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
Irenaeus, Refutation Of All Heresies, 1.1-1.7


I. ΛΕΓΟΥΣI 1γάρ τινα εἶναι ἐν ἀοράτοις καὶ ἀκατονομάστοις ὑψώμασι 2τέλειον Αἰῶνα προόντα· τοῦτον δὲ καὶ Epiph. Hær. xxxi. cf. Tbeodoret. Hær. Pab. 1.7. dre. Tertull. adv. Val. προαρχὴν καὶ προπάτορα καὶ Bυθὸν καλοῦσιν. 3 ὑπάρχοντα δ᾿ αὐτὸν ἀχώρυτον καὶ ἀόρατον, ἀΐδιόν τε καὶ ἀγέννητον. ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ καὶ ἠραμίᾳ πολλῇ γεγονέναι ἐν ἀπείροις αἰῶσι 4 χρόνων . συνυπάρχειν δ᾿ αὐτῷ καὶ Ἔννοιαν, ἣν δὲ καὶ Χάριν, καὶ Σιγὴν ὀνομάζουσι· καὶ ἐννονθῆναί ποτε ἀφʼ LIB. I. i. l. GR. I. i. l. MASS. I. i. l. ἑαυτοῦ προβαλέσθαι τὸν Bυθὸν τοῦτον, ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων καὶ καθάπερ σπέρμα, τὴν προβολὴν ταύτην, ἣν προβαλέσθαι ἐνενοήθη, καὶ καθέσθαι ὡς ἐν μήτρα τῇ συνυπαρχούσῃ ἑαυτῷ Σιγῇ· ταύτην δὲ ὑποδεξαμένην τὸ σπέρμα τοῦτο καὶ ἐγκύμονα γενομένην, ἀποκυῆσαι Νοῦν, ὅμοιόν τε καὶ ἶσον τῷ προβαλόντι, καὶ μόνον χωροῦντα τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ Πατρός· τὸν δὲ Νοῦν τοῦτον καὶ Μονογενῆ καλοῦσι, καὶ Πατέρα, 2καὶ Ἀρχὴν τῶν G. 8. πάντων· συμπροβεβλῆσθαι δὲ αὐτῷ Ἀλήθειαν· καὶ εἶναι ταύτην πρῶτον καὶ ἀρχέγονον 3Πυθαγορικὴν τετρακτὺν, ἣν καὶ M.6. ῥίζαν τῶν πάντων καλοῦσιν· ἔστι γάρ Βοθὸς καὶ Σιγὴ, ἔπειτα LIB. I. i. l. GR. I. i. l. MASS. I. i. 2. Νοῦς καὶ Ἀλήθεια. Αἰσθόμενόν τε τὸν Μονογενῆ τοῦτον ἐφʼ οἷς προεβλήθη, προβαλεῖν καὶ αὐτὸν Λόγον καὶ Ζωὴν, πατέρα πάντων τῶν μετʼ αὐτὸν ἐσομένων, καὶ ἀρχὴν καὶ 1 μόφωσιν παντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος. Ἐκ δὴ τοῦ Λόγου καὶ τῆς Ζωῆς προβεβλῆσθαι κατὰ συζυγίαν 2Ἄνθρωπον καὶ Ἐκκλησίαν· καὶ εἶναι ταύτην ἀρχέγονον Ὀγδοάδα, ῥίζαν καὶ ὑπόστασιν τῶν πάντων, τέτρασιν ὀνόμασι παῤ αὐτοῖς καλουμένων, l. καλουμένην Βυθῷ, καὶ Νῷ, καὶ Λόγῳ, καὶ Ἀνθρώπῳ· εἶναι γὰρ αὐτῶν ἕκαστον ἀῤῥενόθηλυν· οὕτως πρῶτον τὸν Προπάτορα ἡνῶσθαι κατὰ συζυγίαν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ Ἐννοίᾳ· τὸν δὲ Μονογενῆ, τουτέστι τὸν Νοῦν, τῇ Ἀληθείᾳ· τὸν δὲ Λόγον τῇ Ζωῇ, καὶ τὸν Ἄνθρωπον τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ. Τούτους δὲ τοὺς Αἰῶνας εἰς δόξαν τοῦ Πατρὸς προβεβλημένους, βουληθέντας καὶ αὐτοὺς διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου δοξάσαι τὸν Πατέρα, προβαλεῖν προβολὰς ἐν συζυγίᾳ· τὸν μὲν Λόγον καὶ τὴν Ζωὴν, μετὰ τὸ προβαλέσθαι τὸν Ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν, ἄλλους δέκα Αἰῶνας, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα λέγουσι ταῦτα· Βύθιος καὶ LIB. I. i. l. GR. I. i. l. MASS. I i. 3. Μίξις, 1Ἀγήρατος καὶ Ἑνώσις, Αὐτοφυὴς καὶ Ἡδονὴ, Ἀκίνητος καὶ Σύγκρασις, Μονογενὴς καὶ Μακαρία· οὗτοι δέκα Αἰῶνες, οὓς καὶ φάσκουσιν ἐκ Λόγου καὶ Ζωῆς προβεβλῆσθαι. τὸν δὲ Ἄνθρωπον καὶ αὐτὸν προβαλεῖν μετὰ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Αἰῶνας δώδεκα, οἷς ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα χαρίζονται· Παράκλητος M. 7. καὶ Πίστις, Πατρικὸς καὶ Ἐλπὶς, Μητρικὸς καὶ Ἀγάπη, 2Ἀείνους καὶ Σύνεσις, Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς καὶ Μακαριότης, G. 9. Θλητὸς καὶ Σοφία· οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τριάκοντα Αἰῶνες τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν, οἱ 3σεσιγημένοι καὶ μὴ γινωσκόμενοι· τοῦτο τὸ ἀόρατον καὶ πνευματικὸν κατʼ αὐτοὺς πλήρωμα, τριχῆ διεσταμένον 4εἰς ὀγδοάδα, καὶ δεκάδα, καὶ δωδεκάδα. Καὶ διὰ II. xil. LIB. L. i. l. GR. I. i. l. MASS. I. i. 3. τοῦτο τὸν Σωτῆρα λέγουσιν (οὐδὲ γὰρ Μύριον ὀνομάζειν αὐτὸν θέλουσι) τριάκοντα ἔτεσι κατὰ τὸ φανερὸν μηδὲν πεποιηκέναι, ἐπιδεικνύντα τὸ μυστήριον τούτων τῶν Αἰώνων. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς παραβολῆς τῶν εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα πεμπομένων ἐργατῶν φασὶ φανερώτατα τοὺς τριάκοντα τούτους Αἰῶνας μεμηνύσθαι· πέμπονται γὰρ οἱ μὲν περὶ πρώτην ὥραν, οἱ δὲ περὶ τρίτην, οἱ δὲ περὶ ἕκτην, οἱ δὲ περὶ ἐνάτην, ἄλλοι δὲ περὶ ἑνδεκάτην· συντιθέμεναι οὖν αἱ προειρημέναι ὧραι εἰς ἑαυτὰς, τὸν τῶν τριάκοντα ἀριθμὸν ἀναπληροῦσι· μία γὰρ, καὶ τρεῖς, καὶ ἓξ, καὶ ἐννέα, καὶ ἕνδεκα, τριάκοντα γίνονται· διὰ δὲ τῶν ὡρῶν τοὺς Αἰῶνας μεμηνύσθαι θέλουσι. Καὶ ταῦτʼ εἶναι τὰ μεγάλα καὶ θαυμαστὰ καὶ ἀπόῤῥητα Μυστήρια, ἃ καρποφοροῦσιν αὐτοὶ, καὶ εἴ που τι τῶν ἐν LIB. I. i. 2. GR. I. i. 2. MASS. I. ii. 1. πλήθει εἰρημένων ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς δυνηθείη προσαρμόσαι, καὶ εἰκάσαι τῷ πλάσματι αὐτῶν. G. 10. M.8.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.


I. ΛΕΓΟΥΣI 1γάρ τινα εἶναι ἐν ἀοράτοις καὶ ἀκατονομάστοις ὑψώμασι 2τέλειον Αἰῶνα προόντα· τοῦτον δὲ καὶ Epiph. Hær. xxxi. cf. Tbeodoret. Hær. Pab. 1.7. dre. Tertull. adv. Val. προαρχὴν καὶ προπάτορα καὶ Bυθὸν καλοῦσιν. 3 ὑπάρχοντα δ᾿ αὐτὸν ἀχώρυτον καὶ ἀόρατον, ἀΐδιόν τε καὶ ἀγέννητον. ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ καὶ ἠραμίᾳ πολλῇ γεγονέναι ἐν ἀπείροις αἰῶσι 4 χρόνων . συνυπάρχειν δ᾿ αὐτῷ καὶ Ἔννοιαν, ἣν δὲ καὶ Χάριν, καὶ Σιγὴν ὀνομάζουσι· καὶ ἐννονθῆναί ποτε ἀφʼ LIB. I. i. l. GR. I. i. l. MASS. I. i. l. ἑαυτοῦ προβαλέσθαι τὸν Bυθὸν τοῦτον, ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων καὶ καθάπερ σπέρμα, τὴν προβολὴν ταύτην, ἣν προβαλέσθαι ἐνενοήθη, καὶ καθέσθαι ὡς ἐν μήτρα τῇ συνυπαρχούσῃ ἑαυτῷ Σιγῇ· ταύτην δὲ ὑποδεξαμένην τὸ σπέρμα τοῦτο καὶ ἐγκύμονα γενομένην, ἀποκυῆσαι Νοῦν, ὅμοιόν τε καὶ ἶσον τῷ προβαλόντι, καὶ μόνον χωροῦντα τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ Πατρός· τὸν δὲ Νοῦν τοῦτον καὶ Μονογενῆ καλοῦσι, καὶ Πατέρα, 2καὶ Ἀρχὴν τῶν G. 8. πάντων· συμπροβεβλῆσθαι δὲ αὐτῷ Ἀλήθειαν· καὶ εἶναι ταύτην πρῶτον καὶ ἀρχέγονον 3Πυθαγορικὴν τετρακτὺν, ἣν καὶ M.6. ῥίζαν τῶν πάντων καλοῦσιν· ἔστι γάρ Βοθὸς καὶ Σιγὴ, ἔπειτα LIB. I. i. l. GR. I. i. l. MASS. I. i. 2. Νοῦς καὶ Ἀλήθεια. Αἰσθόμενόν τε τὸν Μονογενῆ τοῦτον ἐφʼ οἷς προεβλήθη, προβαλεῖν καὶ αὐτὸν Λόγον καὶ Ζωὴν, πατέρα πάντων τῶν μετʼ αὐτὸν ἐσομένων, καὶ ἀρχὴν καὶ 1 μόφωσιν παντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος. Ἐκ δὴ τοῦ Λόγου καὶ τῆς Ζωῆς προβεβλῆσθαι κατὰ συζυγίαν 2Ἄνθρωπον καὶ Ἐκκλησίαν· καὶ εἶναι ταύτην ἀρχέγονον Ὀγδοάδα, ῥίζαν καὶ ὑπόστασιν τῶν πάντων, τέτρασιν ὀνόμασι παῤ αὐτοῖς καλουμένων, l. καλουμένην Βυθῷ, καὶ Νῷ, καὶ Λόγῳ, καὶ Ἀνθρώπῳ· εἶναι γὰρ αὐτῶν ἕκαστον ἀῤῥενόθηλυν· οὕτως πρῶτον τὸν Προπάτορα ἡνῶσθαι κατὰ συζυγίαν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ Ἐννοίᾳ· τὸν δὲ Μονογενῆ, τουτέστι τὸν Νοῦν, τῇ Ἀληθείᾳ· τὸν δὲ Λόγον τῇ Ζωῇ, καὶ τὸν Ἄνθρωπον τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ. Τούτους δὲ τοὺς Αἰῶνας εἰς δόξαν τοῦ Πατρὸς προβεβλημένους, βουληθέντας καὶ αὐτοὺς διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου δοξάσαι τὸν Πατέρα, προβαλεῖν προβολὰς ἐν συζυγίᾳ· τὸν μὲν Λόγον καὶ τὴν Ζωὴν, μετὰ τὸ προβαλέσθαι τὸν Ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν, ἄλλους δέκα Αἰῶνας, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα λέγουσι ταῦτα· Βύθιος καὶ LIB. I. i. l. GR. I. i. l. MASS. I i. 3. Μίξις, 1Ἀγήρατος καὶ Ἑνώσις, Αὐτοφυὴς καὶ Ἡδονὴ, Ἀκίνητος καὶ Σύγκρασις, Μονογενὴς καὶ Μακαρία· οὗτοι δέκα Αἰῶνες, οὓς καὶ φάσκουσιν ἐκ Λόγου καὶ Ζωῆς προβεβλῆσθαι. τὸν δὲ Ἄνθρωπον καὶ αὐτὸν προβαλεῖν μετὰ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Αἰῶνας δώδεκα, οἷς ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα χαρίζονται· Παράκλητος M. 7. καὶ Πίστις, Πατρικὸς καὶ Ἐλπὶς, Μητρικὸς καὶ Ἀγάπη, 2Ἀείνους καὶ Σύνεσις, Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς καὶ Μακαριότης, G. 9. Θλητὸς καὶ Σοφία· οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τριάκοντα Αἰῶνες τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν, οἱ 3σεσιγημένοι καὶ μὴ γινωσκόμενοι· τοῦτο τὸ ἀόρατον καὶ πνευματικὸν κατʼ αὐτοὺς πλήρωμα, τριχῆ διεσταμένον 4εἰς ὀγδοάδα, καὶ δεκάδα, καὶ δωδεκάδα. Καὶ διὰ II. xil. LIB. L. i. l. GR. I. i. l. MASS. I. i. 3. τοῦτο τὸν Σωτῆρα λέγουσιν (οὐδὲ γὰρ Μύριον ὀνομάζειν αὐτὸν θέλουσι) τριάκοντα ἔτεσι κατὰ τὸ φανερὸν μηδὲν πεποιηκέναι, ἐπιδεικνύντα τὸ μυστήριον τούτων τῶν Αἰώνων. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς παραβολῆς τῶν εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα πεμπομένων ἐργατῶν φασὶ φανερώτατα τοὺς τριάκοντα τούτους Αἰῶνας μεμηνύσθαι· πέμπονται γὰρ οἱ μὲν περὶ πρώτην ὥραν, οἱ δὲ περὶ τρίτην, οἱ δὲ περὶ ἕκτην, οἱ δὲ περὶ ἐνάτην, ἄλλοι δὲ περὶ ἑνδεκάτην· συντιθέμεναι οὖν αἱ προειρημέναι ὧραι εἰς ἑαυτὰς, τὸν τῶν τριάκοντα ἀριθμὸν ἀναπληροῦσι· μία γὰρ, καὶ τρεῖς, καὶ ἓξ, καὶ ἐννέα, καὶ ἕνδεκα, τριάκοντα γίνονται· διὰ δὲ τῶν ὡρῶν τοὺς Αἰῶνας μεμηνύσθαι θέλουσι. Καὶ ταῦτʼ εἶναι τὰ μεγάλα καὶ θαυμαστὰ καὶ ἀπόῤῥητα Μυστήρια, ἃ καρποφοροῦσιν αὐτοὶ, καὶ εἴ που τι τῶν ἐν LIB. I. i. 2. GR. I. i. 2. MASS. I. ii. 1. πλήθει εἰρημένων ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς δυνηθείη προσαρμόσαι, καὶ εἰκάσαι τῷ πλάσματι αὐτῶν. G. 10. M.8.THEY maintain, then, that in the invisible and ineffable heights above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent AEon, whom they call Proarche, Propator, and Bythus, and describe as being invisible and incomprehensible. Eternal and unbegotten, he remained throughout innumerable cycles of ages in profound serenity and quiescence. There existed along with him Ennoea, whom they also call Charis and Sige. At last this Bythus determined to send forth from himself the beginning of all things, and deposited this production (which he had resolved to bring forth) in his contemporary Sige, even as seed is deposited in the womb. She then, having received this seed, and becoming pregnant, gave birth to Nous, who was both similar and equal to him who had produced him, and was alone capable of comprehending his father's greatness. This Nous they call also Monogenes, and Father, and the Beginning of all Things. Along with him was also produced Aletheia; and these four constituted the first and first-begotten Pythagorean Tetrad, which they also denominate the root of all things. For there are first Bythus and Sige, and then Nous and Aletheia. And Monogenes, perceiving for what purpose he had been produced, also himself sent forth Logos and Zoe, being the father of all those who were to come after him, and the beginning and fashioning of the entire Pleroma. By the conjunction of Logos and Zoo were brought forth Anthropos and Ecclesia; and thus was formed the first-begotten Ogdoad, the root and substance of all things, called among them by four names, viz., Bythus, and Nous, and Logos, and Anthropos. For each of these is masculo-feminine, as follows: Propator was united by a conjunction with his Ennoea; then Monogenes, that is Nous, with Aletheia; Logos with Zoe, and Anthropos with Ecclesia.,These AEons having been produced for the glory of the Father, and wishing, by their own efforts, to effect this object, sent forth emanations by means of conjunction. Logos and Zoe, after producing Anthropos and Ecclesia, sent forth other ten AEons, whose names are the following: Bythius and Mixis, Ageratos and Henosis, Autophyes and Hedone, Acinetos and Syncrasis, Monogenes and Macaria. These are the ten AEons whom they declare to have been produced by Logos and Zoe. They then add that Anthropos himself, along with Ecclesia, produced twelve AEons, to whom they give the following names: Paracletus and Pistis, Patricos and Elpis, Metricos and Agape, Ainos and Synesis, Ecclesiasticus and Macariotes, Theletos and Sophia.,Such are the thirty AEons in the erroneous system of these men; and they are described as being wrapped up, so to speak, in silence, and known to none [except these professing teachers]. Moreover, they declare that this invisible and spiritual Pleroma of theirs is tripartite, being divided into an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad. And for this reason they affirm it was that the "Saviour"--for they do not please to call Him "Lord"--did no work in public during the space of thirty years, thus setting forth the mystery of these AEons. They maintain also, that these thirty AEons are most plainly indicated in the parable of the labourers sent into the vineyard. For some are sent about the first hour, others about the third hour, others about the sixth hour, others about the ninth hour, and others about the eleventh hour. Now, if we add up the numbers of the hours here mentioned, the sum total will be thirty: for one, three, six, nine, and eleven, when added together, form thirty. And by the hours, they hold that the AEons were pointed out; while they maintain that these are great, and wonderful, and hitherto unspeakable mysteries which it is their special function to develop; and so they proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations.


2. Τὸν μὲν οὖν Προπάτορα αὐτῶν γινώσκεσθαι μόνῳ λέγουσι τῷ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγονότι Μονογενεῖ, τουτέστι τῷ Νῷ· τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς πᾶσιν ἀόρατον καὶ ἀκατάληπτον ὑπάρχειν· μόνος δὲ ὁ Νοῦς κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἐτέρπετο θεωρῶν τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ τὸ μέγεθος τὸ ἀμέτρητον αὐτοῦ κατανοῶν ἠγάλλετο· καὶ διενοεῖτο καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς αἰῶσιν ἀνακοινώσασθαι τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἡλίκος τε καὶ ὅσος ὑπῆρχε, καὶ ὡς ἦν ἄναρχός τε καὶ ἀχώρητος, καὶ οὐ καταληπτὸς ἰδεῖν· 1κατέσχε δὲ αὐτὸν ἡ Σιγὴ βουλήσει τοῦ Πατρὸς, διὰ τὸ θέλειν πάντας αὐτοὺς εἰς ἔννοιαν καὶ πόθον ζητήσεως τοῦ προειρημένου Προπάτορος αὐτῶν ἀγαγεῖν. Καὶ οἱ μὲν λοιποὶ ὁμοίως Αἰῶνες ἡσυχῇ πως ἐπεπόθουν τὸν προβολέα τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν ἰδεῖν, καὶ τὴν ἄναρχον 2ῥίζαν ἱστορῆσαι· προήλατο δὲ πολὺ ὁ τελευταῖος LIB. I. i. 2. GR. I. i. 2. MASS. I. ii. 2. καὶ νεώτατος τῆς δωδεκάδος, τῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου καὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, προβεβλημένος Αἰὼν, τουτέστιν ἡ Σοφία, καὶ ἔπαθε πάθος ἄνευ τῆς ἐπιπλοκῆς τοῦ ζνγοῦ l. συζ. τοῦ Θελητοῦ· ἐνήρξατο μὲν ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὸν Νοῦν καὶ τὴν Ἀλήθειαν, 2ἀπέσκηψε δὲ εἰς τοῦτον τὸν παρατραπέντα, 3πρόφασιν μὲν G. 11. ἀγάπης, τόλμης δὲ, διὰ τὸ μὴ κεκοινωνῆσθαι τῷ Πατρὶ τῷ LIB. I. i. 2. GR. I. i. 2. MASS. I. ii. 2. τελείῳ, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Νοῦς. Τὸ δὲ πάθος εἶναι ζήτησιν τοῦ Πατρός· ἤθελε γὰρ, ὡς λέγουσι, τὸ μέγεθος αὐτοῦ καταλαβεῖν· ἔπειτα μὴ δυνηθῆναι, διὰ τὸ ἀδυνάτῳ ἐπιβαλεῖν M. 2. πράγματι, καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πάνυ ἀγῶνι γενόμενον, διά τε τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ βάθους, καὶ τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν στοργὴν, 1ἐκτεινόμενον ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσθεν, 2ὑπὸ τῆς γλυκύτητος αὐτοῦ τελευταῖον ἂν καταπεπόσθαι, καὶ ἀναλελύσθαι εἰς τὴν ὅλην 3οὐσίαν, εἰ μὴ τῇ στηριζούσῃ καὶ ἐκτὸς τοῦ ἀῤῥήτου μεγέθους φυλασσούσῃ τὰ ὅλα συνέτυχε δυνάμει. Ταύτην δὲ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ Ὅρον καλοῦσιν, ὑφʼ ἧς LIB. I. i. 3. GR. I. i. 3. MASS. I. ii. 3. 1ἐπεσχῆσθαι καὶ ἐστηρίχθαι, καὶ μόγις ἐπιστρέψαντα εἰς ἑαοτὸν, καὶ παισθέντα ὅτι 2ἀκατάληπτός ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ, ἀποθέσθαι τὴν προτέραν ἐνθύμησιν σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει ἐκ τοῦ ἐκπλήκτου ἐκείνου θαύματος.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.


2. Τὸν μὲν οὖν Προπάτορα αὐτῶν γινώσκεσθαι μόνῳ λέγουσι τῷ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγονότι Μονογενεῖ, τουτέστι τῷ Νῷ· τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς πᾶσιν ἀόρατον καὶ ἀκατάληπτον ὑπάρχειν· μόνος δὲ ὁ Νοῦς κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἐτέρπετο θεωρῶν τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ τὸ μέγεθος τὸ ἀμέτρητον αὐτοῦ κατανοῶν ἠγάλλετο· καὶ διενοεῖτο καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς αἰῶσιν ἀνακοινώσασθαι τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἡλίκος τε καὶ ὅσος ὑπῆρχε, καὶ ὡς ἦν ἄναρχός τε καὶ ἀχώρητος, καὶ οὐ καταληπτὸς ἰδεῖν· 1κατέσχε δὲ αὐτὸν ἡ Σιγὴ βουλήσει τοῦ Πατρὸς, διὰ τὸ θέλειν πάντας αὐτοὺς εἰς ἔννοιαν καὶ πόθον ζητήσεως τοῦ προειρημένου Προπάτορος αὐτῶν ἀγαγεῖν. Καὶ οἱ μὲν λοιποὶ ὁμοίως Αἰῶνες ἡσυχῇ πως ἐπεπόθουν τὸν προβολέα τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν ἰδεῖν, καὶ τὴν ἄναρχον 2ῥίζαν ἱστορῆσαι· προήλατο δὲ πολὺ ὁ τελευταῖος LIB. I. i. 2. GR. I. i. 2. MASS. I. ii. 2. καὶ νεώτατος τῆς δωδεκάδος, τῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου καὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, προβεβλημένος Αἰὼν, τουτέστιν ἡ Σοφία, καὶ ἔπαθε πάθος ἄνευ τῆς ἐπιπλοκῆς τοῦ ζνγοῦ l. συζ. τοῦ Θελητοῦ· ἐνήρξατο μὲν ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὸν Νοῦν καὶ τὴν Ἀλήθειαν, 2ἀπέσκηψε δὲ εἰς τοῦτον τὸν παρατραπέντα, 3πρόφασιν μὲν G. 11. ἀγάπης, τόλμης δὲ, διὰ τὸ μὴ κεκοινωνῆσθαι τῷ Πατρὶ τῷ LIB. I. i. 2. GR. I. i. 2. MASS. I. ii. 2. τελείῳ, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Νοῦς. Τὸ δὲ πάθος εἶναι ζήτησιν τοῦ Πατρός· ἤθελε γὰρ, ὡς λέγουσι, τὸ μέγεθος αὐτοῦ καταλαβεῖν· ἔπειτα μὴ δυνηθῆναι, διὰ τὸ ἀδυνάτῳ ἐπιβαλεῖν M. 2. πράγματι, καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πάνυ ἀγῶνι γενόμενον, διά τε τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ βάθους, καὶ τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν στοργὴν, 1ἐκτεινόμενον ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσθεν, 2ὑπὸ τῆς γλυκύτητος αὐτοῦ τελευταῖον ἂν καταπεπόσθαι, καὶ ἀναλελύσθαι εἰς τὴν ὅλην 3οὐσίαν, εἰ μὴ τῇ στηριζούσῃ καὶ ἐκτὸς τοῦ ἀῤῥήτου μεγέθους φυλασσούσῃ τὰ ὅλα συνέτυχε δυνάμει. Ταύτην δὲ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ Ὅρον καλοῦσιν, ὑφʼ ἧς LIB. I. i. 3. GR. I. i. 3. MASS. I. ii. 3. 1ἐπεσχῆσθαι καὶ ἐστηρίχθαι, καὶ μόγις ἐπιστρέψαντα εἰς ἑαοτὸν, καὶ παισθέντα ὅτι 2ἀκατάληπτός ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ, ἀποθέσθαι τὴν προτέραν ἐνθύμησιν σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει ἐκ τοῦ ἐκπλήκτου ἐκείνου θαύματος.They proceed to tell us that the Propator of their scheme was known only to Monogenes, who sprang from him; in other words, only to Nous, while to all the others he was invisible and incomprehensible. And, according to them, Nous alone took pleasure in contemplating the Father, and exulting in considering his immeasurable greatness; while he also meditated how he might communicate to the rest of the AEons the greatness of the Father, revealing to them how vast and mighty he was, and how he was without beginning,--beyond comprehension, and altogether incapable of being seen. But, in accordance with the will of the Father, Sige restrained him, because it was his design to lead them all to an acquaintance with the aforesaid Propator, and to create within them a desire of investigating his nature. In like manner, the rest of the AEons also, in a kind of quiet way, had a wish to behold the Author of their being, and to contemplate that First Cause which had no beginning.,But there rushed forth in advance of the rest that AEon who was much the latest of them, and was the youngest of the Duodecad which sprang from Anthropos and Ecclesia, namely Sophia, and suffered passion apart from the embrace of her consort Theletos. This passion, indeed, first arose among those who were connected with Nous and Aletheia, but passed as by contagion to this degenerate AEon, who acted under a pretence of love, but was in reality influenced by temerity, because she had not, like Nous, enjoyed communion with the perfect Father. This passion, they say, consisted in a desire to search into the nature of the Father; for she wished, according to them, to comprehend his greatness. When she could not attain her end, inasmuch as she aimed at an impossibility, and thus became involved in an extreme agony of mind, while both on account of the vast profundity as well as the unsearchable nature of the Father, and on account of the love she bore him, she was ever stretching herself forward, there was danger lest she should at last have been absorbed by his sweetness, and resolved into his absolute essence, unless she had met with that Power which supports all things, and preserves them outside of the unspeakable greatness. This power they term Horos; by whom, they say, she was restrained and supported; and that then, having with difficulty been brought back to herself, she was convinced that the Father is incomprehensible, and so laid aside her original design, along with that passion which had arisen within her from the overwhelming influence of her admiration.,But others of them fabulously describe the passion and restoration of Sophia as follows: They say that she, having engaged in an impossible and impracticable attempt, brought forth an amorphous substance, such as her female nature enabled her to produce. When she looked upon it, her first feeling was one of grief, on account of the imperfection of its generation, and then of fear lest this should end her own existence. Next she lost, as it were, all command of herself, and was in the greatest perplexity while endeavouring to discover the cause of all this, and in what way she might conceal what had happened. Being greatly harassed by these passions, she at last changed her mind, and endeavoured to return anew to the Father. When, however, she in some measure made the attempt, strength failed her, and she became a suppliant of the Father. The other AEons, Nous in particular, presented their supplications along with her. And hence they declare material substance had its beginning from ignorance and grief, and fear and bewilderment.,The Father afterwards produces, in his own image, by means of Monogenes, the above-mentioned Horos, without conjunction, masculo-feminine. For they maintain that sometimes the Father acts in conjunction with Sige, but that at other times he shows himself independent both of male and female. They term this Horos both Stauros and Lytrotes, and Carpistes, and Horothetes, and Metagoges. And by this Horos they declare that Sophia was purified and established, while she was also restored to her proper conjunction. For her enthymesis (or inborn idea) having been taken away from her, along with its supervening passion, she herself certainly remained within the Pleroma; but her enthymesis, with its passion, was separated from her by Horos, fenced off, and expelled from that circle. This enthymesis was, no doubt, a spiritual substance, possessing some of the natural tendencies of an AEon, but at the same time shapeless and without form, because it had received nothing. And on this account they say that it was an imbecile and feminine production.,After this substance had been placed outside of the Pleroma of the AEons, and its mother restored to her proper conjunction, they tell us that Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit (lest any of the AEons should fall into a calamity similar to that of Sophia), for the purpose of fortifying and strengthening the Pleroma, and who at the same time completed the number of the AEons. Christ then instructed them as to the nature of their conjunction, and taught them that those who possessed a comprehension of the Unbegotten were sufficient for themselves. He also announced among them what related to the knowledge of the Father,--namely, that he cannot be understood or comprehended, nor so much as seen or heard, except in so far as he is known by Monogenes only. And the reason why the rest of the AEons possess perpetual existence is found in that part of the Father's nature which is incomprehensible; but the reason of their origin and formation was situated in that which may be comprehended regarding him, that is, in the Son. Christ, then, who had just been produced, effected these things among them.,But the Holy Spirit taught them to give thanks on being all rendered equal among themselves, and led them to a state of true repose. Thus, then, they tell us that the AEons were constituted equal to each other in form and sentiment, so that all became as Nous, and Logos, and Anthropos, and Christus. The female AEons, too, became all as Aletheia, and Zoe, and Spiritus, and Ecclesia. Everything, then, being thus established, and brought into a state of perfect rest, they next tell us that these beings sang praises with great joy to the Propator, who himself shared in the abounding exaltation. Then, out of gratitude for the great benefit which had been conferred on them, the whole Pleroma of the AEons, with one design and desire, and with the concurrence of Christ and the Holy Spirit, their Father also setting the seal of His approval on their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the greatest beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions so as skilfully to blend the whole, they produced, to the honour and glory of Bythus, a being of most perfect beauty, the very star of the Pleroma, and the perfect fruit [of it], namely Jesus. Him they also speak of under the name of Saviour, and Christ, and patronymically, Logos, and Everything, because He was formed from the contributions of all. And then we are told that, by way of honour, angels of the same nature as Himself were simultaneously produced, to act as His body-guard.


3. Ἔνιοι δὲ αὐτῶν 3πῶς τὸ πάθος τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν μυθολογοῦσιν· ἀδυνάτῳ καὶ ἀκαταλήπτῳ πράγματι αὐτὴν ἐπιχειρήσασαν τεκεῖν οὐσίαν ἄμορφον, 4οἵαν φύσιν εἶχε θήλειαν τεκεῖν· ἣν καὶ κατανοήσασαν πρῶτον μὲν λυπηθῆναι, διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς γενέσεως, ἔπειτα φοβηθῆναι 5μηδὲ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι τελείως ἔχειν· εἶτα ἐκστῆναι καὶ ἀπορῆσαι, ζητοῦσαν LIB. I. i. 3. GR. I. i. 3. MASS. I. ii. 4. G. 12. M. 10. 1 τὴν αἰτίαν, καὶ ὅντινα τρόπον ἀποκρύψει τὸ γεγονός. Ἐγκαταγενομένην δὲ τοῖς πάθεσι λαβεῖν ἐπιστροφὴν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Πατέρα ἀναδραμεῖν πειρασθῆναι, καὶ μέχρι τινὸς τολμήσασαν, ἐξασθενῆσαι, καὶ 2ἱκέτιν τοῦ πατρὸς γενέσθαι· συνδεηθῆναι δὲ αὐτῇ καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς Αἰῶνας, μάλιστα δὲ τὸν Νοῦν. Ἐντεῦθεν λέγουσι πρώτην ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι τὴν 3οὐσίαν, ἐκ τῆς ἀγνοίας, καὶ τῆς λύπης, καὶ τοῦ φόβου, καὶ τῆς ἐκπλήξεως. Ὁ δὲ Πατὴρ τὸν προειρημένον Ὅρον ἐπὶ τούτοις 4διὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς LIB. I. i. 3. GR. I. i. 3. MASS. I. ii. 4. προβάλλεται ἐν εἰκόνι ἰδίᾳ, 1ἀσύζυγον, ἀθήλυντον. Τὸν γὰρ Πατέρα ποτὲ μὲν μετὰ συζυγίας τῆς Σιγῆς, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ cf. p. 11. n. 4. ὑπέραῤῥεν, καὶ ὑπέρθηλυ εἶναι θέλουσι. Τὸν δὲ Ὅρον τοῦτον καὶ 2Σολλυτρωτὴν l. Σταυρὸν καὶ Λυτρωτὴν καὶ 3Καρπιστὴν, καὶ Ὁροθέτην, καὶ 4Μεταγωγέα καλοῦσι. Διὰ M. 11. δὲ τοῦ Ὅρου τούτου φασὶ κεκαθάρθαι καὶ ἐστηρίχθαι LIB. I. i. 3. GR. I. i. 3. MASS. I. ii. τὴν Σοφίαν, καὶ ἀποκατασταθῆναι τῇ 1συζογίᾳ· χωρισθείσης γὰρ τῆς Ἐνθυμήσεως ἀπʼ αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ G. 13. μένῳ πάθει, αὐτὴν μὲν ἐντὸς πληρώματος εἶναι· l. μεῖναι· LIB. I. i. 3. GR. I. i. 3. MASS. I. ii. 5. Tert. remansisse. τὴν δὲ ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ πάθει τοῦ Ὅρου ἀφορισθῆναι καὶ ἀποστερηθῆναι l. ἀποσταυρωθῆναι, καὶ ἐκτὸς αὐτοῦ γενομένην, εἶναι μὲν πνευματικὴν οὐσίαν, φυσικήν τινα Αἰῶνος ὁρμὴν τυγχάνουσαν· ἄμορφον δὲ καὶ ἀνείδεον 2διὰ τὸ μηδὲν καταλαβεῖν· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο 3καρπὸν ἀσθενῆ καὶ θῆλυν αὐτὸν λέγουσι.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.


3. Ἔνιοι δὲ αὐτῶν 3πῶς τὸ πάθος τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν μυθολογοῦσιν· ἀδυνάτῳ καὶ ἀκαταλήπτῳ πράγματι αὐτὴν ἐπιχειρήσασαν τεκεῖν οὐσίαν ἄμορφον, 4οἵαν φύσιν εἶχε θήλειαν τεκεῖν· ἣν καὶ κατανοήσασαν πρῶτον μὲν λυπηθῆναι, διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς γενέσεως, ἔπειτα φοβηθῆναι 5μηδὲ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι τελείως ἔχειν· εἶτα ἐκστῆναι καὶ ἀπορῆσαι, ζητοῦσαν LIB. I. i. 3. GR. I. i. 3. MASS. I. ii. 4. G. 12. M. 10. 1 τὴν αἰτίαν, καὶ ὅντινα τρόπον ἀποκρύψει τὸ γεγονός. Ἐγκαταγενομένην δὲ τοῖς πάθεσι λαβεῖν ἐπιστροφὴν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Πατέρα ἀναδραμεῖν πειρασθῆναι, καὶ μέχρι τινὸς τολμήσασαν, ἐξασθενῆσαι, καὶ 2ἱκέτιν τοῦ πατρὸς γενέσθαι· συνδεηθῆναι δὲ αὐτῇ καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς Αἰῶνας, μάλιστα δὲ τὸν Νοῦν. Ἐντεῦθεν λέγουσι πρώτην ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι τὴν 3οὐσίαν, ἐκ τῆς ἀγνοίας, καὶ τῆς λύπης, καὶ τοῦ φόβου, καὶ τῆς ἐκπλήξεως. Ὁ δὲ Πατὴρ τὸν προειρημένον Ὅρον ἐπὶ τούτοις 4διὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς LIB. I. i. 3. GR. I. i. 3. MASS. I. ii. 4. προβάλλεται ἐν εἰκόνι ἰδίᾳ, 1ἀσύζυγον, ἀθήλυντον. Τὸν γὰρ Πατέρα ποτὲ μὲν μετὰ συζυγίας τῆς Σιγῆς, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ cf. p. 11. n. 4. ὑπέραῤῥεν, καὶ ὑπέρθηλυ εἶναι θέλουσι. Τὸν δὲ Ὅρον τοῦτον καὶ 2Σολλυτρωτὴν l. Σταυρὸν καὶ Λυτρωτὴν καὶ 3Καρπιστὴν, καὶ Ὁροθέτην, καὶ 4Μεταγωγέα καλοῦσι. Διὰ M. 11. δὲ τοῦ Ὅρου τούτου φασὶ κεκαθάρθαι καὶ ἐστηρίχθαι LIB. I. i. 3. GR. I. i. 3. MASS. I. ii. τὴν Σοφίαν, καὶ ἀποκατασταθῆναι τῇ 1συζογίᾳ· χωρισθείσης γὰρ τῆς Ἐνθυμήσεως ἀπʼ αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ G. 13. μένῳ πάθει, αὐτὴν μὲν ἐντὸς πληρώματος εἶναι· l. μεῖναι· LIB. I. i. 3. GR. I. i. 3. MASS. I. ii. 5. Tert. remansisse. τὴν δὲ ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ πάθει τοῦ Ὅρου ἀφορισθῆναι καὶ ἀποστερηθῆναι l. ἀποσταυρωθῆναι, καὶ ἐκτὸς αὐτοῦ γενομένην, εἶναι μὲν πνευματικὴν οὐσίαν, φυσικήν τινα Αἰῶνος ὁρμὴν τυγχάνουσαν· ἄμορφον δὲ καὶ ἀνείδεον 2διὰ τὸ μηδὲν καταλαβεῖν· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο 3καρπὸν ἀσθενῆ καὶ θῆλυν αὐτὸν λέγουσι.Such, then, is the account they give of what took place within the Pleroma; such the calamities that flowed from the passion which seized upon the AEon who has been named, and who was within a little of perishing by being absorbed in the universal substance, through her inquisitive searching after the Father; such the consolidation [of that AEon] from her condition of agony by Horos, and Stauros, and Lytrotes, and Carpistes, and Horothetes, and Metagoges. Such also is the account of the generation of the later AEons, namely of the first Christ and of the Holy Spirit, both of whom were produced by the Father after the repentance [of Sophia], and of the second Christ (whom they also style Saviour), who owed his being to the joint contributions [of the AEons]. They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it. This has been done as follows. The thirty AEons are indicated (as we have already remarked) by the thirty years during which they say the Saviour performed no public act, and by the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Paul also, they affirm, very clearly and frequently names these AEons, and even goes so far as to preserve their order, when he says, "To all the generations of the AEons of the AEon." Nay, we ourselves, when at the giving of thanks we pronounce the words, "To AEons of AEons" (for ever and ever), do set forth these AEons. And, in fine, wherever the words AEon or AEons occur, they at once refer them to these beings.,The production, again, of the Duodecad of the AEons, is indicated by the fact that the Lord was twelve years of age when He disputed with the teachers of the law, and by the election of the apostles, for of these there were twelve. The other eighteen AEons are made manifest in this way: that the Lord, [according to them,] conversed with His disciples for eighteen months after His resurrection from the dead. They also affirm that these eighteen AEons are strikingly indicated by the first two letters of His name [Ihsous], namely Iota and Eta. And, in like manner, they assert that the ten AEons are pointed out by the letter Iota, which begins His name; while, for the same reason, they tell us the Saviour said, "One Iota, or one tittle, shall by no means pass away until all be fulfilled.",They further maintain that the passion which took place in the case of the twelfth AEon is pointed at by the apostasy of Judas, who was the twelfth apostle, and also by the fact that Christ suffered in the twelfth month. For their opinion is, that He continued to preach for one year only after His baptism. The same thing is also most clearly indicated by the case of the woman who suffered from an issue of blood. For after she had been thus afflicted during twelve years, she was healed by the advent of the Saviour, when she had touched the border of His garment; and on this account the Saviour said, "Who touched me?"--teaching his disciples the mystery which had occurred among the AEons, and the healing of that AEon who had been involved in suffering. For she who had been afflicted twelve years represented that power whose essence, as they narrate, was stretching itself forth, and flowing into immensity; and unless she had touched the garment of the Son, that is, Aletheia of the first Tetrad, who is denoted by the hem spoken of, she would have been dissolved into the general essence [of which she participated]. She stopped short, however, and ceased any longer to suffer. For the power that went forth from the Son (and this power they term Horos) healed her, and separated the passion from her.,They moreover affirm that the Saviour is shown to be derived from all the AEons, and to be in Himself everything by the following passage: "Every male that openeth the womb." For He, being everything, opened the womb of the enthymesis of the suffering AEon, when it had been expelled from the Pleroma. This they also style the second Ogdoad, of which we shall speak presently. And they state that it was clearly on this account that Paul said, "And He Himself is all things;" and again, "All things are to Him, and of Him are all things;" and further, "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead;" and yet again, "All things are gathered together by God in Christ." Thus do they interpret these and any like passages to be found in Scripture.,They show, further, that that Horos of theirs, whom they call by a variety of names, has two faculties,--the one of supporting, and the other of separating; and in so far as he supports and sustains, he is Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;" and again, "Taking up the cross follow me;" but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word." They also maintain that John indicated the same thing when he said, "The fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge the floor, and will gather the wheat into His garner; but the chaff He will burn with fire unquenchable." By this declaration He set forth the faculty of Horos. For that fan they explain to be the cross (Stauros), which consumes, no doubt, all material objects, as fire does chaff, but it purifies all them that are saved, as a fan does wheat. Moreover, they affirm that the Apostle Paul himself made mention of this cross in the following words: "The doctrine of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God." And again: "God forbid that I should glory in anything save in the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.",Such, then, is the account which they all give of their Pleroma, and of the formation of the universe, striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions. And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. And others of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


4. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἀφορισθῆναι ταύτην ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν Αἰώνων, τήν τε Μητέρα αὐτῆς ἀποκατασταθῆναι τῇ ἰδία συζυγία, 4τὸν Μονογενῆ πάλιν ἑτέραν προβαλέσθαι συζυγίαν κατὰ προμήθειαν τοῦ Πατρὸς, 1ἴνα μὴ ὁμοίως LIB. I. i. 4. GR. I. i. 4. MASS. I. ii. 5. ταύτῃ πάθῃ τις τῶν Αἰώνων, Χριστὸν καὶ Πιεῦμα ἅγιον εἰς 2πῆξιν καὶ στηριγμὸν τοῦ Πληρώματος, ὑφʼ ὦν καταρτισθῆναι τοὺς Αἰῶνας. 3Τὸν μὲν γὰρ Χριστὸν διδάξαι αὐτοὺς συζογίας φύσιν, ἀγεννήτου κατάληψιν γινώσκοντας, ἱκανοὺς εἶναι, ἀναγορεῦσαί M. 12. τε ἐν αὐτοῖς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπίγνωσιν, ὅτι τε ἀχώρητός ἐστι καὶ ἀκατάληπτος, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν οὔτε ἰδεῖν οὔτε ἀκοῦσαι αὐτόν· διὰ μόνου τοῦ Μονογενοῦς γινώσκεται. G. 14. Καὶ τὸ μὲν αἴτιον τῆς αἰωνίου διαμονῆς τοῖς λοιποῖς τὸ πρῶτον 4καταληπτὸν ὑπάρχειν τοῦ Πατρὸς, τῆς δὲ γενέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ Lib. I 1.4. GR. I. 1.4. MASS.I11.6. μὲν ἄρτι προβληθεὶς Χριστὸς ἐν αὐτοῖο ἐδημιούργησε. Τὲ δὲ ἓν Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον 2ἐξισωθέντας αὐτοὺς πάντας εὐχαριστεῖν ἐδίδαξε, καὶ τὴν ἀληθινὴν ἀνάπαυσιν ἡγήσατο l. εἰσηγήσατο . Οὕτως τε μορφῇ καὶ γνώμῃ ἴσους κατασταθῆναι τοὺς Αίῶνας λέγουσι, πάντας γενομένους Νόας, καὶ πάντας Λόγους, καὶ πάντας Ἀνθρώπους, καὶ πάντας Χριστούς· καὶ τὰς θηλείας ὁμοίως πάσας Ἀληθείας, καὶ πάσας Ζωὰς, καὶ 3Πνεύματα, καὶ Ἐκκλησίας. Στηριχθέντα δὲ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τὰ ὅλα, καὶ ἀναπαυσάμενα τελέως, μετὰ μεγάλης χαρᾶς φησιν ὑμνῆσαι τὸν Προπάτορα, πολλῆς εὐφρασίας μετασχόντα. LIB. I. i. 4. GR. I. i. 4. MASS. I. ii. 6. Καὶ ὅπὲρ τῆς εὐποιΐας ταύτης βουλῇ μιᾷ καὶ γνώμῃ τὸ πᾶν Πλήρωμα τῶν Αἰώνων, συνευδοκοῦντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος, 1τοῦ δὲ Πατρὸς αὐτῶν συνεπισφραγιζμένου, ἕνα ἕκαστον τῶν Αἰώνων, ὅπερ εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ κάλλιστον καὶ ἀνθηρότατον συνενεγκαμένους καὶ ἐρανισαμένους, καὶ ταῦτα ἁρμοδίως πλέξαντας, καὶ ἐμμελῶς ἑνώσαντας, M. 13. προβαλέσθαι προβλήματα εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν 2τοῦ Βυθοῦ, τελειότατον κάλλος τε καὶ 3ἄστρον τοῦ Πληρώματος, τέλειον καρπὸν τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν καὶ Σωτῆρα προσαγορευθῆναι, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Λόγον πατρωνυμικῶς, 4καὶ κατὰ G. 15. καὶ τὰ Πάντα, διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ πάντων εἶναι· δορυφόροις τε αὐτῶν αὐτῷ εἰς τιμὴν τὴν αὐτῶν 5ὁμογενεῖς Ἀγγέλους συμπροβεβλῆσθαι. LIB. I. i. 5. GR. I. i. 5. MASS. I. iii. I.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.


4. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἀφορισθῆναι ταύτην ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν Αἰώνων, τήν τε Μητέρα αὐτῆς ἀποκατασταθῆναι τῇ ἰδία συζυγία, 4τὸν Μονογενῆ πάλιν ἑτέραν προβαλέσθαι συζυγίαν κατὰ προμήθειαν τοῦ Πατρὸς, 1ἴνα μὴ ὁμοίως LIB. I. i. 4. GR. I. i. 4. MASS. I. ii. 5. ταύτῃ πάθῃ τις τῶν Αἰώνων, Χριστὸν καὶ Πιεῦμα ἅγιον εἰς 2πῆξιν καὶ στηριγμὸν τοῦ Πληρώματος, ὑφʼ ὦν καταρτισθῆναι τοὺς Αἰῶνας. 3Τὸν μὲν γὰρ Χριστὸν διδάξαι αὐτοὺς συζογίας φύσιν, ἀγεννήτου κατάληψιν γινώσκοντας, ἱκανοὺς εἶναι, ἀναγορεῦσαί M. 12. τε ἐν αὐτοῖς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπίγνωσιν, ὅτι τε ἀχώρητός ἐστι καὶ ἀκατάληπτος, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν οὔτε ἰδεῖν οὔτε ἀκοῦσαι αὐτόν· διὰ μόνου τοῦ Μονογενοῦς γινώσκεται. G. 14. Καὶ τὸ μὲν αἴτιον τῆς αἰωνίου διαμονῆς τοῖς λοιποῖς τὸ πρῶτον 4καταληπτὸν ὑπάρχειν τοῦ Πατρὸς, τῆς δὲ γενέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ Lib. I 1.4. GR. I. 1.4. MASS.I11.6. μὲν ἄρτι προβληθεὶς Χριστὸς ἐν αὐτοῖο ἐδημιούργησε. Τὲ δὲ ἓν Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον 2ἐξισωθέντας αὐτοὺς πάντας εὐχαριστεῖν ἐδίδαξε, καὶ τὴν ἀληθινὴν ἀνάπαυσιν ἡγήσατο l. εἰσηγήσατο . Οὕτως τε μορφῇ καὶ γνώμῃ ἴσους κατασταθῆναι τοὺς Αίῶνας λέγουσι, πάντας γενομένους Νόας, καὶ πάντας Λόγους, καὶ πάντας Ἀνθρώπους, καὶ πάντας Χριστούς· καὶ τὰς θηλείας ὁμοίως πάσας Ἀληθείας, καὶ πάσας Ζωὰς, καὶ 3Πνεύματα, καὶ Ἐκκλησίας. Στηριχθέντα δὲ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τὰ ὅλα, καὶ ἀναπαυσάμενα τελέως, μετὰ μεγάλης χαρᾶς φησιν ὑμνῆσαι τὸν Προπάτορα, πολλῆς εὐφρασίας μετασχόντα. LIB. I. i. 4. GR. I. i. 4. MASS. I. ii. 6. Καὶ ὅπὲρ τῆς εὐποιΐας ταύτης βουλῇ μιᾷ καὶ γνώμῃ τὸ πᾶν Πλήρωμα τῶν Αἰώνων, συνευδοκοῦντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος, 1τοῦ δὲ Πατρὸς αὐτῶν συνεπισφραγιζμένου, ἕνα ἕκαστον τῶν Αἰώνων, ὅπερ εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ κάλλιστον καὶ ἀνθηρότατον συνενεγκαμένους καὶ ἐρανισαμένους, καὶ ταῦτα ἁρμοδίως πλέξαντας, καὶ ἐμμελῶς ἑνώσαντας, M. 13. προβαλέσθαι προβλήματα εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν 2τοῦ Βυθοῦ, τελειότατον κάλλος τε καὶ 3ἄστρον τοῦ Πληρώματος, τέλειον καρπὸν τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν καὶ Σωτῆρα προσαγορευθῆναι, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Λόγον πατρωνυμικῶς, 4καὶ κατὰ G. 15. καὶ τὰ Πάντα, διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ πάντων εἶναι· δορυφόροις τε αὐτῶν αὐτῷ εἰς τιμὴν τὴν αὐτῶν 5ὁμογενεῖς Ἀγγέλους συμπροβεβλῆσθαι. LIB. I. i. 5. GR. I. i. 5. MASS. I. iii. I.The following are the transactions which they narrate as having occurred outside of the Pleroma: The enthymesis of that Sophia who dwells above, which they also term Achamoth, being removed from the Pleroma, together with her passion, they relate to have, as a matter of course, become violently excited in those places of darkness and vacuity [to which she had been banished]. For she was excluded from light and the Pleroma, and was without form or figure, like an untimely birth, because she had received nothing [from a male parent]. But the Christ dwelling on high took pity upon her; and having extended himself through and beyond Stauros, he imparted a figure to her, but merely as respected substance, and not so as to convey intelligence. Having effected this, he withdrew his influence, and returned, leaving Achamoth to herself, in order that she, becoming sensible of her suffering as being severed from the Pleroma, might be influenced by the desire of better things, while she possessed in the meantime a kind of odour of immortality left in her by Christ and the Holy Spirit. Wherefore also she is called by two names--Sophia after her father (for Sophia is spoken of as being her father), and Holy Spirit from that Spirit who is along with Christ. Having then obtained a form, along with intelligence, and being immediately deserted by that Logos who had been invisibly present with her--that is, by Christ--she strained herself to discover that light which had forsaken her, but could not effect her purpose, inasmuch as she was prevented by Horos. And as Horos thus obstructed her further progress, he exclaimed, IAO, whence, they say, this name Iao derived its origin. And when she could not pass by Horos on account of that passion in which she had been involved, and because she alone had been left without, she then resigned herself to every sort of that manifold and varied state of passion to which she was subject; and thus she suffered grief on the one hand because she had not obtained the object of her desire, and fear on the other hand, lest life itself should fail her, as light had already done, while, in addition, she was in the greatest perplexity. All these feelings were associated with ignorance. And this ignorance of hers was not like that of her mother, the first Sophia, an AEon, due to degeneracy by means of passion, but to an [innate] opposition [of nature to knowledge]. Moreover, another kind of passion fell upon her her (Achamoth), namely, that of desiring to return to him who gave her life.,This collection [of passions] they declare was the substance of the matter from which this world was formed. For from [her desire of] returning [to him who gave her life], every soul belonging to this world, and that of the Demiurge himself, derived its origin. All other things owed their beginning to her terror and sorrow. For from her tears all that is of a liquid nature was formed; from her smile all that is lucent; and from her grief and perplexity all the corporeal elements of the world. For at one time, as they affirm, she would weep and lament on account of being left alone in the midst of darkness and vacuity; while, at another time, reflecting on the light which had forsaken her, she would be filled with joy, and laugh; then, again, she would be struck with terror; or, at other times, would sink into consternation and bewilderment.,Now what follows from all this? No light tragedy comes out of it, as the fancy of every man among them pompously explains, one in one way, and another in another, from what kind of passion and from what element being derived its origin. They have good reason, as seems to me, why they should not feel inclined to teach these things to all in public, but only to such as are able to pay a high price for an acquaintance with such profound mysteries. For these doctrines are not at all similar to those of which our Lord said, "Freely ye have received, freely give." They are, on the contrary, abstruse, and portentous, and profound mysteries, to be got at only with great labour by such as are in love with falsehood. For who would not expend lull that he possessed, if only he might learn in return, that from the tears of the enthymesis of the AEon involved in passion, seas, and fountains, and rivers, and every liquid substance derived its origin; that light burst forth from her smile; and that from her perplexity and consternation the corporeal elements of the world had their formation?,I feel somewhat inclined myself to contribute a few hints towards the development of their system. For when I perceive that waters are in part fresh, such as fountains, rivers, showers, and so on, and in part salt; such as those in the sea, I reflect with myself that all such waters cannot be derived from her tears, inasmuch as these are of a saline quality only. It is clear, therefore, that the waters which are salt are alone those which are derived from her tears. But it is probable that she, in her intense agony and perplexity, was covered with perspiration. And hence, following out their notion, we may conceive that fountains and rivers, and all the fresh water in the world, are due to this source. For it is difficult, since we know that all tears are of the same quality, to believe that waters both salt and fresh proceeded from them. The more plausible supposition is, that some are from her tears, and some from her perspiration. And since there are also in the world certain waters which are hot and acrid in their nature, thou must be left to guess their origin, how and whence. Such are some of the results of their hypothesis.,They go on to state that, when the mother Achamoth had passed through all sorts of passion, and had with difficulty escaped from them, she turned herself to supplicate the light which had forsaken her, that is, Christ. He, however, having returned to the Pleroma, and being probably unwilling again to descend from it, sent forth to her the Paraclete, that is, the Saviour. This being was endowed with all power by the Father, who placed everything under his authority, the AEons doing so likewise, so that "by him were all things, visible and invisible, created, thrones, divinities, dominions." He then was sent to her along with his contemporary angels. And they related that Achamoth, filled with reverence, at first veiled herself through modesty, but that by and by, when she had looked upon him with all his endowments, and had acquired strength from his appearance, she ran forward to meet him. He then imparted to her form as respected intelligence, and brought healing to her passions, separating them from her, but not so as to drive them out of thought altogether. For it was not possible that they should be annihilated as in the former case, because they had already taken root and acquired strength [so as to possess an indestructible existence]. All that he could do was to separate them and set them apart, and then commingle and condense them, so as to transmute them from incorporeal passion into unorganized matter. He then by this process conferred upon them a fitness and a nature to become concretions and corporeal structures, in order that two substances should be formed,--the one evil, resulting from the passions, and the other subject indeed to suffering, but originating from her conversion. And on this account (i.e., on account of this hypostatizing of ideal matter) they say that the Saviour virtually created the world. But when Achamoth was freed from her passion, she gazed with rapture on the dazzling vision of the angels that were with him; and in her ecstasy, conceiving by them, they tell us that she brought forth new beings, partly after her oven image, and partly a spiritual progeny after the image of the Saviour's attendants.


5. Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἡ ἐντὸς πληρώματος ὑπʼ αὐτῶν λεγομένη πραγματεία, καὶ ἡ τοῦ πεπονθότος Αἰῶνος, καὶ μετὰ μικρὸν ἀπολωλότος, ὡς ἐν πολλῇ ὕλῃ διὰ ζήτησιν τοῦ Πατρὸς συμφορὰ, καὶ ἡ τοῦ Ὅρου, καὶ Στύλου Σταυροῦ, καὶ Λυτρωτοῦ, καὶ Καρπιστοῦ, καὶ Ὁροθέτου, καὶ Μεταγωγέως ἐξ 1ἀγῶνος σύμπηξις, καὶ ἡ τοῦ 2πρώτου Χριστοῦ σὺν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ ἐκ μετανοίας ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῶν μεταγενεστέρα τῶν Αἰώνων γένεσις, καὶ ἡ τοῦ 2δευτέρου Χριστοῦ, M. 14. ὃν καὶ Σωτῆρα λέγουσιν, ἐξ ἐράνου σύνθετος κατασκευή. Ταῦτα δὲ φανερῶς μὲν μὴ εἰρῆσθαι, διὰ τὸ μὴ πάντας χωρεῖν τὴν γνῶσιν, μυστηριωδῶς δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος διὰ παραβολῶν μεμηνύσθαι τοῖς συνιεῖν δυναμένοις οὕτως· τοὺς μὲν γὰρ τριάκοντα LIB. I. i. GR. I. i. MASS. I. in. Αἰῶνας μεμηνύσθαι διὰ τῶν τριάκοντα ἐτῶν 1ὡς προέφαμεν, ἐν οἷς οὐδὲν ἐν φανερῷ φάσκουσι πεποιηκέναι τὸν Σωτῆρα, καὶ διὰ τῆς παραβολῆς τῶν ἐργατῶν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος. Καὶ τὸν G. 16. Παῦλον φανερώτατα λέγουσι τούσδε Αἰῶνας ὀνομάζειν πολλάκις, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν τετηρηκέναι οὕτως εἰπόντα, εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τῶν αἰώνων τοῦ αἰῶνος· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμᾶς 2ἐπὶ τῆς εὐχαριστίας λέγοντας, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἐκείνους τοὺς αἰῶνας σημαίνειν· καὶ ὅπου ἂν αἰὼν ἢ αἰῶνες ὀνομάζονται, τὴν ἀναφορὰν εἰς ἐκείνους εἶναι θέλουσι. Τὴν δὲ τῆς δωδεκάδος τῶν Αἰώνων προβολὴν μηνύεσθαι, διὰ τοῦ δωδεκαετῆ ὄντα τὸν Κύριον διαλεχθῆναι τοῖς νομοδιδασκάλοις, καὶ διὰ τῆς τῶν Ἀποστόλων ἐκλογῆς· δώδεκα γὰρ Ἀπόστολοι. Καὶ LIB. I. i. 5. GR. I. i. 5. MASS. I. iii. 2. τοὺς λοιποὺς δεκαοκτὼ Αἰῶνας φανεροῦσθαι, διὰ τοῦ μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν 1δεκαοκτὼ μησὶ λέγειν διατετριφέναι αὐτὸν σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς· ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τῶν προηγουμένων τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ δύο γραμμάτων, τοῦ τε ἰῶτα καὶ τοῦ ἦτα, τοὺς δεκαοκτὼ Αἰῶνας εὐσήμως μηνύεσθαι. Καὶ τοὺς δέκα Αἰῶνας ὡσαύτως διὰ τοῦ ἰῶτα γράμματος, ὃ προηγεῖται τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, σημαίνουσι λέγεσθαι σημαίνεσθαι λέγουσι . καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν Σωτῆρα, ἰῶτα ἓν μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. Τὸ δὲ περὶ τὸν δωδέκατον M. 15. Αἰῶνα γεγονὸς πάθος 2ὑποσημαίνεσθαι λέγουσι τῆς ἀποστασίας 11. xxxvi. στασίας διὰ Ἰούδαν, ὃς δωδέκατος ἦν τῶν Ἀποστόλων, γενομένης προδοσίας δείκνυσθαι λέγουσι, καὶ ὅτι τῷ 3 δωδεκάτῳ μηνὶ ἔπαθεν· ἐνιαυτῷ γὰρ ἑνὶ βούλονται αὐτὸν μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα LIB. I. i. 5. GR. I. i. 5. MASS. I. iii. 3. αὐτοῦ κεκηρυχέναι. Ἔτι τε ἐπὶ τῆς αἱμοῤῥούσης σαφέ- τοῦτο δηλοῦσθαι· δώδεκα γὰρ ἔτη παθοῦσαν αὐτὴν ὑπὸ G. 17. τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος παρουσίας τεθεραπεῦσθαι, ἁψαμένην τοῦ κρασπέδου αὐτοῦ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν Σωτῆρα, τίς μου ἥψατο; διδάσκοντα τοὺς μαθητὰς τὸ γεγονὸς ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσι μυστήριον, καὶ τὴν ἴασιν τοῦ πεπονθότος αἰῶνος· 1ἡ γὰρ παθοῦσα δώδεκα ἔτη, ἐκείνη ἡ δύναμις, ἐκτεινομένης αὐτῆς, καὶ εἰς ἄπειρον ῥεούσης τῆς οὐσίας, ὡς λέγουσιν, εἰ μὴ ἔψαυσε τοῦ φορήματος αὐτοῦ, τουτέστι τῆς ἀληθείας τῆς πρώτης τετράδος, ἥτις διὰ τοῦ κρασπέδου μεμήνυται, 3ἀνελύθη ἂν εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς· LIB. I. i. 5. GR. I. i. 5. MASS. I. iii. 3. ἀλλὰ 1ἔστη καὶ ἐπαύσατο τοῦ πάθους· ἡ γὰρ ἐξελθοῦσα δύναμις M. 16. τούτου, εἶναι δὲ ταύτης ταύτην τὸν Ὅρον θέλουσιν, ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτὴν, καὶ τὸ πάθος ἐχώρισεν ἀπʼ αὐτῆς. Τὸ δὲ, 2Σωτῆρα τὸν ἐκ πάντων ὄντα τὸ πᾶν εἶναι, διὰ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ τούτου, πᾶν ἄῤῥεν διανοῖγον μήτραν, δηλοῦσθαι λέγουσιν· ὃς τὸ πᾶι ὢν, 3διήνοιξε τὴν μήτραν τῆς Ἐνθυμήσεως τοῦ πεπονθότος 4Αἰῶνος, καὶ ἐξορισθείσης ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώματος· ἣν δὴ καὶ δευτέραν ὀγδοάδα καλοῦσι, περὶ ἧς μικρὸν ὕστερον G. 18. ἐροῦμεν. Καὶ ὁπὸ τοῦ Παύλου δὲ φανερῶς διὰ τοῦτο εἰρῆσθαι λέγουσι· 5καὶ αὐτός ἐστι τὰ πάντα· καὶ πάλιν, πάντα εἰς αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα· καὶ πάλιν, ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν LIB. I. i. 5. GR. I. i. 5. MASS. I. iii. 4. τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος· καὶ τὸ, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι δὲ τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ suppl. οὕτως, ἑρμυνεύουσιν εἰρῆσθαι, καὶ εἴ τινα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα.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.


5. Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἡ ἐντὸς πληρώματος ὑπʼ αὐτῶν λεγομένη πραγματεία, καὶ ἡ τοῦ πεπονθότος Αἰῶνος, καὶ μετὰ μικρὸν ἀπολωλότος, ὡς ἐν πολλῇ ὕλῃ διὰ ζήτησιν τοῦ Πατρὸς συμφορὰ, καὶ ἡ τοῦ Ὅρου, καὶ Στύλου Σταυροῦ, καὶ Λυτρωτοῦ, καὶ Καρπιστοῦ, καὶ Ὁροθέτου, καὶ Μεταγωγέως ἐξ 1ἀγῶνος σύμπηξις, καὶ ἡ τοῦ 2πρώτου Χριστοῦ σὺν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ ἐκ μετανοίας ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῶν μεταγενεστέρα τῶν Αἰώνων γένεσις, καὶ ἡ τοῦ 2δευτέρου Χριστοῦ, M. 14. ὃν καὶ Σωτῆρα λέγουσιν, ἐξ ἐράνου σύνθετος κατασκευή. Ταῦτα δὲ φανερῶς μὲν μὴ εἰρῆσθαι, διὰ τὸ μὴ πάντας χωρεῖν τὴν γνῶσιν, μυστηριωδῶς δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος διὰ παραβολῶν μεμηνύσθαι τοῖς συνιεῖν δυναμένοις οὕτως· τοὺς μὲν γὰρ τριάκοντα LIB. I. i. GR. I. i. MASS. I. in. Αἰῶνας μεμηνύσθαι διὰ τῶν τριάκοντα ἐτῶν 1ὡς προέφαμεν, ἐν οἷς οὐδὲν ἐν φανερῷ φάσκουσι πεποιηκέναι τὸν Σωτῆρα, καὶ διὰ τῆς παραβολῆς τῶν ἐργατῶν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος. Καὶ τὸν G. 16. Παῦλον φανερώτατα λέγουσι τούσδε Αἰῶνας ὀνομάζειν πολλάκις, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν τετηρηκέναι οὕτως εἰπόντα, εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τῶν αἰώνων τοῦ αἰῶνος· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμᾶς 2ἐπὶ τῆς εὐχαριστίας λέγοντας, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἐκείνους τοὺς αἰῶνας σημαίνειν· καὶ ὅπου ἂν αἰὼν ἢ αἰῶνες ὀνομάζονται, τὴν ἀναφορὰν εἰς ἐκείνους εἶναι θέλουσι. Τὴν δὲ τῆς δωδεκάδος τῶν Αἰώνων προβολὴν μηνύεσθαι, διὰ τοῦ δωδεκαετῆ ὄντα τὸν Κύριον διαλεχθῆναι τοῖς νομοδιδασκάλοις, καὶ διὰ τῆς τῶν Ἀποστόλων ἐκλογῆς· δώδεκα γὰρ Ἀπόστολοι. Καὶ LIB. I. i. 5. GR. I. i. 5. MASS. I. iii. 2. τοὺς λοιποὺς δεκαοκτὼ Αἰῶνας φανεροῦσθαι, διὰ τοῦ μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν 1δεκαοκτὼ μησὶ λέγειν διατετριφέναι αὐτὸν σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς· ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τῶν προηγουμένων τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ δύο γραμμάτων, τοῦ τε ἰῶτα καὶ τοῦ ἦτα, τοὺς δεκαοκτὼ Αἰῶνας εὐσήμως μηνύεσθαι. Καὶ τοὺς δέκα Αἰῶνας ὡσαύτως διὰ τοῦ ἰῶτα γράμματος, ὃ προηγεῖται τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, σημαίνουσι λέγεσθαι σημαίνεσθαι λέγουσι . καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν Σωτῆρα, ἰῶτα ἓν μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. Τὸ δὲ περὶ τὸν δωδέκατον M. 15. Αἰῶνα γεγονὸς πάθος 2ὑποσημαίνεσθαι λέγουσι τῆς ἀποστασίας 11. xxxvi. στασίας διὰ Ἰούδαν, ὃς δωδέκατος ἦν τῶν Ἀποστόλων, γενομένης προδοσίας δείκνυσθαι λέγουσι, καὶ ὅτι τῷ 3 δωδεκάτῳ μηνὶ ἔπαθεν· ἐνιαυτῷ γὰρ ἑνὶ βούλονται αὐτὸν μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα LIB. I. i. 5. GR. I. i. 5. MASS. I. iii. 3. αὐτοῦ κεκηρυχέναι. Ἔτι τε ἐπὶ τῆς αἱμοῤῥούσης σαφέ- τοῦτο δηλοῦσθαι· δώδεκα γὰρ ἔτη παθοῦσαν αὐτὴν ὑπὸ G. 17. τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος παρουσίας τεθεραπεῦσθαι, ἁψαμένην τοῦ κρασπέδου αὐτοῦ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν Σωτῆρα, τίς μου ἥψατο; διδάσκοντα τοὺς μαθητὰς τὸ γεγονὸς ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσι μυστήριον, καὶ τὴν ἴασιν τοῦ πεπονθότος αἰῶνος· 1ἡ γὰρ παθοῦσα δώδεκα ἔτη, ἐκείνη ἡ δύναμις, ἐκτεινομένης αὐτῆς, καὶ εἰς ἄπειρον ῥεούσης τῆς οὐσίας, ὡς λέγουσιν, εἰ μὴ ἔψαυσε τοῦ φορήματος αὐτοῦ, τουτέστι τῆς ἀληθείας τῆς πρώτης τετράδος, ἥτις διὰ τοῦ κρασπέδου μεμήνυται, 3ἀνελύθη ἂν εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς· LIB. I. i. 5. GR. I. i. 5. MASS. I. iii. 3. ἀλλὰ 1ἔστη καὶ ἐπαύσατο τοῦ πάθους· ἡ γὰρ ἐξελθοῦσα δύναμις M. 16. τούτου, εἶναι δὲ ταύτης ταύτην τὸν Ὅρον θέλουσιν, ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτὴν, καὶ τὸ πάθος ἐχώρισεν ἀπʼ αὐτῆς. Τὸ δὲ, 2Σωτῆρα τὸν ἐκ πάντων ὄντα τὸ πᾶν εἶναι, διὰ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ τούτου, πᾶν ἄῤῥεν διανοῖγον μήτραν, δηλοῦσθαι λέγουσιν· ὃς τὸ πᾶι ὢν, 3διήνοιξε τὴν μήτραν τῆς Ἐνθυμήσεως τοῦ πεπονθότος 4Αἰῶνος, καὶ ἐξορισθείσης ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώματος· ἣν δὴ καὶ δευτέραν ὀγδοάδα καλοῦσι, περὶ ἧς μικρὸν ὕστερον G. 18. ἐροῦμεν. Καὶ ὁπὸ τοῦ Παύλου δὲ φανερῶς διὰ τοῦτο εἰρῆσθαι λέγουσι· 5καὶ αὐτός ἐστι τὰ πάντα· καὶ πάλιν, πάντα εἰς αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα· καὶ πάλιν, ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν LIB. I. i. 5. GR. I. i. 5. MASS. I. iii. 4. τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος· καὶ τὸ, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι δὲ τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ suppl. οὕτως, ἑρμυνεύουσιν εἰρῆσθαι, καὶ εἴ τινα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα.These three kinds of existence, then, having, according to them, been now formed,--one from the passion, which was matter; a second from the conversion, which was animal; and the third, that which she (Achamoth) herself brought forth, which was spiritual,--she next addressed herself to the task of giving these form. But she could not succeed in doing this as respected the spiritual existence, because it was of the same nature with herself. She therefore applied herself to give form to the animal substance which had proceeded from her own conversion, and to bring forth to light the instructions of the Saviour. And they say she first formed out of animal substance him who is Father and King of all things, both of these which are of the same nature with himself, that is, animal substances, which they also call right-handed, and those which sprang from the passion, and from matter, which they call left-handed. For they affirm that he formed all the things which came into existence after him, being secretly impelled thereto by his mother. From this circumstance they style him Metropator, Apator, Demiurge, and Father, saying that he is Father of the substances on the right hand, that is, of the animal, but Demiurge of those on the left, that is, of the material, while he is at the same time the king of all. For they say that this Enthymesis, desirous of making all things to the honour of the AEons, formed images of them, or rather that the Saviour did so through her instrumentality. And she, in the image of the invisible Father, kept herself concealed from the Demiurge. But he was in the image of the only-begotten Son, and the angels and archangels created by him were in the image of the rest of the AEons.,They affirm, therefore, that he was constituted the Father and God of everything outside of the Pleroma, being the creator of all animal and material substances. For he it was that discriminated these two kinds of existence hitherto confused, and made corporeal from incorporeal substances, fashioned things heavenly and earthly, and became the Framer (Demiurge) of things material and animal, of those on the right and those on the left, of the light and of the heavy, and of those tending upwards as well as of those tending downwards. He created also seven heavens, above which they say that he, the Demiurge, exists. And on this account they term him Hebdomas, and his mother Achamoth Ogdoads, preserving the number of the first-begotten and primary Ogdoad as the Pleroma. They affirm, moreover, that these seven heavens are intelligent, and speak of them as being angels, while they refer to the Demiurge himself as being an angel bearing a likeness to God; and in the same strain, they declare that Paradise, situated above the third heaven, is a fourth angel possessed of power, from whom Adam derived certain qualities while he conversed with him.,They go on to say that the Demiurge imagined that he created all these things of himself, while he in reality made them in conjunction with the productive power of Achamoth. He formed the heavens, yet was ignorant of the heavens; he fashioned man, yet knew not man; he brought to light the earth, yet had no acquaintance with the earth; and, in like manner. they declare that he was ignorant of the forms of all that he made, and knew not even of the existence of his own mother, but imagined that he himself was all things. They further affirm that his mother originated this opinion in his mind, because she desired to bring him forth possessed of such a character that he should be the head and source of his own essence, and the absolute ruler over every kind of operation [that was afterwards attempted]. This mother they also call Ogdoad, Sophia; Terra, Jerusalem, Holy Spirit, and, with a masculine reference, Lord. Her place of habitation is an intermediate one, above the Demiurge indeed, but below and outside of the Pleroma, even to the end.,As, then, they represent all material substance to be formed from three passions, viz., fear, grief, and perplexity, the account they give is as follows: Animal substances originated from fear and from conversion; the Demiurge they also describe as owing his origin to conversion; but the existence of all the other animal substances they ascribe to fear, such as the souls of irrational animals, and of wild beasts, and men. And on this account, he (the Demiurge), being incapable of recognising any spiritual essences, imagined himself to be God alone, and declared through the prophets, "I am God, and besides me there is none else." They further teach that the spirits of wickedness derived their origin from grief. Hence the devil, whom they also call Cosmocrator (the ruler of the world), and the demons, and the angels, and every wicked spiritual being that exists, found the source Of their existence. They represent the Demiurge as being the son of that mother of theirs (Achamoth), and Cosmocrator as the creature of the Demiurge. Cosmocrator has knowledge of what is above himself, because he is a spirit of wickedness; but the Demiurge is ignorant of such things, inasmuch as he is merely animal. Their mother dwells in that place which is above the heavens, that is, in the intermediate abode; the Demiurge in the heavenly place, that is, in the hebdomad; but the Cosmocrator in this our world. The corporeal elements of the world, again, sprang, as we before remarked, from bewilderment and perplexity, as from a more ignoble source. Thus the earth arose from her state of stupor; water from the agitation caused by her fear; air from the consolidation of her grief; while fire, producing death and corruption, was inherent in all these elements, even as they teach that ignorance also lay concealed in these three passions.,Having thus formed the world, he (the Demiurge) also created the earthy [part of] man, not taking him from this dry earth, but from an invisible substance consisting of fusible and fluid matter, and then afterwards, as they define the process, breathed into him the animal part of his nature. It was this latter which was created after his image and likeness. The material part, indeed, was very near to. God, so far as the image went, but not of the same substance with him. The animal, on the Other hand, was so in respect to likeness; and hence his substance was called the spirit of life, because it took its rise from a spiritual outflowing. After all this, he was, they say, enveloped all round with a covering of skin; and by this they mean the outward sensitive flesh.,But they further affirm that the Demiurge himself was ignorant of that offspring of his mother Achamoth, which she brought forth as a consequence of her contemplation of those angels who waited on the Saviour, and which was, like herself, of a spiritual nature. She took advantage of this ignorance to deposit it (her production) in him without his knowledge, in order that, being by his instrumentality infused into that animal soul proceeding from himself, and being thus carried as in a womb in this material body, while it gradually increased in strength, might in course of time become fitted for the reception of perfect rationality. Thus it came to pass, then, according to them, that, without any knowledge on the part of the Demiurge, the man formed by his inspiration was at the same time, through an unspeakable providence, rendered a spiritual man by the simultaneous inspiration received from Sophia. For, as he was ignorant of his mother, so neither did he recognise her offspring. This [offspring] they also declare to be the Ecclesia, an emblem of the Ecclesia which is above. This, then, is the kind of man whom they conceive of: he has his animal soul from the Demiurge, his body from the earth, his fleshy part from matter, and his spiritual man from the mother Achamoth.


6. Ἔπειτα περὶ τοῦ Ὅρου αὐτῶν, ὃν δὴ καὶ πλείοσιν ὀνόμασι καλοῦσι, δύο ἐνεργείας ἔχειν αὐτὸν ἀποφαινόμενοι, τὴν ἑδραστικὴν καὶ τὴν μεριστικήν· καὶ καθὰ μὲν ἑδράζει καὶ 1στορίζει, Σταυρὸν εἶναι, καθὸ δὲ μερίζει καὶ διορίζει, Ὅρον· τὸν μὲν Σταυρὸν l. Σωτῆρα οὕτως λέγουσι μεμηνυκέναι τὰς ἐνεργείας αὐτοῦ· καὶ πρῶτον μὲν τὴν ἑδραστικὴν ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν· M. 17. 2ὃς οὐ βαστάζει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀκολουθεῖ μοι, μαθητὴς ἐμὸς οὐ δύναται γενέσθαι· καὶ ἄρας τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ, LIB. I. i. 6. GR. I. i. 6. MASS. I. iii. 5. ἀκολουθεῖ μοι· τὴν δὲ διοριστικὴν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην, ἀλλὰ κάχαιραν. Καὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην δὲ λέγουσιν αὐτὸ τοῦτο μεμηνυκέναι, εἰπόντα· τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα, καὶ συνάξει τὸν σίτον εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ· καὶ διὰ τούτου τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Ὅρου μεμηνυκέναι· πτύον γὰρ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Σταυρὸν ἑρμηνεύουσιν εἶναι, 1ὃν δὴ f. l. δεῖ καὶ ἀναλίσκειν τὰ ὑλικὰ πάντα, ὡς ἄχυρα πῦρ· καθαίρειν δὲ τοὺς σωζομένους, ὡς τὸ πτύον τὸν σῖτον. Παῦλον δὲ τὸν Ἀπόστολον καὶ αὐτὸν ἐπιμιμνήσκεσθαι τούτου τοῦ Σταυροῦ λέγουσιν οὕτως· ὁ λόγος γὰρ ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστὶ, τοῖς δὲ σωζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις Θεοῦ· καὶ πάλιν· ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο ἐν μηδενὶ καυχᾶσθαι, εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, δἰ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται, G. 19. κᾀγὼ τῷ κόσμῳ. Τοιαῦτα μὲν οὖν περὶ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτῶν, καὶ τοῦ πλάσματος πάντες l. τοῦ πάντος λέγουσιν, 2ὲφαρμόζειν βιαζόμενοι τὰ καλῶς εἰρυμένα τοῖς κακῶς ἐπινενουμένοις LIB. I. i. 6. GR. I. i. 6. MASS. I. iii. 6. ὑπʼ αὐτῶν· καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν πειρῶνται τὰς ἀποδείξεις ποιεῖσθαι, παρατρέποντες τὰς ἑρμηνείας, καὶ ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες τὰς ἐξηγήσεις· ἀλλὰ, καὶ ἐκ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν, ἅτε πολλῶν παραβολῶν καὶ ἀλληγοριῶν εἰρημένων, καὶ εἰς πολλὰ ἕλκειν δυναμένων τὸ ἀμφίβολον διὰ τῆς ἐξηγήσεως, ἕτεροι δὲ δεινῶς, 1 δεινοτέρως τῷ πλάσματι M. 18. αὐτῶν καὶ δολίως ἐφαρμόζοντες, αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας τοὺς μὴ ἑδραίαν τὴν πίστιν 2εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ διαφυλάσσοντας.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.


6. Ἔπειτα περὶ τοῦ Ὅρου αὐτῶν, ὃν δὴ καὶ πλείοσιν ὀνόμασι καλοῦσι, δύο ἐνεργείας ἔχειν αὐτὸν ἀποφαινόμενοι, τὴν ἑδραστικὴν καὶ τὴν μεριστικήν· καὶ καθὰ μὲν ἑδράζει καὶ 1στορίζει, Σταυρὸν εἶναι, καθὸ δὲ μερίζει καὶ διορίζει, Ὅρον· τὸν μὲν Σταυρὸν l. Σωτῆρα οὕτως λέγουσι μεμηνυκέναι τὰς ἐνεργείας αὐτοῦ· καὶ πρῶτον μὲν τὴν ἑδραστικὴν ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν· M. 17. 2ὃς οὐ βαστάζει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀκολουθεῖ μοι, μαθητὴς ἐμὸς οὐ δύναται γενέσθαι· καὶ ἄρας τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ, LIB. I. i. 6. GR. I. i. 6. MASS. I. iii. 5. ἀκολουθεῖ μοι· τὴν δὲ διοριστικὴν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην, ἀλλὰ κάχαιραν. Καὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην δὲ λέγουσιν αὐτὸ τοῦτο μεμηνυκέναι, εἰπόντα· τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα, καὶ συνάξει τὸν σίτον εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ· καὶ διὰ τούτου τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Ὅρου μεμηνυκέναι· πτύον γὰρ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Σταυρὸν ἑρμηνεύουσιν εἶναι, 1ὃν δὴ f. l. δεῖ καὶ ἀναλίσκειν τὰ ὑλικὰ πάντα, ὡς ἄχυρα πῦρ· καθαίρειν δὲ τοὺς σωζομένους, ὡς τὸ πτύον τὸν σῖτον. Παῦλον δὲ τὸν Ἀπόστολον καὶ αὐτὸν ἐπιμιμνήσκεσθαι τούτου τοῦ Σταυροῦ λέγουσιν οὕτως· ὁ λόγος γὰρ ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστὶ, τοῖς δὲ σωζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις Θεοῦ· καὶ πάλιν· ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο ἐν μηδενὶ καυχᾶσθαι, εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, δἰ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται, G. 19. κᾀγὼ τῷ κόσμῳ. Τοιαῦτα μὲν οὖν περὶ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτῶν, καὶ τοῦ πλάσματος πάντες l. τοῦ πάντος λέγουσιν, 2ὲφαρμόζειν βιαζόμενοι τὰ καλῶς εἰρυμένα τοῖς κακῶς ἐπινενουμένοις LIB. I. i. 6. GR. I. i. 6. MASS. I. iii. 6. ὑπʼ αὐτῶν· καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν πειρῶνται τὰς ἀποδείξεις ποιεῖσθαι, παρατρέποντες τὰς ἑρμηνείας, καὶ ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες τὰς ἐξηγήσεις· ἀλλὰ, καὶ ἐκ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν, ἅτε πολλῶν παραβολῶν καὶ ἀλληγοριῶν εἰρημένων, καὶ εἰς πολλὰ ἕλκειν δυναμένων τὸ ἀμφίβολον διὰ τῆς ἐξηγήσεως, ἕτεροι δὲ δεινῶς, 1 δεινοτέρως τῷ πλάσματι M. 18. αὐτῶν καὶ δολίως ἐφαρμόζοντες, αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας τοὺς μὴ ἑδραίαν τὴν πίστιν 2εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ διαφυλάσσοντας.There being thus three kinds of substances, they declare of all that is material (which they also describe as being "on the left hand") that it must of necessity perish, inasmuch as it is incapable of receiving any afflatus of incorruption. As to every animal existence (which they also denominate "on the right hand"), they hold that, inasmuch as it is a mean between the spiritual and the material, it passes to the side to which inclination draws it. Spiritual substance, again, they describe as having been sent forth for this end, that, being here united with that which is animal, it might assume shape, the two elements being simultaneously subjected to the same discipline. And this they declare to be "the salt" and "the light of the world." For the animal substance had need of training by means of the outward senses; and on this account they affirm that the world was created, as well as that the Saviour came to the animal substance (which was possessed of free-will), that He might secure for it salvation. For they affirm that He received the first-fruits of those whom He was to save [as follows], from Achamoth that which was spiritual, while He was invested by the Demiurge with the animal Christ, but was begirt by a [special] dispensation with a body endowed with an animal nature, yet constructed with unspeakable skill, so that it might be visible and tangible, and capable of enduring suffering. At the same time, they deny that He assumed anything material [into His nature], since indeed matter is incapable of salvation. They further hold that the consummation of all things will take place when all that is spiritual has been formed and perfected by Gnosis (knowledge); and by this they mean spiritual men who have attained to the perfect knowledge of God, and been initiated into these mysteries by Achamoth. And they represent themselves to be these persons.,Animal men, again, are instructed in animal things; such men, namely, as are established by their works, and by a mere faith, while they have not perfect knowledge. We of the Church, they say, are these persons. Wherefore also they maintain that good works are necessary to us, for that otherwise it is impossible we should be saved. But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved.,Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the "most perfect" among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that "they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." For instance, they make no scruple about eating meats offered in sacrifice to idols, imagining that they can in this way contract no defilement. Then, again, at every heathen festival celebrated in honour of the idols, these men are the first to assemble; and to such a pitch do they go, that some of them do not even keep away from that bloody spectacle hateful both to God and men, in which gladiators either fight with wild beasts, or singly encounter one another. Others of them yield themselves up to the lusts of the flesh with the utmost greediness, maintaining that carnal things should be allowed to the carnal nature, while spiritual things are provided for the spiritual. Some of them, moreover, are in the habit of defiling those women to whom they have taught the above doctrine, as has frequently been confessed by those women who have been led astray by certain of them, on their returning to the Church of God, and acknowledging this along with the rest of their errors. Others of them, too, openly and without a blush, having become passionately attached to certain women, seduce them away from their husbands, and contract marriages of their own with them. Others of them, again, who pretend at first. to live in all modesty with them as with sisters, have in course of time been revealed in their true colours, when the sister has been found with child by her [pretended] brother.,And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed. For they declare that we simply receive grace for use, wherefore also it will again be taken away from us; but that they themselves have grace as their own special possession, which has descended from above by means of an unspeakable and indescribable conjunction; and on this account more will be given them. They maintain, therefore, that in every way it is always necessary for them to practise the mystery of conjunction. And that they may persuade the thoughtless to believe this, they are in the habit of using these very words, "Whosoever being in this world does not so love a woman as to obtain possession of her, is not of the truth, nor shall attain to the truth. But whosoever being of this world has intercourse with woman, shall not attain to the truth, because he has so acted under the power of concupiscence." On this account, they tell us that it is necessary for us whom they call animal men, and describe as being of the world, to practise continence and good works, that by this means we may attain at length to the intermediate habitation, but that to them who are called "the spiritual and perfect" such a course of conduct is not at all necessary. For it is not conduct of any kind which leads into the Pleroma, but the seed sent forth thence in a feeble, immature state, and here brought to perfection.


7. Τὰ δὲ ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώματος λεγόμενα ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐστι τοιαῦτα· τὴν Ἐνθύμησιν τῆς ἄνω Σοφίας, ἣν καὶ 3 καλοῦσιν, ἀφορισθεῖσαν τοῦ ἄνω πληρώματος σὺν τῷ πάθει λέγουσιν, ἐν σκιαῖς καὶ 4σκηνώματος κενώματος τόποις LIB. I. i. 7. GR. I. i. 7. MASS. I. iv. l. ἐκβεβράσθαι κατὰ ἀνάγκην. Ἔξω γὰρ 1φωτὸς ἐγένετο καὶ Πληρώματος, ἄμορφος καὶ ἀνείδεος, ὥσπερ ἔκτρωμα, διὰ τὸ μηδὲν 2κατειληφέναι· οἰκτείραντά τε αὐτὴν τὸν ἄνω Χριστὸν, καὶ διὰ τοῦ Σταυροῦ ἐπεκταθέντα, 3τῇ ἰδία δυνάμει μορφῶσαι μόρφωσιν τὴν κατʼ οὐσίαν μόνον, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν κατὰ γνῶσιν· καὶ πράξαντα τοῦτο 4ἀναδραμεῖν συστείλαντα αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναμιν, καὶ καταλιπεῖν, ὅπως αἰσθομένη τοῦ περὶ αὐτὴν πάθους διὰ τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν τοῦ Πληρώματος, ὀρεχθῇ τῶν διαφερόντων, ἔχουσά τινα ὀδμὴν ἀφθαρσίας, ἐγκαταλειφθεῖσαν LIB. I. i. 6. GR. I. i. 6. MASS. I. iv. l. αὐτὴν l. αὐτῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου 1 Πνεύατος. G. 20. Διὸ καὶ 2αὐτὴν τοῖς ἀμφοτέροις ὀνόμασι καλεῖσθαι, 3 τε πατρωνυμικῶς, (ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ αὐτῆς Σοφία κληΐζεται), καὶ M. 19. πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀπὸ τοῦ περὶ τὸν Χριστὸν πνεύματος. Μορφωθεῖσάν τε αὐτὴν, καὶ 4ἔμφρονα γενηθεῖσαν, παραυτίκα δὲ κενωθεῖσαν ἀοράτου αὐτῇ συνόντος Λόγου, τουτέστι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 5ἐπὶ ζήτησιν ὁρμῆσαι τοῦ καταλιπόντος αὐτὴν inf. § 8. φωτὸς καὶ μὴ δυνηθῆναι καταλαβεῖν αὐτὸ, διὰ τὸ κωλυθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὅρου. Καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὸν Ὅρον κωλύοντα αὐτὴν τῆς εἰς τοὔμπροσθεν ὁρμῆς εἰπεῖν Ἰαώ· ὅθεν τὰ 8Ἰαὼ ὄνομα LIB. I. i. 7. GR. I. i. 7. MASS. I. iv. l. γεγενῆσθαι φάσκουσι. Μὴ δονηθείσαν δὲ διοδεῦσαι τὸν Ὅρον, διὰ τὸ συμπεπλέχθαι τῷ πάθει, καὶ μόνην ἀπολειφθεῖσαν ἔξω, παντὶ μέρει τοῦ πάθους ὑποπεσεῖν πολυμεροῦς καὶ πολυποικίλου ὑπάρχοντος, καὶ παθεῖν, λύπην μὲν, ὅτι οὐ κατέλαβε· φόβον δὲ, μὴ καθάπερ 1αὐτὴν τὸ φῶς, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ζῇν ἐπιλίπῃ· 2ἀπορίαν τε ἐπὶ τούτοις· 3ἐν ἀγνοία δὲ τὰ πάντα. Καὶ οὐ καθάπερ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτῆς, ἡ πρώτη Σοφία καὶ Αἰὼν, LIB. I. i. 7. GR. I. i. 7. MASS. I. iv. l. 1ἑτεροίωσιν ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν εἶχεν, ἀλλὰ ἐναντιότητα. Ἐπισυμβεβηκέναι δʼ αὐτῇ καὶ ἑτέραν διάθεσιν, τὴν τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς ἐπὶ τόν ζωοποιήσαντα. Ταύτην 2σύστασιν καὶ οὐσίαν τῆς ὕλης G. 21. γεγενῆσθαι λέγουσιν, ἐξ ἧς ὅδε ὁ κόσμος συνέστηκεν. Ἐκ μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς τὴν τοῦ κόσμου καὶ 3τοῦ δημιουργοῦ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν τὴν γένεσιν εἰληφέναι, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φόβου καὶ τῆς λύπης τὰ λοιπὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι· 4ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν δακρύων αὐτῆς cf. § 10. γεγονέναι πᾶσαν ἔνυγρον οὐσίαν· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ γέλωτος, τὴν M. 20. φωτεινήν· ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς λύπης καὶ τῆς ἐκπλήξεως, τὰ σωματικὰ LIB. I. i. 7. GR. I. i. 7. MASS. I. iv. 2. τοῦ κόσμου στοιχεῖα. Ποτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἔκλαιε καὶ ἐλυπεῖτο, ὡς λέγουσι, διὰ τὸ καταλελείφθαι μόνην ἐν τῷ σκότει καὶ τῷ κενώματι· ποτὲ δὲ εἰς ἔννοιαν ἥκουσα τοῦ καταλιπόντος αὐτὴν φωτὸς, διεχεῖτο καὶ ἐγέλα· ποτὲ δ᾿ αὖ πάλιν ἐφοβεῖτο· ἄλλοτε δὲ διηπόρει, καὶ ἐξίστατο.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.


7. Τὰ δὲ ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώματος λεγόμενα ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐστι τοιαῦτα· τὴν Ἐνθύμησιν τῆς ἄνω Σοφίας, ἣν καὶ 3 καλοῦσιν, ἀφορισθεῖσαν τοῦ ἄνω πληρώματος σὺν τῷ πάθει λέγουσιν, ἐν σκιαῖς καὶ 4σκηνώματος κενώματος τόποις LIB. I. i. 7. GR. I. i. 7. MASS. I. iv. l. ἐκβεβράσθαι κατὰ ἀνάγκην. Ἔξω γὰρ 1φωτὸς ἐγένετο καὶ Πληρώματος, ἄμορφος καὶ ἀνείδεος, ὥσπερ ἔκτρωμα, διὰ τὸ μηδὲν 2κατειληφέναι· οἰκτείραντά τε αὐτὴν τὸν ἄνω Χριστὸν, καὶ διὰ τοῦ Σταυροῦ ἐπεκταθέντα, 3τῇ ἰδία δυνάμει μορφῶσαι μόρφωσιν τὴν κατʼ οὐσίαν μόνον, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν κατὰ γνῶσιν· καὶ πράξαντα τοῦτο 4ἀναδραμεῖν συστείλαντα αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναμιν, καὶ καταλιπεῖν, ὅπως αἰσθομένη τοῦ περὶ αὐτὴν πάθους διὰ τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν τοῦ Πληρώματος, ὀρεχθῇ τῶν διαφερόντων, ἔχουσά τινα ὀδμὴν ἀφθαρσίας, ἐγκαταλειφθεῖσαν LIB. I. i. 6. GR. I. i. 6. MASS. I. iv. l. αὐτὴν l. αὐτῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου 1 Πνεύατος. G. 20. Διὸ καὶ 2αὐτὴν τοῖς ἀμφοτέροις ὀνόμασι καλεῖσθαι, 3 τε πατρωνυμικῶς, (ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ αὐτῆς Σοφία κληΐζεται), καὶ M. 19. πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀπὸ τοῦ περὶ τὸν Χριστὸν πνεύματος. Μορφωθεῖσάν τε αὐτὴν, καὶ 4ἔμφρονα γενηθεῖσαν, παραυτίκα δὲ κενωθεῖσαν ἀοράτου αὐτῇ συνόντος Λόγου, τουτέστι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 5ἐπὶ ζήτησιν ὁρμῆσαι τοῦ καταλιπόντος αὐτὴν inf. § 8. φωτὸς καὶ μὴ δυνηθῆναι καταλαβεῖν αὐτὸ, διὰ τὸ κωλυθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὅρου. Καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὸν Ὅρον κωλύοντα αὐτὴν τῆς εἰς τοὔμπροσθεν ὁρμῆς εἰπεῖν Ἰαώ· ὅθεν τὰ 8Ἰαὼ ὄνομα LIB. I. i. 7. GR. I. i. 7. MASS. I. iv. l. γεγενῆσθαι φάσκουσι. Μὴ δονηθείσαν δὲ διοδεῦσαι τὸν Ὅρον, διὰ τὸ συμπεπλέχθαι τῷ πάθει, καὶ μόνην ἀπολειφθεῖσαν ἔξω, παντὶ μέρει τοῦ πάθους ὑποπεσεῖν πολυμεροῦς καὶ πολυποικίλου ὑπάρχοντος, καὶ παθεῖν, λύπην μὲν, ὅτι οὐ κατέλαβε· φόβον δὲ, μὴ καθάπερ 1αὐτὴν τὸ φῶς, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ζῇν ἐπιλίπῃ· 2ἀπορίαν τε ἐπὶ τούτοις· 3ἐν ἀγνοία δὲ τὰ πάντα. Καὶ οὐ καθάπερ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτῆς, ἡ πρώτη Σοφία καὶ Αἰὼν, LIB. I. i. 7. GR. I. i. 7. MASS. I. iv. l. 1ἑτεροίωσιν ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν εἶχεν, ἀλλὰ ἐναντιότητα. Ἐπισυμβεβηκέναι δʼ αὐτῇ καὶ ἑτέραν διάθεσιν, τὴν τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς ἐπὶ τόν ζωοποιήσαντα. Ταύτην 2σύστασιν καὶ οὐσίαν τῆς ὕλης G. 21. γεγενῆσθαι λέγουσιν, ἐξ ἧς ὅδε ὁ κόσμος συνέστηκεν. Ἐκ μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς τὴν τοῦ κόσμου καὶ 3τοῦ δημιουργοῦ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν τὴν γένεσιν εἰληφέναι, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φόβου καὶ τῆς λύπης τὰ λοιπὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι· 4ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν δακρύων αὐτῆς cf. § 10. γεγονέναι πᾶσαν ἔνυγρον οὐσίαν· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ γέλωτος, τὴν M. 20. φωτεινήν· ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς λύπης καὶ τῆς ἐκπλήξεως, τὰ σωματικὰ LIB. I. i. 7. GR. I. i. 7. MASS. I. iv. 2. τοῦ κόσμου στοιχεῖα. Ποτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἔκλαιε καὶ ἐλυπεῖτο, ὡς λέγουσι, διὰ τὸ καταλελείφθαι μόνην ἐν τῷ σκότει καὶ τῷ κενώματι· ποτὲ δὲ εἰς ἔννοιαν ἥκουσα τοῦ καταλιπόντος αὐτὴν φωτὸς, διεχεῖτο καὶ ἐγέλα· ποτὲ δ᾿ αὖ πάλιν ἐφοβεῖτο· ἄλλοτε δὲ διηπόρει, καὶ ἐξίστατο.When all the seed shall have come to perfection, they state that then their mother Achamoth shall pass from the intermediate place, and enter in within the Pleroma, and shall receive as her spouse the Saviour, who sprang from all the AEons, that thus a conjunction may be formed between the Saviour and Sophia, that is, Achamoth. These, then, are the bridegroom and bride, while the nuptial chamber is the full extent of the Pleroma. The spiritual seed, again, being divested of their animal souls, and becoming intelligent spirits, shall in an irresistible and invisible manner enter in within the Pleroma, and be bestowed as brides on those angels who wait upon the Saviour. The Demiurge himself will pass into the place of his mother Sophia; that is, the intermediate habitation. In this intermediate place, also, shall the souls of the righteous repose; but nothing of an animal nature shall find admittance to the Pleroma. When these things have taken place as described, then shall that fire which lies hidden in the world blaze forth and bum; and while destroying all matter, shall also be extinguished along with it, and have no further existence. They affirm that the Demiurge was acquainted with none of these things before the advent of the Saviour.,There are also some who maintain that he also produced Christ as his own proper son, but of an animal nature, and that mention was made of him by the prophets. This Christ passed through Mary just as water flows through a tube; and there descended upon him in the form of a dove it the time of his baptism, that Saviour who belonged to the Pleroma, and was formed by the combined efforts of all its inhabit ants. In him there existed also that spiritual seed which proceeded from Achamoth. They hold, accordingly, that our Lord, while preserving the type of the first-begotten and primary tetrad, was compounded of these four substances,--of that which is spiritual, in so far as He was from Achamoth; of that which is animal, as being from the Demiurge by a special dispensation, inasmuch as He was formed [corporeally] with unspeakable skill; and of the Saviour, as respects that dove which descended upon Him. He also continued free from all suffering, since indeed it was not possible that He should suffer who was at once incomprehensible and invisible. And for this reason the Spirit of Christ, who had been placed within Him, was taken away when He was brought before Pilate. They maintain, further, that not even the seed which He had received from the mother [Achamoth] was subject to suffering; for it, too, was impassible, as being spiritual, and invisible even to the Demiurge himself. It follows, then, according to them, that the animal Christ, and that which had been formed mysteriously by a special dispensation, underwent suffering, that the mother might exhibit through him a type of the Christ above, namely, of him who extended himself through Stauros, and imparted to Achamoth shape, so far as substance was concerned. For they declare that all these transactions were counterparts of what took place above.,They maintain, moreover, that those souls which possess the seed of Achamoth are superior to the rest, and are more dearly loved by the Demiurge than others, while he knows not the true cause thereof, but imagines that they are what they are through his favour towards them. Wherefore, also, they say he distributed them to prophets, priests, and kings; and they declare that many things were spoken by this seed through the prophets, inasmuch as it was endowed with a transcendently lofty nature. Themother also, they say, spake much about things above, and that both through him and through the souls which were formed by him. Then, again, they divide the prophecies [into different classes], maintaining that one portion was uttered by the mother, a second by her seed, and a third by the Demiurge. In like manner, they hold that Jesus uttered some things under the influence of the Saviour, others under that of the mother, and others still under that of the Demiurge, as we shall show further on in our work.,The Demiurge, while ignorant of those things which were higher than himself, was indeed excited by the announcements made [through the prophets], but treated them with contempt, attributing them sometimes to one cause and sometimes to another; either to the prophetic spirit (which itself possesses the power of self-excitement), or to [mere unassisted] man, or that it was simply a crafty device of the lower [and baser order of men]. He remained thus ignorant until the appearing of the Lord. But they relate that when the Saviour came, the Demiurge learned all things from Him, and gladly with all, his power joined himself to Him. They maintain that he is the centurion mentioned in the Gospel, who addressed the Saviour in these words: "For I also am one having soldiers and servants under my authority; and whatsoever I command they do." They further hold that he will continue administering the affairs of the world as long as that is fitting and needful, and specially that he may exercise a care over the Church; while at the same time he is influenced by the knowledge of the reward prepared for him, namely, that he may attain to the habitation of his mother.,They conceive, then, of three kinds of men, spiritual, material, and animal, represented by Cain, Abel, and Seth. These three natures are no longer found in one person, but constitute various kinds [of men]. The material goes, as a matter of course, into corruption. The animal, if it make choice of the better part, finds repose in the intermediate place; but if the worse, it too shall pass into destruction. But they assert that the spiritual principles which have been sown by Achamoth, being disciplined and nourished here from that time until now in righteous souls (because when given forth by her they were yet but weak), at last attaining to perfection, shall be given as brides to the angels of the Saviour, while their animal souls of necessity rest for ever with the Demiurge in the intermediate place. And again subdividing the animal souls themselves, they say that some are by nature good, and others by nature evil. The good are those who become capable of receiving the [spiritual] seed; the evil by nature are those who are never able to receive that seed.


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

25 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 2.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

2.7. וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה׃ 2.7. Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
2. Plato, Timaeus, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)

29e. constructed Becoming and the All. He was good, and in him that is good no envy ariseth ever concerning anything; and being devoid of envy He desired that all should be, so far as possible, like unto Himself. Tim. This principle, then, we shall be wholly right in accepting from men of wisdom as being above all the supreme originating principle of Becoming and the Cosmos.
3. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 6.11 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)

4. New Testament, 1 Peter, 4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

5. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 15.45, 15.53 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

15.45. So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a livingsoul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 15.53. For thiscorruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put onimmortality.
6. New Testament, Luke, 6.43-6.45, 15.4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

6.43. For there is no good tree that brings forth rotten fruit; nor again a rotten tree that brings forth good fruit. 6.44. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For people don't gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. 6.45. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings out that which is good, and the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings out that which is evil, for out of the abundance of the heart, his mouth speaks. 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?
7. New Testament, Matthew, 7.16 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

7.16. By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
8. Athenagoras, The Resurrection of The Dead, 18 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

9. Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts From Theodotus, 43.2-43.65 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

10. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 2.3, 2.8, 3.1, 4.13, 6.6, 7.17 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

11. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 6.29-6.36, 7.20-7.27, 7.34 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

6.29. The quaternion, then, advocated by Valentinus, is a source of the everlasting nature having roots; and Sophia (is the power) from whom the animal and material creation has derived its present condition. But Sophia is called Spirit, and the Demiurge Soul, and the Devil the ruler of this world, and Beelzebub the (ruler) of demons. These are the statements which they put forward. But further, in addition to these, rendering, as I have previously mentioned, their entire system of doctrine (akin to the) arithmetical (art), (they determine) that the thirty Aeons within the Pleroma have again, in addition to these, projected other Aeons, according to the (numerical) proportion (adopted by the Pythagoreans), in order that the Pleroma might be formed into an aggregate, according to a perfect number. For how the Pythagoreans divided (the celestial sphere) into twelve and thirty and sixty parts, and how they have minute parts of diminutive portions, has been made evident. In this manner these (followers of Valentinus) subdivide the parts within the Pleroma. Now likewise the parts in the Ogdoad have been subdivided, and there has been projected Sophia, which is, according to them, mother of all living creatures, and the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, (who is) the Logos, (and other Aeons,) who are celestial angels that have their citizenship in Jerusalem which is above, which is in heaven. For this Jerusalem is Sophia, she (that is) outside (the Pleroma), and her spouse is the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma. And the Demiurge projected souls; for this (Sophia) is the essence of souls. This (Demiurge), according to them, is Abraham, and these (souls) the children of Abraham. From the material and divilish essence the Demiurge fashioned bodies for the souls. This is what has been declared: And God formed man, taking clay from the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and man was made into a living soul. Genesis 2:7 This, according to them, is the inner man, the natural (man), residing in the material body: Now a material (man) is perishable, incomplete, (and) formed out of the devilish essence. And this is the material man, as it were, according to them an inn, or domicile, at one time of soul only, at another time of soul and demons, at another time of soul and Logoi. And these are the Logoi that have been dispersed from above, from the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma and (from) Sophia, into this world. And they dwell in an earthly body, with a soul, when demons do not take up their abode with that soul. This, he says, is what has been written in Scripture: On this account I bend my knees to the God and Father and Lord of our Lord Jesus Christ, that God would grant you to have Christ dwelling in the inner man, Ephesians 3:14-18 - that is, the natural (man), not the corporeal (one), - that you may be able to understand what is the depth, which is the Father of the universe, and what is the breadth, which is Staurus, the limit of the Pleroma, or what is the length, that is, the Pleroma of the Aeons. Wherefore, he says, the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; 1 Corinthians 2:14 but folly, he says, is the power of the Demiurge, for he was foolish and devoid of understanding, and imagined himself to be fabricating the world. He was, however, ignorant that Sophia, the Mother, the Ogdoad, was really the cause of all the operations performed by him who had no consciousness in reference to the creation of the world. 6.30. All the prophets, therefore, and the law spoke by means of the Demiurge - a silly god, he says, (and themselves) fools, who knew nothing. On account of this, he says, the Saviour observes: All that came before me are thieves and robbers. John 10:8 And the apostle (uses these words) The mystery which was not made known to former generations. Colossians 1:26 For none of the prophets, he says, said anything concerning the things of which we speak; for (a prophet) could not but be ignorant of all (these) things, inasmuch as they certainly had been uttered by the Demiurge only. When, therefore, the creation received completion, and when after (this) there ought to have been the revelation of the sons of God - that is, of the Demiurge, which up to this had been concealed, and in which obscurity the natural man was hid, and had a veil upon the heart - when (it was time), then, that the veil should be taken away, and that these mysteries should be seen, Jesus was born of Mary the virgin, according to the declaration (in Scripture), The Holy Ghost will come upon you- Sophia is the Spirit - and the power of the Highest will overshadow you- the Highest is the Demiurge -wherefore that which shall be born of you shall be called holy. Luke 1:35 For he has been generated not from the highest alone, as those created in (the likeness of) Adam have been created from the highest alone - that is, (from) Sophia and the Demiurge. Jesus, however, the new man, (has been generated) from the Holy Spirit- that is, Sophia and the Demiurge- in order that the Demiurge may complete the conformation and constitution of his body, and that the Holy Spirit may supply his essence, and that a celestial Logos may proceed from the Ogdoad being born of Mary. Concerning this (Logos) they have a great question among them - an occasion both of divisions and dissension. And hence the doctrine of these has become divided: and one doctrine, according to them, is termed Oriental, and the other Italian. They from Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say that the body of Jesus was (an) animal (one). And on account of this, (they maintain) that at his baptism the Holy Spirit as a dove came down - that is, the Logos of the mother above, (I mean Sophia) - and became (a voice) to the animal (man), and raised him from the dead. This, he says, is what has been declared: He who raised Christ from the dead will also quicken your mortal and natural bodies. Romans 8:11-12 For loam has come under a curse; for, says he, dust you are, and unto dust shall you return. Genesis 3:19 The Orientals, on the other hand, of whom is Axionicus and Bardesianes, assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual; for there came upon Mary the Holy Spirit- that is, Sophia and the power of the highest. This is the creative art, (and was vouchsafed) in order that what was given to Mary by the Spirit might be fashioned. 6.31. Let, then, those (heretics) pursue these inquiries among themselves, (and let others do so likewise,) if it should prove agreeable to anybody else to investigate (such points. Valentinus) subjoins, however, the following statement: That the trespasses appertaining to the Aeons within (the Pleroma) had been corrected; and likewise had been rectified the trespasses appertaining to the Ogdoad, (that is,) Sophia, outside (the Pleroma); and also (the trespasses) appertaining to the Hebdomad (had been rectified). For the Demiurge had been taught by Sophia that He is not Himself God alone, as He imagined, and that except Himself there is not another (Deity). But when taught by Sophia, He was made to recognise the superior (Deity). For He was instructed by her, and initiated and indoctrinated into the great mystery of the Father and of the Aeons, and divulged this to none. This is, as he says, what (God) declares to Moses: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and my name I have not announced to them; that is, I have not declared the mystery, nor explained who is God, but I have preserved the mystery which I have heard from Sophia in secrecy with myself. When, then, the trespasses of those above had been rectified, it was necessary, according to the same consequence, that the (transgressions) here likewise should obtain rectification. On this account Jesus the Saviour was born of Mary that he might rectify (the trespasses committed) here; as the Christ who, having been projected additionally from above by Nous and Aletheia, had corrected the passions of Sophia - that is, the abortion (who was) outside (the Pleroma). And, again, the Saviour who was born of Mary came to rectify the passions of the soul. There are therefore, according to these (heretics), three Christs: (the first the) one additionally projected by Nous and Aletheia, along with the Holy Spirit; and (the second) the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, spouse of Sophia, who was outside (the Pleroma). And she herself is likewise styled Holy Spirit, but one inferior to the first (projection). And the third (Christ is) He who was born of Mary for the restoration of this world of ours. 6.32. I think that the heresy of Valentinus which is of Pythagorean (origin), has been sufficiently, indeed more than sufficiently, delineated. It therefore seems also expedient, that having explained his opinions, we should desist from (further) refutation (of his system). Plato, then, in expounding mysteries concerning the universe, writes to Dionysius expressing himself after some such manner as this: I must speak to you by riddles, in order that if the letter may meet with any accident in its leaves by either sea or land, he who reads (what falls into his hands) may not understand it. For so it is. All things are about the King of all, and on his account are all things, and he is cause of all the glorious (objects of creation). The second is about the second, and the third about the third. But pertaining to the King there is none of those things of which I have spoken. But after this the soul earnestly desires to learn what sort these are, looking upon those things that are akin to itself, and not one of these is (in itself) sufficient. This is, O son of Dionysius and Doris, the question (of yours) which is a cause of all evil things. Nay, but rather the solicitude concerning this is innate in the soul; and if one does not remove this, he will never really attain truth. But what is astonishing in this matter, listen. For there are men who have heard these things - (men) furnished with capacities for learning, and furnished with capacities of memory, and persons who altogether in every way are endued with an aptitude for investigation with a view to inference. (These are) at present aged speculators. And they assert that opinions which at one time were credible are now incredible, and that things once incredible are now the contrary. While, therefore, turning the eye of examination towards these (inquiries), exercise caution, lest at any time you should have reason to repent in regard of those things should they happen in a manner unbecoming to your dignity. On this account I have written nothing concerning these (points); nor is there any treatise of Plato's (upon them), nor ever shall there be. The observations, however, now made are those of Socrates, conspicuous for virtue even while he was a young man. Valentinus, falling in with these (remarks), has made a fundamental principle in his system the King of all, whom Plato mentioned, and whom this heretic styles Pater, and Bythos, and Proarche over the rest of the Aeons. And when Plato uses the words, what is second about things that are second, Valentinus supposes to be second all the Aeons that are within the limit (of the Pleroma, as well as) the limit (itself). And when Plato uses the words, what is third about what is third, he has (constituted as third) the entire of the arrangement (existing) outside the limit and the Pleroma. And Valentinus has elucidated this (arrangement) very succinctly, in a psalm commencing from below, not as Plato does, from above, expressing himself thus: I behold all things suspended in air by spirit, and I perceive all things wafted by spirit; the flesh (I see) suspended from soul, but the soul shining out from air, and air depending from Aether, and fruits produced from Bythus, and the foetus borne from the womb. Thus (Valentinus) formed his opinion on such (points). Flesh, according to these (heretics), is matter which is suspended from the soul of the Demiurge. And soul shines out from air; that is, the Demiurge emerges from the spirit, (which is) outside the Pleroma. But air springs forth from Aether; that is, Sophia, which is outside (the Pleroma, is projected from the Pleroma) which is within the limit, and (from) the entire Pleroma (generally). And from Bythus fruits are produced; (that is,) the entire projection of the Aeons is made from the Father. The opinions, then, advanced by Valentinus have been sufficiently declared. It remains for us to explain the tenets of those who have emanated from-his school, though each adherent (of Valentinus) entertains different opinions. 6.33. A certain (heretic) Secundus, born about the same time with Ptolemaeus, expresses himself thus: (he says) that there is a right tetrad and a left tetrad - namely, light and darkness. And he affirms that the power which withdrew and laboured under deficiency, was not produced from the thirty Aeons, but from the fruits of these. Some other (heretic), however - Epiphanes, a teacher among them - expresses himself thus: The earliest originating principle was inconceivable, ineffable, and unnameable; and he calls this Monotes. And (he maintains) that there co-exists with this (principle) a power which he denominates Henotes. This Henotes and this Monotes, not by projection (from themselves), sent forth a principle (that should preside) over all intelligibles; (and this was) both unbegotten and invisible, and he styles it a Monad. With this power co-exists a power of the same essence, which very (power) I call Unity. These four powers sent forth the remainder of the projections of the Aeons. But others, again, denominate the chief and originating Ogdoad, (which is) fourth (and) invisible, by the following names: first, Proarche; next, Anennoetus; third, Arrhetus; and fourth, Aoratus. And that from the first, Proarche, was projected by a first and fifth place, Arche; and from Anennoetus, by a second and sixth place, Acataleptus; and from Arrhetus, by a third and seventh place, Anonomastus; and from Aoratus, Agennetus, a complement of the first Ogdoad. They wish that these powers should exist before Bythus and Sige. Concerning, however, Bythus himself, there are many different opinions. Some affirm him to be unwedded, neither male nor female; but others (maintain) that Sige, who is a female, is present with him, and that this constitutes the first conjugal union. But the followers of Ptolemaeus assert that (Bythus) has two spouses, which they call likewise dispositions, viz., Ennoia and Thelesis (conception and volition). For first the notion was conceived of projecting anything; next followed, as they say, the will to do so. Wherefore also these two dispositions and powers - namely, Ennoia and Thelesis - being, as it were, mingled one with the other, there ensued a projection of Monogenes and Aletheia by means of a conjugal union. And the consequence was, that visible types and images of those two dispositions of the Father came forth from the invisible (Aeons), viz., from Thelema, Nous, and from Ennoia, Aletheia. And on this account the image of the subsequently generated Thelema is (that of a) male; but (the image) of the unbegotten Ennoia is (that of a) female, since volition is, as it were, a power of conception. For conception always cherished the idea of a projection, yet was not of itself at least able to project itself, but cherished the idea (of doing so). When, however, the power of volition (would be present), then it projects the idea which had been conceived. 6.34. A certain other teacher among them, Marcus, an adept in sorcery, carrying on operations partly by sleight of hand and partly by demons, deceived many from time to time. This (heretic) alleged that there resided in him the mightiest power from invisible and unnameable places. And very often, taking the Cup, as if offering up the Eucharistic prayer, and prolonging to a greater length than usual the word of invocation, he would cause the appearance of a purple, and sometimes of a red mixture, so that his dupes imagined that a certain Grace descended and communicated to the potion a blood-red potency. The knave, however, at that time succeeded in escaping detection from many; but now, being convicted (of the imposture), he will be forced to desist from it. For, infusing secretly into the mixture some drug that possessed the power of imparting such a color (as that alluded to above), uttering for a, considerable time nonsensical expressions, he was in the habit of waiting, (in expectation) that the (drug), obtaining a supply of moisture, might be dissolved, and, being intermingled with the potion, might impart its color to it. The drugs, however, that possess the quality of furnishing this effect we have previously mentioned in the book on magicians. And here we have taken occasion to explain how they make dupes of many, and thoroughly ruin them. And if it should prove agreeable to them to apply their attention with greater accuracy to the statement made by us, they will become aware of the deceit of Marcus. 6.35. And this (Marcus), infusing (the aforesaid) mixture into a smaller cup, was in the habit of delivering it to a woman to offer up the Eucharistic prayer, while he himself stood by, and held (in his hand) another empty (chalice) larger than that. And after his female dupe had pronounced the sentence of Consecration, having received (the cup from her), he proceeded to infuse (its contents) into the larger (chalice), and, pouring them frequently from one cup to the other, was accustomed at the same time to utter the following invocation: Grant that the inconceivable and ineffable Grace which existed prior to the universe, may fill your inner man, and make to abound in you the knowledge of this (grace), as She disseminates the seed of the mustard-tree upon the good soil. And simultaneously pronouncing some such words as these, and astonishing both his female dupe and those that are present, he was regarded as one performing a miracle; while the larger was being filled from the smaller chalice, in such a way as that (the contents), being superabundant, flowed over. And the contrivance of this (juggler) we have likewise explained in the aforesaid (fourth) book, where we have proved that very many drugs, when mingled in this way with liquid substances, are endued with the quality of yielding augmentation, more particularly when diluted in wine. Now, when (one of these impostors) previously smears, in a clandestine manner, an empty cup with any one of these drugs, and shows it (to the spectators) as if it contained nothing, by infusing into it (the contents) from the other cup, and pouring them back again, the drug, as it is of a flatulent nature, is dissolved by being blended with the moist substance. And the effect of this was, that a superabundance of the mixture ensued, and was so far augmented, that what was infused was put in motion, such being the nature of the drug. And if one stow away (the chalice) when it has been filled, (what has been poured into it) will after no long time return to its natural dimensions, inasmuch as the potency of the drug becomes extinct by reason of the continuance of moisture. Wherefore he was in the habit of hurriedly presenting the cup to those present, to drink; but they, horrified at the same time, and eager (to taste the contents of the cup), proceeded to drink (the mixture), as if it were something divine, and devised by the Deity. 7.20. 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. 7.21. 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. 7.22. 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). 7.23. 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. 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. 7.25. 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). 7.26. 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.
12. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, None (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

13. Tatian, Oration To The Greeks, 7 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

14. Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 42, 30 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

15. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 4.23-4.24, 5.13, 5.16 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

16. Nag Hammadi, A Valentinian Exposition, 22.31, 22.34-22.36, 24.26-24.28 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

17. Nag Hammadi, Apocalypse of James, 11.15 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

18. Nag Hammadi, The Hypostasis of The Archons, 87.12-87.15 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

19. Nag Hammadi, The Tripartite Tractate, 81.18-81.23, 83.10, 83.13, 86.31, 106.23, 115.20, 118.15-118.21, 130.29 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

20. Nag Hammadi, Zostrianos, 9.16 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

21. Origen, Commentary On John, 1.7, 13.20 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

22. Origen, Against Celsus, 2.27, 5.59, 5.61-5.64, 6.24-6.38, 6.53, 6.74 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.27. After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus. 5.59. Celsus then continues: The Jews accordingly, and these (clearly meaning the Christians), have the same God; and as if advancing a proposition which would not be conceded, he proceeds to make the following assertion: It is certain, indeed, that the members of the great Church admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding the creation of the world which are current among the Jews, viz., concerning the six days and the seventh; on which day, as the Scripture says, God ceased from His works, retiring into the contemplation of Himself, but on which, as Celsus says (who does not abide by the letter of the history, and who does not understand its meaning), God rested, - a term which is not found in the record. With respect, however, to the creation of the world, and the rest which is reserved after it for the people of God, the subject is extensive, and mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation. In the next place, as it appears to me, from a desire to fill up his book, and to give it an appearance of importance, he recklessly adds certain statements, such as the following, relating to the first man, of whom he says: We give the same account as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him as they do. However, as regards the conspiracies of brothers against one another, we know of none such, save that Cain conspired against Abel, and Esau against Jacob; but not Abel against Cain, nor Jacob against Esau: for if this had been the case, Celsus would have been correct in saying that we give the same accounts as do the Jews of the conspiracies of brothers against one another. Let it be granted, however, that we speak of the same descent into Egypt as they, and of their return thence, which was not a flight, as Celsus considers it to have been, what does that avail towards founding an accusation against us or against the Jews? Here, indeed, he thought to cast ridicule upon us, when, in speaking of the Hebrew people, he termed their exodus a flight; but when it was his business to investigate the account of the punishments inflicted by God upon Egypt, that topic he purposely passed by in silence. 5.61. After the above remarks he proceeds as follows: Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came. Now, if he imagine that the existence of numerous heresies among the Christians is a ground of accusation against Christianity, why, in a similar way, should it not be a ground of accusation against philosophy, that the various sects of philosophers differ from each other, not on small and indifferent points, but upon those of the highest importance? Nay, medicine also ought to be a subject of attack, on account of its many conflicting schools. Let it be admitted, then, that there are among us some who deny that our God is the same as that of the Jews: nevertheless, on that account those are not to be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the same Deity is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles alike, as Paul, too, distinctly says, who was a convert from Judaism to Christianity, I thank my God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure conscience. And let it be admitted also, that there is a third class who call certain persons carnal, and others spiritual,- I think he here means the followers of Valentinus - yet what does this avail against us, who belong to the Church, and who make it an accusation against such as hold that certain natures are saved, and that others perish in consequence of their natural constitution? And let it be admitted further, that there are some who give themselves out as Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call themselves philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who introduce monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who are the disciples of Jesus. Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law - and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings - what does that avail by way of charge against such as belong to the Church, and whom Celsus has styled those of the multitude? He adds, also, that certain of the Christians are believers in the Sibyl, having probably misunderstood some who blamed such as believed in the existence of a prophetic Sibyl, and termed those who held this belief Sibyllists. 5.62. He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, but term Simon the power of God, regarding whom they relate certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could become possessed of similar powers to those with which be believed Jesus to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was among the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion. 5.63. In the next place, that he may have the appearance of knowing still more than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his usual custom, that there are others who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous. And he seems to me, indeed, in touching on these matters, to say with a certain degree of truth, that there are certain others who have wickedly invented another demon, and who have found him to be their lord, as they wallow about in the great darkness of their ignorance. With respect, however, to Antinous, who is compared with our Jesus, we shall not repeat what we have already said in the preceding pages. Moreover, he continues, these persons utter against one another dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken; nor will they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred. Now, in answer to this, we have already said that in philosophy and medicine sects are to be found warring against sects. We, however, who are followers of the word of Jesus, and have exercised ourselves in thinking, and saying, and doing what is in harmony with His words, when reviled, bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; and we would not utter all manner of things shameful to be spoken against those who have adopted different opinions from ours, but, if possible, use every exertion to raise them to a better condition through adherence to the Creator alone, and lead them to perform every act as those who will (one day) be judged. And if those who hold different opinions will not be convinced, we observe the injunction laid down for the treatment of such: A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Moreover, we who know the maxim, Blessed are the peacemakers, and this also, Blessed are the meek, would not regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor term those who had fallen into error Circes and flattering deceivers. 5.64. Celsus appears to me to have misunderstood the statement of the apostle, which declares that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them who believe; and to have misunderstood also those who employed these declarations of the apostle against such as had corrupted the doctrines of Christianity. And it is owing to this cause that Celsus has said that certain among the Christians are called 'cauterized in the ears;' and also that some are termed enigmas, - a term which we have never met. The expression stumbling-block is, indeed, of frequent occurrence in these writings - an appellation which we are accustomed to apply to those who turn away simple persons, and those who are easily deceived, from sound doctrine. But neither we, nor, I imagine, any other, whether Christian or heretic, know of any who are styled Sirens, who betray and deceive, and stop their ears, and change into swine those whom they delude. And yet this man, who affects to know everything, uses such language as the following: You may hear, he says, all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other in their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words, 'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.' And this is the only phrase which, it appears, Celsus could remember out of Paul's writings; and yet why should we not also employ innumerable other quotations from the Scriptures, such as, For though we do walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh; (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds,) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God? 6.24. After the instance borrowed from the Mithraic mysteries, Celsus declares that he who would investigate the Christian mysteries, along with the aforesaid Persian, will, on comparing the two together, and on unveiling the rites of the Christians, see in this way the difference between them. Now, wherever he was able to give the names of the various sects, he was nothing loth to quote those with which he thought himself acquainted; but when he ought most of all to have done this, if they were really known to him, and to have informed us which was the sect that makes use of the diagram he has drawn, he has not done so. It seems to me, however, that it is from some statements of a very insignificant sect called Ophites, which he has misunderstood, that, in my opinion, he has partly borrowed what he says about the diagram. Now, as we have always been animated by a love of learning, we have fallen in with this diagram, and we have found in it the representations of men who, as Paul says, creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with various lusts; ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The diagram was, however, so destitute of all credibility, that neither these easily deceived women, nor the most rustic class of men, nor those who were ready to be led away by any plausible pretender whatever, ever gave their assent to the diagram. Nor, indeed, have we ever met any individual, although we have visited many parts of the earth, and have sought out all those who anywhere made profession of knowledge, that placed any faith in this diagram. 6.25. In this diagram were described ten circles, distinct from each other, but united by one circle, which was said to be the soul of all things, and was called Leviathan. This Leviathan, the Jewish Scriptures say, whatever they mean by the expression, was created by God for a plaything; for we find in the Psalms: In wisdom have You made all things: the earth is full of Your creatures; so is this great and wide sea. There go the ships; small animals with great; there is this dragon, which You have formed to play therein. Instead of the word dragon, the term leviathan is in the Hebrew. This impious diagram, then, said of this leviathan, which is so clearly depreciated by the Psalmist, that it was the soul which had travelled through all things! We observed, also, in the diagram, the being named Behemoth, placed as it were under the lowest circle. The inventor of this accursed diagram had inscribed this leviathan at its circumference and centre, thus placing its name in two separate places. Moreover, Celsus says that the diagram was divided by a thick black line, and this line he asserted was called Gehenna, which is Tartarus. Now as we found that Gehenna was mentioned in the Gospel as a place of punishment, we searched to see whether it is mentioned anywhere in the ancient Scriptures, and especially because the Jews too use the word. And we ascertained that where the valley of the son of Ennom was named in Scripture in the Hebrew, instead of valley, with fundamentally the same meaning, it was termed both the valley of Ennom and also Geenna. And continuing our researches, we find that what was termed Geenna, or the valley of Ennom, was included in the lot of the tribe of Benjamin, in which Jerusalem also was situated. And seeking to ascertain what might be the inference from the heavenly Jerusalem belonging to the lot of Benjamin and the valley of Ennom, we find a certain confirmation of what is said regarding the place of punishment, intended for the purification of such souls as are to be purified by torments, agreeably to the saying: The Lord comes like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver and of gold. 6.26. It is in the precincts of Jerusalem, then, that punishments will be inflicted upon those who undergo the process of purification, who have received into the substance of their soul the elements of wickedness, which in a certain place is figuratively termed lead, and on that account iniquity is represented in Zechariah as sitting upon a talent of lead. But the remarks which might be made on this topic are neither to be made to all, nor to be uttered on the present occasion; for it is not unattended with danger to commit to writing the explanation of such subjects, seeing the multitude need no further instruction than that which relates to the punishment of sinners; while to ascend beyond this is not expedient, for the sake of those who are with difficulty restrained, even by fear of eternal punishment, from plunging into any degree of wickedness, and into the flood of evils which result from sin. The doctrine of Geenna, then, is unknown both to the diagram and to Celsus: for had it been otherwise, the framers of the former would not have boasted of their pictures of animals and diagrams, as if the truth were represented by these; nor would Celsus, in his treatise against the Christians, have introduced among the charges directed against them statements which they never uttered instead of what was spoken by some who perhaps are no longer in existence, but have altogether disappeared, or been reduced to a very few individuals, and these easily counted. And as it does not beseem those who profess the doctrines of Plato to offer a defense of Epicurus and his impious opinions, so neither is it for us to defend the diagram, or to refute the accusations brought against it by Celsus. We may therefore allow his charges on these points to pass as superfluous and useless, for we would censure more severely than Celsus any who should be carried away by such opinions. 6.27. After the matter of the diagram, he brings forward certain monstrous statements, in the form of question and answer, regarding what is called by ecclesiastical writers the seal, statements which did not arise from imperfect information; such as that he who impresses the seal is called father, and he who is sealed is called young man and son; and who answers, I have been anointed with white ointment from the tree of life,- things which we never heard to have occurred even among the heretics. In the next place, he determines even the number mentioned by those who deliver over the seal, as that of seven angels, who attach themselves to both sides of the soul of the dying body; the one party being named angels of light, the others 'archontics;' and he asserts that the ruler of those named 'archontics' is termed the 'accursed' god. Then, laying hold of the expression, he assails, not without reason, those who venture to use such language; and on that account we entertain a similar feeling of indignation with those who censure such individuals, if indeed there exist any who call the God of the Jews- who sends rain and thunder, and who is the Creator of this world, and the God of Moses, and of the cosmogony which he records - an accursed divinity. Celsus, however, appears to have had in view in employing these expressions, not a rational object, but one of a most irrational kind, arising out of his hatred towards us, which is so unlike a philosopher. For his aim was, that those who are unacquainted with our customs should, on perusing his treatise, at once assail us as if we called the noble Creator of this world an accursed divinity. He appears to me, indeed, to have acted like those Jews who, when Christianity began to be first preached, scattered abroad false reports of the Gospel, such as that Christians offered up an infant in sacrifice, and partook of its flesh; and again, that the professors of Christianity, wishing to do the 'works of darkness,' used to extinguish the lights (in their meetings), and each one to have sexual intercourse with any woman whom he chanced to meet. These calumnies have long exercised, although unreasonably, an influence over the minds of very many, leading those who are aliens to the Gospel to believe that Christians are men of such a character; and even at the present day they mislead some, and prevent them from entering even into the simple intercourse of conversation with those who are Christians. 6.28. With some such object as this in view does Celsus seem to have been actuated, when he alleged that Christians term the Creator an accursed divinity; in order that he who believes these charges of his against us, should, if possible, arise and exterminate the Christians as the most impious of mankind. Confusing, moreover, things that are distinct, he states also the reason why the God of the Mosaic cosmogony is termed accursed, asserting that such is his character, and worthy of execration in the opinion of those who so regard him, inasmuch as he pronounced a curse upon the serpent, who introduced the first human beings to the knowledge of good and evil. Now he ought to have known that those who have espoused the cause of the serpent, because he gave good advice to the first human beings, and who go far beyond the Titans and Giants of fable, and are on this account called Ophites, are so far from being Christians, that they bring accusations against Jesus to as great a degree as Celsus himself; and they do not admit any one into their assembly until he has uttered maledictions against Jesus. See, then, how irrational is the procedure of Celsus, who, in his discourse against the Christians, represents as such those who will not even listen to the name of Jesus, or omit even that He was a wise man, or a person of virtuous character! What, then, could evince greater folly or madness, not only on the part of those who wish to derive their name from the serpent as the author of good, but also on the part of Celsus, who thinks that the accusations with which the Ophites are charged, are chargeable also against the Christians! Long ago, indeed, that Greek philosopher who preferred a state of poverty, and who exhibited the pattern of a happy life, showing that he was not excluded from happiness although he was possessed of nothing, termed himself a Cynic; while these impious wretches, as not being human beings, whose enemy the serpent is, but as being serpents, pride themselves upon being called Ophites from the serpent, which is an animal most hostile to and greatly dreaded by man, and boast of one Euphrates as the introducer of these unhallowed opinions. 6.29. In the next place, as if it were the Christians whom he was calumniating, he continues his accusations against those who termed the God of Moses and of his law an accursed divinity; and imagining that it is the Christians who so speak, he expresses himself thus: What could be more foolish or insane than such senseless wisdom? For what blunder has the Jewish lawgiver committed? And why do you accept, by means, as you say, of a certain allegorical and typical method of interpretation, the cosmogony which he gives, and the law of the Jews, while it is with unwillingness, O most impious man, that you give praise to the Creator of the world, who promised to give them all things; who promised to multiply their race to the ends of the earth, and to raise them up from the dead with the same flesh and blood, and who gave inspiration to their prophets; and, again, you slander Him! When you feel the force of such considerations, indeed, you acknowledge that you worship the same God; but when your teacher Jesus and the Jewish Moses give contradictory decisions, you seek another God, instead of Him, and the Father! Now, by such statements, this illustrious philosopher Celsus distinctly slanders the Christians, asserting that, when the Jews press them hard, they acknowledge the same God as they do; but that when Jesus legislates differently from Moses, they seek another god instead of Him. Now, whether we are conversing with the Jews, or are alone with ourselves, we know of only one and the same God, whom the Jews also worshipped of old time, and still profess to worship as God, and we are guilty of no impiety towards Him. We do not assert, however, that God will raise men from the dead with the same flesh and blood, as has been shown in the preceding pages; for we do not maintain that the natural body, which is sown in corruption, and in dishonour, and in weakness, will rise again such as it was sown. On such subjects, however, we have spoken at adequate length in the foregoing pages. 6.30. He next returns to the subject of the Seven ruling Demons, whose names are not found among Christians, but who, I think, are accepted by the Ophites. We found, indeed, that in the diagram, which on their account we procured a sight of, the same order was laid down as that which Celsus has given. Celsus says that the goat was shaped like a lion, not mentioning the name given him by those who are truly the most impious of individuals; whereas we discovered that He who is honoured in holy Scripture as the angel of the Creator is called by this accursed diagram Michael the Lion-like. Again, Celsus says that the second in order is a bull; whereas the diagram which we possessed made him to be Suriel, the bull-like. Further, Celsus termed the third an amphibious sort of animal, and one that hissed frightfully; while the diagram described the third as Raphael, the serpent-like. Moreover, Celsus asserted that the fourth had the form of an eagle; the diagram representing him as Gabriel, the eagle-like. Again, the fifth, according to Celsus, had the countece of a bear; and this, according to the diagram, was Thauthabaoth, the bear-like. Celsus continues his account, that the sixth was described as having the face of a dog; and him the diagram called Erataoth. The seventh, he adds, had the countece of an ass, and was named Thaphabaoth or Onoel; whereas we discovered that in the diagram he is called Onoel, or Thartharaoth, being somewhat asinine in appearance. We have thought it proper to be exact in stating these matters, that we might not appear to be ignorant of those things which Celsus professed to know, but that we Christians, knowing them better than he, may demonstrate that these are not the words of Christians, but of those who are altogether alienated from salvation, and who neither acknowledge Jesus as Saviour, nor God, nor Teacher, nor Son of God. 6.31. Moreover, if any one would wish to become acquainted with the artifices of those sorcerers, through which they desire to lead men away by their teaching (as if they possessed the knowledge of certain secret rites), but are not at all successful in so doing, let him listen to the instruction which they receive after passing through what is termed the fence of wickedness, - gates which are subjected to the world of ruling spirits. (The following, then, is the manner in which they proceed): I salute the one-formed king, the bond of blindness, complete oblivion, the first power, preserved by the spirit of providence and by wisdom, from whom I am sent forth pure, being already part of the light of the son and of the father: grace be with me; yea, O father, let it be with me. They say also that the beginnings of the Ogdoad are derived from this. In the next place, they are taught to say as follows, while passing through what they call Ialdabaoth: You, O first and seventh, who art born to command with confidence, you, O Ialdabaoth, who art the rational ruler of a pure mind, and a perfect work to son and father, bearing the symbol of life in the character of a type, and opening to the world the gate which you closed against your kingdom, I pass again in freedom through your realm. Let grace be with me; yea, O father, let it be with me. They say, moreover, that the star Ph non is in sympathy with the lion-like ruler. They next imagine that he who has passed through Ialdabaoth and arrived at Iao ought thus to speak: You, O second Iao, who shines by night, who art the ruler of the secret mysteries of son and father, first prince of death, and portion of the innocent, bearing now my own beard as symbol, I am ready to pass through your realm, having strengthened him who is born of you by the living word. Grace be with me; father, let it be with me. They next come to Sabaoth, to whom they think the following should be addressed: O governor of the fifth realm, powerful Sabaoth, defender of the law of your creatures, who are liberated by your grace through the help of a more powerful Pentad, admit me, seeing the faultless symbol of their art, preserved by the stamp of an image, a body liberated by a Pentad. Let grace be with me, O father, let grace be with me. And after Sabaoth they come to Astaph us, to whom they believe the following prayer should be offered: O Astaph us, ruler of the third gate, overseer of the first principle of water, look upon me as one of your initiated, admit me who am purified with the spirit of a virgin, you who sees the essence of the world. Let grace be with me, O father, let grace be with me. After him comes Alo us, who is to be thus addressed: O Alo us, governor of the second gate, let me pass, seeing I bring to you the symbol of your mother, a grace which is hidden by the powers of the realms. Let grace be with me, O father, let it be with me. And last of all they name Hor us, and think that the following prayer ought to be offered to him: You who fearlessly leaped over the rampart of fire, O Hor us, who obtained the government of the first gate, let me pass, seeing you behold the symbol of your own power, sculptured on the figure of the tree of life, and formed after this image, in the likeness of innocence. Let grace be with me, O father, let grace be with me. 6.32. The supposed great learning of Celsus, which is composed, however, rather of curious trifles and silly talk than anything else, has made us touch upon these topics, from a wish to show to every one who peruses his treatise and our reply, that we have no lack of information on those subjects, from which he takes occasion to calumniate the Christians, who neither are acquainted with, nor concern themselves about, such matters. For we, too, desired both to learn and set forth these things, in order that sorcerers might not, under pretext of knowing more than we, delude those who are easily carried away by the glitter of names. And I could have given many more illustrations to show that we are acquainted with the opinions of these deluders, and that we disown them, as being alien to ours, and impious, and not in harmony with the doctrines of true Christians, of which we are ready to make confession even to the death. It must be noticed, too, that those who have drawn up this array of fictions, have, from neither understanding magic, nor discriminating the meaning of holy Scripture, thrown everything into confusion; seeing that they have borrowed from magic the names of Ialdabaoth, and Astaph us, and Hor us, and from the Hebrew Scriptures him who is termed in Hebrew Iao or Jah, and Sabaoth, and Adon us, and Elo us. Now the names taken from the Scriptures are names of one and the same God; which, not being understood by the enemies of God, as even themselves acknowledge, led to their imagining that Iao was a different God, and Sabaoth another, and Adon us, whom the Scriptures term Adonai, a third besides, and that Elo us, whom the prophets name in Hebrew Eloi, was also different 6.33. Celsus next relates other fables, to the effect that certain persons return to the shapes of the archontics, so that some are called lions, others bulls, others dragons, or eagles, or bears, or dogs. We found also in the diagram which we possessed, and which Celsus called the square pattern, the statements made by these unhappy beings concerning the gates of Paradise. The flaming sword was depicted as the diameter of a flaming circle, and as if mounting guard over the tree of knowledge and of life. Celsus, however, either would not or could not repeat the harangues which, according to the fables of these impious individuals, are represented as spoken at each of the gates by those who pass through them; but this we have done in order to show to Celsus and those who read his treatise, that we know the depth of these unhallowed mysteries, and that they are far removed from the worship which Christians offer up to God. 6.34. After finishing the foregoing, and those analogous matters which we ourselves have added, Celsus continues as follows: They continue to heap together one thing after another - discourses of prophets, and circles upon circles, and effluents from an earthly church, and from circumcision; and a power flowing from one Prunicos, a virgin and a living soul; and a heaven slain in order to live, and an earth slaughtered by the sword, and many put to death that they may live, and death ceasing in the world, when the sin of the world is dead; and, again, a narrow way, and gates that open spontaneously. And in all their writings (is mention made) of the tree of life, and a resurrection of the flesh by means of the 'tree,' because, I imagine, their teacher was nailed to a cross, and was a carpenter by craft; so that if he had chanced to have been cast from a precipice, or thrust into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, or had been a leather-cutter, or stone-cutter, or worker in iron, there would have been (invented) a precipice of life beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality, or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a sacred leather! Now what old woman would not be ashamed to utter such things in a whisper, even when making stories to lull an infant to sleep? In using such language as this, Celsus appears to me to confuse together matters which he has imperfectly heard. For it seems likely that, even supposing that he had heard a few words traceable to some existing heresy, he did not clearly understand the meaning intended to be conveyed; but heaping the words together, he wished to show before those who knew nothing either of our opinions or of those of the heretics, that he was acquainted with all the doctrines of the Christians. And this is evident also from the foregoing words. 6.35. It is our practice, indeed, to make use of the words of the prophets, who demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ predicted by them, and who show from the prophetic writings the events in the Gospels regarding Jesus have been fulfilled. But when Celsus speaks of circles upon circles, (he perhaps borrowed the expression) from the aforementioned heresy, which includes in one circle (which they call the soul of all things, and Leviathan) the seven circles of archontic demons, or perhaps it arises from misunderstanding the preacher, when he says: The wind goes in a circle of circles, and returns again upon its circles. The expression, too, effluents of an earthly church and of circumcision, was probably taken from the fact that the church on earth was called by some an effluent from a heavenly church and a better world; and that the circumcision described in the law was a symbol of the circumcision performed there, in a certain place set apart for purification. The adherents of Valentinus, moreover, in keeping with their system of error, give the name of Prunicos to a certain kind of wisdom, of which they would have the woman afflicted with the twelve years' issue of blood to be the symbol; so that Celsus, who confuses together all sorts of opinions - Greek, Barbarian, and Heretical - having heard of her, asserted that it was a power flowing forth from one Prunicos, a virgin. The living soul, again, is perhaps mysteriously referred by some of the followers of Valentinus to the being whom they term the psychic creator of the world; or perhaps, in contradistinction to a dead soul, the living soul is termed by some, not inelegantly, the soul of him who is saved. I know nothing, however, of a heaven which is said to be slain, or of an earth slaughtered by the sword, or of many persons slain in order that they might live; for it is not unlikely that these were coined by Celsus out of his own brain. 6.36. We would say, moreover, that death ceases in the world when the sin of the world dies, referring the saying to the mystical words of the apostle, which run as follows: When He shall have put all enemies under His feet, then the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. And also: When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. The strait descent, again, may perhaps be referred by those who hold the doctrine of transmigration of souls to that view of things. And it is not incredible that the gates which are said to open spontaneously are referred obscurely by some to the words, Open to me the gates of righteousness, that I may go into them, and praise the Lord; this gate of the Lord, into it the righteous shall enter; and again, to what is said in the ninth psalm, You that lifts me up from the gates of death, that I may show forth all Your praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion. The Scripture further gives the name of gates of death to those sins which lead to destruction, as it terms, on the contrary, good actions the gates of Zion. So also the gates of righteousness, which is an equivalent expression to the gates of virtue, and these are ready to be opened to him who follows after virtuous pursuits. The subject of the tree of life will be more appropriately explained when we interpret the statements in the book of Genesis regarding the paradise planted by God. Celsus, moreover, has often mocked at the subject of a resurrection, - a doctrine which he did not comprehend; and on the present occasion, not satisfied with what he has formerly said, he adds, And there is said to be a resurrection of the flesh by means of the tree; not understanding, I think, the symbolic expression, that through the tree came death, and through the tree comes life, because death was in Adam, and life in Christ. He next scoffs at the tree, assailing it on two grounds, and saying, For this reason is the tree introduced, either because our teacher was nailed to a cross, or because he was a carpenter by trade; not observing that the tree of life is mentioned in the Mosaic writings, and being blind also to this, that in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter. 6.37. Celsus, moreover, thinks that we have invented this tree of life to give an allegorical meaning to the cross; and in consequence of his error upon this point, he adds: If he had happened to be cast down a precipice, or shoved into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, there would have been invented a precipice of life far beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality. And again: If the 'tree of life' were an invention, because he - Jesus - (is reported) to have been a carpenter, it would follow that if he had been a leather-cutter, something would have been said about holy leather; or had he been a stone-cutter, about a blessed stone; or if a worker in iron, about an iron of love. Now, who does not see at once the paltry nature of his charge, in thus calumniating men whom he professed to convert on the ground of their being deceived? And after these remarks, he goes on to speak in a way quite in harmony with the tone of those who have invented the fictions of lion-like, and ass-headed, and serpent-like ruling angels, and other similar absurdities, but which does not affect those who belong to the Church. of a truth, even a drunken old woman would be ashamed to chaunt or whisper to an infant, in order to lull him to sleep, any such fables as those have done who invented the beings with asses' heads, and the harangues, so to speak, which are delivered at each of the gates. But Celsus is not acquainted with the doctrines of the members of the Church, which very few have been able to comprehend, even of those who have devoted all their lives, in conformity with the command of Jesus, to the searching of the Scriptures, and have laboured to investigate the meaning of the sacred books, to a greater degree than Greek philosophers in their efforts to attain a so-called wisdom. 6.38. Our noble (friend), moreover, not satisfied with the objections which he has drawn from the diagram, desires, in order to strengthen his accusations against us, who have nothing in common with it, to introduce certain other charges, which he adduces from the same (heretics), but yet as if they were from a different source. His words are: And that is not the least of their marvels, for there are between the upper circles - those that are above the heavens - certain inscriptions of which they give the interpretation, and among others two words especially, 'a greater and a less,' which they refer to Father and Son. Now, in the diagram referred to, we found the greater and the lesser circle, upon the diameter of which was inscribed Father and Son; and between the greater circle (in which the lesser was contained) and another composed of two circles - the outer one of which was yellow, and the inner blue - a barrier inscribed in the shape of a hatchet. And above it, a short circle, close to the greater of the two former, having the inscription Love; and lower down, one touching the same circle, with the word Life. And on the second circle, which was intertwined with and included two other circles, another figure, like a rhomboid, (entitled) The foresight of wisdom. And within their point of common section was The nature of wisdom. And above their point of common section was a circle, on which was inscribed Knowledge; and lower down another, on which was the inscription, Understanding. We have introduced these matters into our reply to Celsus, to show to our readers that we know better than he, and not by mere report, those things, even although we also disapprove of them. Moreover, if those who pride themselves upon such matters profess also a kind of magic and sorcery - which, in their opinion, is the summit of wisdom - we, on the other hand, make no affirmation about it, seeing we never have discovered anything of the kind. Let Celsus, however, who has been already often convicted of false witness and irrational accusations, see whether he is not guilty of falsehood in these also, or whether he has not extracted and introduced into his treatise, statements taken from the writings of those who are foreigners and strangers to our Christian faith. 6.53. In the next place, mixing up together various heresies, and not observing that some statements are the utterances of one heretical sect, and others of a different one, he brings forward the objections which we raised against Marcion. And, probably, having heard them from some paltry and ignorant individuals, he assails the very arguments which combat them, but not in a way that shows much intelligence. Quoting then our arguments against Marcion, and not observing that it is against Marcion that he is speaking, he asks: Why does he send secretly, and destroy the works which he has created? Why does he secretly employ force, and persuasion, and deceit? Why does he allure those who, as you assert, have been condemned or accused by him, and carry them away like a slave-dealer? Why does he teach them to steal away from their Lord? Why to flee from their father? Why does he claim them for himself against the father's will? Why does he profess to be the father of strange children? To these questions he subjoins the following remark, as if by way of expressing his surprise: Venerable, indeed, is the god who desires to be the father of those sinners who are condemned by another (god), and of the needy, and, as themselves say, of the very offscourings (of men), and who is unable to capture and punish his messenger, who escaped from him! After this, as if addressing us who acknowledge that this world is not the work of a different and strange god, he continues in the following strain: If these are his works, how is it that God created evil? And how is it that he cannot persuade and admonish (men)? And how is it that he repents on account of the ingratitude and wickedness of men? He finds fault, moreover, with his own handwork, and hates, and threatens, and destroys his own offspring? Whither can he transport them out of this world, which he himself has made? Now it does not appear to me that by these remarks he makes clear what evil is; and although there have been among the Greeks many sects who differ as to the nature of good and evil, he hastily concludes, as if it were a consequence of our maintaining that this world also is a work of the universal God, that in our judgment God is the author of evil. Let it be, however, regarding evil as it may - whether created by God or not - it nevertheless follows only as a result when you compare the principal design. And I am greatly surprised if the inference regarding God's authorship of evil, which he thinks follows from our maintaining that this world also is the work of the universal God, does not follow too from his own statements. For one might say to Celsus: If these are His works, how is it that God created evil? And how is it that He cannot persuade and admonish men? It is indeed the greatest error in reasoning to accuse those who are of different opinions of holding unsound doctrines, when the accuser himself is much more liable to the same charge with regard to his own. 6.74. After this he returns to the subject of Marcion's opinions (having already spoken frequently of them), and states some of them correctly, while others he has misunderstood; these, however, it is not necessary for us to answer or refute. Again, after this he brings forward the various arguments that may be urged on Marcion's behalf, and also against him, enumerating what the opinions are which exonerate him from the charges, and what expose him to them; and when he desires to support the statement which declares that Jesus has been the subject of prophecy - in order to found a charge against Marcion and his followers - he distinctly asks, How could he, who was punished in such a manner, be shown to be God's Son, unless these things had been predicted of him? He next proceeds to jest, and, as his custom is, to pour ridicule upon the subject, introducing two sons of God, one the son of the Creator, and the other the son of Marcion's God; and he portrays their single combats, saying that the Theomachies of the Fathers are like the battles between quails; or that the Fathers, becoming useless through age, and falling into their dotage do not meddle at all with one another, but leave their sons to fight it out. The remark which he made formerly we will turn against himself: What old woman would not be ashamed to lull a child to sleep with such stories as he has inserted in the work which he entitles A True Discourse? For when he ought seriously to apply himself to argument, he leaves serious argument aside, and betakes himself to jesting and buffoonery, imagining that he is writing mimes or scoffing verses; not observing that such a method of procedure defeats his purpose, which is to make us abandon Christianity and give in our adherence to his opinions, which, perhaps, had they been stated with some degree of gravity, would have appeared more likely to convince, whereas since he continues to ridicule, and scoff, and play the buffoon, we answer that it is because he has no argument of weight (for such he neither had, nor could understand) that he has betaken himself to such drivelling.
23. Plotinus, Enneads, 2.9 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

24. Epiphanius, Panarion, 33.3-33.7 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

25. Anon., Chaldean Oracles, 4, 3



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
abel Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
achamoth Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 80
aeons Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10, 141
alexandria Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
angels Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 171
anointing Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
anthropology Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 160, 162, 231
antichrist, heresiological theme Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 164
apelles, marcionite Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
arians Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 121
ascent literature, visionary/mystical Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
assent homologia Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
athanasius Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 121
athenagoras Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 149
baptism Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
baptismal ritual 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) 40
barbeloite, modern definitions Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
basilides Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573; Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 1015
bishop Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
bishops Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
bridal chamber Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 472
cain Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
catechumenate Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
celsus Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388; Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
choice will Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
christ Thomassen, Before Valentinus: The Gnostics of Irenaeus (2023) 169
christology Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 107
clement of alexandria Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
cognitive theory Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
colorbasus Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 120
compatibilism Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
contemplation Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
cosmic deity Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
cosmogony Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 102, 103
cosmology, cosmogony Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10, 231
creation, ex nihilo Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573
creation Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573
creator, creation Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
demiurge Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10; Thomassen, Before Valentinus: The Gnostics of Irenaeus (2023) 169
determinism Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
divine realm (fullness, pl¯erōma) Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 197
dyad Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
ebionites, the elder Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 164, 165
educated, erudite Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
ekklesia Thomassen, Before Valentinus: The Gnostics of Irenaeus (2023) 179
elder (presbyter) Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
ennoia Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
error (entity) Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
ethics Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 78
evil Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573
faith Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
fall, of sophia Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
father, the Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10
father Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
father of all Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 79
fire, intelligent Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
flora Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 233
formulas 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) 40
free will Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141, 162
gender Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 472
gnosis Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263; Stroumsa, Hidden Widsom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism (1996) 58
gnostic, gnosticism Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388, 573; Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
gnostic myth Osborne, Irenaeus of Lyons (2001) 268
gnosticism, heresiological reduction and simplification of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 166
gnosticism, succession and schools within Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 164, 165, 166
gnosticism Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 231; Stroumsa, Hidden Widsom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism (1996) 58
gnostics/gnosticism, on matter (ὕλη) Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
gnostics/gnosticism Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
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) 40; Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
god Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573
gods, valentinians on Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
good, the Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
groom Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
heaven Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
hellenistic judaism Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
heracleon Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 162
heresy, heretic 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) 40
heresy, heretics, heresiology Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
heresy, novelty of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 166
heretics {see also gnostics; marcionites) Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
hippolytus Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 98
hippolytus (soon after Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
honor Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 231
intellect, triad Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
irenaeus, heresiological innovations Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 164, 165, 166
irenaeus, sources of Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 9, 78, 79
irenaeus Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388, 573; Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 80, 98, 102, 103, 107, 120, 121; Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 160, 162, 231
irenaeus of lyon Stroumsa, Hidden Widsom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism (1996) 58
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) 40
james, (first) apocalypse of Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 80
jesus, passion of Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 80
jesus christ, savior, and son Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10
magic 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) 40
marcion, marcionites Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573
marcion Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 78; Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 1015; Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
marcosians Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
marcosians (followers of marcus the magician) Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 9
marcus magus Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 120
mark the magician Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 164, 165, 166
material humans/powers Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141, 160, 162
materialist Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 171
matter, sensible Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573
matter (material substance/existence) Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10, 231
matter (ὕλη), gnostics on Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
middle Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 79
mind Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 171
moderatus Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
monad Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
monism, monistic Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
monotheism Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
myth(ological), mythology Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 472
nag hammadi Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 472
name, magical 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) 40
name 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) 40
naukleros Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
navicularius Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
neoplatonism Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
neopythagoreanism Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
noetic triad Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
office, office holder Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
ophians, ophites Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
opinion Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
origen, generally Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 1015
origen, theology Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 1015
origen of alexandria Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
passion Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 171
passions emotions Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
paul, apostle Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 160, 162
paul Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 149, 171
platonism Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
platonizing sethians Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
pleroma Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573; Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10, 141; Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 171
pleromatology Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10
plotinus Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388, 573
pneumatic humans/powers Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 160, 162
polemics Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 231; Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 149
polytheism Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
porphyry Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
possessions, wealth Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
predestination (προόρισις), valentinians on Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
proairesis\u2003 Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
proc(u)lus (possibly two persons) Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
protology Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10
psychic humans/powers Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141, 160, 162
ptolemaeus Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 9, 78, 79, 197
ptolemy, followers of Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 102, 120, 121
ptolemy, valentinian Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
ptolemy Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 162
ptolemy (valentinian) Stroumsa, Hidden Widsom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism (1996) 58
ptolemy (valentinian, teacher of justin, apol. Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
religion of redemption Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
remembrance memory Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10
resurrection Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 149
resurrection of the body Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 149
rhetorical strategies, of ptolemaeus Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (2008) 79
rhodon Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
ritual Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 472
salvation/soteriology Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
savior jesus, christ, and son Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10, 141, 160, 162
schools Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
scriptures Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 149
secundus Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 120
self-determination free will Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
seth Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
sethians, sethianism Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
sethians Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573
shipowners Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
socially elevated Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (2003) 251
son jesus, christ, and savior Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
sophia, see also prunicus, wisdom, zoe Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
sophia Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 80, 98; Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 472; Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 171; Thomassen, Before Valentinus: The Gnostics of Irenaeus (2023) 169, 179
soul Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 171
spirit, tensile movement of Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
spirit (πνεῦμα), gnostics on Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
spiritual, spirituality' Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 472
spiritual body Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 171
stoic, stoicism Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
stoicism Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 141
succession, heretical succession Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 164, 165, 166
syzygies Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 98, 102, 103
tertullian Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573
transform Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 171
triad, chaldaean Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
tripartite tractate Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 107
valentinian(ism) Nissinen and Uro, Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008) 472
valentinian/valentinians Linjamaa, The Ethics of The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5): A Study of Determinism and Early Christian Philosophy of Ethics (2019) 10, 160, 162, 231
valentinian exposition Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 102, 103
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) 40
valentinians, valentinianism Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388, 573
valentinians/valentinus, on abel Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
valentinians/valentinus, on adam Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
valentinians/valentinus, on cain Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
valentinians/valentinus, on god Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
valentinians/valentinus, on predestination (προόρισις) Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
valentinians/valentinus, on seth Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
valentinians/valentinus, sophia (as an eon, s.v.) Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
valentinians/valentinus Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 187
valentinians Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 165, 166; Iricinschi et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 80, 98, 102, 103, 107, 120, 121; Seim and Okland, Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (2009) 171; Stroumsa, Hidden Widsom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism (1996) 58
valentinus, gnostic Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 1015
valentinus, valentinians Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 293
wisdom, character Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 573
withdrawal (contemplative) Corrigan and Rasimus, Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World (2013) 388
worship Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
yahweh, yhwh Novenson, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2020) 263
διαδοχή Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 166
διδασκαλεῖον Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 166
διορθωτής Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 164
μαθήτης Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 166
μυστικῶς Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 164
σχολή Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 165, 166
ἀπάνθισμα Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 165, 166