Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 24.djvu/52

Rh 38 YALENTINUS Valentinus was the author of several epistles, three frag merits of which have been preserved by Clement; 1 one o: these was addressed to a certain Agathopus. He also com posed homilies (one entitled On Friends}, of which we possess four fragments. 2 An expression of Tertullian s (.4 c/y. Valent., 2) seems to imply that Valentinus was also the author of a treatise entitled /Sophia. Perhaps this is the source from which Irenpeus s systematic account of the Valentinian doctrine (i. 11, 1) was indirectly taken. Ter- tullian speaks of Psalms of Valentinus (De Car., xvii. 20) the author of the Muratorian Fragment seems also to refei to these ; and in the Philosophumena of Hippolytus (vi. 37) a considerable fragment from them is given. The &quot; gospel &quot; of Valentinus is spoken of below. Sources. All that we possess of Valentinus and his disciples are the fragments preserved by their opponents, the fathers of the church. We cannot therefore put implicit confidence in all that they tell us, or accept as of primary importance in the doctrine oi the Valentinians all that they represent as such. The extant frag ments of the writings of Valentinus himself, as well as of those oJ his scholars (Ptolemseus, Heracleon, Theodotus, and others), fortu nately enable us to set their theology in a more worthy light than does the fantastic &quot;system&quot; which Irenceus has given. Of the four ancient treatises against the Valentinians known to Tertullian we possess but one, that of Irenaeus, those of Justin, Miltiades, and Proculus being lost. The loss of Justin is most to be regretted, for he was a contemporary, and wrote his Syntagma probably in Rome at the time when Valentinus was actually labouring there. In Rome some sixty years later the author of the Muratorian Frag ment also took notice of him. Proculus wrote a special polemic against him, while Miltiades wrote in the same sense in Asia Minor and Iren?eus in Gaul about 180. Tertullian s Adversus Valen- tinianos was composed in Carthage some twenty years later, and Clement engaged in a work of a similar nature almost simultane ously at Alexandria. Against the Marcionite Church the fathers were equally energetic, Marcion and Valentinus during the period between 150 and 230 passing for the most dangerous heretics. Our oldest and at the same time fullest source is the work of Irenaeus, which rests upon a tract of Ptolemaeus and probably makes use of the Syntagma 3 of Justin. In all probability he had read nothing of Valentinus himself. Tertullian s Adversus Valentinianos is largely taken from Irenseus, but contains some things that are original and of very great value : he had either himself read some Valen tinian works, or had at least obtained authentic information as to their contents. Our best sources for Valentinus himself are the Stromata and Eclogues of Clement of Alexandria, who had read much of Valentinus and something of Heracleon, and gives extracts from both. His Excerpta ex Theodoto are also invaluable. Hip polytus in both his works against heretics has transcribed Irenceus ; yet in his Philosophumena, he has followed a new source in describ ing the Valentinian system. Origen made a careful study of Heracleon s Commentary on John s Gospel, and in his own Com mentary he frequently refers to it both approvingly and otherwise. The numerous fragments he has preserved have very great value for the historian. Lastly, Irenreus and Hippolytus have been tran scribed by Epiphanius, who also has preserved various matters of importance, particularly the letter of Ptolemaeus to Flora. Valentinians. The school of Yalentinus soon divided into two main branches, that of Italy and that of Asia Minor. 4 Both in turn subdivided into various sections ; but the Asiatic branch on the whole preserved most faithfully the teaching of the master. His influence spread even beyond the limits of the schools. Tatian, for example, in his later period indubitably derived much from Valen tinus, and the fathers of the Alexandrian school were very largely indebted to him. Even in the time of Epiphanius Valentinians still existed in some districts of Egypt. The Italian branch had as heads of its schools Secundus, another master of uncertain name (Colarbasus? Epiphanius? see Iren., i. 11, 3), Ptolemteus, Herac leon, Theotimus, and Alexander. Secundus modified the master s doctrine of the aeons and introduced a dualism into it. The anony mous scholar shows tokens of Pythagorean influence. . But the most important, exceeding in the extent of their influence even the piaster himself, were Ptolemneus and Heracleon. The former made into hypostases the reons which Valentinus himself had regarded as impersonal powers of the one Godhead. He is the systematic and Biblical theologian par excellence of the Valentinian school, con spicuous for a powerful if also undisciplined phantasy ; and in his letter to Flora he shows how thorough has been his study of the 1 Strom., ii. 8, 36 ; ii. 20, 114 ; iii. 7, 59. &quot; Strom., iv. 13, 91 ; iv., 13, 92 ; vi. 6, 52 ; Hippol., Philos., vi. 42. His use of this work, however, is not beyond all question, and it is impossible to tell the nature and amount of his indebtedness. 1 See Hippol., Philos., vi. 35 ; Tert., Adv. Valent., 4. Old Testament, and how penetrating, how carefully considered, and how pointed his criticism of it. Heracleon, mentioned also by Irenaeus, earned distinction by his Commentary (viroit.vfifw.Ta) on the Gospel according to John, for it is probably the first scientific com mentary that Christendom produced. Clement (Strom., iv. 9, 73) calls him the most eminent teacher of the Valentinian school. He appears to have shown much greater sobriety than Ptolenianis, whose speculations recall those of the later Neoplatonists in a most striking manner, just as we find Valentinianism generally to have anticipated, not only the later scientific theology of the Catholic Church, but also Neoplatonism. Of Theotimus all that we know is Tertullian s remark (Adv. Valent., 4) : &quot;niultum circa imagines legis operatus est.&quot; Tertullian is also our sole informant about Alexander (De Carne, 17-20). He seems to have busied himself specially with the Christological problem, and to have written under the title of Syllogismi a treatise into which quotations from Valentinus s Psalms were introduced as authorities. The names mentioned as those of leaders of the Asiatic school are Axionicus, Theodotus, and above all Bardesanes ; we also have some fragments of Valentinian writings belonging to the East, but of which the origin is otherwise unknown. 5 Axionicus at Antioch (i was the master s most faithful disciple. Clement of Alexandria has preserved excerpts of a very inconsecutive character and in a very corrupt text from a systematic work, and some commentaries of Theodotus ( E/c TWV QeoSbrov Kal TTJS ai&amp;gt;aToiKi)s Kaov[j.fi&quot;r)s Sidaa- KaXt aj Kara TOI&amp;gt;S OvaXfisrivov xp - vs tirtTOfMu). These excerpts, which constitute one of the most important sources for Gnosticism generally, have not hitherto received the attention they deserve. Zahn (Forschungcn,_ iii. p. 123 sq.) has tried to make out that Theodotus is identical with Theodas, Valentinus s master. But from the excerpts it seems hardly probable that they should be the work of a man who must have written at latest under the emperor Trajan. Bardesanes, though originally influenced by Valentinus, ultimately took up peculiar and independent ground of his own, and through him Valentinus exercised a great influence upon the Syrian Church, which continued until the 4th century (see SYIUAC LITERATURE, vol. xxii. p. 827). In Asia Minor the Valentinian collegia continued until past the middle of the 4th century (see Epp. Julianf). The church fathers bring into connexion with Valentinus the Magian Marcus, as to whose doctrine we are very adequately informed by Irenaeus, but it is questionable whether he can really be reckoned as one of the disciples of that master. _ Teaching of Valentinus. Valentinus made his appearance at a time when the Christian communities were still destitute of any fixed doctrinal system : they were still associations pledged to a holy life on the ground of their faith in the one spiritual God and in His Son Jesus Christ, closely held together by the bonds of brotherly love, and strictly separated from the world and from them that are without by the consciousness of having received the Holy Ghost. But an enormous volume of facts, of sayings, and of thoughts had by this time become current within the church, material drawn from the Old Testament, from the Gospel history, from the Pauline epistles, from other early Christian writings, and from the Hellenistic and apocalyptic literature of the Jews. How this material was to be arranged, how it was to be kept within bounds, and with what degree of authority it was to be invested were questions still unsettled. But one thing was certain Paul had declared it, and every Christian apostle, prophet, and teacher had repeated it that the Christian faith guaranteed knowledge supreme and complete, and led on from truth to truth. Another thing was sure that all human wisdom was but folly in presence of this new &quot; divine &quot; wisdom, which was inclusive of all human knowledge. The means, moreover, by which every saying, every fact was to be turned into a profound thought had for long been known and in use in the Christian communities, that of allegory. But as yet there was no settled principle fixing the manner in which the allegorical method was to be applied, or determining what were the ruling thoughts of Scripture. The attitude of Christian teachers towards the Jewish wisdom was as indeterminate as it was towards Greek philosophy. The Pauline theology was intelligible only to a very few, and the Old Testament was as it were a veritable sphinx. It was understood to be a superhuman book, but it was also understood that much of its contents, if taken literally, was valueless. In what sense was it to be under stood ? How much of it was to be taken literally and how much spiritually ? Was everything to be taken spiritually ? According
 * o what principle was it on this assumption to be interpreted ?

Was the whole of it the revealed word of the Most High, or were various authors to be recognized? Might it possibly be that part of it was divine, part heroical, part genial, part natural, part false, ind part devilish ? Or was it perhaps true that no part of the )0ok proceeded from the Most High God, that nothing was pneu- natic, but all psychical or carnal ? And, if the Old Testament was 5 See Epipli., Hair., iii. 5, 6; Method., He/u avrf^ovcriov; Adamant., 6 Hippol., Philos., iv. 35; Adv. Valent., 4.
 * e recta in Dewnfide.