Loading...In my previous post I reproduced my Introduction to the Sethian Gnostics from the new edition of my reader in early Christianity, After The New Testament, 2nd edition. One other highly important group of Christian Gnostics are known as the Valentinians. Here is what I say about them in the book
***************************************************
Valentinians
Unlike the Sethian Gnostics, the Valentinians were named after an actual person, Valentinus, the founder and original leader of the group. We know about the Valentinians from the writings of proto-orthodox heresiologists beginning with Irenaeus and by some of the writings discovered among the Nag Hammadi Library that almost certainly derive from Valentinian authors, including one book that may actually have been written by Valentinus himself (The Gospel of Truth).
Valentinus was born around 100 CE and was raised in Alexandria Egypt. He allegedly was a student of the Christian teacher Theudas, who was in turn a disciple of the apostle Paul. Valentinus moved to Rome in the late 130s and there became an influential speaker and teacher. According to some of our early reports he very nearly was elected to be the bishop of Rome. Despite his distinctive views – which for the proto-orthodox seemed completely aberrant – he and his followers continued on in the Roman church. There is nothing to suggest that he or his followers started their own churches; they worshiped with proto-orthodox Christians and were in outer appearance very difficult to tell apart from them.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a member. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW, WILL YA???
Gnostic teachings seem kind of strange, but then, traditional Christianity has its own strange teachings, like God couldn’t forgive sins unless He sacrificed Himself, or part of Himself, and you have to be dunked underwater to partake in the sacrifice of Jesus, etc. Why do you think one strange set of views prevailed while the gnostic strange set of views died out? Just too strange?
Ah, lots of reasons — and complicated. It’s the story of one form of Christianity triumphing over others. I tell part of the story in my book Lost Christianities, where I come up with a few suggestions about why it worked out the way it did.
Dr. Ehrman….just perusing the blog as a new member to see what has previously been discussed. A comment above regarding God having to sacrifice Himself or part of Himself to forgive sins is something I have wondered about before. What is the going understanding on this? Why would God have to satisfy His own Law? Wouldn’t that make Him a victim of His own legalism? Am I just misunderstanding the whole take on it? Please advise. Thanks!
This question of “satisfying his own law” is a modern view. Maybe others on the blog know where it came from; I don’t recall encountering it anywhere except in the writings of C. S. Lewis. But the idea of Christ’s death as an atonement is quite early — already in the writings of Paul. Unfortunately, Paul doesn’t pursue the “logic” of the view….
Heresiologists presuppose they are in a position to “know” a priori so as to identify heresy.
Eusebius spoke ill of Papias as having misunderstood what he heard, in effect, nullifying credibility for the
one fellow who went out of his way to test the sayings of the remaining witnesses by bothering to ask!
For example: Papias reported a ten thousand year reign of Christ on earth (a bloated version of which appears in the Jehovah’s Witness theology of Paradise earth).
Question:
If indeed, the aging Apostles (and contemporary witnesses of their teachings) had been properly interviewed and quoted by Papias in his six volumes, and those testimonies turned out to be “wild and wooly,” on what firm basis did the heresiologist stand in expunging their words? How can we get behind the “received text” if it replaced something closer to actual teaching, but summarily dismissed by the hubris of an Iranseus or Eusebius, etc?
Archimedes is supposed to have said, “Give me a long enough lever and a place to stand and I can move the world.” If taken literally, he sounds like a nutjob! Let’s brand him a heretic 🙂
Thanks.
I’m a little confused by your question, but one point that I should make is that Papias never claims to have interviewed any of the apostles. He says the he talked to people who had known others who were disciples of the apostles.
Re: Valentinus et al . . .
QUESTION:
When, where, how, who decided animals (cats, dogs, beloved pets) have neither a soul nor a prospect for
paradise? I’m referring to mainstream Christian teaching which seems extraordinarily exclusivistic in their smugness.
(Yes, this is a stupid question 🙂
I have no idea!
Hi Bart,
In your book The Triumph of Christianity you state that “some forms of Christian Gnosticism, such as Valentinianism, appear to have drawn most of their members not directly from paganism but from fellow Christians who had already left pagan traditions” while you are discussing the idea that exclusivity and evangelical nature of Christianity was the main reason of the triumph. I was wondering whether you think Valentinianism had a strong urge to go around and evangelize in a way proto-orthodoxy did? It seems to me unlikely. After all, weren’t they (Valentinians) more like a philosophical school of thought for elite intelectuals (working inside of proto-orthodox circles but with their teachings going outside of the limits) who could grasp the deep knowledge of god, pleroma etc?
Thanks for the help.
Kind regards
Yes, I’d agree. There’s not much to suggest they were out winning converts among non-Christains. That’s my point: they weren’t evangelistic with outsiders, even if they tried to draw Christian insiders into their midst.
That means I understood your thesis. If I may pursue this thing one step further. Why do you think they weren’t evangelistic with outsiders? Do you believe it has to do with their view on humanity and salvation (humanity divided between three classes etc)? Maybe they thought that pagans are “no go zone” while other Christians had (in their opinion) a chance for salvation?
I’m not sure. They appear to have thought that before someone could be in the “inner circle” they first had to be in the “bigger circle” — and that wasn’t their task.