j.

BINDING LIST

WW 1 5

1928

AND STUDIES
CONTRIBUTIONS TO

BIBLICAL

AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY
J.

ARMITAGE ROBINSON
FELLOW or CHRIST
S

B.D.

COLLEGE CAMBBIDGE

VOL.

I.

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

TEXTS AND STUDIES
CONTRIBUTIONS TO

3

BIBLICAL

AND

PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY
J.

ARMITAGE ROBINSON
FELLOW OF CHBIST
S

B.D.

COLLEGE CAMBKIDOE

VOL.

I.

No.

4.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891

J. CLAY AND SONS, CAMBKIDGE UNIVEKSITY PRESS WAEEHOU AVE MAEIA LANE.

Sontum: C.

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

CO,

MACMILLAN AND

CO.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

NEWLY EDITED FROM THE

MSS.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

BY

A.

E.

BROOKE
S

M.A.

FELLOW OF KING

COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891
[All Eights reserved]

PRINTED BY

C.

J.

CLAY, M.A.

AND SONS,

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

PATRI CARISSIMO

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGES

INTRODUCTION
The MSS. of Origen The Date and Teaching
s

Commentaries on
of Heracleon

S.

John

...

1-49
1

31

TEXT AND NOTES
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Heracleon and Valentinus
Collation of the

50-103
104-107

104
.

On

Excerpta ex Theodoto the Text of Fragment 24
. .

.

.

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.

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

Rome and

Oxford.

The
all

them and the

fact that

they

contained

a near

from many common lacunae, pointed to their derivation common ancestor. The following pages are an attempt to
this ancestor
still exists,

shew that

state of preservation, in the Library at The Manuscripts are as follows
:

though unfortunately Munich.

in a

bad

I.

Codex Monacensis.
;

In the Munich State Library, Graec.
"

CXCI

thus described in the Catalogue,

Bombycinus charta obso-

leta et laesa

atramento flavescente

frequenti abbreviatione in folio, ff. turbato male conservatus et inscriptus
in Matt, et
Jn."

minutis et elegantibus 305, saec. xm. foliorum ordine
literis
(/>uX.

pi/3

,

Origenis

Comm.
10.
is

Of the Commentaries on
13. 19. 20.

S.

John

it

contains Bks.
s

1. 2. 6.

28. 32 (33 according to Hardt

Catalogue, but this

an

error).

Thus the MS.

follows the true division of the Books.

The Ferrarian

division (that invented or adopted by Ambrosius Ferrarius in his translation) into 32 books is added in the margin by a later hand. from ruled lines, there being one Minuscules are used,

column
B.

of

hanging 30 lines on each page,

in the

Commentaries on

S.

John.
1

2

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
S.

The Commentaries on

Matthew

are in another

hand and contain

36 lines on a page. In both red semi-capitals are often used at the beginning of sentences, but not uniformly. The MS. is stained at the top and bottom, and worm-eaten in many places. The order of the folios in S. Matthew is much confused, and one or two pages
are wanting.

The

title-page of the MS. has the following description in D. Matt. Ev. tomus 11 init. mut. 12. 13. 14. 15. "Origenis
:

16. et in evang.

Johann. torn. 1. 2. 6. 9. 13. 19. 20. In the middle of the page are the arms, below which is written "Ex electorali Bibliotheca sereniss. utriusque Bavariae Ducum."
32."

:

This description is inaccurate. Most of Bk. x. of the Comm. And with regard to the in Matt, is there, and also Bk. xvii.

Comm.

in Joann. 9

is

a mistake for 10, and 28 should have been
of the
"In

inserted.

Huet mentions a MS.
his Origeniana

Commentaries on

S.

Matthew

in

m.

notatur

Tomus

Catalogo librorum ducis Bavariae Undecimus initio quoque mutilus cum proxime
iii.

12.

sequentibus quinque." And as to the Commentaries on S. John he was again misinformed. "Eosdem (i.e. 1. 2. 6. 10. 13. 19. 20. 28.
32) complectitur

Tomos praeter decimum

et

vigesimum octavum
(in.
iii.

rnemoratus liber in bibliothecae Bavaricae

Catalogo"

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. Codex Venetus. In the Bibliotheca Marciana at Venice, The title as given in the MS. itself is Graec. 32.
II.
1

f
KTrifJia

topiyevovs e^rjyrjo-is et? TO
/3i]<ro-apla)vos

Kara MarOalov rwv Toa/cXtov. Kap$r)va\.

teal tear

Itodwvfp

from ruled

hanging with one column of 36 lines on a page, and about 60 letters in each line. It consists of ff. 330 of which ff. 1117 contain the Comm. in Matt. Bks. 10 17 (inclusive). F. 118 con
lines,

The MS.

is

dated 1374.

It is written in minuscules

tains a preface on Origen

s

blasphemy, beginning TroXhwv JAW and

THE

MSS.

OF ORTGEN

S

COMMENTARIES ON

s.

JOHN.

3

This preface has nothing to do with the preface in the Munich Codex concerning the marginal notes in The words rov ySao-tXew? at the head of this preface its ancestor. Ff. 112 point probably to some connexion with Constantinople.

ending KOI avOis atywpeOa.

(recto)

far the folios are

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

divided in the

MS.

into 32 books.

A

callido librario in

They are Tomos

et triginta duos distributus fuit, hac arte lacunas et hiatus celare, apud incautos dissimulare, et pro integro venditare volente," says

Huet. The fraud is sufficiently patent; if conviction were necessary, we have only to look at the fragments quoted as from the fourth and fifth books of the Commentaries in the Philocalia. The diver gences between the text of this MS. and Ferrarius s translation are
not more than can be accounted for by the loose and paraphrastic character of translations of that time, or by the necessity of original

composition to which he was sometimes reduced in consequence of his inability to understand the Greek, which is in some places too
corrupt for conjecture. At the end of the MS. the following note has been added
"

:

Fuit copiatus per Georgium Triphon inm di Maluasiae et finitto ad X Ottobr. 1555."

To

this

we

shall

have occasion to

refer

when we

are dealing

with the seventh manuscript. The same scribe is known to have been working at Venice also in 1548 (see Gardthausen, Griechische
Palaeographie,
III.
p. 322).

Codex Regius.
;

nale at Paris
f

Graec. CDLV. in the Bibliotheque Natiothus described in the manuscript itself:
Iwdvvrjv evayye\Lov
e drro

flpiyevovs rwv et? TO Kara

*f

rov avrov

et?

TO Kara MarBatov TO/AOL
.

rov Setcdrov

ro/jLov

avev dp%f)s oWo? yite^pt rov t 5 Codex Chartac. xvi. saec. scriptum quo continentur Origenis
et

commentaria in Johannem
protulit Daniel Huetius.

Matthaeum quae primus

in

lucem

12

4

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
In the early parts of the Commentaries on
S.

Matthew the

folios are in
is

wrong order and there are large lacunae. The Codex This was the written in minuscules hanging from ruled lines.

MS. on which Hnet based

his text, though his text is not identical with that of the MS., as Delarue seems often to have assumed. It was used by Perionius in his translation of the Commentaries on
S. John.

IV.

Codex Bodleianus.

Misc.

58: used by Delarue.

This

MS.

is

described in the Bodleian Catalogue as being of the 17th

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

and the third 182.
In the margin
it

It contains only the

Commentaries on

John.

has two sets of emendations.

The

first

are introduced by the word rd^a and are for the most part based on Ferrarius s Latin Version. The second, which are distinguished by the word to-o)?, are later and inferior. In the copy of Huet

belonging to the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, Bentley has noted in the margin a great many readings from this MS.,
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. I Abbe* Pieralisi. It contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew
.

;

(beginning at Book X. rore a<et? TOI)? o^Xou?, and ending eVtcrrpe^rai 717)09 avrov, Bk. XVII.) and the Commentaries on S. John,
divided into 32 Books.
It is

bound up with a MS.

(in the

same

hand, I think) of Philo Ylepl TOV ftlov Maxreo)?.
VI.

Codex Barberinus II.

It contains the

Of the same date as the preceding. Commentaries on S. Matthew and S. John, but

the former begin with the words TIVI e \a^ovcnv ev rofc VTTOand there is no trace of a folio having been lost. This, See<7Tepo?, 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 following information. written on paper, containing

numbered 0.
ff.

32.

It is a folio

MS.

30G, with 30 lines on a page, and
"

1 He writes at the beginning of Huet s text Collatus ad Cod. Mstum. Chartaceum ab Italo (ut videtur) scriptum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana Oxonii Num. E. 2. 6, 7,
8."

THE

MSS.

OF OllIGEN
in a line.

S

COMMENTARIES ON

S.

JOHN.
is

O

about 40 letters
in

It contains the preface

which

found

Codex Venetus, headed by the words + rov /^acrtXect)? +, beginning on the 2nd recto TroXXdw rov topirytvyv aiperitcov r^fyiaapkvtov, and ending on the 2nd verso KOI avOis The Commentaries begin on the 3rd recto with the title ooptyevovs rutv et? TO Kara Icodvvrjv vay<ye\iov egrj yrjriKwv It is divided into 32 books and is dated at the royu-o? TT/JWTO?. end afyve ev firjvl avyovo-rov k.
:

After this follows the

name

of the scribe in cryptograph.

That

is

to say

irapd

The cryptograph used

is

the

common one

in

which the scribe

takes the Greek alphabet with the three letters F, Cj, and ~\ thus 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 and so on, in each group. Thus the middle letters of each 9 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.
each,
one,
<.

It

may be

as well to notice here, on account of its connexion

in origin with the foregoing, a Matthew, numbered O. 47. It

MS.
is

of the Commentaries on S.
folio,

a

226; containing the Contra Celsum in
ff.

it

is

same hand the same Library.
in the

as O. 32

written on paper and and a MS. of
It contains the

Com

mentaries on S. Matthew, beginning at the 10th (with the words rdre a<ei5 rou? o^Xou?) and ending at the 27th (eiFurrptycu 737705
avrov).

The MS.

is

dated a five.

o/crca/Spiov /3

.

and signed

ef"^0^8*

K0~^0- e<r^)Qo- ^r^^av. After this it has on f. 225 the preface on Origen s blasphemies, with the same heading + rov /3ao-tA,eo>5 +
as in 0. 32.

end of

S.

The scribe has thus copied this passage twice, Matthew and again at the beginning of S. John.
1

at the

The

must be a mistake

for

Cj

which would represent

i.

(j

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
VIII.

The

transcription of

Codex Bodleianus

(IV.)
It is

Herbert Thorn dike needs no further description.

made by now in the

Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (numbered B. 9. 11). It is not without value however, as the writer has inserted several con jectural emendations in the margin, and there are also three pages
of critical notes at the beginning. IX. The existence of a ninth

MS.

is

doubtful.

In Miller

s

Catalogue of the Escurial Library, pp. 305 ff., is given a list, found in one of the Escurial MSS. (x. i. 15), of the Greek Manuscripts which
belonged to Cardinal Sirlet s Library, and passed into the posses sion of Cardinal Ottoboni (Alexander VIII.). Subsequently Bene dict XIV. is said to have placed them in the Vatican. Among
these

a MS. containing Origen s Commentaries on S. Matthew and S. John, and Philo Hepl TOV fiiov TOV Maxreax;, Hepl TOV filov
is

7ro\i,TLKov (Joseph),

In and Tie pi vbpwv dypdcfxov (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 num bered V. Is it possible that this MS. passed from the hands of

any of

its

former owners into the possession of the Barberini

?

If

not, we must suppose that this MS. has been lost, unless indeed the MS. Catalogue of the Ottobonian Manuscripts is incomplete. 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 must now be con For the sake of clearness I subjoin a diagram shewing
Munich Codex
After this I propose to to those MSS.

what

I

conceive their relations to be.

consider the relations (1) of the

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. (q)
first

the relation of the Paris
of the two are practically

Codex

to that at Munich.

The contents

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

THE

MSS.

OF ORIGEN

S

COMMENTARIES ON

s.

JOHN.

As pointed out above, the statement that the God. Monac. (i) contains of the Comm. in Matt. Books XI. (mutilated) to XVI. is
incorrect.

It contains also

most of Book

x.,

and Book xvn.

The

SAEC.
Monac.
(I)

/
XIV
Yen. (II)

/

XVI
Reg. (Ill)

Barl. (VI)

Matrit.(VIl

XVII

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

words contained in
of

this part of the
;

avrov, the ending shews that both Books xvi. and xvil. are contained in the MS., for on f. 62, Book xvi. on f. 77, and the Comm. in Book xv.

Book xvn.

MS. are eiria-rpe^rai 777)09 and a calculation of pages easily

begins Matt, end on f. 110.
called

is

Thus while Book xv. takes only ff. 15, what Book xvi. takes 33, though in Lommatzsch s edition Books xv. and xvi. cover very nearly the same number of pages
each.
in Joann. there is no difference of contents, words which occur in the Cod. Monac. are TIVI Be ev rot? uTroSeetrrepoi? which occur towards the end of XdfjL-^rova-Lv Book x. chap. 3 (Lomm. ill. p. 15). In the Paris MS. the leaves are not in right order, but the first words which occur (they are on f. 255) are TraXiv o^oia ecmv K.T.\. (Mt. xiii. 44) which begin

In the

Comm.

(ii)

The

first

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 have lost its first leaf in the 16th century.

8

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
More
direct proofs of copying are not wanting. I. Cod. Monac. has p. 118, 1. 22.

Lomm.

Trapa^e^v...^ the

intervening space being worm-eaten, Cod. Reg. has -n-apa^e^.. vai leaving space for about four letters. Cod. Monac. reads ovOev, but the 6ev is hidden p. 152, 1. 15.

by a piece of parchment fastened on over word leaving a space for three letters.
6

it.

Reg. omits the

uios_

p.

177,

1.

5.

Cod. Monac. has

^ovoyev^

do; the 6 vibs being

an interlinear insertion by a
yevr)<s

later hand.

Cod. Reg. has o povo-

u/o?

0bf
1.

all in

the text.

In the Munich Codex the words avrov rj 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 the manuscript. The blot appears on the opposite leaf. Cod. Reg. omits the words.
p. 272,
6.

Lomm.

II.

p.

108,

1.

9.

-/JLOV

ovSev

jiev-.

In Cod. Mon. these

letters are obliterated.

Cod. Reg. omits the

same

letters,

leaving

space for them.
p.

108,

1.

11.

Trepl erepwv.

The same phenomenon occurs
In Cod.

here with regard to the letters Trepl erep. elo-eXdelv. Cod. Reg. omits the word. p. 117, 1. 1. Monac. the letters creX, are almost obliterated.
p.

127,

1.

15.

arji^aivet,

have an indication.
letters f^alvei

yap TO fiev TOIOVTOV. Here again we 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. in. p. 91, 10. el rt? ovv. The el ? is stained and
;

1.

indistinct in Cod.
1.

Mon.

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

Cod.

The first four letters are hardly legible in TrevrjTwv. In Cod. Reg. we find a space for four letters followed Mon.
11.

by TWV.

The divergences
portant. blunders.

of the two

MSS.
due

are numerous but not

im

Most

of
rest

them

The

may

ordinary transcriptional be explained by the supposition that
careless

are

to

the scribe of the Paris
ignorant.

MS. was more than usually

and

THE

MSS.

OF ORIGEN

S

COMMENTARIES ON

s.

JOHN.

9

itacisms and cases of I subjoin a list of their divergences (other than mere first 30 pages the addition or omission of v t<pc\Kv<r6v} which occur in the of Tom. xiii. of the Comtn. in Joann. (Loinmatzsch s edition).

10

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Monacensis
Regius

26
>

14 6 8

r
eV

27,

nfp \ *
cos-

f
lfpoa-6Xvp.il

9
10
11

bis

V
0VlKOt

omit
co

12

om.
/cat

ms

.

23
28,

6fi6r(pov

omit

11

29,

6
2

01

lovSatoi

lovdaioi

30,

K adc\r)vas

Ka6e\flv as

6
10

tiyyeAXots

dyye Aotj

^

Cocfe Barberinus II. (VI). I can only speak from slight knowledge of this MS. The Barberini Library was closed during Vacation when I was in Rome in and it was October,
(6)

1888,

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 their relative places in the almost with groups certainty. The first words of the Comm. in Matt, which this MS. contains
Se As these are the first words contained in Cod. Monac., though they occur towards the end of a chapter and paragraph in the Commentaries, this is in itself almost conclusive proof of the origin of the MS. For, as has been stated above, Cod. Monac. has lost a leaf at the outset. The Barberini also contains the true division of the Comm. in

only

are

TM

X^ouw.

MS

many, any rate, of the same warnings against Origen s blasphemies, which are con tained in Cod. Monac., as for instance

Joann. in red. The Ferrarian divisions have been added in the margin, but are in the hand of the original scribe. It has also at

Lomm.

Oeov K.T.\.)
^p.

96 (opposite vircpexopcvo? VTTO rov ruv tVo? #eo? yap 6 wo? rc5 TrarpL 108 (opposite V7r6 rov rov
I.

p.

6###BOT_TEXT###amp;amp;lt;ov

favapeh

fcpeiTrovo<;...7rapa

yov) opa

$61)76 /BXaa^rj/juel yap.

The

mg

following readings, variants of the Venice

when contrasted with the correspondgroup, point to the same conclusion

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.

II.

p. 14,
p. 60,
p. 60, p.

1.

1.

1.

PMR. MR. 17 a* erov MR. 1 evBetva rot? PMR. 12 \eyovrai MR. eyovrai 13 d7roK\ia-0elo-(u$ PMR.
p. 6,
1.

1 CKTVTTOV

16

Trepl

TO

P.

108,

1.

9

-fJiov

ovSev pev- om. PR.

(In M the words are worm-eaten.)
p.

108,

1.

11

Trepl

erepwv om. R.
cov P.

(In M the letters Trepl erep are damaged.) the following marginal note p. 132 M has

:

KOI

fju}v

tcai

TU
rrjv

repara X W P^ T
Sui/BcKTiv

v

<

r7?At

"

WI/

evprjrai

o>?

eV

rfj

atSfj

rfj

pera

r^? epvOpas dvare6eiarj TW dew Oav/jLao-rds yap
full.)

tyrjorlv

eV86f co? TTQI&V repara. words in (I have printed the contracted

R

has the same

note exactly:

P
1

has

ing dav/jLacrrd for
p.

it, but has made two mistakes in copying, read and omitting rrj. 0avp,acrTo<;
a>Sf/

73,

1.

M

has

CLK...OVT(I,

the intervening letters being

damaged.

R
P

reads dK...ovra, 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.

9

M

Bia(f)0opd<>.

R

$ia(f)0opdv.

137,

15.

The erroneous
P)
is

in

M (and copied by
p.

repetition of paiveu yap TO found not followed by R.

291,

1.

13

MP

/care.

R

tcaTe/Si].

Thus Codex Barberinus must be copied either from Codex Monacensis or from a copy of that MS. The passages quoted
prove conclusively that it is not a copy of Codex Regius. There are several omissions, with corresponding spaces left blank, in this MS. which do not occur in Cod. Regius. These, I imagine, are
attributable
to the

worm-eaten and stained condition of Cod.

Monacensis, and tend to shew that Cod. Regius must have been copied early in the ICth century, Cod. Barberinus late in the

12

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

to obtain

lected during this period.

same century, and that Cod. Monac., wherever it was (I was unable any information as to its history at Munich), was neg

2. (a) The relation of the Bodleian MS. to that at Venice is not hard to determine. 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 may be explained by the fact that the scribe of the Bodleian MS. knew Greek. Direct proofs of are afforded in

copying
first

some

places.

fragment of Heracleon). for about nine letters. The same lacuna occurs in Codex but in it there has been Venetus, an erasure.
is left

Lomm. I. p. 117, 1. 12 (in the After the word OvdKevrivov space

Lomrn. n.
erasure
Bodl.
in

p.

7,

1.

2.

Cod.

Yen,

A
7.

evKunjry there has been an corresponding lacuna is left in Cod.

After

Lomm.
Bodl. has
I

n. p. 53,

1.

Codex Venetus reads Iptfs

(sic).

Cod,

was not able to notice any divergence of Codex Bar(V) from the Venice MS. except that in the passage mentioned above it leaves no space after OuaAezmW, from which of course no conclusion can be drawn. The fact that the Com mentaries on S. Matthew of the begin at the
(b)

berinus

I.

TOI)? 0^X01/5), considered in connexion with (r6re a the date of the MS. (saec. xv. or XVL), proves that it belongs to the Venice as opposed to the Munich group, and the division into 32 books
<et?

beginning

10th Book

points to the same conclusion. The following readings tend to prove the identity of its text with that of Codex Venetus. Lomm. I. p. 117, 1. 16 Siafepovra ydp ^crt Ven. Bar
II.

p. 9,

1.

20

e6rj

Ven. Bar.

p. 13, L 16 irapd TO Ven. Bar. (Codex Bodleianus has Trapa rov.)

p. 14,
p. p.

1.

1 eV
1.

SwaroLS Ven. Bar.
Ven. Bar.

122, 122,

1 el

1.

9 rou? eVSeSuyaeVou? Ven. Bar.

THE
p. 376, p. 376,

MSS.
1.

OF ORIGEN

S

COMMENTARIES ON

s.

JOHN.

13

4 rpia/coo-Tov irpwrov Ven. Bar. 6 TpiaKoa-ro) Bevrepo) Ven. Bar. (Ven. has notes in the margin stating that
1.

its

exemplar read

28th and 29th.)

Lomm.

II.

p.

73,

1.

1,

lacuna (room for 5 letters) before ovra

Ven. Bar., see above,

p. 11.

(c)

The correspondence

of the cryptograph in

the MS. at
is

Madrid with the note at the end of Codex Venetus

sufficient

And with this the information proof of the origin of the former. which I have received as to the text agrees. The lacunae in the text (Lommatzsch I. pp. 11, 14, 18, 36, 41, 43), which occur in the
Cod. Venetus and which will be discussed more 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 7rapaaxf.lv T^V
section, are also

the Madrid

irXdaiv Kal rd ecBrj} is put in the margin also in MS. See also I. 23, Lomm. p. 44, 7 QavpaC.ziv rrjv The word d/3\Twpiav is omitted in dfteXrwpiav TWV 7ro\wv.
vTrapfyv Kal
rrji>

1.

Codex Monacensis, and also in Codex Venetus, but in the latter it is added in the margin. In Cod. Matritensis it is also added in the
margin. It can easily be shewn that O. 47 is copied from the 1st part of the Venice MS. which contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew.

Thus the colophons

at

Madrid exactly agree with the note in the

Venice MS., except that the latter has October 10 instead of October 2. As we can hardly imagine that the preface (7ro\a>v TOV QpLyevrjv K.T.\.) took 8 days to copy it occurs in O. 47
after the colophon

we must

leave this discrepancy unexplained.

3.

Thus there seems
all

to

be no reasonable doubt as to the

derivation of

Codex Venetus.

the other manuscripts from Cod. Monacensis and The more extensive divergences of these two at

first led me to suppose them to be independent of each other, but a closer examination disclosed convincing proof of the dependence of the latter on the former. Their divergences give us only too

clear

an insight into the freedom with which the text of an exemplar was handled, at any rate in the 14th century. An ex amination of the Contra Celsum manuscripts affords, I believe, an

14

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
.

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

Cod. Monac. by damage done to the MS. by water, or in other ways, are matched in Cod. Ven. by corresponding places left blank by the scribe. These lacunae occur almost entirely in the first book. The chief instances are the following
:

Bk.

I.

c.

4

(Lomm.
JJL^V

KCUT e^ovcriav, ov
ypa<f>evra

11) L. and Delarue read ypafavTa TO e*Xi#pti4? rwv etc 06Las eTrnr
p.

teal

After Cod. Monac. is illegible until the word ei but between e^ovo-iav and ov fjLrjv there must have been at least 17 more letters, of which some near the end were I think aTroo-roXi/c.
Cod.

Ven. leaves space between these two words for about 25

letters.

Bk. I. c. 6 (Lomm. p. 14) reXo? avrov Trapa TM loodwrj. These words are nearly illegible in Cod. Monac., but there must have been about 14 more letters, and Cod. Ven, leaves for
space

15 more letters after ^Iwavvy. On the same page elpw/cw
Cod. Monac., and Cod.
elpwiccos,

SiSda/cecv is similarly stained in Ven. omits the passage, except the word

leaving a space.
c.

Bk.

I.

8,

Lomm.

find after faov, TO
line illegible, the

.../cal on o\ov. In Cod. Monac. we 0X... /*.((?)....?.(?) OTL: then more than half a

p. 18.

MS. being damaged

as in the other cases.

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

yap (space J

line) viovs

eK\a^aveiv...ovTw XpiaTiaMonac. and mostly illegible, but there is room for about 20 more letters than are contained in the words as they stand in Delarue and Lommatzsch. Cod. Ven.
2/09.

Bk.

I.

c.

9,

Lomm.

p. 20.

eVrti/

All this

is

damaged

in Cod.

contains

all

that

is

in the printed texts,

and

after TrepiTeTftrjfievo?
it

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

has OVTCO Xpi-

aTiavos

K.T.\.
i.

Bk.
here.
1

c.

17,

Lomm.

p.

36.

Similar phenomena occur again

Cf.

an Article in the Journal of Philology Vol. xvm. No.
Celsus,"

36,

"On

the text of

Origen against
2

esp. pp. 294, 295.

The numbers

after the

mate) number of

letters

word space refer in each instance to the (approxi which the space left could contain.

THE
Bk.
I.

MSS.
22,

OF ORIGEN
p. 41.

S

COMMENTARIES ON
rot?
overt,

s.

JOHN.

15

c.

Lomm.

This

is all

damaged
ol/juai

in Cod. Monac.,

KOI rfj v\y \eyovra. but the following facts are

discoverable.
(1)

It omits

and

rrjv virapfyv.
is

(2)
letters.

Between
e<rrlv

el

KOI and elvreiv there

room

for

about 23 more

The words are is, I think, not contained in it. but the ink has to some extent stayed on the opposite illegible, leaf. Reading backwards, I thought I could trace somewhat as
(3)

follows
el

:

KCU ra? ovatOG
rfj

Cod. Ven. has
as in the texts
;

^arov pev ovv ira^vrepov elireiv. v\y (space 20) then /cal ra K.T.\. to after which (space 23), elTrelv K.T.\.
;

el

ical

In the margin
TT\aaiv Kal rd
eiSrj.

it

has

ol/jiai,

Trapaa^elv

rrjv virap^tv

KOI rrjv

Thus we get some valuable information by which
restoration of the text, of the two MSS.

to attempt a and very sure indications of the relations

Bk.

i.

c.

23,

Lomm.

p.

43.

O-KOTTOVVTI.

Damaged

in God. Monac.,

ri? 6 ev avrfj Xoyo?...e?re/9;Ta which has space for more.

Cod. Ven. leaves a space of one line between enrep^erai and O-KOTTOVVTl.

Bk. xin.

c.

39,

Lomm.
rjrot,

Vol.
OLK

II.

p. 73, rjrot ovra.

God. Monac. has

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

(space 3 or 4) ovra, the letters inter God. Ven. has jjroi (space 5), then ovra.

parison of the readings of Cod. Ven. with those of Cod. Monac., which are given at the end of the Introduction, will shew, I think, that this supposition will explain the facts better than any other
theory.

Similar evidence
the
S.
first

parts of the

may also be obtained from an investigation of 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 Munich Codex have been bound up in wrong order, and two or 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 displace
is

ment and the

loss

of leaves in Cod. Monac.

subsequent to

1374, the date of the Venice

MS.
;

The Munich MS. has

lost its first leaf

it

now begins with the
p. 15.

words rivi Be Xdfi-^rovo-iv, Bk. x. c. 3, Lomm. in Cod. Ven. on the 2nd recto, line 5.

These occur

We may
God.

first notice two omissions, due to homoioteleuton, in Ven. of words contained in Cod. Mon.\ as indications of

course, not as proofs.

Bk.
o

XI.

2a>Xo9.

c. 18, Lomm. pp. 120, 121. Cod. Ven. omits /cal rpavrj
c.

6
6

^a>Xo9

KCU rpavrj ecrrat

p&>Xo?.

Bk.

XII.

1,

Lomm.

p.

127.

/cal

(papiaaioL.

irpeafBevovcri

yap

ol /lev fyapKTaioi.

Cod. Ven. omits irpeaftevovai

fyapiaalot,.

The
E-Tret

following passage supplies clear proofs.

(Bk. XH.

c.

20.)

Se

OVK eVeSe^ero

r

7r/3of

Cod.

Ven. T

rotavra airo-

fta

le-

re\a-6at.

ava\oos
r

To*

6

Cod. Ven. omits, leaving space
(15).

rrjv

^frv^v av-

TOV 6VCK6V
6t?

e^/AOV Vp^(I6L $i avrov ^ta rovro avrrjv,
Ie/300-oXfyLta

l"7roXXa

tl7T###BOT_TEXT###lV, WO, TraOtov ev^ eicelvois

Cod. Fen. omits, leaving space
(10).

/C.T.X.

The words between the
Cod. Monac.

signs

r

1

are in each case

damaged

in

Bk.

xii.

c.

24,

Lomm.
Monac.
rj

p.

170,

elireiv
<f>ep

ra

j3aat,\iSov

rj,

damaged
space
(7).

in Cod.

And

for

it

Cod. Ven. omits ^acrtXiSou, leaving a reads xal.

Thus there can be no doubt that the Venice MS. is derived from that at Munich. On this MS. therefore we are entirely dependent for the text of the Commentaries on S. John. Un fortunately its present condition at the bottom and top of several
such that the lacunae in these places cannot for the most part be filled up though in some cases hints as to length
leaves
is
;

and individual words can be obtained, which may serve 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
of the suppression of

possibility

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. xiii. c. 32 will serve as an example. But while much must be given up as no longer recoverable, a good deal of light may be thrown on the text of many passages in the Commentaries by the use of Cod. Monac. With a view to further work on them I made a collation in September 1889 of the Commentaries on
:

S.

John.

Huet knew
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.

wider knowledge whether he had examined any MSS. himself I cannot discover is marred by inaccuracy of
s

Delarue

statement as to the readings contained in MSS. In particular he seems to have taken it for granted that any reading adopted by Huet in his text was necessarily that contained in the Paris Codex. The undue influence of this Codex, which it has
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

exercised owing to

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.

2

18

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

Bodleian MS. which is at times mentioned separately. Possibly he was working with the Codex Barberinus of that type. But whatever his source was, it contains nothing helpful which is not
otherwise known.
It may be worth while to bring together here some examples from Cod. Monac. of important New Testament Readings of an ancient type, which have been subsequently brought into

conformity with the ordinary Syrian text, either by its correctors These will be sufficient to shew that it or in its descendants.

may throw some
the

New

illustrate

further light on the problem of the text of Testament used by Origen, while they will serve to the manner in which the text of quotations from the
in the

New

Testament has been handled

MSS.

of the Fathers.

Monac.

list of some pro-Syrian readings supported by Cod. have added in a few cases interesting readings from the other MSS. In these cases the MS. authority is added in brackets.

In the following
I

Lomm.
p. 177.

i.

Jn.
Jn.

i.

15. 18.

o clrruv.

See Tisch. (Or. 4

10

-)

i.

povoyevr)? dfos. (See above, p. 8.) o &v om. Heracleon (?)

210.
211.

Jn.

i.

24.
10.
2.

ML
Jn. Jn.

iii.
i. i.
i.

^

QTrforaX/ieVot.

See Tisch. (Or. 4

12:
<)

Se /cat (Yen.)
efiirpoo-Oev crov.

214 f. Mk.
222.

om.

See Tisch. (Or.

4<12r>

)

26.
27.

ea-rrjKfv

avros

t<mv

o

om.
23 Mon.
ins. o).

(but in Or.
234.

vi.

See Tisch. (Or. 4

130
)

Jn.

i.

26.

onjjcft

;Heracleon)

[292.
[293.

Mk.

i.

27.
iv.

Luke
II.

Cf. Eusebius) See Tisch. (Or. 4 1 )] 40. tOcpanfvev (Paris. Ven. Monac.)

dvTr/Kei (Bodl.

Ven.

6a^6W av.

-

fdepdnevo-fv (Bodl.)]

Lomm.
p. 5.
9.

1

Cor.

iv. 11.

yvfjLViTfvopfv (Par. Bodl.

Mon. Ven.)

Jn.
Jn.

iv. 16.
iv. 14.

aov rov avSpa (Bodl. Ven.)
ov Sn/^o-ei (Ven.) ov ov
/zj)
p.f)

18.

dt^r/o-d (Bodl.)
8i\lsTJo-T)

(Par.
220
)

Mon.)

See Tisch. (Or. 4
57.

Jn.

iv. 31.

tv
r<p

fifrau 8e (Bodl. Ven.)
fj.e

68.

Jn. xiv. 28.

o narr/p 6 Trt/z^ny

om.

o TTOTTIP (Bodl.

Ven.)

THE
92.

MSS.
xii.

OF ORIGEN
42.

S

COMMENTARIES ON
Mon.)
(Bod. Veil.)

s.

JOHN.

19

Mt.
Jn.
1

SoXo/iwi/os (Par.

104.
106.

iv.

42.
ix. 1.

OVTOS etrnv

d\r)0<as

Cor.

eopaica (Par.

Mon.)
(Bod. Mon.)

109.

Jn.

iv. 44.

avros 6

to-

sec. loc. (Ven. Bodl.)
tert. loc.

110.
114.

(Ven. Bodl.)
Jn.
ii.

15.

avfo-rpe^ev (Par. Mon.) See Tisch. (Or. 4 270811 -)
-

115.

Jn.
Jn.

ii. ii.

16.

23.

prj TroifjTf (Par. and ?Mon.) ev rfj foprfj ev rw Trao^a (Bodl.)

ev

rfj
7

foprfj TOV jroo-^a
)"

(Ven.)

123.
130.

Mt. Mt.
Mt.
Jn.

x. 28.
viii. 8.

V^X

KOL

0-oo/na

(Monac. Ven.)

o TTOIS

pov om. (Par. Mon.)
>j8XVrfl

248.
264.

v. 28.
viii.

0? av

(Mon.)

44.

OVK

Zo-rrjKfv

(Par. Mon.)

N.B.

It will

be seen that in the above

list I

supplemented Delarue s information, on which of course Tischendorf depended. The references to Tischendorf are to his critical digest in locc. His references to Origen (e.g. Or 4 2 20 ) refer to the volume and page in Delarue s edition.
-

of readings not pre-Syrian. These are cases of attestation examination of the Manuscripts of Origen has corrected or

have given some examples where further

remains to say a few words about Catenae on S. John. there are two fragments attributed to Origen in a Catena of the xith century (Gr. 437). At Rome there are several in the Catenae Vat. 1423, Regin. 9. The larger fragment in the
It only

At Munich

Munich
Regin.
9.

Catena occurred I was unable at

also

Rome

with considerable variations in to do more than glance at these

fragments.

may

The fragments pointed to the same conclusions as be drawn from an examination of those published by CorAntwerp MS.
s

derius from an

Most of them

at

any rate might

pen, so far as opinions are concerned. But in the comparatively few instances where they cover common ground with the extant Commentaries, the text and even the
of

have come from Origen

contents are either wholly different or widely divergent. Some them have the appearance of being taken from Homilies, others
eVtcrT/yuetcoo-ei?.

from

The

nearest agreement

Commentaries was
the text of Orig.
rpoTTov

in the case of

with the extant two fragments in Regin. 9, where

Comm.

in Joann. XXXII. 11 d^^eiwarj Be TWO,
p.

and

p.

and 13 eVet ovv tye/crav (Lomm. occurred almost exactly, but in each case the 449)
arj/jLau OfMevw

435

9

_2

rest of

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

the former contains more matter, though occasionally the frag ments in the latter have pieces omitted in Cod. xxvu. On the

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

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 Yen.
I did not bring away I was able at

xxvu. and Regin. 9
information from
to
S.
all

at

Rome, but

enough
Venice

Rome

to determine this.

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

before they can be made serviceable, but there is promise of considerable addition to the published writings of Origen from this Catena alone, though the critic s knife is not unneeded.

the

The textual results are the same as might be gathered from 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
if

I

am

Origen

s

Commentaries on

allowed to continue working at the text of S. John.

As I intend to quote in the apparatus criticus readings from the Munich MS. only, I subjoin a full collation of the first 30 pages of Tom. XIIL of the Commentaries on S. John, in the
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 Kvo-riKa are not exhaustive, but I have endeavoured to make the The readings collation of Cod. Monac. as complete as I could. marked by (() are readings of the Bodleian, where it differs from Huet, which Beritley has not noticed in the margin of the copy in Trinity College Library. In a few cases, where I knew them, I have given the readings of the Barberini Codices under the symbols R (= V) and R 2 (= VI). The left column gives the text of Lommatzsch.
edition

of

</>eX.-

t

THE
P.
1,

MSS. OF
TO

ORIGEN

S

COMMENTARIES ON
ToV

S.

JOHN.

21

Title
1.

M
P
ai/e

1

av

ZBo^f.

M

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLKON.

THE

MSS.

OF ORIGEN

S

COMMENTARIES ON

S.

JOHN.

23

24

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

THE
23
P. 13,
1.

MSS. OF ORIGEN S

COMMENTARIES ON
om.
airy

s.

JOHN.

B

1 1

MVBP
VB
(V
intra lin.)

ante vvv

ins. KCU

3 4 5
6 9
11, 12 aXXo/xeVou

aXXo/xeVov M
crol

MP
V

Sr/Xovor i

M
MP

M
aV
K

13 15
16

ttTTO

V7TO

V VB

7Tpt TO ?rapa TOV
(OS

MR
B

2

:

?rapa TO

"V"!^

17

ToV

ws

d

atT<3v

VB
cJ

(sed in

V

o-

o at

seriori,

ut videtur,
CTOI

manu

sunt

scripta)

MR.,
ei/8eti^a

P. 14,

1.

1

evSeu/a rots
e

f ev

SwaTOis

VRjB:

TOIS

M

1,

2

ci/yeyu/xvao-/xeVots
TOT)

M
ing. Xe yoi/Tos

7 ante

ins. TO

9 Xc yoi/Tos

VB MVPB B Xeyoi/Tcs
:

10
P. 15,
1.

y(W<TKOV(n

ytl/tOCTKOUO

tl/

M

1

ETf

evfle ws

erreuflecrecos

MP
oiov
ei

2 eXeye 5 otovet
10, 12
cx7re^av
7T(OS

eXcyev
f otoj
TI

M M

avSpt

om.
>s

BV VB

14

MVB

19 2a/xapetrts
21 Ka6
oi/

M
om.

22 Kat

MP

23 24
P. 16,
1.

f 7ra.pa,Ti0eto-av

MVB
ovv Tt

SteXcx^^vai

P

2,

3 aXX

aiSia)

dXXa

tSta)

/x,ci/

MP

5 o
6 aTre^ave 6 5
11 1
-ijpvrjTO

f(SB
aTreOavev

M

fcSB
t

T/pmTo
eSoKtv
otvat

VB
eti

6
1

e8o)K
oT/xai

P. 17,

1.

M M

at

P

(sed

ser.

man.

oTvai)

3 ante TOVS

ins. ?rpos

VB B
:

mg. ra^a

Trpo/

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

THE

MSS.

OF ORIGEN

S

COMMENTARIES ON

s.

JOHN.

27

28
1

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
4 AeycTe

XeycTat

MP
VB
VB: B

21

Stavo/xiys

23 TOV
23, 4

am.

VB
P
Sewov

SeKao-/xos

24

M
:

mg.

25
P. 24,
1.

M
4 TO
fj.l

3,
11

TO /xc/ (sic)

P

P

mg.

7-175

MP
e ori

12 2iwv

13

iv

13

OLTTCp

M M M
VB
VB
:

14 pOSt * 1 f 16
>;>;

V7TO

om. TO
v; 7;

M
icpaTCVfJia
t

1

i/^a

M
18
1

Trpoo-ayovTat
VOfJLOV

VB

9

21 ante a

ins.

MVP TT;V MVPB
0ai

26 epxeTai 27 eon
29 29
P. 25,
1.

P

eW
oT/xat

tv

ot/xat

M M M
MP
P
a

3,

4 TTpOKOTTYJV

TTpOfTKOTTTCLV

7,

8

vo//,i

M
P

8

yow

VB

10
13, 4

M
-tJ/

14
1

6

7Tl

M M
MVP
MVB MVB
VB MP
:

17 TO

om.

VB

20
01 J1
finyV
KttV
ttV

25 26 26
P. 26,
1.

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

tvwo-Kto/u,i/
/xeTtt

8e Tcurra
</>V0-l

CI

ravra 8e
avo-et

1

ttVTT7?

avTiys

5

8t

ayvotav

Siavotav

P:

8t

cuyvotav

B

B

mg. oY

ayi/oiav

THE
12

MSS. OF
OIK

ORIGEN

S

COMMENTAKIES ON
OIKV

s.

JOHN.

29

M

14 14
15 post 17
18 19 * I

T
riV

ins. TpoTra)

BV T M VB TO MVPB

evcXcyKara
mil. lac.

M
:

MP
T;

ins. &?A.oi/

VB

9

ctT

ctTraXXayet

M
M

23
23
P. 27,
1.

Tr

ob
4 &T60o AaKT
Op OS

v

M

3,

4 OpOS
6 fv 7
o>os

M
M
P
P

epos

8
9

(S

ok

P

lepoo-dXvpia
<S

lepoo-oAu/ta bis

10

om.
opos

10 opos
II
ot

om.

12$
12
ot

om.
om.

M M M
VB
P
afjil3dvt

14
1

7rpO(TKi;v7ycrT
arvfJiTra.paXaiJ.f3a

5

16
19,

^
{i7r

M
MVPB
ser.

^8et

VB
P
sed

20

V7ro\afji/3av6fji.fvov

21 3^

S?7/uoupyoi/

man. in

correctum est
23 23 post 3, 4
4
6
to-a
<ra(f)ecrTpov

^CWp^TT/KWTepOl/

B

ins. /cai OfLorcpov

MVB

P. 28,

1.

TTpOO

/CVl

Ol O
(US

O

M

KpCLTTOV

cto-ayyeXoi

MVB MP
VB
:

8

crvfj.Trpi(f>epu>vTaL

pOVTO.1

M
MP

9 TOIS

om.

VB
P

10
10, 11
1 1

voeio-00)

TrpocTttTroSeSw/
Trpoa"KW7J(rcTC

M
irpoa-Kvvrjcrai
co-riv

15, 6

MP

20

eo-rt

M

30
22
pr)T<Z

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
opcL

VB

:

o prjTu

P

sed

ser.

man.

deletur o

as

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.
of Heracleon hardly anything is Alexandria, quoting his comment on a passage of S. Luke, calls him the most famous of the Valentinian School 1 Origen prefaces his first citation from Heracleon s Com

OF

the personal history

known.

Clement

of

.

mentary on the Gospel of S. John with the information that he was said to have been a pupil (or, perhaps, an acquaintance) of 2 Valentinus He is mentioned once by Irenaeus in conjunction
.

with Ptolemaeus, and possibly with Valentinus, who is at any rate mentioned several times by name shortly before, as the chief
1

Clem. Alex. Strom,

iv.

9, p.

595

(ed. Potter), 6 rrjs

QvaKevrivov

2 Origen, Coinm. in Joann. n. 8, TOV OvaXevrivov \ey6fj.evoi> clvai. It seems probable that Origen here uses the word yvupi/j.os in the sense of pupil, a meaning which it often bears. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 11, TOVTO &pa /SotfXercu Kal Ty HvOayopy i) Trerracr/as ffiwiri) -^v rots yvwpl/jwis irapeyyvq, and Ibid. II. 4.
yi>upi/j.oi>.

Hippolytus, Refutatio,

I.

13,
(sc.

ATJ^O/C/HTOJ

5

AevKiwirov yiverai.

yi>upt/jLos.

Justin

Martyr, ApoL
aurov.

I.

32,

<5>

iruXov)

eKtXevffev

ayayelf

avri^

rbre

TOI)S

yvupl/jiovs

I-TTO EXio-crat oi; TOV trpo^-fiTOV yvupijjios 8e yv OUTOS 201. 6 (ed. Mangey), aware yap Ttirrei eucppoirarrjp vl$uv $ diddffKa\os yvupt/j.ov, and i. 208. 4. Plutarch, 2. 448 E (Francofurt. 1G20), avrl yvupi/j.wv /cai fj.a.Or]Tu>v epaa-rai /caXo^evot xai oj/res (of the gradual growth of the Philostratus 529 pupil s affection for his master). Cf. also Strabo 1. 1. 11. 41.

Joseph.

I>.

J. iv. 8. 3,

HXt a

/cai

Siddoxos.

Philo

I.

vibi>

(2.

9 ed. Teubner), 578 (2. 84. 13), and 583 (2. 88. 4), and Suidas growth of the meaning may be traced in such passages as Xen.
yi>()pi/j.w.

mb

roce.
2.

The
3. 1,

Mem.

d5e###BOT_TEXT###w yu^y ciXXTjXotJ/, ecu/Tc^ (sc. 2wK/)drei) 5e 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 exponent
refers to

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
of

the

opinions

under discussion

1
.

Tertullian

also

him once

on the lines

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

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

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

Praedestinatus

6

is

certainly

wrong

in telling a story of

him

which connects his name with the Roman episcopate of Alex ander (c. 110 A.D.). Hie in partibus Siciliae inchoauit docere
contra

:

hunc susceperunt episcopi Siculorum, Eustachius Lilybaeorum et Panormeorum Theodorus, quique omnium per Sicilian!
erant episcoporurn

synodum exorantes

gestis

eum

audire decre-

uerunt et uniuersas adsertiones eius dirigentes ad sanctum Alex-

episcopum rogauerunt, ut ad eum confutandum Tune sanctus Alexander ad singula quaeque aliquid ordinaret. capita hydri singulos gladios dei uerbi de uagina diuinae legis eiciens librum contra Heracleonem ordinans, feruentissimum ingenio Sabinianum presbyterum destinauit, qui et scriptis episcopi
urbis
et adsertione sua ita
sidio

andrum

fugeret,
is

The date
attributed

to

confutaret, ut nocte media nauis praeubinam deuenisset penitus nullus sciret. impossible, and the heretical views on baptism him in the same account (nihil obesse baptizatis
et

eum

ultra

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
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 quos1

dam
3 4

et

Secundus

et

magus Marcus.
vi. 35.

Hippolytus, Eefutatio Oinn. Haeres., Theodoret, Haeret. Compend. i. 8,
dpXTjyoi,
Ko<rcriaj>6s,

Kai

aXXoi

5e

jj-vpiot

tvrevdev

dve^rjaav
Sid<popa

aiptaews
6 6

9e65oros,

Hpa<AeW,

IlroXf/Acuos,

Map/cos,

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

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.
est
1 from Augustine (c. 16) Heracleonitae ab Heracleoiie air avrov Epiphanius (Haer. XXXVI.) Hpa/eAeW KOI ol K\Q)Virai: and from Origen (passim), e.g. ol air avrov,
:

33
:

from

aurofc?

rd T^?

/-lufloTroua?, ol airo rfjs yvco/jLt](;

avrov.

a school of his disciples was in existence when wrote his Commentaries on S. John (of which parts at any Origen 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 (Comm. in Joann. II. 8) is
uncertain, but the phrase used (yvoopipo*;) would hardly be natural, unless Heracleon had been a prominent member of the school

we cannot lay much during the lifetime of Valentinus. And admits that his account is only stress on the fact that Origen from hearsay (\ey6fjuevov). In the absence of more direct evidence we have no
stress

On the other hand, reason to distrust this tradition. has been laid on the probability that the heads of the Western or Italic School of Valentinians were contemporary,
or nearly so, with those of the Anatolic School to whom they are is nothing to tell us opposed in the Refutatio. But as there how quickly the two schools respectively developed, or whether

those

who were regarded by a later age as most representative of them were those who stood at the head at the same time, such an argument is very precarious. The constant connexion of the names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, not always in the same order, As the order is never necessarily chronological, is our only guide.
its

rary,

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

that

we know for certain is, that John was in existence before 228, and that a comment of his on Luke xii. 8 11 was quoted by Clement as early as 193. Clement s silence as to the Commen taries on S. John affords no evidence of a later date than this
they were nearly so. Heracleon s Commentary on
All
S.

for their

composition.

Lipsius points out the probability that

when he came to Rome about 17C and at any rate the school of Ptolemaeus was well or 177:
Irenaeus had heard of him
1

2

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
.

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

,

the

Compendium
177 3
,

later than

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

was described. This can be gathered, almost with from the place assigned to him in the Minor Heresiolocertainty,
of Heracleon
gists.

This evidence is independent of the disputed question of the date of the Syntagma of Hippolytus. Thus we have no evidence which necessitates an earlier date than 170 for the

there

appearance of Heracleon as a Heresiarch, but on the other hand is a considerable probability, if we allow to the expression of

Origen the
true date

full force of its
is

somewhat
s

earlier,
4

most natural interpretation, that the and in closer proximity to the
has

death of Yalentinus.

Heinrici

made use
5
,

of the reference to

Heracleon in Clement

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 that these formed 6 part of the lost books of the Hypotyposes this argument has of course no weight.
;
,

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 than

The

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

its
;

type contents might possibly
this question

but with
it

we

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

to say here that the

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
s

leave, at

any rate

for

the

present, the question of Heracleon
1

date.

Lipsius

in

Hilgenfeld

s

Zeitschrift

fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 18G7,

p. 81.
2

3
4 5 c

Lightfoot, Clement of Ibid. p. 423.

Home

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

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

p. 13.

p.

564

Clement.

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.

35

know from 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 vTTo/jLVJJ/jLara
.

We

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

statement on Luke
f

xii.

8

11, TOVTOV ef77701^6^09 rov TOTTOV 6

Hpa/c\a)i 2 uncertain
citation
3

,

K.r.X.

Whether he
it
viii.

also

wrote on

S.

Matthew

is

.

That he used

as authoritative follows from his
viol
TT)?

of Matt.

12, ol

ySacriXeta?

efeXeucrozmu

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

men

The

place

of Heracleon
different

among

the Valentinians
Philaster
;

is

given

differently

by

heresiologists.

and Pseudo-

Tertullian place him next to Secundus Epiphanius and Augus tine 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 pronuntiationis uult uideri alia sentire, is perhaps unfair in its im The putation, but it comes as near the truth as we can get.
information given by the Minor Heresiologists
PHILASTRIUS.
principium csse unum quern dominum appellat, deinde de hoc natum aliud, deque his duobus
is

but scanty.

PS.-TERTULLIANUS.
Introducit enim in primis illud
fuisse quod...pronuntiat, et deinde ex
ilia

Dicens

monade duo ac deinde
introducit

reliquos

generationem multorum adserit principiorum.

Deinde Valentinum.
aeones.

totum

What word is to be supplied to fill up the lacuna in the account of Ps.-Tertullian, has been sufficiently discussed by others 4 The phrase ex ilia monade just below certainly suggests that

.

monadem is the only natural reading. Thus we get Mom? as the starting point of the Heracleonic system, according to the
1

Origen,

Comm.

in Joann. vi. 8 ev

ofs Ka.Ta\{\onrei> UTTO^V^OLGIV.

2 3

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

xm.

59.

4

Cf. Lipsius, Quellenkritik dcs Epiphanies, p. 170.

32

36

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
of Hippolytus, the almost certain source of the accounts And this agrees exactly with the are considering.

Syntagma which we

account given by Hippolytus in the Refutatio, where the system described under the section devoted to Valentinus starts from
a novas dyevvrjTos, a$6apTos K.T.\. (see Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Haeres. vi. 29). Combining this with the direct statements of

Irenaeus

(l.

xi. 1)

we may regard

it

with regard to the tenets of Valentinus himself, as most probable that, whereas Valentinus s

system starts with an original Dyad, his more Pythagoreanising pupil Heracleon referred the origin of all things to an eternal

Other more distinctly Pythagoreanising tendencies of Heracleon and his school will come under notice later on. The next step is more obscure. The most natural explanation of the facts recorded by the Minor Heresiologists is that Heracleon

Monad.

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
possibly he

to the Valentinian

NoO? and AXty&ia: and very
to it as dXijOeia:

may

have often referred

compare the

The use in the Fragments of the term TW Trarpl rrjs d)0eia<:. exact agreement of this with the account given in the Refutatio
must be noted.
rovreo-TL SvaSa.

We

need only quote
wcnrep

vi.

29, Trpoeftakev ovv /cal

eyevvrjaev avros 6

irarr^p,

The next

the rest of Ps.-Tertullian
<yeyove

ijv fibvos, vovv /cal d\r)0eiav clause also agrees well enough with and Philaster: r}? /cvpla KCU

Kal ^rrjp Trdvrcov TWV eVro? 7rjpa>fjLaTO<; Karapi alwvwv. This combines the deinde reliquos aeones of Ps.-Ter
tullian,

and Philaster s deque
digression
is

his

duobus generationem multorum

adserit principiorum/

But here a
note
1

1

has suggested that the

Harnack in an interesting necessary. alius clarus magister of Irenaeus
He further sug may have found Heracleon s name
der iiltesten Ketzer-

Zur

Quellenkritik der Gesclnclite des Gnosticismus, p. 62 n.

gests that Tertullian, in his copy of Irenaeus,

But Lipsius (Die Quellen in this place (Irenaeus, i. xi. 3). section of Irenaeus geschichte, p. 67 n.) has shewn that Tertullian reproduces this almost verbatim, subsequently to his mention of Heracleon, without connecting it
with Heracleon
s

name
1,

(Tert. adv. Valent. c. 37).

Harnack

also sees in the

words

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

of Irenaeus n. 4.

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.

37

But it has (i. xi. 3) should perhaps be identified with Heracleon. been pointed out that exactly the same teaching, with regard to Moj>oT?79, EJ/OTT;?, Moi/a? and *Ez/, is attributed to Marcus, with a reference apparently to this passage, by means of the words icaO a TTpoeiprjrai (Irenaeus I. xv. I) 1 We may also compare the words
.

with which Marcus
available,
as

is

introduced in

c.

xiii.

1 (the

Epiphanius
se

has

here

epitomised

the

Greek is not words of
eos,
illi

Irenaeus);

alius uero

emendatorem

esse

quidam ex iis, qui sunt apud glorians; Marcus est autem
that the section
I.

magistri

nomen.
to regard in the
is

We may
the

therefore conclude
to Heracleon.

xi.

3 refers to
2

Marcus and not

But Lipsius

is

inclined

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

right,

follows of course

that the

information

to

be found in the

Syntagma about Heracleon
article

is open to grave suspicion. But, in his on Valentinus, Lipsius has shewn that Hippolytus cannot

have derived his statements as to

the

pupils

of Valentinus

(Secundus, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon) from the account of Irenaeus (i. xi. xii.) alone, but must have used some other source as well, if indeed he used this passage at all: and that the parti
cular doctrines assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus and Ptolemaeus, those of the rerpa? Se%t,d and dpccrrepd, and the two av^vyot,
respectively, are not so attributed by Hippolytus, while the dis tinction of the two ^o(f>Lai, assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus
(i.

xi. 2), is is

in Hippolytus assigned to

then

so very loose that,

them both. The connexion when we find that Hippolytus (see

makes Heracleon s first principle to be Moz/a?, we need hardly assume that he derived this from Irenaeus I. xi. 3, where the first principle of the clarus magister
Ps.-Tcrtullian, quoted above)

But the

ipsius will hardly bear out this ; and as no mention has been made in the chapter at all of Ptolemaeus, the ipsius is in 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 ct Ptolemaei. 1 See Neander, Gcnetische Entwickelung dcr gnostischcn Systcmc, p. 169 with
:

this

must be compared Dr Salmon
See his article on

s article

on

Epiphanes, Diet, of Christ. Biogr.

vol. ii.
2

Irenaeus, Diet, of Christ. Biogr. vol. in. p. 261.
alt.

should also compare Die Quellen der
article

on

Ketzergcschichte, pp. 169, 170; Valuntiuus, Diet, of Christ. Biotjr. vol. iv. p. 1084.

But we and his

38
is

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Mo^or?;?.

There would seem then to be no valid reason

for

on the ground of rejecting the information afforded by Hippolytus from this passage of Irenaeus, which refers to another its derivation Whence Philaster derived his statement that Heracleon teacher.
called his first principle

Dominum

is

not known.

It is quite

possible that he may Refut. VI. 29) ; but of this we know nothing. The only other information afforded by the
is

have used the term Kvpios

(cf. /cvpia,

Hipp.

Minor Heresiologists Deinde introducit totum Valentinum, which is probably true

enough. With the probable exceptions already considered there is no reason to suppose that Heracleon materially altered the system of his master, or that he laid any particular stress on the
details of the system.

His interest seems to have been more in the

general theological and philosophical teaching of Valentinianism, and the interpretation by it of the Canonical Books which he regarded as authoritative, and especially of the Gospel according
to S. John.
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

The patchwork
;

of

gleanings from Irenaeus that it is unnecessary to look further for The choice of Marcosian sources for his investiga his authority.
tions 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 dvOpooirov (Frag. 35) lends plausibility to the supposition that the aXXot of Irenaeus
I.

xii.

4

may have some

connexion with Heracleon, and that he

did call the Father of All dv0pa)7ros. But, as a Commentator like Heracleon was bound to make use of the Evangelic phrase u/o? For the rest we should dvOpwirov, the identification is precarious.

perhaps notice the parallelism of y^re dppev prjre 6fj\v with Hipp. Ref. VI. 30 (ev fAV yap TW dyevvrjTM, faa-lv, earl irdvra O/JLOV, ev Se
rot?
<yevvi]TOLs,

TO

/j,ev

6r}\v...ro Se dppev), because of the

fyrjcrl,

with which

we must

^rr)p

is

a

description of the Sevrepa natural description of what formed part of every

deal later on.

The

Valentinian

Epiphanius might easily have added it The himself, without deriving it from any particular source.
system.
1

Epiphanius, Haer. xxxvi.

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.

39

words /3ov\eTai 8e vrXetora rwv irpo avrov teal OUTO? \eyei,v, when compared with the statement of Ps.-Tertullian quoted above, point to the existence of some such accusation in the Syntagma.

We

know from the

Italic school of

to the Refutatio that Heracleon belonged Valentinians but beyond this no further informa
;

tion as to his teaching has come down to us, apart from his own Valentinianism given by writings; unless indeed the account of

the name of Hippolytus in the Refutatio is to be connected with Heracleon. This question can only be settled by an examination of the points of contact between the two in matter and lan

guage; and this

it

will

Fragments.

It will not

be better to reserve for the notes on the be out of place here, however, to trace

the Fragments offer of those pas shortly the illustrations which of the Refutatio, which are confessedly derived from a sages

document quoted, noticing also again the parts of such passages which shew similarity to the account of Heracleon given in the vi. 29), tfv oXw?, Syntagma. The first of these passages (Ref.
yevvrjTov
ovBev,
Trarrjp

<?/<n,

8e yv povos ayewijTO?,

ov

TOTTOV
e%o>i>,

ov xpbvov, ov crvii(3ov\ov, ovrc d\r)v

nvd

/car

wrj&fjwu Svva/jievrjv ova-lav, is in thorough account in the Syntagma. The description of dyaTTT), though on 6fjio\oyia, offers no worthy of the author of the Fragment (50) the Fragments. The agreement of the next of contact with
point sentence, TrpoejBdXev ovv. .Tovreari SvdSa,
.

ovoeva rcov rpoirwv harmony with the

K.T.\.,

with the Syntagma

has been pointed out, but it is not directly .attributed to the document. The next sentence so attributed, TOVTOV yap, ^crl, in harmony with the Pythagorean dpiOfjiov /c.r.X., is

T\eioTepov tendency to dwell on numbers, which is seen in Fragments 16, 18, 40, where Heracleon explains the significance of the 46 years six husbands (ac occupied by the building of the Temple, the and the seventh cording to his text) of the woman of Samaria, was healed. With the hour when the son of the /rWtXt/co? sentence eV fjuev yap rw dyevvijrw, fricrlv, K.T.\. we have dealt
before.
c

With the following
et?
r)v

avr^j

e crrt, (frrjalv,

77

djaOrj,

1}

eirovpd-

vios

Iepouo"aXr/yu,,

e7njyyL\aTo

6

$eo?

elcrayayelv

TOVS

u/oi)? ^###BOT_TEXT###amp;amp;lt;rpar]\ must be compared ihe lepovaa^fji of Fragment 13, of which the -vfriH^o? TOTTO?, typified in John ii. 13 by lepoao-

\vfia, is

an

GLKUJV.

(Cf.

the note in

loc.)

40

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
In chapter 32, after the explanation of dp^f)
crotyias
</>o/3o<?

fcvpLov (Prov.

i.

7),

document, we find
in
fCal
full.
"Eo-rt

by the use of tprjo-l to the same a long passage, which it will be necessary to quote
attributed
(prjcrlv,
77

Se TrvpwSijs,

^v^iKi) ovala, Ka\elrai Se
ejSSo/Jbds

T07T09 [/^CCTOTT/TO?] VTT

CiVTWV

fCCli

KOI TTdXaibs

rWV

KOI
,

ova roiavra \eyovo~i
/cal
M.wva-fj<;

Trepl rovrov,

ravra

elvai rov

ov fyacTiv elvai rov KOCT^OV fypiovpyov
6eo<s

ecrri Se TrvpwSrjs.
<f>\eyov

\eyei,

(pijcrl,

KOI KaravakiaKov.
8e Tt9
ecrTt,,
(f)rja-lv,
/JLIJ

crov Trvp earl Kvptos 6 KOI yap rovro ovrws yeypd^dat, Oe\ei.
Svvafjiis

nr\r)

rf

fcaTao-/3cr0rjvai
rt9
eo-riv
rj

TOV TTVpo? ecri yap irvp 7ra/jL(f)dyov, &vvd/j,VOV.../caTd rovro roivvv TO /te/Do? Ourjrtj
pecroTrjs
rt?
ecrrl

-fyvxf),

ovaa
rfjs

ecrrt

yap
uX?;?,

e/3Sofj,ds

KOI
77

KCLT air averts.

VTro/cdra)

ydp

dySodSos, OTTOV
8e
rr)<$

evrlv
earl

(To^ia, rjfjiepa

/jie/jLOpcpwfjuevrj,

vTrepdvw
rot9

779

8rj-

piovpyos.

edv ovv

efopouoQjj

dva),

rfj

oySodSi,
(pijcrlv,

dOdvaros

eyei/ero /cal tf###BOT_TEXT###ev els rrjv oySodSa, tfris ecrrl,

lepovcraXrjfjb

tTTOvpdvios
V\IKOLS,
is

edv Se

e^ojjuoiwOf) rfj v\rj, rovreo-Ti, rots Trddeai, TOLS

<f)0apTr)

impossible to determine

eo-rai /cal aTrcwXero [? ea-rt teal aTroXXurat]. how much of this passage is
:

It

actually
VTTO-

quoted from the document in question reminds us of Frag. 13, rov tyw%t,Kov
ftefirj/coTi
fjuepet,

but the

7-077-09

[^0-0x77x09]

TOTTOV, Frag. 40,

rw

rfj?

/jLeo-orijros,

and Frag. 35,
e/SBo/juds,

virep

rov

TOTTOV.

And

the account of ^v^iKr) over La as

and of the con

ditions

under which

it

may become
Fragment
40.

dddvaros, vividly recalls the

description of

^^77

in

In chapter 34 (sub fin.), apart from the quotation from 1 Cor. ii. 14, all that is necessarily taken from the document is ficopla &e, On the agreement, or (frrjo-lv, earlv 77 SiW/-u9 rov fy/jLiovpyov.
disagreement, of the next sentence, Fragment 2, see the note iti loc.
/u,w/509

yap

fy, K.T.\.,

with

The

rest of the quotations

from the document, and there are

practically only two more, offer no points of comparison or of But this examination reveals a very decided contrast. similarity between such parts of his system as can be discovered from the where Fragments of Heracleon, and the passages of the

the use of

Refutatio by Hippolytus shews that he is quoting a particular It has never been proved that Valentinus Gnostic document
tfyrja-l
1
.

1

The researches of

Stiihelin

(Harnack, Tcxte und Untersuchiimjcn

vi. 3)

do not

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OP HERACLEON.
cannot have been the author of this document.
that

41
if

But

the view,

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

Heracleon do not prove that he was the author, but they render such a supposition very probable indeed. The more detailed the comparison of the rest of the account in Hippolytus with Fragments proves, I think, that the system on which the account
is

based

is

Heracleonic

;

while certain

differences

lead us to

attribute

it

rather to the school of Heracleon, than to the founder
I

of the school himself.

speak of course of the system on which Hippolytus bases his account divergent systems and opinions are frequently mentioned. Thus no certain evidence for Heracleon s date can be gained
:

from the Refutatio. The Pythagoreanising tendency, and the absence of a eryVyo? of the Father, which we may attribute with are not probability, though not with certainty, to Heracleon, The details of the system, which are late elements. necessarily
generally regarded as of a later type, Of the Excerpta ex Theodoto it

may
is

or

may

not be

his.

The at length here. by them will be referred to in the notes.

not necessary to speak chief illustrations of the Fragments afforded

Considerable verbal

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

We

can be derived from his

The nature
is

of

God

is

own writings. 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 Elsewhere he is called 6 Trarrjp TT?? aXrfOda^ carnal (Fr. 24). We hear in Fr. 16 of a rer/sa?, tf aTrpocrTrXotfo?, which (Fr. 20).
Spirit,
i.e. the probably the highest Tetrad of the Valentinian system, male Aeons. The next highest Aeon of whom we four highest

is

affect the question

under discussion.

He

admits the trustworthiness of Hippolytus
p. 170.

s

authority in this section of the Eefutatio.
1

See also Lipsius, Quellenkritik des

Epiplianios>

42
read
is

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

perhaps the dva) Xpto-ro?, who, according to the Hippolytean account, sent the KOIVOS rov TrX^wyLtaro? KapTros to Sophia; but the interpretation of Fr. 35 is uncertain. The Xo7o? of Heracleon is not a member of the original Pleroma,
or

Aeon, according to Heracleon s usage of the inhabitants of the Aeon came into being before

term.

The

His position seems to correspond to that of Kapiros in the Refutatio. All things, with the exception of the Aeon and its inhabitants, came into being through him that is to say,
;

him the KOWOS

(Fr. 1).

according to Heracleon s strange interpretation of Sia, he was the cause of the creation of the world by the
Tr)v

air Lav

-7-779

yevecrews rov KOCT/JLOV

ru>

dwelling activity the Demiurge worked. a stricter sense created by him, avro? jap
rrjv

Demiurge (irapao-^elv Through his in The Trvev/jLan/col were in
$.).

rrjv Trpwrr^v fjibpfywcriv

Kara
f*>op<f)r]v

rrjv
teal

yevecriv
et?

6*9

</>O>T

avrol? Trapea^e, ra VTT a\ov cnrapivra -ia-fjbov Kal Trepiypacfrrjv ISlav dyaywv Kal

dvaSeiga?.
(Fr.
22).
it is

He is He is

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

and

probably he, to

whom

reference

is

made
is

6 ev alwvi Kal ol

avv avrw eXOovres

(Fr. 22), as

in the words shewn by what

follows:

Holy
is

e%fj###BOT_TEXT###ev...6 Xoyo? et? rr)v OL/covfjievrjv. Spirit as driving out evil (Fr. 13), but

We

hear of the

nothing further
her

said on the subject.

Sophia
history
of
is

is

never

mentioned
of

in

the
of

Fragments, but
true

the

archetype
is

that

the

redemption of the

TTvev/jLarifcol,

which

represented as the

meaning

of the

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

sense the world

The Demiurge is frequently mentioned. came into being through the
is

Though

in

one

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

urge, inspired by him, was, in all probability,

its

Xoyo?, the immediate creator (Fr. 1).

Demi

He

it

who sowed,

typified

by John the Baptist, who, when he professed his
s

unworthiriess to loose the latchet of Christ

shoe,

is

represented
is is

by Heracleon as speaking in the person of the Demiurge, who thus made to confess his inferiority to the Christ (Fr. 8). He

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.
the Creator

43

whom

Jerusalem, the seat
to pass

the Jews worshipped, and is represented by of the imperfect worship which was soon

away

(Fr. 20).

The worship

offered to
22).

him by

all

his

worshippers was carnal and mistaken (Fr. of John iv. 46. represented by the
/3a<ri\iKo<;

He
is,

is

again
were,

He

as

it

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

which, represented by Capernaum, his son lies sick. is psychic, as is that of his son, which is represented by the number seven. This nature is capable of salvation by being assimilated to the higher spiritual nature, but the de
part
of

His nature

struction of those
is

who remain

his

men, and are not thus assimi

His assured by the words of Christ in Matt. viii. 12. lated, nature is such that it requires signs and wonders before it can Yet he is easily persuaded of believe it cannot yy Tria-reveiv.
:

the

superior power of the Saviour. represented as slaves, who report to

He

has his angels, here

his subjects, and the progress He and his house represent quence of the Saviour s advent. his whole angelic order, and those men who are more nearly akin to his own nature. Such can be saved, though the salvation

him on the well-being of which they are making in conse

of some of the angels men, who are merely

is

doubtful,
of the

men

and the destruction of those Demiurge/ is certain. Once

more, according to one interpretation of ea-nv 6 ^TJTWV KOL icpivwv the Judge is the Demiurge, the Saviour s minister, who performs the will of Him to whom all judgment has been com
mitted.

The
teaching.
20),

Sia/3oXo?

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 /cocy-co?
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
is

its

opposite, of error
;

and

ignorance.

Falsehood

his

own by nature
His nature
different
in

he
so

is

physically

incapable of speaking truth.
terprets
(Fr. 47).
6

(for

Heracleon in

Trarrjp

avrov)

is is

composed of

error

and falsehood

His substance

ova-la of the Saints (Fr. 45).

He

kind from the \oyiKr) has desires but no will (Fr. 46).

44

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
are
his children

The

xoiKol as he.

by nature, of the same substance

Corresponding to XOYO?, Srj/jLiovpyov, St,dfto\os we find the usual triple division of men into Trvev/juari/col, ^ru^iKol, ^OLKOI or l (cf. Fr. 44, outrta? rvy^dvovn Trap oi)? /caXovcn erepas The 7rveu/j,aTi/col are in some sense ?; TrvevpaTiKovs).
}

identical with the ^070?,

personality (Fr. 2). Priest alone enters, symbolises the place of their final destination The spiritual seed has been sown in the e^va-rj^a, (Fr. 13). which is apparently the psychical part of those men who possess

who imparted to them their form and The Holy of Holies, into which the High

Before the coming of Christ their spiritual nature (Fr. 16). was imprisoned in matter, corrupted by adulterous and irrational intercourse with hylic wickedness. Their former life was weak, temporal, deficient, because it was cosmic. When they are rescued by the Saviour, the life which He gives them is eternal and
it

incorruptible (Fr. 17). Through ignorance of true worship which should be offered to Him,

God and
they lived

the
in

former times no true
not wholly dormant
that
;

life (Fr. 19).

Yet the

spiritual nature was

He knew
But
spiritual

all things,

the Church awaited Christ, and was persuaded and was thus prepared to receive Him
is

(Fr. 25).

their rescue depends in no

the

nature

fyvaei,

way on themselves; aw^o^evov, and incorruptible

Faith corresponds to their true nature, and henceforth offer to the Father of Truth that they spiritual worship which is their rational service (Fr. 24). This they can do, because they
(Fr. 37).

same nature as God. Rescued themselves, they are instrumental in the salvation of others, especially of those ^v^ifcol who are capable of salvation. They pour forth what has been given them, unto the eternal life of others (erepoi). So Heracleon
are of the
interprets the uXkopevov of John iv. 14 (Fr. 17). and by the pneumatic that the psychic is brought
(Fr. 27).

It

is

to the

through Saviour

The
to

TTvev^aTiicoi are consubstantial with

God, and are destined

With the -^v^Kol it is not so. They are the children of the Demiurge and share his nature. They are repre sented by the Jews, who worshipped the Creator, the Demiurge,
salvation.

instead of the Father of Truth (Fr. 19),

who thought they knew

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.
God, but knew

45

Him

not,

moons

(Fr. 21)

*.

They can be

worshipping angels and months and saved, but cannot enter the Pleroma

:

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

the

K\V)<TL^,

in

contrast

to

the small

number

of the

spiritual

Fragment 40. eK\oy^. and they are the Trvev^aTiKol they are entangled in Like But their case is not hopeless the psychic sick unto death. sick,
:

But we learn most about

their nature in
v###BOT_TEXT###amp;amp;lt;rj

;

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

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)
below.

The psychic can

rise to salvation or sink to destruction.

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

hard to say.

The ^jrv^Kol %oiKol are by nature the sons of the Devil. his works, become sons of the Devil deaet, or a%ia, can, by doing but only the xoi/col 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.

To

set free the TrvevfiariKol,

and to save those -^v^LKol who

were capable of salvation, was the work of the Saviour on earth. The exact nature of the Saviour who appeared on earth is nowhere explicitly stated. But we learn that the Christ, who,
as

we

saw, probably corresponds to the KOIVOS rov TrX^^wyLtaro? of the Hippolytean account, came down from the

this

and took flesh as an uTro&^a (Fr. 8). As we learn from a fragment which is dealing with the words of the Baptist, /-tetro? V^JLWV arrjtcei, K.T.\., and as in Fr. 10 a dis

tinction

is made between the a-cofia and that which dwells in it, we may assume that Heracleon s Italic position is confirmed by
1

feld,

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

46
the

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

Fragments (see Hipp. Refut. vi. 35). We do not know whether he commented on John i. 14 or not. The flesh which Christ took was imperfect and fitly represented by the Lamb.
taketh awav the sin of the world is the Higher Beinsr, O dwells in the body. Traces of Docetism are to be found in the account of His healing of the son of the fiacrCKiKos (Fr. 40,

He who

o>

who

Karaffds Trpo? rov /cd/jLVOvra teal laaa/Jievo^ CLVTOV), and in the description of His food as the performance of the Father s will.

The

interpretation of His journeys as typifying His passing from the hylic to the psychic sphere, or His appearing in the world, of course proves nothing, and the symbolical interpretation does not

exclude the historical.

On the other hand the expressions used with regard to the Passion are surprisingly literal for a Gnostic. Not only does the Passion divide the two periods of the Saviour s

sojourn on earth (Fr. 38), but the slaying of the lamb at the Great Feast is typical of the Passion of the Saviour, as again the eating of it symbolises the Marriage Feast of the future
(Fr. 12).
first, apparently, at the time declared to the people by the Baptist. Through his representative the Baptist, the Demiurge acknowledges the superiority of the Saviour. His journey to Caper

He

appears publicly on earth

of the Baptism.

His presence

is

naum symbolises His descent into the hylic portions of the world: but the nature of this place is unsuitable, He can here neither do nor say anything. The journey to Jerusalem represents His
ascent to the psychic sphere; He cleanses the Holy of Holies, the home of the pneumatic, and also, apparently, the Levites court, which belongs to the psychic. The powers of evil are driven out by the might of the Holy Spirit, and the Ecclesia becomes

again the House of His Father. He goes down to Samaria to rescue the spiritual Church from the entanglements of matter, and the adulterous intercourse in which she had lived with her
six

husbands

(Fr. 17); to restore

her to her true husband above, and,

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

by

higher class of -^v^i/col 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 Trvev^arLKol 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.

Perhaps this

may mean

to rescue for the angels,

whom
work

they represent, their spiritual brides.
for

The Saviour s own

the ^v^iKol is more fully described in Heracleon s interpretation of the miracle of the healing of the son of the ftavikiKos, which has been considered already.
rection,

His work was not ended by the Passion. After the Resur no doubt, of the psychic Christ, the Saviour again

appeared among His disciples and converted many more to faith than during the first period of His work. At length He was 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.
Gnostics
:

cf.

Irenaeus

I.

iii.

2,

//-era

rrjv

e/c

veicpwv
crvv
TO?<?

Se/caoKra)

fjirjcrl

\eyeiv SiareTpifyevai avrov

and

I.

xxx.

14,

remoratum autem eum post resurrection em

xvni mensibus. Of the Eschatology of the system we do riot hear much. The v\iKol are obviously doomed to destruction, and so are such of the ^rv^LKol who are not raised and assimilated to what is higher the rest go to their own place of salvation, which we learn is without the Pleroma. The Trvev^arLKol, 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 Heracleon as a
side.

to

shew the general character

Commentator, but

so far

we have seen

his worst

seen at his best in the description of True Confession, in Life and not in Word only (Fr. 50). This whole fragment is of
is

He

At times in his Com great interest and surprising excellence. mentary on S. John he is an acute and accurate observer. He
has seen rightly that the passage beginning, ovSels rov Oeov ewpa/cev Trwirore (Jn. i. 18), is not part of the Baptist s speech,

48
but
is

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

added by the Evangelist himself (Fr. 3). His interpretation What he says of d\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.
; simplicity of the disciples in asking MT; rt? tfveryicev avra) and the self-satisfied stupidity of the Jews in their suggestion
(f>a<yelv

Indeed he is often at his best in Origen complains of his want of spiritual But his explanatory insight and servile adherence to the letter. We may cite as remarks are often strangely unfortunate. his account of Christ s inability to teach or work examples miracles at Capernaum (Fr. 11); his remark on the objections
of Mrirt,
d-rroKTevel

eavrov ;

those places where

raised

distinction of

by the Pharisees to John s baptism (Fr. 6); and his 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 arbi trary, the general method is exactly the same as that of Origen Both extract the meaning they desire from the words on himself. which they are commenting by a violent system of metaphorical But whereas Origen applies his method more con distortion. and endeavours to find a meaning which is based on a sistently, 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
to discover in the Gospel

Gospel, Heracleon attempts, very often with excessive wildness, a system which has only a superficial

and verbal connexion with it. Yet, on the whole, though we cannot but feel that the author of Fragment 50 might have employed his ability in a more fruitful manner than he has some
interesting matter, apart from the his torical investigation of Valentinianism, to repay a careful study of the earliest Commentary on the Gospel of S. John.

times done, there

is

much

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.

49

In it I have omitted one or two of those generally cited, where the quotation or reference is probably made by Origen and not by Heracleon himself. The Index of Words will

supply further assistance for the study of his vocabulary and
his teaching.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Comm.
olfJLai

1.

Orig.
Se

in loann.

ii.

8 (R.

IV.

GG; L.

i.

117).

Jo.

i.

3.

###BOT_TEXT###amp;amp;lt;yo/JLvov

elvat,

fiaprvplov rov OvaXevrivov ^vwpi^ov Hpa/cA,ea>z>a, &M<iyov/jLVov TO HANTA

KOI

%ft>/n?
f

Ayioy epeNGTO, e^eCk^evai HANTA rov Koa/jiov KOI ra ev avro), KK\ioma rwv HA SITCON, TO oa-ov 7rl rfj vTrodecrei yap avrov, ra rov KCHT/JLOV /cal roov ev avro) Siatyepovra.
Ai
(f>i]crl

5

1. 3.
fjiov Ko.1

The exclusion
TUV
tv
is

of

TO,

rov

/v6<r-

avudev

the iravra

avT$ Siafapovra from Contrast noticeable.
5
Travra.

Trjs (ro0/as (Hipp. Refut. vi.35). In the account given by Hippolytus we hear of seventy Xo7oi projected

Irenaeus
eytvero
v"

i.

viii.

Si

1

avrov

by Sophia and her
Heracleon
o-J^iryos
s

tn^iryos,

the

KOU>OS

/cat

iraffi

%W/HS avrov eytvero ovdt yap rots ^uer avrbv aiwcri
yevfoeus ainos
6

Ka.pir6<>.

Probably

A67o$ corresponds to the

(j.op(f>T)s

teal

yos

of Sophia.

At any rate he

tytveTo.

The Valentinians generally

deduced from the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel the origin of the Pleroma and its inhabitants. Cf.
Excerpta ex Theodoto 6. The teach ing of Heracleon is more nearly allied
frequently insists on the inclusion of the
in
iravra.,

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

who appeared
form
Refut.
of
vi.

to Valentinus in the

a

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

to that of Irenaeus,

who

KO<T/J.OS

as against the ordinary

Valentinian interpretation of the Heracleon s supposition passage.
that
ra.

any place in the system, most probably to be regarded as the <Tvvyos of ZWT;. Except there fore that the term (A67os) owes its origin to the Prologue to St John s Gospel, it has no connexion with
definitely to

but

is

ev

T$

aluvi

came

into being

the A67os of Heracleon.
5. (pyffi yap] An un SicKfitpovra.. fortunate transposition of yap and misled Fer0i7fft in Cod. Yen. has

before the A67os gives us a clue to his views with regard to the Ao7os, who

must be

identified

with the A67os

who, according to the Italic school, represented by Ptolemaeus and Hera
cleon, descended
at the

rarius into translating this passage,

on the Son
6

of

Mary

Per sermonem inquit non Huet s non seculum etc.
tion of cKK\tovra
x.r,\.

insignia

transla

Baptism,

yos 6

TTJS

excluden-

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

51

Ov rov

alcova

97

TO,

ev rat

yov, ariva

oierai rrpo rov
I

al&vi yeyovevai Bid rov yov yeyovevai. dvctLBecrrepov
^Y"rof

Be icrrd/jievos Trpos TO KA
evXaftovfjievos ro
10
t
,

XP C

ereNeio oyAe GN,
"

/JbrjSe Jo.

i. 3.

npocGHC TO?C Aoroic AY TOY, TNA Mh eAepIn a ce KAI VGYAHC reNH, rrpoa-rivriai rw OYAe GN TWZ/ ev KOCT/JLO) teal Ty KTicrei. KOI eirel 7rpo<pavyj ecrrl rd VTT avrov Xe,
,

MH

Pr. xxx. 6
(xxiv. 29).

.

>,

/

TO>

15

^e^iacr^va /cal irapd rrjv evdpyeiav eTrayrd vofjU^o/meva avrw Oela eKK\eierai rwv HAUTCON, rd Se, co? e /cet^o? olerai, TravreXws (frOeipo/jueva Kvpiws HANTA KaXeirai, ovrc eTriSiarpnrreov rfj dvarpoirfj rwv avrbOev rrjv
y6/JLva (ripoSpa
yeXX-o/jLei a, el

droTTiav

e^aivovrwv
rf]<>

olov Be /cal ro T?;? ypatyrjs

\eyov(T7]<i

Xoopic AYTOY ereNGTO ofAe GN Trpo&nOevra avrov dvev TrapaKoo-fjuu* real fjivOias T?7? drro ypacfrrjs ro rwv ev
ru>

ry Kricreu
20

/jirjBe

perd mOavor^ro^ diro^aivecrdaL, mo~reve(rOai

d^iovvra o/u-o/co? Trpo^tjrais rj avrocrToXot? Tot? /ZGT et-ovaias KOI dvvTreuOvvws KaTa\ei7rovcri TO?? tcaO* avrovs KOI /ji0
rov HANTA dlrlav irapaAYTOY GfGNGTO ^r)Kovcr, (f)d(T/ca}v rrjv a-%6vra T^? yeveaews rov KOCT/JLOV rw BvjfMiovpyw, rov yov ovra, eivai, ov rov d(j) ov rj v(j) ov, d\a rov

auTou? awrrjpia
Ai

ypd/jifjiara.

en

Be

t

Sico?

KOL

Tov

75

8

/UTjSe] /x^.

12

efa/xyetai

]

eittpytiav.

tern

quantum ipsius fert hypothesis ex omnibus praestantissima quaequc mundi et eorum quae ipso continentur
is

is

not found in Delarue

s text,

the

word being omitted
awi/s,

in Cod. Bodleifor TO.

plausibly substitutes T

unintelligible

in connexion

But

with the context.
tents

excellent than the world

The things more and its conis

not necessary to alter the attested reading ro may be taken
it is
:

explained in the following words, the aluv and its contents. By explaining
iravra to be the world
tents,

are of course, as

and though the awkward it is not impossible, and not more awkward than that which would be obtained by
with
a7ro0cuVecr#cu,
is

construction

and its conhe excludes from -rravTa. all
of a higher nature.

reading ry,

viz.

olov

-rrpocmd^vTa
olov 5
is

dirfxpaiveffdai.

But the
it

that
6.

is

cu wi/i]

For

this sense of alwv,

unsatisfactory, suggested that

and

has been well

derived no doubt originally from the Timaeiis (38 A), cf. Frag. 18, r\v yap
ai)r^s 6 avTip

here read

otoj>

5?).

we should probably For one who recog-

h

T

cu uw,

and Frag.
Hil-

nizes the authority of Scripture, to make unwarrantable additions to it

22, 6 lv cuum.
16.

without any attempt to justify them,
\eyov<Tys]

TO T?}S 7pa0^s

is

a fair example of
i[JL<pa.i.v6vTWv.

TUI>

avrbdev

TTJI/

genfeld,

omitting

\eyov0"r)S,

which

droTriav

42

52
Bi

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
ov
e$6i

Trapd
Bid

rrjv
t

ev
\

rfj
r
<w?

avvrjOela
voei

**(*-.

typdo-iv
//)

eV8e^d/u<ei/o9

TO

yeypau/jLevov.
fjv,

ei

yap

^ a\j)ueia rwv

rep ay par wv

orujuovpyov yeypdfyQai rrdvra yeyovevai rov VTTO rov yov, ou^t oe dvdrcd\iv Bid rov yov vrro BS ov ^priadfjievoi arco^ovuws 30 Kai T^/xet? pev rf/ BnLiiovpyov.

rov

rfj

o-vvrjOeia,

OVK dudprvpov

Be, 7T/305

rov

TW arj Ka& eavrov vovv,
avra>

efcBo^v d^rjKapev. eicelvos drro rwv Oelwv ypa^drayv rrapapepvdrlcrOai
rrjv

dvaiBws

dvnft^etyas

TO d\r)6e$ Kai fyaiverai Kai vTrorrrevcras w? UTT d\ov l ydp
(ptja

onOvx

evepyovvros avros
26 Trapd
26.
-n-apa

errolei

o

Xdyo?, tV ovra)
TWI>.

vovjOfj 35

TTJV] ire pi c5v.

Cod. Bodl. in mg. rd%a
of

TTJV]
irepl

The reading
wi>,

tion

is

independent

of

Heinrici,

Cod. Monac.

which

is

repro

duced in

all its copies, is s translation,

impossible.

whose note (Die Vol. Gnosis, p. 135) I had not seen when I first made it.
32.
Trpos

Ferrarius

exponens id
It is

r

/AT)

irapafj.efj.v0TJ(r6ai]

quod scriptum
suetam,
is

est phrasin esse con-

On

not helpful.

not

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

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

easy to see

how he

Introduction

p.

8.

Delarue

s

it

gives

no

intelligible sense.

Hilgen-

obviously right conjecture of ry for TO is now substantiated by the
evidence of Cod. Monacensis.

feld s

more
lated

conjecture Trepirr^v is hardly How is it to be trans helpful.
?

Un
)

fortunately the

same

error (TO for T

The conjectural emendation which most obviously suggests itself The confusion of Trapd is Tra/m and irepl is one of the commonest
TTJJ>.

was

independently by scribes of Codd. Reg. and Bodl.
35.
6 Xcryos]
is

made

the

Ao 7os here

The position of the exactly that given to
vi. 33),
??

characteristics
also,
it

of

Cod.

Monac.,

as

Sophia in Hippolytus (Refut.
dyvoovvTi O.VT$
(sc.

may be added, of its de scendants. And when once Trapd was changed to Trept, rrjv may have be
come
TWP,

r

drj^ovpyy)

o-o0a

i>rjpyr)<Te,

which corresponds to
repos
repos is

Heracleon
cTrofci,

s

avrov evepyovvros

which might

easily

be

where the

c5v. Possibly the original reading may have been Trapd XT/I/ T&V, which accounts more easily for the

corrupted to

the Demiurge. It may that in this passage Hippolytus gives a general reference, using \tyov<rw and

obviously be noticed

corruption,

if

the construction thus

not

0->7<riV.

We

Either given to (ppaffiv is possible. of these readings will give the re
quired contrast to Origen stated just below, TJ/XCIS 5e
s

the account of
especially the

should also compare Irenaeus (i. v. i.),
/j,a\ov

words

8e

TOV

position

aVoXotftfcos

Scoria 6V auT?}s; and shortly before, (of the Demiurge) XeX?70oTws Kivot/j.vov VTTO TTJS /j.r)Tpos.

ry ffwrjddg. /c.r.X. such passages as
Kai

We may compare
xiii. 17,

Heracleon

may

opa

5

el

^

Trapd

TTJV

a.KO\ov9tav

T&V

e/f&ed>f*

os K.T.\.

This sugges

have assumed some similar relation between Ao7os and So0ta, at any rate it would have been easy for him to

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
TO Ai
Ayrof, aAA avrov evepyovvros ere/509 ov rov Trapovro? 8e Kdtpov ecrrlv eXey^ai TO /J,rj rov ovpyov vTTTjperrjv rov yov yeyevrjfjbevov rov KOO~/JLOV
Ktvav, Kal aTToSeifcvvvai, ori VTrrjperrjs rov 8rj/j,iovpyov
40 6

53

y
cxlviii.

Xo7O9

TOJ>

KocrfMov Karecr/cevacre.

Kara yap rov

Aa/3/8
eNejei AATO
KAI
/cal

9e6c e?ne KAI ereNHOHCAN* eNereiAATO KAI eKTi cGHCAN. Ps.

yap

6 dyevvrjros $eo9 rcT npoaroTOKcp TTACHC KTICGOOC,

6KTIC6HCAN, OV /JLOVOV 6 KOafJUO^,

Kal
efre

TO.

V

aVTU>,

d\a
Col.
i.

rd \oL7rd nravra
HANTA r^p

eTre
Ai

OpoNOi

45 erre eloyciAr
ecTi

AY TOY

KAI eic

KypiOTHrec APXAI AYTON IKTICTAI, KAI AYTOC

e\~re

16,

npo HANTCON.

2.

Ibid.

ii.

15 (R.

iv.

73; L.

i.

130).
6
To>

Hdvv
TO
"0

8e

/3tGUft>9

Kara rov roTrov
Toi)9
7T

yev6[j,evo<$

refONGN GN AYToj ZOOM HN e^6L\ij(f)6v dvrl

N

AY TO) Jo.

i.

4.

Et9 TOU9 dvOpwTTOvs
5

vev/JLari KOV 9, olovel ravrov vofjiiaras elvai, rov yov Kal TOV9 TrvevfiariKOVS, el Kai fjirj cra0w9 TaiV e lpijKe Kal wcrrrepel alno\oyd)v (frqa-iv AUTO 9
modify the
system
sufficiently

to

Kapirov Kal Trjs

<ro0tas

et s

TOVTOV

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

TOV

K6ff/j.ov:

and

also the interpreta

tion of aXXos 6 airdpuv Kal aXXos 6
6epifai>

however,

between Sophia
is

given
it

by Heracleon (Frag.
is

and the Demiurge
doto
5t
(c.

assumed in the

35).

But
aXXos

more probable that
the

second part of iheExcerpta ex Theo49,
cTrel 5e

the

is

OVK eyivwo-Kev
/c.r.X.).

TT\V

work
is

of the A670$ being that

Demiurge, the which
This

avTov tvepyovcrav

It

was

described in the passage quoted

probably part of the original system of Valentinus, and is therefore not
available as a

from Hippolytus as a sowing.
rt]v

suits better the description TTJV wpwiibp(f>w<nv

means

of

differenti

T7)V

Kara

TT)V

ating the systems of his pupils. 41. The LXX. in this passage

and gives to the action

its

yfre&u natural
,

reads

atfros

instead of

o

0eoj,

and

place (chronologically) in the history Much closer parallels, of Creation.

repeats the ai)ros before everei Xaro.
2.
5.

Two
are

explanations of this
possible.

however, to this passage are found Cf. in the Excerpta ex Theodoto.
57, yivtTai
ovv.../j.6p<pu<ri.s

passage

The

d XXos

TOV irvevSrj-

whose sowing the A67os completed

^artKoO,

and

48,

diaKpivas Se 6
airb TOV

may

be the KOIVOS TOV
in

TrXT/pw/Aaros

fjuovpybs TO,

Kadapa
TT]v

Ka/>7r6s,

which case
34,

cf.

Refutat.

vi.

X67<n

Hippolytus, avuQtv /careTT\TJpU-

ws av fviduv
eTToiT/o-ei/,
(/>cDs

eKaTep

TOVTtffTiv tfpavtpuffcv Kal eis

dTTO TOO KOLVOV TOV

Kal

IStav

wpoariyayev,

which

is

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

yap

TTJV

TrpwTTjv fjiop^wcr iv

rrjv

Kara

Trjv

yivecriv

aurot? Trape(T%e, ra VTT aXXou (nrapevTa et? Kal et? fywTicr JJLOV teal Trepiypa^rjv IS lav dyayoov
dva$elj~a$.
Trapd
1 Cor.
l>
14>

rcS

Hlav\M Xeyopevov,
ANGpconoc
AYTCO ecTi

ov TrapeTrfprjae Se Kal TO Trepl TOOV Trvev/JLaritcwv OTI, dvdpwTrovs avTovs direaiwoy AexeTAi

10

ii.

Trrja-e

YYXIKOC

TA

TOY TTNeyMATOC

Toy

Oeoy, McopiA

rp

Ae nNeyMATiKoc ANAKPINGI TTANTA.
/J>r)

yap ov /Jirrju avrov afMev eir rov Trvev/JLarifcov TO dvOpwTros. KpeiTTov yap r) dvOpaiTros 6
S,

TOV dvOptoTTOV
ov

rJTOl 6V

"^V^fj

7)

V Gto^aTl

r)

V 15

apa/CTtipi^ojjLevov, ov^i oe Kal ev
irvevfJLaTi,

rw TOVTWV

KaTa

o TTvev/JiaTiKo*;.

apa

/jiTO^r)v eTTLKpaTovaav xprj \LCLTI8e Kal TCL r^? ToiavTris vTroOeaews
a7roSetfea>?

KCLV

dTTO^aivofjuevrjs

dirofyaiveTai,

ovBe

^ TW%ovo-r)S TTiOavoT^TO^
s

(frOdcrai

eh TOV

Trepl TOVTCOV 20

yov.

Kal raura
8

fMev Trepl eKeivov.

3.

Ibid.
GCTIN

vi.

2 (R. iv. 102; L.

i.

177).

Jo.

i.

19.

KAI

AYTH

H

MApTypiA Toy

IcoANNoy.
Trepl

SevTepa
C

dvayeypa/JL/jievr)
Jo.
i.

15.

XptcrroO Tvpia, r^? TrpoTepas dp%a/jLevr)s diro TOV OYTOC HN 6 einooN o nicoo Moy e pxoMGNOc, Kal \r)yovo-i]s et? TO MoNOfGNHC 6e(k d
fBaTTTia"Tov

Iwdvvov TOV

ov elnov

6

uto5

3 6

eiTTiov (sic).

4

fj-ovoyevr/s Ocbs (sic).

qualified in the next section

by the
TTJV
6t

words end

5e

oJ/c

eyivw<rKei>

hand, afford instructive examples in the history of the transmission of
Patristic quotations
tion, pp. 8, 18)
;

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

(see

Introduc-

passage quoted from the Excerpta, and read /cat ISeav. But the phrase
jrfpLypatftrjv

and the curious conflation of Codex Regius (b /movoye^ wos 6e6s) which is quoted in Tischendorfs
critical digest is

ibiav is

not intrinsically

thus traced

objectionable.

to its origin.

The transposition of ia-rlv 12. and avry in Huet and the other editions is due to an error of the scribe of Cod, Rcyius. The right
order
is

This is not the only case where Origen complains of Heracleon s interpretation of a passage, where the
latter is probably right.

preserved in the other MSS.

cott s
foe.)

Commentai y on St John,

(See Westin

3. 4.

The

interlinear insertions in

Cod. Monac., which are by a later

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEKACLEON.
5
0>N

55
i.

10
f

TON KOATTON TOY HATpOC
i>7ro\a/j,{3dvei

Ke?NOC eH|-HCATO.

OVft V*y6lK Jo.

18.

Se 6 HpaK\ea)v

OyAeic TON 9eoN ed pAKeN nconoTe

Km
aXX
10 OTI

T(l

6^9

(f)dcrKa)v

elprjcrOai

OVK

diro TOV ftaTTTKrrov
K TOY Jo.
X<*plTOC,

el yap teal KCUT avTov TO a7ro TOV /uiadrjrov AYTOY HM?C HANT6C eAABOMGN, KAI )(AplN ANTI TTAHpOOMATOC
KA>I
"

i.

1C,

^H6eiA AlA IhCOf 6 NOMOC AlA MOOYC603C GAOOH, H X^P IC OVK afco\ovXpicTof epeNGTO VTTO rov ftaTTTicrTOV etp^rat, TTW? 6ov TOV eK TOY nAHpcoMATOC TOY XpicTof etX^^ora teal x^P N
eirl

is

AIA Mcoceo^c Trporepas ^ApiTOC, o/jLoXoyovvrd re KA J HN AAhBGIAN AlA IN (JLGV $e$6(T0ai, TON NOMON, THN $ X^P lncof XpicTof yeyovevcu, IK T&V diro TOY nAnptoMATOC e9

Sevrepav

avrov ej\v06ra)v vevorjKevai,
nconoTe
/cat

TTCO?

OGON

oYAeic

eoapAKGN

TO TON MONOpeNH

eic

TON KO ATTON ONTA TOY nATpoc
et\r)(f)6a-t,
CON>

avry Kal TTCLGI TOL* GK TOY nAnpcoMATOC ov yap vvv nrpwrov efyyijeaTo ;
20 TON

<0

eic

KoAnoN TOY nATpoc,

ovSevos eTTLTTj&eiov TrporepovyeyevT]\a(3elv a rot? aVocrToXot? Scrjyija-aro, eiye TTpiN ABpAAM SiSacr/cet T/yLca? TOV A/Spaa//. rjya\iad6ai FN A
co?
u>v

Jo.viii. 58.

Jo.viii. 56.

TAH THN HMepAN
7,

avTov Kal ev %apa
cod.

yeyovivat,.

8

paTTTi<TTou.../j.a0TjTov]

Sed

literis

apdy

seriori

manu

inter lineas
TO.VTOV.

insertis

19

6
<3i>]

transponuntur om.

jSaTrrtaroO et /ua^roO.

8

/car

avrw] Kara

d

vi.

8 (R. iv. 117; L.

i.

200).
Jo.
i.

Ou davfjiaaTov Se el /jirj ijKpiftovv OTI, aiJro? ecrrt XpiCTOC Kal o npoc{)HTHC, ot to-Ta^oi/T65 Trepl Icodvvov, urjiroTe auro? Xpicrro? ^* a-KoKovdov yap TW irepl TOVTOV SiaTay/AW TO
dyvoelv TOV avTov elvai XpicTON Kal
19.

20,

TON

npocj)HTHN.

eXaOe

The

insertion

of

6

wi>

by

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

Latin, which represents the ets by solus, but the omission leaves no
suitable
text.

sense in the present con/cat 6 7r/3o0^r7?s]

primum

enarravit,

Qui

est

ad sinum

Patris, periude quasi nullus etc., is the simplest emendation of the cor-

4.1. X/NCTTOS

Ferra-

rupt text of

its

exemplar.

These

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

words
the

(6

first

are indeed omitted by hand of Cod. Sinaiticus (N),
u>v)

he used, translating

and Cod.

Vercellcnsis (a) of the

Old

Christus et ille In the Munich MS. the Propheta. article is not wanting.

56

THE EXTANT FHAGMENTS OF HEUACLEON.
r)

Be 701)9 TTO\OV?
/cal

Biafopd TOV 6 npocfmTHc
OO-TLS

/cal

npocbHTHC, ^9
0^9

5

TOV

Hpa/cXecova,

avTals Xefecrt
elvai,
o

(frrjcriv

apa

^\wdvvi)<$

a)jjioyr)o-e prj
iJ,rjoe

npO(J)HTHC,

HAiAC.

/cal

xpiCTo c, d\d fjujBe Seov avTov OVTW etckaflovTa

e^eTao-ai TO, /caTa roz)9 TOTTOVS, TTOTepov dXrjOevei eivat, rrpO(|)HTHC, fj,r]8e HAIAC, rj ov 6 Be JMTJ
>,

\eywv

//,?;

67ri(TTno~a<>

7049

K

ev 0^9 KaTa\e\oi7rev VTro^v^jfjiao Lv dve^eTacrTa)? irape-

Ta

TijAtLKavTa, (Tcboopa

o~\,t, f

ya

/cat/

Tot? 6^779 eiTTdov, Trepi (bv evOeo)^ epovLLev.
6 apa] ap
ei.

5.

Jfo d
fjievTot
to-oz;
ce;9

vi.

12 (R.

iv.

120;

L.

i.

206).

Jo.

i.

23.

AvvaTai
Kal

ye TO
elvai,

Epoo

({XJONH

BOOQNTOC IN ThT
01 /cal

8

TO ef^9
ev

003Nh BOOQNTOC,
(frwvrjv
Trj

Eyco elpi Trepl fiocovTa elvai, TOV Icodw^v,

TW

eprjpa) (Bodv

TOVTOV TYJV EyeyNATe THN OAON KYpiOY- Svo-fa-

Be 6

Hpa/cXecov Trepl
e

Iwdvvov Kal

TU>V

avwv, (frtjaiv OTL O <yo$ /j,ev 6 ^a)Trjp eaTiv, H Be 77 eN TH epn MCp 77 Bid "Iwdvvov Biavoov/nevrj,
9.
is

Trpo^TcSv

5

The only

the omission of

alteration necessary rj before \tyuv (H

must qualify &\rjHuet follows the reading of Codex Regius which con tains the 77 and omits the 6, thus
after ei).
Bevci,

The

ou

not Xfywc.

vious. For the construction we may compare a fragment of Origen in an unpublished Catena at Venice (Bibl. Marciana Graec. xxvii.) 6 pa 5 ei dvdirelv

<rvv<rT

Y)Kcva.i....us
/cat

elvai TO

TTOLV

joining the two sentences
10.

and pro
critical

ypdfj,/j,a

TOV

v6fjt.ov
ypa<j>uv

TrpoQifruv

/cat

ducing an unintelligible statement.
Hilgenfeld,
is

TWV

XOITTWJ

OTTO
Set

TOV
TOI)S

Toiovde

in

his

TTTjXov,

$

/cat

xP^ ai

TUV

^

note,

misled by a misstatement of

f3\Tr6i>Twv

6(f)da\fj.ovs.

Delarue sreproducedbyLommatzsch. The /i^ (after 6 is not ) wanting in the Bodleian.
5. 3. ws] It is remarkable that while Codex Venetus omits the ws,
its copy Codex Bodldanus inserts it. But the scribe of the latter may very well have inserted it from the Latin of Ferrarius, ut clamante lohanne the want of some such insertion for
:

7.

diavoovfj.fr r)]
^oetcrflai,

Heracleon twice
uses 5ta-

uses

as he here

voeladai, of a
ised,

higher power symbol

represented, made intelligible, so to speak, (as far as is possible), on

earth by an earthly being. Cf. Frag. 8 (Orig. Comm. in loann. vi. 23) Trepl
TOV wpoo-uirov TOVTOV
(?)

5ta TOV

Iw-

awov
Ibid.
Sia TU

voov/j.e
xiii.

i>ov,

and Frag. 35
0e/H<rras

(Orig.

48)

TT^TTCI

TOUS

grammar

s

sake would be quite ob

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

57

ort

&<77Tp

8e irdaa Trpo^TjriKrj raft?, \ercreov Be TT/OO? avrbv, EAN AAhAoN CAAnir^ (booNh N AcT oi)Set9 TTApAGIC
r)

1 Cor. xiv.

10 CKeyAZGTAI

TTOAeMON,

KCU

6

%O>/H9

AfAHHC

e%Gt)Z>

TNCX)CIN
Of. 1 Cor. X1

npocbHTeiAN
et fjUfjBev

76701/6

X^ K OC
77

HX^N

H

KYMBAAON
TT pointer)

A AAAAZON,
<f)a)vr},

o#T&>9

eanv

erepov

7TCU9

dvaTrefMTTow ij/ua?

eV

??%09 ?} avrrjv 6 ^wrrjp
N

<^r/0-t,

TAG rp^^AC, OTI YMG?C AOK?T6
KAI 6Ke?NAi
eiciN AI

EpeyNAie, AyTA?C ZOOh N AIWNION

Jo. v. 3 J.

(

15 exeiN

enicTeyere AN GMOI, nepi

enicTeyere Moace?, MApTypofcAr 6Moy eK6?NOC erpAye /cal KAAOQC Mt. xv. 7, AAOC oyroc TO?C c f Igi enpoc^Hieyce nepi YMOON HcA AC, AepooN Me TIMA; oJ/c olSa yap el rov aa-rj/jiov r)X ov irapa&e^eTal, xxix. 13. XeiAeci
r<^p

tcai Ei

Jo. v. 46.

C

i

Ti9

euA,o7&>9

UTTO

roO 2&)rr;po9 eiraivelaBai,
TU>V
<ypa(f>a)V,

rj

Gvearu Trapa-

20 a/cevdc-aa-Oai,

atro

009

TTO

CJJCONHC

riva evepyeias iroXe^ov, AAnAoy C|)OONHC H XOY Tvy^avova-^. ol irpo^ffrai /cal Bid TOVTO $e TpOTrov, el pr} dydirr]v efyov
XAAKOC
25 avrcov,
r]craz/

TJ^owre?,
el\t
!

r}

KyMBAAON AAAAAZON, eVl TOV
tv ) dvaTre/jiTrei 6

0)9
;

efceivoi

)<f)aa

dopevovs

OVK olSa S
(frcovrjv

OTTO) 9

X^p^
els

Trda-ijs

KaTaaicevfjs

fyaiverai rrfv

oi/ceioTepav ovcrav raj

\oyw

\o<yov

QJ9 teal TTJV

yvval/ca

dv

The usage may well have sprung from Bom. i. 20 ra yap dbpara avTOV
OLTTO
KTi<reus
Ko<rfj.ov

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

rots TTot^atTij

recognized to some extent the revelation of the
sibly

voot/j-eva

Ka.Oopd.Tai..

We may

com-

pare also Origen s own use, in loann. xx. 12, OVK ZCTTIV ore
TOV
TTOS
Irjo-ovjt

Comm.
6 /card

Old Testament posHeracleon did so to a greater
:

extent

TpoTTLKus

t>

oov /j.ev os avdpw-

Cf. Frag. 20, than most. where the Jews are placed above
irdvTes ol irpb VO/J.QV
/cat ol

OVK

eiredri/j-ec

ry

/3t y,

and

Ibid.

iQviKol.

xx. 29,

IMVOV TOV /cara TOV Swr?7pa
avQpu-rrov dpx^dev
?/i>

28.

/xerar^eo-^at]

i>oov/j,evov

<pwfi.

8.

TOOS]

With the implied

dis-

lichung of in the Anatolic

The Vermlinnthe female was taught
School.
Cf.

Ex-

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

21, rd ovv dppccerpta ex Theodoto, VIKO. /xerd TOV yov ffvveaTdXrj, rd #77\VKO,

ovv

ol

Trpo<pTJTat.

/cai

6

v6/j.os

dt

diravbpuQtvTO.
/cat

evovTai

rots
^ ta

\d\i](rav
X^-yei

diro

TOV

8Tjfj.iovpyov,

fj-wpou

dyy\ois
roOro
rj

ets els

TrX^pw^a X WP 6

^eoO
s

fjuapoi

ovdev ddoTes.

He<f>uvr),

ywi]

racleon
TJXOS,

explanation of Xo7os,
possibility of a

X^erat,

and the

change

from one
It

to the other, is obscure.

/cat ^ dyyt\ovs, where by Xe^erai are introduced words very similar to those

dvdpa fj.eTaTi8ea6ai evTavda e/c/cXTjo-ta ets

may

point to some theory of a
revelation

of Heracleon.

gradual

culminating

in

We

should also compare with Sou-

58

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

Kal W9 egovalav e-^wv rov Boj^ari^etv Kal mo-reveaOai Kal TTpoKOTrreiv, rw ?} % (f^rjalv eaeaOai rrjv els <f)(ovrjv per a(So\r)v, /juadrjrov
\o<yov
<f>(t)vfj,

3

fjiev

^wpav
rfj

$t>&ov<i

rfj

fjLera/3a\ovar) et9

Bovkov

Be

drro

?} %oi>
r&>

et? fywvrjV

07ro>9

Trore TTiOavorrjra

ecfrepev

errl

Kal el pev avrd KaraaKevdaai,

Kav rjyo)vio-d/ji0a Trepl 7-179 rovrcov dvarpoTrrjs, dp/eel Se et? dvarpOTrrjV rj dTrapa^vO^ros 7ro0a<Jt9. OTrep &e virepeOe- 35 fjieOa ev rot9 TT/OO TOVTWV e^erdaai, TTUX; KetcivriTai, vvv
<f>epe

SiaXd/Bw^ev.
(frTjaiv

6

/jLev

yap ^wrrjp,
KOL

Kara TOP

Hpa/c^ewva,

avrbv Kal npO(f)HTHN

HAiAN, auro9 &e efcdrepov

TOVTWV dpvelrai. eirdv avrov
i,

Kal npocfu-iTHN jjuev ^at HAiAN 6 ^wrrjp OVK avrbv d\d rd Trepl avrov, (frycrl, orav 8e MGI ZONA npo4>HT(2)N Kal GN rore avrov rov Io)dvvr]v
\e<yrj,
(j>rj(7l,

40

avros
6

Trepl eavrov epwrw/Jievo^ drroKpiverai ou rd Trepl avrov oarjv Be /3d(ravov r^els Iwaz/^7/9, Trepl rovrwv Kara ro Bvvarov TreTTOL^eOa, ovBev drrapaeoovres rwv \e<yo/jievci)v opcov av^Kplvai rot9 VTTO
06,
,

4.5

are OVK e^ovalav e%ovros rov \eyeiv o /3ov\erai, ro rrws jdp ori Trepl rwv Trepl avrov
e<rn

32
\ov 5e
/c.r.X.

0WI/77]

0wi>V

rj.

34 yyuvura/Jieda]
MS. is impossible.

a passage in i\eExcerpla,
/ut,6p<f>w<ri.s

The
$
is

alteration of

57, rov
/roD,

/j-ev,

TOU Trvevfian\f/vx<.Kov

Cod. Venetus
that
it

(fxavrj

so far right

TOU

5e,
ets

/uLerddea-is

TOV

e /c

SouXei as

e\evdepiav.

In the proiv.

ceding section the allegory of Gal.
is

required dative. But the conjecture contained in the margin of Cod. Bodlcianus is right,
gives

the

interpreted by making Israel represent 6 Tn>evfj.a.TiK6s, and (apparently) the children of the bondwoman cor-

rdxa TO*
out
(fiwvy.

H

7rap<f\/cet.

We may
the

with-

hesitation

adopt
wepl

reading

respond to the
TO.

^VX<-KO

L

(cf.

OTO.V ovv

48.

irepi

TUV

OLVTOV}

The

faxi-Ka

eyKevTpiffdy).

Thus the

omission of
is

TW

trepl

in the Editions

may represent the -rrvev^aare given as j/i/^cu to the angels, while -fo * corresponds to the
0wj>rj

here

due to

its

erroneous omission in

TIKOI

who

Cod. Regius, where however a later hand has inserted rd irepl inter lineas.

But it is dangerous to pursue such hints at interpretation into too great detail. The Excerpta offer
\f/vx<.Koi.

The words
text, as

are necessary to the con-

Heracleon has shortly before classed the assertions TO RXiav avrbv
Kal irpo^Tijv elvat
O.VTOV as
OLVTOV Tbv
Trept

yet another parallel in
d/x6p0wro^,
QrjXetas eari
(pa.ffii
,

79,

"Ews

ovv

among

the

TO,

wepl

ZTI

TO

<nrtp/j.a,

opposed to those by which
\ua.vvr\v xapa-KTypifci.

TKVOV poptyuOh
The Quvty ^

5e

yttere-

The
it is

T^Oij ets avdpa.

T&V

is

perhaps awkward, but

32.

<pwrj]

of the

exactly parallel to the succeeding

irepi

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
HAIAN avrov KOI npo4)HTHN
50 (booNiHN

59

elvau,

avrov elvai BOGONTOC IN

TH

Kal Trepl avrov TO tpHMtT, ovSe Kara TO

TVVOV
OTL

d\d avTov olovel evSvpaTa TJV eTepa avTov, irepl Kal OVK av epwTtjOels Trepl TWV evSvjJidTwv, el aOro? TTCO? yap Ta evSvfjiaTa, aTreKpidij av TO Nat. eiij

Ta

55

Mt. eVSu/aara TO elvai TOV HAIAN TON MeAAoNTA epxecOAi CCTTW Iwdvvov, ov Trdvv TL Kar avTov Oewpw Taya Ka6* ^/-ta?,
a5?

xi. 14.

^e8vvti/jL0a

SnyyijcraiJievovs
TTO)?

TO GN

TTNGYMATI

KAI

AYNAMGI Lc.

i.

17.

HAioy,

Svva/jLevov

~\,e<yeo~0ai,

TOVTO TO

ev Svvd/jLei elvau TTJ?

\wdvvov
59 ei\wv 5

i/ri;^?.
TI]

HNGYMA HAioy QeXwv S ert Trapa-

ai;roO.

Ferrarius

had the true

text

are required,
best
tions.

and 0\uv
5
eri,

oe,

or

more
condi

before

him

in Cod. Venetus, but he

probably diKwv
to
fulfil

would seem

has missed the point of the passage by putting the following Vox clamantis in the same class as Propheta.
55.

the

required

The introduction of a fresh stricture by means of 6-1 5e is cha
5e alone is hardly strong enough to suit the context
; ;

racteristic of Origen

The absence
is

of etrrlv in the

Editions

due

to another error in

cf.

ii.

8, xiii. 51,

and

just below,

ri

Cod. Rcyins.
59.
cv
8vi>d/j.ei

5
elvai]

ov

/j.6vos"H.pa.K\ewi>

K.T.\.

And
.

the

It is

hard

to get any satisfactory meaning out of these words, or to see how they

..oinrafollowing sentence ov KO.K&S vv ok e^7?racr/x^ws is so thoroughly in
fj.fi>

can be an interpretation of ev irvevHAt ou. Thorndike fjiari /cat 8vvdfj.fi. conjectures ZvSvfj-a elvai. This suits
very well the context in which the

the style of Origen s criticisms of his opponent, that the passage must
surely contain a piece of Heracleon s Commentary. For the exact phrase

compare Origen
5
<?n

c.

Cehum
xxv. 150)

iv.

88

words stand.
6e\wv 5
res,
TL\
is

(Philocalia xx. L.

Oe\wv

The reading

Oe\ov-

which

found in Cod. Mona-

censis, is corrupt,

and the insertion of

5ta TrXetoj Wf ...aTro^Tji ou, where Origen states the argument of Celsus before he proceeds to refute it. If

by Cod. Venetus does not restore The subsequent the true text. For a similarly TO cannot be right. impossible optative which has been
5e
X<fyoi

the

n of 0EAHNAETI
in the

was cor

rupted by itacism to O, the letters

allowed to remain,
in loann. xiii. 59,
yevo/J.evr)
dp<.0^<$.

cf.

Origen Comm.
TTJS
t ctcrewj

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

ONAETI

ONTEC

ei rj

<pv<ris

T

ot/cety

TTJS

dv air av crews

The scribe of Cod. Rcyius has probably stumbled by an itacism
on the right reading, Xe^et TO. If this be so, a nominative singular participle and a connecting particle

Hilgenfeld has naturally omitted the passage in his collection of the Fragments, but there were not
context.

the

same reasons
/cat

for omitting the
iraKiv K.T.\.

next sentence

where

the X^yei can only refer to Heracleon. The proposed alterations restore the

60
arTrjo-ai,

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Bid rl lepeis /cal Aevlrat ol eTrepwrwvres a?ro
r

TWV

60

IouoWa)j>

TrefJi^devre^
7TpO<rfjfCOV

elalv,
r)V

ov

/catca)<$

[lev

\eyei

TO

Ort
I

TOVTOIS
/cal

7T 6 pi

TOVTO)V TToXvTT pay /JLO V

V

irvvdaveaOai, rot?
rd
r/

TTGLVV Be e^rjTao-fjievcos

6ew Trpoa-tcapTepovartv, ov Ort /cal avros IK rfjs A.evlTi/cr)<$
rc3
^J/iet?

(j)V\rjs

tfv,

wcnrep TrpoajropovvTes

e^raa-a^ev,

on

el 65

rjBeurav TOV
TTCO?
Jo.
i.

Icodvvrjv ol Tre/jL^OevTe^ /cal TTJV ^eveaiv avrov,

^wpav
;

21.

eaTiv

/cal

e^aiperov

cl^ov TTwOdvecrOai, Trepl rov el avrbs HAiAC iraKiv ev rc3 Trepl TOV el 6 rrpoc})HTHC e\ cy, /j,rjBev oto/ie^o? o-rj/jialvecrOai, /caTa rrjv TrpoaOrjK^v TOV
OTL

apdpov, \eyei

^TrrjpwTrjcrav

el

TrpotyrjTrjs

eirj,

TO

70

ov^evoi padelv.
,

&TI Be ov

ak\a
/cal

ocrov

eV

e/J^fj

IcrTOpiq teal TrdvTes ol
JJL^

evT\rj

d/j,(j)i,l3o\iav

StacrretXao-^at

SeSvvrjfjLev

HX/ou
Lc.
ill
vii.

TTCLVTWV

TWV

Trpo^TjTGQV TOV ^\(tiavvr)v

28.

ta TO Mei zoaN

eN reNNHioIc

PYNAIKCON

IcoANNoy oyAei c eciiN, 75

U

"

OU X

opwvTe<^

OTL d]0e^ TO OyAeic MEIZOON NOOANNOY ^

TO?C PYNAIKOON Bi^oi)^ yLveTai,, ov fjtbvov TO)
lieifyva,
i(TO)v

avTov elvai

d\d

/cal

TW

tVou?

OVTWV avTa) 7ro\wv

elvai Tiva? d\rjde^ jdp, Trpo^rjTajv, /caTa Tr]V oeSofjLevfjv
80

avTw

auTw x^P LV r ^HAENA TOUTOU MeizoNA elvai. olWat Se tcaTaTO MEIZONA TW Trpo^TjTevedOaL VTTO o~ /cevdea 0ai,
61
Tre/j.(f)d{i>Tes]

Hie male laesus
oi ire^(f)d.

est codex, videtur

autem plus x
TO.

litteras

habuisse; Cod. Yen. habet

\eyei r6]

X^ot

80, 81

KaraffKevafccrdcu] TO /caracr/cei/a^ecr^ai.

ry] om. codex; addito, ut videtur,

in

mg.
80.

of the sentence, and make the passage a continuous and consistent whole.

grammar

Delarue, reading ofcTcu 8t TO

61.

7refj.<t>0VTes]

Whether Cod.
or not
is

ndfrva elvai irponos sanam remarks, restituimus lectionem e codice Bod^revea-dai,

/caTacr/ceydfccr^at TO

Monac. read

oi ire/A^d wres

leiano

;

but his text seems hardly
After

uncertain, but in any case the article can hardly be retained.
75.
/xefftw]

satisfactory.

making the con-

It

is

uncertain wheirpofir)-

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

ther Heracleon omitted the
T7?s

has been proposed by Thorndike in
the margin of his transcript of Cod. Bodleianus. The insertion or omission of elmi, which appears to have been added in the margin of Cod. Monacensis, is a matter of no
im>

of the Received

Text as well as

Origen, or not; but the subsequent meution of Josiah in Origen s refutation
of

Heracleon

s

Comment

makes
did
so.

it

highly probable that he

portance,

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

61
VTTO

deov
85

TGOV

TrcoTTore
rrjs

/cara<j)pova)V

w? a\.r)6ws Trpo^rjrevcrdvTCOv. TraXata? ^p^art^oucr^? SiaO^/cr]?, KOL fJirj
6
i

Tripiioras
crev

KOI avTbv HXiav TTpo^ijrevo/jievov, TOUT a7rero\^ r]eiTrelv KOI yap HXta? Trpo^rjreveraL VTTO M.a\a%iov lAov AnocreAAoo YM?N HAiAN TON OecBiTHN, oc AHO- Mai.
KApAlAN

iii.

KATACTHCei

T *7 ?
go

HATpOC HpOC YION ....... Kdl TdVTd trpoTrereias rov aTro^rjva/jLevov

,

,

jxv

,

t?

23(iv.4f.).

Icodvvov 7rpo(j)r}Tev(T0ai, eipqffffw, ravra elpr)KOTo<$ ev TW 6e\Giv avrov Sirjyela-Oat, ri TO Epcb (J)OONH BOCONTOC eN TH
Ip HMO).
89
TT/soTreretas]

Jo.

i.

23.

ex coniectura Ruaei

;

cod. habet

6.

Ibid.

vi.

13 (R.

IV.

125

;

L.
1

I.

213).
oi

o?

ovv ev vBari, oy BAHTIZGI, AAA

MAGHTAI AYTOY,
KAI

Jo. iv. 2.
Cf.

w

Be

Tripel

TO
o

TO)

Afico

TTNeyMATi
-rov

BAHTIZGIN

nypi

Mt.

iii.

HpafcXewv

rwv

o5? u^ico?
5 /tat

elprj^evov Trepl rov o$>ei\ecrdai TO HXia /cat iravrl Trpo^rjrr], avrais \e%ecri

<$>r]criv

Ot?

TO ftaTTTi^eiv,
<y%6/jLevo<>,

real

e/c

rwv
TIVCL

elprj pevwv

fJLa\i(Tra

Se

on, Kowbrepov

TON npoc{)HTHN vevorfKev
(frijTuiv
(3a7TTi(rai>Ta.

yap e^ei Set^at OVK (nnOdvws Be
T?}Z>

ov

TWV

Trpo-

<j)r)(ri

irwddvea-Oai

10 TOI)?

^>aptcraibu?

AcaTa

auTW^ iravovpyiav,

7 on] ore.
6. 7. Kou^Tepov] By failing to notice the distinction between 6 TT/JO^TJTTJS

perov

olbfjievos

irpoadriKTiv

rov apdpov.

Heracleon, in

and
roi>s

7r/)o0TjT7js.
7ro\Xoi>5

Cf. Frag. 4,
17

Xo0e 5^
/cat

5ta0opa...ws
5,

T^
e^af-

the words which follow this last passage, seems to use the word Koivbrepov in a different sense.

,

and Frag.

/n?5&>

62

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

7.

Ibid.

vi.

15 (R.

iv.

130

;

L,

I.

222).

Jo.

i.

26,

AneKplNATO AYTO?C 6 ICOANNHC Ae fOON EfOi BATTTIZCO eN M6COC [Ae] YMO3N CCTHKCN ON YMelc OY*K oTAATG, [AYTOC 6CTIN ()]

OTTICCO

MOY epxoMGNoc,
6

[of]

OYK

CIMI

era Alioc

I

NA AYCGO AYTOY TON IMANTA
on, ATro/cplverai,

joy YnoAHMATOC.
Io)dvvr)<;

6 /j,V
etc

HpafcXecov

oleTat,,

rot?

TWV

<&api,crai(Dv

Treaty 6 el a

iv,

ov

5

7T/30?

o

eicelvoi

eTrrjpoorwv,

aXX

o

auro?
%prj

e/3ovro,
/cal

eavrov \av6dvwv OTL /car^jopei rov Trpo^rov

a/jiaOias, el

a\o

epa)Tto/JLVOS Trepl
dai,
ft)?

d\ov aTroKpiverai
TT/^O?
ei

jdp

76 rovro
T/yu-et?

<f)v\dTTO

ev KOivo\oyia d^dpTrj/Aa

TV<y%avov.

Se (^afjuev
Jo.
i.

on

fjudXiara

25.
<ydp

TO Ti OYN BAHTIZEIC,

aTroKpidis cf OYK el o XP |C TOC; rt aX,Xo
77

eVo?

ecrrlv

TT/OO?

10

$ TO tStov TrapaaTfjaai ^aTTTia/Ji Era 7/3, (fayo lv, BAHTI ZOO GN fAATi Tvy%dvov ; elirwv TTpo? TO Ti OYN BAHTi zeic; Trpo? TO SevTepov,
elirelv,

/cat

TOVTO

Ei CY OYK el
15

o xpiCTOC, So^o\oyiav Trepl T^? Trpoyyov/jLevris ovaia<$ Xpio-TOi) at dopaTOS elvcu Trj i, OTL Bvva/jiiv ToaavTrjv e%et, w?

o-vfATrapefCTeivofjievos

avTov, irapwv nrawTi dvOpwirw, TravTl Be /cal oXw TW OTrep StjKovTai Sid TOV Mecoc

YMO3N eCTHKCN.
2 Se] ins. intra lineas. atfrfo eo-Tii/ 3 oC] ins. intra lineas.
Tt out ] ins. intra lineas.
TO
(sic).

6]

om.

in txt. sed in

mg. add.

pr.

man.

7
rl dXXots xp^i/ (sic).

11

rl

oXXo

ex/)^"]

12 rd] T^

7.

1.

aTrc/cp/faro]

There

is

other

it

authority
in

for

this

reading,

LT^TJ

was copied. Thus one of the three references to Origen in Tischcndorf s

and some cursives (vid. Tischendorf, I have retained the 5 loc.). and the airros IVTLV 6, as they are added apparently prima manu. But

note must in all probability be omitted, as also one of those quoted
critical

in support of the insertion of 5. 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 Cod. 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.

Ibid,

vi.

23 (R.

iv.

138

;

L.

I.

234).
Jo.
i.

O
Kal

Be

Upa/cXecov TO
eo~Tiv

Me coc

TrdpecTTL real
e/jLcfravrfs

e&Tiv ev TW
17877

YMOON CTHKGI (frycnv avrl TOV KoafJLU* Kal ev dvOpwTrw

26.

TTCLGIV

nrepiaipel TO nrapacrTaOev Trepl TOV
5

TOVTWV Be avTov oY Bia7re<poiTr)Kevai
v^ilv.

Bid

oXou TOU
irdpeo-TLv;

Koafjiov.

\KTov

yap
ev

Trpo?
TO>

avTov

Trore

yap ov
Jo. Jo.
i.

TroVe Be OVK

e<TTW

KOCT/JLO);

Kal TavTa TOV
10.

10

N TCO KOCMCO HN, KAI 6 KOCMOC Ai AYTOY evayye\iov Xe^oz/ro? teal Sta TOVTO Kal OVTOI, Trpo? 01)9 o ^,0709 o ereNGTO. YMeTc OYK orAAre, OVK otSaoriv avTov, eVel ouSeVo) TOV KOV/JLOV irolov Be %povov e^e\ri\vdaa-Lv^Q Be KOCMOC AYTON OYK IPNOO.
"ON

i.

2G.

Jo.

i.

10.

SieXeiTre TOV ev avOpw jrw elvai; rj OVK ev Haaia tfv, \e<yovTt, TTN6YMA KYpiOY en eMe, OY ei NeKGN e xpice MG* KUL EMC})ANHC

Is. Ixi. l. 8

5

MH ZHTOYCI ; \eyeTworav Se el fjbrj Kal ev c ^ avTov \eyovTi Efoo Ae KATecTAGHN BACiAefc 20. OVK 77^, fn AY TOY en CIWN opoc TO A PION AYTOY, Kal oaa eK 7rpocra>7rov
role eMe
d(j>
i

^

x

XptejToO ev tyd\/jLois dvayeypaTTTai. Kal TL
aTToBeiKvvvai
Bvcre^apidfji rjTOV
6Wo>9,

fj.e

Bel

irapaaTrjaai evapyws Bvvdfjievov, oTi del ev dvdpcoTroy yv, 7rpo9 TO e\ey%ai ov% vyiax; ev Kocr/jiw Kal ev elprfiievov TO "HBrj Trdpeo~Ti Kal eo~Ti,v

10

dvdpwirw
ecTHKeN
;

Trapd TOJ Hpa/e\eow TOV Mecoc Y M ^ N JOVK diriOdvws Be Trap avTw \eyeTat, OTI TO Oni coo
f

et9 Bnjyrjcriv

i-

2 ^-

MOY ep^oMCNOC TO TrpoBpofjiov eivai TOV

Iwavvvjv TOV
Jo.
i.

25

Tpe%a)v TOV Kvpiov. 7roX,i) Be d7r\ovo-Tepov TO OYK eiMi Alioc FNA AYCOO AYTOY TON IMANTA TOY YTTOAHMATOC e^ei\r]<^ev, OTL ovBe

27.

elvai Bid TOVTCOV

6 (3a7TTiO~Trjs
18
5vi>d/u.ei>oi>]

6fJio\oyei.

TrXrjv

dw
Hilary and Ambrosiaster.
17. dva-e^apid/j.rjToi 6Wws] An awk ward phrase, but the correction in

8.

12, 13.

c/x^avTjs

^ej

6/x^j ]

The

quotation does not agree exactly with the LXX., which has eyevriEfjL<f>a.vrjs

Bt\v

rots e/xe
fj.t IJ.T]

^177

cTrepwrwcrtj

,

vp6t)v

Cod. Venetus

dvffe^api0/J.rjTOV oVros is

rots

ftrovviv.

In

Romans

the

no

clauses are transposed, and S. Paul The exact form is has
tyei>6/u.-r)i>.

has been plausibly suggested that we should read 8vae^apLff/nriTUV &VTWV
better.
It
rut>

found in two Latin MSS.

(d, e)

and

in

evapyus

8vva.tJ./i>(i)i>.

64

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

ravTijv TTJV ercBoxrjV OVK aTTiOdvws vTro^e/BXrjKe TO OVK iKavos, iva St e yite Kare###BOT_TEXT###y airo /jLeyeOovs

teal

\dftrj

cJ?

viro^rifjia,

Trepl

379

670;

<yov

diro-

3

Bovvai ov Bvvafjiai, ovBe Siijyrja-ao-Oai,
Tr)v Trepl avrfjs ol/covo/jiiav
<f)ve(TTpov

rj

eVt XOereu

dSporepov Be Kal fj,eya\o6 auro9 HpaicXecov Koa/jbov TO vTro^rj^a eVSefaeirl

fieTeo Tr]

TO

do~e/3e(TTepov

dTrofyrjvaa Oai

TCLVTCL
35

TOVTOV Bid TOV

TrpoawTrov TOV voovfjuevov. e\aTTOva OVTCL TOV Xpto-roO, SijfjLiovpybv TOV fcocr/jbov, TOVTO 6fjio\o<yeiv Sta TOVTCOV T&V \egea)v, ttTrep ecrrt TrdvTWV do-eftearTaToV o yap Trefji^ra^ avTov TraTiijp, 6 TWV
Trepl
*###BOT_TEXT###amp;amp;lt;oavvov

Seiv

aKoveadai

/cal

TOV

oterat

<ydp

Mt. xxii.
32* Cf. Lc.

zaiNTOON 0eoc, a)9 auro?
3|

ICAAK Kai TOV lAKOOB,

\

\r^>i/fCv\^
OLCL

Ivjaovs fjiapTVpel, TOV
/

ry^9,

OTL TreTrolrj/cev

TOVTO KVplOS TOV OVpaVOV K.CU T??9 avTa, oi T09 ical JJLOVOS dyado?, Kal fjuei^wv
el

^9ABpAAM KOI TOV \A
/s

4

Jo. xiv. 28.

TOV lff/^BivTO^ vevorjTCU, Kai 7r9
TO) *}ipaK\ea)vi,

Be

Kal,

co9

TTpoeipijtca/jLev,

o /cocryu-09

vTroB^jfjua

dBpoTepov elvai TOV I?;cro{)
45

aA,V OVK olpai Belv

o~v<yKaTaTi6ecrdaL

35

TrpocrwTTou]

post quod, alia

manu,

Cod. Bodleianus habet in margine rax XetVei TOU ^^ ?r/)oeip^/ca uej ] /caXws ^x et
/

29.

/caTA^T;]

This

passage

a-

grees with Heracleon s
tion.
Cf.

Italic posivi. 35,

fuovpyov,

where we should have expected 5?;which was probably what
Heracleon
tained,
s

Hippolytus Refut.
TO
(Tu/j,a

\f/vxi.Kov

ipaffl

TOV

yovfrat Kal 5ta TOVTO
yuaros

itrl

I^aou yeTOV /Scurrier-

in

ipsissima verba conorder to emphasize the
r6 da-cfito-Tepov) of HeBut TOVTOV

impiety
racleon
is

(etrl

TO

\j\v0c.
xiii. 3.

ws TrepiaTepa /careFor ntyeBos cf. Irenaeus i.
irvev/uia

s interpretation.

36.
virbo-rjiJ.Q. }

30.

May we

see

in

not impossible. voov^vov ] See Frag. 5 (note). 37. Actrropa OVTO] We may perhaps
vi.

the interpretation of vTr6drj/j.a as pot, a groping after the idea of the
KO<T-

compare Hipp. Refut.
8r)fj.<.ovpyos)

36, ^yi/w (6
<ro<f)ias

8i5a%^eis VTTO T^S

Lord having taken humanity upon Himself, though only as a vw6dr)ij.a. which the Ao7os laid aside?
suggestion of the margin of the Bodleian deserves attention.
35.

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

The

made

the fulness of time the Demiurge is to confess before men his su-

unnecessary, and perhaps TOV 5-rj/jLiovpyov should be substituted for it or should we read TOV

But TOVTOV

is

perior; hitherto he has kept secret the mystery of the aeons revealed to

him by Sophia.
(Orig.
xiii.

Cf. also Frag.

40

;

59) &Vt fuTnoTos 6

Sr/^it-

0eov instead of

it ?

In this case

we
0eov

ovpy6s.

must suppose that Origen wrote

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

65

9.

Ibid.

vi.

24

(K

IV.

140; L.

I.

237).
Jo.
i.

MCOANNHC
ypd<f>oL<;

TAYTA IN BnGABApA epeNGTO nepAN TOY lopAANoy, onoy HN OVTLBATTTIZGON. OTI pev o~%eBbv ev 7rdo~i tceiTai TAYTA EN BHGANI A epeNeTO ovtc dyvoov/jLev, /cat eottce TOVTO KOI en TrpoTepov <yeyovevai teal Trapd HpaicXewvi,
TO<?

28.

5

yovv BHGANI AN dvejvw/jiev.
tytveTo] bis.

10.

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

L.

I.

271).

Tld\iv ev TW T07T6) o HpaicXewv
teal

yevofjLevos, %ct)pt

TrapaOeo-ews p,apTvpiwv aTrotyaiveTai, OTL TO
o
<W?

5

10

HeplCCOTepON npocpHTOy. Kal oieTai TO fiev TrpoTepov trepl TOV crcoavTov \eyeo-0ai, TO Be BevTepov irepl TOV ev TW TOV dfjivov aT\rj elvai ev TW TWV Trpoyevei, OVTCO Be Kal T& aw^a 7rapa0eo~e{, TOV evoitcovvTos avTut. TO Be Te\eiov el e/3ov\TO, cfcvjcrl, TO) crcb/jiaTi, /jbapTvpfjaai, Kpiov enrev av TO ^e\ov
TO>

TO Se

AMNOC TOY Geof w? npoc^FTHC OAIpaN THNAMApTIAN TOY KOCMOY

<j>r)o-lv

Iwai/z//;?, Jo.
Lc.

i.

29.

vii. 26.

i,

dvea-Oai.
10
9. 1.

ovy ^ov^ai Be
(restart]

elvai
elTrei

dvayicalov
av TO]
elire iv O.VTO.

fjieTa

TVJ\I-

Since Cod. Monac. a few lines

lower

reads BrjQapapa, we must probably conclude that Rydapa is due to the scribe s error, arising from
the omission of
]3a

down

volume, as quoted by Tischendorf), Codd. Ven. et Bodl. read B^flapa in
both places.

On

p.

142 Cod. Monac.

similar syllables.
it

between two very At the same time

reads Bi]0apapa, on p. 280 (Comm. in loann. xiii. 60) B-rjeapa. On Heracleon
p.
s

Biblical text, see the note
iv. 17).

on

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

74 (Frag. 18, Jo.
10. 6, 7.

TOV ev ry crw/xcm] This in

(syr.

wsem.

2.

conjunction with Frag. 8 establishes

Or
it

.

4. 140, 142,

280).

Heracleon
s

s

Italic

position,

which

As bearing on Tischendorf

note

may

be well to state that while
reads Bydapapa. in the

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

Cod. Monac.

Hippolytus (Refut.
K.T.X.

vi. 35),

ytyove T

second instance where the word oc
curs on p. 140 (of Delarue s fourth
B.

66
fcavras

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
yeyevrj/jievas
s TT/JO?
TOL

e^eracret?

revrd^eiv

Trepl

TOV

TOTTOV,
elptj/jLoyis

evreXa)? VTTO

TOV

fiovov
Ph.
ii.

Be
f

TOVTO

eTrio-rj/jieiwTeov,

Hpa/cXeeoz/o? OTL wcrirep
oirra>9

7.

%wpr)o~v
ov /cpiov

6 /coa/ios
eSeijOij,

TOV KENCJOCANTA eAyTON,
f

dfjivov teal 15

iva Ap6n avTOv
13

A

11.
Jo.
12.

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

L.

i.

291).
eic

ii.

O
<j)r)<rl,

fjbevToi

76

H/>a/cXea>z>

TO META TOYTO KATCBH

$r)\ov(T0ai, ovtc
Trjv

KCLL (jiTjaL

TOV

/coa/jiov,

dpyws TOV K^TeBH Katyapvaov/jL arj/jLaiveiv TavTa TO, TavTa ra v\i/cd el? a /car^X^e, /cal Sid TO
elvai TOV TOTTOV, ovSe TreTroivj/cws TI
fj

5

dvoitceiov,

(frrjcrlv,

\eyTai
t?

ev avTrj

XeXaX^/cco?.
TreTroirj/cws

el fiev

ovv

fjur)Be

ev rot?
ev
777

6vajy\loi<;

TL

rj

XeXaX^/^o)?

6 /cvpios TUL&V dveyeypaTTTO, Trepl

Taya dv eSio-Ta^avvvl &e 6 10

TOV TrapaSe^ao-Qcu avTov

TTJV

ep^veiav.

Mt.

iv. 13, fjiev

KATAAITTONTA fyrjal TOV Kvpiov T^/JLCOV THN NAZAPA, 6A00NTA KATCOKHKeNAI GIC KA^ApNAOyM THN HApAGAAACCIAN, KOI
TreTroiTJcrOcu

Margate?

AHO TOTG dpfflv TOV KHpycceiN

\eyovTa META-

NoeTre, MffiKe r^P H BACIACI A TOON OY PANOON ...... raura Be TCCLVTCL ical Tre- 15 Trepl TWV ev ^a^apvaov/ju rw ^(OTrjpt eiptj/jievcov
Trapeo-Tijo-a/jiev
epfjLrjveiav,

vTrep

TOV

f

eXey^ai

Tr)v

Hpa-

Ti

\e<yTai

\eyovTO$ Ata TOVTO ovSe ev avTrj rj \e\a\rjKO)<;. rj yap Svo e
10

12.

revTdeii>]

The

rev being

hard

Capernaum
in loann.

cf.

Frag. 40 (Orig. Comm.
rbv

to decipher, the scribe of Cod. Ven. conjectured Tavrifav, while the scribe

xiii. 59),

vaobn

vibv

O.VTOV
/x^pet
,

dtrjyeiTai.
TTJS

rbv iv

Regius contented himself with leaving a small lacuna before
of

Cod.

hrofkfhiic&n
irpos

//co-^rTjroy,

daXaffcrav

rovrlvn

rofetj

the bearing of this, and the omission of avrov rj a/j-aprta, on
.

On

fdvtp rrj

v\y.

The whole passage
:

the origin of Cod. Regius, see Introduction, p. 8.
11. 1
ff.

there quoted is hardly consistent with the ovdt TreTronj/tws of the text cf. a
little

further on,
TOV

Xy

5<:

on

K ara/Sas

For the interpretation of

irpbs

Ka.fj.vovTa.,

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Kal avros T^9 Katyapvaova Kal TrapLcrrdra) Kal
20 crdrco Troias,
77

TOVTO

rcoirjcrai ar)

SvvdfjLevos

c

rov
KOI

\eyeiv rov ^ayrfjpa fidrrjv nvl TOTTW eTTio eo rj/jirjKevaL e, deov 6^Soz/T09, yevofjuevoi Kara rd roiavra
o~vvavayv(ao-cos, OTTOV 86%ai, av
/jLrjBev
/JLTTJ

T?9

rjvvicevai

^wptois
25

rial,

7reipao~6[ji0a

TO

fudraiov

r

avrov
21
Tivl]

nvl ry.

23 oirov...rivvKvai]

TTOV do^eav fj-fj^v

&v

rjv

v/c^at

(sic).

12.
C

Ibid. x.
(

14 (K.

iv.

179; L.
(f>r)o-iv,

i.

309).
Of. Jo.
ii.

O

fievTOi ye

}lpaKWV Avrrj,

rj

/xeyd^rj eo/or?}

5

rov yap TrdOovs rov Scor^po? TUTTO? r)V, ore ov povov dvrjpelro TO irpoftarov, d\d real av art av G iv rrapel^ev eaO LOjjbevov, Kal dvoftevov TO rrdOos rov Swr^po? TO ev icocrfJiU) ea-rjfjiaivev, eo-Q iopevov 8e rr)v avdrravGiv
rrjv ev ydp,co.
rrapeOefjieOa Be

avrov

ev TijXiKovTOK; dvaa-rpefyeiv rov

w? dvSpa Trapeppi^^evw^ Kal
rrjv \e%iv,

r

(va TO

vSapws aerd /j,r}Sevos KaraarKevaornKOV Qewprjaavres, avrov Kara<f)povr/cra)/jLev.
4 TO Traces]
23.
OTTOV /c.T.X.]
is
TOL! irddovs.

fjid\ov

5

earj/j.cuvev ]

The reading
Sotiacrys

of

the MS.

corrupt,

and the conjecture

in Cod. Venetus TTOV
fyvKtvai
is

^dkv

av

not helpful.
the text
is

given
sense.

in

The reading the slightest
restore

Unfortunately Hippolytus has said nothing about the eschatology of the system which he describes. Perhaps
it

did not come within his scope

:

alteration

which

will

any

his
to

object seems to have been establish a case of Hellenising

main

12. 4.

7-6

7rd0os]

a necessary correc

against each of the heretics
refutes.

whom

he

tion of the MS. reading, which was made also by the scribe of Cod.

But no doubt some analo
:

gous

Venetus.
5.
TT]v

as the
dpaTravffiv]

Cf.

Excerpta
ev

completed the system of the TrdOtj of Sophia was accomplished by means of her
ya.fj.os
6i6peu<Tis

ex Theodoto
fj.ariKwi>

63,

TJ

yuev

ovv T&V irvev-

marriage with the
/uciTos KapTr6s,

KOIVOS rov TrX^pwTrvevfj.ari.Kol

avaTravvis
dra.
i.

ev

KVpiaKrj

07-

SO the

would

800,81....

TO
vii.

8eiirvov
1,
TOI>S

ruv

yd.fj.uv.

naturally receive the final

5i6p6w<ris

Irenaeus

by
irepl

70^01,

projected by Sophia
vv(j,(pa.s

no doubt with the and her

Xo7<u

diroSodrifffffQcu

rots

rbv

52

68

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

13.

Ibid. x. 19

(R

iv.

194; L.

i.

338).

Se KOI
croXi/yita

Ta Hpa/cXew^o?, os
fjiaiveuv TT/V
TTO

fyrja-i

Trjv els lepoels

avobov

<rv)

TWV V\LKWV
TO>

TOV
KOI
5

Jo.

ii.

14.

^rv^iKov TOTTOV, Tvy%av OVT a eiKova TTJS TO Be EypeN 6N dvdfiao-iv TOV /cvplov. (Herat elpf)(r6ai virep TOV /JLT) oi/^t Trpovdw,
fJLOVIJV

Iepou<raXr}//,,

iepoj,

TT)V

/c\r)<ri,v

VOtjO^jVai

TT)V

%O)pl<}

TTVev JJLCLTOS
fjuev

VTTO TOV
Heb.
ix. 7.

Kvplov
els

r)<yelTai

yap ra
6

ayia TWV
el<rlei,

d<yli

et^at

TO fepoN,

MONOC

Apxiepeyc

evOa

ol/

avTov \eyeiv TOVS irvev^aTLKovs %aypeiv ra 8e TOV TTpovdov, OTTOV Kal ol Aeu trat, (rv/jipoXov elvai, TWV
efa)
Jo.
ii.

10

TOV

r

jT\^pwfjLaTos
IIpo?

^V^LKWV
TOVTOLS

evpia- KO/jbevcov

ev

14.

(TWTrjpia. EN TOJ lepciu
AC,

ncoAofNTAC
Toyc
T(t)V fjLTjbeV

BOAC

Toyc eypicKOMGNoyc KA) npoBATA KAI ne15

KAI

VTl
1
eis]

KA0HM6Noyc KepMATiCTAC e fe^e faro %aplTl OlOOVTWV, XX e/jLTTO5 irpovoup] rCjv

om.

2

(rty/xcuVeu

13. 1.

e^s

has been rightly sup
5.
irpov<up\

plied by Cod. Bodleianus.
TT]V et s

The T&V avu

of

the

K.T.X.]

This sentence can

only

mean

that the

Lord

s

journey

from Galilee to Jerusalem symbo lises the journey from the to the ^VX^KOS (cf. Fragg. 12 and 40) T67ros, which r67ro$ is an ekc^ or image of the Jerusalem above. Cf.
v\u<a

Neander s con impossible. is in the right direc jecture T$ tion, but should we not read irpovd^
MSS.
is
va<{>

(cf. 1. 9, TO.

S

TOV Trpovdov)?

Other

wise we must suppose, either that the meanings of vao$ and iepov had

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 then the
1.

ture that Heracleon

spoke of
of the

the

change to awkward.
5,
(jLovr]

-rrpovdov in

9 would be

Hebdomad, the abode

Demi

6.
ij

The

distinction

of

K\rj<ns

urge, as an eiKuv of the Ogdoad which was the abode of Sophia, or from

x^pts TTpetViaros agrees with the division of men in Hipp. Eefut.
34, KaroiKijTripiov TTOT
5e
i/

herself.

another point of view was Sophia This will account for the
lepoixraXrj/i

vi.

fjLtv

fj.6vr)$...TroT

ux^s

/cat

ywv.
58,

^fX^s See

distinction between
Iepoff6\vfj.a

and

also Excerpta ex Theod.

which the MSS. have
Cf.

faith

fully preserved.

Bishop LightTT?S

TO ycX^roj
TO

foot s note
in
1.

on Gal.

iv. 26.

3

we should read

Perhaps dVu lepou-

TO ^kv irapa T??S , TO Trvev/j-aTiKov, TO 5 e/r TTJS oiKovo^ias

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
piav
teal

69

/cal

KepSos Trjv TWV ^evwv et? TO lepov io~oSov TOV ISiov /cepSou? /cal <pL\apyvpla<; eve/cev et? Tr)v \aTpeiav TOV Oeov Ovaias %opr)yovvTo)v. TO c^pApeAAio N Se TreTroirjo-Oai, etc o~%ot,ViQ)v VTTO TOV
,

Jo.

ii.

15.

20 1 770-01),

25

ov%l Trap d\ov Xa/SoWo?, t&iOTpbVa>? d7rayye\ei, TO cbpApeAAiON eiKova Tvy^dveiv 7775 Swa^eus \eywv roi)? tvcpyeias TOV dyiov TrvevfjuaTO^, Kal ^ai To 4)pAreAAiON Kal TO \ivov aivSova Kal oaaToiavTa euKova r^9 8vvdfjLea)<; TOV dyiov TTVGV //.aro?. evretra TTj? evepyelas elvau
/c<pvo~a)VTo<;

TOV
30

fjurj ryeypafjLfjievov, w? cipa et? %v\ov TO (f)paye\iov, oirep %v\ov TVTTOV K\a/3(iov elvai v\(p ai>T)\G)o~u at, Kai o~Tavpov, (b rjo i TOUTCO TCO

7rpoo-i\ rj(f)e TO

rjfyav

iaOau

TOI)?

KaKiav.
VTTO

Kal OVK otS OTTO)?

KvftevTas GKTropovs Kai Trao~av Trjv $\vapwv fyrja-Lv GK Bvo TOVTCOV
KaTao-Kevd%eo~6ai,
%rjT<x>v

TrpayfjiaTcov

(f>paye\iov

TO

TOV

Ir]o~ov

yevopevov.

Ov yap
f

K Sep/jiaTos,
G.KK\if](Tiav
/

veKpov
<TKevdo-rj
?

eTTOLTjaev
\

avTO,

iva

Trjv

OVKCTL AHCTOON Kal e/JLTropwv cnHAAiON, aXXa Mt.xxi.13. Cf. Jer. * )^-y/c>\ 350IKON TOY TTATpoc auToW \eKTeov oe TO avayKaLOTaTov v ^ n TOVTWV Trpo? Tcepl T/7? OeoTrjTos Kal eK TCOV prjTcov
yap TO ev lepoo oXi/yiioi?
elvai o
I?7croi}?,

lepov

OI

KON TOY l&iov TTATpoc
et?

TOUTO 8e TO lepov

$6%av TOV

KTio~avTO<>

TOV

yeyove, TTCO? OVK tivTLKpvs SiSacrKoueda 40 fj,r) eTepov TLVOS vo/j,i%iv vlov eivai Trapa TOV TroirjTrjv ovpavov Kal 7775 TOV vlov TOV deov ;

ovpavov Kal

Trjv yfjv

14
%d>6opa

Ibid. x. 19 (R. iv. 196; L.
e

i.

342).
zflAoc Jo.
>

Be

7rapan-7JTft)? o
,
i

HpaK\eo)v oleTai TO
>

ii.

TOY OIKOY COY KATA(J)AreTAI MG

i

"

TTpOaWTTOV TOOV OevTwv Kal dva\w6evTwv VTTO TOV ScoT^po?
6/C
14.
2.

Kp A,r)we may

n^

Ps
/j

17. Ixix
\

x v jjj

^Q

KctTd^cryeTcu]

There
in the

is

a

the masc. with

dvva.fji.ewv

difference of reading
here.
(paye.
fcsB

LXX.

compare Ep. Vienn.
Euseb. H. E.
KOTWV
30,
TTJS

ct
9,

Cf.
I.

read Kara^c^ercu, A /car^Origen Comiu. in loann.
341).
Cf.

v.

i.

Lugd. ap. TWV irpoeffTt]-

TroXews e^ovcnwv,

and

ibid.

x.

19 (L.
3.

TrapaTre/j.irovT(t}v

TWV

Svva/J.ewv~\

the

5a.ifJ.oves

of

eov<Tiwv.

Hipp. Befut.

vi. 34.

For the use of

70

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON.
pr)
Svvd/j,evo<>

\eyea-0ai,

TOV

etpfjiov rr;?

ev

TW

-^ra\fjiaj 7rpo(f)ij5

T6ta? Trjpfacu, voov/jievov IK TrpocrcoTrov TWV K/3\t]0evTa)v Kal dva\a)0evTa)v $vvd/j,ea)v \eyecr6ai. dfc6\ov9ov Se ecm KCLT*
Ps. Ixix.
(lxviii.)22.

avTov
,.

/col
/j
,

TO
ev

"EAooKAN
i *

eic

TO BpooMA MOY
/
i

/

\eyeauai

rw avrw

avayeypa/A/jLevov
KATAC^AfeTAi
}

^aXfJuw a\
>

A

X^^ N ~

<*"n

exelvwv
< >

>

>

v

co? eiicos

erdpa^ev avrov TO

M

co?

JJLY)
edo<$

^vvd^evov

VTTO
10

7rayye\cr0ac ov% opcovTa TO
7Tpl Oeov KOi XpHTTOV yCOV.
10
Ol/X

TWV dvOpwTro-

15.
f

Ibid. x. 21 (R. iv. 199
Hpa/cXecoi/ TO*

;

L.

I.

351).

O

fievToi ye

EN

rpiciN

<f)7]crlv

dvTt TOV Ez^

Jo.

ii.

19.

TpiTrj, (j,rj ev rpialv

epewijcras, KdiToi ye eTna-T^aras
r)

TW

EN

TplciN,

az/acrrao-t? evepyelTai

T/yu-epat?.

ert Se /cat
fj

^

TpiT7]v

(f>7ja-l

Tr)v 7rvevjj,aTi,Kr)v rif^epav, ev

oiovrai
be
5

8rj\ovcr0at,

TTJV

r^9 eK/c\r)o-las dvdcrTaaiv.
\eyeiv elvau TTJV ^w^iKrjv, ov yeyevrj/jievrjs

TOVTCOV

a/co\ovuov

ecrTi TrpooTrjv

TTJV SevTepav Trjv T^9 avacrTaaea)? ev aurat?.

5.

voovfj.evov]

We

should expect

may

this

word

to introduce

what Origen

made by

possibly be a marginal note the reader of some ancestor

considered to be the true

meaning
cussion,

spiritual of the passage under disand not a repetition of
s

which has crept For a possibly similar phenomenon we may compare Frag.
of Cod. Monacensis,

into the text.

Heracleon
tion.
fj.evov

And
with

obstinate interpretathe agreement of vootielp/j.6v

*

40,

ei-rj

tf)v<ns

K.T.\.

is

very awkward.

As

it

stands the passage can only

Does this mean simply custom, usage, or should we compare Origen s use of TO h Wti \t-yo10.
?0os]
/u.ei>oj>,

mean

that Heracleon s interpretation fails because he cannot grasp the

tropice,

and perhaps
xiii.

TO,

Wt]

Orig. Conwi. in loann.

5?

general drift of the prophecy, which

ovx bpuvTa]
MSS.
ov

he interprets as being spoken by the But the text is unsatis5vi>&fj.eis.

The reading of all the Huet apparently conjectured x^poCj/ra, which is the probable
s

and I am inclined that the words yoov/j-evov
factory,

to suspect

source of Delarue

note Keg. (quern

\cyea6at

H. sequitur)

ov

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

71

16.

Ibid.

x.

22 (R.

iv.

201

;

L.

I.

356).
TI<$

"Eot/ee

Be ical
/

crrao-ia yeyovevai,
el

Kara ra M.a/CKa/3a i,Ka KCU TOV rrepi TOV \aov
\ \ \
v

TroXXrj
\

d/cara-95 OVK oLOa
i

Cf. 1
i.

Mace.
ff.

\

\

22

vaov,

KCLI

Tore avwicoBof^rjOr] TOQ-OVTOW erea-iv o vaos.
pr)Be
eVto-TfJcra?
rfj

o pevToi

<ye

Hpa/eXeW,
5

la-ropia,

facri

T6v SoXoTOV
S"

Cf. Jo.

ii.

/jLwvra

reccApAKONTA
i<;

KA) el e reci KaTeo-Kevaicevat,

vaov, elicova
dpid/JLov TOV 8e TGOV

rvy^dvovra TOV

^(DTrjpos, Kai TOV

TrfV v\r)V, TovTea-Ti TO TrXao-^ta,

dvatyepei,*

10

fj,aTi

Tecraapd/covTa, o rerpa? ecrrt, (frrjcnv, t] tcai TO ev rw e^^vatjdirpoo-TrXoKos, els TO i^^va^^a Sid ra T&o~apa opa Be el SvvaTov, TOV /JLCV cnrepfjia.
fju

TOV

TOV vaov crTOi^ela ev TO?? tjywvLo-fjievois els S* Sta TO TTJ GKTVJ KaTaTaa-Q-ofjieva \afjbf3dveiv, TOV Be
tcoo-fjiov

e<y-

yeyovevat, TOV dvOpwirov.
11
dywviff^evoLS.
ibid.
vi.
/cat

Frag. 18, Heracleon s interpretation of the six of the Samari (as he read) husbands tan woman. With the whole fragment

16. 6, 7. TOV

r

a/H0/*oV] Cf.

34,

KaroiKr)r-rjpi.ov

.

.

.TTOTC

5

ywit,

oiTLves

et<ri

yoi
KOLVOV
cro0taj

Ko.reaTra.pfj.evoL

dirb TOV
/cat TT)S

TOV 7rX?7/)w^aTos Kapirov
ets

we must compare Excerpta ex Thcodoto
fax*!"

rovrov rbv

Kocr/Aov,

KaroiKovvres ev

50, XctjSdw

xv v
rr\v

aTro TTJS yrjs...

7 e ^57j

KOU v\iKT]v ereKrriva.ro...

o

8e

KaO

6/j.oiu<nv

avrov rou
ov
els

Stj-

The agreement of this passage, with the fragment of Valentinus pre
served in Clement (Strom, iv. 13), and his explanation of it, will be more

/uLiovpyou,
eve<f>v<r~r)aev

Ke ii 6s

tanv

rovrov
6/j.oiov-

re
5t

/cat

eveffirtipev

cribv TI

avry

dyye\wi>

evdtis.

And
avr<$

conveniently considered
ditional note.
8, 9.

in

an ad

53, ^trxe 5^ 6
virb rrjs
<ro<f>ias

A5d/i aSTjXws

ivffirapev rb oirep^a rb

TeT/xis
is

r)

aTrpoffirXoKos]

The
first

n-vev^ariKOV
07?o-t,

eij

ryv ^vxty, Starayeis,
ev -xfipl pefflrov...

reference

probably in

the

5t

dyye\wi>

llp&rov oZv
rip

(T7re/j/u.a

irvev^arLKov TO ev
TJ

instance to the original rerpaKrvs of the Valentinian system (i.e. probably

ASd/j, 7rpoe/3aXcj/
ij

ffocpia

iva.

rj

TO
yiuj

offrovv

\oyiKri Kai ovpavia

^vxn

the four male aeons of the Ogdoad), and then more generally to the spiri
tual nature
real
.

Kevr) a\d fj.ve\ov yt/J.ovcra TrvevfAariKov, which is more closely parallel. See

which

is

incapable of

also Hipp. Refut.
TO
elpi>)/J.evov...Kal

vi.

34, ToOro
els

e<m

union with any lower nature. Cf Irenaeus i. vii. 4 (where he is speak
ing of the Demiurge s various views as to prophecy) 17 TOV dvdpwirov, rj TT}J/ irpoffTr\OKr}v TWV x ei povuv (MS.

evefitiffyaev
^CJTJS

rb

Trpbcruwov avrov irvoyv
o

KO! eyevero
>

dvOpuwos the TO ev

ets

^ux

7
?"

fwo

<"

and

for

T

efj.<pv<rri/J.aTi

cirepfj.a,

Lat. pejorum).

72

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HER AC LEON.
17.

Ibid.

xiii.

10 (R.

iv.

220; L. n.
et9

18).
oo-ri?
e/cei-

"IS&>/ie*>

Se /cal rd

HparcXecovo?

rou? TO TTOU?,

(/>ijo-iv"Arovov

/cal Trpocricaipov /cal

7rt,\ei7rovaav
/car

vr)v

yeyovevai
yap,
d-jr6&ei%iv

rr}v

i^wrjv,

KOI

rr)v

avrrjv

Sogav
ef
5

/coapi/cr)

<f>^alv,

^v
e/c

/cal

olerai rov

Koa^iKrjv avrijv
"Ia/cw/3

elvau

<j>epeiv

rov rd GpeMMATA rov

avrrjs TreTTw/cevai
aTTO

/cal el fiev

arovov
e/c

/cal

Trpovicaipov
rjrot,

/cal
rfj

eiriXeiirovtrav &dp/3ave

rr)v

pepov? yvwcnv,
vvv SL

TWV
ypa<f>wv

o-vy/cpio-ei

rwv apprjrwv p^^drwv, a
rrjv

ov/c
/cal
10

e%bv

dv6pW7ru>

\a\rjcrai,,

Traaav

eaoirrpov

/carapyov/jievrjv orav erj TO el Be reXeiov, ov/c av avraj eve/caXeaafjiev. virep TOV SiaftdX\eiv rd 7ra\aid TOVTO Troiei, ey/cjreo^ av O Se Si&ayeirj.
alviyfj,aro<i
<yivop{-vr)v
<yvw<Tiv,

|N

o-iv
Jo. iv. 14.

vScop 6 ZcoTrjp,
Svvdfjuect)?

T7?9

tfrrjo-lv elvat e/c rov Trvevparos /cal auroO, ov -^ev^o^evo^ /cal et? TO Oy MH

AiyHCH

8e

eic

TON AIOONA aTroSeSco/cev avrais Xegecrw ourw?,
r)

15

Atco^to? yap

fa)?}

avrov, /cal

fjLrjSeTrore

(f>6et,pofj,evr),

Cf.

Rom.

d\d pevovaa dvaTrpwrij r) e/c rov (fralperos yap H X^P IC fcal H AcopeA rov 2,Q)Tr)po? r]pwv, /cal pri dva\K7/co/j,evr) fjLrjSe (frQetpo/jLevrj ev rw yu,ere/cal
77
<^>/)eaT09,

w?

%OI/T* avrfjs.
2 Cor.
iii.
?&}*>,

(f)6eipo/jievijv Se rrjv

Trpwrrjv Bi&ovs elvai
nepievpiru>v

20

el

CfiEx.
xxxiv. 34.

Al

pecei

Kara TO ypdppa e\eye, tyjrwv rrjv rfj TOY KAAYMMATOC yivo^evt]v Kara TO HNGYMA /cal
pev
rr)v
<f>6opdv

O-KCOV,

Heb.

x. 1.

TraXatcSz/, 8f)\ov
11 ai}r]
17. 19, 20.
aiJro.

vyiws av eKeyev. el Se iravrv) /caryyopel on rovro iroiel w? prj opoov rd dyaOd
21

rV] om.
is

22

yivo/j.hi)v]

yivo^vr]

r,.

/xer<fxoj/Ti]

There

no

O7r6re ofo ^5ei fyOfyai TO

difference of reading here in the MSB.

T^V
ters

rrj]

Delarue

Regius (quern H. sequitur) /^eraaxoVTi, is due to Huet
s

note,

theV^ of the
it is

Hilgenfeld plausibly aluss. to rrjv. Perin

haps
(cf.

better to insert both articles
rj

and not
likely

to Cod. Regius.

Huet very

conjectured /xerao-x^Ti from Ferrarius ( particeps fuerit ).
21.

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

We

may

frrwv]
vi. 35, 6re

With
T<?\OS

this

comment
77

ytvofj.i>r)i>

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

of

Origen we

may compare Hipp.
Act/3ej>

vo^v^
ceding

of the pre-

Refut.

/cr/ats

the r^v

may have

...rr\v airoKaXv\f/iv TT\V eyKfKa\vfji/j.evr)v
...feat

dropped out.

e?xe

Ka.\v/j./j.a

tiri

TTJV

Kapdiav

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
25

73
Be

MeAAoNTOON

e )(eiN

eKelva

THN

CKIAN.

OVK

a.

iriOdvws

TO

AAAOM6NOY Birjy^o-aTO

Kal

roi)?

fj,Ta\a[jL(3dvovTa<;

TOV

dvwOev

eTrL^oprjyov/JLevov TrXouo-tw?, KOI auroi)? eV-

/3\va-ai et? TTJV erepcov alwviov ^wr)v ra eTriKe^oprjd\d KOI eTraivet rrjv ^afjiapeinv ooo~dv yrjfjueva aurot?.
30

ev&eigafAevriv
<f>v(Ti

rrjv dBid/cpirov Kal Kard\rj\ov rfj ol? e\eyev eavrrfS TTLO-TLV, fj,r) SiaicpiOelaav
e^>

avrfj.
(f)v<TCd$

el

fjiev

ovv T^V

Trpoaipeariv
Sia^>6pouo"779,

aTreSe^ero,
real

/JirjSev

Trepl

alviTTOfJievos co?
el

r^els

(iv

avyKare-

0efj,e0a
35

$e

rfj (frvcriKf)

KaraaKevfj dvafyepei
Tracrt
<

rrjv r/J? a-vytcaTa-

^eVea)? alriav, w? ov

rov

<yov.

ravrrjs Trapova-rjs, dvarpeTrreov OVK oi$a Be TTCO? o H.paK\ewi> TO fjurj
(fryo-i

eK\a/3(av
Co?

TT/DO?

TO Adc MOI TOYTO TO yAoop
VTTO

Jo. iv. 15.

TOV yov e/jui dpa Rpa%ea Biavv^Oelaa \oiTcbv Kal TOV TOTTOV etceivov TOV \eyo/j,evov
40

uSaro?. Aiycb MHAe
r)

ert 8e

:al Trpo?

TO Adc MOI TOYTO TO yAoop
(frycrlv

TN<\

MH

Aiep)(coMAi GNGAAe ANTAe?N

OTI

TauTa \eyet

yvvrj

/cal

fJL(j)aivovo~a TO enr i/jLO^Oov /cal 8vo~7r6pLo-Tov aTpotyov eKelvov TOV vSaTos TroOev ydp SeiKvvvat,

aTpocfrov elvai TO TOV
25

18.

Ibid.

xiii.

11 (R. IV. 221

;

L.

II.

20).

Be 6 ttpaK\eo)v TT^O? TO Aepei AY TH TL \eya)v Et ^eXet? \aftelv
(})CC)NHCON
?

r
<f)

rjo~i

A^Xoi/ oTt

Jo. iv. 16.

TOVTO TO vBwp,

KCU oleTdl TTj^ SttyLtaTON ANApA COY TOV \ey6fjievov UTTO TOU ScoT^po? dvSpa TO
text,

25.

The

even after

fX

LV

Ka ^ ^
33.

a ^ ^v
r<

a,l

ra.

ro^rots

OI

has been substituted for the impos-

0uVews]
s

The ?x ei i s unsatisfactory. omission of ra, ayada, would make it
sible
>

Origen

Fragg. 19, 44. criticism of the doctrine of
Cf.
is

0ycrews 5ia0opa

one

of the

most

simpler,

and

it is

possible that these
gloss,

words may be a marginal has crept into the text.
cerpta ex Theod.

which

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

and most
Ex6

characteristic fault of the

27, 28. Kzl avrovs e/c/3Xwrcu] Cf. 58, TO

system, and indeed of gnosticism in
general.

\J/VX<-KOI>,

dveawvev Kal dvrjveyKev airep dveXafie,

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEKACLEON.
77X77 pa)/j,a

eivai avTrjs, iva o~vv eiceivw yevofievi]

77/309

5

TOV ^(DTrjpa KO/uLicraaOaL Trap avTOv TTJV Bvva/JLLV /cal TTJV evcocTLV KOI Trjv dvaKpaaiv TTJV 77/309 TO 77X77 p ft a avrrjs Bvvtjdy ov jap jrepl dvBpos, (frrjcrl, KOCT/JLLKOV eXeyev avrfj Iva Ka\eo-r), eTreinrep OVK tjyvoei on OVK
ft)

el%e

dvBpa. 77/30 77X0)9 Be evTavOa pid^erai, \eywv rbv ^coTTJpa elpyKevai ^O ^NHCON coy TON avrfi KAI eA6e GNOAAe, $tj\ovi>Ta TOV CLTTO TOV
vofjii/jbov

to

av^vjov
yevrjTai
(frrjo-l,

eiTrep

Tiva TpoTrov

<j)(i)vr)Teov

77/309

yap TOV(? OVTCOS el%ev, e^prjv TOV avSpa teal eo~Tai avTov eiTrelv, tva o~vv avTco TOV ^(OTrjpa. aXX eVel, 009 6 Hpa/cXewv

15

voovp-evov rjyvoei TOV iSiov avSpa, /caTci Be TO ci7r\ovv fcr^vveTO eiTrelv OTI ^oi^ov ov%l Be dvBpa el%e, 770)9

KaTa TO

ov%t /JLciT rjv eo-Tai TrpoaTfio-o-cov 6 Xeycov "YrrAre (})OC>NHCON TON ANApA coy KAI eA6e eN0AAe; elra 77/309 TOVTO AAnGec ei pHKAC OTI ANApA OYK e x eiC fal&W E7T66 6 1/ TO) O(7/Ltft) OVK el%eV

2O

dvBpa

ij

2a/Lta/oetTt9, TJV

yap ai)r^9

6 dvrjp ev

ra>

alwvi.

f^ev

ovv dveyvw/jiev TTeNTe ANApAC ecyec
21

Trapd Be ra5

14 eiweiv] om.

Grabe suggests which is followed by HilBut there is no need to genfeld. alter the MS. reading, which is in it
18. 6.

Kopiaaadai]

here follows the Western text.

As

K0fj.ie<r6ai.,

Origen has twice quoted the words with the reading e^co shortly before, this passage may reasonably be sup

self preferable.
7.
TT]v

tvucnv K.T.X.]

Cf. Excerpt.
ij/Ae is

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

ex Theod.

22, eyetpo/AeOa ovv

Monacensis

of

a

less

well-

i(rdyy\oi rocs cippecnv
rts...ei j
teal

a.TroKa.Ta<TTa.6ev-

known reading

in only one of several

eVwcrti

,

and

64, K0[u$/ji,eva

aura rous Wfuftlovt TOUS d~yye\ovs
els

passages would not be unparalleled. Other interesting variants in Hera
cleon s text are found in
B?70aj/(a.
(1)

lavrwv,

etcriacrt ...... ei s

TOV vvfjupuva evros TOV opov TOVS voepous /cai alwviovs

Fr. 9,
(2)

See the note in
l

loc.

yd[j.ovs TTJS ffvfrvyias.
Tr\ripufj.a]

Fr. 18,
s

dvSpas,

a reading other
(3)

On Heracleon
ai wv,

use of

wise unknown.
Kol
0-ufj.a.

?r\^/)Wyaa

and

see

additional

Mt.

x.

28.

Fr. 40, tyvxhv (4) Fr. 40,
TO

note p. 105.
14.

ee\eucrot>Tai (et s

TO

<r/c6ros

Hilgenfeld

s

substitution

of

a Western variant for

(f/

direlv for l(rrat is possible,

but

it is

simpler to suppose with Huet that
elireiv,

or perhaps
O.VTOV.

5-rj\u<rai,

has fallen

So far as we can tell he used a text of a Western type, but we have not much material from which we can form a judgment.

out after
20.

lx*i*]

Heracleon, or Origen,

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
evpofiev
"E

75
ye

AN A p AC

ec)(ec.

KOI

epjjirjvevei

rrjv
25

v\LKr)v Trdaav Ka/ciav Brj\ovcr0ai Bid rwv ef dvBp&v, f, o-vve7rerr\eKTo real 67T\rjcria^v Trapd yov
evvfBpi^oiievr)

Tropvevova-a, ical

eyKara\L7rofjievij

vrf

avrwv

Kal dderovfievrj /cal \eKreov Be TT/OO? avrov
rf^apravev
r]

on
ritcr)

elrrep
el

erropvevev ij Be tf/jLapravev

TrvevfJLanKr),
77

irvev^a-

TrvevfAaritcrj,

AeNApON

AfAGoN

OVK
vii. 18.

30

fa

TI

TrvevfMaTiKij

/card

yap

TO

evayye\iov

Oy

AYNATAI Mt.

/cal Brj\ov ort, AeNApON Ar^QoN KApnoyc noNHpoyc 6NerKe?N. el Be dBvvarov eari TO fivOoTroitas, ofyerai avrols rd
rrj<>

Af^QoN AeNApON
r;

(frepeiv

^ajuapelrw, are

Trvev/jLaTifcrj

noNnpoyc KApnoyc Kal Af^QoN AeNApoN rvy^dvova-a, dicoKovOov avru)
r\v

35

\eyetv early,

on

rjroi

OIK

d/juapria

r;

iropveia avrrjs,

rj

OVK

avrr} eiropvevcrev.

19.
f

Ibid.

xiii.

15 (R.

iv.

224

;

L. n. 25).
Cf. Jo. iv.

(x HpaKXewv a)fjLo\oyrjKevai rtjv
\

O

Be

5

avrrjv elpijfJLeva elBevai rd rrdvra, ^revBofievo^ eKarepo)^ Kal ydp ol dyyeX-ot ra roiavra Bvvavrai elBevai, Kal 6 Trpocfrr/nis ov rrdvra
<f>r)(Ti,v,

\fj ^ Vl9 ^a^apeiriv ra vrc avrov rrpos eo~nv TLpotfrrjrov ydp /JLOVOV,
KAI

et?

ra avrd prjfiara \eyei Eucr^7;^6^ft)?

olBev,
KOLV

EK Mepoyc r^p HNCOCKOMCN
rrpofyrjrevwpev
rj

K

Mepoyc npo^HreyoMGN,
Be

1 Cor. xiii.

yLvaHTKco/j-ev.

fMerd

ravra

erraivel

w? rrperrovrws rfj avrrjs (pixrei rcoiriacicrav rrjv pelrLV, Kal [tijre ^revaafjievrjv fjiijre avriKpvs

y^aacrav
cfrrjo-iv

rrjv eavrrjs

do ^rji^ocrvvrji
e trj,

,

rrerreia fjuevriv re

avrrjv, rrpo^r^rri^ epwrdv avrov, d/j,a alrlav ep<f)alvov(7av Bi* rjv egeiro pvev&ev, on BS rrjv ayvoiav deov Kal r^5 Kara rov Oeov Xarpe/a? d
CLVTTJS

on

19. 3.

TrpoQr/Tov K.T.X.]
s

Contrast

TTJS

ov iravroi
14.

olftev

of its point.

Heracleon
in
4.

views on the prophets
5.
iravTa. in-

12

6Vt...a^e\?7(rao-aj/ is

strange

Fragment
Kal

but

Hilgenfeld alters ra
TO.VTO.,

possibly be explained as an extension of such usages as

may

5r)\oi>

an alteration which, besides having no MS. authority,
to

6Vt.

Hilgenfeld plausibly suggests

are.

deprives Origen

s

criticism 6

76

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
/cal

aacrav
av,

TTCLVTWV

teal aXX-ttf?
(frrjalv,

del

TWV Kara TOV ftiov avrfj dvayicaiwv TWV ev jBiw Tvy^dvovaav ov yap
TO>

15

avrrj rjp^ero eVt TO (frpeap, TT}? TroXew? TV*y%dvov. ov/c olSa Se TTW? evo/juaev efJL(f>alveo-6ai, TT]V
efo>

VCIL eTTL

alriav TOV e/CTreTropvev/cevai, rj dyvoiav alriav yeyoveTWV 7r)ijiijLe\ )jfjidTwv Kdi T??9 Kara Oeov XO-T peias. aXX eoi/ce ravra W9 erv^ev ecr^eSta/ce^ai, Tracr?;? TTiOa%ft>/3fc?

20

voTrfTo^.

Trpoarldrjo-l re TOVTOIS

on

^ov\o/nev7) /juaQeiv

Jo. iv. 20.

rivi evapeo-rrjaaaa /cal 6ea) Trpoa/cvvrjo-ao-a d7ra\ayeirj rov Tropveveiv, \eyei TO Oi n^jepec H
TTCO?

/cal

EN TcL opei Toyja)
oe

npoceKYNHCAN
TCL
elprj/jieva

/cal

TO

eaTW
,

eveXeytcTa

Trodev

yap OTL

/Sot-Xerat 25
;

TIVL evapea-T^craa-a diraXkayeiT] TOV Tropveveiv
15 rQtv ev]
TTJV
e/c.

25 eve\eyitTa]

20.

Ibid.

xiii.

16 (R.

iv.

225

;

L. n. 26).
6 ie

Jo. iv. 21.

Aepei AYTH d

MHCOYC TTicjeye

MOI, TYNAI, OTI epxeTAi

O>PA,

OY TG SN TU) 6 pei TOYTCO ofVe EN

lepocoAYMoic npocKYNHcere TOJ ore eBoge iriQavwTaTa TeTrjprj/cevai, 6 H/ja/cXewv ev

TO

E?rl

/^ez^

MOI

rYN^i,

TW^ TTpoTepwv fir) elprjo-Qai, avTrj vvv Se TOVTO avTy Trpoo-TeTa^BaL,
dirlOavov TrapaTrfprj/Aa, elirmv
rj

5

rore eVe^oXwcre TO

ft?)

"Opoc

TOV $(,d{3o\ov
15.

\eye<r6ai,

TOV

KOCT/JLOV

avTov,

Grabe

s

alteration of

rr\v

into

TUV

is

the only satisfactory emenda-

been the cause of her \arpeia, 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 diroTvyxdvovffav

after ava.yKa.iwv balances the sentence
better, but

Origen seems to have misunderstood the words which he quotes.
21. re] The irepl of the Editions is another interesting example of the influence of the mistakes made by

becomes

then d XXws rvyxwovaav an awkward anticlimax.

Two simple emendations suggest themselves, either (i) to place d^ceX?)aacrav after

the

scribe
,

of

Cod.

Regius.

Cod.

dvayKatw, or
dpe\j<raffar.

(ii)

to

omit
it

Monac has
taken for
2 2. rp
T ( v (\

(sic)

which he has mig .
Venetus
inserts

the

KO.I

after
if

But

is

-rrepl

doubtful

even then a possible sense

Cod.

can be obtained.
19.

^^ but

it is

more natural that the

Kal

TT/S

/card

deov

\arpelas]

Ignorance can hardly be said to have

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

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
//.epo<?

77

ev 6 Sta/9oXo9 0X7;? TT}?

10

T^? icaicias opo?, eprjfjiov Trjpiov OrjpiwVj 7rpo(7Kvvovv Trdvres ol Trpo VO/JLOV teal ol eOviKOi lepocoAyMA 8e rrjv K.TIGIV rj TOV KTiGTrjv
a>

6 Be KOCT/JLOS TO (TVfjiTrav

u>

Trpoa-ercvvovv ol louScuot.
ev6/jLi(Tv elvai

AXXa

KOI SevTepws

"Opoc

fJLev

15

ryv rcrio iv fj ol eOviicoi Trpocretcvvovv lepocoAyMA Be rov KridT^v, w ol lovSaioi e\drpevov. u/zet? ovv, (fctjcrlv, olovel ol Trvev/jLarifcol, ovre rfj /cricreL, ovre TM Brj/jLiovpyw npocKyNHcere, aXXa TW Trarpl T^?
TTicTTrjv,

Kal (rv/jiTrapaXa/Aftdvei ye, (frrjcrlv, avr>}v w? Kal (rvvapi0fjLOVfJLev r]v rot? /card aXrjOeiav

13

oi]

om.

14

21.

Ibid.

xiii.

17 (R.
OYK

iv.

226

;

L. n. 28).
o Jo.
iv. 22.

npocKyNeTre
OTI H C(JOTHplA

o

oTAAre,

HMG?C

npocKyNoyMeN
TO YMeIc,

K TO3N

loyAAIOON GCTIN.

0(TOl>

eVt

Trj

Xefet, ol

^apapels

oo-ov &e eVt

ry dvaycoyf), ol irepl

Ta?
5

fy/3a(/>a?
-

Ioi/8atofc
e/Jbe

oo-oi/

erepo&o^oi. Se eVt T$ dXKrjyopia,
TI)V a-coTypiav

TO 8e

HMelc, ocrov eVl

TW p^Tw,
Kal ol

ot

eyw

6 yos,

K.CLT

fjLefjbop<f)(i)iJLevoi,,

e^ovre^ diro TGOV lovSa iKwv
7re<f)avepa)Tai,

ywv TO yap
20. 8.

4>ANep<jo0eN

NyN MycTHpioN
6

AIA re

Rom.

xvi.

With the

description of o

apx^v rov
9, 10.
vi.

xofffj-ov

TOVTOV.
^Tjptwi/]

didj3o\os as /i^pos

v oys rjjs v\rj^ cf.

ofcnynj/jtoi

Cf.

Hipp,

the cosmogony of Hippolyttis Refut.
vi.

Refut.

34,

KaToiKr)Tr)pioi>...oTav

32^34,
TO,

e/c

r^s vXtx^j ovaLas Kal
dij/miovpyos
e/c

5ia/3oXi/c^s ewoiriffev 6
i/

ra?s

5al[j.oves fj.r) (rvvoiKwcri rrj ^vxy, and Valentinus ap. Clem. Al. Strom, ii.

yxcus

(Tw/aara,

and

TTJS

i-Ai/c^s

20,

17

Kap8la...Tro\uv

ov<ra

5cu/j.6i>ui>

ytyovev (as

must be

supplied, see Hilet/cwi
.

genfeld Ketzergescluclite, p. 4G8)
5id/3o\os,

These passages shew that the phrase of the master was rememOLK^T^PLOV.

and

TTJV de diropiav daifj.ovwi
i.

bered by his pupils, and applied in
different ways.
11.
Kriffiv]
i.e.

See also Irenaeus
Xi^Trr/s

v. 4, IK de r??s
rrjs

ra

irvevfj.ariKa.

irovrjpias...

the world of the

odev rov Std/SoXoy.
9.

Demiurge.

The

distinction between

d de

/c6<r/xos]

Here regarded as
cf.

the world of the Devil,
loc. cit.

Irenaeus,

the nations and the Jews may be compai ed with the description (Hipp.
Refut. vi. 34) of the children of Abraham, as the children of the Demiurge.

ov Kal Kotr/j-oKparopa Ka\ovfft,
vi.

and

Hipp. Refut.

33,

3id/3oXoj

78
2 Tim.
10.
i.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
npO(|)HTIKOON
(

TOY Kvpfov HMGON Kal irapa rrjv dtco\ov9iav rwv prjTwv 6 HpaK\ea)v e/<:Sef/Ltez/o9 TO YMeTc dvrl rov Ol I of Sat o*, eOviKol, 8irjyrj(7aro. olov Se eVrt Trpo? rrjv
eTTl4>ANeU\C

KOI THC
el
/it?)

|HCOY XpicToy.

opa 8e

I8ia>s

10

^afjiapelnv \eyeo-0ai, d\ V/JL6LS OL lOviKoL
,

Jyitet?

ol

lofSatot,
Ofc

77

TT/JO?

OVK O&dkT/ 76

6Tp6So^OL
/cat

O
/cal
15

KWOVGW,
Rom.
29.
ii.

OTI rrr\da^a ecrrl, /cat ou/c

aX^eta,

pvOos

ov MycTHpiA. o 8e TTpocrKVVwv Tov BTjfjLiovpybv, jjid\iaTa Kara TON N KpynTU) loYAA?ON, KOL TOl)? Xo yOl 9 TOj)? TTVeVfJLaTi/COVS

rov

euro? o o?Ae npocKyNe?. Hpa/cXew^o? r /37;r
/cat ?repi

TroXi) Se ecrrt

z^i5^

irapa-

a?ro roi) eT

Herpov
IQ-TIV
rj

Kijpvy/jLaros

TrapaXa^^avo^eva KOI io-raadai
roO /3i{3\iov,7r6T6p6v7roT6 yvrjcriov SioTrep exovres vTrepriOefjieOa, ravra
avrov, w? Tlerpov StSa| a^T09,
r

aura eferafo^ra?
voOov
K a^
rj

2

fJLitCTOV

pbvov

eTricnj/Aeiovfievot,
f/

(frepetv

M?) Sett

EX;^a5 irpoatcvvelv, rd
15

rrjs

V\TJ<;

irpdy-

23

21. 12.

717)65

2a ua/3e?Tti ]
-

This

is

ing

5i67rep e/c6fres virepTidfj.e6a

mean

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.

*o0

"EXX?;i/as]

The reading of

the

Munich

production
Ka.6c\tiv

MS. explains the strange of its copy (Cod. Reg.

clause

tm

general. But Cod. Venehas, either intentionally or by
it is

low,
/car

itacism, improved the text, reading

as) which Huet had to fol and which led him to conjecture The passage from the edviKovs.

the preceding Sa^apemj would easily account for the change,
^afj.apeiTfjv
;

Preaching

of

Peter

is

quoted

at

and the more general application suggested by the masculine is intrin sically far more suitable.
15.
ov]

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

yap

e/cetpoi

JJ.OVOL

ol6fj.zvoi

rov

debv

yivuffKeiv

This correction (found

0,77^X015

OVK e-n-tcrTavTai, \aTpeuovres Kal

in Cod. Yen.) is necessary, whether we retain the Kal or not.
17.
7roXi>

Origen expresses a decided opinion

5J
fell

The

scribe

of

on the Preaching of Peter in the De
Principiis, Praef. 8 (interp. Rufino)

Cod.

Venetus

into the natural

transcriptional slip of inserting /cdX\LOV, thus getting a more familiar

Respondendum quoniam
inter libros ecclesiasticos

ille

liber

non habe-

phrase.

But intrinsic and transcrip tional probability alike forbid us to
insertion.

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

follow Hilgenfeld in retaining the It would make the follow

us cuiusquam qui spiritu Dei fuerit
inspiratus.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

79

25

\i0ois,

/jirjSe

KOI \arpevovras f^Xot? Kal Kara lof Saiov ? aefteuv TO Oelov, eTretTrep
olo/nevoi eTriaracrOai deov, dyvoovcriv
dyye\oi,<;

Kai avrol

JJLOVOI,

avTov, \arpevovres

real

/Jirjvl

Kal a-e\r)vy.

24 \arpeuovTas] \OLTpetovTes. 26 fj.6voi oiofjievoi]

/j.6i>ois

22.

Ibid.

xiii.

19 (R.

IV.

229; L.
(

II.

33).
J
iv.

O

To /jievToi, ye HMeic npocKyNoyMeN 6 HpaK\ea)v oie-rai elvau ev alwvu Kal ol avv avry e###BOT_TEXT###6vre<; ovroi yap, ^alv,
TCX>N

.

22.

yoecrav TIVL TrpocrKVVovcri,, Kara d\ij0eiav rrpoaKVvovvres. a\a Kal TO "On H ccornpiA EK loyAAi coN GCTIN,
5

lovSaia, (frrjcrlv, eyevr/Oij, aXX OVK ev avrols ov yap 6t? irdvras avrovs eyAoKHce Kal on ef Cf. 1 Cor. eKeivov rov e0vovs 62HA96N rj (Twrrjpla Kal o \oyo<$^;^, eic THN OIKOYMGNHN Kara 8e TO voov/juevov K TWV lou- (xviii.) 5.
eTrel ev rfj
.

10

Saicov rrjv crwTrjpiav SirjyeiTai yeyovevai, eTreLtrep elKoves OVTOL rwv ev 7r\r)pa)/jLaTi avrw elvai vofiiru>

X>

^Q

^ovrau.
TTI
el

e^prjv 8e avTov Kal roi)? air

\arpeia SeiKvvvai, TTCO? eaTiv eiKtov
ye
firj

avrov (=Ka<rrov rwv ev rwv ev rw ir K^pwfiarL,
nNGYMATI
KAI

/JLOVOV

(fxovy
7T/305

rovro \eyovcriv, d\d Kal aXrjdeia
TOVTOLf TO 6N
AAH0eiA
Jo. iv. 24.

<j>pOVOV(TlV

aVTO.

15

npocKYNe?c9Ai TON

GeoN

r/yov/jievos, \eyet,

on Oi irporepov

lit)

Trpoa-Kvvrjral ev aapKl Kal ir\dvr) Trpoa-eKvvovv ro5 Trarpl, coare Kal ravrov 7re7T\avfja-0ai, Trdvras TOT)?
TO>

&tjfj,i,ovpya),

Kal einfyepei ye 6

(

Upacf Rom.
i.

N
11
24.

TH KTI CGI, Kal ov TO) Kar d\r)6ei,av
^/cocrrov] eKaffTUv.

25.

\arpe6ovTas]

The

MS.

read-

44, TOI)J 5^ appevas AyytXovs robs

<ri>v

ing

is

probably due to the following
6

aur

eKire{j.<p6{vTas.

And

see

also

\arpe6ovTes.
22. 2.
0<Wes]

h

Frag. 40,
O.IUVL Kal ol
<riV

ol TTJS

oiKovonlas ayyeXot.

aury A-

These

may

tified

with the

/cotpos

be naturally idenrov TrXTjpw^aros

^yo^^os] We may perhaps scribas accept Huet s suggestion
15.
5i.yyovfji.fvos.

Kapirbs

and the 70 X^ot projected by
:

19.

Krlrei]

Heracleon
is

probably

him and Sophia

and, in the account given by Irenaeus, with the Soter and his angels. Cf. also Exc. ex Theod.

refers

to

the second interpretation

given in Frag. 20, which

no doubt

founded on Rom.

i.

25.

80
Jo.
i.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
(TTi

3.

KTl cTH, 05

X/5K7T05,

1
<?

T7AIMTA A

l

AYTO?

e

KAI

^P

c

AYTOY ereNeio OY AGN.

23.

Ibid.

xiii.

20 (R.

iv.

229

;

L. n. 33).

KAI n*p o nATi-ip TOIOY TOYC ZHTE? royc TTPOCKYNOYNTAC AYTONT ZHTG? 6 TTATHp, $ld TOV vloV ZHTG?, TOV 6J\V00TO<; ZHTHCAI Lc.xix.10. KA COOCAI TO A noAooAoc, OVGTIVCLS tcaOaipwv /cal TraiBeixov TOJ
Jo. iv. 23.

el

I

Z
iv

16

^7^

Ka ^ T0 ^
J

vyiecri, Soy/jLaai,

Karao-Kevd^ei
IT)<JIV

a\r]dLvoi>s

TTpocr-

KwrjTa^.

A7ro\a)\evai, Se

6

HpaicXewv ev
TO>

rfj

(3a-

5

Cf.

Lc. xv.

r^? TrXaz^Ty? TO oiicelov Trarpl, oirep ZHTe?TAi i va 6 nATHp VTTO rwv oltceicov el /juev ovv ecopa TOV irepl T^? aTrwXeta? TWV TrpojSdrcov yov,
Oeia v\y
KOI TOV dTTOTrecrovTOS TUIV TOV TraTpos VLOV, KCLV eVel Se /j,v6o7roiovvT<i ol airo r^? jvcaTTJV Sir/yrjaiv. avTov OVK olS* o TL Trore Tpavws TcapiGTacri irepl fir)?

avTov

10

diro\w\via^

ovSev o-a^e? cricovTes tj/Jids Trepl Twv TTpo T^? aTTcoXeta? avTijs ovSe ydp Tpavovv ^vvavTai eavTwv TOV yov. rj alwvwv
Trvev/jLaTi/crjs
<f>vo-eco<;,

Bid
15

TOVTO auTOi)? eicovTes

TrapaTre/jL^lro/jieOa,

TOCTOVTOV eTrcnropr)-

margine
20.

4 d\r]divovs] ahydots TOI)S. rcixa vlov, sed in txt. habet

9 vlov] mot.
vlov.

Cod. Bodleianus habet in

X/H(rr6s]

In the Excerpta ex
eis

must

refer to the

same, the tertiary

Theod.

45, the section describing

predicate

the creative work of the Soter, oixriav TJyayev avrd re /cat [TO]

rrjs

(contained in d\tjd. TOVS irpoaK.) would be very awkward. 5. aTroXwX^at] There is of course

Seur^pas Sta^^crcws, is similarly closed

with the words irdvra 5t O.VTOV K.T.\. 23. 4. d\T]divovs] This correction in
Cod. Venetus restores the
of the

grammar
Ka.da.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

sentence

;

ova-nva^

(see Frag.
73).

50

;

Clem. Al. Strom,

iv.

can of course be separated
rtj as,

off as

a

complete relative sentence, but as ovaTO a7roXwX6s,

and

irpoffKvvr)Ta.s

Here however he only appears to have explained Luke xix. 10 in illustration of S. John s words.
9.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

81

24.

Ibid.

xiii.

25 (K.

iv.

234

;

L. n. 43).
6

Et?

fjuevToi

ye TO TTNeyMA 6 Oedc
^ctt

HpaK^ewv

(fryer

iv Jo.

iv. 24.

payro?
avTOv.
MATI
KAI

7p

KaOapd Kal doparos rj Oeia (frvOVK olBa 8e el eSlSa^ev r^ids, ravra eTrenrwv,
TO Be royc npocKyNoyNTAC GN TTNeyarafyrjvi^eiv

d 6edc TTNeyMA eo~Ti.
5

AAHGeiA Ae? npocKyN6?N

vopi^wv, $v]a-iv

A^/a>9

TOV Trpoo-Kvvovftevov Trvev jJbdT news ov o-ap/ciKal yap avTol r^? ai)r^? ^ucrew? oi/re? TO) TraTpl
el(T\v,

o iTives

KCLTO.

r

rr\avr)v Trpoa-tcvvovcri,

Kadd Kal
TTJV

d\r)8eiav Kal ov KCLTOL 6 aTrocrroXo? StSdcrfcei

io\ey(0v

AopiKHN
be el

AArpei AN
/JLTJ

eTTio-Tr/aco/jLev

a~(f)6Spa

TOiavTrjv Oeocrefteiav. eaTiv acre^e? o^ooucrtou? TTJ

dyevv?jT(p

Kal TrajjL/naKapia \eyeiv elvai, rou? TrpocrKv(frvcret, vovvTas ev irvev/^aTi rw dew, oO? Trpo /3pa%eos eljrev auro?
*}i{paK\ewv

15

eKTreTTTWKOTas, Tr)V ^apapelTiv \eycov a\X (pvcrecos ovcrav eKTreTropvevKevai. TavTa \eyovTes^\ OTL \rrav TO Ofioova-Lov] ovy^ opwviv [ol Kal TWV avTWv $KTIKOV. el 8e eSe^aro TO jropvevo~ai r) irvevTTvev/jiaTiKfjs
r

o

fJLaTLKr) (frvais, o/jLoovaios

ovaa
ya)

[TU>

dyevvrjTw], avoaia Kal dOea
/car auroi)? Trepl 6eov

Kal daeftri aKoXovdel
20 (fravTacnwdfjvai
2
lac.
r/]

TW

rw

ovBe

dKivSwov
11

eo~Tiv

/cat.

o/ioofcrt ouj]

o/j.oovffioi>.

16

ot

raCra X^yovres] om.
Xe-

13 circa litterarum relicta:
irav rb o/j-oovcnov]

yovres.

Codex Bodleianus in margine ot raura TravTos, post hoc verbum relinquitur lacuna
f<rws

(12

circa

litt.)

in Codice. r

(pvffeis.

ayevvriTtf)]

Cod. Bodl. in margine T&V evavrluv. 18 0i7crtj] om. lacuna (12 litt.) relicta: Cod. Bodl. in mar

gine

T<f)

dyevv/jTij).

20 dAX-^Xots]

24. 2.

-^

0et a]

There being no

article in his

exemplar the scribe of Cod. Voietus removed the difficulty
last
/cat

nominative is required and the marginal conjecture in Cod. Bodleianus fulfils the required conditions.
TraV

by altering the
10.
\oyiKT)i>

into

77.

rb

o/xooucrtoj

]

On

this

con-

\arpeiav] Corresponding to their nature. Cf. /cat yap avrol
TTJS auTrjs 0i;crews

jecture see Additional Note C.
18. A conjecture proayevvr}Tu>\ bably derived from Ferrarius, which
T<

dWej, and Frag. 45

TJ]V

16.

TUV ayluv \oyiK<2v ovalav. oi raOra \tyovres] Some such

admirably suits the requirements of

15.

82

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

25.
f

Ibid.

xiii.

27 (R. iv. 237; L. n. 49).
<f)r}aiV

Opa
rrepl

Be

Kal rov
TI

eSe^ero

etcrc\ij<ri*

Hpa/cXewva ri rov Xpicrrov,

\eyei

yap on

/cal errerreio-ro

avrov

OTI,

rd rrdvra

/JLOVOS e/ceLVos errio-rarai.

26.
Jo. iv. 20.

Ibid.

xiii.

28 (R.
<j>rj<ri

iv.

238; L. n.

51).
coi

ort
<w?

Hpa/c\ea)v Be 7rpo9 ro Epco eiMi, 6 AAACON errerreto-ro 77 ^a/jLapetTis Trepl rov Wirrep
o

Kal

T

apa e(ov Travra d7ra yyeL
r
e<yw

avrfj, (frrjai

Jo. iv. 27.

OTL etcelvos ov TrpocrSo/ca?, Kal elfil 6 \a\a)i> crot ore GO /j,o<yr)O ev eavrov rov TrpocrSo/cw/jievov \rj\vdevai, HA00N, (fyjjcrlv, oi M&6HTAI npdc AYTON, 81 oi)?

5

e)\vOei e/9 TTJV ^a/Jbdpeiav.
e\rj\vOei
o-vvfjaav
;

7ro)9 Be

Sia roi)? paffffras

et9

TT)^

Zapdpeiav,

o irives

Kal

rrporepov

avrw

1 crot] post

(rot

relinquitur lacuna (4 vel 5

litt.).

27.

Ibid.

xiii.

30 (R.

iv.

241

;

L. n. 56).
vrro-

O

oe

HpaK\ea)i>

\afjijBavei

THN fApl ^N rrjv SeKriKrjv elvai SidOeo-iv Kal evvoiav Kal rrjs

^"0)^9

r^9 rrapa rov Scor^po9, fyvriva Kara\eirrovo~a, Trap avra), rovrkanv e^ovaa Trapd ra) Zwrfjpi, ro roiovrov dKevos, ev w \t}\v6ei \a(3elv ro %wv vSwp,
4 Trapa]
25. 2. Cf.
irepl.

5

})

(KK\if}a-ia] i.e. ot Trvevfj-ctTiKoi.

to

the latter word.

It

must mean

Excerpta ex Theod.
2.
/cai]

41.

27.

The

Kal

before T^S

Swdpeus
is

is

probably right.

The
which

thought, conception, or the like, not power of thinking or conceiving the diW/uj. Below (1. 13) Ferrarius refuses
to

vdpia is the Sid^etrts
deKTtK-r} rijs

and

&VOLO.

take

rrfv

frvoiav r^s 8vva-

fw^s Kal

TT^S dwa/j-eus.

/xews together.

Probably we should

Hilgenfeld

s

omission
dvvd.fji.ews

of

the

/ecu,

there read, as here, Kal tvvoiav Kal
r

which makes
,

dependent on gives an unnatural meaning

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
els

83

rov Koauov evayyeXi^o/jsevrj rfj K\rjXptcrroO Trapovalav. Bid ydp rov rrvev^aro^ Kal vrro rov TTvevuaros Trpocrdyerai rj i|ru%r) rw Sft)crei rrjv

rrjpi.
10

Karavovjcrov
rravrri

vBpia avrrj AYTHC H fY N ^
^wrripi.

Bvvarai Irraivov^vr] rvy^dveiv r) THN yApiAN A(|)HKe jap, dcfrie/JLevr)
Br/,

el

Jo. iv. 28.

<jyir](rl,

rrjv Se/CTiKrjv

15

KaraXeiTrovcrav avrrjv ^idOeaiv, Kal rrjv evvotav rrjs r^9 nrapa rov "%wrf)pos, Kal TO crKevos ev 8vvdfji(i)<; w e\r)\v0L \aftelv TO vBcop, aTreKrjXvOevai et? TO^
vrctl?
rr)<>

yap Trpo&Keirai Se KOL OVK aTriOavov
^coi-js

v

on

A^HKesi auTrjv irapa

TW

<wz>

rovra)i>,

eva^je\i(TaaOat
;

rfj

K\rjo~et,

rrjv

reap ova lav

TTO)?

Se

Kal

77

TrvevfjiariKr)

pera
Jo. iv. 29,

rocrovrovs Xoyou5 ov Treireto rai, cra^xw? Trepl rov XpicrTov, d\d MH TI oyjoc GCTIN 6 Xpicroc Kal ro ElfiAGoN
(f>rjcn
;

10 8e e

THC noAeooc St^ yTjcraTo dvrl rov
ovo~r)<$

E/c

avrwv dvaar pofyrjs,
Bid

KocrfAiKrjs
TOi^

T^? TT/o-Tew?,
7rc3?

(/>7?crl,

7T/DO?

T^? rrporepas Kal rjp^ovro ^wrrjpa. \eKreov
ot) Ayo HMepAC rov ev rfj 7ro\ei
;

Be Trpos avrov

/JLevei,

Trap

avrols

ra<;

yap
25

rerrjprjKev o irpoTrapeOefjieOa rj/Aels Trepl

avrov dvayeypd(f)0aL MGMeNHKeNAi Ta? Ayo HMe
19
fJ.ri

TI our6s]

fJ-rj

TOLOVTOS.

25 ava.yeypd(p6ai] Cod. Bodleianus in margine Ta%a XetVei

28.

Ibid.

xiii.

32 (R.

iv.

242

;

L. n. 60).

O
avru>

r

Se

HpaXea)^

fyrio~lv

on
rr}<>

% wv dyopdcravres drro
Cf.
.

^
negative
cf.

6.

K-XTJO-IS]

Excerpta ex Theod.
.

24.

A
:

is

58,
/j.ias

rb

K\t]rbv

.rb

IK

rrjs

olxovo-

cessary
xiii.

Orig.

Comm.

obviously nein Joann.
/J.TJ

TO ^vxf-Kov
-f)

dyercu

^v^f]
(1.

and the words irpocrwhich occurs in this

29.

We

can either place

passage
21.

8).

The woman
Cf. Frag.
s

herself

before dvayeypd^dai with the margin of the Bodleian, or before ev ry ?r6Xci.
28. 1.

was a representation
Koir/jiiKrjs]

of the fK\oyri.

The general sense of the fragrecoverable, but
it is

account of the
KoaniKT)

woman

17 (the former life),

ment

is

hope-

lessly corrupt.

The
awrct
it

third sentence
oZ/tcu,

ydp

rjv,

the

fc6<r/ios

is

and Frag. 20, where the kingdom of the did-

may
ol

possibly have run TTWS 5,
TO,
efxeti>

fj.a.d-rjra.1

\tyovrai..

jSoXos.

Heracleon seems also to have used the word as almost equivalent
to

And

in line 8

would be natural
for

to

alter TTOTOU into eXaiov,

we can
of

humanity, see Frag.

8.

hardly justify

it

on the strength

62

84
tccio-av.
Cf Matt.
.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
TaBe (f)rjcrlv i va Tivd* * al TTCVTC pupal TrapOevou TOV pv/JL(f)iov. Tret)? Be olfjbcu * * * TO, avra e^eiv * * * * * rat? aTroKKeia-Oelcrais

*

rtvro

\e<yovTai

pwpals
&e teal

irapOevois,

afyov

5

IBelv KaTTjyoplav Trepte^ovTa
/jbevcov

TWV

fjuaOyToov rot? ai/rot? Kot/jua)-

rat? fjbwpal^ TrapOevoLs.
fCOL
TpO<f>r}V,

ecm

avro

dvo/juoiov

rov

^)60T09 TTpOS

TOV 7TOTOV TTpO?

TO,

* ** *
/BpCO/jLCtTa.

*0-az/ra? aiTiavaa-Qai rrjv
fievov
o-a<f)rj

eK^o^v,

KaiTrep tcard

n

Svvd10

Troirjaai
,

TOV yov e^prjv avrov Bid 7r\ei6vwv

Karacrrcevd^ovTa rrjv ISlav
litt.).

3 post riva lacuna (6 circa
oZ/mi

post ?x 8 post ppu/j.aTa lacuna (19).
(8).

lacuna

lv

lacuna

4 post 5 post \tyovrai lacuna (10). 9 Kaiirep] xdirep. /card] ins. intra lineas.
(6).

post irapetvoi lacuna (45).

29.
Jo. iv. 32.

Ibid.

xiii.

34 (R.
HN

iv.

245

;

L. n. 65).

Efoc>

BpoociN

e)(a>

(f)Are?N,

y/weTc OY K oTAAje

ov&ev

Be et9 TTJV

30.
Jo. iv. 33.
"EAefON
4>AreiN
;

Ibid. xiii.
01

35 (R.

iv.

245

;

L.

ir.

65).

oyN
KOI

MAGHTAI npoc AAAH Aoyc
(rapKi/ctos

MH

TIC

HNefKeN
6

el

VTroXa/jL/Bdvei

ravra \eyecr0ai

Jo. iv. 11.

TcnreivoTepov Siavoovpevwv Kal rrjv ^apapelriv /jn^ovpevwv \eyovcrav Oyre ANTAHMA e xeic, KAI TO 0peAp ecTi BA0y a%iov ^a?
Hpate\O)V
ISeiv, prj Trore fiXeTrovre? TI

VTTO

TWV fMiG rjTMV, w?

en

5

Oeiorepov ol fjiad^rai
cf)Are?N
;

(fraai,

Trpbs

dXXrjXov?
r
<t

MH

TIC

HNefKCN AyT(o

rd-^a yap virevbovv

y<ye\i,icijv

riva Bvva/jiiv evrjvo^evai, avrw

31.
Jo. iv. 34.

Ibid.

xiii.

38 (R.

iv.

248

;

L.

II.

70).
I

O

(

Se

}^paK\e(Dv Bid rov EMON Bpa)MA tCTiN

NA nomcoo TO

BeAHMA Toy neMVfANTOC MG (frycrl Bir)ryel(r()ai TOV ^a)Trjpa rots" /jiaOrjTais, OTL TOVTO o avve^r/Tei, //.era Trjs yvvai7r6r7?s XI/XJ/GS, and to fill up part of the gaps by reading KaT-qyopTJvavTas, and in 1. 9 Katroi ye for Katirep. But

small patches in large rents are la hour wasted.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
/eo9, /3/ow/Lia

85

iStov \eycov TO 6eAHMA TOV Trarpos
/cal Svvafjiis

TOVTO
6e-

$ydpavTOv Tpo$rj/cal dvaTravais
AHMA
8e

r^v.

yvwvai dvdpwTrovs TOV Trarepa, teal o-coOijvai, oTrep r/v epyov rov Swr^po? TOV eve/ca TOVTOV aTreo-TaXf^evov et? ^a^dpeiav, TOVTGGTIV et9 TOV Kocr/jiov. ftpw/jia ovv avTO ^ei\r)(f)6 TOV I^crou /cal
Trarpos e\eyev elvai TO
10 Trjv

fjbTa Trjs ^a/napeiTiSos av^rjTrjcnv,
i

O7Tp
/cal

TO)
e

opaaOau

/cal raTrett co?

e^eCkrj^Oai

rpo<r}

roO Scor^po? TO GeAHMA TOV vrarpo?, tra^xw? ov TTW? 8e /cal avctTcavcris TO 6eAHMA TOV Trarpo? ;
Mt. xxvi. 39

yap
15

6

$eA,?maTO9
,

K.vpios a\a^ov, 0)9 ov rrravTos TOV TraTpt/cov avaTrav crew? avTov 6Vro?. TTAT6P, ei AYNATON.
,

TTApeAGATOO TO HOTHplON AH 6MOY*
cy.

,

>

>

,

,

,

,

,

,

TlAh N

OY

Tl

fOL)

6eA<JO,

AAAA

Tl

irbOev 8e /cal ort Suz/a/^t? TOU 2,o)Trjpos TO GeAHMA roO

9 aOro] avrov.
in margine rdxa TO

Cod. Bodl. in margine ra^a awr6. /cat Tra/oA/cei. 10 r^s] rr/z/.

/cai]

Cod. Bodl.
(roi.

1?

<rtf]

32.

76id.

xiii.

41 (R.

iv.

251

;

L. n. 79).

Kat

f

6

}^pa/c\ea)i>
fjirj

/jievTOLye OJJLQLWS rot? 7ro\Xo?9
dvd<yea-0ai.

eVt r^?
yovi>

/ji6LV,

oto/ue^o? avTrjv

(frrjcrl

OTL

Top
5

TOJV yevvrj/jLciTcov \eyei Oepio-fjbbv, w? TOVTOV fjiev GTI Stcopiav 6%oi>Tos TeTpd/j,r)vov, TOV Be Oepicrfjiov, ov auro?

eXeyev,
e?rt

1787;

eVe<jr&)To<?

/cal

TOV

Oepio-jjbov 8e ov/c ol& O7ro)9

r^9 ^1*^179

efei\rj(f)e

TWV TCKIT&VOVTWV,

\eycov OTL

dtc/jualoi teal GTOL/JLOL elat, irpo^ Oepto~fjiov /cal GTTL-

31. 6.

TO 7J wi at

/C.T.X.]

Cp. Hipp.

Origen complains
pretation of TO
TT}v...av ^r-rjffiv,

first of

the inter-

Refut. vi. 36. As the 5t6p#w<ns of the Hebdomad was effected by im-

dt\-r)/j.a

as /Spw/ua /cat then as rpofpri, then
lastly as SiW^tj.

parting to the Demiurge the knowledge of the Father, so it is natural
that the
5t6p0w<m

as avairava^,
15.

and

Trdrep]

The omission

of /xou

TWV eV^aSe should

and

eo-Tt is

found in other authorities,

be accomplished by analogous means.
9.

especially

among

the Valentinians.

airrd]

The marginal suggeson the
it

But

this position of

oV
is

tion of the Bodleian seems

found elsewhere, nor
chendorf in
loc.

e/wu is not the rl sup-

whole

to

be the best reading;

ported by other authority.

See Tis-

restores consistency to the passage.

86
rijSeioi,

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HE11ACLEON.
7rpo<?

Bid

7rto"T6<i)5

TO avva^Orjvai et? dTroOij/crjv, rovrean et9 dva7ravo~ iv, oaai ye erotyLtot, ov yap
rjBr)
)

Trdcrai

at uev yap
e/ceivos

\ov, al Be fJie\ovo iv
Jo.
iv.

eroi^oi ^crav, (frrjcrlv, al Be eue\al be eTriaTreipovTai rjBrj. ravra
TTW? Be ol jJbaOr^ral
77877

10

35.

uev ovv

eljrev.

enAi pONTec royc

6(})0AAMOYC bvvavrai (SXeireiv ra? -^ru^a?
cra?

eTrtT^Se/ou? ov-

TT^O? TO,
el

w?

oierai, et?

aTroOrjK^v
/cal

ei<ra%0ijvait

OVK
15

ol$a
Jo. iv. 37,

Svvarai

Trapacrrrjcrai.

en
;

ye TTW?

eTrl

TWV tyvyj&v

d cnei pooN, KA*I AAAoc 6 GepizooN /cat, AnecjeiAA YMAC Bepi zeiN o OYX YM?c KeKorriAKATe nva Se rpoTrov TO "AAAoi K6KOniAKACI KA YM6?C 6IC TON

aX?7$e9 TO

"AAAoc

|

eart,

Trapabe^acrOai eVl T^?
16
6 Oepifav]

33.

Ibid.

xiii.

44 (R.

IV.

255

;

L. n. 85).

Kal
Mt.
ix. 37.

epei ye 6 Hpa/cXeo)^, Ta^a 8e TOUTW Tavrrjv avjJiTrepKfrepo/jievos Tt? teal

Kara

oTi

Tw

/taTa TO

C

OepiCMOc noAfc,

oi

Ae epr^TAi oAi roi
erolfjuovs vrpo?
5

o/xoiw?

ravra elp^rai, rw

Kal eTriTTjSeious TT/OO? TO 77877 Gvvay^Qrivai aTro6r)Kr)v Sid rrjs Triarect)^ et? av CLTT av iv Kal eViT^Setof? TT/JO? orwr^piav Kal elvai, rov yov Kara aev rov U.paK\ea)va Bid rrjv avrwv Kal rrjv $v a iv Kara Be rov eKK\r)o-ia(TTiKov Bid ruva
<i

c

evrpeTTLCTfjiov

rov

tjye/AoviKov, eroi/jiov TT/JO? re\eiw(TLV, iva

Kai

10

6epiaOf).

\ovrai TrapaBe^aadai
rjfjuwv

\eKreov ovv Trpos TOU9 OUTOX? eKBe^auevovs, Trore yeyovevai, irpo rrjs rov SCOT^O? fjur)
r

el (3ov-

eTTiBij/jiias

OepiajJbov

jraparr\i]O iov

rw

OUTCO? dv e Xvrt-

crOevri aTro
32. 10. ai 5^]

rwv %p6va)v rov evayye\iKov
The repetition
of al 5e
33. 5.

tviniddovs] Of Excerpta ex
.

offended the ear of the scribe of Cod.
Venetus, so that he substituted Kal But the at ^j/ for the second ai 5.

Theodoto,

46,

/cat

rots

<rufj.a.<rt

Kara

(/xVip fTrtTrjdeLoT-rjTa cVeTrotr/trei

,

which

also illustrates 5ta
Kal rrjv tpveiv.

TTJV

reading of his exemplar

is right.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON.

87

34.
f

Ibid.

xiii.

46 (E.

iv.

256

;

L. n. 87).

O

Se
L,

RpaK\ecov TO
E-Tret Oepia-rrjv

Jo. eepi zcoN MicGON AAMBANCI elpfja-Oai

eavTov \eyei,

(frrja-lv,

6 ^oyrrjp,
TT)I>

5

elvau fjLLo-Oov TOV Kvpiov rjfjiwv vTrdXappdvet TWV depL^o/jLevcov o~a)Tr] piav Kal dTTOKarda-racrLV dvairavea-daL avrbv eV avrols TO Se KAI CYNAfei KApnoN etc ZOOHN AICONION Qrj&lv eipfjffQai, rj on TO a-vvayo/juevov aiwKapTros ^w^9 alwvtov ea"Tiv, 77 OTL Kal avTo ^(Drj
/cal

TOV

TU>

d\(i avToOev vof/kifn ftteuov elvai TI]V fafffyrw avTov, MicGoN AAMBANEIN, KOL o-vv^eovTO^ TOV (frda/covTos TOV *a)Ttjpa
vi os.
10

MICGON Kal Tr)V CYNAfCOPHN

TOY KApTTOY

1?

6V,

(IVTlKpVS

T^9

Bvo TrpdyjjuaTa rrapio-Tdar]^,
2
voftlfri]
i>o/J.ifriv.

cos Trpo$iri<yr]o-dne6a.

1

T?

OTL] ov.

35.

Ibid.

xiii.

48 (E.

iv.

200

;

L. n. 95).
X A P^

v TO

"!NA

6 cnefpcoN
/Jbev

OMOY

KA

0e P

"

Jo>

ZGON OVTCO 8Lr)yr}o~aTo

Xaipei
i]$rj

yap,

o (ftrjo iv,

cnreiptov

OTL o-Trelpei, Kal OTL eXTTtSa avvd<yTaL,
$\OL7r(i)V
fjLev

o

TLvd TWV aTrepaaToyv avTov e^wv Trjv avTrjv Kal rrepi TWV a\ o 8e Oepi^wv o/Aol&S TL Kal deplcreL.
o-ireipwv,
o

TTpooro? rjp^aTO ov jdp ev TW avTw eSeL

Sei)repo?

0pl%(i)V.

eSvvavro

aft<f>OTpoi

up^aadai

ydp

rrputTov crTrapfjvaL, etff vcrTepov OepLaurjvaL. pevTOLje TOV a-jreipovTOS (TirelpeiP, GTL
-fj

OTL Delarue s emendation 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

34. 7.

part

of

the

Heracleonic doctrine.
of this
utos

is

The sowing

avdpuirov,

whoever he was, must refer to the
sowing by a higher power of
the

nor sense.

We

must assume that a

pneumatic seeds in the creatures of the Demiurge, and the Tri/ei^cm/cot are
not divided into different classes, so
far as is
forcible.

corruption of on to omission of the
-fj.

ON

led to the

known.

The

^5??

is

also

35. 3.

17577]

Cod. Venetus has altered

He

rejoices in that

he

is

but the original reading 77577 Different kinds or is preferable.
to
ei 577,

already gathering in the earnest of For a similar confusion the rest.
of
77

classes of seeds are not insisted upon,

and
77

ei

in Cod. Venetus, cf Frag.
.

nor do they, so far as we know, form

20, ws

5et irLffT-qv for

ws

77577 TTIO-TT}!

.

88

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
10

7rl fjLevTOi TOV 9epuel 6 OepL^wv. TrapovTos d/jL^orepoi TO iBiov epyov evepyovvTes O/JLOV %alpovaL KOIVI^V
}

ftapav
Jo. iv. 37.

TTJV

TWV

a-TrepfjudTwv
N TOYTCO ICTIN

reXetorT/ra tfyov /juevot.
6 Aopoc AAHGINOC,
C

en

Be /cal els TO

OTI

AAAoc

eciiN 6 cnei pooN, KAI AAAoc d Gepi zooN (prjcrlv

TOV TOTTOV v /o? di OpcDTTOV
ai^TO?

o"ireipei

o

yap VTrep Be %Q)Tr/p wv real
/juev

O

15

ino? dvOpwTTov Oepi^ei, teal OepicrTas

TOI)? ota TCOV p,a07)Twv voovfAevovs
67rl

dyye X.ovs,
TOI)?
/cal

rrjv

eavrov

^frv%r]v

ov Trdvv Se cra^cG? e^eOero

8vo vlovs rov dvOpwTTov, TtW? claw, &v 6 et9 cneipei
Gepi zei.

6

e^
20

10

eTrt]

eTrei.

15

uios] vlov.

36.

Ibid.

xiii.

49 (R.

iv.

263

;

L. n. 99).

dyy\oL
/cal
Jo. iv. 30.

eicriv oi

eVt

Trjs Stao-Tropa?

ras Xotvra? fAepi&as irapd rrjv TWV ^v^u>v rera-

Y/LttVot,

Gepi zoNTA

ov&ev earns drorrov TON cneipoNTA OMOY XAipeiN KA J ON o 8 /^6Ta TOV OepidfMOv. H^a/cXew^ fyricrlv OTL

Ov SS
/jiaTa,

avT&v, ovSe
(frrjo-l

air

UVTWV

ea-Trdpi)

TavTa

TO.

airep-

5

Be

T&V
5 ou

aTroorToXcov,
5t
a.\iT<j}v\

oi Be

KeKorriAKOTec

ov 5e O.VTUV.

of

15,16. AsOrigensays,thetwo sons man are not clearly explained.

tion

must be pure

Probably they answer to the two beings whose temporary union in Jesus of Nazareth Irenaeus criticises so strongly.

Frag. 40. rbiros fj.e(r6Tr)Tos or
r6?ros cf.

For must be the e/35o/ucis which is
conjecture.
It

described by Hippolytus as viroKarw
oydoddos where Sophia and her o-i^yos dwell. For the sowing comTTJS

The
T6iroi>

Son

of

man who

is virtp

rov

may

be identified with

pare Hippolytus Befut.
17,18. ^KOLVTOV
Cf.
lirlr-riv

vi. 34.

husband: or the two sons may be the Christ whose flight Sophia mourned, and the Jesus whom
Sophia
s

eavrov ^v X
64,
ret

Excerpta ex Theod.
rote

vw
TOV

rii>]

tMa...Kotu&neva0t oi;s

xal avra TOVS vv^.ets

the Christ entreated the Father to

077^X01^? eavrwi/
elcriaffiv.

send to her, dtopdwa-ai ra -rrddr] and who became her tn^yos.
last

avrrjs,

vv^uva.
is

evros TOV 6 pov

^vxn
wider
vii.

The
O.VT$

will

suit

best

the interpreta/cat

sense.

here probably used in See also Irenaeus
a.Trooo0ri<TeaOai

its
i.

1,

tion of 6 ev alwi.

oi

avv

vv^as

rots

-rrepl

TOV

cXdwTts (Frag.
are insufficient,

But the data 22). and such identifica-

Z

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
elalv OL
eo~7rdp7]
T?;?

89

Cf.Gal. iii. olKovofJblas dyye\oi, Bt (ov w? MECITOON teal dveTpdfyrj. et? Be TO Y/welc eic TON KO TTON j 33 jv

AYTCON eiceAHAyBATe
10

ravra e^eOero

Ov yap

6

auro?

/COTTO?

o-ireipovTwv teal Oepi^ovTwv ol /juev yap ev Kpvei real vBaTi teal KOTTW TTJV yrjv a Kcnnovres dTreipovo-t,, KOI

o\ov ^et/u.coz u\a? /c\eyovTe<;
Sfc

o?

TrjfjLe\ova L afcd\ovTe$ real ol Be eh erotpov /capTrbv elae6

ra?
i>re?

15

Qepov? ev(f)pai,v6 /jievoi, depi^ovGiv. e^ecrrat Be crvytcpl/cal ra VTTO vowi rdSe r)/j,(av elprj/Aeva rw evTvy^dvovTi TOV HpaK\ea)vo<f, opav biroLa TWV ^u^yrja-ewv eiriTerev^dai,
v<$>

(

Svvarai.
7
Ot]
6.

9

/COTTOS]

(T/COTTOS.

37.
r

Ibid.

xiii.

50 (R.

iv.

263; L. n. 101).
TOV E/c TOV
Jo. iv. 39.

O

(

Be

HpaK\ea)v TO pkv

K THC noAecoc dvT\

Koa/juov
e<TTi

e^eL]<pe

TO Be AIA TON Ao fON THC fYNA?KOC TOVTeKK\r)cria<$.

Bid r?75

Trvev/JLCLTi/crfS
o5?

real

iiriari^ai-

veTai ye TO noAAo)
5

fj,iav
eiBfj,

7ro\cSv OVTWV ^rv^tKwv Trjv Be KOI JJLOVO\eyei Trjv dfyGapTov r^? K\oyf}<$ Kal evi/crjv. ea-TrjfjLev Be ev rot? dvwTepa), w? olov re
<j)vo~iv,

ijVy 7T/30?

raOra.
1 TO]
rots.

6 olov re] oiovrai.

36.

7.

oi

r^s

oiKovofuas 0776X01]

Cod. Monacensis

TTJ

(ji.\ov(ru>

may

ac-

Compare the 70 7ot projected by Sophia and her (r6 vyos.
7, 8.
is
5t

count
marg.
to

for

Huet

s

rfj

/j^XXowi (ad
fol-

TT7yweXoO(rt)

which Delarue,

wv wj

/j.effiTuv

e<nrdpr}]

There

lowing his general custom, attributes

a very close parallel to this in
53, &rxe.. .L-TTO
TTJ/CU,

Codex Regius.
37. 2.

Excerpta ex Theod.
TTJS cro0t as
fj.ari.Kbv
o-t,

eetXr?0e]

The

following

ivairapev rb cnr^pfj.a TO
rrjv

double constructions are found with
eK\a[j.(3di>eii>:

ei s

^vxjiv,

diarayeis

07/-

(1)

accusative followed
0epiff/J.6i>

Si

dyyt\ui>

ei/xetpl/tteo-iTou..^!

ay-

by

Girl

with the genitive, rbv

7^Xa>

ovv

ruv apptvuv ra
ra
eis ytveffiv

<nr^pfj.ara

virrjpereirai

For

TrpopXyO&ra. Heinrici proposes 5tarayev (Die Vol. Gn. p. 118), but we may regard it as a quotation.
StaTcryetj

eetXrj0e TWJ Tricrrevovrav (Fr. 32), (2) accusative followed by d^Ti TOU or rovrfori as in this frageirl TTJS / i^X ^s

ment,

(3)

accusative or quoted nomi-

native followed by accusative, eelX7/0e iravra rov KOO^OV K.T.\. (Fr. 1),
cf also Fr. 47.
.

The description which 9. KOTTOJ] follows is of the method, not the aim
of the

work

:

O-KOTTOS

therefore would

4.

TroXXot]

Cf.

Excerpta ex Theod.
oi

not give the required sense.
12.
r-r)[j.e\ov<Ti]

56, ov iroXXol S

^1/x Koi, airavioi.

The reading

of

90

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

38.
Jo. iv. 40.

Ibid.

xiii.

51 (R.
roi)?

iv.

265

;

L. n. 103).

O

(

Se

HpaK\.ea)v

et?

TOTTOU?

ravrd

<f)?]cri,v,

AYTO?C efMeive Kal ovtc ev avTols

KOI Ayo HMepAC, TOV eveo-T&Ta alwva, Kal TOV p,e\ovTa TOV ev

TOV 7rp6 rov TrdOovs avTOV %povov, Kal TOV /u-era TO 7r#o9, ov Trap aurot? Troirjoras, TroXXoS 7T\iovas Sid TOV ISiov \o<yov eVto-rpe^a? et9 TTIO-TIV, CLTT dVTWV. \KTOV Se TT^O? T^ SoKOVO~O,V CLVTOV
r/

5

pijcriv,

OTL

nAp Ayiolc

/cat oi)/c ev

awrot? yeypaTTTai,
5

OTI

Mt. xxviii.

nAp AYTO?C eVrl TO lAoy, epoa MeQ YMGON GIMI HACAC ou ya^ eiirev Ei^ uyLttz^ et/u. eVt 3e Xeycov Ta? Ayo HMepAC ?7TOfc TOVTOV TOV alwva elvai Kal TOV fjbe\ovTa, r) TOV TTpO TOV 7Ta#OU? Kal TOV fJbeTCL TO TrdfloS, OVT6 TOU?
ofjLOLov TO)

TAC HMepAC

10

enepyoMGNoyc AIOONAC /ueTa TOV fJue\ovTa vevo^Kev, irepl wv
Eph.
ii.

7.

ifao iv o a7ro<JToXo9 "!NA eNAei lHTAi eN TOIC AIOOCI TOIC enep)(oMeNoic ovT6 opa oTi ov fjiovov II p o TOV TrdOov^ Kal 15

MeTa
TWV
/cal

TO TTtt^O? O~VVO~Ti TO?9 6 p^O fc? TT^O? ai;TOZ/ /cat. del ydp /JieTa TOVTO ov ^(opl^CTaL.
/J,6l>

6

I^CToO?,

fjueTa

wv
Gal. ii.20.

ecrTt,

jj,r)$e7ra}7roT

KaTa\ei7rwv avTOvs, waTe

Xeyew avTovs
5
6j/]

Z(x)

Ae oyKeTi e roo, ZH Ae GN GMOI Xpicrdc.
yuero,

6.

12 TOV
oy]

TO TTCI^OS]

om.

TOV.

13 /^XXovrct]

fj.e\ov.

17 aAXd] om.
38. 15,
dXXci,

om.
ro
irdOos]
del

16.

KCU

ywerd
is

/tera

rcG?

fJ.ad-r)Twv

ecrrtV.

The

The
nctus,

which

absent

from

ctXXa

must
Kal

therefore be inserted beTOVTO.

both Cod. Monacensis and Cod. Vebut has been independently inserted before these words by each
of their

Hilgenfeld s before xwptfercu is of course necessary, unless indeed
/zerd

fore

insertion

of

ov

leianus,
editors,

descendants Regius and Bodhas been accepted by the
including Hilgenfeld.
after ov pbvov
is

we can regard the words ^erd

TOVTO

But
is re-

xwptferat as a continuation of the quotation of Heracleon s words, and
so negatived by the ov
fj.6vov,

though
for
it.

an dXXd

but the

quired, this

not the right place Heracleon has admitted that

sentence would then be very awkward. This is not the only instance

Christ

is

with them

irpo

TOV

-rrdOovs

and

/xerd TO -rrddos also,

but has not

where a negative has probably dropped out. Cf. [//,?)] ev Trj jroXei. (Frag.
27).

seen that even after this there has

been no x w P t

"A

t os>

f

r

(Origen says)

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
39.

91

Ibid. xiii. 52

(R

iv.

2G7

;

L. n. 108).
Jo. iv. 42.

v Be aTrKovanepov etcXaftcov TO OYKGTI AIA THN CRN AAAIAN niCTeyoMeN $770-1 AeiTreiv TO fiovrjv CTL fiev yap TO AYTOI fAp AKHKOAMGN, KAI OlAAMEN OTI OYTOC 6CTIN 6 77-/909

ZooTHp TOY KOCMOY
5

<j)r}(TLV

Olydp
OL

VTTO

dvOptoTcwv oSrjjov/JLei
Be
di>0

dvdpCOTTOL TO fJLV TTpCOTOV TricrTevova i TOJ ^coTrjpt,,

eirdv

evTV^wo-i rot? yois avTov, OVTOL ov/ceTi
pa)7rivr)v fj,apTVpiav,

d\d

5t

avTrjv rrjv

40.
"Eot/ce

Ibid.

xiii.

59
c

(R

iv.

274

;

L. n. 123).

Se BACIAIKON o

yov, 67rel /cai

auro? e/3aal\eve TMV

Hpa/cXeo)i/ \eyeiv vir

TOV &r)/j,iovpCIVTOV OKI oe

TO fjiiKpdv CLVTOV teal 7rpo<TKaipov elvai Trjv olovel /jLircpos rt? $7)0-1, BACIAIKOC wvopdo-Orj,
5

KaOo\L/cov /3acrtXe&>? TeTay/jLevos eVl /^acrtXe/a? TOV Be IN KAC})APNAOYM vlov avTov TOV ev TW VTrofteft^KOTi (j,epei Trjs yu-ecror^TO? TM
UTTO

d\acraav, TOVTCCTTL TW
f

o-vvrj/ji/jieva) Trj

v\y, Kal \eyei OTI

O

I

Sto?

avTov dv0pa)7Tos dcrOevwv, TOVTe&Tiv ov KdTa etra TO ^(Dv, ev dyvoia Kal dfjiapTr/ ^aaiv rjv
4
0T7<rt]

(p-rjfflv

rrjv

pacriXdav.
7.
is

10 dyvoia] dyvela.
/xecrorT/ros]

39. 3.

6rt ouros]

For the omission

The

yaeo-o rT/s

here

of aXrjOus see Tischendorf in loc.
5.

clearly the

same

as the TOTTOS [/tead-

With

the idea of

human me-

TTJTOS]

of Hippolytus,
epdofji..

diation suggested here, cf. Exc. ex Thcod. 58, Kal SC OLVT&V Kal ra
Toirrots ofj-oiovvra.

called also

Eefut. vi. 32, In the lower

part of this, which ia most deeply involved in v\r), here represented by

40.

4.
</>7jcrt]

The

error of Cod.
TTJV
j3a<ri\eiav

Capernaum, the

tdios

vios s

lies.

In

Monac. in repeating
after
(f)-r)<rl

connexion with Origen

interpreta-

^o-l led to the omission of Cod. Regius, and consequently in the Editions. It is also
in

tion of the /SacnXiKos as representing Abraham, it is interesting to notice

Hippolytus, Eefut.
Kal
6

vi.

34,
s>

-n-potfiaXe
O-VTT]

independently omitted in Cod. Bodleianus, for Cod. Venetus has retained
5.
it.

drjuuovpyos

ovcria

fyvx.dv

^ux^ OVTOS ecm

yap

/car

auroi)?

A^paa/ui.

Ka0o\iK6s]
47,

Cf.
6

Excerpt,

ex
de-

rtwa.

Kal raura TOV A/3paa/j. ra Heracleon might have acs

Theod.

where

Zwr^p

is

cepted Origen
jSacriXt/cos

interpretation of the

scribed as drj/juovpybs KaffoXiKos.

and his son.

92
Jo. iv. 54. Jo. iv. 47.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
THC
loyAAiAC eic

E

THN FAAIAAIAN dvrl rov
OTTO)? et?

etc

r?;?

avwdev

lovSaias.
ls

OVK ol&a oe

TO

"HjweAAeN

Ano0NHCKeiN

Mt.

x. 28.

rd 86<yfjLara TOJV VTTOTIdOdvaTov elvai rrjv tyv%r)v, TO avro VVIJL/3d\(T0ai viroKa^dvwv KOI TO YY^HN KA COOMA AnoAAycGAi EN reeNNH. /cal OVK dOdvdTov 76 elvai yyeiTai rrjv
oierai dva,Tpeirea-6ai
et<?
I

15

(

1 Cor. xv.
Cf.

is.xxv

eTrtTT/Se/w? e^ovaav TT/OO? avrrjv \eywv elvai To eNAyoMeNON Ac^BApciAN KAI ^Q ANA CI AN GNHTON, oVaz; KATAHOOH d GANATOC
HpaK\ea)i> }

6

aXX

61 C

ISMKOC.
,

Jo. IV. 48.

TTyOO?

TOVTOIS Kdi TO
,

EAN MH CHMG?A
,

KAI

TePATA 2O

IAHTG

oy

MH nicreycHTe
TreiOeadai,

,

\e<yecruai

(pi^o-iv

oi/ceico$

vrpo? TO
i

TOiovTov TTpoacoTrov,
<T0r)o-ea)s

81
/cal

epycov

(frvcriv
<yq)

e%ov KOI

al-

ov^l

TriGreveiv.

TO Se

Jo.
Cf.

iv.

49.

KATABHGI, npiN Ano9ANe?N TO nAiAiON MOY Sid TO je Aoc elvai

Eom.

TOU
ota

vofjiov

TON GA NATON elprjaOai
irplv

TWV

d/jLapTi(jov

TeXew?
6

a Ta? ayLtapT/a?, BeiTai
20
11,
Co(Z.
XT??,

dvaipovvTos OavaTwOfjvai iraTrjp TOV /JLOVOV Sft)VO/LLI&I,
(frijcrl,

25

ovv,

vlK

12.

K

TT)S

dvudev

louSatas]

rots

i/Xt/cots,

(pdaprrj

e<rrt

/cat

a7r6X-

Moiuic. has the true reading

though all its descendants have For the phrase, cf. Frag. 13, where the fvxiK&s TOTTOS, represented
erred.

\vrai (MS. ^o-ra: /cat aTrciXero). It should be noticed that this is one
of the passages where by the use of ^al and yei Hippolytus shews

by Iep

ff6\vfj.a, is

said to be an CIKUV

that

he

is

quoting
Cf.

from a single
Excerpt,
ex
dt>Teov-

of le/JowroXfyt, i.e. r, avu lepowraXfo. See also Hipp. Refut. vi. 32, where

document.
Theod.
aiov
56,

also
Se

r6

^VXIKW,
?x
/cat
<-

the

Ogdoad

is called

lepovaaXrj/j, e?r-

ov

eTrtr^Seior^Ta
/cat

^pos
irpbs

re

ovpdvios. 15, 16.

iriffTiv

d$6apaiav,

airi-

The

text is the reading of

ariav Kal Qdopav.
22, 23. It may be well, in view of the extremely difficult criticisms of

Monac. and Yen. The Syrian reading has been adopted by the descendants.

16

ff.

Heracleon

s

language with

regard to the immortality of the soul
vividly recalls Hipp. Refut. vi. 32, r s fffrlv 77 ^i>x?7, fteffoTrjs TIS dv-riT-fi

Origen on Heracleon s interpretation of this whole passage, to state what appears to be Heracleon s position so far as it can be gathered. He

ouaa
ffl *

&m
Ea

seems to have affirmed that $vxh
rb
Its
<pdaprbv

is

yap
"

e/35o/*ds

Kal KardiravTOIS
/cat

TO

ei>dvo/m.evoi>

dtydapviav.

......

oSv

to/j,oiw8fj

dVw,

death comes 5ta TO

-rtfXos elvai

TOV

Ty dydoddi, dddvaTos eytveTo
fis

yXdev
^<rlv,

TTJV

oydodda,

IJTIS

eo-rt,

TOV Qa.va.rov, dvaipovvTos did TWV dfj-apTiw, for of course the children
/o>ou

lepov<Ta\T)fj.

e-rrovpdvios,

cdv

8e

eo-

of the

Demiurge are under the Law.

fj,oiu6rj

Trj

v\y, TOVT^TI rots

7rd6c(Tt

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
7-77/909,

93

iv a ftorjdija-y TOJ vlut,
yioc

TOVTeo~Ti ry ToiaSe

TT/OO?

TOVTOIS TO

coy ZH

Kara

drvcfriav elprjo-Qai

Jo. iv. 50.

30 TO)

^WTTJ pi

e%ei\rj(f)v, ejrel ovte eljre ZtrjTQ)

ovBe eve^rfvev

avTos Trapea^rja-OaL Tr)v ^wrjv. \eyei Be OTL Kara/39 7T009 TOV KafjivovTa teal laadfjievo^ avTov TTJS voaov, TOVTeCTTi TGOV d /JLtt pT LtoV, K at Sid TrjS a0CT6ft)9 ^ft) 07roir)<ra<;

elnev

C

yioc coy ZH
1

ical

ir<Xyei

?rpo9 TO

Eni-

Jo. iv. 53.

35

cieyceN
ea-Tiv,

d

ANBpoonoc
o

OTI

Eu7rto-T09
teal
fir)

teal

o

Arj/jiiovpyos

OTL SvvaTai

^wTrjp

AoyAoyc Be TOY BACiAiKoy
A.vj/jLiovp yov,
r
dTra<y

e%ei\r)<$)e

irapwv OepaTreveuv. TOV rou9
d<y<ye\ovs

OTL
40 TO,

coy ZH K al tcaTa TpoTrov e^ei, TT pdaawv fjLrjfceTi dvolteeLa. teal Bid TOVTO vo/ii^et d7ra ry ye\eLV r&)

ye\ovTas

ev

TM

C
n<\?c

OLKLO)<;

i

/3aO~L\LKO>

pias,

TCL 7T pi TOV VLOV CT(i)Tr}TrpcoTovs ot erat (B\e Treiv ra9 7rpd%ei<$ ev TM Koa-^o) dvdpwTrwv roi)9 776Xou9, el eppayteal el\LKpivw<^ TTO\LTVOLVTO dnro r^9 TOV

TOU9 So^\OU9
teal

Trj<>

eTrel

r

45 Sft)T7;po9 eTTLBrj/jLia^.

GTL 7T/J09 TT)V

OTL

Ata r^9 &pas xapa/cTrjpl^eTaL
eVl
7rao-fc

eBAOMHN oopAN \eyet TOV laOevr;
$V(TL<;

ro9.

TO
Trjs

Eni creyceN AYTOC
dyye\Lfer)<;

KAI

H

OIKIA

Ayroy

oAn
teal

eTrl

elpfjaOaL Ta^ecos,

50

TWV oltceLOTepwv avTw. ^TfTelo-Oai Be ^ai ire pi TLVWV dyyeXwv, el (rcodrjcrovTai, TWV teaTe###BOT_TEXT### OVTWV teal TWV dvOpwirwv eTrl TAG TOON AN0poancoN GyfATepAC.
Be

Gen.

vi. 2.

TOV ArjfjLLovpyov
TO>

Trjv

d7rco\Lav Br)\ovcrQaL
eic

z/o/u

W
viii.

ev

Oi

yioi

THC BACIAGI AC

e 5eAeycONTAi

TO CKOTOC TO elw- Mt.

TepON.
55
,, ^

tea

Trep
v

TOVTWV TOV OV
, ,

aaa^
\

TrpoijTeveLV TO
ovo~TLva<?

Yioyc IpeNNHCA
,

KAI Y YOOCA, AY TOI Ae

Me HGETHCAN,
,

yioyc
v

Is.

i.

2.
i.

a\oTpiovs Kai cnepMA noNnpoN teat ANOMON tea\L teaL AKANGAC TTOIHCANTA. teal TavTa JJLGV TO, Hpa,

.

Cf. Is.

4.

Cf I s v
-

-

airep ToX/jirjpoTepov KOL dae/BeaTepov
KaTa&teevrjs aTroBeBel^OaL, eiTrep

elprj/jieva
i]v d\r]0r].
yit?)

typijv
ovte

60 olBa Be

7Tft)9 teal

Trepl d6avao~ias 1^^979 dTnaTel,
^1 wQpuirwv ]
bis.

39

et]

^x etl/

59 a

35.

euVio-Tos]

On

this point the
to

Irenaeus
37.

i.

vii. 4.

Valentinians
agreed.

seem

have
vi.

been
3f>

For the angels of the Demicf.

See Hipp.

Refitt.

;

urge

Excerpt, ex Theod.

47.

94

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
etc

Trocra (TiffuUvercu

rrjs

Oavaros

fywvrjs.

KaOopwvTa yap
el
el
(juev

eBei TO crrifjLaivoiJLevov

per

eVtcrAre ^ea)?

KOI dfcpifBeias IBeiv

Kara Trdvra
Ez.
xviii.

TO,

(nj/JLaivofjieva

Ov^rr) ecrriv.

yap on
f>5

AMApTANioycA AYTH Arro9ANe?TAi, el Be rrjv TravTe\r] Bid\vo~iv rjfjiels epov/jiev avrrjv OvrjrrjV. /cal e^afyav icr fjt,bv avTrjs ddvarov vo^i^ei, r^els ov Trpoo~7]cr6ovSe pe^pi errwow ISeiv Swd/jievoi, ova-lav OvtjTrjv /j,e0a
BeKTi/crj

dfjiapTLas,

yYX H

^

^

/cal

y

/j.era/3fi\ov(Tav
acj)6apTOi>

et?

aOdvarov

teal

fyvaiv

^Oaprrjv

7rl

TO

O/JLOIOV

yap TOVTO
a>?

rco

\eyeuv /x6ra/3aXXe^

TL dnro

et? da-MfJiaTOV,
/cal

vTroicei^evov rtyo? KOIVOV r^?

TWV

70

dcrw^aTwv (/wo-eco?, ojrep /jbevet, wcrTrep peveiv TO V\LKOV ol Trepl raOra Seivol, TWV TTOIOTIJTCOV
et?
(f)V(7LV

d$6apo-lav.

ov Tavrov Be eVrt TTJV
teal

eNAyecGAi Ac{)6Apci AN
et?

TO TTJV fyOapTrjv

(f)V(Tiv

(3d\eiv

d(f)6apo-iav,

ra 8
/xei/

aura
et?

\eKTeov, ov /AeraySaXXoua?;?
avTijif.

Trep T179 ONHTHC AOANACI AN, GNAYOMGNHC Be
:al
atJjOrj
Bi,

75

Ti

eTreiTrep

Tyv TJrv%iKr}v fyvaiv

epywv

fcal

ala Or] crews ireLOecrOaL ov%l Be \by(DV,
Trepl
7T&5?

avTOv
TiKr)<$,

Tlav\ov Trota?
Bid
T77<?

(^ucrea)?

rji>.

el fjuev

yap

OVK

a\co<>

80 TepacrTiov e7ri(f)avelas ireTricrTevKev ; el B* eBvvaTO irio-Teveiv rj Bid Tepacrriov eTTifyaveias
Tr)<$

dfco\ovOel KaT

TTO)? Be avTOvs /cal avTov elvai ^TV^LKOV. OVK aVe/Se? TO rrpo TOV ^fjaovpyov roi)? dyye\ovs avTov Oewpelv TO eppwfjbevov /cal TO el\iKpives TT/S TroXtreta?

TWV

V7ro BvvdfjLews TOV 2<(0Tf}po$ {3e\TLO)9evTa)v, /cal irapa TO evapyes TOV Trepl TOV ^fjaovpyov yov, eVt Be /cal Trapd oic T y V ypa(f>r)v n]v \eyovo-av Ei KpyBHcerAi AN0pconoc GN
Tr}<$

85

Kpy(t>Ai

Gl KaOopwvTa]

Ka.6a.pa.VTa.

79, 80

7n>eu/icm/c?}s]

Tri/eu^aTi/c^.

TTCOS] OTTWS.

80, 81 repaffrLov] repaffreiov.

83 OVK]

/ecu.

01.

KaOopuvra.}

Though the

fol-

Heracleon has only made use of such
expressions as
/c.r.X.

lowing criticisms of Origen contain no new matter of Heracleon, the whole chapter must he examined
together.
it

evdveffOai.

adavaaiav

which Origen allows to be o ravrbv. For Origen s argument with

I

have therefore thought

The print it in full. criticisms are not easy to follow. So far as he has stated Heracleon s
better
to

see Aristotle, regard to ,ueTa/3dXXe Met. A. 2 (1009 b), ov yap TO, evavTia
/xera/SaXXet.
^rt
oi>x

TO ptv vTro^tvei,

TO

5

cvavTlov

viro/mtvei

taTiv apa TL
i]

views, the confutation of /u.era^ciXXeij
ei s

TP LTOV irapa

TO.

cvavTia,

v\rj.

adavaaiav

is

not to the point, for

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
KAfob OYK oyoMAi AYTON
/
;
I

95

KCLl

/

,

KyplOC

PNGOCKOON
;

90 toci
/

MA TAIOI
>

TTO)?
~
;

teal Kypioc ETAZOON Nec^poyc KA KAPAIAC, Ps. vii. 10. Ps. xciii. TOYC AlAAOflCMOYC TOON ANGpOOTTOON KAN XC iv.) 11. Se crftjcret /col TO eiAooc TA TTANTA TTP IN Hist.
,

,

(

v

AYTOON

ert oe /jia\ov
CLTTO

c^\

it/
rfj

/

Susann.

"fr)

(u<jt?

^apa/crTjpi-

42.

rov laOevros

rov apiOfjbov

fjia).

r^? Ida-ews yiVOftewj ] TO $e Sia(f)0opas elvai
VTT

TW

olKelw

rrjs copas irj ava-navaei apuOcoy ejjede~

"fyw^Ltcwv,

eVl reXet

95 fjbeOa
fjievov

avTou

elprjfjLevwv ava^e^pafjiiJLevov^
(frvcriv

ecrrt,

KOI eTepav

o^ww/Jiia XP W elcrdjovTO^ TTapTrjv, oTrep ov

41.

Ibid. xix. 3 (R. iv.

296

;

L. n. 167).

O
<pv\ciKiov

%/>/>

76 HpafcXecov, e/c^e/^e^o? *\ * \e%iv, ovbev eLirev ei? avTrjv.
/cal d/JbapT^fJiacriv

r^y
>

Trep) c^ et? oe TO

TOV ya^o-

Cf. Jo.
viii.

Unoy

r\

>

12

ff.

era) j

v iii.2i.

yM6?c oy AyNAcGe eA6e?N

5

rat
ev

<yevecr6oLi ;

dyvoiq

/cal

II co? e y dryvoia KOI tfaari o^re? e^ d^Bapaia bvvav/^rjSe ev TOVTW KaTa/covwv eavrov el yap ol diridria real d/jiapTrj fjiacnv OVTCS ev
yap.

91.

tri

8e

fj.a\ov.

Heracleon

s

own remark on the hour is simple and obvious, when compared with
Hippolytus, Eefut,
/was
/cat

dva.Travfffi api6fj.$, but the stages of All corruption could not be traced.
is

dark,

and we can scarcely hope
er^pav
(fivcriv]

for

(\(/vx^) fffrlv efido-

light.

KaraTrawis.

TOV Ia6vros

is

96.

A

reference

equivalent to TOV

i/a/xi/coC.

Whether
is

probably to Origen
regard to

s

argument with
Heracleon
0i5<rets,

Origen understood this or not

un-

/j.eTapa\eiv.

certain, as his criticism is obscured

would recognize three
panic}), \f/vxucr), v\iicf).

irvev-

by hopeless corruption in the text. Delarue s el r/ x a P OLK1 rlp fc Tai comes from Cod. Fen., but leaves the sentence impossible and unin"

The

dia<j>dopa.

L

<f>vo~is

^VXIKOV cannot take place unless

we

telligible.

It is tempting to suppose that a good deal of the sentence

assume eTtpov viroKeifj-evov which remains while the TrotoTTjres change. This would be to introduce a fourth
<f>v<ns.

may have been

erroneously inserted from the statement of Heracleon s

41.

4.

Airiffria]

Cf.

Excerpt, ex
p.

Theod.
6.

56,

quoted above,

92.

view above, and that Origen may have written some simple sentence

Hilgenfeld s staternent that these words are omitted
i

ev ayvola}

such as

eTi 5

/ma\ov
laOevTos,

i)

(fivcris

x a P ai( Trj

n Cod. Regius appears

to originate
it

TOV

TI

otVet o;

in

the fact that in line 7

omits

96
d(f>0

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

apo~ la ov SvvavTai yeveo 0ai,, TrcG? ol aTroaroXot ev dyvoia Trore KOI ev dirtcnLa teal ev d/jbaprrj/jLao-i, yevo/jievot,

ev d(f)0apo-ia yeyovao-f,
ev aTTiCTTiCi
d<f>0ap(Tia,

;

ovvavTai ovv ol ev dyvoia
yeveo~0ai

teal

/cat

ev

dfiaprrj ^acri yevo/jievoi

ev

i<

el

fj,Ta/3d\oiev, Svvarov avrovs /jLeraj3a\eiv.

42.

Ibid. xix. 4 (R. iv.

302

;

L. n. 180).

Jo.

viii.

22.

^{paK\ewv jJievTOiye 009 n7T\ovo-repov elprj^evov rov MHTI ArroKjeNe? EAYTON (frrjalv on Tlovrjpws Sia^oyi^o/jLevoi ol lov&aioL ravra e\eyov /cal fjuei^ova^ eauroi)? diroo

Kal

(

(^aLvofJbevoi

avrol

fjiev

rov ^wrrjpo^, /cal v7ro\afJLJBdvovre^ on avreXeu aovrat TT^O? rov 6eov et? dvcnravaiv

5

Se ^ayrrfp et? (f)0opdv /cal et9 Bdvarov, eavrov Siaxeipicrd/jLevos, OTTOV eavrovs ov/c e\oyiovTo
alcoviov,
o

d jreelv.
r

aurat? Xefecr/ TOV ^ayrrjpa ol lovSatoi OTL
real

<prjo-tv

OTI

"lovro

\eyeiv
i<

E^yco e/juavrov

Sia^eipi-

ov SvvaaOe eelv.
Jo. viii. 12.
Efoc>

(rd^bevo^ et? (j)0opdv /xeXXw iropeveo-Oat, OTTOV vfjiels ov/c olSa 8e TTCO? /card TOV eljTovra
eiMi

TO

cf)(X)C

TOY KO CMOY

/cal

rd

^579, fjv

\e<yeiv

on Eyw
TOVS
ij

eo-

efJuavTov 6ai. edv Se r^9
Se

o Laxetpio-d/jievos
~h>eyrj

et9 (frOopdv fjie\a) Tropevelprj/cevai

/IT)

TOV %a)Tr)pa TavTa
OTI,

IofSatof9 avTo vTrovevorj/cevat, Srj\ov

epel TOVS lovavrov OTI (j)BelpovTat, ol e 7T(f)povrjfcevai Trepl /cal ovSev TJTTOV eVotet raOra
,,

/cal

/co\ao-0r/0ecr0ai,, OTrep r\v /caTa

TrdvTa

rfki-

0LOV.
15 avro\ aura).
18, 19 Kara.
TTOLVTO. rj\idLOV~\

Ka.Trj\idiov.

the fv of iv

ayvoia,,

8.

fact

which

dpcryuryr?

has led him into a captious
Cf. Fr. 30,
/c.r.X.

Delarue notices.

criticism of Heracleon.
of this

The importance
consists in the fact

fragment that Heracleon s

dyytXiK-riv TLVO.
5.

8vi>a/j.ii>

ava.Tra.v<ni[

interpretation depends on his fundamental error as to Qucris and KaraffKevr)

ctmTrawis

cf.

Irenaeus

For the doctrine of 1 i. 7. Ex;

cerpt. ex Theod. 18, 19.

03, 86.

(see Frag. 17), to

which Origen
(cf.

so often rightly takes exception

is

Fragments
42. 1.

17, 33).

Kar&vrfrrai}X0Mr] As there no authority for the form KCITTJ\ldiov, I have retained the conjecture
of Cod. Venetus.

ctTrXotfo-Te/xw]

This

is

not the
love of

only case in which Origen

s

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

97

43.

Ibid. xx. 8 (R. iv.

316
<u

;

L. n. 211).

TO
(

"On

cret9 el&ayovTWv, KOI et? YIvvuavoi/j,0a & av TWV ra? 6 Adpoc 6 SMOG oy X^P^ ^ N YM?N dTroSiSovrcov Kara

Jo.viii.37.

HpaK\Q)va
rjTOi
5

tear

Ata TOVTO ov )(oope?, OTL dveTTiTrjSeioL, Kar ovaiav, Kara yvw/jLrjv, TTCO? ol dve imr)$eiot, ova lav HKOYCAN HApA roy HArpdc ; a\a /cal jrorepov
O.TL
r

rj

Jo.

viii.

38.

Trore npoBATA OVTOI tfcrav rov XpiarTov, rj aXkorpioi, VTrrjp^ov avrov ; el 8e rjaav aXXorpioi, TTW? HKOYCAN Toy

HApA

o-a^o)?, &)9 otovrai, Xeyofjievov Trpos roi)?

d\orpiov<;

on

HATpdc, Ai A

Jo. viii. 47.

Toyro yMeic OYK AKoyere, on oyK
10

ecre EK TOON npoBATOON TOON

Jo. x. 20.

eMO)N

;

el

fj,r)

(Bd\ov(Ti,,

erepw droTrw eavrovs Trepu\eyovres TTApA pev Toy nATpdc d/cy/coevaL roi)? d/covetis Be rovs avTovs TOVTOVS r) Trapa TOV

apa

6\LJ36fjLevoi

el S* olfceloi,

TOV

S
; ;

avrov AnoKreNAi
Adpoc oyK
10
e
?

xobpei ev

avrols

eavroi)j] eai;Tot)s (sic).

12

7ra/>a]

44.

7M.
ye

xx. 18

(R

iv.

332

;

L. n. 240).

O
e

fjLevroi

HpaKXew

vTroKa^^dvei Kirlav
Jo.
viii.

TOV

AyNACGAi avTOV? AKoyeiN TON I^croO AdfON, TINCOCK6IN aVTOV THN AAAlAN V TO) YMe?C 6K TOy
/jir)

43.

t

s

avTals yovv Xegecrl TTATpoc Toy AiABoAoy ecTe. aTL Be oy AyNAcGe AKOYGIN TON AO TON TON EMO N

AA;
rj

(f>r)<TL

OTL
Jo.
viii.

YMe?c eK Toy TTATpdc Toy AiABoAoy ecTe, dvrl TOV E TOV SiaftoXov; fyavepwv avTols ~^OITTOV
2
43. 4.
lyo-ov] TV.

44.

Kara

yv6/j.r}v]

See below,
t^ets OVK

that verse.
44. 5, 6.

Fr ag.

46.

There are traces of cor-

8, 9.

The words Aid TOVTO

dKoteTe are quoted in Tischendorf s
digest

ruption. Probably Xyei has dropped out somewhere, in consequence of

sage

:

there

on John x. 26 from this pasis no other authority for

the

07/o-i,

without

it

the &vrl TOV can

hardly stand.

them, as forming part of the text of
B.

7

98
rrjv

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

fyv o~ LV avr&v, teal ?T p 0###BOT_TEXT###amp;amp;lt;y 0,9 avrovs, OTL ovre rov A/3pad/jL elai re/cva, ov yap ov e^iffovv avrov, ovre rov Oeov, no ov K r]^airwv avrov. ical el uev TO

10

c

YMe?c eK TOY TTATpoc TO? AiABoAoy ecre e^eoe^aro o$9 ev rot? dvwrepa) $ir)yr)0 d[ji,e6a /cal e\eye Ata TO en vucis eivai eV rov
)

rHa/3oAoi>,

Oy AyNAcGe AKoyeiN TON AofON TON EMON, icav irapea avrov rrjv ^Lr)yri(TLV. vvvl Se 8^7X05 eanv 6/jioovo-iov<;
StaySoXft)
\e<ya)v

rw
air
r)

dvOpwTrovs, ere pa?,
Trap
o?)?

a;?

oiovrai 01

15

avrov,

ovo-las

rvy^dvovn

Ka\ovai

10 o#re] ovd.

13, 14 7rape5ea/ze#a]

15

otoi^rat]

45.

76id. xx. 20 (R. iv.
Hpa/cXeo)!/

337

;

L. n. 250).

Et? ravra Be 6
rfjs

(frrjcrl

TIpos 01)5 o Xo^o? CK
&5?

-ova Las

rov Sia/36\ov
rovrw
JJLOL

r^crav,

erepas

OVO-TJS

T^9

TOU SiafioXov ovo-las rrapd
ofjiOLOv

rrjv

rwv

ayiayv Xoyi/coov ovaiav.
fyaiverat,
teal

$e

ev

TreirovOevai

To3

erepav
5

ovalav (frda/covn

6(f)6a\/jiov

Trapopwvros

erepav op&vros.

46.
Jo.viii.44.

Ibid. xx. 20 (R. IV.

339

;

L. n. 253).

Toaavra KOI irpos rov Upa/cXewvos \oyov etvro^TO? TO EK TOY nATpoc TOY AiABoAoy dvrl rov E/c TT;? ovaias rov
10.

ovdt

must probably be
e/c r?7s

altered

class, different in kind.

It

thus takes

to cure. 45.
1, 2.

ovaias TOV 5ia/J6Xou]

the place usually assigned to the See also Irenaeus, and ExuXt/fT).
cerpta ex Thcod. 48.
3. \O-)IKWI> ova-iav] Cf. Hippolytus s account of the projection of the 70 Xo7oi. It is not necessary to alter the

With this and the preceding fragment we must compare Hipp. Refut. vi. 34,
f- T^S uXtx^s ofo Kal diapoXtKTJs
(rev
^TTOITJ<rw-

6 Arj/juovpy&s ra?s ^uxats ra

/xara,

and

6 u\ix6s,

<t>daprbs,

drAetos,

eK r?75 Stct/SoXi/djs

o^crt as

TrcTrXaff^os.

The

close connection of i/Xt*^
is

and

MS. reading, but it is very probably an error of assimilation (due to the preceding genitive), for \oyucfiv.
46. 2, 3.

exactly reproduced in these fragments of Heracleon, where
diafidXiKr)

the

Sta/3oXtK-77 is

contrasted with the
^VXLKT],

the only reading that will The TOV Trarpos of the MS.

roO 5ta/3oXow] This seems make sense,
is

doubtless

and

as a third

due to the preceding

ex TOV Trarpfa.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Sia/36\ov
Y MOON

99

elpi]o~Qa).

iraKiv els TO TAC eniGyMiAC TOY TTAipdc

OeAere noie?N SmcrreXXerai,

\eywv Toy 8id/3o\ov
KOI
e/jt,(f)alvTat

fjirj

e%eiv 0e\rjina,
ofjio\oyr)o~ai

aAA

eTTiOvfJilas.

avTodev

TO dSiavorjTov TOV yov
e/ceivov.

o~vvd%ei<$

6e\etv yap ra Trovrjpd Tm? av rt? 8e KOI avro?, el KOI eVl TOV
ei

fj

ev Trpo^eipw ov/c e^o/^ev TrapaOeaOai, TO 6e\eiv eVl TOV BiaftoXov rera/CTat.

TTOV ev

Ty

Mera raOra

10 (j)rjo-iv 6

Hpa/cXewv w? apa TaOra eiprjraL ov TT/JO? TOI)? TOV Sia/36\ov viovs TOVS %OIKOV$, d\d Trpos roi)? i/ru^t/coi)?, deaeL vlovs 8ia{36\ov yivo/jievovs, dov Trj (friKrei SvvavTai rtz/e? /cal Oiaet viol deov XP 1!
(frvaei
a^>

KOI ^ai je OTi Hapd TO vyaTT rjKevat. TAC /uLaTiaai. i5eni6yMi Ac TOV 8ia(36\ov teal noie?N Te/cva OVTOL TOV KOI SiaSi,a{36\ov yivovTai, ov (pvaei TOLOVTOI o^re?.

o~Te\Tai

(w?

ovofj,ao~ias,

apa Tp^cS? Sel dfcoveiv Trjs KOLTCL Te/cva TrpwTov SevTepov yvco/jLy
<$>vo~ei,

20

eo~Ti TO yevvrjOev VTTO icvpiws TZKVOV /caXetrat yvw/JLr) Be, ore TO de\rj/jLd r^? TTOIWV rt^o? Sid TT/V eavTov yvw^v, Te/cvov e/celvov ov Troiei TO 6e\r){ia tca\eiTai dlq 8e icaG o \e yovTai rtz^e? peeNNHC T^KVCL KOI CTKOTOVS
/cal
(f>v<76i

dla.

/JLev, (frijcrlv,

yevvrjrov, b

/cai

1

r

Cf.

Mt.

25

Kal dvofjbias, /cal ofyewv /cal e)(iANOC)N reNNHMATA ov yap yevva, (j)rjo~l, TavTa TIVCL TTJ eavTcov (frvaei <f)0opoTrotd yap Kal dva\iaKOVTa TOI)? e/^ySX^^ez^ra? et?

111

go

avTa,

aAA

TWV
30

eLprjTai.
8 av

eVet eirpa^av ra e/celva)v epya Te/cva avTOiavT rjv Be Siao~TO\r)v 5eSa)/c&)? ov8e /caO*
avTOV, OTI
el

OTTOO~OV aTro Toov ypatycov Trape/jLvdrjaaTO Trjv ISlav 8njyr]o~iv.
L7roLf.iev

TT/OO?

/jurj

(frvcrei,

aXX dgla peeN<f)8opo-

NHC Te/cva
2,

ovo/jLa^eTat,

Kal CTKOTOVS Kal avofiias,
.

3 TOV StajSo Xou] rou Trarpoy.

foxo/j.ev (ut videtur).

23 X^yojrat] X^erat.
d|t aj.

6 ddiavoyTOv] diavoyToit 8 ^x /* 61 ] 28, 29 K0.6 birbvov} Kara

rb

iroffov.

30 d|ip]

6.

adiav6tjToi>]

This necessary cor-

25.

rection of his exemplar was made by the scribe of Cod. Venetus. Cod.

subject,

ravra TWO.] ravra of course is Cf. below ovx object.
ru>&

6n yewa

was

6

5td/3oXos.

The

in-

Regius retains the mistake.
23.
X^yoi/Tcu]

sertion of roiaOra (Cod. Venetus after

of Cod. Ven.
alteration.

Here again the scribe has made a necessary

haps

raOra) is not necessary, though perit simplifies the sentence.

72

100
TTOia
Eph.
ii.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

yap ravra
TTCO? 6
;

teal

dva\la/covra
rrov TO
fyr###BOT_TEXT###amp;amp;lt;ii

/JLCI\OV

ijrrep

avvi-

3.

ardvra,

IIo-OXo?
r)

"HM60A (J)Ycei

TGKNA o prfic

obc KAI 01 Aoinoi
/cal

\eyerwaav
OTL

r}fMv

OK

ov/c
rj

eariv dva\a)TL/cbv
fjs

fJidXiara /car

avrov

(f>6opo7roibv

opyr),

TEKNA HMG-

3?

TeKva rov Sta/3oXou vvv \eyei (f)T]crlv ovy on ryevva Tivas o 8ta/SoXo9, X\ on TOUTOf?, TOL epya rov Sta^oXou TTOIOVVTGS ca/jboi,co0 rjo~ap avrq).
0A.

ird\iv

Troao)
Jo.viii.il.

Se

(3e\Tiov irepl irdvTwv

rovro drrofyaivecrOai, w?
al
ls

rwv rov 8ia(36\ov re/cvwv 6/jLot,ovfjL6va)v avrw rcS TToie?N epfA
T<\

40

ov

8ta rrjv

ova lav

/cal

rrjv

KaraaKevrjv

rrjv

eproiN rktcvwv Sta^SoXov
35
i]

32, 33 avvLaravToi] GVVIG* ra (sic).

opyr]

ijs]

rj

opyr/s.

47.
r

Ibid. xx. 22 (R. iv.

345

;

L. n. 264).

Jo.viii. 44.

Hyitet9 /^ev

ov^ w?
rov

(frvaiv

TH AAnGeiA oyK ecTHKeN d/covo/JLev roiavrrjv e^aivovro^, ovSe ro d&vvarov Trepl
N

ovv rov

J

eo-T7)K.vai,

avrov ev d\rjdeia Trapivravres.
(frrjo-i

6

Be

Hpa(frvcris
5

K\ewv
(rrlv

et?

ravra

ro
etc

Ov yap
Sto,

/c

rfjs

d\ri6ei,a<$

^

avrov,

aXX

7r\dvr)S xal dyvoias. deia ovre a%elv ev

rov evavriov rfj d\rj6ela, eic ovre arrival ev d\rj(frrjcrlv,
Svvarai,,
e/c

avrw d\rj6eiav

avrov

<ucrea)5

I$LOV e^cov ro

$vvd/jLv6<;

Trore d\r^6eiav elrrelv.

ifrevSos, (pvaitca)*; \eyeu S on Ov
10

avros tyevarys earlv, d\d /cal 6 irarr/p avrov, i&Utft rrarrjp avrov e/cXa/jiftdvcdv rrjv fyvaiv avrov, erreirrep
ravra 8e o\a TrXdvrjs /cal tyeva yLtaro? aweary, rov $id/3o\ov rravros tyoyov /cal eyKXrj/JLaros teal pverai
IK
os

ou^et?
fir)

yap
6

evy(t)s

dv

tyei;ai

rj

e<y/ca\eaaL

rj

I*/JL-

rw
r)

rre^VKort

rrpos

rd

rcpeirrova.

drv^r)<;

ovv

15

^6ro9

Sm/3oXo5 /card rov HpatcXewvd eariv.
ya^/ii/

2 ou5]

afire.

14, 15

airo]

yu.^ui/

cuTe TO.

16

^e/crds] \{/evKTos

(ut videtur).

35.

ij

dpyrj

fjs]

This emendation

teration of the MS. reading.
41.

the requirement of the context best, while it involves least alsatisfies

naraaKwiv]

Cf. Frag. 33.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
30 (R. 359

101

48.

Ibid. xx.
(

iv.

;

L. n. 290).
Jo.
viii.

l{paK\(DV TO "ECTIN 6 ZHTOON KAI KplNGON OVK dvatyepei eVl rov Trarepa, rotavra \ycov ZHTOON KAI
fieVTOl

O

J

50.

C

TTay/j,evo$,
5

KP/NOON ecrrlv 6 efcSiKtov //,e, 6 inrripeT ris o els rovro o MH GIKH THN MA)(AipAN cbopa>N, 6 EKAIKOC Rom.

xiii.

rov /3ao~tXec)9. M&)<7^9 Be ecmv ouro?, /cada Trpoeielr eVtprjicev avrois \e<ya)v Eic ON YMG?C HAHICATG. on KPI NOON /cal /co\da)V ecrrl Mwcr?;?, TOVeavrov avros 6 vo/jLoOerr)?. /cal fjbera TOVTO 7ra7rope2 6 \ejwv IIcS? ovv ov \e*yei THN U.paK\ecoi>
7rpo<$
<

Jo. v. 45.

10

Kpl

dN

TTACAN

rrjv dv0V7ro(j)opdv

TTdpaSeSo aQa i aVTW ; KCLL ravrd $r)(ri- Ka\co9 \ejei,

VOfjU<OV

\V6iV

6

yap

/c/otr?)?

co? VTrrjpeTrjs

TO 6e\rnjba rovrov TTOLCOV tcpivei, oacnrep
dvdpa)7ra)i>

Kal
15

eirl

ru>v

fyaLverai, yivo/jievov.

TTCO?

Se

d\(o Tivl dvaridycri
icaO o
vofJLi^ei, TCO

rrjv icpicriv co?

vTroSeearepw rov
ovrco aTroSet^at
Jo. v. 22.
Jo. V. 27.

ArjjAiovpyw, ouS

TOV OyAe r^p o nATHp KpiNei oyAeNA AAAA cra<^&)9 yeypa/A/jievov THN KplCIN HACAN AeAOOKG TO) Y Ka^ T V EloyCIAN eAOOKGN
<V

AYTOJ Kpi ciN noie?N, OTI YIOC ANGpobnoY ECTIN.
5 OUTOS] OI/TWS.

49.
f

CLEM. ALEX. Edog. Prophet.

25, p.

995

(ed. Potter).
Cf. Mt.
T.
3.

Io)rti/^9 (jyrjalv oTt Erob MEN Y^AC Y AATI BATTTI ZOO, epxeTAi MOY dnicoo o BAHTI ZOON ^M^C eN HNEYMATI KAI nypi. Trvpl Be ovBeva efidTTTia-ev. evtoi Be, W9 ^aiv HpafcXewv, rd

O

iii.

Ae

111.

Trvpl

cara
5

rwv

cr<ppayi%oiuLei>a)v

Karecrr)fj,TJvavTO,

TO

a7rO<TTO\LKOl

.

4

KO.Twrnj.riva.vTo] KI

48. 6. ijXTrtVaTe] No authority for the aorist in the text of S. John is

indeed, we may see a reference to this identification in the words atfrds
6 vofj-oOfrys.

quoted by Tischendorf.

ry A-r)/j.iovpy$] Apparently Heracleon must have spoken of Moses
15.

49.1.

It is

not easy to determine
is

how much

of Heracleon

embodied

as a type of the Demiurge. Origen has refuted more of Heracleon s com-

in this section of Clement.

ments, than he has quoted: unless,

It seems 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).
6 rfjs

Tovrov efyyovfAevos rov TOTTOV HpatcXewv,
rivov 0-^0X179
So/ayu,a>TOT09,

OvaXev-

/card \efyv
teal

(fyr)<riv

elvat rrjv pels ev
(frcovf).
77

rfj

iriareL
(jxovf)

vroXtreta, n)v Se ev

/juev

ovv ev
fjv

6fjLO\oyia /cal eTrl
ffnprlv,

rwv eov5

criwv yiverai,,
r

fjbovrjv,

elvai ol TroXXot,
6fjLO\o

ou^ vyi&s.

o^o\oyiav yyovvrai, Svvavrai 8e ravrrjv rrjv

yiav /cal ol VTro/cpiral 6/jio\oy6iv, aXX o08 evpeOijaerai OUTO? o Xo70? /ca^oXt/ca)? eipijpivos ov yap Trai/re? OL ato^opevoi a)/jLO<yr)o~av TTJV Bid rrj^
6/jio\oylav ical ef;r}ov, 6%
ctfyu-a?,
r

Aeul?

/cat

wv Margate?, aXXot TroXXot. /cat ecmv
^>t-

10

ta T179 fywvrjs 6fjLO\oyia ov
T;I/ z^Oz/

/ca0o\itcr) 8e,
/eaTaXX>;Xot9

\eyei, rr}v ev

rj9
real

et9
J]

avrov
rj

7rio~Te
eTrl

rfj

6/Jio\o<yia

fjt,epi/crj

rwv

e^ovcriwv, edv

oerj 15

Xo709 aipfj. 6fjio\oyTJo-ei yap ovros opOws Trpoo fJio\oyr)O as Trporepov rfj 8iaOeo~ei.
/cal 6

ical rfj cfxovf),

/cal

/caXco9 eTrl roov 6/jLO\oyovvra)v,
1 T07TOI
]

N

eMo

i

elirev,

eTrl

Se

.TpOTTOV.

mentioned by Heracleon. If not, the sentence which immediately follows
in the Eclogae

overlooked the fact that a confession

which involves the penalty of death
is

must be
it

his citation
iii.

a sufficient test of sincerity.

The

of a divergent version of Matt.

10.

history of North Africa however

may

On

the whole however
it

natural to refer
self,

seems more Clement himas also the remainder of the
to

possibly justify Heracleon s opinion. It may be well to state that we

section,

though

it

might possibly be

regarded as containing Heracleonic

We can hardly therefore quote the continuation of this passage as proof that Heracleon read diadoctrine.
Kadapat.

have no evidence, besides that contained in the words TQVTOV ^Tjyov/j-evos rbv r6irov, as to whether Heracleon wrote a Commentary on S. Luke.

The

MS. reading rpbirov is interesting,

but, as in

Clement a long quotation
it

immediately precedes the words,

For the text of Fragments 49 and 50 I have collated the Florence MS. of Clement s Stromateis and Eclogae,

must be merely a
rbirov.

scribe s error for

11.

Aeins]

For the early distinction
cf.

and noted
50. 1.

its

variants in the digest.

of

Levi from Matthew,
i.

Clement, after quoting this

Celsum

62,

unless

Origen c. indeed the

passage, expresses his approval of it, only remarking that Heracleon has

reading mentioned there by Origen is a variant for OaSScuoj (Me. iii. 18).

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

103

TWV
10 rf)

dpvovfjievcov, TO Eiwe
(f)Q)vfj

TT

pocreOij/cev.

ovrot yap KCLV

6fjio\oyijcrc0o~iv

rrpd^ei
yovcriv

(Mr)

avTov, dpvovvrai avrov rrj 6 /jLO\oyovvTe<;. ev avra) O/JLO\O/JLOVOI,
6"

ol
,

ev ev

rf)

ot?

avrov 6/jLO\oyta ical rrpd^ei Kal avros ojjbo\o yel eveu\r] fi/uLevos
icar
r

25

Kal e^o/jievo^ VTTO TOVTWV. StoTrep ApNHCAcOAi EAYTON ovSeTTore AY NATAI* dpvovvrai 8e avrov ol /j,rj ov ydp elwev Oc ApNHCGTAi ev epol oz/re? ev avra).
aA-X,

2 Tim.

ii.

EMe.

ov8el<>

ydp

TTOTG

wv

ev

avrw dpvelrai
1

aw"EMrrpocGeN TOON ANGpoanooN, teal rwv ^ofjievwv real rwv eOviKWv Be o/u/otco?, Trap ol? fjiev Kal 30 rfj 7ro\LTeia Trap ol? Be Kal ry fywvfj. SioTrep A PNHavrov.
TO Be
)

CAcGAi
ol
fjurj

avrov ovBeTTore Bvvavrai, dpvovvrai, Be avrov ovres ev avrw. Tavra pev 6 HpaK\eo)v.
c

24 avrols] aurous.

51.

PHOTIUS Ep. 134 (cd. Rich. Moritacutius), rrpwroarcaOapiw Kal Trpwrovorapia) TO e rrlK\ rjv Xpucror

(Ep. GO, ed. Baletta).

OvBe yap
Ae
KAI

efi vftpei Kal Bia(3o\y rov vofiov TO
Ai

H

X^P IC Jo

-

17

-

AAnGeiA

lucoy
(

Xpicroy

ereNeio

rot?

e 1)^776 A, t/cot?

Oecr/jLois

TrepL^p/jLoaev.

^paK\ewv yap dv OUTW?

eirroi

Kal

ol
51.
1.

I

have given the
is

full title,

interesting, as extreme

antagonism
(see

to

as

irpuTo<nra.Odpios

not sufficiently

the law does not seem to have been
characteristic of

distinctive as a description of the recipient of an Epistle from Photius.

him

Frag. 20j.

The same

letter is also

found in his
is

Perhaps his followers may have developed this line of Gnosticism more
than their master.

Amphilochia, 246. This reference to Heracleon 3.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
A.

HERACLEON AND VALENTINUS.

of Valentinus offer some points of comparison with those with regard to language and terminology, which can be most conveniently discussed in an Additional Note. I follow the order in which these of Heracleon, especially

The extant Fragments

Fragments are given in Hilgenfeld s collection (Ketzcrgeschichte, p. 293), and have adopted his text where I quote from them. I have also given references to the pages of Potter s edition of Clement of Alexandria.
1. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 8, p. 448. Valentinus is speaking of the terror which came upon the Angels (of the Demiurge) at the utterances of the man whom These were due to Him who had placed they had created (e/cetVov TOV irXda-fj-aros).

in

man

avuOev oimas).

the seed of the higher essence (5ta rbv dopdrws ev aJry 0-n-^p/m.a deduKora TTJS Compare Heracleon s explanation of the forty and six years
iJXrjv

(Frag. 16), ryv

TCVTGTL rb
dt

7r\a<r//,a...T6

fr

r<

e/u.<f)vo"r)/j,aTt

airpfj.a.

Heracleon
36,
ot

has retained the terminology of his master.
rrjs
oiKOi>o[j.las

With the Angels compare Frag.
;

ayye\oi,

uv us peaLT&v

effwapr) Kal dverpdcpr).

Valentinus goes on to

speak of an "Kvdpu-jros in whose name Adam was formed this may perhaps throw some light on the important position assigned to "AvOpurros in Heracleon s account
of the
2.

two

viol

TOV avdpuirov (Frag. 35).

Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 20, p. 488. The expulsion of every evil spirit from the heart of man reminds us of Heracleon s interpretation of the words #7X0? TOV
OIKOV ffov
KaTa<pdyeTat fj.e

as being spoken

e/c
:

Trpoauirov

rdv ixpXrietvTuv Ka
vvfipij;bvTuv

TWV
fj-iais

virb

rov ZWTTJ/JOS dvrdficvr (Frag. 14)
s

and with the words
life of

compare Heracleon

description of the former

the Samaritan

woman,
daipbvuv

Kal ddeTovfji&r) Kal tyKaTa.Xenrofj.tvr] (Frag. 18).

On

Tro\wi>

see the note on Frag. 20 (p. 77). Clem. Alex. Strom, in. 7, p. 538. The Docetism of this Fragment should be compared with Heracleon s teaching on the pp&fj.a toiov of the Lord (Frag. 31), and the healing of the Euler s son (Frag. 40) but the question of Heracleon s Docetism has been discussed in the Introduction (p. 46).
3.
;

4.

children over
t^vrj.

iv. 13, p. 603. With alwvios and the victory of its compare Frag. 17 cu wnos yap ij fay avrov Kal wdtiroTe The distinction between /cooyxos and in the last sentence of Valentinus,
<f>eopa,

Clem. Alex. Strom,

^

<j>deipo-

KT[<TIS

orav yap rbv

fitv

Kbo^ov \vrjre, avrol de

w

Kara\v-r}crde, Kvpievere TTJS

KTiVews

/cat

T^S

0^opas

explained by Frag. 20, where Heracleon speaks of the K6o>tos as the world of the Devil, and connects Krt with the /CT/CTTT/S or Demiurge, whom the
aTraff-rjs,

is

<rts

Jews worshipped.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
5.

105
of Valentinus

Clem. Alex.
eXarruv

ibid.

As
it

this is the

most important Fragment
full.

in the present connexion,
Orroffov
17

may

be well to quote his words in
rov irpoffutrov

eiKUv TOU favros

6 KOfffJ.os rov irpoffwirov, roffovrov rjffffwv
TrapeffXTj/J-evov

favros

alwvos.

T^J ovv alria rrjs eiicbvos; fj-eyaXufffyrj
rifj-r/drj

rbv TUTTOV, iva

5i

6v6fj.aros avrov.
TrXdcret.

ov

yap

avOevriK<2s

evptdr)

Ty faypdcpy dXXa rb [j.op(pri,
els wiffrtf

6vo/j.a eir\ripuo~ev

rb vffreprjo av ev

ffvvepyel 5e

/cat

T6 TOU deov doparov
of the
is

Here

6 /coc^os is

used in

its

wider sense.

The meaning

Fragment must

be that as the likeness

is inferior to

the living person, so

by the Demiurge)

less
;

cause of the copy

than the living Aeon. The and the name of the archetype supplies what

the world (created greatness of the archetype is the
is

deficient

The use of aluv, contrasted with KOOTXOJ, recalls Heracleon s usage of in the copy. the word, as equivalent to the Pleroma, or more generally, the spiritual sphere see Fragg. 1, 18 and 22. Compare especially the phrases in 22, 6 ev aluvi. /ecu ol avv awry
;

e###BOT_TEXT###oWes and

tireiTrep

eiKoves OVTOI

(sc.

ol

louScuot)

TUV

ev rip TrX^pci^art

aury

elvai

The terminology which Clement uses in his explanation of this Fragment of Valentinus is of more importance. His interpretation of it appears to be as follows = the Demiurge, Sophia s created to give glory to the Father TO $&v rj eiK&v
;

Tr\d<rfj,a

:

the Father, the True God: furypa0os Sophia. iTpoffwirov inferior to the Father, so is the /coov/os to the living Aeon.]
ei>6s,

=

=

[As the Demiurge

is

The Demiurge is an The offspring of dKwv (of the Father) as being dirb the production of Sophia. The next a ffvfvyia. are not ei/coi/ej but TrX^pw/iara (cf. Excerpta ex Theud. 32). sentence is hardly intelligible. But the words TO e^varnj.a rov diafiepovros Trvev/j.aros, rr} tyvxy, shew great similarity of substance 7) e/c /tceo-oTTjTos ^vx~n, and o with the teaching of Frag. 16 and the use of Tr\r}pw/M immediately recalls Hera It 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 misunder stands. But if it is so, some of Heracleon s most peculiar terminology was derived
e/j.iri>eirai

;

from his master.
6.
<rla

Clem. Alex. Strom,
(cf.

vi. 6, p.

767.

to the irvev^ariKol

Frag. 25
is

for

comparison, and the same

Beyond the implied restriction of r/ e/c/cXTjFragment offers no further points the case with the remaining Fragments of
etc.) this

Valentinus.

Thus a

detailed comparison of the language used by Heracleon

and Valentinus

reveals linguistic affinities which thoroughly agree with the supposition adopted in the Introduction (p. 38) that Heracleon did not materially alter the system of

Valentinus.

B.

THE EXCERPTA EX THEODOTO.

collate the

was in Florence last December (1890), I made use of the opportunity to two Fragments of Heracleon which are contained in the Stromatcis and Eclogae Proplictlcae of Clement, and also the whole of the Exccrpta ex Theodoto. As I have had occasion to quote the Excerpta frequently in my notes I have thought it worth while to append in an additional note the few variants which Dindorf has

When

I

106
not noticed in his digest.
tically all the variants

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
But he has either adopted in his text or noticed prac from Migne s text which are of any value.

C.

ON THE TEXT

OF FRAGMENT

24.

To judge from the

of the latter part of this

conjectural emendations which have been suggested, the text fragment offers a problem of great difficulty. The attested

text of the sentence beginning

AXX

oi>x

bp&viv

is

as follows
/cat

:

AXX

oi/x

bpuaiv (12)

6Vt iravTos (13)

TUV O.VT&V deKTixbv.

It is important to start from this, as all conjectural restorations seem to have been based upon the words T&V ivavTiuv, which have no manuscript authority

whatever, and are only a guess of the "emendator" in the margin of the Bodleian, and is certainly later than who introduces his suggestions with the word
f<rws,

the other emendator,

who

uses the word

Tdx.

Origen s argument seems to be as follows. Is it not dVe/3es to call the spiritual worshippers, whom Heracleon lias just called adulterers (in that he has just said that the Samaritan woman Trpeiy-tart/dys (pixreus oCcra has committed adultery), b/moovffioi

TiKT)

with God? Heracleon and his followers do not see that, etc. But if the Trvevfj-abeing oyuootfcrios with God could commit adultery, impious deductions
(pv<Tis

follow

from their argument concerning God.

The impious deduction

is

clearly

something equivalent
Heracleon, that

to dexerai 6 0eos rd iropvevaai..

God and
:

the

Tn>v/j.a.TiKoi

Origen refutes the position of are bfj-ooixrioi, by a reductio ad absurdum

through two syllogisms
(1)

major. minor.

(?)

(2)

major. minor.

are God and the Tn/ev/um/cT? are rwv Se/cTi/cd. God and the irv. God and the irv. (pvais are TWV avTwv SCKTIKO. The irv. 0iVu eSeaTo TO TropvevaaL God dtx eTai T b iropvevffai: (for if the irv.
(f>v<ri$

6/xoo;<rta

:

0y<rts

O.VTUI>

:

.

(pu<r.

e5^aTo, then

it is

SKTIKOV of that which

This seems to be the
cisely in Origen,

strict

argument, though of course

it is

stated

more con

some

of the terms being suppressed.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

107

The only major which will suit the 1st syllogism seems to be TO, b TO buoovaiov /ecu TW O.VTUV avTdv deKTiKa. I would therefore propose to read, This preserves the TUV O.VTUV which is attested by all the MSS., ruv lva.vSe/cri/coi rLwv having, as was noticed before, no MS. authority. s Ferrarius gave up the sentence as hopeless, and does not translate it (see Huet that of edition Delarue has here apparently introduced his own translation into words (d ot e5ta.To...0eov) Quod si Ferrarius). His (?) translation of the following
llai>

.

:

naturam quae sit eiusdem essen[Heracleon ac sui sequaces] admiserint spiritualem tiae [cum divina et undequaque beata natura ut ipsi tradunt] meretricari, profana
sense of the sentence, impia et irreligiosa sequuntur rationem ipsorum, gives the 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
et

hands

:

"Codd.

leianus habet

Bodl. et Barb. eKTreiropvevKevai. Regius ireiropvevKevcu, Mox Codex BodiravTos TUV ivavr uav /ecu TUV AXX bpuxnv oi ravra X^yoires, on
"

oi>x

Ei 5e tS^aro TO iropvevcrai rj irvev/j-aTLKr] 0i;cris, bfj.oov<nos ovaa. TTJ ayevModo pro /ecu TWV O.VTUV legas vrfry cbocria &c. sicque sanitati omnia restituuntur.
O.VTUIV dcKTiKov.
Ko.1

TO

ai/ro."

Codex Eegius reads eKTre-n-opvevKevaL.
Bodleian MS. are
set

All the marginal suggestions of the

they occurred in its original text. How omnia sanitati restituuntur by reading Tb avrb for ruv afiruv I cannot God and the Tn/eu^ari/cr) 05(ris would hardly even by the impious Heracleon see.
as
if

down

be called Tb

The point is not that r6 avri is SeKTUcbv TUV ivavrtuv. The only cu5r6. deduction from this and the following sentence would be that God being (?) identical
with the
I
n-i evfj.a.TtKr]
fj.i)
0tf<s

is

suppose TO

Tropvevffcu,
irv.
(j>v<ris,

that

God and
KO.I

the

is capable of, i.e. capable of contrary things to what it which deduction is not av6ffiov. The point is rather TUV O.VTWV Se/cri/cd. Sense can be b/j.oov<ria, are

being

Hilgenfeld, on iravTos KoXoO TO The argument would then be I suppose some what as follows. T6 Trj/eO^a is not deKTiKov of good and evil at the same time. The Trvfv/ji.aTi.KTi (pfots tS^aro Tb KaKov: therefore it cannot 6^x eo at T Kav: and therefore God, being 6/uoownos with it, is not 5e/cn/c6s TOV KO\OV, and is therefore

extracted from Grabe
irvfvfji.a

s

conjecture, adopted by

TUV ivavTiwv ov deKTtKov.

"^

dfKTiKbs

TW

fravTtuv

i.e.

of evil.

But the objections
(/3)

to
It

it

are insuperable:

(a)

It

makes Origeu
from the MSS.

guilty of unparalleled obscurity.
(7)
It is

has no support whatever based on the unfortunate conjecture TUV evavrlwv. (8) It
(e)

would require TOV

ivavTlov.

It

makes

rb

Trvev/J.a

=

ri

wvevfj-aTiKj]

<pfais.

INDEX OF PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED, EX PLAINED, OR REFERRED TO BY HERACLEON.
The figures
refer to
the

number of

the page.
is

Square brackets have been
doubtful.

iiscd

where the reference

Gen.
[Ps.

vi.

2

93
79]

Jo.

iv.

16

73

f.

xix. (xviii.) 5
Ixix. (Ixviii.)
i.

17 18
f

74 75 76 78
f.

Ps.
Is.

10

69

2,

4

93
93
92]
69]

20
22

f

v.l, 2 [xxv. 8
[Jer.
vii.

23

80

11

24

79,81
82
83

[Ezek. xxxiv. 16 iii. 11 [Mt.

80]

101]

2527 2831
32-34
35 36 37 38
f

Mt.

viii.

12

93

84

ix.

37 28
11

86
92

86
87
f.

x.
xi.

58

88 89 90
91 91

xxi. 13
xxiii. 15,

69
33 99

40
42

xxv. 1
[Lc.
iii.

84
101]

16

46

Lc.

vii.

26 28

65 58

4749 5053
54
v.

92
93 92
101

xii.

811
50,

102

xix. 10

80 80

45
12 21
ff

Jo.

i.

3
4.

viii.

95 95

f.
f.

f
f

37

97 97
97, 98,

43

44
47

100
97
101 79
72]

50
Horn.
i.

25
15 21
4

[v.
vi.

92
101

14f.

68 70

f.

xiii.

17

69
f.

1 Cor. x. 5

79
f.

19
iv.

f.

xv. 53

92 89

11 14 15

84 72
f.

Gal.

iii.

19

2Tim.ii. 13

103
,...68

...73

Heb.

ix.

7

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS IN THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
The figures refer
to the

number and

line of the

Fragments.

110

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
xaeo\iK6s 40, 5
/ca0oXi/c<2s
;

Ill

50, 12

77

2,
s,

7
irpurij 2, 6

50, 8

/co/efa

13,

30

;

18,
;

24

;

20, 9

48, 5

KaTapatveiv 11, 3 KaraXetTretz/ 27, 3
/caraXXr/Xos 17,

40, 31

va6s 16, 6
;

30

50, 14
;

?KOS 40,
;

20
;

KaraffKevd^eiv 5, 79

13, 31

1C, 5

voelv 1,
vo/j.ifj.os

35

8,

36

;

13, 6

;

22, 8

;

35, 17

KaraaKfvri 33, 8

18, 10

Kare###BOT_TEXT###elv

8,

29

;

11, 5
;

;

40, 50
j/6/xoj
j/6<ros

KaQapvaovfj. 11, 4
jrf/>5os

40, 6

20, 10

;

40, 25

13,

16
13,
;

40, 32

Kepfj.a.Ti<TTr)s

14

KX77<r

13, 5

27, 1C

#vos

13,

16

KOivbrepov 5, 70

^Xoi/ 13, 26
68r)ye ia dcu 39, 5

KoXdfriv 48, 7
/coTriaj/

36, 6

LOTTOS (?) 36,

9
;

otVaos 5, 27
18, 8
;

;

23, 6

;

40,

49

17, 4
1,

27, 21
;
;

oiK(i<i)s

40, 21 20, 9

3

;

8,
;

2

27, 6

;

31, 9

18, 20 11, 5 37, 2 ; 40, 43
;

20, 7

olK-rjrripiov

oiKovofjua 8,

32

;

11, 2

;

ot r?}s oiV.

n6s 10, 10
6,

36, 7
22, 8
;

10
22, 19
;

20, 11

4, 7

;

8,

38; 19,2; 26, 5; 50, 7

20, 11
is

22,

20

o/j.o\oyia 50, 2
ovofioffia 46,

13, 29
,

18

20
19, 13
;

opos 20, 6
oi)(rfa

43, 4

;

44, 7

;

45, 2

;

46, 2

\arpeia 13, 18
Aevis 50, 11

;

;

24, 10
;

ojis 46, 24

\arpe6ew 20, 14
Aevlni* 13, 10 AeiuTi/c6s 5, 63
X<ts

21, 24

22, 19 Traces 12, 2
;

38, 4

Travovpyia 6, 10
,

7

8,

38 23 10
;

10, 8
ia 27, 7
(?) 2,

\ivov 13,

Xo7i/c6s 24,

8

X67os, 6 1, 7; 5, 6

22, 7

;

33, 8

;

44, 5

;

45, 1

irepurabrepov 10, 4

(jt-aprvpia,

dvOpwirlvr) 39, 7

Ittrpos 21, 22 irXavdv 22, 17
Tr\dvr) 22,

Mcrrflcuos 50,
fj.dxa.ipa
M<?7e0os

10

16
7

;

23, 6

;

24, 9

;

47, 6

48, 4
8,

7rXeur/*a 16,

29
12

TrX^pw/xa 13, 11
7rXi7(TiafetJ>

;

18, 5

;

22, 10

/iept*6s 50,

18,

25
;

36, 7
r

Tn/eu/io 13,

6

17,

13

;

24, 8

;

27, 7

;

r6

40, 7

#7-

TTV.

13, 22
;

fj.Ta.pd\eiv, see 40,
/xera/SoXiJ 5,

68

vveviM.TiK&s 2, 3 24, 15
;

15, 4

;

20, 15

;

23, 12

;

30 28

37, 3

/ierar^/u

5,

Tri/eu/ian/cws 24,
TroXtret a 50, 3
7roXtTei5fcr0at 40,

6

34, 3
37, 5

44

112
5,

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
61
rerpas 16, 8
eti/

vorqpfa 40, 56 Trovrjpuis 42, 2
TropeveaOai,
et s
<p8opav

36, 12
;

11, 6

13, 3

;

17, 39

;

6 virep TOV T.

42, 10

vids a.v6p(j}irov 35,

14

TrpeirovTws 19, 8

Tp67ros 40,

39
13, 27

irp^arov 10, 7 7rp65po/xos 8, 22
Trp6vaos 13, 9

;

12, 3

;

13, 13

Tpo<f>ri

31, 5
12, 2
;

TI^TTOS

wpoa-dyeiv 27, 8
TrpotrS^-xfffdai. 25,
7rpo<r5oKai>

vdpla 27, 1

2

0X77 16,

7; 20, 8; 21, 23; 23, 6; 36, 13;
13, 2

26, 4

40, 8
;

irp6<TKaipos

17, 2
5,

40, 3

Wu/cos 11, 5
vTrrjpecria. 8,

;

;

18,

24

62
14, 2
;

26

8,

35
5,

;

40, 22

virrjptrris

48, 12

80
;

VTToppT)KU)S 40, 7

,

8

5,

39

;

10, 3

;

19, 3

vir6Swa

8,

30
7

7T/)o0?7Ti/c6s, Trp.

rats

5,

8

VTTOKplTrjS 50,

vTTOTi6e(T0ai 40,
2a/i/>eia

13

26, 7; 28, 2; 31, 8
(pavepovv 44, 7

us 24, 6
22, 16
13,
<TKa\eiv
;

aap/ca Xa/Setj/ 8,

30

^apurcuoi

6,

10

;

7,

5

24
5

36, 12

00apr6s 40, 18 17, 16
,

ffKevos 27,

10
13, 17

O-KOTOS 46,

23

00opo7roi6s 46, 25
<pL\apyvpia

16, 4
2,

7

;

35, 2

;

36, 8
;

50,

10

16, 10; 35, 3; 36, 5 13,

40, 56
?7

o/ 13, 19
5,
cDs

28

64
47, 8

31, 3

31, 10
ai>ij.fio\ov

17, 31; 19, 8; 23, 12; 24, 2; 33,

13,

10
20, 17

9; 37, 5; 40, 10; 44, 8; 46, 11

;

47, 4

<rvfjL7rapa\a.fji,(3di>eij>

0amayx6s

2,

8

<TVfJ.TT\^KlV

18, 25

o-vvapid/j-elv 20,

18

35, 2

avviardvat 46, 32
ffwrypia 13,

X apa
22,

35, 12
5,

12

;

7

;

33, 7

;

34, 4

;

42

;

40, 46

40, 17
crc^et* 31,

13,

23
11

7

;

40, 50

;

50, 9

Xot/c6s 46,

13, 18

rais

5,

8; 40, 48 30, 3
10, 9

46, 13

47, 8
\f/evfffj.a

35, 12
,

47, 12 47, 10

26
32, 4

rAos

40,

24

27, 8

;

32, 6
;

;

35, 18
;

;

40, 14

13, 3
c.
j.

37, 4

46, 12

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY

CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT TIIE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

111.

The following numbers
Vol.
I.

of the series are
:

now published
by
J.
5s. net.

:

No.

1.

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES
M.A.
:

with an Appendix by THE EDITOR.
S.

REXDEL HARRIS,
Appendix
4s. net.

No.

2.

THE PASSION OF

PERPETUA,
:

with an

on the Scillitan Martyrdom
No.
3.

by THE EDITOR.

THE LORD S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH
by
F.

:

H. CHASE, B.D.

5s. net.

X<>.

4.

THE FRAGMENTS OF
BROOKE, M.A.
4s. net.

HERACLEON

:

by

A.

E.

A
of the

separate

title

page for binding
4).

is

issued with the last

number

volume (No.

The
Vol. II.

following
No.
1.

is

nearly ready:
:

A STUDY OF CODEX BEZAE
is

by

J.

RENDEL HARRIS, M.A.

The following

in course of preparation

:

THE TKSTAMKXT OF ABRAHAM:

by M. R. JAMES, M.A. with an Appendix containing Translations from the Arabic of the
:

Testaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by

\V.

K.

BAKXKS, M.A.

University of Toronto

Library

DO NOT REMOVE THE CARD
FROM
THIS

POCKET
Acme
Library Card Pocket
"Ref.
Ffle"

Pt Index Made by LIBRARY BUREAU
Under