Also the archons were hidden and seen as Gods...

[Bernard Muller]

The Perathians knew about gJohn:

This, he [Peratae] says, is the great beginning respecting which Scripture has spoken. Concerning this, he says it has been declared: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God, all things were made by Him, and without Him was not one thing that was made. And what was formed in Him is life."

(Hippolytus, Against all Heresies, V, XI)

And they believed in a human & earthly Jesus as well:

This, he says, is the form of the servant, and this the necessity of the Word of God coming down into the womb of a virgin. But he says it is not sufficient that the Perfect Man, the Word, has entered into the womb of a virgin, and loosed the pangs which were in that darkness.

(Hippolytus, Against all Heresies, V, XIV)

The Sethians knew also about the gospels:

This is, he says, what has been spoken: "I came not to send peace on the earth, but a sword,"

(Hippolytus, Against all Heresies, V, XVI)

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

That great contradiction! Is not it?
The same person (H.) is putting on the Naasseni two contrasting features: being both pre-Christians and post-Christians!
Clearly he did so also with all those that, according to him, preceded Simon Magus (and therefore also Paul and Peter).

[Giuseppe]

A particularity of the hymn:

But since, to the best of our ability, we have explained the unknown Gnosis, it seemed expedient likewise to adduce the following point. This psalm of theirs has been composed, by which they seem to celebrate all the mysteries of the error (advanced by) them in a hymn

[Bernard Muller]

But if you put that hymn before the presumed time of Simon Magus - and you should do so, according to Hyppolitus - then that hymn fails to be historicist.

But Hippolytus did not say we should put that hymn before the presumed time of Simon Magus.

Actually, Hippolytus did not declare your list as being chronological:

The following are the contents of the fifth book of the Refutation of all Heresies: - What the assertions are of the Naasseni, who style themselves Gnostics, and that they advance those opinions which the Philosophers of the Greeks previously propounded, as well as those who have handed down mystical (rites), from (both of) whom the Naasseni taking occasion, have constructed their heresies.

And what are the tenets of the Perstae, and that their system is not framed by them out of the holy Scriptures, but from astrological art.

What is the doctrine of the Sethians, and that, purloining their theories from the wise men among the Greeks, they have patched together their own system out of shreds of opinion taken from Musaeus, and Linus, and Orpheus.

What are the tenets of Justinus, and that his system is framed By him, not out of the holy Scriptures, but from the detail of marvels furnished by Herodotus the historian.

ADDED: Actually, Simon Magus is not mentioned on that list. His only mention in book V comes at the last sentence of the book, Ch. XXIII, as such:

Let us then see what also Simon affirms.

Nothing to say that Simon came after Justinus and the Naasseni.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

To use the term "first" means to do chronology:

The priests, then, and champions of the system, have been first those who have been called Naasseni

"first" here means "prior Simon Magus".

[Bernard Muller]

A particularity of the hymn:

But since, to the best of our ability, we have explained the unknown Gnosis, it seemed expedient likewise to adduce the following point. This psalm of theirs has been composed, by which they seem to celebrate all the mysteries of the error (advanced by) them in a hymn

That hymn says Jesus, as pre-existent, descended (on earth) in order to reveal mysteries:

But Jesus said, Father, behold, A strife of ills across the earth Wanders from thy breath (of wrath); But bitter Chaos (man) seeks to shun, And knows not how to pass it through.

On this account, O Father, send me; Bearing seals, I shall descend; Through ages whole I'll sweep, All mysteries I'll unravel, And forms of Gods I'll show; And secrets of the saintly path, Styled "Gnosis," I'll impart.

This is consistent with gJohn and what I previouly quoted about Naasseni:

"All these qualities, however--rational, and psychical, and earthly--have, (the Naassene) says, retired and descended into one man simultaneously--Jesus, who was born of Mary."

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, V, I)

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

To use the term "first" means to do chronology:

The priests, then, and champions of the system, have been first those who have been called Naasseni

"first" here means "prior Simon Magus".

But according to:

In the remainder (of our work), the opportunity invites us to approach the treatment of our proposed subjects, and to begin from those who have presumed to celebrate a serpent, the originator of the error (in question), through certain expressions devised by the energy of his own (ingenuity). The priests, then, and champions of the system, have been first those who have been called Naasseni, being so denominated from the Hebrew language, for the serpent is called naas (in Hebrew).

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, V, I)

The Naasseni were first to celebrate the serpent. Nothing to do with Simon Magus.

Cordially, Bernard

[andrewcriddle]

We may have to distinguish between what Hippolytus thought and what actually happened.
IF Hippolytus regarded the Naassenes as earlier than Simon Magus, then this was probably because he regarded the teaching of the Naasenes (as described in book 5 of his work against heresies) as more primitive than the doctrines of Simon Magus as described in book 6 of his work against heresies. If so, then this is a very plausible argument. The problem is that the doctrines attributed to Simon Magus in book 6 of Hippolytus differ substantially from those attributed to him by other writers. These doctrines (the apophasis megale) are probably those of a 2nd century CE follower of Simon Magus. Even if the 2nd century apophasis megale is later than the Naassene teachings this would not make the Naassenes pre-Christian.

Andrew Criddle

[Giuseppe]

We may have to distinguish between what Hippolytus thought and what actually happened.
IF Hippolytus regarded the Naassenes as earlier than Simon Magus

Why ''IF'' ? It is already in evidence that Hyppolitus regarded the Naassenes as earlier than Simon Magus:

The priests, then, and champions of the system, have been first those who have been called Naasseni

We may have to distinguish between what Hippolytus thought and what actually happened.
IF Hippolytus regarded the Naassenes as earlier than Simon Magus, then this was probably because he regarded the teaching of the Naasenes (as described in book 5 of his work against heresies) as more primitive than the doctrines of Simon Magus as described in book 6 of his work against heresies. If so, then this is a very plausible argument. The problem is that the doctrines attributed to Simon Magus in book 6 of Hippolytus differ substantially from those attributed to him by other writers. These doctrines (the apophasis megale) are probably those of a 2nd century CE follower of Simon Magus. Even if the 2nd century apophasis megale is later than the Naassene teachings this would not make the Naassenes pre-Christian.

Andrew Criddle

I think that ALL the doctrines attributed (by Hyppolitus or by some other proto-catholic) to Simon Magus (or, for that matther, to the gnostic Justinus, the Perathians, the Sethians and the same Naasseni) are always probably those of a 2nd century CE follower of respectively Simon, Justinus, Perathians, Sethians and Naasseni. The same ''Simon Magus'' is probably an invention of Acts. ''Simon Magus'' is useful in this discussion only to realize that, by ''him'', Hyppolitus is meaning implicitly the so-called ''apostolic age'', the same time of Peter and Paul. What proves that the ''Naassen Hymn'' is pre-christian are two realized conditions conceded by Hyppolitus:

1) the fact that it is attributed to the Naasseni AND

2) the fact that the Naasseni are regarded as earlier than Simon Magus.

Both these two conditions are important, to make my case.

If, for example, Hyppolitus attributes to the heretic Justinus (himself described as earlier than Simon Magus) a book with Gospel references, then the fact alone that Justinus is considered earlier than Simon Magus is not useful at all (in order to prove that Justinus is pre-christian, even if a historical Justinus was really pre-christian). But when a hymn without historicist references to Jesus is attributed to a sect considered earlier than the apostolic age, then the probability becomes more great that that hymn is a pre-christian hymn mentioning a mythical Jesus.

To claim the contrary would require to prove only :
1) that that hymn is Gospel-based.

But this proof is very difficult. Therefore the more simple explanation is that the hymn is really old and effectively pre-christian.

[Giuseppe]

But according to:

In the remainder (of our work), the opportunity invites us to approach the treatment of our proposed subjects, and to begin from those who have presumed to celebrate a serpent, the originator of the error (in question), through certain expressions devised by the energy of his own (ingenuity). The priests, then, and champions of the system, have been first those who have been called Naasseni, being so denominated from the Hebrew language, for the serpent is called naas (in Hebrew).

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, V, I)

The Naasseni were first to celebrate the serpent. Nothing to do with Simon Magus.

Cordially, Bernard

"The following are the contents of the fifth book of the Refutation of all Heresies: What the assertions are of the Naasseni who style themselves Gnostics."

In the remainder (of our work), the opportunity invites us to approach the treatment of our proposed subjects, and to begin from those who have presumed to celebrate a serpent, the originator of the error (in question), through certain expressions devised by the energy of his own (ingenuity). The priests, then, and champions of the system, have been first those who have been called Naasseni, being so denominated from the Hebrew language, for the serpent is called naas (in Hebrew).

It would be a trivial tautology, for Hyppolitus, to say that the Naasseni were the first to adore the Serpent, ''because'' the name itself means ''Serpentists''.

Indeed, Hyppolitus is more clear shortly after when he gives the precise reason to consider ''first' the Naasseni:

Subsequently, however, they have styled themselves Gnostics, alleging that they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge. Now, from the system of these (speculators), many, detaching parts, have constructed a heresy which, though with several subdivisions, is essentially one, and they explain precisely the same (tenets); though conveyed under the guise of different opinions, as the following discussion, according as it progresses, will prove.

These Naassenes who called themselves Gnostics were the first in championship of the ''dogma'' (Gnosticism).

William Benjamin Smith is correct when he writes:

From this passage, in connection with others similar, I have inferred that Hyppolitus would represent the Naassenes, surnamed Gnostics, as the first Gnostics, from whom all other Gnostics sprung, the heresy having parted into many subdivisions. Is not the inference fair?

When Hyppolitus writes that ''from the system of these (speculators), many, detaching parts, have constructed a heresy which, though with several subdivisions, is essentially one'', he is denying, de facto, the traditional proto-catholic vulgata that ''Simon Magus, and he alone, was the Father of all the Heresies''.
The Naasseni were earlier than Simon Magus: this is a FACT for Hyppolitus (even if a Simon Magus never existed).