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: 11753
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:29 am

Irenaeus AH 1.3.1 (notes from English translation worth repeating for AV - "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").
Such, then, is the account they give of what took place within the Pleroma; such the calamities that flowed from the passion which seized upon the AEon who has been named, and who was within a little of perishing by being absorbed in the universal substance, through her inquisitive searching after the Father; such the consolidation(1) [of that AEon] from her condition of agony by Horos, and Stauros, and Lytrotes, and Carpistes, and Horothetes, and Metagoges.(2) Such also is the account of the generation of the later AEons, namely of the first Christ and of the Holy Spirit, both of whom were produced by the Father after the repentance(3) [of Sophia], and of the second(4) Christ (whom they also style Saviour), who owed his being to the joint contributions [of the AEons]. They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it. This has been done as follows. The thirty AEons are indicated (as we have already remarked) by the thirty years during which they say the Saviour performed no public act, and by the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Paul also, they affirm, very clearly and frequently names these AEons, and even goes so far as to preserve their order, when he says, "To all the generations of the AEons of the AEon."(5) Nay, we ourselves, when at the giving of thanks we pronounce the words, "To AEons of AEons" (for ever and ever), do set forth these AEons. And, in fine, wherever the words AEon or AEons occur, they at once refer them to these beings.

The production, again, of the Duodecad of the AEons, is indicated by the fact that the Lord was twelve(7) years of age when He disputed with the teachers of the law, and by the election of the apostles, for of these there were twelve.(8) The other eighteen AEons are made manifest in this way: that the Lord, [according to them,] conversed with His disciples for eighteen months(9) after His resurrection from the dead. They also affirm that these eighteen AEons are strikingly indicated by the first two letters of His name [Ihsous], namely Iota(10) and Eta. And, in like manner, they assert that the ten AEons are pointed out by the letter Iota, which begins His name; while, for the same reason, they tell us the Saviour said, "One Iota, or one tittle, shall by no means pass away until all be fulfilled."(11)

3. They further maintain that the passion which took place in the case of the twelfth AEon is pointed at by the apostasy of Judas, who was the twelfth apostle, and also by the fact that Christ suffered in the twelfth month. For their opinion is, that He continued to preach for one year only after His baptism. The same thing is also most clearly indicated by the case of the woman who suffered from an issue of blood. For after she had been thus afflicted during twelve years, she was healed by the advent of the Saviour, when she had touched the border of His garment; and on this account the Saviour said, "Who touched me?"(12)--teaching his disciples the mystery which had occurred among the AEons, and the healing of that AEon who had been involved in suffering. For she who had been afflicted twelve years represented that power whose essence, as they narrate, was stretching itself forth, and flowing into immensity; and unless she had touched the garment of the Son,(13) that is, Aletheia of the first Tetrad, who is denoted by the hem spoken of, she would have been dissolved into the general essence(14) [of which she participated]. She stopped short, however, and ceased any longer to suffer. For the power that went forth from the Son (and this power they term Horos) healed her, and separated the passion from her.

4. They moreover affirm that the Saviour(15) is shown to be derived from all the AEons, and to be in Himself everything by the following passage: "Every male that openeth the womb."(16) For He, being everything, opened the womb(17) of the enthymesis of the suffering AEon, when it had been expelled from the Pleroma. This they also style the second Ogdoad, of which we shall speak presently. And they state that it was clearly on this account that Paul said, "And He Himself is all things;"(1) and again, "All things are to Him, and of Him are all things;"(2) and further, "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead;"(3) and yet again, "All things are gathered together by God in Christ."(4) Thus do they interpret these and any like passages to be found in Scripture.

5. They show, further, that that Horos of theirs, whom they call by a variety of names, has two faculties,--the one of supporting, and the other of separating; and in so far as he supports and sustains, he is Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;"(5) and again, "Taking up the cross follow me;"(6) but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word."(7) They also maintain that John indicated the same thing when he said, "The fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge the floor, and will gather the wheat into His garner; but the chaff He will burn with fire unquenchable."(8) By this declaration He set forth the faculty of Horos. For that fan they explain to be the cross (Stauros), which consumes, no doubt, all material(9) objects, as fire does chaff, but it purifies all them that are saved, as a fan does wheat. Moreover, they affirm that the Apostle Paul himself made mention of this cross in the following words: "The doctrine of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God."(10) And again: "God forbid that I should glory in anything(11) save in the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world."

6. Such, then, is the account which they all give of their Pleroma, and of the formation(12) of the universe, striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions. And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. And others(13) of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

4.1. The following are the transactions which they narrate as having occurred outside of the Pleroma: The enthymesis of that Sophia who dwells above, which they also term Achamoth,(14) being removed from the Pleroma, together with her passion, they relate to have, as a matter of course, become violently excited in those places of darkness and vacuity [to which she had been banished]. For she was excluded from light(15) and the Pleroma, and was without form or figure, like an untimely birth, because she had received nothing(16) [from a male parent]. But the Christ dwelling on high took pity upon her; and having extended himself through and beyond Stauros,(17) he imparted a figure to her, but merely as respected substance, and not so as to convey intelligence.
Tertullian AV 13a
In this series, then, is contained the first emanation of Aeons, who are alike born, and are married, and produce offspring: there are the most dangerous fortunes of Sophia in her ardent longing for the Father, the most seasonable help of Horos, the expiation of her Enthymesis and accruing Passion, the instruction of Christ and the Holy Spirit, their tutelar reform of the Aeons, the piebald ornamentation of Soter, the consubstantial retinue of the angels.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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: 11753
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:43 am

I can't shake the feeling that the additional material in Against Heresies is added later. Note the emphasis on numbers is really proper to the Marcosians. This would go along with my assertion that the information on the Marcosians has consistently been added to a pre-existent report about the Valentinians. Also notice that the bit in AV "the piebald ornamentation of Soter, the consubstantial retinue of the angels" (Soteris pavoninum ornatum, Angelorum comparaticum antistatum) I wonder if anyone in Yazid studies has noticed that the Savior is said to be adorned like a peacock (= pavoninum) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melek_Taus This is interesting from the description there "Among early Christians,[which?] the peacock represented immortality because of a folk belief that its flesh does not decay after death,[citation needed] and this symbolism has passed into Yazidi beliefs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Adi_ibn_Musafir I wasn't aware of the degree to which peacock's figured in the early Roman images of the afterlife http://hal.lamar.edu/~LOKENSGALU/slides ... acocks.JPG But it's true.

Mid third century Rome

Image

Image

It is curious that the Yezid name for peacock is identical with the Greek = ταώς

Clementine Homilies 6:
Now you must think of Kronos as time (chronos), and Rhea as the flowing (rheon) of the watery substance.[1] For the whole body of matter was borne about for some Time, before it brought forth, like an egg, the sphere-like, all-embracing heaven (ouranos), which at first was full of productive marrow, so that it was able to produce out of itself elements and colours of all sorts, while from the one substance and the one colour it produced all kinds of forms. For as a peacock’s egg seems to have only one colour, while potentially it has in it all the colours of the animal that is to be, so this living egg, conceived out of infinite matter, when set in motion by the underlying and ever-flowing matter, produces many different forms. For within the circumference a certain living creature, which is both male and female, is formed by the skill of the indwelling divine spirit. This Orpheus calls Phanes, because when it appeared (phaneis) the universe shone forth from it, with the lustre of that most glorious of the elements, fire, perfected in moisture. Nor is this incredible, since in glowworms nature gives us to see a moist light.
“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: 11753
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:39 pm

Irenaeus 1.4.1b
Having effected this, he withdrew his influence, and returned, leaving Achamoth to herself, in order that she, becoming sensible of her suffering as being severed from the Pleroma, might be influenced by the desire of better things, while she possessed in the meantime a kind of odour of immortality left in her by Christ and the Holy Spirit. Wherefore also she is called by two names--Sophia after her father (for Sophia is spoken of as being her father), and Holy Spirit from that Spirit who is along with Christ. Having then obtained a form, along with intelligence, and being immediately deserted by that Logos who had been invisibly present with her--that is, by Christ--she strained herself to discover that light which had forsaken her, but could not effect her purpose, inasmuch as she was prevented by Horos. And as Horos thus obstructed her further progress, he exclaimed, IAO, whence, they say, this name Iao derived its origin. And when she could not pass by Horos on account of that passion in which she had been involved, and because she alone had been left without, she then resigned herself to every sort of that manifold and varied state of passion to which she was subject; and thus she suffered grief on the one hand because she had not obtained the object of her desire, and fear on the other hand, lest life itself should fail her, as light had already done, while, in addition, she was in the greatest perplexity. All these feelings were associated with ignorance. And this ignorance of hers was not like that of her mother, the first Sophia, an AEon, due to degeneracy by means of passion, but to an [innate] opposition [of nature to knowledge].(2) Moreover, another kind of passion fell upon her her (Achamoth), namely, that of desiring to return to him who gave her life.
Tertullian AV 14
Enthymesis, then, or rather Achamoth (since from now on this incomprehensible name will be used) has been expelled--with Sophia's diseased suffering as a companion--into a place lacking light, which is a component of the Pleroma only. In that well known empty void of Epicurus she is wretched because of her location. Certainly she had no shape or surface at all, deformed and aborted creature as she was. While she is in such a state, Christ is persuaded by the aeons and led by Horos to shape and form Achamoth by his own power; he forms her in essence only, not in intelligible form as well. Nevertheless, she is left with a small estate, namely "the breath of incorruptibility," and having this she can experience the desire for something better than she has. After he has done this deed of mercy, Christ returns to the Pleroma, not leaving behind the Holy Spirit.

Usually an abundance of entities creates an abundance of names: she is called Enthymesis (Inclination) from what happened, Achamoth from God knows where, Sophia after her mother, Holy Spirit from the angel called by the same name. In any event, she conceives a desire for Christ, by whom she has been deserted, as she immediately realizes. Thereupon she leaps up and goes to seek his light. (I might ask, if she did not know him at all, since he operated unseen, how could she look for his light which was as unknown to her as he was?) Nevertheless, she tried and might have grasped it if that same Horos who had run into her mother so fortunately had not unfortunately happened upon the daughter. He shouted at her, "Iao" just like "Make way!" or "Hail to the Chief!" Because of this we find "Iao" in the Bible. Thus she was driven away and prevented from going further; nor was she able to fly over Cross, otherwise known as Horos, because she had not played the part of Laureolus in Catullus' mime. Since she has been deserted, the suffering, to which she is bound with many twisted ties, begins to afflict her in all ways; with sadness because she did not accomplish her objective; with fear that she would lose her life just as she had lost her light; with alarm, and finally with ignorance. She did not suffer as her mother had, for she was an aeon; instead, Achamoth suffered worse because of her status: another tide of emotion washed over her, a desire for conversion--to Christ of course--by whom she had been quickened and fashioned with a view toward this very conversion.
“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: 11753
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:02 pm

Irenaeus 1.4.2
2. This collection [of passions] they declare was the substance of the matter from which this world was formed. For from [her desire of] returning [to him who gave her life], every soul belonging to this world, and that of the Demiurge himself, derived its origin. All other things owed their beginning to her terror and sorrow. For from her tears all that is of a liquid nature was formed; from her smile all that is lucent; and from her grief and perplexity all the corporeal elements of the world. For at one time, as they affirm, she would weep and lament on account of being left alone in the midst of darkness and vacuity; while, at another time, reflecting on the light which had forsaken her, she would be filled with joy, and laugh; then, again, she would be struck with terror; or, at other times, would sink into consternation and bewilderment.
Tertullian AV 15
Now at last the Pythagoreans can learn, the Stoics can recognise, as can Plato himself, where the matter which they call eternal or uncreated had its origin and basis as part of the structure of this world. Even Mercurius Trismegistus, that master of all sciences, never discovered this. You have heard of Achamoth's conversion, another kind of suffering; from this every soul inhabiting this world is said to have arisen, even the soul of the Demiurge himself, who is our God. You have heard of her sadness and fear; from these everything else began. For example, from her tears the whole world of waters flowed. From this you can calculate what a disaster she encountered, so many were the kinds of tears she let flow. She had salty, she had bitter and sweet, she had hot and cold drops, tarry and rusty, and mineral, even poisonous, like the water dripping from Nonacris which killed Alexander, or the flood of Lyncestian waters which make men drunk, or the Salmacis fountain which make men effeminate. Achamoth even wept heavenly showers and we go so far as to preserve another's sorrows and tears in our cisterns. Next, material elements were derived from her alarm and terror. Moreover, she smiled occasionally even in a situation of such isolation, in a vista of such loneliness. She smiled remembering Christ's appearance. From this same smile of joy, light gleamed. What a favor of fate who forced her to smile now and then to keep us from being always in darkness! Don't be surprised; why shouldn't such a glorious element be radiated around the world by her joy? By her sorrow she would have deprived the world of this necessary provision. O illuminating smile! O irrigating tear! Her smile could also have been a help amid the desolation of her situation; namely it could have driven away the darkness as often as she wanted to smile, especially so that she would not have been forced to plead with those who had deserted her.
Irenaeus AH 1.2.3,4

3. Now what follows from all this? No light tragedy comes out of it, as the fancy of every man among them pompously explains, one in one way, and another in another, from what kind of passion and from what element being derived its origin. They have good reason, as seems to me, why they should not feel inclined to teach these things to all in public, but only to such as are able to pay a high price for an acquaintance with such profound mysteries. For these doctrines are not at all similar to those of which our Lord said, "Freely ye have received, freely give."(4) They are, on the contrary, abstruse, and portentous, and profound mysteries, to be got at only with great labour by such as are in love with falsehood. For who would not expend lull that he possessed, if only he might learn in return, that from the tears of the enthymesis of the AEon involved in passion, seas, and fountains, and rivers, and every liquid substance derived its origin; that light burst forth from her smile; and that from her perplexity and consternation the corporeal elements of the world had their formation?

4. I feel somewhat inclined myself to contribute a few hints towards the development of their system. For when I perceive that waters are in part fresh, such as fountains, rivers, showers, and so on, and in part salt; such as those in the sea, I reflect with myself that all such waters cannot be derived from her tears, inasmuch as these are of a saline quality only. It is clear, therefore, that the waters which are salt are alone those which are derived from her tears. But it is probable that she, in her intense agony and perplexity, was covered with perspiration. And hence, following out their notion, we may conceive that fountains and rivers, and all the fresh water in the world, are due to this source. For it is difficult, since we know that all tears are of the same quality, to believe that waters both salt and fresh proceeded from them. The more plausible supposition is, that some are from her tears, and some from her perspiration. And since there are also in the world certain waters which are hot and acrid in their nature, thou must be left to guess their origin, how and whence. Such are some of the results of their hypothesis.
Tertullian AV 13b

All that remains, according to you, is the fall of the curtain and the clapping of hands.154 What remains in my opinion, however, is, that you should hear and take heed. At all events, these things are said to have been played out within the company of the Pleroma, the first scene of the tragedy. The rest of the play, however, is beyond the curtain-I mean outside of the Pleroma. And yet if it be such within the bosom of the Father, within the embrace of the guardian Horos, what must it be outside, in free space,155 where God did not exist?
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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: 11753
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:25 pm

Irenaeus 1.4.5
5. They go on to state that, when the mother Achamoth had passed through all sorts of passion, and had with difficulty escaped from them, she turned herself to supplicate the light which had forsaken her, that is, Christ. He, however, having returned to the Pleroma, and being probably unwilling again to descend from it, sent forth to her the Paraclete, that is, the Saviour. This being was endowed with all power by the Father, who placed everything under his authority, the AEons doing so likewise, so that "by him were all things, visible and invisible, created, thrones, divinities, dominions."(7) He then was sent to her along with his contemporary angels. And they related that Achamoth, filled with reverence, at first veiled herself through modesty, but that by and by, when she had looked upon him with all his endowments, and had acquired strength from his appearance, she ran forward to meet him. He then imparted to her form as respected intelligence, and brought healing to her passions, separating them from her, but not so as to drive them out of thought altogether. For it was not possible that they should be annihilated as in the former case, because they had already taken root and acquired strength [so as to possess an indestructible existence]. All that he could do was to separate them and set them apart, and then commingle and condense them, so as to transmute them from incorporeal passion into unorganized matter. He then by this process conferred upon them a fitness and a nature to become concretions and corporeal structures, in order that two substances should be formed,--the one evil, resulting from the passions, and the other subject indeed to suffering, but originating from her conversion. And on this account (i.e., on account of this hypostatizing of ideal matter) they say that the Saviour virtually created the world.
Tertullian AV 16
She did plead, however; she turned to prayer just as her mother had. Christ, however, now disliked going outside the Pleroma and so sends a deputy, Paracletus Saviour. (This is supposed to be Jesus, to whom the Father gave supreme power over all the aeons, making everyone subject to him; consequently, we read in the apostle, "in him all things were created" (Col. 1:16).) Anyway Christ sends him with a retinue of co-eternal angels. You can imagine they accompanied him with twelve fasces. As soon as Achamoth saw them, astounded by their stately procession, she veiled herself at her first impulse of reverence and modesty. Afterwards, she gazed upon him and his prolific train. With the strength she
had gained from this gazing she ran to him exclaiming, "Hail, Lord!" Thereupon, as I understand, he receives her, strengthens her and forms her in knowledge and finally cleans her from all damages caused by her suffering. He separated out her sufferings with more discrimination than he had shown in her mother's case, for he lumped together all defects or faults, active and violent, and set them as such apart in a solid mass. He changed them from an incorporeal emotional state into an incorporeal antecedent of matter, which was endowed with a sort of nature or aptitude by which it could become two opposing and comparable entities. In doing so he founded two substances, different in nature: one evil because of the defects and faults, one capable of feeling because of the influence of Achamoth's conversion. This is the matter which lined us up against Hermogenes and the others who assume God made everything out of matter, not out of nothing.
“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: 11753
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:29 pm

Irenaeus AH 1.4.5b - 1.5.1a
But when Achamoth was freed from her passion, she gazed with rapture on the dazzling vision of the angels that were with him; and in her ecstasy, conceiving by them, they tell us that she brought forth new beings, partly after her oven image, and partly a spiritual progeny after the image of the Saviour's attendants.

1. These three kinds of existence, then, having, according to them, been now formed,--one from the passion, which was matter; a second from the conversion, which was animal; and the third, that which she (Achamoth) herself brought forth, which was spiritual
Tertullian AV 17
Achamoth, since she has been released finally from all evils, now, to and behold! grows and bears fruit for greater ends in this manner. Warmed by her joy at escaping from her unhappiness, and by her gazing at the angelic luminaries, she starts to stew inside (subfermentata) (so to speak; I blush at the phrase but there is no other way to say it). In some such way she comes into heat for these luminaries and immediately swells up with a spirit-like conception formed according to the very image which she had swallowed and impressed on herself by the violence of her joyful emotions which came from her anticipation of sexual delight. Finally she gives birth and a triad or natures was born from a triad of sources: one material, arising from her suffering; one soul-like, arising from her conversion; a third spirit-like, arising from her mental image of Christ.
“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: 11753
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 » Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:41 pm

Irenaeus AH 1.5.1b
she next addressed herself to the task of giving these form. But she could not succeed in doing this as respected the spiritual existence, because it was of the same nature with herself. She therefore applied herself to give form to the animal substance which had proceeded from her own conversion, and to bring forth to light the instructions of the Saviour. And they say she first formed out of animal substance him who is Father and King of all things, both of these which are of the same nature with himself, that is, animal substances, which they also call right-handed, and those which sprang from the passion, and from matter, which they call left-handed. For they affirm that he formed all the things which came into existence after him, being secretly impelled thereto by his mother. From this circumstance they style him Metropator, Apator, Demiurge, and Father, saying that he is Father of the substances on the right hand, that is, of the animal, but Demiurge of those on the left, that is, of the material, while he is at the same time the king of all.
Tertullian 18
Now that she has become more practiced in managing affairs because of this new status--i.e., being a mother of three children--she decides to shape each kind of her offspring. She could not, however, touch the spirit-like one, since she was herself spirit-like; similarity of nature usually disqualifies consubstantial beings from having power over one another. Consequently, she turned to the soul-like one with the same purpose, following Saviour's training. First she does a deed which cannot be said or read or heard without horror at its blasphemy: she forms our God, the God of everyone except heretics, the Father and Demiurge and King of all that came after him, and hence came from him--if indeed you can say that they do come from him and not rather from Achamoth herself, who influenced his actions secretly, without his knowledge, like a puppeteer operating from above. In fact, because of this uncertainty as to the author of his works, they mix up the name Metropater (the mother is Father) for him, even though his other names are distinctly assigned according to the kind and place of his works: for example, they call him Father of the soul-like elements, which they put on the right hand; they name him Demiurge of matter, which they put on the left; he is King because he has power over everything together.
“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: 11753
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 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:51 am

Irenaeus AH 1.5.1c
For they say that this Enthymesis, desirous of making all things to the honour of the AEons, formed images of them, or rather that the Saviour did so through her instrumentality. And she, in the image of the invisible Father, kept herself concealed from the Demiurge. But he was in the image of the only-begotten Son, and the angels and archangels created by him were in the image of the rest of the AEons.
Tertullian AV 19
I object; the particular essence of these names does not fit the essence of the creations from which the names come, since all these creations ought to have been named after that person who created them--unless, of course, even Achamoth did not create them! To be specific, they say that Achamoth sketched these pictures in honor of the aeons. Yet they transfer this work to Soter as its originator who operated through Achamoth so as to present her as the very image of the invisible and unknown Father, she being invisible, of course, and unknown to the Demiurge, and in the same way he created this same Demiurge to correspond to Nus,the son. The Archangels, creations of the Demiurge, are models of the rest of the aeons. When I hear about such pictures of these three, I ask you, don't you agree that I should laugh at these pictures painted by such a lunatic painter? Achamoth, a female and yet the image of the Father; the Demiurge, ignorant of his mother--not to mention of his Father--yet representing Nus who is not ignorant of his Father; the angels, the reproductions of their masters. This is the same as counterfeiting a fake or distinguishing Ptolomaeus from Valentinus.
“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: 11753
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 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:01 am

Irenaeus 1.5.2, 3a
2. They affirm, therefore, that he was constituted the Father and God of everything outside of the Pleroma, being the creator of all animal and material substances. For he it was that discriminated these two kinds of existence hitherto confused, and made corporeal from incorporeal substances, fashioned things heavenly and earthly, and became the Framer (Demiurge) of things material and animal, of those on the right and those on the left, of the light and of the heavy, and of those tending upwards as well as of those tending downwards. He created also seven heavens, above which they say that he, the Demiurge, exists. And on this account they term him Hebdomas, and his mother Achamoth Ogdoads, preserving the number of the first-begotten and primary Ogdoad as the Pleroma. They affirm, moreover, that these seven heavens are intelligent, and speak of them as being angels, while they refer to the Demiurge himself as being an angel bearing a likeness to God; and in the same strain, they declare that Paradise, situated above the third heaven, is a fourth angel possessed of power, from whom Adam derived certain qualities while he conversed with him.

3a They go on to say that the Demiurge imagined that he created all these things of himself, while he in reality made them in conjunction with the productive power of Achamoth. He formed the heavens, yet was ignorant of the heavens; he fashioned man, yet knew not man; he brought to light the earth, yet had no acquaintance with the earth; and, in like manner. they declare that he was ignorant of the forms of all that he made, and knew not even of the existence of his own mother, but imagined that he himself was all things. They further affirm that his mother originated this opinion in his mind, because she desired to bring him forth possessed of such a character that he should be the head and source of his own essence, and the absolute ruler over every kind of operation [that was afterwards attempted]. This mother they also call Ogdoad,
Tertullian AV 20
Now, as we can see, while the Demiurge stands outside the Pleroma's boundaries in the solitary confinement of eternal exile, he founds a new realm, this world of ours. He clears away the tangles and separates the twofold variety of the substance exiled with him, which was soul-like and material. From this incorporeal mass he made heavy and light things, rising and falling bodies, celestial and earthly elements.
Then he completed that seven-layered stage, heaven, with his own throne above it. Consequently, he is called Sabbatus from the sevenness of his home; likewise, his mother, Achamoth, is called Ogdoas
from the analogy between her and the original group of eight. The Valentinians consider these heavens savants and also make them angels just as they do the Demiurge; for example, they call the fourth Archangel
Paradise (fourth, since they place him over the third heaven), from whose power Adam drew while he resided there among the cloudlets and treelets. Ptolomaeus certainly remembered his childhood babblings, apples growing in the ocean and fish on trees. In the same way he assumes nut-trees grow in the sky. Of course the Demiurge acts in ignorance and perhaps he does not know that trees are supposed to grow only in the ground. Obviously his mother knew; why did she not inform him since she was implementing her own plans? I will ask later why she was unwilling that he be aware of her actions which would testify that he is father and god and king even before the Valentinians brought their ingenuity into play.
“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: 11753
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 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:10 am

Irenaeus 1.5.3b - 4a
Sophia; Terra, Jerusalem, Holy Spirit, and, with a masculine reference, Lord. Her place of habitation is an intermediate one, above the Demiurge indeed, but below and outside of the Pleroma, even to the end.

4. As, then, they represent all material substance to be formed from three passions, viz., fear, grief, and perplexity, the account they give is as follows: Animal substances originated from fear and from conversion; the Demiurge they also describe as owing his origin to conversion; but the existence of all the other animal substances they ascribe to fear, such as the souls of irrational animals, and of wild beasts, and men. And on this account, he (the Demiurge), being incapable of recognising any spiritual essences, imagined himself to be God alone, and declared through the prophets, "I am God, and besides me there is none else." They further teach that the spirits of wickedness derived their origin from grief.
Tertullian 21
Meanwhile, just accept the fact that Sophia is named Earth and Mother and what is more laughable, Holy Spirit, as if Earth were masculine. In this way they have bestowed all his honors on a female--including his beard, I presume, not to mention other things. As for Demiurge, he was so incapable of understanding his situation, being unable as he was of approaching spirit-like essences because of his soul-like origin, that he thought himself alone and announced, "I am the Lord and there is no other" (Isa. 45:6). He certainly knew that he had not existed before and consequently knew that he had been made and that there was some creator of the creation. How then can he have thought he was alone, since he at least would suspect, even if he did not know, that there was a creator?
“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