Valentinus and the Theology of Grace

Valentinus and the Theology of Grace
J. WOODROW M C C R E E
Introduction
OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS during which I have worked with David
Lotz, he has consistently emphasized the radical shift in intellectual history that came with the Reformation. The ancient Platonist/Christian
theological assumption that "only like can know like" was supplanted by
a new understanding that it is precisely those "unlike" God who are the
recipients of grace. The gulf between the creature and the Creator, the
sinfulness of humanity and the righteousness of God, was rendered
absolute. No spark of divinity within the sinful human being could provide the basis for a return to one's Unfällen state; no ladder of divine
ascent was possible. Only the mighty mercy of the gracious God could
render a person righteous; only the gracious act of God, received by a living faith alone, could restore humanity to fellowship and enable us to
stand confidently in the presence of the Living One.
It is fitting, then, in a festschrift for Dr. Lotz, to take up the question
of the ground of knowing God. In the second century the Christian
churches faced the question of "like knowing like" most vividly in their
encounter with Valentinian gnosticism. Heresiologists such as Irenaeus
of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria claimed that Valentinus and his followers taught that truly spiritual Christians are "saved by nature and not
by grace."1 It is the purpose of this paper to determine whether such a
1
Clement makes such an accusation against Valentinus in particular in Stromateis
IV.89.1-3, fragment 4 in Völker's enumeration. I shall use this standard enumeration for
convenience, though I will not discuss the fragments in Völker's sequence, since that
sequence is not conducive to a discussion of Valentinus' theology of grace.
127
J. WOODROW MCCREE
128
claim is accurate in the case of Valentinus. In the end I shall conclude that
there is a reasonable basis for applying this criticism to Valentinus, with
some qualifications.
It is important to note, however, that such an assertion must be carefully counterbalanced with the recognition that Valentinus also had an
operative theology of grace, albeit in a less noticed form. These seemingly contradictory emphases are best understood as descriptions of his
own mystical experience from two different perspectives. (1) The perspective "from above" describes the gnostic from the standpoint of his
origin in the eternal being and purpose of God. (2) The perspective "from
below" involves the experience of corruption, need, and deliverance that
the gnostic endures throughout this earthly life. It is from this second
perspective that Valentinus7 theology of grace can be detected.
These two perspectives are held in unresolved tension, though
admittedly the language implying identity with the divine nature is glaringly apparent from an orthodox Christian standpoint.2 Failure to recognize both sides of Valentinus' theology, however, results in mere
caricature. In fairness, nevertheless, Valentinus was a gnostic in at least
one prominent aspect: his belief in a radical identity between the true
Christian and the divine nature of Christ. Valentinus developed this line
of reasoning in a way that at least partly undermined emerging New Testament claims regarding the uniqueness of Christ. He did so by importing the commonplace Platonist/Pythagorean myth of the descent of the
immortal soul into! the world of matter into his exegesis of the emerging
Christian scripture. Mere incorporation of this Hellenistic commonplace
alone would not render him gnostic. It is, rather, the specific way he
reads such a myth ¡of descent into Hebrews 2 and Romans 6 in Fragment
4 that makes applying the term "gnostic" to Valentinus' theology valid.3
2
Valentinus' theology of grace has remained unnoticed also because it expresses itself
in Jewish-Christian terminology that was itself only fully recognized with the discovery of
The Gospel of Truth—the theology of Son as the divine Name. See S. Arai, Die Christologie des
Evangelium Veritatis, 63-73; J. Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 147-63; J.-D.
Dubois, "Le context judaïque du 'nom' dans L'Évangile de Vérité," Revue de Théologie et de
Philosophie 3 (1974) 198-216; Einar Thomassen, "Gnostic Semiotics: The Valentinian Notion
of the Name/'Temenos 29 (1993) 141-156.
3
The traditional pre-Nag Hammadi definition of gnosticism includes the following
features. 1) A world-hating dualism that values heavenly or aeonic existence while belittling material existence. 2) A clear separation between the ultimate God who saves, and the
evil or inferior god/angel who created the world and inspired the Hebrew Scriptures, usually with an accompanying mythology of fall and redemption through a female emanation
called Ennoia or Sophia. 3) The view that many of the moral commands in the Bible and
conventional values of ancient culture come from the inferior God rather than the true God.
VALENTINUS
129
In this article, particular attention will be given to the only primary
sources available: two excerptsfromthe Refutatio of Hippolytus of Rome
and six from the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria. These fragments
will remain the prime source for understanding Valentinus7 own teaching, for it is very likely that Irenaeus and other church fathers attributed
to Valentinus a myth that was developed by his disciple Ptolemy Indeed,
this myth, normally referred to as "Valentinian" in most discussions of
gnosticism, is, in fact, the myth of Ptolemy and should thus be referred to
as "Ptolemaean."4 Suspicion that this was the case began to emerge with
the discovery and study of the Gospel of Truth. Mary Anne McGuire has
demonstrated that this is quite probable.5 Christoph Markschies' landmark work Valentinus Gnosticus? recognizes this probability and rightly
bases his study of Valentinus on the knownfragments.In his view once
the heresiologists' biases have been fully extracted from Valentinus'
teaching, one can see that he was not a gnostic at all.6 Professor Markschies' work is highly nuanced, and his central thesis may be correct,
especially if one defines gnosticism as it is presented in Ptolemy's myth
or the Sethian gnostic Apocryphon of John. Markschies is certainly correct
that hereosiologists such as Irenaeus, Clement and Hippolytus obliterated the distinctiveness of Valentinus' teaching by recklessly conflating
his teaching with those of later Valentinians contemporary to the heresiologists. His account is quite plausible, and must stand as a definitive
reading. Even if we cannot be sure that Valentinus7 teaching is exhausted
by what we know from the fragments, they remain our best doorway
into his thought.
The greatest resistance to Markschies' claim that Valentinus was not
a gnostic concerns the interpretation of Fragment 1 (Strom. II.36.2-4).7 In a
review of Valentinus Gnosticus? Pheme Perkins points out that
Markschies fails to see the allusions to the Sethian creation myth in FragSuch a recognition thus led to 4) either moral libertinism or extreme asceticism. 5) The belief
that the true self of a Gnostic was identical with the divine being, thus undermining the
Judeo-Christian distinction between the creature and the Creator. 6) Docetism in Christology·
4
1 recommend that the term "Valentinian" be limited to those texts which are explicitly dependent on the known fragments of Valentinus, such as the Nag Hammadi Epistle to
Rheginus, The Gospel of Truth and The Gospel of Philip.
5
Valentinus and the Gnostiké Haeresis, 1-94,218-260.
6
(Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992) 118-149. Markschies was inspired by G. C. Stead,
who argued that Valentinus should be seen as "a Platonizing biblical theologian of some
originality, whose work hardly strayed beyond the still undefined limits of Christian orthodoxy" ("In Search of Valentinus," in Rediscovery, ed. Β. Layton, Vol. 1,75).
7
See my note 34 below.
130
J· WOODROW MCCREE
ment 1. While I concur with Dr. Perkins that Valentinus clearly alludes to
the Sethian myth, the question remains open as to how such an allusion is
being used. In my opinion, Fragment 1 is a classic example of demythologization; Valentinus draws upon the Sethian myth to explore the phenomenon of human idolatry, i.e., the tendency people have to fear the
very things their hands have made. Such an analysis does not in any way
imply a literal acceptance of the Sethian myth, but rather implies only
that Valentinus is in dialogue with such gnostics and is able to reinterpret
their myths creatively so as to find valuable insights about life in this
cosmos.8
Recent attempts to dismiss Markschies' approach, such as that found
in Giles Quispel's 50th anniversary restatement of "The Original Teaching
Of Valentinus" and Alistair Logan's recent work on the Gnostikoi, result
in a naive reliance on Ptolemy's myth for understanding Valentinus. This
holds even when some differences are acknowledged, such as the likelihood of one Sophia in Valentinus' thought rather than two.9 Quispel, for
example, explicitly suggests that not all the pieces fit comfortably when
one compares the fragments of Valentinus with the myth of Ptolemy. He
insists that the gaps can be plausibly filled by insisting that Valentinus'
fragments must be read in terms of his overall Alexandrian context, especially the presence of Hermeticism.10 Such an argument is erroneous on
two grounds. First, it cannot be assumed that one's work necessarily
embodies all the schools of thought in the city of one's education. A
writer may well reject many prominent schools of thought that surround
him, even if he is necessarily in dialogue with them. Second, I intend to
demonstrate by a close reading of the known fragments that many of
Valentinus' teachings can be accounted for by way of themes he came
into contact with at Rome. Because some scholars have not yet acknowledged the probable gulf between the teaching of Valentinus and that of
his disciple Ptolemy, I will emphasize that gap as I work through the
fragments of Valentinus, noting the difficulties the heresiologists encountered as they tried to attribute a more advanced myth to Valentinus on
the basis of those fragments.11
8
1 will not offer a detailed reading of Fragment 1 because it is not relevant to my focus
on Valentinus' theology of grace. Nevertheless, the references to the creation of the world
by angels and Adam speaking with an authority higher than the angels have led many to
believe that Valentinus does teach a more advanced gnostic myth (see Logan, p. 245, for
example). Fragment 1 is thus crucial in resolving this aspect of the the question of Valentinus' relationship to gnosticism, a question which is beyond the scope of this paper.
9
Quispel, "The Original Doctrine of Valentinus the Gnostic," 337-48; Logan, 32-34.
10
"Valentinus the Gnostic," 346.
11
The abstracted skeleton of a myth which Irenaeus claims to be that of Valentinus
VALENTINUS
131
Ancient Accusation and Modern Consensus
The claim that Valentinus and his followers taught that gnostics are
"saved by nature and not by grace" was central to the heresiologists' crit­
icism of the Valentinians. Before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi
library, it was customary to take Irenaeus' "Great Account" of the teach­
ing of Ptolemy's disciples as found in Aiversus Haereses 1.1-8 as the nor­
mative description of Valentinian teaching. One of the staples of this
account is the assertion that Valentinians divided humanity into three
separate classes of people: material, psychic, and spiritual (1.7.5). Particu­
lar to Irenaeus' understanding of "the spirituals" is his claim that such
people are not really saved by the grace of God, but by their own nature
as spiritual beings (1.6.2).
Irenaeus' description is paralleled in Clement's Excerpta ex Theodoto
56.3-4, in the context of a joint exegesis of Genesis 1,1 Corinthians 15, and
Romans 11:
Therefore many are the material ones, and not many are the psychics; but
the pneumatics are few. Now the spiritual is saved by nature (το μεν πνευ­
ματικόν φύσει σφζόμενον), while the psychic possesses self-governance,
which makes it capable of both faith and incorruptibility and also of unbe­
lief and corruption according to its own choice (το δέ ψυχικον αύτεξούσιον
öv έπιτηδειότητα έχει προς τε πίστιν και άφθαρσίαν και προς άπιστίαν και
φθοραν κατά την οικείαν αίρεσιν); but the material perishes by nature (το δέ
ύλικον φύσει άπόλλυται).
This particular passage is probably Clement's own summary of the
myth he has been describing, possibly influenced by his reading of Ire­
naeus. The doctrine of three classes of people is best attributed to
Ptolemy, since his description of three different natures in Letter to Flora
12
points in that direction. There is no evidence, however, for the threefold
himself in Adv.Haer. 1.11.1 displays no knowledge of Valentinus' known fragments, and
should probably be regarded as worthless in reconstructing the teaching of the master. The
myth has a close parallel in the Nag Hammadi Codex XI,2. Irenaeus has accurately reported
the views of certain Valentinians, but not necessarily those of Valentinus. Perhaps when
Irenaeus came across this account, it seemed foundational to Ptolemy's myth as he knew it,
and so he assumed that it must be the creation of Valentinus himself. This account may
have inspired him to present a relatively abstract account of the Ptolemaean myth in
Adv.Haer. 1.1-8
12
The Letter to Flora, preserved in Epiphanius' Panarion 33.3.1-7.10, provides adequate
evidence that Irenaeus has been somewhat fair in his description of Ptolemy's tripartite
division of humanity. Ptolemy does not directly discuss this division of humanity; rather he
is concerned to discuss the nature of the law, and in order to do so he must distinguish
three different divine beings, each with different natures; The "perfect God and Father"
132
J. WOODROW MCCREE
division of humanity in the fragments of Valentinus. In fact, his use of
themes drawn from Romans 5:12-6:14 in Stromateis IV.89.2-3 (Fragment 4)
suggests that there can only be two humanities, the lost humanity of the
earthly Adam, and the living spiritual humanity of the restored Adam,
Christ.
Since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, however, the the­
sis that Valentinians themselves taught "salvation by nature and not by
grace" has fallen on hard times, along with many other aspects of the
ancient orthodox reports. A critical turning point was the publication of
Frederic Wisse's article "Nag Hammadi and the Heresiologists." In it,
Wisse exposed flaws in the heresiologists ways of classifying gnostic
sects and proclaimed that "every instance of what scholars have called
typical Gnostic beliefs" stood explicitly contradicted by one Nag Ham­
madi text or another.13 This assertion is accurate in the sense that the
wide array of teachings now available do notfitinto any tidy interpretive
framework. Every question must be examined on a case-by-case basis.14
Nevertheless, some features of the pre-Nag Hammadi description of
gnosticism remain valuable, especially Hans Jonas' description of the
fundamentally monotheistic nature of what he called "Syro-Egyptian
gnosticism." Because "the dualism of existing reality is derived from an
inner process within the one divinity itself,"15 the gnostics who find their
salvation in a restoration to their primal unity with God often talk as
though they share the same being with the Transcendent One.16 Thus it is
at least a fair question to ask whether these gnostics thought they were
saved by their own nature, and whether such an assertion implied a
also known as "the Father of All", "the righteous God" or "the mean", and the "deathdealing Devil" (φθοροποιού διαβόλου, literally "decay-making devil"(3.2). However, it is
likely that three classes of humanity, corresponding to the three natures, are implied.
13
Vigiliae Christianae 25 (1971), 205-23 (220). Wisse's assessment of Irenaeus' use of
sources seem to be accurate.
14
Wisse's clarion call led to a vast reassessment of the very concept of gnosticism; his
work has now borne fruit in the very useful discussion of Michael A. William's Rethinking
Gnosticism. For an excellent discussion of the current scholarship on the "saved by nature"
question see pp. 189-212. Note, however, that I myself am not focusing on the question of
whether psychics may change their nature, which was originally posed by Elaine Pagels in
The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon's Commentary on John, 51-122.1 am solely
addressing the question of whether members of an elect, so-called spiritual class are saved
by nature in the thought of Valentinus.
15
The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958) 105.
16
A clear example is found in Ptolemy's Letter to Flora 7.6-8, where "the nature" of the
Sole Good Father is described as "begetting and bearing forth beings who are like to him­
self and homoousios to himself." Ptolemy seems to use the terms "ousia" and "phusis"
interchangably.
VALENTINUS
133
denial of grace. My own discussion of Valentinus' Fragment 4 will
demonstrate that Valentinus himself maintained a radical identity
between the true Christian and Christ and, because of this, his theology
falls within the traditional definition of gnosticism insofar as it maintains
a radical identity between the true self and the transcendent God. In this
respect, salvation becomes a matter of discovering one's true self.
Nevertheless, Simone Pétrement has usefully summed up an emerging consensus that the mere claim of sharing the divine nature does not
in itself entail a denial of grace, since such a claim is rooted in a theory of
predestination. In this view, election to eternal life is itself the primal act
of grace by which the saved receive their identities.17 Barbara Aland first
made this ground-breaking discovery in her discussion of Heracleon's
Fragment 17, regarding the spontaneous reaction of the Samaritan
woman in John 4 to the words of Jesus. Aland suggested that Heracleon's
views in this regard may be the key to understanding the gnostic usage
of the term "nature." For Heracleon, Valentinus' most illustrious disciple,
the Samaritan woman was a prototype of the elect or spiritual category of
persons; her faith emerged out of her encounter with Jesus as an outworking of her nature, not as a matter of deliberate choice: "She demonstrated a faith that was unhesitating and appropriate to her nature (την
άδιάκριτον και κατάλληλον τη φύσει εαυτής πίστιν)." However, this
"nature" is not simply a matter of being a certain kind of substance (spir­
itual), as the heresiologists supposed. Rather, the Samaritan woman's
faith was more of an unconscious outgrowth of a character disposition
granted at election and later awakened by the savior.18 Indeed, Heracleon
explains that true faith is a matter of settled disposition (τη διαθέσει) in
his remarks on martyrdom preserved by Clement of Alexandria in Strom.
IV. 71,1-73,1 (Fragment 50). In these remarks, Heracleon argues that those
who have true faith will live out their faith in a whole lifestyle of confes­
sion, and face martyrdom if necessary, thus linking the notions of saving
faith and settled disposition (diathesis) of character.
Curiously, the notion of faith as a natural disposition appears also in
Clement of Alexandria's account of the teaching of Basilides, the great
Alexandrian gnostic who may have influenced Valentinus in the 130's
(Stromateis II.10.1): "Basilides' sect regards faith as a natural disposition,
17
Regarding this point, Pétrement is partly dependent on the insights of Giles Quispel. Pétrement notes that such a theology of election is found in both the Nag Hammadi
Treatise on the Resurrection 46,24-29, and GosTr.27,26-27,10. A Separate God, 190-91.
is "Erwählungstheologie und Menschenklassenlehre," in Gnosis and Gnosticism, ed. M.
Krause, 165-167.
134
J. WOODROW MCCREE
although they also make it a matter of election"(Fergeson's translation).19
More literally, faith belongs "in the realm of the natural (ενταύθα
φυσικής)."20 For Basilides, at least, faith's "naturalness" does not imply
sharing a common substance with the divine; rather it is a spontaneous
activity that flows out of one's election—a response to the divine act. It is
"natural" to act spontaneously out of the settled disposition one received
at election.21 Thus the linkage of the concepts of faith and nature are best
seen as parts of a predestinarían gnostic theology that suggests salvation
by election, not substance. If such a notion was common to both Basilides
and Heracleon, we may at least reasonably wonder if Valentinus himself
did not share such a view, since he seems to be a viable link between the
two.
Christoph Markshies suggests that this is indeed the case in his discusión of Valentinus Fragment 4, where Clement accused Valentinus of
teaching "salvation by nature" on the basis of his teaching that "From the
beginning you are immortal and children of eternal life." Markschies, following Aland, argues that Clement has failed to recognize that such talk
simply gives expression to a Pauline and Johannine theology of predestination. Interestingly, Markschies suggests that Ptolemy and his disciples
may have misunderstood Valentinus in the same way that Clement did
as they developed their own theory of three classes of people. 22
Clement's error, thus, also lay in assimiliating the teaching of Valentinus
to the teaching of Ptolemy, as was typical of all the heresiologists with the
exception of Tertullian.
If the elect are then dependent on the grace of predestination from
the beginning, this dependence becomes even more prominent in their
experience on earth, for they cannot be saved without a visitation from
on high:
It does not seem accurate to say that for the Valentinians the spiritual is
saved by nature. If some souls have been "sown" by God, or by the préexistent Christ, or by the Spirit, this "seed" needs to be "formed." If there is a
19
Fergeson, 163. For the Greek, see Mondésert, 40.
Clement reacts very strongly to Basilides' reference to faith, because he is combatting Valentinians in his own time who say that faith is inferior to gnosis. This portrait of
faith as an inferior way of life depends upon the Ptolemaean distinction of psychics and
spirituals, and so Clement's objections are not relevant to our understanding of either
Basilides or Valentinus. For Basilides, and perhaps Valentinus, faith is the primal foundation of all gnosis; it is a way of being that flows out of one's election spontaneously, that is,
"by nature."
21
Pétrement, 187.
22
Valentinus Gnosticus?, 146-149.
20
VALENTINUS
135
spark in the depths of the soul, this spark needs to be revived, or "enkindled" as they say (ExtractsfromTheodotus 3:1-2). What forms the seed, what
enkindles the spark, is knowledge brought by the Savior. Without it, the
spiritual would not be saved.23
There is thus a theology of dependence on grace even in the Ptolemaean
theology of "formation"; Sophia needed formation when she was outside
the pleroma, and every gnostic seed sown into the world needs formation. In view of this crucial nuance, the "saved by nature, not by grace"
polemic must be seen, at best, as a crude and inadequate description of
Valentinian/Ptolemaean thought.
Valentinus' History at Rome
Tertullian tells us that both Marcion and Valentinus were prominent during the time of the emperor Antoninus, who ruled from 138-161 CE. Marcion proclaimed that the God of grace of the New Testament was
completely alien from the malicious creator of the Old Testament, but he
did not devise the elaborate myths of emanation and fall that characterize Ptolemy's myth. It is clear from the Letter to Flora that Valentinus' disciple Ptolemy tried to distance himself from Marcion's teaching in two
prominent ways. First, Ptolemy said the devil was the source of evil, not
the creator. Second, Ptolemy replaced Marcion's jealous, evil, and lawgiving creator with a "righteous" creator (demiurge). This creator
inspired portions of the Old Testament in order to resist evil. The Old
Testament laws of reward and punishment were well-intentioned and of
educational value, but inferior to the values of the true God of grace who
became manifest in Jesus the Savior. The demiurge was, thus, for
Ptolemy, a middle figure between the perfectly Good Father of Jesus and
the death-dealing devil. It is unclear, however, to what extent Valentinus
himself accepted Marcion's harsh view of the Old Testament Creator, or
to what extent he reacted against Marcion's views.
Tertullian says that both Marcion and Valentinus were accepted as
normal Christian teachers at early phases of their stays in Rome, but that
both were constantly being cast out and readmitted as concern over their
teaching grew (De Praesc. 30). Irenaeus gives more precise information:
23
A Separate God, 193. For an excellent discussion of issues relevant to this paper, see
all of Chapter VI: "Freedom by Grace," 180-210. One may benefit from Pétrement's many
useful insights without accepting her thesis regarding the exclusive origins of gnosticism in
Christianity.
136
J. WOODROW MCCREE
"Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus,flourishedunder Pius,
and remained until Anicetus; Cerdon too, Marcion's predecessor, himself
arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop
Marcion
then, succeeding Cerdon,flourishedunder Anicetus, who held the tenth
place of the episcopate" (Adv.Haer. III.4.3). Hyginus became bishop at
Rome around 138. The length of his term, however, is a subject of debate,
with a general consensus locating his departure around 141-143. Pius
was next, governing the church until 154. He, in turn, was followed by
Anecitus, who was bishop from 154-166.
Tertullian tells us that Valentinus expected to become bishop of
Rome on account of his "genius and eloquence," but became bitter after
the church chose a confessor as bishop instead, possibly pushing him
down the path of heresy (Adv. Val A). This contested election of which Tertullian speaks is probably the election of Pius c.141-43. After the death of
Hyginus, Marcion was definitively excommunicated at Rome in 144,24
and it is unlikely that Valentinus would have been considered for the
bishopric as late as 154, the year of the next election. While it is plausible
that Valentinus could have been a candidate for episcopal office in the
early 140's, since the boundaries between heresy and orthodoxy were not
clearly defined, Tertullian's claim that sour grapes were responsible for
Valentinus' alleged turn from orthodoxy should be completely disregarded. Mary Ann McGuire has shown that this attempt to discredit
Valentinus was a stock argument of anti-heretical polemic, based on
Hegesippus' almost identical claim regarding Thebuthis, who was a candidate for the leadership of Jerusalem after the death of James the Just:
"Because he was not made bishop, he began to corrupt it."25
We must also be cautious about Tertullian's tendency to associate
Valentinus so closely with Marcion. Irenaeus tells us that Valentinus
flourished in Rome throughout the bishopric of Pius (cl42-154), and
stayed through part of the ministry of Pope Anecitus (154-166), with the
implication that Valentinus' influence had by then begun to wane. There
is no evidence to indicate that Valentinus was ever definitively excommunicated as in the case of Marcion. However, Irenaeus does mention a
couple important events in the reign of Anicetus which may have led to
Valentinus' decline. First of all, the aged Polycarp of Smyrna, bearing a
grand old apostolic witness, came to Rome to combat heretics and is said
24
The basis for this date is Tertullian's Adv.Mar. 1.19.2 and Epiphanius' Panarion
42.1.7-2.8, according to Lüdemann, Heretics,ttans. J. Bowden (Louisville: WJK, 1996) 298.
25
Valentinus, 80; Hegesippus' account is found in Eusebius' Hist.Eccl. IV.22.5. Epiphanius also makes a similar claim about Marcion; see Panarion 42.1.8.
VALENTINUS
137
to have converted many back to orthodoxy (Adv.Haer.Ul.3A). This visit
would have to have taken place at the beginning of Anicetus7 rule of the
church, around 154-55, since Polycarp was martyred at Smyrna in 156.
While it is clear from Irenaeus' account that Polycarp challenged Marcion
personally, it is unclear to what extent he attacked Valentinus' teaching.
Apparently Polycarp's gnostic efforts were only a partial success, for
Marcion continued to flourish.
Furthermore, a dynamic female gnostic came to town and stole the
show: "From among the Carpocratians also arose Marcellina, who came
to Rome under Anicetus, and, holding such doctrines, she led multitudes
astray. They style themselves Gnostikoi" (Adv.Haer. I.25.6).26 As A. M.
McGuire has pointed out, Irenaeus only used the term gnostikoi in reference to the Barbeloites, Ophites, Sethians and Cainites as described in
Adv.Haer. 1.29-31, whose mythic structure we can now recognize as that
of the Nag Hammadi Apocryphon of John and other texts in the Sethian
gnostic family.27 The arrival of Marcellina may in itself account for a
decline in Valentinus' influence; she was perhaps the latest rage in what
was then thefickleworld of Roman theological fashions.
Epiphanius tells us that Valentinus was born in a village of the Nile
Delta and educated in Alexandria; he taught in the Egyptian capital and
its environs. Epiphanius also tells us that Valentinus was a fairly orthodox Christian teacher while in Rome, but plunged into heresy on the
island of Cyprus, where he had been both literally and spiritually shipwrecked.28 This fourth century hearsay really indicates little more than
the fact that in Epiphanius' own time there were Valentinians in both
Egypt and Cyprus who wished to claim Valentinus as their founder. Nevertheless, this fourth century perception that Valentinus was not a fullblown heretic while in Rome is suggestive, and for this reason scholars
have sometimes spoken of an early and late phase in Valentinus'
thought.29
26
Marcellina's followers began to call themselves "Gnostikoi" by the time Irenaeus
composed his account; Marcellina and her followers did not necessarily identify themselves
as such immediately. Nevertheless, Irenaeus account of Carpocratian teaching in Adv.Haer.
1.25.1-2 is not incompatible in its central themes with his account of the "Gnostikoi."
27
See Valentinus, 1-66. For the classic post-Nag Hammadi attempt to delineate the features of this family, see H.-M. Schenke, "Das sethianischen System nach Nag-HammadiHandschriften," Studia Coptica, ed. P. Nagel (Berlin, 1974) 165-173.
28
Panarion 31.2.2; 31.7.1-2.
29
My own analysis of Valentinus' fragments suggests that they may have been written
in Rome, where the theology of the Son as the Divine Name was prominent, and where the
Epistles to the Romans and the Hebrews would have had the most vivid influence; there is
no reason to consider the fragments particularly early or even of Alexandrian provenance.
138
J. WOODROW MCCREE
Unfortunately, none of these chronologies tell us when Ptolemy
came to Rome, when he began his association with Valentinus, or when
he might have adapted Valentinus' teaching in his own way. There was a
general recognition among the heresiologists that there was a difference
of some sort between the original teaching of Valentinus and the
accounts of Ptolemy's. For example, after commenting on the "Great
Account," Irenaeus attributes a slightly different version of the myth to
Valentinus in Adv.Haer. 1.11.1. In particular, he insists that this myth is the
result of the influence of the Gnostikoi themselves; "Valentinus adapted
the principles of the heresy called Gnostiké to the distinctive style of his
school." Such a claim might suggest that Valentinus held less radical
teachings until the arrival of Marcellina and her converts during Anicetus' term as bishop, since these converts are described as Gnostikoi. However, it is more likely that the presence of the Gnostikoi made more of an
impact on Ptolemy's theology, since there are clear parallels between
Ptolemy's myth and The Apocryphon ofJohn.
Tertullian, in fact, offers an important distinction between the teaching of Valentinus and Ptolemy:
Finding the clue of a certain old opinion, Valentinus marked out a path for
himself with the subtlety of a serpent. Ptolemy afterward followed the same
path by distinguishing the names and numbers of the aeons into personal
substances but set off apart from God, whereas Valentinus had included
them in the very essence of deity as senses, affects and motions
(Adversus.Valentinianos 4).30
In other words, Valentinus described aeons as mere attributes of God,
while Ptolemy made them into distinct emanations. In view of this distinction, Tertullian notes that most Valentinians departed, to a certain
extent,fromtheir founder.
Tertullian's remarks were, for the most part, ignored by scholars due
to the lack of corroborating evidence, until the discovery of The Gospel of
Truth, the first work of the Nag Hammadi library to be studied.31 The
scholarly world was thrown into a breathless bustle as a possible Valentinian text emerged which did not show any clear signs of the so-called
Valentinian myth: no Sophia, no demiurge, no multiple Christ/Logos/
Savior figures, and no clearly delineated aeons in unfolding pairs. W. C.
van Unnik recalled Tertullian's important claim that, whereas for Valenti30
William Schoedel's translation; see "Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth/' in
Layton, Rediscovery, Vol.1, (379-90) 389.
31
Nag Hammadi Codex I was discovered in 1945, along with the others, but it did not
become available for study until it was purchased by the Jung Institute in Zurich in May
1952.
VALENTINUS
139
nus the aeons were merely aspects of God, for Ptolemy they became dis­
tinct emanations. A theory was thus born. Gos.Tr. was written by Valenti­
nus himself, for the aeons in this work seem like little more than
attributes of God or thoughts in the divine mind, and there is little in the
actual fragments of Valentinus to suggest the full-blown Ptolemaean
myth. The more radical individuation of the aeons in the pleroma, the
incorporation of the teachings of the Gnostikoi and thus a more elaborate
myth of fall and redemption might well be the work of Ptolemy instead
of Valentinus.32
The thesis that Gos.Tr. was written by Valentinus himself is no longer
held by many scholars, though the similarities between the fragments of
Valentinus and Gos.Tr. have been well documented. 3 3 In effect, van
Unnik's hypothesis launched a new search for the original teaching of
Valentinus, with the realization that we must begin with the known frag­
ments of Valentinus and let him speak for himself. Markschies' search for
Valentinus, as well as my own, is grounded on this now necessary work­
ing assumption.
A Visionary Hymn-Writer's Theology of Praise:
An Implicit Theology of Grace
Now we turn at last to the known fragments of Valentinus. We shall
begin with those provided by Hippolytus of Rome, since his presentation
of Valentinus as a visionary who had a direct encounter with the divine
Logos serves as a necessary backdrop for interpreting the evidence pre­
sented by Clement of Alexandria. Hippolytus, like Tertullian, points to a
gulf between his knowledge of what Valentinus actually said and the
more developed myth called Valentinian, but his explanation for this
gulf's existence is more vacuous. In Refutatio VI.42.2, Hippolytus
describes a visionary experience:
For Valentinus supposes that, while he was wasting away, he saw a child,
an infant newly-born. Concerning whom, he inquired as to who he might be
(Και γαρ Ούαλενυνος φάσκει εαυτόν έωρακέναι παιδα νήπιον άρτιγέννητον,
32
"The Gospel of Truth and the New Testament," in The Jung Codex, éd. F. M. Cross
(London: Mowbray, 1955) 81-129.
33
The most decisive of such arguments was the essay by Benoît Standaert,
"L'Évangile de Vérité: critique et lecture," New Testament Studies 22 (1976) 243-75. The best
argument for the date of the Gospel of Truth remains that of William RSchoedel, who placed
it around 170-80, that is, in time for it to influence Irenaeus' composition of Adv.Haer. Π. See
"Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth," 381-89.
140
J. WOODROW MCCREE
οΰ πυθόμενο? επιζητεί τίς αν εΐη). The child answered him saying, Ί am the
Logos' (ό δέ άπεκρίνατο λέγων, εαυτόν είναι τον λόγον). Afterwards, Valenti­
nus added a certain grandiosely tragic myth, and on the basis of this (new
teaching) he determined to bring together the heretical sect which he had
crafted with his own hands (έπικεχειρημένην αύτφ).34
Hippolytus' testimony that Valentinus was a visionary is invaluable.
Because of this witness we know that the Logos was central to Valenti­
nus' thought and religious experience. The use of "I am" with "the
Logos" indicates that the Fourth Gospel shaped his imagination pro­
foundly. The Logos' appearance as a child suggests that Valentinus
believed himself to have made mystical contact with the Stoic "logos
spermatikos" that dwelt within him. As his contemporary Justin would
soon write, each of the ancient philosophers had spoken "from a certain
portion of the spermatic divine Logos innate in them from birth" (Apolo­
gia Minor 13.3). As Origen would put it decades later, "It is as if the Word
which exists in the nature of rational beings is a teacher who is insepara­
ble from the student" (Comm.John 11.109). The child is probably identical
with "the seed which had been given from the being above" which
Valentinus mentions in Fragment 1 (Strom. II.36.2-4).
As Hilgenfeld has pointed out, the particular reference to the Logos
as a child is probably drawn from Psalm 8:3, "Out of the mouths of babes
and suckling infants you have perfected praise" (Έκ στόματος νηπίων και
θηλαζόντων Κατηρτίσω αϊνον), a thesis made likely by the parallel use of
two terms for children in each: "a Child, a new-born infant" echoes "chil­
dren and suckingly infants."35 This likelihood does not rule out other
influences as well. Markschies has suggested that Valentinus may allude
to the child of Isaiah 9:6, "Unto us a παιδίον is born."36 If Hilgenfeld is
34
The phrase "crafted with his own hands" maybe an ironic jab which presupposes
knowledge of Fragment 1, preserved for us only in Stromateis Π.36.2-4. There Valentinus
uses a common Sethian mytheme as a device for critiquing idolatry. People all too quickly
develop superstitious fear toward the carvings and theological systems which the hands
construct for the sake of glorifying God. Indeed, Valentinus' concern for the mistakes peo­
ple make when using their creativity "unto the name of God" suggests he is trying to artic­
ulate a thoughtful theology of worship. We must use our creativity in order to praise the
transcendent God; but God remains beyond our descriptive capabilities, and so we must
not take our hymns and our meditations too seriously, lest we become idolaters. Perhaps
this is why he was comfortable letting his disciples develop his insights in such varied
ways. He did not want to turn his own crude etchings into an unchallengable theological
system set in stone.
35
Hilgenfeld, 304. Ps. 8:3 is also cited in Matt. 21:16, where it seems to be a fulfillment
of Jesus' words in Matt. 11:25.
36
Valentinus Gnosticus?, 210. The final couplet of Valentinus' hymn "Harvest-Fruits"
suggests that Valentinus was drawing on themes from Isaiah 53:2,11:1, and 9:6. See below.
VALENTINUS
141
correct that Psalm 8:3 shaped Valentinus' visionary experience, it is also
plausible that it shaped his theological concerns as well. The "perfecting
of praise/' indeed, does seem to be a central concern in the aeon theology
as presented by the heresiologists. If the aeons can be said to do anything, it is to multiply and harmonize into order to praise God. Only
when such praise is complete can the aeons generate the Savior as their
"perfect fruit" (Adv.Haer. 1.2.6).
The concern for praising God is just as central to Hippolytus' parallel account, where aeons glorify God by imitating the Father's generative
capacity. Sophia's sin is not that of trying to comprehend the Father, as in
Adv.Haer. 1.2.2, but that of trying to imitate the father by generating aeons
alone, without a partner (Ref. 29.5-30.8). Thus, the praise and glorification
of the Father is not only the reason for the generation of aeons and the
generation of the Savior, but is, in fact, the cause of the fall. It is perhaps
no coincidence that this theology of praise is more pivotal in Hippolytus'
account, for his account shows greater awareness than Irenaeus' of the
fragments of Valentinus.37 It seems that some form of a theology of worship can be traced to Valentinus himself. Nevertheless, it is clear that
Hippolytus is clueless as to how a mere vision of the Logos as a child led
to the complicated myth he describes in Refutatio VI.29.2-36.4. He is
reduced to saying simply that Valentinus added a tragic myth.
We must also give some attention to the term Pythomenos, a nominative middle participle in agreement with the subject Valentinos, since it
provides a link to another prominent aspect of Valentinus' thought. It has
previously been left untranslated in English, and uncommented upon
overall. Literally it means "while he was rotting away," exactly how it is
used in Odyssey 12.46, where it is employed to refer to the corpses of
those lost to the sirens.38 It might be taken to mean "wasting away," a
description of Valentinus' heart, mind, and body before his conversion
experience in the presence of the Logos. Such a usage would not be
inconsistent with Valentinus' own obsession with overcoming the decay
inherent in this world.
For example, in Stromateis III.59.3 (Fragment 3) Valentinus insists that
Jesus, while he was enduring all things39, was self-controlled. He wrought
divinity; though he ate and he drank, he did not pass the food out of his
37
Fragment 1, as noted above, seems to display an awareness on Valentinus' part that
things can go wrong when people craft ways of glorifying God.
38
Robert Fagle's translation (New York: Viking Penguin, 1996) 273.
39
This phrase is taken directly from I Cor.l3:7d; Valentinus thus portrays the encratic
life of Jesus as the embodiment of divine love itself, which "bears all things."
142
J. WOODROW MCCREE
body afterward. Such was the power of self-control within him, that nour­
ishment was never broken down within him, since he himself does not have
the capacity for decay (τοσαύτη ην αύτφ εγκράτειας δύναμις, ώστε και μη
φθαρήναι την τροθην έν αύτφ", έπει το φθείρεσθαι αυτός ούκ εΐχεν).
Though this fragment has long been taken as evidence of Valentinus'
doceticism,40 M.A.Williams has rightly pointed out that the real topic
under discussion is self-control while in the body.41 Jesus shared in our
earthly experiences, as indicated in Hebrews 2:5-18 and 4:14-16; yet there
also dwelt within him the "power of an indestructible life (δύναμιν ζωής
ακατάλυτου)," as affirmed in Heb.7116.42 Because of this divinizing power,
no form of breakdown or decay could occur within Jesus body. Appar­
ently Valentinus considered the mess of defecation adequate evidence
that digestion was fundamentally a process of corruption; nourishment
is used up, and what's left is not pleasing. Therefore, Jesus was incapable
of producing waste.
Valentinus uses variants on the verb phtheiró to articulate his concern
for corruption; while the term has connotations of moral and spiritual
ruin as well as the destruction of death itself, here it has vividly material
associations. The related noun phthora also appears in Fragment 4, making it clear that a prominent motif has been established. We should, of
course, expect Valentinus to be capable of literary variation, and so it is
also plausible that he might have used the term pythomenos—rotting—to
describe his pre-conversion state.
Moreover, Tertullian's Adv.Val. 2 seems to display knowledge of
Valentinus' vision of the infant. He remarks that such visions of the "face
of the Lord" are reserved for the simple of heart who seek God patiently,
a category for which Valentinus would not qualify. Seeking God's face is
a prominent theme in Psalms 24, 27, and also 41; however, is it not a
vague longing for God. Seeking God's face involved making a pilgrimage to the temple, usually during one of the three major festivals, and
waiting overnight there, frequently in a state of hunger and exhaustion,
in the hope of seeing the Lord.43 Such "wasting away" might well include
40
E.gvSagnard,123.
Rethinking, 290, n.31.1 cannot help but think that this radically encratic vision of
Jesus' divine self-control might lay behind Athanasius' own doctrine of the the divinization
of thefleshin Christ, a teaching vividly imaged in Athanasius' Life of Anthony.
42
Valentinus uses the term καταλύησθε in Frag.4: "For when you annul the cosmos,
and yet are not yourself destroyed "
43
See Ps. 130:5-6 and 134, both explicitly designated as "Pilgrimage Songs;" Ps. 30
also describes the state of one desperate for deliverance from death. The superscription des­
ignates it as "for the dedication of the temple," which implies use at either the Feast of
Tabernacles or Hanukkah.
41
VALENTINUS
143
fasting in preparation for a visionary expereince, as was common in the
both the Hellenistic mystery religions and in Jewish mystical traditions
of divine ascent based upon Isaiah 6:3 and Ezekial 1I25-28.44 In other
words, Valentinus' vision probably ocurred in the context of both ascetic
preparation and anticipation, as was normal in both Jewish and Hellenist
circles at the time.
Valentinus was able to express his visionary experience in poetry, as
the other fragment provided by Hippolytus demonstrates. Here too Hip­
polytus' tendency to force a more advanced mythological schema onto
Valentinus is evident (Refutatio VI.37:6-8). "Harvest Fruits" is not actually
a fragment, but a complete hymn. In De Carne Christi 17; 20, Tertullian
indicates that Valentinus wrote many such Psalms. Apparently they were
collected, for a Valentinian named Alexander exegeted them by means of
syllogisms. Unfortunately, this is the only one to survive:
I see in spirit the universe suspended;
I perceive in spirit all things borne along:
(θέρος* πάντα κρεμάμενα πνεύματι βλέπω,
πάντα δ' όχούμενα πνεύματι νοω)
Flesh suspended from soul,
Soul hanging from air,
air suspended from aether,
Fruits brought forth from the deep—
A newborn thrust forth, still sustained, from the womb.
(εκ δέ βυθού καρπούς φερόμενους,
έκ μήτρας δέ βρέφος φερόμενον.)
This hymn presents us with a vision of an interconnected universe; it
offers a "cosmos" of almost literal ornamentation, since everything is
hanging from everything else. The cosmos is carried and sustained by
God, as a fetus is carried and sustained in its mother. The term brephos,
which means "fetus," suggests a newborn so recently thrust from the
womb that the umbilical cord connected to the source on high has not yet
been cut. Valentinus thus conveys a typical middle Platonist vision of
unfolding layers of reality, each level, perhaps, a lesser image of its
source, but ultimately harmonious in its unfolding interdependence. This
is not a picture of aeons generating. It is a vision of the whole universe
proceeding from its transcendent source Depth, or Bythos. Spirit is not a
44
In recent years Giles Quispel's suggestion that gnostic anthropos theology was
based upon mystical exegesis of Ezekial 1:26 has been developed considerably in the work
of Jarl Fossum and April DeConick. See Quispel, Vigiliae Christianae 34 (1980) 1-13; De Con­
ica Voices of the Mystics, 49-67; 86-108.
144
J. WOODROW MCCREE
substance, but a way of perceiving; a mystical state in which one grasps
the interdependence of the whole. Such a framework may well leave
room for creative mediators at each level, though they are not mentioned.
The double use of panta in the first couplet, and the double use of
pheromenous/os in the final couplet is quite striking; the poem may actu­
ally be an expansion of Hebrews 1:3b, where the Son of God is described
as "bearing up/sustaining all things by the word of his power" (φέρων τε
τα πάντα τω ρήματι της δυνάμεως αύτοΰ).
There are four substances mentioned, and Hippolytus claims that
flesh refers to hylic matter, soul to the Demiurge, air to spiritual sub­
stance, and aether to Sophia herself, outside the pleroma. Hippolytus'
attempt to read Valentinus' poem as evidence for the later Ptolemaic
myth is now widely recognized as a forced imposition upon the text.
Markschies notes that in 1975, Koschorke conclusively demonstrated that
Hippolytus was obliterating the distinctiveness of Valentinus in favor of
a generic presentation of his school.45
A few observations are in line: First of all, Valentinus used the term
"all things" (panta) to refer to this universe, not exclusively to the aeons.
Irenaeus' arguments in Adv.Haer. ILI regarding the Valentinians' limita­
tion of divine presence and activity to a mere spiritual realm beyond the
universe are irrelevant to any discussion of Valentinus. In fact, the vision
of interconnectedness running through all layers of reality is probably
intended as a statement of faith in a providence that extends through all
such levels, even if that providence is worked out by an array of mediat­
ing divinities. We should not be surprised at such a possibility, for
Basilides himself declared that one should "say anything rather than
46
deny providence" (Strom. IV.82.2). The emphatic claim that all things
are suspended and ultimately sustained by the transcendent source of
growth implies a rudimentary theology of universal grace, as all things
are dependent on the source.
Finally, one cannot help but notice the prominence of the child, once
again, at the climax of the poem. The child, the spermatic seed triggering
growth, is sent from the very heart and source of the universe. The cli­
mactic couplet is particularly interesting, for the plant metaphor of fruits
being brought forth during the summer harvest is parallel to that of an
45
"Das Problem des historischen Valentin/' Studia Patristica 24 (1993), 383.
This concern for providence is a point of genuine convergence between Jewish piety
and Stoic philosophy in the Hellenistic age, just as the two also converged around the
notion of natural law.
46
VALENTINUS
145
utterly new-born infant proceeding out from the womb. A parallel
infant/plant couplet is found in the LXX rendering of Isaiah 53:3, where
the exilic prophet comments upon the unexpected lowliness and vulner­
ability of God's messenger: ''We announced one who is as a child before
God's presence, as a root in a dry place; he has neither form, nor glory"
(Άνηγγείλαμεν ώς παιδίον εναντίον αύτοϋ, ώς ρίζα). This very passage was
exegeted by Clement of Rome (J Clement 16) and it is very likely that
Valentinus had access to such a prominent Roman writing.47
The World Above and The World Below are United
by the Divine Name: An Unrecognized Theology of Grace
Clement of Alexandria's Stromateis IV.89.6-90.1 (Fragment 5) supplies us
with a similar picture of a layered universe in which the glory of a higher
realm manages to reflect itself into a lower realm.
To the extent that the artistic image is inferior to the living person, so to this
degree is the cosmos lesser than the living realm (όπόσον έλάττων ή είκών του
ζώντος προσώπου, τοσούτον ήσσων ό κόσμος του ζώντος αιώνος). What then is
the cause of the image? The majesty of the person who furnishes the pattern
from the artist who paints from real life, so that the majesty might be hon­
ored through its name (τίς οΰν αιτία της εικόνος, μεγαλαχτύνη του προσώπου
παρεσχημμένου τφ ζωγράφφ τον τύπον, "Ινα τιμηφη δι' ονόματος αύτοϋ). For the
created form is not found to have any authority of its own, but rather the
name filled up what was lacking in the formation (ού γαρ αύθεντικώς ευρέθη
μορφή, άλλα το όνομα έπλήρωσεν το υστέρησαν έν πλάσει). Indeed, the invisi­
ble element from God works together (with the frailty of the formation), for
the sake of the faithfulness of what has been formed.
Valentinus here presents us with a parable; a comparison of two realms
with a suggestion of interconnection. Any living presence, such as a real
human being, is greater than the artistic image, whether painting or
sculpture, which it is designed to portray. When a work of art is well
executed, the real source of its greatness is not the painter, but the
majesty and beauty of the living person who served as the inspiration for
the work of art. So it is with the aeon above and the cosmos below. This
cosmos is certainly inferior, even vastly inferior, to the eternal realm;
47
Dependence on Clement becomes even more likely when we realize that Clement is
a primary source for the theology of the divine name which is developed in both Valentinus
and Gos.Tr., well as a primary locus for usage of the term "megalosuné," which Valentinus
uses in Frag. 5.
146
J. WOODROW MCCREE
nevertheless, the glory of the higher realm manages to shine through
even in its image below.
The metaphor, of course, involves a painter. Clement insists that the
painter referred to in this riddle is the Demiurge, called also "God and
Father/' and that the demiurge formed this visible world using the Wisdom from above as his pattern in order to glorify the Invisible One. It is
not clear that such an interpretive maneuver is warranted or even helpful
in interpreting the text; even in Plato's Timaeus 28a-37d it is unclear
whether the description of a creator who looks to the world above for his
model is to be taken literally or is simply a vivid metaphor used to convey the idea that the upper world is truly reflected in the lower world.
There is really one central idea in Valentinus' meditation: this cosmos is a
copy of the higher realm, and, like a work of art, it reflects the beauty of
the reality that it copies. There is no reason to allegorize every detail of
his analogy and try to find a corresponding divine figure from the later
myths. Valentinus is simply saying that the higher realm does shine
through in this corrupt world, however vivid this world's failings. This
world is a place of need, of deficiency, of lacking; it is a place of wasting
away. But the majesty on high fills what is lacking in the "molded creation/'48 whether by Platonic reflection or divine condescension. Again,
such a claim contains at least the rudiments of a theology of grace.
This fact becomes even more apparent when one considers the terms
Valentinus uses. Majesty—megalosuné—is a typical Hellenistic Jewish
circumlocution for God. It occurs in Hebrews 1:3, where the author says
that after the Son of God "had made purification from sins, he sat down
at the right hand of the majesty on high." It is also used by Clement several times, who is the first writer to cite Hebrews.49 The Name is a common Jewish-Christian designation for Christ; it is rare but crucial in the
Gospel of John, and is most prominent in the liturgical sections of
48
The term plasis is based upon eplasen, used in LXX Gen. 2:7,15 to describe the formation of the earthly Adam from the mud. Philo's theory that Gen. 1 was a description of the
noetic creation, while Gen. 2 described the creation of earth, was widely known. Valentinus' use of terminology drawn from Gen. 2 suggests that the majesty of the divine Name
reaches even into the realm of matter.
49
In I Clement 20.11 and 61.3 the term is ascribed to Christ in praise as it is in Jude 25.
In 16:2, the very section in which Clement of Rome expounds Isaiah 53, the lowly Christ is
described as "the majestic skepter of God." 27.4 says that the universe was established by
the "majestic word." In 36.2 Clement reads the term "majesty" into his quote of Hebrews
1:3a, making Christ "the radiance of God' majesty" rather than "of his glory." Because
Clement was the first writer to cite Hebrews, it is commonly believed that Hebrews was
sent by the Alexandrian church to Rome. See Attridge, Hebrews, 10; Brown and Maier, Antioch and Rome, 142-51.
VALENTINUS
147
Í Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Excerpta ex Theodoto and The Gospel
of Truth.50 Significantly, three of these texts are of Roman origin.
Valentinus' claim that "the name fills what is lacking in the material
formation" indicates that he is using the concept of the divine name to
denote the active presence of God in the realm of matter and history, as
distinct from God himself in his absolute transcendence. Such a distinction dates from the era of the so-called Deuteronomist historian. It is
most apparent in I Kings 8: 27-30, which forms the theological core of
Solomon's prayer dedicating the temple at the Feast of Tabernacles. God
himself is said to dwell in heaven, while God's active presence in the
temple is designated as the Name, a distinction probably made to combat
the crude idea that God actually lived in the temple or could be carried
around in the ark during a procession. The Name denotes a real and
active presence of God with his people, with a recognition that the transcendent living God is uncontainable and cannot be understood as sightspecific.51 It is this Name, then, that fills up the lack so characteristic of
this earthly realm. Clement of Rome links the notion of glory to the
divine Name,52 and it is quite plausible that Valentinus would have made
the same association. Saying that the Name fills up the lack means that
glory of God is present on earth.
Of course, for Valentinus, the presence of this Name in earthly life is
experienced through the spermatic logos, the child who appeared to
Valentinus as his truest self and rescued him from decay. Thus Valentinus
here adds that the Name fills up the lack by means of "the invisible element from God," the seed from on high that awakens us to new growth.
Interestingly, Jarl Fossum has recently argued that the theology of the
divine name is the ultimate source of the Johannine prologue and its
claim that the word became flesh. Fossum insists that the real and active
presence of God himself in the Fourth Gospel cannot be accounted for by
way of wisdom theology alone, for wisdom tends to be seen as the first
creation of God and a heavenly assistant rather than the immediate presence of God. Only the theology of the Name can account for the real presence of God in Christ and in the eucharist as presented by John.53
50
For example, in Hermas, Vision 4.2.4, the "Great and glorious name" is described as
the one who saves us. See Daniélou, 149-61; Arai, 63-73.
51
See Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford: 1972,190209.
52
E.g., I Clement 58.1; 59.2
53
"In the Beginning Was the Name," in The Image of the Invisible God, 109-34. As early
as 1964, Sagasu Arai argued that a theology of the divine name underlay John 1:1-18,12:2328, and 17:5-6; see his Christologie, 69-70.
148
J· WOODROW MCCREE
If Fossum is correct, then perhaps Valentinus was not the first to
associate the incarnate Logos with the indwelling presence of the Name
in the earthly Adam. Indeed, in J Clement 59:3, the Name is described as
"the primal source of all creation/' a clear parallel to John 1:1-3. The the­
ology of the N a m e seems to be for Clement, however, an alternative to
the Johannine Logos theology, whereas for Valentinus the two seem to be
fused. We know that the Valentinians were exegeting John at Rome, and
w e k n o w t h a t the theology of the n a m e w a s a p r o m i n e n t aspect of
Roman thought as evidenced in both Clement and Hermas. It is quite
plausible that Valentinus himself may have pulled these themes together
under the influences of Roman traditions. The next fragment will pro­
vide further evidence that Valentinus w a s concerned to proclaim the
dwelling of the divine glory on earth; it will also demonstrate his concern
for the wholeness, or unity, of the heart.
Unity, Multiplicity and an Explicit Theology of Grace
Stromateis II.114.3-6 (Fragment 2) is crucial for understanding Valentinus,
for here the master concisely and eloquently affirms the unity and good­
ness of the Father. In so doing, he locates ψ β root of human evil in multi­
plicity, and renders his theology of grace explicit.
"One is Good," whose manifestation through the Son is boldness, through
whom alone the heart is able to become clean, when every evil spirit is cast
out of the heart (εις δέ έστιν αγαθός, ου παρρησία ή δία του υιού θανέρωσις,
και αυτού μόνου δύναιτο αν ή καρδία καθαρά γενέσθαι, παντός πονηρού πνεύ­
ματος έξωθουμένου της καρδίας). For many spirits dwelling within it do not
allow it to become dean, but rather each of them brings about its own work
in many ways, abusively mocking the heart with passionate yearnings
(έπιθυμίαις) which are not proper. Indeed, it seems to me that the heart suf­
fers like a roadside inn, for sudi a place is hollowed out and dug into and is
frequently filled with the excrement of people who stay there brutishly and
exercize no forethought (πρόνοιαν - the care of intelligent planning) for the
place, since it is established by others. The heart wanders along on such a
course, and as long as it does not happen upon forethought (μη προνοίας
τυγχάνει) it remains undean and is a dwelling place of demons (my empha­
sis). But whenever the sole good Father should exercize his provident care
by means of a visitation (έπειδαν δέ έπισκέψηται αυτήν ó μόνος αγαθός
πατήρ), the heart has been made holy and is illumined throughout by light.
And so the one who has such a heart will be blessed, for he shall see God.
This meditation is striking in that clear allusions to the Gospel of
Matthew serve as its framework. Matt. 19:17, "εις έστιν ό αγαθός/ 7 leads
VALENTINUS
149
directly into the affirmation of Matt.ll:27b, "No one knows the Father
except the Son and the one to whom the Son purposes to reveal him/'
The bold manifestation of the Son in the fragmented hearts of those
divided up by the many passions tormenting the heart is, in fact, the
providential oversight—the visitation—which purifies the heart of its
many unclean spirits.54 The Son alone manifests the unity of the Father in
this world of sense-perception, casting out the many to restore us to
wholeness, so that we might participate in the Father's unity. The
Matthean inclusio is completed by a clear paraphrase of Matt.5:8,
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." Central themes of
mainstream Christianity are thus affirmed. Human salvation is completely dependent on the revelation of the Father in the Son and upon the
Son's visitation of humanity under the conditions of human existence.
The image of the cosmos as a roadside inn is cited as a Valentinian
teaching in Hippolytus' Refutatio VI.34.6. If anyone has been wondering,
"How inferior is this cosmos in comparison to the living aeon?" this fragment will provide an answer. The world is like a middle-eastern caravanserie: a filthy, cramped lodging for travelers where careless ruffians
trash the property because it is not their own and animals and human
riffraff dig holes in the dirt corners to defecate. The references to holes,
partly also a reference to windows and doors, suggests that the filth of
life enters the mind through the senses, the "windows to the soul" in typical Platonist thought. Valentinus' revulsion toward the realities of this
life echoes the attitude toward decay and defecation seen in Fragment 3.
In view of the sordidness of this worldly roadside inn, the manifestation
of the Father in the realm below is truly "bold." Valentinus seems to
grasp the mystery of the incarnation for it is truly shocking to imagine
that the transcendent God might undertake such a visitation. It is only
the manifestion of the Father in the Son that can restore primal unity to a
world so characterized by multiplicity; only this visitation which can
reverse the decay inherent in matter. The One took upon himself the condition of the many, so that the many might become One.
A developed theology of grace is not only apparent in Valentinus'
admission in Frag. 2 of dependence on God's initiative in "visiting" us in
the manifestation of the Son, it is also implicit in the more curious claim
54
The image of driving evil spirits out of a heart which is described as a room is paralleled in Hermas, Mandate 5.1.2: "For if you are patient, the Holy Spirit who lives in you will
be pure, uncontaminated by some other evil spirit; living in a spacious room, it will rejoice
and be glad with the vessel in which it lives." Again, an important theme found in the fragments of Valentinus can be accounted for by way of traditions prominent at Rome.
150
J. WOODROW MCCREE
that we cannot experience salvation until we "happen upon God's provident care, or forethought." Pronoia is, by definition, a state of mind in
which one makes careful plans and exercises self-control soberly. Anyone
who lives in such a way mirrors the provident care of God for the universe. This is exactly what we would expect from a Stoic who is making
great effort to manifest the spermatic logos within himself. But how does
one "happen upon forethought"? The very notion is a contradiction in
terms. You don't just stumble upon such a lifestyle by chance; it is deliberate in its very essence.
Herein lies the genius and the true Christian spirit of Valentinus.
Valentinus knows from experience that the saving encounter with providence does not occur because of one's own efforts. It "just happens," by
the grace of God. Like the seed that "grows spontaneously and one
knows not how" of Mark 4:27, like the treasure hidden in a field or the
pearl of great value that one happens upon unexpectedly in Matt.l3:4446. The visitation of the One God in this world is a surprise that no one
can control. The Kingdom comes, and when it does, one stumbles upon it
as if by chance, not as the reward for faith or good works, not even necessarily as the reward for seeking, but as an unexpected eruption which
can only evoke an equally spontaneous response. Valentinus knows as
well as anyone that Jesus taught us in his parables to expect surprises. He
also knows this from his own conversion experience: he is dependent
upon the initiative of a providence that embraced him before he could
ever embrace it.
Even the possibility that Valentinus, like many other seekers in the
ancient world, prepared himself for his vision of the Logos does not
exclude the possibility that he experienced the vision as grace. Andrew
Louth has argued that in Plato and Philo, there is a vivid awareness that
one must prepare oneself to be taken up into an experience of the divine;
a certain ascetic self-discipline is necessary. Nevertheless, when the transcendent breakthrough occurs, it is experienced as a gift, something
which is so far beyond what is warranted by any preparations made that
it can only be seen as an experience of being lifted up into the eternal
realm by a reality greater than oneself.55
Interestingly, Tertullian seems to show awareness of this aspect of
Valentinus' thought and on the basis of this theology of chance insists
that the Valentinians do not believe in salvation by nature. After discussing the threefold division of humanity in terms of Cain, Abel and
The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 1-35.
VALENTINUS
151
Seth, Tertullian says in Adv. Val. 29, that "the spiritual, preordained for
salvation, have their identities stored up in Seth." He goes on to say that
"men's spiritual state they derive over and above the other conditions
from Seth as a matter of chance occurrence (de öbvenientia), not as something natural, but something granted as a favor (non naturam sed indulgentiam)." The reference to being saved "by chance" or "as something
that one happens upon" is too striking and too rare to be a coincidence.
The noun obvenientia is based upon the verb obvenio which seems to be a
translation of the Greek tugchanó, to happen upon, which appears in
Valentinus' meditation. Tertullian recognized that the Valentinian doctrine of salvation was a doctrine of election, and that the elect spirits
experience their awakenings in this world as a mysterious discovery,
something that one happens upon unexpectedly, as if by chance.
Any portrait of Valentinian thought which depends upon a theory of
purely substantial salvation is thus a crude caricature. The "spirituals"
are saved by election, and in this world, they experience that election as
the surprising discovery of a seed within them, calling them to return to
their origin on high. Giles Quispel has long considered Tertullian's
description of Valentinian theology in chapter 29 to be far more accurate
than the other heresiologists' claims that they taught "salvation by
nature, not by grace."56 Nevertheless, a sense does remain in which the
elect seed share the same nature with the Father. If they are begotten
from the being of the Father from all eternity, how could it be otherwise?
Evidence that Valentinus was a Gnostic of Sorts:
His Own Theology of Grace Undermined
Fully aware of, and perhaps obsessively attentive to, this aspect of Valentinian thought, Clement states in Stromateis IV.89.1-3 (frag.4) that Valentinus himself, "supposes a class saved by nature" (φύσει σφζόμενος):
Valentinus, in a certain public meditation, writes in these words: "From the
beginning, you are immortal and children of eternal life (άπ' αρχής αθάνατοι
έστε και τέκνα ζωής έστε αιωνίας). But you wanted death to be apportioned
unto yourselves, so that you might consume it and destroy it (by using it all
up), so that death might die in and through you (και τον θάνατον ήθέλετε
μερίζασθαι εις έαυτούς/Ίνα δαπανήσητε αύτον και άναλωσητε, και άποθάνη ό
θάνατος έν ύμιν και δι* υμών). For when you annul the cosmos, while you
yourselves are not destroyed, you are lords over creation and over all decay
Giles Quispel, "Valentinian Gnosis and the Apocryphon of John/' in Layton, 125.
J. WOODROW MCCREE
152
(όταν γαρ τον μέν κόσμον λύητε, ύμεΐς δέ μη καταλύησθε, κυριεύετε τής
κτίσεως και τής φθοράς άπάσης). For he also, like Basilides, supposes a class
saved by nature, and that this different race has come to us here from above
for the abolition of death, and that the origin of death is the creator of the
world.
This passage more than any other lends plausibility to the heresiolo­
gists7 claim that Valentinus did not have an adequate theology of grace,
for it presents a vision of such radical identity between the true Christian
and Christ that there seems to be no room left for a creature/Creator
distinction, no sense of the uniqueness of Christ, and little evidence for
the dependence of the Christian on Christ. If this were the only fragment
we had, we would have to consider Valentinus far beyond the parame­
ters of mainstream Christianity.
Valentinus' assertion that the Christians to whom he preaches are
"immortal from the beginning" is not necessary problematic in itself. It
might simply imply a doctrine of divine election, such as that found in
Romans 8-11 or Ephesians 1. In this case, the eternal immortality of true
Christians would be a result of God's grace. The true self that the gnostic
discovers, the child within that Valentinus discovered, would then be the
discovery of one's true identity as called eternally by the grace of God.
The experience of self-discovery would itself be a reflection of that eter­
nal grace in this world.
Valentinus' understanding of the immortality of true Christians may
be based on Eph. 1:3-4 and 2:4-6. In contrast to Colossians 3:1-3, which
exhorts Christians to set their eyes on things above, Ephesians 2:6 says
that God "has already seated" Christians "in the heavenly places in
Christ." When such a passage is read alongside the claim that God
"chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world," it could easily be
taken as evidence for the existence of a precosmic heavenly church, even
a world of timeless aeons.57 Belief in such a precosmic church is evi­
denced at Rome in The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.8: "'Who then is she
(the woman of the vision)?' I said. 'The church/ he replied. I said to him,
'Why then is she elderly?' 'Because,' he said, 'she was created before all
things; therefore she is elderly, and for her sake the world was formed.'"
If the world was created for the sake of the precosmic church, then why
57
Irenaeus acknowledges in Adv. Haer. 1.3.1 that Valentinians used the doxology from
Eph.3:21 as evidence for their aeon theology. Irenaeus's remark indicates that the main­
stream church was using this doxology in their worship. Ephesians must have been wellestablished in the conservative Roman church by Irenaeus' time, and so it is quite plausible
that is was also influential at Rome in Valentinus' day.
VALENTINUS
153
might not matter itself have been generated for the sake of the elect? This
is exactly what Valentinus' fragment implies, for he teaches that in the
pre-existence gnostics have descended as one with Christ, bearing his
mission as their own, the conquest of death.
It is as this point that Valentinus becomes heretical by orthodox
Christian standards. For his assertion that these pre-existent ones wanted
to apportion death to themselves, so that they might destroy death in and
though their own descent into the material world is a radical reworking
of Hebrews 2:9-15. While the author of Hebrews does emphasize the
unity of Christ with humanity in this passage, the unity is one made pos­
sible by divine condescension. The Son of God through whom God cre­
ated the world takes on our human life "so that by the grace of God he
might taste death for everyone. . . . Since therefore, the children share
flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that
through death he might nullify the one who has the power of death, that
is, the devil ('Ίνα δια του θανάτου κατάργηση τον το κράτος έχοντα του
θανάτου, τοΰτ εστίν τον διάβολον). The unique role of Christ as both high
priest and sacrifice, so central to the author of Hebrews, has been obliter­
ated by a theology in which all the members of the church descend to
annul death by devouring it. All the gnostics taste death, apportioning
the material world to themselves, so that they might prove themselves
lords of all decay. No doubt to do this they must exercise ascetic restraint,
controling the passions which divide us up and keep us from our primal
unity with God and the Son. The notion is quite clever; the material
world of decay, which tends to divide people up by very definition, is
itself divided up by the gnostics as they "partition it" (merizasthat) unto
themselves in the act of consumption.
Valentinus' language of "ruling over creation and all decay" is Stoic,
but is also grounded in Pauline precedent. Paul cites a related Stoic
maxim in I Cor. 3:21-22: "All things are yours."58 Through the Stoic phi­
losophy of detachment, one could supposedly maintain a certain control
over ones responses to life and thus gain a certain sovereignty, or "αύτοεξουσία" over the cosmos, in spite of all uncertainties. Paul rather vacu­
ously claims that a similar sovereignty over creation can be gained when
one entrusts oneself to the Lord of creation. His assertion seems more a
matter of asserting himself against a rival philosophy than articulating a
coherent theology. The Christian benefits from God's generous sover­
eignty and rests secure in the loving arms of providence, but in no way
For Stoic parallels, see Hans Conzelmann, I Corinthians, 80.
154
J. WOODROW MCCREE
does such dependence and benefit imply that "all things are yours."59
Nevertheless, Paul did speak in this way, and his reckless appropriation
of Stoic themes may have influenced Valentinus.
The phrase "you rule over creation and all corruption (κυριεύετε της
κτίσεως και της φθοράς άπάσας) echoes Romans 14:9, "For the sake of this
goal Christ died and lived - that he might exercize Lordship over the
dead and the living."60 More decisively, Markshies has also drawn atten­
tion to parallels between Frag.4 and Romans 6:3ff.61 For example,
Romans 6:9b says, "Christ being raised from the dead will never die
again; for death has no dominion over him (θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυρι­
εύει)." Indeed, the prominence of both thanatos and variants on kurieuó in
Frag. 4 and in Romans 5:12-6:14 suggests that Paul's Christ-Adam typology may well be the primary inspiration for Valentinus' own radical
identification of the mission and destiny of the gnostic with Christ.
Romans 5:17 makes the linkage of destinies explicit: "For if by the sin of
one person, death ruled through the one (ό θάνατος έβασίλευσεν δια του
ένος) much more surely will those who receive . . . the free gift of righ­
teousness rule in life (εν ζωή βασιλεύουσιν) through the One, Jesus
Christ." J.B. Lightfoot has pointed out that "in Rom. 5:15-19 there is a sus­
tained contrast between 'the one (ό εις)' and 'the many (oi πολλοί)'"62 a
fact which would make the passage of great interest to Valentinus. Of
course, intense interest does not guarantee freedom from misinterpreta­
tion. While Paul insists that a Christian's reign over death comes through
Christ who descended to rescue us from sin and death while we were yet
helpless sinners, Valentinus' myth of a gnostic descent seems to empha­
size that the elect both descend and reign over death with Christ simulta­
neously.63
59
Not even Paul's claim in I Cor. 6:2 that Christians will judge the world in the escaton warrants the assertion that "all things are ours" now. Paul pulls back from his rather
clumsy Stoidzing assertion in the more eloquent and coherent Rom. 8:28, where he affirms
God's sovereignty but abandons the claim that any creature can possess all things: "All
things work together for good for those who love God." A more lucid Christian reworking
of the Stoic theme of mastery over all is found Phil. 4:13, "I can do all things through him
who strengthens me," and in Hermas, Mandate 12.5.3: "The one who has the Lord in his
heart can master everything."
60
Valentinus Gnosticus?, 145.
61
Ibid., 131.
62
Notes, 291.
63
Käsemann points out that the Adam-Christ mysticism of Rom. 5-6 cannot be understood in isolation from the mystery religions, especially the themes of initiation in the Isis
cult; Commentary on Romans, 161. For the Jewish aspect of Paul's "corporate humanity"
mysticism, see Dodd, Romans, 78-81.
VALENTINUS
155
An even stronger metaphor of absolute identity of the Christian with
Christ is found in Romans 6:3-5:
Do you not know that whoever has been baptized into Christ Jesus has been
baptized into his death? So then, we have been buried with him through
baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead ones
through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
For if we have become joined inseparably to him by growth in the likeness
of his death, we will also be joined to him innately in the likeness of his res­
urrection (εί γαρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τφ όμοιώματι του θανάτου αύτοϋ, άλλα
και της αναστάσεως έσόμεθα).
The crucial term here is sumphutoi, an adjective based on the the verb
sumphuó, which means "to grow together." The word is an agricultural
term and a close look at the range of meaning for sumphuton in Liddel
and Scott shows that it means "grown together in a deep organic union."
It means "joined by growth," "having grown together since birth,""congenital,""joined by nature," "innate," "inborn," "naturally one with." An
adjective based on the perfect tense of sumphuó is used in Wisdom of
Solomon 13:13, where it describes knots in a piece of driftwood. The
knots and the wood therein are inseparable; they have grown together
from the beginning of the wood's existence. The knot and the wood are
so naturally intertwined that they are the same thing.
This is the kind of union with Christ that the believer receives at
baptism. Of course, for Paul such a usage is paradoxical; the fusion of
identities received as a gift at the time of one's conversion is so profound
that it is as if we had been joined to him innately from birth. As William
Sanday has pointed out, this natural union by growth "exactly expresses
the process by which a graft becomes united with the life of a tree." He
notes that the metaphor anticipates Romans 11:17, where Paul talks of the
grafting of the wild gentile shoot into the original Jewish olive tree.64
Many translations ignore the agricultural metaphor. NRSV simply
says "united with him." NEB offers instead "incorporate with Christ,"
emphasizing the collective conception of the two humanities in both
Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21. Neither of these are wrong, but they
64
Sanday, Romans, 157; C.H. Dodd offers the reading "grown into him by a death like
his"(Romans, 85-89 ); J.B. Lightfoot suggests "connate with/' that is, integrally associated
with "him in the likeness of his death"; he clarifies by offering a paraphrase, "if the likeness
of his death has been coincident with our birth, has been a part of us from our birth" (Notes, 296,
my emphasis). The Bultmannian existentialist Käsemann has difficulty accepting the classical meaning ("the standardized usage") of sumphutoi; he suggests that Paul created a private meaning for the term; it is of course "difficult" for the modern scholar to know what
this private meaning might have been (Comm.Rom., 167).
J. WOODROW MCCREE
156
fail to capture the full nuances of the term, particularly the radical extent
of the union. Paul's metaphor implies that we have come to share in
Christ's very being, that his nature is now ours as if innate in us by birth
and as inseparable from us as a knot is from a piece of wood. If late twentieth century Protestant interpreters have shied away from such an implication, Valentinus apparently did not. The baptized Christian is one who
is joined to Christ innately. Whereas Paul referred to baptism as something happening in the historical lives of believers, associated with conversion, Valentinus, reading Romans 6 though the lens of Paul's own
predestinarían language and the theology of the pre-existent church
found in Ephesians and Shepherd of Hermas, projected this innate fusion
of identities back into eternity, to the timeless moment of election.
Thus the union of the gnostic with Christ's death begins not at the
moment of conversion in this life, but with Christ in the very beginning,
when he purposed to condescend to this material universe to destroy
death. Sharing Christ's death means, for Valentinus, descending with
Christ into this world and living a life of self-control, ever consuming the
earthly passions and thus reversing the processes of decay. For Valentinus, sumphutoi means that the elect is one nature with Christ by predestination. He claims that true Christians have eternally purposed with
Christ to "consume death by using it up" (dapanésate) and "to exhaust it,
or spend it completely" (analóséte). The term analóséte is ironic, for it is frequently associated with the natural processes of this world; here one
spends, or uses up, the the passions that lead to death by means of an
ascetic lifestyle. The influence of Hebrews 12:29 upon Valentinus is also
likely for if it is true that "our God is a consumingfire,"so it must be that
the elect who share Christ's nature and descend with him into this world
also destroy death by consuming it. There is also perhaps a sense in
Valentinus that the life of the elect is not fully real, not fully spiritual until
it has become embodied and can then prove itself by demonstrating mastery.65 This is perhaps why Valentinus tells us in Fragment 3 that Jesus
exercized such great self-control that he "wrought divinity" even within
his own digestive tract. Thus Valentinus sees every eternally alive spirit
as descending with Christ to conquer matter, and returning to heaven as
Lords of all on the basis of the fact that they took the very form of death
unto themselves (Phil.2:6-12). Jesus' story is quite literally the story of all
the elect. The world was created so that the eternally elect heavenly
65
Lord.
One cannot exercise Lordship unless there is something over which one can be
VALENTINUS
157
church might demonstrate its godliness by overcoming temptation, thus
becoming "Lords of all Creation."
Furthermore, we should not underestimate the impact made upon
Valentinus by Paul's claim in Romans 6:6 that "the old humanity has
been crucified, so that the body of sin might be abolished." Sin resides in,
and is characterized by, the body. If the body and death are to be nullified, then a rigorous asceticism is called for. Such seems to be the life that
Valentinus advocated.
In the end, we see that Paul's metaphor of being "joined with Christ
innately" (sumphutoi) or rather, "having grown together in an inseparable
union of natures" provided Valentinus with a basis for believing that the
true Christian was of one nature with Christ through election. This agricultural metaphor of ingrafted growth is far more radical in implication
than Paul's image of "putting on Christ" as one would put on a clean
baptismal garment (Romans 13:14). Paul's use of sumphutoi points more
toward a radical mystical union and it was Valentinus who developed
the potential of this metaphor of union to a fuller extent than the orthodox leaders of his time.
If Clement's claim that Valentinus taught a salvation by nature was
not completely accurate, neither was it without foundation. Valentinus
developed an aspect of Paul's thought which others did not. Indeed, the
Gospels of Matthew and John, the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians
and the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews seem to have carried particular weight with him, as did the Psalms. In only one of his known fragments, however, does he offer a theology which explicitly fails to express
a theology of grace; in all other fragments, a theology of grace is implicit
or, at least, the unique revelation of God in Christ is made explicit. When
Valentinus described the true Christian from the standpoint of her origin
in the eternal being of God, he spoke in a way that the emerging orthodox could not accept. When he spoke from the standpoint of the gnostic's
vulnerability in this world and her need of deliverance from on high, he
exhibited both a trust in God's grace as manifested in Christ, and a faith
that the glory of the divine Name and providence could shine in this
world in spite of the filth and stench that disgusted him so.
Select Bibliography
Aland, Barbara. "Envählungstheologie und Menschenklassenlehre: Die
Theologie des Herakleon als Schlüssel zu Verständnis der christlichen Gnosis?" in Gnosis and Gnosticism. Papers read at the Seventh
158
J. WOODROW MCCREE
International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, September 813,1975). Ed. M. Krause. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977) 148-181.
Arai, Sagasu. Die Christologie des Evangelium Veritatis: eine religionsgeschictliches Untersuchung. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964.
Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews. Hermeneia Commentary Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.
Brookes, A.E. The Fragments of Heracleon. Texts and Studies 1. Cambridge,
1891.
Brown, Raymond E., and Meier, John P. Antioch and Rome: New Testament
Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.
Conzelmann, Hans. Í Corinthians. Trans. J. W. Leitch. Hermeneia Commentary Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.
Daniélou, Jean. The Theology of Jewish Christianity, trans. John Baker. A
History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council ofNicaea, Vol. I.
London: Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd, 1964.
DeConick, April D. Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the
Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 157.
Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Dubois, Jean-Daniel. "Le contexte judaïque du 'nom' dan L'Évangile de
Vérité." Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 3 (1974) 198-216.
Fergeson, John. Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis, Books One to Three.
Fathers of the Church 85. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. of America, 1991.
Fossum, Jarl E. The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of
Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology. Novum Testamentum et Orbis
Antiquus 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1995.
Foerster, Werner. Gnosis. Vol. 1, The Patristic Evidence. Tr. R. McL. Wilson.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.
Hilgenfeld, D. Adolf. Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums. Leipzig:
Fues's Verlag, 1884.
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Tr. Geoffery Bromiley. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Layton, Bentley. The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Vol. 1, The School of Valentinus. Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at
Yale: New Haven, Connecticut, March 28-31,1978. Studies in the
History of Religions (Supplements to Numen) 41. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1980.
Leon, Harry J. The Jews of Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1960.
VALENTINUS
159
Lightfoot, J.B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Hendrickson Publishers,
Inc.: Third Printing, 1995.
Logan, Alastair H. B. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
Lüdemann, Gerd. "Zur Geschürte des ältesten Christentums in Rom."
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 70 (1979) 86-114.
Markschies, Christoph. Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins.
Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992.
McGuire, Anne Marie. Valentinus and the "Gnostike Hairesis": An Investigation of Valentinus' Position in the History of Gnosticism. Yale University
Ph.D 1983. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1983.
Mondédesert, Claude. Clément d'Alexandrie: Les Stromates, II. Intro. P. T.
Camelot. Sources Chrétiennes 38. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1954.
Norris, Richard Α., Jr. "Heresy and Orthodoxy in the Later Second
Century." USQR 52 (1998) 43-59.
Pétrement, Simone. A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticism. Trans. Carol Harrison. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990.
French, 1984.
Quispel, Giles. "Ezekiel 1:26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis." Vigiliae
Christianae 34 (1980) 1-13.
, "The Original Doctrine of Valentinus." Vigiliae Christianae 1 (1947)
43-73.
, "The Original Doctrine of Valentinus the Gnostic." Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996) 327-352.
Sagnard, F. M. La Gnose valentinienne et le témoignage de Saint Irénée. Paris,
J. Vrin, 1947.
Sanday, William. The Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1898.
Thomassen, Einar. "Gnostic Semiotics: The Valentinian Notion of the
Name." Témenos 29 (1993) 141-156.
Williams, Michael A. Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling
a Dubious Category. Princeton: University Press, 1996.
Volker, Walther. Quellen zur Geschichte Der Christlichen Gnosis. Tübingen:
J. C.B. Mohr, 1932.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.