Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

[Ben C. Smith]

This is what Richard Bauckham has to say about this topic in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Bear in mind that Bauckham is wringing Papias for every precious drop of his historical worth as a testifier to the early stages of Christianity:

Since Aristion and John the Elder were disciples of the Lord who were still alive at the time about which Papias is writing, as well as relatively close to him geographically (probably in Smyrna and Ephesus respectively) and easily accessible on major routes, he was able to collect their sayings mediated by only one transmitter — any of their disciples who visited Hierapolis.

And even for Bauckham there is a distance of one mediator between Papias and these two tradents.

[John T]

This is what Richard Bauckham has to say about this topic in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Bear in mind that Bauckham is wringing Papias for every precious drop of his historical worth as a testifier to the early stages of Christianity:

Since Aristion and John the Elder were disciples of the Lord who were still alive at the time about which Papias is writing, as well as relatively close to him geographically (probably in Smyrna and Ephesus respectively) and easily accessible on major routes, he was able to collect their sayings mediated by only one transmitter — any of their disciples who visited Hierapolis.

And even for Bauckham there is a distance of one mediator between Papias and these two tradents.

Papias', "Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord" had been around for over 1,000 years for church leaders and scholars to study before it was finally lost in the middle ages.

Do you not find it a bit disingenuous that modern scholars question the integrity of Papias claims of association with Aristion and John because the scant few remaining quotations attributed to Papias can't be verified with his now long lost, "Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord"?

Would Bauckham also claim that Plato never knew Socrates because there are no surviving writings of Socrates?

[Ben C. Smith]

Do you not find it a bit disingenuous that modern scholars question the integrity of Papias claims of association with Aristion and John....

I am not questioning the integrity of Papias' claims here. Nor is Bauckham. What is on the table is what Papias claimed. And, in the very fragment upon which Eusebius bases his claim that Papias heard directly from Aristion and John the elder, we can see with our own eyes that Papias did not make that claim. Eusebius is overreaching.

Is it possible that Papias directly interviewed Aristion and John the elder, and mentioned it in other parts of his text? Sure. But what would lead you or anybody to make such a claim when we can watch Eusebius, not only drawing an erroneous conclusion from his quoted text right before us, but also justifying it with the weak statement that "at least" (γοῦν) he often names them in his writing?

Would Bauckham also claim that Plato never knew Socrates because there are no surviving writings of Socrates?

What is this analogy about? It does not seem parallel to the case at hand at all.

[John T]

Do you not find it a bit disingenuous that modern scholars question the integrity of Papias claims of association with Aristion and John....

I am not questioning the integrity of Papias' claims here. Nor is Bauckham. What is on the table is what Papias claimed. And, in the very fragment upon which Eusebius bases his claim that Papias heard directly from Aristion and John the elder, we can see with our own eyes that Papias did not make that claim. Eusebius is overreaching.

Is it possible that Papias directly interviewed Aristion and John the elder, and mentioned it in other parts of his text? Sure. But what would lead you or anybody to make such a claim when we can watch Eusebius, not only drawing an erroneous conclusion from his quoted text right before us, but also justifying it with the weak statement that "at least" (γοῦν) he often names them in his writing?

Would Bauckham also claim that Plato never knew Socrates because there are no surviving writings of Socrates?

What is this analogy about? It does not seem parallel to the case at hand at all.

You have good arguments.

I would enjoy exploring them some more however, I have strayed from the O.P. on a tangent that I did not intend.

So, in conclusion (as I score Irenaeus vs. Valtentinus):

1. Irenaeus exposed Valentinus as a heretic as well as the off-shoots of Gnosticism that sprang up during his time around the 2nd century.

2. Valentinus sought to undermine christian monarchianism by claiming he had deeper insight regarding how to get to heaven because he had a personal revelation (gnosis) from Jesus. That is, in order to get to the third (highest) level of heaven you had to believe as Valentinus believed and not the teachings of the ignorant disciples of Jesus. If you joined Valentinus' super secret club of the rich and famous you would learn that God was a dyad (androgynous) and Jesus gave birth to his mother sphoia (wisdom) in the lowest form of the 26 Aoens and it gets weirder from there. Such is Gnosticism.

3. Valentinus eschatology was so bizarre compared to what John the elder taught Polycarp who taught Irenaeus, that Irenaeus took it upon himself to expose the heresy of Valentinus as well as other gnostic groups that claimed the only way to heaven was through secret knowledge and not by faith in Jesus.

4. Why did the list of Gnostic groups by Irenaeus vary from other lists of the ante-Nicene fathers? I failed to see the importance other than an interesting tid bit.

5. How many different Gnostic leaders had similar sounding/spelling names? Apparently not very many.

6. The main point of Irenaeus and the other ante-Nicene fathers was that Valentinus tried to undermine the christian movement through his own version of Gnositicism.

Of course, I'm sure there is a deeper meaning to this thread but that is my take.

Now, when can we have that discussion on Gnosticism vs. Zoroastrianism?

John T

[Secret Alias]

In answer to #2 I think we have to ask ourselves how developed Jewish monotheism or monarchianism was in the 1st century CE. The mysterious divine ish character who wanders in the periphery of the Pentateuch and Joshua (an understanding at the core of early orthodox Christian figures) seems to argue for more than one power in heaven. If Christianity was monarchian it was only so from the crucifixion when a restoration occurs in the divine godhead. As Brent has demonstrated the Imperial culture in the late second century "encouraged" monarchianism in all sects and religions. Not clear that Valentinianism is necessarily younger than Irenaeanism

[Secret Alias]

In answer to #3 what is unfamiliar inevitably seems strange. Having an enemy of someone or something as our only source for that someone or something is not ideal. I am sure the Jewish temple religion would seem strange and bizarre to contemporary Jewry. When I was in Japan being white was bizarre. I am sure that Japanese tourists in Trump country feel the way I did in Kagoshima. The one thing we can sure of is that the longer we have intimate association with something the more natural it seems the more rational it becomes. I am sure even cannibalism seemed sensible and even vaguely normal in the right (or wrong) situation

[Secret Alias]

In answer to number #4. The heresiological sources available to us are not the original sources for that material. Since context matters for understanding ideas it is of deep significance for instance whether the Marcosians really were originally reported to be a sect of Valentinus, whether certain groups were left off earlier lists, whether Dositheos or Simon was the original "father of the heresies" etc.

[Secret Alias]

In answer to #1 Hegesippus identifies Marcellina's sect as the original Gnostic heresy. Since Hegesippus is one of Adversus Haereses' sources AH's decision to ignore or modify Hegesippus is significant

[John T]

In answer to number #4. The heresiological sources available to us are not the original sources for that material. Since context matters for understanding ideas it is of deep significance for instance whether the Marcosians really were originally reported to be a sect of Valentinus, whether certain groups were left off earlier lists, whether Dositheos or Simon was the original "father of the heresies" etc.

Thanks for your insight and comments.

I find the history/origins of Gnosticism complicated but very revealing in how people saw their geocentric universe.
Modern science, i.e. astronomy, has all but debunked any remaining doubt that Gnosticism is pseudo-intellectual and trusts exclusively in magic.
We can argue later the real motives of gnostics in their attempt to graft into Christianity but they got caught and exposed (as wolves in sheep clothing) by Irenaeus and others.

Perhaps the best short summary (if you call one hour of reading short) I have read in many years can be found here and seems to answer most of your questions.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

[andrewcriddle]

.

I find the history/origins of Gnosticism complicated but very revealing in how people saw their geocentric universe.
Modern science, i.e. astronomy, has all but debunked any remaining doubt that Gnosticism is pseudo-intellectual and trusts exclusively in magic.
We can argue later the real motives of gnostics in their attempt to graft into Christianity but they got caught and exposed (as wolves in sheep clothing) by Irenaeus and others.

Perhaps the best short summary (if you call one hour of reading short) I have read in many years can be found here and seems to answer most of your questions.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

Although a good article at the time this is about 100 years old.

It is out of date. E.G. It was written before the Nag Hammadi documents were discovered.

Andrew Criddle