Philosophumena; or The Refutation of All Heresies (Vol. 2 of 2), by Hippolytus

[18] τὸν μέσον αὐτῶν γέννημα κοινὸν ... τῶν ἐν μεσότητι Σωτῆρα πάντων. Cruice, whom Macmahon follows, would translate “a common fruit, a mediator ... the Saviour of all those who are in meditation”; but I cannot make the sense out of the Greek. Miller, by transferring the word Μαρίας to a place after μεσότητι, would make it read “through the interposition of Mary.”

[19] κεκοσμημένων, perhaps “set in order or arranged.”

[20] Μονογενής. One of the very few instances in Gnostic literature, where the word can be thus translated rather than as “one of a kind,” or Unique. The explanation in parenthesis shows that it is so intended here, but is probably of a late date.

[21] πῆξιν, “fixedness.”

[22] So the part of the Pistis Sophia which is most plainly Valentinian, has constant allusions to τριδυναμεις or triple powers.

[23] χαρακτῆρας, “impresses” or “marks.”

[24] ἄφθονον, “devoid of envy.”

[25] Στερεώσας οὖν κάτωθεν, καὶ διεχώρισεν ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτός. Firmamentum igitur quum ab imo confirmasset, divisit per medium tenebras et per medium lucem. Macmahon follows Cruice, but ignores the repeated ἀνὰ μέσον.

[26] Cf. Gen. 1. 4-7.

[27] ἐκτύπωμα.

[29] See supra, Vol. I. p. 128, for this fiery God, there called the Demiurge Jaldabaoth.

[30] A pun on βάτος, “bush,” and βατός, “passable.”

[31] ἀνυπόστατος, “not hypostatized.” Cruice has “non subsistens.”

[32] This seems the only construction, unless we are to consider that it is the Demiurge who wilfully ill-treats the souls.

[33] ἀποψυχεῖσαι. A common pun between ψυχή, “soul,” and ψῦχος, “cold.”

[34] Not in the Canon. As Cruice points out, it is from some apocryphal book which puts it into the mouth of Job’s wife and adds it to Job ii. 9. It is also met with in St. Chrysostom’s homily, de Statuis.

[35] Matt. xi. 14, 15.

[36] This doctrine of transmigration cannot be shown to have formed part of Valentinus’ own teaching. It appears, however, among some of his followers. Cf. Forerunners, II, cc. 9, 10.

[37] A pun on φθαρτοί, “mortals,” and φθορά, “corruption.”

[38] εἰς τὸν (δέκατον) κόσμον. Cruice would omit the δέκατον. It clearly, however, means the world of the Decad, Jesus having come down from the “most excellent Ogdoad.”

[39] Evidently Hippolytus has not here any book or writing of a particular author before him, but is giving the opinion of the sect generally.

[40] Εὐηγγελίσατο. Cf. the ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις which follows.

[41] John iii. 5, 6. The Greek text omits ὅτι, “because.”

[42] οἰκεῖος, “peculiar to.”

[43] This is markedly Valentinian. The Ogdoad is of course the Highest Heaven, the Decad the middle one. See n. on p. 31 supra.

[44] He here puns again on δοκεῖν, “to seem,” and δοκός, “beam.”

[45] The source of this chapter can hardly have been a written book or MS. The style is distinctly that of Hippolytus himself; the passion for plays on words which he has before exhibited, but has kept under restraint while quoting from serious writers like Basilides and Valentinus, here resumes its sway; and he adds to it a fancy for putting several nominatives in apposition without the τουτέστι which he has heretofore generally employed. This, and the nature of the rhetoric all go to show that he is here quoting not from a written, but from a spoken discourse. The author of this is of course unknown to us; and Hippolytus, who may very likely have forgotten his name, gives us no clue to his identity; but it is fairly clear that he must have been a follower of Valentinus. The Three Aeons who went forth from the first ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων correspond to the Nous, Logos and Anthropos who rule over the Valentinian Ogdoad, Decad and Dodecad, and the care taken to bring the number of Aeons up to thirty practically settles this, while the existence of Horos is hinted at, and that of the Sophia is barred only by the attribution of both sexes to all the Aeons. Perhaps, however, the most striking proof of Valentinianism is the myth of all the Aeons coalescing to produce the Jesus who brings salvation, a myth which is not to be found in any other system. If the theory be accepted that Hippolytus’ source for the chapter was a Valentinian sermon, the name of Julius Cassianus as its author deserves consideration. He is described by Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, 13, sqq.) as the founder of Docetism, and as connected with the school of Valentinus, while certain Logia quoted by him appear also in the Valentinian Excerpta Theodoti. For other particulars about him see D.C.B., s.nn. “Cassianus” and “Docetism.”

[46] This “Monoimus Arabs” is known to no other heresiologist save Theodoret who here as elsewhere probably copied from Hippolytus. Salmon (D.C.B., s.n. “Monoimus”) suggests that the name may cover the Jewish appellation of Menahem, which is not unlikely. His system as here disclosed has this in common with that of the Ophites or Naassenes of Book V that both begin with a Divine Being called “Man” for no other assigned reason than that his manifestation here below is known as the Son of Man. He is not, however, here called Adamas as with the Naassenes, and the remark about his being at once father and mother is not necessarily connected with the Naassene hymn quoted on p. 140 Cr. For the rest, there is, pace Salmon, nothing distinctly Christian about Monoimus’ doctrine, and although the passage from Colossians about the Pleroma dwelling in the Son of Man is here again introduced, the context makes it possible that this is the comment of Hippolytus rather than a direct quotation. On the other hand, Monoimus several times speaks slightingly of those who believe that the Son of Man was born of a woman, and he shows a reverence for the Law and the Passover which a Christian of the second century would hardly have exhibited. His opinions seem in fact to be more pantheistic than Christian or Judaic, although as Macmahon truly remarks, his similes about the Creation are not far removed from those of Philo. His remarks about numbers have possibly been corrupted in the copy, and are unintelligible as they stand; but it is not unlikely that they cover some early Cabalistic notions and that his “Perfect Man” may be the Adam Cadmon of the Cabala.

[47] γεγένηται μακράν, longe abest, Cruice, “was far removed,” Macm.

[48] This line does not occur in our editions of Homer. It is apparently a conflation of the statement in Il., XIV 201 that Oceanus is the “Father of the Gods” and that in l. 246 that he is the “Father of them all.”

[49] Ἦν καὶ ἐγένετο. This has been thought a quotation from St. John’s opening chapter, but the parallel is not very close. As Salmon (art. cit.) points out, it signifies Being and Becoming.

[50] πρὸς ἑαυτήν.

[51] The Naassene hymn in Vol. I, p. 120 supra runs: “From thee comes father and through thee mother, two immortal names, parents of Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, man of mighty name!” It is quite possible that Hippolytus, remembering this, is merely here repeating part of it as comment and without attributing the quotation to Monoimus.

[52] Cruice points out that this κεραία or tittle is the acute accent placed over a letter of the Greek alphabet which converts it into a numeral. Thus, ι = Iota, ί = 10.

[53] Cf. Col. i. 19, “For it pleased (the Father) that in Him the whole fulness should dwell.”

[54] Salmon (art. cit.) points out that this is “at first sight mere pantheism.” It is difficult to put any other construction upon it.

[55] These six powers have been compared to Simon Magus’ six “Roots,” which Simon also connects with the six Days of Creation. Cf. p. 252 Cr.

[56] Exod. vii. 20; viii. 16.

[57] σχηματίζει. Macm. translates “shape.”

[58] δεκάπληγος. Qy. δεκάπληγμος? The word is apparently dragged in for the sake of making a pun with πληγή, “a stroke.” Πληγμός is a medical term for a seizure or apoplectic stroke, and probably has the same root.

[60] δεκάπληγος καὶ δεκάλογος.

[61] Salmon (art. cit.) thinks this may have some connection with the Quartodeciman heresy mentioned later in the book.

[62] So Cruice, in omnibus istis creaturam sine fermento mundi, but I see no meaning in the words.

[64] These are the “accidents” of substance which Hippolytus has attributed in Book VI to Pythagoras, and in Book VII to Aristotle. See pp. 21 and 64 supra. According to Book VI (ubi cit.) the [Neo-] Pythagoreans also used the image of the tittle.

[65] Probably some follower of Monoimus, but not otherwise known.

[66] So the Codex. Duncker and Cruice would both read σεαυτῷ, “for thyself.”

[67] Of the source of this chapter little can be said. Both the statements in the earlier part of the text and the letter to Theophrastus bear internal marks of having been taken from real documents. They contain also some peculiarities of diction and construction, which would be quite consistent with their author being an Oriental imperfectly acquainted with Greek.

[68] This short notice of Tatian is condensed from the almost equally short notice of Irenæus (I, xxviii.), who seems to connect Tatian with the sect of Encratites. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., I, xvi.), while mentioning him as a pupil of Justin, does not speak of him as a heretic. Epiphanius (Haer., XLVI) follows Irenæus, and Theodoret (Haer. Fab., I, xx.), Hippolytus.

[69] Of this Hermogenes we know already from Tertullian’s tract against him to be found in the second volume of Oehler’s edition of Tertullian’s works. The date of this tract is said on good authority to be 206 or 207 A.D., and as it speaks of Hermogenes as then living, gives us his approximate date also. It is further said that he was a painter, probably of mythological subjects, that he lived at Carthage, and that he was several times married. Clement of Alexandria also mentions him, and it is suggested that both Tertullian and Clement drew from a tract against him said by Eusebius to have been written by Theophilus of Antioch. The heretical tenets with which he is charged are his contention that God could not have created the world from nothing and that Matter must therefore be co-existent with Him, that Christ on His Ascension left His body in the Sun, and that Adam was not saved. The first of these Tertullian would derive from Stoic teaching, while he does not touch on the second, which is, however, recorded by Clement, nor on the third, which Irenæus (I, xxviii) attributes to the Encratites. It is probable, however, that all three may be derived from the Western Asian tradition, which later gave birth to Manichæism, of which therefore Hermogenes’ heresy may prove to have been a forecast.

[70] ὕλην ἄκοσμον, “unordered matter.”

[71] οὐσία, “substantia,” Cr. and Macm.

[72]Μαρτυρίᾳ δὲ χρῆται.

[73] Ps. xix. 4, 5, “set up his tabernacle in the Sun,” A. V.

[74] The probable source of this chapter has been dealt with in the note on previous page.

[75] This is, I think, the first mention of the Quartodecimans as heretics. Eusebius, who thinks that the schism on the point began in the reign of Commodus, treats them with great tenderness, and says (Hist. Eccl., cc. xxiii. and xxiv.), that “the Churches of all Asia” held their opinions, and that Irenæus himself pleaded their cause before Pope Victor. Epiphanius (Haer., XXX) says that they derived their origin from a mixture of the Phrygian and Quintillian or Priscillianist sects, probably confusing them with the Montanists.

[77] This heresy of the “Phrygians” is, of course, that generally called the Montanist, which seems to have broken out about the year 180. For some time it was not violently opposed by the orthodox, and Tertullian himself became a convert to it and probably died in its confession. Later it came to be looked upon as an enemy only one degree less prejudicial to the Catholic Church than Gnosticism, and therefore one to be stamped out by excommunication in pre-Constantinian times, and by persecution afterwards. Its tenets are sufficiently summarised in our text for a general understanding of them and their connection with later forms of Patripassianism; but any one wishing to go further into the subject is recommended to read Dr. Salmon’s able article on “Montanus” in D.C.B., which will give him all that is really known as to the sect and its tendencies. Its centre seems to have been always Asia Minor.

[78] ταῦτα τὰ γύναια. The phrase is Aristotelian. Cf. same word later on same page.

[79] χάρισμα.

[80] ξηροφαγίας καὶ ράφανοφαγίας. First phrase, “dry food.”

[81] There is no reason to believe that in what he says here Hippolytus is drawing from any written document. As the Montanists on being condemned by the rest of the Church appealed first to the Gallic Churches in which Hippolytus’ master Irenæus was a leading spirit, and later to the Church of Rome, all that he says about them must have been familiar to his hearers without referring to any earlier writers.

[82] Ἐγκρατῖται, from ἐγκρατεῖς, “the continent ones.” Many Gnostic sects, e. g. those of Saturninus and Marcion seem to have been called Encratites, the reason given by themselves for their abstinence being the malignity of matter. But it is plain from Hippolytus’ statement as to the orthodoxy in other matters of those he describes, that these were not Gnostics, but Catholics who practised asceticism inordinately. This is doubtless his reason for quoting St. Paul against them and for ignoring Irenæus’ statement that Tatian was their founder, that they taught a system of Aeons and denied the salvation of Adam. Bearing in mind that he thought the Docetae to be an independent sect, it seems probable that in this Book he intended to turn his back upon the Gnostics and to describe only the other sects with a closer resemblance to orthodox Judaism and Christianity. The whole work would thus form a roughly graduated scale extending from the undisguised heathenism of the Ophites to the purely theological errors of Callistus, the description of which seems designed to form the climax of the book. The fact that it was probably, as said in the Introduction, begun, laid aside, and then taken up again and finished, is sufficient to account for discrepancies like that involved in the concluding sentence of this Book.

[83] πεφυσιωμένοι. Cf. the Φυσιώσεις of 2 Cor. xii. 20.

[84] τῆς ὑγαινούσης διδασκαλίας. The N.T. substitutes πιστέως, “faith,” for “teaching,” and omits the adjective.

[85] 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, verbatim save as in last note.

[86] It follows from this that Hippolytus is indebted to no other writer than himself for the facts in this chapter.

[87] Νοαχιτῶν. The Codex has Νοχαϊτων.

[88] The Cainites are described by Irenæus (I, xxxi) as anterior to Valentinus. The Noachites are mentioned by no other writer. It is difficult to account for the remarks of Hippolytus about the Ophites in this passage in view of the fact that the greater part of Book V has been devoted to the doctrines of the “Naassenes”—a word which he evidently recognized as identical with “Ophites.” Unless we are to believe that Ὀφιτῶν is here a copyist’s error for the name of some other sect, we are almost compelled to accept the theory given in the Introduction, i. e. that the materials for Book V only came into Hippolytus’ hands after the rest of the book was written, and that their heresy was then suddenly pitchforked into the place in which we find it without due consideration of its accord with passages like the present. In that case the “seven Books before this” on p. 397 Cr. must originally have read “five,” unless we are to suppose that their place was occupied by the description of the Jewish sects later transferred to Book IX.