FOOTNOTES
[1] ἡ καινὴ ἐπιδημία. The book Elchesai, as will presently be seen, is said to have been revealed “in the third year of Trajan” and therefore long anterior to our text. Hippolytus, therefore, probably refers here to a recrudescence of the superstition connected therewith.
[2] This Noetus, whom Epiphanius (Haer., LVII) would make a native of Ephesus, possibly by confusion with the Praxeas against whom Tertullian wrote, was one of the first to teach the heresy called Patripassian, which made the Father as well as the Son to suffer on the Cross. His date is uncertain, but he was “not very long” dead when Hippolytus wrote (see Hippolytus’ Tractate against Noetus in Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Patr. II, p. 454), and the seeds of the heresy seem to have been sown in the time of Justin Martyr. It was undoubtedly Eastern in origin and passed in Rome chiefly under the name of Sabellius. Hippolytus was evidently its greatest opponent there, Zephyrinus and Callistus maintaining a more tolerant attitude towards it, until the last-named Pope was compelled to excommunicate Sabellius. See Salmon’s articles in D.C.B., s.n.n. “Noetus,” “Praxeas,” “Epigonus” and “Cleomenes,” and Mr. Hugh Pope’s article on “Monarchian” in Hastings’ Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.
[3] Theodoret (Haer. Fab., III, 3) would reverse this position and make Cleomenes Epigonus’ teacher and not his pupil. He has probably misread Hippolytus on this point, the later heresiologists frequently failing to distinguish the founders of any heresy from their successors.
[4] This is evidently the beginning of Hippolytus’ quarrel with the Primacy. Of Victor, Zephyrinus’ predecessor in the Roman Chair, he speaks well. Cf. p. 128 infra.
[5] Cf. 2 Peter ii. 22.
[6] δυσφημίας.
[7] ἐν τοῖς φιλοσοφουμένοις. The Codex has Φιλοσοφουμένους. He evidently refers to Book I, in which (Vol. I, p. 41) he has given a few words in the gnomic sayings of Heraclitus. The only other previous reference to them seems to be in Book V (Vol. I, p. 154 supra) where he calls Heraclitus one of the wisest of the Greeks and in Book VI (p. 4 supra) where he attributes Simon’s image of “a fiery God” not to Moses but to Heraclitus. If Cruice’s emendation holds good this shows that Book I was originally published separately and called “Philosophizings,” the rest of the work being known as the Elenchus or “Refutation.” Cf. Introduction supra. Bishop Wordsworth (St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome, London, 1880), gets over the difficulty by reading the passage ἐν τοὺς Φιλοσοφουμένους ἡμῖν, “in this our Philosophumena,” and this reading has been adopted in this translation.
[8] Cf. Stobaeus, Eclog. Phys., I, xlii.
[9] λόγον αἰῶνα.
[10] τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας, “listen to the argument.” Hippolytus had he written in English would doubtless have said “the Word,” but this has a different connotation in modern language.
[11] λόγος without the article.
[12] ἀπείροισιν ἐοίκασι πειρεώμενοι. It is very difficult to make sense of these words and both Cruice and Macmahon leave them untranslated.
[13] πεττεύων. Playing at tessera or draughts. Cr., tesseras jaciens, a game in which there was chance as well as skill like backgammon. Lucian, as Cruice notes, puts the same phrase into Heraclitus’ mouth.
[14] Some word missing here.
[15] κρείττων supplied from the next quoted sentence.
[16] The Codex has ὅσον ὄψις κ.τ.λ. Cruice substitutes ὅσων and translates Quaecumque visus ... capere possunt.
[17] Something probably omitted here also.
[18] ἕτερον.
[19] A screw. Also a staircase.
[20] ὀλέθριον, “destructive.”
[21] χρημοσύνη. Cr., Inopia, Macm., “Craving.”
[22] διακόσμησις. The making of a cosmos out of chaos or the Creation.
[23] So Clem. Alex., Strom., V, 1, makes Heraclitus predict the destruction of the world by fire. The same theory is attributed to the Stoics.
[24] It has not been thought well to delay the reader by attempting to puzzle out the meaning of Heraclitus whom the ancients themselves did not profess to understand. So far as can be seen the only likeness between his sayings and the teaching of Noetus and his successors was due to the love of paradox shown by both. The parallel between them that Hippolytus tries to draw is mainly forced upon him by his own theory that all heresy is derived from Greek philosophy.
[25] A pun on νοητός, the adjective, and Noetus, the proper name.
[26] Another pun between ἁιρουμένοι and αἵρεσις.
[27] The words in brackets supplied from the Summary in Book X.
[28] Ἀχώρητος, “that cannot be confined (in space),” or what we mean when we say that He is infinite.
[29] ἀκράτητος, “that cannot be dominated.” One would have expected the word ἀνίκητος; but as this was one of the honorific titles of the Emperor, it was doubtless altered for prudential reasons.
[30] Not “sovereignty” but the doctrine of One Source and Ruler of All. The phrase constantly recurs in the theology of the time, and the word Monarchian is applied to all heresies of the Noetian kind.
[31] There can be little doubt as to the source of this chapter. The quotations from Heraclitus are taken from some book of extracts, like the work of Diogenes Laertius, and much corrupted in the taking: the words put into the mouth of Noetus on the other hand are doubtless taken from some written note of the arraignment of Noetus before “the blessed presbyters” who expelled him from the Church as described in Hippolytus’ own tract against Noetus, mentioned in n. on p. 118 supra. In c. 3 of this, Hippolytus declares that Noetus made use of the same passages of Scripture as “Theodotus,” which explains the allusion in the Table of Contents, and he uses other phrases to be found in our text. As the whole controversy between himself and Callistus was doubtless familiar to his readers, there was therefore no reason for him to refer to any written document containing the opinion of Noetus or his successors.
[32] In this chapter, as has been said, Hippolytus discloses his chief reason for the publication or republication of the whole work. The controversy which raged round the evidence of schism in the Primitive Church which it affords has now died down, and we are therefore able to examine such evidence dispassionately. The suggestion that the Callistus here mentioned had been confused with another person has now been given up, and there is little doubt that Hippolytus’ adversary was the Pope of that name who presided over the Church of Rome between the primacies of Zephyrinus and Urbanus, this last being quickly succeeded by Pontianus. In estimating the worth of the story which Hippolytus here tells against him, the way has been cleared by the frank acceptance by contemporary Catholic writers such as Monsignor Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l’Église, Paris, t. I,) and Dom. Chapman (The Catholic Encyclopædia, New York, 1908, s.v. “Callistus”), of the view that the calumnies against Callistus here put forward, although much exaggerated and coloured, have a basis of fact. In this, they follow the line taken by the celebrated Dr. Döllinger at the first appearance of our text, and no modern scholar has yet been found to seriously controvert it. It therefore only remains to draw attention to the points in which Hippolytus has, in Dr. Döllinger’s opinion, garbled or added colour to the facts, and on the whole, it has seemed more satisfactory to do this in the footnotes than here. The references, except when otherwise stated, are to the English edition of Döllinger’s Hippolytus and Callistus, Edinburgh, 1876. Callistus’ primacy appears from several testimonies to have lasted from A.D. 218 to 223, when he was killed apparently in a riot.
[33] Zephyrinus appears to have been Pope from A.D. 202 to 218.
[34] τῳ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν παραινεῖσθαι. It is thought that this is a pluralis majestatis consequent on Hippolytus’ claim to be himself Bishop of Rome.
[35] The construction of the whole of this paragraph offers difficulty, and many emendations have been proposed in the text. The reading of Roeper has been mainly followed here, and the meaning is not doubtful.
[36] ἐν τῷ λαῷ, i. e. “the laity.”
[37] “Worshipper of two gods.” In Döllinger’s opinion (op. cit., p. 219) this accusation was well founded.
[38] ἀγαπητόν. Doubtless written sarcastically. Wordsworth, Cruice and Macmahon all attach the phrase to δοκεὶ and translate “seems good,” for which use of the word I can find no precedent.
[39] ἐμαρτύρησεν. A play on the double meaning of the word, which might be translated “he was martyred.” But Callistus had not been martyred when our text was written, nor was he even a confessor.
[40] Ἔπαρχος. Fuscianus was Prefect of the City from A.D. 188 to 193.
[41] Evidently the freedman of Marcus Aurelius whose inscription is to be found in C.I.L. 13040. Cf. de Rossi, Bull., 1866, p. 3, and Duchesne, Hist. ancienne, I, p. 294, n. 1.
[42] “Public Fishpool.” It was one of the fourteen Regiones of the city and the quarter of the money-dealers. The Latin name is here not translated, but written in Greek letters.
[43] ἐξαφανίσας. A similar word is used by Carpophorus in his address to Fuscianus later. Döllinger, op. cit., argues that this does not necessarily imply any criminality on Callistus’ part as he may have lost the money in an attempt to increase his master’s profit. See note on next page.
[44] οὐκ ἔλιπεν ὃς. Bunsen calls this “a rank Latinism.”
[45] Döllinger (op. cit., p. 109) draws attention to Carpophorus’ cruelty as shown by his condemnation of a fellow-Christian to the awful punishment of the treadmill.
[46] Portus Ostiensis or Ostia, the Port of Rome.
[47] Döllinger (op. cit., p. 110) argues that this was not suicide but an attempt to escape.
[48] εἰς πίστρινον, transliterated as before. The terrible nature of this punishment is well known. Cf. Darenberg and Saglio, Dict. des Antiq., s.h.v.
[49] Döllinger (op. cit., p. 110) thinks that he had lent it to the Jews, and that this accounts for the subsequent riot.
[50] See last note. In Döllinger’s opinion, he only went there to ask for his money.
[51] ἀφανίσας.
[52] Döllinger (ubi cit.) points out that Carpophorus’ speech throws further light on his character. Callistus was a Christian, as Hippolytus admits. Carpophorus’ anxiety to prevent his being sentenced is explained by the fear of losing Callistus’ services, sentence of penal servitude acting as manumission.
[53] Victor’s exact date is uncertain, but he probably succeeded Eleutherus as Pope in A.D. 189 and was himself succeeded by Zephyrinus in 202.
[54] τινὶ σπάδοντι πρεσβυτέρῳ. Some would translate “priest”; but the ordination of a eunuch would be contrary to the Canons.
[55] ἐπιτροπεύων.
[56] Döllinger (op. cit.) thinks there is no doubt from this that Callistus was both condemned and set free as a Christian.
[57] From this, from the intervention of the brethren with Carpophorus and from the favour shown to him by Hyacinthus, Döllinger (op. cit.) draws the conclusion that Callistus’ conduct up to this point must have seemed to the community unlucky rather than criminal.
[58] The famous cemetery in the Via Appia still bearing his name, where many of the early Popes are buried.
[59] ὑποκρίσει.
[61] i. e. imagining himself to be the lawful Pope.
[62] Evidently refers to Hippolytus’ charge of Sabellianism against him.
[63] γόης. Perhaps a juggler with words; but this sense is unusual.
[64] See note on p. 125 supra. Döllinger (op. cit., p. 219) thinks that Hippolytus separated the Logos from God, and suggests that Origen may have shared the error.
[65] Bishop Wordsworth (St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome, 1880, p. 87) would translate: “The Word is the Son and also the Father, being called by a different name, but that the indivisible Spirit is one.”
[66] Cf. John xiv. 11. The N.T. has πιστεύετε μοι, “Believe me” (imperative).
[67] Döllinger (op. cit., p. 216) says this is a correct statement of the Catholic position.
[68] Bunsen would read ἐκφυγών, [“thus] avoiding.” Cruice inserts οὕτω πως ἐλπίζων, “thus hoping to avoid.” Döllinger inserts ὥστε before ἐκφυγεῖν.
[69] If this Theodotus is, as seems probable, the Theodotus of Byzantium mentioned in Book VII (p. 390 Cr.), who was excommunicated by Victor, his heresy was, as Hippolytus himself records, Adoptianist, and his opinions must have been poles asunder from those of Callistus.
[70] Here as elsewhere throughout this chapter, Hippolytus assumes that he is the rightful head of the Catholic Church, and that Callistus and the more numerous party within it are only a “school.”
[71] συναγόμενος, “gathered in,” “a member of any other man’s congregation,” Wordsworth; ab alio fuerat seductus, Cruice, whom Macmahon follows.
[72] A logical term.
[73] εἰς κλήρους. Döllinger (op. cit., p. 140) points out that Lectors, acolyths, Ostiarii and sub-deacons were all included in the phrase ἐν κλήρῳ afterwards used, and that such persons were not forbidden to marry. Yet the context is against him, and there can be no doubt that Hippolytus intends to imply, whether with truth or not, that Callistus did not degrade even the superior clergy for marrying more than once.
[74] ἐν κλήρῳ.
[75] Rom. xiv. 4.
[76] Matt. xiii. 29.
[77] εἰς ὁμοίωμα.
[78] ἐλεύθερον, “a freed man”?
[79] Döllinger (op. cit., p. 158) suggests that this is a reference to the contubernium, or concubinage known to Roman Law, which the Church insisted on regarding as a lawful marriage. The case of Marcia mentioned above might be one in point, but it is to be noted that Hippolytus calls her παλλακὴ Κομόδου only.
[80] This practice of second baptism, which Hippolytus does not accuse Callistus of teaching, but of which he says that it was begun in his time, is apparently brought in here to connect this chapter with the next on the Elchesaites. Had such accusation any foundation, it would certainly have been known to Cyprian or Firmilian.
[81] No other author seems to have taken up this name, and the rest of the paragraph shows that it was Callistus’ party which was regarded as Catholic and Hippolytus’ as schismatic. As Hippolytus was writing of matters within his own knowledge and in some measure that of his readers, there is no reason to suppose that he drew his material from any written source; but it has been suggested that the facts in Callistus’ life that he here narrates may have been obtained vivâ voce from Carpophorus.
[82] This heresy of the Elchesaites was a very old one, and probably had its roots in the Babylonian religion some millennia before Christian times, ablution and exorcism being then considered one of the most effectual modes of removing the consequences of transgression. Prof. Brandt, of Amsterdam, who has paid much attention to the Mandæan religion which has affinities with it, in his monograph on the subject (Elchasai, Ein Religionstifter und sein Werk, Leipzig, 1912), thinks that Elchasai, a name which may mean something like “Power of the Sun,” was a real man who flourished in the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117), and founded in Syria an eclectic religion made up of the doctrines of Judaism and Christianity, mingled with the belief in the sovereign efficacy of baptism found among the Hemerobaptists, Mughtasila or “Washers,” who still exist. Thus, according to En-Nadîm (Flügel’s Mani, p. 340), these Mughtasila in the tenth century still reverenced as a prophet a certain Al-[H.]asih who seems to be our Elchasai, along with Moses, Christ, and Mohammed. It also appears that his successors sent out missionaries to the West, including doubtless the Alcibiades of our text. Origen, in his Homily on the 82nd Psalm, mentions having met with one of these who may have been Alcibiades himself. They seem to have obtained some success among the Ebionite and Essene communities on the shores of the Dead Sea, but the effort soon died out, and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., VI, 38) says that it was stifled almost at its birth. Epiphanius (Haer., XIX, 5; XXX, 17; and LIII, 1) mentions them in connection with the “heresies” of the Nazaræans, Ebionites and Sampsæans respectively, but like Theodoret does little but repeat Hippolytus’ statements.
[83] This book which is mentioned by all the writers who refer to Elchasai, doubtless began with the vision of the angel from whom he professed to receive his revelations.
[84] ἀπο Σηρῶν, Chinese? Or it may be a town called Serae.
[85] Brandt (op. cit., p. 42) thinks the word is Mandæan or Aramaic, and means “the Baptized,” i. e. the Mughtasila.
[86] These measurements, intended to show the enormous difference in size between the celestial powers and mankind, are peculiarly Jewish and are frequent in the Haggadah and Cabala.
[87] The Rman mile here meant was 142 yards less than ours. The schoenus was a measure of land used also by the Egyptians and Persians.
[88] i. e. as that of Callistus.
[89] Hippolytus’ motive in thus connecting Alcibiades’ visit with Callistus’ proceedings is obvious. There could be nothing in common in the re-baptizing of reconverted heretics of which he (probably erroneously) accuses his adversary, and the magical efficacy of the ablution prescribed by Alcibiades.
[90] ἐλέγξαντες.
[91] νόθος, “bastard.” Is this an allusion to the composite nature of the Elchesaite religion?
[92] All these phrases are so condensed as to make the conjectural restoration of important words necessary. It would seem that the author was here hurrying over his task.
[93] νόμου πολιτείαν. The Jewish Law is of course intended.
[94] Transmigration of souls does not appear to have entered into the conceptions of the Mandæans, Mughtasila, or any other sects with which Elchasai is known to have been connected; but Buddhist ideas seem to have made some way with the Dead Sea communities. Did Alcibiades draw this idea from them? If so this might explain the allusion to the Seres.
[95] ἐπίλογοι.
[96] The text puts both Holy Spirit and Angels of Prayer in the plural. Yet they must be singular, or the seven witnesses would be more than that number. Brandt (op. cit.) thinks many mistakes in this chapter are to be explained by a faulty translation from Aramaic into Greek. He also thinks that the mention of salt implies a sacrament celebrated with bread and salt, and that earth, as one of the five elements of Aristotle, should be substituted for the Earth as a pendant to which Heaven is thrown in. It is simpler to derive the spell from the ancient Babylonian religion in which Heaven and Earth are coupled for the purpose of conjuration.
[97] πνεῦμα διαφθορᾶς. Cruice and Macmahon both translate “spirit of destruction.” It evidently refers to rabies, and the authors of the spell seem to have known that mere contact with a rabid animal might produce infection.
[98] Both Miller and Duncker read προσευξάσθω, which has been adopted here as making better sense. Cruice reads προσδειξάσθω, “show himself unto.”
[99] εὐσεβεῖς. Often applied by the Jews of this time to those who observed their usages, but were not full proselytes.
[100] i. e. “on which they bear rule”—a well-known astrological phrase.
[101] i. e. “rises and sets with them.”
[102] This cannot mean that it is one of the days when the evil stars rule. Probably some words like “which God has chosen” are omitted.
[103] Did Alcibiades or Elchasai consider Trajan’s successful campaign against the Parthians a calamity?
[104] Ἄρκτων, lit., “of the Bears.” Thus Cruice. But it is probably another case of putting plurals for singulars.
[105] It is said that this is an unfulfilled prediction which fixes the date of Elchasai’s book. If, however, we take Trajan’s invasion of Parthia at A.D. 113, which seems the most likely date, the rebellion of the Jews in the Cyrenaica, Egypt and Cyprus broke out within the three years mentioned and raged until it was suppressed by Marcius Turbo and Lusius Quietus, about the end of 116. The book may therefore well be later than this.
[106] A possible allusion to Matt. vii. 6.
[107] For the reason of this omission see Introduction, supra.
[108] μηδὲ σιωπήσας, “when I have not kept silence about”—a roundabout phrase.
[109] This promise is fulfilled by the peroration of Book X. This shows the close connection between the Summary and the first nine Books, and proves that the author of Book X, if not Hippolytus himself, was at any rate some one who wished to be taken for him.
[110] The quotations in this chapter from the book of Elchasai were doubtless taken from a Greek translation of that work brought to Rome by Alcibiades.
[111] The reasons that probably influenced Hippolytus in writing this description of Jewish religion as a sequel to his Ninth Book are stated in the Introduction. It is for the most part extracted from Josephus, the order of the paragraphs following that adopted by him, and the words being in many cases the same. This has led Cruice to suggest that both are taken from a common source, which he takes to be a Christian writer of the first century. This is extremely unlikely, since Epiphanius, Porphyry and Pliny all quote Josephus directly; but it is probable that when he leaves Josephus, as he does after the account of the Sadducees, Hippolytus draws from the statements of some Jewish convert to Christianity of whom we know nothing. In this, the Messianic ideas of the Jews which brought about the great revolt under Bar Cochba are clearly set out, but it is curious that writing as he must have done long after the practical extermination of the Jewish nation by Hadrian, he should have made no allusion to it; and it may therefore well be that he preferred to condense here the statements which Justin Martyr puts into the mouth of Trypho, with which his own agree in almost every particular. This Ninth Book bears throughout the marks of haste or weariness, many of the sentences, except where he is manifestly using the work of another as model, being slurred over and difficult to construe grammatically. In one or two cases, he contradicts his own statements, as in the case of the Sadducees, making a subsequent correction by himself or the scribe necessary. See n. on p. 147 infra.
[112] οἱ φιλομαθεῖς. Here as elsewhere this seems to mean “the learned” simply.
[113] εἴδη, “species,” or “kinds.”
[114] ἕτεροι δὲ. Does he mean that all the rest of the Jews are Essenes? Throughout this Book the article is frequently omitted as in the title to this chapter. The rest of the section is almost verbatim from Josephus, de Bell Jud., II, 8, 2.
[115] τεκνυποιοῦνται, “make them their own children.”
[116] αἱρετιστῶν. A Latinism here used for the first time by Hippolytus.
[117] These two sections also are taken from Josephus, op. cit., II, 8, 3, 4.
[118] So is this. Cf. Josephus, op. cit., II, 8, 5.
[119] τῷ προεστῶτι. The president of the feast is evidently a different person from the official of the same name in § 20, or of the ἱερεύς or priest in § 21, supra.
[120] Words in ( ) inserted by Cruice from Josephus from whose § 6 this section is taken.