BALTHASAR AND GNOSTIC GENEALOGY

Against the backdrop of Balthasar's recurrence to genealogical labeling of modern discourses that many believe lacks Christian credibility, this essay examines Balthasar's understanding and use of the category of “Gnosticism” to designate modern speculative discourses and the history of their effects. While it is conceded that Balthasar uses “apocalyptic” and “Neoplatonism” to designate the same phenomenon, it is argued that “Gnosticism” is accorded priority. The essay traces the use of both multiple genealogical categories and the relative privileging of “Gnosticism” back to F. C. Baur. At the same time, it also traces back to Baur the essentially narrative criterion for use: Gnosticism is defined by a developmental narrative which has at its center divine pathos. Balthasar, however, inflects this differently than Baur by appeal to Irenaeus's view that the Gnostic metanarrative is a parasitic discourse that disfigures and refigures the biblical narrative. I illustrate how Balthasar is particularly concerned with what he regards as a “Gnostic return” in modern trinitarian thought of a Hegelian vintage. I conclude with some reflections as to how Balthasar's genealogy of Gnosticism could be further developed and conceptually refined.