHUIZEN

Gnosis'.I6 Other movements can be labelled 'Gnostic' insofar as they appear to be influenced by the mythological Gnosis known to us from the above texts.

This applies, for example, to the school(s) of the Valentinians. The partial similarities of the surviving Valentinian texts and fragments of texts suggest that we are dealing with a reform of the classic mythological Gnosis." It is important to note this here because, as indicated in my introduction, several scholars, among them Junod and Kaestli, see in AJ 94-102 an expression of Valen- tinianism. New elements in this type of thought when compared to the classic or Sethian Gnosis are inter alia the central role of the Christian Saviour, the tripartite structure of reality (pneumatic, psychic and hylic, whereby the demiurge and non-enlightened Christians are connected with the psychic level), and a typically mystical understanding of salvation. In our discussion of cc.94- 102 of the Johannine Acts we will have more occasion to direct attention to characteristic features of the Valentinian branch of ancient Gnosis.

With regard to the meaning of qualifications such as 'Gnostic', 'Christian', 'Valentinian', etc. I would like to make one additional remark. In common parlance the Bible, the Old Testament included, is a Christian book. The reason obviously is not that the Bible was written by Christians but that it is read by Christians

16 Cf. Schenke, 'Das sethianische System nach Nag-Hammadi-Hand- schriften', in P. Nagel (ed), Studia Coptica (Berlin, 1974) 165-73 and 'The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism', in B. Layton (ed), The Rediscovery of Gnosticism I1 (Leiden, 198 1) 588-616. These Gnostics viewed themselves as the spiritual descendants of Seth (or Norea, a daughter of Eve). 17 Cf. K. Rudolph, Die Gnosis. Wesen und Geschichte einer spatanti- ken Religion (Gottingen, 1990') 347f; Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, XII, XV, and 220. It is, however, very doubtful whether Valentinus himself is responsible for the Gnostic component in Valentinian teaching, cf. Ch. Markschiess, Valentinus Gnosticus? (Tiibingen, 1992) esp. 392-402. Who is responsible for the 'gnosticizing' of Valentinus' teaching remains un- clear.


and accepted by them as normative scripture. It seems to me therefore questionable whether the decisive criterion for labeling a text as 'Gnostic' should be that it was produced by Gnostics. We should also consider the question of whether Gnostics used the text in question and found in it a meaningful expression of their convictions.

I11 The structure of cc.94-102

Chapters 94-102 belong to a comparatively lengthy section of the Acts in which the apostle himself is speaking. In this passage (87- 105) John discloses what he, the disciple whom the Lord loved (90.7), experienced in the period before the ascension of the Lord." It is possible to consider this part of the book as a gospel narrative (even as an alternative to the New Testament gospels, particularly the Gospel of J ~ h n ) , ' ~ but it should be noted that John's words are presented by the author of the Acts as a speech. Note that -- in conformity with the typical introduction to a revelation discourse delivered by an otherworldly figure -- the opening frame story in c.87 tells how the addressees were per- plexed, apparently because they were not yet established in their faith." The aim of John's speech is to show that the Lord is not a human being liable to physical vicissitude and suffering but the unchangeable and invincible God (104).

John's revelatory gospel preaching consists of three main parts. Chapters 88-93 report the various epiphanies of the Lord as they were perceived by the apostle. Chapters 94-6 record an antiphonal song accompanied by a dance which the Lord and his adherents performed during the evening of his arrest. Chapters 97-

18 We do not know to whom John adresses his words, for the preceding context has not survived. 19 Cf. esp. Schaferdiek, 153f, and Pervo, 'Johannine Trajectories'. 20 Cf. Ph. Perkins, The Gnostic Dialogue (New York, 1980) esp. 41f; Luttikhuizen, 'The Evaluation of the Teaching of Jesus in Christian Gnostic Revelation Dialogues', NovTest 30 (1988) 158-68.

128 GERARD LUITKHUIZEN

102 contain a revelation which the Lord granted to John alone. We may assume that to the readers of the finished text, John's

speech about the Lord had a very special significance. I mention three reasons for this assumption. Firstly, we have here a speech of the apostle himself, the main character of the Acts. His words quite likely have a function similar to that of the speeches of the leading figures in profane historical books and in the New Tes- tament Acts. These speeches served to review the situation for the reader, to elucidate backgrounds and perspectives, and they brought out the inner thoughts and experiences of important persons.21 Secondly, the purpose of John's address is to complete and strengthen the faith of his audience. When John has delivered his speech, his addressees (and with them the readers of the Acts) are supposed to have reached a fuller understanding of the Lord and a better insight into the nature of his suffering. Thirdly, these chapters have a specifically esoteric character for they contain a mysterious ceremony (96.2 and 101.2-3) performed and explained by the Lord, and a revelation granted by the Lord exclusively to the main character of the Acts. It is likely that all this indicates that we come quite close here to the inner core of the religious beliefs of the final editor and his readers.

As the contribution by Pieter Lalleman (Ch. VI) is devoted to the first part of John's speech in which the apostle speaks about polymorphous appearances of the Lord, I will confine myself to cc.94-102. First a few more words about the literary structure of this part of the Acts.

In c.94 John tells how the Lord summoned his disciples (who figure as an anonymous group) to sing with him a 'hymn' to the Father. The Lord opened the song and the disciples were asked to respond with 'amen'. The antiphonal singing was performed while the disciples were dancing in a ring around the dancing Lord. The song opens with a doxology (94.8-17). It is more difficult, though, to define the literary form of c.95. I doubt whether it has the

21 H.J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (London, 1961) 184; Herceg, this volume, Ch. VIII.


features usually attributed to the hymn.22 The greater part of this chapter (lines 1-18 and 31-42) consists of antithetical self-procla- mations uttered by the Lord ('I wish to be saved, and I wish to save' etc.), and affirmed by his followers.

In c.96 the meaning of the song and the dance are explained by the Lord. It is noteworthy that here (and in the preceding lines of the song in c.95) the Lord changes to the second person singular. This change of address is not indicated explicitly, but the context of the Johannine Acts clearly suggests that the Lord is instructing his beloved disciple. This understanding of the teaching of c.96 facilitates the transition to the subsequent revelation granted to John alone. In cc.97-102 we distinguish the following sections: 97.7-12 relates the meeting of John with the Lord in a cave on the Mount of Olives (together with the preceding lines of c.97, this section can also be regarded as belonging to the narrative frame of the revelation); 98.1-6 records a vision of the cross of light; 98.7-101.16 is an instruction by the heavenly voice of the Lord.

In lines 1 1-13 of c.96 the Lord intimates that it is not yet possible to fully know who he is until both he himself and the apostle have ascended. Although it is tempting to understand this statement as a reference to the meeting of the Lord and John in a cave on the top of the mountain," it is more probable that the words allude to the eventual return of the Lord and his disciple to the divine world. As we shall see below, full knowledge will only be possible in the eschatological future. The words, 'that which you do not know, I myself will teach you' (96.16) are more likely to refer to the revelation reported in the following chapters.

It seems evident that John -- and with him the readers of the

22 In my 'The Poetic Character of Revelation 4 and 5', in J. den Boeft and A. Hilhorst (eds), Early Christian Poetry (Leiden, 1993) 15-22, esp. p.15, I define the hymn briefly as: 'a cultic song in which the emphasis is on the praise of God'. For a detailed examination of this genre see K. Berger, 'Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament', ANRW I1 25.2 (Berlin, 1984) 1032-1432. 23 Cf. e.g. Kaestli, Semeia 38 (1986) 84.


Acts -- gradually receives insight into the divine identity of the Lord, the true meaning of his suffering, and the suffering of humankind. A significant passage in this connection is c.90 where John confesses that an epiphany of the Lord had made him afraid. He tells how thereupon the Lord appeared to him as a man of small stature (thus adapting himself to the failing comprehension of the disciple), how he pulled his beard and said: 'John, be not faithless but believing'.24 Also, cc.94-102 bear testimony to the gradual increase in John's knowledge.

It is not fully clear what the mysterious rite of c.95 contributes to the belief and comprehension of John and his fellow disciples. I wonder whether this rite was supposed to be understandable at all without the private instruction added in c.96 and the subsequent revelation (101.1-3). It should be observed that the theme of suffering is not mentioned explicitly in ~ . 9 5 . ~ '

The author of the surviving text and his readers can hardly have believed that the dance ceremony had transformed the disciples into the image of the Lord or that it had united them with him.26 This is apparent from the reaction of John and his fellow disciples to their dance with the Lord: 'After the Lord had so danced with us ... he went out. And we, like men amazed or fast asleep, fled one this way and another that' (97.1-3).27 John fled to the Mount of Olives, weeping about the Lord's suffering. A few lines hereafter, however, the Lord discloses that he himself had put it into John's mind to come up the mountain. In this way it is suggested that John's inad-equate reaction was part of the Lord's strategy.

The revelation by the Lord in cc.97-102 is introduced in basically the same way as John's speech of which it is a part.

24 See further Junod & Kaestli, AI, 582. 25 A.J. Dewey, 'The Hymn in the Acts of John: Dance as Hermeneu- tic', Semeia 38 (1986) 67-80, esp. 72. Cf. below, n.31. 26 Pace Schneider, Mystery, 83f, 177 and passim. 27 Junod and Kaestli, AI, 597, suppose that the bewilderment and the sleep of the disciples illustrate the predicament of those who have not yet received the Gnostic call from the transcendent world.


While, as we have seen, c.87 tells how the attendants were per- plexed (at an appearance of the Lord) because of their failing belief, c.97 reports that John could not endure (and thus did not understand) what was happening to the Lord. John's mental state at that time was not fundamentally different from the present inadaquate knowledge of his audience. The readers of the Acts are invited -- with John's audience -- to share in the experience of the apostle when he came into the cave and heard the voice of the Lord from above the cross of light.

No doubt cc.97-102 form the climax of John's speech. Yet it would be a mistake to imply that these chapters reveal the full and definitive truth about the Lord. First of all, John makes it clear that he is not able to render everything he had seen and heard (87, 88.3-8, 90.2-4, 102.1-2). Nor did the Lord convey the full truth to John. In c.102.4-7 the apostle intimates that according to his firm conviction the Lord did everything by means of symbols ( o u p p - h t~Qq) and conditionally (or by way of accomodation, o i ~ o v o p t - KG~)." What is more, in c.99.7-8 (cf. 101.4-6) the voice of the Lord explains to John that (as long as John is in this world?) he cannot see the Lord as he really is, just as the place of Rest cannot be seen and de~cribed.~' In so far as John is able to see him, this is because he is related to the Lord (he is his ouyy~vYjq, 101.6). From c.96.11, quoted above, we may gather that it will be possible for John to see the Lord as he really is when both have ascended to the heavenly realm.

This interpretation differs from the explanation of cc.94-102 forwarded by Paul Schneider who, as I have noted before, sees a disparity between cc.94-6 and cc.97-102. He claims that these two sections include the same themes, but that cc.97-102 introduce

28 The term o t ~ o v o p ~ ~ o 5 < can also be used in opposition to 'abso- lutely' and mean: 'progressively', cf. Lampe, A Patrisfic Greek Lexicon, 943b. 29 He also asks John to let him keep what is his. This might be a reaction to John's attempt to spy on the Lord (cf. A J 92 and 93.10-3).

132 GERARD L U T T I W Z E N

these themes as if for the first time and only to the apostle John." Schneider argues that in cc.94-6 we come upon the (slightly adapted) text of an actual initiation rite. Before its incor- poration into the Johannine Acts, the mysterious ceremony already had a narrative setting (94.1-7 and the first sentence of c.97). In Schneider's view, the idea of cc.94-6 is that those who participate in the mysterious rite receive salvific gnosis from the Lord's dance and are spiritually transformed (united with the Lord). He seems to take it for granted that in the instruction of c.96 the Lord addresses all the disciples."

If Schneider's explication of cc.94-6 is correct, the reaction of the disciples, reported in 97.2-3, is quite unexpected and indeed strange. For as Schneider himself emphasizes, cc.94-6 (in his interpretation) imply that the disciples had been initiated into the Lord's mystery. Schneider's understanding of the meaning and purpose of the dance with the Lord before it was incorporated into the Johannine Acts either leads to the conclusion that the author of the Acts has not understood the alleged earlier function or that he has inserted the text of the mysterious rite into his writing in a very clumsy way.

The explanation proposed in this paper is more concerned with the finished text. It starts from the assumption that it is precisely the present arrangement of the episodes combined with the re- dactional frame story that discloses how the author of the surviving text wished the readers to understand his work. Within the context of the Johannine Acts, it seems plausible that in the instruction of c.96, the Lord addresses John (not the assembled disciples who, by the way, do not play a prominent role in the AJ),

30 Schneider, "'A Perfect Fit"', 5 19. But Schneider, Mystery, 191f, admits that the hymn of c.95 has nothing to do with the theme of suffering. This theme is introduced in the instruction of c.96. 31 Schneider's investigations into the possible meaning and purpose of the alleged Gnostic sacrament must remain hypothetical, however interesting they are. Cf. Mystery, 192: 'What our discussion about this dance has shown is how little we do know about it'; For c.96 see Mystery, 186.


and that cc.87-105 make clear how in successive meetings with the Lord, John's faith was gradually established. If the readers of the Acts are prepared to join the apostle in the gradual maturing of his perception of the Lord, they will possess their souls indestructable (104).

IV The contents of cc. 97-102

We now turn to the theological ideas or the pattern of religion expressed (or clearly implied) in cc.94-102. The revelatory discourse of cc.97-102 must be considered to be the climax of John's speech.32 The foregoing passages (94-6) become understandable only if they are seen in connection with this concluding revelation. For this reason I will begin with cc.97-102.

In c.97 John tells how the Lord came into the cave where the apostle found himself after his flight from the crucifixion site. Apparently the Lord comes to John in a human form for John reports that the Lord 'stood' in the cave. We are concerned with an epiphany of the same Lord whose voice the apostle hears from heaven after his vision of the cross of light. This appears from the words spoken by the Lord in the cave at the conclusion of c.97: 'I (will) speak to you ...'

The account of the vision is relatively short (98.1-6). John reports that the Lord showed him a cross of light which was firmly fixed. Apart from that, he saw around the cross a large multitude without one form, in the cross one form and one likeness, and above the cross the Lord himself without form but speaking to John in a voice which so far was unknown to the apostle.

The vision is followed by an audition. John hears the heavenly voice of the Lord explaining to him several aspects of the vision. In 98.8-99.4 the cross of light is explained, in 100.1-2 the multitude around the cross, in 100.2-7 those in the cross. Other pas-

32 As Schneider, "'A Perfect Fit"', 525, puts it, this revelatory discourse functions as 'a bridge, by which the Acts' community and readers are to understand the full ramifications of their Christian faith'.


sages of the explanation concern the suffering of the Lord (1 0 1.1-3 and 6-14) misunderstandings about the Lord's identity, and John's relationship to the Lord (98.7-8, 99.4-7, 100.7-12, 101.4-6 and 14- 16). It may be noted that the shapeless figure of the Lord above the cross of light is not explicitly explained. This must be understood in the light of the Lord's statements in cc.99.7-8 and 101.5-6 to the effect that he cannot be seen (i.e. by human beings?) as he really is (101.5-6). In addition the apostle emphasizes that he is not able to communicate everything he had seen (cf. above).

In the passages of the vision account and the subsequent instruction relating to the cross of light at least two ideas are combined: a. the cross of light, and b. the idea to the effect that the Lord's cross (i.e the horizontal bar of the cross, cf. below) is firmly fixed and that it separates the lower world from the world above, and thus is more or less identical with the putative boundary between these two areas. The latter idea is indeed well known from heresiological reports about Valentinian doctrines.33 Ap- parently the boundary was viewed as a cross precisely because a cross used to be firmly established in the soil. This can be gathered from Hippolytus' account in Refitatio VI 3 1.6, where it is made clear that the boundary (tipoq) was called a cross (orau- p6q) by the Valentinians, because of its stability and immobility ( 6 ~ t nSnqyev & ~ h t v f i ~ at' a p ~ r a ~ t v f i r a q ) . I am not sure whether the other idea (the cross of light) can also be associated with Valentinian speculations (below).

In c.100.1-2 the multitude around the cross is briefly explained. It seems evident that the idea here is that the cross of light has the form of the capital T . ~ ~ In that case, those around the cross are situated around the vertical or main bar of the cross (and thus below the boundary of the spiritual world), just as those around the cross of wood in Jerusalem were standing around the main bar. This explanation, if correct, is not without consequences, for it means that the connection made by Wilhelm Bousset and

33 Cf. esp. Irenaeus, A h . haer. I 2.4 and 3.5; Hippolytus, Re$ VI 31.5- 7; fic. Theod. 22.4 and 42.1 ; Junod & Kaestli, AI, 612-4. 34 So rightly Schneider, Mystery, 96.


others between the cross of light and Plato's cosmic soul is based on a misunderstanding of the form of the cross.35 The T-shape of the cross of light better explains the division by the cross of the spiritual and the material worlds, the picture of a multitude around the cross (cf. the expression 'those at the right and those at the left side', viz. of the vertical bar, 98.16), and the idea that the cross (in fact the horizontal bar, the boundary of the supramundane world) is firmly established (by the main bar).

According to cc.98.2 and 100.1-2, the multitude around the cross is not uniform.36 This same category of people is denoted with other negative qualifications: 'the multitude' (99.6), 'those outside the mystery' (100.1 I), and 'the lower nature' (100. If), i.e. the nature allegedly originating fiom 'the inferior root' (98.18). It should be noted that our text clearly distinguishes 'the nature of man' (the race of spiritual human beings?, see further below) from this nature. The outsiders are blamed for their failure to understand the suffering of the Lord. In c.100.10-1 John is asked by the Lord not to care for these people and to despise them, and in c.102 John laughs at them all when he heard what they said about the Lord.

With respect to those in the cross two -- at first sight con- flicting -- statements are made. In c.98.3 John sees one form and one resemblance (pop+.? p i a ~ a i i66a dpoia) in the cross, and in c.100.2-7 the voice of the Lord explains why those in the cross have not (yet?) one 'form'.

These passages become more understandable within the frame of reference of classic Gnostic mythology. The expression 'those

35 In Timaeus 34BC, Plato speaks about the X-form of the cosmic soul. See Bousset, 'Plato's Weltseele und das Kreuz Christi', ZNW 14 (1913) 273-85, esp. 279: 'Das Kreuz ist ein Lichtkreuz, es ist ja ur- spriinglich das groBe Chi, das die Gestirnbahnen bestimmt'. Cf. also A. Bohlig, 'Zur Vorstellung vom Lichtkreuz in Gnostizismus und Ma- nichaismus', in B. Aland (ed), Gnosis. Festschrift fur Hans Jonas (Gottingen, 1978) 472-91. Junod & Kaestli, AI, 657, take it for granted that Bousset's derivation of the cross of light fiom Plato's cosmic soul is correct and generally accepted. 36 Cf. Junod & Kaestli, AI, 657f.

136 GERARD LU'TTIKHUIZEN

in the cross' (which, as far as I know, occurs nowhere else) quite possibly alludes to the concept of particles of divine light fallen, and thereupon detained, in the world of darkness. In Gnostic mythology, the saviour or revealer comes down into the cosmic world in order to reveal to these light particles their origin and destination and to lead them back to the transmundane world. Inasmuch as they are particles of one light, they can indeed be regarded as having one 'form', but in so far as not all of the light seed has been brought together, the light from the divine world has not yet regained its original unity.

In several Gnostic writings the saviour addresses the particles of light (the Gnostics) as his 'own', i.e. those belonging to the divine saviour.)' It would seem that this idea also occurs in c.100.7-9: 'For so long as you do not call yourself mine, I am not what I was; but if you hear me, you also who hear shall be as I am, and I shall be what I was, when [...I,. From here some light falls on the preceding passage (100.2-7): 'and those whom you see in the cross: if they have not one form, (it is because) every member of him who came down has not yet been gathered toge-

But when the nature of man (or: men?)39 -- the race which comes to me in obedience of my voice -- shall be taken up, then he who now hears me shall share in it; he shall no longer be what he is now but shall be above it (above the cross?) as I am

37 Cf. e.g. The Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC VIII.2), 136.17-25: '1 was sent down in the body because of the seed that had fallen away ....- And I spoke with him who is mine (here the light seed is personified). And he listened to me, just as you who listened today'; Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII), 50.18: 'the seed (i.e. the light particles) that is mine'. Cf. the opening section of The Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII.3), 70.21f 'Blessed are those belonging to the Father, for they are above the heavens' (i.e. above the planetary sphere). 38 I.e. the Gnostic saviour (not the putative figure of primordial Man, as Bousset, art. cit., assumed). 39 The MS reads &vQpono~ @1501q, which does not yield sense; Hilgenfeld has bvep6nov 4601s; Junod & Kaestli, AI, 21 1, &vQp6nou $1501~.


now'.40 I conclude that John (representing the true believers) is called to hear and understand the words of the Lord and thereby to unite himself with the Lord (who represents the divine light). When all the believers are one with the Lord, the original unity will be restored.

In c.101 the correct understanding of the Lord's sufJering is set against an incorrect understanding. Those who hold to the incorrect view are denoted here rather vaguely as 'those people'. In cc.98.2 and 100.lf they are symbolized by the multitude around the cross. What these people believe with respect to Jesus' suffering is clearly indicated. They profess (or rather will p r~ fe s s )~ ' that the Lord suffered physically on the wooden cross in Jerusalem, that he was pierced, beaten, etc. (101.6-10). The account of beliefs rejected here seems to be an adequate rendering of the views about the reality of the suffering of Christ in emerging mainstream Christianity. At the close of this section I shall return to the relationship between the community of the AJ and mainstream Christianity.

The belief that it was the divine saviour himself who was humilated and crucified is also rejected in several Christian Gnostic writings. I will mention a few clear examples.42 The Le~er of Peter to Philip contains a short sermon by Peter. This sermon opens with a summary of the real suffering of Jesus ('he wore a crown of thorns ... he was hanged on a cross', etc.) but then Peter continues: 'My brothers, Jesus is a stranger to this suffering.' The sermon concludes with an appeal to the audience not to listen

40 Cf. The Letter of Peter to Philip, 137.24-5: 'just as you who listened today' (the immediate context is cited above in 11.37). In both texts the actual recipients of the revelation are ranked with the mythical light seed. 41 As the assumption is that the Lord delivers this revelation before his ascension, he speaks about future beliefs. Cf. the use of the future tense in 99.6: 'what they shall say is humble and not worthy of me'. 42 See further Junod & Kaestli, AI, 581-677; Schneider, Myster)), 90- 113; C.L. Sturhahn, Die Christologie der altesten apo,byphen Apostel- akten (Diss. Gottingen, 1952) 21-41.


to 'these lawless people' (NHC VIII.2, 139.16-30). The first) Apocalypse of James reports an appearance of the risen Lord to James. James says to the Lord: 'Rabbi, I have found you! I have heard of your sufferings, which you endured. And I have been much distressed.' But the Lord answers: 'James, do not be concerned for me ... I am he who was within me. Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been distressed7 (NJ3C V.3, 3 1 .5-20).43 In The Apocalypse of Peter, Peter asks the Lord: 'What is it that I see, o Lord? Is it you yourself whom they take ... Or, who is the one who is glad and who is laughing above the wood (i.e. the cross), and do they hit another one on his feet and on his hands?' The Lord answers: 'The one you see glad and laughing above the wood, that is the living one, Jesus. But the one into whose hands and feet they are driving the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute' (NHC VII.3, 81.7-21.~~ Cf. also The Second Tractate of the Great Seth in the same codex VII.56.6-19: 'It was another ... who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I... It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance'. 45

What these texts have in common with cc.97-102 of AJ is the conviction that the divine saviour did not and could not suffer physically, since he was a stranger to this suffering, as The Letter of Peter to Philip claims. According to The Apocalypse of Peter and The Second Tractate of the Great Seth, the one who suffered on the cross was an artefact of the cosmic rulers, the archons, themselves (in Gnostic mythology the archons created the human body). Consequently, the archons and their tools on earth humiliate

43 Transl. by W. Schoedel, NHLE, 264f. 44 Transl. by H.W. Havelaar, The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter (Diss. Groningen, 1993) 34. In this writing, the Lord warns inter alia of the error of 'those who will adhere to the name of a dead man' (74.13-4). According to Havelaar, 71f, this can only be a reference to the belief of nascent orthodox Christianity in the crucified Jesus. 45 Transl. by R.A. Bullard and J.A. Gibbons, NHLE, 365.


their own creature. The saviour, who is above the cross, therefore laughs at their ignorance.

Unlike the above Gnostic texts, however, the AJ does not make clear who was the mortal person on the cross. The Gnostic idea that the saviour had put on a material body upon his descent into the lower world (with a view to concealing himself from the archons), does not occur in the AJ.46

In c. 101 it is denied that the Lord suffered in a physical way, but it is not denied that he suffered. The passages speaking about his true suffering, however, are rather cryptic. In c. 10 1.2f the Lord says to John that he wishes that that suffering which he showed to him and to the other ones while dancing, be called a mystery.47 In c.lOl.9ff the Lord likewise points to the mysterious character of his real suffering: 'the things they (the ignorant people) do not say, these things I did suffer. As to what these things are, I will speak to you in riddles (alvtooopaf oot), for I know that you will understand.' The words that follow are enigmatic indeed. John is asked to understand the Lord as seizure, piercing, blood, wound- ing, hanging, suffering, nailing, and death of the Word. This seems to mean that the physical sufferings of Jesus can be seen as symbols of a more spiritual suffering which the Lord has to endure.

The subsequent conclusion of the revelation discourse is likely to shed some light on the idea of this spiritual suffering. Here the Lord appeals to John to understand -- after the Word and the Lord -- the man and what he has suffered (101.14-16). In agreement with Junod and Kaestli (674f), I assume that the notion of the suffering of the man (or: the suffering of an)^* does not refer to the human suffering of Jesus but indeed to the spiritual suffering of the Lord

It is possible to explain this notion from Gnostic mythology. First of all, Gnostics believed that the divine saviour shared in their suffering inasmuch as he, too, came down into the world of

46 Junod & Kaestli, AI, 602; Schneider, Mystev, 100-2. 47 These words explain the dance ceremony in c.95. Cf. section V of this chapter. 48 Cf. the apparatus criticus in Junod and Kaestli, 215.


darknes4' But there is more. The Gnostic myth expounds how an original divine unity disintegrated: a portion of divine light fell apart and came down into the dark world where it was spread out and imprisoned within human bodies and ruled by demonic powers. It would seem that it is these light particles that are denoted as 'members7 of the saviour ('the one who came down') and, collectively, as the 'nature of man' which 'will be taken up' (101). As we have seen, the saviour and the light particles belong together, obviously because they share the same divine phusis. It must have been a small step to conclude that in the suffering of his members, the saviour suffered himself. I surmise that this idea is suggested by the cryptic statements of our text about the suffering of the Lord. The real suffering is not that which was experienced by Jesus on the wooden cross, but the suffering of the divine light in the dark and demonic world.

As indicated above, the purpose of John's speech in cc.87-104 is to make clear that the Lord cannot possibly have had a real human body -- and thus cannot have suffered physically -- since he is and remains the unchangeable God (104). In the revelation discourse of cc.97-102, the focus is on the close relationship between the Lord and John, the representative and model of the true believer. John and those who adopt the revelation handed down by him are viewed as the 'members' of the Lord and as his 'relatives7 (ouyy~veiq). Furthermore, it is suggested in cryptic terminology that their suffering is his suffering.

The question of how the Lord as the unchangeable and invincible God can be subjected to any kind of suffering is solved by a

49 There is some logic in what the apostles (representing the Gnostics) say in The Letter of Peter to Philip, 138.15f 'If he, our Lord, suffered, how much more must we (suffer).' After all, the Lord came voluntarily into the world and the truth was always with him, whereas the Gnostics were forced to be here, and before their reception of the gnosis they lived in total ignorance about their true identity, origin, and destination. The remark by his fellow apostles is responded to by Peter: 'He suffered because of us' (138.18), i.e. the saviour has come into the world in order to redeem the Gnostics.


rather complicated Christology. In the conclusion of the revelatory discourse this Christology is alluded to in a very brief and some- what cryptic way: John is asked to understand first the Word, then the Lord and, in the third place, the man (Man) and what he has suffered (101.14-1 6). The distinction of various aspects or levels in the divine saviour is not an isolated case. We find similar views of Christ in Valentinian and other Christian Gnostic writings.

In fact the most significant parallel occurs in a non-Valen- tinian text, The Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII.3). Henriette Havelaar, in her comments on this text, has made clear that the Apocalypse distinguishes three figures or aspects in Christ. His highest aspect is designated as his 'intellectual Pleroma'. This aspect of the saviour remains in the divine world, while another part of him descends into the world. The supreme aspect of the saviour can be equated with the unchangeable Lord of AJ 104.2. The second aspect is the saviour in so far as he came down into the world, probably at different times and in different appearances. This figure, designated as 'in-tellectual spirit' or 'holy spirit', appears to Peter and speaks to him, just as the saviour as Lord appears to John and to other disciples in the Johannine Acts. The third aspect of the Saviour in The Apocalypse of Peter is designated inter alia as 'the living Jesus' and the 'incorporeal body' of the saviour. It is this part of the saviour that was temporarily united with a material body (the 'substitute' of the living Jesus). However, before the crucifixion the living Jesus withdrew from this physical body."

In these and other texts various aspects or levels in Christ are distinguished with a view to warranting his unchangeable divine identity on the one hand, and on the other explaining his involve- ment in the inferior world. In The Apocalypse of Peter the lowest manifestation serves to explain how the divine saviour could be united with a human body, created by the archons. In the AJ, as we have noticed, this idea seems to be absent. According to our text, the Lord never appeared in a real body.51 Here the aspect of

50 Havelaar, Apocalypse of Peter, 160-4. 51 Schneider, Mystey, 101.


the Lord as 'Man' rather serves to warrant his identity with the human light particles in the world. When the human 'nature' (the 'members' of the Lord) will be gathered together in the luminous cross -- and thereupon uplifted unto the place of Rest, above the cross -- this aspect of the saviour will quite probably no longer exist. Then the divine saviour will be who he was (100.4-10).

I can be brief about the various names and metaphors used to refer to the Lord. Apparently, they basically have the same function as his polymorphous appearances. In 98.8ff the Lord explains: 'because of you this cross of light is sometimes called word by me, sometimes intelligence, sometimes Christ, sometimes door', etc. This clearly means that the transcendent Lord has to adapt himself to human understanding (cf. 98.12f). The Lord cannot be seen nor defined in human language as he really is (99.8 and 101.4-6). His epiphanies and the metaphors used to refer to him are indispensable and deficient at the same time.

Previous studies have already pointed to the very interesting explanation for this phenomenon in The Gospel according to Philip (NHC II.3).53 Section 67 (67.9-12) of this Valentinian Gnostic Gospel states: 'Truth did not enter the world naked but in symbols and images. It (the world) will not receive it in any other way.' This fundamental thesis is elaborated in sections 11-3. Of special relevance in connection with the manifold names and predicates of the Lord in AJ 98.8-13 is the conclusion of section 12 (54.13-8): 'For our sakes truth produced names in the world because it cannot possibly be known without names. Truth is one. It is (however) manifold for our sakes who are instructed about this one thing through many (names) in love.'

If applied to the various designations of the Lord in AJ 98.8ff, this insight means that in this world the transcendent Lord cannot be understood as he really is (cf. once again 99.8 and 101.5f). Human language does not provide one fully adequate term or name to refer to the Lord. There are only many deficient metaphors or symbols. This also holds true for the polymorphous

52 The plural indicates that John represents the true believers. 53 See esp. Junod & Kaestli, AI, 619; Schneider, Mystery, 94f.


epiphanies of the Lord. There is no single adequate shape in which the transcendent Lord could manifest himself, therefore he appears in diverse shapes. The Lord uses these inadequate shapes and words in order to instruct his 'members' living in this inferior world. C.102.4-7 makes clear that John knew that the Lord did everything 'in a symbolic way', and that he did so with a view to converting and saving humankind.

It becomes more clear now why c.98 speaks of a cross of light. Apparently the cross at the boundary of the world above is viewed as the place where the particles of divine light are assembled. If Junod and Kaestli are right in reading &vayoyq for av&yyq in 98.15, this term might be highly significant: the cross is the place where eventually the light will be lifted up into the place of Rest. Unfortunately the explanation of the cross in 98.15-7 is badly transmitted. I am not sure whether we are entitled to as- sociate the passages speaking about oo4ta with the classic Gnostic and Valentinian myth of S ~ p h i a . ' ~

In these chapters we come upon a typically mythical pattern of religion. I will sketch the main lines of this mythical belief. Two categories of human beings are distinguished. The first category has its roots in the inferior world, the other comes from above. They are 'members' and 'relatives' of the one who came down, the divine saviour and Lord. If we may infer that 'Man' (&vepoxoq) is a designation of the saviour (100.3f and 101.14-6), it would seem that he (or an aspect of his) is identified with this category of human beings. It is presented as a mystery and hinted at cryptically that the Lord suffers with the human beings belonging to him.

In a vision the Lord shows the destination of spiritual humankind. At the boundary of the world above John sees a cross that already is being filled with light. When all the members of the divine saviour are gathered in this cross, the human 'nature' will be lifted up unto the place of Rest --above the cross and the boundary -- from where the voice of the Lord (as Word?) speaks

54 But cf. Junod & Kaestli, AI, 613, 661f.


to the apostle." Apparently the cross of light can be called Christ, because here all his members are united with him. When this process has been completed, the Lord will be who he was (1 00.7-9).

It may be noted that this process is not a 'natural' one. Human beings are not saved because they belong to the race of spiritual people. After all, John affirms that the Lord did everything with a view to converting people (&I< &vep6nou Bnto'rpo@qv, 102.6). Moreover, the apostle and the 'race that draws near to me (i.e. the Lord)' are emphatically summoned to hear and obey the Lord (100.4-9). If it is correct to speak of a dualism of two categories of human beings, this dualism reminds us of the type of dualism we find in the canonical Gospel of John. In the end it is those who accept the Lord and his message who will be saved.

Although the motif of the cross of light as such does not occur in the surviving classic Gnostic and Valentinian literature, we seem to be dealing in A J 97-102 with an expression of a typically Gnostic mythological thought pattern. This idea presupposes Gnostic views of the world and man. Our world is regarded as a lower world separated from a transcendent world (the place of Rest) by a fixed boundary. In conformity with Gnostic anthropology, a class of human beings living under the boundary of the superior world is believed to originate from the world above.

The concept of salvation is connected with this view of man. The human beings originating from the world above are summoned to become what they basically are: as they belong to the saviour they should listen to him and confess that they are his (100.7), and so be (re-)united with him. It is precisely this idea that is expressed in the cross of light: when all the light scattered in the world is assembled in the luminous cross (which is also called 'Christ'), the saviour will be who he was (100.8f: 'if you hear me ... I shall be that which I was...'). The transcendent Lord as

55 The (metaphoric) terminology is not used in a consequent and consistent way: in c.101 .I Iff John is called to consider the suffering and even the death of the Word (h6yo~). Cf. c.96.6 where the Lord says to John that he was sent by the Father as Word.


he really is cannot be adequately described in the language of this world. This can merely be communicated through symbols and metaphors. For the Acts' community, the close relationship -- in fact the consubstantiality -- of the saviour and his 'members' quite likely entails that he suffers with the suffering humankind. This 'mysterious' view of the suffering of the saviour is opposed to the belief in the physical suffering and death of the Lord. As we have seen, the rejection of this belief occurs in several Christian Gnostic writings.

Whereas the underlying mythical thought pattern is evidently Gnostic, I doubt whether it is possible to be more specific and to define this Gnostic thought structure as Valenti~~ian.'~ There are two instances in cc.97-102 which might suggest that the author was familiar with Valentinian ideas. Firstly, as we have seen, the equation of the boundary of the world above with the cross of Christ is reminiscent of Valentinian mythology. But the mere occurrence of a mythological motif used by Valentinian philo- sophers does not necessarily mean that our text is an expression of Valentinian mythology. Secondly, it is attractive to relate the phenomenon of the plural names and appearances of the divine Lord to the expositions in the Gospel according to Philip on the indispensability as well as deficiency of human language in com- municating the transcendent truth. But I doubt that these expositions are inextricably bound up with the Valentinian type of Gnosis. In addition, the Valentinian character of the various sections of this composite Gnostic Gospel is not evident.

Finally, we are facing the question of the relationship of the Christians of the Johannine Acts to nascent orthodox Christianity. It is highly plausible that the latter category is referred to meta- phorically in the picture of the multitude around the cross. These people are defined as 'the inferior @boy7. They are 'outside the mystery' and John is asked by the Lord to despise them (100.lf and 10-2). These negative qualifications clearly suggest some kind

56 The arguments by Junod & Kaestli, AI, 627-31, in favour of the (Eastern-)Valentinian character of the Gnostic ideas of cc.94- 102 are not convincing.


of controversy. It is, however, hard to assess whether this means that the Acts' community has separated from the larger group denoted as 'the multitude'. Also on this point, a comparison with The Apocalypse of Peter may be helpful. The Gnostic group be- hind The Apocalypse of Peter rejected the doctrines and the exclu- sivistic claims of emerging orthodoxy, in particular its belief in salvation through the cross of Jesus (see above). But Henriette Havelaar points to text data suggesting that the 'Petrine' Gnostics formed a minority group within one ecclesiastical organisation. She argues that groups holding different beliefs can belong to one community as long as they share common symbols (the examples she mentions are 'Christ' and 'the Cross'!). A schism can be the result of a conflict concerning the explicit interpretation of certain common This is what we have in the revelatory dis- courses in A J 97-102. The controversy with 'the many' concerns the interpretation of the common symbols of the suffering and the cross of the Lord.

It should not be overlooked that the interpretation forwarded by our text is presented as a mystery. 'The many' do not understand the real meaning of the suffering of the Lord because they are 'outside the mystery' (100.1 1). This might suggest that we are dealing with an esoteric group of Gnostic Christians who, as enlightened persons, looked down on the supposedly superficial beliefs of the multitude (cf. 99.6: what they say about the Lord is Z C L X E ~ V ~ V , 'low', 'humble'). In that case these esoteric Christians may have viewed themselves as a higher level or an inner circle of a large community of Christian believers.58

The enlightened Christians may have believed that 'those outside the mystery' could be converted to their esoteric understanding of the Lord and his suffering. The revelatory discourse was perhaps included in the Johannine Acts with a view to convincing these 'outsiders' of the truth allegedly preserved by

57 Sections 3 and 4 of chapter 7 ('The Adversaries'). 58 For this view of the relationship between Gnostics and emerging orthodoxy see K. Koschorke, Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum (Leiden, 1978) 220-32.

A GNOSTIC READING

this small group of followers of the apostle.

It is not my intention to discuss cc.94-6 in detail. A few observations will suffice to make clear what the dance ceremony of c.95 could mean if it is interpreted in the light of the subsequent revelation. I do not deny, by the way, that it may be usehl to examine the possible sources and backgrounds of cc.94-6, but I doubt that the readers of the Acts were supposed to understand the text from these backgrounds. It is more probable that the secret meaning of the dance rite should be understood from the ins- tructions by the Lord in the following chapters.

In c.96 the Lord's esoteric instruction of the dance ceremony is formulated in the second person singular. Within the context of the Acts and their veneration of the beloved disciple, it is more or less self-evident that the person instructed here is John (above, section 111). Without this esoteric instruction and the subsequent revelation of the cross of light, the mysterious ceremony of c.95 is bound to remain obscure. This means that the ceremony is com- prehensible only to John and to persons acquainted with John's esoteric teaching (among them the readers of the book)59 and, consequently, that the 'historical' participants, John included, did not understand what the Lord was demonstrating to them.60 In the subsequent frame story (97) their inadequate comprehension comes to light.6' We are told how John is chosen to understand the secret meaning of the ceremony.

In cc.96 (and 101) the apostle is informed that the dance is a

59 The words, 'who does not dance, does not know what happens' (95.29-30), quite probably speak about the dance as it was meant by the Lord (this meaning is only revealed in cc.96 and 98-102). 60 As indicated in my introduction, Schneider tries to solve this problem by means of source criticism. 61 I therefore do not believe that the disciples are pictured as having received esoteric gnosis, having ascended to the cross of light, and having become members of the race that obeys the Lord (Schneider).


symbolic expression or an illustration of the theme of suffering. What true suffering means is hinted at in cc.97-102. In cryptic terminology it is disclosed to John that the Lord suffers with true humankind. An important component of this idea is the consubstantiality -- in a way the identity -- of the Lord as 'Man' and his 'members' or 'relatives'. Just as the Lord's members have a share in his divinity, the Lord shares in their human 'nature'.62

The idea of the consubstantiality of the Lord and those belonging to him might explain the antithetical statements in c.95. In the first two lines of this chapter, the Lord sings: 'I wish to be saved, and I wish to save'. It would seem that in the first line the Lord speaks as 'Man' and .in the second in his capacity as divine saviour. By the antiphonal 'amen' the participants are supposed to respond to these words of the Lord, quite possibly by applying the words to themselves.

The subsequent chapters make clear that the members of the Lord still await their final redemption in the cross of light (ac- cordingly, they wish to be saved) but, on the other hand, that even now they share in the divine essence of the Lord (and therefore are able to participate in his redemptive activity: they wish to save others?).63

Those who share in the mysterious dance with the Lord are

62 Previous studies have already examined the antiphonal song and the dance rite within a Gnostic frame of reference. In that respect, the interpretation proposed here is not new. Otherwise it should be granted that any interpretation of the mysterious ceremony must remain tentative and hypothetical. Cf. Schneider's remark cited above, n. 32. 63 Lines 18-30 of c.95 are notoriously difficult. I do not believe that the words of 95.18, X&PL< X O ~ E ~ E L ('Grace dances'), are a liturgical direction or the title of this part of a supposed sacrament (Schneider, Mystery, 173f). It is more plausible that these words belong to the frame of the narrative: John relates how the Lord as Charis ('Grace', one of his many names, cf. 98.12) was dancing, or started dancing, and thereupon (in lines 19-22) invited the disciples to dance with him. But I grant that in this interpretation the present tense X O ~ E ~ E L ('dances') is awkward. We would expect a continuation of the past tenses used in c.94. Perhaps the text of the only surviving manuscript is corrupt here.


able to enter the world above and to experience how the divine sphere of the Ogdoas (the 'Eighth') participates in this dance. The term Ogdoas is well known from Gnostic I i t e r a t ~ r e . ~ ~ A close parallel can be found in the untitled Hermetic tractate known as The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth (NHC VI.6): 'For the entire Ogdoas, my son, and the souls that are in it, and the angels, sing a hymn in silence' (58.17-21).65 In this text an initiate experiences how he is transferred into the divine realm above the seven planetary spheres.

The classic Gnostic tractate Marsanes (NHC X) explains that the Eleventh and the Twelfth speak of the invisible supreme God.66 The Eighth and the Twelfth are common Gnostic -- not specifically Valentinian -- designations of levels or realms of the supramundane world.

Supposing that only after the mysterious dance rite is its secret meaning disclosed to John, we may compare the function of this ceremony with that of vision accounts in the Book of Daniel and in other apocalyptic writings, notably in Gnostic apocalypses. As a rule, the vision is not understood immediately. It becomes clear only when it is explained to the seer by an angelus interpres or -- in Christian Gnostic apocalypses as The Apocalypse of Peter -- by the Christian saviour.

The fact that John did not immediately understand the full meaning of the dance ceremony fits into the Acts' picture of John's gradual perception of the divine Lord (above, section 111). This idea of a growth of insight in contacts with the divine saviour is highly characteristic of Gnostic revelatory literature.

VI Connections between cc.94-102 and the Asian episodes

In this final section we will pay attention to the relationship of

64 Cf. F. Siegert, Nag-Hammadi-Register (Tiibingen, 1982) 276. 65 Trans. NHLE, 325. 66 Unfortunately, the relevant passage of codex X (p. 4, lines 13f) is seriously damaged, cf. NHLE, 463.


cc.94-102 to the other portions of the book which speak about the activities of the apostle John in Asia. I propose that in discussing this question we try to put ourselves in the position of those historical readers who endorsed the ideas of John's speech, espe- cially the Gnostic views expressed in his account of the revelation granted by the Lord during the crucifixion scene. What did the other parts of the book mean to these readers (among them first of all the editor of the text and his spiritual kinship)? We may pre- sume a priori that their interest was not in the possible differences but rather in the basic agreements between cc.94-102 and the episodes about John's mission in Asia. The Asian episodes were quite possibly attractive to them not only on account of their novellistic features but also because aspects of these stories confir- med them in their religious convictions.

My thesis is that the stories about the apostle's activities in Asia appealed to Gnostic Christians who sympathized with the contents of cc.94-102 because these stories demonstrate what is true spiritual life. The following observations may clarify this.

To the Gnostics of cc.94-102, the outstanding example of the true follower of the Lord is obviously the apostle himself. John is a ouyysvfjq or spiritual relative of the Lord (101.6). At the conclusion of c.27 Lycomedes directs these words to John: 'if it is permitted that next to God those men are called gods who have benefited us, it is you, father ...'

The reason why John is feared or respected by the wicked powers and venerated by his converts is that the apostle is able to raise people to a higher level of being. In so far as in the Acts deceased people are raised in the literal sense of the word (it is significant that people who are not dead but in coma or paralyzed are also raised by John!) they do not rise to their former lives. John's resurrections are basically conversions to a new spiritual life.67 In c.52 John says to an old man: 'If you ~, ise up to the same life, you would be better to remain dead. But rise up to a better!' The resurrection of the body is without meaning if this

67 Schneider, Mystery, 24-6.

A GNOSTIC READING 15 1

resurrection is not a sign of the spiritual resurrection. Because Fortunatus does not accept the new life he is bound to die even after his dead body was raised by the apostle (84.1-2: John saw that Fortunatus' soul was not prepared to turn to the new life).

John's converts are reborn and resurrected to a new spiritual life in spite of the fact that they still (or again) live in this

Basically, their resurrection takes place during their lifetime.69 It seems clear to me that Gnostic Christians could identify themselves with these converts as well as with the 'members' of the Lord or with the race of (spiritual) humankind which was being gathered together in the cross of light."

The spiritual quality of the new life of John's converts appears from their ability to imitate the apostle in raising people from the dead. It is perhaps noteworthy that two followers of John who are reported to have performed such a miracle are women. C.24 tells how Cleopatra spoke to her dead husband as she was told by the apostle, and so raised Lycomedes immediately. In c.83 Drusiana raises Fortunatus.

As spiritual souls, John's converts are called to despise their bodies. The body is a 'dead house' for the soul (77.8). Accor- dingly, John's portrait by a painter is considered to be a picture of what is dead (29.19). The body, however beautiful it may be, ends

68 Cf. Bolyki, this volume, Ch. 11. This view is in agreement with the 'praesentic' eschatology of (passages of) the canonical Gospel of John, but it is at least compatible with the dualistic anthropology of cc.97-102, too. 69 The view that resurrection takes place during this life and not after death is already disputed in the second Letter to Timothy (2.16-8). Cf. section 90 (73.1-7) of the Gnostic Gospel according to Philip: 'Those who say: "One dies first and (then) one will rise" are wrong. If one does not receive the resurrection during this life, one will receive nothing when one dies.' 70 This holds true even if the antithesis with people who are not willing to be converted differs from the antithesis between the people being assembled in the luminous cross and the many around the cross, who seem to be non-enlightened Christians rather than pagans.

152 GERARD LUTTIKHLTIZEN

in the grave (35.1-3). True Christians despise things of the moment, while their faith remains the same to the end of life and is immune to all kinds of confusions and temptations (68.1-8 and 70.2-3).

The rejection of the body and its desires is highlighted in Drusiana's celibate life. Along the same lines, Cleopatra is pictured as a spiritual person in full control of her emotions. C.24 tells how John felt sony for Cleopatra when he saw that after the death of her husband she became neither distraught nor excited. Thereupon John said to the Lord: 'You see this self-control; you see this restraint, you see how Cleopatra's soul cries in silence..' Apparently a truly spiritual person should not be ruled by or give expression to such emotions as distress and excitement."

The Asian episodes may have been relevant to Gnostic Christians inasmuch as these stories showed how people like Cleopatra and Drusiana, but also Callimachus, Fortunatus, and others, reacted to the message of salvation mediated and put into practice by the apostle.

Finally, in this connection I would like to note that in the stories about John's activities in Asia we do not find any reference to the Old Testament and to the biblical Creator God, to the incar- nation, the earthly ministry, and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, nor to a hierarchical organization of the church.72 Junod and Kaestli are probably right when they maintain that the Johannine Acts without cc.94-102 (and 109) do not have a specifically Gnostic character (681: 'cette religion n'est pas gnostique'), but on the other hand it would be difficult to find textual data that are clearly inconsistent with the Gnostic pattern of religion as it becomes manifest in cc.94-102. In fact, as we have seen, the Asian episodes may have been not only interesting (because of their novelistic character) but also highly relevant (because of their spiritual content) to Gnostic readers.

71 Cf. Schneider, Mystery, 32-6. 72 Junod & Kaestli, AI, 680.

a gnostic reading of the acts of john (1995)

Documents