tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post8162625696219784678..comments2024-03-28T14:05:25.134-07:00Comments on Sacnoth's Scriptorium: Valentinus or ValentineJohn D. Rateliffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12324926298336489295noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-59796262363934538332009-02-15T23:15:00.000-08:002009-02-15T23:15:00.000-08:00Interestingly enough The History Channel just aire...Interestingly enough The History Channel just aired special. Here's a link to the web link:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.history.com/video.do?name=valentinesday" REL="nofollow">http://www.history.com/video.do?name=valentinesday</A><BR/><BR/>I love the histories of holidays. :)Anne Trenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01212707737289457868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-23407168519550858612009-02-15T21:17:00.000-08:002009-02-15T21:17:00.000-08:00By the way, I'm curious about your claim that Vale...By the way, I'm curious about your claim that Valentinus "was after all at one time candidate for pope". What is your source for this? So far as I have been able to discover, only Tertullian (<I>Adversus Valentinianos</I> IV.1) mentions anything about Valentinus's episcopal ambition, and says only that "Valentinus hoped (or expected) to become bishop" (or "become a bishop") (<I>speraverat episcopatum Valentinus</I>); he does not say "bishop <I>of Rome</I>". That <I>may</I> be what Tertullian meant, but it is by no means certain.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, according to Tertullian (loc. cit.), it was <I>after</I> his episcopal hope/expectation was unmet that Valentinus adopted and promulgated his heretical ideas (indeed, Tertullian attributes Valentinus's break with "the authentic church", <I>ecclesia authenticae</I>, and subsequent heresy to sour grapes over this disappointment). So even if Valentinus really was a candidate for bishop <I>of Rome</I>, it would <I>not</I> mean that his <I>subsequent</I> Gnostic teachings were in any way accepted by any part or portion of the Apostolic Church of the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-53650209594327545372009-02-15T19:18:00.000-08:002009-02-15T19:18:00.000-08:00Given the choice between the testimony of document...Given the choice between the testimony of documents dating from just hundreds of years after the fact, and speculation nearly 2000 years later and based only on chronological chauvinism and a name, I'll confidently choose the former. We may not know much about the Valentine(s) listed in the early Martyrologies, but <I>none</I> of what <I>is</I> known is at all consistent with Valentinus the Gnostic (about whom we know quite a bit). So there is precisely <I>no</I> evidence in support of identifying them, and in fact what evidence there is is against it. <BR/><BR/>I've read more than enough Ehrman (and Pagels, and King, etc.), thanks. And thankfully I've also read Irenaeus and Eusebius and Jonas and Drobner and Deconick etc., <I>and</I> the Gnostic texts themselves (which reading by the way shows that Irenaeus was remarkably accurate in summarizing the Gnostic texts), and so I know <I>full</I> well how little the claims of the former resemble either Church history or the history of the development and spread of Gnosticism, or even the actual beliefs of the "Christian" Gnostics themselves and their own perceived position with respect to the Apostolic Church and the Apostolic Tradition. I invite you to read them as well, and then we can compare notes if you're interested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-2193267736694218852009-02-15T18:26:00.000-08:002009-02-15T18:26:00.000-08:00"the hagiographic equivalent of folk etymology." -..."the hagiographic equivalent of folk etymology." -- yes, I think that's a fair analogy.<BR/><BR/>But it's also fair to note that all the evidence for 'Saint Valentine' is legendary, not documentary. And so far as different versions of the legend goes, Valentine was either a Roman priest, or an Italian bishop, or a martyr in Roman Africa. This may have been three people, or two, or one, assuming that they ever lived at all --no such figure appears in the earliest surviving lists of martyrs, dating from a century or two after his supposed death(s). In fact, so poor is the evidence that Valentine has now been removed from the Calendar of Saints (though he's still included in the Martyrology). Given this confusion, it doesn't seem at all impossible to me that 'Valentine the martyr' might be a purely legendary figure derived from confused memories of the real Valentinus the teacher (who was after all at one time candidate for pope).<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link to the Catholic Encyclopdia entry; there's somewhat more at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine)<BR/>I particularly liked the observation of the pope who established V's official feast day (in 496) that he belonged to the category of those "whose acts are known only to God".<BR/><BR/>For more on Valentinus, I recommend Bart Ehrman's book LOST CHRISTIANITIES, which gives a v. good account of the great variety of beliefs among early Xians before the eventual coalescence of the consensus that came to be called 'orthodoxy'.<BR/><BR/>--JDRJohn D. Rateliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12324926298336489295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-75704504718863372732009-02-15T14:21:00.000-08:002009-02-15T14:21:00.000-08:00MMMMM no.The fact that we know little about the th...MMMMM no.<BR/><BR/>The fact that we know little about the <I>three</I> Saint Valentines listed in early Martyrologies for Feb. 14* -- <I>other than the fact that they were martyrs</I> (which Valentinus was <I>not</I>) -- doesn't mean that one can just cast about history looking for a famous person of the same name. Doing so is the hagiographic equivalent of folk etymology.<BR/><BR/>*Though not <I>nothing</I>: see <A>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15254a.htm</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com