robinson. texts and studies : contributions to biblical and patristic literature. 1891. volume 1

8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 1/138



j.BINDING LIST WW 1 5 1928



AND STUDIES

CONTRIBUTIONS TO

BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.

FELLOW or CHRIST S COLLEGE CAMBBIDGE

VOL. I.

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA

I

THE LORD S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCHTHE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

CAMBRIDGE

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1891



TEXTS AND STUDIES 3CONTRIBUTIONS TO

BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.

FELLOW OF CHBIST S COLLEGE CAMBKIDOE

VOL.I.

No. 4. THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

CAMBRIDGE


1891



Sontum: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,CAMBKIDGE UNIVEKSITY PRESS WAEEHOU

AVE MAEIA LANE.

DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO,

F. A. BROCKHAUS.

gorfe : MACMILLAN AND CO.



THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

NEWLY EDITED FROM THE MSS.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

BY

A. E. BROOKE M.A.

FELLOW OF KING S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE


1891



PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.



PATRI CARISSIMO



TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGES

INTRODUCTION 1-49

The MSS. of Origen s Commentaries on S. John ... 1

The Date and Teaching of Heracleon 31

TEXT AND NOTES 50-103

ADDITIONAL NOTES 104-107

Heracleon and Valentinus 104

Collation of the Excerpta ex Theodoto . . . 105

On the Text of Fragment 24 . .106

INDICES 108-112

Index of passages of Scripture quoted, explained, or referred

to by Heracleon 108

Index of Greek words in the Fragments of Heracleon . . 109



THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN.

OF the extant manuscripts of the Commentaries on S. John,

three only have been used by the editors. So far as I have been

able to discover, there are seven in existence. If we count Thorn-

dike s transcription of the Bodleian Manuscript, there are eight.

The existence of a ninth is doubtful, but this question will be

more easily discussed later on. The three which seem to have

been used by the editors are at Paris, Rome and Oxford. The

similarity of the text contained in them and the fact that they all

contained many common lacunae, pointed to their derivation from

a near common ancestor. The following pages are an attempt to

shew that this ancestor still exists, though unfortunately in a bad

state of preservation, in the Library at Munich.

The Manuscripts are as follows :

I. Codex Monacensis. In the MunichState

Library,Graec.

CXCI;thus described in the Catalogue,

"

Bombycinus charta obso-

leta et laesa atramento flavescente literis minutis et elegantibus

frequenti abbreviatione in folio, ff. 305, saec. xm. foliorum ordine

turbato male conservatus et inscriptus (/>uX. pi/3 , Origenis Comm.

in Matt, et Jn."

Of the Commentaries on S. John it contains Bks. 1. 2. 6. 10.

13. 19. 20. 28. 32(33 according

to Hardt s Catalogue, but this is

an error). Thus the MS. follows the true division of the Books.

The Ferrarian division (that invented or adopted by Ambrosius

Ferrarius in his translation) into 32 books is added in the margin

by a later hand.

Minuscules are used, hanging from ruled lines, there being one

column of 30 lines on each page, in the Commentaries on S. John.



2 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

The Commentaries on S. Matthew are in another hand and contain

36 lines on a page. In both red semi-capitals are often used at

the beginning of sentences, but not uniformly. The MS. is stained

at the top and bottom, and worm-eaten in many places. The order

of the folios in S. Matthew is much confused, and one or two pages

are wanting.

The title-page of the MS. has the following description :

"Origenisin D. Matt. Ev. tomus 11 init. mut. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. et in evang. Johann. torn. 1. 2. 6. 9. 13. 19. 20. 32."

In the middle of the page are the arms, below which is written :

"Ex electorali Bibliotheca sereniss. utriusque Bavariae Ducum."

This description is inaccurate. Most of Bk. x. of the Comm.

in Matt, is there, and also Bk. xvii. And with regard to the

Comm. in Joann. 9 is a mistake for 10, and 28 should have been

inserted.

Huet mentions a MS. of the Commentaries on S. Matthew in

his Origeniana m. iii. 12. "In Catalogo librorum ducis Bavariae

notatur Tomus Undecimus initio quoque mutilus cum proxime

sequentibus quinque."And as to the Commentaries on S. John he

was again misinformed. "Eosdem(i.e.

1. 2. 6. 10. 13. 19. 20. 28.

32) complectitur Tomos praeter decimum et vigesimum octavum

rnemoratus liber in bibliothecae BavaricaeCatalogo" (in. iii. 14).

The 10th and the 28th books are contained, as well as the rest, in

the Manuscript. The Catalogue which he used must have had

the same mistakes which occur on the title-page of the MS.

The Commentaries on S. John are preceded by a short preface

stating that in the archetype of the MS. were several marginal

notes drawing attention to Origen s blasphemies, which, the scribe

says, he has copied as he found them.

II. Codex Venetus. In the Bibliotheca Marciana at Venice,

Graec. 32. The title as

given

in the MS. itself is

f1

topiyevovs e^rjyrjo-is et? TO Kara MarOalov teal tear Itodwvfp

KTrifJia /3i]<ro-apla)vos Kap$r)va\. rwv Toa/cXtov.

The MS. is dated 1374. It is written in minuscules hanging

from ruled lines, with one column of 36 lines on a page, and about

60 letters in each line. It consists of ff. 330 of which ff. 1117contain the Comm. in Matt. Bks. 10 17 (inclusive). F. 118 con



THE MSS. OF ORTGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 3

ending KOI avOis atywpeOa. This preface has nothing to do with

the preface in the Munich Codex concerning the marginal notes in

its ancestor. The words rov ySao-tXew? at the head of this preface

point probably to some connexion with Constantinople. Ff. 112

(recto) 294 (verso) contain the Commentaries on S. John. So

far the folios are numbered. The remainder, to 330, are left blank

and unnumbered.

This MS. was used by Ambrosius Ferrarius, who in A.D. 1551

translated the Commentaries on S. John into Latin. They are

divided in the MS. into 32 books." A callido librario in Tomos

triginta duos distributus fuit, hac arte lacunas et hiatus celare, et

apud incautos dissimulare, et pro integro venditare volente," says

Huet. The fraud is sufficiently patent; if conviction were necessary,

we have only to look at the fragments quoted as from the fourth

and fifth books of the Commentaries in the Philocalia. The diver

gences between the text of this MS. and Ferrarius s translation are

not more than can be accounted for by the loose and paraphrastic

character of translations of that time, or by the necessity of original

composition to which he was sometimes reduced in consequence of

his inability to understand the Greek, which is in some places too

corrupt for conjecture.

At the end of the MS. the following note has been added :

"

Fuit copiatus per Georgium Triphoninm

di

Maluasiae et finitto ad X Ottobr.1555."

To this we shall have occasion to refer when we are dealing

with the seventh manuscript. The same scribe is known to have

been working at Venice also in 1548 (see Gardthausen, Griechische

Palaeographie, p. 322).

III. Codex Regius. Graec. CDLV. in the Bibliotheque Natio-

nale at Paris;thus described in the manuscript itself:

f flpiyevovs rwv et? TO Kara Iwdvvrjv evayye\Lov

*f rov avrov et? TO Kara MarBatov TO/AOL e drro rov Setcdrov

ro/jLov avev dp%f)s oWo? yite^ptrov t

5.

Codex Chartac. xvi. saec. scriptum quo continentur Origenis

commentaria in Johannem et Matthaeum quae primus in lucem

protulit Daniel Huetius.




In the early parts of the Commentaries on S. Matthew the

folios are in wrong order and there are large lacunae. The Codex

is written in minuscules hanging from ruled lines. This was the

MS. on which Hnet based his text, though his text is not identical

with that of the MS., as Delarue seems often to have assumed. It

was used by Perionius in his translation of the Commentaries on

S. John.

IV. Codex Bodleianus. Misc. 58: used by Delarue. This

MS. is described in the Bodleian Catalogue as being of the 17th

Century. Its resemblance to II. is very close. It is now bound

in three volumes of which the first contains ff. 183, the second

183, and the third 182. It contains only the Commentaries on

S. John. In the margin it has two sets of emendations. The first

are introduced by the word rd^a and are for the most part based

on Ferrarius s Latin Version. The second, which are distinguished

by the word to-o)?, are later and inferior. In the copy of Huet

belonging to the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, Bentley

has noted in the margin a great many readings from this MS.,

though apparently he did not make a full collation1

.

V. Codex Barberinus I. In the Barberini Library at Rome;

of the 15th or 16th Century, in the opinion of the Librarian,

M. I Abbe* Pieralisi. It contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew

(beginning at Book X. rore a<et? TOI)? o^Xou?, and ending eVt-

crrpe^rai717)09 avrov, Bk. XVII.) and the Commentaries on S. John,

divided into 32 Books. It is bound up with a MS. (in the same

hand, I think) of PhiloYlepl TOV ftlov Maxreo)?.

VI. Codex Barberinus II. Of the same date as the preceding.

It contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew and S. John, but

the former begin with the words TIVI e \a^ovcnv ev rofc VTTO-

See<7Tepo?,and there is no trace of a folio having been lost. This,

aswill

be seenlater

on,is

almost conclusive proof asto its

origin.VII. Codex Matritensis. In the Biblioteca Nacional at Madrid.

This MS. I have not myself seen, and I am indebted to my friend

Mr W. Gilchrist Clark of King s College, Cambridge, for the

following information. It is numbered 0. 32. It is a folio MS.

written on paper, containing ff. 30G, with 30 lines on a page, and

1 He writes at the beginning of Huet s text" Collatus ad Cod. Mstum. Chartaceum



THE MSS. OF OllIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. O

about 40 letters in a line. It contains the preface which is found

in Codex Venetus, headed by the words + rov /^acrtXect)? +,

beginning on the 2nd recto TroXXdw rov topirytvyv aiperitcov

r^fyiaapkvtov, and ending on the 2nd verso KOI avOis

The Commentaries begin on the 3rd recto with the

title ooptyevovs rutv et? TO Kara Icodvvrjv vay<ye\iov egrj yrjriKwv

royu-o? TT/JWTO?.It is divided into 32 books and is dated at the

end : afyve evfirjvl avyovo-rov k.

After this follows the name of the scribe in cryptograph.

That is to say irapd

The cryptograph used is the common one in which the scribe

takes the Greek alphabet with the three letters F, Cj,and ~\ thus

getting 27 letters. These he divides into 3 parts of 9 letters

each, and substitutes the first for the last, the 2nd for the last but

one, and so on, in each group. Thus the middle letters of each 9

are unchanged, viz. e, v, and <. It will thus be seen that the

colophon exactly tallies with the note at the end of Codex Venetus,

in date (1555) and name.

It may be as well to notice here, on account of its connexion

in origin with the foregoing, a MS. of the Commentaries on S.

Matthew, numbered O. 47. It is a folio, written on paper and

containing ff. 226; it is in the same hand as O. 32 and a MS. of

the Contra Celsum in the same Library. It contains the Com

mentaries on S. Matthew, beginning at the 10th (with the words

rdre a<ei5 rou? o^Xou?) and ending at the 27th (eiFurrptycu 737705

avrov).

The MS. is dated afive. o/crca/Spiov /3 . and signed ef"^0^8*

K0~^0- e<r^)Qo- ^r^^av. After this it has on f. 225 the preface

on Origen s blasphemies, with the same heading + rov/3ao-tA,eo>5 +

as in 0. 32. The scribe has thus copied this passage twice, at the

end of S. Matthew and again at the beginning of S. John.

1 The must be a mistake forCj

which would represent i.



(j THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

VIII. The transcription of Codex Bodleianus (IV.) made by

Herbert Thorndike needs no further description. It is now in the

Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (numbered B. 9. 11). It is

not without value however, as the writer has inserted several con

jectural emendations in the margin, and there are also three pages

of critical notes at the beginning.

IX. The existence of a ninth MS. is doubtful. In Miller s

Catalogue of the Escurial Library, pp. 305 ff., is given a list, found in

one of the Escurial MSS. (x. i. 15), of the Greek Manuscripts which

belonged to Cardinal Sirlet s Library, and passed into the posses

sion of Cardinal Ottoboni (Alexander VIII.). Subsequently Bene

dict XIV. is said to have placed them in the Vatican. Amongthese is a MS. containing Origen s Commentaries on S. Matthew

and S. John, and Philo Hepl TOV fiiov TOV Maxreax;, Hepl TOV filov

7ro\i,TLKov (Joseph), and Tiepi vbpwv dypdcfxov (Abraham). In

the Catalogue of the Ottobonian part of the Vatican Library,

which has not yet been published, but exists in manuscript in the

Vatican, I could find no trace of it. But the description answers

very nearly to the MS. now in the Barberini, which I have num

bered V. Is it possible that this MS. passed from the hands of

any of its former owners into the possession of the Barberini ? If

not, we must suppose that this MS. has been lost, unless indeed

the MS. Catalogue of the Ottobonian Manuscripts is incomplete.

Delarueconstantly

refers to a Codex Barberinus, andgenerally

the readings he quotes from it would seem to be taken from No. V;

but his citations are not always accurate. The existence of two

manuscripts in the Barberini does not seem to have been known

to any one.

The relations of these MSS. to one another must now be con

sidered. For the sake of clearness I subjoin a diagram shewing

whatI

conceivetheir relations to be. After this I

propose toconsider the relations (1) of the Munich Codex to those MSS.

which seem to be directly copied from it, (2) of the Venice Codex

to those which are, I believe, its descendants, and (3) of the

Venice to the Munich MS.

1. (q) Let us then consider first the relation of the Paris

Codex to that at Munich. The contents of the two arepractically



THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN.

(i)As pointed out above, the statement that the God. Monac.

contains of the Comm. in Matt. Books XI. (mutilated) to XVI. is

incorrect.It contains also most of Book

x.,

and Book xvn. The

SAEC.

Monac. (I)

/XIV

XVI

/

Reg. (Ill)

Yen. (II)

Barl. (VI)

XVII

Matrit.(VIl

mistake as to the latter point has arisen from the fact that Books

xvi. and xvn. are not divided as the other books are. But the

last words contained in this part of the MS. are eiria-rpe^rai 777)09

avrov, the ending of Book xvn.;and a calculation of pages easily

shews that both Books xvi. and xvil. are contained in the MS., for

Book xv. begins on f. 62, Book xvi. on f. 77, and the Comm. in

Matt, end on f. 110. Thus while Book xv. takes only ff. 15, what

is called Book xvi. takes 33, though in Lommatzsch s edition

Books xv. and xvi. cover very nearly the same number of pages

each. In the Comm. in Joann. there is no difference of contents,

(ii)The first words which occur in the Cod. Monac. are TIVI Be

XdfjL-^rova-Lvev rot? uTroSeetrrepoi? which occur towards the end of

Book x. chap. 3 (Lomm. ill. p. 15). In the Paris MS. the leaves

are not in right order, but the first words which occur (they are

on f. 255) are TraXiv o^oia ecmv K.T.\. (Mt. xiii. 44) which begin

chap. 4 of Book x. Thus the scribe seems to have begun his MS.

with the first whole chapter contained in his exemplar. If then

this MS. is copied from the Munich MS., the latter must already

have lost its first leaf in the 16th century.




More direct proofs of copying are not wanting.

Lomm. I.p. 118, 1. 22. Cod. Monac. has Trapaê^v...^ the

intervening space being worm-eaten, Cod. Reg. has-n-apaê^.. vai

leaving space for about four letters.

p. 152, 1. 15. Cod. Monac. reads ovOev, but the 6ev is hidden

by a piece of parchment fastened on over it. Reg. omits the

wordleaving a space for three letters.

6 uios_

p. 177, 1. 5. Cod. Monac. has ôvoyev^ do; the 6 vibs beingan interlinear insertion by a later hand. Cod. Reg. has o povo-

yevr)<s u/o? 0bfall in

the text.

p. 272, 1. 6. In the Munich Codex the words avrovrj d/juapria

are almostillegible, either because the scribe turned over the page

before it was dry, or owing to the subsequent effect of damp on

the manuscript. The blot appears on the opposite leaf. Cod. Reg.omits the words.

Lomm. II.p. 108, 1. 9. -/JLOV ovSev jiev-. In Cod. Mon. these

letters are obliterated. Cod. Reg. omits the same letters, leaving

space for them.

p. 108, 1. 11.Trepl erepwv. The same phenomenon occurs

here with regard to the lettersTrepl ere

p.

p. 117, 1. 1. elo-eXdelv. Cod. Reg. omits the word. In Cod.

Monac. the letters creX, are almost obliterated.

p. 127, 1. 15. arjiâivet, yap TO fiev TOIOVTOV. Here again we

have an indication. Both manuscripts erroneously repeat the

letters fâlvei yap TO.

The proof may be completed by two passages from the text of

the Commentaries on S. Matthew;Book xi. chap. ix.

Lomm. in.p. 91, 1. 10. el rt? ovv. The el ? is stained and

indistinct in Cod. Mon. Cod. Reg. omits the words, leaving a space.

1. 11. TrevrjTwv. The first four letters are hardly legible in

Cod. Mon. In Cod. Reg. we find a space for four letters followed

by TWV.

The divergences of the two MSS. are numerous but not im

portant. Most of them are due to ordinary transcriptional

blunders. The rest may be explained by the supposition that

the scribe of the Paris MS. was more than usually careless and



THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 9

I subjoin a list of their divergences (other than mere itacisms and cases of

the addition or omission of vt<pc\Kv<r6v}

which occur in the first 30 pages

of Tom. xiii. of the Comtn. in Joann. (Loinmatzsch s edition).




MonacensisRegius

26>

14 rnfp\

27, 6 eV *

8

f cos-

9lfpoa-6Xvp.il bis

10 V omit

1 1 0VlKOt

12 om. co ms.

23 /cat 6fi6r(pov omit

28, 11

29, 6 01 lovSatoi

lovdaioi30, 2 Kadc\r)vas Ka6e\flv as

6tiyyeAXots dyyeAotj

10 ^

(6) Cocfe Barberinus II. (VI). I can only speak from slight

knowledge of this MS. The BarberiniLibrary was closed during

Vacation when I was in Rome in October, 1888, and it was only

through the great kindness of the Librarian that I was allowed towork for two hours at the

manuscripts which it contains.. But Iwas

fortunately able to obtain sufficient evidence to determinetheir relative places in the

groups almost withcertainty.

The first words of the Comm. in Matt, which this MS. containsare TM Se X^ouw. As these are the first words contained inCod. Monac., though they occur towards the end of a chapter andparagraph in the Commentaries, this is in itself almost conclusive

proof of theorigin of the MS. For, as has been stated above,

Cod. Monac. has lost a leaf at the outset. The Barberini MS alsocontains the true division of the Comm. in Joann. in red. TheFerrarian divisions have been added in the margin, but are inthe hand of the

original scribe. It has also many, at any rate, ofthe same warnings against Origen s blasphemies, which are contained in Cod. Monac., as for instance

Lomm. I. p. 96 (opposite vircpexopcvo? VTTO rov ruv 6\<ov

OeovK.T.\.) favapeh tVo? #eo? yap 6 wo? rc5 TrarpL

^p.

108 (opposite V7r6 rovfcpeiTrovo<;...7rapa

rov \6yov) opa$61)76 /BXaa^rj/juel yap.

Thefollowing readings, when contrasted with the correspond-




I have designated Codex Monacensis as M, Codex Regius as P,

Codex Barberinus as R.

Lomm.II.

p. 6,1. 1 CKTVTTOV PMR.

p. 13, 1. 16 Trepl TO MR.

p. 13, 1. 17 a* erov MR.

p. 14, 1. 1 evBetva rot? PMR.

p. 60, 1. 12 \eyovrai MR. eyovrai P.

p. 60, 1. 13 d7roK\ia-0elo-(u$ PMR.

p. 108, 1. 9 -fJiov ovSev pev- om. PR.

(In M the words are worm-eaten.)

p. 108, 1. 11 Trepl erepwv om. R.

cov P.

(In M the letters Trepl erep are damaged.)

p.132 M has the following marginal note : KOI

fju}vtcai TU

repara XWP^ T v <r7?A

t "WI/ evprjrai o>?eV

rfj atSfj rfj pera rrjv

Sui/BcKTiv r^? epvOpas dvare6eiarj TW dew Oav/jLao-rds yap tyrjorlv

eV86fco? TTQI&V repara.

(I have printed the contracted words in full.) R has the same

note exactly: P has it, but has made two mistakes in copying, read

ing dav/jLacrrd for0avp,acrTo<;

and omitting a>Sf/ rrj.

p. 73, 1. 1 M has CLK...OVT(I, the intervening letters being

damaged.

R reads dK...ovra, leaving a space corresponding to the dots.

P has hazarded a conjecture, and a very unfortunate one.

The only divergences from the Munich MS. which I was able

to notice were

Lomm. II. p. 137, 1. 9 MBia(f)0opd<>.

R$ia(f)0opdv.

p. 137, 1. 15. The erroneous repetition of paiveu yap TO found

in M (and copied by P) is not followed by R.

p. 291, 1. 13 MP /care. R tcaTe/Si].

Thus Codex Barberinus must be copied either from Codex

Monacensis or from a copy of that MS. The passages quoted

prove conclusively that it is not a copy of Codex Regius. There

are several omissions, with corresponding spaces left blank, in this

MS. which do not occur in Cod. Regius. These, I imagine, are

attributable to the worm-eaten and stained condition of Cod.

Monacensis, and tend to shew that Cod. Regius must have been

copied early in the ICth century, Cod. Barberinus late in the




same century, and that Cod. Monac., wherever it was (I was unableto obtain any information as to its

history atMunich), was neg

lected during this period.

2. (a) The relation of the Bodleian MS. to that at Venice is

not hard to determine. Their divergences are very slight, beingfor the most part ordinary transcriptional blunders or

corrections,and even of these there is only a very small number. The rest

may be explained by the fact that the scribe of the Bodleian MS.knew Greek. Direct proofs of copying are afforded in some

places.

Lomm. I.p. 117, 1. 12 (in the first fragment of

Heracleon).After the word OvdKevrivov space is left for about nine letters.

The same lacuna occurs in Codex Venetus, but in it there has beenan erasure.

Lomrn. n.p. 7, 1. 2. After

evKunjry there has been anerasure in Cod. Yen, A

corresponding lacuna is left in Cod.Bodl.

Lomm. n.p. 53, 1. 7. Codex Venetus reads Iptfs (sic). Cod,

Bodl. has

(b) I was not able to notice any divergence of Codex Bar-berinus I. (V) from the Venice MS. except that in the

passagementioned above it leaves no space after OuaAezmW, from which

of course no conclusion can be drawn. The fact that the Commentaries on S. Matthew begin at the

beginning of the 10th Book(r6re a

<et? TOI)? 0^X01/5), considered in connexion with the dateof the MS. (saec. xv. or XVL), proves that it

belongs to the Veniceas opposed to the Munich group, and the division into 32 books

points to the same conclusion. Thefollowing readings tend to

prove theidentity of its text with that of Codex Venetus.

Lomm. I.p. 117, 1. 16 Siafepovra ydp ^crt Ven. Bar

II.p. 9, 1. 20 e6rj Ven. Bar.

p. 13, L 16 irapd TO Ven. Bar.

(Codex Bodleianus has Trapa rov.)

p. 14, 1. 1 eV SwaroLS Ven. Bar.

p. 122, 1. 1 el Ven. Bar.




p. 376, 1. 4 rpia/coo-Tov irpwrov Ven. Bar.

p. 376, 1. 6 TpiaKoa-ro) Bevrepo) Ven. Bar.

(Ven.has notes in the

margin statingthat its

exemplarread

28th and 29th.)

Lomm. II.p. 73, 1. 1, lacuna (room for 5 letters) before ovra

Ven. Bar., see above, p. 11.

(c) The correspondence of the cryptograph in the MS. at

Madrid with the note at the end of Codex Venetus is sufficient

proof of the

origin

of the former. And with this the information

which I have received as to the text agrees. The lacunae in the

text (Lommatzsch I. pp. 11, 14, 18, 36, 41, 43), which occur in the

Cod. Venetus and which will be discussed more fullyin the next

section, are also found here. And in the case ofp. 41, the sug

gestion found in Cod. Ven. in the margin (ol^ai 7rapaaxf.lv T^V

vTrapfyv Kalrrji>

irXdaiv Kal rd ecBrj} is put in the margin also in

the Madrid MS. See also I. 23, Lomm. p. 44, 1. 7 QavpaC.ziv rrjv

dfteXrwpiav TWV 7ro\\wv. The word d/3\Twpiav is omitted in

Codex Monacensis, and also in Codex Venetus, but in the latter it is

added in the margin. In Cod. Matritensis it is also added in the

margin.

It can easily be shewn that O. 47 is copied from the 1st part of

the Venice MS. which contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew.

Thus the colophons at Madrid exactly agree with the note in the

Venice MS., except that the latter has October 10 instead of

October 2. As we can hardly imagine that the preface (7ro\\a>v

TOV QpLyevrjv K.T.\.) took 8 days to copy it occurs in O. 47

after the colophon we must leave this discrepancy unexplained.

3. Thus there seems to be no reasonable doubt as to the

derivation of all the other manuscripts from Cod. Monacensis and

Codex Venetus. The more extensive divergences of these two at

first led me to suppose them to be independent of each other, but

a closer examination disclosed convincing proof of the dependence

of the latter on the former. Their divergences give us only too

clear an insight into the freedom with which the text of an

exemplar was handled, at any rate in the 14th century. An ex

amination of the Contra Celsum manuscripts affords, I believe, an




instructive parallel1

. The relation of Cod. Ven. to Cod. Monac.

remains to be considered in detail. Several lacunae caused in

Cod. Monac. by damage done to the MS. by water, or in other

ways, are matched in Cod. Ven. by corresponding places left

blank by the scribe. These lacunae occur almost entirely in

the first book. The chief instances are the following :

Bk. I. c. 4 (Lomm. p. 11) L. and Delarue read ypafavTa teal

KCUT eôvcriav, ovJJL^V TO e*Xi#pti4? rwv etc 06Las eTrnr

Afterypa<f>evra

Cod. Monac. isillegible until the word ei

but between eôvo-iav and ovfjLrjv

there must have been at least 17

more letters, of which some near the end were I think aTroo-roXi/c.

Cod. Ven. leaves space between these two words for about 25

letters.

Bk. I. c. 6 (Lomm. p. 14) reXo? avrov Trapa TM loodwrj.

These words are nearly illegible in Cod. Monac., but there must

have been about 14 more letters, and Cod. Ven, leaves space for

15 more letters after Îwavvy.

On the same page elpw/cw SiSda/cecv issimilarly stained in

Cod. Monac., and Cod. Ven. omits thepassage, except the word

elpwiccos, leaving a space.

Bk. I. c. 8, Lomm. p. 18. .../cal on o\ov. In Cod. Monac. we

find after faov, TO 0X.../*.((?)....?.(?) OTL: then more than half a

line illegible, the MS. being damaged as in the other cases.

Cod. Ven. has o\ov (space II)2

OTCLV yap (space J line) viovs

K.T.\.

Bk. I. c. 9, Lomm.p. 20. eVrti/ eK\aâveiv...ovTw XpiaTia-

2/09. All this is damaged in Cod. Monac. and mostly illegible, but

there is room for about 20 more letters than are contained in the

words as they stand in Delarue and Lommatzsch. Cod. Ven.

contains all that is in the printed texts, and afterTrepiTeTftrjfievo?

leaves a space of about f of a line, after which it has OVTCO

Xpi-aTiavos K.T.\.

Bk. i. c. 17, Lomm. p. 36. Similar phenomena occur againhere.

1 Cf. an Article in the Journal of Philology Vol. xvm. No. 36, "On the text of

Origen against Celsus," esp. pp. 294, 295.

2 The numbers after the word space refer in each instance to the (approxi




Bk. I. c. 22, Lomm. p. 41. rot? overt, KOIrfj v\y \eyovra.

This is all damaged in Cod. Monac., but the following facts are

discoverable.

(1) It omitsol/juai and rrjv virapfyv.

(2) Between el KOI and elvreiv there is room for about 23 more

letters.

(3) e<rrlv is, I think, not contained in it. The words are

illegible, but the ink has to some extent stayed on the opposite

leaf. Reading backwards, I thought I could trace somewhat as

follows :

el KCU ra? ovatOG â\7rov pev ovv ira^vrepov elireiv.

Cod. Ven. hasrfj v\y (space 20) ;

then /cal ra K.T.\. to el ical

as in the texts;after which (space 23), elTrelv K.T.\.

In the margin it hasol/jiai, Trapaaêlv rrjv virap^tv KOI rrjv

TT\aaiv Kal rd eiSrj.

Thus we get some valuable information by which to attempt a

restoration of the text, and very sure indications of the relations

of the two MSS.Bk. i. c. 23, Lomm. p. 43. ri? 6 ev avrfj Xoyo?...e?re/9;Ta

O-KOTTOVVTI. Damaged in God. Monac., which has space for more.

Cod. Ven. leaves a space of one line between enrepêrai and O-KO-

TTOVVTl.

Bk. xin. c. 39, Lomm. Vol. II.p. 73, rjrot ovra.

God. Monac. hasrjrot, OLK (space 3 or 4) ovra, the letters inter

vening being damaged. God. Ven. has jjroi (space 5), then ovra.

Such evidence as this must hold good against much textual

divergence ;and it must be admitted that the scribe of Cod. Ven.

has made rather free use of conjectural alteration. But a com

parison of the readings of Cod. Ven. with those of Cod. Monac.,

which are given at the end of the Introduction, will shew, I think,

that this supposition will explain the facts better than any other

theory.

Similar evidence may also be obtained from an investigation of

the first parts of the MSS. which contain the Commentaries on

S. Matthew. Perhaps a short statement on this part of the

evidence may not be out of place. Here in Books x. and xi. the

leaves of the Munich Codex have been bound up in wrong order,

and two or three are wanting. In the Venice MS. the leaves are




in their right order, and nothing is missing ;hence the displace

ment and the loss of leaves in Cod. Monac. is subsequent to

1374, the date of the Venice MS.

The Munich MS. has lost its first leaf;

it

now begins with thewords rivi Be Xdfi-^rovo-iv,

Bk. x. c. 3, Lomm. p. 15. These occur

in Cod. Ven. on the 2nd recto, line 5.

We may first notice two omissions, due to homoioteleuton, in

God. Ven. of words contained in Cod. Mon.\ as indications of

course, not as proofs.

Bk. XI. c. 18, Lomm. pp. 120, 121. 6â>Xo9

KCU rpavrj ecrrat

o 2a>Xo9. Cod. Ven. omits /cal rpavrj 6 p&>Xo?.

Bk. XII. c. 1, Lomm. p. 127. /cal (papiaaioL. irpeafBevovcri

yap ol /lev fyapKTaioi.

Cod. Ven. omits irpeaftevovai fyapiaalot,.

The following passage supplies clear proofs. (Bk. XH. c. 20.)

E-Tret Se OVK eVeSeêror7r/3o- Cod. Ven. T rotavra airo-

fta

f

le- re\a-6at.

ava\o-

osr To* 6 Cod. Ven. omits, leaving space

rrjv ^frv^v av- (15).

TOV 6VCK6V e^/AOV Vp^(I6L

avrrjv, ^ta rovro $i avrov

6t? Ie/300-oXfyLta tl7T\0lV, WO,

l"7roXXa TraOtov ev^ eicelvois Cod. Fen. omits, leaving space/C.T.X. (10).

The words between the signsr 1 are in each case damaged in

Cod. Monac.

Bk. xii. c. 24, Lomm. p. 170,<f>ep

elireiv ra j3aat,\iSov rj,

damaged in Cod. Monac. Cod. Ven. omits âcrtXiSou, leaving a

space (7).

And forrj

it reads xal.

Thus there can be no doubt that the Venice MS. is derived

from that at Munich. On this MS. therefore we are entirely

dependent for the text of the Commentaries on S. John. Un

fortunately its present condition at the bottom and top of several

leaves is such that the lacunae in these places cannot for the

most part be filled up ; though in some cases hints as to length




guides for conjectural restoration. The Venice Codex is our best

authority for this group of the MSS. of the Comm. in Matt.

in theplaces where Cod. Monacensis

is

now defective,as the

other direct copies of this MS. have apparently been made since

its mutilation. The alterations introduced by the scribe of

Cod. Yen. frequently deserve consideration, and are not seldom

obviously right

The marginal notes on blasphemy suggest the possibility

of the suppression of some passages on account of the doctrine

contained in them. But all the lacunae and there are several in

Cod. Monac. due to its original, besides those due to the damagedone to the MS. itself cannot be explained by this hypothesis : of

this Bk. xiii. c. 32 will serve as an example. But while much

must be given up as no longer recoverable, a good deal of light

may be thrown on the text of many passages in the Commentaries

by the use of Cod. Monac. With a view to further work on them

I made a collation in September 1889 of the Commentaries on

S. John.

Huet knew of the Manuscript, but does not seem to have

used it. Heoccasionally agrees with it against the Paris MS.

on which his text was based, but such readings are probably

emendations of his own, or were suggested by the versions.

Through the version of Ferrarius he became acquainted with

a text like that of the Venice MS.

Delarue s wider knowledge whether he had examined any

MSS. himself I cannot discover is marred by inaccuracy of

statement as to the readings contained in MSS. In particular

he seems to have taken it for granted that any reading adopted

by Huet in his text was necessarily that contained in the

Paris Codex. The undue influence of this Codex, which it has

exercised owing to its relation to Huet s text, must be set aside.

But when all has been done that is possible by the ordinary

methods of textual criticism, a large sphere will remain in which

conjectural emendation alone can be of any avail.

The notes of Th. Mangey preserved in the British Museum

(MSS. Add. 6428) do not contain fresh material. Those on the

Commentaries on S. John appear to be a partial collation of

Huet s text with something of the type of Cod. Venetus, not the




Bodleian MS. which is at times mentioned separately. Possibly

he was working with the Codex Barberinus of that type. But

whatever his source was, it contains nothing helpful which is not

otherwise known.

It may be worth while to bring together here some examples

from Cod. Monac. of important New Testament Readings of

an ancient type, which have been subsequently brought into

conformity with the ordinary Syrian text, either by its correctors

or in its descendants. These will be sufficient to shew that it

may throw somefurther

light onthe

problemof

the text ofthe New Testament used by Origen, while they will serve to

illustrate the manner in which the text of quotations from the

New Testament has been handled in the MSS. of the Fathers.

In the following list of some pro-Syrian readings supported by Cod.

Monac. I have added in a few cases interesting readings from the other MSS.

In these cases the MS. authority is added in brackets.

Lomm. i.

p. 177. Jn. i. 15. o clrruv. See Tisch. (Or.4 10

-)

Jn. i. 18. povoyevr)? dfos. (See above, p. 8.)

o &v om. Heracleon(?)

210. Jn. i. 24.QTrforaX/ieVot. See Tisch. (Or.

4 12:

<)

211. ML iii. 10. ^ Se /cat (Yen.)

214 f. Mk. i. 2. om.efiirpoo-Oev crov. See Tisch. (Or.

4<12r>

)

222. Jn. i. 26. ea-rrjKfv

Jn. i. 27. avros t<mv o om.

(but in Or. vi. 23 Mon. ins. o).See Tisch. (Or.

4 130)

234. Jn. i. 26. onjjcft ;Heracleon)

dvTr/Kei (Bodl. Ven. Cf. Eusebius)

[292. Mk. i. 27. 6a^6Wav. See Tisch. (Or.4 -1

)]

[293. Luke iv. 40. tOcpanfvev (Paris. Ven. Monac.)

fdepdnevo-fv (Bodl.)]

Lomm. II.

p. 5. 1 Cor. iv. 11.yvfjLViTfvopfv (Par. Bodl. Mon. Ven.)

9. Jn. iv. 16. aov rov avSpa (Bodl. Ven.)

18. Jn. iv. 14. ov Sn/^o-ei (Ven.)

ov/zj) dt^r/o-d (Bodl.)

ovp.f) 8i\lsTJo-T) (Par. Mon.)

See Tisch. (Or.4 220

)

57. Jn. iv. 31. tvr<p fifrau 8e (Bodl. Ven.)

68. Jn. xiv. 28. o 6




92. Mt. xii. 42. SoXo/iwi/os (Par. Mon.)

104. Jn. iv. 42. OVTOS etrnvd\r)0<as (Bod. Veil.)

106. 1 Cor. ix. 1. eopaica (Par. Mon.)

109. Jn. iv. 44. avros 6 to- sec. loc. (Ven. Bodl.)

tert. loc. (Bod. Mon.)

110. (Ven. Bodl.)

114. Jn. ii. 15. avfo-rpeêv (Par. Mon.)

See Tisch. (Or.4 -270811

-)

115. Jn. ii. 16. prj TroifjTf (Par. and ?Mon.)

Jn. ii. 23. evrfj foprfj ev rw Traoâ (Bodl.)

evrfj foprfj TOV jroo-â (Ven.)

123. Mt. x. 28. V^X7)" KOL 0-oo/na (Monac. Ven.)

130. Mt. viii. 8. o TTOIS pov om. (Par. Mon.)

248. Mt. v. 28. 0? av>j8XVrfl (Mon.)

264. Jn. viii. 44. OVK Zo-rrjKfv (Par. Mon.)

N.B. It will be seen that in the above list I have given some examplesof readings not pre-Syrian. These are cases of attestation where further

examination of the Manuscripts of Origen has corrected or supplementedDelarue s information, on which of course Tischendorf depended. The

references to Tischendorf are to his critical digest in locc. His references

to Origen (e.g.Or4 -220

)refer to the volume and page in Delarue s edition.

It only remains to say a few words about Catenae on S. John.

At Munich there are two fragments attributed to Origen in a

Catena of the xith century (Gr. 437). At Rome there are several

in the Catenae Vat. 1423, Regin. 9. The larger fragment in the

Munich Catena occurred also with considerable variations in

Regin. 9. I was unable at Rome to do more than glance at these

fragments. The fragments pointed to the same conclusions as

may be drawn from an examination of those published by Cor-

derius from an Antwerp MS. Most of them at any rate mighthave come from Origen s pen, so far as opinions are concerned.

But in the comparatively few instances where they cover common

ground with the extant Commentaries, the text and even the

contents are either wholly different or widely divergent. Some

of them have the appearance of being taken from Homilies, others

from eVtcrT/yuetcoo-ei?. The nearest agreement with the extant

Commentaries was in the case of two fragments in Regin. 9, where

the text of Orig. Comm. in Joann. XXXII. 11 d^êiwarj Be TWO,

rpoTTov arj/jLau OfMevw and 13 eVet ovvtye/crav (Lomm. p. 435




the fragment was different from the text of the Commentaries.

Nor was the result of a closer examination of two Catenae, xxvn

(saec. x.) and xxvm (saec. XL), at Venice different. Of these

the former contains more matter, though occasionally the frag

ments in the latter have pieces omitted in Cod. xxvu. On the

whole, however, Cod. xxvm. is much more curtailed. The greater

part of what is contained in Corderius is in Cod. xxvu.;some

times he gives the fullest text, and sometimes the Venice MS. is

fuller. There is also a good deal at Venice which is not found in

his edition. There is, I think, a close connexion between Yen.

xxvu. and Regin. 9 at Rome, but I did not bring away enough

information from Rome to determine this. I was able at Venice

to copy all the fragments attributed to Origen in the Catena on

S. John in Cod. xxvu. Much more must be done elsewhere

before they can be made serviceable, but there is promise of

considerable addition to the published writings of Origen from

this Catena alone, though the critic s knife is not unneeded.

The textual results are the same as might be gathered from

the MSS. at Munich and Rome. The sense of lost parts of the

Commentaries may be recovered, but not much of the actual

text. This of course was to be expected. I can only conclude

with the hope that I may be able to bring to light some of this

buried matter if I am allowed to continue working at the text of

Origens

Commentarieson S. John.

As I intend to quote in the apparatus criticus readings from

the Munich MS. only, I subjoin a full collation of the first 30

pages of Tom. XIIL of the Commentaries on S. John, in the

edition of Lommatzsch, with Codd. Monacenis (M), Venetus (V),

Regius (P), and Bodleianus (B). The quotations of differences

of accent or breathing, of obvious itacistic blunders and v e</>eX.-

Kvo-riKa are not exhaustive, but I have endeavoured to make the

collation of Cod. Monac. as complete as I could. The readings

marked by (() are readings of the Bodleian, where it differs

from Huet, which Beritley has not noticed in the margin of the

copy in Trinity College Library. In a few cases, where I knew

them, I have given the readings of the Barberini Codices under

the symbols Rt (= V) and R (= VI). The left column the



THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN.

ToV M

21

P. 1, Title TO

1. 1 av ZBo^f. P ai/e M



THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLKON.



THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. 23



THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN.

23

P. 13, 1. 1

1 ante vvv

3

4

5

6

9

11, 12 aXXo/xeVou

13 ttTTO

15 V7TO

16

17 (OS ToV

P. 14, 1. 1 evSeu/a rots

1, 2 e

7 ante TOT)

9 Xcyoi/Tos

10y(W<TKOV(n

P. 15, 1. 1 ETf evflews

2 eXeye

5 otovet

10, 12 cx7reâv avSpt

14 7T(OS

19 2a/xapetrts

21 Ka6 oi/

22 Kat

23

24

P. 16, 1. 2, 3 aXX aiSia)

5 o

6 aTreâve

6 5

1 1-ijpvrjTO

1 6 e8o)K

P. 17, 1. 1oT/xai

3 ante TOVS

om. B

airy MVBPins. KCU VB (V intra lin.)

aXXo/xeVov Mcrol MP

Sr/Xovori VMMPM

aV V

K VB7Tpt TO MR2 : ?rapa TO

"V"!^

?rapa TOV B

ws d atT<3v VB (sedin V o- o at

seriori, ut videtur, manu sunt

scripta) cJ CTOI MR.,

f ev SwaTOis VRjB: ei/8etiâ TOIS M

ci/yeyu/xvao-/xeVotsM

ins. TO VBXeyoi/Tcs

MVPB : B ing. Xeyoi/Tos

ytl/tOCTKOUOtl/ M

erreuflecrecos MP

eXcyevM

f otojTIBV oiov ei M

om. VB

>s

MVB M

om. MPf 7ra.pa,Ti0eto-av

MVB

SteXcx^^vai P

dXXa tSta)/x,ci/

ovv Tt MP

f(SB

aTreOavev MfcSB

t T/pmTo VBeSoKtv Motvat M eti at P (sed ser. man.

oTvai)

ins. ?rposVB : B mg. raâ Trpo/



THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.




1 4 AeycTe

2 1

23 TOV

23,

4

24

25

P. 24, 1. 3, 4 TOfj.l

1 1

12 2iwv

13 eori

13 OLTTCp

14 pOSt V7TO

1 f *16

>;>;

1

18

1 9

21 ante a

26 epxeTai

27 eon

29 eW29

oT/xat

P. 25, 1. 3, 4TTpOKOTTYJV

7, 8vo//,i

8 yow10

13, 4

14

1 6 7Tl

17 TO

20

01J 1

25 KttV

26

26/xeTtt 8e Tcurra

P. 26, 1. 1ttVTT7? </>V0-l

5 8t ayvotav

XeycTat MP

Stavo/xiys VBam. VB

SeKao-/xos

VB: Bmg.

P Sewov MM

TO /xc/ (sic)P : P mg. 7-175

MPM

iv M

Mom. TO VB

v; 7;M

i/^aicpaTCVfJia VB : t

M

Trpoo-ayovTat VB

VOfJLOV MVPins.

TT;V MVPB0ai P

Mtv M

ot/xat MTTpOfTKOTTTCLV MP

P

a MVB

P

M-tJ/ MM

om. VB

finyV MVPttV

TrpO<f>1f]TV(t)/AVMVB

tvwo-Kto/u,i/ MVBCI ravra 8e VB

avo-et MP : avTiys

Siavotav P: 8t cuyvotav BB oY



THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTAKIES ON s. JOHN. 29

12 OIK

14

OIKV M

14

15 post riV

17

1 8

19*

I 9 ctT

23 Tr

23 ob

P. 27, 1. 3,4 &T60oAaKT

4 OpOS

6 fv

7o>os

8 (S

9 lepoo-dXvpia

10 <S

10 oposII ot

12$12 ot

14 7rpO(TKi;v7ycrT

1 5arvfJiTra.paXaiJ.f3a

16 ^19, 20 {i7r

21 3^

23

23 post <ra(f)ecrTpov

P. 28, 1. 3, 4

4

6 to-a

8

9 TOIS

10

10, 11 voeio-00)

1 1TrpocTttTroSeSw/

15, 6Trpoa"KW7J(rcTC

20 eo-rt

T BV T Mins. TpoTra) VBTO MVPB

evcXcyKara Mmil. lac. MP : ins. &?A.oi/

VB

ctTraXXayet T;M

v MM

OpOS M

epos Mok P

lepoo-oAu/ta bis P

om. P

opos Mom. Mom. Mom. VB

P

afjil3dvt M^8et VB

V7ro\afji/3av6fji.fvovMVPB

S?7/uoupyoi/ P sed ser. man. in

correctum est

^CWp^TT/KWTepOl/ B

ins. /cai OfLorcpov MVB

TTpOO /CVl Ol O O MKpCLTTOV (US MVB

cto-ayyeXoiMP

crvfj.Trpi(f>epu>vTaLVB :

pOVTO.1 Mom. VB

MPP

Mirpoa-Kvvrjcrai MPco-riv M




22pr)T<Z opcL VB : o prjTu P sed ser. man.

deletur o

as



THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.

OF the personal history of Heracleon hardly anything is

known. Clement of Alexandria, quoting his comment on a

passage of S. Luke, calls him the most famous of the Valentinian

School1

. Origen prefaces his first citation from Heracleon s Com

mentary on the Gospel of S. John with the information that he

was said to have been a pupil (or, perhaps, an acquaintance) of

Valentinus2

. He is mentioned once by Irenaeus in conjunction

with Ptolemaeus, and possibly with Valentinus, who is at any

rate mentioned several times by name shortly before, as the chief

1 Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9, p. 595 (ed. Potter), 6 rrjs QvaKevrivov

2Origen, Coinm. in Joann. n. 8, TOV OvaXevrivov

\ey6fj.evoi> clvai.yi>upi/j.oi>.

It

seems probable that Origen here uses the wordyvupi/j.os in the sense of pupil, a

meaning which it often bears. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 11, TOVTO &pa /SotfXercu

Kal Ty HvOayopy i) Trerracr/as ffiwiri) -^v rots yvwpl/jwis irapeyyvq, and Ibid. II. 4.

Hippolytus, Refutatio, I. 13, ATJ^O/C/HTOJ 5 AevKiwirov yiverai. yi>upt/jLos.Justin

Martyr, ApoL I. 32, <5> (sc. iruXov) eKtXevffev ayayelf avri^ rbre TOI)S yvupl/jiovs

aurov. Joseph. I>. J. iv. 8. 3, I-TTO EXio-crat oi; TOV trpo^-fiTOV yvupijjios 8e yv OUTOS

HXta /cai Siddoxos. Philo I. 201. 6 (ed. Mangey), aware yap irarrjp vibi> Ttirrei eucppo-

vl$uv $ diddffKa\os yvupt/j.ov, and i. 208. 4. Plutarch, 2. 448 E (Francofurt. 1G20),

avrl yvupi/j.wv /caifj.a.Or]Tu>v epaa-rai /caXo^evot xai oj/res (of the gradual growth of the

pupil s affection for his master). Cf. also Strabo 1. 1. 11. Philostratus 529 (2. 41.

9 ed. Teubner), 578 (2.84. 13), and 583 (2. 88. 4), and Suidas mb roce. The

growth of the meaning may be traced in such passages as Xen. Mem. 2. 3. 1,

d5e\0w yu^y ciXXTjXotJ/, ecu/Tc^ (sc. 2wK/)drei) 5eyi>()pi/j.w.

At the same time the word would hardly be used of one who had joined a school

after the death of the Master. Its use is not compatible with any great difference

of date between Valentinus and his pupil.




exponent of the opinions under discussion 1. Tertullian also

refers to him once as having developed the Valentinian teaching

on the lines suggested by Ptolemaeus 2. The author of the

Refutatio^ mentions him and Ptolemaeus as the chief exponents of

the Italic school of Valentinianism. In the preface at the beginning

of the sixth book he is placed after Ptolemaeus. Theodoret 4

mentions him after Secundus, in quite general terms, with Cossia-

nus, Theodotus, Ptolemaeus, Marcus. He is also once referred to

by Photius 5.

Praedestinatus6

is certainly wrong in telling a story of him

which connects his name with the Roman episcopate of Alex

ander(c. 110 A.D.). Hie in partibus Siciliae inchoauit docere :

contra hunc susceperunt episcopi Siculorum, Eustachius Lily-

baeorum et Panormeorum Theodorus, quique omnium per Sicilian!

erant episcoporurn synodum exorantes gestis eum audire decre-

uerunt et uniuersas adsertiones eius dirigentes ad sanctum Alex-

andrum urbis episcopum rogauerunt, ut ad eum confutandum

aliquid ordinaret. Tune sanctus Alexander ad singula quaeque

capita hydri singulos gladios dei uerbi de uagina diuinae legis

eiciens librum contra Heracleonem ordinans, feruentissimum in-

genio Sabinianum presbyterum destinauit, qui et scriptis episcopi

et adsertione sua ita eum confutaret, ut nocte media nauis prae-

sidio fugeret, et ultra ubinam deuenisset penitus nullus sciret.

The date is impossible, and the heretical views on baptism

attributed to him in the same account (nihil obesse baptizatis

peccata memorabat) have no greater claims to be accepted as part

of his teaching.

That he had a school of followers we know from Praedestinatus,

Sextadecima haeresis Heracleonitarum ab Heracleone adinuenta

1 Irenaeus n. 4. 1, Honorificentius reliquis aeonibusipsius (?)

Ptolemaei et

Heracleonis et reliquis omnibus qui eadem opinantur.2Tertullian, adv. Valentinianos c. 4, Deduxit et Heracleon inde tramites quos-

dam et Secundus et magus Marcus.

3Hippolytus, Eefutatio Oinn. Haeres., vi. 35.

4Theodoret, Haeret. Compend. i. 8, Kai aXXoi 5e

jj-vpiottvrevdev dve^rjaav

aiptaews dpXTjyoi, Ko<rcriaj>6s, 9e65oros, Hpa<AeW, IlroXf/Acuos, Map/cos, Sid<popa

6Photius, Ep. 134 (ed. Eic. Montacutius).



THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 33

est : from Augustine1

(c. 16) Heracleonitae ab Heracleoiie : from

Epiphanius (Haer. XXXVI.) Hpa/eAeW KOI ol air avrov

K\Q)Virai: and from Origen (passim), e.g.ol air

avrov,aurofc? rd T^? /-lufloTroua?,

ol airo rfjs yvco/jLt](;avrov.

The fact that a school of his disciples was in existence when

Origen wrote his Commentaries on S. John (of which parts at any

rate were written before A.D. 2282

),does not necessitate any earlier

date for Heracleon than the end of the second century. The exact

meaning of Origen s description of him (Comm. in Joann. II. 8) is

uncertain,but the

phraseused

(yvoopipo*;)

wouldhardly

be natural,

unless Heracleon had been a prominent member of the school

during the lifetime of Valentinus. And we cannot lay much

stress on the fact that Origen admits that his account is only

from hearsay (\ey6fjuevov).In the absence of more direct evidence

we have no reason to distrust this tradition. On the other hand,

stress has been laid on the probability that the heads of the

Western or Italic School of Valentinians were contemporary,

or nearly so, with those of the Anatolic School to whom they are

opposed in the Refutatio. But as there is nothing to tell us

how quickly the two schools respectively developed, or whether

those who were regarded by a later age as most representative of

them were those who stood at the head at the same time, such

an argument is very precarious.The constant connexion of the

names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, not always in the same order,

is our only guide. As the order is never necessarily chronological,

its variation does not prove that they were absolutely contempo

rary, but it certainly gives a high probability to the supposition

that they were nearly so. All we know for certain is, that

Heracleon s Commentary on S. John was in existence before 228,

and that a comment of his on Luke xii. 8 11 was quoted by

Clement as early as 193. Clement s silence as to the Commen

taries on S. John affords no evidence of a later date than this

for their composition. Lipsius points out the probability that

Irenaeus had heard of him when he came to Rome about 17C

or 177: and at any rate the school of Ptolemaeus was well

1Augustine, De haeresibus liber, c. 16 (ed. Migne, vol. vin. p. 27).

2 See the Article Origen in Diet, of Chr. Biogr. vol. iv. p. 114.




established at that time1

. We may perhaps go a little further.

It may be reasonably assumed that the lectures of Irenaeus, on

which, according to the most probable interpretation of Photius2

,

the Compendium of Hippolytus was founded, were delivered not

later than 177 3

,and we know that in this Compendium the heresy

of Heracleon was described. This can be gathered, almost with

certainty, from the place assigned to him in the Minor Heresiolo-

gists. This evidence is independent of the disputed question of

the date of the Syntagma of Hippolytus. Thus we have no

evidence which necessitates an earlier date than 170 for the

appearance of Heracleon as a Heresiarch, but on the other hand

there is a considerable probability, if we allow to the expression of

Origen the full force of its most natural interpretation, that the

true date is somewhat earlier, and in closer proximity to the

death of Yalentinus. Heinrici4has made use of the reference to

Heracleon in Clement s Eclogae Propheticae5

,which he regards as

a very early work of the Alexandrine Father, to

press

the earlier

date; but, if we take the more common view that these formed

part of the lost books of the Hypotyposes6

,this argument has of

course no weight.

The only other possibly available evidence is such as might be

deduced from the character of the Valentinian doctrine dealt with

in the Refutatio, supposing that we ought to regard this doctrine

as Heracleonic. It is

always allowed to be of a later type thanthat represented in Irenaeus, and thus its contents might possibly

give us some clue to Heracleon s date;but with this question we

are not yet in a position to deal. Suffice it to say here that the

chronological difference need not be great, and that the Refutatio,

if it has any connexion with Heracleon, represents in all probability

a stage of Heracleonism more developed than the teaching of the

Master himself. Here then we must leave, at any rate for the

present, the question of Heracleon s date.

1

Lipsius in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 18G7,

p. 81.

2Lightfoot, Clement of Home (2nded.), vol. n. p. 414.

3Ibid. p. 423.

4 Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die Heiligc Schrift, p. 13.

5




We know from Origen s direct statement, as well as from

the fragments cited by him, that Heracleon was the author of

vTTo/jLVJJ/jLara1

. These included Commentaries on at any rate

large portions of the Gospel according to S. John, and probably

also on that according to S. Luke. This follows from Clement s

statement on Luke xii. 8 11, TOVTOV ef77701^6^09 rov TOTTOV 6f

Hpa/c\a)i ,K.r.X. Whether he also wrote on S. Matthew is

uncertain2

. That he used it as authoritative follows from his

citation3

of Matt. viii. 12, ol viol TT)? ySacriXeta? efeXeucrozmu

(Text. Rec. eK^rjO^aovrai}, to prove the destruction of the menof the Demiurge.

The place of Heracleon among the Valentinians is given

differently by different heresiologists. Philaster and Pseudo-

Tertullian place him next to Secundus; Epiphanius and Augus

tine after Colarbasus. We do not possess sufficient information,

either in thefragments

of his ownwritings

whichremain,

or in the

very scanty references of other writers, to clear away the obscurity

which shrouds his system. The statement of Ps.-Tertullian,

Qui cum Valentino paria sentit sed nouitate quadam pronun-

tiationis uult uideri alia sentire, is perhaps unfair in its im

putation, but it comes as near the truth as we canget. The

information given by the Minor Heresiologists is but scanty.

PHILASTRIUS. PS.-TERTULLIANUS.

Dicens principium csse unum Introducit enim in primis illud

quern dominum appellat, deinde de fuisse quod...pronuntiat, et deinde ex

hoc natum aliud, deque his duobus ilia monade duo ac deinde reliquos

generationem multorum adserit prin- aeones. Deinde introducit totum

cipiorum. Valentinum.

What word is to be supplied to fill up the lacuna in the

account of Ps.-Tertullian, has beensufficiently

discussed

byothers

4.

The phrase ex ilia monade just below certainly suggests that

monadem is the only natural reading. Thus we get Mom? as

the starting point of the Heracleonic system, according to the

1

Origen, Comm. in Joann. vi. 8 ev ofs Ka.Ta\{\onrei> UTTO^V^OLGIV.2 See Fragment 51 (note).

3Origen, Comm. in Joann. xm. 59.

4 Cf. dcs




Syntagma of Hippolytus, the almost certain source of the accounts

which we are considering. And this agrees exactly with the

account given by Hippolytus in the Refutatio, where the system

described under the section devoted to Valentinus starts from

a novas dyevvrjTos, a$6apTos K.T.\. (see Hippolytus, Ref. Omn.

Haeres. vi. 29). Combining this with the direct statements of

Irenaeus(l.

xi. 1) with regard to the tenets of Valentinus himself,

we may regard it as most probable that, whereas Valentinus s

system starts with an original Dyad, his more Pythagoreanising

pupil Heracleon referred the origin of all things to an eternal

Monad. Other more distinctly Pythagoreanising tendencies of

Heracleon and his school will come under notice later on.

The next step is more obscure. The most natural explanation

of the facts recorded by the Minor Heresiologists is that Heracleon

spoke of his second principle indifferently as one, or as a Dyad, of

which the two principles were not very clearly distinguished.It

must correspondto the Valentinian

NoO?and

AXty&ia:and

very

possibly he may have often referred to it as dXijOeia: compare the

use in the Fragments of the term TW Trarpl rrjs d\7)0eia<:.The

exact agreement of this with the account given in the Refutatio

must be noted. We need only quote vi. 29, Trpoeftakev ovv /cal

eyevvrjaev avros 6 irarr^p, wcnrep ijv fibvos, vovv /cal d\r)0eiav

rovreo-TL SvaSa. The next clause also agrees well enough with

the rest of Ps.-Tertullian and Philaster: r}? /cvpla KCU

<yeyoveKal ^rrjp Trdvrcov TWV eVro?

7r\7jpa>fjLaTO<; Karapi

alwvwv. This combines the deinde reliquos aeones of Ps.-Ter

tullian, and Philaster s deque his duobus generationem multorum

adserit principiorum/

But here a digression is necessary. Harnack in an interesting

note1

has suggested that the alius clarus magister of Irenaeus

1 Zur Quellenkritik der Gesclnclite des Gnosticismus, p. 62 n. He further sug

gests that Tertullian, in his copy of Irenaeus, may have found Heracleon s name

in this place (Irenaeus, i. xi. 3).But Lipsius (Die Quellen der iiltesten Ketzer-

geschichte, p. 67 n.) has shewn that Tertullian reproduces this section of Irenaeus

almost verbatim, subsequently to his mention of Heracleon, without connecting it

with Heracleon s name (Tert. adv. Valent. c. 37). Harnack also sees in the words

of Irenaeus n. 4. 1, honorificentius...reliquis aeonibus ipsius Ptolemaei et Hera-




(i.xi. 3) should perhaps be identified with Heracleon. But it has

been pointed out that exactly the same teaching, with regard to

Moj>oT?79, EJ/OTT;?, Moi/a? and *Ez/, is attributed to Marcus, with a

reference apparently to this passage, by means of the words icaO

aTTpoeiprjrai (Irenaeus I. xv. I)

1

. We may also compare the words

with which Marcus is introduced in c. xiii. 1 (the Greek is not

available, as Epiphanius has here epitomised the words of

Irenaeus); alius uero quidam ex iis, qui sunt apud eos, magistri

emendatorem se esse glorians; Marcus est autem illi nomen.

We may therefore conclude that the section I. xi. 3 refers to

Marcus and not to Heracleon. But Lipsius is inclined2to regard

the description of Heracleon, which Hippolytus gives in the

Syntagma, as based on this passage of Irenaeus. If this is right,

it follows of course that the information to be found in the

Syntagma about Heracleon is open to grave suspicion. But, in his

article on Valentinus, Lipsius has shewn that Hippolytus cannot

have derived his statements as to the pupils of Valentinus

(Secundus, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon) from the account of

Irenaeus(i. xi. xii.) alone, but must have used some other source

as well, if indeed he used this passage at all: and that the parti

cular doctrines assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus and Ptolemaeus,

those of the rerpa? Se%t,d and dpccrrepd, and the two av^vyot,

respectively, are not so attributed by Hippolytus, while the dis

tinction of the two^o(f>Lai, assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus

(i. xi. 2), is in Hippolytus assigned to them both. The connexionthen is so very loose that, when we find that Hippolytus (see

Ps.-Tcrtullian, quoted above) makes Heracleon s first principle to

be Moz/a?, we need hardly assume that he derived this from

Irenaeus I. xi. 3, where the first principle of the clarus magister

But the ipsius will hardly bear out this;and as no mention has been made in

the chapter at all of Ptolemaeus, the ipsius is in

anycase

strange.

It would

refer much more naturally to Valentinus, who alone has been mentioned so far.

Perhaps we should insert an et after ipsius, reading ipsius ct Ptolemaei.

1 See Neander, Gcnetische Entwickelung dcr gnostischcn Systcmc, p. 169 : with

this must be compared Dr Salmon s article on Epiphanes, Diet, of Christ. Biogr.

vol. ii.

2 See his article on Irenaeus, Diet, of Christ. Biogr. vol. in. p. 261. But we

should also compare Die Quellen der alt. Ketzergcschichte, pp. 169, 170; and his

article on Valuntiuus, Diet, of Christ. Biotjr. vol. iv. p. 1084.




is Mo^or?;?. There would seem then to be no valid reason for

rejecting the information afforded by Hippolytus on the ground of

its derivation from this passage of Irenaeus, which refers to another

teacher. Whence Philaster derived his statement that Heracleoncalled his first principle

Dominum is not known. It is quite

possible that he may have used the term Kvpios (cf. /cvpia, Hipp.

Refut. VI. 29) ;but of this we know nothing.

The only other information afforded by the Minor Heresiologists

is Deinde introducit totum Valentinum, which is probably true

enough. With the probable exceptions already considered there

is no reason to suppose that Heracleon materially altered the

system of his master, or that he laid any particular stress on the

details of the system. His interest seems to have been more in the

general theological and philosophical teaching of Valentinianism,

and the interpretation by it of the Canonical Books which he

regarded as authoritative, and especially of the Gospel according

to S. John.

The patchwork of Epiphanius1 need not detain us long. His

points of contact with Philaster and Ps.-Tertullian betray the use

of the Syntagma ;and most of the rest consists so obviously of

gleanings from Irenaeus that it is unnecessary to look further for

his authority. The choice of Marcosian sources for his investiga

tions was the natural consequence of the relative positions he

assigns to Marcus, Colarbasus and Heracleon. At the same time

the teaching of Heracleon on the two viol dvOpooirov (Frag. 35)

lends plausibility to the supposition that the aXXot of Irenaeus

I. xii. 4 may have some connexion with Heracleon, and that he

did call the Father of All dv0pa)7ros. But, as a Commentator like

Heracleon was bound to make use of the Evangelic phrase u/o?

dvOpwirov, the identification is precarious. For the rest we should

perhaps

notice the

parallelism

of

y^re dppevprjre 6fj\v with

Hipp.Ref. VI. 30 (ev fAV yap TW dyevvrjTM, faa-lv, earl irdvra

O/JLOV,ev Se

rot?<yevvi]TOLs,

TO/j,ev 6r}\v...ro Se dppev), because of the

fyrjcrl,

with which we must deal later on. The description of the Sevrepa

^rr)p is a natural description of what formed part of every

Valentinian system. Epiphanius might easily have added it

himself, without deriving it from any particular source. The




words /3ov\eTai 8e vrXetora rwv irpo avrov teal OUTO? \eyei,v,when

compared with the statement of Ps.-Tertullian quoted above, point

to the existence of some such accusation in the Syntagma.

We know from the Refutatio that Heracleon belonged to the

Italic school of Valentinians;but beyond this no further informa

tion as to his teaching has come down to us, apart from his own

writings; unless indeed the account of Valentinianism given by

Hippolytus in the Refutatio is to be connected with the name of

Heracleon. This question can only be settled by an examination

of the points of contact between the two in matter and lan

guage; and this it will be better to reserve for the notes on the

Fragments. It will not be out of place here, however, to trace

shortly the illustrations which the Fragments offer of those pas

sages of the Refutatio,which are confessedly derived from a

document quoted, noticing also again the parts of such passages

which shew similarity to the account of Heracleon given in the

Syntagma. The first of these passages (Ref. vi. 29), tfv oXw?, <?/<n,

yevvrjTov ovBev, Trarrjp 8e yv povos ayewijTO?, ov TOTTOV e%o>i>,

ov xpbvov, ov crvii(3ov\ov, ovrc d\\r)v nvd /car ovoeva rcov rpoirwv

wrj&fjwu Svva/jievrjv ova-lav, is in thorough harmony with the

account in the Syntagma. The description of dyaTTT), though

worthy of the author of the Fragment (50) on 6fjio\oyia, offers no

point of contact with the Fragments. The agreement of the next

sentence, TrpoejBdXev ovv. . .Tovreari SvdSa, K.T.\., with the Syntagma

has been pointed out, but it is not directly .attributed to the

document. The next sentence so attributed, TOVTOV yap, ^crl,

T\eioTepov dpiOfjiov /c.r.X., is in harmony with the Pythagorean

tendency to dwell on numbers, which is seen in Fragments 16, 18,

40, where Heracleon explains the significanceof the 46 years

occupied by the building of the Temple, the six husbands (ac

cording to his text) of the woman of Samaria, and the seventh

hour whenthe son of the

/rWtXt/co?was healed. With the

sentence eV fjuev yap rw dyevvijrw, fricrlv,K.T.\. we have dealt

before. With the following avr^j ecrrt, (frrjalv, 77 djaOrj, 1} eirovpd-

viosc

Iepouo"aXr/yu,,et? r)v e7njyyL\aTo 6 $eo? elcrayayelv TOVS

u/oi)?^\<rpar]\

must be compared ihe lepovaa^fji of Fragment 13,

of which the -vfriH^o? TOTTO?, typified in John ii. 13 by lepoao-

\vfia, is an GLKUJV. (Cf. the note inloc.)




In chapter 32, after the explanation ofdp^f) crotyias </>o/3o<?

fcvpLov (Prov. i. 7), attributed by the use oftprjo-l to the same

document, we find a long passage, which it will be necessary to quotein full. "Eo-rt

Se TrvpwSijs, (prjcrlv, 77 ^vîKi) ovala, Ka\elrai SefCal T07T09 [/^CCTOTT/TO?] VTT CiVTWV fCCli

ejSSo/Jbds KOI TTdXaibs rWV

KOI ova roiavra \eyovo~i Trepl rovrov, ravra elvai rov

,ov

fyacTiv elvai rov KOCTÔV fypiovpyov ecrri Se TrvpwSrjs.

\eyei, (pijcrl,/cal

M.wva-fj<; Kvptos 6 6eo<s crov Trvp earl<f>\eyov

KOI KaravakiaKov. KOI yap rovro ovrws yeypd^dat, Oe\ei. nr\r)

8e Tt9 ecrTt,, (f)rja-lv, rf Svvafjiis TOV TTVpo? ecri yap irvp 7ra/jL(f)dyov,

fcaTao-/3cr0rjvai /JLIJ &vvd/j,VOV.../caTd rovro roivvv TO /te/Do? Ourjrtj

rt9 eo-rivrj -fyvxf), pecroTrjs rt? ovaa ecrrt yap e/3Sofj,ds KOI

KCLTairaverts. VTro/cdra) ydp ecrrl rfjs dySodSos, OTTOV evrlv77

(Toîa, rjfjiepa /jie/jLOpcpwfjuevrj, vTrepdvw 8err)<$ uX?;?, 779 earl 8rj-

piovpyos. edv ovv efopouoQjj rot9 dva), rfj oySodSi, dOdvaros

eyei/ero /cal tf\0ev els rrjv oySodSa, tfris ecrrl, (pijcrlv, lepovcraXrjfjb

tTTOvpdvios edv SeeôjjuoiwOf) rfj v\rj, rovreo-Ti, rots Trddeai, TOLS

V\IKOLS, <f)0apTr) eo-rai /cal aTrcwXero [? ea-rt teal aTroXXurat]. It

is impossible to determine how much of this passage is actually

quoted from the document in question : but the 7-077-09 [^0-0x77x09]

reminds us of Frag. 13, rovtyw%t,Kov TOTTOV, Frag. 40, rw VTTO-

ftefirj/coTi fjuepet, rfj? /jLeo-orijros, and Frag. 35, virep rov TOTTOV.

And the account of ^vîKr) overLa ase/SBo/juds, and of the con

ditions under which it may become dddvaros, vividly recalls the

description of ^^77 in Fragment 40.

In chapter 34 (sub fin.), apart from the quotation from 1 Cor.

ii. 14, all that is necessarily taken from the document isficopla &e,

(frrjo-lv,earlv

77 SiW/-u9 rovfy/jLiovpyov. On the agreement, or

disagreement, of the next sentence, /u,w/509 yap fy, K.T.\., with

Fragment 2, see the note iti loc.

The rest of the quotations from the document, and there are

practically only two more, offer no points of comparison or of

contrast. But this examination reveals a very decidedsimilarity

between such parts of his system as can be discovered from the

Fragments of Heracleon, and the passages of the Refutatio where bythe use of

tfyrja-l Hippolytus shews that he is quoting a particular

Gnostic document1

. It has never been proved that Valentinus



THE LIFE AND TEACHING OP HERACLEON. 41

cannot have been the author of this document. But if the view,

that the Pythagoreanising element was chiefly developed by

Heracleon1

,is true, the Valentinian authorship is highly im

probable. The similarity of its contents to the Fragments of

Heracleon do not prove that he was the author, but they render

such a supposition very probable indeed. The more detailed

comparison of the rest of the account in Hippolytus with the

Fragments proves, I think, that the system on which the account

is based is Heracleonic;

while certain differences lead us to

attribute it rather to the school of Heracleon, than to the founder

of the school himself. I speak of course of the system on which

Hippolytus bases his account : divergent systems and opinions are

frequently mentioned.

Thus no certain evidence for Heracleon s date can be gained

from the Refutatio.The Pythagoreanising tendency, and the

absence of a eryVyo? of the Father, which we may attribute with

probability, though not with certainty, to Heracleon, are not

necessarily late elements. The details of the system, which are

generally regarded as of a later type, may or may not be his.

Of the Excerpta ex Theodoto it is not necessary to speak

at length here. The chief illustrations of the Fragments afforded

by them will be referred to in the notes. Considerable verbal

similarities exist, but we are not yet,if indeed we ever can be, in

a position to deal certainly with the Quellenkritik of the

Excerpta.

We must now turn to the surer ground of the Fragments

themselves, and conclude with a short summary of the teaching

of Heracleon, as it can be derived from his own writings.

The nature of God is in itself unspotted, pure, invisible. He

is Spirit, and can only be worshipped duly by those who are

of the same nature as Himself, and whose worship is spiritual,not

carnal (Fr. 24).Elsewhere he is called 6

Trarrjp TT?? aXrfOda^(Fr. 20). We hear in Fr. 16 of a rer/sa?, tf aTrpocrTrXotfo?,

which

is probably the highest Tetrad of the Valentinian system, i.e. the

four highest male Aeons. The next highest Aeon of whom we

affect the question under discussion. He admits the trustworthiness of Hippolytus s

authority in this section of the Eefutatio.

1 See also Lipsius, Quellenkritik desEpiplianios> p. 170.




read is perhaps the dva) Xpto-ro?, who, according to the Hip-

polytean account, sent the KOIVOS rov TrX^wyLtaro? KapTros to

Sophia; but the interpretation of Fr. 35 is uncertain. The

Xo7o? of Heracleon is not a member of the original Pleroma,or Aeon, according to Heracleon s usage of the term. The

inhabitants of the Aeon came into being before him (Fr. 1).

His position seems to correspond to that of the KOWOS Kapiros

in theRefutatio. All things, with the exception of the Aeon

and its inhabitants, came into being through him;that is to say,

according to Heracleon s strange interpretation of Sia, he was the

cause of the creation of the world by the Demiurge (irapao-^elv

Tr)v airLav-7-779 yevecrews rov KOCT/JLOV ru>

$.). Through his in

dwelling activity the Demiurge worked. The Trvev/jLan/col were in

a stricter sense created by him, avro? jap rrjv Trpwrr^v fjibpfywcriv

rrjv Kara rrjv yevecriv avrol? Trapea^e, ra VTT a\\ov cnrapivra

6*9f*>op<f)r]v

teal et?</>O>T

-ia-fjbov Kal

Trepiypacfrrjv ISlav dyaywv Kal

dvaSeiga?. He is the true Creator, and is also called Xpto-ro?

(Fr. 22). He is further identified with the Saviour (Fr. 5),

and it is probably he, to whom reference is made in the words

6 ev alwvi Kal ol avv avrw eXOovres (Fr. 22), as is shewn by what

follows: e%fj\0ev...6 Xoyo? et? rr)v OL/covfjievrjv. We hear of the

Holy Spirit as driving out evil (Fr. 13), but nothing further

is said on the subject.

Sophia is never mentioned in the Fragments, but her

history is the archetype of that of the redemption of the

TTvev/jLarifcol, which is represented as the true meaning of the

story of the Samaritan Woman, and it is not possible to

separate archetype from copy in Heracleon s interpretation of the

story.

The Demiurge is frequently mentioned. Though in one

sense the world came into being through the Xoyo?, the Demi

urge, inspired by him, is its immediate creator (Fr. 1). He it

was, in all probability, who sowed, unconsciously, the pneumaticseeds which were formed and fostered by the Word (Fr. 3). Heis typified by John the Baptist, who, when he professed his

unworthiriess to loose the latchet of Christ s shoe, is represented

by Heracleon as speaking in the person of the Demiurge, who is




the Creator whom the Jews worshipped, and is represented by

Jerusalem, the seat of the imperfect worship which was soon

to pass away (Fr. 20). The worship offered to him by all his

worshippers was carnal and mistaken (Fr. 22). He is again

represented by the/3a<ri\iKo<;

of John iv. 46. He is, as it were,

a petty king (Fr. 40), set over a small kingdom by the Great

King. His kingdom is the TOTTO? /mea-orrjTo^,in the inferior

part of which, represented by Capernaum, his son lies sick.

His nature is psychic, as is that of his son, which is represented

by the number seven. This nature is capable of salvation by

being assimilated to the higher spiritual nature, but the de

struction of those who remain his men, and are not thus assimi

lated, is assured by the words of Christ in Matt. viii. 12. His

nature is such that it requires signs and wonders before it can

believe : it cannot \6yy Tria-reveiv. Yet he is easily persuaded of

the superior power of the Saviour. He has his angels, here

represented as slaves, who report to him on the well-being of

his subjects, and the progress which they are making in conse

quence of the Saviour s advent. He and his house represent

his whole angelic order, and those men who are more nearly

akin to his own nature. Such can be saved, though the salvation

of some of the angels is doubtful, and the destruction of those

men, who are merely men of the Demiurge/ is certain. Once

more, according to one interpretation of ea-nv 6 ^TJTWV KOL

icpivwv the Judge is the Demiurge, the Saviour s minister, whoperforms the will of Him to whom all judgment has been com

mitted.

The Sia/3oXo? comes next in importance in Heracleon s

teaching. He is represented by the Mountain of Samaria (Fr.

20), which is one part of the whole mountain of evil, the /cocy-co?

worshipped by all before the Law, and since the Law by the

Nations of the Gentiles. He cannot stand in the truth, because

his nature is not of the truth, but of its opposite, of error and

ignorance. Falsehood is his own by nature;

he is physically

incapable of speaking truth. His nature (for so Heracleon in

terprets 6 Trarrjp avrov) is composed of error and falsehood

(Fr. 47). His substance is different in kind from the \oyiKr)

ova-la of the Saints (Fr. 45). He has desires but no will (Fr. 46).




The xoiKol are his children by nature, of the same substance

as he.

Corresponding to XOYO?, Srj/jLiovpyov, St,dfto\os }we find the

usualtriple

division of

meninto

Trvev/juari/col, ^ruîKol, ÔLKOI orl

(cf. Fr. 44, erepas outrta? rvy^dvovn Trap oi)? /caXovcn

?; TrvevpaTiKovs). The 7rveu/j,aTi/col are in some sense

identical with the ^070?, who imparted to them their form and

personality (Fr. 2). The Holy of Holies, into which the HighPriest alone enters, symbolises the place of their final destination

(Fr. 13). The spiritual seed has been sown in the e^va-rjâ,

which is apparently the psychical part of those men who possessit (Fr. 16). Before the coming of Christ their spiritual nature

was imprisoned in matter, corrupted by adulterous and irrational

intercourse with hylic wickedness. Their former life was weak,

temporal, deficient, because it was cosmic. When they are rescued

by the Saviour, the life which He gives them is eternal and

incorruptible (Fr. 17). Through ignorance of God and the

true worship which should be offered to Him, they lived in

former times no true life (Fr. 19). Yet the spiritual nature was

not wholly dormant ;the Church awaited Christ, and was persuaded

that He knew all things, and was thus prepared to receive Him

(Fr. 25). But their rescue depends in no way on themselves;

the spiritual nature isfyvaei, awôêvov, and incorruptible

(Fr. 37). Faith corresponds to their true nature, and henceforth

they offer to the Father of Truth that spiritual worship which is

their rational service (Fr. 24). This they can do, because theyare of the same nature as God. Rescued themselves, they are

instrumental in the salvation of others, especially of those^vîfcol

who are capable of salvation. They pour forth what has been

given them, unto the eternal life of others (erepoi). So Heracleon

interprets the uXkopevov of John iv. 14 (Fr. 17). It is

throughand by the pneumatic that the psychic is brought to the Saviour

(Fr. 27).

The TTvevâTiicoi are consubstantial with God, and are destined

to salvation. With the -^v^Kol it is not so. They are the

children of the Demiurge and share his nature. They are repre

sented by the Jews, who worshipped the Creator, the Demiurge,




God, but knew Him not, worshipping angels and months and

moons (Fr. 21) *. They can be saved, but cannot enter the Pleroma :

the Trpovaos, the sphere of the Levites service, is the true symbolof their destined home. They are many in number, and form

theK\V)<TL^,

in contrast to the small number of the spiritual

eK\oy^. But we learn most about their nature in Fragment 40.

Like the TrvevâTiKol they are entangled inv\<rj

: and they are

sick, sick unto death. But their case is not hopeless ;the psychic

nature possesses fitness for salvation (brinfieiaxs eôvaav) ;it

is the corruptible which puts on incorruption.Its nature is

symbolised by the number seven. The Hebdomad, we learn from

Hippolytus, is the abode of the Demiurge, having affinities both

with the Ogdoad above, and the Hyle (whose number is six)

below. The psychic can rise to salvation or sink to destruction.

There would seern then to be a freedom of choice. The tyv%iKol

are the mean between the necessarily saved and the hopelessly

lost. But whether the freedom of choice is real or only apparent,

it is hard to say.

The %oiKolare by nature the sons of the Devil. The ^jrv^Kol

can, by doing his works, become sons of the Devil deaet, or a%ia,

but only the xoi/colare such by nature (Fr. 46). They are of the

same substance with the Devil, and thus differ in kind from the

other classes of men. Though it is nowhere expressly so stated, it

follows from the position which they hold in the system that their

destruction is inevitable.

To set free the TrvevfiariKol, and to save those -^v^LKol who

were capable of salvation, was the work of the Saviour on earth.

The exact nature of the Saviour who appeared on earth is

nowhere explicitly stated. But we learn that the Christ, who,

as we saw, probably corresponds to the KOIVOS rov TrX^^wyLtaro?

of the Hippolytean account, came down from the

and took flesh as an uTro&â (Fr. 8). As we learn

this from a fragment which is dealing with the words of the

Baptist, /-tetro? V^JLWV arrjtcei, K.T.\., and as in Fr. 10 a dis

tinction is made between the a-cofia and that which dwells in it,

we may assume that Heracleon s Italic position is confirmed by

1 On Heracleon s use of the Preaching of Peter, see Fr. 21 (note), and Hilgen-

feld, Nov. Test, extra Canon, receptum, iv. p. 64.




the Fragments (see Hipp. Refut. vi. 35). We do not know

whether he commented on John i. 14 or not. The flesh which

Christ took was imperfect andfitly represented by the Lamb.

He who taketh awav the sin of the world is the Higher Beinsr,O o>

who dwells in the body. Traces of Docetism are to be found in

the account of His healing of the son of the fiacrCKiKos (Fr. 40,

Karaffds Trpo? rov /cd/jLVOvra teal laaa/Jievo^ CLVTOV), and in the

description of His food as the performance of the Father s will.

The interpretation of His journeys as typifying His passing from

thehylic

to the

psychic sphere,or His

appearingin the

world,of

course proves nothing, and the symbolical interpretation does not

exclude the historical. On the other hand the expressions used

with regard to the Passion are surprisingly literal for a Gnostic.

Not only does the Passion divide the two periods of the Saviour s

sojourn on earth (Fr. 38), but the slaying of the lamb at the

Great Feast is typical of the Passion of the Saviour, as again

the eating ofit

symbolises the Marriage Feast of the future

(Fr. 12).

He appears publicly on earth first, apparently, at the time

of the Baptism. His presence is declared to the people by the

Baptist. Through his representative the Baptist, the Demiurge

acknowledges the superiority of the Saviour. His journey to Capernaum symbolises His descent into the hylic portions of the world:

but the nature of this place is unsuitable, He can here neither

do nor say anything. The journey to Jerusalem represents His

ascent to the psychic sphere; He cleanses the Holy of Holies,

the home of the pneumatic, and also, apparently, the Levites

court, which belongs to the psychic. The powers of evil are driven

out by the might of the Holy Spirit, and the Ecclesia becomes

again the House of His Father. He goes down to Samaria

to rescue the spiritual Church from the entanglements of matter,

and the adulterous intercourse in which she had lived with her

six husbands (Fr. 17); to restore her to her true husband above, and,

for the present, to teach her the worship of the Father, inspirit

and in truth. By her means, and later by His own words, the

higher class of-^v^i/col are also rescued, and leave their former

cosmic life. Thus the




earth by the Disciples, each one to his own partner: the final

consummation is not till the TrvevârLKol are given as brides

to the angels, and enter the Pleroma for the great Marriage Feast.

He is said to have come to Samaria, in some sense, for the sake of

theDisciples. Perhaps this may mean to rescue for the angels,

whom they represent, their spiritual brides. The Saviour s own

work for the ^vîKol is more fully described in Heracleon s

interpretation of the miracle of the healing of the son of the

ftavikiKos, which has been considered already.

His workwas

not endedby

the Passion.After the Resur

rection, no doubt, of the psychic Christ, the Saviour again

appeared among His disciples and converted many more to faith

than during the first period of His work. At length He was

parted from them. The period between the Resurrection and

the Ascension was probably regarded by Heracleon as considerably

longer than forty days. This opinion was also held by other

Gnostics : cf. Irenaeus I. iii. 2, //-era rrjv e/c

veicpwvSe/caoKra)

fjirjcrl \eyeiv SiareTpifyevai avrov crvv TO?<?

and I. xxx. 14, remoratum autem eum post resurrectionem

xvni mensibus.

Of the Eschatology of the system we do riot hear much. The

v\iKol are obviously doomed to destruction, and so are such of the

^rv^LKol who are not raised and assimilated to what is higher ;

the rest go to their own place of salvation, which we learn is

without the Pleroma. The TrvevârLKol, as we may reasonably

conjecture from what is said, are given as brides to the angels

of the Saviour, and enter into the Pleroma to partake of the

eternal rest of the Marriage Feast and the highest worship of the

Father inspirit

and in truth.

Enough examples have been given to shew the general character

of Heracleon as a Commentator, but so far we have seen his worst

side. He is seen at his best in the description of True Confession,

in Life and not in Word only (Fr. 50). This whole fragment is of

great interest and surprising excellence. At times in his Com

mentary on S. John he is an acute and accurate observer. He

has seen rightly that the passage beginning, ovSels rov Oeov

ewpa/cev Trwirore (Jn. i. 18), is not part of the Baptist s speech,




but is added by the Evangelist himself (Fr. 3). His interpretation

of d\\o/jievov (Jn. iv. 14) is fanciful, but striking. What he says

of the Will of the Father in Fr. 31 certainly does not deserve the

censure it receives from Origen. He has interpreted rightly the

simplicity of the disciples in asking MT; rt? tfveryicev avra)(f>a<yelv

;

and the self-satisfied stupidity of the Jews in their suggestion

of Mrirt, d-rroKTevel eavrov ; Indeed he is often at his best in

those places where Origen complains of his want of spiritual

insight and servile adherence to the letter. But his explanatory

remarks are often strangely unfortunate. We may cite as

examples his account of Christ s inability to teach or work

miracles at Capernaum (Fr. 11); his remark on the objections

raised by the Pharisees to John s baptism (Fr. 6); and his

distinction of what the Saviour said about John himself, from

what He said about the things concerning him (Fr. 5). And his

whole system of metaphorical interpretation is the most arbitrary

attemptto read into the Fourth

Gospel

the details andteaching

of the system in which he had been brought up. At the same

time we must remember that, though the application is more arbi

trary, the general method is exactly the same as that of Origen

himself. Both extract the meaning they desire from the words on

which they are commenting by a violent system of metaphorical

distortion. But whereas Origen applies his method more con

sistently, and endeavours to find a meaning which is based on a

system formed from the study of the Fourth Gospel as a whole

and of other books whose teaching is not alien to that of this

Gospel, Heracleon attempts, very often with excessive wildness,

to discover in the Gospel a system which has only a superficial

and verbal connexion with it. Yet, on the whole, though we

cannot but feel that the author of Fragment 50 might have

employed his ability in a more fruitful manner than he has sometimes done, there is much interesting matter, apart from the his

torical investigation of Valentinianism, to repay a careful study of

the earliest Commentary on the Gospel of S. John.

The bearing of Heracleon s Commentary on questions con

nected with the authorship and acceptance of the Fourth Gospel

does not come within the of this book. A list of of




In it I have omitted one or two of those generally cited,

where the quotation or reference is probably made by Origen

and not

byHeracleon himself. The Index of Words will

supply further assistance for the study of his vocabulary and

his teaching.



THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

1. Orig. Comm. in loann. ii. 8 (R. IV. GG; L. i. 117).

Se olfJLaiKOI

%ft>/n? fiaprvplov rov OvaXevrivov

Jo. i. 3.\<yo/JLvov

elvat, ^vwpiôvf

Hpa/cA,ea>z>a, &M<iyov/jLVovTO HANTA

Ai Ayioy epeNGTO, eêCkêvai HANTA rov Koa/jiov KOI ra

ev avro), KK\ioma rwv HASITCON, TO oa-ov 7rl rfj vTrodecrei

avrov, ra rov KCHT/JLOV/cal roov ev avro) Siatyepovra. (f>i]crl yap 5

1. 3. The exclusion of TO, rov /v6<r-

fjiov Ko.1 TUV tv avT$ Siafapovra from

the iravra is noticeable. Contrast

Irenaeus i. viii. 5 Travra. Si1

avrov

eytvero /cat %W/HS avrov eytvero ovdt

v" iraffi yap rots ûer avrbv aiwcri

(j.op(f>T)steal yevfoeus ainos 6 \6yos

tytveTo.

The Valentinians generally

deduced from the Prologue to the

Fourth Gospel the origin of the

Pleroma and its inhabitants. Cf.

Excerpta ex Theodoto 6. The teach

ing of Heracleon is more nearly allied

to that of Irenaeus, who frequently

insists on the inclusion of theKO<T/J.OS

in iravra., as against the ordinary

Valentinian interpretationof

the

passage. Heracleon s supposition

that ra. ev T$ aluvi came into being

before the A67os gives us a clue to his

views with regard to the Ao7os, who

must be identified with the A67os

who, according to the Italic school,

represented by Ptolemaeus and Hera

on the

avudev Trjs (ro0/as (Hipp. Refut. vi.35).

In the account given by Hippolytus

we hear of seventy Xo7oi projected

by Sophia and her tnîryos, the KOU>OS

Ka.pir6<>. Probably

Heracleon s A67o$ corresponds to the

o-Jîryos of Sophia. At any rate he

occupies a position below the aiuv

and above the Demiurge. The A67os

who appeared to Valentinus in the

form of a new-born babe (Hipp.

Refut. vi. 42) cannot be assigned

definitely to any place in the system,

but is most probably to be regarded

as the<Tvvyos

of ZWT;. Except there

fore that the term (A67os) owes its

origin to the Prologue to St Johns

Gospel, it has no connexion with

the A67os of Heracleon.

5. SicKfitpovra.. (pyffi yap] An un

fortunate transposition of yap and

0i7fft in Cod. Yen. has misled Fer-

rarius into translating this passage,

Per sermonem inquit non insignia

seculum etc. Huet s transla



THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 51

Ov rov alcova97

TO, ev rat al&vi yeyovevai Bid rov

\6yov, ariva oierai rrpo rov \6yov yeyovevai. dvctLBecrrepov

Be icrrd/jievos Trpos TO KA I

XP C ^Y"rof ereNeio oyAe GN, /JbrjSe Jo. i. 3.

evXaftovfjievos ro MH npocGHC TO?C Aoroic AYTOY, TNA Mh eAepIn Pr. xxx. 6

t, ,a >,

, " . / (xxiv. 29).10 ce KAI VGYAHC reNH, rrpoa-rivriai rw OYAe GN TWZ/ ev TO> KOCT/JLO)

teal Ty KTicrei. KOI eirel7rpo<pavyj

ecrrl rd VTT avrov Xe-

y6/JLva (ripoSpa êîacr^va /cal irapd rrjv evdpyeiav eTray-

yeXX-o/jLei a, el rd vofjUô/meva avrw Oela eKK\eierai rwv HAUTCON,

rd Se, co? e/cetô? olerai, TravreXws (frOeipo/jueva Kvpiws HANTA

15 KaXeirai, ovrc eTriSiarpnrreov rfj dvarpoirfj rwv avrbOev rrjv

droTTiav eâivovrwv olov Be /cal ro T?;? ypatyrjs \eyov(T7]<i

Xoopic AYTOY ereNGTO ofAe GN Trpo&nOevra avrov dvev Trapa-

fjivOias T?7? drrorf]<> ypacfrrjs

ro rwv ev ru> Koo-fjuu* real

ry Kricreu /jirjBe perd mOavor^ro^ diroâivecrdaL, mo~reve(rOai

20 dîovvra o/u-o/co? Trpo^tjrais rj avrocrToXot? Tot? /ZGT et-ovaias

KOI dvvTreuOvvws KaTa\ei7rovcri TO?? tcaO* avrovs KOI /ji0

auTou?awrrjpia ypd/jifjiara.

en Be tSico? KOL rov HANTA

Ai AYTOY GfGNGTO ^r)Kovcr, (f)d(T/ca}vTov rrjv dlrlav irapa-

a-%6vra T^? yeveaews rov KOCT/JLOV rw BvjfMiovpyw, rov

7 5 \6yov ovra, eivai, ov rovd(j)

ovrj v(j) ov, d\\a rov

8 /UTjSe] /x^. 12 efa/xyetai ] eittpytiav.

tern quantum ipsius fert hypothesis is not found in Delarue s text, the

ex omnibus praestantissima quaequc word being omitted in Cod. Bodlei-

mundi et eorum quae ipso continen- awi/s, plausibly substitutes T for TO.

tur is unintelligible in connexion But it is not necessary to alter the

with the context. The things more attested reading : ro may be taken

excellent than the world and its con- with a7ro0cuVecr#cu, and though the

tents are of course, as is explain- construction is awkward it is not im-

ed in the following words, the aluv possible, and not more awkward than

and its contents. By explaining that which would be obtained by

iravra to be the world and its con- reading ry, viz. olov -rrpocmd^vTa

tents, he excludes from -rravTa. all dirfxpaiveffdai. But the olov 5 is

that is of a higher nature. unsatisfactory, and it has been well

6. cuwi/i] For this sense of alwv, suggested that we should probably

derived no doubt originally from the here read otoj> 5?). For one who recog-

Timaeiis (38 A),cf. Frag. 18, r\v yap nizes the authority of Scripture, to

ai)r^s 6 avTip h T cuuw, and Frag. make unwarrantable additions to it

22, 6 lv cuum. without any attempt to justify them,

16. TO T?}S 7pa0^s \eyov<Tys]Hil- is a fair example of TUI> avrbdev TTJI/

genfeld, omitting \eyov0"r)S,which droTriav

i[JL<pa.i.v6vTWv.



52 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

Bi ov Trapd rrjv evrfj avvrjOela typdo-iv eV8e^d/u<ei/o9

TO

t \ r **(*-. //)

yeypau/jLevov. ei yap <w?voei ^ a\j)ueia rwv repayparwv

fjv,e$6i Bid rov orujuovpyov yeypdfyQai rrdvra yeyovevai

VTTO rov \6yov, ou^t oe dvdrcd\iv Bid rov \6yov vrro rov

BnLiiovpyov. Kai T^/xet? pev rf/BS ov

^priadfjievoiarcoôvuws 30

rfj o-vvrjOeia, OVK dudprvpov rrjv efcBo^v d^rjKapev. eicelvos

Be, 7T/305TW arj rrapapepvdrlcrOai

drro rwv Oelwv ypa^drayv

rov Ka& eavrov vovv, fyaiveraiKai vTrorrrevcras TO d\r)6e$ Kai

dvaiBws avra> dvnftêtyas (ptjal ydp onOvx w? UTT d\\ov

evepyovvros avros errolei o Xdyo?, tV ovra) vovjOfj 35

26 Trapd TTJV] irepi c5v. Cod. Bodl. in mg. rd%a TWI>.

26. -n-apa TTJV]The reading of

Cod. Monac. irepl wi>,which is repro

duced in all its copies, is impossible.

Ferrarius s translation, exponens id

quod scriptum est phrasin esse con-

suetam, is not helpful. It is not

easy to see how he got it from the

Greek which was before him, and in

the context in which the words occur

it gives no intelligible sense. Hilgen-

feld s conjecture Trepirr^v is hardly

more helpful. How is it to be trans

lated ? The conjectural emendation

which most obviously suggests itself

is

Tra/mTTJJ>.

The confusion of Trapd

and ireplis one of the commonest

characteristics of Cod. Monac., as

also, it may be added, of its de

scendants. And when once Trapd was

changed to Trept, rrjv may have be

come TWP, which might easily be

corrupted to c5v. Possibly the original

reading may have been Trapd XT/I/ T&V,

which accounts more easily for the

corruption, if the construction thus

given to (ppaffivis possible. Either

of these readings will give the re

quired contrast to Origen s position

stated just below, TJ/XCIS5e aVoXotftfcos

ry ffwrjddg. /c.r.X. We may compare

such passages as xiii. 17, opa 5 el^

tion is independent of Heinrici,

whose note (Die Vol. Gnosis, p. 135)

I had not seen when I first made it.

32. Trpos r /AT) irapafj.efj.v0TJ(r6ai]

On the bearing of this passage as it

stands in Codex Regius on the rela

tion of that MS. to Cod. Monacensis

see Introduction p. 8. Delarue s

obviously right conjecture of ry for

TO is now substantiated by the

evidence of Cod. Monacensis. Un

fortunately the same error (TO for T)

was made independently by the

scribes of Codd. Reg. and Bodl.

35. 6 Xcryos] The position of the

Ao7os here is exactly that given to

Sophia in Hippolytus (Refut. vi. 33),

dyvoovvTi O.VT$ (sc. r drjôvpyy) ??

o-o0a i>rjpyr)<Te,

which corresponds to

Heracleon s avrov evepyovvros repos

cTrofci, where the repos is obviously

the Demiurge. It may be noticed

that in this passage Hippolytus gives

a general reference, using \tyov<rw andnot

0->7<riV.

We should also compare

the account of Irenaeus (i.v. i.),

especially the words /j,a\\ov 8e TOV

Scoria 6V auT?}s; and shortly before,

(of the Demiurge) XeX?70oTws Kivot-

/j.vov VTTO TTJS /j.r)Tpos.Heracleon may

have assumed some similar relation

rate




TO Ai Ayrof, aAA avrov evepyovvros ere/509

ov rov Trapovro? 8e Kdtpov ecrrlv eXey^ai TO/J,rj

rov

ovpyovvTTTjperrjv rov

\6yov yeyevrjfjbevov

rov KOO~/JLOV

Ktvav, Kal aTToSeifcvvvai, ori VTrrjperrjs rov 8rj/j,iovpyov y

40 6 Xo7O9 TOJ> KocrfMov Karecr/cevacre. Kara yap rov

Aa/3/8 9e6c e?ne KAI ereNHOHCAN* eNereiAATO KAI eKTicGHCAN.

eNejeiAATO yap 6 dyevvrjros $eo9 rcT npoaroTOKcp TTACHC KTICGOOC,

KAI 6KTIC6HCAN, OV /JLOVOV 6 KOafJUO^, Kal TO. V aVTU>,d\\a

/cal rd \oL7rd nravra eTre OpoNOi efre KypiOTHrec e\~re APXAI

45 erre eloyciAr HANTA r^p Ai AYTOY KAI eic AYTON IKTICTAI, KAI AYTOC

ecTi npo HANTCON.

Ps. cxlviii.

Col. i. 16,

2. Ibid. ii. 15 (R. iv. 73; L. i. 130).

Hdvv 8e/3tGUft>9

Kara rov roTrovyev6[j,evo<$

6

TO "0 refONGN GN AYToj ZOOM HN e^6L\ij(f)6v dvrl To> N AY TO) Jo. i. 4.

Et9 TOU9 dvOpwTTOvs Toi)9 7T vev/JLari KOV 9, olovel ravrov

vofjiiaras elvai, rov \6yov Kal TOV9 TrvevfiariKOVS, el Kaifjirj

5 cra0w9 TaiV elpijKe

Kal wcrrrepel alno\oyd)v (frqa-ivAUTO 9

modify the system sufficiently to

obtain the necessary adaptation to

the Prologue of St John. The same

relation, however, between Sophia

and the Demiurge is assumed in the

second part of iheExcerpta ex Theo-

doto(c. 49, cTrel 5e OVK eyivwo-Kev TT\V

5t avTov tvepyovcrav /c.r.X.).It was

probably part of the original system

of Valentinus, and is therefore not

available as a means of differenti

ating the systems of his pupils.

41. The LXX. in this passage

reads atfros instead of o 0eoj, and

repeats the ai)ros before evereiXaro.

2. 5. Two explanations of this

passage are possible. The dXXos

whose sowing the A67os completed

may be the KOIVOS TOV TrXT/pw/Aaros

Ka/>7r6s,in which case cf. Hippolytus,

Refutat. vi. 34, X67<navuQtv /care-

dTTO TOO KOLVOV TOV TT\TJpU-

Kapirov Kal Trjs <ro0taset s TOVTOV

TOV K6ff/j.ov: and also the interpreta

tion of aXXos 6 airdpuv Kal aXXos 6

6epifai> given by Heracleon (Frag.

35). But it is more probable that

the aXXos is the Demiurge, the

work of the A670$ being that which

is described in the passage quoted

from Hippolytus as a sowing. This

suits better the description TTJV wpw-

rt]v iibp(f>w<nv T7)V Kara TT)V yfre&u ,

and gives to the action its natural

place (chronologically) in the history

of Creation. Much closer parallels,

however, to this passage are found

in the Excerpta ex Theodoto. Cf.

57, yivtTai ovv.../j.6p<pu<ri.sTOV irvev-

^artKoO, and 48, diaKpivas Se 6 Srj-

fjuovpybs TO, Kadapa airb TOV

ws av fviduv TT]v eKaTep

eTToiT/o-ei/, TOVTtffTiv tfpavtpuffcv Kal eis

(/>cDsKal IStav wpoariyayev, which is




yap TTJV TrpwTTjv fjiop^wcr iv rrjv Kara Trjv yivecriv

aurot? Trape(T%e, ra VTT aXXou (nrapevTa et?

Kal et? fywTicr JJLOVteal Trepiypa^rjv ISlav dyayoov

dva$elj~a$.ov

TrapeTrfprjaeSe Kal TO

Trepl

TOOVTrvev/JLaritcwv

Trapd rcS Hlav\M Xeyopevov, OTI, dvdpwTrovs avTovs direaiw- 10

1 Cor. ii. Trrja-e YYXIKOC ANGpconoc oy AexeTAi TA TOY TTNeyMATOC Toy

14>l>

Oeoy, McopiA rp AYTCO ecTi Ae nNeyMATiKoc ANAKPINGI TTANTA.

yap ov /Jirrju avrov afMev eir rov Trvev/JLarifcov /J>r)

TO dvOpwTros. KpeiTTov yap r) dvOpaiTros 6

S, TOV dvOptoTTOV rJTOl 6V"^V^fj 7)

V GtoâTl r)V 15

apa/CTtipiôjjLevov, ovî oe Kal ev rw TOVTWV

irvevfJLaTi, ov KaTa/jiTO^r)v eTTLKpaTovaav xprj\LCLTI-

o TTvev/JiaTiKo*;. apa 8e Kal TCL r^? ToiavTris vTroOeaews

KCLV dTTOâivofjuevrjs a7roSetfea>? dirofyaiveTai, ovBe

^ TW%ovo-r)S TTiOavoT^TO^ (frOdcrai eh TOV Trepl TOVTCOV 20

s \6yov. Kal raura fMev Trepl eKeivov.

8

3. Ibid. vi. 2 (R. iv. 102; L. i. 177).

Jo. i. 19. KAI AYTH GCTIN H MApTypiA Toy IcoANNoy. SevTepa

dvayeypa/JL/jievr) Iwdvvov TOV fBaTTTia"Tov Trepl XptcrroO

Jo. i. 15. Tvpia, r^? TrpoTepas dp%a/jLevr)sdiro TOV OYTOC HN 6 einooN

C

onicoo Moy epxoMGNOc, Kal \r)yovo-i]s et? TO MoNOfGNHC 6e(k d

ov elnov 6 uto5

3 6 eiTTiov(sic).

4 fj-ovoyevr/s Ocbs (sic).

qualified in the next section by the hand, afford instructive examples in

words end 5e oJ/ceyivw<rKei> TTJV 6t the history of the transmission of

aJrou frepyovaav. It is tempting to Patristic quotations (see Introduc-

restore our text on the lines of the tion, pp. 8, 18) ;and the curious con-

passage quoted from the Excerpta, flation of Codex Regius (b /movoye^

and read /cat ISeav. But the phrase wos 6e6s) which is quoted in Tischen-

jrfpLypatftrjv ibiav is not intrinsically dorfs critical digest is thus traced

objectionable. to its origin.

12. The transposition of ia-rlv This is not the only case where

and avry in Huet and the other Origen complains of Heracleon s in-

editions is due to an error of the terpretation of a passage, where the

scribe of Cod, Rcyius. The right latter is probably right. (See West-

order is preserved in the other MSS. cott s Commentaiy on St John, in

3. 4. The interlinear insertions infoe.)



THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEKACLEON. 55

5 0>N 10 TON KOATTON TOY HATpOC Ke?NOC eH|-HCATO. OVft V*y6lKJo. i. 18.

Se 6f

HpaK\ea)v i>7ro\a/j,{3dvei OyAeic TON 9eoN ed pAKeN nconoTe

Km T(l 6^9 (f)dcrKa)v elprjcrOaiOVK diro TOV ftaTTTKrrov

aXX a7ro TOV /uiadrjrov el yap teal KCUT avTov TO K TOY Jo. i. 1C,

TTAHpOOMATOC AYTOY HM?C HANT6C eAABOMGN, KAI)(AplN

ANTIX<*plTOC,

10 OTI 6 NOMOC AlA MOOYC603C GAOOH, H X^P IC KA>I " ^H6eiA AlA IhCOf

XpicTof epeNGTO VTTO rov ftaTTTicrTOV etp^rat, TTW? OVK afco\ov-

6ov TOV eK TOY nAHpcoMATOC TOY XpicTof etX^ôra teal x^P N

Sevrepav eirl Trporepas ÂpiTOC, o/jLoXoyovvrd re AIA Mcoceo^c

(JLGV $e$6(T0ai, TON NOMON, THN $ X^P IN KA JHN AAhBGIAN AlA

is lncof XpicTof yeyovevcu, IK T&V diro TOY nAnptoMATOC e9

avrov e\7j\v06ra)v vevorjKevai, TTCO? OGON oYAeic eoapAKGN

nconoTe /cat TO TON MONOpeNH eic TON KOATTON ONTA TOY nATpoc

avry Kal TTCLGI TOL* GK TOY nAnpcoMATOC et\r)(f)6a-t,

; ov yap vvv nrpwrov efyyijeaTo <0 CON> eic

20 TON KoAnoN TOY nATpoc, co? ovSevos eTTLTTj&eiov TrporepovyeyevT]-

\a(3elv a rot? aVocrToXot? Scrjyija-aro, eiye TTpiN ABpAAM Jo.viii. 58.

u>v SiSacr/cet T/yLca? TOV A/Spaa//. rjya\\iad6ai FNA Jo.viii. 56.

TAH THN HMepAN avTov Kal ev %apa yeyovivat,.

7, 8paTTTi<TTou.../j.a0TjTov]

cod. Sed literis apdy seriori manu inter lineas

insertis transponuntur jSaTrrtaroO et /ua^roO. 8 /car avrw] Kara TO.VTOV.

19 6<3i>]

om.

d vi. 8 (R. iv. 117; L. i. 200).

Ou davfjiaaTov Se el/jirj ijKpiftovv

OTI, aiJro? ecrrt XpiCTOC Jo. i. 20,

Kal o npoc{)HTHC,ot to-Taôi/T65 Trepl Icodvvov, urjiroTe auro?

Xpicrro? ^* a-KoKovdov yap TW ireplTOVTOV SiaTay/AW TO

dyvoelv TOV avTov elvai XpicTON Kal TON npocj)HTHN.eXaOe

19. The insertion of 6 wi> by Latin, which represents the ets by

Cod. Venetus, followed by Ferrarius solus, but the omission leaves no

in his translation Non enim nunc suitable sense in the present con-

primum enarravit, Qui est ad sinum text.

Patris, periude quasi nullus etc., is 4.1. X/NCTTOS /cat 6 7r/3o0^r7?s]Ferra-

the simplest emendation of the cor- rius has rightly suggested the article,

rupt text of its exemplar. These which was absent from the MS. which

words (6 u>v)

are indeed omitted by he used, translating Christus et ille

the first hand of Cod. Sinaiticus (N), Propheta. In the Munich MS. the

and Cod. Vercellcnsis (a) of the Old article is not wanting.



56 THE EXTANT FHAGMENTS OF HEUACLEON.

Be 701)9 TTO\\OV? r) Biafopd TOV 6 npocfmTHc /cal npocbHTHC, ^9 5

/cal TOV Hpa/cXecova, OO-TLS avTals Xefecrt (frrjcriv 0^9 apa

^\wdvvi)<$ a)jjio\6yr)o-e prj elvai, o xpiCTo c, d\\d fjujBe

npO(J)HTHC,iJ,rjoe HAiAC. /cal Seov avTov

OVTW etckaflovTaeêTao-ai TO, /caTa roz)9 TOTTOVS, TTOTepov dXrjOevei \eywv //,?;

eivat,rrpO(|)HTHC, fj,r]8e HAIAC, rj

ov 6 BeJMTJ 67ri(TTno~a<> 7049 K

>,

ev 0^9 KaTa\e\oi7rev VTro^v^jfjiao Lv dveêTacrTa)? irape-

Ta TijAtLKavTa, (Tcboopa o~\,t, fya /cat/

Tot? 6^779 eiTTdov, Trepi (bv evOeo)^ epovLLev.

6 apa] ap ei.

5. Jfod vi. 12 (R. iv. 120; L. i. 206).

Jo. i. 23. AvvaTaifjievTot ye TO Epoo ({XJONH BOOQNTOC IN ThT

8Kal TO ef^9 to-oz; elvai, TW Eyco elpi Trepl 01

003Nh BOOQNTOC, ce;9 fiocovTa elvai, TOV Icodw^v, /cal TOVTOV TYJV

(frwvrjv

evTrj eprjpa) (Bodv EyeyNATe THN OAON KYpiOY- Svo-fa-

Be 6 Hpa/cXecov Trepl Iwdvvov Kal TU>V Trpo^TcSv 5

avwv, (frtjaiv OTLe

O\6<yo$ /j,ev 6

â)Trjp eaTiv,H Be

77eN TH epn MCp 77

Bid "Iwdvvov Biavoov/nevrj,

9. The only alteration necessary

is the omission ofrj before \tyuv (H

afterei). The ou must qualify &\rj-

Bevci, not Xfywc. Huet follows the

reading of Codex Regius which con

tains the77 and omits the

6, thus

joining the two sentences and pro

ducing an unintelligible statement.

10. Hilgenfeld, in his critical

note, is misled by a misstatement of

Delarue sreproducedbyLommatzsch.

The /i^ (after 6)

is not wantingin the Bodleian.

5. 3. ws] It is remarkable that

while Codex Venetus omits the ws,

its copy Codex Bodldanus inserts it.

But the scribe of the latter may very

well have inserted it from the Latin

of Ferrarius, ut clamante lohanne :

the want of some such insertion for

vious. For the construction we may

compare a fragment of Origen in an

unpublished Catena at Venice (Bibl.

Marciana Graec. xxvii.) 6pa 5 ei dv-

direlv <rvv<rT Y)Kcva.i....us elvai TO TTOLV

ypdfj,/j,a TOVv6fjt.ov /cat TrpoQifruv /cat

TWV XOITTWJypa<j>uv

OTTO TOV Toiovde

TTTjXov, $ /cat xPâi Set TOI)S TUV ^f3\Tr6i>Twv 6(f)da\fj.ovs.

7. diavoovfj.fr r)]Heracleon twice

uses ôetcrflai, as he here uses 5ta-

voeladai, of a higher power symbol

ised, represented, made intelligible,

so to speak, (as far as is possible), on

earth by an earthly being. Cf. Frag.

8 (Orig. Comm. in loann. vi. 23) Trepl

TOV wpoo-uirov TOVTOV(?)

5ta TOV Iw-

awov voov/j.ei>ov,and Frag. 35 (Orig.

Ibid. xiii. 48) 0e/H<rras TT^TTCI TOUS




8e irdaa Trpo^TjriKrj raft?, \ercreov Be TT/OO? avrbv,

ort&<77Tp

EAN AAhAoN CAAnir^ (booNh N AcT oi)Set9 TTApA-1 Cor. xiv.

10 CKeyAZGTAI GIC TTOAeMON, KCU 6%O>/H9

AfAHHCe%Gt)Z>

TNCX)CIN

r) npocbHTeiAN 76701/6 X^KOC HX^N H KYMBAAON Of. 1 Cor.

AAAAAZON, o#T&>9 et fjUfjBev eanv erepov 77 ??%09 ?}TTpointer)

X1

<f)a)vr},7TCU9 dvaTrefMTTow ij/ua? eV avrrjv 6 ^wrrjp EpeyNAie,

Jo. v. 3 (

J.

<^r/0-t,TAG rp^ÂC, OTI YMG?C AOK?T6 N AyTA?C ZOOh N AIWNION

15 exeiN KAI 6Ke?NAi eiciN AI MApTypofcAr tcai Ei enicTeyere Moace?, Jo. v. 46.

enicTeyere AN GMOI, nepi r<^p6Moy eK6?NOC erpAye /cal KAAOQC Mt. xv. 7,

enpoc^Hieyce nepi YMOON HcA i AC, AepooNC

AAOC oyroc TO?C cf Igi

XeiAeciMe TIMA; oJ/c olSa yap el rov aa-rj/jiov r)Xov irapa&eêTal,

xxix. 13.

Ti9euA,o7&>9

UTTO roO 2&)rr;po9 eiraivelaBai, rjGvearu Trapa-

20 a/cevdc-aa-Oai, atro TU>V<ypa(f>a)V,

009 TTO CJJCONHC

evepyeias iroXeôv, AAnAoy C|)OONHC HXOY Tvyâvova-^. riva

$e TpOTrov, el pr} dydirr]v efyov ol irpo^ffrai /cal Bid TOVTO

XAAKOC r]craz/ TJôwre?, r} KyMBAAON AAAAAZON, eVl TOV

25 avrcov, 0)9 efceivoi el\t!

)<f)aatv

) dvaTre/jiTrei 6

dopevovs ; OVK olSa S OTTO) 9 X^p^ Trda-ijs KaTaaicevfjs

fyaiverai rrfv (frcovrjv oi/ceioTepav ovcrav raj \oyw \o<yov

QJ9 teal TTJV yvval/ca els dv

The usage may well have sprung that of the Swr^p (cf. Irenaeus, i.

from Bom. i. 20 ra yap dbpara av- vii. 3). All the Valentinian sects

TOV OLTTO KTi<reusKo<rfj.ov

rots TTotâtTij recognized to some extent the reve-

voot/j-eva Ka.Oopd.Tai..

Wemay

com- lation of the Old Testament :

pos-pare also Origen s own use, Comm. sibly Heracleon did so to a greater

in loann. xx. 12, OVK ZCTTIV ore 6 /card extent than most. Cf. Frag. 20,

TOV Irjo-ovjt TpoTTLKus t>oov/j.evos avdpw- where the Jews are placed above

TTOS OVK eiredri/j-ec ry /3ty, and Ibid. irdvTes ol irpb VO/J.QV /cat ol iQviKol.

xx. 29, IMVOV TOV /cara TOV Swr?7pa 28. /xerarêo-ât] The Vermlinn-

i>oov/j,evov avQpu-rrov dpx^dev ?/i> <pwfi. lichung of the female was taught

8. TOOS] With the implied dis- in the Anatolic School. Cf. Ex-

paragement of the Prophets may be cerpta ex Theodoto, 21, rd ovv dppc-

comparedHippolytus, Refut. vi. 35, VIKO. /xerd TOV \6yov ffvveaTdXrj, rd #77-

irdvTes ovv olTrpo<pTJTat.

/cai 6 v6/j.os \VKO, dt diravbpuQtvTO. evovTai rots

\d\i](rav diro TOV 8Tjfj.iovpyov, fj-wpou dyy\ois /cat ets TrX^pwâ XWP6 ^ta

X^-yei êoO fjuapoiovdev ddoTes. He- roOro rj ywi] els dvdpa fj.eTaTi8ea6ai

racleon s explanation of Xo7os, <f>uvr), Xêrat, /cat ^ evTavda e/c/cXTjo-ta ets

TJXOS, and the possibility of a change dyyt\ovs, where by Xeêrai are in-

from one to the other, is obscure. troduced words very similar to those

It may point to some theory of a of Heracleon.

gradual revelation culminating in We should also compare with Sou-




Kal W9 egovalav e-^wv rov Bojâriêtv Kal mo-reveaOai Kal

TTpoKOTrreiv, rw?}% (f^rjalv eaeaOai rrjv els

<f)(ovrjv per a- 3

(So\r)v, /juadrjrov fjiev ^wpav $t>&ov<i rfj fjLera/3a\\ovar) et9

\o<yov <f>(t)vfj,

Bovkov Berfj

drro?} %oi>

et?

fywvrjV

Kal el

pev07ro>9 Trore TTiOavorrjra ecfrepev errl r&> avrd KaraaKevdaai,

Kav rjyo)vio-d/ji0a Trepl 7-179 rovrcov dvarpoTrrjs, dp/eel Se et?

dvarpOTrrjV rj dTrapa^vO^ros 7ro0a<Jt9. OTrep &e virepeOe- 35

fjieOa ev rot9 TT/OO TOVTWV eêrdaai, TTUX; KetcivriTai, vvv<f>epe

SiaXd/Bwêv. 6/jLev yap ^wrrjp, Kara TOP Hpa/cêwva,

(frTjaiv avrbv Kal npO(f)HTHN KOL HAiAN, auro9 &e efcdrepov

TOVTWVdpvelrai. Kal npocfu-iTHN jjuev ât HAiAN

6

^wrrjpeirdv avrov

\e<yrj,OVK avrbv d\\d rd Trepl avrov, (frycrl, 40

i, orav 8e MGI ZONAnpo4>HT(2)N

Kal GN

rore avrov rov Io)dvvr]v

avros 06,(j>rj(7l, Trepl eavrov epwrw/Jievo^ drroKpiverai

6 Iwaz/^7/9, ou rd Trepl avrov oarjv Be /3d(ravov rêls

Trepl rovrwv Kara ro Bvvarov TreTTOLêOa, ovBev drrapa- 4.5

eoovres rwv \e<yo/jievci)v opcov av^Kplvai rot9 VTTO

,are OVK eôvalav e%ovros rov \eyeiv o /3ov\erai,

rrws jdp ori Trepl rwv Trepl avrov e<rn ro

32 0WI/77] 0wi>V rj. 34 yyuvura/Jieda]

\ov 5e /c.r.X. a passage in i\\eExcerpla, MS. is impossible. The alteration of

57, rov /j-ev,/ut,6p<f>w<ri.s

TOU Trvevfian- Cod. Venetus (fxavrj $ is so far right

/roD, TOU 5e, /uLerddea-is TOV\f/vx<.Kov

e /c that it gives the required dative.

SouXeias ets e\evdepiav. In the pro- But the conjecture contained in the

ceding section the allegory of Gal. iv. margin of Cod. Bodlcianus is right,

is interpreted by making Israel repre- rdxa TO* H 7rap<f\/cet.We may with-

sent 6Tn>evfj.a.TiK6s,

and (apparently) out hesitation adopt the reading

the children of the bondwoman cor-(fiwvy.

respond to the^VX<-KO

L (cf. OTO.V ovv 48. irepi TUV wepl OLVTOV} The

TO. faxi-Ka eyKevTpiffdy). Thus the omission of TW trepl in the Editions

0wj>rjhere may represent the -rrvevâ- is due to its erroneous omission in

TIKOI who are given as j/i/^cu to the Cod. Regius, where however a later

angels, while -fo * corresponds to the hand has inserted rd irepl inter lineas.

\f/vx<.Koi.But it is dangerous to pur- The words are necessary to the con-

sue such hints at interpretation into text, as Heracleon has shortly before

too great detail. The Excerpta offer classed the assertions TO RXiav avrbv

yet another parallel in 79, "Ews ovv Kal irpo^Tijv elvat among the TO, wepl

d/x6p0wro^, (pa.ffii ,ZTI TO

<nrtp/j.a,O.VTOV as opposed to those by which

QrjXetas eari TKVOV poptyuOh 5e yttere- OLVTOV Tbv \ua.vvr\v xapa-KTypifci. The

TÔij ets avdpa. Trept T&V is perhaps awkward, but it is




HAIAN avrov KOI npo4)HTHN elvau, Kal Trepl avrov TO

50 (booNiHN avrov elvai BOGONTOC IN TH tpHMtT, ovSe Kara TO

TVVOV d\\d

OTL Ta irepl avTov olovel evSvpaTa TJV eTepa avTov,

Kal OVK av epwTtjOels Trepl TWV evSvjJidTwv, el aOro?

eiij Ta evSvfjiaTa, aTreKpidij av TO Nat. TTCO? yap

55 eVSu/aara TO elvai TOV HAIAN TON MeAAoNTA epxecOAi CCTTW Mt. xi. 14.

Iwdvvov, ov Trdvv TL Kar avTov Oewpw Taya Ka6* ^/-ta?,

a5? ^e8vvti/jL0a SnyyijcraiJievovsTO GN TTNGYMATI KAI AYNAMGI Lc. i. 17.

HAioy, Svva/jLevov TTO)?~\,e<yeo~0ai,

TOVTO TO HNGYMA HAioy

ev Svvd/jLei elvau TTJ? \wdvvov i/ri;^?. QeXwv S ert Trapa-

59 ei\wv 5 TI]

ai;roO. Ferrarius had the true text

before him in Cod. Venetus, but he

has missed the point of the passage

by putting the following Vox cla-

mantis in the same class as Pro-

pheta.

55. The absence of etrrlv in the

Editions is due to another error in

Cod. Rcyins.

59. cv8vi>d/j.ei elvai] It is hard

to get any satisfactory meaning out

of these words, or to see how they

can be an interpretation of ev irvev-

fjiari /cat 8vvdfj.fi. HAtou. Thorndike

conjectures ZvSvfj-a elvai. This suits

very well the context in which the

words stand.

6e\wv 5 TL\The reading Oe\ov-

res, which is found in Cod. Mona-

censis, is corrupt, and the insertion of

5e by Cod. Venetus does not restore

the true text. The subsequent X<fyoi

TO cannot be right. For a similarly

impossible optative which has been

allowed to remain, cf. Origen Comm.

in loann. xiii. 59, eirj <pv<ris TTJS tctcrewj

yevo/J.evr)T ot/cety TTJS dv airavcrews

dp<.0^<$.

The scribe of Cod. Rcyius

has probably stumbled by an itacism

on the right reading, Xe^et TO. If

this be so, a nominative singular

participle and a connecting particle

are required, and 0\uv oe, or more

probably diKwv 5 eri, would seem

best to fulfil the required condi

tions. The introduction of a fresh

stricture by means of 6-1 5e is cha

racteristic of Origen ;5e alone is hardly

strong enough to suit the context;

cf. ii. 8, xiii. 51, and just below, ri

5 ov/j.6vos"H.pa.K\ewi>

K.T.\. And the

following sentence ov KO.K&Sfj.fi>

. ..oinra-

vv ok e^7?racr/x^ws is so thoroughly in

the style of Origen s criticisms of his

opponent, that the passage must

surely contain a piece of Heracleon s

Commentary. For the exact phrase

compare Origen c. Cehum iv. 88

(Philocalia xx. L. xxv. 150) Oe\wv

5 <?n 5ta TrXetoj Wf ...aTro^Tji ou, where

Origen states the argument of Celsus

before he proceeds to refute it. If

the n of 0EAHNAETI was cor

rupted by itacism to O, the letters

ONAETI might easily become

ONTEC in the hands of a scribe

who did not pay great heed to the

context. Hilgenfeld has naturally

omitted the passage in his collection

of the Fragments, but there were not

the same reasons for omitting the

next sentence /cat iraKiv K.T.\. where

the X^yei can only refer to Heracleon.

The proposed alterations restore the




arTrjo-ai, Bid rl lepeis /cal Aevlrat ol eTrepwrwvres a?ro TWV 60

IouoWa)j> TrefJi^devre^ elalv, ov /catca)<$ [lev \eyei TOr

Ort

TOVTOIS7TpO<rfjfCOV r)V 7T 6pi TOVTO)V TToXvTTpay /JLO

V I V

/cal

irvvdaveaOai,rot? rc3 6ew

Trpoa-tcapTepovartv,ov

TTGLVV Be e^rjTao-fjievcos rdr/

Ort /cal avros IK rfjs A.evlTi/cr)<$

(j)V\rjs tfv, wcnrep TrpoajropovvTes ^J/iet? e^raa-aêv, on el 65

rjBeurav TOV Icodvvrjv ol Tre/jLÔevTe^ /cal TTJV êveaiv avrov,

TTCO? ^wpav clôv TTwOdvecrOai, Trepl rov el avrbs HAiAC

Jo. i. 21. eaTiv ; /cal iraKiv ev rc3 Trepl TOV el 6rrpoc})HTHC

e\ cy, /j,rjBev

eâiperov oto/ieô? o-rj/jialvecrOai, /caTa rrjv TrpoaOrjK^v TOV

apdpov, \eyei OTL ^TrrjpwTrjcrav el TrpotyrjTrjs eirj, TO 70

ov\6êvoi padelv. &TI Be ov

,ak\a ocrov eV

e/J^fj IcrTOpiq teal TrdvTes ol

evT\rj d/j,(j)i,l3o\iavStacrretXao-ât

JJL^ SeSvvrjfjLev

HX/ou /cal TTCLVTWV TWV Trpo^TjTGQV TOV ^\(tiavvr)v

Lc. vii. 28. ta TO Mei zoaN eN reNNHioIc PYNAIKCON IcoANNoy oyAeic eciiN, 75

ill

U "

OUX opwvTe<ÔTL d\7]0e^ TO OyAeic MEIZOON NOOANNOY ^

TO?C PYNAIKOON Biôi)^ yLveTai,, ov fjtbvov TO) avTov elvai

lieifyva, d\\d /cal TW tVou? avTw elvai Tiva? d\rjde^ jdp,

i(TO)v OVTWV avTa) 7ro\\wv Trpo^rjTajv,/caTa Tr]V oeSofjLevfjv

auTw x^PLV r ^HAENA TOUTOU MeizoNA elvai. olWat Se tcaTa- 80

o~ /cevdea 0ai, TO MEIZONA TW Trpo^TjTevedOaL VTTO

61Tre/j.(f)d{i>Tes]

Hie male laesus est codex, videtur autem plus x litteras

habuisse; Cod. Yen. habet oi ire^(f)d. \eyei r6] Xôt TO. 80, 81

KaraffKevafccrdcu] TO /caracr/cei/aêcrâi. ry] om. codex; addito, ut videtur,

in mg.

grammar of the sentence, and make 80. Delarue, reading ofcTcu 8t TO

the passage a continuous and con- /caTacr/ceydfccrât TO ndfrva elvaiirpo-

sistent whole. ^revea-dai, remarks, nos sanam

61.7refj.<t>0VTes]

Whether Cod. restituimus lectionem e codice Bod-

Monac. read oi ire/A^dwres or not is leiano;but his text seems hardly

uncertain, but in any case the article satisfactory. After making the con-

can hardly be retained. jecture which has been introduced

75. /xefftw] It is uncertain whe- into the text, I find that the same

ther Heracleon omitted the irpofir)-has been proposed by Thorndike in

T7?s of the Received Text as well as the margin of his transcript of Cod.

Origen, or not; but the subsequent Bodleianus. The insertion or omis-

meution of Josiah in Origen s re- sion of elmi, which appears to have

futation of Heracleon s Comment been added in the margin of Cod.

makes it highly probable that he Monacensis, is a matter of no im>




VTTO

deov TGOV TrcoTTore Trpo^rjrevcrdvTCOv. a\.r)6ws 6 w?

/cara<j)pova)V rrjs TraXata? ^pârtôucr^? SiaO^/cr]?,KOL

fJirj

85 TripiiorasKOI avTbv HXiav TTpoîjrevo/jievov,

TOUT a7rero\î

r]-

crev eiTrelv KOI yap HXta? Trpo^rjreveraL VTTO M.a\a%iov

lAov AnocreAAoo YM?N HAiAN TON OecBiTHN, oc AHO- Mai. iii.

, , jxv , 23(iv.4f.).KATACTHCei KApAlAN HATpOC HpOC YION ....... Kdl TdVTd t?

T*7? trpoTrereias rov aTro^rjva/jLevov

go Icodvvov 7rpo(j)r}Tev(T0ai, eipqffffw,ravra

elpr)KOTo<$ev TW

6e\Giv avrovSirjyela-Oat,

ri TO Epcb (J)OONH BOCONTOC eN TH Jo. i. 23.

IpHMO).

89 TT/soTreretas] ex coniectura Ruaei;cod. habet

6. Ibid. vi. 13 (R. IV. 125;L. I. 213).

o? ovv ev vBari, oy BAHTIZGI, AAA1

oi MAGHTAI AYTOY, Jo. iv. 2.

w Be Tripel TO TO) Afico TTNeyMATi BAHTIZGIN KAI nypi Cf. Mt. iii.

o HpafcXewv -rov rwv

o5? uîco? elprjêvov Trepl rovo$>ei\ecrdai

TO

5 /tat HXia /cat iravrl Trpo^rjrr], avrais \e%ecri <$>r]crivOt?

TO ftaTTTiêiv, real e/c rwv elprjpevwv

<y%6/jLevo<>, fJLa\i(Tra Se on, Kowbrepov

TON npoc{)HTHN vevorfKev ov yap eêi Setât TIVCL TWV Trpo-

(frijTuiv (3a7TTi(rai>Ta.OVK (nnOdvws Be

<j)r)(ri

irwddvea-Oai

10 TOI)?^>aptcraibu?

AcaTaT?}Z>

auTW^ iravovpyiav,

7 on] ore.

6. 7. Kou^Tepov] By failing to notice perov olbfjievos

the distinction between 6 TT/JO^TJTTJS irpoadriKTiv rov apdpov. Heracleon, in

and 7r/)o0TjT7js.Cf. Frag. 4, Xo0e 5^ the words which follow this last pas-

roi>s 7ro\Xoi>517 5ta0opa...ws /cat T^ sage, seems to use the word Koivbre-

,and Frag. 5, /n?5&> eâf- pov in a different sense.




7. Ibid. vi. 15 (R. iv. 130;L, I. 222).

Jo. i. 26, AneKplNATO AYTO?C 6 ICOANNHC Ae fOON EfOi BATTTIZCO eN

M6COC [Ae] YMO3N CCTHKCN ON YMelc OY*K oTAATG, [AYTOC 6CTIN()]

OTTICCO

MOY epxoMGNoc, [of] OYK CIMI era Alioc I NA AYCGO AYTOY TON IMANTA

joy YnoAHMATOC. 6 /j,V HpafcXecov oleTat,, on, ATro/cplverai,

6Io)dvvr)<; rot? etc TWV

<&api,crai(Dv Treaty 6 ela iv, ov 5

7T/30? o eicelvoi eTrrjpoorwv, aXX o auro? e/3ov\6ro,

eavrov \av6dvwv OTL

/car^jopeirov

Trpo^rov a/jiaOias,el

76a\\o epa)Tto/JLVOS Trepl d\\ov aTroKpiverai %prj jdp /cal rovro

<f)v\dTTOdai, ft)? ev KOivo\oyia d^dpTrj/Aa TV<y%avov. T/yu-et?

Se(âfjuev

on fjudXiara TT/Ô? eVo? ecrrlv77 aTroKpidis TT/OO?

10

Jo. i. 25.<ydp

TO Ti OYN BAHTIZEIC, ei cf OYK el o XP |CTOC; rt aX,Xo

elirelv, $ TO tStov TrapaaTfjaai âTTTia/Ji

Tvy%dvov ; Era 7/3, (fayo lv, BAHTIZOO GN fAATi /cat TOVTO

elirwv TTpo? TO Ti OYN BAHTi zeic; Trpo? TO SevTepov, Ei CY OYK el

oxpiCTOC, Soô\oyiav Trepl T^? Trpoyyov/jLevris ovaia<$ Xpio-TOi) 15

i, OTL Bvva/jiiv ToaavTrjv e%et, w? at dopaTOS elvcu Trj

avTov, irapwv nrawTi dvOpwirw, TravTl Be /cal oXw TW

o-vfATrapefCTeivofjievos OTrep StjKovTai Sid TOV Mecoc

YMO3N eCTHKCN.

2 Se] ins. intra lineas. atfrfo eo-Tii/ 6] om. in txt. sed in mg. add.

pr. man. 3 oC] ins. intra lineas. 7

11 Tt out]

ins. intra lineas. rl oXXoex/)^"]

rl dXXots xpî/ (sic).

TO

12 rd] T^ (sic).

7. 1. aTrc/cp/faro] There is other it was copied. Thus one of the three

authority for this reading, LT^TJ references to Origen in Tischcndorf s

and some cursives (vid. Tischendorf, critical note must in all probability be

in loc.). I have retained the 5 omitted, as also one of those quoted

and the airros IVTLV 6, as they are in support of the insertion of 5.

added apparently prima manu. But 12. The re TO of the Editions is

when other similar phenomena in due to the scribe of Cod. Regius,

this MS. are taken into consideration who inserted both the error and its

it appears more than probable that correction which he found in his ex-

they were not in the MS. from which emplar.




8. Ibid, vi. 23 (R. iv. 138;L. I. 234).

O Be Upa/cXecov TO Mecoc YMOON CTHKGI (frycnv avrl TOV Jo. i. 26.

TrdpecTTL real e&Tiv ev TW KoafJLU* Kal ev dvOpwTrw

Kale/jLcfravrfs

eo~Tiv 17877 TTCLGIV vîlv. Bid TOVTWV Be

nrepiaipel TO nrapacrTaOev TreplTOV

Bia7re<poiTr)KevaiavTov oY

5 oXou TOU Koafjiov. \KTov yap Trpo? avTov Trore yap ov

irdpeo-TLv; TroVe Be OVK e<TTW ev TO> KOCT/JLO); Kal TavTa TOV

evayye\iov Xeôz/ro? N TCO KOCMCO HN, KAI 6 KOCMOC Ai AYTOY Jo. i. 10.

ereNGTO. teal Sta TOVTO Kal OVTOI, Trpo? 01)9 o ^,0709 o "ON Jo. i. 2G.

YMeTc OYK orAAre, OVK otSaoriv avTov, eVel ouSeVo) TOV KOV/JLOV

10 eê\ri\vdaa-Lv^Q Be KOCMOC AYTON OYK IPNOO. irolov Be %povov Jo. i. 10.

SieXeiTre TOV ev avOpw jrw elvai; rjOVK ev Haaia

tfv, \e<yovTt,

TTN6YMA KYpiOY en eMe, OY ei NeKGN expiceMG* KUL EMC})ANHC Is. Ixi. l.

role eMe MH ZHTOYCI ; \eyeTworav Se elfjbrj

Kal ev c

8

^ ^ x

77^, OVKd(j>

avTov \eyovTi Efoo Ae KATecTAGHN BACiAefc20.

5 fn AYTOY en i CIWN opoc TO APION AYTOY, Kal oaa eK 7rpocra>7rov

XptejToO evtyd\/jLois dvayeypaTTTai. Kal TL fj.e

Bel

aTToBeiKvvvai Bvcreâpidfji rjTOV 6Wo>9, irapaaTrjaai evapyws

Bvvdfjievov, oTi del ev dvdpcoTroy yv, 7rpo9 TO e\ey%ai ov% vyiax;

elprfiievov TO "HBrj Trdpeo~Ti Kal eo~Ti,v ev Kocr/jiw Kal ev

10 dvdpwirw et9 Bnjyrjcriv Trapd TOJf

Hpa/e\eow TOV Mecoc YM^N J- i- 2^-

ecTHKeN ; OVK diriOdvws Be Trap avTw \eyeTat, OTI TO Oni coo

MOY epôMCNOC TO TrpoBpofjiov eivai TOV Iwavvvjv TOV

Tpe%a)v TOV Kvpiov. 7roX,i) Be d7r\ovo-Tepov TO OYK eiMi Alioc Jo. i. 27.

25 FNA AYCOO AYTOY TON IMANTA TOY YTTOAHMATOC eêi\r]<êv,OTL ovBe

elvai Bid TOVTCOV 6 (3a7TTiO~Trjs 6fJio\oyei. TrXrjv

185vi>d/u.ei>oi>]

dw

8. 12, 13. c/xâvTjs êj 6/x^j ]The Hilary and Ambrosiaster.

quotation does not agree exactly with 17. dva-eâpid/j.rjToi 6Wws] An awk

the LXX., which hasEfjL<f>a.vrjs eyevri- ward phrase, but the correction in

Bt\v rots e/xe ^177 cTrepwrwcrtj , vp6t)v Cod. Venetus dvffeâpi0/J.rjTOV oVros is

rots fj.t IJ.T] ftrovviv. In Romans the no better. It has been plausibly

clauses are transposed, and S. Paul suggested that we should read 8va-

hastyei>6/u.-r)i>.

The exact form is eâpLff/nriTUV &VTWV rut>

found in two Latin MSS. (d, e)and in evapyus 8vva.tJ./i>(i)i>.




ravTijv TTJV ercBoxrjVOVK aTTiOdvws vTroê/BXrjKe TO OVK

iKavos, iva St eyite Kare\0y airo /jLeyeOovs teal

\dftrj cJ? viro^rifjia, Trepl 379 670; \6<yovdiro- 3

Bovvai ov Bvvafjiai, ovBe Siijyrja-ao-Oai, rj eVt XOereu

Tr)v Trepl avrfjs ol/covo/jiiav dSporepov Be Kal fj,eya\o-

<f)ve(TTpov6 auro9 HpaicXecov Koa/jbov TO vTro^rjâ eVSefa-

fieTeo Tr] eirl TO do~e/3e(TTepov dTrofyrjvaaOai TCLVTCL

Seiv aKoveadai /cal Trepl TOV TrpoawTrov 35

TOVTOV Bid TOV *\<oavvov voovfjuevov. oterat<ydp

TOV

SijfjLiovpybv TOV fcocr/jbov, e\aTTOva OVTCL TOV Xpto-roO,

TOVTO 6fjio\o<yeiv Sta TOVTCOV T&V \egea)v, ttTrepecrrt

TrdvTWV do-eftearTaToV o yap Trefji^ra^ avTov TraTiijp,6 TWV

Mt. xxii. zaiNTOON 0eoc, a)9 auro? Ivjaovs fjiapTVpel, TOV ABpAAM KOI TOV 4

32* 3| \ \r^>i/fCv\^ / ^9 /s \AICAAK Kai TOV lAKOOB, OLCL TOVTO KVplOS TOV OVpaVOV K.CU T??9

Cf. Lc.ry^9,

OTL TreTrolrj/cev avTa, oiT09 ical JJLOVOS dyado?, Kal fjuei^wv

Jo. xiv. 28. TOV lff/^BivTO^ el Be Kal, co9 TTpoeipijtca/jLev, dBpoTepov

vevorjTCU, Kai 7r9 o /cocryu-09 vTroB^jfjua elvai TOV I?;cro{)

TO) *}ipaK\ea)vi, aA,V OVK olpai Belv o~v<yKaTaTi6ecrdaL 45

35 TrpocrwTTou] Cod. Bodleianus habet in margine rax XetVei TOU

post quod, alia manu, /caXws ^xet - ^^ ?r/)oeip^/ca /uej

]

29. /caTA^T;] This passage a- where we should have expected 5?;-

grees with Heracleon s Italic posi- fuovpyov, which was probably what

tion. Cf. Hippolytus Refut. vi. 35, Heracleon s ipsissima verba con-

\f/vxi.Kov ipaffl TO (Tu/j,a TOV Iâou ye- tained, in order to emphasize the

yovfrat Kal 5ta TOVTO itrl TOV/Scurrier- impiety (etrl r6

da-cfito-Tepov) of He-

yuaros TO irvev/uia ws TrepiaTepa /care- racleon s interpretation. But TOVTOV

\j\v0c. For ntyeBos cf. Irenaeus i. is not impossible.

xiii. 3. 36. voov^vov] See Frag. 5(note).

30. virbo-rjiJ.Q.} May we see in 37. Actrropa OVTO] We may perhaps

the interpretation of vTr6drj/j.a as KO<T- compare Hipp. Refut. vi. 36, ^yi/w (6

pot, a groping after the idea of the8r)fj.<.ovpyos) 8i5a%êis VTTO T^S <ro<f)ias

Lord having taken humanity upon TOV KpelTTova, though there the re-

Himself, though only as a vw6dr)ij.a.ference is to the Father Himself. In

which the Ao7os laid aside? the fulness of time the Demiurge is

35. The suggestion of the margin made to confess before men his su-

of the Bodleian deserves attention. perior; hitherto he has kept secret

But TOVTOV is unnecessary, and per- the mystery of the aeons revealed to

haps TOV 5-rj/jLiovpyovshould be substi- him by Sophia. Cf. also Frag. 40

tuted for it;or should we read TOV (Orig. xiii. 59) &Vt fuTnoTos 6 Sr/ît-

0eov instead of it ? In this case we ovpy6s.




9. Ibid. vi. 24 (K IV. 140; L. I. 237).

TAYTA IN BnGABApA epeNGTO nepAN TOY lopAANoy, onoy HN Jo. i. 28.

MCOANNHC BATTTIZGON. OTI pev o~%eBbv ev 7rdo~i TO<? OVTL-

ypd<f>oL<;

tceiTai TAYTA EN BHGANIA epeNeTO ovtc dyvoov/jLev, /cat

eottce TOVTO KOI en TrpoTepov <yeyovevaiteal Trapd HpaicXewvi,

5 yovv BHGANIAN dvejvw/jiev.

tytveTo] bis.

10. Ibid. vi. 38 (R. iv. 159; L. I. 271).

Tld\iv ev TW T07T6) o HpaicXewv yevofjLevos, %ct)pt

teal TrapaOeo-ews p,apTvpiwv aTrotyaiveTai, OTL TO

AMNOC TOY Geof w? npoc^FTHC <j>r)o-lv

o Iwai/z//;?, Jo. i. 29.

TO Se OAIpaN THNAMApTIAN TOY KOCMOY <W? HeplCCOTepON Lc. vii. 26.

5 npocpHTOy. Kal oieTai TO fiev TrpoTepov trepl TOV crco-

avTov \eyeo-0ai, TO Be BevTepov irepl TOV ev TO>

i,TW TOV dfjivov aT\rj elvai ev TW TWV Trpo-

yevei, OVTCO Be Kal T& awâ 7rapa0eo~e{, TOV

evoitcovvTos avTut. TO Be Te\eiov el e/3ov\TO, cfcvjcrl,

10 TO)crcb/jiaTi, /jbapTvpfjaai, Kpiov enrev av TO ê\\ov

dvea-Oai. ovy ôvâi Be elvai dvayicalov fjieTa TVJ\I-

elTrei av TO] elireiv O.VTO.

volume, as quoted by Tischendorf),

Codd. Ven. et Bodl. read B^flapa in

both places. On p. 142 Cod. Monac.

reads Bi]0apapa, on p. 280 (Comm. in

loann. xiii. 60) B-rjeapa.On Hera-

cleon s Biblical text, see the note on

p. 74 (Frag. 18, Jo. iv. 17).

10. 6, 7. TOV ev ry crw/xcm] This in

conjunction with Frag. 8 establishes

Heracleon s Italic position, which

otherwise could not be very clearly

proved from the Fragments. Cf.

Hippolytus (Refut. vi. 35), ytyove T

K.T.X.

10 (restart]

9. 1. Since Cod. Monac. a few lines

lower down reads BrjQapapa, we must

probably conclude that Rydapa is due

to the scribe s error, arising from

the omission of ]3a between two very

similar syllables. At the same time

it should be noticed that the reading

EyOapa is found in a Syriac MS. (See

Tischendorf in loc. (syr.wsem. 2.

Or .

4. 140, 142,280).

As bearing on Tischendorf s note

it may be well to state that while

Cod. Monac. reads Bydapapa. in the

second instance where the word oc

curs on p. 140 (of Delarue s fourth




fcavras yeyevrj/jievas eêracret? revrdêiv Trepl TOV TOTTOV,

s TT/JO?TOL evreXa)? VTTO TOV Hpa/cXeeoz/o? elptj-

fiovov Be TOVTO eTrio-rj/jieiwTeov, OTL wcrirep /jLoyis

Ph. ii. 7.

%wpr)o~v

6

/coa/ios

TOV KENCJOCANTA eAyTON, oirra>9 dfjivov teal 15

ov /cpiov eSeijOij,

f

iva Ap6n avTOv f A

13

11. Ibid. x. 9 (R. iv. 170; L. i. 291).

Jo.ii. 12.

O fjbevToi 76

r

H/>a/cXea>z> TO META TOYTO KATCBHeic

<j)r)<rl,$r)\ov(T0ai, ovtc dpyws TOV K^TeBH

KCLL(jiTjaL Trjv Katyapvaov/jL arj/jLaiveiv TavTa TO,

TOV /coa/jiov, TavTa ra v\i/cd el? a /car^Xê, /cal Sid TO 5

dvoitceiov, (frrjcrlv,elvai TOV TOTTOV, ovSe TreTroivj/cws TI

\eyTai ev avTrj fj XeXaX^/cco?. el fiev ovvfjur)Be

ev rot?

t? 6vajy\loi<; TreTroirj/cws TL rj XeXaX^/ô)? ev 777

6 /cvpios TUL&V dveyeypaTTTO, Taya dv eSio-Taâ-

Trepl TOV TrapaSeâo-Qcu avTov TTJV ep^veiav. vvvl &e 6 10

Mt. iv. 13, fjiev Margate? KATAAITTONTAfyrjal

TOV Kvpiov T^/JLCOVTHN NAZAPA,

6A00NTA KATCOKHKeNAI GIC KAÂpNAOyM THN HApAGAAACCIAN, KOI

AHO TOTG dpfflv TOV KHpycceiN TreTroiTJcrOcu \eyovTa META-

NoeTre, MffiKe r^P H BACIACIA TOON OYPANOON ......raura Be TCCLVTCL

Trepl TWV ev ââpvaov/ju rw ^(OTrjpt eiptj/jievcovical Tre- 15

Trapeo-Tijo-a/jiev vTrep TOV eXeyâi Tr)v

f

Hpa-

epfjLrjveiav, \eyovTO$ Ata TOVTO ovSe

Ti\e<yTai

ev avTrj rj \e\a\rjKO)<;. rj yap Svo e

10

12. revTdeii>]The rev being hard Capernaum cf. Frag. 40 (Orig. Comm.

to decipher, the scribe of Cod. Ven. in loann. xiii. 59), rbv

conjectured Tavrifav, while the scribe vaobn vibv O.VTOV dtrjyeiTai. rbv iv

of Cod. Regius contented himself hrofkfhiic&n /x^pet TTJS //co-^rTjroy,

with leaving a small lacuna before irpos daXaffcrav , rovrlvn

rofetj . On the bearing of this, and fdvtp rrj v\y. The whole passage

the omission of avrov rj a/j-aprta,on there quoted is hardly consistent with

the origin of Cod. Regius, see Intro- the ovdt TreTronj/tws of the text : cf. a

duction, p. 8. little further on, Xy 5<: on K ara/Sas




Kal avros T^9 Katyapvaova Kal TrapLcrrdra) Kal

20 crdrco Troias, 77TOVTO rcoirjcrai ar) SvvdfjLevos c rov

\eyeiv rov âyrfjpa fidrrjv nvl TOTTW eTTioeorj/jirjKevaL KOI

e, deov 6^Soz/T09, yevofjuevoi Kara rd roiavra

o~vvavayv(ao-cos, OTTOV 86%ai, av/jLrjBev rjvvicevai

^wptois rial, 7reipao~6[ji0a TO/JLTTJ fudraiov r

25 avrov

T?9

21 Tivl] nvl ry. 23 oirov...rivvKvai] TTOV doêav fj-fj^v &v rjv v/cât (sic).

12. Ibid. x. 14 (K. iv. 179; L. i. 309).

CO fievTOi ye(

}lpaK\6WV Avrrj, (f>r)o-iv, rj /xeyd^rj eo/or?} Of. Jo. ii.

rov yap TrdOovs rov Scor^po? TUTTO? r)V, ore ov povov

dvrjpelro TO irpoftarov, d\\d real avartavG iv rrapelêv

eaO LOjjbevov, Kal dvoftevov TO rrdOos rov Swr^po? TO

5 evicocrfJiU) ea-rjfjiaivev,

eo-Q

iopevov8e

rr)v

avdrravGiv

rrjv ev ydp,co. rrapeOefjieOa Be avrov rrjv \e%iv,

r

(va TO w?

ev TijXiKovTOK; dvaa-rpefyeiv rov dvSpa Trapeppi^êvw^ Kal

vSapws aerd /j,r}Sevos KaraarKevaornKOV Qewprjaavres, fjid\\ov

avrovKara<f)povr/cra)/jLev.

4 TO Traces] TOL! irddovs.

23. OTTOV /c.T.X.] The reading of

the MS. is corrupt, and the conjecture

in Cod. Venetus TTOV Sotiacrys ^dkv av

fyvKtvai is not helpful. The reading

given in the text is the slightest

alteration which will restore any

sense.

12. 4. 7-6 7rd0os] a necessary correc

tion of the MS. reading, which was

made also by the scribe of Cod.

Venetus.

5. TT]v dpaTravffiv] Cf. Excerpta

ex Theodoto 63, TJ yuev ovv T&V irvev-

fj.ariKwi>avaTravvis ev KVpiaKrj ev 07-

800,81.... dra. TO 8eiirvov ruv yd.fj.uv.

Irenaeus i. vii. 1, TOI>S

5 earj/j.cuvev]

vv(j,(pa.s diroSodrifffffQcu rots irepl rbv

Unfortunately Hippolytus has said

nothing about the eschatology of the

system which he describes. Perhaps

it did not come within his scope :

his main object seems to have been

to establish a case of Hellenising

against each of the heretics whom he

refutes. But no doubt some analo

gous ya.fj.os completed the system :

as the6i6peu<Tis

of the TrdOtj of Sophia

was accomplished by means of her

marriage with the KOIVOS rov TrX^pw-

/uciTos KapTr6s, SO the Trvevfj.ari.Kol would

naturally receive the final5i6p6w<ris

by 70^01, no doubt with theXo7<u

projected by Sophia and her




13. Ibid. x. 19 (R iv. 194; L. i. 338).

Se KOI TaHpa/cXewô?,

osfyrja-i Trjv

els

lepo-croXi/yita avobov

<rv)fjiaiveuv TT/V TTO TWV V\LKWV els TOV

^rvîKov TOTTOV, Tvy%avOVTa eiKova TTJS Iepou<raXr}//,,

Jo. ii. 14. dvdfiao-iv TOV /cvplov. TO Be EypeN 6N TO>

iepoj, KOI

oi/^t Trpovdw, (Herat elpf)(r6ai virep TOV/JLT) TT)V /c\r)<ri,v 5

fJLOVIJV VOtjO^jVai TT)V %O)pl<}TTVev JJLCLTOS

VTTO TOV Kvplov r)<yelTai yap ra fjuev ayia TWVd<yli

Heb. ix. 7.

etât TO fepoN, els MONOC6Apxiepeyc el<rlei, evOa ol/

avTov \eyeiv TOVS irvevâTLKovs %aypeiv ra 8e TOV TTpo-

vdov, OTTOV Kal ol Aeu trat, (rv/jipoXov elvai, TWV 10

efa) TOV r

jT\^pwfjLaTos ^V^LKWV evpia- KO/jbevcov ev

Jo. ii. 14. (TWTrjpia. IIpo? TOVTOLS Toyc eypicKOMGNoyc

EN TOJlepciu ncoAofNTAC BOAC KA) npoBATA KAI ne-

AC, KAI Toyc KA0HM6Noyc KepMATiCTAC efeêfaro

VTl T(t)V fjLTjbeV %aplTl OlOOVTWV, XX e/jLTTO- 15

1eis] om. 2 (rty/xcuVeu

13. 1. e^s has been rightly sup

plied by Cod. Bodleianus.

TT]V et s K.T.X.] This sentence can

only mean that the Lord s journey

from Galilee to Jerusalem symbo

lises the journey from the v\u<a

(cf. Fragg. 12 and 40) to the ^VX^KOS

T67ros, which r67ro$ is an ekc^ or

image of the Jerusalem above. Cf.

Excerpta ex Theod. 59. If we

compare this with Hippolytus we

may deduce as a reasonable conjec

ture that Heracleon spoke of the

Hebdomad, the abode of the Demi

urge, as an eiKuv of the Ogdoad which

was the abode of Sophia, or from

another point of view was Sophia

herself. This will account for the

distinction between lepoixraXrj/i and

Iepoff6\vfj.awhich the MSS. have faith

fully preserved. Cf. Bishop Light- TO ycX^roj ,TO ^kv irapa T??S

foot s note on Gal. iv. 26. Perhaps TO Trvev/j-aTiKov, TO 5 e/r TTJS oiKovoîas

5 irpovoup] rCjv

5.irpov<up\

The T&V avu of the

MSS. is impossible. Neander s con

jecture T$ va<{>

is in the right direc

tion, but should we not read irpovd^

(cf. 1. 9, TO. S TOV Trpovdov)? Otherwise we must suppose, either that

the meanings of vao$ and iepov had

been practically reversed by Hera-

cleon s time, or that he was ignorant

of their usage. And even then the

change to -rrpovdov in 1. 9 would be

awkward.

5, 6. The distinction ofK\rj<ns

(jLovr] ij x^pts TTpetViaros agrees with

the division of men in Hipp. Eefut.

vi. 34, KaroiKijTripiov TTOT fjLtv ^fX^s

fj.6vr)$...TroT 5ei/ ux^s /cat \6ywv. See

also Excerpta ex Theod. 58,




piav teal KepSos Trjv TWV êvwv et? TO lepov io~oSov

,TOV ISiov /cepSou? /cal

<pL\apyvpla<;eve/cev

et? Tr)v \aTpeiav TOV Oeov Ovaias %opr)yovvTo)v./cal TO c^pApeAAio N Se TreTroirjo-Oai, etc o~%ot,ViQ)v VTTO TOV Jo. ii. 15.

20 1 770-01), ov%l Trap d\\ov Xa/SoWo?, t&iOTpbVa>? d7rayye\\ei,

\eywv TO cbpApeAAiON eiKova Tvy^dveiv 7775 Swaêus

tvcpyeias TOV dyiov TrvevfjuaTO^, /c<pvo~a)VTo<;roi)?

Kal âi To 4)pAreAAiON Kal TO \ivov

aivSova Kal oaaToiavTa euKova r^9 8vvdfjLea)<;

25TTj? evepyelas

elvau TOVdyiov

TTVGV//.aro?.

evretra

7rpoo-i\ rj(f)eTO

fjurj ryeypafjLfjievov, w? cipa et? %v\ov

TO (f)paye\\iov, oirep %v\ov TVTTOV K\a/3(iov elvai

TOV o~Tavpov, (b rjo i TOUTCO TCO v\(p ai>T)\G)o~uat, Kai

rjfyav iaOau TOI)? KvftevTas GKTropovs Kai Trao~av Trjv

30 KaKiav. Kal OVK otS OTTO)? $\vapwv fyrja-LvGK Bvo TOVTCOV

TrpayfjiaTcov (f>paye\\iov KaTao-Kevd%eo~6ai, %rjT<x>vTO

VTTO TOV Ir]o~ov yevopevov. Ov yap K Sep/jiaTos,

veKpov eTTOLTjaev avTO,f

iva Trjv G.KK\if](Tiav

<TKevdo-rjOVKCTL AHCTOON Kal e/JLTropwv cnHAAiON, aXXa Mt.xxi.13.

? * \ )^-y/c>\\ / Cf. Jer.

350IKON TOY TTATpoc auToW \eKTeov oe TO avayKaLOTaTov v^ n

Tcepl T/7? OeoTrjTos Kal eK TCOV prjTcovTOVTWV Trpo?

yap TO ev lepoo oXi/yiioi? lepovOI KON TOY l&iov TTATpoc

elvai o I?7croi}?, TOUTO 8e TO lepov et? $6%av TOV KTio~avTO<> TOV

ovpavov Kal Trjv yfjv yeyove, TTCO? OVK tivTLKpvs SiSacrKoueda

40 fj,r) eTepov TLVOS vo/j,i%iv vlov eivai Trapa TOV TroirjTrjv ovpavov

Kal 7775 TOV vlov TOV deov ;

14 Ibid. x. 19 (R. iv. 196; L. i. 342).

%d>6opaBe 7rapan-7JTft)? o

e

HpaK\eo)v oleTai TO zflAoc Jo. ii. 17.

,i

> i "> n^ Ps Ixix

TOY OIKOY COY KATA(J)AreTAI MG 6/C TTpOaWTTOV TOOV Kp A,r)-/jxvjjj

\^Q

OevTwv Kal dva\w6evTwv VTTO TOV ScoT^po?

14. 2. KctTd^cryeTcu] There is a the masc. with dvva.fji.ewv we maydifference of reading in the LXX. compare Ep. Vienn. ct Lugd. ap.

here. fcsB read Kara^cêrcu, A /car^- Euseb. H. E. v. i. 9, TWVirpoeffTt]-

(paye. Cf. Origen Comiu. in loann. KOTWV TTJS TroXews eôvcnwv, and ibid.

x. 19 (L. I. 341). 30, TrapaTre/j.irovT(t}vTWV

3. Svva/J.ewv~\ Cf. the 5a.ifJ.oves of eov<Tiwv.

Hipp. Befut. vi. 34. For the use of



70 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON.

\eyea-0ai, pr) Svvd/j,evo<>TOV etpfjiov rr;? ev TW

-^ra\fjiaj 7rpo(f)ij-

T6ta? Trjpfacu, voov/jievov IK TrpocrcoTrov TWV K/3\t]0evTa)v Kal 5

dva\a)0evTa)v $vvd/j,ea)v \eyecr6ai. dfc6\ov9ov Se ecm KCLT*

Ps. Ixix. avTov /col TO "EAooKAN eic TO BpooMA MOY X^^ N <*"n exelvwv(lxviii.)22. ,. / /j , i * / i A ~

> >

>< > v

\eyeauai ev rw avrw avayeypa/A/jLevov âXfJuw a\\ co? eiicos

erdpaêv avrov TO KATACÂfeTAi M co?JJLY) ^vvdêvov VTTO

7rayye\\cr0ac} ov% opcovTa TO edo<$ TWV dvOpwTro- 10

7Tpl Oeov KOi XpHTTOV \6yCOV.

10 Ol/X

15. Ibid. x. 21 (R. iv. 199;L. I. 351).

f

O fievToi ye Hpa/cXecoi/ TO* ENrpiciN <f)7]crlv

dvTt TOV Ez^

Jo. ii. 19. TpiTrj, (j,rj epewijcras, KdiToi ye eTna-Târas TW ENTplciN,

ev rpialv r) az/acrrao-t? evepyelTai T/yu-epat?.ert Se /cat

^ TpiT7]v (f>7ja-l Tr)v 7rvevjj,aTi,Kr)v rifêpav, ev fj oiovrai

8rj\ovcr0at, TTJV r^9 eK/c\r)o-las dvdcrTaaiv. TOVTCOV be 5

a/co\ovuov ecrTiTrpooTrjv \eyeiv elvau TTJV

TTJV SevTepav Trjv ^wîKrjv, ovyeyevrj/jievrjs

T^9 avacrTaaea)? ev aurat?.

5. voovfj.evov] We should expect

this word to introduce what Origen

considered to be the true spiritual

meaning of the passage under dis-

cussion, and not a repetition of

Heracleon s obstinate*

interpreta-

tion. And the agreement of vooti-

fj.evov with elp/j.6v is very awkward.

As it stands the passage can

onlymean that Heracleon s interpretation

fails because he cannot grasp the

general drift of the prophecy, which

he interprets as being spoken by the

5vi>&fj.eis.But the text is unsatis-

factory, and I am inclined to suspect

that the words yoov/j-evov \cyea6at

may possibly be a marginal note

made by the reader of some ancestor

of Cod. Monacensis, which has crept

into the text. For a possibly similar

phenomenon we may compare Frag.

40, ei-rj tf)v<nsK.T.\.

10. ?0os] Does this mean simply

custom, usage, or should we com-

pare Origens use of TO h Wti \t-yo-

/u.ei>oj>, tropice, and perhaps TO, Wt]

Orig. Conwi. in loann. xiii. 5?

ovx bpuvTa] The reading of all the

MSS. Huet apparently conjectured

ov x^poCj/ra, which is the probable

source of Delarue s note Keg. (quern

H. sequitur) ov




16. Ibid. x. 22 (R. iv. 201;L. I. 356).

"Eot/ee Be ical Kara ra M.a/CKa/3a i,Ka TroXXrj TI<$d/cara- Cf. 1 Mace.

/ \ \ \ v \ \ \ i -95 i. 22 ff.

crrao-ia yeyovevai, rrepiTOV \aov KCU TOV vaov, KCLI OVK oLOa

el Tore avwicoBof^rjOr] TOQ-OVTOW erea-iv o vaos. o pevToi <ye

Hpa/eXeW, pr)Be eVto-TfJcra? rfj la-ropia, facri T6v SoXo- Cf. Jo. ii.

5 /jLwvra reccApAKONTA KA) el e reci KaTeo-Kevaicevat, TOV

vaov, elicova rvy^dvovra TOV ^(DTrjpos, Kai TOV S"

dpid/JLov i<; TrfV v\r)V, TovTea-Ti TO TrXao-^ta, dvatyepei,*

TOV 8e TGOV Tecraapd/covTa, o rerpa? ecrrt, (frrjcnv, t]

dirpoo-TrXoKos, els TO i^^va^â tcai TO ev rw e^^vatj-

10fj,aTi cnrepfjia. opa Be el SvvaTov, TOV

/JLCV fjuSid ra T&o~apa

TOV tcoo-fjiov crTOiêlaev TO?? tjywvLo-fjievois els TOV vaov

e<y-

KaTaTaa-Q-ofjieva \afjbf3dveiv,TOV Be S* Sta TO TTJ GKTVJ

yeyovevat, TOV dvOpwirov.

11

16. 6, 7. TOV r a/H0/*oV]Cf. Frag. 18,

Heracleon s interpretation of the six

(as he read) husbands of the Samari

tan woman. With the whole fragment

we must compare Excerpta ex Thco-

doto 50, XctjSdw xvv aTro TTJS yrjs...

fax*!" 7e^57j KOU v\iKT]v ereKrriva.ro...

o 8e KaO6/j.oiu<nv rr\v avrov rou Stj-

/uLiovpyou, Keii 6s tanv ov els rovrov

eve<f>v<r~r)aevre /cat eveffirtipev 6/j.oiov-

cribv TI avry 5tdyye\wi>

evdtis. And

53, ^trxe 5^ 6 A5d/i aSTjXws avr<$

virb rrjs <ro<f>ias ivffirapev rb oirepâ rb

n-vevâriKOV eij ryv ^vxty, Starayeis,

07?o-t,5t

dyye\wi>ev -xfipl pefflrov...

llp&rov oZv (T7re/j/u.a irvevârLKov TO ev

rip ASd/j, 7rpoe/3aXcj/ TJ ffocpia iva.rj TO

offrovv ij \oyiKri Kai ovpavia ^vxn yiuj

Kevr) a\\d fj.ve\ov yt/J.ovcra TrvevfAariKov,

which is more closely parallel. See

also Hipp. Refut. vi. 34, ToOro e<m

TOelpi>)/J.evov...Kal evefitiffyaev els rb

Trpbcruwov avrov irvoyv ^CJTJS KO! eyevero

o dvOpuwos ets ûx 7?" fwo <"

>

and for

the TO ev Tefj.<pv<rri/J.aTi cirepfj.a,

dywviffêvoLS.

ibid. vi. 34, KaroiKr)r-rjpi.ov . . .TTOTC 5

/cat \6ywit, oiTLves et<ri \6yoi

Ko.reaTra.pfj.evoL dirb TOV KOLVOV

TOV 7rX?7/)wâTos Kapirov /cat TT)S cro0taj

ets rovrov rbv Kocr/Aov, KaroiKovvres ev

The agreement of this passage,

with the fragment of Valentinus pre

served in Clement (Strom, iv. 13), andhis explanation of it, will be more

conveniently considered in an ad

ditional note.

8, 9. TeT/xis r) aTrpoffirXoKos] The

reference is probably in the first

instance to the original rerpaKrvs of

the Valentinian system (i.e. probably

the four male aeons of the Ogdoad),

and then more generally to the spiri

tual nature which is incapable of

real union with any lower nature.

Cf . Irenaeus i. vii. 4 (where he is speak

ing of the Demiurge s various views

as to prophecy) 17TOV dvdpwirov, rj TT}J/

irpoffTr\OKr}v TWV xeipovuv (MS.

Lat. pejorum).




17. Ibid. xiii. 10 (R. iv. 220; L. n. 18).

"IS&>/ie*>Se /cal rd HparcXecovo? et9 rou? TOTTOU?, oo-ri?

(/>ijo-iv"Arovov /cal Trpocricaipov /cal 7rt,\ei7rovaav e/cei-

vr)v yeyovevai rr}v i^wrjv, KOI rr)v /car avrrjv Sogav/coapi/cr) yap, <f>âlv, ^v /cal olerai rov KoaîKrjv avrijvelvau

d-jr6&ei%iv <j>epeive/c rov rd GpeMMATA rov

"Ia/cw/3 ef 5

avrrjs TreTTw/cevai /cal el fiev arovov /cal Trpovicaipov /cal

eiriXeiirovtrav &dp/3ave rr)v e/c pepov? yvwcnv, rjrot, rfj

aTTO TWVypa<f>wv o-vy/cpio-ei rwv apprjrwv p^^drwv, a ov/c

e%bv dv6pW7ru> \a\rjcrai,, Traaav rrjv vvv SL eaoirrpov /cal

alviyfj,aro<i <yivop{-vr)v <yvw<Tiv, /carapyov/jievrjv orav e\6rj TO 10

reXeiov, ov/c av avrajeve/caXeaafjiev. el Be

virep TOV SiaftdX-

\eiv rd 7ra\aid TOVTO Troiei, ey/c\7jreo^ av eirj.

|NO Se Si&ay-

o-iv vScop 6ZcoTrjp, tfrrjo-lv elvat e/c rov Trvevparos /cal

Jo. iv. 14. T7?9 Svvdfjuect)? auroO, ov -êvôêvo^ /cal et? TO Oy MH

AiyHCH 8e eic TON AIOONA aTroSeSco/cev avraisXegecrw

ourw?, 15

Atco^to? yap r) fa)?} avrov, /cal fjLrjSeTrore (f>6et,pofj,evr),

w? /cal77 Trpwrij r)

e/c rov<^>/)eaT09,

d\\d pevovaa dva-

Cf. Rom. (fralperos yap H X^P IC fcal H AcopeA rov2,Q)Tr)po? r]pwv,

/cal pri dva\K7/co/j,evr) fjLrjSe (frQetpo/jLevrj ev rw yu,ere-

%OI/T* avrfjs. (f)6eipo/jievijv Se rrjv Trpwrrjv Bi&ovs elvai 20

2 Cor. iii. ?&}*>,el pev rr)v Kara TO ypdppa e\eye, tyjrwv rrjv rfj nepi-

CfiEx.

Al

peceiTOY

KAAYMMATOC yivoêvt]v Kara TO HNGYMA /cal evpi-xxxiv. 34. O-KCOV, vyiws av eKeyev. el Se iravrv) <f>6opdv /caryyopel ru>v

Heb. x. 1.TraXatcSz/, 8f)\ov on rovro iroiel w? prj opoov rd dyaOd

11 ai}r] aiJro. 21 rV] om. 22yivo/j.hi)v] yivo^vr] r,.

17. 19, 20./xer<fxoj/Ti]

There is no O7r6re ofo ^5ei fyOfyai TO

difference of reading here in the MSB. T^V rrj] Hilgenfeld plausibly al-

Delarue s note, Regius (quern H. ters

theVôf the uss. to

rrjv. Per-sequitur) /êraaxoVTi, is due to Huet haps it is better to insert both articles

and not to Cod. Regius. Huet very (cf. Frag. 1). At any rate therj in

likely conjectured /xerao-x^Ti from the next line cannot be right. WeFerrarius

( particeps fuerit). may reasonably suppose that after

21. frrwv] With this commentytvofj.i>r)i>

had been corrupted to 71-of Origen we may compare Hipp. vo^v^ (dative because of the pre-

Refut. vi. 35, 6re T<?\OSAct/3ej> 77 /cr/ats ceding Trepiaiptvet), the r^v may have

...rr\v airoKaXv\f/iv TT\V eyKfKa\vfji/j.evr)v out.




25 MeAAoNTOON e)(eiN

eKelva THN CKIAN. OVK a. iriOdvws Be TO

AAAOM6NOY Birjyô-aTO Kal roi)? fj,Ta\a[jL(3dvovTa<; TOV

dvwOev eTrLôprjyov/JLevov TrXouo-tw?, KOI auroi)?eV-

/3\va-ai et? TTJV erepcov alwviov ^wr)v ra eTriKeôprj-

yrjfjueva aurot?. d\\d KOI eTraivet rrjv âfjiapeinv ooo~dv

30 ev&eigafAevriv rrjv dBid/cpirov Kal Kard\\rj\ov rfj

<f>v(Ti eavrrfS TTLO-TLV, fj,r) SiaicpiOelaav e^>ol? e\eyev

avrfj. elfjiev

ovv T^V Trpoaipeariv aTreSeêro, /JirjSev Trepl

(f)v<TCd$ alviTTOfJievos co?Sia^>6pouo"779,

real rêls (iv avyKare-

0efj,e0a el $erfj

(frvcriKf) KaraaKevfj dvafyepeirrjv r/J? a-vytcaTa-

35 êVea)? alriav, w? ov Tracrt ravrrjs Trapova-rjs, dvarpeTrreov

rov\6<yov.

OVK oi$a Be TTCO? o<

H.paK\ewi>TO

fjurj

eK\a/3(av (fryo-i TT/DO?TO Adc MOI TOYTO TO yAoop Jo. iv. 15.

Co? dpa Rpa%ea BiavvÔelaa VTTO TOV \6yov e/jui

\oiTcbv Kal TOV TOTTOV etceivov TOV \eyo/j,evov

40 uSaro?. ert 8e :al Trpo? TO Adc MOI TOYTO TO yAoop TN<\ MH

Aiycb MHAeAiep)(coMAi

GNGAAe ANTAe?N(frycrlv

OTI TauTa \eyet

r) yvvrj fJL(j)aivovo~a TO enr i/jLOÔov /cal 8vo~7r6pLo-Tov

/cal aTpotyov eKelvov TOV vSaTos TroOev ydp SeiKvvvat,

aTpocfrov elvai TO TOV

25

18. Ibid. xiii. 11(R.

IV. 221;

L. II.

20).

Be 6 ttpaK\eo)v TTÔ? TO Aepei AYTH<f)

r

rjo~i A^Xoi/ oTt Jo. iv. 16.

TL \eya)v Et êXet? \aftelv TOVTO TO vBwp,

(})CC)NHCON TON ANApA COY KCU oleTdl TTj^ SttyLta-

? TOV \ey6fjievov UTTO TOU ScoT^po? dvSpa TO

25. The text, even after fX LV Ka ^ ^ a ^r< v a,l ra. ro^rots OI

has been substituted for the impos-33.

0uVews]Cf.

Fragg. 19,44.

sible ?xei>

is unsatisfactory. The Origen s criticism of the doctrine of

omission of ra, ayada, would make it 0ycrews 5ia0opa is one of the most

simpler, and it is possible that these important parts of his refutation of

words may be a marginal gloss, which Heracleouism, as this was the deepest

has crept into the text. and most characteristic fault of the

27, 28. Kzl avrovs e/c/3Xwrcu] Cf. Ex- system, and indeed of gnosticism in

cerpta ex Theod. 58, TO\J/VX<-KOI>,

6 general.

dveawvev Kal dvrjveyKev airep dveXafie,



THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEKACLEON.

77X77 pa)/j,a eivai avTrjs, iva o~vv eiceivw yevofievi] 77/309 5

TOV ^(DTrjpa KO/uLicraaOaL Trap avTOv TTJV Bvva/JLLV /cal

TTJV evcocTLV KOI Trjv dvaKpaaiv TTJV 77/309 TO 77X77 p ft)fta

avrrjs Bvvtjdy ov jap jrepl dvBpos, (frrjcrl, KOCT/JLLKOV

eXeyev avrfj Iva Ka\eo-r), eTreinrep OVK tjyvoei on OVK

el%e vofjii/jbov dvBpa. 77/30 77X0)9 Be evTavOa pidêrai, \eywv to

avrfi rbv ^coTTJpa elpyKevai Ô^NHCON coy TON

KAI eA6e GNOAAe, $tj\ovi>Ta TOV CLTTO TOV

av^vjov eiTrep yap TOV(? OVTCOS el%ev, e^prjv TOV avSpa teal

Tiva TpoTrov <j)(i)vr)Teoveo~Tai avTov eiTrelv, tva o~vv avTco

yevrjTai 77/309 TOV ^(OTrjpa. aXX eVel, 009 6 Hpa/cXewv 15

(frrjo-l,KaTa TO voovp-evov rjyvoei TOV iSiov avSpa, /caTci Be TO

ci7r\ovv fcr^vveTO eiTrelv OTI ôiôv ov%l Be dvBpa el%e, 770)9

ov%t /JLciT rjv eo-Tai TrpoaTfio-o-cov 6 Xeycov "YrrAre (})OC>NHCONTON

ANApA coy KAI eA6e eN0AAe; elra77/309 TOVTO AAnGec ei pHKAC

OTI ANApA OYK exeiC fal&W E7T66 6 1/ TO)

O(7/Ltft)OVK el%eV 2O

dvBpa ij 2a/Lta/oetTt9, TJV yap ai)r^9 6 dvrjp ev ra> alwvi.

fêv ovv dveyvw/jiev TTeNTe ANApAC ecyec Trapd Be ra5

14 eiweiv] om.

18. 6. Kopiaaadai] Grabe suggests

K0fj.ie<r6ai.,which is followed by Hil-

genfeld. But there is no need to

alter the MS. reading, which is in it

self preferable.

7. TT]v tvucnv K.T.X.] Cf. Excerpt.

ex Theod. 22, eyetpo/AeOa ovv ij/Aeis

i(rdyy\oi rocs cippecnv a.TroKa.Ta<TTa.6ev-

rts...eij eVwcrti,and 64, K0[u$/ji,eva

teal aura rous Wfuftlovt TOUS d~yye\ovs

lavrwv, els TOV vvfjupuva evros TOV opov

etcriacrt ...... eis TOVS voepous /cai alwviovs

yd[j.ovs TTJS ffvfrvyias.

Tr\ripufj.a] On Heracleon s use of

?r\^/)Wyaa and aiwv, see additional

note p. 105.

14. Hilgenfeld s substitution of

direlv for l(rrat is possible, but it is

simpler to suppose with Huet that

elireiv, or perhaps 5-rj\u<rai,has fallen

out after O.VTOV.

21

here follows the Western text. As

Origen has twice quoted the words

with the reading e^co shortly before,

this passage may reasonably be sup

posed to represent Heracleon s text.

At the same time the retention in

Cod. Monacensis of a less well-

known reading in only one of several

passages would not be unparalleled.

Other interesting variants in Hera

cleon s text are found in(1) Fr. 9,

B?70aj/(a. See the note in loc. (2)

Fr. 18, l

dvSpas,a

readingother

wise unknown. (3) Fr. 40, tyvxhv

Kol 0-ufj.a. Mt. x. 28. (4) Fr. 40,

ee\eucrot>Tai (ets TO <r/c6ros TO

a Western variant for (f/

So far as we can tell he used a text of

a Western type, but we have not

much material from which we can

form a




evpofiev "E AN A p AC ec)(ec. KOI epjjirjvevei ye

rrjv v\LKr)v Trdaav Ka/ciav Brj\ovcr0ai Bid rwv ef

25 dvBp&v, f, o-vve7rerr\eKTo real 67T\rjcria^v Trapd \6yovTropvevova-a, ical evvfBpiôiievr) Kal dderovfievrj /cal

eyKara\L7rofjievij vrf avrwv \eKreov BeTT/OO?

avrov

onelrrep erropvevev ij TrvevfJLanKr), rfâpravev r] irvevâ-

ritcr) el Be tf/jLapravev 77 TrvevfAaritcrj, AeNApON AfAGoN OVK

30 fa TI TrvevfMaTiKij /card yap TO evayye\iov Oy AYNATAI Mt. vii. 18.

AeNApON Ar^QoN KApnoyc noNHpoyc 6NerKe?N. /cal Brj\ov ort,

ofyeraiavrols rd

rrj<>

fivOoTroitas,el Be dBvvarov eari TO

Af^QoN AeNApON (frepeiv noNnpoyc KApnoyc Kal Af^QoN AeNApoN

r; âjuapelrw, are Trvev/jLaTifcrj rvy^dvova-a, dicoKovOov avru)

35 \eyetv early, on rjroi OIK r\v d/juapria r; iropveia avrrjs, rjOVK

avrr} eiropvevcrev.

19. Ibid. xiii. 15 (R. iv. 224;L. n. 25).

fO Be HpaKXewv et? ra avrd prjfiara \eyei Eucr^7;^6^ft)? Cf. Jo. iv.

(x \ ^ \fj Vl9a)fjLo\oyrjKevai rtjv ââpeiriv ra vrc avrov rrpos

avrrjv elpijfJLeva TLpotfrrjrov ydp /JLOVOV, <f>r)(Ti,v,

eo~nv

elBevai rd rrdvra, ^revBofievo^ eKarepo)^ Kal ydp ol dyye-

5 X-ot ra roiavra Bvvavrai elBevai, Kal 6Trpocfrr/nis

ov rrdvra

olBev, EK Mepoyc r^p HNCOCKOMCN KAI K Mepoyc npo^HreyoMGN,1 Cor. xiii.

KOLV rrpofyrjrevwpev rj yLvaHTKco/j-ev. fMerd Be ravra erraivel

w? rrperrovrws rfj avrrjs (pixrei rcoiriacicrav rrjv

pelrLV, Kal [tijre ^revaafjievrjv fjiijre avriKpvs

yâacrav rrjv eavrrjs do ^rjiôcrvvrji ,rrerreia fjuevriv re

cfrrjo-iv avrrjv, on rrpo^r^rri^ etrj, epwrdv avrov, d/j,a

rrjv alrlavep<f)alvov(7av

Bi* rjv egeiro pvev&ev, on BS

ayvoiav deov Kal r^5 Kara rov Oeov Xarpe/a? d

CLVTTJS

19. 3. TrpoQr/Tov K.T.X.] Contrast TTJS ov iravroi olftev of its point.

Heracleon s views on the prophets 12 14. 6Vt...aê\?7(rao-aj/ is strange

in Fragment 5. but may possibly be explained as an

4. Hilgenfeld alters ra iravTa. in- extension of such usages as5r)\oi>

to Kal TO.VTO., an alteration which, 6Vt. Hilgenfeld plausibly suggests

besides having no MS. authority, are.

deprives Origen s criticism 6




aacrav /cal TTCLVTWV TWV Kara TOV ftiov avrfj dvayicaiwv

teal aXX-ttf? del TWV ev TO> jBiw Tvy^dvovaav ov yap 15

av, (frrjalv, avrrj rjpêro eVt TO(frpeap, efo> TT}? TroXew?

TV*y%dvov. ov/c olSa Se TTW? evo/juaev efJL(f>alveo-6ai, TT]V

alriav TOV e/CTreTropvev/cevai, rj dyvoiav alriav yeyove-

VCIL eTTL TWV 7r\7)ijiijLe\ )jfjidTwv Kdi T??9 Kara Oeov XO-Tpeias.

aXX eoi/ce ravra W9 ervêv ecrêSta/ceâi, %ft>/3fc? Tracr?;? TTiOa- 20

voTrfTo^. Trpoarldrjo-l re TOVTOIS on ôv\o/nev7) /juaQeiv

TTCO? /cal rivi evapeo-rrjaaaa /cal 6ea) Trpoa/cvvrjo-ao-a

Jo. iv. 20. d7ra\\ayeirj rov Tropveveiv, \eyei TO Oi n^jepec H

EN TcL opei Toyja) npoceKYNHCAN /cal TO

oe eaTW eveXeytcTa TCLelprj/jieva Trodev yap OTL /Sot-Xerat 25

,TIVL evapea-T^craa-a diraXkayeiT] TOV Tropveveiv ;

15 rQtv ev] TTJV e/c. 25 eve\eyitTa]

20. Ibid. xiii. 16 (R. iv. 225; L. n. 26).

Jo. iv. 21. Aepei AYTH d MHCOYC TTicjeye MOI, TYNAI, OTI epxeTAi O>PA,6ie

OYTG SN TU) 6pei TOYTCO ofVe EN lepocoAYMoic npocKYNHcere TOJ

ore eBoge iriQavwTaTaTeTrjprj/cevai, 6 H/ja/cXewv ev

TO E?rl/êz^ TW^ TTpoTepwv fir) elprjo-Qai, avTrj

MOI rYNî, vvv Se TOVTO avTy Trpoo-TeTa^BaL, 5

rore eVeôXwcre TOft?) dirlOavov TrapaTrfprj/Aa, elirmv "Opoc

TOV $(,d{3o\ov \eye<r6ai, rjTOV KOCT/JLOV avTov,

15. Grabe s alteration of rr\v into been the cause of her \arpeia, thoughTUV is the only satisfactory emenda- Heracleon probably put it forward as

tion here. But this is not enough. the cause of the errors in her service.

Massuet s insertion of diroTvyxdvovffav Origen seems to have misunderstood

after ava.yKa.iwv balances the sentence the words which he quotes.

better, but then dXXws rvyxwovaav 21. re] Theirepl of the Editions is

becomes an awkward anticlimax. another interesting example of the

Two simple emendations suggest influence of the mistakes made by

themselves, either(i)

to place d^ceX?)- the scribe of Cod. Regius. Cod.

aacrav after dvayKatw, or(ii)

to omit Monac , has (sic) which he has mig .

the KO.I afterdpe\j<raffar.

But it is taken for-rrepl

doubtful if even then a possible sense 22. T(v(\ Cod. Venetus inserts

can be obtained.rp^^ but it is more natural that the

19. Kal /card deov here should be similar to




//.epo<?ev 6 Sta/9oXo9 0X7;? TT}?

6 Be KOCT/JLOS TO (TVfjiTrav T^? icaicias opo?, eprjfjiov

10Trjpiov OrjpiwVj a> 7rpo(7Kvvovv Trdvres ol Trpo VO/JLOV

teal ol eOviKOi lepocoAyMA 8e rrjv K.TIGIVrjTOV KTiGTrjv

u> Trpoa-ercvvovv ol louScuot. AXXa KOI SevTepws "Opoc

fJLev ev6/jLi(Tv elvai ryv rcrio ivfj

ol eOviicoi Trpocretcvvovv

lepocoAyMA Be rov KridT^v, w ol lovSaioi e\drpevov.

15 u/zet? ovv, (fctjcrlv,olovel ol Trvev/jLarifcol, ovre rfj /cricreL,

ovre TM Brj/jLiovpyw npocKyNHcere, aXXa TW Trarpl T^?

Kal (rv/jiTrapaXa/Aftdvei ye, (frrjcrlv, avr>}v w?

TTicTTrjv, Kal (rvvapi0fjLOVfJLev r]v rot? /card aXrjOeiav

13 oi] om. 14

21. Ibid. xiii. 17 (R. iv. 226;L. n. 28).

npocKyNeTre o OYK oTAAre, HMG?C npocKyNoyMeN o Jo. iv. 22.

OTI HC(JOTHplA

K TO3N loyAAIOON GCTIN. TO YMeIc, 0(TOl>

eVt Trj Xefet, ol âpapels oo-ov &e eVt ry dvaycoyf), olirepl

Ta?fy/3a(/>a? erepo&oôi. TO 8e HMelc, ocrov eVl TW p^Tw, ot

5 Ioi/8atofc-

oo-oi/ Se eVt T$ dXKrjyopia, eyw 6 \6yos, Kal ol K.CLT

e/Jbe fjLefjbop<f)(i)iJLevoi,, TI)V a-coTypiav eôvre^ diro TGOV lovSaiKwv

\6ywv TO yap 4>ANep<jo0eNNyN MycTHpioN 7re<f)avepa)Tai,

AIA re Rom. xvi.

20. 8. With the description of o 6 apx^v rov xofffj-ov TOVTOV.

didj3o\os as /i^pos v o\7ys rjjs v\rj^ cf. 9, 10.ofcnynj/jtoi ^Tjptwi/] Cf. Hipp,

the cosmogony of Hippolyttis Refut. Refut. vi. 34, KaToiKr)Tr)pioi>...oTav

vi. 32^34, e/c r^s vXtx^j ovaLas Kal 5al[j.oves fj.r)(rvvoiKwcri rrj ^vxy, and

5ia/3oXi/c^s ewoiriffev 6dij/miovpyos ra?s Valentinus ap. Clem. Al. Strom, ii.

i/ yxcus TO, (Tw/aara, and e/c TTJS i-Ai/c^s 20, 17 Kap8la...Tro\\uv ov<ra5cu/j.6i>ui>

ytyovev (as must be supplied, see Hil- OLK^T^PLOV. These passages shew that

genfeld Ketzergescluclite, p. 4G8) et/cwi the phrase of the master was remem-

5id/3o\os, and TTJV de diropiav daifj.ovwi . bered by his pupils, and applied in

See also Irenaeus i. v. 4, IK de r??s different ways.

Xi^Trr/s ra irvevfj.ariKa. rrjs irovrjpias... 11. Kriffiv] i.e. the world of the

odev rov Std/SoXoy. Demiurge. The distinction between

9. d de/c6<r/xos]

Here regarded as the nations and the Jews may be

the world of the Devil, cf. Irenaeus, compai ed with the description (Hipp.

loc. cit. ov Kal Kotr/j-oKparopa Ka\ovfft, Refut. vi. 34) of the children of Abra-

and Hipp. Refut. vi. 33, 3id/3oXoj ham, as the children of the Demiurge.




2 Tim. i.

10.

Rom. ii.

29.

npO(|)HTIKOONKOI THC eTTl4>ANeU\C TOY Kvpfov HMGON

|HCOY XpicToy. opa 8e el/it?)

I8ia>s Kal irapa rrjv dtco\ov9iav

rwv prjTwv 6(

HpaK\ea)v e/<:Sef/Ltez/o9TO YMeTc dvrl rov Ol 10

I of Sato*, eOviKol, 8irjyrj(7aro.

olov Se eVrtTrpo? rrjv

âfjiapelnv \eyeo-0ai, Jyitet?ol lofSatot, 77 TT/JO?

V/JL6LS OL lOviKoL ,d\\ OVK O&dkT/ 76 Ofc 6Tp6SoÔL O

KWOVGW, OTI r

rr\daâ ecrrl, /cat ou/c aXêta, /cat pvOos /cal

ov MycTHpiA. o 8e TTpocrKVVwv Tov BTjfjLiovpybv, jjid\iaTa Kara 15

TON N KpynTU) loYAA?ON, KOL TOl)? Xo yOl 9 TOj)? TTVeVfJLaTi/COVS

euro? o o?Ae npocKyNe?. TroXi) Se ecrrt zî5^ irapa-

rov Hpa/cXewô? r /37;r a?ro roi) eT

Herpov Kijpvy/jLaros TrapaXa^âvoêva KOI io-raadai

aura eferafo^ra? /cat ?repi roO /3i{3\iov,7r6T6p6v7roT6 yvrjcriov2

IQ-TIV rj voOovrj fJLitCTOV SioTrep exovres vTrepriOefjieOa, ravra

pbvov eTricnj/Aeiovfievot, (frepetv avrov, w? Tlerpov StSa|r

a^T09,

M?) Sett K a^f/

EX\7;â5 irpoatcvvelv, rd rrjs V\TJ<; irpdy-

15 23

21. 12.717)65

2a-ua/3e?Tti ]

This is

strange but possible. The definite

article in the first clause restricts the

application to the particular subject

of the story, while in the second

clause it is general. But Cod. Vene-

tm has, either intentionally or by

itacism, improved the text, reading

âfj.apeiTfjv ;the preceding Saâpemj

would easily account for the change,

and the more general application

suggested by the masculine is intrin

sically far more suitable.

15. ov] This correction (found

in Cod. Yen.) is necessary, whether

we retain the Kal or not.

17. 7roXi> 5J The scribe of

Cod. Venetus fell into the natural

transcriptional slip of inserting /cdX-

\LOV, thus getting a more familiar

phrase. But intrinsic and transcrip

tional probability alike forbid us to

follow Hilgenfeld in retaining the

ing 5i67rep e/c6fres virepTidfj.e6a mean

ingless.

23. *o0"EXX?;i/as] The reading of

the Munich MS. explains the strange

production of its copy (Cod. Reg.

Ka.6c\tiv as) which Huet had to fol

low, and which led him to conjecture

/car edviKovs. The passage from the

Preaching of Peter is quoted at

greater length in Clement (Strom, vi.

5) where the last sentence stands Kal

yap e/cetpoi JJ.OVOL ol6fj.zvoi rov debv

yivuffKeiv OVK e-n-tcrTavTai, \aTpeuovres

0,77^X015 Kal

Origen expresses a decided opinion

on the Preaching of Peter in the De

Principiis, Praef. 8 (interp. Rufino)

Respondendum quoniam ille liber

inter libros ecclesiasticos non habe-

tur; et ostendendum quia neque

Petri est ipsa scriptura, neque alteri-

us cuiusquam qui spiritu Dei fuerit




KOI \arpevovras f^Xot? Kal

25 \i0ois, /jirjSe Kara lof Saiov ? aefteuv TO Oelov, eTretTrep

Kai avrol JJLOVOI, olo/nevoi eTriaracrOai deov, dyvoovcriv

avTov, \arpevovres dyye\oi,<;real

/Jirjvl Kal a-e\r)vy.

24 \arpeuovTas] \OLTpetovTes.

26 fj.6voi oiofjievoi] /j.6i>ois

22. Ibid. xiii. 19 (R. IV. 229; L. II. 33).

To/jievToi, ye HMeic npocKyNoyMeN 6

(

HpaK\ea)v oie-rai elvau J . iv. 22.

O ev alwvu Kal ol avv avry e\06vre<; ovroi yap, âlv,

yoecrav TIVL TrpocrKVVovcri,, Kara d\ij0eiav rrpoaKV-

vovvres. a\\a Kal TO "On HccornpiA EK TCX>N loyAAicoN GCTIN,

5 eTrel ev rfj lovSaia, (frrjcrlv, eyevr/Oij, aXX OVK ev avrols

ov yap 6t? irdvras avrovs eyAoKHce Kal on ef Cf. 1 Cor.

eKeivov rov e0vovs 62HA96Nrj (Twrrjpla Kal o

\oyo<$^;^,.

eic THN OIKOYMGNHN Kara 8e TO voov/juevov K TWV lou- (xviii.)5.

Saicov rrjv crwTrjpiav SirjyeiTai yeyovevai, eTreLtrep el- ^Q

X>

10 Koves OVTOL rwv ev ru> 7r\r)pa)/jLaTi avrw elvai vofii-

ôvrau. e^prjv 8e avTov Kal roi)? air avrov (=Ka<rrov rwv ev

TTI \arpeia SeiKvvvai, TTCO? eaTiv eiKtov rwv ev rw irK^pwfiarL,

el ye firj /JLOVOV (fxovy rovro \eyovcriv, d\\d Kal aXrjdeia

<j>pOVOV(TlVaVTO.

7T/305 TOVTOLf TO 6N nNGYMATI KAI AAH0eiA Jo. iv. 24.

15 npocKYNe?c9Ai TON GeoNr/yov/jievos, \eyet, on Oi irporepov

Trpoa-Kvvrjral ev aapKl Kal ir\dvr) Trpoa-eKvvovv ro5

lit) Trarpl, coare Kal ravrov 7re7T\avfja-0ai, Trdvras TOT)?

TO>

&tjfj,i,ovpya), Kaleinfyepei ye 6

(

Upa-N TH KTI CGI, Kal ov TO) Kar d\r)6ei,av cf Rom.

i. 25.

11^/cocrrov] eKaffTUv.

24. \arpe6ovTas] The MS. read- 44, TOI)J 5^ appevas AyytXovs robs <ri>v

ing is probably due to the following aureKire{j.<p6{vTas. And see also

\arpe6ovTes. Frag. 40, ol TTJS oiKovonlas ayyeXot.22. 2. 6 h O.IUVL Kal ol <riV aury A- 15. ^yo^ôs] We may perhaps

0<Wes]These may be naturally iden- accept Huet s suggestion scribas

tified with the /cotpos rov TrXTjpwâros 5i.yyovfji.fvos.

Kapirbs and the 70 Xôt projected by 19. Krlrei] Heracleon probablyhim and Sophia : and, in the account refers to the second interpretation

given by Irenaeus, with the Soter and given in Frag. 20, which is no doubt

his angels. Cf. also Exc. ex Theod. founded on Rom. i. 25.




Jo. i. 3. KTl cTH, 05 (TTi X/5K7T05, 1<?

T7AIMTA A l AYTO? e

KAI ^P c AYTOY ereNeio OY AGN.

23. Ibid. xiii. 20 (R. iv. 229;L. n. 33).

Jo. iv. 23. KAI n*p onATi-ip TOIOYTOYC ZHTE? royc TTPOCKYNOYNTAC AYTONT

el ZHTG? 6 TTATHp,$ld TOV vloV ZHTG?, TOV 6\7J\V00TO<; ZHTHCAI

Lc.xix.10. KA I COOCAI TO AnoAooAoc, OVGTIVCLS tcaOaipwv /cal TraiBeixov TOJ

iv

Z

16 ^7^ Ka^ T0^ vyiecri, Soy/jLaai, Karao-Kevdêi a\r]dLvoi>s TTpocr-

KwrjTa^.J

A7ro\a)\evai, SeIT)<JIV

6 HpaicXewv evrfj (3a- 5

Oeia v\y r^? TrXaz^Ty? TO oiicelov TO> Trarpl, oirep

ZHTe?TAi i va 6 nATHp VTTO rwv oltceicov

Cf. Lc. xv. el/juev

ovv ecopa TOV irepl T^? aTrwXeta? TWV TrpojSdrcov \6yov,

KOI TOV dTTOTrecrovTOS TUIV TOV TraTpos VLOV, KCLV

avTov TTJV Sir/yrjaiv. eVel Se/j,v6o7roiovvT<i

ol airo r^? jvca- 10

fir)? avTov OVK olS* o TL Trore Tpavws TcapiGTacri irepl

diro\w\via^ Trvev/jLaTi/crjs <f>vo-eco<;,

ovSev o-aê?

cricovTes tj/Jids TreplTwv TTpo T^? aTTcoXeta? avTijs

rjalwvwv ovSe ydp Tpavovv ^vvavTai eavTwv TOV \6yov. Bid

TOVTO auTOi)? eicovTes TrapaTre/jL^lro/jieOa,TOCTOVTOV eTrcnropr)- 15

4 d\r]divovs] ahydots TOI)S. 9 vlov] mot. Cod. Bodleianus habet in

margine rcixa vlov, sed in txt. habet vlov.

20. X/H(rr6s]In the Excerpta ex must refer to the same, the tertiary

Theod. 45, the section describing predicate (contained in d\tjd. TOVS

the creative work of the Soter, eis irpoaK.) would be very awkward.

oixriav TJyayev avrd re /cat [TO] rrjs 5. aTroXwXât] There is of course

Seur^pas Sta^^crcws, is similarly closed no necessary reference here to a

with the words irdvra 5t O.VTOV K.T.\.

commentaryof Heracleon s on S.

23. 4. d\T]divovs] This correction in Luke, though we know from Clement

Cod. Venetus restores the grammar that he commented on some part of

of the sentence;

ova-nva^ Ka.da.lpuv it (see Frag. 50; Clem. Al. Strom, iv.

can of course be separated off as a 9. 73). Here however he only ap-

complete relative sentence, but as ova- pears to have explained Luke xix. 10

rtj as, TO a7roXwX6s, and irpoffKvvr)Ta.sin illustration of S. John s words.




24. Ibid. xiii. 25 (K. iv. 234;L. n. 43).

Et? fjuevToi ye TO TTNeyMA 6 Oedc 6 HpaKêwv (fryeriv Jo. iv. 24.

payro? 7p ^ctt KaOapd Kal doparos rj Oeia(frv-

avTOv. OVK olBa 8e el eSlSaêv rîds, ravra eTrenrwv,

d 6edc TTNeyMA eo~Ti. TO Be royc npocKyNoyNTAC GN TTNey-

5 MATI KAI AAHGeiA Ae? npocKyN6?N arafyrjviêiv vopi^wv, $v]a-iv

A^/a>9TOV Trpoo-Kvvovftevov Trvev jJbdT news ov o-ap/ci-

Kal yap avTol r^? ai)r^? ûcrew? oi/re? TO) TraTpl

el(T\v, o iTives KCLTO. d\r)8eiav Kal ov KCLTOL

r

rr\avr)v Trpoa-tcvvovcri, Kadd Kal 6 aTrocrroXo? StSdcrfcei

io\ey(0v AopiKHN AArpei AN TTJV TOiavTrjv Oeocrefteiav.

eTTio-Tr/aco/jLev be el/JLTJ a~(f)6Spa

eaTiv acreê? oôoucrtou? TTJ

dyevv?jT(p (frvcret,Kal TrajjL/naKapia \eyeiv elvai, rou? TrpocrKv-

vovvTas ev irvev/âTi rw dew, oO? Trpo /3pa%eos eljrev auro?

o *}i{paK\ewv eKTreTTTWKOTas, Tr)V âpapelTiv \eycov

15 TTvev/jiaTiKfjs (pvcrecos ovcrav eKTreTropvevKevai. a\X

ovy^ opwviv [ol TavTa \eyovTes^\ OTL \rrav TO Ofioova-Lov]

Kal TWV avTWv $KTIKOV. el 8e eSeâro TO r

jropvevo~ai r) irvev-

fJLaTLKr) (frvais, o/jLoovaios ovaa[TU> dyevvrjTw], avoaia Kal dOea

Kal daeftri aKoXovdel TW \6ya) rw /car auroi)? Trepl 6eov ovBe

20 (fravTacnwdfjvai dKivSwov eo~Tiv

2r/]

/cat. 11 o/ioofcrt ouj] o/j.oovffioi>.16 ot raCra X^yovres] om.

lac. 13 circa litterarum relicta: Codex Bodleianus in margine ot raura Xe-

yovres. irav rb o/j-oovcnov] TravTos, post hoc verbum relinquitur lacuna (12

circa litt.) in Codice. Cod. Bodl. in margine f<rws T&V evavrluv. 18 0i7crtj]

(pvffeis.r ayevvriTtf)] om. lacuna (12 litt.)

relicta: Cod. Bodl. in mar

gine T<f) dyevv/jTij). 20 dAX-^Xots]

24. 2.-^

0eta] There being no nominative is required and the mar-

article in his exemplar the scribe of ginal conjecture in Cod. Bodleianus

Cod. Voietus removed the difficulty fulfils the required conditions.

by altering the last /cat into 77. TraV rb o/xooucrtoj ] On this con-

10.\oyiKT)i> \arpeiav] Correspond- jecture see Additional Note C.

ing to their nature. Cf. /cat yap avrol 18. T<

ayevvr}Tu>\A conjecture pro-

TTJS auTrjs 0i;crews dWej, and Frag. 45 bably derived from Ferrarius, which

TJ]V TUV ayluv \oyiK<2vovalav. admirably suits the requirements of

16. oi raOra \tyovres] Some such




25. Ibid. xiii. 27 (R. iv. 237; L. n. 49).

f

OpaBe Kal rov

Hpa/cXewvari

<f)r}aiV

\eyei yapon

eSeêro TI etcrc\ij<ri*rov Xpicrrov, /cal errerreio-ro

rrepl avrov OTI, rd rrdvra /JLOVOS e/ceLVos errio-rarai.

26. Ibid. xiii. 28 (R. iv. 238; L. n. 51).

Jo. iv. 20. Kal oT

Hpa/c\ea)v Be<j>rj<ri 7rpo9 ro Epco eiMi, 6 AAACON coi

ort Wirrep errerreto-ro77 â/jLapetTis Trepl rov

<w? apa e\6(ov Travra d7ra r

yye\6L avrfj, (frrjai

OTL etcelvos ov TrpocrSo/ca?, e<yw elfil 6 \a\a)i> crot Kal

ore GO/j,o\6<yr)O

ev eavrov rov TrpocrSo/cw/jievov \rj\v- 5

Jo. iv. 27. devai, HA00N, (fyjjcrlv,oi M&6HTAI npdc AYTON, 81 oi)?

e\7)\vOei e/9 TTJV â/Jbdpeiav. 7ro)9 Be Sia roi)? paffffras

e\rj\vOeiet9

TT)^ Zapdpeiav,o irives Kal

rrporepovavrw

o-vvfjaav ;

1crot] post (rot relinquitur lacuna (4 vel 5 litt.).

27. Ibid. xiii. 30 (R. iv. 241;L. n. 56).

Ooe

HpaK\ea)i> THN fApl^N rrjv SeKriKrjv ^"0)^9 vrro-

\afjijBavei elvai SidOeo-iv Kal evvoiav Kal rrjs

r^9 rrapa rov Scor^po9, fyvriva Kara\eirrovo~a,

Trap avra), rovrkanv eôvaa Trapd ra) Zwrfjpi, ro

roiovrov dKevos, ev w \t}\v6ei \a(3elv ro %wv vSwp, 5

4 Trapa] irepl.

25. 2. }) (KK\if}a-ia] i.e. ot Trvevfj-ctTiKoi. to the latter word. It must meanCf. Excerpta ex Theod. 41. thought, conception, or the like, not

27. 2. /cai] The Kal before T^S power of thinking or conceiving the

Swdpeus is probably right. The diW/uj. Below (1. 13) Ferrarius re-

vdpia is the Sidêtrts and &VOLO. which fuses to take rrfv frvoiav r^s 8vva-

is deKTtK-r} rijs fw^s Kal TT^S dwa/j-eus. /xews together. Probably we should

Hilgenfeld s omission of the /ecu, there read, as here, Kal tvvoiav Kal

which makes dvvd.fji.ews dependent on r




els rov Koauov evayyeXiô/jsevrj rfj K\rj-

crei rrjv XptcrroO Trapovalav. Bid ydp rov rrvevâro^

Kal vrro rov TTvevuaros Trpocrdyerai rj i|ru%r)rw Sft)-

rrjpi. Karavovjcrov Br/,el Bvvarai Irraivov^vr] rvy^dveiv r)

10vBpia avrrj rravrri dcfrie/JLevr) A(|)HKe jap, <jyir](rl,

THN yApiANJo. iv. 28.

AYTHC H fYN^ v yap Trpo&Keirai on A^HKesi auTrjv irapa TW

^wrripi. vrctl? Se KOL OVK aTriOavov KaraXeiTrovcrav avrrjv

rrjv Se/CTiKrjv rr)<> ^coi-js îdOeaiv, Kal rrjv evvotav rrjs

8vvdfji(i)<; r^9 nrapa rov "%wrf)pos, Kal TO crKevos ev

15 w e\r)\v0L \aftelv TO <wz> vBcop, aTreKrjXvOevai et? TO^

rovra)i>, eva^je\i(TaaOat rfj K\rjo~et, rrjv

reap ova lav ; TTO)? Se Kal77 TrvevfjiariKr) pera

rocrovrovs Xoyou5 ov Treireto rai, cra^xw? Treplrov XpicrTov,

d\\d(f>rjcn

MH TI oyjoc GCTIN 6 Xpicroc ;Kal ro ElfiAGoN Jo. iv. 29,

10 8e e THC noAeooc St^ yTjcraTo dvrl rov E/c T^? rrporepas

avrwv dvaar pofyrjs, ovo~r)<$ KocrfAiKrjs Kal rjpôvro

Bid T^? TT/o-Tew?,(/>7?crl, 7T/DO? TOi^ ^wrrjpa. \eKreov

Be Trpos avrov 7rc3? /JLevei, Trap avrols ra<; Ayo HMepAC ; ot)

yap rerrjprjKev o irpoTrapeOefjieOa rj/Aels Trepl rov evrfj

7ro\ei

25 avrov dvayeypd(f)0aL MGMeNHKeNAi Ta? Ayo HMe

19fJ.ri

TI our6s] fJ-rjTOLOVTOS.

25 ava.yeypd(p6ai] Cod. Bodleianus in margine Ta%a XetVei

28. Ibid. xiii. 32 (R. iv. 242;L. n. 60).

O Ser

HpaXea)^ fyrio~lv on

avru> % wv dyopdcravres drrorr}<>

^

6.K-XTJO-IS]

Cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 24. A negative is obviously ne-

58, rb K\t]rbv . . .rb IK rrjs olxovo- cessary : cf. Orig. Comm. in Joann.

/j.ias TO ^vxf-Kov and the words irpocr- xiii. 29. We can either place /J.TJ

dyercu -f) ^v^f] which occurs in this before dvayeypd^dai with the margin

passage (1. 8).The woman herself of the Bodleian, or before ev ry ?r6Xci.

was a representation of the fK\oyri. 28. 1. The general sense of the frag-

21. Koir/jiiKrjs] Cf. Frag. 17 (the ment is recoverable, but it is hope-

account of the woman s formerlife), lessly corrupt. The third sentence

KoaniKT) ydp rjv, and Frag. 20, where may possibly have run TTWS 5, oZ/tcu,

thefc6<r/ios

is the kingdom of the did- ol fj.a.d-rjra.1TO, awrct

efxeti> \tyovrai..

jSoXos. Heracleon seems also to have And in line 8 it would be natural to

used the word as almost equivalent alter TTOTOU into eXaiov, for we can

to humanity, see Frag. 8. hardly justify it on the strength of




tccio-av. TaBe(f)rjcrlv

iva Tivd* *al TTCVTC pupal TrapOevou

Cf . Matt.*

rtvro TOVpv/JL(f)iov. Tret)? Be olfjbcu

* * *TO, avra eêiv

* * *

\e<yovTai

* *rat? aTroKKeia-Oelcrais pwpals irapOevois, afyov 5

IBelv

KaTTjyoplav TrepteôvTa

TWV fjuaOyToov rot? ai/rot?Kot/jua)-

/jbevcov rat? fjbwpal^ TrapOevoLs. ecm &e teal avro dvo/juoiov rov

^)60T09 TTpOS TpO<f>r}V,

fCOL TOV 7TOTOV TTpO? TO,/BpCO/jLCtTa.

* * * *

*0-az/ra? aiTiavaa-Qai rrjv eKô^v, KaiTrep tcard n Svvd-

fievov o-a<f)rj Troirjaai TOV \6yov e^prjv avrov Bid 7r\ei6vwv 10

, KaracrrcevdôvTa rrjv ISlav

3 post riva lacuna (6 circalitt.). post irapetvoi lacuna (45). 4 post

oZ/mi lacuna (8). post ?x lv lacuna (6). 5 post \tyovrai lacuna (10).

8 post ppu/j.aTa lacuna(19). 9 Kaiirep] xdirep. /card] ins. intra lineas.

29. Ibid. xiii. 34 (R. iv. 245;L. n. 65).

Jo. iv. 32.Efoc> BpoociN e)(a>

(f)Are?N, HN y/weTc OY K oTAAje ov&ev

Be et9 TTJV

30. Ibid. xiii. 35 (R. iv. 245;L. ir. 65).

Jo. iv. 33. "EAefON oyN 01 MAGHTAI npoc AAAH Aoyc MH TIC HNefKeN

4>AreiN ;el KOI

(rapKi/ctos VTroXa/jL/Bdvei ravra \eyecr0ai 6

Hpate\O)V VTTO TWV fMiGrjTMV, w? en TcnreivoTepov Sia-

voovpevwv Kal rrjv âpapelriv /jnôvpevwv \eyovcravJo. iv. 11. Oyre ANTAHMA e xeic, KAI TO 0peAp ecTi BA0y a%iov â? 5

ISeiv, prj Trore fiXeTrovre? TI Oeiorepov ol fjiad^rai (fraai, Trpbs

dXXrjXov? MH TIC HNefKCN AyT(o cf)Are?N ; rd-â yap virevbovv

<t

r

y<ye\i,icijvriva Bvva/jiiv evrjvoêvai, avrw

31. Ibid. xiii. 38 (R. iv. 248 ; L. II. 70).

Jo. iv. 34. O Se(

}^paK\e(Dv Bid rov EMON Bpa)MA tCTiN I NA nomcoo TO

BeAHMA Toy neMVfANTOC MG(frycrl Bir)ryel(r()ai TOV â)Trjpa

rots" /jiaOrjTais, OTL TOVTO o avve^r/Tei, //.era Trjs yvvai-

7r6r7?s XI/XJ/GS, and to fill up part of small patches in large rents are la

the gaps by reading KaT-qyopTJvavTas, hour wasted.




/eo9, /3/ow/Lia iStov \eycov TO 6eAHMA TOV Trarpos TOVTO

$ydpavTOv Tpo$rj/cal dvaTravais /cal Svvafjiis r^v. 6e-

AHMA 8e Trarpos e\eyev elvai TO yvwvai dvdpwTrovs TOV

Trarepa, teal o-coOijvai, oTrep r/v epyov rov Swr^po? TOV

eve/ca TOVTOV aTreo-TaXfêvov et? â^dpeiav, TOVTGGTIV

et9 TOV Kocr/jiov. ftpw/jia ovv avTOêi\r)(f)6

TOV I^crou /cal

10 Trjv fjbTa Trjs â/napeiTiSos av^rjTrjcnv, O7Tp

i TO) opaaOau /cal raTrett co? eêCkrjÔai /cal

erpo<r}

roO Scor^po? TO GeAHMA TOV vrarpo?, tra^xw? ov

TTW? 8e /cal avctTcavcris TO 6eAHMA TOV Trarpo? ;

yap 6 K.vpios a\\aôv, 0)9 ov rrravTos TOV TraTpt/cov

15 $eA,?maTO9 avaTrav crew? avTov 6Vro?. TTAT6P, ei AYNATON. Mt. xxvi.

, , , > > , , , , , , 39

TTApeAGATOO TO HOTHplON AH 6MOY* TlAh N OY Tl fOL) 6eA<JO,AAAA Tl

cy. irbOev 8e /cal ort Suz/a/^t? TOU2,o)Trjpos TO GeAHMA roO

9 aOro] avrov. Cod. Bodl. in margine raâ awr6. /cai] Cod. Bodl.

in

margine rdxaTO /cat

Tra/oA/cei.10

r^s] rr/z/. 1?<rtf] (roi.

32. 76id. xiii. 41 (R. iv. 251;L. n. 79).

Kat 6f

}^pa/c\ea)i> /jievTOLye OJJLQLWS rot? 7ro\Xo?9 eVt r^?

/ji6LV, fjirj oto/ueô? avTrjv dvd<yea-0ai. (frrjcrl yovi>OTL

Top TOJV yevvrj/jLciTcov \eyei Oepio-fjbbv, w? TOVTOV fjiev GTI

Stcopiav 6%oi>Tos TeTpd/j,r)vov, TOV Be Oepicrfjiov, ov auro?

5 eXeyev, 1787; eVe<jr&)To<? /cal TOV Oepio-jjbov 8e ov/c ol& O7ro)9

e?rt r^9 ^1*^179 efei\rj(f)eTWV TCKIT&VOVTWV, \eycov OTL

dtc/jualoi teal GTOL/JLOL elat, irpo^ Oepto~fjiov /cal GTTL-

31. 6. TO 7J wi at /C.T.X.] Cp. Hipp. Origen complains first of the inter-

Refut. vi. 36. As the5t6p#w<ns

of pretation of TO dt\-r)/j.a as /Spw/ua /cat

the Hebdomad was effected by im- TT}v...av^r-rjffiv, then as rpofpri, then

parting to the Demiurge the know- as avairava^, and lastly as SiW^tj.

ledge of the Father, so it is natural 15. Trdrep] The omission of /xou

that the5t6p0w<m

TWV eVâSe should and eo-Tt is found in other authorities,

be accomplished by analogous means. especially among the Valentinians.

9. airrd] The marginal sugges- But this position of oV e/wu is not

tion of the Bodleian seems on the found elsewhere, nor is the rl sup-

whole to be the best reading; it ported by other authority. See Tis-

restores to the



86 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HE11ACLEON.

rijSeioi, 7rpo<?TO avvaÔrjvai et? dTroOij/crjv, rovrean

Bid 7rto"T6<i)5 et9 dva7ravo~ iv, oaai ye erotyLtot, ov yap

Trdcrai at uev yap rjBr) eroiôi ^crav, (frrjcrlv,al Be eue\- 10

\ov, al Be fJie\\ovo iv) al be eTriaTreipovTai rjBrj. ravra

Jo. iv. 35. uev ovv e/ceivos eljrev. TTW? Be ol jJbaOr^ral enAi pONTec royc

6(})0AAMOYC bvvavrai (SXeireiv ra? -^ruâ? 77877 eTrtT^Se/ou? ov-

cra? TTÔ? TO, w? oierai, et? aTroOrjK^v ei<ra%0ijvai tOVK

ol$a el Svvarai Trapacrrrjcrai. /cal en ye TTW? eTrl TWV tyvyj&v 15

Jo. iv. 37, aX?7$e9 TO "AAAoc d cnei pooN, KA*I AAAoc 6 GepizooN /cat, AnecjeiAA

YMAC BepizeiN o OYX YM?c KeKorriAKATe

;nva Se rpoTrov TO "AAAoi

K6KOniAKACI KA | YM6?C 6IC TON

eart, TrapabeâcrOai eVl T^?

16 6 Oepifav]

33. Ibid. xiii. 44 (R. IV. 255 ; L. n. 85).

Kal epei ye 6 Hpa/cXeo)^, Taâ 8e TOUTW Kara

Tavrrjv avjJiTrepKfrepo/jievos Tt? teal

Mt. ix. 37. oTi Tw /taTa TOC

OepiCMOc noAfc, oi Ae epr^TAi oAi roi

o/xoiw? ravra elp^rai, rw erolfjuovs vrpo?

Kal eTriTTjSeious TT/OO?TO 77877 Gvvay^Qrivai 5

aTro6r)Kr)v Sid rrjs Triarect)^ et? av CLTTav<i

iv

elvai, Kal eViT^Setof? TT/JO? orwr^piav Kal

rov \6yov Kara aev rovc

U.paK\ea)va Bid rrjv

avrwv Kal rrjv $v a iv Kara Be rov eKK\r)o-ia(TTiKov Bid ruva

evrpeTTLCTfjiovrov tjye/AoviKov, eroi/jiov TT/JO? re\eiw(TLV, iva Kai 10

6epiaOf). \eKreov ovv Trpos TOU9 OUTOX? eKBeâuevovs, el (3ov-

\ovrai TrapaBeâadai fjur)Trore yeyovevai, irpo rrjs rov SCOTÔ?

rjfjuwv eTTiBij/jiias OepiajJbovrjraparr\i]O iov rw OUTCO? dv eXvrt-

crOevri aTro rwv %p6va)v rov evayye\iKov

32. 10. ai 5^] The repetition of al 5e 33. 5. tviniddovs] Of . Excerpta ex

offended the ear of the scribe of Cod. Theodoto, 46, /cat rots<rufj.a.<rt

Kara

Venetus, so that he substituted Kal (/xVip fTrtTrjdeLoT-rjTa cVeTrotr/trei ,which

at ^j/ for the second ai 5. But the also illustrates 5ta TTJV

reading of his exemplar is right. Kal rrjv tpveiv.



THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON. 87

34. Ibid. xiii. 46 (E. iv. 256;L. n. 87).

f

O Se RpaK\ecov TO eepizcoN MicGON AAMBANCI elpfja-Oai Jo.

L,E-Tret Oepia-rrjv eavTov \eyei, (frrja-lv,

6 ôyrrjp,

/cal TOV fjLLo-Oov TOV Kvpiov rjfjiwv vTrdXappdvet elvauTT)I>

TWV depLô/jLevcov o~a)Tr]piav Kal dTTOKarda-racrLV TU>

5 dvairavea-daL avrbv eV avrols TO Se KAI CYNAfei KApnoN

etc ZOOHN AICONION Qrj&lv eipfjffQai, rjon TO a-vvayo/juevov

KapTros ^w^9 alwvtov ea"Tiv, 77OTL Kal avTo ^(Drj aiw-

vi os. d\\(i avToOev vof/kifn ftteuov elvai TI]V fafffyrw avTov,

(frda/covTosTOV *a)Ttjpa MicGoN AAMBANEIN, KOL o-vvêovTO^

TOV

10 MICGON Kal Tr)V CYNAfCOPHN TOY KApTTOY 1? 6V, (IVTlKpVS T^9

Bvo TrpdyjjuaTa rrapio-Tdar]^, cos Trpo$iri<yr]o-dne6a.

2 voftlfri] i>o/J.ifriv.1 T? OTL] ov.

35. Ibid. xiii. 48 (E. iv. 200;

L. n.95).

v TO "!NA 6 cnefpcoN OMOY XA P^ KA 0e

P"

Jo>

ZGON OVTCO 8Lr)yr}o~aTo Xaipei /Jbev yap, (ftrjo iv,o cnreiptov

OTL o-Trelpei,Kal OTL i]$rj TLvd TWV aTrepaaToyv avTov

avvd<yTaL,eXTTtSa e^wv Trjv avTrjv Kal rrepi TWV

$\OL7r(i)V o 8e Oepi^wv o/Aol&S TL Kal deplcreL.a\\ o

fjLev TTpooro? rjpâTO o-ireipwv, o Sei)repo? 0pl%(i)V.

ov jdp ev TW avTw eSvvavro aft<f>OTpoi upâadai

eSeL ydp rrputTov crTrapfjvaL, etff vcrTepov OepLaurjvaL.

pevTOLje TOV a-jreipovTOS (TirelpeiP,GTL

34. 7. Delarue s emendation-fj

OTL part of the Heracleonic doctrine.

is by no means absque causa (seeThe sowing of this utos avdpuirov,

Lommatzsch). Whence Huet derived whoever he was, must refer to the

o I do not know. It is the reading sowing by a higher power of the

of noMS. and suits neither

grammar pneumaticseeds in the creatures of

nor sense. We must assume that a the Demiurge, and the Tri/ei^cm/cot are

corruption of on to ON led to the not divided into different classes, so

omission of the-fj.

far as is known. The ^5?? is also

35. 3. 17577] Cod. Venetus has altered forcible. He rejoices in that he is

77577 to ei577,but the original reading already gathering in the earnest of

is preferable. Different kinds or the rest. For a similar confusion

classes of seeds are not insisted upon, of77and ei in Cod. Venetus, cf . Frag.

nor do they, so far as we know, form 20, ws 775et irLffT-qv for ws 77577 TTIO-TT}! .




9epuel 6 OepL^wv. 7rl fjLevTOi TOV TrapovTos d/jLôrepoi 10

TO iBiov epyov evepyovvTes O/JLOV %alpovaL } KOIVI^V

ftapav TTJV TWV a-TrepfjudTwv reXetorT/ra tfyov /juevot.

Jo. iv. 37. en Be /cal els TO N TOYTCO ICTIN 6 Aopoc AAHGINOC, OTI AAAoceciiN 6 cnei

pooN,KAI AAAoc d

GepizooN (prjcrlv

C

O /juev yap VTrep

TOV TOTTOV v /o? di OpcDTTOV o"ireipeio Be %Q)Tr/p wv real 15

ai^TO? ino? dvOpwTTov Oepiêi, teal OepicrTas

TOI)? ota TCOV p,a07)Twv voovfAevovs dyye X.ovs,

67rl rrjv eavrov^frv%r]v ov Trdvv Se cra^cG? eêOero TOI)?

8vo vlovs rov dvOpwTTov, TtW? claw, &v 6 et9 cneipei /cal 6 e^

Gepi zei. 20

10 eTrt] eTrei. 15 uios] vlov.

36. Ibid. xiii. 49 (R. iv. 263;L. n. 99).

dyy\oL eicriv oi ras Xotvra? fAepi&as irapd rrjv

/cal eVt Trjs Stao-Tropa? TWV^vû>v

rera-

Jo. iv. 30. Y/LttVot, ov&ev earns drorrov TON cneipoNTA OMOY XAipeiNKA JON

GepizoNTA /^6Ta TOV OepidfMOv. o 8 Hâ/cXew^ fyricrlvOTL

Ov SS avT&v, ovSe air UVTWV ea-Trdpi) TavTa TO. airep- 5

/jiaTa, (frrjo-lBe T&V aTroorToXcov, oi Be KeKorriAKOTec

5 ou 5ta.\iT<j}v\

ov 5e O.VTUV.

15,16. AsOrigensays,thetwo sons tion must be pure conjecture. For

of man are not clearly explained. r6?ros cf. Frag. 40. It must be the

Probably they answer to the two beings rbiros fj.e(r6Tr)Tos ore/35o/ucis which is

whose temporary union in Jesus of described by Hippolytus as viroKarw

Nazareth Irenaeus criticises so strong- TTJS oydoddos where Sophia and her

ly. The Son of man who is virtp o-i^yos dwell. For the sowing com-

rov T6iroi> may be identified with pare Hippolytus Befut. vi. 34.

Sophia s husband: or the two sons17,18. ^KOLVTOV lirlr-riv eavrov ^vX

rii>]

may be the Christ whose flight So- Cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 64, ret vwphia mourned, and the Jesus whom tMa...Kotu&neva- xal avra TOVS vv^.-

the Christ entreated the Father to 0toi;s rote 077^X01^? eavrwi/ ets TOV

send to her, dtopdwa-ai ra -rrddr] avrrjs, vvûva. evros TOV 6pov elcriaffiv. ^vxnand who became her tn^yos. The is here probably used in its wider

last will suit best the interpreta- sense. See also Irenaeus i. vii. 1,

tion of 6 ev alwi. /cat oi avv O.VT$ vvâs a.Trooo0ri<TeaOai rots-rrepl

TOV

cXdwTts (Frag. 22). But the data Z




elalv OL T?;? olKovofJblas dyye\oi, Bt (ov w? MECITOON Cf.Gal. iii.

eo~7rdp7] teal dveTpdfyrj. et? Be TO Y/welc eic TON KOTTON j jv 33

AYTCON eiceAHAyBATe ravra eêOero Ov yap 6 auro? /COTTO?

10 o-ireipovTwv teal OepiôvTwv ol /juev yap ev Kpvei real

vBaTi teal KOTTW TTJV yrjv aKcnnovres dTreipovo-t,,KOI

Sfc o\ovêt/u.coz o? TrjfjLe\ova L afcd\\ovTe$ real ra?

u\a? /c\eyovTe<;ol Be eh erotpov /capTrbv elae\66 i>re?

Qepov? ev(f)pai,v6 /jievoi, depiôvGiv. eêcrrat Be crvytcpl-

15 vowi rdSev<$>

r)/j,(av elprj/Aevarw evTvy^dvovTi /cal ra VTTO

TOV

(

HpaK\ea)vo<f, opav biroLa TWV û^yrja-ewv eiriTerev^dai,

Svvarai.

7 Ot] 6. 9 /COTTOS] (T/COTTOS.

37. Ibid. xiii. 50 (R. iv. 263; L. n. 101).

r

O Be(

HpaK\ea)v TO pkv K THC noAecoc dvT\ TOV E/c TOV Jo. iv. 39.

Koa/juov eêL\7]<peTO Be AIA TON AofON THC fYNA?KOC TOVT-

e<TTi Bid r?75 Trvev/JLCLTi/crfS eKK\r)cria<$. real iiriariâi-

veTai ye TO noAAo) o5? 7ro\\cSv OVTWV ^rv^tKwv Trjv Be

5 fj,iav \eyei Trjv dfyGapTov r^? K\oyf}<$ <j)vo~iv,KOI JJLOVO-

eiBfj, Kal evi/crjv. ea-TrjfjLev Be ev rot? dvwTepa), w? olov re

ijVy 7T/30? raOra.

1 TO] rots. 6 olov re] oiovrai.

36. 7. oi r^s oiKovofuas 0776X01] Cod. Monacensis TTJ (ji.\ov(ru> may ac-

Compare the 70 \67ot projected by count for Huet s rfj /j^XXowi (ad

Sophia and her (r6 vyos. marg. TT7yweXoO(rt) which Delarue, fol-

7, 8. 5t wv wj /j.effiTuv e<nrdpr}]There lowing his general custom, attributes

is a very close parallel to this in to Codex Regius.

Excerpta ex Theod. 53, &rxe.. .L-TTO 37. 2. eetXr?0e] The following

TTJS cro0tas ivairapev rb cnr^pfj.a TO TTJ/CU- double constructions are found with

fj.ari.Kbv ei s rrjv ^vxjiv, diarayeis , 07/- eK\a[j.(3di>eii>: (1)accusative followed

o-t,Si

dyyt\ui> ei/xetpl/tteo-iTou..^! ay- by Girl with the genitive, rbv0epiff/J.6i>

7^Xa>ovv ruv apptvuv ra

<nr^pfj.araeirl TTJS / i^X ^s eetXrj0e TWJ Tricrrevovrav

virrjpereirai ra eis ytveffiv TrpopXyO&ra. (Fr. 32), (2) accusative followed by

For StaTcryetj Heinrici proposes 5ta- d^Ti TOU or rovrfori as in this frag-

rayev (Die Vol. Gn. p. 118), but we ment, (3) accusative or quoted nomi-

may regard it as a quotation. native followed by accusative, eel-

9. KOTTOJ] The description which X7/0e iravra rov KOOÔV K.T.\. (Fr. 1),

follows is of the method, not the aim cf . also Fr. 47.

of the work : O-KOTTOS therefore would 4. TroXXot] Cf. Excerpta ex Theod.

not give the required sense. 56, ov iroXXol S oi ^1/x Koi, airavioi.

12.r-r)[j.e\ov<Ti]

The reading of




38. Ibid. xiii. 51 (R. iv. 265;L. n. 103).

Jo. iv. 40. O Se

(

HpaK\.ea)v et? roi)? TOTTOU? ravrd <f)?]cri,v,

AYTO?C efMeive Kal ovtc ev avTols KOI Ayo HMepAC,

TOV eveo-T&Ta alwva, Kal TOV p,e\\ovTa TOV ev

r/TOV 7rp6 rov TrdOovs avTOV %povov, Kal TOV /u-era TO

7r#o9, ov Trap aurot? Troirjoras, TroXXoS 7T\iovas Sid 5

TOV ISiov\o<yov eVto-rpeâ? et9 TTIO-TIV,

CLTT dVTWV. \KTOV Se TTÔ? T^ SoKOVO~O,V CLVTOV

pijcriv, OTL nAp Ayiolc /cat oi)/c ev awrot? yeypaTTTai, OTI

Mt. xxviii.ofjLOLov TO) nAp AYTO?C eVrl TO lAoy, epoa MeQ

5

YMGON GIMI HACAC

TAC HMepAC ou ya^ eiirev EiûyLttz^ et/u. eVt 3e Xeycov Ta? Ayo 10

HMepAC ?7TOfc TOVTOV TOV alwva elvai Kal TOV fjbe\\ovTa,

r) TOV TTpO TOV 7Ta#OU? Kal TOV fJbeTCL TO TrdfloS, OVT6 TOU?

enepyoMGNoyc AIOONAC /ueTa TOV fJue\\ovTa vevo^Kev, irepl wv

Eph. ii. 7. ifao iv o a7ro<JToXo9 "!NA eNAeilHTAi eN TOIC AIOOCI TOIC enep)(o-

MeNoic ovT6 opa oTi ov fjiovov II p o TOV TrdOov^ Kal MeTa 15

TO TTttÔ? O~VVO~Ti TO?9 6pÔ /J,6l>fc? TTÔ? ai;TOZ/ 6 I^CToO?,

/cat. /JieTa TOVTO ov ^(opl^CTaL. del ydp fjueTa TWV

wv ecrTt, jj,r)$e7ra}7roT KaTa\ei7rwv avTOvs, waTe /cal

Gal. ii.20. Xeyew avTovs Z(x) Ae oyKeTi e roo, ZH Ae GN GMOIXpicrdc.

56j/]

6. 12 TOV yuero, TO TTCIÔS] om. TOV. 13 /^XXovrct] fj.e\\ov.

17 aAXd]om.

oy] om.

38. 15, 16. KCU ywerd ro irdOos] del /tera rcG? fJ.ad-r)Twv ecrrtV. The

The dXXci, which is absent from ctXXa must therefore be inserted be-

both Cod. Monacensis and Cod. Ve- fore Kal /zerd TOVTO. Hilgenfeld s

nctus, but has been independently insertion of ov before xwptfercu is

inserted before these words by each of course necessary, unless indeed

of their descendants Regius and Bod- we can regard the words êrd TOVTO

leianus, has been accepted by the xwptferat as a continuation of the

editors, including Hilgenfeld. But quotation of Heracleon s words, andthough after ov pbvov an dXXd is re- so negatived by the ov fj.6vov, but the

quired, this is not the right place sentence would then be very awk-

for it. Heracleon has admitted that ward. This is not the only instance

Christ is with them irpo TOV -rrdOovs where a negative has probably drop-

and /xerd TO -rrddos also, but has not ped out. Cf.[//,?)]

ev Trj jroXei. (Frag.

seen that even after this there has 27).

been no xwPt"A

tos>

f r (Origen says)




39. Ibid. xiii. 52 (R iv. 2G7;

L. n. 108).

v Be aTrKovanepov etcXaftcov TO OYKGTI AIA THN Jo. iv. 42.

CRN AAAIAN niCTeyoMeN $770-1AeiTreiv TO fiovrjv CTL fiev yap

77-/909TO AYTOI fAp AKHKOAMGN, KAI OlAAMEN OTI OYTOC 6CTIN 6

ZooTHp TOY KOCMOY<j)r}(TLV Olydp dvdpCOTTOL TO fJLV TTpCOTOV

5 VTTO dvOptoTcwv oSrjjov/JLei OL TricrTevova i TOJ ^coTrjpt,,

eirdv Be evTV^wo-i rot? \6yois avTov, OVTOL ov/ceTi

di>0 pa)7rivr)v fj,apTVpiav, d\\d 5t avTrjv rrjv

40. Ibid. xiii. 59 (R iv. 274;L. n. 123).

"Eot/ce Se BACIAIKON oc

Hpa/cXeo)i/ \eyeiv TOV &r)/j,iovp-

yov, 67rel /cai auro? e/3aal\eve TMV vir CIVTOV OKI oe

TO fjiiKpdv CLVTOV teal7rpo<TKaipov

elvai Trjv

$7)0-1,BACIAIKOC wvopdo-Orj, olovel /jLircpos rt?

5 UTTO KaOo\L/cov /3acrtXe&>? TeTay/jLevos eVl

/âcrtXe/a? TOV Be IN KAC})APNAOYM vlov avTov

TOV ev TW VTrofteft^KOTi (j,epei Trjs yu-ecror^TO? TM

d\acraav, TOVTCCTTL TW o-vvrj/ji/jieva) Trj v\y, Kal \eyei OTI

fO I Sto? avTov dv0pa)7Tos dcrOevwv, TOVTe&Tiv ov KdTa

^(Dv, ev dyvoia Kal dfjiapTr/âaiv rjv etra TO

40T7<rt] (p-rjfflv rrjv

pacriXdav.

10 dyvoia] dyvela.

39. 3. 6rt ouros] For the omission 7. /xecrorT/ros] The yaeo-o rT/s here

of aXrjOus see Tischendorf in loc. is clearly the same as the TOTTOS [/tead-

5. With the idea of human me- TTJTOS] of Hippolytus, Eefut. vi. 32,

diation suggested here, cf. Exc. ex called also epdofji.. In the lower

Thcod. 58, Kal SC OLVT&V Kal ra part of this, which ia most deeply

Toirrots ofj-oiovvra.involved in v\r), here represented by

40. 4.</>7jcrt]

The error of Cod. Capernaum, the tdios vios lies. In

Monac. in repeating TTJV j3a<ri\eiavconnexion with Origen s interpreta-

after ô-l led to the omission of tion of the /SacnXiKos as representing

(f)-r)<rl

in Cod. Regius, and conse- Abraham, it is interesting to notice

quently in the Editions. It is also Hippolytus, Eefut. vi. 34, -n-potfiaXe

independently omitted in Cod. Bod- Kal 6 drjuuovpyos ûx^ s> O-VTT] yap

leianus, for Cod. Venetus has re- ovcria fyvx.dv OVTOS ecm /car auroi)?

tained it. A^paa/ui. Kal raura TOV A/3paa/j. ra

5. Ka0o\iK6s] Cf. Excerpt, ex rtwa. Heracleon might have ac-

Theod. 47, where 6 Zwr^p is de- cepted Origen s interpretation of the

scribed as KaffoXiKos. and his son.




Jo. iv. 54.

Jo. iv. 47.

Mt. x. 28.

1 Cor. xv.

Cf. is.xxv

Jo. IV. 48.

Jo. iv. 49.

Cf. Eom.

E THC loyAAiAC eic THN FAAIAAIAN dvrl rov etc r?;? avwdev

lovSaias. OVK ol&a oe OTTO)? et? TO "HjweAAeN Ano0NHCKeiN

ls oierai dva,Tpeirea-6ai rd86<yfjLara

TOJV VTTOTI-

dOdvaTov elvai rrjv tyv%r)v, et<? TO avro VVIJL-

/3d\\(T0ai viroKa^dvwv KOI TO YY^HN KA I COOMA AnoAAycGAi 15

EN reeNNH. /cal OVK dOdvdTov 76 elvai yyeiTai rrjv

6(

HpaK\ea)i> }aXX eTrtTT/Se/w? eôvaav TT/OO?

avrrjv \eywv elvai To eNAyoMeNON Ac^BApciANKAI ^Q ANA CI AN GNHTON, oVaz; KATAHOOH d GANATOC

61 C ISMKOC.TTyOO? TOVTOIS Kdi TO EAN MH CHMG?A KAI TePATA 2O

, , , ,IAHTG oy MH nicreycHTe \e<yecruai (piô-iv oi/ceico$ vrpo? TO

TOiovTov TTpoacoTrov, 81 epycov (frvcriv e%ov KOI i al-

<T0r)o-ea)s TreiOeadai, /cal ov^l \6<yq)TriGreveiv. TO Se

KATABHGI, npiN Ano9ANe?N TO nAiAiON MOY Sid TO je Aoc elvai

TOU vofjiov TON GA NATON elprjaOai VO/LLI&I, dvaipovvTos 25

ota TWVd/jLapTi(jov irplv TeXew? ovv, (frijcrl, OavaTwOfjvai

a Ta? ayLtapT/a?, BeiTai 6 iraTrjp TOV /JLOVOV Sft)-

20 vlK

11, 12. KTT)S dvudev louSatas]

Co(Z. Moiuic. has the true reading

XT??, though all its descendants have

erred. For the phrase, cf. Frag. 13,

where the fvxiK&s TOTTOS, represented

by Iep ff6\vfj.a, is said to be an CIKUV

of le/JowroXfyt, i.e.r, avu lepowraXfo.

See also Hipp. Refut. vi. 32, where

the Ogdoad is called lepovaaXrj/j, e?r-

ovpdvios.

15, 16. The text is the reading of

Monac. and Yen. The Syrian read-

ing has been adopted by the de-

scendants.

16 ff. Heracleon s

languagewith

regard to the immortality of the soul

vividly recalls Hipp. Refut. vi. 32,

dv-riT-fi r s fffrlv77 î>x?7, fteffoTrjs TIS

ouaa &m yap e/35o/*ds Kal Kardirav-

ffl * ...... Ea " oSv to/j,oiw8fj TOIS dVw,

Ty dydoddi, dddvaTos eytveTo /cat yXdev

fis TTJV oydodda, IJTIS eo-rt, ^<rlv,

lepov<Ta\T)fj. e-rrovpdvios, cdv 8e eo-

rotsi/Xt/cots, (pdaprrj e<rrt /cat a7r6X-

\vrai (MS. ô-ra: /cataTrciXero). It

should be noticed that this is one

of the passages where by the use

of âl and \4yei Hippolytus shews

that he is quoting from a single

document. Cf. also Excerpt, ex

Theod. 56, r6 Se ^VXIKW, dt>Teov-

aiov ov eTrtr^Seior^Ta ?x <- ^pos re

iriffTiv /cat d$6apaiav, /cat irpbs airi-

ariav Kal Qdopav.

22, 23. It may be well, in view of

the extremely difficult criticisms of

Origen on Heracleon s interpretation

of thiswhole passage, to state what

appears to be Heracleon s position

so far as it can be gathered. Heseems to have affirmed that $vxh is

rb<pdaprbv

TOei>dvo/m.evoi> dtydapviav.

Its death comes 5ta TO -rtfXos elvai TOV

/o>ouTOV Qa.va.rov, dvaipovvTos did TWV

dfj-apTiw, for of course the children

of the are




7-77/909,iva ftorjdija-y TOJ vlut, TOVTeo~Ti ry ToiaSe

TT/OO? TOVTOIS TO yioc coy ZH Kara drvcfriav elprjo-QaiJo. iv. 50.

30 TO) ^WTTJpi e%ei\rj(f)v,

ejrel ovte eljre ZtrjTQ) ovBeeve^rfvev

avTos Trapea^rja-OaL Tr)v ^wrjv. \eyei Be OTL Kara/397T009 TOV KafjivovTa teal laadfjievo^ avTov TTJS voaov,

TOVTeCTTi TGOV d/JLttpT LtoV, K at Sid TrjS a0CT6ft)9 ^ft) 0-

7roir)<ra<;elnev

C

yioc coy ZH icalir<Xyei ?rpo9 TO Eni- Jo. iv. 53.

35 cieyceN d ANBpoonoc1

OTI Eu7rto-T09 teal o Arj/jiiovpyos

ea-Tiv, OTL SvvaTai o ^wTrjp tealfir) irapwv OepaTreveuv.

AoyAoyc Be TOY BACiAiKoy e%ei\r)<$)erou9

d<y<ye\ovsTOV

A.vj/jLiovp yov, dTra<y

rye\\ovTas ev TMC

n<\?c coy ZH

OTL OLKLO)<; K al tcaTa TpoTrov eêi, TTpdaawv fjLrjfceTi

40 TO, dvolteeLa. teal Bid TOVTO vo/iiêt d7ra r

yi

ye\\eLV r&)

/3aO~L\LKO> TOU9 So^\OU9 TCL 7T pi Trj<>

TOV VLOV CT(i)Tr}-

pias, eTrel teal TrpcoTovs oterat (B\erTreiv ra9

7rpd%ei<$

ev TM Koa-ô) dvdpwTrwv roi)9 776Xou9, el eppay-

tealel\LKpivw<^

TTO\LTVOLVTO dnro r^9 TOV

45 Sft)T7;po9 eTTLBrj/jLia^. GTL7T/J09 TT)V eBAOMHN oopAN \eyet

OTL Ata r^9 &pas xapa/cTrjplêTaL r; $V(TL<;TOV laOev-

ro9. eVl 7rao-fc TO EnicreyceN AYTOC KAI H OIKIA Ayroy oAn

eTrl Trjs dyye\Lfer)<; elpfjaOaL Taêcos, teal

TWV oltceLOTepwv avTw. ^TfTelo-Oai Be âi50 irepi TLVWV dyyeXwv, el (rcodrjcrovTai, TWV teaTe\0 OVTWV

eTrl TAG TOON AN0poancoN GyfATepAC. teal TWV dvOpwirwv Gen. vi. 2.

Be TOV ArjfjLLovpyov Trjv d7rco\Lav Br)\ovcrQaL z/o/u Wev TO> Oi yioi THC BACIAGIAC e5eAeycONTAi eic TO CKOTOC TO elw- Mt. viii.

OVTepON. tea Trep TOVTWV TOV aaa^ TrpoijTeveLV TO

55 Yioyc IpeNNHCA KAI YYOOCA, AY TOI Ae Me HGETHCAN, ovo~TLva<? yioyc Is. i. 2.

,, ^ , v , , \ , . v Cf. Is. i. 4.

a\\oTpiovs Kai cnepMA noNnpoN teat ANOMON tea\L teaL

AKANGAC TTOIHCANTA. teal TavTa JJLGV TO, Hpa-Cf - Is - v -

, airep ToX/jirjpoTepov KOL dae/BeaTepov elprj/jieva typijv

KaTa&teevrjs aTroBeBelÔaL, eiTrep i]v d\r]0r]. ovte

60 olBa Be 7Tft)9 teal Trepl d6avao~ias 1^^979 dTnaTel, yit?)

39 et] ^xetl/ ^1 wQpuirwv]bis. 59 a

35. euVio-Tos] On this point the Irenaeus i. vii. 4.

Valentinians seem to have been 37. For the angels of the Demi-

agreed. See Hipp. Refitt. vi. 3f>; urge cf. Excerpt, ex Theod. 47.




Trocra (TiffuUvercu etc rrjs Oavaros fywvrjs. KaOopwvTa yap

eBei TO crrifjLaivoiJLevov per eVtcrAre êa)? KOI dfcpifBeias IBeiv el

Kara Trdvra TO, (nj/JLaivofjieva Ov^rr) ecrriv. el(juev yap on

Ez. xviii.

BeKTi/crj dfjiapTLas, yYXH

^^

AMApTANioycA AYTH Arro9ANe?TAi,

/calrjfjiels epov/jiev avrrjv OvrjrrjV. el Be rrjv TravTe\r] Bid\vo~iv f>5

/cal eâfyav icrfjt,bv avTrjs ddvarov voîêi, rêls ov

Trpoo~7]cr6-

/j,e0a yovSe pe^pi errwow ISeiv Swd/jievoi, ova-lav OvtjTrjv

/j.era/3fi\\ov(Tav et? aOdvarov teal fyvaiv Ôaprrjv 7rl TO

acj)6apTOi> O/JLOIOV yap TOVTO rco \eyeuv /x6ra/3aXXe^ TL dnro

et? da-MfJiaTOV, a>? vTroiceiêvov rtyo? KOIVOV r^? TWV 70

/cal dcrwâTwv (/wo-eco?, ojrep /jbevet, wcrTrep peveiv

TO V\LKOV ol Trepl raOra Seivol, TWV TTOIOTIJTCOV

et? d$6apo-lav. ov Tavrov Be eVrt TTJV

(f)V(7LV eNAyecGAi Ac{)6ApciAN teal TO TTJV fyOapTrjv (f)V(Tiv

(3d\\eiv et? d(f)6apo-iav,ra 8 aura :al Trep T179 ONHTHC 75

\eKTeov, ov /AeraySaXXoua?;? /xei/ et? AOANACIAN, GNAYOMGNHC Be

avTijif. Ti eTreiTrep Tyv TJrv%iKr}v fyvaiv atJjOrj Bi, epywv

fcal ala Or] crews ireLOecrOaL ov%l Be \by(DV,

avTOv Trepl Tlav\ov Trota? (ûcrea)? rji>.

el fjuev yap

TiKr)<$,7T&5? Bid

T77<? TepacrTiov e7ri(f)avelasireTricrTevKev ; el B* 80

OVK a\\co<> eBvvaTO irio-Teveivrj

BidTr)<$ Tepacrriov eTTifyaveias

dfco\ovOel KaT avTOvs /cal avTov elvai ^TV^LKOV. TTO)? Be

OVK aVe/Se? TO rrpo TOV ^fjaovpyov roi)? dyye\ovs avTov

Oewpelv TO eppwfjbevov /cal TO el\iKpives TT/S TroXtreta?

TWV V7roTr}<$ BvvdfjLews TOV

2<(0Tf}po$ {3e\TLO)9evTa)v, /cal irapa 85

TO evapyes TOV Trepl TOV ^fjaovpyov \6yov, eVt Be /cal Trapd

TyV ypa(f>r)v n]v \eyovo-av Ei KpyBHcerAi AN0pconoc GNKpy(t>Ai

oic

Gl KaOopwvTa] Ka.6a.pa.VTa. 79, 807n>eu/icm/c?}s] Tri/euâTi/c^. TTCOS] OTTWS.

80, 81 repaffrLov] repaffreiov.

01. KaOopuvra.} Though the fol-

lowing criticisms of Origen contain

no new matter of Heracleon, the

whole chapter must he examined

together. I have therefore thought

it better to print it in full. The

criticisms are not easy to follow.

So far as he has stated Heracleon s

views, the confutation of /u.era^ciXXeij

83 OVK] /ecu.

Heracleon has only made use of such

expressions as evdveffOai. adavaaiav

/c.r.X. which Origen allows to be o

ravrbv. For Origen s argument with

regard to ,ueTa/3dXXe see Aristotle,

Met. A. 2 (1009 b), ov yap TO, evavTia

/xera/SaXXet. ^rt TO ptv vTro^tvei, TO

5 cvavTlovoi>x viro/mtvei taTiv apa TL

TPLTOV irapa TO. cvavTia, i] v\rj.




KAfob OYK oyoMAi AYTON ;teal Kypioc ETAZOON Nec^poyc KA I KAPAIAC,

Ps. vii. 10.

/ / , , , Ps. xciii.

KCLl KyplOC PNGOCKOON TOYC AlAAOflCMOYC TOONANGpOOTTOON KAN

(XC

iv.)11.

90toci MATAIOI

; TTO)? Se crftjcret /col TO eiAooc TA TTANTA TTPINHist.

/ >

~ v c^\ it/ /Susann.

AYTOON ;ert oe /jia\\ov "fr)

(u<jt? âpa/crTjpi- 42.

rov laOevros CLTTO rov apiOfjbov rrjs copas irj

r^? Ida-ews yiVOftewj ] TW olKelwrfj

ava-navaei apuO-

fjia).TO $e Sia(f)0opas elvai

"fyw^Ltcwv,eVl reXet coy ejjede-

95 fjbeOa VTT avTou elprjfjLevwv avaê^pafjiiJLevov^ o^ww/Jiia XPW~

fjievov ecrrt, KOI eTepav (frvcriv elcrdjovTO^ TTapTrjv, oTrep ov

O

41. Ibid. xix. 3 (R. iv. 296;L. n. 167).

76 HpafcXecov, e/cê/êô? r^y Trep)TOV yaô-

Cf. Jo.

%/>/> *\ * > c^ r\ >viii. 12 ff.

<pv\ciKiov \e%iv, ovbev eLirev ei? avTrjv. et? oe TO Unoy era) j viii.2i.

yM6?c oy AyNAcGe eA6e?Ntfaari

II co? e y dryvoia KOI

/cal d/JbapT^fJiacriv o^re? e^ d^Bapaia bvvav-

5 rat <yevecr6oLi ; /^rjSe ev TOVTW KaTa/covwv eavrov el yap ol

ev dyvoiq /cal diridria real d/jiapTrj fjiacnv OVTCS ev

yap.

dva.Travfffi api6fj.$,but the stages of

corruption could not be traced. All

is

dark,and we can

scarcely hopefor

light.

96. er^pav (fivcriv]A reference

probably to Origen s argument with

regard to /j.eTapa\\eiv. Heracleon

would recognize three0i5<rets,

irvev-

panic}), \f/vxucr), v\iicf). Thedia<j>dopa.

^VXIKOV cannot take place unless we

assume eTtpov viroKeifj-evov which re-

mains while theTrotoTTjres change.

This would be to introduce a fourth

<f>v<ns.

41. 4.Airiffria] Cf. Excerpt, ex

Theod. 56, quoted above, p. 92.

6. ev ayvola} Hilgenfeld s state-

rnent that these words are omitted

in Cod. Regius appears to originate

in the fact that in line 7 it omits

91. tri 8e fj.a\\ov. Heracleon s

own remark on the hour is simple

andobvious,

whencompared

with

Hippolytus, Eefut, (\(/vx^) fffrlv efido-

/was /cat KaraTrawis. TOV Ia6vros is

equivalent to TOVi/a/xi/coC. Whether

Origen understood this or not is un-

certain, as his criticism is obscured

by hopeless corruption in the text.

Delarue s elr/ <f>vo~is xaPOLK1

quot;

rlp

LfcTai

comes from Cod. Fen., but leaves

the sentence impossible and unin-

telligible. It is tempting to sup-

pose that a good deal of the sentence

may have been erroneously inserted

from the statement of Heracleon s

view above, and that Origen mayhave written some simple sentence

such as eTi 5 /ma\\ov i) (fivcris xaPai(-

TOV laOevTos, TI otVet o; Trj




d(f>0 apo~ la ov SvvavTai yeveo 0ai,, TrcG? ol aTroaroXot ev

dyvoia Trore KOI ev dirtcnLa teal ev d/jbaprrj/jLao-i, yevo/jievot,

ev d(f)0apo-ia yeyovao-f, ; ovvavTai ovv ol ev dyvoia teal

ev aTTiCTTiCi /cat ev dfiaprrj âcri yevo/jievoi yeveo~0ai ev i<

d<f>0ap(Tia,el fj,Ta/3d\\oiev, Svvarov avrovs /jLeraj3a\eiv.

42. Ibid. xix. 4 (R. iv. 302;L. n. 180).

Kal o(

^{paK\ewv jJievTOiye 009 n7T\ovo-repov elprjêvov rov

Jo. viii. 22. MHTI ArroKjeNe? EAYTON (frrjalvon Tlovrjpws Siaôyiô/jLevoi

ol lov&aioL ravra e\eyov /cal fjueiôva^ eauroi)? diro-

(âLvofJbevoi rov ^wrrjpo^, /cal v7ro\afJLJBdvovre^ on

avrol fjiev avreXeu aovrat TTÔ? rov 6eov et? dvcnravaiv 5

alcoviov, o Se âyrrfp et? (f)0opdv /cal et9 Bdvarov,

eavrov Siaxeipicrd/jLevos, OTTOV eavrovs ov/c e\oyiovTo

d rjre\6elv. real aurat? Xefecr/ <prjo-tvOTI "lovro \eyeiv

TOV âyrrjpa ol lovSatoi OTL E^yco e/juavrov Siaêipi-

(rd^bevo^ et? (j)0opdv /xeXXw iropeveo-Oat, OTTOV vfjiels i<

ov SvvaaOe e\6elv. ov/c olSa 8e TTCO? /card TOV eljTovra

Jo. viii. 12.Efoc>

eiMi TO cf)(X)C TOY KOCMOY /cal rd^579, fjv \e<yeiv

on Eyw

efJuavTov o Laxetpio-d/jievos et9 (frOopdv fjie\\a) Tropev-

eo- 6ai. edv Se r^9~h>eyrj /IT)

TOV %a)Tr)pa TavTa elprj/cevai TOVS

Se IofSatof9 avTo vTrovevorj/cevat, Srj\ov OTI, epel TOVS lov- ij

7T(f)povrjfcevaiTrepl

avrov OTI (j)BelpovTat, ol e

,,/cal ovSev TJTTOV eVotet raOra

/cal /co\ao-0r/0ecr0ai,, OTrep r\v /caTa TrdvTa rfki-

0LOV.

15 avro\ aura). 18, 19 Kara. TTOLVTO. rj\idLOV~\ Ka.Trj\idiov.

the fv of iv ayvoia,, 8. fact which dpcryuryr? has led him into a captious

Delarue notices. criticism of Heracleon. Cf. Fr. 30,

The importance of this fragment dyytXiK-riv TLVO. 8vi>a/j.ii> /c.r.X.

consists in the fact that Heracleon s 5.ava.Tra.v<ni[

For the doctrine of

interpretation depends on his funda- ctmTrawis cf. Irenaeus i. 7. 1;Ex-

mental error as to Qucris and Kara- cerpt. ex Theod. 03, 86.

ffKevr) (see Frag. 17), to which Origen 18, 19. Kar&vrfrrai}X0Mr] As there

so often rightly takes exception (cf. is no authority for the form KCITTJ-

Fragments 17, 33). \ldiov, I have retained the conjecture

42. 1. ctTrXotfo-Te/xw] This is not the of Cod. Venetus.




43. Ibid.xx. 8 (R. iv. 316

; L. n. 211).

YIvvuavoi/j,0a & av TWV ra? <ucret9 el&ayovTWv, KOI et?

TO "On 6 Adpoc 6 SMOG oy X^P^ ^N YM?N dTroSiSovrcov Kara Jo.viii.37.(

HpaK\Q)va O.TL Ata TOVTO ov)(oope?, OTL dveTTiTrjSeioL,

rjTOi Kar ovaiav, rjKara yvw/jLrjv, TTCO? ol dve r

imr)$eiot,

5 tear ova lav HKOYCAN HApA roy HArpdc ; a\\a /cal jrorepov Jo. viii. 38.

Trore npoBATA OVTOI tfcrav rov XpiarTov, rj aXkorpioi, VTrrjpôv

avrov ; el 8e rjaav aXXorpioi, TTW? HKOYCAN HApA Toy HATpdc,

o-aô)?, &)9 otovrai, Xeyofjievov Trpos roi)? d\\orpiov<;on Ai A Jo. viii. 47.

Toyro yMeic OYK AKoyere, on oyK ecre EK TOON npoBATOON TOON Jo. x. 20.

10 eMO)N ; elfj,r) apa 6\LJ36fjLevoi erepw droTrw eavrovs Trepu-

(Bd\\ov(Ti,, \eyovres TTApA pev Toy nATpdc d/cy/coevaL roi)?

r) d/covetis Be rovs avTovs TOVTOVS Trapa TOV

el S* olfceloi, TOV S

avrov AnoKreNAi ;

Adpoc oyK e?

xobpeiev avrols ;

10 eavroi)j] eai;Tot)s (sic).12

7ra/>a]

44. 7M. xx. 18 (R iv. 332;

L. n. 240).

O fjLevroi ye HpaKXew vTroKa^^dvei Kirlav

TOV/jir) AyNACGAi avTOV? AKoyeiN TON I^croO AdfON, Jo. viii. 43.

e TINCOCK6IN aVTOV THN AAAlAN V TO) YMe?C 6K TOy

TTATpoc Toy AiABoAoy ecTe. avTals yovv Xegecrl (f>r)<TL

AA-

ts aTL Be oy AyNAcGe AKOYGIN TON AO TON TON EMO N ; rj OTL

YMe?c eK Toy TTATpdc Toy AiABoAoy ecTe, dvrl TOV E Jo. viii. 44.

TOV SiaftoXov; fyavepwv avTols ~ÔITTOV

2lyo-ov] TV.

43. 4. Karayv6/j.r}v] See below, that verse.

Frag. 46. 44. 5, 6. There are traces of cor-

8, 9. The words Aid TOVTO têts OVK ruption. Probably Xyei has droppeddKoteTe are quoted in Tischendorf s out somewhere, in consequence of

digest on John x. 26 from this pas- the07/o-i, without it the &vrl TOV can

sage : there is no other authority for hardly stand.




rrjv fyvo~ LV avr&v, teal ?Tp 0\<y 0,9 avrovs, OTL ovre

rov A/3pad/jL elai re/cva, ov yap ov eîffovv avrov,

ovre rov Oeov, no ov K r]âirwv avrov. ical el uev TO 10

c

YMe?c eK TOY TTATpoc TO? AiABoAoy ecre eêoeâro o$9 ev rot?

dvwrepa) $ir)yr)0 d[ji,e6a)/cal e\eye Ata TO en vucis eivai eV rov

rHa/3oAoi>, Oy AyNAcGe AKoyeiN TON AofON TON EMON, icav irape-

a avrov rrjv ^Lr)yri(TLV. vvvl Se 8^7X05 eanv6/jioovo-iov<;

rw StaySoXft) \e<ya)v dvOpwTrovs, erepa?, a;? oiovrai 01 15

air avrov, ovo-las rvy^dvovn Trap o?)? Ka\ovai

r)

10 o#re] ovd. 13, 14 7rape5ea/ze#a]

15 otoi^rat]

45. 76id. xx. 20 (R. iv. 337;L. n. 250).

Et? ravra Be 6 Hpa/cXeo)!/ (frrjcrl TIpos 01)5 o Xoô? CK

rfjs -ova Las rov Sia/36\ov r^crav, &5? erepas OVO-TJS T^9TOU SiafioXov ovo-las rrapd rrjv rwv ayiayv Xoyi/coov ovaiav.

ofjiOLOv $e ev rovrwJJLOL TreirovOevai fyaiverat, To3 erepav

ovalav (frda/covn 6(f)6a\/jiov Trapopwvros teal erepav op&vros. 5

46. Ibid. xx. 20 (R. IV. 339;L. n. 253).

Jo.viii.44. Toaavra KOI irpos rov Upa/cXewvos \oyov etvro^TO? TO

EK TOY nATpoc TOY AiABoAoy dvrl rov E/c TT;? ovaias rov

10. ovdt must probably be altered class, different in kind. It thus takes

to cure. the place usually assigned to the

45. 1, 2. e/c r?7s ovaias TOV 5ia/J6Xou] uXt/fT). See also Irenaeus, and Ex-

With this and the preceding fragment cerpta ex Thcod. 48.

we mustcompare Hipp. Refut.

vi. 34, 3.\O-)IKWI> ova-iav] Cf. Hippolytus s

f- T^S uXtx^s ofo Kal diapoXtKTJs ^TTOITJ- account of the projection of the 70

(rev 6 Arj/juovpy&s ra?s ûxats ra <rw- Xo7oi. It is not necessary to alter the

/xara, and 6 u\ix6s, <t>daprbs, drAetos, MS. reading, but it is very probably an

eK r?75 Stct/SoXi/djs o^crtas TrcTrXaffôs. error of assimilation (due to the pre-

The close connection of i/Xt*^ and ceding genitive), for \oyucfiv.

diafidXiKr)is exactly reproduced in 46. 2, 3. roO 5ta/3oXow] This seems

these fragments of Heracleon, where the only reading that will make sense,

the is contrasted with the The TOV Trarpos of the MS. is doubtless




Sia/36\ov elpi]o~Qa). iraKiv els TO TAC eniGyMiAC TOY TTAipdc

YMOON OeAere noie?N SmcrreXXerai, \eywv Toy 8id/3o\ov fjirj

e%eiv 0e\rjina, aAA eTTiOvfJilas. KOI e/jt,(f)alvTat avTodev

TO dSiavorjTov TOV \6yov 6e\etv yap ra Trovrjpd Tm? av rt?

ofjio\oyr)o~ai e/ceivov.o~vvd%ei<$

8e KOI avro?, el KOI eVl TOV

ev Trpoêipw ov/c eô/êv TrapaOeaOai, ei TTOV ev Ty

fjTO 6e\eiv eVl TOV BiaftoXov rera/CTat. Mera raOra

10(j)rjo-iv

6 Hpa/cXewv w? apa TaOra eiprjraL ov TT/JO? TOI)?

(frvaei TOV Sia/36\ov viovs TOVS %OIKOV$, d\\d Trpos

roi)? i/ru^t/coi)?, deaeL vlovs 8ia{36\ov yivo/jievovs, a^>

dov Trj (friKrei SvvavTai rtz/e? /cal Oiaet viol deov XP 1!

/uLaTiaai. KOI âi je OTi Hapd TO vyaTT rjKevat. TAC

i5eni6yMi Ac TOV 8ia(36\ov teal noie?N Te/cva OVTOL TOV

Si,a{36\ov yivovTai, ov (pvaei TOLOVTOI o^re?. KOI Sia-

o~Te\\Tai (w? apa Tp^cS? Sel dfcoveiv Trjs KOLTCL Te/cva

ovofj,ao~ias, TrpwTov <$>vo~ei, SevTepov yvco/jLy

dla. /cal (f>v<76i /JLev, (frijcrlv, eo~Ti TO yevvrjOev VTTO

20 yevvrjrov, b /cai icvpiws TZKVOV /caXetrat yvw/JLr) Be,

ore TO de\rj/jLd r^? TTOIWV rtô? Sid TT/V eavTov yvw^v,Te/cvov e/celvov ov Troiei TO 6e\r){ia tca\eiTai dlq8e icaG

1

o \e ryovTai rtzê? peeNNHC T^KVCL KOI CTKOTOVS Cf. Mt.

Kal dvofjbias, /cal ofyewv /cal e)(iANOC)N reNNHMATA ovgo

111

25 yap yevva, (j)rjo~l,TavTa TIVCL TTJ eavTcov (frvaei <f)0opo-

Trotd yap Kal dva\iaKOVTa TOI)? e/^ySX^êz^ra? et?

avTa, aAA eVet eirpaâv ra e/celva)v epya Te/cva av-

TWV eLprjTai. TOiavT rjv Be Siao~TO\r)v 5eSa)/c&)? ov8e /caO*

OTTOO~OV aTro Toov ypatycov Trape/jLvdrjaaTO Trjv ISlav 8njyr]o~iv.

30 L7roLf.iev 8 avTT/OO? avTOV, OTI el

/jurj (frvcrei,aXX dgla peeN-

NHC Te/cva ovo/jLaêTat, Kal CTKOTOVS Kal avofiias, <f)8opo-

2, 3 TOV StajSo Xou] rou Trarpoy. 6 ddiavoyTOv] diavoyToit . 8 ^x /*61 ]

foxo/j.ev (ut videtur). 23 X^yojrat] Xêrat. 28, 29 K0.6 birbvov} Kara

rb iroffov. 30 d|ip] d|taj.

6.adiav6tjToi>]

This necessary cor- 25. ravra TWO.] ravra of course is

rection of his exemplar was made by subject, ru>& object. Cf. below ovx

the scribe of Cod. Venetus. Cod. 6n yewa was 6 5td/3oXos. The in-

Regius retains the mistake. sertion of roiaOra (Cod. Venetus after

23. X^yoi/Tcu] Here again the scribe raOra) is not necessary, though per-

of Cod. Ven. has made a necessary haps it simplifies the sentence.




TTOia yap ravra teal dva\la/covra /JLCI\\OV ijrrepavvi-

Eph. ii. 3. ardvra, TTCO? 6 IIo-OXo?fyr\<ii

rrov TO "HM60A (J)Ycei TGKNA oprfic

obc KAI 01 Aoinoi ; r) \eyerwaav r}fMv OK ov/c eariv dva\a)TL/cbv

/cal fJidXiara /car avrov(f>6opo7roibv rj opyr), fjs TEKNA HMG- 3?

0A. ird\iv(f)T]crlv

OTL TeKva rov Sta/3oXou vvv \eyei

TOUTOf?, ovy on ryevva Tivas o 8ta/SoXo9, X\ on

TOL epya rov StaôXou TTOIOVVTGS ca/jboi,co0 rjo~ap avrq).

Troao) Se (3e\Tiov ireplirdvTwv rwv rov 8ia(36\ov re/cvwv

Jo.viii.il. rovro drrofyaivecrOai, w? 6/jLot,ovfjL6va)vavrw rcS TToie?N T<\ epfA 40

al ov 8ta rrjv ova lav /cal rrjv KaraaKevrjv rrjv

ls eproiN rktcvwv Sta^SoXov

32, 33 avvLaravToi] GVVIG* ra (sic). 35i] opyr] ijs] rj opyr/s.

47. Ibid. xx. 22 (R. iv. 345;L. n. 264).

Jo.viii. 44.r

Hyitet9 /êv ovv rov JN TH AAnGeiA oyK ecTHKeN d/covo/JLev

ov^ w? (frvaiv roiavrrjv eâivovro^, ovSe ro d&vvarov Trepl

rov eo-T7)K.vai, avrov ev d\rjdeia Trapivravres. 6 Be Hpa-

K\ewv et? ravra (frrjo-iro Ov yap /c rfjs d\ri6ei,a<$ ^ (frvcris

(rrlv avrov, aXX etc rov evavriov rfj d\rj6ela, eic 5

7r\dvr)S xal dyvoias. Sto, (frrjcrlv,ovre arrival ev d\rj-

deia ovre a%elv ev avrw d\rj6eiav Svvarai,, e/c

avrov <ucrea)5 I$LOV e^cov ro ifrevSos, (pvaitca)*;

$vvd/jLv6<;Trore d\r^6eiav elrrelv. \eyeu S on Ov

avros tyevarys earlv, d\\d /cal 6 irarr/p avrov, i&Utft 10

rrarrjp avrov e/cXa/jiftdvcdv rrjv fyvaiv avrov, erreirrep

IK TrXdvrjs /cal tyeva yLtaro? aweary, ravra 8e o\a

pverai rov $id/3o\ov rravros tyoyov /cal eyKXrj/JLaros teal

os ouêt?

yap ev\6y(t)s

dvtyei;ai

rje<y/ca\eaaL

rj

I*/JL-

rw fir) rre^VKort rrpos rd rcpeirrova. drv^r)<;ovv 15

r) ^6ro9 6 Sm/3oXo5 /card rov HpatcXewvd eariv.

2 ou5] afire. 14, 15ya^/ii/ airo] yu.ûi/

cuTe TO. 16 ê/crds] \{/evKTos

(ut videtur).

35. ij dpyrj fjs]This emendation teration of the MS. reading.




48. Ibid. xx. 30 (R. iv. 359;L. n. 290).

O fieVTOl J(

l{paK\(DV TO "ECTIN 6 ZHTOON KAI KplNGON Jo. viii. 50.

OVK dvatyepei eVl rov Trarepa, rotavra \ycovC

ZHTOON KAI

KP/NOON ecrrlv 6 efcSiKtov//,e,

6 inrripeT ris o els rovro

TTay/j,evo$, o MH GIKH THN MA)(AipAN cbopa>N,6 EKAIKOC Rom. xiii.

5 rov /3ao~tXec)9. M&)<7^9Be ecmv ouro?, /cada Trpoei-

prjicev avrois \e<ya)vEic ON YMG?C HAHICATG. elr eVt- Jo. v. 45.

on KPI NOON /cal /co\da)V ecrrl Mwcr?;?, TOV-

avros 6 vo/jLoOerr)?. /cal fjbera TOVTO7rpo<$

eavrov

7ra7rope2 6<

U.paK\ecoi> \ejwv IIcS? ovv ov \e*yei THN

10Kpl dN TTACAN TTdpaSeSo aQa i aVTW ; KCLL

VOfjU<OV\V6iV

rrjv dv0V7ro(j)opdv ravrd$r)(ri- Ka\co9 \ejei, 6 yap /c/otr?)?

co? VTrrjpeTrjs TO 6e\rnjba rovrov TTOLCOV tcpivei, oacnrep

Kal eirl ru>vdvdpa)7ra)i> fyaLverai, yivo/jievov. TTCO? Se

d\\(o Tivl dvaridycri rrjv icpicriv co? vTroSeearepw rov

15 icaO o vofJLiêi, TCO ArjjAiovpyw, ouS ovrco aTroSetât

cra<^&)9 yeypa/A/jievov TOV OyAe r^p o nATHp KpiNei oyAeNA AAAA Jo. v. 22.

THNKplCIN HACAN AeAOOKG TO) Y

<V

Ka T V EloyCIAN eAOOKGN Jo. V. 27.

AYTOJ KpiciN noie?N, OTI YIOC ANGpobnoY ECTIN.

5 OUTOS] OI/TWS.

49. CLEM. ALEX.Edog. Prophet. 25, p. 995 (ed. Potter).

f

O Io)rti/^9 (jyrjalvoTt Erob MEN YÂC YAATI BATTTIZOO, epxeTAi Cf. Mt. iii.

Ae MOY dnicoo o BAHTIZOON ^M^C eN HNEYMATI KAInypi. Trvpl Be T.

ovBeva efidTTTia-ev. evtoi Be, W9 âiv HpafcXewv, Trvpl rd

cara rwvcr<ppayi%oiuLei>a)v Karecrr)fj,TJvavTO,

5 TO a7rO<TTO\LKOl .

4KO.Twrnj.riva.vTo] KI

3. 111.

48. 6. ijXTrtVaTe] No authority for indeed, we may see a reference to

the aorist in the text of S. John is this identification in the words atfrds

quoted by Tischendorf. 6 vofj-oOfrys.

15. ry A-r)/j.iovpy$] Apparently He- 49.1. It is not easy to determine

racleon must have spoken of Moses how much of Heracleon is embodied

as a type of the Demiurge. Origen in this section of Clement. It seems

has refuted more of Heracleon s com- however probable that we should only

than he has assume a reference to a




50. CLEM. ALEX. Strom, iv. 9, p. 595 (ed. Potter).

Lc. xii. Tovrov efyyovfAevos rov TOTTOV HpatcXewv, 6 rfjs OvaXev-rivov 0-^0X179 So/ayu,a>TOT09,

/card \efyv (fyr)<riv

elvat rrjv pels ev rfjiriareL teal vroXtreta, n)v Se ev

(frcovf). 77 /juevovv ev

(jxovf) 6fjLO\oyia /cal eTrl rwv eov-

criwv yiverai,, fjv fjbovrjv, ffnprlv, oô\oyiav yyovvrai, 5

elvai ol TroXXot, ou^ vyi&s. Svvavrai 8e ravrrjv rrjv

6fjLO\oryiav /cal ol VTro/cpiral 6/jio\oy6iv, aXX o08

evpeOijaerai OUTO? o Xo70? /caôXt/ca)? eipijpivos ov

yap Trai/re? OL atoôpevoi a)/jLO\6<yr)o~av TTJV Bid rrj^

6/jio\oylav ical ef;r}\6ov, 6% wv Margate?, ^>t-10

ctfyu-a?, Aeul? /cat aXXot TroXXot. /cat ecmv

r ta T179 fywvrjs 6fjLO\oyia ov

/ca0o\itcr) 8e, T;I/ zÔz/ \eyei, rr}v ev

/eaTaXX>;Xot9 rj9 et9 avrov 7rio~Te

rfj 6/Jio\o<yiareal

J] fjt,epi/crj rj eTrl rwv eôvcriwv, edv oerj 15

/cal 6 Xo709 aipfj. 6fjio\oyTJo-ei yap ovros ical rfj cfxovf),

opOws Trpoo fJio\oyr)O as Trporepov rfj8iaOeo~ei. /cal

/caXco9 eTrl roov 6/jLO\oyovvra)v, N eMo i elirev, eTrl Se

1 T07TOI] .TpOTTOV.

mentioned by Heracleon. If not, the overlooked the fact that a confession

sentence whichimmediately

follows which involves thepenalty

of death

in the Eclogae must be his citation is a sufficient test of sincerity. The

of a divergent version of Matt. iii. 10. history of North Africa however mayOn the whole however it seems more possibly justify Heracleon s opinion.

natural to refer it to Clement him- It may be well to state that we

self, as also the remainder of the have no evidence, besides that con-

section, though it might possibly be tained in the words TQVTOV ^Tjyov/j-evos

regarded as containing Heracleonic rbv r6irov, as to whether Heracleon

doctrine. We can hardly therefore wrote a Commentary on S. Luke.

quote the continuation of this passage The MS. reading rpbirov is interesting,

as proof that Heracleon read dia- but, as in Clement a long quotation

Kadapat. immediately precedes the words, it

For the text of Fragments 49 and must be merely a scribe s error for

50 I have collated the Florence MS. rbirov.

of Clement s Stromateis and Eclogae, 11. Aeins] For the early distinction

and noted its variants in the digest. of Levi from Matthew, cf. Origen c.

50. 1. Clement, after quoting this Celsum i. 62, unless indeed the




TWV dpvovfjievcov, TO Eiwe TTpocreOij/cev. ovrot yap KCLV

10rf) (f)Q)vfj 6fjio\oyijcrc0o~iv avTov, dpvovvrai avrov rrj

rrpdêi (Mr) 6 /jLO\oyovvTe<;. /JLOVOI, 6"

ev avra) O/JLO\O-

yovcriv ol ev rf) icar avrov 6/jLO\oyta ical rrpdêi

,ev ot? Kal avros ojjbo\o

r

yel eveu\r] fi/uLevos

Kal eô/jievo^ VTTO TOVTWV. StoTrep ApNHCAcOAi 2 Tim. ii.

25 EAYTON ovSeTTore AY NATAI* dpvovvrai 8e avrov ol/j,rj

oz/re? ev avra). ov ydp elwev Oc ApNHCGTAi ev epol

aA-X, EMe. ov8el<> ydp TTOTG wv ev avrw dpvelrai

avrov. TO Be "EMrrpocGeN TOON ANGpoanooN, teal rwv aw-ôfjievwv real rwv eOviKWv Be o/u/otco?, Trap

1

ol? fjiev Kal

30 rfj7ro\LTeia

) Trap ol? Be Kal ry fywvfj. SioTrep A PNH-

CAcGAi avrov ovBeTTore Bvvavrai, dpvovvrai, Be avrov

olfjurj

ovres ev avrw. Tavra pev 6c

HpaK\eo)v.

24 avrols] aurous.

51. PHOTIUS Ep. 134 (cd. Rich. Moritacutius),

rrpwroarcaOapiw Kal Trpwrovorapia) TO er

rrlK\rjv Xpucro-

(Ep. GO, ed. Baletta).

OvBe yap efi vftpei Kal Bia(3o\y rov vofiov TO H X^P IC Jo - 17 -

Ae KAI AAnGeiA Ai lucoy Xpicroy ereNeio rot? e1)^776A,t/cot?

Oecr/jLois TrepL^p/jLoaev.

(

^paK\ewv yap dv OUTW? eirroi Kal

ol

51. 1. I have given the full title, interesting, as extreme antagonism to

asirpuTo<nra.Odpios

is not sufficiently the law does not seem to have been

distinctive as a description of the characteristic of him (see Frag. 20j.

recipient of an Epistle from Photius. Perhaps his followers may have de-

The same letter is also found in his veloped this line of Gnosticism more

Amphilochia, 246. than their master.

3. This reference to Heracleon is



ADDITIONAL NOTES.

A. HERACLEON AND VALENTINUS.

The extant Fragments of Valentinus offer some points of comparison with those

of Heracleon, especially with regard to language and terminology, which can be

most conveniently discussed in an Additional Note. I follow the order in which these

Fragments are given in Hilgenfeld s collection (Ketzcrgeschichte, p. 293), and have

adopted his text where I quote from them. I have also given references to the

pages of Potter s edition of Clement of Alexandria.

1. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 8, p. 448. Valentinus is speaking of the terror

which came upon the Angels (of the Demiurge) at the utterances of the man whom

theyhad created

(e/cetVovTOV

irXda-fj-aros).These were due to

Him who had placedin man the seed of the higher essence (5ta rbv dopdrws ev aJry 0-n-^p/m.a deduKora TTJS

avuOev oimas). Compare Heracleon s explanation of the forty and six years

(Frag. 16), ryv iJXrjv TCVTGTL rb7r\a<r//,a...T6

fr r<

e/u.<f)vo"r)/j,aTt airpfj.a. Heracleon

has retained the terminology of his master. With the Angels compare Frag. 36, ot

rrjs oiKOi>o[j.las ayye\oi, dt uv us peaLT&v effwapr) Kal dverpdcpr). Valentinus goes on to

speak of an"Kvdpu-jros

in whose name Adam was formed;this may perhaps throw

some light on the important position assigned to"AvOpurros

in Heracleon s account

of the two viol TOV avdpuirov (Frag. 35).

2. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 20, p. 488. The expulsion of every evil spirit fromthe heart of man reminds us of Heracleon s interpretation of the words #7X0? TOV

OIKOV ffovKaTa<pdyeTat fj.e as being spoken e/c Trpoauirov rdv ixpXrietvTuv Ka

TWV virb rov ZWTTJ/JOS dvrdficvr (Frag. 14) : and with the words vvfipij;bvTuv

fj-iais compare Heracleon s description of the former life of the Samaritan woman,Kal ddeTovfji&r) Kal tyKaTa.Xenrofj.tvr] (Frag. 18). On Tro\\wi> daipbvuv

see the note on Frag. 20(p. 77).

3. Clem. Alex. Strom, in. 7, p. 538. The Docetism of this Fragment should be

compared with Heracleon s teaching on the pp&fj.a toiov of the Lord (Frag. 31), and

the healing of the Euler s son (Frag. 40) ;but the question of Heracleon s Docetism

has been discussed in the Introduction (p. 46).

4. Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 13, p. 603. With ^ alwvios and the victory of its

children over<f>eopa, compare Frag. 17 cuwnos yap ij fay avrov Kal wdtiroTe

<j>deipo-

t^vrj. The distinction between /cooyxos and KT[<TIS in the last sentence of Valentinus,

orav yap rbv fitv Kbo^ov \vrjre, avrol de w Kara\v-r}crde, Kvpievere TTJS KTiVews /cat T^S

0^opas aTraff-rjs, is explained by Frag. 20, where Heracleon speaks of theK6o>tos

as the

world of the Devil, and connects Krt <rts with the /CT/CTTT/S or Demiurge, whom the



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 105

5. Clem. Alex. ibid. As this is the most important Fragment of Valentinus

in the present connexion, it may be well to quote his words in full.

Orroffov eXarruv 17eiKUv TOU favros irpoffwirov, roffovrov rjffffwv 6 KOfffJ.os rov favros

alwvos. T^J ovv alria rrjs eiicbvos; fj-eyaXufffyrj rov irpoffutrov TrapeffXTj/J-evov Ty faypdcpy

rbv TUTTOV, iva rifj-r/drj 5i 6v6fj.aros avrov. ov yap avOevriK<2s evptdr) [j.op(pri,dXXa rb

6vo/j.a eir\ripuo~ev rb vffreprjo av ev TrXdcret. ffvvepyel 5e /cat T6 TOU deov doparov els wiffrtf

Here 6 /cocôs is used in its wider sense. The meaning of the Fragment must

be that as the likeness is inferior to the living person, so is the world (created

by the Demiurge) less than the living Aeon. The greatness of the archetype is the

cause of the copy ;and the name of the archetype supplies what is deficient

in the copy. The use of aluv, contrasted with KOOTXOJ, recalls Heracleon s usage of

the word, as equivalent to the Pleroma, or more generally, the spiritual sphere; see

Fragg. 1, 18 and 22. Compare especially the phrases in 22, 6 ev aluvi. /ecu ol avv awry

e\0oWes and tireiTrep eiKoves OVTOI (sc. ol louScuot) TUV ev rip TrX^pciârt aury elvai

The terminology which Clement uses in his explanation of this Fragment of

Valentinus is of more importance. His interpretation of it appears to be as follows ;

rj eiK&v= the Demiurge, Sophia sTr\d<rfj,a

created to give glory to the Father : TO $&v

iTpoffwirov= the Father, the True God: furypa0os

= Sophia. [As the Demiurge is

inferior to the Father, so is the /coov/os to the living Aeon.] The Demiurge is an

dKwv (of the Father) as being dirb ei>6s,

the production of Sophia. The offspring of

a ffvfvyia. are not ei/coi/ej but TrX^pw/iara (cf. Excerpta ex Theud. 32). The next

sentence is hardly intelligible. But the words TO e^varnj.a rov diafiepovros Trvev/j.aros,

7)e/c /tceo-oTTjTos ^vx~n, and o

e/j.iri>eirai rr} tyvxy, shew great similarity of substance

with the teaching of Frag. 16;and the use of Tr\r}pw/M immediately recalls Hera

cleon s use of it to represent the husband of the Samaritan woman (Frag. 18). It

is impossible to tell whether Clement has made use of the writings of Valentinus in

his explanation of that part of them which he quotes, and apparently misunder

stands. But if it is so, some of Heracleon s most peculiar terminology was derived

from his master.6. Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 6, p. 767. Beyond the implied restriction of

r/ e/c/cXTj-

<rla to the irvevâriKol (cf. Frag. 25 etc.) this Fragment offers no further points

for comparison, and the same is the case with the remaining Fragments of

Valentinus.

Thus a detailed comparison of the language used by Heracleon and Valentinus

reveals linguistic affinities which thoroughly agree with the supposition adopted in

the Introduction (p. 38) that Heracleon did not materially alter the system of

Valentinus.

B. THE EXCERPTA EX THEODOTO.

When I was in Florence last December (1890), I made use of the opportunity to

collate the two Fragments of Heracleon which are contained in the Stromatcis and

Eclogae Proplictlcae of Clement, and also the whole of the Exccrpta ex Theodoto.

As I have had occasion to quote the Excerpta frequently in my notes I have thought

it worth while to append in an additional note the few variants which Dindorf has



106 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

not noticed in his digest. But he has either adopted in his text or noticed prac

tically all the variants from Migne s text which are of any value.

C. ON THE TEXT OF FRAGMENT 24.

To judge from the conjectural emendations which have been suggested, the text

of the latter part of this fragment offers a problem of great difficulty. The attested

text of the sentence beginning AXX oi>x bp&viv is as follows:

AXX oi/x bpuaiv (12) 6Vt iravTos (13) /cat TUV O.VT&V deKTixbv.

It is important to start from this, as all conjectural restorations seem to have

been based upon the words T&V ivavTiuv, which have no manuscript authority

whatever, and are only a guess of the "emendator" in the margin of the Bodleian,

who introduces his suggestions with the wordf<rws,

and is certainly later than

the other emendator, who uses the word Tdx.

Origen s argument seems to be as follows. Is it not dVe/3es to call the spiritual

worshippers, whom Heracleon lias just called adulterers (in that he has just said

that the Samaritan woman Trpeiy-tart/dys (pixreus oCcra has committed adultery), b/moov-

ffioi with God? Heracleon and his followers do not see that, etc. But if the Trvevfj-a-

TiKT) (pv<Tis being oyuootfcrios with God could commit adultery, impious deductions

follow from their argument concerning God. The impious deduction is clearly

something equivalent to dexerai 6 0eos rd iropvevaai.. Origen refutes the position of

Heracleon, that God and the Tn>v/j.a.TiKoi are bfj-ooixrioi, by a reductio ad absurdum

through two syllogisms :

(1) major. (?)

minor. God and the Tn/ev/um/cT? (f>v<ri$

are6/xoo;<rta :

God and the irv.0y<rts

are rwv O.VTUI> Se/cTi/cd.

(2) major. God and the irv. (pvais are TWV avTwv SCKTIKO. :

minor. The irv. 0iVu eSeaTo TO TropvevaaL .

God dtxeTai Tb iropvevffai: (for if the irv.(pu<r. e5^aTo, then it is

SKTIKOV of that which

This seems to be the strict argument, though of course it is stated more con



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 107

The only major which will suit the 1st syllogism seems to be TO, b

avTdv deKTiKa. I would therefore propose to read, llai> TO buoovaiov /ecu TW O.VTUV

Se/cri/coi . This preserves the TUV O.VTUV which is attested by all the MSS., ruv lva.v-

rLwv having, as was noticed before, no MS. authority.

Ferrarius gave up the sentence as hopeless, and does not translate it (see Huet s

edition : Delarue has here apparently introduced his own translation into that of

Ferrarius). His(?)

translation of the following words (d ot e5ta.To...0eov) Quod si

[Heracleon ac sui sequaces] admiserint spiritualem naturam quae sit eiusdem essen-

tiae [cum divina et undequaque beata natura ut ipsi tradunt] meretricari, profana

et impia et irreligiosa sequuntur rationem ipsorum, gives the sense of the sentence,

but can hardly be intended for a literal translation. Thus no help is to be got

from him. Delarue s note may be quoted as an example (perhaps not a fair one,

as it is worse than most) of the treatment which the text has received at his

hands :

"Codd. Bodl. et Barb. eKTreiropvevKevai. Regius ireiropvevKevcu,Mox Codex Bod-

leianus habet " AXXoi>x bpuxnv oi ravra X^yoires, on iravTos TUV ivavruav /ecu TUV

O.VTUIV dcKTiKov. Ei 5e tSâro TO iropvevcrai rj irvev/j-aTLKr] 0i;cris, bfj.oov<nosovaa. TTJ ayev-

vrfry cbocria &c. sicque sanitati omnia restituuntur. Modo pro /ecu TWV O.VTUV legas

Ko.1 TO ai/ro."

Codex Eegius reads eKTre-n-opvevKevaL. All the marginal suggestions of the

Bodleian MS. are set down as if they occurred in its original text.

How omnia sanitati restituuntur by reading Tb avrb for ruv afiruv I cannot

see. God and the Tn/euâri/cr) 05(ris would hardly even by the impious Heracleon

be called Tb cu5r6. The point is not that r6 avri is SeKTUcbv TUV ivavrtuv. The only

deduction from this and the following sentence would be that God being (?)identical

with the n-i evfj.a.TtKr] 0tf<sis capable of contrary things to what it is capable of, i.e.

I suppose TO fj.i) Tropvevffcu,which deduction is not av6ffiov. The point is rather

that God and the irv.(j>v<ris, being b/j.oov<ria,

are TUV O.VTWV Se/cri/cd. Sense can be

extracted from Grabe s conjecture, adopted by Hilgenfeld, on iravTos KoXoO TO

irvfvfji.a KO.I TUV ivavTiwv ov deKTtKov. The argument would then be I suppose some

what as follows. T6 Trj/eOâ is not deKTiKov of good and evil at the same time.

The Trvfv/ji.aTi.KTi (pfots tSâro Tb KaKov: therefore it cannot 6^xeo"ât T Ka\6v: and

therefore God, being 6/uoownos with it, is not 5e/cn/c6s TOV KO\OV, and is therefore

dfKTiKbs TW fravTtuv i.e. of evil. But the objections to it are insuperable: (a) It

makes Origeu guilty of unparalleled obscurity. (/3)It has no support whatever

from the MSS. (7) It is based on the unfortunate conjecture TUV evavrlwv. (8)It

would require TOV ivavTlov.(e)

It makes rb Trvev/J.a=

ri wvevfj-aTiKj] <pfais.



INDEX OF PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED, EX

PLAINED, OR REFERRED TO BY HERACLEON.

The figures refer to the number of the page. Square brackets have been iiscd

where the reference is doubtful.

Gen. vi. 2 93

[Ps. xix.(xviii.) 5

79]

Ps. Ixix.(Ixviii.) 10 69

Is. i. 2, 4 93

v.l, 2 93

[xxv. 892]

[Jer. vii. 1169]

[Ezek. xxxiv. 1680]

[Mt. iii. 11101]

Mt. viii. 12 93

ix. 3786

x. 28 92

xi. 11 58

xxi. 13 69

xxiii. 15, 33 99

xxv. 1 84

[Lc. iii. 16101]

Lc. vii. 26 65

28 58

xii. 811 102

xix. 10 80

Jo. i. 350, 80

4.

14f. 68 f.

17 69

19 f. 70 f.

iv. 11 84

14 72 f.

Jo. iv. 16 73 f.

17 74

18 f 75

20 f 76

22 78 f.

23 80

24 79,81

2527 82

2831 83

32-34 84

35 8636 87 f.

37 88

38 f 89

40 90

42 91

46 91

4749 92

5053 93

54 92

v. 45 101

viii. 12 ff 95 f.

21 f 95 f.

37 f 97

43 97

44 97, 98, 100

47 97

50 101

Horn. i. 25 79

[v. 1572]

vi. 21 92

xiii. 4 101

1 Cor. x. 5 79

xv. 53 f. 92

Gal. iii. 19 89

2Tim.ii. 13 103



INDEX OF GREEK WORDS IN THE FRAGMENTS

OF HERACLEON.

The figures refer to the number and line of the Fragments.



110 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.



INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. Ill

xaeo\iK6s 40, 5; 50, 12

/ca0oXi/c<2s 50, 8

/co/efa 13, 30; 18, 24

; 20, 9

KaTapatveiv 11, 3; 40, 31

KaraXetTretz/ 27, 3

/caraXXr/Xos 17, 30; 50, 14

KaraffKevd^eiv 5, 79 ; 13, 31; 1C, 5

KaraaKfvri 33, 8

Kare\0elv 8, 29; 11, 5

; 40, 50

KaQapvaovfj. 11, 4; 40, 6

jrf/>5os 13, 16

Kepfj.a.Ti<TTr)s 13, 14

KX77<r 13, 5; 27, 1C

KOivbrepov 5, 70

KoXdfriv 48, 7

/coTriaj/ 36, 6

LOTTOS(?) 36, 9

17, 4; 18, 8

; 27, 21

1, 3; 8, 2

; 11, 5; 18, 20

; 20, 7

27, 6; 31, 9

; 37, 2; 40, 43

n6s 10, 10

6, 10

20, 11; 22, 19

20, 11; 22, 20

is 13, 29

,20

77 2, 7

s, irpurij 2, 6

48, 5

va6s 16, 6

?KOS 40, 20

voelv 1, 35; 8, 36

; 13, 6; 22, 8

; 35, 17

vo/j.ifj.os 18, 10

j/6/xoj 20, 10; 40, 25

j/6<ros 40, 32

#vos 13, 16

^Xoi/ 13, 26

68r)yeia dcu 39, 5

otVaos 5, 27 ; 23, 6; 40, 49

oiK(i<i)s 40, 21

olK-rjrripiov 20, 9

oiKovofjua 8, 32; 11, 2

;ot r?}s oiV.

36, 7

22, 8

4, 7 ; 8, 38; 19,2; 26, 5; 50, 7

o/j.o\oyia 50, 2

ovofioffia 46, 18

opos 20, 6

oi)(rfa 43, 4; 44, 7

; 45, 2; 46, 2

ojis 46, 24

Traces 12, 2 ; 38, 4

Travovpyia 6, 10

,7

10, 8

ia 27, 7

(?) 2, 8

\arpeia 13, 18; 19, 13

; 24, 10

\arpe6ew 20, 14; 21, 24

; 22, 19

Aevis 50, 11

Aevlni* 13, 10

AeiuTi/c6s 5, 63

X<ts 8, 38

\ivov 13, 23

Xo7i/c6s 24, 10

X67os, 6 1, 7; 5, 6; 22, 7 ; 33, 8

; 44, 5; 45, 1 irepurabrepov 10, 4

Ittrpos 21, 22

(jt-aprvpia, dvOpwirlvr) 39, 7 irXavdv 22, 17

Mcrrflcuos 50, 10 Tr\dvr) 22, 16 ; 23, 6 ; 24, 9 ; 47, 6

fj.dxa.ipa 48, 4 7rXeur/*a 16, 7

M<?7e0os 8, 29 TrX^pw/xa 13, 11; 18, 5

; 22, 10

/iept*6s 50, 12 7rXi7(TiafetJ> 18, 25

36, 7 Tn/eu/io 13, 6; 17, 13

; 24, 8; 27, 7 ;

r6

r 40, 7 #7- TTV. 13, 22

fj.Ta.pd\\eiv, see 40, 68 vveviM.TiK&s 2, 3; 15, 4

; 20, 15; 23, 12

;

/xera/SoXiJ 5, 30 24, 15; 37, 3

/ierar^/u 5, 28 Tri/eu/ian/cws 24, 6



112 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.

5, 61

vorqpfa 40, 56

Trovrjpuis 42, 2

TropeveaOai, et s<p8opav 42, 10

TrpeirovTws 19, 8

irpârov 10, 7; 12, 3

; 13, 13

7rp65po/xos 8, 22

Trp6vaos 13, 9

wpoa-dyeiv 27, 8

TrpotrS^-xfffdai. 25, 2

7rpo<r5oKai> 26, 4

irp6<TKaipos 17,

2;

40,3

5, 62

8, 35 ; 14, 2; 40, 22

5, 80

,8

; 5, 39; 10, 3

; 19, 3

7T/)o0?7Ti/c6s, Trp. rats 5, 8

2a/i/>eia 26, 7; 28, 2; 31, 8

us 24, 6

22, 16 ; aap/ca Xa/Setj/ 8, 30

13, 24

<TKa\\eiv 36, 12

ffKevos 27, 5

O-KOTOS 46, 23

16, 4

2, 7; 35, 2

; 36, 8

16, 10; 35, 3; 36, 5; 40, 56

13, 28

31, 3

31, 10

ai>ij.fio\ov 13, 10

<rvfjL7rapa\a.fji,(3di>eij> 20, 17

<TVfJ.TT\^KlV 18, 25

o-vvapid/j-elv 20, 18

avviardvat 46, 32

ffwrypia 13, 12; 22, 7

; 33, 7 ; 34, 4;

40, 17

crcêt* 31, 7; 40, 50 ; 50, 9

rais 5, 8; 40, 48

30, 3

10, 9

35, 12

, 26

rerpas 16, 8

eti/ 36, 12

11, 6; 13, 3

; 17, 39;

6 virep TOV T.

vidsa.v6p(j}irov 35, 14

Tp67ros 40, 39

Tpo<f>ri 31, 5

TI^TTOS 12, 2; 13, 27

vdpla 27, 1

0X77 16, 7; 20, 8; 21, 23; 23, 6; 36, 13;

40, 8

Wu/cos 11, 5 ; 13, 2 ; 18, 24vTrrjpecria. 8, 26

virrjptrris 48, 12

VTToppT)KU)S 40, 7

vir6Swa 8, 30

VTTOKplTrjS 50, 7

vTTOTi6e(T0ai 40, 13

(pavepovv 44, 7

âpurcuoi 6, 10 ; 7, 5

00apr6s 40, 18

17, 16

,10

00opo7roi6s 46, 25

<pL\apyvpia 13, 17

50, 10

o/ 13, 19

?7 5, 64

cDs 47, 8

17, 31; 19, 8; 23, 12; 24, 2; 33,

9; 37, 5; 40, 10; 44, 8; 46, 11; 47, 4

0amayx6s 2, 8

35, 2

Xapa 35, 12

5, 42; 40, 46

13, 23

Xot/c6s 46, 11

13, 18

46, 13

47, 8

\f/evfffj.a 47, 12

47, 10



111.



Thefollowing numbers of the series are now published :

Vol. I. No. 1. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES : by J. REXDEL HARRIS,M.A. : with an Appendix by THE EDITOR. 5s. net.

No. 2. THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA, with an Appendixon the Scillitan Martyrdom : by THE EDITOR. 4s. net.

No. 3. THE LORD S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH :

by F. H. CHASE, B.D. 5s. net.

X<>. 4. THEFRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

:

by A. E.BROOKE, M.A. 4s. net.

A separate title page for binding is issued with the last numberof the volume (No. 4).

Thefollowing is nearly ready:

Vol. II. No. 1. A STUDY OF CODEX BEZAE :

byJ.

RENDEL HARRIS, M.A.

Thefollowing is in course of preparation :

THE TKSTAMKXT OF ABRAHAM: by M. R. JAMES, M.A. :

with an Appendix containing Translations from the Arabic of theTestaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by \V. K. BAKXKS, M.A.



University of Toronto

Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THECARD

FROM

THISPOCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket

Under Pt "Ref. Index Ffle"

Made by LIBRARY BUREAU

robinson. texts and studies : contributions to biblical and patristic literature. 1891. volume 1

Documents