HERACLEON

Einar Th omassen University of Bergen

When wrote his massive commentary on the in the 230s, he had a single precursor in this kind of undertaking, a man called Heracleon. At least, Heracleon is the only previous commenta- tor of John that Origen refers to in his work. Who was Heracleon? Introducing his predecessor for the fi rst time (O. 2.14.100),1 Origen describes him as “Heracleon, who is said to have been a pupil of ” (τὸν Οὐαλεντίνου λεγόµενον εἶναι γνώριµον Ἡρακλέωνα). Indeed, Heracleon is oft en mentioned by Christian writers as a prom- inent representative of . Clement of calls him “the most celebrated of Valentinus’ school.”2 mentions him once, briefl y,3 and he also appears in Tertullian4 and the Refutatio omnium haeresium.5 In the latter source he is said to be a proponent of the “Italian” branch of Valentinianism (6.35.6).6 Th at Heracleon was a “Valentinian” is thus a point on which all our sources agree.7

1 O. will be used in this essay as an abbreviation for Origen’s commentary on the Gospel of John. I use the edition by Cécile Blanc (1970–1996) in the Sources chré- tiennes (Origène: Commentaire sur S. Jean). 2 ὁ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς δοκιµώτατος, Strom. 6.71.1. 3 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 2.4.1. Although Irenaeus tells us nothing more about him, it is noteworthy that Heracleon and Ptolemaeus are the only Valentinians mentioned by name in this passage. 4 , Val. 4.2. Like Irenaeus, Tertullian seems to know no more about Heracleon than his name. 5 In view of the currently mounting doubts about as the author of this heresiological work (cf. Simonetti 2000), I shall refer to it only by its conventional title Refutatio. In it, Heracleon is mentioned as a Valentinian leader three times (6.4; 6.29.1; 6.35.6) (not only once, as Kaler and Bussières mistakenly state [2006, 277]). 6 For later sources that mention Heracleon (Pseudo-Tertullian, Filastrius, Epiph- anius, Th eodoret, Praedestinatus, Augustine, Photius), see Brooke 1891, 31–41, whose survey is excellent. 7 Th e recent attempt by Kaler and Bussières (2006) to argue that Origen did not consider Heracleon a Valentinian is unconvincing. Th e phrase “said to have been a pupil” (λεγόµενον εἶναι γνώριµον) does not imply that Origen had any doubts about Heracleon’s adherence to Valentinian doctrines. It is the rather stronger claim that Heracleon was a γνώριµος of Valentinus, that is, a pupil or an associate personally 174 einar thomassen

Since he is mentioned by Irenaeus, Heracleon must have been a well-known fi gure by 180. Th is fact lends plausibility to the view reported by Origen, that he was a personal associate of Valentinus.8 Valentinus is said by Irenaeus to have been active in Rome from the 140s to the 160s.9 It seems that Heracleon also worked in Rome, as is suggested by his attribution to the “Italian school” in the Refutatio, as well as by other circumstantial evidence.10 Nevertheless, it is notewor- thy that Heracleon’s commentary on John (or any other work by him) is mentioned neither by Irenaeus nor by . Th us it is quite possible that Heracleon wrote this work only towards the end of the second century, as a rather mature man.11 Heracleon’s commentary on John is known only through the quota- tions cited by Origen. Th ere are 48 such quotations, of varying length, in Origen’s commentary. A couple of additional fragments from other

acquainted with the master, that Origen reports as an affi rmation made by others. He could obviously have no fi rst-hand knowledge himself of such a matter. (Cf. Brooke 1891, 33: “. . . the phrase used [γνώριµος] would hardly be natural, unless Heracleon had been a prominent member of the school during the lifetime of Valentinus.”) I am inclined to think that what Origen wants to say with this expression is that Heracleon is not only a follower of Valentinus’ doctrine but even reported to have been his close associate, which makes him an even more authoritative representative of Valentinianism. Th e authors’ further claim in the article that Origen endeavours to dissociate Heracleon from Valentinianism fails to take into account a number of studies which show that Origen consistently reads Heracleon’s anthropology and sote- riology on the assumption that he is a proponent of the “Valentinian” doctrine of fi xed human natures (Simonetti 1966–1967 [cf. summary pp. 63–64]; Mühlenberg 1975; Aland 1977; Trumbower 1989; Wucherpfennig 2002, 18–21, 163, 254–256, 332–353). 8 See the preceding note. Th e statement by Hill (2004, 208n8), that “Heracleon was evidently not a personal disciple of Valentinus” is based on a misinterpreta- tion of Markschies (1997, 430), who only remarks (without supplying arguments) that Heracleon “is not as closely linked to Valentinus as one is generally ready to assume” (cf. also Markschies 1992, 393; Markschies 2003, 336 is more undecided on the issue). 9 Th e dates can be deduced from Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.4.3. See Th omassen 2006a, 417–422. 10 Ehrman (1993; 1994) has tried to show that Heracleon used a “Western” form of the text of John, but Wucherpfennig (2002, 30–31) considers the text critical evidence inconclusive. Preuschen (1903, ciii) asserted in his introduction to the GCS edition of Origen that Heracleon’s Greek contained Latinisms, though he did not provide any examples (cf. Wucherpfennig 2002, 367n38). Th e possibility that Heracleon was also active for a while in Alexandria, as, among others, Wucherpfennig (2002, 370) sug- gests, is uncertain. 11 Cf. Hill 2004, 207–208, though in my opinion Hill relies on this argument from silence rather too confi dently.