Brill

The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists

Author(s): Frederik Wisse
Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Sep., 1971), pp. 205-223
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583319
Accessed: 27-10-2015 10:24 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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 support@jstor.org.

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 25 (1971) 205-223;C North-Holland
VigiliaeChristianae Publishing
Company

THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY AND THE HERESIOLOGISTS

BY

FREDERIK WISSE

The discoveryof a large collectionof Gnostic writings,1 far from

having solvedsome of theproblemsconcerning theGnosticphenomenon,
appearsto have multiplied them.BeforetheNag Hammadifind,scholars
werealmostcompletelydependenton theheresiologists fortheirknowl-
edge of Gnosticsectsand teachings.Even muchof theprimarymaterial
suchas theEpistleofPtolemyto Flora2and theNaassene Hymn3we owe
to theChurchFathers'liberalpolicyof quotingextensiveexcerptsfrom
thehereticalmaterialavailableto them.
Three Gnosticmanuscripts had been foundin Egyptbeforethe Nag
Hammadi Librarycame to light.These are the Codex Askewianus,4 the
Codex Brucianus5and theCodex Berolinensis8502.6 The firsttwo have
beenknownfortwocenturiesbutthebestknownparts,thetwoBooks of
Pistis Sophia,are so bizarreand esotericthat,had theybeen typicalof
Gnosticism,it could neverhave been thethreatto thechurchwhichthe
orthodoxFathersclaimedit to be. The tendencyhas been to consider
theseworksa decadentor aberrantformof Gnosticism,7 perhapscoming
1
For an accountof the discoverysee JeanDoresse, The SecretBooks of the
EgyptianGnostics:An Introduction to theGnosticCopticManuscripts discoveredat
Chenoboskion (London1960)pp. 116-136.For recentreportson thepresentstateof
Nag Hammadistudiessee J.M. Robinson,The CopticGnosticLibraryToday,N.T.S.
14(1968)356-401,andK.Rudolph,GnosisundGnostizismus, einForschungsbericht,
Theologische Rundschau, n.F. 34 (1969) 121-175and 181-231.
2 Epiphanius, Panarionxxxiii,3-7.
3 Hippolytus, Refutatio
V,10,2.
4 Carl Schmidt, PistisSophia(Copenhagen1925).
5 CarlSchmidt, GnostischeSchriften inkoptischer
SpracheausdemCodexBrucianus
(Leipzig 1892)and CharlotteA.Baynes,A CopticGnosticTreatisecontained in the
CodexBrucianus (Cambridge1933).A Germantranslation ofCodexAskewianus and
CodexBrucianushas beenpublishedbyCarl Schmidt, Koptisch-gnostische
Schriften,
Die beidenBiicher
I: Die Pistis-Sophia, desJeu,Unbekanntes Werk,3rd
altgnostisches
ed. byWalterC. Till (Berlin1962).
6 WalterC. Till,Die gnostischen deskoptischen
Schriften PapyrusBerolinensis
8502
(Berlin1955) and Carl Schmidt,Die altenPetrusakten im Zusammenhang der apo-
cryphen nebsteinemneuentdeckten
Apostelliteratur Fragment untersucht
(Leipzig1903).
7 Hans Jonas,TheGnostic Religion(Boston1963)p. 40.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
206 FREDERIK WISSE

froma timewhenthechurchhad won thebattleagainstGnosticismand

had isolatedtheremainingpockets.
Codex Berolinensis8502 is of a different characterand it would have
stimulateda newlook at theevidencepresentedby theheresiologists had
not various mishapsand two world wars delayedits publication.The
reportby Carl Schmidtin 1907on Irenaeusand his sourcesin Adv.haer.
1,298alreadyindicatedthatone ofthetractatesin 8502,theApocryphon
ofJohn,had finally givenus a place wheretheaccuracyand methodofthe
earliestof thegreatheresiologistscould be tested.However,thefulltext
and translationof 8502did notbecomeavailableuntil1955and was soon
overshadowedby thefirstpublicationsfromtheNag Hammadifind,the
Gospel ofTruth,9and theGospel ofThomas.o1Withsuchimportant new
materialavailable,and morein theoffing, a fullevaluationof theCodex
Berolinensiswas postponed.
One effect oftheadvancereportbyCarl Schmidtwas thattheevidence
of the Fatherswas no longerthoughtto be automaticallysuspect.Ever
sincetheriseof criticalhistoricalscholarshiptheheresiologists'descrip-
tion of theiropponents'teachingshad been consideredto be of dubious
value.This was notsimplydue to a 19thcenturyanti-theological bias and
sympathyfor the hereticalunderdog,but was based on the polemical
natureof the heresiologicalwritings.Eugene de Faye, the greatstudent
of Gnosticismfromtheearlypartofthiscentury, representsthisattitude.
He completelydiscountsthevalue of thereportsof the ChurchFathers
exceptwhentheyare givinginformation about sectsof theirown time
withwhichtheyhad had contact. He advocatesthattheearlyhistoryof
thesectsshouldbe ignoredunlesswe have corroboration fromauthentic
remnantsof Gnosticwritings."
To be sure,theevidencepresentedbytheheresiologists does notinspire
the present-day historianto greatconfidence.If the reportsagree it is
usuallydue to the dependenceof the one Fatheron the other.Clearly
Hippolytus,Epiphanius,and the later heresiologists did not have in-

8 IrenaeusundseineQuellein adv.haer.1,29,Philotesia. zumLXX

Paul Kleinert
Geburtstagdargebracht(Berlin1907)pp. 315-336.
9 Evangelium by M.Malinine,H.-Ch.Puech,G. Quispel(Zurich1956)
Veritatis,
andSupplementum to Evangelium byM. Malinine,H.-Ch.Puech,G. Quispel,
Veritatis,
and W.Till(Zurichand Stuttgart1961).
10 TheGospelaccording to Thomas,byA.Guillaumont, H.-Ch.Puech,G. Quispel,
W.Till and Yassah'Abd al Masih(Leiden,Londonand New York1959).
11 Eugenede Faye,Gnostiques et Gnosticisme
(Paris1925)p. 335f.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY AND THE HERESIOLOGISTS 207

dependentknowledgeofmostsects.For thesetheydependedon Irenaeus

and each other. Thus an originalmistakeor distortiontook on the
appearance of well-attested truth. Where the heresiologists appear to
have independentaccountsthereare inexplicableand mostimprobable
disagreements in theirdescriptionsof the same sect.12Most damaging,
however, is that the Fathershad a specialaxe to grindin theiraccounts.
They were overlyeager to prove that the hereticsdid not derivetheir
doctrinesfromScriptureor theapostolictraditionbutratherfrompagan
sources such as Greek philosophy,orientalcults, or the arch-heretic
Simon Magus.13 To provesuch a point,a passionatepolemicist,evenif
he was a saintlybishop,wouldnotbe above playingfastand loose withthe
evidence.
Today theevidenceof the Fathersis takenmoreseriouslyagain,even
to the point of becominguncritical.Sagnardis a representative of this
new attitudealthoughhe is stillverycautiousabout the information of
sectswithwhichthe heresiologists did not have directcontact.At least
concerningIrenaeus he is willingto claim that he can be completely
trustedwhenhe reportson Gnosticswithwhomhe had personalcontact.14
However,the Coptic GnosticLibraryfromNag Hammadi has raised
new questionsabout theaccuracyand value ofthereportsoftheFathers.
Betweentheheresiologicalaccountsand the holybooks of the Gnostics
thereare major discrepancieswhichbeg for an explanation.There is,
overlappingin materialand detail.
firstof all, the lack of a significant
Certainlywiththe greatvarietyof books in the Nag Hammadi Library
one mightexpectto havelocatedmanyofthesourceswhichweredirectly
or indirectly responsibleforthereportsoftheheresiologists. Yet presently
only five cases of clear agreement have been found and of thesethree

12 A goodexampleis providedintheaccountsoftheBasilideansystem byIrenaeus

in Adv.haer.1,24,3-7,Hippolytus in RefutatioVII,20-27,and ClementofAlexandria
in StromataIV,12et al. It is impossible to reconcilethesedifferent descriptions.The
tendency is to preferHippolytus' longerand morephilosophical account.Cf.P.Hen-
drix,De Alexandrijnsche HaeresiarchBasilides(Amsterdam 1926),G. Quispel,L'homme
gnostique(La doctrinede Basilide),EranosJahrbiicher, 16 (1948) pp. 89-139,J.H.
Waszink'sarticle"Basilides",in Reallexikon fiirAntikeundChristentum, 1,1217-25,
and W.Foerster, Das Systemdes Basilides,NTS 9 (1962-63)233-255.
13 Hippolytus triedto provethatall theheresiessprangfromGreekphilosophy,
themystery cults,or astrology(RefutatioI, preface8-9). Irenaeusbelievedthatall of
theheresiesdevelopedfromSimontheSamaritan (Adv.haer. 1,23,2).In thishefollows
hispredecessor JustinMartyr (Apology 1,26).
14 F. M. Sagnard,La gnose valentinienne et le tdmoignage de saint-Irende (Paris
1947)p. 100.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
208 FREDERIK WISSE

involveonlya smallamountof text.15 The agreementbetweenthe Apo-

cryphon of John and Irenaeus' account of the Barbelo-Gnosticsstill
remainstheclearestand mostextensiveinstanceof commonmaterial.It
is noteworthy also thatin spiteof thelate date of the Librarytheagree-
mentsaremainlywithIrenaeus,theearliestofthegreatheresiologists.16
Referencesto the heresiarchsand theirdisciples,whichdominatethe
accountsof theChurchFathers,are conspicuouslyabsentfromtheNag
HammadiLibrary.Onlyin a fewpoorlypreservedpagesof Codex IX do
we findmentionof Valentinusand his disciples,and Isidorusthe Son of
Basilides(IX 56-59). Althoughlacunae obscuremuchof theargument, it
is clearthattheheresiarchs areaccusedofcausingschismsand ofexpound-
ingcontradictory viewsabout marriage."Sincethetractateto whichthis
passage belongsis itselffarfromorthodox,its authormusthave lifted
the passage froma heresiologicalworkwithlittleconcernfor the fact
thatit was meantto expose and refutesome of his spiritualancestors.18
The second discrepancyconcernsthe names and descriptionsof the
Gnostic sects. The heresiologistsdefinethe sects in termsof certain
characteristictraitsor distinctive
teachings.Althoughtheyclaiman inner
connectionbetweenthedifferent heresies,as withtheheadsofthehydra,'9
the effectof theiraccountsof the Gnostictenetsis thatthe sectsappear
to have widelydivergedfromeach otherin doctrine,and weresubjectto
rapid change.Irenaeusmay claim that all heresiessprangfromSimon
Magus; thefactis thathe does notevenpresenta believabletransition in

15 Cf. infrapp. 217f. and note45. No mention willbe madehereofthefewcases

wheretheChurchFathersshowfamiliarity withmaterial foundintheGospelofTruth,
theGospelofThomas,andtheGospelofPhilip.Thesehavebeensufficiently discussed
in theintroductions and commentaries to thesetractates.
16 The present consensusis thattheLibrarywas buriedearlyin thefifth century.
Cf.J.M.Robinson,The CopticGnosticLibraryToday,370-72.Thereappearsto be a
datablereference in theConceptof Our GreatPower(VI,4). In connection witha
warning againstevillustsand desirestheAnomoeans arementioned andcharacterized
as "evilheresieswhichhave no basis"(VI 40,7-9).The Anomoeancontroversy arose
in thesecondhalfofthefourth century.Leavingenoughtimefora Greektractate to
be disseminated and translated intoCoptic,we arriveat a terminus a quo oftheearly
fifthcentury.
17 This is reminiscent of Clementof Alexandria's discussionof marriageamong
theGnosticsin StromataIII.
s1 The Gnosticssaw no problemin makingextensive use of such apparently
hostileliteratureas theOld Testament. CodexVII placesamongGnostictractates the
TeachingofSilvanuswhichunambiguously and elaboratelyspeaksofthecreatorGod
as theonlytrueOne. It defines theunityofGod (VII 99,31-101,10) inthesamewords
usedbyIrenaeusin Adv.haer. theGnosticviewof God.
II,1 to refute
19 Hippolytus, RefutatioV,11.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NAG HAMMADILIBRARY AND THE HERESIOLOGISTS 209

teachingbetweenSimonand his discipleMenander,20 leavealone the

otherheresiarchs and sects.
The overallpicture derivedfrom theheresio-
logistsis thateach secthad developed, fromwhatever source,its own
distinctsetofdoctrines.
The evidencefromtheNag HammadiLibraryrunscounterto this
picture.Not onlydoes thecollection itselfshowan amazingvariety of
writings butalso individualtractates
placetogether opinionsand myths
which, according totheheresiologists,
belonged to different Ifthe
sects.21
traditional categoriesare left unchallenged, Libraryappearsto
the
containValentinian, Barbelo-Gnostic, Sethian,Basilideanand Hermetic
writings.22In additionthereare a number of Gnostictractates,likethe
GospelofThomas,whichdefyanykindofclassification interms ofsects
described by the opponents of Gnosticism.23An even more interesting

20
Irenaeus,Adv.haer. 1,23,2-5.
21
Cf.infra,p. 219f.
22 No claimis madethattheseclassifications are definitive,
complete,or thatthe
authoracceptsthemas correct, exceptin thecase oftheHermetic tractates.
Valentinian: 1,2and XII,2: The GospelofTruth.
1,3: The Treatiseon theResurrection.
1,4: The Tripartite
Tractate.
11,3:The GospelofPhilip.
V,3: The FirstApocalypseofJames.
XI,2: JesustheDemiurge.
Barbelo-Gnostic: II,1; III,1; IV,]: The Apocryphon ofJohn.
or Sethian 11,4:The HypostasisoftheArchons.
111,2and IV,2: The GospeloftheEgyptians.
111,3and V, 1: Eugnostos, theBlessed.
111,4:The SophiaofJesusChrist.
VII,1: The Paraphraseof Shem.
VII,5: The ThreeStelesof Seth.
VIII,1: Zostrianos.
VIII,2: The LetterofPeterto Philip.
IX,1: Melchizedek.
IX,2: The ThoughtofNorea.
XI,3: The Allogenes.
XIII,1: Discourseon theThreeAppearances.
Basilidean: VII,2: The SecondTreatiseoftheGreatSeth.
Hermetic: VI,6: The Discourseon theEighthand Ninth.
VI,7: The PrayerofThanksgiving.
VI,8: The Apocalypse fromAsclepius.
28 In additionto theGospelofThomas(11,2)we couldmention On theOriginof
theWorld(II,5), The Dialogue of theSavior(III,5), The Apocalypseof Paul (V,2),
The SecondApocalypseofJames(V,4),The ApocalypseofAdam(V,5),The Actsof
Peterand theTwelveApostles(VI,1) and theConceptof Our GreatPower(VI,4).
The membership ofthisgroupwillcertainly willhavebeen
increaseafterthetractates
studiedin greater detail.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
210 FREDERIK WISSE

group - forour purpose- are tractateslike the Apocryphonof James

(I,1), theExegesison theSoul (II,6), theBook ofThomas theContender
(II,7), the Thunder:PerfectMind (VI,2) and AuthenticTeaching(VI,3)
which hardlydeserveto be called Gnostic.24The Teachingof Silvanus
(VII,4) is at least as orthodoxas Clementof Alexandriaand mighthave
delightedtheheresiologists. Finallywe findamongtheseesotericGnostic
tractatestheSentencesofSextus(XII,1) whicharenon-Gnostic, Hellenistic
wisdomsayings!
More seriousthan the confusingpictureofferedby the Libraryas a
wholeis thevulnerability of theclassifications whichhave been made up
to now. Whatpermits us to call one pieceofancientliterature Valentinian
and anotherSethian?Are thepresenceof some Valentinianformulaein
the First Apocalypse of James (V,3) sufficient to warrantthe label
Valentinianfor the tractateas a whole?25Is the Pharaphraseof Shem
(VII,1) Sethian simplybecause Hippolytusappears to have based his
accountof the Sethianteachingson it?26
It is nottheunclassifiable or marginally Gnostictractatesthatthreaten
the traditionalcategoriesof the heresiologists most but preciselythose
Nag Hammadi writings which share common materialwiththe reports
of the ChurchFathers. Thereis indeedjustification forcallingcertain
tractatesValentinian27 but can Valentinianism, as scholarshave recon-
structedit, survivethissuddenincreasein primarysourcesmaterial?It
is possibleto explainsomeoftheshockingdifferences amongValentinian
writings as beingdue to different schools,or as earlyoveragainstlateand
degenerate,or as marginalor extremeover against"orthodox",but the
truthis thatwe haveno surewayto makesuchjudgments.The resultwill
be that the whole phenomenonwill have become blurredto the point
thatalmostanythingGnosticcan be called Valentinian.
The problemis just as greatwhenwe possessthesourceof theChurch
Father'sdescription.The Barbelo-Gnosticsect appeared to have well-
definedlimitsuntil Schmidt'sdiscoveryof the Gnostic source of Ire-
naeus' accountin Adv.haer.1,29made it a partof an amorphouswhole.
Not onlyis theApocryphonofJohnmuchmoreambiguousand complex
thanIrenaeusintimates, but it has in its orbita largenumberof loosely
relatedtractates27a whichamong each otherrepresentenough Gnostic
24 This does not meanthatthesetractates
could not be read in a Gnosticway.
25 Cf. infra,note45.
26 Cf. infra,p. 219.
27 Cf.thelistin note22.
27a Cf.thelistin note22.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY AND THE HERESIOLOGISTS 211

viewstoexplodeanykindofcategorization basedondistinctive teachings.

The priorquestionwhichneedsto be askedis whatstandards the
had
heresiologists fornaming the sectsand their
identifying teaching.
Did theyuse a namecurrent amongtheadherents, or did theysupply
nameswhichseemedapttothemeither interms ofthelegendary founder
of thesect,or themythological authorof theirholybooks,or evena
prominent figure in theirmythology? It is significantthatHippolytus
reportsthattheNaassenescalledthemselves Gnostics.28Thisaffirms our
suspicionthatthe hereticsused the self-designations "Gnostics"or
nomenclature
"Christians",29 whichthedefenders oforthodoxy expressly
setout to denythem.ThatwouldexplainwhyHippolytus stubbornly
continuesto call GnosticsNaassenes,and whythe originaltitleof
Irenaeus'Adv.haer.according toEusebius, is "RefutationandOverthrow
of Gnosis Falsely So Called" (trpi X ygoouicat dvatpoinf.g iq g
5iou yvbaEog).30
VcoSu6ov Clementof Alexandria's explanation of the
namesoftheGnosticsects(Stromata VII,108,1-2)leavesno doubtthat
thesenamesdid not originate withthe sectsthemselves. In orderto
discoverthe standardsused by the heresiologists forclassifying the
opinions of the it is to
heretics, necessary survey their
briefly approach
to limitourselves
and sources.It is sufficient to Irenaeus,sincehisis the
earliestsurviving anti-Gnostic work,and it setsthepattern forall later
heresiologists.
It mayseemto.be sayingtheobvious,butIreneausdidnotsetoutto
exposeand refuteGnosticism but onlyheretics.Theyneededto be
refutedbecausetheydeceivedorthodox Christians byclaiming thatthey
possessedthe trueChristian Gnosis.31Irenaeuswas not interested in
non-Christian ormarginally ChristianGnosticsects.Hiswritings do not
claimto presentus witha comprehensive pictureof secondcentury
Gnosticism as manyinterpreters haveassumed, evenuptothepresent day.
Gnosticism, whichappearedas a wolfin sheep'sclothing, maynothave
comprised morethana smallsegment ofthetotalmovement; theAdv.
haer.doesnottellus. Whatis clearis thatIrenaeus'overriding concern
28
Refutatio hadpersonal
V,11.Epiphanius witha sectcalledGnostics.
contact
Panarionxxvi,1.
29 Cf. Hippolytus, RefutatioV,9,22and JustinMartyr, Apology 1,26.
30
Hist.eccl.V,7. See also Adv.haer.II preface.Thephrase"knowledge falselyso
called"is takenfromI Tim.VI,20.A fulldiscussion oftheuse oftheterm"Gnostics"
amongtheearliest is presented
heresiologists byR.A. LipsiusinDie Quellenderiiltesten
Ketzergeschichte(Leipzig1875)pp. 191-225.
31 Adv.haer.I, preface.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
212 FREDERIKWISSE

was to expose and refutetheValentiniansof his own time.It is onlyin

theprocessofaccomplishing thistaskthathe introducesotherheresiarchs
and sects.
Irenaeusidentified two typesof primarysourcesin the prefaceto his
book. He claimsto be familiarwith"thecommentaries of
(U6roglv1iUacaa)
thedisciplesof Valentinus"and, secondly,he has "conversedwithsome
ofthem".31a Thispersonalcontactmustreferto Marcusthemagicianand
hisfollowersforIrenaeusgivesa vividdescription ofthetroublesthissect
caused in his own districtof theRhone,especiallyamongwomen.32 The
- in Latincommentarii - normallydo notreferto holybooks
uiroviocarta
but to notes,writtenreportsor tracts.33 These mustbe thebasis forthe
long sectiondealingwiththe teachingsof the disciplesof Ptolemaeus
(Adv.haer.1,1-8).The secondmajorsectionconcernstheteachingsofthe
Marcosians(Adv.haer.1,13-21).Its vividdetailand unusuallengthare
adequatelyexplainedby the first-hand experienceof Irenaeuswiththis
group.Togetherthesetwo sectionscomprisefullytwo-thirds of Book I.
The remaining thirdof Book I containsthreetypesof material.There
are, firstof all, twotransitionarychapters(1,9-10)and theconclusionto
Book I (31,3-4),whichclearlywerecomposedby Irenaeushimself.They
play an importantrole in the structureof Book I fortheyexplainwhy
Irenaeus included heresiarchsand sects other than the disciples of
Valentinus, theheretics whopresented theimmediatethreatto thechurch.
Basically two reasons are given which are not keptcompletelydistinct.
By exposingthe varietyand inconsistency in the teachingof Valentinus
and his followersIrenaeuscan draw a sharpcontrastwiththe unityin
doctrineof the Catholic Church throughoutthe world. He identifies
unitywithtruthand varietywithfalsehood(1,9,5and 1,10).The differen-
ces amongtheValentiniansare presentedmainlyin chapters11 and 12.34
The conclusionto Book I statesthesecondreasonforintroducing non-
Valentiniansects.The hereticslistedin 1,23-31,2are consideredto be the
"mothers, fathers, and ancestors"ofthedisciplesofValentinus.The close
connectionbetweenIrenaeus'contemporary Gnosticadversariesand the
hereticsof thepast intendsto provethattheValentinianshave deviated
31a Adv.haer. I, preface.
32
Adv.haer.1,13,7.
33
F. J.FoakesJackson andK. Lake,TheBeginnings Vol.II (London
ofChristianity,
1922)p. 9.
34 The sectionon Marcusthe Magicianwhichfollows(1,13-21)is, amongother
meantas a further
things, exampleofthedisagreements
inteaching
amongthedisciples
ofValentinus (cf.1,21,5).

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY AND THE HERESIOLOGISTS 213

from thetruth from thebeginning andcanmakenoclaimtotheapostolic

Adv.haer.1,22appearsto be another
tradition. transitionary
chapter, yet
itreadsmoreliketheintroduction toa differentheresiologicalworkwhich
tracesGnosticheresy fromSimonthrough Tatian.Whilethepreface to
Book I had onlytheValentinian schoolin view,thischaptersetsas its
purpose therefutationofallheretics.Thissuggests thatIrenaeusismaking
use of an earlierheresiologicalworkwhichhe has madeto servehis
purposeofrefuting thedisciplesofValentinus.
Therehas longbeena consensus thatIrenaeusin Adv.haer. I useda
catalogue of heresies as a source,although the exact content of this
sourceandtheidentity ofitsauthor haveremained R.A.Lipsius
uncertain.
was thefirstto arguethatIrenaeushad incorporated thelostSyntagma
ofJustin Martyr.35A.vonHarnackagreedwiththisconclusion butcame
up witha differentreconstruction ofthesource.36Thisledto a newlook
at theissuebyLipsiuswhonowconsidered it morelikelythatIrenaeus
useda morerecent heresiologicalsourcewhichhadincorporated Justin's
catalogueofheresies butexpandedit,and perhapschangeditsorder.37
The interestin reconstructing Justin'sSyntagmahas confusedthe
problem ofIrenaeus' sources. Thechapters describing apartfrom
heretics,
theextensive discussions oftheteachings ofthePtolemaeans and Mar-
cosians,mentioned above,fallreadilyintotwogroups.The first group
is madeup of the"Simonthrough Tatian"section(1,23-28)but also
includeschapters11and12.In general, thedescriptionsoftheheresiarchs
and sectsin thissectionproveto be verybriefand farfromlucid.The
reasonfortheobscuretreatment is notso muchthecomplexity ofthe
Gnosticsystems as thefactthattheaccountsappearto be a strange
mixture of hearsay, heresiologicalspeculation, and bitsof information
whichmayhavecomefromGnosticbooks.We seldomgeta comprehen-
sivepictureoftheteaching oftheheresiarch orsectin question. It is the
greaterpartofthissection whichhasbeenconsidered tobe identical with
Justin'sSyntagma.
AlreadyLipsiushadsuggestedthattheverybriefsectiononValentinus
(1,11,1)musthavebeenliftedout ofthecatalogueofheresies(1,23-28)
by Irenaeusforuse at a moreappropriateplace.38G. Heinrici,
on the
35 Zur Quellenkritik
desEpiphanius
(Vienna1865).
36
Zur QuellenkritikderGeschichte
des Gnosticismus(Leipzig1873).
31 Die Quellenderditesten (Leipzig1875)pp. 36-64.D.A.Hilgen-
Ketzergeschichte
feldin Die Ketzergeschichte
des UrchristenthumsremainedconvincedthatJustin's
originalworkwas imbeddedin theAdv.haer.I; cf.pp. 6f. and 46-58,
38
Quellenkritik,
p. 159,

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
214 FREDERIK WISSE

basis of the natureof the material,proposedthatthe whole of 1,11-12

once belongedto the catalogue.39This correctobservationimmediately
raises questionsabout Justinas the authorof the source. Since Justin
musthave writtenthe Syntagmaaround the year 145 he could hardly
have knownanythingabout thePtolemaeans(1,12),hereticswhichwere
contemporaries of Irenaeusat thetimethathe wrotetheAdv.haer.The
same is true of 1,28 whichdescribesthe Encratites,Tatian, and some
libertinefollowersof Basilidesand Carpocrates.From theway the sects
are introduced, theveryartificialconnectionswiththeheresiarchs which
weredescribedearlier,and thereference to Justin'smartyrdom, itfollows
that this chapteris a later addition. Lipsius and Harnack have also
convincingly arguedthatthereportson Marcellina(1,25,6),theEbionites
(1,26,2),and the Nicolaitanes(1,26,3)were added to Justin'scatalogue.
In additionHarnackclaimsthatthe sectionson Carpocrates,Cerinthus
and Cerdo could not have come fromJustin'shand.
It is clear that a strictadherenceto the Justinhypothesisleads to a
proliferation of sources.If Irenaeus added all this materialto Justin's
catalogue of heresieswhatwas hissourceand whathispurpose?We have
already seen that Irenaeusdoes not mentionanyGnosticsourcesbeyond
the ValentinianSchool in the prefaceto Book I, and his purpose is
limitedto the refutationof the disciplesof Valentinus. There is no
convincingreason why Irenaeus would have added the Ebionites,the
Nicolaitanes,and othergroupsto Justin'scatalogue.This bringsus to
Lipsius' solutionthatIrenaeusdid not use Justin'sSyntagmabut a later
and more up-to-datecatalogue of heresies.Strong support for this
solutionis foundin thesectionon thePtolemaeans(1,12,1)whichforms
a doubletwithI, 1-8. Chapter12showsno awarenessthatthePtolemaeans
have just been treatedin detailin eightlengthychapters.40 The several
significant differencesbetweenthe accounts41indicatethat Irenaeus in
1,12,1was notdependenton hisGnosticsourcebut on an earlierheresio-
logicalwork.
Thusfartheevidencepointsto theuse of onlyone heresiological source
by Irenaeus,a catalogueof hereticsrunningfromSimonthrough Tatian
which included sections on Valentinusand several of his disciples.
Irenaeus adapted this catalogue to servetwo purposesin refutingthe

Gnosis und die heiligeschrift(Leipzig 1871) p. 40.

39 Die valentinianische
40 Adv.haer.1,1-8do notspecificallyreferto thedisciplesof Ptolemaeusbutit is
impliedin theprefaceto Book I thatthisschoolis beingdiscussed.
41 Forexamplein1,12,1NousisproducedbyThelesiswhilein1,1,1,byEnnoia-Sige.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY AND THE HERESIOLOGISTS 215

disciplesof Valentinus.42 The one was to exposetheinconsistency and

of
diversity opinionsamong Valentinus and hisfollowers,the otherwas
to provethattheyhad descended froma longlineofheretics beginning
withthesatanicfigure ofSimonMagus.
Thelastthreechapters ofBookI (29-31,2)stillneedto be considered.
Theyclearly standapart from theSimonthrough Tatiansection. Thereis
a definite breakbetween1,28and 1,29. Chapter28 endsthe list of
Simonians andmentions, inexasperation, thatitis no useto continue for
"thereis no endto themwhoin onewayor otherhavefallenawayfrom
thetruth".To all appearances no further reportson Gnosticsectsare
Yet
expected. 1,29againpicksup the task of exposing heretics,although
thistimetheyareno longerSimonians but"Gnostics"whohavecome
"likemushrooms out oftheground".If Irenaeusis responsible forthe
description of these Gnostics, then it is difficultto account for thefact
thathe didnotmention theGnostictractate, theApocryphon ofJohn,
on which1,29is basedinitsentirety. Also1,30musthavebeenbasedon
a Gnosticholybook43withoutacknowledging it. This suggeststhat
Irenaeuswasdependent on a heresiological sourcewhichdidnottellhim
thenamesof thesectsinvolvednorthattheaccountswerebased on
authentic Gnosticbooks.In thefinalchapter(Adv.haer. 1,31,1-2)his
sourcehadlostinterest in quotingextensively fromtheGnostictractates
whichit had availablebutrathermentions onebyname,theGospelof
Judas, and refersto a "collectionoftheir writings inwhichtheyadvocate
to do awaywiththeworksofHystera".44
The questionremainswhether Adv.haer. 1,29-31,2 couldhavecome
fromthesamesourceas theSimonthrough Tatiansection. It shouldbe
notedthatthesechapters do notfitthepurposeofJustin's catalogue which
culminated withMarcion,or Irenaeus'preoccupation withthedisciples
ofValentinus. mentions
1,29,1specifically thattheseGnostics camefrom
a rootdifferent fromthatofthedescendants ofSimon.Yetwehaveseen
thatJustin's Syntagma had beenadaptedbeforeIrenaeus'timeto serve
thepurposeof a catalogueofall heresies. Chapters29-31,2musthave
been added by a personwitha similarinterest who had somegood
Gnosticsourcesavailableto him.
42 suchas 1,11,4and 12,2,mostlikelywereadded
Theseveralpolemicalexcursuses,
byIrenaeus.
43 Cf. infra,
p. 218.
44 SinceIrenaeusin theprefaceto Adv.haer.I refersonlyto the"commentaries"
thefirst
ofthedisciplesofValentinus, personsingular in 1,31,1musthavebeencopied
fromhissource.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
216 FREDERIK WISSE

In view of the preceding, the conclusionappearswarranted that

Irenaeus'first-hand knowledge of Gnosticteaching was limitedto the
disciplesof Ptolemaeusand Marcus.The character of thisfirst-hand
material deserves to be specified.The Gnostic source presents firstthe
cosmogony and otherspeculations, whichproveto be basicallynon-
Christian. Next,theclaimis madethattheseteachings arederived from
Scripture an
through allegorical interpretation. This is preciselywhat
onewouldexpecttheGnostic propagandist todo inhiseffort towinsouls
fromtheCatholicChurch.Thusin Irenaeus'accountofthedisciples of
Valentinus we do notseethesectsfromtheinsidebutfromtheoutside,
as theywantto appearin theirmissionary effort.
Whenwe subtract the
Scriptural prooftexts,we areleftwith a system which could hardlyhave
beenderived fromChristian teachings. It wouldnothavedrawntheire
ofIrenaeushaditnotclaimedto be thetrueinterpretation ofScripture.
Severalconclusions relevantto ourdiscussion can be drawnfromthis
situation.Forthefirst-hand material whichcomprises two-thirds ofAdv.
haer.BookI, Irenaeusmustnothavehad Gnosticholybooksavailable
butsomething likeGnosticmissionary preaching either inoralorwritten
form.45 Thisexplainswhywe findnothing likeit in theNag Hammadi
Library whichis largely madeup ofGnosticholybooksmeantonlyfor
internal consumption. Onlyone Nag Hammaditractate approximates
theformof thematerial foundin thefirst two-thirds of Adv.haer.I.46
Thisis theExegesis ontheSoul(II,6),a well-sustained treatiseon thefall
ofthesoul,herrepentance andspiritual wedding to the heavenlysavior,
whichhas scriptural and Homericprooftexts effectively interspersedin
the narrative.7 Yet nothingapproaching the distortions of Scripture
reported by theFathersis foundin thistractate and an unsuspicious
bishopoftheChurchmight wellhaveapprovedofitsteachings.
Secondly, itis now possibleto explainwhytheGnostictractates from
Nag Hammadiare eithermuchmoreor muchless Christian thanthe
reports oftheFathers wouldindicate. TheGnosticholybooksnormally
did not includethecrudeidentifications withChristian doctrinesand
prooftexts, and thus appear to us non-Christian or onlymarginally
45 The FirstApocalypseof James(V,3) preservestwoformulas
(33,22-24,4)also
foundin Adv.haer.1,21,5.Sincethesewereused by the Marcosiansas partof an
"extremeunction"ritual,Irenaeusmostlikelyreceivedthisinformationfromeye
ratherthanGnosticwritings.
witnesses
46 Materialofa similarnatureis foundin Hippolytus, V.
Refutatio
47 Cf. W.C.Robinson,Jr.,The Exegesison the Soul, NovumTestamentum 12
(1970) 102-117, reprintedin Essays on the Coptic GnosticLibrary(Leiden 1970).

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY AND THE HERESIOLOGISTS 217

Christian. Itwasmainly initsmissionary effort thatGnosticism appeared

to be a Christian The
heresy. truly ChristianGnostic works,on theother
hand, such as the of the
Gospel Truth, Gospel of Thomas and the
on
Treatise the Resurrection,48 lack the typicalmythological extra-
vaganzaandthusmayhavegoneunnoticed. Theheretical opinionsand
booksrefuted bytheheresiologists areinvariably muchmoregrotesque
anddangerous thantheseChristian GnosticWorks.It is likelythatthese
books originated and foundtheiruse in a heterodox, gnosticizing,
Christianenvironment whichwas not seenas a seriousthreatby the
earlyheresiologists. Theybelongmorewiththe apocryphal thanthe
heretical literature.
Withthelikelihood thatan important partofAdv.haer.I is basedon
earlierheresiological muchoftheburdenofGnosticsourceshas
material,
nowshifted tothecatalogueofall heresieswhichIrenaeusused.TheNag
Hammaditractates indicatethatthissourceincorported somegenuine
Gnosticexcerpts.
(1) Thesection onthe"Barbelo-Gnostics" is basedonsomeearlyform
of theApocryphon of John.In spiteof theremarkable agreements in
orderandcontent, thenumerous differences indetailmakeclearthatthe
sourceofAdv.haer.1,29couldnothavebeenidentical withourApocry-
of
phon John.49 Atbest1,29is an abbreviation or paraphrase,although
thisdoesnotaccountforthechangesindetail,e.g.concerning theorigin
ofSophiaandthenatureofhersin.
(2) Thechapter onValentinusandhisassociates (Adv.haer.I,11)incor-
a
poratespiece oftraditional
material alsopreserved inJesus theDemiurge
(XI,2).50The Nag Hammaditractate couldhardlyhavebeentheactual
sourceusedbyIrenaeus'predecessor buttheysharea commonancestor.
48 Themajority ofChristian Gnostictractates intheLibrarysuchas theGospelof
Philip(11,3),theDialogueof theSavior(111,5),theApocalypses of Paul, Jamesand
Peter(V,2.3.4;VII,3),theConceptofOurGreatPower(VI,4) andtheSecondTreatise
oftheGreatSeth(VII,2) almostcertainly didnotreceivetheirpresent formuntilafter
thetimeofHippolytus. Thisdoesnotdenythattheseworksoftenincorporate blocks
ofearlytraditionalmaterial.
49 See Die Gnosis, I: ZeugnissederKirchenviiter by W.FoersterwithE.Haenchen
and M.Krause (Zurichand Stuttgart 1969) chapter7 whereKrause discussesthe
differencesbetweenthe Apocryphon of Johnand Adv.haer.1,29. Sincethereis a
longer(II,I andIV,1) and a shorterversion(III,I andCodexBerolinensis8502)ofthe
Apocryphon ofJohnwithnumerous differencesin detailbetween
them,thetextmust
havegonethrough one or morerecensions.
50 The originaltitle,iftherewas one,has beenlost.Thetitlehas beensuppliedby
JohnD. Turner,the translator of the tractace.The commonmaterialinvolvesthe
description oftheTetrad.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
218 FREDERIK
WISSE

(3) The "Christian"part of the chapteron Basilides(Adv.haer.1,24)

is found,withdifferent wording,in theSecondTreatiseof theGreatSeth
(VII,2). It relates the docetic interpretation of the Markan passion
narrativewhichhas Simonof Cyrenecrucified withJesusstandingby as
a bemusedspectator.SinceVII,2, in thepresentform,is almostcertainly
laterthantheAdv.haer.,bothmustdependon thesame piece of Gnostic
writing.
(4) Adv.haer.1,30does not specifythename of thesectin question.51
Theodoretcalls them Sethianswhom he equates with the Ophites.52
W. W. HarveyacceptstheOphites'designation- inspiteof lack of agree-
mentwithHippolytus'descriptionof the Naassenes - sincethe chapter
has tworeferences to a serpent(Adv.haer.1,30,5and 15). Nag Hammadi
does not providea close parallelto 1,30,as in thecase of 1,29,butmany
of the detailsin thischapterare corroboratedby such tractatesas the
Hypostasisof theArchons,theApocryphonof John,the Gospel of the
Egyptians,and othertractateslooselybelongingto thisgroup.Adv.haer.
1,30mustbe based on earlytraditionsunderlying thesetractates.
WithIrenaeus'heresiologicalsourcewe have arrivedat thefirststage
of categorizingGnostic sects in termsof distinctivedoctrines.To this
source- or more specifically JustinMartyr- we can also attributethe
theorythat Simon Magus was the fountainheadof all heresies. The
emphasisis stillverymuch on the personsof the heresiarchsand their
immediatesuccessors.But it is assertedof theselegendaryfiguresthat
theirfollowersorganizedinto sects.The implicationis thatthe unique
teachingof thefounderbecame the rallyingpointof a sect or school.53
No doubt thiswas trueforValentinus,Basilides,and Marcion,but for
Simon,Carpocrates,and Saturninus thismaywellhave beenan inference
made by the ChurchFathers.The importantthingwas thatthepattern
had been set for later heresiologists.The Gnostics were picturedas
pathologicalsystem-builders, alwaysbreakingaway fromone sect only
to forma new one arounda newly-invented set of doctrines.54
No wonder then that each bit of hereticalwritingwhich became
availableto theheresiologists,and whichdid not conformin doctrineto
51 The chaptersimplyrefers ofthereport
to "others".It is clearlya continuation
ofGnostics"begunin 1,29. The sameis truefor1,31,1-2.
on the"multitude
52 Haereticarumfabularumcompendium1,14.
53 Adv.haer.I does not specifically
statethatMenander,Cerinthus,Cerdo and
Tatianhadfollowers.However, Justin disciplesand
(Apol.1,26)speaksofMenander's
it maywellhavebeenimpliedoftheothersalso.
64 Adv.haer.1,28,1.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY AND THE HERESIOLOGISTS 219

thesectswhichhadalready beencatalogued intheheresiological tradition,

led to theassumption thatit mustcontaintheteaching of a newsect.
Irenaeus'sourcedoes notyetassignnamesto theGnosticsof 1,29-21,
butlaterheresiologistsarelessrestrained.
To whatproliferation ofsects
thisledcan easilybe imagined.
A goodexample inHippolytus'
is furnished accountoftheopinionsof
theSethians whichhe drawsfroma Gnosticbookknownto himas the
Paraphrase of Seth.55Thissamesystem has beenpreserved in theNag
HammadiLibrary intheParaphrase ofShem(VII,1).Hippolytus' account
is muchshorter and mustbe basedon an abbreviated and christianized
formof theNag Hammaditractate.56 Epiphaniuspresents an entirely
different oftheSethians.57
description SinceintheaccountofEpiphanius,
Sethplaysa central rolewhichis notthecasein Hippolytus' report, his
version hasthegreater claimto authenticity.It is likelythatHippolytus
didnotknowtheidentity ofthesectbutassumedfromthetitlethatit
mustbelongto a groupcalledtheSethians. Had he knowntheworkby
its Nag Hammadititlehe wouldmostlikelyhavecreateda newsect
calledtheShemmites.
The factthatfewifanyNag Hammaditractates fitintotheheresio-
logicalcategories an
has now found explanation. The claimforthe
existenceofsectsandthedistinction between themappearsto be mainly
duetothehistorical accidentofwhatpieceofGnosticwriting orinforma-
tionwasavailableto theChurchFathers. EvenwhentheGnosticsource
as inthecaseoftheApocryphon
is recovered,
itself ofJohn, theheresio-
logistsprovetobe oflittlehelpinidentifyingthesect.Theirfatalmistake
- and ours- wasto assumethatGnosticsectsfoundtheircohesionin a
setof doctrineswhichwereexpressed in theirtractates. Theytookthe
Gnosticwritings to be compendiaof theology or credosof thesects.
If theNag Hammadifindhas doneanything, it has beento exposethis
misconception.
The individual
writings showthatthemoreGnostica tractate is, the
moreheterogeneous Thehomogeneous
itsteachings. tractatearetheones
ofwhichitis dubiousthattheyoriginated ina definitely Gnosticenviron-
ment.The SecondTreatiseoftheGreatSeth(VII,2) is a case in point.

55 RefutatioV,19-22.
56 I havediscussedtheissuein greaterdetailinThe RedeemerFigureinthePara-
phrase of Shem, Novum Testamentum12 (1970) 138, reprintedin Essays on the Coptic
GnosticLibrary(Leiden 1970).
57 Panarion xxxviii,l1-5.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
220 FREDERIK WISSE

If we take the Fathers'categoriesseriously,it is made up of Basilidean,

Valentinian,and Barbelo-Gnosticmaterial,not to speak of the parts
whichdo not fitany knownGnosticsect or writing.This could stillbe
explainedas theuse of partsfromold systemsto build a new one,"5but
the resultis filledwithdoubletsand contradictions. For example,the
Treatiseassumes the death of the Christin one place and in another
stronglydeniesit.5"We mustseriouslyconsiderthe possibilitythatthe
authorand theGnosticreadersmaynot have adheredto eitherposition
but insteadsaw some valuable spiritualmeaningin both.
The sameissueis at stakein theknowncollectionsofGnosticwritings,
e.g. theCodex Berolinensis 8502and theNag HammadiLibrary.The four
tractatesin BG 8502 have verylittlein commonand could by no stretch
of the imaginationhave been the doctrinalpositionof one sect. As a
matterof fact,Carl Schmidtidentified the finaltractateas the firstpart
of the apocryphal,anti-SimonianActs of Peter.60The wide varietyof
writingsin theNag Hammadi codiceshas alreadybeen mentioned.It is
notdifficultto findpassagesin theLibrarywhichcontradict everyinstance
ofwhatscholarshavecalledtypicalGnosticbeliefs.Thereis nota chance
thattheunityof the Librarywill be foundin termsof one Gnosticsect
or in termsof a commonthemein thetractatethemselves.61
If thereis a unityat all in theLibraryit mustbe foundnot in doctrine
but in the ethicalstance of the tractates.Particularlythe non-Gnostic
and marginallyGnostictractatespreachan asceticmorality."God and
the pious believerare contrastedto the restof mankindwiththeirlusts
and concernsoftheflesh.It is a moralityoftheelite,thechosenfew,who
ordertheirlivesaccordingto thedivineprinciplewithinthem.Sexuality
and womanhoodare singledout as the epitomeof evil - a tendencyof

58 This is the picturegiven in Adv.haer.1,28,1.

59 Cf.VII 58,13-59,11
and VII 55,15-56,19.
60 Die alten Petrusakten,pp. 13-25.
61 T. Sive-S6derbergh that"theLibrarycan quiteas wellhavebeen
has suggested
broughttogetherforhaeresiological letus saybypersons
purposes, wholikeEpiphanius
wantedto collecta PanarionagainsttheGnostics"(Gnosticand CanonicalGospei
Traditions,Le originidello gnosticismo,ed. U.Bianchi (Leiden 1967) p. 553). Yet not
onlydo wenotknowofsuchcollections butwhywouldnon-Gnostic bookshavebeen
mixedin withthecollection? AlsowhywouldtheLibraryhavebeenburiedcarefully
in a pagancemeteryratherthanhavingbeenburnedafteritspolemicalusefulnesshas
been exhausted.Takingthe Libraryas a Gnosticcollectionstillcreatestheleast
problems.
62 E.g. The Teachingof Silvanus(VII,4), the Sentences
of Sextus(XII,2), the
Exegesison theSoul (11,6),theBook of ThomastheContender (11,7),Authoritative
Teaching(VI,3) and theApocalypsefromAsclepius(VI,8).

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY AND THE HERESIOLOGISTS 221

thosewho live in a monasticor semi-monastic, male society.All indica-

tions are that in this esoteric,encraticmoralitywe have a dominant
interestof the ownersof the Library,one whichinfluenced theirchoice
of holybooks and the way theyinterpreted them.63
The approach of the heresiologists to the Gnostichereticsstilldomi-
natesGnosticstudiestoday.Theyare stillbeingmeasuredwithstandards
that are appropriateonly to orthodoxChristianity. For the Church
Fatherstherewas onlyone kindof unityand thatwas unityin doctrine,
theregulafideiwhichwas confessedby theCatholicChurchthroughout
the world. For themtherewas only one kind of truthand that was
propositionaltruth.With such standardsit was no wonderthat the
pictureof the Gnosticsbecame so completelydistorted.By takingthe
Gnosticholybooks as credalstatements, a grossinjusticewas done to the
mysticalfaithof the sectarians.By takingthe differences
syncretistic, in
mythological detail as doctrinaldifferences,Gnosticism came to look like
an absurdlyfragmented movement.
In reality,the Gnostic treatisesare remarkablyfreefrompolemics
againstrivalGnosticgroups.64 At timesseveralopinionson an issue are
given for the benefit of the reader.65Clearlythesewritingsdo not state
viewswiththeintentto excludeothers.This is foreignto thesyncretistic
mind.For thosewho are able to look beyondappearances,the truthis
visible everywhere. The preoccupationwith the Old Testamentis no
inconsistency in Gnosticism.For thisholy book, whichon the surface
appears to be dedicatedto the evil God of Creation, discloses true
Gnosis for those who interpret it correctly.66
Instead of expectingthe
Gnostictractatesto containcoherenttheologicalsystems, we shouldlook

63 The encraticelementis also important in theActsof Peterwhichexplainsits

presence intheCodexBerolinensis 8502.Cf.Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NewTestament
Apocrypha II (Philadelphia1964)p. 275.
64 EvenpolemicsagainstorthodoxChristians arerare. The ConceptofourGreat
Power(VI,4), a lateChristian Gnosticwork,mayhavesomeanti-orthodox reference
(VI 43,1-2and 45,15-21).The polemicalreferences in theApocalypseofPeter(VII,3)
appearto be directed againsttheorthodox hierarchy, e.g. VII 79,22-31. Morespeci-
theSecondTreatiseoftheGreatSeth(VII,2)accused"thosewhothinkthatthey
fically,
areadvancing thenameofChrist"ofpersecuting thosewhohavebeenliberated bythe
savior(VII 59,19-32).A listof characteristics
of thepersecutors follows(VII 60,20-61,
24) whichleaveslittledoubtthatorthodoxChristians are meant.Sucha periodwhen
thechurch hadbecomethepersecutor insteadofthepersecuted couldhardlyhavecome
beforethefourth century.
66 The GospeloftheEgyptians, III 60,12-18.
66 Of course,thepassageswhichare difficult or obscureforIrenaeusproveto be
particularlyclearonesfortheGnostics,e.g. GenesisI,26f.;3,5.22-24.

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222 FREDERIK WISSE

at themmore as mysticalpoetry.67 Thus like poems and hymns,these

worksintendto suggest,to lead thereaderto experiencethetruth.This
can be done in a varietyof ways.Therewas no need to expressoneself
in the same way everytime.This is whyno Gnostic book appears to
agreewiththe next.Furthermore, thismay giveus a clue to the rise of
thisstrangebody of literature.
It would be goingtoo farto claimthattherewereno Gnosticsectsor
was not a unifiedmovement.Yet it is unlikely
schoolsat all. It certainly
thatthe Gnosticbelieverwas self-conscious about his own identityover
againstotherGnosticgroups.The distinctions Gnosticswereaccustomed
to makewerenotbetween"denominations" butbetweenthepneumatikoi,
thosewho possessedgnosis,and therestofmankind.How inappropriate
it would have been forthemto thinkof themselvesas Valentiniansor
Basilideans!Nowherein the extantGnosticwritingsare thesefounders
put up as examples,or are theirwords specifically quoted. Only the
heresiologistshad a motivation to "divide and conquer".
In conclusion,it may be usefulto sketchwhat thismay implyas to
Gnosticismin general."6The literaryremains give evidence of two
parallel movementsbeforeIrenaeuswhichonly slowlyconverged.The
firstis non-Christian Gnosticismas we know it, forexample,fromthe
Apocalypseof Adam (V,5), the Paraphraseof Shem (VII,1), and the
Corpus Hermeticum.Whetherit was pre-Christian in originis another
issuewhichneednotconcernus here.Thatthisnon-Christian Gnosticism
came out of heterodoxJudaismis becomingincreasingly clear.69As such
it musthave been expelledfromnormativeJudaismat thesame timeas
the Christians,i.e. in the latterhalf of the firstcentury.On its own it
would have becomeincreasingly syncretistic,absorbingsome Christian
elementsas well as influencesfrom popular Greek philosophyand
orientalmystery cults.
Meanwhilea gnosticizingstrainhad developedwithinthe Christian
Churchalreadyin the New Testamentperiod.This need not have been
undertheinfluence ofspecificGnosticgroups,forat thistimegnosticizing

67 WilliamBlake'spoeticworks,in myestimation,presentan excellent

instanceof
thiskindofmystical, Gnosticwriting.
68 No attempt has beenmade to referto theextensive on thesubject.
literature
69 See especially totheissuebyG. Quispel,Gnosisals Weltreligion
thecontributions
(Zurich1951),A.B6hlig,Mysterion undWahrheit (Leiden1968),R.M. Grant,Gnosti-
cismandEarlyChristianity,
2nded.(NewYorkand London1966),and G. W. MacRae,
S.J.,The JewishBackground of theGnosticSophia Myth,NovumTestamentum 12
(1970)86-101,reprintedin Essayson theCopticGnosticLibrary(Leiden1970).

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY AND THE HERESIOLOGISTS 223

was partofthe"spiitantiker Geist".The Gospel ofThomas and theOdes

of Solomon are some of its non-canonicalliteraryremains.Increasingly
thisamorphousmovementcame underfirefromthose who claimedto
representorthodoxy.By the middle of the second centurythe more
extremerepresentatives of thegrouphad been expelledfromthe Church
and weredrivenintothearmsofthenon-Christian Gnosticgroups. They
took overthenon-Christian Gnosticframework and mythologumena, and
claimedthattheserepresented thetrueinterpretation of Scripture.These
hereticscontinuedto call themselvesChristian,and as such exerteda
powerfulattractionon membersof the Catholic Church who were
inclinedto a Gnosticor magicalfaith.
By the timethat Irenaeus wrotehis book against "gnosis falselyso
called", a thirdstagehad begunin whichwe see a blendingof Christian
heresyand non-Christian Gnosticism.Nag Hammaditractatesrepresent
the whole spectrumof this process from crude christianizationby
supplyinga Christianframeworkfor a non-Christiantractateand
identifying Christwith one of the beings in the mythologyas in the
Apocryphonof John,to a genuinelyChristianGnostic work like the
Gospel of Philip.Onlyat thispointcan Gnosticismbe called a Christian
heresy.
In thefinalstageChristianorthodoxyhad becomeso well established
and possessed so much politicalmuscle that it could put the Gnostic
groupsin variousareas on theoffensive and isolatethem.The resultwas
thatthemovement, nowturnedon itself,fellintoself-destructive
excesses,
or was swallowedup by a new, Gnostic,world religioncalled Mani-
chaeism.

New Haven,Conn.,Yale University

DivinitySchool

This content downloaded from 204.124.167.5 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions