VALENTINUS

1078 VALENTINUS

be chronological, reckons Valentinus amongheretical leaders in the time of Hadrian, andplaces him between Basilides and Marcion.Tertullian ( Praescr . Haer. 30) puts him alongwith Marcion in the time of Antoninus Pius $but when he states further (Z. c.) that Valentinuswas still an orthodox member of the Catholicchurch under the episcopate of the blessedEleutherus (since 175 or 176) he is evidentlyconfusing Eleutherus either with Hyginus orwith Pius. Elsewhere (de Carne Christi , i.) hedesignates Valentinus as Marcion’s Condiscipulusand Condesertor , who, like him, was at first adisciple of the catholic verity, but in likemaimer had afterwards fallen away. Laterwriters, as Eusebius (Chronicon ad Ann.Abrah.2153 and 2159 ; Hist.Ecd . iv. 11), Hieronymus(Chronicon ad Ann . Abrah. 2156 and 2159),Theodoret {Haer. Fab. i. 7), and others, merelyrepeat the statements of Irenaeus.

Following the above authorities we may con-clude that Valentinus, towards the end ofHadrian’s reign (cir. a.d. 130), appeared as ateacher in Egypt and in Cyprus, and that afterthis, about the commencement of the reign ofAntoninus Pius, or in the early years of thatemperor, he came to Home, and during the longreign of Antoninus worked as a teacher in theeternal city. It is probable that he had deve-loped and secretly prepared his theologicalsystem before he came to Rome. His removalthither was doubtless occasioned by the samemotive as that which led other leaders of sects,like Cerdon and Marcion, to go to Rome; hehoped to find a wider field for his activity as ateacher. From a similar motive he attachedhimself at first to the communion of theCatholic church.

II. History of the Sect. — Valentinus hadnumerous adherents. They divided themselves,we are told, into two schools—the anatolic ororiental, and the Italian school (Pseudorig. Philo -soph. vi. 35, p. 195, Miller, cf. Tertullian, ado.Valentinian. c. 11, and the title prefixed to theexcerpts of Clemens ’E k rov ©eoSdrov teal rfisf AvaTO\uc7}s Ka\ovfievr)s SiScuTKaAias). Theformer of these schools was spread throughEgypt and Syria, the latter in Rome, Italy, andSouthern Gaul. Among his disciples, Secundusappears to have been one of the earliest. Ter-tullian {adv. Valentinian. 4) and the epitomatorsof Hippolytus mention him after Ptolemaeus(Pseudotertull. Haer . 13; Philast. Haer* 40);the older work, on the other hand, excerpted byIrenaeus is apparently correct in naming himfirst as Valentinus’s earliest disciple {Haer. i. 11,2). Then follows, in the same original work asquoted by Irenaeus {Haer. i. 11, 3), anotherillustrious teacher {&AAos £m<pavi)S SiSdir/caAos),of whom a misunderstanding of later heresio-logists has made a Valentinian leader, namedEpiphanes; who this illustrious teacher was ismatter of dispute. Certainly not the muchlater Heracleon, whose views as known to usfrom other sources by no means coincide withthe statements of Irenaeus. A much more pro-bable conjecture is with Neander {GnostischeSysteme , p. 169), and Salmon [Marcus (17)] tosuppose it was Marcus whose first Tetrad exactlycorresponds to that of this unuamed teacher(cf. Haer. i. 15, 1, tcatf & irpodpTjrai). ThatIrenaeus does not name him here is easily ex-

plained by the supposition, that no name wasgiven in the source from which he was quoting,and that the agreement of the views theredescribed with those of Marcus escaped hisattention. Harvey and Hilgenfeld suggest thename of Colorbasus or Kolarbasos (Irenaeus i.14, 1, cf. Tertull. adv. Valentinian. 4). Thename itself Hilgenfeld has shown to be Egyptian(K oAdpfiacris, Inscr. Gr. 6585; KolorbasiosKilus, Epp. iii. 52). Meanwhile, however, thehistorical reality of the alleged heretic Colar-basus is not hereby established, but only theease with which the misunderstanding mayhave arisen [Kolarbasus]. The agreementbetween Hippolytus (ap. Pseudotertull. 15,Philast. 43; cf. Philos, vi. 5, p. 161, and vi. 55,p. 222), and Tertullian {adv. Valentinian. 4,where instead of “ colubroso ” we must read“ Colarbaso ”), makes it a very probable con-jecture that Irenaeus himself may have beenguilty of the misunderstanding of the Aramaic

MIN ^3 or mix blp. Meanwhile thewords OStos oi>v & M dpKos pi\rpav Kal ckSox^TouT 7)s KoAap(3d<rov Ziyrjs 4ai nbv poydraTov ycyo-vtvcu Aeycov (Iren. Haer. i. 14, 1) can only meanwhat is more plainly expressed immediatelyafterwards, that the highest Tetrad had itselfdescended upon Marcus in female guise be-cause the world would have been unable to bearits manhood (t5 dpfiey auT7?s), and that it hadmade known to him only what till then had notbeen revealed to any whether gods or men. This'Ziyi), then of Marcus, to which Irenaeus else-where refers in a tone of irony, is none otherthan the female form of the masculine Tetrad,which for all except only the poydraros M dptcoshas remained a Ztyi) (reaiarirripievT). In this waythe expression r) KoAap&daov Ziyi) explainsitself as one already used by Marcus himself.KoAdpRaaos is t b &pf>ev tt)s TerpaSos, andZiyi) the highest female principle which hasrevealed to Slarcus alone the mysteries of theTetrad (cf. Iren. Haer. i. 14, 2, 3, 7, and 15, 1,5). As this Ziyi) is introduced by Irenaeus asthe speaking authority for the doctrines ofMarcus {i) Maptcov Ziyi) idoyfidnae — 8>s<pT)(Ti 7) M apKov Ziyi)—ovreos cnrayyeAAei 7)rrdvaotpos avrip Ziyi ?), one is led to the con-jecture, that Irenaeus may have made hiscitations from a writing of Marcus whichbore the title i) KoAap&daov Ziyi). Quite im-possible on the other hand is the attempt ofHilgenfeld to amend t ys KoAap&dcrov Ziyys intott)s KoAapfid(rov yvdaeoos ( Ketzergeschichte ,p. 288). Hippolytus (ll. cc.) made this supposedColarbasus into a disciple of Marcus, whileHilgenfeld regards him as his teacher. Marcushimself will, in any case, belong to the eldest ofValentinus’s disciples (Lipsius, Quellen deraltesten Ketzergeschichte , p. 33). His laboursin Asia were probably contemporaneous withValentinus’s residence and activity at Rome, andthere a “ godly elder and herald of the truth ”whom Irenaeus quotes from as an older authoritymade him the subject of metrical objurgation asthe “ forerunner of anti-Christian malice ”(Iren. Haer. i. 15, 6).

Ptolemaeus, on the other hand, was a contem-porary of Irenaeus himself [Ptolemaeus], andone of the leaders of the Italian school (Iren.Haer. Praef. 2, Pseudorig. Philos . vi. 35), whom