What heresies did Valentinus vomit out and how does that affect us today?
Valentinus’ System of Theology
It is clear from the preceding survey that the paucity of primary texts makes the reconstruction of Valentinus’ system very difficult. Researchers have depended on the heresiological accounts which describe the systems of his followers, hoping to see an imprint of their mentor’s system. Helpful modern discussions of the classic gnostic myth are those by Layton (1987: 5–22) and Rudolph (1983: 53–272), while useful discussions of Valentinus’ own gnostic system, and the systems of his followers, also can be found in Layton (1987: 267–353) and Rudolph (1983: 317–25).
Valentinus accepted the classic gnostic world-view, as represented in the Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1; III,1; IV,1; and BG 8502,2), but with his own revisions. Rudolph suggests that we see in Valentinus’ teaching the apex of gnosticism, the greatest and most influential of the gnostic schools (1983: 322–23).
D. Gnosticism in the Tradition of Valentinus
Even before the death of Valentinus some of his students were already becoming influential teachers. But soon after his death the Valentinian school split into two groups, the “Eastern” (or Anatolian, mostly located in Alexandria) and the “Western” (or Italic, situated in Rome). The Eastern branch produced such luminaries as Axionicus of Antioch, Kolorbasos (?), Mark, Theodotus (“Excerpta ex Theodoto”; Casey 1934; Sagnard 1948; and Hill 1972), Ambrose and Candidus, while the West produced Heracleon (Brooke 1891; Pagels 1973), Ptolemy (Epistle to Flora; Quispel 1966), Secundus, Alexander, Flora, Florinus, and Theotimus (Layton 1987: map 5; Rudolph 1983: 322–25).
The heresiological assault on the Valentinian schools began in about the middle of the 2d century. Such orthodox thinkers as Justin Martyr (Rome, ca. 150), Miltiades (ca. 165), Irenaeus (Lyon, ca. 180), Clement (Alexandria, ca. 200), Origen (Alexandria, ca. 200), Tertullian (Carthage, ca. 195–207), Hippolytus (Rome, ca. 222–235), Ambrose (Milan, ca. 338), John Chrysostom (Antioch, ca. 386), Theodore (Mopsuestia, ca. 400), and Theodoret (Cyrrus, ca. 450) wrote merciless polemic against the Valentinians. The presence of Valentinian texts, representing more than one Coptic dialect, in the Nag Hammadi library attest to the continued interest in Valentinian concepts, in the mid-4th century, within circles of ascetic monks, who were themselves not Valentinian. The emperor Constantine proscribed the Valentinians, among other “sectarians,” in about the year 325, while the last contemporary condemnation dates from the Trullan Synod (Canon 95) of 692 (Constantinople).
Paul Allan Mirecki, “Valentinus,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 784.
IV.—THE HERESY TRACEABLE TO VALENTINUS, AN ABLE BUT RESTLESS MAN. MANY SCHISMATICAL LEADERS OF THE SCHOOL MENTIONED. ONLY ONE OF THEM SHOWS RESPECT TO THE MAN WHOSE NAME DESIGNATES THE ENTIRE SCHOOL
We know, I say, most fully their actual origin, and we are quite aware why we call them Valentinians, although they affect to disavow their name. They have departed, it is true, from their founder, yet is their origin by no means destroyed; and even if it chance to be changed, the very change bears testimony to the fact. Valentinus had expected to become a bishop, because he was an able man both in genius and eloquence. Being indignant, however, that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship had given him, he broke with the church of the true faith. Just like those (restless) spirits which, when roused by ambition, are usually inflamed with the desire of revenge, he applied himself with all his might10 to exterminate the truth; and finding the clue of a certain old opinion, he marked out a path for himself with the subtlety of a serpent. Ptolemæus afterwards entered on the same path, by distinguishing the names and the numbers of the Ænons into personal substances, which, however, he kept apart from God. Valentinus had included these in the very essence of the Deity, as senses and affections of motion. Sundry bypaths were then struck off therefrom, by Heraclean and Secundus and the magician Marcus. Theotimus worked hard about “the images of the law.” Valentinus, however, was as yet nowhere, and still the Valentinians derive their name from Valentinus. Axionicus at Antioch is the only man who at the present time does honour to the memory of Valentinus, by keeping his rules to the full. But this heresy is permitted to fashion itself into as many various shapes as a courtezan, who usually changes and adjusts her dress every day. And why not? When they review that spiritual seed of theirs in every man after this fashion, whenever they have hit upon any novelty, they forthwith call their presumption a revelation, their own perverse ingenuity a spiritual gift; but (they deny all) unity, admitting only diversity. And thus we clearly see that, setting aside their customary dissimulation, most of them are in a divided state, being ready to say (and that sincerely) of certain points of their belief, “This is not so;” and, “I take this in a different sense;” and, “I do not admit that.” By this variety, indeed, innovation is stamped on the very face of their rules; besides which, it wears all the colourable features of ignorant conceits.
Tertullian, “Against the Valentinians,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe; trans. Peter Roberts; vol. 3; The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 3505.
