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

[Bernard Muller]

Somewhere Origen said that the "Ophites were NOT Christians and the more great enemies of Christ".

Origen would not acknowledge as Christians heretics even if they embraced some Christian tenets.
And if these Ophites were great enemies of Christ, they had to know about Christ & therefore Christianity.

But the Naassene Hymn proves that their not-Christianity was really a PRE-Christianity.

Even if you repeat that hundred of times, that will not make it true.

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.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04163.htm

Well, we know the Naassenes had a Jesus in their teachings.
And if the Ophites & Cainites were considered heretics (from a Christian's point of view), they had to have Christian stuff in their creed.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Philaster did the same mistake than you did: Think that the heretics in Hippolytus' Against All Heresies books V & VI were in chronological order. I proved it is not always the case: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2886&p=64302&hilit=ebionites# and Irenaeus and Pseudo-Tertullian put the Ophites after Simon's times.

For Irenaeus, Simon started Christian heresies. For Hippolytus, Naasseni stated Christian Gnosticism. No conflict here: Christian heresies is not synonymous of Christian Gnosticism. The former includes all the latter, but the latter does not include all the former.

Cordially, Bernard

I should explain again why it is not the case, and that Christian heresies is really synonymous of Gnosticism, AT LEAST according to Hyppolitus:

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). Subsequently, however, they have styled themselves Gnostics, alleging that they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge. Now, from the system of these (speculators) [NOTA BENE: the Naasseni], 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.

What follows chronologically from the Naasseni, even if in different forms, is only one heresy: the set of all the later heresies.

Origen would not acknowledge as Christians heretics even if they embraced some Christian tenets.

It is possible only a case for heretics who don't have even the name of Jesus: they are pre-christians, just as the Essenes are ''heretics'' for the only fact that they don't have nowhere the name of Jesus in their writings.

Well, we know the Naassenes had a Jesus in their teachings.
And if the Ophites & Cainites were considered heretics (from a Christian's point of view), they had to have Christian stuff in their creed.

you seem to ignore the contradiction: how can the same person be heretic (i.e., false Christian) and not be Christian (i.e., lacking the name of Jesus in their creed) ? The contradiction is resolved only if you assume that person as at all ignorant of Christianity (as preceding it) and yet as adoring already Jesus by some implicit form (and we identify that implicit form in the Naassene Hymn).

[Bernard Muller]

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). Subsequently, however, they have styled themselves Gnostics, alleging that they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge. Now, from the system of these (speculators) [NOTA BENE: the Naasseni], 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.

What follows chronologically from the Naasseni, even if in different forms, is only one heresy: the set of all the later heresies.

Hippolytus was talking here about the particular Gnostic heresy first started by the Naassenes. However, he did not indicate where ends the following discussion about the different aspects of this Gnostic heresy.
But because this Gnostic heresy features predominantly a serpent & an ensemble of similar Pagan legends, it included the Naassenes, the Perathians, the Sethians & Justinus but likely no others.
Justinus did not have a serpent but:

And in this manner he delivers the mysteries impiously discovered by himself, partly, according to the statements previously made, availing himself of the Hellenic legends, and partly of those pretended books which, to some extent, bear a resemblance to the foresaid heresies. For all, forced together by one spirit, are drawn into one profound abyss of pollution, inculcating the same tenets, and detailing the same legends, each after a different method. All those, however, style themselves Gnostics in this peculiar sense, that they alone themselves have imbibed the marvellous knowledge of the Perfect and Good (Being).

About having "serpent" in common:

These doctrines, then, the Naasseni attempt to establish, calling themselves Gnostics. But since the error is many-headed and diversified, resembling, in truth, the hydra that we read of in history; when, at one blow, we have struck off the heads of this (delusion) by means of refutation, employing the wand of truth, we shall entirely exterminate the monster. For neither do the remaining heresies present much difference of aspect from this, having a mutual connection through (the same) spirit of error. But since, altering the words and the names of the serpent, they wish that there should be many heads of the serpent, neither thus shall we fail thoroughly to refute them as they desire.

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, book V, ch. VI)

However Hippolytus did not indicate Simon Magus featured a serpent or had Pagan legends similar to those who textually precede him in book V. Therefore it is a different heresy. Furthermore Simon is said to have inspired (with Justinus) the (different) Gnostic heresy of Valentinus (and not others, such as the Naassenes):

Since, then, we have explained the attempts (at a system) of the pseudo-gnostic Justinus, it appears likewise expedient in the following books to elucidate the opinions put forward in heresies following (in the way of consequence upon the doctrines of Justinus), and to leave not a single one of these (speculators) unrefuted. Our refutation will be accomplished by adducing the assertions made by them; such (at least of their statements) as are sufficient for making a public example (of these heretics). (And we shall attain our purpose), even though there should only be condemned the secret and ineffable (mysteries) practised amongst them, into which, silly mortals that they are, scarcely (even) with considerable labour are they initiated. Let us then see what also Simon affirms.

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, book V, ch. XIII)

Of this hebdomad Simon and Valentinus, having altered the names, detailed marvellous stories, from thence hastily adopting a system for themselves. For Simon employs his denominations thus: Mind, Intelligence, Name, Voice, Ratiocination, Reflection; and He who stood, stands, will stand. And Valentinus (enumerates them thus): Mind, Truth, Word, Life, Man, Church, and the Father, reckoned along with these, according to the same principles as those advanced by the cultivators of arithmetical philosophy. And (heresiarchs) admiring, as if unknown to the multitude, (this philosophy, and) following it, have framed heterodox doctrines devised by themselves. ...
And respecting this there is an enlarged discussion, whence both Simon and Valentinus will be found both to have derived from this source starting-points for their opinions, and, though they may not acknowledge it, to be in the first instance liars, then heretics. Since, then, it appears that we have sufficiently explained these tenets likewise, and that all the reputed opinions of this earthly philosophy have been comprised in four books; it seems expedient to proceed to a consideration of the disciples of these men, nay rather, those who have furtively appropriated their doctrines.

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, book IV, ch. LI)

Note: In its recapitulation in book X, Hippolytus put Justinus textually after Valentinus: just to show, as I said before, that Hippolytus did not always put these heretics in chronological order.

Simon is not said to have derived his theories from the Naassenes, Perathians, Sethians and Justinus, either here or in book VI.

Origen would not acknowledge as Christians heretics even if they embraced some Christian tenets.

It is possible only a case for heretics who don't have even the name of Jesus: they are pre-christians, just as the Essenes are ''heretics'' for the only fact that they don't have nowhere the name of Jesus in their writings.

Well, we know the Naassenes had a Jesus in their teachings.
And if the Ophites & Cainites were considered heretics (from a Christian's point of view), they had to have Christian stuff in their creed.

you seem to ignore the contradiction: how can the same person be heretic (i.e., false Christian) and not be Christian (i.e., lacking the name of Jesus in their creed) ? The contradiction is resolved only if you assume that person as at all ignorant of Christianity (as preceding it) and yet as adoring already Jesus by some implicit form (and we identify that implicit form in the Naassene Hymn).

That does not mean these heretics did not have titles like "Christ", "Son of Man" with other links to the Christian Jesus and Christianity.
Certainly Hippolytus put them in the same bag as the other Christian heretics:

But even though there have been denominated certain other heresies--I mean those of the Cainites, Ophites, or Noachites, and of others of this description--I have not deemed it requisite to explain the things said or done by these, test on this account they may consider themselves somebody, or deserving of consideration.

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, book VIII, ch. XIII)

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Hippolytus was talking here about the particular Gnostic heresy first started by the Naassenes.

That is clearly false. That Gnostic heresy first started by the Naassenes is the same ''Hydra'' in his entirety, alluded shortly after by Hyppolitus. Therefore it is not a ''particular'' Gnostic heresy, but it is the entire Gnosticism derived from the Naassenism.

However, he did not indicate where ends the following discussion about the different aspects of this Gnostic heresy.

And why should he indicate the end of the discussion, when it is his entire work ''Against Heresies'' meant to destroy any particular head of the Hydra represented by Naassenism ? The silence of Hyppolitus about the end of the discussion about the different aspects of this Gnostic heresy is decisively more unexpected, if that Gnostic heresy was a particular one (Bernard's view), and not the set of all the heresies derived chronologically and ''spiritually'' from the Naasseni.

Justinus did not have a serpent but:

You are totally correct in this point. Justinus is explicitly declared a particular single head of the hydra provoked by Naassenism.

But since, altering the words and the names of the serpent, they wish that there should be many heads of the serpent, neither thus shall we fail thoroughly to refute them as they desire.

Hppolitus cares to confute the heretic Justinus because he is a particular head of the Hydra of Naassenism and consequently Hyppolitus will take the disturb of killing all the other heads of the same monster.

Who were the other heads of the same monster born from Naassenism?

To answer to this simple question, Bernard does this very big mistake:

However Hippolytus did not indicate Simon Magus featured a serpent or had Pagan legends similar to those who textually precede him in book V. Therefore it is a different heresy.

That is totally wrong. Hyppolitus says clearly that Simon is the chronological and spiritual successor of Justinus, therefore he is another head of the same monstruous hydra born from Naassenism.

Since, then, we have explained the attempts (at a system) of the pseudo-gnostic Justinus, it appears likewise expedient in the following books to elucidate the opinions put forward in heresies following (in the way of consequence upon the doctrines of Justinus), and to leave not a single one of these (speculators) [NOTA BENE: ''speculators'' WHO FOLLOW JUSTINUS] unrefuted. Our refutation will be accomplished by adducing the assertions made by them; such (at least of their statements) as are sufficient for making a public example (of these heretics). (And we shall attain our purpose), even though there should only be condemned the secret and ineffable (mysteries) practised amongst them, into which, silly mortals that they are, scarcely (even) with considerable labour are they initiated. Let us then see what also Simon affirms.

That ''also'' is clearly inclusive, i.e., explicitly Simon is included among the ''speculators'' who follow Justinus, himself in turn a particular head of the hydra born from Naassenism.

Furthermore Simon is said to have inspired (with Justinus) the (different) Gnostic heresy of Valentinus (and not others, such as the Naassenes)

That is partially correct. The correct sequence of actions is : Justinus inspires Simon (and he is his contemporary, being his direct teacher), and Simon inspires Valentinus.

Note: In its recapitulation in book X, Hippolytus put Justinus textually after Valentinus: just to show, as I said before, that Hippolytus did not always put these heretics in chronological order.

In Book X of ''Against Heresies''

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050110.htm

I see the same chronological order of the Book V, with the ''Naasseni'' (and the other ''Serpent-derived'' heresies: Perathians, Sethians, etc) put explicitly before Simon Magus. Then the evidence is very great that, for Hyppolitus, the Naasseni were the first Gnostics in absolute terms, before even of Justinus and Simon.

Chapter 4. Summary of the Opinions of Philosophers Continued.

Persuaded, then, that the principle of physiology is confessedly discovered to be encumbered with difficulties for all these philosophers, we ourselves also shall fearlessly declare concerning the examples of the truth, as to how they are, and as we have felt confident that they are. But we shall previously furnish an explanation, in the way of epitome, of the tenets of the heresiarchs, in order that, by our having set before our readers the tenets of all made well known by this (plan of treatment), we may exhibit the truth in a plain and familiar (form).
Chapter 5. The Naasseni.

But since it so appears expedient, let us begin first from the public worshippers of the serpent.

Hyppolitus finds ''expedient'' to mention first the Naasseni, and de facto it is very useful for him, to show that the hydra of the entire gnostic heresy is derived entirely from the ''Serpentists'' par excellence: the Naasseni. In order so to offer as a single head of that hydra any possible particular sect or teacher.

Simon is not said to have derived his theories from the Naassenes, Perathians, Sethians and Justinus, either here or in book VI.

Simon is mentioned after the Nasseni in both the books.
And in more Simon is included between the ''speculators derived'', as Justinus and/or from Justinus himself, from the hydra of Naassenism.

Again:

Since, then, we have explained the attempts (at a system) of the pseudo-gnostic Justinus, it appears likewise expedient in the following books to elucidate the opinions put forward in heresies following (in the way of consequence upon the doctrines of Justinus), and to leave not a single one of these (speculators) [NOTA BENE: ''speculators'' WHO FOLLOW JUSTINUS] unrefuted. Our refutation will be accomplished by adducing the assertions made by them; such (at least of their statements) as are sufficient for making a public example (of these heretics). (And we shall attain our purpose), even though there should only be condemned the secret and ineffable (mysteries) practised amongst them, into which, silly mortals that they are, scarcely (even) with considerable labour are they initiated. Let us then see what also Simon affirms.

That does not mean these heretics did not have titles like "Christ", "Son of Man" with other links to the Christian Jesus and Christianity.

To have titles like ''Christ'' but not ''Jesus'' means to be pre-christian. According to prof Stevan Davies, the Odist of the Odes of Salomon is pre-christian, because he talks about a suffering ''Christ'' but didn't mention never ''Jesus''.

The Naasseni were not only chronologically before Simon (and all his contermporaries, from Justinus to Paul), but had also a hymn that mentions ''Jesus'' and not Gospel-derived, hence probably a pre-christian hymn confirming a pre-christian (=100% mythical) Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

Andrew wrote that the Simon's view in Hyppolitus are of the his later followers.

Schmithals wrote the exact contrary:

Schmithals describes what he sees as a pr-Christian system of Jewish Gnosticism.

He begins with a discussion of the thought system of Simon (Simon Magus in Acts) as described by Hippolytus. This surprised me since other scholars (e.g. Birger Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism) dismiss the account of Hippolytus as a description of a much later — very post-Christian — development of Simon’s thought. But Schmithals does present a number of reasons to think that what Hippolytus is depicting is, rather, very early — pre-Christian — Jewish Gnosticism. (I am sure Pearson has read Schmithal’s works so I would like to read his responses. If anyone can point to his or other reviews I’d be grateful.)

http://vridar.org/2011/11/21/pre-christ ... sticism-1/

[Bernard Muller]

Hippolytus was talking here about the particular Gnostic heresy first started by the Naassenes.

That is clearly false. That Gnostic heresy first started by the Naassenes is the same ''Hydra'' in his entirety, alluded shortly after by Hyppolitus. Therefore it is not a ''particular'' Gnostic heresy, but it is the entire Gnosticism derived from the Naassenism.

I agree that Hippolytus claimed the Naassenes started Gnosticism. But Hippolytus never used the expression Gnostic heresy (singular). For him the heresies were multiple. As I quoted before:

bear a resemblance to the foresaid heresies [plural]. For all, forced together by one spirit, are drawn into one profound abyss of pollution, inculcating the same tenets, and detailing the same legends, each after a different method. All those, however, style themselves Gnostics in this peculiar sense,

The foresaid heresies are the ones of the Naassenes, Perathians, Sethians & Justinus.
Also:

For neither do the remaining heresies [plural] present much difference of aspect from this, having a mutual connection through (the same) spirit of error. But since, altering the words and the names of the serpent, they wish that there should be many heads of the serpent

Notice "they wish", meaning they are not among the many heads of the serpent. These heads of the serpent are strictly the heresies of Naassenes, Perathians, Sethians & Justinus, and maybe some others not named & described here.

That is totally wrong. Hyppolitus says clearly that Simon is the chronological and spiritual successor of Justinus, therefore he is another head of the same monstruous hydra born from Naassenism.

Of course I do not accept that.

... Let us then see what also Simon affirms.

That ''also'' is clearly inclusive, i.e., explicitly Simon is included among the ''speculators'' who follow Justinus, himself in turn a particular head of the hydra born from Naassenism.

I do not see your point here. "Also" does not mean Simon is sharing the same heresies as the ones of the Naassenes, Perathians, Sethians & Justinus. That's not the meaning of the word "also", synonymous with "in addition", "too" (I do not know which word Hippolytus used in the original language). That means that Hippolytus will describe Simon's heresy also, in addition to the ones he already described. And in the description of Simon's heresy, there is little in common with the aforesaid ones.

That is partially correct. The correct sequence of actions is : Justinus inspires Simon (and he is his contemporary, being his direct teacher), and Simon inspires Valentinus.

Where does it say in Hippolytus' writings that Justinus inspired Simon? And Justinus was a contemporary of Simon?

I see the same chronological order of the Book V, with the ''Naasseni'' (and the other ''Serpent-derived'' heresies: Perathians, Sethians, etc) put explicitly before Simon Magus. Then the evidence is very great that, for Hyppolitus, the Naasseni were the first Gnostics in absolute terms, before even of Justinus and Simon.

But in book X, Justinus is placed after Valentinus and Cerinthus is located after Tatian. Marcion is also placed after Tatian. In other words, Hippolytus was not always following the chronological order. On the above quote, I disagree only about "and Simon".

To have titles like ''Christ'' but not ''Jesus'' means to be pre-christian. According to prof Stevan Davies, the Odist of the Odes of Salomon is pre-christian, because he talks about a suffering ''Christ'' but didn't mention never ''Jesus''.

I am not sure about that. It looks Christian-light to me. See below:

The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth.
So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies.
And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose.
And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life.

Giving birth to Jesus with no pain started in 2nd century Christian literature. (beliefs of Valentinians, Ascension of Isaiah)

And His Word is with us in all our way, the Savior who gives life and does not reject ourselves.
The Man who humbled Himself, but was exalted because of His own righteousness.
The Son of the Most High appeared in the perfection of His Father.
And light dawned from the Word that was before time in Him.
The Messiah in truth is one.

"Jesus" does not appear, but his titles do.

Andrew wrote that the Simon's view in Hyppolitus are of the his later followers.

Schmithals wrote the exact contrary:

Schmithals describes what he sees as a pr-Christian system of Jewish Gnosticism.

He begins with a discussion of the thought system of Simon (Simon Magus in Acts) as described by Hippolytus. This surprised me since other scholars (e.g. Birger Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism) dismiss the account of Hippolytus as a description of a much later — very post-Christian — development of Simon’s thought. But Schmithals does present a number of reasons to think that what Hippolytus is depicting is, rather, very early — pre-Christian — Jewish Gnosticism. (I am sure Pearson has read Schmithal’s works so I would like to read his responses. If anyone can point to his or other reviews I’d be grateful.)

I think both Andrew and Schmithals are right. Simon depicted early pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism. The Christian parts were later added to that by his followers: these parts, in Hippolytus' text (book VI, last half of ch. XIV and a few phrase in ch. V), look to be peripheral to Simon's theories, not central. All the rest is derived mostly from his interpretation of passages of the Old Testament and also, but less, a few Pagan stories.

Cordially, Bernard

[andrewcriddle]

Andrew wrote that the Simon's view in Hyppolitus are of the his later followers.

Schmithals wrote the exact contrary:

Schmithals describes what he sees as a pr-Christian system of Jewish Gnosticism.

He begins with a discussion of the thought system of Simon (Simon Magus in Acts) as described by Hippolytus. This surprised me since other scholars (e.g. Birger Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism) dismiss the account of Hippolytus as a description of a much later — very post-Christian — development of Simon’s thought. But Schmithals does present a number of reasons to think that what Hippolytus is depicting is, rather, very early — pre-Christian — Jewish Gnosticism. (I am sure Pearson has read Schmithal’s works so I would like to read his responses. If anyone can point to his or other reviews I’d be grateful.)

http://vridar.org/2011/11/21/pre-christ ... sticism-1/

There is an interesting discussion of Simon as described by Hippolytus and other ancient writers at http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9764/1/9764_6558.PDF

Andrew Criddle

[Giuseppe]

There is an interesting discussion of Simon as described by Hippolytus and other ancient writers at http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9764/1/9764_6558.PDF

I quote from it the following words about Hyppolitus on the Naasseni:

We may further note that Hippolytus takes a very different position from Irenaeus on this issue. Fo him Simonianism is a development within Gnosticism. He has Simon the successor of the Ophites, the Nassenes, the Peratae and Justin the Gnostic, despite the fact that he identfies Simon of Gitta with the Simon of Acts (Ref. VI. 2) and is probably well aware of the Irenaeus scheme which he is clearly declining to follow.

(my bold)

Therefore Philaster was right to interpret Hyppolitus as meaning that the Nassenes preceded Simon Magus and the entire apostolic-age.

So considered, clearly we should consider what Hyppolitus attributes to Naasseni as pre-christian, unless otherwise proven (i.e., when for example we see that a particular claim of the Nasseni is clearly Gospel-derived).
This is precisely the case with the Nassen Hymn:

1) it is attributed to a sect put in time before Christ by Hyppolitus
2) it lacks Gospel-references.

From 1 and 2 it follows with 100% probability that that hymn - and only that hymn - is pre-christian.

[Bernard Muller]

"1) it is attributed to a sect put in time before Christ by Hyppolitus": WRONG
"2) it lacks Gospel-references." Right but it has Christian-references.

Cordially, Bernard

[billd89]

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

Think this through.

a) Sethians described by Josephus were well-known and established 90 AD, so that sect could not then (with any reasonable probability) have known gJohn. It is utterly impossible such Sethians knew gJohn in the First C. AD, unless (improbably) John was himself a fmr Sethian.

b) Sethians ('Jews', not Christians) probably existed at least +6-8 generations previously, to be described with such antiquity in 90 AD. Again, it is simply impossible the Sethians were Xians from the start.

Given the near-impossibility of your notion "Sethians knew also about the gospels" being correct in a) or b), there is only one other possibility where it 'may' be true.

c) Hippolytus (c.235 AD) knew of LATE 'Christianized' Sethian txts, smthg in all likelihood re-written 175-225 AD. Some new Christians were old Sethians and adapted various ideas syncretistically. Some (not necessarily all) Late Sethians incorporated Xian ideas, as they saw fit.

Bingo! This last possibility - that Late Sethianism adapted recent Xian ideas - is proven by the 'Sethian' txts of the NHC. (Hippolytus may still have garbled smthg, in any case.) And this explains the context of other inconsistencies in Hippolytus, looking at a hodge-podge of early and lately edited materials gathered by other clergy elsewhere.

Although we lack such strong confirmation for Naassene literature, it's the same situation. The evidence that 'Naassenes' were early Xians from their own beginnings is weak. The likelihood they're the ancient Ophionidae/Ophites is rather more obvious. So their literature was 'Christianized' at later dates. This cannot be disproven and makes perfect sense (Occam's Razor).

I suppose - instead of a genuine cult article - Hippolytus examined garbled material, or could not distinguish all of his sources precisely (loosely derivative, or conceptually-related writings), particularly if a 2nd C. AD follower of Mariamne (c.80-100 AD) was responsible for conflating smthg older abit later.

So there's a later, second stage Xian layer laid upon smthg far older, relic Naassene. Personally, I doubt the Ophites/Naassenes lasted much longer in Gaza (or Sinai), or they mostly disappeared c.200 AD. Heretical Jews became Xians or pagans, eventually.

The superficial 'Jesus went to Egypt' myth (c.150 AD) in Gnostic Justin (c.50 AD) would be another example of a late adaptation; not surprising either.