Talk:Valentinus (Gnostic)

Revived discussion

Quote: "According to Tertullian, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop but started his own group when another was chosen." This is of course a POLITICAL statement made by Tertullian. Valentinus never "started his own group", but until his death considered himself a member of the universal church. Tertullian (et al.) were actually more concerned with the Valentinians than they were with him, and rather than theological, their differences pertained to the institutionalization of the church.--Sparviere (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Older discussion

Has no-one noticed that the opening line of the article says that Valentinius is wrong and we should use the name Valentinus but the title of the article remains VALENTINIUS? :-) Carping aside - does anyone know of any books on Valentinus? ThePeg 1.8.2006

Valentinius, more usually called Valentinus (c. 100 - c. 153), was for a time the most successful Christian Gnostic thinker and came near to being made Bishop of Rome. The bishop candidacy is an unreliable rumour. According to the rumour Valentinius became heretic, because he was dissatisfied with with the election results. Sounds quite questionable, doesn't it? At least the scientific community today thinks so. -Hapsiainen 17:47, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Where does the scientific community come into this? Was Valentinus a scientist? I thought he was a religious figure? Please explain. ThePeg 14.7.2006

I have restored the following text, suppressed (though the editor does not mention it) by Hapsiainen:"according to Tertullian Adversus Valentinianos, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop of Rome (the date would be 143) and that he lost the election by a narrow margin." The context also mentions the less-than-prefectly orthodox views of Tertullian. The "rumor" is Tertullian's rumor. Can we cut out the disgraceful antics here?--Wetman 19:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It probably was an antic by Tertullian or of the originator of the rumour, not by Valentinios. I can cite my sources, the description of the book is over here and the page is 109. In case you would like to read something in English, here is a thread in an occultist discussion forum mentioning it. I see you copied the paragraph directly from Gnosis.org, of course they would like to remember Valentinios as an almost-bishop. -Hapsiainen 22:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, "probably an antic" in Tertullian's diatribe Adversus Valentinianos— not a source to be lightly suppressed by even the boldest high-school graduate! Citing a modern Finnish source is not an excuse for suppressing a quote by near-contemporary. An Occultist chat-forum does not provide a sensible substitute. Information I entered in the article indeed is derived from Gnosis.org: that is why the source appears among "External Links." Wording is copyright: information is not. Let me urge Hapsiainen to insert, at any relevant point in the text, a footnote using the following format (including single brackets): [http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm Gnosis.org]. Removed personal attack.. --Wetman 23:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have to be critical with the heresiologists at least when their information conflicts. You are questioning my competence, but what's is yours? Do you have any other source than the website? I agree that a discussion forum isn't a good source, but I felt I had to give a link to some English text in Internet. I can't link to a book. However, I found some Finnish text by Ismo Dunderberg. The bishop-thing is in page 8, ask a third party to translate it. [1]-Hapsiainen 23:55, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I did some Google search about this topic. Only the pages that I have linked support my addition, the others don't. (I searched from the English text.) I'm depressed with all of this.

About my backround. I'm an university student but not an arts student. All that qualifies me is my interest. I have read a few books and read a national magazine of the liberal theologians. I haven't read anything serious in English about these topics, which forms a gap between us. You can evaluate my edits to Gnosticism article to judge my reasonableness. I avoid doing anything radical to the current articles, if I don't understand the reasons in detail. -Hapsiainen 14:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is no excuse for anyone suppressing a quote, whether from Tertullian or from any early writer. Period. I am in no position to judge the "truth". I make no claims for "truth" or for myself. I am not the source of the quote, nor is the English translation mine. To suppress comments on the talk page is another despicable act, no matter who does it. Nothing personal whatsoever. No further comment from me can be expected. --Wetman 16:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing remarks that the contributor interprets as personal attacks is allowed in Wikipedia. I don't have anything else significant to say at the moment. -Hapsiainen 19:42, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Saint Valentine?

Is there a source for the identification of Saint Valentine with Valentinius?

→ (AllanBz ✎) 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No? I'm removing it. → (AllanBz ✎) 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored the brief text: "The apocryphal "Saint Valentine", no longer in the Roman Catholic calendar, but for whom Saint Valentine's Day was dedicated, is more likely to have been a cover for the real Valentinius, whose praise of conjugal love was markedly different from the horror of sexuality found in the mainstream Patristic literature."

There is no connection to be made: the historical Valentinius' name was directly applied at the close of the fifth century to a purely legendary martyr, whose very identity fluctuated from one late source to the next. The feast of St. Valentine was first decreed in 496 by Pope Gelasius I, among those "whose acts are known only to God.". The names are identical. Let us improve this text, which simply draws some natural and logical conclusions, too obvious to be passed over in silence— except in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908, needless to say. The issue must lie in the phrase is more likely to have been a cover.

Let me suggest this perfectly neutral emendation: "A feast for the apocryphal "Saint Valentine" for whom Saint Valentine's Day was dedicated is no longer in the Roman Catholic calendar. Veneration for a martyr Valentinus was first decreed in 496 by Pope Gelasius I, among those "whose acts are known only to God." The application of the historical Valentinius' name to a purely legendary martyr at the end of the fifth century might be read as a cover for the real Valentinius, whose praise of conjugal love was markedly different from the horror of sexuality found in the mainstream Patristic literature." --Wetman 12:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Valentinus and Origen

The article reads: Tertullian also stated that Valentinus was personally acquainted with Origen [citation needed].

I find this difficult to believe. Valentinus was dead by 175, and Origen was born sometime after 180. Not only is a citation needed, but an explanation of Tertullian's statement is needed as well, if it truly exists.

Blacklisted link

sv:Valentinus (gnostiker)?--NERIUM 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ptolemy

Does anyone know if the Ptolemy who was the student of Valentinus is the famous Ptolemy of Alexandria linked here? I couldn't find any evidence either way, but I didn't look hard. --Bmorton3 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know either, but look at the dates - Valentinus was only about a decade or so after Ptolemy, so I'd tend to doubt it. --maru (talk) contribs 23:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No he wasn't. --Wetman 10:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

contender

Why not mention that Tertullien suggested that Valentinus was a serious contender for Bishop of Rome/Pope and almost won the election, with a reference, without the slanderous part of the quote? SquirleyWurley

It is mentioned in proper fashion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

flora

the article says: "Ptolemy is known only for this letter to a wealthy Gnostic lady named Flora", but ptolemy's article says flora wasn't a gnostic, but a christian. which is right? Tjenare 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Dan Baedeker~~ Article says Valentinus (d. c. 160) was married to Santa Sabina. But Santa Sabina (d. 126) article says she was the widow of Valentinus. She must have been married to a different Valentinus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.171.86 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

which death date is correct?

this page states his death date at 160ce. G.R.S. Mead, via Hoeller, http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm claims Tertullian placed Valentinus death much later than 160ce. by claiming that Valentinus lived after 175ce. However, Tertullian himself was born in 160, therefore if Tertullian was speaking first hand as a personal acquaintance it would mean that Valentinus death was later than the listed 160ce. However, I'm not entirely sure how much of Tertullians history can be trusted as he also placed Origen and Valentinus as personal acquaintences, but by any timeline they could not have overlapped. Could someone please note these problems to at least educate the reader for potential errors? Which death date is correct?

signed by, Zoshac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoshac (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Orthodox Bias

Christianity wasn't orthodox at the time of Valentinus. Framing the article as him being a gnostic is an anachronistic distinction. He is one of the oldest Christian theologians, surpassing many of the Church Fathers and both he and those who adhered to his theology saw themselves merely as Christians. Obviously, this is a relatively recent development in biblical scholarship and most articles on these topics have the same bias, but a bias it is. 2601:8C0:983:83E0:7C1E:8F83:7F99:3502 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)