菲奧雷的約阿希姆（Joachim of Fiore, 1135-1202，義大利名為Giovacchino da Fiore）這位修道院長是西歐中世紀最重要的末日天啟（apocalyptic）神學家，其歷史神學（theology of history）的創意和洞見在拉丁基督教傳統中舉足輕重。以其歷史神學為基礎，一些論述主張約阿希姆是諾斯底主義（Gnosticism）發展長流中的關鍵人物，上承古代「異端」馬吉安（Marcion of Sinope, c. 85-c. 160，另譯馬西昂、馬克安），下啟近代大哲如萊辛（Gotthold E. Lessing, 1729-1781）、黑格爾（Georg W. F. Hegel, 1770-1831）、孔德（Auguste Comte, 1798-1857）、馬克思（Karl Marx, 1818-1883）等人「第三時代」的歷史圖式。按此說法，約阿希姆的歷史神學儼然成為古代諾斯底「墮落」成為近現代諾斯底的始作俑者，故應為「第三時代」論所引致的動盪革命負責。 本文目的有二。首先，有鑑於漢語學界對約阿希姆仍較陌生，本文欲釐清其歷史神學的基本面貌，並分析其「末世的臨在化」之典範轉移的意義為何。再者，有鑑於較熟悉約氏的學術圈中常流傳其「開啟近現代諾斯底『第三時代』論」之說法，筆者欲檢視此論述的根據和有效性，並主張約氏本人與古今諾斯底各有延續和斷裂，難稱應為「第三時代」論及與之相關的革命負責，反倒是其後人對他的挪用才更加激進。以下將簡介約阿希姆的時代和生平（第貳節），以之為基礎描繪其三一論－聖靈論式歷史神學的基本面貌（第參節），接著聚焦討論此種歷史神學之典範意義（第肆節），並探討其如何延續且有別於古代和近現代的諾斯底主義（第伍節）。

Joachim of Fiore (1135-1202) is the most significant apocalyptic theologian in medieval Western Europe. With his creative and insightful theology of history, Joachim not only holds a vital place in the Latin Christian tradition but also is viewed by some as one pivotal role in the development of Gnosticism. This essay has two goals. The first is to provide basic outlines and to clarify the essential feature of Joachim’s theology of history. I point out that, exegetically based on the principle of concordance, Joachim constructs a theology of history of three stages with an emphasis on the eschaton of the Holy Spirit that is to come. While it is often argued that this Trinitarian-pneumatological theology of history has as its essential feature the “immanentisation of eschaton”, I register that this feature should be more properly described as “the re-divinisation of eschaton” or “the immanentisation of hope” , and that this immanentisation does not arise from history itself (from within), but from a dynamic that is transcendent and beyond (from without) . The second goal is to investigate the relationship between this theology of history and Gnosticism ancient and modern. Although some prominent scholars such as Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) hold the “immanentisation” in Joachim’s theology of history accountable for the “fall” of what they call the modern Gnosticism, I argue that his theology has continuity as well as discontinuity with both ancient Gnosticism and its modern form: while it anticipates the emphasis on the hope of history entering the eschaton, which is characteristic of the modern Gnosticism, it nonetheless retains some features of the ancient Gnosticism such as an elite mentality and a tendency to retreat from the world. Therefore, it is not Joachim but rather the modern Joachimism, which not only appropriates Joachim’s theology of history but further immenantises the dynamic of “immenantisation” which it keeps transcendent, that constitutes the “fall” of Gnositicism.