Heresy and the Early Christian Notion of Tradition

1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 7

HERESY AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NOTION OF TRADITION

BOUDEWIJN DEHANDSCHUTTER*

‘Atque idcirco multum necesse est propter tantos tam varii erroris anfrac- tus, ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum ecclesias- tici et catholici sensus normam dirigatur. In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum…’.1 This passage from the Commonitorium of Vincentius of Lerins has become a locus classicus in the treatment of the concept of tradition in the Early Church.2 The words of Vincent are no doubt preceded by a history of interpretation about the “catholicum”. However, it is manifest that his description turns against the many errores, and it has rightly been observed that the text of the fifth-century Father reflects more than once a passage from Tertul- lian's De Praescriptione Haereticorum.3 This text has inspired us to consider the topic of the present contribution. It is a pleasure to devote it to a scholar who could be characterized as a “true” gnostic according to the definition of Clement of Alexandria,4 another representative of early Christian tradition. To investigate the concrete reaction of the early Fathers against the “heretical” movements5 in their attempt to arrive at a definition of tradition implies

* Boudewijn Dehandschutter is emeritus professor of Greek Patrology at the KU Leuven. 1 Text according to R. Demeulenaere (ed.), Vincentii Lerinensis Commonitorium Excerpta, CCSL, 64, (Turnhout, 1985), p. 149; translation in R.E. Morris, Vincent of Lerins. Com- monitories, Fathers of the Church (Washington, 1949), p. 270. 2 See on this W. Rordorf – A. Schneider, Die Entwicklung des Traditionsbegriffs in der Alten Kirche, Traditio Christiana, 5 (Bern/Frankfurt, 1983), pp. xix-xx. 3 Cf. R.F. Refoulé – P. de Labriolle, Tertullien. Traité de la prescription contre les hérétiques, Sources chrétiennes, 46 (Paris, 1957), p. 67. We can also refer to D. Schleyer, Tertullian. De praescriptione haereticorum. Vom prinzipiellen Einspruch gegen die Häretiker, Fathers of the Church, 42 (Turnhout, 2002). 4 Like no other A. Davids had a clear eye for the problem of orthodoxy and heresy in the early church, see his contributions to the Festschrift for C.C. de Bruin and A.A.R. Bastiaensen. 5 In the course of our contribution we will often refer only to gnosticism, though marcionism may be implied. In any case it is the perception of many church fathers to iden- 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 8

8 BOUDEWIJN DEHANDSCHUTTER

a focus on the “contextuality” of their statements. The limits of this contribution restrict us to Irenaeus, regarded as the theologian of tradition,6 and Clement of Alexandria, with only a few remarks about Tertullian (as his notion of traditio has been studied more than once).7 All three of them belong to a period that was characterized, according to W. Rordorf, by a “Traditionskrise”: their common situation was the passing by of the apostolic and post-apostolic generations, as well as that of the spread of Christian communities all over the Roman empire. This created a kind of emergency situation (thus Rordorf). Though even during the post-apostolic times an appeal was made to the apostolic authority, not seldom by way of apostolic pseudepigraphy,8 the gnostic “Modeströmung” (again Rordorf) forced a fundamental reaction from the side of the “grosskirchliche[s] Chris- tentum”.9 We should not discuss Rordorf’s presentation here, although it implies a necessarily negative judgment on the gnostic movement and places it in direct opposition to mainstream christianity (whatever that may have been).10 Again it is amazing to read about a “Modeströmung” when a phe-

tify both. On the relation between gnosticism and marcionism, see K. Rudolph, Die Gnosis. Wesen und Geschichte einer spätantiken Religion (Göttingen, 1978), pp. 334-338. Rudolph may be right in interpreting the connection between the two movements more closely than we intend to do; he also indicates the differences but in our view fails to stress the fact that one difference between gnosticism and marcionism is the question of the influence of the middle-Platonic doctrine about God and creation: cf. our contribution ‘Théologie négative: la contribution des textes gnostiques et hermétiques’, in Théologie negative, ed. M.M. Olivetti (Milan, 2002), pp. 505-513. 6 Comp. A. Solignac, ‘Tradition’, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 15, col. 1109. 7 Apart from the three Fathers, see the other early authors collected in Rordorf – Schnei- der, Entwicklung; as to the three studied here, comp. also B. Aland, ‘Gnosis und Kirchen- väter. Ihre Auseinandersetzung um die Interpretation des Evangeliums’, in Gnosis. Festschrift für Hans Jonas, ed. B. Aland (Göttingen, 1978), pp. 158-215. 8 For Paul see, e.g., K. Wegenast, Das Verständnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen (Neukirchen, 1962); but there is not only the Pauline pseudepigraphy, but that of the Catholic Epistles in general. 9 See the introduction in Rordorf – Schneider, Entwicklung. 10 We must suffice here by referring to a few contributions on the gnostic arch-heretics in whose case one can pose the question whether they really were in fact gnostics in the later sense of the word: C. Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianis- chen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins, Wissenschaftliche Unter- suchungen zum Neuen Testament, 65 (Tübingen, 1992); W. Löhr, Basilides und seine Schule. Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Wis- senschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 83 (Tübingen, 1996); K. Greschat, 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 9

HERESY AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NOTION OF TRADITION 9

nomenon is described that was in the middle of Christian theology for a couple of centuries. But we certainly can maintain the idea of reaction, if we do not overlook the fact that that reaction was diverse, according to circumstances and persons. The historical circumstances of Irenaeus in his polemics against gnostics and marcionites were not the same as those of Clement with his hellenistic Alexandrian background, which was again different from Tertullian's African context.11 Let us turn to each one of them.

I. IRENAEUS: TRADITION = APOSTOLIC TRADITION

The bishop of Lyons understood very well that the moment of crisis implied in the relation towards (Christian) gnostics12 was based on the common appeal to tradition. Already the gnostic Ptolemy wrote to Flora that they posses their own paradosis through a proper diadoche which enables them to confirm their teachings by the message of the Saviour. The Letter to Flora makes clear what the problem of tradition implies: the interpretation of Scrip- ture itself.13 Texts from the Nag Hammadi Library now give more illustra- tion14. Gnostic authors even pass over, if necessary, the question of tradition

Apelles und Hermogenes. Zwei theologische Lehrer des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 48 (Leiden, 1999). 11 We refer here to some recent studies about the three Fathers: R.M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London, 1997); E. Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge, 2001); U. Schneider, Theologie als christliche Philosophie. Zur Bedeutung der biblischen Botschaft im Denken des Clemens von Alexandria, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 73 (Berlin, 1999); P. Karavites, Evil, Freedom and the Road to Perfection in Clement of Alexandria, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 43 (Leiden, 1999); for Tertullian, see Schleyer, Tertullian. 12 In the case of Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian, the issue is of course Christian Gnos- ticism: this does not mean that Christianized gnosis or non-Christian gnosis is unimpor- tant, certainly not with regard to the questions of tradition, cf. for the first category the conclusion of the Apocryphon of John (long recension): “And I have said everything to you that you might write them down and give them secretly to your fellow spirits, for this is the mystery of the immovable race” (translation from J.M.Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English [Leiden, 31988], pp. 122-123); for the second category see the end of the treatise Allogenes (NHC XI,3). 13 See G. Quispel, Ptolémée. Lettre à Flora, Sources chrétiennes, 24bis (Paris, 1966), pp. 72-73 and 104. Comp. Ad Floram 3,8. According to Ptolemy the diadoche is assured from Valentinus through the disciple of Paul, Theudas, to the apostle himself. (comp. Clement, Stromateis VII, 1 06). See further: C. Markschies, ‘New Research on Ptolemaeus Gnosti- cus’, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum, 4 (2000), pp. 225-254. 14 See G.G. Blum, Tradition und Sukzession. Studien zum Normbegriff des Apostolischen von 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 10

10 BOUDEWIJN DEHANDSCHUTTER

and introduce directly the Saviour himself: ‘These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down’, as the well known introduction of the Gospel of Thomas reads;15 an introduction par- alleled by that of the Book of Thomas the Contender (NHC II,7): “The secret words that the Saviour spoke to Judas Thomas, which I,even I Math- aias, wrote down – I was walking, listening to them speak with one another”.16 It is necessary to find the explanation of the secret words, and that is only possible from within the gnostic tradition.17 Irenaeus does not mention the Gospel of Thomas, but he is well informed about the teachings of the Valentinians.18 He mentions the Gospel of Truth, and whether or not he means the Nag Hammadi text (cf. adv.Haer. III,11,9),19 one thing is plain: it is crucial to rule out any gnostic claim on tradition that

Paulus bis Irenaeus, AGTL, 9 (Berlin/Hamburg, 1963), pp. 98-143, for the Nag Hammadi texts published until then. 15 A re-evaluation of the gnostic contents of the Gospel of Thomas – contrary to an important trend in research – can be found in M. Fieger, Das Thomasevangelium. Einleitung, Kommentar, Systematik, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, NF 22 (Münster, 1991); cf. our ‘Recent Research on the Gospel of Thomas’, in The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck, eds. F. Van Segbroeck e.a., Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 100 (Leuven, 1992), pp. 2257-2262. The attempt of R. Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas (London/New York, 1997), to give a radical ascetic interpretation of Thomas should be taken seriously. 16 Translations from Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English, p.126; 201. 17 See e.g. K. Rudolph, ‘Geheimnis und Geheimhaltung in der antiken Gnosis und im Manichäismus’, in idem, Gnosis und spätantike Religionsgeschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 42 (Leiden, 1996), pp. 220-243. 18 Irenaeus ‘ main concern seems to be Ptolemaean Valentinianism; but he is well aware of other currents or schools. He will point to the claims of the Carpocratians, cf. Adversus Haereses I,25,5.; see further D. Wanke, ‘Irenaeus und die Häretiker in Rom. Thesen zur geschichtlichen Situation von Adversus Haereses’, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum, 3 (1999), pp. 202-240; also J. Holzhausen, ‘Irenäus und die valentinianische Schule. Zur Praefatio von Adv.Haer. I’, Vigiliae Christianae, 55 (2001), pp. 341-355; P. Schungel, ‘Das Valentinreferat des Irenäus von Lyon (Haer I 11,1)’, Vigiliae Christianae, 55 (2001), pp. 376-405; see also the translation and notes of D. J. Unger, St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against the Heresies, Ancient Christian Writers, 55 (New York, 1992), about book 1. 19 See the remarks of H.W. Attridge (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex), Nag Hammadi Studies, 22 (Leiden, 1985), pp. 65-67; J.D. Dubois, ‘Les titres du Codex I (Jung) de Nag Hammadi’, in La formation des canons scripturaires, ed. M. Tardieu (Paris, 1993), pp. 219-235; cf. 228-231; H.M. Schenke, ‘“Evangelium Veritatis” (NHC I,3/XII,2)’, in Nag Hammadi Deutsch I. Band: NHC I,1-V,1, eds. H.M. Schenke e.a., Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller, NF 8 (Berlin, 2001), p. 29. 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 11

HERESY AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NOTION OF TRADITION 11

can be traced back to the Lord and his apostles. Irenaeus urgently maintains that the gnostics spread a doctrine in no way derivable from the prophets, or the Lord, or the Apostles, nor that a link with them can be established by means of “agrapha” (adv.Haer. I,8,1). Throughout the Adversus Haereses the bishop of Lyons will repeat that the tradition of the Apostles is only present in the churches with an apostolic origin, which by the strict succession of the Apostles guarantees the authenticity of that tradition. As a consequence the apostolic tradition can be found also in the churches which correspond with the apostolic churches. Only these churches converge with the Regula Fidei in their interpretation of Scripture. It is precisely from that perspective that one must read the introduction to the famous passage on the position of the church of Rome in the third book of the Adversus Haereses: ‘Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest per- spicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus adnumerare eos qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur. Etenim, si recondita mysteria scissent apostoli, quae seorsum et latenter ab reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas ecclesias committebant’.20 The concern of Irenaeus is to demonstrate the continuity of the tradition in the apostolic churches by way of an apostolic succession – and this excludes a secret “stream” of tradition. Otherwise, the apostles would have delivered any secret to their successors: ‘valde enim perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse quos et successores relin- quebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes…’ (III,3,1).21 The best example of all this is the church of Rome: it has not only a double apostolic origin, it is also possible to follow the succession of bishops until today in an undeniable way: ‘ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principal- itatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam… in qua semper… conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis tradition’ (III,3,2). Or, according to the translation of R.M. Grant: ‘For it is necessary for every church… to agree with this church in which the tradition from the apostles has always been preserved…’;

20 Text according to A. Rousseau – L. Doutreleau (eds.), Irénée de Lyon. Contre les Hérésies. Livre III, Sources chrétiennes, 211 (Paris, 1965), p. 30; English translation in R.M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, p. 124; important is also N. Brox, Irenäus von Lyon. Adversus Haereses. Gegen die Häresien III, Fontes christiani, 8,3 (Freiburg, 1995). 21 Text according to Rousseau - Doutreleau. 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 12

12 BOUDEWIJN DEHANDSCHUTTER

taking the demonstrative pronoun prospectively we interpret: every church should agree with that church in which the apostolic tradition is conserved.22 This is the best guarantee against heresy. But Rome is not alone. Irenaeus adds other examples (III,3,4). Polycarp in Smyrna is again an excellent illustration of the same “principle”. No doubt Irenaeus has good reason to make this reference because of his personal acquaintance with the bishop of Smyrna. In any case Polycarp appears as a model of orthodoxy: he was not only a disciple of the apostles and established by (some of) them in the church of Smyrna, he has greater authority than Valentinus and Marcion, and he actively opposed Cerinthus and Marcion.23 It is known through Eusebius that Irenaeus attacked the gnostics also apart from writing the Adversus Haereses. In the Letter to Florinus the principle of apostolic tradition is again maintained, and it is precisely Polycarp who fig- ures as the embodiment of it.24 To return to the Adversus Haereses: Irenaeus adds a third example, the church of Ephesus, established by Paul, where John sojourned until the times of Trajan. Contrary to this, Irenaeus will stress the gnostic lack of tradition. Whereas the apostolic tradition is present in the church from the very beginning, earlier than any activity of the heretics, the latter ‘arose in their apostasy much later, in the middle of the times of the church’ (III,4,3).25 Irenaeus devotes

22 Cf. R.M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, p. 125; text according to Rousseau - Doutreleau; see the discussion of the latter in Sources chrétiennes, 210, pp. 223-236; we are afraid that our interpretation is quite diverging from that of the scholars mentioned. 23 Again, Irenaeus will not fail to make of Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians a document of orthodoxy. Irenaeus' words were eagerly collected by Eusebius, cf. e.g. H.E. IV,14; but also the epilogus mosquensis of the Moscow manuscript of the Martyrium Polycarpi refers again to Irenaeus' information on Polycarp's anti-heretical activities. Also the re-discovered codex Kosinitza expands on the relation between Irenaeus and Polycarp, cf. B. Dehand- schutter, ‘Polycarp of Smyrna: Some Notes on the Hagiography and Homiletics about a Smyrnaean Martyr’ (forthcoming); see also the reference in note 24. 24 See about Polycarp's biography and Irenaeus' relation to him, P. Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, II/134 (Tübingen, 2002), pp. 17-43; as well as B. Dehandschutter, ‘Images of Polycarp. Biogra- phy and Hagiography about the Bishop of Smyrna’, in idem, Polycarpiana. Studies on Martyrdom and Persecution in Early Christianity. Collected Essays, Bibiotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 205 (Leuven, 2007), pp. 271-277. 25 The argument was already present in ch. 3; it will receive full weight in Tertullian’s writings and becomes the basis of every heresiological argumentation; comp. Eusebius, H.E. III, 32,7-8, with reference to Hegesippus: after the death of the apostles and the dis- appearance of the privileged generation ‘godless error began to take its rise…’. 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 13

HERESY AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NOTION OF TRADITION 13

a lot of attention to the truth of the Gospels and their agreement with the apostolic preaching (Paul included). In that context the Church Father takes the occasion to reiterate the importance of the Gospel of Luke. The many passages proper to Luke demonstrate that nothing has been hidden (III,15,1)! Even the textual conformity of the Gospels is argued: in the case of the pre- carious translation of Isaiah 7,14 it is plain that all Gospels unanimously used the translation of the Seventy (III,21,3).

On the whole, it may be said that the polemical context of the passages mentioned is obvious. Irenaeus does not write a treatise about ecclesiology in which the apostolic succession is conceptualized or in which the roman primacy is at stake. He attacks the gnostics, and wants to absolutely under- mine the gnostics’ argument from tradition by pointing to the unbreakable continuity between Scripture and Tradition. Of course, his polemics are only convincing if one accepts the “tour de force” of the apostolic succession. Irenaeus’s presentation is difficult to control from an historical point of view,26 but for the Church Father the principle of the successio is the answer to the gnostic position (which interprets Scripture falsely or rejects it by claiming reference to other texts, cf. II,11,9).27 So the concept of apostolic tradition is functioning in a reductive way: it places against the many possibilities of interpretation only those accepted and transmitted in the churches with an apostolic origin, it places the notion of the (emerging) canon over against a large corpus of apostolic literature (i.e., literature claiming to be apostolic), it places the truth and the simplicity of the origin over against the innova- tion of the gnostic doctrine. Irenaeus' anxiousness to overcome the gnostic threat prevents him from reflecting on the possibility that the apostolic tradition in the different churches is not unanimous. The bishop of Lyons makes origin coincide with

26 Other lists show differences, see Tertullian, De Praescriptione 32,2; see again, Refoulé – de Labriolle, p. 131 n.2; but comp. Irenaeus himself in the Letter to Victor of Rome (Euse- bius H.E. V,24,14). 27 Cf. N. Brox, Offenbarung, Gnosis und gnostischer Mythos bei Irenäus von Lyon (Salzburg, 1966); Idem, ‘Die biblische Hermeneutik des Irenäus’, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum, 2 (1998), pp. 26-47; also T.C.K. Ferguson, ‘The Rule of Truth and Irenaean Rhetoric in Book I of Against Heresies’, Vigiliae Christianae, 55 (2001), pp. 356-375; A.Y. Reed, ‘Euaggelion: Orality, Textuality, and the Christian Truth in Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses’, Vigiliae Christianae, 56 (2002), pp. 11-46; E. Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons, pp. 162-192. 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 14

14 BOUDEWIJN DEHANDSCHUTTER

unity: as a consequence the church is thought to bring the same message always and everywhere. The concern to explain continuity blinds Irenaeus to the pluriform character of the apostolic tradition, not to mention its con- tradictory aspects. He could not imagine that one apostolic tradition could be in conflict with another, and that this provokes tensions which are not automatically neutralized by a notion of canon. As a matter of fact these tensions are stressed in the gnostic sources, and not by accident, see e.g. the opposition between James and Thomas in the Gospel of Thomas (log. 12), or that between James and Peter and the other apostles in the Apocryphon Jacobi.28 It is conceivable that Irenaeus, as a precaution, combined the tradition of Peter and Paul in Rome, as he does with Paul and John in Ephesus, so that they could be considered as one. The difficulties with regard to Paul along- side the other apostles are not uncommon, as one can see in the case of the (anti-gnostic) Epistula Apostolorum: it explains the association of Paul's activities with those of the other apostles29 so that Paul should not be considered as the apostolus haereticorum.30

As a conclusion however, the importance of the polemical context of Ire- naeus's words on tradition may be plain. Another question is to what extent the bishop of Lyons always remains consistent with the scope of the afore- mentioned passages of the IIIrd Book. It is not difficult to observe that Ire-

28 See our contribution ‘L'Epistula Jacobi apocrypha de Nag Hammadi (CG 1,2) comme apocryphe néotestamentaire’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. II. Principat, 25,4, ed. W. Haase (Berlin, 1988), pp. 4529-4550. We refrain here from comments on the Gospel of Judas in which the opposition between Judas and the other apostles receives a kind of climax. 29 See on the meaning of this text, W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen II (Tübingen, 51989), and in the same volume, W. Bienert, ‘Das Apostelbild in den altchristlichen Überlieferung’, pp. 6-28; as well as earlier M. Hornschuh, ‘Die Apostel als Träger der Überlieferung’, in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen II, eds. E. Hennecke – W. Schneemelcher (Tübingen, 31964), pp. 41-52. 30 The problem of the image of Paul has been studied at several occasions, see e.g. A. Lindemann, ‘Der Apostel Paulus im 2. Jahrhundert’, in The New Testament in Early Chris- tianity. La réception des écrits néotestamentaires dans le christianisme primitif , ed. J.-M. Sevrin, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 86 (Leuven, 1989), pp. 39-67; for a later period, cf. the remarks about the concordia apostolorum by A. Fürst, ‘Origenes und Ephräm über Paulus' Konflikt mit Petrus (Gal. 2,11/14)’, in Panchaia. Festschrift für Klaus Thraede, ed. M. Wacht, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband, 22 (Münster, 1995), pp. 121-130. 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 15

HERESY AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NOTION OF TRADITION 15

naeus in his anti-gnostic and anti-marcionite argument of the IVth and the Vth Books experiences some difficulty in introducing the important witness of the presbyters. These people, contemporaries of the apostles and their disciples, to whom the charisma of truth is warranted, offered their teachings orally!31 The problem of the written fixation of their teachings is put, as the example of Papias, the hearer of John, shows. So in Irenaeus, adv.Haer. V,33, the text ends upon a long quotation referring to oral tradition that could seem to be in disagreement with the written gospels. The conclusion cannot be avoided that Irenaeus was struggling himself, throughout his conflict with the gnostics, with the question of the relation between oral and written tradition.32

II. CLEMENT: TRADITION AS PARADOSIS ENGRAFOU AGRAFOS

On the question of the relation between oral and written tradition, Clement plays a prominent role. The Alexandrian seems, at least at first sight, to take a stand against Irenaeus's views.33 Clement readily accepts the existence of an unwritten tradition, a secret, esoteric one, existing together with the “pub- lic” tradition of the church (cf. Stromateis I, 1,13; 12,55-56).34 The influence

31 A remarkable case remains Irenaeus's dealing with Clement in the Roman succession as emphasized in Adv. Haer. III,3,3: the presumed author of 1 Clement had himself seen the apostles, and their preaching was still in his ears! Then follows the famous presentation of Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians: those who want it, can know the teachings of the church, as well as the apostolic tradition, by this writing. Here again Irenaeus stresses that the Letter is more ancient than those who now teach falsely. There is no doubt that the bishop of Lyons considers I Clement as apostolic teaching, a qualification he seems to reserve elsewhere to the canonical texts, mainly the four gospels, cf. Adversus Haereses III,11,7-9, where the Valentinian use of other gospels is disapproved. 32 Comp. the long paragraph about the presbyter in Adversus Haereses IV,26-27, and the observations by N. Brox, Irenäus von Lyon. Adversus Haereses. Gegen die Häresien IV, Fontes christiani, 8,4 (Freiburg, 1995), pp. 206-214; the intent of Irenaeus in the passage is to suggest the antiquity of his source, by the way he deals with the presbyters of old, even when the whole principle of the apostolic succession should be neglected. 33 At least he has often been interpreted in that way, see e.g. the negative comments of J. Beumer, Die mündliche Tradition als Glaubensquelle, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, I,4 (Freiburg, 1962), pp. 22 and 25. 34 Comp. S.R.C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria. A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosti- cism (Oxford, 1971), pp. 142-163. G. Stroumsa has pointed to the importance of Clement's esotericism in several contributions, cf. ‘Paradosis: Esoteric Traditions in Early Christian- 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 16

16 BOUDEWIJN DEHANDSCHUTTER

of some concepts of philosophical education – for Clement to be transformed into Christian education – is manifest in his writings.35 In a philosophical school the teacher will not communicate his deepest insights with every disciple, but transmits them (orally) to some privileged disciples; in the same way tradition in the church is not accessible to everybody without discretion.36 In the Eclogae Propheticae Clement refers to the presbyters who did not write but taught orally, in order not to be distracted from teaching.37 Clement does write, but not without reservation. It has been observed that the complexity of the Stromateis in which Clement “fixes” the tradition handed down to him (cf. Strom. I,1,11), is due to a deliberate form of literary eso-

ity’, in idem, Hidden Wisdom. Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Mysticism (Leiden, 1996), pp. 27-45; idem, ‘Clement, Origen and Jewish Esoteric Traditions’, in Origeniana Sexta. Origène et la Bible/ Origen and the Bible, eds. G. Dorival – A. Le Boulluec, Bibiotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 118 (Leuven, 1995), pp. 53-70; idem, ‘From Esotericism to Mysticism in Early Christianity’, in Secrecy and Concealment. Studies in the History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions, eds. H.G. Kippenberg – G.G. Stroumsa (Leiden, 1995), pp. 289-309; but Stroumsa situates the Clementine “esotericism” insuffi- ciently in the context of the Alexandrian tradition and neglects too much Clement’s ideas about the true gnostic. 35 See about Clement as a teacher and the question of the Alexandrian “school”: U. Neymeyr, Die christlichen Lehrer im zweiten Jahrhundert. Ihre Lehrtätigkeit, ihr Selbstver- ständnis und ihre Geschichte (Leiden, 1989), pp. 40-105; C. Scholten, ‘Die Alexandrinische Katechetenschule’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, 38 (1995), pp. 16-37; R. Van den Broek, ‘The Christian School of Alexandria in the Second and Third Centuries’, in idem, Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrian Christianity (Leiden, 1996), pp. 197-205; B. Pouderon, D'Athènes à Alexandrie. Etudes sur Athénagore et les origines de la philosophie chrétienne (Québec-Louvain, 1997), pp. 1-70; A. van den Hoek, ‘The “Catechetical” School of Early Christian Alexandria and its Philonic Heritage’, Harvard Theological Review, 90 (1997), pp. 59-87; J.L. Kovacs, ‘Divine Pedagogy and the Gnostic Teacher according to Clement of Alexandria’, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 9 (2001), pp. 3-25; A. Jakab, Ecclesia Alexandrina. Evolution sociale et institutionelle du christianisme alexandrine (IIe et IIIe siècles (Bern, 2001); A. Fürst, Christentum als Intellektuellen-Religion. Die Anfänge des Chris- tentums in Alexandria (Stuttgart, 2007). 36 The principle has been correctly described by G. Stroumsa (cf. above n. 34), but it leads to the more difficult question of the authority given to oral as against written tradition. One should remind the famous Papias testimony in Eusebius, H.E. III,39,4: ‘For I supposed that things out of books did not profit me so much as the utterances of a voice which liveth and abideth’; cf. U. Körtner, Papias von Hierapolis. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des frühen Christentums, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 133 (Göttingen, 1983); comp. Eusebius’s own remarks on Pantaenus and the Alexandrian school (H.E. V,10-11). 37 See the text in Rordorf – Schneider, Entwicklung, pp. 82-83. 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 17

HERESY AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NOTION OF TRADITION 17

tericism38. Tradition is then the deeper insight with regard to Scripture which only is obtained by the initiate. In that way, Clement's notion of tradition is, as in Irenaeus, closely linked with the interpretation of Scripture. But according to Clement, Scripture itself indicates that the deeper meaning is not given to everybody, and that even the disciples did not understand everything immediately (see Stromateis I,1,13 and the long exposition in V,60- 62).39 Clement takes this up in the well known text of the Hypotyposes: ‘after the resurrection the Lord handed over the gnosis to James the Just, John and Peter, these transmitted it to the other apostles, the latter to the Seventy’40 (one of them was Barnabas which explains Clement's interest in the Epistle of Barnabas which receives an almost canonical status41). As Clement notes that the gnosis is transmitted by succession from the apostles to some in an unwritten transmission (Stromateis VI,61,3), it means that an esoteric tradition exists inside the church, the gnosis essential for the right comprehension of Scripture.42 It has been observed that the Alexandrian is rather close to the views of the (heretical) gnostics: the latter appropriated the so-called parable theory for themselves, stressing as well the fact that some disciples (also some women) served as privileged witnesses. The same people favor the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension as the special time for further (esoteric) revelation.43

38 Cf. A. Mehat, Etude sur les ‘Stromates' de Clément d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1966). 39 There is much need for a deeper study of this text, see however A. Le Boulluec, Clément d'Alexandrie. Les Stromates. Stromate V, Sources chrétiennes, 279 (Paris, 1981), pp. 222-225; and see again Clement's own anti-gnostic argumentation in Paidagogus I,33,3. 40 Text in Eusebius, H.E. II,1,4; on the Hypotyposes, see again Eusebius, H.E. VI,14. 41 See on the treatment of Barnabas by Clement: F.R. Prostmeier, Der Barnabasbrief, Kommentar zur Apostolischen Väter, 8 (Göttingen, 1998), pp. 34-46 and J. Loman, ‘The Letter of Barnabas in Early Second-Century Egypt’, in The Wisdom of Egypt. Jewish, Early Christian and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, eds. A. Hilhorst – G.H. van Kooten (Leiden/Boston, 2005), pp. 247-265. 42 See among others R. Mortley, Connaissance religieuse et herméneutique chez Clément d'Alexandrie (Leiden, 1973), pp. 143-147; S.R.C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria, pp. 155- 157; C.W. Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity from its Origins to 451 CE. (Leiden, 31993), pp. 56-61. 43 See for only one example the Apocryphon Jacobi (NHC 1,2), and the comments of D. Kirchner, Epistula Jacobi Apocrypha. Die zweite Schrift aus Nag-Hammadi-Codex I, Texte und Untersuchungen, 136 (Berlin, 1989), pp. 57-59 and 67-70; also R. Kany, ‘Jünger’, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, 19 (2001) cols. 258-346, cf. cols. 315-318. 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 18

18 BOUDEWIJN DEHANDSCHUTTER

Clement, however, has understood very well the dangers of false gnosis, and this is amply developed in the VIIth Book of the Stromateis.44 As an Alexandrian teacher and paidagogos, he held in his own school tradition a concept of gnosis and of “the Gnostic” that overcame the division and posteri- ority of heresy. Clement implies a tradition that stands inside the ecclesiastical community, but comprehends the Christian message according to several levels of understanding. The false gnosis tries to intrude with a false key, ‘we however enter by the tradition of the Lord’ (Stromateis VII,106,2). It is important to observe that Clement stresses the unity of doctrine of the apostles: this unity cannot produce divergent traditions. So the sources of the heretics, be it Basilides, Marcion or Valentinus with an appeal on Matthias45 (Stromateis VII,108,1), do not belong to the one apostolic tradition because of their dis- cord (comp. Stromateis VII, 106,4). Clement's reference to the esoteric tradition seems to situate him on the same level as the heretics whom he attacks, but as a matter of fact, it allows him to demonstrate the unity of Scripture, to exemplify the strong connection between “old” and “new” (a refutation of the marcionites), and to trace the allegorical significance of scripture. ‘Gnosis is not present in everybody’ (1 Cor 8,7), but the true gnostic belongs to the church. It is he ‘who grown old in the study of Scripture, conserves the apostolic and ecclesiastical right- ness conforming his life to Scripture’ (Stromateis VII,104,1). All this does not apply to a heretic!46 In comparison with Irenaeus, who tries to keep the apostolic tradition within the apostolic succession, Clement does not limit tradition to the idea of succession, but employs a more ‘open' concept based upon his school-tradition (though it could be observed that inside the latter a notion of succession is also present47). This tradition, not contradicted by sound doctrine, is legitimately and vividly present in the church, deepening continuously our understanding of Scripture. That is gnosis and that is the

44 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, La notion d'hérésie dans la littérature grecque des IIe-IIIe siècles. Tome II Clément d'Alexandrie et Origène (Paris, 1985), pp. 361-438; idem, Clément d'Alexandrie. Les Stromates, Stromate VII, Sources chrétiennes, 428 (Paris, 1997). 45 Comp. the introduction to the Book of Thomas (NHC II,7), quoted supra. 46 Cf. W. Völker, Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens von Alexandrien (Berlin, 1952), pp. 354-364; Karavites, Evil, pp. 139-174. 47 See the introduction to the Stromateis; The notion of succession related to the leader- ship of the ‘School' has been emphasized by Eusebius, who no doubt wanted to saveguard the ‘orthodoxy' of the School; comp. Scholten, ‘Die Alexandrinische “Katechetenschule”’. 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 19

HERESY AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NOTION OF TRADITION 19

difference with the (heretical) “gnostics”. Although this tradition remains connected with Scripture, Clement clearly shows another approach to the notion of “canon” in the sense that he more openly receives so-called non- canonical writings (at least in the sense of Clement, they should not be considered as “apocryphal” in a negative sense). A case such as the Kerygma Petri can be instructive here: it simply belongs to Clement's tradition and shows that in his Alexandrian milieu a relatively large number of writings, connected with the apostles or their disciples, were received. It is even the case that Clement is able to accept the tradition of Sayings of the Lord present in the Gospel of the Egyptians. Clement does not denounce this writing as heretical, but reacts against the false use made of it by heretics.48 The Nag Hammadi writing known as the Teachings of Silvanus can now illustrate how Clement's milieu received “tradition”. It would pass beyond the limits of this contribution to develop this.49

III. TERTULLIAN: TRADITION AS FURTHER REVELATION

Tertullian's notion of tradition has attracted even more attention than Ire- naeus', and there is no need to amplify on it at this occasion. It is truly more complicated, as it must to be studied from a multitude of writings which belong to different periods. The underlying problem is evidently Tertullian's sympathy for the New Prophecy and his final adherence to the Montanist position. It should be sufficient to illustrate two important elements.

1. No doubt Tertullian continues Irenaeus's criticism of the gnostics. The De praescriptione haereticorum brings Irenaeus's arguments to a strong new syn- thesis.50 Also the African holds that the apostolic churches transmit only

48 See esp. the passages in Stromateis III, but also the reference to the Kerygma Petri in Stro- mateis VI, where Clement also refers to the Pastor Hermae, a writing held in high esteem by early Christianity in Egypt. The main point for Clement remains the false exegesis from the side of the heretics (Stromateis VII,96). On the other hand, one could argue that Griggs insistence on the growing influence of Irenaeus’s views on orthodoxy in Egypt, is not that much valid for Clement, cf. Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity, pp. 33-34 and 45-46, and then the author himself on p. 60! 49 Cf. J. Zandee, The Teachings of Silvanus Nag Hammadi Codex VII,4 (Leiden, 1991). 50 See the introduction of Schleyer, Tertullian. 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 20

20 BOUDEWIJN DEHANDSCHUTTER

what they received, and that is the one and the same traditum: “una traditio eiusdem sacramenti” (Praescr. 20,9). The communio between the apostolic churches consists precisely in the fact that there is no difference in doctrine between them, which indicates the testimonium veritatis (ibid.). But all this is part of an historical argumentation which excludes the grip of the heretics on tradition. As a matter of fact Tertullian denounces the heretical use of Scripture: heretics have no right to use it, they manipulate texts, or reject books, or discover contradictions. According to Tertullian the conflict in Antioch should not be a reason to think that there was an argument between the apostles (Praescr. 23). Nor can the text on the snatching away of Paul (2 Cor 12) be a reason to think that there is a deeper knowledge not avail- able to other disciples. If Paul had seen unutterable things, he could not communicate them, and as a consequence they cannot play any role in the definition of tradition (cf. Praescr. 25, at the occasion of 1 Tim 6,20).51

2. Tertullian's sympathy for the New Prophecy plays an increasing role, but this doesn't change his mind with regard to more general doctrinal questions.52 Nevertheless, a remarkable evolution appears. The problem posed by the De Praescriptione is that it is impossible to argue with the heretics on the basis of Scripture, as it does not belong to them. In the De Corona, however, Tertullian observes that not everything present in Scripture can be considered as tradition.53 Even when one argues that the notion of tradition in that writing shifts more to the idea of consuetudo,54 it remains striking that Ter- tullian answers an objection to the importance of Scripture in that way.55 The African pretends that there is no necessary coincidence between Scrip- ture and Tradition, that both can be distinguished from each other. The only

51 The text of 2 Cor 12 on the contrary is the starting point of the gnostic Apocalypse of Paul (NHC V,2); this writing also poses the problem of the equality of Paul and the Twelve. By way of his “harpagmos”, he meets the Twelve in the Ogdoas! Cf. R. Roukema, ‘Paul’s Rapture to Paradise in Early Christian Literature’, in The Wisdom of Egypt, pp. 267-283. 52 One will remember Tertullian's important contribution to Trinitarian theology in the Adversus Praxean, etc. 53 See the whole treatment in the De Corona 3-4. 54 See the important terminological remarks of R. Braun, Deus Christianorum. Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien (Paris, 21977), pp. 426-429. 55 See T.D. Barnes, Tertullian. A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford, 1971), pp. 132- 134; but comp. the second edition, 1985. 1783-08_JECS_02_Dehandschutter 31-03-2009 13:38 Pagina 21

HERESY AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NOTION OF TRADITION 21

possible conclusion is that Tertullian gives a more and more specific interpretation of John 16,12-15. Thus in the De Praescriptione these verses served to prove the Spirit's assistance to the church, obviously to the damage of the heretics who do not receive the Spirit. It is known that this position can be understood as a preamble to a series of anti-gnostic and anti-marcionite trea- tises, dating from the early montanist period: Adversus Hermogenem, De Carne Christi, Adversus Valentinianos, De Anima, De Resurrectione Mortuorum, Adver- sus Marcionem.56 But in the De Corona the same verses are the foundation of the notion of tradition as further revelation of the Paraclete. Again, De Monogamia will clarify that not everything can be accepted as revelation of the Spirit (2,4). This means that a decisive step has been made towards the separation of Scripture and Tradition: what happens in the church under the impulse of the Paraclete receives its own weight and has its own authority. In summary, for Tertullian traditio is not longer per se apostolic.

CONCLUSION

It might be permitted, by way of conclusion, to emphasize again the “con- textual” character of the notion of tradition as developed by the authors considered above. The anti-gnostic polemic determines in different situations their thinking about what is handed down by the church, and by whom. Despite these efforts, the question of authority in the interpretation of Scripture, or that of alternative traditions, is not settled. A generation later, Origen points to the discordia, the conflict, and not only about questions of minor importance! The context of the so-called Alexandrian school will invite him to suggest the possibility of different levels of understanding Scripture.57 And even if the apostles have transmitted many things manifestissime, their foundation should always be scrutinized by the studiosiores: ‘hi videlicet qui dignos se et capaces ad recipiendam sapientiam praepararent’ (De Principiis, introductio).

56 Comp. the whole development on chronology in T.D. Barnes, Tertullian, pp. 30-56; comp. the second edition, and above all R. Braun, Deus Christianorum, pp. 563-577 and 720-721. However, one should reflect on the thesis of a recent book on Tertullian's theology of martyrdom, namely that that theology is also very much directed by the African's anti-gnostic and anti-marcionite reaction, cf. W. Bähnk, Von der Notwendigkeit des Leidens. Die Theologie des Martyriums bei Tertullian, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 78 (Göttingen, 2001). 57 On Origen see always R.P.C. Hanson, Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London, 1954).