[145] Reading for ἀδινῇσιν ... πραπίδεσσιν, ἰδυιῄσι πραπίδεσσιν, as in Hom., Il., I, 608.
[146] Φύσις ἑκάστῳ, “the nature of each one”?
[147] Cf. ll. 313 sqq., Karsten, and 222 sqq., Stein. Schneidewin has restored the very bad text in Philologus, VI, 166. But the lines are still obscure—even for Empedocles. They seem to hint at a hidden meaning, to be got by study.
[148] κολοβοδάκτυλος. See Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology (Cambridge), March 1855, p. 87. The story of St. Mark cutting off his thumb to make himself ineligible for the priesthood is quoted by Cruice from St. Jerome.
[149] ἀντιπαράθεσιν, “the setting over against.”
[150] ὑπολαμβάνεις. Cr. and Macm. both translate, “as you suppose them to be.” But Marcion could have been in no doubt as to his own opinions.
[151] Marcion did not say that the Demiurge, whom he probably identified with the God of the Jews, was wicked. On the contrary, he said that he was just, though harsh. See Forerunners, II, xi.
[152] εὐαγγελίζῃ.
[153] Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, as quoted in Book VIII, p. 422 Cr.
[154] Reading τοὺς σεαυτοῦ μαθητάς for the τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητάς of the text.
[155] All this argument is a petitio principii of the most flagrant kind. There is nothing in the quotations here given from Empedocles to show that that philosopher made Love and Strife the two ἀρχαί of the universe, as Empedocles associates with them the four “elements” of Fire, Earth, Water and Air, and Ἀνάγκη or Fate seems, according to his teaching, to be superior to them all. The quotations prove, however, that Empedocles taught metempsychosis, unless Hippolytus is here confusing him with Pythagoras. Marcion did not, and the reason that he gave for abstinence from animal food is different from that attributed to Empedocles. The quotations themselves are much corrupted, and Hippolytus seems to have taken them from memory only, as he is careful to say that these are “something like this.” All of them appear in Karsten’s or Stein’s collections, which were made before the discovery of our text, and are, therefore, an argument against Salmon’s theory of forgery.
[156] καθαριωτάτη, “purest.”
[157] This Prepon, probably a Syrian, is mentioned by no other writer except Theodoret, who doubtless borrowed from our text. The “Bardesianes” was probably the famous Bardaisan or Ibn Daisan who taught at Edessa and was a follower of Valentinus. It is noteworthy that the Armenian author, Eznig of Goghp, gives a different account of Marcion’s teaching from any of the Western heresiologists and makes him admit the independent existence of a third principle in the shape of malignant matter. For this, see Forerunners, II, p. 217, n. 2.
[158] διαφερούσας, “differentiated”?
[159] ll. 338-341, Stein. Schneidewin has restored the lines as far as is possible.
[160] ὑπόπλασμα, “that which has been moulded.”
[161] Μεσίτης. Not intercessor, but something placed between two others.
[162] Not St. Paul, but Luke xvii. 19.
[163] There is no indication of the source from which Hippolytus drew the material for this chapter. It does not seem to have been the writings of Irenæus, for his remarks in I, xxv tell us even less about Marcion than our text. Possibly Hippolytus was here indebted to the work of Justin Martyr, which seems to have been extant in the time of Photius. With the exception of the notice of Prepon, our text contains nothing that was not known otherwise.
[164] This Carpocrates, whom Epiphanius calls Carpocras, seems to have been another of “the great Gnostics of Hadrian’s time,” and to have been learned in the Platonic philosophy. He is mentioned by all the heresiologists, but there is little that is distinctive about his tenets as they have come down to us, and his followers were probably few. They are accused by Irenæus, from whose chapter on the subject Hippolytus’ account is condensed, of a kind of Antinomianism having its origin in the contention that all actions are indifferent.
[165] μετὰ τοῦ ἀγενήτου Θεοῦ περιφορᾷ.
[166] χωρήσασαν can only apply to ψυχή. The return of the Power to the Deity could not be supposed to affect other souls.
[167] ὁμοίως.
[168] κατήργησε.
[169] τῆς ὑπερκειμένης ἐξουσίας. Cruice points out that these words have slipped into the text from the margin. Irenæus has ex eadem circumlatione devenientes, “descending from the same sphere,” which is doubtless correct.
[170] εἰς διαβολήν, probably a play on διάβολος.
[171] ἐν μιᾷ παρουσίᾳ, “in one appearance.”
[172] κατασκευάζουσι, “mould or cast.”
[173] This chapter is in effect a condensation of Irenæus I, xx, which it follows closely. Hippolytus omits mention of the obscenities attributed to the sect which are hinted at by Irenæus and described fully by Epiphanius. Irenæus also mentions that they claimed to get their doctrine from the secret teaching of Jesus to the Apostles, that one Marcellina taught their heresy in Rome under Pope Anicetus, and that the images of Christ were worshipped by them, more Gentilium, along with those of Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. Epiphanius derives the heresy from Simon Magus. It is suggested that the branding by which they knew each other was due to a “baptism by fire.”
[174] This chapter also is practically identical with Irenæus I, xxi, which is extant in the Latin version. Cerinthus was one of the earliest of the Gnostics and tradition makes him contemporary with St. John. He was probably a member of the Jewish-Alexandrian school of Philo, and Epiphanius (Haer. XXVIII) adds to Irenæus’ account that he taught in Asia, and especially in Galatia.
[175] αὐθεντίας, as before.
[176] κηρύξας, perhaps “preached.”
[177] Does this amount to an admission of the resurrection of the body? If so it is in marked contrast to the Docetism of Marcion and others.
[178] Ἐβιοναῖοι, Latin [Iren.] qui dicuntur Ebionæi, as if they were followers of a mythical leader Ebion. The existence of any founder of this name is now generally given up, and the word is more probably a mere transliteration of the Hebrew אביון, “poor.” The Ebionites were in all likelihood Judaizing Christians who had remained behind in Palestine through the wars of Titus and Hadrian, and still kept to the observance of the Mosaic Law. The brief statement in our text is probably derived from Hippolytus’ recollection of Irenæus, I, c. 21, the first sentence being in nearly the same words in both authors. Irenæus adds to it that they used the gospel of St. Matthew only and did not consider St. Paul as an apostle, because he did not keep the Law; also that they adored Jerusalem as the “house of God.”
[179] μυθεύουσιν, “fable.” Irenæus’ Latin version here inserts a non, evidently a clerical error.
[180] ποιήσαντα, Cruice, servare, Macm., “fulfilled.” In either case a curious meaning for ποιέω. Cf. the ποιέω τὴν μουσικήν of Plato, Phaedo, 60. E.
[181] In the accounts of the two Theodoti, which may here be taken together, Hippolytus leaves Irenæus, from whom he has hitherto been content to copy his account of the smaller heresies, and draws from some source not yet identified, but which may be the Little Labyrinth of Caius (see Salmon in D.C.B., s.v. “Theodotus.”). His description of the heresy of Theodotus of Byzantium corresponds with that of Eusebius (Eccl. Hist., V, 28). The Melchizedekian theory of the “other” Theodotus is mentioned by Philaster (c. 53, p. 54, Oehl.) without reference to Theodotus, although on the preceding page he has given the Byzantine heresy as in our text. Pseudo-Tertullian in Adv. Omn. Haer. (II, p. 764, Oehl.) gives the story of both Theodoti much as here, which may give support to the theory that this tract is a summary of the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus. Epiphanius (Haer. XXXIV, XXXV) divides the Melchizedekians from the Theodotians, and says the first were ἀποσπασθέντες from the second, but without naming the banker. He also gives some particulars about the first Theodotus, which he does not seem to have taken from Hippolytus. He quotes one Hierax as saying that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit, and says that “some” say that Heracles was his father and Astaroth or Asteria his mother, while Melchizedek plays a great part in the earliest part of the Pistis Sophia as the “Receiver of the Light.”
[182] ἀποσπάσας, lit., “torn away.”
[183] So that Hippolytus believed in the mythical founder of the Ebionites.
[184] εὐσεβέστατον.
[185] i. e. the heretics.
[186] γνῶμαι.
[187] Acts vi. 5.
[188] Rev. ii. 6.
[189] This Cerdo is only known to us as a predecessor of Marcion, whose teaching he appears to have influenced, although in what measure cannot now be ascertained. His date seems to be fairly well settled as about the year 135 (see D.C.B., s.h.v.), which is that of his coming to Rome, and it was doubtless here that Marcion met him. According to Irenæus, his teaching was mainly in secret and he was always ready to make submission to the Church and recant his errors when publicly arraigned. His doctrine, so far as it has come down to us, does not seem to differ from that of Marcion, Tertullian (adv. Marcion) and the tractate Adv. Omn. Haer. giving the best account of it. Of Lucian, we know nothing, save that, while Epiphanius (Haer. XLII, p. 688, Oehl.) makes him out the immediate successor of Marcion and to have been succeeded by Apelles, Tertullian (de Resurrectione, c. 2) speaks of him—if he be the person there referred to as Lucanus—as an independent teacher with no apparent connection with Marcion’s heresy. He adds that he taught a resurrection neither of the body nor of the soul, but of some part of man which he calls a “third nature.” See Forerunners, II, p. 218, n. 2, and 220.
[191] Of this Apelles, our knowledge is mainly derived from Tertullian, for references to whom see Hort’s article “Apelles” in D.C.B. He was certainly later than Marcion, for Rhodo (see Euseb., Hist. Eccl., V, c. 13), writing at the end of the second century, A.D., speaks of him as still alive, though an “old man.” The same author seems to consider that on Marcion’s death he founded a sect of his own, in which he “corrected” Marcion’s teaching in some particulars. This is doubtful, but Rhodo’s statements go to show that he quoted from the Old Testament and did not hold the body of Jesus to be a phantasm. Tertullian also mentions several times the connection of Apelles with the “possessed” Philumene, on which he puts a construction negatived by the evidence of Rhodo. Cf. Forerunners, II, pp. 218-220.
[192] Hippolytus here accepts the statement of Tertullian (de Præscript., c. 30) that Apelles wrote a book called Φανερώσεις, or Manifestations, containing the prophecies of Philumene. He repeats this with more distinctness in Book X, c. 20, q. v.
[193] ἄσαρκον.
[194] οὐσία.
[195] ἀνασκολοπισθέντα, lit., “impaled.” It is, however, used by both Philo and Lucian as equivalent to “crucified.”
[196] This “giving back” of the component parts of man’s being to the different powers from which they are derived is a frequent theme among the later Gnostics, and is fully described in the Pistis Sophia. Cf. Forerunners, II, p. 184.
[197] The source of this chapter is certainly the tractate Adv. Omn. Haer., formerly attributed to Tertullian and to be found in the second volume of that author’s works in Oehler’s edition. No other author mentions Apelles with such particularity, and all those subsequent to Tertullian appear to have taken their information either from Tertullian’s other works, from this tractate, or from our text. This tractate has been discussed in the Introduction (see Vol. I, pp. 12 and 23 supra) and perhaps all difficulties may be solved by supposing it to be, not indeed the actual Syntagma of Hippolytus, but a summary of it.