Irenaeus: Against Heresies, Books I–V

Metropator, as proceeding only from his mother Achamoth: Apator, as having no male progenitor.

Harvey remarks, “The Valentinian Saviour being an aggregation of all the æonic perfections, the images of them were reproduced by the spiritual conception of Achamoth beholding the glory of Σωτήρ . The reader will not fail to observe that every successive development is the reflex of a more divine antecedent.”

The relation indicated seems to be as follows: Achamoth, after being formed “according to knowledge,” was outside of the Pleroma as the image of Propator, the Demiurge was as Nous, and the mundane angels which he formed corresponded to the other Æons of the Pleroma.

“Achamoth by these names must be understood to have an intermediate position between the divine prototypal idea and creation: she was the reflex of the one, and therefore masculo-feminine ; she was the pattern to be realized in the latter, and therefore was named Earth and Jerusalem .” — Harvey .

But after the consummation here referred to, Achamoth regained the Pleroma: see below, chap. vii. 1.

Isa. xlv. 5, 6 , Isa. xlvi. 9 .

An account is here given of the infusion of a spiritual principle into mankind. The Demiurge himself could give no more than the animal soul; but, unwittingly to himself, he was made the instrument of conveying that spiritual essence from Achamoth, which had grown up within her from the contemplation of those angels who accompanied the Saviour.

Matt. v. 13, 14 .

“The doctrine of Valentinus, therefore,” says Harvey, “as regards the human nature of Christ, was essentially Docetic. His body was animal , but not material , and only visible and tangible as having been formed κατ’ οἰκονομίαν and κατεσκευασμένον ἀῤῥήτῳ τέχνῃ .”

[That is, carnal ; men of the carnal mind, psychic instead of pneumatic . Rom. viii. 6 .]

On account of what they had received from Achamoth.

Gal. v. 21 .

Comp. Luke xix. 26 .

Comp. John xvii. 16 . The Valentinians, while in the world , claimed to be not of the world , as animal men were.

Their spiritual substance was received from Achamoth; their animal souls were created by the Demiurge. These are now separated; the spirit enters the Pleroma, while the soul remains in heaven.

Viz., Achamoth.

A Syriac fragment here reads, “He spake by the prophets through him.”

“Thus,” says Harvey, “we may trace back to the Gnostic period the Apollinarian error, closely allied to the Docetic, that the body of Christ was not derived from the blessed Virgin, but that it was of heavenly substance, and was only brought forth into the world through her instrumentality.”

By thus extending himself through Stauros, who bounded the Pleroma, the Christ above became the type of the Christ below, who was extended upon the cross.

Billius, following the old Latin version, reads, “They interpret many things, spoken by the prophets, of this seed.”

Such appears to be the meaning of this sentence, but the original is very obscure. The writer seems to refer to the spiritual, the animal, and the material classes of men, and to imply that the Demiurge supposed some prophecies to be due to one of these classes, and some to the others.

Matt. viii. 9 ; Luke vii. 8 .

As was the case at first, in Adam.

Literally, “reading from things unwritten.”

Luke viii. 41 .

1 Cor. xv. 8 .

1 Cor. xi. 10 . Irenæus here reads κάλυμμα , veil , instead of ἐξουσίαν , power , as in the received text. [An interesting fact, as it betokens an old gloss, which may have slipped into the text of some ancient mss. ]

Matt. xxvii. 46 .

Matt. xxvi. 38 .

Matt. xxvi. 39 .

John xii. 27 . The Valentinians seem, for their own purposes, to have added οὐκ οἶδα to this text.

Luke ix. 57, 58 .

Luke ix. 61, 62 .

Luke ix. 60 .

Luke xix. 5 .

1 Cor. xv. 48 .

1 Cor. ii. 14 .

1 Cor. ii. 15 .

Rom. xi. 16 .

Luke xv. 4, 8 .

Luke ii. 28 .

Luke ii. 36 .

Luke vii. 35 .

1 Cor. ii. 6 .

Eph. v. 32 .

John i. 1, 2 .

John i. 3 .

John i. 3, 4 . The punctuation here followed is different from that commonly adopted, but is found in many of the Fathers, and in some of the most ancient mss.

Eph. v. 13 .

John i. 5 .

ὑπ’ αὐτῆς , occurring twice, is rendered both times in the old Latin version, “ab eis.” The reference is to σκοτία , darkness , i.e., all those not belonging to the spiritual seed.

Comp. John i. 14 .

This is parenthetically inserted by the author, to show the misquotation of Scripture by these heretics.

These words are wanting in the Greek, but are inserted in the old Latin version.

It is difficult to give an exact rendering of μελετᾶν in this passage; the old Lat. version translates it by meditari , which Massuet proposes to render “skilfully to fit.”

Tertullian refers ( Præscrip. Hær. ) to those Homeric centos of which a specimen follows. We have given each line as it stands in the original: the text followed by Irenæus differs slightly from the received text.

Literally, “immoveable in himself,” the word ἀκλινῆ being used with an apparent reference to the original meaning of κανόνα , a builder’s rule .

The meaning of the word ἀπολύτρωσις here is not easily determined; but it is probably a scenic term equivalent to ἀπόλυσις , and may be rendered as above.

[The Creed, in the sublime simplicity of its fundamental articles, is established; that is, by the impossibility of framing anything to take their place.]

“ Of God” is added from the old Latin

Eph. i. 10 .

Phil. ii. 10, 11 .

Eph. vi. 12 .

Probably referring to the Churches in Palestine.

The text here is ἀρκουμένους τούτους , which is manifestly corrupt. Various emendations have been proposed: we prefer reading ἀρκούμενος τούτοις , and have translated accordingly.

Rom. xi. 32 .

Irenæus here reads πάντα instead of πάντας , as in Text. Rec. of New Testament.

εὐχαριστεῖν — this word has been deemed corrupt, as it certainly appears out of keeping with the other verbs; but it may be rendered as above.

1 Cor. xv. 54 .

Hos. ii. 23 ; Rom. ix. 25 .

Isa. liv. 1 ; Gal. iv. 27 .

Rom. xi. 33 .

That is, the first of the two or three here referred to, not the first of the Gnostic teachers, as some have imagined. [The Gnosticism of one age may be essentially the same in spirit as the Agnosticism of another.]

Viz., all outside of the Pleroma.

Corrected from Ecclesia in the text.

Some have supposed that the name of this teacher was Epiphanes , and that the old Latin mistakenly translates this by clarus ; others think that Colorbasus is the teacher in question.

The Greek text is wanting till the end of this section.

[ 1 Kings xviii. 27 . “It came to pass that Elijah mocked them,” etc. This reductio ad absurdum of our author is singularly applicable to certain forms of what is called “Modern Thought.”]

We here follow the Greek as preserved by Hippolytus ( Philosoph. , vi. 38). The text followed by Epiphanius ( Hær. , xxxiii. 1) does not so well agree with the Latin.

The text is here hopelessly corrupt; but the general meaning seems to be that given above.

This sentence exists only in the Latin version, and we can give only a free translation.

Iliad , ii. 1, etc.

These words are found in Epiphanius , but omitted in the old Latin version. The Latin gives “sense” instead of “light.”

The text is here very uncertain. Some propose to read six Æons instead of all .

Here again the text is corrupt and obscure. We have followed what seems the most probable emendation.

Harvey justly remarks, that “one cause of perplexity in unravelling the Valentinian scheme is the recurrence of similar names at different points of the system, e.g., the Enthymesis of Sophia was called Sophia and Spiritus; and Pater, Arche, Monogenes, Christus, Anthropos, Ecclesia, were all of them terms of a double denomination.”

The Greek text of this section is preserved both by Epiphanius ( Hær. xxxiv. 1) and by Hippolytus ( Philosoph. , vi. 39, 40). Their citations are somewhat discordant, and we therefore follow the old Latin version.

Pliny, Hist. Nat. , xxxv. 15, etc.

Epiphanius now gives the Greek text verbatim , to which, therefore, we return.

Probably referring to Sige, the consort of Bythus.

[Comp. Acts xvi. 16 .]

Literally, “the place of thy mightiness is in us.”

[Note this manner of primitive “confession;” and see Bingham, Antiquities , book xv. cap. 8]

We here follow the rendering of Billius, “in iisdem studiis versantes.” Others adhere to the received text, and translate περιπολίζοντες “going about idly.”

Grabe is of opinion that reference is made in this term to an imprecatory formula in use among the Marcosians, analogous to the form of thanksgiving employed night and morning by the Jews for their redemption from Egypt. Harvey refers the word to the second baptism practised among these and other heretics, by which it was supposed they were removed from the cognizance of the Demiurge, who is styled the “judge” in the close of the above sentence.

That is, Sophia, of whom Achamoth, afterwards referred to, was the emanation.

The angels accompanying Soter were the consorts of spiritual Gnostics, to whom they were restored after death.

The syntax in this long sentence is very confused, but the meaning is tolerably plain. The gist of it is, that these Gnostics, as being the spiritual seed, claimed a consubstantiality with Achamoth, and consequently escaped from the material Demiurge, and attained at last to the Pleroma.

Rendering the wearer invisible. See Il. , v. 844.

2 Tim. iii. 6 .

This sentence has completely baffled all the critics. [Its banter, or mock gravity, has not been self-evident.] We cannot enter upon the wide field of discussion which it has opened up, but would simply state that Irenæus here seems to us, as often, to be playing upon the terms which were in common use among these heretics. Marcus probably received his system from Colorbasus, and is here declared, by the use of that jargon which Irenæus means to ridicule while so employing it, to have proceeded to develop it in the way described.