Supernatural Religion Volume II Part 15

When did Irenaeus, however, really write his work against Heresies?

Although our sources of credible information regarding him are exceedingly limited, we are not without materials for forming a judgment on the point Irenaeus was probably born about a.d. 140-145, and is generally supposed to have died at the beginning of the third century (a.d. 202).(1) We know that he was deputed by the Church of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of Rome, the Epistle of that Christian community describing their sufferings during the persecution commenced against them in the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (7th March, 177--178).(2) It is very improbable that this journey was undertaken, in any case, before the spring of a.d. 178 at the earliest, and, indeed, in accordance with the given data, the

{209}

persecution itself may not have commenced earlier than the beginning of that year, so that his journey need not have been undertaken before the close of 178 or the spring of 179, to which epoch other circ.u.mstances might lead us.(1) There is reason to believe that he remained some time in Rome. Baronius states that Irenaeus was not appointed Bishop of Lyons till a.d. 180, for he says that the see remained vacant for that period after the death of Pothinus in consequence of the persecution. Now certain expressions in his work show that Irenaeus did not write it until he became Bishop.(2) It is not known how long Irenaeus remained in Rome, but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat protracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the various tenets of Gnostic and other heretics then being actively taught, and the preface to the first Book refers to the pains he took. He wrote his work in Gaul, however, after his return from this visit to Rome.

This is apparent from what he himself states in the Preface to the first Book: "I have thought it necessary," he says, "after having read the Memoirs [------] of the disciples of Valentinus as they call themselves, and _having had personal intercourse with some of them_ and acquired full knowledge of their opinions, to unfold to thee,"(3) &c. A little further on, he claims from the friend to whom he addresses his work indulgence for any defects of style on the score of his being resident amongst the Keltae.(4) Irenaeus no doubt during his stay in Rome came in

{210}

contact with the school of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, if not with the Gnostic leaders themselves, and shocked as he describes himself as being at the doctrines which they insidiously taught, he undertook, on his return to Lyons, to explain them that others might be exhorted to avoid such an "abyss of madness and blasphemy against Christ."(1) Irenaeus gives us other materials for a.s.signing a date to his work. In the third Book he enumerates the bishops who had filled the Episcopal Chair of Rome, and the last whom he names is Eleutherus (a.d. 177--190), who, he says, "now in the twelfth place from the apostles, holds the inheritance of the episcopate."(2) There is, however, another clue which, taken along with this, leads us to a close approximation to the actual date.

In the same Book, Irenaeus mentions Theodotion's version of the Old Testament: "But not as some of those say," he writes, "who now [------]

presume to alter the interpretation of the Scripture: 'Behold the young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,' as Theodotion, the Ephesian, translated it, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes."(3) Now we are informed by Epiphanius that Theodotion published his translation during the reign of the Emperor Commodus(4) (a.d. 180--192). The Chronicon Paschale adds that it was during the Consulship of Marcellus, or as Ma.s.suet(5) proposes to read Marullus, who, jointly with aelia.n.u.s, a.s.sumed office a.d. 184. These dates decidedly agree with the pa.s.sage of Irenaeus and with the other data, all of which lead

{211}

us to about the same period within the episcopate of Eleutherus (+ c.

190).(1) We have here, therefore, a clue to the date at which Irenaeus wrote. It must be remembered that at that period the multiplication and dissemination of books was a very slow process. A work published about 184 or 185 could scarcely have come into the possession of Irenaeus in Gaul till some years later, and we are, therefore, brought towards the end of the episcopate of Eleutherus as the earliest date at which the first three books of his work against Heresies can well have been written, and the rest must be a.s.signed to a later period under the episcopate of Victor (+ 198--199).(2)

At this point we must pause and turn to the evidence which Tischendorf offers regarding the date to be a.s.signed to Heracleon.(3) As in the case of Ptolemaeus, we shall give it entire and then examine it in detail. To the all-important question: "How old is Heracleon?" Tischendorf replies: "Irenaeus names Heracleon, together

3 Canon Westcott adds no separate testimony. He admits that: "The history of Heracleon, the great Valentinian Commentator, is full of uncertainty. Nothing is known of his country or parentage." On the Canon, p. 263, and in a note: "The exact chronology of the early heretics is very uncertain," p. 264, note 2. p 2

{212}

with Ptolemaeus II. 4, -- 1, in a way which makes them appear as well-known representatives of the Valentinian school. This interpretation of his words is all the more authorized because he never again mentions Heracleon. Clement, in the 4th Book of his Stromata, written shortly after the death of Commodus (193), recalls an explanation by Heracleon of Luke xii. 8, when he calls him the most noted, man of the Valentinian school [------] is Clement's expression).

Origen, at the beginning of his quotation from Heracleon, says that he was held to be a friend of Valentinus [------]. Hippolytus mentions him, for instance, in the following way: (vi. 29); 'Valentinus, and Heracleon, and Ptolemaeus, and the whole school of these, disciples of Pythagoras and Plato....' Epiphanius says (Hser. 41): 'Cerdo (the same who, according to Irenaeus III. 4, -- 3, was in Rome under Bishop Hyginus with Valentinus) follows these (the Ophites, Kainites, Sethiani), and Heracleon.' After all this Heracleon certainly cannot be placed later than 150 to 160. The expression which Origen uses regarding his relation to Valentinus must, according to linguistic usage, be understood of a personal relation."(1)

We have already pointed out that the fact that the names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon are thus coupled together affords no clue in itself to the date of either, and their being mentioned as leading representatives of the school of Valentinus does not in any way involve the inference that they were not contemporaries of Irenaeus, living and working at the time he wrote. The way in which Irenaeus mentions them in this the only pa.s.sage throughout his whole work in which he names

{213}

Heracleon, and to which Tischendorf pointedly refers, is as follows: "But if it was not produced, but was generated by itself, then that which is void is both like, and brother to, and of the same honour with, that Father who has before been mentioned by Valentinus; but it is really more ancient, having existed long before, and is more exalted than the rest of the aeons of Ptolemseus himself, and of Heracleon, and all the rest who hold these views."(1) We fail to recognize anything special, here, of the kind inferred by Tischendorf, in the way in which mention is made of the two later Gnostics. If anything be clear, on the contrary, it is that a distinction is drawn between Valentinus and Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, and that Irenaeus points out inconsistencies between the doctrines of the founder and those of his later followers.

It is quite irrelevant to insist merely, as Tischendorf does, that Irenaeus and subsequent writers represent Ptolemaeus and Heracleon and other Gnostics of his time as of "the school" of Valentinus. The question simply is, whether in doing so they at all imply that these men were not contemporaries of Irenaeus, or necessarily a.s.sign their period of independent activity to the lifetime of Valentinus, as Tischendorf appears to argue? Most certainly they do not, and Tischendorf does not attempt to offer any evidence that they do so. We may perceive how utterly worthless such a fact is for the purpose of affixing an early date by merely considering the quotation which Tischendorf himself makes from Hippolytus: "Valentinus, therefore, and Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, and

{214}

the whole school of these, disciples of Pythagoras and Plato.... "(l) If the statement that men are of a certain school involves the supposition of coincidence of time, the three Gnostic leaders must be considered contemporaries of Pythagoras or Plato, whose disciples they are said to be. Again, if the order in which names are mentioned, as Teschendorf contends by inference throughout his whole argument, is to involve strict similar sequence of date, the principle applied to the whole of the early writers would lead to the most ridiculous confusion.

Teschendorf quotes Epiphanius: "Cerdo follows these (the Ophites, Kainites, Sethiani), and Heracleon."

Why he does so it is difficult to understand, unless it be to give the appearance of multiplying testimonies, for two sentences further on he is obliged to admit: "Epiphanius has certainly made a mistake, as in such things not unfrequently happens to him, when he makes Cerdo, who, however, is to be placed about 140, follow Heracleon."(2) This kind of mistake is, indeed, common to all the writers quoted, and when it is remembered that such an error is committed where a distinct and deliberate affirmation of the point is concerned, it will easily be conceived how little dependence is to be placed on the mere mention of names in the course of argument. We find Irenaeus saying that "neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides" possesses certain knowledge,(3) and elsewhere: "of such an one as Valentinus, or Ptolemaeus, or Basilides."(4) To base

{215}

an argument as to date on the order in which names appear in such writers is preposterous.

Tischendorf draws an inference from the statement that Heracleon was said to be a [------] of Valentinus, that Origen declares him to have been his friend, holding personal intercourse with him. Origen, however, evidently knew nothing individually on the point, and speaks from mere hearsay, guardedly using the expression "said to be" [------]. But according to the later and patristic use of the word, [------] meant nothing more than a "disciple," and it cannot here be necessarily interpreted into a "contemporary."(1) Under no circ.u.mstances could such a phrase, avowedly limited to hearsay, have any weight. The loose manner in which the Fathers repeat each other, even in serious matters, is too well known to every one acquainted with their writings to require any remark. Their inaccuracy keeps pace with their want of critical judgment We have seen one of the mistakes of Epiphanius, admitted by Tischendorf to be only too common with him, which ill.u.s.trates how little such data are to be relied on. We may point out another of the same kind committed by him in common with Hippolytus, pseudo-Tertullian and Philastrius.

Mistaking a pa.s.sage of Irenaeus,(2) regarding the sacred Tetrad (Kol-Arbas) of the Valentinian Gnosis, Hippolytus supposes Irenaeus to refer to another heretic leader. He at once treats the Tetrad as such a leader named "Kolarbasus," and after dealing (vi. 4) with the doctrines of Secundud, and Ptolemaeus, and Heracleon, he proposes, -- 5, to show "what are the opinions held by Marcus and

{216}

Kolarbasus."(1) At the end of the same book he declares that Irenaeus, to whom he states that he is indebted for a knowledge of their inventions, has completely refuted the opinions of these heretics, and he proceeds to treat of Basilides, considering that it has been sufficiently demonstrated "whose disciples are Marcus and Kolarbasus, the successors of the school of Valentinus."(2) At an earlier part of the work he had spoken in a more independent way in reference to certain who had promulgated great heresies: "Of these," he says, "one is Kolarbasus, who endeavours to explain religion by measures and numbers."(3) The same mistake is committed by pseudo-Tertullian,(4) and Philastrius,(5) each of whom devotes a chapter to this supposed heretic. Epiphanius, as might have been expected, fell into the same error, and he proceeds elaborately to refute the heresy of the Kolarbasians, "which is Heresy XV." He states that Kolarbasus follows Marcus and Ptolemaeus,(6) and after discussing the opinions of this mythical heretic he devotes the next chapter, "which is Heresy XVI.," to the Heracleonites, commencing it with the information that: "A certain Heracleon follows after Kolarbasus."(7) This absurd mistake(8) shows how little these writers

{217}

knew of the Gnostics of whom they wrote, and how the one ignorantly follows the other.

The order, moreover, in which they set the heretic leaders varies considerably. It will be sufficient for us merely to remark here that while pseudo-Tertullian(1) and Philastrius(2) adopt the following order after the Valentinians: Ptolemaeus, Secundus, Heracleon, Marcus, and Kolarbasus, Epiphanius(3) places them: Secundus, Ptolemaeus, Marcosians, Kolarbasus, and Heracleon; and Hippolytus(4) again: Secundus, Ptolemaeus, Heracleon, Marcus, and Kolarbasus. The vagueness of Irenaeus had left some lat.i.tude here, and his followers were uncertain. The somewhat singular fact that Irenaeus only once mentions Heracleon whilst he so constantly refers to Ptolemaeus, taken in connection with this order, in which Heracleon is always placed after Ptolemaeus,(5) and by Epiphanius after Marcus, may be reasonably explained by the fact that whilst Ptolemaeus had already gained considerable notoriety when Irenaeus wrote, Heracleon may only have begun to come into notice. Since Tischendorf lays so much stress upon pseudo-Tertullian and Philastrius making Ptolemaeus appear immediately after Valentinus, this explanation is after his own principle.

We have already pointed out that there is not a single pa.s.sage in Irenaeus, or any other early writer, a.s.signing Ptolemaeus and Heracleon to a period anterior to the time when Irenaeus undertook to refute their opinions. Indeed, Tischendorf has not attempted to show that

{218}

they do, and he has merely, on the strength of the general expression that these Gnostics were of the school of Valentinus, boldly a.s.signed to them an early date. Now, as we have stated, he himself admits that Valentinus only came from Egypt to Rome in a.d. 140, and continued teaching till 160,(1) and these dates are most clearly given by Irenaeus himself.(2) Why then should Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, to take an extreme case, not have known Valentinus in their youth, and yet have flourished chiefly during the last two decades of the second century? Irenaeus himself may be cited as a parallel case, which Tischendorf at least cannot gainsay. He is never tired of telling us that Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp,(3) whose martyrdom he sets about A.D. 165, and he considers that the intercourse of Irenaeus with the aged Father must properly be put about a.d. 150,(4) yet he himself dates the death of Irenaeus, a.d. 202,(5) and nothing is more certain than that the period of his greatest activity and influence falls precisely in the last twenty years of the second century. Upon his own data, therefore, that Valentinus may have taught for twenty years after his first appearance in Rome in a.d. 140--and there is no ground whatever for a.s.serting that he did not teach for even a much longer period--Ptolemaeus and Heracleon might well have personally sat at the feet of Valentinus in their youth, as Irenseus is said to have done about the very same period at those of Polycarp, and yet, like him, have flourished chiefly towards the end of the century.

{219}

Although there is not the slightest ground for a.s.serting that Ptolemaeus and Heraclcon were not contemporaries with Irenaeus, flourishing like him towards the end of the second century, there are, on the other hand, many circ.u.mstances which altogether establish, the conclusion that they were. "We have already shown, in treating of Valentinus,(1) that Irenaeus princ.i.p.ally directs his work against the followers of Valentinus living at the time he wrote, and notably of Ptolemaeus and his school.(2) In the preface to the first book, having stated that he writes after personal intercourse with some of the disciples of Valentinus,(3) he more definitely declares his purpose: "We will, then, to the best of our ability, clearly and concisely set forth the opinions of those who are now [------] teaching heresy, _I speak particularly of the disciples of Ptolemaeus_ [------] whose system is an offshoot from the school of Valentinus."(4) Nothing could be more explicit. Irenaeus in this pa.s.sage distinctly represents Ptolemaeus as teaching at the time he is writing, and this statement alone is decisive, more especially as there is not a single known fact which is either directly or indirectly opposed to it.

Tischendorf lays much stress on the evidence of Hippolytus in coupling together the names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon with that of Valentinus; similar testimony of the same writer, fully confirming the above statement of Irenaeus, will, therefore, have the greater force.

Hippolytus says that the Valentinians differed materially among themselves regarding certain points which led to divisions, one party being called the

{220}

Oriental and the other the Italian. "They of the Italian party, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say, &c.... They, however, who are of the Oriental party, of whom is Axionicus and Bardesanes, maintain," &c.(1) Now, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon are here quite clearly represented as being contemporary with Axionicus and Bardesanes, and without discussing whether Hippolytus does not, in continuation, describe them as all living at the time he wrote,(2) there can be no doubt that some of them were, and that this evidence confirms again the statement of Irenaeus.

Hippolytus, in a subsequent part of his work, states that a certain Prepon, a Marcionite, has introduced something new, and "now in our own time [------] has written a work regarding the heresy in reply to Bardesanes."(3) The researches of Hilgenfeld have proved that Bardesanes lived at least over the reign of Heliogabalus (218--222), and the statement of Hippolytus is thus confirmed.(4) Axionicus again was still flourishing when Tertullian wrote his work against the Valentinians

{221}

(201--226). Tertullian says: "Axionicus of Antioch alone to the present day (ad hodiernum) respects the memory of Valentinus, by keeping fully the rules of his system."(1) Although on the whole they may be considered to have flourished somewhat earlier, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon are thus shown to have been for a time at least contemporaries of Axionicus and Bardesanes.(2)

Moreover, it is evident that the doctrines of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon represent a much later form of Gnosticism than that of Valentinus. It is generally admitted that Ptolemaeus reduced the system of Valentinus to consistency,(3) and the inconsistencies which existed between the views of the Master and these later followers, and which indicate a much more advanced stage of development, are constantly pointed out by Irenaeus and the Fathers who wrote in refutation of heresy. Origen also represents Heracleon as amongst those who held opinions sanctioned by the Church,(4) and both he and Ptolemaeus must indubitably be cla.s.sed amongst the latest Gnostics.(5) It is clear, therefore, that Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were contemporaries of Irenaeus(6) at the time he composed his work against Heresies (185--195), both, and especially

{222}

the latter, flourishing and writing towards the end of the second century.(1)

We mentioned, in first speaking of these Gnostics, that Epiphanius has preserved an Epistle, attributed to Ptolemaeus, which is addressed to Flora, one of his disciples.(2) This Epistle is neither mentioned by Irenaeus nor by any other writer before Epiphanius. There is nothing in the Epistle itself to show that it was really written by Ptolemaeus himself. a.s.suming it to be by him, however, the Epistle was in all probability written towards the end of the second century, and it does not, therefore, come within the scope of our inquiry. We may, however, briefly notice the supposed references to our Gospels which it contains.

The writer of the Epistle, without any indication whatever of a written source from which he derived them, quotes sayings of Jesus for which parallels are found in our first Gospel. These sayings are introduced by such expressions as "he said," "our Saviour declared," but never as quotations from any Scripture. Now, in affirming that they are taken from the Gospel according to Matthew, Apologists exhibit their usual arbitrary haste, for we must clearly and decidedly state that there is not a single one of the pa.s.sages which does not present decided variations from the parallel pa.s.sages in our first Synoptic. We subjoin for comparison in parallel columns the pa.s.sages from the Epistle and Gospel:--

{223}

It must not be forgotten that Iraeneus makes very explicit statements as to the recognition of other sources of evangelical truth than our Gospels by the Valentinians, regarding which we have fully written when discussing the founder of that sect.(5) We know that they professed to have direct traditions from the Apostles through Theodas, a disciple of the Apostle Paul;(6) and in the

{224}