Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus AH 1.11.5a

Others still, however, have called their primary and first-begotten Ogdoad by the following names: first, Proarche; then Anennoetos; thirdly, Arrhetos; and fourthly, Aoratos. Then, from the first, Proarche, there was produced, in the first and fifth place, Arche; from Anennoetos, in the second and sixth place, Acataleptos; from Arrhetos, in the third and seventh place, Anonomastos; and from Aoratos, in the fourth and eighth place, Agennetos. This is the Pleroma of the first Ogdoad. They maintain that these powers were anterior to Bythus and Sige, that they may appear more perfect than the perfect, and more knowing than the very Gnostics To. these persons one may justly exclaim: "O ye trifling sophists!" since, even respecting Bythus himself, there are among them many and discordant opinions.

Tertullian AV 35

There are some who assert that Bythos is the last, not the first. They put their ogdoad first, deriving from it a tetrad to be sure, but under other names: first they put Proarche (Pre-beginning), next Anennoetos (Inconceivable), third Arrhetos (Ineffable), fourth Aoratos (Invisible). From Proarche they say Arche (Beginning) came forth in the first and fifth places. From Anennoetos came Acataleptos (Incomprehensible) in the second and sixth places. From Arrhetos came Anonomastos (Unnameable) in the third and seventh places. From Invisible came Agennetos (Unbegotten) in the fourth and eighth places. What rational system arranges it that individual aeons are born in two separate places? I prefer not knowing to finding out. What good can a system have which is promulgated with such perversities?

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus 1.12.3

Those of them, however, who are deemed more skilful than the persons who have just been mentioned, say that the first Ogdoad was not produced gradually, so that one AEon was sent forth by another, but that all the AEons were brought into existence at once by Propator and his Ennoea. He (Colorbasus) affirms this as confidently as if he had assisted at their birth. Accordingly, he and his followers maintain that Anthropos and Ecclesia were not produced, as others hold, from Logos and Zoe; but, on the contrary, Logos and Zoe from Anthropos and Ecclesia. But they express this in another form, as follows: When the Propator conceived the thought of producing something, he received the name of Father. But because what he did produce was true, it was named Aletheia. Again, when he wished to reveal himself, this was termed Anthropos. Finally, when he produced those whom he had previously thought of, these were named Ecclesia. Anthropos, by speaking, formed Logos: this is the first-born son. But Zoe followed upon Logos; and thus the first Ogdoad was completed.

Tertullian AV 36

How much more sensible are those students who eliminate all this boring trash! They derive no aeon one from another in truly Pentagonian steps. Instead, they say, in one fell swoop that octad burst from Propater and his Ennoea and that they get their names from each step in the process: when he decided to produce an offspring then it was called Father; when he truly carried out his intention and did produce it, then it was called Truth; when he wished that he be praised, this was called Man; the entities which he pre-imagined when he produces them were called Church. Man spoke the Word, and this is his first-born son. Life was added to Word and thus the first ogdoad is completed. All this is entirely tiresome and weak.

[Ben C. Smith]

Papias material, which we have via a well doctored compendium attributed to Eusubius (let's say the collection started under him, but the version we have is from the later middle ages), is focused on the Gospel order....

Do the Syriac manuscripts of the History of the Church from centuries V and VI lack the Papias material? Or what are you saying? Which parts of the History date to the late Middle Ages?

Let's say 6th century to be safe, but maybe late 5th.

How would century VI be the "safe" option when we have a manuscript of a translation of the work which dates itself to AD 462? "Safe" would be, by definition, to go under the apparent terminus ad quem, not over it, right? Or what do you mean by "safe" here?

We are still talking 150 years of compilation and revision as the church settles into form. This is the length of time from today to roughly the end of the American Civil War. Hardly eye witness, and plenty of time for editorial work.

Okay, sure. That is one option. The other obvious options would have to be ruled out, which is what I expect your next sentences are about.

The work has certainly undergone extensive editorial work, been organized neatly. Not the hodgepodge you'd expect from a rough draft. Even numbers and headers. Clearly not a first edition.

What is the relevance of this neatness to the dating of the History? Is the rule that, the neater the text is, the later? Can the same author produce a messy version and then later produce a neater one? Can it go in the opposite direction? What are you driving at here?

Do numbers and headers imply to you that Eusebius of Caesarea cannot have written the text? When were the numbers and headers added? Were they there all along, or were they added by scribes later, much like chapters and verses were added to the NT or chapter headings were added to Josephus? And, in either case, what bearing do they have to the date of the original text?

All of these questions arise from just one of your paragraphs. I find myself unable to fathom some of your reasoning; I suspect it is because you are importing assumptions into your analysis that I am not, but I could be wrong about that.

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus 1.11.3

There is another, who is a renowned teacher among them, and who, struggling to reach something more sublime, and to attain to a kind of higher knowledge, has explained the primary Tetrad as follows: There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things, surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature, whom I call Monotes (unity). Together with this Monotes there exists a power, which again I term Henotes (oneness). This Henotes and Monotes, being one, produced, yet not so as to bring forth [apart from themselves, as an emanation] the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being, which beginning language terms "Monad." With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (One). These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen--produced the remaining company of the AEons.

Tertullian AV 37

Now note these other huckster ingenuities of one of their more renowned teachers. He has decreed--with his pontifical authority--the following (accipe alia ingenia circulatoria insignioris apud eos magistri qui et pontificali sua auctoritate in hunc modum censuit): "There existed before the universe Proarche (Pre-beginning) who cannot be imagined, described, or named, which I will name Monotes. Another power was associated with him. I call this other Henotes. These names mean "Aloneness" and "One-ness." Monotes and Henotes, still united, brought forth, but did not beget, the beginnings of the universe, metaphysical, unborn, invisible, which his Word called Monad (Singleness). Monad as well had a power of like substance attached to him called Unity. These powers then, Aloneness, Oneness, Singleness, Unity, propagated all the other emanations of aeons. O what a great difference! You can change Unity, Oneness, Singleness, Aloneness however you like; it will still be one.

[Secret Alias]

I find the use of 'pontificali' in AV to be a reference to Gaius of Rome. Remember what I said earlier:

1. Gaius in hac carne barbatus et in hac anima severus maritus pater avus proavus (= πάππας = pope)
2. Photius ἐπὶ Οὐΐκτορος καὶ Ζεφυρίνου τῶν ἀρχιερέων, χειροτονηθῆναι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπον

now there is:

3. accipe alia ingenia circulatoria insignioris apud eos magistri qui et pontificali sua auctoritate in hunc modum censuit

Is any of what is described here really 'heretical'? On what grounds?

[Secret Alias]

And then the famous 'mistake' in Irenaeus shows up in AV too that closes the work

Irenaeus AH 1.11.1

1. Let us now look at the inconsistent opinions of those heretics (for there are some two or three of them), how they do not agree in treating the same points, but alike, in things and names, set forth opinions mutually discordant. The first of them, Valentinus, who adapted the principles of the heresy called "Gnostic" to the peculiar character of his own school, taught as follows: He maintained that there is a certain Dyad (twofold being), who is inexpressible by any name, of whom one part should be called Arrhetus (unspeakable), and the other Sige (silence). But of this Dyad a second was produced, one part of whom he names Pater, and the other Aletheia. From this Tetrad, again, arose Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. These constitute the primary Ogdoad. He next states that from Logos and Zoe ten powers were produced, as we have before mentioned. But from Anthropos and Ecclesia proceeded twelve, one of which separating from the rest, and falling from its original condition, produced the rest(2) of the universe. He also supposed two beings of the name of Horos, the one of whom has his place between Bythus and the rest of the Pleroma, and divides the created AEons from the uncreated Father, while the other separates their mother from the Pleroma. Christ also was not produced from the AEons within the Pleroma, but was brought forth by the mother who had been excluded from it, in virtue of her remembrance of better things, but not without a kind of shadow. He, indeed, as being masculine, having severed the shadow from himself, returned to the Pleroma; but his mother being left with the shadow, and deprived of her spiritual substance, brought forth another son, namely, the Demiurge, whom he also styles the supreme ruler of all those things which are subject to him. He also asserts that, along with the Demiurge, there was produced a left-hand power, in which particular he agrees with those falsely called Gnostics, of whom to we have yet to speak. Sometimes, again, he maintains that Jesus was produced from him who was separated from their mother, and united to the rest, that is, from Theletus, sometimes as springing from him who returned into the Pleroma, that is, from Christ; and at other times still as derived from Anthropos and Ecclesia. And he declares that the Holy Spirit was produced by Aletheia(5) for the inspection and fructification of the AEons, by entering invisibly into them, and that, in this way, the AEons brought forth the plants of truth.

Secundus again affirms that the primary Ogdoad consists of a right hand and a left hand Tetrad, and teaches that the one of these is called light, and the other darkness. But he maintains that the power which separated from the rest, and fell away, did not proceed directly from the thirty AEons, but from their fruits.

Tertullian AV 38

Secundus is more succinct: he divides the ogdoad into two tetrads, a right and a left, a light and a dark. He is also more respectful of his aeons: he does not wish to derive the apostatizing and imperfect power from any of the aeons, but instead from the products of their natures.

[Secret Alias]

Clearly this is a substantive change. In AH 'secundus' follows Valentinus where Valentinus - strangely - is given a clear indication of his beliefs. This only appears only at the end of the treatise? And only in AH. In AV 'Secundus' follows an unnamed 'Pope' - clearly Gaius?

[Secret Alias]

It is also worth noting that AH has the Lucifer section immediately follow the Gaius section:

3. There is another,(4) who is a renowned teacher among them, and who, struggling to reach something more sublime, and to attain to a kind of higher knowledge, has explained the primary Tetrad as follows: There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things, surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature, whom I call Monotes (unity). Together with this Monotes there exists a power, which again I term Henotes (oneness). This Henotes and Monotes, being one, produced, yet not so as to bring forth [apart from themselves, as an emanation] the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being, which beginning language terms "Monad." With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (One). These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen--produced the remaining company of the AEons.

4. Iu, Iu! Pheu, Pheu!--for well may we utter these tragic exclamations at such a pitch of audacity in the coining of names as he has displayed without a blush, in devising a nomenclature for his system of falsehood. For when he declares: There is a certain Proarche before all things, surpassing all thought, whom I call Monoten; and again, with this Monotes there co-exists a power which I also call Henores,- -it is most manifest that he confesses the things which have been said to be his own invention, and that he himself has given names to his scheme of things, which had never been previously suggested by any other. It is manifest also, that he himself is the one who has had sufficient audacity to coin these names; so that, unless he had appeared in the world, the truth would still have been destitute of a name. But, in that case, nothing hinders any other, in dealing with the same subject, to affix names after such a fashion as the following: There is a certain Proarche, royal, surpassing all thought, a power existing before every other substance, and extended into space in every direction. But along with it there exists a power which I term a Gourd; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart from themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. These powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus. For if it is fitting that that language which is used respecting the universe be transformed to the primary Tetrad, and if any one may assign names at his pleasure, who shall prevent us from adopting these names, as being much more credible [than the others], as well as in general use, and understood by all?

Remember. Phu is related in AV as being a Lucifer reference.

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus AH 1.12.3b, 4

Those of them, however, who are deemed more skilful than the persons who have just been mentioned, say that the first Ogdoad was not produced gradually, so that one AEon was sent forth by another, but that all(7) the AEons were brought into existence at once by Propator and his Ennoea. He (Colorbasus) affirms this as confidently as if he had assisted at their birth. Accordingly, he and his followers maintain that Anthropos and Ecclesia were not produced,(8) as others hold, from Logos and Zoe; but, on the contrary, Logos and Zoe from Anthropos and Ecclesia. But they express this in another form, as follows: When the Propator conceived the thought of producing something, he received the name of Father. But because what he did produce was true, it was named Aletheia. Again, when he wished to reveal himself, this was termed Anthropos. Finally, when he produced those whom he had previously thought of, these were named Ecclesia. Anthropos, by speaking, formed Logos: this is the first-born son. But Zoe followed upon Logos; and thus the first Ogdoad was completed.

Others, again, affirm that he had his being from those twelve AEons who were the offspring of Anthropos and Ecclesia; and on this account he acknowledges himself the Son of man, as being a descendant of Anthropos. Others still, assert that he was produced by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who were brought forth for the security of the Pleroma; and that on this account he was called Christ, thus preserving the appellation of the Father, by whom he was produced. And there are yet others among them who declare that the Propator of the whole, Proarche, and Proanennoetos is called Anthropos; and that this is the great and abstruse mystery, namely, that the Power which is above all others, and contains all in his embrace, is termed Anthropos; hence does the Saviour style himself the "Son of man."

Tertullian AV 39

How differently they think even about our Lord Jesus. Some construct him out of the blooms of all the aeons. Others assert that he was made out of the Ten alone whom Word and Life produced, and for this reason the titles "Word" and "Life" apply to him. Still others derive him from the twelve, i.e., the offspring of Man and Church, and call him as a result Son of Man after his grandfather. Others say that he was formed by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who were planning ahead for the establishment of the world; hence he is heir to his father's surname. There are those who imagine the title Son of Man came from nothing else but this: the Father called himself Man because of the great mystery in this name. So they presume. Consequently, what can you hope for if you believe in that God to whom you are made equal?

[Secret Alias]

Harnack's suggestion that he was identical with the Ptolemy spoken of by St. Justin is as yet unproved.

I think AV makes clear that Ptolemy was Ptolemy Chennus (Πτολεμαῖος Χέννος). As such there never was a 'Valentinus.' Justin writing about Ptolemy makes this obvious:

A certain woman lived with an intemperate husband; she herself, too, having formerly been intemperate. But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ she became sober-minded, and endeavoured to persuade her husband likewise to be temperate, citing the teaching of Christ, and assuring him that there shall be punishment in eternal fire inflicted upon those who do not live temperately and conformably to right reason. But he, continuing in the same excesses, alienated his wife from him by his actions. For she, considering it wicked to live any longer as a wife with a husband who sought in every way means of indulging in pleasure contrary to the law of nature, and in violation of what is right, wished to be divorced from him. And when she was overpersuaded by her friends, who advised her still to continue with him, in the idea that some time or other her husband might give hope of amendment, she did violence to her own feeling and remained with him. But when her husband had gone into Alexandria, and was reported to be conducting himself worse than ever, she--that she might not, by continuing in matrimonial connection with him, and by sharing his table and his bed, become a partaker also in his wickednesses and impieties--gave him what you call a bill of divorce, and was separated from him. But this noble husband of hers,--while he ought to have been rejoicing that those actions which formerly she unhesitatingly committed with the servants and hirelings, when she delighted in drunkenness and every vice, she had now given up, and desired that he too should give up the same,--when she had gone from him without his desire, brought an accusation against her, affirming that she was a Christian. And she presented a paper to thee, the Emperor, requesting that first she be permitted to arrange her affairs, and afterwards to make her defence against the accusation, when her affairs were set in order. And this you granted. And her quondam husband, since he was now no longer able to prosecute her, directed his assaults against a man, Ptolemaeus, whom Urbicus punished, and who had been her teacher in the Christian doctrines. And this he did in the following way. He persuaded a centurion--who had cast Ptolemaeus into prison, and who was friendly to himself--to take Ptolemaeus and interrogate him on this sole point: whether he were a Christian? And Ptolemaeus, being a lover of truth, and not of a deceitful or false disposition, when he confessed himself to be a Christian, was bound by the centurion, and for a long time punished in the prison. And, at last, when the man came to Urbicus, he was asked this one question only: whether he was a Christian? And again, being conscious of his duty, and the nobility of it through the teaching of Christ, he confessed his discipleship in the divine virtue. For he who denies anything, either denies it because he condemns the thing itself, or he shrinks from confession because he is conscious of his own unworthiness or alienation from it; neither of which cases is that of the true Christian. And when Urbicus ordered him to be led away to punishment, one Lucius, who was also himself a Christian, seeing the unreasonable judgment that had thus been given, said to Urbicus: "What is the ground of this judgment? Why have you punished this man, not as an adulterer, nor fornicator, nor murderer, nor thief, nor robber, nor convicted of any crime at all, but who has only confessed that he is called by the name of Christian? This judgment of yours, O Urbicus, does not become the Emperor Pius, nor the philosopher, the son of Caesar, nor the sacred senate." And he said nothing else in answer to Lucius than this: "You also seem to me to be such an one." And when Lucius answered, "Most certainly I am," he again ordered him also to be led away. And he professed his thanks, knowing that he was delivered from such wicked rulers, and was going to the Father and King of the heavens. And still a third having come forward, was condemned to be punished.

Quintus Lollius Urbicus returned to Rome with the prospect of the prestigious post of praefectus urbi (Prefect of Rome), which he probably held in AD 146, after the death of the incumbent, Sextus Erucius Clarus

If Harnack is right, Ptolemy was martyred 146 CE. He could not have been a disciple of Valentinus. He could well be Ptolemy Chennus.