Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-25-2013, 09:28 PM

Irenaeus makes clear that the Valentinians used material from John quite a bit:

Quote:

Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. [AH 3.11.7]

and Luke:

Quote:

And for this reason they affirm it was that the "Saviour"--for they do not please to call Him "Lord"--did no work in public during the space of thirty years, thus setting forth the mystery of these AEons. They maintain also, that these thirty AEons are most plainly indicated in the parable of the labourers sent into the vineyard. For some are sent about the first hour, others about the third hour, others about the sixth hour, others about the ninth hour, and others about the eleventh hour. Now, if we add up the numbers of the hours here mentioned, the sum total will be thirty: for one, three, six, nine, and eleven, when added together, form thirty. [1.1.3]

and Luke and John:

Quote:

There are also many other particulars to be found mentioned by Luke alone, which are made use of by both Marcion and Valentinus. [4.14.3]

There is also evidence of Valentinian use of material from Matthew.

Quote:

It is easy to see from the various indices available that Valentinians in general used Matthew and Luke at least as much as John.101 Heracleon himself weaves allusions to the texts of Matthew and Luke into his discussion of passages in John and, as has already been mentioned, he may have written commentaries on these gospels as well. It may well be a mere coincidence that his commentary on John is so much better documented than his other works.103 In general, there is no indication that the Valentinians preferred the narrative of John over those of Matthew and Luke (in fact the opposite seems to have been the case), though the prologue was clearly a text that attracted special attention—together with 1 Cor 15, the hymns of Philippians and Colossians, and the announcement story in Luke 1. [Tuomas Rasimus, The Legacy of John: Second-century Reception of the Fourth Gospel p. 201]

Does this mean that the Valentinians had a collection of gospels? Were they the first to have such a 'canon' of gospels? Or did they use a Diatessaron or some single gospel which would appear to us as a harmony? Is it possible to imagine that the Valentinians simply used an indiscriminate number of text, haphazardly grabbing and 'abusing' any text that came across their walk?

stephan huller · 04-26-2013, 12:17 AM

Andrew Gregory:

Quote:

All that might be said to distinguish Marcionites and Valentinians in their respective selective use of Luke is that Irenaeus implies that Marcionites use only Luke whereas Valentinians use Luke and other Gospels for what Irenaeus considers to be their speculative exegesis. [The reception of Luke and Acts in the period before Irenaeus p 207]

My question of course is whether or not Irenaeus only refined the Valentinian canon. Yes he attacks their speculative exegesis but was Polycarp a Valentinian? Irenaeus tells us no, but Florinus - better acquainted than Irenaeus with their common master - would certainly have said yes. Irenaeus can only say that he knew Polycarp as a wee lad. Why can't Irenaeus squeeze more juice out of the lemon than that? Irenaeus and Florinus walked in the same circles. Their contemporaries knew that Florinus was closer. It was only later that the absurd claim that Irenaeus was a beloved disciple could have emerged. As such the very number 4 is Valentinian (could never have taken off the ground in China). Irenaeus makes Valentinian sounding appeals for its adoption (presumably to neo-Valentinians or Romans who had put up with Valentinian exegesis up until then). As Lampe suggests Florinus eventually fell out of favor with Victor. Irenaeus seems to have assumed greater influence from then on and then there was no looking back.

mountainman · 04-26-2013, 01:25 AM

The heretics who authored the non canonical books had before them the canonical books. How could they have therefore invented the idea of the set of canonical gospels? These were already extant when the gnostic authors wrote, and took bits and pieces out of various gospels, adding them together in novel combinations and adding additional material to suit their gnostic agenda.

It is far more likely that the orthodox church invented the Valentinians in order to explain why people still believed in the Greek concept of the "daimon" as a "guardian angel", and why they were therefore to be regarded as heretics.

| Valentinus Index | Joined To An Angel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic Society Library

Joined To An Angel

The earliest Christians to teach about guardian angels were the second century AD mystic Valentinus and his followers. The Valentinians, as they came to be called, believed that guardian angels played an essential role in the salvation of the individual. In their literature, angels are almost invariably depicted as male while the individual person's spirit or "seed" was depicted as feminine. The person who attained to a mystical experience of the divine (gnosis) was said to have become joined to their angel in the "bridal chamber".

In order to fully understand their teaching about angels, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of their teaching about the fall. For them, the significant event in the fall was not the eating of the apple but the separation of the male from the female (Genesis 2:21-23). This event was taken to signify the alienation between humanity and the divine. Our inner spiritual "seed" is thought of as female. It originates from God and has a male counterpart or angel in the heavenly world or Fullness (pleroma). In the fall, our spirit became separated from its angel. This separation is said to lead to our mortality and our expulsion from paradise into the illusory world of matter.

Valentinians believe that Christ came "to give life unto those who had died by separation and join them together (i.e. with their angel)" (Gospel of Philip 70:15-18).

Even if your OP were to imply that the Valentinians (or other gnostics) invented the idea of a standard set of non canonical gospels (and acts), ever scholar I have read insists that these gnostics used the canonical gospels as raw materials for their "blasphemous creations".

The invention of the idea of a canonised set of gospels was an invention of the orthodoxy, to which the gnostics responded, and not the other way around. Otherwise I do not understand your OP.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Duvduv · 04-26-2013, 07:29 AM

What about first proving that there were Valentinians?
Heck, if there is no evidence that the Church's Jesus or Paul existed then where is the better evidence that Valentinians existed? Why reject one and assume the other from the same sources that accept both??

stephan huller · 04-26-2013, 07:37 AM

<snip>

outhouse · 04-26-2013, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Does this mean that the Valentinians had a collection of gospels?

More then likely

Quote:

Were they the first to have such a 'canon' of gospels?

We don't know what else they had besides these do we?.

We know the reason the gospels ended up in the canon because they were the most popular, but they were not the only ones.

There was a wide circulation of various scripture by all accounts.

Ive heard some say Marcion was the first to put collections together, even if for him it was a semi collection in which he was ripped on.

But that just means he was the first one we know about, not the first or how many others.

Duvduv · 04-26-2013, 10:17 AM

<snip>

You and I both know that there is NO EVIDENCE for the existence anywhere of any communities or individual writings of people called Valentians, and that the whole discussion argues from acceptance of the claims of texts approved by the Church and nothing more. <snip>

I asked two (substantive) questions about the Samaritans and their traditions that you would presumably be able to clarify from your Samaritan friend would know about: a) what does Samaritan tradition say about when they enjoyed access to Mt. Gerizim in the first several centuries CE, especially between the time Hadrian is said to have built a pagan temple and its fall into disuse a couple of hundred years later. b) Why do Samaritans not perform sacrifices required by the Torah apart from Passover now that they have full access to Mt. Gerizim.

<snip>

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

<snip>

andrewcriddle · 04-27-2013, 01:58 AM

What I think we mean by a Canonized Set of Gospels is not only a/ using Matthew Mark Luke and John but b/ regarding these four as uniquely authoritative.

The Valentinians apparently qualify under criteria a/ but I see no reason to believe they qualify under criteria b/.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 04-27-2013, 06:35 AM

But is there any real evidence that they used material indiscriminately? Irenaeus in book three says that they had 'the wrong number' of gospels.

Quote:

But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing "the Gospel of Truth," though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. For if what they have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth. But that these Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such [arguments]. For, since God made all things in due proportion and adaptation, it was fit also that the outward aspect of the Gospel should be well arranged and harmonized. [3.11.9]

Isn't that arguing for three plus one? I have never seen any evidence that the Valentinians used Mark? So again four gospels in the Catholic canon. Four gospels in the Valentinian tradition.

outhouse · 04-27-2013, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have never seen any evidence that the Valentinians used Mark? .

Gmark wasn't that popular by itself because it was so short, and was already within the more popular gospels.

If I'm not mistaken, early Christians thought Gmark was just a cut down version of the real gospels.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-26-2013, 07:29 AM	#4
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	What about first proving that there were Valentinians? Heck, if there is no evidence that the Church's Jesus or Paul existed then where is the better evidence that Valentinians existed? Why reject one and assume the other from the same sources that accept both??

04-26-2013, 07:37 AM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	<snip>

04-27-2013, 01:58 AM	#8
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	What I think we mean by a Canonized Set of Gospels is not only a/ using Matthew Mark Luke and John but b/ regarding these four as uniquely authoritative. The Valentinians apparently qualify under criteria a/ but I see no reason to believe they qualify under criteria b/. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.