The Construction of Gnosticism in

Late Second-Century Gaul:

The Case of Irenaeus of Lyon

Candidate number: 2056

University of Oslo
Bachelor in History
HIS3090
Spring 2018
Pages: 15 / Sign count: 23 303
Disp.:
1. Introduction p. 3
1.1. Introduction of topic p. 3
1.2. Method and terminology p. 4
2. Contextualization and discussion p. 5
2.1. Irenaeus of Lyon in time and space p. 5
2.2. Short summary of Valentinian beliefs p. 5
2.3. Context and analysis of Against Heresies p. 6
2.3.1 Construction of “the other” p. 6
2.3.2 Ecclesial tool of power p. 9
2.3.3. The Construction of “Gnosticism” in second-century Gaul p. 12

3. Conclusion p. 13

Bibliography p. 15

2
1.1. Introduction:
Around the year 180 CE, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, wrote a treatise in five books
exposing and refuting heretics called Adversus haereses (Against Heresies). Irenaeus
is considered one of the first theologists, as his work in exposing heretics does so by
contrasting it to what he considers the proper way of interpreting the Scripture.
In the past two centuries, there has been an increased interest in studying the
various deviant groups he described in that text, and they have all been categorized
under the umbrella term “Gnosticism”. Since few textual sources have survived from
the second century, these religious groups have mainly been studied through the
works of Irenaeus and of polemicists such as Tertullian and Hippocrates.
Consequently, the Gnostics were usually characterized negatively (King, p. 55 – 148).
The situation changed in 1945, however, when a clay jar with several codices
of Christian nature was found outside Nag Hammadi. The newly discovered texts
were all classified as Gnostic, and accordingly, they were placed within the Gnostic
model ultimately deriving from Irenaeus’ categorisation of heretics. What scholars
have found problematic with this characterization in the past decades is that the wide
range of material from Nag Hammadi is so varied that one cannot possibly categorize
them as belonging to one monolithic religious movement, Gnosticism, as it had been
described by scholars before that discovery (King, p. 149–217).
In 1996, Michael Allen Williams published an extensive comparison of the
Nag Hammadi texts and juxtaposed them with earlier scholarship on “Gnosticism”
and its “stereotypes” and “clichés”. Williams also compared those texts to the works
of the Polemicists and argued that the view of “Gnosticism” as one religious
movement is not sustainable. Karen B. King has developed this argument further. In
her book What is Gnosticism, she argues that the problem with “Gnosticism” is not
merely the category. Through an impressive critique of earlier scholarship, she argues
that the problem is that in using the writings of a polemicist (such as Irenaeus) we
have maintained a negative discourse that has distorted the reading and categorization
of the Nag Hammadi material. She rightly concludes that we should read all these
texts as separate phenomena (King, p. 218-236). Combined with the Nag Hammadi
material, the exposure of the polemists as biased writers and the analysis and critique
of their work have shed new light on several (earlier assumed to be one) religious
groups that had previously been seen in a negative light. Yet the process of this
deconstruction has led to the vilification of the polemicists, thus

3
“… modern scholars often depict Irenaeus as the first representative of an
increasingly intolerant patriarchal episcopacy, as seen in later centuries, but held to
be emerging already during the second century, exercising its power and authority by
excluding and condemning others, those, that is, who are held in high esteem as free-
thinking seekers of higher spiritual illumination and tolerant of diversity.”
(Behr. p. 2)

Thus the historiographic image of Gnosticism in the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries is at large attributed to Irenaeus’ construction of Gnosticism in the second
century.
In this text I would like to contextualize Irenaeus of Lyon and through
deconstructing his books I would like to explore whether or not the vilification of him
is justified historically.

1.2. Method and terminology:

In this paper I will use the contextual analysis of Against Heresies by Irenaeus of
Lyon. First, I will shortly introduce Irenaeus of Lyon, and place him in time and
space, followed by a short summary of the Valentinian cosmology. Then, I will
contextualize him through three perspectives: 1) construction of “the other”, 2)
ecclesial tool of power and 3) the construction of “Gnosticism” in second-century
Gaul.
I will use the term “Gnostic” to refer to the groups that are still placed under this
category, though I will mainly focus on Valentinus, Marcion and Marcus, as they
seem to have been the main concern of Irenaeus. And I will use the term “proto-
orthodox” to refer to the groups, which, as Behr argues, had a social and communal
self-understanding as the shared body of the Church, though this was not a clearly
defined community under episcopal authority or with a monolithic doctrine. In other
words, the use of such terms does not imply any claim to the existence of an
“orthodox” church and a “gnostic” church.

4
2. Contextualization and discussion

2.1. Short introduction of Irenaeus of Lyon, in time and space

We don’t know for certain when Irenaeus was born, it is estimated to have been in the
130s or 140s, most likely in Smyrna. Wherever, he received a proper rhetorical
education, judging from his work it is clear that he had a good grasp of contemporary
philosophy. He was also a systematic reader of earlier Christian literature (including
that of his adversaries). He studied under Polycarp, whom he also mentions in his
work. It is difficult to say exactly when he came to Lyon, but it is believed that he
sojourned in Rome for a while on his way there.
Irenaeus became the head of the Christian community in Lyon in 177 CE. This
happened after, according to Eusebius, his predecessor, Bishop Pothinus, had been
martyred in the arena, along with many other local Christians. Already here we can
see a glimpse of Irenaeus’ historical conditions. Christian communities all over the
Roman world were being persecuted and executed in the most barbaric manner
(Young, Ayres, Louth, p. 45 – 55, Behr. 16 – 21). So not only was it important to
keep the members of Church safe from outside hostility, but it became increasingly
important to fend against disunity within. As we shall see, the union of the Church
was important to Irenaeus.

2.2: Short summary of Valentinian beliefs:

The description of Valentinus’ teachings can be summarized as follows: the world
was ultimately created by Sophia, one of the Aeons (perfect beings) in the Pleroma
(heaven), which was created by the Highest God, or the Good God. Sofia tries to
create herself resulting in the Demiurg (which to Valentinians is the equivalent of the
Old Testament God) who is not accepted into the Pleroma. This Demiurg then creates
earth and the material world, and also human beings. Human beings have a “divine
spark” or a remnant of the light from the Pleroma, humans therefore longs to be
reunited with the higher God (the true God), and learns how this can be achieved by
following Jesus Christ who reminds us what we are and where we came from
(Against Heresies 1.1 – 1.5, and 1.11 – 1.20).
Human beings are divided in three groups:

5
1) Spirituals (Valentinians), 2) Physics (according to Irenaeus this seems to be the
designation for himself, and others whom share his beliefs) and 3) Materials.
According to Valentinian myths, all the material will perish in the end, so the first two
are the only groups of people who can gain salvation. The first are those who know of
the secret “gnosis” and “The Father” and is therefore saved, the second can become
the spiritual if they accept gnosis, hence if they “convert”1 to the Valentinian beliefs.
(Against Heresies 1.6. – 7, Williams, p. 14 - 23)
When all humans have been perfected through the teachings of “The Father”, they
will return to Pleroma (Against Heresies 1.6 - 7).

2.3. Contextualization and analysis of Against Heresies

2.3.1. Construction of “the other”
As Karen King argues, the image we are presented with in Irenaeus’ work Against
Heresies ought to be seen as a construction of the other. Therefore, we must be
cautious while using it as a source for various religious groups mentioned in it. After
all, the creation of the other is not the same as the experienced reality of those it
describes. Her treatment of the subject, however, presents this process as a one-sided
affair, that is: Irenaeus was describing these groups as “the other” without any basis in
real life, motivated by his own prejudice or using his narrative as a power tool of
ecclesial control (King, p. 20 – 40).
In order to examine her argument we have to explore the religious life in the second
century. In the second century there was no scriptural canon – that is no New
Testament – and no ecclesial system of the kind existing in the third and fourth
centuries. Instead, there were a huge variety of different groups of Christians, each
with their customs and their own hermeneutical approaches to religious texts
(Williams, p. 84 – 93, Behr. p. 21 – 58, King p. 22).
Still, as emphasized by Behr, even though we cannot talk about an “orthodox
church” at the time, the existing fragments of relevant second-century writing
recreates a Christian collective with a sense of community and a sense that all these
varieties of Christian groups were part of the same Christian body. Such sources tell
us about the church fathers occasionally meeting to discuss religious matters, about
elders leading their respective ecclesiastical communities in Rome, and about letters

1
The word converted is not precise, we are talking about the same religion but about diffrent
hermenautical approaches to understand scripture.

6
being sent both to the churches of Rome and the Church of Rome (Behr. p. 20 – 23).
Behr does not argue, however, that this social unity was monolithic and that all
Christian groups subscribed to a strictly defined religious doctrine. He argues that, in
fact, they were quite diverse, and that this diversity was accepted.
For instance, he points to Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with the Jew Thrypo
(written in the mid-second century), in which Thrypo questions Justin about his faith.
Justin replies that he believes in certain things, but acknowledges that there are many
good Christians in Rome who believe otherwise. Another example is references to
Irenaeus in the fourth-century writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Behr has pointed to
the fourth-century anachronisms in those references – such as Victor being the bishop
of Rome at the time when no such position existed. Behr concludes that Victor most
likely was one of several chosen leaders for one of the many proto-orthodox churches
in Rome at the time. Furthermore, that account narrates Victor as wanting to
dissociate from the Asian Christian community in Rome based on disagreement
regarding the time of fasting before Easter. By contrast, Irenaeus functions as an
advocate of peace and defender of diversity. In Irenaus’ letter as related by Eusebius,
the former says that there are many different customs within the body of the Church,
and that this should not be a reason for division. According to this excerpt, the unity
of church was apparently more important to Irenaus, than monolithic uniformity
(Behr. 35 – 40, 50 - 60). Hence, he ends the first of two letters dealing with this case
with the following words “the disagreement in the fast confirms our agreement in
faith” (Behr p. 55)
Behr uses this case as both evidence for diversity within the proto orthodox
community and an argument that the “otherness” of the “gnostics” must have been
due to their own intolerance and aggression.
But one can interpret the “the disagreement in fast” quotation as referring to
different practices, and “agreement in faith” as referring to the interpretation of
scripture, namely that Jesus was crucified, resurrected and raised to heaven on the
seventh day. This interpretation then would not include Valentinus, and several others
of the groups mentioned in Against Heresies. Which leads us to believe that the
tolerance for dissenting practice may have been wider, than that of interpretation of
scripture. So despite the fact that Irenaeus argues for unity across difference, there
were certain beliefs (apparently) that were not considered to be part of the proto-
orthodox church even though they shared the belief in Jesus.

7
In fact based on the texts of Tertullian, Epiphanies and Justin Martyr, Marcion,
another “heretic” discussed by Irenaeus’ work, split with the Church in 144 CE. The
reason for this Behr argues is that he wanted to implement his own religious views, as
apposed to the status quo that prevailed in Rome. Marcion then went on creating his
own religious group (Behr p. 27). Similarly, Valentinus who lived and preached in
Rome between 130s and 160s is said to have tried to become bishop of Rome. As we
have already seen there was not such position in the second century, but Behr argues
that this is an anachronism by later writers and that it possibly means that Valentinus
was trying to extend the influence of his interpretation of scripture, just like Marcion.
He too was rejected in Rome. Behr uses this as an argument that the various “gnostic”
groups isolated themselves, however, even if we accept that Valentinus and Marcion
did split with the proto orthodox churches themselves, this does not necessarily mean
that all Christian groups circulating Valentinian scripture isolated themselves from the
proto orthodox church. In fact, as we shall see later in this article so-called “gnostics”
did attended church and take part in the proto-orthodox church community (or at least
tried to). Thus one cannot use these two examples to prove that all Valentinians or
other forms of “Gnosticism” were hostile and/or intolerant. But it does show that the
Churches of Rome was homogeneous enough to refute both Valentinus and Marcion
(Behr. 20 – 34). It also shows us that division within the Church was not necessarily
always decided by the proto-orthodox Church.

One can also see signs of Gnostic hostility in their rhetoric towards other church
communities. As we have seen in the short summary of Valentinian teachings, the
proto-orthodox churches were labelled physical, as well as ignorant of the true
knowledge, whereas Valentinus’ followers described themselves as spirituals with the
true understanding of Christianity (Against Heresies 2.16.4, 3.15.2). This does not,
however, undermine King’s argument that one should be cautious about taking
Irenaeus at face value, but it shows that it was not necessarily so, that these groups did
not see themselves as different, hence they were not constructed as other by Irenaeus
without any foot in reality. Irenaeus’ work must be read as a construction of the other,
but it must be emphasised that Irenaeus did not just invent that otherness. Even
though, as both King and Williams rightly points out, there are elements of his work
that is polemic without doubt, such as claims of cannibalism and sexual deviance,

8
which we can easily recognize from other polemic writing for instance by Romans
towards Christians in the same period (Williams 160 – 187).

2.3.2. Ecclesial tool of power

It has been claimed by some (King and Pagels for instance) that Irenaeus wrote his
Against Heresies as a tool to maintain and strengthen his episcopal power. But as we
have seen above the Christian world including the proto-orthodox was in fact very
heterogeneous and open to diversity. Then, why was the “gnostics” perceived as so
dangerous? Pagels argues that if we want to understand why Irenaeus was hostile to
the “gnostics” we must examine what ramifications a “gnostic” worldview would
have in regards to Irenaeus.

Early recruitment to Christianity and the position of the Bishop:

What seems to have bothered Irenaeus was the fact that the Valentinians converted
people from his Church community in Lyon (Against Heresies 1.6. – 7., haer 3.15.2).
One of the problems Irenaeus discusses in his two first books is that the Valentinians
meet in secret: they go to Church like anyone else, but thereafter they hold their own
religious meetings (Pagels p. 64 – 84). In her article on conversion between religious
groups in the second century, Eshleman compares this phenomenon to the practices of
Mormons in twentieth-century America. Both used the basic Christian information,
with known figures from Christianity to attract potential followers, and then more
detailed spiritual practice (typical for that particular church) was revealed later on.
She sees this as a recruitment tactic (Eshleman. 2011). Pagels also argues that there
were certain levels within the Valentinian groups, so that one had to be deemed
worthy or knowledgeable enough to be able to “transcend” to the deeper “gnosis” or
knowledge (Pagels, p. 64 – 84). A letter written by Ptolemy to a wealthy lady named
Flora seems to confirm this point. Ptolemy states that Flora is not yet ready for all the
divine knowledge but that she will be one day (Behr. p. 30 – 34).
So if Irenaeus advocated for diversity, why would he have a problem with his
worshippers attending a secondary religious community? Firstly, Irenaeus seemingly
saw them as dishonest. According to him, they would agree with everything he
argued, but then meet in secrecy and say other things (Against Heresies 3.16.6).
Valentinians saw proto orthodox Christianity as a step on the ladder to becoming
spiritual. Thus attending church and agreeing with the likes of Irenaeus was a part of

9
the journey to transcend to a higher level of spirituality. This ambiguity was
understandably confusing for Irenaeus, but judging from his books it was equally
confusing for many of the “gnostics” as they could not understand how that behaviour
would exclude them from worship in proto-orthodox churches (Against Heresies
3.15.2, Pagels p. 69 – 70).
Eshleman argues in her article that what Christian community you ended up in
had more to do with geography and family ties, than personal faith. People in general,
would worship where they lived. She also argues that the lines of Christian
communities were so blurred that people did not necessarily know that they had
joined a different community. It is important to differ between the regular worshipper,
who was most likely not well educated, and the intellectuals of the time such as
Valentinus and Irenaeus. It is also important to emphasises that people in the lower
strata of society did not necessarily have the same access to books, for instance
scripture, to be able to distinguish between several of the different Christian
communities that existed. Eshleman uses the example of the bishop Dionysius in mid-
fourth-century Alexandria, who is worried about an esteemed member of the Church
who has converted to heresy. The man in questioned is puzzled as he was not aware
that the local church he had been visiting was heretical. This is 60 years after Irenaeus
wrote his treaties against heresies, and as Eshleman argues distinguishing could be
hard even for the clergy of the mid-fourth century. In either case, the dispute of gospel
and faith must first and foremost be seen as a dispute between the intellectual classes
of society. As we saw with Valentinus and Marcion it was the leaders of the Churches
in Rome that did not accept their interpretation of scripture. We also know that within
the proto-orthodox Churches there were several presbyters who read Valentinian
texts, and several who converted. One of these was Irenaeus friend Florentinus (Behr
p. 48 – 60, Eshleman 2011, Young, Ayres, Louth. p. 45 – 55).
Communication between the two groups must also have been difficult. Not
only because of the suspicion of the perceived secrecy of the “gnostics”, but also the
big practical differences that the different theological views of scripture represented.
We remember how the Demiurg was the equivalent to the God of the Old Testament.
Irenaeus held the view that the four gospels (the later New Testament) were closely
interlinked with the Old Testament. As did the proto-orthodox believers, as
exemplified by the dispute over Easter in Rome. While “gnostics” such as
Valentinians saw the Old Testament as the story of human beings combatting the

10
power of the Demiurg in search of the true gnosis or knowledge. Thus the
Valentinians implicitly stated that Irenaeus was a spokes person of the Demiurg, and
thus tried to lure people away from true gnosis and thus also from salvation (Pagels.
p. 37 – 83).
As bishop of Lyon this meant that Irenaeus could never know who was in his
“spiritual jurisdiction”, and who was not. It also meant that he might loose some of
the worshippers from his churches. Now it is important to remember that Irenaeus
most likely believed in everything he wrote, thus making sure “his flock” was saved
through the true faith was, in fact, his duty and moral obligation. I do not by that
mean that there is such a thing as one true faith, faith must always be a matter of
interpretation.

The nature of Jesus and episcopal succession:

A Valentinian called Marcus seems to have been active around the Rhone valley (1.11
– 1.17), the area under Irenaeus’ episcopal authority (Behr. p. 48 – 57, Roberts,
Donaldson. p. 309 – 311) Not only must this have been threatening the unity of the
churches under Irenaeus “religious jurisdiction” but it was also a direct threat to the
legitimacy of his position and his authority in religious matters.
Another difference between Irenaeus and Valentinus is the view on the nature of
Jesus. Pagels argues that, for Irenaeus, by witnessing Jesus resurrection in the flesh
Peter and the other apostles received legitimacy in spreading the true word of Jesus. A
position Irenaeus uses a large portion of his book to affirm (Against heresies 2. 1 -19,
3.6 – 15). For the Valentinians, in contrast, anyone could witness and be close to
Jesus, through personal revelations and prophecies. Irenaeus speaks of how Marcus
converted women and made them produce prophecies, which were taken as words of
God on a par with the Scripture (Against Heresies 1.13.3). Evidence suggests that this
was a more subjective way of dealing with religious expressions and scripture
(Pagels, p. 37 – 62). As soon as they had transcended to a higher level of religious
conscience, thus becoming “spiritual”, the Valentinians no longer needed to listen to
the physics, such as Irenaeus, no matter their ecclesial position (Against Heresies 1.6
– 1.7, 1.16). The latter was thus, as we have seen, reduced to an instrument of the
Demiurg (Pagels p. 62 – 80). It naturally then follows that apostolic successors had no
more authority when it came to interpreting scripture as anyone else. As Irenaeus

11
writes: “These men discourse to the multitude about those who belong to the Church,
who they do themselves term “vulgar” and “ecclesiastic” (Against Heresies 3.15.2)
Now as mentioned previously, there was not yet an established ecclesial
power. Therefore, we cannot argue that Irenaeus motivations were Machiavellian, and
that he did this to secure his own worldly power. However, even though no
institutional power could be claimed through apostolic succession in the second
century, a spiritual power could. That is, through claiming that his religious views
were in line with that of the Apostles and that the Apostles were the rightful carriers
of the word of Jesus – by proving he had risen in the flesh – Irenaeus could claim a
superior right to interpret scripture. It should be noted that this is the same rhetorical
tool as the one used by the Valentinians in their division of humans and their claim to
be the “true Christianity” (King 24, Pagels p. 37 – 83).

2.3.3. The construction of “Gnosticism” in second-century Gaul

As mentioned Irenaeus sojourned in Rome before he went to Gaul, he has used
several written materials when writing his treatise and he claims to have spoken to
several “gnostics”. Thus we can conclude that Irenaeus might have known about these
various forms of Christian groups long before writing his books, without feeling the
need to refute them. However the situation in Rome and in Gaul might have
sharpened. Maybe Irenaeus didn’t see the need until he felt the pressure from a spread
of valentinism in his own area of influence. As mentioned earlier the book is written
on the request of a friend (Behr p. 74). It is written as an instruction on how to
successfully be able to expose and refute heretics. As mentioned earlier the
Valentinians were secretive, and met in hiding. Thus it can be concluded that Irenaeus
was not the only one struggling with this particular “problem” and that he decided to
help his fellow proto-orthodox leaders by making an extensive theological work that
argued against certain theological viewpoints, while at the same time asserting his
own views. Indeed, one could speculate if this is the reason why he has categorized all
of the different groups (which he quite carefully divide into sub-groups, such a
Valentinians) the way he did. Irenaeus chose the mode of categorization from several
hermeneutical interpretations scattered all over the Christian world, most of whom he
had probably never encountered. Hermeneutical interpretations he could all find in
Valentinism. As Irenaeus writes “These things that have been said about (Valentinian
teachings) concerning the emanation of Intelligence apply equally as an argument

12
against the followers of Basilides, and against the remaining gnostics, from whom
(the Valentinians) were proven in the first book to have borrowed the idea of
emanation.” (Against heresies 2.13.8 – 10, Williams p. 36) and “If Valentinus is
refuted then the whole multitude of heretics is overthrown” (Against heresies 2.31.1.,
Williams p. 36). In fact, he only uses the word Gnostic as an umbrella term on a few
occasions in his work, and it seemed that he at least viewed these various groups as
different from each other socially (Williams p. 29 – 37). As King and William both
rightly argues through their work, the term “Gnosticism” only works to describe
superficial similarities, but when Irenaeus wrote this book, the superficial similarities
represented the most dangerous elements of various heretical groups (as I have shown
above), which he then found represented in one doctrine: valentinism. Naturally it
follows that the later misinterpretation of scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth
century, argued against by King and Williams, can hardly be attributed to Irenaeus.
As he was not a historian and his criteria for categorization would be quite different
than a modern age historians.

3. Conclusion:
In contemporary history today we have two views of the situation: 1) Represented in
this article by Behr that the “gnostic” groups were the hostile and intolerant ones, and
2) Represented by Pagels, King and Williams that the “gnostics” were subjected to
unfair polemicist writings who gave a faulty account of them that ultimately ended in
their demise. Through this article I have tried to find a compromise between the two.
On the one hand Irenaeus and others of the proto-orthodox religious beliefs did not
see “gnostics” as Christian due to theological differences, these differences were then
made impossible to debate because of sharp rhetoric. I have tried to show that both
proto-orthodox and “gnostic” varieties of Christianity saw themselves as the one true
Christianity, thus further polarizing the religious debates of the time. In addition
recruitment and religious and spiritual monopoly furthered the hostility between the
several religious groups. By vilifying the gnostics, we got a historically incorrect
view of the Christian world in the second century; I argue that the vilification of
Irenaeus will do the same. The construction of “Gnosticism” in second century Gaul,
must be seen as different from the construction of Gnosticism in the nineteenth and
twentieth century, which is based on the un-contextualized books of Irenaeus of Lyon.
I have tried to argue that both the proto-orthodox Church and the “gnostic” religious

13
communities must be seen as different religious forces dynamically acting and
developing in contrast to each other and parallel with each other, in an increasingly
polarized Christian world.

14
Bibliography:
Primary sources
Irenaeus of Lyons, title? In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-
Nicene Fathers. vol. ?, pp. 308–578. City?, MI: W.M. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1985.

Secondary literature
Behr, John. Irenaeus of Lyon: Identifying Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 2013.

King, Karen B. “What is Gnosticism? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

2003.

Pagels, Elaine. De Gnostiske Evangelier: Evangeliene som kirken ikke ville bruke.
Oslo: Hilt & Hansteen as, 1979.

Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking “Gnosticism”. Princeton: Princeton University

Press. 1996; 2nd edition: 1999.

Norris, Richard A., John Behr, In Young, Frances, Ayres, Lewis, and Andrew Louth,
eds. The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, pp. 45–105. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 2004.

Eshleman, Kendra. Harvard Theological Review. 2011. Boston College.

(Downloaded from: https://www.cambridge.org/core)

15