Chapter IX: Book V: has been devoted to the doctrines of the “Naassenes”--a word (2)

30. Since now we have set forth the differences among the Jews, it seems proper not to pass over in silence the discipline of their service of God. Now there is a fourfold system with regard to the service of God among all Jews [to wit] Theological, Physical, Moral and Ceremonial.[132] And they say that there is one God, the Demiurge of the All and the Maker of all things that before were not,[133] nor did He make them from any subordinate essence, but He willed and created. And that there are angels and that they have come into being for the service of creation; but that there is also a Spirit having authority ever standing beside Him for the glory and praise of God. And that all things in the creation have sensation and that nothing is without soul.[134] And they pursue customs tending to a holy [Sidenote: p. 470.] and temperate life as is to be recognized in their Law. But these things were of old carefully laid down by those who originally received a God-made Law, so that the reader will be astonished at so much moderation and care in the customs prescribed for man. But the ceremonial service offered in becoming fashion was excellently performed by them as it is easy for those who wish to learn by reading the Book discoursing on these matters.[135] [There they will see] how reverently and devoutly they offered to God the things given by Him for the use and enjoyment of man, obeying Him orderly and constantly. Some of these [doctrines] the Sadducees reject; for they hold that neither angels nor spirit exist.[136]

[Sidenote: p. 471.] But all alike wait for Christ, the Coming One foretold by the Law and the Prophets. But the time of the Coming was not known of the Jews, [so that] the supposition endured that the sayings which appeared to concern the Coming were unfulfilled. But they expect that Christ will presently come, since they did not recognize His presence. And seeing the signs of the times of His having come already, this troubles them, and they are ashamed to confess that He has come, since with their own hands they became His murderers, through anger at being convicted by Him of not having hearkened to their Laws. And they say that He who was thus sent by God is not Christ. But they confess that another will come who as yet is not, and will bear some of the signs which the Law and the Prophets foreshowed; but some things they imagine wrongly. For they say that his birth will be from the race of David, but not from a Virgin and [the] Holy Spirit, but from a woman and a man, as it is a rule for all to be begotten from seed. And they declare that he will be a king over them, a man of war and a mighty one, who, having gathered together the whole nation of Jews, will make war on all the nations and [Sidenote: p. 472.] re-establish for them Jerusalem as the royal city. Whereunto he will gather in the whole nation, and again will restore the ancient customs, while [the nation] is king and priest[137] and dwells in security for a sufficient time. Then shall again spring up against them a war of [the nations] gathered together. In this war the Christ shall fall by the sword and not long afterwards the end and conflagration of the All shall draw near, and thus their conjectures about the Resurrection shall be fulfilled, and everyone shall be recompensed according to his works.[138]

31. It seems to us that the opinions of all Greeks and Barbarians have been sufficiently set forth, and that nothing has been left undemonstrated either of the philosophizings[139] or of the things imagined by the heretics. To those among them [who read this], the refutation from what has been set forth is clear [viz.] that either plagiarizing from or laying under contribution what the Greeks have elaborated, they have put them forward as divine. Now, having run through all [these systems] and having declared with much labour in the nine books [above] all these opinions, thereby leaving to all men a little guide through life, and furnishing to the [Sidenote: p. 473.] readers a study of no little joy and gladness, we think it reasonable to present as the conclusion of the whole [work] a discourse on the Truth.[140] And we shall write this in one book, [viz.] the Tenth. So that the reader, having recognized the overthrow which the heresies of these audacious men have sustained, may not only despise their follies, but by also recognizing the power of the Truth, [and] by worthily believing in God, can be saved.

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: ἡ καινὴ ἐπιδημία. The book Elchesai, as will presently be seen, is said to have been revealed “in the third year of Trajan” and therefore long anterior to our text. Hippolytus, therefore, probably refers here to a recrudescence of the superstition connected therewith.]

[Footnote 2: This Noetus, whom Epiphanius (_Haer._, LVII) would make a native of Ephesus, possibly by confusion with the Praxeas against whom Tertullian wrote, was one of the first to teach the heresy called Patripassian, which made the Father as well as the Son to suffer on the Cross. His date is uncertain, but he was “not very long” dead when Hippolytus wrote (see Hippolytus’ Tractate against Noetus in Gallandi, _Bibl. Vet. Patr._ II, p. 454), and the seeds of the heresy seem to have been sown in the time of Justin Martyr. It was undoubtedly Eastern in origin and passed in Rome chiefly under the name of Sabellius. Hippolytus was evidently its greatest opponent there, Zephyrinus and Callistus maintaining a more tolerant attitude towards it, until the last-named Pope was compelled to excommunicate Sabellius. See Salmon’s articles in _D.C.B._, s.n.n. “Noetus,” “Praxeas,” “Epigonus” and “Cleomenes,” and Mr. Hugh Pope’s article on “Monarchian” in Hastings’ _Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics_.]

[Footnote 3: Theodoret (_Haer. Fab._, III, 3) would reverse this position and make Cleomenes Epigonus’ teacher and not his pupil. He has probably misread Hippolytus on this point, the later heresiologists frequently failing to distinguish the founders of any heresy from their successors.]

[Footnote 4: This is evidently the beginning of Hippolytus’ quarrel with the Primacy. Of Victor, Zephyrinus’ predecessor in the Roman Chair, he speaks well. Cf. p. 128 _infra_.]

[Footnote 5: Cf. 2 Peter ii. 22.ff]

[Footnote 6: δυσφημίας.]

[Footnote 7: ἐν τοῖς φιλοσοφουμένοις. The Codex has Φιλοσοφουμένους. He evidently refers to Book I, in which (Vol. I, p. 41) he has given a few words in the gnomic sayings of Heraclitus. The only other previous reference to them seems to be in Book V (Vol. I, p. 154 _supra_) where he calls Heraclitus one of the wisest of the Greeks and in Book VI (p. 4 _supra_) where he attributes Simon’s image of “a fiery God” not to Moses but to Heraclitus. If Cruice’s emendation holds good this shows that Book I was originally published separately and called “Philosophizings,” the rest of the work being known as the _Elenchus_ or “Refutation.” Cf. Introduction _supra_. Bishop Wordsworth (St. _Hippolytus and the Church of Rome_, London, 1880), gets over the difficulty by reading the passage ἐν τοὺς Φιλοσοφουμένους ἡμῖν, “in this our Philosophumena,” and this reading has been adopted in this translation.]

[Footnote 8: Cf. Stobaeus, _Eclog. Phys._, I, xlii.]

[Footnote 9: λόγον αἰῶνα.]

[Footnote 10: τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας, “listen to the argument.” Hippolytus had he written in English would doubtless have said “the Word,” but this has a different connotation in modern language.]

[Footnote 11: λόγος without the article.]

[Footnote 12: ἀπείροισιν ἐοίκασι πειρεώμενοι. It is very difficult to make sense of these words and both Cruice and Macmahon leave them untranslated.]

[Footnote 13: πεττεύων. Playing at _tessera_ or draughts. Cr., _tesseras jaciens_, a game in which there was chance as well as skill like backgammon. Lucian, as Cruice notes, puts the same phrase into Heraclitus’ mouth.]

[Footnote 14: Some word missing here.]

[Footnote 15: κρείττων supplied from the next quoted sentence.]

[Footnote 16: The Codex has ὅσον ὄψις κ.τ.λ. Cruice substitutes ὅσων and translates _Quaecumque visus ... capere possunt_.]

[Footnote 17: Something probably omitted here also.]

[Footnote 18: ἕτερον.]

[Footnote 19: A screw. Also a staircase.]

[Footnote 20: ὀλέθριον, “destructive.”]

[Footnote 21: χρημοσύνη. Cr., _Inopia_, Macm., “Craving.”]

[Footnote 22: διακόσμησις. The making of a cosmos out of chaos or the Creation.]

[Footnote 23: So Clem. Alex., _Strom._, V, 1, makes Heraclitus predict the destruction of the world by fire. The same theory is attributed to the Stoics.]

[Footnote 24: It has not been thought well to delay the reader by attempting to puzzle out the meaning of Heraclitus whom the ancients themselves did not profess to understand. So far as can be seen the only likeness between his sayings and the teaching of Noetus and his successors was due to the love of paradox shown by both. The parallel between them that Hippolytus tries to draw is mainly forced upon him by his own theory that all heresy is derived from Greek philosophy.]

[Footnote 25: A pun on νοητός, the adjective, and Noetus, the proper name.]

[Footnote 26: Another pun between ἁιρουμένοι and αἵρεσις.]

[Footnote 27: The words in brackets supplied from the Summary in Book X.]

[Footnote 28: Ἀχώρητος, “that cannot be confined (in space),” or what we mean when we say that He is infinite.]

[Footnote 29: ἀκράτητος, “that cannot be dominated.” One would have expected the word ἀνίκητος; but as this was one of the honorific titles of the Emperor, it was doubtless altered for prudential reasons.]

[Footnote 30: Not “sovereignty” but the doctrine of One Source and Ruler of All. The phrase constantly recurs in the theology of the time, and the word Monarchian is applied to all heresies of the Noetian kind.]

[Footnote 31: There can be little doubt as to the source of this chapter. The quotations from Heraclitus are taken from some book of extracts, like the work of Diogenes Laertius, and much corrupted in the taking: the words put into the mouth of Noetus on the other hand are doubtless taken from some written note of the arraignment of Noetus before “the blessed presbyters” who expelled him from the Church as described in Hippolytus’ own tract against Noetus, mentioned in n. on p. 118 _supra_. In c. 3 of this, Hippolytus declares that Noetus made use of the same passages of Scripture as “Theodotus,” which explains the allusion in the Table of Contents, and he uses other phrases to be found in our text. As the whole controversy between himself and Callistus was doubtless familiar to his readers, there was therefore no reason for him to refer to any written document containing the opinion of Noetus or his successors.]

[Footnote 32: In this chapter, as has been said, Hippolytus discloses his chief reason for the publication or republication of the whole work. The controversy which raged round the evidence of schism in the Primitive Church which it affords has now died down, and we are therefore able to examine such evidence dispassionately. The suggestion that the Callistus here mentioned had been confused with another person has now been given up, and there is little doubt that Hippolytus’ adversary was the Pope of that name who presided over the Church of Rome between the primacies of Zephyrinus and Urbanus, this last being quickly succeeded by Pontianus. In estimating the worth of the story which Hippolytus here tells against him, the way has been cleared by the frank acceptance by contemporary Catholic writers such as Monsignor Duchesne (_Hist. ancienne de l’Église_, Paris, t. I,) and Dom. Chapman (_The Catholic Encyclopædia_, New York, 1908, s.v. “Callistus”), of the view that the calumnies against Callistus here put forward, although much exaggerated and coloured, have a basis of fact. In this, they follow the line taken by the celebrated Dr. Döllinger at the first appearance of our text, and no modern scholar has yet been found to seriously controvert it. It therefore only remains to draw attention to the points in which Hippolytus has, in Dr. Döllinger’s opinion, garbled or added colour to the facts, and on the whole, it has seemed more satisfactory to do this in the footnotes than here. The references, except when otherwise stated, are to the English edition of Döllinger’s _Hippolytus and Callistus_, Edinburgh, 1876. Callistus’ primacy appears from several testimonies to have lasted from A.D. 218 to 223, when he was killed apparently in a riot.]

[Footnote 33: Zephyrinus appears to have been Pope from A.D. 202 to 218.]

[Footnote 34: τῳ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν παραινεῖσθαι. It is thought that this is a _pluralis majestatis_ consequent on Hippolytus’ claim to be himself Bishop of Rome.]

[Footnote 35: The construction of the whole of this paragraph offers difficulty, and many emendations have been proposed in the text. The reading of Roeper has been mainly followed here, and the meaning is not doubtful.]

[Footnote 36: ἐν τῷ λαῷ, _i.e._ “the laity.”]

[Footnote 37: “Worshipper of two gods.” In Döllinger’s opinion (_op. cit._, p. 219) this accusation was well founded.]

[Footnote 38: ἀγαπητόν. Doubtless written sarcastically. Wordsworth, Cruice and Macmahon all attach the phrase to δοκεὶ and translate “seems good,” for which use of the word I can find no precedent.]

[Footnote 39: ἐμαρτύρησεν. A play on the double meaning of the word, which might be translated “he was martyred.” But Callistus had not been martyred when our text was written, nor was he even a confessor.]

[Footnote 40: Ἔπαρχος. Fuscianus was Prefect of the City from A.D. 188 to 193.]

[Footnote 41: Evidently the freedman of Marcus Aurelius whose inscription is to be found in C.I.L. 13040. Cf. de Rossi, _Bull._, 1866, p. 3, and Duchesne, _Hist. ancienne_, I, p. 294, n. 1.]

[Footnote 42: “Public Fishpool.” It was one of the fourteen _Regiones_ of the city and the quarter of the money-dealers. The Latin name is here not translated, but written in Greek letters.]

[Footnote 43: ἐξαφανίσας. A similar word is used by Carpophorus in his address to Fuscianus later. Döllinger, _op. cit._, argues that this does not necessarily imply any criminality on Callistus’ part as he may have lost the money in an attempt to increase his master’s profit. See note on next page.]

[Footnote 44: οὐκ ἔλιπεν ὃς. Bunsen calls this “a rank Latinism.”]

[Footnote 45: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 109) draws attention to Carpophorus’ cruelty as shown by his condemnation of a fellow-Christian to the awful punishment of the treadmill.]

[Footnote 46: Portus Ostiensis or Ostia, the Port of Rome.]

[Footnote 47: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 110) argues that this was not suicide but an attempt to escape.]

[Footnote 48: εἰς πίστρινον, transliterated as before. The terrible nature of this punishment is well known. Cf. Darenberg and Saglio, _Dict. des Antiq._, s.h.v.]

[Footnote 49: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 110) thinks that he had lent it to the Jews, and that this accounts for the subsequent riot.]

[Footnote 50: See last note. In Döllinger’s opinion, he only went there to ask for his money.]

[Footnote 51: ἀφανίσας.]

[Footnote 52: Döllinger (_ubi cit._) points out that Carpophorus’ speech throws further light on his character. Callistus _was_ a Christian, as Hippolytus admits. Carpophorus’ anxiety to prevent his being sentenced is explained by the fear of losing Callistus’ services, sentence of penal servitude acting as manumission.]

[Footnote 53: Victor’s exact date is uncertain, but he probably succeeded Eleutherus as Pope in A.D. 189 and was himself succeeded by Zephyrinus in 202.]

[Footnote 54: τινὶ σπάδοντι πρεσβυτέρῳ. Some would translate “priest”; but the ordination of a eunuch would be contrary to the Canons.]

[Footnote 55: ἐπιτροπεύων.]

[Footnote 56: Döllinger (_op. cit._) thinks there is no doubt from this that Callistus was both condemned and set free as a Christian.]

[Footnote 57: From this, from the intervention of the brethren with Carpophorus and from the favour shown to him by Hyacinthus, Döllinger (_op. cit._) draws the conclusion that Callistus’ conduct up to this point must have seemed to the community unlucky rather than criminal.]

[Footnote 58: The famous cemetery in the Via Appia still bearing his name, where many of the early Popes are buried.]

[Footnote 59: ὑποκρίσει.]

[Footnote 60: ἐξηφάνισε. See n. 3 on p. 127.]

[Footnote 61: _i. e._ imagining himself to be the lawful Pope.]

[Footnote 62: Evidently refers to Hippolytus’ charge of Sabellianism against him.]

[Footnote 63: γόης. Perhaps a juggler with words; but this sense is unusual.]

[Footnote 64: See note on p. 125 _supra_. Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 219) thinks that Hippolytus separated the Logos from God, and suggests that Origen may have shared the error.]

[Footnote 65: Bishop Wordsworth (_St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome_, 1880, p. 87) would translate: “The Word is the Son and also the Father, being called by a different name, but that the indivisible Spirit is one.”]

[Footnote 66: Cf. John xiv. 11. The N.T. has πιστεύετε μοι, “Believe me” (imperative).]

[Footnote 67: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 216) says this is a correct statement of the Catholic position.]

[Footnote 68: Bunsen would read ἐκφυγών, [“thus] avoiding.” Cruice inserts οὕτω πως ἐλπίζων, “thus hoping to avoid.” Döllinger inserts ὥστε before ἐκφυγεῖν.]

[Footnote 69: If this Theodotus is, as seems probable, the Theodotus of Byzantium mentioned in Book VII (p. 390 Cr.), who was excommunicated by Victor, his heresy was, as Hippolytus himself records, Adoptianist, and his opinions must have been poles asunder from those of Callistus.]

[Footnote 70: Here as elsewhere throughout this chapter, Hippolytus assumes that he is the rightful head of the Catholic Church, and that Callistus and the more numerous party within it are only a “school.”]

[Footnote 71: συναγόμενος, “gathered in,” “a member of any other man’s congregation,” Wordsworth; _ab alio fuerat seductus_, Cruice, whom Macmahon follows.]

[Footnote 72: A logical term.]

[Footnote 73: εἰς κλήρους. Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 140) points out that Lectors, acolyths, Ostiarii and sub-deacons were all included in the phrase ἐν κλήρῳ afterwards used, and that such persons were not forbidden to marry. Yet the context is against him, and there can be no doubt that Hippolytus intends to imply, whether with truth or not, that Callistus did not degrade even the superior clergy for marrying more than once.]

[Footnote 74: ἐν κλήρῳ.]

[Footnote 75: Rom. xiv. 4.]

[Footnote 76: Matt. xiii. 29.]

[Footnote 77: εἰς ὁμοίωμα.]

[Footnote 78: ἐλεύθερον, “a freed man”?]

[Footnote 79: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 158) suggests that this is a reference to the _contubernium_, or concubinage known to Roman Law, which the Church insisted on regarding as a lawful marriage. The case of Marcia mentioned above might be one in point, but it is to be noted that Hippolytus calls her παλλακὴ Κομόδου only.]

[Footnote 80: This practice of second baptism, which Hippolytus does not accuse Callistus of teaching, but of which he says that it was begun in his time, is apparently brought in here to connect this chapter with the next on the Elchesaites. Had such accusation any foundation, it would certainly have been known to Cyprian or Firmilian.]

[Footnote 81: No other author seems to have taken up this name, and the rest of the paragraph shows that it was Callistus’ party which was regarded as Catholic and Hippolytus’ as schismatic. As Hippolytus was writing of matters within his own knowledge and in some measure that of his readers, there is no reason to suppose that he drew his material from any written source; but it has been suggested that the facts in Callistus’ life that he here narrates may have been obtained _vivâ voce_ from Carpophorus.]

[Footnote 82: This heresy of the Elchesaites was a very old one, and probably had its roots in the Babylonian religion some millennia before Christian times, ablution and exorcism being then considered one of the most effectual modes of removing the consequences of transgression. Prof. Brandt, of Amsterdam, who has paid much attention to the Mandæan religion which has affinities with it, in his monograph on the subject (_Elchasai, Ein Religionstifter und sein Werk_, Leipzig, 1912), thinks that Elchasai, a name which may mean something like “Power of the Sun,” was a real man who flourished in the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117), and founded in Syria an eclectic religion made up of the doctrines of Judaism and Christianity, mingled with the belief in the sovereign efficacy of baptism found among the Hemerobaptists, Mughtasila or “Washers,” who still exist. Thus, according to En-Nadîm (Flügel’s _Mani_, p. 340), these Mughtasila in the tenth century still reverenced as a prophet a certain Al-[H.]asih who seems to be our Elchasai, along with Moses, Christ, and Mohammed. It also appears that his successors sent out missionaries to the West, including doubtless the Alcibiades of our text. Origen, in his Homily on the 82nd Psalm, mentions having met with one of these who may have been Alcibiades himself. They seem to have obtained some success among the Ebionite and Essene communities on the shores of the Dead Sea, but the effort soon died out, and Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, VI, 38) says that it was stifled almost at its birth. Epiphanius (_Haer._, XIX, 5; XXX, 17; and LIII, 1) mentions them in connection with the “heresies” of the Nazaræans, Ebionites and Sampsæans respectively, but like Theodoret does little but repeat Hippolytus’ statements.]

[Footnote 83: This book which is mentioned by all the writers who refer to Elchasai, doubtless began with the vision of the angel from whom he professed to receive his revelations.]

[Footnote 84: ἀπο Σηρῶν, Chinese? Or it may be a town called Serae.]

[Footnote 85: Brandt (_op. cit._, p. 42) thinks the word is Mandæan or Aramaic, and means “the Baptized,” _i.e._ the Mughtasila.]

[Footnote 86: These measurements, intended to show the enormous difference in size between the celestial powers and mankind, are peculiarly Jewish and are frequent in the Haggadah and Cabala.]

[Footnote 87: The Rman mile here meant was 142 yards less than ours. The schoenus was a measure of land used also by the Egyptians and Persians.]

[Footnote 88: _i. e._ as that of Callistus.]

[Footnote 89: Hippolytus’ motive in thus connecting Alcibiades’ visit with Callistus’ proceedings is obvious. There could be nothing in common in the re-baptizing of reconverted heretics of which he (probably erroneously) accuses his adversary, and the magical efficacy of the ablution prescribed by Alcibiades.]

[Footnote 90: ἐλέγξαντες.]

[Footnote 91: νόθος, “bastard.” Is this an allusion to the composite nature of the Elchesaite religion?]

[Footnote 92: All these phrases are so condensed as to make the conjectural restoration of important words necessary. It would seem that the author was here hurrying over his task.]

[Footnote 93: νόμου πολιτείαν. The Jewish Law is of course intended.]

[Footnote 94: Transmigration of souls does not appear to have entered into the conceptions of the Mandæans, Mughtasila, or any other sects with which Elchasai is known to have been connected; but Buddhist ideas seem to have made some way with the Dead Sea communities. Did Alcibiades draw this idea from them? If so this might explain the allusion to the Seres.]

[Footnote 95: ἐπίλογοι.]

[Footnote 96: The text puts both Holy Spirit and Angels of Prayer in the plural. Yet they must be singular, or the seven witnesses would be more than that number. Brandt (_op. cit._) thinks many mistakes in this chapter are to be explained by a faulty translation from Aramaic into Greek. He also thinks that the mention of salt implies a sacrament celebrated with bread and salt, and that earth, as one of the five elements of Aristotle, should be substituted for the Earth as a pendant to which Heaven is thrown in. It is simpler to derive the spell from the ancient Babylonian religion in which Heaven and Earth are coupled for the purpose of conjuration.]

[Footnote 97: πνεῦμα διαφθορᾶς. Cruice and Macmahon both translate “spirit of destruction.” It evidently refers to rabies, and the authors of the spell seem to have known that mere contact with a rabid animal might produce infection.]

[Footnote 98: Both Miller and Duncker read προσευξάσθω, which has been adopted here as making better sense. Cruice reads προσδειξάσθω, “show himself unto.”]

[Footnote 99: εὐσεβεῖς. Often applied by the Jews of this time to those who observed their usages, but were not full proselytes.]

[Footnote 100: _i. e._ “on which they bear rule”--a well-known astrological phrase.]

[Footnote 101: _i. e._ “rises and sets with them.”]

[Footnote 102: This cannot mean that it is one of the days when the evil stars rule. Probably some words like “which God has chosen” are omitted.]

[Footnote 103: Did Alcibiades or Elchasai consider Trajan’s successful campaign against the Parthians a calamity?]

[Footnote 104: Ἄρκτων, lit., “of the Bears.” Thus Cruice. But it is probably another case of putting plurals for singulars.]

[Footnote 105: It is said that this is an unfulfilled prediction which fixes the date of Elchasai’s book. If, however, we take Trajan’s invasion of Parthia at A.D. 113, which seems the most likely date, the rebellion of the Jews in the Cyrenaica, Egypt and Cyprus broke out within the three years mentioned and raged until it was suppressed by Marcius Turbo and Lusius Quietus, about the end of 116. The book may therefore well be later than this.]

[Footnote 106: A possible allusion to Matt. vii. 6.]

[Footnote 107: For the reason of this omission see Introduction, _supra_.]

[Footnote 108: μηδὲ σιωπήσας, “when I have not kept silence about”--a roundabout phrase.]

[Footnote 109: This promise is fulfilled by the peroration of Book X. This shows the close connection between the Summary and the first nine Books, and proves that the author of Book X, if not Hippolytus himself, was at any rate some one who wished to be taken for him.]

[Footnote 110: The quotations in this chapter from the book of Elchasai were doubtless taken from a Greek translation of that work brought to Rome by Alcibiades.]

[Footnote 111: The reasons that probably influenced Hippolytus in writing this description of Jewish religion as a sequel to his Ninth Book are stated in the Introduction. It is for the most part extracted from Josephus, the order of the paragraphs following that adopted by him, and the words being in many cases the same. This has led Cruice to suggest that both are taken from a common source, which he takes to be a Christian writer of the first century. This is extremely unlikely, since Epiphanius, Porphyry and Pliny all quote Josephus directly; but it is probable that when he leaves Josephus, as he does after the account of the Sadducees, Hippolytus draws from the statements of some Jewish convert to Christianity of whom we know nothing. In this, the Messianic ideas of the Jews which brought about the great revolt under Bar Cochba are clearly set out, but it is curious that writing as he must have done long after the practical extermination of the Jewish nation by Hadrian, he should have made no allusion to it; and it may therefore well be that he preferred to condense here the statements which Justin Martyr puts into the mouth of Trypho, with which his own agree in almost every particular. This Ninth Book bears throughout the marks of haste or weariness, many of the sentences, except where he is manifestly using the work of another as model, being slurred over and difficult to construe grammatically. In one or two cases, he contradicts his own statements, as in the case of the Sadducees, making a subsequent correction by himself or the scribe necessary. See n. on p. 147 _infra_.]

[Footnote 112: οἱ φιλομαθεῖς. Here as elsewhere this seems to mean “the learned” simply.]

[Footnote 113: εἴδη, “species,” or “kinds.”]

[Footnote 114: ἕτεροι δὲ. Does he mean that all the rest of the Jews are Essenes? Throughout this Book the article is frequently omitted as in the title to this chapter. The rest of the section is almost _verbatim_ from Josephus, _de Bell Jud._, II, 8, 2.]

[Footnote 115: τεκνυποιοῦνται, “make them their own children.”]

[Footnote 116: αἱρετιστῶν. A Latinism here used for the first time by Hippolytus.]

[Footnote 117: These two sections also are taken from Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 3, 4.]

[Footnote 118: So is this. Cf. Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 5.]

[Footnote 119: τῷ προεστῶτι. The president of the feast is evidently a different person from the official of the same name in § 20, or of the ἱερεύς or priest in § 21, _supra_.]

[Footnote 120: Words in ( ) inserted by Cruice from Josephus from whose § 6 this section is taken.]

[Footnote 121: σύνταγμα, _volumen ad usum fidelium_, Cruice, “treatise,” Macmahon.]

[Footnote 122: This, too, is almost _verbatim_ from Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 7; but it is to be noted that Hippolytus omits the obligation to preserve the books of the sect and the names of the angels.]

[Footnote 123: Cf. Josephus, _op. cit._, § 8.]

[Footnote 124: Like the Egyptian _turria_, an axe with its blade at right angles to instead of in a line with the shaft. Much used for digging.]

[Footnote 125: This section also is taken from Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 9. Hippolytus omits to say that the blasphemers of Moses were to be punished capitally. The refusal to get out of bed is not mentioned by Josephus.]

[Footnote 126: τὴν ἄσκησιν, lit., “training,” as for a gymnastic competition. Cf. our word “ascetic.”]

[Footnote 127: Josephus, _op. cit._, § 10, says that the sect and not their teaching was fourfold. He transfers the story of pollution by touch to the attitude of the seniors towards the juniors, and knows nothing of the gate story. The Zealots, according to him (_op. cit._, VII, 8, 1) grew up under the Sicarii, who defended Masada against the Romans in Vespasian’s time. The rest of this section corresponds with his Book II, 8, 10.]

[Footnote 128: In this section, Hippolytus leaves Josephus, except as to the Islands of the Blessed and the Essene gift of prophecy, both of which are to be found in Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 11, 12.]

[Footnote 129: Josephus (_op. cit._, II, 8, 13), almost _verbatim_ through the whole section.]

[Footnote 130: ὀνόμασι κυρίοις, properly “nicknames.” He seems to imply that while they called themselves Jews, other people knew them as Pharisees, Chasidim, or Puritans. The statement about Fate and the everlasting punishment of the wicked is to be found in Josephus (_op. cit._, II, 8, 14), but the reward of the good is there said to be metempsychosis.]

[Footnote 131: This section also appears to be expanded from Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 14.]

[Footnote 132: ἱερουργική.]

[Footnote 133: He here seems to imply that in the view of the Jews, at any rate, the All was made from pre-existent material, as a house from bricks, while some things were created _e nihilo_. This is denied in the next sentence.]

[Footnote 134: ἄψυχον. Perhaps with Cruice and Macmahon, we should translate “without _life_.” Yet it seems hardly possible that Jews considered stones and minerals as alive.]

[Footnote 135: Leviticus?]

[Footnote 136: Here he, or perhaps some commentator, has to contradict what he has just said about “all” Jews believing these doctrines.]

[Footnote 137: βασιλεῦον καὶ ἱερατεῦον, “acting as kings and priests.”]

[Footnote 138: Here again it is plain that “all Jews” could not believe this statement of Messianic hopes, and the Sadducees in particular would have repudiated what he says about the Resurrection and future recompense.]

[Footnote 139: τῶν φιλοσοφουμένων, a play quite in Hippolytus’ usual manner on the name of the Book and its meaning. It should be noted that the “things imagined by the heretics” correspond to the second title, “Refutation of all Heresies.”]

[Footnote 140: He has already promised this in the conclusion to the chapter on the Elchesaites (p. 138 _supra_), which strengthens one’s conviction that that on the Jews was an afterthought. It is plain, however, that nine Books were intended to precede the “Discourse on the Truth.” Here again, he does not mention the Summary.]

[Sidenote: p. 474.] BOOK X

SUMMARIES, AND THE WORD OF TRUTH

1. These are the contents of the 10th [Book] of the Refutation of all Heresies.

2. An epitome of all the philosophers.

3. An epitome of all [the] heresies.[1]

4. And what is in all things the Word of Truth.

5. Having broken through the labyrinth[2] of the heresies without violence but rather having dissolved them by our single refutation in the power of Truth, we now draw near to the demonstration of the Truth itself. For then the manufactured sophistries of the error will appear inconsistent, when the definition of the Truth has shown that it has not taken its beginnings from the philosophy of the Greeks. Nor [has it taken] from [the] Egyptians [the] doctrines (and) the follies which are adored among them as worthy of faith--as [the] mysteries have taught--nor has it been devised out of the inconsistent jugglery of [the] Chaldæans, nor been forged by the unreasoning madness of [the] Babylonians through the activity of demons.[3] In whatever shape, however, the definition subsists, it is true, unguarded, and unadorned,[4] and by its appearance alone will refute the [Sidenote: p. 475.] error. Concerning which, although we have many times made demonstrations, and have pointed out the Rule of Truth sufficiently and abundantly for those who are willing to learn, yet once again we judge it reasonable on the top of all the doctrines of the Greeks and heretics, to place as if it were [the] crown of the books [preceding], this demonstration by means of the tenth book.

6. Now having brought together the teachings of all the sages among [the] Greeks in four books,[5] and those of the heresiarchs in five, we shall point out the Doctrine concerning the Truth in one, after having first made a summary of what has been the opinions of all. For the teachers of the Greeks, dividing philosophy into three parts, so philosophize, some preaching Physics, some Ethics and some Dialectic.[6] And those who preached Physics thus declared, some that all things were born from one, others from many. And of those who said [they came] from one, some [said they came] from what had no Quality, and others from that which had Quality. And of those who [said they came] from that which had Quality, some [said that they came] [Sidenote: p. 476.] from fire, others from air, others from water and yet others from earth. And of those who [said they came forth] from many things, some [said that they came] from numerable things [others from boundless ones. And of those who said they came from numerable things], some [say that they came] from two, others from four, others from five, and others from six. And of those [who say] that they came from the boundless things, some [say that they came] from things like generated things, others from those unlike. And some of them say that they came from things impassible, others from things passible. The Stoics indeed would establish the birth of the universals from that which has no Quality and one body. For according to them, matter unqualified and capable of change by means of the universals is their source. And when it is transformed, fire, air, water and earth come into being. And those who will have all things to come into being from that which has Quality are the followers of Hippasus and Anaximander and Thales the Milesian. Hippasus the Metapontian[7] and Heraclitus the Ephesian declared the genesis of things to be from fire, but Anaximander from air, Thales from water, and Xenophanes from earth.

“For all things [came forth] from earth and all end in earth.”[8]

[Sidenote: p. 477.] 7. Of those who would derive the universals from [the] many and [the] numerable, the poet Homer declares that the universals have been composed of earth and water when he says:--

“Ocean source of Gods and mother Tethys.”[9]

and again:--

“But turn ye all to water and earth.”[10]

And Xenophanes the Colophonian seems to agree with him, for he says:--

“All we are sprung from earth and water.”[11]

But Euripides says from earth and aether, as he lets us see from his saying:--

“I sing aether and earth, mother of all.”[12]

But Empedocles from four, saying thus:--

[Sidenote: p. 478.] “Hear first the four roots of all things;
Shining Zeus and life-bearing Here and Aïdoneus
And Nestis who wets with tears the human source.”

But from five, Ocellus the Lucanian[13] and Aristotle. For with the four elements they include the fifth and rotating body whence, they say, are all heavenly things. But from six, the followers of Empedocles derived the birth of all things. For in the verses where he says:--

“Hear first the four roots of all things”

he makes everything come from four. But when he adds to this:--

“And baleful Strife apart from these [and] equal everywhere,
And Love with them equal in length and breadth,”[14]

he is handing down six things as sources of the universals [_i. e._] four material: earth, water, fire, [and] air and two, [Sidenote: p. 479.] the agents Love and Strife. But the followers of Anaxagoras the Clazomenian and Democritus and Epicurus and very many others whose [opinions] we have before recorded in part, taught that the genesis of all things was from the boundless. But Anaxagoras says they came from things like those produced; but the followers of Democritus and Epicurus, from those unlike and impassible, that is from the atoms; and those of Heraclides the Pontian[15] and Asclepiades[16] from those which are unlike, but passible, such as disconnected corpuscles. But the followers of Plato say that they came from three, and that these are God, Matter and Exemplar; but he divides matter into four principles: fire, water, earth, air; and says that God is the Demiurge of Matter, but Exemplar the Mind.

8. Now, having been persuaded that the system of Natural Science[17] is confessedly found unworkable by all these [philosophers], we ourselves shall unhesitatingly say concerning the examples of the Truth what they are and how we believe in them. But in addition we will first set forth in epitome the [opinions] of the heresiarchs, so that [Sidenote: p. 480.] the opinions of all being thereby easy to discern, we may display the Truth as clear and easy to discern also.

1. _Naassenes._

9. But since this seems fitting, we will begin first with the ministers of the serpent. The Naassenes call the first principle of the universals a man and also Son of Man,[18] and him they divide into three. For part of him, they say, is intellectual, part psychic, and part earthly. And they call him Adamas and think the knowledge of him is the beginning of the power to know God. And they say that all these intellectual and psychic and earthly [parts] came into Jesus, and that the three substances spoke together through Him to the three races of the All. Thus they declare that there are three races, [the] angelic, psychic [and] earthly, and that there are three Churches, angelic, psychic and earthly; but that their names are [the] Called, Chosen, [and] Captive. These are the heads of their doctrine in so far as it can be briefly comprehended. They [Sidenote: p. 481.] say that they were handed down by James the Brother of the Lord to Mariamne, thereby belying both.[19]

2. _Peratæ._

10. But the Peratæ, Ademes the Carystian and Euphrates the Peratic[20] say that a certain cosmos--this is what they call it--is one divided into three. But of this threefold division of theirs, there is a single source, as it were a great fountain, capable of being cut by the reason into boundless sections. And the first and most excellent section is according to them the triad and the one part of it is called Perfect Good [and] Fatherly Greatness. But the second part of the Triad is, as it were a certain boundless multitude of powers, and the third is that of form. And the first [of the Triad] is unbegotten (since it is good: but the second good and self-begotten and the third, begotten).[21] Whence they say explicitly that there are three gods, three words, [Sidenote: p. 482.] three minds [and] three men. For to each part of the cosmos when the division was made, they assign Gods and Words and Men and the rest. But from on high, from the unbegotten state and from the first section of the cosmos, when the cosmos had already been brought to completion, there came down in the time of Herod a certain triple-natured and triple-bodied and triple-powered man called Christ, having within Him all the compounds and powers from the three parts of the cosmos. And this they will have to be the saying: “In Him dwells all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily.” For [they say that] there came down from the two overlying worlds, namely from the unbegotten and the self-begotten, to this world in which we are, all sorts of seeds of powers. And that Christ came down from the Unbegottenness in order that through His descent all the things triply divided may be saved. For the things, he says, brought down from on high shall ascend through Him; but those who take counsel together against those brought down shall be ruthlessly rejected and having been punished shall be sent away. And he says that those [worlds] which will be saved are two, the overlying ones [Sidenote: p. 483.] released from corruption. But the third will be destroyed, which is the world of form.[22] And thus the Peratæ.

3. _The Sethiani._

11. But to the Sethians it appears that there are three definite principles of the universals. And that each of these principles (has boundless powers ... everything which you perceive by your mind or which you pass over for lack of thought)[23] is formed by nature to become [each of the principles] as in the human soul every art is to be learned. As if [they say] there should come to a boy spending some time with a pipe-player, the power of pipe-playing, or with a geometrician the power of measurement, or in like manner with any other art. But the substances of the principles, they say, are light and darkness. And between them is pure spirit. But the spirit which is set between the darkness which is below and the light which is above is, they say, not spirit like a gust of wind or any small breeze which may be perceived, but resembles some faint fragrance of balsam or [Sidenote: p. 484.] of incense artificially compounded as a power penetrating by force of fragrance and better than words can say. But because the light is above and the darkness below and the spirit between them, the light, like a ray of the sun on high, shines on the underlying darkness, and the fragrance of the spirit holding the middle place is borne and spread abroad as the odour of incense on the fire is borne. And as the power of the triply divided is such, the power of the spirit and the light together are below in the darkness beneath. But, they say, the darkness is a fearful water into which the light is drawn down with the spirit and changed into a similar nature. Now the darkness is sensible, and knows that if the light is taken away from it, the darkness will remain desolate, viewless, without light, powerless, idle and weak. In this way by all its wit and foresight it is forced to retain within itself the brilliance and scintillation of the light along with the fragrance of the spirit.

And with regard to this, they bring in this image, saying that as the pupil of the eye appears dark because of the [Sidenote: p. 485.] waters underneath it, but it is made light by the spirit, thus the light seeks after the spirit and retains for itself all the powers which wish to withdraw and to depart. But these are ever boundless, wherefrom all things are modelled and become like mingled seals. For, as the seal coming into conjunction with the wax, makes the impress, while itself remains by itself whatever it was, so the powers coming into conjunction with each other elaborate all the boundless races of living things. Therefore [they say] came into being from the first conjunction of the three principles, the form of a great seal [_i.e._] of heaven and earth, which had a shape like a womb with the navel in the midst. Thus also the rest of the models of all things were modelled resembling a womb like heaven and earth. But they say that from the water came into being the first born principle, a violent and rushing wind the cause of all generation, which sets in action a certain heat and movement in the cosmos from the movement of the waters. And [they say] [Sidenote: p. 486.] that this was changed into a complete form like the hissing of a serpent, beholding which the cosmos is driven to generation, being excited like a womb, and therefrom they will have it the generation of the universals is established. And they say that this wind is a spirit and that a perfect god came into being from the waters and from the fragrance of the spirit and from the brilliance of the light. And that there is also the begetting of a female, Mind, the spark from on high which is mingled with the accretions of the body and hastens to flee away so that it may escape and not find dissolution through being enchained in the waters. Whence it cries aloud from the mingling of the waters according to the Psalmist, as they say. “Thus the whole care of the light on high is how it shall draw the spark beneath from the Father who is below,” [that is], from the wind which puts in action heat and disturbance and creates for himself Mind (a perfect son) who is not (peculiar) to himself, [whom] they declare, beholding the [Sidenote: p. 487.] perfect Word of the light from on high, changed Himself into the form of a serpent and entered into a womb, so that He might take again that mind which is a spark of the light. And this, [they say] is the saying: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” And this the unhappy and wicked Sethians will have to be the [servile] form.[24] This then is what they say.

4. _Simon._

12. And the all-wise Simon says thus. There is a boundless power and this is the root of the universals. The boundless power is, he says, fire. According to him, it is not simple, as the many say the four elements are simple and therefore think fire is simple; but [he says] that the nature of the fire is double, and of this double [nature] he calls one part hidden and the other manifest. And [Sidenote: p. 488.] that the hidden parts are concealed within the manifest parts of the fire, and the manifest parts of the fire are produced by the hidden. But, he says, that all the seen and unseen parts of the fire are to be considered as having sense.[25] Therefore, he says, the begotten world came into being from the unbegotten fire. But it began to come into being, he says, thus. The begotten [cosmos] took from the principle of that fire the first six roots of the principle of generation. For these six roots were born from the fire by pairs, which he calls Nous and Epinoia, Phonê and Onoma, Logismos and Enthymesis. And [he says] that in these six roots [taken] together, the Boundless Power exists (potentially but not actively, which Boundless Power) he says is the “He who Stands, Stood, and will Stand,” which if it be exactly reflected will be within the six powers in substance, powers, greatness and influence, being one and the same as the Unbegotten and Boundless Power, and in no way inferior to that Unbegotten and Unchangeable and Boundless Power. But if it remains only potentially in the Six Powers and is not exactly [Sidenote: p. 489.] reflected, it, he says, vanishes and will die away like the grammatical or geometrical power in the mind of a man, when he does not receive technical teaching in addition. And Simon says that himself is the He Who Stands, Stood, and will Stand, being the Power which is above all.[26] Thus, then, Simon.

5. _Valentinus._

13. But Valentinus and those from his school say the Source of the All is a Father and yet are carried into conflicting opinions [about him]. For some of them [think] that he is alone and capable of generation, while others hold that he is incapable of bringing forth without a female, and give him as a spouse Sigê, calling him Bythos. From whom and from his spouse some say that six projections came into being, [viz.] Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoë, Anthropos and Ecclesia, and that this is the first Ogdoad which brings forth.[27] And, again, [they say] that the projections which were first born within the Limit[28] are called the things within the Pleroma; but those second, those [Sidenote: p. 490.] without the Pleroma; and those third, those without the Limit, the offspring of which last exists as the Hysterema.[29] But he says that there was born from that which was projected in the Hysterema, an Aeon, and that this is the Demiurge, for he does not wish him to be the First God, but speaks ill both of him and of what came into being by him. And [he says] that Christ came down from that which was within the Pleroma for the salvation of the Spirit that went astray, which dwells in our inner man, which they say will be saved for the sake of the indwelling one. But [Valentinus] will not have it that the flesh will be saved, calling it a “coat of skin” and a corrupter of mankind. I have described this in epitome, as one meets with much matter [concerning it] and differing opinions among them. This then is what Valentinus’ school thinks.[30]

6. _Basilides._

14. But Basilides also says that there is a God-Who-Is-Not who, being non-existent [made] the created world out [Sidenote: p. 491.] of the things that are not. [He says] that a certain seed, like a grain of mustard-seed was cast down, which contained within itself the stem, the leaves, the branches [and] the fruit; or, like a peacock’s egg, contains within itself a varied multitude of colours, and they say that this is the seed of the cosmos, from which all things were produced. For [he says] the seed contained all things within itself, inasmuch as thus the things that were not were preordained to come into being by the God-Who-Is-Not. Then there was, they say, in that seed a Sonhood, tripartite and in all things of the same substance with the God-Who-Is-Not, being begotten from the things that were not. And of this tripartite Sonhood, one part was [itself] finely divided, another coarsely so, while the other part needed purification. But the finely-divided part, straightway and concurrently with the happening of the first casting-down of the seed by the God-Who-Is-Not, escaped and went on high and came into the presence of Him-Who-Is-Not. For every nature yearns for Him because of His superabundance of beauty, but each in a different way. But the more coarsely divided [part] abode in the Seed and being merely imitative could not go on high, for it was much inferior [Sidenote: p. 492.] to the finer part.[31] And it was given wings by the Holy Spirit, for the Sonhood putting them on, both gives and receives benefit.[32] But the third Sonhood has need of purification. It remains in the heap of the Panspermia and it gives and receives benefit. And [he says] that there is something called [the] Cosmos and something hypercosmic for (the things that are) are divided by him into these two primary divisions. And what is between them, he calls [the] Boundary Holy Spirit, having the fragrance of the Sonhood.