[M. J. Edwards] the ''Epistle to Rheginus'' Valen(BookFi.org)

8/11/2019 [M. J. Edwards] the ''Epistle to Rheginus'' Valen(BookFi.org)

1/17

The "Epistle to Rheginus": Valentinianism in the Fourth Century

Author(s): M. J. EdwardsSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 37, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 76-91Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561238Accessed: 31/08/2010 04:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILLis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toNovum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1561238?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1561238?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap


2/17

THE

EPISTLE

TO

RHEGINUS:

VALENTINIANISM

IN THE FOURTH

CENTURY

by

M.J.

EDWARDS

Oxford

Long

after

their

discovery

and laborious

publication,

the

Nag

Hammadi

Codices continue

to

betray

the

hopes

of scholars.1

Almost any date

is

arbitrary, any assignation

to

a

sect

is

unconvin-

cing.

The

contents

of

the

Jung

Codex,2

for

example,

may

remind

us ever

more

strongly

of the heresies

ascribed to

Valentinus;

but

how far can

we

use

them

to correct

or to

corroborate

patristic

testimonies? On

the one

hand,

the

evident

hostility

of

the Fathers

must detract

from their

authority;

on

the

other,

the

texts contained

in the

Nag

Hammadi

Codices

have suffered from

translation

into

Coptic,

and could have

been

composed

at

any

juncture

over

a

period of a hundred and fifty years.

The

fourth item

in the

Jung

Codex

is the Treatise

on the Resurrec-

tion,

often called the

Epistle

to

Rheginus.3

Scholars

have found

much

trouble

in

making

sense

of

it,

and trouble also

in

making

it consis-

tent with the

reports

of

heresiologists.

I

argue

in

the

first

part

of

this

study

that

a

dating

to the fourth

century

is

by

no means

inconceivable;

in

the second

I

seek

to

show that the

Epistle

to

Rheginus

is

not

a

product

of

accretion,

but a coherent meditation on

Pauline

teaching;

in the third I

treat it

as a

document

of

the third

century

or the

early

fourth,

whose contents are

in

keeping

with

the

progress

of

philosophy

in

this

period

and the

witness

of

a

near-

contemporary.

1

See

J.

Doresse,

The Secret

Books

of

the

Egyptian

Gnostics,

London

1960,

and

the

introduction to

J.M.

Robinson

(ed.),

The

Nag

Hammadi

Library

in

English,

Leiden

1988.

2

Texts

in

facsimile with

translations,

edited

by

H.

Attridge

as

Nag

Hammadi

Codices

I,

Leiden

1985.

3

Translations:

M.L.

Peel,

The

Epistle

to

Rheginus,

London

1969;

idem

in

Attridge,

Nag

Hammadi

Codices;

idem in

Robinson,

Nag

Hammadi

Library, pp.

52-7;

B.

Layton,

The

Gnostic Treatise

on

the

Resurrectionfrom

Nag

Hammadi,

Missoula

1979;

idem n B.

Layton,

The

Gnostic

criptures,

ew York

1987,

pp.

316-24;

J.

Menard,

Le

traite sur la

resurrection,

Quebec

1983. All

these

contain

notes

or

commentary.

Novum Testamentum XXXVII, 1( E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1995


3/17

THE

EPISTLE TO RHEGINUS

I

The

papyri

on which

our

codices

are

written

appear

to date

from

about the

middle of the fourth

century.4

While all

or most

presup-

pose

a Greek

original,

there is no

presumption

that this

would be

in

every

case an ancient one.

Our

fragment

from an

indolent

translation

of the

Republic

is

no

more

typical

than the

long

excerpt

from

the

Asclepius,

which

may

postdate

its

archetype by

a

mere half-

century.5

Even

when the

original

is

likely

to

have been of

some anti-

quity,

the

vagaries

of redaction and

translation

may

have

produced

a work of quite a different character; as Raoul Mortley has argued,

it would

be rash to

equate

the

document which we call

the

Gospel

of

Truth with the Valentinian

blasphemy

which is

mentioned

under

that

title

in

Irenaeus.6

If,

as he

maintains,

the

present

Gospel

is

a

polemic

against

the

Arians,

we must

date its

composition

to the

fourth

century;

no-one

would

maintain that the

Epistle

to

Rheginus

was

directed

against

the

Arians,

but

if

its

nearest

neighbour

were

so

recent,

a

second-century

date for

this

or

any

other

treatise could

not

lightly

be assumed.

This

caveat

would

carry

still more

weight

if

Mortley's

thesis

could be extended

to

other contents

of

the

Nag

Hammadi

Library.

Conflict between

the followers

of

the two

great

Alexandrian

heresiarchs

was

scarcely

to be

avoided,

since

Valentinian

authors

were the first to

give

theological

definition to the

adjective

homoousios,7

and

built

upon

the triadic

pattern

of

Being,

Life and

Intellect which was used with elaboration against the Arians by

Marius Victorinus.8 If the

admonition

against

the Anomoeans at

VI.4.40.7 is

applying

the

orthodox

sobriquet

to

the

party

of

4

See

J.W.

Barns,

G.M. Browne and

J.T.

Shelton,

Greek nd

Coptic

Papyri

rom

the

Cartonnageof

the

Covers,

Leiden 1981.

5

See

Robinson,

Nag

Hammadi

Library,

p.

330-1 for introduction to VI.8

(Asclepius

221-29).

Editors of the

Latin

Asclepius

(Scott, Nock-Festugiere,

Copenhavn)

cite Lactantius as the first witness to the Greek.

6

R.

Mortley,

"The Name

of the Father is the

Son",

in R. Wallis

and

J.

Bregman

(eds),

Neoplatonism

and

Gnosticism,

Albany

1992,

pp.

239-52.

7

See. G.C.

Stead,

Divine

Substance,

Oxford

1977,

pp.

190-202.

8

See Contra Arianos and P.

Hadot,

Porphyre

et

Victorinus,

Paris 1969.

The

Nag

Hammadi Texts

in which

this triad

appears

are the

Zostrianus

VIII. 1)

and

Allogenes

(XI.3),

whose

originals

were

already

known to

Porphyry

(Vita

Plotini

16).

For

criticism of

the

view

that the

Neoplatonists

derived

this

triad

from the

Gnostics,

see

my

"Porphyry

and the

Intelligible

Triad',

Journal

fHellenic

Studies

10

(1990),

esp. p.

25.

77


4/17


5/17


6/17

M.J.

EDWARDS

and

raised

himself

up,

having

swallowed

the visible

by

the

invisible

(45.14-21)

... This is the

spiritual

resurrection,

which

swallows

up

the psychic in the same way as the fleshly" (45.39-46.2).

If

Rheginus

is "not

ignorant"

of

the first

claim,

it will no

doubt

be because

it

was made canonical

by

Paul when he

proclaimed

to

the

Corinthians

that

death is now "swallowed

up

in

victory"

(1

Cor.

15:54).

From the

same

correspondence

he

would

learn to con-

trast the

people

of the

spirit

with the

psychici,

whose nature was

still

corrupted by

the

Fall

(1

Cor. 15:45

etc.),

and

to

reject

that carnal

knowledge,

whether

of Christ

or of the

Scriptures,

which ensnared

the

ignorant

in

the toils

of

death

(2

Cor.

3:6).

He would also

learn,

of

course,

that

the

things

which are eternal

are

invisible,

that

the

"corruptible

body"

which

is sown

in

the

earth

by

burial

would

be

raised

again

as

a

"spiritual

body"

(1

Cor.

15:42-44,

54

etc.),

and

that

the wickedness

of the

psychic

man

is

native to his

"flesh"

(15:50;

cf.

Rom. 7:18

etc.).

Editors

explain

that "swallows

up"

in the second

sentence means

"annihilates" or "destroys". Perhaps it signifies that the perfect

theory

swallows

up

the

imperfect

ones that

imagine

only

a

carnal

resurrection

(the

error,

as Paul himself

had

said,

of fools:

1

Cor.

15:36

f);

or

perhaps

that

resurrection

in

the

"aeon"

swallows

up

the

insipid

foretastes

which are marred

by

the

interference

of our

bodily

and

worldly appetites.

The author

takes

up

clear

ground

on

a

highly

disputed question by

affirming

that

the

resurrection

follows

immediately

on our

departure

from the

world

and

does not

await the Second

Coming.

Paul had

preferred

to

speak

of

a

"sleep

in

Jesus",

(1

Thess.

4:14),

but

as the

delay

was

lengthened

specula-

tion

became

permissible,'6

and

indeed

he himself had

spoken,

when

in

prison,

as

though

he

hoped

to

join

his Saviour

at the moment

of

release

(Phil.

1:23).

Nothing

in this

passage,

then,

excludes

the

possibility

that

the final

resurrection

will

be

experienced

"in the

flesh".

2. "now if we are manifest in this world wearing him, we are that

one's

beams,

and

we

are

embraced

by

him until our

setting,

that

is

to

say,

until

our

death

in this

life"

(45.29-35).

Layton,

who

opines

that

the

author

is under

the

spell

of

16

On

early

Christian

eschatology

see now

C.

Hill,

Regnum

Caelorum,

Oxford

1992.

I

have

expressed

some reservations in

a

review,

forthcoming

in

Hermathena

1994.

80


7/17

THE EPISTLE

TO RHEGINUS

Platonism,17

notes that this

philosophy

made

frequent

use of similes

drawn

from costume. Yet

they

are

equally

common in

Scripture,

which declares that earth and heaven will wax old like a garment

(Isaiah

50:9,

51:6),

and that

after

the

fall our

ancestors

were clothed

in "coats of

skins"

(Gen.

3:21).

These

were

often taken

to

repre-

sent,

if

not the

flesh,

at

least

its

weaknesses,

and

it

is this

corruptible

flesh

that,

in

the words

of the

Apostle,

is to

"put

on"

immortality

(1

Cor.

15:53).

If readers of Isaiah could

expect

a resurrection

of

the

body,

if Paul

could

say

that the

certainty

of faith consists

in this

(1

Cor.

15:17),

then the author

of the

Epistle

to

Rheginus may

have

held

the same belief.

3.

"But there are

also some

(who)

wish

to

understand,

in

the

enquiry

about those

things

they

are

looking

into,

whether

he who

is

saved,

if

he leaves

his

body

behind,

will be saved

immediately.

Let no-one

doubt

concerning

this

... Indeed

the visible

members

which are dead

shall not be

saved,

for

(only)

the

living

[members]

which exist

within them

would

arise"

(47.32-48.2).

That those without Christ are dead in the present world is a

Pauline

commonplace

(Eph.

2:1,

Col.

2:13),

and

many

early

readers

held

that

Paul was

speaking

even of

present

Christian

experience

when

he exclaimed

"Who will release me from the

body

of this death?" Of

course

Paul's

teaching

is that

the

corruption

of

the

body,

not the

body

itself,

is

evil;

but

while

our author

merely

repeats

him,

how can

it

be shown that

he

thought

otherwise?

To

say

that the inner

man and not

the

outer

is immortal

is

perhaps

to

say

no more

than that

"though

our outer

man

perish

our inner man

is renewed

day

by day"

(2

Cor.

4:16).

The

Epistle

to the Colossians

exhorts

us

to

"put

on

the new

man,

which is renewed

in

knowledge

after

the

image

of

him

that

created

him"

(3:10);

it

thus,

at least

in

metaphor, equates

our future

life with both the inner man and the

spiritual

body.

The

exaggeration

of the

spatial

metaphor

in

the

Epistle

to

Rheginus

does not

suffice

to

prove

that

the

author took

the

phrase more literally than Paul.

The Gnostics

in

Plotinus

spoke

of

mele

or limbs

of

Wisdom,

which

are

perhaps

to be

contrasted

with

the

material

ones

assumed

when

the soul descends

(Enn.

II.9.10.22);

but,

as will

be

observed

below,

17

Layton,

Gnostic

Scriptures,

p.

321,

but

adding

references to

Rom.

13:12,

Eph.

4:22.

For

patristic parallels

see

Layton,

Gnostic

Treatise,

pp.

61-2,

and

see further

ibid.,

pp.

81-4.

81


8/17

M.J.

EDWARDS

the

doctrines

of

a

Platonic school were

subject

to revision. For

Origen

the

inner

man,

created before the

Fall with

both

his own

senses and his own members, is identical with the soul; yet this is

not the whole

creature,

for there are

few who

would

now

uphold

the

ancient

charge

that he conceived the naked soul as

the

first

and final

state of

man.18

The

Epistle

to

Rheginus

s

entirely

at

one

with Paul

if it affirms that

we

have

an

inner

man,

the seat of faith and

virtue,

who is at war

with our

corrupted

natural

body;

and that

when he is released

by

the

dissolution

of

this

enemy,

the

inner man will

enjoy

eternal

blessedness,

with

the

body

which is

proper

to that

state.

4.

"Indeed

it is more

fitting

to

say

that the world is

an illusion

rather

than the

resurrection

which has

come

into

being

through

our

Lord

the

Saviour

Jesus

Christ"

(48.14-19).

The author

here contests the

view

that

the Saviour's

resurrection

was

illusory-the teaching

often

imputed

to Valentinus.

Only

by

comparison

is

the

present

world declared

to be

illusory-and

how

could anyone doubt this who believed that all that is visible is

perishing,

and

would soon

disappear

to

make

way

for an

everlasting kingdom?

Is it more heretical to

say

that the

present

age

is

an illusion

when contrasted with

eternity

than to

predict

the

dissolution

of

our

"earthly

tabernacle" and our

entrance

into

a

house "not made

with

hands"

(2

Cor.

5:1-4)?

Paul,

although

he

allows that our eternal

destiny

is

yet

invisible

(2

Cor.

4:18),

exclaims in

this

same

passage

that the

neophyte

who has

"put

on

Christ" is

already

"a

new

creature",

that he knows

"no

man

after

the

flesh"

and

that "the old

things"

are

already passed

away

(2

Cor.

5:16-17).

5.

"Therefore

do not

think in

part,

O

Rheginos,

nor live

in

confor-

mity

with

this

flesh for the sake of

unanimity,

but

flee from the divi-

sion

and the fetters,

and

already

you

have the resurrection"

(49.8-18).

"We know in part and we prophesy in part" (1 Cor. 13:9); "be

not

conformed to

this

world,

but

be transformed

by

the

renewing

of

your

minds"

(Rom. 12:2).

It

is

far from

being

the

case,

as

a

recent

supporter

of

Layton

argues,19

that the

echoes

of

Pauline

18

See H.S.

Schibli,

"Origen, Didymus

and the Vehicle of the

Soul",

Origeniana

Quinta

1992),

pp.

381-91

for

discussion

and

bibliography.

19

M.J.

Olson, Irenaeus,

he

Valentinian nostics nd the

Kingdom

f

God,

Lewiston

NY

1992,

pp.

21

f.

82


9/17


10/17

M.J.

EDWARDS

account

of the

Transfiguration,

the author has

encouraged

us to

suppose

that the flesh of Moses and

Elijah

was as real as that of

Christ.

2. "So never doubt

concerning

the

resurrection,

my

son

Rheginos

For

if

you

were not

existing

in

flesh,

you

received

flesh when

you

entered this world.

Why

will

you

not receive flesh

when

you

ascend

into the

Aeon? That which is better

than

the flesh is that which is

for it the

cause

of

life. That which came into

being

on

your

account,

is it not

yours?

Does

not

that which

is

yours

exist with

you?

Yet

while

you

are

in

the

world,

what is

it

that

you

lack?

This is

what

you

have

been

making

every

effort to learn. The

afterbirth

of

the

body

is old

age,

and

you

exist

in

corruption.

You have absence

as

a

gain"

(47.2-20

Peel).

"Now

(you

might

wrongly

suppose), granted

that

you

did not

pre-

exist

in

flesh,

indeed

you

took

flesh on

you

when

you

entered the

world-why

will

you

not

take

your

flesh with

you

when

you

return

to the realm of eternity? It is the element superior to the flesh that

imparts

vitality

to

it;

(furthermore,

ou might

suppose)

does

not

whatever

comes

into

being

for

your

sake

(that

is,

theflesh)

belong

to

you?

So

may

we not conclude

hat whatever is

yours

will

remain

with

you?

Nay

rather,

while

you

are

here,

what is it that

you

are alienated

from?

Is that what

you

have

endeavoured

to learn

about:

the

bodily

envelope-that

is

old

age?

And are

you (the

real

you)

mere

cor-

ruption?

You

can count absence-or

(in

another sense of the

Greek

word)

shortage-as your profit"

(ibid.,

Layton).

Layton

is more

periphrastic,

and

I

have

italicised his

additions

to the text. The

punctuation

and

ordering

of

paragraphs

are

largely

at the

discretion

of the editor

in

any

ancient text. For

the

rest,

it

is clear that

the translators seldom

differ

(at

least until

the

closing

sentences) in their construing of the words. Layton has inserted

qualifications

which he believes to

be

demanded

by

the main

body

of the

treatise,

and even his

supporters

will

admit that Peel's

translation has the virtue of

economy.

Since we

have

now

no reason

to

suppose

that

the

surface

meaning

of

these

passages

is in

conflict

with

the

remainder

of the

Epistle,

we

must

treat such

ingenuities

with

reserve.

Nevertheless,

one need not be a

partisan

to

side

with

Layton

over

84


11/17

THE

EPISTLE TO

RHEGINUS

the second

passage,

since the

meaning

of Peel's

literal

translation

is obscure.

What is

proved

by

alluding

to "that

which

is

better than

flesh", if not that its survival renders otiose a fleshly resurrection?

What,

if not the

departure

from

the

body,

is connoted

by

the state-

ment that

we

"have

absence

as

a

gain"?

The second

question

we have

already

answered.

Paul

too

longed

to

quit

his tabernacle

(2

Cor.

5:4),

to

"depart

and

be with

Christ"

(Phil.

1:23),

to

claim that

life

that is "hid

with

Christ

in

God"

(Col.

3:3).

Even on

earth,

he

says,

our "conversation

is

in

heaven"

(Phil. 3:20);

we

yearn

and

hope

for

that

absence from the

body

which is

to

be

at

home

with

God

(2

Cor.

5:8).

In one

sense we

are

absent from

the

body

even

now;

on

another we are

absent

from

our

own selves

in

the

body.

Even the

second absence has the

advantage

that it makes us

walk

by

faith and

not

by sight

(2

Cor.

5:7;

cf. Rom.

8:24),

and so two

meanings may

be offered for this

phrase

without

denying

the consummation

of our

hope

in

a

future

life.

As

for

that

"which is better than

the

flesh",

the

argument

may

be that, since its function is to impart life to a subject, it will always

require

that

subject,

and

its

permanence

will

thus

imply

the sur-

vival

of

the flesh.23

In

any

case,

this sentence offers

difficulty

to both

editors,

and we cannot

allow

the whole

debate

to turn

upon

a

passage

which

is

agreed

to be more

than

usually

corrupt.

We

should

not

be

inclined

to

exaggerate

the

author's

heterodoxy

when we encounter

phrases

borrowed

from the New

Testament,

but worked into

a

different idiom:

'Strong

is the

system

of the

Pleroma;

small is that which broke loose

(and)

became

(the)

world'

(46.35-6).

This

is

an

allusion to the Valentinian

story

that the

world came

into

being

through

the

transgression

of

Sophia,

the

weakest

aeon

of

the

pleroma.

So stated that is of

course

a

monstrous

heresy,

but

it

lends itself to more

orthodox

exegesis.

Pleroma s one

of

many

terms

in

Valentinian

writing

which,

since

they

are

more

intelligible

in

Paul

and

less remote from their

common

meaning, may

be

presumed

to have

originated

with him.24

For him

pleroma

signifies

23

See

Menard,

Le

traite sur

la

resurrection,

p.

17:

"c'est

une

benediction

pour

la

partie corruptible

de

l'homme,

car

ses traits

personnels

apparaitront

dans

la

nouvelle

chair".

24

The

thesis of

S.

Petrement,

Le

Dieu

Sipare,

Paris

1984,

translated

nto

English

as A

Separate

God,

London 1991.

85


12/17

M.J.

EDWARDS

the

perfection

of

the

Christian

life,

the fulness of God's

nature,

the

completion

of his Church

and the time set

apart

for the

completion

of his purpose.25 The hysterema,ts complement,26 is that which yet

remains

to be

perfected;

Paul

aspires

in

his

body

to

"fill

up

that

which

remains

of the

sufferings

of Christ"

(Col.

1:24).

We

cannot be

sure that Pauline terms do

not

bear their Pauline

meanings,

even

when

they

participate

in

the

fabulous

cosmogonies

by

which heresies were

initially

defined.

As

they

became

more

ardent

in their

allegorical

readings

of the ancient

masters,

thinkers

in

late

antiquity

came to

adopt

a

more elusive mode

of

writing.

The

language

of Numenius and Plotinus

is more

mythical

than

Plato's,

and

nowhere

more

than

when

they

are

purporting

to

explain

him.

Orthodox

Christianity

allowed itself less licence in

creating,

but

at

least

as much

in

finding

allegories;

even

at his most

literal

Augustine

will

construe

the

six

days

of

Genesis

as a

symbol

of

the

soul's

increasing

knowledge.27

Could not Valentinian authors

at

times have used

a

private

lexicon

to

express

conventional beliefs?

There is no doubt that Sophia, the erring aeon of the

mythological

system,

is

equated

with the soul in one of the

Nag

Hammadi

codices,

entitled

the

Exegesis

on the

Soul. Elsewhere

in the

Epistle

to

Rheginus

it

is

the

individual soul

that is

in

need

of the

Pleroma:

'For

imperishability depends

upon

the

imperishable;

the

light

flows down

upon

the

darkness,

swallowing

it

up;

and the Pleroma

fills

up

the

deficiency'

(48.39-49.7).

The pleromaand the deficiency are reified abstractions, like the

darkness and the

light.

The

author shares

with

Paul

a

faith

that

"this

corruption

will

put

on

incorruption",

that we

who were

once

darkness

are

now

light,

that "death is

swallowed

up

in

victory".

Pleroma

is

now,

as in Paul

or

in

Gregory

of

Nyssa,28

the

antonym

25

See

Eph.

1:23, 3:19,

4:13;

Rom.

13:10;

Gal.

4:4

etc;

and the excursus

ofJ.B.

Lightfoot

in his Colossians

and

Philemon,

London

1875,

pp.

323-9.

The

uses

of

the

word

pleroma

n

texts

from

Nag

Hammadi

are

collected

by

V.

MacDermot,

"The

Concept

of

Pleroma

in

Gnosticism"

in

M. Krause

(ed.)

Gnosis

and

Gnosticism,

Leiden

1981,

pp.

76-81.

26

See Col.

1:24.

At

1

Cor.

16:17 and

Phil.

2:30

the term means

simply

"absence".

There

may

be

a connexion

between

this

word and

the occasional

designation

of the

Demiurge

as

a womb

in

Gnostic

literature,

on which see

P.

Fredriksen,

"Hysterema

and

the Gnostic

Myth

of

Creation",

Vigiliae

Christianae

33

(1979), pp.

287-90.

27

See

De

Genesi ad Litteram

IV.40,

49 etc.

28

See

Gregory,

Oratio

VI.3.8

In

Canticum

Canticorum;

Oratio

II

in

Ecclesiastem,

pp.

304-5

Jaeger.

86


13/17


14/17

M.J.

EDWARDS

have seen no cause to

disagree

with

him. It

is, however,

at

odds

with the

reports

of Irenaeus

and

Tertullian,

which

imply

that

the

Valentinians did not countenance the survival of the body in any

form.

Epiphanius'

testimony

is

never above

suspicion,

since he is

not

so erudite as he

pretends

to

be,

and

rarely

makes a

pretence

of

criticism.

Though,

for

example,

he

claims at

times the mantle

of

Hippolytus

(Pan.

31.33),

he

shows no

sign

in

his work

of

having

seen the

Refutationof

all

Heresies;

and

though

he

knows

that ebion is

a

Hebrew word for

"poor" (Pan. 30.17),

he

is

careful to

preserve

the

account of

Ebion the

supposed

heresiarch.

The

Panarion is

nevertheless

a

treasury

of lost

documents,

and

remains our

only

source for

one

Valentinian

cosmogony

(30.2-7)

and

the

Letter of

Ptolemaeus

(33.3-7).

It

is

therefore not

improbable

that

Valenti-

nian

works on

the resurrection

would be

known to him

at first

hand.

We can

at least

be certain that

he

would not have

tried to

mitigate the errors of a Valentinian writing. Throughout his long

career he was a

vehement foe

of

Origen,31

whose

decipherment

of

a

spiritual

meaning

in the

Scriptures

seemed

to him

to leave no

room for an

earthly

paradise

or survival in

a

body.

Harsh to the

point

of

caricature with

Origen,

he

would

not ascribe

belief

in

a

resurrection of

any

kind to

the

Valentinians if

this

were not the

reading

forced

upon

him

by

his

source.

The

accounts

of

Irenaeus

and

Epiphanius

need not be

incompati-

ble. In

the

intervening

centuries the

party

of

Irenaeus had

won such

a

superiority,

in

power

if not

in

argument,

as

would almost

force

the

Valentinians

into

accommodation. This

would

be

no

betrayal

of

Valentinus,

who

had been a

reluctant

heretic;

in

any

case

the

adjective

"Valentinian",

like

"Origenist",

no doubt

connotes

a

field of

influence

rather than a

sect. Since

Origen

had

not

yet

been

condemned,

a

Valentinian

could

aspire

to

reconcile himself

with

orthodoxy by postulating a spiritual body after death.

It

may

be

observed in

support

of this

hypothesis:

(1)

that the

most eminent

philosophy

of

that

age

would have

promoted

such an

evolution of

Valentinian

doctrine;

and

(2)

that in at

least one

other

31

See

Ancoratus;

Panarion

64;

J.F.

Dechow,

Dogma

and

Mysticism

in

Earliest

Chris-

tianity,

Leuven

1988;

and

E.

Clark,

The

Origenist

Controversy,

Princeton

1992,

esp.

ch.

2.

88


15/17

THE EPISTLE TO RHEGINUS

point

the Valentinians

are

shown

by

Epiphanius

to have

sought

respectability through change.

1. For Plato the soul is strictly incorporeal, but in his later followers

it is never without some

vehicle,

even

if

this be

only

the astral

body

which

provides

a

tenuous

lodging

on its

allocated

star.

It seems that

without

some

instrument of this kind

they

could not

conceive

of

individuation,

and Proclus

(in

Rem Pub. II.165

Kroll)

notes

that

even

Plato

assumes

the soul's retention

of

a visible

identity

after

death.

Though

Porphyry thought

the vehicle

temporary,

it

becomes

immortal

in

Hierocles

and

Iamblichus. Proclus reconciles

them

by distinguishing

a mortal

one,

which dissolves with the lower

faculties,

from another that

survives

with the

imperishable

soul.32

Matter,

says

Plotinus,

is

the

principle

of

otherness,

and

Origen

perhaps

shows his

acquaintance

with this tenet when he asks

how,

if

not

by

matter,

the host of

spirits

can be

differentiated from the

incorporeal

Godhead

(De

Princ.

1.6.4).

Hostile

witnesses

tell us

that

he names

the soul as a

state

of the

degraded

intellect,

and

even

in

its purest form this intellect retains the matter that God first gave

to

Adam.33

Didymus

is

indebted

both

to

Origen

and to the

Platonic

Phaedrus

when he

speaks

of the refined

and

luminous chariot

of

the

soul

in

paradise.34

In

relics and

reports

of the

early

heresies

we find the sediment of

all

pagan teachings.

It

was,

however,

Valentinus

who

quoted

the

Phaedrus,35

orrowed

or

anticipated

the doctrine of

emanation,

and

was

distinguished

by

the

epithet

Platonicus.36 The treatises that

accompany

the

Epistle

to

Rheginus

show that Plato retained a hold

upon

the heirs of

Valentinus;

how could it be

otherwise

when the

great

philosopher

is echoed

freely

in

the fourth

century by

authors

of

impeccable

and normative

orthodoxy?37

1

have

argued

elsewhere

32

For the

most recent discussion and

bibliography,

see

H.S.

Schibli,

"Hierocles and the Vehicle of the

Soul",

Hermes

121

(1993), pp.

109-117.

33

On

the soul see

De

Principiis

1.8.1

with

fr.

15

Koetschau,

and De Princ.

III.6.6. The

Dialogue

with Heraclidessuggests a creation of the immaterial

prior

to

the

material,

but

cf.

C.P.

Bammel,

"Adam in

Origen",

in R.D.

Williams

(ed.)

The

Making of Orthodoxy,Cambridge

1989,

pp.

62-93.

34

See Schibli

"Origen, Didymus

etc."

35

See

Edwards,

"Gnostics

and

Valentinians".

36

See G.C.

Stead,

"In Search of

Valentinus",

in B.

Layton

(ed.)

The

Rediscoveryof

Gnosticism,

Vol.

I,

Leiden

1980,

pp.

75-95.

37

See

e.g.

the

quotations

from Plato's

Symposium

in

Methodius'

work

of

that

title,

and the

frequency

of allusion

to Theaetetus176c in

Jaeger's

index

to

Gregory

of

Nyssa, Opera

VI

(In

Canticum

Canticorum).

89


16/17


17/17

THE EPISTLE TO RHEGINUS

body

has

been made

worthy

of

perpetuity

in

heaven,

it

is because

the

incorporeal

soul

has

vivified the

flesh.40

Thus, while this study upholds Peel's exegesis of the Epistle to

Rheginus,

it tells

against

some

prefatory

remarks in

the most recent

of his versions.

He

calls the work

"distinctively

unorthodox";

it

may

be so

in

style,

but has not

proved

to be so in

thought

or

in

intention. He

finds it

"un-Platonic"

in

its

ascription

to

the

resur-

rection

body

of certain

"recognisable personal

characteristics";

but

it rather

seems

that the author has

commendably

neglected

Plato's

literary corpus

for

the

living

Platonism of his

time.4l

40

De CivitateDei XXII.4.

But of

course

the

spirital

body

does

not

possess

a

dif-

ferent

substance

in

Augustine,

being

superior

in

its

detachment from the

appetites,

its

superior mobility

and its

obedience to

the

uncorrupted

will

(De

Civ.

Dei

XIII.18c,

20b

etc.).

41

I

am

grateful

to R.

Wilson and

to the editors

and referees of

Novum

Testamen-

tum for

comments on an

early

draft of this

paper,

the research for

which was

funded

by

a British

Academy

post-doctoral

Fellowship

held

at

New

College

in

1992-3.

91

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	glebmatveev
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

[M. J. Edwards] the ''Epistle to Rheginus'' Valen(BookFi.org)

Documents