Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



6793
Hippolytus, Refutation Of All Heresies, 7.28.1-7.28.7


nanIt is said that Thales of Miletus, one of the seven wise men, first attempted to frame a system of natural philosophy. This person said that some such thing as water is the generative principle of the universe, and its end - for that out of this, solidified and again dissolved, all things consist, and that all things are supported on it; from which also arise both earthquakes and changes of the winds and atmospheric movements, and that all things are both produced and are in a state of flux corresponding with the nature of the primary author of generation - and that the Deity is that which has neither beginning nor end. This person, having been occupied with an hypothesis and investigation concerning the stars, became the earliest author to the Greeks of this kind of learning. And he, looking towards heaven, alleging that he was carefully examining supernal objects, fell into a well; and a certain maid, by name Thratta, remarked of him derisively, that while intent on beholding things in heaven, he did not know, what was at his feet. And he lived about the time of Croesus. , But there was also, not far from these times, another philosophy which Pythagoras originated (who some say was a native of Samos), which they have denominated Italian, because that Pythagoras, flying from Polycrates the king of Samos, took up his residence in a city of Italy, and there passed the entire of his remaining years. And they who received in succession his doctrine, did not much differ from the same opinion. And this person, instituting an investigation concerning natural phenomena, combined together astronomy, and geometry, and music. And so he proclaimed that the Deity is a monad; and carefully acquainting himself with the nature of number, he affirmed that the world sings, and that its system corresponds with harmony, and he first resolved the motion of the seven stars into rhythm and melody. And being astonished at the management of the entire fabric, he required that at first his disciples should keep silence, as if persons coming into the world initiated in (the secrets of) the universe; next, when it seemed that they were sufficiently conversant with his mode of teaching his doctrine, and could forcibly philosophize concerning the stars and nature, then, considering them pure, he enjoins them to speak. This man distributed his pupils in two orders, and called the one esoteric, but the other exoteric. And to the former he confided more advanced doctrines, and to the latter a more moderate amount of instruction. And he also touched on magic - as they say - and himself discovered an art of physiogony, laying down as a basis certain numbers and measures, saying that they comprised the principle of arithmetical philosophy by composition after this manner. The first number became an originating principle, which is one, indefinable, incomprehensible, having in itself all numbers that, according to plurality, can go on ad infinitum. But the primary monad became a principle of numbers, according to substance. - which is a male monad, begetting after the manner of a parent all the rest of the numbers. Secondly, the duad is a female number, and the same also is by arithmeticians termed even. Thirdly, the triad is a male number. This also has been classified by arithmeticians under the denomination uneven. And in addition to all these is the tetrad, a female number; and the same also is called even, because it is female. Therefore all the numbers that have been derived from the genus are four; but number is the indefinite genus, from which was constituted, according to them, the perfect number, viz., the decade. For one, two, three, four, become ten, if its proper denomination be preserved essentially for each of the numbers. Pythagoras affirmed this to be a sacred quaternion, source of everlasting nature, having, as it were, roots in itself; and that from this number all the numbers receive their originating principle. For eleven, and twelve, and the rest, partake of the origin of existence from ten. Of this decade, the perfect number, there are termed four divisions - namely, number, monad, square, (and) cube. And the connections and blendings of these are performed, according to nature, for the generation of growth completing the productive number. For when the square itself is multiplied into itself, a biquadratic is the result. But when the square is multiplied into the cube, the result is the product of a square and cube; and when the cube is multiplied into the cube, the product of two cubes is the result. So that all the numbers from which the production of existing (numbers) arises, are seven - namely, number, monad, square, cube, biquadratic, quadratic-cube, cubo-cube. This philosopher likewise said that the soul is immortal, and that it subsists in successive bodies. Wherefore he asserted that before the Trojan era he was Aethalides, and during the Trojan epoch Euphorbus, and subsequent to this Hermotimus of Samos, and after him Pyrrhus of Delos; fifth, Pythagoras. And Diodorus the Eretrian, and Aristoxenus the musician, assert that Pythagoras came to Zaratas the Chaldean, and that he explained to him that there are two original causes of things, father and mother, and that father is light, but mother darkness; and that of the light the parts are hot, dry, not heavy, light, swift; but of darkness, cold, moist, weighty, slow; and that out of all these, from female and male, the world consists. But the world, he says, is a musical harmony; wherefore, also, that the sun performs a circuit in accordance with harmony. And as regards the things that are produced from earth and the cosmical system, they maintain that Zaratas makes the following statements: that there are two demons, the one celestial and the other terrestrial; and that the terrestrial sends up a production from earth, and that this is water; and that the celestial is a fire, partaking of the nature of air, hot and cold. And he therefore affirms that none of these destroys or sullies the soul, for these constitute the substance of all things. And he is reported to have ordered his followers not to eat beans, because that Zaratas said that, at the origin and concretion of all things, when the earth was still undergoing its process of solidification, and that of putrefaction had set in, the bean was produced. And of this he mentions the following indication, that if any one, after having chewed a bean without the husk, places it opposite the sun for a certain period - for this immediately will aid in the result - it yields the smell of human seed. And he mentions also another clearer instance to be this: if, when the bean is blossoming, we take the bean and its flower, and deposit them in a jar, smear this over, and bury it in the ground, and after a few days uncover it, we shall see it wearing the appearance, first of a woman's pudendum, and after this, when closely examined, of the head of a child growing in along with it. This person, being burned along with his disciples in Croton, a town of Italy, perished. And this was a habit with him, whenever one repaired to him with a view of becoming his follower, (the candidate disciple was compelled) to sell his possessions, and lodge the money sealed with Pythagoras, and he continued in silence to undergo instruction, sometimes for three, but sometimes for five years. And again, on being released, he was permitted to associate with the rest, and remained as a disciple, and took his meals along with them; if otherwise, however, he received back his property, and was rejected. These persons, then, were styled Esoteric Pythagoreans, whereas the rest, Pythagoristae. Among his followers, however, who escaped the conflagration were Lysis and Archippus, and the servant of Pythagoras, Zamolxis, who also is said to have taught the Celtic Druids to cultivate the philosophy of Pythagoras. And they assert that Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians his system of numbers and measures; and I being struck by the plausible, fanciful, and not easily revealed wisdom of the priests, he himself likewise, in imitation of them, enjoined silence, and made his disciples lead a solitary life in underground chapels. , But Empedocles, born after these, advanced likewise many statements respecting the nature of demons, to the effect that, being very numerous, they pass their time in managing earthly concerns. This person affirmed the originating principle of the universe to be discord and friendship, and that the intelligible fire of the monad is the Deity, and that all things consist of fire, and will be resolved into fire; with which opinion the Stoics likewise almost agree, expecting a conflagration. But most of all does he concur with the tenet of transition of souls from body to body, expressing himself thus:- For surely both youth and maid I was, And shrub, and bird, and fish, from ocean stray'd. This (philosopher) maintained the transmutation of all souls into any description of animal. For Pythagoras, the instructor of these (sages), asserted that himself had been Euphorbus, who sewed in the expedition against Ilium, alleging that he recognised his shield.The foregoing are the tenets of Empedocles. , But Heraclitus, a natural philosopher of Ephesus, surrendered himself to universal grief, condemning the ignorance of the entire of life, and of all men; nay, commiserating the (very) existence of mortals, for he asserted that he himself knew everything, whereas the rest of mankind nothing. But he also advanced statements almost in concert with Empedocles, saying that the originating principle of all things is discord and friendship, and that the Deity is a fire endued with intelligence, and that all things are borne one upon another, and never are at a standstill; and just as Empedocles, he affirmed that the entire locality about us is full of evil things, and that these evil things reach as far as the moon, being extended from the quarter situated around the earth, and that they do not advance further, inasmuch as the entire space above the moon is more pure. So also it seemed to Heraclitus. After these arose also other natural philosophers, whose opinions we have not deemed it necessary to declare, (inasmuch as) they present no diversity to those already specified. Since, however, upon the whole, a not inconsiderable school has sprung (from thence), and many natural philosophers subsequently have arisen from them, each advancing different accounts of the nature of the universe, it seems also to us advisable, that, explaining the philosophy that has come down by succession from Pythagoras, we should recur to the opinions entertained by those living after the time of Thales, and that, furnishing a narrative of these, we should approach the consideration of the ethical and logical philosophy which Socrates and Aristotle originated, the former ethical, and the latter logical. , Anaximander, then, was the hearer of Thales. Anaximander was son of Praxiadas, and a native of Miletus. This man said that the originating principle of existing things is a certain constitution of the Infinite, out of which the heavens are generated, and the worlds therein; and that this principle is eternal and undecaying, and comprising all the worlds. And he speaks of time as something of limited generation, and subsistence, and destruction. This person declared the Infinite to be an originating principle and element of existing things, being the first to employ such a denomination of the originating principle. But, moreover, he asserted that there is an eternal motion, by the agency of which it happens that the heavens are generated; but that the earth is poised aloft, upheld by nothing, continuing (so) on account of its equal distance from all (the heavenly bodies); and that the figure of it is curved, circular, similar to a column of stone. And one of the surfaces we tread upon, but the other is opposite. And that the stars are a circle of fire, separated from the fire which is in the vicinity of the world, and encompassed by air. And that certain atmospheric exhalations arise in places where the stars shine; wherefore, also, when these exhalations are obstructed, that eclipses take place. And that the moon sometimes appears full and sometimes waning, according to the obstruction or opening of its (orbital) paths. But that the circle of the sun is twenty-seven times larger than the moon, and that the sun is situated in the highest (quarter of the firmament); whereas the orbs of the fixed stars in the lowest. And that animals are produced (in moisture ) by evaporation from the sun. And that man was, originally, similar to a different animal, that is, a fish. And that winds are caused by the separation of very rarified exhalations of the atmosphere, and by their motion after they have been condensed. And that rain arises from earth's giving back (the vapours which it receives) from the (clouds ) under the sun. And that there are flashes of lightning when the wind coming down severs the clouds. This person was born in the third year of the XLII . Olympiad. , But Anaximenes, who himself was also a native of Miletus, and son of Eurystratus, affirmed that the originating principle is infinite air, out of which are generated things existing, those which have existed, and those that will be, as well as gods and divine (entities), and that the rest arise from the offspring of this. But that there is such a species of air, when it is most even, which is imperceptible to vision, but capable of being manifested by cold and heat, and moisture and motion, and that it is continually in motion; for that whatsoever things undergo alteration, do not change if there is not motion. For that it presents a different appearance according as it is condensed and attenuated, for when it is dissolved into what is more attenuated that fire is produced, and that when it is moderately condensed again into air that a cloud is formed from the air by virtue of the contraction; but when condensed still more, water, (and) that when the condensation is carried still further, earth is formed; and when condensed to the very highest degree, stones. Wherefore, that the dominant principles of generation are contraries - namely, heat and cold. And that the expanded earth is wafted along upon the air, and in like manner both sun and moon and the rest of the stars; for all things being of the nature of fire, are wafted about through the expanse of space, upon the air. And that the stars are produced from earth by reason of the mist which arises from this earth; and when this is attenuated, that fire is produced, and that the stars consist of the fire which is being borne aloft. But also that there are terrestrial natures in the region of the stars carried on along with them. And he says that the stars do not move under the earth, as some have supposed, but around the earth, just as a cap is turned round our head; and that the sun is hid, not by being under the earth, but because covered by the higher portions of the earth, and on account of the greater distance that he is from us. But that the stars do not emit heat on account of the length of distance; and that the winds are produced when the condensed air, becoming rarified, is borne on; and that when collected and thickened still further, clouds are generated, and thus a change made into water. And that hail is produced when the water borne down from the clouds becomes congealed; and that snow is generated when these very clouds, being more moist, acquire congelation; and that lightning is caused when the clouds are parted by force of the winds; for when these are sundered there is produced a brilliant and fiery flash. And that a rainbow is produced by reason of the rays of the sun failing on the collected air. And that an earthquake takes place when the earth is altered into a larger (bulk) by heat and cold. These indeed, then, were the opinions of Anaximenes. This (philosopher) flourished about the first year of the LVIII . Olympiad. , After this (thinker) comes Anaxagoras, son of Hegesibulus, a native of Clazomenae. This person affirmed the originating principle of the universe to be mind and matter; mind being the efficient cause, whereas matter that which was being formed. For all things coming into existence simultaneously, mind supervening introduced order. And material principles, he says, are infinite; even the smaller of these are infinite. And that all things partake of motion by being moved by mind, and that similar bodies coalesce. And that celestial bodies were arranged by orbicular motion. That, therefore, what was thick and moist, and dark and cold, and all things heavy, came together into the centre, from the solidification of which earth derived support; but that the things opposite to these - namely, heat and brilliancy, and dryness and lightness - hurried impetuously into the farther portion of the atmosphere. And that the earth is in figure plane; and that it continues suspended aloft, by reason of its magnitude, and by reason of there being no vacuum, and by reason of the air, which was most powerful, bearing along the wafted earth. But that among moist substances on earth, was the sea, and the waters in it; and when these evaporated (from the sun), or had settled under, that the ocean was formed in this manner, as well as from the rivers that from time to time flow into it. And that the rivers also derive support from the rains and from the actual waters in the earth; for that this is hollow, and contains water in its caverns. And that the Nile is inundated in summer, by reason of the waters carried down into it from the snows in northern (latitudes). And that the sun and moon and all the stars are fiery stones, that were rolled round by the rotation of the atmosphere. And that beneath the stars are sun and moon, and certain invisible bodies that are carried along with us; and that we have no perception of the heat of the stars, both on account of their being so far away, and on account of their distance from the earth; and further, they are not to the same degree hot as the sun, on account of their occupying a colder situation. And that the moon, being lower than the sun, is nearer us. And that the sun surpasses the Peloponnesus in size. And that the moon has not light of its own, but from the sun. But that the revolution of the stars takes place under the earth. And that the moon is eclipsed when the earth is interposed, and occasionally also those (stars) that are underneath the moon. And that the sun (is eclipsed) when, at the beginning of the month, the moon is interposed. And that the solstices are caused by both sun and moon being repulsed by the air. And that the moon is often turned, by its not being able to make head against the cold. This person was the first to frame definitions regarding eclipses and illuminations. And he affirmed that the moon is earthy, and has in it plains and ravines. And that the milky way is a reflection of the light of the stars which do not derive their radiance from the sun; and that the stars, coursing (the firmament) as shooting sparks, arise out of the motion of the pole. And that winds are caused when the atmosphere is rarified by the sun, and by those burning orbs that advance under the pole, and are borne from (it). And that thunder and lightning are caused by heat falling on the clouds. And that earthquakes are produced by the air above falling on that under the earth; for when this is moved, that the earth also, being wafted by it, is shaken. And that animals originally came into existence in moisture, and after this one from another; and that males are procreated when the seed secreted from the right parts adhered to the right parts of the womb, and that females are born when the contrary took place. This philosopher flourished in the first year of the LXXXVIII . Olympiad, at which time they say that Plato also was born. They maintain that Anaxagoras was likewise prescient. , Archelaus was by birth an Athenian, and son of Apollodorus. This person, similarly with Anaxagoras, asserted the mixture of matter, and enunciated his first principles in the same manner. This philosopher, however, held that there is inherent immediately in mind a certain mixture; and that the originating principle of motion is the mutual separation of heat and cold, and that the heat is moved, and that the cold remains at rest. And that the water, being dissolved, flows towards the centre, where the scorched air and earth are produced, of which the one is borne upwards and the other remains beneath. And that the earth is at rest, and that on this account it came into existence; and that it lies in the centre, being no part, so to speak, of the universe, delivered from the conflagration; and that from this, first in a state of ignition, is the nature of the stars, of which indeed the largest is the sun, and next to this the moon; and of the rest some less, but some greater. And he says that the heaven was inclined at an angle, and so that the sun diffused light over the earth, and made the atmosphere transparent, and the ground dry; for that at first it was a sea, inasmuch as it is lofty at the horizon and hollow in the middle. And he adduces, as an indication of the hollowness, that the sun does not rise and set to all at the same time, which ought to happen if the earth was even. And with regard to animals, he affirms that the earth, being originally fire in its lower part, where the heat and cold were intermingled, both the rest of animals made their appearance, numerous and dissimilar, all having the same food, being nourished from mud; and their existence was of short duration, but afterwards also generation from one another arose unto them; and men were separated from the rest (of the animal creation), and they appointed rulers, and laws, and arts, and cities, and the rest. And he asserts that mind is innate in all animals alike; for that each, according to the difference of their physical constitution, employed (mind), at one time slower, at another faster. Natural philosophy, then, continued from Thales until Archelaus. Socrates was the hearer of this (latter philosopher). There are, however, also very many others, introducing various opinions respecting both the divinity and the nature of the universe; and if we were disposed to adduce all the opinions of these, it would be necessary to compose a vast quantity of books. But, reminding the reader of those whom we especially ought - who are deserving of mention from their fame, and from being, so to speak, the leaders to those who have subsequently framed systems of philosophy, and from their supplying them with a starting-point towards such undertakings - let us hasten on our investigations towards what remains for consideration. , For Parmenides likewise supposes the universe to be one, both eternal and unbegotten, and of a spherical form. And neither did he escape the opinion of the great body (of speculators), affirming fire and earth to be the originating principles of the universe- the earth as matter, but the fire as cause, even an efficient one. He asserted that the world would be destroyed, but in what way he does not mention. The same (philosopher), however, affirmed the universe to be eternal, and not generated, and of spherical form and homogeneous, but not having a figure in itself, and immoveable and limited. , But Leucippus, an associate of Zeno, did not maintain the same opinion, but affirms things to be infinite, and always in motion, and that generation and change exist continuously. And he affirms plenitude and vacuum to be elements. And he asserts that worlds are produced when many bodies are congregated and flow together from the surrounding space to a common point, so that by mutual contact they made substances of the same figure and similar in form come into connection; and when thus intertwined, there are transmutations into other bodies, and that created things wax and wane through necessity. But what the nature of necessity is, (Parmenides) did not define. , And Democritus was an acquaintance of Leucippus. Democritus, son of Damasippus, a native of Abdera, conferring with many gymnosophists among the Indians, and with priests in Egypt, and with astrologers and magi in Babylon, (propounded his system). Now he makes statements similarly with Leucippus concerning elements, viz. plenitude and vacuum, denominating plenitude entity, and vacuum nonentity; and this he asserted, since existing things are continually moved in the vacuum. And he maintained worlds to be infinite, and varying in bulk; and that in some there is neither sun nor moon, while in others that they are larger than with us, and with others more numerous. And that intervals between worlds are unequal; and that in one quarter of space (worlds) are more numerous, and in another less so; and that some of them increase in bulk, but that others attain their full size, while others dwindle away and that in one quarter they are coming into existence, while in another they are failing; and that they are destroyed by clashing one with another. And that some worlds are destitute of animals and plants, and every species of moisture. And that the earth of our world was created before that of the stars, and that the moon is underneath; next (to it) the sun; then the fixed stars. And that (neither) the planets nor these (fixed stars) possess an equal elevation. And that the world flourishes, until no longer it can receive anything from without. This (philosopher) turned all things into ridicule, as if all the concerns of humanity were deserving of laughter. , But Xenophanes, a native of Colophon, was son of Orthomenes. This man survived to the time of Cyrus. This (philosopher) first asserted that there is no possibility of comprehending anything, expressing himself thus:- For if for the most part of perfection man may speak, Yet he knows it not himself, and in all attains surmise. And he affirms that nothing is generated or perishes, or is moved; and that the universe, being one, is beyond change. But he says that the deity is eternal, and one and altogether homogeneous and limited, and of a spherical form, and endued with perception in all parts. And that the sun exists during each day from a conglomeration of small sparks, and that the earth is infinite, and is surrounded neither by an atmosphere nor by the heaven. And that there are infinite suns and moons, and that all things spring from earth. This man affirmed that the sea is salt, on account of the many mixtures that flow into it. Metrodorus, however, from the fact of its being filtered through earth, asserts that it is on account of this that it is made salt. And Xenophanes is of opinion that there had been a mixture of the earth with the sea, and that in process of time it was disengaged from the moisture, alleging that he could produce such proofs as the following: that in the midst of earth, and in mountains, shells are discovered; and also in Syracuse he affirms was found in the quarries the print of a fish and of seals, and in Paros an image of a laurel in the bottom of a stone, and in Melita parts of all sorts of marine animals. And he says that these were generated when all things originally were embedded in mud, and that an impression of them was dried in the mud, but that all men had perished when the earth, being precipitated into the sea, was converted into mud; then, again, that it originated generation, and that this overthrow occurred to all worlds. , One Ecphantus, a native of Syracuse, affirmed that it is not possible to attain a true knowledge of things. He defines, however, as he thinks, primary bodies to be indivisible, and that there are three variations of these, viz., bulk, figure, capacity, from which are generated the objects of sense. But that there is a determinable multitude of these, and that this is infinite. And that bodies are moved neither by weight nor by impact, but by divine power, which he calls mind and soul; and that of this the world is a representation; wherefore also it has been made in the form of a sphere by divine power. And that the earth in the middle of the cosmical system is moved round its own centre towards the east. , Hippo, a native of Rhegium, asserted as originating principles, coldness, for instance water, and heat, for instance fire. And that fire, when produced by water, subdued the power of its generator, and formed the world. And the soul, he said, is sometimes brain, but sometimes water; for that also the seed is that which appears to us to arise out of moisture, from which, he says, the soul is produced. So far, then, we think we have sufficiently adduced (the opinions of) these; wherefore, inasmuch as we have adequately gone in review through the tenets of physical speculators, it seems to remain that we now turn to Socrates and Plato, who gave special preference to moral philosophy. , Socrates, then, was a hearer of Archelaus, the natural philosopher; and he, reverencing the rule, Know yourself, and having assembled a large school, had Plato (there), who was far superior to all his pupils. (Socrates) himself left no writings after him. Plato, however, taking notes of all his (lectures on) wisdom, established a school, combining together natural, ethical, (and) logical (philosophy). But the points Plato determined are these following. , Plato (lays down) that there are three originating principles of the universe, (namely) God, and matter, and exemplar; God as the Maker and Regulator of this universe, and the Being who exercises providence over it; but matter, as that which underlies all (phenomena), which (matter) he styles both receptive and a nurse, out of the arrangement of which proceeded the four elements of which the world consists; (I mean) fire, air, earth, water, from which all the rest of what are denominated concrete substances, as well as animals and plants, have been formed. And that the exemplar, which he likewise calls ideas, is the intelligence of the Deity, to which, as to an image in the soul, the Deity attending, fabricated all things. God, he says, is both incorporeal and shapeless, and comprehensible by wise men solely; whereas matter is body potentially, but with potentiality not as yet passing into action, for being itself without form and without quality, by assuming forms and qualities, it became body. That matter, therefore, is an originating principle, and coeval with the Deity, and that in this respect the world is uncreated. For (Plato) affirms that (the world) was made out of it. And that (the attribute of) imperishableness necessarily belongs to (literally follows) that which is uncreated. So far forth, however, as body is supposed to be compounded out of both many qualities and ideas, so far forth it is both created and perishable. But some of the followers of Plato mingled both of these, employing some such example as the following: That as a waggon can always continue undestroyed, though undergoing partial repairs from time to time, so that even the parts each in turn perish, yet itself remains always complete; so after this manner the world also, although in parts it perishes, yet the things that are removed, being repaired, and equivalents for them being introduced, it remains eternal. Some maintain that Plato asserts the Deity to be one, ingenerable and incorruptible, as he says in The Laws: God, therefore, as the ancient account has it, possesses both the beginning, and end, and middle of all things. Thus he shows God to be one, on account of His having pervaded all things. Others, however, maintain that Plato affirms the existence of many gods indefinitely, when he uses these words: God of gods, of whom I am both the Creator and Father. But others say that he speaks of a definite number of deities in the following passage: Therefore the mighty Jupiter, wheeling his swift chariot in heaven; and when he enumerates the offspring of the children of heaven and earth. But others assert that (Plato) constituted the gods as generable; and on account of their having been produced, that altogether they were subject to the necessity of corruption, but that on account of the will of God they are immortal, (maintaining this) in the passage already quoted, where, to the words, God of gods, of whom I am Creator and Father, he adds, indissoluble through the fiat of My will; so that if (God) were disposed that these should be dissolved, they would easily be dissolved. And he admits natures (such as those) of demons, and says that some of them are good, but others worthless. And some affirm that he states the soul to be uncreated and immortal, when he uses the following words, Every soul is immortal, for that which is always moved is immortal; and when he demonstrates that the soul is self-moved, and capable of originating motion. Others, however, (say that Plato asserted that the soul was) created, but rendered imperishable through the will of God. But some (will have it that he considered the soul) a composite (essence), and generable and corruptible; for even he supposes that there is a receptacle for it, and that it possesses a luminous body, but that everything generated involves a necessity of corruption. Those, however, who assert the immortality of the soul are especially strengthened in their opinion by those passages (in Plato's writings), where he says, that both there are judgments after death, and tribunals of justice in Hades, and that the virtuous (souls) receive a good reward, while the wicked (ones) suitable punishment. Some notwithstanding assert, that he also acknowledges a transition of souls from one body to another, and that different souls, those that were marked out for such a purpose, pass into different bodies, according to the desert of each, and that after certain definite periods they are sent up into this world to furnish once more a proof of their choice. Others, however, (do not admit this to be his doctrine, but will have it that Plato affirms that the souls) obtain a place according to the desert of each; and they employ as a testimony the saying of his, that some good men are with Jove, and that others are ranging abroad (through heaven) with other gods; whereas that others are involved in eternal punishments, as many as during this life have committed wicked and unjust deeds. And people affirm that Plato says, that some things are without a mean, that others have a mean, that others are a mean. (For example, that) waking and sleep, and such like, are conditions without an intermediate state; but that there are things that had means, for instance virtue and vice; and there are means (between extremes), for instance grey between white and black, or some other color. And they say, that he affirms that the things pertaining to the soul are absolutely alone good, but that the things pertaining to the body, and those external (to it), are not any longer absolutely good, but reputed blessings. And that frequently he names these means also, for that it is possible to use them both well and ill. Some virtues, therefore, he says, are extremes in regard of intrinsic worth, but in regard of their essential nature means, for nothing is more estimable than virtue. But whatever excels or falls short of these terminates in vice. For instance, he says that there are four virtues- prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude- and that on each of these is attendant two vices, according to excess and defect: for example, on prudence, recklessness according to defect, and knavery according to excess; and on temperance, licentiousness according to defect, stupidity according to excess; and on justice, foregoing a claim according to defect, unduly pressing it according to excess; and on fortitude, cowardice according to defect, foolhardiness according to excess. And that these virtues, when inherent in a man, render him perfect, and afford him happiness. And happiness, he says, is assimilation to the Deity, as far as this is possible; and that assimilation to God takes place when any one combines holiness and justice with prudence. For this he supposes the end of supreme wisdom and virtue. And he affirms that the virtues follow one another in turn, and are uniform, and are never antagonistic to each other; whereas that vices are multiform, and sometimes follow one the other, and sometimes are antagonistic to each other. He asserts that fate exists; not, to be sure, that all things are produced according to fate, but that there is even something in our power, as in the passages where he says, The fault is his who chooses, God is blameless; and the following law of Adrasteia. And thus some (contend for his upholding) a system of fate, whereas others one of free-will. He asserts, however, that sins are involuntary. For into what is most glorious of the things in our power, which is the soul, no one would (deliberately) admit what is vicious, that is, transgression, but that from ignorance and an erroneous conception of virtue, supposing that they were achieving something honourable, they pass into vice. And his doctrine on this point is most clear in The Republic, where he says, But, again, you presume to assert that vice is disgraceful and abhorred of God; how then, I may ask, would one choose such an evil thing? He, you reply, (would do so) who is worsted by pleasures. Therefore this also is involuntary, if to gain a victory be voluntary; so that, in every point of view, the committing an act of turpitude, reason proves to be involuntary. Some one, however, in opposition to this (Plato), advances the contrary statement, Why then are men punished if they sin involuntary? But he replies, that he himself also, as soon as possible, may be emancipated from vice, and undergo punishment. For that the undergoing punishment is not an evil, but a good thing, if it is likely to prove a purification of evils; and that the rest of mankind, hearing of it, may not transgress, but guard against such an error. (Plato, however, maintains) that the nature of evil is neither created by the Deity, nor possesses subsistence of itself, but that it derives existence from contrariety to what is good, and from attendance upon it, either by excess and defect, as we have previously affirmed concerning the virtues. Plato unquestionably then, as we have already stated, collecting together the three departments of universal philosophy, in this manner formed his speculative system. , Aristotle, who was a pupil of this (Plato), reduced philosophy into an art, and was distinguished rather for his proficiency in logical science, supposing as the elements of all things substance and accident; that there is one substance underlying all things, but nine accidents - namely, quantity, quality, relation, where, when, possession, posture, action, passion; and that substance is of some such description as God, man, and each of the beings that can fall under a similar denomination. But in regard of accidents, quality is seen in, for instance, white, black; and quantity, for instance two cubits, three cubits; and relation, for instance father, son; and where, for instance at Athens, Megara; and when, for instance during the tenth Olympiad; and possession, for instance to have acquired; and action, for instance to write, and in general to evince any practical powers; and posture, for instance to lie down; and passion, for instance to be struck. He also supposes that some things have means, but that others are without means, as we have declared concerning Plato likewise. And in most points he is in agreement with Plato, except the opinion concerning soul. For Plato affirms it to be immortal, but Aristotle that it involves permanence; and after these things, that this also vanishes in the fifth body, which he supposes, along with the other four (elements) - viz., fire, and earth, and water, and air - to be a something more subtle (than these), of the nature of spirit. Plato therefore says, that the only really good things are those pertaining to the soul, and that they are sufficient for happiness; whereas Aristotle introduces a threefold classification of good things, and asserts that the wise man is not perfect, unless there are present to him both the good things of the body and those extrinsic to it. The former are beauty, strength, vigour of the senses, soundness; while the things extrinsic (to the body) are wealth, nobility, glory, power, peace, friendship. And the inner qualities of the soul he classifies, as it was the opinion of Plato, under prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude. This (philosopher) also affirms that evils arise according to an opposition of the things that are good, and that they exist beneath the quarter around the moon, but reach no farther beyond the moon; and that the soul of the entire world is immortal, and that the world itself is eternal, but that (the soul) in an individual, as we have before stated, vanishes (in the fifth body). This (speculator), then holding discussions in the Lyceum, drew up from time to time his system of philosophy; but Zeno (held his school) in the porch called Poecilé. And the followers of Zeno obtained their name from the place - that is, from Stoa- (i.e., a porch), being styled Stoics; whereas Aristotle's followers (were denominated) from their mode of employing themselves while teaching. For since they were accustomed walking about in the Lyceum to pursue their investigations, on this account they were called Peripatetics. These indeed, then, were the doctrines of Aristotle. , The Stoics themselves also imparted growth to philosophy, in respect of a greater development of the art of syllogism, and included almost everything under definitions, both Chrysippus and Zeno being coincident in opinion on this point. And they likewise supposed God to be the one originating principle of all things, being a body of the utmost refinement, and that His providential care pervaded everything; and these speculators were positive about the existence of fate everywhere, employing some such example as the following: that just as a dog, supposing him attached to a car, if indeed he is disposed to follow, both is drawn, or follows voluntarily, making an exercise also of free power, in combination with necessity, that is, fate; but if he may not be disposed to follow, he will altogether be coerced to do so. And the same, of course, holds good in the case of men. For though not willing to follow, they will altogether be compelled to enter upon what has been decreed for them. (The Stoics), however, assert that the soul abides after death, but that it is a body, and that such is formed from the refrigeration of the surrounding atmosphere; wherefore, also, that it was called psyche (i.e., soul). And they acknowledge likewise, that there is a transition of souls from one body to another, that is, for those souls for whom this migration has been destined. And they accept the doctrine, that there will be a conflagration, a purification of this world, some say the entire of it, but others a portion, and that (the world) itself is undergoing partial destruction; and this all but corruption, and the generation from it of another world, they term purgation. And they assume the existence of all bodies, and that body does not pass through body, but that a refraction takes place, and that all things involve plenitude, and that there is no vacuum. The foregoing are the opinions of the Stoics also. , Epicurus, however, advanced an opinion almost contrary to all. He supposed, as originating principles of all things, atoms and vacuity. He considered vacuity as the place that would contain the things that will exist, and atoms the matter out of which all things could be formed; and that from the concourse of atoms both the Deity derived existence, and all the elements, and all things inherent in them, as well as animals and other (creatures); so that nothing was generated or existed, unless it be from atoms. And he affirmed that these atoms were composed of extremely small particles, in which there could not exist either a point or a sign, or any division; wherefore also he called them atoms. Acknowledging the Deity to be eternal and incorruptible, he says that God has providential care for nothing, and that there is no such thing at all as providence or fate, but that all things are made by chance. For that the Deity reposed in the intermundane spaces, (as they) are thus styled by him; for outside the world he determined that there is a certain habitation of God, denominated the intermundane spaces, and that the Deity surrendered Himself to pleasure, and took His ease in the midst of supreme happiness; and that neither has He any concerns of business, nor does He devote His attention to them. As a consequence on these opinions, he also propounded his theory concerning wise men, asserting that the end of wisdom is pleasure. Different persons, however, received the term pleasure in different acceptations; for some (among the Gentiles understood) the passions, but others the satisfaction resulting from virtue. And he concluded that the souls of men are dissolved along with their bodies, just as also they were produced along with them, for that they are blood, and that when this has gone forth or been altered, the entire man perishes; and in keeping with this tenet, (Epicurus maintained) that there are neither trials in Hades, nor tribunals of justice; so that whatsoever any one may commit in this life, that, provided he may escape detection, he is altogether beyond any liability of trial (for it in a future state). In this way, then, Epicurus also formed his opinions. , And another opinion of the philosophers was called that of the Academics, on account of those holding their discussions in the Academy, of whom the founder Pyrrho, from whom they were called Pyrrhonean philosophers, first introduced the notion of the incomprehensibility of all things, so as to (be ready to) attempt an argument on either side of a question, but not to assert anything for certain; for that there is nothing of things intelligible or sensible true, but that they appear to men to be so; and that all substance is in a state of flux and change, and never continues in the same (condition). Some followers, then, of the Academics say that one ought not to declare an opinion on the principle of anything, but simply making the attempt to give it up; whereas others subjoined the formulary not rather (this than that), saying that the fire is not rather fire than anything else. But they did not declare what this is, but what sort it is. , But there is also with the Indians a sect composed of those philosophizing among the Brachmans. They spend a contented existence, abstain both from living creatures and all cooked food, being satisfied with fruits; and not gathering these from the trees, but carrying off those that have fallen to the earth. They subsist upon them, drinking the water of the river Tazabena. But they pass their life naked, affirming that the body has been constituted a covering to the soul by the Deity. These affirm that God is light, not such as one sees, nor such as the sun and fire; but to them the Deity is discourse, not that which finds expression in articulate sounds, but that of the knowledge through which the secret mysteries of nature are perceived by the wise. And this light which they say is discourse, their god, they assert that the Brachmans only know on account of their alone rejecting all vanity of opinion which is the soul's ultimate covering. These despise death, and always in their own peculiar language call God by the name which we have mentioned previously, and they send up hymns (to him). But neither are there women among them, nor do they beget children. But they who aim at a life similar to these, after they have crossed over to the country on the opposite side of the river, continue to reside there, returning no more; and these also are called Brachmans. But they do not pass their life similarly, for there are also in the place women, of whom those that dwell there are born, and in turn beget children. And this discourse which they name God they assert to be corporeal, and enveloped in a body outside himself, just as if one were wearing a sheep's skin, but that on divesting himself of body that he would appear clear to the eye. But the Brachmans say that there is a conflict in the body that surrounds them, (and they consider that the body is for them full of conflicts); in opposition to which, as if marshalled for battle against enemies, they contend, as we have already explained. And they say that all men are captive to their own congenital struggles, viz., sensuality and inchastity, gluttony, anger, joy, sorrow, concupiscence, and such like. And he who has reared a trophy over these, alone goes to God; wherefore the Brachmans deify Dandamis, to whom Alexander the Macedonian paid a visit, as one who had proved victorious in the bodily conflict. But they bear down on Calanus as having profanely withdrawn from their philosophy. But the Brachmans, putting off the body, like fishes jumping out of water into the pure air, behold the sun. , And the Celtic Druids investigated to the very highest point the Pythagorean philosophy, after Zamolxis, by birth a Thracian, a servant of Pythagoras, became to them the originator of this discipline. Now after the death of Pythagoras, Zamolxis, repairing there, became to them the originator of this philosophy. The Celts esteem these as prophets and seers, on account of their foretelling to them certain (events), from calculations and numbers by the Pythagorean art; on the methods of which very art also we shall not keep silence, since also from these some have presumed to introduce heresies; but the Druids resort to magical rites likewise. , But Hesiod the poet asserts himself also that he thus heard from the Muses concerning nature, and that the Muses are the daughters of Jupiter. For when for nine nights and days together, Jupiter, through excess of passion, had uninterruptedly lain with Mnemosyne, that Mnemosyne conceived in one womb those nine Muses, becoming pregnant with one during each night. Having then summoned the nine Muses from Pieria, that is, Olympus, he exhorted them to undergo instruction:- How first both gods and earth were made, And rivers, and boundless deep, and ocean's surge, And glittering stars, and spacious heaven above; How they grasped the crown and shared the glory, And how at first they held the many-valed Olympus. These (truths), you Muses, tell me of, says he, From first, and next which of them first arose. Chaos, no doubt, the very first, arose; but next Wide-stretching Earth, ever the throne secure of all Immortals, who hold the peaks of white Olympus; And breezy Tartarus in wide earth's recess; And Love, who is most beauteous of the gods immortal, Chasing care away from all the gods and men, Quells in breasts the mind and counsel sage. But Erebus from Chaos and gloomy Night arose; And, in turn, from Night both Air and Day were born; But primal Earth, equal to self in truth begot The stormy sky to veil it round on every side, Ever to be for happy gods a throne secure. And forth she brought the towering hills, the pleasant haunts Of nymphs who dwell throughout the woody heights. And also barren Sea begot the surge-tossed Flood, apart from luscious Love; but next Embracing Heaven, she Ocean bred with eddies deep, And Caeus, and Crius, and Hyperian, and Iapetus, And Thia, and Rhea, and Themis, and Mnemosyne, And gold-crowned Phoebe, and comely Tethys. But after these was born last fittest for bearing arms" (for service, as we say).}-- the wiley Cronus, Fiercest of sons; but he abhorred his blooming sire, And in turn the Cyclops bred, who owned a savage breast. And all the rest of the giants from Cronus, Hesiod enumerates, and somewhere afterwards that Jupiter was born of Rhea. All these, then, made the foregoing statements in their doctrine regarding both the nature and generation of the universe. But all, sinking below what is divine, busied themselves concerning the substance of existing things, being astonished at the magnitude of creation, and supposing that it constituted the Deity, each speculator selecting in preference a different portion of the world; failing, however, to discern the God and maker of these. The opinions, therefore, of those who have attempted to frame systems of philosophy among the Greeks, I consider that we have sufficiently explained; and from these the heretics, taking occasion, have endeavoured to establish the tenets that will be after a short time declared. It seems, however, expedient, that first explaining the mystical rites and whatever imaginary doctrines some have laboriously framed concerning the stars, or magnitudes, to declare these; for heretics likewise, taking occasion from them, are considered by the multitude to utter prodigies. Next in order we shall elucidate the feeble opinions advanced by these. Books 2 and 3 are wanting. <
NaN


nanThe pupils of these men, when they perceive the doctrines of the heretics to be like the ocean when tossed into waves by violence of the winds, ought to sail past in quest of the tranquil haven. For a sea of this description is both infested with wild beasts and difficult of navigation, like, as we may say, the Sicilian (Sea), in which the legend reports were Cyclops, and Charybdis, and Scylla, and the rock of the Sirens. Now, the poets of the Greeks allege that Ulysses sailed through (this channel), adroitly using (to his own purpose) the terribleness of these strange monsters. For the savage cruelty (in the aspect) of these towards those who were sailing through was remarkable. The Sirens, however, singing sweetly and harmoniously, beguiled the voyagers, luring, by reason of their melodious voice, those who heard it, to steer their vessels towards (the promontory). The (poets) report that Ulysses, on ascertaining this, smeared with wax the ears of his companions, and, lashing himself to the mast, sailed, free of danger, past the Sirens, hearing their chant distinctly. And my advice to my readers is to adopt a similar expedient, viz., either on account of their infirmity to smear their ears with wax, and sail (straight on) through the tenets of the heretics, not even listening to (doctrines) that are easily capable of enticing them into pleasure, like the luscious lay of the Sirens, or, by binding one's self to the Cross of Christ, (and) hearkening with fidelity (to His words), not to be distracted, inasmuch as he has reposed his trust in Him to whom ere this he has been firmly knit, and (I admonish that man) to continue steadfastly (in this faith). , Since, therefore, in the six books preceding this, we have explained previous (heretical opinions), it now seems proper not to be silent respecting the (doctrines) of Basilides, which are the tenets of Aristotle the Stagyrite, not (those) of Christ. But even though on a former occasion the opinions propounded by Aristotle have been elucidated, we shall not even now scruple to set them down beforehand in a sort of synopsis, for the purpose of enabling my readers, by means of a nearer comparison of the two systems, to perceive with facility that the doctrines advanced by Basilides are (in reality) the clever quibbles of Aristotle. , Aristotle, then, makes a threefold division of substance. For one portion of it is a certain genus, and another a certain species, as that (philosopher) expresses it, and a third a certain individual. What is individual, however, (is so) not through any minuteness of body, but because by nature it cannot admit of any division whatsoever. The genus, on the other hand, is a sort of aggregate, made up of many and different germs. And from this genus, just as (from) a certain heap, all the species of existent things derive their distinctions. And the genus constitutes a competent cause for (the production of) all generated entities. In order, however, that the foregoing statement may be clear, I shall prove (my position) through an example. And by means of this it will be possible for us to retrace our steps over the entire speculation of the Peripatetic (sage). , We affirm the existence of animal absolutely, not some animal. And this animal is neither ox, nor horse, nor man, nor god; nor is it significant of any of these at all, but is animal absolutely. From this animal the species of all particular animals derive their subsistence. And this animality, itself the summum genus, constitutes (the originating principle) for all animals produced in those (particular) species, and (yet is) not (itself any one) of the things generated. For man is an animal deriving the principle (of existence) from that animality, and horse is an animal deriving the principle of existence from that animality. The horse, and ox, and dog, and each of the rest of the animals, derive the principle (of existence) from the absolute animal, while animality itself is not any of these. , If, however, this animality is not any of these (species), the subsistence, according to Aristotle, of the things that are generated, derived its reality from non-existent entities. For animality, from whence these singly have been derived, is not any one (of them); and though it is not any one of them, it has yet become some one originating principle of existing things. But who it is that has established this substance as an originating cause of what is subsequently produced, we shall declare when we arrive at the proper place for entertaining a discussion of this sort. , Since, however, as I have stated, substance is threefold, viz., genus, species, (and) individual; and (since) we have set down animality as being the genus, and man the species, as being already distinct from the majority of animals, but notwithstanding still to be identified (with animals of his own kind), inasmuch as not being yet moulded into a species of realized substance, - (therefore it is, that) when I impart form under a name to a man derived from the genus, I style him Socrates or Diogenes, or some one of the many denominations (in use). And since (in this way, I repeat,) I comprehend under a name the man who constitutes a species that is generated from the genus, I denominate a substance of this description individual. For genus has been divided into species, and species into individual. But (as regards) the individual, since it has been comprehended under a name, it is not possible that, according to its own nature, it could be divided into anything else, as we have divided each of the fore-mentioned (genus and species). Aristotle primarily, and especially, and preeminently entitles this - substance, inasmuch as it cannot either be predicated of any Subject, or exist in a Subject. He, however, predicates of the Subject, just as with the genus, what I said constituted animality, (and which is) predicated by means of a common name of all particular animals, such as ox, horse, and the rest that are placed under (this genus). For it is true to say that man is an animal, and horse an animal, and that ox is an animal, and each of the rest. Now the meaning of the expression predicated of a Subject is this, that inasmuch as it is one, it can be predicated in like manner of many (particulars), even though these happen to be diversified in species. For neither does horse nor ox differ from man so far forth as he is an animal, for the definition of animal is said to suit all animals alike. For what is an animal? If we define it, a general definition will comprehend all animals. For animal is an animated Substance, endued with Sensation. Such are ox, man, horse, and each of the rest (of the animal kingdom). But the meaning of the expression in a Subject is this, that what is inherent in anything, not as a part, it is impossible should exist separately from that in which it is. But this constitutes each of the accidents (resident) in Substance, and is what is termed Quality. Now, according to this, we say that certain persons are of such a quality; for instance, white, grey, black, just, unjust, temperate, and other (characteristics) similar to these. But it is impossible for any one of these to subsist itself by itself; but it must inhere in something else. If, however, neither animal which I predicate of all individual animals, nor accidents which are discoverable in all things of which they are nonessential qualities, can subsist themselves by themselves, and (yet if) individuals are formed out of these, (it follows, therefore, that) the triply divided Substance, which is not made up out of other things, consists of nonentities. If, then, what is primarily, and pre-eminently, and particularly denominated Substance consists of these, it derives existence from nonentities, according to Aristotle. , But concerning Substance, the statements now made will suffice. But not only is Substance denominated genus, species, (and) individual, but also matter, and form, and privation. There is, however, (as regards the substance,) in these no difference, even though the division be allowed to stand. Now, inasmuch as Substance is of this description, the arrangement of the world has taken place according to some such plan as the following. The world is divided, according to Aristotle, into very numerous and diversified parts. Now the portion of the world which extends from the earth to the moon is devoid of foresight, guideless, and is under the sway of that nature alone which belongs to itself. But another (part of the world which lies) beyond the moon, and extends to the surface of heaven, is arranged in the midst of all order and foresight and governance. Now, the (celestial) superficies constitutes a certain fifth substance, and is remote from all those natural elements out of which the cosmical system derives consistence. And this is a certain fifth Substance, according to Aristotle - as it were, a certain super-mundane essence. And (this essence) has become (a logical necessity) in his system, in order to accord with the (Peripatetic) division of the world. And (the topic of this fifth nature) constitutes a distinct investigation in philosophy. For there is extant a certain disquisition, styled A Lecture on Physical (Phenomena), in which he has elaborately treated concerning the operations which are conducted by nature and not providence, (in the quarter of space extending) from the earth as far as the moon. And there is also extant by him a certain other peculiar treatise on the principles of things (in the region) beyond the moon, and it bears the following inscription: Metaphysics. And another peculiar dissertation has been (written) by him, entitled Concerning a Fifth Substance, and in this work Aristotle unfolds his theological opinions. There exists some such division of the universe as we have now attempted to delineate in outline, and (corresponding with it is the division) of the Aristotelian philosophy. His work, however, (styled) Concerning the Soul, is obscure. For in the entire three books (where he treats of this subject) it is not possible to say clearly what is Aristotle's opinion concerning the soul. For, as regards the definition which he furnishes of soul, it is easy (enough) to declare this; but what it is that is signified by the definition is difficult to discover. For soul, he says, is an entelecheia of a natural organic body; (but to explain) what this is at all, would require a very great number of arguments and a lengthened investigation. As regards, however, the Deity, the Originator of all those glorious objects in creation, (the nature of) this (First Cause) - even to one conducting his speculations by a more prolonged inquiry than that concerning (the soul)- is more difficult to know than the soul itself. The definition, however, which Aristotle furnishes of the Deity is, I admit, not difficult to ascertain, but it is impossible to comprehend the meaning of it. For, he says, (the Deity) is a conception of conception; but this is altogether a non-existent (entity). The world, however, is incorruptible (and) eternal, according to Aristotle. For it has in itself nothing faulty, inasmuch as it is directed by Providence and Nature. And Aristotle has laid down doctrines not only concerning Nature and a cosmical system, and Providence, and God, but he has written (more than this); for there is extant by him likewise a certain treatise on ethical subjects, and these he inscribes Books of Ethics. But throughout these he aims at rendering the habits of his hearers excellent from being worthless. When, therefore, Basilides has been discovered, not in spirit alone, but also in the actual expressions and names, transferring the tenets of Aristotle into our evangelical and saving doctrine, what remains, but that, by restoring what he has appropriated from others, we should prove to the disciples of this (heretic) that Christ will in no wise profit them, inasmuch as they are heathenish? , Basilides, therefore, and Isidorus, the true son and disciple of Basilides, say that Matthias communicated to them secret discourses, which, I being specially instructed, he heard from the Saviour. Let us, then, see how clearly Basilides, simultaneously with Isidorus, and the entire band of these (heretics), not only absolutely belies Matthias, but even the Saviour Himself. (Time) was, says (Basilides), when there was nothing. Not even, however, did that nothing constitute anything of existent things; but, to express myself undisguisedly and candidly, and without any quibbling, it is altogether nothing. But when, he says, I employ the expression was,I do not say that it was; but (I speak in this way) in order to signify the meaning of what I wish to elucidate. I affirm then, he says, that it was altogether nothing. For, he says, that is not absolutely ineffable which is named (so) - although undoubtedly we call this ineffable - but that which is non-ineffable. For that which is non-ineffable is not denominated ineffable, but is, he says, above every name that is named. For, he says, by no means for the world are these names sufficient, but so manifold are its divisions that there is a deficiency (of names). And I do not take it upon myself to discover, he says, proper denominations for all things. Undoubtedly, however, one ought mentally, not by means of names, to conceive, after an ineffable manner, the peculiarities (of things) denominated. For an equivocal terminology, (when employed by teachers,) has created for their pupils confusion and a source of error concerning objects. (The Basilidians), in the first instance, laying hold on this borrowed and furtively derived tenet from the Peripatetic (sage), play upon the folly of those who herd together with them. For Aristotle, born many generations before Basilides, first lays down a system in The Categories concerning homonymous words. And these heretics bring this (system) to light as if it were peculiarly their own, and as if it were some novel (doctrine), and some secret disclosure from the discourses of Matthias. , Since, therefore, nothing existed -(I mean) not matter, nor substance, nor what is insubstantial, nor is absolute, nor composite, (nor conceivable, nor inconceivable, (nor what is sensible,) nor devoid of senses, nor man, nor angel, nor a god, nor, in short, any of those objects that have names, or are apprehended by sense, or that are cognised by intellect, but (are) thus (cognised), even with greater minuteness, still, when all things are absolutely removed -(since, I say, nothing existed,) God, non-existent,- whom Aristotle styles conception of conception, but these (Basilidians) non-existent,-inconceivably, insensibly, indeterminately, involuntarily, impassively, (and) unactuated by desire, willed to create a world. Now I employ, he says, the expression willed for the purpose of signifying (that he did so) involuntarily, and inconceivably, and insensibly. And by the expression world I do not mean that which was subsequently formed according to breadth and division, and which stood apart; nay, (far from this,) for (I mean) the germ of a world. The germ, however, of the world had all things in itself. Just as the grain of mustard comprises all things simultaneously, holding them (collected) together within the very smallest (compass), viz. roots, stem, branches, leaves, and innumerable gains which are produced from the plant, (as) seeds again of other plants, and frequently of others (still), that are produced (from them). In this way,non-existent God made the world out of nonentities, casting and depositing some one Seed that contained in itself a conglomeration of the germs of the world. But in order that I may render more clear what it is those (heretics) affirm, (I shall mention the following illustration of theirs.) As an egg of some variegated and particoloured bird - for instance the peacock, or some other (bird) still more manifold and particoloured - being one in reality, contains in itself numerous forms of manifold, and particoloured, and much compounded substances; so, he says, the nonexistent seed of the world, which has been deposited by the non-existent God, constitutes at the same time the germ of a multitude of forms and a multitude of substances. , All things, therefore whatsoever it is possible to declare, and whatever, being not as yet discovered, one must omit, were likely to receive adaptation to the world which was about to be generated from the Seed. And this (Seed), at the requisite seasons, increases in bulk in a peculiar manner, according to accession, as through the instrumentality of a Deity so great, and of this description. (But this Deity) the creature can neither express nor grasp by perception. (Now, all these things) were inherent, treasured in the Seed, as we afterwards observe in a new-born child the growth of teeth, and paternal substance, and intellect, and everything which, though previously having no existence, accrues unto a man, growing little by little, from a youthful period of life. But since it would be absurd to say that any projection of a non-existent God became anything non-existent (for Basilides altogether sirens and dreads the Substances of things generated in the way of projection for, (he asks,) of what sort of projection is there a necessity, or of what sort of matter must we assume the previous existence, in order that God should construct a world, as the spider his web; or (as) a mortal man, for the purpose of working it, takes a (piece of) brass or of wood, or some other of the parts of matter?) - (projection, I say, being out of the question,) certainly, says (Basilides), God spoke the word, and it was carried into effect. And this, as these men assert, is that which has been stated by Moses: Let there be light, and there was light. Whence he says, came the light? From nothing. For it has not been written, he says, whence, but this only, (that it came) from the voice of him who speaks the word. And he who speaks the word, he says, was non-existent; nor was that existent which was being produced. The seed of the cosmical system was generated, he says, from nonentities; (and I mean by the seed,) the word which was spoken, Let there be light. And this, he says, is that which has been stated in the Gospels: He was the true light, which lights every man that comes into the world. He derives his originating principles from that Seed, and obtains from the same source his illuminating power. This is that seed which has in itself the entire conglomeration of germs. And Aristotle affirms this to be genius, and it is distributed by him into infinite species; just as from animal, which is non-existent, we sever ox, horse, (and) man. When, therefore, the cosmical Seed becomes the basis (for a subsequent development), those (heretics) assert, (to quote Basilides' own words:) Whatsoever I affirm, he says, to have been made after these, ask no question as to whence. For (the Seed) had all seeds treasured and reposing in itself, just as non-existent entities, and which were designed to be produced by a non-existent Deity. Let us see, therefore, what they say is first, or what second, or what third, (in the development of) what is generated from the cosmical Seed. There existed, he says, in the Seed itself, a Sonship, threefold, in every respect of the same Substance with the non-existent God, (and) begotten from nonentities, Of this Sonship (thus) involving a threefold division, one part was refined, (another gross,) and another requiring purification. The refined portion, therefore, in the first place, simultaneously with the earliest deposition of the Seed by the non-existent one, immediately burst forth and went upwards and hurried above from below, employing a sort of velocity described in poetry - ... As wing or thought, - and attained, he says, unto him that is nonexistent. For every nature desires that (nonexistent one), on account of a superabundance of beauty and bloom. Each (nature desires this), however, after a different mode. The more gross portion, however, (of the Sonship) continuing still in the Seed, (and) being a certain imitative (principle), was not able to hurry upwards. For (this portion) was much more deficient in the refinement that the Sonship possessed, which through itself hurried upwards, (and so the more gross portion) was left behind. Therefore the more gross Sonship equipped itself with some such wing as Plato, the Preceptor of Aristotle, fastens on the soul in (his) Phoedrus. And Basilides styles such, not a wing, but Holy Spirit; and Sonship invested in this (Spirit) confers benefits, and receives them in turn. He confers benefits, because, as a wing of a bird, when removed from the bird, would not of itself soar high up and aloft; nor, again, would a bird, when disengaged from its pinion, at any time soar high up and aloft; (so, in like manner,) the Sonship involved some such relation in reference to the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit in reference to the Sonship. For the Sonship, carried upwards by the Spirit as by a wing, bears aloft (in turn) its pinion, that is, the Spirit. And it approaches the refined Sonship, and the non-existent God, even Him who fabricated the world out of nonentities. He was not, (however,) able to have this (spirit) with (the Sonship) itself; for it was not of the same substance (with God), nor has it (any) nature (in common) with the Sonship. But as pure and dry air is contrary to (their) nature, and destructive to fishes; so, in contrariety to the nature of the Holy Spirit, was that place simultaneously of non-existent Deity and Sonship - (a place) more ineffable than ineffable (entities), and higher up than all names. Sonship, therefore, left this (spirit) near that Blessed Place, which cannot be conceived or represented by any expression. (He left the spirit) not altogether deserted or separated from the Sonship; nay, (far from it,) for it is just as when a most fragrant ointment is put into a vessel, that, even though (the vessel) be emptied (of it) with ever so much care, nevertheless some odour of the ointment still remains, and is left behind, even after (the ointment) is separated from the vessel; and the vessel retains an odour of ointment, though (it contain) not the ointment (itself). So the Holy Spirit has continued without any share in the Sonship, and separated (from it), and has in itself, similarly with ointment, its own power, a savour of Sonship. And this is what has been declared: As the ointment upon the head which descended to the beard of Aaron. This is the savour from the Holy Spirit borne down from above, as far as formlessness, and the interval (of space) in the vicinity of our world. And from this the Son began to ascend, sustained as it were, says (Basilides), upon eagles' wings, and upon the back. For, he says, all (entities) hasten upwards from below, from things inferior to those that are superior. For not one of those things that are among things superior, is so silly as to descend beneath. The third Sonship, however, that which requires purification, has continued, he says, in the vast conglomeration of all germs conferring benefits and receiving them. But in what manner it is that (the third Sonship) receives benefits and confers them, we shall afterwards declare when we come to the proper place for discussing this question. , When, therefore, a first and second ascension of the Sonship took place, and the Holy Spirit itself also remained after the mode mentioned, the firmament was placed between the super-mundane (spaces) and the world. For existing things were distributed by Basilides into two continuous and primary divisions, and are, according to him, denominated partly in a certain (respect) world, and partly in a certain (respect) super-mundane (spaces). But the spirit, a line of demarcation between the world and super-mundane (spaces), is that which is both holy, and has abiding in itself the savour of Sonship. While, therefore, the firmament which is above the heaven is coining into existence, there burst forth, and was begotten from the cosmical Seed, and the conglomeration of all germs, the Great Archon (and) Head of the world, (who constitutes) a certain (species of) beauty, and magnitude, and indissoluble power. For, says he, he is more ineffable than ineffable entities, and more potent than potent ones, and more wise than wise ones, and superior to all the beautiful ones whatever you could mention. This (Archon), when begotten, raised Himself up and soared aloft, and was carried up entire as far as the firmament. And there He paused, supposing the firmament to be the termination of His ascension and elevation, and considering that there existed nothing at all beyond these. And than all the subjacent (entities) whatsoever there were among them which remained mundane, He became more wise, more powerful, more comely, more lustrous, (in fact,) pre-eminent for beauty above any entities you could mention with the exception of the Sonship alone, which is still left in the (conglomeration of) all germs. For he was not aware that there is (a Sonship) wiser and more powerful, and better than Himself. Therefore imagining Himself to be Lord, and Governor, and a wise Master Builder, He turns Himself to (the work of) the creation of every object in the cosmical system. And first, he deemed it proper not to be alone, but made unto Himself, and generated from adjacent (entities), a Son far superior to Him self, and wiser. For all these things had the non-existent Deity previously determined upon, when He cast down the (conglomeration of) all germs. Beholding, therefore, the Son, He was seized with astonishment, and loved (Him), and was struck with amazement. For some beauty of this description appeared to the Great Archon to belong to the Son, and the Archon caused Him to sit on his right (hand). This is, according to these (heretics), what is denominated the Ogdoad, where the Great Archon has his throne. The entire celestial creation, then, that is, the Aether, He Himself, the Great Wise Demiurge formed. The Son, however, begotten of this (Archon), operates in Him, and offered Him suggestions, being endued with far greater wisdom than the Demiurge Himself. , This, then, constitutes the entelecheia of the natural organic body, according to Aristotle, (viz.,) a soul operating in the body, without which the body is able to accomplish nothing; (I mean nothing) that is greater, and more illustrious, and more powerful, and more wise than the body. The account, therefore, which Aristotle has previously rendered concerning the soul and the body, Basilides elucidates as applied to the Great Archon and his Son. For the Archon has generated, according to Basilides, a son; and the soul as an operation and completion, Aristotle asserts to be an entelecheia of a natural organic hotly. As, therefore, the entelecheia controls the body, so the Son, according to Basilides, controls the God that is more ineffable than ineffable (entities). All things, therefore, have been provided for, and managed by the majesty of the Great Archon; (I mean) whatever objects exist in the aethereal region of space as far as the moon, for from that quarter onwards air is separated from aether. When all objects in the aethereal regions, then, were arranged, again from (the conglomeration of) all germs another Archon ascended, greater, of course, than all subjacent (entities) with the exception, however, of the Sonship that had been left behind, but far inferior to the First Archon. And this (second Archon) is called by them Rhetus. And this Topos is styled Hebdomad, and this (Archon) is the manager and fabricator of all subjacent (entities). And He has likewise made unto Himself out (of the conglomeration of) all germs, a son who is more prudent and wise than Himself, similarly to what has been stated to have taken place in the case of the First Archon. That which exists in this quarter (of the universe) constitutes, he says, the actual conglomeration and collection of all seeds; and the things which are generated are produced according to nature, as has been declared already by Him who calculates on things future, when they ought (to be), and what sort they ought (to be), and how they ought (to be). And of these no one is Chief, or Guardian, or Creator. For (a) sufficient (cause of existence) for them is that calculation which the Non-Existent One formed when He exercised the function of creation. , When, therefore, according to these (heretics), the entire world and super-mundane entities were finished, and (when) nothing exists labouring under deficiency, there still remains in the (conglomeration of) all germs the third Sonship, which had been left behind in the Seed to confer benefits and receive them. And it must needs be that the Sonship which had been left behind ought likewise to be revealed and reinstated above. And His place should be above the Conterminous Spirit, near the refined and imitative Sonship and the Non-Existent One. But this would be in accordance with what has been written, he says: And the creation itself groans together, and travails in pain together, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. Now, we who are spiritual are sons, he says, who have been left here to arrange, and mould, and rectify, and complete the souls which, according to nature, are so constituted as to continue in this quarter of the universe. Sin, then, reigned from Adam unto Moses, Romans 5:14 as it has been written. For the Great Archon exercised dominion and possesses an empire with limits extending as far as the firmament. And He imagines Himself alone to be God, and that there exists nothing above Him, for (the reason that) all things have been guarded by unrevealed Siope. This, he says, is the mystery which has not been made known to former generations; but in those days the Great Archon, the Ogdoad, was King and Lord, as it seemed, of the universe. But (in reality) the Hebdomad was king and lord of this quarter of the universe, and the Ogdoad is Arrhetus, whereas the Hebdomad is Rhetus. This, he says, is the Archon of the Hebdomad, who has spoken to Moses, and says: I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and I have not manifested unto them the name of God Exodus 6:2-3 (for so they wish that it had been written)- that is, the God, Arrhetus, Archon of the Ogdoad. All the prophets, therefore, who were before the Saviour uttered their predictions, he says, from this source (of inspiration). Since, therefore, it was requisite, he says, that we should be revealed as the children of God, in expectation of whose manifestation, he says, the creation habitually groans and travails in pain, the Gospel came into the world, and passed through every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and every Name that is named.Ephesians 1:21 And (the Gospel) came in reality, though nothing descended from above; nor did the blessed Sonship retire from that Inconceivable, and Blessed, (and) Non-Existent God. Nay, (far from it;) for as Indian naphtha, when lighted merely from a considerably long distance, nevertheless attracts fire (towards it), so from below, from the formlessness of the conglomeration (of all germs), the powers pass upwards as far as the Sonship. For, according to the illustration of the Indian naphtha, the Son of the Great Archon of the Ogdoad, as if he were some (sort of) naphtha, apprehends and seizes conceptions from the Blessed Sonship, whose place of habitation is situated after that of the Conterminous (Spirit). For the power of the Sonship which is in the midst of the Holy Spirit, (that is,) in, the midst of the (Conterminous) Spirit, shares the flowing and rushing thoughts of the Sonship with the Son of the Great Archon. , The Gospel then came, says (Basilides), first from the Sonship through the Son, that was seated beside the Archon, to the Archon, and the Archon learned that He was not God of the universe, but was begotten. But (ascertaining that) He has above Himself the deposited treasure of that Ineffable and Unnameable (and) Non-existent One, and of the Sonship, He was both converted and filled with terror, when He was brought to understand in what ignorance He was (involved). This, he says, is what has been declared: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Proverbs 1:7 For, being orally instructed by Christ, who was seated near, he began to acquire wisdom, (inasmuch as he thereby) learns who is the Non-Existent One, what the Sonship (is), what the Holy Spirit (is), what the apparatus of the universe (is), and what is likely to be the consummation of things. This is the wisdom spoken in a mystery, concerning which, says (Basilides), Scripture uses the following expressions: Not in words taught of human wisdom, but in (those) taught of the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:13 The Archon, then, being orally instructed, and taught, and being (thereby) filled with fear, proceeded to make confession concerning the sin which He had committed in magnifying Himself. This, he says, is what is declared: I have recognised my sin, and I know my transgression, (and) about this I shall confess forever. When, then, the Great Archon had been orally instructed, and every creature of the Ogdoad had been orally instructed and taught, and (after) the mystery became known to the celestial (powers), it was also necessary that afterwards the Gospel should come to the Hebdomad, in order likewise that the Archon of the Hebdomad might be similarly instructed and indoctrinated into the Gospel. The Son of the Great Archon (therefore) kindled in the Son of the Archon of the Hebdomad the light which Himself possessed and had kindled from above from the Sonship. And the Son of the Archon of the Hebdomad had radiance imparted to Him, and He proclaimed the Gospel to the Archon of the Hebdomad. And in like manner, according to the previous account, He Himself was both terrified and induced to make confession. When, therefore, all (beings) in the Hebdomad had been likewise enlightened, and had the Gospel announced to them (for in these regions of the universe there exist, according to these heretics, creatures infinite (in number), viz., Principalities and Powers and Rulers, in regard of which there is extant among the (Basilidians) a very prolix and verbose treatise, where they allege that there are three hundred and sixty-five heavens, and that the great Archon of these is Abrasax, from the fact that his name comprises the computed number 365, so that, of course, the calculation of the title includes all (existing) things, and that for these reasons the year consists of so many days) - but when, he says, these (two events, viz., the illumination of the Hebdomad and the manifestation of the Gospel) had thus taken place, it was necessary, likewise, that afterwards the Formlessness existent in our quarter of creation should have radiance imparted to it, and that the mystery should be revealed to the Sonship, which had been left behind in Formlessness, just like an abortion. Now this (mystery) was not made known to previous generations, as he says, it has been written, By revelation was made known unto me the mystery; Ephesians 3:3-5 and, I have heard inexpressible words which it is not possible for man to declare. 2 Corinthians 12:4 The light, (therefore,) which came down from the Ogdoad above to the Son of the Hebdomad, descended from the Hebdomad upon Jesus the son of Mary, and he had radiance imparted to him by being illuminated with the light that shone upon him. This, he says, is that which has been declared: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, Luke 1:35 (meaning) that which proceeded from the Sonship through the conterminous spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, as far as Mary; and the power of the Highest will overshadow you, (meaning) the power of the anointing, (which streamed) from the (celestial) height above (through) the Demiurge, as far as the creation, which is (as far as) the Son. And as far as that (Son) he says the world consisted thus. And as far as this, the entire Sonship, which is left behind for benefiting the souls in Formlessness, and for being the recipient in turn of benefits -(this Sonship, I say,) when it is transformed, followed Jesus, and hastened upwards, and came forth purified. And it becomes most refined, so that it could, as the first (Sonship), hasten upwards through its own instrumentality. For it possesses all the power that, according to nature, is firmly connected with the light which from above shone down (upon earth). , When, therefore, he says, the entire Sonship shall have come, and shall be above the conterminous spirit, then the creature will become the object of mercy. For (the creature) groans until now,Romans 8:19-22 and is tormented, and waits for the manifestation of the sons of God, in order that all who are men of the Sonship may ascend from thence. When this takes place, God, he says, will bring upon the whole world enormous ignorance, that all things may continue according to nature, and that nothing may inordinately desire anything of the things that are contrary to nature. But (far from it); for all the souls of this quarter of creation, as many as possess the nature of remaining immortal in this (region) only, continue (in it), aware of nothing superior or better (than their present state). And there will not prevail any rumour or knowledge in regions below, concerning beings whose dwelling is placed above, lest subjacent souls should be wrung with torture from longing after impossibilities. (It would be) just as if a fish were to crave to feed on the mountains along with sheep. (For) a wish of this description would, he says, be their destruction. All things, therefore, that abide in (this) quarter are incorruptible, but corruptible if they are disposed to wander and cross over from the things that are according to nature. In this way the Archon of the Hebdomad will know nothing of superjacent entities. For enormous ignorance will lay hold on this one likewise, in order that sorrow, and grief, and groaning may depart from him; for he will not desire anything of impossible things, nor will he be visited with anguish. In like manner, however, the same ignorance will lay hold also on the Great Archon of the Ogdoad, and similarly on all the creatures that are subject unto him, in order that in no respect anything may desire anything of those things that are contrary to nature, and may not (thus) be overwhelmed with sorrow. And so there will be the restitution of all things which, in conformity with nature, have from the beginning a foundation in the seed of the universe, but will be restored at (their own) proper periods. And that each thing, says (Basilides), has its own particular times, the Saviour is a sufficient (witness ) when He observes, Mine hour is not yet come. John 2:4 And the Magi (afford similar testimony) when they gaze wistfully upon the (Saviour's) star. For (Jesus) Himself was, he says, mentally preconceived at the time of the generation of the stars, and of the complete return to their starting-point of the seasons in the vast conglomeration (of all germs). This is, according to these (Basilidians), he who has been conceived as the inner spiritual man in what is natural (now this is the Sonship which left there the soul, not (that it might be) mortal, but that it might abide here according to nature, just as the first Sonship left above in its proper locality the Holy Spirit, (that is, the spirit) which is conterminous) - (this, I say, is he who has been conceived as the inner spiritual man, and) has then been arrayed in his own peculiar soul. In order, however, that we may not omit any of the doctrines of this (Basilides), I shall likewise explain whatever statements they put forward respecting a gospel. For gospel with them, as has been elucidated, is of super-mundane entities the knowledge which the Great Archon did not understand. As, then, it was manifested unto him that there are likewise the Holy Spirit- that is, the conterminous (spirit) - and the Sonship, and the Non-Existent God, the cause of all these, he rejoiced at the communications made to him, and was filled with exultation. According to them, this constitutes the gospel. Jesus, however, was born, according to these (heretics), as we have already declared. And when the generation which has been previously explained took place, all the events in our Lord's life occurred, according to them, in the same manner as they have been described in the Gospels. And these things happened, he says, in order that Jesus might become the first-fruits of a distinction of the different orders (of created objects) that had been confused together. For when the world had been divided into an Ogdoad, which is the head of the entire world - now the great Archon is head of the entire world - and into a Hebdomad - which is the head of the Hebdomad, the Demiurge of subjacent entities, - and into this order of creatures (that prevails) among us, where exists Formlessness, it was requisite that the various orders of created objects that had been confounded together should be distinguished by a separating process performed by Jesus. (Now this separation) that which was his corporeal part suffered, and this was (the part) of Formlessness and reverted into Formlessness. And that was resuscitated which was his psychical part, and this was (part) of the Hebdomad, and reverted into the Hebdomad. And he revived that (element in his nature) which was the peculiar property of the elevated region where dwells the Great Archon, and (that element) remained beside the Great Archon. And he carried upwards as far as (that which is) above that which was (the peculiar property) of the conterminous spirit, and he remained in the conterminous spirit. And through him there was purified the third Sonship, which had been left for conferring benefits, and receiving them. And (through Jesus) it ascended towards the blessed Sonship, and passed through all these. For the entire purpose of these was the blending together of, as it were, the conglomeration of all germs, and the distinction of the various orders of created objects, and the restoration into their proper component parts of things that had been blended together. Jesus, therefore, became the first-fruits of the distinction of the various orders of created objects, and his Passion took place for not any other reason than the distinction which was thereby brought about in the various orders of created objects that had been confounded together. For in this manner (Basilides) says that the entire Sonship, which had been left in Formlessness for the purpose of conferring benefits and receiving them, was divided into its component elements, according to the manner in which also the distinction of natures had taken place in Jesus. These, then, are the legends which likewise Basilides details after his sojourn in Egypt; and being instructed by the (sages of this country) in so great a system of wisdom, (the heretic) produced fruits of this description. , But one Saturnilus, who flourished about the same period with Basilides, but spent his time in Antioch, (a city) of Syria, propounded opinions akin to whatever (tenets) Menander (advanced). He asserts that there is one Father, unknown to all - He who had made angels, archangels, principalities, (and) powers; and that by certain angels, seven (in number), the world was made, and all things that are in it. And (Saturnilus affirms) that man was a work of angels. There had appeared above from (the Being of) absolute sway, a brilliant image; and when (the angels) were not able to detain this, on account of its immediately, he says, returning with rapidity upwards, they exhorted one another, saying, Let us make man in our likeness and image. Genesis 1:26 And when the figure was formed, and was not, he says, able, owing to the impotence of the angels, to lift up itself, but continued writhing as a worm, the Power above, compassionating him on account of his having been born in its own image, sent forth a scintillation of life, which raised man up, and caused him to have vitality. (Saturnilus) asserts that this scintillation of life rapidly returns after death to those things that are of the same order of existence; and that the rest, from which they have been generated, are resolved into those. And the Saviour he supposed to be unbegotten and incorporeal, and devoid of figure. (Saturnilus,) however, (maintained that Jesus) was manifested as man in appearance only. And he says that the God of the Jews is one of the angels, and, on account of the Father's wishing to deprive of sovereignty all the Archons, that Christ came for the overthrow of the God of the Jews, and for the salvation of those that believe upon Him; and that these have in them the scintillation of life. For he asserted that two kinds of men had been formed by the angels - one wicked, but the other good. And, since demons from time to time assisted wicked (men, Saturnilus affirms) that the Saviour came for the overthrow of worthless men and demons, but for the salvation of good men. And he affirms that marriage and procreation are from Satan. The majority, however, of those who belong to this (heretic's school) abstain from animal food likewise, (and) by this affectation of asceticism (make many their dupes). And (they maintain) that the prophecies have been uttered, partly by the world-making angels, and partly by Satan, who is also the very angel whom they suppose to act in antagonism to the cosmical (angels), and especially to the God of the Jews. These, then, are in truth the tenets of Saturnilus. , But Marcion, a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one. And himself imagining that he was introducing some novel (opinion), founded a school full of folly, and attended by men of a sensual mode of life, inasmuch as he himself was one of lustful propensities. This (heretic) having thought that the multitude would forget that he did not happen to be a disciple of Christ, but of Empedocles, who was far anterior to himself, framed and formed the same opinions - namely, that there are two causes of the universe, discord and friendship. For what does Empedocles say respecting the plan of the world? Even though we have previously spoken (on this subject), yet even now also, for the purpose, at all events, of comparing the heresy of this plagiarist (with its source), we shall not be silent. This (philosopher) affirms that all the elements out of which the world consists and derives its being, are six: two of them material, (viz.,) earth and water; and two of them instruments by which material objects are arranged and altered, (viz.,) fire and air; and two of them, by means of the instruments, operating upon matter and fashioning it, viz., discord and friendship. (Empedocles) expresses himself somehow thus:- The four roots of all things hear you first Brilliant Jove, and life-giving Juno and Aidoneus, And Nestis, who with tears bedews the mortal font. Jupiter is fire, and life-giving Juno earth, which produces fruits for the support of existence; and Aidoneus air, because although through him we behold all things, yet himself alone we do not see. But Nestis is water, for this is a sole vehicle of (food), and thus becomes a cause of sustenance to all those that are being nourished; (but) this of itself is not able to afford nutriment to those that are being nourished. For if it did possess the power of affording nutriment, animal life, he says, could never be destroyed by famine, inasmuch as water is always superabundant in the world. For this reason he denominates Nestis water, because, (though indirectly) being a cause of nutriment, it is not (of itself) competent to afford nutriment to those things that are being nourished. These, therefore - to delineate them as by way of outline - are the principles that comprise (Empedocles') entire theory of the world: (viz.,) water and earth, out of which (proceed) generated entities; fire and spirit, (which are) instruments and efficient (causes), but discord and friendship, which are (principles) artistically fabricating (the universe). And friendship is a certain peace, and unanimity, and love, whose entire effort is, that there should be one finished and complete world. Discord, however, invariably separates that one (world), and subdivides it, or makes many things out of one. Therefore discord is of the entire creation a cause which he styles oulomenon, that is, destructive. For it is the concern of this (discord), that throughout every age the creation itself should continue to preserve its existing condition. And ruinous discord has been (thus) a fabricator and an efficient cause of the production of all generated entities; whereas friendship (is the cause) of the eduction, and alteration, and restoration of existing things into one system. And in regard of these (causes), Empedocles asserts that they are two immortal and unbegotten principles, and such as have not as yet received an originating cause of existence. (Empedocles) somewhere or other (expresses himself) in the following manner:- For if both once it was, and will be; never, I think, Will be the age eternal void of both of these. (But) what are these (two)? Discord and Friendship; for they did not begin to come into being, but pre-existed and always will exist, because, from the fact of their being unbegotten, they are not able to undergo corruption. But fire, (and water,) and earth, and air, are (entities) that perish and revive. For when these generated (bodies), by reason of Discord, cease to exist, Friendship, laying hold on them, brings them forward, and attaches and associates them herself with the universe. (And this takes place) in order that the Universe may continue one, being always ordered by Friendship in a manner one and the same, and with (uninterrupted) uniformity. When, however, Friendship makes unity out of plurality, and associates with unity separated entities, Discord, again, forcibly severs them from unity, and makes them many, that is, fire, water, earth, air, (as well as) the animals and plants produced from these, and whatever portions of the world we observe. And in regard of the form of the world, what sort it is, (as) arranged by Friendship, (Empedocles) expresses himself in the following terms:- For not from back two arms arise, Not feet, not nimble knees, not genital groin, But a globe it was, and equal to itself it is. An operation of this description Friendship maintains, and makes (one) most beautiful form of the world out of plurality. Discord, however, the cause of the arrangement of each of the parts (of the universe), forcibly severs and makes many things out of that one (form). And this is what Empedocles affirms respecting his own generation:- Of these I also am from God a wandering exile. That is, (Empedocles) denominates as God the unity and unification of that (one form) in which (the world) existed antecedent to the separation and production (introduced) by Discord among the majority of those things (that subsisted) in accordance with the disposition (effected) by Discord. For Empedocles affirms Discord to be a furious, and perturbed, and unstable Demiurge, (thus) denominating Discord the creator of the world. For this constitutes the condemnation and necessity of souls which Discord forcibly severs from unity, and (which it) fashions and operates upon, (according to Empedocles,) who expresses himself after some such mode as, the following:- Who perjury piles on sin, While demons gain a life prolonged; meaning by demons long-lived souls, because they are immortal, and live for lengthened ages:- For thrice ten thousand years banished from bliss; denominating as blissful, those that have been collected by Friendship from the majority of entities into the process of unification (arising out) of the intelligible world. He asserts that those are exiles, and that In lapse of time all sorts of mortal men are born, Changing the irksome ways of life He asserts the irksome ways to be the alterations and transfigurations of souls into (successive) bodies. This is what he says:- Changing the irksome ways of life. For souls change, body after body being altered, and punished by Discord, and not permitted to continue in the one (frame), but that the souls are involved in all descriptions of punishment by Discord being changed from body to body. He says:- Aethereal force to ocean drives the souls, And ocean spurts them forth on earth's expanse, And earth on beams of blazing sun, who flings (The souls) on aether's depths, and each from each (A spirit) takes, and all with hatred burn. This is the punishment which the Demiurge inflicts, just as some brazier moulding (a piece of) iron, and dipping it successively from fire into water. For fire is the aether whence the Demiurge transfers the souls into the sea; and land is the earth: whence he uses the words, from water into earth, and from earth into air. This is what (Empedocles) says:- And earth on beams Of blazing sun, who flings (the souls) On aether's depths, and each from each A (spirit) takes, and all with hatred burn. The souls, then, thus detested, and tormented, and punished in this world, are, according to Empedocles, collected by Friendship as being a certain good (power), and (one) that pities the groaning of these, and the disorderly and wicked device of furious Discord. And (likewise Friendship is) eager, and toils to lead forth little by little the souls from the world, and to domesticate them with unity, in order that all things, being conducted by herself, may attain unto unification. Therefore on account of such an arrangement on the part of destructive Discord of this divided world, Empedocles admonishes his disciples to abstain from all sorts of animal food. For he asserts that the bodies of animals are such as feed on the habitations of punished souls. And he teaches those who are hearers of such doctrines (as his), to refrain from intercourse with women. (And he issues this precept) in order that (his disciples) may not co-operate with and assist those works which Discord fabricates, always dissolving and forcibly severing the work of Friendship. Empedocles asserts that this is the greatest law of the management of the universe, expressing himself somehow thus:- There's something swayed by Fate, the ancient, Endless law of gods, and sealed by potent oaths. He thus calls Fate the alteration from unity into plurality, according to Discord, and from plurality into unity, according to Friendship. And, as I stated, (Empedocles asserts) that there are four perishable gods, (viz.,) fire, water, earth, (and) air. (He maintains,) however, that there are two (gods) which are immortal, unbegotten, (and) continually hostile one to the other, (namely) Discord and Friendship. And (he asserts) that Discord always is guilty of injustice and covetousness, and forcible abduction of the things of Friendship, and of appropriation of them to itself. (He alleges,) however, that Friendship, inasmuch as it is always and invariably a certain good (power), and intent on union, recalls and brings towards (itself), and reduces to unity, the parts of the universe that have been forcibly severed, and tormented, and punished in the creation by the Demiurge. Some such system of philosophy as the foregoing is advanced for us by Empedocles concerning the generation of the world, and its destruction, and its constitution, as one consisting of what is good and bad. And he says that there is likewise a certain third power which is cognised by intellect, and that this can be understood from these, (viz., Discord and Friendship,) expressing himself somehow thus:- For if, 'neath hearts of oak, these truths you fix, And view them kindly in meditations pure, Each one of these, in lapse of time, will haunt you, And many others, sprung of these, descend. For into every habit these will grow, as Nature prompts; But if for other things you sigh, which, countless, linger Undisguised 'mid men, and blunt the edge of care, As years roll on they'll leave you fleetly, Since they yearn to reach their own beloved race; For know that all possess perception and a share of mind. , When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigento. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. For bear with me, O Marcion: as you have instituted a comparison of what is good and evil, I also today will institute a comparison following up your own tenets, as you suppose them to be. You affirm that the Demiurge of the world is evil- why not hide your countenance in shame, (as thus) teaching to the Church the doctrines of Empedocles? You say that there is a good Deity who destroys the works of the Demiurge: then do not you plainly preach to your pupils, as the good Deity, the Friendship of Empedocles. You forbid marriage, the procreation of children, (and) the abstaining from meats which God has created for participation by the faithful, and those that know the truth.1 Timothy 4:3 (Do you think, then,) that you can escape detection, (while thus) enjoining the purificatory rites of Empedocles? For in point of fact you follow in every respect this (philosopher of paganism), while you instruct your own disciples to refuse meats, in order not to eat any body (that might be) a remnant of a soul which has been punished by the Demiurge. You dissolve marriages that have been cemented by the Deity. And here again you conform to the tenets of Empedocles, in order that for you the work of Friendship may be perpetuated as one (and) indivisible. For, according to Empedocles, matrimony separates unity, and makes (out of it) plurality, as we have proved. , The principal heresy of Marcion, and (the one of his) which is most free from admixture (with other heresies), is that which has its system formed out of the theory concerning the good and bad (God). Now this, it has been manifested by us, belongs to Empedocles. But since at present, in our times, a certain follower of Marcion, (namely) Prepon, an Assyrian, has endeavoured to introduce something more novel, and has given an account of his heresy in a work inscribed to Bardesanes, an Armenian, neither of this will I be silent. In alleging that what is just constitutes a third principle, and that it is placed intermediate between what is good and bad, Prepon of course is not able to avoid (the imputation of inculcating) the opinion of Empedocles. For Empedocles asserts that the world is managed by wicked Discord, and that the other (world) which (is managed) by Friendship, is cognisable by intellect. And (he asserts) that these are the two different principles of good and evil, and that intermediate between these diverse principles is impartial reason, in accordance with which are united the things that have been separated by Discord, (and which,) in accordance with the influence of Friendship, are accommodated to unity. The impartial reason itself, that which is an auxiliary to Friendship, Empedocles denominates Musa. And he himself likewise entreats her to assist him, and expresses himself somehow thus:- For if on fleeting mortals, deathless Muse, Your care it be that thoughts our mind engross, Calliope, again befriend my present prayer, As I disclose a pure account of happy gods. Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship - that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states,Galatians 3:19 and as Himself acknowledges: Why do you call me good? There is one good, These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles. And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy. But I consider that this has been sufficiently refuted by us, and that I have not omitted any opinion of those who purloin their opinions from the Greeks, and act despitefully towards the disciples of Christ, as if they had become teachers to them of these (tenets). But since it seems that we have sufficiently explained the doctrines of this (heretic), let us see what Carpocrates says. , Carpocrates affirms that the world and the things in it were made by angels, far inferior to the unbegotten Father; and that Jesus was generated of Joseph, and that, having been born similar to (other) men, He was more just than the rest (of the human race). And (Carpocrates asserts) that the soul (of Jesus), inasmuch as it was made vigorous and undefiled, remembered the things seen by it in its converse with the unbegotten God. And (Carpocrates maintains) that on this account there was sent down upon (Jesus) by that (God) a power, in order that through it He might be enabled to escape the world-making (angels). And (he says) that this power, having passed through all, and having obtained liberty in all, again ascended to God (Himself). And (he alleges) that in the same condition with (the soul of Jesus are all the souls) that embrace similar objects of desire with the (power just alluded to). And they assert that the soul of Jesus, (though,) according to law, it was disciplined in Jewish customs, (in reality) despised them. And (he says) that on this account (Jesus) received powers whereby, He rendered null and void the passions incidental to men for their punishment. And (he argues), therefore, that the (soul), which, similarly with that soul of Christ, is able to despise the world-making Archons, receives in like man-her power for the performance of similar acts. Wherefore, also, (according to Carpocrates, there are persons who) have attained unto such a degree of pride as to affirm some of themselves to be equal to Jesus Himself, whereas others among them to be even still more powerful. But (they also contend) that some enjoy an excellence above the disciples of that (Redeemer), for instance Peter and Paul, and the rest of the Apostles, and that these are in no respect inferior to Jesus. And (Carpocrates asserts) that the souls of these have originated from that supernal power, and that consequently they, as equally despising the world-making (angels), have been deemed worthy of the same power, and (of the privilege) to ascend to the same (place). If, however, any one would despise earthly concerns more than did that (Saviour, Carpocrates says) that such a one would be able to become superior to (Jesus, The followers of this heretic) practise their magical arts and incantations, and spells and voluptuous feasts. And (they are in the habit of invoking the aid of) subordinate demons and dream-senders, and (of resorting to) the rest of the tricks (of sorcery), alleging that they possess power for now acquiring sway over the Archons and makers of this world, nay, even over all the works that are in it. (Now these heretics) have themselves been sent forth by Satan, for the purpose of slandering before the Gentiles the divine name of the Church. (And the devil's object is,) that men hearing, now after one fashion and now after another, the doctrines of those (heretics), and thinking that all of us are people of the same stamp, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth, or that they also, looking, (without abjuring,) upon all the tenets of those (heretics), may speak hurtfully of us. (The followers of Carpocrates) allege that the souls are transferred from body to body, so far as that they may fill up (the measure of) all their sins. When, however, not one (of these sins) is left, (the Carpocratians affirm that the soul) is then emancipated, and departs unto that God above of the world-making angels, and that in this way all souls will be saved. If, however, some (souls), during the presence of the soul in the body for one life, may by anticipation become involved in the full measure of transgressions, they, (according to these heretics,) no longer undergo metempsychosis. (Souls of this sort,) however, on paying off at once all trespasses, will, (the Carpocratians say,) be emancipated from dwelling any more in a body. Certain, likewise, of these (heretics) brand their own disciples in the back parts of the lobe of the right ear. And they make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time (during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned) by Pilate. , But a certain Cerinthus, himself being disciplined in the teaching of the Egyptians, asserted that the world was not made by the primal Deity, but by some virtue which was an offshoot from that Power which is above all things, and which (yet) is ignorant of the God that is above all. And he supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that (Jesus) was more just and more wise (than all the human race). And (Cerinthus alleges) that, after the baptism (of our Lord), Christ in form of a dove came down upon him, from that absolute sovereignty which is above all things. And then, (according to this heretic,) Jesus proceeded to preach the unknown Father, Acts 17:23 and in attestation (of his mission) to work miracles. It was, however, (the opinion of Cerinthus,) that ultimately Christ departed from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again; whereas that Christ, being spiritual, remained beyond the possibility of suffering. , The Ebionaeans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family). , But there was a certain Theodotus, a native of Byzantium, who introduced a novel heresy. He announces tenets concerning the originating cause of the universe, which are partly in keeping with the doctrines of the true Church, in so far as he acknowledges that all things were created by God. Forcibly appropriating, however, (his notions of) Christ from the school of the Gnostics, and of Cerinthus and Ebion, he alleges that (our Lord) appeared in some such manner as I shall now describe. (According to this, Theodotus maintains) that Jesus was a (mere) man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, and that after he had lived promiscuously with all men, and had become pre-eminently religious, he subsequently at his baptism in Jordan received Christ, who came from above and descended (upon him) in form of a dove. And this was the reason, (according to Theodotus,) why (miraculous) powers did not operate within him prior to the manifestation in him of that Spirit which descended, (and) which proclaims him to be the Christ. But (among the followers of Theodotus) some are disposed (to think) that never was this man made God, (even) at the descent of the Spirit; whereas others (maintain that he was made God) after the resurrection from the dead. , While, however, different questions have arisen among them, a certain (heretic), who himself also was styled Theodotus, and who was by trade a banker, attempted to establish (the doctrine), that a certain Melchisedec constitutes the greatest power, and that this one is greater than Christ. And they allege that Christ happens to be according to the likeness (of this Melchisedec). And they themselves, similarly with those who have been previously spoken of as adherents of Theodotus, assert that Jesus is a (mere) man, and that, in conformity with the same account (already given), Christ descended upon him. There are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion; but we have decided that it would not be worth while to enumerate the silly doctrines of these (heretics), inasmuch as they are (too) numerous and devoid of reason, and full of blasphemy. Now, even those (of the heretics) who are of a more serious turn in regard of the Divinity, and have derived their systems of speculation from the Greeks, must stand convicted (of these charges). But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food. And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols. , But one Cerdon himself also, taking occasion in like manner from these (heretics) and Simon, affirms that the God preached by Moses and the prophets was not Father of Jesus Christ. For (he contends) that this (Father) had been known, whereas that the Father of Christ was unknown, and that the former was just, but the latter good. And Marcion corroborated the tenet of this (heretic) in the work which he attempted to write, and which he styled Antitheses. And he was in the habit, (in this book,) of uttering whatever slanders suggested themselves to his mind against the Creator of the universe. In a similar manner likewise (acted) Lucian, the disciple of this (heretic). , But Apelles, sprung from these, thus expresses himself, (saying) that there is a certain good Deity, as also Marcion supposed, and that he who created all things is just. Now he, (according to Apelles,) was the Demiurge of generated entities. And (this heretic also main-rains) that there is a third (Deity), the one who was in the habit of speaking to Moses, and that this (god) was of a fiery nature, and that there was another fourth god, a cause of evils. But these he denominates angels. He utters, however, slanders against law and prophets, by alleging that the things that have been written are (of) human (origin), and are false. And (Apelles) selects from the Gospels or (from the writings of) the Apostle (Paul) whatever pleases himself, But he devotes himself to the discourses of a certain Philumene as to the revelations of a prophetess. He affirms, however, that Christ descended from the power above; that is, from the good (Deity), and that he is the son of that good (Deity). And (he asserts that Jesus) was not born of a virgin, and that when he did appear he was not devoid of flesh. (He maintains,) however, that (Christ) formed his booty by taking portions of it from the substance of the universe: that is, hot and cold, and moist and dry. And (he says that Christ), on receiving in this body cosmical powers, lived for the time he did in (this) world. But (he held that Jesus) was subsequently crucified by the Jews, and expired, and that, being raised Up after three days, he appeared to his disciples. And (the Saviour) showed them, (so Apelles taught,) the prints of the nails and (the wound) in his side, desirous of persuading them that he was in truth no phantom, but was present in the flesh. After, says (Apelles), he had shown them his flesh, (the Saviour) restored it to earth, from which substance it was (derived. And this he did because) he coveted nothing that belonged to another. (Though indeed Jesus) might use for the time being (what belonged to another), he yet in due course rendered to each (of the elements) what peculiarly belonged to them. And so it was, that after he had once more loosed the chains of his body, he gave back heat to what is hot, cold to what is cold, moisture to what is moist, (and) dryness to what is dry. And in this condition (our Lord) departed to the good Father, leaving the seed of life in the world for those who through his disciples should believe in him. It appears to us that these (tenets) have been sufficiently explained. Since, however, we have determined to leave unrefuted not one of those opinions that have been advanced by any (of the heretics), let us see what (system) also has been invented by the Docetae. <


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

33 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 7.11 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

7.11. וַיִּקְרָא גַּם־פַּרְעֹה לַחֲכָמִים וְלַמְכַשְּׁפִים וַיַּעֲשׂוּ גַם־הֵם חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם בְּלַהֲטֵיהֶם כֵּן׃ 7.11. Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers; and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did in like manner with their secret arts."
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 9.24-9.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

9.24. וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ וַיֵּדַע אֵת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה־לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן׃ 9.25. וַיֹּאמֶר אָרוּר כְּנָעַן עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים יִהְיֶה לְאֶחָיו׃ 9.26. וַיֹּאמֶר בָּרוּךְ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי שֵׁם וִיהִי כְנַעַן עֶבֶד לָמוֹ׃ 9.27. יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאָהֳלֵי־שֵׁם וִיהִי כְנַעַן עֶבֶד לָמוֹ׃ 9.24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him." 9.25. And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." 9.26. And he said: Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; And let Canaan be their servant." 9.27. God enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be their servant."
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 11.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

11.17. וְיָרַדְתִּי וְדִבַּרְתִּי עִמְּךָ שָׁם וְאָצַלְתִּי מִן־הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיךָ וְשַׂמְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם וְנָשְׂאוּ אִתְּךָ בְּמַשָּׂא הָעָם וְלֹא־תִשָּׂא אַתָּה לְבַדֶּךָ׃ 11.17. And I will come down and speak with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone."
4. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 29.14 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

29.14. לָכֵן הִנְנִי יוֹסִף לְהַפְלִיא אֶת־הָעָם־הַזֶּה הַפְלֵא וָפֶלֶא וְאָבְדָה חָכְמַת חֲכָמָיו וּבִינַת נְבֹנָיו תִּסְתַּתָּר׃ 29.14. Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the prudence of their prudent men shall be hid."
5. Homer, Iliad, 2.1, 2.4 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE)

2.1. /Now all the other gods and men, lords of chariots, slumbered the whole night through, but Zeus was not holden of sweet sleep, for he was pondering in his heart how he might do honour to Achilles and lay many low beside the ships of the Achaeans. And this plan seemed to his mind the best 2.4. /Now all the other gods and men, lords of chariots, slumbered the whole night through, but Zeus was not holden of sweet sleep, for he was pondering in his heart how he might do honour to Achilles and lay many low beside the ships of the Achaeans. And this plan seemed to his mind the best
6. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 32.4 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

32.4. Where there is entertainment, do not pour out talk;do not display your cleverness out of season.
7. Septuagint, Wisdom of Solomon, 13.1-13.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)

13.1. For all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists,nor did they recognize the craftsman while paying heed to his works; 13.2. but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air,or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water,or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world. 13.3. If through delight in the beauty of these things men assumed them to be gods,let them know how much better than these is their Lord,for the author of beauty created them. 13.4. And if men were amazed at their power and working,let them perceive from them how much more powerful is he who formed them. 13.5. For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. 13.6. Yet these men are little to be blamed,for perhaps they go astray while seeking God and desiring to find him. 13.7. For as they live among his works they keep searching,and they trust in what they see, because the things that are seen are beautiful. 13.8. Yet again, not even they are to be excused; 13.9. for if they had the power to know so much that they could investigate the world,how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things?
8. Ignatius, To The Ephesians, 19.2-19.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

19.2. How then were they made manifest to the ages? A star shone forth in the heaven above all the stars; and its light was unutterable, and its strangeness caused amazement; and all the rest of the constellations with the sun and moon formed themselves into a chorus about the star; but the star itself far outshone them all; and there was perplexity to know whence came this strange appearance which was so unlike them. 19.3. From that time forward every sorcery and every spell was dissolved, the ignorance of wickedness vanished away, the ancient kingdom was pulled down, when God appeared in the likeness of man unto newness of everlasting life; and that which had been perfected in the counsels of God began to take effect. Thence all things were perturbed, because the abolishing of death was taken in hand.
9. New Testament, 1 Peter, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

2.16. as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God.
10. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 1.19-1.29, 2.6, 2.15, 3.18-3.20, 15.50 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

1.19. For it is written,"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing. 1.20. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyerof this world? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1.21. For seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdomdidn't know God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness ofthe preaching to save those who believe. 1.22. For Jews ask for signs,Greeks seek after wisdom 1.23. but we preach Christ crucified; astumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks 1.24. but to thosewho are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God andthe wisdom of God. 1.25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser thanmen, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1.26. For you seeyour calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh,not many mighty, and not many noble; 1.27. but God chose the foolishthings of the world that he might put to shame those who are wise. Godchose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame thethings that are strong; 1.28. and God chose the lowly things of theworld, and the things that are despised, and the things that are not,that he might bring to nothing the things that are: 1.29. that noflesh should boast before God. 2.6. We speak wisdom, however, among those who are fullgrown; yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world,who are coming to nothing. 2.15. But he who is spiritual discerns allthings, and he himself is judged by no one. 3.18. Letno one deceive himself. If anyone thinks that he is wise among you inthis world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. 3.19. Forthe wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,"He has taken the wise in their craftiness. 3.20. And again, "TheLord knows the reasoning of the wise, that it is worthless. 15.50. Now I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood can'tinherit the Kingdom of God; neither does corruption inheritincorruption.
11. New Testament, 1 Timothy, 1.4, 4.7, 6.20 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

1.4. neither to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which cause disputes, rather than God's stewardship, which is in faith -- 4.7. But refuse profane and old wives' fables. Exercise yourself toward godliness. 6.20. Timothy, guard that which is committed to you, turning away from the empty chatter and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called;
12. New Testament, 2 Peter, 1.16 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

1.16. For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
13. New Testament, 2 Timothy, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

4.4. and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables.
14. New Testament, Acts, 8.23, 15.1-15.29 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

8.23. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity. 15.1. Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can't be saved. 15.2. Therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Paul and Barnabas, and some others of them, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. 15.3. They, being sent on their way by the assembly, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles. They caused great joy to all the brothers. 15.4. When they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the assembly and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all things that God had done with them. 15.5. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses. 15.6. The apostles and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter. 15.7. When there had been much discussion, Peter rose up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 15.8. God, who knows the heart, testified about them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just like he did to us. 15.9. He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 15.10. Now therefore why do you tempt God, that you should put a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 15.11. But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are. 15.12. All the multitude kept silence, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul reporting what signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 15.13. After they were silent, James answered, "Brothers, listen to me. 15.14. Simeon has reported how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15.15. This agrees with the words of the prophets. As it is written 15.16. 'After these things I will return. I will again build the tent of David, which has fallen. I will again build its ruins. I will set it up 15.17. That the rest of men may seek after the Lord; All the Gentiles who are called by my name, Says the Lord, who does all these things. 15.18. All his works are known to God from eternity.' 15.19. Therefore my judgment is that we don't trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God 15.20. but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. 15.21. For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath. 15.22. Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brothers. 15.23. They wrote these things by their hand: "The apostles, the elders, and the brothers, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: greetings. 15.24. Because we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law,' to whom we gave no commandment; 15.25. it seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul 15.26. men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15.27. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves will also tell you the same things by word of mouth. 15.28. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things: 15.29. that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell.
15. New Testament, James, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

2.7. Don't they blaspheme the honorable name by which you are called?
16. New Testament, Romans, 1.21-1.22, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

1.21. Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. 1.22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools 3.8. Why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), "Let us do evil, that good may come?" Those who say so are justly condemned.
17. New Testament, Luke, 15.4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

15.4. Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn't leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it?
18. New Testament, Matthew, 7.24-7.27, 11.25, 23.9 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

7.24. Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock. 7.25. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn't fall, for it was founded on the rock. 7.26. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn't do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. 7.27. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell -- and great was its fall. 11.25. At that time, Jesus answered, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you hid these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to infants. 23.9. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.
19. Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts From Theodotus, 78 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

78. Until baptism, they say, Fate is real, but after it the astrologists are no longer right. But it is not only the washing that is liberating, but the knowledge of/who we were, and what we have become, where we were or where we were placed, whither we hasten, from what we are redeemed, what birth is and what rebirth.
20. Clement of Alexandria, Christ The Educator, 1.6, 2.1, 2.7-2.8, 3.4-3.5 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

21. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 5.5 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

22. Hermas, Mandates, 4.1 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

23. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 7.24 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

7.24. While, however, different questions have arisen among them, a certain (heretic), who himself also was styled Theodotus, and who was by trade a banker, attempted to establish (the doctrine), that a certain Melchisedec constitutes the greatest power, and that this one is greater than Christ. And they allege that Christ happens to be according to the likeness (of this Melchisedec). And they themselves, similarly with those who have been previously spoken of as adherents of Theodotus, assert that Jesus is a (mere) man, and that, in conformity with the same account (already given), Christ descended upon him. There are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion; but we have decided that it would not be worth while to enumerate the silly doctrines of these (heretics), inasmuch as they are (too) numerous and devoid of reason, and full of blasphemy. Now, even those (of the heretics) who are of a more serious turn in regard of the Divinity, and have derived their systems of speculation from the Greeks, must stand convicted (of these charges). But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food. And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols.
24. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, None (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.1. It is said that Thales of Miletus, one of the seven wise men, first attempted to frame a system of natural philosophy. This person said that some such thing as water is the generative principle of the universe, and its end - for that out of this, solidified and again dissolved, all things consist, and that all things are supported on it; from which also arise both earthquakes and changes of the winds and atmospheric movements, and that all things are both produced and are in a state of flux corresponding with the nature of the primary author of generation - and that the Deity is that which has neither beginning nor end. This person, having been occupied with an hypothesis and investigation concerning the stars, became the earliest author to the Greeks of this kind of learning. And he, looking towards heaven, alleging that he was carefully examining supernal objects, fell into a well; and a certain maid, by name Thratta, remarked of him derisively, that while intent on beholding things in heaven, he did not know, what was at his feet. And he lived about the time of Croesus.
25. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 82.1, 113.3 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

26. Tatian, Oration To The Greeks, 40, 25 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

27. Tertullian, Against The Valentinians, 1.1-1.4 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

28. Tertullian, On Idolatry, 14, 10 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

10. Moreover, we must inquire likewise touching schoolmasters; nor only of them, but also all other professors of literature. Nay, on the contrary, we must not doubt that they are in affinity with manifold idolatry: first, in that it is necessary for them to preach the gods of the nations, to express their names, genealogies, honourable distinctions, all and singular; and further, to observe the solemnities and festivals of the same, as of them by whose means they compute their revenues. What schoolmaster, without a table of the seven idols, will yet frequent the Quinquatria? The very first payment of every pupil he consecrates both to the honour and to the name of Minerva; so that, even though he be not said to eat of that which is sacrificed to idols nominally (not being dedicated to any particular idol), he is shunned as an idolater. What less of defilement does he recur on that ground, than a business brings which, both nominally and virtually, is consecrated publicly to an idol? The Minervalia are as much Minerva's, as the Saturnalia Saturn's; Saturn's, which must necessarily be celebrated even by little slaves at the time of the Saturnalia. New-year's gifts likewise must be caught at, and the Septimontium kept; and all the presents of Midwinter and the feast of Dear Kinsmanship must be exacted; the schools must be wreathed with flowers; the flamens' wives and the diles sacrifice; the school is honoured on the appointed holy-days. The same thing takes place on an idol's birthday; every pomp of the devil is frequented. Who will think that these things are befitting to a Christian master, unless it be he who shall think them suitable likewise to one who is not a master? We know it may be said, If teaching literature is not lawful to God's servants, neither will learning be likewise; and, How could one be trained unto ordinary human intelligence, or unto any sense or action whatever, since literature is the means of training for all life? How do we repudiate secular studies, without which divine studies cannot be pursued? Let us see, then, the necessity of literary erudition; let us reflect that partly it cannot be admitted, partly cannot be avoided. Learning literature is allowable for believers, rather than teaching; for the principle of learning and of teaching is different. If a believer teach literature, while he is teaching doubtless he commends, while he delivers he affirms, while he recalls he bears testimony to, the praises of idols interspersed therein. He seals the gods themselves with this name; whereas the Law, as we have said, prohibits the names of gods to be pronounced, and this name to be conferred on vanity. Hence the devil gets men's early faith built up from the beginnings of their erudition. Inquire whether he who catechizes about idols commit idolatry. But when a believer learns these things, if he is already capable of understanding what idolatry is, he neither receives nor allows them; much more if he is not yet capable. Or, when he begins to understand, it behooves him first to understand what he has previously learned, that is, touching God and the faith. Therefore he will reject those things, and will not receive them; and will be as safe as one who from one who knows it not, knowingly accepts poison, but does not drink it. To him necessity is attributed as an excuse, because he has no other way to learn. Moreover, the not teaching literature is as much easier than the not learning, as it is easier, too, for the pupil not to attend, than for the master not to frequent, the rest of the defilements incident to the schools from public and scholastic solemnities.
29. Tertullian, On Modesty, 12.4 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

30. Nag Hammadi, The Gospel of Philip, 62, 61 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

31. Nag Hammadi, The Testimony of Truth, 45.6-45.18 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

32. Origen, Against Celsus, 1.9, 1.12 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.9. He next proceeds to recommend, that in adopting opinions we should follow reason and a rational guide, since he who assents to opinions without following this course is very liable to be deceived. And he compares inconsiderate believers to Metragyrt, and soothsayers, and Mithr, and Sabbadians, and to anything else that one may fall in with, and to the phantoms of Hecate, or any other demon or demons. For as among such persons are frequently to be found wicked men, who, taking advantage of the ignorance of those who are easily deceived, lead them away whither they will, so also, he says, is the case among Christians. And he asserts that certain persons who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, Do not examine, but believe! and, Your faith will save you! And he alleges that such also say, The wisdom of this life is bad, but that foolishness is a good thing! To which we have to answer, that if it were possible for all to leave the business of life, and devote themselves to philosophy, no other method ought to be adopted by any one, but this alone. For in the Christian system also it will be found that there is, not to speak at all arrogantly, at least as much of investigation into articles of belief, and of explanation of dark sayings, occurring in the prophetical writings, and of the parables in the Gospels, and of countless other things, which either were narrated or enacted with a symbolic signification, (as is the case with other systems). But since the course alluded to is impossible, partly on account of the necessities of life, partly on account of the weakness of men, as only a very few individuals devote themselves earnestly to study, what better method could be devised with a view of assisting the multitude, than that which was delivered by Jesus to the heathen? And let us inquire, with respect to the great multitude of believers, who have washed away the mire of wickedness in which they formerly wallowed, whether it were better for them to believe without a reason, and (so) to have become reformed and improved in their habits, through the belief that men are chastised for sins, and honoured for good works or not to have allowed themselves to be converted on the strength of mere faith, but (to have waited) until they could give themselves to a thorough examination of the (necessary) reasons. For it is manifest that, (on such a plan), all men, with very few exceptions, would not obtain this (amelioration of conduct) which they have obtained through a simple faith, but would continue to remain in the practice of a wicked life. Now, whatever other evidence can be furnished of the fact, that it was not without divine intervention that the philanthropic scheme of Christianity was introduced among men, this also must be added. For a pious man will not believe that even a physician of the body, who restores the sick to better health, could take up his abode in any city or country without divine permission, since no good happens to men without the help of God. And if he who has cured the bodies of many, or restored them to better health, does not effect his cures without the help of God, how much more He who has healed the souls of many, and has turned them (to virtue), and improved their nature, and attached them to God who is over all things, and taught them to refer every action to His good pleasure, and to shun all that is displeasing to Him, even to the least of their words or deeds, or even of the thoughts of their hearts? 1.12. In the next place, when Celsus says in express words, If they would answer me, not as if I were asking for information, for I am acquainted with all their opinions, but because I take an equal interest in them all, it would be well. And if they will not, but will keep reiterating, as they generally do, 'Do not investigate,' etc., they must, he continues, explain to me at least of what nature these things are of which they speak, and whence they are derived, etc. Now, with regard to his statement that he is acquainted with all our doctrines, we have to say that this is a boastful and daring assertion; for if he had read the prophets in particular, which are full of acknowledged difficulties, and of declarations that are obscure to the multitude, and if he had perused the parables of the Gospels, and the other writings of the law and of the Jewish history, and the utterances of the apostles, and had read them candidly, with a desire to enter into their meaning, he would not have expressed himself with such boldness, nor said that he was acquainted with all their doctrines. Even we ourselves, who have devoted much study to these writings, would not say that we were acquainted with everything, for we have a regard for truth. Not one of us will assert, I know all the doctrines of Epicurus, or will be confident that he knows all those of Plato, in the knowledge of the fact that so many differences of opinion exist among the expositors of these systems. For who is so daring as to say that he knows all the opinions of the Stoics or of the Peripatetics? Unless, indeed, it should be the case that he has heard this boast, I know them all, from some ignorant and senseless individuals, who do not perceive their own ignorance, and should thus imagine, from having had such persons as his teachers, that he was acquainted with them all. Such an one appears to me to act very much as a person would do who had visited Egypt (where the Egyptian savans, learned in their country's literature, are greatly given to philosophizing about those things which are regarded among them as divine, but where the vulgar, hearing certain myths, the reasons of which they do not understand, are greatly elated because of their fancied knowledge), and who should imagine that he is acquainted with the whole circle of Egyptian knowledge, after having been a disciple of the ignorant alone, and without having associated with any of the priests, or having learned the mysteries of the Egyptians from any other source. And what I have said regarding the learned and ignorant among the Egyptians, I might have said also of the Persians; among whom there are mysteries, conducted on rational principles by the learned among them, but understood in a symbolic sense by the more superficial of the multitude. And the same remark applies to the Syrians, and Indians, and to all those who have a literature and a mythology.
33. Anon., Epistle To Diognetus, 4



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
animals Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
antichrist, heresiological theme Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 163, 164
antioch Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
apollonius of tyana Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
aristotelianism, as school Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 167, 173
banquet Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
barbarian Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
basilides Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 170, 173
biblical Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
blasphemy, heresy as Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173, 179
bridal chamber Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 473
canon, development of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 145
carpocratians Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 174
christianity and hermetism Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
church Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
church fathers Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82, 86
clement of alexandria Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82, 86
contacts Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
conversion/converts Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70, 86
culture Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
cyprian Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
drunkenness Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
early christian education Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
ebionites, the elder Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 164, 165
ebionites Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 170, 173
egypt Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
encratites Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
epicureanism, as school or sect Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 83
epicureanism, heresy assimilated to Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 120, 133
eristic, connection with heresy Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 145
esotericism, esoteric Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
exegesis, allegorical Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 239
exegesis, figurative Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 135, 239
exegesis, in gnosticism Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 134, 238, 239, 248, 249
exegesis, in irenaeus Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 134, 135, 238, 239, 248, 249
exegesis, in justin Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82
exegesis, in valentianianism Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 239
exegesis, literal Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 135, 238, 239
faith Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
flora Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 233
forbidden Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
fornication Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82, 86
gender Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 473
gnosticism, as deceptive Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 179
gnosticism, as heretical or other Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 133, 134
gnosticism, as pagan Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 120
gnosticism, as sophistical Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 134, 135, 145
gnosticism, cento Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 238, 239, 248
gnosticism, heresiological reduction and simplification of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 166, 167, 169, 170, 174
gnosticism, orthodox criticism of morality of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 133
gnosticism, specific doctrines Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 120
gnosticism, succession and schools within Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 173
gnostics Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
god Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82, 86
gods Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
greek Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
groups Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
hairesis Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 83
hebrew Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
hegesippus Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 170
hellenization Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
heresy, alterity/otherness/exteriority of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 175, 179, 248, 249
heresy, division/multiplicity of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 162, 163, 175
heresy, exclusion of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 133, 174, 175
heresy, interior to church Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 133
heresy, novelty of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 83, 166, 167, 173, 174
heresy, reduction/amalgamation of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 169, 248
hermetism, hermetic Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
idol/s Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70, 82, 86
immorality Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
initiatory hierarchy Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
instruction Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
irenaeus, criticism of gnostic exegesis Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 238, 239, 248
irenaeus, criticism of gnostic myth Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 248, 249
irenaeus, heresiological innovations Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 173, 174, 175, 179
irenaeus, on heresy and paganism Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 120, 133, 134
irenaeus, on heresy and sophism Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 134, 135, 145
irenaeus, other heresiological themes Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 83
irenaeus Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
irénée de lyon/irenaeus of lyon Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
jewish people Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82
jewish succession, orthodox borrowings from jewish heresiology Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 145
jewish succession Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 83
justin Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70, 82
knowledge, secret knowledge Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
law Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
libertinism/license Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 133, 173, 174, 175
literature Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
magi, as part of heretical succession Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
magi, criticism as heresy Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 83
magi, doctrine Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 134, 135, 249
marcianus aristides Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
marcus (the magician) Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 208
mark the magician Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 145, 163, 164, 165, 166
market Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
marriage, heretical contempt for Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
marriage, human Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 473
martyr, justin, use of greek models for heresy Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 83
mary Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 248
meals Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
meat Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82, 86
menander Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 83, 170
moses Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
myth, associated with heresy Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 135, 145, 160, 179, 248, 249
new testament Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 145
old testament, criticism of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 179, 238, 239
oriental Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
orthodoxy, unity of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 134, 135, 175
paganism, heresy assimilated to Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 120, 133, 134, 174, 175
paul Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
philo of alexandria Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 120
philosophy, assimilation of heresy to Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 133, 159
philosophy, history of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
philosophy/philosophers Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
philostrates Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
plato/platonism Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
platonism, christian discussion of platonic doctrines Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 120
pollution, impurity Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 473
prescriptions Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
ptolemy (gnostic) Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 160, 161
public Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
revelation Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
ritual Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 473
rome Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70
rules Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
sacred-consecrated Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
satan, and heresy Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 167, 174, 175
saturninus Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 170, 173
schoolmaster Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
scripture, as contested authority Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 179, 239, 248, 249
scripture, as weapon/criterion against heresy Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 179
secrecy Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
shows Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
simon of samaria, as source of all heresy Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173, 174, 175
simon of samaria Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 83, 170
simonians (sect) Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 238
simplicity, of orthodoxy Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 159
sin/sinner Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
sophia Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 473
sophistry, heresy connected to Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 134, 135, 145
sources Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
spiritual, spirituality' Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 473
succession, authentic succession Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 175
succession, heretical succession Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 83, 159, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 173, 174
succession, previous notions of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 167
succession Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 83
tatian Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 70; Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 83, 173
temple Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
valentinian(ism) Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 473
valentinianism, valentinian Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
valentinians, doctrine of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 249
valentinians Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 120, 133, 145, 160, 165, 166, 170, 173, 174, 179, 248, 249
weak individuals Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 86
wisdom Bull, Lied and Turner, Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty (2011) 222
worship Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
γνώμη Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 161, 162, 163
γραμματικός Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 135
διαδοχή Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 83, 166, 167, 169, 173
διατριβή Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 83
διδασκαλεῖον Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 166, 167
διορθωτής Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 163, 164
διάδοχος Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 167
διάφορος Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 161, 162
εἰδωλόθυτον Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 133
μαθήτης Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 82, 166, 167
μισθός Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 145
μυστικῶς Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 163, 164
μάχη Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 162
μῦθος Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 145
παράδοσις Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 162, 163
πιθανολογία Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 134
πλάνη Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 161, 162
πλάσμα Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 239
πρᾶγμα Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 161
σοφίζειν Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 145
σχολή Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 165, 166
ἀμφίβολος Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 239
ἀνατροπή Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 120, 248, 249
ἀπολύτρωσις Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 162, 163
ἀπάνθισμα Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 165, 166
ἀσύμφωνος Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 162, 163
ἄστατος Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 162, 163
ἐπέκτασις Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 161, 162
ἐφαρμόζειν Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 239
ἔλεγχος Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 248, 249