Nicola Denzey Lewis LivedReligion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’¹ This contribution focuses on the socio-historical details of anumber of so-called ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ activeinsecond-centuryRome.The material de- rives primarily from Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses (ca. 180 CE), aheresiological tractate that aims to draw boundarylines between different Christian specialists and their communities. Aclose reading of Adv.Haer. and Irenaeus’ sometimes scathing portraits of certain Gnostic hieratic specialists – particularly aValenti- nian Christian known as Marcus the Magician (Magus) – reveals that Irenaeus himself,like many of the so-calledGnostics he scorned, formed anew class of Christian textual producer in the imperialperiod. The study seeks to refute Irenaeus’ claim to be an authority representing the ‘Great Church’,and high- lights the diversity of practices that comprised second-century Christianity. This essayturns to heresiological sources – primarilythe writingsofIrenaeus, with support from Hippolytus and Tertullian – to interrogatethe chargesofaber- rant religio-sexual practices, gendertroubles, and ritual improprieties that dog- gedaclass of individuals Iterm here ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’.How did these individuals “form and reform ritual actions and theological constructions” (to cite the Call for Papers)? Can attention to ‘livedreligion’ help us to understand differentlythe heresiological chargesagainst these individuals and their innova- tive crafting of new Christianities? We willbegin with Irenaeus of Lyons, asecond-century theologian whose life and circumstances remain largely opaque.² Irenaeus himself does not pro- vide modern readers with anybiographical insights in his extant works;what lit- tle we know of him is drawnfrom Eusebius.³ Traditionally, Irenaeus has been the subjectoftheological inquiry,particularlyfor his articulation of ‘recapitulation’; alternatively,asasignificant sourcefor information on thosewhom he derides, Iwant to thank JörgRüpke,Georgia Petridou, and RichardGordon for awonderful and stim- ulatingconference in January 2015 where apreliminary form of this paper was circulated. Forrecentbiographical studies,see Minns (2010); Osborn (2001), and the excellent volume of collected essays by Parvis and Foster (2012). Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.4.1. DOI 10.1515/9783110448184-004, ©2017 Nicola Denzey Lewis, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs3.0 License. 80 Nicola Denzey Lewis i.e. those who possessed “falsely-called knowledge (gnosis)”.⁴ Central to all these studies has been atacit understanding of Irenaeus as achampionofthe Great Church, or rather,according to thosescholars for whom such anotion at this period is anachronistic, an important voice of nascent Christian ortho- doxy or proto-orthodoxy.Inthis essay, IresituateIrenaeus within the context of second-century Rome, unmooring him from afictive ‘Great Church’ and con- sidering him within amatrix of second-century religious ‘providers’ or ‘special- ists’. Arelatively recent strand of scholarshippaves the wayfor resituatingIre- naeus by pointing out his training in rhetoric and thus, his active participation in the intellectual life of the Second Sophistic.⁵ In fact,wedoIrenaeus adisserv- ice if we consider him anything lessthan fullyimmersed in the predominant in- tellectual or literarypreoccupations of his day, which included the composition of works rangingfrom scientific treatises to rank satire. It is in this vein that Iam tempted to consider Irenaeus’ œuvre. His heresiological work, Adversus Haereses (c. 180 CE), paints aworld of chronic deceit and dissembling,coupled with are- lentless spiritual ambition.⁶ The scorn for religious innovation which saturates its pages it shares with other works from the Second Sophistic – surelynot ac- cidental, but an indication of how Irenaeus perceivedhimself as apublic intel- lectualand social critic. There is astriking parallel, for example, between Ire- naeus’ Adv. Haer. and the Philopseudēs (‘Lover of Lies’)ofhis contemporary Lucian of Samosata, with its stable of dubious religious specialists: Lucian re- gales the reader with hilarious accounts of aBabylonian magos who heals with philtres and conjurations (11–15); aSyrian exorcist (16); aPythagorean ex- peller of ghosts (daimōnes)(30 –31); and an Egyptian adept of Isis who animates On Irenaeus’ theory of recapitulation, see Osborn (2001); Dunning(2009); Holsinger-Friesen (2009); Smith (1994). The scholarship on Irenaeus and Gnosticism is vast.The meaningofthe term is highlycontested. More on this topic below. See, for instance, Schoedel(1959);also Grant (1949). Noteesp. Ayres (2015,154): “One of the most strikingevolutions in Christianthoughtand practicesbetween the middle of the second century and the middle of the third is the rise to prominenceofaChristian exegesis that is heav- ilydependent on the techniques of literary analysishoned within the developingdisciplines of grammar and rhetoric”.Steenberg(2012, 202) notesIrenaeus’ familiarity with Plato, Homer,Hes- iod, Pindar,Aristophanes,Menander,and the pre-Socratics: “[…]Irenaeus certainlysees the best of ‘Pagan learning’ as part of God’sredemptive economy, useful to the Christian”. The Latin and survivingGreek texts of Adv. Haer. arereproduced in Rousseau(1965–1982). Translations in this paperare my own or else, where noted, from the useful, if dated, English translation in the ANF series (1885). Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 81 brooms and pestles (33–36).⁷ Irenaeus similarly introduces us to Simon, aflam- boyant Samaritan magos who parades his consort whom he considers the rein- carnationofHelen of Troy (1.23); the profligatedemon-worshipper Carpocrates, who believed that to escape the bondageofthe bodyone had to have sexual in- tercourse with as manywomen as possible (1.25.4); and another magos named Marcus,apractitioner in the dark arts and beguiler of wealthywomen (1.13). Akeen reader alsodetects parallels between Irenaeus’ Marcus and another one of Lucian’scharacters,Alexander of Abonuteichos,amagician (goēs)and oracularprophet who travels through northern Asia Minorwith the financial support of wealthywomen.⁸ The differencebetween these competing profiles of Lucian and Irenaeus lies in interpretation; we read Lucian’swork as satire, but Irenaeus as anything but.Infact, Adv. Haer. has always constituted acom- pendium, encyclopaedia, manifesto, ‘handbook’ of heresies – what youwill, at anyrate, ausable map of second-century Christianity in all its multiplicity and absurdities. Isuggest in this essaythat we should read Irenaeus differently, with the same appreciation for humour,exaggeration, and posturing that we allow for Lu- cian. The reason we have not done so reflects, in the main, our own theological commitments and convictions. We also must develop akeen sensitivity to Ire- naeus’ own self-positioning within the competitive landscape of second-century religious options rather than assume that he was somehow able to rise above these, the omniscient eyeofasober churchman looking down from aboveata fissiparous and farcical set of Christian improvisations on key theological themes. This essaypresents adifferent Irenaeus – aparticipant rather thanob- server,deeplyinvolvedinfashioning not orthodoxy (which is the conventional reading) but perhaps amore self-serving,evenindependent,Christian identity. From this perspective,Irenaeus’ profile of what Icall here ‘Gnostic hieratic spe- cialists’ tells us onlymarginallyabout them, but,recursively,agood deal about Irenaeus himself. 1. On ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ First,though, awordonterminology. The rise of independent religious special- ists in the highRoman Empire has been arecent and fruitful new area of inves- FormoreonLucian’sprofiles of independentreligious specialists,see Wendt (2016,1–5, 24– 26,139–142). See also JanBremmer’scontribution to this volume (Chapter2,esp. 62– 68). 82 Nicola Denzey Lewis tigation. We owe this new direction in scholarshiptoJörgRüpke and Richard Gordon, and Iamindebted to them for turning our attentions away from mono- lithic and hence nonsensicalsubjects of studysuch as ‘second-century Christian- ity’ to individuals and theirinteractions within ‘small group religion’.⁹ Theterm ‘specialist’ seems to me preferable to the more Bourdieusian ‘entrepreneur’, which carries with it economic overtones which these figures cannot always readilysustain.¹⁰ The term ‘hieratic’ is more precise than ‘religious’,aterm that,like ‘second-century Christianity’,istoo often used thoughtlessly.Ido not believethatChristianity was sufficientlydeveloped in the second century to receive amonolithic designation; Iprefer,instead, to speak of ‘Christians’ or ‘Christian groups’ without imaginingmeaningful networks and top-down or- ganisation. By ‘hieratic specialist’ Imean individuals who drew from abroad set of ritual practices circulating in the second century, and who apparentlyconsid- ered themselvesexperts in the performance or knowledge of ritual practices and behaviours. The term ‘Gnostic’,however,gives me the most pause.Ihave argued throughout my professional career for the inaccuracy of this term.¹¹ Iuse it here because it is Irenaeus’ preferred term. Thefact that he uses it is not an argument in favour of its historical appropriateness.Onthe contrary:itisakey to his entire interpretive project. If Irenaeus’ claims in Adv. Haer. about these Gnostic hieratic specialists are true,