Irenaeus: Against Heresies, Books I–V

1 Tim. vi. 20 .

[Note this “Americanism.”]

[Note this “Americanism.”]

This passage is very obscure: we have supplied “et,” which, as Harvey conjectures, may have dropped out of the text.

[This noble chapter is a sort of homily on Heb. i. ]

The common text has “ut:” we prefer to read “aut” with Erasmus and others.

Vossius and others read “primus” instead of “prius,” but on defective ms. authority.

Harvey here observes: “Grabe misses the meaning by applying to the redeemed that which the author says of the Redeemer;” but it may be doubted if this is really the case. Perhaps Massuet’s rendering of the clause, “that that man might be formed who should know Him,” is, after all, preferable to that given above.

John i. 3 .

Ps. xxxiii. 9 , Ps. cxlviii. 5 .

Gen. i. 1 .

Eph. iv. 6 , differing somewhat from Text. Rec. of New Testament.

In the barbarous Latin version, we here find utrum … an as the translation of ἤ … ἤ instead of aut … aut .

We have translated the text as it here stands in the mss. Grabe omits spiritalem et ; Massuet proposes to read et invisibilem , and Stieren invisibilem .

In præsentia : Grabe proposes in præscientia , but without ms. authority. “The reader,” says Harvey, “will observe that there are three suppositions advanced by the author: that the world, as some heretics asserted, was eternal; that it was created in time, with no previous idea of it in the divine mind; or that it existed as a portion of the divine counsels from all eternity, though with no temporal subsistence until the time of its creation,—and of this the author now speaks.” The whole passage is most obscurely expressed.

Literally, “should also possess a vacant substance”

The text has “reliquis omnibus,” which would refer to the Æons; but we follow the emendation proposed by Massuet, “reliquorum omnium,” as the reference manifestly is to other heretics.

“ Ab eo: ” some refer “eo” to the Demiurge, but it is not unusual for the Latin translator to follow the Greek gender, although different from that of the Latin word which he has himself employed. We may therefore here “eo” to “labem,” which is the translation of the neuter noun ὑστέρημα .

Labem is here repeated, probably by mistake.

The Latin is fieri eos : Massuet conjectures that the Greek had been ποιεῖσθαι αὐτούς , and that the translator rendered ποιεῖσθαι as a passive instead of a middle verb, fieri for facere.

See above, chap. i.

The Latin text here is, “et concludentur tales cum patre suo ab eo qui est extra Pleroma, in quo etiam et desinere eos necesse est.” None of the editors notice the difficulty or obscurity of the clause, but it appears to us absolutely untranslateable. We have rendered it as if the reading were “ab eo quod, ” though, if the strict grammatical construction be followed, the translation must be, “from Him who.” But then to what does “in quo,” which follows, refer? It may be ascribed either to the immediate antecedent Pleroma , or to Him who is described as being beyond it.

Chap. ii., iii., iv.

This is an extremely difficult passage. We follow the reading æternochoica adopted by Massuet, but Harvey reads æterna choica , and renders, “They charge all other substance (i.e., spiritual) with the imperfections of the material creation, as though Æon substance were equally ephemeral and choic.”

The common reading is “aut;” we adopt Harvey’s conjectural emendation of “at.”

The above clause is very obscure; Massuet reads it interrogatively.

The text has “antiquius,” literally “more ancient,” but it may here be rendered as above.

Matt. xi. 27 .

Massuet refers this to the Roman emperor.

Harvey supposes that the translator here read ἤ quam instead of ᾗ quâ (gloria); but Grabe, Massuet, and Stieren prefer to delete erit .

Reference is here made to the supposed wretched state of Achamoth as lying in the region of shadow, vacuity, and, in fact, non-existence, until compassionated by the Christ above, who gave her form as respected substance .

We have literally translated the above very obscure sentence. According to Massuet, the sense is: “There will some time be, or perhaps even now there is, some Æon utterly destitute of such honour, inasmuch as those things which the Saviour, for the sake of honouring it, had formed after its image, have been destroyed; and then those things which are above will remain without honour,” etc.

The Saviour is here referred to, as having formed all things through means of Achamoth and the Demiurge.

Massuet deletes quem , and reads nūn as a genitive.

Matt. xxv. 41 .

Dan. vii. 10 , agreeing neither with the Greek nor Hebrew text.

This clause is exceedingly obscure. Harvey remarks upon it as follows: “The reasoning of Irenæus seems to be this: According to the Gnostic theory, the Æons and angels of the Pleroma were homogeneous. They were also the archetypes of things created. But things created are heterogeneous: therefore either these Æons are heterogeneous, which is contrary to theory; or things created are homogeneous, which is contrary to fact.”

Literally, “from Himself.”

See above, chap. ii. and v.

The text has fabricâsse , for which, says Massuet, should be read fabricatam esse ; or fabricâsse itself must be taken in a passive signification. It is possible, however, to translate, as Harvey indicates, “that He (Bythus) formed so great a creation by angels,” etc., though this seems harsh and unsuitable.

Literally, empty : there is a play on the words vacuum and vacui (which immediately follows), as there had been in the original Greek.

Comp. e.g., Matt. v. 16 , Matt. v. 45 , Matt. vi. 9 , etc.

See chap xxiii. etc.

Viz., the Valentinians.

Rom. i. 25 .

Gal. iv. 8 .

Isa. xlvi. 9 .

This clause is unintelligible in the Latin text: by a conjectural restoration of the Greek we have given the above translation.

Luke xviii. 27 .

Playing upon the doctrines of the heretics with respect to vacuity and shade .

The text vacillates between “dicemus” and “dicamus.”

This sentence is confused in the Latin text, but the meaning is evidently that given above.

It is difficult to see the meaning of “iterum” here. Harvey begins a new paragraph with this sentence.

ἐνδιάθετος —simply conceived in the mind—used in opposition to προφορικός , expressed .

Harvey remarks that “the author perhaps wrote Ορον ( Horos ), which was read by the translator ῞Ολον ( totum ).”

Since Soter does not occur among the various appellations of Horos mentioned by Irenæus (i. 11, 4), Grabe proposes to read Stauros , and Massuet Lytrotes ; but Harvey conceives that the difficulty is explained by the fact that Horos was a power of Soter (i. 3, 3).

Irenæus here, after his custom, plays upon the word Bythus (profundity), which, in the phraseology of the Valentinians, was a name of the Propator, but is in this passage used to denote an unfathomable abyss .

This sentence appears to us, after long study, totally untranslateable. The general meaning seems to be, that whatever name is given to mental acts, whether they are called Ennœa , Enthymesis , or by whatever other appellation, they are all but exercises of the same fundamental power, styled Nous . Compare the following section.

“The following,” says Harvey, “may be considered to be consecutive steps in the evolution of λόγος as a psychological entity. Ennœa, conception ; Enthymesis, intention ; Sensation, thought ; Consilium, reasoning ; Cogitationis Examinatio, judgment ; in Mente Perseverans, Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος ; Emissibile Verbum, Λόγος προφοικός .”

That is, lest He should be thought destitute of power, as having been unable to prevent evil from having a place in creation.

Isa. lv. 8 .

The Latin expression is “similimembrius,” which some regard as the translation of ὁμοιόκωλος , and others of ὁμοιομερής ; but in either case the meaning will be as given above.

That is, His Nous, Ennœa, etc., can have no independent existence. The text fluctuates between “emittitur” and “emittetur.”

That is, in human beings no doubt, thought (Nous) precedes speech (Logos).

Matt. vii. 7 .

Nothing is known of this writer. Several of the same name are mentioned by the ancients, but to none of them is a work named Theogonia ascribed. He is supposed to be the same poet as is cited by Athenæus, but that writer quotes from a work styled ᾽Αφροδίτης γοναι .

The Latin is “Cupidinem;” and Harvey here refers to Aristotle, who “quotes the authority of Hesiod and Parmenides as saying that Love is the eternal intellect, reducing Chaos into order.”

Compare, on the opinions of the philosophers referred to in this chapter, Hippolytus, Philosoph. , book i.

Iliad , xiv. 201; vii. 99.

The Latin has here exemplum , corresponding doubtless to παράδειγμα , and referring to those ἰδέαι of all things which Plato supposed to have existed for ever in the divine mind.

[Our author’s demonstration of the essential harmony of Gnosticism with the old mythologies, and the philosophies of the heathen, explains the hold it seems to have gained among nominal converts to Christianity, and also the necessity for a painstaking refutation of what seem to us mere absurdities. The great merit of Irenæus is thus illustrated: he gave the death-blow to heathenism in extirpating heresy.]

The Latin text reads “sensibilia et insensata;” but these words, as Harvey observes, must be the translation of αἰσθητὰ καὶ ἀναίσθητα , —“the former referring to material objects of sense, the latter to the immaterial world of intellect.”

This clause is very obscure, and we are not sure if the above rendering brings out the real meaning of the author. Harvey takes a different view of it, and supposes the original Greek to have been, καὶ ἄλλας μὲν τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἀρχὰς εἶναι ἄλλας δὲ τῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ τῆς οὐσίας . He then remarks: “The reader will observe that the word ὑπόστασις here means intellectual substance , οὐσία material; as in V. c. ult . The meaning therefore of the sentence will be, And they affirmed that the first principles of intellectual substance and of sensible and material existence were diverse , viz., unity was the exponent of the first, duality of the second.”

All the editors confess the above sentence hopelessly obscure. We have given Harvey’s conjectural translation.

Literally, “antiphrasis.”

1 Tim. vi. 20 . The text is, “Vocum novitates falsæ agnitionis,” καινοφωνίας having apparently been read in the Greek instead of κενοφωνίας as in Text. Rec.

Grabe and others insert “vel” between these words.

It seems necessary to regard these words as parenthetical, though the point is overlooked by all the editors.

Matt. xi. 27 .

“Decem” is of doubtful authority.

The text has “qui in labe facti sunt;” but, according to Harvey, “the sense requires πληρώματι instead of ἐκτρώματι in the original.”