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.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18759
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 »

The term 'Polycarp' appears in the last line of the intro too interestingly enough
“Thou wilt not require from me, who wastes time (διατριβόντων) among the Delphoi (ἐν Δελφοίς), and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect (βάρβαρον διάλεκτον) any skill in discourse which I have not learned, nor any power of composition which I have not practised, nor any beauty of style nor persuasiveness of which I know nothing. But thou wilt accept lovingly what I write lovingly to thee in simplicity(τὰ μετὰ ἀγάπης σοι γραφέντα, μετὰ ἀγάπης σὺπροσδέξῃ), truthfully , and in my own way (ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀληθῶς καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς); whilst thou thyself (as being more competent than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee (καὶ αὐτὸς αὐξήσεις αὐτὰ παρὰ σεαυτῷ), as it were, only the seeds and principles (σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχάς); and in the comprehensiveness of thine understanding (ἅτε ἱκανώτερος ἡμῶν τυγχάνων), wilt develop to their full extent (καὶ ἐν τῷ πλάτει σου τοῦ νοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ καρποφορήσεις) the points on which I briefly touch (τὰ δι’ ὀλίγων ὑφ’ ἡμῶν εἰρημένα), so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness (καὶ δυνατῶς παραστήσεις τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ τὰ ἀσθενῶς ὑφ’ ἡμῶν ἀπηγγελμένα)”
The use of 'briefly' (τὰ δι’ ὀλίγων) is also startling. How can a five book tome be described as a 'brief' discussion of anything? If the introduction then only applies to what follows - i.e. the Valentinians - the difficulty with τὰ δι’ ὀλίγων still stands. Let's accept that τὰ δι’ ὀλίγων applies only to proto-AV - in other words, original Against the Valentinians MSS. The reference to καὶ ἐν τῷ πλάτει σου τοῦ νοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ καρποφορήσεις must necessarily be a kind of 'fulfilled prophesy' with respect to the current AH. In other words, it must be acknowledged that:

1. someone wrote a treatise Against the Valentinians
2. this treatise must have existed as a stand alone text (as Tertullian's preservation in Latin of Adversus Valentinianos confirms)
3. the author of this text must have been identified as belonging to a community which believed that the Holy Spirit 'communed' or passed between members (i.e. the Montanists). It is very unusual for an author to encourage others to add to his work. Most authors see their writings as a reflection of their personal brilliance. A modern scholar may express a hope that his research encourages 'other investigations.' But most writers, even ancient writers like Galen, were concerned with subsequent individuals 'adding to' their genius.
4. the fact that Valentinians seemed to be a Roman community coupled with our suggestion that Hegesippus was this original author (and thus not a resident of Rome but instead of Asia Minor) necessarily implies that in some sense the treatise was a criticism of the Roman Church. The story goes that Hegesippus travels to Rome and encounters Marcellina the Carpocratian at the time of Anicetus and ultimately composes a list of bishops of Rome which has been expanded in our present volume.
5. the use of πολὺ καρποφορήσεις here dovetails with certain obvious parallels between 'Hegesippus' coming to Rome during Anicetus and Polycarp
6. it also raises questions about Irenaeus's war with Florinus the Roman priest who is described as a 'Valentinian' in some reports. Is he a Valentinian merely because he is Roman?
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18759
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 »

I wonder how unusual it is to use πλάτη to describe the growth of σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχάς. πλάτη means a broad, flat object. Do 'seeds' grow into things that are flat and broad? The only thing I can see is maybe this means something like 'the writing of lots of paper' or papyri.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18759
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 »

By the time of his Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity Birger Pearson takes for granted that Hegesippus established the framework at the heart of AH:
Hegesippus derives all Christian heresies from pre- Christian Jewish heresies (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 4.22.7). According to him the Gnostic heresy reared its ugly head in the church soon after the death of the apostles (Eusebius Hist. 4.22.7). According to him the Gnostic heresy reared its ugly head in the church soon after the death of the apostles (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.32.7f.). The implication of Hegesippus's statement is that "false" gnosis was already extant in apostolic times, but the powerful influence of the apostles kept it from blossoming in the church. The origin of this "false gnosis,' if we consider the testimony of Hegesippus, is found in pre-Christian Judaism. The view of some later fathers that heresy is necessarily later than orthodoxy (e.g., Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.17; Tertullian Haer. 29ff.) is obviously tendentious (9 - 17). https://books.google.com/books?id=67aA7 ... 22&f=false
One obvious inference from this research is that we can no longer take Hegesippus and Irenaeus to be separate witnesses to the existence of 'Jewish-Christianity.' In other words, if AH (i.e. Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως) confesses in its introduction that it is a development of something Hegesippus wrote against 'those of false knowledge' then we can't take AH and Hegesippus to be independent witnesses to the existence of 'Ebionites.' On some level, Hegesippus's stories about the family of Jesus surviving through to the second century in Jerusalem becomes the starting point for Irenaeus's own worldview. Irenaeus ignores the 'Jewish groups' mentioned by Hegesippus because his audience is obviously Gentiles in Rome.

Since Hegesippus is Eusebius's source for the statement that "the Gnostic heresy reared its ugly head in the church soon after the death of the apostles" and Irenaeus happens to agree for a timetable of heresies arriving in Rome:
For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop
and again:
Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards.
Both these statements are - let's not forget - developments from Hegesippus's episcopal succession list. As such, it is not at all a stretch to say that AH (i.e. Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως) IMPOSES an understanding that "the Gnostic heresy reared its ugly head in the church soon after the death of the apostles" given that the reign of [Antoninus] Pius (i.e. 138 - 161 CE) marks the end of the fabled 'Jerusalem Church' developed from the descendants of Jesus in the very succession list also from Hegesippus and preserved in Eusebius and Epiphanius. In other words, Hegesippus created a legendary 'Atlantis' of sorts - a lost 'continent' of Christianity - which purportedly existed in Jerusalem whose destruction coincided with the holocaust which was the Bar Kochba revolt.

The appeal of Hegesippus was that he established a way of minimizing and trivializing the bald fact that the Roman Church had a storied history which dated back to apostolic times. What the fable of the 'Jerusalem Church of the descendants of Jesus' does is it says - yes there was a Roman Church, but it wasn't the head of Christianity. It was instead a satellite established by Peter through Clement which was of subordinate status. This must have been embraced by the churches of Asia Minor in their struggle with Victor. Irenaeus's referencing Hegesippus's Roman apostolic succession list to Victor at the height of this conflict was another way of saying STFU. The question again is why did Victor accept this overt subordination of his own authority.

I can't shake the feeling that there is overlap between Polycarp's 'agreeing to disagree' with Anicetus and his very visit to Rome and Hegesippus's visit in the same period. Irenaeus's concern for the churches of Asia Minor is undoubtedly behind this use of Hegesippus. But the same can be said for Hegesippus now being behind the proto-text of AV which became the 'seed or beginning' as it were of the first book of AH. Notice that there are no references to Montanist heresy. This can't be accidental. While Hegesippus's whole 'Jerusalem Church myth' is almost entirely absent, this outsiders chronology of the succession list of Rome becomes authoritative. How can that be! There wasn't an actual ROMAN succession list written up by 180 CE. Surely there was. Surely Victor was installed from without as a means of displacing the obvious pride that a REAL Roman elder (who was at once a Pope i.e. Gaius of Rome) had for his native Church in Rome.

Listen to the way Gaius writes with pride about the age and authority of the Roman Church, that it has the graves of both Peter and Paul. Note that he rejects the Gospel of John and the Johannine corpus. Victor was installed to CURB Roman authority. That's why he accepts a Roman succession list imposed by an outsider who was ultimately hostile to its authority. That's why Gaius doesn't appear anywhere on that list even though Book 3 (i.e. the place the augmented list now appears) is usually dated to 190 CE i.e. well into Gaius's lifetime.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18759
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 »

The inherited 'Hegesippian myth' that forms the basis to ecclesiastic history in AH (Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως)
(generations before the Jewish War i.e. pre-Neronic myth) Jesus was a human being who was part of a large family i.e. with many brothers who was crucified under Pilate. He only became divine or Christ by means of baptism which encouraged other members of this 'new prophesy' movement to undergo the same ritual.
(in the lead up to the Jewish War i.e. 66 - 72 CE) the brothers of Jesus established a Church from James which was persecuted by the Vespasian
(after the Jewish War 72 - 117 CE) the family of Jesus (i.e. the Jerusalem Church) continues to be persecuted by the Roman State
(the bar Kochba revolt 130 - 135 CE) the Jewish followers of the false messiah and the Roman state succeed at destroying the Church of the family of Jesus
(the reign of Pius 138 - 161 CE) the gnostics arise in Rome. Hegesippus emerges as a champion of the mythical 'Atlantis' that once existed in Jerusalem through his book which eventually becomes Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως.
(the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus 175 - 192 CE) Eusebius describes this period as the golden age of Christianity where the Roman state no longer persecuted Christianity. It also happens to be the time Hegesippus's book becomes adapted to specific form which benefits the churches of Asia Minor because the completely fictitious community of the 'family of Jesus' in Jerusalem succeeds in cutting the legs from under the traditional Roman Church that Gaius represented. The Roman Church was by means of the authority of Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως reduced to a community 'corrupted' by heresy. The whole idea of 'Jewish Christianity' introduced into Acts (an Antiochene document) and AH succeeds at neutralizing the 'gnostic' ideas at the heart of this community and its emphasis on 'mystery religion.'
The structure was already in place for AH to simply 'assume' that Valentinianism 'only' arose in the middle of the second-century and that Marcion 'must' have come after (because Marcion isn't mention in Hegesippus). The Carpocratians also precede Marcion in AH for this reason - i.e. Hegesippus is the basis for the entire historical worldview of the document. Hegesippus was the pre-Eusebian 'Church History' of orthodox Christianity even though it was entirely fictitious.
“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
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:20 am I wonder how unusual it is to use πλάτη to describe the growth of σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχάς. πλάτη means a broad, flat object. Do 'seeds' grow into things that are flat and broad?
Not πλάτη but rather its (masculine) cognate πλάτος. I do not think it has anything to do with the seed itself or its environment in this sentence; rather, it is expressing the idea of breadth, but metaphorically, sort of like in the English expression, "the full breadth" (of one's knowledge or resources, for example). I am pressed for time and have not looked at the entire context, but at a glance it looks like ἐν τῷ πλάτει means something like "to full extent." Hence the translation you cite, "[Thou] wilt develop to their full extent...." It may, similarly, mean "in full detail," or some such. Anything which may reasonably capture that notion of putting the entire breadth of a thing in view.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

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

Post by Stuart »

Stephen, you should not waste time trying to identify specific persons as authors. It's a fools game. You mix legends and myths with possible people, falling for tropes as if history. I know it's seductive to be drawn in to think you can find the person in history. But take my advice, you can't, so don't waste your effort on that, no matter how fun and intoxicating the game is.

I also know the reason we chase the persons is to anchor the writings and the story in a specific time and place, to bring order in our minds. But we really cannot. We wind up mixing wild speculation with what should be nothing but solid analysis. You unanchored AV and AH1 from their traditional moorings, and a compulsion to re-anchor them is what eats at you; not just you it's all of us. But let it go.

Separate the pseudo biographical material from the analysis. This material was probably added by the compendium editor at a later date, when they were organizing the material. Most likely it was drawn from an apocryphal acts and the characters as real as those in the Harry Potter books; or when real their history replaced with borrowed bits of famous fables.

Note: I also think you make a mistake in reading AH 1:22-31 as being from the same author as the earlier chapters. It is an appendage that has nothing to do with the tract it was attached to. It's style and argument are very different.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18759
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 »

The next question to consider is what does the Philosophumena (Refutation of All Heresies) represent? Already the account of Marcus follows Valentinus. So the idea of Marcus being linked with Valentinus already exist. But it is a summary of AH 1.1 - 12. The order of the Marcosian section is jumbled too. So it doesn't know AH 1 as a unit either. Hard to explain why it would jumble the order of AH 1.13 - 20 if it was there in front of the author in the form we know. Nevertheless it links Marcus with Valentinus and already assumes that Pythagoras inspired the Valentinians even though - as we have just demonstrated - the numerological examples associated with the Valentinians (i.e. 8, 12, 30) weren't originally part of AV. Here is what Litwa writes:
The following report (Ref. 6.29.2–36.4) adapts iren., Haer. 1.1.1–7.5. our author's report (called system “B” by R. a. lipsius, “Valentinus und seine schule,” Jahrbücher für protestantischen Theologie 13 [1887] is typically viewed as secondary to that of irenaeus (system “a”) not only because it is later but because our author tends to doctor his sources and is constrained by his method (to connect his enemies to peculiar philosophies) (sagnard, Gnose, 135; Kalvesmaki, Theology, 53–55). sagnard offers a chart comparing the two systems in Gnose, 146–98. see further g. c. stead (“The Valentinian myth of sophia,” JTS 20 [1969]: 75–104 [77–80]), who notes that the monadic deity presented by our author is more congenial to “the Jewish and christian god” (80). it is widely held that iren., Haer. 1–11, treats the system of Ptolemy the Valentinian. Both Ptolemy and Herakleon have just been mentioned (Ref. 6.29.1). see further Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 200–204. for other reports of Valentinian cosmogony, see clem. alex., Exc. 43.2–65.2; tert., Val. 7–35; Ps.-tert., Adv. omn. haer. 4; epiph., Pan. 31.2.4–8.1
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18759
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 »

When I look at Philosophumena 6 it is obvious there is a conscious attempt to group together all the heresies that emphasizes gematria of some sort. The chapter begins with the acknowledgement that the previous chapter group together snake worshipers while the present has a different grouping:
THE following are the contents of the sixth book of the Refutation of all Heresies:- What the opinions are that are attempted (to be established) by Simon, and that his doctrine derives its force from the (lucubrations) of magicians and poets.

What are the opinions propounded by Valentinus, and that his system is not constructed out of the Scriptures, but out of the Platonic and Pythagorean tenets.

And what are the opinions of Secundus, and Ptolemaeus, and Heracleon, as persons also who themselves advanced the same doctrines as the philosophers among the Greeks, but enunciated them in different phraseology.

And what are the suppositions put forward by Marcus and Colarbasus, and that some of them devoted their attention to magical arts and the Pythagorean numbers.

CHAP. 1. --THE OPHITES THE PROGENITORS OF SUBSEQUENT HERESIES.

Whatever opinions, then, were entertainedby those who derived the first principles (of their doctrine) from the serpent, and in process of time deliberately brought forward into public notice their tenets, we have explained in the book preceding this, (and) which is the fifth of the Refutation of Heresies. But now also I shall not be silent as regards the opinions of (heresiarchs) who follow these (Ophites in succession); nay, not one (speculation) will I leave unrefuted, if it is possible to remember all (their tenets), and the secret orgies of these (heretics) which one may fairly style orgies,--for they who propagate such audacious opinions are not far distant from the anger (of God),--that I may avail myself of the assistance of etymology.
I think this necessarily presupposes an original ordering like that of Book 1 of AH (albeit without reference to Marcion because Marcion follows and is completely different). In other words, Valentinus first and then Marcus. The mention of the Ophites throughout - without giving their details - cf. Book 8:
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. Since, however, the statements concerning these appear to be sufficient, let us pass on to the cause of evils to all, (viz.,) the heresy of the Noetians.
seems to imply he has a source with this ordering. Noachites are not in Irenaeus as we now have book 1. Book 1 closes now:
CHAP. XXX.--DOCTRINES OF THE OPHITES AND

SETHIANS.

1. Others, again, portentously declare that there exists, in the power of Bythus, a certain primary light, blessed, incorruptible, and infinite: this is the Father of all, and is styled the first man. They also maintain that his Ennoea, going forth from him, produced a son, and that this is the son of man--the second man. Below these, again, is the Holy Spirit, and under this superior spirit the elements were separated from each other, viz., water, darkness, the abyss, chaos, above which they declare the Spirit was borne, calling him the first woman. Afterwards, they maintain, the first man, with his son, delighting over the beauty of the Spirit--that is, of the woman--and shedding light upon her, begat by her an incorruptible light, the third male, whom they call Christ,--the son of the first and second man, and of the Holy Spirit, the first woman.

2. The father and son thus both had intercourse with the woman (whom they also call the mother of the living). When, however,(4) she could not bear nor receive into herself the greatness of the lights, they declare that she was filled to repletion, and became ebullient on the left side; and that thus their only son Christ, as belonging to the right side, and ever tending to what was higher, was immediately caught up with his mother to form an incorruptible AEon. This constitutes the true and holy Church, which has become the appellation, the meeting together, and the union of the father of all, of the first man, of the son, of the second man, of Christ their son, and of the woman who has been mentioned.

3. They teach, however, that the power which proceeded from the woman by ebullition, being besprinkled with light, fell downward from the place occupied by its progenitors, yet possessing by its own will that besprinkling of light; and it they call Sinistra, Prunicus, and Sophia, as well as masculo-feminine. This being, in its simplicity, descended into the waters while they were yet in a state of immobility, and imparted motion to them also, wantonly acting upon them even to their lowest depths, and assumed from them a body. For they affirm that all things rushed towards and clung to that sprinkling of light, and begin it all round. Unless it had possessed that, it would perhaps have been totally absorbed in, and overwhelmed by, material substance. Being therefore bound down by a body which was composed of matter, and greatly burdened by it, this power regretted the course it had followed, and made an attempt to escape from the waters and ascend to its mother: it could not effect this, however, on account of the weight of the body lying over and around it. But feeling very ill at ease, it endeavoured at least to conceal that light which came from above, fearing lest it too might be injured by the inferior elements, as had happened to itself. And when it had received power from that besprinkling of light which it possessed, it sprang back again, and was borne aloft; and being on high, it extended itself, covered [a portion of space], and formed this visible heaven out of its body; yet remained under the heaven which it made, as still possessing the form of a watery body. But when it had conceived a desire for the light above, and had received power by all things, it laid down this body, and was freed from it. This body which they speak of that power as having thrown off, they call a female from a female.

4. They declare, moreover, that her son had also himself a certain breath of incorruption left him by his mother, and that through means of it he works; and becoming powerful, he himself, as they affirm, also sent forth from the waters a son without a mother; for they do not allow him either to have known a mother. His son, again, after the example of his father, sent forth another son. This third one, too, generated a fourth; the fourth also generated a son: they maintain that again a son was generated by the fifth; and the sixth, too, generated a seventh. Thus was the Hebdomad, according to them, completed, the mother possessing the eighth place; and as in the case of their generations, so also in regard to dignities and powers, they precede each other in turn.

5. They have also given names to [the several persons] in their system of falsehood, such as the following: he who was the first descendant of the mother is called Ialdabaoth;(1) he, again, descended from him, is named Iao; he, from this one, is called Sabaoth; the fourth is named Adoneus; the fifth, Eloeus; the sixth, Oreus; and the seventh and last of all, Astanphaeus. Moreover, they represent these heavens, potentates, powers, angels, and creators, as sitting in their proper order in heaven, according to their generation, and as invisibly ruling over things celestial and terrestrial. The first of them, namely Ialdabaoth, holds his mother in contempt, inasmuch as he produced sons and grandsons without the permission of any one, yea, even angels, archangels, powers, potentates, and dominions. After these things had been done, his sons turned to strive and quarrel with him about the supreme power,--conduct which deeply grieved Ialdabaoth, and drove him to despair. In these circumstances, he cast his eyes upon the subjacent dregs of matter, and fixed his desire upon it, to which they declare his son owes his origin. This son is Nous himself, twisted into the form of a serpent;(2) and hence were derived the spirit, the soul, and all mundane things: from this too were generated all oblivion, wickedness, emulation, envy, and death. They declare that the father imparted(3) still greater crookedness to this serpent-like and contorted Nous of theirs, when he was with their father in heaven and Paradise.

6. On this account, Ialdabaoth, becoming uplifted in spirit, boasted himself over all those things that were below him, and exclaimed, "I am father, and God, and above me there is no one." But his mother, hearing him speak thus, cried out against him, "Do not lie, Ialdabaoth: for the father of all, the first Anthropos (man), is above thee; and so is Anthropos the son of Anthropos." Then, as all were disturbed by this new voice, and by the unexpected proclamation, and as they were inquiring whence the noise proceeded, in order to lead them away and attract them to himself, they affirm that Ialdabaoth exclaimed, "Come, let us make man after our image."(4) The six powers, on hearing this, and their mother furnishing them with the idea of a man (in order that by means of him she might empty them of their original power), jointly formed a man of immense size, both in regard to breadth and length. But as he could merely writhe along the ground, they carried him to their father; Sophia so labouring in this matter, that she might empty him (Ialdabaoth) of the light with which he had been sprinkled, so that he might no longer, though still powerful, be able to lift up himself against the powers above. They declare, then, that by breathing into man the spirit of life, he was secretly emptied of his power; that hence man became a possessor of nous (intelligence) and enthymesis (thought); and they affirm that these are the faculties which partake in salvation. He [they further assert] at once gave thanks to the first Anthropos (man), forsaking those who had created him.

7. But Ialdabaoth, feeling envious at this, was pleased to form the design of again emptying man by means of woman, and produced a woman from his own enthymesis, whom that Prunicus [above mentioned] laying hold of, imperceptibly emptied her of power. But the others coming and admiring her beauty, named her Eve, and falling in love with her, begat sons by her, whom they also declare to be the angels. But their mother (Sophia) cunningly devised a scheme to seduce Eve and Adam, by means of the serpent, to transgress the command of Ialdabaoth. Eve listened to this as if it had proceeded from a son of God, and yielded an easy belief. She also persuaded Adam to eat of the tree regarding which God had said that they should not eat of it. They then declare that, on their thus eating, they attained to the knowledge of that power which is above all, and departed from those who had created them.(1) When Prunicus perceived that the powers were thus baffled by their own creature, she greatly rejoiced, and again cried out, that since the father was incorruptible, he (Ialdabaoth) who formerly called himself the father was a liar; and that, while Anthropos and the first woman (the Spirit) existed previously, this one (Eve) sinned by committing adultery.

8. Ialdabaoth, however, through that oblivion in which he was involved, and not paying any regard to these things, cast Adam and Eve out of Paradise, because they had transgressed his commandment. For he had a desire to beget sons by Eve, but did not accomplish his wish, because his mother opposed him in every point, and secretly emptied Adam and Eve of the light with which they had been sprinkled, in order that that spirit which proceeded from the supreme power might participate neither in the curse nor opprobrium [caused by transgression]. They also teach that, thus being emptied of the divine substance, they were cursed by him, and cast down from heaven to this world.(2) But the serpent also, who was acting against the father, was cast down by him into this lower world; he reduced, however, under his power the angels here, and begat six sons, he himself forming the seventh person, after the example of that Hebdomad which surrounds the father. They further declare that these are the seven mundane demons, who always oppose and resist the human race, because it was on their account that their father was cast down to this lower world.

9. Adam and Eve previously had light, and clear, and as it were spiritual bodies, such as they were at their creation; but when they came to this world, these changed into bodies more opaque, and gross, and sluggish. Their soul also was feeble and languid, inasmuch as they had received from their creator a merely mundane inspiration. This continued until Prunicus, moved with compassion towards them, restored to them the sweet savour of the besprinkling of light, by means of which they came to a remembrance of themselves, and knew that they were naked, as well as that the body was a material substance, and thus recognised that they bore death about with them. They thereupon became patient, knowing that only for a time they would be enveloped in the body. They also found out food, through the guidance of Sophia; and when they were satisfied, they had carnal knowledge of each other, and begat Cain, whom the serpent, that had been cast down along with his sons, immediately laid hold of and destroyed by filling him with mundane oblivion, and urging into folly and audacity, so that, by slaying his brother Abel, he was the first to bring to light envy and death. After these, they affirm that, by the forethought of Prunicus, Seth was begotten, and then Norea,(3) from whom they represent all the rest of mankind as being descended. They were urged on to all kinds of wickedness by the inferior Hebdomad, and to apostasy, idolatry, and a general contempt for everything by the superior holy Hebdomad,(4) since the mother was always secretly opposed to them, and carefully preserved what was peculiarly her own, that is, the besprinkling of light. They maintain, moreover, that the holy Hebdomad is the seven stars which they call planets; and they affirm that the serpent cast down has two names, Michael and Samael.

10. Ialdabaoth, again, being incensed with men, because they did not worship or honour him as father and God, sent forth a deluge upon them, that he might at once destroy them all. But Sophia opposed him in this point also, and Noah and his family were saved in the ark by means of the besprinkling of that light which proceeded from her, and through it the world was again filled with mankind. Ialdabaoth himself chose a certain man named Abraham from among these, and made a covenant with him, to the effect that, if his seed continued to serve him, he would give to them the earth for an inheritance. Afterwards, by means of Moses, he brought forth Abraham's descendants from Egypt, and gave them the law, and made them the Jews. Among that people he chose seven days,(1) which they also call the holy Hebdomad. Each of these receives his own herald for the purpose of glorifying and proclaiming God; so that, when the rest hear these praises, they too may serve those who are announced as gods try the prophets.

11. Moreover, they distribute the prophets in the following manner: Moses, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Amos, and Habakkuk, belonged to Ialdabaoth; Samuel, and Nathan, and Jonah, and Micah, to Iao; Elijah, Joel, and Zechariah to Sabaoth; Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel, to Adohai; Tobias and Haggai to Eloi; Michaiah and Nahum to Oreus; Esdras and Zephaniah to Astanphaeus. Each one of these, then, glorifies his own father and God, and they maintain that Sophia, herself has also spoken many things through them regarding the first Anthropos (man),(2) and concerning that Christ who is above, thus admonishing and reminding men of the incorruptible light, the first Anthropos, and of the descent of Christ. The [other] powers being terrified by these things, and marveiling at the novelty of those things which were announced by the prophets, Prunicus brought it about by means of Ialdabaoth (who knew not what he did), that emissions of two men took place, the one from the barren Elizabeth, and the other from the Virgin Mary.

12. And since she herself had no rest either in heaven or on earth, she invoked her mother to assist her in her distress. Upon this, her mother, the first woman, was moved with compassion towards her daughter, on her repentance, and begged from the first man that Christ should be sent to her assistance, who, being sent forth, descended to his sister, and to the besprinkling of light. When he recognised her (that is, the Sophia below), her brother descended to her, and announced his advent through means of John, and prepared the baptism of repentance, and adopted Jesus beforehand, in order that on Christ descending he might find a pure vessel, and that by the son of that Ialdabaoth the woman might be announced by Christ. They further declare that he descended through the seven heavens, having assumed the likeness of their sons, and gradually emptied them of their power. For they maintain that the whole besprinkling of light rushed to him, and that Christ, descending to this world, first clothed his sister Sophia [with it], and that then both exulted in the mutual refreshment they felt in each other's society: this scene they describe as relating to bridegroom and bride. But Jesus, inasmuch as he was begotten of the Virgin through the agency of God, was wiser, purer, and more righteous than all other men: Christ united to Sophia descended into him, and thus Jesus Christ was produced.

13. They affirm that many of his disciples were not aware of the descent of Christ into him; but that, when Christ did descend on Jesus, he then began to work miracles, and heal, and announce the unknown Father, and openly to confess himself the son of the first man. The powers and the father of Jesus were angry at these proceedings, and laboured to destroy him; and when he was being led away for this purpose, they say that Christ himself, along with Sophia, departed from him into the state of an incorruptible AEon, while Jesus was crucified. Christ, however, was not forgetful of his Jesus, but sent down a certain energy into him from above, which raised him up again in the body, which they call both animal and spiritual; for he sent the mundane parts back again into the world. When his disciples saw that he had risen, they did not recognise him--no, not even Jesus himself, by whom he rose again from the dead. And they assert that this very great error prevailed among his disciples, that they imagined he had risen in a mundane body, not knowing that "flesh(3) and blood do not attain to the kingdom of God."

14. They strove to establish the descent and ascent of Christ, by the fact that neither before his baptism, nor after his resurrection from the dead, do his disciples state that he did any mighty works, not being aware that Jesus was united to Christ, and the incorruptible AEon to the Hebdomad; and they declare his mundane body to be of the same nature as that of animals. But after his resurrection he tarried [on earth] eighteen months; and knowledge descending into him from above, he taught what was clear. He instructed a few of his disciples, whom he knew to be capable of understanding so great mysteries, in these things, and was then received up into heaven, Christ sitting down at the right hand of his father Ialdabaoth, that he may receive to himself the souls of those who have known them,(4) after they have laid aside their mundane flesh, thus enriching himself without the knowledge or perception of his father; so that, in proportion as Jesus enriches himself with holy souls, to such an extent does his father suffer loss and is diminished, being emptied of his own power by these souls. For he will not now possess holy souls to send them down again into the world, except those only which are of his substance, that is, those into which he has breathed. But the consummation [of all things] will take place, when the whole besprinkling of the spirit of light is gathered together, and is carried off to form an incorruptible AEon.

15. Such are the opinions which prevail among these persons, by whom, like the Lernaean hydra, a many-headed beast has been generated from the school of Valentinus. For some of them assert that Sophia herself became the serpent; on which account she was hostile to the creator of Adam, and implanted knowledge in men, for which reason the serpent was called wiser than all others. Moreover, by the position of our intestines, through which the food is conveyed, and by the fact that they possess such a figure, our internal configuration(1) in the form of a serpent reveals our hidden generatrix.

CHAP. XXXI.--DOCTRINES OF THE CAINITES.

1. Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

2. I have also made a collection of their writings in which they advocate the abolition of the doings of Hystera.(2) Moreover, they call this Hystera the creator of heaven and earth. They also hold, like Carpocrates, that men cannot be saved until they have gone through all kinds of experience. An angel, they maintain, attends them in every one of their sinful and abominable actions, and urges them to venture on audacity and incur pollution. Whatever may be the nature(3) of the action, they declare that they do it in the name of the angel, saying, "O thou angel, I use thy work; O thou power, I accomplish thy operation !" And they maintain that this is "perfect knowledge," without shrinking to rush into such actions as it is not lawful even to name.

CONCLUSION FOR AH 1

3. It was necessary clearly to prove, that, as their very opinions and regulations exhibit them, those who are of the school of Valentinus derive their origin from such mothers, fathers, and ancestors, and also to bring forward their doctrines, with the hope that perchance some of them, exercising repentance and returning to the only Creator, and God the Former of the universe, may obtain salvation, and that others may not henceforth be drown away by their wicked, although plausible, persuasions, imagining that they will obtain from them the knowledge of some greater and more sublime mysteries. But let them rather, learning to good effect from us the wicked tenets of these men, look with contempt upon their doctrines, while at the same time they pity those who, still cleaving to these miserable and baseless fables, have reached such a pitch of arrogance as to reckon themselves superior to all others on account of such knowledge, or, as it should rather be called, ignorance. They have now been fully exposed; and simply to exhibit their sentiments, is to obtain a victory over them.

4. Wherefore I have laboured to bring forward, and make clearly manifest, the utterly ill-conditioned carcase of this miserable little fox.(4) For there will not now be need of many words to overturn their system of doctrine, when it has been made manifest to all. It is as when, on a beast hiding itself in a wood, and by rushing forth from it is in the habit of destroying multitudes, one who beats round the wood and thoroughly explores it, so as to compel the animal to break cover, does not strive to capture it, seeing that it is truly a ferocious beast; but those present can then watch and avoid its assaults, and can cast darts at it from all sides, and wound it, and finally slay that destructive brute. So, in our case, since we have brought their hidden mysteries, which they keep in silence among themselves, to the light, it will not now be necessary to use many words in destroying their system of opinions. For it is now in thy power, and in the power of all thy associates, to familiarize yourselves with what has been said, to overthrow their wicked and undigested doctrines, and to set forth doctrines agreeable to the truth. Since then the case is so, I shall, according to promise, and as my ability serves, labour to overthrow them, by refuting them all in the following book. Even to give an account of them is a tedious affair, as thou seest.(5) But I shall furnish means for overthrowing them, by meeting all their opinions in the order in which they have been described, that I may not only expose the wild beast to view, but may inflict wounds upon it from every side.
The sense seems to be that the author of the Philosophumena has a version of Irenaeus which (1) ended with 'Noachites' (2) had a different account of Simon Magus or did not reference Simon Magus (3) a different version of Marcion.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18759
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 »

There must have been two proto-texts:

a. what we called proto-AV which is the text behind Tertullian's Against the Valentinians and Irenaeus's The Detection and Refutation of False Knowledge (AH) 1.1 - 12
b. the ancestor of the Philosophumena (commonly called Hippolytus's Refutation of All Heresies) which stands related to AH.

It is apparent that the author of the Philosophumena had some sort of version of Irenaeus's text in his hand and knows Irenaeus as its author but it wasn't exactly the same our existing text of The Detection and Refutation of False Knowledge.

1. Book 1 begins with an attack against the Philosophers.
2. Books 2 and 3 are missing. The only clue he gives about what is lost is the last lines in Book 1 " I consider that we have sufficiently explained; and from these the heretics, taking occasion, have endeavoured to establish the tenets that will be after a short time declared. It seems, however, expedient, that first explaining the mystical rites and whatever imaginary doctrines some have laboriously framed concerning the stars, or magnitudes, to declare these; for heretics likewise, taking occasion from them, are considered by the multitude to utter prodigies. Next in order we shall elucidate the feeble opinions advanced by these."
3. Book 4 deals with 'mysteries' associated with magicians. The end of the book introduces Simon and Valentinus - the subjects of the next book. Here is the first problem. How do you reconcile a completely different section on Simon? Here is the problem. As the Philosophumena stands the introduction of Simon and the Valentinians TOGETHER completely fits the intended plan of the book. In other words, the author says that Pythagoras was called 'the Italian' because the first Pythagorean schools appeared there. Yet Valentinians are also emphasized as an Italian phenomenon. It is not clear if the Italianness of the Valentinians was over-emphasized to make the connection with Pythagoras. I don't think so.

But it is odd that almost nothing of AH's sections on Simon and Marcion are employed given that the two sections clearly emphasize the writings of Luke. First Simon in AH:
Simon the Samaritan was that magician of whom Luke, the disciple and follower of the apostles, says, "But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime used magical arts in that city, and led astray the people of Samaria, declaring that he himself was some great one, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This is the power of God, which is called great. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had driven them mad by his sorceries."(7) This Simon, then--who feigned faith, supposing that the apostles themselves performed their cures by the art of magic, and not by the power of God; and with respect to their filling with the Holy Ghost, through the imposition of hands, those that believed in God through Him who was preached by them, namely, Christ Jesus--suspecting that even this was done through a kind of greater knowledge of magic, and offering money to the apostles, thought he, too, might receive this power of bestowing the Holy Spirit on whomsoever he would,--was addressed in these words by Peter: "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God can be purchased with money: thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not fight in the sight of God; for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."(8) He, then, not putting faith in God a whit the more, set himself eagerly to contend against the apostles, in order that he himself might seem to be a wonderful being, and applied himself with still greater zeal to the study of the whole magic art, that he might the better bewilder and overpower multitudes of men. Such was his procedure in the reign of Claudius Caesar, by whom also he is said to have been honoured with a statue, on account of his magical power.(1) This man, then, was glorified by many as if he were a god; and he taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit. He represented himself, in a word, as being the loftiest of all powers, that is, the Being who is the Father over all, and he allowed himself to be called by whatsoever title men were pleased to address him.

2. Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all sorts of heresies derive their origin, formed his sect out of the following materials:--Having redeemed from slavery at Tyre, a city of Phoenicia, a certain woman named Helena, he was in the habit of carrying her about with him, declaring that this woman was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all, by whom, in the beginning, he conceived in his mind [the thought] of forming angels and archangels. For this Ennoea leaping forth from him, and comprehending the will of her father, descended to the lower regions [of space], and generated angels and powers, by whom also he declared this word was formed. But after she had produced them, she was detained by them through motives of jealousy, because they were unwilling to be looked upon as the progeny of any other being. As to himself, they had no knowledge of him whatever; but his Ennoea was detained by those powers and angels who had been produced by her. She suffered all kinds of contumely from them, so that she could not return upwards to her father, but was even shut up in a human body, and for ages passed in succession from one female body to another, as from vessel to vessel. She was, for example, in that Helen on whose account the Trojan war was undertaken; for whose sake also Stesichorus(2) was struck blind, because he had cursed her in his verses, but afterwards, repenting and writing what are called palinodes, in which he sang her praise, he was restored to sight. Thus she, passing from body to body, and suffering insults in every one of them, at last became a common prostitute; and she it was that was meant by the lost sheep.(3)

3. For this purpose, then, he had come that he might win her first, and free her from slavery, while he conferred salvation upon men, by making himself known to them. For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judaea, when he had not suffered. Moreover, the prophets uttered their predictions under the inspiration of those angels who formed the world; for which reason those who place their trust in him and Helena no longer regarded them, but, as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through his grace, and not on account of their own righteous actions. For such deeds are not righteous in the nature of things, but by mere accident, just as those angels who made the world, have thought fit to constitute them, seeking, by means of such precepts, to bring men into bondage. On this account, he pledged himself that the world should be dissolved, and that those who are his should be freed from the rule of them who made the world.

4. Thus, then, the mystic priests belonging to this sect both lead profligate lives and practise magical arts, each one to the extent of his ability. They use exorcisms and incantations. Love-potions, too, and charms, as well as those beings who are called "Paredri" (familiars) and "Oniropompi" (dream- senders), and whatever other curious arts can be had recourse to, are eagerly pressed into their service. They also have an image of Simon fashioned after the likeness of Jupiter, and another of Helena in the shape of Minerva; and these they worship. In fine, they have a name derived from Simon, the author of these most impious doctrines, being called Simonians; and from them "knowledge, falsely so called,"(4) received its beginning, as one may learn even from their own assertions.

5. The successor of this man was Menander, also a Samaritan by birth, and he, too, was a perfect adept in the practice of magic. He affirms that the primary Power continues unknown to all, but that he himself is the person who has been sent forth from the presence of the invisible beings as a saviour, for the deliverance of men. The world was made by angels, whom, like Simon, he maintains to have been produced by Ennoea. He gives, too, as he affirms, by means of that magic which he teaches, knowledge to this effect, that one may overcome those very angels that made the world; for his disciples obtain the resurrection by being baptized into him, and can die no more, but remain in the possession of immortal youth.
and then Marcion a few chapters later in AH:
1. Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; while the one also was righteous, but the other benevolent.

2. Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.

3. Salvation will be the attainment only of those souls which had learned his doctrine; while the body, as having been taken from the earth, is incapable of sharing in salvation. In addition to his blasphemy against God Himself, he advanced this also, truly speaking as with the mouth of the devil, and saying all things in direct opposition to the truth,--that Cain, and those like him, and the Sodomites, and the Egyptians, and others like them, and, in fine, all the nations who walked in all sorts of abomination, were saved by the Lord, on His descending into Hades, and on their running unto Him, and that they welcomed Him into their kingdom. But the serpent(3) which was in Marcion declared that Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and those other righteous men who sprang(4) from the patriarch Abraham, with all the prophets, and those who were pleasing to God, did not partake in salvation. For since these men, he says, knew that their God was constantly tempting them, so now they suspected that He was tempting them, and did not run to Jesus, or believe His announcement: and for this reason he declared that their souls remained in Hades.

4. But since this man is the only one who has dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures, and unblushingly above all others to inveigh against God, I purpose specially to refute him, convicting him out of his own writings; and, with the help of God, I shall overthrow him out of those(1) discourses of the Lord and the apostles, which are of authority with him, and of which he makes use. At present, however, I have simply been led to mention him, that thou mightest know that all those who in any way corrupt the truth, and injuriously affect the preaching of the Church, are the disciples and successors of Simon Magus of Samaria. Although they do not confess the name of their master, in order all the more to seduce others, yet they do teach his doctrines. They set forth, indeed, the name of Christ Jesus as a sort of lure, but in various ways they introduce the impieties of Simon; and thus they destroy multitudes, wickedly disseminating their own doctrines by the use of a good name, and, through means of its sweetness and beauty, extending to their hearers the bitter and malignant poison of the serpent, the great author of apostasy?
I think a strong argument can be developed that AH in its present form COMES AFTER the Philosophumena. Not only does the Philosophumena identify gospel of Mark and Paul as Marcion's texts (as opposed to Luke and Paul in AH) but AH also knows the lengthened version of Hegesippus's Roman succession list of Book 3 which is usually dated to 190 CE. The Philosophumena's source text is older than this.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18759
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 »

Book Five. Strangely the author of the Philosophumena spends just enough time linking Simon and the Valentinians to the magicians and Pythagoras that he can spend Book 5 on a completely subject - the descendants of the serpent. Book Four ends:
Arithmeticians and geometers arose, to whom especially Pythagoras first seems to have furnished principles. And from numbers that can continually progress ad infinitum by multiplication, and from figures, these derived their first principles, as capable of being discerned by reason alone; for a principle of geometry, as one may perceive, is an indivisible point. From that point, however, by means of the art, the generation of endless figures from the point is discovered. For the point being drawn into length becomes a line, after being thus continued, having a point for its extremity. And a line flowing out into breadth begets a surface, and the limits of the surface are lines; but a surface flowing out into breadth becomes body, And when what is solid has in this manner derived existence from, altogether, the smallest point, the nature of a huge body is constituted; and this is what Simon expresses thus: "The little will be great, being as a point, and the great illimitable." Now this coincides with the geometrical doctrine of a point.

But of the arithmetical art, which by composition contains philosophy, number became a first principle, which is an indefinable and incomprehensible (entity), comprising in itself all the numbers that can go on ad infinitum by aggregation. But the first monad became a principle, according to substance, of the numbers, which (principle) is a male monad, pro-creating paternally all the rest of the numbers. Secondly, the duad is a female number, which by the arithmeticians is also itself denominated even. Thirdly, the triad is a male number; this also it has been the usual custom of arithmeticians to style odd. In addition to all these, the tetrad is a female number; and this same, because it is feminine, is likewise denominated even. All the numbers therefore, taken generically, are four--number, however, as regards genus, is indefinite--from which, according to their system, is formed the perfect number--I mean the decade. For one, two, three, four, become ten--as has been previously proved--if the proper denomination be preserved, according to substance, for each of the numbers. This is the sacred quaternion, according to Pythagoras, having in itself roots of an endless nature, that is, all other numbers; for eleven, and twelve, and the rest, derive the principle of generation from the ten. Of this decade--the perfect number--there are called four parts--number, monad, power, cube--whose connections and mixtures take place for the generation of increase, according to nature completing the productive number. For when the square is multiplied into itself, it becomes a biquadratic; but when the square is multiplied into a cube, it becomes the product of a quadratic and cube; but when a cube is multiplied into a cube, it becomes the product of cube multiplied by cube.

Wherefore all the numbers are seven; so that the generation of things produced may be from the hebdomad--which is number, monad, power, cube, biquadratic, product of quadratic multiplied by cube, product of cube multiplied by cube.

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.

Some indeed, then, attempt likewise to form the hebdomads from the medical (art), being astonished at the dissection of the brain, asserting that the substance of the universe and the power of procreation and the Godhead could be ascertained from the arrangement of the brain. For the brain, being the dominant portion of the entire body, reposes calm and unmoved, containing within itself the spirit. Such an account, then, is not incredible, but widely differs from the conclusions which these (heretics) attempt to deduce from it. For the brain, on being dissected, has within it what may be called a vaulted chamber. And on either side of this are thin membranes, which they term little wings. Now these are gently moved by the spirit, and in turn propel towards the cerebellum the spirit, which, careering through a certain blood-vessel like a reed, advances towards the pineal gland. And near this is situated the entrance of the cerebellum, which admits the current of spirit, and distributes it into what is styled the spinal marrow. But from them the whole frame participates in the spiritual energy, inasmuch as all the arteries, like a branch, are fastened on from this blood-vessel, the extremity of which terminates in the genital blood-vessels, whence all the (animal) seeds proceeding from the brain through the loin are secreted (in the seminal glands). The form, however, of the brain is like the head of a serpent, respecting which a lengthened discussion is maintained by the professors of knowledge, falsely so named, as we shall prove. Six other coupling ligaments grow out of the brain, which, traversing round the head, and having their termination in (the head) itself, hold bodies together; but the seventh (ligament) proceeds from the cerebellum to the lower parts of the rest of the frame, as we have declared.

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.
Book Five looks like it was added later to something which was supposed to limit its discussion to the thesis - the heresies developed from the Greek philosophers, the following material doesn't quite fit:
What the assertions are of the Naasseni, who style themselves Gnostics, and that they advance those opinions which the Philosophers of the Greeks previously propounded, as well as those who have handed down mystical (rites), from (both of) whom the Naasseni taking occasion, have constructed their heresies. And what are the tenets of the Perstae, and that their system is not framed by them out of the holy Scriptures, but from astrological art. What is the doctrine of the Sethians, and that, purloining their theories from the wise men among the Greeks, they have patched together their own system out of shreds of opinion taken from Musaeus, and Linus, and Orpheus. What are the tenets of Justinus, and that his system is framed By him, not out of the holy Scriptures, but from the detail of marvels furnished by Herodotus the historian.
Yes it sort of fits. But given that Book 4 ENDS with Simon and the Valentinians and Book Six STARTS with Simon and the Valentinians (" Simon and the Valentinians" sounds like a bad 60s group name) it stands to reason that Book Five is a later addition.
“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