Thinking Outside The Box - A Master Thesis by Fedor Van Rijn

THINKING OUTSIDE THE
BOX
Two gnostic interpretations of the Jewish-Christian Biblical
character Eve
A master thesis by Fedor van Rijn, 0100897

Table of contents
Introduction Page 3
Chapter 1. Objectives and research questions Page 4
Chapter 2. Preliminary notes Page 5
Chapter 3. Historical and social background Page 7
Chapter 4. The Eves of yore Page 20
Chapter 5. Eve in Sethian gnosticism Page 28
Chapter 6. Eve in Valentinian gnosticism Page 44
Chapter 7. Further development of gnostic ideas Page 60
Chapter 8. Conclusions Page 63
Chapter 9. Concluding remarks Page 65
Bibliography Page 73
Appendix: quotations Page 80
Front picture: Adam and Eve by William Blake (1808)
2
Introduction
In the originally Hebrew story of cosmogony in the book of Genesis in the Bible, the story of
the creation of Adam and Eve, their disobedience and their subsequent removal from
paradise takes a prominent place (Genesis 2:4-3:24). Even though they were forbidden by
God to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Eve was the one who was deceived
by the serpent (Satan) to eat the fruit, by which act they changed and corrupted the nature of
the universe. And it was Eve who convinced Adam to eat it as well. Hence, Eve is the reason
why human beings were expelled from paradise and why they have to work hard to be able to
sustain themselves in this tough world. Eve is also the reason why women have to go through
great pains at labour and are subordinated to their husbands1.
Since the earliest beginnings of Christianity, theologians have blamed Eve for being
deceived and seducing Adam and this had had an enormous effect on the conception of
women in later Christianity. According to Christian theology, all human beings are burdened
with this original sin, which originated in the actions of Eve and is passed on to her
descendants – a sin for which there was no possible cure until the advent of Christianity.
Especially from the third century CE onwards, many Christians increasingly viewed women
as evil, even though baptism could redeem this original sin for them just as well as for men2.
Combining this with the views on the dependent social situation of women in the Hellenistic
period of antiquity3 when Christianity first arose, the development of the Christian position
that women should be subservient to men is understandable.
The Catholic Church has been virtually unchallenged in being the single most important
authority on ethics and morals for the people in Christian Europe from about 500 until 1500
CE and has exerted much influence since. The position, as poetically expressed by the apostle
Paul, is that, ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ,
κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός4, whence man is subject to Christ and woman to man. It is
becoming increasingly clear why, for instance, it took until the first decades of the 20th
century CE for women to get equal rights to men in Western democratic countries5.
But even as times and the Catholic Church are changing, it is still loyal to her heritage of
inequality between the sexes. In 1987 ‘Let us look once more at the example of marriage. In adopting
her husband’s name, the wife at the same time surrenders her own name. She leaves behind what is hers and
belongs henceforth no longer to herself. And this surrender of the old is, for both spouses, the condition of the
new that is opening to them. Behind this more external act of renouncing one’s name, of losing one’s
independence, is the deeper mystery of life and death that is love itself.’ was written by Joseph Ratzinger,
the same person who would a few years later be elected pope Benedict XVI, the current
leader of the Catholic Church.6 This interpretation, however, turns out not to have been the
only alternative. There were different religious groups who could be defined as Christians or
had affinity with Jewish-Christian thought in a similar manner. They had different ideas about
Eve and the creation story and this thesis will examine some of them.
1 See Pagels (1989), Adam, Eva en de Slang, pp. 195-226, on the development of the idea of original sin and the
acceptation thereof in the theology of the proto-orthodox Christian Church.
2 See for instance Tertullianus De Cultu Feminarum I.1.2. All references are quoted in the appendix.
3 This position is clearly stated by Aristoteles in his Πολιτικῶν, 1254b3-15.
4 1 Corinthians 11:3. All quotations from the New Testament are taken from Aland, Black, , Martini, Metzger, &
Wikgren (1968), The Greek New Testament.

5 For the development of negative thought on women in early Christianity see Tavard (1973), Woman in Christian
Tradition, pp. 72-96 and their influence on modern Christian traditions and traditional positions, pp. 125-225.
6 Ratzinger (1987), Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 33.
3
1. Objectives and research questions
In the first few centuries after the life of Jesus there was no official (Catholic or other)
Christian doctrine regarding the message Jesus had really meant to convey nor a central
church in Rome – or elsewhere – to propagate and control it7. No wonder the stories about
Jesus’ life, his acts and his sayings and the acts and the sayings of his disciples were diversely
interpreted in the different places where His apostles came to ‘spread His word’. Jesus’
message, or at least the message his apostles spread all over the Mediterranean (whatever it
might have been originally), was connected to other current religious and philosophical ideas
by the people who heard it. Many may not have completely understood it and some who did
probably altered it to make it more likeable, fitting or acceptable to themselves or their
communities. The apostles’ meaning of the stories – even if their beliefs had been uniform
when they set out on their journeys – came to be changed in many different ways. One group
of interpretations of a more mystical nature is commonly called ‘gnosticism’. The promoters
of another interpretation eventually became the orthodox interpretation of the Christian
community of Rome. This church, which would eventually come to lead the Catholic Church,
made sure that other variants of early Christianity did not, or only marginally, survive.
The central objective of this master thesis is to investigate the most current and well-
documented gnostic interpretations of the Jewish-Christian biblical character of Eve in the
late second and third centuries CE (Sethian and Valentinian gnosticism). These are
substantially different from the ‘proto-orthodox8’ Christian communities, which would start
to get a more or less definite form in the third and fourth centuries CE. The questions which
will be asked about these interpretations are
a) which influential interpretations of Eve existed among these gnostic movements;
b) who (which religious, social or political groups) adhered to these interpretations;
c) where these different interpretations came from (fusion with other religious or
philosophical ideas, misunderstanding of the message etc.);
d) what the influence of these interpretations was on their theology, social philosophy
and religious life
e) in what respects these interpretations are different from those of the proto-orthodox
communities (and thenceforth from the later ‘orthodox’ doctrine of the Catholic
church9);
f) why these interpretations were discarded in favour of others in the unification process
of Christian thought which was to determine the position of the later Catholic Church
and its ‘orthodox’ doctrine.
The research questions a) up to e) will be discussed individually for each category of

gnosticism and the research question f) will be treated in a final chapter consisting of
concluding remarks. At the end of this thesis I also hope to have gained some insight into the
diversity within early Jewish and Christian thought and the multiple possible forms later
orthodox Catholic Christianity might have had. Studying the character of Eve naturally is but
a small part of the research into gnosticism, but the object must be restricted due to the limits
to time, length and effort appropriate for a master thesis.
7 On the historical Jesus see Meier (1991-2001), A Marginal Jew, pp. 372-382 for an argument for the chronology of
his life.
8 Proto-orthodox Christian is the term which will throughout this thesis be used for the early Christian sect which
would eventually turn out victor of the battle and whose doctrine would become the orthodox doctrine of the
Catholic Church.
9 As stated in the introduction.
4
2. Preliminary notes
2.1 State of research
Intensive research on gnosticism is mainly a development of the second half of the 20th
century and the academic debate is far from being concluded. Scholars are still debating
different theories and opinions about this subject, even on fundamental issues such as the
determination of different gnostic sects and assigning the gnostic writings to them.
Reasonably satisfying answers to these questions and main outlines of the different sects have
only recently appeared, but much work is still to be done on a more detailed level. As a result
of this situation there is a sufficient amount of literature on gnosticism as a phenomenon
speculating on its history and its relation to Christianity, but extensive research on the
different gnostic sects has yet to be done. The existing research on these movements with
their different theologies and cosmogonies, which is fundamental to this thesis, has mainly
focused on whether or not it is possible, based on the available information, to divide the
different gnostics and their writings into cohesive systems of thought and, if so, which criteria
should be used. Therefore, philological and philosophical interpretation of these writings is
still a work in progress and detailed literature on elements, such as on the character Eve, is
rare.
2.2 Treatment of sources
Since the early proto-orthodox Christian polemicists are not objective historians, but wrote in
order to refute the gnostics and other early Christian religious sects, they cannot be trusted
without caution to give accurate information on their enemies’ theologies or religious
practice. As Frederik Wisse states ‘One cannot expect that the position of the other side has
been represented fairly and completely in the heat of the controversy. What is claimed about
the opponents may well have been quoted out of context, misconstrued, wrongly inferred or
slanderous’10. Therefore, this thesis will mostly focus on the primary writings by the gnostics
themselves, of which a substantial number have appeared in the course of the 20th century.
These writings will be the basic source material. The works of the polemicists will be cited as
sources when they provide information on gnostics or gnostic thought of which we no longer
have first-hand testimonies. They will also occasionally be referred to in order to provide
contrast or (possible) clarification.
2.3 Treatment of academic research
The next two chapters of this thesis will provide a historical and cultural setting for the
development of gnostic thought and a literary and social history of the character Eve. As they
are introductory chapters, a full, thorough discussion of all subjects mentioned would be
impossible. Therefore, they will mainly be based on the works of some influential researchers
without thorough criticism or much discussion of different viewpoints. They will merely
focus on giving an overview of the history and society of the earliest Christian era to create a
framework in which to study gnostic thought in the early Christian era and the gnostic
10
See Wisse (1986), The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner Diversity and Conflict, p. 180 and
Williams (1996), Rethinking Gnosticism, p. 165.
5
interpretations of the character Eve. I will, however, treat subjects with a more direct
relevance in more detail and have sometimes taken the liberty to briefly explore some related
subjects or theories which I find interesting and rewarding to keep in the back of my head
while studying this subject.
2.4 Discussion about Eve
Like every historical or literary character, the character of Eve, the main subject of this thesis,
has to be considered within its context. In the gnostic movements and proto-orthodox
Christianity alike, Eve is a part of intricate cosmological and theological systems and any
study of this character must take these into account. Eve is also often regarded as a prototype
of women and an example for (female) behaviour and this function therefore needs to be
considered in the interpretation of this character as well. Thence the thought, practice and
origin of the different gnostic sects and the formative influences on them will be treated
before the character of Eve can be fully studied as part of these systems.
2.5 Limitations and choices
This thesis focuses on gnostic sects in the late second and third centuries CE, but there
probably were gnostics before this time. Several religious thinkers and sects dating from the
first two centuries of the Christian era were at some point denounced as heretics by the
proto-orthodox polemicists and we know little about them. Except for some fragments, none
of their writings have survived, but from the information available from the polemicists’
works it appears they may have expressed gnostic tendencies. Some of their mythologies and
theologies, as described by the polemicists, appear to be earlier versions of gnostic thought,
which were expanded and appropriated by the gnostics in the centuries that followed. For
instance, there were those who taught a division between a higher transcendent god and a
lower evil demiurge who created the universe (such as Simon Magus, Menandros of Antioch,
Satornilos or Saturninus of Antioch, Kerdon of Syria and his followers the Cerdonians,
Markion of Sinope and his followers the Marcionites and Kerinthos of Asia) or the Cainites,
who probably believed in Cain as their saviour. Most of these ‘heretics’ were Christian,
though some of them were docetists, some denied the Old Testament should be included in
Christian scripture, some clung expressly to Mosaic law and some were thoroughly influenced
by Hellenistic philosophical thought. These possibly gnostic groups will not be treated in this
thesis because of a lack of trustworthy sources11. However, some gnostics or possible
gnostics from the first two centuries (such as Valentinus or the original author of The
Apocryphon of John) will be discussed because their followers would continue to use, expand
and elaborate on their teachings in the centuries that followed. Due to the limitations to time
and length which must be applied to a master thesis, I have chosen to focus on the influential
and well-documented Sethian and Valentinian gnostic movements and briefly treat their
culmination in Manichaeism. Other gnostic sects of this period, such Basilides and his school,
Justinus Gnosticus, the Hermeticists, the adherents of Thomas Christianity and Bardaisan or
Bardesanes12, are unfortunately left aside.
11 For information on these possibly gnostic heretics and the connections between their thought and later gnostic
mythology see Roukema, Gnosis and Faith in early Christianity, pp. 13-25, 32-36, 126-129, 134-137.
12 For in introduction to these (possible) gnostics see Roukema, pp. 127-129, 134-136, King (2003), What is
Gnosticism?, pp. 162, Drijvers (1966), Bardai.san of Edessa, respectively.
6
3. Historical and social background
The aim of this chapter is to give some relevant information about the historical and cultural
setting in which early Christian ideas about Eve developed. This background will be useful to
understand these developments and will be referred to for clarification and illustration.
3.1 The brave new world of Hellenism
Alexandros the Great (356-323 BCE) had great intentions when he set out on his journey to
conquer the known world. His father Philippos II13 had become the leader of the Greek
πόλεις or city-states by diplomacy and military force and when he was murdered in 336 BCE
Alexandros took over in his stead. After he had ended some insurrections in Greek πόλεις,
which used this opportunity to try and recover their independence, he gathered the soldiers
of Macedon, added some Greeks and set out in 334 BCE.
The official pretext for this expedition was to take revenge on the Persians for the Persian
wars some 150 years earlier, but it was clear that this was just a façade. In reality, Alexandros
had much more exalted plans. Some have argued that he wanted to create a universal empire
consisting of Greece, the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, in which he wanted to
unify the peoples of the civilized known world in culture and language14. This is probably
untrue, but he may well have become more and more stimulated by the sequence of his
successes. After a 13 year campaign he succeeded in establishing an empire that extended
from Greece to Egypt and to the Indus river and contained the former Persian empire and
the whole Middle East with the exception of the Arabic peninsula. However, he did not live
long enough to enjoy the fruits of his labour, as he died in Babylon in 323 BCE. His only son
was murdered and his empire was divided by his generals, who were called διάδοχοι by later
historians because they succeeded Alexandros as kings15. They and their descendants divided
his empire into several kingdoms which would be the promotors of Hellenism. Some of these
kingdoms lived in peace with each other and their non-Hellenistic neighbouring states for
long times in a row and some constantly waged war on them16. Kingdoms fell and kingdoms
rose until the Roman empire obtained control over the eastern Mediterranean completely
either directly or through vassal states. The last Hellenstic realm which they conquered was
Egypt17.
Since (mainly following Grimal (1970) for the rest of this subchapter) the διάδοχοι and
their soldiers were mainly Macedonian or Greek, they introduced Greek culture into their
courts in Egypt and western Asia18. Some of the members of the higher social layers of these
areas quickly grasped the opportunities they would have by learning Greek and a number of
rich and powerful people in these countries became oriented on Greek culture. Greek
became the official language in these newly formed states and Greek presence resulted,
among other things, in the building of palaces and temples in Greek style and a desire for
13 All ancient Greek and Latin names are given as literal transcriptions of the words in the nominative clause. Greek
names have not been Latinised.
14 Martin (1987), Hellenistic Religions, p. 4.
15 διάδεχοµαι means ‘’to succeed’ or ‘to take over from a predecessor’.
16 The Greek rulers did not last everywhere, cf. the rise of Parthian empire around 140 BCE, which came to
dominate Persia and Mesopotamia.

17 The description of the importance of Alexandros the Great and the role of the διάδοχοι and the changes in the
conquered countries is mainly based on Grimal (1970), Hellenism and the Rise of Rome, pp. 21-64.
18 Green (1990), Alexander to Actium, provides corrections to Grimal’s views based on more recent insights.
7
more and more people to learn Greek. In several places, such as Babylon, Persia and
Palestine, the influence of the Greeks was far less intensive and they mainly maintained their
old cultures19. Additionally, the lower layers of the Hellenized societies mostly kept their own
language and cultural identity even though the aristocratic top layer adopted Greek language
and culture. In fact, concerning cultural identity, the influence of the Eastern cultures on the
elite Greek minority was probably much greater than the other way around.
The impact of Alexandros’s empire and the kingdoms of his successors shook the world
of the eastern Mediterranean. The people who had been used to live in the small independent
societies of the πόλεις were now confronted with a world that was larger than they might
have imagined. The introduction of Greek as the lingua franca in these new kingdoms was an
impulse for contact between different peoples. Trade between the peoples of Greece, the
Middle East and Egypt intensified and with trade came cultural exchange. As a result, sharing
a common language also facilitated in the exchange of ideas as diverse as ways of building,
art, social practices, rituals and religious as well as philosophical thought20.
This expansion of Greek culture and the creation of the larger Hellenistic political units
also had a large impact on people’s world view. The constant wars and upheavals during the
unification processes in Greece and in the states of the διάδοχοι led to fear and insecurity
amongst the inhabitants of these countries21. The πόλις, the classical independent city state,
had ceased to exist and all of a sudden people were part of an unknown empire or kingdom.
The political and cultural centres of these new states were far away for most people and they
had trouble identifying with their new rulers. This was especially evident in the Hellenistic
nations in the Eastern Mediterranean where the people had not had much experience with
great kingdoms before, whereas the Middle East had known the Babylonian and Persian
empires.
For many people these developments caused a change in their sense of social identity and
they needed to redefine themselves and find a place in this new social context. They were no
longer a part of the κοινωνία, the familiar closely-knit community of the πόλις, as they had
been in classical times. Before, the focus had always been on the welfare of the πόλις, which
was reflected in the moral philosophy of those days. The ideal of happiness had been to
belong to a πόλις which was independent and rich, to respect the traditions of that πόλις and
to do one’s duties as a citizen to work together for its welfare and produce offspring to
sustain the race22. But now there was no independent πόλις anymore, no small and
understandably arranged community of which one felt a part and on which one could
exercise influence (or at least one thought one could).
The focus law on the individual rather than on the πόλις community and this raised
questions such as ‘How should one act if one is acting for one’s own good?’ The state
religion and the old philosophies could not answer that ethical question. In the new melting
pot of Hellenism many more religions, philosophocal theories and doctrines became widely
available and philosophical thought could mix with religion. Hellenism saw the birth of moral
philosophy in stoicism, epicurism, scepticism and many more ways of thought. These
doctrines focused less on speculation on the origin and workings of the universe and the
explanation of natural phenomena, but more on the ways humans should live – each doctrine
naturally in its own distinctive way. With a tendency to escapism they all defined virtuous
ideals one could live by without influence of the material world around oneself. For instance,
19 See Green, pp. 497-544.

20 For further reading about the changing of societies and the origins of Hellenism see for a compilation of sources
Bagnall & Derow (2004), The Hellenistic Period.
21 Grimal, p. 192.
22 Grimal, p. 192.
8
the Stoa taught to cling to a reason which was immanent in us all and Epicurism regarded the
whole universe as incidental and thus unimportant. Both regarded to reach a state of
ἀταραξία or ἀπαθεία, not being bothered by emotions or worldly desires anymore, as the
highest goal23.
Religion underwent a similar change of direction. While the πόλις cults were by no means
abandoned, they did not offer the personal familiar relationship with the gods which mystery
religions could. Mystery religions require initiation into the secret knowledge of the god or
gods worshipped, through which one could come into direct contact with the divine and
acquire special protection. In Greece, the popular orgiastic ‘Bacchic’ or ‘Maenadic’ cults of
Dionusos worship experienced a surge of popularity, as did the Eleusinian mysteries of
Demeter near Athens24. These cults gradually spread through the Hellenistic states and many
eastern mystery religions did the same, although the functions of the worshipped gods were
changing. Through interaction with each other these different religions came to merge
and/or share elements. This cultural interaction, which is the main characteristic of Hellenism
and exerted influence on all aspects of society, is called syncretism25. Just as what would
happen in early Christianity, the rituals of and stories about these gods were often adapted to
fit general needs. The spread of these religions was a very gradual process at first, but when
the Roman empire had conquered many Hellenistic states they reached the peak of their
dissemination. The Hellenistic world with its distinct culture eventually became an integral
part of the Roman Empire, except for Southern Mesopotamia and Persia (which came to be
under Parthian rule from around 140 BCE).
To illustrate the wide-spread area from which these syncretistic gods who became a part
of the new Hellenistic pantheon originated, I will mention some representatives of the
different areas of the hellenized world26. There were Syrian gods, such as Hadad (who could
be equated with Zeus) and Atargatis (a fertility goddess related to Astarte) who shared a
temple on Delos and the cult of Syrian Adonis, who died every year and was reborn the next.
He became immensely popular. The Phrygian Kybele, the mother of all the gods, and her
consort Attis were honoured with extreme reverence, the Persian and/or Indian god Mithras
was very popular among soldiers, especially those of Rome later on, and the Lampsacian
Priapos was included in the Bacchic entourage of Dionusos. Finally, the Egyptian gods Isis
and Osiris became extremely powerful allies to have at one’s side27.
A good example of these syncretistic religions was the god Sarapis who was deliberately
invented by either Ptolemy Soter or Ptolemy Philadelphos, both kings of Ptolemaic Egypt.
This god was a composite of elements of Greek Dionusos, Egyptian Osiris and Hellenic
Plouto, the god of the underworld, and was a fertility god who also received the souls of the
dead and promised eternal life through initiation in his mysteries28. Ptolemy wanted to make
Egyptian belief attractive to the Greek world by hellenizing it and in doing this he provided
us with the perfect example of the development of syncretic religion in Hellenism.
3.2 The origins of Christianity
23 For a complete description of the formation of Hellenistic philosophy and the different doctrines see Algra,
Barnes, Mansfeld & Schofield (1999), Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy.
24 Grimal, pp. 202-203, for an argumentation for and sources of Dionusos worship in Greece from classical times on
see Versnel (1990), Ter Unus, pp. 131-155 (especially 150-155 on the mystic rites).
25 Martin, pp. 10-11.
26 For a fuller introduction of the Greek and Eastern mystery religions and their development see Martin, pp. 58-118.
27 For an introduction to the Isis cult see Versnel, pp. 39-52.
28 Grimal, pp. 203-204.
9
During the first decades after the death of Jesus, very few people knew who he had been or
guessed what he would mean for the world in the future. Because of the almost complete
absence of contemporaneous sources about his life all theories about who he was and what
he wanted are mainly speculation; there is no historical evidence. The version of the modern
Catholic Church29 is not to be trusted, because it did not become the main doctrinal version
until the fourth century CE and became the way it is after centuries of debates, concessions
and deliberations.
Over the last few decades numerous books have appeared with theories about ‘the real
life of Jesus’ and some of them postulate eccentric and very intriguing questions30. This
interest in other explanations of the life and the teachings of Jesus is prompted by research
on the origins of Christianity, a subject which has become more popular in the second half of
the 20th century. It is now generally acknowledged that early Christianity was not a very
homogeneous religion but that there were many different interpretations of this ‘prophet’
Jesus. As Karen L. King puts it very appropriately: ‘It is becoming increasingly clear that the
early Jesus tradition generated a variety of responses, not all of which would later become
“orthodox”’31.
In the first century CE Palestine was under Roman rule32 and was part of the Roman
province of Syria. Many of the Jews were unhappy with this situation and several factions or
sects existed who each had a different view to change their situation. It was a period of
religious reform and sects, such as the Essenes and several Baptist circles, interpreted the
religious scripture in a revolutionary apocalyptic way. Some of these factions held the view
that the Roman oppression suggested that, since they obeyed the law of their god but were
not liberated as promised, there must be something wrong in their way of life. They wanted
to change the conservative policies in religion and politics33. The concept of life after death,
for instance, and the division of that afterlife in a heaven and a hell were Hellenistic
introductions, which had had no place in Old Testament literature. This idea, which would
eventually become an important point of difference between Christian, Judaic and gnostic
theologies, and other ideas were still under heavy discussion in Palestine at this time34.
In early Greek and Aramaic texts from the centuries after his life and death we find the
phrase Jesus the Nazarene, which is usually interpreted as Jesus of Nazareth but may mean
something different. The Nazarenes were one of these revolutionary factions and Jesus was
probably at least at one point in his life associated with them or held views similar to theirs.
The word Nazarene was in any case associated with Christians in the very early days of
Christianity35. Jesus was probably a religious teacher and activist emerging from a Baptist
sect36 who wanted to make changes in Jewish conservative thought and practices in Palestine.
He was someone who considered himself as a chosen one or prophet of YHWH and either
29 This naturally also applies to possible different versions of any of the other churches in this day and age, but since
the modern Catholic Church is the direct descendent of the proto-orthodox faction in early Christianity, it therefore
such most useful for the comparison.
30 For instance Freke & Gandy (1999), The Jesus Mysteries. Was the ‘Original Jesus’ a Pagan God? on possible pagan
mystical origins of Christianity and Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln (1983), Holy Blood, Holy Grail on possible descendants
of Jesus.
31 King (2003), p. 228. Orthodox is derived the Greek words ὄρθος and δόξα, which mean ‘right belief’.
32 Since Pompeius Magnus had conquered it in 63 BCE.
33 See, for instance, Josephus, De Bello Iudaico II.163-16 and Antiquitates Iudaicae XIX.14, for disagreements between
different Jewish factions.

34 On the origin of this concept in pagan mystery cults see, for instance, Burkert, (1987), Ancient Mystery Cults, pp. 21-
28, and Cumont (1959), Afterlife in Roman Paganism, pp. 1-43 and 170-213.
35 See Pritz (1988), Nazarene Jewish Christianity, pp. 11-18 and 95-110.
36 For a good account of the historical Jesus, see Flusser (1998), Jesus, pp. 24-55. This book has mainly been the basis
of this argument.
10
proclaimed himself, or was considered by others, to be Messiah37. This was a historical title
of Jewish kings and high priests, who were anointed as a form of crowning, a title which had
no divine connotations at all38. As a religious leader, he could incite people to become his
followers by his message of salvation and healing and because he appeared to fulfil some
prophecies about the coming of a redeemer. One of these prophecies was that the redeemer
would be of the house of David39 and as such connected to the line of famous good kings of
yore. One of the reasons for Jesus’ popularity may also have been that he could make a
seemingly historically based promise of reform because of this, although Flusser argues his
descent of David is a later fabrication by his followers. The sign on his cross proclaiming him
King of the Jews and references by the crowd watching his crucifixion, as described in the
canonical Gospels40, may have been much more than a simple joke or humiliation or mere
reference to his being considered Messiah, but a serious accusation because he had become a
political threat41. The reformation message he propounded, which was originally meant to
function within the context of Judaism, was to become the basis of Christian thought.
There are very few sources about what happened to Jesus’ followers in the first few
decades after his death, but apparently his disciples dissented about the future. For instance,
in the apocryphal Gospel of Mary and Pistis Sophia42 we find clear references to differences of
opinion – maybe even while Jesus was still alive – between Andrew and Peter, Jesus’ main
disciple, on the one hand and Mary of Magdala on the other hand. She apparently occupied a
special place among Jesus’ disciples, although the interpretations of what place this exactly
was are varied and still subject to much discussion43. This gospel was probably written in the
second century CE but illustrates fairly well one way the split might have happened, since,
even though this argument is mainly between Peter and Mary, we also read that another
disciple Levi supports her instead of Peter. Besides this, there may not have been much time
to decide what to do next, since (at least a part of) the disciples were probably expelled from
Palestine for having followed a revolutionary who had been considered a dangerous threat to
the state – which may well have been an incentive to start preaching among non-Jewish
people. The reference to prophets never being recognized as prophets in their own country in
the Gospel of Luke could also be interpreted in this context44. In any case, important topics
such as whether to keep operating within the Jewish religion or to include the gentiles in their
preaching were probably not resolved. The different disciples went their different ways and
the variants of early Christianity were born.
However, to treat this extensively is a completely different subject and would go beyond
the scope of this thesis. Following the main outline of King (2003) and Ehrman (1999) for
the rest of this subchapter, the important point is that several of Jesus’ disciples became his
apostles and were either sent by him, or decided themselves, to spread their version or
versions of Jesus’ message to the gentile peoples45. They preached in the pagan cities, made
converts and moved on to other cities. The people who converted to Christianity, most of
37 This is the Hebrew word for ‘anointed one’ and in basic meaning similar to Χριστός, Christ, the translation of this
word as used by the Greeks.
38 Maccaby (2003), Jesus the Pharisee, pp. 70-71.
39 Jesus may merely have been of the same tribe as king David had been but could even as such claim him as an
ancestor even if he was not a direct linear descendant.

40 Gospel of Mark 15:26, Gospel of Matthew 27:29 and 27:37, Gospel of Luke 23:35-38, Gospel of John 19:19-21.
41 The suggestion that Jesus actually was royal is one of the main arguments for the theory of Baigent, Leigh &
Lincoln, see pp. 313-315 and 344-347, but Flusser disagrees with them.
42 The Gospel of Mary 17:10-18:21 and Pistis Sophia I.36. All quotations from texts found at Nag Hammadi at taken
from Robinson (1996), The Nag Hammadi Library in English.

43 Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, for instance, consider her to have been his wife and others his closest disciple.
44 Gospel of Luke 4:24.
45 The Greek word for apostle, ἀπόστολος, means ‘the one who is sent out’.
11
whom could not read, were left with the words of the apostle and their own imagination.
They had probably misunderstood or not understood much of what was said by the apostles
and it is no wonder that different explanations of their stories came into existence and
debates followed. From these different explanations arose different and often contradicting
texts all claiming to describe the true acts and words of Jesus or his apostles.
These differences in interpretation often concerned fundamental points and were present
from the earliest periods46. This is proven by the fact that the apostle Paul (who died in 64 or
67 CE) already felt the necessity to write several letters to Christian communities because of
their difference in thought47. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul is warning them against false
gospels48 and in his letters to the Corinthians he hints at other disagreements in doctrine49. In
those days before the council of Nikaia (323 CE), the questions that were raised and
answered differently were of a very fundamental nature. For instance, they discussed whether
or not Jesus had been divine, whether or not to consider the god about whom Jesus preached
to be the Jews’ YHWH, whether or not to adhere to the Jewish law, whether the Christian
god was singular or plural et cetera. One can imagine the differences and the strife that arose
from it.
To trace the differences back to their sources is an extremely difficult task and the goal is
often impossible to achieve. For when the initially relatively small Christian sects were still in
the formation process of their interpretations of the stories, they often came into contact
with each other, as well as with the pagan religions and philosophies which were current in
those days. The different doctrines influenced each other. Some merged and some separated
and went off in a completely different direction. This constant interaction between the
variants of Christianity with each other and with pagan thought created an enormous range
of substantially different doctrines out of which the ‘orthodox’ Christian Catholic Church
eventually rose to become the dominant doctrine. On the other hand, there were Christian
groups which had lost their original Christian identity and initially pagan sects which had
taken over some Christian elements, such as Mani’s Christianity which was strongly
influenced by Persian and Indian myths50. This thesis will centre on two of the so-called
‘gnostic’ interpretations, a widespread movement which interpreted the life and sayings of
Jesus in a mystical way. This will be the subject of the next chapter.
3.3 The secrets of gnosticism
There is a large corpus of works which are very heterogeneous in nature, purpose and ideas,
but are classified ‘under the umbrella term gnosticism’51. These works were most probably
originally written in Greek but many of them have been discovered in Coptic translations at
Nag Hammadi in Egypt, where they were translated for local use. Since this thesis will
concern itself with a variety of ‘gnostic’ ideas and interpretations of the life, acts, sayings and
ideas of Jesus and his apostles and the cosmogony, cosmology, ethics and rites different
‘gnostic’ groups inferred from them, it is paramount to define this term. However, the
academic debate on what gnosticism is and whether or not this term is appropriate to the
46 Ehrman (2003), The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths we never Knew, pp. 176-177.
47 For more information on the differences in thought between churches in apostolic times see Brown (1984), The
Churches the Apostles Left Behind.
48 Galatians 1:6-9.
49 See, for instance, 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 or 2 Corinthians 13:2.
50 For a brief survey of the most important early variants of Christianity dubbed ‘gnostic’ see Roukema, R. (1999).
Gnosis and Faith in early Christianity.

51 Ehrman, p. 159.
12
material and/or correctly applied to these writings is far from being concluded and this term
and its derivations have to be treated with care52.
So what can we say about gnosticism and how can this term be used as an important
denominator the movements treated in this thesis53? Γνῶσις or gnosis is the Greek word for
inquiry or investigation and the result of it: rational knowledge or insight54. Within the
context of religion it seems to mean an ‘esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth’55. This spiritual
truth must be understood as a direct acquaintance with and knowledge of the true god56. This
knowledge leads to knowledge of oneself, the true nature of one’s inner being or soul and its
position in the universe. To acquire this knowledge also means acquiring knowledge of the
universe itself, knowledge of why it is the way is and how it came to be this way57. It is an
explanation of the hardships of life and a promise of something better, which in this sense
offers the same comfort as the promise of heaven in Catholic Christianity. The gnostics,
however, were not waiting for a better eternal life after this one, as would be the later
orthodox Catholic doctrine, but considered the attainment of γνῶσις itself and becoming of
one of the elect few of the true god as the ultimate redemption.
The attainment of γνῶσις presumably happened by means of an initiation ritual into a
mystery cult as well as through revelations and sacraments58. The attained knowledge was a
secret and truer knowledge and the gnostics believed a saviour, such as Jesus Christ, or his
apostles, had originally revealed it to them. Consequently, a number of gnostic gospels, secret
books and other works were attributed to apostles to claim higher authority59, such as the
Apocryphon of John, the Apocalypses of James, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary. What the
gnostics actually did was interpreting the life of Jesus in the light of the mystery religions
which were current in the Mediterranean area in the first few centuries CE60. However, the
gnostics were not the only ones to claim apostles as the founders of their religious systems
and authors of their sacred texts. Different Christian sects or factions did this as unknown
authors had been claiming to be famous historical or literary characters for centuries to
increase the status of their work61. But not all variants of Christianity were gnostic sects and
not all gnostic sects were Christian.
Gnosticism was a product of the melting pot of Hellenism, which was not a
homogeneous religion but is merely the ‘umbrella’ under which different religious sects with
one aspect in common were grouped. The sects may have originated as gnostic variants of
the Christian, Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, Syrian or Indian religions or somewhere else, but
came into contact with and exerted influence on each other and non-gnostic sects62. Because
of this constant evolution of ideas, not many doctrines were firmly fixed. Disciples could
52 Recent studies by King (2003) and Williams (1996), which have been mentioned, provide thorough introductions
into the debate on this term and its definition.

53 The next paragraphs are based on King except when expressly mentioned.
54 All translations from the Greek are taken from Liddell, Scott, Jones, (1958), Greek-English Lexicon, unless expressly
stated.
55 King (2003), p. 5 quoting Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.
56 Layton (1987), The Gnostic Scriptures, p. xv.
57 Ehrman, p. 114 illustrated by a quotation from Theodotos in Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 78.2.
58 King (2003), p. 97 and Ehrman, p. 113-114.
59 Ehrman, p. 113.
60 See for instance The Gospel of Philip 67:27-30, Trimorphic Protennoia 48:30-35 and Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.23.4 to
compare with the language of pagan mystery cults.

61 Consider the attributions of the Homeric hymns to Homer, several letters to Platon and the περὶ δὲ τῆς Ἀθηναίων
πολιτείας
62 For different theories on the origin of Gnosticism see for instance Pétrement (1984), Le Dieu Séparé, pp. 14-39, for
a Christian origin, Dahl (1981), The Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia, for a Jewish origin or Schenke (1981),
The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism, for an unspecified non-Christian origin (on Sethian
gnosticism).
13
easily expand their teacher’s doctrine and incorporate elements from other sects and/or deny
elements from it. Therefore not even members of the same ‘school’ can be trusted to
proclaim the same views. Gnosticism was merely one of the many possible answers to the
need for individual ethical religious regulations that had been devised in the Hellenistic world.
Since gnosticism and Christianity (and Judaism) may be considered as – colourfully yet
somewhat bombastically stated – ‘neighboring, indeed overlapping and repeatedly cross-
fertilizing, hybrid, multifarious, ever-shifting, co-emergent discourses participating in a
broader ‘Hellenistic’ field of cultural hybridity’63, the boundaries between them are and were
not always clear. As it took Christianity several centuries to decide and negotiate the
formation of a uniform view by heated discussions and concessions between the numerous
factions, it is no wonder scholars are confused today and early Christians did not always see
much difference. The connections between Christianity and Gnosticism are evident, since
early Christian texts use the language of mystery cults the same way the gnostic writings do64.
Early proto-orthodox Christian writers even used the term γνωστικός to denote spiritually
and philosophically advanced Christians65 and the apostle Paul, who had grown up in Tarsus,
where mystic cults such as that of Mithras were immensely popular, has been proven to be
much influenced by gnostic thought66. Looking at it from this perspective, it is not surprising
to find that Christian gnostics often did not have their own churches but could simply and
easily be a part of the Christian communities. These gnostics thought of themselves as
Christians but with a higher understanding of the secret meanings of the religious texts,
sacraments and creeds. They considered themselves the spiritual elite of Christianity and
professed their own, higher, form of Christianity from within the churches, which was one of
the reasons the proto-orthodox Christians had such difficulty in locating and eradicating
them67.
3.4 Unification of doctrine
So why did the proto-orthodox Christians end up victorious and in a position to force their
theological doctrine on others as the right and only theological doctrine? The formation of a
uniform doctrine and of the later ‘orthodox’ Catholic Church and the elements influencing
this development are still subject to much research and it is impossible and irrelevant to treat
it here extensively. In the next few pages I will mention the facts about this process which are
relevant to the subject of this thesis basing myself on researchers who have studied this
subject more extensively.
Even though sources are few and many things remain uncertain, logic may take us a
reasonably long way (following Ehrman (2003) for the first two paragraphs). In an age of
Christian diversity without limitations, there were many positions to take on the spectrum of
theological possibilities. Since Christianity was still a relatively new and not yet firmly
established religion, it was still manoeuvring to find a position in harmony with – but
evidently distinguished from – other religious and philosophical movements. Unlike some
factions who positioned themselves on the extreme ends of the spectrum, such as the
Ebionites who defined Christianity within the Judaism and clung to Judaic law or the
63 King (2003), p. 230, quoting personal correspondence from Virginia Burrus.

64 See for instance the Gospel of Mark 4:11-12, the Gospel of Matthew 13:11, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, 2:14-15 and 14:2,
Colossians 1:25-28, Origenes, Contra Celsum I.7.1-8 and Clemens Alexandrinus, Protreptikos XII.120.1-2.
65 For instance Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata VII.1.1.1. See King (2003), p. 165, and Layton (1995), Prolegomena
to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism, p. 336-339 and 348-349.

66 For an introduction to Paul’s connection to gnosticism, see Pagels (1975), The Gnostic Paul.
67 Ehrman, p. 126 and Layton (1987), pp. XXII-XXIIII.
14
Marcionites who denied all historical ties to Judaism and pagan religion, the proto-orthodox
Christians were moderate Christians68. They recognized their connection to Judaism but also
defined Christianity as an independent religion. Moreover, proto-orthodox Christianity was
not elitist like most gnostic mystic cults which were available only to initiates and was not
locally focused but remained in continuous contact with other Christian groups and was
concerned with the development of Christianity and the fate of Christians worldwide69. To
simplify contact between different churches, they were proponents of monepiscopacy, i.e.
having one bishop at the head of each church, which contributed immensely to the
propagation of their own ideas70. Additionally, the proto-orthodox polemicists were very
successful in their refutation of other doctrines, because those other doctrines did not put
much effort in defending themselves. Their attacks were also very effective because they used
the polemical method of ad hominem attacks, by which they tried to discredit the teachers of
the gnostic doctrines and thus rendering their teachings unreliable instead of attacking their
doctrines directly71. The moderation and globalizing tendency of the proto-orthodox faction
were very successful: by the end of the third century CE their view and organization became
the dominant variants of Christianity in most cities connected to Rome72.
Why Rome? Because it was the logical place to position the centre of a globalizing
network of religion. Rome was already the central city of the Roman Empire and the proverb
‘all roads lead to Rome’ was literally true at this time. The infrastructure had been very good
for a long time and there was constant traffic between Rome and all other major cities and
important areas of the Empire. Other great cities such as Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem,
Edessa, Ephesos, Carthage and later Constantinople similarly exerted much influence and
remained influential until the 7th and 8th centuries CE. They all had the ambition and
opportunity to become the centre of uniform Christianity and the bishops of these cities
contended for the top position in the church. The emperor, however, was based in Rome and
he was to meddle in the affairs of the Christians in due course.
In 313 CE the emperor Constantinus the Great proclaimed his famous Edict of Milan in
which he legitimised Christianity as a religion (following Frend (1965)) for the next
paragraph)73. The story goes he had converted to Christianity the year before after having had
a vision in which he was told that if he put the Christian symbols chi and rho74 on the shields
of his soldiers he would win the battle of the Milvian Bridge he would fight the next day.
After he had won, he allegedly renounced his old worship of Sol and became a devout
Christian. In reality, Constantinus had probably not become a religious Christian at all, but
simply used Christianity as a political strategy. The third century CE had been hard on the
Roman Empire, because it had been attacked severely from the outside, was weakened from
internal struggle and suffered from economic depression. To solve these problems,
Constantinus’ predecessor Diocletianus had enlarged the army and the administrative
apparatus and the lower and middle classes, who supplied most of the government officials
and most of the soldiers, had acquired more influence than before. The composition of these
classes was now very diverse, since Roman citizenship had been granted to virtually all free
68 King (2003), p. 7.
69 Ehrman, pp. 179-180.
70 Ehrman, p. 175, basing his argument on the works of Walter Bauer.
71 For more information about the attack method of the proto-orthodox Christians and their position among other
factions in the first three centuries CE, see Wisse (1986), The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner
Diversity and Conflict.
72 Ehrman, p. 175.
73 Frend (1965), Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, pp. 536-568 (chapter XVI).
74 In Greek χ and ρ are the first two letters of the name Χρὶστος, the Latin Christus, Chadwick (1967), The Early
Church.
15
men and manumitted slaves had very good opportunities to prosper and climb the social
ladder. The empire was under stress and Constantinus was in need of well-spread means to
unify the heterogeneous Roman people.
Christianity was one of the religions which by this time had become very popular among
the lower and middle classes, presumably because of its optimistic promise in the hard times
people had faced, and he used it to unite the people (following Chadwick (1967) for the next
paragraphs). After apparently having tried to use the Sol cult, which was very popular among
the military, he eventually decided on Christianity as the best means to this end, or at least on
some kind of mixture between both religions. Both religions were or have become very alike
in message and imagery. Apparently, the difference between the Sol Cult and Christianity was
not very great and a conversion was not very radical.
It is unclear whether Constantinus actually became fully Christian or whether his
convictions and actions have later been interpreted as Christian75. He was not a theologian
but a practical man and was consequently probably not even interested in the differences
between the religions or knew much about them76. It is clear, however, that he supported
Christian thought and helped it secure its position as a religion and was mainly responsible
for the kick-start of the formation of its central hierarchical organization based in Rome, the
promotion of its juridical position and the enormous growth of its popularity and material
wealth. It is also clear that his support to the Christian community fortified his imperial
power because he himself came to be regarded as God’s chosen one on earth and because he
was now able to use the proto-orthodox Christians, who had spread all over his empire, for
political means through its bishops and councils77.
But for Christianity to be able to unite the Roman people it should at first be united itself.
Constantinus himself presided over the council of Nikaia in 325 CE, which was organised
because of a dispute between the proto-orthodox and Arian Christians78. The Arians held
that Jesus was a part of the creation of God and as such not divine but of a different
(material) substance. It was the first council where bishops from all over the empire came
together (although mostly from the East) in a massive number (220) and where the Nicene
Creed about the Son being ‘of one and the same substance with the Father’ was first formed
and recognized79. The bishops were almost unanimous (218 out of 220 attendants) in signing
the creed, probably because of its ambiguous character. This council is essentially regarded as
the start of the official unification process of Christian thought, which was to develop very
fast after this. Constantinus supported the Roman bishop in his claims to be the highest-
ranking authority among the Christian communities and it was clear that ‘the final decisions
about church policy’80 would from this time be made by the emperor.
The unification of Christian doctrine and centralization of Christian authority in Rome
was achieved by several arguments formulated in defence of the proto-orthodox point of
view81. The practice of the formulation of a κάνων, an exclusive list of scriptures, which
should be considered authoritative, had been in use for centuries among the contending
Christian factions as a means of clarifying their views. The proto-orthodox Christian created
their own, which would become the Christian Bible, consisting of both the Old and the New
Testaments. Another argument was the claim of apostolic succession. Jesus was supposed to
have instructed his apostles about the tradition they were to uphold after his resurrection and
75 For doubts about the Constantine’s Christianity see Frend, pp. 542-543.
76 Chadwick (1967), pp. 126-127.
77 Chadwick (1967), pp. 127-128.
78 This section is mainly based on Chadwick (1967), pp. 130-132.
79 For an early version of this creed, see Athanasios, De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi 33.4-6.
80 Chadwick (1967), p. 132.
81 These arguments are based on Chadwick (1967), pp. 41-45.
16
to found churches where they should propagate this message. The apostles Peter and Paul
had both come to Rome and founded churches there and their traditions were still supposed
to be upheld by the Roman bishops. The Christian could consider the bishops in other cities
who shared their views as contemporary authorities. A third argument was the formulation of
the Regula Fidei, a short summary of the basic principles in which the proto-orthodox
Christians believed such as the unity of God, the trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost
and the parthenogenesis of the virgin Mary82. A fourth influential argument was the
genealogy of heresy: how all ‘unorthodox’ views were initially descended from a common
demonic origin, which was usually Simon Magus83.
The idea of heresy will be briefly discussed here (following King (2003)). The Greek word
αἵρησις originally meant ‘choice’ but in Christian terms it was redefined as ‘the choice to
believe something else than the correct view’. What the proto-orthodox polemicists actually
did was to propagate the fiction that gnostic and other non-orthodox views were another
religion in complete opposition to early ‘orthodox’ Christianity. According to them the
gnostics were people who falsely called themselves Christians, but believed and practiced
things contrary to the instructions of Christ. Heretics were the people positioned on the
outside of Christianity, not as dissenting factions within it84. One important difference stated
by the polemicists was that true Christians have faith (πίστις) in their saviour and are saved
by his grace because of this, while the gnostics trust in their direct knowledge (γνῶσις) of or a
revelation by their saviour85. Since for the proto-orthodox polemicists truth must always be
prior to falsification, all ‘heretical’ non-orthodox beliefs were said to be deviations from the
right doctrine handed down by Jesus to his apostles. It naturally followed from this, that the
‘orthodoxy’ of the proto-orthodox early Christian factions was the original right form of
Christian belief and all believers in gnostic or other heresies were in error, because these were
later deviations and hence simply wrong. And thus ‘what we call orthodoxy is not orthodoxy
because it is right, but because it won’86.
3.5 The research on early Christianity
Once supremacy had been achieved by the proto-orthodox faction, it was very thorough in
erasing all traces of earlier dissent in the centralizing Church and in propagating its normative
doctrine while rewriting history (following the arguments made by King (2003) and Ehrman
(2003) in this subchapter). The official doctrine eventually became that Christianity had
developed in a steady, increasing way from Jesus and his apostles under the leadership of the
central proto-orthodox Christian Church in Rome87. To prove this, the Roman bishops
referred to their own (probably engineered) unbroken line of descent from the apostle Peter,
who was supposedly the first bishop of Rome. All the churches founded by the apostles were
said to have lived in peace with each other and, although admittedly some people had been
seduced by heretical views, most people were said to have always remained converts of the
true orthodox Christian faith88. The writings of other (not necessarily gnostic) Christian sects
82 See Layton (1987), pp. XIX-XXII. Markion, for instance, had already composed one, denying validity to the Jewish
Old Testament books about 145 CE and the gnostic sects had their own.
83 King (2003), pp. 32-33.
84 King (2003), pp. 23-25.
85 King (2003), p. 30.
86 Right Reverend John Shelby Spong, bishop of Newark, taken from the praise section on the first page of Freke &
Gandy.
87 Ehrman, pp. 4-5.
88 Ehrman, p. 167.
17
were suppressed and the only information about gnosticism available for centuries were the
writings of the (proto-) orthodox polemicists.
The proto-orthodox polemicists had written that the gnostic religion (although not
actually called a religion) was a singular non-Christian and anti-Christian religion founded by
the first heretic Simon Magus and all the variants of gnostic heresy were descended from it
through his disciples. Simon Magus is therefore pictured as the arch nemesis of Christianity
and the scion of Satan who with his disciples had founded a religion with many subsects very
similar to the way Christianity itself had initially developed89. They were very successful and
hence there was little doubt this was the true history of Christianity until the end of the 19th
century. The term ‘gnosticism’, however, was not coined until in the 17th century, probably by
Henry More in 1669, as a reformative Protestant anti-Catholic polemic. Ironically, the
orthodox Catholic Church, which had fought so vehemently against the gnostics, was now
itself accused of being ‘a spice of the old abhorred gnosticism’90.
When in the 19th century scholars began to doubt the orthodox doctrine and serious
research into gnosticism commenced, the absence of sources and centuries of indoctrination
still had an enormous influence. Since this time scholars have tried to reconstruct the history
of gnosticism in historical, genealogical and typological ways, starting from the ancient
assumption that it was a single coherent religion. But because gnosticism is not a
homogenous religion and the different gnostic sects do not originate from a common source,
many attempts that have been made to classify gnosticism as a religion opposed to
Christianity, Judaism or the different pagan religions and philosophical theories have
eventually resulted in failure.
Although this method of research has mostly been abandoned and scholars are now
studying the gnostic sects for their individual worth and mutual interrelations instead of
attempting to reconstruct them to a genealogically sound coherent whole, remnants of earlier
generalizations, which have now been proven false, still persist. Even in recent studies, one
may still find broad generalizations about gnosticism of which the most important and
persisting ones are mentioned here91:
Gnostic thought is based on an anticosmic dualism in which the material world and
the human body are regarded as ‘an object of hate, contempt, and fear’ and the true
god is completely alien to and transcended from the world.
Anticosmic dualism can never promote moral life in the material world since it is evil
and thence gnostic ethics are extremes. Strict asceticism and libertinism (or complete
amoralism) are the only options for the true gnostic.
Gnostic Christology is docetic92. Christ was so divine that he could not possible have
had a material human body. Either Jesus’ body was a phantasm created by the divine
Jesus or the divine Jesus temporally inhabited the body of a human Jesus, but left it
again before the mortal Jesus’ death. Without a real body he cannot really have died
on the cross and hence cannot have lifted original sin from humanity.
These untrue generalizations are either fabrications by the early proto-orthodox polemicists
or have been postulated by research on a possible common descent for a single gnostic
religion93. Pitfalls like these have put experienced scholars on the wrong track, which is a
89 Ehrman, p. 192, King (2003), pp. 7-8 and for example Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.23.2 en I.23.4.
90 King (2003), p. 7 and Layton (1995), p. 335.
91 For these generalizations, see King (2003), pp. 199-203 and Ehrman, pp. 15-16.
92 ‘Docetic’ and ‘docetism’ are derivatives of the Greek δοκέω, ‘to seem’ or ‘to appear’, and δόκησις, ‘appearance’.
93 See for instance Williams (1996), pp. 54-79 and 96-212, on the common misconceptions of the gnostic anticosmic
worldviews, negative perception of the body, soteriological predestination and subsequent lack of interest in ethics
18
good example of the difficulties one encounters while researching gnosticism. I will do my
best to avoid them in this thesis and meander through them. Although new first-hand gnostic
sources have come to light, the suppression of true evidence for gnostic thought and
adherence to the orthodox Catholic doctrine for centuries has left its mark on the possibilities
for research. But they have also made it a challenge.
being general elements of all gnostic movements and a survey of the differences between the movements. The
Valentinians, as pictured below in chapter 6.1.2 and 6.2.1, provide ample contrast.
19
4. The Eves of yore
In this second chapter I will give a brief survey of interpretations of the character of Eve
before the dawn of Christianity. Eve is obviously an ancient Jewish character, but she may be
much older than her first appearance in Judaism as we know it. These interpretations are
meant as a general chronological background and discussed as far as they are, or may be,
relevant to the development of gnostic interpretations in the late second and third centuries
CE.
4.1 The mother of all living
In the Biblical account of the book Genesis, the first man Adam calls the first woman ‘Eve’, a
name he explains as ‘the mother of all living’94. This can be explained by the fact that she will
be the mother of his children and consequently the ancestor of the whole human race, but
there are other possibilities. The book of Genesis is obviously a collection of different stories,
which did not originally belong together, and the product of many revisions through the ages.
The fact that the story of Adam and Eve is told twice95 in a completely different fashion is a
proof of this96. But does this prove that the story used to be different?
The classical scholar and mythologist Robert Graves seems to think so and in the rest of
this subchapter I will explain his theory as far as it is relevant. In his The White Goddess, he
explains and adduces arguments for his theory that there was a common widespread religious
pattern in Bronze Age Europe, Western Asia and North Africa in which a mother goddess
was worshipped in different shapes and under different names. This white goddess was a
moon goddess who presided over the waxing and waning course of the year and was
consequently also a goddess of the circle of life, an agricultural goddess and a fertility deity.
On the one hand, she was the goddess of wisdom, but on the other hand the fickle goddess
of changing fortune. In its original form in this religion, the myth about this goddess stated
that she had no male counterpart but did have twin lovers: the spirits of the waxing and the
waning year. The twins, a sun god or divine star-child and a serpent of wisdom respectively,
were rivals and each one killed the other at one of the turning points of the year. The sun
god, who is born to the goddess at the winter solstice, when the sun is in its most south
station and is most weak, is murdered at the summer solstice by the divine serpent, his tanist
or counterpart, who takes his place as her lover. He is, however, in turn destroyed by her at
the winter solstice when she gives birth to the sun god. However, the serpent is immediately
reborn from his ashes and at the spring equinox lays an egg, which the goddess eats.
Consequently, she becomes impregnated by him of the sun god, to whom she will give birth
next winter solstice97.
This goddess, according to Graves, was worshipped in an era when societies were still
mainly matriarchal and as such worshiped a feminine deity as the creator of all things and
ruler of the world. With the rise of patriarchy came the rise of masculine gods who started to
rival the goddess for her absolute power. The patriarchal nations, which invaded the societies
with matriarchal religions, influenced them, identified their masculine god with the sun god
and started to attribute more and more power to him. In Graves’ interpretation, the Greek
94 Genesis 3:20. All quotations from the Old Testament are taken from Suggs, Sandenfeld & Mueller (1992), The
Oxford Study Bible.
95 Genesis 1:26-29 and 2:7-3:24.
96 Norris (2000), Het verhaal van Eva, pp. 21-22.
97 Graves (1984), The White Goddess, pp. 387-388.
20
sun god Apollo seems originally to have been a star-child, who after the invasion of
patriarchal tribes usurped the power of his mother, the white goddess. This event is
symbolized in Greek myth by the story of his definite slaying of his former tanist, the Python.
The different aspects of the goddess were at first multiplied into triads and later into enneads
of goddesses, of which the three Μοῖραι, the three ὲρινύες, the three γρᾶιαι, and the nine
muses (the µοῦσαι) are expressions in later Greek culture. Still later, all aspects of her were
divided among several gods and goddesses, each with one or more of her former functions.
The families of gods, which now came into existence, were the divine families of antiquity
such as the Greek Olympians or the Akkadian or Sumeric Igigi98. In his research Graves tries
to deduce a common origin from the gods and goddesses of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians,
Akkadians, Sumerians and the Germanic and Celtic peoples and fit them into his above-
mentioned pattern as the remnants of the ancient struggles of Bronze Age society in later
religion.
Graves thinks that flocks of priestesses of the goddess used to hold mystical orgiastic
initiation rites in worship of her at her shrines and temples. As an earthly incarnation of the
white goddess, the head priestess would every year take a new priest-king as her husband who
would rule as this priestess-queen’s consort. After a year his successor, the new priest-king
and favourite of the goddess incarnate in the priestess, would ritually murder him, and the old
king would live on as an oracular spirit. Either under the influence of the rise of the
patriarchy or maybe without any connection to this but merely because of its impractical
consequence of having to replace the king on a yearly basis, the rule of the king could
eventually be extended to a period of seven or eight, or still later, to nineteen years. This
could be done by the yearly sacrifice of a child who had ruled in the king’s stead for a day as a
surrogate and, still later, an animal would be substituted for the child. After the victory of the
patriarchy, the kingship was completely detached from the yearly cycles and became a
hereditary affair. Graves finds numerous clues of his theory in later mythology, for instance in
the myths of Herakles who kills his children in a rage until he is killed by his wife Deianeira
and Achilles, the seventh son of Peleus, who was the only one to survive the immortalisation
process his mother Thetis performed on him (as a consequence Achilles did not become
completely immortal but reigned as king of the Myrmidons). He also notes the amount of
Greek myths describing various young princes who were burned to death after a short
temporary kingship usurped from the reigning sun god (e.g. Phaethon, the son of Helios,
who drove his father’s carriage for a day and died; Ikaros, the son of Daidalos, who flew too
close to the sun; Demophoon, the son of Keleus, whom Demeter (who Graves points out
repeatedly as an incarnation of the white goddess) was trying to immortalize; the Cretan
Dionusos Zagreus who was made king for a day; and the sacrifice of Isaac by his father
Abraham in the Bible99). According to Graves, the initiation mysteries, which persisted up to
classical Greek times and which enjoyed such renewed popularity in the Hellenistic period,
preserved a great deal of these prehistoric myths, rituals and mysticism.
Graves recognized Eve as an incarnation of his supreme deity as an oracular snake
goddess worshipped by one or more of the nomadic proto-Judaic tribes in ancient Palestine.
He believes the story of the creation of Adam and Eve and their subsequent expulsion from
paradise by God is an iconotropic misinterpretation of an older representation of the myth of
the goddess. According to him, the fruit which Eve offers Adam was originally the apple, the
fruit of immortality, and the story of the creation of Eve out of Adam’s rib is derived from an
icon depicting the sun king being murdered by his tanist who stabs him in his ribs with a
98 Graves, pp. 388-393.

99 Graves, pp. 123-139.
21
knife while the goddess watches the scene100. On another level, Cain and Abel are the twins
fighting for the favour of the goddess, instead of that of the Hebrew YHWH, and Cain the
serpent slays his brother Abel the sun god. This is a very interesting theory, but can we find
any other proof of its truth besides Graves’ own deductive logic?
Although this theory is controversial and sources are few there seems to be some
evidence to support it. The early books of the Bible make it evident that the Jews have not
been monotheists forever (this argument is mainly based on Patai (1968) 101). YHWH, the
Jewish god, used to be merely one of the gods in the Jewish pantheon of which Astarte, a
fertility goddess of the common type (almost identical with Babylonian Ishtar), and Asherah,
an earth goddess and mother of the gods, were also a part102. Astarte, or Anath, was the
daughter of Canaanite Asherah and El, and the consort of the god Baal103. Both these male
gods were often identified by the Jews with YHWH. As king Solomon (who ruled from 961
until 922 BCE) arranged several political marriages to strengthen his alliances with
neighbouring nations, the worship of Asherah was actually introduced as an official part of
the royal household cult at the introduction of a princess from Phoenician Sidon104. When
the idea of monotheism was embraced by the Jewish people105, the Bible has been accurately
surveyed and adapted to make sure no traces of the other gods remained. Although the
reviewers and rewriters have been very successful in their undertakings, there are still
instances in the Bible that show the popularity of these earth and fertility goddesses, since the
writers of these Bible books felt the need to disapprove of the practice of their rituals by the
Jews and especially by Jewish women106. Graves equates Astarte to the goddesses Ishtar,
Ashtaroth, Isis and Aphrodite as incarnations of the original white moon goddess in her
function as goddess of love and fertility107 and, although he does not mention her, he would
probably equate Asherah to Hera, Belili and Isis as goddesses of earth and motherhood.
These fertility and mother goddesses were often pictured as accompanied by serpents108 and
this suggests a connection to the story of Adam and Eve, who were deceived by one.
The name Hawwah or Chawwah (The Hebrew version of the name Eve), said by Jewish
commentators to derive from the Hebrew hayah, life, is also etymologically related to the
Aramaic hiwya and Arabic hayyatun, both meaning snake (following Phillips (1987) in this
argument). This might imply that Eve does not only mean ‘Mother of all living’, but may also
imply something along the lines of ‘snake-mother’, ‘mother of snakes’ or even ‘mother of
wisdom’, since snakes are the creatures of magic, immortality and fertility109. There may also
be a reference to Tiamat, the dragonlike or snakelike monster from whose body the universe
is created by the god Marduk in the Babylonian Enuma Elish110, which would equate Eve with
the original creatrix of the world, who is the white goddess again. Graves concluded from this
that Eve was originally an oracular serpent goddess like the Libyan Lamia111 and an
incarnation of the universal goddess. According to him, her story has been adapted to fit into
100 Graves, pp. 256-257.

101 Patai (1968), The Hebrew Goddess, pp. 15-100 and Norris, pp. 28-30.
102 Patai, pp. 25-28.
103 Patai, p. 53.
104 Patai, pp. 36-38, even king Solomon’s worship of this goddess is shown from 1 Kings 11:1-5.
105 Probably as a means to unify the Jewish tribes against Assyrian threats on Palestine in the 8th century BCE. See
Patai, pp. 29-30 and Norris, p. 28.

106 See for instance 2 Kings 17:7-12 and Judges 3:5-7.
107 Graves, p. 275, 317 and 337.
108 Norris, p. 28, for examples see Patai, p. 74 or 77.
109 Which are arts and qualities acquired through wisdom. See Phillips (1987), Eva. Von der Göttin zur Dämonin, pp. 13
and 47-48.
110 Norris, pp. 30-31 and Phillips, p. 50.
111 Graves, p. 230.
22
the later monotheistic patriarchal story of the creation of the universe by YHWH under the
revision of the Jews, who made her subject to him as part of his creation.
Graves’ theory is based on very little evidence and, consequently, very daring. He presents
his theory as being the logical consequences of interpretation of European myths, but his
reasoning is based on his own, very subjectice, interpretations. His anthropological model is
also relatively old and becoming obsolete. The relevance to this thesis is to be found in the
possibility that there may have been remnants of different interpretations of the character
Eve available in the early centuries of the Christian era, which the gnostics may have used112.
This is a very intriguing theory, which I would very much like to investigate further, and it
would be interesting topic for further research. However, since the limits of its relevance to
this thesis have been reached, I must finish here and end the discussion with a question mark.
4.2 The disloyal creature
In the Tanakh, the Hebrew canonical literature, which also forms a large part of the Christian
Old Testament113, no literature written by women has survived. Although most of the books
are anonymous and several of them are attributed to great historical or mythical characters,
such as the books of Moses, they are all evidently written from or revised to a dominant male
point of view114. As a result, all the sources are biased and since the Bible is a religious
document – which are documents which have a tendency to distort historical facts, since they
are occupied with bringing a certain message across and making it sound convincing, whence
truth and fact are always secondary to this goal – we cannot possibly deduce a trustworthy
account of the role of women in early Judaic society from it. Some comments can be made,
however, and we may comment on the literary use made of female characters and the
character of Eve in the Bible.
Woman was subordinated to man (in the next two paragraphs I follow Evans (1983)).
This is not surprising in a patriarchy and was general practice in Western Semitic societies in
the latter half of the second and in the first millennium BCE. Being married was the normal
position for a woman, as soon as she was able to fulfil her wifely duties. Marriage was rarely
for love but usually a business arrangement, in which the woman was transferred from the
power of her father or brother to the power of her husband. Women had their own domain
within the house and her functions were childbirth and housekeeping. The ideal woman was
considered to be hardworking and earned profit by her labour115, which shows she had an
economic function as well116.
Even though YHWH is presented in the Tanakh as non-sexual, he is relatively often
described through the means of female metaphors, for instance as midwife, nurse or mother,
as well as through male ones. The masculine view won out in the end, no doubt under the
influence of the organizational structure of patriarchal society. Since the god was then
considered to be male, there was a natural difference between the religious relationships of
women with him and those of men and in later times the maleness of YHWH was a means of
112 See Versnel, pp. 206-251, for clues of possible remnants of a triad in Hellenistic times which may still carry some
elements of Graves’ goddess theory.
113 The Tanakh consists of the Torah or Pentateuch (the five books of Moses), the Nevi’im (the prophets) and the
Ketuvim (hagiographa). The Catholic Christian Old Testament is based on the Greek translation, the Septuaginta, and
consists of these works and also includes some Hellenistic writings which are called Apocrypha.
114 Norris, pp. 45-47.
115 As is shown in the final saying in Proverbs 31:10-31.
116 For an extensive description of the position of the woman in ancient Semitic culture see Marsman (2003), Women
in Ugarit and Israel, pp. 43-471.
23
legitimisation of female subordination and male dominance. Therefore, it is not surprising
that in this androcentric society the early books of the Bible mainly centre on the actions and
words of the patriarchs and all the women are merely considered as relative to the men in
their life117.
The story of Adam and Eve was in all probability read as an etiological myth because it
explains how this subordination of women came into existence. Eve was deceived by the
serpent to eat from the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and persuaded
Adam to do the same118, even though YHWH had forbidden this. For this disobedience
YHWH cursed Eve with great pains in labour and submission to her husband and Adam
with hard work to provide his family with a living and banished them from paradise. The
suitable partner, whom YHWH had created for Adam, had now become his submissive. One
can imagine that it was a powerful picture: if the subordination of women to men was caused
by the first couple’s own mistake and ordained by their god, how could it not be acceptable
to the people who should be ashamed of their ancestors’ actions and take care to be obedient
to the commands of their god in order to prevent making the same mistakes?
The unequal relation of men and women was illustrated by an ingenious metaphor (this
argument is based on Marsman (2003)). Marriage between a man and a woman was usually
considered as a business contract and covenant in a personal as well as in a social context,
since bride and groom were both representatives of their families and their marriage was
often a political liaison119. The Hebrew writers consistently presented the relationship of
YHWH to the people of Israel, metaphorically also represented by the land Israel but usually
by its capital city Jerusalem, as a covenant as well. In the imagery in the Bible, YHWH is
often likened to a ‘husband’ who assumes a protective and caring role towards his ‘wife’,
Israel, who should devote herself to him. It had been common practice for ages in the West
Semitic cultures in the ancient Middle East to present their city as the wife of their patron
deity. But instead of personifying Jerusalem as a goddess and the divine wife of their god, the
Hebrew writers, and especially the prophets, pictured her as a sinning woman, an adulteress
and a harlot120. Even though YHWH is a faithful husband, their marriage is failing because
his wife, Jerusalem or Israel, is being disloyal to him by making alliances with foreign peoples
and worshipping other gods than him121. As Adam and Eve, the very first people, had been
disloyal to the god who made them, so was their progeny, which despite their ancestors’
disobedience had been singled out by YHWH and had been allowed to form a covenant with
him. The land and the people of Israel are here being compared to their devious ancestor
Eve, who had not only misled her husband but also disobeyed her maker.
This negative imagery about Eve as the prototype and representative of women was to
have a long tradition. Since early times there had been a rabbinical tradition of Midrash, the
exegesis of and criticism on Hebrew religious scripture, and these works were written down
after an oral tradition at a much later time, for instance in the Mishnah (about 200 CE).
Among these authors, the general consensus on the subject of women was that they should
be protected from causing harm to Israel and her people. Women were supposed to be easily
distracted and lascivious and should be controlled by the wiser and more temperate men. The
enormous amount of discussions about the position of women in marriage and in a family
combined in the Mishnah shows the preoccupation of the religious and juridical
commentators with this subject. It also shows the tendency to increasingly restrict women in
117 Evans (1983), Woman in the Bible, p. 21-31, the references are to Isaiah 42:14, Psalms 22:9-10 and 71:6.
118 The references are to Genesis 3:1-6, 2:16-17, 3:16, 3:17-19, 3:23-24 and 2:18 respectively.
119 Marsman, pp. 112-114.
120 Marsman, pp. 114-116, for examples see for instance Hosea 1:2, Isaiah 54:5-6, Jeremiah 2:1-3.
121 Marsman, pp. 115, for examples see for instance Jeremiah 2:33-3:20 and Isaiah 1:21.
24
their freedom and confine them to their houses as the last millennium BCE progressed122.
Eve’s actions had had a disastrous effect on the lives of her daughters.
4.3 On the verge of a new day
Hellenism also had its impact on Palestine. The Jews now came into contact with Greek,
Egyptian and oriental religions, philosophies and theories which were bound to effect their
own, especially when Jews would migrate to other Hellenistic cities such as Alexandria or
Rome in the Diaspora. Alexandria in Egypt was very attractive to Jews, presumably because it
was a centre of commerce and culture and situated near Palestine. Since this city eventually
became one of the great centres of science, arts and literature of the Hellenistic world, all this
information was easily accessible to the Jews.
The exposure to new and different kinds of culture, thought, ethics and ways of living
scared a number of traditional Jews and was an incitement to conservatism (this argument is
mainly based on Van der Horst (1994)123). Fear and conservatism are dominant in Jewish
scriptures from the third century BCE onwards and the views on the position of women as
stated in the last subchapter, were maintained and possibly even reinforced. These views on
women were that they were the source of all evil, because they had seduced the angels of
YHWH and produced demons124, which was proven by the part Eve played in the deception
of Adam. Women were considered as extremely sexual beings who were seductresses and
temptresses of men and had remained evil and dangerous ever since. This was the reason why
women should remain under the control of their men as before and should never have any
access to power. Women should not be educated, because knowledge might hand them a
weapon with which they would be able to continue or restart their evil ways. Works like the
deutero-canonical Biblical book of Yeshua ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), the writings of
Josephus and Philo Alexandrinus and the anonymous Testament of Reuben all give numerous
examples of the negative attitude towards, and fear of, women125.
There are, however, some more positive records about women and about Eve126. The
discussion about the origin of all evil which was current in the second century BCE did not
always consider Eve’s persuasion of Adam and their subsequent disobedience as the origin of
evil. On the contrary, as stated in another deutero-canonical Biblical Book of Jubilees127, evil did
not enter the world until the angels of YHWH, or ‘watchers’, mated with the daughters of
men128. Pseudo-Philo Alexandrinus tells us that women have often played an important role
in the history of Israel and the Jewish people129. Similarly, in the part of the Greek Apocalypsis
Mosis where Eve tells her own story of the events leading to their expulsion from paradise130,
it is evident that, although she is pictured as one who acted naïvely and wrongly, she is
certainly not considered to be the originator of all evil. Since archaeological finds of epitaphs
on the graves of Jewish women seem to imply that in the Diaspora women could be leaders
122 Norris, pp.44-71.

123 This paragraph is based on Van der Horst (1994), Hellenism, Judaism, Christianity, pp. 73-81, and Stroumsa (1984),
Another Seed, p. 18-27.
124 Based on an interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4.
125 Examples are Yeshua ben Sirach 9:1-9, Josephus Contra Apionem II.201, Philo Alexandrinus Hypothetica VII.3 and
XI.14 and De Specialibus Legibus III.169-171 and Testament of Reuben 5:1-4.

126 This paragraph is based on Van der Horst, pp. 81-92 and Stroumsa, p. 18-27.
127 Book of Jubilees 4:22, 5:1-2 and 7:20-25, see also 1 Enoch 6:1-2 en 7:1-5.
128 The same reference to Genesis 6:1-4.
129 Pseudo-Philo Alexandrinus, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, for instance chapters 9:5 (on Tamar), 33:6 (on Deborah)
or 40:4 (on Seila).

130 Apocalypsis Mosis, 15-30.
25
of local synagogues and educated students, their position may not always have been as
subjected as the conservative male Jewish writers might have wanted them to be131. They may
very well have been the authors of some of the writings mentioned in the last paragraphs.
Philosophy was an important part of Hellenistic society with which the Jews came into
contact (the rest of this argument is based on Sterling (2005)132). When the intellectuals read
the works by the Greek philosophers, especially those by the Stoics and Middle Platonists, it
influenced the Jewish exegetical tradition, sometimes completely and sometimes merely in
certain areas. Jewish authors had gradually sought to combine their religion with philosophy,
as is evident from the works of Aristoboulos (second century BCE), Josephus and the author
of 2 Enoch. Philo Alexandrinus (first half of the first century CE) actively tried to explain the
Jewish religion in terms of Middle Platonic philosophy and make it accessible to the
Hellenistic community. In his mind YHWH was a transcendent and perfect god who had
created the visible universe as a reflection of the ideal universe through his word or λόγος, by
considering the forms in his mind. This god had made humans as a composite of dust (the
mortal body) and the immortal soul, which he had given us through the demiurge λόγος. An
important detail is that Philo states that YHWH first created perfect, heavenly people in his
own image and only created the earthly humans after their image, by which he explains why
the creation of mankind is told twice in Genesis133.
With the advent of Hellenism, mystery religions also seem to have arrived among the
Jews. Already in the Tanakh, there is mention of the presence of Asian mystery cult in
Palestine134, and Tacitus notes the worship in the temple in Jerusalem has reminded some of
the cult of Dionusus135. In Philo Alexandrinus, we find references to Moses having been an
initiate of a mystery cult136, which is probably an expression of Hellenistic reinterpretation of
Jewish scripture. He also mentions a religious group in Egypt, whom he calls the Θεραπευταί
or Θεραπευτρίδες and who are a members of a mystery cult137. Although Eusebios, the
church historian of the fourth century CE, argues that the members of this religious group
were early (proto-orthodox) Christians138, this is quite impossible because this tractate was
written before Jesus is supposed to have taught139. The references to their Sabbath worship,
however, and the division of men and women in religious ceremony indicate that this is a
mystery cult that has many Jewish influences and probably arose from Judaism140. This
syncretism of Judaism and mystery religions was going to play an important part in the
development of gnosticism141.
In the works of Philo and some of the other Hellenising Jewish philosophers, one may
find some interesting concepts, which were to play an important part in Christianity and the
cosmologies of certain gnostic factions. There is the Word142, which in Hebrew thought is
not just a word but also the active principle of YHWH, but which was understood in Philo as
the demiurge in Platonic sense who acts out the thoughts of the perfect transcendent god143.
There is also the wisdom of YHWH which, though presented as the principle of unity, truth
131 Van der Horst, pp. 92-95.
132 Sterling (2005), The Jewish philosophy pp. 131-153.
133 Philo Alexandrinus, De Opicio Mundi 134-135.
134 For instance, Ezekiel 8:14
135 Tacitus, Historiae V.5
136 Philo Alexandrinus, De Gigantibus 54 and De Vita Mosis II.71.
137 Philo Alexandrinus, De Vita Contemplativa 25 and 28.
138 Eusebios of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesastica II.17.3-4.
139 It was probably written between 5 and 15 CE. See Mead, pp. 64.
140 Philo Alexandrinus, De Vita Contemplativa 30-32.
141 See Williams (1996), pp. 234.
142 The Greek λόγος was used as a translation for this concept by Jews writing in Greek.
143 Sterling, p. 145.
26
and righteousness in god in the older books of the Tanakh, is also already presented as semi-
detached from him144. As early as in the works of Yeshua Ben Sirach145, there are traces of its
being personified in a non-poetical way but as a completely separate entity from god and
created by him before all other things. Wisdom, a female principle (as da’at in the Hebrew
Tanakh and in the Septuaginta, the Greek translation of the Tanakh, as σοφία), here springs
from the mouth of YHWH and is as such associated with the Word146. In the gnostic
interpretations, these concepts would have an important influence on the interpretation of
the creation of humankind, the story of the first couple and the interpretations of the
character Eve.
144 For instance Job 28:23-28 and in Wisdom of Solomon 9:4 where she sits next to YHWH’s throne.
145 Yeshua ben Sirach 1:1, 24:3.
146 For an overview of early Hellenistic interpretations of the word and wisdom of YHWH in the Old Testament and
the deutero-canonical books see Drummond (1969), Philo Judaeus, pp. 131-166.
27
5. Eve in Sethian gnosticism
The first interpretation of Eve which I will examine is that of the gnostic category called
‘Sethian’ gnosticism. Even though this name is derived from the works of the proto-
orthodox polemicists, a number of scholars have argued for a unity between several ancient
works deemed gnostic, based on their common content which may very well be called
‘Sethian’147. They consider these works, most of which have been found at Nag Hammadi, as
belonging to one or more Sethian sects because of their adherence to a specific mythology
(Schenke), their specific (set of) rituals (Logan) or their self-designation as gnostic (Layton).
Based on their different approaches and findings, all three scholars have concluded on a
more or less similar corpus of gnostic works which is now considered to be the product of a
specific, yet developing, faction called Sethian gnosticism148. The works on which they all
agree are: The Apocryphon (or Secret Book) of John, The Hypostasis of the Archons, The Gospel of the
Egyptians, The Apocalypse of Adam, The Three Steles of Seth, Zostrianos, The Thought of Norea,
Marsanes, Allogenes, Melchidezek, The Trimorphic Protennoia and The Untitled Treatise149. As the
discussion about which other gnostic works may be a part of the same category has by no
means been concluded, I will limit myself to the works about which there is consensus.
Consequently, only the writings mentioned above will be considered as the sources for
Sethian gnosticism here.
5.1 Sethian thought and practice
According to Hans-Martin Schenke, the initial proposer of the Sethian category, Sethian
gnosticism was initially not Christian. He states that most Sethian writings give evidence of
no, or hardly any, Christian influences and Christian elements can only be found in late
writings or as later insertions into pre-existing works150. The Apocryphon of John is one of the
most Christian or Christianized works in the Sethian category of gnosticism151. It is also
clearly an important work, because of its early dating (probably early second century CE)152
and most other Sethian writings mentioned regularly refer to it in content. Another sign of its
importance is that it has been handed down to us in several manuscripts and in two different
versions, which indicates its widespread use and its development over time153. In this writing,
Sethian cosmogony is explained through a revelation of Christ to one of his disciples, John
the son of Zebedeus154, and its content was well known and very similar to the work
Eirenaios of Lyons knew and criticized155. The importance of this work indicates that its
147 For instance, Schenke (1981), pp. 588-607, Logan (1996), Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy or Layton (1987), pp.
xv-xvii.
148 Other names, which are now more or less dated, are ‘Ophite gnosticism’ or ‘Ophitism’, see Stroumsa, p. 5-6 or
Barbeloite-Gnosticism, see Schenke (1981), p. 6. As an alternative word for Sethian, ‘Sethite’ is also used.
149 Layton adds The Book of Zoroaster and Thunder Perfect Mind to the list, for a useful summary of the research and
conclusions see King (2003), pp. 157-158.

150 Schenke (1981), pp. 607-612.
151 For an analysis of the Christian elements, see Schenke (1981), pp. 611-612.
152 See Turner (1986), Sethian Gnosticism: a Literary History, pp. 72-73.
153 It appears in three of the codices found at Nag Hammadi (II, III & IV) and in the Berlin Gnostic Codex, see
Roukema, pp. 36-37, and Williams (1996), pp. 8.

154 Who is one of Jesus’ disciples according to e.g. Gospel of Mark 1:19-20 or Gospel of Matthew 20:20-23.
155 Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.29.1-I.30.14, on ‘Barbelo-Gnostics’, ‘Ophites’ and ‘Sethites’ who are
probably sects of a Sethian character, see Williams (1996), pp. 90. Schenke (1981) supposes that Eirenaios knew an
28
content applies to the thought of most, or all, Sethian factions. Consequently, it is the best
source of Sethian cosmogony and cosmology that is to be found in the corpus. Consequently,
it is the best example to use here, even though other Sethian writings give or hint at different
accounts of some elements. The story is an interpretation of, and an elaboration on, the
creation story in Genesis (1:1-5:30)156. In the footnotes, comparisons are drawn between this
account and the accounts of the polemicists Eirenaios of Lyons, Hippolutos of Rome and
Epiphanios of Salamis of several sects which should probably be regarded as Sethian157.
5.1.1 The Sethian creation myth
In The Apocryphon of John, Christ, who calls himself the Father, the Mother and the Son158
among other things, reveals how at the beginning of time the Father, a transcendent perfect
being also called the invisible virginal Spirit and the Pure Light among other things, created
Barbelo, the Mother also called the perfect power and Foreknowledge, by thinking of, and
looking at, the reflection of his own image in the light or water159. Barbelo subsequently
conceived by the Pure Light and bore the Son, who is also called ‘the Only Begotten One of
the Father’ and Αὐτογενής160 and who was anointed Christ by the Father. Together they
formed a Triad161. Autogenes ‘created everything’162 by the word of the invisible Spirit and
from him arose four lights or αἰῶνες163, (H)armozel, Oriel, Daveithai and Eleleth, with three
additional αἰῶνες each, who are Autogenes’ twelve helpers164. Next, Adamas, the perfect
man, appeared by the joint effort of the Spirit and Autogenes. The Spirit ‘set him over’
Armozel, Adamas’ son Seth over Oriel, Seth’s seed (the souls of the saints) over Daveithai
and the souls who did not know the πλήρωµα165 and did not repent at once, over Eleleth166.
earlier, less Christianized, version of the work found at Nag Hammadi. For easy reference Eirenaios’ work will be
quoted by its Latin title throughout this thesis.
156 As a helpful commentary in interpreting the story, I have used Roukema, pp. 36-49.
157 See Layton (1996), p. 42.
158 The Apocryphon of John 2:14.
159 Descriptions of god, such as this one, are also found in inscriptions dating from the second century CE, for
instance in Oinoanda: ‘Self-born untaught, motherless, unshakeable, giving place to no name, many-named, dwelling in fire, such is
god…’ (translation by Lane-Fox), quoted from Ras (1993), Het Dagelijkse Leven in Oinoanda in de Tweede en Derde Eeuw
na Christus, p.97.
160 Autogenes is Greek for ‘self-procreated’.
161 According to Epiphanius, the Phibionites worshipped the same triad and the Archontics at least agreed on the
Father being the highest principle, see Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.26.10.4 and I.40.2.8. According to Eirenaios,
however, the Barbelo-Gnostics taught Barbelo was the higher power and did not postulate a trinity but taught the
divine powers were made in pairs, in syzygy. In his account of the Ophites or Sethites, he explains their trinity as
consisting a First Man (Ἄνθρωπος), his creation Ennoea (Ἔννοια or ‘Thought’), who is the Second Man, and
Spiritus sanctus or πνεῦµα, who is also called First Woman and Mother of the Living, see Eirenaios of Lyons,
Adversus Haereses I.29.1 and I.30.1. According to Hippolutos, the Sethians whom he had encountered taught that their
godhead was a trinity consisting of a high light, a deep darkness and πνεῦµα in between, see Hippolutos of Rome,
Refutatio Omnium Haeresium V.19.1-6.
162 It is unclear what this ‘everything’ means but it does not denote the material universe at this point.
163 The Greek aion (in Latin aeon) means ‘eternity’, but also ‘heavenly sphere’, ‘heavenly realm’ or ‘heavenly power’ in
this context.
164 In contrast, Eirenaios’ Barbelo-Gnostics did not equate Autogenes with Christ, but taught that Christ had been
created first and Autogenes after this. His four lights are there called Armozel, Raguhel, David and Eleleth. The
Ophites or Sethites taught that their First and Second Men slept with the First Woman and generated Third Man,
who is called Christ and lives with his mother in Church (Ἐκκλησία), the highest αἰών. See Eirenaios of Lyons,
Adversus Haereses I.29.2 and I.30.1-2.
165 The Greek Pleroma means ‘fullness’ and ‘the fullness of the aeons’ is a term often used to denominate all the
αἰῶνες together.
29
After this creation of the heavenly world, Sophia or Wisdom, one of the αἰῶνες of
Eleleth, conceived by thinking a thought herself, without the approval of the Father or the
consent of her consort, left the πλήρωµα and bore an imperfect monster. She named him
Yaldabaoth or Yaltabaoth (he is also called Sakla(s) or Sammael in other writings167) and hid
him far away in a luminous cloud. Yaldabaoth stole a power from his mother and became the
first ἄρχων or ruler. He created his own twelve lower αἰῶνες after the model of the higher
heavenly world, of which he was ignorant besides his knowledge of his mother, and filled it
with 365 angels. After his creation of this lower universe, Yaldabaoth became arrogant and
exclaimed ‘I am a jealous God and there is no other God beside me’168. Sophia now saw what
her unpermitted deed had caused, repented and was allowed back into the πλήρωµα 169.
In reaction to Yaldabaoth’s statement, a voice was emitted from the true αἰῶνες saying
‘The Man exists and the son of Man’ and the Father showed the first man Adamas, who had
been created in His likeness. Thinking the voice had come from his mother, Yaldabaoth and
his angels, together called the ἄρχοντες, created Adam ‘in the likeness of the likeness of’ the
Father. This Adam was still an immaterial soul body, which they could not cause to live.
Sophia asked the Mother-Father to give her back the power Yaldabaoth had taken from her
and He sent Autogenes to tell Yaldabaoth to blow some of his spirit into the man.
Yaldabaoth complied and blew the power he had stolen from his mother into the lifeless
body, which instantly began to live and was far more intelligent than Yaldabaoth and his
angels170. They became jealous at the sight and hid Adam’s soul body, which shone
luminously because of this power, in a material body. The Mother-Father, however, took pity
166 The Apocryphon of John 2:26-9:24. According to Eirenaios, the Barbelo-Gnostics taught that Autogenes had created
Adamas, the perfect Man (Ἄνθρωπος) and Γνῶσις, who as a pair generated Lignum or ‘wood’ also called Γνῶσις, See
Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.29.3.
167 Explained as ‘fool’ and ‘blind’ respectively by Roger A. Bullard in his introduction in the Nag Hammadi Library in
English.
168 A quotation from the words of YHWH in the Old Testament in Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9 and Isaiah 45:5-6
and 46:9.
169 According to Eirenaios, the Barbelo-Gnostics agreed with this account, but said Sophia fell because there was no
consort for her in the πλήρωµα and she went into the world below it to find one. They said that Sophia repented
after the creation of the demiurge and that she became Ogdoas (Ὀγδοάς), the heaven between the material world
and the πλήρωµα, see Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.29.4. Epiphanius’ Ophites taught that Sophia was weak
and ignorant when she created the demiurge, but agreed on Sophia becoming Ogdoas or heaven above the seven
heavens of the ἄρχοντες, as did the Archontics, see Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.37.3.2-5 and I.40.2.3. Eirenaios
explains this by telling the Ophites taught that Sophia or Prunicus (Προύνικος, ‘lewd’ or ‘low’) attracted material
things by her humectatio luminis or ‘moisture of light’ and that, being burdened by her material body, she placed it
between the πλήρωµα and the earth to hide the perfect light. They also said that her son, the demiurge, not only
created the material universe and his ἄρχοντες but also Nus (Νοῦς), who is the serpent, see Eirenaios of Lyons,
Adversus Haereses I.30.3-5. Epiphanius’ Ophites agreed the serpent is a creation of Yaldabaoth, see Epiphanius of
Salamis, Panarion I.37.4.4, but Hippolutos’ Sethians taught that the attractions of light, dark and πνεῦµα created the
Platonic forms or ideas, after which the material world was created, see Hippolutos of Rome, Refutatio Omnium
Haeresium V.19.6-13.
170 Eirenaios’ Ophites or Sethites told a very similar story, but they taught the ἄρχοντες did not make Adam after the
image of Adamas but based on a thought given them by Sophia in order to empty them of their power, see Eirenaios
of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.30.6. Epiphanius’ Ophites taught that Adam was made in the likeness of Yaldabaoth and
stressed Sophia’s deception of him to blow his power into Adam in order to give him a soul, see Epiphanius of
Salamis, Panarion I.37.3.6-4.3. Hippolutos’ Sethians, however, taught that a wind moved the waters of the darkness
and trapped the light and πνεῦµα in a wave, which was the god Νοῦς trapped in a material body. The wind, which
had the shape of a winged serpent, created humans out of this wave in his own image, see Hippolutos of Rome,
Refutatio Omnium Haeresium V.19.13-20.
30
on the power of Sophia, which was in Adam, and sent his beneficent Spirit, Ἐπίνοια171,
which he hid inside of him172.
After this the ἄρχοντες placed Adam in paradise with its ‘tree of life’, which was actually
the road to godlessness and death, and its ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’, which is
here called the ἐπίνοια of the light, of which Adam was told not to eat. The serpent merely
taught Adam procreation through ‘lust and destruction’, but, at the instigation of Christ,
Adam outsmarted the ἄρχοντες by the power of the Ἐπίνοια173 inside him. Jealous
Yaldabaoth now attempted to retake the power he had given Adam and veiled his senses to
extricate it from him by taking out his rib. Although the Ἐπίνοια (of the light) stayed hidden
in Adam, Yaldabaoth did manage to get part of it and created woman. When Adam sobered
up, he recognized the woman as ‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ and this is the
reason given ‘why a man will leave his father and mother and he will cleave to his wife and
they will both be one flesh’174. After this, Sophia and Christ (Autogenes or the Son), who
took the form of an eagle, descended to paradise to teach the couple to eat of the tree of
knowledge175. The angry Yaldabaoth now cursed the earth which he had created and
banished Adam and Eve from paradise, but they were afraid to curse him back. After this, he
(Yaldabaoth) seduced Eve and fathered two sons on her: Eloim and Yave, who were also
called Cain and Abel. Probably through this act, he implanted sexual desire in Eve and hence
procreation has happened through sexual acts ever since. Adam and Eve then had Seth, into
whom the mother (Yaldabaoth’s mother Sophia is probably meant) sent her spirit or divine
spark. This divine element remained active in his descendants (‘his seed’) in order to assist in
the curing of the universe of its imperfection and the return of humanity to the realm of the
light176.
Yaldabaoth and his angelic powers had conceived fate in adultery with Sophia out of
jealousy of the race of the perfect man. Fate has made the whole creation blind and produced
every imaginable sort of sin. After this act, Yaldabaoth repented of the evil he had caused and
sent a flood of darkness over the Earth. The Mother, however, had informed Noah and he,
and most of his race, saved themselves by hiding in a luminous cloud177. Yaldabaoth then
171 The Greek Epinoia means ‘thought’ or ‘notion’, but may also denote ‘purpose’ or ‘intelligence’.
172 The Apocryphon of John 9:24 - 21:16.
173 Ἐπίνοια is spelled with a capital letter in the rest of the work.
174 The reference is to Genesis 2:23-24.
175 As a variant of the story, Eirenaios’ Ophites or Sethites taught that Eve was created from Adam’s thought and
that the ἄρχοντες tried to rape her afterwards, but Sophia took the divine power out of her before they succeeded
(which is apparently the variant of the story found in The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:12-29). Sophia then used
Yaldabaoth’s son, the serpent, to instruct Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge to acquire γνῶσις (See
The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:31-90:2), see Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.30.5 and I.30.7. Epiphanius’
Borborites and Ophites agreed that the serpent was the first couple’s instructor in the attainment of γνῶσις and the
Ophites taught that it was also thrown out of paradise, see Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.26.2.6 and I.37.5.3-4.
Hippolutos’ Sethians considered the serpent as evil, see Hippolutos of Rome, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium V.19.18-20.
176 The Apocryphon of John 21:16-25:16. Eirenaios’ Ophites or Sethites taught Yaldabaoth wanted Eve to conceive of
Adam after their expulsion from paradise, but Sophia outsmarted him by taking the humectatio luminis out of her and
thus helped them escape from the power of Yaldabaoth. Because they were now in the material world, the couple
changed into material substance, but Sophia returned their humectatio luminis, by which they realized this and their
nakedness. Adam and Eve then proceed to have Cain and Abel, but the serpent, who was also expelled from
paradise and bears a grudge to Adam and Eve because of this, made Cain kill Abel. Sophia, however, helped Adam
and Eve to have Seth and Norea to compensate for this loss, see Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.30.8.
Epiphanius’ Sethians state Cain and Abel had unspecificied different fathers, but the Archontics taught they were the
children of the devil, the son of the demiurge, and that they killed each other in rivalry for the favours of their sister,
see Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.39.2.1-7 and I.40.5.1-4.
177 Eirenaios’ Ophites or Sethites agreed with this myth about Noah, see Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses
I.30.10. Epiphanius’ Borborites, however, taught that Yaldabaoth wanted to destroy the immovable race and would
not let his servant Noah’s wife Norea board the ark, because she had γνῶσις. His Sethians taught that Sophia sent
31
wanted his angels to raise offspring with the daughters of men and changed their appearance
into men, but they did not succeed to make them conceive. Yaldabaoth first needed to create
a counterfeit spirit, which looks like the real Spirit, to achieve his goal. This counterfeit spirit
leads the people astray from the knowledge of the god of Truth and this situation has
continued up to the present day178. Therefore Christ, the perfect πρόνοια179 of the all,
‘changed himself into his seed’ (became human) and went into the realm of darkness, the
underworld, and released the souls there and raised them up to the light180.
Only those of ‘the immovable race’ (the seed of Seth), ‘on whom the Spirit of life will
descend’ and who have fought against the evil impulses of their fleshly body, will acquire this
eternal life. Other humans, on whom the counterfeit spirit has descended, are drawn to works
of evil and forget the light, but they keep their soul. The soul, however, has the power to
become stronger than the counterfeit spirit. When this human has died, his or her soul, which
is bound with chains and imprisoned by the angels of Yaldabaoth181, can still achieve
knowledge182 and liberation by following another soul which has the Spirit of life in it (i.e.
one of the immovable race). Only the souls which have gained the true insight, but have
turned away from it, ‘will be punished with eternal punishment’183.
5.1.2 Sethian ethics and practice
Sethian cosmology and theology naturally had an enormous influence on their way of life. As
King (2003) argues very clearly184, Sethians considered the world as a product of evil,
conceived without the permission of the true god. It is ruled by an evil, tyrannical, arrogant
and ignorant world creator and his minions, who are completely inferior to the true triple
god. They are constantly actively malevolent and try to deceive and enslave humans in order
to keep them away from γνῶσις of the true god185. Humans have to spend their lives not only
battling those evil forces which rule the material world, but are also attacked from the inside
by fleshly desires and passions which have been implanted there by an evil deceptive spirit.
This negative world view probably resulted in a tendency to abstain from most worldly
emotions and passions. As is illustrated by The Apocryphon of John, a select few, the elect
initiates, who ‘endure everything and bear up under everything, that they may finish the good
fight’, will really acquire eternal life without suffering beforehand186. Others may only be
saved by the benevolent soul of an initiate after a time of suffering in several material
reincarnations or be punished forever. Although we have little knowledge of Sethian ethics,
we might infer from the writings that the Sethians, or at least a number of the Sethian groups,
the flood to wipe out all humanity except the seed of Seth, but the ἄρχοντες hid their servant Ham on the ark, see
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.26.1.4-9 and I.39.3.1-3.
178 Eirenaios’ Ophites or Sethites taught that not the ἄρχοντες, but the evil serpent and his sons cause evil for human
beings, see Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.30.9. In contrast, Epiphanius’ Sethians taught that evil remained in
the world because of Ham’s survival of the flood, which is why Christ, who is Seth, was sent by Sophia, see
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I Pan I.39.3.4. Hippolutos’ Sethians, however, taught that human beings experience
evil because they are trapped in a material body and that the Λόγος was the saviour, see Hippolutos of Rome,
Refutatio Omnium Haeresium Ref. V.19.20-21.
179 The Greek provoia means ‘forethought’ or ‘prescience’.
180 The Apocryphon of John 27:31-31:25.
181 This probably means it is reborn in another material body.
182 The original Greek probably had γνῶσις.
184 See King (2003), pp. 157-162.
185 A good example is the wilful deception of humans by the angels of YHWH in The Apocryphon of John 29:16-31
based on an interpretation of Genesis 6:2-4.

32
promoted rigorous asceticism as the only protection against the evil forces of Yaldabaoth and
the only way of ascension to the true light. Direct redemption may only be achieved
individually and the ideal of a spiritual and moral state, in which one must persevere until the
end of life in order not to be reborn again, points towards a tendency to total abstinence of
worldly goods187. This invokes the image of rigorous meditational cults and the hermetic
ascetics of early Christianity, as described, for instance, in the stories about the early saints
Antonius or Tekla.
Even the saviour is merely an episode in the continuous struggle of the human soul with
the forces of evil and does not negate the importance of individual zeal. In The Gospel of the
Egyptians, the saviour, who is here portrayed as the divine Seth, created out of the divine
Λόγος, Autogenes, and Adamas, and who is equated with Christ, has descended to Earth,
wrapped himself in the body of the earthly Jesus and has taught the knowledge of his truth to
the seed of Seth188. But this does not constitute redemption. The Sethian saviour has not, like
the later orthodox Catholic Jesus, redeemed humanity from its original sin by his coming.
Humans still live in the universe created by the evil and lesser god Yaldabaoth and his angels,
and each person still has to fight his or her own battle to achieve ascension into the world of
light. The function of the saviour is necessary for the attainment of γνῶσις through his
revelation, but he is merely exemplary and can be used as a ‘guiding light’ on the way. Every
human being possesses the ability to do this, but making the effort to follow the road to the
light is still a matter of choice189.
The writings seem to suggest that the cultic practice derived from this view of the world
contained two mysteries, baptism and ascension, in which the Sethians – or at least some
Sethians – had to be initiated in order to achieve this final goal190. There was an earthly
baptism which was probably an actual rite191 and which was seen in connection to a heavenly
baptism by the baptists Micheus, Michar and Mnesinous in the Water of Life called Yesseus
Mazareus Yessedekeus192. The frequent occurrence of baptism in the Sethian writings
indicates that it was an important part of Sethian practice, although much is still unclear
about the actual execution of it193. In the rite of baptism, ‘five seals’194 are often mentioned,
which are a part of the procedure of the rite195. It has been suggested these were the
passwords needed to be able to complete the road to the light by passing through the five
stages of the mystery ritual. It is also unclear of what the ascension ritual consisted, but it was
definitely some sort of mystical experience and may well have been the final initiation rite. In
Marsanes196, mention is made of thirteen seals which may in this case be connected to the
passwords needed to ascend through the thirteen αἰῶνες of the universe and to be allowed to
pass the heavenly creatures, such the ἄρχοντες, who are the rulers of the αἰῶνες197.
According to Schenke, the work The Three Steles of Seth is a liturgical text and provides us with
187 On Sethian asceticism and other ways of world renunciation see Williams (1985), The Immovable Race, pp. 193-197.
188 The Gospel of the Egyptians 61:16-64:9.
189 On free will in Sethian thought, see Pétrement, pp. 27-30.
190 The rest of the argument in this chapter is mainly based on Schenke (1981), pp. 601-607.
191 Although not necessarily literally a water baptism but it may also have been a spiritual metaphor since material
water is part of the evil creation of the lesser god (Williams, (1985), pp. 192-193).
192 See Trimorphic Protennoia 45:16-20, 48:18-21, Zostrianos cannot enter the realm of light without becoming a
celestial baptism Zostrianos 5:14-7:20.

193 For other examples of occurrences besides those mentioned in the last note see Melchizedek 16:16-18:8 for a
baptismal prayer (which according to Birger A. Pearson’s introduction in the Nag Hammadi Library in English may
have been part of a Sethian liturgy), The Gospel of the Egyptians 65:26-66:8 or The Apocalypse of Adam 85:19-31
194 For instance, see Trimorphic Protennoia 48:30-35 or The Gospel of the Egyptians 62:24-64:3 and 65:26-66:8.
195 Schenke (1981), pp. 603-604.
196 Marsanes 2:12-4:23.
197 For more on passwords in ascent rituals, see Roukema, pp. 49-53.
33
three prayer formulas for the ascension rite198. The last words of the text state that those who
‘remember these (words?)’ will become perfect (i.e. ascend to the world of light) and descend
again to the world below199. If these are the prayer formulas for the ascension rite, the
ascension should probably be regarded as a metaphorical ascension and as a symbol of the
experience of attaining true γνῶσις and eternal redemption.
198 Schenke (1981), pp. 601-602.

199 The Three Steles of Seth 127:7-127:26.
34
5.2 The Sethians and their origins
Having now discussed the Sethian creation myth and their religious ethics and practice, what
can we say about the Sethians themselves? Who were they? And where did they come from?
5.2.1 The Sethian community?
Although Schenke admits that the Sethian gnostics were probably not a homogeneous
group200, Frederik Wisse has criticised him for portraying them as too uniform201. According
to him, Schenke postulates relationships between works, although he has no evidence these
works were ever used together as part of a unified teaching method and he opposes
Schenke’s suggestion of a liturgy. He convincingly argues that the Sethian writings are the
products of different stages of development in thought and that, as a result of this, it is
impossible to reconstruct a complete, coherent doctrine from them. He thinks that they are
independent products of autonomous esoteric groups, which used and appropriated known
‘free-floating’ mythological and theological ideas to use in private meditation. To corroborate
his conviction he points towards the differences between the Sethian writings on important
subjects, such as the saviour function of Seth202, the equations of the λόγος with different
characters203 and the descriptions of important characters, such as Yaldabaoth or the divine
triad of the Father, the Mother and the Son204. He also states that the references to Sethian
Gnostics by the polemicists all go back to one author, Hippolutos of Rome (about 170-235
CE), basing himself on the studies on literary interrelationship between the polemicists by
Lipsius, Harnack and Hilgenfeld in the 19th century205. He argues that the repeated
mentioning of Sethians in the works of the polemicists may have deceived modern scholars
into thinking they were a uniform group, although all reports were based on merely one,
presumably incorrect account206.
Wisse definitely is very convincing in his argument that the polemicist sources on
(Sethian) gnosticism need to be treated with caution and that the Sethian works are products
of different stages of development of thought and do not form an official Sethian canon used
in uniform liturgies. It is, however, possible that there were several heterogeneous Sethian
sects with beliefs, which were largely overlapping, but differed in detail and which have each
developed in different directions. The conclusions of several other scholars (Schenke, Layton,
Logan), that there was a sect or group of sects which can be considered as belonging to more
or less the same system and which could all be called Sethian based on theological or
mythological similarities, induce me to regard this as the more plausible explanation207.
200 Schenke (1981), p. 606.

201 Wisse (1981), Stalking those Elusive Sethians, pp. 573-576.
202 For instance, in The Gospel of the Egyptians 62:24-64:9 and 68:1-5, Seth is the saviour coming down to earth
proclaiming the truth. In The Apocryphon of John 2:9-20, however, Christ or Autogenes is the saviour who is part of the
trinity and Seth is merely the son of the divine Adamas or of the human Adam. In The Thought of Norea, Seth is not
even present but Norea has taken over the saviour function.
203 For instance in The Gospel of the Egyptians 53:13 it is equated to the original transcendent Father Autogenes and in
Trimorphic Protennoia 37:4-9 it is equated to the Son but in The Apocryphon of John 7:4-11 it is a power of the Father by
means of which Christ has created the universe.
204 In The Gospel of the Egyptians 40:15-41:12 the triad originates from and is described as the three powers of
Autogenes, the father, but in The Apocryphon of John 2:26-6:18 the father creates the Mother and the Son and
Autogenes is equated with the son.
205 Lipsius (1865), Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, Harnack (1873), Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus and
Hilgenfeld (1884), Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums.

206 Wisse, Stalking those Elusive Sethians, pp. 567-573.
207 Williams (1985), pp. 186-189 and 197-203 and Stroumsa, pp.7-8, also agree on this.
35
Nevertheless, Wisse’s criticism causes scholars to be very cautious about what they can say
about who the Sethian gnostics were and what religious rites and cultural practices they
observed. Based on their cosmological and ethical writings we can, nonetheless, agree with
Schenke on one thing and conclude that they were probably not initially Christian and were
therefore not part of the Christian communities, but that at least some Sethian sects may have
become christianized over time208.
5.2.2 Influences on Sethian thought
On the other hand, we can say something about the history of Sethian thought which, by
analogy, might perhaps give some clues about the origin of the Sethians themselves, although
in Hellenistic society the origin of a doctrine need not necessarily reflect the origin of its
adherents anymore. Investigating this subject in an article (1986), John D. Turner
distinguished influences of different doctrines which have contributed to the development of
Sethian thought: Hellenistic-Jewish speculation on the figure of Sophia or Wisdom, several
midrashic interpretations and motifs of Genesis 2-6, a baptismal doctrine, the developing
theology of the early Christian factions and Neopythagorean and Middle Platonic
philosophy209.
Affinities with Jewish literature and thought are indeed the first things that stand out and
the Sethian gnostics seem to be very dependent on Judaism. Naturally, the first clue for this is
the fact that Sethian cosmogony and cosmology is not a completely different story but a
reinterpretation and appropriation of the creation story in Genesis, one of the oldest and
most fundamental works of Judaic religion. A second clue is the abundance of Jewish and
Jewish-sounding names one encounters in the Sethian writings. The name Yaldabaoth or
Yaltabaoth immediately reminds one of the Biblical Yahweh el Sabaoth, ‘YHWH, lord of hosts’,
although it may also originate from the Hebrew yld or yalad and baoth, which would mean ‘son
of Chaos’, or from yald and Abaoth (an equivalent of Sabaoth), which would mean ‘Begetter of
Sabaoth’210. The imagery surrounding this character also seems to imply he is to be equated
with the Old Testament god YHWH, for instance in his portrayal as (resembling) a lion211
and sitting on a throne or being within a fiery cloud212. Other names, characters and places
also look distinctly Jewish or are subject to theories about possible Jewish connotations213.
The important character of Seth, which is so prominent in Sethian writings, is also Jewish
and his function as either the saviour and/or the first gnostic points to further Jewish
influences. In this regard, Birger A. Pearson has thoroughly summarised the evidence for a
Jewish background of, or at least a strong Jewish influence on, Sethian Gnosticism in a article
(1981)214. Firstly, the critical treatment and appropriation of the Biblical cosmogony and
anthropology stories in the Sethian writings – including references to the birth of Seth – are
208 See Schenke (1981), pp. 607-612 (see the introduction to chapter 5.1) and Turner, pp. 56-59. They agree in seeing
Christianisation of Sethian gnosticism as a development started in the second century CE. The next subchapter will
corroborate this by showing a far more direct dependance on Judaic literature and thought and an appropriation of
more and different material than proto-orthodox Christianity did.
209 Turner, pp. 55-59.
210 See Pétrement (1984), pp. 67-70, and Fallon (1978), The Enthronement of Sabaoth, pp. 31-33.
211 The Hypostasis of the Archons 94:16, cf. Job 10:16 or Isaiah 38:13.
212 The Apocryphon of John 10:14-19 cf. 1 Kings 22:19 or Exodus 13:21-22.
213 See for some examples Pétrement, pp. 67-68 and Roukema, p. 41-42 and notes or Barker (1992), The Great Angel,
pp. 48-69, on the possibility of Sophia being a manifestation of the Jewish mother goddess Asherah who was
worshipped before the change to henotheism.
214 Pearson (1981), The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature, pp. 478-500, is the basis for this argument.
36
very much alike in form to the midrashic writings of the Jewish tradition215. Secondly, there is
some evidence that at least some gnostic writers knew Hebrew versions of the Old
Testament, since they use words reminiscent of ancient Hebrew wordplay on the name ‘Seth’
rather than the translations of these words in the Septuagint216. Thirdly, as to content, the
references to either Cain or Cain and Abel not being the offspring of Adam but of an evil
angel217 are already found in Jewish exegetical and apocryphal Biblical works218. The motif of
salvation from the hardships of life brought about by the revelation of a saviour is evidently
taken over from the Jewish apocalyptic literature, which was also put to use by the
Christians219. As to the specific role of Seth, the use of Allogenes as an alternative for his name
goes back to the description of Seth as ἕτερον σπέρµα in Genesis220, and Seth as a symbol of
the Jewish nation and possibly the progenitor of an elect race is also found in earlier
Hellenistic Jewish literature221. In the anonymous Vita Adae et Eva (transmitted in Slavonic)
Seth is already portrayed as the first recipient and revealer of γνῶσις222, and hints to Old
Testament patriarchs taking on a human body long after they are dead to reveal a message
occur in other places as well223. The idea of a divine saviour becoming human, as Seth is
incarnated in Zostrianos, Melchizedek or Jesus Christ, had already been explored in Jewish
literature224. This is of course to a certain extent also present in the proto-orthodox Christian
and modern Catholic interpretation of the character Jesus, although the Christians naturally
criticize the Sethian adaptation of the concept225. Some of these appropriations were
undoubtedly more influential than others, but the examples suffice to show the Sethians were
intensely dependent on Judaism.
Despite this dependency on Jewish religion and literature, the Sethians show an extremely
negative attitude towards Judaic religion. When one takes into account the historical situation
of the competition between the different gnostic sects, the varieties of early Christianity and
orthodox Judaism, this attitude is not a very surprising result. This naturally generated
extreme responses of which the writings of the polemicists are good examples. Nils A. Dahl
(1981) assumes that the anti-Jewish character of Sethian gnosticism and several other gnostic
sects is caused by its development as a radical reaction of Hellenised Jews to strict normative
monotheistic Judaism226. Schenke and Turner suggest the importance of baptism in Sethian
literature may point to an origin in, or at least influence of, non-orthodox Judaic baptist
circles in Palestine227. Williams (1996) suggests the possibility historical crises, such the
conflicts between the Jews and the Roman, may have prompted a negative worldview and a
reinterpretation of Judaic Scripture228. Whatever the origin of Sethian gnosticism may be,
215 Although the gnostics went much further in their (re)interpretations of the creation story as what should have
been said in the Jewish Bible as opposed to interpreting what was said, see Dahl, pp. 698-699.
216 See Pearson (1981), pp. 488-489.
217 For instance, The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:19-28, 91:11-14 and The Apocryphon of John 24:15-26 respectively.
218 For instance, Vita Adae et Evae 10:1-2, 21:3 and 23:1, 1 Enoch 85:3-9, see Klijn (1977), Seth in Jewish, Christian and
Gnostic Literature, pp. 1-28 for interpretations of the character Seth in Jewish literature during the first millennium
BCE.
219 Cf. the Apocalypse of John in the New Testament.
220 Genesis 4:25. Based on this passage, Philo Alexandrinus already made a difference between ‘the seed of Seth’,
who are the righteous men in the Bible, and ‘the seed of Cain’, who are the wicked, see Klijn, pp. 25-28.
221 For instance, 1 Enoch 85:3-9 and Philo Alexandrinus De Posteritate Caini 42 and 171-173.
222 Vita Adae et Evae 25:1, 49:1-3.
223 For instance, Gospel of Matthew 16:13-14 or 11:10-14 and see Midrash Genesis Rabbah 23:5 for a mention of Seth
in connection to the Messiah.

224 For instance, 1 Enoch 37:1-4, 46:1-5, 71:12-17.
225 See, for instance, Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.39.3.5-4.1.
226 Dahl, especially pp. 689-701.
227 Schenke (1981), pp. 606-607 and Turner, pp. 63-69.
228 Williams (1996), pp. 225-229.
37
there are more factors than Judaism which have contributed to its development as an
independent movement229. The Sethian trinity of the Father, Barbelo and the Son has, for
instance, been linked to the Egyptian divine family of Osiris, Isis and Horus230.
Unfortunately, very little research has yet been done in this area, wherefore the influence
must at this time remain unclear.
Sethian Gnosticism is obviously influenced by Hellenistic philosophy. The creation of a
material and visible, ‘sense-perceptible’, universe by lower creatures as a lesser copy of a
divine and invisible, ‘intelligible’, universe created by the true god and the ascent of the soul,
which originated in the world of the divine, to achieve true knowledge231, are typically
Platonic232. The figure of the immovable transcendent Father233, who is completely detached
from the world but creates the sense-perceptible universe through his emanations by thinking
of the most perfect thing, himself, corresponds to the Stoic immovable mover in a Middle
Platonic guise234. These ideas were combined with the creation story and other elements of
Jewish mythology, as Philo Alexandrinus, the orientalising Middle Platonist, had already done
in his De Origine Mundi, and are here presented as an etiological creation myth. In the
Sethian cosmologies, however, several intermediate spheres (ὑποστάσεις or αἰῶνες) exist
between the earthly sense-perceptible spheres and the intelligible spheres where the highest
beings live235, although the different Sethian authors applied this idea in different ways. In
Marsanes, for instance, there are thirteen αἰῶνες, of which the first three are Earthly, the sixth
to the thirteenth are heavenly creatures236, and the fourth and the fifth are probably αἰῶνες
ruled by the ἄρχοντες237. As another example, in The Apocryphon of John, Autogenes or Christ
(the active principle of the triad Father, Mother and Son) creates twelve αἰῶνες as his helpers,
which would make a total of thirteen αἰῶνες, including the αἰών of the trinity, and the ἄρχων
Yaldabaoth does the same for himself in imitation238.
As Michael A. Williams has shown, even the Sethian self-designation ‘the immovable
race’ is very dependent on a combination of Judaic and Greek philosophy and literature239.
After all, for the Greeks, ‘immovable’ could, besides being a divine quality denoting
perfection (as the Stoic immovable mover), also be a human quality of people who have
achieved their ultimate potential, such as heroes, wise men or prophets. In Jewish literature,
the concept of standing immovable before god was already a topos and the Christians
borrowed this as well. By calling themselves ‘the immovable race’, the Sethians defined
themselves not only as perfect and godlike, but also as humans who in their devotion and
religious experience had achieved the maximum of their abilities. This combination of
229 For some other views on the origin of (Sethian) gnosticism in a Jewish context, see among others Colpe (1981),
Sethian and Zoroastrian Ages of the World on similarities of Jewish influences on Sethianism and Zoroastrianism or
Stroumsa, pp. and 45-49 on interpretations of the seduction of Eve.
230 See, for instance, Mead (1906), Fragments of a Fate Forgotten, pp.334.
231 Such as the ascent of Zostrianos or any Sethian in the final initiation ritual.
232 As in Platon’s Timaios 28c-30a and Phaedon 64c-69c and 75c-77a respectively, see Roukema, pp. 75-92, and
Schenke (1981), pp. 612-616, for this argument.

233 As mentioned above, for instance in The Apocryphon of John 2:26-4:26.
234 Compare, for instance, Numenios of Apamea, fragment 11. This image is already found in Xenophanes, see
Lumpe (1952), Die Philosophie des Xenophanes von Kolophon, pp. 17-22.
235 Which may vary, as we have seen, and could, for instance, be Autogenes in The Gospel of the Egyptians or the trinity
of the Father, the Mother and the Son in The Apocryphon of John.
236 The thirteenth αἰών is inhabited by ‘The Silent One’ who is described as sort of an immovable mover.
237 Marsanes 2:12 – 4:23. This writing has been preserved very badly and some parts are too fragmentary to
understand.
238 The Apocryphon of John 7:31-8:28 and 10:24-11:7, see also The Gospel of the Egyptians 63:17-18.
239 Williams (1985), pp. 8-34.
38
religious and philosophical ideas shows the Sethians as a perfect example of typical
Hellenistic syncretism.
39
5.3 Sethian Eve
Having written about Sethian thought and life, it is time to turn our attention to the main
subject of this thesis. What does all this show about the Sethian use of the character Eve?
Moreover, what does it mean for the position of women in the Sethian sects?
5.3.1 Eve in the Sethian story of creation
As we have seen in The Apocryphon of John, the ἄρχοντες became jealous after Yaldabaoth had
been deceived into blowing the power he had stolen from his mother Sophia into Adam,
because the man now came to exceed them in intelligence240. After this, they cover him in a
material body to enable themselves to exert power over him, but the Mother-Father has
mercy on him and sends luminous Ἐπίνοια as ‘a helper to Adam… who is called Life’241,
which is a clear reference to Eve in Genesis242. Subsequently, when Adam is placed in
paradise, he receives instructions about what he may and may not do, but the prohibitions
pertaining to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are addressed to him in plural243.
Even though the creation of Eve has not yet taken place, these clues indicate that she is
already present. Before her actual creation, Eve pre-exists in or as the Ἐπίνοια which the true
god has sent Adam and which he now carries within him. And not only does she exist inside
Adam, but she has been sent to him to teach him about his true origin and about how to
ascend to the realm of the light again in order to correct ‘the deficiency of the mother’,
Sophia244. Eve is in fact the first saviour and the first revealer of γνῶσις to the first material
man Adam245. At this point in the story, she is still completely a part of the pure realm of the
light and clearly acts as the rational principle in Adam, making him more intelligent than the
ἄρχοντες246. But then, jealous Yaldabaoth wants his power back and tries to extract it from
Adam. He can, however, get only a small part of it from which he forms the corporeal Eve,
and according to The Hypostasis of the Archons and The Apocalypse of Adam, this constitutes the
loss of the divine element and the pure rational principle for Adam247. In The Hypostasis of the
Archons, he describes Eve as his teacher, his mother and his healer and as such expresses
recognition of the loss of his divine helper, Ἐπίνοια. In The Apocalypse of Adam, he states they
both became bereft of knowledge [γνῶσις ] and lived in slavery under the ἄρχοντες because
of this248. Therefore, Sophia and Christ come down to mend the situation and to show the
now completely corporeal Adam and Eve the tree of perfect knowledge (the tree of
knowledge of good and evil), the Ἐπίνοια. After they have eaten its fruit Adam and Eve are
now both fully human and have also attained γνῶσις again, for which they are thrown out of
paradise by Yaldabaoth.
Yaldabaoth now wishes to rape Eve, in his ignorance drawn to the Ἐπίνοια inside her. In
The Apocryphon of John, the Mother or Foreknowledge of the All foresees what will happen and
has ‘the life’ removed from Eve, by which the Ἐπίνοια249 is probably meant. In The Hypostasis

241 The Apocryphon of John 20:9-19.
242 Genesis 2:18.
243 The Hypostasis of the Archons 88:24-32 and 89:32-90:4.
244 The Apocryphon of John 20:19-28 and The Apocalypse of Adam 64:12-19.
245 Pagels (1979), The Gnostic Gospels, pp. 31.
246 Fallon, p. 71.
247 Compare The Apocryphon of John 22:28-23:16 with The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:3-11 and The Apocalypse of Adam
64:20-29, see Fallon, p. 71.

248 The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:11-17 and The Apocalypse of Adam 65:9-21.
249 The Apocryphon of John 24:9-15.
40
of the Archons, however, a more interesting story enfolds itself before Adam and Eve eat from
the tree of knowledge of good and evil250. At this point of the story, Eve has become human,
but she is apparently still very much a creature of the realm of the light, even after her
transformation into a material woman. As the spiritual part of Eve foresees the plans of
Yaldabaoth and his angels to rape her, she splits herself up and leaves her material body
behind to be raped. After this, she turns her spiritual self into a tree, the Ἐπίνοια or tree of
knowledge of good an evil, and hence remains pure and undefiled by the ἄρχοντες. The work
then states that ‘the female spiritual principle’ enters the serpent, which subsequently acts as
an instructor to the material Adam and Eve to eat its fruit and is Sophia’s instrument of the
revelation of γνῶσις251. By analogy to The Apocryphon of John, this ‘female spiritual principle’
may be equated to Sophia as they both have the same function in the story252.
However, the equation does not end there. Ἐπίνοια, Eve, was sent down into Adam
from the αἰῶνες of the light to correct the deficiency of Sophia by revealing true γνῶσις to
him, whereas Sophia revealed253 γνῶσις to Adam and Eve by having them consume the fruits
of the tree Ἐπίνοια, which was the spiritual Eve. Pagels (1979 and 1986), Layton (1987) and
Stroumsa (1984)254 argue this text must be based on an Aramaic pun on the etymology of the
words ‘Eve’ or (C)hawwah (etymologically related to ‘life’), ‘serpent’ or hiwya and ‘to instruct’
or hawa, a pun Robert Graves also partly recognised and used as evidence for his theory255.
According to them, Eve is equated here with the instructing serpent and must therefore be
equated with ‘the female spiritual principle’, Sophia. As evidence, they compare The Hypostasis
of the Archons to another gnostic treatise, On the Origin of the World, where Eve is described as
the daughter and emanation of Sophia and can hence easily be equated with her256. Although
scholars recognise these two writings are related on literary and theological grounds257, On the
Origin of the World is not considered a Sethian writing. But although the connection between
Sophia and Eve may be less obvious in The Hypostasis of the Archons and the other Sethian
writings, it is nevertheless there. In The Apocryphon of John, the helper sent to Adam by the
Mother-Father, theἘπίνοια, which is the spiritual Eve, is also called ‘Life’, which is the name
given to Sophia’s daughter in The Hypostasis of the Archons258. Sophia and Eve are both defined
by the use of the same word Ἐπίνοια and Sophia is said to have instructed the material Adam
and Eve through the spiritual Eve259. This shows a certain connection, but both tractates
have to be read together to make their family relationship concrete. The same could be said
for the separate identifications of Ἐπίνοια with Eve260 and Sophia, which is found in
Trimorphic Protennoia261. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Greek or Coptic Sethian
gnostics would have understood the etymological references based on an Aramaic pun. The
authors of these tractates may have known Hebrew or Aramaic, but this was probably not the
case with its readers. Although they would see the connection between Eve and Sophia, they
250 The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:12-29.

251 Williams (1985), pp. 47.
252 As The Hypostasis of the Archons is less Christianised than The Apocryphon of John. Hence, Sophia comes down alone
and there is no mention of Christ here.

253 Alternatively, Sophia and Christ reveal it together in the more Christianised version of the myth.
254 Pagels (1979), pp. 30-31, Pagels (1986), Exegesis and Exposition of Genesis Creation Accounts in Selected Texts
from Nag Hammadi, Layton (1987), pp. 70-71 and Stroumsa, p. 47.
255 As we have seen above in chapter 3.1.
256 On the Origin of the World 115:30-116:8.
257 See for instance the introductions to these works in The Nag Hammadi Library in English.
258 The Apocryphon of John 20:14-19 and The Hypostasis of the Archons 95:4-6.
259 The idea of Sophia acting as protector and instructor of Adam is probably based on Wisdom of Solomon 10:1-2.
260 As in The Apocryphon of John 20:14-19.
261 Trimorphic Protennoia 39:29-32.
41
would probably not notice the etymological connection to the serpent or the instruction
scene.
In Sethian thought, Eve was the instrument or weapon employed by the Mother-Father,
the triad of the true god of the light and the truth, the god of the highest αἰῶνες, to wrestle
humanity away from the power of the ἄρχοντες262. As the daughter of Sophia, she is sent by
the Father to correct the deficiency of the universe caused by her mother’s production of
offspring without permission or consent. This means that, according to the Sethians, the
material Adam and Eve were merely disobedient to the evil creator or demiurge of the lesser
universe and not to the divine triad of truth and light. Therefore, their disobedience cannot
possibly be the origin of evil or have caused original sin as in proto-orthodox Christian
tradition. In conclusion, in Sethian theology, Eve is actually the catalyst of the first revolt
against evil and the initiator of humanity’s first steps on the way to the true light.
5.3.2 Unde Malum Sethianum?
But if evil did not originate from the fall of the first human couple, where did it come from?
May it have been the serpent, who in orthodox Christian theology is often equated with the
devil? In The Hypostasis of the Archons, it may be the instrument of the revelation of γνῶσις, but
not all Sethians seem to have agreed on this. In The Apocryphon of John, Christ tells John that
he himself taught Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and
that the serpent played no part in their attainment of γνῶσις. The serpent actually taught
them lust and destruction in order to make Adam of use to him263, but in no Sethian writing
is it associated with the origin of evil. Moreover, this story about the serpent is told outside of
Christ’s otherwise chronological tale as a very short reaction to a question posed by John and
the identity of the serpent remains obscure here. It is not associated with the ἄρχοντες, but
remains a solitary evil character. It plays no part in the main body of the narrative and is not
mentioned again in frame of the story. As this passage is part of the Christianising frame of
the story, it might be a later interpolation264. Perhaps the serpent should in this case be
equated to, or considered as, a minion of Yaldabaoth as a result of a Christian redaction,
although this point cannot be proven.
So where does evil originate according to the Sethians? The logical answer would be with
the ἄρχοντες, the evil creators of the universe. Since they are lesser gods than the true triad of
the highest αἰῶνες, their material creation is far from perfect. Only human beings are
creatures with at least a spark of theἘπίνοια of the light inside of them and we have already
seen that the ἄρχοντες became very jealous of this. At first they tried to pervert humans by
enclosing them in a material body, but Sophia and/or Christ provided the material humans
with another way of attaining spiritual knowledge, the true γνῶσις, by having them eat of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil. The perversion caused by the ἄρχοντες is effected by the
addition of matter to spiritual beings, since matter as a product of the ἄρχοντες is inherently
evil. However, most attention is given to the second way of corrupting humanity: the
introduction of sexual desire and material sexuality. As Pagels (1986) has shown265, sexuality
is always depicted in the Sethian writings as completely opposite to spirituality. The ἄρχοντες,
however, cannot see the difference between sexual (material) and spiritual knowledge, which
262 See The Apocryphon of John 20:9-28 and The Hypostasis of the Archons 88:10-15.
263 The Apocryphon of John 22:9-15, see Stroumsa, pp. 45-49.
264 See Turner, pp. 71-74 for the Christianisation of this writing. See also Schenke (1981), pp. 607-612 and Turner,
pp. 56-59, on the Christianisation of this writing.

265 See Pagels (1986), especially pp. 258-260 and 268-278, and Klijn, pp. 92-93.
42
is a sign of their imperfection and the reason why truly spiritual beings, such as Eve and
Norea, can escape them by divine help. But because of this inability to ‘know spiritually’, their
attempts to know female beings are always material and sexual in nature and by their sexual
acts they often succeed in their design to keep humans from reuniting with the realm of the
light.
On two occasions the ἄρχοντες made attempts to pervert humans by sexual acts, the first
time almost immediately after the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise266. The rape of
the material Eve by the ἄρχοντες resulted in a pregnancy, of which two accounts are given.
According to The Apocryphon of John, Eve bore Yaldabaoth Cain and Abel who were impure
and ugly like himself, but according to The Hypostasis of the Archons, Eve bore him only Cain.
Abel, however, was the first pure child of Adam and Eve who was subsequently slaughtered
by his half-brother267. Through this act of rape Yaldabaoth implanted sexual desire in Eve,
who subsequently coupled with Adam and bore the material Seth, the first pure product of
their union according to The Apocryphon of John and the replacement of Abel according to The
Hypostasis of the Archons. Sophia sent her spirit into him for assistance and by his name and the
description of his conception (in Adam’s likeness), he is associated with the heavenly Seth268.
Seth as the first (surviving) product of the pure union between Adam and Eve, who also had
the Spirit of the mother inside of him as seed and was untouched by the evil of the ἄρχοντες,
became the progenitor of the immovable race and the gnostic saviour.
The second attempt is based on the appropriation of new ideas that developped in
Hellenistic Judaism, as described in chapter 4.3. The Sethian gnostics copied the notion of
evil being descended from the sexual union of the angels of YHWH with the daughters of
men269. As described in The Apocryphon of John, Yaldabaoth sent his angels to engender
offspring with human women and they created a counterfeit spirit to make this work. This
counterfeit spirit corrupted the souls of the mortal humans and made them liable to the many
deceptions of the ἄρχοντες. This is the reason why humankind has become enslaved and
separated from the divine light and truth270 and by this action the ἄρχοντες have succeeded in
their design to keep most of the human race away from the realm of light. Only the Sethian
elect escape. Placing the origin of evil in the world in matter and sexuality, provides a strong
clue for the probability of theories of Sethian total abstinence of sexual acts as part of the
practice of a rigorous asceticism among the elect271.
5.3.3 Sethian women
As we have seen, Sethian mythology consists of many female or androgynous characters. The
importance of characters, such as Barbelo, the Mother and (sometimes male) virgin, Sophia,
the cause of the creation of the universe, or Eve, the first saviour and revealer of truth sent
from the highest god as a helper to material humans, may be an indicator of the position of
women in Sethian societies. Throughout the creation story, the female, or not completely
male, characters are very prominent performers, often performers of the designs of the true
266 On the seduction of Eve and Cain, Abel and Seth see Stroumsa, pp. 38-45 and 49-53.
267 The Apocryphon of John 24:15-25 and 10:26-36 and The Hypostasis of the Archons 91:11-30 based on Genesis 4:25b.
268 The Apocryphon of John 24:26-25:16, The Hypostasis of the Archons 91:30-33 and The Apocalypse of Adam 65:5-9.
269 Based on an interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4. On the seduction of the daughters of men, see Stroumsa, pp. 35-38.
271 As mentioned in chapter 5.1.2.
43
god in order to remedy the imperfection of the universe272. Nevertheless, when translating
religious thought into social and cultic practice, what relevance should be given to this fact?
In The Thought of Norea, a female character asks and receives help from the true god and
attains γνῶσις. This is Norea, the daughter of the spiritual273 Adam and Eve and, according
to the polemicist Epiphanios of Salamis, either Seth’s sister-wife274 or Noah’s wife275. The
myth about this character, who is also called Orea, Horaia, Nora and (N)huraita and which
originates in Jewish rabbinic literature, has been interpreted in different ways and appears to
have developed as a blend of two Biblical characters both called Na’amah276. In Sethian
gnosticism, she is called Norea or Orea and she is presented as the pure virginal daughter of
Adam and Eve in The Hypostasis of the Archons. As a true daughter of the light, she opposes the
ἄρχοντες and destroys the ark their follower Noah was building to survive the coming flood.
The ἄρχοντες then try to rape her in order to pollute her, in the same manner as they had
polluted her material mother. At her outcry to the true god, the angel Eleleth comes down
and reveals the true γνῶσις to her, by which act she is saved from the attack277.
As both Norea’s material body and spiritual soul remain undefiled, she may be regarded
as a new Eve who stays pure and part of the world of light. In The Thought of Norea, she is
saved by the help of the four helpers who usually aid the saviour figure and she is the one
bringing γνῶσις to ‘the Adams’, her spritual descendants comparable to ‘the seed of Seth’278.
There is no mention of Seth in this work and Norea has obviously completely taken over the
saviour function which is usually given to him. When we interpret the picturing of female
characters as gender symbolism, we may draw some conclusions about the position of
women in Sethian gnostic societies279. Pearson seems to hint at the fact that, as Norea (and
thus Eve)280 can be pictured as a saviour figure and bringer of γνῶσις, women were regarded
as able to individually achieve this highest possible religious goal for Sethians. If this was the
case and they considered women equally capable of religious development as men, then
(continuing this same line of thought) they most probably also considered them fully capable
of religious practice and leadership and accepted them as preachers and revealers. As such,
Pearson says it is very possible a tractate such as The Thought of Norea was written by a Sethian
gnostic woman. Perhaps he is correct in his view, but as it stands it is based on very little
evidence and we cannot accept it without doubt281.
Elaine Pagels has argued that the difference between the social position of women in
gnostic sects and proto-orthodox Christianity has been one of the main reasons for the
rejection of gnostic thought by the proto-orthodox Christian faction282. She thinks that the
272 See King (2003), p. 161, for instance Barbelo requesting power from the Father in The Apocryphon of John 5:11-6:2,
Sophia being disobedient to the invisible Spirit and conceiving a thought of her own in The Apocryphon of John 9:25-35
or Eve teaching Adam in The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:11-17.
273 Since sexuality is evil, as is stressed in The Hypostasis of the Archons, Seth and Norea could not have been the pure
individuals they if they had been created through sexual procreation, see Pagels (1986), pp. 268-277.
274 According to Epiphanios of Salamis Panarion I.39.5.2.
275 According to Epiphanios of Salamis Panarion I.26.1.3-6.
276 See Stroumsa, pp. 53-61 and Pearson (1977), The Figure of Norea in Gnostic Literature for the background of
this character.
277 The Hypostasis of the Archons 91:34-93:13.
278 The Thought of Norea 28:24-29:5.
279 See the introduction to this tractate by Birger A. Pearson in The Nag Hammadi Library in English and Pearson
(1977), pp. 143-152.

280 Both characters can be interpreted as saviours and both are regarded as symbols for Sophia and the soul in need
of redemption.
281 This tractate was probably written in Egypt and the important mother goddess cults with their influential
priestesses in Egypt and the Middle East may have exerted influence on the character Norea. For introductions to
these goddess cults see King (1997), Women and Goddess Traditions, and Merkelbach (1995), Isis Regina, Zeus Sarapis.
282 See Pagels (1979), pp. 48-69.
44
subordination of women to men in proto-orthodox Christian society was mainly a reaction to
the relative freedom women enjoyed in the gnostic societies283. Although (at least the
reputation of) relative freedom allowed to the gnostic women may have been one of the
reasons for the enmity, it is incorrect to consider all the gnostic sects alike. Sethian gnosticism
may have been one of the more ‘feminist’ sects that had female preachers, prophets and
deacons and sometimes even utters criticism towards the subordination of women to men284,
but the Valentinian gnostics, for instance, preferred androgynous mythological characters
where the Sethians often postulate females285. Additionally, Sethian cosmology is in essence
still a patriarchal cosmology. The highest original principle of the Sethian divine triad is called
Father and has thence obvious male connotations. The creation of the evil universe is caused
by the unlawful action of Sophia, a specifically female character. Although the Sethian texts
certainly show a tendency to a sort of feminism avant la lettre and may have allowed women
in higher positions on the social ladder than other gnostic movements, one should not expect
a complete absence of discrimination. Furthermore, attributing a more favourable position to
women in myth may indicate, but does not necessarily prove, the same position was assigned
to the female Sethian elect in reality. As such, all the evidence is merely deduction from
religious literary writings and more extensive research should be done before this assertion
could be stated with reasonable certainty.
283 Which would be the reason for the proto-orthodox position. See, for instance, Tertullianus, De Praescriptione
Haereticorum XL.5-6 and De Virginibus Velandis IX.2.

284For instance by making the curse on Eve to be subjected to her husband (Genesis 3:16) part of the curse of the
ignorant evil creator in The Hypostasis of the Archons 90:19-33, see King (2003), p. 161, for the main part of this
argument.
285 See next chapter.
45
6. Eve in Valentinian gnosticism
In this chapter, I will examine the interpretation of the character Eve made by the gnostic
Valentinian ‘school’. The term ‘school’ will be used merely as a denomination of the
successive authors and thinkers who are called Valentinians after Valentinus, a mid-second
century philosopher and theologian286. Valentinus was either a progressive reformer within
Christianity who started to appropriate non-proto-orthodox Christian gnostic myths and
ideas287, or a theologian who was not a gnostic but sought to combine proto-orthodox
Christianity with orientalising philosophy and is as such closer to Philo or Clemens
Alexandrinus than to the gnostics288. Whichever may have been the case, his disciples were
innovative thinkers who expanded on his teaching. Under their guidance, Valentinian thought
certainly drifted away from proto-orthodox Christianity and became a separate Christian
faction with progressively stronger gnostic tendencies289. During the development of
Valentinian thought, the Valentinians did not always agree with each other and a separation
into Western (founded by Ptolemaios and Herakleon) and Eastern (founded by Theodotos
and Markos Gnostikos) subfactions within Valentinianism seems to have occurred at a
certain point290. Although there is still much discussion about several writings, scholars have
mostly reached a consensus on a specific set of works as Valentinian, based on unity of
thought and practice and their genealogical dependence on Valentinus291. The works on
which most of them agree are: The Gospel of Truth (probably by Valentinus), The Prayer of the
Apostle Paul, The Treatise on the Resurrection, The Tripartite Tractate, The Gospel of Philip, The
Interpretation of Knowledge, A Valentinian Exposition (all anonymous), Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora
(probably by Ptolemaios), Summer Harvest (by Valentinus) and several fragments of
Valentinus’ lost works292. Another important source is the Excerpta ex Theodoto recorded by
Clemens Alexandrinus. Only these writings will be considered as the sources for Valentinian
gnosticism here.
6.1 Valentinian thought and practice
In the corpus of Valentinian writings as defined above, there are two accounts of Valentinian
cosmogony, which differ in several ways and are as such good illustrations of the diversity
within Valentinian thought, which was not even necessarily bound to the mentioned
subfactions293. The Tripartite Tractate is apparently a writing of the Western faction294 and A
286 As stated above in chapter 3.3.

287 For instance Layton (1987), pp. xxii-xxiii, 217-223, Quispel (1996), The Original Doctrine of Valentinus the
Gnostic, pp. 348-352 and King (2003), pp. 154-156.
288 Markschies (1992), Valentinus Gnosticus?, p. 402-407.
289 As is for instance noted by Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum XLII.6-9, and attested in A Valentinian
Exposition 27:30-37
290 See for instance the introduction by Elaine H. Pagels to A Valentinian Exposition in The Nag Hammadi Library in
English.
291 See King (2003), pp. 154-156 speaking of Layton, Desjardins, Koschorke, Tardieu, Van Unnik and Thomassen.
292 Desjardins adds The First Apocalypse of James, The Second Apocalypse of James and The Letter of Peter to Philip, Koschorke
The First Apocalypse of James and The Testimony of Truth, Tardieu The Apocryphon of James and The Testimony of Truth and
Thomassen adds The First Apocalypse of James, Eugnostos the Blessed and possibly Authentic Teaching and The Exegesis on the
Soul.
293 See the introductions by Harold W. Attridge and Elaine H. Pagels to The Tripartite Tractate and by Elaine H. Pagels
to A Valentinian Exposition in The Nag Hammadi Library in English.

294 Which, according to Quispel, pp. 348-351, is a very progressive faction leaving original Valentinian thought much
more than the Eastern faction.
46
Valentinian Exposition of the Eastern. Among other things, they differ in opinion on the unity
of the highest god and the cause of the rupture in the divine world. The cosmologies of both
tractates will be treated simultaneously below to give an account of at least two versions of
Valentinian cosmology in its diverse appearances. These accounts are by no means complete
representatives of Valentinian thought, but act as examples of the diversity of thought within
the subfactions inside the Valentinian ‘school’295. As Valentinian cosmology shares many
elements with the Sethian account as treated above296, only the differences will be treated
extensively in the context of the creation story and only different terms and names will be
annotated. In the footnotes, comparisons are drawn between these accounts and the accounts
of Eirenaios of Lyons, Tertullianus, Clemens Alexandrinus (on Theodotos) and Epiphanios
of Salamis of different Valentinians.
6.1.1 The Valentinian creation myth
Both tractates agree that everything began with the Father, who is completely unique and
unbegotten and who is also called Monad, Root of the All and the ineffable one. From this
point, however, they disagree. A Valentinian Exposition297 postulates that the Father reposes in
a state of silence298 and manifests himself through his Thought, called the Son, Mind299 of the
All, Father of the All and Μονογενής 300, who dwells with him in silence. The Son, the active
principle and manifestation of the godhead, becomes the ‘projector of the All’ and the
‘hypostasis of the Father’ and creates the first Dyad301 (Mind (himself) and probably Truth302)
and the first Tetrad303 (Father, Silence, Mind and probably Truth)304. The principle of the
universe as presented in this writing is duplicity: everything must be in pairs, in ‘syzygy’305,
which is the will of the Father306. The Father then creates ὅρος307 to set the boundaries of the
πλήρωµα and separate it from βυθός308. He then reveals himself through the Son309, the high-
priest of the Holy of Holies310, who presents the praise of the αἰῶνες to the Father. This first
Tetrad projects a second Tetrad, consisting of Word, Life, Man and Church311. From Word
and Life spring ten αἰῶνες and from Man and Church twelve, which completes the πλήρωµα
at thirty αἰῶνες312.
295 As commentaries I have used Hedrick (1990), Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII, pp. 89-105 and 153-172, for A
Valentinian Exposition and Attridge (1985), Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex) Vol. I, pp. 159-190, and Vol. II, pp.
217-497 for The Tripartite Tractate.
296 See chapter 5.1.1.
297 A Valentinian Exposition 22:1-26:22 and 29:25-30:38.
298 The Greek probably had σιγή.
299 The Greek probably had νοῦς.
300 The Greek monogenes means ‘only-begotten’ or ‘unique’.
301 δυάς or ‘pair’.
302 The Greek probably had ὰλήθεια.
303 τετρακτύς or ‘foursome’.
304 See Hedrick, pp. 154-156 for a discussion of the Son’s partner in the Dyad.
305 From the Greek συζυγία ‘conjunction’ or ‘union’, the participant whereof are called σύζυγος, which means
‘consort’ or ‘comrade’.
306 A Valentinian Exposition 36:28-31.
307 The Greek horos means ‘limit’ or ‘border’
308 The Greek buthos means ‘depth’
309 Who, according to On Baptism A 40:30-34, is to be equated with Christ.
310 The πλήρωµα.
311 λόγος, probably ζωή, probably ἄνθρωπος and ἐκκλησία in their respective syzygies.
312 The accounts of the exact compositions of the members of the initial trinity and formation of the Tetrads,
Ogdoad and Triacontad may vary, but the creation accounts of the Valentinian πλήρωµα, as provided by the
polemicists, agree with this version, see, for instance, , and Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.33.1.3-7, on Ptolemaeus,
47
In The Tripartite Tractate313, however, the Father creates ‘a first-born and only son’314, who
‘exists from the beginning’, and their love produces the Church, which also ‘existed from the
beginning’ and is equated with either the whole πλήρωµα or the highest level of αἰῶνες. The
principle of the universe as presented in this writing is triplicity: the world is ordered in triads.
The Father then produces all the αἰῶνες, which had already existed potentially in his mind as
his thoughts (‘as seeds’), into actual existence by having them recognise him as the Father.
The Father, however, withholds perfection from them315, but reveals to them through the
Son ‘the perfect idea of beneficence’, the knowledge that the Father granted them existence.
By giving glory to the Father these αἰῶνες emanate other αἰῶνες, which produce a third level
of αἰῶνες independently. All these αἰῶνες, which are constantly searching for perfection (the
Father), are not independent beings nor specific in number, but are actually all ‘properties and
powers of the Father’316.
The two Valentinian writings also reinterpret the story about Sophia’s fall, the cause of
the creation of the material universe317, in an imaginative and innovative manner. A
Valentinian Exposition318 retains the character of Sophia, who is presented here as the thirtieth
and lowest αἰών of the πλήρωµα. She tries to ‘leave the Thirtieth’ and ‘surpass the
Triacontad’ (leave her proper place) in order to either behold or imitate ‘the Uncontainable
One’ (probably the Father)319. By this act of ὕβρις, she falls from the πλήρωµα and out of
syzygy in violation of the will of the Father, but she creates Christ who, being a perfect
creature, immediately ascends into the πλήρωµα. This Christ, however, feels sorry for his
mother, who is suffering from her passions, and the αἰῶνες request him to heal her, since he
is the only one who can correct her deficiency. But ὅρος (the bonds of his syzygy) detains
him and he can only descend to bring Sophia γνῶσις by willing himself in bodily form as
Jesus. Sophia now repents and becomes aware of the passions she suffers in her isolation and
Jesus separates her passions from her, in the same manner as ὅρος had separated the
πλήρωµα from βυθός. Sophia had conceived seeds by herself which were ‘incomplete and
formless’, because they were female and lacked the male component, since they had been
conceived out of syzygy. Jesus and Sophia then create the demiurge in imitation of the
πλήρωµα, as ‘a shadow of pre-existing things’, who sorted Sophia’s passions into the
pneumatic and sarkic. Πρόνοια320 causes the demiurge to construct the material world as a
dwelling place for the psychic321 seed, in which he brings them to believe in Jesus. Jesus then
Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.11.1, and Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.31.2.6 and I.31.5.3-6.1 on Valentinus,
Tertullianus, Adverus Valentinianos VII.3-VIII.2 on a similar account, Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.11.3 and I.11.5, on
unnamed Valentinians, I.12.1 on followers of Ptolemaios, I.16.1 on Markos Gnostikos, Clemens Alexandrinus,
Excerpta ex Theodoto 7.1-3 and 29 on Theodotos.
313 The Tripartite Tractate 51:1-74:18.
314 The Greek probably had πρωτότοκος and µονογενής.
315 As the transcendent world is a soteriological model for the material world, perfection for the αἰῶνες will come
with the saviour as well.

316 According to the accounts of the polemicists, the Valentinians did sometimes postulate an original trinity, but this
always became part of the system of Tetrads and was of a limited number (thirty). The Father, the Son and the
Church are usually a part of these systems, but they are not found in this composition as a trinity.
317 In contrast to the Sethian myth recounted in chapter 5.1.1.
318 A Valentinian Exposition 26:22-27:37 and 31:34-37:31.
319 For a discussion of Sophia’s reasons for her transgression, see Hedrick, pp. 101-103 and 161-163. If her objective
is to behold the Father whose true form is disguised from her sight, this may be reminiscent of Semele wanting to
see her lover Zeus in full glory in the Greek myth of the birth of Dionusos, see Campbell (1964), Occidental Mythology,
pp. 26.
320 The Greek pronoia means ‘forethought’ or ‘foresight’.
321 The Greek probably had πνευµατικός, ‘spiritual’ or ‘of the spirit’, σαρκικός ‘carnal’ or ‘of the flesh’ and ψυχικός,
‘animate’ or ‘of the soul’ respectively.
48
creates the ἄρχοντες and they all enter the material world, which is to serve as a ‘school …
for doctrine and form’.
In contrast to this, The Tripartite Tractate322 does not mention Sophia, but the last of the
third level αἰῶνες, which wishes to ‘grasp the incomprehensibility’ of the Father and give
glory to it, is called Λόγος. All in conformity with the will of the Father, this Λόγος, having
received wisdom323, acting freely and intending good, ‘acted magnanimously, from an
abundant love’, but was not able to complete this perfect action. The πλήρωµα then
withdrew and ὅρος was established between them and Λόγος, so the lower world could
become ‘an organization which has been destined to come about’. Just as Sophia in A
Valentinian Exposition had done, Λόγος likewise produces a perfect creature, the masculine
part of himself, which ascends into the πλήρωµα, and the lower Λόγος becomes weak,
having merely his feminine component left. He then creates lesser, hylic324 things, ‘likenesses,
copies, shadows and phantasms’. After realising the imperfection of this creation, the lower
Λόγος actively converts himself to good things. He now prays to the πλήρωµα and his
prayers become good, psychic powers, which start to fight against the lower, hylic world.
Subsequently, the lower Λόγος separates himself from the hylic things and the heavenly Λόγος
intercedes on behalf of the world below. In response, the αἰῶνες create the (lower) Son, also
called the Saviour and the Christ, who is a manifestation of the heavenly Son325. The Saviour
instructs the lower Λόγος who acquires the ability to cast off disobedient hylic things, which in
turn become the material for the universe. The lower Λόγος, now illumined by γνῶσις,
creates his own (lower) πλήρωµα called the (lower) Church, which is below the heavenly
πλήρωµα but above the material world of his offspring. The Λόγος then begins to order the
third realm, the material world, and the beings within it into psychic and hylic beings. He creates
the ἄρχοντες to rule this world including the chief ἄρχων, who is called ‘demiurge’ and
‘father’ among other things. This ἄρχων acts as the active principle of the Logos and, though
the ἄρχοντες are ignorant of everything above, they are never described in a negative
manner326.
Although these accounts differ in many ways, the story of the creation of man and the
manner of redemption presented in both writings are very similar again and indicate that
these two writings do belong to two – rather distinct – branches of the same movement. In

323 The Greek probably had Σοφία.
324 ὑλικός, ‘material’ or ‘belonging to matter’.
325 According to Eirenaios, Ptolemaios’ version of the myth was similar to the account of A Valentinian Exposition
and stressed Sophia’s ὕβρις, but shared the idea of the αἰῶνες not being allowed to know the Father and their
subsequent desire producing the ὕβρις with The Tripartite Tractate. He also states that Ptolemaios taught that Christ
was not Achamoth’s (another name for the lower Sophia) son but sent by the αἰῶνες in communion to bring her
γνῶσις and later sends Jesus and his angels, in whose image Achamoth produces the demiurge. See Eirenaios,
Adversus Haereses I.2.1-6 and 4.1-5, this is apparently also the version Tertullianus criticized, see Tertullianus, Adverus
Valentinianos IX.1-X.5, XII.4, XIV.1-2 and XVI.1-XVII.2. According to Clemens Alexandrinus, however, Theodotos
taught that Christ was Sophia’s first perfect child who ascended into the πλήρωµα, but returned by the wish of the
αἰῶνες in communion, Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 23.1-2 and 30.2-31.1.
326 The accounts of the polemicists agree on the demiurge being the offspring of or created by the lower Sophia also
called Achamoth and his creating the material universe from the passions Christ had separated from her. The
material universe, which is a reflection of the πλήρωµα, exists of seven heavens and the lower Sophia inhabits the
eighth. See Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.11.1, and Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.31.4.1-5, on Valentinus,
Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.17.1-2 on the Marcosians and Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 32.2-33.4,
45.1-3, 47.2 and 48.1, on Theodotos. Some also attribute the creation of the devil, the active ruler of the material
world, to the demiurge, although the accounts of his malice vary, see, for instance, Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.5.1-
6, on Ptolemaios, and Tertullianus, Adverus Valentinianos XVIII.2, XX.1-2 and XII.2.
49
A Valentinian Exposition327, the demiurge creates man from Sophia’s passions as a dwelling
place for the seeds. The devil, probably the active ruler of the material universe328, ‘expels his
root’ into Adam’s body. Therefore, Adam’s sons Abel and Cain angered and killed one
another, because the demiurge had breathed his spirit into them. This causes a struggle
between the ἄρχοντες and humanity, which can be seen as a struggle between the σαρκίον
and the πνεῦµα329. Therefore, in order to rejoin the male and female components back into
syzygy, the pneumatic ἄρχοντες lusted after the psychic daughters of men. Sophia, Jesus, the
seeds and the angels are now back in syzygy and the All is in a state of unity and
reconciliation again. At judgment day, this same redemption of reuniting will be granted to
‘the angels of the males’ and ‘the seminal ones of the females’, those in touch with the
pneumatic and psychic parts of the soul330.
In The Tripartite Tractate331, the ἄρχοντες create mankind, but they were invisibly moved by
Λόγος. Mankind is constructed with a composite soul, consisting of hylic parts from the
powers of the left, a psychic part from the demiurge and the powers of the right and a pneumatic
part from the Λόγος, which it acquires through the demiurge who is ignorant of this332. This
mixed human (Adam) is placed in paradise where the ἄρχοντες tell him that he may not eat
of the trees of life (πνεῦµα) or knowledge (ψυχή) but only of the material trees (ὕλη). The evil
serpent leads him astray by appealing to his psychic and hylic parts and man subsequently
transgressed the command and ate from the tree of knowledge. Because of this Adam died,
which means that he and his offspring became subject to the psychic and hylic levels of being.
This means he became unable to attain γνῶσις and achieve redemption due to this ignorance.
Through his expulsion from paradise, however, man is being denied the hylic and psychic
enjoyments and can only participate in their evils333. No intermediate level of enjoyment now
prevents his participation in the greater enjoyment, the return to the pneumatic state by
attaining γνῶσις. Everything that happened to humanity happened according to the will of
the Father334.
6.1.2 Valentinian ethics and practice
327 A Valentinian Exposition 37:32-39:39.

328 These are the first words after a lacuna in the text of ten lines (38:1-10) and it is unclear where this character
comes from but he is elsewhere described as the ruler of the material universe, for instance in Eirenaios of Lyons,
Adversus Haereses I.5.4, Hippolutos of Rome, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium VI.34.1 or Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex
Theodoto 53.1-4.
329 ‘The flesh’ and ‘the spirit’ respectively.
330 The Coptic expressions are very free translations of the Greek, cf. Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto
21.1-3.
332 The accounts of the polemicists agree with the importance of the tripartition of the human soul propounded in
The Tripartite Tractate, which is neither denied nor explicitly emphasized in A Valentinian Exposition, see Eirenaios,
Adversus Haereses I.5.1-6, on Ptolemaios, Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 2.1-2 and 50.1-53.4, on
Theodotos and Tertullianus, Adverus Valentinianos XXIV.2-XXV.3.
333 See Hedrick, pp. 413-417 for the interpretation of this fragmentary and cryptic section.
334 The accounts of the polemicists agree on the different fates of the different kinds of humans and on the notion
that the psychic or animal ordinary Christians have the will to choose and may be saved by the instruction of the
pneumatic Valentinians, see Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.6.1, on Ptolemaios, Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex
Theodoto 26.2-3 and 56.3-57, on Theodotos and Tertullianus, Adverus Valentinianos XXVI.1-2. The marriage metaphor
of the bridal chamber is also used often, although there are differences of opinion on whether the marriage is
between the pneumatic and the psychic souls to get back into syzygy (Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 17.1,
21.1-3 and 34.2-35.1, on Theodotos), between the psychics and the angels for correction while the pneumatics have no
need for this and are saved directly (Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.31.7.8.11, on Valentinus), or between the
pneumatics and the angels while the psychics have to place in the πλήρωµα (Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.7.1 and I.7.5,
on Ptolemaios).
50
One difference between Sethian and Valentinian thought is eminent when studying the
Valentinian creation myth and comparing it to the Sethian one: the Valentinians do not
consider the material universe to be evil335. The differences between these movements,
clearly explained by King (2003)336, can, for instance, be found in the actions of the
Valentinian godhead, who actively tries to remedy the deficiency of the material world. Either
the Father plans the fall of the Λόγος and thus the creation of the demiurge and the material
world337, or Christ creates the demiurge and the pneumatic, male angels in order to bring
Sophia’s imperfect, psychic, female seeds (humanity) back into perfect androgyny (syzygy)338.
As such, the demiurge or ἄρχων is not the evil lower god he is in Sethian gnosticism, but
merely ignorant of the world above him339. In this world, created by an ignorant creator, it is
no wonder that humanity is pictured in a state of ignorance and error as well. The saviour,
who in Valentinianism is always portrayed as Jesus Christ, the (lower) Son, descends to
overcome the ‘evil’ of the material universe, which is merely a deficiency in its creation. By
revealing to humanity the true γνῶσις, Christ ends ignorance and thus abolishes the evil that
subjects it340.
Another sharp contrast between Valentinian and Sethian gnosticism is the Valentinian
communal spirit. As the Sethian elect seemed to tend to asceticism and general renunciation
of the material world, the Valentinians feel the need to embrace the world and reach out to
others to help them in their suffering341. Whether the saviour has descended from the
πλήρωµα in bodily form and actually suffered during his passion or not342, he came as a
revealer of γνῶσις and the Valentinian gnostic must spread this message343. The Valentinians
are also less elitist than the Sethians, because they suppose that of the three classes of souls
between which they distinguish, the hylic, psychic and pneumatic souls, two categories will be
saved: the pneumatic and the psychic. The three parts of the soul are described as three
potentialities, of which merely one is actualised according to its reaction to the coming of the
saviour’s revelation of γνῶσις344. The pneumatics are the elect, the Valentinian gnostics
themselves, who have received γνῶσις, have been redeemed directly, and assist in the
redemption of the others. The psychics, however, who are also called ‘the calling’, are the
ordinary Christians who believe in Christ, but have not yet been redeemed by the revealing
γνῶσις 345. They too will be saved in the end, but they will have to wait for the ‘union of the
bridal chamber’, when they will join the elect346. According to some Valentinians, however,
the redemption of the psychics was not an automatic and irreversible response to the revelation
of the saviour or the teachings of the pneumatics, but this merely gave them the possibility to
335 For Sethian ethics and practice, see above in chapter 5.1.2.
336 See King (2003), pp. 159-162.
337 As in The Tripartite Tractate 76:23-27 and 86:15-23.
338 As in A Valentinian Exposition 35:10-30, 36:20-24 and 38:34-39:16.
339 See for instance The Tripartite Tractate 105:29-35 or Ptolemaios, Epistula ad Floram 33.7.3-5.
340 For instance The Gospel of Truth 18:7-11 and 24:20-32.
341 See Pagels (1980), Gnostic and Orthodox Views of Christ’s Passion, pp. 262-264 and 275-283 and Attridge
(1985), Vol. I, pp. 187-188, for this paragraph.

342 The Western or Italic faction maintained that he did, see The Gospel of Truth 18:24, The Interpretation of Knowledge
5:30-33 and 10:27-30,The Treatise on the Resurrection 44:21-35 and The Tripartite Tractate 113:38 and 114:33-115:11, but
the Eastern faction that he did not, see Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 1.1-2, 26.1 and 42.1-3.
343 See for instance The Gospel of Truth 32:31-33:8.
344 For instance The Tripartite Tractate 106:18-31, 118:14-17 and 118:21-28.
345 They are the ‘angels of the males’, ἡ ἐκλογή, and ‘the seminal ones of the females’, ἡ κλῆσις, respectively.
346 See for instance The Tripartite Tractate 123:16-22 and 132:16-28 or Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 58.1,
63.1-2.
51
choose and pursue salvation347. Valentinians who believed this must have been even more
inclined to teaching in order to save as many psychics as possible.
Just as we know very little of Sethian cultic practice, Valentinian liturgical rites and other
ritual practices remain for the most part a mystery to us. The Gospel of Philip is the Valentinian
writing which provides the most information, even though it is very reluctant to go into
details348. We are told that Christ practiced five mysteries: baptism, chrism, eucharist,
redemption and bridal chamber349, which were probably the mysteries pertaining to the five
steps of initiation. The baptism was probably a literal water baptism which involved total
immersion in flowing water – as opposed to a mere sprinkling – and included the litany of
calling oneself a Christian350. How the baptism precisely worked and who performed it
remains unclear, but it appears that the person who was baptised was supposed to be naked
in order to be able to ‘put on the living man’351. In The Gospel of Truth, water is equated with
something hylic, whereas the chrism is the ritual which makes one a true psychic Christian352.
Both rituals are considered true rebirths and every Valentinian trying to attain γνῶσις
probably had to experience each of them only once in the initiation process353. The further
references in the writings indicate that the ointment used was warm, perfumed and fragrant
olive oil and that a sign of the cross may have played a part in the ceremony354. The third
mystery is the ritual of the eucharist, which appears familiar and similar to the Catholic
Eucharist, and was probably a repeated ceremony. The text speaks of a priest who
consecrates bread, which is said to be from heaven, and a cup, which is said to contain wine
mixed with water. The consecrated food is presented as food suitable to an initiate as ‘the
flesh and blood of Jesus’355. The fourth mystery, called redemption356, remains a mysterious
ritual. We find no details in the Valentinian writings and, though Eric Segelberg has found
possible clues for a connection to the ritual of εὐχέλαιον or ‘anointing of the sick’ in the
manner it is still practiced today in the Eastern Orthodox Church357, there is little proof of
this. The mystery of the bridal chamber is the final initiation ceremony and the ultimate
attainment of γνῶσις. As the last threshold before becoming perfect, there are numerous
references to this mystery in many Valentinian texts. We do not know the details about the
ceremony itself, but it was probably a mystery experienced only once in the initiation process
and might have had something to do with a kiss358. The Tripartite Tractate describes it as the
final baptism and redemption, the Excerpta ex Theodoto as the place where the pneumatic and the
psychic are reunited and A Valentinian Exposition probably regards it as the final reunion of the
male and female components of Sophia’s seed into syzygy359. The Gospel of Philip is, however,
very clear about what the ritual does not consist of: it does not concern itself with human
sexuality or the physical consummation of marriage. Physical sexuality defiles human beings
347 See for instance The Tripartite Tractate 119:28-121:8

348 This paragraph is mainly based on Segelberg (1990), The Coptic-Gnostic Gospel According to Philip and its
Sacramental System, pp. 21-30, and the introduction by Wesley W. Isenberg to The Gospel of Philips in The Nag
Hammadi Library in English.
349 The Gospel of Philip 67:27-30.
350 See for instance The Gospel of Philip 61:12-20 or 64:22-25.
351 See for instance The Gospel of Philip 75:21-24.
352 See for instance The Gospel of Truth 36:13-20 and The Gospel of Philip 74:12-19.
354 See for instance The Gospel of Philip 67:5-9, 57:27-28, 77:35-78:7 and 73:15-19.
355 See for instance The Gospel of Philip 77:2-7, 75:14-21, 55:10-14 and 56:26-57:8.
356 The Greek probably had ἀπολύτρωσις.
357 This ritual relates to absolution from sin. See Segelberg, p. 27.
359 See The Tripartite Tractate 127:25-128:33, Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 17.1 and 63.1-2. A Valentinian
Exposition does not mention the bridal chamber.
52
and the bridal chamber must be viewed as a spiritual marriage and a returning to a state of
balance360. The spiritual marriage is pure and actually frees humans from the attacks of evil
spirits who wish to defile them361.
6.2 The Valentinians and their origins
Valentinian thought and practice were obviously very different from those of the Sethians.
But who were these Valentinians? Moreover, where did they come from?
6.2.1 The Valentinian people
Just as we had to conclude we know very little about the actual Sethians and their way of life
and could merely deduce some clues from their mysterious religious writings, we also know
very little about the Valentinian way of life. The Valentinian view of Christianity362 supposed
themselves to be the pneumatic elect who had been initiated into the deeper mysteries and
were to act as teachers to the other psychic Christians – those who had γνῶσις versus those
who believed. This indicates there was, at least in the early centuries, no clear distinction
between Valentinianism and Christianity363. Valentinians saw themselves as the spiritual elite
within the Christian church community and called themselves, as well as the psychic, ordinary
Christians, ‘Christian’364. The denomination ‘Valentinian’ is not found in their own writings
and seems to be a term invented by the polemicists to define them as distinct from proto-
orthodox Christians. Assisting others in their suffering is naturally something easiest
achieved, when one is living near to the others and as such it is probable that the Valentinians
did not live in separate communities but were very much a part of the larger Christian
ἐκκλησία or church community. They may very well have been among the intellectuals of the
Christian community and exerted influence on the development of Christian thought. At
some point, however, this began to change and proto-orthodox Christians started to object to
the Valentinians’ presence and teaching365. This rejection of the Valentinians was a gradual
process and during the course of the fourth century CE they came to be regarded as heretics
in general366. It is possible this was a response generated as a reaction to the Valentinians’
elitist attitude of ‘knowing better’ or perhaps to their speculative attitude to the teachings of
Jesus and the development of Christian theology, but we have no proof to corroborate this.
Having stated all we know about the relationships between Valentinians and proto-
orthodox Christians, perhaps a few words about the relations among the Valentinians are
appropriate. As most information we have is from the Valentinian mystic texts, we can hardly
say anything about the auditores, but may make some comments on the elect. As noted in the
introduction to this chapter, the Valentinian elect theologians were often innovative thinkers
and hardly ever agreed with each other367, which is hardly surprising for people presenting
themselves as intellectuals in continuous development of theological and philosophical
thought. We can discern at least two branches of thought within Valentinian gnosticism, a
360 See The Gospel of Philip 55:25-29, 81:34-82:20, 74:13-16 and 74:18-21.
361 See The Gospel of Philip 65:1-23.
362 As stated above in chapter 6.1.2.
363 This paragraph is mainly based on Layton (1987), pp. 267-274 and Roukema, p. 168-169.
365 For instance Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.prologue.2 around 200 CE.
366 For instance, we find Valentinians in a list of heretics forbidding them to organize meetings published by the
emperor Constantinus in 326 CE and know of the destruction of a Valentinian chapel in Callinicum in 388 CE.
367 This paragraph is mainly based on Hedrick, pp. 95-105, and Layton, pp. 267.
53
Western and an Eastern branch. The Eastern branch seems to have been more conservative
and the Western one to have developed a more rigorously progressive line of thought. They
disagreed on a number of subjects, such as whether or not Christ had come down into the
material world as the saviour in a material body or merely as a spiritual being368, whether the
Father was of a monadic nature or if there was an original dyad369 and whether or not
Sophia’s or Λόγος ’ fall was the result of this character wanting to comprehend the greatness
of the Father or attempting to imitate Him370.
6.2.2 Influences on Valentinian thought
So how did Valentinian thought develop? We may not be able to say much about the
Valentinians themselves, but we can comment on the religious and cultural elements which
have influenced their thought and are found in their writings. Like the Sethians, the
Valentinians are clearly dependent on Hellenistic Jewish literature, which did not become part
of proto-orthodox Christianity371. For instance, we find comparable speculation on the
independent actions of the character of Sophia, who was already depicted as semi-dependent
of YHWH in Jewish literature, or on the Λόγος and its function as His active principle372. In
A Valentinian Exposition, we also find the notion of Cain and Abel not being the children of
Adam but of one of the ἄρχοντες, here identified with the devil373. In The Tripartite Tractate374,
we also find the association of the hylic and psychic powers as ‘the Left’ and ‘the Right Ones’. It
is plausible this distinction refers to a Jewish apocalyptic tradition where ‘the left’ is associated
with evil and ‘the right’ with the good375. The same theme is also found in the writings of
other gnostic sects and the New Testament376. However, Jewish thought and tradition seem
to have exerted a much smaller direct influence on Valentinian than on Sethian thought. It is
very well possible that the similarities arise from an indirect influence of Jewish sources, due
to the Valentinian tendency to appropriate non-proto-orthodox Christian gnostic thought
into their own.
The general influence of Hellenistic philosophy is also much the same as on Sethian
gnosticism and has already been treated extensively in chapter 5.2.2377. We find the same
duality between a ‘sense-perceptible’ universe of the αἰῶνες and its copy, the ‘intelligible’
material universe, and the same figure of the immovable mover in the Father378. The
tripartition of humanity based on the ruling components of their soul, in which Valentinian
and Sethian thoughts differ, is also a Platonic idea379. On a more detailed level, the influences
368 See The Gospel of Truth 18:24, The Interpretation of Knowledge 5:30-33 and 10:27-30,The Treatise on the Resurrection 44:21-
35 and The Tripartite Tractate 113:38 and 114:33-115:11, for the views of the Western faction , see Clemens
Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 1.1-2, 26.1 and 42.1-3, for those of the Eastern faction.
369 Compare A Valentinian Exposition 22:18-27 with The Tripartite Tractate 51:1-11.
370 Compare A Valentinian Exposition 31:34-37 and 36:28-31 with The Tripartite Tractate 75:15-22.
371 See Pearson (1981), Turner, pp. 55-59, pp. 478-500, Sterling, pp. 131-153 and Drummond, pp. 131-166 (See also
chapters 4.3 and 5.2.2) for this paragraph.

372 See for instance A Valentinian Exposition 34:23-34 and The Tripartite Tractate 76:2-12. See Sterling, pp. 131-153,
Pearson (1981), pp. 478-500and Drummond, pp. 131-166 (See also chapters 4.3 and 5.2.2).
373 See A Valentinian Exposition 38:13-27. Compare, for instance, Vita Adae et Evae 10:1-2, 21:3 and 23:1, 1 Enoch
85:3-9, see Klijn (1977), Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature, pp. 1-28 for interpretations of the character Seth
in Jewish literature during the first millennium BCE ( See also chapter 5.2.2).
374 See The Tripartite Tractate 98:12-20 and 105:29-106:5 and Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 47.2.
375 See Fallon, pp. 62-67. Compare for instance The Testament of Abraham 12:3-18, The Apocalypse of Abraham 21:7-22:5
and Ecclesiastes 10:2.

376 See for instance On the Origin of the World 105: 21-106:18 and Gospel of Matthew 25:33-46.
377 See Roukema, pp. 75-92, and Schenke (1981), pp. 612-616, for this argument (compare chapter 5.2.2).
378 See for instance A Valentinian Exposition 35:14-37 and The Tripartite Tractate 51:1-30.
379 Compare Platon, Res Publica 415a-b, and Plotinos, Enneades 4.8.5.
54
of and interactions between the philosophical schools of the early Christian era and
Valentinian gnosticism are naturally very different from those with Sethian gnosticism, but
considering the objective of this thesis it would be too much of an digression to investigate
this much further. However, in order not to do injustice to Valentinian thought, we must
acknowledge that the Valentinians did not just blindly copy the philosophical systems, but
have made some original adaptations. Instead of differentiating between two universes, The
Tripartite Tractate describes three: beneath the immaterial πλήρωµα exists the lower πλήρωµα
of the Λόγος called ἐκκλησία, in which copies of the creatures of the higher πλήρωµα are
generated380 and from which the material universe underneath it is created381. This same
writing, however, retains the Platonic duality by postulating duplicates of the same characters
in the heavenly and the middle universe. We read, for instance, about the heavenly Church
and the lower Church382 and about the Λόγος dividing itself into a heavenly and lowly part
when he leaves the πλήρωµα383. Finally, A Valentinian Exposition seems to question the unity
of the Father by making him part of a syzygy384.
The Valentinians also derived their doctrine of guardian angels from Platonic sources385.
Already in Plato, we find the notion of a guardian angel, a higher spiritual power guiding
Socrates in important decisions386. This guardian angel, or δαίµων, is actually the immortal,
heavenly part of oneself which the lower, mortal part, or εἴδωλον, perceives as a guardian
angel, but who is actually one’s heavenly double or twin. This δαίµων is given to us by god
for guidance, but is in itself also a part of god and thus the divine, perfect part of ourselves387.
This means that to know (the divine part of) oneself is to know god. According to Freke and
Gandy (1999), this concept had become an important part of the pagan mystery religions. In
Valentinian theology, the εἴδωλον and the δαίµων became the psychic and the pneumatic parts
of the human soul respectively, which were separated and needed to be reunited through the
attainmant of γνῶσις, the realisation of one’s connection to the true god. When one has
achieved this unification and perfection, one becomes one’s angel and truly is a Christ388. The
saviour, Jesus Christ, functions as the revealer to the dead human beings (i.e. those subjected
to the hylic and psychic components of their souls) of the γνῶσις which they need to be able to
reunite with their pneumatic δαίµων389. This reunion then makes human beings bisexual or
consubstantial by the rejoining of their male πνεῦµα and their female ψυχή 390. The πνεῦµα
and ψυχή are symbolically presented as bridegroom and bride and the reunion happens, as we
have seen, in a bridal chamber391. This wedding symbolism may also provide a clue for a
connection with the pagan mystery cults, since the initation ceremonies of the Orphic
mysteries also seem to have applied it392. The sources mention the use of a bridal chamber or
380 See The Tripartite Tractate 91:33-92:12.

381 See The Tripartite Tractate 98:21-36.
382 See The Tripartite Tractate 58:29-33 and 94:11-23.
383 See The Tripartite Tractate 77:25-78:13.
384 See A Valentinian Exposition 22:18-27.
385 This paragraph is mainly based on Pagels (1979), pp. 133-134, Freke & Gandy, pp. 101-105 and 123-125 and
Chadwick (1980), The Domestication of Gnosis, pp. 1-8.

386 See Platon, Apologia Socratis 31c-d and Phaidros 242b-c.
387 See Epiktetos, Dissertationes ab Arriano Digestae I.14.11-13, and Marcus Aurelius, Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν V.27.1.
388 See Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 22.3 and The Gospel of Philip 65:23-26, 61:29-35 and 67:26-27.
389 See The Gospel of Philip 70:15-18.
390 They become ‘ὁµοούσια’, see Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 58.1.
391 See, for instance, Eirenaios, Adverus Haereses I.13.3.
392 See Harrison (1961), Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, pp. 534-551.
55
Νυµφών and those about to be initiated were called the brides of Dionusos393. The Platonic
concept of reuniting the εἴδωλον and the δαίµων has also influenced the thought of other
gnostics394.
Independent of whether or not Valentinus himself was a gnostic395, neither Markschies
nor Quispel denies that he was a Christian. It is unclear how the ‘Valentinian school’ actually
came into existence, since, as Markschies points out, there is hardly any evidence to postulate
continuity in contact between Valentinus and his ‘school’ in terms of teacher-student
relationships396. However, whether or not genealogically a school, the Valentinians share a
common theological tendency in which they distinctly characterise themselves as Christians397
and the many Christian elements in Valentinian thought and practice provide strong clues
that Valentinian gnosticism was much more Christian in nature than Sethian gnosticism – and
possibly a genuinely Christian gnostic movement. Of course, the most obvious element is of
course the Valentinian preoccupation with Jesus Christ as the saviour and revealer of γνῶσις,
although not necessarily defining his nature in a proto-orthodox Christian way, as noted
above398. In The Gospel of Philip, for instance, there are also many references to Christian
stories about Jesus’ life and the people around him, or stories very similar to those399. We
read about Jesus appearing to his disciples as larger than life while uttering a revelation on a
mountain, his three female companions called Mary and his preference for Mary
Magdalene400. We also encounter combinations of words, which sound very familiarly
Christian, such as the denomination of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit401 or the idea of
the resurrection for all Christians. The Valentinians, however, did not teach the resurrection
of the body but merely of the soul and not in an afterlife but directly at the attainment of
γνῶσις 402. Even the self-definitions of the Valentinians as pneumatic and ‘perfect’ echo
Christian literature403, although we cannot prove whether proto-orthodox Christianity
influenced Valentinianism, if it was exactly the opposite of that, or if it was a simultaneous
development.
There appears to have been an interesting connection between the Valentinians and the
Gospel of John404. Eirenaios of Lyons states that the Valentinians preferred this gospel,
probably as it was most suitable to support their own theological views405. We know of three
different Valentinian interpretations of the introduction to this gospel, two of which use the
Johannine idea of God’s creation of the world through the λόγος406, his active principle.
Theodotos and Ptolemaios (according to Eirenaios of Lyons) taught that the πλήρωµα had
393 For instance Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio II.11.3 and Firmicus Maternus, De Errore Profanorum Religionum 19.1 on a
Mithraic greeting to the initiated.
394 Compare for instance The Teachings of Silvanus 92:10-93:24 and Hippolutos of Rome, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium
VI.9.4-5.
395 See the introduction to this chapter.
396 See Markschies, pp. 392-402.
397 For instance The Gospel of Philip 74:12-14 or The Gospel of Truth 18:11-18
398 In chapters 6.1.2 and 6.2.1.
399 See for instance the introduction by Wesley W. Isenberg to The Gospel of Philip in The Nag Hammadi Library in
English.
400 See The Gospel of Philip 57:28-58:10, 59:6-11 and 63:32-36 respectively.
401 See for instance The Tripartite Tractate 127:30-32.
402 For instance, The Treatise on the Resurrection 45:39-46:2 and 47:31:48-3, which may be dependent on I Corinthians
15:35-44. See the introduction by Malcolm L. Peel to The Treatise on the Resurrection in The Nag Hammadi Library in
English and in Layton (1987), pp. 316-317.
403 πνευµατικοί cf. I Corinthians 2:15 and τέλειοι cf. Gospel of Matthew 19:21. See Layton (1987), pp. 267.
404 This paragraph is based on Pagels (1973), The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, pp. 23-35. See MacRae (1986),
Gnosticism and the Church of John’s Gospel, for possible gnostic influences on the Gospel of John.
405 See, for instance, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses III.11.1-2.
406 Gospel of John 1:1-4.
56
been created through the λόγος, who in turn had been created by the Son, who was also
called ὰρχή and Μονογενής and who was an emanation from the Father407. Theodotos,
however, also said that the third verse πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
οὐδὲ ἕν does not allude to the λόγος, but to the saviour bringing γνῶσις to Sophia who is in
the κένωµα outside the πλήρωµα. Through his revelation Sophia and all her passions ‘come
into existence’ after her repentance and this verse refers to the formation of Sophia’s passions
into material bodies408. The third interpretation is found in Herakleon’s work (according to
Origenes) and Ptolemaios’ Letter to Flora, where – in contrast to Eirenaios’ statements about
Ptolemaios mentioned above – they refer to this verse as pertaining to the saviour who is the
λόγος in the story of the creation of the material universe409. These different interpretations
are probably the products of the theological debate between the two Valentinian ‘schools’
and possibly some Valentinians who did not belong to either ‘school’. It is plausible that the
account of the creation of the world through the λόγος in The Tripartite Tractate410 is based on
this same passage. The casual mentioning of the λόγος being endowed with wisdom
(Σοφία)411 and thus connecting or maybe equating these characters, may point towards an
attempt to reconcile the proto-Christian and Valentinian creation accounts.
6.3 Valentinian Eve
But where is Eve? Although this thesis is about Eve, she has not even been mentioned at all
in this chapter. She was not a part of the Valentinian creation myth, but does that mean this
character was not important for the Valentinians? Moreover, what we can say about the
position of Valentinian women if we do not have Eve as their prototype?
6.3.1 Eve in the Valentinian story of creation
As has been stated referring to A Valentinian Exposition412, at least the Eastern faction of the
Valentinians considered Cain and Abel the sons of the devil and not of Adam413. Theodotos,
however, did regard Cain and Abel as the sons of Adam, just like Seth, and, echoing the
Sethians, even added that the pneumatics were the sons of Seth414! It is not very clear what the
ideas of the Western faction were on this matter, but Herakleon was apparently of the same
opinion415. The Gospel of Philip416 merely comments on Cain being the offspring of the devil
but is silent about the paternity of Abel. All these references to Adam and to whether or not
his children were biologically his, imply the existence of sexual reproduction and the
existence of their mother Eve, but she is never mentioned by name nor described in any way.
407 See Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 6.1-4, and Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.8.5.
408 See Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 45.1-3. The Greek kenoma means ‘empty space’ or ‘vacuum’ and is
presented as the complete opposite of the πλήρωµα, where the perfect αἰῶνες exist.
409 See Origenes, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis 2.14.100 and 2.14.102-103 and Ptolemaios, Epistula ad Floram
33:3:5-6.
410 See, for instance, The Tripartite Tractate 78:13-17.
411 The Tripartite Tractate 75:27-28.
413 See above in chapter 6.1.1 and A Valentinian Exposition 37:32-39:39. This comparison is based on Stroumsa, pp.
45-46.
414 See Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 54.1-2.
415 See Origenes, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis 20.20.168-170 and 20.24.211 and 20.24.213-214.
416 The Gospel of Philip 61:3-11.
57
So what happened to this character? A consideration of the fact that the Valentinians
appropriated non-proto-orthodox Christian mythical material may shed some light on this.
The Sethians equated Eve with the Ἐπίνοια, the beneficent Spirit of the Father sent to assist
Adam in Sethian mythology, and described her as functioning as the rational and spiritual
principle in Adam417. Comparing the Valentinian creation story with the Sethian myths
mentioned above and other writings like On the Origin of the World418, it becomes clear that
many gnostic groups made this equation of Eve with the Ἐπίνοια of the Father. As such,
they equated her with Sophia herself and used this in different ways in their own creation
myths. As we have seen in The Apocryphon of John and The Hypostasis of the Archons, the Sethians
differentiated between a heavenly and a material Eve419. This heavenly Eve was depicted as a
spiritual power with the freedom to enter and leave material bodies at will. It appears the
Valentinians have interpreted this spiritual power solely as a power and obviously
appropriated this image as the pneumatic component of the human soul. This component was
either sent directly into Adam, by the Λόγος, at the creation of his material body, or rejoined
with the psychic human seeds of Sophia at their union with the pneumatic ἄρχοντες, who had
been created by Jesus exactly for this purpose420.
Eve is no longer a character of the plot of the Valentinian creation myth but presented as
a completely abstract being. The different representations between the Sethian and
Valentinian creation myths may be explained by the difference in their worldviews. Sethians
usually lingered in the past, seeking there the origin of all evil and the reasons why this evil
world was so hostile towards human beings and why they had to endure the hardships they
felt imposed upon themselves. The Valentinians, on the other hand, had a more positive
interpretation of the world in which they lived. Whereas the only way to achieve γνῶσις and
thus perfection for the Sethians was to free themselves from this world created out of evil
long ago, the Valentinians valued the current situation and taught that this life and this world
were the one time and place where γνῶσις could be attained.
On the other hand, the close ties between Valentinian gnosticism and proto-orthodox
Christianity may have played a part in this. In my view, the creation story and the story of
Eve are important motifs in proto-orthodox and later Catholic Christian theology, since the
idea of original sin would eventually be derived from it421. The Valentinian interpretation or
reinterpretation of this character of the originally Jewish creation myth, however, is
fundamentally different and may have had a negative influence on the position of the
Valentinians in proto-orthodox Christian societies. This may have been one of the reasons
for the silence the extant Valentinian sources display on the part this character played in their
version of the story of anthropogony. However, does this mean Eve was not important at all
to the Valentinians?
We have already seen that in Sethian mythology, Eve was also called Life or Ζωή. Though
perhaps reluctant to use the character Eve, some Valentinians did attribute an important role
to Ζωή 422. According to Eirenaios, Ptolemaios taught that the syzygy Λόγος and Ζωή had
created the syzygy ῎Ανθρωπος and᾿Εκκλησία, together with whom they formed the second
Tetrad. This description of the creation of the first αἰῶνες of the πλήρωµα is an idea we have
417 See above in chapters 5.1.1 and 5.3.1.

418 On the Origin of the World 115:30-116:8.
419 See for instance The Apocryphon of John 20:9-28 and The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:17-28
420 See for instance The Tripartite Tractate 105:29-35 or A Valentinian Exposition 36:20-24 and 38:34-39:16.
421 See Pagels (1989), pp. 195-226, and Augustinus’ opinion of original sin, for instance, Augustinus, Opus Imperfectum
Contra Julianum 4.114.Aug.3, 6.25.Aug.5-6, 6.26.Iul.1, 6.27.Aug.1-2 and 6.30.Aug.4.

422 See Pagels (1973), pp. 32-34 for this paragraph.
58
also found in A Valentinian Exposition423. Theodotos also calls Λόγος and Ζωή a syzygy and
equates them as such, since a syzygy is a perfect unity and functions as a single entity424. A
possible conclusion would be that the saviour who came down into the material world in
order to reveal γνῶσις to humanity is in fact Ζωή and that Christ the Λόγος should be
equated with Eve. This would mean that in comparison to the Sethian doctrine, the
Valentinian Eve is, according to Theodotos, a representative of the conservative Eastern
branch, not only the first revealer of γνῶσις, but the one and only saviour. However, since
there is no specific connection between Eve and Ζωή in Valentinian literature, it is
improbable that the Valentinians would have understood this equation and this theory is
consequently far-fetched and unconvincing.
The Gospel of Philip, however, refers to the story of Adam and Eve and is the only extant
Valentinian writing which mentions her425. It does not give us the whole story, but focuses on
the separation of Eve from Adam in relation to the coming of the saviour. In his extensive
commentary, Hans-Martin Schenke concludes this writing is referring to the rape of Eve by
the devil and her subsequent conception of Cain426, but I think there is another layer of
meaning. The writing states that death did not yet exist when Eve was still in Adam and the
separation of their original unity, which ‘was from the beginning’, is presented as the origin of
evil for humanity in the world. Christ came to mend this situation and to reunite Adam and
Eve in the bridal chamber in order to abolish death. The four references to the creation myth
are set within a framework of descriptions of and references to Valentinian cultic rites427. The
writing is a Valentinian exegetical work meant to attract new auditores and contains many
exhortations to initiation. I think the references to the creation myth should be seen as a part
of this writing, as explained in the next paragraph.
When mention is made of the reuniting of Adam and Eve in the bridal chamber, the
reference is probably to the initiation rite of the bridal chamber, the final initiation rite the
aspiring Valentinian elect must go through. With this rite, the elect attains γνῶσις and
becomes perfect. Adam and Eve should be allegorically interpreted as the male and the
female part of the soul, the psychic and the pneumatic part respectively, which are at that point
finally reunited in syzygy. We have seen that male stands for pneumatic and female for psychic in
the story of the transgressions of Sophia and the Λόγος in A Valentinian Exposition and The
Tripartite Tractate respectively428, but in this allegory the equation should be exactly reversed as
it was Eve who left Adam and is described as passive in their transgression429. In A
Valentinian Exposition, Jesus and Sophia labour in order to achieve this same goal of bringing
‘the angels of the males’ and the ‘the seminal ones of the females’ back into syzygy430. The
death, which the union in the bridal chamber is said to abolish, is the death inflicted by the
eating of the tree of knowledge in paradise, which made humanity subject to the hylic and
psychic parts of his soul, as we have seen in The Tripartite Tractate431. By allegorically interpreting
the story of Adam and Eve as the struggles of the two parts of the human soul and making
423 See Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.8.5 and A Valentinian Exposition 29:25-30:20.
424 See Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 6.3-4, where the Λόγος calls himself ζωή.
425 The Gospel of Philip 61:3-11, 68:22-26, 70:9-26 and 71:22-27.
426 See Schenke (1997), Das Philippus-Evangelium, pp. 299-301, 391-393, 411-413 and 423-425.
428 See A Valentinian Exposition 35:10-17 and The Tripartite Tractate 77:37-78:13. This was apparently not a specific
Valentinian concept, but was a part of several contemporary philosophical systems.

429 See The Gospel of Philip 68:22-25 and 70:9-12. Eve, the allegorical spiritual power, ‘was separated’ from Adam and ‘his
separation became the beginning of death.’

59
them prototypes of all human beings, the Valentinians bring a powerful message of
redemption across.
We have now also found the answer to the unde malum question of Valentinian gnosticism.
The Valentinians did not teach that the world was made by evil ἄρχοντες, like the Sethians
did, nor do they show an abhorment nor a rigorous abstinence of sexuality as the Sethian
elect did. The Valentinians locate the source of evil in the universe in the loss of the pneumatic
male part of the soul and humanity’s subsequent life in ignorance and error. This either
happened by Sophia’s unpermitted fall against the will of the Father, which caused her to lose
the male component of her syzygy and made her produce the incomplete, formless and
female offspring which was to be moulded into humans, or by Adam and Eve’s432 seduction
by the serpent and eating of the the tree of knowledge in paradise. This seduction was
executed by the devil or serpent, but happened according to the will of the Father to be a way
of learning by experience. In both cases, there is no mention of any responsibility on Eve’s
part nor of an original sin. Although the Valentinian origin of evil is completely different
from the Sethian one, Eve’s role is surprisingly similar. She is the part of the human soul
which is the spiritual principle and the way of attainment of γνῶσις.
6.3.2 Valentinian women
On a cosmic transcendent scale, the Valentinians interpreted male and female figures as
allegorical characters symbolising the separation and necessary reunion of the two non-
material components of the human soul. However, what can we infer from these myths
about the social position of women according to Valentinian standards? For the same reasons
as when we tried to translate Sethian myth to practice, caution is warranted here as well433.
The Valentinian ideal of androgyny and their pursuit of it seem to imply equality between
man and woman and a certain interdependence of the male and female sexes. This would
indicate that the Valentinians promoted marriage and monogamous sexual relations.
However, in the Valentinian writings this androgyny is something achieved either by
supernatural, divine and mythological creatures, or by the different components of the
human soul. When the writings refer to human beings in this light, they refer to either Adam
and Eve, who may very well be meant as allegorical characters representing the psychic and
pneumatic parts of the soul434, to Mary of Magdala as the consort of the saviour435, or to the
final reunion of the male and female parts of the human soul in the bridal chamber and not
to physical human beings436. So what can we say?
Gilles Quispel (1996) argues that, as according to the Valentinians the material universe is
created as a reflection of either the πλήρωµα of the αἰῶνες or the πλήρωµα of the Λόγος,
the ideal position for humanity is to be in syzygy as a reflection the αἰῶνες as well437. He
corroborates this statement with an affirming quote found in the proto-orthodox Christian
polemicist Clemens Alexandrinus438. This confirms the Valentinians’ positive view on
monogamous marriage. Clemens is openly against sexual pleasures439 and attacks sexual
libertinism, but allows pleasureless sexuality since it is necessary for procreation440. His
432 Only Adam’s transgression is mentioned, see The Tripartite Tractate 107:10-18 and The Gospel of Philip 71:22-27.
433 See above in chapter 5.3.3.
434 See above in chapter 6.3.1. The references are The Gospel of Philip 61:3-11, 68:22-26, 70:9-26 and 71:22-27.
435 The Gospel of Philip 63:32-64:5.
436 For instance Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 63.1-2.
437 Quispel, pp. 334-336.
438 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata III.1.1.1.
439 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata III.4.27.1-28.1.
60
judgment of the Valentinians, however, is less severe – though nonetheless repudiating –
since they consider sexual intercourse a pneumatic act441 and a spiritual activity exclusively for
the pneumatic elect442. The Valentinian position on equality between men and women, which
seemed so obvious from their own writings, turns out to apply only to the elect. This seems
to confirm some of the accusations of the polemicists about Valentinian sexual libertinism443,
but their accusations show many inconsistencies with the doctrine expounded above. These
accusations probably arise from a misunderstanding of the rite of the bridal chamber444. For
the Valentinians, the ability to have and enjoy sexual intercourse in the right manner is
something which needs to be acquired. Only those who have learned to control sexual desire
and understand that its purpose is to elevate oneself to a spiritual and thus divine level, are
able to practice it as it was intended. Only at this point, when a man and a woman have
attained γνῶσις and have become pneumatic beings, they are equal and are the reflection of the
divine syzygy complementing each other completely. According to Quispel, the Valentinian
ideal may have been equality between men and women on earth as a reflection of the divine
syzygy, but in reality, this was only reserved for the elitist elect who were they only ones
meeting the conditions to be considered as that reflection.
Although Quispel bases his theory almost exclusively on the writings of the polemicists,
his line of reasoning is convincing445. It would also explain the paradoxes in the Valentinian
writings, because there does seem to be a hierarchy of the sexes for the Valentinians. As we
have seen446, the divine pneumatic part of the soul is always associated with masculinity as is
the psychic part with femininity. After the pneumatic part has left Sophia or the Λόγος in the
Valentinian creation stories by having given birth to their perfect offspring directly after their
fall from the πλήρωµα, they are described as weak, lonely and feminine and their further
offspring is formless447. It is obvious that, though the Valentinians do not automatically
subordinate women to men and allow for the possibility of equality between the sexes in an
ideal situation, they still retain much of the patriarchal system of their surroundings. And how
possible were those possibilities? We do not yet know enough of the Valentinians to be able
to state anything about the chances of becoming part of the elect and the hardships of the
initiation process with any certainty. This must for now remain a mystery.

442 See Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.6.4.
443 See, for instance, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.13.3 on Markos Gnostikos.
444 See Fiorenza (1979), Word, Spirit and Power, pp. 48-51.
445 See Williams (1996), pp. 148-150, and Pagels (1989), pp. 121-123, for alternative views on the bridal chamber.
They argue the ritual consists of a double marriage, a spiritual one between a human and one’s δαίµων and a material
one between a man and a woman. The material marriage is a support of the spiritual marriage and is actually a
protection from the seductions of demons and material sexuality.
446 In chapter 6.1.1.
447 See A Valentinian Exposition 34:23-35:13 and The Tripartite Tractate 77:25-78:13. Compare The Tripartite Tractate
91:17-18.
61
7. Further development of gnostic ideas
Studying the three, most influential and well-documented gnostic movements (Sethianism,
Valentinianism and Manichaeism) would take more time and effort than is appropriate for a
master thesis and would probably produce a document exceeding the limitations commonly
applied to it. For these reasons, I have decided to focus on the Sethian and Valentinian
varieties of gnosticism and to leave the subject of Manichaeism to further research. As
Manichaeism can be considered to be the culmination and synthesis of different varieties of
earlier gnostic thought, it is briefly treated below as an epilogue on the further development
of the thought of the two gnostic movements discussed above. The information is based on
the works of Böhlig (1995) and Lieu (1992)448.
7.1 Mani, Manichaeism and history
Mani was born in Babylonia and lived from 216 until 274 or 276 CE. He wrote seven works
expounding his teachings in the Aramaic dialect of Southern Mesopotamia. He also wrote a
summary of his teachings in Persian, which he presented to the Shapur I, the Sassanian king
of Persia, with whom he apparently had a cordial relation. His thought is obviously related to
the tradition of gnostic movements and his writings are full of mysticism and revelatory spirit.
He also appropriates Eastern thought, such as Zoroastrian imagery and philosophy, and the
Christian tradition. In his writings, he states that he derives his teachings from a divine
revelation, which he himself had received and which had reunited him with his Divine Twin.
Manichaeism divides time in three eras: Beginning, Middle and End. At the beginning,
there were two separate realms, the homes of two contrasting principles. The five worlds of
the Region (or Kingdom) of the Light are ruled by the good Light, also called the Father of
Greatness, the Tree of Life and Four-Faced (since his majesty consisted of the four powers
Divinity, Light, Power and Wisdom). He is accompanied by twelve Αἰῶνες, who are grouped
in tetrads and who emanate the other Αἰῶνες of Αἰῶνες, who are all described as hypostases
of the Father. The Father’s consort is the Great Spirit, which provides life to this ‘πλήρωµα’.
The Tree of Life is adorned with everything beautiful and covered with flowers. As an exact
antithesis, the evil Realm of Darkness consists of five worlds or caverns housing different
kinds of infernal creatures. This realm does not have one ruler, but every world has its own
ἄρχων and the five ἄρχοντες are collectively called the Prince (or Ruler) of Darkness. The
inhabitants are base creatures, completely subjected to lust, desire and unregulated passion.
The five trees from these five worlds are collectively called the Tree of Death, on which all
that is evil flourishes, and it is described as having, for instance, war and cruelty as branches.
The Middle Period started when the Prince of Darkness saw the Kingdom of Light and
established contact between the two worlds. In the subsequent war, the Father produces
further emanations to resist the forces of evil, among whom are the Mother of Life and the
Primal Man with his garment of the five elements of the Kingdom of Light (Air, Wind, Light,
Water, Fire), which is sometimes called the Maiden of Light. According to the will of the
Father, the Primal Man is defeated and captured by the Prince of Darkness. The ἄρχοντες are
attracted to the light and swallow the elements of the garment. Having now trapped portions
of the Light inside them, the ἄρχοντες are satisfied and end war. The Primal Man prays to the
Father for help and Call and Answer (together called the Instinct of Life), the hypostasized
448See Böhlig (1995), Die Gnosis III. Der Manichäismus, pp. 5-70, and Lieu (1992), Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire
and Medieval China, pp. 7-191, thorough introductions to and overviews of Manichaeism and Manichaean thought.
62
symbols of redeeming γνῶσις and the yearning for salvation, redeem the Primal Man who is
Νοῦς and returns to Kingdom of Light.
The material universe is created as a ‘hospital’ for the redeeming of elements of Light by
the Living Spirit, who is the Manichaean demiurge. The divine male and female powers
Third Messenger and Maiden of Light appear naked to the ἄρχοντες. The male ἄρχοντες
ejaculate the Light, which was trapped inside them, and this becomes seeds in the earth.
Third Messenger separates Sin from the pure Light, which becomes plant-life. The female
ἄρχοντες become pregnant by the sight of Third Messenger and give birth to aborted
foetuses, which became the animals. The emanated divine powers of the Light then leave to
live in an intermediate world in order to make certain the Kingdom of Light is not
contaminated again. The Prince of Darkness knows all the creatures with Light in it will
eventually be redeemed and he creates Ashqalun or Saclas and Namrael or Nebroel, a male
and female demon. They devour the offspring of the aborted foetuses, copulate, and produce
Adam and Eve after the image of Third Messenger in order to perpetuate the confinement of
the soul (which is of the Light) in the body (which is of the Darkness) through lust, sexuality
and procreation.
Next, the powers of the Light send Jesus the Luminous to bring Adam knowledge
(γνῶσις) of the Father and the Kingdom of Light and make him eat of the Tree of Life. He
tells Adam not to have sexual intercourse with Eve in order to keep his soul uncontaminated.
Saclas, however, does have intercourse with Eve and makes her have intercourse with their
son Cain to produce Abel. The ἄρχων also instructs Eve how to seduce Adam and the
couple has Seth, whom Saclas calls a stranger and wants to murder. Adam calls for aid and
the powers of the Light send the Crown of Splendour to protect him. Adam and Seth
eventually go to the East, to the Light and Wisdom of god, and are accepted into the
Kingdom of Light after their deaths. Eve and her offspring, however, end up in the hell of
Darkness.
Some of the ἄρχοντες, however, escape and introduce evil to the humans on earth. These
demons, which are also called ‘watchers’, assume the shape of men and hide themselves.
They are eventually destroyed along with the giants, their progeny with humans, by the
archangels sent by the powers of the Light. In order to assist humanity in (re)finding the road
to the Light, revealer figures come to earth on a regular basis. Seth, Noah, Abraham, Enoch,
Buddha, Zoroaster and Jesus the Messiah were all incarnations of Νοῦς, an emanation of
Jesus the Luminous. Mani presented himself as the ultimate manifestation of Νοῦς and was
called The Enlightener and the Apostle of Light by his followers.
In their prescriptions for keeping the soul pure and attaining of γνῶσις of the Kingdom
of the Light, the Manichaeans show their ascetic tendency. The Manichaean elect were not
allowed to speak blasphemy, did not eat meat, nor drank wine, refrained from sexual
intercourse and had no material possessions. They taught that the elect would go directly to
Kingdom of Light after their death, but that the auditores would reincarnate as fruit and finally
as elect. Those who did not believe in or practice Manichaeism would reincarnate as beasts
and suffer eternal damnation. When the third era of the universe, the End, arrives, there will
be a great war reducing everything to Matter, which is dominated by sin and strife. As the
Great King, Jesus will judge the souls and separate the righteous from the sinners and each
category will take its place in the Kingdoms of Light and Darkness respectively. The forces
holding up the universe will no longer perform their tasks and all will be consumed in fire.
During his lifetime, Mani attracted followers in Mesopotamia, Iran and the Middle
Eastern parts of the Roman Empire. After his death, his movement became immensely
popular all over the empire and was attacked as a Christian heresy. Manichaeism became a
term used by Christian polemicists to denote a number of sects which held the view that the
63
body is intrinsically evil and thus cannot possibly be the creation of a good god, such as the
medieval Cathars in Southern France and the Bogomils in Bulgaria. Its popularity attracted
rich and influential people, such as the Church Father Augustinus, who had been a
Manichaean auditor for years before converting to Christianity. It also probably inspired their
rigorous persecution by the Christians, which almost completely emptied the Roman Empire
of Manichaeans in the fifth and sixth centuries CE. Beyond the borders of the Roman
Empire, however, Manichaeism remained a popular and flourishing religion, especially in the
Middle East where it had originated. Manichaean thought gradually spread eastwards from
there to Iran, India and even China. Traces of Manichaean thought can be found in modern
day Buddhism and Taoism. In the course of history, several smaller sects in central and
Eastern Asia have also expressed thought reminiscent of Manichaean beliefs.
7.2 A brief comparison
When reading the Manichaean creation myth and theology, several similarities and differences
with Sethian and Valentinian thought immediately come to mind. A brief and superficial
comparison of some central elements in their thought is given below.
The Manichaeans postulated the same duality in creation by teaching that a demiurge
other than the highest god has created the material universe. This world is very
different from the divine, perfect world of the Αἰῶνες. However, unlike the Sethians
and Valentinians who related the wickedness of the material world to the evil or
ignorant nature of their demiurges, the Manichaean demiurge is a power of the Light
who is good, has knowledge and is an emanation of the true god.
Besides the Platonic division of the material world from the perfect world, the
Manichaeans also borrowed from Hellenistic philosophy the notion of the completely
transcendent and unattached father, who does not act himself but emanates other
powers to execute his will. This is very similar to the use the Sethians and Valentinians
made of this Hellenistic philosophical material.
The Manichaeans expressed the same negative perception of the body as the Sethians
did and related their tendency to asceticism to this fact. The body is a creation of the
evil ἄρχοντες and is only a prison for the soul, which is part of the Kingdom of the
Light. However, they did not share the Sethian overall negative worldview, but taught
that the material universe has been created by a power of the light as a ‘hospital’ for
the souls trapped in the material bodies.
The Manichaeans shared the Sethian and Valentinian portrayal of Seth as the first
(surviving) child of Adam and Eve and the Sethian interpretation of this character as
the first human revealer of γνῶσις. Yet, Seth is not the universal saviour in
Manichaean thought, but merely one of the incarnations of Νοῦς, like Enoch or Jesus.
Manichaeism shared Valentinianism’s affinity with Christianity, of which at least the
appropriation of Jesus as two important saviour figures in myth and history is proof.
However, they obviously present Christianity as a religion arising from a prophet who
did not teach the completely perfected message and as superseded by Mani’s teaching.
The Manichaeans also shared their missionary spirit with the Valentinians. As those
who had not yet converted to Manichaeism would reincarnate into beasts and be
damned forever, the Manichaean was actively trying to convert the rest of the world.
As the Valentinians taught eventual salvation for their less advanced fellow Christians,
the Manichaeans included advanced auditores among the saved at judgment day.
The Manichaeans radically rejected the Sethian and Valentinian interpretations of the
creation myth and of the character Eve. Eve is an instrument of evil and one who
64
deceives Adam, definitely not the divine part of the human soul. The Manichaean
interpretation is reminiscent of the Christian interpretation.
65
8. Conclusions
In the foregoing chapters, we have studied the Sethian and Valentinian gnostic movements
and glimpsed briefly at Manichaeism. The extensive treatment of these first two movements
was meant to create a religious and social background of their thought in order to make some
useful conclusions on their different interpretations of the character Eve. The most
important original elements of their different interpretations are treated below.
8.1 The Sethian Eve
In the Sethian creation myth449, Eve is the Ἐπίνοια, a positive force, sent by the god of the
perfect universe to assist the first human Adam who lived in an evil material universe created
by evil lower divine beings. She is an emanation of Sophia, sent to correct the imperfection in
the material universe she herself had caused. As this power, Eve is the active rational
principle inside Adam, his teacher and his helper. As Sophia or the spiritual Eve, she is the
one who reveals the saving γνῶσις to him. The Ἐπίνοια is also the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil and thence Eve in fact is γνῶσις. Only when Adam and Eve had attained
γνῶσις, they could reproduce their perfect offspring, Seth. The story of Adam and Eve is
also seen as an etiological myth and an instruction to followers. Because human beings have
lost their γνῶσις, their ability to know spiritually, like Adam and Eve, they are now subject to
the horrors of the evil world in which they live. In order to attain this saving spiritual
knowledge, human beings must renounce all material knowledge (knowing by the senses, i.e.
physical pleasures such as the possession of worldly goods, sexuality and luxurious
nourishment). The positive picturing of Eve and other female characters in the Sethian
writings may be indications that the Sethian women enjoyed a relative freedom and that the
Sethians may have had women as religious and social leaders.
8.2 The Valentinian Eve
In the Valentinian accounts of their creation myths450, Eve is not mentioned at all. Instead,
Adam is sent an abstract divine power as his helper. At least some Valentinians taught that
Adam and Eve were originally a single androgynous creature, a reflection of the perfect
situation of the syzygy of the divine beings of the highest world. This story of Adam and Eve
is used as an allegory for the two higher parts of the soul. The divine pneumatic and psychic
powers, which were combined in the soul of the original human, Adam, are only in a state of
perfect syzygy when they are combined inside that soul, which happens through the
attainment of γνῶσις. The Valentinians also used this story as an etiological myth. When
Adam ate of the psychic Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he became subjected to the
psychic and hylic levels of existence and lost knowledge of Eve, the pneumatic part of his soul.
This is why humanity is ignorant and suffers evils in this ignorant world created by ignorant
lower divine beings. In my view, Adam is an allegory for a human being and Eve an allegory
for his divine twin, the divine part of his soul. This separation of the two parts of the soul
and the suffering of humanity is, however, according to the will of the highest god, who
wants human beings to learn about the true universe the hard way. Becoming initiated in the
ritual of the bridal chamber of the Valentinian cult means attaining γνῶσις, the regaining of
knowledge of the spiritual part of one’s soul, Eve. The pneumatic and psychic parts of one’s
449 See chapter 5 for the backgrounds of this paragraph.

450 See chapter 6 for the backgrounds of this paragraph.
66
soul, one’s allegorical Adam and Eve, are then restored to perfect syzygy. The positive
imaging of the pairing of men and women in the Valentinian writings may indicate positive
views on marriage and human sexuality. However, this is deceiving, since it was probably
reserved only for the elect.
8.3 The differences
It is obvious the Sethian and Valentinian interpretations were very different from the proto-
orthodox Christian one. However different from each other, both Sethians and Valentinians
allotted Eve a positive part in their theologies. In the end, Eve is the power which may save
human beings, or at least certain groups of them, from the horrors of an either evil (Sethian)
or ignorant (Valentinian) world. The Sethians regarded the attainment of γνῶσις as the final
detachment and release from the material world which was completely evil, basing themselves
on Hellenistic reintepretations of Jewish Biblical literature. For the Valentinians, however,
who were Christians appropriating gnostic thought, the attainment of γνῶσις was the
acquirement of the knowledge needed to teach and convert others and to obtain the perfect
life after their deaths. The negative role of Eve of the contemporaneous proto-orthodox
Christian interpretation, which would eventually lead to the development of the doctrine of
original sin and have an enormous impact on the position of women in later Catholic
Christian society, is completely absent from their ways of thinking. In my view, this
fundamental dissimilarity in their interpretations of the creation myth and the character of
Eve constituted an insuperable difference between the proto-orthodox Christians and the
two variants of gnosticism. It also shows a clear distinction between the Sethian and
Valentinian gnostic movements.
67
9. Concluding remarks
We have now studied the cosmologies, theologies, ethics, cultic practices and social life of the
Sethian and Valentinian gnostic movements and have tried to place them in their historical,
religious and social context. The main reasons for this were to determine the place and
function of the biblical character Eve in their respective theologies and to explore the
influence of this intriguing figure as an exemplary character and a prototype to their female
adherents in early Christian and related societies. This thesis did not aim to make statements
about the genealogical development of the phenomenon of gnosticism from proto-orthodox
Christianity or vice versa. Neither was its purpose to express any moral judgments on the
conflicts between the gnostic and proto-orthodox factions in the early Christian era, nor does
it take a preference to any position, but rather, it has strived to study the different gnostic
movements in their own right. The gnostics and their doctrines are therefore not conceived
of in definitions of orthodoxy and heresy, but as diverse interpretations of mythological,
theological and philosophical ideas in an atmosphere encouraging the development of
thought. The basic assumption has been that Christianity in all its forms arose from
speculation on the intentions of a visionary, whose message was probably not well
understood and perhaps highly ambiguous, in the context of Hellenistic syncretism. To
describe this situation, two relatively elaborate introductory chapters have been written. In
these chapters much attention has been given to the development of early Christianity in
connection to Hellenistic tendencies and phenomena, such as syncretism, the popularity of
mystery religions and the role of the Roman Empire in its development, and the literary and
social history of the character Eve451.
In order to achieve these objectives six research questions have been formulated452. The
chapters five and six tried to provide individual answers to the first five of these research
questions for Sethian and Valentinian gnosticism respectively. The most influential and well-
documented gnostic movements in the late second and third centuries CE were undeniably
Sethian gnosticism, Valentinian gnosticism and Manichaeism. Because discussing all three of
these subjects as extensively as they deserve is too much work for a master thesis, this thesis
has focused on the first two movements. Since Manichaeism is in many ways the
continuation of Sethian and Valentinian thought, this movement has only briefly been treated
in a chapter on further development of their thought.
However, we did already find worlds of difference between the two gnostic movements
on which this thesis has been able to focus. While the Sethians were not Christians but
probably developed from Judaism in parallel with proto-orthodox Christian thought, the
Valentinians saw themselves as the Christian intellectual and spiritual elite par excellence.
Consequently, Sethianism had its roots directly in apocalyptic Judaism mixed with Hellenistic
philosophy and Valentinianism originated in proto-orthodox Christianity but appropriated
pagan gnostic thought and that same Hellenistic philosophy, though both were clearly a part
of the tradition of pagan mystery religions. Although their creation myths are obviously part
of the same philosophical tradition, they are extremely different in their presentation of
divine beings and the assignment of the origin of evil. Sethians claimed the world was created
by a malignant creator, was ruled by him and his evil ἄρχοντες and was consequently
inherently evil. The Valentinians, however, portrayed the universe as in a state of deficiency,
which merely needed correction. The Sethians preached that the origin of all evil was sexual
in nature and introduced into humanity through sexual relations forced by the ἄρχοντες,
451 Chapters 3. Historical and social background and 4. The Eves of yore.
452 In chapter 1. Objectives and research questions.
68
whereas Valentinians placed the origin of evil in the separation of the rational, female, psychic
part and the divine, male, pneumatic part of the human soul and actually regarded the joining
of the ἄρχοντες and humans as an allegorical reunion of these. As a result, the Sethians
preached total abstinence of everything material and a devotion to the spiritual as the only
way of attaining redemptive γνῶσις, while the Valentinians embraced the world and its
people in order to stimulate its correction. The Sethians retained much of the Jewish-
Christian Biblical creation story, but, in contrast to proto-orthodox Christianity, interpreted
Eve not as disobedient to God’s command and the causer of original sin, but as a spiritual
power from the true god revealing γνῶσις to Adam and outsmarting the evil ἄρχοντες. The
Valentinians, on the other hand, excluded Eve from the creation myth where she was
replaced by an abstract power, but used her as an allegorical figure representing the pneumatic
part of the soul which humanity lost by eating from the psychic tree of knowledge of good and
evil.
However, differing as they may be, Sethian and Valentinian gnosticism were theologically
far more similar to each other than to proto-orthodox Christianity, though all three
movements shared their religious debt to Judaism and their appropriation of Hellenistic
philosophical thought. This leaves us with one research question left, which will be answered
below for both gnostic movements together. What were the reasons why the gnostic
interpretations of Eve – and the gnostic creation myths in general – did not become the
interpretation of the later orthodox Catholic Church? Because of the ad hominem attacks by
the polemicists453, this is not always evident from their writings, but we can infer several
possibilities by comparing Sethian and Valentinian theology, philosophy and morals with
proto-orthodox Christian thought. Obviously, the proto-orthodox Christians did mostly
reject the gnostic theological systems, of which the stories about Eve were a part, as a whole
and not solely the interpretation of this character or even just the creation myth.
Consequently, the reasons given below, which have probably influenced the rejection to a
greater or lesser extent, may sometimes pertain to the gnostics or their thought in general and
not specifically to Eve.
The other gods. The first reason is obviously related to the discrepancies in the
theological views on the nature of god. Whereas the proto-orthodox Christians,
although defining God in terms of a trinity, stressed their monotheism and the
omnipotent God’s unitary nature, the gnostics did not always agree. The Sethians did
present their god as a trinity, but the three figures it consisted of were not expressions
of a single power but clearly different characters with their own parts to play454. The
Valentinians, on the other hand, – probably due to their affinities with Christianity –
were equally zealous to stress the singleness of god the Father, emphasizing that he
was the only one who was uncreated. They either stressed that he was the only one
originally not a part of a syzygy, or that all the αἰῶνες were all ‘properties and powers
of the Father’455. Both Sethian and Valentinian gnostics, however, postulate several
other lower gods, among whom are the creators of the material world. Moreover,
these gods are not merely different and lower gods, but they are sometimes also
453 See chapter 3.4.

454 See chapters 5.3.1and 5.3.3 on the independent actions of Barbelo requesting powers from the Father and Christ’s
boasting he alone had outsmarted the demiurge’s plans by having Adam eat from the tree of knowledge of good and
evil. See The Apocryphon of John 5:11-6:2 and 22:9-10 respectively.
455 See chapter 6.1.1, the references are to A Valentinian Exposition 22:18-27 and The Tripartite Tractate 73:8-18.
Compare also, for instance, The Interpretation of Knowledge 9:29.
69
capable of disregarding the will of the highest god456. The proto-orthodox Christians
must have had difficulties accepting these elements in the Sethian and Valentinian
gnostics’ theologies and creation myths, because they denied their ideal of the
omnipotence of God.
The evil world457. The proto-orthodox Christians taught that the world has been
created by God, who is good, and humanity suffers evil because of their ancestors’
disobedience in paradise and the activity of the devil458. Because the Sethians taught
the creator of the world was not the true god but an evil demiurge, they regarded this
world as evil and probably propagated total abstinence of all material things459.
Although the Valentinians were not as extreme as the Sethians and take an
intermediate position, they still taught that due to the creation by an ignorant creator,
who was also not the true god, the world – and consequently humanity – is in a state
of ignorance. This ignorance needs to be corrected by attaining γνῶσις, which only
becomes possible after hearing and understanding the revelation of the saviour or the
Valentinian elect460. The proto-orthodox Christians, however, had no reason to regard
the world as evil or ignorant. It has been created by God and humanity knows it has
caused the hardships it must endure in this world itself. Jesus’ coming abolished
original sin and opened the gates of heaven to good Christians after death. He valued
material aspects of this world461, but neither his actions nor his message have changed
anything about this world462.
The interpretation of the story463. The proto-orthodox Christians stressed the literal
interpretation of the stories about the actions and teachings of Jesus. All that was
written in the early Christian writings they accepted as genuine was taken as historical
fact. Probably as a reaction to docetist gnostic movements such as the Eastern branch
of the Valentinians464, the proto-orthodox Christians paid especial attention to their
defence of the material nature of Jesus Christ and the reality of his passion465. The
gnostics were severe critics of this view and the proto-orthodox Christian theory of
bodily resurrection at judgment day. The Sethians and Valentinians regarded
themselves as having received a secret knowledge, the truth about the mysteries,
passed on from the saviour to a select few of his followers. Despite the difference
between the Sethians who had their own scripture and the Valentinians using the
Christian writings, they both regarded the stories about the saviour figure in the same
manner. These were the stories of the outer mysteries, meant to attract and interest
456 See The Apocryphon of John 9:25-35 and A Valentinian Exposition 34:23-34 and 36:28-31 on Sophia’s acting against
the will of the Father.
457 See Williams (1996), pp. 96-138 and 139-188, on different gnostic movements and their (negative) worldviews,
rejection of the material universe and (negative) imagery of the body and the consequences thereof in their ethical
practices. Many accounts of general gnostic asceticism and libertinism seem to be exaggerations and the result of
deliberate polemical strategies in the writings of the polemicists. Despite the exaggerations of the polemicists on
gnostic practice, however, the theoretical views of the different gnostic movements on the material world were still
negative to a greater or lesser extent and these were expounded in the writings the polemicists were refuting.
458 See Genesis 1-3.
461 He, for instance, sanctified material marriage and blessed children who were obviously produced by sexual
intercourse. See Gospel of Matthew 9:4-6 and 9:13-15.

462 See, for instance, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses II.22.4.
463 See Pagels (1979), pp. 3-27 and 119-141, for more information on this subject.
465 See, for instance, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7-11 and Gospel of John 20:24-29, Acts 10:40-41, Ignatios of Antioch, Πρὸς
Εφέσιους 1.18.2, Tertullianus, De Carne Christi V.5-7.
70
auditores and to be used as a starting point and a guideline for aspiring initiates466.
These stories were allegories and definitely not to be regarded as literal and historical
truth. Through initiation and the attainment of γνῶσις, one could rise above this life
and the uninitiated in the same manner as Christ had done and actually become divine
or a Christ oneself467. The gnostic myths were always in a state of development and
not static stories like the proto-orthodox Christian writings, because the gnostics
regarded the divine and the stories about it as a creation of human imagination468.
The method of redemption469. Proto-orthodox Christians taught that, now that Jesus
had opened heaven to humanity, Christians could achieve redemption there in an
afterlife by faith in God, good works and obedience to Christ’s instructions470. The
Sethians and Valentinians, however, taught a direct redemption and achievement of
perfection during one’s life through the attainment of γνῶσις471. The proto-orthodox
Christians regained paradise in heaven after death, but for the gnostics, paradise was
not an actual place, but a state of mind472. They taught that, if one did not achieve
perfection during one’s life, one would either have to wait a long time for perfection
or be excluded forever, according to the state of one’s soul (Valentinians)473 or one’s
soul is bound ‘in chains’ and cast ‘into prison’ (Sethians) – by which they presumably
mean resurrection in another material body474. The gnostics regarded faith as merely
the first steps on the road to redemption, which would be completed with the
attainment of γνῶσις475. The two soteriologies seem incompatible and reason enough
for the proto-orthodox Christians to reject the gnostic systems.
Mysticism. This attainment of γνῶσις and thus redemption is not something achieved
with ease. The mystic and esoteric nature of the gnostic movements may also have
been a factor contributing to the rejection of gnostic thought by the proto-orthodox
Christians. Becoming an initiate in a mystery cult and acquiring the secret and true
knowledge of, and a conscious relationship with, the divine is a state of mind one can
only achieve as the result of long and laborious effort476. The mystic needs an
overwhelming consciousness of himself and a perfect understanding of his or her
partaking in the divine. Such absolute self-control is something which requires
extensive training. Mysticism is obviously a form of religious experience meant for
intellectuals who have been educated well and have the time to spend on this path to
reach this spiritual maturity. Obviously, this is not the easiest path of religious
experience to choose and one would assume it to be impossible for many people due
to lack of time or education. The practical objections to the time and energy needed
466 See, for instance, The Treatise on the Resurrection 48:3-19, The Gospel of Philip 73:1-4, and Ptolemaios, Epistula ad
Floram 33.7.9.
467 See, for instance, The Gospel of Philip 61:29-35 and 67:26-27 and Allogenes 52:7-12.
468 See, for instance, The Gospel of Philip 71:35-72:4, The Apocryphon of John 14:13-15 and Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus
Haereses I.30.6 and II.11.9.

469 See Pagels (1979), pp. 119-141, for more information on this subject.
470 See, for instance, Gospel of John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8, James 2:14-24, Acts 10:34-35, 1 Peter 1:22-23 and
Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum VII.9-13.

471 See chapter 5.1.2 and 6.1.2, for instance The Three Steles of Seth 127:7-127:26, The Gospel of Truth 24:32-25:3 and The
Tripartite Tractate 119:28-32.

472 Ironically, however, this means that proto-orthodox Christianity has appropriated the concept of an afterlife,
which had been developed in pagan mystery cults, to a far greater extent than the gnostic movements mentioned.
473 See, for instance, Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 58.1 and The Gospel of Philip 73:1-4.
474 See, for instance, The Apocryphon of John 26:32-27:11.
475 See, for instance, Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata VI.14.109.2, VII.10.55.1-2 and VII.10.57.1-3.
476 For the requirements the mystic must satisfy before achieving the highest goal, see Smith (1980), The Nature and
Meaning of Mysticism, pp. 19-25, and Underhill (1980), The Essentials of Mysticism, pp. 26-41. See, for instance,
Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos I.1.
71
to participate as initiates in the gnostic movements and misunderstanding of gnostic
thought and practice arising from the secrecy inherent to mystery cults have most
probably been of tremendous influence on the rejection of the gnostic way of life in
the religious unification process of the church communities477.
Elitism478. Related to the method of redemption and the mystic nature of the gnostic
movements, is the elitist attitude which they expressed in different ways. As we have
seen, the Sethians did not allow redemption to any but their own initiated479. The
Valentinians, however, did include (at least the possibility of) redemption for the
psychic proto-orthodox Christians, but they also presented themselves as the
intellectuals of the Christian society and the spiritual elite480. This elitist attitude is a
direct consequence of their mysticism. As they considered themselves to be the small
group of the current representatives of the line of disciples of those entrusted by Jesus
with his secret knowledge, they thought themselves to be a higher form of Christians.
They expressed that they had acquired the highest form of secret γνῶσις, while the
rest of the Christians were merely at the beginning of the path of knowledge481. In
contrast, the proto-orthodox Christians taught a general, collective faith and religious
experience. The collectivity of the church was the path to God and heaven and this
should be simple in order to be open to all482. Perhaps incited by objection to the
behaviour of the Valentinians483, a tendency arose among the proto-orthodox
Christians to prefer the simplicity of faith and to denounce the idea of higher
knowledge. They argued that, since faith and obedience are the necessary conditions
to achieve redemption, it was preposterous to suppose further knowledge or beliefs
could contribute to this484. The Sethians may have been inherently too different from
proto-orthodox Christianity to become a part of it, but the Valentinian attitude was
probably an important factor in its final rejection by the proto-orthodox church.
The leaders of the church485. The gnostic view of their intellectual superiority and the
individual experience of their initiations made Valentinians unlikely to accept proto-
orthodox Christian leadership. The Valentinians and other gnostic movements strove
towards equality among their elect few, but would not subject to a church hierarchy
because they considered themselves to be superiors of the ordinary proto-orthodox
Christians486. They reasoned that, as the material creation was subject to the demiurge,
the psychics were subject to their own leaders but the pneumatics were not487. The proto-
orthodox Christians, on the other hand, were fervent supporters of a church hierarchy
based on Apostolic succession and promoted obedience to bishops, priests and
deacons in their respective places in the church hierarchy as the only road to salvation.
477 Compare, for instance, Eirenaios of Lyons’ probably misunderstanding the rite of the bridal chamber in Adversus
Haereses I.13.3 in chapter 6.3.2.
478 See Pagels (1979), pp. 102-118 and 142-151, for more information on this subject. On the disproving of the
notion of a more rigorous general gnostic elitism based on soteriological predestination see Williams (1996), pp. 189-
212.
479 For instance The Apocryphon of John 25:16-26:7. See chapter 5.1.2.
480 For instance Origenes, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis 13.9.51-53. See chapter 6.1.2 and 6.2.1.
481 See, for instance, Matthew 13:11 and 22:14 and The Gospel of Philip 64:23-24.
482 See, for instance, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses III.4.1.
483 See Layton (1987), pp. 267-274.
484 See, for instance, Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum VII.9-13 and XI.6-10 and Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus
Haereses II.27.2.
485 See Pagels (1979), pp. 33-47 and 102-118, for more information on this subject.
486 See, for instance, Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum XLI.2-4 and XLI.8, and Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus
Haereses I.13.4.
487 See, for instance, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.13.6 and III.15.2 and The Apocalypse of Peter 79:22-30.
72
They considered the gnostics as dangerous, because their elitist attitude of superiority
led to insubordination, lawlessness and disobedience to the clerical authorities488.
Unde Malum?489 Despite the differences between the Sethian and Valentinian gnostic
movements, both interpret the Biblical creation myth from Genesis radically different
from the proto-orthodox Christians490. They consider Adam and Eve’s ‘fall’, the
proto-orthodox origin of evil in the universe, in a completely different light. The
Sethians taught Adam and Eve’s eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil at
the instigation of the Ἐπίνοια, Sophia or the heavenly Eve (and in Christianised
versions Christ), was their attainment of γνῶσις491. They considered evil to have
originated in sexual relations between human beings and the malicious ἄρχοντες 492. In
radical contrast to the idea of original sin, the Sethians considered the disobedience to
the creator’s command to be humanity’s first triumph over an evil god and the
beginning of hope to escape the material universe. The Valentinians did interpret the
eating from the tree of knowledge as a negative action because it enslaved humanity
to the hylic and psychic parts of their soul, but it still served as a stimulant to the
attainment of γνῶσις493. They considered evil to have originated either through this
action of Adam, but according to the Father’s plan, or at the transgression of Sophia
when the divine syzygy was broken494. So does this mean we can relate an important
reason for the rejection of gnostic thought into the theology of the proto-orthodox
Christians to their interpretations of the creation myths and to Eve? Humanity’s
disobedience to the true God and the original sin arising from it would eventually
become one of the cornerstones of proto-orthodox Christian beliefs – as it is in
Catholic Christianity today. This is the reason the Jesus Christ had to come down to
earth to redeem human beings, but it has no place in these two gnostic systems495. In
their theologies, Eve is either the spiritual power sent by the true god as an assistance
to Adam, or an allegorical figure representing the divine part of one’s soul496. She is
also sometimes associated with the serpent497, but this association is never presented
as a negative connection498. In conclusion, none of the Sethian or Valentinian writings
put any blame on Eve, but regard her as a highly positive power and a divine figure499.
Combining this with the gnostic theories of the creation of the universe by either an
evil or an ignorant demiurge, the reason for rejecting the Sethian and Valentinian
creation myths is not difficult to understand.
488 See, for instance, Clemens Romanus, 1 Πρὸς Κορινθίους 60.4-61.2, Ignatios of Antioch, Τραλλιανοῖς 3.3.1,
Σµυρναίοις 6.8.1-2 and Μαγνησίευσιν 2.6.1 and Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses III.3.2.
489 See Williams (1996), pp. 58-59 for more information on the gnostic interpretations on the creation story.
490 See chapters 5.3.2 and 6.3.1.
491 See, for instance, The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:31-90:19 or The Apocryphon of John 23:20-35 (although there is no
literal eating described, but it has ‘they have tasted the perfect Knowledge’).
492 See, for instance, The Apocryphon of John 29:16-30:11.
493 See, for instance, The Tripartite Tractate 107:1-108:6 and A Valentinian Exposition 38:13-27.
494 See, for instance, A Valentinian Exposition 38:34-39:16, A Valentinian Exposition 36:28-31 and The Tripartite Tractate
107:1-108:6.
495 The doctrine of original sin was given its definitive form by Augustinus in the fourth century CE. See, for
instance, Augustinus, Opus Imperfectum Contra Julianum 4.114.Aug.3, 6.25.Aug.5-6, 6.26.Iul.1, 6.27.Aug.1-2 and
6.30.Aug.4. The Biblical references are Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 5:13 and 8:3-4. See Pagels (1989), pp. 195-226.
496 See chapter 5.3.1 and 6.3.1.
497 For instance in The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:31-90:19
498 Could this be reminiscent of Eve’s origin as an oracular serpent goddess according to Robert Graves? See chapter
4.1.
499 If my allegorical interpretation of Eve in chapter 6.3.1 is correct.
73
Eve as a prototype500. Another probable reason contributing to the rejection of
gnostic thought and theology by the proto-orthodox Christians in unifying the
Christian doctrine also pertains to Eve directly. Similar to the use of the character Eve
as a prototype for women in a negative sense in proto-orthodox Christian theology,
the gnostics also gave her an exemplary role. The positive approach to female and
androgynous characters, which we have encountered in the Sethian and Valentinian
writings, should be linked directly to the function they attribute to her501. In
Hellenistic times, a relative emancipation of women seems to have been developed in
several parts of the empire (Egypt, Rome, Greece, Asia Minor) and the earliest
Christian literature reflects this phenomenon502. The proto-orthodox Christians,
however, developed a different philosophy on the social status of men and women
and denied women their roles as leading characters in society and religious
communities503. This patriarchalising tendency came to be very influential after 200
CE and its philosophy eventually gave rise to the doctrine of original sin. There were
of course exceptions, such as the proto-orthodox Clemens Alexandrinus (who
manifests much knowledge of, and an affinity for, gnostic thought) proclaiming the
equality of the sexes and there were also gnostic movements with negative views on
women504. Although these gnostic texts seem to be agitating against sexuality rather
than against women or their social position, they obviously value men above women.
As stated above505, we must remain cautious in deducing clues about the social
position of women from mythological and liturgical writings. The female and
androgynous characters who play an important part in Sethian and Valentinian
mythology do not necessarily reflect active social roles for women or equality between
the sexes. The statements of the proto-orthodox polemicists, however, do indicate at
least some gnostic groups acknowledged women as religious and social leaders506.
Independent of whether or not this was common practice among the Sethians and/or
Valentinians, their mythologies awarding feminine and androgynous characters an
active, independent and positive role may have been reason enough for rejection.
Having studied Sethian and Valentinian gnosticism, it is clear the gnostic movements were an
intriguing part of the Hellenistic and early Christian world, although it was not necessarily a
specifically Christian phenomenon. Unfortunately, very little knowledge of its history,
development, theology and philosophy remains today, as is the case with many phenomena
500 See Pagels (1979), pp. 48-69 and Fiorenza, pp. 30-70, for more information on this subject.
501 Which is either humanity’s first revealer of γνῶσις and divine rational principle in Sethian thought or the highest
divine part of a human’s soul according to the Valentinians. See, for instance, The Apocryphon of John 20:19-28 and
22:28-23:16, The Apocalypse of Adam 64:12-29 and The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:3-11 and The Gospel of Philip 68:22-26
and 70:9-12, The Tripartite Tractate 105:29-35 and A Valentinian Exposition 36:20-24 and 38:34-39:16 respectively. See
chapters 5.3.1 and 6.3.1.
502 See, for instance, Acts 2:17-19 and 21:9, 1 Corinthians 16:20, Galatians 3:27-28 and Philippians 4:2-3 for women
in leading social and religious roles.

503 See, for instance, 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 and 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 3:1-5, Ephesians 5:24, Colossians
3:18, Clemens Romanus, 1 Πρὸς Κορινθίους 3.1, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.13.3, Tertullianus, De
Virginibus Velandis IX.1 and De Cultu Feminarum I.1.2. It is interesting to note that most of these arguments are based
on the letters of the apostle Paul, who may not have promoted equality for men and women in social and political
terms, but did except women as his equals in religion.
504 For instance, Clemens Alexandrinus, Paidagogos I.4.10.1-11.2, The Dialogue of the Savior 144:15-21, The Book of Thomas
the Contender 144:8-10 and The Gospel of Mary 9:20.

505 In chapters 5.3.3 and 6.3.2.
506 See, for instance Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum XLI.5-6, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.13.3
and I.13.4.
74
of the ancient world. The rediscovery of the Nag Hammadi gnostic texts in 1945, has
naturally caused much excitement and was an incentive to scientific research. It has also
recently encouraged the development of new, sometimes outrageous ideas, about the early
history of Christianity. Freke and Gandy (1999), for instance, proclaim they think that there
never has been a historical Jesus and that Christianity is an offshoot of the stories of the
outer mysteries of a gnostic sect which people subsequently started to believe as fact. They
profess to strive to reunite present day Christianity with its alleged gnostic origin in order for
it to grow and prosper by re-embracing its mystic side. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln (2004)
take the opposite view and, basing themselves on the gnostic texts, they claim to have found
proof of the actual existence of a historical Jesus, who was completely different from the
Christian account. They suppose he was married to Mary of Magdala and that their
descendants have played important parts in the development of the world ever since – thus
taking a fresh view of the world history of the last two thousand years507. Both are the
products of speculation on the emerging proof of enormous diversity within early
Christianity and its interaction with its surrounding cultures and societies. Their methods are
not always scientifically sound and they have thus deservedly been met with much criticism.
Nevertheless, something positive might be said in favour of them. Because they do not feel
bound to the rules of academic research or the boundaries between the sciences, as scholars
often are, they write their theories in a creative and exciting manner and may indulge in
artistic freedom. In this atmosphere of unlimited possibilities of thought, they develop new
ideas and take fresh views of old ones in an improvisational and artistic, but very fruitful,
manner. They share this syncretistic quality with the gnostics, who innovatively reinterpreted
Judaism and the life and teachings of Jesus in the context of pagan mystery religions.
Regardless of existing religious traditions and ethical values, they worked by no defined
method, but possessed an infinite imagination and a large supply of available sources and
schools of thought to use and appropriate. In this one respect these modern writers and the
gnostics of the early Christian era are similar: they all dare to think outside the box.
507 These works were already mentioned in chapter 3.2.
75
Bibliography
In the notes in this thesis works are cited by the last name of the author, the year they were
published and their title the first time they are mentioned. When mention is made of them at
a later point they are cited merely by the last name of the author. When more works by one
author are cited the year of publication is retained in the note. For the full references see
below.
Main References
- Attridge, H.W. (1985). Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex). Introductions, Texts,
Translations, Indices. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 22)
- Attridge, H.W. (1985). Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex). Notes. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
(Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 23)
- Böhlig, A. (1995), Die Gnosis III. Der Manichäismus. München: Artemis & Winkler.
- Brown, R.E. (1984). The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. New York: Paulist Press.
- Chadwick, H. (1980),.The Domestication of Gnosis. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The
Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 I: The School of
Valentinus (pp. 1-16). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Chadwick, H. (1967). The Early Church. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
- Dahl, N.A. (1981). The Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia. Jewish Traditions in
Gnostic Revolt. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the
Conference at Yale March 1978 II: Sethian Gnosticism, (pp. 689-712.) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Ehrman, B.D. (2003). The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths we never Knew. Oxford:
University Press.
- Evans, M.J. (1983). Woman in the Bible. Exeter: The Paternoster Press.
- Fallon, F.T. (1978). The Enthronement of Sabaoth. Jewish Elements in Gnostic Creation Myths.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Fiorenza, E.S. (1979). Word, Spirit and Power. Women in Early Christian
Communities. In: Ruether, R. & McLaughlin, E. (Eds.). Women of Spirit. Female
Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- Flusser, D. (1998). Jesus. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.
- Frend, W.H.C. (1965). Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church. A Study of a Conflict
from the Maccabees to Donatus. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- Graves, R. (1984). The White Goddess. Ahistorical Grammar of Poetic Myth. London: Faber
and Faber.
- Grimal, P. (Ed.). (1970). Hellenism and the Rise of Rome. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson.
- Hedrick, C.W. (Ed.). (1990). Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Horst, P.W. van der (1994). Hellenism, Judaism, Christianity. Essays on their Interaction.
Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House.
- King, K.L. (2003). What is Gnosticism? Cambridge Mass.: Belknap Press.
- Klijn, A.F.J. (1977). Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Layton, B. (1987). The Gnostic Scriptures. London: SCM Press Ltd.
76
- Layton, B. (1995). Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism. In: White, L.M.,
Yarbrough, O.L. (Eds.). The Social World of the First Christians. Essays in Honor of Wayne
A. Meeks, (pp. 334-350). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
- Lieu, S.N.C. (1992). Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China.
Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament vol. 63)
- Maccaby, H. (2003). Jesus the Pharisee. London: SCM Press Ltd.
- Markschies, C.J. (1992). Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis
mit einem Kommentar zum den Fragmenten Valentins. Tübingen: J.C.B. Moht (Paul
Siebeck). (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, vol. 65)
- Marsman, H.J. (2003), Women in Ugarit and Israel. Their Social and Religious Position in the
Context of the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill. In: Moor, J.C. de (Ed.),
Oudtestamentische Studiën, band 49.
- Martin, L.H. (1987). Hellenistic Religions. An Introduction. New York: Oxford University
Press.
- Norris, P. (2000). Het verhaal van Eva. Een geschiedenis van vrouwelijke ongehoorzaamheid
(translation of Eve: A Biography). Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek (originally: New
York: New York University Press).
- Pagels, E.H. (1989). Adam, Eva en de Slang (translation of Adam, Eve and the Serpent).
Katwijk aan Zee: Servire Uitgevers B.V. (originally: New York: Random House).
- Pagels, E.H. (1986). Exegesis and Exposition of Genesis Creation Accounts in
Selected Texts from Nag Hammadi. In: Hedrick, C.W. & Hodgson, R. Jr. (Eds.). Nag
Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (pp. 257-285). Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson
Publishers.
- Pagels, E.H. (1980). Gnostic and Orthodox Views of Christ’s Passion: Paradigms for
the Christian’s Response to Persecution? In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The Rediscovery of
Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 I: The School of Valentinus (pp.
262-283). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Pagels, E.H. (1979). The Gnostic Gospels. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
- Pagels, E.H. (1973). The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis. Heracleon’s Commentary on
John. Nashville: Abingdon Press. (Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph Series 17)
- Patai, R. (1968). The Hebrew Goddess. New York: Ktav Publishing House.
- Pearson, B.A. (1977). The Figure of Norea in Gnostic Literature. In: Widengren, G.
(Ed.). Proceedings of the International Colloguium on Gnosticism. Stockholm, August 20-25,
1973, (pp. 143-152). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
- Pearson, B.A. (1981). The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature. In: Layton, B. (Ed.).
The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 II: Sethian
Gnosticism, (pp. 472-504.) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Pétrement, S. (1984). Le Dieu Séparé. Les Origines du Gnosticisme. Paris: Les Éditions du
Cerf.
- Phillips, J.A. (1987), Eva. Von der Göttin zur Dämonin (translation of Eve. The History of
an Idea). Stuttgart: Kreuz Verlag (originally: San Francisco: Harper & Row).
- Roukema R. (1999). Gnosis and Faith in early Christianity. An introduction to Gnosticism.
London: SCM.
- Quispel, G. (1996). The Original Doctrine of Valentinus the Gnostic. In: Vigiliae
Christianae. A Review of Early Christian Life and Language, 50(4), 327-352. Leiden: Brill
Academic Publishers. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from JSTOR. Website:
http://www.jstor.org/journals/00426032.html
77
- Schenke, H.M. (1997). Das Philippus-Evangelium (Nag Hammadi-Codex II, 3). Berlin:
Akademie Verlag. (Texte und Übersetzungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatuur Vol. 143).
- Schenke, H.M. (1981). The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism. In:
Layton, B. (Ed.). The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March
1978 II: Sethian Gnosticism, (pp. 588-616.) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Segelberg, E. (1990). The Coptic-Gnostic Gospel According to Philip and its
Sacramental System. In: Bergman, J., Hjärpe, J. & Ström, P. (Eds.). Gnostica – Mandaica
– Liturgica. Opera Eius Ipsius Selecta & Collecta Septuagenario Eric Segelberg, (pp. 21-30).
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
- Smith, M. (1980). The Nature and Meaning of Mysticism. In: Woods, R. (Ed.).
Understanding Mysticism (pp. 19-25). Garden City: Image Books.
- Sterling, G.E. (2005). “The Jewish Philosophy”. The Presence of Hellenistic
Philosophy in Jewish Exegesis in the Second Temple Period. Leiden: E.J. Brill. In:
Bakhos, C. (Ed.). Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context, vol. 95, pp. 131-153.
- Stroumsa, G.A.G. (1984). Another Seed. Studies in Gnostic Mythology. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Turner, J.D. (1986). Sethian Gnosticism: a Literary History. In: Hedrick, C.W. &
Hodgson, R. Jr. (Eds.). Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (pp. 55-86).
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.
- Underhill, E. (1980). The Essentials of Mysticism. In: Woods, R. (Ed.). Understanding
Mysticism (pp. 26-41). Garden City: Image Books.
- Williams, M.A. (1996). Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’. An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious
Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Williams, M.A. (1985). The Immovable Race. A Gnostic Designation and the Theme of Stability
in Late Antiquity. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 29)
- Wisse, F. (1981). Stalking those Elusive Sethians. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The Rediscovery of
Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 II: Sethian Gnosticism, (pp. 563-
576). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Wisse, F. (1986). The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner
Diversity and Conflict. In: Hedrick, C.W. & Hodgson, R. Jr. (Eds.). Nag Hammadi,
Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (pp. 177-190). Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.
Texts & Translations
- Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C.M., Metzger, B.M. & Wikgren, A. (Eds.). (1968). The
Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society.
- Black, M., Vanderkam, J.C. & Neugebauer, O. (Eds.). (1985). The Book of Enoch or I
Enoch. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, vol. 7)
- Blanc, C. (Ed.). (1966). Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean. Tome Premier. Livres I-V. Paris:
Éditions du Cerf. (Sources chrétiennes vol. 120)
- Brox, N. (Ed.). (1993). Irenäus von Lyon. Adversus Haereses II. Freiburg: Herder. (Fontes
Christiani, Vol. 8/2)
- Brox, N. (Ed.). (1995). Irenäus von Lyon. Adversus Haereses III. Freiburg: Herder. (Fontes
Christiani, Vol. 8/3)
- Brox, N. (Ed.). (1993). Irenäus von Lyon. Epideixis. Adversus Haereses I. Freiburg: Herder.
(Fontes Christiani, Vol. 8/1)
78
- Burnet, J. (Ed.). (1967). Platonis opera, volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chapters:
Apologia Socratis and Phaidon.
- Burnet, J. (Ed.). (1967), Platonis opera, volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chapter:
Phaedrus.
- Burnet, J. (Ed.). (1967), Platonis opera, volume 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chapters:
Respublica and Timaeus.
- Camelot, P.T. (Ed.). (1969). Ignace d'Antioche. Polycarpe de Smyrne. Lettres. Martyre de
Polycarpe. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. (Sources chrétiennes vol. 10)
- Charlesworth, J.H. (Ed.). (1983). The Old Testmament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 1:
Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Chapters:
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the Three Patriarchs, Apocalypse
of Abraham.
- Charlesworth, J.H. (Ed.). (1985). The Old Testmament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 2:
Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers,
Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works.. London: Darton, Longman &
Todd. Chapter: Life of Adam and Eve.
- Cohn, L. & Wendland, P. (Ed.). (1962). Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. Band 1.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chapter: De Opificio Mundi.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chapters: De Posteritate Caini and De Gigantibus.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chapter: De Vita Mosis.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chapter: De Specialibus Legibus.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chapters: De Vita Contemplativa and Hypothetica.
- Fredouille, J.-C. (Ed.). (1980). Tertullien. Contre les Valentiniens. Paris: Les Éditions du
Cerf. (Sources Chrétiennes Vol. 280)
- Früchtel, L., Stählin, O. & Treu, U. (1970). Clemens Alexandrinus, volume 2. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag. (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller vol. 52)
- Henry, P. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1951-73). Plotini opera, 3 volumes. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Holl, K. (Ed.). (1933). Epiphanius, Bände 1-3: Ancoratus und Panarion. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
(Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller vols. 25 and 31)
- Jackson, J. & Moore, C.H. (Eds.). (1962). Tacitus. The Histories, books IV-V. The Annals,
books I-III. London: William Heinemann Ltd. (The Loeb Classical Library)
- James, M.R. & Feldman, L.H. (Eds.). (1971). The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. New York:
Ktav Publishing House.
- Jaubert, A. (Ed.). (1971). Clément de Rome. Épître aux Corinthiens. Paris: Éditions du
Cerf. (Sources chrétiennes vol. 167)
- Mahé, J.-P. (Ed.). (1975). Tertullien. La Chair du Christ. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.
(Sources Chrétiennes Vol. 216)
- Marcovich, M. (Ed.). (1986). Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter. (Patristische Texte und Studien vol. 25)
- Marcovich, M. (Ed.). (2001). Origines. Contra Celsum Libri VIII. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
(Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae vol. 54)
- Mondésert, C. (Ed.). (1949). Clément d'Alexandrie. Le protreptique. Paris: Les Éditions du
Cerf. (Sources chrétiennes vol. 2)
79
- Niese, B. (1955). Flavii Iosephi opera. Band 1-4. Berlin: Weidmann. Chapter: Antiquitates
Iudaicae)
- Niese, B. (1955). Flavii Iosephi opera. Band 5. Berlin: Weidmann. Chapter: Contra
Apionem)
- Niese, B. (1955). Flavii Iosephi opera. Band 6. Berlin: Weidmann. Chapter: De Bello
Iudaico)
- Opitz, H.-G. (Ed.). (1940). Athanasius Werke. Band 2.1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Chapter: De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi.
- Places, É. des (Ed.). (1973). Numénius. Fragments. Paris: Société d’Édition ‘Les Belles
Letttres’. (Budé).
- Preuschen, E. (Ed.). (1903). Origenes Werke. Vierter Band. Der Johanneskommentar.
Leipzig: Hinrichs. (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller vol. 10). Chapter: book
20).
- Preysing, K. von (Ed.). (1922). Des Heiligen Hippolytus von Rom Widerlegung aller Häresien
(Philosophumena). München: Josef Kösel & Friedrich Pustet. (Bibliothek der
Kirchenvater vol. 40)
- Quispel, G. (Ed.). (1966). Ptoleémée. Lettre a Flora. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. (Sources
Chrétiennes Vol. 24 bis)
- Rackham, H. (Ed.). (1998). Aristotle. Volume XXI. Politics London: Heinemann. (The
Loeb Classical Library)
- Rahlfs, A. (Ed.). (1971). Septuaginta. Id est, Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpres.,
Zweiter Band. Libri Poetici et Profetici. Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. (Chapter:
Wisdom of Solomon)
- Ras, M. (1993). Het Dagelijkse Leven in Oinoanda in de Tweede en Derde Eeuw na Christus.
Nijmegen: University Press.
- Robinson, J.M. (Ed.). (1996). The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Sagnard, F. (Ed.). (1948). Clément d’Alexandrie. Extraits de Théodote. Paris: Les Éditions
du Cerf. (Sources Chrétiennes Vol. 23)
- Schenkl, H. (Ed.)/ (1965). Epicteti dissertationes ab Arriano digestae. Leipzig: Teubner.
- Schleyer, D. (Ed.). (2002). Tertullian. De Praescriptione Haereticorum. Vom prinzipiellen
Einspruch gegen die Häretiker. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers. (Fontes Christiani, Vol. 42)
- Schmidt, C. & MacDermot, V. (Ed.). (1978). Pistis Sophia. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (The
Coptic Gnostic Library, vol. IX)
- Schulz-Flügel, E. & Mattei, P. (Eds.). (1997). Tertullien. La Voile des Vierges (De
Virginibus Velandis). Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. (Sources Chrétiennes Vol. 424)
- Spiro, F. (Ed.). (1967). Pausaniae Graeciae descriptio, Leipzig: Teubner.
- Suggs, M.J., Sandenfeld, K.D. & Mueller, J.R. (Eds). (1992). The Oxford Study Bible.
Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Website: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/inst/fontsel/
- Turcan, M. (Ed.). (1971). Tertullien. La Toilette des Femmes (De Cultu Feminarum). Paris:
Les Éditions du Cerf. (Sources Chrétiennes Vol. 173)
- Turcan, R. (Ed.). (2002). Firmicus Maternus. L’erreur des Religions Païennes. Paris: Société
d’Édition ‘Les Belles Lettres’. (Budé).
- Vanderkam (J.C.). (Ed.). (1989). The Book of Jubilees. Louvain: E. Peeters. (Corpus
Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 88)
- Williams, F. (Ed.). (1987). The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1-46).
Leiden: E.J. Brill. (Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 35)
80
- Zelzer, M. (Ed.). (2004). Sancti Augustini Opera. Contra Iulianum (Opus Imperfectum).
Tomus Posterior. Libri IV-VI. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiastorum Latinorum, vol. 85.2)
Introductory Volumes & Background Information
- Algra, K, Barnes J., Mansfeld, J. & Schofield, M. (1999). Cambridge History of Hellenistic
Philosophy. Cambridge: University Press.
- Bagnall, R.S. & Derow, P. (Eds.). (2004). The Hellenistic Period. Historical Sources in
Translation. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing.
- Baigent, M., Leigh, R. & Lincoln, H. (2004). Holy Blood, Holy Grail. New York: Delta
Trade Paperbacks.
- Barker, M. (1992). The Great Angel. A Study of Israel’s Second God, London: Westminster
John Knox Press.
- Burkert, W. (1987). Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Campbell, J. (1964), Occidental Mythology. New York: Arkana.
- Colpe, C. (1981). Sethian and Zoroastrian Ages of the World. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The
Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 II: Sethian
Gnosticism, (pp. 540-552.) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Cumont, F.V.M. (1959). Afterlife in Roman Paganism. Lectures Delivered at Yale University
on the Silliman Foundation. New York: Dover Publications.
- Drijvers, H.J.W. (1966). Bardai.san of Edessa. Assen: Van Gorcum, Prakke & Prakke.
- Drummond, J. (1969). Philo Judaeus. The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development
and Completion. Amsterdam: Philo Press.
- Freke, T. & Gandy, P. (1999). The Jesus Mysteries. Was the ‘Original Jesus’ a Pagan God?
New York: Three Rivers Press.
- Green, P.M. (1990). Alexander to Actium. The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Harrison, J.E. (1961). Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. London: The Merlin
Press.
- King, K.L. (1997). Women and Goddess Traditions. In Antiquity and Today. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.
- Lewis, C.T. & Short, C. (1975). A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. & Jones, H.S. (1958). Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
- Lumpe, A. (1952). Die Philosophie des Xenophanes von Kolophon. München: Foth.
- MacRae, G.W. (1986). Gnosticism and the Church of John’s Gospel. In: Hedrick,
C.W. & Hodgson, R. Jr. (Eds.). Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (pp. 89-
96). Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.
- McCue, J.F. (1980). Conflicting Versions of Valentinianism? Irenaeus and the Excerpta
ex Theodoto. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference
at Yale March 1978 I: The School of Valentinus (pp. 404-416). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Mead, G.R.S. (1906). Fragments of a Fate Forgotten. Some Short Sketches among the Gnostics
Mainly of the First Two Centuries – A Contribution to the Study of Christian Origins. London:
The Theosophical Society.
- Meier, J.P. (1991-2001). A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York:
Doubleday.
81
- Merkelbach, R. (1995). Isis Regina, Zeus Sarapis. Die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den
Quellen dargestellt. Stuttgart: Teubner.
- Naerebout, F.G. & Singor, H.W. (2001). De Oudheid. Grieken en Romeinen in de context
van de wereldgescxhiedenis. Amsterdam: Ambo.
- Pagels, E.H. (1975). The Gnostic Paul. Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press.
- Pearson, B.A. (1986). The Problem of “Jewish Gnostic” Literature. In: Hedrick, C.W.
& Hodgson, R. Jr. (Eds.). Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (pp. 15-35).
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.
- Pritz, R.A. (1988). Nazarene Jewish Christianity. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.
- Ratzinger, J. (1987). Principles of Catholic Theology. Building Stones for a Fundamental
Theology. San Fransciso: Ignatius Press.
- Smith, M. (1981). The History of the Term Gnostikos. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The
Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 II: Sethian
Gnosticism, (pp. 796-807) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Tavard, G.H. (1973). Woman in Christian Tradition. London: University of Notre Dame
Press.
- Versnel, H.J. (1990). Ter Unus. Isis, Dionysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism. Leiden:
E.J. Brill.
- Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Website: www.wikipedia.org
82
Appendix: references
In this appendix the ancient literary and historical texts used as source and reference material
in this thesis are quoted alphabetically. The primary references are passages from the gnostic
writings considered and the secondary references are passages from other writings that have
been alluded to for comparison or clarification. When originally Greek or Latin texts are
extant in their original language they have been cited as such; if this is not the case a
translation is provided.
1. Primary references
1.1 Allogenes
1.1.1 Allogenes 52:7-12

[… my soul went slack] and I fled [and was] very disturbed. And [I] turned to myself (10) [and] saw the
light that [surrounded] me and the Good that was in me, I became divine.
1.2 The Apocalypse of Adam
1.2.1 The Apocalypse of Adam 64:12-19

She taught me a word of knowledge of the eternal god. And we resembled (15) the great eternal angels, for we
were higher than the god who had created us and the powers with him, whom we did not know.
1.2.2 1 The Apocalypse of Adam 64:20-29

Then god, the ruler of the aeons and the powers, divided us in wrath. Then we became two aeons. And the
glory in our heart(s) (25) left us, me and your mother Eve, along with the first knowledge that breathed within
us. And it [glory] fled from us…

For this reason I myself have called you by the name of that man who is the seed of the great generation or
from whom (it comes). After (10) those days the eternal knowledge of the God of truth withdrew from me and
your mother Eve. Since that time we (15) learned about dead things, like men. Then we recognized the god
who had created us. For we were not strangers to his powers. And (20) we served him in fear and slavery.

These are the revelations which (20) Adam made known to Seth his son. And his son taught his seed about
them. This is the hidden knowledge of Adam, which he gave to Seth, which is the (25) holy baptism of those
who know the eternal knowledge through those born of the word and the imperishable illuminators, who came
from the holy seed: (30) Yesseus, Mazareus, [Yesse]dekeus, [the Living] water.
1.3 The Apocalypse of Peter
1.3.1 The Apocalypse of Peter 79:22-30

And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves (25) bishop and also
deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the
leaders. (30) Those people are dry canals.
83
1.4 The Apocryphon of John
1.5.1 The Apocryphon of John 2:9-20

He said to me, ‘John, John, (10) why do you doubt, or why [are you] afraid? You are not unfamiliar with
this image, are you? – that is, do not [be] timid! – I am the one who is [with you (pl.)] always. I [am the
Father], I am the Mother, I am the Son. (15) I am the undefiled and incorruptible one. Now [I have come to
teach you] what is [and what was] and what will come to [pass], that [you may know the] things which are
not revealed [and those which are revealed, and to teach you] concerning the (20) [unwavering race of] the
perfect [Man]…’
1.4.2 The Apocryphon of John 2:26-6:18

“The Monad [is a] monarchy with nothing above it. [It is he who exists] as [God] and Father of everything,
[the invisible] One who is above (30) [everything, who exists as] incorruption, which is [in the] pure light into
which no [eye] can look.
He [is the] invisible [Spirit] of whom it not right [to think] of him as a god, or something (35) similar.
For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one (3:1) lords it over him [For he does]
not [exist] in something inferior [to him, since everything] exists in him. [For it is he who establishes] himself.
[He is eternal] since he does [not] need [anything]. For [he] is total (5) perfection. …
(17) He is [immeasurable light] which is pure, holy [(and) immaculate]. He is ineffable [being perfect in]
incorruptibility. (20) (He is) [not] in perfection, nor in blessedness, nor in divinity, but he is far superior. He
is not corporeal [nor] is he incorporeal. He is neither large [nor] is he small. [There is no] (25) way to say,
‘What is his quantity?’ or, ‘What [is his quality?’], for no one can [know him]. He is not someone among
(other) [beings, rather he is] far superior. …
(4:1) For the [perfection] is majestic. He is pure, immeasurable [mind]. He is an aeon-giving aeon. He is
[life]-giving life. He is a blessedness-giving (5) blessed one. He is knowledge-giving knowledge. [He is]
goodness-giving goodness. [He is] mercy and redemption-[giving mercy]. He is grace-giving grace, [not] because
he possesses it, but because he gives [the] immeasurable, (10) incomprehensible [light]
.…(15) For [we know] not [the ineffable things, and we] do not understand what [is immeasurable],
except for him who came forth [from] him, namely (from) [the] Father. For it is he who [told] it to us [alone].
For it is he who looks (20) at him[self] in his light which surrounds [him], namely the spring of the [Spirit].
It is he who puts his desire in his (25) [water]-light [which is in the] spring of the [pure-light]-water [which]
surrounds him. And [his thought performed] a deed and she came forth, [namely] (30) the first [power which
was] before all of them (and) [which came] forth from his mind, She [is the forethought of the All] – her light
[shines like his] light – the [perfect] power which is [the] image of the invisible, (35) virginal Spirit who is
perfect. [The first power], the glory of Barbelo, the perfect (5:1) glory in the aeons, the glory of the revelation,
she glorified the virginal Spirit and it was she who praised him, because thanks to him she had come forth.
This the first thought, (5) his image; she became the womb of everything for it is she who is prior to them all,
the Mother-Father, the first man, the holy Spirit, the thrice-male, the thrice-powerful, the thrice-named
androgynous one, and the (10) eternal aeon among the invisible ones, and the first to come forth.
<She> requested from the invisible, virginal Spirit – that is Barbelo – to give her foreknowledge. And
the Spirit consented. And when he had [consented], (15) the foreknowledge came forth, and it stood by the
forethought; it originates from the thought of the invisible, virginal Spirit. It glorified him [and] his perfect
power, Barbelo, for (20) it was for her sake that it had come into being.
And she requested again to grant her [indestructibility], and he consented. When he had [consented],
indestructibility [came] forth, and it stood by the thought and the foreknowledge. It glorified (25) the invisible
One and Barbelo, the one for whose sake they had come into being. And Barbelo requested to grant her
eternal life. And the invisible Spirit consented. And when he had consented, eternal life (30) came forth, and
[they attended] and glorified the invisible [Spirit} and Barbelo, the one for whose sake they had come into
being.
84
And she requested again to grant her truth. And the invisible Spirit consented. (And [when he had]
consented) truth came forth, (35) and they attended and glorified the invisible, (6:1) excellent Spirit and his
Barbelo, the one for whose sake they had come into being. …
(10) And he looked at Barbelo with the pure light which surround the invisible Spirit and (with) his
spark, and she conceived from him. He begot a spark of light with a light resembling blessedness. But it does
not equal (15) his greatness. This was an only-begotten child of the Mother-Father who had come forth; it is
the only offspring, the only-begotten one of the Father, the pure Light.

And the mind wanted (5) to perform a deed through the word of the invisible spirit. And his will became a
deed and it appeared with the mind; and the light glorified it. And the word followed the will. (10) For
because of the word, Christ the divine Autogenes created everything.

For from the light, which is the Christ, and the indestructibility, through the gift of the Spirit the four lights
(appeared) from the divine Autogenes. He expected that they might attend (8:1) him. And the three (are) will,
thought, and life. And the four powers (are) understanding, grace, perception, and prudence. And grace belongs
to (5) the light-aeon Armozel, which is the first angel. And there are three other aeons with this aeon: grace,
truth, and form. And the second light (is) Oriel, who has been placed (10) over the second aeon. And there
are three other aeons with him: conception, perception, and memory. And the third light is Daveithai, who has
been placed over the third aeon. And there are (15) three other aeons with him: understanding, love, and idea.
And the fourth aeon was placed over the fourth light Eleleth. And there are three other aeons with him:
perfection, (20), peace, and wisdom. These are the four lights which attend the divine Autogenes, (and) these
are the twelve aeons which the son of the mighty one, the Autogenes, the Christ, through the will and the gift of
the invisible (25) Spirit. And the twelve aeons belong to the son of the Autogenes. And all things were
established by the will of the holy Spirit through the Autogenes.

And the Sophia of the Epinoia, being an aeon, conceived a thought from herself and the conception of the
invisible Spirit and foreknowledge. She wanted to bring forth a likeness out of her herself without the consent
of the Spirit, (30) – he had not approved – and without her consort, and without his consideration. And
though the person of her maleness had not approved, and she had not found her agreement, and she had
thought without the consent of the Spirit, (35) and the knowledge of her agreement, (yet) she brought forth.

And she [Sophia] surrounded it with (15) a luminous cloud, and she placed a throne in the middle of the
cloud that no one might see except the holy Spirit who is called the mother of the living. And she called his
name Yaltabaoth.

He became strong and created for himself other aeons with (25) a flame of luminous fire which (still) exists
now. And he joined with his arrogance which is in him and begot authorities for himself. The name of the first
one is Athoth, whom the generations call (30) [the reaper]. The second one is Harmas, who [is the eye] of
envy. The third one is Kalila-Oumbri. The fourth one is Yabel. The fifth one is Adonaiou, who is called
Sabaoth. The sixth one is Cain, (35) whom the generations of men call the sun. The seventh is Abel. The
eighth is Abrisene. The ninth is Yobel. (11:1) The tenth is Armoupieel. The eleventh is Melceir-Adonein.
The twelfth is Belias, it is he who is over the depth of Hades. And he placed seven kings (5) – each
corresponding to the firmaments of heaven – over the seven heavens, and five over the depth of the abyss, that
they may reign.
85
And a voice came forth from the exalted aeon-heaven: ‘The Man exists and (15) the Son of Man.’

They [Autogenes and his four lights] advised him that they should bring forth the power of the mother.
And they said to Yaltabaoth, ‘Blow into his face something of your spirit and (25) his [Adam’s] body will
arise.’ And he blew into his face the spirit which is the power of his mother; he did not know (this), for he
exists in ignorance. And the power of the mother went out of (30) Yaltabaoth into the natural body which
they had fashioned after the image of the one who exists from the beginning. The body moved and gained
strength, and it was luminous.
And in that moment the rest of the powers (20:1) became jealous, because he had come into being through
all of them and they had given their power to the man, and his intelligence was greater than that of those who
had made him, and (5) greater than that of the chief archon. And when they recognized that he was luminous,
and that he could think better than they, and that he was free from wickedness, they took him into the lowest
region of all matter.

But the blessed One, the Mother-Father, (10) the beneficent and merciful One, had mercy on the power of the
mother which had been brought forth out of the chief archon, for they (the archons) might gain power over the
natural and perceptible body. And he (15) sent, through his beneficent Spirit and his great mercy, a helper to
Adam, luminous Epinoia which comes out of him, who is called Life. And she assists the whole creature,
(20) by toiling with him and by restoring him to his fullness and by teaching him about the descent of his seed
(and) by teaching him about the way of ascent, (which is) the way he came down. (25) And the luminous
Epinoia was hidden in Adam, in order that the archons might not know her, but that the Epinoia might be a
correction of the deficiency of the mother.

‘But it was I [Autogenes/Christ] who brought about that they ate.’ And (10) I said to the savior, ‘Lord was
it not the serpent that taught Adam to eat?’ The savior smiled and said, ‘The serpent taught them to eat from
wickedness of begetting, lust, (and) destruction, that he (Adam) might (15) be useful to him…’

Then the Epinoia of the light hid herself in him (Adam). And the chief archon wanted (30) to bring her out
of his rib. But the Epinoia of the light cannot be grasped. Although darkness pursued her, it did not catch
her. And he brought a part of his power out of him. And he made another creature (35) in the form of a
woman according to the likeness of the Epinoia which had appeared to him. And he brought (23:1) the part
which he had taken from the power of the man into the female creature, and not as Moses said, ‘his rib-bone.’
And he (Adam) saw the beside (5) him. And in that moment the luminous Epinoia appeared, and she lifted
the veil which lay over his mind. And he became sober from the drunkenness of darkness. And he recognized
his counter-image, and he said, (10) ‘This is indeed bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.’ Therefore the man
will leave his father and his mother and he will cleave to his wife and they will both be one flesh. For they (15)
will send him his consort, and he will leave his father and his mother.

And our sister Sophia (is) she who came down in innocence in order to rectify her deficiency. Therefore she was
called Life, which is the mother of the living, by the foreknowledge (25) of the sovereignty of heaven (and […]
to him […].) And through her they have tasted the perfect Knowledge. I appeared in the form of an eagle on
the tree of knowledge, which is the Epinoia from the foreknowledge of the pure light, (30) that I might teach
86
them and awaken them out of the depth of sleep. For they were both in a fallen state and they recognized their
nakedness. The Epinoia appeared to them as a light (and) she awakened (35) their thinking.

And the chief archon saw the virgin who stood (10) by Adam, and that the luminous Epinoia of the life had
appeared in her. And Yaltabaoth was full of ignorance. And when the foreknowledge of the All noticed (it),
she sent some and they snatched (15) life out of Eve.

And the chief archon seduced her and he begot in her two sons; the first and the second (are) Eloim and Yave.
Eloim has a bear-face and Yave has a cat-face. The one (20) is righteous but the other is unrighteous. Yave
he set over the fire and the wind, and Eloim he set over the water and the earth. And these he called with the
names (25) Cain and Abel with a view to deceive.

Now up to the present day sexual intercourse continued due to the chief archon. And he planted sexual desire
in her who belongs to Adam. And he produced through (30) intercourse the copies of the bodies, and he
inspired them with his counterfeit spirit.
And the two archons he set over principalities so that they might rule over the tomb. (35) And when
Adam recognized the likeness of his own foreknowledge, he begot the likeness (25:1) of the son of man. He
called him Seth according to the way of the race in the aeons. Likewise the mother also sent her spirit which is
her likeness and a (5) copy of those who are in the pleroma, for she will prepare a dwelling place for the aeons
which will come down. And he made them drink water of forgetfulness, from the chief archon, in order that
they might not know from where they came. Thus (10) the seed remained for a while assisting (him) in order
that, when the Spirit comes forth from the holy aeons, he may raise up and heal him from the deficiency, that
the (15) whole pleroma may (again) become holy and faultless.

And I said to the savior, ‘Lord, will all the soul then be brought safely into the pure light?’ He answered and
said to me, ‘Great things (20) have arisen in your mind, for it is difficult to explain them to other except to
those who are from the immovable race. Those on whom the Spirit of life will descend and (with whom) he will
be with the power, (25) they will be saved and become perfect and worthy of the greatness and be purified in
that place from all wickedness and involvements in evil. Then they have no other care than (30) the
incorruption alone, to which they direct their attention from here on, without anger or envy or jealousy or desire
and greed of anything. They are not affected by anything except the state of being in (35) the flesh alone, which
they bear while looking expectantly for the time when they will be met (26:1) by the receivers (of the body).
Such then are worthy of the imperishable, eternal life and the calling. For they endure everything and bear up
under (5) everything, that they may finish the good fight and inherit eternal life.’

And I said, ‘Lord, those, however, who have not known to whom they belong, where will their souls (35) be?’
And he said to me, ‘In those the despicable spirit has (27:1) gained strength when they went astray. And he
burdens the soul and draws it to the works of evil, and he casts it down into forgetfulness. And after it (5)
comes out of (the body), it is handed over to the authorities, who came into being through the archon, and they
bind it with chains and cast it into prison and consort with it until it is liberated from the forgetfulness and
(10) acquires knowledge. And if thus it becomes perfect, it is saved.’

And he made a plan with his powers. He sent his angels to the daughters of men, that they might take some of
87
them for themselves and raise offspring (20) for their enjoyment. And at first they did not succeed. When they
had no success, they gathered together again and they made a plan together. They created a counterfeit spirit,
who resembles the Spirit whop had descended, (25) so as to pollute the souls through it. And the angels
changed themselves into the likeness of their [the daughters of men] mates, filling them with the spirit of
darkness, which they had mixed for them, and with evil. (30) They brought gold and silver and a gift and
copper and iron and metal and all kinds of things. And they steered the people who had followed them (30:1)
into great troubles, by leading them astray with many deceptions. They [the people] became old without having
enjoyment. They died, not having found truth and without knowing the God of truth. And (5) thus the whole
creation became enslaved forever, from the foundation of the world until now. And they took women and begot
children out of the darkness according to the likeness of their spirit. And they closed their hearts, (10) and
they hardened themselves through the hardness of the counterfeit spirit until now.
1.5 The Book of Thomas the Contender
1.5.1 The Book of Thomas the Contender 144:8-10

‘Woe to you (pl.) who love intimacy with womankind (10) and polluted intercourse with them!’
1.6 The Dialogue of the Savior
1.6.2 The Dialogue of the Savior 144:15-21

The Lord said, ‘Pray in the place where there is no woman.’ Matthew said, ‘ ‘Pray in the place where there is
[no woman],’ he tells us, meaning, ‘Destroy the (20) works of womanhood,’ not because there is any other
[manner of birth], but because they will cease [giving birth].’
1.7 The Gospel of the Egyptians
1.7.1 The Gospel of the Egyptians 40:15-41:12

The [holy] book [of the Egyptians] about the great invisible [Spirit, the] Father whose name cannot be
uttered, [he who came] forth from the heights of [the perfection, the] light of the light of the [aeons of light],
(20) the light of the [silence of the] providence <and> the Father of the silence, the [light] of the word and the
truth, the light [of the (41:1) incorruptions, the] infinite light, [the] radiance from the aeons of light of the
unrevealable, unmarked, ageless, unproclaimable Father, (5) the aeon of the aeons, Autogenes, self-begotten,
self-producing, alien, the really true aeon.
Three powers came forth from him; they are the Father, the Mother, (and) the Son, (10) from the living
silence, what came forth from the incorruptible Father. These came [forth from] the silence of the unknown
Father.
1.7.2 The Gospel of the Egyptians 53:13

… the great Logos, the Autogenes…

Then the great Seth saw the activity of the devil, and his many guises, and his schemes which will come upon
his incorruptible, immovable race, (20) and the persecutions of his powers and his angels, and their error, that
they acted against themselves.
Then the great Seth gave praise to the great, uncallable, (25) virginal Spirit, and the male (62:1) virgin
Barbelon, and the thrice-male child Telmael Telmael Heli Heli Machar Machar Seth, the powers which really
truly (5) lives, an the male virgin Youel, and Esephech, the holder of glory, and the crown of his glory, and the
great Doxomedon-aeon, and the thrones which are in him, and (10) the powers which surrounded them, and
the whole pleroma, as I mentioned before. And he asked for guards of his seed. …
88
(24) Then the great Seth was (25) sent by the four lights, by the will of the Autogenes (63:1) and the
whole pleroma, through <the gift> and the good pleasure of the great invisible Spirit, and the five seals, and
the whole pleroma.
He passed through (5) the three parousias which I mentioned before: the flood, and the conflagration, and
the judgment of the archons and the powers and the authorities, to save her [the race] who went astray, through
the reconciliation of the world, and (10) the baptism through a Logos-begotten body which the great Seth
prepared for himself, secretly through the virgin, in order that the saints may be begotten by the holy Spirit,
through (15) invisible, secret symbols, through a reconciliation of the world with the world, through the
renouncing of the world and the god of the thirteen aeons, and (through) the convocations of the saints, and
(20) the ineffable ones, and the incorruptible bosom, and (through) the great light of the Father who preexisted
with his Providence and established through her the holy baptism that surpasses (25) the heaven, through the
incorruptible, (64:1) Logos-begotten one, even Jesus the living one, even he whom the great Seth has put on.
And through him he nailed the powers of the thirteen aeons, and (5) established those who are brought forth
and taken away. He armed them with an armor of knowledge of his truth, with an unconquerable power of
incorruptibility.

But from now on (66:1) through the incorruptible man Poimael, and they who are worthy of (the) invocation,
the renunciations of the five seals in the spring-baptism, these will (5) know their receivers as they are
instructed about them and they will know them by them. These will by no means taste death.
1.7.5 The Gospel of the Egyptians 68:1-5

This is the book which the great Seth wrote, and placed in high mountains on which the sun has not risen, nor
is it (5) possible.
1.8 The Gospel of Mary
1.8.1 The Gospel of Mary 9:5-24

But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, ‘How shall we go to the gentiles and preach the gospel of the
kingdom of the Son (10) of Man? If they did not spare him, how will they spare us?’ Then Mary stood up,
greeted them all, and said to her brethren, ‘Do not weep (15) and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for his grace
will be entirely with you and will protect you. But rather let us praise his greatness, for he has (20) prepared us
and made us into men.’ When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss
the words of the [Savior].
1.8.2 The Gospel of Mary 17:10-18:21

But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, ‘Say what you want to say about what she [Mary of
Magdala] has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings (15) are
strange ideas.’ Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about the Savior:
‘Did he really speak with a woman without our (20) knowledge (and) not openly? Are we to turn about and
all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?’
(18:1) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, ‘My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I
thought this up myself in my (5) heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?’ Levi answered and said to Peter,
‘Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like (10) the
adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her
very well. That is why he loved her more (15) than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect man
and acquire him for ourselves as he commanded us, and preach the gospel, not laying down (20) any other rule
or other law beyond what the Savior said.’
89
1.9 The Gospel of Philip
1.9.1 The Gospel of Philip 55:10-14

Man used to feed like the animals, but when Christ came, the perfect Man, he brought bread from heaven in
order that man might be nourished with the food of man.

Some said, ‘Mary conceived by the holy spirit.’ They are in error. (25) They do not know what they are
saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled.
1.9.3 The Gospel of Philip 56:26-57:8

Some are afraid lest they rise naked. Because of this they wish to rise in the flesh, and [they] do not know that
it is those who (30) wear the [flesh] who are naked. [It is] those who […] to unclothe themselves who are not
naked. ‘Flesh [and blood shall] not inherit the kingdom [of God]’ (1 Corinthians 15:50). What is this
which will (57:1) not inherit? This is which is on us. But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which
belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said, ‘He who shall not eat my flesh and drink (5) my blood
has not life in him’ (John 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the holy spirit. He who
has received these has food and he has drink and clothing.

There is water in water, these is fire in chrism.

Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as (30) he was, but in the manner in which [they would]
be able to see him. He appeared to [them all. He appeared] to the great as great. He [appeared] (35) to the
small as small. He [appeared (58:1) to the] angels as an angel, and to men as a man. Because of this his
word hid itself from everyone. Some indeed saw him, thinking that they were seeing (5) themselves, but when he
appeared to his disciples in glory on the mount he was not small. He became great, but he made the disciples
great, that they might be able to see (10) him in his greatness.

For it is by a kiss that the perfect conceive and give birth. For this reason we also kiss one another. (5) We
receive conception from the grace which is in one another.

There were three who always walked with the lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one
who was called his companion.

But now he [Cain]was created (and) he begot. What (5) nobility is this? First adultery came into being,
afterward murder. And he was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the serpent. So he became a
murderer, just like his father, and (10) he killed his brother. Indeed every act of sexual intercourse which has
occurred between those unlike one another is adultery.

God is a dyer. As the good dyes, which are called ‘true,’ dissolve (15) with the things dyed in them, so it is
with those whom God has dyed. Since his dyes are immortal, they become immortal by means of his colors.
Now God dips what he dips (20) in water.
90
You saw the spirit, you (30) became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw [the Father, you]
shall become father. So [in this place] you see everything and [do] not [see] yourself, but [in that place] you do
see yourself – and what (35) you see you shall [become].

And the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. [… loved] her (35) more than [all] the disciples [and used
to] kiss her [often] on her […]. The rest of the disciples [(64:1) …] They said to him, ‘Why do you love her
more than all of us?’ The Savior answered and said to them, ‘Why do I not love you like her?’

If one go down into the water and come up without having received anything and says ‘I am a Christian,’ (25)
he has borrowed the name at interest.

The forms of evil spirit include male ones and female ones. The males are they that unite with the souls which
inhabit (5) a female form, but the females are they which are mingled with those in a male form, though one
who was disobedient. And none shall be able to escape them, since they detain him if he does not receive a male
power or a (10) female power, the bridegroom and the bride. – One receives them from the mirrored bridal
chamber. – When the wanton women see a male sitting alone, they leap down on him and (15) play with him
and defile him. So also the lecherous men, when they see a beautiful woman sitting alone, they persuade her
and compel her, wishing to defile her. But if they see (20) the man and his wife sitting beside one another, the
female cannot come in to the man, nor can the male come in to the woman.

So if the image and the angel are united (25) with one another…

The fire is the chrism, the light is the fire. I am not referring to that fire which has no form, but to the other
fire whose form is white, which is bright and beautiful, and which gives beauty.

For this person [one having been initiated] is no longer a Christian but a Christ.

The lord [did] everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption (30) and a
bridal chamber.

When Eve was still in Adam death did not exist. When she was separated from him death came into being.
(25) If he enters again and attains his former self, death will be no more.

…we are begotten through Christ in the two. We are anointed through the spirit. When we were begotten we
were united. None can see himself either in water or in (10) a mirror without light. Nor again can you (sg.)
see in light without water or mirror. For this reason it is fitting to baptize in the two, in the light and the
water. Now the light is the chrism.
91
If the (10) woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became
the beginning of death. Because of this Christ came to repair the separation which was from the beginning (15)
and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation and unite them. But the
woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed those who have united in the bridal chamber
will (20) no longer be separated. Thus Eve separated from Adam because it was not in the bridal chamber
that she united with him.
The soul of Adam came into being by means of a breath. The partner of his soul is the spirit. His mother
(25) is the thing that was given to him. His soul was taken from him and replaced by a [spirit].

There are two trees growing in paradise. The one bears [animals], the other bears men. Adam [ate] from the
tree (25) which bore animals. [He] became an animal and he brought forth animals. For this reason the
children of Adam worship [animals].

God created man. […men] (72:1) create God. That is the way it is in the world – men make gods and
worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men!

Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they
live, when they die they will receive nothing.

But the tree of life is in the middle of the garden. However, it is from the olive tree that we get the chrism, and
from the chrism, the resurrection.

The chrism is superior to baptism, for it is from the word ‘chrism’ that we have been called ‘Christians,’
certainly not because (15) of the word ‘baptism’. And it is because of the chrism that ‘the Christ’ has his
name. For the father anointed the son, and the son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. He
who has been anointed possesses everything. He possesses (20) the resurrection, the light, the cross, the holy
spirit.

The cup (15) of prayer contains wine and water, since it is appointed as the type of the blood for which thanks
is given. And it is full of the holy spirit, and it belongs to the wholly perfect man. When (20) we drink this,
we shall receive for ourselves the perfect man. The living water is a body.

It is necessary that we put on the living man. Therefore, when he is about to go down into the water, he
unclothes himself, in order that he may put on the living man.

The priest is completely holy, down to his very body. For if he has taken the bread, he will consecrate it. Or the
cup (5) or anything else that he gets, he will consecrate. Then how will he not consecrate the body also?

Spiritual love is wine and fragrance. (78:1) All those who anoint themselves with it take pleasure in it. While
92
those who are anointed are present, those nearby also profit (from the fragrance). If those anointed with
ointment withdraw from them (5) and leave, then those not anointed, who merely stand nearby, still remain in
their bad odor.

No [one can] (35) know when [the husband] (82:1) and the wife have intercourse with one another except the
two of them. Indeed marriage in the world is a mystery for those who have taken a wife. If there is a hidden
quality to the marriage of defilement, (5) how much more is the undefiled marriage a true mystery! It is not
fleshly but pure. It belongs not to desire but to the will. It belongs not to the darkness or the night but to the
day and (10) the light. If a marriage is open to the public, it has become prostitution, and the bride plays the
harlot not only when she is impregnated by another man but even if she slips out of her bedroom and is seen.
(15) Let her show herself only to her father and her mother and to the friend of the bridegroom and the son of
the bridegroom. These are permitted to enter every day into the bridal chamber. But let the others yearn just
(20) to listen to her voice…
1.10 The Gospel of Truth
1.10.1 The Gospel of Truth 18:7-11

Since oblivion came into existence because the Father was not known, then if (10) the Father comes to be
known, oblivion will not exist from that moment on.

Through this, the gospel of the one who is searched for, which <was> revealed to those who are perfect through
the mercies (15) of the Father, the hidden mystery, Jesus, the Christ, enlightened those who were in darkness
through oblivion.
1.10.3 The Gospel of Truth 18:24

He [Jesus Christ] was nailed to a tree…

Having filled the deficiency, he [the Son] abolished the form – the form of it is the world, that in which he
served – (25) For the place where there is envy and strife is deficient, but the place where (there is) Unity is
perfect. Since the deficiency came into being because the (30) Father was not known, therefore, when the Father
is known, from that moment on the deficiency will no longer exist.
1.10.5 The Gospel of Truth 24:32-25:3

As in the case of the ignorance of a person, when he comes (35) to have knowledge, his ignorance vanishes of
itself, as the darkness vanishes when light appears, (25:1) so also the deficiency vanishes in the perfection.
1.10.6 The Gospel of Truth 32:31-33:8

Say, then, from the heart that you are the perfect day and in you dwells the light that does not fail. (35) Speak
of the truth with those who search for it and (of) knowledge to those who have committed sin in their error.
(33:1) Make firm the foot of those who have stumbled and stretch out your hands to those who are ill. Feed
those who are hungry and (5) give repose to those who are weary, and raise up those who wish to rise, and
awaken those who sleep.
1.11 The Hypostasis of the Archons
1.11.1 The Hypostasis of the Archons 88:10-15
93
Now all these (events) came to pass by the will of the father of the entirety. Afterwards, the spirit saw the soul-
endowed man upon the ground. And the spirit came forth from the Adamantine land; it descended and came
to dwell within (15) him, and that man became a living soul.

They [the archons] took Adam (25) [and] put him in the garden, that he might cultivate [it] and keep
watch over it. And the rules issued a command to him, saying, ‘From [every] tree in the garden shall you (sg.)
eat; yet – [from] the tree of recognizing good (30) and evil do not eat, nor [touch] it; for the day you (pl.) eat
[from] it, with death you (pl.) are going to die.’

The rulers took counsel with one another and said, ‘Come, let us cause (5) a deep sleep to fall upon Adam.’
And he slept. – Now the deep sleep that they ‘caused to fall upon him, and he slept’ is Ignorance. – They
opened his side like a living woman. And they built up his side with some flesh (10) in place of her, and
Adam came to be endowed only with soul.
1.11.4 The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:11-90:19

And the spirit-endowed woman came to him and spoke with him, saying, ‘Arise, Adam.’ And when he saw
her, he said, ‘It is you who have given me life; (15) you will be called “Mother of the Living”. – For it is she
who is my mother. It is she who is the physician, and the woman, and she who has given birth.
Then the authorities came up to their Adam. And when they saw his female counterpart speaking with
him, (20) the became agitated with great agitation; and they became enamored of her. They said to one
another, ‘Come, let us sow our seed in her,’ and they pursued her. And she laughed at them for their
witlessness (25) and their blindness; and in their clutches, she became a tree, and left before them her shadowy
reflection resembling herself; and they defiled [it] foully. – And they defiled the stamp of her voice, so that (30)
by the form they had modelled, together [their] (own) image, they made themselves liable to condemnation.
Then the female spiritual principle came [in] the snake, the instructor; and it taught [them], saying, ‘What
did he [say to] you (pl.)? Was it, ‘From every tree in the garden (35) shall you (sg.) eat; yet – from [the tree]
(90:1) of recognizing evil and good do not eat’?’
The carnal woman said, ‘Not only did he say ‘Do not eat,’ but even ‘Do not touch it; for the day you (pl.)
eat from it, with death you (pl.) are going to die’.’ And the snake, the instructor, said, ‘With death you (pl.)
shall not die; for it was out of jealousy that he said this to you (pl.). Rather your (pl.) eyes shall open and you
(pl.) shall come to be like gods, recognizing (10) evil and good.’ And the female instructing principle was
taken away from the snake, and she left it behind merely a thing of the earth.
And the carnal woman took from the tree and ate; and she gave to her husband as well as herself; and
(15) these beings that possessed only a soul, ate. And their imperfection became apparent in their lack of
acquaintance; and they recognized that they were naked of the spiritual element, and took fig leaves and bound
them upon their loins.

Now afterwards, she bore Cain, their [the archons’] son; and Cain cultivated the land. Thereupon he
[Adam] knew his wife; again becoming pregnant, she bore Abel; and Abel (15) was a herdsman of sheep.
Now Cain brought in from the crops of his field, but Abel brought in an offering (from) among his lambs.
God looked upon the votive offerings of Abel; but he did not accept the votive offerings (20) of Cain. And
carnal Cain pursued Abel his brother.
And God said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’ He answered, saying, ‘Am I, then, my brother’s
keeper?’ God said to (25) Cain, ‘Listen! The voice of your brother’s blood is crying up to me! You have
sinned with your mouth. It will return to you: anyone who kills Cain will let loose seven vengeances, and you
will exist groaning and (30) trembling upon the earth.’
94
And Adam [knew] his female counterpart Eve, and she became pregnant, and bore [Seth] to Adam. And
she said, ‘I have borne [another] man through God, in place [of Abel].’
1.11.7 The Hypostasis of the Archons 91:34-93:13

Again Eve became pregnant, and she bore [Norea]. (35) And she said, ‘He has begotten on [me a] virgin
(92:1) as an assistance [for] many generations of mankind.’ She is the virgin whom the forces did not defile.
Then mankind began to multiply and improve.
The rulers took counsel (5) with one another and said, ‘Come, let us cause a deluge with our hands and
obliterate all flesh, from man to beast.’ But when the ruler of the forces came to know of their decision, he said
to Noah, (10) ‘Make yourself an ark from some wood that does not rot and hide in it – you and your
children and the beasts and the birds of heaven from small to large – and set it upon Mount Sir.’ Then Orea
came (15) to him wanting to board the ark. And when he would not let her, she blew upon the ark and
caused it to be consumed by fire. Again he made the ark, for a second time.
The rulers went to meet her intending to lead her astray. (20) Their supreme chief said to her, ‘Your
mother Eve came to us.’ But Norea turned to them and said to them, ‘It is you who are the rulers of the
darkness; you are accursed. And you did not know my mother; instead it was your female (25) counterpart
that you knew. For I am not your descendant; rather it is from the world above that I am come. The arrogant
ruler turned, with all his might, [and] his countenance came to be like (a) black…; he said to her
presumptuously, (30) ‘You must render service to us, [as did] also your mother Eve; for I have been given …’
But Norea turned, with the might of ….; and in a loud voice [she] cried out [up to] the holy one, the God of
the entirety, (93:1) ‘Rescue me from the rulers of unrighteousness and save me from their clutches – forthwith!’
The <great> angel came down from the heavens and said to her, ‘Why are you crying up (5) to God? Why
do you act so boldly towards the holy spirit?’ Norea said, ‘Who are you?’ The rulers of righteousness had
withdrawn from her. He said, ‘It is I who am Eleleth, sagacity, the great angel, who stands (10) in the
presence of the holy spirit…’
1.11.8 The Hypostasis of the Archons 94:16

And it [Sophia’s offspring] assumed a plastic form molded out of shadow, and became an arrogant beast
resembling a lion.

And he [Yaltabaoth] said to his offspring, (5) ‘It is I who am the god of the entirety.’ And Zoe (Life), the
daughter of Pistis Sophia, cried out and said to him, ‘You are mistaken, Sakla!’
1.12 The Interpretation of Knowledge
1.12.1 The Interpretation of Knowledge 5:30-33

And he was crucified and he died – not his own [death, for] he did [not at all] deserve to die [because of] the
church of mortals.
1.12.2 The Interpretation of Knowledge 9:29

Your Father, who is in heaven, is one.
1.12.3 The Interpretation of Knowledge 10:27-30

Likewise I became very small so that through my humility I might take you up to the great height, whence
(30) you had fallen.
95
1.13 Marsanes
1.13.1 Marsanes 2:12-4:23

But as for the thirteenth seal, I have established it, together with [the] summit of (15) knowledge and the
certainty of rest. The first [and the] second and the [third] are the worldly and the material. I have (20)
[informed] you concerning these, that you should […] your bodies. And [a] sense-perceptible [power] will
[…] those who will rest, and they will be kept (25) [from] passion and division [of the] union.
The fourth [and the] fifth which are above, [these] you have come to know [… divine]. (3:1) He exists
after the […] and the nature of the […] that is, the one who […] three. And [I have (5) informed] you
concerning [it, that it] is incorporeal […] (11) and after […] within […] every […] which […] your […].
The [fifth, (15) concerning the] conversion [of] those that are within me, and concerning those who dwell in
that place.
But the sixth, concerning the self-begotten ones, (20) concerning the incorporeal being which exists
partially, together with those who exist in the truth of the All […] for understanding and (25) assurance.
And the [seventh], concerning the self-begotten power, which [is the] third [perfect …] (4:1) fourth, concerning
salvation [and] wisdom. And the eight, concerning the mind which is [male, which] appeared (5) [in the
beginning], and (concerning) the being [which is incorporeal] and the [intelligible] world. The ninth, […] of
the power [which] appeared [in the (10) beginning. The] tenth, [concerning Barbelo, the] virgin […] of the
Aeon. [The eleventh] and [the twelfth] speak of the (15) Invisible One who possesses three powers and the
Spirit which does not have being, belonging to the first Unbegotten (fem.). The (20) thirteenth speaks
concerning [the] Silent One who was not [known] and the primacy of [the one who] was not distinguished.
1.14 Melchizedek
1.14.1 Melchizedek 16:16-18:8

[Holy are you], Holy are [you], Holy are you, O [Father of the All], who truly exist […] do(es) not exist,
[Abel Baruch (20) …] for ever and ever, [Amen]. Holy are [you, Holy are you], Holy are [you, …] before
[… for ever and] ever, [Amen]. Holy are [you], Holy are [you, (25) Holy are you, Mother of the] aeon(s),
Barbelo, for ever and ever, [Amen. Holy are you], Holy are you, Holy are you, [First]-born of the aeons, (30)
Doxomedon. [… (17:1) for ever] and ever, Amen. [Holy are you, Holy are you], Holy are you. [… (5) for
ever and ever], Amen. [Holy are you, Holy are you], Holy are you. […] [first] aeon, [Harmozel, for] ever
and ever, (10) [Amen. Holy are you], Holy are you, [Holy are you], commander, luminary [of the aeons],
Oroiael, for [ever and ever], Amen. Holy are you, [Holy are you, Holy are you], commander (15) [of the
aeons], man-of-light, [Daveithe], for ever [and ever, Amen]. Holy are you, [Holy are you, Holy are you,
commander-in-chief Eleleth, … (20) the] aeons [… for (25) ever and ever], Amen. [Holy are you], Holy are
[you], Holy are you, good [god of] (18:1) the [benedicent] words, … Mirocheirothetou, [for] ever ad ever,
[Amen. Holy are] you, [Holy are you, Holy are you], (5) Commander-in-chief [of the] All, Jesus Christ, [for
ever and ever], Amen.
1.15 On Baptism A
1.15.1 On Baptism A 40:30-34

[This] is the fullness of the summary of knowledge which (summary) was revealed to us by our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Monogenes.
1.16 On the Origin of the World
1.16.1 On the Origin of the World 105:21-106:18

Thereafter he [Sabaoth] created a congregation [ἐκκλησία] of angels, thousands and myriads, numberless,
96
which resembled the congregation in the eighth heaven; and a firstborn called Israel – which (25) is, ‘the man
that sees God’; and another being, called Jesus Christ, who resembles the savior above in the eighth heaven and
who sits at his right upon a revered throne, and at his left, there (30) sits the virgin of the holy spirit, upon a
throne glorifying him … (106:11) Now Pistis Sophia set him apart from the darkness and summoned him to
her right, and the prime parent she put at her left. Since that day, right has been called (15) justice, and left
called wickedness. Now because of this they all received a realm [κόσµος] in the congregation of justice and
wickedness…
1.16.2 On the Origin of the World 115:30-116:8

After the day of rest Sophia sent her daughter Zoe, being called Eve, as an instructor in order that she might
make Adam, who had no soul, arise (35) so that those whom he should engender might become containers of
light. When (116:1) Eve saw her male counterpart prostrate she had pity upon him, and she said, ‘Adam!
Become alive! Arise upon the earth!’ Immediately her word became accomplished fact. For Adam, having (5)
arisen, suddenly opened his eyes. When he saw her he said, ‘You shall be called ‘Mother of the Living.’ For it
is you who have given me life.’
1.17 Pistis Sophia
1.17.1 Pistis Sophia I.36

It happened now, when Jesus finished saying these words to his disciples, he said: ‘Do you understand in what
manner I am speaking to you?’ Peter leapt forward, he said to Jesus: ‘My Lord, we are not able to suffer this
woman [Mary of Magdala] who takes the opportunity from us, and does not allow anyone of us to speak, but
she speaks many times.’ Jesus answered, he said to his disciples: ‘Let him in whom the power of his Spirit has
welled up so that he understands what I say, come forward and speak. …’
1.18 Ptolemaios, Epistula ad Floram 33:3:5-6
1.18.1 Ptolemaios, Epistula ad Floram 33:3:5-6

Οὔτ' αὖ πάλιν τῇ τοῦ ἀντικειµένου ἀδικίᾳ νόµον προσάπτειν <τὸ> ἀδικεῖν ἀναιροῦντα·
τῶν τε ἑξῆς ἐστι µὴ συνορώντων τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος εἰρηµένα· < οἰκία γὰρ ἢ πόλις
µερισθεῖσα ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν ὅτι µὴ δύναται στῆναι > ὁ σωτὴρ ἡµῶν ἀπεφήνατο. ῎Ετι τε τὴν τοῦ
κόσµου δηµιουργίαν <αὐτοῦ> ἰδίαν λέγει εἶναι τά τε πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι καὶ χωρὶς
αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι οὐδὲν ὁ ἀπόστολος, προαποστερήσας τὴν τῶν ψευδηγορούντων
ἀνυπόστατον σοφίαν, καὶ οὐ φθοροποιοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ δικαίου καὶ µισοπονήρου·
ἀπρονοήτων δέ ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων <τοῦτο>, τῆς προνοίας τοῦ δηµιουργοῦ µὴ αἰτίαν
λαµβανοµένων καὶ µὴ µόνον τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄµµα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τοῦ σώµατος πεπηρωµένων.
1.18.2 Ptolemaios, Epistula ad Floram 33.7.3-5

Εἰ γὰρ µήτε ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ τελείου θεοῦ τέθειται οὗτος, ὡς ἐδιδάξαµεν, µήτε µὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ
διαβόλου, ὅ µηδὲ θεµιτόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν, ἕτερός τίς ἐστι παρὰ τόυτους οὗτος ὁ θέµενος τὸν
νόµον. Οὗτος δὲ δηµιουργὸς καὶ ποιητὴς τοῦδε τοῦ παντός ἐστιν κόσµου καὶ τῶν ἐν
αὐτῷ· ἕτερος ὤν παρὰ τὰς τούτων οὐσίας µέσος <τε> τόυτων καθεστῶς, ἐνδίκως καὶ τὸ
τῆς µεσότητος ὄνοµα ἀποφέροιτο ἄν. Καὶ εἰ ὁ τέλειοσ θεὸς ἀγαθός ἐστι· κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
φύσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἔστιν (ἕνα γὰρ µόνον εἶναι ἀγαθὸν θεόν, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα ὁ σωτὴρ
ἡµῶν ἀπεφήνατο, ὃν αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν), ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἀδικίᾳ χαρακτηριαζόµενος, τούτων
δὲ οὖν µέσος καθεστὼς καὶ µήτε ἀγαθὸς ὢν µήτε µὴν κακὸς µήτε ἀδικος, ἰδίως γε λεχθείη
ἂν δίκαιος, τῆς κατ’ αὐτὸν δικαιοσύνης ὢν βραθευτής.
97
1.18.3 Ptolemaios, Epistula ad Floram 33.7.9
Μαθήσῃ γάρ, θεοῦ διδόντος, ἑξῆς καὶ τῆν τούτων ἀρχήν τε καὶ γέννησιν, ἀξιουµένη τῆς
ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως, ἣν ἐκ διαδοχῆς καὶ ἡµεῖς παρειλήφαµεν, µετὰ καὶ τοῦ
κανονίσαι πάντας τοὺς λόγους τῇ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡµῶν διδασκαλίᾳ.
1.19 The Teachings of Silvanus
1.19.1 The Teachings of Silvanus 92:10-93:24

But before everything (else), know your birth. Know yourself, that is, from what substance you are, or from
what race, or from what species. (15) Understand that you have come into being from three races: from the
earth, from the formed, and from the created. The body has come into being from (20) the earth with an
earthly substance, but the formed, for the sake of the soul, has come into being from the thought of the Divine.
The created, however, is the mind, which has come into being in conformity with the image (25) of God. The
divine mind has substance from the Divine, but the soul is that which he [God] has formed for their own
hearts. For I think (30) that it [the soul] exists as wife of that which has come into being in conformity with
the image, but matter is the substance of the body which has come into being from the earth.
[If] you mix yourself, you will acquire the (93:1) three parts as you fall from virtue into inferiority. Live
according to the mind. Do not think about things belonging to (5) the flesh. Acquire strength, for the mind is
strong. If you fall from this other, you have become male-female. And if you cast out of yourself the substance
of the mind, (10) which is thought, you have cut off the male part and turned yourself to the female part alone.
You have become psychic since you have received the substance of the (15) formed. If you cast out the smallest
part of this so that you do not acquire again a human part – but you have accepted for yourself the animal
thought and (20) likeness – you have become fleshly since you have taken on animal nature. For (if) it is
difficult to find a psychical man, how much more so to find the Lord!
1.20 The Thought of Norea
1.20.1 The Thought of Norea 28:24-29:5

There will be days when she [Norea] will (25) [behold] the Pleroma, and she will not be in deficiency, for she
has the four holy helpers who intercede on her behalf with the Father of (30) the All, Adamas. He it is
(29:1) who is within all of the adams, possessing the thought of Norea who speaks concerning the two name
which create (5) a single name.
1.21 The Three Steles of Seth
1.21.1 The Three Steles of Seth 127:7-127:26

He who will remember these and give glory always will become perfect among those who are (10) perfect and
impassable beyond all things. For they all bless these individually and together. And afterwards they shall be
silent. And just as they (15) were ordained, they ascend. After the silence, they descend from the third. They
bless the second; after these the first. (20) They way of ascent of the way of descent.
Know therefore, as those who live, that you have attained. And you taught yourselves the infinite things.
(25) Marvel at the truth which is within them, and (at) the revelation.
1.22 The Treatise on the Resurrection
1.22.1 The Treatise on the Resurrection 44:21-35

Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them (25) both, possessing the humanity and
the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, (30) and that on
98
the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from
above, (35) a seed of the Truth…
1.22.2 The Treatise on the Resurrection 45:39-46:2

This is (40) the spiritual resurrection (46:1) which swallows up the psychic in the same way as the fleshly.
1.22.3 The Treatise on the Resurrection 47:31-48:3

But there are some (who) wish to understand, in the enquiry about those things they are looking into, whether
he who is saved, if he leaves (35) his body behind, will be saved immediately. Let no one doubt concerning this.
… indeed, the visible members which are dead (48:1) shall not be saved, for (only) the living [members] which
exist within them would arise.
1.22.4 The Treatise on the Resurrection 48:3-19

What, then is the resurrection? (5) It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember
reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses (10) with him, do not think the resurrection is an
illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth! Indeed, it is more fitting to say that (15) the world is an illusion,
rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ.
1.23 Trimorphic Protennoia
1.23.1 Trimorphic Protennoia 37:4-9

Then the Son who is perfect in every respect – that is, (5) the Word who originated through that Voice; who
proceeded from the height; who has within him the Name; who is a Light – he revealed the everlasting things
and all the unknowns were known.

…who [Yaltabaoth] had earlier overpowered (30) her who is the Light’s Epinoia who had descended, her
from whom he had come forth originally.

You will accept robes from those give robes and the Baptists will baptize you and you will become gloriously
glorious, the way you first were (20) when you were <Light>.

…and I delivered him to the Baptists and they baptized him – Micheus, Michar, (20), Mn[e]sinous – and
they immersed him in the spring of the [Water] of Life.

And [he received] the Five Seals from [the Light] of the Mother, Protennoia, and it was [granted] him [to]
partake of [the mystery] of knowledge, and [he became a Light] in (35) Light.
1.24 The Tripartite Tractate
1.24.1 The Tripartite Tractate 51:1-30

As for what can we say about the things which are exalted, what is fitting is that we begin with the Father,
who is the root of the Totality, the one from whom we have received (5) grace to speak about him. He existed
before anything other than himself came into being. The Father is a single one, like a (10) number, for he is
the first one and the one who is only to himself. … (15) But the single one, who alone is the Father, is like a
root with three, branches and fruit. It is said (20) of him that he is a father in the proper sense, since he is
99
inimitable and immutable. Because of this he is single in the proper sense (25) and is a god, because no one is
a god for him nor is anyone a father to him. He is unbegotten and there is no other who begot him, nor (30)
another who created him.

This is to say, it is the (30) Church consisting of many men that existed before the aeons, which is called, in
the proper sense, ‘the aeons of the aeons’.

Each one of the aeons is a name, <that is>, each of (10) the properties and powers of the Father, since he
exists in many names, which are intermingled and harmonious with one another. It is possible to speak of him
because of the wealth of speech, just as the Father (15) is a single name, because he is a unity, yet he is
innumerable in his properties and names.

…they [the Aeons] are silent about the incomprehensibility of the Father, but they speak about the one who
wishes to comprehend him. It came to one of the aeons that he should attempt to grasp the incomprehensibility
(20) and give glory to it and especially to the ineffability of the Father. Since he is a Logos…

This aeon [Logos] was among those to whom was given wisdom…

The intent, then, of the Logos, who is this one, was good. (5) When he had come forth, he gave glory to the
Father, even if it led to something beyond possibility, since he had wanted to bring forth one who is perfect,
from an (10) agreement in which he had not been, and without having the command.

…for it was not without the will of the Father (25) that the Logos was produced, which is to say, not without
it will he go forth.
1.24.8 The Tripartite Tractate 77:25-78:13

His self-exaltation and his expectation of comprehending the incomprehensible became firm for him and was in
him. But the sicknesses followed him (30) when he went beyond himself, having come into being from self-
doubt, namely from the fact that he did not <reach the attainment of> the glories of the Father, the one whose
exalted status (35) is among things unlimited. This one did not attain him, for he did not receive him.
The one whom he himself brought forth (78:1) as a unitary aeon rushed up to that which is his and this
kin of his in the Pleroma abandoned (5) him who came to be in the defect along with those who had come forth
from him in an imaginary way, since they are not his.
When he who produced himself as perfect actually did bring (10) himself forth, he became weak like a
female nature which has abandoned its virile counterpart.

From that which was deficient in itself there (15) came those things which came into being from his thought
and [his] arrogance…
100
They gathered together, asking the Father with beneficent intent that there be aid from above, from the Father,
for his glory, since the defective one could not become perfect in any other way, (20) unless it was the will of the
Pleroma of the Father, which he had drawn for himself, revealed, and given to the defective one.

The one who appeared was a countenance of the Father and of the harmony. He was (35) a garment
(composed) of every grace, and food which is for those whom the Logos brought forth while praying and [giving]
glory and honor. (92:1) This is the one whom he glorified and honored while looking to those to whom he
prayed, so that he might perfect them through the images which he had brought forth.
The Logos added (5) even more to their mutual assistance and to the hope of the promise, since they have
joy and abundant rest and undefiled pleasures. (10) He generated those whom he remembered at first when
they were not with him, (he generated them) having the perfection.

…but according to the image of the Pleroma, having their fathers who are the ones who gave them life, each
one being a copy (15) of each one of the faces, which are forms of maleness, since they are not from the illness
which is femaleness, but are from this one who already has left behind (20) the sickness. It has the name ‘the
Church,’ for in harmony they resemble the harmony in the assembly of those who have revealed themselves.

To each one he [the Logos] gave a name, since the two orders are in a name. Those belonging to the thought
and those of the representation (15) are called ‘the Right Ones’ and ‘Psychic’ and ‘the Fiery Ones’ and ‘the
Middle Ones.’ Those who belong to the arrogant thought and those of the likeness are called ‘the Left’, (20)
‘Hylic’, ‘the Dark Ones’ and ‘the Last’.

After the Logos established each one in his order, both the images and the representations and the likenesses,
he kept the aeon of the images (25) pure from all those who fight against it, since it is a place of joy. However,
to those of the thought he revealed the thought which he had stripped from himself, desiring to draw them (30)
into a material union, for the sake of their system and dwelling place and in order that they might also bring
forth an impulse for diminution from their attraction to evil, so that they might not any more (35) rejoice in
the glory of their environment and be dissolved…

It is fitting that we explain (30) about the soul of the first human being, that it is from the spiritual Logos,
while the creator thinks that it is his, since it is from him, as from a mouth through which (35) one breathes.
The creator also sent down souls from his substance, since he, too, has a power of procreation, (106:1) because
he is something which has come into being from the representation of the Father. Also those of the left brought
forth, as it were, men of their own, since they have (5) the likeness of <being>.

The first human being is a mixed formation, and a (20) mixed creature, and a deposit of those of the left and
those of the right, and a spiritual word whose attention is divided between each of the two substances from
which he takes (25) his being. Therefore, it is said that a paradise was planted for him, so that he might eat of
the food of three kinds of tree, since it is a garden of the (30) threefold order, and since it is that which gives
enjoyment.
101
Only the enjoyment of the things which are evil did he [Logos] allow him [Adam] to taste, and from the other
tree with (5) the double (fruit) he did not allow him to eat, much less from the tree of life, so that [they would
not] acquire honor […] them and so that [they would not be…] (10) by the evil power [which] is called ‘the
serpent.’ And he is more cunning than all the evil powers. He led man astray [through] the determination of
those things which belong to the thought (15) and the desires. <He> made him transgress the command, so
that he would die. And he was expelled from every enjoyment of that place.
This is the expulsion which was made (20) for him, when he was expelled from the enjoyments of the things
which belong to the likeness and those of the representation. It was a work of providence, so that it might be
found that it is a short time until man will receive the enjoyments (25) of things which are eternally good, in
which is the place of rest. This is the spirit ordained when he first planned that man should experience the (30)
great evil, which is death, that is complete ignorance of the Totality, and that he should experience all the evils
which come from this and, (35) after the deprivations and cares which are in these, that he should receive of the
greatest (108:1) good, which is life eternal, that is, firm knowledge of the Totalities and the reception of all
good things. (5) Because of the transgression of the first man death ruled.
1.24.18 The Tripartite Tractate 113:38

…the Logos, who came into being in flesh.

He it is who was our Savior, in willing compassion, who is that which they were. For it was for their sake
that he became (35) manifest in an involuntary suffering. They became flesh and soul – that is, eternally –
which (things) hold them and with corruptible things they die. And as for those who [came into being] (115:1)
[the] invisible one taught them invisibly about himself.
Not only did he take upon <himself> the death of (5) those whom he thought to save, but he also
accepted their smallness to which they had descended when the were <born> in body and soul. (He did so),
because he had let himself be conceived (10) and born as an infant, in body and soul.

Mankind came to be in three essential types, the spiritual, the psychic, and the material…

Each of the three essential types is known by its fruit. And they were not known at first (25) but only at the
coming of the Savior, who shone upon the saints and revealed what each was.

Those whom the Logos brought forth in accordance with the first element of his (30) thought [the pneumatics],
when he remembered the exalted one and prayed for salvation, have salvation [suddenly.] They will be saved
completely [because of] the salvific thought. As he (35) was brought forth, so, [too], were these brought forth
from him, (120:1) whether angels or men. In accordance with the confession that there is one who is more
exalted than themselves, and in accordance with the prayer and the search for (5) him, they also will attain the
salvation of those who have been brought forth, since they are from the disposition which is good. They were
appointed for service in proclaiming the coming (10) of the Savior who was to be and his revelation which had
come. Whether angels or men, when he was sent as a service to them they received, in fact, the essence of their
being. (15) Those, however, who are from the thought of lust for power [the psychics], who have come into being
from the blow of those who fight against him, those whom the thought (20) brought forth, from these, since they
are mixed, they will receive their end suddenly. Those who will be brought forth from the lust for power which
is given to them for a (25) time and for certain periods, and who will give glory to the Lord of glory, and who
will relinquish their wrath, they will receive the reward for their humility, which is to remain forever. Those,
102
however, who (30) are proud because of the desire of ambition, and who love temporary glory and who forget
that it was only for certain periods and times which they have that they were entrusted with power, (35) and
for this reason did not acknowledge that the Son of God (121:1) is the Lord of all and Savior, and were not
brought out of wrath and the resemblance to the evil ones, they (5) will receive judgment for their ignorance and
their senselessness, which is suffering, along with those who went astray…

…until all the members if the body of the Church are in a single place and receive the restoration at one (20)
time, when they have been manifested as the whole body – namely the restoration into the Pleroma.

As for the baptism which exists in the fullest sense, into which the Totalities will descend and in which they
will be, there is no other baptism apart from this one alone, (30) which is the redemption into God, Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, when confession is made through faith in those names, (35) which are a single name of
the gospel, (128:1) when they have come to believe what has been said of them, namely that they exist. From
this they have their salvation, those who have (5) believed that they exist. This is attaining in an invisible way
to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in an undoubting faith. And when they (10) have borne witness to them,
it is also with a firm hope that they attained them, so that the return to them might become the perfection of
those who have believed in them and (so that) (15) the Father might be one with them, the Father, the God,
whom they have confessed in faith and who gave (them) their union with him in knowledge.
The baptism which we (20) previously mentioned is called ‘garment of those who do not strip themselves of
it,’ for those who will put it on and those who have received redemption wear it. It is also (25) called ‘the
confirmation of the truth which has no fall.’ In an unwavering and immovable way it grasps those who have
received the [restoration] (30) while they grasp it. (Baptism) is called ‘silence’ because of the quiet and
tranquillity. It is also called ‘bridal chamber’…

For when we confessed the kingdom which is in Christ, <we> escaped from the whole multiplicity of forms
and from (20) inequality and change. For the end will receive a unitary existence just as the beginning is
unitary, where there is no male nor female, nor slave (25) and free, nor circumcision and uncircumcision,
neither angel nor man, but Christ is in all.
1.25 A Valentinian Exposition
1.25.1 A Valentinian Exposition 22:18-27

Moreover it is these who have [known him who] is, the Father, that (20) [is, the Root] of the All, the
[Ineffable One who] dwells in the Monad. [He dwells alone] in silence, [and silence is] tranquillity since, after
all, [he was] a Monad and no one (25) [was] before him. He dwells [in the Dyad] and in the Pair, and his
Pair is Silence.

So why a [separator] and a confirmer and a substance-producer and a form-provider as others have said
[said]? For [they] say concerning (35)[ Limit] that he has two powers, [a] <separator> and [a confirmer]
since it separates [Depth] from the Aeons…
1.25.3 A Valentinian Exposition 29:25-30:20

[That] Tetrad [projected the Tetrad which is the one consisting of] Word and [Life and Man and] Church.
[Now the Uncreated One] projected (30) Word and Life. Word is [for] the glory of the Ineffable One while
Life is for the glory of [Silence], and Man is for his own glory while Church (35) is [for] the glory of Truth.
103
This, then, is the [Tetrad] begotten according to [the likeness] of the Uncreated (Tetrad). And [the] Tetrad is
begotten (30) […. (16) the Decad] from [Word and Life] and the Dodecad from Man, and [Church became
a] (20) Triacontad.

[…And] he wanted (35) to [leave] the Thirtieth – being [a syzygy] of Man and Church, that is, Sophia – to
surpass [the Triacontad…]

…she repented [and she] besought the Father of the [truth], saying, (25) ‘Granted that I have [renounced]
my consort. Therefore [I am] beyond confirmation as well. I deserve the things [passions] I suffer. I used to
dwell in the Pleroma (30) putting forth the Aeons and bearing fruit with my consort.’ And she knew what she
was and what had become of her.

Indeed [Jesus and] Sophia revealed [the creature]. Since, after all, the seeds [of] Sophia are incomplete [and]
formless, Jesus [contrived] a creature of this (15) [sort] and made it of the seeds while Sophia worked with
him. [For] since they are seeds and [without form], he descended [and brought] forth that (20) pleroma [of
aeons] which are in that place, [since even the uncreated ones of] those [Aeons are of] the pattern of the
[Pleroma] and the [uncontainable] Father. The Uncreated One (25) [brought forth the pattern] of the
uncreated, for it is from the uncreated that the Father brings forth into form. But the creature is a shadow of
pre-existing (30) things. Moreover, this Jesus created the creature, and he [demiurge] worked from the passions
surrounding the seeds. And he separated them from one another, (35) and the better passions he introduced
into the spirit and the worse one into the carnal.

After Jesus brought [forth further] he brought [forth] for the All those of the Pleroma and of the syzygy, that
[is, the] angels.

For this is the will of the Father: (30) not to allow anything to happen in the Pleroma apart from a syzygy.

…[since] indeed [the Devil] is one [of] the divine beings. He removed himself (15) and seized the entire
[plaza] of the gates and he [expelled] his [own] root from [that] place [in the body] and (20) [carcasses of
flesh], for [he is enveloped] by [the man] of God. And [Adam sowed] him. Therefore [he acquired] sons who
[angered one another. And] Cain [killed] (25) Abel his brother, for[the Demiurge] breathed into [them] his
spirit.
1.25.10 A Valentinian Exposition 38:34-39:16

Therefore the angels lusted (35) after the daughters of men and came down to flesh… (39:13) But the syzygy
is the [complete one] and Sophia and Jesus and [the angels] (15) and the seeds are [images of] the Pleroma.

Moreover the Demiurge [cast a shadow over] the syzygy and [the] Pleroma, and Jesus and [Sophia] and the
[angels] (20) and the seeds. [The complete ones glorifies] Sophia; the image [glorifies] Truth. [And] the glory
[of the seeds] and Jesus [are] those of [Silence and] Monogenes. [And] (25) the [angels] of the males and [the
seminal ones] of the females [are] all Pleromas.
104
1.26 Zostrianos
1.26.1 Zostrianos 5:14-7:20

I was baptized there, and (15) I received the image of the glories there. I became like one of them. I left the
airy-[earth] and passed by the copies of the aeons, after (20) washing there seven times [in] living [water], once
for each [of the] aeons. I did not cease until [I saw] all the waters. I ascended to the Exile (25) which really
exists. I was baptized and […] world. I ascended to the Repentance which really exists [and was] baptized
there four times. I passed by the (6:1) sixth aeon. I ascended to the […]. I stood there after having seen the
light from the truth which really exists, from (5) its self-begotten root, and great angels and glories, […]
number.
I was baptized in the [name of] the divine Autogenes by those powers which are [upon] (10) living
waters, Michar and Micheus. I was purified by [the] great Barpharanges. Then they [revealed] themselves to
me and wrote me in glory. I was sealed by (15) those who are on these powers, [Michar], Mi[ch]eus, Seldao,
Ele[nos] and Zogenethlos. I became a root-seeing angel and stood upon the first (20) aeon which is the fourth.
With the souls I blessed the divine Autogenes and the forefather Geradamas, [an eye of] the Autogenes, the
first perfect (25) [man], and Seth Emm[acha Seth], the son of Adamas, the [father of] the [immovable
race…] and the [four lights…] (30) Mirothea, the mother […] and Prophania […] of the lights and De-
[… (7:1) …].
I was [baptized] for the second time in the name of the divine Autogenes by these same powers. I (5)
became an angel of the male race. I stood upon the second aeon which is the third, with the sons of Seth I
blessed each of them. (10) I was baptized for the third time in the name of the divine Autogenes by each of
these powers. I became a holy angel. I stood upon the third (15) aeon which is the second. I blessed each of
them. I was baptized for the fourth time by [each of] these powers. I became [a] perfect [angel]. (20) [I stood
upon] the fourth aeon [which is the first]. And [I blessed each of them].
2. Secondary references
2.1 The Apocalypse of Abraham
2.1.1 The Apocalypse of Abraham 21:7-22:5

And I saw there a great crowd of men and women and children, half of them on the right side of the portrayal,
and half of them on the left side of the portrayal. (22:1) And I said, ‘Eternal, Mighty One! What is this
picture of creation?’ And he said to me, ‘This is my will with regard to what is in the light and it was good
before my face. And then, afterward, I gave them a command by my word and they came into existence.
Whatever I had decreed was to exist had already been outlined in this and all the previously created (things)
you have seen stood before me.’ And I said, ‘O Sovereign, mighty and eternal! Why are the people in this
picture on this side and on that?’ And he said to me, ‘These who are on the left side are a multitude of tribes
who existed previously… and after you some (who have been) prepared for judgment and order, others for
revenge and perdition at the end of the age. (5) Those on the right side of the picture are the people set apart for
me of the people with Azazel; these are the ones I have prepared to be born of you and to be called my people.’
2.2 Aristoteles
2.2.1 Aristoteles, Πολιτικῶν, 1254b3-15

ἔστι δ' οὖν, ὥσπερ λέγοµεν, πρῶτον ἐν ζῴῳ θεωρῆσαι καὶ δεσποτικὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ πολι-
τικήν· ἡ µὲν γὰρ ψυχὴ τοῦ σώµατος ἄρχει δεσποτικὴν ἀρχήν, ὁ δὲ νοῦς τῆς ὀρέξεως
πολιτικὴν ἢ βασιλικήν· ἐν οἷς φανερόν ἐστιν ὅτι κατὰ φύσιν καὶ συµφέρον τὸ ἄρχεσ-θαι
τῷ σώµατι ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τῷ παθητικῷ µορίῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τοῦ µορίου τοῦ λόγον
105
ἔχοντος, τὸ δ' ἐξ ἴσου ἢ ἀνάπαλιν βλαβερὸν πᾶσιν. πάλιν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις
ζῴοις ὡσαύτως· τὰ µὲν γὰρ ἥµερα τῶν ἀγρίων βελτίω τὴν φύσιν, τούτοις δὲ πᾶσι βέλτιον
ἄρχεσθαι ὑπ' ἀνθρώπου· τυγχάνει γὰρ σωτηρίας οὕτως. ἔτι δὲ τὸ ἄρρενπρὸς τὸ θῆλυ
φύσει τὸ µὲν κρεῖττον τὸ δὲ χεῖρον, καὶ τὸ µὲν ἄρχον τὸ δ' ἀρχόµενον.
2.3 Athanasios
2.3.1 Athanasios, De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi 33.4-6

Πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ
ἀοράτων ποιητήν, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ,
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, υἱὸν µονογενῆ, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων
τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννηµένον, δι' οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· τὸν διὰ τὴν
ἡµετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάµενον καὶ παθόντα καὶ
ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµέρᾳ καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸσ τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. πιστεύοµεν δὲ καὶ εἰς ἓν πνεῦµα ἅγιον. τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι
καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες πατέρα ἀληθῶς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦµα ἅγιον
ἀληθῶς ἅγιον πνεῦµα, καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγµα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ
µαθητὰς εἶπεν· ἅπορευθέντες µαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ
ὄνοµα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατοςἂ. περὶ ὧν καὶ διαβεβαιούµεθα
οὕτως ἔχειν καὶ οὕτως φρονεῖν καὶ πάλαι οὕτως ἐσχηκέναι καὶ µέχρι θανάτου ὑπὲρ ταύτης
ἐνίστασθαι τῆς πίστεως ἀναθεµατίζοντες πᾶσαν ἄθεον αἵρεσιν. ταῦτα ἀπὸ καρδίας καὶ
ψυχῆς πάντοτε πεφρονηκέναι, ἐξ οὗπερ ἴσµεν ἑαυτούς, καὶ νῦν φρονεῖν τε καὶ λέγειν ἐξ
ἀληθείας ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος καὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Ξριστοῦ
µαρτυρόµεθα, δεικνύναι ἔχοντες δι' ἀποδείξεων καὶ πείθειν ὑµᾶς, ὅτι καὶ τοὺς
παρεληλυθότας χρόνους οὕτως ἐπιστεύοµέν τε καὶ ἐκηρύσσοµενῇ.
2.4 Augustinus
2.4.1 Augustinus, Opus Imperfectum Contra Julianum 4.114.Aug.3

Necesse est in tali paradiso pallere praegnantes, tolerare longa fastidia, gemere atqeue ululare parientes, cum
diversis vitiis ingeniorum et corporum homines nasci paucosque cordatos minore quidem nec tamen sine labore
litteras discere, ceteros tardiusculos sive tardos et tanto magis quanto quisque esset tardior aut concidi ferulis
magistrorum aut indoctos imperitosque manere, fatuos vero nec magistris dari, sed dolendos ridendosve mutriri,
infantes antequam quicquam mali possent velle vel agere, agitari morbis, torqueri doloribus, medicamentis
curari cruciantibus, vexari a daemonibus, exspirare superantiobus cladentibus.
2.4.2 Augustinus, Opus Imperfectum Contra Julianum 6.25.Aug.5-6

Non enim dicimus non fuisse in pariendo feminas dolituras, nisi ad eas cum peccato Evae fecunditatis illius
aerumna transisset, cum ad eas non fecunditatis, sed iniquitatis aerumna transierit. Etsi enim facta est
aerumnosa fecunditas, iniquitas hoc, non fecunditas fecit; aerumna quippe parientis ex iniquitate hominis,
fecunditas autem ex dei benedictione descendit. … A muliere initium factum est peccati et propter illam
moritur omnes.
2.4.3 Augustinus, Opus Imperfectum Contra Julianum 6.26.Iul.1

Sed hoc peccatum, propter quod dolet mulier, non in pariente, ceterum in nascente deprehenditur.
2.4.4 Augustinus, Opus Imperfectum Contra Julianum 6.27.Aug.1-2

Nempe nihil agit tua tam diuturna et operosissima disputatio de poena primi hominis, nisi ut hac extenuata
etiam ipsa culpa extenuetur, quae poenae huius ingestione damnata est. Et hoc facis propter verba libri mei
106
cui respondes, quae tibi tamquam redarguenda proponis, ubi dixi: ‘Illud ergo peccatum quod ipsum hominem
in paradiso mutavit in peius, quia multo est grandius quam iudicare nos possumus, ab omni nascente
trahitur.’ Ut hoc non videatur grande peccatum, quo potuerit in deterius natura utari, leve ac prope nullum
supplicium contendis esse quod meruit. Hinc est quod maledictam terram in operibus praevaricatoris retorques
ad tui dogmatis pravitatem; hinc est quod spinas ac tribulos et antequam homo peccaret fuisse asseris
institutos, cum deus haec inter sua primitus instituta quod sudorem laborantis, ut non satis ad aerumnam
pertinere videretur, etiam naturale adiumentum esse dixisti, ut scilicet operantium artus sudore recreentur,
tamquam deus ista dicens non irrogaret supplicium pro peccato, sed daret insuper praemium.
2.4.5 Augustinus, Opus Imperfectum Contra Julianum 6.30.Aug.4

Cur enim et posteri primi hominis in pardiso nati et non solum boni, verum etiam beati cogerentur mori, si eos
nulla culpa de paradiso exire compelleret, ubi erat lignum vitae et summa ex illo vivendi potestas, moriendi
autem nulla necessitas?
2.5 Bible: New Testament
2.5.1 Bible: New Testament: Acts 10:34-35

᾿Ανοίξας δὲ Πέτρος τὸ στόµα εἶπεν, ᾿Επ' ἀληθείας καταλαµβάνοµαι ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν
προσωπολήµπτης ὁ θεός, ἀλλ' ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει ὁ φοβούµενος αὐτὸν καὶ ἐργαζόµενος
δικαιοσύνην δεκτὸς αὐτῷ ἐστιν.

ἀλλὰ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ εἰρηµένον διὰ τοῦ προφήτου ᾿Ιωήλ, καὶ ἔσται ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις
ἡµέραις, λέγει ὁ θεός, ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύµατός µου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα, καὶ
προφητεύσουσιν οἱ υἱοὶ ὑµῶν καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες ὑµῶν, καὶ οἱ νεανίσκοι ὑµῶν ὁράσεις
ὄψονται, καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ὑµῶν ἐνυπνίοις ἐνυπνιασθήσονται· καί γε ἐπὶ τοὺς δούλους
µου καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς δούλας µου ἐν ταῖς ἡµέραις ἐκείναις ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύµατός µου, καὶ
προφητεύσουσιν.

τοῦτον ὁ θεὸς ἤγειρεν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµέρᾳ καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν ἐµφανῆ γενέσθαι, οὐ παντὶ τῷ
λαῷ ἀλλὰ µάρτυσιν τοῖς προκεχειροτονηµένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἡµῖν, οἵτινες συνεφάγοµεν
καὶ συνεπίοµεν αὐτῷ µετὰ τὸ ἀναστῆναι αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν…
2.5.4 Bible: New Testament: Acts 21:9

τούτῳ δὲ ἦσαν θυγατέρες τέσσαρες παρθένοι προφητεύουσαι.
2.5.5 Bible: New Testament: Colossians 1:25-28

ἧς ἐγενόµην ἐγὼ διάκονος κατὰ τὴν οἰκονοµίαν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν µοι εἰς ὑµᾶς
πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ µυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυµµένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ
τῶν γενεῶνᾲνῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ θεὸς γνωρίσαι τί τὸ
πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ µυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑµῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς
τῆς δόξης· ὃν ἡµεῖς καταγγέλλοµεν νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα
ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ἵνα παραστήσωµεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ· ἧς
ἐγενόµην ἐγὼ διάκονος κατὰ τὴν οἰκονοµίαν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν µοι εἰς ὑµᾶς
πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ µυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυµµένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ
τῶν γενεῶνᾲνῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ θεὸς γνωρίσαι τί τὸ
πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ µυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑµῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς
107
τῆς δόξης· ὃν ἡµεῖς καταγγέλλοµεν νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα
ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ἵνα παραστήσωµεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ·
2.5.6 Bible: New Testament: Colossians 3:18

Αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν κυρίῳ.
2.5.7 Bible: New Testament: 1 Corinthians 1:10-17

Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑµᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόµατος τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα τὸ
αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες, καὶ µὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑµῖν σχίσµατα, ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισµένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ
ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώµῃ. ἐδηλώθη γάρ µοι περὶ ὑµῶν, ἀδελφοί µου, ὑπὸ τῶν Χλόης ὅτι ἔριδες ἐν
ὑµῖν εἰσιν. λέγω δὲ τοῦτο, ὅτι ἕκαστος ὑµῶν λέγει, ᾿Εγὼ µέν εἰµι Παύλου, ᾿Εγὼ δὲ
᾿Απολλῶ, ᾿Εγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ. µεµέρισται ὁ Χριστός; µὴ Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη
ὑπὲρ ὑµῶν, ἢ εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα Παύλου ἐβαπτίσθητε; εὐχαριστῶ ὅτι οὐδένα ὑµῶν ἐβάπτισα εἰ
µὴ Κρίσπον καὶ Γάϊον, ἵνα µή τις εἴπῃ ὅτι εἰς τὸ ἐµὸν ὄνοµα ἐβαπτίσθητε. ἐβάπτισα δὲ καὶ
τὸν Στεφανᾶ οἶκον· λοιπὸν οὐκ οἶδα εἴ τινα ἄλλον ἐβάπτισα. οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλέν µε
Χριστὸς βαπτίζειν ἀλλὰ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, ἵνα µὴ κενωθῇ ὁ σταυρὸς
τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦµεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις, σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρχόντων
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου τῶν καταργουµένων· ἀλλὰ λαλοῦµεν θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν µυστηρίῳ, τὴν
ἀποκεκρυµµένην, ἣν προώρισεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς δόξαν ἡµῶν· ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν
ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν, εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης
ἐσταύρωσαν.

ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύµατος τοῦ θεοῦ, µωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν, καὶ
οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευµατικῶς ἀνακρίνεται· ὁ δὲ πνευµατικὸς ἀνακρίνει [τὰ] πάντα,
αὐτὸς δὲ ὑπ' οὐδενὸς ἀνακρίνεται.
2.5.10 Bible: New Testament: 1 Corinthians 11:3

θέλω δὲ ὑµᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ
ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός.

ἀνὴρ µὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν, εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων·
ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικός, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός· καὶ
γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα.

ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ, οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύµατι δὲ
λαλεῖ µυστήρια…

γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν· ἀλλὰ
ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόµος λέγει. εἰ δέ τι µαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους
ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν, αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ.
108
᾿Αλλὰ ἐρεῖ τις, Πῶς ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί; ποίῳ δὲ σώµατι ἔρχονται; ἄφρων, σὺ ὃ σπείρεις
οὐ ζῳοποιεῖται ἐὰν µὴ ἀποθάνῃ· καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶµα τὸ γενησόµενον σπείρεις
ἀλλὰ γυµνὸν κόκκον εἰ τύχοι σίτου ἤ τινος τῶν λοιπῶν· ὁ δὲ θεὸς δίδωσιν αὐτῷ σῶµα
καθὼς ἠθέλησεν, καὶ ἑκάστῳ τῶν σπερµάτων ἴδιον σῶµα. οὐ πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ,
ἀλλὰ ἄλλη µὲν ἀνθρώπων, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ κτηνῶν, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ πτηνῶν, ἄλλη δὲ ἰχθύων.
καὶ σώµατα ἐπουράνια, καὶ σώµατα ἐπίγεια· ἀλλὰ ἑτέρα µὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπουρανίων δόξα,
ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν ἐπιγείων. ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα
ἀστέρων· ἀστὴρ γὰρ ἀστέρος διαφέρει ἐν δόξῃ. Οὕτως καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν.
σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ· σπείρεται ἐν ἀτιµίᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δόξῃ·
σπείρεται ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δυνάµει· σπείρεται σῶµα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶµα
πνευµατικόν. εἰ ἔστιν σῶµα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευµατικόν.

᾿Ασπάζονται ὑµᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῆς ᾿Ασίας. ἀσπάζεται ὑµᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ πολλὰ ᾿Ακύλας καὶ
Πρίσκα σὺν τῇ κατ' οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ.

προείρηκα καὶ προλέγω ὡς παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον καὶ ἀπὼν νῦν τοῖς προηµαρτηκόσιν καὶ
τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, ὅτι ἐὰν ἔλθω εἰς τὸ πάλιν οὐ φείσοµαι…
2.5.17 Bible: New Testament: Ephesians 2:8

τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσµένοι διὰ πίστεως...
2.5.18 Bible: New Testament: Ephesians 5:24

ἀλλὰ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ, οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν
παντί.
2.5.19 Bible: New Testament: Galatians 1:6-9

Θαυµάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως µετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑµᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ]
εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο· εἰ µή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑµᾶς καὶ
θέλοντες µεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡµεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ
οὐρανοῦ [ὑµῖν] εὐαγγελίζηται παρ' ὃ εὐηγγελισάµεθα ὑµῖν, ἀνάθεµα ἔστω. ὡς
προειρήκαµεν, καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω, εἴ τις ὑµᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ' ὃ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεµα
ἔστω.
2.5.20 Bible: New Testament: Galatians 3:27-28

ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε· οὐκ ἔνι ᾿Ιουδαῖος οὐδὲ ῞Ελλην,
οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑµεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν
Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ.
2.5.21 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of John 1:1-4

᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ
πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν
αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
2.5.22 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of John 3:16

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσµον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν µονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ
πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν µὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
109
2.5.23 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of John 6:53
ἐὰν µὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷµα, οὐκ ἔχετε
ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.

ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ· ἦν δὲ γεγραµµένον, ᾿Ιησοῦς
ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν
᾿Ιουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· καὶ ἦν
γεγραµµένον ῾Εβραϊστί, ῾Ρωµαϊστί, ῾Ελληνιστί. ἔλεγον οὖν τῷ Πιλάτῳ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς τῶν
᾿Ιουδαίων, Μὴ γράφε, ῾Ο βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, ἀλλ' ὅτι ἐκεῖνος εἶπεν, Βασιλεύς εἰµι
τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων.

Θωµᾶς δὲ εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα, ὁ λεγόµενος ∆ίδυµος, οὐκ ἦν µετ' αὐτῶν ὅτε ἦλθεν
᾿Ιησοῦς. ἔλεγον οὖν αὐτῷ οἱ ἄλλοι µαθηταί, ῾Εωράκαµεν τὸν κύριον. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς,
᾿Εὰν µὴ ἴδω ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων καὶ βάλω τὸν δάκτυλόν µου εἰς τὸν
τύπον τῶν ἥλων καὶ βάλω µου τὴν χεῖρα εἰς τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ, οὐ µὴ πιστεύσω. Καὶ
µεθ' ἡµέρας ὀκτὼ πάλιν ἦσαν ἔσω οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ Θωµᾶς µετ' αὐτῶν. ἔρχεται ὁ
᾿Ιησοῦς τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισµένων, καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ µέσον καὶ εἶπεν, Εἰρήνη ὑµῖν. εἶτα
λέγει τῷ Θωµᾷ, Φέρε τὸν δάκτυλόν σου ὧδε καὶ ἴδε τὰς χεῖράς µου, καὶ φέρε τὴν χεῖρά
σου καὶ βάλε εἰς τὴν πλευράν µου, καὶ µὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός. ἀπεκρίθη Θωµᾶς
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ῾Ο κύριός µου καὶ ὁ θεός µου. λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, ῞Οτι ἑώρακάς µε
πεπίστευκας; µακάριοι οἱ µὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες.
2.5.26 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of Luke 4:24

εἶπεν δέ, ᾿Αµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ.
2.5.27 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of Luke 23:35-38

καὶ εἱστήκει ὁ λαὸς θεωρῶν. ἐξεµυκτήριζον δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες λέγοντες, ῎Αλλους
ἔσωσεν, σωσάτω ἑαυτόν, εἰ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐκλεκτός. ἐνέπαιξαν δὲ
αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ στρατιῶται προσερχόµενοι, ὄξος προσφέροντες αὐτῷ καὶ λέγοντες, Εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ
βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, σῶσον σεαυτόν. ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ' αὐτῷ, ῾Ο βασιλεὺς τῶν
᾿Ιουδαίων οὗτος.
2.5.28 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of Mark 1:19-20

καὶ εὐθὺς ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἡκολούθησαν αὐτῳ. Καὶ προβὰς ὀλίγον εἶδεν ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν
τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ καταρτίζοντας
τὰ δίκτυα…
2.5.29 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of Mark 4:11-12

καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, ῾Υµῖν τὸ µυστήριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ· ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς
ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάντα γίνεται, ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ µὴ ἴδωσιν, καὶ
ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ µὴ συνιῶσιν, µήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς.
2.5.30 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of Mark 15:26

καὶ ἦν ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιγεγραµµένη, ῾Ο βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων.
2.5.31 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of Matthew 9:4-6
110
καὶ εἰδὼς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὰς ἐνθυµήσεις αὐτῶν εἶπεν, ῾Ινατί ἐνθυµεῖσθε πονηρὰ ἐν ταῖς
καρδίαις ὑµῶν; τί γάρ ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν, ᾿Αφίενταί σου αἱ ἁµαρτίαι, ἢ εἰπεῖν,
῎Εγειρε καὶ περιπάτει; ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
ἀφιέναι ἁµαρτίαςᾲτότε λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ,᾿Εγερθεὶς ἆρόν σου τὴν κλίνην καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς
τὸν οἶκόν σου.

πορευθέντες δὲ µάθετε τί ἐστιν, ῎Ελεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι
δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁµαρτωλούς. Τότε προσέρχονται αὐτῷ οἱ µαθηταὶ ᾿Ιωάννου λέγοντες, ∆ιὰ
τί ἡµεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι νηστεύοµεν πολλά, οἱ δὲ µαθηταί σου οὐ νηστεύουσιν; καὶ εἶπεν
αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, Μὴ δύνανται οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυµφῶνος πενθεῖν ἐφ' ὅσον µετ' αὐτῶν ἐστιν ὁ
νυµφίος; ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡµέραι ὅταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὁ νυµφίος, καὶ τότε νηστεύσουσιν.

οὗτός ἐστιν περὶ οὗ γέγραπται,᾿Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν µου πρὸ προσώπου
σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔµπροσθέν σου. ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, οὐκ ἐγήγερται ἐν
γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν µείζων ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ· ὁ δὲ µικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν
οὐρανῶν µείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἡµερῶν ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ἕως ἄρτι ἡ
βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται, καὶ βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν. πάντες γὰρ οἱ προφῆται
καὶ ὁ νόµος ἕως ᾿Ιωάννου ἐπροφήτευσαν· καὶ εἰ θέλετε δέξασθαι, αὐτός ἐστιν ᾿Ηλίας ὁ
µέλλων ἔρχεσθαι.
2.5.34 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of Matthew 13:11

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν [αὐτοῖς] ὅτι ῾Υµῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ µυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν
οὐρανῶν, ἐκείνοις δὲ οὐ δέδοται.

᾿Ελθὼν δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὰ µέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου ἠρώτα τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ
λέγων, Τίνα λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν, Οἱ µὲν
᾿Ιωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ ᾿Ηλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ ᾿Ιερεµίαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν.

Τότε προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἡ µήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν Ζεβεδαίου µετὰ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτῆς προσκυνοῦσα
καὶ αἰτοῦσά τι ἀπ' αὐτοῦ. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Τί θέλεις; λέγει αὐτῷ, Εἰπὲ ἵνα καθίσωσιν οὗτοι
οἱ δύο υἱοί µου εἷς ἐκ δεξιῶν σου καὶ εἷς ἐξ εὐωνύµων σου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου. ἀποκριθεὶς
δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν, Οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε· δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ µέλλω πίνειν;
λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, ∆υνάµεθα. λέγει αὐτοῖς, Τὸ µὲν ποτήριόν µου πίεσθε, τὸ δὲ καθίσαι ἐκ
δεξιῶν µου καὶ ἐξ εὐωνύµων οὐκ ἔστιν ἐµὸν τοῦτο δοῦναι, ἀλλ' οἷς ἡτοίµασται ὑπὸ τοῦ
πατρός µου.

πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί.

καὶ στήσει τὰ µὲν πρόβατα ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ τὰ δὲ ἐρίφια ἐξ εὐωνύµων. τότε ἐρεῖ ὁ
βασιλεὺς τοῖς ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ, ∆εῦτε, οἱ εὐλογηµένοι τοῦ πατρός µου, κληρονοµήσατε
τὴν ἡτοιµασµένην ὑµῖν βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσµου· ἐπείνασα γὰρ καὶ ἐδώκατέ µοι
φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα καὶ ἐποτίσατέ µε, ξένος ἤµην καὶ συνηγάγετέ µε, γυµνὸς καὶ περιεβάλετέ
111
µε, ἠσθένησα καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθέ µε, ἐν φυλακῇ ἤµην καὶ ἤλθατε πρός µε. τότε
ἀποκριθήσονται αὐτῷ οἱ δίκαιοι λέγοντες, Κύριε, πότε σε εἴδοµεν πεινῶντα καὶ
ἐθρέψαµεν, ἢ διψῶντα καὶ ἐποτίσαµεν; πότε δέ σε εἴδοµεν ξένον καὶ συνηγάγοµεν, ἢ
γυµνὸν καὶ περιεβάλοµεν; πότε δέ σε εἴδοµεν ἀσθενοῦντα ἢ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ ἤλθοµεν πρός
σε; καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐρεῖ αὐτοῖς, ᾿Αµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, ἐφ' ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ
τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν µου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐµοὶ ἐποιήσατε. Τότε ἐρεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἐξ
εὐωνύµων, Πορεύεσθε ἀπ' ἐµοῦ [οἱ] κατηραµένοι εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἡτοιµασµένον
τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ· ἐπείνασα γὰρ καὶ οὐκ ἐδώκατέ µοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα
καὶ οὐκ ἐποτίσατέ µε, ξένος ἤµην καὶ οὐ συνηγάγετέ µε, γυµνὸς καὶ οὐ περιεβάλετέ µε,
ἀσθενὴς καὶ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ οὐκ ἐπεσκέψασθέ µε. τότε ἀποκριθήσονται καὶ αὐτοὶ
λέγοντες, Κύριε, πότε σε εἴδοµεν πεινῶντα ἢ διψῶντα ἢ ξένον ἢ γυµνὸν ἢ ἀσθενῆ ἢ ἐν
φυλακῇ καὶ οὐ διηκονήσαµέν σοι; τότε ἀποκριθήσεται αὐτοῖς λέγων, ᾿Αµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν,
ἐφ' ὅσον οὐκ ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων, οὐδὲ ἐµοὶ ἐποιήσατε. καὶ
ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

καὶ πλέξαντες στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν ἐπέθηκαν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ κάλαµον ἐν τῇ
δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ, καὶ γονυπετήσαντες ἔµπροσθεν αὐτοῦ ἐνέπαιξαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες, Χαῖρε,
βασιλεῦ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων…

καὶ ἐπέθηκαν ἐπάνω τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ γεγραµµένην· Οὗτός ἐστιν
᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων.
2.5.41 Bible: New Testament: James 2:14-24

Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί µου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, ἔργα δὲ µὴ ἔχῃ; µὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις
σῶσαι αὐτόν; ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυµνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν καὶ λειπόµενοι τῆς ἐφηµέρου
τροφῆς, εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑµῶν, ῾Υπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, θερµαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, µὴ
δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώµατος, τί τὸ ὄφελος; οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις, ἐὰν µὴ ἔχῃ
ἔργα, νεκρά ἐστιν καθ' ἑαυτήν. ᾿Αλλ' ἐρεῖ τις, Σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω. δεῖξόν µοι
τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων µου τὴν πίστιν. σὺ
πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς θεός ἐστιν; καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιµόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ
φρίσσουσιν. θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν;
᾿Αβραὰµ ὁ πατὴρ ἡµῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἀνενέγκας ᾿Ισαὰκ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ
θυσιαστήριον; βλέπεις ὅτι ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἡ πίστις
ἐτελειώθη, καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα, ᾿Επίστευσεν δὲ ᾿Αβραὰµ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ
ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, καὶ φίλος θεοῦ ἐκλήθη. ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται
ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως µόνον.
2.5.42 Bible: New Testament: 1 John 4:2

ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκετε τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ· πᾶν πνεῦµα ὃ ὁµολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν
σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν…
2.5.43 Bible: New Testament: 2 John 7-11

ὅτι πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσµον, οἱ µὴ ὁµολογοῦντες ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν
ἐρχόµενον ἐν σαρκί· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος. βλέπετε ἑαυτούς, ἵνα µὴ
ἀπολέσητε ἃ εἰργάσασθε ἀλλὰ µισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολάβητε. πᾶς ὁ προάγων καὶ µὴ µένων ἐν
τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει· ὁ µένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ, οὗτος καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν
112
υἱὸν ἔχει. εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑµᾶς καὶ ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν οὐ φέρει, µὴ λαµβάνετε αὐτὸν
εἰς οἰκίαν καὶ χαίρειν αὐτῷ µὴ λέγετε· ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις
αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς.
2.5.44 Bible: New Testament: 1 Peter 1:22-23

Τὰς ψυχὰς ὑµῶν ἡγνικότες ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας εἰς φιλαδελφίαν ἀνυπόκριτον, ἐκ
καρδίας ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε ἐκτενῶς, ἀναγεγεννηµένοι οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς ἀλλὰ
ἀφθάρτου, διὰ λόγου ζῶντος θεοῦ καὶ µένοντος…
2.5.45 Bible: New Testament: Philippians 4:2-3

Εὐοδίαν παρακαλῶ καὶ Συντύχην παρακαλῶ τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν κυρίῳ. ναὶ ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ,
γνήσιε σύζυγε, συλλαµβάνου αὐταῖς, αἵτινες ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ συνήθλησάν µοι µετὰ καὶ
Κλήµεντος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συνεργῶν µου, ὧν τὰ ὀνόµατα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς.
2.5.46 Bible: New Testament: Romans 5:13

∆ιὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι' ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁµαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσµον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς
ἁµαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ' ᾧ πάντες
ἥµαρτον
2.5.47 Bible: New Testament: Romans 8:3-4

τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόµου, ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός, ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέµψας
ἐν ὁµοιώµατι σαρκὸς ἁµαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁµαρτίας κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί,
ἵνα τὸ δικαίωµα τοῦ νόµου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡµῖν τοῖς µὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ
πνεῦµα.
2.5.48 Bible: New Testament: 1 Timothy 3:1-5

Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυµεῖ. δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον
ἀνεπίληµπτον εἶναι, µιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσµιον, φιλόξενον,
διδακτικόν, µὴ πάροινον, µὴ πλήκτην, ἀλλὰ ἐπιεικῆ, ἄµαχον, ἀφιλάργυρον, τοῦ ἰδίου
οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάµενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ µετὰ πάσης σεµνότητος· (εἰ δέ τις
τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδεν, πῶς ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ ἐπιµελήσεται;)
2.5.49 Bible: New Testament: 1 Timothy 2:11-12

ἀλλ' ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλοµέναις θεοσέβειαν, δι’ ἒργων ἀγαθῶν. γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ
µανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ·
2.6 Bible: Old Testament
2.6.1 Bible: Old Testament: Deuteronomy 5:9

You must not worship or serve them; for I am the Lord your God, a jealous God…
2.6.2 Bible: Old Testament: Ecclesiastes 10:2

The minds of the wise turn to the right, but the mind of a fool to the left.
2.6.3 Bible: Old Testament: Exodus 13:21-22

And all the time the Lord went before them, by day a pillar of cloud to guide them on their journey, by night a
pillar of fire to give them light; so they could travel both by day and by night. The pillar of cloud never left its
place in front of the people by day, nor did the pillar of fire by night.
113
2.6.4 Bible: Old Testament: Exodus 20:5
You must bow down to them in worship; for I, the lord your God, am a jealous God…
2.6.5 Bible: Old Testament: Ezekiel 8:14

Next he brought me to the gateway of the Lord’s house which faces north; and there sat women wailing for
Tammuz.
2.6.6 Bible: Old Testament: Genesis 1:26-29

Then God said, ‘Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness to have dominion over the fish in
the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, all wild animals on land, and everything that creeps on the earth.’ God
created human beings in his own image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created
them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase fill the earth and subdue it, have dominion
over the fish in the sea, the birds of the air, and every living thing that moves on the earth.’ God also said,
‘Throughout the earth I give you all plants that bear seed, and every tree that bears fruit with seed: they shall
be yours for food.’
2.6.7 Bible: Old Testament: Genesis 2:7-3:24

The Lord God formed a human being from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, so that he became a living creature. The Lord God planted a garden in Eden away to the east, and in it
he put the man he had formed…. (2:15) The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to
till it and look after it. ‘You may eat from any tree in the garden,’ he told the man, ‘except from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil; the day you eat from that, you are surely doomed to die.’ Then the Lord God said,
‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I shall make a partner suited to him.’ … (2:21) The Lord God then
put the man into a deep sleep and, while he slept, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the flesh over the
place. The rib he had taken out of the man the Lord God built up into a woman, and he brought her to the
man. The man said: ‘This one at last is bone from my bones, flesh from my flesh! She shall be called woman,
for from man was she taken.’ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and attaches himself to his wife,
and the two become one. (25) Both were naked, the man and his wife, but they had no feeling of shame. (3:1)
The serpent, which was the most cunning of all the creatures the Lord God had made, asked the woman, ‘Is it
true that God has forbidden you to eat from any tree in the garden?’ She replied, ‘We may eat the fruit of any
tree in the garden, except for the tree in the middle of the garden. God has forbidden us to eat the fruit of that
tree or even to touch it; if we do, we shall die.’ ‘Of course you will not die, said the serpent; ‘for god knows
that, as soon as you eat it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God himself, knowing both good and
evil.’ … (6) So she took some and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, and he ate it. Then the eyes of
both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked: so they stitched fig-leaves together and made
themselves loincloths. … (11) God said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree
which I forbade you to eat from?’ The man replied, ‘It was the woman you gave to be with me who gave me
fruit from the tree, and I ate it.’ The Lord God said to the woman, ‘What have you done?’ The woman
answered, ‘It was serpent who deceived me into eating it.’ … (16) To the woman he said: ‘I shall give you
great labour in childbearing; with labour you will bear children. You will desire your husband, but he will be
your master.’ And to the man he said: ‘Because you have listened to your wife and have eaten from the tree
which I forbade you, on your account the earth will be cursed. You will get your food from it only by labour all
the days of your life; …’ (20) The man named his wife Eve because she was the mothers all living beings. The
Lord God made coverings from skins for the man and his wife and clothed them. But he said, ‘The man has
become like one of us, knowing good and evil; what if he now reaches out and takes fruit from the tree of life
also, and eats it and lives for ever?’ So the Lord God banished them from the garden of Eden to till the
ground from which he had been taken. When he drove him out, God settled him to the east of the garden of
Eden, and he stationed the cherubim and a sword whirling and flashing to guard the way to the tree of life.
114
2.6.8 Bible: Old Testament: Genesis 4:25
Adam lay with his wife again. She gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, ‘for’, she said, ‘God has granted
me another son in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.’
2.6.9 Bible: Old Testament: Genesis 6:1-4

The human race began to increase and to spread over the earth and daughters were born to them. The sons of
the gods saw how beautiful these daughters were, so they took for themselves such women as they chose. But the
Lord said, ‘My spirit will not remain in a human being for ever; because he is mortal flesh, he will live only
for a hundred and twenty years.’ In those days as well as later, when the sons of the gods has intercourse with
the daughters of mortals and children were born to them, the Nephilim were on the earth; they were the heroes
of old, people of renown.
2.6.10 Bible: Old Testament: Hosea 1:2

…He [the Lord] said, ‘Go and take an unchaste woman as your wife, and with this woman have children;
for like an unchaste woman is this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord. ’
2.6.11 Bible: Old Testament: Isaiah 1:21

How the faithful city has played the whore! Once the home of justice where righteousness dwelt, she is now
inhabited by murderers.

I am racked with pain till the morning. All my bones are broken, as if by a lion; day and night you torment
me.

Long have I restrained myself, I kept silence and held myself in check; now I groan like a woman in labour,
panting and grasping.
2.6.14 Bible: Old Testament: Isaiah 45:5-6

I am the Lord, and there is none other; apart from me there is no god. Though you have not known me I shall
strengthen you, so that from east to west all may known there is none besides me: I am the Lord, and there is
none other…

Remember all that happened long ago, for I am God, and there is none other; I am God, and there is no one
like me.
2.6.16 Bible: Old Testament: Isaiah 54:5-6

…for your husband is your [Jerusalem’s] Maker; his name is the Lord of Hosts. He who is called God of
all the earth, the Holy One of Israel, is your redeemer. The Lord has acknowledged you a wife again, once
deserted and heart-broken; your God regards you as a wife still young, though you were once cast off.
2.6.17 Bible: Old Testament: Jeremiah 2:1-3

The words of the Lord came to me: Go, make this proclamation in the hearing of Jerusalem: These are the
words of the Lord: I remember in your favour the loyalty of your youth, your love during your bridal days,
when you followed me through the wilderness, through a land unsown. Israel was holy to the Lord, the first
fruits of his harvest; no one who devoured her went unpunished, disaster overtook them. This is the word of the
Lord.
115
2.6.18 Bible: Old Testament: Jeremiah 2:33-3:20
You pick your way so well in search of lovers; even wanton women can learn from you. Yes, and there is blood
on the corners of your robe – the life-blood of the innocent poor, though you did not catch them housebreaking.
For all these things I shall punish you. (35) You say, ‘I am innocent; surely his anger has passed away.’ But I
shall challenge your claim to have done no sin. Why do you so lightly change your course? You will be let down
by Egypt as you were by Assyria; you will go into exile from here with your hands on your heads, for the Lord
rejects those on whom you rely, and from them you will gain nothing. (3:1) If a man divorces his wife and she
leaves him, and if she then becomes another’s, may he go back to her again? Is not that woman defiled, a
forbidden thing? You have been unfaithful with many lovers, says the Lord, and yet you would come back to
me? Look up to the bare heights and see; where have you not been lain with? Like an Arab lurking in the
desert you sat by the wayside to catch lovers; you defiled the land with your adultery and debauchery. Therefore
the showers were withheld and the spring rain failed. But yours was a prostitute’s brazenness, and you were
resolved to show no shame. Not so long since you have called ‘Father, teacher of my youth,’ (5) thinking, ‘Will
he keep up his anger for ever? Will he rage to the end?’ This is how you spoke, but you have done evil and
gone unchallenged. In the reign of King Josiah the Lord said to me: Do you see what apostate Israel has done,
how she went to every hilltop and under every spreading tree, and there committed adultery? Even after she had
done all this I thought she would come back to me, but she did not. That faithless woman, her sister Judah,
saw it; she saw too that I had put apostate Israel away and given her a certificate of divorce because she had
committed adultery. She defiled the land with her casual prostitution and her adulterous worship of stone and
wood. (10) In spite of all this Judah, that faithless woman, has not come back to me in sincerity, but only in
pretence. This is the word of the Lord. The Lord said to me: Apostate Israel is less to blame than that
faithless woman Judah. Go and proclaim this message towards the north: Come back, apostate Israel, says the
Lord; I shall no longer frown on you. For my love is unfalling, says the Lord; I shall not keep up my anger for
ever. Only acknowledge your wrongdoing, your rebellion and the Lord your God, your promiscuous traffic with
foreign gods under every spreading tree, and your disobedience to my commands. This is the word of the Lord.
Come back, apostate people, says the Lord, for I am patient with you, and I shall take, one from each city
and two from each clan, and bring you to Zion. (15) There I shall give you shepherds after my own heart, and
they will lead you with knowledge and understanding. In those days, when you have increased and become
fruitful in the land, says the Lord, no one will speak any more of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord; no
one will think of it or remember it or resort to it; that will be done no more. At that time Jerusalem will be
called the Throne of the Lord, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honour the Lord’s name; never
again will they follow the promptings of their evil and stubborn hearts. In those days Judah will be united with
Israel, and together they will come from a northern land into the land I gave their fathers as their holding. I
said: How gladly would I treat you as a son, giving you a pleasant land, a holding fairer than that of any
nation! You would call me ‘Father’, I thought, and never cease to follow me. (20) But like a woman who
through illicit love has been unfaithful, so you, Israel, were unfaithful to me. This is the word of the Lord.
2.6.19 Bible: Old Testament: Job 10:16

If I am proud as a lion, you hunt me down and confront me again with marvellous power…
2.6.20 Bible: Old Testament: Job 28:23-28

God alone understands the way to it [wisdom], he alone knows it source; for he can see to the ends of the
earth and observe every place under heaven. (25) When he regulated the force of the wind and measured out the
waters in proportion, when he laid down a limit for the rain and cleared a path for the thunderbolt, it was
then he saw wisdom and took stock of it, he considered it and fathomed its very depths. And he said to
mankind: ‘The fear of the Lord is wisdom, and to turn from evil, that is understanding!’
2.6.21 Bible: Old Testament: Judges 3:5-7
116
Thus the Israelites lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and
the Jebusites; they took their daughters in marriage and gave their own daughters to their sons; and they served
their gods. The Israelites did what was wrong in the eyes of the Lord: forgetting the Lord their God, they
served they baalim and the asheroth.
2.6.22 Bible: Old Testament: 1 Kings 11:1-5

King Solomon loved many foreign women; in addition to Pharaoh’s daughter there were Moabite, Ammonite,
Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations with whom the Lord had forbidden the Israelites to
intermarry, ‘because,’ he said, ‘they will entice you to serve their gods’. But Solomon was devoted to them and
loved them dearly. He had seven hundred wives, all princesses, and three hundred concubines, and they
influenced him, for as he grew old, his wives turned his heart to follow other gods, and he did not remain wholly
loyal to the Lord his God as his father David had been. (5) He followed Ashtoreth, goddess of the Sidonians,
and Milcom, the loathsome god of the Ammonites.
2.6.23 Bible: Old Testament: 1 Kings 22:19

Micaiah went on, ‘Listen now to the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord seated on his throne, will all the host
of heaven in attendance on his right and on his left.’
2.6.24 Bible: Old Testament: 2 Kings 17:7-12

All this came about because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God who brought them up from
Egypt, from the despotic rule of Pharaoh king of Egypt; they paid homage to other gods and observed the laws
and customs of the nations whom the Lord had dispossessed before them, and uttered blasphemies against the
Lord their God; they built shrines for themselves in all their settlements, from watch-tower to fortified city;
(10) they set up for themselves sacred pillars and sacred poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree,
and burnt offerings at all the shrines there, as there nations did whom the Lord had displaced before them. By
this wickedness of theirs they provoked the Lord’s anger. They worshipped idols, a thing which the Lord had
forbidden them to do.
2.6.25 Bible: Old Testament: Proverbs 31:10-31

Who can find a good wife? Her worth is far beyond red coral. Her husband’s whole trust is in her, and
children are not lacking. She works to bring him good, not evil, all the days of her life. She chooses wool and
flax and with a will she sets about her work. Like a ship laden with merchandise she brings home food from
far off. (15) She rises while it is still dark and apportions food for her household, with a due share for her
servants. After careful thought she buys a field and plants a vineyard out her earnings. She sets about her
duties resolutely and tackles her work with vigour. She sees that her business goes well and all night long her
lamp does not go out. She holds the distaff in her hand, and her fingers grasp the spindle. (20) She is open-
handed to the wretched and extends help to the poor. When it snows she has no fear for her household, for they
are wrapped in double cloaks. She makes her own bed coverings and clothing of fine linen and purple. Her
husband is well known in the assembly, where he takes his seat with the elders of the region. She weaves linen
and sells it, and supplies merchants with sashes. (25) She is clothed in strength and dignity and can afford to
laugh at tomorrow. When she opens her mouth, it is to speak wisely; her teaching is sound. She keeps her eye
on the conduct of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her sons with one accord extol her
virtues; her husband too is loud in her praise: ‘Many a woman shows how gifted she is; but you excel them
all.’ (30) Charm is deceptive and beauty fleeting; but the woman who fears the Lord is honoured. Praise her
for all she has accomplished; let her achievements bring her honour at the city gates.
2.6.26 Bible: Old Testament: Psalms 22:9-10

But you [YHWH] are who brought me from the womb, who laid me at my mother’s breast. (10) To your
care I was entrusted at birth; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
117
2.6.27 Bible: Old Testament: Psalms 71:6
On you I have leaned from birth; you brought me from my mother’s womb; to you I offer praise at all times.
2.7 Bible: Old Testament Apocrypha
2.7.1 Bible: Old Testament Apocryphon: Wisdom of Solomon 9:4

…δός µοι τὴν τῶν σῶν θρόνων πάρεδρον σοφίαν…
2.7.2 Bible: Old Testament Apocryphon: Wisdom of Solomon 10:1-2

Αὕτη πρωτόπλαστον πατέρα κόσµου µόνον κτισθέντα διεφύλαξεν καὶ ἐξείλατο αὐτὸν ἐκ
παραπτώµατος ἰδίου ἔδωκέν τε αὐτῷ ἰσχὺν κρατῆσαι ἁπάντων.
2.7.3 Bible: Old Testament Apocryphon: Yeshua ben Sirach 1:1

All wisdom is from the Lord; she dwells with him forever.
2.7.4 Bible: Old Testament Apocryphon: Yeshua ben Sirach 9:1-9

Do not be jealous over your dear wife; what you teach her may cause you harm. Do not surrender yourself to a
woman for her to trample your strength underfoot. Do not go near a loose woman or you may fall into her
snares. Do not keep company with a dancing-girl or you may be caught by her advances. (5) Do not stare at a
virgin or you may be trapped into paying damages for her. Never surrender yourself to prostitutes, for fear of
losing all you possess. Do not gaze about you in the city streets or wander in its unfrequented areas. Do not let
your eye linger on a comely figure or stare at a beauty not yours to possess. Many have been seduced by the
beauty of a woman; it kindles passion like fire.
2.7.5 Bible: Old Testament Apocryphon: Yeshua ben Sirach 24:3

‘I am the word spoken by the Most High; it was I who covered the earth like a mist…’
2.8 Book of Jubilees
2.8.1 Book of Jubilees 4:22

He testified to the Watchers who had sinned with the daughters of men because these had begun to mix with
earthly women so that they became defiled.
2.8.2 Book of Jubilees 5:1-2

When mankind began to multiply on the surface of the entire earth and daughters were born to them, the
angels of the Lord – in a certain (year) of this jubilee – saw that they were beautiful to look at. So they
married of them whomever they chose. They gave birth to children for them and they were giants. Wickedness
increased on the earth. All animate beings corrupted their way – (everyone of them) from people to cattle,
animals, birds, and everything that moves about on the ground. All off them corrupted their way and their
prescribed course. They began to devour one another, and wickedness increased on the earth. Every thought of
all mankind’s knowledge was evil like this all the time.
2.8.3 Book of Jubilees 7:20-25

During the twenty-eighth jubilee Noah began to prescribe for his grandsons the ordinances and the
commandments – every statute which he knew. He testified to his sons that they should do what is right, cover
the shame of their bodies, bless the one who had created them, honor father and mother, love one another, and
keep themselves from fornication, uncleanness, and from all injustice. For it was on account of these three
118
things that the flood was on the earth, since (it was) due to fornication that the Watchers had illicit intercourse
– apart from the mandate of their authority – with women. When they married of them whomever they chose
they committed the first (acts) of uncleanness. They fathered (as their) sons the Nephilim. They were all
dissimilar (from one another) and would devour one another: the giant killed the Naphil; the Naphil killed
the Elyo; the Elyo mankind; and people their fellows. When everyone sold himself to commit injustice and to
shed innocent blood, the earth was filled with in justice. After them all the animals, birds, and whatever moves
about and whatever walks on the earth. Much blood was shed on the earth. All the thoughts and wishes of
mankind were (devoted to) thinking up what was useless and wicked all the time. (25) Then the Lord
obliterated all from the surface of the earth because of their actions and because of the blood which they had
shed in the earth.
2.9 Clemens Alexandrinus
2.9.1 Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 1.1-2

< Πάτερ >, φησί, < παρατίθεµαί σοι εἰς χεῖρας τὸ Πνεῦµά µου. > ῝Ο προέβαλε, φησί,
σαρκίον τῷ Λόγῳ ἡ Σοφία,τὸ πνευµατικὸν σπέρµα, τοῦτο στολισάµενος κατῆλθεν ὁ
Σωτήρ. ῞Οθεν ἐν τῷ πάθει τὴν Σοφίαν παρατίθεται τῷ Πατρί, ἵνα αὐτὴν ἀπολάβῃ παρὰ
τοῦ Πατρός, καὶ µὴ κατασχεθῇ ἐνταῦθα ὑπὸ τῶν στερίσκειν δυναµένων. Οὕτως πᾶν
πνευµατικὸν σπέρµα, τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς, διὰ τῆς προειρηµένης φωνῆς παρατίθεται.

Οἱ δ' ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου, πλασθέντος φασὶ τοῦ ψυχικοῦ σώµατος, τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ ψυχῇ οὔσῃ ἐν
ὕπνῳ ἐντεθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Λόγου σπέρµα ἀρρενικόν, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπόρροια τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ,
ἵνα µὴ ὑστέρηµα ᾖ. Καὶ τοῦτο ἐζύµωσεν, τὰ δόξαντα καταδιῃρῆσθαι ἑνοποιοῦν, τὴν
ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν σάρκα, ἃ καὶ ἐν µερισµῷ ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας προηνέχθη. ῞Υπνος δὲ ἦν ᾿Αδὰµ
ἡ λήθη τῆς ψυχῆς, ἣν συνεῖχε µὴ διαλυθῆναι τὸ σπέρµα τὸ πνευµατικόν, ὅπερ ἐνέθηκεν
τῇ ψυχῇ ὁ Σωτήρ. Τὸ σπέρµα <δ'> ἀπόρροια ἦν τοῦ ἄρρενος καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο
λέγει ὁ Σωτήρ· < Σώζου σὺ καὶ ἡ ψυχή σου.>

Τὸ < ᾿Εν ᾿Αρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος > οἱ ἀπὸ
Οὐαλεντίνου οὕτως ἐνδέχονται·᾿< Αρχὴν > µὲν γὰρ τὸν Μονογενῆ λέγουσιν, ὃν καὶ Θεὸν
προσαγορεύεσθαι, ὡς καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ἄντικρυς Θεὸν αὐτὸν δηλοῖ λέγων· < ῾Ο
Μονογενὴς Θεὸς, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.> Τὸν δὲ Λόγον
τὸν < ἐν τῇ ᾿Αρχῇ > (τοῦτ' ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ Μονογενεῖ, ἐν τῷ Νῷ καὶ τῇ ᾿Αληθείᾳ) µηνύει τὸν
Χριστόν, τὸν Λόγον καὶ τὴν Ζωήν· ὅθεν εἰκότως καὶ αὐτὸν Θεὸν λέγει, τὸν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ τῷ
Νῷ ὄντα. < ῝Ο γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ > (τῷ Λόγῳ) · <Ζωὴ ἦν > (ἡ σύζυγος)· διὸ καί φησιν ὁ
Κύριος· <᾿Εγώ εἰµι ἡ Ζωή.>

῎Αγνωστος οὖν ὁ Πατὴρ ὤν, ἠθέλησεν γνωσθῆναι τοῖς Αἰῶσι· καὶ διὰ τῆς ᾿Ενθυµήσεως
τῆς ἑαυτοῦ, ὡς ἂν ἑαυτὸν ἐγνωκώς, Πνεῦµα γνώσεως οὔσης ἐν γνώσει, προέβαλε τὸν
Μονογενῆ. Γέγονεν οὖν καὶ ὁ ἀπὸ γνώσεως (τουτέστι τῆς πατρικῆς ᾿Ενθυµήσεως)
προελθὼν Γνῶσις, τουτέστιν ὁ Υἱός, ὅτι < δι' Υἱοῦ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐγνώσθη. > Τὸ δὲ τῆς ἀγάπης
Πνεῦµα κέκραται τῷ τῆς γνώσεως, ὡς Πατὴρ Υἱῷ καὶ ᾿Ενθύµησις ᾿Αληθείᾳ, ἀπ'
᾿Αληθείας προελθὸν ὡς ἀπὸ ᾿Ενθυµήσεως ἡ γνῶσις. Καὶ ὁ µὲν µείνας < Μονογενὴς Υἱὸς
εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρός >, τὴν ᾿Ενθύµησιν διὰ τῆς γνώσεως ἐξηγεῖται τοῖς Αἰῶσιν, ὡς
ἂν καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κόλπου αὐτοῦ προβληθείς·
119
2.9.5 Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 17.1
῎Εστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ ἡ ᾿Εκκλησία καὶ ἡ Σοφία δι' ὅλων κρᾶσις τῶν σωµάτων δυνατὴ κατὰ
τοὺς Οὐαλεντινιανούς.

Τῷ < κατ' εἰκόνα Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς > τὴν
προβολὴν τὴν ἀρίστην φασὶν οἱ Οὐαλεντινιανοὶ τῆς Σοφίας λέγεσθαι, ἀφ' ἧς τὰ µὲν
ἀρρενικὰ ἡ ἐκλογή, τὰ δὲ θηλυκὰ ἡ κλῆσις. Καὶ τὰ µὲν ἀρρενικὰ ἀγγελικὰ καλοῦσι, τὰ
θηλυκὰ δὲ ἑαυτούς, τὸ διαφέρον σπέρµα. Οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ᾿Αδάµ, τὸ µὲν ἀρρενικὸν
ἔµεινεν αὐτῷ, πᾶν δὲ τὸ θηλυκὸν σπέρµα ἀρθὲν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ Εὔα γέγονεν, ἀφ' ἧς αἱ θήλειαι,
ὡς ἀπ' ἐκείνου οἱ ἄρρενες. Τὰ οὖν ἀρρενικὰ µετὰ τοῦ Λόγου συνεστάλη· τὰ θηλυκὰ δὲ
ἀπανδρωθέντα ἑνοῦται τοῖς ᾿Αγγέλοις καὶ εἰς Πλήρωµα χωρεῖ. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο ἡ γυνὴ εἰς
ἄνδρα µετατίθεσθαι λέγεται καὶ ἡ ἐνταῦθα ᾿Εκκλησία εἰς ᾿Αγγέλους.

᾿Εγειρόµεθα οὖν ἡµεῖς, ἰσάγγελοι τοῖς ἄρρεσιν ἀποκατασταθέντες, τοῖς µέλεσι τὰ µέλη,
εἰς ἕνωσιν.

Τὸν Παράκλητον οἱ ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν λέγουσιν, ὅτι πλήρης τῶν Αἰώνων
ἐλήλυθεν, ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ ῞Ολου προελθών. Χριστὸς γάρ, καταλείψας τὴν προβαλοῦσαν
αὐτὸν Σοφίαν, εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸ Πλήρωµα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἔξω καταλειφθείσης Σοφίας ᾐτήσατο
τὴν βοήθειαν, καὶ ἐξ εὐδοκίας τῶν Αἰώνων ᾿Ιησοῦς προβάλλεται Παράκλητος τῷ
παρελθόντι Αἰῶνι.

Τὸ ὁρατὸν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἡ Σοφία καὶ ἡ ᾿Εκκλησία ἦν τῶν σπερµάτων τῶν διαφερόντων, ἣν
ἐστολίσατο διὰ τοῦ σαρκίου, ὥς φησιν ὁ Θεόδοτος· τὸ δὲ ἀόρατον <τὸ> ῎Ονοµα, ὅπερ
ἐστὶν ὁ Υἱὸς ὁ Μονογενής.

῞Οθεν ὅταν εἴπῃ· < ᾿Εγώ εἰµι ἡ Θύρα >, τοῦτο λέγει ὅτι < µέχρι τοῦ ῞Ορου οὗ εἰµι ἐγὼ
ἐλεύσεσθε, οἱ τοῦ διαφέροντος σπέρµατος >. ῞Οταν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς εἰσέρχηται, καὶ τὸ
σπέρµα συνεισέρχεται αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ Πλήρωµα, διὰ τῆς θύρας < συναχθὲν > καὶ εἰσαχθέν.
2.9.11 Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 29

῾Η Σιγή, φασί, Μήτηρ οὖσα πάντων τῶν προβληθέντων ὑπὸ τοῦ Βάθους, ὃ µὲν οὐκ ἔσχεν
εἰπεῖν, περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αρρήτου σεσίγηκεν, ὃ δὲ κατέλαβεν, τοῦτο᾿Ακατάληπτον
προσηγόρευσεν.
2.9.12 Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 30.2-31.1

Ναὶ µήν· καὶ τοῦ πάθους γενοµένου, τὸ ῞Ολον συνεπάθησεν καὶ αὐτό, εἰς διόρθωσιν τοῦ
παθόντος. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ εἰ ὁ κατελθὼν εὐδοκία τοῦ ῞Ολου ἦν (< ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ
Πλήρωµα ἦν σωµατικῶς >), ἔπαθεν δὲ οὗτος…

῞Οθεν ὁ Θεόδοτος τὸν Χριστὸν, ἐξ ἐννοίας προελθόντα τῆς Σοφίας, εἰκόνα τοῦ
Πληρώµατος ἐκάλεσεν. Οὗτος δέ, καταλείψας τὴν Μητέρα, ἀνελθὼν εἰς τὸ Πλήρωµα,
120
ἐκράθη, ὥσπερ τοῖς ῞Ολοις, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τῷ Παρακλήτῳ. (33.1) Υἱόθετος µέντοι γέγονεν
ὁ Χριστός, ὡς πρὸς τὰ πληρώµατα < ᾿Εκλεκτὸς > γενόµενος καὶ < Πρωτότοκος > τῶν
ἐνθάδε πραγµάτων. … Χριστοῦ, φασί, τὸ ἀνοίκειον φυγόντος <καὶ> συσταλέντος εἰς τὸ
Πλήρωµα, ἐκ τῆς µητρῴας γενοµένου ἐννοίας, ἡ Μήτηρ αὖθις τὸν τῆς οἰκονοµίας
προηγάγετο ῎Αρχοντα, εἰς τύπον τοῦ φυγόντος αὐτήν, κατ' ἐπιπόθησιν αὐτοῦ, κρείττονος
ὑπάρχοντος, ὃς ἦν τύπος τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων. ∆ιὸ καὶ ἥττων γίνεται, ὡς ἂν ἐκ πάθους
τῆς ἐπιθυµίας συνεστώς. < ᾿Εµυσάχθη > µέντοι ἐνιδοῦσα τὴν
< ἀποτοµίαν > αὐτοῦ, ὥς φασιν αὐτοί.

Τῆς Μητρὸς οὖν µετὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τῶν σπερµάτων εἰσελθούσης εἰς τὸ Πλήρωµα, τότε ὁ
Τόπος τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς Μητρὸς καὶ τὴν τάξιν ἀπολήψεται ἣν νῦν ἔχει ἡ Μήτηρ.
(35.1) ῾Ο ᾿Ιησοῦς, < τὸ Φῶς > ἡµῶν, ὡς λέγει ὁ ᾿Απόστολος, < ἑαυτὸν κενώσας >
(τουτέστιν· ἐκτὸς τοῦ ῞Ορου γενόµενος, κατὰ Θεόδοτον), ἐπεὶ < ῎Αγγελος > ἦν τοῦ
Πληρώµατος, τοὺς ᾿Αγγέλους τοῦ διαφέροντος σπέρµατος συνεξήγαγεν ἑαυτῷ. Καὶ αὐτὸς
µὲν τὴν λύτρωσιν, ὡς ἀπὸ Πληρώµατος προελθών, εἶχεν· τοὺς δὲ ᾿Αγγέλους εἰς
διόρθωσιν τοῦ σπέρµατος ἤγαγεν. ῾Ως γὰρ ὑπὲρ µέρους δέονται καὶ παρακαλοῦσι, καὶ δι'
ἡµᾶς κατεχόµενοι, σπεύδοντες εἰσελθεῖν, ἄφεσιν ἡµῖν αἰτοῦνται, ἵνα συνεισέλθωµεν
αὐτοῖς· σχεδὸν γὰρ ἡµῶν χρείαν ἔχοντες, ἵνα εἰσέλθωσιν, ἐπεὶ ἄνευ ἡµῶν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπεται
αὐτοῖς (διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ οὐδὲ ἡ Μήτηρ συνελήλυθεν ἄνευ ἡµῶν, φασίν), εἰκότως ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν
δέονται.

῾Ο Σταυρὸς τοῦ ἐν Πληρώµατι ῞Ορου σηµεῖόν ἐστιν· χωρίζει γὰρ τοὺς ἀπίστους τῶν
πιστῶν ὡς ἐκεῖνος τὸν κόσµον τοῦ Πληρώµατος. ∆ιὸ καὶ τὰ σπέρµατα ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, διὰ τοῦ
σηµείου ἐπὶ τῶν ὤµων βαστάσας, εἰσάγει εἰς τὸ Πλήρωµα. ῏Ωµοι γὰρ τοῦ σπέρµατος ὁ
᾿Ιησοῦς λέγεται· Κεραλὴ δὲ ὁ Χριστός. ῞Οθεν εἴρηται· < ῝Ος οὐκ αἴρει τὸν Σταυρὸν
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθεῖ µοι, οὐκ ἔστι µου ἀδελφός. > ῏Ηιρεν οὖν τὸ σῶµα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὅπερ
ὁµοούσιον ἦν τῇ ᾿Εκκλησίᾳ.
2.9.16 Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 45:1-3

Εὐθὺς οὖν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐπιφέρει αὐτῇ µόρφωσιν τὴν κατὰ γνῶσιν καὶ ἴασιν τῶν παθῶν,
δείξας ἀπὸ Πατρὸς ἀγεννήτου τὰ ἐν Πληρώµατι καὶ τὰ µέχρι αὐτῆς. ᾿Αποστήσας δὲ τὰ
πάθη τῆς πεπονθυίας, αὐτὴν µὲν ἀπαθῆ κατεσκεύασεν, τὰ πάθη δὲ διακρίνας ἐφύλαξεν·
καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ <τὰ> τῆς ἔνδον διεφορήθη, ἀλλ' εἰς οὐσίαν ἤγαγεν αὐτά τε καὶ <τὰ> τῆς
δευτέρας διαθέσεως. Οὕτως διὰ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, ἡ Σοφία <ἀπαθὴς> γίνεται,
καὶ τὰ ἔξω κτίζεται· < Πάντα γὰρ δι' αὐτοῦ γέγονεν, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γέγονεν οὐδέν. >

Καὶ πρῶτον πάντων προβάλλεται εἰκόνα τοῦ Πατρὸς Θεόν, δι' οὗ ἐποίησεν < τὸν οὐρανὸν
καὶ τὴν γῆν >,τουτέστι < τὰ οὐράνια καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια >, τὰ δεξιὰ καὶ τὰ ἀριστερά.

∆ιακρίνας δὲ ὁ ∆ηµιουργὸς τὰ καθαρὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐµβριθοῦς, ὡς ἂν ἐνιδὼν τὴν ἑκατέρου
φύσιν, φῶς ἐποίησεν, τουτέστιν ἐφανέρωσεν καὶ εἰς φῶς καὶ ἰδέαν προσήγαγεν, ἐπεὶ τό γε
ἡλιακὸν καὶ οὐράνιον φῶς πολλῷ ὕστερον ἐργάζεται.
121
< Λαβὼν χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς >, - οὐ τῆς ξηρᾶς, ἀλλὰ τῆς πολυµεροῦς καὶ ποικίλης ὕλης
µέρος, - ψυχὴν γεώδη καὶ ὑλικὴν ἐτεκτήνατο ἄλογον καὶ τῇ τῶν θηρίων ὁµοούσιον· οὗτος
<ὁ> < κατ' εἰκόνα > ἄνθρωπος. ῾Ο δὲ < καθ' ὁµοίωσιν >, τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ∆ηµιουργοῦ
ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὃν εἰς τοῦτον < ἐνεφύσησέν > τε καὶ ἐνέσπειρεν, ὁµοούσιόν τι αὐτῷ δι'
᾿Αγγέλων ἐνθείς. Καθὸ µὲν ἀόρατός ἐστι καὶ ἀσώµατος, τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ < πνοὴν ζωῆς
> προσεῖπεν· µορφωθὲν δέ, < ψυχὴ ζῶσα > ἐγένετο· ὅπερ εἶναι, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ταῖς
προφητικαῖς γραφαῖς ὁµολογεῖ. (51.1) ῎Ανθρωπος γοῦν ἐστιν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, ψυχικὸς ἐν
χοϊκῷ, οὐ µέρει µέρος, ἀλλὰ ὅλῳ ὅλος συνών, ἀρρήτῳ δυνάµει Θεοῦ. ῞Οθεν ἐν τῷ
Παραδείσῳ, τῷ τετάρτῳ οὐρανῷ, δηµιουργεῖται. … (52.1) Τοῦτο τὸ σαρκίον < ἀντίδικον
> ὁ Σωτὴρ εἶπεν καὶ ὁ Παῦλος < νόµον ἀντιστρατευόµενον τῷ νόµῳ τοῦ νοός µου >· καὶ
< δῆσαι > παραινεῖ καὶ < ἁρπάσαι ὡς ἰσχυροῦ τὰ σκεύη >, τοῦ ἀντιπολεµοῦντος τῇ
οὐρανίῳ ψυχῇ, ὁ Σωτήρ· καὶ < ἀπηλλάχθαι αὐτοῦ > παραινεῖ < κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν, µὴ τῇ
φυλακῇ περιπέσωµεν καὶ τῇ κολάσει > …(53.1) Τοῦτο < ζιζάνιον > ὀνοµάζεται συµφυὲς
τῇ ψυχῇ, τῷ χρηστῷ σπέρµατι· τοῦτο καὶ < σπέρµα τοῦ ∆ιαβόλου >, ὡς ὁµοούσιον
ἐκείνῳ, καὶ < ὄφις > καὶ < διαπτερνιστὴς > καὶ < λῃστὴς > ἐπιτιθέµενος κεφαλῇ
βασιλέως. ῎Εσχεν δὲ ὁ ᾿Αδὰµ ἀδήλως αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας ἐνσπαρὲν τὸ σπέρµα τὸ
πνευµατικὸν εἰς τὴν ψυχήν, < διαταγείς >, φησί, < δι' ᾿Αγγέλων, ἐν χειρὶ Μεσίτου· ὁ δὲ
µεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν· ὁ δὲ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν>. < ∆ι' ᾿Αγγέλων > οὖν τῶν ἀρρένων τὰ
σπέρµατα ὑπηρετεῖται, τὰ εἰς γένεσιν προβληθέντα ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας, καθὸ ἐγχωρεῖ
γίνεσθαι. ῞Ατε γὰρ ∆ηµιουργός, ἀδήλως κινούµενος ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας, οἴεται
αὐτοκίνητος εἶναι, ὁµοίως καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι.

᾿Απὸ δὲ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰµ τρεῖς φύσεις γεννῶνται· πρώτη µὲν ἡ ἄλογος, ἧς ἦν Κάιν· δευτέρα δὲ
ἡ λογικὴ καὶ ἡ δικαία, ἧς ἦν ῎Αβελ· τρίτη δὲ ἡ πνευµατική, ἧς ἦν Σήθ. Καὶ ὁ µὲν χοϊκός
ἐστι < κατ' εἰκόνα >· ὁ δὲ ψυχικὸς < καθ' ὁµοίωσιν > Θεοῦ· ὁ δὲ πνευµατικὸς κατ' ἰδίαν·

Τὸ µὲν οὖν πνευµατικὸν φύσει σῳζόµενον· τὸ δὲ ψυχικόν, αὐτεξούσιον ὄν, ἐπιτηδειότητα
ἔχει πρός τε πίστιν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν, καὶ πρὸς ἀπιστίαν καὶ φθοράν, κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν
αἵρεσιν· τὸ δὲ ὑλικὸν φύσει ἀπόλλυται. ῞Οταν οὖν τὰ ψυχικὰ < ἐγκεντρισθῇ τῇ
καλλιελαίῳ > εἰς πίστιν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν, καὶ µετάσχῃ < τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας >, καὶ
ὅταν < εἰσέλθῃ τὰ ἔθνη >, τότε <οὕτω πᾶς ᾿Ισραὴλ <σωθήσεται> >. ᾿Ισραὴλ δὲ
ἀλληγορεῖται ὁ πνευµατικός, ὁ ὀψόµενος τὸν Θεόν, ὁ τοῦ πιστοῦ ᾿Αβραὰµ υἱὸς γνήσιος ὁ
< ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας >, οὐχ ὁ < κατὰ σάρκα >, ὁ ἐκ τῆς δούλης τῆς Αἰγυπτίας.
(57.1) Γίνεται οὖν, ἐκ τῶν γενῶν τῶν τριῶν, τοῦ µὲν µόρφωσις τοῦ πνευµατικοῦ, τοῦ δὲ
µετάθεσις τοῦ ψυχικοῦ ἐκ δουλείας εἰς ἐλευθερίαν.

Μετὰ τὴν τοῦ θανάτου τοίνυν βασιλείαν, µεγάλην µὲν καὶ εὐπρόσωπον τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν
πεποιηµένην, οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον διακονίαν θανάτου γεγενηµένην, πάσης ἀπειπούσης ᾿Αρχῆς
καὶ Θεότητος, ὁ µέγας ᾿Αγωνιστής, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, ἐν ἑαυτῷ δυνάµει τὴν Εκκλησίαν
ἀναλαβών, τὸ ἐκλεκτὸν καὶ τὸ κλητόν, τὸ µὲν παρὰ τῆς τεκούσης τὸ πνευµατικόν, τὸ δὲ
ἐκ τῆς οἰκονοµίας τὸ ψυχικόν, [ὃ] ἀνέσωσεν καὶ ἀνήνεγκεν ἅπερ ἀνέλαβεν, καὶ δι' αὐτῶν
καὶ τὰ τούτοις ὁµοούσια·
122
῾Η µὲν οὖν τῶν πνευµατικῶν ἀνάπαυσις ἐν κυριακῇ, ἐν ᾿Ογδοάδι, ἣ Κυριακὴ ὀνοµάζεται,
παρὰ τῇ Μητρί, ἐχόντων τὰς ψυχάς, τὰ ἐνδύµατα, ἄχρι συντελείας· αἱ δὲ ἄλλαι πισταὶ
ψυχαί, παρὰ τῷ ∆ηµιουργῷ· περὶ δὲ τὴν συντέλειαν, ἀναχωροῦσι καὶ αὗται εἰς ᾿Ογδόαδα.
Εἶτα, τὸ δεῖπνον τῶν γάµων κοινὸν πάντων τῶν σῳζοµένων, ἄχρις ἂν ἀπισωθῇ πάντα καὶ
ἄλληλα γνωρίσῃ.

ἔστιν δὲ οὐ τὸ λουτρὸν µόνον τὸ ἐλευθεροῦν, ὰλλὰ καὶ ἡ γνῶσις, τίνες ἦµεν, τί γεγόναµεν·
ποῦ ἦµεν, [ἤ] ποῦ ἐνεβλήθηµεν· ποῦ σπεύδοµεν, πόθεν λυτρούµεθα· τί γέννησις, τί
ἀναγέννησις.
2.9.25 Clemens Alexandrinus, Paidagogos I.4.10.1-11.2

Ταύτην τοίνυν πλέον τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἀσπασάµενοι πειθαρχίαν σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐπιδῶµεν κυρίῳ,
τὸν βεβαιότατον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ ἐξαψάµενοι κάλων, τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρετὴν ἀνδρὸς καὶ
γυναικὸς εἶναι νενοηκότες. Εἰ γὰρ ἀµφοῖν ὁ θεὸς εἷς, εἷς δὲ καὶ ὁ παιδαγωγὸς ἀµφοῖν. Μία
ἐκκλησία, µία σωφροσύνη, αἰδὼς µία, ἡ τροφὴ κοινή, γάµος συζύγιος, ἀναπνοή, ὄψις,
ἀκοή, γνῶσις, ἐλπίς, ὑπακοή, ἀγάπη, ὅµοια πάντα· ὧν δὲ κοινὸς µὲν ὁ βίος, κοινὴ δὲ ἡ
χάρις, κοινὴ δὲ καὶ ἡ σωτηρία, κοινὴ τούτων καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ καὶ ἡ ἀγωγή. <᾿Εν γὰρ τῷ αἰῶνι
τούτῳ >, φησίν, < γαµοῦσι καὶ γαµίσκονται >, ἐν ᾧ δὴ µόνῳ τὸ θῆλυ τοῦ ἄρρενος
διακρίνεται, < ἐν ἐκείνῳ δὲ οὐκέτι >, ἔνθα τοῦ κοινωνικοῦ καὶ ἁγίου τούτου βίου τοῦ ἐκ
συζυγίας τὰ ἔπαθλα οὐκ ἄρρενι καὶ θηλείᾳ, ἀνθρώπῳ δὲ ἀπόκειται ἐπιθυµίας διχαζούσης
αὐτὸν κεχωρισµένῳ. Κοινὸν οὖν καὶ τοὔνοµα ἀνδράσιν (11.1) καὶ γυναιξὶν ὁ ἄνθρωπος.
Ταύτῃ µοι δοκοῦσιν οἱ ᾿Αττικοὶ παιδάριον ἐπικοίνως οὐ µόνον τὸ ἄρρεν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ θῆλυ
κεκληκέναι, εἴ τῳ πιστὸς καταφαίνεται ὁ κωµικὸς ἐν ῾Ραπιζοµένῃ Μένανδρος ὧδέ πως
λέγων < τοὐµὸν θυγάτριον, ... πάνυ γάρ ἐστι τῇ φύσει φιλάνθρωπον τὸ παιδάριον σφόδρα
>. ῎Αρνες δὲ δὴ ἐπίκοινόν ἐστιν ἀφελείας ὄνοµα ἄρρενός τε καὶ θήλεος ζῴου· αὐτὸς δὲ
ἡµᾶς ὁ < κύριος ποιµαίνει > εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀµήν. < ῎Ανευ δὲ ποιµένος οὔτε πρόβατα
οὔτε ἄλλο οὐδέν πω βιωτέον, οὐδὲ δὴ παῖδας ἄνευ τοῦ παιδαγωγοῦ, οὐδὲ µὴν οἰκέτας
ἄνευ τοῦ δεσπότου. >
2.9.26 Clemens Alexandrinus, Protreptikos XII.120.1-2

῍Ω τῶν ἁγίων ὡς ἀληθῶς µυστηρίων, ὢ φωτὸς ἀκηράτου. ∆ᾳδουχοῦµαι τοὺς οὐρανοὺς
καὶ τὸν θεὸν ἐποπτεῦσαι, ἅγιος γίνοµαι µυούµενος, ἱεροφαντεῖ δὲ ὁ κύριος καὶ τὸν µύστην
σφραγίζεται φωταγωγῶν, καὶ παρατίθεται τῷ πατρὶ τὸν πεπιστευκότα αἰῶσι τηρούµενον.
Ταῦτα τῶν ἐµῶν µυστηρίων τὰ βακχεύµατα· εἰ βούλει, καὶ σὺ µυοῦ, καὶ χορεύσεις µετ'
ἀγγέλων ἀµφὶ τὸν ἀγέννητον καὶ ἀνώλεθρον καὶ µόνον ὄντως θεόν, συνυµνοῦντος ἡµῖν
τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου.
2.9.27 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata III.1.1.1

Οἱ µὲν οὖν ἀµφὶ τὸν Οὐαλεντῖνον ἄνωθεν ἐκ τῶν θείων προβολῶν τὰς συζυγίας
καταγαγόντες εὐαρεστοῦνται γάµῳ...
2.9.28 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata III.4.27.1-28.1

Εἰσὶν δ' οἳ τὴν πάνδηµον ᾿Αφροδίτην κοινωνίαν µυστικὴν ἀναγορεύουσιν... οἱ γὰρ
τρισάθλιοι τὴν [τε] σαρκικὴν καὶ [τὴν] συνουσιαστικὴν κοινωνίαν ἱεροφαντοῦσι καὶ
ταύτην οἴονται εἰς τὴν βασι- (28.1) λείαν αὐτοὺς ἀνάγειν τοῦ θεοῦ.
123
εἰ γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι καθάπερ οἱ ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου πνευµατικὰς ἐτίθεντο κοινωνίας, ἴσως τις
αὐτῶν τὴν ὑπόληψιν ἐπεδέξατ' <ἄν>·

καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ παιδοποιίᾳ γήµαντα ἐγκράτειαν ἀσκεῖν χρή, ὡς µηδ' ἐπιθυµεῖν τῆς γυναικὸς
τῆς ἑαυτοῦ, ἣν ἀγαπᾶν ὀφείλει, σεµνῷ καὶ σώφρονι παιδοποιούµενος θελήµατι.
2.9.31 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata VI.14.109.2

πλέον δέ ἐστι τοῦ πιστεῦσαι τὸ γνῶναι…
2.9.32 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata VII.1.1.1

Ηδη δὲ καιρὸς ἡµᾶς παραστῆσαι τοῖς ῞Ελλησι µόνον ὄντως εἶναι θεοσεβῆ τὸν γνωστικόν,
ὡς ἀναµαθόντας τοὺς φιλοσόφους, οἷός τίς ἐστιν ὁ τῷ ὄντι Χριστιανός, τῆς ἑαυτῶν
ἀµαθίας καταγνῶναι, εἰκῇ µὲν καὶ ὡς ἔτυχεν διώκοντας τοὔνοµα, µάτην δὲ ἀθέους
ἀποκαλοῦντας <τοὺς> τὸν τῷ ὄντι θεὸν ἐγνωκότας.
2.9.33 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata VII.10.55.1-2

῎Εστιν γάρ, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ἡ γνῶσις τελείωσίς τις ἀνθρώπουὡς ἀνθρώπου, διὰ τῆς τῶν
θείων ἐπιστήµης συµπληρουµένη κατά τε τὸν τρόπον καὶ τὸν βίον καὶ τὸν λόγον,
σύµφωνος καὶ ὁµόλογος ἑαυτῇ τε καὶ τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ. διὰ ταύτης γὰρ τελειοῦται ἡ πίστις,
ὡς τελείου τοῦ πιστοῦ ταύτῃ µόνως γιγνοµένου. πίστις µὲν οὖν ἐνδιάθετόν τί ἐστιν
ἀγαθόν, καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ ζητεῖν τὸν θεὸν ὁµολογοῦσα εἶναι τοῦτον καὶ δοξάζουσα ὡς ὄντα.
2.9.34 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata VII.10.57.1-3

ἐπιτήδειος εἰς τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ κρεῖττον εὐπρόσδεκτον µεταβολήν. ὅθεν καὶ ῥᾳδίως εἰς τὸ
συγγενὲς τῆς ψυχῆς θεῖόν τε καὶ ἅγιον µετοικίζει καὶ διά τινος οἰκείου φωτὸς διαβιβάζει
τὰς προκοπὰς τὰς µυστικὰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἄχρις ἂν εἰς τὸν κορυφαῖον ἀποκαταστήσῃ τῆς
ἀναπαύσεως τόπον, τὸν καθαρὸν τῇ καρδίᾳ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον ἐπιστηµονικῶς καὶ
καταληπτικῶς τὸν θεὸν ἐποπτεύειν διδάξασα. ἐνταῦθα γάρ που τῆς γνωστικῆς ψυχῆς ἡ
τελείωσις, πάσης καθάρσεώς τε καὶ λειτουργίας ὑπεκβᾶσαν σὺν τῷ κυρίῳ γίγνεσθαι, ὅπου
ἐστὶν προσεχῶς ὑποτεταγµένη. ἡ µὲν οὖν πίστις σύντοµός ἐστιν, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τῶν
κατεπειγόντων γνῶσις, ἡ γνῶσις δὲ ἀπόδειξις τῶν διὰ πίστεως παρειληµµένων ἰσχυρὰ καὶ
βέβαιος, διὰ τῆς κυριακῆς διδασκαλίας ἐποικοδοµουµένη τῇ πίστει εἰς τὸ ἀµετάπτωτον
καὶ µετ' ἐπιστήµης [καὶ] καταληπτὸν παραπέµπουσα.
2.10 Clemens Romanus
2.10.1 Clemens Romanus, 1 Πρὸς Κορινθίους 3.1

᾿Απροσωπολήµπτως γὰρ πάντα ἐποιεῖτε καὶ ἐν τοῖς νοµίµοις τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπορεύεσθε,
ὑποτασσόµενοι τοῖς ἡγουµένοις ὑµῶν καὶ τιµὴν τὴν καθήκουσαν ἀπονέµοντες τοῖς παρ'
ὑµῖν πρεσβυτέροις· νέοις τε µέτρια καὶ σεµνὰ νοεῖν ἐπετρέπετε· γυναιξίν τε ἐν ἀµώµῳ καὶ
σεµνῇ καὶ ἁγνῇ συνειδήσει πάντα ἐπιτελεῖν παρηγγέλλετε, στεργούσας καθηκόντως τοὺς
ἄνδρας ἑαυτῶν· ἔν τε τῷ κανόνι τῆς ὑποταγῆς ὑπαρχούσας τὰ κατὰ τὸν οἶκον σεµνῶς
οἰκουργεῖν ἐδιδάσκετε, πάνυ σωφρονούσας.
124
2.10.2 Clemens Romanus, 1 Πρὸς Κορινθίους 60.4-61.2
∆ὸς ὁµόνοιαν καὶ εἰρήνην ἡµῖν τε καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν τὴν γῆν, καθὼς ἔδωκας τοῖς
πατράσιν ἡµῶν, ἐπικαλουµένων σε αὐτῶν ὁσίως ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, ὑπηκόους
γινοµένους τῷ παντοκράτορι καὶ παναρέτῳ ὀνόµατί σου, τοῖς τε ἄρχουσιν καὶ ἡγουµένοις
ἡµῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. (61.1) Σύ, δέσποτα, ἔδωκας τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῖς διὰ τοῦ
µεγαλοπρεποῦς καὶ ἀνεκδιηγήτου κράτους σου, εἰς τὸ γινώσκοντας ἡµᾶς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ
αὐτοῖς δεδοµένην δόξαν καὶ τιµὴν ὑποτάσσεσθαι αὐτοῖς, µηδὲν ἐναντιουµένους τῷ
θελήµατί σου· οἷς δός, κύριε, ὑγείαν, εἰρήνην, ὁµόνοιαν, εὐστάθειαν, εἰς τὸ διέπειν αὐτοὺς
τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ δεδοµένην αὐτοῖς ἡγεµονίαν ἀπροσκόπως. Σὺ γάρ, δέσποτα ἐπουράνιε,
βασιλεῦ τῶν αἰώνων, δίδως τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξαν καὶ τιµὴν καὶ ἐξουσίαν τῶν
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὑπαρχόντων· σύ, κύριε, διεύθυνον τὴν βουλὴν αὐτῶν κατὰ τὸ καλὸν καὶ
εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιόν σου, ὅπως διέποντες ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ πραΰτητι εὐσεβῶς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ
αὐτοῖς δεδοµένην ἐξουσίαν ἵλεώ σου τυγχάνωσιν.
2.11 Eirenaios of Lyons
2.11.1 Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.Prologue.2

οὕς φυλάσσειν παρήγγελκεν ἡµῖν Κύριος, ὅµοια µὲν λαλοῦντας, ἀνόµοια δὲ φρονοῦντας,
ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάµην, ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑποµνήµασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, Οὐαλεντίνου
µαθητῶν, ἐνίοις δ' αὐτῶν καὶ συµβαλὼν, καὶ καταλαβόµενος τὴν γνώµην αὐτῶν, µηνύσαι
σοι, ἀγαπητὲ, τὰ τερατώδη καὶ βαθέα µυστήρια, ἃ οὐ πάντες χωροῦσιν, ἐπεὶ µὴ πάντες
τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἐξεπτύκασιν…
2.11.2 Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.1.1-3

ΛΕΓΟΥΣΙ γάρ τινα εἶναι ἐν ἀοράτοις καὶ ἀκατονοµάστοις ὑψώµασι τέλειον Αἰῶνα
προόντα· τοῦτον δὲ καὶ [προαρχὴν καὶ] προπάτορα καὶ Βυθὸν καλοῦσιν. ὑπάρχοντα δ'
αὐτὸν ἀχώρητον καὶ ἀόρατον, ἀΐδιόν τε καὶ ἀγέννητον, ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ καὶ ἠρεµίᾳ πολλῇ
γεγονέναι ἐν ἀπείροις αἰῶσι [χρόνων]. συνυπάρχειν δ' αὐτῷ καὶ ῎Εννοιαν, ἣν δὴ καὶ
Χάριν, καὶ Σιγὴν ὀνοµάζουσι· καὶ ἐννοηθῆναί ποτε ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ προβαλέσθαι τὸν Βυθὸν
τοῦτον, ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων καὶ καθάπερ σπέρµα, τὴν προβολὴν ταύτην, ἣν προβαλέσθαι
ἐνενοήθη, καὶ καθέσθαι ὡς ἐν µήτρᾳ τῇ συνυπαρχούσῃ ἑαυτῷ Σιγῇ· ταύτην δὲ
ὑποδεξαµένην τὸ σπέρµα τοῦτο καὶ ἐγκύµονα γενοµένην, ἀποκυῆσαι Νοῦν, ὅµοιόν τε καὶ
ἶσον τῷ προβαλόντι, καὶ µόνον χωροῦντα τὸ µέγεθος τοῦ Πατρός· τὸν δὲ Νοῦν τοῦτον καὶ
Μονογενῆ καλοῦσι, καὶ Πατέρα, καὶ ᾿Αρχὴν τῶν πάντων· συµπροβεβλῆσθαι δὲ αὐτῷ
᾿Αλήθειαν· καὶ εἶναι ταύτην πρῶτον καὶ ἀρχέγονον Πυθαγορικὴν τετρακτὺν, ἣν καὶ ῥίζαν
τῶν πάντων καλοῦσιν· ἔστι γὰρ Βυθὸς καὶ Σιγὴ, ἔπειτα Νοῦς καὶ ᾿Αλήθεια. Αἰσθόµενόν
τε τὸν Μονογενῆ τοῦτον ἐφ' οἷς προεβλήθη, προβαλεῖν καὶ αὐτὸν Λόγον καὶ Ζωὴν,
πατέρα πάντων τῶν µετ' αὐτὸν ἐσοµένων, καὶ ἀρχὴν καὶ µόρφωσιν παντὸς τοῦ
πληρώµατος. ᾿Εκ δὴ τοῦ Λόγου καὶ τῆς Ζωῆς προβεβλῆσθαι κατὰ συζυγίαν ῎Ανθρωπον
καὶ ᾿Εκκλησίαν· καὶ εἶναι ταύτην ἀρχέγονον ᾿Ογδοάδα, ῥίζαν καὶ ὑπόστασιν τῶν πάντων,
τέτρασιν ὀνόµασι παρ' αὐτοῖς καλουµένην Βυθῷ, καὶ Νῷ, καὶ Λόγῳ, καὶ ᾿Ανθρώπῳ· εἶναι
γὰρ αὐτῶν ἕκαστον ἀρ᾿ῥενόθηλυν· οὕτως πρῶτον τὸν Προπάτορα ἡνῶσθαι κατὰ
συζυγίαν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ᾿Εννοίᾳ· τὸν δὲ Μονογενῆ, τουτέστι τὸν Νοῦν, τῇ ᾿Αληθείᾳ· τὸν δὲ
Λόγον τῇ Ζωῇ, καὶ τὸν ῎Ανθρωπον τῇ ᾿Εκκλησίᾳ. Τούτους δὲ τοὺς Αἰῶνασ εἰς δόξαν τοῦ
Πατρὸς προβεβληµένους, βουληθέντας καὶ αὐτοὺς διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου δοξάσαι τὸν Πατέρα,
προβαλεῖν προβολὰς ἐν συζυγίᾳ· τὸν µὲν Λόγον καὶ τὴν Ζωὴν, µετὰ τὸ προβαλέσθαι τὸν
῎Ανθρωπον καὶ τὴν ᾿Εκκλησίαν, ἄλλους δέκα Αἰῶνας… τὸν δὲ ῎Ανθρωπον καὶ αὐτὸν
προβαλεῖν µετὰ τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας Αἰῶνας δώδεκα … οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τριάκοντα Αἰῶνες τῆς
125
πλάνης αὐτῶν, οἱ σεσιγηµένοι καὶ µὴ γινωσκόµενοι· τοῦτο τὸ ἀόρατον καὶ πνευµατικὸν
κατ' αὐτοὺς πλήρωµα, τριχῆ διεσταµένον εἰς ὀγδοάδα, καὶ δεκάδα, καὶ δωδεκάδα.

Τὸν µὲν οὖν Προπάτορα αὐτῶν γινώσκεσθαι µόνῳ λέγουσι τῷ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγονότι
Μονογενεῖ, τουτέστι τῷ Νῷ· τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς πᾶσιν ἀόρατον καὶ ἀκατάληπτον ὑπάρχειν·
µόνος δὲ ὁ Νοῦς κατ' αὐτοὺς ἐτέρπετο θεωρῶν τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ τὸ µέγεθος τὸ ἀµέτρητον
αὐτοῦ κατανοῶν ἠγάλλετο· καὶ διενοεῖτο καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς αἰῶσιν ἀνακοινώσασθαι τὸ
µέγεθος τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἡλίκος τε καὶ ὅσος ὑπῆρχε, καὶ ὡς ἦν ἄναρχός τε καὶ ἀχώρητος, καὶ
οὐ καταληπτὸς ἰδεῖν· κατέσχε δὲ αὐτὸν ἡ Σιγὴ βουλήσει τοῦ Πατρὸς, διὰ τὸ θέλειν πάντας
αὐτοὺς εἰς ἔννοιαν καὶ πόθον ζητήσεως τοῦ προειρηµένου Προπάτορος αὐτῶν ἀγαγεῖν.
Καὶ οἱ µὲν λοιποὶ ὁµοίως Αἰῶνες ἡσυχῇ πως ἐπεπόθουν τὸν προβολέα τοῦ σπέρµατος
αὐτῶν ἰδεῖν, καὶ τὴν ἄναρχον ῥίζαν ἱστορῆσαι· προήλατο δὲ πολὺ ὁ τελευταῖος καὶ
νεώτατος τῆς δωδεκάδος, τῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ανθρώπου καὶ τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας, προβεβληµένος
Αἰὼν, τουτέστιν ἡ Σοφία, καὶ ἔπαθε πάθος ἄνευ τῆς ἐπιπλοκῆς τοῦ συζυγοῦ τοῦ Θελητοῦ·
ὃ ἐνήρξατο µὲν ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὸν Νοῦν καὶ τὴν ᾿Αλήθειαν, ἀπέσκηψε δὲ εἰς τοῦτον τὸν
παρατραπέντα, πρόφασιν µὲν ἀγάπης, τόλµης δὲ, διὰ τὸ µὴ κεκοινωνῆσθαι τῷ Πατρὶ τῷ
τελείῳ, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Νοῦς. Τὸ δὲ πάθος εἶναι ζήτησιν τοῦ Πατρός· ἤθελε γὰρ, ὡς λέγουσι,
τὸ µέγεθος αὐτοῦ καταλαβεῖν· ἔπειτα µὴ δυνηθῆναι, διὰ τὸ ἀδυνάτῳ ἐπιβαλεῖν πράγµατι,
καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πάνυ ἀγῶνι γενόµενον, διά τε τὸ µέγεθος τοῦ βάθους, καὶ τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον
τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν στοργὴν, ἐκτεινόµενον ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσθεν, ὑπὸ τῆς
γλυκύτητος αὐτοῦ τελευταῖον ἂν καταπεπόσθαι, καὶ ἀναλελύσθαι εἰς τὴν ὅλην οὐσίαν, εἰ
µὴ τῇ στηριζούσῃ καὶ ἐκτὸς τοῦ ἀρ᾿ῥήτου µεγέθους φυλασσούσῃ τὰ ὅλα συνέτυχε
δυνάµει. Ταύτην δὲ τὴν δύναµιν καὶ ῞Ορον καλοῦσιν, ὑφ' ἧς ἐπεσχῆσθαι καὶ ἐστηριχθαι,
καὶ µόγις ἐπιστρέψαντα εἰς ἑαυτὸν, καὶ πεισθέντα ὅτι ἀκατάληπτός ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ,
ἀποθέσθαι τὴν προτέραν ἐνθύµησιν σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινοµένῳ πάθει ἐκ τοῦ ἐκπλήκτου ἐκείνου
θαύµατος. ῎Ενιοι δὲ αὐτῶν πῶς τὸ πάθος τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν µυθολογοῦσιν·
ἀδυνάτῳ καὶ ἀκαταλήπτῳ πράγµατι αὐτὴν ἐπιχειρήσασαν τεκεῖν οὐσίαν ἄµορφον, οἵαν
φύσιν εἶχε θήλειαν τεκεῖν· ἣν καὶ κατανοήσασαν πρῶτον µὲν λυπηθῆναι, διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς
τῆς γενέσεως, ἔπειτα φοβηθῆναι µηδὲ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι τελείως ἔχειν· εἶτα ἐκστῆναι καὶ
ἀπορῆσαι, ζητοῦσαν τὴν αἰτίαν, καὶ ὅντινα τρόπον ἀποκρύψει τὸ γεγονός.
᾿Εγκαταγενοµένην δὲ τοῖς πάθεσι λαβεῖν ἐπιστροφὴν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Πατέρα ἀναδραµεῖν
πειρασθῆναι, καὶ µέχρι τινὸς τολµήσασαν, ἐξασθενῆσαι, καὶ ἱκέτιν τοῦ πατρὸς γενέσθαι·
συνδεηθῆναι δὲ αὐτῇ καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς Αἰῶνας, µάλιστα δὲ τὸν Νοῦν. ᾿Εντεῦθεν λέγουσι
πρώτην ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι τὴν οὐσίαν, ἐκ τῆς ἀγνοίας, καὶ τῆς λύπης, καὶ τοῦ φόβου, καὶ
τῆς ἐκπλήξεως. … ∆ιὰ δὲ τοῦ ῞Ορου τούτου φασὶ κεκαθάρθαι καὶ ἐστηρίχθαι τὴν Σοφίαν,
καὶ ἀποκατασταθῆναι τῇ συζυγίᾳ· χωρισθείσης γὰρ τῆς ᾿Ενθυµήσεως ἀπ' αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ
ἐπιγινοµένῳ πάθει, αὐτὴν µὲν ἐντὸς πληρώµατος µεῖναι· τὴν δὲ ἐνθύµησιν αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ
πάθει ὑπὸ τοῦ ῞Ορου ἀφορισθῆναι καὶ ἀποσταυρωθῆναι, καὶ ἐκτὸς αὐτοῦ γενοµένην,
εἶναι µὲν πνευµατικὴν οὐσίαν, φυσικήν τινα Αἰῶνος ὁρµὴν τυγχάνουσαν· ἄµορφον δὲ καὶ
ἀνείδεον διὰ τὸ µηδὲν καταλαβεῖν· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καρπὸν ἀσθενῆ καὶ θῆλυν αὐτὸν
λέγουσι. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἀφορισθῆναι ταύτην ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώµατος τῶν Αἰώνων, τήν τε
Μητέρα αὐτῆς ἀποκατασταθῆναι τῇ ἰδίᾳ συζυγίᾳ, τὸν Μονογενῆ πάλιν ἑτέραν
προβαλέσθαι συζυγίαν κατὰ προµήθειαν τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἵνα µὴ ὁµοίως ταύτῃ πάθῃ τις τῶν
Αἰώνων, Χριστὸν καὶ Πνεῦµα ἅγιον εἰς πῆξιν καὶ στηριγµὸν τοῦ Πληρώµατος, ὑφ' ὧν
καταρτισθῆναι τοὺς Αἰῶνας. Τὸν µὲν γὰρ Χριστὸν διδάξαι αὐτοὺς συζυγίας φύσιν,
ἀγεννήτου κατάληψιν γινώσκοντας, ἱκανοὺς εἶναι, ἀναγορεῦσαί τε ἐν αὐτοῖς τὴν τοῦ
πατρὸς ἐπίγνωσιν... Καὶ ταῦτα µὲν ὁ ἄρτι προβληθεὶς Χριστὸς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐδηµιούργησε.
126
Τὸ δὲ ἓν Πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἐξισωθέντας αὐτοὺς πάντας εὐχαριστεῖν ἐδίδαξε, καὶ τὴν
ἀληθινὴν ἀνάπαυσιν εἰσηγήσατο. Οὕτως τε µορφῇ καὶ γνώµῃ ἴσους κατασταθῆναι τοὺς
Αἰῶνας λέγουσι... καὶ ἐµµελῶς ἑνώσαντας, προβαλέσθαι προβλήµατα εἰς τιµὴν καὶ δόξαν
τοῦ Βυθοῦ, τελειότατον κάλλος τε καὶ ἄστρον τοῦ Πληρώµατος, τέλειον καρπὸν τὸν
᾿Ιησοῦν, ὃν καὶ Σωτῆρα προσαγορευθῆναι, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Λόγον πατρωνυµικῶς, καὶ
κατὰ [καὶ τὰ] Πάντα, διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ πάντων εἶναι...

Τὰ δὲ ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώµατος λεγόµενα ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἐστι τοιαῦτα· τὴν ᾿Ενθύµησιν τῆς ἄνω
Σοφίας, ἣν καὶ ᾿Αχαµὼθ καλοῦσιν, ἀφορισθεῖσαν τοῦ [ἄνω] πληρώµατος σὺν τῷ πάθει
λέγουσιν, ἐν σκιαῖς καὶ κενώµατος τόποις ἐκβεβράσθαι κατὰ ἀνάγκην. ῎Εξω γὰρ φωτὸς
ἐγένετο καὶ Πληρώµατος, ἄµορφος καὶ ἀνείδεος, ὥσπερ ἔκτρωµα, διὰ τὸ µηδὲν
κατειληφέναι· οἰκτείραντά τε αὐτὴν τὸν [ἄνω] Χριστὸν, καὶ διὰ τοῦ Σταυροῦ
ἐπεκταθέντα, τῇ ἰδίᾳ δυνάµει µορφῶσαι µόρφωσιν τὴν κατ' οὐσίαν µόνον, ἀλλ' οὐ τὴν
κατὰ γνῶσιν· καὶ πράξαντα τοῦτο ἀναδραµεῖν συστείλαντα αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναµιν, καὶ
καταλιπεῖν <αὐτήν>, ὅπως αἰσθοµένη τοῦ περὶ αὐτὴν πάθους διὰ τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν τοῦ
Πληρώµατος, ὀρεχθῇ τῶν διαφερόντων, ἔχουσά τινα ὀδµὴν ἀφθαρσίας, ἐγκαταλειφθεῖσαν
αὐτῇ <ὑπὸ> τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύµατος. ∆ιὸ καὶ αὐτὴν τοῖς ἀµφοτέροις
ὀνόµασι καλεῖσθαι, Σοφίαν τε πατρωνυµικῶς, - ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ αὐτῆς Σοφία κληΐζεται -, καὶ
πνεῦµα ἅγιον ἀπὸ τοῦ περὶ τὸν Χριστὸν πνεύµατος. Μορφωθεῖσάν τε αὐτὴν, καὶ ἔµφρονα
γενηθεῖσαν, παραυτίκα δὲ κενωθεῖσαν ἀοράτου αὐτῇ συνόντος Λόγου, τουτέστι τοῦ
Χριστοῦ, ἐπὶ ζήτησιν ὁρµῆσαι τοῦ καταλιπόντος αὐτὴν φωτὸς καὶ µὴ δυνηθῆναι
καταλαβεῖν αὐτὸ, διὰ τὸ κωλυθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ῞Ορου. Καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὸν ῞Ορον κωλύοντα
αὐτὴν τῆς εἰς τοὔµπροσθεν ὁρµῆς εἰπεῖν ᾿Ιαώ· ὅθεν τὸ ᾿Ιαὼ ὄνοµα γεγενῆσθαι φάσκουσι.
Μὴ δυνηθεῖσαν δὲ διοδεῦσαι τὸν ῞Ορον, διὰ τὸ συµπεπλέχθαι τῷ πάθει, καὶ µόνην
ἀπολειφθεῖσαν ἔξω, παντὶ µέρει τοῦ πάθους ὑποπεσεῖν πολυµεροῦς καὶ πολυποικίλου
ὑπάρχοντος, καὶ παθεῖν, λύπην µὲν, ὅτι οὐ κατέλαβε· φόβον δὲ, µὴ καθάπερ αὐτὴν τὸ
φῶς, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ζῇν ἐπιλίπῃ· ἀπορίαν τε ἐπὶ τούτοις· ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ δὲ τὰ πάντα. Καὶ οὐ
καθάπερ ἡ µήτηρ αὐτῆς, ἡ πρώτη Σοφία καὶ Αἰὼν, ἑτεροίωσιν ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν εἶχεν, ἀλλὰ
ἐναντιότητα. ᾿Επισυµβεβηκέναι δ' αὐτῇ καὶ ἑτέραν διάθεσιν, τὴν τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς ἐπὶ τὸν
ζωοποιήσαντα. Ταύτην σύστασιν καὶ οὐσίαν τῆς ὕλης γεγενῆσθαι λέγουσιν, ἐξ ἧς ὅδε ὁ
κόσµος συνέστηκεν. ᾿Εκ µὲν γὰρ τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς τὴν τοῦ κόσµου καὶ τοῦ δηµιουργοῦ
πᾶσαν ψυχὴν τὴν γένεσιν εἰληφέναι, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φόβου καὶ τῆς λύπης τὰ λοιπὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν
ἐσχηκέναι· ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν δακρύων αὐτῆς γεγονέναι πᾶσαν ἔνυγρον οὐσίαν· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ
γέλωτος, τὴν φωτεινήν· ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς λύπης καὶ τῆς ἐκπλήξεως, τὰ σωµατικὰ τοῦ κόσµου
στοιχεῖα. Ποτὲ µὲν γὰρ ἔκλαιε καὶ ἐλυπεῖτο, ὡς λέγουσι, διὰ τὸ καταλελεῖφθαι µόνην ἐν
τῷ σκότει καὶ τῷ κενώµατι· ποτὲ δὲ εἰς ἔννοιαν ἥκουσα τοῦ καταλιπόντος αὐτὴν φωτὸς,
διεχεῖτο καὶ ἐγέλα· ποτὲ δ' αὖ πάλιν ἐφοβεῖτο· ἄλλοτε δὲ διηπόρει, καὶ ἐξίστατο. ...
∆ιοδεύσασαν οὖν πᾶν πάθος τὴν Μητέρα αὐτῶν, καὶ µόγις ὑπερκύψασαν, ἐπὶ ἱκεσίαν
τραπῆναι τοῦ καταλιπόντος αὐτὴν φωτὸς, τουτέστι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, λέγουσιν· ὃς ἀνελθὼν
µὲν εἰς τὸ πλήρωµα, αὐτὸς µὲν εἰκὸς ὅτι ὤκνησεν ἐκ δευτέρου κατελθεῖν, τὸν
Παράκλητον δὲ ἐξέπεµψεν <πρὸς> αὐτὴν, τουτέστι τὸν σωτῆρα, ἐνδόντος αὐτῷ πᾶσαν
τὴν δύναµιν τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ πᾶν ὑπ' ἐξουσίαν παραδόντος... ἐκπέµπεται δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν
µετὰ τῶν ἡλικιωτῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν ᾿Αγγέλων. Τὴν δὲ ᾿Αχαµὼθ ἐντραπεῖσαν αὐτὸν λέγουσι
πρῶτον µὲν κάλυµµα ἐπιθέσθαι δι' αἰδῶ, µετέπειτα δὲ ἰδοῦσαν αὐτὸν σὺν ὅλῃ τῇ
καρποφορίᾳ αὐτοῦ, προσδραµεῖν αὐτῷ, δύναµιν λαβοῦσαν ἐκ τῆς ἐπιφανείας αὐτοῦ·
κᾀκεῖνον µορφῶσαι αὐτὴν µόρφωσιν τὴν κατὰ γνῶσιν, καὶ ἴασιν τῶν παθῶν ποιήσασθαι
αὐτῆς· χωρίσαντα δ' αὐτὰ αὐτῆς, µὴ ἀµελήσαντα δὲ αὐτῶν - οὐ γὰρ ἦν δυνατὰ
127
ἀφανισθῆναι, ὡς τὰ τῆς προτέρας, διὰ τὸ ἑκτικὰ ἤδη καὶ δυνατὰ εἶναι - ἀλλ' ἀποκρίναντα
χωρήσει τοῦ χωρὶς συγχέαι καὶ πῆξαι, καὶ ἐξ ἀσωµάτου πάθους εἰς ἀσώµατον τὴν ὕλην
µεταβαλεῖν αὐτά· εἶθ' οὕτως ἐπιτηδειότητα καὶ φύσιν ἐµπεποιηκέναι αὐτοῖς, ὥστε εἰς
συγκρίµατα καὶ σώµατα ἐλθεῖν, πρὸς τὸ γενέσθαι δύο οὐσίας, τὴν φαύλην <ἐκ> τῶν
παθῶν, τήν τε <ἐκ> τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς ἐµπαθῆ· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δυνάµει τὸν Σωτῆρα
δεδηµιουργηκέναι φάσκουσι. Τήν τε ᾿Αχαµὼθ ἐκτὸς πάθους γενοµένην, [καὶ]
συλλαβοῦσαν τῇ χαρᾷ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ φώτων τὴν θεωρίαν, τουτέστι τῶν ᾿Αγγέλων τῶν µετ'
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐγκισσήσασαν <εἰς> αὐτοὺς, κεκυηκέναι καρποὺς κατὰ τὴν <εἰκόνων>
διδάσκουσι, κύηµα πνευµατικὸν καθ' ὁµοίωσιν γεγονότως γεγονὸς τῶν δορυφόρων τοῦ
Σωτῆρος.

Τριῶν οὖν ἤδη τούτων ὑποκειµένων κατ' αὐτοὺς, τοῦ µὲν ἐκ τοῦ πάθους, ὃ ἦν ὕλη· τοῦ δὲ
ἐκ τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς, ὃ ἦν τὸ ψυχικόν· τοῦ δὲ ὃ ἀπεκύησε, τουτέστι τὸ πνευµατικὸν, οὕτως
ἐτράπη ἐπὶ τὴν µόρφωσιν αὐτῶν. ᾿Αλλὰ τὸ µὲν πνευµατικὸν µὴ δεδυνῆσθαι αὐτὴν
µορφῶσαι, ἐπειδὴ ὁµοούσιον ὑπῆρχεν αὐτῇ· τετράφθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν µόρφωσιν τῆς
γενοµένης ἐκ τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς αὐτῆς ψυχικῆς οὐσίας, προβαλεῖν τε τὰ παρὰ τοῦ Σωτῆρος
µαθήµατα. Καὶ πρῶτον µεµορφωκέναι αὐτὴν ἐκ τῆς ψυχικῆς οὐσίας λέγουσι τὸν Πατέρα
καὶ βασιλέα πάντων, τῶν τε ὁµοουσίων αὐτῷ, τουτέστι τῶν ψυχικῶν, ἃ δὴ δεξιὰ καλοῦσι,
καὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ πάθους καὶ τῆς ὕλης, ἃ δὴ ἀριστερὰ καλοῦσι· πάντα γὰρ τὰ µετ' αὐτὸν
φάσκουσι µεµορφωκέναι, λεληθότως κινούµενον ὑπὸ τῆς Μητρός· ὅθεν καὶ
Μητροπάτορα, καὶ ᾿Απάτορα, καὶ ∆ηµιουργὸν αὐτὸν, καὶ Πατέρα καλοῦσι· τῶν µὲν
δεξιῶν πατέρα λέγοντες αὐτὸν, τουτέστι τῶν ψυχικῶν· τῶν δὲ ἀριστερῶν, τουτέστι
τῶν ὑλικῶν, δηµιουργὸν, συµπάντων δὲ βασιλέα. Τὴν γὰρ ᾿Ενθύµησιν ταύτην
βουληθεῖσαν εἰς τιµὴν τῶν Αἰώνων τὰ πάντα ποιῆσαι, εἰκόνας λέγουσι πεποιηκέναι
αὐτῶν, µᾶλλον δὲ τὸν Σωτῆρα δι' αὐτῆς· καὶ αὐτὴν µὲν ἐν εἰκόνι τοῦ ἀοράτου Πατρὸς
τετηρηκέναι µὴ γινωσκοµένην ὑπὸ τοῦ δηµιουργοῦ· τοῦτον δὲ τοῦ µονογενοῦς υἱοῦ, τῶν
δὲ λοιπῶν Αἰώνων τοὺς ὑπὸ τούτων [τούτου] γεγονότας ᾿Αρχαγγέλους τε καὶ ᾿Αγγέλους.
Πατέρα οὖν καὶ Θεὸν λέγουσιν αὐτὸν γεγονέναι τῶν ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώµατος, ποιητὴν ὄντα
πάντων ψυχικῶν τε καὶ ὑλικῶν· διακρίναντα γὰρ τὰς δύο οὐσίας συγκεχυµένας, καὶ ἐξ
ἀσωµάτων σωµατοποιήσαντα, δεδηµιουργηκέναι τά τε οὐράνια καὶ τὰ γήϊνα, καὶ
γεγονέναι ὑλικῶν καὶ ψυχικῶν, δεξιῶν καὶ ἀριστερῶν δηµιουργὸν, κούφων καὶ βαρέων,
ἀνωφερῶν καὶ κατωφερῶν· ἑπτὰ γὰρ οὐρανοὺς κατεσκευακέναι, ὧν ἐπάνω τὸν
∆ηµιουργὸν εἶναι λέγουσιν· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἑβδοµάδα καλοῦσιν αὐτὸν, τὴν δὲ µητέρα τὴν
᾿Αχαµὼθ ᾿Ογδοάδα, ἀποσώζουσαν τὸν ἀριθµὸν τοῦ ἀρχεγόνου, καὶ πρὸ τῆς πρώτης τοῦ
πληρώµατος ᾿Ογδοάδος. … Ταῦτα δὲ τὸν δηµιουργὸν φάσκουσιν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ µὲν ὠῆσθαι
κατασκευάζειν, πεποιηκέναι δ' αὐτὰ τῆς ᾿Αχαµὼθ προβαλλούσης· οὐρανὸν <γὰρ>
πεποιηκέναι µὴ εἰδότα τὸν οὐρανόν· καὶ ἄνθρωπον πεπλακέναι, µὴ εἰδότα τὸν ἄνθρωπον·
γῆν τε δεδειχέναι, µὴ ἐπιστάµενον τὴν γῆν· καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων οὕτως λέγουσιν ἠγνοηκέναι
αὐτῶν τὰς ἰδέας ὧν ἐποίει, καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν µητέρα· αὐτὸν δὲ µόνον ὠῆσθαι πάντα εἶναι. …
᾿Επεὶ οὖν τὴν ὑλικὴν οὐσίαν ἐκ τριῶν παθῶν συστῆναι λέγουσι, φόβου τε, καὶ λύπης, καὶ
ἀπορίας· ἐκ µὲν τοῦ φόβου καὶ τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς τὰ ψυχικὰ τὴν σύστασιν εἰληφέναι· ἐκ µὲν
τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς τὸν ∆ηµιουργὸν βούλονται τὴν γένεσιν ἐσχηκέναι, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φόβου τὴν
λοιπὴν πᾶσαν ψυχικὴν ὑπόστασιν, ὡς ψυχὰς ἀλόγων ζώων, καὶ θηρίων, καὶ ἀνθρώπων.
<Καὶ> διὰ τοῦτο ἀτονώτερον αὐτὸν ὑπάρχοντα πρὸς τὸ γινώσκειν τινὰ πνευµατικὰ, αὑτὸν
νενοµικέναι µόνον εἶναι Θεὸν, καὶ διὰ τῶν Προφητῶν εἰρηκέναι· ἐγὼ Θεὸς, πλὴν ἐµοῦ
οὐδείς. ᾿Εκ δὲ τῆς λύπης τὰ πνευµατικὰ τῆς πονηρίας διδάσκουσι γεγονέναι· ὅθεν
<καὶ> τὸν ∆ιάβολον τὴν γένεσιν ἐσχηκέναι, ὃν καὶ κοσµοκράτορα καλοῦσι, καὶ τὰ
128
δαιµόνια, καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους, καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν πνευµατικὴν τῆς πονηρίας ὑπόστασιν. ᾿Αλλὰ
τὸν µὲν ∆ηµιουργὸν υἱὸν τῆς Μητρὸς αὐτῶν λέγουσι, τὸν δὲ κοσµοκράτορα κτίσµα τοῦ
∆ηµιουργοῦ· καὶ τὸν µὲν κοσµοκράτορα γινώσκειν τὰ ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν, ὅτι πνεῦµά ἐστι τῆς
πονηρίας· τὸν δὲ ∆ηµιουργὸν ἀγνοεῖν, ἅτε ψυχικὰ ὑπάρχοντα. Οἰκεῖν δὲ τὴν Μητέρα
αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν ὑπερουράνιον τόπον, τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ µεσότητι· τὸν ∆ηµιουργὸν δὲ εἰς τὸν
ἐπουράνιον τόπον, τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ ἑβδοµάδι· τὸν <δὲ> κοσµοκράτορα ἐν τῷ καθ' ἡµᾶς
κόσµῳ. ᾿Εκ δὲ τῆς ἐκπλήξεως καὶ τῆς ἀµηχανίας ὡς +ἐκ τοῦ στασιµωτέρου+ τὰ
σωµατικὰ, καθὼς προείπαµεν, τοῦ κόσµου στοιχεῖα γεγονέναι … ∆ηµιουργήσαντα δὴ τὸν
κόσµον, πεποιηκέναι καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν χοϊκόν· οὐκ ἀπὸ ταύτης δὲ τῆς ξηρᾶς γῆς,
ἀλλ' ἀπὸ τῆς ἀοράτου οὐσίας, ἀπὸ τοῦ κεχυµένου καὶ ῥευστοῦ τῆς ὕλης λαβόντα· καὶ εἰς
τοῦτον ἐµφυσῆσαι τὸν ψυχικὸν διορίζονται. Καὶ τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν κατ' εἰκόνα καὶ
ὁµοίωσιν γεγονότα· κατ' εἰκόνα µὲν τὸν ὑλικὸν ὑπάρχειν, παραπλήσιον µὲν, ἀλλ' οὐχ
ὁµοούσιον τῷ Θεῷ· καθ' ὁµοίωσιν δὲ τὸν ψυχικὸν, ὅθεν καὶ πνεῦµα ζωῆς τὴν οὐσίαν
αὐτοῦ εἰρῆσθαι, ἐκ πνευµατικῆς ἀπορ᾿ῥοίας οὖσαν. ῞Υστερον δὲ περιτεθεῖσθαι λέγουσιν
αὐτῷ τὸν δερµάτινον χιτῶνα· τοῦτο δὲ τὸ αἰσθητὸν σαρκίον εἶναι ?έ?ουσι. Τὸ δὲ κύηµα
τῆς µητρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς ᾿Αχαµὼθ, ὃ κατὰ τὴν θεωρίαν τῶν περὶ τὸν Σωτῆρα ἀγγέλων
ἀπεκύησεν, ὁµοούσιον ὑπάρχον τῇ µητρὶ, πνευµατικὸν, καὶ αὐτὸν ἠγνοηκέναι τὸν
∆ηµιουργὸν λέγουσι· καὶ λεληθότως κατατεθεῖσθαι εἰς αὐτὸν, µὴ εἰδότος αὐτοῦ, ἵνα δι'
αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ ψυχὴν σπαρὲν, καὶ εἰς τὸ ὑλικὸν τοῦτο σῶµα, κυοφορηθὲν <τε>
ἐν τούτοις καὶ αὐξηθὲν, ἕτοιµον γένηται εἰς ὑπο δοχὴν τοῦ τελείου <λόγου>. ῎Ελαθεν οὖν,
ὡς φασὶ, τὸν ∆ηµιουργὸν ὁ συγκατασπαρεὶς τῷ ἐµφυσήµατι αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας
πνευµατικὸς ἄνθρωπος ἀρρήτῳ <δυνάµει καὶ> προνοίᾳ. ῾Ως γὰρ τὴν µητέρα ἠγνοηκέναι,
οὕτω καὶ τὸ σπέρµα αὐτῆς· ὃ δὴ καὶ αὐτὸ ἐκκλησίαν εἶναι λέγουσιν, ἀντίτυπον τῆς ἄνω
᾿Εκκλησίας· καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἄνθρωπον ἀξιοῦσιν, ὥστε ἔχειν αὐτοὺς τὴν µὲν
ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ∆ηµιουργοῦ, τὸ δὲ σῶµα ἀπὸ τοῦ χοὸς, καὶ τὸ σαρκικὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης, τὸν
δὲ πνευµατικὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπὸ τῆς µητρὸς τῆς ᾿Αχαµώθ.
2.11.6 Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.6.1

Τριῶν οὖν ὄντων, τὸ µὲν ὑλικὸν, ὃ καὶ ἀριστερὸν καλοῦσι... ἔδει γὰρ τῷ ψυχικῷ καὶ
αἰσθητῶν παιδευµάτων. ∆ι' ὧν καὶ κόσµον κατεσκευάσθαι λέγουσι, καὶ τὸν Σωτῆρα δὲ
ἐπὶ τοῦτο παραγεγονέναι τὸ ψυσικὸν, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτεξούσιόν ἐστιν, ὅπως αὐτὸ σώσῃ. ῟Ων
γὰρ ἤµελλε σώζειν, τὰς ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν εἰληφέναι φάσκουσιν, ἀπὸ µὲν τῆς ᾿Αχαµὼθ τὸ
πνευµατικὸν, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ∆ηµιουργοῦ ἐνδεδύσθαι τὸν ψυχικὸν Χριστὸν, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς
οἰκονοµίας περιτεθεῖσθαι σῶµα ψυχικὴν ἔχον οὐσίαν, κατεσκευασµένον δὲ ἀρ᾿ῥήτῳ
τέχνῃ, πρὸς τὸ καὶ ὅρατον καὶ ψηλάφητον καὶ παθητὸν γεγενῆσθαι· καὶ ὑλικὸν δὲ οὐδ'
ὁτιοῦν εἰληφέναι λέγουσιν αὐτόν· µὴ γὰρ εἶναι τὴν ὕλην δεκτικὴν σωτηρίας. Τὴν δὲ
συντέλειαν ἔσεσθαι, ὅταν µορφωθῇ καὶ τελειωθῇ γνώσει πᾶν τὸ πνευµατικὸν, τουτέστιν
οἱ πνευµατικοὶ ἄνθρωποι, οἱ τὴν τελείαν γνῶσιν ἔχοντες περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ τῆς <τὰ>
᾿Αχαµώθ· µεµυηµένους δὲ µυστήρια· εἶναι <δὲ> τούτους <ἑαυτοὺς> ὑποτίθενται.

ὃς ἂν ἐν κόσµῳ γενόµενος γυναῖκα οὐκ ἐφίλησεν, ὥστε αὐτὴν κρατηθῆναι, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐξ
ἀληθείας καὶ οὐ χωρήσει εἰς ἀλήθειαν· ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ κόσµου γενόµενος, µὴ κρατηθεὶς γυναικὶ,
οὐ χωρήσει εἰς ἀλήθειαν, διὰ τὸ ἐν ἐπιθυµίᾳ κρατηθῆναι γυναικός.

῞Οταν δὲ πᾶν τὸ σπέρµα τελειωθῇ, τὴν µὲν ᾿Αχαµὼθ τὴν µητέρα αὐτῶν µεταβῆναι τοῦ
τῆς µεσότητος τόπου λέγουσι, καὶ ἐντὸς πληρώµατος εἰσελθεῖν, καὶ ἀπολαβεῖν τὸν
129
νυµφίον αὐτῆς τὸν Σωτῆρα, τὸν ἐκ πάντων γεγονότα, ἵνα συζυγία γένηται τοῦ Σωτῆρος
καὶ τῆς Σοφίας τῆς ᾿Αχαµώθ. Καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι νυµφίον καὶ νύµφην, νυµφῶνα δὲ τὸ πᾶν
πλήρωµα. Τοὺς δὲ πνευµατικοὺς ἀποδυσαµένους τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ πνεύµατα νοερὰ
γενοµένους, ἀκρατήτως καὶ ἀοράτως ἐντὸς πληρώµατος εἰσελθόντας νύµφας
ἀποδοθήσεσθαι τοῖς περὶ τὸν Σωτῆρα ἀγγέλοις. Τὸν δὲ ∆ηµιουργὸν µεταβῆναι καὶ αὐτὸν
εἰς τὸν τῆς µητρὸς Σοφίας τόπον, τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ µεσότητι· τάς τε τῶν δικαίων ψυχὰς
ἀναπαύσεσθαι καὶ αὐτὰς ἐν τῷ τῆς µεσότητος τόπῳ. Μηδὲν γὰρ ψυχικὸν ἐντὸς
πληρώµατος χωρεῖν.

᾿Ανθρώπων δὲ τρία γένη ὑφίστανται, πνευµατικὸν, χοϊκὸν, ψυχικὸν, καθὼς ἐγένοντο
Κάϊν, ῎Αβελ, Σήθ· καὶ ἐκ τούτων τὰς τρεῖς φύσεις, οὐκέτι καθ' ἓν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ γένος. Καὶ
τὸ µὲν χοϊκὸν εἰς φθορὰν χωρεῖν· καὶ τὸ ψυχικὸν, ἐὰν τὰ βελτίονα ἕληται, ἐν τῷ τῆς
µεσότητος τόπῳ ἀναπαύσεσθαι· ἐὰν δὲ τὰ χείρω, χωρήσειν καὶ αὐτὸ πρὸς τὰ ὅµοια· τὰ δὲ
πνευµατικὰ, ἃ ἂν κατασπείρῃ ἡ Ἀχαµὼθ ἔκτοτε ἕως τοῦ νῦν δικαίαις ψυχαῖς, παιδευθέντα
ἐνθάδε καὶ ἐκτραφέντα, διὰ τὸ νήπια ἐκπεπέµφθαι, ὕστερον τελειότητος ἀξιωθέντα,
νύµφας ἀποδοθήσεσθαι τοῖς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ᾿Αγγέλοις δογµατίζουσι, τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν ἐν
µεσότητι κατ' ἀνάγκην µετὰ τοῦ ∆ηµιουργοῦ ἀναπαυσαµένων εἰς τὸ παντελές.

῎Ετι δὲ ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν µαθητὴν τοῦ Κυρίου διδάσκουσι τὴν πρώτην ὀγδοάδα µεµηνυκέναι.
αὐταῖς λέξεσι, λέγοντες οὕτως· ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ µαθητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου βουλόµενος εἰπεῖν τὴν
τῶν ὅλων γένεσιν, καθ' ἣν τὰ πάντα προέβαλεν ὁ Πατὴρ, ἀρχήν τινα ὑποτίθεται τὸ
πρῶτον γεννηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃν [ὃ] δὴ καὶ Υἱὸν Μονογενῆ καὶ Θεὸν κέκληκεν, ἐν ᾧ
τὰ πάντα ὁ Πατὴρ προέβαλε σπερµατικῶς. ῾Υπὸ δὲ τούτου φησὶ τὸν Λόγον
προβεβλῆσθαι, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν ὅλην τῶν Αἰώνων οὐσίαν, ἣν αὐτὸς ὕστερον ἐµόρφωσεν
ὁ Λόγος. ᾿Επεὶ οὖν περὶ πρώτης γενέσεως λέγει, καλῶς ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς, τουτέστι τοῦ Θεοῦ
καὶ τοῦ Λόγου, τὴν διδασκαλίαν ποιεῖται· λέγει δὲ οὕτως· ᾿Εν ἄρχῃ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ
Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος· οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.
Πρότερον διαστείλας τὰ τρία, Θεὸν, καὶ ᾿Αρχὴν, καὶ Λόγον, πάλιν αὐτὰ ἑνοῖ, ἵνα καὶ τὴν
προβολὴν ἑκατέρων αὐτῶν δείξῃ, τοῦ τε Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Λόγου, καὶ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους
ἅµα, καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ἕνωσιν. ᾿Εν γὰρ τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡ ἀρχὴ, [ἐν
ἀρχῇ δὲ] καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ Λόγος. Καλῶς οὖν εἶπεν· ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος· ἦν γὰρ ἐν τῷ
Υἱῷ· καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν· καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἀρχή· καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, ἀκολούθως· τὸ
γὰρ ἐκ Θεοῦ γεννηθὲν, Θεός ἐστιν· οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν· ἔδειξε τὴν τῆς
προβολῆς τάξιν· πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδ' ἕν· πᾶσι γὰρ τοῖς
µετ' αὐτὸν Αἰῶσι µορφῆς καὶ γενέσεως αἴτιος ὁ Λόγος ἐγένετο. ᾿Αλλὰ ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ,
φησὶ, ζωή ἐστιν· ἐνθάδε καὶ συζυγίαν ἐµήνυσε· Τὰ µὲν γὰρ ὅλα, ἔφη, δι' αὐτοῦ
γεγενῆσθαι, τὴν δὲ ζωὴν ἐν αὐτῷ. Αὕτη οὖν ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ γενοµένη οἰκειοτέρα ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτῷ
τῶν δι' αὐτοῦ γενοµένων· σύνεστι γὰρ αὐτῷ, καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ καρποφορεῖ· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ
ἐπιφέρει, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ῎Ανθρωπον εἰπὼν ἄρτι, καὶ τὴν
᾿Εκκλησίαν ὁµωνύµως τῷ ᾿Ανθρώπῳ ἐµήνυσεν, ὅπως διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς ὀνόµατος δηλώσῃ τὴν
τῆς συζυγίας κοινωνίαν. ᾿Εκ γὰρ τοῦ Λόγου καὶ τῆς Ζωῆς ῎Ανθρωπος γίνεται καὶ
᾿Εκκλησία. Φῶς δὲ εἶπε τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὴν Ζωὴν, διὰ τὸ πεφωτίσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπ' αὐτῆς, ὃ
δή ἐστι µεµορφῶσθαι καὶ πεφανερῶσθαι. Τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ὁ Παῦλος λέγει· Πᾶν γὰρ τὸ
φανερούµενον φῶς ἐστιν. ᾿Επεὶ τοίνυν ἐφανέρωσε καὶ ἐγέννησε τόν τε ῎Ανθρωπον καὶ
τὴν ᾿Εκκλησίαν ἡ Ζωὴ, φῶς εἰρῆσθαι [εἴρηται] αὐτῶν. Σαφῶς οὖν δεδήλωκεν ὁ Ἰωάννης
διὰ τῶν λόγων τούτων, τά τε ἄλλα, καὶ τὴν τετράδα τὴν δευτέραν, Λόγον καὶ Ζωὴν,
130
῎Ανθρωπον καὶ ᾿Εκκλησίαν. ᾿Αλλὰ µὴν καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἐµήνυσε τετράδα· διηγούµενος
γὰρ περὶ τοῦ Σωτῆρος, καὶ λέγων πάντα τὰ ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώµατος δι' αὐτοῦ
µεµορφῶσθαι, καρπὸν εἶναί φησιν αὐτὸν παντὸς τοῦ πληρώµατος. Καὶ γὰρ φῶς εἴρηκεν
αὐτὸν τὸ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαινόµενον, καὶ µὴ καταληφθὲν ὑπ' αὐτῆς, ἐπειδὴ πάντα τὰ
γενόµενα ἐκ τοῦ πάθους ἁρµόσας ἠγνοήθη ὑπ' αὐτῆς. Καὶ υἱὸν δὲ, καὶ ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ζωὴν
λέγει αὐτὸν καὶ λόγον σάρκα γενόµενον· οὗ τὴν δόξαν ἐθεασάµεθά, φησι, καὶ ἦν ἡ δόξα
αὐτοῦ, οἵα ἦν ἡ τοῦ µονογενοῦς, ἡ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς δοθεῖσα αὐτῷ, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ
ἀληθείας. Λέγει δὲ οὕτως· Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡµῖν, καὶ
ἐθεασάµεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς µονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρὸς, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ
ἀληθείας. ᾿Ακριβῶς οὖν καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἐµήνυσε τετράδα· Πατέρα εἰπὼν, καὶ Χάριν, καὶ
τὸν Μονογενῆ, καὶ ᾿Αλήθειαν. Οὕτως ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης περὶ τῆς πρώτης καὶ µητρὸς τῶν ὅλων
Αἰώνων ὀγδοάδος εἴρηκε. Πατέρα γὰρ εἴρηκε, καὶ Χάριν, καὶ Μονογενῆ, καὶ ᾿Αλήθειαν,
καὶ Λόγον, καὶ Ζωὴν, καὶ ῎Ανθρωπον, καὶ ᾿Εκκλησίαν.

῾Ο µὲν γὰρ πρῶτος, ἀπὸ τῆς λεγοµένης γνωστικῆς αἱρέσεως τὰς ἀρχὰς εἰς ἴδιον
χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου µεθαρµόσας Οὐαλεντῖνος, οὕτως ἐξηροφόρησεν, ὁρισάµενος
εἶναι δυάδα ἀνονόµαστον, ἧς τὸ µέν τι καλεῖσθαι ῎Αρ᾿ῥητον, τὸ δὲ Σιγήν. ῎Επειτα ἐκ
ταύτης τῆς δυάδος δευτέραν δυάδα προβεβλῆσθαι, ἧς τὸ µέν τι Πατέρα ὀνοµάζει, τὸ δὲ
᾿Αλήθειαν. ᾿Εκ δὲ τῆς τετράδος ταύτης καρποφορεῖσθαι Λόγον καὶ Ζωὴν, ῎Ανθρωπον καὶ
᾿Εκκλησίαν· εἶναί τε ταύτην ὀγδοάδα πρώτην. Καὶ ἀπὸ µὲν τοῦ Λόγου καὶ τῆς Ζωῆς δέκα
δυνάµεις λέγει προβεβλῆσθαι, καθὼς προειρήκαµεν· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ᾿Ανθρώπου καὶ τῆς
᾿Εκκλησίας δώδεκα, ὧν µίαν ἀποστᾶσαν καὶ ὑστερήσασαν, τὴν λοιπὴν πραγµατείαν
πεποιῆσθαι. ῞Ορους τε δύο ὑπέθετο, ἕνα µὲν µεταξὺ τοῦ Βυθοῦ καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ
Πληρώµατος, διορίζοντα τοὺς γεννητοὺς Αἰῶνας ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου Πατρός· ἕτερον δὲ
τὸν ἀφορίζοντα αὐτῶν τὴν µητέρα ἀπὸ τοῦ Πληρώµατος. Καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν δὲ οὐκ ἀπὸ
τῶν ἐν τῷ Πληρώµατι Αἰώνων προβεβλῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ τῆς µητρὸς ἔξω γενοµένης, κατὰ
τὴν γνώµην τῶν κρειττόνων ἀποκεκυῆσθαι µετὰ σκιᾶς τινος. Καὶ τοῦτον µὲν, ἅτε ἄρ’ῥενα
ὑπάρχοντα, ἀποκόψαντα ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν σκιὰν, ἀναδραµεῖν εἰς τὸ Πλήρωµα. Τὴν δὲ
µητέρα ὑπολειφθεῖσαν µετὰ τῆς σκιᾶς, κεκενωµένην τε τῆς πνευµατικῆς ὑποστάσεως,
ἕτερον υἱὸν προενέγκασθαι· καὶ τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν ∆ηµιουργὸν, ὃν καὶ παντοκράτορα λέγει
τῶν ὑποκειµένων.

Ἄλλος δέ τις, <ὁ καὶ> ἐπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος αὐτῶν, ἐπὶ τὸ ὑψηλότερον καὶ
γνωστικώτερον ἐπεκτεινόµενος, τὴν πρώτην Τετράδα λέγει οὕτως· Ἔστι τις πρὸ πάντων
Προαρχὴ προανεννόητος, ἄρρητός τε καὶ ἀνονόµαστος, ἢν ἐγὼ Μονότητα καλῶ. Ταύτῃ
τῇ Μονότητι συνυπάρχει δύναµις, ἣν καὶ ὀνοµάζω Ἐνότητα. Αὕτη ἡ Ἐνότης ἥ τε
Μονότης, ἅτε ἔν οὖσαι, προήκαντο µὴ προέµεναι Ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων νοητήν, ἀγέννητόν
τε καὶ ἀόρατον, ἣν Ἀρχὴν ὁ λόγος Μονάδα καλεῖ. Ταύτῃ τῇ Μονάδι συνυπάρχει δύναµις
ὁµοούσιος αὐτῇ, ἣν καὶ αὐτὴν ὀνοµάζω τὸ Ἕν. Αὗται <δὲ> αἱ δυνάµεις, ἥ τε Μονότης καὶ
Ἑνότης Μονάς τε καὶ το Ἕν προήκαντο τὰς λοιπὰς προβολάς τῶν αἰώνων.

῎Αλλοι δὲ πάλιν αὐτῶν τὴν πρώτην καὶ ἀρχαιόγονον ἀρχέγονον Ὀγδοάδα τούτοις τοῖς
ὀνοµάσι κεκλήκασι· πρῶτον Προαρχῆς, ἔπειτα Ἀγεννόητον, τὴν δὲ τρίτην Ἄρρητον καὶ
τὴν τετάρτην Ἀόρατον· καὶ ἐκ µὲν τῆς πρώτης Προαρξῆς προβεβλῆσθαι πρώτῳ καὶ
πέµπτῳ τόπῳ Ἀρχήν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἀνεννοήτου, δευτέρῳ καὶ ἕκτῳ Ἀκατάληπτον, ἐκ δὲ τῆς
131
Ἀρρήτου τρίτῳ καὶ ἑβδόµῳ τόπῳ, Ἀνονόµαστον, ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἀοράτου <τετάρτῳ καὶ ὀγδόῳ
τόπῳ> Ἀγέννητον, πλήρωµα τῆς πρώτης Ὀγδοάδος.

Οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Πτολεµαῖον, ἐµπειρότεροι δύο συζύγους αὐτὸν ἔχειν λέγουσιν, ἃς καὶ
διαθέσεις καλοῦσιν, Ἔννοιαν καὶ Θέλησιν. Πρῶτον γὰρ ἐνενοήθη τι προβαλεῖν, ὥς φασιν,
ἔπειτα ἠθέλησε. ∆ιὸ καὶ τῶν δύο τούτων διαθέσεων καὶ δυνάµεων, τῆς τε Ἐννοίας καὶ τῆς
Θελήσεως, ὥσπερ συγκραθεισῶν εἰς ἀλλήλας, ἡ προβολὴ τοῦ τε Μονογενοῦς καὶ τῆς
᾿Αληθείας κατὰ συζυγίαν ἐγένετο. Οὕςτινας τύπους καὶ εἰκόνας τῶν δύο διαθέσεων τοῦ
πατρὸς προελθεῖν, τῶν ἀοράτων ὁρατὰς, τοῦ µὲν Θελήµατος τὸν Νοῦν, τῆς δὲ ᾿Εννοίας
τὴν ᾿Αλήθειαν· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ ἐπιγενητοῦ Θελήµατος, ὁ ἄρρην εἰκών· τῆς δὲ ἀγενήτου
᾿Εννοίας ὁ θῆλυς, ἐπεὶ τὸ Θέληµα ὥσπερ δύναµις ἐγένετο τῆς ᾿Εννοίας. Ἐνενοεῖτο µὲν
γὰρ ἀεὶ ἡ ῎Εννοια τὴν προβολὴν, οὐ µέντοι γε προβάλλειν αὐτὴ καθ' ἑαὐτὴν ἠδύνατο, ἃ
ἐνενοεῖτο· ὅτε δὲ ἡ τοῦ Θελήµατος δύναµις ἐπεγένετο, τότε ὅ ἐνενοεῖτο προέβαλε.

πολλάκις ὑπάγεσθαι πειρώµενος, κολακεύων φησὶν αὐταῖς· Μεταδοῦναί σοι θέλω τῆς
ἐµῆς χάριτος, ἐπειδὴ ὁ Πατὴρ τῶν ὅλων τὸν ἄγγελόν σου διαπαντὸς βλέπει πρὸ
προσώπουαὑτοῦ· ὁ δὲ τόπος τοῦ µεγέθους ἐν ἡµῖν ἐστι· δεῖ ἡµᾶς εἰς τὸ ἓν καταστῆναι.
Λάµβανε πρῶτον ἀπ' ἐµοῦ, καὶ δι' ἐµοῦ τὴν χάριν. Εὐτρέπισον σεαυτὴν, ὡς νύµφη
ἐκδεξοµένη τὸν νυµφίον ἑαυτῆς, ἵνα ἔσῃ ὃ ἐγὼ, καὶ ἐγὼ ὃ σύ. Καθίδρυσον ἐν τῷ νυµφῶνί
σου τὸ σπέρµα τοῦ φωτός. Λάβε παρ' ἐµοῦ τὸν νυµφίον, καὶ χώρησον αὐτὸν, καὶ
χωρήθητι ἐν αὐτῷ. ᾿Ιδοὺ ἡ χάρις κατῆλθεν ἐπί σε· ἄνοιξον τὸ στόµα σου, καὶ
προφήτευσον. … καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου λοιπὸν προφήτιδα ἑαυτὴν µεταλαµβάνει, καὶ εὐχαριστεῖ
Μάρκῳ τῷ ἐπιδιδόντι τῆς ἰδίας χάριτος αὐτῇ· καὶ ἀµείβεσθαι αὐτὸν πειρᾶται, οὐ µόνον
κατὰ τὴν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων δόσιν, ὅθεν καὶ χρηµάτων πλῆθος πολὺ συνενήνοχεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σώµατος κοινωνίαν, κατὰ πάντα ἑνοῦσθαι αὐτῷ προθυµουµένη, ἵνα σὺν
αὐτῷ κατέλθῃ εἰς τὸ ἕν.

Τὸ γὰρ κελεῦον τοῦ κελευοµένου µεῖζόν τε καὶ κυριώτερον, ἐπεὶ τὸ µὲν προηγεῖται, τὸ δὲ
ὑποτέτακται. Εἰ οὖν Μάρκος µὲν κελεύει, ἢ ἄλλος τις, ὡς εἰώθασιν ἐπὶ τοῖς δείπνοις τοῦ
κλήρου οὗτοι πάντοτε παίζειν, καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἐγκελεύεσθαι τὸ προφητεύειν, καὶ πρὸς τὰς
ἰδίας ἐπιθυµίας ἑαυτοῖς µαντεύεσθαι, ἔσται ὁ κελεύων µείζων τε καὶ κυριώτερος τοῦ
προφητικοῦ πνεύµατος, ἄνθρωπος ὢν, ὅπερ ἀδύνατον.

Εἶναί τε αὐτοὺς ἐν ὕψει ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν δύναµιν· διὸ καὶ ἐλευθέρως πάντα πράσσειν, µηδένα
ἐν µηδενὶ φόβονἔχοντας. ∆ιὰ γὰρ τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν ἀκρατήτους καὶ ἀοράτους γίνεσθαι τῷ
κριτῇ.

Τὴν οὖν γένεσιν τῶν Αἰώνων αὐτῶν, καὶ τὴν πλάνην τοῦ προβάτου, καὶ ἀνεύρεσιν,
ἑνώσαντες ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, µυστικώτερον ἐπιχειροῦσιν ἀπαγγέλλειν οὗτοι οἱ εἰς ἀριθµοὺς τὰ
πάντα κατάγοντες, ἐκ µονάδος καὶ δυάδος φάσκοντες τὰ ὅλα συνεστηκέναι. Καὶ ἀπὸ
µονάδος ἕως τῶν τεσσάρων ἀριθµοῦντες οὕτω γεννῶσι τὴν δεκάδα. Μία γὰρ, καὶ δύο, καὶ
τρεῖς, καὶ τέσσαρες, συντεθεῖσαι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, τὸν τῶν δέκα Αἰώνων ἀπεκύησαν ἀριθµόν.
Πάλιν δ' αὖ ἡ δυὰς ἀπ' αὐτῆς προελθοῦσα ἕως τοῦ ἐπισήµου, οἷον δύο καὶ τέσσαρες καὶ
132
ἓξ, τὴν δωδεκάδα ἀπέδειξε. Καὶ πάλιν ἀπὸ τῆς δυάδος ὁµοίως ἀριθµούντων ἡµῶν ἕως τῶν
δέκα, ἡ Τριακοντάς ἀνεδείχθη, ἐν ᾗ
ὀγδοὰς καὶ δεκὰς καὶ δωδεκάς.

Βούλοµαι δέ σοι καὶ ὡς αὐτὴν τὴν κτίσιν κατ' εἰκόνα τῶν ἀοράτων ὑπὸ τοῦ δηµιουργοῦ,
ὡς ἀγνοοῦντος αὐτοῦ, κατεσκευάσθαι διὰ τῆς Μητρὸς λέγουσι, διηγήσασθαι. Πρῶτον µὲν
τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖά φασι, πῦρ, ὕδωρ, γῆν, ἀέρα, εἰκόνα προβεβλῆσθαι τῆς ἄνω πρώτης
τετράδος, τάς τε ἐνεργείας αὐτῶν συναριθµουµένας, οἷον θερµόν τε καὶ ψυχρὸν, ξηρόν τε
καὶ ὑγρὸν, ἀκριβῶς ἐξεικονίζειν τὴν ὀγδοάδα· ἐξ ἧς δέκα δυνάµεις οὕτως καταριθµοῦσιν·
ἑπτὰ µὲν σωµατικὰ κυκλοειδῆ, ἃ καὶ οὐρανοὺς καλοῦσιν· ἔπειτα τὸν περιεκτικὸν αὐτῶν
κύκλον, ὃν καὶ ὄγδοον οὐρανὸν ὀνοµάζουσι· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἥλιόν τε καὶ σελήνην. Ταῦτα
δέκα ὄντα τὸν ἀριθµὸν, εἰκόνας λέγουσιν εἶναι τῆς ἀοράτου δεκάδος, τῆς ἀπὸ καὶ Ζωῆς
προελθούσης. Τὴν δὲ δωδεκάδα µηνύεσθαι διὰ τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ τοῦ καλουµένου κύκλου. Τὰ
γὰρ δώδεκα ζώδια φανερώτατα τὴν τοῦ ᾿Ανθρώπου καὶ τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας
θυγατέρα δωδεκάδα σκιαγραφεῖν λέγουσι. Καὶ ἐπεὶ ἀντεπεζεύχθη, φασὶ, τῇ τῶν ὅλων
φορᾷ ὠκυτάτῃ ὑπαρχούσῃ ὁ ὕπερθεν οὐρανὸς ὁ πρὸς αὐτῷ τῷ κύτει βαρύνων, καὶ
ἀντιταλαντεύων τὴν ἐκείνων ὠκύτητα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ βραδυτῆτι, ὥστε αὐτὸν ἐν τριάκοντα
ἔτεσι τὴν περίοδον ἀπὸ σηµείου ἐπὶ σηµεῖον ποιεῖσθαι, εἰκόνα λέγουσι αὐτὸν τοῦ ῞Ορου
τοῦ τὴν τριακοντώνυµον Μητέρα αὐτῶν περιέχοντος. ... Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις θελήσαντά φασι
τὸν δηµιουργὸν τῆς ἄνω ὀγδοάδος τὸ ἀπέραντον, καὶ αἰώνιον, καὶ ἀόριστον, καὶ ἄχρονον
µιµήσασθαι, καὶ µὴ δυνηθέντα τὸ µόνιµον αὐτῆς, καὶ ἀΐδιον ἐκτυπῶσαι, διὰ τὸ καρπὸν
αὐτὸν εἶναι ὑστερήµατος, εἰς χρόνους, καὶ καιροὺς, ἀριθµούς τε πολυετεῖς τὸ αἰώνιον
αὐτῆς κατατεθεῖσθαι, οἰόµενον ἐν τῷ πλήθει τῶν χρόνων µιµήσασθαι αὐτῆς τὸ
ἀπέραντον. ᾿Ενταῦθά τε λέγουσιν, ἐκφυγούσης αὐτὸν τῆς ἀληθείας, ἐπηκολουθηκέναι τὸ
ψεῦδος· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κατάλυσιν πληρωθέντων τῶν χρόνων λαβεῖν αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον.

Simon autem Samaritanus, ex quo universae haereses substiterunt, …

Igitur horum mystici sacerdotes libidonose quidem vivunt, magias autem perficiunt, quemadmodum potest
unusquisque ipsorum.

…habent quoque et vocabulum a principe impiissimae sententiae Simone, vocati Simoniani, a quibus falsi
nominis scientia accepit initia, sicut ex ipsis assertionibus eorum adest discere.

Quidem enim eorum Aeonem quendam numquam senescentem in virginali Spiritu subiciunt, quem Barbelon
nominant: ubi esse patrem quendam innominabilem dicunt. Voluisse autem hunc manifestare se ipsi
Barbeloni. Ennoeam autem hanc progressam stetisse in conspectu eius et postulasse Prognosin. Cum prodiisset
autem et Prognosis, his rursum petentibus prodiit Incorruptela, post deinde Vita aeterna. In quibus
gloriantem Barbelon et prospicientem in magnitudinem et conceptu delectatam in hanc, generasse simile ei
Lumen. Hanc initium et luminationibus et generationis omnium dicunt. Et videntem patrem Lumen hoc,
unxisse illud sua benignitate, ut perfectum fieret: hunc autem dicunt esse Christum. Qui rursus postulat,
quemadmodum dicunt, adiutorium sibi dari Nun: et progressus est Nus. Super haec autem emittit pater
133
Logon. Coniugationes autem fient Ennoiae et Logi, et Aphtharsias et Christi, et aeonia autem Zoe Thelemati
coniuncta est, et Nus Prognosi. Et magnificabant hi magnum Lumen et Barbelon.

Post deinde de Ennoia et de Logo Autogenen emissum dicunt ad repraesentionem magni Luminis: et valde
honorificatum dicunt et omnia huic subiecta. Coemissam autem ei Alethiam, et esse coniugationem Autogenus
et Alethiae. De Lumine autem, quod est Christus, et de Incorruptela, quattuor emissa luminaria ad
circumstantiam Autogeni dicunt. Et de Thelemate rursus et aonia Zoe quattuor emissiones factas ad
subministrationem quattuor luminaribus, quas nominant Charin, Thelesin, Synesin, Phronesin. Et Charin
quidem magno et primo luminario adiunctam: hunc autem esse Sotera volunt et vocant eum Armozel;
Thelesin autem secundo, quem et nominant Raguhel; Synesin autem tertio luminario, quem vocant David;
Phronesin autem quarto, quem nominant Eleleth.

Confirmatis igitur sic omnibus, super haec emittit Autogenes Hominem perfectum et verum, quem et
Adamantem vocantm, quoniam neque ipse domatus est neque hi es quibus erat. Qui et remotus est cum primo
Lumine ab Armozel. Emissam autem cum Homine ab Autogene Agnitionem perfectam, et coniunctam ei:
unde et hunc cognovisse eum qui est super omnia, virtutem quoque ei invictam datam a virginali Spiritu. Et
refrigerantia in hoc omnia hymnizare magnum Aeona. Hinc autem dicunt manifestatam matrem, patrem,
filium; ex Anthropo autem et Gnosi natum Lignum, quod et ipsum Gnosis vocant.

Deinde ex primo angelo qui adstat Monogeni emissum dicunt Spiritum sanctum, quem et Sophiam et
Prunicam vocant. Hanc igitur videntem reliqua omnia coniugationem habentia, se autem sine coniugatione,
quaesisse cui adunaretur; et cum non inveniret, adseverabat et extendebatur et prorpiciebat ad inferiores partes,
putans hic invenire coniugem; et non inveniens, exsiliit, taediata quoque, quoniam sine bona voluntate partis
impetum fecerat. Post deinde simplicitate et benignitate acta, generavit opus in quo erat Ignorantia et Audacia:
hoc autem opus eius esse Protarchontem dicunt, fabricatorem conditionis huius. Virtutem autem magnam
abstulisse eum a matre narrant et abstitisse ab ea in inferiora et fecisse firmamentum caeli, in quo et habitare
dicunt eum. Et cum sit Ignorantia, fecisse eas quae sunt sub eo potestates et angelos et firmamenta et terrena
omnia. Deinde dicunt adunitum eum Authadiae, generasse Kakian, Zelum, Phthonon et Erin et
Epithymian. Generatis autem his, mater Sophia contristata refugit et in altiora successit, et fit deorsum
numerantibus Octonatio. Illa igitur secedente, se solum opinatum esse, et propter hoc dixisse: ‘Ego sum deus
zelator, et praeter me nemo est.’ (Exodus 20:5 and Isaiah 45:5-6)

Alii autem rursum portentuosa loquuntur, esse quoddam primum Lumen in virtute Bythi, beatum et
incorruptibile et interminatum: esse autem hoc patrem omnium et vocari Primum Hominem. Ennoeam autem
euius progredientem filium dicunt emittentis: et esse hunc filium Hominis, Secundum Hominem. Sub his
autem Spiritum sanctum esse, et sub superiori Spiritu segregata elementa, aquam, tenebras, abyssum, chaos:
super quae ferri Spiritum dicunt, Primam Feminam eum vocantes.

Postea, dicunt, exsultante Primo Homine cum filio suo super formositatem Spiritus, hoc est feminae, et
illuminante eam, generavit ex ea Lumen incorruptibile, Tertium Masculum, quem Christum vocant, filium
Primi et Secundi Hominis et Spiritus sancti, Primae Feminae. Concumentibus autem patre et filio feminae,
quam et matrem viventium dicunt, cum [autem] non potuisset portare nec capere magnitudinem luminum,
superrepletam et superebullientem secundum sinisteriores partes dicunt.
134
Et sic quidem filium eorum solum Christum, quasi dextrum, et in superiora adlevaciticium, arreptum
statim cum matre in incorruptibilem Aeonem. Esse autem hanc et veram et sanctam Ecclesiam, quae fuerit
appellatio et conventio et adunatio patris omnium, Primi Hominis, et filii, Secundi Hominis, et Christi, filii
eorum, et praedictae feminae.

Virtutem autem quae superebulliit ex femina, habentem humectationem luminis, a patribus decidisse deorsum
docent, sua autem voluntate habentem humectationem luminis: quam et Sinistram et Prunicon et Sophiam et
Masculo-feminam vocant. Et descendentem simpliciter in aquas, cum essent immobiles, et movisse quoque eas,
petulanter agentem usque ad abyssos, et adsumpsisse ex eis corpus. Humectationi enim luminis eius omnia
adcucurrisse et adhaesisse dicunt et circumtenuisse eam: quam nisi habuisset, tota absorta fortassis fuisset et
demersa a materia. Deligatam igitur hanc a corpore quod erat a materia et valde gravatam, resipisse
aliquando et conatam esse fugere aquas et ascendere ad matrem, non potuisse autem propter gravidinem
circumpositi corporis. Valde autem male se habentem machinatam esse abscondere illud quod erat desuper
lumen, timentem ne et ipsum laederetur ab inferioribus elementes, quemadmodum et ipsa. Et cum virtutem
accepisset ab humectatione eius quod erat secundum eam lumen, resiliit et in sublimitatem elata est, et facta in
alto dilatavit et cooperuit et fecit caelum hoc quod apparet a corpore eius, et remansit sub caelo quod fecit,
adhuc habens aquatilis corporis typum. Cum accepisset concupiscentiam superioris luminis et virtutem
sumpsisset, per omnia deposuisse corpus et liberatam ab eo. Corpus autem hoc exuisse dicunt eam, feminam a
Femina nominant.
Et filium autem eius dicunt habuisse et ipsum adspirationem quandam in se incorruptelae a matre
relictam ei, per quam operatur. Et potens factur emisit et ipse, sicut dicunt, ab aquis filium sine matre: neque
enim cognovisse matrem eum volunt. Et filium eius secundum patris imitationem alterum emisisse filium. Hic
quoque tertius quartum generavit, et quartus et ipse generavit filium; de quinto sectum filium generatum
dicunt; et sextus septimum generavit. Sic quoque Ebdomas perfecta est apud eos, octavum matre habente
locum; et quemadmodum generationibus, sic et dignitatibus et virtutibus praecedere eos ab invicem.
Et nomina autem mendacio suo talia posuerunt: eum enim qui a matre primus sit Ialdabaoth vocari, eum
autem qui sit ab eo Iao, et qui ab eo Sabaoth, quartam autem Adoneum, et quiem Eloeum, et sextum
Horeum, septimum autem et novissimum omnium Astaphaeum. Hos autem caelos et areothas et virtutes et
angelos et conditores subiciunt per ordinem sedentes in caelo secundum generationem ipsorum, non apparentes,
regere quoque caelestia et terrestria, primo ipsorum Ialdabaoth contemnente matrem in eo quod filios et nepotes
sine ullius permissu fecerit, adhuc etiam angelos et archangelos et virtutes et potestates en dominationes. Quibus
factis ad litem et iurgium adversus eum conversos ess efilios eius de principatu: propter quae contristatum
Ialdabaoth et desperantem, conspexisse in subiacentem faecem materiae et consolidasse concupiscentiam suam
in eam. Unde natum filium dicuntm hunc autem ipsum esse Nun, in figura serpentis contortum: dehinc et
spiritum et animam et omnia mundialia; inde generatam omnem oblivionem et malitiam et zelum et invidiam
et mortem.

Hunc autem serpentiformem et contortum Nun eorum adhuc magis evertisse patrem dicunt tortuositate, cum
esset cum patre ipsorum et in paradiso.

Unde exsultantem Ialdabaoth in omnibus his quae sub eo essent gloriatum et dixisse: ‘Ego pater et deus, et
super me nemo.’ (Exodus 20:5 and Isaiah 45:5-6) Audientem autem matrem clamasse adversus eum:
‘Noli mentiti, Ialdabaoth, est enim super te pater omnium Primus Anthropus, et Anthropus filius Anthropi.’
Conturbatis autem omnibus ad novam vocem et inopinabili nuncupatione et quaerentibus unde clamor, ad
avocandos eos et ad se seducendum dixisse Ialdabaoth dicunt: ‘Venite, faciamus hominem ad imaginem
nostram’ (Genesis 1:26) Sex autem virtutes audioentes haec, matre dante illis excogitationem hominis, uti
135
per eum evacuet eos a principali virtute, convenientes formaverunt hominem emmensum latitudine et
longitudine. Scarizante autem eo tantum, advexerunt eum patri eorum, et hoc Sophia operante uti et illum
evacuet ab humectatione luminis, uti non posset erigi adversus eos qui susum sunt, habens virtutem. Illo autem
insufflante in hominem spiritum vitae, latenter evacuatum eum a virtute dicunt; hominem autem indee
habuisse nun et enthymesin, et haec esse quae salvantur dicunt, et statim gratias agere eum Primo Homini,
relictis fabricatoribus.

Zelantem autem Ialdabaoth voluisse excogitare evacuare hominem per feminam, et de sua enthymesi eduxisse
feminam: quam illsa Prunicos suscipiens invisibiliter evacuavit a virtute. Reliquos autem venientes et mirantes
formositatem eius, vocasse eum Evam, et concupiscentes hanc generasse ex ea filios, quos et angelos esse dicunt.
Mater autem ipsorum argumentata est per Serpentem seducere Evam et Adam, supergredi praeceptum
Ialdabaoth. Eva autem quasi a filio dei hoc audiens, facile credidit et Adam suasit manducare de arbore de
qua dixerat deus non manducare. Manducantes autem eos cognovisse eam quae est super omnia virtutem
dicunt et abscessisse ab his qui fecerunt eos.

Ialdabaoth autem propter eam quae circa eum erat oblivionem ne quidem intendentem ad haec, proiecisse
Adam et Evam de paradiso, quoniam transgressi erant praeceptum eius. Voluisse enim filios ei ex Eva
generari, et non adeptum esse, quoniam mater sua in omnibus contrairet ei, et latenter evacuans Adam et
Evam ab humectatione luminis, uti neque maledictionem participaret neque opprobrium is qui esset a
principalitate spiritus. Sic quoque vacuos a divina substantia factos, maledictos esse ab eo et deiectos a caelo in
hunc mundum docent. Sed et serpentem adversus patrem operantem deiectum ab eo in deorsum mundum. In
ptestatem autem suam redigentem angelos qui hic sunt, et ipsum sex filios generasse, septimo ipse exsistente ad
imitationem eius quae circa patrem est Ebdomadis. Et hos septem daemonas mundiales esse dicunt,
adversantes et resistentes semper generi humano, quoniam propter eos pater illorum proiectus est deorsum.

Adam autem et Evam prius quidem habuisse levia et clara et velut spiritalia corpora, quemadmodum et
pasmati sunt: venientes autem huc, demutasse in obscurius et pinguius et prigrius. Sed et animam dissolutam
et languidam, quippe a factore tantummodo insufflationem mundialem habentes, quoadusque Prunicos
miserata eorum reddidit eis odorem suavitatis humectationis luminis. Per quam in commemorationem venerunt
suam ipsorum et cognoverunt semetipsos nudos et corporis materiam; et cognoverunt quoniam mortem bailoant
et magnanimes exstiterunt, cognoscentes quoniam ad tempus corpus circumdatum est eis; et escas quoque
invenisse eos, praeeunte eis Sophia, et satiatos coisse invicem carnaliter et generasse Cain. Quem deiectibilis
Serpens cum filiis suis statim suscipiens evertit et adimplevit, ita ut et dum fratrem suum Abel occideret,
primus zelum et mortem ostenderit. Post quos secundum providentiam Prunici dicunt generatum Seth, post
Norean: ex quibus reliquam multitudinem hominum generatam dicunt…

…et ab inmferiori Ebdomade in omnem malitiam immissam et apostasiam <a> superiore sancta Ebdomade
et idolatriam et reliquam universam contemptionem, cum contraria eis esset semper mater invisibiliter et
proprium salvaret, hoc est humectationem luminis.

Iratum autem Ialdabaoth hominibus, quoniam eum non colebant neque honorificabant quasi patrem et deum,
diluvium eis immisisse ut omnes simul perderet. Contra stante autem et hic Sophia, salvatos esse eos qui circa
Noe erant in arca propter humectationem illius luminis quod ab ea erat, per quam iterum adimpletum esse
mundum hominibus.
136
2.11.37 Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses II.22.4
Triginta quidem annorum exsistens cum veniret ad baptismum, deinde, magistri aetatem perfectam habens,
venit in Hierusalem, ita ut ab omnibus iuste audiret magister: non enim aliud videbatur et aliud erat, sicut
inquiunt qui putativum introducunt, sed quod erat, hoc et videbatur. Magister ergo exsistens, magistri quoque
habebat aetatem, non reprobans neque supergrediens hominem neque solvens [suam] legem in se humani
generis, sed omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsum erat similitudinem. Omnes enim venit per
semetipsum salvare: omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes et parvulos et pueros et
iuvenes et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, et <in> infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes; in
parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem, simul et exemplum illis pietatis effectus et
iustitiae et subiectionis; in iuvenibus iuvenis, exemplum iuvenibus fiens et sanctificans domino: sic et senior in
senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed et secundum
aetatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis quoque fiens; deinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit
“promogenitus ex mortuis, ipse primatum tenens in omnibus” (Colossians 1:18), princeps vitae (Acts
3:15), prior omnium et praecedens omnes.
2.11.38 Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses II.27.2

Itaque secundum hanc rationem homo quidem semper inquiret, numquam autem inviniet, eo quod ipsam
inventionis abiecerit disciplinam.
2.11.39 Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses III.3.2

Confundimus omnes eos qui quoquo modo, vel per sibiplacentiam vel vanam gloriam vel per caecitatem et
sententiam malam, praeterquam opertet colligunt: ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem
necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt
undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.

Haec [ecclecia]est enim vitae introitus; omnes autem reliqui fures sunt et latrones.
2.11.41 Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses III.11.1-2

Hanc fidem adnuntians Iohannes domini discipulus, volens per evangelii adnuntiationem auferre eum qui a
Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibis errorem et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaitae, qui sunt vulsio
eius quae falso cognominatur scientiae, ut confunderet eos et suaderet quoniam unus Deus qui omnia fecit per
verbum suum, et non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem Fabricatorem, alium autem patrem domini;
et alium quidem Fabricatoris filium, alterum vero de superioribus Christum, quem et impassibilem
perseverasse, descendentem in Iesum filium Fabricatoris, et iterum revolasse in suum Pleroma; et Initium
quidem ese Monogenen, Logon autem iterum filium Unigeniti; et eam conditionem quae est secundum nos non
a primo deo factam, sed a virtute aliqua deorsum subiecta et abscissa ab eorum communicatione quae sunt
invisibilia et innominabilia; omnia igitur talia circumscribere volens discipulus domini et regulam veritatis
constituere in ecclesia quia est unus Deus omnipotens qui per verbum suum omnia fecit et visibilia et
invisibilia, significans quoque quoniam per verbum per quod Deus perfecit conditionem in hoc et salutem his
qui in conditione sunt praestitit hominibus, sic inchoavit in ea quae est secundum evangelium doctrine: ‘In
principio erat verbum, est verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum; hoc erat in principio erat Deum,
Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil. Quod factum est in eo vita est, et vita erat lux
hominum, et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt.’ (Gospel of John 1:1-5)
‘Omnia,’ inquit, ‘per ipsum facta sunt.’ In omnibus ergo est et haec quae secundum nos est conditio: non enim
concedetur eis omnia dici ea quae sunt infra Pleroma ipsorum. ….
Absulit autem a nobis dissensiones omnes ipse Iohannes dicens: ‘In hoc mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum
factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit. In sua propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt.’(Gospel of John:
137
1:10) Secundum autem Marcionem et eos qui similes sunt ei, neque mundus per eum factus est, neque in sua
venit, sed in aliena. … Secundum autem eos qui sunt a Valentino, iterum non per eum factus est, sed per
Demiurgum. Hic enim operabatur similitudines tales fieri ad imitationem eorum quae sunt sursum,
quemadmodum dicunt; Demiurgus autem perficiebat fabricationem conditionis. Emissum enim dicunt eum a
matre dominum et Demiurgum eius dispositionis quae est secundum conditionem, per quem hunc mundum
factum volunt, cum evangelium manifeste dicat quoniam per verbum, quod in principio erat apud Deum,
omnia sunt facta. Quod ‘verbum,’ inquit, ‘caro factum est, est inhabitavit in nobis.’ (Gospel of John 1:14)

Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino iterum exsistentes extra omnem timorem, suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura
habere gloriantur quam sunt ipsa evangelia … ut nec evangelium quidem sit apud eos sine blasphemia. Si
enim quod ab eis profertur veritatis est evangelium, dissimile est autem hoc illis quae ab apostolis nobis tradita
sunt…

Si autem aliquis quasi parvan ovem deditum semetipsum ipsis praebeat, initiationi illorum et redemptionem
illorum consecutus, est inflatus iste talis, neque in caelo neque in terra putat se esse, sed intra Pleroma introisse
et complexum iam angelum suum; cum institorio et supercilio incedit, gallinacii elationem habens. Sunt autem
apud eos qui dicunt oportere bonam conversationem adsequi eum hominem qui sit desuper adveniens; propter
hoc et fingunt quodom supercilio gravitatem. Plurimi autem et contemptores facti quasi iam perfecti, sine
reverentia et in contemptu viventes, semetipsos spiritales vocant et se nosse iam dicunt eum qui sit intra
Pleroma ipsorum refrigerii locum.
2.12 1 Enoch
2.12.1 1 Enoch 6:1-2

And it came to pass, when the children of men had multiplied, in those days there were born to them beautiful
and comely daughters. And watchers, children of heaven, saw them and desired them, and lusted after them;
and they said to another: ‘Come, let us choose for ourselves wives from the daughters of earth, and let us beget
us children.’
2.12.2 1 Enoch 7:1-5

These (leaders) and all the rest [of the two hundred watchers] took for themselves wives from all whom
they chose; and they began to cohabit with them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them
sorcery and spells and showed them the cutting of roots and herbs. And they became pregnant by them and
bore great giants of three thousand cubits; and there were [not] born upon earth offspring [which grew to their
strength]. These devoured the entire fruits of men’s labour, and men were unable to sustain them. Then the
giants treated them violently and began to slay mankind. (5) They began to do violence to and attack all the
birds and the beasts of the earth and reptiles [that crawl upon the earth], and the fish of the sea; and the began
to devour their flesh, and they were drinking the blood.
2.12.3 1 Enoch 37:1-4

The Second Vision which he saw, a vision of wisdom, which Enoch saw, (Enoch) son of Jared, son of
Malalel, son of Cainan, son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam. The following is the beginning [the sum] of
the words of wisdom which I spoke up and uttered, saying to those who dwell on the earth: ‘ Hear, you men of
old, and consider, you men of latter days, the words of the Holy One which I shall utter in the presence of the
Lord of spirits.’ The former first it is right to mention, but from those in latter days we shall not withhold the
beginning [the sum] of wisdom. Until now there has not been imparted (to anyone) from the Lord of spirits
138
such wisdom as I have received, according to my powers of understanding (and) the good pleasure of the Lord of
spirits, from whom has been given to me the lot of eternal life.
2.12.4 1 Enoch 46:1-5

And there I saw One who had a head of days,
And his head was white like wool,
And within was another whose countenance had the appearance of a man,
And his face was full of graciousness, like on of the angels.
And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the secret things, concerning yonder Son of Man,
who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Chief of Days? And he answered and said unto
me:
‘This is the Son of Man to whom belongs righteousness,
And righteousness dwells with him;
And all the treasures of that which is hidden he reveals,
Because the Lord of spirits has chosen him,
And whose cause before the Lord of spirits triumphs by uprightness for ever.
And the Son of Man whom you have seen
Shall rouse up the kings and the mighty from their couches and the strong from their thrones,
And he shall loosen the loins of the powerful and break the teeth of sinners.
(5) And he shall cast down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms
Because they do not extol and praise him,
Nor with humble gratitude acknowledge whence the sovereignty was bestowed on them.’
2.12.5 1 Enoch 71:12-17

And these blessings which went forth out of my mouth were well pleasing before the Chief of Days. And the
Chief of Days came with Michael and Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel, and thousands and myriads of angels
without number. And that angel [Michael] came to me [Enoch] and greeted me with his voice and said to
me:
‘You are the Son of Man who is born for righteousness,
And righteousness abides upon you,
And the righteousness of the Chief of Days forsakes you not.’
2.12.6 1 Enoch 85:3-9

Before I [Methuselah] took to wife your mother Edna, I saw in a vision on my bed and behold a bull came
forth on the earth, and that bull was white; and after it came forth a heifer, and along with it came forth two
bull-calves, one of them black and the other red. And the black bull-calf gored the red one and chased him
upon the earth, and from then on I could not see that red bull-calf. (5) But the black bull-calf grew up and
had intercourse with a heifer and I saw that many oxen issued from him, resembling him; and they were
following after him. And that first cow went from the presence of that first bull in order to seek the red bull-
calf, but found him not, and lamented with a great lamentation over him and sought him. And I looked until
that first bull had intercourse with her again, and quieted her, and from that time onward she cried no more.
And after that she bore another white bull, and after him she bore many black bulls and cows. And I saw in
my sleep that white bull, and it grew up and became a great white bull, and from him issued many white bulls,
and they resembled him.
2.13 Epiktetos
139
2.13.1 Epiktetos, Dissertationes ab Arriano Digestae I.14.11-13
Τοῦτο δέ σοι καὶ λέγει τις, ὅτι ἴσην ἔχεις δύναµιν τῷ ∆ιί; ἀλλ' οὖν οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ
ἐπίτροπον ἑκάστῳ παρέστησεν τὸν ἑκάστου δαίµονα καὶ παρέδωκεν φυλάσσειν αὐτὸν
αὐτῷ καὶ τοῦτον ἀκοίµητον καὶ ἀπαραλόγιστον. τίνι γὰρ ἄλλῳ κρείττονι καὶ
ἐπιµελεστέἀπαραλόγιστον. τίνι γὰρ ἄλλῳ κρείττονι καὶ ἐπιµελεστέρῳ φύλακι παρέδωκεν
ἡµῶν ἕκαστον; ὥσθ', ὅταν κλείσητε τὰς θύρας καὶ σκότος ἔνδον ποιήσητε, µέµνησθε
µηδέποτε λέγειν ὅτι µόνοι ἐστέ· οὐ γὰρ ἐστέ, ἀλλ' ὁ θεὸς ἔνδον ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ ὑµέτερος
δαίµων ἐστίν. καὶ τίς τούτοις χρεία φωτὸς εἰς τὸ βλέπειν τί ποιεῖτε;
2.14 Epiphanios of Salamis
2.14.1 Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.26.1.3-9

οὗτοι δὲ οἱ τούτῳ τῷ Νικολάῳ συνεζευγµένοι, πάλιν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀπὸ οὐρίου ᾠοῦ ὄφεως
σκορπίοι ἢ ἐξ ἀσπίδων γεγεννηµένοι, τινὰ ἡµῖν παρεισφέρουσι κενοφωνίας ὀνόµατα καὶ
βίβλους πλάττουσι, Νωρίαν τινὰ βίβλον καλοῦντες, καὶ ἐξ ὑπονοίας ῾Ελληνικῆς
δεισιδαιµονίας µεταποιοῦντες τὴν παρὰ τοῖς ῞Ελλησι µυθώδη ῥαψῳδίαν καὶ φαντασίαν
οὕτω τὸ ψεῦδος τῇ ἀληθείᾳ παραπλέκουσι. ταύτην γάρ φασιν τὴν Νωρίαν εἶναι τοῦ Νῶε
γυναῖκα· καλοῦσι δὲ Νωρίαν, ὅπως τὰ ῾Ελληνικῶς παρὰ τοῖς ῞Ελλησι ῥαψῳδηθέντα αὐτοὶ
βαρβαρικοῖς ὀνόµασι µεταποιήσαντες τοῖς ἠπατηµένοιςπαρ' αὐτῶν φαντασίαν
ἐργάσωνται, ἵνα δὴ καὶ ἑρµηνείαν ποιήσωσι τοῦ τῆς Πύρρας ὀνόµατος, Νωρίαν ταύτην
ὀνοµάζοντες. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ νοῦρα ἐν τῇ ῾Εβραΐδι πῦρ οὐ κατὰ τὴν βαθεῖαν γλῶσσαν
ἑρµηνεύεται ἀλλὰ Συριακῇ διαλέκτῳ (ἡσὰθ γὰρ τὸ πῦρ παρὰ ῾Εβραίοις καλεῖται κατὰ τὴν
βαθεῖαν γλῶσσαν), τούτου χάριν αὐτοῖς συµβέβηκε κατὰ ἄγνοιαν καὶ ἀπειρίαν τῷ
ὀνόµατι τούτῳ χρήσασθαι. οὔτε γὰρ Πύρρα ἡ παρ' ῞Ελλησιν οὔτε Νωρία ἡ παρὰ τούτοις
µυθευοµένη, ἀλλὰ Βαρθενὼς τῷ Νῶε γέγονε γυνή· (καὶ οἱ ῞Ελληνες γάρ φασι τὴν
∆ευκαλίωνος γυναῖκα Πύρραν καλεῖσθαι). εἶτα τὴν αἰτίαν ὑποτίθενται οὗτοι οἱ τὰ τοῦ
Φιλιστίωνος ἡµῖν αὖθις προφερόµενοι, ὅτι πολλάκις βουλοµένη µετὰ τοῦ Νῶε ἐν τῇ
κιβωτῷ γενέσθαι οὐ συνεχωρεῖτο, τοῦ ἄρχοντος, φησίν, τοῦ τὸν κόσµον κτίσαντος
βουλοµένου αὐτὴν ἀπολέσαι σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἐν τῷ κατακλυσµῷ. αὐτὴν δέ φησιν
ἐπικαθιζάνειν ἐν τῇ λάρνακι καὶ ἐµπιπρᾶν αὐτήν, καὶ πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον καὶ τρίτον·
ὅθεν δὴ εἰς ἔτη πολλὰ ἐλήλακεν ἡ τῆς αὐτοῦ τοῦ Νῶε λάρνακος κατασκευὴ διὰ τὸ
πολλάκις αὐτὴν ὑπ' αὐτῆς ἐµπεπρῆσθαι. ἦν γάρ, φησίν, ὁ Νῶε πειθόµενος τῷ ἄρχοντι, ἡ
δὲ Νωρία ἀπρεκάλυψε τὰς ἄνω δυνάµεις καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν δυνάµεων Βαρβηλώ, τὴν
ὑπεναντίαν τῷ ἄρχοντι, ὡς καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι δυνάµεις, καὶ ὑπέφαινεν ὅτι δεῖ τὰ συληθέντα ἀπὸ
τῆς ἄνωθεν Μητρὸς διὰ τοῦ ἄρχοντος τοῦ τὸν κόσµον πεποιηκότος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν
σὺν αὐτῷ θεῶν τε καὶ ἀγγέλων καὶ δαιµόνων συλλέγειν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν τοῖς σώµασι
δυνάµεως, διὰ τῆς ἀπορροίας ἀρρένων τε καὶ θηλειῶν.
2.14.2 Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.26.2.6

ἄλλοι δὲ οὐκ αἰσχύνονται λέγοντες εὐαγγέλιον Εὔας. εἰς ὄνοµα γὰρ αὐτῆς, δῆθεν ὡς
εὑρούσης τὸ βρῶµα τῆς γνώσεως ἐξ ἀποκαλύψεως τοῦ λαλήσαντος αὐτῇ ὄφεως, σπορὰν
ὑποτίθενται.

ἐν δὲ τῷ ὀγδόῳ οὐρανῷ τὴν Βαρβηλὼ καλουµένην καὶ τὸν πατέρα τῶν ὅλων καὶ κύριον
τὸν αὐτὸν αὐτοπάτορα καὶ Χριστὸν ἄλλον αὐτολόχευτον καὶ Χριστὸν τοῦτον τὸν
κατελθόντα καὶ δείξαντα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ταύτην τὴν γνῶσιν, ὃν καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦν φασιν…
140
τριάκοντα γὰρ οὗτος, ὡς ἔφην, αἰῶνας βούλεται παριστᾶν, οὓς καὶ θεοὺς ὀνοµάζει,
δεκαπέντε ἄρρενας καὶ θηλείας τοσαύτας εἶναι λέγων. ἕκαστον δὲ αἰῶνα ἀρρενόθηλυν
καὶ ζεῦγός φησιν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ αὐτοῦ· δεκαπέντε δὲ δυάδας φασὶν εἶναι, ἃς συζυγίας
καλοῦσι. τὸν ἀριθµὸν δὲ εἶναι τριάκοντα αἰῶνας, ἑκάστην δὲ θήλειαν γεννᾶν ἀπὸ τοῦ
ἄρρενος τοὺς καθεξῆς αἰῶνας…

῞Οθεν καὶ ἔτι ὑψηλοτέρως δῆθεν ἐξερευνῶντες ᾠήθησαν καὶ ῾Υστέρηµα τῷ ἰδίῳ αὐτῶν
δαιµονισθέντι διανοήµατι ἐξευρεῖν, ὅπερ στέρηµα καὶ Παντοκράτορα καὶ ∆ηµιουργὸν
καλοῦσι καὶ κριτστὴν οὐσιῶν· ἀφ' οὗπερ πάλιν καὶ ὑστέραν ᾿Ογδοάδα µετὰ ἑπτὰ
οὐρανῶν, κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ᾿Ογδοάδα ἀφοµοιωθεῖσαν, ἐκτίσθαι λέγουσιν, αὐτοῦ ὄντος ἐν
τῇ ᾿Ογδοάδι καὶ ἑπτὰ οὐρανοὺς µετ' αὐτὴν πεποιηκότος. ᾧπερ ῾Υστερήµατι βούλονται
συνάπτειν µὲν ἀµιγῆ τινα Αἰῶνα καὶ ἀθήλυντον, ἀπὸ Πληρώµατος δὲ ἐνταῦθα ἐλθόντα
κατ' ἀναζήτησιν τῆς ψυχῆς τῆς ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τῆς µητρὸς Σοφίας ἐλθούσης, ἧς δὴ καὶ
᾿Αχαµὼθ βούλονται τὸ ὄνοµα ἀνατυποῦν τε καὶ πλάττειν, ὃν δὴ καὶ Σωτῆρα καλεῖν καὶ
῞Ορον καὶ Σταυρὸν καὶ ῾Οροθέτην καὶ Μεταγωγέα καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν διὰ Μαρίας ὡς διὰ
σωλῆνος παρελθόντα. εἶναι δὲ αὐτὸν φῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄνω Χριστοῦ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο
πατρωνυµικῶς καλεῖσθαι Φῶς διὰ τὸ ἄνω Φῶς καὶ Χριστὸν διὰ τὸν ἄνω Χριστὸν καὶ
Λόγον διὰ τὸν ἄνω Λόγον καὶ Νοῦν ὡσαύτως <καὶ> Σωτῆρα λέγεσθαι. ἀεὶ δὲ ὑπερβαίνειν
τὸν αὐτοῦ πατέρα τὸν ∆ηµιουργόν, συναναφέρειν δὲ τοὺς αὐτῷ πειθοµένους ἅµα αὐτῷ
πρὸς τὰς ἄνω συζυγίας τοῦ Πληρώµατος.
2.14.6 Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.31.5.3-6.1

ὅτε γὰρ <ἐπ'> ἀρχῆς ὁ Αὐτοπάτωρ αὐτὸς ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιεῖχε τὰ πάντα, ὅντα ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐν
ἀγνωσίᾳ, ὃν καλοῦσί τινες Αἰῶνα ἀγήρατον, ἀεὶ νεάζοντα, ἀρρενόθηλυν, ὃς πάντοτε
περιέχει τὰ πάντα καὶ οὐκ ἐνπεριέχεται, τότε ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ ῎Εννοια ἠθέλησεν ἐκείνη, ἥν τινες
῎Εννοιαν ἔφασαν, ἕτεροι Χάριν· οἰκείως, διὰ τὸ ἐπικεχορηγηκέναι αὐτὴν θησαυρίσµατα τοῦ
Μεγέθους τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ Μεγέθους, οἱ δὲ ἀληθεύσαντες Σιγὴν προσηγόρευσαν, ὅτι δι'
ἐνθυµήσεως χωρὶς λόγου τὰ ἅπαντα τὸ Μέγεθος ἐτελείωσεν ὡς οὖν προεῖπον, ἡ ἄφθαρτος
<῎Εννοια> αἰώνια βουληθεῖσα δεσµὰ ῥῆξαι ἐθήλυνε τὸ Μέγεθος ἐπ' ὀρέξει ἀναπαύσεως
αὐτοῦ. καὶ αὕτη αὐτῷ µιγεῖσα ἀνέδειξε τὸν Πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃν οἰκείως οἱ τέλειοι
῎Ανθρωπον ὠνόµασαν, ὅτι ἦν ἀντίτυπος τοῦ προόντος ᾿Αγεννήτου. µετὰ τοῦτο δὲ ἡ Σιγή,
φυσικὴν ἑνότητα Φωτὸς προενεγκαµένη σὺν τῷ ᾿Ανθρώπῳ (ἦν δὲ αὐτῶν ἡ συνέλευσις τὸ
θέλειν), [καὶ] ἀναδείκνυσι τὴν ᾿Αλήθειαν. ᾿Αλήθεια δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν τελείων οἰκείως ὠνοµάσθη,
ὅτι ἀληθῶς ὁµοία ἦν τῇ ἑαυτῆς µητρὶ Σιγῇ, τῆς Σιγῆς τοῦτο βουληθείσης, ἀποµερισµὸν
φώτων τοῦ τε ἄρρενος καὶ τῆς θηλείας ἴσον εἶναι, ὅπως δι' ἑαυτῶν καὶ ἡ ἐν αὐτοῖς
φανερωθῇ τοῖς ἐξ αὐτῶν [ἐν αὐτῷ] εἰς αἰσθητικὰ φῶτα µερισθεῖσι. µετὰ τοῦτο ἡ ᾿Αλήθεια
µητρικὴν προενεγκαµένη προυνικίαν ἐθήλυνε τὸν Πατέρα ἑαυτῆς εἰς ἑαυτὴν καὶ συνῄεσαν
ἑαυτοῖς, ἀφθάρτῳ µίξει καὶ ἀγηράτῳ συγκράσει καὶ ἀναδεικνύ<ου>σι τετράδα πνευµατικὴν
ἀρρενόθηλυν, ἀντίτυπον τῆς προούσης τετράδος (ἥτις ἦν Βυθὸς Σιγὴ Πατὴρ ᾿Αλήθεια). αὕτη
δὲ ἡ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τῆς ᾿Αληθείας τετράς· ῎Ανθρωπος ᾿Εκκλησία Λόγος Ζωή. τότε τοῦ
πάντα περιέχοντος Βυθοῦ θελήµατι ὁ ῎Ανθρωπος καὶ ἡ ᾿Εκκλησία πατρικῶν µνησθέντες
λόγων συνῄεσαν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἀναδεικνύουσι δωδεκάδα προυνίκων ἀρρενοθηλύν<των>. οἱ
οὖν ἄρρενές εἰσι· Παράκλητος Πατρικὸς Μητρικὸς ᾿Αείνους Θελητός, ὅ ἐστι Φῶς,
᾿Εκκλησιαστικός, αἱ δὲ θήλειαι· Πίστις ᾿Ελπὶς ᾿Αγάπη Σύνεσις Μακαρία Σοφία. µετέπειτα
δὲ Λόγος καὶ Ζωή, καὶ αὐτοὶ τὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως µεταπλάσαντες δώρηµα, ἑαυτοῖς ἐκοινώνησαν
(ἦν δὲ ἡ κοινωνία αὐτῶν τὸ θέληµα) καὶ συνελθόντες ἀνεδείξαντο δεκάδα προυνίκων καὶ
141
αὐτῶν ἀρρενοθηλύντων. οἱ µὲν ἄρρενές εἰσι· Βύθιος ᾿Αγήρατος Αὐτοφυὴς Μονογενὴς
᾿Ακίνητος (οὗτοι τὴν προσωνυµίαν <εἰς> τὴν δόξαν τοῦ πάντα περιέχοντος
<περι>εποιήσαντο), αἱ δὲ θήλειαι· Μῖξις ῞Ενωσις Σύγκρασις ῾Ενότης ῾Ηδονή, καὶ αὗται
τὴν προσωνυµίαν εἰς δόξαν τῆς Σιγῆς περιεποιήσαντο. (6.1) Τετελειωµένης οὖν τῆς κατὰ
Πατέρα ᾿Αληθείας τριακάδος…

τρία γὰρ τάγµατα βούλονται εἶναι ἀνθρώπων, πνευµατικῶν ψυχικῶν σαρκικῶν, τὸ δὲ
τάγµα τὸ πνευµατικὸν ἑαυτοὺς λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ γνωστικούς, καὶ µήτε καµάτου
ἐπιδεοµένους ἢ µόνον τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῶν ἐπιρρηµάτων τῶν αὐτῶν µυστηρίων. πᾶν δὲ
ὁτιοῦν ποιεῖν ἀδεῶς ἕκαστον αὐτῶν καὶ µηδὲν πεφροντικέναι· ἐξ ἅπαντος γάρ φασι
σωθήσεσθαι πνευµατικὸν ὂν τὸ αὐτῶν τάγµα. τὸ δὲ ἕτερον τάγµα τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐν
κόσµῳ, ὅπερ ψυχικὸν καλοῦσιν, ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ σῴζεσθαι µὴ δυνάµενον, εἰ µή τι ἂν καµάτῳ
καὶ δικαιοπραγίᾳ ἑαυτὸ ἀνασώσειε. τὸ δὲ ὑλικὸν τάγµα τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ ἀνθρώπων µήτε
δύνασθαι χωρεῖν τὴν γνῶσίν φασι µήτε δέχεσθαι ταύτην, κἂν θέλοι ὁ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ
τάγµατος ὁρµώµενος, ἀπόλλυσθαι δὲ ἅµα [σὺν] ψυχῇ καὶ σώµατι. τὸ δὲ ἑαυτῶν τάγµα
πνευµατικὸν ὂν σῴζεσθαι σὺν σώµατι ἄλλῳ, ἐνδοτέρῳ τινὶ ὄντι, ὅπερ αὐτοὶ σῶµα
πνευµατικὸν καλοῦσι φανταζόµενοι. τοὺς δὲ ψυχικοὺς κεκµηκότας πολὺ καὶ
ὑπεραναβεβηκότας τὸν ∆ηµιουργὸν ἄνω δοθήσεσθαι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις τοῖς ἅµα Χριστῷ
οὖσιν, οὐδέν τι τῶν σωµάτων ἀνακοµιζοµένους, ἀλλὰ µόνον τὰς ψυχὰς ἐν πληρώµατι
εὑρεθείσας τῆς αὐτῶν γνώσεως καὶ τὸν ∆ηµιουργὸν ὑπερβεβηκυίας δίδοσθαι τοῖς µετὰ
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀγγέλοις εἰς νύµφας.

δύο γὰρ οὗτος συζύγους τῷ θεῷ τῷ παρ' αὐτοῖς Βυθῷ καλουµένῳ ἐπενόησέν τε καὶ
ἐχαρίσατο· ταύτας δὲ καὶ διαθέσεις ἐκάλεσεν, ῎Εννοιάν τε καὶ Θέληµα. καὶ τὴν µὲν
῎Εννοιαν ἀεὶ συνυπάρξασαν αὐτῷ, ἐννοουµένην ἀεὶ τό τι προβαλέσθαι, τὸ δὲ Θέληµα ἐν
αὐτῷ ἐπιγινόµενον. πρῶτον γὰρ ἐνενοήθη <τι> προβαλεῖν, εἶτα, φησίν, ἠθέλησεν. διὸ καὶ
τῶν δύο διαθέσεων τούτων ἢ καὶ δυνάµεων (δυνάµεις γὰρ αὐτὰς πάλιν καλεῖ), τῆς
᾿Εννοίας καὶ τῆς Θελήσεως ὥσπερ συγκραθεισῶν εἰς ἀλλήλας ἡ προβολὴ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς
καὶ τῆς ᾿Αληθείας κατὰ συζυγίαν ἐγένετο. οὕστινας τύπους καὶ εἰκόνας τῶν δύο διαθέσεων
τοῦ Πατρὸς προελθεῖν τῶν ἀοράτων ὁρατάς, τοῦ µὲν Θελήµατος τὸν Νοῦν, τῆς δὲ ᾿Εννοίας
τὴν ᾿Αλήθειαν· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ <ἐπιγενητοῦ> Θελήµατος ὁ µὲν ἄρρην εἰκὼν γέγονεν, τῆς
<δὲ> ἀγεννήτου᾿Εννοίας ὁ [δὲ] θῆλυς [τοῦ Θελήµατος]. τὸ Θέληµα τοίνυν δύναµις ἐγένετο
τῆς ᾿Εννοίας. ἐνενόει µὲν γὰρ ἀεὶ ἡ ῎Εννοια τὴν προβολήν, οὐ µέντοι προβαλεῖν αὐτὴ καθ'
ἑαυτὴν ἠδύνατο ἃ ἐνενόει· ὅτε δὲ ἡ τοῦ Θελήµατος δύναµις ἐπεγένετο, τότε ὃ ἐνενόει
προέβαλεν.

µῦθοι γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς οὗτοι· φάσκουσι γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄνω Αἰῶνος προβεβλῆσθαι Αἰῶνας
καὶ κατώτερον γεγενῆσθαι τὸν ᾿Ιαλδαβαώθ· τοῦτον δὲ προβεβλῆσθαι κατὰ ἀδράνειαν καὶ
ἄγνοιαν τῆς ἰδίας µητρὸς τουτέστι τῆς ἄνω Προυνίκου. ταύτην γάρ φασι τὴν Προύνικον
κατεληλυθέναι εἰς τὰ ὕδατα καὶ µιχθῆναι αὐτοῖς καὶ µὴ δεδυνῆσθαι εἰς τὰ ἄνω χωρεῖν διὰ
τὸ µεµῖχθαι τῷ βάρει τῆς ὕλης· ἐπιµεµῖχθαι γὰρ αὐτὴν τοῖς ὕδασι καὶ τῇ ὕλῃ καὶ µηκέτι
δυνηθῆναι ἀναχωρεῖν. ἐπῇρεν δὲ ἑαυτὴν κατὰ βίαν εἰς τὰ ἀνώτερα καὶ ἐξέτεινεν ἑαυτὴν
καὶ οὕτως γέγονεν <ὁ> ἀνώτερος οὐρανός. καὶ ὡς παγεῖσα ηὕρηται, µηκέτι δυναµένη
µήτε ἄνω ἀναβῆναι µήτε κάτω κατελθεῖν, ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ µεσαίτατον παγεῖσά τε καὶ
142
ἐκτεταµένη ἔµεινε. κάτω µὲν γὰρ κατενεχθῆναι οὐκ ἠδύνατο, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν συγγενής· ἄνω δὲ
οὐκ ἠδύνατο χωρεῖν, διὰ τὸ βαρεῖσθαι ἐκ τῆς ὕλης ἧς προσέλαβεν.

κατὰ δὲ τὴν αὐτῆς ἄγνοιαν προβληθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιαλδαβαὼθ ἦλθεν εἰς τὰ κατώτατα καὶ ἐποίησεν
ἑαυτῷ ἑπτὰ υἱούς, οἵτινες ἑαυτοῖς οὐρανοὺς ἑπτὰ ἐποίησαν. αὐτὸς δὲ ἀποκλείσας τὰ ὑπὲρ
αὑτὸν ἀπέκρυπτεν, ἵνα οἱ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ υἱοὶ προβληθέντες ἑπτὰ µὴ γινώσκωσι τὰ ὑπὲρ αὐτόν,
κατώτεροι ὄντες αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' αὐτὸν µονωτάτως. καὶ οὗτός ἐστι, φασίν, ὁ θεὸς τῶν
᾿Ιουδαίων ὁ ᾿Ιαλδαβαώθ. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτως, µὴ γένοιτο, ἀλλὰ µέλλει κρίνειν αὐτοὺς ὁ
θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, θεὸς ὢν καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ Χριστιανῶν καὶ πάντων, καὶ οὐ
᾿Ιαλδαβαώθ τις ὢν κατὰ τὴν αὐτῶν ληρώδη µυθολογίαν. (4.1) Εἶτα, φασίν,
ἀποκεκλεισµένων τῶν ἄνω διὰ τῆς τοῦ Ἰαλδαβαὼθ ἐπινοίας οὗτοι οἱ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ
γεγεννηµένοι ἑπτὰ υἱοὶ ἤτοι Αἰῶνες ἤτοι θεοὶ ἤτοι ἄγγελοι (καλοῦνται γὰρ παρ' αὐτοῖς
ὀνόµασι διαφόροις) κατὰ τὴν ἰδέαν τοῦ αὐτῶν πατρὸς ᾿Ιαλδαβαὼθ ἔπλασαν τὸν
ἄνθρωπον, οὐ ῥᾳδίως οὐδὲ ταχέως, ἀλλὰ τῷ αὐτῷ τρόπῳ ᾧ καὶ αἱ πρότεραι αἱρέσεις
ἐµηχανήσαντο ἐν τῇ αὐτῶν κενοφωνίᾳ. φασὶ γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι· ἦν ἑρπετὸν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὡς
σκώληξ, µὴ δυνάµενος µήτε ἀνακύφειν µήτε ὀρθοῦσθαι. πρὸς ἐπιβουλὴν δὲ τοῦ
᾿Ιαλδαβαὼθ ἡ ἄνω Μήτηρ ἡ καλουµένη Προύνικος, βουλοµένη κενῶσαι τὸν᾿Ιαλδαβαὼθ
ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτοῦ δυνάµεως ἧς ἐξ αὐτῆς µετέσχεν, ἐνήργησεν ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν
ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτοῦ πεπλασµένον, κενῶσαι τὴν αὐτοῦ δύναµιν καὶ ἀποστεῖλαι ἀπ'
αὐτοῦ σπινθῆρα ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον (τὴν ψυχὴν δῆθεν) διανοουµένη. καὶ τότε, φησίν, ἔστη
ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας καὶ ὑπερβέβηκε τῇ διανοίᾳ τοὺς ὀκτὼ οὐρανοὺς καὶ ἐπέγνω
καὶ ᾔνεσε τὸν ἄνω Πατέρα τὸν
ἐπάνω τοῦ ᾿Ιαλδαβαώθ.

καὶ τότε ὁ ᾿Ιαλδαβαὼθ πόνῳ φερόµενος διὰ τὸ ἐπιγνωσθῆναι τὰ ἀνώτατα αὐτοῦ,
ἐπέβλεψε κάτω ἐν πικρίᾳ πρὸς τὴν ὑποστάθµην τῆς ὕλης καὶ γεγέννηκε δύναµιν
ὀφιόµορφον ἰδέαν ἔχουσαν, ὃν καὶ υἱὸν αὐτοῦ καλοῦσι. καὶ οὕτως οὗτος, φησίν,
ἀπεστάλη καὶ ἠπάτησε τὴν Εὔαν. ἡ δὲ ἤκουσεν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπείσθη ὡς υἱῷ θεοῦ καὶ
πεισθεῖσα ἔφαγεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς γνώσεως.

ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιαλδαβαώθ, φασίν, οὐκ ἤθελεν µνησθῆναι τὴν ἄνω Μητέρα οὔτε τὸν Πατέρα τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις. ἔπεισε δὲ ὁ ὄφις καὶ γνῶσιν ἤνεγκεν, ἐδίδαξέν τε τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὴν
γυναῖκα τῶν ἄνω µυστηρίων τὸ πᾶν τῆς γνώσεως. διὸ ὁ πατὴρ ὀργισθείς, τουτέστιν ὁ
᾿Ιαλδαβαώθ, δι' ἣν ὑπέδειξεν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις γνῶσιν, κατέβαλεν αὐτὸν ἀπ' οὐρανοῦ.

Οὗτοι γὰρ συνῳδὰ λέγουσι τῇ πρώτῃ αἱρέσει τῶν Καϊανῶν κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ µέρος·
γεγενῆσθαι ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς εὐθὺς δύο ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἐκ τῶν δύο εἶναι τὸν Κάϊν καὶ τὸν
῎Αβελ, περὶ τούτων τε στασιάσαντας τοὺς ἀγγέλους εἰς <πόλεµον πρὸς> ἀλλήλους ἥκειν,
οὕτω τε πεποιηκέναι ἀποκτανθῆναι τὸν ῎Αβελ ὑπὸ τοῦ Κάϊν· ἦν γὰρ ἡ στάσις τοῖς
ἀγγέλοις ἀγωνιζοµένοις περὶ τῶν γενῶν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τούτων τῶν δύο, τοῦ
γεγεννηκότος τὸν Κάϊν καὶ τοῦ γεγεννηκότος τὸν ῎Αβελ. κεκρατηκέναι δὲ τὴν ἄνω
δύναµιν, ἣν Μητέρα φάσκουσι καὶ Θήλειαν· δοκεῖ γὰρ αὐτοῖς εἶναι καὶ µητέρας ἄνω καὶ
θηλείας καὶ ἄρρενας, ὀλίγου δὲ δεῖ καὶ συγγενείας καὶ πατριαρχίας λέγειν. ἐπεὶ οὖν
κεκράτηκε, φασίν, ἡ Μήτηρ καὶ Θήλεια καλουµένη, γνοῦσα ὅτι ἀπέκτανται ῎Αβελ,
143
ἐνθυµηθεῖσα ἐποίησε γεννηθῆναι τὸν Σὴθ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἔθετο τὴν αὐτῆς δύναµιν, [καὶ]
καταβαλοῦσα ἐν αὐτῷ σπέρµα τῆς ἄνωθεν δυνάµεως καὶ τὸν σπινθῆρα τὸν ἄνωθεν
πεµφθέντα εἰς πρώτην καταβολὴν τοῦ σπέρµατος καὶ συστάσεως. καὶ εἶναι
ταύτην σύστασιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἐκλογὴν σπέρµατος καὶ γένους, ὅπως διὰ τῆς
τ<οι>αύτης συστάσεως καὶ τούτου τοῦ σπέρµατος καθαιρεθῶσιν αἱ δυνάµεις τῶν
ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσµον πεποιηκότων καὶ τοὺς δύο ἀπ' ἀρχῆς ἀνθρώπους. διὰ ταύτην οὖν
τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τὸ γένος τοῦ Σὴθ ἀφορισθὲν ἐντεῦθεν κατάγεται, ἐκλογῆς ὂν καὶ
διακεκριµένον τοῦ ἄλλου γένους. προβαινόντων γὰρ τῶν καιρῶν, φασί, καὶ ὁµοῦ ὄντων
τῶν δύο γενῶν, τοῦ τε Κάϊν καὶ τοῦ ῎Αβελ, εἰς τὸ αὐτό <τε> συνελθόντων διὰ κακίαν
πολλὴν καὶ ὁµοῦ µιχθέντων, ἀποβλέψασα ἡ πάντων Μήτηρ καθαρὸν τὸ σπέρµα τῶν
ἀνθρώπων ἠβουλήθη ἀπεργάσασθαι, ὡς προεῖπον, διὰ τὸ τὸν ῎Αβελ ἀπεκτάνθαι,
καὶ τοῦτον τὸν Σὴθ ἐξελέξατο καὶ καθαρὸν ἔδειξεν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τὸ σπέρµα µόνῳ τῆς
αὐτῆς δυνάµεως καὶ καθαρότητος κατέθετο…

᾿Ιδοῦσα δὲ πάλιν πολλὴν ἐπιµιξίαν καὶ ἄτακτον ὁρµὴν τῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
εἰς µῖξιν τῶν δύο γενῶν ἐλθόντων, καὶ συστάσεις τινὰς γενῶν τὴν αὐτῶν ἀταξίαν
ἐµποιήσασαν, πορευθεῖσα πάλιν ἡ αὐτὴ Μήτηρ τε καὶ Θήλεια κατακλυσµὸν ἤνεγκε καὶ
ἀπώλεσε πᾶσαν στάσιν ἀνθρώπου παντός <τε> γένους ἐναντίου, ἵνα δῆθεν τὸ καθαρὸν
γένος τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ Σὴθ καὶ δίκαιον µόνον µείνῃ ἐν κόσµῳ, εἰς σύστασιν τοῦ ἄνωθεν γένους
τε καὶ σπινθῆρος τῆς δικαιοσύνης. ἔλαθον δὲ αὐτὴν πάλιν οἱ ἄγγελοι καὶ εἰσέδυσαν τὸν
δικαιοσύνης. ἔλαθον δὲ αὐτὴν πάλιν οἱ ἄγγελοι καὶ εἰσέδυσαν τὸν Χὰµ εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν,
ὄντα τοῦ αὐτῶν σπέρµατος. ὀκτὼ γὰρ ψυχῶν σωθεισῶν ἐν τῇ τότε λάρνακι τοῦ Νῶε ἑπτὰ
µὲν εἶναι τοῦ καθαροῦ γένους φασί, τὸν δὲ ἕνα εἶναι τὸν Χὰµ τῆς ἄλλης δυνάµεως
ὑπάρχοντα, ὃν εἰσδῦναι λαθόντα τὴν ἄνω Μητέρα. ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων δὲ τὸ τοιοῦτο
συσκευασθὲν οὕτως ἀποτελεσθῆναι· ἐπειδὴ γάρ, φασίν, ἔγνωσαν οἱ ἄγγελοι ὅτι µέλλει
πᾶν τὸ σπέρµα αὐτῶν ἀπαλείφεσθαι ἐν τῷ κατακλυσµῷ, πανουργίᾳ τινὶ τὸν προειρηµένον
Χὰµ εἰς διατήρησιν τοῦ ὑπ' αὐτῶν κτισθέντος γένους τῆς κακίας παρεισέβαλον.

καὶ ἐκ τούτου λήθη καὶ πλάνη περὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἄτακτοι φοραὶ ἁµαρτηµάτων καὶ
πολυµιξία κακίας ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ γεγένηται. καὶ οὕτως ὁ κόσµος εἰς τὸ ἀρχαῖον τῆς ἀταξίας
αὖθις ἀνέκαµψεν καὶ ἐνεπλήσθη κακῶν ὡς ἐξ ἀρχῆς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσµοῦ. ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ
Σὴθ κατὰ σπέρµα καὶ κατὰ διαδοχὴν γένους ὁ Χριστὸς ἦλθεν αὐτὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, οὐχὶ κατὰ
γέννησιν ἀλλὰ θαυµαστῶς ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ πεφηνώς, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτὸς ὁ Σὴθ ὁ τότε καὶ
[Χριστὸς] νῦν ἐπιφοιτήσας τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀπὸ τῆς Μητρὸς ἄνωθεν
ἀπεσταλµένος.

ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Σὴθ κατὰ σπέρµα καὶ κατὰ διαδοχὴν γένους ὁ Χριστὸς ἦλθεν αὐτὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς,
οὐχὶ κατὰ γέννησιν ἀλλὰ θαυµαστῶς ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ πεφηνώς, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτὸς ὁ Σὴθ ὁ τότε
καὶ [Χριστὸς] νῦν ἐπιφοιτήσας τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀπὸ τῆς Μητρὸς ἄνωθεν
ἀπεσταλµένος. (4.1) Ταῦτα πάντα οὕτω γεγενῆσθαί φασιν ἐκεῖνοι. µωρὰ δὲ καὶ ἀδρανῆ
καὶ κενοφωνίας ἔµπλεα τὰ τοιαῦτα κηρύγµατα, ὡς παντί τῳδῆλόν ἐστιν.

εἰς µωρίαν δὲ πολλὴν τὸν νοῦν ἑαυτῶν κατάγοντες γυναῖκά τινα ῾Ωραίαν λέγουσιν εἶναι
τοῦ Σήθ. ὅρα δέ µοι, ἀγαπητέ, τὴν τούτων ἄνοιαν, ἵνα κατὰ πάντα τρόπον καταγνῷς τῆς
144
αὐτῶν δραµατουργίας καὶ µυθώδους µαταιοφροσύνης καὶ ἐπιπλάστου ληρολογίας. εἰσὶ
µὲν γὰρ ἄλλαι τινὲς αἱρέσεις, αἵτινες δύναµίν τινα εἶναι λέγουσιν, ἣν καλοῦσιν
ὀνοµα<σ>τικῶς ῾Ωραίαν· τὴν παρ' ἄλλοις τοίνυν νοµιζοµένην δύναµιν ῾Ωραίαν τε
καλουµένην οὗτοι γυναῖκα τοῦ Σὴθ λέγουσιν.

ἐν ᾧ ὀγδοάδα τινὰ λέγουσιν εἶναι οὐρανῶν καὶ ἑβδοµάδα, εἶναι δὲ καθ' ἕκαστον οὐρανὸν
ἄρχοντας· καὶ τοὺς µὲν εἶναι εἰς τοὺς ἑπτὰ οὐρανούς, καθ' ἕνα οὐρανὸν ἕνα ἄρχοντα,
τάξεις δὲ εἶναι ἑκάστῳ ἄρχοντι, καὶ τὴν Μητέρα τὴν φωτεινὴν ἀνωτάτω ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ
εἶναι, καθάπερ αἱ ἄλλαι αἱρέσεις.

[ἡ ψυχή] ἐν γνώσει δὲ ταύτην γενοµένην καὶ φυγοῦσαν τὸ βάπτισµα τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τὸ
ὄνοµα τοῦ Σαβαὼθ τοῦ τὸν νόµον δεδωκότος ἀνιέναι καθ' ἕκαστον οὐρανὸν καὶ
ἀπολογίαν διδόναι ἑκάστῃ ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ οὕτως ὑπερβαίνειν πρὸς τὴν ἀνωτέραν Μητέρα
καὶ Πατέρα τῶν ὅλων, ὅθεν δὴ κατῆλθεν εἰς τόνδε τὸν κόσµον.

Φασὶ δὲ οὗτοι, ὡς καὶ ἄνω µοι προδεδήλωται, τὸν διάβολονεἶναι υἱὸν τῆς ἑβδόµης
ἐξουσίας τουτέστι τοῦ Σαβαώθ. εἶναι δὲ τὸν Σαβαὼθ θεὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, τὸν δὲ διάβολον
πονηρὸν αὐτοῦ υἱόν, ὄντα δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐναντιοῦσθαι τῷ ἰδίῳ πατρί. καὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ
πατέρα µήτε τοιοῦτον εἶναι µήτε πάλιν εἶναι τὸν ἀκατάληπτον θεόν, ὃν Πατέρα φασίν,
ἀλλὰ ἀριστερᾶς εἶναι ἐξουσίας. ἕτερον δὲ πάλιν µῦθον λέγουσιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι, ὅτι, φησίν, ὁ
διάβολος ἐλθὼν πρὸς τὴν Εὔαν συνήφθη αὐτῇ ὡς ἀνὴρ γυναικὶ καὶ ἐγέννησεν ἐξ αὐτῆς
τόν τε Κάϊν καὶ τὸν ῎Αβελ. διὸ ἐπανέστη ὁ εἷς τῷ ἑνί, διὰ ζῆλον ὃν εἶχονπρὸς ἀλλήλους,
οὐχὶ διὰ τό πως εὐηρεστηκέναι τὸν ῎Αβελ θεῷ, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια, ἀλλὰ ἕτερον
πλαζόµενοι λόγον λέγουσιν· ἐπειδή, φησίν, ἐρῶντες ἦσαν ἀµφότεροι τῆς ἀδελφῆς τῆς
ἰδίας αὐτῶν, τούτου χάριν ἐπανέστη ὁ Κάϊν τῷ ῎Αβελ καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτόν. φύσει γὰρ
αὐτούς φασιν ἐκ τοῦ σπέρµατος τοῦ διαβόλου ὡς προεῖπον γεγενῆσθαι.

Πάλιν δὲ λέγουσιν οἱ αὐτοὶ τὸν ᾿Αδὰµ συναφθέντα τῇ Εὔᾳ τῇ ἰδίᾳ γαµετῇ γεγεννηκέναι
τὸν Σήθ, φύσει ἴδιον αὐτοῦ υἱόν. καὶ τότε φασὶ τὴν ἄνω δύναµιν σὺν τοῖς ὑπουργοῖς τοῦ
ἀγαθοῦ θεοῦ ἀγγέλοις καταβεβηκέναι καὶ ἡρπακέναι αὐτὸν τὸν Σήθ, ὃν καὶ ᾿Αλλογενῆ
καλοῦσι, καὶ ἀνενηνοχέναι ἄνω που καὶ ἀναθρέψαι χρόνῳ λογενῆ καλοῦσι, καὶ
ἀνενηνοχέναι ἄνω που καὶ ἀναθρέψαι χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ, ἵνα µὴ ἀποκτανθῇ, καὶ µετὰ χρόνον
πολὺν πάλιν κατενηνοχέναι εἰς τόνδε τὸν κόσµον καὶ πνευµατικὸν ἀπεργάσασθαι αὐτὸν
καὶ σωµατικόν, εἰς τὸ µὴ κατισχύειν τόν τε <δηµιουργὸν> κατ' αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας
ἐξουσίας καὶ ἀρχὰς τοῦ κοσµοποιοῦ θεοῦ. µηκέτι δὲ αὐτόν φασι λελατρευκέναι τῷ τε
ποιητῇ καὶ δηµιουργῷ, ἐπεγνωκέναι δὲ τὴν ἀκατονόµαστον δύναµιν καὶ τὸν ἄνω ἀγαθὸν
θεόν, τούτῳ <τε> λελατρευκέναι καὶ κατὰ τοῦ ποιητοῦ τοῦ κόσµου καὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ
ἐξουσιῶν πολλὰ ἀποκεκαλυφέναι.
2.15 Eusebios of Caesarea
2.15.1 Eusebios of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesastica II.17.3-4

θεραπευτὰς αὐτοὺς καὶ τὰς σὺν αὐτοῖς γυναῖκας θεραπευτρίδας ἀποκαλεῖσθαί φησιν, τὰς
αἰτίας ἐπειπὼν τῆς τοιᾶσδε προσρήσεως, ἤτοι παρὰ τὸ τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν προσιόντων αὐτοῖς
145
τῶν ἀπὸ κακίας παθῶν ἰατρῶν δίκην ἀπαλλάττοντας ἀκεῖσθαι καὶ θεραπεύειν, ἢ τῆς περὶ
τὸ θεῖον καθαρᾶς καὶ εἰλικρινοῦς θεραπείας τε καὶ θρῃσκείας ἕνεκα. εἴτ' οὖν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ
ταύτην αὐτοῖς ἐπιτέθειται τὴν προσηγορίαν, οἰκείως ἐπιγράψας τῷ τρόπῳ τῶν ἀνδρῶν
τοὔνοµα, εἴτε καὶ ὄντως τοῦτ' αὐτοὺς ἐκάλουν κατ' ἀρχὰς οἱ πρῶτοι, µηδαµῶς τῆς
Χριστιανῶν πω προσρήσεως ἀνὰ πάντα τόπον ἐπιπεφηµισµένης, οὔ τι πω διατείνεσθαι
ἀναγκαῖον·
2.16 Firmicus Maternus
2.16.1 Firmicus Maternus, De Errore Profanorum Religionum 38 c

...χαῖρε νύµφε,χαῖρε νέον φῶς.
2.17 Hippolutos
2.17.1 Hippolutos of Rome, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium V.19.1-5

῎Ιδωµεν οὖν τί λέγουσιν οἱ Σηθιανοί. τούτοις δοκεῖ τῶν ὅλων εἶναι τρεῖς ἀρχὰς
περιωρισµένας, ἑκάστην δὲ τῶν ἀρχῶν ἀπείρους ἔχειν δυνάµεις. δυνάµεις δὲ αὐτῶν
[λεγόντων] λογιζέσθω ὁ ἀκούων τοῦτο αὐτοὺς λέγειν· πᾶν ὅ τι νοήσει ἐπινοεῖς ἢ καὶ
παραλείπεις µὴ νοηθέν, τοῦτο ἑκάστη τῶν ἀρχῶν πέφυκε γενέσθαι, ὡς ἐν ἀνθρωπί<νῃ>
ψυχῇ πᾶσα ἡτισοῦν διδασκοµένη τέχνη… αἱ δὲ τῶν ἀρχῶν, φησίν, οὐσίαι <εἰσὶ> φῶς καὶ
σκότος· τούτων δέ ἐστιν ἐν µέσῳ πνεῦµα ἀκέραιον. τὸ δὲ πνεῦµα, τὸ τεταγµένον ἐν µέσῳ
τοῦ σκότους, ὅπερ ἐστὶ κάτω, καὶ τοῦ φωτός, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄνω, οὐκ ἔστι πνεῦµα ὡς ἄνεµος
ἢ ῥιπὴ ἢ λεπτή τις αὔρα νοηθῆναι δυναµένη, ἀλλ' οἱονεὶ µύρου τις ὀσµὴ ἢ θυµιάµατος ἐκ
συνθέσεως κατεσκευ(α)σµένου, λεπτὴ διοδεύουσα δύναµις ἀνεπινοήτῳ τινὶ καὶ κρείττονι
ἢ λόγῳ ἔστιν ἐξειπεῖν <φορᾷ> εὐωδία<ς>. ἐπειδὴ <δὲ> ἄνω ἐστὶ τὸ φῶς καὶ κάτω <τὸ>
σκότος καὶ τούτων, ὡς ἔφην, τοιουτότροπον ὂν µέσον τὸ πνεῦµα, τὸ δὴ φῶς πέφυκε
καθάπερ ἀκτὶς ἡλίου ἄνωθεν ἐλλάµπειν εἰς τὸ ὑποκείµενον σκότος· ἀνάπαλιν δὲ ἡ τοῦ
πνεύµατος εὐωδία, µέση<ν> ἔχουσα τάξιν, ἐκτείνεται καὶ φέρεται πανταχῇᾲὥσ<περ>
[ἐπὶ] τῶν ἐν πυρὶ θυµιαµάτων τὴν εὐωδίαν πανταχῇ φεροµένην ἐπεγνώκαµεν. ᾲτοιαύτης
δὲ οὔσης τῆς δυνάµεως τῶν <δι>ῃρηµένων τριχῶς, τοῦ πνεύµατος καὶ τοῦ φωτὸς ὁµοῦ ἡ
δύναµίς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ σκότει τῷ κάτωθεν αὐτῶν τεταγµένῳ.

Τὸ δὲ σκότος ὕδωρ ἐστί, <φησί,> φοβερόν, εἰς ὃ κατέσπασται καὶ µετενήνεκται εἰς τὴν
τοιαύτην φύσιν µετὰ τοῦ πνεύµατος τὸ φῶς. τὸ δὲ σκότος ἀσύνετον οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ
φρόνιµον παντελῶς, καὶ οἶδεν ὅτι, ἂν ἀπαρθῇ τὸ φῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ σκότους, µενεῖ τὸ σκότος
ἔρηµον, ἀφανές, ἀλαµπές, ἀδύναµον, ἄπρακτον, ἀσθενές. διὸ <δὴ> πάσῃ φρονήσει καὶ
συνέσει βιάζεται κατέχειν εἰς ἑαυτὸ τὴν λαµπηδόνα καὶ <τὸν> σπινθῆρα τοῦ φωτὸς µετὰ
τῆς τοῦ πνεύµατος εὐωδίας. καὶ τούτων ἔστιν, <φησίν ἰδεῖν τῆς φύσεως εἰκόνα κατὰ
πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου, κόρην ὀφθαλµοῦ, σκοτεινὴν <µὲν φαινοµένην> ἐκ τῶν
ὑποκειµένων ὑδάτων, πεφωτισµένην <δὲ τῷ> πνεύµατι. ὡς οὖν ἀντιποιεῖται τὸ σκότος τῆς
λαµπηδόνος, ἵνα ἔχῃ τὸν σπινθῆρα δουλεύοντα καὶ βλέπῃ, οὕτως ἀντιποιεῖται τὸ φῶς καὶ
τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς δυνάµεως τῆς ἑαυτῶν, καὶ σπεύδουσιν ἆραι καὶ ἀνακοµίσασθαι πρὸς ἑαυτὰ
τὰς µεµιγµένας αὑτῶν δυνάµεις εἰς τὸ ὑποκείµενον ὕδωρ σκοτεινὸν καὶ φοβερόν. Πᾶσαι
δὲ αἱ δυνάµεις τῶν τριῶν ἀρχῶν, οὖσαι κατ' ἀριθµὸν ἀπειράκις ἄπειροι, εἰσὶν ἑκάστη κατὰ
τὴν οὐσίαν τὴν ἑαυτῆς φρόνιµοι <καὶ> νοεραί. ἀναρίθµητοι <δὲ> τὸ πλῆθος φρόνιµοί τε
οὖσαι καὶ νοεραί, ἐπειδὰν <µὲν> µένωσι καθ' αὑτάς, ἡσυχάζουσι πᾶσαι, ἐὰν δὲ πλησιάσῃ
δύναµις δυνάµει, ἡ ἀνοµοιότης τῆς παραθέσεως ἐργάζεται κίνησίν τινα καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἀπὸ
146
τῆς κινήσεως, µεµορφωµένην κατὰ τὴν συνδροµὴν [τῆς παραθέσεως] τῶν συνελθουσῶν
δυνάµεων. γίνεται γὰρ τῶν δυνάµεων ἡ συνδροµὴ οἱονεί τις τύπος ἀπὸ πληγῆς σφραγῖδος
[κατὰ συνδροµήν], παραπλησίως [πρὸς] τῷ <εἰς κηρὸν> ἐκτυποῦντι τὰς ἀναφεροµένας
οὐσίας. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἄπειροι µὲν κατ' ἀριθµὸν τῶν τριῶν ἀρχῶν αἱ δυνάµεις <εἰσίν>, ἐκ δὲ
τῶν ἀπείρων δυνάµεων ἄπειροι συνδροµαί, ἀναγκαίως γεγόνασιν ἀπείρων σφραγίδων
εἰκόνες. αὗται οὖν εἰσιν αἱ εἰκόνες αἱ τῶν διαφόρων ζῴων ἰδέαι. γέγονεν οὖν ἐκ <τῆς>
πρώτης τῶν τριῶν ἀρχῶν συνδροµῆς µεγάλης [µεγάλη τις] ἰδέα σφραγῖδος, οὐρανὸς καὶ
γῆ. σχῆµα δὲ ἔχουσιν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ µήτρᾳ παραπλήσιον, τὸν ὀµφαλὸν ἐχούσῃ
µέσον. καὶ εἰ, φησίν, ὑπὸ ὄψιν ἀγαγεῖν θέλει τις τὸ σχῆµα τοῦτο, ἔγκυον µήτραν ὁποίου
βούλεται ζῴου τεχνικῶς ἐρευνησάτω, καὶ εὑρήσει τὸ ἐκτύπωµα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς
καὶ τῶν ἐν µέσῳ πάντων ἀπαραλ<λ>άκτως ὑποκείµενον. γέγονε δὴ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς τὸ
(σ)χῆµα τοιοῦτον οἱονεὶ µήτρᾳ παραπλήσιον κατὰ τὴν πρώτην συνδροµήν· ἐν <δ'> αὖ τῷ
µέσῳ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆ<ς> γῆ<ς> γεγόνασιν ἄπειροι δυνάµεων συνδροµαί. καὶ ἑκάστη
συνδροµὴ οὐκ ἄλλο τι εἰργάσατο καὶ ἐξετύπωσεν ἢ σφραγῖδα οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆ<ς>
παραπλήσιον µήτρᾳ. ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ <τῇ γῇ> ἀνέφυσαν ἐκ τῶν ἀπείρων σφραγίδων δια
φόρων ζῴων ἄπειρα πλήθη. εἰς δὲ ταύτην πᾶσαν τὴν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν [ἐν] τῶν διαφόρων
ζῴων ἀπειρίαν κατέσπαρται καὶ καταµεµέρισται µετὰ τοῦ φωτὸς ἡ τοῦ πνεύµατος ἄνωθεν
εὐωδία.

Γέγονεν οὖν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος πρωτόγονος ἀρχή, ἄνεµος σφοδρὸς καὶ λάβρος καὶ πάσης
γενέσεως αἴτιος. βρασµὸν γάρ τινα ἐµποιῶν τοῖς ὕδασιν ἀπὸ τῶν ὑδάτων διεγείρει
κύµατα· ἡ δὲ τῶν κυµάτων κίνησις, οἱονεί τις οὖσα ὁρµή, <ἀρχὴ τῇ φύσει ἐστὶ τοῦ>
ἐγκύµονα γεγονέναι τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἢ τοῦ νοῦ, ὁπόταν ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ πνεύµατος ὁρµῆς
ὀργήσασα <πρὸς γένεσιν> ἐπείγηται. ἐπὰν δὲ τοῦτο τὸ κῦµα ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀνέµου ἐκ τοῦ
ὕδατος ἐγερθὲν καὶ ἐγκύµονα ἐργασάµενον τὴν φύσιν γέννηµα θηλείας εἰλήφῃ [ἐν]
ἑαυτῷ, κατέχει τὸ κατεσπαρµένον φῶς ἄνωθεν µετὰ τῆς τοῦ πνεύµατος εὐωδίας, τουτέστι
νοῦν µεµορφωµένον ἐν τοῖς διαφόροις εἴδεσιν, ὅ<ς> ἐστι τγέλειος θεός. <ὃς> ἐξ
ἀγεννήτου φωτὸς ἄνωθεν καὶ πνεύµατος κατενηνεγµένος εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν ὥσπερ εἰς
ναόν, φορᾷ φύσεως καὶ ἀνέµου κινήµατι γεννηθεὶς ἐξ ὕδατος, συγκεκραµένος καὶ
καταµεµιγµένος τοῖς σώµασιν - οἱονεὶ ἅλα<ς> τῶν γενοµένων ὑπάρχων καὶ φῶς τοῦ
σκότους -, ἀπὸ τῶν σωµάτων σπεύδει λυθῆναι, καὶ µὴ δυνάµενος τὴν λύσιν εὑρεῖν καὶ τὴν
διέξοδον ἑαυτῷ - καταµέµικται γάρ, σπινθήρ τις ἐλάχιστος <ὤν>, ἀπ<οκριθὲν
ἀπόσπασ>µα ἄνωθεν ἀ<πὸ τοῦ φωτός, ἀκτῖ>νος δίκην ἐν το<ῖς πο>λυσυγκρίτοις <τοῦ
σώµατος> -, < <ἐβόα ἐξ ὑδάτων> (Psalms 28:3) πολλῶν >, ὡς, φησίν, ἐν τῷ ψαλµῷ
λέγεται. πᾶσα οὖν <ἡ> φροντὶς καὶ ἐπιµέλεια τοῦ φωτὸς <τοῦ> ἄνω ἐστί, πῶς καὶ τίνα
τρόπον ἀπ(ὸ) τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ πονηροῦ καὶ σκοτεινοῦ σώµατος ἀπολυθείη ὁ νοῦς,
<τουτέστιν> ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ κάτω, ὅ<ς> ἐστιν ὁ ἄνεµος [ἐν] βρ<α>σµῷ καὶ ταράχῳ
ἐπεγείρας κύµατα καὶ γεννήσας νοῦν τέλειον υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ, οὐκ ὄντα ἴδιον αὐτοῦ κατ'
οὐσίαν. ἄνωθεν γὰρ ἦν ἀκτὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ τελείου φωτὸς ἐκείνου, ἐν τῷ σκοτει<ν>ῷ καὶ
φοβερῷ καὶ πικρῷ καὶ µιαρῷ ὕδατι κεκρατηµένος, ὅ<σ>περ ἐστὶ <πνεῦµα φωτεινὸν
ἐπιφερόµενον ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος >, (Genesis 1:2). ἐπεὶ οὖν […] ηµάτων κύµατα […]
διαφόροις γ..εσι µήτρα τις […] κατεσπαρµέν […] ὡς ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν ζῴων θεωρεῖται.

ὁ δὲ ἄνεµος, λάβρος ὁµοῦ καὶ <σ>φοδρὸς φερόµενος, ἐστὶ [τῷ] σύρµατι ὄφεως
παραπλήσιος, πτερωτός, <καὶ> ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνέµουᾲτουτέστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄφεωςᾲἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς
γεννήσεως τὸν εἰρηµένον τρόπον γέγονε, πάντων ὁµοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς γεννήσεως <ἀπ'
147
αὐτοῦ> εἰληφότων. ᾿Επεὶ οὖν κατείληπται τὸ φῶς καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα εἰς τὴν ἀκάθαρτον, φησί,
καὶ πολυπήµονα µήτραν ἄτακτον, εἰς ἣν ὁ ὄφις εἰσερχόµενος, ὁ ἄνεµος τοῦ σκότους, ὁ
πρωτόγονος τῶν ὑδάτων, γεννᾷ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἄλλο οὐδὲν εἶδος οὔτε ἀγαπᾷ οὔτε
γνωρίζει ἡ ἀκάθαρτος µήτρα, ὁµοιωθεὶς οὖν ὁ ἄνωθεν τοῦ φωτὸς τέλειος λόγος τῷ θηρίῳ,
τῷ ὄφει, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ἀκάθαρτον µήτραν, ἐξαπατήσας αὐτὴν τοῦ θηρίου τῷ
ὁµοιώµατι, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ δεσµὰ τὰ περικείµενα τῷ τελείῳ νοΐ, τῷ γεννωµένῳ ἐν ἀκαθαρσίᾳ
µήτρας ὑπὸ τοῦ πρωτοτόκου <τοῦ> ὕδατος ὄφεως, ἀνέµου, θηρίου.

αὕτη, φησίν, ἐστὶν < ἡ τοῦ δούλου µορφή > (Philippians 2:7), καὶ αὕτη ἡ ἀνάγκη τοῦ
κατελθεῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς µήτραν παρθένου. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔστι,φησίν, ἀρκετὸν τὸ
εἰσεληλυθέναι τὸν τέλειον ἄνθρωπον, <τὸν> λόγον, εἰς µήτραν παρθένου καὶ < λῦσαι τὰς
ὠδῖνας > (Acts 2:24) τὰς ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ σκότει· ἀλλὰ γὰρ µετὰ τὸ <εἰς τὰ> ἐν µήτρᾳ
µυστήρια µυσερὰ εἰσελθεῖν ἀπελούσατο καὶ ἔπιε τὸ οτήριον < ζῶντος ὕδατος > <
ἁλλοµένου > (Gospel of John 4:10 and 4:14), ὃ δεῖ πάντα πιεῖν τὸν µέλλοντα
ἀποδιδύσκεσθαι τὴν δουλικὴν µορφὴν καὶ ἐπενδύσασθαι ἔνδυµα οὐράνιον.
2.17.6 Hippolutos of Rome, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium VI.9.4-5

λέγων οὕτως· < τοῦτο τὸ γράµµα ᾿Αποφάσεως φωνῆς καὶ ὀνόµατος ἐξ ἐπινοίας τῆς
µεγάλης δυνάµεως τῆς ἀπεράντου. διὸ ἔσται ἐσφραγισµένον <καὶ> κεκρυµµένον <καὶ>
κεκαλυµµένον, κείµενον ἐν τῷ οἰκητηρίῳ, οὗ ἡ ῥίζα τῶν ὅλων τεθεµελίωται. >
οἰκητήριον δὲ λέγει εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον, τὸν ἐξ αἱµάτων γεγεννηµένον, καὶ
κατοικεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀπέραντον δύναµιν, ἣν ῥίζα<ν> εἶναι τῶν ὅλων φησίν.
2.17.7 Hippolutos of Rome, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium VI.34.1

῎Εστιν οὖν [ἡ] κατὰ Οὐαλεντῖνον τετρακτύς, πηγὴ [τῆς] ἀενάου φύσεως ῥιζώµατ' ἔχουσα,
καὶ ἡ Σοφία, ἀφ' ἧς ἡ κτίσις ἡ ψυχικὴ καὶ ὑλικὴ συνέστηκε νῦν. καλεῖται δὲ ἡ µὲν Σοφία
πνεῦµα, ὁ δὲ δηµιουργὸς ψυχή, ὁ διάβολος δὲ < ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσµου >, Βεελζεβοὺλ <δὲ>
< ὁ <ἄρχων> τῶν δαιµόνων >.
2.18 Ignatios of Antioch
2.18.1 Ignatios of Antioch, Μαγνησίευσιν 2.6.1

᾿Επεὶ οὖν ἐν τοῖς προγεγραµµένοις προσώποις τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ἐθεώρησα ἐν πίστει καὶ
ἠγάπησα, παραινῶ, ἐν ὁµονοίᾳ θεοῦ σπουδάζετε πάντα πράσσειν, προκαθηµένου τοῦ
ἐπισκόπου εἰς τόπον θεοῦ καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εἰς τόπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ
τῶν διακόνων τῶν ἐµοὶ γλυκυτάτων πεπιστευµένων διακονίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὃς πρὸ
αἰώνων παρὰ πατρὶ ἦν καὶ ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη.
2.18.2 Ignatios of Antioch, Πρὸς Εφέσιους 1.18.2

῾Ο γὰρ θεὸς ἡµῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ' οἰκονοµίαν θεοῦ < ἐκ
σπέρµατος > µὲν < ∆αυίδ >, πνεύµατος δὲ ἁγίου· ὃς ἐγεννήθη καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη, ἵνα τῷ πάθει
τὸ ὕδωρ καθαρίσῃ.
2.18.3 Ignatios of Antioch, Σµυρναίοις 6.8.1-2

Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ ὡς
τοῖς ἀποστόλοις· τοὺς δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ὡς θεοῦ ἐντολήν. Μηδεὶς χωρὶς τοῦ
ἐπισκόπου τι πρασσέτω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. ᾿Εκείνη βεβαία εὐχαριστία
148
ἡγείσθω, ἡ ὑπὸ ἐπίσκοπον οὖσα ἢ ᾧ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐπιτρέψῃ. ῞Οπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ
τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω, ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ᾖ Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. Οὐκ ἐξόν
ἐστιν χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν· ἀλλ' ὃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος
δοκιµάσῃ, τοῦτο καὶ τῷ θεῷ εὐάρεστον, ἵνα ἀσφαλὲς ᾖ καὶ βέβαιον πᾶν ὃ πράσσεται.
2.18.4 Ignatios of Antioch, Τραλλιανοῖς 3.3.1

῾Οµοίως πάντες ἐντρεπέσθωσαν τοὺς διακόνους ὡς ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, ὡς καὶ τὸν
ἐπίσκοπον ὄντα τύπον τοῦ πατρός, τοὺς δὲ πρεσβυτέρους ὡς συνέδριον θεοῦ καὶ ὡς
σύνδεσµον ἀποστόλων· χωρὶς τούτων ἐκκλησία οὐ καλεῖται.
2.19 Flavius Josephus
2.19.1 Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Iudaicae XIX.14

ἀναπεπληρωκότι δὲ αὐτῷ συκοφαντιῶν καὶ κακῶν πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουµένην, ἧς ἐπῆρχεν,
καὶ πολλὴν τὴν δουλοκρατίαν ἐπῃρµένου τοῖς δεσπόταις ἐπιβουλαὶ τὰ πολλὰ ἤδη
συνίσταντο, τῶν µὲν ἐπ' ἀµύνῃ ὧν πάθοιεν ὀργὴν ποιουµένων, τῶν δὲ πρὶν ἐµπεσόντες
κακῶν τυχεῖν µεγάλων τιθεµένων τὸ µεταχειρίσασθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον.
2.19.2 Flavius Josephus, Contra Apionem II.201

γυνὴ χείρων, φησίν, ἀνδρὸς εἰς ἅπαντα. τοιγαροῦν ὑπακουέτω, µὴ πρὸς ὕβριν, ἀλλ' ἵν'
ἄρχηται· θεὸς γὰρ ἀνδρὶ τὸ κράτος ἔδωκεν. ταύτῃ συνεῖναι δεῖ τὸν γήµαντα µόνῃ, τὸ δὲ
τὴν ἄλλου πειρᾶν ἀνόσιον. εἰ δέ τις τοῦτο πράξειεν, οὐδεµία θανάτου παραίτησις, οὔτ' εἰ
βιάσαιτο παρθένον ἑτέρῳ προωµολογηµένην, οὔτ' εἰ πείσειεν γεγαµηµένην.
2.19.3 Flavius Josephus, De Bello Iudaico II.163-167

∆ύο δὲ τῶν προτέρων Φαρισαῖοι µὲν οἱ µετὰ ἀκριβείας δοκοῦντες ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόµιµα
καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἀπάγοντες αἵρεσιν εἱµαρµένῃ τε καὶ θεῷ προσάπτουσι πάντα, καὶ τὸ µὲν
πράττειν τὰ δίκαια καὶ µὴ κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κεῖσθαι, βοηθεῖν δὲ εἰς
ἕκαστον καὶ τὴν εἱµαρµένην· ψυχήν τε πᾶσαν µὲν ἄφθαρτον, µεταβαίνειν δὲ εἰς ἕτερον
σῶµα τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν µόνην, τὰς δὲ τῶν φαύλων ἀιδίῳ τιµωρίᾳ κολάζεσθαι. Σαδδουκαῖοι
δέ, τὸ δεύτερον τάγµα, τὴν µὲν εἱµαρµένην παντάπασιν ἀναιροῦσιν καὶ τὸν θεὸν ἔξω τοῦ
δρᾶν τι κακὸν ἢ ἐφορᾶν τίθενται· φασὶν δ' ἐπ' ἀνθρώπων ἐκλογῇ τό τε καλὸν καὶ τὸ κακὸν
προκεῖσθαι καὶ κατὰ γνώµην ἑκάστου τούτων ἑκατέρῳ προσιέναι. ψυχῆς τε τὴν δια-µονὴν
καὶ τὰς καθ' ᾅδου τιµωρίας καὶ τιµὰς ἀναιροῦσιν. καὶ Φαρισαῖοι µὲν φιλάλληλοί τε καὶ
τὴν εἰς τὸ κοινὸν ὁµόνοιαν ἀσκοῦντες, Σαδδουκαίων δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὸ ἦθος
ἀγριώτερον αἵ τε ἐπιµιξίαι πρὸς τοὺς ὁµοίους ἀπηνεῖς ὡς πρὸς ἀλλοτρίους. τοιαῦτα µὲν
περὶ τῶν ἐν ᾿Ιουδαίοις φιλοσοφούντων εἶχον εἰπεῖν.
2.20 Marcus Aurelius
2.20.1 Marcus Aurelius, Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν V.27.1

< Συζῆν θεοῖς. > συζῇ δὲ θεοῖς ὁ συνεχῶς δεικνὺς αὐτοῖς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν ἀρεσκοµένην
µὲν τοῖς ἀπονεµοµένοις, ποιοῦσαν δὲ ὅσα βούλεται ὁ δαίµων, ὃν ἑκάστῳ προστάτην καὶ
ἡγεµόνα ὁ Ζεὺς ἔδωκεν, ἀπόσπασµα ἑαυτοῦ. οὗτος δέ ἐστιν ὁ ἑκάστου νοῦς καὶ λόγος.
2.21 Midrash Genesis Rabbah
149
2.21.2 Midrash Genesis Rabbah 23:5 (quoted from Pearson (1981)
And she called his name Seth, ‘For God has set me an alien seed,’ etc. Rabbi Tanhuma in the name of
Samuel Kozit said: (She set her eyes on) that same seed who will arise from an alien place. And who is this?
This is the Messianic King.
2.22 Numenios of Apamea
2.22.1 Numenios of Apamea, Fragmenta 11

Μὴ δὴ πάθωµοεν ἡµεῖς ταὺτόν· θεὸν δὲ προσκαλεσὰµενοι ἑαυτοῦ γνώµονα γενόµενον τῷ
λόγῷ δεῖξαι θησαυρὸν φροντὶδων, ὰρχώµεθα οὕτως· εὐκτέον µὲν ἤδη, διελέσθαι δὲ δεῖ. Ὁ
θεὸς ὁ µὲν πρῶτος ἐν ἑαυτοῦ ὦν ἐστιν ἁπλοῦς, διὰ τὸ ἑαυτῷ συγγιγνόµενος διόλου µή
ποτε εἶναι διαίρετος…
2.23 Origenes
2.23.1 Origenes, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis 2.14.100

Βιαίως δὲ οἶµαι καὶ χωρὶς µαρτυρίου τὸν Οὐαλεντίνου λεγόµενον εἶναι γνώριµον
῾Ηρακλέωνα διηγούµενον τὸ < πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο > ἐξειληφέναι < πάντα > τὸν
κόσµον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐκκλείοντα τῶν πάντων, τὸ ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποθέσει αὐτοῦ, τὰ τοῦ
κόσµου καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ διαφέροντα. Φησὶ γάρ· < οὐ τὸν αἰῶνα ἢ τὰ ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι
γεγονέναι διὰ τοῦ λόγου >, ἅτινα οἴεται πρὸ τοῦ λόγου γεγονέναι. ᾿Αναιδέστερον δὲ
ἱστάµενος πρὸς τὸ <Καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν >, µὴ εὐλαβούµενος τὸ < Μὴ
προσθῇς τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ, ἵνα µὴ ἐλέγξῃ σε καὶ ψευδὴς γένῃ >, προστίθησι τῷ <οὐδὲ ἕν
>· < Τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ καὶ τῇ κτίσει >.
2.23.2 Origenes, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis 2.14.102-103

῎Ετι δὲ ἰδίως καὶ τοῦ < Πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο > ἐξήκουσε φάσκων· < Τὸν τὴν αἰτίαν
παρασχόντα τῆς γενέσεως τοῦ κόσµου τῷ δηµιουργῷ, τὸν λόγον ὄντα, εἶναι οὐ τὸν ἀφ'
οὗ, ἢ ὑφ' οὗ, ἀλλὰ τὸν δι' οὗ >, παρὰ τὴν ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ φράσιν ἐκδεχόµενος τὸ
γεγραµµένον. Εἰ γὰρ ὡς νοεῖ ἡ ἀλήθεια τῶν πραγµάτων ἦν, ἔδει διὰ τοῦ δηµιουργοῦ
γεγράφθαι πάντα γεγονέναι ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου, οὐξὶ δὲ ἀνάπαλιν διὰ τοῦ λόγου ὑπὸ τοῦ
δηµιουργοῦ. ... φησὶ γάρ· < ῞Οτι οὐχ ὡς ὑπ' ἄλλου ἐνεργοῦντος αὐτὸς ἐποίει ὁ λόγος, ἵν'
οὕτω νοηθῇ τὸ δι' αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' αὐτοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος ἕτερος ἐποίει >.

Λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· Καλῶς εἶπας ὅτι ῎Ανδρα οὐκ ἔχω· πέντε γὰρ ἄνδρας ἔσχες, καὶ νῦν
ὃν ἔχεις οὐκ ἔστιν σου ἀνήρ· τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας. Οἶµαι πᾶσαν τὴν εἰσαγοµένην ψυχὴν
εἰς τὴν διὰ τῶν γραφῶν ἐν Χριστῷ θεοσέβειαν ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν καὶ σωµατικῶν
λεγοµένων ἀρχοµένην, τοὺς πέντε ἄνδρας καθ' ἑκάστην τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἀνδρός τινος
γινοµένου ἴσχειν· ἐπὰν δὲ µετὰ τὸ ὡµιληκέναι τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ἀνακῦψαί τις θέλων καὶ
προτραπεὶς ἐπὶ τὰ νοητὰ περιτύχῃ λόγῳ προφάσει ἀλληγορίας καὶ πνευµατικῶν οὐχ
ὑγιαίνοντι, οὗτος µετὰ τοὺς πέντε ἄνδρας ἑτέρῳ προσέρχεται, δούς, ἵν' οὕτως εἴπω, τὸ
ἀποστάσιον τοῖς προτέροις πέντε καὶ κρίνων συνοικεῖν τῷ ἕκτῳ. Καὶ ἕως ἄν γε ἐλθὼν ὁ
᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς συναίσθησιν ἡµᾶς ἀγάγῃ τοῦ τοιούτου ἀνδρός, ἐκείνῳ σύνεσµεν· ἐλθόντος δὲ
τοῦ κυρίου λόγου καὶ διαλεχθέντος ἡµῖν, ἀρνούµενοι ἐκεῖνον τὸν ἄνδρα φαµέν· < Οὐκ
ἔχω ἄνδρα >· ὅτε καὶ ἐπαινεῖ ἡµᾶς ὁ κύριος λέγων· < Καλῶς εἶπας ὅτι Οὐκ ἔχω
ἄνδρα.> Τὸ δὲ < Τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας > οἱονεὶ ἐλεγκτικόν ἐστιν, ὡς τῶν προτέρων οὐκ
ἀληθῶς ὑπ' αὐτῆς εἰρηµένων.
150
῾Ο µέντοι γε ῾Ηρακλέων ὑπολαµβάνει αἰτίαν ἀποδίδοσθαι τοῦ µὴ δύνασθαι αὐτοὺς
ἀκούειν τὸν Ιησοῦ λόγον µηδὲ γινώσκειν αὐτοῦ τὴν λαλιὰν ἐν τῷ < ῾Υµεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ >. αὐταῖς γοῦν λέξεσίν φησι· < ∆ιατί δὲ οὐ δύνασθε ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον
τὸν ἐµόν, ἢ ὅτι ὑµεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ; > ἀντὶ τοῦ < ἐκ τῆς οὺσίας τοῦ
διαβόλου >, φανερῶν αὐτοῖς λοιπὸν τὴν φύσιν αὐτῶν, καὶ προσελέγξας αὐτοὺς ὅτι οὔτε
τοῦ ᾿Αβραάµ εἰσιν τέκνα (οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐµίσουν αὐτόν), οὔτε τοῦ θεοῦ, διὸ οὐκ ἠγάπων
αὐτόν. ... νυνὶ δὲ δῆλός ἐστιν ὁµοουσίους τινὰς τῷ διαβόλῳ λέγων ἀνθρώπους, ἑτέρας, ὡς
οἴονται οἱ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, οὐσίας τυγχάνοντας παρ' οὓς καλοῦσι ψυχικοὺς ἢ πνευµατικούς.
2.23.5 Origenes, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis 20.24.211

Τοσαῦτα καὶ πρὸς τὸν ῾Ηρακλέωνος λόγον εἰπόντος· τὸ <᾿Εκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου>
ἀντὶ τοῦ < ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός > εἰρήσθω. πάλιν εἰς τὸ < Τὰς ἐπιθυµίας τοῦ πατρὸς
ὑµῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν > διαστέλλεται λέγων τὸν διάβολον µὴ ἔχειν θέληµα ἀλλ' ἐπιθυµίας.

µετὰ ταῦτά φησιν ὁ ῾Ηρακλέων ὡς ἄρα ταῦτα εἴρηται οὐ πρὸς τοὺς φύσει τοῦ διαβόλου
υἱούς, τοὺς χοϊκούς, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοὺς ψυχικούς, θέσει υἱοὺς διαβόλου γινοµένους· ἀφ' ὧν
τῇ φύσει δύνανταί τινες καὶ θέσει υἱοὶ θεοῦ χρηµατίσαι. καί φησί γε ὅτι παρὰ τὸ
ἠγαπηκέναι τὰς ἐπιθυµίας τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ ποιεῖν τέκνα οὗτοι τοῦ διαβόλου γίνονται, οὐ
φύσει τοιοῦτοι ὄντες.
2.23.7 Origenes, Contra Celsum I.7.1-8

Εἶτ' ἐπεὶ πολλάκις ὀνοµάζει < κρύφιον τὸ δόγµα >, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ αὐτὸν ἐλεγκτέον, σχεδὸν
παντὸς < τοῦ κόσµου ἐγνωκότος τὸ κήρυγµα Χριστιανῶν µᾶλλον ἢ τὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις
ἀρέσκοντα. Τίνα γὰρ λανθάνει ἡ ἐκ παρθένου γένεσις ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ ὁ ἐσταυρωµένος καὶ ἡ
παρὰ πολλοῖς πεπιστευµένη ἀνάστασις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ καταγγελλοµένη κρίσις θεοῦ,
κολάζουσα µὲν κατ' ἀξίαν τοὺς ἁµαρτάνοντας γέρως δ' ἀξιοῦσα τοὺς δικαίους; > ᾿Αλλὰ
καὶ µὴ νοηθὲν τὸ περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως µυστήριον θρυλεῖται γελώµενον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀπίστων.
2.24 Pausanias
2.24.1 Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio II.11.3

Ἐκ Σικυῶνος δὲ τὴν κατ' εὐθὺ ἐς Φλιοῦντα ἐρχοµένοις καὶ ἐν ἀριστερᾷ τῆς ὁδοῦ δέκα
µάλιστα ἐκτραπεῖσι στάδια, Πυραία καλούµενόν ἐστιν ἄλσος, ἱερὸν δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ
Προστασίας ∆ήµητρος καὶ Κόρης. ἐνταῦθα ἐφ' αὑτῶν οἱ ἄνδρες ἑορτὴν ἄγουσι, τὸν δὲ
Νυµφῶνα καλούµενον ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἑορτάζειν παρείκασι· καὶ ἀγάλµατα ∆ιονύσου καὶ
∆ήµητρος καὶ Κόρης τὰ πρόσωπα φαίνοντα ἐν τῷ Νυµφῶνί ἐστιν.
2.25 Philo Alexandrinus
2.25.1 Philo Alexandrinus, De Gigantibus 54

οὕτως καὶ Μωυσῆς ἔξω τῆς παρεµβολῆς καὶ τοῦ σωµατικοῦ παντὸς στρατοπέδου πήξας
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σκηνήν (Εxodus 33:7), τουτέστι τὴν γνώµην ἱδρυσάµενος ἀκλινῆ, προσκυνεῖν
τὸν θεὸν ἄρχεται καὶ εἰς τὸν γνόφον, τὸν ἀειδῆ χῶρον, εἰσελθὼν αὐτοῦ καταµένει
τελούµενος τὰς ἱερωτάτας τελετάς. γίνεται δὲ οὐ µόνον µύστης, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱεροφάντης
ὀργίων καὶ διδάσκαλος θείων, ἃ τοῖς ὦτα κεκαθαρµένοις ὑφηγήσεται.
151
2.25.2 Philo Alexandrinus, De Opicio Mundi 134-135
Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτά φησιν ὅτι < ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, καὶ
ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς > (Genesis 2:7). ἐναργέστατα καὶ διὰ
τούτου παρίστησιν ὅτι διαφορὰ παµµεγέθης ἐστὶ τοῦ τε νῦν πλασθέντος ἀνθρώπου καὶ
τοῦ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγονότος πρότερον· ὁ µὲν γὰρ διαπλασθεὶς αἰσθητὸς ἤδη
µετέχων ποιότητος, ἐκ σώµατος καὶ ψυχῆς συνεστώς, ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνή, φύσει θνητός· ὁ δὲ
κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα ἰδέα τις ἢ γένος ἢ σφραγίς, νοητός, ἀσώµατος, ἀσώµατος, οὔτ’ ἄρρεν
οὔτε θῆλυ, ἄφθαρτος φύσει τοῦ δ' αἰσθητοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ µέρους ἀνθρώπου τὴν κατασκευὴν
σύνθετον εἶναί φησιν ἔκ τε γεώδους οὐσίας καὶ πνεύµατος θείου· γεγενῆσθαι γὰρ τὸ µὲν
σῶµα χοῦν τοῦ τεχνίτου λαβόντος καὶ µορφὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ διαπλάσαντος, τὴν δὲ
ψυχὴν ἀπ' οὐδενὸς γενητοῦ τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἡγεµόνος τῶν πάντων· ὃ
γὰρ ἐνεφύσησεν, οὐδὲν ἦν ἕτερον ἢ πνεῦµα θεῖον ἀπὸ τῆς µακαρίας καὶ εὐδαίµονος
φύσεως ἐκείνης ἀποικίαν τὴν ἐνθάδε στειλάµενον ἐπ' ὠφελείᾳ τοῦ γένους ἡµῶν, ἵν' εἰ καὶ
θνητόν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ὁρατὴν µερίδα, κατὰ γοῦν τὴν ἀόρατον ἀθανατίζηται.
διὸ καὶ κυρίως ἄν τις εἴποι τὸν ἄνθρωπον θνητῆς καὶ ἀθανάτου φύσεως εἶναι µεθόριον
ἑκατέρας ὅσον ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι µετέχοντα καὶ γεγενῆσθαι θνητὸν ὁµοῦ καὶ ἀθάνατον,
θνητὸν µὲν κατὰ τὸ σῶµα, κατὰ δὲ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀθάνατον.
2.25.3 Philo Alexandrinus De Posteritate Caini 42

οἱ µὲν οὖν φάσκοντες δωρεὰν εἶναι τῆς ἑαυτῶν ψυχῆς πάνθ' ὅσα ἐν τῷ νοεῖν ἢ
αἰσθάνεσθαι ἢ λέγειν, ἀσεβῆ καὶ ἄθεον εἰσηγούµενοι δόξαν γένει τῷ Κάιν
προσκεκληρώσθωσαν, ὃς µηδ' αὑτοῦ κρατεῖν ἱκανὸς ὢν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων
ἀπετόλµησεν [ὡς] εἰπεῖν ὡς ἔχοι τὴν παντελῆ κτῆσιν· οἱ δ' ὅσα ἐν γενέσει καλὰ µὴ
σφετεριζόµενοι, χάρισι δὲ ταῖς θείαις ἐπιγράφοντες, εὐγενεῖς πρὸς ἀλήθειαν οὐκ ἐκ
παλαιπλουσίων ἀλλ' ἐκ φιλαρέτων φύντες, ὑπὸ ἀρχηγέτῃ τῷ Σὴθ τετάχθωσαν.
2.25.4 Philo Alexandrinus De Posteritate Caini 171-173

τὰ µὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν θνητῶν καταβαλλόµενα σπέρµατα πρὸς ζῴων ἢ φυτῶν γένεσιν οὐ
πάντα τελεσιουργεῖται, ἀγαπητὸν δ' εἰ µὴ τὰ φθειρόµενα πλείω τῶν διαµενόντων ἐστί·
σπείρει δ' ὁ θεὸς ἐν ψυχαῖς ἀτελὲς οὐδέν, ἀλλ' οὕτως καίρια καὶ τέλεια, ὡς εὐθὺς
ἐπιφέρεσθαι τὴν τῶν ἰδίων καρπῶν πληθὺν ἕκαστον. τὸν δὲ Σὴθ σπέρµα ἕτερον εἰπὼν
ἀναβλαστῆσαι, ὁποτέρου ἕτερον οὐ δεδήλωκε. ἆρά γε τοῦ δολοφονηθέντος ῎Αβελ ἢ τοῦ
κτείναντος Κάιν; ἀλλὰ µήποτε ἑκατέρου διαφέρει τὸ γέννηµα, τοῦ µὲν Κάιν ὡς
ἐχθρόνᾲδίψα γὰρ ἀρετῆς αὐτοµολούσῃ κακίᾳ πολεµιώτατονᾲ, τοῦ δὲ ῎Αβελ ὡς φίλον καὶ
συγγενές· ἕτερον γάρ, οὐ µὴν ἀλλότριον, τὸ ἄρτι ἀρχόµενον τοῦ τελείου καὶ τὸ πρὸς
γένεσιν τοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἀγένητον. διὰ τοῦθ' ὁ µὲν ῎Αβελ τὸ θνητὸν ἀπολιπὼν πρὸς τὴν
ἀµείνω φύσιν µεταναστὰς οἴχεται, ὁ δὲ Σὴθ ἅτε σπέρµα ὢν ἀνθρωπίνης ἀρετῆς οὐδέποτε
τὸ ἀνθρώπων ἀπολείψει γένος, ἀλλὰ πρώτην µὲν παραύξησιν ἄχρι δεκάδος ἀριθµοῦ
τελείου λήψεται, καθ' ἣν ὁ δίκαιος Νῶε συνίσταται, δευτέραν δὲ καὶ ἀµείνω τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ
παιδὸς αὐτοῦ Σὴµ εἰς ἑτέραν δεκάδα τελευτῶσαν, ἧς ᾿Αβραὰµ ὁ πιστὸς ἐπώνυµος,
τρίτην δὲ καὶ τελεωτέραν δεκάδος ἑβδοµάδα ἀπὸ τούτου µέχρι Μωυσῆ τοῦ πάντα σοφοῦ
παρήκουσαν· ἕβδοµος γὰρ ἀπὸ ᾿Αβραὰµ οὗτός ἐστιν, οὐκέτι κατὰ τὸν ἔξω τῶν ἁγίων
κύκλον οἷα µύστης εἰλούµενος, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἱεροφάντης ἐν τοῖς ἀδύτοις ποιούµενος τὰς
διατριβάς.
2.25.5 Philo Alexandrinus, De Specialibus Legibus III.169-171

᾿Αγοραὶ καὶ βουλευτήρια καὶ δικαστήρια καὶ θίασοι καὶ σύλλογοι πολυανθρώπων ὁµίλων
καὶ ὁ ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ βίος διὰ λόγων καὶ πράξεων κατὰ πολέµους καὶ κατ' εἰρήνην ἀνδράσιν
152
ἐφαρµόζουσι, θηλείαις δὲ οἰκουρία καὶ ἡ ἔνδον µονή, παρθένοις µὲν εἴσω κλισιάδων τὴν
µέσαυλον ὅρον πεποιηµέναις, τελείαις δὲ ἤδη γυναιξὶ τὴν αὔλειον. διττὸν γὰρ πόλεων
εἶδος, µειζόνων καὶ βραχυτέρων· αἱ µὲν οὖν µείζους ἄστη καλοῦνται, οἰκίαι δ' αἱ
βραχύτεραι. τὴν δ' ἑκατέρων προστασίαν διειλήχασιν ἄνδρες µὲν τῶν µειζόνων, ἧς ὄνοµα
πολιτεία, γυναῖκες δὲ τῶν βραχυτέρων, ἧς ὄνοµα οἰκονοµία. µηδὲν οὖν ἔξω τῶν κατὰ τὴν
οἰκονοµίαν πολυπραγµονείτω γυνὴ ζητοῦσα µοναυλίαν µηδ' οἷα νοµὰς κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς ἐν
ὄψεσιν ἀνδρῶν ἑτέρων ἐξεταζέσθω, πλὴν εἰς ἱερὸν ὁπότε δέοι βαδίζειν, φροντίδα
ποιουµένη καὶ τότε µὴ πληθυούσης ἀγορᾶς, ἀλλ' ἐπανεληλυθότων οἴκαδε τῶν πλείστων,
ἐλευθέρας τρόπον καὶ τῷ ὄντι ἀστῆς ἐν ἠρεµίᾳ θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσα καὶ εὐχὰς εἰς
ἀποτροπὴν κακῶν καὶ µετουσίαν ἀγαθῶν.
2.25.6 Philo Alexandrinus, De Vita Contemplativa 12

οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ θεραπείαν ἰόντες οὔτε ἐξ ἔθους οὔτε ἐκ παραινέσεως ἢ παρακλήσεώς τινων, ἀλλ'
ὑπ' ἔρωτος ἁρπασθέντες οὐρανίου, καθάπερ οἱ βακχευόµενοι καὶ κορυβαντιῶντες
ἐνθουσιάζουσι, µέχρις ἂν τὸ ποθούµενον ἴδωσιν.

ἐν ἑκάστῃ δέ ἐστιν οἴκηµα ἱερόν, ὃ καλεῖται σεµνεῖον καὶ µοναστήριον, ἐν ᾧ τὰ τοῦ
σεµνοῦ βίου µυστήρια τελοῦνταιν, µηδὲν εἰσκοµίζοντες, µὴ ποτόν, µὴ σιτίον, µηδέ τι τῶν
ἄλλων ὅσα πρὸς τὰς τοῦ σώµατος χρείας ἀναγκαῖα, ἀλλὰ νόµους καὶ λόγια θεσπισθέντα
διὰ προφητῶν καὶ ὕµνους καὶ τὰ ἄλλα οἷς ἐπιστήµη καὶ εὐσέβεια συναύξονται καὶ
τελειοῦνται.

τὸ δὲ ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ µέχρις ἑσπέρας διάστηµα σύµπαν αὐτοῖς ἐστιν ἄσκησις· ἐντυγχάνοντες
γὰρ τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράµµασι φιλοσοφοῦσι τὴν πάτριον φιλοσοφίαν ἀλληγοροῦντες, ἐπειδὴ
σύµβολα τὰ τῆς ῥητῆς ἑρµηνείας νοµίζουσιν ἀποκεκρυµµένης φύσεως ἐν ὑπονοίαις
δηλουµένης.
2.25.9 Philo Alexandrinus, De Vita Contemplativa 30-32

τὰς µὲν οὖν ἓξ ἡµέρας χωρὶς ἕκαστοι µονούµενοι παρ' ἑαυτοῖς ἐν τοῖς λεχθεῖσι
µοναστηρίοις φιλοσοφοῦσι, τὴν αὔλειον οὐχ ὑπερβαίνοντες, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀπόπτου
θεωροῦντες· ταῖς δὲ ἑβδόµαις συνέρχονται καθάπερ εἰς κοινὸν σύλλογον καὶ καθ' ἡλικίαν
ἑξῆς καθέζονται µετὰ τοῦ πρέποντος σχήµατος, εἴσω τὰς χεῖρας ἔχοντες, τὴν µὲν δεξιὰν
µεταξὺ στέρνου καὶ γενείου, τὴν δὲ εὐωνυµον ὑπεσταλµένην παρὰ τῇ λαγόνι. παρελθών
δὲ ὁ πρεσβύτατος καὶ τῶν δογµάτων ἐµπειρότατος διαλέγεται, καθεστῶτι µὲν τῷ
βλέµµατι, καθεστώσῃ δὲ τῇ φωνῇ, µετὰ λογισµοῦ καὶ φρονήσεως, οὐ δεινότητα λόγων
ὥσπερ οἱ ῥήτορες ἢ οἱ νῦν σοφισταὶ παρεπιδεικνύµενος, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς νοήµασι
διηρευνηκὼς καὶ διερµηνεύων ἀκρίβειαν, ἥτις οὐκ ἄκροις ὠσὶν ἐφιζάνει, ἀλλὰ δι' ἀκοῆς
ἐπὶ ψυχὴν ἔρχεται καὶ βεβαίως ἐπιµένει. καθ' ἡσυχίαν δὲ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες ἀκροῶνται, τὸν
ἔπαινον νεύµασιν ὄψεως ἢ κεφαλῆς παραδηλοῦντες αὐτὸ µόνον. τὸ δὲ κοινὸν τοῦτο
σεµνεῖον, εἰς ὃ ταῖς ἑβδόµαις συνέρχονται, διπλοῦς ἐστι περίβολος, ὁ µὲν εἰς ἀνδρῶνα, ὁ
δὲ εἰς γυναικωνῖτιν ἀποκριθείς· καὶ γὰρ καὶ γυναῖκες ἐξ ἔθους συνακροῶνται τὸν αὐτὸν
ζῆλον καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν προαίρεσιν ἔχουσαι.

εἶτα ὅταν ἑκάτερος τῶν χορῶν ἰδίᾳ καὶ καθ' ἑαυτὸν ἑστιαθῇ, καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς βακχείαις
ἀκράτου σπάσαντες τοῦ θεοφιλοῦς, ἀναµίγνυνται καὶ γίνονται χορὸς εἷς ἐξ ἀµφοῖν,
153
µίµηµα τοῦ πάλαι συστάντος κατὰ τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν ἕνεκα τῶν
θαυµατουργηθέντων ἐκεῖ.
2.25.11 Philo Alexandrinus, De Vita Mosis II.71

Ἔτι δ’ ἄνω διατρίβων ἐµυσταγωγεῖτο µαιδευόµενος τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἱερωσύνην πάντα καὶ
πρῶτα, ἃ δὴ καὶ πρῶτα τῇ τάξει, τὰ περὶ τὴν τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ κατασκευήν.
2.25.12 Philo Alexandrinus, Hypothetica VII.3

ἄλλα δ' αὖ πάλιν ὁποῖά τινα· γυναῖκας ἀνδράσι δουλεύειν, πρὸς ὕβρεως µὲν οὐδεµιᾶς,
πρὸς εὐπείθειαν δ' ἐν ἅπασι·
2.25.13 Philo Alexandrinus, Hypothetica XI.14

ἔτι τοίνυν ὅπερ ἢ µόνον ἢ µάλιστα τὴν κοινωνίαν ἔµελλε διαλύειν ὀξυδερκέστερον
ἰδόντες γάµον παρῃτήσαντο µετὰ τοῦ καὶ διαφερόντως ἀσκεῖν ἐγκράτειαν. ᾿Εσσαίων γὰρ
οὐδεὶς ἄγεται γυναῖκα, διότι φίλαυτον ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ζηλότυπον οὐ µετρίως καὶ δεινὸν
ἀνδρὸς ἤθη παλεῦσαι καὶ συνεχέσι γοητείαις ὑπάγεσθαι.
2.26 Platon
2.26.1 Platon, Apologia Socratis 31c-d

τούτου δὲ αἴτιόν ἐστιν ὃ ὑµεῖς ἐµοῦ πολλάκις ἀκηκόατε πολλαχοῦ λέγοντος, ὅτι µοι θεῖον
τι καὶ δαιµόνιον γίγνεται [φωνή], ὃ δὴ καὶ ἐν τῇ γραφῇ ἐπικωµῳδῶν Μέλητος ἐγράψατο.
ἐµοὶ δὲ τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἐκ παιδὸς ἀρξάµενον, φωνή τις γιγνοµένη, ἣ ὅταν γένηται, ἀεὶ
ἀποτρέπει µε τοῦτο ὃ ἂν µέλλω πράττειν, προτρέπει δὲ οὔποτε.
2.26.2 Platon, Phaidon 64c-69c

῏Αρα µὴ ἄλλο τι ἢ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώµατος ἀπαλλαγήν; καὶ εἶναι τοῦτο τὸ
τεθνάναι, χωρὶς µὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπαλλαγὲν αὐτὸ καθ' αὑτὸ τὸ σῶµα γεγονέναι, χωρὶς
δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν [ἀπὸ] τοῦ σώµατος ἀπαλλαγεῖσαν αὐτὴν καθ' αὑτὴν εἶναι; ἆρα µὴ ἄλλο τι ᾖ
ὁ θάνατος ἢ τοῦτο; Οὔκ, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο, ἔφη. Σκέψαι δή, ὠγαθέ, ἐὰν ἄρα καὶ σοὶ συνδοκῇ
ἅπερ ἐµοί· ἐκ γὰρ τούτων µᾶλλον οἶµαι ἡµᾶς εἴσεσθαι περὶ ὧν σκοποῦµεν. φαίνεταί σοι
φιλοσόφου ἀνδρὸς εἶναι ἐσπουδακέναι περὶ τὰς ἡδονὰς καλουµένας τὰς τοιάσδε, οἷον
σιτίων [τε] καὶ ποτῶν; ῞Ηκιστα, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔφη ὁ Σιµµίας. Τί δὲ τὰς τῶν ἀφροδισίων;
Οὐδαµῶς. Τί δὲ τὰς ἄλλας τὰς περὶ τὸ σῶµα θεραπείας; δοκεῖ σοι ἐντίµους ἡγεῖσθαι ὁ
τοιοῦτος; οἷον ἱµατίων διαφερόντων κτήσεις καὶ ὑποδηµάτων καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους
καλλωπισµοὺς τοὺς περὶ τὸ σῶµα πότερον τιµᾶν δοκεῖ σοι ἢ ἀτιµάζειν, καθ' ὅσον µὴ
πολλὴ ἀνάγκη µετέχειν αὐτῶν; ᾿Ατιµάζειν ἔµοιγε δοκεῖ, ἔφη, ὅ γε ὡς ἀληθῶς φιλόσοφος.
Οὐκοῦν ὅλως δοκεῖ σοι, ἔφη, ἡ τοῦ τοιούτου πραγµατεία οὐ περὶ τὸ σῶµα εἶναι, ἀλλὰ
καθ' ὅσον δύναται ἀφεστάναι αὐτοῦ, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν τετράφθαι; ῎Εµοιγε. ῏Αρ' οὖν
πρῶτον µὲν ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις δῆλός ἐστιν ὁ (65) φιλόσοφος ἀπολύων ὅτι µάλιστα τὴν
ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ σώµατος κοινωνίας διαφερόντως τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων; Φαίνεται. Καὶ
δοκεῖ γέ που, ὦ Σιµµία, τοῖς πολλοῖς ἀνθρώποις ᾧ µηδὲν ἡδὺ τῶν τοιούτων µηδὲ µετέχει
αὐτῶν οὐκ ἄξιον εἶναι ζῆν, ἀλλ' ἐγγύς τι τείνειν τοῦ τεθνάναι ὁ µηδὲν φροντίζων τῶν
ἡδονῶν αἳ διὰ τοῦ σώµατός εἰσιν. Πάνυ µὲν οὖν ἀληθῆ λέγεις. Τί δὲ δὴ περὶ αὐτὴν τὴν
τῆς φρονήσεως κτῆσιν; πότερον ἐµπόδιον τὸ σῶµα ἢ οὔ, ἐάν τις αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ ζητήσει
κοινωνὸν συµπαραλαµβάνῃ; οἷον τὸ τοιόνδε λέγω· ἆρα ἔξει ἀλήθειάν τινα ὄψις τε καὶ
ἀκοὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἢ τά γε τοιαῦτα καὶ οἱ ποιηταὶ ἡµῖν ἀεὶ θρυλοῦσιν, ὅτι οὔτ'
ἀκούοµεν ἀκριβὲς οὐδὲν οὔτε ὁρῶµεν; καίτοι εἰ αὗται τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶµα αἰσθήσεων µὴ
154
ἀκριβεῖς εἰσιν µηδὲ σαφεῖς, σχολῇ αἵ γε ἄλλαι· πᾶσαι γάρ που τούτων φαυλότεραί εἰσιν. ἢ
σοὶ οὐ δοκοῦσιν; Πάνυ µὲν οὖν, ἔφη. Πότε οὖν, ἦ δ' ὅς, ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς ἀληθείας ἅπτεται;
ὅταν µὲν γὰρ µετὰ τοῦ σώµατος ἐπιχειρῇ τι σκοπεῖν, δῆλον ὅτι τότε ἐξαπατᾶται ὑπ'
αὐτοῦ. ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις. ῏Αρ' οὖν οὐκ ἐν τῷ λογίζεσθαι εἴπερ που ἄλλοθι κατάδηλον αὐτῇ
γίγνεταί τι τῶν ὄντων; Ναί. Λογίζεται δέ γέ που τότε κάλλιστα, ὅταν αὐτὴν
τούτων Λογίζεται δέ γέ που τότε κάλλιστα, ὅταν αὐτὴν τούτων µηδὲν παραλυπῇ, µήτε
ἀκοὴ µήτε ὄψις µήτε ἀλγηδὼν µηδέ τις ἡδονή, ἀλλ' ὅτι µάλιστα αὐτὴ καθ' αὑτὴν γίγνηται
ἐῶσα χαίρειν τὸ σῶµα, καὶ καθ' ὅσον δύναται µὴ κοινωνοῦσα αὐτῷ µηδ' ἁπτοµένη
ὀρέγηται τοῦ ὄντος. ῎Εστι ταῦτα. Οὐκοῦν καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἡ τοῦ φιλοσόφου ψυχὴ µάλιστα
ἀτιµάζει τὸ σῶµα καὶ φεύγει ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, ζητεῖ δὲ αὐτὴ καθ' αὑτὴν γίγνεσθαι; Φαίνεται. Τί
δὲ δὴ τὰ τοιάδε, ὦ Σιµµία; φαµέν τι εἶναι δίκαιον αὐτὸ ἢ οὐδέν; Φαµὲν µέντοι νὴ ∆ία. Καὶ
αὖ καλόν γέ τι καὶ ἀγαθόν; Πῶς δ' οὔ; Ἤδη οὖν πώποτέ τι τῶν τοιούτων τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς
εἶδες; Οὐδαµῶς, ἦ δ' ὅς. ᾿Αλλ' ἄλλῃ τινὶ αἰσθήσει τῶν διὰ τοῦ σώµατος ἐφήψω αὐτῶν;
λέγω δὲ περὶ πάντων, οἷον µεγέθους πέρι, ὑγιείας, ἰσχύος, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑνὶ λόγῳ
ἁπάντων τῆς οὐσίας ὃ τυγχάνει ἕκαστον ὄν· ἆρα διὰ τοῦ σώµατος αὐτῶν τὸ ἀληθέστατον
θεωρεῖται, ἢ ὧδε ἔχει· ὃς ἂν µάλιστα ἡµῶν καὶ ἀκριβέστατα παρασκευάσηται αὐτὸ
ἕκαστον διανοηθῆναι περὶ οὗ σκοπεῖ, οὗτος ἂν ἐγγύτατα ἴοι τοῦ γνῶναι ἕκαστον; Πάνυ
µὲν οὖν. ῏Αρ' οὖν ἐκεῖνος ἂν τοῦτο ποιήσειεν καθαρώτατα ὅστις ὅτι µάλιστα αὐτῇ τῇ
διανοίᾳ ἴοι ἐφ' ἕκαστον, µήτε τιν' ὄψιν παρατιθέµενος ἐν τῷ διανοεῖσθαι µήτε [τινὰ]
ἄλλην (66) αἴσθησιν ἐφέλκων µηδεµίαν µετὰ τοῦ λογισµοῦ, ἀλλ' αὐτῇ καθ' αὑτὴν
εἰλικρινεῖ τῇ διανοίᾳ χρώµενος αὐτὸ καθ' αὑτὸ εἰλικρινὲς ἕκαστον ἐπιχειροῖ θηρεύειν τῶν
ὄντων, ἀπαλλαγεὶς κρινὲς ἕκαστον ἐπιχειροῖ θηρεύειν τῶν ὄντων, ἀπαλλαγεὶς ὅτι µάλιστα
ὀφθαλµῶν τε καὶ ὤτων καὶ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν σύµπαντος τοῦ σώµατος, ὡς ταράττοντος καὶ
οὐκ ἐῶντος τὴν ψυχὴν κτήσασθαι ἀλήθειάν τε καὶ φρόνησιν ὅταν κοινωνῇ; ἆρ' οὐχ οὗτός
ἐστιν, ὦ Σιµµία, εἴπερ τις [καὶ] ἄλλος ὁ τευξόµενος τοῦ ὄντος; ῾Υπερφυῶς, ἔφη ὁ Σιµµίας,
ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες. Οὐκοῦν ἀνάγκη, ἔφη, ἐκ πάντων τούτων παρίστασθαι
δόξαν τοιάνδε τινὰ τοῖς γνησίως φιλοσόφοις, ὥστε καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τοιαῦτα ἄττα
λέγειν, ὅτι ἃ κινδυνεύει τοι ὥσπερ ἀτραπός τις ἐκφέρειν ἡµᾶς [µετὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῇ
σκέψει], ὅτι, ἕως ἂν τὸ σῶµα ἔχωµεν καὶ συµπεφυρµένη ᾖ ἡµῶν ἡ ψυχὴ µετὰ τοιούτου
κακοῦ, οὐ µή ποτε κτησώµεθα ἱκανῶς οὗ ἐπιθυµοῦµεν· φαµὲν δὲ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ ἀληθές.
µυρίας µὲν γὰρ ἡµῖν ἀσχολίας παρέξει τὸ σῶµα διὰ τὴν ἀναγκαίαν τροφήν· ἔτι δέ, ἄν τινες
νόσοι προσπέσωσιν, ἐµποδίζουσιν ἡµῶν τὴν τοῦ ὄντος θήραν. ἐρώτων δὲ καὶ ἐπιθυµιῶν
καὶ φόβων καὶ εἰδώλων παντοδαπῶν καὶ φλυαρίας ἐµπίµπλησιν ἡµᾶς πολλῆς, ὥστε τὸ
λεγόµενον ὡς ἀληθῶς τῷ ὄντι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ φρονῆσαι ἡµῖν ἐγγίγνεται οὐδέποτε οὐδέν.
καὶ γὰρ πολέµους καὶ στάσεις καὶ µάχας οὐδὲν ἄλλο παρέχει ἢ τὸ σῶµα καὶ αἱ τούτου
ἐπιθυµίαι. διὰ γὰρ τὴν τῶν χρηµάτων κτῆσιν πάντες οἱ πόλεµοι γίγνονται, τὰ δὲ χρήµατα
ἀναγκαζόµεθα κτᾶσθαι διὰ τὸ σῶµα, δουλεύοντες τῇ τούτου θεραπείᾳ· καὶ ἐκ τούτου
ἀσχολίαν ἄγοµεν φιλοσοφίας πέρι διὰ πάντα ταῦτα. τὸ δ' ἔσχατον πάντων ὅτι, ἐάν τις ἡµῖν
καὶ σχολὴ γένηται ἀπ' αὐτοῦ καὶ τραπώµεθα πρὸς τὸ σκοπεῖν τι, ἐν ταῖς ζητήσεσιν αὖ
πανταχοῦ παραπῖπτον θόρυβον παρέχει καὶ ταραχὴν καὶ ἐκπλήττει, ὥστε µὴ δύνασθαι ὑπ'
αὐτοῦ καθορᾶν τἀληθές. ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι ἡµῖν δύνασθαι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ καθορᾶν τἀληθές. ἀλλὰ
τῷ ὄντι ἡµῖν δέδεικται ὅτι, εἰ µέλλοµέν ποτε καθαρῶς τι εἴσεσθαι, ἀπαλλακτέον αὐτοῦ καὶ
αὐτῇ τῇ ψυχῇ θεατέον αὐτὰ τὰ πράγµατα· καὶ τότε, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἡµῖν ἔσται οὗ ἐπιθυµοῦµέν
τε καί φαµεν ἐρασταὶ εἶναι, φρονήσεως, ἐπειδὰν τελευτήσωµεν, ὡς ὁ λόγος σηµαίνει,
ζῶσιν δὲ οὔ. εἰ γὰρ µὴ οἷόν τε µετὰ τοῦ σώµατος µηδὲν καθαρῶς γνῶναι, δυοῖν
θάτερον, ἢ οὐδαµοῦ ἔστιν κτήσασθαι τὸ εἰδέναι ἢ τελευτήσασιν· τότε (67) γὰρ αὐτὴ καθ'
αὑτὴν ἡ ψυχὴ ἔσται χωρὶς τοῦ σώµατος, πρότερον δ' οὔ. καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἂν ζῶµεν, οὕτως, ὡς
ἔοικεν, ἐγγυτάτω ἐσόµεθα τοῦ εἰδέναι, ἐὰν ὅτι µάλιστα µηδὲν ὁµιλῶµεν τῷ σώµατι µηδὲ
155
κοινωνῶµεν, ὅτι µὴ πᾶσα ἀνάγκη, µηδὲ ἀναπιµπλώµεθα τῆς τούτου φύσεως, ἀλλὰ
καθαρεύωµεν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, ἕως ἂν ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸς ἀπολύσῃ ἡµᾶς· καὶ οὕτω µὲν καθαροὶ
ἀπαλλαττόµενοι τῆς τοῦ σώµατος ἀφροσύνης, ὡς τὸ εἰκὸς µετὰ τοιούτων τε ἐσόµεθα καὶ
γνωσόµεθα δι’ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν πᾶν τὸ εἰλικρινές, τοῦτο δ' ἐστὶν ἴσως τὸ ἀληθές· µὴ καθαρῷ
γὰρ καθαροῦ ἐφάπτεσθαι µὴ οὐ θεµιτὸν ᾖ.ἆ τοιαῦτα οἶµαι, ὦ Σιµµία, ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι
πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγειν τε καὶ δοξάζειν πάντας τοὺς ὀρθῶς φιλοµαθεῖς. ἢ οὐ δοκεῖ σοι
οὕτως; Παντός γε µᾶλλον, ὦ Σώκρατες. Οὐκοῦν, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, εἰ ταῦτα ἀληθῆ, ὦ
ἑταῖρε, πολλὴ ἐλπὶς ἀφικοµένῳ οἷ ἐγὼ πορεύοµαι, ἐκεῖ ἱκανῶς, εἴπερ που ἄλλοθι,
κτήσασθαι τοῦτο οὗ ἕνεκα ἡ πολλὴ πραγµατεία ἡµῖν ἐν τῷ παρελθόντι βίῳ γέγονεν, ὥστε
ἥ γε ἀποδηµία ἡ νῦν µοι προστεταγµένη µετὰ ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος γίγνεται καὶ ἄλλῳ ἀνδρὶ ὃς
ἡγεῖταί οἱ παρεσκευάσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν ὥσπερ κεκαθαρµένην. Πάνυ µὲν οὖν, ἔφη ὁ
Σιµµίας. Κάθαρσις δὲ εἶναι ἆρα οὐ τοῦτο συµβαίνει, ὅπερ πάλαι Κάθαρσις δὲ εἶναι ἆρα
οὐ τοῦτο συµβαίνει, ὅπερ πάλαι ἐν τῷ λόγῳ λέγεται, τὸ χωρίζειν ὅτι µάλιστα ἀπὸ τοῦ
σώµατος τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ἐθίσαι αὐτὴν καθ' αὑτὴν πανταχόθεν ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος
συναγείρεσθαί τε καὶ ἁθροίζεσθαι, καὶ οἰκεῖν κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ νῦν παρόντι καὶ
ἐν τῷ ἔπειτα µόνην καθ' αὑτήν, κλυοµένην ὥσπερ [ἐκ] δεσµῶν ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος; Πάνυ µὲν
οὖν, ἔφη. Οὐκοῦν τοῦτό γε θάνατος ὀνοµάζεται, λύσις καὶ χωρισµὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ
σώµατος; Παντάπασί γε, ἦ δ' ὅς. Λύειν δέ γε αὐτήν, ὥς φαµεν, προθυµοῦνται ἀεὶ µάλιστα
καὶ µόνοι οἱ φιλοσοφοῦντες ὀρθῶς, καὶ τὸ µελέτηµα αὐτὸ τοῦτό ἐστιν τῶν φιλοσόφων,
λύσις καὶ χωρισµὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώµατος· ἢ οὔ; Φαίνεται. Οὐκοῦν, ὅπερ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἔλεγον,
γελοῖον ἂν εἴη ἄνδρα παρασκευάζονθ' ἑαυτὸν ἐν τῷ βίῳ ὅτι ἐγγυτάτω ὄντα τοῦ τεθνάναι
οὕτω ζῆν, κἄπειθ' ἥκοντος αὐτῷ τούτου ἀγανακτεῖν; Γελοῖον· πῶς δ' οὔ; Τῷ ὄντι ἄρα,
ἔφη, ὦ Σιµµία, οἱ ὀρθῶς φιλοσοφοῦντες ἀποθνῄσκειν µελετῶσι, καὶ τὸ τεθνάναι ἥκιστα
αὐτοῖς ἀνθρώπων φοβερόν. ἐκ τῶνδε δὲ σκόπει. εἰ γὰρ διαβέβληνται µὲν πανταχῇ τῷ
σώµατι, αὐτὴν δὲ καθ' αὑτὴν ἐπιθυµοῦσι τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχειν, τούτου δὲ γιγνοµένου εἰ
φοβοῖντο καὶ ἀγανακτοῖεν, οὐ πολλὴ ἂν ἀλογία εἴη, εἰ µὴ (68) ἅσµενοι ἐκεῖσε ἴοιεν, οἷ
ἀφικοµένοις ἐλπίς ἐστιν οὗ διὰ βίου ἤρων τυχεῖνᾲἤρων δὲ φρονήσεωςᾲᾧ τε διεβέβληντο,
τούτου ἀπηλλάχθαι συνόντος αὐτοῖς; ἢ ἀνθρωπίνων µὲν παιδικῶν καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ ὑέων
ἀποθανόντων πολλοὶ δὴ ἑκόντες ἠθέλησαν εἰς ῞Αιδου µετελθεῖν, ὑπὸ ταύτης ἀγόµενοι
τῆς ἠθέλησαν εἰς ῞Αιδου µετελθεῖν, ὑπὸ ταύτης ἀγόµενοι τῆς ἐλπίδος, τῆς τοῦ ὄψεσθαί τε
ἐκεῖ ὧν ἐπεθύµουν καὶ συνέσεσθαι· φρονήσεως δὲ ἄρα τις τῷ ὄντι ἐρῶν, καὶ λαβὼν
σφόδρα τὴν αὐτὴν ταύτην ἐλπίδα, µηδαµοῦ ἄλλοθι ἐντεύξεσθαι αὐτῇ ἀξίως λόγου ἢ ἐν
῞Αιδου, ἀγανακτήσει τε ἀποθνῄσκων καὶ οὐχ ἅσµενος εἶσιν αὐτόσε; οἴεσθαί γε χρή, ἐὰν
τῷ ὄντι γε ᾖ, ὦ ἑταῖρε, φιλόσοφος· σφόδρα γὰρ αὐτῷ ταῦτα δόξει, µηδαµοῦ ἄλλοθι
καθαρῶς ἐντεύξεσθαι φρονήσει ἀλλ' ἢ ἐκεῖ. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχει, ὅπερ ἄρτι ἔλεγον, οὐ
πολλὴ ἂν ἀλογία εἴη εἰ φοβοῖτο τὸν θάνατον ὁ τοιοῦτος; Πολλὴ µέντοι νὴ ∆ία, ἦ δ'
ὅς. Οὐκοῦν ἱκανόν σοι τεκµήριον, ἔφη, τοῦτο ἀνδρός, ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς ἀγανακτοῦντα µέλλοντα
ἀποθανεῖσθαι, ὅτι οὐκ ἄρ' ἦν φιλόσοφος ἀλλά τις φιλοσώµατος; ὁ αὐτὸς δέ που οὗτος
τυγχάνει ὢν καὶ φιλοχρήµατος καὶ φιλότιµος, ἤτοι τὰ ἕτερα τούτων ἤ ἀµφότερα. Πάνυ,
ἔφη, ἔχει οὕτως ὡς λέγεις. ῏Αρ' οὖν, ἔφη, ὦ Σιµµία, οὐ καὶ ἡ ὀνοµαζοµένη ἀνδρεία τοῖς
οὕτω διακειµένοις µάλιστα προσήκει; Πάντως δήπου, ἔφη. Οὐκοῦν καὶ ἡ σωφροσύνη, ἣν
καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ ὀνοµάζουσι σωφροσύνην, τὸ περὶ τὰς ἐπιθυµίας µὴ ἐπτοῆσθαι ἀλλ'
ὀλιγώρως ἔχειν καὶ κοσµίως, ἆρ' οὐ τούτοις µόνοις προσήκει, τοῖς µάλιστα τοῦ σώµατος
ὀλιγωροῦσίν τε καὶ ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ ζῶσιν; ᾿Ανάγκη, ἔφη. Εἰ γὰρ ἐθέλεις, ἦ δ' ὅς, ἐννοῆσαι
τήν γε τῶν ἄλλων ἀνδρείαν τε καὶ σωφροσύνην, δόξει σοι εἶναι ἄτοπος. Πῶς δή, ὦ
Σώκρατες; Οἶσθα, ἦ δ' ὅς, ὅτι τὸν θάνατον ἡγοῦνται πάντες οἱ ἄλλοι τῶν µεγάλων κακῶν;
τῶν µεγάλων κακῶν; Καὶ µάλ', ἔφη. Οὐκοῦν φόβῳ µειζόνων κακῶν ὑποµένουσιν αὐτῶν
οἱ ἀνδρεῖοι τὸν θάνατον, ὅταν ὑποµένωσιν; ῎Εστι ταῦτα. Τῷ δεδιέναι ἄρα καὶ δέει
156
ἀνδρεῖοί εἰσι πάντες πλὴν οἱ φιλόσοφοι· καίτοι ἄλογόν γε δέει τινὰ καὶ δειλίᾳ ἀνδρεῖον
εἶναι. Πάνυ µὲν οὖν. Τί δὲ οἱ κόσµιοι αὐτῶν; οὐ ταὐτὸν τοῦτο πεπόνθασιν· ἀκολασίᾳ τινὶ
σώφρονές εἰσιν; καίτοι φαµέν γε ἀδύνατον εἶναι, ἀλλ' ὅµως αὐτοῖς συµβαίνει τούτῳ
ὅµοιον τὸ πάθος τὸ περὶ ταύτην τὴν εὐήθη σωφροσύνην· φοβούµενοι γὰρ ἑτέρων ἡδονῶν
στερηθῆναι καὶ ἐπιθυµοῦντες ἐκείνων, ἄλλων ἀπέχονται ὑπ' ἄλλων κρατούµενοι. καίτοι
καλοῦσί γε ἀκο- (69) λασίαν τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν ἡδονῶν ἄρξεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ὅµως συµβαίνει αὐτοῖς
κρατουµένοις ὑφ' ἡδονῶν κρατεῖν ἄλλων ἡδονῶν. τοῦτο δ' ὅµοιόν ἐστιν ᾧ νυνδὴ ἐλέγετο,
τῷ τρόπον τινὰ δι' ἀκολασίαν αὐτοὺς σεσωφρονίσθαι. ῎Εοικε γάρ. ῏Ω µακάριε Σιµµία, µὴ
γὰρ οὐχ αὕτη ᾖ ἡ ὀρθὴ πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἀλλαγή, ἡδονὰς πρὸς ἡδονὰς καὶ λύπας πρὸς λύπας
καὶ φόβον πρὸς φόβον καταλλάττεσθαι, [καὶ] µείζω πρὸς ἐλάττω ὥσπερ νοµίσµατα, ἀλλ'
ᾖ ἐκεῖνο µόνον τὸ νόµισµα ὀρθόν, ἀντὶ οὗ δεῖ πάντα ταῦτα καταλλάττεσθαι, φρόνησις,
[καὶ τούτου µὲν πάντα] καὶ µετὰ τούτου [ὠνούµενά τε καὶ [πιπρασκόµενα] τῷ ὄντι ᾖ καὶ
ἀνδρεία καὶ σωφροσύνη καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ συλλήβδην ἀληθὴς ἀρετή, µετὰ φρονήσεως,
καὶ προσγιγνοµένων καὶ ἀπογιγνοµένων καὶ ἡδονῶν καὶ φόβων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων
τῶν τοιούτων· χωριζόµενα δὲ φρονήσεως [καὶ] ἀλλαττόµενα ἀντὶ ἀλλήλων µὴ σκιαὲ
φρονήσεως [καὶ] ἀλλαττόµενα ἀντὶ ἀλλήλων µὴ σκιαγραφία τις ᾖ ἡ τοιαύτη ἀρετὴ καὶ τῷ
ὄντι ἀνδραποδώδης τε καὶ οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς οὐδ' ἀληθὲς ἔχῃ, τὸ δ' ἀληθὲς τῷ ὄντι ᾖ κάθαρσίς
τις τῶν τοιούτων πάντων καὶ ἡ σωφροσύνη καὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἀνδρεία, καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ
φρόνησις µὴ καθαρµός τις ᾖ. καὶ κινδυνεύουσι καὶ οἱ τὰς τελετὰς ἡµῖν οὗτοι
καταστήσαντες οὐ φαῦλοί τινες εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι πάλαι αἰνίττεσθαι ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀµύητος
καὶ ἀτέλεστος εἰς ῞Αιδου ἀφίκηται ἐν βορβόρῳ κείσεται, ὁ δὲ κεκαθαρµένος τε καὶ
τετελεσµένος ἐκεῖσε ἀφικόµενος µετὰ θεῶν οἰκήσει. εἰσὶν γὰρ δή, [ὥς] φασιν οἱ περὶ τὰς
τελετάς, < ναρθηκοφόροι µὲν πολλοί, βάκχοι δέ τε παῦροι >
2.26.3 Platon, Phaidon 75c-77a

Οὐκοῦν εἰ µὲν λαβόντες αὐτὴν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι ἔχοντες ἐγενόµεθα, ἠπιστάµεθα καὶ πρὶν
γενέσθαι καὶ εὐθὺς γενόµενοι οὐ µόνον τὸ ἴσον καὶ τὸ µεῖζον καὶ τὸ ἔλαττον ἀλλὰ καὶ
σύµπαντα τὰ τοιαῦτα; οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ ἴσου νῦν ὁ λόγος ἡµῖν µᾶλλόν τι ἤ καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ
τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ δικαίου καὶ ὁσίου καί, ὅπερ λέγω, περὶ ἁπάντων οἷς
ἐπισφραγιζόµεθα τὸ ἃαὐτὸ ὃ ἔστιἆ καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἐρωτήσεσιν ἐρωτῶντες καὶ ἐν ταῖς
ἀποκρίσεσιν ἀποκρινόµενοι. ὥστε ἀναγκαῖον ἡµῖν τούτων πάντων τὰς ἐπιστήµας πρὸ τοῦ
γενέσθαι εἰληφέναι. ῎Εστι ταῦτα. Καὶ εἰ µέν γε λαβόντες ἑκάστοτε µὴ ἐπιλελήσµεθα,
εἰδότας ἀεὶ γίγνεσθαι καὶ ἀεὶ διὰ βίου εἰδέναι· τὸ γὰρ εἰδέναι τοῦτ' ἔστιν, λαβόντα του
ἐπιστήµην ἔχειν καὶ µὴ ἀπολωλεκέναι· ἢ οὐ τοῦτο λήθην λέγοµεν, ὦ Σιµµία, ἐπιστήµης
ἀποβολήν; Πάντως δήπου, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες. Εἰ δέ γε οἶµαι λαβόντες πρὶν γενέσθαι
γιγνόµενοι ἀπωλέσαµεν, ὕστερον δὲ ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι χρώµενοι περὶ αὐτὰ
ἐκείνας ἀναλαµβάνοµεν τὰς ἐπιστήµας ἅς ποτε καὶ πρὶν εἴχοµεν, ἆρ' οὐχ ὃ καλοῦµεν
µανθάνειν οἰκείαν ἂν ἐπιστήµην ἀναλαµβάνειν εἴη; τοῦτο δέ που ἀναµιµνῄσκεσθαι
λέγοντες ὀρθῶς ἂν λέγοιµεν; Πάνυ γε. (76) ∆υνατὸν γὰρ δὴ τοῦτό γε ἐφάνη, αἰσθόµενόν
τι ἢ ἰδόντα ἢ ἀκούσαντα ἤ τινα ἄλλην αἴσθησιν λαβόντα ἕτερόν τι ἀπὸ τούτου ἐννοῆσαι ὃ
ἐπελέληστο, ᾧ τοῦτο πλησίαζεν ἀνόµοιον ὂν ἢ ᾧ ὅµοιον· ὥστε, ὅπερ λέγω, δυοῖν θάτερα,
ἤτοι ἐπιστάµενοί γε αὐτὰ γεγόναµεν καὶ ἐπιστάµεθα διὰ βίου πάντες, ἢ ὕστερον, οὕς
φαµεν µανθάνειν, οὐδὲν ἀλλ' ἢ ἀναµιµνῄσκονται οὗτοι, καὶ ἡ µάθησις ἀνάµνησις ἂν εἴη.
Καὶ µάλα δὴ οὕτως ἔχει, ὦ Σώκρατες. Πότερον οὖν αἱρῇ, ὦ Σιµµία; ἐπισταµένους ἡµᾶς
γεγονέναι, ἢ ἀναµιµνῄσκεσθαι ὕστερον ὧν πρότερον ἐπιστήµην εἰληφότες ἦµεν; Οὐκ
ἔχω, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἐν τῷ παρόντι ἑλέσθαι. Τί δέ; τόδε ἔχεις ἑλέσθαι, καὶ πῇ σοι δοκεῖ περὶ
αὐτοῦ; ἀνὴρ ἐπιστάµενος περὶ ὧν ἐπίσταται ἔχοι ἂν δοῦναι λόγον ἢ οὔ; Πολλὴ ἀνάγκη,
ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες. ῏Η καὶ δοκοῦσί σοι πάντες ἔχειν διδόναι λόγον περὶ τού-
157
των ὧν νυνδὴ ἐλέγοµεν; Βουλοίµην µεντἄν, ἔφη ὁ Σιµµίας· ἀλλὰ πολὺ µᾶλλον φοβοῦµαι
µὴ αὔριον τηνικάδε οὐκέτι ᾖ ἀνθρώπων οὐδεὶς ἀξίως οἷός τε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. Οὐκ ἄρα
δοκοῦσί σοι ἐπίστασθαί γε, ἔφη, ὦ Σιµµία, πάντες αὐτά; Οὐδαµῶς. ᾿Αναµιµνῄσκονται
ἄρα ἅ ποτε ἔµαθον; ᾿Ανάγκη. Πότε λαβοῦσαι αἱ ψυχαὶ ἡµῶν τὴν ἐπιστήµην αὐτῶν; οὐ
γὰρ δὴ ἀφ' οὗ γε ἄνθρωποι γεγόναµεν. Οὐ δῆτα. Πρότερον ἄρα. Ναί. ῏Ησαν ἄρα, ὦ
Σιµµία, αἱ ψυχαὶ καὶ πρότερον, πρὶν εἶναι ἐν ἀνθρώπου εἴδει, χωρὶς σωµάτων, καὶ
φρόνησιν εἶχον. Εἰ µὴ ἄρα ἅµα γιγνόµενοι λαµβάνοµεν, ὦ Σώκρατες, ταύτας τὰς
ἐπιστήµας· οὗτος γὰρ λείπεται ἔτι ὁ χρόνος. Εἶεν, ὦ ἑταῖρε· ἀπόλλυµεν δὲ αὐτὰς ἐν ποίῳ
ἄλλῳ χρόνῳ; ᾲοὐ γὰρ δὴ ἔχοντές γε αὐτὰς γιγνόµεθα, ὡς ἄρτι ὡµολογήσαµενᾲἢ ἐν τούτῳ
ἀπόλλυµεν ἐν ᾧπερ καὶ λαµβάνοµεν; ἢ ἔχεις ἄλλον τινὰ εἰπεῖν χρόνον; Οὐδαµῶς, ὦ
Σώκρατες, ἀλλὰ ἔλαθον ἐµαυτὸν οὐδὲν εἰπών. ῏Αρ' οὖν οὕτως ἔχει, ἔφη, ἡµῖν, ὦ Σιµµία;
εἰ µὲν ἔστιν ἃ θρυλοῦµεν ἀεί, καλόν τέ τι καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τοιαύτη οὐσία, καὶ ἐπὶ
ταύτην τὰ ἐκ τῶν αἰσθήσεων πάντα ἀναφέροµεν, ὑπάρχουσαν πρότερον ἀνευρίσκοντες
ἡµετέραν οὖσαν, καὶ ταῦτα ἐκείνῃ ἀπεικάζοµεν, ἀναγκαῖον, οὕτως ὥσπερ καὶ ταῦτα
ἔστιν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν ἡµετέραν ψυχὴν εἶναι καὶ πρὶν γεγονέναι ἡµᾶς· εἰ δὲ µὴ ἔστι ταῦτα,
ἄλλως ἂν ὁ λόγος οὗτος εἰρηµένος εἴη; ἆρ' οὕτως ἔχει, καὶ ἴση ἀνάγκη ταῦτά τε εἶναι καὶ
τὰς ἡµετέρας ψυχὰς πρὶν καὶ ἡµᾶς γεγονέναι, καὶ εἰ µὴ ταῦτα, οὐδὲ τάδε; ῾Υπερφυῶς, ὦ
Σώκρατες, ἔφη ὁ Σιµµίας, δοκεῖ µοι ἡ αὐτὴ ἀνάγκη εἶναι, καὶ εἰς καλόν γε καταφεύγει ὁ
λόγος εἰς (77) τὸ ὁµοίως εἶναι τήν τε ψυχὴν ἡµῶν πρὶν γενέσθαι ἡµᾶς καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἣν
σὺ νῦν λέγεις. οὐ γὰρ ἔχω ἔγωγε οὐδὲν τὴν οὐσίαν ἣν σὺ νῦν λέγεις. οὐ γὰρ ἔχω ἔγωγε
οὐδὲν οὕτω µοι ἐναργὲς ὂν ὡς τοῦτο, τὸ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτ' εἶναι ὡς οἷόν τε µάλιστα, καλόν
τε καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τἆλλα πάντα ἃ σὺ νυνδὴ ἔλεγες· καὶ ἔµοιγε δοκεῖ ἱκανῶς ἀποδέδεικται.
2.26.4 Platon, Phaidros 242b-c

{ΣΩ.} ῾Ηνίκ' ἔµελλον, ὠγαθέ, τὸν ποταµὸν διαβαίνειν, τὸ δαιµόνιόν τε καὶ τὸ εἰωθὸς
σηµεῖόν µοι γίγνεσθαι ἐγένετο - ἀεὶ δέ µε ἐπίσχει ὃ ἂν µέλλω πράττειν - καί τινα φωνὴν
ἔδοξα αὐτόθεν ἀκοῦσαι, ἥ µε οὐκ ἐᾷ ἀπιέναι πρὶν ἂν ἀφοσιώσωµαι, ὡς δή τι ἡµαρτηκότα
εἰς τὸ θεῖον. εἰµὶ δὴ οὖν µάντις µέν, οὐ πάνυ δὲ σπουδαῖος, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ οἱ τὰ γράµµατα
φαῦλοι, ὅσον µὲν ἐµαυτῷ µόνον ἱκανός· σαφῶς οὖν ἤδη µανθάνω τὸ ἁµάρτηµα. ὡς δή
τοι, ὦ ἑταῖρε, µαντικόν γέ τι καὶ ἡ ψυχή·
2.26.5 Platon, Res Publica 415a-b

Πάνυ, ἦν δ' ἐγώ, εἰκότως· ἀλλ' ὅµως ἄκουε καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν τοῦ µύθου. ἐστὲ µὲν γὰρ δὴ
πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ πόλει ἀδελφοί, ὡς φήσοµεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς µυθολογοῦντες, ἀλλ' ὁ θεὸς
πλάττων, ὅσοι µὲν ὑµῶν ἱκανοὶ ἄρχειν, χρυσὸν ἐν τῇ γενέσει συνέµειξεν αὐτοῖς, διὸ
τιµιώτατοί εἰσιν· ὅσοι δ' ἐπίκουροι, ἄργυρον· σίδηρον δὲ καὶ χαλκὸν τοῖς τε γεωργοῖς καὶ
τοῖς ἄλλοις δηµιουργοῖς. ἅτε οὖν συγγενεῖς ὄντες πάντες τὸ µὲν πολὺ ὁµοίους ἂν ὑµῖν
αὐτοῖς γεννῷτε, ἔστι δ' ὅτε ἐκ χρυσοῦ γεννηθείη ἂν ἀργυροῦν καὶ ἐξ ἀργύρου χρυσοῦν
ἔκγονον καὶ τἆλλα πάντα οὕτως ἐξ ἀλλήλων.
2.26.6 Platon, Timaios 28c-30a

τὸν µὲν οὖν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον καὶ εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας
ἀδύνατον λέγειν· τόδε δ' οὖν πάλιν ἐπισκεπτέον περὶ αὐτοῦ, πρὸς πότερον τῶν
παραδειγµάτων ὁ τεκταινόµενος αὐτὸν (29) ἀπηργάζετο, πότερον πρὸς τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ
ὡσαύτως ἔχον ἢ πρὸς τὸ γεγονός. εἰ µὲν δὴ καλός ἐστιν ὅδε ὁ κόσµος ὅ τε δηµιουργὸς
ἀγαθός, δῆλον ὡς πρὸς τὸ ἀίδιον ἔβλεπεν· εἰ δὲ ὃ µηδ' εἰπεῖν τινι θέµις, πρὸς γεγονός.
παντὶ δὴ σαφὲς ὅτι πρὸς τὸ ἀίδιον· ὁ µὲν γὰρ κάλλιστος τῶν γεγονότων, ὁ δ' ἄριστος τῶν
αἰτίων. οὕτω δὴ γεγενηµένος πρὸς τὸ λόγῳ καὶ φρονήσει περιληπτὸν καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον
158
δεδηµιούργηται· τούτων δὲ ὑπαρχόντων αὖ πᾶσα ἀνάγκη τόνδε τὸν κόσµον εἰκόνα τινὸς
εἶναι. µέγιστον δὴ παντὸς ἄρξασθαι κόσµον εἰκόνα τινὸς εἶναι. µέγιστον δὴ παντὸς
ἄρξασθαι κατὰ φύσιν ἀρχήν. ὧδε οὖν περί τε εἰκόνος καὶ περὶ τοῦ παραδείγµατος αὐτῆς
διοριστέον, ὡς ἄρα τοὺς λόγους, ὧνπέρ εἰσιν ἐξηγηταί, τούτων αὐτῶν καὶ συγγενεῖς
ὄντας· τοῦ µὲν οὖν µονίµου καὶ βεβαίου καὶ µετὰ νοῦ καταφανοῦς µονίµους καὶ
ἀµεταπτώτουςᾲκαθ' ὅσον οἷόν τε καὶ ἀνελέγκτοις προσήκει λόγοις εἶναι καὶ ἀνικήτοις,
τούτου δεῖ µηδὲν ἐλλείπεινᾲτοὺς δὲ τοῦ πρὸς µὲν ἐκεῖνο ἀπεικασθέντος, ὄντος δὲ εἰκόνος
εἰκότας ἀνὰ λόγον τε ἐκείνων ὄντας· ὅτιπερ πρὸς γένεσιν οὐσία, τοῦτο πρὸς πίστιν
ἀλήθεια. ἐὰν οὖν, ὦ Σώκρατες, πολλὰ πολλῶν πέρι, θεῶν καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως,
µὴ δυνατοὶ γιγνώµεθα πάντῃ πάντως αὐτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς ὁµολογουµένους λόγους καὶ
ἀπηκριβωµένους ἀποδοῦναι, µὴ θαυµάσῃς· ἀλλ' ἐὰν ἄρα µηδενὸς ἧττον παρεχώµεθα
εἰκότας, ἀγαπᾶν χρή, µεµνηµένους ὡς ὁ λέγων ἐγὼ ὑµεῖς τε οἱ κριταὶ φύσιν ἀνθρωπίνην
ἔχοµεν, ὥστε περὶ τούτων τὸν εἰκότα µῦθον ἀποδεχοµένους πρέπει τούτου µηδὲν ἔτι πέρα
ζητεῖν. {ΣΩ.} ῎Αριστα, ὦ Τίµαιε, παντάπασί τε ὡς κελεύεις ἀποδεκτέον· τὸ µὲν οὖν
προοίµιον θαυµασίως ἀπεδεξάµεθά σου, τὸν δὲ δὴ νόµον ἡµῖν ἐφεξῆς πέραινε. {ΤΙ.}
Λέγωµεν δὴ δι' ἥντινα αἰτίαν γένεσιν καὶ τὸ πᾶν τόδε ὁ συνιστὰς συνέστησεν. ἀγαθὸς ἦν,
ἀγαθῷ δὲ οὐδεὶς περὶ οὐδενὸς οὐδέποτε ἐγγίγνεται φθόνος· τούτου δ' ἐκτὸς ὢν πάντα ὅτι
µάλιστα ἐβουλήθη γενέσθαι παραπλήσια ἑαυτῷ. ταύτην δὴ γενέσεως καὶ κόσµου µάλιστ'
ἄν τις ἀρχὴν κυριω- (30) τάτην παρ' ἀνδρῶν φρονίµων ἀποδεχόµενος ὀρθότατα
ἀποδέχοιτ' ἄν. βουληθεὶς γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγαθὰ µὲν πάντα, φλαῦρον δὲ µηδὲν εἶναι κατὰ
δύναµιν, οὕτω δὴ πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβὼν οὐχ ἡσυχίαν ἄγον ἀλλὰ κινούµενον
πληµµελῶς καὶ ἀτάκτως, εἰς τάξιν αὐτὸ ἤγαγεν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας, ἡγησάµενος ἐκεῖνο τούτου
πάντως ἄµεινον. θέµις δ' οὔτ' ἦν οὔτ' ἔστιν τῷ ἀρίστῳ δρᾶν ἄλλο πλὴν τὸ κάλλιστον·
2.27 Plotinos
2.27.1 Plotinos, Enneades 4.8.5

Οὐ τοίνυν διαφωνεῖ ἀλλήλοις ἥ τε εἰς γένεσιν σπορὰ ἥ τε εἰς τελείωσιν κάθοδος τοῦ
παντός, ἥ τε δίκη τό τε σπήλαιον, ἥ τε ἀνάγκη τό τε ἑκούσιον, ἐπείπερ ἔχει τὸ ἑκούσιον ἡ
ἀνάγκη, καὶ τὸ ἐν κακῷ τῷ σώµατι εἶναι· οὐδ' ἡ ᾿Εµπεδοκλέους φυγὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ
πλάνη οὐδ' ἡ ἁµαρτία, ἐφ' ᾗ ἡ δίκη, οὐδ' ἡ ῾Ηρακλείτου ἀνάπαυλα ἐν τῇ φυγῇ, οὐδ' ὅλως
τὸ ἑκούσιον τῆς καθόδου καὶ τὸ ἀκούσιον αὖ. Πᾶν µὲν γὰρ ἰὸν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἀκούσιον,
φορᾷ γε µὴν οἰκείᾳ ἰὸν πάσχον τὰ χείρω ἔχειν λέγεται τὴν ἐφ' οἷς ἔπραξε δίκην. ῞Οταν δὲ
ταῦτα πάσχειν καὶ ποιεῖν ᾖ ἀναγκαῖον ἀιδίως φύσεως νόµῳ, τὸ δὲ συµβαῖνον εἰς ἄλλου
του χρείαν ἐν τῇ προσόδῳ ἀπαντᾷ καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑπὲρ αὐτόν, θεὸν εἴ τις λέγοι
καταπέµψαι, οὐκ ἂν ἀσύµφωνος οὔτε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὔτε ἑαυτῷ ἂν εἴη. Καὶ γὰρ ἀφ' ἧς ἀρχῆς
ἕκαστα, εἰ καὶ τὰ µεταξὺ πολλά, καὶ τὰ ἔσχατα εἰς αὐτὴν ἀναφέρεται. ∆ιττῆς δὲ τῆς
ἁµαρτίας οὔσης, τῆς µὲν ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ κατελθεῖν αἰτίᾳ, τῆς δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ ἐνθάδε γενοµένην κακὰ
δρᾶσαι, <δίκη> ἡ µέν ἐστιν αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ὃ πέπονθε κατελθοῦσα, τῆς δὲ τὸ ἔλαττον εἰς
σώµατα ἄλλα δῦναι καὶ θᾶττον ἐκ κρίσεως τῆς κατ' ἀξίαν - ὃ δὴ θεσµῷ θείῳ γιγνόµενον
διὰ τοῦ τῆς κρίσεως ὀνόµατος δηλοῦται - τὸ δὲ τῆς κακίας ἄµετρον εἶδος µείζονος καὶ τῆς
δίκης ἠξίωται ἐπιστασίᾳ τινυµένων δαιµόνων. Οὕτω τοι καίπερ οὖσα θεῖον καὶ ἐκ τῶν
τόπων τῶν ἄνω ἐντὸς γίνεται τοῦ σώµατος καὶ θεὸς οὖσα ὁ ὕστερος ῥοπῇ αὐτεξουσίῳ καὶ
αἰτίᾳ δυνάµεως καὶ τοῦ µετ' αὐτὴν κοσµήσει ὡδὶ ἔρχεται· κἂν µὲν θᾶττον φύγῃ, οὐδὲν
βέβλαπται γνῶσιν κακοῦ προσλαβοῦσα καὶ φύσιν κακίας γνοῦσα τάς τε δυνάµεις ἄγουσα
αὐτῆς εἰς τὸ φανερὸν καἰ δείξασα ἔργα τε καὶ ποιήσεις, ἃ ἐν τῷ ἀσωµάτῳ ἠρεµοῦντα
µάτην τε ἂν ἦν εἰς τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ἀεὶ οὐκ ἰόντα, τήν τε ψυχὴν αὐτὴν ἔλαθεν ἂν ἃ εἶχεν οὐκ
ἐκφανέντα οὐδὲ πρόοδον λαβόντα· εἴπερ πανταχοῦ ἡ ἐνέργεια τὴν δύναµιν ἔδειξε
159
κρυφθεῖσαν ἂν ἁπάντη καὶ οἷον ἀφανισθεῖσαν καὶ οὐκ οὖσαν µηδέποτε ὄντως οὖσαν. Νῦν
µὲν γὰρ θαῦµα ἔχει τῶν ἔνδον ἕκαστος διὰ τῆς ποικιλίας τῶν ἔξω, οἷόν ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ τὰ
γλαφυρὰ ταῦτα δρᾶσαι.
2.28 Pseudo-Philo Alexandrinus
2.28.1 Pseudo-Philo Alexandrinus, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 9:5

Now therefore I will go and take my wife, neither will I consent to the command of this king. And if it be
right in your eyes, so let us do all of us, for it shall be, when our wives conceive, they shall not be known to be
great with child until 3 months are fulfilled, like as also our mother Thamar did, for her intent was not to
fornication, but because she would not separate herself from the sons of Israel she took thought and said: It is
better for me to die joined to sinning with my father-in-law than to be joined to Gentiles. And she hid the fruit
of her womb till the 3rd month, for then was it perceived. And as she went to be put to death she affirmed it
saying: The man whose is this staff and this ring and goatskin, of him have I conceived. And her device
delivered her out of all peril.

And Debbora died and slept with her fathers and was buried in the city of her fathers, and the people
mourned for her 70 days. And as they bewailed her, thus they spake a lamentation, saying: Behold, a mother
is perished out of Israel, and an holy one that bare rule in the house of Jacob, which made fast the fence about
her generation, and her generation shall seek after her. And after her death the land had rest seven years.

And Seila the daughter of Jepthan went forth, she and the virgins that were her fellows, and came and told it
to the wise men of the people. And no man could answer her words. And after that she went into the mount
Stelac, and by night the Lord thought upon her, and said: Lo, now have I shut up the tongue of the wise
among my people before this generation, that they could not answer the word of the daughter of Jepthan, that
my word might be fulfilled, and my counsel not destroyed which I had devised: and I have seen that she is more
wise than her father, and a maiden of understanding more than than all the wise which are here. And now let
her life be given her at her request, and her death shall be precious in my sight at all times.
2.29 Publius Cornelius Tacitus
2.29.1 Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Historiae V.5

Sed quia sacerdotes eorum tibia tympanisque concinebant, hedera vinciebantur vitisque aurea in templo
reperta, Liberum patrem coli, domitorem Orientis, arbitrati sunt, nequaquam congruentibus institutis.
2.30 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus
2.30.1 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos I.1

Valentiniani, frequentissimum plane collegium inter haereticos, quia plurimum ex apostatis veritatis et ad
fabulas facile est in disciplina non terretur, nihil magis curant quam occultare quod praedicant; si tamen
praedicant qui occultant. Custodiae officium conscientiae offucium est. Confusio praedicatur, dum religio
adseveratur. Nam et illa Eleusinia, haeresis et ipsa Attica supersitionis: quod tacent pudor est.
2.30.2 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos VII.3-VIII.2

Hunc substantialiter quidem Αιῶνα Τέλειον appellant, personaliter very Προlάτορα et Προαρχήν, etiam
Bython, quod in sublimibus habitanti minime congruebant. Innatum inmensum infinitum invisibilem
aeternumque definiunt; quasi statim probent esse, si talem definiant qualem scimus esse debere, ut sic et ante
160
omnia fuisse dicatur. … Et tamen quem solum volunt, dant ei secundam in ipso et cum ipso personam,
Ennoian, quam et Charin et Sigen insuper nominant. Et forte accidit in illa commendatissima quiete movere
eum de proferendo tandem initio rerum a semetipso. Hoc vice seminis in Sige sua velut in genitalibus vulvae
locis collocat. Suscipit illa statim et praegnans efficitur et parit, utique silentio, Sige, et Nus est quem parit
simillimum patri et parem per omnia. Denique solus hic capere sufficit inmensam illam et incomprehensibilem
magnitudinem patris. Ita et ipse pater dicitur et initium omnium et proprie Monogenes. Atquin non proprie,
siquidem non solus agnoscitur. Nam cum illo processit et femina, cui Veritas <nomen>. Monogenes, quia
prior genitus, quanto congruentis Protogenes vocaretur! Ergo Bythos et Sige, Nus et Veritas prima quadriga
defenditur Valentinianae factionis, matrix et origo cunctorum. Namque ibidem Nus, simul accepit prolationis
suae officium, emittit et ipse ex semetipso Sermonem et Vitam. Quae si retro non erat, utique nec in Bytho.
Sed et haec soboles, ad initium universitatis et formationem pleromatis totius emissa, facit fructum: Hominem
et Ecclesiam procreat. Habes ogdoadem, tetradem duplicem, ex coniugationibus masculorum et feminarum,
cellas, ut ita dixerim, primordialium aeonum, fraterna conubia Valentinianorum deorum, census omnis
sanctitatis et maiestatis haereticae, nescio criminum an numinum turbam, certe fontem reliquae fecunditatis.
(VIII.1) Ecce enim secunda tetras, Sermo et Vita, Homo et Ecclesia, quod in patris gloriam fructicasset huic
numero, gestientes et ipsi tale quid patri de suo offerre, alios ebulliunt fetus, proinde coniugales per copulam
utriusque naturae. Hac Sermo et Vita decuriam aeonum simul fundunt, illac Homo et Ecclesia duos
amplius, aequiperando parentibus, quia et ipsi duo cum illis decem tot efficiunt, quot ipsi procreaverunt. …
Theletus et Sophia.
2.30.3 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos IX.1-X.5

Sed et hoc exceptio personarum est, quod solus ille Nus ex omnibus inmensi patris fruitur notione, gaudens et
exsultans, illis utique maerentibus. … Sed intercessit mater Sige … etsi de patris nutu aiunt facutum,
volentis omnes in desiderium sui accendi. Itaque dum macerantur intra semetipsos, dum tacita cupidine
cognoscendi patrem uruntur, paene scelus factum est. Namque ex illis duodecim aeonibus, quos Homo et
Ecclesia ediderant, novissima natu aeon – viderit soloecismus, Sophia enim nomen est – incontinentia sui, sine
coniugis Phileti societate, prorumpit in patrem inquirere… Sed enim sub praetexto dilectionis in patrem
aemulatio superabat in Nun, solum de patre gaudentem. Ut vero impossibilia contendens Sophia frustra erat
et vincitur difficultate et extenditur adfectione, modico abfuit prae vi dulcedinis et laboris devorari et in
reliquam substantiam dissolui; nec alias quam pereundo cessasset, nisi bono fato in Horon incursasset –
quaedam et huic vis: est fundamentum universitatis <et> illius extrinsecus custos –quem et Crucem appellant
et Lystroten et Carpisten. Ita Sophia, periculo exempta et tarde persuasa <de> declinata invetigatione patris,
conquievit et totam Animationem (Enthymesin) cum passione, quae insuper acciderat, exposuit. (X.1) Sed
quidam exitum Sophiae et restitutionem aliter somniaverunt: post inritos conatus et spei deiectionem,
deformatam eam pallore, credo, et macie et incuria, proprie uti quae patrem non minus denegatum dolebat
quam amissam. Dehinc in illo maerore ex semetipsa sola, nulla opera coniugii, concepit et procreat feminam.
… Et tamen sine masculo mater… curare de occultatione. … Dum in malis res est, suspicit, convertit ad
patrem. Sed incassum enisa, ut vires desiderabant, in preces succidit. Tota etiam propinquitas pro eas
supplicat, vel maxime Nus. … Ibi demum pater, motus aliquando, quem supra diximus Horon, per
Monogenen Nun, in haec promit in imagine sua, feminam marem, quia de patris sexu ita variant. … Huius
praedicant et opera et repressam ab inlicitis et purgatam a malis et deinceps confirmatam Sophiam et coniugio
restitutam; et ipsam quidem in pleromatis censu remansisse, Enthymesin vero eius et illiam adpendicem
passionem ab Horo relegatam et crucifixam et extra eum factam. … spiritalem tamen substantiam illam, ut
naturalem quendam impetum aeonis, sed informem et inspeciatam, quatenus nihil adprehendisset, ideoque
fructum infirmum et feminam pronuntiatam.
161
2.30.4 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos XII.4
Igitur ex aere collaticio, quod aiunt, in honorem et gloriam patris pulcherrimum pleromatis sidus fructumque
perfectum compigunt, Iesum. Eum cognominant Soterem et Christum et Sermonem de patritis, et Omnia iam,
ut ex omnium defloratione constructum…
2.30.5 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos XIV.1-2

Namque Ethymesis, sive iam Achamoth, quod abhinc scripta hoc solo ininiterpretabili nomine, ut cum vitio
individuae passionis explosis est in loca luminis aliena, quod pleromatis res est, in vacuum atque inane illud
Epicuri, miserabilis etiam de loco est. Certe nec forma nec facies ulla: defectiva scilicet et abortiva genitura.
Dum ita rerum habet, flectitur a superioribus Christus, deducitur per Horon, aborsum ut illud informet de
suis viribus, solius substantiae non etiam scientiae forma. Et tamen cum aliqui paculio relinquitur, id erat
odor incorruptibilitatis, quo compos casus sui potiorum desiderio suppararetur. Hac misericordia functus, non
sine Spiritus Sancti societate, recurrit Christus in pleroma.
2.30.6 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos XVI.1-XVII.2

Convertitur enim ad preces et ipsa more materno. Sed Christus, quem iam pigebat extra pleroma proficiscio,
vicarium praeficit Paracletum Soterem: hic erit Iesus… Hic, opinor, susceptam ille confirmat ateque conformat
agnitione iam et ab omnibus iniuriis passionis expumicat non eadem neglegentia in exterminium discretis
quam acciderat in casibus matris. Sed enim exercitata vitia et usu viriosa confudit atque ita massaliter
solidata defixit seorsum, in materiae incorporalem paraturam commutans ex incorporali passione, indita
habilitate atque natura, qua pervenire mox posset in aemulas aquiperantias corpulentarium, ut duplex
substantiarum condicio ordinaretur, de vitiis pessima, de conversione passionalis. … (XVII.1) Abhinc
Achamaoth, expedita tandem de malis omnibus, ecce iam proficit et in opera maiora frugescit. Prae gaudio
enim tanti ex infelicitate successus cancalefacta simulque contemplatione ipsa angelicorum luminun…
quammodo ubsuriit intra et ipsa in illos et conceptu statim intumuit spiritali ad imaginem ipsam, quam vi
laetantis, ex laetitia prurientis intentionis imbiberat et sibi intimarat. Peperit denique, et facta est exinde
trinitas generum ex trinitate causarum, unum materiale, quod ex passione, aliud animale, quod ex
conversione, tertium spiritale, quod ex imaginatione.
2.30.7 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos XVIII.2

Eo animo se unum ad animale convertit, prolatis Soteris disciplinis. Et primum… deum fingiy hunc nostrum
et omnium praeter haereticorum, Patrem et Demiurgum et Regem universorum quae post illium.
2.30.8 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos XX.1-2

Igitur demiurgus, extra Pleromatis limites constitutus, in ignominiosa aeterni exilii vastitate novam
provinciam condidit, hunc mundum, repurgata confusione et dinstincta diversitate duplicis substantiae illius
detrusae animalium et materialium. Ex incorporalibus corpora aedificat, gravia levia, sublimantia atque
vergentia, caelestia atque terrena. Tum ipsam caelorum septemplicem scaenam solio desuper suo finit. Unde et
Sabbatum dictum est ab hebdomade sedis suae, ut Ogdoada mater Achamoth ab argumento ogdoadis
primigenitalis.
2.30.9 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos XXII.2

Et tamen diabolum quoque opus Demiurge adfirmant et Munditenentem appellant et superiorum magis
gnarum defendunt, ut spiritalem natura, quam Demiurgum, ut animalem.
2.30.10 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos XXIV.2-XXV.3

Figulat ita hominem Demiurgus et de afflatu suo animat. Sic erit et choicus et animalis, ad imaginem et
simitudinem (Genesis 1:26) factus, quadruplex res, ut imago quidem choicus desputetur, materialis
scilicet, etsi non ex materia Demiurgus, similitudo autem animalis: hoc enim et Demiurgus. Habes duos
162
interim. Carnalem superficiem postea aiunt choico supertextam, et hance esse pelliceam tunicam obnoxiam
sensui. (XXV.1) Interat autem in Achamoth ex substantia Sophiae matris peculium quoddam seminis
spiritalis, sicut et ipsa Achamoth in filio Demiurgo sequestraverat, ne hoc quidem gnaro. … Ad hoc enim et
deposuerat et occultaverar ut, cum Demiurgus animam mox de suo afflatu in Adam communicaret, pariter et
semen illud spiritale quasi per carnalem animam derivaretur in choicum, atque ita feturatum in corpore
materiali velut in utero et adultum illic, idoneum inbeniretur suscipiendo quandoque sermoni perfecto. Itaque
cum Demiurgus traducem animae suae committit in Adam, latuit homo spiritalis flatu eius insertus et pariter
corpori inductus, quia non magis semen noverat matris Demiurgus quam ipsam. Hoc semen Ecclesiam dicunt,
Ecclesiae supernae speculum et Hominis censum…
2.30.11 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos XXVI.1-2

Sic et exitum singulis dividunt: materiali quidem, id est carnali, quem et sinistrum vocant, indubitatum
interitum; animali vero, quem et dextrum appellant, dubitatum eventum, utpote inter materialem
spiritalemque nutanti et illac debito qua plurimum adnuerit; ceterum spiritalem emitti in animalis
comparationem, ut erudiri cum eos et exerceri in conversationibus possit. Indiguisse enim animalem etiam
sensibilium disciplinarum. In hoc et paraturam mundi prospectam, in hoc et Soterem in mundo
repraesentatum, in salutem scilicet animalis.
2.30.12 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, De Carne Christi V.5-7

Quae nasci et mori novit, humana sine dubio ut nata de homine ideoque mortalis, haec erit in Christo homo
et filius hominis. Aut cur homo Christus et hominis filius si nihil hominis et nihil ex homine? Nisi si aut
aliud est homo quem caro, aut aliunde caro hominis quam ex homine, aut aliud Maria quam homo, aut
homo deus Marcionis. Aliuter non diceretur homo Christus sine carne nec hominis filius sine aliquo parente
homine, sicut nec deus sine spiritu dei nec dei filius sine deo patre. Ita utriusque substantiae census hominem et
deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum, hinc carneum, inde spiritalem, hinc infirmum, inde praefortem,
hinc morientem, inde viventem. Quae proprietas condicionum, divinae et humanae, aequa utique naturae
cuiusque veritate dispuncta est, eadem fide et spiritus et carnis: virtutes spiritus dei deum, passiones carnem
hominis probaverunt.
2.30.13 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, De Cultu Feminarum I.1.2

Vivit sententia Dei super sexum istum in hoc saeculo: vivat et reatus necesse est. Tu es diaboli ianua; tu es
arboris illius resignatrix; tu es divinae legis prima desertrix; tu es quae eum suasisti, quem diabolus aggredi
non valuit; tu imaginem Dei, hominem, tam facile elissisti; propter tuum meritum, id est mortem, etiam filius
Dei mori habuit: et adornari tibi in mente est super pelliceas tuas tunicas?
2.30.14 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum VII.9-13

Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiae et ecclesiae? Quid haereticis et christianis? Nostra
institutio de porticu Solomonis est qui et ipse tradiderat Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quaerendum.
Viderint qui Stoicum et Platonicum et dialecticum christianismum protulerunt. Nobis curiositate opus non est
post Christum Iseum nec inquisitione post evangelium. Cum credimus nihil desideramus ultra credere. Hoc
enim prius credimus non esse quod ultra credere debeamus.
2.30.15 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum XI.6-10

Vidua a iudice petebat audiri quia non admittebatur: sed ubi audita est, hactenus institit. Adeo finis est et
quaerendi et pulsandi et petendi. ‘Petenti enim dabitur’, inquit, ‘et pulsanti aperietur et quaerenti invenietur.’
(Gospel of Luke 18:2-5) Viderit qui quaerit semper quia non inveniet; illic enim quaerit ubi non
invenietur. Viderit qui semper pulsat quia numquam aperietur: illuc enim pulsat ubi nemo est. Viderit qui
semper petit quia numquam audietur; ab eo enim petit qui non audit.
163
2.30.16 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum XLI.2-4
Imprimis quis catechumenus, quis fidelis incertum est, pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant; etiam
ethnici si supervenerint, sanctum canibus et porcis margaritas, licet non veras, iactabunt. Simplicitatem volunt
esse prostrationem disciplinae cuius penes nos curam lenocinium vocant. Pacem quoque passim cum omnibus
miscent. Nihil enim interest ilis, licet diversa tractantibus, dum ad unius veritatis expugnationem conspicerent.
Omnes tument, omnes scientiam pollicentur. Ante sunt perfecti catechumeni quam edocti.
2.30.17 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum XLI.5-6

Ipsae mulieres haereticae, quam procaces! Quae audeant docere, contendere, exorcismos agere, curationes
repromittere, fortasse an et tingere. Ordinationes eorum temerariae, leves, inconstantes. Nunc neophytos
conlocant, nunc saeculo obstrictos, nunc apostatas nostros ut gloria eos obligent quia veritate non possunt.
2.30.18 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum XLI.8

Itaque alius hodie episcopus, cras alius; hodie diaconus qui cras lector; hodie presbyter qui cras laicus. Nam et
laicis sacerdotalia munera iniungunt.
2.30.19 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum XLII.6-9

Et hoc est quod scismata apud haereticos fere non sunt quia, cum sint, non parent: scisma est enim unitas
ipsa. Mentior si non etiam a regulis suis variant inter se dum unusquisque proinde suo arbitrio modulatur
quae accepit, quemadmodum de suo arbitrio ea composuit ille qui tradidit. Agnoscit naturam suam et originis
suae morem profectus rei. Idem licuit Valentinianis quod Valentino, idem Marcionitis quod Marcioni, de
arbitrio suo fidem innovare. Denique penitus inspectae haereses omnes in multis cum auctoribus suis
dissentientes deprehenduntur.
2.30.20 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, De Virginibus Velandis IX.2

Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia loqui, sed nec docere, nec tinguere, nec offerre, nec ullius virilis muneris,
nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi vindicarent.
2.31 The Testament of Abraham
2.31.1 The Testament of Abraham 12:3-18 (Testaments of the Three Patriarchs)

And between the gates there stood a terrifying throne with the appearance of terrifying crystal, flashing like fire
(5) And upon it sat a wondrous man, bright as the sun, like unto a son of God. Before him stood a table like
crystal, all of gold and byssus. On the table lay a book whose thickness was six cubits, while its breadth was
ten cubits. On its right and on its left stood two angels holding papyrus and ink and pen. In front of the table
sat a light-bearing angel, holding a blanace in his hand. (10) [On] (his) left there sat a fiery angel, altogether
merciless and relentless, holding a trumpet in his hand, which contained within it an all-consuming fire (for)
testing the sinners. And the wondrous man who sat on the throne was the one who judged and sentenced the
souls. The two angels on the right and on the left recorded. The one on the right recorded righteous deeds, while
the one on the left (recorded) sins. And the one who was in front of the table, who was holding the balance,
weighed the souls. And the fiery angel, who held the fire, tested the souls.
(15) And Abraham asked the Commander-in-Chief Michael, ‘What are these things which we see?’ And the
Commander-in-chief said, ‘These things which you see, pious Abraham, are judgment and recompense.’ And
behold, the angel who held the soul in his hand brought it before the judge. And the judge told one of the angels
who served him, ‘Open for me this book and find for me the sins of this soul.’ And when he opened the book
he found its sins and righteous deeds to be equally balanced, and he neither turned it over to the torturers nor
(placed it among) those who were being saved, but he set it in the middle.
164
2.32 Testament of Reuben
2.32.1 Testament of Reuben 5:1-4 (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs)

For women are evil, my children, and by reason of their lacking authority or power over man, they scheme
treacherously how they might entice him to themselves by means of their looks. And whomever they cannot
enchant by their appearance they conquer y a stratagem. Indeed, the angel of the Lord told me and instructed
me that womena re more easily overcome by the spirit of promiscuity than are men. They contrive in their
hearts against men, then by decking themselves out they lead men’s minds astray, by a look they implant their
poison, and finally in the act itself they take them captive. For a woman is not able to coerce a man overtly,
but by a harlot’s manner she accomplishes her villainy.
2.33 Vita Adae et Evae
2.33.1 Vita Adae et Evae 10:1-2

Now when Eve heard this she believed and went out of the water of the river, and her flesh was as grass from
the cold of the water. And when she came out, she fell on the ground and the devil raised her and led her to
Adam.
2.33.2 Vita Adae et Evae 21:3

And she [Eve] bore a son, and he was lustrous; and at once the infant rose, ran and brought in his hands a
reed and gave it to his mother. And his name was called Cain.

For Eve later conceived and bore a son, whose name was Abel. And Cain and Abel used to stay together.

Adam said to Seth, ‘Listen, my son Seth, and I will pass on to you what I heard and saw. After your mother
and I had been driven out of paradise...’
2.33.5 Vita Adae et Evae 49:1-3

Indeed, six days after Adam died, Eve, aware that she would die, gathered all her sons and daughters, Seth
with thirty brothers and thirty sisters, and Eve said to (them) all: ‘Listen to me, my children, and I will tell
you that I and your father transgressed the command of God, and the archangel Michael said to us, ‘Because
of your collusion, our Lord will bring over your race the wrath of his judgment, first by water and then by fire;
by these two the Lord will judge the whole human race.’ ...’
165

Thinking Outside The Box - A Master Thesis by Fedor Van Rijn

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Thinking Outside The Box - A Master Thesis by Fedor Van Rijn

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THINKING OUTSIDE THE

A master thesis by Fedor van Rijn, 0100897

Chapter 1. Objectives and research questions Page 4

Chapter 2. Preliminary notes Page 5

Chapter 3. Historical and social background Page 7

Chapter 4. The Eves of yore Page 20

Chapter 5. Eve in Sethian gnosticism Page 28

Chapter 6. Eve in Valentinian gnosticism Page 44

Chapter 7. Further development of gnostic ideas Page 60

Chapter 8. Conclusions Page 63

Chapter 9. Concluding remarks Page 65

Appendix: quotations Page 80

Front picture: Adam and Eve by William Blake (1808)

Wikgren (1968), The Greek New Testament.

The research questions a) up to e) will be discussed individually for each category of

2.2 Treatment of sources

2.3 Treatment of academic research

2.4 Discussion about Eve

2.5 Limitations and choices

Gnosticism?, pp. 162, Drijvers (1966), Bardai.san of Edessa, respectively.

3.1 The brave new world of Hellenism

dominate Persia and Mesopotamia.

19 See Green, pp. 497-544.

3.2 The origins of Christianity

different Jewish factions.

ancestor even if he was not a direct linear descendant.

from Robinson (1996), The Nag Hammadi Library in English.

3.3 The secrets of gnosticism

Gnosis and Faith in early Christianity.

into the debate on this term and its definition.

compare with the language of pagan mystery cults.

3.4 Unification of doctrine

63 King (2003), p. 230, quoting personal correspondence from Virginia Burrus.

to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism, p. 336-339 and 348-349.

3.5 The research on early Christianity

4.1 The mother of all living

98 Graves, pp. 388-393.

100 Graves, pp. 256-257.

Patai, pp. 29-30 and Norris, p. 28.

4.2 The disloyal creature

in Ugarit and Israel, pp. 43-471.

4.3 On the verge of a new day

122 Norris, pp.44-71.

XI.14 and De Specialibus Legibus III.169-171 and Testament of Reuben 5:1-4.

or 40:4 (on Seila).

5.1 Sethian thought and practice

conclusions see King (2003), pp. 157-158.

Roukema, pp. 36-37, and Williams (1996), pp. 8.

5.1.1 The Sethian creation myth

5.1.2 Sethian ethics and practice

based on an interpretation of Genesis 6:2-4.

celestial baptism Zostrianos 5:14-7:20.

198 Schenke (1981), pp. 601-602.

5.2.1 The Sethian community?

200 Schenke (1981), p. 606.

Hilgenfeld (1884), Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums.

5.2.2 Influences on Sethian thought

in connection to the Messiah.

Schenke (1981), pp. 612-616, for this argument.

5.3.1 Eve in the Sethian story of creation

240 The Apocryphon of John 19:21-20:9.

64:20-29, see Fallon, p. 71.

250 The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:12-29.