THE DOG AND THE MUSHROOMS IRENAEUS'S VIEW OF THE VALENTIN/ANS ASSESSED BY ROWAN A. GREER IT is always tempting to suppose that when new pieces of a puzzle are discovered they can simply be added to the ones already arranged. When the Nag Hammadi documents were first found, it was possible to suggest that they would fill out our understanding of Christian gnosticism in the second century by supplying what was lacking in our evidence from the heresiologists. 1 It has become increasingly clear that the new pieces call into question the lines along which the puzzle was previously being solved. Questions concerning the origin and the persistence of gnosticism, as well as of the relation of Christian to pre- and/or extra-Christian gnosticism, have been raised from a new perspective. In particular, the lack of coherence between the Nag Hammadi documents and the evidence supplied by the heresiologists has emerged as a central problem. 2 A solution of the problem is necessary if the Nag Hammadi writings are to be properly assessed. In what follows there will be no proposed solution. Instead it will be argued that a more precise understanding of the heresiologists' per­ spectives represents one step towards the solution, and the point will be made by examining Irenaeus's treatment of his Valentinian oppo­ nents. It should be added parenthetically that the same point needs to be made with respect to the setting of the Nag Hammadi collection itself. A distinction must, of course, be made between the provenance of the individual documents and the collection as a whole. It may well be that the Nag Hammadi community has nothing to do with gnosticism as we know it from the second century. Epiphanius's remarks con- 1 Cf. W. C. van Unnik, Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings (Studies in Biblical Theology 30; Naperville, Ill., 1960) 15: "Only in relation to what we know about these groups frol)l other sources can we reasonably expect fruitful and indeed magnifi­ cent results from this extensive and momentous discovery." 2 Cf. Frederik Wisse, 'The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists," VC 25 (1971) 205-23. Wisse notes that only "five cases of clear agreement" have been found between the Nag Hammadi texts and the evidence of the heresiologists (207). THE DOG AND THE MUSHROOMS 147 cerning the survival of gnosticism in his day need not be taken au pied de la /ettre. 3 We must reckon with what can be discovered about the late fourth and early fifth centuries in Egypt. And this, surely, includes careful examination of Shenoute's writings, of the activity of monks like Evagrius Ponticus (who has left us his Gnostika Kephalaia), and of the disputes between the Origenist and the anthropomorphite monks. 4 It does not seem impossible to me that at Nag Hammadi we are dealing with a community of theosophical monks influenced by Origen, concerned with the ascetical and celibate life, and interested in whatever theosophical literature could be found. It is probably the case that a clear understanding of the point of view of the Nag Hammadi collectors is the greatest desideratum for a full assessment of the significance of the discovery. From the point of view of the gnostic problem in general, however, it is also important to define more carefully the perspective of the heresiologists. Much has already been done in the case of lrenaeus. For one thing it has long been recognized that in Book l of the Adversus Haereses Irenaeus is depending not only upon discussions with Valentinians but also upon literary sources, which include both gnostic books and an earlier heresiological treatise, possibly the lost Syntagma of Justin Martyr. 5 And there is an extensive literature dealing with Irenaeus's use of a version of the Apocryphon of John in 1.29. 6 In addition, some attention has been paid to Irenaeus's use of rhetoric in his refutation of the gnostics. 7 An important further step may be taken by suggesting that certain fundamental assumptions lie behind and inform both Irenaeus's rhetoric and his use of sources. 8 3 Cf. G. Quispe(, Gnostic Studies I (Istanbul, 1974) 10. He accepts Epiphanius's statements at face value. What the heresiologist actually says is that in Athribite, Prosopite, Arsenoite, the Thebaid, near the coast, and in Alexandria "the spawn (spora) of the Valentinian gospel may still be found like the leavings of snake bones" (Haer. 31.7, PG 41.485). Does he mean that the bones of the Valentinians have come to life in the form of Origenist monks? 4 Cf. D. W. Young, "The Milieu of Nag Hammadi: Some Historical Consider­ ations," VC 24 (1970) 127-37. For the Origenist controversy in Egypt, see Socrates, H.E. 6. 7, Sozomen, H.E. 6.30fT., 8.11. An example of intercourse between the northern monasteries and the Pachomian foundations in the south may be found in Palladius's account of Macarius of Alexandria in H. Laus. 18. 5 Cf. Wisse, "Nag Hammadi Library," 212ff., and Ph. Perkins, "Irenaeus and the Gnostics," VC 30 (1976) 193-200. 6 Cf. the discussion by H.-Ch. Puech in Hennecke-Schneemelcher (E.T. ed. Wilson) I. 314ff. 7 See Perkins, "Irenaeus and the Gnostics." 8 Wisse regards the notion of a gnostic Regula as a theory imposed wrongly on the gnostics by the heresiologists. "Nag Hammadi Library," 219, 221. .