Loading...In my previous post I reproduced my Introduction to the Sethian Gnostics from the second edition of my reader in early Christianity, After The New Testament. 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.
Valentinus nonetheless had been heavily influenced by the Sethian Gnostic myth and adopted it into a kind of proto-orthodox framework. His understanding of the divine and material realms were somewhat less complex than the Sethian; his views of the creator God were not as harsh; he was not as condemning of the material world; and he had a more developed understanding of the human race: according to Irenaeus, he and his followers taught that just as a person has a body, soul, and spirit, so too the race itself is divided up into people who are purely animal (bodies that ceased to exist when they died), or psychic (i.e., “soulish” – these are regular Christians who can be saved and given a decent afterlife if they have faith and do good works), or pneumatic (i.e. “spiritual: – these are the Valentinians who understand the deeper truths that are necessary for a full salvation in a return to the Pleroma above).
None of the surviving Valentinian writings lays out …
To see the rest of this post, sorry, but you gotta belong to the blog. Belonging, as a rule, is good. Why not belong? It won’t cost much and you can go to bed easy, knowing every penny you pay goes to charity.
You say the Sethian sect was thriving by the middle of the second century. Any idea when it may have originated? Any chance it could have been in existence when any of the New Testament texts were written? I once heard a pastor say certain parts of 1 John were in response to Gnostic thought, but wasn’t sure if that was feasible or not.
There’s no evidence of it that early; I’d guess early second century.
From what I understand of Gnosticism it’s roots are debated with some scholars seeing it in Hellenistic philosophies. Gilles Quispel saw Gnosticism as an independent Jewish development, tracing its origins to Alexandrian Jews, to which group Valentinus was also connected. I have also read that Gnosticism also reflects Hinduism and Buddhism especially in the philosophy that states All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good, that there is an unknowable God, who gave rise to many lesser spirit beings called Aeons (Avatars).
My questions are, do you see Judaic roots in Gnosticism or did it specifically rise in the early Christian Churches? Is there any evidence linking Gnosticism with Hinduism and Buddhism?
It does seem to have connections with some form of Jewish apocalyptic thought, and it’s probably no accident that some Gnostic texts are obsessed with the creation accounts in the book of Genesis.
To make sure I have this straight… they would agree with the proto orthodox that Jesus came in the flesh and died for our sins, etc. but also thought that was a simple top layer to a deeper interpretation? Which is why it was so hard to root them out! They were agreeing with the church but then adding deeper meanings to it? How would they discuss these deeper meanings to others? During a church service or having further private meetings after?
My sense is that they would be willing to say these things, but that the “deeper meaning” they found in them would, for most people, seem to contradict their literal meaning.
One analogy might be that the Valentinians were to proto-orthodox Christianity what Kabbalah is to Judaism. That is, it was considered esoterica that the everyday ordinary, woolly believer wasn’t aware of or concerned with, but that the higher level ordained members dabbled in.
There is a 24-lecture course on Gnosticism in The Great Courses, “Gnosticism: From Nag Hammadi to the Gospel of Judas.” The lecturer is Dr. David Brakke.
Is your book “Christianity After the New Testament” a trade book or Text book? Is it available on Amazon? Is it his the only book you’ve written about the various Gnostic sects?
It’s an anthology of texts intended mainly for classroom use, but is helpful for anyone wanting to see the writings of Christians in teh second and third Christian centuries. Definitely available on Amazon.
Not to deprive Bart of royalties, but booksprice.com is a good source of low cost 2nd hand books.
for example
it seems “resurrection” is a term that Valentenians would use but not literally, compared to their orthodox peers.
is that right?
Yup.
Where does the Hypostasis of the Archons fit into all of this? Sethian? Valentinian?
It is Sethian.
Is there any reason to suppose Valentinus is the legendary St. Valentine?
Nope.
I have read a few papers from Gilles Quispel. Foremost of interest were “Origen and the Valentinian Gnosis” and “The original doctrine of Valentinus the Gnostic”.
Quotes:
“Origen was influenced at certain points by the strange “vertical” exegesis of men like Heracleon, a pupil of Valentinus.”
“There has been a way from Valentinus to Heracleon, and from Heracleon to Origen. The transition is much more gradual than a phenomenological comparison can discern.”
“In my commentary I have given several examples of how near this writing comes to Origen. From these I choose a few items now, which are essential: 1) the eternal generation of the Son.”
“Therefore we may say that “Heracleon” teaches an ontological and eternal Trinity. We see then that the catholicising tendencies in the Western school of Valentinianism went as far as to replace the tetras by a trias. But this also means that the Gnosis of this school was much nearer to Origen than the original doctrine of Valentinus. Whereas it was usual to oppose the ideas of Origen to those of the Gnostics, we now see that in the second half of the second century the transitions had become so gradual as to become almost unperceptible.
In this perspective Origen is a consummation of gnostic developments. Just as Valentinus christianised a non-christian gnostic system, so “Heracleon” catholicised Valentinus and Origen in his turn “Heracleon”.
(Gilles Quispel – ORIGEN AND THE VALENTINIAN GNOSIS)
Have you read Quispelˋs work and how do you view his conclusions? Did Origen borrow certain items from Heracleon that found their way into later dogmatic statements such as the nicean creed?
As there are very few people to inquire such things, I would appreciate some input, also for more literature.
It’s a very complicated story. WE know a lot more about Valentinianism than was available to Quispel (who was a brilliant scholar), and the relationship of Origen to GNosticism is vexed. Origen’s commentary on John provides direct refutations of Heracleon’s own commentary, often quoted verbatim before being refuted. I wrote an article many years ago about how Origen misunderstood some of Heracleon’s theological views becuase he had a different form of John in places; but I haven’t kept up with the discussion about the mutual influences of the two. If you’re interested in VAlentinus’s theology, I’d suggest the book by Einar Thomassen.
Bart: “WE know a lot more about Valentinianism than was available to Quispel (who was a brilliant scholar) …”
Wasn’t Gilles Quispel one of the principal editors of the Nag Hamadi texts? What’s become known about Valentinus or Valentinianism since Quispel’s subsequent scholarship?
He was a truly major scholar of Gnosticism. But as in all fields, shorter folk sit on the shoulders of giants. Middle level experts in quantum physics today know a lot more than Nils Bohr….
Bart: “He [Gilles Quispel] was a truly major scholar of Gnosticism. But as in all fields, shorter folk sit on the shoulders of giants. Middle level experts in quantum physics today know a lot more than Nils Bohr….”
I certainly agree with that! Can you point to specific points that Quispel did not grasp? Any scholars that critique Quispel directly? My impression is that he certainly attempts a reading of the Nag Hamadi texts that strives to incorporate his earlier scholarship on gnosticism based on the excerpts and writings of the heresiologists. So perhaps he gives too much credence to the heresiologists and does not allow the Nag Hamadi texts speak for themselves?
It’s been many years since I’ve read his work so I’m afriad I’m of no use, once again!
Hello, Bart! Do you think Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora was written in the second century?
Yes, that’s the consensus.