You are on page 1of 130

TEXTS AND STUDIES

CONTRIBUTIONS TO

BIBLICAL

AND

PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY
J.

ARMITAGE ROBINSON

B.D.

FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

VOL.

I.

No.

4.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891

AND SONS, CAMBBIDGE UNIVEESITY PKESS WAEEHOUSE, AVE MAEIA LANE.


Ponton: C.
J.

CLAY

DEIGHTON, BELL AND ILdpjifl: F. A. BROCKHAUS.


gork
:

CO,

MACMILLAN AND

CO.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

NEWLY EDITED FROM THE

MSS.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

BY

A.

E.

BROOKE

M.A.

FELLOW OP KING'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891
[All Rights reserved]

(Eambrtoge

PRINTED BY

C.

J.

CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

THE
.

INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES 10 EL?/: LEY

TORCH rO

G,

DEC 171831

5*

ORt*T

PATRI CARISSIMO

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGES

INTRODUCTION
The MSS. of Origen's Commentaries on The Date and Teaching of Heracleon
S.

John

...

1-49
1

31

TEXT AND NOTES


ADDITIONAL NOTES
Heracleon and Valentinus
Collation of the 'Excerpta ex Theodoto' On the Text of Fragment 24

50-103
104-107
104
105

106

INDICES
Index of passages of Scripture quoted, explained, or referred to by Heracleon Index of Greek words in the Fragments of Heracleon
.
.

108-112

108

109

THE

MSS.

OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON

S.

JOHN.

the extant manuscripts of the Commentaries on S. John, So far as I have been three only have been used by the editors.
able to discover, there are seven in existence. If we count Thorndike's transcription of the Bodleian Manuscript, there are eight.

OF

The existence of a ninth is doubtful, but this question more easily discussed later on. The three which seem
been used by the editors are at
similarity of the text contained in
Paris,

will

be

to

have

Rome and

Oxford.

The

contained

a near

many common

they all common lacunae, pointed to their derivation from The following pages are an attempt to ancestor.

them and the

fact that

shew that

this ancestor still exists,

state of preservation, in

though unfortunately the Library at Munich.


:

in a

bad

The Manuscripts
I.

are as follows

Codex Monacensis.
;

In the Munich State Library, Graec.


"

thus described in the Catalogue, Bombycinus charta obsoleta et laesa atramento flavescente literis minutis et elegantibus

cxci

frequenti abbreviatione in folio, if. 305, saec. xni. foliorum ordine turbato male conservatus et inscriptus <f>v\. pifi', Origenis Comm. in Matt, et Jn."

Of the Commentaries on
13. 19. 20. 28.

S.

John

it

contains Bks.

1. 2. 6. 10.

32 (33 according to Hardt's Catalogue, but this

is

an

error).

Thus the MS.

follows the true division of the Books.

The Ferrarian
by a

division (that invented or adopted by Ambrosius Ferrarius in his translation) into 32 books is added in the margin
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.
B.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


S.

The Commentaries on
36
lines

Matthew

are in another

hand and contain

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

on a page.

are wanting.

The

title-page of the MS. has the following description "Origenis in 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."

Most of Bk. x. of the Comm. in Matt, is there, and also Bk. xvn. And with regard to the Comm. in Joann. 9 is a mistake for 10, and 28 should have been
This description
is

inaccurate.

inserted.

Huet mentions a MS.


his Origeniana in.
iii.

of the Commentaries on S.

Matthew

in

"In Catalogo librorum ducis Bavariae notatur Tomus Undecimus initio quoque mutilus cum proxime sequentibus quinque." And as to the Commentaries on S. John he
12.

was again misinformed.


32)

"Eosdem (i.e. 1. complectitur Tomos praeter decimum

2. 6.

10. 13. 19. 20. 28.

et

vigesimum octavum

memoratus liber in bibliothecae Bavaricae Catalogo" (ill. 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
et?

MS.

itself is

TO Kara MarOaiov KOI KCUT laydvvrjv


It is written in minuscules

/cap$r]va\. ratv To<r/c\fc>i/.

hanging from ruled lines, with one column of 36 lines on a page, and about 117 60 letters in each line. It consists of ff. 330 of which ff. 1 contain the Comm. in Matt. Bks. 10 17 (inclusive). F. 118 contains a preface on Origen's blasphemy, beginning TroXXtSu
(JLCV

The MS.

is

dated 1374.

and

THE
ending
teal

MSS.

OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON

s.

JOHN.

avOis a^rw^eOa. This preface has nothing to do with the preface in the Munich Codex concerning the marginal notes in its ancestor. The words TOV /3a<7tXeo>9 at the head of this preface
point probably to
(recto)
far

some connexion with Constantinople. Ff. 112 294 (verso) contain the Commentaries on S. John. So

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 divergences 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 Triphon ium di Maluasiae et finitto ad X Ottobr. 1555."

To

this

we

shall

have occasion to

with the seventh manuscript.


Palaeographie,
III.

when we are dealing The same scribe is known to have


refer

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


p. 322).

Codex Regius.
;

nale at Paris
"|*

Graec. CDLV. in the Bibliotheque Natiothus described in the manuscript itself:


et<?

'Qpiyevovs T&V

TO Kara ^IcadvvTjv eva^e\iov e^rpyyTiKa


diro TOV SetcaTov

TOfJLOt, X(D'.
"f"

TOV avTOV
avev

ets

TO Kara "M.aT0aiov
J^et, TOV

To/jLOi

d'js 6Wo?

Codex Chartac. xvi. saec. scriptum quo continentur Origenis commentaria in Johannem et Matthaeum quae primus in lucem
protulit Daniel Huetius.

12

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


In the early parts of the Commentaries on

folios are in
is

wrong order and there

are large

Matthew the lacunae. The Codex


S.

This was the written in minuscules hanging from ruled lines. MS. on which Huet 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.

MS.

is

58: used by Delarue. This described in the Bodleian Catalogue as being of the 17th

Codex Bodleianus.

Misc.

Century. Its resemblance to II. is very close. It is now bound in three volumes of which the first contains ff. 183, the second It contains only the Commentaries on 183, and the third 182.
S.

John.

In the margin

it

has two sets of emendations.

The

first

are introduced by the word Ta%a and are for the most part based on Ferrarius's Latin Version. The second, which are distinguished by the word Ifo-w?, 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.,
1 though apparently he did not make a full collation V. Codex Barberinus I. In the Barberini Library at
.

Rome

of the 15th or 16th Century, in the opinion of the Librarian, M. 1' Abbs' Pieralisi. It contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew

(beginning at Book X. rore <ei9 TOI)<? o^Xof?, and ending eVt<rrptyai 7r/>o9 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 Philo Hepl rov ftlov Mwcrew?. 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 rlvi Se \dptyov<rw ev rofc VTTOThis, Beea-repo^, and there is no trace of a folio having been lost.
as will be seen later on, is almost conclusive proof as to 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 It is numbered O. 32. It is a folio MS. following information.
written on paper, containing
1

ff.

306, with 30 lines on a page, and


" Collatus ad Cod.

He writes at the beginning of Huet's text

Mstum. Chartaceum
2. 6, 7, 8."

ab Italo (ut videtur) scriptum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana Oxonii

Num. E.

THE

MSS.

OF ORIGEN
line.

COMMENTARIES ON

S.

JOHN.
is

about 40 letters in a
in

It contains the preface

which

found

Codex Yenetus, headed by the words + rov /3a<7tXect>9 +, beginning on the 2nd recto TroXXcT^ rov wptyevrjv alperiKov virdp-)(ew ^i]^>icra^ev(t)v, and ending on the 2nd verso KOI av6i<s The Commentaries begin on the 3rd recto with the d\lra)/jLe0a. title wpiyevovs rwv et? TO Kara 'Icodvvrjv evayyeXiov dgrjyrjri/cwv It is divided into 32 books and is dated at the rofios Tjyxwro?. end a five ev fj,rjvl avyovcrrov k.
:

After this follows the


t

name

of the scribe in cryptograph.

That

is

to say

trapd TewpyLo) ro>

The cryptograph used

is

the

common one

in

which the scribe

takes the Greek alphabet with the three letters F, Q, and ~^|, thus These he divides into 3 parts of 9 letters getting 27 letters.

and substitutes the first for the last, the 2nd for the last but Thus the middle letters of each 9 one, and so on, in each group. It will thus be seen that the are unchanged, viz. e, v, and $. 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
each,
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 0. 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 Tore a<ei5 TOI)<? aggXot/f) and ending at the 27th (eTriarTpeifrai TT/OO?

The MS.

is

dated a five,
ilr~^x<t>(fv.

o/crcoftpiov

/3'.

feo-^fQo-

After this

it

and signed has on f. 225 the preface

on Origen's blasphemies, with the same heading + rov /3ao-tXe&)9 -fas 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

for

Cj

which would represent

t.

6 VIII.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

transcription of Codex Bodleianus (IV.) made by Herbert Thorndike needs no further description. It is now in the

The

Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (numbered B. 9. 11). It is not without value however, as the writer has inserted several conjectural emendations in the margin, of critical notes at the beginning.

and there are

also three

pages

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 possesIX.
existence of a ninth
is

The

MS.

doubtful.

sion of Cardinal Ottoboni (Alexander VIII.). Subsequently Benedict XIV. is said to have placed them in the Vatican. Among

a MS. containing Origen's Commentaries on S. Matthew and S. John, and Philo Hepl TOV fiiov TOV Mwo-ew?, Tlepl TOV ftlov
these
is

In TTO\ITIKOV (Joseph), and Tlepl VOIMWV wypdfytov (Abraham). the Catalogue of the Ottobonian part of the Vatican Library, which has not yet been published, but exists in manuscript in the

But the description answers Vatican, I could find no trace of it. very nearly to the MS. now in the Barberini, which I have numbered V.

any
not,

Is it possible that this MS. passed from the hands of If of its former owners into the possession of the Barberini ?

we must suppose that this MS. has been lost, unless indeed the MS. Catalogue of the Ottobonian Manuscripts is incomplete. Delarue constantly refers to a Codex Barberinus/ and generally
'

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


to

known

any

one.

The
sidered.

relations of these

MSS.

to one another
I subjoin

must now be con-

For the sake of clearness

what

I conceive their relations to be.

a diagram shewing After this I propose to


to those

consider the relations (1) of the

Munich Codex

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. Let us then consider 1. (a)
first

the relation of the Paris


of the

Codex

to that at Munich.

The contents

two are practically

the same, so far as concerns the subject of our present enquiry.

THE
(i)

MSS.

OF ORIGEN

COMMENTARIES ON

S.

JOHN.

As pointed out

contains of the
incorrect.

Comm.

above, the statement that the God. Monac. in Matt. Books xi. (mutilated) to XVI. is

It contains also

most of Book

X.,

and Book xvn.

The

SAEC.
XIII

Monac.

(I)

XIV
Yen. (II)

XV

XVI
Keg. (Ill)

Barb. (V)

\
Matrit. (VII)

XVII
Bodl. (IV)

mistake as to the latter point has arisen from the fact that Books But the XVI. and xvii. are not divided as the other books are.
last

words contained in this part of the MS. are eTricn-ptyat, TT/OO? avrov, the ending of Book xvii. and a calculation of pages easily shews that both Books xvi. and xvii. are contained in the MS., for
;

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 In the Comm. in Joann. there is no difference of contents, each. words which occur in the Cod. Monac. are rivi Se (ii) The first \a^ov(nv ev rot? vTrobeecnepois which occur towards the end of Book x. chap. 3 (Lomm. III. 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 Trd\w bpoia e<mv K.T.\. (Mt. xiii. 44) which begin Thus the scribe seems to have begun his MS. chap. 4 of Book x. with the first whole chapter contained in his exemplar. If then this MS. is copied from the Munich MS., the latter must already

Book XV. begins on

f.

62,

Book

xvi. on

f.

77,

have

lost its first leaf in

the 16th century.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


More
direct proofs of copying are not wanting. Lomm. I. p. 118, 1. 22. Cod. Monac. has 7rapafjLfj,v...<r% the

intervening space being worm-eaten, Cod. Reg. has TrapapefA.. aai


leaving space for about four letters. Cod. Monac. reads ovOev, but the Oev is hidden p. 152, 1. 15. by a piece of parchment fastened on over it. Reg. omits the

word leaving a space


p.

for three letters.

_
177,
1.

5.

Cod. Monac. has

fj,ovo<yevr)s 0<r,

an interlinear insertion by a
yevrjs vios Oeo^ all in
p. 272,
1.

later hand.

the 6 vlb? being Cod. Reg. has o fjbovo-

the text.

In the Munich Codex the words avrov $ d/juapria are almost illegible, either because the scribe turned over the page before it was dry, or owing to the subsequent effect of damp on
6.

the manuscript. omits the words.

The

blot appears on the opposite leaf.

Cod. Reg.

Lomm.

II.

p. 108,

1.

9.

-/-tou

ov&ev

/juev-.

In Cod. Mon. these

letters are obliterated.

Cod. Reg. omits the same letters, leaving

space for them.


p.

108,

1.

11.

Trepl erepcov.

The same phenomenon

occurs

here with regard to the letters irepl erep. Cod. Reg. omits the word. elo-e\0elv. p. 117, 1. 1.

In Cod.

Monac. the
p.

letters <re\ are


1.

almost obliterated.

127,

15.

o-rjfiaivei,

jap TO

fjuev

TOIOVTOV.

Here again we

have an indication.
letters fiaivei

Both manuscripts erroneously repeat the

yap

TO.

The proof may be completed by two passages from the text of the Commentaries on S. Matthew Book xi. chap. ix. Lomm. ill. p. 91, 1. 10. el' rt? ovv. The el rt? is stained and
;

indistinct in Cod.
1.

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

11.

TrevtjTwv.

Cod. Mon.

In Cod.

The first four letters are hardly legible in Reg. we find a space for four letters followed
of the

by TWV.
two MSS. are numerous but not imMost of them are due to ordinary transcriptional portant. The rest may be explained by the supposition that blunders. the scribe of the Paris MS. was more than usually careless and

The divergences

ignorant.

THE
I

MSS.

OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON

s.

JOHN.

subjoin a list of their divergences (other than mere itacisms and cases of the addition or omission of v e(f>f\Kvo~TiK6v) which occur in the first 30 pages
of

Tom. xin.

of the

Comm.

in Joann. (Lommatzsch's edition).

Monacensis
P.
1, 2,

Begins
TO

Title
1.

TOV

10
14
3

TO

<av

<ov

3,

ha
\fftr)TO)V

Zv
\(VlTO)l>
ft i.e.

4,

[M
5 1 O 10 I Q
5,

generally has the old form of


dnfKTfiva
"
fJ,(i)(TT]S
*

'w']

dwoKTfivai
*

fJKOVO'r) ff
*

Trept

Trapa
OfJLOlOV
off

10
11

OfUHUV TO' 6s ait

av

18
7,

11

TO voijpaTt StaAXeTtu
tit

8,

TIS ft

omit
TTJV diKaioo-vvrjv
e

[both om. the clause 15


9,

6 15

10,

3 on 20 22
16
17

TOV
*

Koa-fjiov
'

omit
'

OKOVWV
TOU nvfVfjLdTos Trept TO
o> eVoi/
TT(5$r

'

anovto

11,
13,

nvev^aTos Trept TOU


toy

TOV

15,

14

TTWS

23 24
18,

irapaTiQeiaav

SteXey^^i/at OTOVOV

O.TOVOS

TO
V

0pfp.fj.aTa

om. ra
yfvop-fvrj

26
19,
1

yivofifvr]

18
20,
C\
"I

24

'HpafcXe'aw
* ^

'HpaicXe'toi/
'

221,

4
1

'

T)

nVlKT)

TTVIKT)

22,

KaTa\i<f)0fVTas
'lo'O'a^ap
o'oXo/nwi'off

KaTaXfKpdfvros

16
23,

4
I1

o*a/iapevff

24,

17

eV$adepaTev/ua

A i e, f'vOddf

'

22
25, 26,

fp^fTdi
(pddvovras
5t'

f'pxfo-6ai

(pOdvovra
didvoiav

ayi/otai/

10

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


Monacensis
26,

Regius

14

T
eV
<B

27,

8 9
10
11

co

fdviKOl

12

om.

<u

23
28,

ai tfeiorepov

11

7rpoa.7ro8c8wKafJiv

29,

30,

6 2
6 10

ot

'lov&uot

'lovSatoi
/tad9eXeii/

Ka0f\f)v as

ay

dyyeXXoty
SeT

dyyeXoiy
Se

(b)

Codex Barberinus II. (VI).


this

I can only speak

from slight

knowledge of
Vacation

MS.
was in

The Barberini Library was

closed during

and it was only through the great kindness of the Librarian that I was allowed to work for two hours at the manuscripts which it contains.. But I was fortunately able to obtain sufficient evidence to determine
I

when

Rome

in October, 1888,

their relative places in the groups almost with certainty. The first words of the Comm. in Matt, which this MS. contains

As these are the first words contained in are TIVI Se \d^ovcri,v. Cod. Monac., though they occur towards the end of a chapter and
paragraph in the Commentaries, this
is

in itself almost conclusive

For, as has been stated above, proof of the origin of the MS. Cod. Monac. has lost a leaf at the outset. The Barberini MS. also

contains the true division of the


' '

Comm.

in Joann. in red.

The

Ferrarian

divisions

have been added

in the

margin, but are in

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

Lomm.
deov
/c.T.X.)

I.

p.

96 (opposite
VTTO

vTrepefto/jLevos

VTTO

TOV TWV o\cov

<f)\vapi<; ttro? #eo?

jap

wo?

T&> iraTpL

p.

108 (opposite

TOV /cp6iTTovo<;..,7rapa TOV \6jov) opa

following readings, when contrasted with the corresponding variants of the Venice group, point to the same conclusion

The

THE
I

MSS.

OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON

s.

JOHN.

11

have designated Codex Monacensis as M, Codex Regius as P, Codex Barberinus as R.

Lomm.
p. 13,
p. 13,
1. 1.
1.

II.

p. 6,

1.

1 CKTVTTOV

PMR.

p. 14,
p. 60,
p.

1.

60,

1.

MR. 17 w erov MR. 1 evoewd rot? PMR. 12 \eyovrat, MR. eyovrai 13 dirofc\i<r0ia-a^ PMR.
16
irepl

TO

P.

p.

108,

(In
p.

9 -ftov ovSev pev- om. PR. the words are worm-eaten.)


1.
1.

108,

11

Trepl

erepwv om. R.

wv
(In
p.

P.

M the letters Trepl erep are damaged.) 132 M has the following marginal note
rfj

/cal

fjurjv

/cat

TO.

ev repara %/?t<? T(Sv a-rjptltov evprjrai, w<? TO) 6e<p 8id/3a<ri,v TT/? epvOpds dvareOeicrri
e^So^o)? TTOIWV repara.

wSfj

rfj

/juerd

rrjv

Oav/juaa-Tos

yap

(frrja-lv

have printed the contracted words in full.) R has the same note exactly: P has it, but has made two mistakes in copying, reading Oav/JLaa-rd for Oav/jbaa-ro^ and omitting a>8f/ T$.
(I
p.

73,

1.

has d/c...ovra

the intervening letters being

damaged.

R
P

reads dtc...ovTa, leaving a space corresponding to the dots. has hazarded a conjecture, and a very unfortunate one.

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

were
II.
1.

Lomm.
p.

p.

137,

1.

BiatyOopas.

Sia<j)0opdv.
jjualvei,

137,

15.

The erroneous
P)
is

in

M (and copied by
p.

repetition of not followed by R.

ydp TO found

291,

1.

13

MP

tcare.

Kare^r).

Thus Codex Barberinus must be copied either from Codex Monacensis or from a copy of that MS. The passages quoted
not a copy of Codex Regius. There prove conclusively that it is 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 Cod. Barberinus late in the copied early in the 16th century,

12

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

same century, and that Cod. Monac., wherever it was (I was unable to obtain any information as to its history at Munich), was neglected during this period.
2.

(a)

The

relation of the Bodleian

MS.

to that at Venice is

Their divergences are very slight, being for the most part ordinary transcriptional blunders or corrections, and even of these there is only a very small number. The rest

not hard to determine.

may be
knew
places.

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

12 (in the After the word OvaXevrivov space


p.

Lomm.

117,

1.

first
is

fragment of Heracleon). left for about nine letters.


it

The same lacuna


an erasure. Lomrn.
erasure
in
II.

occurs in Codex Venetus, but in

there has been

p.

7,

1.

2.

Cod.

Ven.

A
7.

After evKivrjTG) there has been an corresponding lacuna is left in Cod.


7T 777775

Bodl.

Lomm.
Bodl. has

ii.

p. 53,

1.

Codex Venetus reads

/o%^? (sic).

Cod.

was not able to notice any divergence of Codex Barberinus I. (V) from the Venice MS. except that in the passage mentioned above it leaves no space after OvaXevrlvov, from which The fact that the Comof course no conclusion can be drawn.
(b)

at the beginning of the 10th Book (rore dfals TOI)? o^\oi/s), considered in connexion with the date of the MS. (saec. xv. or xvi.), proves that it belongs to the Venice

mentaries on

S.

Matthew begin

as opposed to the

points to prove the identity of

Munich group, and the division into 32 books the same conclusion. The following readings tend to
its

text with that of Codex Venetus.


(frrjcri

Lomm.
II.

I.
1.

p.

117,
e'07?

1.

p. 9,
1.

20

16 Siafyepovra yap Ven. Bar.

Ven. Bar.

16 Trapa TO Ven. Bar. (Codex Bodleianus has Trap a rov.) p. 14, 1. 1 eV Svvarois Ven. Bar.
p. 13,

p. p.

122,
122,

1.

1 el

Ven. Bar.
evSe$v/j,6vovs

1.

TOI)<?

Ven. Bar.

THE
p. 376,
p.

MSS.
1.

OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON

s.

JOHN.

13

376,

1.

4 Tpiatc6<rTov 7rpa>rov Ven. Bar. 6 rpia/cocrrw Sevrepq) Ven. Bar.


its

(Ven. has notes in the margin stating that 28th and 29th.)

exemplar read

Lomm.

II.

p.

73,

1.

1,

lacuna (room for 5 letters) before ovra

Ven. Bar., see above,

p. 11.

of the cryptograph in the MS. at Madrid with the note at the end of Codex Venetus is sufficient
(c)

The correspondence

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
section, are also

more

fully in the

next

found here.

And

in the case of p. 41, the sug-

gestion found in Cod. Ven. in the margin (ol^ai 7rapacrxf.iv ryv vTrapfyv teal TTJV TrKacriv ical ra eiBrj) is put in the margin also in

the Madrid

MS.

See

also

I.

23,

Lomm.

p. 44,

1.

Oavpafav

rrjv

The word a^e\TripLav is omitted in ajBekTtiplav rcov TTO\\WV. 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

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 (TroXXcG^
at

TOV 'Qpi<yvr]v tc.r.\.) took 8 days to copy it occurs in O. 47 we must leave this discrepancy unexplained. after the colophon
3.

Thus there seems

derivation of all

Codex Venetus.
first

be no reasonable doubt as to the the other manuscripts from Cod. Monacensis and The more extensive divergences of these two at
to

to suppose them to be independent of each other, but a closer examination disclosed convincing proof of the dependence

led

me

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

of the latter on the former.

14

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


.

The relation of Cod. Yen. to Cod. Monac. instructive parallel 1 remains to be considered in detail. Several lacunae caused in
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
Cod. Monac.

the

first

book.
I.

The

chief instances are the following

4 (Lomm. p. 11) L. and Delarue read <ypa<f>evTa ical KCVT e^ovcrlav, ov /Jirjv TO elXi/cpives r&v e/c Oelas eiriTrvolas \6<y<dv.

Bk.

c.

word ei\(,/cpi,ve<;, but between e^ovaiav and ov iirjv there must have been at least 17 more letters, of which some near the end were I think aTrooroXt/c. Cod. Ven. leaves space between these two words for about 25
After rypa<f>evra Cod. Monac.
is illegible

until the

letters.

14) reXo? avrov irapa ro3 *Ia)dvvr). These words are nearly illegible in Cod. Monac., but there must have been about 14 more letters, and Cod. Ven. leaves space for

Bk.

I.

c.

(Lomm.

p.

15 more letters after 'laydwrj.


the same page et/a^/eeo? ...... SiSda-Keiv is similarly stained in Cod. Monac., and Cod. Ven. omits the passage, except the word
elprjKws, leaving

On

a space.
p. 18.

Bk.

I. c.

8,

Lomm.

...KCU

on

o\ov.

In Cod. Monac. we
half a

find after oXoz/, TO


line illegible, the

<f)L\...fi. f( ?)...*>.(?)

<m: then more than


as in the other cases.

MS. being damaged


2

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


K.T.\.

ordv yap (space ^ line) viov?

Bk.
vos.

I. c.

9,

Lomm.
is

p. 20.

co-rlv e/c\afjL^dv6iv...ovTco

All this
is

damaged

in Cod.

Monac. and mostly

Xptar^aillegible, but

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 after Tre/HTer/u^ei/o?
there

room

for

leaves a space of about f of a line, after which

it

has ovra* Xpi-

Bk.
here.
1

I.

c.

17,

Lomm.

p.

36.

Similar

phenomena occur again

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 (approximate) number of letters which the space left could contain.

THE
Bk.
I.

MSS.
22,

OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON
p. 41.

s.

JOHN.

15

c.

Lomm.

This

is all

damaged
ol^iat,

\eyovra. in Cod. Monac., but the following facts are


777

rot? overt /cal

v\y

discoverable.
(1) (2)
letters.

It omits

Between
ea-rlv

el

and TTJV virapfyv. KOI and elirelv there is room


think, not contained in

for

about 23 more

(3)
illegible,
leaf.

is,

it.

The words

are

but the ink has to some extent stayed on the opposite Reading backwards, I thought I could trace somewhat as
:

follows

ra? ov&las %a\e7rov [lev ovv ira^vrepov elirelv. God. Ven. has rfj v\y (space 20) then /cal rd K.T.\. to
el /cal
;

el

/cal

as in the texts

after
it

which (space

23), elirelv K.T.\.


rrjv virapfyv /cal Trjv

In the margin
ir\d(Ttv /cal

has ol^ai irapacr^elv

rd

eiSrj.

Thus we get some valuable information by which


restoration of the text,

to

attempt a

and very sure indications of the relations

of the two

MSS.
c.

Bk.

I.

(T/coTTovvri.

Lomm. p. 43. rt9 6 ev avrfj Xo<yo9... ewep^erat Damaged in God. Monac., which has space for more.
23,
cr/co-

God. Ven. leaves a space of one line between eirep^erai and


irovvTi.
XIII.
c.

39,

Lomm.

Vol.

II.

p. 73, rjroi, ovra.

Monac. has hBk. being damaged. vening


God.

rjroi die

(space 3 or 4) ovra, the letters interGod. Ven. has tfroi, (space 5), then ovra.

Such evidence as this must hold good against much textual divergence and it must be admitted that the scribe of God. Ven. has made rather free use of conjectural alteration. But a com;

parison of the readings of God. Ven. with those of God. 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
the
S.
first

parts of

may also be obtained from an investigation of the MSS. which contain the Commentaries on

Matthew.

evidence

may

Perhaps a short statement on this part of the not be out of place. Here in Books X. and XI. the

leaves of the

and two or

Munich Codex have been bound up in wrong order, three are wanting. In the Venice MS. the leaves are

16

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


and nothing
is
;

in their right order,

missing hence the displacement 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 the
;

words rivi Se
in Cod. Ven.

\dfji\lrova-iv,

Bk. x.

c.

3,

Lomm.
due

p. 15.

These occur

on the 2nd
first

recto, line 5.

We may
Cod.

notice two omissions,


in

to homoioteleuton, in

Ven. of words contained

Cod. Mon.\

as

indications

of

course, not as proofs.

Bk. Bk.

XI.

c.

18,

Lomm.

pp. 120, 121.


/cal rpavrj p.

o ^coXo? Kal

rpav} earac

o 2&>Xo9.

Cod. Ven. omits


1,

o ^o>Xo?.

XII. c.

Lomm.

127.

/cal

(ftapiaaloL

Trpecrfievovcri,

yap

ol

JAW

<f)api(TaioL <f>aptaa2oi.

Cod. Ven. omits Trpeo-fievovai

The following passage


Be

supplies clear proofs.

(Bk. XII.

c.

20.)

OVK eveSe^ero r 7rpor ^\eo-9ai efo> lea7rw\eiav ava\or

Cod.

Ven. rd

roiavra airo-

TeXeaOai.

povcra\r}fjL,

ytav

%ov<Tav

TT/JO?

ro*

Cod. Ven. omits, leaving space


(15).

TOV

VKV

rrjv tyv%riv av-

avrrjv, &ta

TOVTO eSei avrov


iva

7roXXa TraOwv

ev~\ Ifceivois

Cod. Ven. omits, leaving space

K.T.\.

The words between the


Cod. Monac.

signs

are in each case

damaged

in

Bk.

XII.

c.

24,

Lomm.
Monac.
rj

p.

170,

</>epe

eiTreiv

rd fiaatXiSov

rj,

damaged
space
(7).

in Cod.

And

for

it

Cod. Ven. omits fiao-iXiSov, leaving a reads teal.

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. Unfortunately 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 and individual words can be obtained, which may serve

to length as useful

THE

MSS.

OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON

s.

JOHN.

17

The Venice Codex is our best MSS. of the Comm. in Matt, in the places 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
guides for conjectural restoration. authority for this group of the
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 damage


:

done to the MS. itself cannot be explained by this hypothesis of this Bk. XIIL 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
S.

made a
John.

collation in

September 1889 of the Commentaries on

Huet knew
used
it.

of the Manuscript, but does not

seem

to

have

He

on which

occasionally agrees with it against the Paris MS. 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

by Huet

in

his

granted that any reading adopted text was necessarily that contained in the
it for

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
B.

18

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


is

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
Bodleian MS. which
at times

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

may throw some


the

further light on the problem of the

text of

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 pre-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.

New

Lomm.
p. 177.

i.

Jn. Jn.

i. i.

15. 18.

o flirw.

See Tisch. (Or. 4

'

102
)

(See above, p. 8.) novoyevr)? 6eos. o &v om. Heracleon (?)


aTreoraX/xe'i/ot.
tffy dt K a\

210.
211.

Jn.

i.

24.
10.
2.

See Tisch. (Or. 4


o-ov.

'

123
)

Mb.
Jn.
Jn.

iii.
i.

(Ven.)

214 f. Mk.
222.

om. t^poo-Bev
eo-Trjicev

See Tisch. (Or. 4

125
)

i. i.

26. 27.

avTos COTIV 6 om.

(but in Or.
234.

vi.

23 Mon.

ins. o).

See Tisch. (Or. 4>13

Jn.

i.

26.

o-nJKt (Heracleon)
etonjKct (Bodl.

Ven.

Cf.

Eusebius)
"
-

[292.
[293.

Mk. i. 27. See Tisch. (Or. 4 1 Mapfydrjo-av. Luke iv. 40. eOfpanevev (Paris. Ven. Monac. )
eucpaTTfvcrfv (Bodl.)]

)]

Lomm.
p. 5.
9.

n.
1 Cor. iv. 11.

yvfiviTvofj.v (Par. Bodl.


a-ov

Mon. Ven.)

Jn.

iv. 16.
iv. 14.

rov avbpa (Bodl. Veil.)

18.

Jn.

ou St^crei (Ven.) ov fj.r) 8i\fsrjo~i (Bodl.) ov


fj,fi

8i\lsi]o-T]

(Par.
4 - 220
)

Mon.)

See Tisch. (Or.


57. 68.

Jn.

iv. 31.

eV TO>

^ra^v

8t (Bodl. Ven.)
/nc

Jn. xiv. 28.

o irarrip 6 Tre/n^as-

om.

o Trarrip (Bodl. Ven.)

THE
92.

MSS.
xii.

OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON
42.
2oAo/i<Bvos (Par.

s.

JOHN.

19

Mt.
Jn.
1

Mon.)

104.
106.

iv.

42.
ix. 1.

OVTOS

eVrii/

aXjj&os (Bod. Ven.)

Cor.

109.

Jn.

iv. 44.

eopaxa (Par. Mon.) avrbs 6 tcr sec. loc. (Ven. Bodl.)


tert. loc.

(Bod. Mon.)

110.
114.

(Ven. Bodl.)
Jn.
ii.

15.

dvecrrpf^ev (Par. Mon.) See Tisch. (Or. 4 270 * -)


-

115.

Jn.

ii. ii.

16.

pr) TTOITJTC

(Par.

Jn.

23.

cv fv

rfj rrj

eoprfj ev foprfi

and ?Mon.) rw Troo^a (Bodl.)

TOV Tracr^a (Ven.)

123. 130.

Mt.
Mt. Mt.
Jn.

x. 28.
viii. 8.

ty>xn v KOI o-w^a (Monac. Ven.)


o TTOLS

pov om. (Par. Mon.)


(Par.

248.

v. 28.
viii.

os av >/3Xe'\/^ (Mon.)

264.

44.

ov<

co-TrjKev

Mon.)
list I

have given some examples of readings not pre-Syrian. These are cases of attestation where further examination of the Manuscripts of Origen has corrected or supplemented Delarue's information, on which of course Tischendorf depended. The
N.B.
It will be seen that in the

above

references to Tischendorf are to his critical digest in locc. His references to Origen (e.g. Or 4 220 ) refer to the volume and page in Delarue's edition.
'

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 Home there are several
It only

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
in the

The fragments pointed to the same conclusions as may be drawn from an examination of those published by CorMost of them at any rate might derius from an Antwerp MS. have come from Origen 's pen, so far as opinions are concerned. But in the comparatively few instances where they cover common
fragments.

ground with the extant Commentaries, the text and even the Some contents are either wholly different or widely divergent. of them have the appearance of being taken from Homilies, others
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 a-Tj/jLeitocrr) Be rlva

from

eTrKTrjfjLeittHreis.

The

rpoTTov

a'rjfjLau'OfjLevti)

and 13

evret

ovv

tye/crav

(Lomm.

p.

435

and

p.

449) occurred almost exactly, but in each case the rest of

22

20

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

the fragment was different from the text of the Commentaries. Nor was the result of a closer examination of two Catenae, xxvii Of these (saec. x.) and xxvm (saec. XL), at Venice different. the former contains more matter, though occasionally the fragments in the latter have pieces omitted in Cod. xxvii. On the

The greater whole, however, Cod. XXVIIT. is much more curtailed. part of what is contained in Corderius is in Cod. xxvii. some;

times he gives the fullest text, and sometimes the Venice MS. is There is also a good deal at Venice which is not found in fuller.
his edition.

There

is,

I think, a close

connexion between Ven.

xxvii. and Regin. 9 at Rome, but I did not bring away enough information from Rome to determine this. I was able at Venice
to

the fragments attributed to Origen in the Catena on Much more must be done elsewhere S. John in Cod. xxvii.

copy

all

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 This of course was to be expected. I can only conclude text. with the hope that I may be able to bring to light some of this
buried matter
allowed to continue working at the text of Origen's Commentaries on S. John. As I intend to quote in the apparatus criticus readings from
if I

am

the Munich MS. only, I subjoin a full collation of the first 30 pages of Tom. xin. of the Commentaries on S. John, in the

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<eXKvaTi/cd 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 Bentley 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 R x (= V) and R 2 (= VI). The left column gives the text of Lommatzsch.
edition

of

THE
P.
1,

MSS. OF ORIGEN S
TO

COMMENTARIES ON
ro V

S.

JOHN.

21

Title
1

av

M
M M
om.

10
P.
2,
1.

VB
-D

9,

10
10
11

7Tt

10 TO

TO

^
'

7Tt TOO .T

;V

P
~D

CTTCt Jr

om.

MP MP

11 a'XX'

15 eWt
18 ws avTos
P.
3,
1.

MY COTtV M
a'XXd
O

4
9

alrrjcraL

M
f /3a0 os

MYB
MP

11 CK TOV

bis

12

M
^v

13

14

&

eva

15 TOV
1

TOVTOV

MP
MP

6 eTTlXtTToVTOS

7rtXet7rOI/TO9

16 Kaff O
18
811^17

KO.OZ

VB

Seu/r^v

18 y
2 1 Stcyoyyv^c

om.

MP VB

M M Xevtrwv P
f
f
?7<r0tu)yai/

P. 4,

1.

3 3

VB
B

e^yayTat
Kttt

5 aTTOKTetvai
6 Et7T
6 VfJUV 9 9 7TtV(OVTtOI/
t
ot

a7TKTtV

VB

a7TKTtVa

MP

M
TjMP
TmvoVrwv
7rt ot

11 yoyyvo*/xov eTrotow

Xoyot

MP

Xoy ot
12
-T;

M
B

13 13 ante OT 13
e/3o'r;cr

f 7Tia>jU,0a

V
VB

f ins. Xeyoj/TS

13

MP -Ts MVB

22
16
1

THE FRAGMENTS OF HER ACL EON.


f pa<j>i$r)v
TTCpl

VB

8 Trapa
1

P. 5,

1.

Seti/'oj/xev

M
MVPB

f yVfJiVLTVOfJ.V
TTptOTOl/

ins. TO

VB

Snj/rjv

2 ytverat 3 vyiaiVovo~t

M Sfutfv P M
vyLawovcTLv
o~a>/xao"tv

MP MP
TTCtVCOV
Beuf/tjcrti
77'

* TTIVMV
5 S 11/07 o~ei 7

M M
:

7\ Ta^a
/

MVPB B

mg.

iW

CZ

KCU

ing. Kai a-a^)a

10 TOVTO~Tl 10 10
Sti/^Vet
OfJLOLOV
OVl/

M M

o>otW
f ins.

11 pOSt

12 16
17
ov

MVB TO MVB M
?a0os
/a

MP
ai/et/xo/xei/a

18
19 post
P.
6,
1.

f
oo-ots

om.

VBP

lac. (3) lac.

MP

1 1

post cTravcTravVaTo
rapavrjv

(6)

M (4) PB (7) V
VRjB: B mg.
2

Tcpav yv
ZKTVTTOV

a?ro-

piav eTepav
1

CKTVTTWl/

MR P MVP
B

6
f

MP
KOL

*X

VB

8
11

Tro'/W-ttTO?

V
VB VB

ava/3Avo-0aVeiv

11 P. 7,
1.

M
P
lac.

2 2 pOSt CUKIVT/TO) 3 <epovTos


(10)

<f>CpOVTl

MP
B

VBR,
2

null. lac.

MP

4 post otov

lac.

(10)

MR P (12) V

null. lac.

THE

MSS.

OF ORIGEN

COMMENTARIES ON
Olii.

S.

JOHN.

23

7 d

MP

10 eVl
11

67T

M
P

StaXX^rat

MP
13

aXXeTat

16 ad fin. cap. 3

V in mg.
P
/JLLO.V

opa o a

in mg. opa d dvayo...ft\aa-<j>yjTiKpio-

M in mg.
P. 8,
1.

opa o

ai/ayti/wo-Kwi/ (3\a(r-

3 post ^arl 5 OSt 7Tt

ins. o

MP
YB

f ins. TO

5
5 6
Tr)V
e TIS et
t

M M MR

om. omnino

Orjvai eoTiv,

TIS

7ro

om.

MP

8
post Trtwrjv
/cat

V7TOir)TOV V TT ins. TO V
t7TO/Jtl/

M
P
7rpOO"W7T(U

12 TO
13
-

TTpoVcDTTOV

TO

7rpOO"W7T(i)

MVB

M
VB
t

14 Xeyovra
15

P. 9,

1.

3 Tt

om.
>

ao VB

5* OVT
6
t

av

MP
Cir

6 TTICW
\

TraparrjprjTaLOV

otovei

otov

ei

MP
VB VB

8 cTrayyeXXero 8 post Trapc 8


9,
^i/

eTrryyyeXXcTO

f ins. auTTj

yap
o~ov

MP
TOV aVSpa

10 ToV avSpa
11
C

VB eTTto'Tr/o'o/xev MP
P
P

15 TOV 15
17
17
Snj/rjv

TWV

MVP: B
a
aXXo/xevov
v

mg. Ta

20

ow

VB

24
20
P. 10,
1.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


f f
/

1 1

1^ VBR^ B 7^ B 3e V
T?

mg. Ta X a ^cZa

ccrriv

3\ TOV
4
CTTTtt

om.

5 post 7 rfv
9 "A

ypa'</>cti/

ins. o
rj

V
r^

MP

#<w

VB
et

B
f

10
11

<f>rjviv

mg. ra^a om. YB

mg. ra^a

12

f.

J.

14 &rtl IK " 1
16
18

c^ovtrt

MV M
TreTrwKacrtv

TTCTTWKCKTl
7ra<ri

TTCTroKacrt

Tracnv
' '

M
T>

20 CtKOvW 20 X aP. 11,


1.

OLKOlHl)

^aAatTTtoTepa
t TO

MP

rd

MVPB

AeAaA7^Kao"tv

10 ovs
12
^CTTt
J

0^9

M COTIV M

19 T

20
21

MP
SlSttKTCt
Tri/cv/xctTos

22

VB f 8t8aKTt/ca VB
f </>$aVoi/Ta

22 ante

t ins. TOV

MVB

22
P. 12,
1.

aAAo/xcvov
Trrjyirjv

M M
M
VB

4,5
6 7
10, 11
7TtV6

om.

VB VB
em9

M
ms
om.
f aKaipeo-TCpot

13

14 Ta
17
17
CTTtJ/e

VB

]a/x,apems
l7TtVV

M M
mg.

MVB
VB
B

19
21

ep^oo/xat

5a/xapetVts
>

22 23

(TTl
CTTtTTO

ITI aiTet

THE
23
P. 13,
1.

MSS. OF ORIGEN S
_

COMMENTARIES ON
om.

S.

JOHN.

25

avrfjs

arj

MVBP
YB

ante vvv
a/

ins. Kat

aXXo//,ej/ov
o-ol

(V

intra

lin.)

MP
OTt

5 S^Xov OTI 6 9
11,

M
ai
i'ov

MP

12 aXXo/xc'vov 13 aVo 15 16
17
VTTO
TTCOt

M
2
:

aVV
V VB
7Tpt TO

TOV

MR
B

Trapa TO VIlj

Trapa TOV
005

ws o aiTwv
seriori,

VB
w

(sed in

o-

o at

ut videtur,
CTOV

manu
2

sunt

scripta)

MR

P. 14,

1.

evSeii/a rots
e

f ev SwaTOt?

VIljB:

evSctva TOIS

1,

efyyv/xj/ao-/xeVot5
ins. TO

M
mg. Xeyovros

7 ante TOV
9 Xeyovros

VB MVPB B
:

P. 15,

1.

10 yivoxTKOu 1 Etr ci^c't


2

M
MP
IXecv eycv
f OtOV
tj

M
OlOV
t

5
10,

12 aTre^ave

avSpi erepw

om.
7TWS

BV VB

14
19

7T(DS

MVB

2a/xaptrts

^a/xapciTts
Ktt^OV

M
MVB
ouv Tt

21 Ka^'ov

22

om.

MP
P

23 24
P. 16,
1.

f 7rapaTiOtlcra.v

SteXe^^vat
3 aXX*
atSc'a)

2,

aXXa

tSta) /xev

MP

5w o
6 6
a7re'

f(SB
aTre^avev

f<SB
f T^pl/CtTO
cSa>/<

11
16

VB
cti/at

I8(OKI/

P. 17,

1.

oi)uai

otvat

M M

(sed

ser.

man.

otvat)

3 ante

ins. Trpos

VB B
:

ing. T<x;(a

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

M
MVPB
5
7
/cat

at

M
VB

f Tn/ev/xaTiKcG

10
15
1

7T6J/TC

eMP
us yc

nv av yc ews
V

on
C

om.
/>

MP V

lo

>

VTT avTr)<;

eipyy/xevtov VTT
C7TIC1/
"\"

25 &TIC
P. 18,
1.

au-nys

VB
'

vreTTtOKeVa

TreTTO/cevat

VB

5 arovov
8 post TOV 9
1 eXa/x/?ai/

aroi/os

f ins.

ra

MVB
VB

TTCTTOKei/at

t\dfji(3avev

MV
VB

14, 15

f evei/KaA(rayu,V

18
18

om.
om.

Suf/ya'r)

22 v
24, 5 SiSovs elvat

MP VB
81801)5
^a>^i/

eti/ai

^wrjv

otoovs

V
VB
yivoptv-Yj

25 lAcye 26 26
P. 19,
1.

cXeyev

M
P:

f TrpLaLpyj(7L

MVB

1 1

M
VB
f
r

K tVa

M
'

6 a
9 11
12
TT7S

* a.v

$ t ~\7"D evoigap.vrjv V i>


*

VlTTO//,ei>O5

f om.
<*

B
1V1
T\/r

Tra

wacrw
/

16
'

M
MP
8e

17

18
18
18

VB
P B

P. 20,

1.

ra

TO

MVPB
avSpa

3 rov av8/oa erov 6 KO/Aure(r$ai 8 avr^s


9 lAeyev aur^

o"ov TOV

H
-IT"

MP

om.

VB

THE
10

MSS.

OF OKIGENS COMMENTARIES ON

S.

JOHN.

27

M
MP

14
21

22 23
f

M
yap

YB
P

24 'HpafcXeWi 26 $
P. 21,
1.

'Hpa/cXccoi/

I
ins.
77

VB

4 ante 8
9,

MVB jjivOoTroiCias MP
om.

10 KCU aya06V...Kap7rous 10 Sayaapems


1

M
MVB
T/Tts

7TOpVV0'
7rpo<J>rjTr)<;

14, 5

16 XeyT
1

OTtV

Aeyerat eVrat

P
trts

MP

17, 8

23
23

M MR
:

(hie

laesus est

auriys

Codex Monac.) avrots VBRj om. avr^s


relicta)

(lac.

P. 22,

1.

Kara\L<j>OevTO<s

PB

ras

MV
VB
VB

tSctv 7rpo<t>rJTr]v eii/cu

Trpo<f>rjTYjv etvat tSetv

5 TOO"OVTOV

Totrov
c2s

7>
12

CIS

TOUTO

TO TO

MVPB S VB

16

']

M
Bcv'ta/xryv

16 Bevia/mV 17
17
P. 23,
1.

V X VB VB wv MP
a6

4
4

VB

MVB
i/evo/At/ce

M l/yO/UKJ/ M
Xeyovo-tv
ins.

7 post 9

T<38

PM TW VB
ai/

11
1

els

3 TOVTto

TOVTO

28
14
21

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

MP
om.

23 rov
23, 4

VB
VB: B mg.

8eKaa"/xo5
wi/

24 25
P. 24,
1.

^cwov

M
:

M
4 TO
TO
/xei/

3,
11

(sic)

P P

mg.

MP
(7Tt
OLTTfp

12

13

CO-TIV
(XTTCp

13

M M M
VB
VB:
e

14 pOSt 16 J}j
17
e

U7TO

om. TO

M
18 19
i/o'/xov;

7rpoo"ayovTat
vo>oi/
ins.

VB

21 ante a

MVP -njv MVPB


P

26 ep^erat 27 eo-Tt

CO"TtV

29
29
P. 25,
1.

^o-Tt

oT/xat

ot/xat

M M M
MP
P
<o/x,^a

3,

TrpoKOTrrjv

7 <0avovTas
7,

8 vo/uo/A0a 8 yow

M M

VB

10
13, 4

14
16
.'-:

7Tl

M M
om.

17 TO

VB

20
21

Sa/xapemv

MVP
KttV

25 26 26
P. 26,
1.

MVB MVB
8e TttVTtt
l

jU,TO,

TttVTa 8
</>avo"t

VB

aVTT7? <f)V<TL
8t

avT^s

MP

avrrj<;

<

ayvotav

8tavotav

8t'

evyvotav

mg. 6Y ayvotav

THE
12

MSS.
OIKC

OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON
eoi/ccv

s.

JOHN.

29

M
M

14 14
15
17 TO
eveXeyKTa * 19
18

7rpo(TTiOr}(rLV

TlVt

BV T M ins. rpoTTw VB TO MVPB


T

eveXeyKara
mil. lac.

M
:

MP
T;

ins.

VB

19

ciTraXXayet
w

M
P

23 23
P. 27,
1.

7rpO<TKVVTJO'TCU

8o^v
4
1

3,

&

e7re^oXo)(7v

4 opos
/

opos

M
M
P

7 opos 8 (5

epos

(OS?
'lepoo-oXv/Aa bis

9 'lepoo-oXv/xa

10
11

<S

om.
opos

10 opos
ol
<5

om.

12
12

om.
om.

M M M
VB

ol

14
15 16
19,

M
VB

20
21
8?7/uovpyoV

MVPB
P
sed
ser.

man. in

8c

correctum est
23
6ca)pr)Tr)ii)Tepov

23
P. 28,
1.

ins. /cat OcioTtpov

MVB

3,

4 7rpoo"KWOvcrt

TrpovKvvovorw
KpflTTOV
COS

4
6
I

MVB rayyeXoi MP
VB
:

o-v/xirepi^epooj/rai

poi/rat

M
MP

9 rots

om.

VB
P

10
10, 11
11

KepSijarovcrw

voetcr^w
7rpoo"a7ro

M
MP

15, 6 7TpO(7KUV?7<rT

20 eVri

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

VB
P. 29,
1.

sed

ser.

man.

deletur o 3 KUjptbv 4
'

tav
01
1

M
MB

6
7
7,

-TT"

M 2a/x-a/3triv M
tViv

7rpocTKwov<nv

MVB

10 ou
13 post TroXv Se 16 post avra
17
P. 30,
1.

KatMP
ins. KaXXtoi/

VB

ins. Kat
fJLCLKTOV

fJLLKTOV

M
as

Ka^cX^i/
Ka.0*

as

5 /XOVOt OLOfJLWOL 6 ayyeXots

V /xovois to/xevot MP
cX^vas
ayye'XXots

10 ft
12
(TTp\f/

M
ins. S

13 post oTSa

MVPB

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.


OF
known.
the personal history of

Clement

of

Heracleon hardly anything is Alexandria, quoting his comment on a

passage of S. Luke, calls him the most famous of the Valentinian 1 School Origen prefaces his first citation from Heracleon's Commentary on the Gospel of S. John with the information that he
.

was said to have been a pupil (or, perhaps, an acquaintance) of 2 He is mentioned once by Irenaeus in conjunction Valentinus with Ptolemaeus, and possibly with Valentinus, who is at any
.

rate

mentioned several times by name shortly


Clem. Alex. Strom,
iv.

before, as the chief

9, p.

595

(ed. Potter), 6 T^S

OvaXevrivov o-%oX^j

/xwraros.

Origen, Comrn. in Joann. n. 8, rbv OvaXevrlvov \ey6jj.evov elvcu yvuptfjLov. It seems probable that Origen here uses the word yvupi/jios in the sense of 'pupil,' a
2

meaning which
Kal T

it
17

often bears.

Cf.

Clem. Alex. Strom,


r/v

v.

11, TOVTO &pa /SotfXercu

Hvdayopq.

Trevraerlas criwTr^
i.

TOIS yvupi/m-ois irapeyyvq,

and

Ibid.

II.

4.

Hippolytus, Refutatio,

13,
(sc.

A77/^6/cptros

Martyr, Apol.
avrov.

I.

32,

Si/

TrwXoj/)

AevKlinrov yiverai yvwpifj.os. Justin eit&evffev ayayeiv atfry r6re rot)s yv(i)pL/u.ovs
5

201. 6 (ed. Mangey), OTrore 70^ irar^p vibv ri^Trrei (r Plutarch, 2. 448 E (Francofurt. 1620), vlQav 17 5i5oo-/caXos yvwpt^ov, and i. 208. 4. avrl yvupL^wv Kal ^o.Qt]rdv epaa-ral Ka\oij/j.evoi Kal ovres (of the gradual growth of the
I.

Joseph. B. J. IV. 'HMa /cat SidSoxos. Philo

8. 3, UTTO 'EXtffffatov

TOV irpo^rov

yvupt./Jios

5e

rjt>

Cf. also Strabo 1. 1. 11. Philostratus 529 (2. 41. pupil's affection for his master). The 9 ed. Teubner), 578 (2. 84. 13), and 583 (2. 88. 4), and Suidas sub voce.

growth of the meaning may be traced in such passages as Xen. Mem. 2. 3. 1, d5eX0w fj.v dXX^XoiJ', eaur (sc. Zw/cpdret) 5e yvwpi^u. 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.

32

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


of

exponent
refers to

the

opinions

under discussion 1

Tertullian

also

him once
lines

on the

as having developed the Valentinian teaching 2 The author of the suggested by Ptolernaeus
.

Refutatio^ mentions him and Ptolemaeus as the chief exponents of the Italic school of Valentinianism. In the preface at the beginning

Theodoret 4 placed after Ptolemaeus. mentions him after Secundus, in quite general terms, with CossiaHe is also once referred to nus, Theodotus, Ptolemaeus, Marcus.
of the sixth

book he

is

5 by Photius

Praedestinatus

is

certainly

which connects his name ander (c. 110 A.D.). 'Hie in partibus Siciliae inchoauit docere contra hunc susceperunt episcopi Siculorum, Eustachius Lily-

in telling a story of him with the Roman episcopate of Alex-

wrong

baeorum

Panormeorum Theodoras, quique omnium per Sicilian! erant episcoporum synodum exorantes gestis eum audire decreet

uerunt et uniuersas adsertiones eius dirigentes ad sanctum Alexandrum urbis episcopum rogauerunt, ut ad eum confutandum
aliquid

singula quaeque capita hydri singulos gladios dei uerbi de uagina diuinae legis eiciens librum contra Heracleonem ordinans, feruentissimum in-

ordinaret.

Tune sanctus Alexander ad

genio Sabinianum presbyterum destinauit, qui et scriptis episcopi et adsertione sua ita eum confutaret, ut nocte media nauis praesidio

fugeret,
is.

et

ultra

ubinam deuenisset penitus nullus

sciret.'

The date
attributed

impossible, arid the heretical views on baptism 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 aeonibus ipsius

(?)

Ptolemaei et

Heracleonis et reliquis omnibus qui eadem opinantur. 2 Tertullian, adv. Valentinianos c. 4, Deduxit et Heracleon inde tramites quosdam et Secundus et magus Marcus.
3 4

Hippolytus, Refutatio Omn. Haeres., Theodoret, Haeret. Compend. I. 8,


apxyyoi,
Ko<rcriavbs,

vi. 35.

Kal

aXXoi

de

fttptoL

evrevOev
Mcp/cos,

aipfoeus
6

6e65oroy,

'Hpa/cXew*',

IlToXe/xcuoy,

Photius, Ep. 134 (ed. Kic. Montacutius). Praedestinatus, Haer. 16.

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.


est'
:

33

from Augustine 1

'

(c.

16)

Heracleonitae ab Heracleone': from

Epiphanius (Haer. XXXVI.) 'HparcXeayv Kal ol air avrov 'Hpa/c\Ci)Virat,: and from Origen (passim), e.g. ol air avrov, ofyerai
avToi? rd
rfjs [jivOoTrotLas, ol a?ro

r^9

yvw/jLrjs

avrov.

a school of his disciples was in existence when Origen wrote his Commentaries on S. John (of which parts at any 2 rate were written before A.D. 228 ), does not necessitate any earlier

The

fact that

date for Heracleon than the end of the second century. The exact meaning of Origen's description of him (Gomm. in Joann. II. 8) is
uncertain, but the phrase used (7^60/3^09) would hardly 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 (\6y6/jL6vov). 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
or nearly
so,

School of Valentinians were contemporary, with those of the Anatolic School to whom they are
Italic

opposed in the Refutatio.

But

as

there

is

nothing to

tell

us

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

how

The constant connexion of the names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, not alwavs in the same order, is our only guide. As the order is never necessarily chronological,
an argument
is

very precarious.

*/

variation does not prove that they were absolutely contemporary, but it certainly gives a high probability to the supposition
its

All we know for certain is, that that they were nearly so. Heracl eon'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 taries on
for their

as early as 193. S. John affords

Clement's silence as to the

Commenthan this

no evidence of a

later date

Lipsius points out the probability that composition. Irenaeus had heard of him when he came to Rome about 176
or
1*77:

and at any rate the school of Ptolemaeus was well


Augustine, De haeresibus liber, c. 16 (ed. Migne, vol. vin. p. 27). See the Article 'Origen' in Diet, of Chr. Biogr. vol. iv. p. 114.

B.

34

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


1
.

perhaps go a little further. It may be reasonably assumed that the lectures of Irenaeus, on 2 which, according to the most probable interpretation of Photius
established at that time

We may

the

Compendium
than 177 3
,

later

of Hippolytus was founded, were delivered not and we know that in this Compendium the heresy

of Heracleon
certainty,
gists.

was described. This can be gathered, almost with from the place assigned to him in the Minor Heresiolois

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
This evidence

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,
4

and in

closer proximity to

the

death of Valentinus.

Heinrici

has made use of the reference to


,

5 Heracleon in Clement's Eclogae Propheticae 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


6
,

that these formed

part of the lost books of the Hypotyposes 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 than

that represented in Irenaeus, and thus give us some clue to Heracleon's date

its
;

contents might possibly


it

but with this question we


to say here that the

are not yet in a position to deal. Suffice chronological difference need not be great,
if it

and that the Refutatio,

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, 1867,

p. 81.
2 3 4
5 6

Lightfoot, Clement of Ibid. p. 423.

Rome

(2nded.), vol. n. p. 414.

Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die Heilige Schrift, See Fragment 49.
See Diet, of Chr. Biogr. vol.
i.

p. 13.

p.

564 'Clement.'

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.

35

Origen's direct statement, as well as from the fragments cited by him, that Heracleon was the author of 1 These included Commentaries on at any rate vTro/juvrf/jLara
.

We

know from

large portions of the Gospel according to S. John, and probably This follows from Clement's also on that according to S. Luke.

statement on Luke
'Hpa/cXecov,
K.T.\.

xii.

11, TOVTOV efyyovfjuevos TOV TOTTOV 6

Whether he
it
viii.

also

wrote on

S.

Matthew

is

uncertain
citation
3

2
.

That he used

as authoritative follows from his


viol
TT}<?

e^eXeucrozmu (Text. Rec. eK/3\r)6r)<TovTai), to prove the destruction of the men of the Demiurge.
ySacrtXeta?

of Matt.

12, ol

The

place

of Heracleon

among

the Valentinians
Philaster
;

differently

by different

heresiologists.

given and Pseudo-

is

Tertullian place him next to Secundus Epiphanius and Augustine after Colarbasus. do not possess sufficient information, either in the fragments of his own writings which remain, or in the

We

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 pronunim-

uult uideri alia sentire/ is perhaps unfair in its putation, but it comes as near the truth as we can get. information given by the Minor Heresiologists is but scanty.
tiationis

The

PHILASTRIUS. Dicens
principium
esse

PS.-TERTULLIANUS.

unum

quern dominum appellat, deinde de hoc natum aliud, deque his duobus
generatioriem
cipiorum.

Introducit enim in primis illud fuisse quod...pronuntiat, et deinde ex


ilia

monade duo ac deinde


introducit

reliquos

multorum

adserit prin-

Deinde Valentinum.
aeones.
fill

totum

What word
'

is

to be supplied to
'

up the lacuna

in the
4
.

account of Ps.-Tertullian, has been sufficiently discussed by others The phrase ex ilia monade just below certainly suggests that
'

the only natural reading. Thus we get Mom? as the starting point of the Heracleonic system, according to the

monadem
1

'

is

Origen,

Comm.

in Joann. vi. 8 ev

o?s

Ka.Ta\\onrev

vTro/ui.v^fj-a<ni>.

3 4

See Fragment 51 (note). Origen, Comm. in Joann. xm. 59.


Cf. Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, p. 170.

32

36

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


certain source of the accounts
this

Syntagma of Hippolytus, the almost


which we are considering.

agrees exactly with the account given by Hippolytus in the Refutatio, where the system described under the section devoted to Valentinus starts from

And

a novas dyevvtjTos, afyOapTO? tf.r.X. (see Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Haeres. VI. 29). Combining this with the direct statements of 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
Irenaeus
(i.

xi. 1)

pupil Heracleon referred the origin of

all

things

to

an

eternal

Other more distinctly Pythagoreanising tendencies of Heracleon and his school will come under notice later on.

Monad.

The most natural explanation step is more obscure. 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 correspond to the Valentinian Nofo and 'AXrj#eta and very
:

The next

Fragments of the term rw irarpl rfjs a\r)6eias. The exact agreement of this with the account given in the Refutatio must be noted. We need only quote vi. 29, Trpoeffakev ovv /cal
eyevwrjcrev

possibly he use in the

may have

often referred to

it

as akrjOeia:

compare the

avros

Trarrjp,

Tovrea-Ti SvaSa.

The

vovv KOI d\ij@eiav next clause also agrees well enough with
cacnrep
r^v

fiovo?,

the rest of Ps.-Tertullian and

Philaster:

^rt?

icvpia

/cal

yeyove Kal /jL^r'rjp TTCLVTWV rwv evros TrXTjpw/jiaTOS Kar altovtov. This combines the 'deinde reliquos aeones* of Ps.-Tertullian,

and Philaster's 'deque his duobus generationem multorum

adserit principiorum.'

But here a
note
1 1

Harnack in an interesting digression is necessary. has suggested that the 'alius clarus magister' of Irenaeus

Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus, p. 62 n. He further suggests 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 dltcsten Ketzergeschichte, p. 67 n.) has

Zur

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
<

honorificentius...reliquis aeonibus ipsius Ptolemaei et Heraa hint that Ptolemaeus and Heracleon agreed in prefixing to the ordinary cleonis,' series of Valentinian Aeons, projected by the Father, a series of higher beings.
1,

of Irenaeus n. 4.

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.


(i. xi.

37

3) should perhaps be identified with Heracleon.

But

it

has

been pointed out that exactly the same teaching, with regard to MOJ/OTT;?, 'EJ/OTT;?, Moi/a? and *Ev, is attributed to Marcus, with a reference apparently to this passage, by means of the words icaO'

compare the words with which Marcus is introduced in c. xiii. 1 (the Greek is not of available, as Epiphanius has here epitomised the words
TrpoeiprjTcu (Irenaeus
I.

xv. I)

We may also

Irenaeus); 'alius uero

emendatorem

se esse

quidam ex iis, qui sunt apud glorians; Marcus est autem


that the section
I.

eos,
illi

magistri

nomen.'

We may
the

therefore conclude
to Heracleon.

xi.

3 refers to
2

Marcus and not

But Lipsius

is

inclined

description of Heracleon, which Hippolytus Syntagma, as based on this passage of Irenaeus. If this
it

to regard gives in the


is right,

follows of course

that the
is

information
to

to

be found in the

Syntagma about Heracleon

But, in his article on Valentinus, Lipsius has shewn that Hippolytus cannot have derived his statements as to the pupils of Yalentinus

open

grave suspicion.

(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 particular doctrines assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus and Ptolemaeus,

and dpio-repd, and the two o-v&yoi those of the rerpd? respectively, are not so attributed by Hippolytus, while the distinction of the two 2)o</ua, assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus

Sem

The connexion in Hippolytus assigned to them both. then is so very loose that, when we find that Hippolytus (see Ps.-Tertullian, quoted above) makes Heracleon's first principle to
(i.

xi. 2), is

be Moz/a?, we need hardly assume that he derived this from Irenaeus I. xi. 3, where the first principle of the Belarus magister'
But the and as no mention has been made in the chapter at all of Ptolemaeus, the 'ipsius' is in any case 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 et Ptolemaei.'
' '

ipsius

will hardly bear out this

'

'

'

'

See Neander, GenetiscJie Entivickelung der gnostischen Systeme, p. 169 with this must be compared Dr Salmon's article on 'Epiphanes,' Diet, of Christ. Biogr.
1
:

vol. ii.
2

See his article on


'

should also compare


article

Irenaeus,' Diet, of Christ. Biogr. vol. in. p. 261. Die Quellen der alt. Ketzerrjeschichte, pp. 169, 170;
'

But we and his

on Valentiuus,' Diet, of

Christ. Biogr. vol. iv. p. 1084.

38
is MOZ/OTT;?.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


There would seem then
to

be no valid reason

for

afforded by Hippolytus on the ground of rejecting the information its derivation from this passage of Irenaeus, which refers to another
teacher.

Whence

Philaster derived his statement that Heracleon

called 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
is

Minor Heresiologists 'Deinde introducit totum Valentinum,' which is probably true

With the probable exceptions already considered there enough. 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

1 Epiphanius 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 investigations was the natural consequence of the relative positions he

At the same time assigns to Marcus, Colarbasus and Heracleon. the teaching of Heracleon on the two viol dvOpwirov (Frag. 35) lends plausibility to the supposition that the aXkoi of Irenaeus
with Heracleon, and that he did call the Father of All avOpwTros. But, as a Commentator like Heracleon was bound to make use of the Evangelic phrase mo?
I.

xii.

may have some connexion

For the rest we should dvdpwTTov, the identification is precarious. perhaps notice the parallelism of /^'re dppev ^re 6rj\v with Hipp.
Ref. VI. 30 (ev fiev yap TOJ dyevvrfrft), (frrjcrlv, ecrrl irdvra OJJLOV, ev Be ro? ryevvrjTols, TO fiev Orj\v...ro 8e dppev), because of the <f>r)(ri, with which we must deal later on. The description of the Sevrepa
fJsrjTijp

a natural description of what formed part of every Valentinian system. Epiphanius might easily have added it
is

himself, without

deriving
1

it

from any particular source.

The

Epiphanius, Haer. xxxvi.

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.

39

words fiovXercu Se nrKeLova TWV Trpo avrov /cal ouro? \iyeiv, 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


Valentinians
;

Italic school of

that Heracleon belonged to the 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 language; and this
it

will

be better to reserve

for the notes

on the

be out of place here, however, to trace shortly the illustrations which the Fragments offer of those passages of the Refutatio, which are confessedly derived from a
Fragments.
It will not

document quoted, noticing also again the parts of such passages which shew similarity to the account of Heracleon given in the
Syntagma. The
ryevvrjTov
first

ovBev,

of these passages (Ref. vi. 29), tfv oXw?, Trarrjp Be r}V /JLOVOS dfyevvrjros, ov TOTTOV

</>?;crt,

ov xpovov, ov
vorjdrjvai

crv/jLftovXov,

OVK d\\r)V
is

TIVCL /car* ovfteva

TMV

$vva/j,evrjv

ovo-lav,

in

thorough harmony with the

account in the Syntagma. The description of dyaTrrj, though worthy of the author of the Fragment (50) on o/uoXoyia, offers no The agreement of the next point of contact with the Fragments.
sentence, TrpoefiaXev ovv. .rovrecm Svdo'a,
.

with the Syntagma has been pointed out, but it is not directly attributed to the document. The next sentence so attributed, TOVTOV yap, (frycrl,
/c.r.X.,

reXeiorepov dpiQfiov /e.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 significance of the 46 years

occupied by the building of the Temple, the six husbands (according to his text) of the woman of Samaria, and the seventh

hour when the son of the

/3a<rtXt/to9

was healed.

With the

sentence eV pev <yap ro3 d<yevvr)Tu>, fyjalv, K.T.\. we have dealt before. With the following avrTj earl, fyrjcrlv, 77 dryadrj,.^ eirovpd'lepovo-aXr/fj,,

et?

rjv

eTrrjyyefaaro
e

#eo<?

elo-ayayetv
'

TOI)?

'Io-paij\,

must be compared the


(Cf.

l6povo-a\rjfji of

of

which the
an

tyv%iKb<s TOTTO?, typified in

John

ii.

Fragment 13 by

13,

\vfjua, is

elicwv.

the note in

loc.)

40

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


In chapter 32, after the explanation of dp^rj
crocfrias
</>o/3o<?

Kvpiov (Prov.
in
full.

i.

7),

attributed by the use of


it will

cfrrjcrl

to the to

same

document, we find a long passage, which


"Eo-rt Be TrvpobBrjs,
[/<te<70T?7T09]
cfrrjcrlv,
r)

be necessary

tyv%itcrj ovcria,
e{3Bo/jid<;

quote Ka\elrai Be

KOi TO7T09

V7T

aVTCOV KCU

KOi TToXaLOS rWV

teal
v,

roiavra \eyovcn Trepl rovrov, ravra elvai rov ov cf)acrLv elvai rov KOO~/J,OV B^fjbiovpyov' ecrri, Be
ocra

\eyet,,

cf>r)crl,

Kal

Mwua/J?'

KOI KaravaKicricov.
Be rt9
6<rri,
(frrjcrlv,
//,*}

Ku/oto? o ^609 crof Trvp earl /cat yap rovro ovrcos yeypd(j)0at, 6e\ei.
Svvafjiis

tj

KaTaafiea'Orjvai
rt9

rov irvpos' ecm yap Trvp Bvvdfj,evov...Kard rovro TOIVVV TO /j,epo<;


yu-ecroT^9

ecmv

rj

^v^r))

Tt9

ovaa'

eari yap

eftBo/ju

KOST air aver i<$.


rjfjiepa

vTro/cdTQ)

ydp earl T^9 oyBodBos,


vTrepdva) Be

OTTOV

ecrrlv

r)

fJLe/mopcfrcofjLevr),

T^9
rrj

vXrjs,

^9 earl
'

Brj-

edv ovv

e^o/JLOta)dfj

ro?9

avco,

oyBodBi,

eyevero Kal rj\6ev et9 Trjv oyBodBa, ^rt9 ecrrt, (f)r)(rlv, 7roupdvi,os' edv Be e^ofjuot,a)6fj rf) v\r), TOVTeari rot9
i5\t/cot9, is

(j)0aprr) ecrraL

teal

aTrfwXero

[?

ecm,

/col

aTroXXurat].

It

impossible to determine how much of this passage is actually quoted from the document in question but the ro7T09 [yLtecrdr^To?] reminds us of Frag. 13, rov ^V^LKOV TOTTOV, Frag. 40, T&> VTTO:

ftefiij/coTi,

r^9 yu.ecroT7;T09, and Frag. 35, vTrep rov TOTTOV. And the account of ^v^ifcrj ovcria as 6/3So/i,a9, and of the conditions under which it may become dOdvaTos, vividly recalls the
fiepei,

description of ^u%>; in

Fragment

40.

ii.

In chapter 34 (sub fin.), apart from the quotation from 1 Cor. 14, all that is necessarily taken from the document is pcopla Be,
ecrrlv
r)

rov BrjjMovpyov. On the agreement, or disagreement, of the next sentence, pcopos yap TJV, tc.r.\., with Fragment 2, see the note in loc.
cfrrjcrlv,

Bvva/j,i<;

from the document, and there are practically only two more, otfer no points of comparison or of But this examination reveals a very decided similarity contrast. between such parts of his system as can be discovered from the
rest of the quotations

The

Fragments of Heracleon, and the passages of the Refutatio where by the use of cfrrjcrl Hippolytus shews that he is quoting a particular Gnostic document It has never been proved that Valentinus
1
.

The researches

of Stahelin (Harnack, Tcxte

und Untersuchungen

vi. 3)

do not

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.


cannot have been the author of this document.
that

41
if

But

the view,

Pythagoreanising element was chiefly developed by 1 Heracleon is true, the Valentinian authorship is highly improbable. The similarity of its contents to the Fragments of
the
,

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
Heracleonic; while certain differences lead us to attribute it rather to the school of Heracleon, than to the founder I speak of course of the system on which of the school himself.
is

based

is

Hippolytus bases his account frequently mentioned.

divergent systems and opinions are

Thus no

certain evidence for Heracleon's date can be gained

from the Refutatio. The Pythagoreanising tendency, and the absence of a av^vyos of the Father, which we may attribute with probability, though not with certainty, to Heracleon, are not

The details of the system, which are necessarily late elements. generally regarded as of a later type, may or may not be his. Of the Excerpta ex Tkeodoto it is not necessary to speak
at length here. The chief illustrations of the Fragments afforded Considerable verbal by them will be referred to in the notes.
similarities exist,

but we are not yet, if indeed we ever can be, in of the a position to deal certainly with the Quellenkritik
' '

Excerpta.

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

We

from

his

own

writings.

The nature
is

of

God

is

in itself unspotted, pure, invisible.

He

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 rrjs a\rjOeia^ We hear in Fr. 16 of a rer/ja?, tf aTr/ooo-TrXo/co?, which (Fr. 20).
Spirit,

probably the highest Tetrad of the Valentinian system, i.e. the The next highest Aeon of whom we four highest male Aeons.
is

question under discussion. He admits the trustworthiness of Hippolytus's authority in this section of the Refutatio. 1 See also Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, p. 170.
affect the

42
read
is

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

perhaps the dvo) Xptcrro?, who, according to the Hippolytean account, sent the KOWOS rov TrX^pcoyLtaTo? Kapiros to but the interpretation of Fr. 35 is uncertain. The Sophia
;

Xo7o? of Heracleon is not a member of the original Pleroma, The or Aeon, according to Heracleon's usage of the term. inhabitants of the Aeon came into being before him (Fr. 1).

His position seems to correspond to that of the KOIVOS /capjrbs in the Eefutatio. 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 8ia, he was the cause of the creation of the world by the Demiurge (Trapaa^elv
alriav rrjs ryevecrews rov Kocrpov rc3 S.). Through his indwelling activity the Demiurge worked. The Trvev/jLart/col were in
Trjv

a stricter sense created by him, auro? jap


rrjv

rrjv Trpobrrjv fjuop^wcnv

Kara

rrjv

<yevecri,v

avrofc Trapecr^e,
/cal

TO,

VTT

et? /jLop(f)r)v

KOI

et? (fHOTicr/jLov

Trepiypatyrjv

a\\ov airapevra l$lav dyaywv KOI

dvaelj;a<;.

(Fr.

22).
it is

He is He is

the true Creator, and is also called Xptcrro? further identified with the Saviour (Fr. 5),

and

probably he, to

whom

reference

is

made

in the

words

6 ev alwvi, /cal ol

avv avrw e\6ovres

(Fr. 22), as is

shewn by what

follows:

\6yos et? TTJV ol/covpevTjv. We hear of the Holy Spirit as driving out evil (Fr. 13), but nothing further is said on the subject.
e%fji\Qev...o

Sophia
history
is

is

never

mentioned
of

in

the
of

Fragments, but
true

her

the the

archetype
is

that

the

redemption of the

Trvev^ariKol,

which

represented as the

meaning

of the

Samaritan Woman, and it is not possible to separate archetype from copy in Heracleon's interpretation of the
story
of
story.

The Demiurge is frequently mentioned. sense the world came into being through the
urge, inspired by him, wa, in all probability,
is

Though

in

one
it

its

^0709, the immediate creator (Fr. 1).

Demi-

He

unconsciously, the pneumatic seeds which were formed and fostered by the Word (Fr. 3). He
is

who sowed,

typified

by John the Baptist, who, when he professed his

unworthiness to loose the latchet of Christ's shoe, is represented by Heracleon as speaking in the person of the Demiurge, who is thus made to confess his inferiority to the Christ (Fr. 8). He is

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.


the Creator

43

the Jews worshipped, and is represented by Jerusalem, the seat of the imperfect worship which was soon
to pass

whom

away

(Fr. 20).

The worship

offered to

him by

all

his

worshippers was carnal and mistaken (Fr. 22). represented by the /Bacrikiicos of John iv. 46. He

He
is,

is

again
were,

as

it

a petty king (Fr. 40), set over a small kingdom by the Great His kingdom is the TOTTO? /-tea-oV^ro?, in the inferior King.

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
part
of

being assimilated to the higher spiritual nature, but the destruction of those who remain his men,' and are not thus assimiHis lated, is assured by the words of Christ in Matt. viii. 12.
*

nature
believe

is
:

such that
it

it

requires signs

cannot

\6<y(p irio-Teveiv.

and wonders before it can Yet he is easily persuaded of

the

superior power of the

represented as slaves, who his subjects, and the progress which they are making in conseHe and his house represent quence of the Saviour's advent. his whole angelic order, and those men who are more nearly
'

has his angels, here report to him on the well-being of


Saviour.
'

He

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
akin to his
nature.
'

own

more, according to one interpretation of <TTLV 6 fyrcov KOI tcpivwv the Judge is the Demiurge, the Saviour's minister, who performs the will of Him to whom all judgment has been committed.

The
teaching.
20),

8ta/3oA,o?

comes

next

in

importance

in

Heracleon's

He
is

which

represented by the Mountain of Samaria (Fr. one part of the whole mountain of evil, the #007409
is

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
His nature

he

is

physically

incapable of speaking truth.


terprets
(Fr. 47).

(for

so Heracleon in-

avrov) His substance


Trarrjp

is

is

ovala of the Saints (Fr. 45).

and falsehood different in kind from the \ojt/cr) He has desires but no will (Fr. 46).

composed of

error

44

THE FRAGMENTS OF HER ACL EON.


^oiKol
are
his children

The

by nature, of the same substance


Srj/jLiovpyos,

as he.

Corresponding to \6yos,
usual triple division of
i

Sta/3oXo<?,

we

find

the

men

into irvev^ariicoL^ -^U^KOL, %OIKOI or

(cf.
T)

Fr. 44, erepas ovo-ias Tv<yyavQVTi Trap 01)9 KaKovcn The Trvevparitcol are in some sense trvevfjiaTiKovs).

identical with the \6yos,

who imparted

to

them

their form

and

The Holy of Holies, into which the High personality (Fr. 2). Priest alone enters, symbolises the place of their final destination The spiritual seed has been sown in the e/^uo-^a, (Fr. 13).
apparently the psychical part of those men who possess it (Fr. 16). Before the coming of Christ their spiritual nature was imprisoned in matter, corrupted by adulterous and irrational

which

is

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 wa

not wholly dormant the Church awaited Christ, and was persuaded that He knew all things, and was thus prepared to receive Him But their rescue depends in no way on themselves; (Fr. 25).
;

the

spiritual

(Fr. 37).

they

offer

and incorruptible Faith corresponds to their true nature, and henceforth to the Father of Truth that spiritual worship which is
nature
is

fyvaei

aw^o^evov,

their rational service (Fr. 24). This they can do, because they are of the same nature as God. Rescued themselves, they are

instrumental in the salvation of others, especially of those ^u^iKol who are capable of salvation. They pour forth what has been given them, unto the eternal life of others (erepot). So Heracleon It is through interprets the aXkopevov of John iv. 14 (Fr. 17).

and by the pneumatic that the psychic


(Fr. 27).

is

brought to the Saviour

The
to

TTvevfjiariKol are

salvation.

With

consubstantial with God, and are destined the ^v^LKol it is not so. They are the

Demiurge and share his nature. They are represented by the Jews, who worshipped the Creator, the Demiurge, instead of the Father of Truth (Fr. 19), who thought they knew
children of the

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.


God, but knew

45

Him

moons

(Fr. 21) \

worshipping angels and months and They can be saved, but cannot enter the Pleroma
not,

the irpovaos, the sphere of the Levites' service, is the true symbol of their destined home. They are many in number, and form

the *:X?5<m, in contrast to the small number of the spiritual But we learn most about their nature in Fragment 40. e/cXoyri. and they are Like the irvev/jLart/col they are entangled in v\rj
:

sick, sick

unto death.

But

their case

is

not hopeless

the psychic
;

nature possesses fitness for salvation (eVtT^SetW e^ovaav) is the corruptible which puts on incorruption. Its nature

it 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) The psychic can rise to salvation or sink to destruction. below.

There would seem then to be a freedom of choice. The tyv%iicol are the mean between the necessarily saved and the hopelessly But whether the freedom of choice is real or only apparent, lost.
it is

hard to say.

of the Devil. The ^w^i/col ^oiKol are by nature the sons can, by doing his works, become sons of the Devil Oecrei or a%lq, but only the xoiicol are such by nature (Fr. 46). They are of the

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.

and to save those ^jrv^ifcol 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 KOWOS rov TrX^pcafiaro^

To

set free the Trvev^ariKol,

Hippolytean account, came down from the and took flesh as an v7r6Sr)fj,a (Fr. 8). As we learn this from a fragment which is dealing with the words of the as in Fr. 10 a disBaptist, yLteo-o? vpwv <rrr]Ke^ K.T.\., and tinction is made between the o-wfjba and that which dwells in it,
of

the

we may assume that Heracleon's


1

'

'

Italic

position

is

confirmed by

feld,

Heracleon's use of the Preaching of Peter, see Fr. 21 (note), and HilgenNov. Test, extra Canon, receptum, iv. p. 64.

On

46
the

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

Fragments (see Hipp. Refut. vi. 35). We do riot know whether he commented on John i. 14 or not. The flesh which Christ took was imperfect and fitly represented by the Lamb.

'

He who

who

taketh away the sin of the world is the Higher Being, Traces of Docetism are to be found in dwells in the body.

'

the account of His healing of the son of the j3ao-i\iKb<; (Fr. 40, Kara/Set? TT/OO? rov /cd/juvovra KOI lao-a^evo^ avrov), and in the description of His food as the performance of the Father's will.
interpretation of His journeys as typifying His passing from the hylic to the psychic sphere, or His appearing in the world, of

The

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 of it symbolises the Marriage Feast of the future
(Fr. 12).

He
Baptist.

appears publicly on earth

of the Baptism.

His presence

is

apparently, at the time declared to the people by the


first,

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

Through

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

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,
to rescue the spiritual
for the present, to teach her the worship of the Father, ' in spirit and in truth.' By her means, and later by His own words, the

higher class of "fyw%iicol are also rescued, and leave their former cosmic life. Thus the spiritual Church is rescued He gathers it in as a reaper, and sends forth His angels, represented here on
;

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.

47

earth by the Disciples, each one to his own partner: the final consummation is not till the irvev^aTiKol 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

the Disciples.

whom
work

to rescue for the angels, they represent, their spiritual brides. The Saviour's own

Perhaps this
is

may mean
fully

for

the

-fyvyiicol

more

described

in

Heracleon's

interpretation of the miracle of the healing of the son of the

which has been considered already. His work was not ended by the Passion. After the Resurrection, no doubt, of the psychic Christ, the Saviour again appeared among His disciples and converted many more to faith
(3acn\(,Ko<;,

than during the first period of His work. At length He was The period between the Resurrection and parted from them.
the Ascension was probably regarded by Heracleon as considerably This opinion was also held by other longer than forty days. cf. Irenaeus I. iii. 2, fjuera rrjv e/c Gnostics veicpwv dvacnaaw
:

Se/caoKTO}

/jLrjcrl

\eyeiv
'

Siarerp^evai,

avrov

crvv

rot?

fjLaOrjTais,

and

I.

xxx.

14,

remoratum autem eum post resurrection em

xvni mensibus.' Of the Eschatology of the system we do riot hear much. The are obviously doomed to destruction, and so are such of the l 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 TrvevfiariKol, 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 in

'

spirit

and in

truth.'

Enough examples have been given


of

to

shew the general character

Heracleon as a Commentator, but so far we have seen his worst He is seen at his best in the description of True Confession, side.

and not in Word only (Fr. 50). This whole fragment is of At times in his Comgreat interest and surprising excellence. mentary on S. John he is an acute and accurate observer. He
in Life

has

seen

rightly that

eoopafcev TrcoTrore

the passage beginning, ouSet? rov Oeov (Jn. i. 18), is not part of the Baptist's speech,

48

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


is

added by tbe Evangelist bimself (Fr. 3). His interpretation What he says of a\\o/jievov (Jn. iv. 14) is fanciful, but striking. of the Will of the Father in Fr. 31 certainly does not deserve the He has interpreted rightly the censure it receives from Origen.
but

Jews in their suggestion of MIJTI d-rroKrevel eavrov ; Indeed he is often at his best in those places where Origen complains of his want of spiritual But his explanatory letter. insight and servile adherence to the

simplicity of the disciples in asking Mij and the self-satisfied stupidity of the

? rjve^Kev

avrw

(frayeiv

We may cite as strangely unfortunate. examples his account of Christ's inability to teach or work miracles at Capernaum (Fr. 11); his remark on the objections
remarks
are
often

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 attempt to read into the Fourth Gospel the details and teaching At the same of the system in which he had been brought up. time we must remember that, though the application is more arbitrary, the general method is exactly the same as that of Origen Both extract the meaning they desire from the words on himself.
raised

which they are commenting by a violent system of metaphorical But whereas Origen applies his method more condistortion. 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

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 hisfeel

that the

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 scope of this book. A list of passages of
Scripture quoted, or referred to by him, will be found at the end.

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.


In
it

49
cited,

have omitted

one or two of
is

those

generally
of

where the quotation or reference and not by Heracleon himself.


his teaching.

probably made by Origen

The Index

Words

will

supply further assistance for the study of his vocabulary and

B.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


Comm.
in loann.
fcal
Jo.
i.

1.

Orig.

ii.

8 (R.

IV.

66; L.

I.

117).

3.

\ey6fjievov elvai

fiaprvpiov rov Qva\evrivov 'UtpatcXecova, ^irjiyotifjievov TO HANTA

AYTOY ereNejo, 6^6L\r)<p6vaL HANTA rov KOCTUOV /cal ra ev avrw, eKK\eiovra rwv TTA'NTOON, TO tiaov eirl rfi viro6eo-ei ev avru> Sia^epovra. fy^al yap avrov, ra rov KOQ-^OV Kal

rv

1. 3.

The
rdv

exclusion of ra rov

KOO--

rrjs <ro<j)tas

fiov Kal

%v avrtp Statp^povra
is noticeable.
viii.

from

the Travra

Contrast
6V avrov
ovfit

Irenaeus

i.

iravra

In the account given by Hippolytns we hear of seventy Xo7ot projected by Sophia and her <rvfvyos, the KOIVOS
rov

eyfrero Kal
%v'
irao~i

X W P^ S avrov
rot's

iytvero

yap

jwer'

avrbv atoxrt
6

Probably Kapirbs. 7rA77/>u>;uaro$ Heracleon's A67os corresponds to the


(rvvyos of Sophia.

jj,op<pijs

Kal

yevfaews afrtos

\67os

At any

rate he

lytvero.

The Valentinians

generally-

deduced from the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel the origin of the

occupies a position below the aiuv and above the Demiurge. The A67os

who appeared
form
Eefut.
of
vi.

to Valentinus in the

Pleroma and

its

inhabitants.

Cf.

Excerpta ex Theodoto 6. The teaching of Heracleon is more nearly allied


to that of Irenaeus, who frequently insists on the inclusion of the /r60>ios

new-born babe (Hipp. 42) cannot be assigned

definitely to

any place in the system,

in Trdvra, as against the ordinary

to be regarded as the crvfryos of Zw??. Except therefore that the term (Ao7os) owes its

but

is

most probably

Valentinian interpretation of the Heracleon's supposition passage.


that ra tv r$ aluvi came into being before the A67os gives us a clue to his

origin to the Prologue to St John's

Gospel, it has no connexion with the A67os of Heracleon.


yap] An unfortunate transposition of yap and misled Fer077<rt in Cod. Ven. has
5.

8ia(p{poi>ra.

<pTjffl

views with regard to the A67os, who must be identified with the Affyos

who, according to the Italic school, represented by Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, descended on the Son of Mary
at the Baptism, 6 Xo7os 6 r^j

rarius into translating this passage,

Per sermonem inquit non insignia non seculum etc.' Huet's transla'

tion of lKK\elovra K.r.\. 'excluderi-

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

51

Ov TOV
\6yov,

dld)Vd

rj

Ta ev
KA'I

ctTiVd oieTdi Trpo

dl&vi yeyovevai Sid TOV TOV \6yov yeyovevai. dvaibea-Tepov


TO>

Be icrTa/jLevos Trpbs TO
ev\d/3oviJLevos TO
>

XP'IC
TW

^yjof ereNGTO oyAe 6N,


Ay'roy, I'NA
>.
\

fjLTjSe Jo.

i.

3.

MH
Kdl
f f

npoc0HC TO?C Aoroic


//)

Mh eAer^H
'

Pr. xxx. 6
(xxiv. 29).

>

10 ce KAI

yeyAnc reNH,
KTicrei.

Trpoo-Tivrjcri
enrel

oyAe GN TCDV ev TO> Kocrfjuw


eo~Ti TCL

Kdl

T?j

7rpO(j)dvrj

vir

dVTov \ef*

o~<p6Spd /3e/3ido~/jL6Vd Kdl TTdpd TTJV evdpyeidv eirdyK


',,

ei

Ta vo/uLi^o/jLevd dVTw ueLd


Trj

/>

/"I

/^

eKK\ei,6Tdi TCOI

TCL Se,
15

&)<?

eKivo<; oleTdi, Tra^reXo;? (frOeipo/jLevd Kvplcos

Kd\eLTdi OVK eTTiSidTpLTTTeOV


}

droTTidv

efjL(f)dtvovTd)v'

dvdTpOTTTJ TWV dVTodeV olov oe Kdl TO r^9 ypdcbrjs \eryovcr'r)<i

Xoopic Ayrof ereNGTO oyAe EN


(i7ro
rj

Trpoo-TtQevTd dVTov dvev irdpdTris vpdcbris TO TWV ev rc3 KOCTLLW Kdl

KTLcrei

/jLr)8e //-era

TriOavoTyTOS aTrocfralveo-Oai, iriaTevecrOat,

20

d^iovvTd o/jioicos 7rpo<j)ijTdis rj aTTOCTToXot? rot? //,er' e Kdl dvwirevOvvws KdTd\e ITT overt, rot? Kd0* dVTOvs Kdl

avTovs
Ai'

crayTijpta

ypdafidTd.

GTI

Be

I8la)<?

Kdl

TOV HANTA

aiiiav Trapacr^ovrd r^9 yevecrecos TOV KOCT/JLOV r&5 $r)fju,ovpyq), TOV M _-v/ v \oyov ovTd, eivdi ov TOV acp ov i] v<p ov, a\\a TOV
Ayroy eresieTO J~r)KOvcr, fydcrKotv
\

Tov

TTJV

>i,\ci>ra

12 evapyeiav]

tern

quantum ipsius fert hypothesis ex omnibus praestantissima quaeque mundi et eorum quae ipso continentur
'

not found in Delarue's text, the word being omitted in Cod. Bodleiis

anus, plausibly substitutes T

for TO.

is

unintelligible

in connexion
'

But

with the context.


excellent
'

The things more than the world and its con-

not necessary to alter the TO may be taken attested reading


it is
:

tents

are of course, as is explained in the following words, the alwv

and
tents,

its

iravra. to

contents. By explaining be the world and its coniravra.

and though the construction is awkward it is not impossible, and not more awkward than that which would be obtained by
with
d,7ro0cuVe0-0cu,

reading T$,

viz.

olov

irpocTiQtvTa.
olov 5
is

he excludes from

all

aTTotpaiveffdai.

But the
it

that is of a higher nature.


6.
a.iu>vL\

unsatisfactory,

and

has been well

For

this sense of altav,

derived no doubt originally from the

suggested that we should probably here read ofoj' 5^. For one who recognizes the authority of Scripture, to make unwarrantable additions to it

Timaeua (38 A),


avTfy 6 WTip ev
22, 6 ev al&vi. 16.

cf.

Frag. 18, fy y&p


aluvi,

T<

and Frag.
Hil-

TO T^S ypa<J>7)s \eyovo">is]

without any attempt to justify them, is a fair example of TUV avr69ev


droiriav

genfeld,

omitting

\eyov<rijs t

which

52
Si

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


ov
y

Trapd
Sta

rrjv
el

ev

rf)

crvvrjOeia
z^oet
r)

(f>pdatv

e/eSe^d/zez/o?

TO

yeypafji/jilvov.
fjv,

yap c9

a\rj6eia

rwv

Trpay/jLarcov

yeypdfyOai irdvra yeyovevai VTTO rov \6yov, ov^l Be dvdiraXiv Sid rov \6yov VTTO rov fcal rj^el^ fj^ev Tf) 01 ov ^pr^aa^evoi a/coXovucos 30 SfjLLtovpyov.
eSei

TO

Srj/jLiovpyov

rrj crvvrjOeia, ov/c

d^dprvpov

rrjv e/cSo^TJv

d(j)r)/ca/jL

Se, ?r/)05 TO)

fjirj

TrapafJue/juvOrjaOac
/cal

diro

TWV

0eia)v
/cal

rov

icaO*

eavrov vovv, fyaiverai


eTrolei

viroTnevcras TO d\7jOes

evepyovvros auTo?
26 Trapa
26. Trapa
TTJV]
irepl

\6yos,

'iv

ovro) vorjdfj

35

TTJV] irepl wv.

Cod. Bodl. in mg. rax


of

The reading
v,

Cod. Monac.

which
'

is

repro-

duced in

all its copies, is

impossible.

independent of Heinrici, whose note (Die Vol. Gnosis, p. 135) I had not seen when I first made it.
tion
is

Ferrarius's translation,

exponens id
It is

32.

Trpos r<

/XT)

Trapa/Ae/Ai^o-flai]

quod

scriptum est phrasin esse conis

suetam,'

not helpful.

not

the bearing of this passage as it stands in Codex Regius on the relation of that MS. to Cod. Monacensis
see

On

got it from the Greek which was before him, and in

easy to see

how he

Introduction

p.

8.

Delarue's

the context in which the words occur


it

gives

no

intelligible sense.

Hilgen-

obviously right conjecture of T$ for TO is now substantiated by the


evidence of Cod. Monacensis.
fortunately the

feld's

more

conjecture irepiTrty is hardly How is it to be transhelpful.

Un-

same

error (TO for

r)
the

lated ?

The conjectural emendation


itself

was

which most obviously suggests


is Trapd TTJV.

independently by scribes of Codd. Eeg. and Bodl.


35.
6 Xo7os]

made

and
also,

Trepi

is

The confusion of Trapd one of the commonest


of Cod.

Ao'7os here is

position of the exactly that given to

The

characteristics
it

Monac.,

as

may be added, of its descendants. And when once Trapd was changed to Trepi, rty may have become
TU>J>,

Sophia in Hippolytus (Eefut. vi. 33), dyvoovvn ai)r (sc. r drj/Movpyy) rj


<ro(j)ia tv/ipyrjo-e, which corresponds to Heracleon's atfroO tvepyovvTos 2repos cTrofet, where the #repos is obviously

which might

easily

be

corrupted to wv. Possibly the original reading may have been Trapd r^v r&v,

which accounts more easily

for the

the Demiurge. It may be noticed that in this passage Hippolytus gives a general reference, using \{yovo-u> and

corruption, if the construction thus given to <f>pcunv is possible. Either


of these readings will give the re-

should also compare the account of Irenaeus (i. v. i.),


tftrja-iv.

not

We

especially the

quired contrast to Origen's position stated just below, ?;/xets 5e aVoXoi5#ws


Tfl <rvi>r)6et<f.

Scoria

61

words ftaXXov and shortly O.VTTJS


;

de

rov

before,
KIVOTL>-

(of the Demiurge)


fjievov VTTO

XeXTjtfo'rws

K.T.\.

We may compare
xiii. 17, 6'pa 5

T^J

/uTprpos.

Heracleon

such passages as
idlws
v

may

Kal

Trapd

TTJV

d,KO\ovdio.v

TUV

K8e%d/j,vos K.T.\.

This sugges-

have assumed some similar relation between AOYOS and So<fa, at any rate it would have been easy for him to

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEKACLEON.


TO
ere/oo? ov TOV 7rap6vTO$ Be /caipov ecrrlv e\ey^at, TO prj TOV ovpybv vTrypeTyv TOV \6yov yeyevrj/juevov TOV Koafiov
tcevai, real aTroSeifcvvvai,

53

Ai'

AYTof,

aXV avTov

evepyovvTos

OTL VTrrjpeT'rj^ TOV Sr)fj,iovpyov


KCLTO,

40 6 A.070?
c

TOV

Kocrfjiov

KaTecTK6vacre.
KA'I

yap TOV
KAI GKTI'CGHCAN. Ps. cxlviii.
l. i.

fcS

0eoc elne

ereNH0HCAN* |NTI'AATO

jap
)

6 dyevvrjTos #eos TO npooTOTOKO) TTACHC KTi'ceooc, c

15.

GKTl'cGHCAN, OV JJLOVOV 6 /COO~/J,OS,

KOI
erre

TO.

V aVTG),
efre
KA'I

d\\d
ApX<M Col.
i.

KOI Ta XotTra irdvTa


45 erre eSoyciAr TTANTA

efre
1

0poNOi

KypioiHTec

16,

r^p

Ai

Ayroy

KAI eic

AYTON IKTICTAI,

ecu npo

2.

ii.

15 (R.

iv.

73; L.

i.

130).
r

Haw
"

Se /Stato)9 ^arcz roz/ TOTTOV yevo/jievos 6

Hpa/c\ea)v
Jo.
i.

TO
Efc?

reroNeN eN AyTco ZOOM MM e^ei\r)(f)v dvTi TOV EN AYTCO

4.

TOU5 dvOpCOTTOVS TOU9 7rV6VfJ,aTlKOVS,


elvai TOV

OlOVel
el

TdVTOV
KOL
firj

vo/jilcras
5

\6yov
ical

/cal

TOV$ Trvev^aTLKOv^,

cra^co? TCLVT
modify
the

eiptrj/ce'

wcnrepel alTio\oyd)v
to
Kaptrov

<f)rjo~lv

AUTO?
et's

system

sufficiently

/cai TTJS

ffoQtas

TOVTOV

obtain the necessary adaptation to the Prologue of St John. The same


relation,

TOV Koff^ov.

and

also the interpretaK.a.1

tion of aXXos 6 ffireipuv


Qepifav
35).

aXXos 6

however,

between Sophia
is

given
it

by Heracleon (Frag.
is

and the Demiurge

assumed in the

But
d'XXos

more probable that


the

second part of the Excerpta ex Theodoto (c. 49, eirel 5e OVK eyivwaKev rty
avrov evepyovvav K.T.X.). It was probably part of the original system
di

Demiurge, the work of the Abyos being that which is described in the passage quoted from Hippolytus as a sowing. This
the
is

of Valentinus,

and

is

therefore not
of differenti-

suits better the description


TT]V

T-TJV

available as a

means

^bp(f>w<nv

Triv

/cara

T^V

ating the systems of his pupils. The LXX. in this passage 41. reads auros instead of o
0eos,

gives to the action its natural place (chronologically) in the history

and

and

of Creation.

Much

closer parallels,

repeats the auros before tverdXaro.


2. 5.

Two
are

passage

explanations of this The aXXos possible.

however, to this passage are found in the Excerpta ex Theodoto. Cf.


irvev57, yiveTcu ouj>.../A6/30w<rts TOV
fj.a.TiKov,

whose sowing the A67os completed

and

48, diaKptvas Se 6

Srj-

may

be the Kotvbs TOV

TrX^pw/iaros

IMovpybs

TO, Ka.6a.pa. dirb

TOV typpLdovs
(pVffiV

KapTtos, in

which case
OLTTO

Refutat.
ffirapfJI.VO(.

vi.

Hippolytus, dvwdev fcare34, X67<u


TOV KOIVOV TOV
TT\f)p(i)-

cf.

WS

O.V

TTjV

KO,T^pOV

0WS
et's

t(pa.vtpu<Tev
Ka.1

Ka.1

iUav

-rrpocrriyayev,

which

is

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

yap
/cal

Tr)V

TrpMTrjv popfywo- iv
VTT

Trjv

/cara

rrjv
et9

yeveaiv
K.ai

Trapeze, ra
(f>ci)Tto-/jiov

d\\ov cnrapevra
I

Kal Trepiypacjirjv

dyaywv

dva8eij;a<t.

ov TrapeTrjprjcre Se Kal TO Trepl T&V Trvev/j,aTiKwv


\ey6fjuevov, on,
10

1 Cor.
'

ii.

dvQpWTrovs avTovs aireo-iwTTTjo-e' TYXIKOC ANGpoonoc oy AexeiAi TA TOY HNeyMATOc TOY 060Y, MCOplA r^P AYTCO CCTIN* O Ae nNGYMATIKOC ANAKplNGI TTANTA. ITTI rov TrvevfJLaTifcov fir) ?7//.6t9 yap ov fjudr^v avrov ^>a^ev
Trapd rc5
Trpoo-TeOei/cevai TO avOpwjros.

HavXw

/cpeiTTov

yap
r

r)

av0pa)7ro<; o

TOV

vpcoTrov rTOL
ov

ev 15

ev

>

TOVTWV

KaTa

fjL6TO^rjv

emKpaTova-av

6
KO.V

a/jua

$e Kal TCL

TOVTCOV 20

\6yov.

Kal raura
8

/j,ev

Trepl eKelvov.

3.

Ibid.
GCTIN

vi.

2 (R. iv. 102; L.

i.

177).

Jo.

i.

19.

Jo,

i.

15.

BevTepa avrrj MApTYpiA TOY NCOANNOY. dvayeypajj,fj,evr) 'Icodvvov TOV (BaTTTi<nov Trepl Xpio-Tov /napTvpia, Tjj9 7rpore/oa9 dp^a/jbevrjs OLTTO TOV OYTOC H'N 6 einooN '0
KA'I

AYTH

dnicco

MOY ep)(6MNOC, Kal


ov elirov

\r)yovo~r)<;

et9

TO MoNOfeNHc 6eoc 6
1HOS

3 6 etVwj'

(sic).

debs (sic).

qualified in the next section

by the
TTJV
5i'

words enei

Se

OVK eyivwcrKev

hand, afford instructive examples in the history of the transmission of


Patristic quotations
tion, pp. 8, 18)
;

avrov frepyovaav. It is tempting to restore our text on the lines of the

(see

Introduc-

passage quoted from the Excerpta, and read /cat lUav. But the phrase
irepiypa<f>r)v

and the curious conflation of Codex Regius (6 ftovoyevTis utos 0eos) which is quoted in Tischendorfs
critical digest is

idiav is

not intrinsically
of
ea-rlv

thus traced

objectionable.
12.

to its origin.

The
in

transposition

and

Huet and the other wry editions is due to an error of the scribe of Cod. Regius. The right
order
is

not the only case where Origen complains of Heracleon's interpretation of a passage, where the
is

This

latter is probably right.


cott's
loc.)

preserved in the other MSS.

Commentary

(See Weston St John, in

3. 4.

The

interlinear insertions in

Cod. Monac., which are by a later

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HER ACL EON.


5

55
VryiCOS Jo.
i.

CON
e 6

6IC
(

TON KOATTON TOY TTATpOC

Ke?NOC elHTHCATO.

OV%

18.

vTrdXa^^dvei OyAeic TON 060N ea pAKGN noonoTe Kal rd e^9 <j)dcrKCi)v elprjcrdat OVK drro rov ftaTTTKTTov d\\* drro rov fiaOrjTov' el <ydp teal KMT avrov TO 'K Toy
10

H pa/cXecov

Jo.

i.

16,

nAHpOOMATOC AyTOy HMe?C TTANTCC eAABOMGN, KAI )(AplN ANTI X<*plTOC, OTI 6 NOMOC AIA Mooyceooc eAo0H, H X^P IC KA<I " ^An'OeiA AIA '|HCOY XpiCTof epeNGTO VTTO rov ^ajmarov eiprirai, TTW? OVK d/co\ov6ov rov eK TOY nAHpoaMATOc TOY XpicToy el\if]^6ra /cal x^p'N Sevrepav eVt irporepas x^p'TOC, 6/j,6\oryovvrd re AIA Mooceoac
/j,ev

SeSoadaL TON NOMON, THN Be x^p |N


XpicToy
ryeyovevai,
etc

KA

'i

THN AAHSeiAN

Ai<\

iS'lncof

rwv drrb TOY nAHpcjOMATOC avrov e\rj\vd6ra)v vevorj/cevai, TTOO? OeoN oyAe'ic
noanoTe
/cal

et?

TO TON MONOfeNH

eic

TON KoAnON O'NTA Toy

avr<p Kal Trdat, rots" eK TOY nAHpcoMATOC ei\r)<f)6<n, TrapaSeSwKevai ; ov ydp vvv irpwrov e^rjyrjcraro <'0 OON> eic 20 TON KoAnoN Toy nATpdc, <9 ovSevos eirirrjo'eLOV Trporepovyeryevr)rrjv ef;rjyr)cri,v
fjievov

\af3elv
<uv

rot9 aTrocrroXot?
rjfjid^

$t,rj

yija-aro, et<ye TTp'iN

'ABpAAM

Jo.viii. 58.

peNe'cGAi
I'AH

Si^da/cei

rov 'Aftpadfji tfyaXhidcrOai,

TN A Jo.viii. 56.

THN HMepAN avTov


8

real ev 'X.cipa yeyovevai,.


cod.
et

7,

f3a.TTTiffTov...fjt.ad'r)Tov']

Sed

literis aj857 seriori

manu

inter lineas

insertis

19

transponuntur ^aimaTov t3i/] om.

fj.aO-rjTov.

/car'

avrov] /cara TO.VTOV.

4.

Ibid.

vi.

8 (R. iv. 117; L.


/J,rj
I

I.

200).
ecrri
'

\e
icai

Ov Oav^aarov
I

Se el
t

rjicpiftovv on,

aJro?

o npocpHTHC, 01 Oio~Ta%ovre<$ Trepi icoavvov, firjjrore avros


rjV

&

If

^>T'

XpiCTOC
' ^

Jo. 21.

i.

20,

XptcrT09

aKoKovOov yap ro3 Trepi rovrov Sicrray/AO) TO e\ade dyvoelv rov avrov elvai XpiCTON Kal TON npoc()HTHN.
19.

The

insertion

of

&v by

Cod. Venetus, followed by Ferrarius in his translation 'Non enim nunc

Latin, which represents the e$ by 'solus,' but the omission leaves no


suitable sense in the present context.
4. 1.

primum

enarravit,

Qui

est

ad sinum

Patris, perinde quasi nullus etc.,' is

XpKTTos

/cat 6 Trpo<f>riT7js]

Ferra-

the simplest emendation of the corThese rupt text of its exemplar.

rius has rightly suggested the article, which was absent from the MS. which

words

wv] are indeed omitted by the first hand of Cod. Sinaiticus (tf),
(6

he used, translating
Propheta.'
article is

'

Christus et

ille

In the Munich MS. the

and God.

Vercellensis (a) of the

Old

not wanting.

56

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON.


r)

Se TOV9 7roXXou9

rov 6 npo<J)HTHC KOI npo4>HTHC, o>9 KOI TOV (1 ApaK\ewva, oar is avrals Xefe<rt ^aiv o$9 apa '\wdvvrjs (tifjuoXoyrjae pr) elvai d XpiCTOC, d\\d fjLijSe
$t,a<f>opd

ltpO<|>tiTHCj lAijSe 'HAi'AC.

Kal &eov avTov ovrws etcXafiovra


fjurj
i

e^erdcrai,

rd Kara

TOI)? TOTTOVS, Trorepov d\7j6evei Xeycov


rj

elvat, npO({)HTHC, /u-^Se 'HA/AC,

ov'

6 8e

yu.?}

eTricrTTyo-a? Tot?

T07rot9, eV ol?

KaTa\e\oL7rev

vTro/jLvrj/JLaaiv

dvet;Td(TTa)s Trape-

rd
ev rot?
wv, Trepl
6 a pa] ap*
el.

&v

eJ#e&>9 epovpev.
9

5.

Tfcid vi.

12

(K
<

iv.

120; L.

I.

206).

Jo. i. 23. Cf. IS. Xl.

AiWrat
\

TO

fjuevroi V

ye TO
etz/at

'Epcio 4)OONH
T7(
^

779

taw

TW

l!/ya>

BOOONTOC IN TH" epH X / ? etfti Trept- ou yeypaTrrai


>

c})GOisih

Boa)NTOC, co9 ftocovTO. elvai rov *Icodvwr]v, teal

TOVTOV

rrjv

ev

rfj

eprjfj,(p
e

ftoav Ey6YNATe THN OAON


e

Kypi'oy.

Sucr^)?;5

Se 6
vayV)
(|)(X)NH

}lpaK\ea)v jrepl 'Iwdvvov Kal rwv


(faqa-lv

Se

77

\6yo$ /j,ev 6 TH epHMCp 7] Sid 'Iwdvvov


vious.

ore

irpo^Twv Swrrjp ecrrti/,


Siavoov/JLevrj,

9.
is

The only The

alteration necessary
77

the omission of
ov

before \tywv (H

must qualify a\rjHuet follows the 6etiet,, not X^ywi/. reading of Codex Regius which contains the 77 and omits the 6, thus joining the two sentences and producing an unintelligible statement.
after ei).
10.

For the construction we may compare a fragment of Origen in an unpublished Catena at Venice (Bibl. Marciana Graec. xxvii.) 6'pa 5 ei 5tfvacrai ira<ra.v rrjv ypa(f>7]v...5i'r]yoi''/J.vos
avvecrTr]K^vai...(ji}S

elvai

rb irav
Kal

TOV vop.ov Kal


riav
AotTrwj'

irpo(f>r)r<2v

ypafiwv

airb

rov rotoDSe
fti)

Hilgenfeld,

in

his

critical

Kal %pr<rat Set TOVJ r(av


6<f)6a\/j,oijs.

note, is misled

by a misstatement of Delarue'sreproducedbyLommatzsch. The /AT) (after 6 5) is not wanting


in the Bodleian.

7.

56a^oo^^>;]
voelffQai,

uses

Heracleon twice as he here uses 5ta-

voeiffda.^

of a higher

power symbolintelligible,

remarkable that while Codex Venetus omits the ws,


5.
3.

ws]

It is

ised,

represented,

made

so to speak, (as far as is possible),

on

its

copy Codex Bodleianus inserts


scribe of the latter
it

it.

But the

may very

earth by an earthly being. Cf. Frag. 8 (Orig. Comm. in loann. vi. 23) TTC/H
TOV irpocruirov TOIJTOV
Ibid.
dia
(?)

from the Latin of Ferrarius, 'ut clamante lohanne': the want of some such insertion for grammar's sake would be quite ob-

well have inserted

dia TOV

'Iw-

awov voov^vov, and Frag. 35


xiii.

(Orig.

48)

0e/H<rrds

TrtftTrei

TOVS

T&V

(JLadrjTuv

voovpevovs ayyt\ovs.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

57

on,

8e Trdaa 7rpo(p7jrifcrj rat?. \e/creov Se avrov, SaTrep 'EAN A'AHAON cAAnifS <{>a>Nh N Aa oi)8et9
GIC
rj

1 Cor. xiv.
8.

10 CK6YAZGTAI

TTOAeMON,

KOl

6 %0>/H9

AfATTHC

%0)V

fNOiCIN
Cf. 1 Cor.
xiii. 1, 2.

npocbHTeiAN yeyove XAAKOC H)(OON H KYMBAAON ecrriv erepov y ^%o? ^ Trpotfyrjrucrj A'AAAAZON, o$r&>9 et
TTO;?

dvaTre/jLircov

eV

avrr)v o

Swr^p

'EpeyNAie,
AIOONION

Jo. v. 39.

TAG rp^<t>Ac, OTI


15

AOK?re GN AYTA?C ZOOHN


*

)(IN'

KAI eK?NAl' GICIN Al

/Cat El

eniCT6Y6T
ical

Jo. v. 46.

AN GMOI, nepi
nep)
i'

eMof eKe?NOC erpAye"


'HcAiAC,

Mt. xv.
8.

7,

AepcoN '0

AAOC OYTOC TO?C

Me TIMA; OVK olSa yap el rov ao-rj/jbov fyov TrapaSe'geTal 6^X070)9 VTTO rov Sa)T?7po9 eiraivela-Oai, rj evecm Trapa10 (r/cevdo-aa-Oai,
e^>'

Cf. Is. xxix. 13.

CLTTO

TCOV

rypafjxav,
et9

c9

CLTTO

CJXJONHC

CAAniproc

avTiK&i^kva^ rlva evepyeias TroKepov, AAH'AOY 4>ooNHC HXOY Tvy%avov<rr]s. be rpOTTOv, el fj,rj dyaTrrjv el%ov ol Trpo^rjrai teal Bid TOVTO XAAKOC r)(rav ^oO^re?, 77 KYMBAAON AAAAAZON, eVl rov tfxov
dva7refjL7r6fj,60a,

a9

TOV

TTpb?

r9

25

avr&v, e9
ao/jLevovs
;

e/ceivoi,
oi)/c

etX^aaw,
8'

dvaTre/jLTret 6 /cvpios uxf)e\'rjO'rj-

oZSa

OTTO) 9

%w/)t9 7rd<7r}S

Karaa Kevrj<s

arco-

<f>aiverai, rrjv (frcovrjv

ol/ceiorepav ovaav

ai,

W9 KOI

rrjv

yvval/ca et9

rw Xoyw \6yov avbpa perariOecrOai.

The usage may well have sprung from Rom. i. 20 rd yap dbpaTa. avTOV dwb
voovfj,va
/crtcrews /coojitou rots iroir)fJict(nv

that of the Swr^p (cf. Irenaeus, i. All the Valentinian sects vii. 3).

KadopaTai.

We may

com-

recognized to some extent the revelation of the Old Testament pos:

pare also Origen's own use, Comm. in loann. xx. 12, OVK eVrt? ore 6 /card
TOV
TTOS
'Irjcrovv rpoTrt/cws

voovpevos dvdpufily,

Heracleon did so to a greater Cf. Frag. 20, extent than most. where the Jews are placed above
sibly
TrdVres ot irpb vopov
/cat oi

OVK

f7redrifj,i

ry

and

edviKoL*
'

xx. 29,

fJiovov

TOV /card Tbv

voovu*vov dvdp&Trov dpxn^ev yv


8.
17x05]

^eran'0o-0ai] The Vermannlichung of the female was taught


28.
'

With the implied

dis-

in the Anatolic

School.

Cf.

Ex-

paragement of the Prophets may be compared Hippolytus, Eefut. vi. 35,


rrdvTes

21, rd ovv dppecerpta ex Theodoto, viKd /uerd roO Xo^you o-vveffTdXrj, rd #77Xv/cd
5e"

ovv

oi

7rpo<j>TJTai

/cat

v6yu,os

diravSpuOtvTa

evovTai

rots

roO dy/juovpyov, /xwpoO HeXe*7ei ^eoO fju^pol ovdev et'56res. racleon's explanation of X67os, (puvri,
eXdX^crai'
aTro

d77^Xots Kal ets irX^pu/^a xwpel' did TOVTO 77 yvvi} ets dvdpo. /xerar^eir^ai

X^erat,

/cat

17

evTavda

e/c/cX^crta

ets

an ^ the possibility of a change from one to the other, is obscure.


r)X os
i

dyytXovs, where by X^erat are introduced words very similar to those


of Heracleon.

It

may

point to some theory of a


revelation

gradual

culminating

in

We

should also compare with dov-

58
teal
&><?

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


e^ovaiav e%a)v TOV
Bo<y/jiaTL^eiv teal TricrrevecrOat,

KOI
3

TrpoteoTTTeiv, TO)

tfxP

<

)7

7"^ eaecrOai

TTJV
rfj

et<? (frcovrjv

fjLra-

(3o\r)V, /juaOrjTov

fjuev

^wpav
<j)6pv

StSou?

/jbeTa/SaXXovcrrj
teal el
}

\6<yov

<j>(i>vy,

BovKov

Be

rfj CLTTO

rfxv

et? <$>tovr)v'

OTTO)? TTore TTidavoTrjTa

eVt TO) avTo, KaTacricevdo~ai

Kciv r)ya)vicrd/j,60a Trepl riy? TOVTCOV avarpoTrfjs, dpieel Be et?

dvarpoTrrjv r} dTrapafjUvOrjTO? aTro^acrt?. oirep Be vTrepeOe- 35 a ev rot9 TT/JO TOVTOJV e^erdaai, TTW? tceKivrjTai, vvv (f>epe
(ofJt>ev.

6
teal

/ACTS

yap ^wrrjp, tcara TOV 'Hpa/cXewva,

avrbv
v

TOVTWV dpvelTai.

npO(}>HTHN teal 'HAiAN, avros Be etcdrepov teal npO(|)HTHN fjuev /cat'HAi'AN 6 2<a)Tr)p
40

avrbv
,

OVK avrov d\\d rd Trepl avrov, (prjcrl, 'brav Be MGI'ZONA npocfJHTOiN teal eN r^NNHToIc rore avTov TOV 'Icodvvrjv ^apaterrj pi^ei.
\eyrj,

avros
6
Trepl

Be, (^rjal, Trepl

eavrov epa)TWfJievos

dTrotepiverai,
45

'Icodvvrjs,

ou rd Trepl avrov' ocrrfv Be ftdcravov rfjjieis TOVTWV teard TO BvvaTov TreTrot,?i/j,0a, ovBev dirapaTWV \ejo/jLevcov opwv crvytepivai, rot9 viro
,

are OVK e^ovcrlav G^OVTOS TOV \eyetv


TTW?

o ySouXerai,
<TTI

yap

OTL Trepl
34

TWV

Trepl
7]

avTov

TO

32
Xou de
/c.T.X.

<j>wi>fj'] (fxiovrfv TJ.

rjyuvuraiJ.eBa]

a passage in iheExcerpla,
/i6/>0w<ns TOU
c/c

MS. is impossible.

The

alteration of

57, TOV

fji.fr,

KOV, TOU Se, fj.Ta.0e<ns TOV ^VX.I-KOV

SovXeias

els

t\ev6eplav.

In the preiv.

Cod. Venetus (pavy ?} is so far right that it gives the required dative. But the conjecture contained in the

ceding section the allegory of Gal.


is

interpreted by making Israel represent 6 ?r'eu u,ari/c6s, and (apparently) the children of the bondwoman cor/

margin of Cod. Bodleianus is right, Taxa TO* H Trapf"\Ki. We may without


hesitation

adopt

the

reading

tpwy.
48.
Trepl

respond
TO,

to the

\{/vxi-Kot

(cf.

OTO.V ovv

T&V

irepl

a.vrbv\

The

\f/vxiKa

yKevTpi<r0Tj).

Thus the

omission of T&V
is

Trepl

in the Editions

0wf7j here
TIKOI

who

represent the irvev^a.are given as vv^ai to the


it is

may

due to

its

erroneous omission in

Cod. Regius, where however a later

angels, while 7Jxs corresponds to the


\f>vx<-Koi.

But

dangerous to pur-

hand has inserted TO, irepl inter tineas. The words are necessary to the context, as

sue such hints at interpretation into too great detail. The Excerpta offer
yet another parallel in
dfji.6p(j)(i)Toi>,
<f>acrii>,

Heracleon has shortly before

classed the assertions T& 'HXlav avTov


Kal Trpo^rjT'rjv elvai
O.VTOV as

79,

"Ews ovv
o-Tre'pfj.a,

among

the rd

Trepl

TO

opposed

to those

by which
it is

ecrrl
els

Tbv'}
irepl TWI> is

wopa,.
<pwvfj]

perhaps awkward, but

32.

The

(pwrjv

TJ

of the

exactly parallel to the succeeding

irepl

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


AN
50 (J)ooNHN

59

avTov KOI npo4>HTHN elvai, real Trepl avrov TO avTov elvai BOGONTOC CN TH epHMo ovSe Kara TO
,

TV%OV TreipaTai
OTL
ical
eirj
55

aTroSei/cvvvat,'

d\\d

xpfjrat,
rjv

Trapao'ely/AaTi,,

Ta

Trepl

avTov olovel evSv/^aTa

erepa avrov,
el

OVK dv epa)T7)6 els Trepl TOOV evBvfiaToyv, ra evBv par a, aTretcpiOr) av TO Nat.

avTO?
yap
xi. 14.

TTCW?

evbv/JiaTa TO elvai TOV 'HAiAN TON MeAAoNTA ep)(ec9Ai' e&Tiv Mt. 'Iwdvvov, ov Trdvv TL KaT avTov Oecopoi)' rd^a fcafl* tffMas,
cw?

o'eSvvrjfJieOa

Siriyrio-aiievovs

TO 6N

nNeyMATi
OeXcov

KAI

AYNAMCI Lc.
'HAi'oy

i.

17.

'HAi'oy,

Swafjievov

TTW?

\eyeo~0ai,

TOVTO TO HNEYMA

ev Swdftei, elvai, TTJS *Ia)dvvov A/TL;^?.


59
O.VTOV.
5'

&

ert irapa-

de\ovres.

Ferrarius

had the true

text

are required,
best
tions.

and 6e\wv
5'

8e,

or

more

in Cod. Venetus, but he has missed the point of the passage before

him

probably 6e\wv
to fulfil

tn, would seem

by putting the following 'Vox clamantis' in the same class as 'Propheta.'


55.

The

required condiintroduction of a fresh


fri de is

the

stricture

by means of
;

cha-

racteristic of Origen

de alone is hardly

The absence
is

of tariv in the

strong enough to suit the context;


cf.
ii.

Editions

due to another error in


It is

8, xiii. 51,

and

just below,

en
the

Cod. Regius.
59.
to get
ev

8e ov
elvcu]

//,6i'os'H/3a/cXeujj' K.T.\.

And
. .

dwdpei

hard
they
trveti-

any

satisfactory

meaning out

following sentence ov /ca/cw s /*e v. ov ird vv 8e tZijTOfffdvws is so thoroughly in

of these words, or to see

how
kv

can be an interpretation of
IJ.O.TL

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

Thorndike conjectures ti>8v/j.a elvai. This suits very well the context in which the words stand.
Kal 5wd/j.i 'HXiou.
6e\ui>
5'
ft-t]

compare Origen
5'

c.

Celsum

iv.

88

(Philocalia xx. L. xxv. 150) 6e\wv

The reading

Bt\ov-

Sid ir\et6vuf...dTro(f>r)vai,

where

res,

which

censis, is

found in Cod. Monacorrupt, and the insertion of


is

Origen states the argument of Celsus before he proceeds to refute it. If


the

5e

by Cod. Venetus does not restore

n of 0EAHNAETI
in the

was

cor-

the true text.


TO

The subsequent

\tyoi

rupted by itacism to 0, the letters

For a similarly impossible optative which has been


cannot be right.
allowed to remain, cf. Origen Comm. in loann. xiii. 59, eiij (fivcris TTJS Ideeus
"yevofj-finrj

might easily become hands of a scribe who did not pay great heed to the

ONAETI

ONTEC

T<

Oi'/cet'y

r^s

avawavcreus

Hilgenfeld has naturally omitted the passage in his collection


context.
of the Fragments, but there were not

dpidfj.$.

The

scribe of Cod. Regius


If

has probably stumbled by an itacism

the

same reasons

for omitting the


K.T.\.

on the right reading,


this

\eyei rb.

next sentence KCU ird\iv

where

be

so,

a nominative

singular

participle

and a connecting particle

the \eyei can only refer to Heracleon. The proposed alterations restore the

60
,

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


Sta TI lepels KOI Aevirai, ol eTrepwTMVTes l(0V TTe/JL<f)OeVT<> eiO~lv, OV KCLKWS /JLV
Trpoo-rjicov r)v Trepl

dwo TWV
TO
*

60

\yl

'O T I

TOVTWV

TroXvTrpay/JLOvelv

real

TTVvOdveo-Oai,, TO?? T&>


6%r)Tacrfjieva)<;
tfv,

Trdvv Se
<j)V\fj$

ro

f/

Oew Trpocncaprepovo-tv, ov Ort /cal avros e/c rfjs AeviTi/cr)?


^//-et?

axTTrep irpoaTropovvre^

e^ijTao-afjuev,

ort 6^65
'

TOV ^Iwdvvrjv ol Trefji^Oevre^ Kal rrjv ryeveaiv avrov, %a)pav el'xpv Trvv9dveo~6ai Trepl TOV el auro?
Jo.
i.

21.

eo~riv

/cal

iraKiv ev TO) Trepl TOV


crrj/jiaivecrdaL

el 6 npocJ)HTHC ei

cy,

e^alpeTOV

olo/juevos

KCITO,

Trjv

TrpoadrjKriv

TOV
70

dpOpov, \eyei, OTL 'J&TrrjpwTrjo-av

el

KoivoTepov K\ecov d\\d


}

ftovXofjievoi,
ocrov ITT
e/Jifj

paOelv.

Trpo^ijTij^ eiy, TO ert 8e ov IJLOVOS 'Hpa-

lo-Topia Kal TrdvTes ol e

evT\r) djn(f)L^o\lai> iacrTel\ao-6at, pr) Se^vvrj pivot,, 'H\toy Kal irdvTwv TU*V TrpotyrjToov TOV 'Icodvvrjv VTrei\r}<f)ao-i,
Lc.
Cf.
vii.

28.

Bid TO Mei'zooN EN reNNHTO?c PYNAIKCON 'looANNoy

oyAei'c

GCTIN, 75

Mt. xi

11.

op&vTes OTI d\r)6es TO OyAek MGI'ZOON MOOANNOY ^N reNNHryNAIKOON St^CO? ^ivGTat,, OV fjLOVOV TO) aVTOV GLVai TTaVTCOV
va,
LCTCOV

d\\d

/cal

TO)

Icrovs ai>Tu> elvau Tiva<?

OVTCOV avTO)

avTu>

xdpw

KOTO, Trjv TO MinAeNA TOVTOV MGIZONA elvai. oterat Se


TrpofyvjTwv,

TTO\\WV

Karaviro
litteras

80

o-tcevde(70ai
61
irefjupdevres]

TO

MEIZONA

ro3

rrpo^rjTeveo'OaL
autem plus x

Hie male laesus


ol

est codex, videtur


\e"yei TO]

habuisse; Cod. Yen. habet


in

ire^Q.

X^yot rb.

80, 81

KaTcurKevafcffdai] TO AcarcKr/ceua^ecrflcu.

r<] om. codex; addito, ut videtur,

mg.

elvai.

grammar

and make the passage a continuous and conof the sentence, sistent whole.
61.
Trcfjuftdfrres]

80.

Delarue, reading

ol'ercu

8e rb
irpo-

Ka.TacrKevdfe<rdai TO fj,eioi>a elvai


<t>rjTije(rdcu,

rem.arks,

'nos

sanam

Whether God.

restituimus lectionem e codice Bodleiano';

Monac. read oi ire^d^Tes or not is uncertain, but in any case the article
can hardly be retained.
75.

but his text seems hardly


After

satisfactory.

making the con-

peifav] It is uncertain wheTrpo<J>ri-

jecture which has been introduced into the text, I find that the same

ther Heracleon omitted the


rris

has been proposed by Thorndike in


the margin of his transcript of Cod. Bodleianus. The insertion or omis-

of the Eeceived

Text as well as

Origen, or not; but the subsequent mention of Josiah in Origen's refutation of Heracleon's Comment

makes
did
so.

it

highly probable that he

which appears to have been added in the margin of Cod. Monacensis, is a matter of no imsion of
elvai,

portance.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


tov, ey? yu,r/Se^o9

61

ravrrf^ rrjs TI^T)?

tj

^tcofjievov VTTO
dXrjQoos
8'

6eov
85

TGOV

TrcoTTore
rr}<;

Trpo^rjrevcrdvTWv.

009
//,?}

TraXaias xprj/jLaTi^ovo-rjs

SiaOrjKrjs,

/cal

Tr)pY)(ra<s /cal

avrov'HXiav

7rpo<t>r)Tv6/jLevov, TOUT' oVeToX//,?;-

Kal yap 'HXta? 7rpo<p7]reveraL VTTO M.dXa^iov Xe7ozn-o9 'lAoy ATTOCTeAAoo YMIN 'HAiAN TON OecBiTHN, oc ATTO-MaLiii
eiTrelv'
/

aev

KATACTHCGI

.'

KApAiAN

nAjpoc npoc YION ....... /cat ravra be et? ias TOV a,7ro<j)r)vafjLevov M^Sez/a 7r\r)v

e/

,\

23(iv.4f.).

0e\6iv
epHMCO.

avrov

Sirjyelo'Oat,

at elpr^aOw, ravra elpTj/coTos ev rw rt TO 'Efcb (|)(JONH BOOONTOC eN TH

Jo.

i.

23.

89

TrpoTrereias]

ex coniectura Ruaei

cod.

6.

Ibid.

vi.

13

(R

IV.

125

L.
J

I.

213).
Jo. iv. 2.
Cf.
'

09

Se

ovv ev vSari, oy BAirnzei, AAA oi MAGHTAI AYTOY, rijpei TO TO) AP'CO nNeyMATi BAHTIZGIN KA'I nypi'*

Mt.
...

iii.

os Be 6 'H/oa^Xeo)^ TOV TMV Qapio-atcov \6yov, T 0)9 vyiws elprfiJbivov Trepl TOV o<et'Xe<70at TO ^airr
5

,p

Kal 'HXta

avrai? Xe^eo~t o</>e/XeTat TO ftaTTTi^eiv, Kal e/c TWV


/cal

Traz^Tt

7rpo<f>r)Tr),

Se on,

TON npo<t>HTHN v6vor)KV


(frrjToov

ov yap

^ei>

$ij;ai Tiva
fyi^Gi

rwv

TT/OO-

^airri(TavTa.

OVK diriOdvo)^ Se

Trvvddvea-Oai
0)9

10

TOV9 3>api<ralov<: /card TTJV

avr&v Travovpyiav, ov%l


6Vt] 6Ve.

padelv
7

6. 7. /coii'6repoj/]

By failing to notice
6

perov

oi'6/tevos

ffrj/jialveffdai

the distinction between

TT/SO^TT/S

Trpoa-d^Krjv

and
TOI)S

7rpo0i7T?;s.

Cf. Frag. 4,
i]

Xa0e 5^
KOI

TroXXoiJs
,

8ia<j>opa...ws 5,

rbv
e%ai-

TOV dpdpov. the words which follow this last passage, seems to use the word Koiv6re-

rty Heracleon, in

KO.TCL

and Frag.

w8b

pov in a different sense.

62

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

7.

Ibid. vi. 15 (R. iv.


AY'TO?C 6

130

L.

i.

222).
BATTTI'ZOO CN

Jo.
27.

i.

26,

'IOWJNHC

Ae'rooN

'Era

Mecoc [Ae] YMOJN CCTHKCN ON YMC?C OYK oTAATe,

[AY'TOC ecTiN 6] oni'cco


'

MOY epxoMeNoc,
6

[of] OY'K eiMi e'ra Alioc I'NA AYCCO

TOY YTTOAHMATOC.

6 iiev
e/c

ft

AYTOY TON IMANTA ^pd/cXecov oleTai, OTI KITO K p iveTai


I

'Itodvvrjs To?9
o

TWV Qapicraiajv
o

7re/JL(j)Oeia' iv,

ov

etcelvoi

eavrov \avOavtov ore Karrjjopel rov


9 ev

d/jt,a6ias, el

ye TOVTO

KOivd\oyLa

d/jud
7T/909

Se
Jo.
i.

(fra/jiev

25.

yap

OTI /jbd\i<TTa 7rpo9 e?ro9 e TO TV OYN BAHTIZCIC, ei CY OYK e? o


rj

10

TL

a\\o

e%pfjv

eiTreiv,

TO

iSiov

Tvy%dvov ;
eiTTotv 7rpo9

'Era
TO
Ti'

TrapaaTrja-ai ydp (frrjo-lv, BAHTIZCO


y

e'N

KOI TOVTO
ei

OYN BAnrizeic; ?rpo9 TO SevTepov, Ei CY OYK

d xp'CTOC, $oj;o\oyiav Trepl T^9 vrporjyov/jievrjs ov<ria<s Xpto-ToO f i, OTi fivva/Aiv TocravTyv e%et, 0)9 teal dopaTO$ elvai Trj
CIVTOV,

15

nrapwv TravTl dvOpcoTrq), iravT\ $e KOI oX&> TW r* oTrep SrjXovTai Sid TOV Mecoc

YMO3N eCTHKCN.
2
pr.
5^] ins. intra lineas.
atfrfo k<jnv 6]

om. in
7

txt. sed in

mg. add.

man.

3 o5] ins. intra lineas.

\av0wuv]
m

11

T/ ovv] ins. intra lineas.


TO
(sic).

rl cfXXo ex/"??] rl dXXois

XPV V

(sic).

12 TO] T^
7.
1.

dTre/fp^aro]

There

is

other

it

authority for

this

reading,

LT

TJ

copied. Thus one of the three references to Origen in Tischendorf 's

was

and some cursives (vid. Tischendorf, in loc.). I have retained the 3 and the auro's teriv 6, as they are added apparently prima manu. But

critical

probability be omitted, as also one of those quoted


all
.

note must in

in support of the insertion of 12. The re TO of the Editions is

when other
it

similar

phenomena

in

this MS. are taken into consideration

due to the scribe of God. Regius, who inserted both the error and its
correction

appears more than probable that they were not in the MS. from which

which he found in his

ex-

emplar.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

63

8.
r

Ibid.

vi.

23 (R.

iv.

138

L.

I.

234).
(frrjcrlv

8e 'HpaKhecov TO

Mecoc YMOON

CTHKGI

dvrl TOV

Jo.

i.

26.

TrdpecrTi fcal

ecmv ecmv rjSij


Xe/creoz/

ev TU> Koo-fjiw teal ev iracnv vfjblv. Sid TOVTWV Se

irepiaipel TO Trapao-TaOev Trepl TOV SiaTretyoLTrjKevai,


5

avTov oY

o\ov TOV
TrdpecTTiv ;

Koa/jiov.

yap

77/305

avTov'

TTOTG Be OVK ecrriv ev ro5 KOCT/JLCD;


TCO KOCMCO HN, KAI 6
/cat

ydp ov Kal TavTa TOV


TTOTC
Ai*

evayyeXiov \eyovTos 'N /cal Si,a TOVTO epeNejo.


YMeTc oyK
01

KOCMOC

Ay'roy Jo.

i. i.

10.

OVTOI, Trpo? 01)5 6 Ao<yo<?

"ON

Jo.

26.

AATG, OVK oibacriv avTov, eVet ovSe7ra> TOV KOCT/JLOV

10 ej*e\ri\v6acrt,v,

'0 Se KOCMOC AVION OYK efNCo.


J

nrolov Se

%povov

Jo.

i.

10.

TOV ev dvdpooTra) elvai; rj OVK ev 'Hcrata tfv, \eyovTi e/we, OY efNGKGN KYpi'oy en expice MG' Kal 'EMC|)ANHC
"
et, KCLI \<yeTO)crav fjirj o^/f a<^>* auroi) \e<yovTi, 'Efoa Ae KATECTAGHN BACiAeyc t o<ra e/c AY'TOY en) CICON dpoc TO A'PION AYTOY, TrpocrooTrov

TOIC

Me MH ZHTOYCi

-\/

?>v'\\> be ev
Set KCL& GKCLVTOV

Is. ixi. l.

Is. Ixv. 1 *

YTT'

ev tyaX/jLols dvayeypaTTTai. Kal TL


OVTCOS,
,

pe

irapaarTricrat,

evapyws

OTL del ev dvOpdtTro)

TJV, TT/OO?

TO

elprj/jbevov

TO "HS?/ 7rdpeo~Ti Kal CCTTIV ev KOO-JAO) Kal ev

20 dvOpa>7T(p et9 biriyrjcnv Trapa

H/ja/cXeo)^ TOV Mecoc Y'M^>N ecTHKGN ; OVK dinOdvo)^ 8e Trap" aura) Xeyerow OTI TO 'Oni'cca MOY ep)((JMeNOc TO TrpoSpofiov elvai TOV 'Icodvvrjv TOV
X/9to~Toi)

TW

'

Jo.

i.

26.

S^Xot*

d\r}0a)<;

yap

(ocnrepel olKeTr)? ecrTl TrpoJo.


i.

Tpe%a>v TOV Kvplov. TroXi) Se d7T\ovcrTpov TO OYK eiM'i <\2ioc 25 FNA Ayco) AYTOY TON IMANTA TOY YTTOAHMATOC egefa'rjfav, OTI ov$e
TTJS

27.

aTi/JLOTaTrj^ VTrrjpecrlas

T^? Trpo? Xpio-Tov


7r\rjv

elvai Sid TOVTCOV 6 /3a7TTio~Tr)<; ofio\oyel.


18 dwaftevov] Svva^vo).
8.

12, 13.

e/A0avT7S t-fevt>Mv]

The

Hilary and Ambrosiaster.


oVrws] An awkward phrase, but the correction in Cod. Venetus 5v(re%apt0fj.TiTov ovros is
17.
Svae^apid/j.-riTov

quotation does not agree exactly with the LXX., which has' E/i0aj/T}s iyev-fjQt\v

rots ^/xe
/XTJ

py

e7repwrcj<rtj',

evptfrjv

rots e/*^

frrovviv.

In

Romans

the

no

better.

It

has been plausibly

clauses are transposed, and S. Paul The exact form is has tyevowv.

suggested that we should read 5u<rr&v Trapa<TT7J(rai e^apid/j.'ffrwv &VTWV


evapyus

found in two Latin

JTSS. (d, e)

and in

64

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

ravr'ijv Trjv efcSoxfjv

OVK aTriOdvws vTro/3eft\r)K TO OVK e<y co airo /jbeyeOovs ical el/jul iKavos, iva Si* eyite Kare\6rj 7ro-3 crdpKa \dfirj &><? vTroS^fjia, Trepl 17? 700 \6yov

Sovvai ov Svva/Jiai, ovSe Sirjiyrja-acrOai,, rj e7ri\vcrai TrjV Trepl avrrjs ouKovo^Lav' dSporepov Se /cal fieya^o<j>veaTepov 6 auro? '}lpaK\eci)v KOCT^OV TO VTroS^fJia KSef*d/juevos,
fjierecrrrj

eTrl

TO

dcrefteo'Tepov

aTrofyrjvaG'Oai

TCLVTCL
35

TrdvTa

Setv

dicovea-Oai

Kal

Trepl

TOV

TOVTOV Sid TOV 'Iwdvvov voovpevov. SrjfjuLovpyov TOV KOO-JJUOV, e\aTTOva OVTO, TOV TOVTO 6fJLo\oyeiv Sid TOVTCOV TCOV \ej~ecov,
dcrefteGTdTOv' 6 yap
Mt.
32.
xxii.

irpoawTrov oterat yap TOV

X
OTrep

Tre/A^as CLVTOV TraTijp, 6


4

6eoc, a)? auro? 'I^a-oO? fjiapTvpei,


/cal

TOV
i

'lAKoaB, 6

TOV 'ABpAAM Kal TOV Sid TOVTO Kvpios TOV ovpavov Kal Trjs
'

Cf. Lc.
xviii. 19.

Jo. xiv. 28.

OTL TreTrolv}Kv ouTa, OVTOS Kal yu,dz/o5 dyaObs, Kal fjuel^cov f f ^ i v a' c>v oe Kai, to? TrpoeiprjKafjLei', aopoTepov TOV nGfMpv&rro?
,
f.

vevorjTai Kal Tra? o KOCT/JLO^ vTroSTjfAa elvai


f

TOV 'I^troO
45

H/>aXeo)^f, aXX* OVK olfAai Seiv o-vyKaTaTiOeadai,.


irpo<r<!)Trov']

35

Cod. Bodleianus habet in margine ra^a


/caXws ^x et
-

\elTret

TOV

post quod, alia

manu,

Trpoeipr)Ka(j,i>]

29.

Kar^\drf\

This

passage

a-

grees with Heracleon's


tion.

Italic posivi. 35,

where we should have expected dytuovpyov, which was probably what


Heracleon's
tained,

Cf.

Hippolytus Eefut.
TO
crc5/*a

\f/vxiKov

(f>a<rl

TOV

'Ivjcrov

ye-

in

ipsissima verba conorder to emphasize the


TO
acre fit crTepov)

yovtvcu Kal Sia TOVTO


yuoros

tirl

TOV

fiairTio*-

impiety
is

(eirl

of He-

TO

TrvevfJ.0.

cos

TrepiffTepa
cf.

/careI.

racleon's interpretation.

But TOVTOV

\7]\vde.
xiii. 3.

For ^yedos
U7r65i7/*a]

Irenaeus
see

not impossible. 36. voovfj.fr ov~\ See Frag. 5 (note).


37. AciTTOfa OVTO\

30.

May we

in

We may perhaps
vi.
v-rrb

the interpretation of virbdy/jia. as KOVfj.os, a groping after the idea of the

compare Hipp. Eefut.


dfjfMOVpyos) SidaxQels

36, tyvw (6
Trjs
<ro<f>tas

Lord having taken humanity upon Himself, though only as a virb^tj^a. which the Aoyos laid aside ?
'
'

TOV KpelTTova, though there the reference is to the Father Himself. In

suggestion of the margin of the Bodleian deserves attention.

35.

The

the fulness of time the Demiurge is made to confess before men his superior; hitherto he has kept secret the mystery of the aeons revealed to

But TOVTOV

unnecessary, and perhaps TOV SrjfjLiovpyov should be substituted for it ; or should we read TOV
is

him by
(Orig.

Sophia.

Cf. also Frag.

40

xiii.

59) OTL euTrioros 6

Qeov instead of

it ?

In this case we
0eoO

ovpyos.

must suppose that Origen wrote

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

65

9.

Ibid.

vi.

24 (R.

iv.

140; L.

I.

237).
Jo.
i.

eN BhOABApA ereNeTO nepAN TOY 'lopAANOY, OTTOY HN OTL fj,ev o-%e$bv ev Tcaai rofc dvTiMOOANNHC .BATTTI'ZOON.
<ypd(j)ois
eoitce
5

28.

Kelrai TAYTA eN BHOANI'A epeNeTO OVK dyvoov/jbev, /ecu


/cal eTi

TOVTO

TrpoTepov <ye<yovevcu' KOI Trapd'HpaicXecovi,

yovv BHOANI'AN dveyvcopev.


bis.

10.

Ibid. vi. 38 (R. iv. 159;

L.

I.

271).

Tid\iv ev rw TOTTM 6 '}lpafc\ea)v KaTacncevfjs KOI TrapaOeo-ecos /jLaprvpiwv dTrofalverai,, OTI TO


fj,ev

THC ^rjo-lv 6 'Icodvvrjs, TO Se'OAIpaN THNAMApTIAIM TOY KOCMOY <W? HeplCCOTepON Kal oiercu TO /juev irpoTepov Trepl TOV <7&>npocJ)HTOY. avTOv \eyea0ai,, TO Se SevTepov Trepl TOV ev ro3
?
npoc})!-'
,

'AMNOC TOY 0eof

Jo.

i.

29.

Lc.

vii. 26.

TW TOV
fyevet,,

d/jivov aTe\rj elvai,

ev rcS TCOV Trpoirapadecret,

OVTO)
avT<p.

Se ical

TC)

<7<a/j,a

TOV

TO Se Te\eiov

10

TW

crcoyLtart

6 veer 6 a i.
10
9. 1.

/jbapTvpfjaai,, ov rjyovfjiat, 8e
TO.

e/3ov\eTO, <f>r)(ri,, tcpiov elirev dv TO fj,e\\ov


elvat
etirev

el

dvay/caiov
av TO] etVetv atro.

/-tera

Trj\t-

Since Cod. Monac. a few lines

lower

reads Erjda^apa, we must probably conclude that 'ByOapa is due to the scribe's error, arising from
the omission of
/3a

down

volume, as quoted by Tischendorf), Codd. Ven. et Bodl. read Rydapa in both places. On p. 142 Cod. Monac.
reads Eydafiapa, on p. 280 (Comm. in loann. xiii. 60) B-rjOapa. On Heracleon's Biblical text, see the note
p.

similar syllables.
it

between two very At the same time

on

should be noticed that the reading Erjffapa is found in a Syriac MS. (See
Tischendorf in
loc.

74 (Frag. 18, Jo.


10. 6,
7..

iv. 17).

TOV tv

TV
'

crw/iaTi]

This in

(syr.

assem

Q r<
it

4.

140, 142, 280\

conjunction with Frag. 8 establishes Heracleon's Italic position, which


'

As bearing on Tischendorf 's note

may

be well to state that while

otherwise could not be very clearly Cf. proved from the Fragments.

reads RyQafiapa in the second instance where the word occurs on p. 140 (of Delarue's fourth
B.

Cod. Monac.

Hippolytus (Refut.

vi. 35),

66

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


e^eracreis
7T/305 /PS\ TOVTO be

revrd^ew

Trepl

TOV

TOTTOV,
elprj/

ra

evT6\d)<; VTTO

/jbei>a'

fjiovov

/r/<"/ OTL eTrio-rjfjbeiwTeov,


i-'

TOV 'H^a/cXecovo?
uxnrep

fjioyis

Ph.

ii.

7.

e^wprjarev 6 #0071.09 TOV KGNGOCANTA CAYTON, ourw? d/jbvov KOI 15 f ov Kpiov eSetjOr), (va Ap6H avTOV
13 a

11.
Jo.
12.

Ibid. x. 9 (R. iv. 170;

L.

I.

291).
eic

ii.

'O

/juevTOi

ye 'HpaKkecov TO MeTA TOYTO KATeBH


TTCL\(,V OLt

ov
KCLI $t)(Ji

ToO KATeBH

elprj/ievov'
TO,

eo"%aTa TOV KOCTfJLOV, TttVTa TO, vXltcd 6t9 d KCLTrj\d, KOI $ld TO dvol/ceiov, <f>rjo~lv, elvai TOV TOTTOV, ov8e TreTroirjicws TI
Trjv K.a(j)apvaovfJL o-rjfiaiveiv

TavTa

\eyeTai ev avTrj
Xot7rot9

r)

\e\a\r)K(os.
TreTrotr)/co)<;
r}/jL(Sv

el fiev

ovv

fj,r)Se

ev Tot9
ev

eva<y>ye\loi,s

TI

r)

\e\a\r)KQ)<;

Ka(f>apvaovfji 6 /cvptos
/jiev

dveyeypaTTTO,

Taya dv

eSio~Tc
TO

Trepl

Mt.
17.

iv. 13, /JLev

TOV TrapaBe^aa-Oai, avTov Tr)v epfjuqvelav. vvvl Se 6 MaT^ato9 KATAAinoNTA <j>r)(rl TOV tcvpiov r}fjbdov THN NAZApA,
IC

eAOONTA KAT(X>KHK6NAI

KA(J)ApNAOyM THN TTApA0AAACCIAN, KOi

AHO TOT

dpxrjv TOV KHpycceiN TreTTOirjo-Oai \ejovTa


ev

MGTAire- 15

Noe?Te, HfriKe r<^P H BACIAGI'A TOON OYPANOON


Trepl

TavTa Be irdvTa
eiprj/juevcov

T&V

K-a^apvaov/ju TO) ^coTrjpi


VTrep

KOI

Trpay/jLevayv

Trapea-Trja-afjiev

TOV

e\ey^at

Trjv

'Hpa-

K\ecovo<> epfjurjveiav, \e<yovTO$

Ata TOUTO ovBe


r}

TrTroi-r)/ca><;

TI \eyeTat ev avTrj
10
12. reina^eiv}
7.

rj

XeXaX9;/cft)9.

yap Bvo

eTTivolas

rev being hard to decipher, the scribe of God. Ven. conjectured raiMfcii', while the scribe

The

Capernaum cf. Frag. 40 (Orig. Gomm.


in loann.
xiii.

59), rbv 5

vi&v

avrov dnrjyeiTai rbv iv

God. Regius contented himself with leaving a small lacuna before


of
rafciv.

Trpos

6a\a.<r<rat>,
TTJ

On

the bearing of this, and


cttfrou
77

^v(f

v\y.

The whole passage

the omission of

a^aprt'a,

on

the origin of Cod. Regius, see Introduction, p. 8.


11. 1
ff.

there quoted is hardly consistent with the ovdt ireTrotr}K&s of the text: cf. a
little
7T/305

For the interpretation of

further on, \tyei TOV KO.HVOVTO,.

Seon

K ara/Sas

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEBACLEON.


KCU avros
20 craTO) Troias,
rj

KcHpapvaov/j,
Troifjcrai,
//.?)

ical

Trapta-raTco ical

7mTOV
/cal

TOVTO

Swdfievos a

(orrjpa ^drt]v
8e,

Tivl

TOTTW

Oeov SiSovTos, yevofievot, K


,

rd TOiavra

OTTOV 8ofat

dv
TO

fjLrjSev rjvv/cevai,
fjirj

Tfco~l,

ireLpao-ofieOa

fjudraiov

25

avrov rpavwcrai.
21
rivl]

nvl

23

r\v

(sic).

12.
f

Ibid. x.

14 (R.

iv.

179

L.

i.

309).

fjbevroi
\

76

A.VTTJ,
/
</

//i row yap irauovs TOV dvypeiTO TO TrpoftaTov, d\\d

v,

/cal

OTE ou JJLOVOV KCLI dvairavcriv Trapel^ev Ovofjuevov TO Trddos TOV Sft)T^po9 TO


TUTTO?
T)Z/,

,/

eoprr)'

Cf. Jo. 13.

ii.

8e Trv dvdiravaiv
ev yd/Aw.
7rape6efjt,0a Be

avTov

TTJV

iva TO

ft)

ev T7)\t,KovTOi$ dvao~Tpe<j)ei,v TOV dvSpa TrapepptfJi/JLevo)^ /cal vSapd)? fi6Ta firjSevos /caTaGiceva&Tiicov OewptjcravTes, fj,d\\ov

4 r6
23.

TOV iradovs.

OTTOU K.T.X.]
is

The reading

of

the MS.

corrupt,

and the conjecture

in Cod. Venetus TTOV So^cunjs nyStv dv


yvvKtvcu is not helpful.

Unfortunately Hippolytus has said nothing about the eschatology of the

The reading

given

in the text is the slightest alteration which will restore any


sense.
12. 4. rd 7rd0os] a necessary correc-

system which he describes. Perhaps it did not come within his scope
:

his

object seems to have been to establish a case of Hellenising

main

against each of the heretics


refutes.

whom

he

tion of the MS. reading,

which was
of

But no doubt some analo:

made
5.

also

by the
avaTravffiv]

scribe

God.

gous

Venetus.
T-f]v

Cf.
oftv

ex Theodoto
fj.a.TiK&v

63, ^ /t&/

Excerpta T&V irvev07-

completed the system as the di6p0w<ris of the irddi) of Sophia was accomplished by means of her
7ci/ios

marriage with the


/AttTOJ Kapir6s,

KOIVOS TOV irXypuTrvevfJiaTiKol

avaTravffis

v Kvpiaicfj ev
T<2v

so the

would

5oa5i... elra.

TO

deiirvov
TOI>S

yd/j.(ijv.

Irenaeus

i.

vii. 1,

naturally receive the final 5iop0w<m by 7a/-M>i, no doubt with the Xo7oi
projected by Sophia

and her

a-vvyos.

vv[j,(f>as

diroSoO-ficreaOai

rots

irepl

TQV

52

68

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

13.

Ibid. x. 19

(R

IV.

194; L.

I.

338).
r

Se Kal

ra

'H/oatfXetwz'o?, #9

fyyo-i,

TT}I/ els

lepo-

Jo.

ii.

14.

TOV ao\vfjia avoSov (rrj/jbalvetv TJJV diro T&V v\itcwv f tyv%iicbv TOTTOV, Tvy%dvovTa el/cova rfjs I ep dvdpa&iv TOV Kvpiov. TO oe EfpeN IN TO ieptu,
ov%i irpovdw, oieTai elpfjaQai VTrep rov (JLTJ TTJV /c\rjcn,v ftorjOeladai /Jiovrjv vorjdrjvai, rrjv %a>pt9 Trvev/juaros VTTO TOV /cvplov' ^yLTai <ydp rd fiev ayia TWV dylcov
5

Heb.

ix. 7. elvat,

TO iepoN,

et?

a MONOC 6 Apxiepeyc

elcriei,,

ev6a ol^ai
10

avrov \eyeiv TOV? TrvevfiarLKOv^ ^wpelv' rd Se TOV Trpovdov, OTTOV KOI ol AeutTcu, crvfjipoXov elvai, T&V
e^o)
Jo.
ii.

TOV

Tr^rjptofjiaTos

^frv^L/ccov

evpi<T KOfAevtov

ev

14.

a-coTrjpla. GN TcT iepa-

ITpo?

TOVTOLS

TTCOAOYNTAC

Bd^c

Toyc efpiCKOMeNoyc KA) npoBATA KAI ne15

piCTep<\c

KA'I

Toyc

\eyecr0ai CLVT\
1
eis]

KAGHMGNOYC KGPMATICTAC efe^e^aro TWV firj^ev %dpiTi SiSovTcov, aXX* e/z.7roo"r)fji.aivei.

om.

av(a.

13. 1.

efs

has been rightly sup5.


irpovouif]

plied by Cod. Bodleianus.


rrjv els K.T.X.]

The r&v dvu

of the

This sentence can

only
lises
(cf.

that the Lord's journey from Galilee to Jerusalem symbo-

mean
the

Neander's conimpossible. jecture r va$ is in the right direcMSS.


is

tion,
(cf. 1.

journey from the uXt/ca Fragg. 12 and 40) to the ^UXIKOS

but should we not read irpovdy TOV Trpovaov)? Other9, rd

wise

TOTTOS,

which

TOTTOS

is

an

et'/cw*'

or
Cf.

we must suppose, either that the meanings of vaos and iepov had

image of the Jerusalem above.

If we 59. Excerpta ex Theod. compare this with Hippolytus we may deduce as a reasonable conjec-

been practically reversed by Heracleon's time, or that he was ignorant


of their usage.

And even
1.

then the

ture that Heracleon

spoke of the Hebdomad, the abode of the Demiurge, as an etKuw of the Ogdoad which was the abode of Sophia, or from

change to awkward.
5,
fjiovt)

irpovaov in

9 would be

6.
?)

The
x w P' $

distinction
Trvetf/AaTos

of

/cX^tris

agrees with

the division of

men

in Hipp. Eefut.
(j.j>

another point of view was Sophia herself. This will account for the
distinction between 'lepovo-aA^/u and 'Iepocr6Xi;/x which the MSS. have faithfully preserved.
foot's

vi. 34, K(tToiKr)Triptoi> irork

\f/vxfy

yu6j/?7$...7roT

^vx^s also Excerpta ex Theod.

5e

Kal \6yuv.
58,

See

dvt>dfj.et

Trjv

KK\rj(riav avaXafitov TO

Cf.

Bishop LightPerhaps
rijs avia 'lepov-

note on Gal.

iv. 26.

in

1.

we should read

TO Kkyrbv, TO fjv irapa rJJs TO TTl'CVfJI.aTlKOt', TO 5 K T^S TO

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


piav
/cal

69

fcepSos TTJV TWV %eva)v eis TO lepov ello-oSov VOfJLl^OVTtoV, TOV ISLoV KepSoVS /Cal <j) L\apyV p fc'a? VeKeV

T9
teal

et9 TTJV \arpeiav TOV deov Overlap ^opijyovvTcov. TO 4>p<\reAAiON Be TreiroiijcrOai, ex a^oivlayv VTTO TOV

Jo.

ii.

15.

20 '1 770-01), ovyfi Trap*

d\\ov Xa/3oWo9,

ISioTpOTTQ)? d7rayye\\et,

\eya)v
/cal

TO 4>pAreAAiON el/cova Tvy^dveiv


i

evepyeias TOV dylov irvev/jbaTos,


(f)rjo~i

To

4>pAfeAAiON

/cal

TO \ivov

/cal

Tr)v crivSova ical


25

r^9

evepyetas
-

oo~aTotavTa el/cova r^9 Svvd/jiecos /cal elvau TOV djiov Trvev/AaTos. eireiTa
TO
fir)

dpa t9 i;v\ov TO (pa<yeXXtoy, oTrep v\ov TVTTOV e/chafiwv elvat, a v 7]\ G) o~ a /cat TOV o~Tavpov, <pwo~t, LOVTCO TO) cv X
yeypafju/jLevov,
co9
ft)

(/

i,

w<bavl<T0ai,
*
i

TOU9 /cvftevTas
'

e/e7rd 001/9
i

/cal
e/c

irdcrav TTJV

30 fca/ciav.

/cal ov/c oZS' O7T(W9

<f>\vapwv

fyrjcriv

8vo TOVTCOV

TrpayjjidTwv <j)paye\\i,ov tcaTao-Kevd^ecrOai,, ^rjToov TO VTTO TOV 'Irjaov yevo/jievov. Ou yap e/c Sep/AaTos, <^r)o~l avTo, iva TTJV e/c/c\7)o-iav /caTave/cpov eTTOLTjcrev
)

cr/cevdcrrj
"9

350IKON
Trepl

ov/ceTt AHCTO>N /cal e/JLTTopcov CHHAAION, aXXa Mt.xxi. 13. Cf. Jer. A \KTeov oe TO avay/caioTaTov vii 11 TOY nATpoc avTov
r\
\

/^>\\>

el T^9 QeoTrjTos /cal e/c TOOV prjTwv TOVTCOV ?r/309 auTO^. yap TO ev 'lepoo-oXv/jioi,? lepov O?KON TOY l&iov HATpoc (frrjcriv elvau 6 'Irjcrovs, TOVTO Se TO lepov et9 $6t;av TOV KTio~avTo<$ TOV

yeyove, 7rco9 ov/c dvTwpvs Bi,Sao~/c6fjLeOa 40 fj,rj eTepov TIVOS vojAl^eiv vlov elvat, irapd TOV TroirjTrjv ovpavov /cal yfjs TOV vlov TOV Oeov ;

ovpavov

/cal TTJV yfjv

14.

Ibid. x. 19

(R

iv.

196; L.

i.

342).
C

^(f)68pa Se a7rapatT?7Tft)9 o 'Hpa/checov oterou TO

zftAoc Jo.
/o>
/i

ii.

17.
\

TOY OIKOY COY KATAcbApeTAi Me


,

'

>

e/c

7rpoo-(t)7rov TCOV e/cpA,7jSi

Ps. Ixix.

xv jjj

IQ

06VTC0V
14.
2.

ical

dva\ci)OevTcov VTTO TOV ^coTijpos


the masc. with

/caraway ercu] There is a difference of reading in the LXX.


here.

8vva.tJ.euv

we may

KB

0aye.
x.

read Kara^dyerai, A /car^Cf. Origen Comm. in loann.


i.

compare Ep. Vienn. et Lugd. ap. Euseb. H. E. v. i. 9, rQiv irpoeffTirjKOTUV r^s roXews ^ovvrtwr, and ibid.
30,
Tra/jaTre/xTToVrwi'

19 (L.
3.

341).
Cf.

TW

7roXtTt/cw'

dwafj-euv]

Hipp. Rcfut.

vi. 34.

the dai/Aoves of For the use of

70

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


pr) Svvd/Jievos

\eyeo~6ai,
reta?

TOV elpfiov
e/c

rrj<;

rrjprjo-at,,

voovfjuevov

7rpoo~a}7rov

rw TWV e
ev

KOI
/car'

dva\ci)OevTa)v
Ps. Ixix.
(lxviii.)22. ~
r

Swapewv

\eyecr6ai.
GIC
/

aKoXovOov
i

aVTOV KOL TO "EACOKAN


/i

TO Bp(X)MA MOY

\eyeavai, ev TOO avra) avayeypafji/Jievov ^raK^w aKK &>? erdpa^ev avrov TO K<vrA(}>AreTAi' Me w? /^) Svvdftevov

X^" *

l/CeiVCDV

*%v'

'

VTTO
10

dTrayyeXkeo-Oai, ov% op&VTa TO eOos TWV civ@pu>7roTrepl deov KOI Xp/<7ToO \6ycov.
10
ov

15.

Ibid. x. 21 (R. iv.


r

199

L.

i.

351).

'O
Jo.
ii.

IICVTOL ye
fir}

HpaK\ea)i> TO* EN rpic/N


KO,ITOI

dvTi TOV

19.

iTr),

epevvrjcra^,
77

ye eVt<7Tr;cra9

TW 'N

rpiciN,

Tpuriv
Trjv

dvda-Tao-^ evepyeiTai

q/jt,epcu<;.

Ti 8e /cal
f)

TpiTyv

^>9;<rl

Trjv TrvevfiaTHcrjv yfjuepav, ev

olovrai
Be
5

$ri\ovcr6ai,

Tr)V

T^9 eKK\7)(7La^ dvdcrTacriv.

TOVTWV

\eyeiv elvcu Trjv xoitcrjv ^epav, KOI TTJV SevTepav Trjv ^v^iKrjVj ov yeyevrj/jievrjs TT;? eKfc\rjo-La<;
dtcoXovdov
eo-Ti TTptoTijv

dvao~Tdo~eco<> ev
6

should expect this word to introduce what Origen


5.
vootfjiei'ov']

We

possibly be a marginal note made by the reader of some ancestor

may

considered to be the true

'

'

spiritual

of Cod. Monacensis,

which has crept

meaning of the passage under discussion, and not a repetition of


Heracleon's
tion.
fjievov
'

For a possibly similar phenomenon we may compare Frag.


into the text.
40, efy 0i;<ns 10.
20os]
/c.r.X.

And
with

interpretathe agreement of vooudpfjiov

obstinate

Does

this

is

very awkward.

As

it

mean
fails

stands the passage can only that Heracleon's interpretation

'custom, usage,' or pare Origen's use of TO


ILZVQV,

mean simply should we comIv Zdei \eyoZd-q

tropice,

and perhaps ra
5
?

because he cannot grasp the general drift of the prophecy, which

he interprets as being spoken by the But the text is unsatis8vvdfMis. factory, and I am inclined to suspect that the words vootifj.evov \tye<r0ai

Comm. in loann. xiii. The reading of all the of/x OP&VTO.] MSS. Huet apparently conjectured
Orig.

xupovvra, which is the probable source of Delarue's note Eeg. (quern


01)
'

H. sequitur)

ou

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

71

16.

Ibid. x. 22 (R. iv. 201

L.

i.

356).

Be Kal
/

Kara
\

o~Tao~ia yeyovevai Trepi


el
r

MaKKaftaiKa Kaov Kai TOV TOV ^


TO,
x

7ro\\rj Tt?
\

aKaia-

Cf. 1
i.

Mace.
ff.

vaov, Kai OVK oioa


6 fJuevToi
,

22

TOTe dvwKoBo/j,ij@7} TO&OVTOIS


e7rio~Trjo~as
,

Teo~iv 6 z/<zo9.

ye
Cf. Jo.
ii.
\

H0a/cXea)z>, urjBe
5

fjicovTa

reccApAKONTA KAI el ereci KaTea-KevaKevai TOV vaov, eiKova Tvy%dvovTa TOV SwT^po?, Kal TOV
"'

a*

Trj

IcrTOpia,

(frrja-l

Tbv ^o\o-

20.

dpiO/jubv t? TOV Be T&v

TTTJV

v\rjv, TOVTe<TTi TO 7rXa<j/ia, dvacfrepet,*


o

Teo~aapdKovTa,
opa Be
el

TeTpds
fjf

ecrTt,

(frrjarlv,

rj

d7rp6o~7r\oKos, et9 TO
10

e/Lt^i/o'^yu-a

Kal TO ev

To3 efju^vo-tj-

fjuaTL o-Trep/Jua.

BvvaTov, TOV uev

Bid Ta T^a-aapa

TOV Koafjiov o-Toi^ela ev Tot9 tfycavMT/jievois eh TOV vabv eyKaTaTao~o~6fj,eva Xa/juftdveiv, TOV Be S"' Bid TO Trj KTp rjfjbepa
yeyovevai, TOV dvOpcoTrov.
11
fjyuvifffj.evois] dywvio'iy.ei'ois.

16.6,7. TOV S~' api6pjov\ Cf.Frag. 18, Heracleon's interpretation of the six
(as he read) husbands of the Samaritan woman. With the whole fragment

ibid.
^I>XT/S

vi.

34,

KaToiKijT-f/piov
o'iTives

.iroTe

Kal

\bywv,

el<ri

\6yoi

avwOev KaTeairappevoi

dirb TOV KOIVOV

we must compare Excerpta ex Theodoto


50, Xa/JuN'
if/vxty yeudrj Kal b

rou TrXr/pw/xaros Kapwov Kal T^S <ro<j>ias ets TOVTOV TOV Koffpov, KaToiKovvTes tv

The agreement
r-r\v

of

this

passage,

de Kad' bfAoiucriv
eKe?v6s

avTOv TOV
bv
eis

drj-

with the fragment of Valentinus preserved in Clement (Strom, iv. 13), and his explanation of it, will be more

[uovpyov,

eo~Tiv

TOVTOV
b/j.oiov-

eve(f>vfff]ffev

re Kal tveffireipev

ffibv Ti avTtjj di d,yye\<i)v evdtts.

And
TO

conveniently considered in an additional note.


8, 9.

53,
u?r6

<rxe

8e b
ev

o~o<f>ias

TO

oirepfJi,a

rerpaj
is

if

dirpoffirXoKos]

The

els
07/(ri,

di

dyy\*
TO ev
i]

probably in the first instance to the original reT/aa/trus of


reference
'iva

llp&TOV odv

ry

'A8ci/x,
ij

irpoefiaXev

o~0(pla

rj

TO

OCTTOVV

\oyiKrj Kal ovpavia ^vxt]

W
Tb

the Valentinian system (i.e. probably the four male aeons of the Ogdoad), and then more generally to the spiritual nature which is incapable of
real
.

Kevr) aXXd /AueXoD yejj.ovo'a irvev(j.aTiKOv, which is more closely parallel. See

also Hipp. Refut. TO elprj^vov ...Kal


irpbffuirov

vi.

34, ToDro eaTt.


els

union with any lower nature. Cf Irenaeus i. vii. 4 (where he is speak-

eve<pvffij(rev

avTOv
els

irvoriv fiw^s

Kal eyeveTO

ing of the Demiurge's various views as to prophecy) 17 TOV av8p<inrov, 17 TT/C


TT/XHTTrXofCtyJ'

avOpuwos
TO
ev

tyvxw

fwcrav,

and

for

TUV

the

efj,<pvo~ri[ji,aTi

Lat. pejorum).

72

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


10 (R.

17.

Ibid.

xiii.

iv.

220

L. n. 18).
TOT)?

Be /cat

ra 'Hjoa/eXe&wo?
^corjv,

efc

TOTTOVS,
e/cei-

(j)7jo~iv"A.Tovov teal Trpocrfcaipov


vrjv

KOI e7ri\ei7rovcrav
TTJV

yeyovevai, rrjv

KOI

KCLT

avrrjv

Bo^av
ainrjv
5

/coo-fAi/cr}

yap,

(frrjo-lv,

tfv
e/c

teal

olerai TOV

/coo-jjLi/crjv

elvau

a7r6Beit;i,v

fyepew

avTrjs TreTrw/cevai,' ical el eTTiXelTTOvcrav e\d/jL/3ave


airb

TOV ra GpeMMATA TOV 'Ia/cwy3 ef fjuev CLTQVOV KOI 7rp6o~/catpov KOI


rrjv

GK nepovs

<yvu>(Tiv,

rjrot,

rfj

T&V

rypacfxav
Trq)

(rwy/cpio-ei,

TWV dpprjrwv
rrjv

prjjMdTcov,
St'

a OVK
ical
10

\a\rjo-ai,,

Trdaav

vvv

eaoTrrpov

yvuxriv, /carapyov/jievrjv orav e\6rj TO ov/c av avra) eVe/caXecrayLtez/. el 8e virep rov


ryivofj,ev7)v

\eiv rd 7ra\aid rovro


o~iv
Jo.
iv.

vSwp
e

6 ^corrjp,

(frrjcrli'

elvai,

etc

av eirj. O 8e rov Trvev/jLaros


N

/cal

14.

T?;5

8vvdfJi,6(os
eic

avrov, ov

^fev^ofJLei'O^'

/cal

et?

TO Oy MH
15

TON AIOQNA d7ro8e8a)Kev aural? \eeo-iv OVTQ)?,


r)

yap
ical
?;

0)7)

avrov, KOI fjajBeTTore ^Oeipo^ivr],


'

Cf.

Bom.
'

Trpwrij rf eic rov (ppearos, aXXa fjuevovaa' dvat/36T05 yap H X^P IC Ka ^ H ^<^>peA ToO ^corrjpo? yfjiwv,

'

KOI

pr)

dva\iaKoiLevr)
t

fjurjSe

(frOeipo/juevrj

ev

TW

/JLere-

avrfjs.
2 Cor.
1
/*
*

<f)6e(,po/jLevr)v Be Trjv

TTputTTjv 8^801)9 elvat 20


TTJ nepi-

iii.

jj,ev

rr)v

Kara TO

ypd^a

e\eye, fyroov Trjv

Of*

Ex
x. 1.

Al

pecei TOY

xxxiv. 34.

(TKO)Vj

KAAyMMATOC vyid)? av e\eyev.

yivofjievrjv

KaTa TO nNeyMA
opoov TOL

/cal

evpi-

el Be TrdvTrj (f>6opdv /caTrjyopei TCOV


/j,rj

Heb.

7raXfua5i>, 827X0^
11

OTt TOUTO Troiei a5?


21

dyaOd

TOON

om.
is

22 yLvo^vt]v"\ yivo^vrj
07r6re ofo tdei apOfyai TO

ij.

17. 19, 20.

/neT&ovTi]

There

no

difference of reading here in the MSS.

Delarue's note,

'Eegius (quern H.

Hilgenfeld plausibly alters the Ty of the MSS. to ryv. Perrr/v


TT?]

sequitur) /Aerao-xoVn,' is

due

and not
likely

to Cod. Regius.

Huet Huet very


to

haps
(cf.

it is

better to insert both articles


-fj

conjectured /uera<rx<Wi from

Frag. 1). At any rate the the next line cannot be right.

in

We

Ferrarius ('particeps fuerit').


21.

may

^rwj']

With
rAos

this

comment
TJ

reasonably suppose that after had been corrupted to 71(dative because

of

Origen we

may compare Hipp.


2\afiev

of the pre-

Refut.

vj. 35, 6Ve

ceding

Treptaiptvei),

the r^v

may have

dropped out.
...KCU
Ka\vfJi/j,a.

eirl

ryv

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


25

73
5e

MeAAoNTOON

e'xeiN

e/celva

THN

CKIAN.

OVK

airiQavw*;

TO

'AAAoMeNoy

Birjyrjo-aTo

Kal TOV?

fj,Ta\ajj,/3dvovTa$ TOV
/cal

dvcoOev eTTL^opTjyovfJievov TrXovcrlcos,


fiXvcrai et? rrjv yrj/jLeva avTois.
30

avTov?
r
i

e/c-

erepwv alwviov ^corjv ra e rn,/ce %op'rjd\\d /cal eiraivel TTJV ^afjuapecTtv u>o~dv
rfj

evBeiga/jLevrjv

dBid/cpiTov fcal /card\\7j\ov (f>vcri eavrrjs Trlamv, pr) SiaicpiOelcrav e


TTJV
el

avrfj.
(f)i>o-eci)<;

/lev

ovv rrjv

Trpoalpeaiv

aTreSe^ero,

/j,r)8ev

aiviTTOfJievos o$9 Siafapovo-r)?, KOI r^els 0ejj,e0a' el Be rf) (pvcri/cfj KaracrKevf} dvafiepei rrjv r^9 crvy/caTa35 ^ecrea>9

alriav,

&J9

ov

avrov TOV \6yov.

Traci ravrr)? Trapovo-rjs, dvarpeTrreov OVK ol8a Be 7T&59 o 'ttpa/cXewv TO /AT)


(ftrjcrt,

yeypa/jipevov licKa/Sav

77/309

c9 dpa \oi jrbv


r

Rpa%ea Siaw^delo'a
/cal
Tl

TO Adc MOI TOYTO TO yAoop VTTO TOV \6yov fj,io~T]cre

Jo. iv. 15.

09.

rov TOTCOV eiceLvov TOV Xeyo/Aevov ZWVTOS Be KOI 7T/309 TO A()C MOI TOYTO TO fAOOp fNA MH

77

MHAe AiepxcoMAi eNO^Ae ANTAe?N (f>r]cr\v OTI TavTa \eyei yvvr) efji^aivovo-a TO eTrl/juo^dov /cal BvaTropia-Tov
a,Tpo(j)ov

/cal

e/celvov

TOV vBaTos'
'Ia/cco/3

TroOev
;

yap

Bei/cvvvat,

aTpo<j)ov elvai TO TOV


25

vBojp

18.
f

Ibid.

xiii.

11 (R. IV. 221

L.

II.

20).

Be 6 Hjoa/cXea>z/ 7T/309 TO Aepei AYTH TI \eya)v' Et ^eXet9 \a(3eiv

<jyrj<rl

Arj\ov OTI
vBcop,

Jo. iv. 16.

TOVTO TO

T^9 2a//,apetTiBos TOV \ey6fjuevov VTTO TOV ^coTrjpos dvBpa TO


fcal
25.

fnApe, 4>cJaNHCON TON ANApA coy'

oleTat

The
^%et,

text,

even after

/cat 8t'

avrwj'

/cat

rd

Totfrots 6/Aotoi/j'ra.

has been substituted for the impossible


is

omission of
simpler, and

The ra aya6d would make it


unsatisfactory.
it is

Fragg. 19, 44. Origen's criticism of the doctrine of 0wrews diafapd is one of the most
33.
0ifcews]
Cf.

possible that these


text. Cf.

words

may be a marginal gloss, which


/cat atfroi>s e/cj3\tf<rcu]

important parts of his refutation of Heracleonism, as this was the deepest

has crept into the


27, 28.

Ex8

and most characteristic fault of the system, and indeed of gnosticism in


general.

cerpta ex Theod.
/cat

58, TO

\{/vx<-Kot>,

dvfjveyKev dVep aW\a/3e,

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


TT

avv e/ceivy yevopevrj TTpo? TOV ^WT-fjpa KOfjbLaao-6ai Trap* avTOv Trjv Svva/Jiiv KOI
\tjpo) pa elvai avrrjs, Lva
TTJV evwcriv /cal rrjv dvd/cpao-iv TTJV Trpos TO

avrfjs

o'vvijO'fj'
f

ov

yap

irepl dvSpos,

ty^crl,

e\eyev avrfj (va KaXecry, eireiTrep OVK tfyvoei


v6/Jii,fj,ov

on

OVK
to

avftpa.

TrpoBij\a}<i Be

evTavOa

fiid^erai,, \eyci)v

'I

rov %a)T7)pa elprjtcevat, ^WNHCON coy TON eAGe eNGAAe, SrjXovvTa TOV CLTTO TOV
6L7Tp yap TOV0*
(frwvijTe

Tiva TpoTrov

*XP^ V TOV eaTai avTov eljrelv, iva crvv


UTft)?

^X eV

'

aXX' eTrel, w? o 'H^a/cXeojz/ yevrjTai, TT/DO? TOV ^coTrjpa. KaTa TO voov/nevov tjyvoet, TOV ibiov avSpa, KCLTCL 8e TO (^rjcrl,
anrKovv rjcr^vveTO

15

OTI

ov^l be avfipa et%e, TTOJ? aT^v eo~Tai Trpoo'Tao'O'tov 6 Xeywv "YnApe C^CONHCON TON coy KA'I eA0e N0AAe; elra TT/JO? TOVTO 'AAnGec eFpHKAC ANApA oyK exeic, (frrjo-iv 'ETrei ev ro3 /coo-fta* OVK el^ev
eiTcelv oTtr /JLOI^OV
TI

20

avSpa

^afiapelTi^j

rjv

yap avTrjs

6 dvr).p
ec)(ec'

ev TO> alwvi.
Trapa Be

ovv dveyvco/juev TTeNTe ANApAC


14

om.

21

Grabe suggests Koptfrffdai, which is followed by HilBut there is no need to genfeld. alter the MS. reading, which is in it18. 6.
Ko[jil<ra<T6ai]

here follows the Western text.

As Origen has twice quoted the words

with the reading e?xw shortly before, this passage may reasonably be sup-

self preferable.
7.
Ti]i>

evwffiv K.r.X.]

Cf. Excerpt.

posed to represent Heracleon's text. At the same time the retention in


Cod.

ex Theod.

22, eyeipofJieQa ovv

^ets

Monacensis

of

less

well-

iffdyye\oi rots appeviv diroKa.Ta<rTa6tvTs...eis


evoxriv,

known reading

in only one of several

and

64,

K0fj,i^6fj.eva

Kol aura TOI>S

i>v/j.<f>iovs

rous 0776X01;$

passages would not be unparalleled. Other interesting variants in Heracleon's text are found in (1) Fr. 9,
Brjdaviq..

eaurwi', eis rov vvfj.<j)uva evrds TOV opov


el<riao-i ...... eis

rovs voepovs

/cat

aiuvlovs

See the note in


?

loc.

(2)

<rvvytas.

Fr. 18,
see

dvdpas, a reading other(3)

On
and
note p. 105.
14.
eltreiv

Heracleon's use of
additional

wise unknown.
Kal

Fr. 40,
(4)

^u%V
Fr. 40,

al&v,

ffufM.

Mt.
(eis

x.

28.

ee\ev(rovTai

TO

(r/coros

TO ewre/>oi'),

Hilgenfeld's

substitution

of

a Western variant for

Kp\r)6ri<rovTai.

for ecrrai is possible,

but

it is

So

far as

we can

tell

he used a text of

simpler to suppose with Huet that etVetv, or perhaps 5i)\u<rai, has fallen out after avrov.
20.

a Western type, but we have not much material from which we can

form a judgment.

^x e

Heracleon, or Origen,

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HER ACL EON.

75

rrjv

evpopev "El AN A p AC Icyec. Kal ep/jbrjvevei, ye vXiKrjv Tracrav KdKiav BrjXovcrOat, Bid rwv e
ff

o-vv67T67r\fCTo Kal e7r\v] & La%6 v Trapd \6yov TTOpvevovcra, ical evvftpi^ofAevrj KOI dOerov/jbevr) Kal VTT avr&V Xe/creov Be Trpo? avrov

dvBpwv,

OTI eiTrep

eTTopvevev 77 el Se ^/JLapravev
7rvev/j,aTiKij'

TrvevfJLaTifcr),
r)

rjfJudpTavev

TrvevfJbariKr),

AeNApON

AfAGoN

ov/c
vii. 18.

30 rjv

tj

/card

yap

rb

eva<y<ye\iov

Oy

AYNATAI Mt.

ical 8rj\ov on, AeNApoN AfAGoN KApnoyc noNHpoyc eNen<e?N. el Be dBvvarov ecm, TO avrois rd rrjs fjbvOoTrouas.

TJ

AeNApoN (frepew noNnpoyc KApnoyc KOI APAGON AeNApoN ^a/jbapelri,?, are Trvevfjianfcrj rvy^dvovcra, d/c6\ov0ov avrqy
ecrrlv, ori rjrot,

35

\eyew

OVK

rjv

d/jbapria

rj

iropveLa avTrjS,

rj

OVK

avrr) eiropvevo-ev.

19.
f

Ibid.

xiii.

15 (R.

iv.

224

L. n. 25).

r-v

8e 'HpatcXeayv els
/

(tifjLohoyrjKevai

rrjv

NV

rd avrd

pr)fj,ara

\eyet Euo-^7;/i,o^ft)5
e

Of. Jo. iv.


19.

2,a/jiapet,Ti,v

ra

VTT

avrov irpos
<f>r]o-lv,

avrrjv elprjfjieva' TlpocfrijTov el&evai rd Trdvra, ^rev86/Jivo<;


5 Xofc

jdp povov,

eo~rlv

e/care/ow?* teal

yap

ol

rd rotavra Svvavrai,

elSevai, Kal 6 TT/JO^TT;?

01;

dyyeiravra
1 Cor. xiii.

olSev, 'EK Mepoyc

r^p HNCOCKOMGN KA) CK Mepoyc npocJ)HTeyoMeN,


17

KOLV
&$9

7rpo<t>r)Teva)iJLev

yLvwo-Kw/jiev.

fj,erd

Be

ravra eirawel
^a/jua0/1.0X0-

TrpeTTovTcos

TTJ

avrrjs

fyvcret, 'jroirjcrao'av rrjv


fjbijre

pelriv, Kal
10

/Jbtjre

Tjrevaa/jLevijv

avTlKpVS

yrjaaaav
rrjv

rrjv eavrrjs

o"%'T]fJ,oo~vvr)V i
eirj,

TreTretcr fjuevrjv

re
1

(prjcrw avrrjv,-

ort

TrpocfriJTrjs

epwrdv avrov,

afjua

alriav efJL(j)aivovo~av Bi,' rjv e^eiropvevcrev, on Bi, ayvoiav Oeov Kal rfjs Kara TOV 6ebv \arpeias a/ueX^8 our^s
19. 3.
Trpo<priTov K.r.X.]
0tf<ret]

avrfy
rrjs

Qatiffei.

Contrast

ov iravra
14.

oldei>

of its point.

Heracleon's views on the prophets


in

Fragment
4.

5.

but
on.

Hilgenfeld alters rd iravra in-

strange be explained as an may possibly extension of such usages as 8ij\ov

12

oTi...d/j.e\^a-a<rav is

an alteration which, besides having no MS. authority,


to
Kal TauTa,

Hilgenfeld plausibly suggests

are.

deprives Origen's criticism 6

76

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

TWV Kara TOV LOV avTy dvay/calcov /cal a'XA,ft>9 del TWV ev r&> /3/ Tvyftdvovo-av' ov ydp dv, (frrjo-lv, avrrj rjp^eTO eTrl TO (frpeap, eo> TTJS 7roXeft>9
(racrav /cat TTCLVTWV

15

Tvy%dvov. OVK olSa Be 7rew9 evo/mto-ev efju^alveaOai, TVJV alriav TOV e/cTreTropvevtcevai,, rj dyvoiav air lav yeyovevai eTrl TWV 7r\fjfji/jie\r)fjidTCi)v /cal r^9 /card Oeov \arpeias.
eouce

Tavra

<T^e^taKvai, ^copl^ 7rd<rr)<$ iriOa- 20 oarlOrjo-l re TOVTOLS ort Bov\of^evrj


o$9

erv^ev

7TC09 /cal
Jo. iv. 20.

TIVI evapecrrijo-acra /cal

d7ra\\ayeifj TOV Tropveveiv, \eyet TO 01 TTATepec H GN TO) opei Toyrco npoceKyNHCAN /cal TO ef^9. o-(f)6Spa
Be eaTiv eve\ey/CTa TCL elprj^eva' 7r66ev

yap OTL /So^Xerat


;

25

vapeo~Tr}o-ao~a a7ra\\ayeir)
15 TWV
TTJV
K.

TOV Tropvevew

25 eueXe7/cra]

20.

Ibid.

xiii.

16 (R.

iv.

225

L. n. 26).

Jo. iv. 21.

Aepei AYTH d 'iHcoyc TTicjeye MOI, TYNAI,

on

epyeTAi copA, ore

eyre eN TU)
i.

Toyrco oyVe eN 'lepocoAyMoic npocKyNHceie TOJ ore eSofe TrtBavcoTaTa TeTrjprj/cevai, 6 'Rpa/cXecov ev
6'pei

TO 'E?rl

/juev

n/creye MOI
Tore
jj,ev

TYNAI,

TWV TTpOTepwv eipfjo~6ai, avTy vvv Be TOVTO avTy Trpoo-TeTa^Oai,,


fj,rj

7re06\a)cre TO

jjbr)

diriOavov TrapaTijpijfjLa, elnrwv "Opoc


rj

TOV Sid/3o\ov \eyeo-0ai,


Grabe's alteration of
rrjv

TOV

KOO-JJLOV

CLVTOV,

15.
is

into

the only satisfactory emenda-

been the cause of her \arpeta, though Heracleon probably put it forward as
the cause of the errors in her service.

tion here.

But

this is not enough.

Massuet's insertion of dirorvyx^ovo-av


after dvayKaiwv balances the sentence
better, but

Origen seems to have misunderstood the words which he quotes.


21.
re]

then aXXws Tvyxdvovcrav

The

wepl of the Editions is

becomes

an

awkward

anticlimax.
suggest
to

Two
ffa.a'o.v

simple

emendations
(i)

another interesting example of the influence of the mistakes made by


the
scribe

themselves, either
the Kal after

to place d,ueA?7(ii)

of
\

Cod.

Regius.

Cod.

after dvayKaiwv, or
dfji.\^ffaffav.

omit
it

Monac. has T
taken for
22.

(sic)

which he has misVenetus


inserts

But

is

TrepL

doubtful

if

even then a possible sense

rlvi\
it is

Cod.

can be obtained.
19.
/ecu

rpoTry, but
/caret

more natural that the

TTJS

6eov

Xar/jei'as]

Ignorance can hardly be said

to

have

expression here should be similar to that in 1. 26.

THE EXTANT FKAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


GV 6 $id/3o\o<;
6
10

77

KOCT/JLOS TO (rv/Ji7rav rrj? /caiclas 0/309, eprjfjiov ol/crja>

Trpocre/cvvovv Trdvres ol Trpo VO/JLOV KOI ol eOviKoi' 'lepocoAyMA Se rrjv KTICTIV 77 TOV KTIO-TIJV'
Tr'jpiov 6r)pia>v,
c5

Trpocreicvvovv ol 'louSeuot.
f/

'AXXa

teal Sevrepa)*;

"Opoc

/lev evojAicrev elvaL TTJV KTicrt,v

'lepocoAyMA
15

5e

TOV

ol e0vt,Ko\ Trpocre/cvvovv' /crlar^v, w ol 'louSatOi e\arpevov.


rfj /crto-ei,

u/tet9 ovv,

(f)r)(rlv,

olovel ol Trvev/jLarifcol, ovre

ovre

T<p 8r)/j,iovp<y(0

npocKyNHcere,

d\\d rw
TO?9

d\7]0eia<;'
17877

ical o-v/jLTrapaXa/jLfidvei <ye,

Trarpl rrjs cfrijcrlv, avrrjv 009

TTKrTrjv, /cal o-vvapiOfjLOVfJLevijv

Kara d\r)6eiav

13

oi]

om.

14

om.

21.

Ibid.

xiii.

17 (B,
oyK

iv.

226

L. n. 28).

'Y/weTc

npocKYNeTje

OI'AATG,

HMelc
GCTl'N.

npocKyNoyMeN

Jo. iv. 22.

AMGN, OTI H COOTHplA

K TO)N 'loyAAl'oON
c

TO 'YMelc, OCTOV
prjra), ol

eVl

rf)

Xe^et, ol Sa/^apefc'

ocrov Se eVt rfj dvaywyf), ol Trepl

ra9 7paca9 erepoSo^oi.


5

TO Se

HMe?c, oaov eVl rc5


'

'louSatot' ocroz/ Se

e?rfc

TTJ

d\\r)yopta, eyoo 6 Xo709,

/cal ol

Kar
xvi.

ptycofjievoi,, TTJV

o~a)T7jplav

e^o^T9

CLTTO Tcov

lovbai/cwv
26.

v'

TO <ydp 4)ANepoa6eN N?N MYCTH'PION irefyavepwTat, AIA re Kom.


With the
description of o
6 9, 10.

20. 8.

rov KOGIIOV rovrov.


olKyr-fipiov 0r)plwi>]

5ia/3oXos as ptpos

v 0X77? T?}S v\f]S cf.

Cf.

Hipp.

the cosmogony of Hippolytus Eefut.


vi.

Eefut.
dai/AOves

vi.
ftr)

34,

KaroiKfjr^piov...oTav
TT/

32

34,

K rijs uXu-^s ovaias


6 drjfjuovpyos

/cat

ffvvoiKuai

TJ/VXV,

and
ii.

eTroi-rjfrev

ra?s

Valentinus ap. Clem. Al. Strom,


20,
i]

rd (rw/iara, and ^/c T^S uXtK^s ytyovev (as must be supplied, see Hilgenfeld Ketzergeschichte, p. 468)
5td/3oXos,

Kap8ia...iro\\<2v

ovcra

da.ifj.6vwv

These passages shew that the phrase of the master was rememoiKijrripiov.

and

TTJI'

5e awoplav
i.

bered by his pupils, and applied in


e/c

See also Irenaeus


XI^TTTJS

v. 4,

5e

T^

different ways.
11.
Kri<riv]
i.e.

ra
o S

TTt'eu/Aan/cd

T^S

the world of the

odev rov
9.
/COO-/AOS]

Demiurge.

The

distinction between

Here regarded as
cf.

the nations and the Jews

may

be

the world of the Devil,


loc. cit.

Irenaeus,

compared with the description (Hipp.


Eefut. vi. 34) of the children of Abraham, as the children of the Demiurge.

ov Kal KOO jj.oKpa.To pa KaXovcri,


vi.

and

Hipp. Eefut.

33,

78
2 Tim.
i.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


TTpotbHTiKoaN
/cal

rpMxx>N

'|HCOY Xpicroy.

opa &e

el

THC eni4>ANeiAC TOY Kvptov HMOON /cal irapa rrjv atcoKovQlav fJLrj IBio)^
TO 'YiweTc avrl TOV
olov
be
ecrrt
TT/JO?

TWV pijTwv 6 *H/>a/cXeft>j/ 'Iov8alot, e0 vi /col, ^i^rjaaro.

Ol
rrjv

10

%ajj,apeiTi,v \eyeo~0ai, vpels oi 'lou&uot, 77 TT/OO? Z^a^apetnv, ol erepoSo^oL o irpocrv/jiels ol edviKoi ; aXX' oiJ/e oiftaal ye

Kwovcrw,
Rom.
29.
ii.

on

7r\d<r/jia eVrl, real ov/c d\r)0et,a} /cal fjuvOos /cal

ov MycTHpiA.

o Be Trpocr/cvvoov

TOV Sy/jLiovpyov, /^aXtcrra TOU9


TroXz) Se
CLTTO

KCLTCL 15

'lovSai/covs, OUT09 o o?Ae npocKyNe?.

eVrt vvv Trapa-

TOV

H/3a/cXea)^o? TO. prjTa

TOV
/cal

avra J;eTdovTa$
ea-Tiv
TJ

voOov

rj

TOV /3i/3\iov, iroTepov TTOTC yvrj<Tibv ILIKTOV' SioTrep e/c6vT$ vTrepTiOe/jieOa, TavTa
/cal Trepl (frepeiv

fiovov

eTTio-rj/jLeiov/jLevot,

avTov, w? TLeTpov
TO.

Mr) Selv

a^'

f/

EXX7;^a9 Troaicvvelv
15 ou] om.

8 Kvptov] XoG.

23 KaO'

"EXXiji/a?]

21. 12.

-Tr/aos

Sa/xapcmi']

This

is

ing

5i6Trep eKbvres vTrepri.dtfji.e0a.


K

meanof

strange but possible. The definite article in the first clause restricts the
application to the particular subject of the story, while in the second

ingless.

23.

/ca0'

EXX??i/as]

The reading

the

clause

general. But Cod. Venetus has, either intentionally or by


it is

MS. explains the strange production of its copy (Cod. Reg. Kade\eTv as) which Huet had to follow, and which led him to conjecture
/car' edviKoi/s.

Munich

itacism,

improved the

text, reading

The passage from the


Peter
is

Sa/xapemji'; the preceding Sajuapem*' would easily account for the change,

Preaching

of

quoted

at

and the more general application suggested by the masculine is intrinsically far more suitable.
This correction (found ou] in Cod. Yen.) is necessary, whether
15.

greater length in Clement (Strom, vi. 5) where the last sentence stands Kal

yap

eKeivoL

fibvot

oto/ievoi

TOV

debv

yivwffKew OVK eirlffTavrat,

Xar/>ei5oj>Tes
fjnjvl

dyyAcus

Kal

apxay"y\ois,

Kal

we

retain the Kal or not.


TroXi)

17.

5]
fell

The

scribe

of

Origen expresses a decided opinion on the Preaching of Peter in the DC


Principiis, Praef. 8 (interp. Kufino)

Cod.

Venetus

into the natural

transcriptional slip of inserting KO\\tov, thus getting a more familiar

'Respondendum quoniam
inter libros ecclesiasticos

ille

liber

non habe-

phrase.

transcriptional probability alike forbid us to

But intrinsic and

tur; et ostendendum quia neque Petri est ipsa scriptura, neque alteri-

follow Hilgenfeld in retaining the insertion. It would make the follow-

us cuiusquam qui spiritu Dei


inspiratus.'

fuerit

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


,

79

25

\l6ois, fiTjSe

Kal \arpevovTas uXot? Kal Kara 'lovSaiovs aeffeiv TO Oelov, eireiTrep


7rl(TTacrdai Oebv, dyvoovcriv
teal
fjbrjvl

Kal avTol

JJLOVOI olo/juevot,

avTov, \aTpevovTes dyye\oi<$

/cal cre\t]vrj.

24 Xar/ae^ovras] Xarpei;oj>Tes. 26 PJOVOL oio/xevoi] JJLOVOIS

25
lo^evoi.

22.

Ibid.

xiii.

19 (R.

iv.

229

L. n. 33).
eZz>at Jo. iv. 22

ye 'HMeTc npocKyNoyMGN o 'Hpa/cXeau/ olerat 'O ev aloovi Kal ol CTVV avrq) e\66vre<s' ovTot, yap,
fievTot,

To

fjSea-av

TIVI

TT p

o or KVV overt,,

Kara

d\rfOei,av
'loyAAi'coisi GCT'IN,

vovvres.
5

a\\a Kal TO "On

H ccoTHpiA eK TO>N

eVel ev rfj 'lovSaua, (j)7)<rlv, eyevrfOi}, aXX' OVK ev avrol? Kal on, e% ov yap et? iravras avrovs eyAoKHce TOV edvovs llfiAGeN rf <7ft>T?7/Ha Kal o \6yos
eic

Cf. 1

Cor

THN oiKoyMeNHN* Kara Se TO voovpevov eK TWV 'lowTTJV o-wrrjpiav St^etTat yeyovevai, eTreLirep el-

(xviii.) 5.

13

10

KOVCS OVTOI TWV ev TO> TT^ycouaTi avrw elvat, e^prjv 8e avrov Kal TO 1)5 air avrov eKaarrov rwv ev ev TU> Tr^p^^an, rf) \arpela SeiKvvvai, 7Tft>9 ecrnv elKWV rwv
ei

ye

fjLrj

aovov

<j)O)vfj

15

^pOVOVCTLV aVTO. npocKyN?c6Ai TON

7T/JO9

TOVTO \eyovo~LV, d\\a Kal d\7]0ei,a TOVTOl? TO 6N HNeyMATI KAI AAhOeiA

Jo. iv. 24.

060N qyovfjLcvos, \eyei, OTI

Oi TrpoTepov

rj

vrjTal ev crapKl Kal 7T\dvrj TrpoaeKvvovv TO) traTpl, &o~Te Kal TavTov TreTrXavfjaOai, TravTas TOVS
eirifyepet,

TrpocrKeKvvvjKOTas TO) Bij/ntovpyq), Kal K\ecov, OTI 'EAATpeyoN TH KTI'CEI, Kal ov


11
24.
\aTpeuovTas']

ye 6 'Hpacf.
i.

TCO

KaT d\r)6eiav

Rom.

25.

The

MS.

read-

44, rovs 8

appevas tryyAous

TOI'S ffvv

ing

is

probably due to the following


6 ev aiuvi Kal oi
<ritv

cn/ry

eKTre^d^ras.

And

see

also

\aTpcvovres.
22. 2.
dbvres]
tified

Frag. 40,

oi rijs oiKOVOfJilas

ayye\ot.

avr$

l\-

15.

ijyotfievos]

We may

perhaps
'scribas

These

may

be naturally idenTrX^pti/taros

accept
19.

Huet's

suggestion

with the KOIVOS TOV

diyyovfjievos.'

Kapirbs and the 70 Xo7oi projected by him and Sophia and, in the account given by Irenaeus, with the Soter and
:

Heracleon probably Krfrm] refers to the second interpretation


given in Frag. 20, which
is

no doubt

his angels.

Cf. also

Exc. ex TheocL

founded on Rom.

i.

25,

80
Jo.
i.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


X/U<7T09,
1

3.

KTl'cTH, 09 6(7T4

76 TTANTA

Al

AYTO?

20

KAI ycopic

AYTOY ereNero

23.

Ibid.

xiii.

20

(K

iv.

229

L. n. 33).

Jo. iv. 23.

KAI r^P o TTAThip TOIOY'TOYC ZHTE? Toyc TTPOCKYNOYNTAC AYTON'


el

ZHT6? 6 TTATHp, Sid TOV VIOV ZHT6?, TOV e\rj\vOoTO^ ZHTHCAI Lc.xix.10. KA'I cokAi TO ATToAooAoc, ovo~Tiva<; /caOaip&v KOI TraiSevcov

KOI

6eLa

'A7ro\co\evai Se TO
IVO,

6 'Hpa/cXecov ev

ry

f$a-

ol/ceiov

reo
1

Trarpl,

oirep

Cf. Lc. xv.

TTpOCKYNHTAI. TTATHp V7TO TO)V el fjLev ovv eoopa TOV Trepl r^9 <z7r&>Xet'a9 TMV TrpoftaTcav \6ryov, Kal TOV aTTOTreaovTOS TCOV TOV iraTpos viov, KCLV direSe^dfjieOa

ZHTejAI

avTov

TTJV

enel Be fjivOoTroiovvTes ol aTro r^? jvcoO Ti 7TOT6


TpaVO)<>

10

aVTOV OVK

7Tp

^>vcra>9, ovSev (TKOVTGS ij/jids 7Tpl T&V TTpO T^9 a7Tft)X6ta9 dltTY)? %pOVO)V alwvcov' ov$e yap Tpavovv SvvavTai, eavT&v TOV \6yov. Sid rj

TOVTO avTOv? eicovTes frapanre^'^o^eBa, TOQ-QVTOV

eTTaTroprj- 15

d\-r]0i.vovs] a\T)9o$s roi)s.

viov] vloi.

Cod. Bodleianus habet in

margine raxa
20.

viov,

sed in txt. habet

viov.

Xpi<rr6s]

In the Excerpta ex
eis

must

refer to the

same, the tertiary


roi)s

Theod.

45, the section describing

predicate
irpoffK.)
5.

the creative work of the Soter, ovfflav Tjyayejt avrd re KOL\ [TO]

(contained in dXyQ. would be very awkward.


is

T?}S

dTroXwX^at] There

of course

Seur^as Sta^^crewy, is similarly closed with the words Trdvra 5t' CLVTOV /c.r.X.
23. 4. aXydtvovs]

This correction in

Cod. Venetus restores the


of the sentence;

grammar
Ka.6a.lpuv

no necessary reference here to a commentary of Heracleon's on S. Luke, though we know from Clement that he commented on some part of
it

o&mi'as

(see Frag. 50
73).

Clem. Al. Strom,

iv.

can of course be separated off as a complete relative sentence, but as ov<rrtvas, rb aTroXwXds,

9.

pears to

Here however he only aphave explained Luke xix. 10

and

in illustration of S. John's words.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

81

24.

Ibid.

xiii.

25 (R.

iv.

234

L.

II.

43).
Jo. iv. 24.

Et9

/JL6VTOI

ye TO TTNGYMA 6 0eoc
a/o

6 'Hpa/cXecov

<f>r)o-iv

avTov.
MATI

ovtc

/caOapd KOI doparos tf 6eia olBa Be el eBlBagev 77 //,?, ravra


/ecu

(f>v-

d Gedc TTNGYMA e'er.


5
KA'I

TO Be royc npocKfNOYNTAC GN
o-a<j)i]vlet,v

AAH0eiA AeT npocKYNe?N

'

TOV Trpoo-Kvvov/jievov Trvev/jLariKw^ ov (rap/ci/cal yap avrol r^9 avrrjs 0ucr6&)9 oz/re9 rc5 irarpl
elarlv,

TTNGYMA
io\eryo)v

oirives

7T\dvriv Trpocr/cvvovcri,,

Kara d\r)deiav /cal Kadd /cal 6 a7rocrroXo9


TTJV

ov /card
SiSda/cei,

AopiKHN
Be el
(frvcrei,

AAjpei'^N
fir)

roiavTijv

Oeocrefieiav.
rfj

o~<p6Bpa efrrlv d&efies ofjuoovaiovs

/cal Tra/jL/Jba/capia

\eyeiv elvai rovs Trpocr/cvTrpo /3/oa^eo9 elirev ai}ro9

vovvras ev
o
15

TrvevfjLart

TW

Oew,

01)9

't{pa/c\ea)v

e/cTreTrrco/coTas,
<f>v(rea)s

rrjv

^afjbapelnv
\TTGLV

TrvevfjLari/c'tjs

ovcrav etCTreTropvev/cevai,.
\eyovre<;J]
el Be

ov% opwcrw
ical

\_ol

ravra

ort

TO

O/JLOOVCTIOV]

TWV

avTcov Be/cn/cov.

fjiaTi/cr} <^>ucrt9, o/jioovcrios

eBe^aro TO iropvevcrai rf irvevovcra [rw dyevvrJTO)], dvoaia /cal adea


ovBe

d/co\ovdei TU> \6<ya) roS /car' avTovs irepl Oeov' 20 <f)avTao-iw6fjvai, d/civBvvov e
real do-eftfj

11 6/x.oouo'toi's] o/Aootiffiov. 2 ^] /cal. 16 ot raura \tyovres] om. lac. 13 circa litterarum relicta: Codex Bodleianus in margine ol ravra \tirav rb o/u.ooucrioj'] Travros, post hoc verbum relinquitur lacuna (1"2 yovTes.
circa
litt.)

in Codice.

0i5o-is.

ry
dyvv/)T<p.

18 </>i5<7is] Cod. Bodl. in margine fows TU>V evavrlwv. ayevvfiT^} om. lacuna (12 litt.) relicta: Cod. Bodl. in mar-

gine T
24. 2.

20
required and the marginal conjecture in Cod. Bodleianus fulfils the required conditions.

There being no article in his exemplar the scribe of Cod. Venetus removed the difficulty
i]

eda]

nominative

is

by altering the
10.

last

*cat

into

77.

TroV

rb

bpoovaiov]

On

this

con-

\oyiKrjv \arpeiav]

Correspond-

jecture see Additional Note C.

ing to their nature.


aur^s
T<J}V

Cf. Kal

0tfcreu>$ 6vre$,

yap avrol and Frag. 45

16.

ayluv \oyiK(av ovcrLav. ot ravra X^oi/res] Some such

conjecture proderived from Ferrarius, which bably admirably suits the requirements of
ayevvfirq]

18. r

the passage.

B.

82

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

25.

Ibid.

xiii.

27 (R. iv. 237

L. n. 49).
\e<y6L

"Opa
Trepl

Be

Kal TOV 'RpatcXewva TL


TI

firjo-iv'

yap

OTL

TIpoo~Se'%6TO

eKK\r)cria TOV XptcrToz>, /cal


TO,

avTov OTL

TrdvTa pbvos

KLVO<;

26.
Jo. iv. 26.

Ibid.

xiii.

28

(R

iv.

238; L. n.
'

51).

Kat
art
ft)?

o 'Upa/c^ecov Se

<j>r)(ri,
97

Trpos TO Epo^

eiMi,

6 AAAOON coi

EtVep eVeTretcTTO Sa^apetrf? Trept TOT) Xpta-roi), apa e\6wv TcdvTa aTrayyeXel avTy, (frrjai Vlvaxrice
7T p

OTL 6K6LVOS 0V
Jo. iv. 27.

O(T$Otcd<;, 6<y(0

6LJJLL

\a\GOV &OL'

KCLL

ore (a/AO\6<yr)o-ev eavTov TOV TrpocrSoKGOfievov e\rj\v? OevaL, HA60N, ^rjalv, oi MAOHTAI npdc AYTON, SL* 01)5
et?
6/9

r^v ^afJbdpLav.
TT)Z/

2a//,apetaz/,

Se Sta rou? /JLaOrjTas otrti/es /^at irpoTepov CLVTM


TTCO?

crvvfjcrav

a-ot]

post

(rot

relinquitur lacuna (4 vel 5

litt.

).

27.

/ftid. xiii.

30 (R.

iv.

241

L. n. 56).

THN
\a/jL/3dv6L

elvaL

La6eaLV

/cal

evvoLav

KCLL

r^9 Trapd TOV ^wTrjpos, rjvTLva KaTa^eiirovcra, Trap avTto, TOVTZO-TLV e^ovcra Trapd T&) 2<coTr}pi TO TOLOVTOV C7/C6U09, V L \afteLV TO %toV \7J\V vSft)/0,
(j)

4 irapa]
25. 2.
^/c/cXi?<rta] i.e. ot Trj/eu/wm/co/.

Trepi.

17

to the latter word.

It

must mean

Cf.

Excerpta ex Theod.
2.
Kal~\

41.

27.

The

Kal

before

rrjs

dwd/Aeus
vdpia is
is

is

probably right.
dia9e<ris

The
which

thought, conception, or the like, not power of thinking or conceiving the Below (1. 13) Ferrarius rediW/xis.
fuses to

the

and
/cat

frvoia

take

TTJV

deKTiKrj rijs

fw^s

rrjs 5wayu,ea>s.

/tews together.

Zwoiav r^s dvvaProbably we should

Hilgenfeld's

omission

of

the

Kal,

there read, as here, Kal tvvoia.v

which makes 5wa/iews dependent on frvoia, gives an unnatural meaning

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


v els
crei rr)v

83
rfj

rov

/cocr/jiov

evayye\i%ojjLevr)

/c\rj-

XptcrTOz) Trapovalav.
el

Sid

ydp rov Trvevfiaros


rj

/cal VTTO
rrjpt.

rov Trvevfjuaros Trpoo~ayerai


Srj,

^rv^rj rut

2)a>-

/caravoTjaov

Svvarai

vSpia avrrj irdvrr) d(f)iepei>r]' AYTHC H TYNH* ov ydp Trp6o-/cet,rai


ZiCdrrjpi.
real

rvy^dveiv rj 'AcbHKe yap, <f)r)o-l, THN yApiAN


eTratvov/jLevrj

Jo. iv. 28.

5-\\5//) ov/c amuavov trots oe

on

A(f)HKeN aurrjv irapd ru>

Kara\,eiTrovo~av avrrjv

^/

rrjv Se/cri/crjv rrjs ^wrjs Siddeo~iv, /cal rr}v

evvoiav

rrjs

Svvd/jiecDS rrjs

t^A

s co

rrapd rov 2,corrjpoS) /cal TO o~/cevos ev e\r)\v0i \a/3elv ro %(v vScop, aTre\r}\v6evai els rov
%co/?t9 rovrcov,

/c6(TfjLOV

evayye\io~aa6ai
;

rfj

/c\rjcrei

Xpiarov Trapovalav
d\\d
<p7jo-L

TTWS

Se

/cal

rj

Trvevfjuari/crj

roorovrovs \6yovs ov TreTreicrrai

o~a<f>oos

Trepl
;

oyroc GCTIN 6 Xpicro'c o Se GK THC noAeooc Sirjyrjcraro dvrl rov 'E/c T?;9
TI

MH

rov Xpio-rov, ical ro 'ElHAOoN

Jo. iv. 29,


l

Trporepas
rjp^ovro
\e/creov
;

avrwv
Sid

dvao~rpo(f>rjS)
TTio~re(os,

ovorrjs

/coo~fAi/crjs'

/cal

rrjs

(f>rjo~l,

irpbs

rbv ^wrrjpa.
rov ev

Se Trpbs avrov'

TTWS [tevei Trap

avrols rds Ayo HMepAC


rfj

ov

ydp
5

rerrjprjtcev o TrpOTrapede/jieOa repels Trepl

troXei

avrbv dvayeypd(f)0ai MGMGNHKeNAi ras Ayo HM6[


19
/ATTI

TL o5r6s] /my rotouros.

25 dvayeypd(f>9ai] Cod. Bodleianus in margine

28.

Ibid.

xiii.

32 (R.

iv.

242

L. n. 60).

Be

ori
u>v
Cf.
.

/coivcovev
rfjs

avra)
6.

dyopdcravres drrb
Excerpta ex Theod.
.

^apapeias
negative
cf.

K\TJ<ris]

24.

A
29.

58,
/Atas

TO

Khqrbv

.rb

e/c

r^s

OLKOVO-

cessary:
xiii.

obviously neOrig. Comm. in Joann.


is

TO \fjvxutov

dyeTat y \J/vxt

and the words irpoawhich occurs in this

passage
21.

(1.

8).

The woman
Cf. Frag.

herself

can either place ny before dvayeypdQdat with the margin of the Bodleian, or before kv ry 7r6X.
28. 1.

We

was a representation
KofffjuKys]

of the eK\oyf).

The

general sense of the fragit is

17 (the account of the woman's former life),


KOOTUKTJ

ment

is

recoverable, but

hope-

lessly corrupt.

The

third sentence
ofytcu,

and Frag. 20, where the /c6a>ios is the kingdom of the 8tdHeracleon seems also to have /SoXos. used the word as almost equivalent
yap
yis,

may
ol

possibly have run TTWS 5,

ra avra 2x eLV ^yovrai. And in line 8 it would be natural to alter TTOTOU into eXalov, for we can
fjiaQrjTai

to

'

humanity, see Frag.

'

8.

hardly justify

it

on the strength

of

62

84
K.io~av.
jfc
jfc.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


raSe
V

<p7ja'lv
i

iva TWO,*
rv \

.*.

Cf. Matt.

CLTTO

\e<yovTaL

rov vv/jL<piov. TTCD? oe oifjuai * * rat? a-Tro/eXetcr^etcrat?

ai irevre JAW pal Tcapdevoi V &. * * * *


4fc

aura G^ew

>

41$.

[iwpals

TrapOevois,

afyov

tcar'rjjoplav Trepie^ovra

TWV

fjbaOrjrwv rofc aurot? KOI/J,O)/tat ai)ro

eart, Se rat? /Mcopais irapOevoi^. KOL TOV 7TOTOV

avopoiov rov
*

*<Tai/ra? alndo-acrOai rrjv e/c^o^rjv, /catTrep


fjuevov
cracfrr}

Kara

ri Suvd10

Troirjcrai,

TOV \6yov e^prjv avrov Sid TrXeiovwv

7rapafjiv0r)O'aa'@aiy icarao'icevd^ovTa TYJV ISlav e


3 post riva lacuna (6 circa
ol/xctt

litt.).

post 2x etl/ 8 post f3pufj.aTa lacuna (19).


(8).

lacuna

4 post post Trapdtvoi lacuna (45). 5 post Xtyovrai lacuna (10). lacuna (6).
9 Kalwep]
Keiirep.

Kara] ins. intra lineas.

29.
J

Ibid.

xiii.

34

(R. iv.

245

L. n. 65).

Jo. iv. 32.

Eroc>

Bpo>ciN exo) c^AfelN,


'

HN yM?c OYK

Se 6t9 TT}^ \e%iv elirev 6

30.
Jo. iv. 33.

/Wd.
oi

xiii.

35 (R.

iv.

245

L.

IT.

65).

"EAefON OYN
(})Are?N
;

MAOHTAI npoc AAAh/Aoyc

MH

TIC

HNefKeN

el

KOI

'HpaicXecov VTTO

voovfievayv ical
Jo. iv. 11.

GapKiKws viroXa/jufidvei, ravra \eyecr0cu 6 rwv /jiaOrjTwv, w? en Taireivorepov 8iaTr)v S a pap elnv /uLi/juovpevtov \eyovcrav

eyeic, K&\ TO 4>pe<\p ECT'I BA6y* at,ov r) 7TOT6 /3\67TOVT<i Tt OciOTCpOV OL /JiaOlJTai (fraCTl, 7T/309 TIC HNepKeN AYTCO (J)Are?N d\\rj\ovs ra^a 7^/3 vTrevoovv

OYTG ANTAMMA

MH

Tjv

TWO,

8vva/jLt,v

wrjvo%evai

avrw

<f>ayeiv.

31.
Jo. iv. 34.

Ibid.

xiii.

38 (R.

iv.

248

L. n. 70).

'O Se 'HpaicXewv Sid TOV 'EMON BpooMA CCTIN I'NA HOIHCCO TO TOY neM^ANTOC Me (frrjvl &i7)<y6i(T6ai TOV
is,

QTI TOVTO o crvve^Tei fieTa Trjs yvvaifill

s,

and

to

up part

of

the gaps by reading KaTyyopyaavTas, and in 1. 9 Katrot ye for Kaiirep. But

small patches in large rents are hour wasted.

la-

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


#09,

85

iBiov

\eywv TO GeAHMA rov

Trarpo?' rovro

avrov rpO(f>rj /cal dv a,7T av a is ical Svvafjus r)v. GeAHMA Be rrarpos e\eyv elvai TO <yvoi)vai, dvdpwrrovs rov
epyov rov ^corrjpos rov V/ca rovrov arrea-ra\i^evov et? ^a^apeiav, rovreariv et9 TOV /COCT/JLOV. /3poo/j,a ovv avro e^elXrjfa rov 'Irjcrov /cal
Trarepa, /cal
0-0)61)1x11,

oTrep

r/v

10 rrjv

/JLra

rrjs SayLtape/r^So?

crvtyrTjo-w, OTrep
e%et,\r)<f)6at,

Travri rco
7Tft)9

6paa6ai

ical

rarreivw^

/cal

8e rpofyrj rov ^corrjpo? TO 6eAHMA rov 7rarpo9, cra^)c39 ov 7rapeo-rr)(Tv' 7TC09 3e teal dv arc av or LS TO GeAHMA rov Trarpos ;

\eyei,

yap

Ku'/KO9 aXXa^ou, a>9 ov rravros rov rrarpucov

15 Oe\r)jj,aro^

avajravo'ea)^

avrov 6Vro9,
nAhisi

TTATep,
TI'

ei

AYNATON, Mt.

xxvi.

nApeAGATca TO noTHpioN An CMOY'


cy.

oy

lroc>

GeAco,

AAAA

TI

rrbOev Se /cal
;

ort,

Svvafj,i<?

rov

2<corrjpo<;

TO GeAHMA rov

Oeov

Cod. Bodl. in margine ra^a aur6. in margine rdxa TO Kai Trapt\Ket. 10 rrjs] TI\V.
9 auro] avrov.

Cod. Bodl.
17
o-oi.

32.

Ibid.

xiii.

41 (R.

iv.

251

L. n. 79).

',1

6 'Hpa/cXecov pevroiye OJJLOLWS ro?9 TroXXofc evrl


fjuei,v,

olopevos avrrjv dvdyecrOai. t \ jv y GVVTJ fjbarcov Xe^y^ i u e PKTU/OV, oos


pr)

'-v//5

<j>r]crl
r

yovv
\

on
>f

rovrov

u,ev eri,

Bicopiav e^ovros rerpdfirjvov, rov Be Oepio-fiov, ov avro<; eXeyev, rjBij evecrrwros' /cal rov 6epi,o~fj,ov Be ov/c oZS' 07TW9
d/c/jualot /cal eroif^oi eicri, Trpos depiafjiov
3 roc] TO.
T6 yvuvai K.T.X.] Cp. Hipp. Eefut. vi. 36. As the 5i6pdw<ns of the Hebdomad was effected by im31. 6.

Kal

e'vri-

Origen complains

first of

the inter-

pretation of r6 0A?7/Aa as (3pw/j.a, Kal Tty...<rv'r)Tr]<rtv, then as rpo^T/, then

parting to the Demiurge the knowledge of the Father, so it is natural


that the diopducris r&v fr6ade should

and lastly as 5{W/us. The omission of fiov 15. irdrep] and ecrrt is found in other authorities,
as dPciTrawm,
especially

be accomplished by analogous means.


9.

among

the Valentinians.
epov is not

avrb]

The marginal suggeson the


;

But

this position of air


is

tion of the Bodleian seems

found elsewhere, nor

the rl sup-

it be the best reading restores consistency to the passage.

whole

to

ported by other authority. chendorf in loc.

See Tis-

86

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


TO crvva^Orjvai, els dTrodiJKqv, TOVTeaTi 7T/o-T6ft)9 6t9 dvaTTavcriv, ocrai ye eToi/juoi,, ov yap
9
fjuev

8m

Trdaai' al

yap

77877

\ov, al 8e fjue\\ovcr LV,


Jo.
iv.

GTOI^OL rj<jav, (prjcrlv, al 8e e/zeXal 8e eTTicrTreipovTai, 77877. TavTa


TTGOS

10

35.

/x.ez/

ouz/

eKelvos elirev.

Be ol /juaOrjTal enAipONTec royc ov-

cra?

7T/OO9

TO,

&)?

ol'eTat,

et9 airoOrjKriv elo-a%6f)vai, ov/c

ol8a
Jo. iv. 37,

el

Svvarai

Trapao-rrjcrai.

Kal

en
;

ye

TTGOS eirl TG>V

d\r)6es TO "AAAoc 6 cnei'pooN, KAI AAAoc 6 Oepi'zoaN /cat 'AnecreiAA YMAC Oepi'zeiN o OYX Y**?c KGKoniAKATe Tti^a 8e rpoTrov TO 'AAAoi K6KOni(\KACI KAI YMe?C GIC TON KOHON A^TOON GICeAHAyOATe SvVCLTOV
3

e&ri Trapabe^aaOai,

eiri

rr)<$

16

6 Bepifav]

33.

Ibid.

xiii.

44 (R.

iv.

255

L. n. 85).

Kal
Mt.
ix. 37.

ye 6 'H/ja/cXea)^, Ta^a 8e TOVTO) Kara rrjv ravrrjv (TVfjLTrepKfrepo/Aevos Ti9 ^at eK/cXrjcriao-TiKos,
epel

oTt Ta>

Kara TO

'0 OepiCMOC noAyc,

01

Ae epr^TAi oAi'roi

cnj/uLaivofJieva) oyLtoiQ)9

TauTa

e'lprjrai, TOJ erol/juovs

Trpos
5

Kal eTriTrjSeiovs 77/309 TO 77877 crvi>a'%0'fjvai T}^ dirodrjicirjv Sid Trjs TTiarea)^ et9 dv air av elvai, Kal eTTirrjSelov^ 7rpo9 crwrr]plav
Oepicr/jLov

TOV \oyov /card fjbev rov avrwv Kal rr]v <f>v(7i,v' /card
TOV
\eKTeov ovv
?r/309
/mrf

8e TOP eKK\7)criao-Tt,Kov
f

rfyejaoviKov, eroi/jLov irpos re^elwcriv, (va

Kal

10

TOU9 ovrcos

e/c8ea//.ez>ou9, el /3ov-

\owrai 7rapaSe^ao-0at
rj/jiwv

Trore yeyovevai irpo rfjs rov

eTTiBrj/jilas

Bepia/juov 7rapa7r\tjcri,ov

TW ouTt9 dv

crdevri a7ro TGOV %pova)v TOV


32. 10. ai

evayye\iKov
33. 5.
eTnT-rjdeiovs]

5] The repetition

of at 5e

Cf Excerpta ex
.

offended the ear of the scribe of Cod.


Venetus, so that he substituted Kal
ai ^e/ for

Theodoto,

46, Kal rots

crw/xacrt /card

Qvaw

e7riT7;5ei6T?7ra eveTrot'^aej',
TTJV

which

the second al 5.

But the

also illustrates did


Kal rrjv
<j>ij<riv.

reading of his exemplar is right.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

87

34.
f

Ibid.

xiii.

46 (R.

iv.

256

L. n. 87).
Jo. iv. 36.

8e

HpaK\6a)v TO '0
t

Gepi'zooN

MICGON AAMBANGI

TOV

OepicrTr)v eavTov \eyei, <f)r}crlv, 6 ov TOV Kvpiov rjfJL&v VTrdXafJu^dvei elvai rrjv

TWV
5

acorrjpiav /cal aTTOKardaracnv T&> dvaTraveo-Oat, avrov e?r' avrois' TO &e KA'I cyNArei KApnoN
depL^ofjievcov
eic

ZGOHN AICONION

rjcrlv

elpr/arOai,

rj

on

alcoviov ecrTiv, rj ort, d\\d avToOev VOfil^to fiiaiov elvcu


TOY KApnOY
cJ?

TO avva^o^evov KOI avTo %&)rj alwTTJV Sirjyrjcriv CIVTOV,

(f)d(TKOVTO$ TOV ^(DTTJpa MIC00N AAMBANGIN, KCbl


10

dVV^.OVTO^ TOV
V,

MICGON Kal TT)V CYNAnJOfHN


fj?

/9

aVTIKpVS

Svo Trpdy/jiaTa TrapKIT deny?,


2
vo/j-lfct]
vo/j-lfeLV.

TJ

6Vt] ov.

35.
(

Ibid.

xiii.

48 (R.

IV.

260

L. n. 95).
X AI'p^
KAI
Gepi'-

'O Se HpaK\ea)v TO IN A
ZOON OVTQ) Sirjyrjo-aTo'

6 cnei'pcoN

OMOY

Jo. iv. 36.

Xaipei, pev yap,


77877

(frijcriv,

aireiptov
TOOV
o

OTL

o~Treipet,,

Kal OTI

TLVOL
Trjv

TWV cnrepadTayv avTOv


avTrjv Kal
o

GwdyeTai, eXTriBa 6%a)v


IJLGV

Trepl

5\OL7T(ov' 6 Se OepL^asv oyitota)? TL Kal OepLcret,.


7T/5COTO9 ov yap ev TO>

aXX*

rjp^aTO

(TTreiptov,

avTw eSvvavTO

BevTepos OepL^wv. d^^OTepoL ap^acrOai'


vo~Tepov OepiaOrjvai.

eSet

ydp TrpwTov

(TTrapfjvai,, elff

Travaa/Aevov fjuevTOiye TOV cnreipovTos cnreipeiv,


34. 7.
is

Delarue's emendation
' '

77

ort

part

of

the

Heracleonic doctrine.
of this
vibs

by no means absque causa (see Lommatzsch). Whence Huet derived It is the reading o I do not know. of no MS. and suits neither grammar
nor sense.

The sowing

whoever he was, must

wdpuirov, refer to the


the

sowing by a higher power of

We

must assume that a


I

pneumatic seeds in the creatures of the Demiurge, and the Trveu/xart/cot are
not divided into different classes, so
far as is
forcible.

corruption of or to omission of the 77.


35. 3.
77677

ON

led to the

known.

The

77677

is

also

77677]

Cod. Venetus has altered

He

rejoices in that

he

is

is

but the original reading Different kinds or preferable.


to
e?677,

already gathering in the earnest of For a similar confusion the rest.


of
77

classes of seeds are not insisted upon,

and

ei

in Cod. Venetus,
inffT-qv for u>s
77677

cf.

Frag.

nor do they, so far as we know, form

20, ws

Tj'det

88

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


10

d Oepuel 6 Oepi^wv. eVl fjbevroi TOV irapovTO^ TO IBiov epryov evepyovvTe? OJAOV ftalpovcri, /coivrjv %apav TTJV TWV crTrepfJidrayv Te\eioT7jTa rjyov fjuevoi.
Jo. iv. 37.

en

Be fcal els TO

'N

TOYTCO ecriN 6 Ao'foc AAHOiNOC, OTI AAAoc

ecTiN 6 cneipcoN, KAI AAAoc d GepizcoN

^aiv O
f

ftev

yap
CO

VTrep
V

TOV T07TOV VIOS (ivOptoTTOV (77T6lp6t,' 6 6 Sft)T^/J auTO? uto9 avOpwirov Oepi^et, KCU Oepicrras TOI)? Sia TU>V fjuaOrjrwv voov/Jievovs d
7rt

KOI

15

rrjv
vloix;

eavrov tyv%TJv' ov

TTOLVV

8e
/cat o

Svo

TOV dvOpwTTOv, rives elvlv,

<$v 6 et9 cnei'pei

Sepi'zei.

10

eTri] ewel.

15

vios] viov.

36.

Ibid.

xiii.

49

(K

iv.

263

L. n. 99).

Et Be
e/c\eKTr)v
Jo. iv. 36.

ayiot, ay<ye\oL elaiv ol


/cal

Trap v rera-

ov Sev
6epi'zoNTA

eanv

CLTOTTOV TON cneipONTA

OMOY

x^ipeiN KAI TON


(frtjalv

/jLerd

TOV depLapov.

8*

'H/oa/cXewz/

OTL
5

Ov

&i avToiv, ovSe a?r'


,

avTwv
)A~1

e(77rdprj

TavTa

TO,

cnrep-

<j)r}al

8e

T&V

aTrocrToXcov,
>C>^
9

ol Be
A

5)4*9 ov 01

aurwj/J ou 5e avruv.

15,16. AsOrigensays.thetwo'sons of man' are not clearly explained.

tion

must be pure

conjecture.
It

For

Probably they answer to the two beings whose temporary union in Jesus of

Frag. 40. r6?ros /-leo^T^/ros or


r67ros cf.

must be the e/35o/uas which is

described by Hippolytus as vTro/tarw

Nazareth Irenaeus criticises so strongThe 'Son of man' who is virtp ly.


TOV
TOTTOV

may

be identified with

where Sophia and her <rvvyos dwell. For the sowing compare Hippolytus Pefut. vi. 34.
TTJS

(rySoctSos

Sophia's husband: or the two 'sons' may be the Christ whose flight So-

17, 18. &CCUTTOJ'


Cf.

CTTI r-ffv

eavTou ^vxyv]
64, ra

Excerpta ex Theod.
/cat

phia mourned, and the Jesus whom the Christ entreated the Father to send to her, diopduxrcu ra Trddrj avT'fjs,

fj.a.TiKa...Ko/j,i6/j.va

ai/rd roi)s
els

0t'ois

roi)s

dyyt\ovs eavruv
TOV opov
elfflacriv.

TOV

vv/jujxjova ei/ros

tyvxn

and who became her


last

<n^vyos.

The
O.VT<

is

will

suit

best

the interpreta/cat

here probably used in sense. See also Irenaeus


vv/j.<f>a$
d.irooo6'f]0~e<j6a.i.

its
i.

wider
vii.

1,

tion of 6 iv aluvi
e\66vTts
(Frag.

ol

avv

ro?s

wept

22).

But the data


identifica-

are insufficient,

and such

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


elcrlv

89
MGCITOON
Cf.Gal.iii.
*

ol T?79 ol/covo/jt,la<?
teal

dyye\oi oV
y

(ov

009

10

averpd^rj. et9 3e TO 'Y/ueTc eic TON KOTTON eiceAHAyBAre ravra egeOeTO' Ov yap 6 auro? KO p i^ovT cov' ol fiev yap ev /cpvei <77T6i,p6vT(i)v /cal vSaTL /cal KOTTO) TT)V yrjv cncaTCTOVTes GTreipovcri,, /cal

v 33.

SS o\ov 2et/u,c3z>o9 v\a$ e/c\eyovTe<i' ol


Oepovs
15

TT^yLteX overt,

a/cd\\ovT<;

real

ra?

oe et9 eroifjuov /capTrbv ela-e\66 vres

ev<f)pai,v6 pevoi,
v<$>

Oepl^ovatv.

VOVTI raSe

r^fjuwv

elprjjjLeva

TW

e^ecrrai Se crvyicpievrvy^dvovn Kal rd VTTO

rov

Hjoa;X6ft)z/09,

opav OTrola TOOV


6.

Svvarai.
7
Ot]

/COTTOS]

(TKOTTOS.

37.
f

Ibid.

xiii.

50 (R.
'

iv.

263

L. n. 101).

8e

TO

K THC noAecoc dvrl

TOV 'E/c TOV

Jo. iv. 39.

KOO-JJUOV

^6i\ rj(f)e'

<

TO Be AIA TON AdfON THC TYNA?KOC TOUTi

ecrTi

Sta T^9 Trvev/juaTifcfjs gXiy<rla9. /cal 7rt,aijiJLalveral ye TO noAAo) W9 TTO\\(OV OVT&V tyv%i,K,wv' Trjv Se

yL6/a^ \eyei Trjv


eiSij, /cal
777)09

a^dapTov T^9 6/^X07^9


ihmffA

<t>vo-i,v,

/cal /JLOVOce)9

eviicrjv.

Be ev Tot9 dvcoTepa),

oloz^

Te

TauTa.
1 roj ro?s.

olov re] otovrai.


TIJ (ji.{\ov<nv

36.

7.

ol

T^S

oiKovo/uas 0776X01]

Cod. Monacensis

may

ac-

Compare the 70 \67oi projected by Sophia and her crtff1/705.


ws necriTuv co-Trapy] There is a very close parallel to this in
7, 8.
Si'cSi'

count
marg.
to

for

Huet's T$ ^XXoixu (ad

r?7/>ceXou<ri)

which Delarue,

fol-

lowing his general custom, attributes

Codex Regius.
37. 2.
<?etXi70e]

Excerpta ex Theod.
rrjs (ro(f>las
fjLO.Tt.KOv
<rl,
ei's

53, ^(rx^...virb
ffTr{p/j,a

The

following

eveiraptv rb
Tr)V tyvxjriv,

TO irvev<f>rf>

double constructions are found with


eK\afj.pdveiv: (I) accusative followed

dia.Ta.yds,

dyy\wi> ev x t pi f*f<rlTov...di dyytXwv ovv TUV apptvuv TO. <rirtp/Ji.a.Ta


5t'

by
eirl

eirl

with the genitive, TOV 0epLff/j.6v T?}S ^VXTJS e%L\r)(p TUV TrunevovTUv
32),
(2)

inrrjpTiTai

TO, ets

ytveffiv Trpo(3\r)6&Ta.
5ta-

For 5tara7eis Heinrici proposes

accusative followed by dvTl TOV or Toin-eVn as in this frag(Fr.

Tayev (Die Vol. Gn. p. 118), but may regard it as a quotation.


9.
/c6?ros]

we

ment,

accusative or quoted nominative followed by accusative, ee(3)


\-rj<t>e

follows is
of the

description which of the method, not the aim


:

The

wavTa TOV

icdfffJiov

K.T.\. (Fr. 1),

cf.

also Fr. 47.


4.

work

O-KOTTOS

therefore

would
of

TroXXoi]
oil

Cf.

Excerpta ex Theod.
ot

not give the required sense.


12.
Ti<]/ji.e\ov<rt]

56,

TroXXoi 5

The reading

5^ ol TTVVfJ,aTlKol.

90

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

38.
Jo. iv. 40.

Ibid.

xiii.

51 (R. iv. 265

L. n. 103).

'Hpa/cXewv els rovs TOTTOU? ravrd AYTO?C tfitly 6 KOI OVK. ev avrois' /cal Ayo HMepAC, rbv eveo-ra)ra alcova, /cal rov fMe\\ovra rov ev
Be
r/

'O

ry

rov Trpo rov rcdOovs avrov %povov, /cal rov perd TO 7ra#o9, ov rrap" avrois iroirjara^, TroXXco rc\eiovas Sid rov ISlov \6<yov emarpetyas els rrlcmv, e^aypio-Orj
\eicreov Be Trpos rrjv Bo/covcrav avrov Traparrjptjcriv, ori nAp' AYTO?C /cal OVK ev avrois f^e^parrrai, on

arc avroov.
f

Mt. xxviii.

ofioiov ra> nap' AyroTc eorrl TO 'lAoy, epd)

MeG YMOON

EIMI

HACAC

TAC HMepAC' ov
^Vofc
rj

ydp

elrcev 'Ei/ V/JLLV

elfjut.

en

Be Xeycov rds Ayo 10

rov

7T/3O

rovrov rov alava elvai /cal rov fi,e\\ovra, TOU rrddov? /cal rov fiera ro nrdOos, ovre TOI)?
AI(X)NAC

enepxoMeNoyc
Eph.
ii.

perd rov jj,e\\ovra


ov JJLOVOV Tlpo

vevorj/cev,
Aicaci TO?C

rrepl

wv
15

7.

4>?jo-lv

a7TocrToXo9 "|NA eNAei'lHTAi eN TO?C

enepxo-

MeNOic' ovre

opa
fjierd

on

rov rrdOovs
TT/JO?

/cal

MeTa

TO Tra^o? o-vveari, TO??

ep^oyu-e^oi?

avrov

6 'I^o-ou?,

d\\d
Gal.
ii.

/cal

/j,a6r)ra)v
20.

eo-n,

del yap /nerd r&v %a)plerai,. /jujSeTrcoTrore /caraXeiTrcov avrovs, ware /cal

rovro

ov

\e<yeuv
5 SP]

avrovs
6.

Zw

Ae oyKeri

e'rci),

ZH Ae

e*N

eMoi Xpicrdc.
13

12 TOV /ierd TO irdOos] om. rbv.


o^]

17 aXXa] om.
38.

om.
ro
del

15,

16.

KCU

/xerci

/nerd

TV
fierd

fj.adijTwv

cffrlv.

The

The
netus,

dXXa, which

is

absent

from

aXXd must therefore be inserted before


Kal TOVTO.

both Cod. Monacensis and Cod. Vebut has been independently inserted before these words by each
of their

Hilgenfeld's

insertion

before x uplfr Tai i g of course necessary, unless indeed


of
ou

descendants Regius and Bodleianus, has been accepted by the


including Hilgenfeld.
after
otf (j.6vov

we can regard the words

/xerd TOUTO

editors,

But
is re-

XwptfeTat as a continuation of the quotation of Heracleon's words, and


so negatived by the ov fwvov, but the

though

an dXXa

quired, this is not the right place for it. Heracleon has admitted that

sentence would then be very awkward. This is not the only instance

Christ

is

with them

irpo

TOV iradovs

and

yuerd TO irddos also,

but has not

where a negative has probably dropped out. Cf. \_/j.rf] ev rrj ?r6Xa (Frag.
27).

seen that even after this there has

been no

xw/>io>i6s, for (Origen says)

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HE11ACLEON.


39.

91

Ibid.

xiii.

52 (R.

iv.

267

L. n. 108).
Jo. iv. 42.

'Hpa/cXecov 8e a7r\ovcnepov e/c\a^cov TO OYKSTI AIA THN

CHN

AAAI'AN

nicieyoMeN

cfrrjo-l

Aeijreiv TO
KA*I

fiovrjv' ert jnev


OTI

yap

TTpOS TO AYTOI

fAp AKHKOAM6N,

oTAAMGN

OYTO'c
/jue

6CTIN

ZooTHp TOY KO'CMOY ^ijaiv


5

Olydp avdpwjroi
d\\d

TO

V7TO

dvOpCUTTCOV oSiyyOV fJiCVOl TCiaTZVOVCri TU> 7rdv Se evTV^wcri rot? Xo^yot? avTOV, OVTOI OVKC
v

Sid

av6pwTrivY]V /mapTVpiav,

8t'

avTrjv

40.

Ibid.

xiii.

59 (R.

iv.

274

L. n. 123).

Se BACIAIKON 6 '1rlpa/c\ea)v \eyeiv yov, eirel /cal O-UTO? e(Saai\eve TGOV VTC

TOV

avTov Bid

Se

TO jjbiKpdv avTov /cal 7rp6<r/caipov elvat, TTJV ftacri~\,eiav, BACIAIKOC covo/judo-Or], olovel [JbiKpos rt? /3 <f)r)o-l,
5

VTCO

Ka6o\iKov
'

y8acriXe&)9 TCTay/JLevos ejrl TOV Se N KA(})ApNAOYM VLOV aVTOV


n
/

TOV ev r&> 6d\ao~o~av TovT6o~Ti TOO crvvij/^iJievo) rj7 v\r}, Kai \eyei OTL 'O tSfcO? aVTOV dv0p(i)7TOS d<T06V(t)V, TOVT6CTTiV OV KCLTCL
}

10 (frvaiv e^cov,

ev

dyvola

/cal

dpapTr) ^acriv
10
7.
is

r\v'

eZra TO

4
39. 3.
6'ri

0?/(ri] (pijalu TT]v

fiaaiXelav.

ayvolaJ] dyveta.

ouros]

For the omission

fj.ff6Tr)Tos]

The

yueaoV?;?

here
[/xetro-

of a\t]dus see Tischendorf in loc.


5.

clearly the

same

as the TOTTOS

With

the idea of

human mecf.

diation suggested here,

Exc. ex

TT/TOS] of Hippolytus, called also e/35o/icis.

Refut. In the lower

vi. 32,

Theod.
40.

58,

/cat

5t'

avruv Kal ra
error of Cod.
rijv

TOVTOIS ofAOLovvra.
4.
0770-t]

part of this, which is most deeply involved in OX?;, here represented by

The

Capernaum, the
tion of the

I'Sios

utos

lies.

In

Monac. in repeating
after
(firjffl

0?;crJ

pa<n\eiav led to the omission of

connexion with Origen's interpreta/3a<riXi/co5


it

Regius, and consequently in the Editions. It is also independently omitted in Cod. Bodin

Cod.

Abraham,
Kal
6

as representing is interesting to notice


vi.

Hippolytus, Refut.
8r}M,Lovpybs
\f>v%<j}i''

34, TrpotfiaXe
avrr)
/car'

^i>xdV
ecrri

yap

leianus,

for

Cod.

Venetus

has

re-

ov&ia

OVTOS

auroi)s

tained
5.

it.

'A/Spaa,/*

Ka0oXt/c6s]

Cf.
6

Excerpt,

ex
de-

r^Kva.

ravra TOV 'Aj8paa/x ra Heracleon might have acKal

Theod.

47,

where

Zom^

is

cepted Origen's interpretation of the


/3a<riXi/cos

scribed as dr)/Movpybs

and his son.

92
Jo. iv. 54. Jo. iv. 47.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


THC 'loyAAiAC
eic

'K

THN FAAIAAI'AN dvT\ TOV


OTTCO? els

etc

TTJS

ovcodev

'\ovSa la$.
KivrjOels

OVK ol8a Se

TO "HiweAAeN AHOGNHCKGIN

Mt.

x. 28.

dvaTpeTrecrdai Ta SoyfiaTa TWV VTCOTIOefJbevwv dOdvaTov elvai Tr)v ^v^v, et? TO avTo av/jL(Bd\\e(r6ai vTroXa^dvwv Kal TO Ty)(HN KA'I COOMA AnoAAyc0Ai eN reeNNH. /cal OVK dOdvcLTOV 76 elvai fyelrai TT}V
oleTai
f

15

6
1 Cor. xv.

Hyoa/cXea)i/,

aXX* e7TtT?;Seta)5 e^ovcrav

TT/DO? o-corrjplav,

53, 54. Cf. Is. xxv.


8.

avrrjv \eya)v elvai To eNAyoMGNON A'^GAPCI'AN (^GAproN, KA) AGANACI'AN GNHTON, oTaz^ KATATT00H d GANATOC avrfjs
6IC
ISMKOC.
7T/)05

TOUTOt? KOL TO 'EAN MH CHM?A


Xeyea-Oai, fao-lv oliceia><;
i

KAI

Jo. iv. 48.

TpATA

2O

TAHre oy

MH nicreycHTe

Trpo? TO
TO

TOIOVTOV TrpoGWirov,
Jo.
Cf.
iv.

epyajv (pvcnv e^ov /cal $i al-

49.

Rom.

vi. 21.

MOY Sid TO TeAoc TOU VO/JLOV TON 0ANATON elprj(jdai VOfJUi^ei, d Sid TWV dfjbapTiwv' TTplv TeXeo)? ovv, <f)r)crl, i d/juapTias, SeiTai 6 TraTrjp TOV fjuovov
KATABHOI, np*iN Ano0ANe?N TO nAiAi'oN

25

T?

20
11,
12.

j/t/cos]

rrjs

dvudev

'

TOIS

u\i/co?s,

<J>9apTri

evri

Kal

dir6\-

Cod. Monac. has the true reading TT/S, though all its descendants have
erred.

\vrai (MS. garai Kal aTrciXero). It should be noticed that this is one
of the passages where by the use of 0?7<ri and X^yet Hippolytus shews

For the phrase,

cf.

Frag. 13,

where the
by
of

\f/vxiKbs TOTTOS,

'lepoffoXvpa, is

represented said to be an etKuv


i]

that

he

is

quoting
Cf.
Se

from a single
Excerpt,

'lepovcraXrifji., i.e.

a,vu 'Iepovffa\-^fji,.

document.
ov

also

ex

See also Hipp. Eefut. vi. 32, where the Ogdoad is called 'Ie/>ou0-aXr//* ewovpdvios.

Theod. 56, rb
Kal
Kal

\fsvx<-Kov,

dvre^oijirpos

eiriTrjSeiOTrjTa
d(f)dap<rLa.v,

^x et
Kal

re

Trpbs

diri-

The text is the reading of Monac. and Ven. The Syrian read15, 16.

<f>6opdi>.

22, 23.

It

may

be well, in view of

ing has been adopted by scendants.

the

de-

the extremely difficult criticisms of Origen on Heracleon's interpretation


of this whole passage, to state what appears to be Heracleon's position

Heracleon's language with regard to the immortality of the soul


ff.

16

vividly recalls Hipp. Eefut.


Qvt]T-i]

vi.

32,
rts

so far as

TIS

effrlv

i]

^f%^,

/Ltecrorrys

can be gathered. He seems to have affirmed that ^uxrj is


it

ov<ra'
crts

&m

701^ e/35o/tas

KO.1

/caraTraurots
/cai

'Edi*

oSv

ofjt,oi(i)0fj

avco,

rb (pdaprbv TO evdv6fj,cvov d<t>6ap<riav. Its death comes did TO rAos elvai TOV
TOV OdvaTOV, dvaipovvTos did T&V dfj,apTiwv, for of course the children
poyiiou

T?J
ets

O75od5t, addvarus eytvero


T-rjv

oydodda,

^rts

eori,
edi>

eirovpdvtos,
rrj

de

of the

Demiurge are under the Law.

MXy, TOVT^TL rots

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


tVa
777)09

93

ftor)Qr)(rr) ToG tuo>,

rovreari ry
Jo.
iv.

TOVTOt9 TO '0 Y\oc coy ZH tcara drvfyiav elpfjaOai

50.

30

TW

^ayrrjpi, e^e'iXrifyev, eTret ov/e etTre

Z^rto oi/8e evefyyvev

auT09 Trapea^rjo-dai
7T/009

rrjv %a)rfv.

Xeyet be oVt

KaTa/39
VOOTOV,

TOZ/

KafLVOVTa KOI

lo,(T d /JLVO<i

dVTOV T^9

rovrecm rwv aiari^v


Troi,r}cras el'jrev
35

KCL\

'0 yidc coy ZH"


OTi

al eTriXeyei 7rpo9 TO
<Xt

'Eni'- Jo.

iv. 53.

CT6YC6N
,

ANOpOOnOC*

Eu7TtO-TO9

A^yLtiO Vpy6 9

on

Svvarai,
e

6 JZcoTrjp /cal pr)

irapcov Oepanreveiv.
C

40 T

TOY BACIAIKOY ^eL\ri<^e T0t)9 d<y<ye\ovs rov n<\?c v, COY ZH d7ra<yye\\ovTa<i ev TW 06*6/0)9 /fat Kara rpOTrov e^ei, irpdcrawv /cal Sid TOVTO vo/jbl^ei dirayyeXXeiv TOO dvoliceia. cp Toi)9 80^X01/9 T Trepl rf)? rov vlov CTWTT;/cat

TOO Kocr/JLO)

dvOpwirav TOVS dy<ye\ovs,


dirb
Tl 7T/009
T?}z/

el eppco-

45 2ft>T?;/909 eTTlSrjfjilaS.

eBAOMHN
r)

CO

oTt

Ata T^9 wpas ^apaKTfjpl^erai


eVt
7rao-t

<^>vo~49

TOU laQkvAYTOY
O'AH

T09.

TO 'EnicreYCGN AYTOC

KAI

OIKI'A

lirl

T^9

d<yye\i,Krj<;

elpfj&Oai rd^eco^,

/cal

^Tjrelo-Oat Se (frrjo-t, 50 Trepl TIVCOV dy>ye\(i)v, el a-ajOijcrovrai,, TU>V /car\66vT(i)v


v

rwv

ol/ceiorepcov avrw.

dvdptoTTtov 0YrATp<\c. /cal r Se TO) ^7jfjLt,ovpyov rrjv d rr(D\eiav Srj\ovcr6ai, vo^i^ei


7rl
TCJON AN0p(x>n(X)N

TAC

TV

Gen.

vi. 2.

55

THC B^ciAeiAC eleAeYCONTAi eic TO CKOTOC TO e2w- Mt. viii. 12 ical Trepl TOVTCOV rbv 'Ho-ai'a^ 'Trpo^rjreveiv TO TepON. YIOYC ireNNHCA KAI fyoocA, AY'TOI Ae Me HGeTHCAN, ova-nvas Y'OYC Is- i- 2.
ev TCO Oi
YIO'I

aXXoTptou9 /cat cnepM<\ noNHpON /cat ANOMON AMneAcx>NA AKANGAC HOIHCANTA. /cal ravra pev
fjuerd 7ro\\fj<i /caTao-Kevrjs

/ca\e2 /cal
TO,

'HpaOVK

Cf Is v
-

K\ewvo<$, aTrep roX/^rjpoTepov /cat da-e/Bearepov elpij/Aeva e%pfjv

dTroSeoefyOai, efaep

tfv d\rj6rj.

60 ot8a Se 7ro39 /cat

Tret d6avao-las
^-^

39

xet] ^X etl/ '

OJ'^P^TW]

bis.

59 a7ro5e5e?x0ai] a

35.

e^io-ros]

On

this point the


to

Irenaeus
37.

i.

vii. 4.

Valentinians
agreed.

seem

have
vi.

been
36
;

For the angels of the Demicf.

See Hipp. Refut.

urge

Excerpt, ex Thcod.

47.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


Troaa
o-qfjualveTat,

IK rf)S

davaros
eTTicrK e

<j)covfj$.

KaOopwvra yap
IBelv el
e
/juev

TO
/cara
Ez.
xviii.

(rrj/jiaivo/jbevov JJLGT

Ka
ecrriv.

Trvra ra
d/jiapTLas,
epov/Jiev avrrjv QvTjrrjv.
%a(f)avi,(7[jiov

yap on
id\v<Jiv 65

yYX" 8e H AMApTAisioycA AYTH AnoeANe?TAi,


el Se rrjv TravreX?)

real

Kal
fjieOa,

avTrjs

OdvaTOV
ISeiv

vo^i^ei,

rjfJLels

ov Trpocf^croQvi]~rr)V

ovSe pe^pi

eTTivoia?

Svvdfjievoi

ovcrlav

fjLera^a\\ovcrav et? dOdvarov

Kal

fyvaiv

^>9aprrjv

eTrl

TO

a<f>6apTov

O/JLOIOV

yap TOVTO rw \eyeiv

/jLeTaftd\\eiv TI aTro

et? daatfjiaTOv, o$9 viroKeijAevov rti^o?

KOIVOV r^?
cocrTrep

TWV

70

Kal
l

dcra)fj,dT(0v (i;creft)9, onrep

/jbevei

TO V\LKOV ol irepl Tavra Sewol, T&V TroiOTr/TWV ov ravrov Be ecrTi TTJV cj)6ApTHN (3a\\ov(T(t)V 6t? d(f>0apo-lav.
(f)V(riv

6NAyec0Al A4)6ApciAN Kal TO Trjv <f)0apTr)V


d(j)0apo-Lav<
TO,

/xera-

ftd\\,6iv e/9

S*

avrd Kal

Trepl

GNHTHC

75

\eKTeov, ov

avTiv.

TL

eTreirep TTJV

fyvcriv

epywv
aev yap
Trvev/jia;

Kal
avTov
Trepl

HIav\ov Troias
Bid
TTJS

$>v<Tew<$ rjv.

el

TIKTJS, 7Tft)9

TepaaTiov eTTifyaveias TreTrlcrTevKev

el S' 8c

OVK aXXft>9 eSvvaTO Trio-Teveiv rj Btd Tr)<$ repao-riov eTTt^avela^ 7rew9 Se aKo\ov6ei KCLT avTovs Kal avTov elvai -^V^LKOV.
TOV Arjfjbiovpyov roi)9 dyye\ov<i avTov Oewpelv TO eppw/Jievov Kal TO el\LKpives Tr)<$ 7ro\iTias TGOV VTTo r^9 SvvdfjLea)? TOV ^Ea)T^/?09 j3e\Tt,a)0ei>Tcov, Kal Trapd

OVK

a<76/8e9

TO

TT/OO

85

Jer. xxiii.

TO evapyes TOV Trepl TOV Aqfjuovpyov \6yov, TI Be Kal Trapd r fi v ypcuj^v rrjv \eyovaav Ei KpyBhiceTAi AN0poanoc GN K
61 KadopwvTa]
KO.6apa.VTa..

79,

80

Trveu/tari/c^s]

OTTWS.

80, 81 TepacrHou] TepacrTeiov.

83 OVK]

61.

Kadopuvra]

Though the

fol-

Heracleon has only made use of such


expressions as
/c.T.X.

lowing criticisms of Origen contain no new matter of Heracleon, the whole chapter must be examined
together.
it

evdve<r0ai

adavacriav

which Origen allows to be ov

TavTov.

For Origen's argument with

have therefore thought

print it in full. The criticisms are not easy to follow. So far as he has stated Heracleon 's
better to

regard to p.eTafia\\ei.v see Aristotle, Met. A. 2 (1069 b), ov yap ra tvavrla


yuera/SaXXct.
5'
<?TI

TO nkv vTro^vei, TO

evavTlov oi>x viro/J.vei' Zffriv apa TL


Trapa TO, evavria,
ij

views, the confutation of /uerajSaXXetp


cis

v\rj.

adava<riQ.v is

not to the point, for

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


Arob OYK OfOMAI AyTON
i
"9
}

95
vii. 10.

Kdl KfplOC 6TAZOON NGCbpOYC


i >
\ \

KAI KApAlAC, Ps.

Ps
(

xciii

go ooci

Kypioc MATAIOI
i

PNOOCKOON
f\
;

TT&)<?
;

tofc AIAAOPCMOYC TOON AViGpobnooN c/-\ &. / \ oe (Tdocrei Kai TO U eiAooc TA TTANTA
\
t

KAN xc 'iv.)
\

li.

TTPIN i
,

TTiaf 1181

peNeceooc AYTOON

paXhov YTJ <pvai<t xapafCTrjpt,rov laOevros airo rov apiO/jiov rr)s copas eirj ?7? Idaews ryivofjievr)'^ rw oiiceiu) ry avairavcrei dpiOTO 8e &ia(f)0opd<; elvat, fyv^iicwv, eiri reXet wv e
avrov
real

en

jsv oe

...

Susann.

42.

95 fJieOa
fjievov

VTT

elprffjLevwv dvayerypafjufjievov,

6fjLa>vvfj,ia

earrly

erepav

<f>vcriv

elo-dyovros reraprrjv, oirep ov

{3ov\erai.

41.

Ibid. xix. 3 (R. iv.

296

L. n. 167).

'O
t-v

fj,VTOL ye ^pa/cXecov, eicOefJievo^ TTJV


/

q>v\a/aov \e^iv, ovcev eiirev et? avrrjv.


Y^eTc of AyNAcGe eA6e?N
/cal d/jLapT^/jiao-LV
<t>rj(ri

-v/j

*c>v

'

'

et? oe

'c^^

Trepl
'

rov ya^o- W\3"f~\


>
* .

vin. 12

ff.

TO (Jnoy erco j

v iii.21.

IIcG? eV

dyvota Kai

ovres ev dcfrOapcrla Svvavrai yeveadai ; /jbrjSe ev TOVTM KaraKovwv eavrov' el yap ol ev d<yvota Kai aTrivriq Kai d/jLapTij/nao-iv ovres ev
yap.
91.
ZTC

5e

/j.a\\ov.

Heracleon's

own remark on the hour is simple and obvious, when compared with
Hippolytus, Eefut. (^vxn}
yttas

but the stages of corruption could not be traced. All


avairafoei
apid/j.a},

is

dark,

and we can scarcely hope

for

effrlv efido-

light.

Kai Karcnr averts,

rod ladi>Tos is

equivalent to TOU ^UXIKOU. Whether Origen understood this or not is uncertain, as his criticism is obscured

A reference ertpav <f>t<riv] probably to Origen's argument with


96.

regard to

/j.Taj3a\\iv.

Heracleon
0&reis, irvev-

would recognize three


Ha.ri.KT), \l/vxiK7),

by hopeless corruption in the


Delarue's
et
i]

text.

v\iKr].

The

dia<pdopa

<pv(ris

x a P a/CT7?/9 *^erat

\f/vx<-Kov

cannot take place unless we

comes from Cod.


telligible.

Ven., but leaves the sentence impossible and uninIt


is

tempting to sup-

assume Zrepoi' vTroKei^vov which remains while the Troior^res change. This would be to introduce a fourth
41.
4.

pose that a good deal of the sentence may have been erroneously inserted

dTTLaria]

Cf.

Excerpt, ex
p.

from the statement of Heracleon's view above, and that Origen may have written some simple sentence
such as
efn 5
fj.a\\ov
TJ

Theod.
6.

56,

quoted above,

92.

ev dyvoia]

ment

Hilgenfeld's statethat these words are omitted

0&ris
rip

x a P aK ~

rov

laOfrros,

oiKeiy rrj

in Cod. Regius appears to originate in the fact that in line 7 it omits

96

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

apalq ov Svvavrai, yevecrOai,, TTCOS ol airocrroKoi ev dyvolq Trore /cal ev dino'rLq teal ev dfjiapr^fiao'i yevo^evot,
ev dfyOapcrla yeyovao-i ; Bvvavrai ovv ol ev dyvola ical ev aTTiaria KOI ev dfj,apnj/jLa(rt, yevo/juevoi, yevecrOat, ev
ia, el /j,eTa/3d\\oiev,
ro

Svvarov avrovs fj,eTa@a\eiv.

42.

Ibid. xix. 4

(R

IV.

302

L.

II.

180).

Kal
Jo.viii.22.

MHTI

6 '}ipaK\ecDV fjuevrotye <w<? airXova-repov elprffievov rov AnoKreNe? EAYTON (f>r)<riv on, Tlovijptos St,a\oyi6/j,evoi

ol 'louSatot
(fraivo/jievot,

ravra e\eyov Kal

avrol

fjbev

rov SCOT^/JO?, aTreXeu aovrai Trpbs rov Oeov


8e

/i/et^o^a? eavrovs CLTTOteal v rjro\a^.^dvovre^


et?

on
5

acaviov,

eavrov

S
/cal

dvdiravaiv es opv /ca ef Od varov, OTTOV eavrovs OVK

dire\6elv.

avrai?

rov ^corrlpa ol 'lovSaioi OTL

$ia%ei,piels <f)0opdv yu-eXXw 7ropeveo~0at, OTTOV i5//,e?9 ov SvvacrOe e\0elv. OVK olSa be TTW? Kara rov eiTrovra
>

'7^

epavrov

10

Jo.viii.l2. Eroc> eiMi

TO 4)030 Toy KO'CMOY Kal rd


Si,a^eipi,o-d/j,evo<;

6^179, fjv

\eyeiv

OTI,

'Eyw

e/juavrov

els (f>6opdv /J,e\\a) iropeveiprjKevai, TOT)?

eaOaL
Saious

edv $e rts ^eyrj

fjurj

rov ^corijpa ravra

8e 'lovbaiovs

avro

vTrovevorjKevat,, Srj\ov OTL epel rov<; 'lou- 15

TrecfrpovrjKevai, Trepl

avrov

on

fyOelpovrai, ol eavrovs

Sia^e^ptcrd/jievot,, Kal ovSev TJTTOV eTroiei


<$>6apr)creo~6ai

Kal Ko\ao-0ij0ea0at,, OTrep

tfv

ravra Trtcrrevcov Kara irdvTa rjKi-

O iov.
15 avrb]
18, 19
/caret

TroWa
r)

rj\i6iov]

the fv of tv ayvoiy, a fact which Delarue notices.

has led him into a captious


Cf. Tr. 30,
5tii>a/j,u>

criticism of Heracleon.

The importance

of this fragment

ayyfXiKfy nva
5.

K.T.\.

consists in the fact that Heracleon's

dvd-n-avais]
cf.

interpretation depends on his fundamental error as to 0i5(rts and /cara-

dm7rau<ns

For the doctrine of Irenaeus I. 7. 1; Ex63, 86.

cerpt, ex Theod.

aKwt) (see Frag. 17), to which Origen so often rightly takes exception (cf.

18, 19.
is

/caret

Travra ij\ldiov\

As there

Fragments
42. 1.

17, 33).

no authority for the form /car??\tdiov, I have retained the conjecture


of Cod. Venetus.

cbrXorforepoj/]

This

is

not the

only case in which Origen's love of

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

97

43.

Ibid. xx. 8 (R. iv.


'

316

L. n. 211).

TivvOavoi/jLeOa

av

TGOV

r9
^

(frvcreis

elcraybvTWv, KOI

TO "On d Ao'roc 6 eMOC of

XP e

^N

YM?N dtroBiBovTwv

Kara

Jo.viii.37.

'HpaK\ea)va
tear
5

on Ata TOVTO ov yoope?, on, d Kara ^vwfjurjv, TTCO? ol ovcrlav,


rj

tear* over lav H'KOYCAN

nAp<\

TOY nArpo'c

Trore npoBATA OVTOL rjaav rov Xpto-roO, 77 avrov ; el Be r](Tav aXXorpioi, TTCO? H'KOYCAN
,

Trorepov dXkorpiOi V

d\\d

teal

Jo.

viii.

38.

HApA TOY

ft)9

olovrai, \eyojjievov TT/OO? roi)? aXXorptov? on AIA Jo. viii. 47. eTc OYK <\KOYeTe,OTi OY'K ecTe CK TOON npoBATooN TOON Jo. x. 26.
/jur)

10

erepw aroTrw eavrovs Trepi,PdXXovai, \eyovres n^p^ fjbev TOY n^Tpdc d/crj/coevai TOI)? d\\oTptovs, fjbr} aKoveiv Be TGI)? avrovs TOVTOU9 Trapd TOV
;

GMOON

el

apa

6\i^6jjbevoL

el S* olfceiot
TTCO?
15

TOV Xwr^/oo? r\Gav real r^9 pa/capias ezHTOYN avTov ATTOKT?NAI ; KOI TTW? 6 TOV
;

r^/90? Ao'roc OY'K e'xoopei ev avTol?

M
10
cai;roi>s] eauroi)s (sic).

12 Trapa]

Trepi.

44.

/Wd

xx. 18

(R

IV.

332; L.

II.

240).

'O
crOai

fievToi,

ye 'ttpaicXecov V7ro\afji,fidvei A.lTiav d


Jo.
viii.

TOV

AYNACOAI avroi)? AKofeiN TON 'Irjo-ov AdfON, NobcKGIN ailTOV THN A^AlAN V TO) 'Y/WeTc 6K TOY
pr)

43.

TOY AiABoAoY 6CT6. avTais yovv \e%eo-L ^ai Aiart Be OY AYNACOG AKOYCIN TON AO'TON TON EMO'N ; rj OTI eK TOY TTATpdc TOY AiABoAoY ecTe, dvTi TOV 'E/e o-las TOV Biaf36\ov ; (fravepwv avTols \oi7rov
2 'lyvov] Yv.
43. 4.

Jo.

viii.

44.

Kara

yv^fj.ijv]

See below,
OVK

that verse.

Frag. 46.
8, 9.

The words AtA TOVTO

u/iets

quoted in Tischendorf's digest on John x. 26 from this passage

a/cohere are

There are traces of corruption. Probably \tyei has dropped out somewhere, in consequence of
44. 5, 6.

the

<f)r]<rl,

without

it

the dvrl TOV can

no other authority for them, as forming part of the text of


:

there

is

hardly stand,

B.

98

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


(frvcriv

avTwv,

/cal

7rpoe\e<y!;as avTOvs, OTI ovre


10

rov 'AySjOaa//, elo~L re/cva, ov yap av efJLiGOVV avrbv, ovre TOV Oeov, Sib ov K tfyctTrcov avTov. /cal el /JLCV TO
GK TOY TT<\Tpoc TOY AiABoAoY ecre e^eSefaro
o't,7i<yr)ordfj,e0a,
,

eV rot?

eXeye Ata TO ert V/JLCL^ eivai e/c TOV Oy AyNAcee AKoyeiN TON AOCON TON EMO'N, KUV Trape/cal

&el;dfjL@a

avrov

rrjv SirtyTjo-iv.

vvv\ Se 817X09 ecrrtv ofMoovcrlovs


&5?

nvds
aTT*
rj

rut

$iaj36\q) \e<ya)v dv0pa>7rovs, erepas,


ot/<ria9

olovrai ol

15

avrov,

rvyxdvovri, Trap'

01)9

Ka\ovcn

10

otire]

ov5.

13, 14 irapede^a/^eda] Trapa.dea./j.0a,

15

otovrcLi

oiovre*

45.

Ibid. xx. 20 (R. iv.

337

L. n. 250).

Et? ravra 8e 6 'Hpa/cXewv (fryer i Up 09 01)9 o Xo709 e/c ova las rov 8iaj36\ov rjcrav, &)9 erepas ovcry? TTJS
rov SiafioXov
o/jLoiov

ovo~ia<i

Trapd
JJLOI,

rrjv

TWV dyiwv Xoyi/cwv ovaiav.


fyaiverai rc5 erepav
5

be

ev

rovra)

Treirovdevai,

ovariav fydcricovTi o(^0a\i^ov Trapopwvros /cal erepav opwvTos.

46.
Jo.viii. 44.

Ibid. xx. 20
Trpbs TOV

(R
(

iv.

339

L. n. 253).

Toaavra Kai

}ipaK\e(0vo$ \6yov elirovTos TO TOY nATpdc TOY AiABo'AoY dvrl TOV 'E/c T^9 ovo-ias TOV
ovdt

10.

must probably be
e/c

altered

class, different in kind.

It

thus takes

to cure.
45. 1, 2.
r-^s ovfflas

rod 5ia^36\ou]

the place usually assigned to the See also Irenaeus, and Ex.uXi/nJ.
cerpta ex Theod. 48.

With this and the preceding fragment we must compare Hipp. Eefut. vi. 34,
e/f TT)S

vXi/c^s ofo KO.I 5ia.po\iKTJ$

eiroi-r)-

\oyiKuv ov<riav] Of. Hippolytus's account of the projection of the 70


3.

(rev

6 &i)/j.LOVpy&s rats i/'uxats

rh a&-

X67ot.

/*ara,

and

6 u\i/c6s, <f>daprbs, drAetos,

not necessary to alter the MS. reading, but it is very probably an


It is

eK rrjs 5ta/So\t/c^s oucrta? TreTrXaa^vos.

The

close connection of uXi/c^


is

and

error of assimilation (due to the preceding genitive), for \oyu<riv.


46. 2, 3.

StajSoXtKTj

exactly reproduced in

TOV 5iapo\ov] This seems

these fragments of Heracleon, where the diafioXiirti is contrasted with the

the only reading that will make sense. The TOV Trarpos of the MS. is doubtless

and

\f/v^iKrj,

as a third

due to the preceding

e/c

TOV Trarpos.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


&i,a/3o\ov
elprjaOa).
TTOIGMM

99

Trd\iv et? TO TAC eniByMiAC TOY


StcKTreXXerat,

YMOON GeAere
5

\eywv Tov Sid{3o\ov

aXX* tiriOvpla?. KOI epfyaiveTai avTodev TO aoiavorjTOv TOV \6yoV 6e\eiv yap TO, Trovrjpd Tra? av rt?

ex eiv

OeXrj/jLa,

o/j,o\oyijcrai

e/ceivov.

avvd^ei^ Se

/cal

auro?,

el fcal

eVt TOV

TrapovTO? ev 7rpo%eipw ov/c e^o/^ev TrapaOeo-Oai, el TTOV ev TO 6e\eiv eiii TOV 8ia/36\ov rera/crat. Mera <ypct(f)fj
(f)7j(7iv

Hpa/c\ea)v c9 apa

TavTa

eiprjTai,

ov Trpos TOI)?

TOV &La/36\ov

inoi)?

TOI)? ^ot/cou?,

d\\d

xiKovs, decrei viovs oia/36\ov ryt,vopevov<

15

KOI decrei viol Beov l^aTicraL /cal <fnj<ri ye OTL Hapd TO tfyaTrrjKevat- TAC eniGyMi'AC TOV 8ia/36\ov /cal noie?N re/cz/a ovrot TOV Siaf36\ov ylvovTai, ov (fivaet, TOIOVTOI ovTes. /cal BtaTrj <f>vaei

wv

SvvavTai

rtz/e?

crreXXeTat

cw?

ovo/j,acrias,

apa Tpt^co? Set d/coveiv r^9 KaTa Te/cva TrpwTOV cfrvcrei,, SevTepov yv(0fj,r},
cfrrjcrlv,

ala.

/cal (j)vo~ei fiev,

e<7Tt TO yevvrjOev VTTO

loyevvijTov, o /cal /cvplax; Te/cvov Ka\elTai' yvtopr) Se, OT6 TO 6e\r)iJLd Tt? TTOLWV TIVOS Sid TTJV eavTov yva)fj,r)v, Te/cvov e/celvov ov rroiel TO Qe\r)/jba /ca\eiTai,' dla
8e /caff o
/cal
35

\eyovTai Tives reeNNHC


/cal
ocfreayv

Te'/cva /cal CT/COTOV?

Cf.
*

Mt.
* *

ir^
'

dvofjbias,

/cal

eyiANcaN

reNNHMATA' ov
fyvcrei,'

111 '

ydp yevva, Troia ydp

(fnj&t,

TavTa Tivd Ty eavTwv

<f>6opo-

dva\icrKOVTa TOU? e/jufi^rjOevTas et? avTa, aXX' eVet etrpagav Ta eiceivtov epya Te/cva av/cal
elprjTai,.

TWV

TOiavTTjv Be $i,ao~TO\r)v

Seftco/cdbs

ovSe

/caff

OTTOCTOV a7ro TOOV


30 eiTroi/iiev 8'

ypafywv

Trape/jLvOrjcraTO Trjv ISlav $iijyr)o~iv.


el
/JLTJ

dv Trpos avTov, OTI


ovofjLa^eTai /cal
TTCIT/JOS.

(frvcrei,

aXX* dgla reeN-

NHC Te/cva
2,

CTKOTOVS

/cal dvofj,ias, (j)0opo8

3 rov 8ta(36\ov] TOV


(at videtur).

6 ddiavorjTOv] diavoijTov.

23 Xfyoj/rcu] X^erai.
d^/as.

28, 29 KO.& OTTOO-QV] /card

TO

iroffov.

30 d^^t]

aSiavoyTov] This necessary correction of his exemplar was made by


6.

raura Tiva] raCra of course is Of. below ovx subject, ru/d object.
25.

the scribe of Cod.

Venetus.

Cod.

on

yevvg.

TLVO.S

6 5tdj8o\os.

The

in-

Eegius retains the mistake.


23.

sertion of roiaura (Cod. Venetus after

of

Here again the scribe Cod. Ven. has made a necessary


X^yovrcu]

raura) is not necessary, though perhaps it simplifies the sentence.

alteration.

72

100

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

Eph.

ii.

3.

d yap ravra Kal dva\io~KQVTa ^a\\ov fJTrep CTVVLardvTa, TTCO? o IlaOXo? tyycri TTOV TO "HiweGA 4>ycei TGKNA o'prfic d)C KA'I oi Aoinoi' ; r) \eyeTWo~av rj/j,lv co? ov/c ecmv dvaXwrucbv
teal
9<N.

/naXicrra KCUT avTov <f>6opo7roi,bv

77

opyrj,

779

TEKNIA HMG- 35

Trakiv

(frrjalv

on Teicva rov Sia{36\ov vvv


ryevva

\e<yei

rivas o S^aySoXo?, aXX' on ra epya rov Sia/36\ov Troiovvres w/jLOiwO'rjcrav avrw. TrocTft) Se /3e\,Ti,ov Trepl TTavTtov TWV Tov $ia(3o\ov re/cvcov
Touroi>9,

ov%

6n
f

Jo.viii.41.

rovro
Y,

avra) rc3 TToie?N cuTro<f>aiveo'dai ) 009 ofjboiov^evwv


fcal

TA eppA 40

ov

Sid rrjv over lav

/cal

rrjv

tcaracrKevrjv

retcvcov
32, 33 ffwiaTtivTa] avviff* ra (sic).

35

TJ

o/ryrj ^s]

rj

o/r/7/s.

47.
f

Ibid. xx. 22 (R. IV.

345

L.

II.

264).

Jo.viii.44.

H//,e?9

/AW ovv rov 'EN TH AAnOeiA oyK ecTHKeN d/covofiev

ToiavTrjv efJLffxilvovTos, ov$e TO dfivvaTov Trepl TOV eo-Trj/cevcu CLVTOV ev d\r)0eia Trapio-TavTes. 6 Be *Hpa<f)vo~tv

K\ecov et9

raura

<f)rjo-i

TO

Ov yap

eic

Trjs d\ir]0eia<;

rj

fyvcris
5

avTov, aXX' e/c TOV evavTiov TTJ d\<r]6eia, e/c 7T\dvr)<; Kal dyvoias. Sio, (frrjo-lv, OVT o~Tr)vai, ev d\r)Oela oi/re a^elv ev avT(p d\rjOeiav BvvaTai, e/c avTov 0ucr6ft)9 VSiov e^atv TO i/rei)So9, ^VCTIK&S
eo-Tlv

Bvvdfjiv6<; TTore

d\ij0iav

eiTrelv.

\eyei

8'

ort

Ov
10

e/c

avTov, 18 las avTov eK\afj,j3dva>v Trjv (pvo~iv avTov, eTreiTrep TavTa Be o\a 7r\dvri<; Kal tyevcr paro? o-vveo~Ttj.
i|r6VO"T779 eo~Tlv,

aXXa

teal 6 TraTrjp

pveTai,

TOV Bidj3o\ov TravTO? tyoyov fcal ey/cXtrffjia yap euXo7&)9 dv ^re^ai rj eyKa\eo~at
TO)
fJbrj

Tre^VKOTt irpo? ra

KpeiTTOva.

arf^^
e&Tiv.

ovv

15

fjid\\ov

rj

tyeKTos 6 Smy8oXo9 KaTa TOV


14, 15 /i^^atro]

'Hpa/eXeaW

2 ovSe]

oijre.

yw^^atre rd.

16 ^e/cros]

\f/evKros

(at videtur).

35.

i]

opyij

?]s]

This emendation

the requirement of the context best, while it involves least alsatisfies

teration of the MS. reading. 41. Acaraa/ceuV] Cf. Frag. 33.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

101

48.
f

Ibid. xx.

30 (R.

iv.

359

L. n. 290).
Jo.
viii.

ye 'HpanXewv TO "EcTiN 6 ZHTOON KA'I KPINOON OVK dvafyepei ejrl TOV Trarepa, roiavra \eycov' '0 ZHTOON KA) KPI'NOON ecrrlv 6 e/cbi/cwv yite, 6 vTr^perTj^ 6 els TOVTO
/jbevTOi,

50.

TeTayfj,6vo$, 6
5

MH GIKH THN MA)(AipAN

(f>opooN, 6

IKAIKOC

Horn,

xiii.

Mo>cr?79 Se eariv OVTOS, /caOd irpoeiON yMeic HAni'cAje. elr eiriprj/cev avrois \e<yc0v Eic on '0 KPI'NOON KOI K0\awv earl M.coarjs, rov(f)epei Tecmv aura? 6 vofjLoOerrjs. KOI fjuera rovro Trpos eavrov

TOV

/3acrfcXe&)9.

Jo. v. 45.

eTraTropet
10

'Hpa/cXeo)^

\eya>V

IIco?

ovv ov
6

\eyei,

THN
\vet,v

Kpi'ciN
rrjv

TrapaSeBo a Oca avTu>; KOL dvOv7ro(j)opdv ravrd (^rjoT KaXcS? \e<yei,


TTACAN

vofjil^cov

ydp

to?

vTnjperrj^ TO Be\rj/jLa
7rl

TOVTOV TTOLWV
co?

icplvei,

Kal
15

TOJV

dv6 ptoTTutv fyalveTdi


Kpiaiv

<yiv6fjuevov.

vTroSeecrTepw TOV tcatf o vojjuL^ei, Tc3 Arj/juiovpya), ov& OVTO) aTroSetfat o TT<vmp Kpi'Nei oyAeNA AAAA cra^>o)9 yeypa/jL/juevov TOV OyAe r^P
dvaTiOrjo-i, TT)V
'

d\\a) Twl

Jo. v. 22.
Jo. V. 27.

THN

KplCIN

nACAN AeAOOKE

T(|>

Y'^/

K dl TOV

ElOYCIAN eAOOKEN

KplCIN TTOie?N, OTI yiOC AN9pOC>nOY 6CTIN.


5 oSros] ourws.

49.
f

CLEM. ALEX. Eclog. Prophet.

25, p.

995

(ed. Potter).
Cf.
'

1o>ai^9

(jyrjalp

or^'Efoc)

MEN
KAI
e

BAHTI'ZOO,

Mt.
jj^

iii.

MOY dnfcco 6 BAnTi'zoaN YMAC IN ovSeva e/BaTTTKrev. evioi Se, <W9


Ae

nypi.

Trvpl 8e

LC

<f>rj<nv

WTO,
5

TWV

(7(f)payt%o/jieva)v

/caTecrrj/AijvavTO,

ourft)9 d/covcravTe*;

TO CbTfOGToKlKOV.
4
48. 6.
KO.TO"r)/j,rivavTo]

authority for the aorist in the text of S. John is


^\7rfo-are]

No

indeed, we may see a reference to this identification in the words avrbs

quoted by Tischendorf.

T$ Arifjuovpyy] Apparently Heracleon must have spoken of Moses


15.

49. 1.

It is

how much

not easy to determine of Heracleon is 'embodied


It

as a type of the Demiurge. Origen has refuted more of Heracleon's com-

in this section of Clement.

seems

ments, than he has quoted: unless,

however probable that we should only assume a reference to a practice

102

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

50.
Cf. Lc. xii.

CLEM. ALEX. Strom,

iv. 9, p.

595

(ed. Potter).

811.

e^yov/juevo^ TOV TOTTOV ^pa/cXecov, 6 rrjs Ova\evTIVOV cr^oX,^? SoKL/jLcoTdTos, /card \e^iv (frrjcriv 'O /A0\oy Lav

elvai Trjv fiev ev


<f>a)vfj.
77

Trj

irLcnei
<f>a)vfj

ical

TroXtreta, rrjv Be ev

fjuev

ovv ev
rjv

6/JLO\oyia /cal eTrl


(frrjo-lv,

TWV eov5

criaiv

yiveTai,

fjuovrjv,

elvai ol TroXXot,
6/jLo\oylav real
ev pedrjcrerai

ov%
o

vtyiws.

6fJLO\oyiav rjyovvTai, Svvavrai Be TavTtjv TTJV


ofji>o\o<yelv.

ol vTrotcpiral

aXX'

01)8'

ovro?

\6yos

/ca6o\i,/c(t)<>

elpfj^evo^' ov
t-

yap Trdvres
,

ol crco^o/jievoi, w/jioXoyrjcrav rrjv Bio,


10

6jj,o\oylav ical e%rj\6ov, e^ wv Mar0cuo9, ical E coyLta?, Aeul? /cal a\\ot, TTO\\OL

rj

Std

TTJS (frcovrjs 6fjiO\oy[,a


Se, r}v

ov

tca0o\t,tcr),

d\\d

vvv \eyei, rr/z/ ev epyois ical /cara\X>;Xot9 T^9 et9 avrov Trio-Tews. CTrerat Se
Ka0o\t,Kr)
Trj

6fjuo\oyla /cal

r}

fj,ept/cr)

rj

eTrl

/cal 6

Xoiyo? alpy.
l

6/Jio\o<yrjcrei

TWV e^ovcnwv, edv Bey yap OVTOS /cal Trj (pcovfj,


Trj

15

Trpoofjio\oyrio-as

irpoTepov

Bia6eo-ei,.

/cal

TWV

6/jLo\oyovvTa)v,

'N

eMo'i

elrrev, eTrl Be

1 TOTTOv] TpOTTOV.

mentioned by Heracleon. If not, the sentence which immediately follows in the Eclogae must be his citation
of a divergent version of Matt.
iii.

overlooked the fact that a confession

which involves the penalty of death


a sufficient test of sincerity. history of North Africa however
is

The

10.

may

seems more natural to refer it to Clement himself, as also the remainder of the
the whole however
it

On

possibly justify Heracleon's opinion. It may be well to state that we

section,

though

it

might possibly be

have no evidence, besides that contained in the words TOVTOV e-r)yov/j.evos


whether Heracleon wrote a Commentary on S. Luke.
rbv rbirov, as to
MS. reading rpdirov is interesting, but, as in Clement a long quotation

regarded as containing Heracleonic


doctrine.

We

can hardly therefore

quote the continuation of this passage as proof that Heracleon read 5ia-

The

For the text of Fragments 49 and 50 I have collated the Florence MS. of Clement's Stromateis and Eclogae, and noted its variants in the digest.
50. 1.

immediately precedes the words, it must be merely a scribe's error for


rbirov.

Clement, after quoting this

passage, expresses his approval of it, only remarking that Heracleon has

For the early distinction of Levi from Matthew, cf. Origen c. Celsum i. 62, unless indeed the reading mentioned there by Origen
11.

Aeuts]

is

a variant for QaSSouov (Me.

iii.

18).

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

103

rwv dpvovuevatv, TO
rr)
(f)0)vf)

'E/we TrpocreOrj/cev.

ovroi jap KCLV

6fjio\oyijo'c0o'iv

Trpdgei
yovcriv

arj

avrov, apvovvrat, avrov rfj 6/j,o\oyovvres. uovot, 8' ev avru> 6uo\orfj

ol

ev

/car*

fiiovvres, ev

ot?

/cal

avrov 6/uio\oyla real rcpd^ei avros 6/jio\oyel evei\rj jjbfLevos


2 Tim.
ii.

25

KOI e^6fjievo<; VTTO TOVTWV. SioTrep ApNHCAC0Ai EAYTON ovSeTTore AY'NATAI' dpvovvrat, Se avrov ol ev avTa>. ov yap elirev *0c ApNHceiAi ev e EMe. ouSet? V a P Tore wv ev avrw dpvelrai
avrov.
TO Se
/cal

"EMnpocGeN TOON AN0poc>ncoN,


rcov eOvi/cwv Se
o//-oift)9,

/cal roov cro)-

^ouevcov
30 rfj

irap ol? aev teal

rro\ireia, rrap* ot? be /cal ry (jxovfj. Sioirep ApNHCAcOAi avrov ovberrore Svvavrai, dpvovvrai Be avrov
fjirj

ol

ovres ev avra).

Tavra
24 aurois]

/Jiev

lt{paK\e(0v.

51.

PHOTIUS Ep. 134


irpcoroo-Tradapiy
fcepy
ical

'

(ed.

Montacutius), Trpcorovorapia) ro e7rl/c\r)v Xpucro-

Rich.

(Ep. CO, ed. Baletta).

uSe yap e<f) v/Spei /cal 8iaj3o\fj rov vopov ro 'H Ae KAI AAnGeiA Ai' MHCOY Xpicroy ereNeio rot? evayye\Ltcoi<;
Oecr/jLois
rrept,r)piJioo~ev.

^pa/cXewv yap dv

oureo?

elrroi,

/cal

ol
51. 1. I

have given the

full title,

interesting, as extreme

as irpwToa-Tradaptos is not sufficiently distinctive as a description of the


recipient of

antagonism to the law does not seem to have been


characteristic of

him

(see

Frag. 20).

an Epistle from Photius.


found in his
is

The same

letter is also

Perhaps his followers may have deyeloped this line of Gnosticism more
than their master.

Amphilochia, 246. This reference to Heracleon 3.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
A.

HERACLEON AND VALENTINUS.


of Valentinus offer

The extant Fragments


of Heracleon, especially

with regard to most conveniently discussed in an Additional Note.

some points of comparison with those language and terminology, which can be
I follow the order in

Fragments are given in Hilgenfeld's collection (Ketzergeschichte, p. adopted his text where I quote from them. I have also given references pages of Potter's edition of Clement of Alexandria.
1.

which these 293), and have


to the

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 they had created (tKelvov rod TrXaV/^aros). These were due to Him who had placed
the seed of the higher essence (5ta rbv dopdrws tv avry ffirtp[j.a 5e5w/c6ra rrjs avudev oua-i'as). Compare Heracleon's explanation of the 'forty and six years'
in

man

e/x^wT^ucm 0-rrtp/j.a. Heracleon (Frag. 16), TT\V ti\r]i> rovrfori rb 7rXacr ua...T6 Iv r has retained the terminology of his master. With the Angels compare Frag. 36, oi Valentinus goes on to TTJS o'iKOvofjiias cfyyeXot, di <Lv ws /u.eorrwj' effirdpr) /cat dverpd^f).
)

speak of an "Avdpwiros in whose name Adam was formed ; this may perhaps throw some light on the important position assigned to "Avdpuwos in Heracleon's account
of the
2.

two

every evil spirit from the heart of man reminds us of Heracleon's interpretation of the words '0 ^Xos rov ot/cou (rov KaraQdyerat /AC as being spoken e/c Trpovunrov T&V KJ$\'r)6vT(av Kal d and with the words evvftpi^o TWV virb TOV 2o>T77pos dwd/j-ewv (Frag. 14)
of
:

rov dv6punrov (Frag. 35). Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 20, p. 488.


viol

The expulsion

'

'

compare Heracleon's description


oiKf)T'ripioi>

of the former life of the

Samaritan woman,
TroXXwv daipdvuv

Kal dOeTovfj.&r) Kal eyKaTaXenrofj^vf) (Frag. 18). see the note

On

on Frag. 20

(p. 77).

3.

Clem. Alex. Strom,

in. 7, p. 538.

The Docetism
/SpcDjwa

of this

compared with Heracleon's teaching on the


;

Uiov of

Fragment should be the Lord (Frag. 31), and

the healing of the Ruler's son (Frag. 40) but the question of Heracleon's Docetism has been discussed in the Introduction (p. 46).
4.

Clem. Alex. Strom,


<f>dopd,

iv. 13, p.

603.

With

fw?) cu'wnos

and the

victory of its

children over
/j.tvr].

The

compare Frag. 17 cu'wjuos 7<ip i] fw?) avrov Kal /^S^rore (f>0ipo* distinction between KOCT/J.OS and /crtVis in the last sentence of Valentinus,
fttv
K6<r/J.ov

orav yap rbv

X^re, avrol

5e /u^ KaTa\vr)<rde, Kvpievere TTJS /cr/<rews Kal rijs

<f>6opds d-jrdffris, is

explained by Frag. 20, where Heracleon speaks of the /c60>tos as the world of the Devil, and connects xriVts with the /CT/O-TTJS or Demiurge, whom the

Jews worshipped.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
5.

105
of Valentinus

Clem. Alex.

ibid.

As
it

in the present connexion,

most important Fragment may be well to quote his words in full.


this is the

eXaTTUV y etKW TOV


rls ovv atria TT)S

WVTOS wpoffuTrov, TOVOVTOV Tjeffw 6 007*05 TOV ek6pos; iteydKuavvy TOV TT/XXTWTTOU irapeo~xr)P-tvov r
6t>6fj.aTos

rbv TVTTOV,

ti>a

rifjt.r)dy

6Y

avTov.

ov

yap avOevTiKtSs

evptdr)

fJ.op<f>ri,

d\\d TO
ets tri<JTLv

8vo/j.a etrX-fjpwffev

TO vffTeprjcrav iv

7rXa<rei.

ffvvepyei d

Kai TO TOU 6eov dopaTov

TOV TreTT\a<jfj.vov.

Here

6 *6o-,uos is

used in

its

wider sense.

The meaning

of the

Fragment must

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

be that as the likeness

is inferior to

'

'

in the copy. The use of atw, contrasted with /coV/ios, 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 al&vi Kai ol <rvv avr$>
;

e\66vTs and

tire'urep

dicoves OVTOI

(sc.

01

'lovdaioi)

TUV

ev T<

7rX7;/)c6/xaTi

airr<

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
;

17

Demiurge, Sophia's TrXdoyxa created to give glory to the Father TO $uv the Father, the True God: fwypa0os = Sophia. [As the Demiurge is n-fXHTuirov The Demiurge is an inferior to the Father, so is the Kofffios to the living Aeon.]
:

ecKuv = the

the Father) as being dirb cj/6s, the production of Sophia. a <rvvyia are not etVcoVes but Tr\ijpufj(.aTa (cf. Excerpta ex Theod.
(of

dKuv

The
32).

offspring of

The next

But the words TO e^vey/ma TOV diaiptpovTos TrvevpaTos, ep.irvelTo.L Ty \fsvxfj, shew great similarity of substance rj IK /xeo-oTT/Tos ^x^j an^ with the teaching of Frag. 16 ; and the use of ir\ripw^a immediately recalls HeraIt cleon's use of it to represent the husband' of the Samaritan woman (Frag. 18). 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 misunderstands. But if it is so, some of Heracleon's most peculiar terminology was derived
sentence
is

hardly

intelligible.

'

from his master.


6.
<ria

for

Beyond the implied restriction of eKK\rjto the TrvevpaTiKol (cf. Frag. 25 etc.) this Fragment offers no further points comparison, and the same is the case with the remaining Fragments of
Clem. Alex. Strom,
vi. 6, p.

767.

ij

Valentinus.

Thus a

detailed comparison of the language used

by Heracleon and Valentinus

reveals linguistic affinities

the Introduction
Valentinus.

(p.

which thoroughly agree with the supposition adopted in 38) that Heracleon did not materially alter the system of

B.

THE EXCERPTA EX THEODOTO.


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 Stromateis and Eclogae Propheticae of Clement, and also the whole of the Excerpta 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

When

106

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

not noticed in his digest. But he has either adopted in his text or noticed practically all the variants from Migne's text which are of any value.
Dindorf, vol. in. p. 425
1.
1.

15

/j,era TTJV A rrjs

ins.
rois

e/c

intra lin.

426
429

10
11
3 8

TOU

1.
1.
1. 1.

(sic)

434 436
441 445

OuaXe'T4J'taj'o4

OuaXevTiviavov
bpare
? corr.

oparai

19

1.

22

450 452
453

1.
1.

30 20
13 14
6X4701;
ecrri
<T

eras.

1.
1.

TO

453

C.

ON THE TEXT

OF FRAGMENT

24.

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 bpw<riv is as follows
:

To judge from

'AXX' ovx bp&ffiv (12)


It is

6Y4 iravrbs (13)

KO.I

r(av

important to start from this, as all conjectural restorations seem to have been based upon the words r&v evavriw, 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 word iVws, and is certainly later than
uses the word Td^a. Origen's argument seems to be as follows. Is it not d<re/3es to call the spiritual worshippers, whom Heracleon has just called adulterers (in that he has just said that the Samaritan woman Tn/eu/Acm/c^s 0tfo-ews ofrra has committed adultery), b
the other emendator,

who

with God? Heracleon and his followers do not see that, etc. But if the T4KT/ 0i}(rts being 6/j.ooti<rios with God could commit adultery, impious deductions
ffioi

follow from

their

argument concerning God.

something

equivalent to SVxeTcu 6 0ebs rb iropvevvcu.

Heracleon, that

God and
:

clearly refutes the position of Origen the Trvev^ariKol are o/xoo&not by a reductio ad absurdum

The impious deduction

is

through two syllogisms


(1)

major, minor.

(2)

major. minor.

God and the TrvevnariKr] 0uo*i$ are o/j-oovaia God and the wv. (ptitns are ruv avrwv God and the TTV. <pvais are r<2v avrwv
The God
TTV.
0i/cr4S

e6VciTo TO iropvevcrai

^x eTCU T iropvevo-ai: (for if the of that which it e6VctTo).


strict

irv.

<f>v<r.

cS^aro, then

it is

argument, though of course cisely in Origen, some of the terms being suppressed.

This seems to be the

it is

stated

more con-

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
The only major which
a.vT(av deKTiKa.

107
seems to be rd
o/xoorftrta

will suit the 1st syllogism

would therefore propose to read, ttav rb 6pooti <nov Kal TUV avrwv This preserves the TWV avruv which is attested by all the MSS. r(av tva.vhaving, 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 (el 5 e5^aTo...0eou) 'Quod si [Heracleon ac sui sequaces] admiseriut spiritualem naturam quae sit eiusdem essenI
,
:

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. tKireiropvevKtvaL. Kegius TrewopvevKevai. Mox Codex Bodtiae

[cum divina

et

leianus habet "'AXX' oi>x bpuaiv oi TO.VTO. \tyovres, STL Travrbs TU>V ivavrluv Kal TUIV O.VTUIV deKTiKbv. Et 5e eS&jaro rb iropvevaai i] Trvev/jLaTiKr] 0tf<rts, b[J.oov<rios otiffa rrj dyevModo pro Kal r(av avruv legas vrjTy dvoffta &c. sicque sanitati omnia restituuntur.
Kal TO ai)ro."

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 rb atrb for TUV a$Tuv I cannot
see.

Codex Kegius reads eKireiropvevKtvai.

God and

the

Trveu/cum/crj 0i50-is

would hardly even by the impious Heracleon

be called TO aur6.
,

The point is not that rb avrb is SeKTiKoi> TWV evavriwv. The only deduction from this and the following sentence would be that God being (?) identical with the in>ev/j.aTiKri 0i;o-is is capable of contrary things to what it is capable of, i.e. I suppose rb The point is rather wopvevffai, which deduction is not av6<uov. that God and the irv. 0i/<rts, being 6/jt.oo6<ria, are TUV avTuv deKTiKa. Sense can be

extracted from Grabe's conjecture, adopted by


TTj/eO/wa

Hilgenfeld,

6'rt

iravTos KO\OV TO

The argument would then be I suppose somewhat as follows. T6 irvev^a. is not SexTiKbv of good and evil at the same time. The iri>evfj.aTiKr <f>v<ns ed^aro rb KO.KOV therefore it cannot dtxwQa-t- TO Ko.\6v and therefore God, being o^oo&rios with it, is not SOCTIKOS TOV /caXou, and is therefore 5eKTt/cds TUV evavTiuv i.e. of evil. But the objections to it are insuperable: (a) It makes Origen guilty of unparalleled obscurity. It has no support whatever (/3) from the MSS. ( /) It is based on the unfortunate conjecture TUV evavTluv, (5) It would require TOV tvavTiov. (e) It makes r6 irvfvfjia = ri
Kal

TUV ivavriwv ov SCKTIKOV.

INDEX OF PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED, EXPLAINED, OR REFERRED TO BY HERACLEON.


The figures refer
to

the

number of the page. Square brackets have been used where the reference is doubtful.
93
79]
Jo.
iv.

Gen.
[Ps.

vi.

16
17

73f.

xix. (xviii.) 5
Ixix. (Ixviii.)
i.

74
f

Ps.
Is.

10

69

18

75 76
78
f.

2,

4 2

93
93
92] 69] 80]

20
22

v. 1,

[xxv. 8
[Jer.
vii.

23

80

11

24

79,81
82 83

[Ezek. xxxiv. 16 iii. 11 [Mt.

101]

2527 2831
32-34
35
36

Mt.

viii.

12

93

84
86
87
f.

ix.

37 28
11

86 92 58

x. xi.

37

88
89 90
91

xxi. 13
xxiii. 15,

69
33
99

38f
40 42
46

xxv. 1
[Lc.
iii.

84
101] 65

16

91

Lc.

vii.

26
28.....

,58
102
80
50,
v.

4749 5053
54

92
93
92
101 95

xii.

11

xix. 10

45
12
ff

Jo.

i.

80
53

viii.

f. f.

4 18

21 37

f
f

95

55

97 97
97,98, 100 97
101

20
21
56,

56
58 56
61
f.

43 44
47

23
25

50

26 28
ii.

62

f.

Eom.

i.

25
15 21
,

79
72]

f
f.

65

[v.
vi.

12

66
68

f.
f.

92
101
79

14f.

xiii.4
1 Cor. x. 5

17

69
70f.

19f
iv.

xv. 53 f

92 89

11

84
72
f.

Gal.

iii.

19

14

2Tim.ii. 13

103
..68

15.

..73

Heb.

ix. 7..

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS IN THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.


The figures
'Appaa.fi 44, 9
T]

refer to the

number and

line of the

Fragments.

19, 9
rj

rats,

40, 48 35, 17
;

21,

27
;

oi T-^J otico^o/xtas

a 30, 5 17, 27 a 46, 19


d6paros 24, 2

40, 11

dyy. 36, 7

01 0177.

rou Ayfuovpyov 40,

37
',

ets

<f>tt)TiafJi.bt>

/c.r.X. 2,

aTraXXdrreiJ' 19,

23
33, 6

cfyia

r&v dytwv 13, 7


18, 9
;

41, 4
32, 8
;

d7J>oeti>

Ayvoia 19, 13

40, 10

41, 3

47, 6

34,
diro\\vj><u 23, 5
d7rp6(T7rXo/cos 16,

dSiaKpcros 17, 30

adavaffia 40, 19
40, 14

9
40, 52

d7rc6Xa 23, 13
a/ryws 11, 3
;

40, 22

ow

1,

18, 21

22, 2
;

23, 14

38, 3

dpiMs

16, 7

cu'c^ios 17,
d/c>c.cuos

16

34, 7

42, 6

dpvi<r6ai 50, 19
tfs

32, 7

13, 8

dXX6rptos 40, 56
clXXus 19, 15

lv 40,
^vt]
;

9
19, 10

dyaa^T^a 40, 10
d/zaprte 10, 4
fiv
s
;

41, 4

10, 7
droi'os 17,

40, 26 etc.

19, 13

&T/3000S 17,

43

10, 3 13,

dru^^a 40, 29

4
9
40, 25 46, 26

d(f>a.vit;eii>

13, 29

tivai 2,

d^ecris 40,
d<t>dap<ria

33
;

dvcupe> 12, 3

40, 18
24, 2

41, 4

18, 7
17, 19
;

dvdXow

14, 3

/3a0i5s

23, 5

30, 5

di>aira.ti<r0ai 34,

5
;

/3a7rrt(7T^s 3,

8,

27

dm7rai;o-ts

12, 3

31, 5

32, 9

33, 6

j3a<riXi/c6s

40, 1

42,5
15, 5
ri

9,

5
;

13, 6
f3pG)(j.a

40, 28

27, 21

31, 4

36, 8 43, 3
dvr)\ovv 13,

40, 11
12, 6
;

28

38, 3
;

dVoSos 13, 2

40, 16

46, 23
2,

dj/oketosll, 6;
dvofj.ia

40,40

7<?j>e<ns 1,

24

46, 31

yevvav 46, 25

110
32, 3
;

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.


46, 24
eTri8y/j.la.

40, 45

43, 4
13, 32

46, 18

la 46, 5

17, 7
rfeti'

8,

31
17,

1,

24

8,

37

20, 16

22, 18

fTrlfJI.OX00S

42

40, 38
44, 4 t</3o\os 20, 7 5ta0eo-ts 27, 2 ; 50, 17
; ;

32, 11

45, 2

46, 3

25, 3

38, 6
eVtT7?5e?os 32, 7
t'ws
;

dtaKpiveiv 17,
diavoeiv 5,

31

33, 5

7 ; 30, 3 17, 38 42, 9

40, 17
17, 27
;

e'ii'

5,

20, 9

567/ia 40, 13

40, 43
11,

56a

17, 3
;

4
;

SoDXos 5, 32

40, 37
14,

32, 7

36, 13
27, 16

Stvaius 13, 21;


27, 2
;

3;

17,

14; 18, 6;
elv 22,

31, 5
17, 42

dva-jr6pi<rTos

e#7rt(rro5 40,

35

Vpl<TKlV 13, 11

18, 27 Wvuth 20, 11 21, 11 ; 50, 29 clK& 13, 3 16, 6 ; 22, 9


; ;

19, 1
'a 46,

24

et'Xi/c/Hi'ws

40,

44

14, 1
a/

tKpa\\etv 14, 2
^jSXjJfew 17, 27
e/c5iKe?j>

40, 33

48, 3

ZicSiKos 48,
eKK\T](Ti<x.

4
;

'HX/as 4, 8 ; 5, 39 5, 81 40, 54
;

13, 33 36, 13

15, 5

25, 2

37, 3

5,

i7

37, 5
24, 14

0dXa<r<ra 40, 8

etX-wa 31, 4
;

46, 5

eKiropveteiv 19,

12

24, 15

Oeoaepeia 24, 10
depifriv 34,
0epLfffj.6s

13, 22
8,

35, 5
;

36,

10

37
46, 26
16, 9

32, 3
34, 2

33, 5 35, 16

21, 23

46, 12
17, 5

evdelKW<r6ai 17, 30 40, 18


5,

0tfr0ai 10, 11
0v<rla 13,

12, 4

18
11

52
22
;

las 50,

evtpyeia. 13,
eu' 1,

35
;

35, 11 38, 3

'Iajc(6j8

17, 5

us 32, 5 37, 6
27, 2
10, 9

te/)6v
'

13, 8
;

Iepoff6\vfj.a 13, 1
'

20, 11

I epoucr 01X77/1, 13,

3
40, 12
;

'Iou5a/a 22, 5

vrvyxfl- veLV ^9,

louScuot 20, 12
4,

21, 11

22, 8
8,

42, 3
;

18, 7
i,
i]

5,

7,5;

36

10, 3

(jLeyahi) 12, 1

24, 2

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.


-a0oXi/c6s 40,

Ill

50, 12

2, 7

Kado\iKu>s 50, 8

/i6/)0a;<ns, irpurri 2,

K a K la 13, 30

18,
;

24

20, 9

48, 5

Karapaiveus 11, 3 /caraXetTretj' 27, 3


17,

40, 31
16, 6
;

30

50, 14
;

40, 20
;

iv 5,
T)

79

13,

31

16, 5

eij/

1,

35

8,

36

13, 6

22, 8

35, 17

33, 8
;

v6(u/J.os 18,

10
8
40, 25

Ka.Te\0etv 8, 29
j^t

11, 5
;

40, 50

vo/j-odfrys 48,
v6fjios

11, 4

40, 6

20, 10

13, 16
Kep/j.a.Ti<rTri$

>6<ros

40, 32

13,
;

14
13,

/cX^cris

13, 5
5,

27, 16

16

Kowbrepov
iv

70

13,

26
39, 5

48, 7

36, 6
Kbiros
(?)

36, 9 17, 4
;

5,

27

23, 6

40, 49

/coo-Au/c6s

18, 8

27, 21
;

40, 21

/c60y*os 1,

8,
;

11, 5
;

18,

20

20, 7

oiKT)T7]piOV 20,

9
;

27, 6

31, 9

37, 2

40,

43

oiKovofjda 8,

32
8
2

11, 2

ot TT?S OIK.

&yye\oi

K pi6s 10, 10
Kptios 36,

36,7
oiKou/j^vr) 22,
;

10
22, 19
;

KTl<ns 20, 11

6(j.o\oyiv 4, 7; 8, 38; 19, 2; 26, 5; 50, 7


6fji.o\oyla 50,

20, 11
ris

22, 20

13, 29

wo/xocria 46, 18

46,

20
19, 13
;

6>os 20, 6
ovffia 43,

44, 7

45, 2

46, 2

Xarpe/a 13, 18

24, 10
;

6V>ts

46, 24

\a,Tpevw 20, 14 Aevis 50, 11


Aevlrrjs 13, 10
AeuiriK<5s 5,

21, 24

22, 19
7ra0os 12, 2
;

38, 4

Travovpyta 6, 10
irapadox'n 33, 7
Trapa0e<ri$ 10,

63

X<ts

8,

38

8 8 4

\Lvov 13, 23

irapovffta 27, 7
irepiypatf)-/] (?) 2,

\oy iK 6s 24, 10
s,

6 1, 7; 5,

22, 7

33, 8

44, 5 ; 45, 1

irepLffffbrepov 10,

Ittrpos 21, 22
fj.aprvpia, av0p(n)Trtvirj 39,

TrXavai/ 22,
TrXai/r;

17
;

Marflcuos 50, 10 /za%cu/)a 48, 4


/x<?7e0os 8,

22, 16
16, 7

23, 6; 24, 9

47, 6

29

13, 11
v 18,
7rj/eu/*a

18, 5

22, 10

50, 12
'rjs

25
;

36, 7
40, 7

13, 6

17,

13

24, 8

27, 7

r6

617. TTV.

13, 22

HTa.pd\\eit>, see 40, 68


5,

irvevna.Ti.K6s 2,

15, 4

20, 15

23, 12

30
28

24, 15; 37, 3


7n/eu/iTi/cws 24, 6
iroXireta 50, 3
iro\iTijf(r0a.i 40,

5,

34, 3
^s 37, 5

44

112
Tr6\virpay/j,ov?v 5,
jrovr)p6s
Troj'TjptDs

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.


61
rerpcts 16,
Trjfj.e\eTv

40,

56
10

36, 12
;

42, 2

T6?ros 11, 6

13, 3

17,

39

6 u?rep rov r.

iropeti<r0cu, els <pdopav 42,


TrpeirovTtos 19,

8
;

wds dvdpwTTov 35, 14 rp67ros 40, 39


77*

vp&parov 10, 7 ; 12, 3 7rp65po/ios 8, 22


Trp6vaos 13, 9

13, 13

31, 5
12, 2
;

13, 27

27, 8
25, 2
TTpocrdoKav 26, 4 Trpou/ccupos 17, 2
Trpocr/caprepeti' 5,

uSpt'a 27, 1 CXT; 16,

7; 20, 8; 21, 23; 23, 6; 36, 13;


13, 2

40, 8
;

40, 3

11, 5
rt'a

18,

24

62

8,

26

vp6ff<airov 8,
tfeiJ'

35; 14, 2; 40, 22 5, 80


8
;

48, 12
vTTopepfjKus 40, 7

4,

5,

39

10, 3

19, 3

8,30
50, 7
viroTt8e(rdai 40,

7rpo077Tt/c6s, Trp.

rais

5,

13

tpeid 26,

crap/ajaDs
<7ctp

7; 28, 2; 31, 8 24, 6

(pavepovv 44, 7
4>apt(ratcK 6,

22, 16; <rctpKa Xa/Se?!' 8, 30


i/

10

7,

13, 24 36, 12

00apr6s 40, 18 <f>6eipetv 17, 16


(pdopa 42,

ovceOos 27, 5

10
17

a/c6ros 46,
wj'

23

00opo7rot6s 46, 25
<f>i\apyvpla 13,
<J>/Xi7r7ros
;

16, 4
Z,

7; 35, 2; 36,8
40, 56

50,

10

16, 10; 35, 3; 36, 5


<TTavp6s 13,
crvfyrecv 31,
(rv^Tifjffis

<j>payt\\iov 13, 19

28
3

0uX?7 5, 64
i

<%

J f7

0u<rt/cws 47,
01^0-ts

o
47, 4

r>

31, 10

17, 31; 19, 8; 23, 12; 24, 2; 33,


;

atli.po\ov 13, 10
<rvfji,Trapa\afj,pdviv
ffV/J.7T\^KI.V

9; 37, 5; 40, 10; 44, 8; 46, 11


20, 17
r/*6s 2,

18, 25 20, 18

35, 2
35, 12
;

MU

46, 32
34, 4
;

a 13, 12; 22, 7; 33, 7 40, 17 fav 31, 7 ; 40, 50 ; 50, 9


rafts 5, 8; 40,

v 5,

42

40,

46

13,

23

46, 11

w
48
raireivbrepov 30, 3

13, 18 46, 13

rAetot 10, 9
TeXet6r7;s 35,

47, 8

12

47, 12
47, 10

reX^ws 40, 26
r^Xos 40, 24
TTpafJL'T]VOV 32,

27, 8

32, 6
;

35, 18
;

40, 14

13, 3
C.

37, 4

46, 12

CAMBRIDGE

PRINTED RY

J.

CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT

THE UNIVERSITY

PRESS.

TEXTS AND STUDIES


CONTKIBUTIONS TO

BIBLICAL

AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY
J.

ARMITAGE ROBINSON

B.D.

FELLOW or CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

VOL.

I.

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891

STUDIES

G80