Did “The Gnostic Heresy” Influence Valentinus? An Investigation of Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.11.1 and 1.29

This article argues (1) that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a or the “gnos - tic heresy” (I renaeus, Against Heresies 1.11.1) referred to a specific social group whose theology is witnessed in Against Heresies 1.2 9 and (2) that the aeonology in this passage influenced Valentinus. There is no evidence that the aeonology in Against Heresies 1 .2 9 existed prior to 160 CE , the approximate date of Valentinu s’s demise; thus this mate - rial could not have shaped Valentinu s’s theolog y. Instead of thinking with Irenaeus in terms of unidirectional influence (I renaeus’s constructed “gnostic heresy” inspiring Valentinus/V alentinians), future theories ought to account for multiple directions of influence and entanglement between various early Christian theologians in the late second century CE.


Introduction
The publication of the second edition of The Gnostic Scriptures provides a good opportunity to investigate a particular theory of Bentley Layton and his student David Brakke that provides the basic structure of the textbook.1According to this theory, the "Gnostics" whose thought is described in Against Heresies (hereafter AH) 1.292 is a proper name that refers to a particular "school" -here indicating a specific social group.The theory, in other words, proposes a sociological entity (a school of actual persons with a relatively coherent mythological system), not just a "school of thought."3This professional school of "Gnostics" then influenced Valentinus and his heirs.Valentinus made the "gnostic" material "more overtly Christian."4Accordingly, Valentinians became a "reformed branch of gnostics."5To some extent, the Layton-Brakke theory depends on the arguments of another of Layton's students, Anne McGuire.6I will have opportunity to refer to the work of McGuire and Layton in this essay, but I will focus on Brakke's most recent formulation of the argument.7 1 Bentley Layton and David Brakke, ed.The Gnostic Scriptures Translated with Annotations and Introductions.2d ed.Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021).I would like to thank David Brakke for his input on this essay, along with Lance Jenott for his comments.2 Although some of the findings of this paper apply equally well to the figures represented in Irenaeus, AH 1.30-31.2, the focus will be on entirely AH 1.29.Methodologically, it is incorrect to conflate the theologies (or mythologies) represented in 1.29, 1.30, and 1.31, since they all seem to represent significantly different sources and thinkers.3 The Layton-Brakke theory thus goes beyond the point made by Richard Adelbert Lipsius (Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte neu untersucht [Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1875], 54, 191-225) that Irenaeus sometimes referred to "gnostics" in a restricted sense (to denote the thinkers represented in AH 1.29-31.2).One can agree with Lipsius on this score while still being skeptical about whether we can discover a coherent self-designating group of "Gnostics" represented by the material in AH 1.29.For the distinction between αἵρεσις as "school" versus a "school of thought," see David T. Runia, "Philo of Alexandria and the Greek Hairesis-Model," VC 53:2 (1999): 117-47.4 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures 281, cf.304. 5 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures 603.6 McGuire, "Valentinus and the 'Gnostike Hairesis': An Investigation of Valentinus' Position in the History of Gnosticism," (PhD.Dissertation, Yale 1983).7 David Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 1-51.Brakke acknowledges that his approach to "the Gnostics" "has not received the support of most working scholars" (ibid.46, cf.50).He also admits that "Irenaeus does not say that his 'Gnostics' called themselves that" (ibid.48).
The Latin translation is somewhat different.10qui enim est primus ab ea quae dicitur gnostica haeresis antiquas in suum characterem doctrinas transferens, Valentinus, sic definivit.11 For Valentinus was the first to carry over the old doctrines of the heresy called gnostic into his own style and sketched (them) as follows.
I will focus on the Greek text, which I take to be more original.One could understand it to mean that Valentinus was "the first from the so-called gnostic heresy" to adapt principles.12In this reading, Valentinus was not borrowing from the/a "gnostic heresy"; he was already part of the/a gnostic group.This theory is supported by the fact that Irenaeus called Valentinians "false gnostics" ( falsarii gnostici).13The title of Irenaeus's book can also be used to support the  It is probably better, however, to take τῆς λεγομένης γνωστικῆς αἱρέσεως with τὰς ἀρχὰς.In this case, Valentinus was the first of the Valentinians to adapt the principles of "the so-called gnostic heresy."14According to McGuire, λεγομένης indicates that Irenaeus was "not referring to the self-designation of certain persons ('Gnostikoi')."15He was, rather, alluding to a biblical text, 1 Timothy 6:20, which refers to "falsely-named gnosis" (τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως).16Although it could be middle, the participle λεγομένη is most likely passive.Accordingly, the adjective "gnostic" is probably an outsider term, not a self-designation of a particular group.Here we can contrast the active verb in reference to Marcellinians in AH 1.25.6:"they call themselves gnostics" (gnosticos se autem vocant).17 The phrase "gnostic heresy" (γωνστική αἵρεσις) seems to have been Irenaeus's own coinage.No Christian group after Justin Martyr would likely refer to themselves as a αἵρεσις.18Accordingly, αἵρεσις should not be translated as "school" or "school of thought," as if Irenaeus employed it as a neutral term.19In the immediate context, Irenaeus used a different word to refer to a school, namely διδασκαλεῖον.20Reportedly, Valentinus had a "school," but he borrowed from the gnostic "heresy." Irenaeus's use of τὰς ἀρχὰς is important, since it shows that the dependence of Valentinus on "the gnostic heresy" was an appeal to principles, not the plagiarism of words or phrases.21The aorist participle μεθαρμόσας confirms this point.One should not expect, Irenaeus implied, that the dependence of between founder and followers stand.It seems that Irenaeus wanted his readers to believe that the material in AH 1.29.2-31.2chronologically preceded Valentinus himself, and that Valentinus and his heirs genetically depended on these doctrines for the formation of their teaching.The immediate "mothers" and "fathers" in AH 1.31.3 may refer to the material in AH 1.29.1-1.31.2 (the multitudo gnosticorum), while the "ancestors" may recall the succession from Simon to Tatian in 1.23.1-1.28.1.26But Tatian, who was active in Rome in the 170s, can hardly be called an "ancestor," and the only "mothers" that Irenaeus mentioned were Helen and Marcellina.27This same Marcellina may have come to Rome as late as the mid-160s and was perhaps still alive at Irenaeus's time of writing.
An important point here is that the material in AH 1.29.1-1.31.2 seems not to refer to a single group, but to three or four groups, who were later called by three different names.Irenaeus called them "some of them" (quidam … eorum,), "others" (alii), "some people" (quidam) and still "others" (alii).28For Irenaeus, all four parties are part of "the crowd of gnostics" (multitudo gnosticorum).29One cannot, however, affirm that this "crowd" refers to a distinctive school for the simple reason that it was a "crowd" (or "mob").At any rate, the cacophony of this "crowd" was a point Irenaeus wanted to emphasize.30The extensive aeonologies delineated in AH 1.29.1-4 and 1.30.1-5 are not variations on a single myth.Rather, they are distinct aeonologies from what appear to be at least two distinct schools of thought, which can be called -for lack of better terms -"Barbeloite" and "Ophite."This is an interpretation advanced in the reception history of Irenaeus (Theodoret, Fab.1.12-14) and confirmed in modern scholarship -though in a more sophisticated and nuanced way.31 appeared like mushrooms from the ground."In fact, Irenaeus here seems to say that the "crowd of gnostics" in AH 1.29-31 rose directly from the Simonians (cf.AH 3.4.3),not via mediation (through Saturninus or Basilides, for instance).38They are thus "gnostic," not because "the crowd of gnostics" used "gnostic" as a self-designation, but because Irenaeus thought they derived from Simon, whom he viewed as father of a conglomerate category of "gnostics."39The persons or groups in AH 1.29-31 were never part of a specific and sociologically distinct group.They were, according to Irenaeus, part of a "heresy"40 and a "crowd"41 -a "heresy" and a "crowd" that did not denote a single and coherently defined group of people who used "gnostic" as a proper name.
Brakke claims that Irenaeus's "diction also suggests that 'Gnostics' and 'Gnostic school of thought' functioned as proper names for the group."But it is hard to see what in the diction of multitudo gnosticorum42 or of λεγομένη γνωστική αἵρεσις43 suggests a proper name.If multitudo gnosticorum were a proper name, it would have to be a proper name for the whole multitudo, a multitudo which does not suggest a coherent group.Irenaeus himself never distinguished a proper name from a non-specific epithet for a "crowd" of persons and groups -likened to wild mushrooms popping up from the ground.The mushrooms simile suggests, moreover, clusters of various persons and groups popping up everywhere.The distinction between a proper name and a non-specific epithet must be read into the text of Irenaeus.
It was Layton who argued for this distinction in his essay, "Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism."Here Layton averred that γνωστικός referred to "persons" (note the plural) "as social entities."44He mentioned examples of self-identifying γνώστικοι: the aforementioned Marcellinians,45 the unnamed γνωστικός mentioned by Clement,46 and the γνώστικοι referred to in Origen's Contra Celsum 5.61.One can add to this list the Prodicans,47 the Naassenes,48 and Clement himself.49If one can believe the author of the Refutation of All Heresies, the Peratics, Sethians, and Justin (author of the book Baruch) also self-identified as "gnostics."50In light of the many persons or groups who claimed the name "gnostic," it is surprising that Layton could conclude: "Gnōstikos was a self-designating proper name referring to a hairesis."51Without any explanation, the plural groups Layton mentioned become "a" singular hairesis with a particular if varied mythology.
Layton continued: "This is the only proper-name usage of the word gnōstikos in classical or late classical antiquity."52But the logic does not to follow.Layton cited multiple examples for self-designating γνωστικοί, not a singular one.It is therefore precipitous to conclude that "it [the term γνωστικός] was the Gnostics' own professional school name for themselves."53Layton intuited a singular group when his evidence pointed to multiple groups claiming a non-specifying name.The self-designating "gnostic" Marcellinians were primarily known as Marcellinians, as Celsus reported;54 likewise the self-designating "gnostic" Naassenes were apparently better known as "Naassenes."55Since at least half a dozen named figures and groups (including Clement) claimed the title "gnostic," none could plausibly claim it as an their own "professional school" name, because -even in the second century -the name was not specific enough.56Clement, if he knew a heresy with the proper name "Gnostic," would not have used "gnostic" in a positive sense for his true (intellectually mature) Christian around 200 CE.Still, Layton thought of the figures in AH 1.29 as a single and distinctive "Gnostic" group.In one place, however, Layton did not accurately report the data.He claimed that, "These persons are collectively called by the plural of gnōstikos (οἱ Γνωστικοί scil.ἄνθρωποι, Adv.Haer.1.29.1)."57It is unclear why Layton cited Greek here, since the Greek of AH 1.29.1 does not exist.When we turn to the Latin we see that Irenaeus did not refer to οἱ Γνωστικοί (ἄνθρωποι), but (as we have seen) to a multitudo gnosticorum -a "crowd of gnostics" -with "Barbelo" tacked on.The fact is, no specific, singular group of "gnostics" is referred to in AH 1.29.1.There is instead a "crowd" of figures popping up like mushrooms, none of whom are attested as using the name γνωστικός as a proper name.Given the ambiguity of the language, the Layton-Brakke theory of a single, self-designating and specifically "Gnostic" professional school represented first and foremost by the material in AH 1. 29  Let's return to the context of AH 1.11.Part of Irenaeus's posited conceptual similarity between AH 1.11 and 1.29 had to do with theories of aeonic proliferation (or aeonology).As is well known, Irenaeus made the Valentinians famous for their aeonology.It was an aspect of their thought that he considered foreign and unbiblical.One suspects that when he was collecting the literature of his opponents, he was looking in particular for discordant aeonologies to emphasize Valentinian διαφώνια.59 Yet Irenaeus had a problem.He wanted to connect Valentinus with Simon, the claimed founder of the gnostic heresy.60When Irenaeus dealt with the material that he inherited from Justin's Syntagma,61 however, he did not find a robust aeonology.Irenaeus claimed that Tatian developed an aeonology like the Valentinians,62 but Irenaeus knew that Tatian came after Valentinus.All that Irenaeus could find in the Syntagma was Simon of Samaria as "Father" and Helen of Tyre as "Thought," along with the proliferation of "powers and angels."63The powers and angels, however, were not the paired and named aeons characteristic of Valentinian lore.64 The only named aeons appear in the Basilides report -a string of six beings (Father, Nous, Logos, Phronesis, Irenaeus to draw a genetic connection between the material in AH 1.29 and Valentinian aeonology.In short, the aeonology in AH 1.29 became the proposed source for the Valentinian aeonology in AH 1.11.67 How exactly was the material in AH 1.29 connected to the "gnostic" succession fathered by Simon (AH 1.23-27)?The writer(s) represented in AH 1.29 never refer to Simon or to particularly Simonian theologoumena.All that Irenaeus could do was say that "the crowd of gnostics" (multitudo gnosticorum) which produced the document behind AH 1.29 rose from the Simonians.68 The connection seems forced.One can agree with McGuire that Irenaeus wanted his readers to conceive of the figures represented by AH 1.29-31 "as the descendants of Simon, and the immediate ancestors of Valentinus and the Valentinian school."69In the mind of Irenaeus, the material in AH 1.29 became the key evidence for connecting Simon's "crowd of gnostics" to Valentinus and the Valentinians.The conceptual bridge, for Irenaeus, was the similar aeonology (aeons in syzygies forming specific numerical patterns).
In drawing this genetic connection, however, Irenaeus did not know -perhaps could not have known -the date of the material in AH 1.29.He assumed that it was earlier than Valentinians and Valentinus himself, whose Roman debut Irenaeus synced with the time of Hyginus (about 136-140 CE).70But it not likely that the material in AH 1.29 predates 136 CE.Eusebius claimed that Basilides lived in Alexandria in the 130s CE, and that "from him derive the Gnostics."71If there is any truth to this report, it would indicate that "Gnostics" came after the 130s CE, when Valentinus was already a mature man.Saturninus, who may have influenced what is called Sethian thought, had no aeonology, at least as far as Irenaeus knew.72The material in AH 1.29 was presumably unknown to Justin Martyr, who never mentioned it.Yet if Justin its principles.78Aeonic speculation is something that probably emerged with Valentinus's disciple Ptolemy, whose thought seems to be the main target of Irenaeus's attack in AH 1.1-8.79Ptolemy and his disciples -and we can add Marcus, Secundus, among others -were the real innovators in Valentinian aeonology, since they combined it with Neopythagorean number speculation resulting in a distinctive numerical proliferation of aeons (the 8-10-12 pattern).80 Tertullian confirms this reconstruction.He said it was Ptolemy who distinguished the aeons with names and numbers as personal substances outside of God (Ptolemaeus intravit, nominibus et numeris aeonum distinctis in personales substantias, sed extra deum determinatas).Valentinus, by contrast, conceived of aeons as thoughts, sentiments, and emotions within the height of divinity (quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus, motus incluserat).81If this report is true, it is more evidence that Valentinus did not adapt the material in AH 1.29.If he did, he would have conceived of independent, named and paired aeons outside of the Father; but -even according to the hostile witness, Tertullian -he did not.82

Distinctive Terminology
Another hint of a later date for the material in AH 1.29 regards terminology.One can ask another chronological question.Assuming that the "Barbeloites" with their negative view of the creator were active in the early second century CE, why didn't their theories of an evil creator convince any of the major early Egyptian theologians -Basilides, Carpocrates, and Valentinus?None of these theologians, as they are reported, depicted an evil creator who claimed to be the only deity (a view I have called negative demiurgy)?92Did they all independently reject negative demiurgy although they all knew about it in the Egypt of the 130s and 140s CE?Such a view seems unlikely.It is more probable that the negative demiurgy as found in the Gospel of Judas and in AH 1.29-30 was influenced by Marcionite thought, which had its heyday in the 150s and 160s CE.

8
Ap. John and Gos.Judas  .Although the Christ-light figure is identified with the "Son" ( filius) in AH 1.29.3,Irenaeus did not previously reveal that he was also the "Only-begotten" Son.The name "Monogenes" recalls John 1:18 where Christ is called the "Only-begotten."We thus have more evidence of the later Christian updating of the material in AH 1.29, an updating that likely took place after the writing of Gos.Judas.preceded the Gnostics intellectually, rather than the other way around, as Irenaeus would have it."118Theodoret119 thought that the "Barbeloites" (from Irenaeus, AH 1.29) came "from the seeds of Valentinus" (ἐκ τῶν Βαλεντίνου σπερμάτων).We can also add Epiphanius, who wrote that "the heresy of falselynamed Gnosis grew up from the pretext (or: proclamation) of Valentinus" (ἔτι δὲ ἐκ προφάσεως Οὐαλεντίνου ἡ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως ἐφύη αἵρεσις).This "heresy," Epiphanius clarified, "called its own members 'Gnostics,' from whom are the Gnostics" (ἥτις γνωστικοὺς τοῦς αὐτῆς ὠνόμασεν, ἀφ' ἧς οἱ γωνστικοὶ).120 The fact that three of Irenaeus's heirs all interpreted him as saying the opposite as the Layton-Brakke model should at least give one pause.In the 1980s, Simone Pétrement also proposed this direction of influence (from Valentinus to Gnostics) in her work A Separate God.121Although her arguments generally failed to convince, her well-researched discussion joins with more recent research showing how the evidence can be read in different ways.122

Conclusion
Some final clarifications are in order.It would be a misreading of my thesis that AH 1.11.1 and 1.29-31 represent (mere) heresiological constructs.I believe that Irenaeus, in writing these sections, summarized actual documents from real authors.I am not in principle against the idea that these authors belonged to groups (though I wouldn't call them "gnostics").My thesis is only that we cannot define a specific sociological group (the "gnostic school") from these reports.My view, then, is that we can explore historical links between documents which belonged to authors who may in turn have belonged to groups.This paper is not about the overall reliability of Irenaeus.It is only about the reliability of his specific claim that Valentinus was influenced by "a/the gnostic heresy" (AH 1.11.1) as represented by AH 1.29.Even if Irenaeus was wrong in this specific claim, he was not a liar.We have no reason to doubt that Irenaeus believed that the material in AH 1.29 preceded and influenced Valentinus, based on what Irenaeus thought was shared theologoumena.123 To evaluate Irenaeus's claim about unidirectional genetic connection, however, one must depend not on conceptual similarities, but on careful historical reconstruction.The fatal flaw of Irenaeus's claim is that we cannot date the material in AH 1.29 earlier than about 165 CE.Accordingly, Valentinus could not have "adapted the principles" of a constructed "gnostic heresy," as supposedly witnessed by AH 1.29.To agree with Irenaeus in AH 1.11.1, or to think that it reflects the actual course of intellectual history, would thus be a mistake.
In the early 1980s, McGuire rightly recognized that "there is good reason to be suspicious of Irenaeus's claim [in AH 1.11.1].Irenaeus's conception of the varieties of religious thought which were known to Valentinus was limited by the evidence at his disposal, and by his polemically motivated goals of showing the inferiority of 'Gnosis' to the Church.Even more important, guided more by his concern to overthrow the Valentinians of his own day, Irenaeus may have misrepresented the historical position of the founder in order better to sharpen his argument against the source and root of the school."124Nevertheless, McGuire still wanted to derive "at least partial truth in Irenaeus's claim.Clearly," she wrote, "there were varieties of Gnosticism that developed and flourished before Valentinus, and Valentinus and members of his school may well have been familiar with, or even indebted to, some of those varieties."125 McGuire's latter point is sensible (if one accepts "Gnosticism" as a big-tent term), but it deflects from the key issue.The question is: did a specific group (or the person responsible for AH 1.29) influence Valentinus?There were indeed many varieties of Christianity that could be classed under the modern category of "Gnosis/Gnosticism."Some of these varieties did predate Valentinus (e.g., Simonians, Basilideans, and Saturninians).The problem is: none of these figures, as far as we know, claimed the name "Gnostics" as a proper name, and none of them presented an aeonology with paired aeons in the 8-10-12 pattern.Most importantly, the figures that did come before Valentinus (Basilides, Saturninus, and probably Carpocrates) were not part of "the crowd of gnostics" known from AH 1.29.The material in AH 1.29 probably did not exist between 120 and 160 CE -the time when Valentinus was alive.By about 160, Valentinus was probably dead.Justin Martyr, writing about that time, referred only to his disciples.126 An improved reconstruction of the historical events can be advanced here.The Gospel of Judas became known in Rome between 155-165 CE.Building

from such mothers, fathers, and ancestors the Valentinians came, just as their very doctrines and canons show" (a talibus matribus et patribus et proavis eos qui a Valentino sint, sicut ipsae sententiae et regulae ostendunt eos). If the statements in AH
Valentinus on "the gnostic heresy" is easily detected.Adaptation occurred.Valentinus had a διδασκαλεῖον with a "peculiar character" (ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα).Irenaeus was prepared to recognize the distinctiveness of the Valentinian movement, but he was not prepared to call it a Christian assembly (ἐκκλήσια).1.30.15 and 1.31.3 revise the remark made in 1.11.1, then it was not Valentinus (the founder) who depended on "the gnostic heresy," but his followers (the multi-headed beast).It is better, I think, to let the ambiguity 22Einar Thomassen, "Were there Valentinian Schools?" in Christian Teachers in Secondcentury Rome, ed.H. Gregory Snyder (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 32-44 at 33; Thomassen, "Gnosis and Philosophy in Competition," in Philosophia in der Konkurrenz von Schulen, Wissenschaften und Religionen, ed.Christoph Riedweg (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017), 61-74.23 I agree with Christoph Markschies ("Nochmals: Valentinus und die Gnostikoi: Beobachtungen zu Irenaeus, Haer.I 30,15 und Tertullian, Val 4.2," VC 51:2 [1997]: 179-87 at 180-82]) that there is no need to excise the de (Rousseau/Doutreleau, Contre les Hérésies, SC 263.311).24 Irenaeus, AH 1.30.15. 25 For further discussion of AH 1.30.15,see Schmid, Christen und Sethianer 223-38.Downloaded from Brill.com 01/01/2024 06:04:51AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Litwa 10.1163/15700720-bja10068 | Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1-23 One can now turn more directly to Brakke's arguments.In his book, The Gnostics, Brakke argues that at least the people represented by AH 1.29 refer to a sociologically distinct group, "the Gnostics."Headmitsthat"Irenaeus does not say that these Christians called themselves Gnostics, but it seems almost certain that they did."It is "almost certain," Brakke urges, because γνωστικός was a positive term in the second century CE and because Irenaeus used no other label to refer to this group.32Thiskind of inferential logic, however, does not allow the interpreter to claim near certainty.It is not clear that those represented by the material in AH 1.29-31 represent a single group.33It is true, moreover, that in the second century CE, γνωστικός was considered a positive term.Yet it was a term self-applied by several persons and groups, not by just one.Furthermore, Irenaeus classed the separate groups in AH 1.29-31 (the "some", "others," and "others") among the multitudo gnosticorum.34Inthistext, he never actually gives them what can be called a proper name -probably because a name did not appear in his sources.One should, however, mention that the phrase multitudo gnosticorum Barbelo may, if Barbelo is read as genitive, be some sort of group designation, if one does not excise Barbelo as a gloss.35Irenaeusreferred to his opponents in AH 1.29 as "a/the crowd of gnostics."36If Irenaeus had simply called them "gnostics" he would have confused them with the followers of Marcellina, who "called themselves gnostics" (se vocant gnosticos).37Instead, Irenaeus mentioned an amorphous "crowd."They apparently had no other chosen name or named leaders.Referring to an ambiguous "crowd of gnostics," enabled Irenaeus to trace the material in AH 1.29 back to the Simonians, as he noted: "from these aforementioned Simonians (ex his qui praedicti sunt Simoniani), a crowd of gnostics [Barbelo] rose up and have 26This is the hypothesis of Rousseau/Doutreleau, Contre les Hérésies, SC 263.313-14.27Irenaeus,AH1.23.2;1.25.6.Rousseau/Doutreleau unnecessarily delete matribus (Contre les Hérésies, SC 263.314) despite the fact that it is attested in the MSS and makes good gram-31 See esp.Tuomas Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence, NHMS 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 9-63.For the text of Theodoret, see Theodoret von Kyros, Unterscheidung von Lüge und Wahrheit: Abriss über die üblen Märchen der Häretiker.Zusammenfassung der göttlichen Lehrsätze, ed.Benjamin Gleede, GCS NF 26 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020), 91-95.Downloaded from Brill.com 01/01/2024 06:04:51AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Review and Critique 32 Brakke, Gnostics 32.33 Lipsius, Quellen 219-21; Norbert Brox, "Γνωστικοί als Häresiologischer Terminus," ZNW 57 (1966): 105-114; Alistair H.B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy (London: T&T Clark, 1996), 1-10; Brakke, Gnostics 31-35; Schmid, Christen und Sethianer 223-Heresy Catalogues in Early Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 146-72.See also Jens Holzhausen, "Gnostizismus, Gnosis, Gnostiker.Ein Beitrag zur antiken Terminologie," JbAC 44 (2001): 58-74 at 73-74.37 Irenaeus, AH 1.25.6.Downloaded from Brill.com 01/01/2024 06:04:51AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Litwa 10.1163/15700720-bja10068 | Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1-23 Ref. 5.6.4.M. David Litwa, ed., Refutation of All Heresies Translated with an Introduction and Notes, WGRW 40 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016).49 E.g., Clement, Strom.4.3.9.2.See further Brox, "Γνωστικοί" 106-113.The study of Morton Smith, "The History of the Term Gnostikos" in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, ed.Bentley 56Schmid, Sethianer 237.Brakke himself puts the problem well: "if multiple and diverse ancient people and groups were calling themselves Gnostics, how can we separate one such group out as the only people to whom we should give this name?"(Gnostics 48).Downloaded from Brill.com 01/01/2024 06:04:51AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Litwa 10.1163/15700720-bja10068 | Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1-23 Not only is it never found in any of the sources that Layton wishes to identify as core to the 'gnostic' religion, the self-designation is attested in other traditions with significantly different mythologies … It is not clear that Layton has shown why gnōstikos should be considered to have been more of a proper name for adherents in Schenke's 'Sethian' group than it was for followers of Marcellina or Justin or the Naassenes.For that matter, I confess that I am not yet so convinced that the usage of gnōstikos by any such But was Irenaeus right about the genetic connection and its unidirectional movement?
I turn now to try to answer the basic historical question: could Valentinus -here focusing particularly on the claim in AH 1.11.1 -have adapted the principles of the material represented in AH 1.29?Was this data even available to Valentinus during his lifetime?It is agreed that Irenaeus wanted to make a linear and unidirectional genetic connection (from "gnostic heresy" to Valentinus's "school") based on his own perceived conceptual similarities between the material in AH 1.11 (the supposed doctrine of Valentinus) and AH 1.29.There are indeed 57 Layton, "Prolegomena," 338.58Michael Williams offers further criticism of Layton in "Was There a Gnostic Religion?Strategies for a Clearer Analysis," in Was there a Gnostic Religion?ed.Antti Marjanen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 55-79 at 75-76: (1) "this particular selfdesignation gnōstikos is never used in Nag Hammadi or other original sources"; as a result, "with the very first step … into original sources Layton must abandon this landmark in favor of grouping according to continuity in mythological tradition"; (2) "the self-designation gnōstikos as the foundational criterion is … applied somewhat inconsistently.persons would have been different in type from the way in which Clement of Alexandria speaks of gnōstikos as an ideal … that in the case of a certain group it must be understood strictly as a proper name employed 'not to say what they were, but only who they were' [Layton, "Prolegomena," 344] seems to me to be more of an assertion than something that has been (or can be) demonstrated from the evidence" (italics original).Downloaded from Brill.com 01/01/2024 06:04:51AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/certain conceptual similarities.
The earliest attestation of Προύνικος, which appears in AH 1.29.4, is attested by Celsus, who was probably writing in the late 170s.83Thematerial in the PeraticBrill, 2006), 269-314.Thomassen opined that Valentinus "taught a protology with aeons" but that he "seems not to have written a system.… Instead, the importance of the founder more probably lay in the continual use of his psalms in worship and in the inspiration derived from his homilies and letters" (ibid.492).81 Tertullian, Against Valentinians 4.2 in Jean-Claude Fredouille, Contre les Valentiniens, SC 280:86.See further Christoph Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus?Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins, WUNT 65 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 310-11.82 If Valentinus wrote the Gospel of Truth (an "extremely likely" hypothesis for Layton, Gnostic Scriptures 309), this would be further evidence that he did not conceive of aeons external to the Father ("the entirety was inside of him," NHC I,3 17.5, trans.Layton).See report probably came after Irenaeus, since he evidently knew nothing about it.Likewise, the distinctive figure of Adamas appears elsewhere only in the Naassene report,84 which also probably came after Irenaeus in the late second or early third century CE.Distinctive mythological figures of AH 1.29, in short, appear late in the second century, roughly between 175-200 CE.If Irenaeus was writing as late as 188 CE,85 then there is room to fit the original document represented by AH 1.29 between 165-180 CE.I am aware that there are theories positing the very early appearance of the "Barbeloite" movement, the tentative name for movement that produced the material in AH 1.29.86John D. Turner, for instance, saw the earliest Barbeloites as a heterodox Jewish group who were Christianized in the course of the second century.Their aeonology was already Christianized by the time it reached Irenaeus.87But when one looks at the evidence for pre-Christian Barbeloites, it is virtually non-existent.Largely, Turner identified Barbeloite material (in Ap.John and elsewhere) he considered to be Jewish and projected backward into history a purely Jewish Barbeloite group.Strictly speaking, Turner's only hard evidence for dating the group appears in the third century: Porphyry's attestation of Zostrianos and Allogenes circulating among members of Plotinus's seminar (240-265 CE).88 Turner considered Trimorphic Protennoia to be Barbeloite and early (between 115-140 CE).Yet his only evidence for an early date was that Trimorphic Protennoia reflected the debate over the interpretation of John that occurred around the writing of 1 John.89This is not a secure means of dating a since such Johannine debates could have occurred any time after the Johannine literature was written.Paul-Hubert Poirier has more recently established that Trimorphic Protennoia depends on the longer version of the Apocryphon of John.90Although Poirier dated the longer version as early as the late second century, it is more likely to have been composed in the early third.91A likely date for the Trimorphic Protennoia is thus 225-250 CE.
78 Irenaeus, AH 1.11.1.79 Much depends on the words in AH 1.8.5: et Ptolemaeus quidem ita, which some scholars understand as a gloss.For recent discussion, see Markschies, "Grande Notice," 53-55.80 Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the 'Valentinians' (Leiden: further Benoit Standaert, "L'Évangile d'Vérité: critique et lecture," NTS 22:3 (1976): 243-75; Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus?340-56; Geoffrey Smith, Valentinian Christianity: Texts and Translations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2020), 127-28.83 Origen, Cels.6.34.See further Anne Pasquier, "Prouneikos: A Colorful Expression to Designate Wisdom in Gnostic Texts," in Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, ed.Karen L. Downloaded from Brill.com 01/01/2024 06:04:51AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 95w turn to the Apocryphon of John.As is well known, the material in AH 1.29.1-4overlaps with a section in the Apocryphon,93and some would date the (short recension of the) Apocryphon as early as 150 CE.94This dating, however, is too early to allow for the combination of the Barbeloite aeonology (as in AH 1.29) with the paradise narrative in AH 1.30, both of which were later "Sethianized" by the inclusion of a heavenly Seth.This interweaving of distinct mythologies, as we see in surviving versions of Ap.John, probably occurred in the early third century CE.95This observation undercuts the assertion of Brakke that Irenaeus had Ap.John in his possession around 180 CE.96Following Irenaeus, Brakke concludes that "some version" of Ap.John "must" have appeared "no later than the middle of the second century, most likely earlier if, as Irenaeus claims, Valentinus and his students knew its teachings."97I agree with the more careful conclusion of Frederick Wisse and Michael Waldstein that Irenaeus likely did not have what we call Ap.John in his possession, but a document "which was the apparent source of the first part of the main revelation discourse" in Ap.John.98 Ap.John as we have it possesses a dialogic frame narrative introducing the risen Jesus to the apostle John.Irenaeus showed no knowledge of this frame narrative or the salvation history section of Ap.John.99Even his presentation of the unnameable Father in AH 1.29 lacks the negative theology and Neopythagorean terminology (e.g., "monad") we find in Ap.John.100If Irenaeus had a version of the extant Ap.John, he would likely have mentioned it, since attribution of such material to the apostle John stood in tension with his depiction of John (e.g., AH 3.11.9).When Irenaeus had an apostolic book title, such as the Gospel of Judas, he mentioned it.101One can deduce, then, that Irenaeus did not have what we call Ap.John, only an early version of an aeonology that was redacted into Ap.John.102If the negative of Autogenes, who is demoted to become the offspring of the pair Logos and Ennoia.112AH 1.29.3 also introduces a trinity of Father-Mother-Son.113No explicitly trinitarian structure exists in Gos.Judas.114Finally, the four angels/luminaries mentioned in Gos.Judas all receive names and named partners in AH 1.29.(In fact, the insistence on an Ogdoad of named pairs in AH 1.29 might indicate influence from the better-known Ogdoad of Ptolemean aeonology as revealed in AH 1.1.1).Accordingly, if we date the aeonology of Gos.Judas between 150-165 CE, one would plausibly date the aeonology in AH 1.29 somewhat later, between 165-180 CE.115One final indication of later date for the material in AH 1.29 concerns the figure of Monogenes.Monogenes appears suddenly in 1.29.4 without being mentioned beforehand.To find the identity of Monogenes, one must turn to later instantiations of the myth,116 where Monogenes is identified with the Christ-Light figure