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, 1.31.2


nanI have also made a collection of their writings in which they advocate the abolition of the doings of Hystera. Moreover, they call this Hystera the creator of heaven and earth. They also hold, like Carpocrates, that men cannot be saved until they have gone through all kinds of experience. An angel, they maintain, attends them in every one of their sinful and abominable actions, and urges them to venture on audacity and incur pollution. Whatever may be the nature of the action, they declare that they do it in the name of the angel, saying, "O thou angel, I use thy work; O thou power, I accomplish thy operation !" And they maintain that this is "perfect knowledge," without shrinking to rush into such actions as it is not lawful even to name.


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

19 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 8.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

8.3. וַיְעַנְּךָ וַיַּרְעִבֶךָ וַיַּאֲכִלְךָ אֶת הַמָּן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַעְתָּ וְלֹא יָדְעוּן אֲבֹתֶיךָ לְמַעַן הוֹדִעֲךָ כִּי לֹא עַל־הַלֶּחֶם לְבַדּוֹ יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם כִּי עַל־כָּל־מוֹצָא פִי־יְהוָה יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם׃ 8.3. And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every thing that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 21.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

21.6. וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֲדֹנָיו אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֶל־הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ אֶל־הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת־אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם׃ 21.6. then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever."
3. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 6.1-6.11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

6.1. Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go tolaw before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 6.2. Don't youknow that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judgedby you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 6.3. Don't youknow that we will judge angels? How much more, things that pertain tothis life? 6.4. If then, you have to judge things pertaining to thislife, do you set them to judge who are of no account in the assembly? 6.5. I say this to move you to shame. Isn't there even one wise manamong you who would be able to decide between his brothers? 6.6. Butbrother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers! 6.7. Therefore it is already altogether a defect in you, that you havelawsuits one with another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather bedefrauded? 6.8. No, but you yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and thatagainst your brothers. 6.9. Or don't you know that the unrighteouswill not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither thesexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes,nor homosexuals 6.10. nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, norslanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God. 6.11. Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified.But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spiritof our God.
4. New Testament, Apocalypse, 2.14-2.15 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

2.14. But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to throw a stumbling block before the children of Israel , to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. 2.15. So you also have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans in the same way.
5. New Testament, Galatians, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

5.21. envyings,murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which Iforewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practicesuch things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
6. New Testament, Luke, 3.16 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

3.16. John answered them all, "I indeed baptize you with water, but he comes who is mightier than I, the latchet of whose sandals I am not worthy to loosen. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire
7. New Testament, Matthew, 3.11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

3.11. I indeed baptize you in water for repentance, but he who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
8. Anon., Tchacos 3 Gospel of Judas, 35.18, 44.4, 47.9, 48.22, 49.6, 51.8-51.14, 52.4-52.7, 52.9-52.11, 56.17-56.21 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

9. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 20 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

10. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, None (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

11. Tertullian, On Baptism, 1 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1. Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!
12. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

74a. רב פפא אמר במפותה ודברי הכל,אביי אמר ביכול להציל באחד מאבריו ורבי יונתן בן שאול היא דתניא רבי יונתן בן שאול אומר רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו ויכול להצילו באחד מאבריו ולא הציל נהרג עליו,מאי טעמא דרבי יונתן בן שאול דכתיב (שמות כא, כב) וכי ינצו אנשים (יחדו) וגו' וא"ר אלעזר במצות שבמיתה הכתוב מדבר דכתיב (שמות כא, כג) ואם אסון יהיה ונתתה נפש תחת נפש ואפ"ה אמר רחמנא ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש,אי אמרת בשלמא יכול להציל באחד מאבריו לא ניתן להצילו בנפשו היינו דמשכחת לה דיענש כגון שיכול להציל באחד מאבריו,אלא אי אמרת יכול להציל באחד מאבריו נמי ניתן להצילו בנפשו היכי משכחת לה דיענש,דילמא שאני הכא דמיתה לזה ותשלומין לזה,לא שנא דאמר רבא רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו ושיבר את הכלים בין של נרדף ובין של כל אדם פטור מאי טעמא מתחייב בנפשו הוא,ונרדף ששיבר את הכלים של רודף פטור של כל אדם חייב של רודף פטור שלא יהא ממונו חביב עליו מגופו של כל אדם חייב שמציל עצמו בממון חבירו,ורודף שהיה רודף אחר רודף להצילו ושיבר את הכלים בין של רודף בין של נרדף בין של כל אדם פטור ולא מן הדין שאם אי אתה אומר כן נמצא אין לך כל אדם שמציל את חבירו מיד הרודף:,אבל הרודף אחר בהמה: תניא רשב"י אומר העובד עבודת כוכבים ניתן להצילו בנפשו מק"ו ומה פגם הדיוט ניתן להצילו בנפשו פגם גבוה לא כל שכן וכי עונשין מן הדין קא סבר עונשין מן הדין,תניא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר המחלל את השבת ניתן להצילו בנפשו סבר לה כאבוה דאמר עונשין מן הדין ואתיא שבת בחילול חילול מעבודת כוכבים,א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק נימנו וגמרו בעליית בית נתזה בלוד כל עבירות שבתורה אם אומרין לאדם עבור ואל תהרג יעבור ואל יהרג חוץ מעבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים,ועבודת כוכבים לא והא תניא א"ר ישמעאל מנין שאם אמרו לו לאדם עבוד עבודת כוכבים ואל תהרג מנין שיעבוד ואל יהרג ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם,יכול אפילו בפרהסיא תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כב, לב) ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי,אינהו דאמור כר"א דתניא ר"א אומר (דברים ו, ה) ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך אם נאמר בכל נפשך למה נאמר בכל מאדך ואם נאמר בכל מאדך למה נאמר בכל נפשך,אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאדך,גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים כדרבי דתניא רבי אומר (דברים כב, כו) כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה וכי מה למדנו מרוצח,מעתה הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד מקיש רוצח לנערה המאורסה מה נערה המאורסה ניתן להצילו בנפשו אף רוצח ניתן להצילו בנפשו,ומקיש נערה המאורסה לרוצח מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור אף נערה המאורסה תהרג ואל תעבור,רוצח גופיה מנא לן סברא הוא דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבה ואמר ליה אמר לי מרי דוראי זיל קטליה לפלניא ואי לא קטלינא לך אמר ליה לקטלוך ולא תיקטול מי יימר דדמא דידך סומק טפי דילמא דמא דהוא גברא סומק טפי,כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שלא בשעת גזרת המלכות) אבל בשעת גזרת המלכות אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן אפי' שלא בשעת גזרת מלכות לא אמרו אלא בצינעא אבל בפרהסיא אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,מאי מצוה קלה אמר רבא בר רב יצחק אמר רב 74a. bRav Pappa says:The ruling of the mishna, which lists his sister among those for whom he must pay a fine, is stated bwith regard toa young woman who was bseduced, andin the case of seduction ball agreethat the woman is not saved at the cost of the seducer’s life, as the intercourse was consensual., bAbaye says:The ruling of the mishna is stated bwith regard toa young woman who was raped in a case bwhereone was bable to saveher by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs,so that it was not necessary to kill him in order to achieve her rescue, band it isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yonatan ben Shaul. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says:If ba pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, andone was bable to savethe pursued party without killing the pursuer, but instead by injuring him bin one of his limbs, but he did not save himin this manner and rather chose to kill him, bhe is executed on his accountas a murderer.,The Gemara explains: bWhat is the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul? As it is written: “If men striveand strike a woman with child, so that her fruit departs, and yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished, according to the demands that the woman’s husband makes on him; and he shall pay it as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). bAndconcerning this bRabbi Elazar says: The verse is speaking of striving to kill,where each man was trying to kill the other. The proof is bthat it is written: “But if any harm ensues, then you shall give life for life”(Exodus 21:23), and if there was no intention to kill, why should he be executed? bAnd even so, the Merciful One states: “And yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished,”teaching that he must pay the monetary value of the fetus to the woman’s husband., bGranted, if you saythat in a case where one is bable to savethe pursued party by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs, he may not savethe pursued party batthe cost of the pursuer’s blife,and if he killed the pursuer rather than injure him he is liable to receive the death penalty, bthat is how you findthe possibility bthatthe one who ultimately struck the woman bwould be punished.This would be in a case bwhere it was possible to savethe man under attack, i.e., one of the men who were fighting, by injuring the pursuer, i.e., the other man, who ultimately struck the woman, bin one of his limbs.In this case, the one who ultimately struck the woman was not subject to being killed. Therefore, he is subject to pay a fine., bBut if you saythat even if one is bable to savethe pursued party by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs, he can also save him atthe cost of the pursuer’s blife, how can you findthe possibility bthatthe one who ultimately struck the woman bwould be punished?When he was going to strike the other man, he was at risk of being killed, as anybody could have killed him at that time, and the ihalakhais that anybody who commits an act warranting death exempts himself from any monetary obligation ensuing from that act.,The Gemara tries to refute this reasoning: bPerhaps it is different here becausehis two liabilities are not on account of the same person; rather, his liability to be put to bdeath is on account of thisperson, the man with whom he fought, bwhilehis liability to give bpayment is on account of thatperson, the woman he ultimately struck. Consequently, he is liable to receive both punishments.,The Gemara rejects this distinction: There bis no difference. As Rava says:If ba pursuer was pursuing anotherto kill him, bandduring the course of the chase the pursuer bbroke vesselsbelonging beither to the person being pursued or to anyone else,he is bexemptfrom paying for the broken vessels. bWhat is the reasonfor this? The reason is that bhe is liable to be killed,since everyone is entitled to kill him in order to save the victim’s life, and one who commits an act rendering himself liable to be killed is exempt from any monetary obligation arising from that act, even if the payment were to be made to a person not connected to the act for which he is liable to be killed.,Rava continues: bAndif bthe pursuedparty bbroke vesselswhile fleeing from the pursuer, if those vessels bbelonged to the pursuer,the pursued party is bexempt.But if they bbelonged to anyoneelse, he is bliableto pay for them. The Gemara explains: If the vessels bbelonged to the pursuer,he is bexempt.The reason for this is bso that thepursuer’s bproperty should not be more precious tothe pursuer bthan hisown bbody.Were the one being pursued to cause the pursuer bodily harm, he would be exempt; all the more so when the pursued one breaks the pursuer’s vessels. And if the vessels belonged bto anyoneelse, he is bliable, as he saved himself atthe expense of banother’s property,and that other person should not have to suffer a loss on his account.,Rava continues: bButif one bpursuer was pursuinganother bpursuerin order bto save him,i.e., if he was trying to save the person being pursued by killing the pursuer, bandwhile doing so bhe broke vesselsbelonging beither to the pursuer or to the one being pursued, or to anyoneelse, he is bexemptfrom paying for them. The Gemara comments: This bis not bystrict blaw,as if one who saves himself at another’s expense is liable to pay for the damage, certainly one who saves another at the expense of a third party should bear similar liability. Rather, it is an ordice instituted by the Sages. This is bbecause if you do not saythat he is exempt, it will bbe found that no person will save another from a pursuer,as everyone will be afraid of becoming liable to pay for damage caused in the course of saving the pursued party.,§ The mishna teaches: bButwith regard to bone who pursues an animalto sodomize it, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at the cost of their lives. bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One whoseeks to bworship idols may be savedfrom transgressing batthe cost of bhis life.This is derived bthrough an ia fortiori /iinference: bIfto avoid bthe degradation of an ordinaryperson, such as in the case of a rapist who degrades his victim, bhe can be savedeven batthe cost of bhis life, all the more sois it bnotclear that one may kill the transgressor to avoid bthe degrading ofthe honor of bGodthrough the worship of idols? The Gemara asks: bBut doesthe court badminister punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference?The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai bmaintainsthat the court badministers punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference. /b, bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One whoseeks to bdesecrate Shabbat may be savedfrom transgressing even batthe cost of bhis life.The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar bholds in accordance withthe opinion of bhis father,Rabbi Shimon, bwho says:The court badministers punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference, andthe ihalakhawith regard to one who desecrates bShabbat is derived fromthe ihalakhawith regard to bidol worshipby way of a verbal analogy between the word b“desecration”mentioned in the context of Shabbat and the word b“desecration”mentioned in the context of idol worship.,§ The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. bRabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:The Sages who discussed this issue bcountedthe votes of those assembled band concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza inthe city of bLod:With regard to ballother btransgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgressthis prohibition band you will not be killed, he may transgressthat prohibition band not be killed,because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the ihalakhaconcerning all prohibitions bexcept forthose of bidol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed.Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.,The Gemara asks: bAndshould one bnottransgress the prohibition of bidol worshipto save his life? bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yishmael said: From whereis it derived bthat if a person is told: Worship idols and you will not be killed, from whereis it derived bthat he should worshipthe idol band not be killed? The verse states:“You shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a person shall do, band he shall live by them”(Leviticus 18:5), thereby teaching that the mitzvot were given to provide life, bbutthey were bnotgiven so bthatone will bdie due to theirobservance.,The ibaraitacontinues: One bmighthave thought that it is permitted to worship the idol in this circumstance beven in public,i.e., in the presence of many people. Therefore, bthe verse states: “Neither shall you profane My holy name; but I will be hallowedamong the children of Israel: I am the Lord Who sanctifies you” (Leviticus 22:32). Evidently, one is not required to allow himself to be killed so as not to transgress the prohibition of idol worship when in private; but in public he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress.,The Gemara answers: bThosein the upper story of the house of Nitza bstatedtheir opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer. As it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says:It is stated: b“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might”(Deuteronomy 6:5). bIf it is stated: “With all your soul,” why is italso bstated: “With all your might,”which indicates with all your material possessions? bAnd if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is italso bstated: “With all your soul”?One of these clauses seems to be superfluous.,Rather, this serves to teach that bif you have a person whose body is more precious to him than his property, it is therefore stated: “With all your soul.”That person must be willing to sacrifice even his life to sanctify God’s name. bAnd if you have a person whose property is more precious to him than his body, it is therefore stated: “With all your might.”That person must even be prepared to sacrifice all his property for the love of God. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one must allow himself to be killed rather than worship an idol.,From where is it derived that one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress the prohibition of bforbidden sexual relations andthe prohibition of bbloodshed?This is bin accordance withthe opinion bof RabbiYehuda HaNasi. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:With regard to the rape of a betrothed young woman it is written: “But you shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has committed no sin worthy of death; bfor as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him,so too with this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26). But why would the verse mention murder in this context? bBut what do we learnhere bfrom a murderer? /b, bNow,the mention of murder bcamein order bto teacha ihalakhaabout the betrothed young woman, band it turns outthat, in addition, bit derivesa ihalakhafrom that case. The Torah bjuxtaposesthe case of ba murderer tothe case of ba betrothed young womanto indicate that bjust asin the case of a betrothed young woman bone may save her atthe cost of the rapist’s blife, so too,in the case of ba murderer, one may savethe potential victim batthe cost of the murderer’s blife. /b, bAndconversely, the Torah bjuxtaposes a betrothed young woman to a murdererto indicate that bjust aswith regard to a potential bmurderer,the ihalakhais that if one was ordered to murder another, bhe must be killed and not transgressthe prohibition of bloodshed, bso too,with regard to ba betrothed young woman,if she is faced with rape, bshe must be killed and not transgressthe prohibition of forbidden sexual relations.,The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this ihalakhawith regard to ba murderer himself,that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: bIt isbased on blogical reasoningthat one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this ihalakha /i. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: bAswhen ba certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place,a local official, bsaid to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you,what shall I do? Rabba bsaid to him:It is preferable that bhe should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redderthan his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? bPerhaps that man’s blood is redder.This logical reasoning is the basis for the ihalakhathat one may not save his own life by killing another.,§ bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe saidthat bRabbi Yoḥasaid: The Sages btaughtthat one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger bonly when it is not a time ofreligious bpersecution. But in a time ofreligious bpersecution,when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, bevenif they issued a decree about ba minor mitzva, one must be killed and not transgress. /b, bWhen Ravin camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that bRabbi Yoḥa said: Even whenit is bnot a time ofreligious bpersecution,the Sages bsaidthat one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of mortal danger bonlywhen he was ordered to do so bin private. Butif he was ordered to commit a transgression bin public, evenif they threaten him with death if he does not transgress ba minor mitzva, he must be killed and not transgress. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is a minor mitzvafor this purpose? bRava bar Yitzḥak saysthat bRav says: /b
13. Nag Hammadi, On The Origin of The World, 103.17-103.21, 103.29-103.32, 104.3, 117.28, 127.7-127.17 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

14. Nag Hammadi, The Gospel of The Egyptians, 58.8-58.22 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

15. Nag Hammadi, The Hypostasis of The Archons, 95.6-95.20, 95.22-95.26, 95.31-95.34, 97.5-97.9 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

16. Origen, Against Celsus, 3.13, 6.24, 6.28, 6.30, 7.40 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.13. Now, if these arguments hold good, why should we not defend, in the same way, the existence of heresies in Christianity? And respecting these, Paul appears to me to speak in a very striking manner when he says, For there must be heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you. For as that man is approved in medicine who, on account of his experience in various (medical) heresies, and his honest examination of the majority of them, has selected the preferable system - and as the great proficient in philosophy is he who, after acquainting himself experimentally with the various views, has given in his adhesion to the best, - so I would say that the wisest Christian was he who had carefully studied the heresies both of Judaism and Christianity. Whereas he who finds fault with Christianity because of its heresies would find fault also with the teaching of Socrates, from whose school have issued many others of discordant views. Nay, the opinions of Plato might be chargeable with error, on account of Aristotle's having separated from his school, and founded a new one - on which subject we have remarked in the preceding book. But it appears to me that Celsus has become acquainted with certain heresies which do not possess even the name of Jesus in common with us. Perhaps he had heard of the sects called Ophites and Cainites, or some others of a similar nature, which had departed in all points from the teaching of Jesus. And yet surely this furnishes no ground for a charge against the Christian doctrine. 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. 6.28. 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. 6.30. 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. 7.40. Next to the remarks of Celsus on which we have already commented, come others which he addresses to all Christians, but which, if applicable to any, ought to be addressed to persons whose doctrines differ entirely from those taught by Jesus. For it is the Ophians who, as we have before shown, have utterly renounced Jesus, and perhaps some others of similar opinions who are the impostors and jugglers, leading men away to idols and phantoms; and it is they who with miserable pains learn off the names of the heavenly doorkeepers. These words are therefore quite inappropriate as addressed to Christians: If you seek one to be your guide along this way, you must shun all deceivers and jugglers, who will introduce you to phantoms. And, as though quite unaware that these impostors entirely agree with him, and are not behind him in speaking ill of Jesus and His religion, he thus continues, confounding us with them: otherwise you will be acting the most ridiculous part, if, while you pronounce imprecations upon those other recognised gods, treating them as idols, you yet do homage to a more wretched idol than any of these, which indeed is not even an idol or a phantom, but a dead man, and you seek a father like to himself. That he is ignorant of the wide difference between our opinions and those of the inventors of these fables, and that he imagines the charges which he makes against them applicable to us, is evident from the following passage: For the sake of such a monstrous delusion, and in support of those wonderful advisers, and those wonderful words which you address to the lion, to the amphibious creature, to the creature in the form of an ass, and to others, for the sake of those divine doorkeepers whose names you commit to memory with such pains, in such a cause as this you suffer cruel tortures, and perish at the stake. Surely, then, he is unaware that none of those who regard beings in the form of an ass, a lion, or an amphibious animal, as the doorkeepers or guides on the way to heaven, ever expose themselves to death in defense of that which they think the truth. That excess of zeal, if it may be so called, which leads us for the sake of religion to submit to every kind of death, and to perish at the stake, is ascribed by Celsus to those who endure no such sufferings; and he reproaches us who suffer crucifixion for our faith, with believing in fabulous creatures - in the lion, the amphibious animal, and other such monsters. If we reject all these fables, it is not out of deference to Celsus, for we have never at any time held any such fancies; but it is in accordance with the teaching of Jesus that we oppose all such notions, and will not allow to Michael, or to any others that have been referred to, a form and figure of that sort.
17. Epiphanius, Panarion, 38.1.5 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

18. Theodoret of Cyrus, Compendium Against Heresies, 1.14-1.15 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

19. Pseudo-Tertullian, Adversus Omnes Haereses, 1.5, 2.1-2.6



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
abel Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119
adam Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15, 254
adamas Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
angel Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
angels, heavenly mansion of Scopello, The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas (2008) 191
aramaic Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119
archon Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15, 254
aristotelianism, as school Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
authorities, archons, rulers Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 238
autogenes Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
baptism Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
barbelo Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15; Thomassen, Before Valentinus: The Gnostics of Irenaeus (2023) 29
basilides Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129, 173; Osborne, Irenaeus of Lyons (2001) 240; Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 238
betrayal of jesus, judass motivation and knowledge Scopello, The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas (2008) 191
blasphemy, heresy as Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
cain Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119; Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14, 238
cainites Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119; Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14, 15, 238; Scopello, The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas (2008) 191
carpocrates and carpocratians Osborne, Irenaeus of Lyons (2001) 240
carpocratians Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129, 132
celsus Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
christ, see also jesus Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 238
christians Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119
christology, sophia/wisdom Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14
church, humanitys maturation in Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
church, ministry of scripture Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
creation Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119
crucifixion Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 238
ebionites Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
encratites Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129, 173
ennoia Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 238, 254
epicureanism, heresy assimilated to Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 132
ethics Osborne, Irenaeus of Lyons (2001) 240
eve Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
gate Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
gnostic/gnosticism Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119
gnosticism, orthodox criticism of morality of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129, 131, 132
gnosticism, succession and schools within Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
god, economic work Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
hebrew (language) Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119
heracleon (gnostic) Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128
heresy, exclusion of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 131
heresy, novelty of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
heresy Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119
hermeneutical principles Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
holy spirit, agency of Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
humanity, death Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
humanity, immortality Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
humanity, nature Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
humanity, nourishment Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
ialdabaoth Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254; Thomassen, Before Valentinus: The Gnostics of Irenaeus (2023) 29
invisible spirit Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
irenaeus, heresiological innovations Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
irenaeus, on heresy and paganism Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129, 131, 132
irenaeus, polemical milieu of Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
israel Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119
jesus, sabaoth Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
jesus, see also christ Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14, 238
jesus, soul Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
jewish succession, orthodox borrowings from jewish heresiology Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 131
judas, motivation and knowledge in actions Scopello, The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas (2008) 191
judas Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14, 238
knowledge Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 238
knowledge and wisdom Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
law, the Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 131
law Osborne, Irenaeus of Lyons (2001) 240; Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 238
libertine Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
libertinism/license Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129, 131, 132, 173
life, sophia Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
life Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
light, adam of light Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
light Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14, 254
magi, as part of heretical succession Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
marcion Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128; Osborne, Irenaeus of Lyons (2001) 240
marcus Osborne, Irenaeus of Lyons (2001) 240
mark the magician Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 131, 132
marriage, heretical contempt for Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
marriage, heretical promiscuity regarding Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129
martyrdom Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 131, 132
nebro, nebr(o)uel Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
ophites, the diagram Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
orthodoxy, purity of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 131
paganism, heresy assimilated to Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129, 131, 132
paradise, nourishment in Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
participation Osborne, Irenaeus of Lyons (2001) 240
password Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
philosophy, assimilation of heresy to Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 132
philosophy, history of Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
pistis (sophia) Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
proselyte/proselytism Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119
protarchon Thomassen, Before Valentinus: The Gnostics of Irenaeus (2023) 29
reincarnation Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14
repentance adonaios, sabaoth Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
sabaoth Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
sacrifice' Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 119
saklas Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
salvation/soteriology Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 238, 254
saturninus Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
scriptures, as nourishment Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
serpent, agent of god Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
serpent, sophia Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14, 15
seth, person Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15, 254
seth, seed of Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
sethian gnosticism, and gospel Scopello, The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas (2008) 191
sethians, sethianism Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14, 15, 238, 254
simon, of cyrene Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 238
simon of samaria, as source of all heresy Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
sodom, sodomites Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14
sophia, see also prunicus, wisdom, zoe Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14, 15
sophia prounikos Thomassen, Before Valentinus: The Gnostics of Irenaeus (2023) 29
soul, individual Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14, 15
spirit, divine Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
spiritual Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
succession, heretical succession Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
tartarus Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
tatian Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173; Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
theriomorphism Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 15
tree of knowledge, goodness of Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
tree of knowledge, scripture and Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (2022) 128
valentinians Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129, 132, 173
valentinus, valentinians Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14
water, baptismal/ritual Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
water, primeval Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
wisdom, christology Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14
womb Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 14
zoe, zoe-eve Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (2009) 254
διαδοχή Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 173
εἰδωλόθυτον Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129, 132
ἀδεῶς Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129
ἀδιαφόρως Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries (2022) 128, 129