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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18761
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

So let's compile the list of sections of AH 1 which do not appear in AV in order.
1. INASMUCH(1) as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says,(2) "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge;(3) and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

2. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself. One(4) far superior to me has well said, in reference to this point, "A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. Or, again, what inexperienced person can with ease detect the presence of brass when it has been mixed up with silver?" Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off, even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men,-because they outwardly are covered with sheep's clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined(5) us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different,--I have deemed it my duty (after reading some of the Commentaries, as they call them, of the disciples of Valentinus, and after making myself acquainted with their tenets through personal intercourse with some of them) to unfold to thee, my friend, these portentous and profound mysteries, which do not fall within the range of every intellect, because all have not sufficiently purged(6) their brains. I do this, in order that thou, obtaining an acquaintance with these things, mayest in turn explain them to all those with whom thou art connected, and exhort them to avoid such an abyss of madness and of blasphemy against Christ. I intend, then, to the best of my ability, with brevity and clearness to set forth the opinions of those who are now promulgating heresy. I refer especially to the disciples of Ptolemaeus, whose school may be described as a bud from that of Valentinus. I shall also endeavour, according to my moderate ability, to furnish the means of overthrowing them, by showing how absurd and inconsistent with the truth are their statements. Not that I am practised either in composition or eloquence; but my feeling of affection prompts me to make known to thee and all thy companions those doctrines which have been kept in concealment until now, but which are at last, through the goodness of God, brought to light. "For there is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be made known."(1)

3. Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the Keltae,(2) and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions. But thou wilt accept in a kindly spirit what I in a like spirit write to thee simply, truthfully, and in my own homely way; whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness. In fine, as I (to gratify thy long-cherished desire for information regarding the tenets of these persons) have spared no pains, not only to make these doctrines known to thee, but also to furnish the means of showing their falsity; so shalt thou, according to the grace given to thee by the Lord, prove an earnest and efficient minister to others, that men may no longer be drawn away by the plausible system of these heretics, which I now proceed to describe

... And for this reason they affirm it was that the "Saviour"--for they do not please to call Him "Lord"--did no work in public during the space of thirty years, thus setting forth the mystery of these AEons. They maintain also, that these thirty AEons are most plainly indicated in the parable of the labourers sent into the vineyard. For some are sent about the first hour, others about the third hour, others about the sixth hour, others about the ninth hour, and others about the eleventh hour. Now, if we add up the numbers of the hours here mentioned, the sum total will be thirty: for one, three, six, nine, and eleven, when added together, form thirty. And by the hours, they hold that the AEons were pointed out; while they maintain that these are great, and wonderful, and hitherto unspeakable mysteries which it is their special function to develop; and so they proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations ...

The production, again, of the Duodecad of the AEons, is indicated by the fact that the Lord was twelve years of age when He disputed with the teachers of the law, and by the election of the apostles, for of these there were twelve.(8) The other eighteen AEons are made manifest in this way: that the Lord, [according to them,] conversed with His disciples for eighteen months(9) after His resurrection from the dead. They also affirm that these eighteen AEons are strikingly indicated by the first two letters of His name [Ihsous], namely Iota(10) and Eta. And, in like manner, they assert that the ten AEons are pointed out by the letter Iota, which begins His name; while, for the same reason, they tell us the Saviour said, "One Iota, or one tittle, shall by no means pass away until all be fulfilled."

They further maintain that the passion which took place in the case of the twelfth AEon is pointed at by the apostasy of Judas, who was the twelfth apostle, and also by the fact that Christ suffered in the twelfth month. For their opinion is, that He continued to preach for one year only after His baptism. The same thing is also most clearly indicated by the case of the woman who suffered from an issue of blood. For after she had been thus afflicted during twelve years, she was healed by the advent of the Saviour, when she had touched the border of His garment; and on this account the Saviour said, "Who touched me?"(12)--teaching his disciples the mystery which had occurred among the AEons, and the healing of that AEon who had been involved in suffering. For she who had been afflicted twelve years represented that power whose essence, as they narrate, was stretching itself forth, and flowing into immensity; and unless she had touched the garment of the Son,(13) that is, Aletheia of the first Tetrad, who is denoted by the hem spoken of, she would have been dissolved into the general essence(14) [of which she participated]. She stopped short, however, and ceased any longer to suffer. For the power that went forth from the Son (and this power they term Horos) healed her, and separated the passion from her.

4. They moreover affirm that the Saviour(15) is shown to be derived from all the AEons, and to be in Himself everything by the following passage: "Every male that openeth the womb."(16) For He, being everything, opened the womb(17) of the enthymesis of the suffering AEon, when it had been expelled from the Pleroma. This they also style the second Ogdoad, of which we shall speak presently. And they state that it was clearly on this account that Paul said, "And He Himself is all things;"(1) and again, "All things are to Him, and of Him are all things;"(2) and further, "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead;"(3) and yet again, "All things are gathered together by God in Christ."(4) Thus do they interpret these and any like passages to be found in Scripture.

5. They show, further, that that Horos of theirs, whom they call by a variety of names, has two faculties,--the one of supporting, and the other of separating; and in so far as he supports and sustains, he is Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;"(5) and again, "Taking up the cross follow me;"(6) but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word."(7) They also maintain that John indicated the same thing when he said, "The fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge the floor, and will gather the wheat into His garner; but the chaff He will burn with fire unquenchable."(8) By this declaration He set forth the faculty of Horos. For that fan they explain to be the cross (Stauros), which consumes, no doubt, all material(9) objects, as fire does chaff, but it purifies all them that are saved, as a fan does wheat. Moreover, they affirm that the Apostle Paul himself made mention of this cross in the following words: "The doctrine of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God."(10) And again: "God forbid that I should glory in anything(11) save in the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world."

6. Such, then, is the account which they all give of their Pleroma, and of the formation(12) of the universe, striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions. And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. And others(13) of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

... For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved.

3. Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the "most perfect" among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that "they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." For instance, they make no scruple about eating meats offered in sacrifice to idols, imagining that they can in this way contract no defilement. Then, again, at every heathen festival celebrated in honour of the idols, these men are the first to assemble; and to such a pitch do they go, that some of them do not even keep away from that bloody spectacle hateful both to God and men, in which gladiators either fight with wild beasts, or singly encounter one another. Others of them yield themselves up to the lusts of the flesh with the utmost greediness, maintaining that carnal things should be allowed to the carnal nature, while spiritual things are provided for the spiritual. Some of them, moreover, are in the habit of defiling those women to whom they have taught the above doctrine, as has frequently been confessed by those women who have been led astray by certain of them, on their returning to the Church of God, and acknowledging this along with the rest of their errors. Others of them, too, openly and without a blush, having become passionately attached to certain women, seduce them away from their husbands, and contract marriages of their own with them. Others of them, again, who pretend at first. to live in all modesty with them as with sisters, have in course of time been revealed in their true colours, when the sister has been found with child by her [pretended] brother.

... 1. Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures;(4) and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king's form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king. In like manner do these persons patch together old wives' fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. We have already stated how far they proceed in this way with respect to the interior of the Pleroma.

2. Then, again, as to those things outside of their Pleroma, the following are some specimens of what they attempt to accommodate out of the Scriptures to their opinions. They affirm that the Lord came in the last times of the world to endure suffering, for this end, that He might indicate the passion which occurred to the last of the AEons, and might by His own end announce the cessation of that disturbance which had risen among the AEons. They maintain, further, that that girl of twelve years old, the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue,(1) to whom the Lord approached and raised her from the dead, was a type of Achamoth, to whom their Christ, by extending himself, imparted shape, and whom he led anew to the perception of that light which had forsaken her. And that the Saviour appeared to her when she lay outside of the Pleroma as a kind of abortion, they affirm Paul to have declared in his Epistle to the Corinthians [in these words], "And last of all, He appeared to me also, as to one born out of due time."(2) Again, the coming of the Saviour with His attendants to Achamoth is declared in like manner by him in the same Epistle, when he says, "A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels."(3) Now, that Achamoth, when the Saviour came to her, drew a veil over herself through modesty, Moses rendered manifest when he put a veil upon his face. Then, also, they say that the passions which she endured were indicated by the Lord upon the cross. Thus, when He said, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"(4) He simply showed that Sophia was deserted by the light, and was restrained by Horos from making any advance forward. Her anguish, again, was indicated when He said, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death;"(5) her fear by the words, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;"(6) and her perplexity, too, when He said, "And what I shall say, I know not."(7)

3. And they teach that He pointed out the three kinds of men as follows: the material, when He said to him that asked Him, "Shall I follow Thee?"(8) "The Son of man hath not where to lay His head;"-- the animal, when He said to him that declared, "I will follow Thee, but suffer me first to bid them farewell that are in my house," "No man, putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven"(9) (for this man they declare to be of the intermediate class, even as they do that other who, though he professed to have wrought a large amount of righteousness, yet refused to follow Him, and was so overcome by [the love of] riches, as never to reach perfection)--this one it pleases them to place in the animal class;--the spiritual, again, when He said, "Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God,"(10) and when He said to Zaccheus the publican, "Make haste, and come down, for to-day I must abide in thine house"(11)--for these they declared to have belonged to the spiritual class. Also the parable of the leaven which the woman is described as having hid in three measures of meal, they declare to make manifest the three classes. For, according to their teaching, the woman represented Sophia; the three measures of meal, the three kinds of men-- spiritual, animal, and material; while the leaven denoted the Saviour Himself. Paul, too, very plainly set forth the material, animal, and spiritual, saying in one place, "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy;"(12) and in another place, "But the animal man receiveth not the things of the Spirit;"(13) and again: "He that is spiritual judgeth all things."(14) And this, "The animal man receiveth not the things of the Spirit," they affirm to have been spoken concerning the Demiurge, who, as being animal, knew neither his mother who was spiritual, nor her seed, nor the AEons in the Pleroma. And that the Saviour received first-fruits of those whom He was to save, Paul declared when he said, "And if the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy,"(15) teaching that the expression "first- fruits" denoted that which is spiritual, but that "the lump" meant us, that is, the animal Church, the lump of which they say He assumed, and blended it with Himself, inasmuch as He is "the leaven."

4. Moreover, that Achamoth wandered beyond the Pleroma, and received form from Christ, and was sought after by the Saviour, they declare that He indicated when He said, that He had come after that sheep which was gone astray.(16) For they explain the wandering sheep to mean their mother, by whom they represent the Church as having been sown. The wandering itself denotes her stay outside of the Pleroma in a state of varied passion, from which they maintain that matter derived its origin. The woman, again, who sweeps the house and finds the piece of money, they declare to denote the Sophia above, who, having lost her enthymesis, afterwards recovered it, on all things being purified by the advent of the Saviour. Wherefore this substance also, according to them, was reinstated in Pleroma. They say, too, that Simeon, "who took Christ into his arms, and gave thanks to God, and said, Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word,"(1) was a type of the Demiurge, who, on the arrival of the Saviour, learned his own change of place, and gave thanks to Bythus. They also assert that by Anna, who is spoken of in the gospel(2) as a prophetess, and who, after living seven years with her husband, passed all the rest of her life in widowhood until she saw the Saviour, and recognised Him, and spoke of Him to all, was most plainly indicated Achamoth, who, having for a little while looked upon the Saviour with His associates, and dwelling all the rest of the time in the intermediate place, waited for Him till He should come again, and restore her to her proper consort. Her name, too, was indicated by the Saviour, when He said, "Yet wisdom is justified by her children."(3) This, too, was done by Paul in these words," But we speak wisdom among them that are perfect."(4) They declare also that Paul has referred to the conjunctions within the Pleroma, showing them forth by means of one; for, when writing of the conjugal union in this life, he expressed himself thus: "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church."(5)

5. Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,--that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. By him the Word was produced, and in him the whole substance of the AEons, to which the Word himself afterwards imparted form. Since, therefore, he treats of the first origin of things, he rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. And he expresses himself thus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God."(6) Having first of all distinguished these three--God, the Beginning, and the Word--he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For "the beginning" is in the Father, and of the Father, while "the Word" is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, "In the beginning was the Word," for He was in the Son; "and the Word was with God," for He was the beginning; "and the Word was God," of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. "The same was in the beginning with God"--this clause discloses the order of production. "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;"(7) for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the AEons that came into existence after Him. But "what was made in Him," says John, "is life."(8) Here again he indicated conjunction; for all things, he said, were made by Him, but in Him was life. This, then, which is in Him, is more closely connected with Him than those things which were simply made by Him, for it exists along with Him, and is developed by Him. When, again, he adds, "And the life was the light of men," while thus mentioning Anthropos, he indicated also Ecclesia by that one expression, in order that, by using only one name, he might disclose their fellowship with one another, in virtue of their conjunction. For Anthropos and Ecclesia spring from Logos and Zoe. Moreover, he styled life (Zoe) the light of men, because they are enlightened by her, that is, formed and made manifest. This also Paul declares in these words: "For whatsoever doth make manifest is light."(9) Since, therefore, Zoe manifested and begat both Anthropos and Ecclesia, she is termed their light. Thus, then, did John by these words reveal both other things and the second Tetrad, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. And still further, he also indicated the first Tetrad. For, in discoursing of the Saviour and declaring that all things beyond the Pleroma received form from Him, he says that He is the fruit of the entire Pleroma. For he styles Him a "light which shineth in darkness, and which was not comprehended"(10) by it, inasmuch as, when He imparted form to all those things which had their origin from passion, He was not known by it.(11) He also styles Him Son, and Aletheia, and Zoe, and the "Word made flesh, whose glory," he says, "we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten (given to Him by the Father), full of grace and truth."(12) (But what John really does say is this: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."(1)) Thus, then, does he [according to them] distinctly set forth the first Tetrad, when he speaks of the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia. In this way, too, does John tell of the first Ogdoad, and that which is the mother of all the AEons. For he mentions the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia. Such are the views of Ptolemaeus.(2)

CHAP. IX.--REFUTATION OF THE IMPIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF THESE HERETICS.

1. You see, my friend, the method which these men employ to deceive themselves, while they abuse the Scriptures by endeavouring to support their own system out of them. For this reason, I have brought forward their modes of expressing themselves, that thus thou mightest understand the deceitfulness of their procedure, and the wickedness of their error. For, in the first place, if it had been John's intention to set forth that Ogdoad above, he would surely have preserved the order of its production, and would doubtless have placed the primary Tetrad first as being, according to them, most venerable and would then have annexed the second, that, by the sequence of the names, the order of the Ogdoad might be exhibited, and not after so long an interval, as if forgetful for the moment and then again calling the matter to mind, he, last of all, made mention of the primary Tetrad. In the next place, if he had meant to indicate their conjunctions, he certainly would not have omitted the name of Ecclesia; while, with respect to the other conjunctions, he either would have been satisfied with the mention of the male [AEons] (since the others [like Ecclesia] might be understood), so as to preserve a uniformity throughout; or if he enumerated the conjunctions of the rest, he would also have announced the spouse of Anthropos, and would not have left us to find out her name by divination.

2. The fallacy, then, of this exposition is manifest. For when John, proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlighteneth every man this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us,--these men, by a plausible kind of exposition, perverting these statements, maintain that there was another Monogenes, according to production, whom they also style Arche. They also maintain that there was another Saviour, and another Logos, the son of Monogenes, and another Christ produced for the re-establishment of the Pleroma. Thus it is that, wresting from the truth every one of the expressions which have been cited, and taking a bad advantage of the names, they have transferred them to their own system; so that, according to them, in all these terms John makes no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ. For if he has named the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia, according to their hypothesis, he has, by thus speaking, referred to the primary Ogdoad, in which there was as yet no Jesus, and no Christ, the teacher of John. But that the apostle did not speak concerning their conjunctions, but concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he also acknowledges as the Word of God, he himself has made evident. For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him, he further declares, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But, according to their hypothesis, the Word did not become flesh at all, inasmuch as He never went outside of the Pleroma, but that Saviour [became flesh] who was formed by a special dispensation [out of all the AEons], and was of later date than the Word.

3. Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God. For if any other of the AEons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been probable that the apostle spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. For, according to them, the Word did not originally become flesh. For they maintain that the Saviour assumed an animal body, formed in accordance with a special dispensation by an unspeakable providence, so as to become visible and palpable. But flesh is that which was of old formed for Adam by God out of the dust, and it is this that John has declared the Word of God became. Thus is their primary and first-begotten Ogdoad brought to nought. For, since Logos, and Monogenes, and Zoe, and Phos, and Sorer, and Christus, and the Son of God, and He who became incarnate for us, have been proved to be one and the same, the Ogdoad which they have built up at once falls to pieces. And when this is destroyed, their whole system sinks into ruin,--a system which they falsely dream into existence, and thus inflict injury on the Scriptures, while they build up their own hypothesis.

4. Then, again, collecting a set of expressions and names scattered here and there [in Scripture], they twist them, as we have already said, from a natural to a non-natural sense. In so doing, they act like those who bring forward any kind of hypothesis they fancy, and then endeavour to support(1) them out of the poems of Homer, so that the ignorant imagine that Homer actually composed the verses bearing upon that hypothesis, which has, in fact, been but newly constructed; and many others are led so far by the regularly-formed sequence of the verses, as to doubt whether Homer may not have composed them. Of this kind(2) is the following passage, where one, describing Hercules as having been sent by Eurystheus to the dog in the infernal regions, does so by means of these Homeric verses,-- for there can be no objection to our citing these by way of illustration, since the same sort of attempt appears in both:--

"Thus saying, there sent forth from his house deeply groaning."-- Od., x. 76. "The hero Hercules conversant with mighty deeds."--Od., xxi. 26. Eurystheus, the son of Sthenelus, descended from Perseus."--Il., xix. 123. "That he might bring from Erebus the dog of gloomy Pluto."--Il., viii. 368. "And he advanced like a mountain-bred lion confident of strength."--Od., vi. 130. "Rapidly through the city, while all his friends followed."--Il., xxiv. 327. "Both maidens, and youths, and much-enduring old men."--Od., xi. 38. "Mourning for him bitterly as one going forward to death."--Il., xxiv. 328. "But Mercury and the blue-eyed Minerva conducted him."--Od., xi. 626. "For she knew the mind of her brother, how it laboured with grief."--Il., ii. 409.

Now, what simple-minded man, I ask, would not be led away by such verses as these to think that Homer actually framed them so with reference to the subject indicated? But he who is acquainted with the Homeric writings will recognise the verses indeed, but not the subject to which they are applied, as knowing that some of them were spoken of Ulysses, others of Hercules himself, others still of Priam, and others again of Menelaus and Agamemnon. But if he takes them and restores each of them to its proper position, he at once destroys the narrative in question. In like manner he also who retains unchangeable(3) in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognise the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them. For, though he will acknowledge the gems, he will certainly not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king. But when he has restored every one of the expressions quoted to its proper position, and has fitted it to the body of the truth, he will lay bare, and prove to be without any foundation, the figment of these heretics.

5. But since what may prove a finishing-stroke(4) to this exhibition is wanting, so that any one, on following out their farce to the end, may then at once append an argument which shall overthrow it, we have judged it well to point out, first of all, in what respects the very fathers of this fable differ among themselves, as if they were inspired by different spirits of error. For this very fact forms an a priori proof that the truth proclaimed by the Church is immoveable,(5) and that the theories of these men are but a tissue of falsehoods.

CHAP. X.--UNITY OF THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD.

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations(6) of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"(7) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess"(8) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses,"(9) and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions(1) of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

3. It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient(2) for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten. But the fact referred to simply implies this, that one may [more accurately than another] bring out the meaning of those things which have been spoken in parables, and accommodate them to the general scheme of the faith; and explain [with special clearness] the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets not under one form, but differently to different individuals; and show why it was that more covenants than one were given to mankind; and teach what was the special character of each of these covenants; and search out for what reason "God(3) hath concluded every man(4) in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all;" and gratefully(5) describe on what account the Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world]; and unfold what is contained in the Scriptures concerning the end [itself], and things to come; and not be silent as to how it is that God has made the Gentiles, whose salvation was despaired of, fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with the saints; and discourse how it is that "this mortal body shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption;"(6) and proclaim in what sense [God] says, "'That is a people who was not a people; and she is beloved who was not beloved;"(7) and in what sense He says that "more are the children of her that was desolate, than of her who possessed a husband."(8) For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: "Oh! the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!"(9) But [the superior skill spoken of] is not found in this, that any one should, beyond the Creator and Framer [of the world], conceive of the Enthymesis of an erring AEon, their mother and his, and should thus proceed to such a pitch of blasphemy; nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of AEons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.
I will further categorize this information as follows:

(1) introductory material (clearly an introduction to AH 1 and AH in general and not part of the original AV
(2) material associated with the Marcosians
(3) material which properly belongs with AH's contention that the Valentinians used John as part of a schema that each of the four gospels was associated with a particular sect, a sign of prescience on the part of the Demiurge.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18761
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

(1) introductory material - clearly an introduction to AH 1 and AH in general and not part of the original AV
INASMUCH as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself. One(4) far superior to me has well said, in reference to this point, "A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. Or, again, what inexperienced person can with ease detect the presence of brass when it has been mixed up with silver?" Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off, even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men,-because they outwardly are covered with sheep's clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined(5) us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different,--I have deemed it my duty (after reading some of the Commentaries, as they call them, of the disciples of Valentinus, and after making myself acquainted with their tenets through personal intercourse with some of them) to unfold to thee, my friend, these portentous and profound mysteries, which do not fall within the range of every intellect, because all have not sufficiently purged(6) their brains. I do this, in order that thou, obtaining an acquaintance with these things, mayest in turn explain them to all those with whom thou art connected, and exhort them to avoid such an abyss of madness and of blasphemy against Christ. I intend, then, to the best of my ability, with brevity and clearness to set forth the opinions of those who are now promulgating heresy. I refer especially to the disciples of Ptolemaeus, whose school may be described as a bud from that of Valentinus. I shall also endeavour, according to my moderate ability, to furnish the means of overthrowing them, by showing how absurd and inconsistent with the truth are their statements. Not that I am practised either in composition or eloquence; but my feeling of affection prompts me to make known to thee and all thy companions those doctrines which have been kept in concealment until now, but which are at last, through the goodness of God, brought to light. "For there is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be made known."

Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the Keltae, and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions. But thou wilt accept in a kindly spirit what I in a like spirit write to thee simply, truthfully, and in my own homely way; whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness. In fine, as I (to gratify thy long-cherished desire for information regarding the tenets of these persons) have spared no pains, not only to make these doctrines known to thee, but also to furnish the means of showing their falsity; so shalt thou, according to the grace given to thee by the Lord, prove an earnest and efficient minister to others, that men may no longer be drawn away by the plausible system of these heretics, which I now proceed to describe
One thing that struck me about the entire 'post-AV' section of AH 1 - in order words the list we have just compiled of sections added to AV as part of the process of establishing AH - is the influence of Papias. This is the reason I started this OP. I noticed that:

a) much of the material echoes Papias's statement that there were logia of God, Peter taught in oracles and Mark somehow fucked things up.
and
b) much of the material seems to be related to Mark the gnostic (i.e. the section tacked on to the end of AV so as to make Marcus seem like he is another Valentinian.

Clearly there is overlap here. This is what also struck me. One Mark put the oracles of Peter in the wrong order compromising the transmission of the logia of God. Another Mark corrupted the oracles of God moving around passages like stones in a mosaic making a king look like a dog. The point is that in the same way that at the very moment 'Mark' is introduced in AV the 'stones' or passages in the original order become jumbled, AH's extra-material dealing with Mark the gnostic are jumbled so as to make the (i) allusion to corrupting the oracles of God (ii) the analogy about movie the stones in the gospel mosaic and (iii) the very cento illustration of the gospel pertain to the John-using 'Valentinians' instead of its original target - Mark. Do you see where I am going with this?

We originally had two treatises - Against the Valentinians (AV) and Against the Marcosians (AM). Both existed as separate treatises. I strongly suspect that AV began life as simply an argument against Ptolemy who was later identified as a 'Valentinian.' There was no connection with the gospel of John. AM began life as an offshoot or an extension of the original arguments against 'Mark' in Papias. It came from the same culture. Why fuse the two accounts like the old Reeses peanut butter commercials ('You got chocolate in my peanut butter ...)? Because the overarching concern was the establishment of the fourfold canon. I think I am on to something here.

If Papias was originally making an argument against Mark the author of a gnostic gospel one can already see how the 'extra portions' of AM which were taken out of their natural order - i.e. chapters 13 - 20 in AH and blended in with sections 1 - 12 originally dealing with disciples of Ptolemy. It is in fact highly ironic then that one of these sections condemns Mark for 'moving stones around' the original mosaic, another demonstrates the easy with which sentences from Homer can be moved about to get a different meaning - a fraudulent passage the author himself 'creates' - was itself moved about as part of a deliberate attempt on the part of the author to make a fox look like a king or to make AH plant the seeds for the core idea of AH 3 - namely that the Valentinians used John.

Why so? Well think about it. If Papias was originally making the claim that Matthew was perfect, that it got the logia absolutely correct - what use is there for Mark? Clearly those who used this Matthew had no use for any other gospel because the narrative was already absolutely perfect. For whatever reason - I say ecumenism - Irenaeus decides to create a fourfold gospel. It has Matthew as an anchor and Mark following it because of Papias. Then Luke is developed and now John. The Romans were particularly adverse to John. It's unlike the synoptic gospels. But when you think about it applying the 'moving the stones of a mosaic of a king into a fox' metaphor doesn't work with John. John doesn't share many stories with Matthew, Mark or Luke. The only reason why we might read AH 1.9 this way is because the mosaic metaphor was taken from the AM section where it original belonged and was moved to the section dealing with Valentinians whom we later learn used John.

In other words, Irenaeus needs to assign the Valentinians (including now with the changes to AH 1 this 'Marcus') John so as to make the analogy of the mosaic pertain to John rather than what Papias understood happened with the logia of God - viz. Mark changed the order of the passages of Matthew. Irenaeus wants to get away from Papias's binary understanding of Mark and Matthew. So Mark has no clear 'group' assigned to it in Book Three. The Marcionites are no longer associated with Mark but instead are given a new gospel Luke. And the Valentinians John. In other words the fourfold gospel was created in order to get away from the binary logic of Papias's statement. His purpose was ecumenism.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18761
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

Another thing I am struck by in the development of AV to AH 1 is the use of the Pastoral Epistles. Here are all the NT scriptural references in AV section shared with AH. First we start with biblindex:
11 § 4 (p.763, l.15 - *) BP1 Luke 10, 22
16 § 1 (p.766, l.19 - *) BP1 Colossians 1, 16
27 § 1 (p.772, l.13 - *) BP1 Luke 1, 27
27 § 2 (p.772, l.16 - *) BP1 Luke 3, 21 22
28 § 1 (p.773, l.12 - *) BP1 Luke 7, 1 10
31 § 1 (p.775, l.6 - *) BP1 Matthew 25, 1 11
32 § 5 (p.776, l.1) BP1 2 Corinthians 5, 4
33 § 1 (p.776, l.8 - *) BP1 Luke 3, 17; Luke 6, 40
Then we double check for ACTUAL citations:
16 § 1 (p.766, l.19 - *) BP1 Colossians 1, 16 (to whom the Father imparted the supreme power over the whole body of the Aeons, by subjecting them all to him, so that "by him," as the apostle says, "all things were created")
27 § 2 (p.772, l.16 - *) (Jesus descended in the sacrament of baptism, in the likeness of a dove)
28 § 1 (p.773, l.12 - *) BP1 Matthew 8/Luke 7 reference to the Centurion
So very few scriptural references.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2107
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:16 am So let's compile the list of sections of AH 1 which do not appear in AV in order.
1. INASMUCH(1) as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies...
SA--

This one phrase, to quote our Favorite President, is YUUUGE!

There may have been a Cottage Industry surrounding the Genealogy of Jesus but I'm not aware of where those documents might be found.

Matthew. Luke.
Thazzit.

This would imply that he knew about the Construction of the Gospels and that material was ADDED above and beyond the Source Documents and "Connecting Tissue" that eventually became Matthew and Luke.

WHAT SAY YE?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18761
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

So the reason I brought up AV and its RARE reference to actual passages from the NT is that this is one of the most obvious differences when AH takes over the material. Look again at what we found:
16 § 1 (p.766, l.19 - *) BP1 Colossians 1, 16 (to whom the Father imparted the supreme power over the whole body of the Aeons, by subjecting them all to him, so that "by him," as the apostle says, "all things were created")
27 § 2 (p.772, l.16 - *) (Jesus descended in the sacrament of baptism, in the likeness of a dove)
28 § 1 (p.773, l.12 - *) BP1 Matthew 8/Luke 7 reference to the Centurion
In short - only topical 2 gospel references and 1 citation of an authentic Pauline passage. Yet let's compare this with the additional material that was added to AH:
INASMUCH as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies [Titus 3:9] which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," [1 Timothy 1:4] and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive [2 Corinthians 10:5] I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations. These men falsify the oracles of God [logia tou kouriou] and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many [cf. 2 Timothy 2:18], by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.
Even in the first sentence of the new material added to AV we see a completely different author manifesting himself. By employing the Pastorals - indeed the very title of the work 'against the false gnostics' [1 Timothy 6:20] could count as yet another. This is a compact appeal to a new understanding of Paul as a champion of orthodoxy combating gnostic heresies who already existed in the mid-first century!

There is no way that the same author wrote both passages. There is no way that the same author could have been responsible for both treatises. It is worth noting that in the surviving AV of Tertullian which DOES NOT parallel AH the following also appears:
Let, however, any man approach the subject from a knowledge of the faith which he has otherwise learned, as soon as he finds so many names of Aeons, so many marriages, so many offsprings, so many exits, so many issues, felicities and infelicities of a dispersed and mutilated Deity, will that man hesitate at once to pronounce that these are "the fables and endless genealogies" which the inspired apostle by anticipation condemned, whilst these seeds of heresy were even then shooting forth? Deservedly, therefore, must they be regarded as wanting in simplicity, and as merely prudent, who produce such fables not without difficulty, and defend them only indirectly, who at the same time do not thoroughly instruct those whom they teach. This, of course, shows their astuteness, if their lessons are disgraceful; their unkindness, if they are honourable. As for us, however, who are the simple folk, we know all about it. In short, this is the very first weapon with which we are armed for our encounter; it unmasks and brings to view the whole of their depraved system. And in this we have the first augury of our victory; because even merely to point out that which is concealed with so great an outlay of artifice, is to destroy it [Against the Valentinians 3]
There are clear parallels in some respects but the introductions are completely different. I think we have to begin to see with all the different versions of material floating around in early Christian antiquity that core material was being reused and repurposed in individual addresses that were being sent out daily to the various churches in the Empire.

Continuing with the early introduction of AH which does not find parallel in AV we read in the very lines:
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself. One far superior to me has well said, in reference to this point, "A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. Or, again, what inexperienced person can with ease detect the presence of brass when it has been mixed up with silver?" Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off, even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men,-because they outwardly are covered with sheep's clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different,--I have deemed it my duty (after reading some of the Commentaries, as they call them, of the disciples of Valentinus, and after making myself acquainted with their tenets through personal intercourse with some of them) to unfold to thee, my friend, these portentous and profound mysteries, which do not fall within the range of every intellect, because all have not sufficiently purged their brains. I do this, in order that thou, obtaining an acquaintance with these things, mayest in turn explain them to all those with whom thou art connected, and exhort them to avoid such an abyss of madness and of blasphemy against Christ.
The way this is normally read is that everything the Valentinians say is wrong and evil and completely different from true orthodoxy. That's not how I read this passage.

I am increasingly of the opinion that AH was condemning only the secret mysteries of the so-called 'Valentinians.' The Valentinians actually spoke in language that sounds very much like Irenaeus. Look at the opening lines of the Gospel of Truth from Nag Hammadi:
The gospel of truth is joy for those who have received from the father of truth the grace of knowing him by the power of the word, who has come from the fullness and who is in the thought and the mind of the father ... This ignorance of the father brought about terror and fear. And terror became dense like a fog, so no one was able to see. Because of this, error became strong. But she worked on her material substance vainly, because she did not know the truth. She assumed a fashioned figure while she was preparing, in power and in beauty, the substitute for truth ... For this reason, do not take error too seriously. Since error had no root, she was in a fog regarding the father. She was preparing works and forgetfulnesses and fears in order, by these means, to beguile those of the middle and to make them captive.
Compare AH
certain men have set the truth aside ... and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive ... Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself
with the Gospel of Truth:
ignorance of the father brought ... error [who] assumed a fashioned figure while she was preparing, in power and in beauty, the substitute for truth ... to beguile those of the middle and to make them captive
This is especially clear when we understand that the Valentinian term 'those of the middle' means 'psychics' that is the laity of the Church whom Irenaeus is fighting for in AH.

But the point is that in the first paragraph of AH Irenaeus is coming to his readers decked in the 'writings of St Paul' - albeit the false Pastoral Epistles which most never heard of before. In the second paragraph Irenaeus has adopted a gnostic metaphor from a scripture the audience must have been familiar with - the Gospel of Truth. There is no way to explain the manner of the borrowing otherwise. Then a citation of Polycarp follows:
One far superior to me has well said, in reference to this point, "A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. Or, again, what inexperienced person can with ease detect the presence of brass when it has been mixed up with silver?"
which is interesting insomuch as his adversary Florinus the Valentinian was at once an intimate also of Polycarp. So the argument again is to 'those of the middle' - i.e. psychics in gnostic terminology or the laity of the Church that the 'secret doctrines' the mysteries of their community are counterfeit. These are people who never made it all the way through to the mysteries, who might have heard something about them - basically saying the whole system is bullshit, is not what the apostle taught, is not what Jesus wanted them to know.

That protecting the psychics from the Valentinian mysteries is the purpose of the work is reinforced again by AV which - while not repeating the words or imagery of AH - has the same basic understanding:
The Valentinians, who are no doubt a very large body of heretics-comprising as they do so many apostates from the truth, who have a propensity for fables, and no discipline to deter them (therefrom) care for nothing so much as to obscure what they preach, if indeed they (can be said to) preach who obscure their doctrine. The officiousness with which they guard their doctrine is an officiousness which betrays their guilt. Their disgrace is proclaimed in the very earnestness with which they maintain their religious system. Now, in the case of those Eleusinian mysteries, which are the very heresy of Athenian superstition, it is their secrecy that is their disgrace. Accordingly, they previously beset all access to their body with tormenting conditions; and they require a long initiation before they enrol (their members), even instruction during five years for their perfect disciples, in order that they may mould their opinions by this suspension of full knowledge, and apparently raise the dignity of their mysteries in proportion to the craving for them which they have previously created. Then follows the duty of silence. Carefully is that guarded, which is so long in finding. All the divinity, however, lies in their secret recesses: there are revealed at last all the aspirations of the fully initiated, the entire mystery of the sealed tongue, the symbol of virility. But this allegorical representation, under the pretext of nature's reverend name, obscures a real sacrilege by help of an arbitrary symbol, and by empty images obviates the reproach of falsehood! In like manner, the heretics who are now the object of our remarks the Valentinians, have formed Eleusinian dissipations of their own, consecrated by a profound silence, having nothing of the heavenly in them but their mystery. By the help of the sacred names and titles and arguments of true religion, they have fabricated the vainest and foulest figment for men's pliant liking,16 out of the affluent suggestions of Holy Scripture, since from its many springs many errors may well emanate. If you propose to them inquiries sincere and honest, they answer you with stern look and contracted brow, and say, "The subject is profound." If you try them with subtle questions, with the ambiguities of their double tongue, they affirm a community of faith (with yourself). If you intimate to them that you understand their opinions, they insist on knowing nothing themselves. If you come to a close engagement with them they destroy your own fond hope of a victory over them by a self-immolation. Not even to their own disciples do they commit a secret before they have made sure of them. They have the knack of persuading men before instructing them; although truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by first persuading.
Tertullian in writing this introduction to the core text shared by both versions of proto-AV only knows of the Eleusinian mysteries. He has no first hand contact with the gnostics themselves (they likely didn't exist in Carthage). But Irenaeus on the other hand boasts of his intimate familiarity with this group:
Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off, even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men,-because they outwardly are covered with sheep's clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different,--I have deemed it my duty (after reading some of the Commentaries, as they call them, of the disciples of Valentinus, and after making myself acquainted with their tenets through personal intercourse with some of them) to unfold to thee, my friend, these portentous and profound mysteries, which do not fall within the range of every intellect, because all have not sufficiently purged their brains. I do this, in order that thou, obtaining an acquaintance with these things, mayest in turn explain them to all those with whom thou art connected, and exhort them to avoid such an abyss of madness and of blasphemy against Christ.
Clearly the reason why the second paragraph sounds so much like the Gospel of Truth is because the audience has come into contact with the text and adapted its core 'myth' for the purposes of the treatise. It is the same reason why the gospel of Irenaeus is laid out fourfold - Irenaeus was adopting the gnostic mysticism the psychics had heard from the 'false gnostics' and adapted them to the 'true gnosis' of the orthodox Church.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18761
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

Proto-AV was clearly directed against the followers of Ptolemy whom I think AV demonstrates was one and the same with Ptolemy Chennus (c. 120 - 135 CE). I think the term 'Valentinians' was meaningless. There was no 'Valentinus' - someone has just taken the term Palatini (those of the [heavenly] palace) and adapted it to 'Valentinus' perhaps Hegesippus. Look at what happens to the Latin palatinus in Aramaic:
plṭyn (palaṭīn) n.m./f. palace
pl: ܦܠܛܝ̈ܐ ‏

1 palace Gal, PTA, CPA, Syr, LJLA. TgJ 2K9:32tos : מן הכא בפלטין מן בעי למיחי יפוק לוותי ‏ whoever here in the palace wants to live should come out to me. KohR[1]23:2(14) : איגר פלטין ‏ . GT D Gen44:1 : דהוה ממני על פלטין דידיה ‏ . MartArianos 2.1:10 . JulSok 465(229):1 : ܒܦܠܛܝܢ ܕܒܝܬ ܐܒܓܪ‏ .
The same corruption takes place with respect to Hegesippus's Carpocratians to Harpocratians in Celsus. We have already shown in the main body of proto-AV that the followers of Ptolemy clearly identify themselves as being the heirs to the heavenly palace - "Into the palace of the Pleroma nothing of the animal nature is admitted-nothing but the spiritual swarm of Valentinus" [AV 32] in other words the disciples of Ptolemy are already the palatini, παλατῖνοι. Also remember that peh (פ) is pronounced 'f' - those of the palace - falatino

In any event, the author continues by making clear that the original treatise was directed against the student of Ptolemy in what follows:
I intend, then, to the best of my ability, with brevity and clearness to set forth the opinions of those who are now promulgating heresy. I refer especially to the disciples of Ptolemaeus, whose school may be described as a bud from that of Valentinus. I shall also endeavour, according to my moderate ability, to furnish the means of overthrowing them, by showing how absurd and inconsistent with the truth are their statements. Not that I am practised either in composition or eloquence; but my feeling of affection prompts me to make known to thee and all thy companions those doctrines which have been kept in concealment until now, but which are at last, through the goodness of God, brought to light. "For there is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be made known."

Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the Keltae, and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions. But thou wilt accept in a kindly spirit what I in a like spirit write to thee simply, truthfully, and in my own homely way; whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness. In fine, as I (to gratify thy long-cherished desire for information regarding the tenets of these persons) have spared no pains, not only to make these doctrines known to thee, but also to furnish the means of showing their falsity; so shalt thou, according to the grace given to thee by the Lord, prove an earnest and efficient minister to others, that men may no longer be drawn away by the plausible system of these heretics, which I now proceed to describe
This is the end of AH's introduction to proto-AV. What follows is the work we have been looking at which is shared by AH and AV. Yet there is something deeply significant in the highlighted section above.

It is difficult to explain or prove for that matter that there was a 'proto-Against the Valentinians' which Irenaeus adapted in the particular manner of AH. Yet it is plain from Tertullian's AV that this is true - viz. a stand-alone treatise directed against the followers of Ptolemy was adapted by addition of Justin's Syntagma and other sources (i.e. Against the Marcosians) to what is now the first book of Against the Heresies. Yet the seeds for this development are clearly planted by Irenaeus in this introduction, much like we read in Tertullian's other Irenaean treatise Against Marcion. Against Heresies Book One happens to close its introduction with the lines:
whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness
In other words, there is an open invitation in what is made to appear to be 'proto-AV' to tell someone 'hey if you feel like adding stuff, feel free to do so.' Why is this there? Because, as with Against Marcion, an original treatise which only dealt with the followers of Ptolemy has been modified and expanded and altered in order to meet contemporary concerns of Irenaeus. Does this mean that the author is admitting that he falsified an earlier treatise? I think in a way it does.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18761
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

Let's look at the final paragraph up close:
Οὐκ ἐπιζητήσεις δὲ παρ’ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐν Δελφοίς διατριβόντων, καὶ περὶ βάρβαρον διάλεκτον τὸ πλεῖστον ἀσχολουμένων, λόγων τέχνην, ἣν οὐκ ἐμάθομεν, οὔτε δύναμιν συγγραφέως, ἣν οὐκ ἠσκήσαμεν, οὔτε καλλωπισμὸν λέξεων, οὔτε πιθανότητα, ἣν οὐκ οἴδαμεν· ἀλλὰ ἁπλῶς, καὶ ἀληθῶς, καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς τὰ μετὰ ἀγάπης σοι γραφέντα, μετὰ ἀγάπης σὺ προσδέξῃ, καὶ αὐτὸς αὐξήσεις αὐτὰ παρὰ σεαυτῷ, ἅτε ἱκανώτερος ἡμῶν τυγχάνων, οἱονεὶ σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχὰς λαβὼν παρ’ ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐν τῷ πλάτει σου τοῦ νοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ καρποφορήσεις τὰ δι’ ὀλίγων ὑφ’ ἡμῶν εἰρημένα, καὶ δυνατῶς παραστήσεις τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ τὰ ἀσθενῶς ὑφ’ ἡμῶν ἀπηγγελμένα· καὶ ὡς ἡμεῖς ἐφιλοτιμήθημεν, πάλαι ζητοῦντός σου μαθεῖν τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, μὴ μόνον σοι ποιῆσαι φανερὰν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐφόδια δοῦναι πρὸς τὸ ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτὴν ψευδῆ· οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὺ φιλοτίμως τοῖς λοιποῖς διακονήσεις, κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου σοὶ δεδομένην, εἰς τὸ μηκέτι παρασύρεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκείνων πιθανολογίας, οὔσης τοιαύτης.
The original manuscript of Epiphanius has the author declare that he has a barbarous tongue because he has spent time among the Δελφοίς (those of Delphi) which was changed in later manuscripts to read Κελτοῖς or 'Celts' which all translators have adopted because Irenaeus was said to come from Gaul.

But the allusion to the author declaring that he was from Delphi and this accounts for his lack of ability - while puzzling - is the original reading. The only thing I can piece together is that Hegesippus might behind these reading given the story in Aristotle:
Hegesippus, after having first consulted the oracle at Olympia, asked the god at Delphi whether his opinion was the same as his father's, meaning that it would be disgraceful to contradict him.
The story derives from Xen. Hell. 4.7.2 where the name 'Hegesippus' is not specifically mentioned but it is clear that Aristotle knows the name of the anonymous general:
After this it seemed to the Lacedaemonians that it was not safe for them to undertake a campaign against the Athenians or against the Boeotians while leaving in their rear a hostile state bordering upon Lacedaemon and one so large as that of the Argives; they accordingly called out the ban against Argos. Now when Hegesippus (other MSS Agesipolis) learned that he was to lead the ban, and when the sacrifices which he offered at the frontier proved favourable, he went to Olympia and consulted the oracle of the god ( καὶ χρηστηριαζόμενος ἐπηρώτα τὸν θεὸν), asking whether it would be consistent with piety if he did not acknowledge the holy truce claimed by the Argives; for, he urged, it was not when the appointed time came, but when the Lacedaemonians were about to invade their territory, that they pleaded the sacred months. And the god signified to him that it was consistent with piety for him not to acknowledge a holy truce which was pleaded unjustly. Then Hegesippus proceeded straight from there to Delphi and asked Apollo in his turn whether he also held the same opinion as his father Zeus in regard to the truce. And Apollo answered that he did hold quite the same opinion.

Under these circumstances Hegesippus led forth his army from Phlius—for it had been assembling for him there while he was away visiting the holy places—and entered the territory of Argos by way of Nemea. And when the Argives realized that they would not be able to hinder the invasion, they sent, as they were wont to do, two heralds, garlanded, pleading a holy truce. But Hegesippus in reply said that the gods did not think they were making this plea justly, and so he refused to acknowledge the truce, but advanced into their territory and caused great distress and terror both in the country and in the city.

Now while he was at dinner in the land of the Argives, on the first evening of his stay there, and when the after-dinner libations had just been made, the god sent an earthquake; and all the Lacedaemonians, those in the royal tent taking the lead, struck up the paean to Poseidon1; and the rest of the soldiers expected to retire from the country, because Agis likewise, on an occasion when an earthquake took place, had withdrawn his army from Elis.3 But Hegesippus said that if the god had sent an earthquake when he was about to invade, he should have thought that he was forbidding the invasion; but since he sent it after he had invaded, he believed that he was urging him on;
The point clearly is that while the reference to 'Delphians' made no sense to generations of translators, the understanding that Hegesippus was the author of the material might shed light on the situation.

In Greek tradition a Spartan general named Hegesippus received permission from the Father god to invade the land of the Argives despite their pleading that they were celebrating 'holy month.' When he went to Delphi the priests who gave oracles on behalf of the son essentially lied - remember he asks 'does the Son agree with the Father' - there are of course implications for early Christianity. The orthodox believed that the Son was in communion or one with the Father. The gnostics not so much. For a Hegessipus to say that he is 'among the Delphi' clearly implies that (a) the author is cautious questioner, that he is agnostic and that (b) he is among those who handle the oracles of God falsely - going back to a common theme in material added to AV.

But I think it is more important to see that if the author is HERE confessing that he is Hegesippus and that he encourages those he is sending out the material:
whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness
this explains why there are so many versions of the underlying material floating around in antiquity. Even though the authorship of Against Heresies is attributed to Irenaeus, there are many points he clearly takes over things from Hegesippus and - as we see here - expands upon it. So the section with the Carpocratians but more importantly the Roman episcopal list in Book Three:
Even before Irenaeus, Hegesippus, without any hint or apparent consciousness that he is entering upon ground which could possibly be controvertible, makes a point of drawing up a list of the Roman bishops till the time when he himself visited Rome.
The point is that when Irenaeus uses that material he never once attributes the material to Hegesippus. He just takes it over and makes a list which ended with Anicetus go down several more generations with new names. This process can now be demonstrated to have been sanctioned - allegedly - by Hegesippus in the first lines of Against Heresies. In other words, the reference to Hegesippus among the Delphians confessing his caution - i.e. that he didn't write a full account because he was limited by his abilities (Eusebius says he was stupid) - but encouraging others to fill in his report has been taken up by Irenaeus full-heartedly. Of course if Hegesippus never wrote these words (and this is indicated by them not showing up in Tertullian's AV) then Irenaeus wrote them to allow him to corrupt the original report in the same way they show up in Against Marcion's preface.

In other words, I am supposing that Hegesippus was the author of proto-AV. I see it being confessed in the preface to Against Heresies Book 1 and it is confirmed by Irenaeus's use of Hegesippus and expansion of his episcopal list in Book 3. For those who doubt that Hegesippus was the first to write about the Valentinians (or that his book claimed he did) I draw your attention to one of the last remaining fragments who know of his Outlines:

On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession, and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord....
And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Clopas, descended from the Lord's uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord.

Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching. Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ....
Hegesippus wrote before Irenaeus. Thus the reference to the Valentinians here predates that of Against Heresies. The earliest Church Father to condemn the Valentinians is Hegesippus. Notice also their proximity to the Carpocratians - "and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians ..."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18761
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

For those who deny Aristotle's reading of the Hegesippus story - i.e. that he was showing the corrupt nature of the oracle racket - it has to be remembered that a century before Hegesippus/Agesipolis his great grandfather Cleomenes overthrew Demaratus, after first bribing the oracle at Delphi to announce that this was the divine will, and replaced him with Leotychides. The Hegesippus reference to being among 'those of Delphi' - i.e. the Valentinians - is to emphasize that they corrupt the oracles of God, a familiar theme throughout AH 1. It is generally accepted that Hegesippus is used throughout AH - "From which of Justin's works the citation, v. 26, 2, is derived cannot be decided. With far greater confidence we may assume Irenaeus to have used the Memoirs of Hegesippus (iii. 3, 3; 4, 3, cf. Quellen der alt. Ketzergesch. p. 73)." https://books.google.com/books?id=jxxNC ... AHoECAMQKQ
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18761
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

Birger Pearson brings a crucial observation to the discussion about whether Against Heresies (a.k.a. 'Against the False Gnostics') might have been ultimately attributable to Hegesippus. He notes that immediately follow his citation of Hegesippus on the descendants of Jesus Eusebius writes:
We then read the following: Besides this the same writer, explaining the events of these times adds that until then the church remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, for those who attempted to corrupt the healthful rule of the Savior's teaching, if they existed at all, lurked in obscure darkness. But when the sacred band of the Apostles and the generation of those to whom it had been vouchsafed to hear with their own ears the divine wisdom had reached the several ends of their lives, then the federation of godless error took its beginning through the deceit of false teachers who, seeing that none of the Apostles still remained, barefacedly tried against the preaching of the truth the counter-proclamation of “knowledge falsely so-called. (Eusebius HE 3.32.7,8)
The direct sequel to this discussion of heresy is found in chapter 7 of book 4, to which we shall return. The passage just quoted, with its typically “orthodox” notion of the origins of heresy in the church,” poses an interesting question: Does Eusebius's source, Hegesippus, use the term “falsely called Knowledge,” or has it been introduced by Eusebius himself at this point? (Eusebius is evidently not quoting Hegesippus here; he is paraphrasing him.) And who are the sectarians referred to by Hegesippus in the preceding context, that is, those who were implicated in the martyrdom of Symeon? The latter question is easily answered: they were not Christian “heretics,” but representatives of of one or more of “the seven sects among the people” elsewhere discussed by Hegesippus (Hist. Eccl. 2.23.8; 4.22.7); that is to say, they were Jews. For Hegesippus, and for Eusebius who follows him, Christian “heresy” could take hold only with the passing of the apostles and their hearers (including Symeon: 3.32.4). “Falsely called Knowledge” is the cover term for this earliest expression of Christian “heresy,” a term that could very well have been used already by Hegesippus.

In that case, Hegesippus may have inspired Irenaeus to use the term in his treatise Against Heresies. On Hegesippus's lost Hypomnemata, see esp. N. Hyldahl, “Hegesipps Hypomnemata,” in St.Th 14 (1960): 70–113. Cf. E. J. Goodspeed and R. M. Grant, A History of Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 123–25; and Grant, Eusebius, 38, 40, 67–70, 86. 36. https://books.google.com/books?id=vahNA ... 22&f=false
The point then is that Birger and Hyldahl already anticipate that the TITLE and the thesis of Against Heresies was taken by Irenaeus from Hegesippus. Now all that we are suggesting is that it wasn't just the title. Against Heresies or its original title Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως might itself have derived origin from Hegesippus or it may have been made to seem so by Irenaeus (see above).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18761
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

The idea that the preface to Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως was developed as if a self-recognition on the part of Hegesippus that he - like his namesake in ancient Sparta - was among those who call themselves 'gnostics' viz. the Delphians - because of their corruption of the oracles of God seems to be on very firm footing. Irenaeus sets this up in order to throw in the line "whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness" as Irenaeus has expanded the original treatise.

This may also solve another problem - why Hegesippus's work is referenced as the Ὑπομνήματα. The Ὑπομνήματα were in Five Books as was Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. Maybe Hegesippus's work was so-called because it resembled the more polished work of Irenaeus or appeared as the rough notes that was used by Irenaeus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply