Lived Religion Among Second-Century 'Gnostic Hieratic

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 innovative 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 provide modern readers with anybiographical insights in his extant works;what little 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 orthodoxy 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 ‘specialists’. 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 intellectual 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 specialists’ tells us onlymarginallyabout them, but,recursively,agood deal about Irenaeus himself.

1. On ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’

First,though, awordonterminology. The rise of independent religious specialists 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, then each of them pushed beyond the limits of licit Christian behaviours. Some of these ritual innovators explored the interface between baptism, death, and exorcism. Othersworked in the fringes of Christian practice, drawing on traditional practicesoforacular utterance and dream-interpretation. Most wereaccused of dealinginmagic. Whether or not Irenaeus and his continuators wereaccurate or truthful in their sketches of these specialists remains amatter of debate; nevertheless,the second century found nascent Christianity at perhaps its most audaciouslyexperimental, and historicallyatits closest point to Roman, Greek, and Egyptian hieratic behaviours. Withoutestablished limits to confine them, one might arguethat all these figures operated ‘beyond duty’,cre- ating moments of religious meaning in the intersections of life, sex, and death.

 Forthe current literatureon‘small group religion’,see Gordon’scontribution to the present volume(Chapter 11).  On Bourdieu, see also the contribution to this volume by Emiliano Rubens Urciuoli (Chap- ter12).  Thereexist in the field of Gnosticism and Gnostic Studies deeply-entrenched opinions on the appropriateness of the adjective ‘Gnostic’ in antiquity.For arguments against,see Williams (1996) and King(2003). Forarguments in favour,see the work of, inter alia,April DeConick and BirgerPearson. Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 83

In this essay, Iwill disrupt and subvert aconventional story – thatanascent Christian orthodoxy was ‘perverted’ by Gnostic hieratic specialists, who intro- duced into Christian teachings and practice aseries of innovations – innovations destinedtofail, if onlybecause more orthodoxChristians such as Irenaeus were successfullyabletoholdthe line. Rather,Iarguethat we must rethink who, of these figures,werethe true innovators and whose vision or version of what each of them considered proper Christian practice and belief wasultimatelylost.

2. Sorting behaviours,not groups

Second-century Rome presented adiverse, fissiparous religious landscapeof Christians – surprisingly difficult to identify as cohesive groups or communities, but easiertosee as independent,itinerant individuals with followings, patrons, and sometimes confrontational or unsuccessful relationships with moresettled ‘communities’ of Christian believers.¹² Thus we might start by thinkingdifferent- ly about the accuracy of group designations such as ‘Valentinians’ or ‘Carpocra- tians’.These group designations,inreality,had little true meaning. Forexample, both Irenaeus and Tertullian take pains to note thatValentinians all practised and believed slightlydifferent things; indeed, Irenaeus states that Valentinians often felt free to disagree with Valentinus himself (haer. 1.11–12).¹³ Giventhis perceiveddiversity, it is fair to ask to what degreeValentinians identified them- selveswithin the group or community of ‘Valentinians’.While it is possiblethat such perceiveddiversity was an attempt to undermine astrong, emic sense of group cohesion, Iwill follow Irenaeus’ own lead by starting our investigations with accounts of individual innovators rather than with groups.¹⁴

 Imean ‘communities’ here in the loosest possible sense: Christians involved in expressing their beliefs and maintaining their practiceswithin the contextofahouse assembly,private commercial space, ‘school’ or household, balancingtheir Christian identity with amultiplicity of other social roles, of which Christian adherencemight be the least stable or dominant.For a recent dismissal of the idea that Christiansmet solelywithin the domain of ahouse assembly, see Adams (2013). On Christian identity and the problem of assuming ‘community’,albeit for a slightlylater era, see Rebillard(2009) and Rebillard(2012).  Indeed, this diversity is manifest from the writings scholars conventionallylabel ‘Valentini- an’ and their division into ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ branches (Thomassen 2006;Markschies 1997), as wellasfromthe extant fragments of Valentinus’swriting, which bear no theological similarity to the system that Irenaeus lays out in Adv.Haer. 1.  Thereisamarked shift through time to movefromdescribingindividual ‘heretics’ (as in the writings of Irenaeus) to groups,asinHippolytus’ Refutation of AllHeresies. Onlyrarelydoes Hip- polytus refer to individual ‘heretics’,such as Colorbasus at haer.4.13orJustinus at 5.18. By the 84 Nicola Denzey Lewis

These hieratic specialists, as Irenaeus paints them, share certain seminal similarities in their practice, if not consistentlyintheirbeliefs. The broad out- lines of praxiscan be defined along six specific areas of expertise: 1. Textual production and circulation, building on techniquesofexegesis, allegorical readings,and harmonisation/explanation of scripture. 2. Christian ritual innovation, particularlyinthe area of baptism and Eucha- rist. 3. Prophecyand oracular utterances. 4. Practicesrelated to healing,includingmiracles, spells, and exorcism. 5. Education of groups or individuals in forms of esoteric knowledge,particu- larlyeschatology,numerology,and cosmology. 6. Social innovation that is, providing areas and opportunities for social changeorgrowth for disadvantagedgroups or classes.

Within each of these categories, Irenaeus frequentlydepicts individual hieratic specialistsaspushing the margins of acceptable behaviour to the point of ab- surdity or obscenity (witness, for example, the profligatereligio-sexual practices of Carpocrates at haer. 1.25.4). My intuition is that Irenaeus,inthese character sketches, aimed not at conveying accurate historical information but rather at satire through hyperbole and outright slander,inthe style of his Second Soph- istic contemporaries. Nevertheless,acareful and perhaps discerningre-evalua- tion of these characters can separate hyperbolic description from aset of essen- tial practiceswhich frame them; in the case of Carpocrates,for example, amore sober framing might place him within the ambit of religious hieratic specialists who practisedritual innovations that mayhaveinvolvedbehaving (or having his studentsbehave) in ways thatchallenged the social status quo. But let us consider each one of these categories in more detail.

2.1. Textualproduction and circulation

This practice depended upon literacy and patronage,thus locating these Gnostic hieratic specialists within acertain social class: most probablymembers of sub- elite groups who usedtheirliteracy skills in order to reinforce their own social

fourth century,heretics areidentified in heresiological and legal material exclusively by group – Ophites, Naassenes,Borborites, Eunomians –,evengroups such as the Hydroparastatae or Tas- codrogitae (‘Nose pickers’)who almost certainlynever existed. See CTh 16.5.65.2; Flower(2013, 184). Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 85 capital.¹⁵ Someofthese so-called Gnostics produced our earliest works of Chris- tian exegesis – notably, the ValentinianscholarHeracleon’sexegesis of the Gos- pel of John.¹⁶ That Irenaeus had access to much of this type of work in its written form is beyond doubt; what unfortunatelyremains opaque is: how.Did these Gnostic hieratic specialists have,and travel with, libraries?What facilities werethere for the copyingand dissemination of these documents?Under what circumstances, and in what capacity,does Irenaeus encounter ‘Gnostic’ treatises? To take astep back from Irenaeus into the world of extant second-century Christian writings, it is clear that texts,and the production of texts,mattered. In particular, allegoricalreadings of scripture werecommon exercises thatgen- eratedconsiderable controversy.¹⁷ Indeed, an overarchinggoal of Adv. Haer. is an attempt to undo perceivedinterpretative damagewrought by those ‘Gnostics’ whom Irenaeus despises and calls “evil interpreters”, ἐξηγηταὶ κακοὶ τῶνκαλῶς εἰρημένων γινόμενοι (haer., praef. 1), in pages after pageofelaborate refutation through proof-texting and counter-exegesis.¹⁸ The number and quality of details that Irenaeus provides on the more hieratic (viz., ritual) activities of our specialists pales in comparison with what he tells us of the textual worlds they create. In this way, both Adv. Haer. specifically, and heresiologicalliterature generally, was very much part of the strenuous textual production and circulation that characterised, even dominated, one stratum of second-centuryChristian activity: identity and authority werebrokered through alargely contentious, competitive environment of textual production, includingthe interpretation, and indeedthe creation, of the very category ‘scripture’.¹⁹

 The term ‘textual producers’ derivesfrommodern work in Cultural Studies,particularlythe seminal work of the French theorist Michel de Certeau(1925–86), who writes of the tension between readers and textual producers to contain and direct possession of atextand to control its meaning(e.g. [1984]). Thoughtfulworkhas been done recentlyontextual producers in the high Empire. See, for astart,Stowers (2011, 35–56).  Forareconstruction of the textand commentary,see Pagels (1989).  On the problem of allegory for Irenaeus,see Perkins (1976,195).Moregenerallyonthe de- ployment of allegorical exegesis in the second century,see Struck (2004,179).  Perkins (1976); Ayres(2015,155ff.). Moregenerally, see Young(1997, 49–76).  On the formation of the concept of ‘scripture’ and ‘canon’ in Irenaeus,see Reed (2002). 86 NicolaDenzey Lewis

2.2. Christian hieratic ritualinnovations

Here, let me emphasise that ‘innovation’ maybeamisleading term, since it im- plies crafting something new to replaceorimproveonsomething old. Rather, Christian rituals wereactively in development and there appears to have been no consensus on how rites such as baptism weretobeperformed and what they signified.²⁰ On that level, at least,all Christian ritual production constituted innovation. Thisisaneasypoint to forgetifwereadIrenaeus without duesus- picion. As Irenaeus presents them, all ‘Gnostic’ Christian rituals, likeall ‘Gnostic’ exegesis, constituteperversions. Forinstance, he criticises followers of Valenti- nus for their practice of adouble baptism – one of water and one of the spirit or fire (haer. 1.21.1). But double baptisms were not unique to Valentinians and indeedhaveaprecedent in the gospels, which distinguish between a ‘first’ baptism in water and asecond in fire or the HolySpirit.²¹ Even among followers of Valentinus, there was apparentlyconsiderable disagreement over what constituted adouble baptism – it might mean asingle baptism with twolevels of meaning,one literal and one spiritual. It might mean abaptism with water followed by achrismationoranointing with oil, symbolising light or fire.²² TheValentini- an Gospel of Philip mentions five sacraments, includingbaptism, chrism, and two others which mayormay not have been related to baptism: apolytrosis and ‘Bridal Chamber’,bothofwhich are famouslyelusive.²³ The Eucharist appears alsotohavebeen celebrated in innovative ways by second-century Gnostic hieratic specialists. Irenaeus and Hippolytus both mention that Marcus ‘the Magus’ celebrated aEucharistic rite whereby asmall cha- lice, invested with the power of charis,was held up and poured into an empty largerone, causing the latter to overflow:

Pretendingtoconsecratecups mixed with wine, and protractingtogreat length the wordof invocation, [Marcus] contrivestogivethem apurple and reddish colour,sothat Charis,who is one of those that aresuperior to all things,should be thoughttodropher own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those whoare present should be led to rejoice to tasteofthat cup, in order that,bysodoing,the Charis,who is set forth by this magician, mayalso flow into them […][Marcus] himself produces another cup of much largersize than that which the deluded woman has consecrated, and pouringfromthe

 On baptism in the earlycenturies,see Ferguson (2009); Jensen (2011).  See Denzey Lewis (2013).  Again, the literature on ‘Gnostic’ ritual in general and Valentinian baptism in particular is substantial. Forastart,see Denzey (2009); Sévrin (1982);Pagels (1972).  GosPhil NHC II 3, 67,27–30.Studies of rituals in the Gospel of Philip include DeConick, (2001); Meeks (1974). Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 87

smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forwardbyhim- self […]hethen appears aworkerofwonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by whathas been obtainedfromit haer. 1.13.7,tr. Roberts and Rambaut [ANF 1]; cf. Hippol. haer. 6.35.

In the version recounted by Irenaeus,and later,Hippolytus, this story contains several interesting elements, and Iwill return to it presently. Fornow,however, we maycount it as aritual innovation which resembles aEucharist,but which involves not direct associations with the bodyand blood of Christ,but instead the descent of the femalehypostasis Charis which consecratesthe cup(s)bygiv- ing those who drink from it the ability to prophesy.

2.3. Prophecy and oracular utterances

Marcus ‘the Magus’,whose skills accordingtoIrenaeus included the ability to prophesy through his own spirit familiar (haer. 1.13.3), had the power to make prophets of others as well; in Book 1, Irenaeus recounts astory of how Marcus convinced wealthywomen to follow him by giving them the power and authority to prophesy.Flatteringthem at afeast,Marcus would offer verbal encourage- ment: “Behold Charis has descended upon thee”,Irenaeus has Marcus sayto these women, “Open thymouth and prophesy!” Thewoman in question, blush- ing,isatonce embarrassedand flattered: “Ihavenever at anytime prophesied”, she protests, “nor do Iknow how to prophesy!”

[…]then engaging, for the second time, in certain invocations,soastoastound his deluded victim, [Marcus] says to her, “Open thymouth, speak whatsoever occurs to thee, and thou shaltprophesy”.She then, vainlypuffed up and elatedbythese words,and greatlyexcited in soul by the expectation that it is herself whoistoprophesy,her heart beatingviolently [from emotion], reaches the requisite pitch of audacity,and idlyaswell as impudentlyut- ters some nonsense as it happens to occur to her,such as might be expectedfromone heat- ed by an empty spirit.[…]Henceforth she reckons herself aprophetess, and expresses her thanks to Marcus. haer.1.13.3, tr.ANF.

It is worth noting here the connection between women and prophecy, clearlya hotlycontested topic in the first centuries of Christianity. We see it most clearly in the case of Montanism, but prophecy was evidentlypractised by other women and/or became part of the allureofspecific (male) hieratic specialists. Irenaeus clearlylinks Marcus’slegitimising acts – in effect,giving hieratic agency to women – with his attractiveness and popularity.Inreturn for this gift of spiritual charisma,the women support Marcus financiallyor–what Irenaeus finds more 88 Nicola Denzey Lewis appalling – provide for him sexually(1.13.3). How far this represents an actual historical situation is an issue to which Ireturn later.

2.4. Miracles, healings, exorcisms, and other actsofritual power (i.e. ‘magic’)

Another form of hieratic ritual behaviour within Christian circles but one never considered sacramental, the performance of exorcisms and miracles – particu- larlymiraculous healing, as in the gospel narratives – had found audiences and practitioners since the earliest decades of the Christian movement.However, unlike baptism and Eucharist which werethe specialities of Irenaeus’‘heretics’, healing miracles and the expulsion of demons constituted ‘equal opportunity’ religious rites, disconnected from one particular religious group. Clearly, Ire- naeus uses the verb thaumaturgein to refer to some Gnostic hieratic specialists, though always as asecond-order category.Thus Marcus, “an adept in magical impostures”,isconsidered amiracle-worker by his followers (1.13.1), while the followers of Simon and Carpocrates, “who are said to perform miracles” (qui […]uirtutes operari dicuntur)(2.31.2; cf. 1.13;1.23), cannot in fact do so:²⁴

Forthey can neither confer sight on the blind, nor hearing on the deaf, nor chase away all sorts of demons—[none, indeed,] except those that aresent into others by themselves, if they can even do so much as this. Nor can they furnish effective remedies for those external accidents which mayoccur haer. 2.31.2; cf. 2.32.3,tr. ANF.

Techniques of exorcism and exorcistic healing perdured in Christian antiquity. As DavidFrankfurter notes,life in antiquity involved a “perpetual negotiation with arangeofancestral and landscapespirits”. ²⁵ Exorcism appeared to have been aparticular layspecialisation, continuingunder the radar of ecclesiastical sanctions.²⁶ Irenaeus intimates that these layspecialistsworked for afee, unlike those within the church who very frequently(saepissime)healed people without fee or reward(haer. 2.31.3). Giventhat Irenaeus recognised the power of exorcism and healing for building group adherence – that is, healing was apowerful tool for ‘conversion’ into Christian circles – it is hardlysurprising that he was both

 See Kelhoffer (1999).  See Frankfurter (2010,42).  On exorcism in Christian circles,see MacMullen (1984,21–29); for what Iconsider examples of Christian exorcisticspells (in Coptic and Greek), see PGM IV 86–87,1227–1264;XXXVI 275– 280; Suppl. Mag 84.All however areconsiderablylater than the second century. Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 89 troubled by,and likelydownplayed, the miraculous acts of Gnostic hieratic specialists. One further comment about magic is, however,inorder here. Gnostic hieratic specialists are consistentlysaid to be practitionersofmagic – most frequently, of lovespells or erotic magic – with their own demon familiars. The followers of Simon Magus, for example, “practise magical arts, casting spells and charms, exorcisms and incantations. They call themselves Paredri (‘familiars’)and Oneiro- pompi (‘dream-senders’)” (haer. 1.23.4). These innovators also practised dream- interpretation or advocatedthe practice of incubation to obtain dreams (1.23.4; cf. the followers of Carpocrates at 1.25.3). Both erotic magic and incubation practices werewidespread in the second century,making me disinclined to consider Irenaeus and otherheresiologists as merelyresorting to slander.The issue for Christians, apparently, was the involvement of demons, thus constructingboth incubation and magic as ‘demonic arts’ theoretically antithetical to Christian practice, although evidentlywidelyperformed.²⁷

2.5. Education/paedagogy

Not all intellectual activity involved the production and circulation of text.The social setting for textual production is frequentlyunderstood to have been rela- tivelyloose study-circles or ‘schools’.²⁸ However,Einar Thomassen has recently urgedustoconsider the misleading associations of words such as ‘circle’ or ‘school’.²⁹ Consequently, Ipropose here adifferent model that better reflects our second-century sources, particularly Adv. Haer.,accordingtowhich religious specialist ‘tutors’ travelled from place to place (both between cities and within individual cities) and werehired privatelytowork one-to-one with aclient.³⁰

 Anew class of books consider the social role(s) of magicians from aperspective useful to those of us whodo‘livedreligion’;see, inter alia,Dickie (2001); Frankfurter (2002).For Christian magic, see Meyer and Smith (1999).  The term is Irenaeus’ own, but we mayinterpret this moreliterallythan he. It maybe, too, that he deliberatelyfavoured ‘school’ over ekklesia. On whether it is proper to think of the Val- entinians as a ‘school’,see the seminal essayofMarkschies (1997).  Thomassenisnuancinghis work represented in, for instance, Thomassen (2006) into abold- er dismissal of the very idea of Valentinianism as a ‘school’:see Thomassen (forthcoming).  Although Irenaeus providesscant biographical details,itisclear that manysecond-century ‘Gnostic’ hieratic specialists traveled. Valentinushailed fromAlexandria and taught in Rome; Marcion moved from Pontus to Rome; Cerdo, astudent of Simon in Samaria, likewise travelled to Rome to teach(haer. 1.27.1). Marcellina tooled agroup in Rome, although it was not her native 90 Nicola Denzey Lewis

This model – rather than the elusive ‘house church’–seems to have characterised manyChristian intellectual exchanges, particularlythose whose adherents wereprimarilyupwardly-aspiring freedmen, as many ‘Gnostics’ appear to have been. The best evidence for the importance of the teacher-disciple model among second-century Christians remains Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora,arare example of what must have been afairlycommon epistolary exchange.³¹ Most of our other later extant epistles are either pseudepigraphic (e.g., Letter of Peter to Phi- lip)or, like 1Clement or the letters of Polycarp, weresent to communities.³² Ptole- my,aValentinianChristian, indicates that he has previouslymet with Floraand will meet with her again; in the meantime, his letter to her addresses theological questions which she has posed. There is no indication that Floraispart of a school, so the relationship seems to be that of aprivateinstructor to aprivate student. Isuspect more work remains to be done in fleshing out the nature of teacher- disciple relationships in the high Empire among members of the freedman class. These relationships mayhavebeen enduring: accordingtoTertullian, complete Valentinianinstruction could lastaslong as five years, and involved rigorous self-discipline (Adv. Valent. 1). He adds that those who receivedprivateinstruc- tion were bound by aduty of silence not to disclose the contents of these teach- ingstonon-initiates(ibid.). Similarly, in arare sketch of an individual Gnostic hieratic specialist,named Justinus, Hippolytus notes that Justinus “rejected the scriptures” but reinforced his instruction with mysterious booksof‘Greek fa- bles’,insistingthathis followers swear oathsofsecrecy (Haer.5.18). What was the content of such teachings? It seems to me, at least,that they werenot primarilyexegetical, and that they provided different formsofesoteric information. Iamstruck, for instance,bythe tremendous amount of numerolog- ical material in both Adv. Haer. and Hippolytus’s Refutatio. Forwhatever reason, numerology appeared to have been in vogueinthat century,matched only, perhaps,byaninterest in astrological and cosmologicalinformation. Giventhe em-

city (1.25.6). Marcus taught in the Rhône Valley (1.13.7), but presumablylearned his trade in Rome.  Ptolemy, Letter to Flora [ap. Epiph. haer.33.3 – 7]. The critical edition is Quispel (1966).  Another example from Nag Hammadi would be the Treatise on the Resurrection (NHC I, 4), asecond-century (?) letter from an unnamed teacher to an otherwise unknownprivatestudent, Rheginos,onthe natureofthe resurrection. It begins with notingthat manyare anxious to learn material such as the letter-writer is about to disclose;atthe end of the letter,the letter-writer suggests that Rheginos not be “jealous of anyone of your number whoisabletohelp” with further insights. Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 91 phasis on the ‘secret’ nature of this material, it is possible thatmuch of this instruction was oral rather than textual. It is likelythat,despite the persistent use of the term ‘mysteries’ to refer to the content of oral teachingsfrom itinerant specialists to their disciples, the chief paedagogical model they employed little resembled ‘mystery religions’ but rather,privateinstruction within ahousehold. It maywellbethat this sort of privateinstruction – associated with the upper classes, whose households employed tutors and paedagogi to educatetheir children – brought significant social capital for members of asocially aspiring freedman class, much in the same waythat employing anannyorprivatetutor todaycarries with it asort of bour- geois prestige.Indeed, this ‘privateeducation’ model, by which ateacher prom- ises powerful, secret information to be disclosed, mayhavebeen particularlyat- tractive to women, who are consistentlyidentified as the main audience for Gnostic hieratic specialists.

2.6. Socialinnovation

One area at which so-called heretics excelled was in upsettingthe status-quo, particularlywhen it came to overturning social conventions regardingthe place of disenfranchised people.³³ Tertullian wonders at the egalitarianism of Valentiniancommunities: pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant; etiam ethnicisisuperuenerint, “they all have access equally, they all listen equally, they all pray equally – even pagans if they happen to come” (De praescr. haer. 41.2). He also inveighs against theirloose ecclesiastical hierarchy: Itaque alius hodie episcopus,crasalius; hodiediaconus qui cras lector; hodiepresbyter qui cras laicus. Nam et laicis sacerdotalia munerainiungunt, “Todayone man is bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is adeacon today, tomorrow is areader;the one who is apriest is alayman tomorrow.For even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood” (41.8). In Marcus’ community,similarly, those who might speak, or prophesy,atabanquet wereselectedbydraw- ing lots (Iren. haer.1.13.4). Just as pagans or lay-people might be selectedashierophants,women, too, might serveasbishopsamong Valentinians – something that Tertullian clearly

 The point was made long agobyPagels (1979a), particularlyinrelation to women. Since then, the roleofwomen in so-called Gnostic communitieshas receivedits shareofscholarlyat- tention, though the focus is moreoften on doctrinal issues rather than social formation. See King(1988); D’Angelo and Kraemer (1999). 92 Nicola Denzey Lewis found abhorrent (De praescr.haer.41.5). Iwill have more to saypresentlyabout the ‘gendertroubles’ arising from women’sactive participation. These categories are not discrete – for example, thoseconsidered to be prac- tising magic (and there are manyinIrenaeus’ text) werepresumablyengagingin both textual production (the writing of spells or curses) and, for example, ritual innovation. We might also note that one other second-century freelancerwho does not fall under the unsteadyrubric ‘Gnostic’,namely Marcion (haer. 1.27), was equallyengaged in activities that fall into these categories. Indeed, Mar- cion’schief blasphemy, accordingtoIrenaeus,was that he mutilated the scriptures,not merelythrough erroneous interpretation, but through altering extant Christian authoritative writings(namely the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul) to suit his ownunderstandingofChristian doctrine. As such, Marcion provides akey example of atextual producer whose main specialisation as afree- lancer was literary rather thanhieratic. Within the pages of Adv. Haer.,the most frequently-encountered dimension of second-century Gnostic hieratic specialistsis–at least in contemporary literature – not their ritual or hierophantic activities, but their status as privatetutors and textual producers.Much of our information on other named individuals in the sourcematerial – Basilides (1.24), Saturnilus (1.24), Cerdo (1.27), Menander (1.23.5), Cerinthus (1.26.1), and Colorbasus (1.12),not to be exhaustive – concerns what they taught,rather thanwhat they did as ritual practitioners. Irenaeus also neglects to tell us, in all these cases, wherethese individuals came from and whom they taught.Itmight be, then, that the dominant model of second-century specialist or freelancer wasprimarilythat of an itinerant scholar whose chief social role was to movearound conducting privatestudy courses in various types of textually-based knowledge.³⁴ Alternatively,Irenaeus’ scantbiographical details of the menand women he profiles – and in particular, his omission of information as to their hieratic activities and skills – mean that,although most of these specialists exercised amore robust set of skills includingabundle of ritual techniques, such as compoundinglove-philtres, performing baptisms or exorcisms,what reallybothered Irenaeus was not their hieratic activities but their prolific textual production and dissemination of knowledge.Itbothered him, Isuspect, becausehewas one of them. In other words, Isuggest that Ire- naeus wrote Adv. Haer. not from the perspective of amemberofthe Church writ large (which did not yetexist), but from the perspective of another private entrepreneurial textual producer. Adv. Haer.,seen in this light,iscombative

 On the challengesfacedbyitinerant religious specialists in Rome, see Esther Eidinow’scontribution to this volume (Chapter 10). Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 93 and antagonistic prodomo: Irenaeus piles up heaps of material he claims to find utterlyfalse and erroneous because he is competing in amarket-place. His success,evenhis livelihood, in all likelihood depended on displaying his counter- knowledge,his expertise in techniques of exegesisand allegorical interpretation (or,asmay be, their folly), his exposure of what he clearlysaw as so much hot air.Hedid this, Iwould urge,not trulyonbehalf of the Church, but on his own. Since Irenaeus has been so consistentlyperceivedasanagent of the Great Church, some will have difficulties with this last claim. In order to reinforce my argument and place it on abroader footing,Inow turn brieflytoacase- studyofthe onlyfigure concerning whom Irenaeus does provide some additional information relevant to the theme of ‘livedreligion’,namely Marcus the ‘Magus’.

3. Marcus, a ‘Gnostic hieratic specialist’

Irenaeus’ portrait of Marcus and the Marcosians is the most substantial of all his heresiological portraits in Adv. Haer.,comprisingalarge proportion of Book 1 (haer. 1.13–22).Typically, it is Marcus’ teachings – from cosmology to numerology – thatmostinfuriate Irenaeus; he takes pains to refute them or to depict them as plainlyridiculous (1.14– 16). Marcus’ work as ascriptural exegete re- ceivesextensive attention (1.18 – 19). In the present context,however,itissignif- icant that Irenaeus portraysMarcus aboveall as ahieratic specialist,celebrating afalse and ridiculous Eucharist with his overflowing magic cups (1.13). Irenaeus is also incensed by Marcus’serotic attraction:heaccuses him of making lovepo- tions (1.13), and there can be little doubt that Marcus’swillingness to perform an Eucharist with women partners, as well as his enablingofwomen prophetesses, commanded not just women’sloyalty but theiramorous attachment. One story about Marcus is of particularinterest here. Adeacon from Asia Minor invited Marcus to stayinhis house.His beautifulwife promptlyfell in lovewith Marcus and actuallyabandoned her husband to travel with him, appa- rentlyfor some period of time. Irenaeus is of the opinion that Marcus must have employed erotic magic to win the woman over,aploy which he claims was typ- ical of Marcus’s modus operandi. Irenaeus reports that it took some work to bring back the wife over to the true Church of God (his expression), after which she devoted the rest of her sorry life “weepingand lamentingoverthe defilement which she receivedfrom this magician” (haer.1.13.5). There is much to sayabout this vignette. Letusstart with the story as it stands. It is easy to see how Marcus’stechniques attracted women adherents: he imparted them arare agency and voice, which must have been atremendous- ly powerful incentive to join him and build amovement.Asfor the charge that it 94 Nicola Denzey Lewis was through erotic magic thatMarcus actuallywielded his influence, relatively recent work in the sociologyofmagic suggests that women usedthe idea of erotic magic as asort of cover for theirsexual promiscuity,orevenjust falling in love with someone who was not their husband.³⁵ Theclaim ‘Iwas enchanted’ acts to protect the honour of the adulterous woman, particularlyinacase like this, wherethe woman returns and is compelled to do public (?) penance for her actions. Magic acts here to reduce or displace the active agencyofthe woman, as in the famous ‘the devil made me do it’ defence.³⁶ There is however reason to be suspicious of Irenaeus’ narrative,which gives the impression of acautionary tale with little basisinfact,lacking as it does all mention of specific names and places.One thinks immediatelyofTheActs of Paul and Thecla,inwhich the betrothed heroine is lured away from her home and her impendingmarriagetofollow Paul. Paul, for his part,isthrown out of Iconium by ahost of angry men, who accuse the apostle of bewitching their women. To me at least,the parallel between ‘Paul, the itinerant teacher who lures away women by magic’ (even though the women insist that they are drawntohis teachingsoftheir ownvolition) and ‘Marcus,the itinerant teacher who lures away women by magic’ (even though the women protest that their reasons for joining them have to do with the agency and voice that Marcus gives them) is simplytoo good to be true.³⁷

4. New and old Paulinism(s): Rethinking hieratic innovation among Christian specialists

Irenaeus’ characterisation of Marcus and its relation to stereotyped narrativesof women’sagencyinearlyChristian circles,includingPaulinthe Acts of Paul and

 The argument,inaslightlydifferent form (that erotic magic was directedbyyoungmen at young women guarded within their households)was first proposed by Winkler (1990): women in lovewere “considerably morewatched and guarded and disciplined than their brothers, and presumably had less access to male experts with their books and the money for hiringthem”. The theory was accepted by Graf (1998) and further nuanced by Dickie (2000).  The phrase first appears in the English vernacular,atleast in print,inArthur Miller’s The Crucible (1952) – an excellent example of women’sagencybeingreduced by resorttothe excuse of external compulsion.  It is perhaps not entirelycoincidental that Tertullian claims that the author of the Acts of Paul and Thecla was adeacon from Asia Minor caught red-handed producingthe legend, out of lovefor Paul (De Bapt. 17.5). The terminus ante quem for the Acts of Paul and Thecla is ±190 CE, thus around the probable dateofthe composition of Adv. Haer. Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 95

Thecla,remindsusofsomething fairlyobviousthat we have been neglecting: that in the second century,wehaveevidence for an active and protracted ‘battle for Paul’.³⁸ If we keep this in mind, we might read Irenaeus’ accounts of Valen- tinian teachers – particularlyMarcus – with aslightlydifferent eye: even in Ire- naeus’ highlynegative characterisation, Marcus appears to be astandard,even faithful, continuator of Paul. Let us consider the social situation in 1Corinthians,i.e.mid-first-centuryCE Corinth. From that letter,welearn something of the community of Christ devo- tees there.³⁹ It is of mixed social status, with ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ uncomfort- ablysharing fellowship together.One issue thatarisesiswhether or not aChris- tian can eat meat sacrificedtoidols, something Paul does not actively ban (1Cor 8), although Irenaeus usesthe practice as away of condemning ‘heretics’, includingall Valentinians (haer. 1.6.3; cf. 1.24.5 on the followers of Basilidesand Saturnilus eating meat sacrificed to idols; 1.26.3onthe Nicolaitans doing the same; 1.28.2 on the Carpocratians). The community shares meals (1Cor 11:17– 33)(cf. Marcus’sfeasts, Iren. haer. 1.13.4)and, more to the point,engages in prophecy – something which apparentlyinvolvedwomen, albeit somewhat con- troversially. Paul, though striving to put prophetic women in their place, does not completelyexclude women from the practice (1Cor 11;14). Paul’sletters had not yetreachedthe status of ‘scripture’ by the time that Irenaeus was writing acentury later, but it is clear that Irenaeus knows of them. He cites 1 and 2Corinthians in Adv. Haer.,along with Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,and the Pastoral Epistles.⁴⁰ Al- though he never grants toomuch authority to the man he simplycalls ‘the apostle’,attimes Irenaeus quotes from him at length to refute Valentiniandoctrines, focusing particularlyon1Cor 15:50, “flesh cannot inherit the kingdom”. At this point,wemay pause and ask whyIrenaeus is so focused on Marcus. Idetecthere amajor battle over Paul – not so much Paul’sletters as Pauline communal and ritual practice.Inshort, every element of Marcus’sritual activity, as Irenaeus describes them, has precedent in the ritual and social livesofPau- line Corinthians. Thisisnot to saythat there wasadirect line of continuity between Paul’sCorinthian Christ-followers and thoseofMarcus,but that Marcus most likelyconsidered himself to be acting perfectlyinkeepingwith Paul’s

 The theory that Paul became, in the secondcentury,the apostolus haereticorum was first proposed around the turn of the twentieth century by e.g. Adolf vonHarnack(1964 [1909], 382– 386) but has sincebeen discredited (Lindemann1979; Dassmann 1979;White2011).  The best studyremains Meeks (2003).  1Cor in Adv. Haer (1:3); 2Cor in Adv. Haer (3:7); Gal (3:22); Ephes (5:2); Phil (4:18); Col (1:3) 1Thess (5:6); 2Thess (5:25). On Irenaeus’ use of the Pastoral Epistles,see White(2011). 96 NicolaDenzey Lewis teachings and community-formation. It is perhaps not surprising,then, thatVal- entinians traced their spiritual or apostolic lineagebacktoTheudas, who was a disciple of Paul (Clem. Al. Strom.7.17; cf. Letter to Flora 1). If it is the case that Marcus sawhimself as aPauline Christian and strove to educateand consecrate others into Pauline Christianity,wemight need to re-consider whether it is accurate to call him, or otherValentinians, ‘Gnostic hieratic innovators’ or ‘entrepre- neurs’.They advocatedaform of Christian ‘livedreligion’ that was alreadyacen- tury old.

5. Rethinking Irenaeus

To conclude, Isuggest that we turn an old paradigm on its head: rather than perceiving Marcus as the ‘heretic’ who took libertieswith Paul, we might consider Irenaeus as the true innovator here. That would be ironic indeed, giventhat Irenaeus is widelyacknowledgedasthe first member of anascent orthodoxy to mention an earlyform of the doctrine of apostolic succession at Rome (haer. 3.3.3). Yetnoone, to my knowledge,has ventured to ask whereIrenaeus fits in this model of apostolic succession, or whyitwas trulyimportant to him.⁴¹ He was not himself aRoman, and did not hold anyecclesiastical office in Rome.There is no indication that he had anydirect connection with Roman Christians. AccordingtoEusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.5), he was a ‘auditor’ of Polycarp from Smyrna, but Irenaeus himself – perhaps tellingly – does not layout his own pedigree anywhereinAdv. Haer.⁴² Were such apedigree important,one can be sure that he would have told us. Eusebius also tells us that Irenaeus wasdes- patched to Rome in 177CEwith aletter for the bishop, Eleuterus,onthe suffering of the Christians at Lugdunum in Gallia Lugdunensis under Marcus Aurelius,but then, when the Christians weremartyred, he returned to become bishop in place of Pothinus,who had been killed in the massacre (Hist. eccl. 5.4.1). If so, as

 Steenberg(2012)does note in passingthat Irenaeus conveyedapostolic teaching rather than apostolic succession,asisusuallypresumed. In other words, Irenaeus faithfullytransmitted the theology he had learned from Polycarp. Steenberghowever also believes that the reasonwhy Irenaeus’ theology was rarely espoused and transmitted in ‘orthodox’ or Catholic tradition is that its proponents alreadyagreed with him and thus had no reason to cite him by name. How- ever,Isee no compelling reason to imagine that Irenaeus’ theology represented the dominant understanding of ‘the’ Christian faith in the scond century.Steenbergrightlyaccepts that the ‘Great Church’ did not yetexist in Irenaeus’ day, yetheconsistentlyuses the term ‘perversions’ to characterise those forms of Christian practice that Irenaeus denounces.  At haer.3.3.4 he notes, in his discussion of apostolic succession, onlythat he sawPolycarp when he himself was young, not that he studied under him. Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 97

Steenbergnotes (2012,202), he must have been in Rome at the same time as Jus- tin. Although SteenbergseesJustin’sinfluenceinIrenaeus’ writing,itiscurious that Irenaeus does not mention him as one of the great ‘guiding lights’ of apostolic teaching.IfIrenaeus werenot the onlyrepresentative of aTrue Doctrine in Rome, one gets no sense of this from Adv. Haer.,onlyofIrenaeus’ overriding con- tempt for Gnostichieratic specialists across the Empire, from Simon in Samaria to Marcus’ followers,who had, so he reports, penetrated the Rhône valley by the middle of the second century (haer. 1.13.7). But there is evidence that Irenaeus,perhaps like Marcus,saw himself as a true continuatorofPaul. The very title of Adversus Haereses, Ἔλεγχος καὶἀνα- τροπὴ τῆςψευδωνύμου γνώσεως,(the Refutation and Overthrow of What is Falsely Called Knowledge), invokes 1Tim 6:20, τῆςψευδωνύμου γνώσεως,and Irenaeus invokes Pauline terminology throughout the tractate.⁴³ Yetmembership of aPauline community was not apre-requisite for citing Paul. Andevenifhe wereamember of such agroup, it was certainlynot identical with asupposed ‘Great Church’ in whose name he wrote. Irenaeus himself participated in Chris- tian theological disputes and knowledge-production as atextual producer rather than as abishop (whatever that meantinthe second century) or as someone concerned with the direction and oversight of acommunity of Christians.⁴⁴ Could it be, then, thatwehaveconsistentlyoverstated his pastoralrole, while insisting upon seeing him as adominant and driving voice of a ‘Great Church’?⁴⁵ It is perhaps instructivethat, for all the value thatweplace on Adv. Haer. today, it is one of onlytwo of Irenaeus’ works to have survivedantiquity,nor is it well-attested.⁴⁶ In antiquity,atany rate, Irenaeus’ legacywas modest:

 The title is missingfromour Greek manuscript of Adv. Haer.,but is givenbyEusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.7.1). As Benjamin Whitehas pointed out,this is the sole attestation in extant second-century literatureofthe phrase used in 1Tim 6:20;the next known occurrence is Clem. Alex. Strom.2.11; 3.18 ‒ but onlyasadirect citation of 1Tim 6:20 (White 2011, 126). On Pauline citations in Adv. Haer.,see Dassman (1979,296–7); Norris (1990); Balás (1992).  Parvis (2012b) observes that Irenaeus understood ‘bishop’ (episkopos)atthis time as “above all ateacher,apubliclyaccredited witness to the teachingofthe apostles”.Ifind his explanation both helpful and atingeapologetic: “It is easy for us to misunderstand that and to readhim as if he were speakingofauthority and some kind of juridical power. He is not” (Parvis 2012b, 14). It seems to me that his authority as ‘bishop’ is somethingasserted much later by Eusebius rather than aclaim by Irenaeus himself.  IlovePaulParvis’ wry comment concerning Irenaeus’ rhetorical style: “Therewas aBaptist friend of the familywho used to writeinthe margin of his sermon notes, ‘Weak point.Shout like hell’.Does Irenaeus ever do that?” (Parvis 2012a, 198).  Foster and Parvis (2012,xi). We have no completeGreek manuscripts.Anextensive fragment of apapyrus rollfromOxyrhynchus (POxy 405), datedc.200 CE, contains portions of Book 98 Nicola Denzey Lewis

[T]hereisnogreat or obvious Irenaean history in the decades and generations followinghis death. The man whose theological expression is takentodaybymanyasakind of landmark of the second century,who is described, rightly, as “one of the most importanttheologians in the period beforethe Council of Nicaea”,isnot remembered, not discussed, by his peers and successors – at least,not in theological terms […].⁴⁷

As Steenbergnotes,Irenaeus’ lasting utilitywas not as atheologian, or as arep- resentative of some True Doctrine, but as apolemicist.⁴⁸ Hiswork of exclusion and his gift for satire served perfectly the needs of adeveloping orthodoxy.

6. Conclusion

Ihaveendeavoured here to ask what type of ‘livedreligious experience’ individuals such as Marcus offered theirclients. In particular, Ihaveasked two questions of the material:a)what exactlycounted as ‘innovation’ in the entrepreneurial environment of the highEmpire? And b) in acontext evidentlyobsessed with issues of continuity,succession, and legitimacy,how did these Gnostic hieratic specialistsestablish theirauthority?Onthe basis of their own talents?Ordid Ire- naeus substitute theirclaims to apostolic connections with afalse genealogyof heresy,tracing them back to the ‘arch-heretic’ Simon Magus? At one level, we maysay,Irenaeus’ success has lain in convincing generations of Church historians that in the second century there was alreadyone True Church thatwas nevertheless imperilled by the attacks of ‘heretics’–the people Iterm ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’.But if this picture is false, what con- clusions are we to draw?Ifthere was indeedasyet no ‘Great Church’,there cannot have been asystem in place that provided secure authority for theological claims. If, as everyone agrees, the genealogyfrom Simon Magus is afabrication, these hieratic specialists must trulyhavebeen self-authorising.Conversely, we need to ask who, then, was authorising Irenaeus?Mysuggestion here is thatIre-

3.9.2 – 3, which suggests that Adv. Haer. made its waytoEgypt shortlyafter its composition, most likelyduringIrenaeus’ own lifetime.Thereisalso afourth-century papyrus now in Jena that contains the Greek textofBk5.3.2–13.1.Books 4and 5are also extant in Armenian, along with fragments of other parts of the work. Beyond its (extensive)use by Hippolytus and Epiphanius(who merely plagiarise it,without creditingIrenaeus or drawing explicitlyonhis authority), it does not have arobust Nachleben until the modern era. See Gamble (1995,80–81); Foster and Parvis (2012a). Parvis (2012a) provides afascinatingaccountofthe creation of moderncritical editions of Irenaeus and the ecclesiological wranglingsthat lie behind them.  Steenberg(2012, 199).  Steenberg(2012, 199). Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 99 naeus was on the margins of merelyinchoate systems of ecclesiastical transmis- sion (which he himself never articulatesinthis work). He built his own authority upon the very techniquesheworks so hard to expose and condemn: deploying proof-texts and exegesis, philosophical argument,radical polemic, down-right fabrications.Inother words, Irenaeus plungedwhole-heartedlyinto abattle of the books.⁴⁹ We can onlyimagine what Marcus ‘the Magus’ might have thought of all this – assuming that Irenaeus was important in his world at all. Though Irenaeus depicts him as adangerous innovator,itisbynomeans impossible that Marcus clovetothe Pauline form of Christian worship. If therewas areli- gious innovator here, it was Irenaeus himself, with his pageafter pageof words, spilling out into the broad, open landscape of late second-centuryRome.

References

Adams, Edward. 2013. The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost exclusivelyHouses? London: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury. Ayres, Lewis. 2015. “Irenaeus vs. the Valentinians: Toward aRethinking of Patristic Exegetical Origins.” Journal of EarlyChristian Studies 23/2: 153–187. Balás, David. 1992. “The Useand Interpretation of Paul in Irenaeus’ FiveBooks Adversus Haereses.” Second Century 9: 27–39. D’Angelo, MaryRose and RossKraemer,eds. 1999. Women and Christian Origins. New York: Oxford. Dassman, Ernst. 1979. Der Stachel im Fleisch: Paulus in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Irenaüs. Münster:Aschendorff. De Certeau, Michel. 1984. The PracticeofEverydayLife. Tr.Stephen Rendell. Berkeley: UniversityofCalifornia Press. Originally publ. as L’invention du quotidien, 1: artsde faire (Paris:Union Générale d’Édition, 1980; new ed. by Luce Giard, Paris: Gallimard, 1990). DeConick, April D. 2001. “The True Mysteries: Sacramentalism in the Gospel of Philip.” Vigiliae Christianae 55: 225–261. Denzey Lewis, Nicola. 2013. “The Problem of Bad Baptisms: Unclean Spirits, Exorcism, and the Unseen in Second-Century Christianity.” In Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies in Honor of Elaine Pagels. Edited by LanceJenott, NicolaDenzey Lewis,Philippa Townsend and Eduard Iricinschi, 187–203. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

 Even if we were inclined to grant Irenaeus his succession of apostolic teachinggoing back to Polycarp and (traditionallyand problematically) the Gospel of John, we mayremember that Val- entinus,Irenaeus’ chief opponent in Adv. Haer.,traced his own lineage through Theudas and back to Paul. Manycould, and did, playthe apostolic succession-game, and Irenaeus had no moreclaim to authenticity through Polycarp than Valentinus did at this point in the development of Christianity. 100 NicolaDenzey Lewis

Denzey,Nicola. 2009. “Apolutrosis as Ritual and Sacrament: Determining aRitual Contextfor Death in second-centuryValentinianism.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17/4: 525–561. Dickie, Matthew.2000. “Who Practised Love-Magic in Classical Antiquityand in the Late Roman World?” Classical Quarterly 50.2: 563–583. Dickie, Matthew.2001. Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge. Dunning, Benjamin. 2009. “Virgin Earth,VirginBirth: Creation, Sexual Difference, and Recapitulation in Irenaeus of Lyons.” Journal of Religion 89.1: 57–88. Ferguson, Everett. 2009. Baptisminthe Early Church:History,Theology, and Liturgy in the FirstFive Centuries. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Flower,Richard. 2013. “The Insanity of the Heretics must be Restrained: Heresiology in the Theodosian Code.” In Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman EmpireinLateAntiquity. EditedbyChristopher Kelly, 172–194. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Frankfurter, David. 2002. “DynamicsofRitual Expertise in Antiquityand Beyond: Toward a new Taxonomy of ‘Magicians’.” In Magic and Ritual in the AncientWorld,edited by Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki, 159–178. Leiden: Brill. Frankfurter, David. 2010. “Wherethe Spirits Dwell: Possession,Christianization, and Saints’ Shrines in Late Antiquity.” HarvardTheological Review 103: 27–406. Gamble, Harry. 1995. Books and Readers in the Early Church:AHistory of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press. Graf, Fritz. 1998. Magic in the AncientWorld. Tr.Franklin Philip.Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress. Originally publ. as La magie dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine (Paris: PressesUniversitaires de France, 1994). Grant, RobertM.1949. “Irenaeus and Hellenistic Culture.” Harvard Theological Review 42: 41–51. Harnack, Adolf von. 1964 [1909]. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Vol. 1. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Holsinger-Friesen, Thomas.2009. Irenaeus and Genesis: AStudyofCompetition in Early Christian Hermeneutics. Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Irenaeus of Lyons.1985 [1885–1887]. Irenaeus. AgainstAll Heresies. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William H. Rambaut. The Ante-Nicene Christian Library.Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Jensen, Robin. 2011. Living Water: Images, Symbols and Settings of EarlyChristian Baptism. Leiden: Brill. Kelhoffer,James A. 1999. “OrdinaryChristians as Miracle Workersinthe New Testament and the Second and ThirdCenturyChristian Apologists.” Biblical Research 44: 23–34. King, Karen L. 2003. What is Gnosticism? Cambridge, MA: Belknap. King, Karen, ed. 1988. Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. Philadelphia: Fortress. MacMullen, Ramsay.1984. Christianizing the RomanEmpire (A.D.100–400). New Haven: Yale UniversityPress. Markschies, Christoph. 1997. “Valentinian Gnosticism:Towardthe Anatomy of aSchool.” In The Nag Hammadi Libraryafter Fifty Years,edited by John B. Turner and Anne McGuire, 401–438. Leiden: Brill. Marrou, Henri. 1956. AHistory of Education in Antiquity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Lived Religion among second-century ‘Gnostic hieratic specialists’ 101

Meeks, Wayne. 1974. “The Imageofthe Androgyne:Some Uses of aSymbol in Earliest Christianity.” History of Religions 13: 165–211. Meeks, Wayne. 2003. The FirstUrban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress. Meyer,Marvin and Richard S. Smith eds. 1999. AncientChristian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power.Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress. Minns, Denis. 2010. Irenaeus: An Introduction. London: T. &T.Clark. Norris, Richard A.,Jr. 1990. “Irenaeus’ UseofPaul in his Polemic against the Gnostics.” In Paul and the Legacies of Paul, edited by William S. Babcock, 79–98. Dallas: Southern Methodist UniversityPress. Osborn, Eric. 2001. Irenaeus of Lyons.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Pagels, Elaine. 1972. “AValentinianInterpretation of Baptismand Eucharist – and its Critique of ‘Orthodox’ Sacramental Theology and Practice.” Harvard Theological Review 65: 153–169. Pagels, Elaine. 1979a. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House. Pagels, Elaine. 1979b.The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’sCommentaryon John. AtlantaGA: ScholarsPress. Parvis,Saraand Paul Foster (eds.) 2012. Irenaeus:Life, Scripture,Legacy.Minneapolis: Fortress. Parvis,Paul. 2012a. “Packaging Irenaeus: Adversus haereses and its Editors.” In Irenaeus: Life,Scripture,Legacy,edited by SaraParvisand Paul Foster,183–198. Minneapolis: Fortress. Parvis,Paul. 2012b. “Who wasIrenaeus?” In Irenaeus: Life,Scripture, Legacy,edited by Sara Parvis and Paul Foster,183–198. Minneapolis: Fortress. Perkins, Pheme. 1976. “Irenaeus and the Gnostics. Rhetoric and Composition in Adversus Haereses Book One.” Vigiliae Christianae30/3: 193–200. Quispel, Gilles, ed., 1966. Ptolémée: LettreàFlora.Sources Chrétiennes 24. Paris:duCerf. Rebillard, Éric. 2009. The Care of the Dead. Tr.Elizabeth Trapnell Rawlings and Jeanine Routier-Pucci. Ithaca: CornellUniversityPress. Originally publ. as Religion et sépulture: l’église, les vivants et les morts dans l’Antiquitétardive (Paris:Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2003). Rebillard, Éric. 2012. Christians and Their Many Identities in LateAntiquity,North Africa, 200–450 CE. Ithaca: CornellUniversityPress. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. 2002. “Orality,Textuality,and the Christian Truth in Irenaeus’ ‘Adversus Haereses’.” Vigiliae Christianae 56/1: 11–46. Rousseau, Adelin, and LouisDoutreleau, eds. 1965. Irénée de Lyon: Contreles Hérésies, Livre I. 2vols. SC 263 and 264. Paris: du Cerf. Schoedel, William R. 1959. “Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus.” Vigiliae Christianae 13: 22–32. Sévrin, Jean-Marie. 1982. “Les Rites et la Gnose, d’après quelques textes gnostiques coptes.” In Gnosticismeetmonde hellénistique: Actes du colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve (11–14 mars1980), edited by Julien Ries, Yvonne Janssens and Jean-Marie Sevrin, 440–450.Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste. Smith, Christopher R. 1994. “Chiliasm and Recapitulation in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons.” Vigiliae Christianae 48.4: 313–331. 102 NicolaDenzey Lewis

[Steenberg,] Irenaeus M. C[ArchimandriteIrenei]. 2012. “Tracing the Irenaeanlegacy.” In Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy,edited by Sara Parvis and Paul Foster, 199–211. Minneapolis: Fortress. Stowers, Stanley.2011. “The Religion of Plant and Animal Offerings versus the Religion of Meanings, Essences, and Textual Mysteries.” In AncientMediterranean Sacrifice,edited by Jennifer Wright Knust and Zsuzsanna Várhelyi, 35–56. New York: Oxford University Press. Struck, Peter T. 2004. Birth of the Symbol. AncientReaders at the limitsoftheir Texts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Thomassen,Einar.2006. The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the Valentinians. Leiden: Brill. Thomassen,Einar.Forthcoming. “Were thereValentinian schools?” Unpublishedpaper presentedatthe 2015 Oxford Patristics Conference, Oxford. Wendt, Heidi. 2016. At the Temple Gates: The Religion of FreelanceExpertsinthe Roman Empire. New York: Oxford UniversityPress. White, Benjamin L. 2011. “How to Read aBook: Irenaeus and the Pastoral Epistles Reconsidered.” Vigiliae Christianae 65: 125–149. Williams, Michael A. 1996. Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’:AnArgumentfor Dismantlingadubious Category. PrincetonNJ: PrincetonUniversityPress. Winkler,John. 1990. The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in AncientGreece. New York: Routledge. Young, Frances. 1997. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.