| Sažetak | U ovome radu istražene su paralele i smjernice između crkvenih pisaca i modernih
znanstvenika koji se bave gnosticizmom, odnosno Valentinom i njegovim sustavom.
Gnosticizam, kao i gnostici predstavljaju široke, opće pojmove i sustave za koje se još uvijek
sa sigurnošću ne može reći što predstavljaju, u smislu filozofske škole, pokreta ili sekte unutar
opće Crkve ili su zasebna cjelina odnosno pokret. Upravo iz tog razloga, u ovom su radu
pojmovi gnoza, gnosticizam i gnostici uzeti kao općeniti pojmovi koji predstavljaju grupaciju
ili pojedince koje se može promatrati pod vidikom opće Crkve. Rad ne ide u smjeru istraživanja
naravi i smisla gnosticizma u povijesnim sferama, odnosno definiranja spomenutih pojmova.
Upravo suprotno, sve te pojmove uzima kao polivalentne. Između plejade pojmova, ideja i
sustava, usmjeren je na Valentina i njegovu školu, točnije na Valentinovu nauku pod vidikom
protologije i kozmologije. Osim izvornih tekstova, odnosno onih koje znanstvenici uzimaju da
pripadaju Valentinu ili njegovoj školi, glavni je naglasak stavljen na opis sustava koji se nalazi
u Irenejevu Adversus haereses I, 11, 1., a za kojeg Irenej govori kako potječe od Valentina te
je on uzet kao referentna točka cijeloga istraživanja, posebice pod vidikom protologije i
kozmologije. Kroz cijeli rad prikazivani su i spominjani razni autori, kao i njihovi doprinosi u
razumijevanju sustava, bilo da se radilo o modernim znanstvenicima, bilo crkvenim ocima. Za
ovaj rad bilo je važno također vraćanje na početke, odnosno nova analiza fragmenata koji se
nalaze u izvještajima Hipolita, Marcelija iz Ankare i Klementa Aleksandrijskog. Nastojalo se
promotriti sustave i pod specifičnim vidicima imanentnog božanskog života, prikazom što je
takav pogled značio za valentinovske sljedbenik te koji su sve utjecaji drugih znanstvenih
područja ostavili traga na razumijevanje protologije, ali i samih valentinovskih sustava.
Naglasak je također stavljen na razlikovanje sustava A i B koji su opisani u djelima Ireneja i
Hipolita te su promatrani pod vidicima fragmenata i sustava opisanog u Adversus haeresis I,
11, 1. Doprinos ovoga rada je cjelovit pristup istraživanju, povezivanju i analiziranju različitih
pogleda na valentinovske sustave, kao i davanje temelja koji su potrebni za daljnja istraživanja.
Rad pokazuje da je za dublje razumijevanje problematike, potrebno uzeti u obzir sve dostupne
opise protoloških sustava te ih promotriti pod vidikom imanentnog božanskog života. Taj vidik
pruža nove poveznice između sustava i bolje pokazuje njihov povijesni razvoj i kontinuitet.
Također, ovaj rad je prvo cjelovito istraživanje gnosticizma na ovome prostoru. |
| Sažetak (engleski) | This study examines the parallels between different systems reported as Valentinian
protological and cosmological myths in the cross-examination of church writers and modern
authors. Valentinus is considered by most researchers and historians to have been a gnostic
teacher from Egypt, teaching in Rome around 160 A.D. The main problem in understanding his
system is that not much of his actual writing is preserved. Another issue that arises is the
generalization of his teaching by some of the early researchers of the topic, who merged the
ideas of Valentinus and his sequential followers into one coherent system or mythology, which
brims with a mixture of different ideas, but also time periods. Furthermore, the main zeal of
this study is not to determine whether Valentinian was gnostic or not, or if this was the case
with his followers and students. The study does not dwell on the history and nature of the
Gnosticism of gnosis. Those terms are used ambiguously, bearing in mind the debates over the
years, and are briefly acknowledged in the introduction of the study while describing the status
quo of the current research. This study advances three theses based on which the research is
carried out:
T1. In a modern interpretation, Valentinian protology can be understood as the
immanent life within a deity with its attributes.
T2. Valentinian School was active within Christian communities and members of the
Valentinian School grew in knowledge and understanding of the world through various
scriptures (in terms of science). The best example of this is Ptolemy's Letter to Flora.
T3. The influence of psychology, sociology, archaeology, and other sciences has made
it difficult to understand the concepts and customs used by members of "classical" Gnosticism.
To unravel the original Valentinian system and distinguish it from its followers, the
study in the first chapter, after describing Valentinus’s life, considers various fragments that are
ascribed to Valentinus. Those fragments are found in the writings of Hippolytus, Marcellus of
Ancyra, and Clement of Alexandria. The fragments are presented in their original form
(language) and translated into Croatian. Modern authors, such as Layton and Markschies, and
their views of the fragments are then presented and ascribed to each fragment, which serves as
an overview of the current research. In the interest of this study, Layton’s assortment of the
fragments was given priority over the “classical” Völker's numerical separation of the
fragments.1 A key place was given to the hymn Summer harvest. Likewise, another important
text was the protological myth from The Gospel of Truth, which is now almost traditionally
ascribed to Valentinus. The main ideas found in those reports, Gospel of Truth, and the
fragments served as a guideline in the assessment of all other Valentinian systems described by
church authors. That led to the shift in focus in the second chapter to the system described by
Ireneaus in Against the heresies (AH) I, 11, 1. That system became the cornerstone for viewing
all other systems described. It shed new light on the research and understanding of a sort of
evolution of the protological system. The first chapter ends with an overview of the most
prominent Valentinian teachers and a reference to look for more substantial information on the
school and Valentinians in general in the Spiritual Seed by Einar Thomassen.
In the second chapter, the focus shifts to Irenaeus’ and Hippolytus’ reports and their
description of various systems. Before the main presentation of systems A and B, the way they
are usually described, a portion of the chapter is dedicated to an overview of the various systems
described by Irenaeus, all of which are ascribed to Valentinian providence. As mentioned
beforehand, the most prominent system described is AH I, 11, 1. After a general protological
and cosmological analysis of the system, it is compared with Valentinian fragments from the
previous chapter. At the end of the analysis of AH I, 11, 1, the protological myth is briefly
compared with the system found in Excerpta ex Theodoto, allocated in the writings of Clement
of Alexandria.2 What follows are five other reports that Irenaeus describes in his AH. Each
system is briefly analyzed and described in its cosmological and protological components
insofar as possible since some of them lack in the research of topic segments, especially in
relation to everything that was already presented up to this point. Protology is not the focus for
some of them.
The Great report (AH I, 1, 1. – 8, 5) is the most famous report of the Valentinian system,
presented by Irenaeus and labeled by most scholars as system A. In this research, it is ascribed
to the Valentinian follower Ptolemy, rather than to Valentinus himself. At the same time, some
parts of the reports are omitted since they are not in strict correlation with the research of
protology and cosmology, but rather with anthropology. The system is divided into two parts:
those concerning and describing the events inside of the Pleroma and those that followed the
separation and restoration of Sofia. Those events and reports were there analyzed in the relation
to AH I, 11, 1, as well as to the event in Hippolytus’s description of the events, which were also
separated twofold. Those events in Hippolytus’s description are usually referred to by scholars
as system B. In the conclusion of this research, I argue against that simple classification of the
systems since it was shown that other systems should also be considered when thinking in the
brackets of the inner and outer life of Pleroma. Therefore, it was proposed that the system in
AH I, 11, 1 should be labeled the 1st system or system A. In that regard, the system in AH I, 1,
1 – 8,5 should be labeled the 2nd system or B, the system in Hippolytus’ Refutatio chapter 6
system C and so forth, up to the letter E, the system of a Valentinian named Marcus, also
described in AH. System D would be from the Valentinian Doctrinal Letter which is found in
the Panairon of Ehiphanius of Salmis, to whom a grave deal was given by Chiapparini in his
research Il dvino senza veli and which certainly presents a new take on the Valentinian
protology.
The third chapter focuses on three modern scholars: Thomassen, Dundenberg, and
Chiapparini. The first two are specific in their research of Valentinian schools, more specifically
protology, because the root of their research texts is found in the Nag Hammadi library rather
than in the reports of church writers. Chiapparini, on the other hand, not only takes into
consideration church writers but goes even further and analyses the texts, bringing a new
perception of the ancient and modern puzzles.
In the conclusion, all aspects of this research are taken into consideration. They are
analyzed in the overview of the three main research theses.
Aside from new system labels, it is concluded that all the texts, analyses, as well as
arguments presented in this research are just an incentive for further studies. To research
Valentinus in this sense, it is not enough to take only a part of the system, or a particular idea
found in some text to make a proper analysis. Instead, a study like this one is needed to provide
a foundation. Each of the analyzed texts requires and deserves an even more detailed
examination, as well as broader comparisons with other texts from the period. Primarily, this
refers to the analysis of the Gospel of Philip, Excerpta ex Theodoto and Valentinus’s exposition.
Most of the topics found in these texts and reports can be used for additional scientific research
or even a Ph.D. study.
This research is the first original work on Gnosticism in these parts of the world,
especially in Croatia. It should be also mentioned that, in terms of the research of Valentinus
and his school, some aspects are still in their infancy. This is the third research in the world that
focused only on the protology and cosmology of Valentinus, and maybe even the first one that
analyzed the texts in between themselves, without aspects other than immanent life in Godhead.
That is why it is important to consider AH I, 11, 1 the central theme in this research, together
with the mentioned theses and Valentinian fragments. This study contributed to a
comprehensive approach to research, connecting and analyzing different views on Valentinian
systems, as well as providing the foundations needed for further research. Finally, the research
shows that for a deeper understanding of the problem, it is necessary to consider all available
descriptions of protological systems and view them from the perspective of the immanent
divine, Godhead life. This aspect provides new links between systems and better demonstrates
their historical development and continuity that are easily overlooked. |
