Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:49 am

1. Tertullian's Against the Valentinians testifies to the existence of a separate Irenaean treatise of the same name which was one of the sources for Book 1. So there was a pre-existent treatise against the Valentinians and a few others but they patched together with a specific plan in mind. Let's figure out first what the original Against the Valentinians looked like:

Page 31, Line 15 -- nomine -- Used for "causa." This usage occurs in Cicero, "classis nomine pecunia quaeruntur," Fl. 12.27, but is especially frequent in T; cp. "communis sapientiae nomine," De cor. 7; "ecclesiae protegendae nomine," Adv. 133 Val. 28. Hoppe, Syntax und Stil, p. 30. Page 32, Line 3 -- disposita -- X has preserved the correct reading. "Dispono" means "to put in regular order"; cp. "libros confusos antea disponere," Cic. Att. 4.8; "ministeria principatus in equites Romanos disponere," Tac. H. 1.58; "depono" means "to entrust to, give to"; cp. "pecunias in publica fide deponere." With the expression "in aedicularum forma" the former seems better.
Page 32, Line 3 -- sint -- Rhenanus' change to "sunt" is unnecessary; "sint" is subjunctive of concession. Same usage below in "sit itaque Bythos" and in "sit fur, sit sacrilegus, at est bonus imperator," Cic. Verr. 5.4.
Page 32, Line 6 -- Insulam Feliculam -- A famous apartment house in Rome beside the Pantheon and the Column of Marcus Aurelius (CIL I.206).
Page 32, Line 9 -- Propa&tora ff. -- The mss. have mutilated the Greek. The correct text can be restored from Irenaeus.
Page 32, Line 10 -- Bython -- Irenaeus spells the name thus. The mss. of T have "Bythion" throughout. This may be due to confusion between "Bythos Pater" and "Bythios," an aeon mentioned in Adv. Val. 8. The corruption is easily removed by 134 comparison with Irenaeus.
Page 32, Line 15 -- huiusmodi -- I.e., speculations.
Page 32, Line 16 -- sit itaque -- Kroymann's change is unnecessary. "Sit" is subjunctive of concession. See note on "sint" above.
Page 33, Line 2 -- Ennoian -- F. Burkitt, "A Note on Valentinian Terms," JTS, 1923, 64-7, suggests the translation "Notion."
Pale 33, Line 4 -- movere ... de -- This expression is quite unusual; "movere ad" or "movere ex" are of course quite common. However "de" is T's favorite preposition, one which he uses with any ablative. Here the sense is "concerning," "in regard to." Parallel passages are "ut Scipionem de habitu salutasset," De pall. 1.2; "Abraham sacrificare de filio iusserat," De orat. 8; "iubeor . .. de omni substantia deligere," Scor. 4. Note especially the latter two examples with verbs of ordering. Other examples in Hoppe, Syntax und Stil, pp. 33-4, 38; Hartel, Patr. St. IV.45 ff.; Bulhart, p. xxx.
Page 33, Line 10 -- Patris -- Note that T uses "Pater" referring to Bythos, not to Monogenes. Irenaeus follows the same
practice. The one exception in both authors is "ipse pater" immediately following. See Sagnard, La Gnose, pp. 325-333. 135
Page 33, Line 12 -- agnoscitur -- Kroymann's adoption of "adgnascitur" is unnecessary. Both are law terms. I quote from A. Berger, Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia, 1953, p. 358: agnasci--To enter by birth (or by adoption) into the
agnatic group...primarily in reference to a person (son or grandson) born after the death of a testator. He becomes the testator's heir (heres suus). agnatio--The relationship among persons (agnati) who are under the paternal power (patria potestas) of the same head of a family (pater familias) or who would have been if he were still alive. agnoscere liberum (partum)--To acknowledge the paternity of a child. It is obvious that "agnoscere" is meant here; "adgnascere" is too technical a word and besides does not fit the meaning.
Page 34, Line 2 -- universitatis -- This word does not mean "universe," but "corporation," "society," "company." This term is from juridical Latin; cp. Digest 1.8.6, Gai. Inst. 2.11.

CHAPTER VIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.1.2-3 Page 34, Line 13 -- utriusque naturae -- I.e., male and female.
Page 34, Line 14 -- illac Homo . . . procreaverunt -- In plainer language: Sermo and Vita produced Homo and Ecclesia plus ten others; Homo and Ecclesia produced twelve ("duos 136 amplius"). Hence Homo and Ecclesia plus ten = the twelve pro- duced by Homo and Ecclesia.
Page 34, Line 17 -- Bythios ff. -- The spelling of these names varies in the mss. I have adopted Irenaeus' spelling.
Page 35, Line 8 -- Phosphorus -- The explanation of this joke was first given by F. J. Dölger, "Der Rhetor Phosphorus," Antike und Christentum, V, 272-4. The listeners interpreted "Victoria," "Felicitas," etc., as names, members of Phosphorus' family. "Familiae" of course is dative, not genitive as older editors assumed. This joke may have been prompted by Irenaeus' statement, " 'Iou~, 'Iou~, kai\ feu~ feu~. to_ tra- giko_n w(j a)lh qw~j e)peipei=n "(1.11.4).

Page 35, Line 16 -- quaternarii -- Kroymann adds "et denarii" following Irenaeus' " kai\ deka&da " (1.1.3). The text however is correct: T is using Irenaeus' threefold division " ei0s o)gdoa&da, deka&da, dwdeka&da " substituting "octonarii" for deka&da and "quaternarii" for " o)gdoa&da ."
T's changes are logical since four is the primary division of aeons, then eight as the chief aeons, then twelve as the most recently mentioned children of Homo and Ecclesia. T is using the most important numbers in the Valentinian system. Irenaeus on the other hand is citing the most recently mentioned numbers: eight main aeons, ten children of Sermo and Vita, 137 twelve children of Homo and Ecclesia.


Page 36, Line 8 -- illis maerentibus -- On the longing of the aeons to know the father, note Valentinus' Gospel of Truth, tr. W. W. Isenberg in Grant, Gnosticism, p. 151: He (i.e., the Father) reveals his hidden self (his hidden self is his son) so that through the compassion of the Father the aeons may know him, end their wearying search for the Father, and rest themselves in him, knowing that this is rest. Ptolomy here has hypostasized these actions into the "per-sonales substantias" mentioned above (Adv. Val. 4).
Page 36, Line 13 -- sui -- I.e., of Propater ( Propate&ra--Iren.)
Page 37, Line 1 -- vitii -- " pa&qoj ," Iren. 1.2.2.
Page 37, Line 11 -- fundamentum -- " sthri/zonta ," Iren. 1.2.2


Page 38, Line 6 -- concepit -- The mss. reading is to be pre-
ferred to Kroymann's "concipit" because of the clausula. Of
T's clausula, the most common is - u - u (32.5%). The next
most common is - u - - u (29%), which is the pattern of
"concepit." - u - u u , the pattern of "concipit," occurs
only four times in T. Hence I retain "concepit." On this
passage, see Lofstedt, Zur Sprache, p. 23; on clausulae, see
Hoppe, Syntax und Stil p. 154 ff., and J. Waszink,"The Tech-
nique of the Clausula in Tertullian's De Anima," VC, II (1950),
Page 38, Line 12 -- suscipit -- Used in a reflexive sense
equivalent to "se suscipit"; see above on "detrudat" (Adv.
Val. 3). Note Irenaeus' expression, " labei=n e)pistrofh&n "
(Iren. 1.2.4). "Suspicit" is the easy copyist's change for the
more difficult expression.
Page 39, Line 5 -- femina-marem -- Rigaltius' "femina-mare"
is possible in apposition to "imagine sua," but because of
Irenaeus' testimony, I prefer to keep it in apposition to
"Horon": " 3Oron . . . proba&lletai e)n ei0ko&ni i0di/a| a)su&zugon
a)qh&luton " (Iren. 1.2.4).
Page 39, Line 11 -- appendicem -- " tw~| e)piginome&nw| pa&qei ,"
Iren. 1.2.4. Irenaeus Latinus also uses the word "appendix"
in this passage. "cum appendice passione"; this has been cited
as proof that T used Irenaeus Latinus (A. d'Ales, "Note," REG,
XXIX (1916), pp. xlviii-xlix). The word is, however, a stan-
dard medical term and could well be used by both authors inde-
pendently: "(medicus) de its tussiculis quae aliarum fuerint
appendices passionum. . . ," Caelius Aurelianus Chronics II
8.114. "Impetum" below is another medical term.
Page 39, Line 12 -- crucifixam -- " a)posterhqh~nai ,"
Iren. 1.2.5, for which Harvey prefers the reading, " a)po-
staurwqh~nai " (note ad loc.). The expression comes from Paul,
"to have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires,"
Gal. 5:24.
Page 39, Lines 13-14 -- impetum -- Another medical term mean-
ing a fit or an attack of a disease, an inflammation: "si
minor impetus, minus acrem curationem requirat," Celsus 6.6.1;
"radix cannabis emollit podagras et similes impetus," Pliny,
Nat. Hist. 20.259. Enthymesis is a disease of Sophia.
Page 40 Line 5 -- excludit -- This word is used elsewhere
of birds hatching out their eggs: "gallinae avesque reliquae
cum ex ovis pullos excluserint," Cic. N.D. II 52.129. The use
of such a metaphor is typical of T's style in this treatise;
note that Sophia was compared to a hen above (Adv. Val. 10,
p. 38, line 6).
Page 40, Line 5 -- copulationem -- Note that all aeons came
in pairs of male and female. T balks at this pairing of two
males. The fact that <hebrew> (spirit) is feminine in Hebrew and
Syriac (a fact presumably unknown to T) explains how this
union came about. On this topic, see Sagnard, La Gnose,
p. 164 ff.
Page 40, Line 7 -- vulneratur -- Presumably T is referring
to the crucifixion, when the Spirit Left Christ: "tradidit
spiritum," John 19:30. This sarcastic passage is T's own;
there is no equivalent in Irenaeus.
Page 40, Lines 12-13 -- generandi agnitionem -- Christ shows
them how to get some idea of the Father, who had been com-
pletely unknown before; cp. "solus ille Nus ex omnibus immensi
Patris fruitur notione," Adv. Val. 9. They are not regaining
knowledge. Hence Kroymann's "regenerandi" is wrong.
Page 40, Line 16 -- ne nos et illud -- "Ne" is the exclama-
tory adverb with pronouns; cp. below, "ne ego temerarius,"
Adv. Val. 32. Here the sense is "we do the same thing i.e.
have Christ as mediator." Same thought in "per eum se cog-
nosci et coli deus voluit," Apol. 21.28.
Page 41, Line 4 -- expedire -- "Experire" in the sense "to
experience" would be difficult here: the translation would be,
"they imply that God is experienced, not comprehended, since
his incomprehensible part is the basis of immortality." This
does not fit the context, and is a non sequitur. "Expedire"
is the easiest correction that makes sense.
Page 42, Line 2 -- diffundebatur -- Middle voice; cp. "amici
quas diffundantur," Cic. Lael. 13.
Page 42, Line 4 -- omni -- Equivalent to "plenus," "perfec-
tus." Cp. "omnis providentia dei," Adv. Marc. II.5; "omnem
notitiam apostoli," De pud. 16. See Thörnell, Stud. Tert. 2.55.
Note also the reverse use of "toti" for "omnes," as in "iota
suspiria epoptarum," Adv. Val. I, supposedly a usage from
spoken Latin; see Leumann-Hofmann Szantyr II.203.
Page 42, Line 7 -- symbolam -- " sumbolh& ," picnic. The
word occurs in Latin from the time of Plautus, "symbolarum
collatores [note "ex acre collaticio" below] apud forum pis-
carium," Curculio 4.1.13. The aeons are jumping for joy and
are having a feast. See A. d'Ales, "Symbola," Recherches de
Science Religieuse, XXV (1935), 496.
Page 42, Line 15 -- collaticio -- "Collected" or "pooled"
money. Same word in "sepultura collaticia," Quint. Decl. 6.
I have changed the metaphor in the translation from one of
picnicking to one of gambling.
Page 43, Line 3 -- Osciae scurris -- Kroymann's reading is
best paleographically. "Oscis" is also possible; cp. "Oscos
ludos," Cic. Fam. 7.7.1.
Page 43, Line 3 -- Pancapipannirapiam -- This otherwise un-
known word looks like a compound of "pan" and "capere" and
"pannus" and "rapere." For a shorter example, cp. "inter
pinnirapi cultos iuvenes," Juv. 3.158. T is being satirical
about the aeons' talents in building up Jesus.
Begins with material from Iren. 1.3.1 and continues with Iren.
1.4.1. It is written as an intermission skit to a play. T is
speaking as the producer.
Page 43, Line 9 -- professionem -- " pragmatei/a ," Iren.
Page 43, Line 16 -- proicite -- The word has presented dif-
ficulties to editors (see app. crit.). The sense of "reject,"
"despise," can be paralleled in "proicit ampullas et verba,"
Hor. AP. 97-8; "proicere virtutem," Caes. B.G. 2.15. T is
making sure his readers know the correct attitude to take to-
ward this play.
Page 44, Line 5 -- Achamoth -- This name is derived from the
Hebrew <hebrew> (i.e., hokhmoth), "wisdom," used frequently
in Proverbs 9.1 ff., and hypostatized. See G. Quispel, "Gnos-
ticism and the New Testament," VC, XVIII (1964), 63-85.
Page 44, Line 5 -- scripta -- Fredouille's conjecture is
most economical. The construction of a conjunction with a
participle is common in T: "misellum vocas eum non utique quod
de bono vitae ereptum," Test. an. 4; "exspectans animam quasi
nondum conlatam et quasi iam ereptam," De an. 43; "quasi
sciens," Adv. Marc. IV. 9; "quid, cum domestici eos vobis pro
dentes," Ad nat. 1.7.15. See Hoppe, Syntax und Stil. p. 59,
and for a complete review of literature on this subject in
later Latin authors, see Waszink, note on De an. 1.3.
Page 44, Line 9 -- defectiva -- Offers a perfectly satisfac-
tory sense. Kroymann's "vexativa" occurs nowhere else in the
passive sense required here; it always means "causing annoy-
Page 44. Line 15 -- suppararetur -- First used by T. The
word also occurs above in Chapter IV and in De an. 25.9, 30.5;
Adv. Marc. IV.34; Iei. 4; De cult. II.7.1.The sense is "to
fit or adjust."
Page 45, Line 3 -- ex angelo -- The S.S. mentioned pre-
viously which corresponds on a higher level to Achamoth on a
Page 45, Line 10 -- Iao -- Represents the form of the Hebrew
tetragrammaton hwhy adopted by Gnostic writers.
Page 45, Line 13 -- Laureolum -- This famous and gruesome
mime is also mentioned in Suet. Cal. 57; Juv. 8.187. It inclu-
ded the crucifixion of the hero.
Page 45, Line 14 -- intricata -- " dia_ to_ sumpeple&xqai
tw~| paqei ," Iren. 1.4.1.
Page 45, Line 18 -- conditione -- "Conditio" applies to the
creation of a thing and to qualities of the thing which are
essential parts or aspects of its creation. "Condicio" refers
to "accidentia," or additional or superficial characteristics
added after the creation: cp. "universa conditio testabitur
corpora de corporibus processura," De an. 6.9; "ipsa lex con-
dicionali comminatione suspendens," De an. 52.2. This sense
of "conditio" - "creation" occurs only in Christian litera-
ture. See Waszink on De an. 6.9, and E. Evans, Introduction
to de Carne Christi (London 1960). I have adopted "conditio"
here because Achamoth's basic origination was worse than
Sophia's, not merely her temporary misfortune. The misfor-
tunes of Achamoth and Sophia are equivalent (Sophia is the
model for Achamoth); it is their differing status--Sophia be-
ing an aeon, Achamoth being "abortiva"--that distinguishes
Achamoth as "deterior." Hence "conditio." These words are
usually confused in the mss.
It might be possible to take "pro conditione deter-
ius insurgente" together = "in view of her worsening condi-
tion," and take "also fluctu" as parallel to "maerore," "metu,"
"ignorantia." The total sense would not differ greatly.
However in such case the adjectival participle would usually
be "insurgenti"; furthermore Achamoth's "conditio" is not
really getting worse; she has been left with a "peculium"
which she had not had before.
Page 46, Line 4 -- materiam -- The mss. reading is correct.
For other cases where the antecedent is included in the clause
see below, "terram" (page 55, line 10), Adv. Val. 24; also
"malarum quas amor curas habet," Hor. Ep. 2.37; "quem tu . . .
minitaris ignem," Prud. perist. 5:187; "populo ut placerent
quas fecisset fabulas," Ter. Andria 3. Other examples in
Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr II.564.
Page 46, Line 8 -- Demiurgi -- This word (" dhmiourgo&j "
= workman, artisan) is used by second century Greek fathers
as a synonym for "god"; Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the
Corinthians makes " dhmiourgo&j " synonymous with " kti/sthj "
referring to God. Likewise "fabricator" and related words are
used by Irenaeus Latinus in the same way. In the original
metaphysical sense (Plato, Timaeus), a demiurge is a being who
makes something from pre-existing matter; he makes a " ko&smo&j "
from " a)taci/a ." Because the word has this sense, it was
avoided completely by the LXX and used only once in the New
Testament (Heb. 11.10). The apologists were not so scrupulous.
In the Valentinian scheme of course the word fits exactly,
since the Demiurge does make the world out of pre-existing
material. See M. R. Braun, Deus Christianorum (Paris, 1962),
Page 46, Line 15 -- Nonacris -- A mountain in Arcadia at the
foot of which the Styx had its source. "Iuxta Nonacrim Styx
epota ilico necat," Pl. Nat. Hist. II.106.321.
Page 46, Line 16 -- Lyncestarum -- "Lyncestis aqua quae voca-
tur acidula vini modo temulentos facit," Pl. Nat. Hist. II
Page 46, Line 17 -- Salmacis -- A pool or fountain in Caria.
For the story of the nymph who lived there, see Ovid Meta.
4.286 ff.
Page 47, Line 5 -- recordans -- Usually with genitive in
later Latin; also twice in Cicero with the same case: Att.
4.19.1, Pis. 6.12. See Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr II 81.
Page 48, Line 4 -- ibidem -- Found with the meaning "at
once," "immediately," first in Lucretius 6.792, then becoming
more frequent in later Latin: cp. "statim atque ibidem," Adv.
Prax. 14. See Waszink, note on De an. 19.7.
Page 46, Line 7 -- suggestum -- One of T's favorite words.
Its meanings include: (1) procession, as here and "suggestus
et pompa moechiae," De pud. 5.6; (2) ornamentation, "de solo
suggestu et apparatu honoris retractandum," De idol. 18.1;
(3) delivery, development, "plane socia materia per substan-
tiae suggestum," Adv. Herm. 16.3; (4) influence, effect, "ex
materiae potius suggestu quam ex dei flatu," De an. 1.1. The
last two examples can hardly be distinguished. For extensive
discussion of this word, see A. Engelbrecht, "Lexicalisches
and biblisches aus Tertullian," Wiener Studien, XXVII (1905),
Page 46, Line 9 -- agnitione -- On Christ's first trip out-
side the pleroma he had given Achamoth shape and form in a
semi-physical sense. He had made her capable of acting
(above, Chapter XIV). Now he sends Paracletus Soter on a sec-
ond trip to give Achamoth knowledge of how to act, or of what
to do. This is the formation according to knowledge (" mo&rqwsin
th_n kata_ gnw~sin ," Iren. 1.4.5). Now her actions can
be more effective. Also now after this "morphosis" we humans
can form an idea of Achamoth; we can have " gnw~sij " of her.
Formerly she was an unthinkable essence.
Page 46, Line 13 -- incorporalem -- " e)c aswma&tou pa&qouj
ei\j a)sw&maton thhn_ u3lhn metabalei=n au)ta& ," Iren. 1.4.5.
He does not change the "passio" into matter, or things, yet,
but simply changes it into a disorganized antecedent which
then is developed by Achamoth herself into this world. "In-
corporalem" is Fredouille's necessary change; "materiae cor-
poralem paraturam" is self-contradictory: if the "passio"
becomes corporeal, then it must be matter itself, not a
"paratura" of matter. For a discussion of the Greek, see
Harvey's note on Irenaeus 1.4.5, p. 40.
Page 48, Line 16 -- conditio -- See above (page 146), note
on Adv. Val. 14, page 45, line 18. Here the basic essence,
"paratura," of each kind of matter is founded. Hence
Page 49, Line 5 -- proficit -- Cp. "mali autem homines et
seductores proficient in peius," II Tim. 3:13.
Page 49, Line 10 -- vi laetantis ex laetitia -- There is no
need to insert "et" with Kroymann. Such asyndeton is common
in T: cp. "destinata, distincta condicione," Apol. 48.11;
"habes dicta domini, exempla," De idol. 12. The mss. "vis"
is possible; it would be harsh with "sibi," but other cases
can be cited of "sibi" for "ei," as below, "cur sibi. ..
noluit esse nota (i.e., Achamoth)," Adv. Val. 20, page 53,
line 4. Tie difficulty is the harshness of "vis" as the sub-
ject of "imbiberat." Personifications are common in T, but
I know of no other that is personified so physically.
Page 49, Line 15 -- trium scilicet liberorum -- The senatus
consultum Tertullianum admitted women as legitimate heirs on
the condition she possessed the "ius liberorum," i.e., had
three children, or four if a freed woman. The author of this
law was perhaps our Tertullian. See W. W. Buckland, A Text-
book of Roman Law, 2nd ed. (New York, 1949), 372-4.
Page 50, Line l -- non potuit attingere -- Just as the demi-
urge later is not able to approach the spirit-like, "de in-
valitudine spiritalia accedere," Adv. Val. 21. Thus in this
respect Achamoth is a model for the lower demiurge just as
Sophia was a model for the lower Achamoth. See Sagnard, La
Gnose, passim, for this parallelism.
Page 50, Lines 14-15 -- ad dextram. . . ad laevam -- A simi-
lar division is in Adv. Val. 26: soul-like on the right,
matter on the left, the spirit-like above both. Note also the
same system in the apocryphal Acts of John 13, in which the
cross divides the lower world into right and left, good and
bad, as in this diagram:
upper world
bad | good
lower world
Bythos, Monogenes, and the aeons are in the upper world; we
are in the lower. Related to this is the number symbolism in
Valentinus' Gospel of Truth (Grant, Gnosticism, 154-5):
99, an incomplete number, is on the left hand, while 100, a
complete number, is on the right. The change from 99 to 100
is a symbol of salvation, of becoming spirit-like. The num-
bers come from the parable of the lost sheep. See F. Burkitt,
"Valentinian Terms," JTS, 1923, 64-7.
The separation of man's nature into material, soul
like, and spirit-like also occurs in Paul; for example, I Cor.
2:14 ff., " yuxiko_j de_ a!nqrwpoj ou) de&xetai ta_ tou~
pneu&matou (tou~ qeou), mwria& ga_r au&tw|~ e)stin, . . . o( de_
pneumatiko_j a)nakri/nei pa&nta.." Note in this passage the
denigration of the soul-like, otherwise rare in Paul and usu-
ally considered Gnostic. This three-fold division seems to
be somewhat of a commonplace in later Greek thought.
Page 51, Line 1 -- nominum proprietas -- Possibly a refer-
ence to the Stoic theories about the truth of assertion.
"Propositions are said to be true when the thing named by the
subject name has the predicate expressed by the predicate ex-
pression," Sex. Empiricus, Adv. Math. VIII.100, quoted in B.
Mates, Stoic Logic (Berkeley, 1961), 35-36. In this case the
proposition, for example, "hic est pater substantiarum," is
not true, "propius," since the Demiurge is not the founder of
all things. Likewise with "Demiurgus" and "Rex." These
titles would be appropriate if applied to Achamoth.
Page 51, Line 2 -- haec omnia -- I.e. , "nomina, specifically
"Pater," "Demiurgus," "Rex."
Page 51, Line 4 -- commentatam -- I assume to be derived
from "commento," mewing "sketch." Oehler in his note ad loc.
derives this from "comminiscor" as in "commentata vim tor-
menti," De pall. 1.3. However, the metaphor of painting is
carried through this chapter. (Cp. "imagines. . . pictoris,"
below), making "commento" more likely.
Page 51, Line 6 -- daret -- I take "Soter" as "Subject";
"darent" would assume "Valentiniani" as subject. Both are
possible, but "daret" parallels the following verbs "effing-
eret," "exprimerent sc. archangeli."
Page 52, Line 3 -- diversitate duplici -- The two states
were revealed in Adv. Val. 16, page 48, line 16 f.: "de vitiis
pessima, de conversione passionalis." "duplicis" is wrong
because there were not two substances expelled from Achamoth,
only one with a two-fold "paratura" which could become two
different kinds of things.
Page 52, Line 7 -- Sabbatum -- Presumably the Valentinians
derived this from <hebrew> meaning seven, although the word is
usually derived from <hebrew> meaning "rest day," "sabbath day."
Page 52, Line 8 -- dictum est -- Kroymann's "dictus" is
unnecessary; "dictum" has been attracted by the neuter object.
Latin case usages in naming constructions is confused in gen-
eral; here we have the influence of the indirect discourse
construction. See Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr II.90-91, 359.
Page 53, Line 4 -- cur sibi ff. -- I have adopted P's reading.
"ista. . . nota" is accusative plural referring to "ea opera."
MX's reading, "se. . . ipsam," refers to Achamoth. The former
interpretation is better because the point of the previous
discussion is that the Demiurge is ignorant of how the world
should be arranged- "operatur Demiurgus ignorans"--not that
he is ignorant of Achamoth's existence, although that is true
also. As above (Adv. Val. 17, page 39, line 10), "sibi" = "ei."
On "se" for "is," see Hoppe, Syntax und Stil. p. 102.
Page 53. Line 7 -- quasi marem -- Transferred here from
after "et matrem" by Kroymann. This reading corresponds in
position and meaning to " kai\ ku&rion arsenikw~j ,"
Iren. 1.5.3. Kroymann's positioning brings out the pun on
genders. (See above on Adv. Val. 11 for gender of "Spiritus
Sanctus.") The mss. reading arose when "marem" was misread
as "matrem" and then put after "et matrem" as a supposed
Page 53, Line 8 -- illi -- I have translated this as a dative
of possession referring to "Spiritus Sanctus." It could also
be (1) subject referring to the Valentinians, (2) in apposition
to "feminae." All are possible, but the dative seems the
strongest expression.
Page 53, Line 10 -- de animalis census invalitudine -- Kroy-
mann's reading. The mss. reading might be explained as "de
animalibus [understand "being" = " w{n "] censu," the latter
being ablative of cause. "Scilicet" could take the place of a
present participle of "esse" as "quidam" often does, e.g.,
"securitas specie quidem blanda," Cic. Lael. 47; "unum quidem
certum promitto tibi," Plautus Stichus 3.2.26. However, I can
find no parallel to such a usage, and besides the whole phrase
is strained even for T.
Page 53, Line 13 -- factitatorem -- The mss. read "facti-
torem" here. I have adopted "factitatorem" on the strength of
Adv. Herm. 31, "factitatio," and M's "factitatore" below.
Page 54, Line 2 -- capit -- Common in later Latin and especi-
ally in T in the sense "licet, fieri potest," from the Greek
" e)vde&xetai ." Cp. "haec non capit aestimare," De cult.
1.2.3; "non capit prophetam perire," Luke 13:33 (Vulgate).
See Thesaurus III.333.27, Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr II.416. The
word usually occurs with a word of saying understood; "dici"
can be understood here.
Page 54, Line 5 -- munditenentem -- " kosmokra&tora ,"
Iren. 1.5.4.
Page 54, Line 15 -- qua nec aerem -- "Qua" in the sense "quia"
with participles and verbs is frequent in T. Cp. "nihil est
timendum post mortem qua nec experiendum post mortem," Test. an.
4.6; "qua adulterium in matrimonio crimen est," De monog. 9.5.
The locution occurs as early as Columella (6 praef.) and is
not rare in later Latin; cp. "in sumptum superet tibi semper
qua non spervisti hunc lapidem," CIL IX.60; "deo qua patri et
misericordi," Cyprian, Epist. 16.2. See Hoppe, Syntax und
Stil, p. 59; Waszink, note on De an. 39.1; Bulhart, p. "III.
Page 55, Line 4 -- argumentabor -- In T this word has a con-
temptuous sense; cp. "argumentari tibi videor, Hermogenes?"
Adv. Herm. 3. The implication is that T is entering into the
heretics' ridiculous game. See Oehler's note on De spec. 4;
Waszink's note on De an. 2.5.
Page 55, Line 4 -- motiunculis -- Cp. Seut. Vesp. 24, where
"motiuncula" means "fever," and Celsus 3.5.28 where "motio"
means "a fit." This continues the image of her "passio" as a
disease; see above note on "passio," Adv. Val. 9.
Page 55, Line 10 -- terram -- Oehler's change to "terra" is
unnecessary; this is another case where the antecedent is in-
cluded in the clause. See above, page 147, note on "materiam,"
Adv. Val. 15.
Page 55, Line 11 -- quasi . .siccaverit -- Kroymann's
change, adopted by Fredouille, is unnecessary. Fredouille
argues that "non. . . siccaverit" is contradictory. His inter-
pretation is as follows: T is saying, "The Valentinians say
that the Demiurge took matter not from this dry land--they say
this just as if it were dry at that time even before the waters
had left it!" By this interpretation T is criticizing the
Valentinians for their wrong chronology, and "quasi. ..fuerit"
is T's statement. Direct criticism is not T's style in this
work; he is more usually sarcastic, as in "ego argumenta-
bor. . ." above, where he adds ridiculous details. The same
stylistic trait is evident in this passage as well. My inter-
pretation is as follows: T is saying, "The Valentinians say
he took matter not from the dry land--they assume it was not
dry yet of course, since the waters were still on it." T adds
a sarcastic reason why the Demiurge did not use dry land; he
is putting words in the Valentinians' mouths. Therefore "non
.. .siccaverit" is not contradictory. "Siccare" in the in-
transitive sense (meaning "dry up") is not unknown: cp. "ubi
siccaverit sc. uvae," Cato Agr. 112.
Page 55, Line 10 -- adhuc -- In the sense "etiamtum"; cp. "in
idolis adhuc vivis," De cor. 7; "Adam adhuc integer vir," De
virg. vel. 8. See Hoppe, Syntax und Stil, pp. 109-10.
Page 55, Lines 13-14 -- audeo aestimare -- Again T adds fur-
ther ridiculous detail, building the Gnostic system into
Page 56, Line 1 -- ita -- Kroymann's change to "itaque" is
unnecessary. "Ita" is correlative with "sic erit" following.
Furthermore, "ita" is often used for "itaque": "ita utrumque
ex alterutro redarguimus," Apol. 1.5. See Leumann-Hofmann-
Szantyr II.513.
Page 56, Line 4 -- materialis . . . Demiurgus -- Possibly the
reading should be "materiali. .. Demiurgo" meaning "to be con-
sidered in the Demiurgic material class." Same expression with
"deputo" in "id peccato deputandum," De paen. 2.3. The argu-
ments against this reading are. (1) the parallelism between
"choicus," "materialis," and "similitudo," and (2) the ease
of the loss of an "s" between. "materialis scilicet." Thus I
have kept Rhenanus' reading.
Page 56, Line 10 -- sicut et ipsa -- T's locution for o(mo-
ou&sion th|~ mhtri/ ," Iren. 1.5.6
Page 57, Line 4 -- Ecclesiae. . . Hominis -- I.e., the two
aeons who, as a pair, are called simply "Ecclesia" (page 34,
line 4). I have put a comma after "Hominis," taking it with
"speculum," not with "censum," as Sagnard, La Gnose, pp. 389-
394, 394, seems to do. By punctuating in this way, I take "censum
proinde eum" as one phrase meaning "this origin corresponding
(to the higher aeons) they derive from Achamoth . . . ." (The
use of adverbs as adjectives is not uncommon: "anima tunc
Socratis," De an. 1.2; "tanta solacia extrinsecus principi-
bus " Apol. 5.5. See above note on "proinde," Adv. Val. 6
(page 131). Without punctuating this way, I cannot see what
is to be done with "Hominis." Sagnard assumes, rightly, that
this refers to the aeon, but the aeon for which the "seed" is
named is Ecclesia, not Homo, unless it is assumed that Eccle-
sia plus Homo are also called Ecclesia.
Page 57, Line 6 -- a)rxh~j -- Irenaeus says, " e)x&ein th_n
me_n yuxh_n a@potou~ Dhmiou&rou, to_ de_ sw~ma a)po_ tou~ xoo_j, kai\ to_
sarkiko_n a)po_ u3lhj " (1.5.6). T has rearranged Irenaeus, putting
Achamoth first and substituting "choicum substantia a)rxh~j "
for " sw~ma a)po_ tou ." It is certain that the mss.
reading must have been " a)rxh~j "; the question is, what is
this "substantia a)rxh~j "? The only possibility is that this
is the "incorporealis paratura" mentioned in Adv. Val. 16
(page 46, line 13), which Paracletus Soter separated from
Achamoth. This is T's addition; Irenaeus refers to this
"paratura" as " u3lh: e)z a)sw&matou pa&qouj ei)j a)sw&-
maton th_n u#lhn ," (1.4.5).
Page 57, Line 7 -- Geryon -- The Spanish King with three
bodies whose cattle were stolen by Heracles. See Hesiod,
Theog. 287 ff.
Page 57, Line 12 -- in animalis comparationem -- " tw~| yu-
xikw~| morfwqh~| ," Iren. 1.6.1.
Page 58, Line 9 -- subiaceret -- The subject is "Soter."
"Subiacent" (with its subject being "Valentiniani") would
have a transitive sense for which I can find no parallels.
Page 58, Line 13 -- excipiant -- A judicial term meaning
"to exclude or except from a law": "lege excipiuntur tabulae
publicanorum," Cic. Verr. 2.2.187; "quae lex de sabbati fer-
iis excipit," Adv. Marc. IV.12. See Thesaurus s.v.
Page 59, Line 2 -- suum Christum -- Again the lower world
is just a copy of the upper world; the aeons have their
Christ, the Demiurge has his.
Page 59, Line 18 -- insubditivum -- Hapax leg. from
Page 60, Line 3 -- ita -- In the sense of "igitur." See
note above on "ita," Chapter XXIV (page 56, line 1).
Page 60, Line 4 -- omnia in imagine surgunt -- "Omnia" be-
ing all the components of the Demiurge's Christ; all these
rise up as a copy of what happens in the higher world. The
Valentinians also are simply copies, bad ones, of what Chris-
tians should be. Rhenanus' reading, "imagines urgunt," as-
sumes "ipsi" as subject, yet "plane et" would be unparalleled
for introducing a single subject; the words fit well intro-
ducing a sarcastic addition: cp. "plane Fato stat Iuppiter
ipse," Apol. 34; "est plane quasi saevitia medicinae," Scorp.
5. "Omnia" recapitulates the contents of this chanter, while
"ipsa" is T's addition.
Page 60, Line 7 -- contionabitur -- Future tense as in
"mentietur apostolus," Adv. Val. 5. Perhaps this usage arose
from the future as potential: cp. "hoc videbitur fortasse
cuipiam durius," Cic. Off. 1.23; other examples in Leumann-
Hofmann-Szantyr II.311. In T the sense of this use of the
future often seems to be "is supposed to. . . ," "they say
he . . . ." Examples are: "haec erit materia," Adv. Val. 16;
"phantasm erit totum quod speramus a christo," De carne 5;
"non omne quod dei erit deus habebitur," Adv. Marc. II.9. In
other places the future is used for variety: cp. "vani erunt
homines, nisi certi sint," Apol. 11. Often no special force
of the future can be felt: cp. "quod cumque adversus veri-
tatem sapit, hoc erit haeresis;" De virg. vel. 1.3.
Page 60, Line 14 -- nomine -- See above note on "nomine,"
Chapter VII.
Page 60, Line 16 -- iusserunt -- I assume "Valentiniani" as
subject, as in "inserant," "stipant," Adv. Val. 27, and "divi-
dunt" following. I cannot see what the subject of "iusserat"
would be, especially with the plural "professi" following.
Rhenanus' "disserant," adopted by all editors, is a need-
lessly great change. "Iubere" in the sense, "to decree a
law," is common: cp. "quae populus iuberet," Cic. Flac. 7.15;
de omnibus his. . . populum iussissi," Livy 38.45. The Valen-
tinians speak with authority (cp. "pontificali," Adv. Val. 37).
Page 51, Line 6 -- sententiae -- Engelbrecht's "substantia"
is attractive but unnecessary. The types of souls are being
discussed under two headings: "natura" (" kata_ ge&noj ,"
Iren. 1.7.5), namely "choica," "spiritalis," "animalis"; and
"sententia," the judgment of each of the natures, "saluti
degeneratum," etc. In this context "natura" and "substantia"
would be mere synonyms.
Page 61, Line 11 -- de obvenientia ff. --Souls at birth are
of two kinds, "animalis" Or "Choicus." The "Spiritalis" na-
ture is given at random to some of those who are "animalis."
Hence the "spiritalis" nature is not on the same level as the
other two. This three-fold division seems to have been Ptolo-
maeus' addition to Valentinus' theory; the Gospel of Truth
mentions nothing about three kinds of men, but does imply two
kinds: "He appeared informing them of the Father .. ..Many
received the light and turned toward him. But material men
were alien to him and did not discern his appearance nor
recognize him." In other words, some are "spiritalis" at
birth and able to recognize the truth; others are "choicus"
and reject it. Ptolomaeus added a third category, perhaps to
provide an honorable place for non-Valentinian Christians,
who were the "animalis." See also note on "ad dextram . . . ,"
Chapter XVIII.
Page 61, Line 12 -- quos -- Fredouille reads "quod" refer-
ring to "spiritale." Engelbrecht's "quam" must refer to
"spiritalem statum" which is masculine; this is unlikely un-
less we have here an unusual attraction by "naturam." "Quos"
can be kept: it refers to multiple instances of the giving
of the "spiritalis status." They are thought of as acces-
sories of the "animalis natura" which are being rained down
onto good souls. See Oehler's note ad loc.
Page 61, Line 13 -- censui -- Very rare, except in T, with
the sense, "class, group." T derived this sense from expres-
sions in which "census" has the meaning "origo," e.g., "in
Abrahae censum," Adv. Marc. IV.34; "Saturni census," Ad nat.
II.12.26. Other examples of the present use are "de Graeciae
censu," De an. 31.5; "deorum censum," Ad nat. II.1.10. See
Waszink's note on De an. 8.1.
Page 61, Line 17 -- eruditu -- Hapax leg. I cannot con-
strue the mss. "eruditus" (perfect participle of "erudiri")
with "granum." The noun or supine "eruditus" seems to occur
nowhere else. Another possibility is "eruditi," but the word
order "eruditi huius" is against it.
Page 62, Line 3 -- ergo -- P's reading must be correct. The
statement is a consequence, not an explanation, of why he
considered them of great worth, as "enim" would imply.
Page 62, Line 4 -- allegere -- " e!tassen ," Iren. 1.7.3.
"Allegere" is used frequently of enrollment into the senate
and into other bodies: cp. "in senatum allegere," Suet. Cl.
24; "in clerum allegere," Jerome Adv. Jov. l. "Allegare" is
of similar meaning in the sense, "send someone on some busi-
ness": cp. "si adlegassem aliquem ad hoc negotium," Plautus
Epi. 3.3.46. In our passage, the Demiurge is picking out
souls, not sending them out, hence the former is slightly
preferable. See Thesaurus s. v.
Page 62, Line 13 -- imperfectae scientiae. . norimus -- I
adopt M. R. Braun's reading, following " mh_ th_n telei/an
gnw~sin e!xontej " (Iren. 1.6.2), equalling "imperfectae
scientiae sums." Note what is said of Achamoth in Chapter
XI V, "solius substantiae, non etiam scientiae forma." The
reading "essentia" (a word used nowhere else by T) would be
an easy scribal correction for the haplography "sentiae."
The insertion of "non" seems certain; the text makes no sense
otherwise. T is saying, "Orthodox Christians do not know
this Valentinian system (represented by the aeon Theletus)
and therefore, as they say, we are a lower order of beings."
T then adds his own comment as usual, turning the argument
back on them. He says their own (spiritual) mother, Achamoth,
was also defective: cp. "abortiva genitura," Adv. Val. 14;
M. R. Braun, Deus Christianorum (Paris, 1962), 581.
Page 62, Line 14 -- deputatur -- Rhenanus' change is unneces-
sary. The subject of the sentence is "inscriptura huius
seminis," which is stamped on defectives. Typically T writes
"nobis. . . inscriptura seminis" instead of "nobis. . . inscrip-
tum est semen." On T's love of nominal expressions instead
of verbal, note Hoppe's comment, "...seine Vorliebe für die
substantivische Ausdrucksweise an Stelle der im klass. Latein
bevorzugten verbalen." (Syntax und Stil, p. 140.)
Page 63, Line 14 -- massam seminis sui -- The metaphor is
of olive oil. "Horrea" were used for liquids: cp. "deripere
horreo amphoram," Hor. Car. 3.28.7.
Page 63, Line 15 -- vel -- This word must be retained.
There are two metaphors here, oil and grain; "vel" marks the
change from one to the other. To make one metaphor out of
both, as most editors have done (Engelbrecht's "messerit,"
Oehler's "perfecerit") involves unnecessary change of the text.
Page 64, Line 1 -- in consparsione salutari -- Cp. "nescitis
quia modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit? expurgate
vetus fermentum ut sitis nova conspersio sicut estis azymi,"
I Cor. 5. 6-7 (Vulgate).
Page 64, Line 4 -- compacticius -- Note that the aeons are
said to "compingunt Iesum," Adv. Val. 12 (page 42, line 17).
Page 65, Line 7 -- Demiurgo suo reddent -- The Demiurge made
their souls from his "soul-like" material, but the Valentin-
ians have a remainder, the "spirit-like," which no one else
Page 66, Line 4 -- novissimum -- I have printed Latinus'
conjecture as being most likely. "Onesimum," despite editors'
efforts to find a likely name (see note ad loc. in Migne),
makes no sense. Oehler's suggestion (note ad loc.) that some
number lurks here is most attractive; he supposes "unum et
tricesimum" as most likely. The difficulty is "aliquem,"
which does not occur this way with a numeral. See Leumann-
Hofmann-Szantyr II. 194.
Page 66, Line 14 -- quem nec tunc -- T often recurs to this
theme, that Christians will be like angels: cp. "sed qua non
nupturi. ..sed qua transituri in statum angelicum per indu-
mentum illud incorruptibilitatis," De res. 36.5; "angelorum
candidati," De orat. 3.3. After the resurrection there will
be no marriages, "postquam non nubent," De res. 36.4. Oehler's
emendation, "nec," fits T's argument: all these marryings
will not happen to him because he will be like the angels.
"Et" would mean, "No one will marry me off, since I will still
be a man."
Page 67, Line 1 -- hunc malui -- T claims too much for him-
self. Actually this chapter and the one following are taken
from Irenaeus in order.
Page 67, Line 7 -- secundum coniugium -- Kroymann's reading
is correct: "secundum" is the preposition equivalent to
" kata_ suzugi/an ." "Secundum" was interpreted as the
adjective and then changed to the logical "primum."
Page 67, Line 10 -- viritatis -- A hazardous but irresis-
tible change suggested by Engelbrecht, "Lexicalisches and
Biblisches aus Tertullian," Wiener Studien, XXVII (1905),65-6.
The hazard is that "viritas" occurs nowhere else, but it can
be paralleled by "muliertas," De virg. vel. 12.2 and "pueri-
tas," Ad nat. II.9.2.
Page 67, Line 13 -- dominum. . . deus -- They may have done
this; cp. the difference between the personal god Brahma (m.)
and the impersonal force Brahman (n.) in the Upanishads.
Page 67, Line 16 -- Fenestella -- The noted historian and
antiquarian of the early Empire (died circa 25 A.D.). His
works are not extant, though he was cited frequently by Pliny
the Elder. Nothing else is known of Luna or its inhabitants.
See Pauly RE VI.2, Col. 2177-9.
Page 68, Line 5 -- primo et quinto loco ff. -- These are the
emanations and reflections of higher beings on a lower plane,
just as in the sequence Sophia-Achamoth, or Nus-Demiurge. Here
the first four aeons have counterparts in the second four.
Page 68, Line 12 -- For a parallel to this chapter, compare
"The Sacred Book of John" (in W. Till, Die Gnostische Schrif-
ten des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, Berlin, 1955;
translated in Grant, Gnosticism, p. 73):
All these [i.e., aeons] however came into exis-
tence in Silence and a Thought. The Invisible
Spirit willed to make something; its Will became
corporeal; Will revealed itself and stood with
Mind and the Light while it praised it. Logos
followed Will, for through the Logos, Christ crea-
ted all things.
Page 68, Line 13 -- Gradus Gemonios -- Steps which led
from the Aventine to the Tiber, down which corpses of male-
factors were thrown.
Page 69, Line 9 -- circulatoria -- Oehler's emendation is
correct: cp. "circulatoria iactatio," Quint. 2.4.15; "cir-
culatoria secta," De idol. 9.6. Kroymann's "cicuri anima"
does not apply to the Valentinians, since T calls them bold,
not mild.
Page 69, Line 15 -- non proferentes -- " proh&kanto mh_
proeme&nai " (Iren. 1.11.3). In other words, Monotes and
Henotes produced another, Monad, but this production did not
separate itself from them, but remained part of their unity.
We can see here the beginnings of trinitarian speculation.
Irenaeus Latinus is particularly clumsy here; he has "emiser-
unt, cum nihil emiserint."
Page 70, Line 1 -- Sermo -- Apparently this particular
system had further developments that account for the presence
of Logos: cp. " h3n a)rxh_n o( logoj mena&da kalei= ,"
Iren. 1.11.3. His presence is mysterious since we do not know
what these developments were.
Page 70, Line 10 -- venientibus -- The mss. reading "veni-
ant" is barely possible and is adopted by Fredouille; he com-
pares "me iussit ferre . . . atque ut mecum mitteres Phoenicum,"
Pl. Pseud. 1150. If "veniant" were adopted here, the expres-
sion would be even more harsh than in the Plautine example,
since no "ut" introduces "veniant." The reason Plautus uses
this form is because the person of the verb in the subordin-
ate clause changes. No such consideration applies here. Con-
sequently I have adopted "venientibus."
Page 71, Line 5 -- quam quia -- The mss. "quamquam" makes
no sense. No adversative tone is in the subordinate clause.
Kroymann's change to "quam quia" is paleographically most
likely, although it does require the addition of "non."
Page 71, Line 9 -- insolescentes -- Kroymann's change to
"inolescentes" is unnecessary; cp. the similar use of the
word in "uterus insolescens," Jerome In Helv. 18; "vox
insolescere," Ad nat. II.12.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:47 am

Irenaeus preface - 1.1.1
1. INASMUCH(1) as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says,(2) "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge;(3) and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

2. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself. One(4) far superior to me has well said, in reference to this point, "A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. Or, again, what inexperienced person can with ease detect the presence of brass when it has been mixed up with silver?" Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off, even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men,-because they outwardly are covered with sheep's clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined(5) us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different,--I have deemed it my duty (after reading some of the Commentaries, as they call them, of the disciples of Valentinus, and after making myself acquainted with their tenets through personal intercourse with some of them) to unfold to thee, my friend, these portentous and profound mysteries, which do not fall within the range of every intellect, because all have not sufficiently purged(6) their brains. I do this, in order that thou, obtaining an acquaintance with these things, mayest in turn explain them to all those with whom thou art connected, and exhort them to avoid such an abyss of madness and of blasphemy against Christ. I intend, then, to the best of my ability, with brevity and clearness to set forth the opinions of those who are now promulgating heresy. I refer especially to the disciples of Ptolemaeus, whose school may be described as a bud from that of Valentinus. I shall also endeavour, according to my moderate ability, to furnish the means of overthrowing them, by showing how absurd and inconsistent with the truth are their statements. Not that I am practised either in composition or eloquence; but my feeling of affection prompts me to make known to thee and all thy companions those doctrines which have been kept in concealment until now, but which are at last, through the goodness of God, brought to light. "For there is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be made known."(1)

3. Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the Keltae,(2) and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions. But thou wilt accept in a kindly spirit what I in a like spirit write to thee simply, truthfully, and in my own homely way; whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness. In fine, as I (to gratify thy long-cherished desire for information regarding the tenets of these persons) have spared no pains, not only to make these doctrines known to thee, but also to furnish the means of showing their falsity; so shalt thou, according to the grace given to thee by the Lord, prove an earnest and efficient minister to others, that men may no longer be drawn away by the plausible system of these heretics, which I now proceed to describe.(3)


1. THEY maintain, then, that in the invisible and ineffable heights above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent AEon,(4) whom they call Proarche, Propator, and Bythus, and describe as being invisible and incomprehensible. Eternal and unbegotten, he remained throughout innumerable cycles of ages in profound serenity and quiescence. There existed along with him Ennoea, whom they also call Charis and Sige.(5) At last this Bythus determined to send forth from himself the beginning of all things, and deposited this production (which he had resolved to bring forth) in his contemporary Sige, even as seed is deposited in the womb. She then, having received this seed, and becoming pregnant, gave birth to Nous, who was both similar and equal to him who had produced him, and was alone capable of comprehending his father's greatness. This Nous they call also Monogenes, and Father, and the Beginning of all Things. Along with him was also produced Aletheia; and these four constituted the first and first-begotten Pythagorean Tetrad, which they also denominate the root of all things. For there are first Bythus and Sige, and then Nous and Aletheia. And Monogenes, perceiving for what purpose he had been produced, also himself sent forth Logos and Zoe, being the father of all those who were to come after him, and the beginning and fashioning of the entire Pleroma. By the conjunction of Logos and Zoo were brought forth Anthropos and Ecclesia; and thus was formed the first-begotten Ogdoad, the root and substance of all things, called among them by four names, viz., Bythus, and Nous, and Logos, and Anthropos. For each of these is masculo-feminine, as follows: Propator was united by a conjunction with his Ennoea; then Monogenes, that is Nous, with Aletheia; Logos with Zoe, and Anthropos with Ecclesia.
Tertullian AV 7
Ennius, the Roman poet, was the first to mention (with a straightforward meaning) "the great halls of heaven," because of its lofty position or because he had read in Homer of Jupiter's feasting there. Now as for the heretics--it is a marvel how many pinnacles on pinnacles and towers on towers they hang, add, develop on the house of each god of theirs. Well, perhaps even for our creator these Ennian halls have been distributed like apartments. Perhaps they have various shops built on in front and assigned to each god by floors--as many floors as there are heresies. In this way the world becomes an apartment house; indeed, you might think the celestial flats are the Happy Isles Apartments, located somewhere. There even the Valentinian god lives--in the penthouse. They call him in essence ai0w~na te&leion (the Perfect Aeon); as an individual they call him propa&tora (Original Father) and proarxh_n (Original Beginning), also Bythos (Abyss), which name does not suit at all someone living in heaven. They postulate that he is unborn, immeasurable, infinite, invisible, and eternal. They assume of course that they have proved him to be such if they postulate qualities everyone knows he should have. In the same way they say he existed before anything else. I declare that this is indeed true, but I criticize them in nothing more than in this, the fact that the one they say existed before anything else they discover to be subsequent to everything else, indeed subsequent to things not of his own making. Anyway, let's grant that this so-called Bythos existed infinite ages ago in deep and profound calm, in the great peace of a peaceful and (so to speak) insensate godhead, as Epicurus declares. Despite this, they assign a companion to this individual, who is supposed to be alone, a second entity named Thought, whom they also call Charis (Grace) and Sige (Silence). Perhaps they served--in that praiseworthy calm--to encourage him to produce the beginnings of the universe from himself. Like semen he places this beginning in his Sige just as in a womb. Sige accepts it right away, becomes pregnant, and bears (in silence, of course)--whom? Nus (Mind), resembling the Father and equal in all respects. Specifically he alone can grasp the Father's vastness and his inconceivable magnitude. Consequently, he himself is called "Father" and "Beginning of the universe" and (as his proper name) "Monogenes" (i.e., only begotten), though not properly since he is not the only legitimate child. Another was born at the same time, a female whose name is Truth and for that reason, Monogenes might have been named Protogenes much more aptly as being the first

Now we see that Bythos and Sige, Nus and Truth are championed as the first team of the Valentinian league. They are also the root and source of all the rest, for Nus immediately took on the task for which he had been emitted: he produces from himself Word and Life, which since they had not existed previously, were certainly not in Bythos--and what an absurdity if Life was not in God. Anyway this offspring whose duty is to found the corporate and united Pleroma, makes a profit: it gives birth to Man and Church. You now have an ogdoad, a double tetrad, resulting from the liaisons of male and female. These are the silo--so to speak--of the primordial Aeons, the incestual relations of the Valentinian gods, the source of all holiness and heretical majesty. They are a mob of either devils or saints (I don't know which), but certainly the parents of the remaining brood.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1421
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:03 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:47 am
Consequently, he himself is called "Father" and "Beginning of the universe" and (as his proper name) "Monogenes" (i.e., only begotten), though not properly since he is not the only legitimate child. Another was born at the same time, a female whose name is Truth and for that reason, Monogenes might have been named Protogenes much more aptly as being the first
Isn't "Only Begotten" found in only a few, but not all, of the earliest copies of John? This mischief might then imply that all of this verbiage has been created after a conscious edit of John for effect.

Just a thought...


Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by lsayre » Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:30 pm

This is certainly taking things off topic, but I've been seeing references to where "only begotten" is no longer a highly favored translation of "monogenes". The newly more favored translation is "one of a kind", or more liberally "unique". Thus "only begotten son" becomes "unique son".

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:31 pm

Same epithet as Isaac.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:43 pm

Irenaeus AH 1.1.2 - 3a
2. These AEons having been produced for the glory of the Father, and wishing, by their own efforts, to effect this object, sent forth emanations by means of conjunction. Logos and Zoe, after producing Anthropos and Ecclesia, sent forth other ten AEons, whose names are the following: Bythius and Mixis, Ageratos and Henosis, Autophyes and Hedone, Acinetos and Syncrasis, Monogenes and Macaria.(6) These are the ten AEons whom they declare to have been produced by Logos and Zoe. They then add that Anthropos himself, along with Ecclesia, produced twelve AEons, to whom they give the following names: Paracletus and Pistis, Patricos and Elpis, Metricos and Agape, Ainos and Synesis, Ecclesiasticus and Macariotes, Theletos and Sophia.

3. Such are the thirty AEons in the erroneous system of these men; and they are described as being wrapped up, so to speak, in silence, and known to none [except these professing teachers]. Moreover, they declare that this invisible and spiritual Pleroma of theirs is tripartite, being divided into an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad. And for this reason they affirm it was that the "Saviour"--for they do not please to call Him "Lord"--did no work in public during the space of thirty years, thus setting forth the mystery of these AEons. They maintain also, that these thirty AEons are most plainly indicated in the parable of the labourers sent into the vineyard. For some are sent about the first hour, others about the third hour, others about the sixth hour, others about the ninth hour, and others about the eleventh hour. Now, if we add up the numbers of the hours here mentioned, the sum total will be thirty: for one, three, six, nine, and eleven, when added together, form thirty. And by the hours, they hold that the AEons were pointed out; while they maintain that these are great, and wonderful, and hitherto unspeakable mysteries which it is their special function to develop; and so they proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations.
Tertullian AV 8
Now the second tetrad, Word and Life, Man and Church, after they had sprouted for the glory of the Father, wish to offer something similar of their own to him; so they shoot off an equal number of sprouts, pairs of course, since they were combinations of both natures. On one side Word and Life gush out all at once ten aeons. On the other side Man and Church produce two more than did Word and Life; in doing so they make themselves equal in numbers to their parents, since the pair Man and Church combined with the ten mentioned above make a number equal to what their parents, Word and Life, produced. I will enter the names of the ten I mentioned: Bythios (Profound) and Mixis (Mixture), Ageratos (Unaging) and Henosis (Union), Autophyes (Essential Nature) and Hedone (Pleasure), Acinetos (Unmoved) and Syncrasis (Commixture), Monogenes (Only-Begotten) and Macaria (Happiness). These others are the twelve: Paracletus (Comforter) and Pistis (Faith), Patricos (Fatherly) and Elpis (Hope), Metricos (Motherly) and Agape (Love), Aeinus (Eternal Mind) and Synesis (Intelligence), Ecclesiasticus (Churchly) and Macariotes (Blessedness), Theletus (Perfect) and Sophia (Wisdom). Here I really must bring in a relevant story since these names deserve it. There was once in the schools at Carthage a certain dull Latin orator named Phosphorus. When he was declaiming the role of a military man he said, "I have returned to you noble citizens from battle accompanied by my Lady Victory, by your Lady Joy, along with Nobility, Glory, Luck, Heroism, and Triumph." Immediately the students shouted Hooray! to Phosphorus' family. You have heard about Fortunatus, Hedone, Acinetus, Theletus. Yell Hooray! to Ptolomaeus' family. This family is that secret pleroma, the fullness of its thirty-fold divinity. Let us see what are the special attributes of these groupings of four and of eight and of twelve. But meanwhile the entire generative power has ceased; the urge and potency and productive passion of the aeons is castrated. It is as if there was no more yeast in the numbers' dough, and no more names from the school records. Otherwise why are not 50 to 100 produced--why not Toilet-paper or Mignon?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:55 pm

The Latin provides an important clue for a lost ur-text behind both the surviving text in Irenaeus and Tertullian. First Tertullian:
in scholis Karthaginensibus fuit quidam frigidissimus rhetor Latinus, Phosphorus nomine. cum virum fortem peroraret "venio (inquit) ad vos, optimi cives, de proelio cum Victoria mea, cum Felicitate vestra, Ampliatus Gloriosus Fortunatus Maximus Triumphalis." et scholastici statim familiae Phosphori φεῦ ~ acclamant. [4] audisti Fortunatam et Hedonen et Acinetum et Theletum; acclama familiae Ptolomaei φεῦ ~. hoc erit Pleroma illud arcanum, divinitatis tricenariae plenitudo.
Yet even though this material does not appear in Irenaeus he seems to preserve the same interest in feu albeit without any sort of explanation:
ἰοὺ ἰού και φεύ, φεῦ !--for well may we utter these tragic exclamations at such a pitch of audacity in the coining of names as he has displayed without a blush, in devising a nomenclature for his system of falsehood. [AH 1.11.4]
Such ravings, we may now well say, go beyond ἰοὺ ἰού και φεύ, φεῦ , and every kind of tragic exclamation or utterance of misery.(2) For who would not detest one who is the wretched centriver of such audacious falsehoods, when he perceives the truth turned by Marcus into a mere image, and that punctured all over with the letters of the alphabet? [ibid 1.15.4]
It would seem that an important missing piece of information has been removed from Against Heresies. Irenaeus just starts shouting these sounds without anyone knowing that it dates back to a story about this Latin rhetorician. My only question is whether Phosphorus was ever in Carthage. Remember Tertullian has a habit of explaining strange references to people by saying they came to Carthage. Look at Against Hermogenes. Hermogenes was originally the subject of a treatise by Theophilus. Tertullian takes over the treatise and then to explain why he is addressing this Antiochene he says 'he came over to Carthage.' Hermogenes never came to Carthage.

But all of this makes the important point that our Against Heresies is an incomplete version of the original. Oddly enough the iu and phu references happen in sections which deal with Marcus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:46 pm

I think I have found something significant in this text. As it stands now there is a reference to 'phosphorus' which is supposed to be a name of a Latin rhetor who lived in Carthage who happens to be related to the origin of the Valentinian system of aeons. If we imagine that because Carthage is referenced Tertullian must be reporting a historical fact. But if we imagine that there was a lost Greek original (which there certainly was - it was written by Irenaeus) 'Phosphorus' immediately becomes Lucifer:
Phosphorus (Greek Φωσφόρος Phōsphoros) is the Morning Star, the planet Venus in its morning appearance. Φαοσφόρος (Phaosphoros) and Φαεσφόρος (Phaesphoros) are forms of the same name in some Greek dialects.

This celestial object was named when stars and planets were not always distinguished with modern precision.

Another Greek name for the Morning Star is Heosphorus (Greek Ἑωσφόρος Heōsphoros), meaning "Dawn-Bringer". The form Eosphorus is sometimes met in English, as if from Ἠωσφόρος (Ēōsphoros), which is not actually found in Greek literature,[1] but would be the form that Ἑωσφόρος would have in some dialects. As an adjective, the Greek word φωσφόρος is applied in the sense of "light-bringing" to, for instance, the dawn, the god Dionysos, pine torches, the day; and in the sense of "torch-bearing" as an epithet of several god and goddesses, especially Hecate but also of Artemis/Diana and Hephaestus.[2]

The Latin word lucifer, corresponding to Greek φωσφόρος, was used as a name for the morning star and thus appeared in the Vulgate translation of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל (helel), meaning Venus as the brilliant, bright or shining one, in Isaiah 14(Isaiah 14:12), where the Septuagint Greek version uses, not φωσφόρος, but ἑωσφόρος. As a translation of the same Hebrew word the King James Version gave "Lucifer", a name often misunderstood as a reference to Satan. Modern translations of the same passage render the Hebrew word instead as "morning star", "daystar", "shining one" or "shining star". In Revelation 22 (Revelation 22:16), Jesus is referred to as the morning star, but not as lucifer in Latin, nor as φωσφόρος in the original Greek text, which instead has ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός (ho astēr ho lampros ho prōinos), literally: the star, the shining one, the dawn.[3][4][5] In the Vulgate Latin text of 2 Peter 1 ( 2 Peter 1:19) the word "lucifer" is used of the morning star in the phrase "until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts", the corresponding Greek word being φωσφόρος.
So if we are correct here, the original Greek text of Against the Valentinians (which was later received in Against Heresies Book 1) identified Lucifer as the originator of Valentinian gnosis. With that in mind let's revisit the reference to 'Lucifer' being the originator of this gnosis:
Here I really must bring in a relevant story since these names deserve it. There was once in the schools at Carthage a certain dull Latin orator named Phosphorus. When he was declaiming the role of a military man he said, "I have returned to you noble citizens from battle accompanied by my Lady Victory, by your Lady Joy, along with Nobility, Glory, Luck, Heroism, and Triumph." Immediately the students shouted Hooray! to Phosphorus' family. You have heard about Fortunatus, Hedone, Acinetus, Theletus. Yell Hooray! to Ptolomaeus' family.
Very curious. But Brent notes that the author of the Philosophumena celebrates the Logos as the voice of the φωσφόρος:
For man thus constituted has a law been enacted by just men in primitive ages. Nearer our own day was there established a law, full of gravity and justice, by Moses, to whom allusion has been already made, a devout man, and one beloved of God. Now the Logos of God controls all these; the first begotten Child of the Father, the voice of the Dawn antecedent to the Morning Star (ή πρό έωσφόρου φωσφόρος φωνή). Afterwards just men were born, friends of God; and these have been styled prophets, on account of their foreshowing future events. And the word of prophecy was committed unto them, not for one age only; but also the utterances of events predicted throughout all generations, were vouchsafed in perfect clearness. And this, too, not at the time merely when seers furnished a reply to those present; but also events that would happen throughout all ages, have been manifested beforehand; because, in speaking of incidents gone by, the prophets brought them back to the recollection of humanity; whereas, in showing forth present occurrences, they endeavoured to persuade men not to be remiss; while, by foretelling future events, they have rendered each one of us terrified on beholding events that had been predicted long before, and on expecting likewise those events predicted as still future. Such is our faith, O all you men, — ours, I say, who are not persuaded by empty expressions, nor caught away by sudden impulses of the heart, nor beguiled by the plausibility of eloquent discourses, yet who do not refuse to obey words that have been uttered by divine power. And these injunctions has God given to the Word. But the Word, by declaring them, promulgated the divine commandments, thereby turning man from disobedience, not bringing him into servitude by force of necessity, but summoning him to liberty through a choice involving spontaneity.
Brent writes:
Thus the description of the pre-existent λόγος “administering all these things (ταύτα δέ τῶvτα διςόκει)” before the incarnation as δ τρωτόγονος τατρὸς ταῖς, ή πρὸ ἐωσφόρου Φωσφόρος φωνή, is no mere rhetorical flourish. Rather it is a deep-seated part of the texture and pattern of the author's Christology, shared with Justin, Theophilus, and Irenaeus.
I will come back to this. But there seems to be a distinct possibility that in the original Greek text of Against the Valentinians Lucifer was the author of Valentinian notion.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:11 pm

Curious also that 'Phosphoros' references eight members of his family including himself:
(1) Victoria mea, cum (2) Felicitate vestra, (3) Ampliatus (4) Gloriosus (5) Fortunatus (5) Maximus (7) Triumphalis

I come to you, excellent citizens, from battle, with (1) my victory, with (2) your happiness, (3) full of honour, (4) covered with glory, (5) the favourite of fortune, (6) the greatest of men, (7) decked with triumph
Is that really possible? Does anyone really believe that a historical man named Phosphorus said these things - eight in number - which just so happened to resemble Valentinian gnostis? Something else is at work here.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:16 pm

Someone else made the connection between Lucifer and the teacher of gnostics - Here is what he wrote:
Interestingly, the identification of Satan with the figure in Isaiah 14 had begun at least a century before Jerome’s time. Tertullian, writing in the late 2nd century, says this:
A simpler answer I shall find ready to hand in interpreting “the god of this world” of the devil, who once said, as the prophet describes him: “I will be like the Most High; I will exalt my throne in the clouds.” The whole superstition, indeed, of this world has got into his hands, so that he blinds effectually the hearts of unbelievers, and of none more than the apostate Marcion’s.
It is important to note that Tertullian does not say or even imply that the devil’s name is Lucifer. In fact, for Tertullian- being a Roman and eloquent Latinist- such a misunderstanding would be impossible. Amusingly enough, in another work concerning the meanings of the names of the Aeons he says this:
Here I really must bring in a relevant story since these names deserve it. There was once in the schools at Carthage a cer-tain dull Latin orator named Phosphorus. When he was de-claiming the role of a military man he said, “I have returned to you noble citizens from battle accompanied by my Lady Vic-tory, by your Lady Joy, along with Nobility, Glory, Luck, Heroism, and Triumph.” Immediately the students shouted Hooray! to Phosphorus’ family. [3. Mark T. Riley, Q. S. FL. TERTULLIANI ADVERSUS VALENTINIANOS TEXT, TRANSLATION, AND COMMENTARY]
His point being, of course, that the names are referring to abstractions rather than existent beings like Aeons. (It is also a barbed shot at his previous teacher whose empty rhetoric was devoid of the light of dialectic that should characterize good rhetoric. Ah, satirists everywhere!)

Nevertheless, Tertullian is the first extant example of linking the figure of the devil with the passage in Isaiah 14. The idea of the fall of the devil and his angels was a biblical concept preceding this, (Revelation 12:7-9) and St. Paul goes so far as to say the devil masquerades as an angel of light. (2 Corinthians 11:14)

Now, the grammatical-historical approach to Isaiah 14 (and its likeness in Ezekiel 28) in and of itself does not suggest any relation to the devil. We read:
How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, (lucifer) son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.
While the language over-reaches that of which mortals are capable, humans have nothing if not a propensity for over-reaching. Additionally, the poetic and hyperbolic nature of the texts is not uncommon in reference to kings. However, there is another layer at play here.

In the ancient near east the Babylonians had deities based upon astral phenomenon. Like most gods of this period, these deities were considered to be manifested in the objects that signified them. The terms used in this passage are names of Babylonian deities- Helel (the morning star) and Shahar. (the dawn)[4. Dennis Bratcher, “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12-17] I’m not entirely convinced both deities are intended here, since this could just as easily be a manifestation (ha!) of parallelism, the fundamental characteristic of Hebrew poetry.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply