VALENTINUS AND THE GNOSTIKOI

BY

GILLES QUISPEL

One of the few data in the study of Gnosticism that always seemed
rather certain was the hypothesis that the "mythological Gnosis" as
represented by the sect of the Gnostikoi of Irenaeus 1.29, the
Apocryphon of John and so many other writings found near Nag Hammadi, preceded the more "philosophical Gnosis' * of Valentinus and his
pupils.1
Bentley Layton accepted this view and made it the fundamental
historical thesis of his book The Gnostic Scriptures.1 According to him
Valentinus was a Christian reformer of an already existing gnostic tradition and in fact used a version of this gnostic myth of origins as his main
system of orientation. Christoph Markschies has recently challenged
this approach to gnostic origins and criticised it in the sharpest possible
way.3 He does not deny that all known pupils of Valentinus were influenced by this originally Jewish form of Gnosticism, but he holds that
Valentinus himself is an exception to the rule and in fact was nothing
but a more or less orthodox, apologetic, Christian theologian like Clement of Alexandria and Origen. In order to prove this assumption, he
discusses critically the evidence which seems to point out that Valentinus
knew the myth of the Gnostikoi. He has, however, ignored one passage
which seems relevant to this problem. Irenaeus quite often mentions the
Gnostikoi, mostly together with the Valentinians: according to him they
are a separate sect. He never calls other groups, the Valentinians, Marcionites, Basilidians etc. gnostic.4 The use of the word gnostic in a
general sense to indicate all sorts of heretics is modern.
Irenaeus never tells us that he had encountered Gnostikoi in his congregation at Lyon. Perhaps he got his information in Rome when he
visited pope Eleutherus in 177-178 in his endeavour to intermediate in
the Pascal controversy between Rome and Asia Minor. It was in Rome
that an adherent of the sect of the Gnostikoi, Marcellina, had seduced
many true believers during the episcopacy of Anicetus (155-166).5 The
Catholic leaders there knew what they were speaking about: they may
have informed the bishop of Lyon.
E J . Brill, Leiden, 1996

Vigiliae Christianae 50, 1-4

GILLES QUISPEL

When summarising the doctrine of Valentinus himself as opposed to

that of his pupils, Irenaeus observes that the Master had derived the
main tenets of his doctrine from the so-called Gnostic heresy and had
transformed them into a school of his own (1, 11, 1). And in Adversus
haereses, I, 30,15 he concludes his report on the Gnostikoi in the two
preceding chapters with a remarkable passage which demands our
special attention and which should be read in the following way:
tales quidem secundum eos sententiae sunt, a quibus velut Lernaea hydra,
multiplex capitibus fera de Valentini schola generata est.
It is true that the editors of Irenaeus in the series Sources Chrtiennes
263/264, Rousseau and Doutreleau, have omitted de in this passage.
But their competent critic Sven Lundstrm has proved that the reading
of the manuscripts makes good sense:6
So foolish are the views (of the Gnostikoi), from whom the many-headed
serpent,7 just like the Hydra of Lerna, was generated that arose from the
school of Valentinus.
As Lundstrm remarks, generata est has sexual connotations. He compares Irenaeus, Adversus haereses I, 14, 1 where another Valentinian,
Marc the Magician, the only pupil of Colorbasus, one of the leaders of
the Oriental School of Valentinianism, is said to be "the womb which
conceived the Silence of Colorbasus (vulvam et exceptorium Colorbasi
Silentii).99
The underlying metaphor of the quoted passage is that Valentinus,
impregnated and made pregnant by the opinions of the Gnostikoi, gave
birth to the many ramifications of the Valentinian network of
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon in the West, Theodotus and Marcus in the
East. Valentinus had conceived the ideas of the Gnostikoi as sperma
within his womb and transmitted them to his pupils, a many-headed
Hydra.
This seems to imply that the school of Valentinus was not yet split
during his lifetime. Valentinus was born in Egypt about 100 A.D., came
to Rome under bishop Hyginus (136-140), reached his acme under
Pius (140-155) and remained in Rome under Anicetus (155-160)
(Irenaeus, III, 43). He may have returned to Alexandria. The date of
his death is unknown. The split among his followers seems to have
occurred rather late. But it was from the founder of the sect himself that
all his pupils had received their gnostic ideas.

VALENTINUS AND THE GNOSTIKOI

These words of Irenaeus may offer us the right perspective to

elucidate a difficult passage in Tertullian, which has vexed the scholars
for a very long time. After having stated that Valentinus in Rome had
once been a fine evangelical preacher, who failed to become a bishop
and out of frustration left the church, he continues:
Ad expugnandam conversus veritatem et cuiusdam veteris opinionis semen
nactus colubro suo viam delineavit.
semen nactus colubro suo is the conjecture of Kroymann (1906) and
Marastoni (1971); semini nactus colubroso is the consensus of the manuscripts of Adversus Valentinianos 4,2.
In his excellent edition Fredouille chose to read Colorbaso instead of
colubroso, with Latinius (Rome 1584) and our compatriot Junius
(Franeker 1597).8
Colorbasus was the teacher of Marc the Magician and one of the
leaders of the Oriental School of Valentinianism. This conjecture certainly is ingenious. But how could Colorbasus be the intermediary
between Valentinus in Rome and Ptolemaeus, leader of the Italic
school, who probably was also in Rome? Moreover this change of the
text is not necessary as soon as we realise that coluber has associations
with the Hydra of Lerna:
denique quid Cretae taurus Lernaeaque pestis
hydra venenatis posset vallata colubris?
(Lucretius, De rerum natura 5.26-27
pectoraque unxerunt Erebeae felle colubrae
(Ovid, Ibis 227)
So we translate:
He started to fight against the Truth: he conceived the seed (or perhaps:
the sperma) of an ancient doctrine and outlined in bold strokes a trajectory
for his serpent.
We never will know whether this reconstitution of the text is completely
correct. But it would seem that the much criticized Kroymann at least
once in his life made an emendatio palmaris, for comparison with
Irenaeus shows that the coluber hints at the many-headed Hydra of the
Valentinian network. Tertullian then goes on to reveal that Ptolemaeus
changed the system of his Master; according to him the aeons were
outside the Godhead (like angels), whereas Valentinus considered them
to be sensus et affectus, motus divinitatis, ideas and aspects and

GILLES QUISPEL

moments of self-realisation within the mind of the Godhead. His God

always was Being in Movement.
The comparison with Irenaeus makes it crystal clear that the quaedam
vetus opinio can be nothing else than the doctrine of the Gnostikoi.9
Tertullian says exactly the same as Irenaeus: Valentinus was indebted to
an older myth and enunciated sketchily the way for the Hydra, the many
ramifications that later, after his death, originated from his school.
Where did he pick up the teaching of the Gnostikoi? Was it in Rome,
as Tertullian suggests, possibly following a Roman tradition? Or did he
already become familiar with it in Alexandria, where it belonged and
did already exist at the time Valentinus studied there, before 136 A.D.
I guess the latter is more plausible. This testimony cannot be ignored or
be explained away: Tertullian was brawler and a sophist, not a liar.
The two passages quoted prove without any shadow of doubt that the
original doctrine of Valentinus is rooted in a preceding mythological
Gnosis which he hellenised and christianised. If he was not a Gnostic,
he certainly was a gnostic.
NOTES
1

Howard M. Jackson, The Lion becomes Man, Atlanta 1985, 22, quotes Ferdinand
Christian Baur, Die christliche Gnosis, Tbingen 1835, 171 and Hans Jonas, Gnosis und
sptantiker Geist I3, Gttingen 1964, 358-362.
2
Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, New York 1987, XII and XXII.
3
Christoph Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus?, Tbingen 1992, 405: Die These .
Laytons, Valentinus sei ein "Christlicher Reformer eines klassischen gnostischen Systems
gewesen", kann nicht scharf genug widersprochen werden.
4
R.A. Lipsius, Die Quellen der ltesten Ketzergeschichte neu untersucht, Leipzig 1875,
191-225.
5

Irenaeus, Adversus haereses I, 25,6: Unde et Marcellina, quae Romam sub Aniceto
venit, cum esset huius doctrinae, multos exterminavit. Gnsticos se autem vocant.
6
Sven Lundstrm, Die berlieferung der lateinsichen Irenaeus-bersetzung, Uppsala
1985, 12.
7
fera must be the translation of the Greek , which often means: serpent. Bauer,
Greek Lexicon of the New Testament 361 quotes Acts of the Apostles 28:4, where
varites with .
8
Jean-Claude Fredouille, Tertullien Contre les Valentiniens, Sources Chrtiennes 280,
Paris 1980, I, 86.

Markschies, o.e. 405: 'Valentin hat keine Samen gewisser alter Lehren aufgenommen\
He quotes Fredouille, II, 202: 'Le platonisme, comme nous serions tent de le croire'. But
Markschies forgets to mention that for Fredouille this Platonism is identical with the
system of the Apocryphon of John of the Gnostikoi: 'Il est en effet admis que
YApokryphon de Jean a jou un role important dans la gense de la doctrine de Valentin.'

3722 BR Bilthoven, Noordhoudringelaan 32

^ 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.