INTRODUCTION Writing in the Late Fourth Century, Epiphanius Of

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Writing in the late fourth century, Epiphanius of Salamis described a group of so-called Phibionite Gnostics that he encountered in Egypt as follows: “. . . having recognized one another, they hasten to dine. And they lavish meat dishes and wines, even if they are in penury. Th en, aft er a drinking party where so to speak they have engorged their veins with gormandising, they turn to their frenzied passion” (Pan. 26.4.3).1 Epiphanius, however, does not stop here with his description of the ethics and social interactions of these so-called “heretics.” We are later informed that the ritual performances of these sectarians include vari- ous immoral practices that should, for Epiphanius’ audience, revolt the moral sensibilities of a fourth-century Christian. We learn that these sectarians engaged in illicit sexual activities (orgies so excessive as to lead to male homosexual relations), the consumption of menstrual blood and semen, and even the ritual cannibalism of aborted foetuses that were conceived during these ritual activities. Epiphanius claims to have withstood the lure of these heretics, a lure that took the form of seductive women. Th ese polemical barbs directed by Epiphanius against those Christians he considered heretical, though recognized within scholarship as largely hyperbole if not outright fi ction, typifi ed much of how ethics within Gnosticism was viewed by not only ancient polemists but also some modern discussions of ethics.2 Irenaeus, when he moved to southern Gaul in the late second century, encountered what he referred to as followers of Valentinus, specifi cally of Valentinus’ disciple Marcus. Ire- naeus, with far more credibility in his descriptive work than Epiphanius, also attacked his opponents (especially Marcus and the Marcosian sect) on ethical grounds (see Haer. 1.13.3). Marcus was perceived as a type of

1 Translated by Bentley Layton, Th e Gnostic; cf. the translation by Frank Williams, Th e Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Th e critical edition can be found in K. Holl, editor, Epiphanius. 2 See the discussion in Edwin M. Yamauchi, Gnostic Ethics and Mandean Origins, especially 24–34; cf. Hans Jonas, Gnosis und spätantiker Geist, 236; and Stephen Benko, “Th e Libertine Gnostic Sect.” 2 chapter one charlatan, a magical cult leader who used his ritual gatherings to simply take advantage of the well-to-do women he enticed to join him. Such enticement, as we would expect, included fulfi lling the sexual appetite of Marcus. References to a bridal chamber sacrament and a heavenly marriage as the climax of the Valentinian sacramental ascent to the Pleroma have further raised questions as to the ethical or unethical activities of Valentinian Christians in these early centuries.3 Revelling in immoral behaviours, as Gnostic practices have been commonly seen both in antiquity and in modern treatments of Gnosticism, was a simple result of the theological, specifi cally anthropological, system of Gnosti- cism. Gnostics are, it is claimed, saved by their nature. Th e body serves no purpose beyond being a prison from which the pneumatic “seed” or “spark” needs to escape and ascend beyond the material realm to the Gnostic’s true home (the spiritual pleroma). What one does with one’s body is, therefore, irrelevant. Acting well or badly should have no bearing on whether one is saved or not saved. Th e discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices in 1945, and the sub- sequent half-century of intense scholarship on these texts, has raised another possible view of Gnostic ethics. Rather than a licentious and antinomian ethical stance, grounded within a deterministic anthropological and anti-somatic worldview, these tractates seem to emphasize a more ascetic ethos.4 Not only does the Gos. Th om., arguably the best- known Nag Hammadi text within New Testament studies, present such an ascetic ideal that one would expect within a more monastic context (e.g., “Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will fi nd the kingdom”; logion 49), but even in texts that have no evident Synoptic relationship articulate an ethic of asceticism (e.g., Gos. Phil. 82,2–8; Paraph. Shem 10,24; Testim. Truth 29,26–30,17; and Soph. Jes. Chr. III 93,16–20). Th e marriage image of the bridal chamber in the Gos. Phil., furthermore, is presented in contrast to the defi led marriage (81,34–82,10). Even Ire-

3 For a comprehensive overview of ancient views of the bridal chamber sacrament, see Gaye Strathearn, Th e Valentinian Bridal Chamber. Strathearn gives particular attention to the libertine/ascetic model. See also Bas van Os, Baptism in the Bridal Chamber. 4 One of the earliest modern critiques of the Fathers’ libertine view of the Gnostics is Frederik Wisse, “Die Sextus-Sprüche.” Wisse demonstrates an attentive concern for polemical processes in the descriptions put forth by the heresiologists. He is also careful not to treat all the heresiological accounts equally, recognizing that the credibility of the heresiological accounts will vary from author to author. Overall, however, the Fathers’ depictions of libertinism have more to do with polemical rhetoric than accurate description.