The Christian Communities in Rome

Irenaeus of Lyons

debauchery, just as Christians themselves were accused of Thyestean feasts and Oedipal intercourse.

Several aspects of the letter of the confessors of Gaul indicate that the martyrs were aligned with the new prophets active in Phrygia and associated with Montanus—for instance, the description of Vettius Epagathas

(h.e. 5.1.9–10) and perhaps also Alexander the Phrygian (h.e. 5.1.49–51).

More explicitly, an extract from the letter, taken out of its original context by Eusebius, describes how Alcibiades led a very austere life, partaking of nothing but bread and water, but that it was revealed to Attalus, after his ﬁrst contest in the amphitheatre, that Alcibiades was 'not doing well in refusing the creatures of God' and in fact was 'a stumbling block' to others, whereupon Alcibiades learnt his lesson and they 'partook of everything, giving thanks to God, for they were not deprived of the grace of God, but the Holy Spirit was their advocate' (h.e. 5.3.2–3). This emphasis on the guidance of the Spirit echoes the language of the Montanists, but is deployed to correct any excessive rigour, and signiﬁcantly bases itself upon the authority of the martyrs rather than a claim to charismatic or institutional authority. It seems that this embassy of peace found a positive response from Eleutherus, though this was not the end of the problem for Rome or for Asian Christianity.22 Nor was it the last time that Christians from Gaul addressed issues in Rome, as we will see.

THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES IN ROME

The way in which the confessors of Gaul introduce Irenaeus to Eleutherus—'if we thought that ofﬁce could confer righteousness upon any one, we should commend him among the ﬁrst as a presbyter of the Church, which is his position'—points to the troubles in Rome being not simply reverberations from the New Prophecy in Asia, but more immediately concerning the role of the ofﬁce of presbyter within the Church and between the different communities in Rome. To understand the scene into which Irenaeus stepped, we must ﬁrst take a step back to consider the history of Christianity in Rome.

Recent scholarship, especially that of Peter Lampe, has shown clearly that the origins of Roman Christianity lie in 'fractionated' communities that slowly coalesced, through struggle, separation, and exclusion over the 22 Cf. Christine Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority, and the New Prophecy (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1996), 56–9.

Irenaeus of Lyons course of the ﬁrst two centuries.23 Christians had made their way to Rome by the middle of the ﬁrst century, as traders, immigrants, and travellers, establishing communities in an ad hoc manner. When the apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, in the second half of the 50s, Christians had already been in Rome 'for a number of years' (Rom. 15:23). Paul also knows of a number of different communities: Prisca and Aquila and 'the church in their house [c ŒÆ rŒ ÆPH KŒŒºÅ Æ]' (Rom. 16:5), those who 'belong to the family of Aristobulus' and those who 'belong to the family of Narcissus' (Rom. 16:10, 11), together with two further groups some of whose names are mentioned (Rom. 16:14, 15).24 Yet Paul sent only one letter, clearly expecting the Christians in Rome to pass his greetings on to one another. Likewise, writing at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch speciﬁes that he is writing 'to all the churches' in Rome, but nevertheless addressed his letter to 'the Church . . . in the country of the land of the Romans', clearly unsure whom he was addressing.25 In reverse, Christians in Rome could write a letter collectively, as we see with the so-called First Epistle of Clement, and also could send aid and assistance collectively to Christians abroad, something that by the late second century was praised by Dionysius of Corinth as their

'ancestral custom' (h.e. 4.23.10). Despite being many and presumably diverse communities, Christians in Rome clearly sensed that they were also members constituting a single body.

Hermas We begin to catch a tantalizing glimpse of the relations between the leaders of the communities in the second quarter of the second century with The Shepherd of Hermas.26 The author addresses 'the leaders of the Church [E æÅªıØ B KŒŒºÅ Æ]', and those who take 'the ﬁrst

23 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, is a thorough review and examination of all the literary and archaeological evidence. See also George La Piana, 'The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century', HTR 18 (1925), 201–77, and 'Foreign Groups in Rome during the First

Centuries of the Empire', HTR 20 (1927), 183–403; James S. Jeffers, Conﬂict at Rome: Social

Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991); and Markus

Vinzent, 'Rome', in Mitchell and Young (eds), The Cambridge History of Christianity, i, Origins to Constantine, 397–412.

24 On pre-Pauline Christianity in Rome, see Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 1–16; and for Rom.

16, see Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 153–83, 359–60.

25 Ignatius, Rom., 4.1, Pref.

26 On The Shepherd of Hermas, see Carolyn Osiek and Helmut Koester, Shepherd of Hermas,

Hermeneia (Minneapolois: Augsburg Fortress, 1999).

Irenaeus of Lyons

seats [E æøŒÆŁ æ ÆØ]', urging them to reform their ways.27

There is evidently discord and tension between them, especially 'regarding privileges and reputation [ æd æø ø ŒÆd æd Å Ø]'.28 He notes how those who have an exalted attitude, wishing to have 'the ﬁrst seat', avoid 'the assembly of righteous men' and 'shun them', preferring to remain 'in a corner' with the 'double-minded', giving empty speech to the empty-minded.29 Yet there is also a developed sense of community and cooperation. In one vision, Hermas is given two books, and directed to send one to Clement and one to Grapte: Clement then shall send it to the cities abroad, for this is entrusted to him [KŒ ﬁø ªaæ KØæÆÆØ]; and Grapte shall exhort the widows and orphans; but in this city you shall read it yourself with the elders who are in charge of the Church [ a H æ ıæø H æœ Æø B KŒŒºÅ Æ].30

Since there is no mention of a monarchical bishop for the city, as there would be in a later period, it seems that each leader or elder was responsible for the oversight (KØ Œ) and well-being of their own community.31 Meeting together in assembly, they also assigned speciﬁc tasks— secretarial and charitable—for their communal work, giving concrete expression to their communal life.

Beyond this, however, we can probably see in Hermas' call to repentence and puriﬁcation an attempt at church reform, as Einar Thomassen has suggested, intended to lead to greater integration.32 In one of his visions, Hermas sees the Church as a great tower being built from different stones.33 Some stones are square and ﬁt tightly together, as if one stone; these represent the apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons who have lived righteously. Others have been smoothed by the sea and are also ready to take their place in the building; these are they who have suffered for the name. Yet others, however, are found on dry ground, cracked and 27 Hermas, Vis. 2.2.6, 2.4.2–3, 3.9.7, cf. Matt. 23:6; Mark 12:29; Luke 11:43, 20:46.

28 Hermas, Sim. 8.7.4–6 29 Hermas, Mand. 11.12–13; cf. Acts 26:26.

30 Hermas, Vis. 2.4.2–3; the Clement here is unlikely to be the author of the First Epistle of Clement.

31 Hermas uses 'caring' (KØ Œ ŁÆØ) in the sense of 'to care for needy, to visit them' (cf.

Mand. 8.10, Vis. 3.9.2, Sim.1.8), and in Sim. 9.7.2 speaks of 'bishops' as 'ever sheltering the destitute and the widows by their ministry [ƒ b K ŒØ . . . Bﬁ

ØÆŒ Æﬁ. . . K ŒÆ Æ]'.

Likewise in Gaul, Pothinus was described as having been entrusted with 'the ministry of episcopacy in Lyons [c ØÆŒ Æ B KØ ŒB]' (h.e. 5.1.29).

32 Einar Thomassen, 'Orthodoxy and Heresy in Second Century Rome', HTR 97/3 (2004),

241–56, at 251–2.

33 Hermas, Vis. 3.2.4–7.6.

Irenaeus of Lyons misshapen in various ways, and are cast away from the tower; and these represent different kinds of sinners. Those who wish to repent may still do so, while the tower is being built, and through repentance they will ﬁnd their place in the tower. Those, however, who have departed, thinking that they have found a better way, will fall into the ﬁre, having 'apostatized from the living God' (cf. Heb. 3:12). In this way, 'the Church of God shall be puriﬁed', with the double-minded 'rejected' (IºÅŁBÆØ) from it, so that 'the Church of God shall be one body, one mind, one spirit, one faith, one love, and then the Son of God shall rejoice and be glad in them, when he has received his people in purity'.34 Hermas is here describing a moral reformation of the Church. The divisions and dissensions he saw around him in Rome, principally in claims for privileges or honours, were unacceptable to him. The Church should be one, and the way he proposes this be achieved is through repentance. As far as we can tell, his vision was never realized, and, when the discipline of repentance was institutionalized in later centuries, it was within a very different context.35

Cerdo An example of a ﬁgure who withdrew from the broader fellowship of the Church during this period is Cerdo. According to Irenaeus, Cerdo came to Rome during the time of Hyginus (c.136–40 CE), and then, 'entering the Church and making confession [of the faith], he thus remained, at one time teaching in secret, and then again confessing, but then, being denounced by some for teaching falsely, he withdrew from the gathering of the pious'.36 It seems that, upon his arrival in Rome, Cerdo met together with his followers somewhere apart in the city, teaching them and worshipping with them, and this no doubt continued after he separated from the broader communion of Christians in the city. What is particularly striking about this description is not only that there is no indication of any kind of 'excommunication' by the broader Church or particular ﬁgures within it, if they even had any such notion or the means for its execution, but that, as with the double-minded arrogant man described by Hermas, it was Cerdo himself who separated from them,

34 Hermas, Sim. 2.18.2–4.

35 Cf. Thomassen, 'Orthodoxy and Heresy', 252.

36 Haer. 3.4.3: N c KŒŒºÅ Æ KºŁg ŒÆd Kºª , oø Ø º , b b ºÆŁæØÆ ŒÆºH, b b ºØ Kºª , b b e Øø Kº ªå Kç x K Æ Œ ŒÆŒH ŒÆd IçØ B H Ł H ı Æ.

Irenaeus of Lyons

breaking fellowship or communion with them, so isolating himself in schism. That it is reported in such words decades later by Irenaeus, rather than in more active terms, is grounds for accepting that it describes accurately what happened in Rome in the 130s CE.

Marcion This same dynamic is even more evident with the most notorious ﬁgure from the second century, the successor of Cerdo according to Irenaeus

(haer. 3.4.3), and that is Marcion.37 Marcion had also come to Rome from the East, from Sinope in Pontus, and 'ﬂourished under Anicetus' (142–66

CE, haer. 3.4.3. ). He was a rich shipowner by background, and when he arrived in Rome it is reported that he donated 200,000 sesterces to the Church, the price of a moderate-sized farm or house in the city, though it is unclear whether this was to a common fund or to a particular church community.38 Marcion worked for several years composing a book that he called the Antitheses, pointing out the contradictions between the depiction of God in the Law and the Gospel, and so arguing that they must, therefore, be speaking of two different gods, the Creator of this world and the one who redeems us from the realm and dominion of the Creator. It was probably on the basis of the Antitheses that Marcion prepared his version of the Gospel and Apostolikon, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke and ten letters of Paul respectively, removing any positive references to the Old Testament.39 Marcion and his followers

37 For Marcion, the foundational work still remains Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das

Evangelium vom fremden Gott: Neue Studien zu Marcion, 2nd edn (1924; repr. Darmstadt:

Wissenschaftlich Buchgesellschaft, 1996); abridged translation, Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God, trans. John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1990).

See now Gerhard May and Katharine Greschat (eds), Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtlich

Wirkung: Marcion and his Impact on Church History. Vortra¨ge der Internationalen Fachkonferenz sur

Marcion, gehalten vom 15–18 August 2001 in Mainz (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002); Harry Y. Gamble,

'Marcion and the "Canon"', in Mitchell and Young (eds), The Cambridge History of Christianity, i, Origins to Constantine, 195–213, and Sebastian Moll, The Arch-Heretic Marcion, WUNT 250

(Tu¨bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).

38 Tertullian, Praescr., 30. For the price comparisons, see Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 245.

39 Following the conclusions of Charles E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, WUNT

186 (Tu¨bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 92: 'It certainly seems to be the case that Marcion's versions of the Gospel and Apostolikon required the prior explanation of the Antitheses in order to be understood (Tertullian, Marc. 4.1.1, even called Marcion's Gospel "the Gospel according to the Antitheses"), so that the latter might have appeared ﬁrst and independently, but not the former. It may also be signiﬁcant that Irenaeus speaks of Marcion's followers as maintaining the exclusivity of Marcion's Gospel and edition of Paul's letters (haer. 3.12.12), as it could indicate that a full explanation of their import came only from these successors.' As Hill

Irenaeus of Lyons were also accused of drawing two particular conclusions from their ditheism. First, a radical disdain for the material order, ﬁnding expression in a radical asceticism that proscribed marriage and prescribed sexual abstinence. And, second, a docetic understanding of Christ, denying his real human existence and thus the reality of his birth and death.

According to Tertullian, Marcion introduced his 'new god' in July 144 CE.40 This is probably the point at which, as Epiphanius relates,

Marcion, on his own initiative, asked to meet the 'presbyters and teachers' of the city to discuss with them the meaning of Christ's injunction not to put new wine in old wineskins.41 What happened next is unclear. Tertullian uses vocabulary that suggests that the presbyters themselves took the ﬁnal step, ejecting Marcion from the Christian community in Rome.42 This is the scene as Harnack dramatically portrays it, with Marcion standing, as Luther, before an organized Roman Church gathered in council and standing in judgement over him, while he stands for the truth of the Gospel.43 But, as Lampe points out, what else could they do, once put on the spot in such a manner and being asked to reject their Scriptures and turn to a new god? 'What would have happened if Marcion had been satisﬁed in his house community with only teaching his own followers? If he had not had the missionary impulse of a reformer of Christianity who sought to force decisions on other congregations by means of a synod?'44

From what we have seen, and will see again for several more decades, the 'fractionated' Christian communities in Rome, though clearly having a uniﬁed sense of their own faith sufﬁcient not to accept Marcion's teaching, had not yet coalesced into a body organized enough to take upon itself the action of collectively excluding a ﬁgure such as Marcion. Within a few years, however, writers such as Justin Martyr would begin critiquing

Marcion's teaching as heretical.

Epiphanius, while describing the scene as one of excommunication, records words attributed to Marcion that do not ﬁt with such an action, further suggests, this also raises the possibility that, when Marcion published his Antitheses, he may not yet have determined to reject the other Gospels besides Luke, and that there is evidence that he was familiar with a fourfold Gospel collection and adapted from, or harmonized his text with, certain portions of Matthew and Mark.

40 Tertullian, Marc. 1.19.

41 Epiphanius, Pan. 42.2.1; the saying as given by Epiphanius is closer to Matt. 9:16–17 than

Luke 5:36–37.

42 Tertullian, Praescr. 30: . . . eiecti . . . relegati . . .

43 Harnack, Marcion, 27 (trans. 18): 'Who does not here think of Luther?!'

44 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 393.

Irenaeus of Lyons

but that are instead more in keeping with what we have seen previously:

Marcion himself 'caused the split [e å Æ], forming his own sect [c Æ¥æ Ø] and saying "I will split your church and cast a split in it forever"'.45

The result indeed was that Marcion zealously began to establish and organize his own church community, as 'an anti-movement',46 that spread out across the Mediterranean. It is unclear just how large a following he had in Rome, though one might well suppose that the followers of Cerdo were assumed into this new body. Marcion and his followers undoubtedly thought of themselves as being the one true Christian Church, and those who did not accept his teachings he derided, echoing Paul, as 'false apostles and Jewish evangelists'.47 Marcion, like Hermas, wanted to reform the Church; but, unlike Hermas, he was convinced that what needed correcting were theological errors, rather than a general moral reform through repentance, and, again unlike Hermas, he had the determination and means to carry out his own vision. This he did, but only by establishing his church as a separate organization, a separate body not in communion with the greater body of Roman Christian communities.

Valentinus A fascinating counterpoint to Marcion is provided by another contemporary ﬁgure in Rome. According to Irenaeus, 'Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus [c.136–140], ﬂourished [XŒÆ ] under Pius [c.140–155], and remained until Anicetus [c.155–166]' (haer. 3.4.3).48 He had come to Rome from Alexandria, and after leaving Rome continued his teaching activity in Cyprus.49 He was widely regarded, even by his opponents, as brilliant, in both intelligence and eloquence.50 He is reported to have composed psalms and hymns; a fragment of a 'linguistically exquisite'

45 Epiphanius, Pan. 42.2.8. Cf. Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 393, n. 24: 'This appears to be tradition since it contradicts Epiphanius' context.'

46 Moll, The Arch-Heretic Marcion, 44, who concludes: 'It is this factor which demonstrates that it is incorrect to claim that Marcion's movement was just another circle of Christians within the great laboratory of Rome, thus supporting the thesis that at this time there was in fact no such thing as "orthodoxy" or "heresy".'

47 Cf. Harnack, Marcion, 36–7, 196 (trans. 26–7, 123).

48 For what we know of Valentinus' biography, see Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed:

The Church of the 'Valentinians' (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 417–22; for Valentinus and the Valentinians more generally, see Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, and Ismo O. Dunderberg, Beyond

Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (New York: Columbia

University Press, 2008).

49 Epiphanius, Pan. 31.2.3, 7.1–2.

50 Cf. Tertullian, Val. 4., Jerome, Comm. Os. 2.10.

Irenaeus of Lyons metrical hymn is preserved by Hippolytus.51 Valentinus also had a number of disciples, who went on to become important ﬁgures in their own right, in particular Ptolemaeus and Heracleon.

What is most intriguing about Valentinus himself and his sojourn in Rome is that, despite all his notoriety in subsequent heresiology, there is no indication at all of any concrete condemnation of his teaching in Rome during this period or for decades after. Tertullian reports that Valentinus aspired to become the bishop of Rome, but that, when another candidate, who had been a confessor, was chosen, he left the Church in indignation and, inﬂamed with 'the desire for revenge', applied himself 'to exterminate the truth', picking up a 'certain old opinion' and developing it 'with the subtlety of a serpent'.52 Although clearly anachronistic, for we have seen nothing yet of an ofﬁce of 'the bishop of Rome', Tertullian may well be taken as implying that Valentinus was seeking to gain a wider acceptance of his teaching beyond his own community, as had Marcion earlier, though with important differences. Irenaeus' words about Valentinus 'ﬂourishing' in Rome give no sense of any disturbance regarding him.53 Irenaeus also claims that the anti-Valentinian writers before himself had little success with their polemic, for the reason that they were not fully familiar with the teachings of Valentinus (haer. 4.Pref.2).54 Moreover,

Irenaeus reports that, even as late as the 180s CE, the Valentinians would discuss their attitude towards members of the Church, 'whom they do themselves term "vulgar" and "ecclesiastic"', and were then surprised that the faithful were reluctant to have fellowship with them (haer. 3.15.2).

Finally, and most interestingly, when Irenaeus does intervene in the 190s CE, as we will see below, by urging Victor to action, he makes no reference to any earlier condemnation of Valentinus and his teaching; by this point, merely invoking the name of Valentinus is sufﬁcient. The only exception to this pattern in Rome is Justin Martyr, to whom we will turn after further considering the case of Valentinus.

Asking why Valentinus was not condemned in Rome, Einar Thomassen considers three possibilities.55 The ﬁrst is that Valentinus was not in fact a 51 Hippolytus, Ref. 6.37.6–8; the comment is that of Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 295.

52 Tertullian, Val. 4.

53 Epiphanius, Pan. 31.7, implies that it was only in Cyprus that Valentinus 'gave up the faith' and 'pushed completely into the extreme of impiety'.

54 Such writers would have included the author of the verse in haer. 1.15.6 (cited below), probably Polycarp, Miltiades also in Asia Minor (cf. Tertullian, Val. 5, h.e. 5.28.4), and Hegesippus

(cf. h.e. 4.22.5).

55 Thomassen, 'Orthodoxy and Heresy', 245–6.

Irenaeus of Lyons

'Valentinian'. This might be indicated by Tertullian, for, having described his turning to heresy after failing to become the bishop of Rome, Tertullian reports teachings that were quite different from what we know of Valentinus' own.56 However, Justin, a contemporary of Valentinus, does clearly describe Valentinus as a heretic. A second possibility would be that his views were 'tolerated', either passively or actively. The difﬁculty here is that our sources are simply silent: there is no indication that he was condemned, but neither is there any indication that his teaching gained widespread acceptance. There is simply no basis for claiming, as some have, that he was widely regarded as being an admired teacher. Thomassen concludes that the quandary is best understood in terms of the 'fractionated' communities in Rome that were in the gradual process of coalescence into an organized institutional body over the course of the second century: 'There was no unitary "church" from which one could be expelled. And, by the time "the church" was ﬁnally established, the Valentinians, like Marcion and his followers, had long ago departed to create their own churches.'57

This conclusion needs to be nuanced somewhat. In the case of Marcion, while there may not have been a unitary church sufﬁciently organized as an institution to undertake an action of excommunication, if any had even thought of this as a possibility, there was undoubtedly a body of communities that had a coherent and cohesive enough sense of their faith not to accept Marcion's teaching: his very action thereafter, establishing his own church, testiﬁes to that. In the case of Valentinus, the gradual separation of the ways, such that his name alone is sufﬁcient to urge action against a later teacher, also testiﬁes to the same lack of broad acceptance that increased over the intervening decades.

Thomassen raises the further intriguing suggestion that Valentinus should also be considered as a reformer, just as Hermas and Marcion before him.58 It is clear that unity is a fundamental theme in Valentinus' teaching. The divine realm of the pleroma is characterized by unity, whereas this world, with its divisions, dissensions, and strife, is a result of a fall from that unity, albeit a fall that originated within the realm of the Aeons. The true church of the spiritual seed (that is, the Valentinians themselves) is a manifestation of a supra-cosmic reality that has descended

56 A similar line is taken by Christoph Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins, WUNT 65 (Tu¨bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992).

57 Thomassen, 'Orthodoxy and Heresy', 255–6.

58 Thomassen, 'Orthodoxy and Heresy', 253–55.

Irenaeus of Lyons to this cosmic realm, the body of the Saviour, to return the spiritual seed to their original state of unity, through the mysteries of uniﬁcation such as the 'bridal chamber'. While such metaphysical and soteriological themes are certainly being worked out across the broad span of a salvation history, they also reﬂect contemporary social and ecclesial realities. Accepting that The Gospel of Truth is indeed by Valentinus, one can see such an immediate application in the following passage:

For the place where there is envy and strife is deﬁcient, but the place where [there is] unity is perfect. Since the deﬁciency came into being because the Father was not known, when the Father is known, from that moment on the deﬁciency will no longer exist. As in the case of the ignorance of a person, when he comes to have knowledge, his ignorance vanishes of itself, as darkness vanishes when the light appears, so also the deﬁciency vanishes in the perfection. So from that moment on the form is not apparent, but it will vanish in the fusion of Unity, for now their works lie scattered. In time Unity will perfect the spaces. It is within Unity that each one will attain himself; within knowledge he will purify himself from multiplicity into Unity, consuming matter within himself like ﬁre, and darkness by light, death by life. If indeed these things have happened to each one of us, then we must see to it above all that the house will be holy and silent for the Unity.

[It is] as in the case of some people who moved out of dwellings having jars that in spots were not good. They would break them, and the master of the house would not suffer loss. Rather <he> is glad because in place of the bad jars [there are] full ones which are made perfect. For such is the judgement which has come down from above. It has passed judgement on everyone; it is a drawn sword, with two edges, cutting on either side. When the Word appeared, the one that is within the heart of those who utter it—it is not a sound alone but it became a body—a great disturbance took place among the jars because some had been emptied, others ﬁlled; that is some had been supplied others poured out, and some had been puriﬁed, still others broken up. (Gospel of Truth, 24.25–25.15)

As Thomassen points out, 'his description is, mutatis mutandis, not at all different from that in Hermas'.59

The 'jars', just as the 'stones' in the vision of Hermas, have an immediate ecclesiological application. Valentinus believes that, by coming to a true knowledge of the Father, the 'fractionated' communities of Rome can be brought into unity. By implication, the divisions that he sees, primarily between himself and the other Christian communities, are a result of their not knowing the Father: the deﬁciency, the lack of unity, exists 'because the Father was not known'.

59 Thomassen, 'Orthodoxy and Heresy', 254.

Irenaeus of Lyons

Yet, whereas Marcion provoked a split by trying to force others to accept his new god, Valentinus took a different approach from those who did not know the 'Father' whom he would proclaim. Rather than rejecting the others, Valentinus did not regard them as 'heretics' to be condemned, but as potential true spiritual Christians needing education and conversion. Valentinian ecclesiology thus differentiates between an inner circle of the 'spiritual', and an outer circle of 'psychics' who remained beholden to an impoverished understanding of the Scriptures; their beliefs are not false tout court, but rather superﬁcial or immature, needing further education and growth to ﬂower into true knowledge.60 There was no need for the 'spiritual' believers to break fellowship with the others, for it was part of their mission to bring them into a higher level of knowledge. In fact, it would have been an advantage to Florinus, in the 190s CE, to present himself as a presbyter connected with Victor, as we will see. The Valentinians thus presented themselves to the 'psychic' Christians using the same terms and expressions of faith as they did, but among themselves they would interpret these words in a different manner.61

We can see this endeavour at work in the letter of Ptolemaeus to Flora.62 In this letter, Ptolemaeus cautiously leads Flora to a deeper understanding of the Mosaic Law, in particular, it seems, attempting to resolve her perplexity regarding Marcion's teaching and those who opposed him regarding the origin of the Law. Some, Ptolemaeus says, have mistakenly claimed that it was ordained by the God and Father, while others err equally by claiming that it was created by the adversary:

'but they are utterly in error, they disagree with one another, and each utterly misses the truth of the matter'.63 Rather than simply thinking of the Law contained in the books of Moses as established by a single author, we must, through careful interpretation, he argues, come to discern how it is made up of different parts, and how each part must be interpreted

60 Cf. K. Koschorke, Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum, NHS 12

(Leiden: Brill, 1978). As Dunderberg (Beyond Gnosticism, 191–5) notes, this qualiﬁes the allegations about the Valentinians teaching in 'secret'; any secrecy need only have been that of a pedagogical nature, leading learners into a fuller understanding, rather than an attempt to hide their 'real teachings'. On the distinction between 'saying' and 'meaning', see

Richard A. Norris, 'Theology and Language in Irenaeus of Lyon', ATR 76/3 (1994), 285–95, at 286–8.

61 Cf. haer. 3.17.4; 5.26.2; 4.33.3; 1. Praef.; 2.14.8; 2.28.4; 3.15.2; 3.16.6, 8; 4.32.1; 5.31.1;

5.18.1; 5.8.3.

62 On Ptolemaeus' Epistle to Flora, see Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 119–28; Dunderberg,

Beyond Gnosticism, 77–94.

63 Ptolemaeus, Ep. Fl. 33.3.3.

Irenaeus of Lyons correctly. Of particular concern to Flora is Christ's claim, in Matt. 19:8, that permission for divorce was 'not from the beginning' but has its origin with Moses. We must differentiate, he argues, between the legislation coming from Moses, that coming from the elders, and that coming from God himself. And, furthermore, with regard to that coming from God, we must differentiate between that which is pure (the decalogue), that which is mixed with the inferior and injustice (the lex talionis), and that which is symbolic and allegorical (those concerned with ritual). The God who established this threefold law is neither the perfect God, nor the devil, but rather 'the demiurge and maker of the universe or world and of the things within it', different in essence from the other two, but in an intermediate state, such that he can be called by the name 'intermediateness'.64 Ptolemaeus then concludes his letter by urging Flora not to be troubled now by the desire to learn how from the one principle of all the nature of corruption and of the intermediate have come into existence; 'if God allows, you will learn later on their principle and how they came to be, as you have been granted the apostolic tradition which we also received from our predecessors, together with the understanding that we measure all that is said by our Saviour's teaching'. All this, he consoles her, will be of great beneﬁt to her in the future, if she bears the fruit of the seed she has received.65 In all this, as Lampe puts it, we see an 'effort to cultivate spiritual communion with the "psychic" Christians', by avoiding condemnation of 'the faith of those who unreﬂectively accept the whole of the Old Testament as given from the God and Father', but rather building upon this naive acceptance of these Scriptures and leading to a deeper understanding.66

While reaching out cautiously to others in Rome, as part of their vision for a reform that would bring all the communities into unity (Valentinus' attempt to become 'bishop', as Tertullian would have it), Valentinus and his followers also sought their own way, in a manner that increasingly withdrew from the fractiousness of Roman Christianity, as Thomassen puts it, 'in order to be, all by themselves, the true spiritual church in a uniﬁed self-sufﬁciency'.67 In the terms of The Gospel of Truth, quoted above: 'we must see to it above all that the house will be holy and silent for the Unity.'

64 Ptolemaeus, Ep. Fl. 33.7.3.

65 Ptolemaeus, Ep. Fl. 33.7.8–10.

66 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 388.

67 Thomassen, 'Orthodoxy and Heresy', 254.

Irenaeus of Lyons

We have a possible fascinating insight into the concrete world of this withdrawal in a couple of inscriptions, dating to this period, found on the Via Latina. The ﬁrst, a marble inscription dating to the second century, is a verse written in Ionic hexameters:

Co[brothers] of the bridal chambers, celebrate with torches the [ba]ths for me; They hunger for [ban]quets in ou[r rooms]

[La]uding the Father, and praisin[g] the Son; Oh, may there be ﬂow[ing] of the only [sp]ring and of the truth in that very place [or: then].68

The address to fellow members of 'the bridal chambers' is strongly suggestive of the Valentinian character of this verse, as is the adoption of the Ionic dialect, also found in Valentinus' own only remaining poetic fragment.69 The plaque would seem to have hung in a private villa, inviting fellow members to enter and to celebrate baptisms and eucharistic meals, receiving ﬂowing waters from the only true spring.

The second inscription, two epigraphs also hexameters on the marble gravestone of Flavia Sophe, date to the end of the second or ﬁrst half of the third century. They were discovered on 'an undetermined location along the Via Latina, outside the city, where, in a quiet area, the rows of graves along the arterial road have been here and there broken by a suburban villa'.70

Longing for the fatherly light, O sister bride, my Sophe, In the ablutions of Ch[rist] anointed with imperishable holy balsam

You have hastened to gaze upon the divine countenances of the Aeons, upon the great angel of the great counsel, the true Son,

You have gone [to] the bridal chamber and ascended to the . . . fatherly . . . an[d] . . .

This deceased did not have a usual ending of life; She died away and lives and sees a truly imperishable light.

She lives to the delight of the living, is really dead to the dead.

O earth, why are you astonished about this type of corpse?

Are you terriﬁed?

These verses (the ﬁrst of which offers the acrositc ºÆ, which is to be completed to ºÆ Æ, the name of the deceased being Flavia Sophe) are

68 For the reconstructed text and translation, and full analysis, see Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 298–306.

69 In Hippolytus, haer. 6.37.6–8; cf. Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 305.

70 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 309; for text and translation, see pp. 308–9.

Irenaeus of Lyons even more strongly redolent of Valentinian teaching: the deceased has gone to the bridal chamber to look upon the paternal light, to gaze upon the countenances of the Aeons; she has received the anointing with balsam; Christ is called 'the great Angel of Great Counsel', as in the Excerpts from Theodotus; and the earth, the domain of the demiurge, is thus terriﬁed. Most of these have parallels elsewhere, but, as Lampe points out, the combination of all these motifs makes it most probable that it is indeed Valentinian in character.

It is notable that both inscriptions, the only archaeological traces of likely Valentinian provenance, were found near the Via Latina. Two further pieces from the area, dating to the third and fourth centuries, also indicate that the Valentinian tradition continued in that region, while nothing else has been found elsewhere in Rome.71 The area to which this convergence points was one where wealthy and honourable people lived. It was in a villa in this region that Marcus Aurelius was born. It was certainly a district that would provide a suitable suburban location for those seeking retreat in a 'house holy and silent', celebrating in Ionic dialect and achieving mystical union in the 'bridal chamber'. If Flora, the recipient of Ptolemaeus' letter, is to be identiﬁed with the noble but unnamed woman mentioned by Justin in his Second Apology, it is a further indication of the social group from which the Valentinians drew their converts. This would also conﬁrm Irenaeus' comments that Valentinians devote their efforts to those 'who are able to pay a high price for an acquaintence with such profound mysteries' and especially women who are 'well-bred, elegantly attired, and of great wealth'

(haer. 1.13.3, and 1.4.3). Finally, it would explain why, in the 190s CE, Victor is unaware of the activities of Florinus. In a more subtle way than Marcion, then, Valentinus also took a separationist path, realizing that the theology he promoted was not acceptable to the larger body of Christians in Rome.

The very language deployed by Valentinus, differentiating between the 'pneumatic' Christians and the 'psychic' Christians, the former with a higher knowledge of things unknown to and misunderstood by the latter, is already evidence of their own recognition of their difference from the majority of other Christians in Rome.

Justin Martyr The third main ﬁgure in Rome during this period is Justin, who also arrived from the East, a convert from a pagan family in Flavia Neapolis in 71 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 311.

Irenaeus of Lyons

Samaria.72 In the opening chapters of the Dialogue, Justin describes his search for truth, through the various philosophical schools, and how he was converted to Christianity through being directed, by an anonymous old man, to the Scriptures.73 His conversion seems to have happened sometime before 135 CE. He came to Rome, having visited the city once before, sometime after this date, and remained there until his martyrdom under the municipal Roman praefect Iunius Rusticus (163–8 CE). A group of disciples gathered around Justin in Rome, several of whom are known by name, and at least three of whom—Euelpistus, Hierax, and Tatian— had also come from the East.74 In the account of his martyrdom, Justin describes how he met his disciples 'above the baths of Myrtinus' and how he 'imparted the words of truth' to those who wished to come.75 Justin's companions all claimed to have received 'the good confession' from their parents, rather, that is, than by being converted by him.76

Justin claimed, under interrogation, that he 'has known no other meeting-place [¼ººÅ Øa ıº ı Ø] but there'.77 Since he asserts elsewhere that in judicial hearings Christians are obliged 'to tell the truth in everything', it is unlikely that he was simply attempting to protect other

Christians.78 Justin and his companions did not go on Sundays to some other location for worship. In fact, Justin himself provides a rare and precious description of how his community celebrated baptism and the Eucharist, and gathered together weekly, on Sundays, for the reading of Scripture, instruction, and exhortation by the president (› æ ) of the community, the offering of prayer and the Eucharist, and the gathering and distribution of charity.79 He also mentions that 'to those who are absent they [the deacons] carry away' a portion of the eucharistic gifts.80 This need not necessarily be taken to mean that the eucharistic gifts were taken only to members of his community not present on a particular occasion, but perhaps could be taken to include members of 72 Justin, 1 apol. 1; dial. 120.6.

73 For a comprehensive analysis of Justin's education and its correspondence to his stylized

'intellectual autobiography', see Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 260–72.

74 M. Just. 3 A and B; Euelpistus came from Cappadocia and Hierax from Phrygia. That Tatian, from Syria, was a disciple of Justin is related by Irenaeus (haer.1.28.1).

75 M. Just. 3 A and B. Cf. Harlow Gregory Snyder, '"Above the Bath of Myrtinus": Justin

Martyr's "School" in the City of Rome', HTR 100/3 (2007), 335–62.

76 M. Just. 4 A and B.

77 M. Just. 3 A and B.

78 Justin, 2 apol. 4.4; cf. Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 376–7.

79 Justin, 1 apol. 61, 65–7.

80 Justin, 1 apol. 65.5.

Irenaeus of Lyons other communities in Rome, as a concrete expression of communion.81

We will see further evidence of this practice later, when considering Irenaeus' involvement in the Quartodeciman controversy.

Justin was a new sight for Roman Christians: he wore the distinct mantel of the philosopher, as later did Tertullian and Heraklas, a fellow student of Origen.82 This was an unmistakable dress, one that was often caricatured, together with the sandals, staff, and goat-like beard that accompanied it.83

Justin was also a fairly proliﬁc writer. Eusebius knows of a number of treatises written by this philosopher having 'an educated intelligence trained in theology, which are full of beneﬁt' (h.e. 4.18.1–10). There was a work addressed 'To the Hellenes', on matters of common interest to Christians and to the Greek philosophers, in particular the nature of demons, and another against the Hellenes, entitled 'Refutation '[0Eº ªå]'.

One work addressed the sole sovereignty (Ææå Æ) of God, drawing from Scripture and the writings of the Hellenes, perhaps addressing the ditheism of Marcion; and another work spoke directly against Marcion.84 Eusebius also mentions a work entitled 'Psaltes' and one 'On the Soul'. Photius mentions two further works not known to Eusebius, one concerning nature and the other a refutation of anti-Christian arguments.85 Justin himself mentions that he also composed a 'treatise against all the heresies that have arisen [ ÆªÆ ŒÆa Æ H H ª ª Åø Æƒæ ø]'.86

None of these works, however, has come down to us. The only extant writings of Justin are his two Apologies, addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius (c.150–5 CE) and thus composed in the early 150s, and his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, from the later part of that decade.

In the Apologies and the Dialogue, Justin presents a philosophically sophisticated exposition of the Christian faith as it relates to key themes of general philosophical interest, especially regarding the providence of God, fate or destiny, free will, and ethical responsibility. He does so in a self-conscious and explicit engagement with Greek philosophers, regarding their own writings, and in dialogue with a Jewish ﬁgure, whether recalling an actual debate or as a literary convention, on the use and interpretation of 81 Cf. Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 386.

82 Justin, dial. 1.2, 9.2. Cf. h.e. 4.11.8. For Herakles, see h.e. 6.19.14, and for Tertullian, his pamphlet on the matter, De pallio.

83 Apuleius, Metam. 11.8.2; Martial, 4.53.

84 H.e. 4.11.8–9, and h.e. 4.18.9, where he quotes Irenaeus' mention of this work (haer.

4.6.2).

85 Photius, Bibl. cod. 125.95.

86 Justin, 1 apol. 26.8, words cited in h.e. 4.11.10.

Irenaeus of Lyons

the writings of Moses and the prophets. The Scriptures, he argues against Trypho, 'are not yours but ours, for we believe them, but you, though you read them, you do not catch the spirit [e F] in them'.87 Justin approaches the writings of the Greek philosophers and poets in a similar manner. Probably drawing upon the parable of the sower casting seeds upon the ground (Matt. 13), as well as ideas found in Stoicism and Middle

Platonism, Justin claims that the Son of God, as the Logos spermatikos, implants a seed, a sperma, in human beings that enables them to think and live in accordance with the Logos. Having read Moses and the prophets, the poets and philosophers have received 'seeds of the truth'.88

In this way, then, they have a dim perception of 'the whole Word', the Son, so that some, like Plato and Socrates, were able to live and think, or at least attempt to do so, according to the Word. On this basis, Justin can then claim that Christ 'was partially known even by Socrates, for he was and is the Word who is in every person', and therefore 'whatever things were rightly said among all people, are the property of us Christians . . . For all the writers were able to see realities darkly through the presence in them of an implanted seed of the Word.'89

It was thus not simply his physical appearance that would have been striking to other Roman Christians, but even more so was the openness of his approach, in its audacity startling to both Christians and pagans alike.

His discourse does not oppose a Christian theology, as true, to a false Greek philosophy or Jewish tradition in terms of discrete, compartmentalized and essentialized, static entities. Rather he proclaims a universal

Logos, in which each has shared and is brought to completion and fulﬁlment in his proclamation of the Christian faith.90 Justin, as Rebecca

Lyman rightly argues, should not be understood in terms of an opposition between Hellenism and Christianity, putting an a priori self-deﬁned

87 Justin, dial. 29.2. On the form of Scripture used by Justin in his different works, and his method of utilizing them, see John Behr, The Way to Nicaea, Formation of Christian

Theology, vol. 1 (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2001), 94–100. See also Oscar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr's Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance,

Theological Proﬁle (Leiden: Brill, 1987).

88 Justin, 1 apol. 44.9–10, 59–60. On this, see Mark J. Edwards, 'Justin's Logos and the Word of God', JECS 3/3 (1995), 261–80, Behr, Way to Nicaea, 106–9, and, earlier, R. Holte,

'Logos Spermatikos: Christianity and Ancient Philosophy according to St Justin's Apologies',

ST 12 (1958), 109–68.

89 Justin, 2 apol. 10.8, 13.4–5.

90 On the 'cultural take-over bid', implied by this claim, see A. J. Droge, Homer or Moses?

Early Christian Interpretation of the History of Culture (Tu¨bingen: Mohr, 1989), and Frances

Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), esp. 49–75.

Irenaeus of Lyons Christianity into philosophical clothing as an apologetic move, but rather as an expression of transcendent universalism that was 'religiously powerful precisely because the themes address problems within Roman Hellenism'.91 His understanding of the universality and authority of the divine revelation spoken of in prophetic texts and fulﬁlled in Jesus as the Incarnate Logos, completing the ancient search for truth by human philosophers, was confrontational but inclusive.

In bringing together the revealed texts of the Jewish tradition and the history of Greek philosophy, he shifted cultural categories rather than destroyed their validity. He displaced the sole cultural authority of Hellenic philosophy, yet the truth of his own 'philosophy' rested on acknowledged and shared cultural concepts of transcendence and mediation as well as biblical authority or revelation.92

He could thus recontextualize diverse ancient traditions by exegeting their texts anew in the light of Christ, ﬁnding truth in each, yet criticizing the religious practices of polytheism or adherence to the Mosaic Law. This,

Lyman argues, 'is coherent only for a Hellenist, who accepts the underlying unity of truth and the hierarchy of cultures and literatures rather than their opposition'.93

It is in this perspective that we can best understand Justin's account of hairesis (Æ¥æ Ø). Justin, as is commonly recognized, was the ﬁrst to develop a 'heresiology', drawing upon earlier themes certainly, but putting them together in a new manner.94 In antiquity this term was used, usually neutrally, to designate a 'school of thought', whether in the historiography of Greek philosophy or the various 'schools' within Judaism, such as 'the party' of the party of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), the Pharisees (Acts 15:5), or the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). Within a Christian context, however, it implied division as a 'faction'. Thus Paul warns the Corinthians, 'in the ﬁrst place, when you assemble as church [ ı æåø H K KŒŒºÅ Æﬁ], I hear that there are divisions [ å ÆÆ] among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions [Æƒæ Ø] among you in order that those who are genuine [ƒ ŒØØ] among you may be recognized' (1 Cor. 11:18–19). Such

'factions' are, for Paul, 'works of the ﬂesh', along with strife, dissension, 91 Lyman, 'Hellenism and Heresy', 217.

92 Lyman, 'Hellenism and Heresy', 217.

93 Lyman, 'Hellenism and Heresy', 217.

94 Cf. Alain Le Boulluec, La Notion d'he´re´sie dans la literature greque II e–III e sie`cles (Paris:

E´tudes Augustiniennes, 1985), for a comprehensive analysis of the use of the term in the second and third centuries, and pp. 36–91 for the background in Greek literature and Judaism and Justin's transformation of the term.

Irenaeus of Lyons

pride, envy, and drunkenness (Gal. 5:19–20). Later writers, however, began to associate the word with false teaching. For instance, 2 Peter predicts the appearance of 'false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive haireseis' (2 Pet. 2:1). Ignatius of Antioch also designates error, which accompanies rupture with the bishop, by the term hairesis. Thus the Ephesians, whose 'good order in God' is praised by their bishop, are in turn praised by Ignatius, for 'all of you live according to the truth and no hairesis resides among you; rather you do not even listen to anyone unless he speaks about Jesus Christ in truth'.95 Moreover, Ignatius asserts that hairesis is a 'foreign plant' from which he urges the Trallians to abstain, using instead 'only Christian food'.96 Finally, although not using the term hairesis itself, the author of 1 Timothy warns that some will 'depart from the faith' by attending 'to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons' (1 Tim. 4:1) and urges Timothy to 'guard the deposit [c ÆæÆŁŒÅ]' and avoid the empty chatter and contradictions of 'falsely-called knowledge [B ł ıøı ª ø]' (1 Tim. 6:20).

It is not clear how much of this later literature was known to Justin.97

The themes that we have seen, however —hairesis as faction, false teaching, and demonically inspired—are brought together by Justin in a particular manner. 'Heresy' is not simply false teaching; it is not simply equated with philosophy, 'Hellenization', or a foreign element of teaching intruding into a pure deposit of faith. Greek philosophy, as we have seen, is not 'false' tout court, but rather imperfect, needing to be discerningly interpreted. As Lyman points out: 'The underlying problem for Justin in fact is not opposition, but rather diabolical imitation.'98 In his First Apology,

Justin describes how, after Christ's ascension, 'the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods': Simon Magus, whose statue Justin claims (mistakenly) to have seen in Rome, bearing the inscription 'To Simon the holy god', followed by his disciple Menander, and ﬁnally Marcion.99 He then comments that 'all who take their opinions from these are, as we said, called "Christians",' just as many are called

'philosophers' even if they 'do not agree with the philosophers in their 95 Ignatius of Antioch, Eph. 6.2. On distinctiveness of Ignatius, see Le Boulluec, La Notion d'he´re´sie, 22–5.

96 Ignatius of Antioch, Trall. 6.1.

97 It is possible that dial. 82.1 alludes to the mention of 'false prophets' and 'false teachers' in 2 Pet. 2:1, rather than Matt. 7:15, which mentions only 'false prophets', and that dial. 7.3 and 35.2 allude to 1 Tim. 4:1.

98 Lyman, 'Hellenism and Heresy', 218.

99 Justin, 1 apol. 26.1–5.

Irenaeus of Lyons teachings', and that he has already composed his 'treatise against all the heresies'.100 Although they are called 'Christian', Justin asserts, they are not: they are diabolically inspired 'heresies' appearing as 'Christian'. As David Brakke puts it: 'This distinction between what people or things are called and what they really are is a key part of Justin's notion of heresy: heretics simply are not what they claim to be or what naı¨ve others may think that they are, that is, Christians.'101

We should be careful, however, to note Justin's historical context in Rome at the time of the Apologies. While it is correct to say that Justin asserts that, despite their claims to be 'Christian', Marcion and his followers (and, before them, Simon and his disciple Menander) really are not, it would be misleading to say that the initiative for this action, and the terms of reference, is Justin's. Marcion, as we have seen, chose (the verb for which, Æƒæø, is the root of the noun hairesis), on his own initiative and by his own actions, to separate himself off from the broader body of Christians in Rome, so forming his own 'church', or 'faction'—that is, his own hairesis. Moreover, unlike the case of Hermas, where strife and divisiveness were caused by jealousy regarding 'honours' and 'reputation', in Marcion's case his choice was determined by doctrinal reasons—namely, the distinction he would make between the God of the Scriptures and creation and the God of the Saviour. Furthermore, Marcion was not content to 'live and let be', as it were, but rejected other Christian teachers as false prophets and teachers of Judaism. It is also noteworthy that, while

Justin depicts Menander as a disciple of Simon, he does not claim the same for Marcion. They are certainly all demonically inspired, but this demonic inspiration does not pertain merely to the falsity of their teaching, but also to the division caused by their splitting themselves off from others under a guise that might, misleadingly, seem to some, non-Christians and those whose faith is not sufﬁciently discerning, to be similar if not identical.

Marcion and his followers certainly did not regard their own teaching as similar to that of the 'Great Church'.

It is striking that Valentinus and his followers, on the other hand, are not mentioned by Justin in his Apologies, written in the early 150s CE. He does mention them in the Dialogue, later in the 150s, and by then the situation had become much more complicated. Justin tells Trypho that there are many who come 'in the name of Jesus' but teach impiety and in various ways blaspheme 'the Creator of all and Christ, who was foretold

100 Justin, 1 apol. 26.6–8.

101 Brakke, The Gnostics, 108.

Irenaeus of Lyons

by him as coming, and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with whom we have no communion [z P d ŒØøF ]'. Thse last words could, again, be taken to refer to the practice of sharing eucharistic gifts between the different communities or, in this case, a refusal to do so as a mark of separation. These, he continues, though 'they style themselves Christians', are known by the name of the originator of their individual opinions, as Marcionites, Valentinians, Basilidians, and Saturnilians, as philosophers also bear the name of the father of their teaching.102 Moreover, he acknowledges that there is variation in belief among those whom he will admit to be truly Christian. When asked by Trypho if he really believes that Jerusalem shall be rebuilt and Christians raised to be with Christ, the patriarchs, and the prophets, Justin afﬁrms that his faith is indeed such, but that 'many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise'.103 Yet there are others, 'some who are called Christians', who are in fact really 'godless and impious heretics

[Æƒæ ØÆ]' who 'blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven'. These, Justin asserts, should not be supposed to be Christians, any more than the Sadducees or similar sects (Æƒæ Ø) should be taken to be Jews.104 Finally he concludes by saying that 'I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points', are indeed convinced that there will be a resurrection of the ﬂesh and a thousand years reign in a rebuilt Jerusalem.105

There are several important points to draw out from these considerations. First, Justin's Christian faith is not monolithic. He recognizes doctrinal differences among those whom he regards as 'true Christians'.

Within appropriate bounds, in particular the identiﬁcation of God of creation and of salvation, diversity is recognized and tolerated. Moreover, he is conﬁdent enough to recognize similarity and afﬁnity in cases where this similarity is not a demonically inspired mimicry resulting from separation through self-chosen isolation. There is similarity and difference between Plato and Christ, Justin is ready and willing to acknowledge.106

Marcion, on the other hand, has rejected the Christ of the Christian 102 Justin, dial. 35.4–6.

103 Justin, dial. 80.2: ººf Æs ŒÆd H B ŒÆŁÆæA ŒÆd P F Zø åæØ ØÆH ªÅ F c ªøæ Ç Ø K Æ Ø.

104 Justin, dial. 80.3–4.

105 Justin, dial. 80.5: Kªg b, ŒÆd Y Ø N Ø OæŁª ŒÆa Æ, åæØ ØÆ . . .

106 Cf. Justin, 2 apol. 13.2: 'I confess that I both pray and strive with all my strength to be found a Christian, not because the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, but

Irenaeus of Lyons communities in Rome, and so any similarity there might be is nothing but demonic mimicry rooted in division and rejection. Only within these bounds, then, is Lyman right to say: 'Justin's "orthodox" Christianity therefore encouraged distinction, discernment, and exegesis of varied cultural texts as part of the teaching and recovery of the ancient universal truth of the one Logos.'107

Another question to consider is how other communities in Rome looked upon Justin and his companions. It is clear that Justin feels himself closely bound to other Christians in the city, defending their faith, on behalf of all, in his Apologies. It is possible that his deacons took portions of the eucharistic gifts to speciﬁc other communities. But there is no other indication that he attempted to cultivate relationships with them: he remained in his place 'above the baths of Myrtinus', never knowing any other assembly place. Lampe's conclusion is that we should think of Justin's group as having existed 'very autonomously, as a free school, an organization independent from the rest of the house-church communities of the city'.108 His contacts with other Christians were minimal; he seems to have preferred the quiet life of a withdrawn philosopher. Beyond this, it is somewhat surprising, given how large a role Justin has played in history books, to realize, as Thomassen points out, that there is no indication that, despite his erudition and literary ability, Justin 'had any signiﬁcant inﬂuence with Christian circles in Rome'. Thomassen further asks why it was that other Christians did not call upon Justin in the struggle with Valentinians and other heretics? Was it, he suggests, 'because the leaders of the church, unlike Justin, did not consider them heretics at all?'109

Or perhaps was it because other Christian communities regarded Justin himself with some suspicion? He was, after all, a strange sight and an audacious teacher, elaborating a daringly expansive vision that utilized not only the Scriptures but also the writings of the Greek philosophers and poets. In this he was in fact similar to Valentinus. Although Justin's theology of the all-embracing Logos were certainly more in line with later theological developments than was Valentinus' mythological narratives, we should not, however, underestimate the extent to which Justin's discourse would have seemed strange and exotic to other Christians in Rome. That because they are not in all respects similar, as neither are those of the others, Stoics, and poets, and historians.'

107 Lyman, 'Hellenism and Heresy', 219.

108 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 377.

109 Thomassen, 'Orthodoxy and Heresy', 242.

Irenaeus of Lyons

we only have three of his many writings now extant is perhaps a measure of this. That Justin did not mention Valentinus among the heresies he lists in his Apology but does so a few years later in the Dialogue also invites further consideration. We have seen that Valentinus and his followers gradually withdrew from wider Christian circles, to approach these 'psychic' and 'immature' Christians in the hope of leading them to a deeper understanding of Christianity as they saw it, to a knowledge, that is, of their 'Father'. It is possible then that the parting of the ways with the Valentinians is ﬁrst seen here between two philosophically inclined teachers.

A further dimension is perhaps indicated in Justin's Second Apology. In this work, Justin praises a certain Christian teacher called Ptolemaeus as 'a lover of truth', who, 'in awareness of his duty and the nobility of it through the teaching of Christ, confessed his discipleship in the divine virtue', leading to his execution.110 There is good reason for thinking that this Ptolemaeus is none other than the Valentinian author of the Letter to Flora considered earlier in this chapter. Justin's Ptolemaeus is the teacher of an unnamed noble lady who has converted to Christianity. She was married to a licentious pagan husband, but her community had urged her to remain with him, in the hope that he might reform his ways. When he did not, but rather fell into greater vice, she presented papers of divorce to the emperor, which were accepted. Her husband, however, denounced her and her teacher Ptolemaeus, leading to Ptolemaeus' execution along with two other Christians. The relative infrequency of the name Ptolemaeus in Rome, together with the striking coincidence of the case as Justin describes it and one of the primary concerns and most extensively discussed topics in the Letter to Flora—that is, the proper way to understand the difference between Christ's words on divorce and those of Moses—make it very likely that they both refer to the same Ptolemaeus in each case.111 If this is so, then it is not so much that other Christians in Rome did not think of Valentinus and his followers as promulgating heresy, but rather that they had suspicions regarding Justin himself and his Apologies, prompting him to distance himself explicitly from the Valentinians in his Dialogue and to present his credentials as one who has converted to Christianity solely on the basis of the Scriptures. This is, therefore, a further indication that the broader community of Christians in Rome were in fact suspicious of Valentinus, his teaching, and his activities.

110 Justin, 2 apol. 2.10, 13.

111 As accepted by Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 239–40, and, with qualiﬁcation, by Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism, 90–2.

Irenaeus of Lyons And that most of Justin's works are not preserved, and were not known beyond their titles even to Irenaeus or Eusebius, might well incline us to think that he was not successful in his endeavour to distance himself from this suspicion.

There is one further event that might well have prompted Justin to change his presentation. This is the visit to Rome of Polycarp of Smyrna in the year 154 or 155 CE. Irenaeus, writing in the 180s, recalls how Polycarp,

'a man of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics', came to Rome in the time of Anicetus (c.155–66) and 'caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church' (haer. 3.3.4). Polycarp's opposition to Marcion is well known and documented; his opposition to Valentinus is without any other testimony and presents problems regarding the chronology and career of Valentinus, though the verses against Marcus, who had taught in Asia and may have been a disciple of Valentinus, preserved by Irenaeus

(haer. 1.15.6, cited below), are probably to be assigned to Polycarp.112

There is no record at all of the impact of Polycarp's visit on Justin, but the coincidence of timing is striking and suggestive. We will consider more fully the signiﬁcance of Polycarp, especially as it relates to Irenaeus, later in the next section of this chapter.

The Carpocratians There is one ﬁnal group in Rome during this period about whom we have some information, before we resume our account of Irenaeus, and that is the followers of Carpocrates. Irenaeus reports that they taught that the world was created by angels, greatly inferior to the unbegotten Father, and that Jesus was merely the human son of Joseph, just like other human beings, except that his soul remained steadfast and pure, perfectly recalling what he had witnessed in the sphere of the unbegotten God (haer. 1.25.1).

These too share in the demonic mimicry of Christianity, 'abusing the name [of Christ] as a means of hiding their wickedness', so that, 'in one way or another, people hearing the things they speak, and imagining that we are all such as they, they may turn away their ears from the preaching of truth' and be led to 'speak evil of us all, who in fact have no 112 Cf. Hill, Lost Teaching, 69.

Irenaeus of Lyons

communion with them, either in teaching or morals or in our daily conduct' (haer. 1.25.3). In Rome, this group was led by Marcellina, who came to the city in the time of Anicetus (c.155–66 CE). Irenaeus intriguingly states that 'they style themselves "gnostics"' (haer. 1.25.6), a designation that probably indicates their possession of higher knowledge, their maturity as perfect Christians, rather than any commonality with another group whom Irenaeus elsewhere designates as 'the Gnostics'.113 Irenaeus also records, for the ﬁrst time in the history of Christianity, that they 'possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material', and claimed that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate.

Irenaeus continues, commenting that 'they crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest.

They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles' (haer. 1.25.6). Nothing else is known of the relationship between this group and other Christian communities in Rome, though it is clear that they thought of themselves as being Christian along with other communities, and that they appeared as such to others, at least to outsiders. Although Irenaeus says that 'we have no fellowship with them', this comment does not necessarily bear upon the situation in Rome decades earlier.114

Summary From what we have seen, Christianity in Rome was a microcosm of Christianity throughout the Empire. It was made up largely of immigrants, coming from all over the Mediterranean, with their own indigenous local Christian traditions, and further enriched by their own social and educational backgrounds, not to mention their own distinct personalities and temperaments. Christianity in Rome, as far as we can discern, was diverse to begin with, and this diversity increased only with the inﬂux of more Christian teachers and leaders. Yet, countering these decentralizing forces, there was also a strong sense of being, together, one Christian community: one spoke of the Church in Rome, as well as of the churches there present. Over the century that we have examined, there was, however, no clearly organized structure for this single broader community. One catches, here and there, glimpses of ways in which they related to one

113 Cf. haer. 1.29–31; Brakke, The Gnostics, 46–9.

114 Cf. Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 392.

Irenaeus of Lyons another: the assembly of presbyters indicated by Hermas, and, for that matter, in the case of Marcion. One can also catch hints of other means by which the communities worked together, enhancing their sense of communal identity: sharing the eucharistic gifts between the communities

(about which we will see more), appointing certain people with the task of corresponding with Christians elsewhere in the Empire or with the oversight of domestic and international charitable activity. We have no indication of how often the assembly of presbyters met, or of how representative they were, though the case of Marcion, presenting to the presbyters and leaders his distinctive teaching, presumes that it was largely representative.

Nor do we have any clear sense of how representative the other cooperative works were. Nevertheless, it is clear that not only was there a conviction that the Christian Church is a single body as an ideal, but concrete efforts were made to manifest this ideal in the functioning of the particular communities.

In this way, as Thomassen notes, though initially resembling other models of decentralized religious groups, such as the semi-autonomous Jewish synagogues, the cells of mystery religions, the schools of the philosophers, or the private clubs of the collegium type, the Christian Church 'was an innovation in the religious sociology of antiquity'.115 The word 'church' designated at once both the local community and the broader body; to adapt the image Paul uses for individuals as members of the church in Corinth (cf.

1 Cor. 12:27), the Christian community, individually and collectively, is the one body of Christ.

However, while the Christian communities in Rome were working out how to relate to each other collectively, not yet having a centralized authority that could exclude certain individuals or groups, some had already split themselves off from the broader fellowship: Cerdo 'withdrew from the gathering of the pious' and Marcion went his own way, establishing his own church. Perhaps the most important aspect of the history of this period, in so far as it is available to us, is that such divisions occurred on the initiative of those who separated. It is, therefore, simply mistaken to characterize these developments in terms of an original plurality and toleration gradually being replaced with an increasingly intolerant 'Orthodoxy'. If intolerance is shown anywhere, it is on the part of Cerdo and Marcion. Likewise, although providing an occasion for greater clariﬁcation regarding the faith they hold, it would be incorrect to say that 'Orthodoxy' is later than 'heresy': it was because Marcion did not ﬁnd acceptance of his particular ditheistic

115 Thomassen, 'Orthodoxy and Heresy', 248–9.

↑ Back to top