Formation of The Early Christian Theology of Arithmetic Number Symbolism in The Late Second and Early Third Century PDF

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
Formation of the Early Christian Theology of Arithmetic
Number Symbolism in the Late Second and Early Third Century
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty of the
Department of Early Christian Studies
School of Arts and Sciences
Of the Catholic University of America
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
By
Joel Kalvesmaki
Washington, D.C.
2006
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3214679
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3214679
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml48106-1346
Formation of the Early Christian Theology of Arithmetic
Number Symbolism in the Late Second and Early Third Century
Joel Kalvesmaki, Ph.D.
Director: William McCarthy, Ph.D.
Numbers were widely used in antiquity to symbolize reality and to structure theological
and philosophical systems. Early Christian authors embraced this practice, but not without
controversy. In the late second century there emerged distinct Christian movements that
used Pythagorean number symbolism to structure their ideas about the godhead. Notable
were the various Valentinian schools (including Marcus "Magus" and Colarbasus),
Mono·imus, and later followers of Simon "Magus." Contemporary orthodox authors, such as
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, opposed them, particularly for undermining the
Trinitarian doctrine received in the churches. But Irenaeus and Clement do not approach the
matter identically. Irenaeus criticizes the Valentinians directly, and without squaring
everything in his critique with his own number symbolism. Clement criticizes such groups
indirectly, and uses his own well-developed number symbolism to illustrate the proper way
to approach the subject.
The Christian debates have striking parallels in roughly contemporary non-Christian
texts. Marsanes, Plutarch, and Theodore of Asine show that non-Christians too debated these
matters. All of these figures - Christian and non-Christian -illustrate the tensions that
existed between those who used number symbolism to shape theological and philosophical
traditions and those who used their traditions to shape their number symbolism. The
orthodox theology of arithmetic formed not a single position but rather a defense against
arbitrary number symbolism that justified departures from the received tradition.
I argue for several important ancillary points. Pythagoreanism was reinvented
during the late Roman Republic, and the number symbolism that emerged in the following
centuries had a traceable history. The distinction between hen and monad, the popular
formulation of the quadrivium, and numerology and the use of psephy (gematria) all have
their genesis in this period . Older traditions of number symbolism, such as the distinction
between male and female numbers and the importance of the tetraktys, all received new life.
I outline the historical development of each of these trends and classify and describe the
major types of Greek numerological prognostication. Furthermore, I argue for a new
sequence to Irenaeus' s Against Heresies, and I challenge scholars' dependence upon the
dichotomies eastern versus western, and monadic versus dyadic Valentinianism.
This dissertation by Joel Kalvesmaki fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral
degree in Early Christian Studies approved by William McCarthy, Ph.D., as Director, and by
Philip Rousseau, Ph.D., Christoph Markschies, Ph.D., and Susan Wessel, Ph.D., as Reade�s.
l
Philip Rousseau, Ph.D., Reader
Christoph Markschies, Ph.D., Reader
/ �Gi)wjJ
Susan Wessel, Ph.D., Reader
11
To my parents
iii
CONTENTS
1 Introduction 1
2 The Valentinians 10
3 Marcus "Magus" 79
4 Mono!mus 1 05
5 The Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale 118
6 Colarbasus 132
7 Irenaeus 140
8 Clement of Alexandria 182
9 Platonism 225
10 Numeri ex regula 262
EXCURSUSES
A Pythagoreanism in Outline 273
B Themes in Pythagorean Number Symbolism
1 One Versus One: The Hierarchy of the Hen and the Monad 284
2 Odd and Even Numbers as Male and Female 296
3 The Tetraktys 305
4 The Quadrivium 310
5 The Number Five: Marriage 321
C The Elements and History of Psephy (Gematria) 325
D Types of Greek Numerology 343
IV
E The Original Sequence of Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 : Another Suggestion 380
F Italian versus Eastern Valentinianisrn? 395
G The Structure of Clement of Alexandria's Excursus on the Decalogue 404
Abbreviations 412
Bibliography 415
1
Introduction
Read any of Origen's commentaries on Scripture and you will note that at the appearance in
the Bible of a bird, a plant, a color, the time of day, even a definite article, is apt to be
interpreted symbolically. Origen's fascination with the world of symbols was shared
throughout the Greco-Roman antiquity by Christians, Jews, Mithraites, polytheists, and
others. Such symbols were key parts of their cultural and intellectual world.
Certain classes of symbols were more significant than others. For such symbols
handbooks and treatises were written to capture and transmit the relevant lore. Names
became the basic subject matter of ancient onomastica; animals, of bestiaries; minerals, of
commentaries on the meaning of stones discussed in Scripture; time, of meteorological
prognostication; and numbers, of treatises on the decad. These popular tractates began to
appear in the Hellenistic period, were systematized in late antiquity, and were enlarged and
enriched in the medieval period. Other, less significant, symbols were systematized in
handbooks, but this was done only in the medieval period: color & light, geometrical
shapes, anatomy & anthropology, music, clothing, geography, smells, and food.
Numbers are among the oldest and most important symbols in antiquity. From the
three legs of an oracle's tripod, to the twenty-four books of The Iliad, to the shadowy
Pythagorean tetraktys; up to the twelve apostles, the one hundred fifty-three fish, and the
2
seven seals; Christianity, like other Mediterranean religions, used numbers to plot
symbolically the world of divine and human. Of course, not all ancient authors show an
equal interest in number symbolism. Varro' s treatise On the Hebdomad is far more attuned to
number symbolism than, say, Julius Caesar's Civil Wars. In early Christian literature,
Revelation has many more aspects of number symbolism than does the Epistle of James; the
Shepherd of Hermas has more - albeit subtle and opaque- than does Clement of Rome.
The proper role of number symbolism became a point of substantive debate in the
late second and third centuries, when some Christians began to use numbers in theology in
radically different ways, and to new degrees of intensity. How to apply arithmetic to
theology and the interpretation of the Scriptures was important to these various
competitors, since numbers formed the grid upon which someone either organized the
cosmos or, to their opponent, distorted it. In this study, I focus on this early Christian debate
by treating several different authors and texts whose theology is marked by a special
interest in number symbolism: classical Valentinian authors, Marcus (given the epithet
Magus), Colarbasus, Monolmus, the author of the paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale,
Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria. The author of Marsanes was not Christian, nor was
any other Platonist author I discuss in chapter 9, but the parallels they furnish are an
important complement to the Christian material I cover.
Ideally, this study would constitute the fourth of a five-volume introduction to
ancient number symbolism. The first volume would cover prehistoric number symbolism
and the invention of literary symbolic numbers in Babylonia and Egypt. The second volume,
presented in two parts, would introduce the number symbolism of ancient Greek and
ancient Hebrew societies. The third - the prelude to this study -would survey the
3
reemergence of Pythagoreanism in the Roman Empire and the transformation of Hellenistic
and Jewish number symbolism. The fifth and final volume would explore the habits of
number symbolism in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism of the late antique and early
medieval periods. This would bring the story to the eleventh century, or so, just before the
vocabulary of number symbolism dramatically shifted once again, through Kabbalistic and
other medieval literature, into new, highly elaborate, numerical composition, and other new
ways of playing with numbers. These ideal five volumes would be reciprocally explanatory.
The vast quantity of ancient number symbolism, and our often-speculative efforts to
understand it, require us to read later texts to interpret earlier ones, and to read just as
closely earlier texts to see if the later texts have not introduced new paradigms.
Unfortunately, the other volumes do not exist. Aspects of number symbolism that are
critical to understand my argument, but go beyond the chronological boundaries of this
study, I explore in the footnotes and excursuses.
I have not written chapters on either Philo or the New Testament. Both are
fundamental to any explanation of the origins of the Christian debates in the second and
third centuries over numbers. But to treat them properly requires extensive discussion, well
beyond the scope of this study. In addition, they have little immediate explanatory value for
the systems I discuss, systems that appear to be crafted independent of any predecessors.
Likewise, I have not dealt with the number symbolism of Origen, Jerome, and - seemingly
everyone's favorite -Augustine. In my conclusion I suggest some trends in the emergent
orthodox use of numbers. As we shall see, Irenaeus provides a rationale as to what orthodox
number symbolism ought to be. To determine how closely the later tradition adhered to
4
Irenaeus' s vision would be enlightening. Hopefully my study will provide the impetus and
basis for further analysis.
To get to the heart of my argument, I have had to omit a number of elementary,
introductory explanations. I must assume, for instance, that you have already read, or plan
to read concurrent to this study, Irenaeus' s Against Heresies, Hippolytus' s Refutation of All
Heresies, large parts of Clement's Stromateis, and the Nag Hammadi texts. I have
summarized the relevant content of these texts, but these summaries are meant only to
reorient you to treatises you have already read, not replace them. Whenever I can, I signal
studies that are a good first stop for anyone needing further introductory material. It will
also help to be familiar with some of the basic texts used in Greek number symbolism and
mathematics, such as the anonymous Theology of Arithmetic (the namesake of my study),
Theon of Smyrna's Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato, and Nicomachus' s Introduction to
Arithmetic. Of all these various texts, Irenaeus' s and Hippolytus' s especially should be close
at hand.
As for secondary studies, I try to summarize, not recreate, the state of research on
various subjects dealing with early Christian theology, the Greek philosophical tradition,
and other broad subjects. On occasion, I have found that modern scholarship on a given
topic is inadequate, difficult, or cannot be navigated easily. For example, there are very few
studies that competently treat the historical contours of psephy (gematira). In the course of
my research I have developed new ideas about when and how this literary phenomenon
arose. Such a thesis is important but somewhat tangential to the overall direction of this
study, so appears as an excursus.
5
Some of my terminology needs a brief explanation. For instance, I tend to avoid the
term gnostic, which has been greatly abused over the last century. Thankfully, it has been
increasingly recognized that gnostic does not describe a coherent category when applied
wholesale to the groups Irenaeus refutes or the texts in the Nag Hammadi library.1 Rather
than apply the term entirely to a number of early Christian theologies or traditions, I use it
only for those specific groups that I believe are called so in the primary sources.
It may seem that by focusing on groups traditionally thought of as gnostic, and by
setting them in opposition to Irenaeus and his followers, I reaffirm the substance if not the
labels of the difference between heretical and orthodox, between gnostic and orthodox. This
would be a hasty judgment. The opposition between Irenaeus and these various groups is
not the premise but the thesis of this study. I shall argue, not assume, that the two have very
different views of the role of numbers. Furthermore, a number of texts and authors
conventionally labeled gnostic fail to make the list since not all systems of gnosis had an
interest in number symbolism. Prominently missing from our list are Simon Magus,
Marcion, Basilides, "Sethian" texts, and Valentinus himself. This is not to say that numbers
do not occasionally crop up in these authors' texts as symbols or literary devices, but they
are less frequent and important as they are in other texts.
To describe Valentinian systems the term protology (and derivatives) has been
recently coined.2 The neologism is helpful, since it points to the arithmetical character of
V alentinian theories of how everything began, a nuance missing in similes such as
metaphysics, philosophy, and theology. But protology can be misleading, too, since it implies that
1 Foremost of these studies is Williams, Rethinking "Gnosticism "

2 Orbe, Cristologia, 1:484 n. 198, reinforced throughout Thomassen, Spiritual Seed.
6
the realm and operations of the Valentinians were wholly separate from those of orthodox
writers, whose ruminations on the relationship between the Father and the Son would be
more comfortably termed theology, not protology. Therefore I use the term sparingly, and
only when it refers to theological or philosophical ideas of how the highest level of reality
emerged.
I also distinguish between arithmetic and mathematics. The former, the study of the
properties and operations of discrete numbers (e.g., adding, multiplication), is a proper
subset of the latter, which is the general study of all the numerical sciences. Mathematics
encompasses arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy- the foursome known as the
quadrivium (see excursus B). This classical distinction between the two words was current
in English as late as the eighteenth century. The complete transformation of the sciences in
the age of Newton led to our present usage, where arithmetic and mathematics are used
interchangeably. For a study on ancient number symbolism, however, the distinction is
helpful, especially since we often encounter the term f1et8fJ;.una, which always infers more
than our modem term mathematics.
I use the term numerology to connote number symbolism used either to conceal or to
reveal occult knowledge. Think of it as a correlate to astrology, which today has similar
connotations. All ancient numerology is number symbolism, but only some ancient number
symbolism is numerology. Some ancient authors would probably be offended to find their
number symbolism associated with more seedy activities, such as predicting the outcome of
a marriage or determining a person's death based on the numerical value of their name.
Thus, I generally prefer the neutral term number symbolism unless prognostication is at work,
in which case numerology is accurate. Delatte introduced the term arithmology, which he
7
found in an eighteenth century Greek manuscript, and it serves well to break up the
monotony of the terminology, but it is unclear what the Byzantine Greek scribe meant by
a�:_H8!-1oAoy(a, a hapax legomenon.
The term magic has come under fire over the last number of years, mainly because
the term was pejorative then, as it often is today. A person could accuse anyone of magic,
but the standards used might backfire on the accuser in other contexts. One of the best
alternative terms circulating today, ritual power, does not exactly roll off the tongue, but it
accurately identifies the function of so-called magical texts, to ritualistically invoke the
divine powers so as to prompt them to effect a change in the materia] world. Because both
terms have flaws answered by the other, I use magic and ritual power interchangeably.3 The
practice the terms describe, however, is not to be confused with prognostication. Magic is a
proactive engagement with this world, whereas prognostication and divination attempt
merely to read the future or present. Natural1y, one practice can lead to another, but we find
in ancient texts that authors of one sort never try to do the work of the other.
One further terminological clarification: I use psephy, psephic, and isopsephy to
describe the ancient habit of reckoning the numerical value of names and words. This is
more commonly known in English as gematria, but the Hebrew term it comes from was not
coined until probably the sixth or seventh century. For the cultural and chronological scope
of this study, the first three terms are more appropriate.
I intend this to be the first, not final, word on the number symbolism of early
Christian texts from the late second and early third centuries. I have not extensively
3 For the phrase ritual power see the introduction to Meyer et al., Ancient Christian Magic. For here,
broad but inadequate terms must do.
8
analyzed, for instance, the Barbeliotes, the Apocryphon of John, the so-called Ophites, the
Books offeu, the untitled text from the Bruce codex, or Pistis Sophia. Closer to Orthodox
circles are the Shepherd of Hermas and the Sybilline Oracles. These and other such texts would
be excellent candidates for future research.
All unaccredited translations are my own. I sometimes suggest emendations to the
standard editions of primary sources, oftentimes to justify or to corroborate my arguments.
Such philological detours are unimportant and distracting to many, but preciously
important to a few. I have tried to restrict these discussions to the footnotes or, if the
argument is too extensive, an excursus. To signal such a philological discussion I mark the
footnote callout with a plus sign, for example, 27+.
It is traditional to the genre of the dissertation to spend several pages recounting the
status quaestionis. Forgive me for omitting this step. As far as I know, I am the first to raise
exactly this quaestio. Certainly, there have been dozens of studies about individual texts and
ideas I treat, and I signal these in the notes and bibliography. But no one, to my knowledge,
has tried to describe and explain the scope of the late second and early third century
Christian debate over number symbolism, and understand it within the much larger, longer
tradition of number symbolism in the ancient Mediterranean world. I hope my study
stimulates others to explore this quaestio.
Of those who have helped me in my research, the most important is my wife,
Colette, who allowed me to work undisturbed, and whose curiosity in my topic provided
many stimulating conversations. Robin Darling Young was the first to suggest that number
symbolism would be a fertile subject for a dissertation; her intuition was correct, probably
9
far more than even she knew. Michael Williams read an early draft of several chapters and
encouraged me in my research. Janet Timbie provided excellent advice on my arguments
concerning Coptic texts. John Nesbitt provided helpful suggestions for chapter eight.
Stephen Chrisomalis suggested ideas about the development of Greek numeration, thereby
enhancing excursus C. Einar Thomassen's excellent criticisms of a conference paper I
delivered in 2005 helped me avoid glaring errors in an early version of chapter two. Finally,
I thank my committee, William McCarthy, Philip Rousseau, Christoph Markschies, and
Susan Wessel, all of whose suggestions and criticism I value.
2
The Valentinians
As will become evident in the course of this study, many Christian authors and movements
in the late second and early third centuries used numbers as important symbols for their
theology and Scriptural exegesis. The most important of these groups are the Valentinians,
with whom these next two chapters pertain.
Valentinus flourished in Rome in the 1 40s and 150s, arriving there possibly from
Alexandria, where he is said to have been born and educated. In Rome Valentinus was
involved in church life until he left for Cyprus around 1 60, a departure possibly occasioned
by his not being elected to ecclesiastical office. That he developed a school or some kind of
following in Rome seems clear from a very early reference, around 155, to "Valentinians."1
Ever since Markschies's landmark study, scholars have increasingly recognized the
difficulty of reconstructing Valentinus's system. The most reliable fragments and
testimonies suggest that Valentinus, at least in the early stages of his career, did not hold to
1 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.4.3; Epiphanius, Panarion 31 .2.3; Tertullian, Against the Valentinians 4.1;
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 35.6. For more on Valentinus's life, see Thomassen, Spiritual Seed,
41 7-22.
10
11
the doctrines later espoused b y Ptolemy, Secundus, and other later Valentinians.2 Although
Markschies hesitates to declare outright that Valentinus did not teach the doctrines his
followers embraced, he emphasizes that the absence of such doctrines in his authentic
fragments suggests that credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) must be given to
the next generation or two of Valentinian teachers for introducing and developing the
doctrines on which Irenaeus focuses. This resembles the view of Tertullian. Synthesizing the
views of four second-century apologists, he regards Ptolemy, not Valentinus, as the inventor
of the reified and arithmetically arranged aeons that form the Pleroma. Markschies and
Tertullian's tones and purposes are diametrically opposed, but they both agree that
Valentinus' s followers diverged substantially from their teacher's original teaching.3
I have nothing to say about Valentinus's use of number symbolism, a silence that
corroborates their thesis. None of his fragments exhibit any interest, aside from the probably
spurious report in book one, chapter eleven of Irenaeus's Against Heresies, discussed below.
The number symbolism that is so prominent in Valentinianism belongs either to systems
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others identify with later disciples, or to Nag Hammadi texts that
do not name their authors. By using the amorphous terms Valentinianism and Valentinians, I
mean to imply not that Valentinus is the originator of these doctrines but that the teachings
belong to his successors.4
2 Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus; idem, TRE 34:495-500. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
scholars were also skeptical, but a new optimism was introduced by Sagnard, Gnose valentinienne
(1947). See Stead, "In Search of Valentinus," 75-76.
3 Tertullian, Against the Valentinians 4.2, 5.1. Note that Tertullian does not call his treatise Against
Valentinus.
4 The term Valentinian is used by the heresiologists, not by the Valentinians themselves, at least in the
scraps of texts that remain. Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 4, regards the term as pejorative, and therefore
12
Among Valentinus's most famous pupils were Ptolemy and Heracleon, both of
whose authentic fragments depict theological systems that contrast somewhat with the
Valentinianism exposed by Irenaeus.5 Ptolemy's Letter to Flora does not mention the doctrine
of the aeons, and Heracleon's shows traces of it, but nothing that can be reconstructed with
certainty .6 In any case, the protologies with the most developed system of aeons, the systems
of special concern in this chapter, belong to the followers of Valentinus and Ptolemy,
probably to be dated to the 1 60s and 170s. Many scholars assign this to western, or Italian,
Valentinians, as opposed to the eastern ones. I am skeptical that this was a real division (see
Excursus E). But even if the division was real, we know so little about it that it should not be
used to classify various Valentinian doctrines, teachers, or groups.
sets it in scare quotes. But supposing that the term was derogatory, it does not follow that the
Valentinians didn't embrace it. One person's slur could be the other's badge of pride. We shall see
below that Irenaeus uses Valentinian association with Pythagoreanism as an insult, but they
embraced it.
5 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.35.6.
6 On Ptolemy's letter, preserved in Epiphanius, Panarion 33.3-8, see below, 43-44, where I suggest
there may be a doctrine of the aeons lurking behind Ptolemy's comments. This differs somewhat
from the conclusions drawn by Lohr, "Doctrine de Dieu," and Markschies, "Valentinian Gnosticism,"
429. Two very different assessments of Heracleon have been recently written: Castellano, Exegesis de
Origenes, and Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus. Based on the fragments, Castellano argues for and
explores Heracleon's Valentinian connections. Wucherpfennig, following in the wake of Markschies
(and the same series), argues on the basis of the same fragments that Heracleon was not a proponent
of gnosis, and not even a Valentinian. Much of the force of his argument rests on the seeming Jack of
overt Valentinian doctrine in the extant fragments of Heracleon. But Castellano's research, apparently
unknown to Wucherpfennig, shows that Origen, u pon whom we depend for most of the fragments,
cites Heracleon in order to show his philological and exegetical, not theological, deficiency. Although
theology is not prominent in the Heracleon fragments, Castellano identifies Valentinian themes in
them. I find Castellano's case more persuasive. Michael Kaler's observation (pers. comm.), however,
that Origen never calls Heracleon a Valentinian, suggests that research on Heracleon is yet in its early
stages. For more on Heracleon, see below, pp. 1 93-195 and 203.
13
There are two types o f sources for Valentinianism, sympathetic and hostile. Of the
first group, the earliest representatives are Valentinus, Ptolemy, and Heracleon. Some of the
anonymous Valentinus wrote letters and hymns, and revised his sermons for publication.
Ptolemy's letter and Heracleon's commentary on John suggest they belonged to a literary
circle of broad interests. Absent these fragments, the bulk of sympathetic Valentinian
sources are found in the Nag Hammadi texts, some of which may originate from this earlier
period. The hostile sources are, of course, the orthodox heresiologists, whose concern for
doctrinal purity determines what and how they quote from the Valentinians.
Those who would prefer to reconstruct Valentinianism on the basis of nonhostile
sources are faced with the conundrum, that any attempt to determine what Nag Hammadi
texts are Valentinian must begin with a typology informed by the Fathers. To the same
degree the Fathers have misunderstood the main, distinguishing features of Valentinianism,
we too have probably mischaracterized what in the Nag Hammadi library is Valentinian.
Like it or not, we must begin with Irenaeus and the heresiologists, but read them carefully,
to determine what Valentinianism was all about and where it is best represented in the Nag
Hammadi material? Not that we should accept everything the heresiologists report. As
should be evident in my analysis, we must be vigilant against inconsistencies and rhetorical
exaggeration. But there is no other way to learn about the Valentinians than by starting with
those who wrote about them. The Nag Hammadi texts do no such thing.
Thus, I treat first the orthodox authors' testimonies of Valentinianism, then the Nag
Hammadi material, and attempt to synthesize afterwards the two types of evidence into a
7 Desjardins, "Sources for Valentinian Gnosticism."
14
single, coherent picture. I have accepted the current consensus concerning what Nag
Hammadi texts are probably or certainly Valentinian, and used them for the second part of
my analysis.8 Marcus Magus, whom most ancient sources associate with Valentinian circles,
has an unusual, highly developed number symbolism, so I treat him separately, in the next
chapter.
There are a few systems that seem typologically related to the theology of the
Valentinians, but no ancient texts explicitly make the connection. Most notable are the so-
called Barbelo-Gnostics and the Ophites.9 There are some theological and mythological
similarities between the Barbelo-Gnostics and Valentinians, less so between the Ophites and
the Valentinians, and scholars are disinclined to suggest with any confidence a line of
descent from Valentinus to either system. The same applies to the number symbolism found
in all three systems: the Barbelo-Gnostics' number symbolism has a few striking similarities
with the Valentinians', but the Ophites, less so. Nevertheless, both Barbelo-Gnostic and
Ophite systems involve intricate, albeit disparate, number symbolism. A full exploration of
these arithmological systems, interesting in their own right, goes beyond the present study. I
hope that what little material I present here of the Barbelo-Gnostic system will provide the
impetus for a future, more detailed investigation.
IRENAEUS'S VALENTINIAN REPORT
Irenaeus begins his expose of the Valentinian school by discussing at length the doctrines of
one particular group or text. Roughly one third of book one of Against Heresies recapitulates
s Thomassen, "Notes pour la delimitation," and "L'histoire du valentinisme."

9 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .29-30; Apocryphon ofJohn.
15
this group's doctrine and exegesis. Although many scholars frequently refer to this group as
Ptolemaean or as the grand or main system, it is likely that both labels read too much into
Irenaeus's language. Irenaeus mentions the school of Ptolemy in the preface to book one,
but does not explicitly connect it with the first system he discusses.10 He never says who was
responsible for this first Valentinian system. Further, Irenaeus does not explicitly call it the
main group, or any other label that suggests them to be the Valentinians par excellence. True,
Irenaeus discusses them first, and to the greatest length, but this does not mean that he
regards them as the most important or most advanced group of Valentinians. Indeed,
Irenaeus's later discussion about Marcus-explored in the next chapter-shows that he
regards this first system as but one school of Valentinian thought. All we can say with
certainty is that the person or persons behind this system were Valentinians whom Irenaeus
thought both typified the error of the movement in its later stages, and were especially
useful for beginning his treatise.1 1 Throughout this study, I refer to this group of
1o Markschies, "New Research," 251; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .pr .2 . Markschies notes that in the
preface to book one Irenaeus promises to treat the Ptolemaeans only as far as he is able; i.e., he could
only treat them briefly, at Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .12. Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 18 and passim,
regards Against Heresies 1.1-9 as Ptolemaean, but he does not deal with Markschies' s arguments,
which are, in my view, more compelling. One other point convinces me that it is misleading to refer
to chapters 1 through 9 as Ptolemaean: the section mentions no proper names. This contrasts with the
rest of Against Heresies; Irenaeus regularly reminds readers of the specific group or teacher he is
discussing. It seems to me that, had Irenaeus known the source of chapters 1 through 9 was
Ptolemaean, he would have made the most of this point, to answer the teaser in the preface.
1 1 Pace Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, who unjustly charges Irenaeus with inconsistent definitions of the
term Valentinian (see, e.g., pp. 13-15). Thomassen (ibid., e.g., 15-17) also unfairly accuses Irenaeus of
inconsistency in his two claims, that the Valentinians (1) have a common false doctrine and (2)
constantly disagree with each other, each variation being a lie. There is no contradiction in these two
theses. Consider, for instance, a biologist in our own age, who might argue in similar lines against
conservative Christians, that they all (1) share a false doctrine of the origins of the physical world yet
(2) cannot agree on whether Genesis teaches a young earth, an old-earth, or any other of the dozens
of variations taught by Christians. Irenaeus pursues a similar line of attack against the Valentinians.
16
Valentinians- the group behind chapters one through nine of Against Heresies book one- as
the first group, not the main group or Ptolemaeans.
Irenaeus' s first group of Valentinians hold to a theology that is marked by reified
abstractions (termed aeons) whose associations with each other form the basis of intricate
mythologies. The system is difficult to grasp without multiple readings. This obscurity is
not due to the language barrier; fluent Greek speakers would have found the system just as
impenetrable without several careful, slow readings. My summary here merely epitomizes
the system. Readers who have never before encountered Valentinianism will find the next
several pages incomprehensible without reading very carefully chapters one through nine
of Against Heresies book one.
In that system, the pre-existent, transcendent aeon, called Forefather- also called
Foresource and Depth-coexists with his consort, Thought - also called Grace and Silence
(figure 1 ).12 Depth impregnates Silence, and she brings forth Mind - also called Only
Begotten, Father, and Source of All. At the same time Mind is generated, so too is his
12 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 . 1 . Foresource I Forefather I Depth = DQOlXQXTJ I DQonaTWQ I Bu8o<;;

Thought I Grace I Silence = "Evvow: I XaQL<; I I:tyf]. Throughout this study I refer to the aeon by its
name in English translation, capitalized. I indicate the underlying Greek in the notes and the figures.
Figure 1 helps also to clarify the nomenclature in this system, which can be confusing. One aeon may
have several names or only one, and one name may apply to more than one aeon. Many names that
to Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and other orthodox writers apply to a single subject (e.g., Son of God, Word
of God, Christ, and Jesus) often designate different entities in Valentinian thought. I have also
capitalized the names of the various groups of aeons: Tetrad, Ogdoad, Decad, Dodecad, and
Triacontad. Even if it is not clear whether these were intended to be proper nouns, they are certainly
specialized terms, and capitalization helps mark that.
17
poapxl) I Foresource
llponcinvp I Forefather
Bt!eos I Depth o
·Evvota I Thought 0.9�
Xcipts I G<ace
L. 'Y1i I Silence
Noiis I Mind
Movoy€111\S I Only &gotten
lldTT)p I Father 'AA1)9eta I Truth
'Apxi) Twv miVTwv I Source of all
Aoyos 1 Word
- - - · - · - · -.
<ran\p /&"""[of r.u. """J'l Zwl) I Life

.lpx�. -�•1-. •hopinJ (of •II lh< ""'"""')
•Av9pwnos I Man
Bt!ews M ittS fl(ans

Profound Copulation Faith
!"<:'\
0
'Ayl)paTos "Evwcrts llaTplKOS 'ID.n(s ()
Ageless 1...-<..J Union Paremal Hope
g
!"<:'\ 'H&ovl)
0
'AVTo<j>vl)s MTJTplKOS 'AycitrTJ
Self-engendered 1,...-<..J Pleasure Maternal Love I�
·fl
!"<:'\ I�
'AKt VTJTOS l:(ryKpacrts 'Ae(vovs l:vveats . "
Immoveable 1...-<..J Intercourse Ever-Mindful 0 Und<Tstanding "
Movoyevl)s !"<:'\ MaKap(a ' EKKAT)(JlQ(JTlKOS MaKaptOTTJS

Only Begotten 1...-<..J Bliss Churchly 0 Blessedness
9€ATJTOS [> 0 l:o<j>(a

I
Desired ( W.sdom
/ .
0
- ·
XptaTOS (1st)/ Christ llVEVJ.La"Aytov /Holy Sp,rit

'
'hJ(JOVs I Jesus
L.mjp I Savior
XptcrnSs (2nd) I Christ
Project ;�d ,;.,;t
by all30 aeons
[> Aoyos I Word
lldVTa I All
(.A.H 1.26, 145) napaKATJTOS I Comforter
Figure 1. The Valentinian Pleroma, according to lrenaeus, Against Heresies 1 . 1 -9. Male aeons are assigned
(arbitrarily) triangles; females, circles. Hollow triangles and circles represent the original 30 aeons.
Arrows indicate lines of projection. The large hexagon represents Limit, who is assigned six names and is
said to be hexagonal (ill. by author)
consort, Truth. Thus, Irenaeus claims, Depth, Silence, Mind, and Truth are the first, original
Pythagorean tetraktys, and are what they call "the root of all."13
1 3 Ibid. Mind I Only Begotten I Father I Source of all = Nove; I Movoynrr'Jc; I ncn:rw I AQXJl TWV
ru:XvTwv. Truth = AAr']Sna. On the term tetraktys, see excursus B3.
18
Whether this quartet of aeons is truly equivalent to a Pythagorean tetraktys remains
to be seen, but their arrangement in a hierarchy of one male-female pair over another
provides the model for subsequent emanations. Mind begets Word and his consort Life;
Word and Life beget Man and Church.14 Thus is formed the Ogdoad, made up of two
Tetrads, one over the other. Word and Life, after begetting Man and Church, project another
five pairs of aeons, called the Decad. Man and Church themselves project six pairs of aeons,
the Dodecad. Thus, all the emanations combined - the Pleroma - constitute the Triacontad,
arranged in three groups: Odgoad, Decad, and Dodecad.
The Father- that is, the Forefather, not Mind (who also goes by this name) -then
projects through Only Begotten yet another entity, Limit. Limit, who has no consort, is
called by five other names: Cross, Redeemer, Fruitbearer, Limiter, and Transferrer. The
entity is thought of as a hexagon that delimits and supports the internal Pleroma. Limit has
two powers, a stabilizing one and a divisive one.15 Insofar as Limit stabilizes, it is the Cross;
in its dividing activity it acts as Limit proper. Thus, Limit and Cross are opposite functions
of the same entity.
Limit is described very differently than the emanations are. It is not called an aeon.
That it is called a power means that Limit is an entity of some sort, but exactly what is not
specified. Its role is only somewhat less obscure. In the myth about the fall of Wisdom, the
thirtieth aeon, Limit is the boundary beyond which she nearly strays in her desire to know
the transcendent Forefather. Limit stabilizes the Pleroma and guards against anything on
14 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 .1 . Word = Aoyoc:; Life = Zwfj; Man = "Av6Qwnoc:; Church = 'EKKAYJata.
1 5 Ibid. 1 .2.4. Limit = "OQoc:; Cross = LTlXVQOC:; Redeemer = AVTQWTr'jc:; Fruitbearer = KaQmmr']c:;
Limiter = 0Qo6ETTjC:; Transferrer = Mnaywyn)c:. Limit as hexagon: ibid. 1 .3.1; Limit's powers: ibid.
1 .3.5.
19
the outside. I t forms the boundary between the Triacontad and the subsequent events that
unfold as a result of Wisdom's errors.
Wisdom is the last and youngest emanation of the Dodecad and, by extension, of the
Triacontad . She undergoes a passion that does not involve her male consort, Desired, and
she seeks after the Forefather, who is known only to Mind.16 In her journey into the vastness
and inscrutability of the Father, Wisdom is nearly annihilated by the Father's sweetness,
but - Irenaeus here repeats himself- she is saved by Limit, who eventually restores her to
her consort. Her attempt, however, to know the Father has repercussions. As she repents,
she abandons "her former Resolution, along with the passion that carne with that
astonishing wonder."17 This act of repentance and Wisdom's passion, Irenaeus continues,
are turned by some into an elaborate rnythology.18 In her vain effort to apprehend the
Forefather, Wisdom begets a "shapeless essence" (ova(av cti-!OQcpov), the kind of nature a
woman would beget, were she acting on her own. (This alludes to the commonly held belief
that in all acts of procreation, the male provided the form, whereas the woman supplied the
rnatter.) 19 Recognizing what has happened, Wisdom experiences first pain, then fear, and
finally distress, which leads her to supplicate the Forefather. She is restored, but her
Resolution and passion remain outside Lirnit.2°
1 6 Ibid. 1 .2.2. Wisdom L:o¢[a; Desired = E>u\rrr6c;.

=
17 Ibid. 1 .2.2, 1 .2.4. Resolution = 'Ev8Uf1T]OLc;. Passion ( rra8oc;) may be an aeon too, although
=
Rousseau and Doutreleau do not capitalize it here in their edition. See lrenaeus's critique at 2.20.5
and my discussion below, p. 156.
1s
Against Heresies 1 .2.3.
1 9 See, e.g., Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals, and Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 53-54 (372E-373A). The
notion was common in Pythagorean and Platonist theology of the time. See Thomassen, Spiritual Seed,
270-91 .
2o Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .2.4.
20
To prevent this from occurring to any other aeon, Only Begotten projects another
syzygy through the foresight of the Father: Christ and the Holy Spirit, who fasten and
support the Pleroma by teaching the aeons about their syzygies, about the
incomprehensibility of the Father, and about thanksgiving and true rest.2 1 With the
restoration of harmony, all the aeons in the Pleroma collectively project an emanation to the
honor of Depth. This emanation has several names: Jesus, Savior, Word, Christ, and AllP
Along with this second Christ the angels are projected.
This entity, Savior, opens up the womb of Wisdom's Resolution, who is called a
second ogdoad, the external pleroma (figure 2).23 This Resolution - also called Achamoth -
is stranded outside the Pleroma with her passion, and is visited by the first Christ, who, via
the Cross, provides the exile with the form she lacks, and she takes on two names, Wisdom
and Holy Spirit. With her new form Wisdom seeks to reenter the Pleroma, but Limit
prevents her, because she is still entangled by her passion. Christ returns to the Pleroma and
sends along with the angels the Savior-Comforter, the entity generated by all the Pleroma.24
Resolution-Achamoth, after veiling herself, runs to the Savior and takes from him strength
and a form relevant to knowledge, which frees her of her passion, and a new pregnancy of a
spiritual embryo is formed in the image of the Savior.
2 1 Ibid. 1 .2.5-1 .2.6. Stead, "Valentinian Myth of Sophia," 79, notes that the generation of Christ and the
Holy Spirit produce a Pleroma of 32, not 30, aeons, which suggests that lrenaeus is introducing into a
dyadi c Valentinian system elements of a monadic one. The inconcinnity is noteworthy, but recourse
to the monadic/dyadic dichotomy cannot resolve the difficulty. See below, pp. 55-60.
22 Jesus = J11 aovs; Savior = Lw'rfJQ; Word = i\oyos; Christ = XQLG'ros; All = DavTa. Later (Irenaeus,
'
Against Heresies 1 .4.5) he is called Comforter (= DaQctKAll'rOs).

23 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .3.5, 1 .4.1 .
24 Ibid. 1 .4.5.
21
Pleroma
Savior
Jesus Christ
Christ
Comforter (1) Extension: provides , ' (2) Return
(+angels) essential shape I!Op<j>wat v/
rr)v KaT' oOOlav !
(AH 1.4.1) :
(3) Sent by Christ ·
-
--
-
proVIdes gnosttc slupe
-
·-- ••
116p<t>wow n)v KaTa yvwmv·--

= 11
alhi11aTa (AH 1.5.1)
ofl'spting born
through pregnancy
Spiritual offspring
= Church, antitype of upper church
Soulish offspring
*
Demmrge
God the Father
called Ml)TpomiTwp, 'AmiTwp, l1l)l!l0Vpy6s-
.Material substance
nght left
heaven earth
upper lowe.r
light heavy
animals demons
men devil
four elements
Figure 2. The Valentinian emanation of the lower realms, according to lrenaeus, Against Heresies 1 . 1 -9.
Male aeons are (arbitrarily) assigned triangles; females, circles. Broken lines indicate activity; solid
arrows, generation. The directions right and left are those of Inclination, not the reader (illustration by
author).
This encounter between the Savior and Achamoth results in a tripartition of reality
outside the Pleroma. Through her passion comes matter; through her repentance, the
soulish realm; through her pregnancy, the spirituaJ.25 Of these three things, she is able to
zs Ibid. 1 .5.1. These offspring are depicted in figure 2.
22
shape only two of them, the soulish and the material, since she is not superior to spiritual
substance. She takes the lessons- �J-a8r'J1-HX'W, the mathematics, if you will- imparted to her
by the Savior, and shapes out of the soulish material an entity called God the Father. This is
the king of all things, both the soulish and the material, corresponding to the right and left
sides. Unaware that he is being moved by his mother, this Father, whom they also call
Mother-Father, Fatherless, and Demiurge, creates soulish things on the right and material
things on the left, becoming father to the former, and to the latter, king.2 6 The resultant
material creation is Resolution's attempt to honor the Pleroma of aeons.
Out of the soulish substance the Demiurge creates heavenly things and things that
are light and lofty. The Demiurge, for creating the seven heavens, is called the Hebdomad,
and Achamoth is called the Ogdoad, thus "preserving the number of the original, first
Ogdoad of the Pleroma."27 As the Ogdoad, she is also the Intermediate Region, bridging the
material universe and the Pleroma.28 Out of material substance, the Demiurge creates
earthly things, and things that are heavy and lowly. From the three emotional extremes
Resolution experienced while outside the Pleroma -fear, grief, and astonishment-
perplexity - come the creatures and the material elements of the universe. From fear come
the souls of men and animals; from grief, the devil and his demons. From astonishment-
perplexity comes earth; from fear, water; from grief, air. Just as ignorance is latent in all
three emotions, so fire, the fourth material element, is latent in all three elements. In the
26 Father = Da:Ti]Q; Mother-Father = MllTQ07Hhwg; Fatherless = ArHhwg; Demiurge L1llflLOUQy6c;.

=
27 Ibid. 1 .5.2. The same sentiment seems to underlie Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus
47.1, where Prov 9.1 - "Wisdom has built for herself a house and has established seven pillars" - is
taken by the Valentinians to refer to Wisdom and the Demiurge.
28 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .5.3--4. Intermediate Region = flECYOTlls·
23
creation, that of the creatures and the elements, the Demiurge acts without reflecting on or
knowing what he is creating, since it is Achamoth who initiates and governs the creation.
The Demiurge' s ignorance is so profound that he is unaware of the spiritual realms, and so
considers himself to be the only god: "I am God, there is none besides me.''29
When the Demiurge creates men, he takes the dregs of material substance and
breathes into it soulishness. Achamoth uses the Demiurge' s act of implanting the soul to
sneak in the spiritual component, since the Demiurge is ignorant of spiritual things. Thus,
man is a tripartite creature composed of body, soul, and spirit, derived from earth, the
Demiurge, and Achamoth, respectively.30 Of these three parts, the material body is destined
to perish, and the soulish component is to be cultivated to become more spiritual, since the
spiritual aspect is the only one that hastens the consummation of all things. Reflecting this
tripartite structure, human beings fall into grades, too. Spiritual people - Irenaeus says the
Valentinians regard themselves as forming this class- are initiated into the mysteries of
Achamoth.31 Soulish people are the ordinary rank and file in the Church; they lack perfect
knowledge and must rely upon good works and bare faith. Earthly people-those outside
the Church -have no prospect of salvation. These three grades correspond to Seth, Abel,
and Cain, respectively _32
When the seeds of spiritual matter are perfected, Achamoth, the Mother, is to
transcend the place of the intermediate region, to enter the Pleroma, and to be wed to the
Savior. Thus, the Savior, the sole male entity engendered by the entire Triacontad, will unite
29 Ibid. 1 .5.2, 4-5; citation from Is 45.5, 46.9.

30 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .5.5-6.
31 Ibid. 1 .6.1 .
32 Ibid. 1 .6.2, 1 .7.5.
24
with the formerly abandoned Resolution of Wisdom to take up their new marriage in the
bridal chamber of the Pleroma. Replacing the Mother in the intermediate region will be the
Demiurge and the souls of the righteous. All material substance will be consumed by fire
and be annihilated.33
According to Irenaeus, in this same circle of thought there are those who teach that
the Savior sent forth a soulish being who passed through Mary as if she were a pipe
channeling water.34 They say that the Savior descended upon this Christ in the form of a
dove, and thereby forged in the Lord a tetrad, reflecting the first, primal Tetrad in the
Pleroma. The elements of the Lord's tetrad are the soulish and the spiritual aspects (aspects
provided by Achamoth and the Demiurge, respectively), the dispensation (prepared by an
ineffable art), and the Savior (who was the dove who descended on him).35 That is, the Lord
consists of spirit, soul, body, and a higher aeonic nature, but these natures work
independently of each other.36 Thus, Jesus consists of four disjointed parts, and different
episodes in his life reflect these different modalities.
I have summarized only the main points in Irenaeus' s treatment of this first
Valentinian system, but it is thorough enough to show the general character of its theology
and to discuss those aspects that most depend upon mathematics and ancient number
symbolism. The system of emanations lends itself well to schematization, such as that of
33 Ibid. 1 .7.1, 5.
34 Ibid. 1 .7.2.
35 Dispensation: oiKOVOf1L£X, a term used by the orthodox to describe the Incarnation of God the Word.
36 This is Tertullian's interpretation: Against the Valentinians 27.2. Irenaeus's "ineffable" dispensation
Tertullian takes to be the bodily aspect, and Tertullian turns Irenaeus's EK mu I:w-rf]Qoc; into
Sotericiana, i .e., the [higher, aeonic] nature of the Savior.
25
figures 1 and 2, which portray the mathematical symmetries inherent in Valentinian
theology. To be noted are the emphases on pairs, quartets, octets, and the hexagon formed
by Limit. The patterns in the names given to the aeons augment the mathematical
symbolism. The name of the first element- the male partner - of every syzygy in the Decad
and Dodecad is a masculine adjective. Female aeons, which take up the even-numbered
ranks, are named with female abstract nouns.37 Further, the masculine aeons in the Decad
have names that describe characteristics of the Forefather; the female aeons' names are
terms for sexual intercourse. In the Dodecad, the masculine aeons' names describe some of
the functions of Mind; the female aeons' names describe virtues of the mind. The names of
the aeons in the Decad and the Dodecad make clear that these entities were first inside the
Forefather and Mind, the ground of their being. The groups of emanations also show that
the Pleroma has been organized around a mathematical principle. The most fundamental
series, 8-10-12, is an arithmetical progression. The series (1)-1-2-4, found within the
Ogdoad, is a geometrical progression. A harmonic progression, 6-8-12, can be identified
with Limit-Ogdoad-Dodecad, but this association does not follow the narrative as closely as
the other two progressions do. Thus, two of the three chief mathematical ratios, found in
Euclid and Nicomachus of Gerasa, are prominent in the main configuration of the Pleroma.
The assignment of odd-numbered aeons to males and even-numbered to females
draws from the Pythagorean symbolic associations of gender with odd and even (see
excursus B2). By naming each of the male and female aeons the Valentinians allude to the
ancient practice, attested in Philolaus, Xenocrates, and others, of assigning to the numbers
37 See Against the Valentinians 6.1, where Tertullian complains that the gender of the names cannot be
replicated in Latin translation. See also ibid. 1 1 .2.
26
one through ten to various gods and goddesses, based partly on the criterion of gendered
number.38 The Valentinians describe aeonic projection as a sexual function. This imagery
plays upon and reinforces the Pythagorean tendency to describe in sexual terms the
relationship between the monad and the dyad, or the intercourse between odd and even
numbers.39 We need not concern ourselves here with a lengthy explanation of how the
Valentinians, Irenaeus's first group specifically, constructed gender per se; our main
purpose is to note merely that Pythagorean arithmetic, along with its sexual vocabulary,
occupies a central place.
Also noteworthy is the Valentinian emphasis on fours, and on the tetraktys, a term
drawn from Pythagorean arithmology (see excursus B3). The Ogdoad consists of two
tetrads, one above the other, and a succession of four syzygies. That is, the Ogdoad has two
structures, each of which is built upon the symbolic number four. And in imitation of the
Tetrad the Lord who descends for the salvation of Achamoth's offspring takes on a fourfold
character, probably intended to contrast with humanity's threefold nature (on which, see
below). The importance to Valentinians of the number four as a principle of organizing both
the upper realm of the Pleroma and the Lord's mission of salvation prompts Irenaeus to
recall the Pythagorean association. The first Tetrad of Depth, Thought, Mind, and Truth,
Irenaeus claims, "is the first and original Pythagorean tetraktys, which they also call 'the
root of all' . "40
38 See below, pp. 301-302.

39 See below, pp. 303-304.
40 Against Heresies 1 . 1 . 1 .
27
It is difficult to tell if Pythagorean tetraktys is Irenaeus' s comment, or his opponents'
own explanation. Irenaeus states directly that they call the first four aeons the "root of all,"
but the interpretation immediately following - that this root is the Pythagorean tetraktys-
could be either Irenaeus' s editorial comment or his paraphrase of his source, continued on
from the previous sentences.4 1 Both scenarios fit the evidence well: Irenaeus generally holds
that theology should not be beholden to any philosophy other than the rule of faith given to
the Church; the Valentinians seem to offer a theology that relishes Pythagorean number
symbolism. Determining the source of Pythagorean tetraktys requires first deciding if the
epithet is a slander (as Irenaeus probably saw it), an honorific title (as might be expected
from a school that was attempting to wed theology and Pythagorean symbolism), or both. I
shall explore this question later. But note that all options are viable. After all, the term root of
all- certainly a Valentinian phrase- to describe the first four aeons does nothing but
encourage association with the tetraktys, described in the Pythagorean Golden Poem as
"possessing roots of everlasting nature."42 And, according to Irenaeus, the Valentinians used
the term tetraktys in other contexts.43
Less related to Pythagorean arithmology is the number eight, enshrined in the
topmost Ogdoad of the Pleroma. Just as the primary Tetrad is reflected in the lower regions
in the person(s) of the Lord, so too the upper Ogdoad is mirrored in the lower regions by the
seven heavens - embodied in the Demiurge- and the mother Achamoth as the eighth. One
41 Cf. Tertullian, Against the Valentinians 6.6, where the first Valentinian tetrad is called quadriga, a
four-horse chariot, not a tetraktys. Thus, the term root need not be interpreted exclusively as a
Pythagorean symbol.
42 See below, p. 306.
43 Against Heresies 1 .18. 1 .
28
of the themes in Valentinian salvation is the need to move from the lower regions of the
Demiurge into the eighth, middle region, from which further advancement into the Pleroma
can occur. The important idea of transition from the seventh to the eighth realms recurs
throughout early Christian sources, and I shall touch on this theme intermittently in this
chapter, reserving for later a more complete exploration (fittingly, chapter 8). But why
eight? The number was not extraordinarily popular, either with Pythagoreans or with other
Greeks who used number symbolism. In the late antique handbook The Theology of
Arithmetic the entry for the number eight is the shortest.
One answer suggests itself, that the Valentinians were influenced to some degree by
the ancient Egyptian cult at Hermopolis, where an ogdoad of divinities were worshipped.
The ogdoad at Hermopolis consisted of four male deities and their female consorts. But the
parallel ends there. There is no evidence that Egyptian religion exercised direct or indirect
influence on the Valentinian doctrine of the Ogdoad.44 There too many structural differences
between the two. The ogdoad of Hermopolis was actually an ennead, since the god Thoth
reigned over the other eight.45 Unlike those in the Valentinian ogdoad, the female deities in
Hermopolis' s ogdoad have the feminine forms of their male consorts' names. Considering
how stylized and patterned the names of the Valentinian aeons are, it would be a strange
44 There is nothing to suggest that the ancient cult of Hermopolis was known to non-Egyptians in the
2nd century CE. There was an awareness of the connection between Thoth, the city's main deity, and
Hermes Trimegistus, and knowledge of other parts of the city's lore (Meautis, Hermoupolis-la-Grande,
21, 24-25), but little about its ogdoad.
45 Meautis, Hermoupolis-la-Grande, 20. If in Isis and Osiris 3 Plutarch refers in veiled terms to
Hermopolis's ogdoad, the enneadic structure is confirmed, since he makes Isis/Justice the head of the
nine muses, i .e., the nine gods of Hermopolis. Even then, however, Plutarch's analogy does not
correspond to the ancient ogdoad, thereby reinforcing my earlier point, that non-Egyptians really
didn't know about the ogdoad of Hermopolis. See Gwyn Griffiths, De Iside et Osiride, 264-65.
29
omission not to follow the same naming conventions as those found in the ogdoad of
Hermopolis, were the latter the template for the former. That the deities of the Hermopolis
ogdoad do not project other deities is yet another stark difference, as is the lack of any
Egyptian parallels elsewhere in Valentinian mythology.
My own explanation is that the Ogdoad is a natural consequence of the expansion of
the primary Tetrad, just as the Decad, the Dodecad, and the full Triacontad are the result of
the expansion of the Ogdoad. This is not the only explanation. The number eight was clearly
an early Christian symbol, enshrined in Christ's day of resurrection and other ancient
Christian symbols.46 As will become more evident as this study progresses, the Valentinians
merged the Christian symbol with Pythagorean lore, thereby creating at the center of their
system an Ogdoad that had two sources.
Another important number in Irenaeus's first Valentinian scheme is three, used to
depict the projections that emerge from Wisdom's Resolution-Achamoth. She projects three
kinds of offspring, resulting in spiritual, soulish, and material substance. This tripartition
leads to the creation both of the human being, who consists of all three parts, and more
generally of humanity, which falls into three classes: the elect, the Church, and those
without hope of salvation.47 These three categories of humankind correspond to Seth
(spiritual and receptive of the seed of salvation), Abel (soulish and not receptive of the seed
of salvation), and Cain (earthly, material, and wicked).48 The threefold division seems to
have played a part in the Valentinians' claim that baptism belonged to the soulish members
46 Extensively documented in Quacguarelli, L 'ogdoade patristica.

47 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .5.1, 1 .6.1, 1 .7.5.
48 Ibid. 1.7.5.
30
of the Church whereas redemption belonged to the spiritual. If baptism is a barrier between
the world and the Church, then the sacrament of redemption forms the second barrier
between the Church and the elect, thereby creating three groups.49 Even the material world,
which was normal1y in the ancient world divided into four elements, is tripartitioned in the
V alentinian system. There are three passions of the Mother Achamoth: fear, pain, and
perplexity. These three passions become the basis for reorganizing the four elements into
three, with fire intermixed with water, air, and earth.50 The emphases on divisions of three
in the lower realm suggest it is a condition meant to contrast with the upper realms of the
Pleroma, where pairs and tetrads mark its harmonious composition. The point is never
made explicit, but the number three, used as an organizing principle, serves as an
arithmological counterweight to the twos and fours in the upper Pleroma.51 Thus, the
Valentinian notion of the three parts of the human being is far more than a simple
borrowing from the Platonic tradition, which often espoused a tripartitioned
anthropology.52 Rather, it reinvents the Platonic theme, and makes the transformed doctrine
a central part of its mathematical theology.
49 Ibid. 1 .21 .2. On this so-called redemption see Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 360-64, 401-2
5o Ibid. 1 .5.4. See also Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus 48.4.
51 Irenaeus claims (Against Heresies 2.15.2, discussed below, p. 151) that the Pleroma was also trisected
into Ogdoad, Decad, and Dodecad, but this is his observation, not their claim. But not all Valentinians
held to a 3-versus-4 typology. See Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus 80.3: "For he who
has been sealed by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is beyond the threats of every other power and by the
three Names has been released from the whole triad of corruption." But see ibid . 28, where the "third
and fourth" generations of Dt 5.4 refers, according to the Valentinians, to the 3 places on the left and
their offspring, but 1 0,000 to whom mercy is given, to things on the right.
52 See Stead, "In Search of Valentinus," 92-94.
31
Other Valentinians generally appealed to the world around them to corroborate their
system of aeons. According to Valentinian group, the four elements - fire, water, earth, and
air- are all projected, and as such are an image of the first Tetrad. The second Tetrad is
signified by the "energies" of the elements: heat and cold, dry and wet. Thus, the universe
encodes the Ogdoad.53 The Decad is indicated by seven circular bodies, an eighth heaven
encircling them, and the sun and moon.54 The zodiac indicates the Dodecad.55 And since the
highest heaven is "yoked against" the orbit of the totalities, it goes from sign to sign in thirty
years.56 This motion of the heavens is an icon of Limit, which encompasses the Triacontad.
The extra examples illustrating the mathematical organization of the aeons are numerous:
the moon's circuit is thirty days; that of the sun, twelve months; the day is divided into
twelve hours; each twelfth part of a full day is further divided into thirty parts; and the
earth is divided into twelve zones.
Just as they could use the heavens to illustrate the Pleroma, Valentinians used the
human being, too. A person consists of a single source, the head, in which are rooted four
senses, like the Tetrad: sight, hearing, smell, and taste.57 Each of these four senses have two
organs (two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and the tongue, divided into bitter and sweet
53 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 7.1 .

54 Ibid. Is this a contradiction? In antiquity the sun and moon were ranked among the seven planets,
so this list has counted them doubly. Possibly "sun and moon" here is a euphemism for other
celestial entities. The sources do not elucidate this problem.
55 Ibid. See also Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus 71, which reproduces notes by a
Valentinian who relates the 12 zodiac signs to circumstances in life.
56 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .17.1. This seems to refer to procession by positing a 1 o movement of the
axis against the stars every 30 years, which is about twice the actual speed of procession.
57 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .18.1 . This list follows, importantly, the traditional order of the senses.
See below, p. 129 n. 48.
32
parts), and so indicate the Ogdoad. An ineffable, unseen ogdoad is thought to reside in our
innards.58 In our two hands is indicated the blossoming of the Decad, and the whole body is
divided into twelve parts.59 Thus, collectively, the entire human being is an icon of the
Triacontad.
All these themes in Valentinian number symbolism suggest that Pythagorean and
Platonic number symbolism, combined with a popular view of science, is the main
formative influence. The parallels are too numerous and too central to ignore. But what
about Scriptural influences? How much of the Valentinian system of number symbolism
depends upon Biblical exegesis? As I have already noted in the introduction, it is beyond
my purpose here to speculate on the first-century roots of second-century number
symbolism. It is important, however, to note how the Valentinians read Scripture and used
it to inform and justify the number symbolism in their theology. Fortunately, Irenaeus
preserves several examples of the Valentinian use of the Bible and its numbers.60
The entire system of aeons, the Valentinians suggest, was "not spoken of openly
because not everyone could comprehend knowledge of them. But they were mentioned
mysteriously by the Savior through parables to those so able to understand."61 Thus, any
58 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 8.1. I have been unable to determine the basis in ancient science for this
observation.
59 Ibid. The twelve parts of the body is prominent in Marcus. See below, p. 86.
6o There are four sections of book 1 devoted to Valentinian exegesis. These areAgainst Heresies 1.1 .3,
1 .3, 1 .8.2-5, and 1 .18. The first 3 come from Irenaeus's first Valentinian group. The fourth, however,
comes after Irenaeus's discussion of Marcus, and it summarizes features that apply to all the various
Valentinian groups. Strictly speaking ,the exegesis reported in chapter 18 does not belong to the
longer Valentinian system. Nevertheless, I synthesize here all 4 sections, since they all share the same
Scriptural exegesis. It all likely comes from a single source. See below, p. 160 n. 67.
61 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .3.1.
33
instance of aeon (aiwv) in the New Testament, such as Paul's "to all generations of the aeon
of aeons" in E phesians 3.21, or even in the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist, was to be
read as a cryptic allusion to the system.62 Paul supposedly taught about the syzygies in
Ephesians 5.32, where, speaking about "the syzygy of life," he says, "This mystery is great,
and I am speaking about Christ and the Church."63 According to the Valentinians, Paul used
the analogy of marriage to refer mysteriously to the doctrine of syzygies in the Pleroma.
The prologue of the Gospel of John mentions the upper Ogdoad, according to the
Valentinians. They argue that John, intending to discuss the generation of all that exists,
distinguished at verse one God the Father from the Beginning and from the Word.64 But
when John conflates them in verse two, he shows how one is the projection of the other.
Verse four introduces Life, the consort of the Word. A phrase in the same verse, "the life
was the light of men," alludes to Man and Church, insofar as av8Qwnwv, being plural, must
refer to someone other than Man. Thus, the entire second Tetrad is referred to. The first
Tetrad is discussed in verse fourteen, where Father, Grace, Only Begotten, and Truth are all
mentioned. So, John presents the primary Ogdoad in the prologue of his gospel. The lower
ogdoad, that of Achamoth, is represented most especially by the prophetess Anna, who
lived for seven years with her husband, then alone afterwards.65
62 Ibid . 1 3.1 .
.
63 Ibid. 1 .8.4.
64 Ibid. 1 .8.5. Beginning refers to Jn 1 .1's cXQXTl, which the Valentinians take to be shorthand for AQXTJ
TWV navTwv, the Source of all, one of Mind's alternate names.
65 Lk 2.36-38; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .8.4.
34
The Tetrads and Ogdoad are indicated too in Genesis, where Moses refers to them
with the terms God, beginning, heaven, and earth.66 The second Tetrad, the offspring of the
first, Moses refers to with the terms abyss, darkness, water, and spirit. And in honor of the
Tetrad the sun was made in the fourth day, the tabernacle was made with four colors of
fabric, and the stones on the high priest's robe were arranged in four rowsP According to
some Valentinians, man was fashioned on the eighth day, because of the Ogdoad.68 This too
explains Noah's ark, which carried eight people, David's place as the eighth brother, and
circumcision on the eighth day.69
The Decad is also mentioned by virtue of the iota, the first letter in the name Jesus
('Irpouc;). This connection is alluded to in Matthew 5.1 8, the promise that not one iota would
fall away before all was fulfilled. The iota as a number symbol for ten is common
throughout early Christianity?0 The Decad is proclaimed also in Genesis, in the creation
account, where one finds the ten terms light, day, night, firmament, evening, morning, dry, sea,
plant, and wood?1 In the rest of Genesis the Decad is alluded to in the following: the ten
nations whose territory God promised the Hebrews possession, Sarra's giving her slave to
Abraham after ten years, Abraham's servant giving ten golden bracelets to Rebecca,
66 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 8.1, Gen 1 . 1 .

67 Gen 1 .14-19. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 . 18.2, E x 26.1 . E x 28.17.
68 Gen 2.7. See Against Heresies 1 .1 8.2 for Irenaeus's explanation of the differences among Valentinians
on whether man was created on the sixth or eighth day.
69 Gen 7, 1 Pt 3.20; 1 Sam 16.10-1 1; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .18.3, Gen 17.12.
70 Ibid. 1 .3.2. See below, pp. 94, 1 69, 192, 340 n. 37. On the Greek system of using letters for numbers,
see excursus C.
71 Ibid. 1 .18.1 . Gen 1 .3; 1 .5; 1 .5; 1 .6; 1 .5, 8, 13; 1 .5, 8, 13; 1 .9; 1 .1 0; 1 .11; 1 . 1 1 . See below, p. 187.
35
Rebecca's delay for ten days, and the ten sons of Jacob who go to Egypt to buy grain?2
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, Jeroboam assumes reign of the ten kingdoms, the
Tabernacle has ten courtyards, and the gates measure ten cubits.73 After the Lord's
Resurrection, he reveals himself to the ten disciples (Thomas in absentia) who were hidden,
just as the Decad is unseen?4
The Dodecad is revealed in Scripture, too: The Lord was twelve years old when he
spoke with the teachers of the Law, and he selected twelve apostles?5 The mishaps of
Wisdom, the twelfth aeon, are alluded to in the apostasy of Judas, in Christ's passion
occurring in the twelfth month of the year of his preaching ministry, and in the woman who
had a flow of blood for twelve years?6 A further example is the twelve-year-old daughter of
the head of the synagogue the Lord raised from the dead, an event reminiscent of the
salvation of Achamoth.77 Just as Moses names the members of the Decad in the creation
account, so he does with the Dodecad: sun, moon, stars, seasons, years, whales, fish, serpents,
birds, quadrupeds, beasts, and man - twelve terms in all?8 The twelve sons of Jacob and the
twelve tribes also signal the Dodecad?9 So too, the twelve stones on the breastplate and the
72 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .18.3; Gen 15.19-21 (here dependent upon the Hebrew: the LXX lists 11
nations); 16.2-3; 24.22; 24.55; 42.3.
73 3 Ki 11 .31; Ex 26.1, 26.16.
74 Jn 20.19-24.
75 Lk 2.42-46, Mt 1 0.2, Lk 6.13. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .3.2, 1 .1 8.4, Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts
from Theodotus 25.2.
76 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .3.3, Mt 9.20, Lk 8.44.
77 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .8.2; Lk 8.41-42.
78 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 8.1, Gen 1 .14-16; 1 .14-16; 1 .1 6; 1 .14; 1 .14; 1 .21; 1.21; 1 .20; 1.20; 1 .24; 1 .24;
1 .26. Unlike the exegesis of the Decad (see above), this does not follow the order given in Genesis.
Also, ilAtoc;, m:ATJVTJ, and ix8uEc; are never used in Gen 1 LXX, and must be inferred.
79 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .18.4; Gen 35.22-26; 49.28.
36
twelve bells.80 Moses and Joshua built altars made of twelve stones, twelve men carried the
ark of the covenant across the Jordan, and Elisha placed twelve stones around the bull when
he contended with the priests of Baal.81
Absent the Dodecad, the rest of the eighteen aeons are made clear by the eighteen
months the Lord spent with the disciples after the Resurrection, and from Lll, the first two
letters of his name.82 The entire group of thirty aeons illumines the Savior's not doing
anything visibly for thirty years, in demonstration of the mystery of the aeons.83 The
Triacontad is especially clearly evinced in the parable of the vineyard, where workers come
at the first, third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours. The sum of the hours is, of course, thirty.
So too there are the thirty cubits of height in Noah's ark, the thirty elect men among whom
Samuel put Saul first, thirty days David hid in the field, thirty who entered the cave with
David, and thirty cubits to the breadth of the holy tabemacle.84
For the tripartition of humanity the Valentinians point to the parable of the woman
and the three measures of grain.85 They identify the woman in the parable with Wisdom,
and the yeast, with the Savior. Paul too, they say, discusses all three classes of human
beings.86
8o Ex 28.21, 36.2 1 . The twelve bells are not mentioned in the Bible. See, however, Justin Martyr,
Dialogue with Trypho 42.1 and the comments of Rousseau and Doutreleau, 1 .1 (SC 263): 262.
81 Ex 24.4; Jos 4.9, 4.20, 3.12; 3 Ki 18.31.
s3 Ibid., 1 .1 .3, 1 .3.1 .
84 Ibid. 1.1 .3, 1 .3.1; 1 Sam 9.22 (Hebrew: LXX has 70 elect); 1 Sam 20 (but inexactly: 3 days in both
Hebrew and Greek; the Valentinian exegete might have extrapolated 30 from 3); 2 Sam 23.13
(somewhat loosely: 3 of 30 came to David, in both LXX and Hebrew); Ex 26.8.
85 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .8.3, Mt 13.33, Lk 13.20-21 .
86 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .8.3, 1 Cor 2.14-15, 15.48.
37
Despite this wide array of Scriptures, it is unclear that these were for the
V alentinians the foundations of their system, Biblical proof texts, if you will. Irenaeus' s
paraphrase of their language suggests that they did not consider these verses to prove their
teaching, or to be the source or foundation of it. The Bible is said to "reveal" or "make
clear," implying that the insight would not be apparent to the ordinary reader. Induction
into the Valentinian system is a prerequisite. As already mentioned above, the Valentinians
did not regard the doctrine of the aeons as self-evident, and any allusions or teachings about
it in Scripture were hidden and needed to be made manifest. That manifestation could be
made only to those capable of understanding. The Valentinian schools' emphasis on the
hidden messages of Scripture mirrors their belief that from the lower realms-particularly
from the Demiurge and his acts of creation -was hidden any knowledge of the aeons of the
Pleroma.87 Indeed, the Valentinian tradition, according to Irenaeus, was revealed only to
initiates and remained hidden from anyone outside their circle, a charge that probably had
some truth to it, but not for the nefarious ends Irenaeus insinuates.88 Thus, the Valentinians
claimed, not that the Scriptures are the origin for or the basis of their doctrines, but that the
doctrines and knowledge thereof explain and unlock the Scriptures. So what did the
Valentinians claim to be the source and basis of their doctrines? How did they claim to get
the system? The answer is not made explicit in Irenaeus's testimony.89 But we need not
assume that they thought it came from the Scriptures or from the earliest apostolic
traditions, the sources claimed by the orthodox apologists. Rather, Scripture was the place
87 See, e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .20.

88 See, e.g., ibid. 1 .Pref.2, 1 .21 . 1 .
89 Not, a t least, in this first Valentinian group. W e shall see i n chapter 3 a possible exception t o this
rule: Marcus receives knowledge of his doctrines by direct revelation.
38
where initiates could go and discover the hidden references to the Pleroma. How this
attitude compares with other writers will become more evident throughout this study.
IRENAEUS'S REPORTS ON VARIATIONS IN THE VALENTINIAN TRADITION
After discussing the first Valentinian system Irenaeus details a number of variations. In
chapter eleven he outlines the systems of Valentinus, Secundus, and an unnamed
Valentinian (called Epiphanes by Epiphanius), and then another group identified only by
the amorphous label "others." In the next chapter Irenaeus treats two groups of
Ptolemaeans, the "more knowledgeable" and the "more prudent," after which he compares
five different opinions among the Valentinians concerning the origin and identity of the
Savior. The most significant variant of Valentinianism, the system of Marcus, follows in
chapters thirteen through sixteen (discussed in chapter 3). After Marcus, the only group to
have a doctrine of aeons structured on principles of arithmetic and number symbolism is the
so-cal1ed Barbelo-Gnostic group of chapter twenty-one. All these systems have important
differences in the numerical structures they use to describe the divine realm.
The system of the aeons found in the first variation, which Irenaeus ascribes to
Valentinus, is structurally the same as that found in the first Valentinian system.90 Pseudo-
90Markschies (Valentinus Gnosticus ? 363-87) argues against attributing Against Heresies 1 .11.1 to
Valentinus, based on a close comparison of terminology there with the same terminology in the
fragments that can be securely assigned to Valentinus. The exercise has been revisited with similar
results: McCree, "Gospel of Truth." I agree, this section is not likely to be by Valentinus, but I do not
think the possibility is completely eliminated . There are a number of modern religious leaders who
changed terminology and metaphysics as their nascent communities developed. Note, for instance,
the Book of Mormon, which bears little evidence of the later doctrines of Joseph Smith. I will refer to
the material in Against Heresies 1 .1 1 .1 as belonging to pseudo-Valentinus, for the sake of convenience,
not conviction.
39
Valentinus posits an original Dyad (Ineffable and Silence), which projects a second Dyad
(Father and Truth). This Tetrad then projects the second Tetrad (assigned the same names as
in the first Valentinian system). The first pair of the second Tetrad projects ten powers, and
the second pair, twelve. Pseudo-Valentinus also posits two Limits, rather than one. The first
is meant to bracket Depth (i.e., Ineffable) from the rest of the aeons, and the second, to
separate the Pleroma from the wayward aeon, Mother. He never mentions the geometrical
shape of either Limit. Aside from this and the doubling of Limit, pseudo-Valentinus and the
first Valentinians use the same number symbolism to organize the upper Ogdoad.
Secundus, the creator of the next variant, also holds to an upper Ogdoad, but he
arranges its two tetrads into right and left, corresponding to light and darkness.91 Such an
arrangement of opposites resembles the Valentinian opposition between the materia] and
the soulish elements of the created world, an opposition that seems to allude to and play
with the Pythagorean table of opposites.92 The paratactic arrangement of the two tetrads in
Secundus' s system suggests that he thought of the projection of the aeons differently than
the other Valentinians did, as a movement sideways, as well as downward. Unfortunately,
Irenaeus does not supply enough information to explore the variation further.
The system ascribed to Epiphanes is more peculiar.93 To him, the primal aeon,
Foresource, existed before all. He calls it Mov6'rf]c;. With Foresource exists Power,
designated 'Ev6'rf]c;. The two are treated as a pair that projects, in tum, Monad (also called
Source of all, as in the first Valentinian system) and Hen. This second pair then projects all
91 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 1 .2.

92 See below, pp. 300-301 .
40
the remaining aeons. The paradox here is that Epiphanes - to adopt on a provisional basis
Epiphanius's nomenclature for this otherwise-anonymous author- depicts the primal
Tetrad as a quartet of unities, organized internally in a hierarchy. That is, each of the four
aeons' names is some variation on the word one. The names of these unities follow a distinct
pattern, with the root f.l OV- forming the names of the first and third (the male) entities, and
£v-, that of the second and fourth (the female). Furthermore, the male aeons are called
"sources," and the female, "powers." The relationship can be arranged in a square:
APXAl �YNAMEl�
Movonv;; 'Ev6'rTJc;
Movac; "Ev
Epiphanes' system draws from two important conventions in Greek mathematics.
First, there is the debate, begun in the Hellenistic period, over whether the monad is
metaphysically higher than the hen, or vice versa (see excursus Bl). Epiphanes falls clearly
on the Pythagorean side of the debate. Second, Epiphanes' system resembles somewhat the
structure that Nicomachus of Gerasa gives the four mathematical disciplines, what was later
called the quadrivium (see excursus B4). Monotes and Monad are to Henotes and Hen as
arithmetic and music are to geometry and astronomy. This arrangement was not unique to
Epiphanes: the aeons in the Tetrad of the first Valentinian system also seem to share this
kind of relationship. But Epiphanes' nomenclature makes the connection with the
quadrivium more explicit.94 It also makes very clear his Pythagorean credentials.95
94 For parallels between Epiphanes and Marcus, see below, p. 93 n. 40.
41
Tipoa pxfi ---r-- ' Apxfi

The fourth, anonymous group called "others" in 5
Foresouu:e Soun:e
chapter eleven posits an Ogdoad whose typology departs 'AvEWOT)TOS --....·AKaTctAT)TrTOS

Inconceivable 2 Incomprehensible 6
further from the other Valentinian Ogdoads.96 In this system, • AppT)TOS �AVOVOIJ.G<1TOS
Ineffable 3 Unnamable 7
there is an Ogdoad that preexists (and therefore does not
'A6paTOS ______.... 'A)'EWT)TOS
Invisible 4 Unbegotten 8
include) Depth and Silence. The first entity of this Ogdoad is
Figure 3. An anonymous
Foresource, after whom come Inconceivable, Ineffable, and
Valentinian' s system, based on
lrenaeus, Against Heresies
Invisible, in second through fourth places. Each of these four 1 . 1 1 . 5 (illustration by author).
entities emits another to fill the fifth through eighth places, as
weii as the first through fourth places: Source, Incomprehensible, Unnamable, and
Unbegotten.97 The explanation suggests the arrangement shown on figure 3. Here the
sideways motion of projection, similar to that alluded to in Secundus, is unmistakable. The
primal aeon emanates downward three levels, then across, unlike emanations in the first
Valentinian system: across before a downward cascade. It is also worth noting that the
names of the entities reveal the intended hierarchical structure. Foresource, by virtue of its
name, precedes Source. The rest of the entities' names, on both left and right, are all
adjectives formed from the alpha privative, and describe properties of Foresource. This
Ogdoad has vertical symmetry, as if it were a wax tablet. The anonymous Valentinian has
95 See below, pp. 308-309.

97 Inconceivable awvvorrro c;; Ineffable = cXQQrrroc;; Invisible = aOQ(XTOc;; Source = cXQ Xr'J;
=
Incomprehensible = aKC<TcXA.TJ71TOc;; Unnamable avoVOf.lC<GTOc;; Unbegotten aytvVT]TOc;. That the

= =
second tetrad of aeons is projected in two places may seem strange, but this is nevertheless what
Irenaeus's text states, and what later heresiologists also report. See Tertullian,Against the Valentinians
35.2. Irenaeus normally reproduces his opponents' terminology, so the unusual arrangement here,
where each member of the second tetrad hold two positions, is probably due to Irenaeus's source, not
Irenaeus himself.
42
used a naming technique similar to that used in the
first Valentinian system's Decad and Dodecad, but
with different results.
After presenting these four groups Irenaeus
discusses the d ifferences among the various groups
concerning whether Depth has a mate or not. These

No\Is
Mind
differences pertain to monadic versus dyadic models
of Valentinianism, which I discuss later, in connection Figure 4. The "more knowledgeable"

Ptolemaeans' system of the aeons, based
with Hippolytus' s report on Valentinianism. on lrenaeus, Against Heresies 1 . 1 2 . 1 . Male
aeons are (arbitrarily) assigned triangles;
females, circles (illustration by author) .
The first group mentioned in chapter twelve,
"those around Ptolemy more knowledgeable," diverges yet further in its mathematical
arrangement of the upper aeons.98 Depth, first of all, is considered to have two consorts,
Thought and Will, the former prior to (but also dependent on) the latter (figure 4). Thought
mixes with Will, and produces Only Begotten (also called Mind) and Truth. Truth is the
offspring of Thought, and Only Begotten, of Will. In this arrangement the Ptolemaeans have
transformed the Valentinian Tetrad. Depth rules over a pair of female aeons, who then, in
chiasm, generate the first male-female pair.99 Comparing this system with the others
suggests that it elaborates upon the classic Valentinian system (and not vice versa), since it
stretches and plays with the conventional odd-even and male-female number symbolism,

99 Note, Will's gender seems ambiguous. She is called, first, a consort of Depth, and is given a female
abstract noun for a name. But this name is subtly changed from 8£AT)m� to the neuter cognate,
8£AT)f-1C<, and then Will is said to be the archetype for the male. This is probably an intentional
transformation, and our sources do not explain its purpose.
43
and even alters the dynamics of the upper Tetrad. It alters the traditional Valentinian notion
of a syzygy, since it assigns to Depth two, instead of one, consorts, to reflect the two
different stages (thinking, willing) involved in one aeon emanating another.
The next group discussed in chapter twelve, "the more prudent" (that is, of those
around Ptolemy) offers yet another model for the generation of the Ogdoad.100 In this
system, Forefather and his Thought emanate the next six aeons all at once. This seems to
conflict, however, with a subsequent clarification, that Word and Life emanate from Man
and Church. It is unclear, then, if Forefather and Thought emanate all the other six aeons or
only some of them. The arrangement also reverses the Valentinian system, which has Man
and Church emanate from Word and Life. Our sources do not attempt to resolve the
discrepancy about the projection of the Ogdoad, whether it happens all at once or
progressively. In any case, this group has organized the Ogdoad in two Tetrads, and four
syzygies, very much in line with the other Valentinian systems.
Since we have discussed the two groups specifically called Ptolemaeans, it is worth
noting some aspects of number symbolism in Ptolemy's only preserved work, his letter to
Flora.101 There, Ptolemy discusses the Mosaic Law, noting that all five books have three
separate authors, and that the part that is authored by God is itself tripartitioned into pure,
mixed, and symbolic.102 The Ten Commandments are the most perfect of the three sections,
reflected by the presence of the perfect number ten.1 03 This three-way division of the Law
reflects how the very god who gave the divine part of the Law is the Demiurge, a deity that
1oo Ibid. 1 .12.2.

1 01 Preserved by Epiphanius, Panarion 33.3.1-33.7.10.
w2 Ibid. 33.4.2, 14; 33.5; 33.6.1-5.
1 03 See below, n. 125. Ptolemy's observation parallels Heracleon's. See below, p. 1 94.
44
stands between the perfect God and the DeviJ.l04 Ptolemy then presents a riddle- the
unbegotten Father stands as the origin of two very different essences, the corruptible and
the incorruptible-but he ends the discussion with a promise to write again and discuss
further the origin of things.105 In these cryptic references Ptolemy alludes to a pattern seen in
the first Valentinian system: the lower realm is tripartitioned, a symbol of its inferior status
to the upper Pleroma. Ptolemy shies away from discussing the upper levels of divinity.
Maybe he held to a view of the aeons similar to that found in the first Valentinian system.106
We cannot tell, but it is worth noting his interest in dividing and arranging the Scriptures
and the world according to patterns found in other Valentinian systems.107
BARBELO-GNOSTICS
Late in book one Irenaeus discusses one more group with a theory of aeons stamped with
mathematical symbolism. These are the so-called Barbelo-Gnostics.108 Irenaeus makes no
formal connection between them and the Valentinians, although later heresiologists do.1 09
The description of how they envisioned the generation of the upper realm is rather unclear,
104 Epiphanius, Panarion 33.7.3-33.7.4.

105 Ibid. 33.7.9.
106 For further evidence see below, p. 194.
107 Epiphanius makes a similar observation, at Pan arion 33.1 1 .1 0, where he calls Ptolemy a "divider
and geometer of the Law." Geometer (yEW!-!ETQT]C:) means surveyor, but here it certainly alludes to the
second mathematical science, geometry.
ws Throughout this study I use B arbelo- G n ostics
- admittedly a modern term - not just out of
convenience: Irenaeus calls them, along with the members of the other two systems discussed in
Against Heresies 1 .29.1-1 .31 .2, "gnostics" (see excursus E) and he dwells on their reverence for an aeon
called Barbelo (Against Heresies 1 .29.1). Theodoret, Compendium of Heretical Fables 1 .13 (PC 83:361-64;
Rousseau and Doutreleau, Contre les Heresies, 1 .1 [SC 263]: 328--35) calls them Barbeliotoi or Borborianoi.
109 Rather, Irenaeus or his source connects the Barbelo-Gnostics with Simon:Against Heresies 1 .29.1 .
For their alleged connection with Valentinianism see Theodoret, Compendium of Heretical Fables 1 .13.
45
but the general structure can be tentatively
reconstructed, through a judicious use of
Theodoret's paraphrase of Irenaeus.110 There ·Ewma I Thought
is an aeon (the unnamable Father) who exists
in a virginal Spirit, whom they call Barbelo
(figure 5).m From this primal pair- the male AirroyEvl)S I Self-
aeon embedded within the female - the rest

Xdp�s I Gua
eEAT)<JlS I Will
of the aeons emanate. The Father desires to l:UvEO�S I Understanding
<l>pwvq<H s I Prudence
manifest himself to Barbelo, and Thought

Figure 5. Upper Pleroma of the Barbelo-Gnostics,
comes forth.112 Barbelo then asks the Father according to lrenaeus, Against Heresies 1 . 29. 1 , with
Greek terminology supplemented by Theodoret,
Compendium of Heretical Fables 1 . 1 3 . Figure does
for Foreknowledge, who, in tum, seeks not depict the aeons Adamas, Agnitio, Wood, or
Magnitude. Male aeons are (arbitrarily) assigned
Incorruption, then "eternal Life."113 Barbelo triangles; females, circles (illustration by author).
then begets Light, also dubbed Christ, who
asks for and receives Mind. The Father then adds Word. Also in this group is Will, whose
generation is not explained.114 The aeons of this group then form four pairs among
themselves, and become an Ogdoad, although it is not explicitly called this.
110 Compendium of Heretical Fables 1 .13. Theodoret diverges from Irenaeus's account most significantly
by conflating Barbelo and Thought. My account in this section follows Irenaeus' s report, and I draw
from Theodoret' s version mainly to clarify Irenaeus' s terms.
m Barbelo = BcxQ�T]i\w8 (Theodoret) or BcxQ�T]QW/BcxQ�T]i\w (Epiphanius).
1 1 2 Both Theodoret and the various versions of theApocryphon of John, which also recounts the
Barbelo-Gnostic myth, depart here from Irenaeus: Thought and Barbelo are the same aeon, thus
preserving the primacy of the Father, who is called Monad. Apocryphon of John 4.26-5.4 (numeration
in Layton's translation).
1 1 3 Foreknowledge = I1g6yvwmc;; Incorruption = Acp8a:gaia:; eternal Life = a:iwvia: Zwr).
11 4 Light = <l>wc;; Will = 8ii\T]f1CX.
46
The pattern of emanation differs considerably from other Valentinian systems. The
first to emerge from Father and Barbelo are the first four female aeons, not male-female
pairs of aeons. The four feminine aeons emerge not from sexual activity but from answers to
requests made by other aeons. Further, the order in which the male aeons are projected does
not correspond to the order of their female counterparts. For example, the male counterpart
to Thought, the first female aeon, is Word, who is the penultimate to be projected. There is
also very little connection between the names in the V alentinian Ogdoad and those in the
Barbelo-Gnostic one.
The Barbelo-Gnostic system revels in Ogdoads. After Thought and Word beget
another syzygy, Self-begotten and Truth, the third and fourth syzygies (Incorruption &
Christ-Light and Life & Will) generate eight luminaries to guard them.115 Incorruption and
Christ-Light generate Armozel (also called Savior), Raguhel, David, and Eleleth. Life and
Will generate the luminaries' female counterparts: Grace, Will, Understanding, and
Prudence.11 6
In the Barbelo-Gnostic version of the myth of the fall of Wisdom yet another Ogdoad
is generated. Wisdom, seeing that all the other aeons have consorts, seeks her own mate in
the lower regions.m There she generates a "work" that contains Ignorance and Audacity;
the work itself they call First Ruler, the creator of this world. First Ruler then unites with
Audacity and generates Evil, Jealousy, Envy, Discord, and Desire.1 18 When the mother of
m Self-begotten = AtnoyEvi]c;. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .29.2.

1 1 6 Will = E>L\Tjmc;; Prudence = <l>QWVT]mc;.
m Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .29.4.
n s Ignorance = "Ayvow; Audacity = Av8abEta; First Ruler = TIQwTciQxwv; Evil = KaKia; Jealousy =
Zi]Aoc;; Envy = <P86voc;; Discord = "EQLV; Desire = 'Em8Vf.lLCX.
47
them all, Wisdom, repents and returns to the upper regions, what is left in the lower regions
is an ogdoad: Ignorance, Audacity, First Ruler, Evil, Jealousy, Envy, Discord, and Desire.
Unlike Irenaeus and Theodoret, whose accounts my description has followed, the
Apocryphon ofJohn, whose four versions give a more ample account of this myth, differs in
key aspects, including its number symbolism. First, the Father, called Monad, stands
absolutely alone, and therefore presides without consort over all the other aeons. This
differs from Irenaeus's report, which presents the Father and Barbelo as a primal pair.
Second, according to the Apocryphon ofJohn the first female aeons that are generated form a
quintet, not a quartet. Third, each of the four male luminaries - Harmozd, Oroiael,
Daueithai, and Eleleth-has three female aeons as companions. Of these twelve female
aeons, Wisdom is the last. Fourth, in the ensuing story of Wisdom the Apocryphon does not
describe the lower Ogdoad. Fifth, in that story there is a complex number symbolism
relating to the origin of the week and the number of days in the year. A thorough analysis of
the number symbolism of the Barbelo-Gnostic tradition remains to be undertaken. The same
applies to the so-called Ophites, whose system Irenaeus describes in chapter thirty. But even
without this fuller analysis, we can still observe that in the Barbelo-Gnostic tradition, which,
like Valentinianism, depends upon the Wisdom myth to explain the fall and the creation
and redemption of the world, syzygies and Ogdoads predominate. The Valentinians
describe in greater detail the intricate mathematical relationships of the syzygies and
Ogdoads, but the core structure is identical.
48
HIPPOLYTUS'S ACCOUNT OF VALENTINIANISM
Most of the apologists after Irenaeus do not add anything substantial in their accounts of
Valentinianism. The movement changed shape in the course of the third century, and the
heresiologists of the fourth had access to little other than Irenaeus's work.119 But Hippolytus,
who wrote in the early third century, is an exception. He presents a Valentinian system
significantly different from Irenaeus' s in its arithmetical arrangement of the Pleroma.
Hippolytus' s source is a Valentinian text that emphasizes the solitary uniqueness of the first
aeon. The variation is important for understanding the variety of number symbolism in
Valentinianism.120
In Hippolytus's Valentinian system, there is one source, which is a monad in every
respect (figure 6). He has no consort and remains completely independent of all other
entities.121 This being, the Father, did not love solitude, and he decided to beget and bring
out from within himself the loveliest, most complete thing he could, Mind and Truth. That
is, the monad begat a dyad, and this dyad became the source of all other aeons that are
enumerated inside the Pleroma. Mind projects Word and Life, in imitation of the Father.122
Word and Life, in turn, project Man and Church. Thus, the first group of aeons consists of
1 19 See Markschies, Gnosticism, on the general course Valentinianism took after its zenith. The Tripartite
Tractate shows one strand of late 3rd-c. Valentinianism that differs considerably from its predecessors
in its construction of the Pleroma. See below, pp. 64-66.
1 20 For a fuller comparison of Irenaeus's and Hippolytus's accounts of Valentinianism, see Stead,
"Valentinian Myth."
1 2 1 Hippolytus, Refutation of A ll Heresies 6.29.5.
1 2z Ibid. 6.29.6, 7, paralleling Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 .1, even down to a very minor detail: no
mention is made of Truth's role in projecting Word and Life.
49
naTIJp I Father
Milos I Deplh
' A):r\9Eta I Trulh
Zunj I Life
t;'
1l
I "0
"
Bvews Mi�LS OapciKATJTOS 0(aTLS . 8
l'ii·
()
ProfoWld Copulation Advocate Failh . ,:2.
w •EVIllULS lft.,
[::8
' AytjpaTOS OaTplKOS ' ID.rr(s
.-\gdess Union Paternal Hope l;'
3
w ' H&ovtj � �-
[::8
'AVTo<jnn)s MqTptKOS ' Aycirrl) · rr
Sdf�dered Pleasure Maternal Lo�-e I g.
..
w
' AKlVl)TOS LL')'Kpaats AELVOI!S :Euvwts
,�
[::8
•
Immoveable Intercourse E\-er-Mindful Understanding
MovoyEvtjs w MaKap(a EKKA'lOWUTtKOS MaKaptOTl)S

[::8
•
Only Begotten Bhss Churchly Blessedness
8E.Al)TOS "'-- 0 :Eo<j>(a I

_ . Desired V � Wisdom I
_...
I
XptOTOS (1st) I Christ OvEflva" AyLOv I Holy Spirit
W
'
Kaprros 1 Fruit
I>
· - .
- · - .
' ll)OOVs / Jesus
Figure 6. Valentinianism, as reported by Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6 . 29-36. Male aeons are
(arbitrarily) assigned triangles; females, circles. Arrows indicate which aeons project which. Unlike in
figure 1, Limit is not presented as a hexagon; the circular shape is arbitrary (illustration by author) .
the monadic Father, followed by six emanations, or powers. The theological grouping of one
followed by six is a recurrent structure in the theology of other groups Hippolytus
discusses.123
1 23 See, e.g., the system of Mono'imus, discussed below, chapter 4. See also Stead, "Valentinian Myth,"
who argues that such a presentation would have appealed to a 2nd-century reader of Philo.
50
Mind and Truth, seeing their offspring productive, present to the Father a perfect
number of aeons: ten.124 According to these Valentinians the Father had to be glorified by a
perfect number since he, the unbegotten Monad, is himself the most perfect. Thus, just as
the Monad, in its utmost perfection, is the foremost of numbers in the Decad, so the Decad is
the foremost of things that come into being in multitude.l25 Word and Life, seeing Mind and
Truth glorify the Father, attempt to glorify their own parents. Because they lack the same
level of paternal protection, Word and Life beget twelve aeons, a slightly less perfect
number.126 Thus, there are, in total, twenty-eight aeons, not counting the Father, who
transcends them.127
Hippolytus's version of the myth of Wisdom is similar in many respects to that of
Irenaeus. She is the twelfth aeon, and she runs upward to be with the Father. In
1 24 Cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 .2, where Word and Life, not Mind and Truth, beget the Decad, a
difference Hippolytus notes at Refutation of All Heresies 6.30.4.
1 25 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.29.8. Cf. Theology of Arithmetic 81 .9. Various numbers are
called perfect, most notably 3, 6, 7, and 1 0, each for a different reason: 3 has beginning, middle, and
end (see below, p. 257); 6 is the sum of its factors (including 1, but excluding itself); 7 has
cosmological and theological perfection, especially in the Jewish and Christian traditions; and 10 is
the image of 1, the most perfect number. For other ancient discussions of 10 as perfect, see Aristotle,
Metaphysics 986a8, Problemata 910b31, and frag. 203 (= Alexander of Aphrodisias, Commentary on
Aristotle's Metaphysics, p. 40, Hayduck ed.); Plutarch, The E at Delphi 9 (388E); anonymous, [On the
Numbers] (Delatte ed., lines 20, 55); Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 4.110; Clement of
Alexandria, Stromateis 6.1 1 .84.5 (discussed below, p . 192); Monoi·mus in Hippolytus, Refutation of All
Heresies 6.24.1-2, 8.14.6 (see below, p. 1 1 2); Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 1 .2.8-9, 4.51 .6, 6.23.5;
Chalcidius, Commentary on the Timaeus 84.5-8; anonymous, The Mysteries of the Greek Letters
(Hebbylynck's ed, 52-53).
126 Hippolytus, Refutation ofA ll Heresies 6.30.1-2. Cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 .2, where Man and
Church beget the Dodecad, a difference Hippolytus notes at Refutation of All Heresies 6.30.5. The
comment on the relative imperfection of the Dodecad must be Hippolytus' s , since there is no
indication in any of the other Valentinian systems that the number twelve was deficient. Hippolytus's
other heresies are frequently obsessed with the perfection of the number ten (see below, chaps. 4 and
5), and it is likely that that concern has leaked into his report here.
51
Hippolytus's narrative, however, she tries to imitate his monadic, syzygy-less state, and
does so without properly understanding the difference between the Father's transcendent
nature and her own, inferior nature.128 Wisdom's projection of a shapeless essence horrifies
the aeons, who plead the Father to take action before they are overcome by corruption. This
prompts the Father to order Mind and Truth to project Christ and the Holy Spirit to stabilize
the Pleroma. Their projection brings about the full number of aeons, thirty.129 The Father
also projects another aeon, Cross, to stabilize the Pleroma, and he emerges as Limit.l3° The
whole Pleroma, now peaceful and harmonious, decides to glorify Depth and so collectively
project a single aeon, Fruit, also called Jesus.131 The exiled aeon Wisdom is called, as in
Irenaeus's systems, Ogdoad, and the Demiurge, Hebdomad.132 Note, the only Ogdoad in
Hippolytus's Valentinianism is in the lower realm. Wisdom is called an Ogdoad, but the
significance of the name is not explained. Since there is no upper Ogdoad, she cannot be a
reflection of it, as is found in other Valentinian systems.
The lower world in Hippolytus's Valentinianism is governed by fours. Wisdom is
struck by four passions, not three: fear, pain, perplexity, and (the new one) supplication.133
12s Ibi d. 6.30.6, 7.

129 Ibid. 6.31.1-3. Here Hippolytus, like Irenaeus, notes the conflicting methods the Valentinians use to
derive the quorum of thirty aeons. Hippolytus is concerned, however, with presenting a model that
genuinely differs from Irenaeus's. Thus he acts as if the default Valentinian system is the one where
the Father is not counted with the aeons and Christ and Holy Spirit are.
1 30 Ibid. 6.31 .6. He is also called Participant (=Maoxn)c;), possibly a corruption of Irenaeus's
Transferrer (=Mnayoyn)c;). In any case, Limit in Hippolytus's Valentinian system has only three
names and is not suggested to have any particular geometrical shape, like a hexagon (as in Irenaeus's
first Valentinian system). Note, too, Hippolytus, unlike Irenaeus, calls Limit an aeon. See above, p. 18.
131 Hippolytus, Refutation ofAll Heresies 6.32.1-2.
m Ogdoad: ibid. 6.31 .7, 6.32.9, 6.33.1, 6.34.8, 6.35.4, 6.36.1 . Hebdomad: ibid. 6.32.7, 6.36.1, 6.33.1 .
1 33 Ibid. 6.32.5. Cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .5.4.
52
Each of these four passions the aeon Fruit/Jesus (equivalent to the aeon Jesus in Irenaeus' s
Valentinian system) takes and instantiates - that is, he endows them with essence, reifies
them, if you will- separately from Wisdom.134 Her fear brings about the essence of the soul;
her pain, material essence; her perplexity, the essence of demons; and her supplication, the
"power of the essence of the soul." Over each of these four elements presides a ruler. The
Demiurge governs the essence of the soul; the Devil (bLa�oAoc;), material essence; Beelzebul,
the essence of demons; but Wisdom, higher than all three, governs the spirit.l35 This fourfold
scheme of elements is, according to Hippolytus' s Valentinian, the Pythagorean tetraktys, the
"source with the roots of eternal nature." In Hippolytus's Valentinian system, there is no
upper Tetrad, only the six roots, all in pairs, the most fundamental number for organizing
the Pleroma. This emphasis on four contrasts with Irenaeus' s V alentinian systems, which
tend to subdivide the lower realm in groups of three.
Hippolytus mentions other variations in this group's number symbolism. Just as
astronomers divide the world into divisions of twelve, thirty, and sixty parts, so, he says,
they carve up the aeonic realm.136 Hippolytus also notes that they associate Wisdom (and
not Achamoth) with the Ogdoad, and that they specify there to be seventy angels who
accompany Fruit-Jesus.
These Valentinians' insistence upon a Father that is utterly Monad brings up the
most fundamental difference with Irenaeus's Valentinians. To make the importance of the
issue clear, it is worth rehearsing what Irenaeus says about the differences in the Valentinian
1 34 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.32.6.

Bs Ibid. 6.33.1, 6.34.1 .
136 Ibid. 6.34.3.
53
school regarding the status of the perfect aeon (Foresource, Forefather, Depth, or-in
Hippolytus - Father). He outlines three differences of opinion in Valentinianism. (1) Depth
is without consort since he is neither male nor female, nor even altogether subject to
existence; (2) Depth is androgynous, encompassing in himself the hermaphroditic nature; (3)
Silence is Depth's bedmate and the two constitute the first syzygy.137 The systems Irenaeus
outlines clearly fall in the third group, the one that emphasizes the paratactic relationship
between Depth and Silence. The first group, which claims for the Monad utter solitude,
resembles the system Hippolytus presents. The second group, however, posits a first
principle that encompasses multiplicity. This position falls between the two extremes. In it
Depth is neither utterly solitary nor eternally yoked.
Hippolytus, however, does not present as many schools of thought in
Valentinianism. He reduces the options to two, Irenaeus's first and third groups. For the
group that holds to the position of an asexual first principle Hippolytus assigns an origin in
Pythagoreanism (Irenaeus's first group). He does not explain the origin of the group that
holds to Silence as his consort (Irenaeus' s third group), aside from noting that they were
trying to answer a problem faced by the first, of how generation can come from only a
Father.138 The distinction between the two groups emerges again when Hippolytus explains
how the number thirty is reached in the Pleroma. The first group includes Christ and the
Holy Spirit in the total number, and excludes the Father. In contrast, the other group
includes the Father and his consort Silence, thus arriving at the quorum thirty before Christ
m Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 1 .5.

1 38 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.29.3, repeated at 6.38.5.
54
and the Holy Spirit are projected.139 But Hippolytus is disinterested in treating at any length
the teachings of the second, more dyadic system.
Thus, by omitting Irenaeus' s second, middle option, and by discounting the third,
the dyadic group of Valentinians, Hippolytus reshapes the Valentinian school to serve his
overall purpose, to show how each heretic resembles and depends upon a prior
philosopher. In this case, he accuses the Valentinians of following Pythagoras.140 He presents
the Valentinians as belonging to one of two groups, either monadic or dyadic, and so
Hippolytus mirrors the perception his contemporaries had about the Pythagorean tradition,
that it had monistic versus dualistic- or monadic versus dyadic-branches.141 One might
think that Hippolytus should have preferred to emphasize the dyadic school of
Valentinians, given the early Pythagoreans' preference for polarities.142 Hippolytus,
however, is not as interested in writing historically accurate analogies as he is in
establishing parallels between the heretics' and the pagan philosophers' lines of
succession.1 43 Had Hippolytus chosen to emphasize the dyadic strain of Valentinianism, this
1 39 Ibid. 6.31.3.
1 40 On such polemics by Hippolytus, see Marcovich, Refutatio omnium haeresium, 35-38, and Mansfeld,
Heresiography in Context, passim.
14 1 The older Pythagoreans were supposed to be dyadic; the more recent, monadic. See Dillon, Middle
Platonists, 344, 373, 379; Armstrong, "Dualism," 34-41; and Thomassen, "Derivation of Matter," 3-4 .
The distinction is made by Sextus Empiricus, whose writings Hippolytus plagiarizes often. See
Marcovich, Refutatio omnium haeresium, 36. To refer to the systems, I prefer the terms monadic and
dyadic to monistic and dualistic, since the latter pair are subject to so many vagaries and definitions
today. E .g., there is ethical dualism, metaphysical dualism, anthropological dualism, and theological
dualism. Monadic and dyadic are not used so broadly, and they are built upon the ever-important
terms monad and dyad, key to ancient philosophy and Valentinian thought. See excursus B l .
1 42 See excursus 82. Note especially Philolaus's dependence upon limiters and unlimiteds as the basis
of his metaphysics, and the table of opposites embraced by early Pythagoreans.
1 43 See above, n. 140.
55
would have left other systems he discusses elsewhere outside this parallelism. The
Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale, for instance, has an upper structure similar to that of the
.
monadic Valentinians in the Refutation of All Heresies (see below, chapter 4). Thus,
Hippolytus accuses the Valentinians of mirroring Pythagoras, and he emphasizes the
version of Valentinianism that incriminates as Pythagorean other groups he discusses.
Hippolytus's oversimplification of the differences in Valentinianism is intentional.
Unfortunately, many modem presentations of Valentinianism follow Hippolytus' s
oversimplification, dividing the school into monadic versus dyadic camps. Sometimes this
dichotomy is used by editors, translators, and commentators of Valentinian texts to classify
them into one of the two groups.144 Although it is not an original observation that monadic
versus dyadic classifications oversimplify Valentinianism, the point bears repeating,
particularly in this study, where the contrasting symbolism of the numbers one and two
affect our interpretation and classification of various authors' number symbolism.145
There are several marks that can be set upon a monadic-dyadic scale. There is, first
of all, Irenaeus' s second of three categories of Valentinians, a category that envisions the
highest principle as being simultaneously male and female, an association made in ancient
144 Turner uses this monadic-dyadic dichotomy to edit A Valentinian Exposition (91, 97-99). See pp. 67-
74, below, for my critique. Attridge and Pagels depend on the antithesis for their commentary on The
Tripartite Tractate (22:179-80; 23:218-1 9). For scholars' earlier use of the dichotomy, see Stead,
"Valentinian Myth," 77 and nn. 2-3.
145 Attridge and MacRae, commenting on their edition of The Gospel of Truth (NHS 22:77), note that in
Valentinian systems a primordial principle may also be thought of as dyadic: "It is, in fact, likely that
the divergences within the Valentinian tradition on this subject are more matters of emphasis in
articulating a complex fundamental theology than they are radically distinct theological positions."
What I offer here is not to be confused with the kinds of cosmic dualism Armstrong ("Dualism")
treats. Determining the relationship between monad and dyad in a particular author has little bearing
on whether that same author is a cosmic dualist or a two-world dualist (Armstrong's terminology).
56
mathematics with the number one.146 In this model the first aeons are simultaneously
monadic and dyadic, in that the dyad resides potentially in the monad, just as the female
aspect resides potentially in an androgynous being.
To Irenaeus' s second option can be added yet another way of representing the
relationship of the first principle to the second. This system envisions the first principle as a
self-sufficient monad, but in eternal subordination to it is the second principle, presented
and emphasized as an entity distinct from the superior. This differs from Irenaeus' s first
group, in that the dyadic aeon is thought of as being always present with the Monad. "There
never was a time when the Dyad wasn't," to take a page from the later Arian debates. Under
this category fall the systems presented in The Tripartite Tractate, the First Apocalypse of ]ames,
and The Gospel of Truth, three Nag Hammadi texts that show clear signs of Valentinian
theology.147
Thus, there are at least four ways Valentinians could present the highest principle.
The purely monadic system can be depicted as a single entity, completely alone. The next
most monadic system is what I call spermatic monadic, since it presents the second principle
as an inherent aspect of the first principle, embedded and never separated, like a seed of the
Father. The system typically presents the first principle as embedding the second, but
sometimes the model can be reversed. In Irenaeus' s Barbelo-Gnostic system, for instance,
the second principle, Barbelo, enmeshes the first. The model appears frequently in
1 46 See excursus B2. One is not a number in the ancient world, since ci:QL8 f16� connotes multiplicity.
But to write coherent sentences I occasionally call one a number.
1 47 See below. The Tripartite Tractate may be an exception. At fol. 60 it seems the aeons live
spermatically within the Father, which suggests spermatic-dyadic Valentinianism, described below.
57
Pythagorean texts of the period.148 The third system, more explicitly dyadic, is made up of
one entity in eternal superiority to a second entity, a relationship often expressed as a
Father-Son relationship. I thus call it parental dyadic. It resembles in some ways the
Pythagorean relationship between monad and hen, a hierarchical arrangement well known
in the second century (see excursus Bl). The fourth system on this scale is more purely
dyadic. The first principle is yoked with another entity in a relationship often thought of as
a syzygy. In this system, which I call conjugal dyadic, Silence (or occasionally Wisdom)
takes on aspects of the role of an accompanying dyad or consort.149 This system too appears
in Pythagorean mathematical descriptions.150 Since conjugal-dyadic Valentinianism
preserves a sense of hierarchy, it is important to note a fifth possibility, found in the
metaphysically dualistic systems of societies further east, where the two principles are
absolute peers; one is no greater than the other. I have seen no evidence for this fifth system
in Valentinianism - it is avoided in Greco-Roman literature in general -so I omit it from
consideration here.151
Whether a writer focuses on the Monad or the Dyad is symbolically important, even
if all the various grades describe the same continuum, or merely mark stages along the same
process. Hippolytus's Valentinian system presents the Father as the figure one, since one
148 See, e.g., Theology of Arithmetic 1 .1 0-12, 3.1-5 and other examples at Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 293-
94.
149 Thomassen, "Derivation of Matter."
1 50 See, e.g., Theology ofArithmetic 13.6-9.
1 51 See Epiphanius, Panarion 4 1 .2 for a complex discussion on the logical problems inherent in a
philosophy or religion postulating two equally matched sources. This is not to deny the existence of
pure dualists in Greek literature (see above, n. 145, and below, p. 295), but because all ancient theories
of causality required one and only one agent, pure cosmic dualism was a rare option.
58
(technically not a number and therefore above all number) resembles the Father, who utterly
transcends the aeons and any consort. This focus on the Monad preserves a theology of
monarchy. Irenaeus's Valentinians, however, reflect upon how the Dyad derives from the
Monad by using images of gender and numbers to depict the relationship between the one
and the many, a perennial problem in philosophy since its invention. Valentinian systems
attempt not so much to solve these problems as to enter into them, to depict them, and to
theologize on how the present world came from the highest realms. The various
metaphors-procreation, marriage, parenthood -used to clarify the relationship between
the Monad and the Dyad illustrate contrasting ideas about the constitution of the universe.
Arithmetic is a key ingredient in explicating this.
The four kinds of monadic or dyadic Valentinianism are depicted in the header to
table 1 (see end of chapter), which arranges them from monadic to dyadic. My placement of
the various Valentinian systems on this scale reflects my assessment of the texts; others may
wish to interpret them in slightly different fashion. Some texts do not permit easy
classification, either because they do not discuss the relationship between Monad and Dyad,
or because they present ideas that are vague, ambiguous, or self-contradictory. Tertullian
accuses the Valentinians of such inconsistency. He snipes at them for introducing to an
entity they want to be solitary a second person, both "in him and with him."152 What
Tertullian sees as a contradiction we might more benignly consider a paradox or intentional
ambiguity. That this is a better way of interpreting Valentinianism will become evident in
the course of this study.
1s2 Tertullian, Against the Valentinians 7.5.
59
By constructing this table I do not wish to replace Hippolytus' s two rigid categories
with four. The exercise is meant not to produce incontestable accuracy but to work toward a
more flexible but precise presentation of Valentinian theology. The scale is porous, to reflect
the emphases (and not necessarily the substantive differences) of various texts.153 One
advantage of the scale is that it can be applied to other groups, as I show in later chapters.
What emerges from table 1 is the observation that Irenaeus and heresiologists
dependent on him report a variety of Valentinian systems, but none that are purely
monadic. Hippolytus is different, since he stresses that his Valentinian source is monadic.
Also noticeable is the somewhat middle course steered by the Nag Hammadi Valentinian
texts. They tend to fall, however, on the dyadic, that is, Irenaean, side of the scale. The
Valentinian Exposition, so close in other respects to Irenaeus's first system, is clearly
spermatic monadic, but other Nag Hammadi texts either do not concern themselves with
the issue, or lean to a parental-dyadic model. There is no purely monadic, that is,
Hippolytean, system presented by any of the Nag Hammadi texts. In sum, the Valentinians
use a considerable variety of models to depict the relationship of the Monad to the Dyad. If,
as one scholar has suggested, there was a paradigm shift in late antiquity from systems of
two and three principles to those of only one, it is not evident here.l54
Also evident from the table is that the descriptions of the relations between the aeons
are often indeterminable or contradictory. This throws some doubt on the analysis of Einar
Thomassen, who, in Spiritual Seed, sorts all Valentinian texts into two types. The older, type-
153 See above, n. 145 .

1 54 Thomassen, "Derivation of Matter,"17. The difficulty o f dating Valentinian texts makes the
hypothesis difficult to test.
60
A texts do not specify names or arithmetical patterns in their protological systems, whereas
the later, type-B texts do. This is a valuable way of organizing Valentinian texts. It makes
sense that unnamed, amorphous systems develop into named and highly-structured ones.
But Thomassen also claims that type-A texts emphasize the interiorization of the secondary
aeons whereas type-B texts "do not stress the idea of a generative exteriorisation of the
aeons from within the Father."155 This distinction does not reflect the complexity of the texts.
As we shall see in the next chapter, Marcus's protology uses both interiority and exteriority
to describe the relationship between the primal aeon and the subsequent ones. Epiphanes'
language draws from both spermatic and conjugal-dyadic imagery: the four aeons are
treated as distinct, however, monotes and henotes coexist and are said to be one thing. It is
uncertain whether his four primal aeons have anything more than a token separate
existence. Even in Irenaeus's first Valentinian system, Thought is said to be "projected"
( n:Qof3aAca8m) from the Forefather. This presumes that the projected lies within the
projector. And the term projected emphasizes the exteriorization of the dyad. Thomassen's
type-B texts show regular interest in the origin and emergence of the secondary aeons.
1ss P. 1 93. Thomassen says (ibid.), "The aeons are described as possessing an initial existence within
the Father, or in his Thought, after which they are brought forth and manifested from him, so as to
become independent beings." He intends this to be a definining characteristic of type-A texts, but I
fail to see why the description does not apply also to type B. The two texts he takes as typifying type
A, the Tripartite Tractate and the Gospel of Tru th, I have marked on my table as being paternal dyadic,
since in my opinion these texts emphasize the hierarchical exteriorization of the dyad, not its
internalization. Thomassen's final historical analysis is relatively sound, in my opinion, only because
of its sounder criterium, that of how well developed the names and numbers in the Pleroma are.
61
NAG HAMMADI VALENTINIAN TEXTS
The Valentinian number symbolism discussed above depends upon several Church Fathers,
Irenaeus in particular, who, one might suspect, argue against forms of V alentinianism that
may or may not represent the mainstream of that movement. With the publication of the
fourth-century library discovered at Nag Hammadi, scholars have hoped to depend upon
less tendentious texts so as to understand Valentinianism on its own terms, if possible.
Determining what Nag Hammadi texts correspond to what groups is an ongoing, difficult
process. The texts generally do not specify either their author or their intended audience,
and scholars d o not always agree on their categorization. In the case of Valentinianism, I
have deferred to the provisional consensus on what texts are certainly or very probably
Valentinian (The Tripartite Tractate [NH 1 .5}, The Gospel of Philip [NH 2.3}, The (First)
Apocalypse of fames [NH 5.3], The Interpretation of Knowledge [NH 1 1 .1}, and A Valentinian
Exposition [NH 1 1 .21), and which are only probably Valentinian (The Gospel of Truth [NH
1 .3/12.2} and The Treatise on the Resurrection [NH 1 .4}).156 Other texts were possibly written or
redacted by Valentinians, but I do not discuss them.
Several of the Valentinian Nag Hammadi texts have little or no number symbolism.
The occasional number symbolism of The Gospel of Philip, from the late third century, is
peripheral to its theology. The Interpretation of Knowledge might assume its readers know
Valentinian number symbolism, but the text is too fragmentary to analyze. The Treatise on
the Resurrection, a Valentinian text dated to the late second century, has absolutely no
1s6 The classification is argued for by Thomassen, "Notes pour Ia delimitation," 244.
62
number symbolism, although this may be due to the author's assumption that the letter's
recipient, Rheginos, already knows the mathematical structure of the Pleroma.157
But several Valentinian Nag Hammadi texts use number symbolism that can be
studied. A Valentinian Exposition employs extensive number symbolism that compares well
with book one of Against Heresies. Before exploring it, I comment briefly on The First
Apocalypse of James, The Tripartite Tractate, and The Gospel of Truth, all of which use rather
divergent types of number symbolism.
The First Apocalypse ofJames, true to its name, reports a series of revelations given by
the Lord to James. The Valentinian character of the text, which takes the form of a dialogue,
is established by parallels to Irenaeus' s report of unnamed Valentinians, and to
Epiphanius's, of the Heracleonites.1 58 It seems to have been written in a Syrian milieu, of
unknown date, probably third century .159 Because the text deals centrally with the ascent of
the soul after death, its struggle with the archons, and its dealings with other heavenly
beings, the Apocalypse cannot be compared too strictly to our other Valentinian texts. Since it
does not discuss the structures of the divine emanations, its number symbolism emerges
from other concerns.
One dominant theme is the archons, twelve of whom stand over seventy-two
heavens. Each archon has six beings under its supervision, and thus forms a hebdomad. The
1 57 On the date and Valentinian character of the treatise, see Peel, Epistle to Rheginos, 179-80, and idem,
Gnosis und Auferstehung, 145-46.
158 First Apocalypse ofJames 33.11-35.25 (NH 5.3), compared to Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .21.5 and
Epiphanius, Panarion 36.3.1-6. See Schoedel and Parrott, "(First) Apocalypse of James," 66-67, 86-87.
1 59 Schoedel and Parrott, "(First) Apocalypse of James," 67.
63
arrangement takes James off guard.160 Doesn't Scripture allude to only seven hebdomads?
James refers here probably to Pentecost. The Lord tells James that the one who told him
about this verse had an incomplete understanding, but he will make clear what comes from
the one who transcends number. The Lord then proceeds to explain the seventy-two
heavens. The implication is that the being beyond number has arranged the world in
numbers not evident in the ordinary interpretations of Scripture. What is to be symbolized
by the number seventy-two is unclear here. In other texts the seventy-two represent all the
nations of the world, but this association is never made explicit in the Apocalypse.161
Later in the text we find that just as there are twelve archons, so there are twelve
disciples and twelve pairs.162 This number and association may derive from the Valentinian
Dodecad, but a direct connection does not seem likely to me, since twelve pairs suggests a
total of twenty-four, a number that features only in Marcus's form of Valentinianism, in his
speculations on the alphabet (see chapter 3). Other symbolic numbers in The First Apocalypse
of ]ames, such as the seven women disciples, the three toll collectors the soul meets in the
afterlife, and the ten-year wait before Addai writes, show that the author was interested in
and used number symbolism.163 But these symbols are not explained enough to allow us to
1 60 The First Apocalypse of James 25.26--2 6.23 (numbers refer to folio and line numbers). The
arrangement is illustrated at Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 12-13, fig. 1 .
1 61 Gospel of Philip 63.26--3 0 (NH 2.3); Origin of the World 1 04.35-105.16 (NH 2.5/13.2); Concept of Our
Great Power 41 .6-6 (NH 6.4).
1 62 The First Apocalypse offames 36.1-2.
1 63 Cf. The Sophia o!Jesus Christ 90.17-18 (NH 3.4). Number symbolism often enters descriptions of
tollbooths, which are seldom found in Valentinian texts; but there is no exact parallel to the three toll
collectors of The First Apocalypse ofJames. The Apocalypse of Paul (NH 5.2), for instance, seems to
envision one toll collector at the passage guarding each of ten heavens. The Books of feu 1 .33-41, 2.52,
depicts 12 levels, each with its own password or numerical code.
64
say how much The First Apocalypse of James departs from, or how closely it represents, the
V alentinian tradition of number symbolism.
The Tripartite Tractate, written probably in the late third century, reflects an earlier
strain of Valentinianism that has greatly mitigated the central, highest aspects of its number
symbolism.164 In the preface, the Father - the preferred name for the transcendent deity in
this treatise - is at first said to be " like a number" (E <JO M"npHTE NNOYHn E), but is then
immediately said to be unlike a "one" or "solitary individual" (E<t O MnpHTE NOYE E 1 oy� E ET9
EN ) .165 The apparent contradiction is resolved in the role of the Son, whose eternal presence
'
with the Father makes it impossible to speak of the Father only as one.166 Nevertheless, the
Father is singular.167 The Father's unity is always shared with the Son, who preexists
eternally with the Father.168 The author of The Tripartite Tractate depends upon the
terminology of arithmetic to describe the projection of the Son from the Father, "the one
who stretches himself out"; such language parallels descriptions of the monad departing
from itself to become a dyad.169
164 On the date see Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 263-66, "L'histoire du valentinisme," 302-3, and Le traite
tripartite, 18-20; Attridge and Pagels, 22:178. I follow the Coptic text in Thomassen's edition.
1 65 Tripartite Tractate 51.9-10, 11-12. Thomassen, Le traite tripartite, 261-62 suggests this means
"multitude" (rrAi']8os), not "number" (aQL8f16s), since one is never a number, but the source of
number. But the problem Thomassen purports to solve still remains, since one also is never
multitude, which is, anyway, a species of number. See Nicomachus of Gerasa, Introduction to
Arithmetic 1 .3.1-2.
166 Tripartite Tractate 5 1 .12-15.
167 Ibid. 51.16, 24.
168 Ibid. 57.33-59.1.
169 Ibid. 56.2-3, 1 6-17; 65.4-5; 66.6-7. See my discussion of the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale
below, pp. 126-127.
65
Because the relationship of the two is eternal, like the relationship between the
Father and the Son in Nicene Christianity, a parental dyadic model seems to be the main
model of presentation. But the Tractate' s observation of how the Father stretches himself out
into the Son, of how the Son is "the ineffable one in the ineffable one" suggests that the
author was just as happy with metaphors pointing to a spermatic-monadic modeJ.170
The Tripartite Tractate frequently groups the world in sets of three. There are three
categories of matter, the aeons give three "glories" and bear three sets of offspring, and
there are three elements that go into the formation of the first human being.m All humanity
falls into one of three categories: spiritual, psychic, and material, in imitation of the Word,
who brought forth these three classes of beings.172 That the created world has so many
classes of three is a reminder of the threefold organization of the lower world in other
Valentinian systems, discussed above. In this case, however, triplicities begin in the level of
the aeons, also called the Church.173 So in the Tripartite Tractate tripartition starts at a level
higher than in the other Valentinian systems. The author makes explicit the three levels of
the divine economy- Father, Son, and Church -but he never calls them a triad or
threesome.174 Instead, patterns of threes begin at the third level of the protology of the
godhead. There is little or no suggestion of pairs or syzygies playing a role in the text. If The
Tripartite Tractate is based, as is thought, on a form of Valentinianism that predates
1 70 Tripartite Tractate 56.26-27, Turner's translation.

1 71 Ibid. 103.14; 68-69, 74.19; 106.18-31 . The text is strikingly similar to the account of humanity's
creation in Irenaeus's first Valentinian system. See above, p. 23 and fig. 2.
172 Tripartite Tractate 1 18.14-23.
173 Thomassen, Traite tripartite, 286.
1 74 For other threesomes in The Tripartite Tractate see Attridge and Pagels, in Attridge, Nag Hammadi
Codex I, 23:400-401 .
66
Irenaeus' s first system, then this system reveals a stage that precedes the introduction of
complex Pythagorean number symbolism into the core of their theology.
Compare to this The Gospel of Truth, which has two types of number symbolism.
First, it emphasizes the unity found in the Father, a unity to which all should strive, by
purifying themselves of multiplicity.175 Unity is directly correlated with knowledge, just as
envy and strife are linked with ignoranceP6 The trope is pervasive in Platonic and
Pythagorean texts from this period: unity is, without doubt, the top destination for your
average Platonic journeyman. Second, it uses number symbolism to interpret the parable of
the finding of the hundredth sheep.177 The savior figure finds the one lost sheep and rejoices,
since ninety-nine is a number belonging to the left hand. With the hundredth, the number
passes to the right. The Father is symbolized by the righfhand, which draws in the numbers
on the left hand, so as to perfect them. The explanation refers to the finger-calculus
technique common in the ancient Mediterranean: one through ninety-nine were reckoned
completely on the left hand (thereby freeing the right hand in the majority of small
transactions to do other tasks, such as pay out coins), and the hundreds and thousands were
reckoned on the right.178 Marcus's explanation of the same parable is very similar, although
he incorporates the parable in his protology and letter symbolism.179 The idea is not
exclusively Valentinian, since it appears often in orthodox writers, too.180 Moreover, The
175 Gospel of Truth 25.5-19 (NH 1 .3).

1 76 Ibid. 24.25-25.3
177 Ibid. 31 .35-32.16, Mt 18.12-14, Lk 15.4-7, Gospel of Thomas 1 07.
1 78 See Williams and Williams, "Finger Numbers," and studies cited there. Despite their attempt to
study the subject comprehensively, they omit Marcus's testimonies to the practice.
179 See below, pp. 97, 102, and 159.
180 See Jerome, Letter 48.2 and references in n. 178, above.
67
Gospel of Tru th shows no sign of a theology of syzygies, arithmetically grouped emanations,
or the like. The Gospel of Truth probably preserves an older, more primitive stratum of
Valentinianism.181 But the possibility should not be excluded that the text reflects a later
development, one either less interested in aeonology or mixed with a system not disposed to
number symbolism.
From these three texts, certain patterns of number symbolism are evident. There is
an emphasis on the unity of the Father (Tripartite Tractate and The Gospel of Truth). In the
region below him are certain divine entities arranged in sixes, sevens, and twelves (The First
Apocalypse ofJames). The material world is full of tripartitions (Tripartite Tractate). The
patterns, if not the details, correspond to other Valentinian number symbols discussed
above.
A VALENTIN/AN EXPOSITION
The so-called A Valentinian Exposition, fragmentary as it is, confirms the Valentinian
arithmetical arrangement of aeons Irenaeus and Hippolytus discuss. A Valentinian Exposition
recounts the Valentinian myth in roughly the same order that Irenaeus and Hippolytus do.
First, after explaining the upper realms of the Father, Silence, the Son, Only-Begotten, and
other figures (fols. 22-24), the author explains how the aeons were projected (fols. 25-27).
The second major section treats the emanation of the first two tetrads (fols. 28-29) and the
subsequent projection of the Decad and Dodecad (fols. 30-31). Having explained the origin
of the Triacontad, the author then turns to the story of Wisdom, the thirtieth aeon,
1 81 Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 263-66; Attridge and MacRae, "Gospel of Truth," 23:92.
68
explaining her error and the way in which she was reconciled (fols. 32-39) . Of these three
major divisions in A Valentinian Exposition, the first two are most relevant for our study of
the Valentinian theology of arithmetic.
It is commonly suggested that the author of A Valentinian Exposition held to a
monadic rather than dyadic Valentinianism. There are four reasons why this seems to be the
case. The Father is described as being alone, and is called Monad.182 Silence, the usual consort
of the Father in Irenaeus's reports, is introduced slowly, through synonyms such as
quietness (nK). PID<J) and tranquility (nc 6p).2f), a possible indication that the author wished
to downplay any notion that Silence is coeval with or consort to the Father, and that he
wished rather to specify that Silence is the nonmythological tranquility of the Father's
solitude. This theory of a demythologized Silence is reinforced by A Valentinian Exposition' s
epithet for the Father, "root of all," a common Valentinian designation for the primary
Tetrad or the ensuing Odgoad, but not applied to the Father alone.183 Further, it seems that
in A Valentinian Exposition the "Uncreated One" - understood to be Only Begotten, the third
member of the primal Tetrad - generates the second Tetrad on his own, thus imitating the
primal solitude of the Father.184 That is, by generating without a consort Only Begotten
reveals that the Father is also without consort. These arguments are the main reasons why
Turner and Pagels classify the text as monadic Valentinian.185
The arguments are not persuasive. First, although the Father seems to be called
Monad, he is also said to exist in the Monad (2N T MON).C ), and even to exist in the Dyad and
1 82 A Valentinian Exposition 22.19-23.21.

1s3 Ibid. 22.20, 33-34; 23.19.
1 84 Ibid. 29.29-30.
185 Pagels and Turner, "Valentinian Exposition," 96-99, 1 60-61 (s.v. 29.25-30, 29.29-35).
69
pair ([ZN TA]y�c �ym ZN nc�E 1 (1) ) .186 Later on, an unidentified subject, presumably the Father,
is said to exist in the Monad, Dyad, and Tetrad.187 How an entity can be in something, yet be
that something as well? How can such a solitary entity dwell in the Dyad or Tetrad? Neither
the text nor its editor explains this. I do not think this paradox can be easily solved. Possibly
the author of A Valentinian Exposition held that the Father, Silence, and the rest of the primal
Tetrad existed beneath, or at least independent from, primal number. As we have already
seen, Irenaeus reports that some anonymous Valentinians held to an Ogdoad that preexisted
Depth and Silence.188 Thus, Valentinians could, if they wanted, add an upper story to the
Pleroma. Perhaps A Valentinian Exposition does this too, placing the Father beneath an
archetypal Monad, Dyad, and Tetrad. Even if this is the case, however, the system might
still be monadic. To determine this it is critical to understand how the Dyad originates and
what kind of relationship it shares with the Monad. Without this explanation, the epithet
Monad for the Father is insufficient to conclude that the system is monadic.
The two places that seem to state clearly that the Father is the Monad are suspect as
well. The first, based upon Turner's reconstruction, [NE <J(l)OO]� MMON�C, more likely means
"[he existed] monadically," than "[he was] the Monad."189 The verb Turner supplies
depends, not on the manuscript- the fragmentary blip taken to be � leaves much to be
desired- but on analogy with the second passage, where some unspecified subject is said to
1 86 A Valentinian Exposition 22.21, 26.

1 87 Ibid. 25.19-20.
1 88 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 1 .5. See above, p. 41 and fig. 3.
189 Crum, Coptic Dictionary, 578-79; A Valen tinian Exposition 22.24. I thank Janet Timbie for her
suggestion, here and throughout this section.
70
be " [the] Root [of the All] and Monad (.Will MONA<;: [ nE ] ) without any[ one] before him."190 But
here the lack of the definite article before MONAC suggests that the subject is not the Monad
but a monad, i.e., a unit. In A Valentinian Exposition important reified entities such as the
Monad are always identified with the definite article. Further, although the Father has no
one who exists before him, this is not the same as saying " [He dwells alone]."191+ Thus, A
Valentinian Exposition does not clearly state that the Father is the Monad.
It is true that Silence (cnyt1) appears to take the stage slowly on page 22 (Turner's
second argument for classifying A Valentin ian Exposition as monadic). But nearly the entire
upper half of the page is missing. This lacuna is the beginning of A Valentinian Exposition.
This missing text is the proper basis for determining the status of Silence and how quickly
she is introduced. On page 22 there is no relationship explicitly established among Silence,
quietness (line 22), and tranquility (line 23), so it is impossible to say whether or not the
author means the latter two terms to delay the introduction of the former, as Turner
suggests. 1 92 If TC 1 rH was introduced in the upper part of the folio, the later occurrence of
n K A Pill 'l and n c G p �z=r would only amplify, not soften, Silence's role as consort of the Father.
Even if Silence was not introduced at the top of the folio, the order of the extant text mirrors
the presentation of the Valentinian dyadic system at the beginning of Against Heresies.
There, Foresource-Forefather-Depth, the first entity to be discussed, "abides in great rest
1 90 A Valentinian Exposition 23.19-21 . Translations of this text are Turner's. For the broken letter see
Facsimile Edition, 28.
1 91 Ibid . 22.24-25, 38; 23.20-21; 22.22. See Turner and Pagels, "Valentinian Exposition," 97. In the
Facsimile Edition, 28, there is no apparent survival of what Turner indicates to be� so the entire
'
conjecture, [E'lU}OOn OY.\EET]'l, depends upon the editor's conjecture that a monadic system is at
work.
1 92 "Valentinian Exposition," 97.
71
and peace" (E:v i]auxL0 Kai. fJQE!1L0 noMl] yEyovtvm). Silence is then introduced in the next
sentence. In Irenaeus's report the delay in introducing Silence does not diminish the
system's dyadic character. Indeed, the order i]avx(a, TJQE !l La, I:Lyi} mirrors exactly nK�PU><I,
n c c p � Zf, T C I r H .
There is evidence that Silence plays the same important role in A Valentin ian
Exposition that she does in Irenaeus's first Valentinian system. She forms with the Ineffable
the primal dyad, and is second to him.193 This language suggests the conjugal-dyadic model,
not monadic. Also, the will of the Father, according to A Valentinian Exposition, is to allow
nothing to happen in the Pleroma without a syzygy. This would be strange counsel if the
Father himself were not the archetype.194
According to Turner's edition, "[the Uncreated One] projected Word and Life," thus
crediting Only Begotten - the third member of the primal Tetrad - with generation of the
first syzygy of the second Tetrad.195 His reconstruction seems to suggest that Only Begotten
creates the syzygy on his own, just as the Father dwells in monadic solitude, although
neither Turner nor Pagels are completely clear on this matter.196 This reconstruction,
1 93 A Valentinian Exposition 22.26; 29.31-33; 23.21-22.

1 94 Ibid. 36.28-31 .
1 9s Ibid. 29.29-30.
1 96 Turner and Pagels, "Valentinian Exposition," 161, suggests that the "non-creature" could be the
syzygy Only Begotten and Truth, but this seems to render pointless his distinction at p. 1 60, between
dyadic and monadic Valentinian accounts of the generation of the second Tetrad. After all, the
parallels Turner presents differ only as to whether the entire primal Tetrad, or merely the syzygy
Only Begotten-Father-Mind-Truth project the second Tetrad. But this distinction has nothing to do
with whether the system is monadic or dyadic. Even if A Valentinian Exposition says Only Begotten
has alone begotten the second Tetrad, this conforms more closely to the conjugal dyadic Valentinian
account at Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 .1 (which has two Tetrads) than it d oes with the monadic one
at Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.29.6-7 (which has, properly speaking, no Tetrads: the upper
level of the Pleroma has six entities).
72
however, contradicts other parts of A Valentinian Exposition, as well as Irenaeus' s first report,
which in so many other respects harmonizes well with A Valentinian Exposition. For both
Irenaeus' s Valentinians and A Valentin ian Exposition, the first Tetrad, not Only Begotten
alone, projects the second Tetrad.197 In contrast, the monadic Valentinianism of Hippolytus
does not use Tetrad of the upper emanations, since they are grouped only in pairs, not
Tetrads. Turner's reconstruction of 29.29 is debatable; other readings consistent on every
level with the text's meaning and grammar can be supplied so as to place A Valentinian
Exposition on the dyadic side of Valentinian thought.198+
1 97 A Valentin ian Exposition 29.25-26, 35-37; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 1 .1 . See previous note.
1 98 Turner reads [C ] ! � [nATCID]CJ?NT [N� E !.]�T EYO. In the Facsimile Edition, only the N is clear in the
second word. The stroke interpreted as q> appears too far below the baseline to be an omega. Cf. the
omegas at lines 32, 33. There may be several ways to restore the middle of the line; I might suggest
one, [ZfJ TM!.Z]<;:NT [ E �E !.}YT EYO ("secondarily he projected" or "in the second he projected"). This
option originates from the observation that the "Second" has already been reified as an entity on p.
23. There, the unspecified subject (Turner and Pagels, "Valentinian Exposition," 154, postulates the
Father or Root of All) does various things on three different levels: coming forth in the realm of the
360th; revealing his will in the Second; and spreading himself in the Fourth (23.26-31). This so-called
Second may be Silence herself (cf. 22.26-27), or it may be the second syzygy, which dwells in, and
originates from, Silence (23.21-22). In Irenaeus's report, Only Begotten, the male part of the second
syzygy, projects the third, Word and Life (Against Heresies 1 .1 .1 ) . In the interests of brevity, Irenaeus
may have omitted any mention of Truth's participation; thus the original idea would have been that
the entire second syzygy projects the second Tetrad . This notion parallels Hippolytus, Refu tation ofAll
Heresies 6.29.6-7. Thus, under my reconstruction, an unspecified subject (the entire primal Tetrad?)
projects Word and Life in a second phase of emanations, or by means of the Second- again this could
be Silence or the second syzygy. This suggestion presumes that the top half of fol. 29 specifies the
context and meaning for "Second." Something should happen "first," such as what is specified at
25.20-21, where something - apparently the Father - "first brings forth" Only Begotten and Limit,
probably the second syzygy. This reconstruction provides a meaning quite consonant with conjugal
dyadic Valentinianism. I mean to suggest not that this is the only way to reconstruct the text but that
we need not let our presumption that A Valentinian Exposition comes from monadic Valentinianism
a presumption built upon a false dichotomy- d etermine the restoration of the text. On the
complexities of the "Second" in A Valentinian Exposition, see Turner and Pagels, "Valentinian
Exposition," 155-56.
73
The fourth argument for the monadic theology of A Valentinian Exposition is based on
the observation that the epithet "Root of All" is applied only to the Father. This is
unconvincing on its own. Given that Irenaeus's Valentinian (and dyadic) system calls Nous
"source of all" and the Forefather "root without source," this may be yet further evidence
for a paternal-dyadic or at least a spermatic-monadic system at the heart of A Valentinian
Exposition.1 99 An epithet is meant to summarize, not explain, the status of its subject. In A
Valentinian Exposition the title "root of all" is never explained in securely read text, and
therefore I believe it unwise to decide, on this basis alone, whether the author was on the
monadic or dyadic side of the scale.
Other evidence, besides that already presented, suggests that A Valentinian Exposition
is conjugal dyadic. It agrees with the dyadic Valentinian systems of Irenaeus against the
monadic Valentinians of Hippolytus that there are a total of thirty emanations, not twenty-
eight, before Wisdom's fall. The original being dwells in the Monad, Dyad, and Tetrad, and
this Tetrad generates the subsequent Tetrad to produce the Ogdoad (not explicitly
mentioned as such in the extant text).200 The third and fourth syzygies-Word and Life, and
Man and Church -generate the Dec ad and Dodecad, respectively .201 Thus, the Triacontad is
constructed in the same terms and groups that Irenaeus uses. The bulk of A Valentinian
Exposition is devoted to explaining the story of Wisdom, a narrative that once again parallels
the ones found in Irenaeus.
l99 Nous: Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.1 .1, aQxilv TWV mxvnuv. Forefather: ibid. 1 .2.1, Tilv avaQxov
Qi.C,av.
2oo A Valentinian Exposition 25.1 9-20.
201 Ibid . 30.16-19.
74
Based on all the evidence above, it seems to me that A Valentinian Exposition falls
more on the dyadic, probably conjugal-dyadic, side of Valentinianism. Should my argument
be persuasive, in future editions of the Coptic text a few critical passages should be revised.
There are a few unique features in the arithmetical patterns and tropes used in A
Valentinian Exposition. First, there is a renewed emphasis on Tetrads. As already stated, the
transcendent being dwells in the Monad, Dyad, and Tetrad, and the first uncreated Tetrad
begets the second.202 Further, in A Valentinian Exposition, in the story of Wisdom, the "Tetrad
of the world" - presumably referring to the four elements, fire, water, earth, and air -is said
to "bring forth fruit," in imitation of the Pleroma, or Demiurge.203 Limit, too, has four
powers: separator (oy p ecmo px), confirmer (OY P E C T .\X PO), form-provider (oy p e c [t M]OP<j>H),
and substance producer (oy p e c x n eoyc 1 .\).204 One possible way to read the text is to take it
as arguing against those who assign to Limit only two powers.2°5+ Whether or not this is a
fair reading, it is clear A Valentinian Exposition stresses groups of four.
2o2 Ibid. 25.19, 25, 35-37.

203 Ibid. 37.12-15. Here, the earthly Tetrad's generation of fruit is compared to the Hebdomad of the
Pleroma of the world. The Hebdomad elsewhere in Valentinianism is a topos for the Demiurge:
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .5.2, 1 .14.6; Hippolytus, Refu tation ofAll Heresies 6.32.7. On the earthly
Tetrad see Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 7.1, 1 .18.1 .
204 A Valentinian Exposition 26.31, 27.31-33.
205 See Turner and Pagels, "Valentinian Exposition," 99-101, 158-59. 1t is not necessary to take the
"they" of 27.34 (assigning to Limit two powers) as opposing the "others" of 27.33 (assigning to Limit
four powers). Indeed, "they" may refer exactly to the "others." Thus, the "for" q:Jr .\P) of 27.34 would
stress the explanation to, and not the doubt behind, the "why" ([ET]�E EY) of 27.30. In this case,
27.34-38 explains how the first two powers function in Limit, and the lacuna at the beginning of fol.
28 would explain how the last two powers work. The passive verb also fits and reduces the contrast
(Timbie's observation). Other Valentinian systems held Limit to have two or more powers; Irenaeus,
Against Heresies 1 .2.4, 1 .3.5.
75
Second, the origin of the 360 in A Valentinian Exposition resembles the explanation in
Irenaeus. The Dodecad projecting from Man and Church also produces the Triacontad (the
collection of Ogdoad, Decad, and Dodecad), and their resultant product is the 360, "the
Pleroma of the year."206 The association of the 360 with the year of the Lord is standard in
Valentinianism, but the 360 play an even more important role in A Valentinian Exposition.207
An unnamed subject-presumably the Father, the "Root of the All" - goes through three
stages of revelation and emanation.208 He begins by dwelling in the 360, then reveals his will
in the Second and spreads himself out in the Fourth. Exactly how the 360 can be the
beginning of this journey is left, unfortunately, unexplained.209 In other texts from Nag
Hammadi the 360 are lower beings.21 0 Here, however, they appear to be higher.
Third, A Valentinian Exposition stresses an origin for the Hecontad different from
what is taught by Marcus. I will comment on this in the next chapter.
On the whole, A Valentinian Exposition corroborates the claims the church fathers
make of Valentinianism's predilection for divine emanations that are organized and
conceptualized arithmetically. Parts of A Valentinian Exposition show how these ideas could
be expanded, refined, or simplified. But the theology is always expounded in the language
and structures of arithmetic.
206 A Valentinian Exposition 30.34-38. That is, 8 x 1 0 x 1 2 360.

=
207 See Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.2.

2os A Valentinian Exposition 23.32, 26-31 .
209 Turner and Pagels, "Valentinian Exposition," 1 54-56, suggests that Mind is the subject, working
his way from the bottom of the zodiac, i.e., Silence. But this interpretation depends upon assigning to
the monadic Valentinianism of Hippolytus a primary tetrad of Mind-Truth and Word-Life. But, as
discussed above, Hippolytus's Valentinians avoid Tetrads. Turner and Pagels also never justify the
claimed association of Silence and the 360th.
21 0 Eugnostos 83.10-20, 84.4-1 1 .
76
VALENTINIAN NUMBER SYMBOLISM
The most complex number symbolism found in any Valentinian system, that of Marcus, is
the subject of the next chapter. Without visiting Marcus, what can be said of the basic
elements of Valentinian number symbolism?
Depending upon the interests of the particular author or community, the highest
level of the divinity is presented as being either a transcendent monad, or a monad in some
relationship to a second principle. The more monadic the system, the more the Father's
transcendence is emphasized; the more dyadic the system, the more the generation of the
aeonic realm is emphasized. The upper aeons are organized into male and female couples,
who project yet other pairs of aeons. The uppermost pairs are organized into two tetrads,
and these, into an Ogdoad. Other aeons may be generated from this Ogdoad, and when this
is described, it is often set in arithmetical terms. Oftentimes these aeons are given the names
of numbers and numerical groups, making explicit the implicit mathematical relationships.
There are numerous variations on this basic structure, but its principle of organizing
emanations into arithmetical patterns is always preserved. Not all Valentinian texts have an
arithmetically structured Pleroma, an indication that they are an early form of
Valentinianism. Nevertheless, even these systems use arithmetic in their protology.
The Valentinian systems that go into the story of Wisdom and her fall oftentimes
invoke number symbolism to describe the partitions in the lower realm. The numbers seven,
eight, three, and four are instrumental in describing the creation and everything that has
come about. Because they are often missing in the upper aeonic realm, the numbers three
and seven are used either to organize groups that are in transition, or to contrast with the
upper realm of order.
77
Not every Valentinian system indulges in number symbolism. We have noted
several Valentinian texts that have very little of it, for one reason or another. There is
undoubtedly a history to the Valentinian use of number symbolism, but to go beyond the
broad outlines here would require a separate historical analysis of Valentinianism, an
exercise that scholars have only recently taken up.zn
What did the Valentinians mean to show or prove with these numbers? How did
they intend them to function, and what theological end did they serve? These sorts of
questions will be meaningful only after we have studies several systems and surveyed the
entire Christian debate over the role of numbers.
211 See most recently Thomassen, Spiritual Seed. See also Markschies, Gnosticism, ix, for the notice of a
forthcoming study .
Table 1 . The Monadic-to-Dyadic Scale of Valentinian Theology
①
<D
①
(i) <il↓ @)
ee ②
Spermatic Paternal Conjugal Other/
Monadic Monadic DEdic Dyadic Unspecified
Valentinian systems reported py the heresiologists
Valentinians (AH 1 . 1-1 .9) •
[Valentinus] (AH 1 . 1 1 .1 ) •
Secundus (AH 1 . 1 1 .2) Leans to dyadic?

[Epiphanes] (AH 1 . 1 1 .3) ? ?
Others (AH 1 . 1 1 .5) Leans to monadic?
Knowledgeable Ptolemaeans (AH 1 .12.1-2; Depth has two, unequal
ps.-Tert. 4.8?; Filastrius 41 ?) consorts
Prudent Ptolemaeans (AH 1 .12.3) Leans to dyadic?
Marcus (AH 1 .13.1-1 .16.2) • ? ?
Theodotus (ExTh) Leans to dyadic?
Valentinians (HR 6.29-6.36) •
Anon. Valentinian (Pan. 31 .5.3-31 .6.10) •
Ptolemy (Pan. 33.3.1-33.7.10) No relevant discussion

Valentinian textsfrom Nag Hammadi
Tripartite Tractate (NH 1 .5) ? •
Gospel of Philip (NH 2.3) No relevant discussion

First Apocalypse of fames (NH 5.3) •
Interpretation of Knowledge (NH 1 1 .1 ) No relevant discussion

Valentinian Exposition ( N H 1 1 .2) •
Probable Valcntinian texts from Nag Hammadi

Gospel of Truth (NH 1 .3/12.2) •
Treatise on the Resurrection (NH 1 .4) No relevant discussion
AH � Irenaeus, Against Heresies;ps.-Tert. � pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies; Filastrius � Filastrius, Book of Various Heresies; ExTh � Clement of
Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus; HR � Hippolytus, Refu tation of All Heresies; Pan. � Epiphanius, Panarinn; NH � Nag Hammadi. Not listed: Valentinus '-1
CIJ
(various fragments: no relevant discussion), Barbelo-Gnostics (AH 1 .29: monadic), Heracleon (various fragments: no relevant discussion). Excluded also are
Nag Hammadi texts classified by E. Thomassen as merely possibly Valentinian.
3
Marcus "Magus"
The theology of Marcus, given the epithet Magus by the heresiologists because of his
liturgical alchemy and his interest in ideas commonly associated with magical texts, exhibits
the most complex number symbolism of any Christian theology in the second century. Very
little is known about him. Forster, the only modern scholar to investigate thoroughly
Marcus's teaching, suggests tentatively that Marcus flourished between 160 and 180, in A sia
Minor.1 There he developed a cultic following within the churches. His teachings and
liturgical practices agitated church leadership, which subsequently expelled him. Irenaeus
preserves a specimen of this agitation, a polemical poem of the mid-second century, written
by an unnamed orthodox church leader of Asia Minor.2 Irenaeus, our main source for the
life and teachings of Marcus, uses such earlier texts, most of which probably came from Asia
Minor, as well as eyewitness accounts and personal observation of a branch of Marcus's sect
at work near Lyons, where Irenaeus was bishop. He may have had at his disposal a
Marcosian liturgical text and an account of a revelation given to Marcus, texts written, if not
by Marcus, then by someone from his circle. The revelation and Irenaeus' s assorted
1 Forster, Marcus Magus, 390. This work is without doubt the best study of Marcus's doctrinal system.
79
80
paraphrases of Marcus's teaching are the most important sources for this study, since they
show the inner workings of his arithmology, which bordered on numerology.
Arguments to locate Marcus in one branch or another of Valentinians, or to
dissociate him with the movement altogether, fail to convince me, as I discuss elsewhere.3
As will be evident as I present his number symbolism, Marcus belongs squarely in the
Valentinian tradition, and in no particular branch but his own. He was a contemporary of
other Valentinians such as Secundus and Heracleon. There are contradictions as to who
preceded whom, so his writings cannot be dated more precisely. Hippolytus's account is the
only ancient report to state explicitly that Marcus was a disciple of Valentinus.4 Four early
apologists, including Irenaeus, place him in the wake of Valentinus or his immediate
followers, but do not specify exactly where or when.5 Eusebius, who depends explicitly
upon Irenaeus, says only that Marcus was a contemporary of Valentinus.6 Other apologists
make Marcus the disciple of entirely other heretics? The rest of the heresiological reports,
including our earliest testimony to Marcus, the polemical poem preserved by Irenaeus, does
not mention his teacher.8 Instead the poem portrays Marcus as a son of Satan and a
magician. The poet intentionally removes Marcus from a chain of human teachers and
3 See excursus E, contra Forster, 395-96, who tries to locate Marcus in either eastern or western
Valentinianism; and excursus F, contra Tripp, "Original Sequence," 162, arguing for a dissolution of
the association between Marcus and Valentinianism.
4 Hippolytus, Refu tation of All Heresies 6.42.2.
s Tertullian, Against the Valentinians 4.2; pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 5.1; Epiphanius,
Panarion 34. 1 . 1 .
6 Eusebius, Church History 4.1 1 .4.
7 Jerome, Letter 75.3, makes him the student of Basilides; Filastrius of Brescia, Book of Different Heresies
42, of Heracleon.
8 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 5.6; Theodoret, Compendium of Heretical Fables 9; and the four sources in
Syriac and Arabic, mentioned by Forster, Marcus Magus, 42-52.
81
makes him virtually a heresiarch, inspired by Satan alone. Thus, although many orthodox
Christian writers associate Marcus with Valentinus and Valentinian circles, there is no
consensus, aside from agreement that Marcus was a late contemporary of Valentinus, as to
when he flourished and who were his influences. Marcus's number symbolism suggests that
he appears late in the Valentinian tradition, since his doctrines allude to and play with the
fully fledged forms found earlier in book one of Against Heresies. Based on only the number
symbolism, presented below, Marcus flourished in the 1 70s, just prior to Irenaeus's writing
of Against Heresies.
THE SYSTEM
Irenaeus begins his treatment of Marcus by revealing both the secret liturgical rites the latter
used to seduce women into becoming his patrons and consorts, and the methods his
followers used to seduce church members.9 After describing the Marcosians' activities -
polemic mixed with paraphrases of eyewitness accounts and Marcosian texts - Irenaeus
introduces a text that purports to be a revelation from the Tetrad to Marcus.10 That this is a
paraphrase or word-for-word reconstruction of a carefully written composition is indicated
by Irenaeus's regular use of "saying" and "says" (t\[ywv, £¢11) and, as we shall see, by the
tight, coherent internal narrative. For the sake of convenience, I refer to Irenaeus' s source as
the Revelation to Marcus.
Irenaeus says that Marcus boasts that he is the womb and receptacle of Colorbasus' s
Silence, that he is the Only Begotten and "most alone" (!-lov<ina'ros), and that he has
9 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .13.

1o Ibid. 1 .14.1 .
82
brought forth the seed planted in him.1 1 Thus, according to Irenaeus, Marcus identifies
himself closely with Silence (the second Valentinian aeon) and Only Begotten, her offspring.
It is unclear if Marcus claims to be either Silence or Only Begotten. By calling himself the
"womb of Silence," Marcus may refer by synecdoche to Only Begotten, the fruit of Silence's
womb, and therefore to his unique earthly role, mirroring that of Only Begotten in the
Pleroma, or he may refer to his solitary role as the receptacle whereby Silence is made
known on earth. It is impossible to tell if the "of" in "womb of Silence" is objective or
subjective.12 In any case, Marcus identifies himself in the beginning of the Revelation to
Marcus closely with the second and third aeons. As the Revelation progresses this
relationship is strengthened as the Tetrad descends to Marcus in the form of a woman, not a
man, since its masculine form would overwhelm the world. She tells him who she is, then
reveals to him, whom she calls the "most alone," the creation of the universe, a revelation
never before delivered to gods or people. Her rendition of creation is couched in obscure,
difficult language, so my summary, which now follows, may be somewhat confusing. It
may help first to read, then have on hand, the text of Against Heresies 1 .14-16. I omit a
number of details that do not materially affect my discussion of Marcus's number
symbolism. Such omitted details are few since Marcus's number symbolism is so effusive.
1 .14. 1 . The Father- who is neither male nor female, and is without substance and is
unknown -wished to make the unutterable utterable and to give shape to the unseen, and
so opened his mouth and sent forth a Word similar to himself. The Word then came beside
11 The epithet seems to allude to ibid. 1 .15.1, where the highest aeon is called !-lOVO'fT]c;. See below, p.
93 n. 40.
12 Forster, Marcus Magus, 1 66-67.
83
the Father and showed him who he was, becoming manifest as the shape of the unseen. As
for utterance, the pronunciation of the name (presumably that of the Father) began with the
first spoken word, a collection (literally, "syllable") of four oral letters (a'WLXEia): llQXTJ· He
added a second collection, and it too consisted of four oral letters. Next, he uttered a third
collection, of ten oral letters, and a fourth, of twelve. Thus, there were four collections of
thirty oral letters. Each oral letter had had its own written letters (yQcXflflCX'ra), impression
(XCXQCXK'rTJQ), utterance (ExcpwvYJ mc;), shape (axfJfla), and images (dK6vEC:;).B None of them
n I have found no adequate way of distinguishing in translation the two terms <JTOLXELOV and
yQlif.lf.llX, which can each be translated "letter." Dionysius Thrax (ca. 170-ca. 90BCE), for instance, in
his influential work on grammar, begins a chapter, D EQL mmxdou, by discussing yQiiflfllXTa. He
says that yQiiflfJ-GlTa are called <JTOLXEia because they follow a certain sequence. Thus, Dionysius
seems to make little distinction between the terms. But Apollonius Dyscolus (fl. 2nd c.CE),
commenting on Dionysius Thrax, sharply distinguishes the two terms, stating that the <JTOLXEiov is
the term for a letter's utterance (i:Kcf>WVT)<JL�), whereas a yQlif.lf.llX refers to the glyph (XaQaKn'jQ).
Thus, the <JTOLXEiov is oral/aural and the YQlXf.lf.llX is written/visual. Apollonius develops his system
further, positing the <JTOLXEiov as the foundation for four subsequent aspects or properties for each
letter. Other commentators in the grammatical scholia on Dionysius Thrax show linguistic views that
diverge from Apollonius, although most use his distinction between <JTOLXEiov and yQlifl fJGl. See, e.g.,
Scholia in Dionysius Thrax 1 :323.33--35 (author: "Heliodoros"); 1 .3:32.18-20, 1 .3:31 .19 (author:
"Melampus/Diomedes"); 1 .3:192.27-28 (author: "Stephen"). (The first two of these references are
treated as depending upon a fragment by Apollonius Dyscolos at Scholia in Dionysius Thrax 2.3:3.) In
one scheme, the <JTOLXEiov was considered fundamental to four other concomitant aspects of letters.
First was the xaQaKn']Q, taken as the shape of the letter when written or carved; second was the name
(ovof.la) of the letter (e.g., Mcpa, �fJTa); third, the completion of the utterance (bUvafl L�, e.g., short or
long, vowel or consonant); fourth, the order (Tal;t�) or position (8im�) of letters (e.g., what is allowed
to proceed certain vowels or consonants, i.e., orthography). Scholia in Dionysius Thrax 1 .3:31 .19-24.
Each grammarian had his own scheme, but all seem to make the fundamental distinction between a
letter written and a letter uttered, even if the term <JTOLXEiov was also used in a broader sense, to
apply to letters' shapes or names (see, e.g., Scholia in Dionysius Thrax 1 .3:31 7.32-37). I translate
aTOLXEiov as "oral letter" and yQiiflf.llX as "written letter," since the Revelation to Marcus distinguishes
the terms (Forster, Marcus Magus, 201). See OCD, s.v. "Dionysius (15) Thrax" with Grammatici Graeci,
1 .1 :9; OCD, s.v. "Apollonius (13) Dyscolus," with Grammatici Graeci 1 .3:31-32, 323 (assigned to
Apollonius Dyscolus at Grammatici Graeci 2.3:3). See also Forster, Marcus Magus, 1 98-99, 204, and
below, p. 213. Marcus's arrangement of the parts of oral letters differs somewhat from that of
Apollonius Dyscolus. There is probably no core number symbolism at work in this scheme since the
elements of the list changes from one scholiast to the next. Cf. Scholia in Dionysius Thrax 1 .3:197.24-30
84
see or know the form of the one of whom they are elements. In their individuality, the oral
letters know only their own utterance, and not their neighbors', and when they utter
everything ('ro n:av), the individual oral letters think they are naming the whole ('ro oAov).
These oral letters - parts of the whole-never stop echoing until there subsists only the last
written letter of the last oral letter, speaking alone. That is the recapitulation, when
everything, descending into one written letter will resound with a single utterance. The
image of this recapitulation is the word amen, when spoken by all of us, in unison. The
sounds provide shape to the uppermost aeon, which is without substance and is
unbegotten.
My paraphrase of 1 .14.1 is only slightly less confusing than the original. The key idea
here is that the Father utters a series of letters in a pattern of four-four-ten-twelve, the same
pattern used in Irenaeus' s first Valentinian system. Each oral letter has written letters subject
to it. The oral letters are isolated from each other, and to reach their original unity converge
on a single oral letter that has a single written letter.
1. 14.2. The regular, verbal names of the oral letters the Tetrad terms aeons, words,
roots, seed, pleromas, and fruit (that there are six terms is no coincidence). Of these various
oral letters, the last written letter of the last oral letter sends forth its own voice, the echo of
which begets yet other oral letters that adorn the present world, just as the archetypal oral
letters constitute the earlier, higher realms. This last written letter is taken by its collection
(literally, "syllable") into the fulfillment of the All, but its echo, following alongside the
(oVOfla, axfJfla, xa.QaKTTJQ, MvaflLc;), 1 .3:317.7-15 (OVOfla, xaQaKTTJQ!axfJfla, 8imc;, bUVlXflLc;),

1 .3:31 7.37-31 8.8 (ovofla, axfJfla, 8imc;, xaQaKTTJQ, iK¢wv11mc;, MvaflLc;).
85
lower echo, remains exiled in the lower realms. The same oral letter (it is unclear what the
referent is) derives its origin from the thirty written letters, and each of these possess other
written letters, by virtue of their names.14 For example the oral letter delta has five written
letters: delta, epsilon, lambda, tau, and alpha. And these written letters have other written
letters, brought about through the same process of begetting and succeeding, a process that
can be extended infinitely. Marcus's Silence teaches that the Forefather consists of the depth
of written letters of the whole name, and he assigned to each oral letter, unable on its own to
utter the All, their own utterance.
Note that the interplay of oral and written letters is superinscribed on the
Valentinian myth of Wisdom. Wisdom is the last letter. Although she is taken back into the
Pleroma, she leaves behind an echo- T]xoc; here probably a pun on Axaf.1w8, the Resolution
of the first Valentinian system -and a lower echo, that is, Achamoth and the shadowy
figure Passion. The oral letter that derives from thirty written letters refers either to the
Forefather, Wisdom, or the Savior (who derives his existence from the thirty aeons of the
Pleroma in the first Valentinian system). Whichever of these is meant, the cascade of written
letters that ensues describes the progression of the world into multiplicity. Note also that the
six verbal names of the oral letters parallels the six names of the hexagon Limit, deployed in
the first Valentinian system.
1 4 The Greek is ambiguous: To bi: GTOLXELOV a-Lno ci:cp' ov 1:0 YQlXflfllX avv 1:lJ EKcpwvr'] a n 1:lJ i: amov
avyKaTfjt\8£ KlX1:W, o YQ1Xfl fllX1:WV dva[ cpT)m 1:QLlXKOV1:a, which can mean the letter (a1:0LXEiov)
either consists of (LSJ, s.v. ELflL, C.III.b) or derives its origin from 30 written letters (LSJ, s.v. E Lfl L,
C.III.a). I opt for the latter, since there is a parallel use of dvm at Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.5, of
the origin of the consonants, semivowels, and vowels. If the former meaning of dvm is intended (see,
e.g., Williams's trans., NHS 35:216) it is difficult to see what is intended. The text at hand certainly
does not explain how a single oral letter can be composed of 30 written letters.
86
1 .14.3. After explaining all this to Marcus, the Tetrad discusses Truth, which she
depicts as a naked woman. Each of her twelve body parts are marked by two Greek letters,
alpha and omega assigned to the head, beta and psi to her neck, and so on, down to her feet,
mu and nu. This is the body of Truth, the shape of the oral letter and the impression of the
written letter. The oral letter is called Man, who is the fount of every word, the source of
every voice, the utterance of everything unspoken, and the mouth of silent Silence.
1.14.4. Truth then follows the Tetrad's report by uttering a word (or Word), which
becomes a name, the name, the Tetrad says, "we know and speak: 'Jesus Christ' ." This is all
Truth says throughout the entire revelation. The Tetrad explains that this name, which she
thinks Marcus might disparage, he does not adequately possess in its ancient form. She says
that Marcus has only the sound and not the power, a power evident in that Jesus is a
noteworthy ( i:n:LGTlf.lOV) name, since it consists of six written letters, a fact understood by the
elect.
There is obscure wordplay here. Both Marcus and Clement of Alexandria (see
chapter 8) make a big deal of the episemon, using it to make very obscure but important
theological point. It is worth discussing the term episemon at some length, to highlight its
importance and to correct confusion regarding the terminology of Greek numerals. Jesus's
six-lettered name is called i: n:[aruwv because this was the late-antique term for c;, the Greek
numeral six.15 The late-antique treatise On the Mysteries of the Greek Letters calls Jesus the
episemon because the numeral six represents a hole in the Greek alphabet, symbolic of the
philosophers' rejection of Christ.16 In an anonymous, undated treatise found in a late
1 5 For the Greek system of alphabetic numeration, see excursus B .

16 Hebbelynck ed., p p . 27, 1 61-64. For more o n this unusual text, see below, p. 2 1 5 .
87
sixteenth-century manuscript, each of the three non-alphabetic characters used to designate
numbers are named: 1 is called xaQCXK'[TJQ; 9, aK61111'[a; and c;, [ n (all!.loc;P A similar list
appears in a ninth-century codex, the Psalterium cusanum, in a Latin text intended to
acquaint readers with Greek conventions: S (VI) is Episimon, q (XC) is Enacose, and 71
(DCCCC) Cophe.18 In various scholia on Dionysius Thrax, probably written in late antiquity,
the three signs are collectively called naQaall!.la, but are not individually named.19
Numerals lay on the periphery of grammarians' interest.20 But these various references show
that the preferred term for the an alphabetic numeral six was episemon (not stigma or
digamma), and that as a class the non-alphabetic numerals were called parasema.21+
The term episemon suggests at its root figures that were written or etched, but not
uttered. Indeed, [ n(all!.la, naQaall !.lOV, and their cognates were widely used to describe
1 7 Vienna, theol. gr. 289, f. 44r. See Hunger and Lackner, Katalog, s.v.
18 Cod. 9, fol. 64v in Marx, Verzeichnis der Handschriften-Sammlung, 6-7. The terms for the last two
symbols suggests they were inverted, since Enacose should correspond to the Greek word for 900, not
90. The term Cophe looks like it is derived from qoppa, the name of the symbol. The manuscript is
discussed in Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie, 2:260 and Hamann, De Psalteria triplici Cusano.
1 9 This appears in two very similar passages, attributed to different authors (a certain Heliodorus, and
anonymous): Grammatici Graeci, 1 :318.29-37 and 319.21-31 . The idea of the three numerals as "signs"
is continued in the Latin and Greek manuscript Laon, cod. 444, f. 311 v, column a: " � et i et c; et 4 et
1' non sunt literae apud Graecos, sed notae et signa" (Catalogue general, 1 :234-36). See Miller,
"Glossaire grec-latin," 213.
20 One exception is noted, (pseudo?) Aelius Herodian, nEpi apL8f1WV (TLG no. 0087.042), probably
from ca. 2nd c. CE. This text explains the then-obsolete Attic system of numeration.
21 There are references in the grammatical texts to the digamma, but, as I argue below, p. 213, these
refer to an obsolete letter, not a numeral. Scholars frequently refer to c; as thestigma, based on its
resemblance of the ligature formed by sigma and tau, but I have been unable to find the term used in
any ancient text. The same applies to the term sampi for � - Surely, this derives from the Byzantine
expression [w]c;; av ni, but the only attempt to date the term is that of Keil, "Eine Halikarnassische
Inschrift," 265 n. 2: "Dieser Name [Sampi] stammt iibrigens in dieser Form aus der 2. Halfte des 17.
Jahrh. n. Chr." But Keil gives no explanation.
88
imprints or other distinguishing marks on coins or shieldsP Thus, by calling Christ the
episemon, Marcus, and later Clement, highlight not so much his "excellence" as the way he
has imprinted himself into the coin of humanity.
1 . 1 4.5. According to the Revelation to Marcus these twenty-four written letters of the
alphabet are "reflective effluences" (anOQQOLac; . . . E LKOVLKcic;) of the three powers that
encompass the entire number of the upper oral letters. There are nine consonants, which
correspond to the Father and Truth because they too lack sound (literally, voices, a cognate
of vowels). The eight semivowels derive from Word and Life since they dwell between the
other two groups and are intermediaries. The seven vowels belong to Man and Church,
since the echo "of his voice" (again, a cognate of vowel) gave shape to the All.23 Out of the
bounty residing in the set of nine, that of the Father, one of them moves into the smaller
group, thus equalizing all three groups at eight members apiece. All three are then
Ogdoads, and the three groups of eight furnish evidence for the number twenty-four. This
explains the size of the alphabet. The Revelation to Marcus then provides another story, about
the generation of the three double letters. Unfortunately, the two sentences explaining this
are unclear.24 The various translations are generally accurate, but unintelligible.25 What is
22 LSJ, 655b-656a, 1323b-1324a. Note, however, that LSJ does not include the technical definition of
naQlXOTJI.llX discussed here.
23 The 9 consonants: n, K, T, (3, y, b, <j:>, x, 8; 8 semivowels: A, 1-1, v, Q, c;, [,, E,, tjJ; 7 vowels: a, E, 11, t, o, u,
w. The threefold division is typical in this period. See Forster, Marcus Magus, 238-42 for sources and
discussion.
24 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.5: Ta l.l EVTOL TQL£X <HOLXEia & <J:>11mv atnoc; TWV TQLWV i:v aui:,uy(q
bUVlXflEWV VTrlXQXE LV, & EGTLV [E,, a<j:>' wv anEQ(HJll TG E LKOat TEGG£XQ£X GTOLXEia,
T ETQani\a ata a 8i: v m TcfJ Tfjc; tXQQijTOu TETQlXboc; Aoy<;V, TOV atJTOV atJToic; tXQL81.lOV TrOLEL, lXnEQ <J:>llaL
TOU aVOVOI.llXGTOU VTrlXQXELV. <l>OQELG8m bi: atna vno TWV TQLWV bVVlXflEWV, E ic; OflOLOTllTa TOU
aoQiXTou, wv aTmxdwv c iK6vcc; E iKovwv Ta naQ' iwiv bmAa yQiXI.ll.laTa vniXQxnv, &
89
clear is this: (1) There are three oral letters; (2) these oral letters owe their existence to the
three powers that are in syzygies;26+ (3) the three oral letters are actually six;27 (4) the twenty-
four oral letters flow out of the three oral letters; (5) when the three oral letters are
quadrupled by the word of the ineffable Tetrad, they create a number identical to the
aforementioned twenty-four oral letters;28 (6) "these" (probably the three oral letters, the
subject of [7]) exist thanks to the unnamed one;29 (7) the three oral letters are worn or carried
0UVC<QL8flOlJflEVC< Toic;; f LK00LTE00C<QGL GTOLXE LOLc;; OVVcXflEL llJ KC<TLX ava;\oy[av TOV TWV TQlcXKOVTC(
ITOLfi LXQL8f10V.
25 E.g., Rousseau and Doutreleau 1 .2:223, Forster, Marcus Magus, 234; ANF 1 :337, 5:95; Williams
(Epiphanius) NHS 35:217.
26 The phrase a ¢110LV ainoc;; TWV TQLWV f.v avl.vy[q OVVcXflEWV vncXQXELV could be interpreted to
mean that the oral letters are the consorts to the powers. The problem with this suggestion, however,
is that the beginning of Against Heresies 1 .14.5 has already identified the three powers with the three
syzygies (Father-Truth, Word-Life, and Man-Church), not with single aeons. This interpretation,
then, would require either that the three oral letters are the female counterparts of these three
syzygyies, or that they latch onto them. Both unusual options are not stated explicitly in the text. In
my reading, labeled (2), I depend upon two grammatical features. First, throughout theRevelation to
Marcus the construction subject A + verb "to be" + genitive predicate B means A's existence comes
from B. See above, n. 14, as well as the first sentence of Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.5 and the
passages for (6) and (9), discussed here. Second, the prepositional phrase is embedded in the nominal
clause, suggesting that it acts as an adjective. A rough translation would be "which [letters] he
himself says exist because of the three encoupled powers." Further evidence is found in (8): the three
oral letters can be images of none other than the three powers/syzygies.
27 Forster, Marcus Magus, 247-48, sees this point as unclear, and he offers different solutions. His
alternative suggestion (248 para. 2) is most plausible, that this refers to the double letters /:., l;, tjJ. We
need not understand these to be implicitly written out L'li:, KI:, TII:, as Forster suggests, since what
are referred to here are GTOLXEia, not YQcXflflC<Ta (see above, n. 13).
28 Does (5) merely explain how (4) happened, or does (5) amplify (4)? In the former option, my
preference, the three double letters, by the multiplication of the Tetrad devolves into 24 letters,
although the original 3 letters somehow remain, to give (9) force. In the latter option, the 3 oral letters
engender the 24, then later combine with the tetrad to make itself a number like its progeny. What
does "ineffable Tetrad" refer to? Ineffable is reserved in Valentinianism for the transcendent being, not
the upper Tetrad. Are we to infer that the ineffable Father is a Tetrad, or that the Pleroma's upper
Tetrad shares in the Father's ineffability? The text is ambiguous and vague.
29 Is, then, the unnamed one to be equated with the 3 powers? See (2).
90
by the three powers, as a likeness of the invisible one; (8) the double written letters are an
image of these three letters, which are themselves images; (9) when the three double oral
letters are added to the twenty-four oral letters, it makes the number thirty, according to its
proportionate potential.30 No wonder the translations are unintelligible.
Two types of linguistic generation are depicted here. The first, that of the twenty-
four written letters, depends upon the three powers. So does the second type, the thirty
uttered letters, which emerge from the three powers in two groups: the first three doubled
oral letters and the rest of the twenty-four oral letters. Ultimately, the goal of the Revelation
to Marcus is to show how the letters of the alphabet were generated in a fashion that
resembles the projection of the aeons in the classical Valentinian Pleroma. That there is no
easy way to link the two comes from the obscurity of this chapter.
1.14.6. The Revelation to Marcus now turns to Scripture to illustrate how Jesus came to
be "the fruit of the likeness of the image" of language.31 His Transfiguration took place after
a six-day wait. He ascended the mountain as the fourth person, and then, after the
appearance of Moses and Elijah, became the sixth.32 He descended and was held in the
Hebdomad, even though he was the "episemon ogdoad" - the noteworthy octet. He also
possessed in himself the entire number of oral letters, evident in that, when he came for his
baptism, the descent of the dove revealed this number. The sum of the letters in 7TEQLCY1:EQ£i
30 The phrase buva!-!EL n] KaTa avaAoyiav is peculiar. The closest parallel I have found is Alexander,
Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics, p. 682.19-20 (ed. Hayduck), but there commensurability is
qualified as being either potential or actual.
31 Cf. Rom 1 .23.
32 Mt 17.1, Mk 9.2.
91
("dove") is 801, written as w a ' - the alpha and the omega.33 The number six is important:
Moses placed m an's creation on the sixth day;34 the divine dispensation (olKovo!-lla) and
redemption of Adam happened on the Day of Preparation, the sixth day; the beginning and
end of this dispensation occurred at the sixth hour, when he was nailed to the wood.35 Why?
Because the perfect Mind, knowing that the numeral for six possesses the power of creation
and rebirth, revealed to the sons of light the rebirth that came about through the appearance
in him of the episemon - the name of the numeral. This is why the double letters (<':, l;, l/J)
carry the episemon.36 When this episemon was mixed in with the twenty-four oral letters, it
produced the name written with thirty letters.
Marcus's numerical meditation on the Transfiguration is dense. I reserve extended
comment until chapter 8, where I discuss Clement of Alexandria's adaptation of it. Most
important in this chapter is Marcus's return to the episemon and the number six as a
theological symbol. He uses it in the phrase episemon Ogdoad. The phrase, which could also
be translated "sixly octet," is a paradox because it implies the presence of two numbers.
Remember, in section four, Truth utters only two words to Marcus: XQELCJTov l11aouv.J? The
33 Mt 3.13-1 7, Mk 1 .9-1 1, Lk 3.21-22. On this technique of calculating numbers from words, see
excursus C.
34 Gen 1 .31.
3s Mt 27.34, Mk 15.33, Lk 23.44.
36 That is, ' is the sixth letter (although it has a numerical value of 7), E, 60, and tjJ 600 (the root of
= =
both of which is 6).

37 Although the editions of Hippolytus (Refutatio 6.45.1 .3) and Epiphanius (Panarion 2.12.20), upon
which Irenaeus's Greek (Against Heresies 1 .14.4.6) is largely reconstructed, render the name XQLan)v,
it seems more likely to me that the original was Xgnan)v since, later in the text, Marcus makes the
theological point that "Son, Christ" (Yi6c;; XQELG'r6c;;) is composed of twelve letters, and "Christ"
(Xgnm6c;;), of eight (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .15.1 .39, 2.41-50; cited in Hippolytus, Refutatio
6.49.4.4, 5.1; Epiphanius, Panarion 2.18.11, 19.16-20.1). What is otherwise a rather innocuous variant in
spelling here takes on theological importance.
92
Tetraktys comes alongside Marcus and explains to him that one must go beyond the mere
sound of the name and penetrate its power. The power of the name is this: "Jesus" is the
"noteworthy name" ( br(GYJ flOV OVOfllX) because it has six letters. "Christ" is theologically
significant too, since it consists of eight letters. Thus, for Marcus, the power of the name
Jesus Christ is centered in the number of letters used to spell it. He captures this power in the
epithet episemon Ogdoad. Marcus also interprets the Baptism so as to link Jesus to the entire
alphabet. The value of the letters in dove is 801 . This number is written wa , and therefore
'
points to Christ as the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end of the Greek alphabet.
1 .14.7. Silence goes on and says that six uses the magnitude of seven for its deacon,
so that fruit might be voluntarily produced. She charges Marcus to think of the episemon of
the present as the one who was shaped into the episemon, the one who was, as it were,
divided in half and remained outside.38 This is the one who, through his projection,
endowed with a soul this world (the world of the seven powers; seven to imitate the power
of the Hebdomad) and everything visible. Each of the seven powers, or heavens, that
constitute this world utter a vowel, from alpha to omega, and their intermingled sound
(literally, echo) glorifies the one who projected them, and the glory of that echo is sent to the
Forefather. The echo descends to earth and thereupon molds and creates the things of earth.
Thus, using arithmetical terms, the Revelation to Marcus alludes to the Valentinian
myth of the exiled aeon Achamoth, representing him (not her!) by the number six, and her
projection, the demiurge, by the number seven, the number used for the creation of this
38 "Shaped" : f10Q<j>w8t'vTa, language recalling the shaping of Achamoth in Valentinianism. See fig. 2.
93
world. Once again, Achamoth - divided in half from her Wisdom -is responsible for the
formation of things on earth.
1 .14.8. The proof of this is the soul of a newborn baby, who cries out the echo of each
of these seven oral letters (that is, the vowels). Just as the seven powers glorify the Word, so
wailing infants glorify Marcus himsel£.39 So too, the distressed soul often resorts to uttering
the last vowel in times of distress.
1 .14.9 merely recapitulates 1 .14.1-8, so I omit it here.
1 .15. 1 . The narrative now returns to the creation of the twenty-four oral letters and
draws from the distinguished Valentinian teacher whose system Irenaeus discusses earlier.40
Henotes coexists with Monotes, and from them come two projections, Monad and Hen. Two
plus two makes four, and when the operation is repeated - four is added to two - the
number six is made evident, and these six quadrupled bring forth the twenty-four forms.
Silence then turns to the names of the first Tetrad, to show how they couch within
themselves the mysteries of the letters. The names AQQll'Wc;, I:nyij (sic), T1a'ri]Q, and
39 This is probably, but not certainly, Irenaeus's sarcastic interjection.

40 Ibid. 1 .1 1 .3. Forster, Marcus Magus, 15, 296, suggests this is a literary fragment of Marcus. Besides
the obvious parallels in substance, Ka8ix nqodQTJTaL in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .16.1 seem to refer
clearly to 1 . 1 1 .3. I accept the parallelism, but I doubt that the two passages are by the same author.
Yes, both use the same names for the elements of the Tetrad: f.lOVOTTJc;, tv6TTjc;, 1-1ovac;, £v. But at
1 . 1 1 .3, the male members of the tetrad are also called aqxa( (or nqoaqxa l), whereas female members
are called buva1-1nc;. Such a terminological distinction is important for the author of 1 .1 1 .3, but
Marcus's divergent use of source and power suggest that he has not embraced this distinction. Further,
the source for 1 .1 1 .3 uses nQOLTJf.lL for "project," suggesting it was his preferred term (cf. Irenaeus's
corresponding mockery, which thrice reuses the term, 1 . 1 1 .4, lines 74 [bis] and 79 in Doutreleau and
Rousseau's ed.). Marcus also uses the same verb, but without the same regularity, and only twice
(1 .14.1 [line 143 Greek], 1 . 14.2 [line 176 Greek]). Thus, I treat the two passages as coming from
separate authors, although I recognize that Marcus probably borrowed from the "distinguished
teacher." The reverse is also possible.
94
AAT]8na consist of a total of twenty-four oral letters, since the first and last each have seven
written letters and the middle two, five.41 The same can be shown in the second Tetrad,
A6yoc; and Zwr'], AV8Qwnoc; and 'EKKA11ala., the written letters in whose names add to the
same number. Further, YLoc; XQE LaT6c; (sic; "Son Christ") has twelve written letters, and the
ineffable name in Christ has thirty written letters. This, says Silence, explains why he is
alpha and omega, in order to disclose the dove, the numerical value of whose name is this
number (as explained above).
1.15.2. The Revelation to Marcus goes on to illustrate Jesus's ineffable generation by
recounting the generation of the Pleroma in terms derived almost purely from arithmetic.
The second Tetrad comes forth from the first Tetrad as if a daughter from a mother, and
they become an Ogdoad. From this emerges the Decad. The Decad comes alongside the
Ogdoad, multiplies it by ten, and makes it eighty. Multiplying by ten once more, the eighty
becomes eight hundred. Thus, the entire number of written letters is demonstrated by the
progression from Ogdoad to Decad, from eight to eighty, to eight hundred, for a total of 888,
the value of the sum of the letters in 'I11aouc;. This indicates that Jesus's birth is
supercelestial. It also explains why the Greek alphabet consists of eight units, eight tens, and
eight hundreds (see excursus C). And it explains yet again why Jesus is named the alpha
and omega. The Revelation to Marcus then offers another approach, with a similar
conclusion. When the first Tetrad was added incrementally to itself (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) the
number ten appeared, and this is represented by iota, Jesus's initial.42 Further, XQE LGT6c; has
eight written letters and thus indicates the first Ogdoad, which, in combination with ten,
41 Marcus's language suggests the distinction between aTOLXciov and YQCtf.lf.llX is now blurred.
42 See above, p. 34, and below, pp. 169, 1 92, 340.
95
produces Jesus (as explained above). Further, Yio� XQncn6� has twelve letters, thus
indicating the Dodecad. Before the episemon of his name, Jesus, appeared, people were
astray and ignorant. But at the appearance the six-letter name, which possesses both the six
and the twenty-four, those who knew this were freed from ignorance and went from death
to life.
1 .15.3. The aeons, or powers, are said to come out of the Tetrad formed by Man and
Church, and Word and Life. These powers generate Jesus, who consists of four places,
reserved for Word, Life, Man, and Church, supplied by the angel Gabriel, the Holy Spirit,
the power of the Most High, and the Virgin, respectively. This Jesus was chosen by the
Father after his birth, and when Jesus entered the water there descended upon him as a
dove the very power who ascended and fulfilled the twelfth number. This power is the
Father's seed, which possesses within itself Father, Son, the unnamed power of Silence, and
all the aeons. The Revelation to Marcus then discusses a number of aspects of Jesus not central
to this study, and concludes the section by observing that Jesus, by possessing Man, thereby
possessed all eight members of the Ogdoad.
1 .16.1. Irenaeus interrupts his report with a lengthy criticism (1.15.4-6), and when he
returns to Marcus's teaching, it is no longer obvious that he is depending upon the
Revelation to Marcus as his source. Irenaeus moves from the singular to the plural,
suggesting that the remainder of his report (1 .16.1) includes persons besides Marcus. These
people claim that all things come from Monad and Dyad, and that the series from Monad to
four engenders the Decad. The Dyad, too, begins a progression up to the episemon (2 + 4 +
6), which results in the Dodecad. Yet a further progression of even numbers from the Dyad
to the number ten shows the Triacontad, wherein reside the Ogdoad, Decad, and Dodecad.
96
This Dodecad they also name Passion, since it has the episemon following it.43+ This is
expressly related to the slip of the twelfth member of the Dodecad, and this event is related
to the parables of the lost sheep and the lost drachrna.44 In the former parable there were
eleven members left over, and in the latter, nine.45 Their product is the number ninety-nine,
the very reason Amen has this same number.46
1 .1 6.2. The same people go on to explain that the oral letter eta, along with the
episemon, is an ogdoad, since it is in eighth place. Furthermore, reckoning the oral letters up
to eta, without the episemon (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 8), add to the number thirty, thereby
revealing the Triacontad. To prove that the Ogdoad is the "mother of the thirty aeons," they
explain that, since the number thirty is compiled from three powers, so when it is tripled it
43 The various Greek editions by Rousseau & Doutreleau, Marcovich, and Holl, of Irenaeus,
Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, respectively, make little sense. The three Greek manuscripts (P = Paris.
supp. gr. 464 [14th c.], V = Vat. gr. 503 [9th c.], M = Marcianus 125 [1 1th c.]), compared with Rousseau
& Doutreleau' s edited Latin text:
Duodecadem igitur, eo quod episemon habuerit consequentem sibi propter episemum,
passionem vocant.
P Tilv ovv bwb�:xabcx, bta n) inioTJ!--l (ov) iaXYJKivm ouvmT)KoAou8rJGEV a-lm':), TO i n iOTJ!--LOV
rra8oc;.
V Tilv ovv bwbEKabcx, b ta Tov i n iOTJ!-lOv bta TO ouvEOXTJKivm avvEncxKoAov8Tjacxacxv cxvn':),
TO f71LOTJ!--LOV na8oc; Myoum.
M Tilv ovv bwbEKabcx, bta Tov i n LOTJ!--LOV bta TO auvwxT)Kivm avvEncxKoAov8i]acxv cxvn'i, TO
E71LOTJ!--L OV na8oc; Myoum .
It seems to me, based on its affinity with the Latin, that M is the superior reading, although
we may wish to edit it [ouv]WXT)KEvm. M follows the Latin nearly precisely, with the notable
exception that propter episemum is placed not before but after the eo-quod clause, to avoid the
appearance of a relative clause. The thrust of the passage is that the Dodecad is being given the
epithet Passion, and this because of the action of the episemon. In defense of the editors of the various
Greek versions, it would make much more sense for Marcus to call the episemonPassion, since it tags
along with the Dodecad, signifying Wisdom.
44 Lk 15.1-7, 8-10.
45 Note the substitution of 12 for 99 in the parable of the lost sheep, discussed below.
46 Al--lijv = 1 + 40 + 8 + 50. Its numeral, CjB ', is used frequently in MSS and papyri as an abbreviation for
Amen. Robert, "Pas de date 1 09"; Vidman, "Koppa Theta."
97
makes ninety. So the Trinity, multiplied by itself, makes nine.47 In this way the Ogdoad
gives birth to the number ninety-nine. So they say that, when the twelfth aeon abandoned
the other eleven aeons, this is a type of the written letters that are positioned in the
arrangement of the Word. That is, the eleventh written letter is lambda, whose numerical
value, thirty, is set as an image of the upper, divine dispensation, since the sum of the
written letters that precede it (again, omitting the episemon) is ninety-nine.4 8 That lambda
stands for the remaining aeons, and that mu represents the lost one after which the lambda
seeks, is shown by their shapes. M (thought as being written M) is a duplication of A
Therefore, according to Irenaeus, they use knowledge to flee the land of the ninety-nine to
pursue to the one, which, when added to the ninety-nine, results in a transfer from the left
hand to the right.49
MARCUS AND VALENTINIAN NUMBER SYMBOLISM
The preceding paraphrase, with select comments, of Irenaeus' s report of Marcus and his
circle should make it evident that Marcus owed much of his number symbolism to
V alentinianism. Similar to the Valentinians, Marcus depends upon pairs, quartets, octets,
tens, twelves, and the entire Pleroma of thirty. The dependence is so strong that the
Revelation to Marcus adopts variant spellings of Christ and Silence so they contain a suitable
47 This Trinity may refer either to the three powers, or the the three oral letters discussed at Irenaeus,
Against Heresies 1 .14.5. It does not refer to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
48 a + � + y + b + E + C, + fJ + 8 + L + K + i\ 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 20 + 30 99. Note, also,
= =
lambda is the first letter of i\6yo�, the "Word" referred to in the previous sentence.
49 See pp. 66, 97, and 159.
98
number of letters.50 In Valentinianism, these entities are termed aeons, but Marcus
synthesizes the Valentinian tradition with principles of ancient grammar. The aeons become
letters, both oral and written. The letters unfold as if they were the aeons of the upper
realms. In the lower regions the Greek alphabet is an image of the fall and rescue of
Wisdom. The extended linguistic metaphor includes the entry into our world of an
unspoken letter, the episemon. Overall, Marcus both corroborates and reinvents Valentinian
protology by weaving into its number symbolism principles of grammar.
Is Marcus a monadic or dyadic Valentinian? At first glance it would seem that he is
extremely monadic. He specifies that the Father has no gender and exists alone, even before
the emanation of his Word.51 The identification of the upper Tetrad as consisting of four
different kinds of unity reinforces this monadic ideal.52 This unity of the Father is reflected
in the Marcosian ideal of the human search of unity, a unity epitomized in the mathematical
and linguistic return to a single letter and sound.53 Irenaeus accuses Marcus of telling his
women adherents, "we must become as one" ('ro f.v), a formula repeated three times;
collectively, these references suggest that Marcus envisioned a metaphysical unity as the
beginning and the ultimate goal of life. The prayer uttered by his followers, addressed to the
5o Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .15.1. Other texts take advantage of unconventional spellings of XQLG'l:Oc;
to make these kinds of points. See Forster, Marcus Magus, 318-19; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies
6.49.4-5; and an inscription at Shnan (IGLS 1403, with commentary by Kalvesmaki, "Isopsephic
Inscriptions").
51 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.1 .
52 Ibid. 1 .15.1. See also Forster, Marcus Magus, 306-10, on possible metaphysical parallels with late
antique philosophy.
53 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.1 .
99
counselor of God and Silence, presumes that the supplicant has achieved unity with this
intermediary being.
But this same prayer illustrates that the primal being and his pre-eternal consort,
Silence, are a pair, thus undermining a categorical declaration that Marcus was a monadic
Valentinian. He reinforces the importance of the uppermost conjugal bond when he claims
that Truth, the fourth aeon, the "source of every word and every voice" - probably an
allusion to the fifth and sixth aeons - is the projection of Ineffable and Silence.54 That is,
Ineffable is not alone. Marcus's emphasis on the traditional Valentinian syzygies and
Tetrads also suggests that he was not absolutely monadic. Note, for instance, his
dependence upon the second, third, and fourth syzygies to explain the emanation of
subsequent aeons or letters. The conspicuous absence of the Father and Silence implies that
both are transcendent beings and that they are a pair. How he relates the Monad to Dyad is
not specified, although he ascribes not to one but to both the engendering of all things.55 I
have thus indicated in table 1 that Marcus is probably monadic, but I think he also had
spermatic-dyadic or conjugal-dyadic ideals. Multiple models would not have been
inconsistent for him.56
In other Valentinian systems the upper and lower Tetrads remain distant from the
material realm. In the Revelation to Marcus, however, the personal agent of revelation is the
Tetrad, in the guise of a woman. To be visited by a woman who reveals secrets evokes other
revelatory texts, especially those in Jewish wisdom literature, beginning with the book of
54 Ibid. 1 .14.3.
55 Ibid. 1 .1 6 . 1 .
56 On this question see also Forster, Marcus Magus, 301-2.
1 00
Proverbs. Lady Wisdom promises herself to those who seek after her and walk in the ways
of God. Proverbs is neither apocalyptic nor occultish. But it does have Wisdom paint a
strongly polarized picture: one is either with the foolish or with the wise. This polarity is
recast in the Revelation to Marcus to lay out the metaphysical structures of the universe. The
narrative resembles the Shepherd of Hermas, in which a woman (or women, depending upon
how you count and interpret the apparitions) appears to Hermas and grants him special,
apocalyptic revelations related to the history or future of the salvation of the world. As in
the Revelation to Marcus, the Shepherd of Hermas is full of symbolic numbers that are central to
the revelation.57 But the Revelation to Marcus goes further in its number symbolism, and is
much more explicit. Wisdom is called the Tetrad, thus invoking the tetraktys and its
Pythagorean overtones and fusing them with Jewish and Christian themes.58 Just as the
number and letter symbolism running throughout the Revelation to Marcus reveals the
hidden structures of the universe, so lady Tetrad reveals the Ineffable to the world.59
As in other Valentinian systems, Jesus the Savior consists of four elements provided
by four different agents. In Marcus's system, however, all four elements of Jesus are put
together by the second Tetrad.60 Jesus therefore begins his ascent to the mountain as the
fourth person, representative of the four elements with which he was created. In the
Transfiguration, however, his arithmetical constitution is, well, transfigured. He progresses
57 Number symbolism in the Shepherd of Hermas awaits study.

58 Compare Marcus's lady Tetrad to lady Arithmetic, who makes her splendid entry in Martianus
Capella's (5th c.) On the Marriage ofPhilologia and Mercury, book 7. See below, pp. 308-309, on
Marcus's dependence on Pythagoreanism.
59 Forster, Marcus Magus, 1 8 1 .
6o Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 5 .3.
101
along even numbers, going from four to six to eight. Jesus is thus called the episemos
ogdoad.61
I noted in the previous chapter how the number three seems to have been reserved
in many forms of Valentinianism to describe and organize the lower, fallen world . In
Marcus that trope is not as evident. There are the three powers and the three double letters,
all part of the upper Pleroma. That the Greek word for the three letters, cnOLXELa, refers
equally to three elements contrasts with other Valentinian systems, which place their three
elements (water, air, earth) in the material world.
One of the most important numbers in Marcus's system is six, which provides the
bridge between the Ogdoad and the alphabet, which consists of twenty-four letters. Marcus
notes six intrinsic components to each letter, and draws attention to the length of the name
'111aouc;.62 The Transfiguration is described with many references to six, and special attention
is paid to the numeral six, the episemon. Achamoth is surprisingly described as the number
six, not eight as might be expected from other Valentinian systems that make her an image
of the Ogdoad. She is thought of as engendering the number seven, which is, true to other
Valentinian systems, assigned to the Demiurge.63 The number six is key, both to the creation
of the twenty-four letters of the alphabet (in conjunction with the Tetrad), and to accounting
for the gap between the number of letters and the number of aeons. The number six also
serves to introduce astrological symbolism. The most noteworthy example is the body of
Truth, whose twelve body parts each assigned to two letters parallels exactly ancient
61 Ibid. 1 .14.6.
62 Ibid. 1 .14.1, 4.
63 Ibid. 1 .14.7.
1 02
astrological texts. In ancient astrology the twelve houses of the zodiac were assigned pairs
of letters in an order similar to that found in Marcus's body of Truth.64
There is in Marcus a new symbolic number, ninety-nine, taken together with its
successor, one hundred. This number is used to combine four different texts or ideas. There
is the parable of the lost sheep, the practice of counting from ninety-nine to one hundred on
the fingers, the sum of the numerical value of the first eleven Greek letters, and the psephic
value of a!-li]v. What holds together all four strands of number symbolism is the ideal of the
search for lost unity. This unity is recovered in the number one hundred, the Valentinian
sign of the Father's perfective unity in The Gospel of Truth.65 A Valentinian Exposition, too,
mentions hundred, once without any context, and once in discussing emanations from the
syzygy Word and Life.66 In this second passage, the Hecontad is the result of Word and
Life's projection of the Decad, presumably because the Decad multiplies itself. Marcus,
however, derives the Hecontad from the product of the Triacontad and the three powers.
Implicit in A Valentinian Exposition is the suggestion that the aeons are endlessly
multiplicative, since the process that led from Decad to Hecontad could be applied again to
get the Chiliad, and applied again to get the Myriad. This principle of self-multiplication is
found in other texts.67 For Marcus, however, the Hecontad signifies not extension but return
to a primal unity. He illustrates this principle with the parable of the lost sheep. Like other
64 See Forster, Marcus Magus, 222-25, which lists the many primary sources and scholarly studies.
65 31 .35-32.16. See above, p. 66.
66 25.25, 30.33 (NH 1 1 .2).
67 Eugnostos 78.17-22 (NH 3.3), where the progression is Monad, Dyad, Triad, . . . tenths, hundredths,
thousandths, and myriads, an arrangement further explained at ibid ., 5.7.23-5.8.25 (Robinson trans.,
230a). Note also Marcus's teaching on the endless generation of the letters; Irenaeus,Against Heresies
1 .14.2.
1 03
Valentinians, Marcus has not used the Scriptures to prove the mysteries of the number. He
knows about the symbol before he approaches Scripture. He reads the Bible so as to
discover the hidden references to the number symbol.
The last new element to note is Marcus's interest in isopsephy. The word n:EQLCJHQa,
because it adds to 801, symbolizes Jesus.68 The letter iota represents the number ten and the
name Jesus, a theme recurrent in this study.69 And the word cXflrlV has the auspicious
psephic value 99. That no other Valentinians use isopsephy suggests that Marcus represents
a later development of the movement, probably contemporary with Irenaeus. Psephy first
became popular in the first and second centuries (see excursus C), and the Revelation to
Marcus shows a very early attempt to take the practice seriously as a tool for theology.
Marcus uses psephy for a very different purpose than does Colarbasus, the subject of
chapter 6. But they both take it seriously, without relegating it to a parlor game or literary
adornment. This shows that they have a similar belief that psephy can reveal the hidden
knowledge of the world. Marcus's thesis, that the Greek alphabet shares the same theology
of arithmetic as that found in the Pleroma, makes reliance on psephy a viable option. His
theology lays the conceptual foundation necessary to justify isopsephic prognostication (see
excursus D).
Overall, then, Marcus is through and through a Valentinian. He creatively revises
the Valentinianism that the heresiologists criticized. He adopts late Valentinian protology,
along with Pythagorean and Platonic overtones implied by its structures, and adds to it
68 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.6, 1 .15.1 .

69 See chapter 4, and pp. 34, 94, 1 69, 192, 340.
1 04
numerical and numerological theories of language. Marcus intensely uses Valentinian
number symbols, attempting to enlarge the explanatory power of the V alentinian myth.
4
Monolmus
All record of Monoi"mus' s existence would be lost, were it not for Hippolytus' s discussion,
and a fleeting mention by Theodoret of Cyrus, who says, "They say Monoi"mus the Arab,
getting his start from arithmetical knowledge, put together his own heresy," by far the
shortest entry in the Compendium of Heretical Fables.1 Hippolytus confirms that Monoimus
was an Arab (possibly this means Syrian) but offers no other biographical information. The
name Monoi"mus is unattested in Greek literature, papyri, or inscriptions. The common
Arabic name Mun 'im, or its diminutive, Munay ' im, is probably the basis for the Greek
version.2 The terminology he uses in his letter to Theophrastus suggests he had a standard
Greek education. Therefore Monoi"mus probably lived in Syria or Palestine. He flourished
probably in the early third century.
Aside from the pinax and a recapitulation in book ten, Hippolytus discusses
Monoi"mus's system in ninety-one lines of book eight of the Refutation, just after his
treatment of the Doketai and prior to that of Tatian.3 Hippolytus's sources are one or more
, 1 .18 (PG 83.369B).

2 I thank Irfan Shahid for this suggestion. The earliest attestations of Mun'im are most frequently
Safaitic. See Harding, Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names, 569, s.v. "MN 'M."
3 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 8.3, 1 0.17.
1 05
1 06
unidentified texts. One of these texts, quoted at the conclusion of Hippolytus' s expose,
purports to be a letter from Monolmus to Theophrastus.4 Since this text is clearly distinct in
form and content from his earlier discussion, Hippolytus had in addition to the letter a
treatise from which Hippolytus drew his earlier material.5 Possibly the letter was merely the
preface or cover letter to the treatise. The sketchy character of Hippolytus' s paraphrase does
not allow a more precise assessment.
Monolmus posits two principles, which he calls primarily av8Qumoc; and uioc;
av8Qc�mou (referred to in this chapter as Man and Son of Man for convenience; see figure 7).6
Man is unbegotten, incorruptible, and eternal, whereas Son of Man is begotten, subject to
passion, and generated without time, will, or prior determination. Man is to Son of Man as
being is to becoming, a Platonic analogy that explains why - so Monolmus argues - some
passages of Scripture use f)v rather than £yivE'To, presumably because Scripture has in mind
these two principles as well? Mono·imus extends the analogy further. Man is to Son of Man
as fire is to light, since light is generated concurrent to the fire's existence, without time,
will, or prior determination.8 Monolmus calls Man the one Monad (flLCX flOvac;), which he
describes with a series of paradoxes: he is incompositely composite, indivisibly divisible,
friendly and combative to all, peaceful and belligerent to all, dissimilarly similar, and like a
4 Ibid. 8.15.
s Ibid. 8.12-14.
6 On Man as a title for deity, see Dillon, "Pleroma and Noetic Cosmos," 1 06-7 and Schenke, Der Gott
"Mensch " in der Gnosis.
7 Gen 1 .2-3; Jn 1 .1-4, 6, 9-10. See below for further discussion of Monolrnus's appropriation of the
Timaeus.
8 Hippolytus, Refutation ofAll Heresies 8.12.4.
1 07
kind of musical harmony.9 In the ancient world harmony was considered a kind of paradox,
or even contradiction, since it was the unity of dissimilar tones.
Monolmus says that Man subsumes in himself all things, including contradictions
and opposites. Three times he uses of Man the phrase 1-1 !a 1-1ovac:, to describe Man's ability
to transcend contradiction.1 0 The very words that make up the epithet are a kind of
contradiction. In philosophical literature of late antiquity the formal distinction between
1-1ovac; and £v (!-l(a is the feminine form of £v) frequently appears (see excursus Bl).
Normally the 1-1ovac; resides in a metaphysically higher plane than the £v, and the former
generates the latter. The 1-1ovac: is an ideal object whereas the £v is instantiated in our world
in physical, countable objects. The existence of the £v, of course, depends upon that of the
1-1ovac;. The term I-X La 1-1ovac;, then, would be as contradictory as thought thinker or created
creator, since it suggests the confluence of two otherwise irreconcilable realms. The epithet
alludes to and plays on the philosophy and symbolism of
numbers, illustrating how the two incommensurate realms
are united and reconciled in Man.
Monolmus uses other paradoxes drawn from
number symbolism and philosophical number theory. For
instance, Man is both mother and father, related to the
widespread notion that the monad is androgynous (see
excursus B2). As the source of numbers, and not a number
proper, the monad contains in itself potentially both odd
9 Ibid. 8.12.5.
w Ibid. 8.12.5.15, 8.12.7.24-25, 8.13. 1 . 1 .
Figure 7 . Depiction of the iota of
Monoi·mus (illustration by author)
1 08
and even, and therefore, by extension, female and male. Also, Mono"imus states that the best
image of Man, whom he regards as perfect, is the one iota ( i�na. £v) or the one apex (f-Ila
KEQa(a).11 The language comes from the Sermon on the MountP For Mono"imus Jesus's
distinction between iota and apex is a veiled reference to a metaphysical structure. The shape
of the letter iota reveals the relationship of Man to Son of Man (see figure 7). The iota and
the apex are two separate but intertwined entities. The iota "is incomposite and simple" and
yet is also composite and consists of many forms, shapes, and parts.B "That single
undivided object is the many-faced, myriad-eyed, and myriad-named single apex of the
iota."14 And that apex "is the image ( E iKwv) of the perfect Man." For the analogy Mono"imus
draws from the language of Paul. The apex as "the image of the perfect Man" -ilnc; EG'rLV
E LKWV '[OU uAdou av8QWnou EKE LVOU, '[OU lXOQinou - alludes to Colossians 1 .15: oc; [= ui6c;,
1 .13] E:anv dKwv 'rOU 8wu 'rOU d:oQthou, Paul's description of the relationship between the
Son and the unseen God. Thus, the iota and the apex are separate but interlocked. The
former encompasses the latter, and the latter is the image of the former.15 Man is to Son of
Man as the iota is to its apex.
Up to this point Mono"imus has not declared whether he is interested in the iota qua
letter, or qua numeral. It soon becomes clear that he regards its number symbolism foremost.
He says that there is the one Monad, then the one apex, then the Decad of the one apex.1 6 He
11 Ibid. 8.13.1 .
12 Mt 5.18. See also Lk 16.17.
14 Ibid. 8.12.7.
1s Cf. Tripartite Tractate 1 16.28.
1 6 Ibid. 8.13.1.
1 09
explains this new entity, the Decad, by saying, "ten is the power in it," i.e., in the apex.17+
Then come the rest of the numbers, extending from the Monad: Dyad, Triad, Tetrad, and so
on, up to the Ennead and ten.18+ These are the complex ( Tioi\uaxLbc"is) numbers, which
reside in the simple and incomposite "one apex" of the iota. This explains Colossians 1.19
and 2.9, that "all the Pleroma was pleased to dwell bodily" in the Son of Man. For
Mono"imus, these "sorts of combinations of numbers" become the bodily instantiations
generated from the simple and incomposite "one apex" of the iota.l9+
Here is combined into one metaphor numerical and allographical symbolism. The
prime image is that of the iota, which is drawn with a serif at the top. It is a single letter,
created by a single stroke, yet its uppermost part represents and mediates the whole.
Monoi:mus reinforces this analogy with the prevailing theories on the generation of
1 7 I accept the buvcq.uc; yaQ ai n� n) "i of the manuscript at ibid. 8.13.1 .2 against Marcovich's reading:
buvaf-Hc; yaQ aih:T] TO<V> iwTa. The term iwTa suggests the letter not the numeral. Marcovich's
reading is hard to reconcile with the normal senses of buvaf- Hc; and the new arithmological
discussion. [ refers to the numeral, more suitable to the context. Not that this altogether clarifies a
convoluted passage of Greek. See also next note.
18 Ibid. 8.13.1, Marcovich's ed.: "Eanv ouv, cpT]atv, i] < f-l La> f-lOvac;, i] f-l La K£Qata, Kat b£Kac;· Mvaf-l L c;
yaQ aUTT] TO<U > iwTa, Tfjc; f-l HXc; K£Qa tac;, <f_v � ianv rl TWVTOc; liQL8 f10U urr6aTaaLc;· f-lOVac;> Kat bvac;
Kat TQLac; Kat TnQac; Kat rrcvTac; Kat n;ac; Kai f:rrTac; (Kat) oyboac; Kat iv<v£>ac; 11txQL Twv
biKa.·Marcovich's third emendation, <f_v � i anv i] rravToc; liQL8f10V urr6aTamc;· f-lOVac;>, is excessive
for three reasons. It breaks up the chain of entities (one Monad, one apex, Decad, Dyad, Triad, Tetrad,
etc.), it suggests the Monad begets the Monad, and the Monad is not complex (rroAuaxLbijc;, line 5).
According to my reconstruction of Monolmus' s system, the text of Refutation of All Heresies 8.13.1 .1-4
should read: "Eanv OUV, cpT] U LV, TJ < f-l La> f-lOVac;, TJ f-l La K£Qata, Kat b£Kac; (bUVaf-lLc; yaQ al!TlJ TO-� Tfjc;
f1 Llic; K£Qatac;, Kat buac; Kat TQLac; Kai TETQac; Kat mvTac; Ka t f:E,ac; Kat ETrTac; (Kat) oyboac; KaL
iv<vc>ac; 11txQL 1:wv biKa.
1 9 "Sorts of": reading TOLafnm of the manuscript for Wendland's ToaavTm.
110
numbers, wherein the first nine numbers, building blocks for all subsequent numbers, reside
potentially in the monad.zo
Monolmus argues against thinking of creation as a feminine product, and claims that
the "very murky rays" of the Son regulate generation and change in the cosmos.2 1 Man, in
fact, has nothing to do with the creation of the world. The world is influenced only by Man's
proper part, the Son of Man, who fills all things and possesses in himself whatever Man has.
There is a parallel here with Nicomachus, who describes the cosmos as "rooted" in the
monad, but made and revealed in the Decad.22 So too in Monolmus's view, the Son of Man,
as the i.w'ra E.v, a being that synthesizes ten and one, is responsible for being the source,
completion, and regulator of creationP
Monolmus interprets the Pentateuch in light of his decadology. The six days of
Creation are six of the powers trapped in the one apex of the iota. The Sabbath comes into
existence from the Hebdomad of the world beyond (arro n)c; 'E�bo1-uxboc; y£yov E 'rl)c; EKEt),
probably referring by Hebdomad to the iota itself, combined with the six powers. That is, the
iota-Man sends forth a seventh power, which is represented by the Sabbath. The emanation
of six or seven powers from a single power has parallels elsewhere. Philo holds to a model
of Monad plus six latent powers, which resembles somewhat Hippolytus's Valentinians,
with the exception that the six powers are not organized into syzygies.Z4 For seven powers
20 Remember, one was not a number: Nicomachus of Gerasa, Introduction to Arithmetic 1 .7. See also
excursus Bl-2.
2 1 Hippolytus, Refutation ofAll Heresies 8.13.3--4.
22 Theology ofArithmetic in Photius, Bibliotheque §187, 1 44A25-27.
23 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 8.13.4.21.
24 Stead, "Valentinian Myth of Sophia," 80.
111
there is the more remote parallel a t a temple a t Esna, Egypt, where seven gods come out
from the mouth of a single goddess.25 None of these earlier systems completely explains
Monoi:mus' s protology. Rather, they show that his system, and therefore the Biblical
exegesis upon which it depended, was not a novelty.
According to Monoi:mus all four elements of the world -earth, water, air, and fire -
derive their existence from the isometrical shapes of Plato's Timaeus, which themselves come
from the numbers retained by the apex of the iota.26 This is an appeal, not merely to
understand Moses in terms of the Timaeus, but to understand Plato in terms of Mono"imus.
The numbers behind the five geometrical figures of the Timaeus must have some source or
origin. Mono!mus identifies that source as the apex of the iota, the Son of Man.
The symbolism behind the allograph L also comes into play. Mono!mus considers it
significant that Moses uses his rod to generate exactly ten plagues. The shape of the rod in
its variegated simplicity represents the iota and its apex. Because the iota resembles the
fruitfulness of a vine it reflects the creation of the worldP Citing Democritus, Mono·irnus
relates the striking action latent in the term Decaplague (bEKanAYJyoc:;) - the ten plagues or
blows- to the severing of the umbilical cord at birth. Ultimately, both are conducive to
generation.28 Indeed, Mono!mus later claims that the transformation of creation is actualized
( EVEQYEL'rm) by the Decaplague.29
2s Forster, Marcus Magus, 185-86.

26 Plato, Timaeus 55A-56B; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 8.14.1-2.
27 Ibid. 8.14.3.
28 Democritus, frag. 32; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 8.13.4.
29 Ibid. 8.14.8.
1 12
The Decalogue and the Pentateuch, too, are each derived from the numbers resident
in the one apex. The Decalogue, just as the Decaplague, is based on the Decad, a portal for
knowing the universe. The Pentateuch derives from the Pentad, also kept in the one apex.'10
In addition, Mono1mus interprets the number symbolism behind the dates of the
Jewish Pascha in light of the Decad.31 He claims that the fourteenth day of the month is the
source (cXQXTJ) of the Decad. In arithmological texts, most references to one number as the
source of another are invested with metaphysical significance, since it implies that one is the
sine qua non for the other. It is puzzling to think that fourteen is the source of ten, since the
former really depends on the latter. Mono1mus's explanation? The numbers one through
four add up to ten, which is the perfect number and the one apex.32 The process of deriving
ten from four is symbolized by the number fourteen, both of whose digits, Lb ', represent the
first four numbers and their total sum. To describe fourteen as the source of ten is
something of an overstatement, and Mono1mus probably means rather that the one is the
image of the other.33 In any case, the Hebdomad derived from observing the festival from
the fourteenth to the twenty-first days is itself the creation of the world, which also resides
in the one apex.34 Thus, by virtue of the numbers embedded in their dates of celebration,
30 Ibid. 8.14.5.
31 See also below, p. 1 92.
32 On ten as a perfect number, see above, 50 n. 125 .
34 Ex 12.15-20.
1 13
Pascha and the Feast of Unleavened Bread represent the causes of creation;35 and the
Decaplague, its transformation and change.36
Hippolytus accuses Mono·imus of, among other things, reading Moses in terms of
Greek wisdom, specifically for using Aristotle's ten categories to interpret the Law _37 This
echoes another passage in the refutation where he ascribes to Pythagoras ideas that look
suspiciously like Mono·imus's.38 In this earlier passage, he claims Pythagoras differentiated
between two worlds, the noetic and the sense perceptible. The noetic world has as its source
the monad, whereas the source of the sense-perceptible world is the tetraktys, which
possesses the iota, the one apex, and a perfect number. This ten (literally, "L) according to the
Pythagoreans is the one apex, which is the first and foremost essence (ova(a, Aristotle's first
category) of noetic things.39 These references to the iota and the one apex as a source of
generation suggest that Hippolytus for his recreation of "Pythagoras's" teaching at 6.24 is
35 Or the elements (aT<OLX>Eia) of creation, based on Marcovich' s emendation of Hippolytus,

Refutation of All Heresies 8.14.8.38.
36 Ibid. 8.14.8.
37 Ibid. 8.14.9.
38 Ibid. 6.24. This chapter is part of a longer expose (6.23-28) of doctrines attributed, by Hippolytus or
his source text(s), to Pythagoras. Marcovich (p. 23) suggests for this section ofRefutation ofAll Heresies
"a Gnosticizing Pythagorean treatise" as Hippolytus's direct source. But some parts of this section
have no recognizably gnosticizing inclination, whereas others do. Some parts of 6.23-28, such as 6.24,
are related to second- and third-century religious movements described elsewhere in the Refutation
and have no obvious connection to other parts, aside from an affinity to neo-Pythagorean ideas and
texts. Throughout 6.23-28 Hippolytus attributes the ideas alternately to Pythagoras, the
Pythagoreans, and unnamed individuals. Thus, I regard 6.23-28 as a potpourri of various Hellenistic
Pythagorean texts, dressed by Hippolytus or an earlier anthologist to look like a single account.
39 And sense perceptible, if Wendland's emendation at 6.24.1 .5 is correct.
114
using a text written by Mono·imus or someone in the same circle. (For convenience, I shall
refer to the author of this source as Pythago1mus.)4°
Similar to Mono!mus, Pythagolmus argues that there are nine accidents that occur in
ova[a, and he proceeds to list the remaining nine (Aristotelian) categories.4 1 The total, he
claims, possesses the perfect number, ten. This comment accords with the Pythagorean
tendency to claim for their own tradition, usually under the name Archytas, Aristotle's ten
categories, and to explore its numerical symbolism.42 There may then be something
substantial behind Hippolytus' s complaint that Mono·imus read the Law in terms of the ten
categories, which he lists in full, as if Mono·imus had discussed them seriatim.43 Possibly,
given Pythago!mus' s interest in the ten categories and their connection to realms of mental
and sense perception, Mono!mus too, in a passage not reported by Hippolytus, interpreted
the Pentateuch in light of Aristotle's categories. It would be attractive to an author such as
Mono!mus to explore one-to-one correspondences between the categories, the Ten
Commandments, and the ten plagues.
40 The author of Refutation of All Heresies 6.24 need not be Mono"imus. At Refutation of All Heresies
8.14.9 Hippolytus summarizes the preceding summary of Mono!mus's doctrine by referring to "these
men." This suggests that Mono"imus was but one of a circle of authors with these distinct opinions.
41 Ibid. 6.24.2. Commentators in late antiquity took seriously the order of the categories. The list of
categories at 6.24.2 is identical to that at 8.14.9 (but see Marcovich's ed., 335 n. at line 49), but different
from that at 1 .20.1 in the placement of quality, quantity, position, and state. The first two passages, by
Mono!mus and Pythago·imus respectively, further corroborate the closeness of the two authors, and
their possible dependence upon Eudorus, who is probably responsible for rearranging the categories
in this order. See Dillon, Middle Platonists, 134-35 and 1 78-80, who notes that Philo carefully makes
the most of another order of Aristotle's categories.
42 See, e.g., pseudo-Archytas's Ten Universal Categories, ed. Thesleff 1 965: 3-8.
115
Monolmus' s letter to Theophrastus, with which Hippolytus concludes his entry on
Mono!mus, suggests further comparisons with Pythago!mus' s number symbolism. The
letter starts off by exhorting Theophrastus that, if he wishes to know God, he should stop
looking for him in creation, but rather look for God within himself, "and learn who it is who
appropriates for himself absolutely everything in you."44 To this end Monolmus advises him
to say, "My God, my mind, my understanding, my soul, and my body."45+ All five elements
are listed in descending order, and resonate well with the arithmological interest Mono·imus
shows in his comments on the Pentateuch concerning the number five.46 This shows an
interest in the "fives of anthropology," a theme found in other authors.47 Monolmus
promises that those who follow his advice of introspection and accurately diagnose their
emotions and motivation will eventually discover God, who is both "one and many
according to that one apex," and find the escape from onesel£.48 Seemingly that "escape"
would occur along the five steps already mentioned, from body to soul to understanding to
mind to God. The five-stage process is guided by the one apex.
The arithmology of Mono!mus is rather distinct from Valentinian. The Pleroma,
which dwells in the Son of Man, is made up not of aeons but of numbers, essentially the first
Decad. Missing from Monolmus' s arithmology is any dependence upon syzygies or eights,
44 Ibid. 8.15.1.
45 Marcovich excludes the phrase "My God," but at the expense of Mono"imus' s metaphysical
hierarchy, as explained here.
46 Ibid. 8.14.5.
47 Pythago"imus, at ibid. 6.24.3-4, on the five senses; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 6.134.2, who
presents man as possessing a decalogue of faculties, composed of two quintets. See below, pp. 1 30
and 1 87-200.
48 Hippolytus, Refutation of A ll Heresies 8.15.2.
116
both of which are centrally prominent in Valentinianism. Instead, the seven powers that
emanate from the iota are undifferentiated and unnamed.49 Mono·imus' s numbers are
combined especially through the cube, icosahedron, octahedron, and pyramid - a mode of
creation inspired by the Timaeus - so as to produce the material world . The classical
Valentinian cosmological expositions do not depend upon the Timaeus. A further contrast is
that Mono·imus's numbers are agents of transformation in the world, a process pleasing to
God since it helps restore people from deception. In Valentinianism numbers do not play
this active a role in salvation. Finally, the numerical protology of Valentinianism is far more
complex than that of Monolmus, who avoids any elaborate mythology, and only presents
two "aeons" - Man and Son of Man. The names themselves, one derived from the other,
match this metaphysical simplicity.50 It may be argued that Mono·imus' s seven powers
correspond to the Valentinian aeons, but the little we have of Mono"imus's system suggests
they played a different role, probably a simplified, nonmythological version of the vision
outlined in the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale (see next chapter).
There is a superficial relationship between Mono·imus and Marcus. Both are
interested in the connection between numbers and letter symbolism. Marcus's fascination
with Christ as the episemon parallels Marcus's identification of the iota and its apex with
Man and Son of Man. But Monolmus' s interest lies in an area not discussed by Marcus, the
49 If Mono"imus named the powers and grouped them into syzygies, Hippolytus uncharacteristically
omitted such details.
so Mono"imus's scheme, or a related one, seems to have crept into Epiphanius's account of Kolorbasos
(i.e., Colarbasus; Panarion 35.2.4-12), whom he accuses of giving to the Father the name Man, on the
basis of the Savior saying he was the Son of Man. None of the rest of Epiphanius's discussion on
Colarbasus can be attributed to Mono·imus (or to Colarbasus, for that matter; see chap. 6) since the
system it describes is a variation of classical Valentinianism.
1 17
physical shape of the allograph L, his preferred way to illustrate the nature of God. In this
area, Monolmus has no parallels with the other authors treated in this study. There is a
tradition of allograph symbolism in Greek, and it needs to be studied, but this goes beyond
the scope of this study.51
To describe the relationship between Man, Son of Man, and creation Monolmus uses
primarily mathematical models that, he suggests, illuminate passages in the Bible. We do
not have enough information to locate Mono"imus precisely on the map of religious thought
in the third century, but based on the typology of his number symbolism, Mono"imus shows
the closest affinity to the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale, to which we now tum.
s1 For the symbolism of alphabetic characters see Plutarch, On the E at Delphi, the anonymous On the
Mysteries of the Greek Alphabet (preserved only in Coptic), and assorted grammatical notes on the
derivation of letters' shapes and names, such as found in the anonymous commentary on Dionysius
Thrax (Grammatici Graeci 1 :320.31-323.1 4) and Michael Psellos's Interpretation of the Twenty-Four
Letters.
5
Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale
The ancient tradition regarding Simon "Magus," the Samaritan wonderworker featured in
Acts 8, is complex and extensive. Who was Simon Magus? Was he a gnostic? Scholars agree,
there is no agreement on the answers. Still, they diligently comb the Simonian tradition and
offer various hypotheses. Despite their different ways of reconstructing Simon, all scholars
agree that the doctrines of the late second-century Simonian tradition are quite different
from those of the first.1
The hopes that the Apophasis Megale, a text only Hippolytus quotes, might go back to
Simon were quashed when Fricke} demonstrated that Hippolytus was citing not the
Apophasis Megale but a paraphrase of it.2 Since then, studies of the Paraphrase of the
Apophasis Megale have generally tried to tease out the elusive fragments of an original
Apophasis Megale.3 The Paraphrase itself is of little interest because of how much it postdates
the original Simon. Nevertheless, the Paraphrase, and not the Apophasis Megale, is of central
1 The best recent ful l-length study on Simon Magus is Heintz, Simon "le magician. " More recent but
less helpful, because it does not interact with Heintz's is Haar, Simon Magus. Haar is especially to be
corrected by Heintz concerning the Greco-Roman perspective on magic and the polemical overtones
of Acts 8.5-25.
2 Fricke!, Apophasis Megale.
3 Exceptions to this tendency are Mansfeld, Heresiography in Con text, 1 66-77 and Edwards, "Simon
Magus."
118
119
importance in this study. No other Simonian texts use number symbolism a s the Paraphrase
does.
There is no way to determine the authorship and date of the Paraphrase. Hippolytus' s
account provides the terminus ad quem. The intricacy of thought suggests a late
development of the Simonian tradition, so the early third century would be reasonable.
The Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale purports to be "the book of revelation of
Phone and Onoma from the Epinoia of the great Power, the unbounded."4 This, the opening
line, promises the reader an apocalypse or revelatory text. The Paraphrase shows features
common to the apocalyptic genre, but it is much more. First it is also a commentary on two
texts: the Bible and the Apophasis Megale. This is evident from the number of quotations from
the Bible, its many attempts to reconcile the Pentateuch with a doctrine of syzygies, and the
frequent explanations and interpretations of the Apophasis Megale, the original impetus for
writing. Second, the Paraphrase is a metaphysical treatise, very similar to Mono!mus's. The
author of the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale has a vision of how the world is structured,
and he finds ways to describe that universe based on disparate and seemingly unrelated
texts.
As reported by Hippolytus, the author of the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale
(whom I call deutero-Simon for the sake of convenience) considers the root of the universe
to be the Infinite Power (imEQavroc; ouvaf.Hc;).5 This title, repeated twenty times in
Hippolytus's account, is clearly important to deutero-Simon, who seems to have been the
4 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.9.4, trans. Mansfeld, Heresiography in Context, 173 n 56.
1 20
first to use it.6 The term may be a subtle polemic against the New Testament. At Acts 8.10
Simon is called the Great Power? Although occasionally deutero-Simon describes the
central power as the Great Power, Simon's moniker in Acts, his term of choice is the Infinite
Power.8 Infinite is infinitely greater than Great, and his preference for the former over the
latter suggests that the term was carefully chosen, to show that over Simon, the great power,
there was a higher power to which he was subordinate, thus answering the charge that
Simon thought he was God.9
The Paraphrase also toys with an important part of the ancient Pythagorean tradition.
AnEQlXV'TOs and ix6QLG'TOs (and cognates) were traditionally applied to the Dyad, not to the
Monad.10 Rather, the Monad was thought of as a limiting force, an agent that brought
stability and shape to an unshaped Dyad . In the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale the
opposite is true. It is not the dyad that is "without bound," but the one greatest power
(anEQlXV'TOs bvva1-w;). In contrast, Thought, Name, and Consideration, the second, fourth,
and sixth powers (to be discussed below), all complete or limit their conjugal counterpart.
6 Compare the undatable H ermetic frag. 28, cited by Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian 1 .46.10-19: '0
b£ TQLCYf..tEYLGTOs 'EQflTJs oihw cp8iyynm nEQL E>c:ou . . . . "H ouv 7LVQCXfl Ls, cpJlaiv, imoKE LflEVJl T1J
cpvan KCXL n.fJ VOEQcfJ KOCYf-1.4-J" i'xn yaQ UQXOVTCX E71LKE LflEVOV TOY bJlfllOVQyov Aoyov TOU mVTWV
bwnOTOV, Os flET' EKELVOV 71QWTJl buVCXfl ls, ayEVVJlTOs, lX11EQCXVTOs, a; EKE LVOV 11QOKvtjJaaa KlXL
£ n iKE LT£XL KCXL UQXEL -rwv bL' au-rou bJl fl LOVQYJl 8 iv-rwv, i'an b[ -rov nav-rt:Adov TI Q6yovos KCXL
-riM LOs Kai yovLflOs yvfJmos Yi6s." But the combination of the two words is almost incidental, far
from deutero-Simon's near-technical use. See also Hermetic frag. 26.
7 Ou-r6s i anv fJ bUVCXflls TOU ewv fJ KCXAOV flEVJl Mt:y.iAJl . Literally, "the power of God, so-called
Great."
8 But see Hippolytus, Refu tation ofAll Heresies 6.13.1.13 and 6.18.3.10, where the Infinite Power is
called the Great Power.
9 The very charge Hippolytus makes at ibid. 6.14.1.
1 0 See, e.g., Aristotle, Metaphysics 1081-83, where the aOQLCJTOs bvas is discussed. In the Pythagorean
tradition influenced by Philolaus, it is chiefly "infinites" or "unlimiteds" (anE LQCX) that correspond to
the dyad and even numbers.
121
Thus, in the Paraphrase the dyadic, female powers limit the odd powers, the reverse of what
is found in ancient Pythagoreanism.
The Infinite Power and its twofold nature form the foundation of the system
outlined in the Paraphrase. It dwells in the habitation of man (d:v8QW7Ws) and consists of
two aspects, hidden and visible.11 Fire, the most fundamental element in the universe, is an
example of this. It does not have, as many think, a single nature. Rather, its nature is
twofold; its hidden aspect hides in its visible, and the visible aspect is brought into existence
by the hidden one.12 Deutero-Simon links this polarity to the distinction Aristotle makes
between potentiality and actuality, and Plato's contrast between mental and sense-
perceptible objects. The two aspects of a single nature recurs throughout the Paraphrase, in
terms drawn, not only from sense perception (visible versus invisible, audible versus the
voice itself), but from arithmetic, from the distinction frequently made between numbers
and numerable things.13+ The Infinite Power bestows on man this bipartite structure by

1 z Ibid. 6.9.5-6.
13 Ibid. 6.1 1 .1 . For my interpretation "between numbers and numerable things" I depart from
Marcovich's Greek text at 6.11 .1, which describes the two parts of the fire: Tmo{n:ou bi: ovw<;, w<; bL,
oA[ywv cl71civ, KaTa n)v Llf-!WVa 'WV 11VQO<;, Kat 71lXVTWV n0v < f-tcQWV ainoV,> OVTWV OQaTWV Kai
aOQlXTWV, ivf]xwv Kat < aV>TJXWV, aQL8f-lfJTWV Kai <av>agt8f-1WV, <¢QOVfJaLV EXOVTWV > - WV ain o<; iv
n'j Anocpaan TTJ f-lcyaAT;J KaAci TCAc[wv VOcQWV - [oihw<; W<;] EKamov TWV arrnga(KL)<; amLQWV
< f-tEQWV imbExnaL> i mvofJ8f]vm <W<;> buvaf-lcvov Kai AaAciv Kai bwvocia8aL Kai ivcgyciv, oihw<;
w<;, ¢fJCJLV, 'Ef-lrrcboKAf]<; <Aiyw . Part of the problem with Marcovich's restoration (following
Wendland) is that UVfJXO<;, although sensible as an antonym of EVfJXO<;, is unattested in Greek
literature. His rendition of the third pair, £iQL8f-1fJTWV and < av>aQlef-!WV, d oes not create the clear-cut
opposites he seems to intend, evident in their translation "countables and innumerables" :
presumably one could have countable things that are too numerous to count, such as grains of sand.
The manuscript without ernendation -agL8f-lfJTWV Kai agt8f-1wv - makes sense to me. It appears to
draw from an idea popularized by Moderatus of Gades (frag. 2) and Theon of Smyrna (Mathematics
Useful for Reading Plato 19.18-20.2), and further attested in Plotinus, Ennead 6.6.9: numbers constitute a
metaphysical order higher than countable things. For Theon, the monad is to numbers as the hen is to
122
creating him in "the image and in the likeness," a verse that deutero-Simon interprets in
light of bipartite nature, assigning to "image" and the upper part of man the spirit who
"hovers over the waters."14
The Infinite Power is called the root of the universe.15 Deutero-Simon develops the
idea further, by likening the Power to the tree seen by Nebuchadnezzar.16 The trunk,
branches, and foliage are the visible halfP The purpose of the tree is to produce perfect,
well-shaped fruit that, unlike the other visible elements of the tree, will be put into the
storehouse rather than the fire.18 The fire that consumes the tree is the Infinite Power itself,
which begets the cosmos and the first six roots of the beginning of creation.19 These roots
emerge from the fire as three syzygies: Mind and Thought, Voice and N arne, Reason and
Consideration (figure 8) .2o
countables. See Excursus B l . Note, too, that deutero-Simon's first pair is not so much a contrast of
opposites as of metaphysical superior and dependent, illustrated in the analogy of fire at 6.9.6. Here
at 6.1 1 .1 is a list not of opposites but of correlative pairs. Thus, iviJxwv Kat f1xwv needs no
emendation. A voice, after all, can be treated as the metaphysical superior to things heard, and the
relationship of voice to sound mirrors that of number to countable object.
1 4 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.14.5-6; Gen 1 .2, 26. Hippolytus does not mention what
deutero-Simon assigns to the lower half. Presumably this is the soul.
1 5 Hippolytus, Refutation ofAll Heresies 6 . 9 .5, 6.1 7.3. On root as a theological metaphor in gnosis, see
Attridge and Pagels, "Tripartite Tractate," 21 7-18.
1 7 Ibid. 6.9.9.
1s Ibid. 6.9.8-10. It is noteworthy that the LXX version of Daniel, unlike the Theodotian version (which
generally replaced the LXX version in antiquity), emphasizes a single root being left on the tree. Dan
4.15 LXX: KCI:l OlJTWt; dm 'P[£::av fllCI:V acpcrE ainov EV TlJ yl], onwc; flETCX TWV 8TJQLWV Tilt; yf)c; EV TOLt;
OQWL XOQTOV we; �ouc; VEf111TaL. It seems that this particular Greek translation of Daniel formed the
basis of deutero-Simon's interpretation, which starts with Nebuchadnezzar's tree, but grafts into it
the teachings found elsewhere- especially the New Testament: Mt 3.10, 7.19; Lk 3.9; Gospel of Philip
123-concerning trees. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.9.9
1 9 Hippolytus, Refutation ofAll Heresies 6.12.1.
20 Voice = <l>wviJ; Name = Ovo11a; Reason = Aoywp6c;; Consideration = 'Ev8Df111GLt;.
123
According to deutero-
Simon the entire Infinite Power
resides in these six roots,
potentially, not in actuality,
and the six roots allow a
person to unite with the
Infinite Power in essence,

Figure 8. Partial depiction of the theology of the Paraphrase of the
power, size, and perfection.21 Apophasis Megale. Arrows indicate actions; darkened stems, lines of
generation (illustration by author).
Should a person not utilize the
six powers latent in the soul and be fully formed that person is destroyed and perishes.
According to deutero-Simon, some people in a similar manner ignore the grammatical or
geometrical knowledge latent in their soul, much to their loss.
In addition to the Infinite Power and the six powers there is a seventh power, given a
title consisting of three participial forms of i'crrllf--H, "I stand": i:cn:wc; a'rac; G'rf1GUf1Evoc;P
Each of the participles corresponds to one of three stages in this seventh power (which I call
"Thrice-Standing" for convenience). In "having stood" (i:a'rwc;) it resided above, in the
unbegotten power. In "standing" (a'rac;) it is begotten below in the flow of waters, in the
image of the Infinite Power. It "will be standing" (G'rf1GUf1EVoc;) above, alongside the
Infinite Power.23 This seventh power, then, unlike the other six, begins in the Infinite Power,
sojourns in the lower world as an image of the Infinite Power, and then ends at the side of
21 Ibid. 6.12.3.
22 For textual parallels for this phrase in Hippolytus and other works see Marcovich's ed., 214, n. to
line 5. See also Williams, Immovable Race, passim.
23 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.1 7.1 .
124
the Infinite Power. Throughout the Paraphrase the Thrice-Standing and the Infinite Power
are so closely identified they are sometimes indistinguishable. Nonetheless, Thrice-Standing
is an entity distinct from its source, Infinite Power.24+
The Thrice-Standing acts on behalf of the Infinite Power by descending to creation
and waiting to be perfected in beings so as to bring them back to the Infinite Power. All six
powers have the Infinite Power latent within them, but the seventh power, the Thrice-
Standing, perfects their work by raising to the side of the Infinite Power persons who have
been perfected.25 Because of its special mission, the Thrice-Standing is the subject of a
number of cryptic or paradoxical epithets, and possibly even worship.26 The Thrice-
Standing, deutero-Simon says, explains the saying, "I and you are one; before me, you; after
you, I."27 This single power is "divided up and down, begetting itself, growing itself,
seeking itself, finding itself, being its own mother, its own father, its own sister, its own
24 At ibid. 6.12.3.10 the Thrice-Standing seems to be conflated with the Infinite Power: Elvm bi: iv Tat�
[E, (>(i:,m� w:tnm� 7Hiaav OflOlJ TrlV an:iQavwv bvvafl LV bvva v E L, ovK EVEQYE L£;x, ilvnva an:iQavwv
bvvaflLV < dval> ¢TJat TOV l' an�na < O"TaVTa> UTY]UOflEVov. But this identification depends upon
Marcovich's insertion of <dval> and < UTavTa>. Note that the text omits the second "standing,"
( <O"TavTa>) the one stage when the Thrice-Standing is away from the Infinite Power. Possibly the verb
to be understood here is not Elvm but EXELV, an emendation that would highlight the Thrice
Standing's two stages that are in the presence of the Infinite Power. At 6.14.2, however, deutero
Simon identifies the Infinite Power with the seventh power, which he calls the Thrice-Standing at
6.13.1.9. Possibly 6.14.2 depends upon a passage in theApophasis Megale that calls the Thrice-Standing
"infinite" by virtue of its special relationship to the Infinite Power. At any rate, Refu tation of All
Heresies 6.17.1 clearly articulates the distinction: "having stood" is in the unbegotten power,
"standing" is in its image, and "will be standing" will be alongside the Infinite Power. At 6.14.3 is
repeated the idea that the seventh power, another epithet for the Thrice-Standing, exists in the Infinite
Power. On balance, then, it seems that the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale d oes not conflate the
Thrice-Standing with the Infinite Power.
26 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 2.25.2.
27 See Marcovich, 222-23, n. to line 10 for numerous close, but inexact, parallels in other ancient texts.
125
m arriage (crui;;uyoc;), its own daughter, its own son."28 Paradoxes of this type are normally
reserved in other systems for the One or the Monad, but here they describe a power that
emanates from, and returns to, the Infinite Power!9
Toward the end of Hippolytus's account of the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale,
deutero-Simon explains more fully - and more cryptically - the internal structure of the
three syzygies.30 He says that for all the aeons there are two "shoots" (7TaQa<puabcc;), an
extension of the tree analogy.31 These shoots or branches come out of one root, the power
called Silence.32 In the first syzygy, the great power that is in the upper half is termed Mind,
and the bottom half is called Thought, the female part.33 The upper and lower halves are to
each other as are male to female and governor to begetter. The gap between the two is filled
with "ungraspable air," and it has neither source nor boundary, which suggests that the gap
is the Infinite Power itself.34 The Father- the name here for the seventh power, the Thrice-
Standing -nourishes in this gap all things that have source or boundary.35 This Father, just
like the Infinite Power, is an androgynous power, and exists in the Monotes, from which
Thought proceeds.

29 Texts from a number of gnostic traditions refer to a standing god or other entity, but these beings
function somewhat differently from each other and from the Paraphrase. For more on this theme, see
Williams, Immovable Race, 37-38, 57.
30 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.18.2-7.
3l I take as objective the genitives in bvo E LOL TWQet¢vabEC; n0v o;\wv aiwvwv.
32 Note now the late introduction of the classic Valentinian name for the first aeon.
33 Ibid. 6.18.3.
34 The Infinite Power has no limit (anEQetVTO�), and the gap has no limit (�iyrE niQa� [xovra). Ibid.
6.18.3.13.
3s Ibid. 6.18.4.
126
This account of the generation of the powers is confusing. It starts off with three
entities- the one root with two shoots is the Father with Mind and Thought. But it then
describes Thought as proceeding from the Father, as if Father and Mind were the same and
there are only two entities. Further, Silence's role in generating the syzygies is mentioned,
but never elaborated . Despite this confusion, it is apparent that deutero-Simon sees the
generation of the syzygies as being organic and internal to the Infinite Power. The male half
of each syzygy is alone, although he internally possesses the female part.36 He becomes
"first" only after he yields the "second" through an act of self-introspection that reveals his
Thought. The act is described as the Father "issuing forth himself from himself," whereby
he makes manifest his Thought. This second figure now calls the first "Father," and hides
him in herself, and the union creates an androgynous being: power and Thought, with the
power as the upper half and the Thought as the lower.37 This explains a phrase, presumably
from the Apophasis Megale: "Being one, two are found" (£v ov bvo EVQLaKETat). The male
and female have a spermadic-monadic relationship (table 1 ) . The male first subsumes the
female, then the female surrounds the male.
This description of the powers depends upon terms and analogies drawn from
Platonism and its mathematics. There is the pervasive idea of emanation from an ineffable
One, and return to that unity. There is also a description of the generation of numbers,
symbolized by the deutero-Simon' s powers. Moderatus of Cades' definition of number,
widely accepted in the ancient world, was that number was either a collection of monads
(auG'rllfJIX fJOVabwv), or the advance of a multitude starting out from the monad and a
36 Ibid. 6.18.5.
37 Ibid . 6.18.6. Here bvvapLc; seems to be equated with Dan')Q or Nove;.
127
return when abating into the monad. Thomassen has shown that Moderatus' s description of
quantity emerging from being underlies this very simple idea, that the dyad emerges from
the internal life of the monad.38 The notion informs most philosophical considerations of the
generation of number, for example, Plotinus's complex discussion of the ontology of
number and multiplicity. Much later, but still in line with the tradition, Proclus compares
the monad and dyad to the point and line. He considers the generation of a line from a point
an apt illustration of how the dyad can emerge from, yet still be part of, the monad.39 Many
other examples could be given. Like Proclus, deutero-Simon brings other metaphors -in
this case, fire, trees, and powers - to bear upon the philosophy of number.
The numerically inspired doctrine of syzygies is central to the Paraphrase's exegesis
of Scripture. Deutero-Simon brings to the creation account of Genesis his doctrine of the six
powers and the Thrice-Standing, albeit with uneven results. To begin, he assigns to each of
the six powers key parts of creation: Mind and Thought are heaven and earth. Just as Mind
oversees and guards his consort, Thought, who, in tum, receives his seed, so the masculine
heaven looks down upon earth, which receives that which heaven sends down. Voice and
Name are the sun and moon, and Reason and Consideration are the air and water.40
He then mentions the Thrice-Standing, calling it the seventh power and thereby
associates it with the seventh day, "the cause of the good things praised by Moses," who
said, "very good" (Kcv\a ;\lav).41 The only time "very good" is used in Genesis 1 is at the
end of the sixth day, to summarize the entire six days' worth of creation. Days one through
38 Spiritual Seed, 274.

39 Proclus, Commentary on Euclid Defs. 2-3.
40 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.13.
41 Ibid. 1 .13.1 . 1 0; Gen 1 .31 LXX.
128
five are called merely "good."42 Deutero-Simon's point seems to be that the phrase Ka'l"a
A lav distinguishes the six days of creation from the Sabbath, which perfects the goodness of
the prior days. So too the Thrice-Standing is the cause of goodness in the six powers.
Deutero-Sirnon continues his extended comparison of creation and the powers, but with
uneven results. He says that the three days that occur before the creation of the sun and
moon (i.e., Voice and Name), refer to the first syzygy (Mind and Thought) and the seventh
d ay of creation.43 It is unclear how the seventh Power, earlier assigned to the Sabbath, can
now consistently represent one of the first three days of creation.
He applies number symbolism to other Biblical texts. For instance, he differentiates
the garden of paradise from Eden, in line with his tendency to identify binary pairs.44 The
garden of paradise is a womb, as Isaiah says, "I am the one who fashioned you in the womb
of your mother."45 Eden is a membrane, afterbirth, and navel, since "a river proceeding out
of Eden waters paradise."46 The four springs that flow out of Eden resemble the four
channels that are attached to the embryo. Two of these convey breath (or spirit) and two,
blood.47 The four rivers of Genesis further symbolize how the embryo only has four of the
42 Gen 1 .4, 8, 10, 12, 1 8, 2 1 .

4 3 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.14.2.
44 Ibid. 6.14.7-8.
4s Ibid. 6.14.7, citing Is 44.2, 24.
46 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.14.8, citing Gen 2.10.
47 See Pouderon, "Notice d'Hippolyte." Here, deutero-Simon integrates his theology with common
beliefs about the fetus. In other parts of the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale the breath/spirit is
seen as the higher aspect in av8Qwnoc; (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.14.6), and the seventh
power itself, as the image of the Infinite Power (ibid. 6.14.4). The blood is fire, the sources of things
begotten (ibid. 6.17.4). Just as the root of all bifurcates into shoots (ibid . 6.18.2-7, discussed above), so
does the blood, into semen in men and milk in women (ibid . 6.17.6).
129
five senses- sight, hearing, smell, and taste.48+ These four senses, in this, the standard order
of the senses, are alluded to by the titles and content of each of the first four books of the
Pentateuch. Genesis is sight, Exodus is hearing, Leviticus is smell, and Numbers is taste.49
The fifth sense, touch, is addressed by the title of the fifth book, Deuteronomy, which is
geared for formed children in order to confirm and summarize their other four senses. Thus,
deutero-Simon synthesizes into his theory of sense perception two very different Biblical
numbers, four (the number of rivers in paradise) and five (the number of books in the
Pentateuch). It may seem a bit forced to say that the overall message of Exodus is about
hearing. But for deutero-Simon, the preservation of the orders of the five senses and the
Torah are the important thing, not the establishment of some kind of natural
correspondence between them.
48 At ibid. 6.15.1 .3 the manuscript reads: OQCWLV, aKor'Jv, m¢QTJOLV, YElJOLV Kctl a¢i]v. Marcovich
renders it: OQctOLV, [aKor']v,] yn:Jmv, oo¢QTJOW Ka.L a¢i]v . But his emended text contravenes the order
of the senses presented at 6.15.2-6.16.4: sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. This latter order
follows exactly that of Chrysippus, frags. 827, 836 (SVF 2 :226--27), Aetius, Placita 4.9.10 ( Stobaeus,
=
Eclogae 1 .50.27 [Hense and Wachsmuth 1 :476]), and others (see, e.g., Lampros, KaTaitoyoc:, 2:17, no.
4212.72). The same order is preserved in the independent but parallel accounts at Irenaeus,Against
Heresies 1 .18.1 and Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 5 .9.16-18, where the first four are assigned, in
that order, to the four rivers. Because these parallel texts omit touch so as to create a list of four
senses, it is likely that the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale does so as well at 6.15.1 .3. My intuition
is justified by an observation made much earlier by Salles-Dabadie, Recherche, 28 n. 1 7, the only
modern editor to seclude Ka.L a¢i]v: in deutero-Simon's system the fifth book of the Torah is called
Deuteronomy in order to supply to an already formed child - presumably after birth - touch, the
capstone of the senses (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.16.3): L'l.cvTEQOVOflLOV bi: T<J 7lE fl7lTOV
(3tf3itlov, OnEQ, ¢TJOLV, EOTL 7TQOc; Tilv a¢ilv TOU mni\a.OflEVOV nmb[ov YEYQctflflEVOV. WOnEQ yaQ i]
a¢il '[(X vno TWV aAi\wv a.ia8f]aEWV OQct8EVTa. 8tyouoa. ava.KE¢a.i\a.tOUTa.L Ka.L (3Ef3a.toi, OKi\TjQOV i]
yi\[OXQOV, i] 8EQf10V i] 1./JVXQOV boK L flaaa.aa, ovTwc; TO 7lE fl7lTOV (3 L(3i\[ov TOU VOflOV
ava.KE¢a.i\a.[wo[c; ian TWV 7TQO a.inov yQa.¢ivTWV TEOOlXQWV. Thus, Kctl a¢i]v at 6.15.1 .3 was
inadvertently inserted at the list's end, where many such scribal intrusions occur, and the text should
read OQa.OLV, aKor']v, oo¢QTJOLV, <Kctl YEUOLV> [Ka.L a¢i]v] . For departures from the canonical order of
the senses, see below, p. 191 n. 34.
49 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.15.2-6.16.3.
130
Monolmus also attempts to understand patterns of five and ten in the Pentateuch in
anthropological terms. Whereas deutero-Simon connects sense perception to the four rivers
and the five books of Moses, Monoi:mus connects the tens in Scripture to Aristotle's ten
categories and the shape of the iota. Monoi:mus and deutero-Simon are similar in other
respects. Monolmus calls the 1-llcx 1-1ovac; "many-faced and ten-thousand-eyed and ten-
thousand-named" ( noAvnQ6awnoc; KaL !-lVQL0!-11-la'roc; KaL !-lVQLWVV!-loc;); the Apophasis
Megale seemingly says the Son is "many named, ten-thousand eyed, incomprehensible"
( noAvwvvl-loc; 1-lVQL0!-1!-la'Wc; aKa't"aArJ71't"Oc;) .50 Both deutero-Simon and Monolmus attempt
to relate the seven days of creation to seven powers latent in a transcendent realm (termed
Infinite Power in deutero-Simon and Man in Monolmus). These powers emerge first as a set
of six, and then the seventh follows. Monolmus' s system does not teach the syzygies found
in deutero-Simon' s, but their shared arrangement of the seven powers in groups of six and
one is striking, resembling the core of the Pleroma taught by Hippolytus's Valentinians.
Deutero-Simon's syzygies resemble those of the Valentinians.51 But unlike the
syzygies in the models of V alentinianism reported by Irenaeus, all the syzygies in the
Paraphrase emanate from the Infinite Power. In Valentinianism, one syzygy begets another.
There is no hint in the Paraphrase of a doctrine of Ogdoads, Decads, Dodecads, or
Triacontads. In contrast, the Paraphrase emphasizes the number seven, for instance in the
role of the Thrice-Standing, who is ranked seventh. The Valentinian emphasis on pairs,
Ogdoads, and Tricontads is so strong that the number seven is not given much significance,
50 Ibid. 8.12.7, 5.9.4. "Seemingly" because this phrase occurs in Hippolytus's discussion of the
"Phrygians," but just prior to an explicit reference to theApophasis Megale. Hippolytus may have
introduced the phrase in anticipation of the section to come.
5 1 See Marcovich's ed., 217 n. 7 for extensive comparisons.
131
except as a symbol of the Demiurge. Further, the deutero-Simon's naming scheme differs
from the V alentinians' . The three male powers describe human faculties (Mind, Voice,
Reason), and the names of the three female powers are the product or result of their male
counterpart (Thought, Name, Consideration). There is no direct connection apparent with
the various Valentinian naming schemes, even though Valentinians would probably have
found deutero-Simon's names understandable.
Overall, the typology of the number symbolism of the Paraphrase of the Apophasis
Megale stands somewhere between that of Mono1mus and that of the Valentinians, but
closer to the former than the latter. There is nothing to suggest that the Paraphrase depends
on either one for its number symbolism. Its independence makes clear at least one trend in
late second- and early third-century Christianity: various groups used their own kinds of
number symbolism to depict their own widely different ideas about the interpretation of the
Bible and about the structure of the divine realm.
6
Colarbasus
Colarbasus (KoAaQ�aaoc;; alternately, KoA6Q�aaoc;) was a contemporary of Marcus.1 Some
ancient sources call Colarbasus a follower of Marcus;2 others, an associate.3 Epiphanius
claims Colarbasus followed Ptolemy the Valentinian, which matches the general order given
by Irenaeus, whose narrative does not specify where in the line of succession Colarbasus
should be placed.4 Epiphanius probably misread Hippolytus, who accuses Colarbasus of
pursuing the doctrines of Ptolemy the astronomer. Theodoret's entry for the Colorbasians is
separated from his entry on Marcus by three chapters, suggesting that Theodoret saw no
direct line of influence. Despite these differences, all these sources, including Tertullian,
place Colarbasus in the Valentinian school.5
Marcus says that the Monotes is the womb and receptacle of Colarbasus' s Silence.6
Forster analyzes this puzzling statement and argues that Colarbasus probably influenced

2 Filastrius, Book of Different Heresies 54 [15]; Epiphanius, Panarion 35.1 .1 .
3 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.1; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.5, 6.55.2-3; pseudo
Tertullian, Against All Heresies 5; Epiphanius, Panarion pinax to 34, 35. 1 .2.
4 Epiphanius, Panarion 35.1.1; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.1.
5 Tertullian, Against the Valentinians 4.2.
1 32
133
Marcus, inspiring especially the psephy in his theology? Although Forster's argument is
plausible, I do not think it likely since the rest of the tradition places Colarbasus alongside of
or after Marcus. There is little or no biographical information on Colarbasus; and the little of
his teaching that can be reconstructed cannot be proved to have influenced, or to have
depended upon, Marcus's. It seems to me wisest to consider Colarbasus merely a
contemporary of Marcus. Like Marcus, Colarbasus developed his own school, and thereby
became prominent enough in the Valentinian movement to draw criticism from the
orthodox.8
Since we have no biographical details of his life, Colarbasus' s provenance can best be
guessed at through his name. At first it seems Semitic, a combination of ?:J and :n� . This
would give his name the meaning "all four," referring to his interest in the Tetraktys. This
was suggested first by Heumann in 1743, to dismiss the idea that Colarbasus was more than
a literary creation. Although Heumann's skepticism has failed to win support, his
etymology of the name has been more influential. Forster, however, has shown that the
name and its variations can be traced through inscriptions to Cilicia.9 I agree with Forster,
yet to identify Colarbasus as a Cilician does not indicate where he worked and traveled,
since the name is attested as far west as Rome, and as far east as Mopsuestia.10 To put
7 Marcus Magus, 1 64-73.

8 In addition to the frequency with which Colarbasus appears in ancient Christian antiheretical
literature (see nn. 1-5, above), there is the report of an ancient treatise directed against Colarbasus's
school. See Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus ? 262 n. 20.
9 Forster, Marcus Magus, 1 69-70, with nn. 8-9. To be added to Forster's references to attestation of
Kolarbasis is SEG 38:1 486. The name may be derived from the city Ko;\v�Qa.aad)(;;, tentatively
identified by Bean and Mitford, Journeys in Rough Cilicia, 69-71 with Ayasofya, in the western part of
Rough Cilicia.
w Rome: IG 14.1685; IGUR 612. Mopsuestia: Heberdy and Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, 37.
1 34
Colarbasus in Rome or Asia Minor would probably not be too far off the mark, although
Egypt cannot be ruled out, either.11
Irenaeus' s offhand reference to Colarbasus' s Silence remains cryptic. It seems to
charge Colarbasus with speculating on the aeons, particularly the second, but Irenaeus does
not explain. An Armenian fragment of Irenaeus, said to be a discourse against Colorbasus
and his circle, accuses him of dividing Jesus from Christ, of assigning them separate roles
and origins, that is, of teaching classical Valentinian doctrinesP Later sources also portray
him as a Valentinian, but they are not consistent with each other in their details. Epiphanius
ascribes to Colarbasus, apparently arbitrarily, the system found in Irenaeus, Against Heresies
1 .1 2.3-4, fusing it with the Man-Son of Man system taught by Monolmus.13 Theodoret
follows Epiphanius' s lead, but restricts the Colorbasians' teaching to the system found at
Against Heresies 1 . 12.4.1 4
On the other hand, pseudo-Tertullian and Filastrius state that Colarbasus' s doctrine
concerned the letters of the alphabet and numbers. They do not assign to him doctrines
concerning the Valentinian Pleroma. Hippolytus concurs and presents Colarbasus as the
most prominent of a number of people who "tried to expound religious piety through
measures and numbers."15 Hippolytus then outlines in considerable detail a system of
11 See Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus ? 262 n. 20, and references there to conjectures on an Egyptian
provenance.
12
Frag. 7, at Patrologia Orientalis 12 (191 9): 741-44; frag. 1 1 in Jordan's ed., 19, 1 50.
13
Epiphanius, Panarion 35.1-2.
1 4 Compendium of Heretical Fables 1 .12.
1 5 Refutation of All Heresies 4.13.
135
numerological prognostication.16 Although Colarbasus is not explicitly named as the author
and main proponent of this prognostication, it is implied.
Our concern here is not with Colarbasus' s Pleroma. Even if he really were a
Valentinian, his Pleromatic structure would have resembled the systems already discussed
in chapter two. Rather, I treat here Hippolytus' s account of Colarbasus' s technique of
numerological prognostication. This is the earliest discussion we have of this system, and it
appears frequently in Greek manuscripts, usually in anonymous form (see excursus D).
Hippolytus' s discussion amounts to a set of rules used to predict outcomes of
combat. One uses the normal conventions of isopsephy (see excursus C) and assigns to
letters with values in the tens and hundreds their corresponding value in units. Thus, for
example, YJ, n, and w - the numerals 8, 80, and 800- can be reduced mod 10 to a value of
eight. The eight is called their root ( nu8!Jr'Jv)F You then take a person's name, find its roots,
and add them together. Aya!JEflVWV, for instance, is reduced to a ' + y ' + a ' + b ' + E ' + b ' + E '
'
+ YJ + E ' = ,\� ' (1 + 3 + 1 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 5 + 8 + 5 = 36).18 This sum is also reduced to its roots: ;\.� '
= y ' + � , = 8 ' (36 = 3 + 6 = 9). Nine can be reduced no further.19 A second name is then
taken - Hippolytus's example is "EK'rWQ, Agamemnon's adversary -and the same

'
procedure is followed: E ' + W + y ' + YJ + a ' = L8 ' = a ' + 8 ' = L' = a ' (5 + 2 + 3 + 8 + 1 = 1 9 = 1 + 9
= 10 = 1), or, more simply and in modem mathematical notation, 19 mod 9 = 1.2° After
providing one more example of how to reduce a name (llcX'rQOKAoc; = 34 mod 9 = 7),
1 6 Ibid. 4.14.
1 7 Ibid. 4.14.1-3.
1s Ibid. 4.14.3-4.
19 Ibid. 4.14.5.
zo Ibid. 4.14.6-7.
1 36
Hippolytus mentions a variation and two exceptions. The variation (var. a) on the system
follows similar rules, but reduces the value of the names mod 7.21 One of the exceptions (exc.
a) states that a letter used twice (and only twice) should be counted only once, so that e.g.,
Tia'rQOK/\oc; should be reckoned as if it were Tia'rQOKi\c;.Z2 One other exception (ex c. b)
appears to be that if two letters share the same root one should be dropped . But
Hippolytus's example, I:aQnf]bwv, is confusing. He advocates dropping the w ' since r] ' is of
the "same value" (iaobuva!-!Ei:v) and because doublets shouldn't be counted . But the rule
seems not to apply to the n ' (also a root of 8) or to the pair a' and Q' (each with root 1).23
With this procedure, it is possible to predict who beats whom. The psephic values of
the names of two opponents are calculated and reduced mod 9 . If one is odd and the other
even, the higher number wins.24 If both are odd, or both are even, the smaller number wins.
Hippolytus furnishes examples. I:aQnf]bwv mod 9 = 2 (2 + 1 + 1 + 8 + 8 + 4 + 0 [ex c. b] + 5 = 29
mod 9 = 2) and Tia'rQoK/\oc; mod 9 = 9 (8 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 7 + 2 + 3 + 0 [ex c. a] + 2 = 27 mod 9 = 9),
so the latter beats the former since 9 beats 2.25 So too, A'lac; mod 9 = 4 and "EK'rWQ mod 9 = 1,
so Aias beats Hektor.26 In the contest between Ai\[l;avbQoc; and MEv[i\aoc; (mod 9 = 9; one E
is dropped [exc. a]), the former is assigned the proper name TiaQLc; (mod 9 = 4), so Menelaos
beats Paris since 9 beats 4.27 "A!-!uKoc; (mod 9 = 2) loses to Tioi\vbwKf]c; (mod 9 = 7; drop one
21 Ibid. 4.14.8-10.
22 Ibid. 4.14.12.
23 Ibid. 4.14.14. It is unclear whether the problem rests with Hippolytus, his source, or a later scribe.
24 Ibid. 4.14.13.
2s Ibid. 4.14.13; Homer, Iliad 16.419-683.

26 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.15; Homer, Iliad 7.181-305.
27 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.16; Homer, Iliad 3.340-82.
1 37
u [exc. a]).28 Atac;; (mod 9 == 4; drop one a [exc. a]) wrestles and beats Obuacnuc;; (mod 9 == 8;
drop one u but retain all three sigmas since exc. a applies only to doublets). Hippolytus
objects to this result and wonders whether Odysseus's proper name has really been used,
since according to Homer the opposite happened.29 AxtAAc uc;; (mod 9 == 4; drop one i\ [exc.
a]) beats "EK'fWQ (mod 9 == 1);30+ AxtAA cuc;; (mod 9 == 4) beats Aa'fEQOna'ioc;; (mod 9 3;
==
inexplicably, the doubled a and o are dropped [exc. a] but not the doubled a)f1 and
M Ev[i\aoc;; (mod 9 = 9; one E dropped [exc. a]) beats Ev¢oQ�oc;; (mod 9 == 8; one o dropped
[ex c. a ]).32
Along with the use of mod 7, Hippolytus lists four more variations. Some use mod 7
and only on vowels (var. b).33 Others separate the vowels, semivowels, and consonants and
decide each contest independently (var. c). Others randomly reassign numerical values to
the letters so that, e.g., n == 5 and E, 4 (var. d). In the last variation the user first determines
==
how many times in the past the opponents have met. If this is their second time, you remove
the first letter and recalculate; if the third contest, you remove the first two letters, and so
forth (var. e).34 These variant systems presumably belong to Colarbasus's successors.35
28 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.17; Homer, Iliad 23.778.

29 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.17; Homer, Iliad 23.700-37 and 752-79.
30 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.18; Homer, Iliad 22. Marcovich needlessly emends to
Axu\n)c:;.
31 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.18; Homer, Iliad 21 .136-99.
32 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.18; Homer, Iliad 1 7.43-60.

33 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.19, also probably alluded to at 4.44.3.
34 Ibid. 4.14.20. My interpretation of this convoluted passage depends on taking on)n:QOV
(4.14.20.104) as adverbial and not an accusative, a case that cannot be reconciled as the object of
ayavii:;wvmL. M{JTEQOV is adverbial at ibid. 1 .2.6 ( 4 .51 .4), 4.28.8, 4.33.3, 4.51 .4, and 5.15.3.
=
3s The ETEQOL b£ of ibid. 4.13. 1 .
1 38
This is the earliest datable specimen of Greek numerology. Of the many types of
Greek numerological prognostication, Colarbasus' s system is well attested in dozens of
manuscripts, dated as late as the nineteenth century.36 Many times the technique is prefaced
by a letter from Pythagoras to Telauges, yet the examples given include those found in
Hippolytus' s account. The practice was widespread, and involved a bewildering array of
techniques and tables (see excursus D). Prognostication was not the only way to use psephy.
Hippolytus reports the common practice of wearing an amulet inscribed by the name God
(8E6s), since its psephic value, reduced mod 9, is 5, an odd (and therefore beneficial)
number. Another practice uses the same method to explain why a certain plant, tied around
a patient, restores him.37 Therefore, this kind of psephy could be used in magical techniques,
not just prognostication.
Is Colarbasus the inventor of this tradition? Is he the author of the pseudepigraphal
letter from Pythagoras (see excursus D)? Both suggestions are plausible, but cannot be
demonstrated. Isopsephy first emerges as a literary phenomenon in the first century (see
excursus C). Some time elapsed before isopsephy could be used widely enough to use it for
prognostic techniques. The 160s and 1 70s would be as good a time as any for the
development of isopsephic prognostication. We cannot trace its origin to Colarbasus
specifically, but if his association with Marcus was more than casual, he probably had a role
in its propagation. The frequent appearance of astrological and psephic techniques in
advanced forms of Valentinianism suggest that this particular Christian movement was
fertile ground for numerology like Colarbasus' s.
36 E.g., CCAG 1 0:27, cod. 1 1 (Athen. 1350), f. 2. The technique is still found in modern Greece.
139
Despite Hippolytus' s criticism, that Colarbasus tried to establish "religion"
(8wa£j3nav) yet wound up a heresiarch, there is little in Hippolytus's report to connect
Colarbasus to any kind of theological system.38 Marcus depends upon gematria, but it is not
used to predict the future. Colarbasus' prognostication, however, is designed for exactly
these mundane ends, not for elevating readers' minds to contemplate higher realms of
existence. But it would be hasty to conclude that, because no theological system is outlined
in Hippolytus' s extract, Colarbasus could not have been the religious figure depicted in the
heresiological tradition. The same reasoning could be used to show that, purely on the basis
of his Theology of Arithmetic, Anatolius of Laodicea was not a bishop, or that Julius
Africanus - the author of the Kestoi, a collection of miscellaneous notes on a variety of
topics, including magic- was not a Christian. Both were devout Christians, yet both were
also interested in other topics. Their examples show that some religious writers could be
expected to compile handbooks somewhat tangential to their chief interests. The 8c6c;
amulet, along with the many other examples of religious Greek numerical prognostication
listed in excursus D, show that isopsephy could be easily incorporated into a religious
system. There might be something to the report that Colarbasus was a Valentinian, but it
cannot be demonstrated.
38 Ibid. 4.13.1 .3, 4.15.2.9.
7
Irenaeus
Born in the early second century, Irenaeus spent his youth in Asia Minor, where he listened
to the teaching of Polycarp of Smyrna (d. 156), the famous martyred bishop who, in tum,
reportedly learned at the feet of the apostle John.1 Irenaeus's early interaction with Polycarp
and other elders from the orthodox churches shaped his career as a priest and bishop in
Lyons, where he remained from the 170s until the end of his life, probably around 200. His
tenure there was marked by his popularity among Gallic Christians who suffered
persecution, and by his attempts to reconcile the Roman church with other Christians who
held to a different dating of Easter. Little else is known of his life, aside from what Eusebius
reports.2
Only two of Irenaeus's many works are preserved complete, Against Heresies and
Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. The latter, a catechetical work that crosses over into
apologetics, is of less concern to this study than the former, a five-book refutation of
heresies, Valentinianism and Marcionism in particular. Also preserved are various
fragments from Irenaeus's letters, sermons, and treatises. A title of one of these treatises, On

2 See DECL, s.v. "Irenaeus"; Eusebius, Church History 5.4, 7-8, 20, 26.
140
141
the Ogdoad, now lost, attests to Irenaeus's unflagging opposition to Valentinianism. It was
directed against a certain Florinus, who broke away from the church in Rome and later
joined Valentinian circles.3 Although we no longer have the treatise, its main arguments
may be preserved in Against Heresies, our main source for assembling and assessing
Irenaeus's critique of Valentinian number symbolism and his constructive approach to
numbers in theology.
Most scholarly treatments of Valentinianism attempt to read Irenaeus out of Against
Heresies so as to achieve as uncontaminated a view of the system as possible. The ultimate
goal, a bias-free view of Valentinianism, is utopic, but the approach taken is useful since it
tries to read a theological movement in its own terms, not that of its opponents. For much
the same reason, in earlier chapters of this study I have only briefly discussed Irenaeus' s
critique, and have tried to uncover the ideas and terminology native to Valentinianism. But
to eliminate Irenaeus from his writings is to leave incomplete the picture of Valentinian
number symbolism. He too must be understood on his own terms. To understand both his
critique of Valentinian theological arithmetic and his alternative use of numbers in theology
is to provide the means for understanding better what, if anything, he tampered with in his
representation of Valentinianism. Thus, to understand better Irenaeus' s number symbolism
is to understand better the Valentinians' .
Setting aside the rhetorical flourishes expected in theological polemic-his sarcasm
and his accusation that Valentinianism derives from Pythagoreanism and paganism - there
are four general theses Irenaeus advances against the Valentinians' use of numbers: the
3 Eusebius preserves the closing words of the treatise: Church History 5.20.2.
1 42
aeons in their Pleroma are inconsistently numbered; their doctrine makes claims that
depend upon the changing, culture-bound customs of language and numeration; their
number symbolism does not correspond to the structures of the created, natural world; and
their method of appropriating the rule of faith, Scripture in particular, is faulty. While
pursuing these four lines of attack, Irenaeus promotes some basic principles about theology
and exegesis, both to discredit Valentinianism and to articulate core principles of the faith
held by the churches around the world. These key principles explain Irenaeus' s theology
and exegesis, both of which he frequently pursues in Against Heresies with little reference to
the heresies tha t first prompted the formulation of the principles. In this meandering,
Irenaeus never completely forgets Valentinus, Ptolemy, Marcus, Marcion, and the rest, but
in many places, particularly in books three through five, he develops ideas about numbers
and theology that go beyond his immediate concern with these specific heresies. Irenaeus' s
constructive use of number symbolism provides the examples we need to see how
consistent he was in his critique of V alentinian number symbolism. Does Irenaeus fall by the
same sword he uses against the Valentinians? Why or why not? I address these questions at
the end of this chapter.
IRENAEUS'S CRITIQUE
I have already suggested that we should bar Irenaeus's sarcasm against Valentinianism as a
criticism of substance. Nevertheless, his colorful insults help explain his substantive points.4
He ridicules the Valentinian Tetrad by constructing his own out of an emptiness, a gourd, a
4 Besides the examples of sarcasm listed here, see below, p. 389 n . 9.
1 43
cucumber, and a rnelon.5 The emanation of fruits, Irenaeus argues, is just as plausible as that
of aeons, and they are equally arbitrary. Irenaeus also associates his opponents with pagans
whose teaching and habits contradict Christian doctrines. While reporting Marcus's system,
Irenaeus accuses him of trying to preach something more mystical than the other systems
do, of achieving new mystical heights by breaking down everything into numbers.
According to Irenaeus, they say "everything derives existence from a monad and a dyad,"
clearly Pythagorean terrninology.6 The Pythagorean slur occurs again in book two, where
Irenaeus attributes the Valentinian tendency to translate everything into numbers as corning
from the Pythagoreans? His logic: they were the first to make numbers the first principle of
everything, the first to make even and odd the first principle of numbers, and the first to
make odd and even the basis of sensible and intelligible things. Even numbers are the basis
for underlying substance (in Aristotelian terms, a primary substance), whereas odd
numbers are the basis for intellection and essence.8 The difference between even and odd
resembles the parts of a statue, which has both substance (equivalent to even numbers) and
form (odd numbers). This is the sort of model, Irenaeus says, the Valentinians apply to
beings outside the Plerorna. They (the Pythagoreans or the Valentinians - the text is vague)
claim that by knowing "what was first assumed," a person seeks out the beginnings of
intellection and in exhaustion races to that which is one and indivisible. This one - the iiv -
s Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 1 .4 .

6 Ibid. 1 .16. 1 . See also excursus B.
7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.14.6, upon which the rest of this paragraph is based.
8 The preserved text is muddled here. My paraphrase follows the conjecture of Rousseau and
Doutreleau, 2.1 (SC 293): 260.
1 44
is the principle of everything and the basis of all generation.9 From it come the Dyad, Tetrad,
and Pentad, which terms the Valentinians use to describe the Plerorna and Depth. This
Pythagorean number symbolism undergirds the doctrine of the syzygies. Marcus, boasting
about the great novelty of his invention, speaks about the tetraktys of Pythagoras as if it
were the origin and mother of everything.
In this section of book two, Irenaeus portrays the Valentinians not only as a
derivative of Pythagoreans. He suggests they are a pastiche of Horner, Hesiod, Dernocritus,
Epicurus, Anaxagoras, Ernpedocles, Plato, Aristotle, and the Cynics, as well as the
Pythagoreans. This approach differs from that taken by Hippolytus, who establishes one-to-
one correspondences between various philosophers and heresiarchs, to demonstrate that the
heretics and pagans have parallel lines of succession.10 Irenaeus, however, links
Valentinianisrn not just to one but to all the various strains of philosophy and Hellenism. To
cap the insult, he claims that his opponents draw inspiration from the pagan pantheon of
twelve gods, and make them images of the Dodecad.n Because Irenaeus does not quote
verbatim from the Valentinians here, it is impossible to tell exactly what kind of
relationship, if any, the Valentinians saw between the Dodecad and the gods, and whether it
was really as sinister as Irenaeus suggestsP
9 The hen, not monad, is the first principle. This suggests that Irenaeus's Pythagorean ideal here is
more Platonic or eclectic and less Pythagorean. See excursus Bl.
1 o See above, p. 54 and n. 140.
1 1 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2 .14.9.
1 2 Irenaeus may be inferring from Valentinian appeals to the zodiac a more general appeal to the gods
of mythology. Or Irenaeus may be depending upon (now lost) Valentinian texts that argue that even
the pagans were able to recognize the truth of the Dodecad, albeit imperfectly.
145
Although ridicule and insult is standard in his polemic, these are rhetorical
decorations to his main arguments. Using counterexamples drawn from Scripture, history,
and the natural world to demonstrate his opponents' inconsistency or incompleteness,
Irenaeus argues directly and forcefully about substantive theological issues. His insistence
that the Valentinians have not correctly counted the number of aeons in the Pleroma is the
first of his four main arguments against the number symbolism in Valentinian theology. To
make this point, he defends two claims. First, by their own reckoning, their Pleroma has less
than thirty aeons. Second, the Pleroma ought to have more than thirty aeons. In each case,
the Valentinian school is shown incapable of responsibly handling the numbers they so
esteem in their theology.
In the first of these arguments, that there are really less than thirty aeons, Irenaeus
first focuses on the role of the Forefather.13 If he is the source of the various projections, he
ought not be counted with them, since you should not group one who emits, who is
unbegotten, who is neither circumscribed nor given form, with one who is emitted,
begotten, circumscribed, or formed. Likewise, the Forefather should not be grouped with
Wisdom, since this is to group together errant and inerrant aeons. And what about Silence
(Thought), Depth's consort?14 Can anyone's Silence and Thought be separated from them?
Indeed, does not the very notion of conjugal unity forbid any idea of separation? If so, then
Thought is in every way similar to Depth; they share a single existence. This applies as well
to the other conjugal pairs. Mind and Truth, who always inhere one another, cannot be
separated, just as water and moisture, fire and heat, and stone and hardness cannot be
1 3 Ibid. 1 .12.1.
1 4 Ibid. 2.12.2.
146
separated. Likewise, Word and Life, Man and Church, and all the other pairs of aeons
cannot be disentangled. It is necessary, after all, for the feminine aeon to be equal to the
masculine, "since the former resembles the latter's disposition.''JS Disposition, a Valentinian
term, implies metaphysical unity.16 So you should be able to count only syzygies, not aeons.
Irenaeus anticipates a response, that the syzygies are in fact divided, so individual aeons can
be enumerated apart from their matesP But, Irenaeus charges, this makes absurd their other
claim, that the syzygies are unities and that the male and female are one. If the aeons of a
given syzygy are separate, then the female gives birth to offspring apart from her mate. If
this is the case then she resembles a hen, which hatches eggs without the help of a rooster.
Irenaeus's argument here boils down to whether or not the syzygies are real unions or only
symbolic ones, and how they are to be counted. The Valentinians' inability to specify
whether the syzygies are true unions or only token unions makes it impossible to tell
whether they have counted accurately. Further, to count the Forefather and Wisdom
together is to suggest they share the same nature, an implication hard to swallow, given
Wisdom's fall from the Pleroma.
Irenaeus also argues that the Valentinians have more than thirty aeons in their
Pleroma.18 They say that four other entities are projected - Limit, Christ, Holy Spirit, and
Savior-but they do not include them in the canonical thirty of the Pleroma (see figure 1 ) .
Why not, Irenaeus asks. Are they so weak as t o b e unworthy o f the designation? Are they
15 cum sit velut adfectio eius. Here, adfectio probably represents bLa8Emc;. See next note.
16 See SC 293, index, s.v., bLa8unc; and adfectio. To describe the female aeon as the bLa8Emc; of the
male is characteristic of the "more knowledgeable" Ptolemaeans discussed atAgainst Heresies 1 .12.1.
1 7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.12.4.
1s Ibid. 2.12.7, upon which this paragraph is based.
1 47
superior to the other aeons? It would be absurd to suggest that they are weaker, since they
were projected to stabilize and correct the Pleroma. But it would be equally absurd to
suggest they are better than the primal Tetrad. So, if they are neither weaker than the
weakest aeons in the Pleroma, nor better than the best, then they should either be numbered
with the Pleroma, or the honor associated with such a name (Pleroma means fullness) should
be removed from the other aeons since, obviously, the Pleroma does not include the fullness
of the aeons.
Elsewhere Irenaeus claims that the Valentinians were at odds as to the number of
aeons in the Pleroma. Some held to thirty, and others, an innumerable amount.19 Yet others
had more simple systems, of less than thirty aeons.20 We have encountered in the
Valentinian First Apocalypse of James a world of seventy-two heavens.21 Outside
Valentinianism, the variations grew. For instance, Basilides taught 365 aeons_22
Irenaeus' s second line of attack calls Marcus to account for his misuse of human
conventions of numeration. He ridicules the notion that the Word the Father uttered
consists of thirty letters and four syllablesP If this were so, then the Father, whose image the
Word bears, should also consist of thirty letters and four syllables. Indeed, is this really the
final arrangement? Marcus bottles up the Creator in various numbers and patterns, at one
time thirty, at another, twenty-four, at another, merely six. Even the technique Marcus uses
1 9 Ibid. 1 .1 0.3.
20 Ibid. 1 . 11-12. See also above, chap. 1 .
21 See above, p. 62.
22 lrenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .24.3-7, 2.35.1 .
23 Ibid . 1 .15.5.
1 48
to calculate alphabetic numbers is inconsistent, since at one time he computes a name's
psephic value, at another time, the number of letters in the word.Z4 Jesus, Irenaeus points out,
is not a Greek name, yet Marcus nevertheless makes its Greek transliteration the center of
his theology. Sometimes he calls it the episemon because it has six letters, and sometimes
the fullness of the Ogdoad, since the psephic value of 'IT}aouc; is 888. That Marcus would
apply Greek conventions of numeration to a non-Greek name for deeper theological
meaning, but ignore the numbers latent in a Greek name like I:w'ri]Q (Savior) is duplicitous.
Marcus claims that the Father providentially named the Lord Jesus so as to indicate, whether
through psephy or the number of letters, the numbers in the Pleroma. But even if this were
true, he doesn't do this with the Lord's other names and titles, such as L:w'ri]Q. And no
wonder, since neither the psephic value, 1408, nor the number of letters, five, are related to
the numbers or patterns in the Pleroma. So too the psephic value of XQE LCY'r6c; (1485) has no
arithmetical connection with the Pleroma Christ allegedly stabilizes and corrects.25 The same
applies to Tia'ri]Q, Bu8oc;, MovoyEvi]c;, and other Greek names of aeons in the Pleroma.
These inconsistencies, applying Greek linguistic conventions to Hebrew names and not
applying the same method to the more important Greek names, Irenaeus argues, proves that
their system is false.26
Irenaeus argues that the system does not square with the history of the alphabet. He
notes, the Greeks agree that only recently - recently, that is, relative to the creation of the
world -Cadmus introduced the first sixteen lettersP Some time after, other Greeks invented
24 Ibid. 2.24.1.
2s Ibid . 2.24.2.
26 Ibid. 2.24.1, repeated at 2.24.2.
27 Ibid. 1 .15.4.
149
the aspirates and the double letters. Palamedes provided the long vowels, the final step of
the alphabet's evolution. Thus, Irenaeus argues, how could Marcus's Truth exist before the
Greeks, seeing that her body had to postdate Cadmus and anyone prior to him? Indeed,
Truth postdates "even yourself [Marcus}, for you alone have dragged down your so-called
Truth as an idol."28 Irenaeus's version of a universally known history of the alphabet is
flawed in its details - the specifics about who invented the Greek alphabet, and when, vary
from one ancient author to the next-but his overall point, that the Greek alphabet had an
origin at a specific moment in time, is correct, both by his generation's understanding of the
history of the alphabet and by modem scholars.29
Irenaeus charges Marcus with failing to abide by the conventions appropriate to a
given language.30 Jesus, a Hebrew name, properly consists of two and a half letters, a claim
Irenaeus justifies by appealing to Jewish experts, who take each of the letters in :llitr (instead
of the Biblical !1\U1;-P) as an acronym for "Lord, heaven, earth." (Here the yod seems to be
counted as the half letter.) Thus, just as L:w'fi]Q exposes the inconsistency of their system, so
too does Jesus's Hebrew name. Its mere two and a half letters show that Jesus cannot be
considered the episemon. The interpretation of Jesus as 888 too cannot be sustained in the
context of the name's original language. Hebrew letters don't match Greek letters, and
because the former are older and more stable than the latter, any calculation of names
2s Ibid.
29 See Pliny the Elder, Natural History 7.192; Tacitus, Annales 1 1 .14; and many others cited at Forster,
Marcus Magus, 238-42 and Teodorsson, Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks 3:318. Irenaeus's report
resembles that of Plutarch, Table Talk 9.3 (738F), discussed below, p. 256. For modern attempts to
reconstruct the history of the Greek alphabet, see OCD, s.v., "Alphabet, Greek."
3D Against Heresies 2.24.2.
150
should be preserved in the older. But even then, the very structure of the Hebrew alphabet
precludes any kind of psephy.31 Baruch, the name Jews give to the most high God, has only
two and a half letters, and has no relevance to the Pleroma.
According to the Valentinians, the Demiurge fashioned the natural world as an
image of the unseen Pleroma.32 This proposition leads to Irenaeus' s third argument against
the Valentinians, that the numbers in their system do not correspond to what we know of
the natural world. Irenaeus pursues this attack numerous times, in every case criticizing as
illogical the notion that an errant being, the Demiurge, could create an errant world as a true
reflection of an inerrant Pleroma.33 He anticipates a possible response, that the natural world
is the image of the Pleroma, not in figure or form, but in number and rank.34 Irenaeus
responds that not even this is true, since the Valentinians tend to tinker with their numbers
and their aeons so as to make them fit certain numbers in creation. But suppose that they
have managed to make some associations with the natural world. How can they claim on
this basis that a mere thirty aeons are the antitype for the vast number of things in the
31 This is my interpretation of ibid. 2.24.2.40-46, a convoluted passage poorly preserved in the Latin.
As we have it the text states that Hebrew has ten letters, each written "through fifteen, the more
recent letters joined with the first." The text also seems to appeal to the directions of writing, from
right to left. The earlier part of 2.24.2 deals with two numerical practices with names: the number of
letters in a word, and its psephic value. Irenaeus dispenses with the first notion by highlighting the
peculiar way (he says) letters are counted in Hebrew. This incomprehensible and unparalleled
explanation of the structure of the Hebrew alphabet must then refute Marcus's claims based on Greek
psephy.
32 Treated passim in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 . See above, pp. 22-23 and 31-32.
33 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.7.1-6.
34 Ibid. 2.7.7.
151
m aterial world? The vast numerical complexity of the created world cannot be explained
merely by a group of thirty entities. The world is no image of the Pleroma.
Further in book two, Irenaeus extends this argument.35 The Valentinians claim the
thirty aeons were not made for creation but vice versa. That is, the creation is the image of
the thirty aeons, not the other way around . According to their reasoning, the month has
thirty days because of the thirty aeons. So too, the day has twelve hours and the year, twelve
months, because of the Dodecad. The reasoning is arbitrary and incomplete, Irenaeus says,
since they do not explain why Man and Church had to project twelve, no more and no less.
They also do not explain why an Ogdoad, and not, say, a Pentad, Trinity, or Heptad, is the
core of the Pleroma. If the year is an image of the Dodecad, and the month, of the Pleroma,
then what important occurrence of the number eight in nature is an image of the Ogdoad?
Irenaeus accuses the Valentinians of using analogies that invert the order of nature.36
Each aeon is supposed to be one thirtieth of the Pleroma, but a month is one twelfth of a
year. If the divisions of time really reflected those of the Pleroma, wouldn't it have been
more appropriate for the year to be divided into thirty months and each month divided into
twelve days? Irenaeus chides, the Savior must have been an idiot to have made the month
an image of the Pleroma and the year, the more important division of time, of the Dodecad,
a less important subset of the Pleroma. And the analogy does not account for the realities of
the calendar. Not every month has precisely thirty days, just as not all days have twelve
hours, depending upon the season of the year. Thus, neither can the day be a true image of
the Dodecad, nor the month, of the Pleroma. And why do they group the Pleroma into
3s Ibid. 2.15.1.
36 Ibid. 2.24.5.
1 52
Ogdoad, Decad, and Dodecad and no other arrangement?-'7 Why three divisions, and not
four, five, six, or some other number more commonly found in creation? After all, the year is
divided into four seasons.38 Were the year truly an image of the Pleroma, it would have had
four major divisions, not three.
Whenever they are cross-examined about the Pleroma, Irenaeus says, they retreat to
explanations about human dispositions and to discourses about creation.39 But this is to
focus on secondary rather than primary matters, since the issue at hand is not harmony in
creation or human dispositions, but the Pleroma, of which creation is an image. If the
Pleroma is trisected into Ogdoad, Decad, and Dodecad, then they must admit the Father
arranged the Pleroma in vain and without providence, since its structure did not correctly
anticipate the structures of the natural world. If so, then the Father acted irrationally and,
like the Demiurge, made a deformity. In other words, given their analogy between the
Pleroma and creation, they must admit that the Forefather is just as inept as they say the
creator of the natural world is. But if they do not want to go that route, and they want to
uphold the providence of the Forefather, then they must say that the Pleroma was projected
so as to provide a template for creation. But in this case, although the h armony of the
cosmos is preserved, the Pleroma exists not for itself but for that which should have been its
image. The Pleroma is then inferior to creation, as if it were a clay model, made only so as to
build a gold, silver, or brass statue. In sum, if the Pleroma is a template for creation, then the
Father created something inferior to what the Demiurge created.
37 Back to Ibid. 2.15.2.

38 Ibid. 2.24.5.
39 Ibid. 2.15.3.
153
If they don't agree that the Pleroma was made for creation, then they must postulate
a higher reason or cause for the projection of the Pleroma.40 But this is to postulate a system
more spiritual and more powerful than the Pleroma. In this scenario Depth uses a higher
pattern to shape and arrange the Pleroma. A vicious regression begins, since you must ask
why this Superpleroma was made. The same line of questioning can lead to super
Superpleromas, and so on. Irenaeus argues, you must either accept one God, who made the
world, taking the pattern for the creation from his own power and his own self, or move the
slightest bit away and end up always asking and seeking out how and from what source the
highest being patterned his creation, upon what he styled the number of projections, and
from where he derived the substance that was used. If they try to argue that Depth
perfected the design of the Pleroma from himself, then it should be allowed that possibly
the Demiurge too patterned the world, not from the Pleroma, but from himself. But if they
insist that creation is an image of the Pleroma, then what is to bar the Pleroma itself from
being an image, and so descend into an endless regress of images of images?
Throughout his argument, Irenaeus has Valentinian number symbolism in mind.
Numerical patterns and structures are central to their theology, and they must be used to
test their claims that there are innate, direct connections between creation and the Pleroma.
That there are differences in the natural patterns and the divine raises questions. Why those
numbers in particular? Where did the numbers come from? Are they intrinsic to the highest
reality, or merely accidental parts? Irenaeus argues that the heretics make number external
to the deity, which is why they always try to trump each others' numerical systems.
40 Ibid. 2.16.1 .
154
Basilides claimed 365 heavens, over whom the Power called Ineffable and his dispensation
govern.41 Irenaeus says and that this large number was a direct response to inadequacies in
the Valentinian Pleroma. But Basilides cannot escape this problem, either. He says that
Ineffable got the pattern for emanating the heavens from his dispensation. But where did
that dispensation come from? Ineffable had to have created the dispensation either from
himself, or from a yet higher power. If the former, then one might as well abandon the
entire theological complex of aeons for simply the one God, who created the one world from
a numerical pattern of his own design.42 If the latter, then the endless regress resumes.
Irenaeus mocks the ever-more complicated systems of his opponents.43 Just as the
Valentinians accused less-spiritual Christians such as Irenaeus of remaining in the
Hebdomad, so the Basilideans could accuse the Valentinians of remaining at the level of the
Triacontad, and not ascending to the forty-five ogdoads, then the 365 heavens. But this too,
Irenaeus says, could be trumped by inventing a system of heavens or aeons numbering
4380, the number of daytime hours in a year, and then, by including the nighttime hours, an
even greater number. This endless one-upmanship means that the Valentinians and
B asilideans must always remain in an intermediate state since they will always be unable to
rise to the highest conception of the number of heavens or aeons. The creation of a new level
above our world is an invitation to descend into endless levels of worlds.44
Irenaeus returns to this theme in the fourth book, where he advises that anyone who
seeks after a Father beyond the one Father of the Scriptures will need to seek a third, fourth,
4 1 Ibid. 2.16.2.
42 Ibid. 2.16.3.
43 Ibid. 2.16.4.
44 Ibid. 2.35.1.
1 55
and so on.45 Such a person will never rest in one God, but will drown in a Depth without
Limits, until repentance brings him back to the place from which he was cast out, the one
God. In his admonition, Irenaeus symbolizes the one God with the garden of Eden, the place
of single simplicity. To develop other gods or aeons is to begin a bottomless journey into a
pit of multiplicity, a transience ended only by returning to the garden of God's unity.
In his fourth line of argumentation Irenaeus deals with the numerous specimens of
Valentinian exegesis of numbers in the Bible presented in book one (see chapter 1).
Throughout books one and two he attacks their hermeneutical principles as being arbitrary
and inconsistent.
According to the Valentinians, the prologue of the Gospel of John justifies the names
and sequence of the aeons of the Ogdoad.46 Irenaeus answers, John introduces the terms in a
sequence quite different from theirs. If the structure of their Pleroma is so important, surely
John would have preserved this sequence, and even preserved the conjugal unions, and
mentioned every aeon's name specifically (Church, Man's consort, is never explicitly
mentioned in John 1).
To the notion that Judas represents Wisdom, the fallen twelfth aeon, Irenaeus
responds:47 Judas was indeed expelled, but never reinstated, as Wisdom allegedly was. Since
Matthias took Judas's place (Acts 1 .20), their myth ought follow the same outline and have
another aeon projected to replace Wisdom. Furthermore, they say Wisdom suffered, but
45 Ibid. 4.9.3.
46 Ibid. 1 .9.1 . See above, p. 33.
47 Against Heresies 2.20.2. See above, p. 35.
156
then they themselves admit that Jesus, not Judas, suffered. How can an unsuffering traitor
be the image of a suffering aeon? After mentioning other dissimilarities between Judas and
Wisdom, Irenaeus calls the Valentinians to account for their miscounting.48 True, Judas is the
twelfth, but they teach that Wisdom was the thirtieth. Even if you accept the Judas-Wisdom
connection, other problems in enumeration occur.49 They say that Judas's death represents
the Inclination of Wisdom. But in their myth, Inclination returns to the Pleroma, unlike
Judas, who is never reinstated to be with the apostles. If Judas represents the Passion of
Inclination, then they invoke a third, distinct aeon, and their analogy completely dissolves,
since under the best interpretation of what they mean to say, there are two biblical figures,
Judas and Matthias, who are somehow supposed to stand in for three aeons, Passion,
Inclination, and Wisdom. Two does not equal three.
Moreover, if the Valentinians want the twelve apostles to represent Man and
Church's projected twelve aeons, to be consistent they should produce ten more apostles to
represent the other Decad of aeons, emitted by Word and Life.50 It is unreasonable that the
Savior signified the youngest aeons but overlooked the elder ten. The same applies to the
Ogdoad, which ought to have been numerically signified by the election of eight apostles.
Indeed, their system can make nothing of the seventy other apostles the Lord sent after he
commissioned the twelve, since seventy prefigures neither an Ogdoad nor a group of thirty.
If their reasoning is correct, that the election of the twelve apostles signifies the twelve
48 Against Heresies 2 .20.4.

49 Ibid. 2.20.5.
so Ibid. 2.21 . 1 .
157
aeons, then they must hold that the seventy apostles were chosen because of seventy aeons.
If this is the case, then we have eighty-two aeons, far beyond the canonical thirty.
The Valentinians claim the woman with the twelve-year flow of blood to symbolize
the restoration of Wisdom.51 Irenaeus argues that the story is inconsistent with their system,
which holds that eleven of the twelve aeons in the Dodecad were impassible, and that only
the twelfth suffered.52 But the woman who was healed experienced the opposite. She
suffered for eleven years and was healed in the twelfth. Irenaeus admits, a type or image
differs from the truth it represents according to the material and underlying substance, but
the type must nevertheless preserve the form and outline of the truth. A type should make
evident by its presence that which is not present. (Recall Irenaeus' s analogy, of the
relationship between a clay model and the gold statue upon which it is made.53 Both objects
have a different material cause, but nevertheless share an identical form.) Furthermore, the
Valentinians do not apply this exegetical principle consistently. What do they do with the
woman who suffered for eighteen years '?54 If one woman is a type of the aeons, then the
other should be, too. The same goes for the man who was healed after being sick for thirty-
eight years.55 Since these two examples have no bearing on their system, then neither should
the woman healed from her twelve-year illness.
51 Ibid . 1 .3.3. See above, p. 35.

52 lrenaeus, Against Heresies 2.23.1 .
53 Ibid. 2.15.2, discussed above, p. 152.
54 Lk 13.6; lrenaeus, Against Heresies 2.23.2.

55 Jn 5.5.
158
To the Valentinian appeal to the numbers in the Mosaic Law as symbols of the
Pleroma, Irenaeus offers numerous counterexamples.56 According to their system, the
dimensions of the ark of the covenant ought to be especially congruent with the Pleroma.
But its dimensions are two and a half by one and a half by one and a half cubits, numbers
that fit in no way their theology. The same thing applies to the mercy seat (two and a half by
one and a half cubits) and the table of the showbread (two by one by one and a half cubits).
All these vessels are in the holy of holies, whose numerical dimensions prefigure neither the
Ogdoad nor the Pleroma. The seven-branch candelabra fits nowhere in their scheme; if it
were meant to be a type then it ought to have been made with eight lights, not seven, to
typify the primal Ogdoad.57 They appeal to the ten curtains as a type of the ten aeons, but
they neglect the skin coverings, eleven in total, and the length of the curtains, twenty-eight
cubits.58 Although they say the ten-cubit length of the columns typifies the Decad of aeons,
they cannot explain their one-and-a-half-cubit width.59 Furthermore, they cannot account for
the oil, which consists of five hundred shekels of myrrh; five hundred, of cassia; two
hundred fifty, of cinnamon; and two hundred fifty, of calamus. These four ingredients plus
the oil make five, a number that doesn't fit their scheme. It is absurd that the most sublime
parts of the Law have no types in their system, yet they obsess over any other number, no
matter how insignificant, that matches their Pleroma. All numbers occur throughout
Scripture in different ways, such that anyone could derive not only an Ogdoad, Decad, and
Dodecad, but whatever number one might like.

57 Ex 25.31-37.
58 Ex 26.1, 7, 2 .
59 E x 26.16.
159
Irenaeus argues that their application of finger calculation and psephy is
inconsistent.60 To say that the Savior came to gather the hundredth lost sheep and to transfer
to the right hand the ninety-nine that are on the left does not mesh with their own analogy.
According to them, anything on the left belongs to corruption, in which case it is not the
hundredth but the ninety-nine who are lost, since they are the ones who exist on the left
hand. Furthermore, since the psephic value of ayim:11 (love) is ninety-three, it too must
reside on the left side, as must aAr'J8 na (truth), which is sixty-four, and anything else
adding to less than one hundred. Marcus's dichotomy resembles techniques in second-
century dream interpretation, which treated one hundred as an auspicious number.61
To emphasize that Valentinian exegesis has missed the dominant numbers in
Scripture, Irenaeus mockingly presents the wonders of five, a number that fits nowhere in
the structures of Valentinian theology.62 Five is used repeatedly in Scripture. I:wn'JQ, Tian'JQ,
and ayan11 all have five letters. The Lord, blessing the five loaves, feeds the five thousand .
There are five wise virgins and five foolish. There are five men with the Lord a t the
Transfiguration. The Lord is the fifth of those who entered the house of the ruler whose
daughter was ill.63 The rich man in the infernal regions says he has five brothers.64 The pool
at Bethzatha has five porticoes.65 The cross consists of five parts: the four arms and the
60 Ibid. 2.24.6. See above, pp. 66 and 97.

61 Artemidorus, Dream Book 2.70, 3.34, says that numbers should be reduced to 1 00 to be suitable for
interpretation, and that the number 1 00 is especially auspicious. The ideas resemble Marcus's but the
differences are greater: Artemidorus does not treat numbers less that 100 as unlucky. See below, p.
377.
63 Lk 8.51 .
64 Lk 16.19-31 .
65 J n 5.2.
1 60
center. Every hand has five fingers (note how Irenaeus's proofs have moved from the Bible
to the natural world) and there are five senses and five internal organs: heart, liver, lungs,
spleen, and kidneys. There are five divisions in the body and five phases in human life.66
Moses gave the Law in five books (note now Irenaeus's tum to the Old Testament,
sarcastically imitating the Valentinians)67 and each tablet contained five laws. Five priests
were elected in the desert- Aaron, Nadab, Abiud, Eleazar, and Ithamar - and the ephod
and breastplate were made of five materials - gold, hyacinth, porphyry, scarlet, and fine
linen. Joshua surrounded five kings of the Amorites. The list could go on, Irenaeus notes,
with examples collected from Scriptures and the works of nature. Nevertheless, this vast
array of fives is no basis for claiming a divine group of five aeons.
Irenaeus sarcastically uses their own exegetical technique against them. In the
Scriptures, an exorcized spirit of ignorance finds those who were formerly possessed
"striving not after God but after cosmic inquiries, and brings along seven other spirits more
wicked than himself."68 One spirit plus seven others makes eight. Ergo, a demon has left the
Valentinians but returned and found them ready to be inhabited, and so has taken along
"seven other spirits, thus constituting their Ogdoad of spirits of wickedness." Their
66 lrenaeus's list, infancy, childhood, youth, adulthood, and old age, falls short of Solon's (frag. 1 9
Diehl) and Hippocrates' (On Hebdomads 5 ) more famous model, o f seven phases in human life. But cf.
Theon of Smyrna, Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 98.1 3-14, which divides human life into four, a
tetraktys (see excursus B3).
67 Here, in Against Heresies 2.24.4, Irenaeus proves the excellence of the number five from three
sources: the New Testament, the natural world, and the Old Testament. This mirrors the order and
sequence of the Valentinian exegesis Irenaeus presents in book one, where the New Testament proof
texts for the Pleroma are at chaps. 1-3 and 8, natural world proofs are at chap. 1 7, and Old Testament
proof texts, at chap. 1 8. This is evidence, both of the sequence of the argument of lrenaeus' s source,
and of the basic integrity of the authorship and sequence of Against Heresies 1 .1-22.2. See excursus E.
68 Mt 12.43. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .16.3.
1 61
arrogance is so great that, in enumerating seven heavens, they presume to have surpassed
the apostle Paul, who ascended only to the third heaven, four short of the highest level.69
The Valentinians contravene not just Scripture but other parts of the rule of faith.
Referring to a creedal-like recitation common in the churches, Irenaeus notes that the
Valentinians " confess with the tongue one God the Father," Creator of all things?0 Yet they
offend the Church's tradition by maligning the Creator. They similarly "confess with the
tongue one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God" - once again invoking the liturgical
tradition - yet they split up the titles of Christ into assorted independent projections. Thus,
they pay mere lip service to their confession in church of the unity of God and his Son, and
in reality they have fallen away from the unity of God .
All four lines of argumentation boil down to charges of incompleteness,
inconsistency, and arbitrary methods. It is impossible to evaluate the accuracy of Irenaeus's
critique. True, he defeats the system as he presents it. But we do not know how Valentinians
might have responded to these charges, to know if Irenaeus was treating them fairly.
Although we cannot broker the dispute, we can see if Irenaeus lived by his own principles.
IRENAEUS'S ALTERNATIVE
As vigorous as Irenaeus's reaction is, Valentinianism does not define his theology. On
occasion he becomes so engrossed in presenting the orthodox vision of God that his original
heresiological interests fade into the background, or they become pretexts for other
69 2 Cor 12.2; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.30.7.

70 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.33.3.
1 62
theological topics that interest him. Books four and five are full of discourses that transcend
his immediate concern with Marcion and other heretics. In those places Irenaeus draws
from many earlier Christian texts, most of them unacknowledged?1 Even though Against
Heresies is the earliest treatise of its kind we have, its numerous references to and citations of
earlier Christian authors, including heresiologists, shows that it was part of a well-
developed theological tradition. Irenaeus' s musings on numbers in theology is part of this
tradition. He sees an operative rule at work in the churches, governing the appropriate role
of numbers in theology. This rule allows for number symbolism in theology, but requires
that it be anchored in the unity of God the Father and his Son, and that it respect the
orthodox interpretation of Scripture.
Irenaeus first alludes to the number symbolism permitted by the rule of truth in
book one.72 He accuses the Valentinians of behaving like those who create bizarre centos of
Homer, where assorted lines drawn from multiple places in the Iliad and Odyssey are
stitched together in order to tell a story unrelated to the main narrative of the poetry.
Irenaeus provides an example, a cento about Hercules that consists of ten lines taken from
various places in the two epics. The practice, Irenaeus says, resembles someone who
encounters a skillfully made mosaic of a king and rearranges it to resemble a dog?3 Anyone
experienced with Homer's plot will know that the proper way to understand each line of
71 See, e.g., excursus E, on Irenaeus's use of an unnamed heresiologist for the catalogue of heretics in
book one. Some of Irenaeus's other unnamed sources are discussed at Forster, Marcus Magus, 1 3-15,
22-26 and Hill, Lost Teaching.
72 1 .9.4.
73 Ibid. 1 .8.1, 1 .9.4.
1 63
Homer is in context, in the narrative from which it is drawn?4 In the same way, anyone who
preserves unchanged within himself the canon of truth assumed in baptism will recognize
the names, terms, and parables of Scripture, and that the Valentinian version does not match
this canon of truth. Irenaeus applies this canon of truth, a critical component in his theology,
to Valentinian number symbolism in book two?5 There he considers an important response
to his criticism of Valentinian exegesis of numbers in the Bible: Are the placement of names,
the election of apostles, and the acts of the Lord and his deeds recorded for no reason
whatsoever? Irenaeus replies,
Not at all. Rather, everything God does -whether ancient or anything accomplished
by his Word in recent times- is harmonized and well ordered with abundant
wisdom and precision. And these things should be yoked, not with the number
thirty, but with the underlying narrative of truth. And they should not undertake an
investigation about God on the basis of numbers, syllables, and letters. (For this is
unsound because of their multifaceted and variegated nature, and because any
narrative - even one that someone cooks up today - can gather out of the same
[numbers, syllables, and letters] proof texts contrary to the truth, in that they can be
manipulated to many ends.) Rather, they should fit to the underlying narrative of
truth the numbers themselves and the things that have been done. For the rule does
not come from numbers, but numbers, from the rule (non enim regula ex numeris, sed
numeri ex regula). Neither does God come from creation, but that which is made,
from God . For everything is from one and the same God?6+
74 Ibid. 1 .9.4. See also Unger and Dillon, St. lrenaeus of Lyons, 1 82 n. 22.
75 Unger and Dillon, St. lrenaeus of Lyons, 1 82 n. 23.
76 Against Heresies 2.25 . 1 : Non quidem, sed cum magna sapientia et diligentia ad liquidum apta et
ornata omnia a Deo facta sunt, et antiqua et quaecumque in novissimis temporibus Verbum eius
operatum est. Et debent ea, non numero XXX, sed subiacenti copulare argumento sive rationi, neque
de Deo inquisitionem ex numeris et syllabis et litteris accipere- infirmum est enim hoc propter
multifarium et varium eorum, et quod possit omne argumentum hodieque commentatum ab aliquo
contraria veritati ex ipsis sumere testimonia, eo quod in multa transferri possint- sed ipsos numeros
et ea quae facta sunt aptare debent subiacenti veritatis argumento. Non enim regula ex numeris, sed
numeri ex regula, neque Deus ex factis, sed ea quae facta sunt ex Deo: omnia enim ex uno et eodem
Deo. Rousseau and Doutreleau' s reconstruction of the Greek, with my own conjectures in angle
brackets: Ov 1-lTJV aMa !-lETa !-1EYLXAT)c; aocj:>[ac; KC<L lXKQL(3dac; ElJQU8!-1C< KC<L EYKC<TLXGKEUC< naVTC<
1 64
No other passage is as important for understanding Irenaeus's theology of
arithmetic. He claims here that numbers, syllables, and letters are composite and that they
have many different qualities. Such a claim was contestable. For by the very name given to
them, O'TOLXELa, "elements," letters were considered de facto to have no parts. Being
elements, letters were the building blocks of the linguistic universe. Numbers, too, shared in
this simplicity. So Irenaeus's suggestion, that numbers and letters have multiple parts and
qualities, suggests that both categories can be further analyzed, reduced to yet other, more
fundamental, categories. Irenaeus reduces them to terms derived from the narrative of truth,
the rule of faith. Irenaeus's first critique here, then, is that the Valentinians have not
appropriately understood what an element is, that is, what is neither compounded nor
subject to change. Numbers and letters are not elements in the true sense of the word.
The second critique is that anyone can dream up a narrative and find witnesses in
the world of numbers and letters to corroborate them. That is, numbers and letters lend
U/10 'TOU E>mu iyivE'To, 'Ta 'TE CxQXlXLlX KiXL n'x oaa EV iaxa'TOLc; KalQOLc; 6A6yoc; iXlJ'TOU b1QaE,EV"
ocpdAoucn bE avn'x flTJ 'TcfJ CxQL8fl0 'TWV 'TQlcXXOV'TiX <'TctJ 'TQliXKOVTabt?>, ixAAa 'TlJ U 710KElf1EV1J
auvan'TELV <auVELKE LOuv?> uno8[aEL 'Tijc; ixATJ8 E iac;, flT)bE 71EQL 'TOU 8mu C,r'J'TTJaLV [E, CxQL8 f1WV KiXL
avAAa�wv Kai YQUflflliTwv avabixEa8m- aa8Evic; yaQ mum bta To noAvflEQEc; Kai
noAUI10LKlAov atJTWV KiXL 'TO bvvaa8m miaav un68EatV KiXL aTJflEQOV TrlXQEnLVOOVflEVT)V uno nvoc;
avaAr'J8nc; EE, iXlJ'TWV Aafl�UVE LV fliXQ'TUQLac; thE E ic; noAAa flE8lXQflOC,wem bvVlXflEVWV- ixAA '
lXV'TOVc; muc; iXQL8flOUc; KiXL 'TcX YEYOVO'Ta icpiXQflO(.E LV ocpd Aoum 'TlJ U710KElf1EVlJ Tijc; MTJ8dac;
vnoeiaEL. Ov yaQ un68wtc; f_E, CxQL8f1WV, ixAA ' CxQL8f10l iE, vno e EaEwc;, ovbE: E>n)c; EK YEYOVO'TWV,
aMa YEYOVO'TiX EK E>mu· TraVTa yaQ E_E, [voc; KiXL 'TOU iXU'TOU E>mu. For my first conjecture, see
1 .1 6.1 . 1 1, where XXX numerus is a redundant translation of r'J TQLiXKOVTac;. There is no "number of the
thirty" in Valentinian theology, but rather a Triacontad, within which are many numbers. On my
second conjecture, see 1 .1 0.3.1 157. The sexual connotation ofcopulare, alluding to the Valentinian
syzygies, suggests a word stronger than avvan'TELV. What I translate as "narrative," un68Emc;, can be
translated "plot," "argument," or "doctrinal system" equally well. Irenaeus uses the same word
frequently at 1 .9.4 to describe the narrative structures of the Iliad and Odyssey, and to this discussion
he no doubt alludes here, at 2.25.1 . See Rousseau and Doutreleau 2.1 (SC 293): 296-99.
1 65
themselves to arbitrary justifications. Note that Irenaeus here accuses the Valentinians of an
arbitrary set of witnesses, drawn, not from Scripture (although he does accuse them of this
more specific charge elsewhere throughout books one and two), but rather from numbers
and letters. That is, Irenaeus portrays numbers and letters (and not the Bible) as the
Valentinians' fund from which they pull examples seemingly to justify their narrative. The
examples may be instantiated as Scriptures or observations of the natural world, but
nevertheless these examples, Irenaeus contends, are drawn from preconceived arithmetical
ideas.
Irenaeus answers V alentinian number symbolism with his own, alternative
principle. A narrative should not take shape from numbers, but vice versa. His analogy is
God and creation. The latter comes from the former, not the other way around?? Thus, God
is to creation as the narrative of truth is to numbers. Just as all things come from one and the
same God, so numbers - or at least their proper, intended use - emerge from the underlying
narrative of truth, the canon of faith borne by the Church.
Irenaeus' s doctrine of God is based on this principle. The only number symbolism he
applies to God is that of the number one, and he points whenever possible to the Bible. He
says, "John preached one God Almighty and one Only Begotten Jesus Christ," in direct
opposition to Valentinian interpretations of the same Gospel?8 Paul's phrase, "one God the
Father" (Ephesians 4.6), is evidence of the Church's belief in only one God?9 The tradition of
77 The extended argument is at Against Heresies 2.15-16.

78 Ibid. 1 .9.2. Cf. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 5.
1 66
belief in one God has existed throughout history, from the protoplast Adam, through the
prophets, to the age of the universal Church.80 That Church, he says, received a common
faith in one God the Father almighty and one Jesus Christ, the Son of God.81 Elsewhere
throughout the Against Heresies Irenaeus frequently insists on the unity of God.82 The unity
of God spills over into the rest of the tradition. As a reflection of the one God, the Church,
though dispersed, dwells as if in one house, possesses one soul, and proclaims with one
mouth. The Church's tradition has a single power, and her faith is one and the same.83
Although Irenaeus roots his doctrine of the oneness of God in the rule of faith, the
mathematical expressions he uses reflect his concern with Valentinianism. His insistence on
there being but one Father responds to claims that there are two; his proclamation of only
one Son counters the claims that there are multiple beings who bear names and titles
ordinarily given only to Jesus Christ. But Irenaeus is silent about the unity of the Holy
Spirit. In book one, he presses home "faith in one God the Father Almighty . . . and in one
Jesus Christ the Son of God . . . and in the Holy Spirit." The Valentinians had challenged only
the numerical integrity of the Father and the Son, so Irenaeus says nothing of the number of
the Holy Spirit. In light of Irenaeus' s fight with the Valentinians, the lack of a confession of
belief in "one Holy Spirit" in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is more intelligible.
Irenaeus' s concern with Valentinian arithmetical theology is evident, too, in that he
never uses 'rQLac; ("trinity") to describe the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy
8o Ibid. 2.9.1.
81
Ibid. 1 .10.1, Irenaeus's adaptation of an early creedal statement shared by the churches. Its outline is
evident in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed .
82 See, e.g., ibid. 2.1.1, 2.11 .1, 2.16.3, 4.38.3.
83 Ibid. 1 .1 0.2, 3.
1 67
Spirit. He clearly teaches that all three are the one God, but he shies away from the term,
even though it was in use in his day.84 To some readers, Irenaeus's omission of the term
confirms the slow, late development of the doctrine of the Trinity. But this is to ignore that
for Irenaeus 'rQLLXc;; was too likely to have Pythagorean overtones. Irenaeus claims that
Valentinianism's emphasis upon arithmetical terms such as Dyad and Tetrad to describe the
Pleroma makes arithmetic its determinant factor. That is, it sets the creation over the creator.
To describe the persons as a Trinity might make the godhead look Valentinian, as if the
Father, Son, and Spirit were subject to mathematical abstractions.
As a corollary to his general principle, that numbers should emerge from the
tradition, and not vice versa, Irenaeus claims, "And therefore parables ought to be
harmonized with unambiguous things."85 That is, the more veiled, opaque passages of
Scripture should not be used to decipher the parables. Not to heed this principle is to risk
justifying any doctrinal system one likes. The passages that are clearest should be the
interpretive key to the more obscure. He concedes that there may be Scriptures we don't
understand, but this is to be expected, since there are also many things in the natural world
we do not understand.86 A difficulty in Scripture is no reason to invent other gods. Just as a
proper understanding of numbers should emerge from the narrative of truth, so too should
a proper understanding of obscure passages emerge from the clear.
84 Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2.15, dated to just after 1 80. See also, e.g., Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 4.38.3; Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 4-8.
ss Against Heresies 2.27.1.
86 Ibid. 2.28.2-3.
1 68
These two principles are at work in the several places where Irenaeus interprets
numbers in the Scriptures. How do his principles justify his interpretation?
In Isaiah 1 1 .2-3 there are seven virtues that come upon the Messiah: wisdom,
understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, piety, and the fear of the SpiritP Irenaeus takes
these characteristics to refer to the seven heavens. It is the model Moses used for the seven-
branched candlestick, in obedience to the command to fashion things as a type of what was
revealed to him on the mountain.88 Here Irenaeus interprets not just Isaiah but the natural
world. He takes the accepted datum that there are only seven planets, and uses Scripture to
explain those planets. His principles are at work, since he is using numbers in the rule of
faith to explain the Scriptures and the natural world.
According to Irenaeus, Rahab, who welcomed the three men spying out the entire
inhabited land, reveals in herself the Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit; the fall of
Jericho indicates the seven last trumpets.89 Thus, the capture of Jericho symbolizes the final
age of history, when salvation will belong only to those who embrace in their hearts the
three divine persons. Irenaeus' s principles are evident in this interpretation. There are some
obscure numbers in the story of Jericho-why are there three spies and seven marches
around the city? - and to interpret them, Irenaeus calls upon the rule of faith to find clearer
numerical symbols for three and seven.
87 Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 9.

88 Ex 25.40.
89 Jos 2, 6; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.20.12. Note that Jos 6.5 (LXX) speaks of only one trumpet,
whereas Irenaeus speaks of seven (and he calls them "final": 1 Cor 15.52), explainable only because to
him Jericho foreshadows the end-times trumpets of Rev 8.2, 6.
1 69
When d iscussing God's command to Gideon to break up the altar of Baal and cut
down the Asherah, Irenaeus interprets his taking ten men as a prophecy of Christ.?0 By the
number ten, Irenaeus says, Gideon appeared to have Jesus as his help. That is, the number
ten is written with an iota, which is Jesus's initial. It is likely that Irenaeus' s Bible had the
alphabetic numeral instead of /Jten" in Judges 6.27: KCX L i:Aa�EV [EbEWV L' avbQac;. Although
Irenaeus is inconsistent here (see below), he still draws from his two exegetical principles.
Ten as a symbol of the name Jesus is an instance of numerus ex regula, since the rule of faith
and the fame of the name Jesus associate him with the number ten.91 This clearer, more
famous association clarifies this more obscure reference to the number ten.
As for the New Testament, Irenaeus interprets the thirty-, sixty-, and hundredfold
fruit in the parable of the sower as three levels of reward in the hereafter ?2 The hundredfold
represent those who will be taken up into the heavens, the sixtyfold, those spending time in
paradise, and the thirtyfold, those inhabiting the city (i.e., the heavenly Jerusalem). To
corroborate this interpretation, Irenaeus claims as his authority the elders who were
disciples of the apostles. According to them, the rank and pattern of those being saved is to
advance by stages, through the Spirit toward the Son, and through the Son toward the
Father. Thus, Irenaeus explicit calls upon a well known oral tradition to elucidate a parable
whose interpretation is not immediately clear. Note also Irenaeus's reluctance to find any
symbolism in the numbers themselves. He is more interested in their structure.
90 Judg 6.27 (LXX Vat, not Alex); Irenaeus, frag. 18 (Harvey). The syntax of much of this passage is
unintelligible, despite attestation in 3 mss.

91 See above, pp. 34, 94, and below, pp. 192, 340 n. 37.
92 Mt 13.8; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.36.2.
1 70
Irenaeus reserves his most sustained number symbolism for his eschatological
exegesis. An extended part of the end of book five treats numerous passages in Daniel and
Revelation, which prominently feature symbolic numbers. Irenaeus suggests that, because
one day is as a thousand years to the Lord, so the world must come to an end after six
millennia, reflecting the six days in which it was created.93 I have already mentioned how
Irenaeus takes the seven marches around Jericho to represent the trumpets of the end of
time, another instance of an eschatological number. The greater share of his remarks,
however, is preserved for the very contentious issue (both then and now) concerning the
interpretation of the number of the beast (Revelation 13.18). He begins by noting that the
name of the beast is fittingly 666 since the number shows how he sums up in his person the
pervasive spread of wickedness prior to the deluge.94 Noah, after all, was six hundred at the
time of the flood (Genesis 7.6). And the beast, the sum of idolatry, is symbolized by
Nebuchadnezzar's image, which had a height of sixty cubits and a breadth of six. Six
hundred, sixty, and six make 666, QED. This recapitulation, Irenaeus continues, where six
reappears in monads, tens, and hundreds, signifies the recapitulation of the apostasy at the
beginning, middle, and end of history .95
True to his principles, Irenaeus draws from the Scriptures, choosing verses whose
treatment of the number six allows for a broader, moral treatment of Revelation. Note, he
does not appeal to the number six as a falling short of the perfection of seven, nor does he
suggest the beast's number has anything to do with 888, the psephic value of 'IYJaouc;. The
93 2 Peter 3.8; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.28.3.

95 Ibid. 5.30.1.
1 71
first of these explanations would have been a difficult sell, since six was considered a perfect
number, and it had only positive connotations in number symbolism.96 Although Irenaeus
recognizes that the number 666 indicates the psephic value of a name in Greek, the second
explanation would have veered too close to Marcus's techniques. It also would have only
encouraged the kind of speculation he found so exasperating. So Irenaeus opts to avoid
psephy altogether, to break the number into three parts, and to interpret these in light of
other Scriptures that shed light on the theological and moral significance of the number.
Some Christians, probably a sizeable minority, held that the number of the beast was
616.97 Irenaeus criticizes this position, partly because the number disrupts a numerical
pattern symbolizing the recapitulation of evil, partly because this reading depends upon
textual corruption. Irenaeus says that the number results from a common error, a xi
unraveling so as to look like an iota.98 Those who depend upon this reading may search out
for a sure and certain interpretation, but in so doing they open themselves up to deception.
They are working off a deficient manuscript, they have not consulted the oral tradition of
the apostles, and they have ignored the proper, moral significance of 666.99
As for the proper interpretation of the names, Irenaeus pleads for temperance.100 He
discusses several possibilities- Euav8ac;, Aa'rEi:voc;, and TEi:1:av - each of whose psephic
value adds up to 666. TEt'rav too has the added bonus that it is composed of six letters.
96 Theology of Arithmetic, s.v.

97 Along with Irenaeus's testimony, several New Testament fragments confirm this variant reading.
See Nestle ed., s.v. Rev. 13.18. See also below, p. 339.
98 Or a copyist may have inserted this comment, Harvey's suspicion (Sancti Irenaei Episcopi, s.v.).
99 See Rousseau and Doutreleau's ed., 5.1 (SC 152): 331-33.
100 Against Heresies 1 .30.3.
172
D espite these possibilities, Irenaeus says, we should not endanger ourselves by claiming
with certainty that we have the name. If it had been imperative that the name be clearly
proclaimed now, the seer of the revelation would have said so. Recall here Irenaeus' s
admission that some obscure numbers may not allow for an immediate, transparent
interpretation.
Irenaeus's most outstanding specimen of number symbolism is his argument for
there being four and only four Gospels.101 Responding simultaneously to those who held to
more Gospels (the Valentinians) and to those who held to a much smaller number
(Marcion), Irenaeus claims that the Gospels had to have been four, no more and no less.
There are four regions of the world and four universal winds.102 The Church is spread
throughout the whole earth and the gospel is the "column and support" of the Church and
the spirit of life.103 Because of all these things, the Church fittingly has four columns, from all
directions breathing incorruption and granting people life. From this it is evident that the
Word, the craftsman of all things, after manifesting himself to humanity, gave a quadriform
gospel encompassed by a single Spirit. The Word sits on the cherubim and the cherubim
have four faces.104 These faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. Following the
language and order of Revelation 4.7 (and not Ezekiel 1 . 1 0), Irenaeus interprets the lion, ox,
man, and eagle as, respectively, John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark, an assignment made on
101 Ibid. 3.1 1 .8. Cf. an Armenian abridgement, frag. 6 atPatrologia Orientalis 1 2 (1919): 737.
102 See Theology of Arithmetic 24. 1 0, 29.15.
103 DvEVfllX L;wf)c;. The pun and intent in relating the Scripture to world geography is better seen in the
translation "wind of life." "Column and support" refers to 1 Tim 3.15.
104 Ps 79.2; Ezek 1 .6, 10.
1 73
the basis of the opening lines of each GospeJ.l 05 The four animal shapes reflect the four
activities of the Son of God, and the four Gospels. For the same reason, four covenants were
given to humanity, the first before the deluge, the second to Noah, the third to Moses, and
the fourth is that which "renews man and recapitulates in itself everything, through the
gospel raising and granting wing to men for the heavenly kingdom." Thus, everyone who
nullifies the shape of the gospel and introduces greater or fewer faces of the gospel are
foolish and ignorant.1 06 Those who have more (the Valentinians) claim they have found
something greater than the truth. Those who have fewer (the Marcionites) nullify the
dispensation of God. After criticizing both groups' treatment of Scripture, Irenaeus claims
that the abundance of reasons he has presented demonstrate that the four gospels alone are
true, certain, and admit neither increase nor decrease. Since God himself creates all things to
be harmonious and well fit, the form of the gospel too had to be harmonious and well fit.
How well does this argument for the four Gospels conform to Irenaeus' s principles?
He doesn't seem to appeal to the rule of faith, and it looks like the argument arises from a
predilection for number symbolism. Is this a case of regula ex numeris?
CONSISTENCY IN IRENAEUS'S THOUGHT
Irenaeus claims that the Church's teachings, unlike those of the Valentinians, are well
fitted.1 07 He calls the Church's proclamation a rhythm, fitted to the things that have been
created by the rhythm.1 08 That is, the rule of faith conforms exactly to the contours of
ws See Stevenson, "Animal Rites."

106 Against Heresies 3.1 1 .9.
1 o7 Against Heresies 2.15.3.
ws apta est inem haec rhythmizatio his quae facta sunt huic rhythmizationi.
1 74
creation because it is the very rule by which creation was shaped. Creation is well ordered,
and the tradition fits the order of creation.109 The sentiment is less an argument than a pair of
self-referential claims, akin to the early-Christian notion that by the Word all things were
made, and that this very Word is that which the Church proclaimsP0 The two claims form a
circle. The causes underlying the structure of the world reside within the Church, and the
Church's proclamation is made manifest in the structures of the world. Throughout Against
Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the rule of faith and emphasizes its internal consistency.
But is Irenaeus consistent? How well fitted is his rule of truth to the principles he
outlines? More specifically, Irenaeus charges the Valentinians with mishandling scripture,
and with putting numbers and doctrine in the incorrect order. But has he himself committed
this very error? Does his treatment of numbers contradict his own principles? If so, then
why the inconsistency? If not, what is the unifying principle at work? Our aim is not to
measure Irenaeus by our own ideals. Rather, our concern is whether Irenaeus, in
formulating principles against Valentinianism and Marcion, observes or neglects those
ideals in other contexts.
Recall the four main lines of Irenaeus' s substantive criticisms of Valentinian number
symbolism. First, their method of numbering and organizing the Pleroma leads to grave
inconsistencies. Second, their system is based upon changing culture-bound habits of
language and enumeration. Third, their use of numbers conflicts with the structures of the
natural world. Fourth, their exegesis of Scripture has been selective, arbitrary, and ignorant
109 Contra Perkins, "Beauty, Number, and Loss of Order," 279, who says that Irenaeus argues against
the Valentinians by affirming the disharmony of the lower world.
110 Jn 1 .3 and, e.g., 1 Thes 2.13.
1 75
of the context of the narratives. Each of these criticisms can be inverted into corollaries,
positive principles that Irenaeus defends. First, the numbers in one's taxonomy of the
godhead should be consistent. Second, theology should not derive from and depend upon
the changing linguistic or mathematical habits of a particular society. Third, the numbers in
one's theology should correspond to the organization of the natural world. Fourth, numbers
in theology should emerge from the entire body of Scripture, and proof texts should be used
with regard to their context. This last principle is especially key for Irenaeus: numbers
emerge from the rule of faith (the Scripture being part of that rule) not the other way
around. How does Irenaeus's symbolic use of numbers fare against these principles?
Principle one. The numbers in one's taxonomy of the godhead should be consistent.
Note how Irenaeus applies numbers to the godhead. First, he focuses on one Father
and one Son, and not on the oneness of the Holy Spirit. This emphasis on the oneness of the
Father and Son spills over into his description of the Church and baptism, in part to criticize
V alentinian separatism, in part to reflect the Christian traditions he was taught in the
Church and in the New Testament.111 Second, he never uses numbers to describe the
relationships among the Father, Son, and Spirit. He shies away not only from Trinity, but
from other terms that might suggest that the Father is to the Son as the Monad is to the
Dyad. True, his exegesis of Joshua 2 likens the three spies to the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, but his language there is oblique. He uses 'rQELs instead of 'rQLac;, that is, three
individuals, not a Triad.1 12 Throughout his discussion of God, redemption, and purification,
m See, e.g., Eph 4.3-6.

1 1 2 See also his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 1 00.
1 76
Irenaeus avoids any language that refers to God as the One, an association common in other
early Christian authors.
Thus, Irenaeus steers away from using numbers to describe the godhead. He is
consistent with this first principle, since he avoids any kind of arithmetical taxonomies in
his theology.
Principle two. Theology should transcend human conventions of grammar and
enumeration.
Irenaeus' s interest in grappling with Christian psephic practices developed to
interpret Revelation 13.18 should be barred from consideration here. The original author of
the verse, after all, plays with the Greek psephic convention, and expects his readers to d o
so a s well. This becomes evident when the language of Revelation 13.18 i s compared with
the numerous other psephic riddles and discussions (see excursuses C and D).
But Irenaeus' s treatment of Gideon is more difficult to understand. He says that
Gideon took ten men, a number he chose not at random but to make it evident that he had
Jesus as a help. It was known in the late second century, as it is today, that habits of
numeration in Gideon's time were far different than those in the second century.113 So
Irenaeus appeals to a contemporary Greek technique to interpret an event that occurred in
ancient Judaism. His observation resembles Barnabas's "masterful teaching" on the 318
servants of Abraham, or Marcus's use of the Greek translations of Hebrew names to derive
psephic values.114 But to be fair, Irenaeus may have been thinking here of the Hebrew use of
m See, e.g., Aelius Herodianus (fl. 2nd c. CE), nEpi dpt 811wv (TLG no. 87.42).
1 1 4 See p. 340 n. 37.
177
alphabetic numeration. Hebrew alphabetic numeration was introduced probably in the first
century, modeled on the Greek prototype, and by the late second century its recent
invention may have been obscured (see excursus C). Possibly Irenaeus was thinking of
Gideon's ten men as a yod, which, like the iota, stood for the number ten.
But even if Irenaeus was thinking of a Hebrew convention, the Valentinians or
Monolmus would have seen little methodological difference between Irenaeus' s treatment
of Judges 6.27 and their own connections between alphabetic numbers and theology.
Because Irenaeus never clarifies this matter, at least in his extant works, he seems somewhat
inconsistent on this principle, or else not completely fair to his opponents.
Principle three. The numbers in theology should correctly reflect the natural world.
That there were four winds and four cardinal points was accepted as undeniable fact
in Irenaeus' s day, an aspect of the natural world subject to neither change nor social
convention. Grant him the science. Is it any reason to justify four and only four Gospels?
Recall that he criticized the Valentinians for justifying their various levels of the Pleroma on
the basis of inappropriate divisions of time. Has Irenaeus committed the same fault here? A
Valentinian, for instance, could have argued for the five Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, and the Gospel of Truth -on the basis of the five senses, the same basis upon which
deutero-Simon argues for the perfection of the Pentateuch. Whose argument is stronger?
Are the Gospels more like geography or sensation?
A Valentinian could also argue that if the Gospels resemble the four winds, then
how do the number of epistles or other books fit into that analogy? Why the specific number
of letters by Paul and other apostles? Why the number of Old Testament books? If the
1 78
Gospels represent the four winds, what do the other books represent? After all, Irenaeus
insists that if they find evidence for the Dodecad in the calendar year, then they must find
prototypes of the Decad and Ogdoad as well, to be consistent. Strictly speaking, Irenaeus
has not violated his principle, since he does not refer to numbers in the natural world
beyond the safe, uncontested four winds. But he has criticized the Valentinians for not
executing their analogies completely. So it seems, as in the second principle, that Irenaeus
has been unfair to his opponents, since he expects their number symbolism to be not only
consistent with the material world but complete, as well.
Principle four. Numbers should come from the rule of faith, not the rule of faith from
numbers.
According to Irenaeus, you should work with the numbers latent in the tradition and
work outwards. Thus, the thirty-, sixty-, and hundredfold fruit are taken not as numbers in
their own right but as codes for the tripartite afterlife taught in the Scriptures and handed
down by the elders who knew the apostles. The numbers in Joshua 2 Irenaeus interprets in
light of other symbolic numbers common in the tradition. The various numbers in the
epochs of human history Irenaeus tries to distill from Scripture. Numbers that appear in
Daniel and Revelation he interprets in light of other eschatological Bible verses. In each case,
one Scripture is brought to bear on another. A seven found in one verse is explained in light
of another verse with the number seven.
Even Irenaeus's numerical treatment of the four gospels depends upon this
principle, since ultimately Irenaeus holds to four Gospels not because of patterns in the
1 79
weather but because that is the number of Gospels the churches have received.1 15 That is the
tradition he received from the elders. The apostolic rule of faith is Irenaeus' s foundation.
And if the rule of faith preserves four and only four books, then that is a clear, firm part of
the tradition that enlightens other, more obscure parts. The four Gospels explain the
meaning of the four faces of the cherubim, as well as of the four covenants God gave
throughout human history. From the tradition, whether Scripture or not, one develops
numerical connections and associations that explain other parts of the tradition.
Here an imaginary Valentinian may object, claiming that they were also working
from within a tradition, albeit one lately revealed to them. Irenaeus' s counterargument,
however, is strong. The tradition respects the narrative structures of the Scriptures, and it
engages in the entire breadth of the Tradition. It flows out of the tradition, not into it. The
tradition does not depend on any one person, school, or movement, but is the corporate
experience of all the churches. The Valentinians cannot claim to follow this rule, otherwise
there would be a place in their system for the sacred number five. They would also be able
to point to the churches everywhere to show that their tradition was taught by the
apostles.1 16 Moreover, the Scriptures they use to justify the numbers in the Pleroma are
inseparable from their contexts. When read in their original setting, these verses undermine
the doctrine of the Pleroma.
It is evident that Irenaeus's treatment of this fourth principle is circular, but
consistent. He sees the rule of faith as a given constant consisting of the Scriptures, the oral
tradition, and the life and teaching of the churches founded by the apostles. Numbers
1 1s Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3 . 1 .

1 16 Ibid. 3.1--4.
1 80
should be treated as a part of that rule, and numbers from another rule should not force
their way in. He treats various numbers in Scripture not as proofs of his system but rather as
implications. The four animals of Ezekiel 1 and Revelation 4 do not justify the claims that
there are exactly four gospels; rather, these verses are intelligible in light of that part of the
tradition. Irenaeus's language of inference: KlXL yaQ and KlXL bu:X 'rofno does not look
backward, as if to a basis for belief, but forward, as if to its implication. Throughout Against
Heresies Irenaeus uses inferential language for two purposes, one for proof and the other to
show off the system's explanatory power. In his explanation of why there are four and only
four Gospels, he is using only the second technique. He is not proving the number of
Gospels but rather explaining them. He cloaks his explanation with clauses of inference, and
thereby strengthens the power of his rhetoric, albeit at the expense of clarity. His clause of
inference, E:nd yaQ, does not justify but explicates.117 For this reason, Irenaeus' s number
symbolism is consistent with his fourth principle.
Overall, then, Irenaeus sticks close to his principles about the theology of arithmetic,
or at least he tries to do so. His occasional indulgence in number symbolism and the
alphabetic numbers suggests that he too found attractive the exegetical techniques used by
the Valentinians, Mono1mus, and others. That they all share the same techniques highlights
Irenaeus' s occasional tendency to be unfair to his opponents, expecting them to meet
standards that he doesn't, elsewhere. But this has to do with techniques, not conclusions.
m Ibid. 3.11 .8.176-77.
1 81
Ultimately, Irenaeus's complaint is with the origin and substance of the Valentinian system,
foreign to the Church.
By arguing that Irenaeus' s theology of arithmetic is internally consistent, I have not
suggested that his critique succeeds against the Valentinians. After all, they may have
followed coherent principles that guided their use of number symbolism, principles not
reported in Against Heresies. Or, they may not have. Unfortunately, the sources we have are
silent about this.
How representative was Irenaeus of this approach to numbers among the orthodox?
That is, how closely do these four principles describe an orthodox theology of arithmetic? To
answer that requires the study of Irenaeus' s near contemporary, Clement of Alexandria, the
subject of the next chapter.
8
Clement of Alexandria
Very little is known of Clement, who flourished in late second-century Alexandria. He was
probably raised in Athens, where his grandfather owned a library just south of the Stoa of
Attalos.1 Clement used his social status to travel in pursuit of his education. Clement credits
teachers from across the Roman world - Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt- with his
training in Christianity, particularly a certain Pantaenus, whose missionary travels to India
are mentioned by Eusebius.2 In Alexandria, Clement conducted what was probably an
informal school for Christians, a school not to be confused with the famous academy that
started under the auspices of Origen.3 After the persecution in 202 Clement left Alexandria,
and died presumably shortly after.4
Several of Clement's writings survive, the most important of which for this study is
his trilogy: Exhortation to the Heathen, The Instructor (The Pedagogue), and Stromateis (The
Miscellanies). Exhortation to the Heathen is an apology directed toward educated Hellenes,
challenging them to embrace and follow Christ the Logos. In The Instructor Clement
1 Merritt, Inscriptions, no. 32, citing Hesperia 5 (1936): 41-42; suppl. 8:268-72.
2 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1 .1.11; Eusebius, Church History 5.10-1 1 .
3 Jakab, Ecclesia alexandrina, 93-106.
4 For more on Clement's life, see DECL, s.v., and works cited there.
1 82
1 83
presumes an audience of beginning or intermediate Christians, and instructs them in the
ways of the Logos, focusing on morals and appropriate behavior. The last part of the trilogy,
Stromateis, is an intentionally unordered patchwork of discussions on various theological
topics, intended for more-advanced Christians.5 Evident in Clement's writings is an
unflagging commitment to Christian orthodoxy. His style and spirituality differ from his
contemporaries, Irenaeus and Tertullian, but he nevertheless identifies himself with them
and the Church.
To understand all of Clement's number symbolism would require a separate study.
Rather, I analyze here Clement's discussion of the Decalogue, found in Stromateis book six. It
is his richest, most sustained foray into number symbolism. In this complex passage (whose
structure I explain in excursus G) there are three major areas of his number symbolism
especially relevant to this study: his fascination with the number ten, his treatment of the
number seven as an intermediate stage to perfection, and his use of number symbolism to
reinterpret the account of the Transfiguration. All three areas deal with themes found in the
authors of previous chapters, so understanding how Clement handles his number
symbolism provides a more complete account -more complete than one based solely on
Irenaeus's testimony - of how the orthodox of the second century handled Valentinian
number symbolism. Before turning to Clement's treatise on the Decalogue, however, I
conduct a brief overview of Clement's doctrine of the nature of God and its relation to the
s For more on Clement's literary corpus and his theological thought, see Quasten, Patrology, 2:5-36,
with updated bibliography in TRE, s.v., and DECL, s.v.
184
world of arithmetic. This sets Clement in relation to Irenaeus and the Valentinians and
makes his excursus on the Decalogue more comprehensible.
NUMBERS IN CLEMENT'S DOCTRINE OF GOD
Of second-century orthodox Christian authors Clement indulges more than most in number
symbolism. This indulgence, however, is not reflected in his theology. Although, as we shall
see, Clement ordinarily revels in patterns of sixes, sevens, eights, and tens, the only number
he applies symbolically or otherwise to the godhead is one. Clement, like Irenaeus and
Justin Martyr, holds to a single God, the Father, and a single Son, the express image of the
Father. As an "ecclesiastic" he uses the various titles for God and his Son or Word to
describe single subjects.6 Unlike the Valentinian use of the same terms, Son of God, Christ,
Savior, Instructor, and Jesus all describe the same person. He holds to no theology of
emanations from God, and so there is no system of aeons organized into numerically
symbolic groups?
But unlike his orthodox predecessors, Clement is more adventurous in using
arithmetic to describe the movement from the godhead to the structures of creation. Below
the Father and the Son are numerous beings that form an elaborate hierarchy extending
from heaven to earth, but their source of being is unity, and so is their goal. Clement says
that these lower beings are saved by each other and save each other "from One and through
6 Clement prefers to d esignate himself and other orthodox churchmen by describing themselves "of
the Church," in distinction to Valentinians and other opponents. See Kovacs, "Concealment and
Gnostic Exegesis," 4 1 5 n. 5.
7 For a complete survey on all the differences and similarities between Clement and the Valentinians,
see Davison, "Structural Similarities and Dissimilarities," and Edwards, "Clement of Alexandria."
1 85
One."8 "From one" refers to the Father; "through One," to the Son. This unity of God,
according to Clement, Abraham embraced in the alteration of his name from Abram, since
the alpha that was inserted into his name represents his knowledge of the one and only
God.9 Clement's sense of the unity of God is so strong that he calls him "the One" and
applies the attributes of the number one to the godhead: just like the number one, God "the
One" is indivisible, and therefore infinite, realized in his lack of extension.10
Clement even claims that God "calls himself one" on the basis of John 17: "In order
that all might be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I in you," and so forth.1 1 Lest it be
thought that God is the One, Clement interprets John so as to affirm that God transcends all
number: "God is one, and beyond the One, and above the Monad itself."12 This refers to the
common belief that the monad transcends the hen (see excursus Bl)P God, Clement says,
stands not only above the One (the highest principle for a pure Platonist) but above the
Monad itself, and is therefore beholden to no number.
Despite any arithmetical metaphors he uses to describe God, Clement nevertheless
cautions readers that the epithet One for God is an approximation, and not a true predicate
of he who cannot be named.14 Such negative theology was a standard feature of the middle
Platonism of his day. But Clement presents this idea of the indescribability of God, an idea
8 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7.2.9.3.

9 Ibid. 5.1 .8.6.
10 Ibid. 5.12.81 .6. For discussions of the philosophical dimensions of Clement's use ofone see
Choufrine, Gnosis, Theophany, Theosis, 165-66, 174-75, 1 86-88.
n John 17.21-23; Clement of Alexandria, Instructor 1 .8.71 .1 .
12 Clement of Alexandria, Instructor 1 .8.71 .2. See below, p. 295.
1 3 Choufrine's discussion (see n. 1 0, above) does not take this distinction into account.
1 4 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.12.82.1 .
1 86
that becomes quite important in Plotinus' s writings, not to press Christianity into a Platonic
mold, but to prevent people from straying from belief in the transcendence of God. For
Clement there is no category, including number, that comprehends and stands over his
nature. His metaphors and pedagogical tools may be philosophical in origin, but in the
substance of his theology, Clement stands with Irenaeus as a Christian monotheist, not a
Platonist.1 5
Although God stands above arithmetic, Clement finds arithmetical unity a helpful
metaphor of the divine, and he states that man's goal is a similar kind of unity. As a person
becomes divinized into a state of dispassion, he becomes purely "Monadic."16 This unity is
epitomized for Clement in the Church, "For just as God is one and the Lord is one . . . that
which is most highly treasured is praised for its solitude (f.16vwmv) since it is an imitation of
one principle (aQxi)c; 'ri)c; f.l llis). Thus, the one Church also has a portion in the nature of the
One, which nature the [heretics] strive to chop into many heresies."17 This joint share in
God's unity allows the Church to collect people "into the unity (E:v6Ttl'fa) of the one faith
( n(aHwc; f.! Lac;) of its proper testaments-rather of the one testament from different ages-by
the will of the one God, through the one Lord."1 8 Thus, the Church, which is the earthly
image of the heavenly Church, reflects precisely the unity of God, and humanity's return to
that unity.19
1 5 See Edwards, Origen Against Plato.

16 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4.23.152.1 .
1 7 Ibid. 7.1 7.107.4.
1s Ibid. 7.17.107.5.
1 9 Ibid. 4.8.66.1 .
1 87
The language Clement uses to describe the unity of God, the Lord, and the Church,
is already in the New Testament.2° The same themes appear in Irenaeus (see chapter 7).
There is in Clement very little, if any, polemic against the Valentinian Ogdoad and Pleroma.
But his insistence of the unity of God is as strong as Irenaeus's, evidence that orthodox
emphasis on God's unity was not conditioned by Valentinianism.
THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL DECALOGUE
In his introduction to his excursus on the Decalogue (§§133.1-137.1) Clement carefully
constructs three lists consisting of ten elements -types of decalogues, all of which, he says,
the Decalogue encompasses (§133.3, 4: 7TEQLEXEL).2 1 The first, the heavenly decalogue, has
exactly ten elements: sun, moon, stars, clouds, light, wind, water, air, shadow, and fire.22 So
too the second decalogue has exactly ten items, this time relating to earth: humans, cattle,
reptiles, beasts, fish, whales, carnivorous birds, birds of a delicate palate, fruit-bearing
plants, and plants with no fruit. The first decalogue does not seem to follow a specific order,
but the second list follows an order roughly the reverse of the d ays of creation.23 Genesis 1
goes from plants (day three), to reptiles, birds, and fish (day five), to quadrupeds, land
20 See, e.g., Eph 4.4-5; 1 Cor 8.6; Jn 10.16, 1 7.21 .

21 In this chapter, the symbol § refers to Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis book 6.
23 Possibly the first decalogue, too, follows the opposite order of Genesis. But there are noticeable
differences: fire and clouds are not mentioned until Gen 1 1 .3 and 9.13, respectively, and lif]Q doesn't
feature in LXX Genesis at all. These three items excepted, the order in Genesis would be shadow,
wind (= spirit), water, light, sun, moon, and stars. Possibly Clement considered fire and air to be
implied in the first day of creation, and clouds in the second. If so, then the heavenly decalogue, like
the earthly one, follows the days of creation in reverse order. Compare the imperfect order of the
anonymous Valentini an text at Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .18.1, discussed above, p. 34.
1 88
reptiles, beasts, and humans (day six). The correspondence is not exact, but close enough to
suggest that Clement took the Genesis account and reshaped it so as to yield for heaven and
earth exactly ten members each.
The third decalogue Clement presents (§134.2) is that of the human being, who, he
says, consists of the five senses, along with the ability to speak, the ability to generate, the
formed spirit, the ruling faculty of the soul, and the characteristic mark of the Holy Spirit (a
mark applied through faith).24 This anthropological decalogue, which features prominently
elsewhere in Clement's writings, provides an important comparison to similar structures in
Valentinianism and Stoicism. Fine details of this decalogue illustrate how he subtly used
numbers to articulate profound points about the creation and salvation of the world.
In book two, in his interpretation of Exodus 1 6.36 ("The omer was the tenth of the
three measures"), repeating Philo nearly verbatim, Clement identifies the three measures as
sense perception, reason, and intelligence, as well as the intended objects of these three
faculties.25 He then adds his own thoughts to Philo's discussion. The Gospel teaching, "It is
not what enters into the mouth that defiles a person, rather, that which exits a person's
mouth is that which defiles a person," is the true and just measure.26 Clement brings up
again this same anthropological decalogueP That same measure is the "decad that
24 T(J bux n1c; T[ LCJn:wc; ITQOCJ)'LV0!-1-EVOV ayiov ITVEl.J!-1-lXTOc; XlXQlXKTTJQLCJTLKOV ibLW!-1-lX. "Formed spirit" :
literally, "that which is spiritual/breathing according to the formation" (To KaTix TJlV ni\amv
ITVEU!-1-lXTLKOV).
25 Philo, On the Preliminary Studies 1 00.
26 Clement's rendering of Mt 15.17-18, at Stromateis 2.11 .50.2-3 ..
27 Ibid. 2.1 1 .50.1 .
1 89
encompasses the human being." Clement claims that the three measures of Exodus 16.36
allude in summary form to that decad.28+ He then explains what that decad consists of.
ELTJ b' av CJWf..UX '[f KiXl \]Jvxi] ai' '[f rrfV'[f That might be both the body and the soul:
aicr8T]CJW ;; KiXl 'rO <j:>WVTJHKOV KiXl the five senses, the vocal faculty, the
CJITEQf..WHKOV KiXl 'rO bLaVOTJHKOV Tl generative faculty, and the faculty of
rrVEU f.liXHKOV ij onwc; Kat f3ovt\E L Kat\ELV.29 understanding or of the spirit, or whatever
you want to call it.
Clement then notes the need to overleap all these faculties so as to stand at the mind,
as if overleaping the nine portions of the universe. The nine portions of the universe,
according to Clement, are the four elements (that is, earth, the sublunary region: portion 1),
the seven planets (portions 2-8), and the "unmoved ninth" (the fixed sphere of stars: portion
9). What he has just termed the mind -the tenth portion, the complete number- resides
above these nine, and is the arrival at the knowledge of God.30 Thus, the nine faculties of the
human being, capped by the tenth, the mind, resemble the structure of the universe, in
which nine celestial levels are subordinate to God as tenth.31+ Although Clement's
28 Ibid. 2 .. 1 1 .50.3. In Stahl in's edition, the true measure is not equated with the decad: TOtJT OLf.HXL, n)
·,
KlXTlX 8EOV UAJ18LVOV KlXL CJLKlXLOV f.lETQOV, <}> f.lETQELTlXL TCt f.lETQOVf.lEVa, lJ TOV av8QWTtOV
auvi:xouaa bEKa�, ilv irri. Knpa,\a(wv Ta TtQOELQJ1f.lEVa TQLa ibf],\waEv f.lETQa. The relative pronoun
1J has no feminine antecedent. It makes sense to convert this to the definite article, 1'1, as in
Mondesert's ed. This puts the decad in apposition to the measure.
29 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 2.11. .50..4 ..
30 Ibid . 2.11. .50.4-2 .. 1 1. .5 1. . 1. .
31 A t 2 .. 1 1 .50 ..4, there is some admitted confusion .. The five senses plus what seems like three other
faculties adds to eight. The wording seems to suggest that btaVOJ1TLKOV and rtVEUf.llXTLKOV are
equivalent terms for the eighth faculty. At 2.1 1 .51..1 the mind is called the tenth faculty, in analogy to
Philo's cosmological decalogue. Where is the ninth? The answer is found at Stromateis 6.16.134.2,
where the faculties of understanding and of the spirit represent the eighth and ninth levels. Clement's
offhand remark, at 2 .. 1 1. .50..4, "or whatever you want to call it," suggests that there was a difference of
190
cosmological d ecalogue depends directly upon Philo, his anthropological one d oes not. It
may be original to Clement.32
Back to book six. In the excursus on the Decalogue, Clement twice identifies the
mark of the Holy Spirit explicitly as the tenth number or element in the human being
(§134.2: b€K£nov and §135.1 : 'l"OV b£Ka'I"OV cXQL8 f16v), thus emphasizing afresh his tenfold
anthropology. This point is easily missed when reading §135.1 . This terse passage describes
the ninth and tenth human elements (ruling faculty and the characteristic mark of the Holy
Spirit) as agents that perfect other activities. The text is difficult to translate without some
expansion.
inaaKQLVnm bi: i] ¢uxi]. Ka i The soul is added [to the senses and limbs].
71QOE LUKQLVE'ra L33 n) fJYE flOVLKOV, clJ And the ruling faculty, by which we reason, is
b La;\oyL£:6f1E8a, ou Ka'I"a 'I"ijv 'I"OV added prior to this, and is begotten, not by the
anEQflCX'I"O� Ka'I"a�o;\ijv YEVVWflEvov, casting of seed [d. Heb 1 1 .1 1 ], just as the tenth
W� auvayE<J8m KC:X L lXVEU 'l"Otnou 'l"OV number [i.e., the characteristic mark of the Holy
bEKCX'I"OV cXQL8f-10V, bL' WV fJ mxaa Spirit] is brought in without it [i.e., seed], by
EVEQYEW: 'I"OV av8QW710U i mu;\{i'rm. which things [i.e., the ruling faculty and the
characteristic mark of the Holy Spirit] every
activity of a person is perfected.
In this terse passage (made difficult by the vagueness of wv) Clement notes that the
ninth and tenth elements- the ruling faculty and the characteristic mark of the Holy Spirit-
are not dependent upon physical generation but are bestowed from above. They are,
opinion, between those who wished to suborn the spiritual faculty to the faculty of understanding
and rank them eighth and ninth respectively, and those who wished the opposite. See below.
32 Philo, On the Preliminary Studies 102-6.
33 nQOELGKQLVETCXL Descourtieux, nQOGE LGKQLW:nu Stahlin.
191
together, agents of perfection. These two highest faculties stand above and apart from the
lower eight.
These three passages show that Clement regarded the anthropological decalogue an
important model. This was not Clement's only anthropological model based on decalogues.
At §134.3 he states that the law was laid down for the ten parts of the human and he restricts
the list to the five pairs of sense organs - sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste.34+ The
doubled sense organs resemble the two tablets upon which the Decalogue was inscribed.
But Clement does not mention the higher faculties of the soul itemized in his main
anthropological decalogue (§134.2). The two lists differ, but they are not incompatible, since
they both emphasize that the tenfold division within human beings is natural. They both
simply highlight different ways the decad can be identified within the human being.
34 The passage is ambiguous. Ell 71QOC: TOlJTOLC: b[Ka naiv av8QW71ELOLc; flEQEaL 71QOGTaaanv i]
VOf108WLCX cpa[vnm. TlJ TE OQUGEL KCXL tXKOJJ KCXL TJJ oacpQTJGEL acpfl TE KCXL yn)an KCXL TOLe; TOUTWV
vrwvQyo'ic; 6Qyavmc; bLaao'ic; oum, XEQa[ TE Kai rroa[v. "Again, the laying of the law seems to be
given to these certain ten human parts: to sight and hearing, to smell, and to touch and taste and their
accompanying organs, being double, both to hands and feet." Does this mean the five senses plus the
four limbs? Or does it mean each of the five sense-perceptive faculties understood "doubly," with the
hands and feet a later scribal gloss? Under the first option, the total comes to nine, not ten. Under the
second option, it is hard to see where all the "double organs" are. Even though there are two eyes,
two ears, and two nostrils, it is unclear what pairs of sense organs belong to touch and taste. Possibly
Clement has garbled the Valentinian account, where the four senses of sight, hearing, smell, and taste
(divided into bitter and sweet) have two organs each, an image of the upper Ogdoad. See Irenaeus,
Against Heresies 1 .18.1 and discussion above, p . 31 . At Theology of Arithmetic 68.3, there are said to be
seven orifices in the head, probably counting the tongue singly. Possibly, however, it is the symmetry
(and therefore doubleness) of the sense faculties that is key in Clement. Note, too, Clement's order of
the senses differs (as does Plutarch's: The E at Delphi 12 [390B]) from that found in the Paraphrase of the
Apophasis Megale. See above, p. 129 n. 48. A third interpretation, which adds to the second, seems
most likely to me: Clement is referring to the ten toes and ten fingers. Thus, he draws up three
physical decalogues found in the human being: the senses, the fingers, and the toes.
192
THE INSPIRATION FOR CLEMENT'S ANTHROPOLOGICAL DECALOGUE
That Clement chooses the decalogue to structure his anthropology is not surprising. The
symbolism of the number ten runs throughout Clement's works. Later in this excursus
(§145. 7) he notes that the Decalogue, because of the iota -the Greek numeral for ten -
invokes the blessed name ]esus.35 Clement earlier (§84.5) calls the number ten "all perfect."36
In book two he likens the number ten to reaching the knowledge of GodP For Clement this
level of perfection explains why a tithe (and no other denominator) was to be given to God,
and why the Paschal feast starts on the tenth of the month.38
The parallels with Monolmus (see chapter 3) are noteworthy. Both authors are
interested in plumbing the books of Moses to locate patterns and groups of ten. Both play on
the role of iota as a Greek numeral. Yet despite their mutual interest in the number ten, they
approach the matter very differently. Monolmus begins with the glyph l as a symbol of the
relationship that holds between the two supreme beings and their emanating powers.
Clement, on the other hand, is interested in ten qua number or qua numeral, but not qua
glyph. Further, he does not share Monolmus' s metaphysic, so he uses ten as a symbol
mainly of the structures of creation and their interrelated connection to Scripture, not of the
godhead. Clement does not seem to be interested in connecting this scheme with other
philosophical decalogues, for instance, with Aristotle's categories. And, unlike Monolmus,
35 See above, pp. 34, 94, 169 and below, 340 n. 37.
36 Tj DEKCxC: b[ Ofloi\oy{i-rm ru:xv-rii\noc: Elvm. See above, p. 50 n . 125.
37 2.1 1 .51 . 1 .
38 2 . 1 1 .51.2. Tithe: Ex 29.40, Lev 6.20; Pascha: E x 12.3 (see above, p . 1 12).
1 93
who never uses the name Jesus, Clement sees the iota in the Decalogue and the Psalms as
prefiguring only Jesus.39
Also comparable to Clement's anthropological decalogue is the tenfold list culled by
a Valentinian comparing the first things of creation to the Decad of aeons.40 Both Clement
and the Valentinian school sought in the Scriptures patterns of ten. But the Valentinian
decalogue is so dissimilar in its details and organization from any of Clement's decalogues
that any question of borrowing can be rejected.
In some respects, Clement's interest in relating the Decalogue to anthropology
compares more favorably with Heracleon, his contemporary and rival. Heracleon was
probably part of the Valentinian school, and possibly flourished, at least for a time, in
Alexandria.41 Both Clement and Heracleon shared an interest in number symbolism.
Important for this study are Heracleon's comments on John 2.20 ("The Jews said, 'This
temple was built in forty-six years . . . " ) , which parallel Clement's anthropological
decalogue.42 Claiming that the temple is an image of the Savior, Heracleon analyzes the
constituent parts of the number forty-six. He says that six refers to matter or substance
(uAYJ), that is, the formation of man (nAaof.la). Forty, "which is the Tetrad . . . which does
not admit union," refers "to the infusion, and the seed in the infusion."43
39 Clement of Alexandria, Instructor 2.4.

40 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .1 8.1 . See above, p. 34.
41 Clement, Stromateis 4.9.71 .1, calls Heracleon the "most approved of the school of Valentinus." On
Heracleon see above, p. 12 and n. 6.
42 Heracleon, frag. 1 6 ( Origen, Commentary on John 1 0.38.261). For other aspects of Heracleon's
=
number symbolism see below, p. 203.

43 Ibid., trans. Heine (FOTC 80). "a TETQac; icn(v," ¢11aiv, "i] anQoanAoKoc;," Eic; n) E f1cpDCJY1f1G Kat n)
EV -r4J E flcpVaTJflGTL CJ71EQf1G.
1 94
Heracleon' s number symbolism makes important theological points. His term for
" does not admit union," anQ6aru\oKoc;, is reminiscent of the language of Ptolemy, who uses
aavfl n;\oKoc; three times in his Letter to Flora as a quasi-technical epithet for the Decalogue,
the most perfect of the three parts of the law .44 Both Heracleon and Ptolemy share a common
vocabulary and express an interest in the number ten. To Ptolemy the Decalogue is "not
interwoven" with evil. Heracleon's use of anQ6arrAoKoc; suggests that he regards the Tetrad
as the highest principle, corresponding to the place Ptolemy assigns the Decalogue.45 If the
connection between Heracleon and Ptolemy is real, then Ptolemy's placement of the
Decalogue at the highest place in the tripartition of the Law may be mirrored by Heracleon' s
placement of the Tetrad at the head of a decalogue, also divided in three. Heracleon
identifies the Tetrad with the "infusion" (E fl<Pvmwa), another technical term common in
Christian authors, used most often to refer to God's breathing life into Adam, or, by more
esoteric authors, to stories related to Adam.46 Heracleon has already invoked the language
of Genesis by relating the number six to the material creation of man. He distinguishes this
material from "the infusion" and "the seed in the infusion," and therefore the number six
from the tetrad. Heracleon's analogy suggests that he saw the tetrad as consisting of the
highest faculties in the human being, in contrast to the number six, which for him
corresponds to the material aspect of humanity .
44 Ptolemy, Letter to Flora 33.5.1, 33.5.4, 33.6.6. See also Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 85-86 and
Sagnard, Gnose valentinienne, 654-55. Other aspects of Ptolemy's number symbolism are discussed
above, pp. 43-44.
45 In this, Heracleon resembles Marcus and the renowned Valentinian teacher discussed at Irenaeus,
Against Heresies 1 .1 1 .3. See above, pp. 39-40 and 93 n. 40.
46 See, e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .5 .6, 1 .30.9, 1 .30.14; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 40.1;
Clement of Alexandria, Instructor 1 .3.7.3; idem, Excerpta ex Theodoto 3.55.2.
1 95
Any reconstruction of Heracleon' s views on this matter must be tentative, but it
seems that what he is proposing is this. The forty-six years of the temple are an image of the
Savior, who is himself the perfect synthesis of the Tetrad and the number six, corresponding
respectively to man's two parts, his higher infusion and his lowly matter. If the Savior
synthesizes these two elements - a synthesis represented by the number forty-six - then, of
course, he embodies the number ten. Heracleon, like Clement, embraced an anthropological
decalogue. Heracleon sees the division between the higher and lower faculties of a human
being at four and six, whereas Clement divides the human being into two higher faculties
and eight lower. Whether Clement knows of, and now answers in his own orthodox fashion,
the anthropological decalogue Heracleon based on John 2.20, it is too difficult to determine
based on this hypothetical reconstruction. The opposite, that Clement is merely repeating
the anthropology taught to him by his teacher, Pantaenus, and that Heracleon represents a
departure from that earlier tradition, is just as likely.
Stoic anthropology would have been the basis for any Christian anthropology
whether orthodox or Valentinian - that carefully enumerated the parts of the human being.
As part of their program to show the essential material unity of the human soul, Stoics
divided the soul generally into seven parts, all governed by an eighth. A number of such
lists are extant, and they sometimes differ, both in their specific terminology, and in the
order of the sixth and seventh elements. But all sources generally agree that there are eight
parts and that they sit in a hierarchy, with the seven lower faculties - that is, the five senses,
the voice, and the capacity for reproduction - governed by the higher one, the ruling faculty
196
(TJYEflOVLK6v).47 Earlier Stoics rejected the tripartite soul taught by the Platonists, but in late
antiquity some Stoics began to accept this and other ways of dividing it.48
Clement expands the eight Stoic parts of the soul into a decalogue by introducing
two modifications. He moves the ruling faculty from the eighth to the ninth place and then
inserts two new faculties: the formed spirit in the eighth position and the mark of the Holy
Spirit in tenth. To understand the significance of these modifications, we must understand
Clement's ideas behind his two new faculties, the formed spirit (eighth) and the mark of the
Holy Spirit (tenth).
Both new faculties are discussed in book four, where Clement discusses the gnostic's
potential to become a god, then contrasts the composition of the human being in general
with that of specific individuals. "So the human being in general, is formed ( nMaaerm) in
47 Sometimes discrepancies occur in the same source: Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 7.1 1 0
( = Chrysippus, frag. 828 [SVF 2:226]) contrasts with ibid. 7.157 (ibid.). The primary sources that attest
the canonical eight parts are numerous: Zeno, frag. 143 (SVF 1 :39 = Nemesius, On the Nature of Man
96); Chrysippus, frag. 827 (SVF 2:226 = Aetius, Placita 4.4.4); idem, frag. 830 (SVF 2:226 = Porphyry, On
the Soul in Stobaeus 1 .49.25a); idem, frag. 831 (SVF 2:226 = Iamblichus, On the Soul in Stobaeus
1 .49.34); idem, frag. 832 (SVF 2:226--27 = Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 1 .75); idem, frag. 833
(SVF 2 :227, assigned to various passages in Philo); idem, frag. 836 (SVF 2:227 = Aetius, Placita 4 .21);
idem, frag. 879 (SVF 2:235-36 = Chalcidius, On the Timaeus 220); Philo, De opificio mundi 1 1 7;
Iamblichus, On the Soul 12 (Finemore and Dillon trans., 37). For discussions of the Stoic division of the
soul, see Safty, Psyche humaine, 293-97; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 1 02; and Stein, Psychologic der Stoa,
1 :1 1 9-25.
48 On the rejection of the Platonic tripartite soul see Chrysippus, Fragment 829 (SVF 2:226 = Origen,
Against Celsus 5.47). On variations in the Stoic tradition see Schindler, Stoische Lehre von den
Seelenteilen, 326-45, 53-70; van Straaten, Panetius, 1 19-29; Spanneut, Stoicisme, 96; and Pohlenz, Die
Stoa, 2:100-1 12. The variations are dependent almost wholly upon Tertuallian, On the Soul 14, whose
intent on making the Stoics contradict each other probably skews the picture. See also Dillon, Middle
Platonists, 1 74-75, who lists the various divisions of the soul - sometimes contradictory systems
taught by Philo. This difficulty shows that Philo was not confused or capricious but was aware that
"each of these divisions expresses some aspect of the truth" (ibid., 1 75).
197
accordance with the form (lb£av) of the connate spirit."49 He associates this spirit with the
shape of the human being, both in essence and in physical form, and he says it explains why
man lacks neither form nor shape "in the factory of nature."50 Thus, the " connate spirit" here
corresponds to the eighth faculty in his anthropological decalogue, since it is higher than,
but nevertheless affects, the physical shape of human beings. In contrast to the general
human being, " the individual man is characterized (xaQaKTflQLi:;am) by the impression
(n)nwmv) of his choices entering into (t:yyLVOf..tEVflV) the soul."51 The parallel terminology
to §134.2 (nQOayLvowvov, xaQaKTflQLGnKov), where the tenth part, the mark of the Holy
Spirit, is discussed, shows that the faculty that "impress[es one's] choices" in the soul in
book four is the same as the tenth element in Clement's anthropological decalogue. This is
confirmed further on: "By this [impression] we say that Adam, as regards his formation,
was perfect. For he lacked none of the things that characterize (xaQaKTflQLi:;ovTwv) the form
and shape of a human being."52 At the root of both this description and that of the tenth and
highest part of the anthropological decalogue is the idea of a person freely choosing the
things that characterize or - to capture the overtones of xaQaKTTJQ -inscribe themselves into
a person's soul.
Further into his excursus on the Decalogue Clement returns (§136.4) to this contrast
between the lower eight and the upper ninth and tenth human faculties. The two tablets on
which the Ten Commandments were written are said to indicate that "the commandments
49 Stromateis 4.23.150.2.
5o Ibid.
51 Ibid .
s2 Ibid . 4.23 .. 150.3.
198
are given to the two spirits, both the one formed and the ruling faculty (TJYE!-lOVLKcfJ)." The
difference between the two spirits corresponds to the difference between sense perception
and the mental process (§137.1). This describes the eighth and the ninth faculties of the
anthropological decalogue. The eighth element is conceived as part of the realm of sense
perception. The tenth element is referred to earlier in book six (§103.5), where Clement
compares the perfected gnostic to Moses, whose face shone.53 This glorified face is called the
"characteristic mark (i.blwf.la xaQctK'rT)QLanK6v) of the just soul." This depends directly
upon his terminology for the tenth faculty. For Clement a person incorporates this faculty
into his life as his highest divine power. When the gnostic is perfected as far as his human
nature allows, this radiance unites him to God.54
To bring all these threads together: Clement's eighth faculty is the breath or spirit
that God breathed into man at his creation.55 It is common to all people, and it provides for
them their structure, both their physical makeup and their essence. This formed spirit is part
of the faculties of sense perception, although it is the highest of these, placed above
language (i.e., the voice) and the capacity for procreation. The Stoic ruling faculty, the
TJYE!-lOVLKOV, the governor of all sense perception, is Clement's ninth faculty. His tenth
faculty, the characteristic mark of the Holy Spirit, is the highest divine principle, applied by
a person as he chooses the things he wishes to imprint upon his soul. The mark of the Holy
Spirit transcends the ruling faculty, since it allows a person to be assimilated to God, as far
as human nature allows.
53 Ex 34.29.
55 Gen 2.7.
1 99
The distinction between the eighth and tenth faculties mirrors one of Clement's more
important theological themes, the distinction between the image and the likeness in God's
creation of humanity. Clement takes image in the Biblical text to refer the state of man at his
creation, and likeness, to his eventual acquisition of perfection.56 This distinction between
image and likeness, along with its variations, runs throughout the patristic tradition.S7 It is
no different here: the eighth faculty, the formed spirit, corresponds to the image of God; the
tenth faculty, to the likeness.
Clement's anthropological decalogue shows that he regarded the standard Stoic
anthropology as incomplete, lacking two prominent aspects of man taught in the Scriptures.
By inserting into the Stoic scheme the faculty of the formed spirit (his new eighth element),
Clement teaches that the divine form is common to all people . His inclusion of the mark of
the Holy Spirit as the tenth and highest faculty shows that Clement regarded the ruling
faculty (the hegemonikon) alone as unable to account for the way people could be
assimilated to the likeness of God. There must be a faculty higher than the hegemonikon.
After all, everyone has a ruling faculty, but not everyone who diligently exercises it becomes
divine.
At the same time, Clement's preference to subordinate the spiritual faculty to the
ruling faculty, and not vice versa, shows that he held God's spirit to be an essential part of
every human being, and not just the elect. For Clement the spiritual faculty is more central
56 Gen 1 .26; Clement, Pedagogue 1 .1 1 .97.2, 1 .12.98.3; idem, Stromateis 2.22.131 .2, 6.
57 There are many studies devoted to this theme. See, for example, Crouzel, Theologie, 67-70; Graef,
L'image de Dieu; Hamman, L 'Homme image de Dieu; Ladner, "Image of God"; Merki, Omoiosis Thea, 44-
59.
200
and basic to human existence than is even governance over the senses. It is possible to detect
here a tacit criticism of Valentinianism, which sorted people into three categories
corporeal, soulish, and spiritual - and which taught that only the elect were spiritual. For
Clement, the only faculty of the anthropological decalogue that might be missing from, or at
least minimized in, a person is the tenth, since in book two, discussed above, he urged his
audience to overleap the nine faculties to the tenth, the mind.58 Life in the tenth element is
not guaranteed without effort. But the spirit, imparted in creation, is found universally. For
Clement all people are inherently spiritual, in that they bear the breath of God.
Clement developed his intricate anthropological decalogue to provide a coherent
and distinctively Christian account of the world, an account that did not merely repeat the
philosophical tradition, but challenged it with an alternative structure that was just as, if not
more, numerically harmonious.
SIXES AT SEVENS, SEVENS AT EIGHTS
Back to the excursus on the Decalogue. To discuss the Commandment relating to the
Sabbath (§137.4), Clement adopts the strategy of Jewish and, possibly, Christian
predecessors who sought to establish the philosophical soundness of the Mosaic Law. God
needs no rest, he argues, so the rest the Sabbath provides is really our enlightenment by
knowledge and our establishment in dispassion. Clement then indicates that his discussion
(§138.5: A6yoc;) has slipped into the theme of the hebdomad and ogdoad (the hexad is not a
matter of concern until the next sentence), and that the discussion is something of a tangent
ss See p. 189, above.
201
(rv 7HXQEQY<f.l). This seems a non sequitur. Why did Clement think that the subject of the
number seven automatically entailed that of eight?
Three parallel passages show that number seven symbolizes for Clement a place of
rest and completion, but that eight represents a higher state, wherein the divine presence
resides. First, earlier (§108.1) Clement says that those who reach the highest levels of
perfection have not remained in the hebdomad of rest, but have advanced into the
inheritance of the benefit of the ogdoad (oyboabLKf]c; c:1H:Qyc:mac;). In the second example,
taken from the preceding book, Clement says the ark of the covenant symbolizes the
ogdoad, and the cherubim symbolize the rest that remains with the glorifying spirits.59
"Rest," of course, alludes to the number seven. Third, in book four, Clement repeats the
same theme to interpret Ezekiel 44.26-27.60 Ezekiel's requisite purification of seven days
represents the completion of creation and the ritual observance of rest. The propitiation
( iAaa116v), which makes acquisition of the promise possible, is brought on the eighth day (a
point not specified in the Septuagint). According to Clement, Ezekiel's references to seven
and eight days point to the doctrine of the hebdomad and ogdoad. In all three of these
examples a certain theme emerges: the hebdomad symbolizes rest, but is surpassed by the
ogdoad, wherein is the promise of gnostic perfection.
Clement does not consider this to be his personal opinion. Quoting from Clement of
Rome, he discusses his namesake's treatment of Psalm 33.13 (34.12): "Who is the man
desiring life I yearning to see good days?"61 Breaking into the quotation, Clement comments,
60 Stromateis 4.25.158-59.
61 Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 22, cited in Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4.1 7.109.1-2.
202
"He then adds the gnostic mystery of the hebdomad and the ogdoad," then resumes his
citation of Clement of Rome and Psalm 33: "Stop ( navaov) your tongue from evil I and your
lips from uttering deceit I Turn away from evil and do good I seek peace and pursue it."
Presumably, the mystery of the hebdomad is in the verb navaov, translatable as "rest!"
Which words or ideas in this quotation refer to the ogdoad is more obscure. It may be the
commands in the last verse, to turn away (£KKAtvov), seek ((iyr11aov), and pursue (blcvl;ov),
presumably to the realm of the ogdoad. The grammatical subject of Clement's comment
inserted after Ps 33.13 (34.12) is ambiguous, probably intentionally so. By it he suggests that
both David and Clement of Rome composed literature with an awareness of the doctrine of
the hebdomad and ogdoad. The lesson Clement tacitly drives home is that the gnostic
Christian should be sensitive enough to the doctrine to detect it in certain keywords that
would elude the careless or less-disciplined reader. The technique resembles Valentinian
exegesis.62
Even Plato was sensitive to the doctrine of the hebdomad and ogdoad. Clement cites
Plato's Republic: "Now when seven days had reached the [spirits] that were in the meadow,
on the eighth they were obliged to proceed on their journey and arrive on the fourth day."63
He claims that Plato here prophesied of the Lord's Day, where "seven days" refer to the
motions of the seven planets, hastening to their goal of rest. The meadow constitutes the
eighth, fixed sphere (Ti]v anAavf) acpai:Qav), and the journey represents the passage beyond
62 See above, pp. 32-38.

63 Plato, Republic 10.616b; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.14.106.2-4.
203
the planets to the eighth motion and day. This eighth level, the fixed sphere, Clement
elsewhere calls Atlas, the dispassionate pole, and the unmoved aeon.64
Clement was not alone. Heracleon and Theodotus also taught variations on
Clement's doctrine of the hebdomad and ogdoad. Heracleon, when commenting on John
4.17, the account of the Samaritan woman, claims that she had six, not five, husbands.65 He
takes the six husbands to refer to all material evil, and he claims that the woman didn't
technically have a husband, since her true husband resided in the aeon. Since for Heracleon
six symbolized material evil, it is likely that he assigned seven (that is, the Samaritan
woman's seventh husband, in the Pleroma) to a more perfect nature. This is hinted at in the
remnants of Heracleon' s discussion of John 4.52, when he explains why the official's son
was healed at the seventh hour: "Through the seventh hour the nature of the one healed is
depicted."66 Elsewhere Heracleon assigns eight to an even higher, spiritual nature.67 Six,
seven, and eight symbolize the stages from the material world to spiritual perfection.
65 Heracleon, frag. 18 ( Origen, Commentary on John 13.69-72). On Heracleon's apparent departure
=
from the text of the New Testament in this passage, see Ehrman, "Heracleon, Origen," 112-13.
66 Heracleon, frag. 40 (= Origen, Commentary on John 13.416-26). Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus,
320-21, denies that this passage refers to the doctrine of the six, seven, and eight, and suggests,
rather, that it refers to the seventh day of Creation and God's restoring human nature to its original
good standing. But frag. 40 (at Origen, Commentary on John 13.424) discusses a nature that is
"depicted" (XCXQCXKTT)Qti:;erm), not "restored." In this passage natures are not transformed (as
Wucherpfennig's reading would require), they are revealed. True, the first to describe the royal
official's son's nature as "psychic" is not Heracleon but Origen (idem, 13.431), but it appears, from the
ensuing polemic, that Origen introduces the term at Heracleon's prompting.
67 Heracleon, Fragment 15 ( Origen, Commentary on John 1 0.248-50), treating Jn 2.19 ("Destroy this
=
temple and in three days I will raise it up." Heracleon takes [v TQlCJLV to mean [v TQtTq, which he in
turn takes to mean not only the day of the Resurrection, but "the spiritual day," wherein "the
resurrection of the Church is made manifest." In the same fragment, Heracleon describes the first and
second days (= Friday and Saturday, the sixth and seventh days) as "of clay" (xo·iKTjv ) and "of the
204
The same doctrine was part of the theology of Theodotus, a second-century
Valentinian.68 According to Clement's notes, the Excerpts from Theodotus, Theodotus held
that the rest (avarravcnc;) of the pneumatics - elect and spiritually advanced Christians - lay
in the Lord's Day, the ogdoad. For those psychics who were faithful, their souls would
eventually, at the time of perfection, ascend from the presence of the Demiurge to the realm
of the ogdoad.69 The Demiurge was symbolized by the number seven in Valentinianism.
Thus, for both Theodotus and Clement, the hebdomad and odgoad were places of rest and
perfection, respectively. Of course, Theodotus assigns the realm of the odgoad primarily to
his own circle of pneumatics, an elitism Clement criticizes throughout the Stromateis. But
this shows only that Clement and Theodotus were using the same number symbol, but to
different ends.
Clement finds the association of seven with eight in the Scriptures, in ecclesiastical
authors, and in philosophy, whether or not the hebdomad and ogdoad are explicitly
mentioned.7° Because the notion of transition from rest to gnostic perfection, symbolized by
seven and eight, is so dominant, Clement looks for the theme wherever he reads. This, then,
explains why Clement felt his exposition of the Sabbath had led to a critical subexcursus.
Treating the themes of seven and rest, Clement, out of habit, considered it imperative to also
soul," (lf!uXLKfJv) respectively, thus reinforcing his view, that the eighth day symbolizes spiritual
perfection.
68 On Theodotus, see DECL 571 and below, excursus F.
69 Excerpts from Theodotus 3.63.
7D For more examples (such as Stromateis 7.10.57.4-5) and analysis of the seven and eight in Clement
of Alexandria, see Itter, "Method and Doctrine," 43-55.
205
consider the role of eight (§138.5, lines 1-3). But to understand why six and seven are also
invoked (lines 4-5), we must first explore his discussion of the Transfiguration.
THE ARI1HMETIC OF TRANSFIGURATION
Clement's subexcursus on the relationships of seven to eight and six to seven (§§138.5--
145.7) has been studied most thoroughly by Delatte, who was also the first to recognize that
Clement's exegesis of the Transfiguration depends upon the teachings of Marcus?1 Delatte's
commentary is perceptive, and I shall include some of his observations as I proceed.
Clement begins (§138.5) with the cryptic claim, "The odgoad is likely to be chiefly a
hebdomad, and the hebdomad, a hexad, at least apparently. The first is likely to be chiefly
the Sabbath, but the hebdomad, a woman worker."72 In the remainder of the excursus
Clement sets out to explain the paradox of how an eight can be considered Sabbathlike, and
seven, workerlike.
Clement itemizes the various properties of each of the numbers six, seven, and eight
(§§138.6-140.2).73 He spends the most time on the number six, pointing out its role in the
cosmogony, the course of the sun, and the cycles of plant life. He appeals to the importance
of six in embryology and to the arithmetical properties that led the Pythagoreans to make it
a symbol of mediation and marriage. Six is a function of generation and motion. Seven is
depicted as motherless and childless, an allusion to its arithmetical properties, since seven
71 Delatte, E tudes, 229-45.

72 Woman worker: iQya:w;;; see Prov 6.8a LXX.
73 Delatte, E tudes, 234-35, identifies Clement's sources. See also parallels in the sections of the Theology
of Arithmetic devoted to the 6, 7, and 8.
206
neither is the product of, nor produces, any of the numbers in the Decad?4 Seven was
traditionally assigned to Athena, the virgin born without a mother. Clement, however, takes
the Pythagorean epithet to refer allegorically to the Sabbath and the form of rest in which
"there is neither marrying nor being married."75 The ogdoad is briefly described as the cube,
the fixed sphere, and a participant in the Great Year?6 Delatte notes that Clement is drawing
here, and in a later passage concerning the excellence of seven (§143.1-145.2), from a Jewish
tradition of arithmology, evident in the writings of Philo and Aristobulus, who argue that
Jewish law and custom harmonize with Hellenic philosophy. Although Clement uses
Aristobulus, this is probably mediated through someone like Hermippus of Berytus, a
grammarian (possibly Jewish or Christian) of the early second century, whose lost treatise
On the Hebdomad is mentioned in §145.2.
Up to this point, Clement has marked only the differences between six, seven, and
eight. There is nothing up to this point to justify his claim at §138.5 that there is an identity
between them, or a transformation from one to another. To make this connection Clement
turns to the Transfiguration (§140.3). He locates the event on the eighth day, and the Lord as
the fourth person (after counting Peter, James, and John). The Lord ascends the mountain
74 There are dozens of ancient references. See, e.g., Aristotle, frag. 203 (= Alexander of Aphrodisias,
Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics 38); Philo, On the Creation of the World 1 00; Theology of
Arithmetic 41 .30; Theon of Smyrna, Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 1 03.14-16; Nicomachus of
Gerasa in Photius, Biblioteca 1 44B.
75 Mt 22.30.
76 Fixed sphere: TTJV ani\avi) . . . cnpaiQCXV: see Stromateis 5.106, cited above. Because of precession, the
drifting of the earth's axis across the stars, the zodiac appears over the centuries to rotate slowly
around the earth. The time it takes for one house of the zodiac to return to the place where it started
from, calculated by modem astronomers at 26,000 years, is called the Great Year. The length of the
Year was a very old topic. See, e.g., Plato, Republic 8.546.
207
and, at the appearance of Moses and Elijah (i.e., two more persons), becomes the sixth. The
voice of God Clement reckons as the seventh character, and Jesus is made manifest as the
eighth, God. The explanation depends upon Marcus (see chapter 2). But is Clement
following Against Heresies or do Irenaeus and Clement depend upon a common source?
Delatte suggested the latter, since both authors give details lacking in the account of the
other. Most recently, Forster has suggested that Clement depends on only Irenaeus since
Clement does not otherwise employ Marcus's doctrine?? Forster's view seems correct. In the
recent past scholars have observed Clement's overt and tacit use of Irenaeus.78 In the clearest
parallel between the two, the interpretation of clean and unclean animals in the Law,
Clement adapts Irenaeus' s vocabulary and thought, occasionally quoting nearly verbatim, at
other times adding his own explanations?9 As we shall see, this is how Clement handles
Marcus's teaching. Sometimes he quotes Irenaeus verbatim, other times he adds to
Irenaeus' s account, so as to revise the interpretation and make it his own. Compare the
passages:
[§140.3, line 10; gray shading indicates textual So on this [eighth day]82+ the Lord, as the
parallels] TatrrlJ TOL 6 KUQLOs TETaQTOs fourth, after ascending the mountain
ava � ixs c is '[0 OQOs EKTOs y(vETaL Kal cpunl becomes a sixth and is radiated by a
7IEQIAcX�-t7IETaL 7IVEU!-1£X'rlKcfl, TTJ V bvva�-tLV TTJ V spiritual light, making bare his power - as
an' atnov naQaYV!JVWaas c is oaov ol6v TE far as it is possible for those who have
T]v tb{iv wis 6Qav £10\cycim, bt' £�b6�-tTJs chosen to see to perceive-and heralded
77 Marcus Magus, 252, n. 207.

78 See Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology; le Boulluec, "Exegese et polemique antignostique," 707-13;
and Patterson, "Divine Became Human."
79 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7.18.109.2-1 10.1, adapting Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5 .8.3.53-84.
The parallel is analyzed in Hort and Mayor, Clement of Alexandria, and Patterson, "Divine Became
Human."
208
avaK11QU000f1EVO(_; [line 15) ti'Jc_; ¢wvflc_; ULO(_; by the seventh, the voice, to be the Son of
dvm 8 wu, tva bl) o'i flEV avanavawvrat God, so that those who are persuaded
rraa8£vrEc; nEQl. a{rwv, CfrJ+ b£, bu't ycviaEwc;, about him might rest, while he, being an
f)v ebf)i\waEV i] n;ac;, E7TLOllf10c_;81+ oyboac; episemon ogdoad, might be manifest
vnaQxwv ¢avrj, 8Eoc; f.v aaQKLc}> 'ITJV bvvaflLV through his generation (which the hexad
EVDE LKVVflEVO(_;, ClQL8f10Uf1EVO(_; flEV we; clarifies) as God, demonstrating his
aV8QW7TO(_;, KQU1T'!OflEVO(_; bi: oc; llV" power in a bit of flesh: numbered as man,
but concealed as he was.
[Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 . 14.6.272-77] [Marcus] says that the fruit of this account
Tou'!ou '!OU i\6you Kal. TfJc; OLKOVOflLac; '!aVnJc; and this plan is that he was manifest in
KaQn6v ¢TJaLV ev OflOLWflan ELK6voc; the likeness of an image (Rom 1 .23), he
nE¢TJVEVaL EKEi(vov) '!OV flE'!a '!ac; eE, tlflEQac; who, after six days, ascended the
'!E'!aQ'!OV avaf)av'!a de; '!0 OQOc; Kai mountain as the fourth and became a
ycv6f1Evov EK'!ov, '!ov Ka'!af)av'!a Kai sixth, he who descended and was held in
KQa'!YJ8Ev'!a f.v '!� 'Ef)boflabL, EITLOll flOV the Hebdomad, being an episemon
'Oyboaba vnaQxov'!a Kal. £xovra f.v £au'!cf1 ogdoad and possessing within himself
'!OV a navra '!�JV G'!OLXE LWV ClQL8 f10V. every number of the oral letters.
Delatte pointed out that the two passages complement and explain each other.
Clement's description of Jesus as f.n(aT]flOc; is intelligible only when we consider that
Marcus calls Jesus this because his name consists of six letters.83 Likewise, the peculiar
suggestion in Irenaeus' s report of Marcus's doctrine, that Christ was held in the hebdomad,
so Substituting Delatte's 6 for the 6 in SC and the oi- dittography from the line prior- in the
manuscript.
81 I delete the comma here, following Sagnard, Gnose valentinienne, 378, and Dupont-Sommer, Doctrine
gnostique, 47. On the coined phrase, episemon ogdoad, see above, p. 9 1 .
82 The precise referent of TatYI:lJ i s missing from the A N F and SC translations. I t must refer t o the
odgoad because that was the topic of the previous section and because TaUTTJ corresponds to
Marcus's pna TtXC: E:l; fJf.lEQac:. It may possibly refer to the last word of §140.2, avTanobOm:wc;, but
even this term Clement gives the nuance of eightness. But my reconstruction makes sense in light of
Lk 9.28, which places the Transfiguration on the eighth day, unlike Mt 1 7.1 and Mk 9.2, both of which
place it "after six days." Clement follows Luke; Marcus follows Matthew and Mark.
83 Delatte, E tudes, 238. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.4.
209
is intelligible only in light of Clement's version, where the seventh is identified with the
voice, which possesses Jesus and declares him to be the Son of God at his baptism.84 Delatte
argued that, for both Clement and Marcus, Christ is represented inclusively as six, seven,
and eight, numbers that symbolize the Incarnation. Thus, according to Delatte, Clement's
version of Marcus's account of the Transfiguration synthesizes the previous sections
discussing the properties of six, seven, and eight (§138.5-140.2), and help demonstrate
Clement's claim, since Christ himself is six, seven, and eight.
The problem with Delatte's interpretation is that, strictly speaking, Christ is
identified by Marcus and Clement, not with seven, but only with six and eight. The seventh
character is reserved in Clement for the voice of God, not Jesus. Thus, six, seven, and eight
are not indiscriminately all symbols of Jesus, as Delatte claims. Also, what started Clement
on this tangent in the first place was the proposal that the ogdoad is a hebdomad, and the
hebdomad, a hexad (§138.5). This requires a transitive relationship, of 6 ----* 7 ----* 8, or 8 ----* 7
----* 6. But neither Clement's nor Marcus's account of the Transfiguration suggests that Jesus
went from being the sixth to becoming the eighth, via the seventh. Clement may have
originally (§138.5) proposed to demonstrate a transformation of six into eight, but that does
not occur here, at §140.3. The only transformation of numbers in this passage is from four to
six, when Jesus becomes the sixth after the appearance of Moses and Elisha. Clement states
(as does Marcus) that Jesus is concurrently six and eight-the episemon ogdoad -without
implying any transition between the two (at least, not in §140.3). Even if a transition could
84 Although his comparison seems to be correct, Delatte, E tudes, 238-39, does not explain specifically
how the voice "possesses" Jesus, in either the Transfiguration or the Baptism. The puzzle still
remains.
210
be established, there i s nothing to suggest that i t happened via seven, which i s assigned, as
already mentioned, to the voice. Both passages emphasize the differences, not the
transformations, among six, seven, and eight. Clement's version in particular constitutes a
Christian parallel to the arithmology of §§138.6-140.2, which lists the distinct properties
commonly known in the Greco-Roman world among six, seven, and eight. Clement uses a
single event, the Transfiguration, to depict the Christian understanding of the symbolic
significance of six (generation), seven (the voice), and eight (divinity), arraying the
symbolism for all three numbers in a single, static image.
A closer look at the vocabulary of §140.3 bears this out. We have mentioned above
the care Clement shows when he reads other authors and "discovers" in them the doctrine
of the hebdomad and ogdoad. Sometimes there are key words that make this explicit, such
in Plato's Republic. Other times, there is little or nothing to make this association explicit,
most notably his treatment of Clement of Rome and Psalm 33 (34), where a word
reminiscent of seven, navaov, spurs Clement to invoke the doctrine of the hebdomad and
ogdoad. Clement considers Scripture to have been written with extreme care. There are no
superfluous words, and each word is chosen for its symbolic overtones. I suggest that
Clement composes his explanation of the Transfiguration with the same care. He chooses
words that have subtle overtones of number symbolism, and thereby gives a fuller Christian
arithmology of six, seven, and eight.
Clement gives to Christ the epithet episemos ogdoad. This epithet, which features
prominently in Marcus's theology (see chapter 2), conjoins six and eight, a mathematical
and theological paradox. Six represents the created, m aterial world; and eight, spiritual
perfection, the divine realm. Notice how the paradox is reflected at the end of §140.3, where
21 1
Jesus is "numbered as man," but hidden "as he was." Six corresponds to "man," and eight,
to "as he was," i.e., God. Between these two phrases, however, is 8coc; f.v craQKL4J -olv
buvaf.HV E.vbnKVVflEVOt;, a phrase that can also be interpreted as a cipher for six-eight:
craQKLCfl is six; 8E6t; and buvafl Lt;, eight. The entire clause, from 6 bt to the end, reiterates in
three compact phrases the mystery of the Incarnation as a combination of six and eight.
Likewise, the first instance of buvaflLs (line 13), just as the second (line 1 8), should
also suggest the number eight. This is consistent with Clement's exposition, since this first
instance describes how Christ laid bare, as much as his companions could manage, his
divinity. Divinity is often represented as the number eight in Clement. The spiritual light in
which Jesus is cloaked, then, is the radiance of this "eightness." This entire phrase alludes to
the eightness of the Transfiguration, and complements the next phrase, which explicitly
identifies seven with the voice that permits his disciples to find rest: E:[3b6f1lls, <j:>wvf]c;, and
avanaucrwvrm all resonate with each other. By finding rest, the disciples, who are products
of generation, and therefore symbolized by six, move from the realm of six into seven.
Read this way, the unshaded text in §140.3, which has no parallel in Marcus/Irenaeus
(from KaL <j:>W'rL to ITEQL av'fov) constitutes a miniature Christian arithmology on eight, then
seven. It moves on to six - the generative aspect of Jesus -where Clement picks up again
from Irenaeus' s text, and then ends in a terse meditation on the Incarnation as a
combination of six and eight. Thus, the material in Clement but not in Marcus/Irenaeus is to
be attributed not to teachings of Marcus unreported by Irenaeus yet reproduced by
Clement- the scenario endorsed by Delatte -but to Clement's careful rewriting of
Irenaeus' s version of Marcus's account
212
THE EPISEMON: THE TRANSFIGURATION OF ARITHMETIC
Clement's account of the Transfiguration moves, not to the baptism of Jesus, as Marcus's
does, but to the order of the alphabet and numerical notation. This, too, is a theme upon
which Marcus touches, but Clement pursues the matter further. He begins by explaining
how six is included in the order of the numbers, but the sequence of the alphabet shows that
the episemon is not written with a letter. That is, numerals, using the alphabetic system of
numeration, follow the sequence a', W, y ', b', E ', c; ', (, , r (, and so on. The number six is
'
represented by the episemon. But when the alphabet is written out-a, �, y, b, E, (,, 11, and so
on - it shows that the episemon is unwritten. He explains that the difference between the
two sequences is created by the intrusion of the episemon, which disrupts the alphabet, a
disruption that he takes as a cipher for his doctrine of the six and seven, and subsequently of
the seven and eight. Here is the relevant text.
[§140.4] TlJ f.l EV yaQ 'ra�El 'rWV lXQL8f.1WV For the [number] six is included in the
cruyKa'raA£ynm Kai. 6 £�, � bi:: 'rwv CY'rOLXE LWV order of the numbers, but the sequence of
aKoAov8 (a E 71 LCY11f.10V YVWQL(,El '[Q f.l� the oral letters makes known that the
yQa¢6f.1Evov. [§141.1] ev'rau8a Ka'ra f.lEV episemon is unwritten. Thus, according to
'rove; lXQL8f.10Vc; at)'[OVc; crc}J(,E'raL 'rlJ 'ra�El the numbers themselves, each monad is
EKaCY'rll f.lOVac; de; [ �bOf.laba '[E Kai. oyboaba, preserved in sequence, up to the
Ka'ra bi:: '[QV '[WV CY'rOLXE LWV lXQL8 f.10V EK'[OV hebdomad and the ogdoad. But according
y (vE'raL 'rO C,i]'ra, Kai. E.�bOf-lOV 'rO f} [2] to the number of oral letters, the zeta
'E KKAanEV'roc;85 b' OUK otb ' onwc; '[OU becomes sixth, and the eta, seventh. But
EnLCYTJ f.lOU de; u)v yQa¢i]v, eav oih-wc; when the episemon - I don't know how
i:: n wwea, EK'rll f.lEV yivnm � [�bof-lac;, slips into86 writing (should we pursue it in
£�bow1 bi:: � oyboac;· this manner) the sixth [letter] becomes the
ss M s reading. Stahlin: Eicnv\an£vwc;.

86 Or "slips out of." See discussion, below.
213
hebdomad, and the seventh, the ogdoad.87+
To unravel this cryptic passage, preliminary comments on two aspects of Greek
grammar are in order. First, as already discussed, crrOLXEiov, the oral letter, was
distinguished from YQll!-1!-HX, the written.88 Clement also seems to hold the grammarians'
distinction between spoken letters and written letters. The phrases 'l"O 1-1� yQa¢61-lEvov and
de; 'r�V yQa¢r1v show that he sees the episemon as dwelling in the written sphere, not the
oral one. That is, the episemon is a written letter, not an oral one.
Second, Clement is not discussing the digamma, the archaic Greek letter derived
from the Phoenician waw. His comments here are frequently misread because modem
readers conflate the episemon and the digamma. It is common knowledge today that the
earliest Greek alphabets included in the sixth place the Phoenician letter waw, first written
like a Y, but later, as F.89 When the digamma dropped out of use, the written letter was
preserved in the Milesian system of numeration. The episemon is seen as the direct
87 This last clause, at first glance, seems as if it should be translated, "the hebdomad becomes sixth
and the ogdoad, seventh." But it is nearly impossible to make sense out of this. The episemon is a
numeral (see above, p. 91). Hebdomad and ogdoad always refer to numbers, not numerals or serial
rank. For the number seven to become sixth would require the loss of another number, not a numeral.
This reading would also require the text to be emended to EK 'rfJc; yQacpfJc; (on which possibility see
below). Even then, it is a stretch to make sense of the loss of the numeral episemon as altering the
numbers. Thus, in my view, this clause makes best sense when EK'rll and i'(3Mf-!ll (sc. yQacpl'J) are
taken as the subjects. These symbols "become" the hebdomad and the ogdoad by virtue of their new
symbolic values. They lack articles since ordinal numbers often do, and their predicates have definite
articles because they are well-known abstractions. See Smyth, Greek Grammar, 1125c, 1125n, and 1 152.
On the ambiguity of subject and predicate in Greek see Kahn, Verb "Be, " 39-40.
88 See above, p. 83 and n. 13.
89 Hence, the term, digamma, attested in the post-classical period, since the character looks like one
uncial gamma superimposed on another. See L SJ 752a, s.v., "p" and Larfeld, 294.
214
descendant of the obsolete waw. But late antique and medieval treatments of the digamma
show no awareness of its association with the number six. Greek grammarians in late
antiquity did not even assign the digamma a place in the sequence of the alphabet. Further,
no ancient discussions of the parasema - the nonalphabetic numerals- mention the letter
digamma.90+ One scholium on Dionysius Thrax states very clearly that the digamma was
never associated with the number six. This scholiast entertains the theoretical objection that,
because the digamma is a letter, Dionysius Thrax' s claim that there are twenty-four written
letters must be faulty. The objection runs: both a xaQ£XK'rTJQ and an 6vof.la are concomitant
with every oral letter; the digamma has both, so it too should be reckoned with the oral
letters. The scholiast lays out several responses to this argument, one of which runs, "Again,
every character (X£XQ£XK'rTJQ) of the oral letters designates a number. For the a indicates the
90 All ancient references known to me concerning the episemon are discussed above, pp. 86--S S.Scholia
on Dionysius Thrax 1 .3 :496 .6--7 appears at first glance to identify the digamma with the Greek numeral
for six. The scholiast entertains the question, Why are there twenty-four letters (yQcXf-lf-llXHX) when
there are other characters and inscribed figures, and other nations have their own letters, and there
are certain other figures: "the digamma, the koppa, the so-called parakuisma, the insignia, and things
written alongside letters, and the crown?" l wx TL bi:: Kb ' i'¢11 Eivm Ta YQcXf.lfllXTa E i yag YQcXf-lf.llXTa
Eicnv oi xagaKTijQEc; Kai oi E,vaf.lol, YQcXf.lfllXTa bi:: Kai Ta naga Xat\baimc; Kai AiyvnTimc;, KaL nva
ETEQa, n) blyaf-lf-llX Kai To Konna Kai TO Kat\ovf.l E Vov nagaKv"iaf.la, Kai. Ta GllflEia, Kai. Ta
711XQEyyQacp6f.!EVIX Toic; GTOLXELOLc;, KIXL r'] KOQWvic;, KIXL El n TOL01�JTOV, lXTOnwc; ¢llai.v on Kb ' EGTLV.
This passage has guided scholars, including LSJ 1 562a, s.v. "M" and LSJ, Supplement 1 14, s.v.
"xnagaKv"iaf.la," to define naQaKv"Lafla as the term for the numeral q. The problem with this
conjecture is that it assumes the author identified the digamma with the numeral c; and that the
author intended to list all three non-alphabetic numerals. This is possible, but it should be
demonstrated, not assumed. In this passage nagaKv"iaf.la - a hapax legomenon - can be read with
biyaf.lfllX and Konna as a threesome, but this is not required. It might actually form a pair with TG
Gllf.!Eia. Given the root meaning of naQaKv·iafla -a KVYlfllX is a fetus-it is very difficult to see how
the character q could be inferred. Jannaris, "Digamma, Koppa, and Sampi," 39, suggests the q "is a
naQaKt\ivov yivvllfllX, a slanting letter," but offers no explanation of how it resembles "offspring." In
reality, we have no clue what naQaKv·iaf.la means. This scholium on Dionysius Thrax is the only
ancient text that might possibly be interpreted to connect the digamma with the numeral six, a shaky
foundation, given my arguments below.
215
number one, and the (3, two, and so forth. So therefore, if the character of F doesn't indicate a
number, it is clear that it is not an oral letter."91 The scholiast pursues several other
arguments for not treating the digamma as a letter, of no concern to us here. This much is
clear, that he regarded the digamma as having no corresponding numeral and therefore no
place in the order of the alphabet. Other parallel scholia discussing the digarnrna do not
repeat this argument, but they also do not associate the digamma with the number six or
any ordinal place in the alphabet-92
This explains why Ptolemy, in his Harmonics, uses both the digamma and the
episemon in the same sentence to refer to two different things: the digamma for a musical
tone and the episemon for a numeraJ.93 Also relevant is a rather obscure Greek text, On the
Mysteries of the Greek Letters, extant only in a Coptic translation and preserved in a
fourteenth-century manuscript-94 The text, which is little known today, has been dated to the
fifth or sixth centuries, but I suspect it is even later.95 The author claims the Greek
91 Scholia on Dionysius Thrax 1 .3:187.22-25. "En nac;; XCXQIXKTllQ aTOLXElWV 01]!-llXLVEL cXQL8 !-16v· Kai yaQ
n) a OIJ!-l lXLVEL n)v ifva cXQL81-16v, Kai n) � n)v Mo, Kai i:!;i)c;; · E i aQa ovv 6 XCXQCXKTllQ TOVF ov
0fJ!-11XLVC l cXQL8!-10V, bi);\ov on OVK [an GTOLXELOV.
92 Scholia on Dionysius Thrax 1 .3:34.15-23; 2.1 :76.32-77.12. At first glance, the Georgian alphabet seems
to provide evidence that late antique grammarians knew about the connection between F and �. The
fifth, sixth, and seventh letters are a [ e], 3 [v ], and 'b [ z], and the alphabet was used for numerals in the
fashion of Greek. But Mouraviev, "Valeurs phoniques," has demonstrated that the placement of extra
Georgian letters such as 3 in the alphabet had nothing to do with the Semitic alphabets, but was the
careful, deliberate work of a phonologist. In Georgian, the phonetic equivalent of waw is the 22nd
letter, ";:! [ii/w], assigned the value of 400 as an alphabetic numeral.
93 Ptolemy, Harmonics 2.1.
94 Hebbelynck's ed. Studies by Dupont-Sommer, Doctrine gnostique; Galtier, "Sur les Mysteres."
95 See Dupont-Sommer, Doctrine gnostique, 52, who affirms an early, ca. 5th-c. date. The text, however,
plays with Syriac, Hebrew, and Arabic letters, suggesting that it was written after the rise of Islam.
Further, the combination of theological polemic, letter mysticism, and interest in comparative
linguistics is reminiscent of Jewish (and later, Christian) kabbalistic literature, dominant in the 13th c.
21 6
philosophers moved the waw from its proper place and placed it after the nu, as part of
their rejection of God, since God provided the waw as a prophecy of Christ.96 To this author,
the Phoenician waw became not the digamma but the omicron!
All these late-antique texts show that any original association there might have been
between the numeral six and the digamma had been lost.97 This helps clear up a vexing
textual problem at §§140.4-1 41.2. It is unclear whether Clement thought the letter slipped
into writing, or fell out of it, since £1o\an£vroc; and de; 'rl)v yQacpi)v seem to oppose each
other. Some scholars have argued that the text should read Eimo\an£vroc; (which would
have Clement regard the character as entering the alphabet), others as EK 'rflc; yQacpflc; (to
have Clement see the character fall into disuse).98 The former group seems not to have done
so on the basis of the grammatical background, just discussed.99 Delatte's proposal, which
depends upon the latter group, has Clement, in conformity with modem scholarship,
meditate on the development of the Greek alphabet from its Phoenician roots. But this is not
Clement's point. He is interested primarily in the difference between the alphabet and
Greek numeration. Like the grammarians of his day, Clement saw no connection between
the waw and the numeral six, since he considered the latter as a purely written, not spoken,
96 Hebbelynck ed., 27.

97 Given all this, we should guard against translations such as Williams, NHS 35:217 (Epiphanius,
Panarion 34.6.4), which translates E ITLCJl'lflOV as "digamma."
98 Delatte, E tudes, 241 .
99 Delatte (agreeing with Serruys) rejected Stahlin's (agreeing with Lowth) argument for the first
option, since it rested on the view that the last sentence in Clement's paragraph purports to say that
the number seven then took the sixth place, and the number eight, the seventh. Stahlin argued for the
first option by suggesting that the numbers themselves move. Of course, they do not. By affirming
the second option, that the episemon fell out of writing, Delatte seems to have influenced the SC
edition (446:342--43), which departs from Stahlin's text- otherwise the preferred edition -in favor of
the manuscript Laur. V 3. But the French translation in SC reflects Delatte's preference.
217
symbol. Thus, the text should read Eicnv\an:ivroc; b' ovK olb ' onwc; 'lOU £mm')flou de; 'l�V
yQacpt1v.100+ The numeral six, the episemon, somehow entered into the writing system -
Clement admits his ignorance on the historical specifics-and thus disrupted the order of
the alphabet.
This emendation, in tum, makes Clement's illustration of his theology clearer: the
episemon symbolizes Christ, who enters into the writing of the world and effects an
alteration in the constitution of its oral letters/elements (cnOLXEia). Clement plays on the
ambiguity of cnOLXEiov, treating it primarily as a letter of the alphabet, but also alluding to
its alternate meaning as an element of the universe. He regards the inconcinnity between the
alphabet and the numbering system to be the key to interpreting the effect the Incarnation
had on creation. This same inconcinnity explains the numbers latent in the Transfiguration.
There on the mountain, Jesus is revealed as the episemon ogdoad, the number eight in the
guise of the numeral c;. The number eight is the unknowable God, the c; is his entry into the
writing system.1 01 That intrusion causes the sixth element (a'LOLXEiov) to access the seventh,
100 There are other reasons for accepting the emendation. First, the alternate proposal, 'EKKi\anivTos
b' ouK oib onws wv i:mm'J1-1ou EK TTJs yQa<f>fJs, requires an alteration of three words, rather than just
·
one. It seems to me more likely that a scribe wrote K for ta than the other possibility, that he wrote ta
for K, plus two substitutions of v for a. Second, the last sentence in Clement's paragraph does not
suggest what Stahlin said and what Delatte discounted (see previous n.); rather, as my translation
and explanation propose, Clement sees the sixth letter becoming the hebdomad, which requires the
standard twenty-four letter alphabet to antedate the alphabetic numerals. Third, the alternate
proposal suggests that the episemon was originally in the alphabet, then disappeared, contradicting
the previous sentence, which states that, prior to whatever happened to the episemon, zeta was sixth
and eta seventh in the order of the alphabet. In light of these concerns, the episemon "slips into"
writing.
101 Note here the contrast with On the Mysteries of the Greek Letters, which has the waw (episemon)
represent Christ by virtue of its position after the first five stages of creation (alpha through epsilon)
and before the two stages symbolizing Christ's advent (zeta and eta). In the Mysteries the episemon
does not symbolize the lower of the two natures. Further, the Greeks are accused, not of dropping the
218
and the seventh element (aTOLXEiov) to access the eighth. Thus, the apostles, b y trusting in
him on the mount of Transfiguration, entered into the rest of the seventh. We would think
that, by analogy, they would move from the seventh to the eighth, but Clement's
interpretation of the Transfiguration (§140.3) does not state this, either explicitly or
implicitly. But since he has now brought the subject up (§141 .2, echoing §138.5), Clement
now turns (§141 .3-7) to Marcus's teaching on the number six. Clement draws from parts of
Scripture that speak to the doctrine of the episemon, and then selects examples from
geometry to establish the point he set out to make initially, that the ogdoad is likely to be a
hebdomad, and the hebdomad, a hexad. His argument runs:
[§141 .3] bL<) KCXl EV TlJ EKT-r:J 6 av8QW7Wc:; [3] So also, it is said that in the sixth [day]
A£yETCXL nEnon)a8m 6 T4J £ maiJf-l� the human was made, becoming faithful to
maToc:; YEVOf-!EVOc:; we:; n)8£wc:; KUQLCXKf]c:; the episemon, so as to receive straightaway
KAf]QOVOf-! Lac:; avanavmv i mo;\a�ELV . [4] the rest of the Lord's inheritance. [4] Even
TOLOl)'[OV '[L KCXL Tl fKTfJ WQCX Tf]c:; GWTfJQLOU the sixth hour of the divine plan of
oiKOVOflLac:; E f-lc}>a[vn, Ka8 ' ilv ETEAnw8fJ salvation indicates this sort of thing; in it
6 av8QW710c:;. [5] vat f-!TJV TWV f-!EV OKTW CXL the human was perfected. [5] Indeed, there
f-!Ea6TfJTEc:; y[vovTm i:nTa, Twv bi: i:nTa are seven intermediates of eight things,
cpa[vovTa L dvm TlX bLCXGTTJ f-lCXTa lE,. [6] and there seems to be six intervals of seven
aMoc:; yaQ EKEivoc:; A6yoc:;, E71ClV i:: � bOf-!Clc:; things. [6] For there is that other saying,
boE,a(-r:J TTJV oyboaba KCXL "oL OUQCXVOL TOLe:; "When the hebdomad glorifies the odgoad
ovQavoic:; bLfJYOtJVTCXL b6E,av 8 wu . " oL and the heavens declare to the heavens the
TOlJTWV CXLG8fJTOl TlJ710L TCl 71CXQ' TJf-llV glory of God." (Ps 18.2) The oral letters that
cpwvi)EvTa aTOLXEia. [7] ouTwc:; Kat avToc:; are our vowels are perceptible types of
E LQfJTCXL 6 KUQLOc:; "aAcpa Ka i w, cXQXTJ Kai. these things. [7] So also the Lord himself is
'[E;\oc:;," "bL' ou '[Cl navTa EYEVETO KCXl said to be "alpha and o[mega ], beginning
XWQtc:; CXUTOU EYEVETO ovbi: EV." and end," (Rev 21 .6) "through whom
letter, but of rearranging its position, to fall after the nu. See Hebbelynck's ed., pp. 156-58. For other
ancient Christian associations of Christ and the waw, also without overtones of number symbolism,
see Danielou, Symboles chretiens primitifs, 150-5 1 .
219
everything came into being, and without

him not even one thing came into being."
(Jn 1 .3)
The parallel from Marcus runs:
[Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.6.280-85] And because of this, Moses said that the
Kat btlt ·rofno Mwvata f.v TTJ EKTIJ �f.lEQ0 human being came into existence on the
ELQT]KEVCCL TOV av8QW7WV ycyovtvm· KCCL sixth day, and the divine plan, on the sixth
TTJV OLKOVOf-1 LaV bE. EV TTJ EKTIJ '[WV day [of the week], i.e., the day of
�f.l EQWV, line;; fG'rlV � 11CCQCCUKEVTJ, <f.v> lJ Preparation, in which the last human being
"(()V EUXCCTOV av8QW110V de;; avayivVT]aLV is manifest for the rebirth of the first man.
TOU 71QC�nou aV8QC�mou 71Ecj:>T]VEVCCL, f]c;; The beginning and end of this divine plan
OLKOVOf-!LCCc;; UQXTJV Kat TEAoc;; TTJV EKTT]V was the sixth hour, when he was nailed to
wQav dvm, f.v 1J 71QOGT]Aw8T] Tc}J E;vA4-J. the wood .
[ibid., 1 .14.8.320-25] Kaewc;; ovv ai f.rrTa, He [Marcus] says: Therefore, just as the
cpf]aLv, bvvaf.lnc;; bo�a(ovm "(()v A6yov, seven powers glorify the Logos, so also the
ovTwc;; Kai � l(Jvxi] £v Toic;; (3Qicpcm soul in infants, crying and wailing, glorify
KAa(ovaa Kai 8QTJVOl)aa MaQKOv bo�a(n Marcus himself. Because of this, David also
a-ln6v. bli'x TOVTO bt Kai. Tov �avib said, "From the mouth of infants and
E LQT]KEVCCL" "'EK GTOf-lCCTOc;; VT]71LWV KCCL sucklings, you have perfected praise," (Ps
8TJAa(6vTwv KCCTTJQTLaw aivov," Ka t 8.3 [8.2]) and also, "The heavens declare
rraAtv· "oi OVQCCVOL btT]YOUV'[CCl b6�av the glory of God." (Ps 18.2 [19.1])
e wv."
Clement's version is an orthodox, ecclesiastical variation of Marcus's teaching. He
notes, in Marcus's words, that the human was created on the sixth day. By omitting any
mention o f Moses he identifies from the beginning the sixth day o f creation with the day of
Christ's crucifixion. Clement unpacks the phrase "in the sixth [day] the human." Using the
same order of cases - dative, then nominative - Clement explains what sixth day and human
mean. The sixth day of creation/redemption is the episemon, and in that day man becomes
220
faithful to him. Clement, again departing from Marcus, says that the purpose of the
creation/redemption was to have the human being straightaway enjoy the rest of the Lord's
inheritance. His wording is precise. In a single phrase he uses ciphers of both seven
(avanavmv) and eight (KVQLaxfJc:; MYJQOVOf1 Lac:;).102 Thus, Clement restates that the goal of
humanity is to move from the sixth day of creation, through the Sabbath rest, into the rest of
the eighth day. He regards the connection between these days of creation as tight as the
geometric relationship between points and the intervals between them.
To illustrate his point Clement appeals to Psalm 1 8 (19), which he emends so that the
heavens declare the glory of God to the heavens (not in the Septuagint), just as the hebdomad
glorifies the ogdoad. The image invoked here is that of the seven planets glorifying the fixed
sphere, an image he uses to interpret Plato's Republic, discussed above. Throughout ancient
number symbolism the seven planets were closely associated with the seven vowels. So the
Lord, who is called alpha and omega, is symbolized in the Psalms by the heavens. The Lord,
the creator of all things, is the beginning and the end of all seven vowels. The thrust of
§141.6-7 is that Christ constitutes the harmony of the spheres, the one who communicates to
all the glory of God.
Marcus's numbers in this passage are more static than Clement's. In the first
paragraph, he is concerned with the number six and with showing the relationship among
the sixth day of Creation, the crucifixion on the sixth d ay of the week, and the nailing of
Jesus at the sixth hour. He claims the sixth hour was the beginning and the end of
102
KvQLO:KTJ and KAllQOVOf1LO: are ciphers for the Lord's day, the eighth. See Stromateis 5.14.106.2,
6.14.108.1, 7.12.76.4, and Excerpta ex Theodoto 3.63.
221
redemption, alluding to the Pythagorean idea of the perfection of the number six.1 03 Six does
not become anything. The second paragraph, which concerns itself with the number seven,
has no sign of the motif running throughout Clement's version of numbers changing and
turning into each other, in imitation of the divine plan and the incarnation of God. Clement
has taken two unrelated passages by Marcus and spun them into a new narrative, a
narrative of the orthodox vision of God becoming man so man might attain divine unity .104
The numbers in this new narrative symbolize the vertical transition of the faithful, as they
ascend from the material world to the spiritual.
The remainder of the excursus on the Decalogue (§§141 .7-142.1) consists of a long
explanation of the meaning of rest and the number seven. The material, much of which
probably derives from Aristobulus, is not of immediate concern, since it relates more to
Philo's number symbolism, not the Valentinians' .1 05
TRANSFIGURATION OF ARITHMETIC
Having read Against Heresies, Clement would have known Irenaeus' s saucy rhetoric against
Marcus, his sarcasm, and his reductiones ad absurdum. Clement, however, seems to take
Marcus's exegesis seriously. There is no express sarcasm or criticism, no attempt to show the
arbitrary methods of his opponent. Throughout the Stromateis Clement uses knowledge
(yvwmc;) so as to reclaim it from the heretics, those who called themselves spiritual, on
1 o3 S ee p. 50 n. 125.
1 04 S ee above, p. 1 86.
1os See Delatte, E tudes, 233, for the scope and evidence of Clement's direct or (more likely) indirect use
of Aristobulus. Compare also Stromateis 5.14.107.1-108.1, Clement's catena of quotations from
classical authors who praise the number seven.
222
behalf of his own "ecclesiastics." So here he robs Marcus of the episemos ogdoad, to make of
it a sign of Jesus's Incarnation, not of his emanation from and return to the Ogdoad. Both
M arcus and Clement consider Jesus to be "noteworthy" because of his association with six.
But for Marcus, the sixness is found most immediately in the number of letters in Jesus's
n ame, the number needed to augment the twenty-four letters of the alphabet so as to
achieve the Triacontad, the collection of the aeons. For Clement, the sixness lies not in letter
counts but in its symbolism of the human nature of Christ, of the rupture in human
discourse that brought about salvation. He ignores any sense of thirty, twenty-four, eight
hundred and one, or any other number appealing to Marcus. Marcus focuses on the
connection between the aeons and the alphabet. Clement, on that between the Incarnation
and redemption. Both use the symbolism of the episemon, but to different ends.
Clement shares with the Valentinians, Monolmus, and deutero-Simon a fascination
with arranging Scripture into arithmetically harmonious structures. Just as they do, when he
approaches the text, he takes along a preconceived, well-developed number symbolism. He
massages the terminology he finds in texts, peers behind individual words, and chases
down their overtones, so as to show how the Bible reveals those structures. The technique
works outside the Bible, too. Clement reads ecclesiastical and philosophical literature with
an eye to hidden number symbolism. His finest example is his investigation of Stoic
anthropology, which he transforms into a Christian one by supplementing the missing parts
and molding the structure into a pattern that better resembles the patterns he finds in
Scripture. The tactic resembles those of his theological opponents. For Clement, this is no
problem, since their error comes from their theological conclusions, not from the tactics used
to justify or adorn them.
223
What would Irenaeus have said of Clement's number symbolism? Like the
V alentinians, Clement draws from human conventions in grammar and numeration to
illustrate his theology (contra Irenaeus's second principle). Clement also quite openly takes
preconceived number symbols into the Scriptures and the ecclesiastical tradition,
rearranging a bit of the furniture along the way (contra Irenaeus's fourth principle). So there
are two specific ways in which Clement and Irenaeus seem to differ. Other aspects of
Clement's number symbolism match Irenaeus' s. He has no mathematical arrangement of
the godhead, and the symbolism he draws from numbers found in the natural world is
safely based on the science of his day (Irenaeus's first and third principles). If Irenaeus were
to have any problem with Clement's number symbolism, it would probably revolve around
exegetical matters. But we have already noted how Irenaeus bends his second and fourth
principles, and is somewhat uncharitable in the third. So if Irenaeus believed that Clement
was rooted in the apostolic rule of faith - as Clement probably hoped Irenaeus would have
believed - then it is quite probable that Irenaeus would have shown him the same leniency
he shows himself. For his part, Clement does not directly criticize Irenaeus. His criticism is
tacit. He faces the same opponents, but does not use against them standards to which he
does not presume to attain.
Marcus and Clement emphasize different numbers. Marcus focuses mostly upon
even numbers, especially two, four, six, eight, twelve, twenty-four, and thirty, to tie together
language and the aeons. Clement, however, is concerned mainly with six, seven, and eight,
seeing in the three numbers a kind of symbolic path of gnostic perfection. He shows little
interest in other numbers, aside from the oneness latent in God, and its extension in the
perfect number ten. Theodotus and Heracleon were also interested in the transition of six,
224
seven, and eight, but Clement uses the number symbol to oppose, or at least to dampen,
Valentinian theology and protology.
9
Platonism
Like Christians from the same period, Platonists of the second and third centuries frequently
used number symbolism, and even argued over the proper role numbers should be given.
The disputes among Irenaeus, Clement, and the Valentinians were not exclusively part of
the rhetorical and theological baggage of early Christianity. Rather, Christian debates over
the theology of arithmetic were part and parcel of contemporary intellectual discourse. To
illustrate this point I present here three different non-Christian Platonic texts and authors,
each with distinct parallels to the Christian number symbolism discussed in earlier chapters.
The first, Marsanes, a Nag Hammadi text datable to the late third or early fourth century,
exemplifies a strain of Platonic thought strikingly similar to that of Marcus. The second,
superficially similar to both Marsanes and Marcus, is a treatise by the fourth-century
philosopher Theodore of Asine, with whom Iamblichus, his teacher and fellow Pythagorean,
vehemently disagreed, most notably on the role that numbers should be allowed to play in
philosophy. Third are the writings of Plutarch, who displays several different attitudes to
number symbolism, ranging from skepticism to credulity.
The first two examples fall slightly after the late second to early third century, the
chronological bounds of this study; the third and last example, after it. This slight departure
from the main time period under investigation is no obstacle to the m ain purpose of this
225
226
chapter, to show that in late antiquity Platonists and Christians were working with a similar
vocabulary and confronting similar problems. Naturally, the differences between the two
groups should not be minimized -in this chapter I highlight the ways Platonists used their
vocabulary distinct from Christian -but the common threads help explain what Irenaeus,
Clement, and the Valentinians were arguing over.
MARSANES
The Nag Hammadi text Marsanes purports to recount a revelation to the Syrian teacher
Marsanes, after whom the treatise is named.1 This teacher, who seems to have been
regarded in some circles as a prophet, ascends through the various levels of the universe
and along the way learns about its structure and the seals through which he must pass to
ascend to the highest level. Unfortunately, the once-lengthy text is lacunose, and only about
a third of it can be meaningfully understood. What we have suggests that the treatise was
intended for an intermediate or advanced audience, readers who had already been
grounded in certain doctrines of the so-called Sethians.2
Sethian texts are often Christian or Jewish in content, but not necessarily so, as is the
case in Marsanes, in which there are no direct or indirect references to Christian doctrines or
texts. The few Jewish references are superficial, restricted to the names of Jewish prophets or
mythic figures who had been a longstanding part of Sethian mythology. Although the geme
1 See chap. 7 in the untitled treatise in the Bruce codex; Epiphanius, Pan arion 40.7.6; and Pearson's ed.,
230-33.
2 Turner, Sethian Gnosticism, 122. The term Sethian was devised by scholars who, aware it was a
neologism, attempted to explain important recurrent themes found in the heresiologists and in the
Nag Hammadi library. Often the heavenly savior Seth lies at the center of these texts, but there are
numerous other parallels. For a complete list, see ibid., 63-64.
227
of Marsanes - a philosophical, apocalyptic ascent narrative-may suggest parallels with
Christian apocalypses and Jewish hekhalot literature, this alone shows less the Christian
and Jewish influence than the broad popularity of the genre. According to Turner, one of the
most recent and most thorough commentators on the text, the absence of explicitly Jewish or
Christian elements points to a late stage in the history of the Sethians, when they were
estranged from Christianity.3 Should Turner's proposed reconstruction of Sethianism not be
persuasive, or should the entire category Sethian be abandoned or drastically revised,
Marsanes would still, for other reasons, suit best the late third or early fourth century, that is,
after the death of Plotinus.4
The author of Marsanes frequently invokes numbers to develop ideas about the
structures of the universe . Marsanes presents thirteen levels of reality, one above the other,
extending from the worldly, material realms to the highest realm, that of the unknown
silence.5 To move from one level into another a traveler must pass through various seals.
The lowest three seals are devoted to the worldly and material realms, the fourth, to the
supercorporeal, and the fifth to conversion. The sixth seal is given to incorporeal being, a
level whose self-begotten residents exist in the truth of the All. Thus, the first six levels are
devoted to realms inhabited by groups of entities or by abstract notions. The remaining
seals, however, are devoted to individual aeonic beings, similar to those found in
Valentinianism. The seventh seal is for the triple-perfect, self-generated power. The eighth
3 Ibid., 257-60. Turner suggests six phases in the community's development, starting from a fusion of
Christian and Jewish groups in the second century, and ending in the late third or early fourth
century with Platonists who had no formal religious affiliation.
4 Funk, Poirier, and Turner, Marsanes, 1, 229-30; Turner, Sethian Gnosticism, 189-94.
5 Marsanes (NH 10.1) 2.12-4.23.
228
seal is given to the male intellect, Protophanes, who is part of an incorporeal and intelligible
world.6 The ninth seal, as best we can understand the text, is given to Kalyptos, and the
tenth seal goes to the aeon Barbelo. Above her are the invisible, triple-powered being, and
then the spirit without essence. The thirteenth seal is devoted to the unknowable silence?
This thirteenth realm is the most transcendent, the pinnacle of the ascent.
A universe consisting of thirteen levels has not been seen in any of the texts so far
discussed in this study. In texts from late antiquity the number thirteen is of very little
interest as a symbolic number. For instance, Zostrianos, a Sethian text with many affinities to
Marsanes, ends only at the eleventh and twelfth levels, with no suggestion of anything
beyond.8 Two texts, however, offer parallels to Marsanes' thirteen levels: the Books of feu and
6 Throughout this chapter I use intelligible if and only if vonoc; or a cognate is used. For VOEQOc; I use
intellectual. Platonist philosophers in late antiquity sharply distinguished the two terms, assigning
them to different realms of reality. Although the distinction is more important for my discussion of
Theodore of A sine, I note the terminology here, where the distinction might also be at work.
7 A synopsis of the structure:
13 cnyfj? Silence
Unknown
12 nVC!Jf..la clVOUCHOV? Spirit without essence
11 aoQawc; the Invisible (who has three powers)
10 B A P B HAID Barbelo. Virgin? Aeon?
9 Kai\u7noc;? [Kalyptos?]
8 male intellect
Protophanes
incorporeal and intelligible world
7 atnoycvi]c; bUva1-uc; self-generated power
[TQh:oc;] TiAnoc; triple perfect
6 atnoyivvr]TOL self-begotten
clOW!-!lXTOc; OUOLlX incorporeal being
those who exist in the truth of the All
5 conversion
4 super-[ corporeal?]
1-3 material, worldly
8 Funk et al., Marsanes, 379.
229
Pistis Sophia. In the Books of feu, dated to the early third century, the Father is said to emanate
twelve places, and he himself stands in the thirteenth place, analogous to the role of Christ
over the twelve apostles.9 The thirteenth region is the culmination of the journey through
the twelve previous regions, each of which requires a password for entry .1 0 A gnostic hymn
in the same text gives praise to the first mystery, who established the thirteenth aeon and
the gods within.n
In Pistis Sophia, from the late third century, the thirteenth level is a dominant, almost
overpowering themeP There resides the transcendent being, governing twelve other lower
aeons.13 These twelve aeons are in no special hierarchy, although they seem to form two
groups, one of five and another of seven members.14 According to the main story the
thirteen levels are of paramount importance: Pistis Sophia, the main figure in the text, falls
from the thirteenth realm, and the twelve lower aeons persecute her for trying to regain her
lost position.15 Throughout the text, this thirteenth realm is epitomized as the place of
superperfection.
Common to all three texts is the idea that the thirteenth aeon transcends all other
levels. The lower twelve are associated, both implicitly and explicitly, with the zodiac,
9 LThK 5:848; Books of feu 1 .39, 2.42. There are other texts that focus on a group of 12 governed by a
single entity (think of the apostles and Christ) but these do not talk about the number thirteen per se.
See Danielou, Symboles chretiens primitives, 131--42, esp. 136, where he notes that Ephrem the Syrian
calls Christ the 13th, a variation on the theme apostles and Christ, and not directly relevant here.
10 Books of feu 2.52.
1 1 Bruce codex, fol. 37, treated by Schmidt as separate from the Books offeu.
12 For the date see DECL 491, LThK 8:317-18.
1 3 Pistis Sophia 1 .1 0 and passim.
14 Ibid. 1 .86, 2.96.
1s Ibid. 1 .30-31.
230
which means that the thirteenth level transcends the material heavens. This sheds light on
the trope already discussed, of the number eight symbolizing the superperfection of seven.
Seven is, of course, the number of planets. Since Marsanes, Books offeu, and Pis tis Sophia all
postdate Clement, who so frequently uses the trope seven ---* eight, the notion twelve ---*
thirteen seems to be modeled on this earlier Christian motif. This means, then, that just as
eight is symbolic for its supersession of seven, so in Marsanes thirteen is a symbolic number
only because it represents the transcendence of twelve.
But Marsanes' arrangement of the inner structures of the thirteen levels differs
considerably from the other two texts. Pistis Sophia and the Books of feu treat the lower
twelve realms or aeons as an undifferentiated mass that resides above the material world.
Marsanes, however, presents the thirteen realms as steps on a ladder stretching along a
metaphysical hierarchy, extending from the lowest realm, the material, up to the highest,
that which transcends all apprehension. The text is very fragmentary, but what we have
suggests that the first twelve stages are placed in four groups of three, an arrangement that
would be very much in line with the text's tendency to triads (see below). This shows that
Marsanes is a Platonic ascent text, concerned with the process of upward ascent via triads.16
Also important in Marsanes' teaching are the relationships formed among the
monad, the dyad, and the triad. In previous chapters I have emphasized the relationship
between the monad and the dyad. All that Marsanes says about the matter is that the monad
and dyad are the first to exist, and that the dyad divides from the monad P This is not
enough information to locate Marsanes on the monadic/dyadic scale I created for
1 6 See Finamore, "Iamblichus, the Sethians, and Marsanes," esp. 256-57.

1 7 Marsanes 32.12-17. See esp. Funk's ed. and commentary, on the dyad, 446.
231
Valentinianism (see table 1 ). It may be that the passage dwelling on the origin of the dyad is
no longer extant, or that it was never a central topic. If the case is the latter, then the
recurrence of the triad is all the more important, since threes play a much more significant
role in Marsanes than do twos or ones. There is the triple-powered one ('rQLC'n)vcq.wc;), a
recurring figure who stands between the Invisible Spirit and the aeon of Barbelo.18 Marsanes
is given a third of the power of the one who possesses this triple-powered one, and a
lengthy discussion, now lost, discusses the threefold composition of this being.19 The triad is
also taken to be the point of departure for the other numbers: the monad, dyad, tetrad,
hexad, heptad, ogdoad, and so on, up to the dodecad.20 In this section, what is
comprehensible of the fragmentary text suggests that the triad, the first one that is good,
gets its existence from a synthesis of the shape (axfJf.la) of the monad and the substance of
the dyad.21 The emphasis on threes is suggestive of other Neoplatonist schemes from the
third and fourth centuries.22
Distinct echoes of Marcus's system can be seen in Marsanes' doctrine of the soul's
shape. Marsanes claims that there are five different arrangements of the soul, only the first
three of which are discussed. In the first arrangement the soul takes on the form of the
1 8 Marsanes 6.18-20; Funk et al., 390; Pearson, 266-68.

1 9 Marsanes 1 0.7-11 and fols. 14-15. See also Funk et a!., 396 on the triple series associated with the top
tier of Marsanes' hierarchy.
2o Marsanes 32.7-33.5.
21 Ibid. 32.7-12. This is my own conjectural reconstruction ofMarsanes' argument, based on oyq<HMA
(32.12) and the common Pythagorean idea of the monad providing shape to the dyad's matter, the
basis of the Valentinian doctrine of the syzygies and of the abortive offspring of Wisdom, who tries to
beget without a male.
22 Finamore, "Iamblichus, the Sethians, and Marsanes," 256-57.
232
simple vowels, a, E, T), L, o, u, and w;23 in the second, the diphthongs, which Marsanes lists in
their entirety, and then some: a L, au, a EU, T)U, ou, wu, OL T) L, U L WL, au a, EU T) L, O L ou, yyy,
yyy, yyy, m au, a EU, T)U, Ol ou, wu, yyy, yyy, au E L EU, OL ou, T)U.24 The third shape of the
soul consists of the simple vowels, but in triplicate: aaa, EEE, T)T)T), and so on.Z5 The fourth
and fifth shapes also consist of diphthongs, but Marsanes says he is not allowed to discuss
everything about them.26 Presumably these last two shapes consisted of strings of,
respectively, four and five vowels. Around this fivefold scheme Marsanes weaves a complex
theory about the letters, which are divided into vowels, semivowels, and consonants. But
unlike Marcus, who places the nine consonants above the eight semivowels, and these
above the seven vowels, Marsanes follows the traditional hierarchy, attested to by Philo,
Plutarch, and others: vowels over semivowels, and these over consonantsP Other aspects of
letters, such as length, aspiration, and accent, also play important parts of Marsanes'
discussion of the hierarchy of the letters.
Similar to Marcus, Marsanes treats letters as constituent parts of the structures of the
universe. Both Marcus and Marsanes depend upon formal grammatical distinctions in their
explanation for the role and presence of letters in the universe and in anthropology. Both
incorporate grammar so as to illuminate their theology, and this in tum prompts the reader
to see traditional categories in a new light. Thus, Marcus's theology is not so unusual, as
23 Marsanes 26.4.
24 Ibid. 26.5-7, 28.5-1 1 . Concerning the triple gammas, see Funk et al, Marsanes, 60, and n. 29, below.
2s Marsanes 28.4, 17-22.
26 Ibid. 29.2-5.
27 Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 4.117; idem, On the Preliminary Studies 1 50; idem, Creation of
the World 126; Plutarch, Table Talk 9 .2.2, discussed below; Melampous, in Grammatici Graeci 1 .1 :42;
anonymous, cited on p. 347. See Funk et al., Marsanes, 420-25 and Forster, Marcus Magus, 240-42.
233
Marsanes and m any other comparanda show. But, whereas Marcus's alphabetical theology is
integrated with his isopsephy and Valentinian numerical speculation, this is not the case
with Marsanes. In Marsanes the number of letters in a given word is not important, and there
are no examples of psephic calculation. Even Marsanes' itemization of the diphthongs, which
begins with the canonical eleven, continues with a mishmash of letter combinations.28 Had
the author of Marsanes been as obsessed with numbers as Marcus, such a list would evince
pattern and order.29 Rather, the haphazard order of the list resembles the voces mysticae of
magical texts, which also present unordered or semiordered lists of diphthongs.30
This is not to say that there are no numerical structures in Marsanes. After all, the
thirteen realms are well ordered, and the soul is built out of vowels that are numerically
harmonious. The vowels are introduced in an arithmetical progression. For the first shape
there are individual letters; for the second, pairs; for the third, triplets. This progression, less
2s 28.5-1 1 . See Funk et al., Marsanes, 430-32.

29 Turner (Funk et al., Marsanes, 59-61) and Poirier (ibid., 430-32) argue for a planned, coherent
structure to Marsanes' list, which seems to substitute triple gammas for certain diphthongs. Poirier
counts 27 sets, even though the lack of an overdot between his nos. 1 & 2, 8 & 9, and 10 & 11 would
suggest either 24 sets (counting the overdots) or 36 (ignoring all overdots). Turner's attempt to show
a pattern A B C A' C B' is daring but unconvincing, since the groups and ordering-neither self
evident nor natural - are left unexplained. To interpret the gammas as numerals (Turner's
suggestion) seems incorrect, since psephy is used nowhere else inMarsanes. And neither the numbers
in Plato's lambda (Timaeus 35AB) nor the Timaeus itself are even alluded to in Marsanes, so Turner's
suggestion that they are an interpretive key for Marsanes seems wildly off. It is more likely that the
gammas indicate the scribe's omission of yQlXf-!f-!CX'ra, whether unintentionally or by his inability to
read the manuscript he was copying. This suggestion is tentative; I think the text defies explanation.
30 Cf. PGM 2.128-33, which lists the psephic value of the name of a divine entity: ou Tj t(lf]tpoc; 87Z)Cj8'·
nr LE" La " La.Tr LCX.c[·] LEU" Llla· LWCX" LEU" LllL" ll LCX" ca.· Ell" llf" Wll" llW" E llE" E Ell" llEE" aaw· Wca· Eaw· WL" WE"
llW" Ell" ECXE" LLL" 000" UUU" WWW" LU" cU. OU" ll ca· Lllca· ECXE" na· LCXLE" Llla· LOU" LWE" LOU" ill· .Lll" ill· .LlliL
Such similarity complements yet another between Marsanes and the magical papyri: both are
interested in the association between the zodiac and numbers. For other parallels and contrasts
between Marcus (esp. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .14.5) and Marsanes see Forster, Marcus Magus, 239.
234
complex a numerical device than Marcus's, nevertheless draws on a simple form of number
symbolism. It is reminiscent of the magical alae or ladders (KALJ.laKa), where individual
lines repeat select letters and get progressively longer, thus producing text shaped like a
wing or ladder. For example:31
E E
T) T) T)
l l l l
0 0 0 0 0
u u u u u u
w w w w w w w
There are no alae in Marsanes, but its description of the soul as an accumulation of
one-, two-, three-, four-, and five-letter patterns of vowels shares the practice of alphabetic
ascent, used so frequently in texts of ritual power.
THEODORE OF ASINE
Marsanes' interest in the alphabetic composition of the soul and in the thirteen levels of
reality parallels the thought of Theodore of Asine (ca. 275/80-ca. 360). Theodore was a
student of Porphyry, in Rome, and then of Iamblichus. He rejected the teachings of the latter
and claimed to uphold those of the former, along with the doctrines of Numenius (fl. 2nd c.)
and Amelius (fl. 3rd c.). Toward the end of his life, Theodore's followers still actively
31 PGM 1 .1 3-19. Other examples are legion.
235
opposed Iamblichus's. Of his writings, we know of only two titles, On Names and That the
Soul is All the Forms (sc. of Life). Extracts, some lengthy, from these works are preserved by
Proclus.32
Theodore's metaphysical system, rather neglected today, involves among other
things a complex explanation of the origin and structure of the soul.33 The explanation bases
itself on letters, their numerical value, and the symbolism behind the numbers. The bulk of
this numerically oriented system is preserved in testimony six, worth quoting in full.
Proclus, our source for the testimony, says:
Theodore, the philosopher of Asine, inspired by the discourses of Numenius, in a

rather novel manner composed treatises concerning the generation of the soul,
making his attempts from letters, written characters, and numbers. So that, then, we
might have concisely his written opinions, come, let us make an overview, point by
point, of everything he says.
[1; my numeration, for later discussion] So then, the first is rightly hymned as
being, for him, ineffable, inexpressible, fount of all things, and cause of goodness. [2]
And after this [first], so exalted above all things, there is a triad that defines, for him,
the intelligible plane. [The triad] he calls the One (TD "EN) since it comes [a] from a
breathing that is somehow ineffable (which the rough breathing of "EN mimics), [b]
from the loop of the E itself, on its own without the consonant, and [c) from even the
N itself. [3] Another triad after that one defines the intellectual depth, [4] and
another one, the demiurgical. The former is existence prior to being, thinking before
mind, living before life. After these is the demiurgical triad, containing first, being,
second, mind, and third, the fount of souls.
[5] From that triad is another triad: absolute soul, universal [soul], and [soul] of
the all. We have earlier discussed the distinction of these things, each of which
proceeds from the entire demiurgical triad -that is, one from being, another from
32 On Theodore's life see DNP 12.1:328-30; PRE 5 (n.s.): 183�38 (Theodore, no. 35); Gersh, From
Iamblichus to Eriugena, 289-304.
33 Theodore has escaped inclusion in the TLG (as of 2005) and the OCD.
236
mind, and the other from the fontal soul.34 Indeed, it was proposed to Plato to speak
about this soul of the all, especially about the plain soul that comes from the fount of
souls, about the universal [soul] and the [soul] of the all, and about the fount itself.
For all things exist in all things, even if at one time in one way, and at another time,
another:
in the soul before the triad [all things exist in all things] in unity;
in the plain [soul], [all things exist in all things] in wholeness before the parts;
in the universal soul, [all things exist in all things] in wholenessfrom the parts;
and in the third [soul], [all things exist in all things] in [wholeness] in the parts.
[All this is said] on the basis that Plato classified all these things and needed to
refer to every [soul] every ratio, ratios that allow no difference among them.
And [Theodore] thinks it necessary to say first why [the soul] exists from three
means. And indeed he says that the soul as a whole is a geometrical ratio, existing
from both the first god according to being and the second [god] according to mind.
For these very things are two essences, one undivided and the other divided. Both
the arithmetical ratio (which bears the image of the first essence) and the harmonic
[ratio] ([which bears an image of the] second [essence]) result in [the geometrical
ratio]. The former is monadic, since it is without extension, the latter is discrete, but
harmonically so.
[7] Then, the entire number might be a certain geometrical number, since [the
soul] is shown to be a tetrad, being from the tetrad of the elements/letters. But lest
you suspect that this number is lifeless, taking for the third heptad the first, you will
find life in the extreme letters.
Rather, setting out according to its order the base of the first letter, you will see
the soul is an intellectual life. E.g., Z, 0, 'I'. The middle [term, 0,] is the circle, being
the intellectual one, since mind is the cause of the soul. The smallest [term, Z,] shows
[the soul] geometrical, a kind of mind, through the attachment of the parallels and
the diameter. [The mind] remains above and encompasses opposites and is shown to
be a form of life, both oblique and not oblique. The largest [term, 'I',] is the
element/letter of a sphere. So then the lines, bent into each other, will make the
sphere. On top of this, the bases of the next letter, D., M, Y, are simultaneously three
and tetradic. And because of this, as they beget the dodecad, they result in the twelve
spheres of the all. The largest of the bases[, Y,] shows that its essence yearns for two
certain things and stretch up toward two matters. Therefore some call this letter
34 He refers here to a discussion preserved in test. 22.
237
philosopher. The [essence] of both flow to the lower [region]. So this is why we find
the Y referred to by some of the noteworthy [authors of the past]. It is between two
spheres, the 'I' and the X, the former being warmer (because of the breath) and more
life-giving, and the latter having each [quality] to a lesser extent. Thus, there is again
a mean to two minds, one earlier and the other later, and the middle character makes
clear its property and relation to the other. Rather, even though the letter 'I' is a
sphere, Plato assigned the X to the soul, so that it might show the equal balance of
motion itself, since all the lines in the X are equal, and thus to make the automation
of the soul evident. But if the Demiurge brings in the soul through existence itself, it
is clear that he himself has ordered it in proportion to the X. After all, that is the
foremost mind. And so, because of these things, he says that the soul, as it advances
and brings itself out, is a certain middle essence of two minds. And this is the
manner in which these things are to be understood . But through the last letter, the H,
the advance of [the soul] up to the cube is to be observed.
[8] And if it is a dyad because of the otherness of life, and it is a triad because of
the tripartition of its essence, then it has, on the one hand, the ratio 3:2. But as it
enters into itself and, through its entrance, applies the dyad to the triad, it begets the
hexad. As it connects to the undivided and to the trisected the harmony that [comes]
through these things in doubleness, it comes into existence. And since, on the one
hand, the triad, as it turns into itself, results in the ennead, and the dyad, on the
other hand, moving into itself dyadically always results in the octet, so from both it
results in the ratio 9:8.
The linear birth [of the soul] makes clear its indivisibility, and its thorough
homogeneity (after all, every part of a line is a line), and that all the ratios are
everywhere. But the split into two demonstrates that its form is dyadic. And its
indivisible wholeness is an image of the first mind, whereas the unsplittable
[wholeness] of the two (which he calls the circle of the same) [is an image] of the
second [mind]. And the [wholeness] split into six [is an image] of the third [mind],
the last to be calculated. And the octet becomes manifest from the dyad of the soul,
whereas the heptad depicts in monads the first form of the soul; in decads, its
intelligible [form] (because of the circle); and in hundreds, the soulish mark, the third
one remaining. And [the soul's] straight, connate nature exists for the fixed [sphere],
which begets; whereas the exit and indefinability [exist for] the wandering [sphere];
and the return after the advance [exists for] the life that wanders without wandering.
And since on the other hand the shape of the soul is like X, and its form is dyadic
(since the split is into two), and the dyad [applied] to the hexad (being primarily the
base of X) creates the dodecad, you might take from that the first twelve ancient
souls.
238
A lthough the testimony continues, it is worth commenting on a number of ideas that
emerge from this jumble. It usually takes several slow readings to understand much of
Theodore's system. Proclus' s summary is terse, and even in faithful translations many ideas
are incomprehensible.35 At the top of Theodore's system [1] is a transcendent entity,
described in negative terms descriptive of its role as cause and source. Significantly, he does
not call it "One."36 Rather, it is absolute, beyond names, beyond even spirit or breathF
Below this transcendent entity is the intelligible plane [2], consisting of a triad that
unfolds and manifests the primal entity in the letters of f.v. The rough breathing [2a], which
Theodore claims is silent, mimics the ineffable breathing of the uppermost entity.38 This
ineffable breathing is symbolized by the rough breathing, the dasia, which had not been
pronounced for some centuries in Theodore's day. The unspoken dasia is the perfect symbol
of the ineffable since it too is a paradox of unspoken speech. According to another testimony
to Theodore's system, its combination with the €, shaped by a loop [2b] - it is important to
remember that Theodore is commenting on uncial Greek letters, not the lowercase ones we
are familiar with today - renders the vowel at once utterable and unutterable. The N [2c]
35 For other translations, of varying degrees of accuracy, see Proclus, Commentary on the Timaeus,
trans. Festugiere, 3:318-21; Ferwerda, "Plotinus on Sounds," 51-52; Turner, in Funk et al.,Marsanes,
214-16. Taylor, the great English Platonist, left this part of Proclus's commentary untranslated,
explaining, "Proclus gives an epitome of this theory, but as it would be very difficult to render it
intelligible to the English reader, and as in the opinion of Iamblichus, the whole of it is artificial, and
contains nothing sane, I have omitted to translate it." (Proclus on the Timaeus, 141 n. 1 .)
36 Contra Turner, in Funk et al., Marsanes, 214, 216, 227. In test. 9 Theodore explicitly denies that this
highest entity has a name.
37 Theodore of Asine, test. 9 (Deuse).
38 Ibid.: sicut et spiritus tacitus and spiritum . . . indicibilem.
239
rounds out the image of the ineffable made effable.39 The triad 'EN consists of two groups: a
dyad and, above it, a monad.4o
Beneath this level is the intellectual depth [3], consisting of a triad: existence,
thinking, and living. Each of these three parts of the intellectual depth stand prior to and
over the elements in the triad just below, the demiurgical depth [4], a triad that consists of
being, mind, and the fount for souls. This fourth level seems to have been an easy target for
Theodore's critics, who saw this doctrine, taken from Amelius, as an unnecessary
introduction of three demiurges, in lieu of Plato's one demiurge.41 The threefold demiurgical
level, however, sustains Theodore's commitment to a metaphysic of the triadic descent. It is
also a critical explanation for the next level down, the realm of the soul [5], which consists of
three kinds of soul, all derived from the demiurgical triad in general, and the fount of souls
in particular.42 Each of the three aspects of the soul corresponds to a certain relationship
between the whole and the parts, and to the three major kinds of ratios. What part of the
soul corresponds to what proportion is treated in another testimony, where Theodore goes
to some length to correlate the numbers one, two, three, four, and six to the four elements,
and by extension, to the soul.43 For example, the series one, two, and four, a geometrical
39 Test. 9 is unclear. See Morrow and Dillon, Proclus ' Commentary, 590 and n. 1 1 3. Turner's suggestion
(Funk et al., Marsanes, 216) that "EN represents point, line, and plane reads too much into the passage.
40 Test. 9 neither stipulates which letters are the monad and which the dyad, nor elaborates on how
the monad generates the dyad.
4 1 See test. 12, translations by Taylor, Proclus on the Timaeus, 260; Turner, in Funk et al., Marsanes, 218-
1 9; Festugiere (Proclus, Commentary on the Timaeus), 4:165-66.
42 For amplification on this level, see test. 22, which is translated by Turner, in Funk et a!., Marsanes,
221-23; Festugiere (Proclus, Commentary on the Timaeus), 3:262-65; and Taylor, Proclus on the Timaeus,
92-94.
43 Test. 22. See previous note.
240
series (b I a = c I b), corresponds to earth because of its name, and so the number seven, the
sum of the series, also represents the earth. Theodore's very difficult, complex number
symbolism, linking souls to the sublunary region, shows that he saw numbers as a key
constituent in the formation, design, and explication of the universe. The most basic parts of
this number symbolism are evident in the structures of his metaphysics, presented in
testimony six [1-5], which may be diagrammed:
n) TIQ�n:ov lXQQT]TOV I The ineffable, first
voryTov ru\aTo<:; I 'EN / ONE

intelligible breadth
voEpov {Jaeos 1 dvm I existence voEiv I thought i:;f]v I life
intellectual depth
ory11wvpytKov {Jaeos 1 ov I being vouc; I mind i:.wf], TITJYll n0v �mxwv,
demiurgical depth TIT]ya.ia. �mxf] I life, fount
of souls, fontal soul
a.inot(luxij I absolute Tj Ka.86Aou t(luxf] I Tj mu 71£XVToc; t(luxf] I soul
soul universal soul of the All
Here it becomes apparent that Theodore, like other Neoplatonists, had a mathematically
molded view of the divine realm.44
A comparison with Marsanes' thirteen levels is inviting. Both Theodore and Marsanes
agree in the number of levels and in the transcendence of an ineffable entity located in the
thirteenth place. But prominent differences should also be noted. Marsanes ' lowest realm is
the corporeal world, not the soulish. And even though Marsanes teaches that the twelve
stages leading to the thirteenth consists of four levels of triads, those triads do not follow the
44 See comparative schemes at Deuse, Theodoros von Asine, 22-24; Turner, in Funk et a!., Marsanes, 230;
and Finamore, "lamblichus, the Sethians, and Marsanes," 256-57.
241
consistent pattern found in Theodore: existence-thought-life. This regularity in Theodore's
triads lends itself to depiction in a rectangle, where both horizontal and vertical
relationships are important. Theodore, for instance, places living over life (the two names
are cognates), but their correlatives in Marsanes, self-generated power/triple perfect and
super-[ corporeal?] do not have this kind of vertical relationship. Marsanes presents the
thirteen seals seriatim, a linear shape. The two systems are incommensurate. Nevertheless,
they both attest to the importance of mathematically structured systems.
Later in testimony six Theodore points to the soul as consisting of four elements or
letters [7] - the play on the double meaning of G'TOlXELOV is evident- as the reason for
calling the entire number of the soul a geometrical number. This introduces a letter-by-
letter, numerical explanation of the word WYXH, which is geometrical since it consists of
four letters.45 Theodore's method is to take a letter, for example 'I', find its base, then list
other letters that share the same base, in this case, Z and 0.46 He then uses each of the three
letters, particularly their shape, to explain the letter as a whole. The combination of parallel
and oblique lines in the letter form Z explains how the soul preserves both kinds of
directions, as specified in Plato's Timaeus. The circle of the 0 represents the mind's
generation of the soul. The W's crossarms, arching in toward each other, represent a sphere.
For the Y in WYXH, its base of four, when multiplied by the three letters that share it as a
45 See below for Iamblichus's criticism, which confirms that Theodore's method focused on the
number of letters in a word, not its psephic value. Sambursky, "Gematria," incorrectly suggests that
Theodore of Asine, test. 6, preserves the earliest use of the term gematria. What very basic psephy
there is at work in the passage has nothing to do with what Produs calls the "geometrical number."
46 Theodore's use of rru8f-lfJV to refer to not the base alone but its multiples of ten and one hundred
goes against normal use of the word. See LSJ, s.v. and above, chapter 6, and below, excursus D.
242
base, yields the "twelve spheres of the all," presumably the zodiac. Its shape too illustrates
the philosophical dimensions of the letter, as its stem and arms portray the flow from upper
regions to lower, and the retum.47
The final part of the testimony [8] deals with the Timaeus' s duple and triple
progressions and identifies the activities of soul with the various numbers that make up the
most basic musical intervals (e.g., 3:2 and 9:8, the fifth and whole tone).48 The passage is
complex and difficult to understand without indulging in a very lengthy discussion about
the entire Neoplatonic interpretive tradition of the numbers in the Timaeus, beyond the
scope of this study. Nevertheless, it is important to note how deeply Theodore's explanation
of the constitution of the world soul involves itself in arithmetic. Theodore is squarely in the
center of Pythagorean Platonism, an interpretive tradition of the Timaeus spearheaded by
Xenocrates, who identified number, combined with motion and the mixture of same and
other, as the source of the soul.49 As part of this tradition Theodore made numbers and
arithmetic a constituent part of every level of his philosophy.
Theodore's letter and number speculation resembles that of Marcus, who identifies
the number of letters in the name Jesus Christ as a symbol of the structure of the aeonic
realm. Theodore finds the shape of the letters to symbolize important metaphysical truths,
47 See below, p. 347, where the Y is interpreted as a symbol of moral choice. Theodore's suggestion,
however, is that the two arms of the Y stretch toward its companion letters, W and X, the former
being more life-giving (as Theodore stipulates elsewhere, W recalls Z, the initial of ZO'H, "life''), the
latter more soullike.
48 Plato, Timaeus 35b: 1, 2, 4, 8 and 1, 3, 9, 27.
49 Plutarch, Genesis of the Soul in the Timaeus 2, 22.
243
just as Marcus locates in the divisions of the alphabet signs of Pleromatic emanations. Both
use human conventions to symbolize the divine.
Theodore also has a connection with Colarbasus. In psephic numerology names take
on significance well beyond what is immediately apparent. Analysis of the numbers
invested in a n ame allows one to discover hidden knowledge, and to learn more about the
person or thing that bears the names. Theodore, like Colarbasus, sees the numerical value of
names as providing the key to hidden knowledge.
Just as Marcus's speculation became for Irenaeus a prime target, so Theodore's
speculation earned him the reproach of Iamblichus, the Platonic philosopher who is
reported to have been the teacher of Theodore. Iamblichus' s criticism is preserved in the last
part of Theodore's testimony six. Proclus says:5°
Thus Theodore philosophizes these kinds of things about these matters, making his
interpretations out of letters and utterances (to compare a few [ideas] among many).
But the divine Iamblichus lambasted this sort of viewpoint in his responses, Against
the Circle of Amelius (for so he titles the chapter) and indeed also [in Against the Circle
of] Numenius. [Iamblichus] either -for I cannot say [which] - identified [Theodore]
with these [two men] or had somewhere found them writing similar things about
these matters.
So the divine Iamblichus says first that you shouldn't make the soul the entire
number or the geometrical number because of the quantity of its letters. For L.OMA
[ "body"] too is made of the same [number] of letters, as is even MH ON
[ "nonbeing") . So [by Theodore's reasoning] MH ON would be the entire number.
You could find many other things that consist of the same [number) of letters yet are
shameful and completely opposite to each other, all of which would certainly not be
right to conflate and confound with each other.
so
In addition to those listed in n. 35, other translations are in Dillon, Iamblichi Chalcidensis, 165-67 and
Taylor, Proclus on the Timaeus, 141.
244
Second, it is dangerous to try [to build a system] based on written characters.
After all, these things are relative: the carving of an archaic [character] used to be one
way, but is now another. For instance, the Z upon which that man builds his
argument had neither parallels that were completely opposed, nor the middle
diagonal bar. Rather, [the crossbar was] perpendicular, as is apparent from ancient
steles.
Third, to reduce [numbers] to their bases and to preoccupy oneself with them,
[going] from one number to another or vice versa, alters our understanding. For the
heptad in monads, the [heptad] in decads, and the [heptad] in hundreds are not the
same thing. So if this [heptad] was in the term WYXH, why must he sneak in an
account about bases? After all, using this same technique we might transform every
thing into every number, by dividing or adding or multiplying.
So much for the general [problems].
He also refutes [Theodore's] individual results, [showing them to be] fraudulent

and insane. And everyone who would like to know the weakness of every point may
easily acquire the treatise and read through the appropriate refutations of everything
[taken] from [Theodore's] writings.
This passage shows that Proclus, our source for testimony six, consulted a readily
available work by Iamblichus, a book of polemic divided into chapters discussing and
arguing against a series of philosophical schools.51 One chapter was directed against the
circles of Amelius and another, against that of Numenius. What Proclus seems unable to
determine is whether Iamblichus meant to identify Theodore with these two circles, or if he
meant to refute only an approach shared by all.52+ This suggests to me that in his polemical
sJ Here I agree with Festugiere against Dillon (Iamblichi Chalcidensis, 337), who understood the Greek
text to refer to one title (Against the Circle of Amelius and Numenius), not two (as in my translation).
Since Iamblichus' s text consisted of two chapters, and the titles describe their contents as being
refutations, the passage is probably not from a commentary on the Timaeus, as Dillon supposed.
sz My interpretation depends upon taking the TOtrrov of 2:277.30 with Theodore and the EKELvouc; of
the same line with the circles of Amelius and Numenius. Dillon's reading (Iamblichus, Jamblichi
Chalcidensis, 165, 337-38), which assigns TOVTOV to Numenius and iKdvouc; to the circle of Amelius is
viable, but I feel the overall context of Proclus's report puts Theodore front and center, much closer
245
work Iamblichus did not name Theodore specifically, but refuted Theodore's d octrine under
the name of these two schools, leaving the reader to guess whether Theodore could
justifiably be associated formally with the schools of Amelius or Numenius.53 In any case,
Proclus, who knew Theodore's writings well, saw that Iamblichus' s critique clearly applied
to Theodore.
Iamblichus makes three criticisms of the method in general, then refutes specific
claims that Theodore makes. Proclus reports only the general criticisms, three total. The first
is Iamblichus' s contention that one cannot infer from the premise "soul consists of four
letters" that the soul is the entire number, or that it is the geometrical number. He
demonstrates the faulty logic with a reductio ad absurdum. Both body and non-being have
four letters, so Theodore's method should allow one to conclude a similar, exalted position
for corporeality or nonexistence. Iamblichus notes that a number of four-letter words, too
rude to mention, could be inserted in Theodore's system. This first criticism deals with
Theodore's fascination with the number of letters in WYXH. His critique has nothing to do
with the practice of gematria.54
The second criticism is that letterforms are a faulty starting point because of their
relative nature. Iamblichus focuses on how letterforms change, demonstrating it with the Z.
He points out that the archaic form of the letter was I, a shape that undermines Theodore's
interpretation of the soul being at once parallel and oblique. Note, the tendency of
(and therefore Toi:nov) than the more remote (at least in this context) Amelius and Numenius (and
therefore iKEivovc;).
53 See Dillon, Iamblichi Chalcidensis, 338.
54 Contra Dillon, in Iamblichus, lamblichi Chalcidensis, 338-39 and Sambursky (see n. 45, above).
246
letterforms to change in history is not necessarily the only reason Iamblichus dismisses the
premise. Quite possibly he had other concerns- the fluctuation of letters and letterforms
from one language to another, their very origin as a human artifact, and so on - but he
expresses only this particular concern.
Third, Iamblichus criticizes as valueless the practice of taking alphabetic numerals,
finding their base value, and extrapolating from that base to other numerals that share the
same base. He questions why bases should even be a point of consideration. The risk in the
practice is that someone could take a word like soul and derive any preconceived result, by
performing various mathematical operations. Iamblichus may be somewhat unfair here to
Theodore, who seems to have moved from one number to another only by dividing or
multiplying by ten. That is, Theodore's system has certain rules. But Iamblichus criticizes
the practice for the arbitrariness of its results. Other numbers could easily be introduced to
prove whatever one desired.55
Iamblichus was no enemy of number symbolism.56 His writings are full of
Pythagorean number symbolism. For example, his magnum opus, On Pythagoreanism, is
structured in ten books to pay homage to the perfection of the number ten.57 Each of the
extant books in this series deals in some way with number symbolism. In the third book,
Common Mathematical Knowledge, for instance, Iamblichus focuses on the philosophical and
55 Hippolytus too criticizes Greek numerology for introducing new, strange rules to deal with results
that contradict reality (see chap. 5). The vast number of variations in Greek numerology, discussed in
excursus D, suggest that numerologists had to tweak their rules as they went along, to get the right
results.
56 For examples beyond those given here, see Shaw, "Eros and Arithmos."
57 For the structure of this work, see O'Meara, Pythagoras Revived. On the perfection of ten, see above,
p. 50 n. 125.
247
religious importance of numbers and mathematics, arguing against cynical attitudes, like
those of Sextus Empiricus, that the four kinds of mathematical science are useless. In his
response, Iamblichus defends the Pythagorean tradition of mathematics. He notes that there
were two ways the Pythagoreans taught mathematics. The first began with first principles,
and applied them to the efforts of the faculty of understanding. The earliest discoveries of
mathematics were pursued in this fashion. The results were not used as if they had some
kind of separate existence, but to see how something demonstrated in mathematics might
come into existence.58 The second Pythagorean method taught mathematics through
symbols, for instance, through the pentad of justice. This symbolic approach to pedagogy
especially pervaded the Pythagoreans' philosophy since they thought the technique
appropriate for the gods and naturally fitting.59 This second, symbolic approach fits well
with Iamblichus' s more general conviction that each of the mathematical sciences purifies
the soul and prepares it for union with the divine. Marking the entire path of theurgy are
symbolic numbers. Although there is no stylistic reason for ascribing the anonymous
Theology of Arithmetic to Iamblichus, the substance of the treatise, with all its theological and
scientific number symbolism, fits very well with his general outlook.60
58 Iamblichus, Common Mathematical Knowledge 18.7-17.

59 Ibid., 18.17-23.
60 Taran, Speusippus of A thens, 291-98 argues that the Theology of Arithmetic, traditionally dated to the
fourth century, is probably the product of a later Byzantine compiler of a number of arithmological
treatises, including those by Nicomachus of Gerasa, Anatolius of Laodicea, and Iamblichus. To make
his point, however, Taran identifies Imablichus's On Pythagoreanism book 7 with excerpts from the
Theology of Arithmetic. O'Meara's later study, Pythagoras Revived, reconstructs book seven on the basis
of fragments from Michael Psellos (11th c.) and thereby shows that it differed considerably from the
Theology ofArithmetic, thereby reaffirming the consensus about its 4th-c. date. In my opinion, many of
Taran's observations have not been accounted for. The question of the date of the Theology of
Arithmetic should be revisited.
248
Like Theodore, Iamblichus engages in extensive symbolic analysis of the numbers in
the Timaeus.61 Both men explain the generation of the soul in terms derived from
arithmetical explanations for the generation of the dyad and triad from the monad.62 So
Iamblichus's criticism of Theodore is not a criticism of number symbolism per se, nor even a
criticism of wild number symbolism (to some sensibilities Iamblichus's number symbolism
is also wild). His main complaint against Theodore's method is that it is capricious, bound
to changeable human convention, and liable to lead one to all sorts of absurd conclusions.
The method destroys the very essence of the symbol. Iamblichus prizes numbers as key
symbols because of their inherent connection with higher realms of reality. Theodore had
focused, however, on facets of numbers and letters that were inherently part of the human
condition, the product of changing social conventions. In these contexts the symbol loses its
power because it is rooted in temporal instead of eternal realities. To locate numerical
symbols in the realm of the divine was completely justified and expected in the Pythagorean
and Platonic traditions. But to root them in human convention, as Theodore did, was not.
The debate between Iamblichus and Theodore compares favorably with that
between Irenaeus and Marcus. Both lamblichus and Irenaeus deploy biting sarcasm in their
reductiones ad absurdum to try to discredit a point of view that has threatened and
obviated the rules by which one secures truth. Both writers criticize techniques that are
custom bound and liable to lead a person to whatever preconceived idea they have, or to
absurd, immoral positions. Both Irenaeus and Iamblichus participate in communities
61 Prod us's Commentary on the Timaeus depends considerably on Iamblichus. See Dillon, lamblichi
Chalcidensis, 161, 322-25.
62 Jbid., 1 60-63.
249
grounded in tradition, and they both work with systems and texts that were considered to
have roots, so to speak, in upper, divine soil. For Irenaeus, this is the apostolic rule of faith,
deposited in the churches and codified in the Bible; for Iamblichus it is the Platonic rule of
faith, practiced in religious theurgy and enshrined in the writings of Plato. The analogy
should not be pressed too far. Christians and Platonists had separate notions of community
and tradition, and their self-identities cannot be compared easily. Nevertheless, both
Irenaeus and Iamblichus characterize their opponents as having strayed beyond the
acceptable limits of the tradition.
PLUTARCH
Our last Neoplatonist for this chapter predates the main period of this study by half a
century. Plutarch of Chaeronea (ca. 40s-ca. 1 20s) was a very prolific author; his extant works
include fifty biographies and seventy-eight other works treating ethics, philosophy, and
religion. He studied in Athens in the late sixties with Ammonius, an Alexandrian Platonist
who was also fascinated by Pythagorean number symbolism. Plutarch's philosophical
training was thorough, as shown by the breadth of his philosophical treatises, which
frequently cite older philosophers from Platonic, Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean schools.
For most of his life he lived in his hometown, although he had a wide network of influential
friends from across the Roman Empire. The majority of his extant writings were composed
in the last decades of his life, when he was a priest at Delphi, to which he was resolutely
dedicated, as an inscription there attests.63
63 Babbitt ed., vol. 1 (LCL 197), frontispiece. For more on Plutarch's life and works, seeOCD, s.v.
250
Number symbolism pervades Plutarch's writings, evidence of the importance he
placed in his studies with the mathematically inclined Ammonius. The titles of two treatises,
now lost, reflect this interest: Whether the Odd or Even Number Is Better and Monads.64 The
former, no doubt, would have treated the common Pythagorean association of odd and even
with male and female. The latter presumably would have dealt with the symbolic and
metaphysical properties of units. Both are themes that recur in his other writings, alongside
many other instances of number symbolism.65 Three treatises are especially useful for this
study, The E at Delphi, Table Talk (particularly book nine), and Isis and Osiris.
In The E at Delphi there are six named characters who take part in a discussion, styled
as a Socratic or Aristotelian dialogue. Plutarch himself and Ammonius, his former teacher,
are two of the participants. The subject at hand is the meaning behind an E inscribed at
Delphi. The various participants note that the inscribed figure could be read as a number, or
named as a letter (pronounced ee, not epsilon) and therefore equated with the homonyms if
(d) or you are (d). One by one they offer a series of seven possible solutions to the problem.
The first answer, proposed by Plutarch's brother Lamprias, depends upon the E as a
numeral, and he takes it to represent the five wise men of Greece: Chilon, Thales, Solon,
Bias, and Pittacus, all of whom are reported to have met at Delphi, where they agreed to
consecrate the letter in honor of their number.66 Ammonius dismisses the suggestion, as
does an unnamed participant who offers his own alternative explanation, that as the second
64 Lamprias's catalogue, nos. 74, 163.

65 See excursus B2, and Plutarch, Roman Questions 1 02 (288D).
66 Plutarch, The E at Delphi 3 (385D-386A)
251
of seven vowels the E represents the sun, second in position after the moon, and therefore
ApolloP This suggestion too is dismissed.
The Delphians agree that neither the appearance nor its sound should be considered
as a key to interpreting the E, but rather the spoken name of the letter, EL This leads to the
third explanation, that the E represents either the word if (d), the key word used to discover
from the god the outcome of a future endeavor, or the if of the optative mood, to indicate
wishes or prayers.68 Another option, the fourth explanation, is that the if indicates the force
of syllogistic logic.69
The conversation returns in the sixth explanation to E as a numeral, a symbol of the
key number, "the pemptad" - an archaism of pentad and the root of the rare verb "to count
on five fingers" (nq.tna(nv)?0 This explanation comes from an Athenian named
Eustrophus, but Plutarch eagerly takes over the idea and the discussion. What follows is
Plutarch's lengthy excursus on the mathematical and symbolic excellence of the number
five. He notes that five is the sum of the first odd and even numbers, and is therefore called
marriage (see excursus D5)?1 Five is called nature since when multiplied by itself the
product's final digit is always five; when five is multiplied by any other number it results in
either the decad or itself; and this behavior resembles nature, which returns either to itself or
to perfection.72 To answer the objection that this seems to have little to do with Apollo, the
67 Ibid. 4 (386A-B).
68 Ibid. 4-5 (386B-D).
69 Ibid. 6 (386D-387D).
70 Ibid. 7 (387D-F). The thought is repeated in Plutarch, The Obsolescence of Oracles 36 (429D). See also
idem, Isis and Osiris 56 (374A) .
71 Plutarch, The E a t Delphi 8 (387F-388c) .
72 Ibid., 8 (388c-E).
252
god at Delphi (who was associated with the number one and seven, not five), Plutarch
pursues a convoluted explanation that involves Dionysius and the harmony in the poetical
measures and, finally, the ratio three to nine, seen in the relation between the creation and
the conflagration.73
As if caught in the tangle of his own obscurity, Plutarch leaves this line of thought
unresolved, and reverts to his original explanation of five's behavior of returning to itself or
to perfection, an attribute of the divinity. So too, he goes on, five appears frequently in
music, in the fifth (literally bLa nEV'rE) and in the five basic intervals74 Furthermore, Plato
affirmed there to be five worlds, Aristotle taught five elements, and there are five
fundamental geometrical shapes in the Timaeus.75 Plutarch lists each of the five senses and
explains to what element each belongs, and he appeals to Homer, who divided the cosmos
into five parts.76 Further, the succession point, line, plane, and solid must continue in its fifth
phase to the level of soul. There are five classes of living things in the world - gods,
daemons, heroes, people, and beasts - and the soul naturally divides into five parts?7
Plutarch notes that the number five is the sum of the first two squares, provided that one is
willing to take the number one as a square78 After arguing that Plato makes his chief
principles, causes, and categories five in number, Plutarch suggests that the Delphic
73 Ibid., 9 (388E-389c).
74 Ibid., 10 (389C-F).
75 Ibid., 1 1 (389F-390A), a meditation expanded in Plutarch, The Obsolescence of Oracles 32-33 (427A-
428B).
76 Idem, The E at Delphi 12-13 (390B-c).
77 Ibid. 13 (390C-F). The soul was normally trisected in the Platonic tradition, and, indeed, in
Plutarch's other writings. Dillon, Middle Platonists, 194.
78 The E at Delphi 14 (390F-391A).
253
inscription was set up by someone who had anticipated Plato's doctrine?9 The crowning
point in Plutarch's rambling encomium- it has now taken up more space than all the
previous five explanations combined -is a riddle. On the sixth day of the new month, the
priestess is led to the Prytaneum, and the first of the three lots is given over to five
sortitions: two for the inquirer and three for her. Nicander interjects that this is so, but
warns that the reason should not be uttered. Smiling, Plutarch answers, "Until such time as
we become holy men, and God grants us to know the truth, this also shall be added to what
may be said on behalf of the Five."80
Ammonius responds to Plutarch's arithmetical encomium with the pleasure of a
teacher observing an immature student speak his naivete sophisticatedly. Rather than argue
the point directly, Ammonius notes that just about any number's praises could be sung,
especially seven, Apollo's native number.81 For him, the more plausible explanation for the
E is "you are" (d), and for the rest of the treatise Ammonius explains what it means to
ascribe eternal, unchanging being to Apollo, given our own fleeting, fluctuating condition.82
The length of the sixth explanation shows that Plutarch was fascinated with numbers
and their symbolism. But it is difficult to determine how seriously he regarded them. The
mathematical interpretation of the E is the longest, but in the end it is trumped by
Ammonius' s ontological explanation. Of all the participants, Ammonius, the Pythagorean
mathematician, would be the one expected to emphasize the number symbolism of the E. At
79 Ibid ., 15 (391A-D).
so Il Ef.t71aboc;. Ibid., 16 (391D-E).
81 Ibid., 17 (391E-392A).
s2 Ibid., 18-21 (392A-394c).
254
the end of The E at Delphi, the reader is left with a number of options, and no definite
indication as to which is the true explanation.
Lamberton, in his recent introduction to Plutarch, notes how difficult it is to interpret
the Delphic dialogues, "deliberate but coy self-portraits," where "Plutarch remains a very
elusive presence."83 The dialogues, in Lamberton's reading, dramatize inquiry and keep a
single, dominating explanation at arm's length from the reader, emphasizing instead the
importance of dialogue itself and the pursuit of truth. The difficulties that beset this pursuit
are symbolized by the setting in Delphi, where the oracle speaks in riddles that have
frequently been misinterpreted, and where the priests are not allowed to divulge the
mysteries. Plutarch, a Delphic priest when he wrote the dialogue, would never have
divulged the secrets of the priesthood publicly, so to search the discourse for the correct
answer is a fool's errand.84
But if the arithmological explanation of the E is merely one installment in the search
for truth, then why has Plutarch dwelt on it and at such length? What does he intend the
reader to do with all this numeric lore? One obvious answer, in light of Lamberton's thesis,
is that such insights would be entertaining, and should be part of any educated person's
repertoire of knowledge.85 Such an attitude toward number symbolism - lighter than the
attitudes expressed by other authors in this study -is illustrated best in the Table Talk, a
collection of idealized conversations among friends after dinner. Number symbolism crops
up in many of the discussions, and even in the structure of the work, which is organized
83 Plutarch, 5.
84 Ibid., 26, 149, 156-58.
85 Dillon, Iamblichi Chalcidensis, 1 90.
255
into nine books, in honor of the nine muses.86 The playful use of numbers is portrayed as a
diversion, as entertaining as the after-dinner game where guests challenge each other with
isopsephic rid dles, a practice that Plutarch reports but unfortunately does not describe.87
In one scene of Table Talk, two related questions are asked. Why is the alpha first in
the alphabet? Upon what proportion is the number of vowels and semivowels built?l8 The
first of these two questions is posed by Hermeias, a geometer, to Protogenes, a grammarian.
Protogenes's answer is that vowels take precedence over the consonants and semivowels, a
hierarchy commonly taught in schools.89 Further, any vowel that can be either long or short
(i.e., a, L, u) is superior to vowels that are only one or the other (i.e., short: c:, o; long: T], w).
Of the three vowels of ambivalent length, a is superior to L and u, since when a follows
either, it never assimilates into a diphthong. This is something of a protest on the alpha's
part for not coming first, where such assimilation does occur. That is, m and au are single
syllables, but Let and vex are two syllables. Thus, on three counts of superiority, the alpha is
given pride of place in the alphabet, as if the winner of a pentathlon.
After Protogenes' answer two other possibilities are proposed. The first, from
Ammonius, is that Cadmus adopted the Phoenician convention, which prized oxen as the
first of necessities. This proposal, although historically correct, Plutarch - here a
participant- sets aside for a phonologically based one, that the alpha is the most basic,
86 Plutarch, Table Talk 9.pref (763c); see also the lengthy discussion on the number of muses and its
significance at 9.14 (743c-748D).
87 Plutarch, Table Talk 5.pref (673A-B).
88 Ibid., 9.2-3 (737c-739A), upon which my description in the following paragraphs is based.
89 See n. 27, above.
256
simplest sound to articulate. This is the reason, he says, that the names of the consonants,
save pi, need the assistance of the alpha.90
After Hermeias accepts the competing theories as being of equal value, Plutarch
challenges him with the second question, more appropriate to his job as geometer. Plutarch
begins to answer his own question by noting that the twenty-four letters are divided into
groups of seven, eight, and nine, which is the arithmetical proportion (c - b = b - a)?1 The
proportion is not mere chance, but reflects the most fundamental of all the ratios.
Furthermore, the extremes of the series represent the nine muses and Apollo, traditionally
assigned the number seven.92 Their sum is twice the middle number, symbolic of how
semivowels share in the nature of consonants and vowels.
Hermeias takes up Plutarch's explanations and expands on the number symbolism.
Hermes, inventor of writing, is associated with the number four, the day of the month upon
which he was bom.93 This explains why the earliest Greek alphabet- that of Cadmus-
consisted of only sixteen letters. It also explains the additions to the alphabet made by
Palamedes and Simonides, each whom contributed four extra letters.94 The sum of the
90 Of the nine consonants, �, y, b, 8, K, n, T, x, and ¢, two others besides pi lack alphas in their names:
chi and phi. Plutarch's explanation is that phi is an aspirated pi, and chi participates secondarily in
the alpha by virtue of being an aspirated kappa.
91 The grouping is already noted above, p . 88 n. 23.
92 Traditionally, that is, according to Plutarch (Table Talk 8.1 .2 [717D] and The E at Delphi 17 [391E-
392A], discussed above). Apollo is more often associated with the number one. See Plutarch, Isis and
Osiris 10 (354F), 75 (381F); Theology of Arithmetic, s.v.
93 See Theology ofArithmetic 28.3.
94 On the wide variations in the ancient and late antique accounts of the alphabet, see above, p. 149 n.
29.
257
letters, twenty-four, reflects the first two perfect numbers, three and six, both of which are
factors of twenty-four.95
Zopyrio, a schoolteacher, laughs at this explanation, calling it total nonsense. The
quantity of letters came about not by forethought but by chance. The harmonies found in
the alphabet are as much a coincidence as the first lines of the Iliad and the Odyssey, which
possess the same number of letters (as indeed do their last lines). And with this last bit of
ridicule, the conversation drifts to other topics.
Similar to The E at Delphi, the Table Talk puts no stock in any one conclusion. Plutarch
colors his dialogues with an air of sport and riddle. Here Lamberton's thesis, that Plutarch is
more concerned with the pursuit of truth than its acquisition, should be modified
somewhat, since there is no suggestion that truth is on the agenda. Rather, the challenges
the dinner participants present to one another are intended to elicit thoughtful and
sometimes ribald responses, whose excellence is judged by their cleverness.
There are several parallels to Valentinian number and alphabetic speculation. The
vowels, semivowels, and consonants are ranked into groups whose numbers are considered
significant, just as in Marcus's teachings. The comments by Hermeias on the early
development of the alphabet are based on early lore about the development of the alphabet,
yet he structures that lore so as to emphasize the alphabet's divine origin, signified by its
dependence upon the number four. This compares favorably with Marcus, who circumvents
history and plugs the alphabet's structure directly into the divine realm. Zopyrio, the critic
at the end of the conversation, resembles Irenaeus and Iamblichus, with the notable
9s 3 x 8 24 and 6 x 4
= = 24. On three and six as perfect numbers, see p. 50 n. 125.
258
exception that Zopyrio does not take the matter so seriously. This is, after all, simply a
dinner conversation. That he is a mere schoolteacher (yQa!-l�Hxna'rijs), and not an advanced
philosopher like Ammonius, seems to be Plutarch's extra touch, to emphasize that
speculation on the numbers and letters may be interesting, but is not likely to fool anyone.
On their own these two texts suggest that Plutarch considered number symbolism
interesting, but not a satisfactory way to explain the world. Such a conclusion would be
hasty. Isis and Osiris, Plutarch's study and analysis of the history of traditional Egyptian
religion and mythology, is filled with number symbolism. Some of this lore is no doubt
trivia, but many other arithmological explanations are genuinely important to him.
According to tradition Typhon, when hunting in the light of the moon, found and
chopped up Osiris's corpse into fourteen parts. Plutarch relates this dismemberment to the
lunar phases.96 Numbers and the lunar cycle fascinate Plutarch, who reports the belief that
cats give birth to successively larger litters- one kitten, two, three, all the way up to seven
kittens, thereby giving birth to twenty-eight in all.97 He admits that the story is a myth, but
he finds it uncanny that cats' eyes dilate when the moon is full.
Plutarch claims that the Pythagorean application of numbers to gods was inspired
by the Egyptians. Apollo is the monad, Artemis is the dyad, Athena is the hebdomad, and
Poseidon is the first cube, all because these motifs were etched into Egyptian religion.98 For
similar reasons the Pythagoreans associated triangles with male deities and squares with
female; and Plato assigned odd numbers to Olympian gods, but even numbers to
96 Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 18 (358A), 42 (368A).

97 Ibid. 63 (376E).
98 Ibid. 10 (354F). See below, pp. 301-302.
259
demigods.99 B ecause Osiris died on the seventeenth of the lunar month the Pythagoreans
abhor the number. Sixteen is a perfect square, and eighteen a perfect rectangle, in that both
numbers form geometrical figures whose area is equal to their perimeter.100 Seventeen
divides the two numbers, and can be divided into only unequal parts. Plato's nuptial
triangle, a rectilinear triangle consisting of sides length three, four, and five, also derives
from the Egyptian myth of Isis and Osiris.101 The vertical side of length three corresponds to
the male Osiris, the source. The base represents the female Isis, the receptacle. The
hypotenuse is Horus, their perfect offspring.102
Plutarch does not write all this off as mere mythology, interesting tidbits suitable
only for chitchat around aperitifs. He treats the Isis and Osiris story as true; its greatest
truths are latent in its symbolism.103 According to Plutarch there are two errors to be
avoided: superstition and atheism.104 The middle course is piety, adherence to right belief.1os
By adopting a philosophical and pious attitude to the various customs of the world, one
finds the truth of symbols. Plutarch says that the world's various cultures give the gods
different names, but they nevertheless all share the same gods, the same way they give the
same planets and elements different names.106 But behind all these naming systems and
99 Ibid. 26 (361A), 30 (363A). See below, pp. 301-302.

1oo Ibid. 24 (367E-F). 16 =4 x 4 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 and 18 3 x 6 3 + 6 + 3 + 6.
= = =
101 Plato, Republic 546B; Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 56 (373F-374A).
102 See below, p. 323.

103 See Gwyn Griffith's ed., 1 00-101 .
104 Isis and Osiris 1 1 (355CD), 67 (378A).
105
Ibid. and Gwyn Griffith's ed., 291 .
1 06 Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 6 7 (377EF).
260
behind all the various religious symbols is a single reason (A6yoc;) and providence that
orders and guides everything.
The number symbolism Plutarch uses in all three texts work according to these
principles. As Lamberton says, the Delphic dialogues emphasize the voyage to truth, not its
attainment. But even in these dialogues there is an assumption Lamberton misses. That
assumption is stated clearly only in Isis and Osiris. To engage piously with symbols is not
just to pursue the truth but to contact it. That explains why number symbolism appears so
frequently in Plutarch's writings. In The E at Delphi the reader is meant to engage piously
with the number symbols, and thereby interact with divine truth. It may be only one aspect
of truth, but it is nevertheless a genuine engagement.
Number symbols, however, are not self evident, and they can be abused. There is
superstitious number symbolism (the numbers surrounding the cat, for instance, and
probably some of the number symbolism in Table Talk) and there is an atheistic treatment of
numbers, where they lose all meaning. It is important to find the middle way, which is what
Plutarch tries to do throughout the rest of his writings when he engages with numbers.l07
Plutarch's criterion for what constitutes appropriate number symbolism compares
well with those of Irenaeus and Iamblichus. All three agree that numbers are important
symbols, but they caution against abuse. For Plutarch the abuse comes from superstition,
that is, an impious or unphilosophical approach to symbols. For Irenaeus it comes from
starting outside the rule of faith. For Iamblichus it comes from reducing the meaning of the
1 07 Plutarch's number symbolism is extensive. For examples, see excursus B2. Of special note is his
Genesis of the Soul in the Timaeus, in which major theses are advanced about the relationship between
the soul and number. The text is also vital for understanding the history of Platonist interpretations of
number symbolism in the Timaeus.
261
symbol to arbitrary, transient customs. For all three, identifying the source of error is
important because to mishandle numbers is to mishandle the truth. Conversely, to handle
numbers piously is to encounter the divine.
10
Numeri ex Regula
In the late Roman Republic, Pythagoreanism arose from the dead. The symbolism of the
mathematical sciences so fired the imagination of authors in late antiquity that Pythagoras
was figuratively reincarnated and reintroduced to intellectual and religious life. In the two
centuries after Nigidius Figulus, Pythagoreanism grew to become as important an
intellectual influence as Stoicism and Platonism, albeit on paper. Arithmetic, geometry,
music, and astronomy were taught as if Pythagoras founded them, and in later antiquity
other related sciences and pseudo-sciences-most notably, prognostication by means of
arithmetic, especially isopsephy - came under Pythagoras's wing.
The gradual growth of Pythagoreanism explains the appearance of the theological
systems of the Valentinians, Marcus, Basilides, the Barbelo-Gnostics, deutero-Simon, and
Marsanes, all of whom make Pythagorean number symbolism a central part of their worlds.
They all arrange into an arithmetical array multiple beings initially projected by a Monad or
Monad-Dyad pair, the source of all things. The imagery and terminology they use depend
upon the fundamental structures of arithmetic as it was taught and understood in the
second century. Some systems focus on the utter solitude of the Monad; others make the
eternal relationship between Monad and Dyad central; still others mix the two metaphors,
262
263
or develop models that fall somewhere along the monadic-dyadic spectrum. The variations
are not contradictions, but complementary ideals on the origin of the numbers.
Attractive to both Christians and non-Christians, this arithmetical theology seems to
have first developed in the 160s, and lasted through the mid-third century. After this period
the theology of arithmetic is less evident, at least in Christianity; Platonism continued to
make numbers central to its divine structures. This historical peak in the late second and
early third century coincides with the observation Markschies makes, that the 160s through
the 180s mark a period of "classical," i.e., highly philosophical and well developed, gnosis.
Marcus, whose writings form the epitome of the development of the theology of arithmetic,
exemplifies how, in this era of classical gnosis, a Christian could tap into Pythagorean and
semi-Pythagorean science and lore and fuse theology with the numbers and the alphabet.
The general view many scholars take toward Valentinian and other gnostic
protology is that the structures express the multiple characteristics of the one God. That is,
Irenaeus and other heresiologists mischaracterize as polytheistic their fellow Christians,
who were attempting to put in the language of philosophy the Christian message. Although
there is much to commend in this perspective, it must be corrected by some of the themes I
have presented in this study.
In late antique mathematics, the progression from monad through dyad to the rest of
the numbers was presented as a descent from absolute unity to plurality. The dyad, triad,
tetrad, and so on, were not thought of as mere aspects of a single monad, but as entities that
once lay potentially in the monad, but now exist separately, as "others" to the monad.
Valentinians use the same mathematical language and models to describe the emanations of
the aeons, a kind of cascade of multiplicity. They extend the analogy to explain the origins
264
of the natural world and the organization of the human being. The mathematical symbolism
they use emphasizes the otherness of the aeons. No doubt, the aeons in the Ogdoad reside
potentially within the Monad or Monad-Dyad, but when they emerge, they exist apart from
from their parents, and become separate entities. Some of the aeons have names that
describe characteristics of the primordial entity, but this does not mean that they are meant
to represent merely the characteristics of their source. The mathematically structured
relationship of the aeons makes clear that the erstwhile characteristics have been reified and
now have separate existence. This explains why Irenaeus and other orthodox writers treat
Valentinianism as a form of polytheism: it makes divine multiplicity central to its system.
The aeons have as real and as separate an existence as does the water that results from the
tears of Wisdom.
The Valentinian approach may be compared favorably to the Platonic systems
presented in this study. For Marsanes, Theodore, and even Iamblichus, the great mystery to
be pondered is the transition from absolute unity to multiplicity, an organic process that
leads to multiple levels of reality, each of which is mathematically organized. Redemption
from our fallen world involves an ascent through stages and levels that taper off in the
ethereal purity of the Monad. In Spiritual Seed Thomassen has argued that the Valentinian
myth depends upon and elaborates on the Pythagorean-influenced philosophy concerning
the rupture of duality from monadic simplicity. My study confirms his thesis, and paints a
fuller picture of how the Valentinians, as well as non-V alentinian systems like those of
Mono"imus and the Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale, depended upon arithmetic for their
theology. For all of them arithmetic is the beginning, the end, and even the content of their
doctrines of God.
265
Did the Platonists influence the Valentinians or vice versa? The chronology of my
sources might suggest that the Valentinians shaped Platonism, since Numenius and
Theodore of A sine postdate the second century. But this appearance may be deceptive, since
the vast bulk of literature from this period has perished. But deciding the cause-effect
relationship has no bearing on the main point, that Platonists and Valentinians alike (and
the other systems discussed in chapters 2 through 5) collectively participated in an
intellectual culture that prized mathematics for offering coherent and cogent explanations of
their metaphysics.
This does not apply to Irenaeus and Clement's theology. Their writings reveal their
commitment to the doctrines commonly held by all the churches spread across the Roman
Empire. They separate themselves from the heretics' views of the godhead, of the
Incarnation, and of salvation. Likewise, Clement and Irenaeus avoid or correct their
theology of arithmetic. Aside from the symbolism of the number one, Clement and Irenaeus
never apply arithmetical models to the godhead or divinity. Irenaeus is unambiguous in his
commitment to God as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Clement champions a
Christian monotheism where God is free of any mathematical models or constraints. For
both, neither God nor the Christian tradition is subject to mathematics, but rather the
converse.
This is not to say that orthodox theology was completely unified in how arithmetic
should be used in theology. Irenaeus, as we have seen, writes often about one Father and
one Son. The oneness he emphasizes has less symbolic and philosophical overtones than
Clement's emphasis on oneness, which derives from Platonic and Stoic descriptions of God.
For Clement, God transcends any predicate, including that of the hen/one. Although God
266
cannot be properly described as One, because of his transcendence, the analogy is fruitful.
God is very much like a hen/one that stands above the hierarchy monad - hen. Clement is
comfortable with such analogies. Irenaeus, however, never approaches such analogies, part
of his reluctance to use the metaphors of Platonism or Pythagoreanism for theology.
The distinction between gnostic and orthodox applies to the number symbolism
found in their theological structures, but it does not apply to the way these various groups
read and interpreted Scripture and the natural world. Everyone - Valentinians, Marcus,
Mono"irnus, Pythago"imus, deutero-Sirnon, Irenaeus, and Clement- approaches numbers
found in Scripture with well-developed ideas of number symbolism. They draw from and
add to a centuries-old tradition of number symbolism - a tradition captured in
arithrnological textbooks such as the Theology ofArithmetic-to press horne their exegetical
points.
When reading Scripture, Christians looked for numerical patterns that might help
unlock the mysteries of the text. Those numbers could appear in the Bible in several forms.
It could be stated directly, such as the reference to the ninety-nine in the parable of the lost
sheep. It could be merely implied, such as story of the Transfiguration, which itemizes, but
never states, the number of people present. Or it could be even more cleverly hidden, in
letters or alphabetic numerals whose numerical value was considered significant, such as
the psephic value of the word dove, or the mention of the numeral ten in the story of Gideon.
In all these cases, Christian exegetes latched onto the numbers they read, and they
interpreted them in light of some other part of their tradition.
To understand the natural world Christians adopted the conventions of number
symbolism common in the Greco-Roman world. There are seven planets, twelve hours,
267
twelve signs of the zodiac, four winds, five senses, and so on. Some parts of the natural
world were open to different kinds of numerical arrangements. Thus, human ages could be
divided into four, five, or seven phases. The human being could be divided into three,
seven, eight, or ten parts. The world, both physical and ideal, provided many number
symbols, any of which could be used to explain myth, theology, or ethics. Plutarch's
treatment of the rectilinear triangle of sides three, four, and five touches on all three
explanations. The number symbolism collected by the Pythagorean Nicomachus of Gerasa
and the Christian Anatolius of Laodicea, preserved in the Theology of Arithmetic, epitomizes
the very wide varieties of number symbolism that Christians and philosophers used.
Irenaeus accuses the Valentinians of having a faulty exegesis, particularly of the
numbers that appear in Scripture. He champions the standards necessary for a correct
interpretation. The most important of these is that number symbolism should be set
squarely within the rule of faith. Scripture should be treated as a narrative, and the numbers
that appear should be handled in the context of the entire narrative, not simply plucked
from the page. Numbers should come from the rule of faith, not vice versa.
Because he uses very much the same techniques as the Valentinians to interpret
Scripture, Irenaeus may seem hypocritical, at least when it comes to interpreting the natural
world. Both Irenaeus and the Valentinians appeal to the natural world to enhance and not
justify their theology, to frost their cake and not to bake it, so to speak. Irenaeus accuses the
Valentinians of drawing from the number symbolism of the natural world in an inconsistent
or incomplete manner. But this weakness is evident in some of his analogies, too,
particularly of the four winds representing the four Gospels.
268
But Irenaeus' s critique is consistent in three major areas (which is not to suggest that
the Valentinians were necessarily wrong). First, the exegesis Irenaeus criticizes really does
not attend to the context of the Scriptures used to explain the Pleroma. The overtones of the
language Irenaeus's Valentinians use suggest that they felt no need to do so, since the kind
of knowledge they claimed was something that was hidden, and only cryptically alluded to
in the Bible. The Bible did not justify their knowledge of the Pleroma; the Pleroma was seen
in the Bible retrospectively, in passages hidden to everyone but those initiated in the
mysteries of the system. Irenaeus, however, sees the Biblical text and, more generally, the
apostolic rule of faith, as the standard by which such claims should be judged. Any fool
with a half-baked idea could claim that Scripture secretly alludes to a system revealed only
to the few around him or her. The Valentinians' method could be used to justify any system
one wanted to invent. Irenaeus's complaint is almost exactly parallel to Iamblichus's
criticism of the arbitrary methods and ideas of Theodore of Asine. Maybe the Valentinians
and Theodore were truly guilty of these charges; maybe they weren't. In any case Irenaeus
and Iamblichus argue successfully against the solipsistic interpretive methods that were as
likely then as they are today.
Second, Irenaeus argues against the Valentinians' dependence upon changeable,
human conventions. Irenaeus criticizes Marcus for his psephy and dependence upon the
Greek alphabet. This temptation seems to have been common in the ancient Mediterranean.
Some of Plutarch's characters also appealed to changeable, human conventions of
numeration to interpret the world. True, lrenaeus's interpretation of Gideon's ten men
suggests that he found the technique attractive. But ultimately he stays away from psephy,
most evident in his interpretation of the name of the Beast. Irenaeus warns that using the
269
alphabet and its numbers to discover hidden truth can lead to grave error. The caution is
echoed by Hippolytus, who criticizes Colarbasus' s numerology on similar grounds.
Although Colarbasus's numerology cannot be tied to Valentinianism, the trajectory is clear:
Marcus's experiments in gematria lay the foundation for such numerology. The orthodox
Christian resistance to this trend resembles Iamblichus' s criticism of Theodore of Asine,
who theologized on the soul using techniques also bound to human linguistic conventions.
Third, Irenaeus insists that you must begin with the rule of faith, and derive any
number symbolism from it, not the other way around. On their own the Valentinians had
developed a notion of the Pleroma, without recourse to the Scriptures and the traditions of
the Church. They had predetermined what numbers and symbolic numerical structures
should be the key to reading the rest of the Christian tradition. Although there are many
parallels to the Valentinian Pleroma in Christian and non-Christian literature in late
antiquity, there is no single model that can be considered the prototype of Valentinianism.
There is no evidence of Valentinian protology prior to the 160s. Presumably they invented
their systems, either individually or in small groups. Their ethos encouraged creativity and
the development of new models. This individualism, Irenaeus charges, motivated them to
revise the apostolic rule of faith in the light of private, arbitrary opinion.
It may be reasonably answered that Irenaeus is still ingenuous on this point, that the
Valentinians were doing what he was doing, albeit from a different starting point. After all,
they too cherished a rule - a rule that involved the Pleroma and the mythology of the fall of
Wisdom- and from that rule had emerged a panoply of number symbols. Thus, the
Valentinians also held to numeri ex regula, but the rule (regula) differed from Irenaeus's; it
was one of a number of rules that existed in a pluralistic primitive Christianity.
270
This response misunderstands Irenaeus's claim and charge. He does not advocate a
general principle, that, given any rule, numbers should come out of it. No, Irenaeus is more
specific. There is only one rule. Everything else is a shadow or a lie. That one rule, taught by
Christ to the apostles, and entrusted by them to the churches around the world, is
unswerving and unchanging from one region of the inhabited world to the next. As far as
we can tell, Irenaeus is correct: there is no evidence that Valentinianism was shared by all
the early churches in the Roman Empire.
Irenaeus claims to uphold the apostolic rule of faith, the rule given by the apostles to
all the churches in the world. Determining the truth of this claim is not important here. The
claim explains his number symbolism, and in this he is consistent, since he always draws his
number symbolism from the rule of faith. But the Valentinians relied on an idiosyncratic,
changing system, thereby disqualifying themselves from any claim that they were
preserving the Church's common rule of faith, a rule that was corporate, not private,
property. Clement of Alexandria joins Irenaeus in this line of attack, as do other orthodox
writers from the second and third century.
In this respect Christians and Platonists part company. Although Platonists also had
a highly developed tradition, they did not treat it as Christians treated their own. For
Christians, the rule of faith was a revealed, unchanging gift of God to the Church. Platonists
had no such view. For Christians, the Church, spread throughout the world, was witness
and guard to the truth, a community of divine origins and purpose. Platonists had no such
ecclesiology; if they had social structures, they must have been minimal, since we hear
nothing about them.
271
The orthodox tradition of number symbolism had a great deal of variation.
Clement's arithmology differs from Irenaeus' s in key respects. Clement oftentimes ignores
the context of a given passage and sees in a text a hidden reference to a theological symbol
of one sort or another. The substantive theological points for which he argues are not
d ifferent from Irenaeus's, but his technique is very similar to that of the Valentinians and
Mono"imus. Irenaeus advocates principles of interpretation that he himself does not follow;
Clement breaks those principles, but he also never champions them. He uses the same
interpretive techniques that Marcus does, but in service to the orthodox, ecclesiastical
tradition. Both Marcus and Clement use the episemon ogdoad as a key theological symbol,
but Marcus uses it to depict the arithmetical composition of the Pleroma; Clement handles it
as a symbol of the Incarnation. Irenaeus shows little interest in this kind of expansive, more
speculative number symbolism.
We have not explored in any detail how subsequent Christian generations and
writers developed these themes. A thorough portrait would require a separate study, but
the outlines can be sketched. The formation of the theology of arithmetic in the late second
and early third centuries extensively influenced subsequent generations. Just as Irenaeus
and Clement handled numerical symbols differently, there was no single acceptable way to
use number symbolism in later Christianity. Those inclined to mystical, speculative, or
allegorical theology tended to embrace Clement's pattern; those more skeptical of such
methods tended toward Irenaeus's, or omitted it altogether.
All sides, however, agreed that there were forbidden uses of numbers, namely, when
it subordinated God to arithmetic, or undermined the Christian teaching on the Trinity, or
272
tried to predict the future. Each of these three prohibitions was challenged at various times
in various places. In the scholastic era in the West, theologians began to write treatises that
proved the undeniable logic of the Trinity by appealing to mathematical principles that
logically preceded the godhead. During that same period, Jewish, then Christian, kabbalistic
literature reintroduced the notions of arithmetically arranged emanations in the godhead.
The third restriction was challenged at the outset: numerological prognostication blossomed
and grew from the third century onwards throughout the Greek-speaking East, albeit
without the Church's approval. Thus, the errors Irenaeus fought against either never went
away or returned after a lengthy departure. But that story is to be told another time.
Excursus A
Pythagoreanism in Outline
Scholars in the last thirty years have come to a rough agreement on the shape and history of
Pythagoras and his tradition.1 Pythagoras was born on the island of Samos, around the mid-
sixth century BCE, a time when in nearby Miletus thinkers such as Anaximenes and
J The attempt to find the historical Pythagoras has proved to be as captivating and elusive as parallel
efforts to find the original Jesus or Hippolytus. For nineteenth- and early twentieth-century research
on Pythagoras, see Burkert, Lore and Science, 1-4. In his study, still admired as one of the most
important works on the subject, Burkert agreed with the skeptics, arguing that there was very little
evidence to suggest that Pythagoras was a scientist or philosopher by ancient standards. Rather, the
oldest testimonies (especially the akousmata) suggested that Pythagoras was a shaman! ike figure, a
charismatic holy man. His assessment, although not universally adopted, is universally respected.
Zhmud, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion, and Kahn, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, have worked
within the terms and framework set by Burkert, but are more optimistic in their assessment of
Pythagoras, suggesting that he probably was involved in the science and philosophy of his day. More
skeptical is Huffman, whose Philolaus of Croton and Archytas of Tarentum have reinforced a skepticism
concerning Pythagoras's scientific accomplishments. For an extensive bibliography, see Navia,
Pythagoras: An Annotated Bibliography.
A stream of scholarship in the last ten years has amplified our picture of what
"Pythagoreans" must have looked like in the age of Iamblichus. See Staab, Pythagoras in der Spiitantike;
von Albrecht et al., Pythagoras: Legende, Lehre, Lebensgestaltung; Rappe, Reading Neoplatonism; Shaw,
Theurgy and the Soul; Blumenthal and Clark, Divine lamblichus. Especially noteworthy are the recent
attempts to describe the fresh endeavors in late antiquity to philosophize about the metaphysical
status of number, an activity that seems to depend upon Pythagorean arithmology. See Bechtle and
O'Meara, Philosophie des mathematiques. For more recent accounts of the history of Pythagoreanism see
OCD, s.v.; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 338-41; Riedweg, Pythagoras: Leben, Lehre, Nachwirkung; Math�i,
Pythagore et les pythagoriciens. A two-volume history of Pythagoreanism, by C. Joost-Gaugier, is in
preparation.
273
Xenophanes were active and a new system of numeration had been invented (see excursus
B). According to the later tradition, Pythagoras left Samos and traveled to Egypt and
Mesopotamia, acquiring religious and scientific knowledge along the way. Contradictions in
the chronology and geography of these late accounts obscure any certain knowledged of his
whereabouts before he settled in Croton, in southern Italy, around 530 BCE. There he
founded a philosophical-religious community and became active in the political life of
Croton, which won in 510 BCE a battle that secured for itself local economic and military
hegemony, which lasted until about 450 BCE. Although Pythagoras probably helped in
Croton's success, a wave of violence directed against the Pythagoreans there forced him to
flee to Metapontum, where he died a refugee in the early fifth century. His followers, who
were in positions of power across southern Italy, weathered the persecution and maintained
a presence on the peninsula for a century and a half. Scholars generally regard Pythagoras
as a charismatic sage, a religious teacher, and a politician. How much of a philosopher or
scientist he was is disputed.
The community he established was bound by a common life and cult. New members
were expected to spend several years of probation in silence and, when fully inducted, to
preserve the secret teachings of the society. Members swore to uphold the community's
strong code of ethics, which included rules for conducting one's family, and dietary
restrictions, which in its earliest phase probably did not include the vegetarianism for which
Pythagoreanism later became famous. Pythagoras emphasized the immortality of the soul
and metempsychosis. Our basis for reconstructing the life and character of the earliest
Pythagorean communities depends largely upon the akousmata, early Pythagorean sayings
preserved by Aristotle and others. These akousmata are cryptic, and display an interest in
274
taboo prohibitions, especially in diet and dress. They show no interest in the mathematical
arts, natural science, or philosophy, which suggests that the earliest Pythagorean
community was not as scientifically inclined as later generations thought them to be.
We know very few names of Pythagoreans who flourished after the death of the
master. Hippasus of Metapontum (fl. early 5th c. BCE) is the earliest. He is remembered for
being expelled by the Pythagoreans for publishing their mathematical secrets. Philolaus of
Croton (or Tarentum; ca. 470 BCE-ca. 390 BCE), who is the earliest Pythagorean whose
writings are still extant, wrote about astronomy, medicine, and the soul. In his metaphysics
he argued for a mathematical harmony in the world, which was composed of unlimiteds
and limiters.2 These two shadowy figures -Hippasus and Philolaus - are the earliest
examples of scientifically inclined Pythagoreans.
To account for the emergence of scientific interest in the Pythagorean community,
scholars tum to the reports of early schisms. Some time after the death of the master, those
who wanted to emphasize and retain the religious and ritualistic character of the
community - the so-called aKOVGf.H:XnKo(- separated from those who began to engage in
the philosophical and scientific currents of their age -the l-la.8YJ!-11AHKOL The former group is
said to have treated the latter as if they were innovators, and to have denied them any right
to claim to be Pythagoreans. As far as we know, the !-!CX8YJ!-11AHKOL did not return the favor.
There may have been more than one split in the Pythagorean communities of the fifth
century, but this rifts shows that early on it was disputed as to how to live the Pythagorean
way of life.
2 See below, pp. 296-297.
275
One of these !J.U8f]!J.UHKOL, Archytas of Tarentum (fl. ca. 400-350 BCE), provides an
important link to the next major phase of Pythagoreanism. The few fragments we have
depict him as a Pythagorean philosopher, mathematician, and politician. As general of his
city, he rescued Plato (ca. 429-327) from Dionysius II of Syracuse (b. ca. 396) in 361, at which
time the two became close associates. It is quite plausible that Timaeus, the sage in Plato's
Timaeus, represents Archytas. The later dialogues of Plato-notably the Timaeus, Phaedo,
Philebus, and the Republic take up and develop Pythagorean themes, such as the etemality
-
of the soul, metempsychosis, and the harmoniously mathematical construction of the world.
Plato was not a Pythagorean, since in each of these dialogues he develops a philosophy that
is uniquely and distinctly his own. But he nevertheless depends upon Pythagorean insights.
In the generation after Plato's death three competing interpretations of the Platonic
and Pythagorean traditions emerged. The first is that of Aristotle (384-322 BCE), one of the
few authors of the fourth century to distinguish between the Pythagoreans and Plato.
Although the book Aristotle wrote on the Pythagoreans is lost, comments he makes in the
rest of his corpus supply a great deal of insight into the pre-Platonic Pythagorean tradition.
For this reason, scholars tend to give Pythagorean fragments found in Aristotle stronger
weight than they do other testimonies, despite Aristotle's often critical tone.
Aristotle's representation of the Pythagoreans did not prove to influence the
subsequent tradition the way Plato's immediate followers did, the second strain of
interpretation. Speusippus (407-339 BCE), the nephew of Plato, succeeded his uncle as head
of the Academy from 347 to his death. Only fragments of his once-extensive literary corpus
remain, but what we have shows that he recast Platonic doctrine in the image of
Pythagoreanism. He claimed that the Timaeus was a Pythagorean dialogue, and he
276
transformed Plato's forms into numbers, which, he argued, derived from the Pythagorean
principles of the One and Plurality. Speusippus's successor, Xenocrates (fl. 339-314 BCE)
continued to reshape Platonic doctrine to conform to the Pythagoreanism of the fourth
century 1--!a eru..tanKoL
A third interpretive tradition went further. Aristoxenus of Tarentum (b. ca. 370
BCE) - musician, philosopher, and one-time disciple of the Pythagorean Xenophilus
diverged considerably from the Pythagoreans in his music theory and philosophy. Despite
his biting sarcasm of predecessors such as Plato and Socrates, Aristoxenus held Pythagoras
in respect, avoiding superstitious descriptions of him. In praising Pythagoras, Aristoxenus
credited him with inventing doctrines later embraced by Plato and Aristotle. His lost works
on the Pythagoreans probably furnished material for writers in late antiquity, and they
signaled a trend discemable in the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, of ascribing not just
Plato's teachings to Pythagoras, but also Aristotelian and Stoic doctrines.
Of these three reinterpretations, the second proved to be the most influential in the
later tradition, which conflated Pythagoras, Plato, and the Pythagoreans. Plato was
reinterpreted in the light of a Pythagorean tradition, itself radically transformed as Platonic
science. This resulted in the Platonizing of Pythagoras: uniquely Platonic insights were
regarded as Pythagorean. From Speusippus onwards, it has proved difficult to disentangle
the two traditions.
The fourth century was also a fertile period for biographies of Pythagoras. In
addition to those writers already mentioned, Heraclides Ponticus (fl. 4th c. BCE) wrote about
Pythagoras, casting him as a shamanistic holy man and crediting him for first using the term
philosophy. Dicaearchus of Messana (fl. ca. 320-300 BCE) also wrote a life of Pythagoras. Like
277
his fellow Aristotelian Aristoxenus, Dicaearchus denied key Pythagorean doctrines, yet
extolled Pythagoras as a model social reformer. The variety of images of Pythagoras - from
shaman to politician - that were composed in the fourth century are all evident in the
various lives of Pythagoras composed in late antiquity.
This same period was important, too, for the transmission of Pythagorean number
symbolism. Speusippus wrote a treatise, now lost, titled On Pythagorean Numbers,
purportedly based on Philolaus' s works.3 Aristotle wrote two books on the Pythagoreans,
and one on Archytas, and passages in his Metaphysics suggest that numerical lore was one of
the major topics. Xenocrates, too, wrote On Numbers and Theory of Numbers, each a single
book.4 Since he was interested in Pythagoreanisrn, it is likely that both these books discussed
Pythagorean number symbolism.
There is no evidence for a Pythagorean community after the fourth century. The
Platonic tradition forged by Speusippus probably became home to whatever was left of the
1-llX8TJI...HXnKol, the scientific faction of Pythagoreans. What happened to the aKOVG !-HXHKOL is
unclear. There is some similarity between them and the later Cynics, but no connection can
be firmly established. At any rate, in the Hellenistic period, Pythagoreanism ceased to be a
lived reality, and Pythagoras was revered, but only as a dim memory. Our earliest extant
specimens of pseudepigraphal Pythagorean writings come from the third and second
century BCE. Many of these texts treat philosophical themes then current in the Hellenistic
period, and are written in an archaizing Doric Greek. The texts tend to focus on ethical and
3 Theology of Arithmetic 82.10-15.

4 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 4.13.
278
political themes, not mathematical or scientific ones, and they generally borrow the
philosophy of the Academy and its successors.
Nigidius Figulus (d. 45 BCE) is credited by Cicero ( 106-43 BCE) with the resurrection
of Pythagoreanism. "Last but not least, it was [Figulus], in my judgment, who, following on
those noble Pythagoreans, whose system of philosophy, after flourishing for a number of
centuries in Italy and Sicily, was somehow extinguished, arose to revive it."5 That Figulus
played a pivotal part in the reinvention of the philosophy is confirmed by Varro ( 1 1 6-27
BCE), who used Figulus's writings to compose his book Hebdomades (written after 32 BCE),
which was full of Pythagorean lore. Other figures of the first century BCE are known for
introducing or supporting Pythagorean doctrines. Eudorus of Alexandria (fl. ca. 25 BCE)
wrote a commentary on the Timaeus, in which he opposed the Stoicized readings of Plato
found in Antiochus of Ascalon (ca. 130-69/8 BCE) in favor of a transcendental Pythagorean
reading. Eudorus may have been the single most important intellectual force for the
renewed interest in Philolaus, Archytas, and the broader Pythagorean tradition.6 Juba II (ca.
45 BCE-ca. 23 CE), king of Mauretania, was known as an avid collector of Pythagorean books.
Thrasyllus (fl. early 1st c. CE), a Platonist philosopher from Alexandria and astrologer to
Tiberius, wrote about the principles of Pythagoreanism, which he considered as important
as Platonism. The teacher of Plutarch, Ammonius (d. ca. 80 CE), also a Platonist, was an
aficionado of Pythagorean number symbolism, which he probably taught to Plutarch. Even
Alexander Polyhistor, who cannot be considered a Pythagorean, wrote a book on
Pythagorean symbols (now lost). This mirrors the more Stoic Cicero, who decided to
5 Trans. Dillon, Middle Platonists 1 17.

6 Ibid. 114-20.
279
translate into Latin the Timaeus, the most "Pythagorean" work by Plato. Thus, during the
Republic and early Empire, Pythagorean themes had achieved a new kind of respectability
in literate Roman society. Some of this respectability ran parallel to the successes enjoyed by
astrology, then a relatively new science?
In the first and second centuries CE authors of very different interests and
backgrounds picked up Pythagorean themes. Moderatus of Gades (mid-1st c. CE) wrote ten
or eleven books on Pythagorean teaching, attempting to show point by point how Plato
derived his doctrines from Pythagoras. Apollonius of Tyana (fl. 1st c. CE) adopted the
lifestyle of a Pythagorean holy man. His biography was embellished under the influence of
later cultic reverence so we cannot say what episodes are genuine. But it seems that he
styled himself as something of a successor to the Pythagoras depicted by Heracleides
Ponticus. In the second century, Nicomachus of Gerasa, Numenius of Apamea, and Theon
of Smyrna (fl. ca. 115-40 CE) all wrote mathematical and philosophical texts that depended
upon Pythagorean lore. Nicomachus and Numenius are known to have written treatises
devoted to Pythagorean number symbolism. Other authors from this period who ordinarily
would not consider themselves Pythagorean nevertheless frequently appeal to
Pythagoreanism, particularly in discussions regarding the sciences of the quadrivium
(excursus B4).
Those who reinvent a long-lost tradition inevitably omit key parts of the parent
tradition, and introduce new ideas. The Pythagoreanism of the Roman Empire is no
exception. Three major shifts are worth noting.
7 The connection is noted by Dornseiff, Alphabet in Mystik und Magie, 81 .
280
1 . Astrology, magic, and divination. Nigidius Figulus was famous, not just for his
Pythagorean writings on science and theology, but for his astrology and magic. Whether or
not he was the father of neo-Pythagoreanism, he epitomized its new image. Although
Pythagoras w as regarded from the earliest times as something of a wonderworker and
shaman, he was not thought to have taught techniques in astrology, magk or divination.
Indeed, astrology was still relatively new in Nigidius Figulus's day, since the practice
entered Greek (and from there, Roman) culture only from around the third century BCE.8 But
it was well-known that Pythagoras and his followers were interested in the sciences of the
quadrivium, so it was natural to treat the Pythagoreans as if they were adept in using the
diagnostic powers of those same sciences. Thus, there are many iatromathematical texts that
are ascribed to Pythagoras or his circle. All date from late antiquity or after (see excursus D).
2. The loss of community. Up to the opening of the third c. BCE there were
Pythagoreans who claimed to live, in unbroken succession, the Pythagorean way of life.
When the movement was resurrected, there was no attempt as far as we know, to resurrect
the communal life Pythagoras emphasized. The stories of holy men who championed
Pythagoreanism, like Apollonius of Tyana and Alexander of Abonuteichos (fl. 2nd c. CE),
show that the mysticat theurgic side of Pythagoreanism was something they took on
individually. Their followers formed communities patterned on the religious groups of their
own age, not sixth century Croton. Late antique Pythagoreanism was a literary ideat not a
lived reality. This is not to exclude the possibility for a large following of Pythagoras in late
antiquity, dependent upon oral lore, and not just written texts. But such an oral culture
s Barton, Ancient Astrology.
281
w ould have been "literary": it had to either invent the past or reconstruct it from literary
fragments.
3. Pervasive literary presence. Pythagorean themes extended into all gemes of
literature. Ovid features Pythagoras in the last book of his Metamorphoses. Whereas the
writings of Euclid (fl. late 4th/mid 3rd c. BCE), Apollonius of Perge (fl. 200 BCE), and other
early Hellenistic scientists reveal no Pythagorean influence, late antique texts on the
mathemata, such as Ptolemy's (fl. ca. 146--c a. 1 70 CE) Harmonics and Nicomachus of Gerasa's
Introduction to A rithmetic, do. The Jewish exegete Philo of Alexandria (fl. early 1 st c. CE) was
termed by the later tradition a Pythagorean, in part because of his allegorical use of number
symbolism, about which he wrote extensively.9 Hermippus of Berytus (fl. early 2d c. CE), a
grammarian interested in dream interpretation, wrote an entire treatise devoted to the
number seven. In Plutarch's ethical and philosophical treatises Pythagoreanism features
often (see chapter 9).
Iamblichus of Chalcis (ca. 245-ca. 325 CE) is a watershed figure in Pythagoreanism.
Student of Porphyry (234-ca. 305 CE), who was himself a student of the great Platonist
Plotinus (205-69/70 CE), Iamblichus wrote many of his works with Pythagoras as his model.
His On the Pythagorean Way of Life was the first installment of a ten-book series meant to
introduce students to a philosophical and theurgical approach to the quadrivium.
lamblichus' s series was so attractive to the emperor Julian (331-63 CE) that he had it
distributed in the Empire as part of his campaign to renew Hellenism. The literary image of
9 See Runia, "Philo 'the Pythagorean'." Philo's lost treatise On Numbers is reconstructed by Stahle,
Zahlenmystik.
282
Pythagoreanism developed after the fourth century CE.10 Beginning with the work of writers
such as Damascius (fl. 4th/5th c. CE), Proclus (410/12-85 CE), and Macrobius (fl. 5th c. CE), the
literary image of Pythagoreanism flourished in the ages of Islam and medieval Christianity,
and into the age of Johannes Kepler (1571-1630).11
10 The best account of this transformation of late antique Platonism is O'Meara, Pythagoras Revived.
1 1 For Pythagoreanism in the modern age, see Kahn, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans.
283
Excursus B
Themes in Pythagorean Number Symbolism
Despite appearances to the contrary, Pythagorean number symbolism has a history.
Although Pythagoras was in all likelihood not a mathematician (see excursus A), he seems
to have made numbers a central part of his philosophy. The number symbolism of the
earliest Pythagoreans formed the core of an arithmological tradition that developed in the
centuries that followed. In this excursus I outline the development of certain key themes in
Pythagorean number symbolism, but only those themes that directly bear on the
philosophical and theological debates relevant to this study. I cite the texts that are most
important for showing the historical development of each theme to provide a starting point
for future research. For the dates and Pythagorean background of the authors cited here, see
excursus A.
1 ONE VERSUS ONE: THE HIERARCHY OF THE HEN AND THE MONAD
Theon of Smyrna begins his explanation of the different kinds of numbers by defining and
describing the qualities of the number one.1 Initially, he uses the terms hen (i:v) and monad
1 Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 18.3-21 .19.
284
( f.WVa<;) indiscriminately.2 He defines number as a collection of monads, or, alternately, as
the progression of a multitude, starting from a monad, and its regression, diminishing into a
monad.3 This was a standard definition of number, one that made clear that the monad was
the principle (cXQXTJ) and measure of number, but not itself a number.4 But, further into the
passage, Theon explains the etymology of monad, and then the difference between monad
and hen. He relates the terms to the difference between number (aQL8!J6<;) and numerable
thing (aQL8 !1frr6v).5 In distinguishing number from numerables, Theon defines the former
as "quantity in intelligibles," and not part of the material world.6 Numerables, on the other
hand, are "quantity in sense perceptibles," and are predicated of beings? Numerables have
bodies, but numbers are bodiless.8 As numbers are to numerables, Theon claims, so is the
monad to the hen.9 The monad is the intelligible form of the hen, and is indivisible.1 0 Both
the monad and the hen are principles: the monad, of numbers, and the hen, of numerables.11
The monad and the hen differ, too, in that only the hen may be divided infinitelyP
Theon claims that more "recent" authors identified the monad and dyad simply as
the principles of numbers, unlike the Pythagoreans, who claimed that all the idealized
2 Ibid. 1 8.5 vs. 18.11, 14; 19.6 vs. 1 9.7.

3 Ibid. 18.3-5: tXQL8p6c; ECJH mJO"TT)f-lCX powxbwv, 11 7TQ07TOCllO"f-lOc; rrAfJ8ovc; a no povaboc; tXQXOf-lEVOc;
KCXL avarrobLO"f-lOc; f ie; povaba KCXTaAfJywv.
4 Cf. Nicomachus, Introduction to Arithmetic 7.1 .
5 Theon of Smyrna, Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 1 9.14.
6 Ibid. 19.15: aQt8poc; pi'v yaQ iun To iv VOTJTOic; nou6v. See also 21 .5.
7 Ibid. 19.17: tXQL8f-lTJTOV b[ TO iv aiu8TJTOic; nou6v. See also 21.6.
s Ibid. 19.16, 20.5.
9 Ibid. 19.13-15.
10 Ibid. 19.19.
1 1 Ibid. 19.21-22.
1 2 Ibid. 19.22-20.4.
285
numbers- monad, dyad, triad, tetrad, and so on -provided the principles for the numbers
instantiated in the realm of sense perception -hen, duo, tria, tettares, and so onP
A third, unnamed group claimed that the monad was the principle for all idealized
numbers, and that the hen -not just the hen as a quality or point of differentiation, but the
absolute hen - was the principle and measure of beings.14
Theon presents yet a fourth group, consisting of Archytas and Philolaus, who, he
says, make no distinction between hen and monad.1 5 This is probably correct, since
Aristotle, one of the more reliable sources for pre-Platonic Pythagoreanism, states that the
Pythagoreans called nous both monad and hen.16 There is no evidence that Plato held to a
distinction in the terms eitherP Theon, therefore, confirms that the distinction between the
terms entered Pythagoreanism only after Plato.
Theon presents other opinions on the monad. The "majority" - a fifth group that
probably overlaps with some of the previous groups- distinguish the first monad from
other monads. They call it "more frequent," "monad itself," and "hen" (understood to be the
chief intelligible essence of the hen, since the first monad is responsible for furnishing to
individual things the property of being one).18 For this group, something can be said to be
"one" by virtue of its participation in the monad.19 Thus, this fifth group embraces the
1 3 Ibid. 20.5-11 .
14 Ibid. 20.12-19.
1 5 Ibid. 20.19-20 Archytas, test. 20 Philolaus, test. 1 0.
= =
16 Aristotle, frag. 203, in Alexander of Aphrodisias, Commentary on the Metaphysics 39.15.

1 7 Note, for instance, the heavy dependence upon hen in the Parmenides, and the lack of any similar
interest in monad as a technical term. Studies like Brumbaugh's (Plato on the One) focus exclusively on
hen.
1 8 Theon of Smyrna, Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 20.20-21.2.
1 9 Ibid. 21.2-3.
286
hierarchy monad - hen, where the arrow indicates not only metaphysical priority, but a
transfer of properties.
A sixth group distinguishes between hen and monad in a different m anner. To them,
the hen is immutable in three ways. The hen is immutable in its essence, an immutability
that cannot be ascribed to the monad or to the odd numbers.20 Second, the hen is immutable
in its quality since it is a monad and is unlike many monads.21 The wording here is vague,
but it may mean that many monads can be arranged in different shapes, but a single monad,
never. Third, the hen is immutable in quantity since it cannot be added the way one monad
is combined with another monad. Otherwise the hen would be many and no longer one.22
Theon has summarized the doctrines of this sixth group so tersely that the exact meaning is
obscure. The main idea seems to be that in a collection of monads - the standard definition
of number- the monads retain their identity. But countables' numerical identities change as
the size of their group does. Thus, the three immutable aspects of this hen- essence, quality,
and quantity - correspond to the first three of Aristotle's categories, probably no
coincidence.23+
This sixth group also sees Plato's use of "henads" in Philebus l5a as referring to a
category other than hen, a category that is a monad by virtue of its participation in the hen.24
But the hen itself is unchangeable and is limited by monads. The ultimate distinction
2o Ibid. 21.7-10.
21 Ibid. 21.10-1 1 .
22 Ibid. 21.11-13.
23 According to my reading of 21.8-13, the punctuation in Hiller's edition should be emended,
converting the first comma in line 10 and the comma in line 1 1 to colons ( ) and the colon in line 12 to
"
a comma.
24 Ibid. 21.14-16.
287
between hen and monad is that the former is defined and is a limit, whereas monads are
limitless and indefinite. This group, then, seems to propose that the hen and monad hold the
positions assigned by members of the Old Academy to the one (hen) and the indefinite
dyad. This arrangement, hen - monad, reverses the schemes found in other groups Theon
discusses.
Theon's survey nicely summ arizes the variety of distinctions that could be made in
the second century between hen and monad, and the amount of importance that could be
assigned to the subject. The complexity of the sixth group's doctrine, and its position last in
the doxography, suggests that it was the position advocated by Theon or his principal
source, probably Moderatus.2s
Theon's explanation of Archytas and Philolaus's positions shows that the distinction
between hen and monad postdates Plato. Nevertheless, Plato did distinguish between ideal
and mathematical numbers, a polarity that may have provided the foundation necessary for
positing metaphysical levels to numbers.26 If they can be trusted, the fragments from
Speusippus suggest an increased complexity of layers of numbers in the Old AcademyP It
is more likely, however, that Platonists and Pythagoreans of the fourth century BCE and later
(if there were any left) held to two levels to numbers, or none at all. Alexander Polyhistor,
2s On this, see below.

26 Aristotle, Metaphysics 1 .6.13.6. See Nikulin, Matter, Imagination, and Geometry, 73, and Dillon, Middle
Platonists, 6.
27 This kind of complexity is such a feature of late antique thought that it is tempting to believe that
Iamblichus, the source for scholars' reconstruction of Speusippus' s philosophy of mathematics,
depends upon a spurious writing or some other intermediary source much closer to the fourth c.CE.
See Dillon, Middle Platonists, 14-15, who depends on Iamblichus, Common Mathematical Knowledge.
Dillon (p. 430) defends the authenticity of these fragments against Tarim, Speusippus ofA thens, 86-107.
288
who recounts the Pythagorean doctrine of the generation of numbers describes the monad
begetting the dyad, which in tum generates other numbers. There is no supreme principle
over the two sources -the monad and dyad - and Alexander's source, which postulates a
monad and indefinite dyad in place of the hen and indefinite dyad, does not distinguish the
terms for the number one.28
The earliest datable text to distinguish formally between hen and monad is a fragment
of Eudorus of Alexandria, who held that there were two hens, one the source of everything,
and the other, called a monad, paired with the indefinite dyad.29 Eudorus' s position is
clearly related to the distinctions discussed by Theon, but it reverses the order of priority,
placing the hen above the monad. Although this is the earliest attested order in the late-
antique and medieval tradition, it is rare. Hippolytus reports a rather strange version of the
hen � monad doctrine when he claims that the Pythagoreans held to the hierarchy number
seems to be associated with the level of "number," and the first monad is the principle of
numbers "in their instantiation" (Ka8 ' un6a'ramv).31 All four levels are associated with the
tetraktys, and are thought of as the four parts of the decad. It is also no coincidence that this
series corresponds to the series point, line, plane, and solid. But this is only one of
2s Alexander Polyhistor, frag. 140 (ed. Muller, 3:240b), in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers
8.24-25. See also Dillon, Middle Platonists, 127. Alexander agrees with an undatable Pythagorean text
ascribed to Xenocrates, who uses "first monad" in place of "hen." [pseudo-]Xenocrates, frag. 120.77,
in Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicians 2.262. For other late antique uses of monad instead of hen,
see also idem, 10.276 and 282 and Aetius, Placita 281 .5.
29 Cited in Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle's Physics 1 81 .27-30. Note the pair monad-indefinite
dyad parallels the terminology of Alexander Polyhistor, discussed above.
30 Refutation ofAll Heresies 1 .2.9 4.51 .7.
=
31 ibid. 1 .2.6 4.51.4.

=
289
Hippolytus' s sources for Pythagoreanism.32 Elsewhere he slips into language that prioritizes
the monad.33 Iamblichus witnesses to the order hen � monad when he describes the second,
self-sufficient deity springing from the first as if a monad from the hen.34 There are possible
vestiges of the system hen � monad in Clement of Alexandria and Plotinus.35 In any case,
the choice of hen to describe the primary level of the number one probably derives from the
Platonic tradition, which relied nearly exclusively on hen to describe the metaphysics of
arithmetic.36
Of those who distinguish hen from monad, the great majority prefer the order monad
� hen. We do not know for certain why. The sources suggest that grammar was an
important reason. Monad, dyad, and so on, are abstract nouns, and they lend themselves well
to descriptions of ideal numbers. Hen, duo, and so forth, although often used for
abstractions, are nevertheless adjectives, and so tend to be attached to things that can be
counted. This is Theon's rationaleP His source here is Moderatus, who himself probably
depends upon earlier sources, such as Tiberius Claudius Thrasyllus - the court philosopher
and astrologer to Tiberius - or the pseudo-Pythagorean treatises.38 Moderatus describes the
32 See above, p. 1 1 3 n. 38.

33 E.g., Refutation of All Heresies 1 .2.2, 6.23.1 .
34 Iamblichus, De mysteriis 8.2.
35 Clement: see p. 1 86, above. For Plotinus, see below.
36 See, for instance, Plato, Parmenides passim, and above, n. 17.
37 Theon of Smyrna, Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 19.15-1 8.
38 Syrianus, Commentary on the Metaphysics 151.17-22. This passage attributes the distinction between
hen and monad to two groups of writers, "older Pythagoreans" versus "more recent." The "older"
here means Archytas, who says the hen and monad, "being of the same class, differ from each other."
( pseudo-Archytas in Thesleff ed., 47.27-48.2) The "more recent" are Moderatus and Nicomachus.
=
The quote from Archytas is certainly spurious (and thus included by Thesleff, Introduction, 8 n. 4, and
10). Syrianus probably found it in one of the "more recent" Pythagoreans, namely, Moderatus or
Nicomachus. Since Theon makes the same distinction between older and more recent Pythagorean
290
monad as the source and endpoint for all numbers.39 He holds to the order monad --+ hen,
describing it in the very terms later authors would.40 Even though Moderatus reports this
distinction, it seems that he did not personally hold to this scheme, but preferred a more
complex one, probably to be reconstructed upon the basis the views expressed in the sixth
group outlined by Theon, and of those reported by Simplicius as belonging to Moderatus.41
In both passages Moderatus considers the term hen to be the more important. In the
fragment preserved by Simplicius, Moderatus postulates three levels of hen, the first hen
transcending being, the second hen consisting of the forms (described as "truly existent"
and "intelligible"), the third hen (thought of as being "of the soul") participating in the first
hen and the forms. When this is combined with Theon's sixth group, we learn what
Moderatus considered to be the properties of the uppermost hen. This complex scheme
writers on this subject (Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 20.6--7), and because Theon depends here
on Moderatus ( frag. 2 : see n. 40, below), quite possibly Syrianus found the pseudo-Archytas quote
=
in Moderatus. On the other hand, Nicomachus, whose quotations from Archytas and Philolaus are
nearly certainly all spurious (see below on the quadrivium), makes the same distinction between
older and more recent Pythagoreans. He may be Syrianus's source. If so, then the pseudo-Archytas
fragment (inspired by Moderatus/Thrasyllus?) was in Nicomachus' s Theology of Arithmetic, since his
Introduction to Arithmetic nowhere explicitly distinguishes between hen and monad. Thrasyllus' s
connection to Moderatus is suggested by Dillon, Middle Platonists, 398.
39 Moderatus, frag. 1, in Stobaeus, Eclogae. 1 .2.8.
40 Moderatus, frag. 2. The standard text for Moderatus is Mullach, 2:48-50, who bases frag. 2 on
Stobaeus, Eel. 1 .2.9, with no reference to Theon, who preserves the fragment at Mathematics Useful for
Reading Plato 1 9.21-20.9. Probably the whole of Theon (18.3-20.19) depends, more or less verbatim, on
Moderatus. The anonymous Life of Pythagoras epitomized by Photius, Biblioteca 249 (fol. 438r =
Thesleff, Pythagorean Texts, 237.8ff.) also probably depends on Moderatus (but see Burkert, Lore and
Science, 58 n. 30, who suggests Photius reports an altogether different scheme). Theon's explanation is
more complete than Stobaeus' s, so is probably also closer to Moderatus' s text. Theon, at any rate,
should be the basis for correcting any future edition of Moderatus' s frags. 1-2.
41 Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle's Physics 1.7 (230.34-231 .24).
291
anticipates in many important respects Plotinus' s.42 It cannot be easily reconciled with the
monad - hen doctrine, so it is likely that Moderatus merely had a strong interest in the
Pythagorean tradition (especially evident in fragment 3), and so reported without
embracing their distinction in terminology.
It is difficult to say how old Moderatus' s source is, but in light of Eudorus' s
testimony, it is not likely to be older than the first century BCE. It cannot postdate Philo, who
uses the doctrine to make a theological point about Genesis 24.22.43 He points out that the
monad is to the hen as the archetype is to the copy, and he does so in a way that
presupposes that this analogy is common knowledge. Philo does not consistently hold to the
scheme monad - hen, but here and elsewhere he shows that this doctrine was widely
held.44
That the monad - hen doctrine was widespread by the first century seems clear, but
this does not mean that the doctrine was universally held, even by Pythagoreans. Philo, we
have seen, can be ambivalent on the matter. Nicomachus, moreover, is totally silent about it.
If he had held to such a distinction, it would have been prominent in the Introduction to
42 See Tornau, "Prinzipienlehre"; Baltes, Platonismus in der Antike, 4:477-85; and Dodds, "Parmenides of
Plato."
43 Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 4.1 10.
44 Philo, at Who Is the Heir of Divine Things ? 1 87-90, describes the monad as source of numbers, but
does not contrast it to the hen. In On Rewards and Punishments 41 he uses hen and monad as a pair, but
it is unclear whether he is distinguishing or conflating the terms (cf. idem, On the Unchangeableness of
God 1 1). At On the Creation of the World 98 he uses hen where monad might be expected; at On Abraham
122 he uses monad where hen might be called for. At Allegorical Interpretation 2 .3 he uses both terms
together, but specifies that the "one God" (hen theon) supercedes the monad. This may be Philo's
way of using the language of "one God," native to Judaism, to invert and thereby challenge the
monad -+ hen doctrine so clearly stated at Questions and Answers on Genesis 4.1 10. Note the proximity
of his thought to that of Clement, discussed above, p. 1 86.
292
Arithmetic. It is not.45 Even if Nicomachus reported the doctrine in his Theology of Arithmetic,
it seems not to have been central to his thought.46 Plutarch, too, for all his numerical lore,
does not report the doctrine, but this may be the result of the loss of many of his worksF
Also noteworthy is Plotinus, nearly every page of whose corpus uses hen far more
frequently than monad. It is unclear whether Plotinus sharply differentiated the terms. Aside
from his use of hen to describe the highest, ineffable, and transcendent realm, he formally
defines neither hen nor monas, and occasionally he conflates them.48 In several places,
however, he assumes the hierarchy hen - monad. In the same treatise in which Plotinus
seems to conflate the terms, he claims that the hen in itself is not the same as the hen in the
monad, dyad, and so forth.49 Elsewhere, he places the dyad over the number two, arranging
them according to his established hierarchy of essential number over quantitative number.50
Thus, monad and dyad preside over numbers two, three, and so on. In the very last treatise
of the Enneads Plotinus contrasts the hen to both the monad and the point, and suggests that
the latter two have a different kind of unity than the hen has: the monad and point are the
result of the soul's reducing a quantity or magnitude to its smallest element.51 Even though
unified, such a monad or point is part of something divisible and part of some other object,
45 The appropriate place for such a discussion would have been 1 .7. On the other hand, there
Nicomachus uses monad in a way that would be consistent with someone who distinguished between
hen and monad.
46 See n. 38, above.
47 An extensive ancient list of Plutarch's writings, Lamprias' s Catalogue, is printed in the LCL edition
of Plutarch, Moralia, vol. 15.
48 Ennead 6.2.9.16-18. See also Nikulin, Matter, Imagination, and Geometry, 77.
49 Ennead 6.2.11 .43-45.
so Ibid. 6.6.14, Nikulin, Matter, Imagination, and Geometry, 77, 81.
s1 Ennead 6.9.5.42-43.
293
attributes that cannot be predicated of the hen.52 Thus, Plotinus appears on balance, not only
to preserve Eudorus's hierarchy, hen -+ monad, but to add to this the lower hierarchy
monad (with dyad) -+ hen (with duo, tria, and so forth).53 But the distinction appears
seldom and does not play a critical role in his philosophy. Rather, as an interpreter of Plato,
Plotinus defers to the language of the master, and therefore treats hen as the most fitting
term for the highest level of his metaphysics.
Despite its absence in Plutarch and Nicomachus, the doctrine was well established in
the second century. In addition to the ample testimony of Theon, Sextus Empiricus adds
details about the generation of the hen from the monad.54 His source held to the "first
monad" and the "indefinite dyad" as the first principles.55 The hen derives from this first
monad, whereas the number two emerges from the combination of the monad and
indefinite dyad. Sextus goes on to discuss the generation of the geometrical shapes from the
numbers, an idea found in Alexander Polyhistor. Since Alexander excludes the possibility of
various levels for numbers, Sextus must be using a later source.
From the second century CE onwards the doctrine monad -+ hen is widely
reported.56 There are a number of variations on the theme, showing that the doctrine could
52 Ibid. 6.9.6.
53 Properly speaking, only the number two is part of this scheme, not the number one. Henads, too,
yet another kind of numbor for Plotinus, reside below the monad in this scheme. See Nikulin,Matter ,
Imagination, and Geometry, 82-84. The implications of this complex scheme go beyond the boundaries
of this short survey.
54 Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicians 2.276. See also the parallel at ibid. 2.261 .
56 E.g., Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicians 2.261; pseudo-Pythagoras in pseudo-Justin Martyr
(III), Exhortation to the Nations 1 9.2 (ed. Otto 1 8c); Favonius Eulogius, Disputation on the Dream of Scipio
3.1-31; John Lydus, On the months 2.6; Proclus, Commentary on the Timaeus 1 :16.27-29; Boethius, De
unitate et de uno; Asclepius of Tralles, Commentary on Nicomachus of Gerasa 41.
294
prove fertile for theological and philosophical ideas. The doctrine of a first and second god
parallels that of monad -+ hen.57 The anonymous doctrine presented by Irenaeus of a
fourfold panoply of ones develops the monad -+ hen doctrine in a bold new direction.58
Clement of Alexandria transforms the doctrine to suit better his theology, suggesting the
hierarchy hen [theos] -+ monad -+ hen, an arrangement that resembles Plotinus's, but is
probably inspired by Philo, discussed above.59 The doctrines hen -+ monad and monad -+
hen undoubtedly are the kernel for later, more complex philosophies of number discussed
in the writings of Iamblichus and Proclus, who postulated numerous levels to numbers and
unities.
Very similar to the doctrine monad -+ hen is the earlier, and more widely attested
doctrine of the monad (or hen) and indefinite dyad. I have not discussed it, mainly because
it differs considerably from the doctrine monad -+ hen. Speculation on the one and
indefinite dyad is tied with fifth and fourth century BCE interest in on the relationship
among finitude/infinitude, numbers, and the world. Although the one takes precedence
over the indefinite dyad, both are treated as coeval principles in the earliest sources. This
scheme tends toward a kind of dualism, since the one and dyad are utterly different from
each other and in a kind of pecking order, but on the same metaphysical plane. The later
schemes hen -+ monad and monad -+ hen reflect Pythagorean and Platonic speculation on
the levels of numbers in the world. Such a hierarchy ensures that the lower principle
depends for its existence upon the higher. This dependence ensures a monistic philosophy
57 Dillon, Middle Platonists, 46.

58 Against Heresies 1 .1 1 .3, discussed above, pp. 39-40.
59 Clement, Paedagogue 1 .8.71, discussed above, p. 185.
295
and theology since the two principles are not opposed to each other in the way the one and
the indefinite dyad are.
2 ODD AND EVEN NUMBERS AS MALE AND FEMALE
Two of the oldest and best known concepts of Pythagorean arithmetic are (1) numbers are
fundamentally of two types, odd and even, and (2) odd numbers are male, and even
numbers are female. Both doctrines can be found in the earliest traces of Pythagorean
thought.
Aristotle mentions the first doctrine, that all numbers are fundamentally either even
or odd. He summarizes at Metaphysics 986a1 3-21 the teaching of Philolaus:6°
But the object of our review is that we may learn from these philosophers also what
they suppose to be the principles and how these fall under the causes we have
named. Evidently, then, these thinkers also consider that number is the principle
both as matter for things and as forming both their modifications and their positions,
and hold that the elements of number are the even and the odd, and that of these the
latter is limited, and the former unlimited; and that the One exists from both of these
(for it is both even and odd), and number from the One; and that the whole heaven,
as has been said, [is] numbers.6 1
Thus, in Philolaus' s system, the abstractions even and odd preexist and generate
numbers, via the One. Even and odd are thought of as species of the unlimiteds and limiters
that form the basic principles of the universe.62 The One exists from a synthesis of both even
60 That in this passage Aristotle quotes from Philolaus in particular is argued, passim, in Huffman,
Philolaus of Croton.
61 Trans Ross, with modifications.
62 Huffman, Philolaus of Croton, 39 and elsewhere, suggests that Aristotle misrepresents Philolaus's
system when the former makes the latter's preferred plural form - unlimiteds and limiters- into an
abstract singular, and merely equates the two. That may be true for a passage such as Aristotle,
296
and odd, and is therefore both. All resultant numbers generated by the One are one or the
other, either even or odd. At Physics 203a10-15 Aristotle contrasts the Pythagoreans, here
probably meaning Philolaus, to Plato. The wording of the entire passage is quite obscure,
but what clearly emerges is evidence of a Pythagorean doctrine that numbers are
fundamentally odd or even, and that they reflect the difference between limiteds and
limiters, the basic principles of the universe.63 Philolaus reaffirms this basic division of all
numbers into odd and even or their combination in fragment 5: " Number, indeed, has two
proper kinds, odd and even, and a third from both mixed together, the even-odd
(aQ'UOITEQLT'Wv). Of each of the two kinds there are many forms of which each thing itself
gives signs."64 In his commentary, Huffman analyzes the term cXQHOITEQLnov in this
fragment and presents other evidence to support the traditional interpretation, that the term
refers to the number one.65 Huffman's analysis shows that the Pythagoreans- Philolaus in
particular- held to the fundamental numerical categories of odd and even, while holding to
the number one as a combination of both.66
Physics 203a10-12, but not at Metaphysics 986a17-19: 'WV bi: lXQL8�-tOU CJTOLXEia TO TE aQTLOV K£XL TO
ITEQLTTOV, TOVTWV bi: TO �-ti:V nEITEQ£XCJ�-tEVOV TO bi: anE LQOV. Here Aristotle specifies that the odd is
limited and that the even is unlimited (nEnEQ£XCJ�-tivov and anELQOV are adjectives, not abstract
neuters). I.e., odd and even are species of the genera unlimiteds and limiters.
63 The most sensible reconstruction of this passage is that of Burkert, Lore and Science, 33 n. 27.
64 Trans. Huffman. Frag. 5 derives from Stobaeus, Eclogae 1 .21 .7c (1:188.9 Wachsmuth).
6s Huffman, Philolaus of Croton, 186-90.
66 Huffman also suggests (ibid., 1 89-90) that Philolaus, in referring to the mixture of odd and even,
might have meant not only the number one but harmonic ratios, which bring odd and even numbers
in relation to each other. For example, 2 to 3, an even to an odd number, forms the ratio for the
musical fifth.
297
According to Theon of Smyrna, this fundamental distinction between even and odd
was held by not only Philolaus but also Archytas.67 Theon attributes to Archytas a work, On
the Decad, in which the decad is presented as a perfecting agent, encompassing every nature
within itself, both odd and even, both moved and unmoved, both good and evil. Earlier in
his discussion, Theon reports Aristotle as claiming, in his lost work on Pythagorean
doctrines, that the Pythagoreans held the One to participate in both natures, i.e., both odd
and even.68 When appended to an even number, the number one makes it odd; when added
to an odd it makes it even. According to this fragment, the Pythagoreans conclude that it
would be impossible for this to happen if the One didn't participate in both natures, so it is
called even-odd, cXQH07H�QL'f'rov.69
The fundamental distinction between odd and even numbers is epitomized in
cXQHOTIEQL'f'fOV, a term that describe the ability of a number to synthesize in itself two
otherwise irreconcilable categories. Generally that honor is given to the number one, but in
the later Pythagorean tradition it was applied to other numbers that seemed, in one respect
or another, to reflect the same behavior. For instance, Philo calls the One cXQHOTIEQL'f'fOV. He
then expands on this tradition by likening God's creation of the world in six days to the act
of the first cXQHOTIEQL'f'fOV, which needed to be fashioned into a mixed number, namely six.
67 Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 1 06.7-1 1 .

68 Aristotle, frag. 199 Archytas test. A21 = Theon of Smyrna, Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato
=
22.5-9. This passage is attributed to Archytas because of Theon's comment at the end, "Archytas too
concurs in these matters." But it is unclear whether the concurrence happens because Aristotle is
already depending upon Archytas, or if Aristotle is using (an)other Pythagorean text(s) and Theon
notes that Archytas also supports Aristotle's claim.
69 See parallel comments attributed to Aristotle in Alexander of Aphrodisias, Commentary on Aristotle's
Metaphysics 40.18, 41 .12, 47.13.
298
Philo claims that the number six is an image of the UQHOTH�Qrrrov (one) since it exists as
both male and female inasmuch as it is fashioned by each power. That is, six is the product
of two and three, both of which are the principles of even and odd, respectively ?0 Thus, for
Philo the number six is even-odd because it provides an image of how the principles of odd
and even are at work in the number one. Philo calls the number six even-odd elsewhere?1
Philo also calls the number five even-odd, probably because five is the sum of the first even
and odd numbers (just as six is their product).72 Philo's application of the term to numbers
other than one is paralleled in the Theology of Arithmetic.73
Nicomachus and mathematicians after him use the term cXQH011EQL'l'WV for a quite
different reason, to subdivide the class of even numbers. In Nicomachus's classification of
numbers, all even numbers are one of three types: evenly-even (d:QncXKLc; &Qnov), even-odd
(d:QnOnEQLnov), and odd-even (m:: Q LaaaQnov). Evenly-even numbers are those that can be
divided all the way down to the monad, which is indivisible. These are the numbers that
constitute the set of powers of two, such as 2, 4, 8, 1 6, and 32?4 Even-odd numbers are even
numbers that can be divided into whole numbers only once, such as 6, 1 0, and 14?5 The
third and last class is odd-even numbers, which, like 24, 28, or 40, can be divided into half
more than once, but cannot be reduced to monads like the evenly-even numbers?6 Thus, the
70 Philo, On the Creation of the World 13---1 4. This is a very difficult passage, and my paraphrase
attempts to provide what a strict translation cannot.
71 Philo, On the Special Laws 2 .58.4, reiterated at Questions and Answers on Genesis 3.38a, 3.49b.2.
72 Philo, On the Decalogue 20.
73 One is even-odd at 1 .12; six, at 53.14-15.
74 Nicomachus, Introduction to Arithmetic 1 .8.4-14.
7s Ibid. 1 .9.1.
76 Ibid. 1 .10.1-2.
299
class of odd-even numbers resembles and stands between the classes of evenly-even and
even-odd numbers: odd-even numbers can be divided multiple times (just as evenly-even
numbers can), and they cannot be altogether reduced to factors of ones and two (as is the
case with even-odd numbers). This basic division in the kinds of even numbers becomes a
central part of the tradition after Nicomachus??
Thus, there are two ways cXQHOITEQL'r'WV is used in ancient texts. The first is rooted
in the early Pythagorean idea of the number one synthesizing in itself the opposites of odd
and even, and male and female. Nicomachus or his immediate sources (probably to be dated
to the Hellenistic period, post-Euclid) altered this definition to apply to a particular kind of
even number, with no reference to gender symbolism. Both definitions of the term result
from attempts to classify the most basic categories of number. Both definitions coexisted
throughout late antiquity.
Philo's use of cXQHOITEQLnov illustrates the second doctrine relating to even and odd,
that they are female and male, respectively. The earliest evidence for the Pythagorean
association of odd numbers with masculinity and even numbers with femininity is provided
by Aristotle at Metaphysics 986a22-26. Just prior to this section, Aristotle has discussed
Philolaus' s teachings regarding limit, unlimited, even, odd, and one, already discussed
above. He continues:
Other members of this same school say there are ten principles, which they arrange
in two rows- limit and unlimited,
77 Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 4.162; Alexander of Aphrodisias, Commentary on Metaphysics 769.12-

770.10, 818.26; and Theon of Smyrna, Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 25.5-6, 25.19-26.4 (despite
his using the term in the Pythagorean sense also).
300
odd and even,
one and plurality,
right and left,
male and female,
resting and moving,
straight and curved,
light and darkness,
good and bad,
square and oblong.78
The use of "other" in the first sentence of this passage shows that Aristotle is
following not Philolaus but another Pythagorean author. Aristotle mentions immediately
after this passage that Alcmaeon of Croton subscribed to this list of opposites too?9 But,
after deliberation, Aristotle cannot determine who influenced whom, Alcmaeon or the
unnamed Pythagorean of 986a22-26. In any case, it was a Pythagorean sentiment, whether it
derived originally from Alcmaeon or from someone else. Aristotle elsewhere reaffirms this
basic claim, that the Pythagoreans associated number with gender.80
The comparison of number to gender seems to have been popular with the Old
Academy, if not earlier schools of philosophy. In Philolaus, fragment 20a, deemed by
Huffman to postdate Plato, the dyad is called the consort of Kronos.81 The implication is that
78 Trans Ross, with modifications.

79 Aristotle, Metaphysics 986a17-b2. For another table of opposites, see Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 48
(370E) and commentary in Gwyn Griffith's ed., 484.

80 Frag. 203 (in Alexander of Aphrodisias, Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics 39.12-13). See
further discussion in Burkert, Lore and Science, 30-37 and 432-38.

s1 See Huffman, Philolaus of Croton, 351-52, and cross references there. In favor of this late date are
striking parallels in Xenocrates, who assigns the monad to Zeus, and Speusippus. Huffman suggests
in frag. 20a's reference to Rhea an implicit play on QEW, to flow, a trope seen in late sources,
specifically the Theology ofArithmetic 14.6-9 and the context of fragment: Lydus On the Months 4.64
( 1 14.20 Wunsch). Huffman could be right to doubt the authenticity of the fragment, but such a word
play need not be implied here. Note, the monad is Kronos in Philolaus, but Zeus in Xenocrates;
301
Kronos represents the number one. A comparable association may be at work in Philolaus,
testimony 1 4, where the angle of a triangle is assigned to male gods, and the right angle is
assigned to goddesses.82 Xenocrates, fragment 15, calls the monad and dyad gods.83 The
monad is male and has the rank of a father reigning in heaven, and Xenocrates calls him
"Zeus and odd and mind." This is his first god. The second is female, and is like the mother
of the gods. Thus, in the fourth century BCE, Pythagoreans were associating odds and evens
not only with the two genders but more specifically with male and female deities.
Numerous sources from late antiquity call odds and evens male and female
numbers.84 As suggested elsewhere in this study, particularly concerning Valentinian
number symbolism, this association is used frequently in texts from late antiquity to express
theological ideas. From this period derives a new meaning for GQGEv68f1Auc;.85 The term,
generically meaning "androgynous," was now applied to theological or metaphysical
schemes that had a strong arithmetical component. The word nicely parallels the compound
common to both is that mythology, not etymology, is applied to odd and even numbers. Compare the
later tradition in which Pythagoras is said to liken the monad to Apollo and the dyad to Artemis.
Moderatus, frag. 3; Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 10 (discussed in chap. 9).
82 The specific number and names of gods and goddesses assigned to each geometrical figure varies
in the three different sources for this testimony, but all agree on the gender-specific arrangement.
Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 30; Proclus, Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements 130.8-14, 1 66.25-
1 67.14, 173.1 1-13, 174.12-14; Damascius, Commentary on Parmenides 2.127.7-17.
83 Ed. Isnarde Parente, 213. This fragment derives from Aetius, Placita 304/Stobaeus, Eclogae
1 .1 .29b.44-57.
84 Dozens of sources could be cited. See, e.g., Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 1 .2.6-7, 4.51 .4-5,
6.23; Jerome, Letter 48; and the anonymous treatise edited in Delatte, E tudes, 167-68.
ss The word is first attested in the fifth century BCE, in Hellanicus (FGrH 1a, 4, F .87.10). The term
seems to have been used with arithmetical overtones only after Philo. His explanation of odds and
evens as male and female John Lydus, On the Months 2 . 1 1 .13-14, glosses with an explanation of
Aphrodite (representing the number six; see below, excursus BS) as aQacv68T}i\vc;, crediting the term
to other "theologians." John's sources tend to postdate Philo.
302
d:QTLOITEQLnov, discussed above, but emphasizes the gendered aspects of number. The
Theology of Arithmetic, probably following Nicomachus, uses d:QaEv68Tji\uc; to d escribe the
number one, the number six, and the number five, numbers also associated with
d:QTLOITEQLnov and marriage.86 The gnostic literature cited by Irenaeus and Hippolytus uses
the term, as do Hermetic texts, of a supreme being thought of as androgynous; the deity's
androgyny, however, often mirrors arithmetical descriptions of the relationship between the
one and the indefinite dyad. The term d:QaEv68Tji\uc; is frequently used in the subsequent
arithmological tradition_87
Plutarch describes the genders of numbers with much more explicit sexual
imagery.88 The number one potentially "belongs equally" (EmKoLv6c;) to both odd and even
numbers.89 Therefore when the number one is added to an odd number it makes an even,
and vice versa. The number five is produced by the "mingling" (f.HYVVf.!EVwv) of the first
odd and even numbers.90 Even and odd numbers have a resemblance (Of.!OLO'rTjt;) to the
genders, made apparent when you try to divide them. Any even number, when divided,
leaves behind "a certain receptive principle and space in itself" (nva bEKTLKTjv aQxi]v otov
[v i:av-rc}J Kai. XWQav). But when the same thing happens to an odd number, there is always
a remainder needing distribution to one side or the other.91 Because of this remainder, odds
86 4.1, 43.5, 46.20. See below, excursus BS.

87 See e.g. Macrobius, Dream of Scipio 1 .6.7.
88 Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 388A-c.
89 For the sexual overtones to £mKotv6c; see LSJ, s.v.
90 Again, f.HyvVflEVoc; describes the consummation of the marriage between two and three. On the
number five as marriage, see excursus BS.
91 Plutarch's appeal, here, to anatomy of human sexual organs, has no ancient parallel, to my
knowledge. Cf. Nicomachus, Introduction to Arithmetic 1 .7.3, with far less sexual terminology.
303
are more fruitful (yovLflW'rEQ6c;) than evens, and when they mingle (the connotations of
fl LYVUflEVoc; suggest "copulate" is more accurate) the odd "always overpowers" (ad
KQ£X'rci) the even, which is why an odd number is always produced.92 On the other hand,
when even numbers are added to other even numbers, their sterility and incompleteness
means they never produce an odd number or its properties. The third possibility is odd
numbers mingling with each other, which "perfects many even numbers, because [odd
numbers} are fruitful everywhere" (aQ'rtouc; noMovc; bllx 'rO mivnJ y6v LflOV ano'rEAoum)?3
In a different treatise, Plutarch says Zaratas called the dyad mother and the one father.
Plutarch uses the example to show that the best numbers, the male ones, are those that
resemble the monad.94
Numbers were capable of symbolizing gender, but the association was not
automatic. For instance, Plutarch says the Pythagoreans assigned triangles to the gods
Hades, Dionysius, and Ares, and squares to the goddesses Rhea, Aphrodite, Demeter,
Hestia, and Hera.95 But in the same passage Zeus is assigned a dodecagon and Typhon, a
fifty-six-sided polygon, without any suggestion that they are therefore female. Neither the
twelve apostles, nor the twelve signs of the zodiac are, to my knowledge, interpreted by any
92 This appeals to common ancient opinion on the generation of the fetus. See, for instance, Aristotle,
On the Generation ofAnimals. This passage is paralleled by the earlier, but less explicit, Moderatus,
frag. 3.
93 Compare this account with the Plutarch fragment preserved in Stobaeus, Eclogae l .pref.IO, where
Plutarch attributes to Pythagoras a similar set of arithmological principles. Also see Plutarch, Roman
Questions 1 02 (288B12-E3), where in answer to the question, why are male children named on the
ninth day and females on the eighth? he suggests, among other reasons, the Pythagorean one. Here
too Plutarch uses human sexual anatomy to explain his position.
94 Plutarch, Genesis of the Soul in the Timaeus 2 (1012£4-7).
9s Isis and Osiris 30 (363A).
304
ancient text as being feminine. To invoke the gender symbolism of numbers, authors needed
to make the connection explicit.
3 THE TETRAKTYS
The Pythagoreans symbolized the number ten by a special term for the first four numbers,
the tetraktys (Tet:QaKn)�).96 The term is probably of Doric origin, but it is unclear exactly how
this unusual word was derived from a root meaningfour.97 The term is first attested in texts
from the first century.98 The texts that refer to the tetraktys depend upon earlier Pythagorean
texts that are not precisely datable. Some may go back to the mists of early Pythagoreanism,
others may be part of the first-century reinvention of Pythagoreanism. The concept
underlying the tetraktys has been shown to have preexisted Pythagoras in non-Greek
societies.99
The tetraktys refers to the first four numbers, which were depicted in the
Pythagorean tradition as four rows of pebbles arranged in the shape of an isosceles triangle:
. <<·. The figure symbolizes, first, that the tetraktys, although a collection, is nevertheless a
unity. Second, it illustrates that the sum of the first four numbers was ten, which itself was
revered in Pythagoreanism for constituting the foundation for all numbers. Third, by
96 A number of studies have been published on the tetraktys. The most extensive and complete are
Delatte, E tudes, 249-68 and Kucharski, Doctrine pythagoricienne. See also Apatow, "Tetraktys";
Sbordone, "Storia antica e recente"; Lampropoulou, "TIEQL nvwv Tiu8ayoQE iwv q)L.Aoao¢LKwv
nQOTtJQWv"; Burkert, Lore and Science, passim; Haase, "Beitrag Platons." On the special use of the term
in music see Karpati, "Musical Fragments of Philolaus."
97 See Burkert, Lore and Science, 222 n 24 and Delatte, E tudes, 253-54. Cf. Chalcidius, Commentary on the
Timaeus 35 (84.9-11 ), who calls it the quadratura.
98 See below, n. 1 04.
99 See Burkert, Lore and Science, 474 n 50.
305
depicting a harmonious arrangement of pebbles, the figure demonstrates the
complementary character of arithmetic and geometry, one of the trademarks of the
quadrivium (see below). This triangular figure was so well known, Lucian, in one of his
satires on the philosophers, has Pythagoras instruct a prospective "buyer" of philosophy
count to four. This four, says Pythagoras, "is ten, and a perfect triangle, and our oath."1 00
The oath in question is found in the so-called Golden Poem, attributed to Pythagoras
and probably the oldest of the Pythagorean texts to mention the tetraktys:1 01
No, by the one who grants our head the tetraktys,
Fount possessing roots of everlasting nature.1 02
100 Lucian, Vitarum auctio 4. Other explanations of the tetraktys as the summation of the first four
numbers are found in Aetius, Placita 1 .3.8 ( Diels and Kranz 58b.15); Sextus Empiricus, Against the
=
Logicians (= Against the Mathematicians 6-7) 1 .94; and Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 1 .2.8, 4.51 .6,
6.23.2-5.
101 Delatte, E tudes, 249-53 traces this fragment of the poem to Timaeus, of the fourth c. BCE, and an
anonymous treatise on arithmology of the second or third c. BCE. The tetraktys is also attested in the
akousmata of the Pythagoreans in Iamblichus, The Pythagorean Way of Life 82.12 (Diels and Kranz
58c.4). Old, but later, Hellenistic Pythagorean texts that mention the tetraktys are "Lysis," frag. 4.4 ( =
Diels and Kranz 46.4) in Athenagoras, Legatio 6.1 and anonymous philosopher paraphrased by
Photius, Bibliotheca 439a7-8 (Bekker). Thesleff tentatively dates these to the fourth and third c. BCE,
respectively . Also to be mentioned is Philolaus, frag. 1 1 (found in Lucian, De lapsu in salutandum 5), of
dubious date and authenticity.
1 02 Sextus Empiricus, Against the Logicians (= Against the Mathematicians 6-7) 1 .94. The two lines are
reproduced with significant differences in other authors: pseudo-Pythagoras, Golden Poem 47-48;
Aetius, Placita 282.3--7; Nicomachus of Gerasa, in Theology of Arithmetic 22.21-22; Sextus Empiricus,
Against the Mathematicians 4.2; Theon of Smyrna, Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 94.6-7;
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.23.4; Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras 20.18-19; Iamblichus, The
Pythagorean Way of Life 29.162.17-18; Julian, To the Untaught Dogs 15.34; Stobaeus, Eclogae 1 .10.12.72-
73; Hierocles, On the Golden Poem 20; Damascius, On the Parmenides 63.29; Proclus, On the Timaeus
2.53.6. For analysis of these differences, see Delatte, E tudes, 249-53. Possibly even Xenocrates (frags.
101-2, Isnarde Parente ed.), when he suggests that "the universe consists of the One and the
306
These two lines can be reasonably interpreted in light of the authentic fragments of
Philolaus to suggest that the ancient Pythagoreans held that the first four numbers had been
forged out of the principles of nature (in the case of Philolaus, these are limiters and
unlimiteds) to provide a "spring" for the physical world. There is the intriguing possibility
that the couplet comes from the same literary milieu as Philolaus' s lost work, On Nature.103
In the first and the second century, probably as a result of the revival and
reinvention of Pythagoreanism, the tetraktys entered non-Pythagorean literary circles as a
powerful metaphor.104 Because legend had it that the Pythagorean tradition was a secret one,
and because the tetraktys was seen as the basis of their oath, the symbol took on special
mystical significance that extended beyond its primary mathematical meaning. Like other
Pythagorean symbols, it could connect disparate foursomes in the world. Theon of Smyrna
Everlasting" (cruVEUTUVCH TO miv i:K TOU EVOC, KC< L TOU a Evaov), uses the Pythagorean tetraktys as a
symbol of matter. Such an ancient testimony does not help date the Golden Poem, but it does help
establish the antiquity of the motif. See Dillon, Middle Platonists, 24.
1 03 The argument in outline is this. Philolaus is concerned with "nature," an important concept in the
couplet. One way to read the second line is that the tetraktys is the root of eternal nature. But it is
equally possible to read the genitives so that the roots producing the tetraktys derive from eternal
nature. In this case, number is subordinate to and derived from eternal principles such as unlimiteds
and limiters, as Huffman (Philolaus of Croton) has stressed to be the nature of Philolaus's philosophy.
Further, the epithets for the tetraktys in the akousmata - the oracle at Delphi, harmony, and the
location of the Sirens (Iamblichus, The Pythagorean Way of Life 82.12 [= DK 58c.4J) - are ancient, non
mathematical, and (with the exception of harmony) non-philosophical. Does the couplet, then, derive
from the mathematikoi faction of ancient Pythagoreanism (see excursus A)? If so, the question of
origins remains. Did Philolaus write the couplet, was the couplet forged in light of Philolaus's book,
did the couplet come from the older Pythagorean oral tradition, or are the couplet and Philolaus
independent of each other but dependent upon a common tradition?
104 Search results from the TLG (E) are instructive on the popularity of the term. Discounting the
statistics for the Hellenistic Pythagorean texts, tetraktys appears in no texts BCE, five times in the first
century CE, forty-six in the second, twenty-six in the third, twenty-four in the fourth, and twenty-four
in the fifth.
307
collected eleven different quaternities found in the world, calling them tetrakyses.105 His
examples range from the mathematical (point, line, plane, and solid) to anthropological
(ages of human beings: child, teenager, adult, and elder). Another author, of unknown date,
drew up a similar list of six tetraktyses, three of which have no parallels to Theon or other
ancient authors.106 This reflects the popular, literary character of Pythagoreanism. An author
could theoretically take any foursome, relate it to the tetraktys, and thereby show its
Pythagorean character.
Similarly, an author could postulate a foursome and describe its internal relations so
as to invoke Pythagorean doctrines. By using Pythagorean imagery and terminology to
describe the relations among four elements reinforced and supplemented the lore behind
the tetraktys. In philosophy and theology in late antiquity this phenomenon is common. The
internal structure of a philosophical or theological quatemity generally follows one of two
patterns. In the first pattern, the first element of the quaternity begets the second, the second
begets the third, and the third, the fourth. Examples of this kind of quaternity are the
number series one, two, three, and four, or the geometrical series point, line, plane, and
solid.1 07 In the second pattern the author conceives of the foursome as two complementary,
hierarchical pairs. The pairs can be expressed in the relation A : B : : C : D, and they can be
105 Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 94-99.

1 06 This very brief treatise, called TETpaKTvv n]v Ta mivTa DwuivovtJav Kai DwtpoiJO"av TE Tpaxi]
ruivTa (The Tetraktys Suspending and Apportioning All Things Four-fold), is found in Paris gr. 1 1 85
suppl., f. 62v. and is published in Delatte, E tudes, 1 87.
J 07 Cf. the examples provided by Alexander Polyhistor and Hippolytus, discussed above, pp. 288-289.
308
imagined to represent the four comers of a square. Examples of this are Neoplatonic
theories of epistemology or the quadrivium, on which see below .1 08
Setting polemic aside, the substance of the accusations of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and
other apologists, who charge the Valentinians and others of teaching the Pythagorean
tetraktys in the guise of Christian doctrine, cannot be completely dismissed. The apologists'
rhetoric oftentimes goes to the excesses expected in the genre. But they correctly recognize
that certain doctrines, for example the Monotes-Henotes-Monas-Hen doctrine assigned to
an unnamed Valentinian and Marcus, depend upon a Pythagorean model.I09
The history of the use of tetraktys in Christian literature reflects the early but
transient suspicion the orthodox had of gnostic opponents. In the second and third century
orthodox Christian authors use tetraktys in a disparaging manner, or at least one that does
not embrace it as a Christian term.1 1 0 But in the fourth century, after Valentinianism waned,
Christians freely let the tetraktys to symbolize Christian truths. They used it to portray the
unity of the four Gospels or the fourfold character of Christian virtue.1 1 1
JOB The clearest representative of this epistemology is Iamblichus, Common Mathematical Knowledge 8.
109 See my discussion above, pp. 39-40 and 93.
1 10 The warmest religious use is by Athenagoras, Legatio 6.1, who simply presents it as a part of the
philosophical apparatus that undermines polytheism. Other instances are found at Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 1 .1 .1, 1 .1 .13, 1 .8.4-5, 1 .8.10, 1 . 1 1 .1-2; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 2.23.138.6; Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies 1 .2.9; 4.51 .7; 6.23.4-5; 6.24.1; 6.34.1; 6.44.1; 6.45.2; and Anatolius of Laodicea,
On the Decad 5.11, 8.1, 15.20.
1 1 1 Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History 3.25.1; Theodoret of Cyrus, Letters 131 .112, 146.200; Evagrius
of Pontus, On Prayer pref (PG 79.1 1 65D).
309
4 THE QUADRIVIUM
For many ancient authors the symbolism of the number four is especially demonstrated by
what was termed by Boethius the quadruvium (sic), the four mathematical disciplines that,
with the trivium of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric, formed the cornerstone of the
curriculum in late antiquity and the middle ages.112 It was common in antiquity to think of
the quadrivium -both the individual sciences that constituted it and the concept as a
whole-as a Pythagorean invention, probably because of their ancient devotion to the
tetraktys, and their alleged involvement in each of the four mathematical disciplines:
arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.
There have been numerous modem claims that the quadrivium dates to Plato's time,
if not before.113 Archytas, Plato's contemporary and associate, clearly teaches the fourfold
unity of astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, and music (in that order), which he claimed to be
sisters.11 4 The authorship of the fragment is questionable, but if it is authentic, it is the
1 1 2 The equivalent of quadrivium is TEGGa:Qcc; flc 86bm: Nicomachus of Gerasa, Introduction to

Arithmetic 1 .4.1 . Common to both Latin and Greek terms is the concept of a path: via and oboe;.
Throughout this section I use the Latin term because of its elegance and familiarity.
1 1 3 The most extensive study on the history of the structure of the quadrivium is Kuhnert,
Allgemeinbildung und Fachbildung. See also Hadot, Arts liberaux et philosophic; Sbordone, "Storia antica
e recente"; Hellgardt, Zum Problem; Burkert, Lore and Science, 421-22; and Reindel, "Vom Beginn des
Quadriviums." Other studies are listed in Radke, Theorie der Zahl, 9 n. 4. Many of these studies date
the origin of the quadrivium to the classical period, although Hadot, Arts liberaux et philosophic, 99-
1 00, suggests it emerges from Middle Platonic thought. Radke's book deserves special consideration,
since all 885 pages are devoted to exploring the various liberal arts within the context of ancient
Platonism. His analysis- philosophical rather than historical - of the quadrivium is essential for
anyone wishing to go beyond the mere lists and historical sketch I provide and understand the
content of the liberal arts in the ancient Platonic tradition.
1 14 Archytas, frag. 1 (Diels and Kranz 4 7B 1 ). Nicomachus's version of the fragment sets the order
geometry, astronomy, spherics, and music; Porphyry's version, astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, and
music. Huffman, "Authenticity of Archytas Fr. 1," and Bowen, "Foundations," argue persuasively in
favor of Porphyry's version.
310
earliest secure reference to the quadrivium.115 Burkert also takes Plato's accounts of Hippias
to be an early witness to the quadrivium.11 6 At Protagoras 318DE, Hippias is said to teach
AoyLaf.tOUc; 'rE Kai. aaTQOVOfl LaV Kai. YEWflETQLaV Kai. flOUULKJlV, which would conform to
.
the members of the quadrivium exactly, since at Hippias Minor 366c-368A AoyLaflOL are
clearly arithmetical calculations. But this second passage also obscures Hippias' s
curriculum, since it lists his areas of expertise, but omits any reference to music, and so
presents Hippias as teaching only arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. Plato does,
however, mention the members of the quadrivium when discussing Theodore (Theaetetus
1 45A, 145c), although the two lists are slightly out of order, with geometry and astronomy
first and second, but arithmetic and music in alternate orders. Thus, Plato's representation
of his predecessors shows mixed evidence for the quadrivium, and also suggests that the
order of the sciences was not settled.
The same unevenness in the mathematical curriculum prior to Plato is evident in
others. Note, for instance, that Xenophon portrays Socrates as teaching geometry,
astronomy, AoyLaflol, and medicine.117 One of the authentic fragments of Philolaus states
that geometry is the source and mother city of the other mathematical sciences (liQXJl Kai.
flYJTQ6noALc; . . -rwv aMwv f1lX8Yjf1(hwv). This suggests that he conceived of geometry, not
.
arithmetic, as presiding over the mathematical sciences.1 18 If so, then Philolaus, unlike most
1 15 Huffman, "Authenticity of Archytas Fr. 1," argues for its authenticity. For reasons too extensive to
discuss here, I reject his argument, and believe there are good reasons for classifying it with the
Pythagorean pseudepigrapha of the Hellenistic period.
1 1 6 Burkert, Lore and Science, 421 .
1 1 7 Xenophon, Memorabilia 4.7.2-9. Cf. Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle's Physics 1 0.833.9-10.
1 1 8 On the authenticity of Philolaus, test. 7a, see Huffman, Philolaus of Croton, 1 93-99. Huffman too
easily assumes, rather than argues for, a clearly defined set ofmathemata in the fifth century. There is
311
ancient Greek philosophers, gave geometry the priority it was given by practicing
mathematicians.1 1 9 At Epinomis 990c-991e (a Platonic pseudepigraphon written in the time of
the Old Academy) there is a root triad of mathematical sciences - arithmetic, geometry, and
stereometry - without reference to astronomy or music.
Plato's own system of mathematical education is constructed quite differently from
all these models, further showing that the content and order of the mathematical sciences
was not standardized. At Republic 522E-528E, the four mathematical disciplines are outlined
as arithmetic, geometry, stereometry (the study of solids), and astronomy, an order that
follows the succession of studies of number, planar figures, solids, and solids in motion.
Music is missing from this list, and there is no suggestion that it has been accidentally or
intentionally omitted. On the contrary, given the logic put into constructing it, music would
not fit. A similar list is found at Laws 747A, where five mathematical disciplines are outlined:
the study of number in itself, planes, and solids, along with investigation of the sound and
motion of the planets. Note that music is fourth in the list, but it is coupled with astronomy,
and the pair is thought of as an outgrowth of a discrete trio: arithmetic, planar geometry,
and solid geometry. This fivefold scheme in Laws appears to be Plato's most developed
view, and the basis for handbooks of late antiquity. Theon of Smyrna lists five mathematical
disciplines: arithmetic, music, and geometry, the last of which he subdivides into
no indication that Philolaus held mathematics to consist of three, four, five or some other number of
subdisciplines.
1 1 9 Burkert, Lore and Science, 220 n 14, 249.
312
stereometry and astronomy. Albinus presents the order arithmetic, geometry, stereometry,
astronomy, and music.120
Aristotle, who categorizes and classifies anything he can, seems to some scholars to
mention the quadrivium at Physics 194A8 or Metaphysics 1078Al4-1 7. But in these passages
music and astronomy are associated not with arithmetic and geometry but with optics or
mechanics, certainly not members of the quadrivium. Aristotle classifies music and
astronomy as physical disciplines, sharply distinguishing them from the ideal sciences
(arithmetic and geometry are here implied). If Aristotle knew the traditional quadrivium,
then for some inexplicable reason he splits it up and augments each pair with sciences that
lay outside the quadrivium, such as optics or mechanics. The system he offers is
incompatible with the traditional presentation of the quadrivium as four disciplines that are
mutually complementary and complete. Further, in Posterior Analytics 78B36-40 Aristotle
states that the four physical sciences of optics, mechanics, harmonics, and phaenomena are
each subordinate to, respectively, geometry, stereometry, arithmetic, and astronomy
(aaTQOAoytKijv).1 2 1 Here, if a quadrivium is to be found, it is in the last set of four, which
resembles, in some respects, Plato's three- or fivefold arrangement of the mathematical
sciences: music is excluded, and mathematics are conceived of as a progression from
number to solids in motion. But this cannot be considered Aristotle's preferred
arrangement. At Metaphysics 1 073b4-8 he mentions merely three mathematical sciences:
astronomy, arithmetic, and geometry. All these things suggest that in the late fourth century
120 Theon of Smyrna, Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 1 .1 6-1 7 and Albinus, Epitome of Platonic
Teaching 7.2--4 . Note, however, that Albinus changes the order later in his treatise. See below, n. 1 32.
1 21 See also Themistius, Analyticorum posteriorum paraphrasis, esp. 5.1 .29.7.
313
BCE there was no standard quadrivium, and Aristotle tinkered around with different
taxonomies of the sciences.122
Based on Presocratic, Platonic, and Aristotelian testimonies, I would suggest that
mathematics was conceived of in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE as consisting of a
number of elements, in a variety of orders. There were certainly schemes that set the
number at four, but even these could differ as to what those four elements were, and in
what (if any) order. There is no evidence that a fourfold arrangement of mathematics was
dominant in the classical period. I am thus hesitant to suggest, for instance, that Plato's
fivefold arrangement of mathematics is a tacit criticism of a Pythagorean quadrivium, as
advanced by Huffman.123 It is much more likely that Plato's scheme draws from one of the
many available in his day. It may seem to some that my arguments emphasize too much the
order and division of the mathematical sciences, but it should be remembered that ancient
Greek writers used the order and content of such lists to signal their allegiances and,
ultimately, metaphysics.l24
The diversity in the number, order, and relationship of the mathematical sciences
lasted well into late antiquity. Cicero treats music as preliminary to the three mathematical
disciplines of arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, which he presents as a threefold
122 For further details on Aristotle's views on the contents of the mathematical sciences, see the
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1 :154-55.
123 "Authenticity of Archytas Fr. 1."
1 24 For a parallel discussion of the taxonomy of philosophy, see Dillon, Middle Platonists, index, s.v.
"philosophy, divisions of," and Baltes, Platonismus in der Antike, 4:2-21, 205-31. See also above, p. 114
n. 41, and Dillon, Middle Platonists, 133--35 and 348 on the order of Aristotle's categories.
314
unity.1 25 He treats music apart from mathematics, much in line with Aristotle's models.
Varro's nine books on the liberal arts (now lost) may have provided some order to the
liberal arts, but this cannot be reconstructed with certainty.1 2 6 Sometimes, authors from the
late Republic and early Empire offer no schema, even when one would be appropriate. For
example, Vitruvius attempts to place architecture among the various sciences, and he
mentions the various mathematical disciplines, but his presentation of them shows no
evidence of a standardized number or pattem.1 27 In fact, some ancient authors discussing the
mathematical disciplines propose models that contradict the fourfold scheme. When Galen
situates medicine in relation to the other intellectual disciplines he, unlike Vitruvius,
provides an order. But he lists nine disciplines, in groups of three, probably to allude to the
nine muses: medicine, rhetoric, and music; geometry, arithmetic, and logic; astronomy,
grammar, and law .1 28 In one of Plutarch's after-dinner conversations, his brother, who
quotes Hesiod, also frames the various sciences in groups of three, in recognition of the
three (not nine!) muses of antiquity. He says that there are only three mathematical
disciplines: music, arithmetic, and geometry; he treats astronomy as a proper subset of
125 For references in Cicero and a chart of comparison, see Kuhnert, Allgemeinbildung und Fachbildung,
26-29.
1 26 Ibid. 58-63, and Hadot, Arts liberaux et philosophie, 156-90, effectively refute Ritschl's reconstruction
of the order of Varro's work. Kuhnert argues for the more Ciceronian order to Varro's work, but this
is doubtful since Kuhnert assumes, along with Ritschl, that Varro necessarily assigned to each book
one discipline (see NP 2:72 for references and discussion), and that in the first c. BCE mathematics
necessarily came as a fourfold set (note my discussion below and Kuhnert's own chart at p. 62, both
of which show the wide variety of schemes in late antiquity). Hadot's caution against reconstructing
Varro's books from later sources is wise, but this does not undermine the soundness of claim that
Varro ordered some of the liberal arts. The particulars are lost.
1 27 De arcitectura 1 . 1 .
128 Galen, Protreptic to Medicine 14.24-25. Earlier i n the same work (5.5-6) h e lists the order geometry,
arithmetic, astronomy, mixed with other sciences.
315
geometry.1 29 There are many other late antique authors who list only two or three of the
mathematical disciplines.l3° A fivefold arrangement of mathematics was also still an option
in late antiquity. We have already mentioned Theon, who conceives of five mathematical
disciplines. This is striking, considering that a list of four disciplines would have fit well into
his long list of tetraktyses.131 (In contrast, the tetraktys and the quadrivium are loosely
associated by the Theology of Arithmetic 20.15-22.22, based on texts probably drawn from
Nicomachus of Gerasa.) For nearly any order there is a textual witness.132 Some lists are
clearly incomplete, and some lists are inconsistent within the same author.133
1 29 Plutarch, Table Talk 7440-F.

13° For the purposes of this section, Ar = arithmetic, G = geometry, M = music, and As = astronomy.
The following are attestations of trios of the mathematical disciplines: G-Ar-As: Heron in Pappus of
Alexandria, Synagoge 8.1022.15-16; Galen, Protreptic to Medicine 5.5-6 (mixed with other sciences);
Basil of Caesarea, Hexaemeron 1 .3.22-24. G-M-As: Origen, Letter to Gregory Thaumaturgus 1 ;
Lactantius, Divine Institutes 3.25.9; Jerome, Letter 5 3 (Origen's and Jerome's lists are mixed with other
non-mathematical disciplines). As-G-Ar: Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43.23.5; John Chrysostom,
Homilies on John 63.3 (PG 59:352.21-22; curiously, John seems to substitute mathematics for music
here); Ammonius of Alexandria, On Porphyry's Eisagoge 7.3-4. Ar-G-As: Anatolius of Laodicea in
both Eusebius, Church History 7.32.6 and Jerome, De viris illustribus 73; pseudo-Theodosius of
Alexandria, On Grammar 52.17-18; Theodoret of Cyrus Church History 269.20-21 . Ar-G-M: Maximus
of Tyre, Dialexeis 37.3. G-As-M: Philo, On the Preliminary Studies 11 (mixed with other rhetorical
disciplines). In the same work (15-18) Philo lists music and geometry together, and elsewhere (On the
Special Laws 1 .335) merely arithmetic and music. For lists of only two mathemata see references to
Augustine in n. 133, below, and Apuleius, Flor. 20: G-M.
1 32 The orders attested are as follows (Ar-G-M-As and Ar-M-G-As, which became more
conventional, are discussed later):
Order References
Ar-As-G-M Chalcidius, Commentary on the Timaeus 58.6-7
G-Ar-M-As Theon of Alexandria, Commentary on Ptolemy's Almagest 321 .12-13; John
Philoponos, Commentary on Aristotle's De anima 15.124.17-18
G-Ar-As-M Themistius, In Aristotelis libros de anima paraphrasis 5/3.1 14.26-30. Structural
arrangement of the books in: Varro, Nine Books of Disciplines, Sextus Empiricus,
Against the Mathematicians, and Martianus Capella, On the Marriage of Philologia and
Mercury.
316
This is the strongest argument against a settled Pythagorean quadrivium dominant
(or even standardized) in Plato's time. If there had been such a settled order, then it must be
explained, how, when, and why mathematics went from such a neat arrangement and order
in the classical period to such a bewildering variety of arrangements in the subsequent.
Despite this seeming disarray in late antiquity, in the same period there was a
concerted effort to provide a coherent content and order to the mathematical sciences, and
this became the foundation for the standardized content and order of the medieval
quadrivium.
The first clear evidence for a systematically ordered mathematical quadrivium is
found in Nicomachus. He argues that mathematical science treats objects that participate
either in multitude (rrAfi8oc;) or in size (!-1EYE8oc;). Multitudes or quantities are either
properties (e.g., the four infour horses) or relations (e.g., the musical octave, with the
relationship two to one). Arithmetic deals with things that have the property of quantity,
whereas music treats of quantities in relation. On the other hand, objects that partake of size
are either stationary or in motion. All stationary sizes are handled by geometry; those in
M-Ar-G-As Pinax of [Kebes]; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.32.2; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
6.80.1
As-Ar-G-M Porphyry in Eusebius, Preparation of the Gospel 14.10.10
M-Ar-As-G Alcinous Epitome of Platonic Teaching 28.4.7-8
G-M-Ar-As Chalcidius, Commentary on the Timaeus 346.6
G-As-Ar-M Socrates Scholasticus, Church History 7.27.15-16; Boethius, Institution ofMusic 2.21
M-G-Ar-As Seneca, Letter 88
As-G-Ar-M Theodoret of Cyrus, On Providence 5 (PG 83:624.29-31)
As-M-Ar-G Ptolemy, Harmonics 3.3.74-82
1 33 Syrianus, Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics has G-Ar-M (Kroll 4.9-10), G-As-Ar (et al.)
(21 .19-20; 54.19), G-Ar-M (58.3-5), Ar-C-As-mechanics (61 .25-27), and Ar-G-M (101 .33). Augustine
lists various schemes: G-Ar (Retractions 1 .5 .6), M-G-As (De ordine 2.35-42), M-G-Ar-As (De
quantitate animae 33.72), M-Ar (Confessions 4.30), and M-G-As-Ar (De ordine 2.14).
317
motion, by astronomy. Thus, Nicomachus presents the mathematical sciences (£ maTfl!-lm)
in two orders: (1) arithmetic and music, geometry and spherics (= astronomy) - an order
guided by conceptual pairing- and (2) arithmetic, geometry, music, and spherics I
astronomy.1 34 The two orders are not contradictory. Rather they both reflect a conception of
the quadrivium as two complementary pairs of disciplines.
To support his arrangement of the mathematical sciences, Nicomachus quotes
several Pythagoreans. We have already mentioned the fragment of Archytas, which
Nicomachus cites in his Introduction to Arithmetic. In the identifiable fragments of his
Theology of Arithmetic Nicomachus quotes from the treatise On the Gods (or Holy Discourse)
attributed to Pythagoras, who lists the disciplines as arithmetic, music, geometry, and
(J(j:>CUQlKU, cr.' W y' b' Tncr.yl-l£vcu).l35 Nicomachus also quotes from a text attributed to
Kleinias, where the preserved order is arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy (Tcr.i:ncr.
UQ!-lOVLav Kcr.i. aGTQOV0!-1Lcr.v).1 36 Neither of these Pythagorean texts can be dated with any
certainty, but they are clearly part of the archaizing Doric Pythagorean pseudepigrapha of
the Hellenistic or Roman periods.137 Even if they are not from the fifth century BCE, the texts
1 34 Nicomachus of Gerasa, Introduction to Arithmetic 1 .3.1-2, 1 .3.7. His explicit mention of spherics and
astronomy in the second reference seems to me to attempt to make explicit how the five mathematical
disciplines mentioned by Plato fit in a fourfold scheme.
1 35 Theology of Arithmetic 21 .8-1 0. Concerning how much of this is drawn from Nicomachus's treatise
of the same name, see Delatte, E tudes, 140-41, and Taran, Speusippus of A thens, 291-98.
1 36 Theology of Arithmetic 21.10-13.
m The composition of Pythagorean literature in ancient Doric dialects in Hellenistic and Roman eras
is treated by Thesleff, Introduction, 83-96, who identifies inconsistencies in many of the texts, thus
318
obviously antedate Nicomachus. This means that the formal attempt to provide a
Pythagorean order to the mathematical sciences began in the era of the Pythagorean
pseudepigrapha; Nicomachus drew from this tradition, in his day probably only a couple of
centuries old, and epitomized it. Whether or not he was the first to provide Pythagorean
coherence to mathematics, Nicomachus was the most influential. The later stand ardization
of the quadrivium in the curriculum of the Roman world depended, ultimately, on his
Introduction to Arithmetic.
Almost two centuries later Iamblichus embraced the Nicomachean tradition when he
structured his magnum opus, On Pythagoreanism, an introduction to the mathematical
sciences in ten books. Books four through seven are devoted to arithmetic, and books eight
through ten, to each of the remaining members of the quadrivium, in the Nicomachean
order: geometry, music, and astronomy.138 In the third book of On Pythagoreanism
Iamblichus streamlines Nicomachus' s terminology for the theory of the mathematical
sciences as antithetical pairs of property and relation.139 Multitude ( ni\f]8oc;) corresponds to
investigations of discrete quantity (n6aoc;), and its natural complement is size (f.1EYE8oc;),
which corresponds to investigations of greatness or largeness ( nr'JALKoc;).1 40 The first is
governed by arithmetic; the second, by geometry. Each of these can be subdivided between
absolute (Ka8 ' t:av'r6v) and relative (nQ6s n). Arithmetic and geometry are the
showing them to be forgeries. Also see Cassio, "Nicomachus of Gerasa," 135-39, and Uguzzoni,
"Note sulla lingua."
1 38 On the general plan and outline of Iamblichus' s ten books of On Pythagorean ism, see O'Meara,
Pythagoras Revived, 32-35.
1 39 Common Mathematical Knowledge 7.
1 40 This terminology and the distinction it describes derives from Euclid, if not earlier. See Nikulin,
Matter, Imagination, and Geometry, 91-92.
319
mathematical sciences investigating quantity and size absolutely; music and astronomy
treat them relatively. Iamblichus's description, based on Nicomachus's account, lends itself
to depicting the quadrivium in a square:
TYPE OF NUMBER
Discrete (quantity) Continuous (extent)
11Af)8oc;/ 116aoc; !-1EYE8oc;/ m1ALKoc;
Absolute arithmetic geometry

IJ...
0 Ka8 ' i:au'l6v cXQL8!-lfJHKTJ y EW!-1E'lQL£X
Cl
0 >-<
Relative music astronomy
:r:: o
f-< ::> TIQ6c; n !-10UGLKTJ a¢mQLKTJ
j:.l..J f-<
� (/)
A square like this can be read left to right, then down, or top to bottom, then right, or
in several other ways. This is the reason why authors who clearly follow Nicomachus and
Iamblichus' s presentation of the quadrivium render the list in different orders, just as
Nicomachus himself did. The standard orders are arithmetic, geometry, music, and
astronomy and arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy.141 The same authors freely use
different orders because the quadrivium was conceived not as a sequence but as an ordered
1 41 Ar-G-M-As: Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 6.84-90; Albinous, Epitome of Platonic Teaching 7.2-
4; Proclus, Commentary on Plato's Republic 35 (2.36.3-4); Boethius lnstitution of Arithmetic 1 .1;
,
Cassiodorus, Institutions 2.pref.4; George Pachymeres, Quadrivium. Ar-M-G-As: Porphyry, in John

Tzetzes Chiliades 1 1 .377, lines 529-30; Augustine, De ordine 2.12.35-2.15.42; Proclus, Commentary on the
First Book of Euclid's Elements 35.21-36.3; Cassiodorus, Institutions 2.21; CCA G 7.58 (= cod. Berlin 1 73
[XV c.], f. 137v); John of Damascus, Philosophical Chapters 66.18; Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 1 .2; the
structure of books 2-5 of the anonymous Logica et Quadrivium.
320
matrix.142 Even some of the authors who seem to give an order quite different from the
Nicomachean nevertheless show that they are thinking in his terms and arrangement.143
Thus, the quadrivium of the medieval period owes its origin to the Pythagorean
reorganization of the mathematical disciplines in the Hellenistic period and late antiquity,
and its dominance to the epitomizers and the encyclopedia and textbook writers who found
in Nicomachus's synthesis a coherent worldview.
5 THE NUMBER FIVE: MARRIAGE
The epithet ya1-1oc; for the number five is quite old, attested by Aristotle. At Metaphysics
1 078B23 he mentions the Pythagorean habit of attaching words to numbers, and specifically
mentions "opportunity," "the just," and "marriage" (KmQoc; � TO blKmov � ya1-1oc;).144
Traditionally, these three epithets are attached to seven, four, and five, respectively .145
Aristotle does not state what numbers symbolized them, probably because he had already
written two books on the Pythagoreans, and in these he would have discussed such matters.
If his fragment 203 is authentic, then we have clear evidence that this Pythagorean epithet
1 42 Compare, for instance, Ammonius of Alexandria's Commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge 13.11, 14.1-
26, which, in its summary, breaks down the mathematical sciences according to Iamblichus' s scheme,
but discusses them in the order G-As-M-Ar.
1 43 The language used in the order presented by several of the authors listed above, n. 132 suggest that
they were working off the Pythagorean order. See especially Ammonius of Alexandria, On Porphyry's
Eisagoge 13.11, where the four are listed as G-As-M-Ar, but are expounded in Nicomachean terms
in the order Ar-G-M-As.
1 44 The Pythagorean habit of attaching names to numbers is also attested by Aristoxenus, frag.23.
1 45 But note Syrianus, Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics 1 04.24-27, who assigns them to seven,
five, and six, respectively. Moderatus, frag. 3, says Pythagoras assigned to opportunity and marriage
(the just is omitted) seven and six.
321
had a long, and consistent, history.146 In the fragment, seven is compared with Athena, who
is " motherless" and "ever virgin," just as the number seven is neither the product of, nor
produces, any of the other numbers in the decad. In contrast, the Pythagoreans call five
marriage because marriage is the bringing together of male and female, which correspond to
odd and even. Five is the first number to derive its existence from the first even number,
two, and the first odd number, three.
This Pythagorean explanation is repeated, sometimes with variants, throughout
Greek literature.147 After explaining the connection between five and marriage, Plutarch
elaborates further by comparing five and six to the act of generation.148 Any other number
when multiplied by itself produces numbers that end in a different digit. For instance, four
times four is sixteen, which has a six in the units place. Five, however, multiplied by itself
yields twenty-five; six squared yields thirty-six. The units place retains the original
multiplicand, five or six.149 Furthermore, the analogy applies to five more than it does to six,
since any number multiplied with five results in a number ending in five, or in the decad. In
this way, Plutarch says, the number five imitates the adornment of the universe, since five
begets either itself or perfection. This harmonizes with Heraclitus's description of the
fashioning of the universe.15o
1 46 In Alexander, Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics 39.8-13.

1 47 Plutarch, Roman Questions 2 (264A); Theology of Arithmetic 13.17-19; the anonymous On Numbers.
1 48 Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 388CD.
1 49 Plutarch does not give the example of the number one probably for two reasons. First, one was
technically not a number. Second, the number one, no matter how many times multiplied against
itself, never "grows." The analogy Plutarch offers is based on generation and growth.
l SO On the number ten as a sign of perfection, see above, p. 50 n. 1 25 .
322
Plutarch provides his most colorful Pythagorean explanation of the number five as
marriage when he compares the trio Osiris, Isis, and Horus to the orthogonal triangle of
three, four, and five sides.151 The side of length three is to be likened to the male, the base of
four to the female, and the hypotenuse to their offspring. Osiris is the source (d:Qxr)), Isis the
receptacle (unoboxr)), and Horus the completion (anorr£Ma1-1a). The number symbolism
follows the same pattern: three (Osiris) is the first odd number and is perfect; four (Isis) is a
square with sides of the (first) even number two; and five (Horus) is likened to both its
father (three) and mother (two). In this allegory, five symbolizes not only marital union but
the perfect offspring of that union.1 52
There were non-Pythagorean reasons for associating five with marriage. Plutarch
considers the question why exactly five torches were used in wedding ceremonies, and he
entertains without completely embracing several possible explanations, only one of which
(the longest) is Pythagorean.153
Occasionally the epithet is applied, not to five, but to six, either for its association
with the product of two and three, or for its mythological associations with Aphrodite.154
1 51 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 56 (373f-374a).

1 52 Cf. Philo, On the Contemplative Life 65-66, which makes the point that the number five is "the most
natural" (cpvmK6TctToc;) number because it is drawn from the orthogonal triangle that is the "source
of generation of the universe" (UQXTJ Tile; TWV oA.wv yrviaEwc;). For another extended application of
the orthogonal triangle to generation and copulation (but without direct reference to five as
marriage), see Scholia on Homer, set D, 19.119. There, the triangle is used to explain why infants are
viable in the seventh and ninth months, but not in the eighth, a common belief in the ancient world.
1 53 Plutarch, Roman Questions 2 (263f-264b).
1 54 Product of two and three: Philo, On the Special Laws 2 .58; idem, Questions and Answers on Genesis
3.38A, 3.49B; pseudo-Plutarch, On Music 1 139F5-1 140A7; Theology of Arithmetic 43.5-7. This passage
also likens to marriage because it equals the sum of its factors (1, 2, 3), and the goal of marriage is to
create offspring similar to its parents. Aphrodite: Moderatus, frag. 3; Plutarch, in Stobaeus,Eclogae
323
Even the number three is called marriage.155 These variations should not been seen as
contradictions as much as evidence for the wide variety of meanings available in ancient
number symbolism.
1 .pref.1 0; John Lydus, On the Months 2.1 1 .14-16. The epithet is given without explanation in Clement
of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.14.93.4 and Syrianus, Commentary on the Metaphysics 1 04.27.
1 55 Theology ofArithmetic 1 9.20 and Nicomachus of Gerasa, Theology of Arithmetic in Photius, Bibliotheca
§187 (144A1 ).
324
Excursus C
The Elements and History of Psephy (Gematria)
The basic principles of isopsephy are well known, but its history and the purposes for which
it was used have not been adequately stated or studied. The most complete exploration of
the phenomenon to date is that of Franz Domseif£.1 Although Domseiff adequately
discusses the various uses of isopsephy, he does not apply the historical rigor necessary to
discern the shape of the tradition. As a result, modem studies tend to repeat his errors or
mistaken assumptions. What follows here is a brief outline of the principles, history, and
purpose of isopsephy, a basic outline for future research.
PRINCIPLES
Isopsephy, better known today as gematria, is the literary device whereby the letters of the
alphabet are assigned numerical values. Letters, words, or entire sentences are C<?mposed or
interpreted based upon the sum of the numerical values of their letters. Although there are
many systems of isopsephy, the majority of variations emerge in the Kabbalistic literature of
the high medieval and modem periods. In late antiquity there was only one system of
1 Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie, 91-1 18.
325
isopsephy. It was developed in Greek, and provided the basis for imitative systems in
Hebrew or Aramaic.
In traditional Greek isopsephy, each of the twenty-four letters of the Greek alphabet,
plus three archaic forms, are assigned values of units, tens, and hundreds as follows:
a 1 l 10 Q 1 00
f3 2 K 20 a 200
y 3 A 30 '[ 300
b 4 f.l 40 u 400
E 5 v 50 cp 500
c; 6 l; 60 X 600
[, 7 0 70 ljJ 700
f) 8 n 80 w 800
8 9 9 90 ?1 900
One thousand to nine thousand were represented by a through 8, marked by a
stroke or loop to the left. Numbers larger than ten thousand were broken up into blocks of
ten thousands (myriads, signified by M), so that large strings of numbers were grouped in
sets of four, much as commas today divide separate the thousands, millions, billions, and so
on, of very large numbers.
The digits were written normally in descending order, with the units on the right,
marked by a stroke to indicate it was a numeral, not a word. For example: KE'= 25; aE' = 205;
,f3E' = 2005; ,b?1 l;f3' = 4962; avb' M ,ywL[,' = 2,543,817?
2 The M could also be placed directly beneath the numbers it modified. See P. Cairo, Inv. 65445,
reprinted in Neugebauer, Exact Science in Antiquity, pl. 5.
326
In a few cases, a number rendered in this notation doubled as an acronym. For
instance, X!-!Y' ( 643) appears in papyrus records from the early fourth century CE, and is
likely a number read as a Christian acronym for X(E LQL) 1-l(ov) y(EYQ£X!-1!-1Evov), X(QLGT6s)
(£K) M(aQLas) y(EVVYJ8 ds), or X(QLGT6s), f(a�QLr)A), M( Lxar)A). Its original meaning is
debated.3 In a sixth-century inscription in modem-day Syria the number ,�v1-1y' [2443], has a
dual role, to indicate the psephic value of each poetic line and to mark the acrostic for the
refrain, either �(or)8 L) Y(LI':) M(ovo) y(Evr)c;) ("Help me, Only-Begotten Son!") or �(or) 8L)
Y(LI':) [ EK] M(aQl£Xc;) y(EVVYJ8 dc;) ("Help me, Son born of Mary!").4 More famous is the 318 of
pseudo-Barnabas, Epistle 9.7-9, discussed below.
Most important, any Greek word could be read as a string of numbers. For instance,
Koa1-1oc; = 20 + 70 + 200 + 40+ 70 + 200 = 600. Thus, for some, the numerical value of K6a1-1os
confirmed the well-ordered character of the universe.5
HISTORY
It is frequently thought that isopsephy is as old as the Bible. This impression has gained
ground mainly because of an often-cited inscription ascribed to Sargon II, where the length
of the wall at Khorsabad is said to be "16,283 cubits, the numeral of my name." The
inscription, however, never explains the relationship between the number and Sargon' s
3 A synopsis of the debate and a select bibliography are provided by Derda, "Some Remarks," who
argues that the issue probably cannot be resolved. See more recently, but less completely, Llewelyn,
"Christian Symbol XMG?" Scholars agree that the symbol came to represent several things after it
was introduced -both an isopsephism and an acrostic-but its original (single?) meaning is
unknown.
4 See also MacCoull, "Isopsephistic Encomium," discussing a sixth-century poem, the isopsephic
value of whose lines probably indicates the year when the saint was martyred.
5 Theology ofArithmetic 48.18-20.
327
name. In fact, the inscription does not even suggest that the number derives from Sargon' s
name, just that it is "the numeral of my name."
It is often assumed that gematria is at work in the Sargon II inscription because of
certain close relationships between numbers and syllables in cuneiform, where words-cum-
numerals are attested as early as ca. 2700 BCE. Because certain numbers were homophonic to
certain phonemes, when those phonemes were written, the numbers were also used. Thus,
certain numbers could be used to depict syllables and words, and likewise, some words
were consciously depicted as numbers.6
There are a set of number-syllabary texts that date from the late first millennium,
well into the Seleucid period. The authors of these texts associate gods, numbers, and
syllables with each other? This literary phenomenon, however, is imperfectly understood.
We do not know why certain gods are associated with certain numbers and syllables. There
is no intrinsic phonological or pictographic logic to the associations. And we cannot tell if a
comprehensive system was at work. Our best guess is that in these texts, late for cuneiform,
the scribes were using a tradition that associated deities with round numbers.8 It is uncertain
whether this tradition has anything to do with the Sargon II inscription.
The operating principles, although still somewhat mysterious, are clearly quite
different from those found in Greek isopsephy, so a genetic connection between the two can
6 For examples of Sumerian and Akkadian numeration practices, see Lieberman, "Mesopotamian
Background," 186-87, and Ifrah, From One to Zero, 1 70-99.
7 For discussion and analysis, see Pearce, "Number-Syllabary Texts."
s Pearce (ibid.) argues for the innovative character of the number-syllabary texts. See Lieberman,
"Mesopotamian Background," 198-200 for examples of round numbers assigned to gods, and
explanations as to why "one must carefully distinguish the numerological interpretation of texts
based on the number values of words or letters from special meanings assigned to numbers."
328
be safely ruled out. For lack of an alphabet, cuneiform's "isopsephy" is incidental in
character. Only a few, not all, syllables were represented numerically, and not all numbers
could represent phonemes. Cuneiform does not have an alphabet, and the phonemes have
no order. The languages that employed cuneiform, then, could never supply the basic
building blocks needed for a complete system of isopsephy. Sargon' s name was depicted as
a number, probably not because of its value in gematria, but for reasons as yet unknown?
Isopsephy did not emerge ex nihilo. It depended upon well-defined and long-used
customs of numeration. Any successful literary device requires a shared culture that allows
the author to play off customs already well known and accepted. For example, in own day
we encounter messages that depend upon the association of letters with phone numbers,
and vice versa. All this depends upon a shared social convention, the assignment of letters
to the numbers on the dial of telephones in the early twentieth century. Suppose someone
had, before the advent of the telephone, developed a system that assigned two to A-C, three
to D-F, and so on. Any word plays that person published would be incomprehensible since
the convention was a private one.
Unfortunately, some scholars have tended to assume the existence of psephic
techniques everywhere and at all times in the ancient world, and used that assumption to
find the earliest examples. Few ask when and how the technique, as a whole, could have
arisen and made sense to a given culture. Biblical scholars today persist in looking for
instances of gematria in the Hebrew Scriptures, without investigating the requisite
9 For the most recent analysis of Sargon II's "isopsephy," see Fouts, "Large Numbers," esp. 207-8.
329
background in habits of numeration.1 0 This is a critical omission, since in the era when most
of the Hebrew Bible was composed, gematria was not an option. It is as if we have been
finding instances of telephone-letter word plays in the nineteenth century.
Just as in the telephone analogy, psephy depends upon shared conventions for
numeration. Letters used as numerals must be widespread enough for the gematria to be
understood. The first known instance of this convention in the ancient world is in the so-
called "Miles ian" or " alphabetic" system of numeration.n This system seems to have
emerged in the last quarter of the seventh century BCE, and probably no earlier, from
somewhere like Naukratis, an Ionian trading outpost in the western Nile deltaP In that
region of Egypt, and among the native Egyptian population, numbers were assigned to
thirty-six individual characters-the units, tens, hundreds, and thousands. These characters
were nonlinguistic signs that were merely shorthand renditions of hieratic and hieroglyphic
numerals. The Egyptian practice seems to have inspired the Greeks living in the area to
develop their own version, one based on the alphabet. By substituting Phoenician-cum-
Greek letters for the non-linguistic Egyptian characters, the inventor(s) created a system just
as original as their Egyptian model. From Ionian ports in Egypt the practice traveled to the
Ionian islands.
10 Heinzerling, "Bileams Ratsel"; Smit Sibinga, "Composition of 1 Cor 9" (and other articles by Smit
Sibinga); Labuschagne, "De numerieke structuuranalyse" (and other articles by Labuschagne). The
"New method projects," sponsored by the Berkeley Institute of Biblical Archaeology and Literature
(BIBAL), analyzes the entire Hebrew Bible using gematria-inspired logotechnical analysis. It suffers
from the same methodological error.
1 1 It is called "Milesian" because the earliest evidence is found in colonies of Miletus, although not in
Miletus itself.
1 2 This, and the Demotic Egyptian origin of alphabetic numeration is argued by Chrisomalis,
"Egyptian Origin."
330
Of the original twenty-two letters of the ancient Phoenician alphabet, all but one (the
san ) were retained in the Ionian alphabet. To these Phoenician letters were added the v (an
augmented waw), ¢, x, ¢, w (itself an Ionian invention), and the somewhat-mysterious
sampi.13 Even at the time it was devised for numeration this twenty-seven letter alphabet
was probably somewhat artificial, since three of the letters-waw, qoppa, and sampi - are
found rarely, and then only in archaic poetry.14 But the invention of an ordered, twenty-
seven element alphabet lent itself to an elegant system of numeration.15
Milesian letterforms gained ground across the Greek-speaking world: in 403, during
the archonship of Euclides Athens officially adopted their form of the alphabet, but without
accepting the Milesian system of numeration, which remained a minority system in the
Greek speaking world, probably centered in northern Egypt. By and large, most Greek city-
states used the base-five/ten system today termed the "decimal," "acrophonic," or "Attic."16
In this family of number-notation, each of the numbers 1, 5, 10, 50, 1 00, 500, 1000, 5000,
1 0,000, and 50,000 were represented by a particular character. The most common
representation was: I, r (a n for ntvu with a shortened right leg), � (for bEKcx), P, H (for
1 3 The term sampi dates from the 1 7th c. CE. Since the letter san had been rendered obsolete, having
been assimilated to the Greek sigma, the letterform was possibly reintroduced at the end of the
alphabet to accommodate the Milesian system of numeration. See LSJ, "M," s.v.
1 4 The waw was later called either digamma - a description of the letterform's resemblance to two
gammas (F) - or stigma-a conflation of sigma and tau, reflecting its hybrid letterform (c;). See above,
pp. 91 and 213.
1 5 See Jeffery, Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 327, for a summary of the evidence of the Milesian system
of notation, with references to pottery from after 550 BCE. See also Chrisomalis, "Egyptian Origin."
1 6 Unlike Milesian numeration, "Attic" numeration is so called because of the prestige Athens had,
not because of the system's provenance, which is unknown. The association is not modern: pseudo
Herodian, On the Numbers (TLG 87.42; probably 2nd c. CE), relates the system to the laws Solon wrote
for Athens.
331
EKa'l6v), J11 , X (for XiALoL), P:, M (for f.lUQLOL), and JM. Any number could be represented by
one or more of these characters placed in a sequence. Thus, for instance, 47,296 would be
represented MMMMP:XXHH.P��ri .17
These two systems of numeration - the alphabetic and the Attic systems - should be
sharply distinguished from the use of letter labels, since the latter is often confused as a
third method of numeration. When writers use letter labels, they use single letters to
identify objects in a series. In the Iliad, the Odyssey, and Aristotle's Metaphysics, letters mark
the sequence of books. In texts dealing with geometry, authors identify points and angles
with letters, a convention still used today. Letter labels differ from alphabetic and Attic
systems of numeration in several important respects. First, in letter labels the ordinality of
the letters -not their numerical value -is key. Book Cl> of the Iliad was thought of no more of
as being "twenty-first" than, for us, "Q Street" is thought of as being seventeenth. Second,
letter labels were never composed of, applied to, or inferred from strings of letters. Thus, a
word was never interpreted in light of its letter-label value. Third, letter labels were
generally applied to small, discrete series of objects. When a set of objects ran out of one-
letter labels, the sequence continued with AA, BB, etc. It was inconvenient to use letter labels
for sets larger than fifty elements.
Sometimes the letter-label and Milesian systems of numeration are indistinguishable.
Occasionally we find the letters a through E used as numbers in coins or other artifacts, but
it is unclear which of the two systems are being used.1 8
1 7 For more examples and variant systems, see Ifrah, From One to Zero, 225-27 and Tod, Ancient Greek
Numerical Systems, passim.
18 See H0yrup, "Mathematics, Algebra, and Geometry," and Lieberman, "Mesopotamian
Background," 1 93-94.
332
There is no evidence that letter labels were used for Greek isopsephy. In Latin it was
used rarely, probably because the full Latin alphabet was never used for numeration.l9
Although each of the twenty-four Greek letters could potentially be assigned the numbers
one through twenty-four (and not just a certain rank in the order of the alphabet), there is no
explicit evidence that they ever were. The same is true of the twenty-two letters of various
Semitic languages. It should then come as no surprise that there is no explicit evidence of a
system of ancient gematria that uses this sequential system until the Middle Ages, when
kabbalists stretched and expanded the methods of gematria.
Milesian notation was a minority system and it was little known outside of Ionia in
the fifth century.20 How it emerged from relative obscurity to become the dominant system
of numeration is unclear. Chrisomalis argues that alphabetic numerals were used mainly by
the Ionians, and when their power and influence was eclipsed by Athens and later by
Macedonia, the numerals fell out of use. The revival of alphabetic numerals in the
Hellenistic period may have come because of the continued, isolated use of Greek alphabetic
19 See Domseiff, Alphabet in Mystik und Magie, 1 01, citing a fifth-c. text that mistakenly identifyies the
Latin psephic value of ANTICHRISTUS as 154 (actually 1 55) so as to show gaiseric is the antichrist. See
below, n. 26.
20 See JG 12.760, p. 222, cited by Tod, Ancient Greek Numerical Systems, 96, as the one Attic instance of
the Milesian system. His observations are based upon over fifteen thousand inscriptions he studied.
The inscription, a calendral table of some sort, antedates the Peloponnesian War. I am not convinced,
however, that this inscription provides incontrovertible evidence for Attic knowledge of the entire
Milesian system, since the only numbers that are incontestably represented by letters are the units,
indicated by a through 8 (including the waw). A kind of letter-label system could be in play here.
This inscription needs to be investigated further.
333
numerals in lower Egypt, and the coincidental rise of Alexandria as a major political and
economic power.
Habits of numeration are slow to change. Chrisomalis' s hypothesis would explain,
first, why the shift to alphabetic numerals seems to happen so suddenly in the third century
BCE. The shift is illusory: alphabetic numerals were presumably used by a minority of
Greeks in Egypt for several centuries before the rise of their political and cultural fortunes.
And since habits of numeration are slow to change, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic developed
a comparable system for centuries. Specimens of shorthand numbers in these languages,
even through the first century CE, show the tendency of their linguistic group to rely upon
age-old systems of numeration. That is, in Hebrew and Aramaic the base-10 stroke-style
system of numeration was used (see below). Imitations of the Greek alphabetic system were
to emerge much later (see below).
It is no surprise, then, that our earliest examples of isopsephy derive from the late
Hellenistic period, only after alphabetic numeration was well established and widespread .
Our first examples come from the first century CE, when isopsephy probably first
originated. Of authors from the first century, Philo is one of the most attuned to numbers. In
the hundreds of instances of number symbolism in his large literary corpus, there is only
one example that approaches psephy, an innocuous reference to the change of Sara's name
to Sarra (Questions and Answers on Genesis 3.53). Against those who might consider the name
change in Genesis 1 7. 15 trivial, Philo argues that it represents the change, not of a single
letter, but of a hundred of them, since that was the numerical value of the rho. Philo,
however, does not consider the association of rho with one hundred of intrinsic significance.
He favors instead an explanation based on the definitions of Sara and Sarra in Hebrew. This
334
passage does not even imply Philo's awareness of or use of isopsephy, just his knowledge of
the Milesian system of notation. That this is the only Philonic reference to anything remotely
close to isopsephy is telling. It seems that if there were any author of the first century who
would latch onto isopsephy it would be Philo, because of his propensity to employ
speculative, allegorical exegesis. I infer from this that in Philo's day isopsephy had not yet
won its place as a fully acceptable literary device.
Litterateurs of less-lofty aspiration were more accepting of the technique. In the
graffiti of Pompeii are three specimens of isopsephy quite similar to each other. One states,
"I love her whose number is [??]1." Another: "I love her whose number is 545." Yet another:
"Without care, he commemorated Harmony, his own lady, the number of whose good name
was 1 035."21 These graffiti, probably from the first century, before the volcanic destruction of
the city in 79 CE, show that isopsephic games were well known in the city.
In religion, the name A�Qam:X<'; was early on associated with the solar year because
the name's value is 365. The name may have been devised for this very purpose. It first
appears in the first century CE tabulae defixionae of North Africa, and frequently recurs in the
magical papyri and in early Christian texts, orthodox and otherwise. Most often, the name is
ascribed to a deity associated with the year or the heavens.22
21 CIL 4.12*: <PIAO HL. 0 API8MOL. . . . A; corrected at CIL 4, supp. 1, p. 460. CIL 4.4861: <PIAO HL.
API8MOL. <PME. CIL 4.4839: Al-lEQLI-lVOc; E!-1VTJCY8TJ liQI-lOVLa:c; TfJc; E ibla:c; KVQLa:c; i n ' aya:8�, f)c; 6
cXQL81-1oc; aAE' mv Ka:Aov ovo1-1a:Toc;. The answer to this riddle is uncertain. AQI-lovia: 272 (aoW).
=
22
For an argument for pinpointing the date and reasons for the isopsephism of Abrasax, see Janssens,
"Datation neronienne de l'isopsephie." He argues that A�Qa:mx�, a secret, holy name, comes from the
pre-Roman Hellenistic period, and indiscrete scribes from subsequent centuries wrote it down in
magical texts. He further argues that in the reign of NeroAbrasax was associated with two other
isopsephisms of 365 - NELAoc; and Md8Qa:c; - as a part of imperial religious propaganda. Janssens's
argument, in my opinion, is overly speculative and misses some key counter-evidence. For instance,
335
We can date the active use of isopsephy in respectable literature no later than the
reign of Nero, when Leonides of Alexandria flourished. Once an astrologer, Leonides turned
to epigrams, where the psephic value of the couplets or individual lines are equal. He
apparently wrote several books of these epigrams, some of which were birthday presents for
Roman emperors.23
It is also to Leonides we can credit the first instances of the basic phrasing that led to
the terms psephy and isopsephy, the earliest terminology for the technique:
Eic; nQoc; [va ¢TjcpOLmv imxl:;nm, ov bvo bOLmc;

ov yaQ EH a'tEQYW 'tTJV boALXOYQ£XcpLT)V.
One [line] equals one line in tallies, not two in couplets,

For I no longer cherish prolix writing.24
Thus, to make the value of the letters in lines of poetry is "to make equal in count."
'Ia6¢11¢oc; is attested in the second century, and cognates such as ¢TJcpLl:;av were commonly
used thereafter.25
if either of the fragments of Apollonius where Abrasax is called the "archon of birds" or "mountains"
is genuine, it raises doubts as to whether the god was associated with the zodiac, as Janssens claims.
Nevertheless, his suggestion that isopsephism emerged in literary circles due to the patronage of
Nero remains a strong possibility, especially in light of Leonides, discussed below.
23 Page's wry assessment and commentary in his edition of the forty-two epigrams rescues the poet
from his many careless critics and establishes important re-readings of the text.
24 Anthologia Graeca 6.327. For a similar construction, see 9.356.
25 See Aulus Cellius, A ttic Nights 14.6.4, and below, excursus D.
336
JEWISH ISOPSEPHY
There is little evidence for a first-century culture of isopsephy in other written languages of
the Mediterranean, such as Latin or Coptic.26 Nevertheless, isopsephy appears early in
Aramaic Jewish sources, possibly in the first century CE, more probably in the second. It
quickly became an important device in Jewish and Samaritan exegesis in late antiquity.
In ancient Hebrew when authors used shorthand notation for numbers, they used a
decimal-based system, in imitation of Demotic Egyptian conventionsP There is plentiful
evidence for a continuity of this practice from the tenth century BCE to the first CE, in both
Hebrew and Aramaic. Calendral material from the Qumran material and pendants from
Masada use this Egyptian-style stroke system.28 There is evidence that Hebrew letters were
used as numbers as early as 79 BCE, during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE),
who minted coins that read �J for the 25 years of his reign.29 How much earlier this practice
26 In Latin, there may be exceptions. Schmidt, "Ratselzahl 666 in Offb 13:18," argues that the 666 of
Rev 13.18 refers to Roman numerals discernible in the name of the Emperor Claudius. William
McCarthy has noted (pers. comm .. ) that Martial, Epigram 1 .23 possibly exhibits an isopsephic
character similar to that found in Leonidas of Alexandria. See also the fifth-c. example mentioned
above, n. 19. The exceptions, in my opinion, prove the rule. In subsequent ages, any Latin author's
mention of Greek isopsephy is attached with an explanation of how it worked since there was
nothing like it in Latin. Even Odo of Morimond ( 1 1 1 6-1 1 61 ), attempting to fill the lacuna by assigning
numbers to Latin letters, did not attempt to replicate the Milesian system in Greek. Instead, he rather
arbitrarily assigned 900 to A, 300 to B, 250 to E, etc. See Beaujouan, "Symbolisme des nombres," 1 63.
Compare also the Catalan system devised at Lucas, Astrology and Numerology, 96-97. Even though
Coptic used the Greek alphabet and added a few letters of their own, Coptic scribes tended to use
only Greek letters for shorthand numeration. Thus, the earliest isopsephisms in Coptic draw
wholesale from Greek practice.
27
For examples that show the dependence of ancient Hebrew conventions upon Egyptian ones see
Ifrah, 244--48 .
28 See Talmon et a!., Qumran Cave 4 . XVI, 137 at 4Q326 line 2. Note 15 there summarizes the evidence
and provides a current bibliography.
29 See Lieberman, Mesopotamian Background," 1 93-94.
337
can be dated is difficult to tell, but I suspect not much further back. All other earlier
instances of Hebrew letters used as numbers appears to draw on a letter-label system, not
psephy.30 The balance of evidence shows that the decimal system of numeration was the
preferred system in Hebrew and Aramaic first century BCE to the first century CE, but that
an alphabetic system was intelligible and (probably) gaining ground.31 Even after the
introduction of alphabetic system, the decimal system lingered on for some time.32
The twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet are five short of the number needed
to build a complete model, like the Milesian system. When required to write numbers
greater than four hundred, Hebrew writers combined characters, thus jury-rigging their
alphabet so as to function like the Greek.33 This is the system used:

�
� 1 10 p 100
J. 2 J. 20 1 200
� 3 ' 30 iD 300
1 4 rJ 40 n 400
i1 5 J 50 pn 500
6 D 60 1n 600
T 7 � 70 tDn 700
n 8 :J 80 nn 800
� 9 y 90 pnn 900
30 See Hoyrup, "Mathematics, Algebra, and Geometry," and Lieberman, "Mesopotamian

Background," 193-97.
31 Lieberman, "Mesopotamian Background," 198, claims that "the date when the Hebrew letters were
first used to write numbers cannot be determined," so as to safeguard the possibility that Hebrew
isopsephy antedated the Second Temple period. But the evidence he discusses 1 93-98 seems to
necessitate the opposite conclusion. After all, the Alexander Jannaeus coin is the one and only
example he gives of Hebrew alphabetic numerals before their more regular occurrence after 66CE.
Lieberman's conclusion - "we must admit that it possible that such techniques were employed in
biblical texts" - does not follow.
32 See Ifrah, From One to Zero, 279-81 for examples of decimal notation in the fifth century cE in Syriac,
an Aramaic dialect. Alphabetic numerals in Syriac seems to be a rather late development, well after
their introduction into Hebrew and other dialects of Aramaic.
33 See Ifrah, From One to Zero, 251-59 for examples.
338
In much later (Kabbalistic) usage, the final forms of five letters (kaph, mim, nun, pe,
and tsade) were introduced to replace doubled letters in the hundreds column, thereby
making the system more elegant.
Shortly after Greek isopsephy became a widespread literary phenomenon in the
Mediterranean world, Rabbinic Jews picked up on the practice and began to use the Hebrew
version of it in their Biblical exegesis. Possibly the earliest example of explicit Hebrew
isopsephy is found, oddly enough, in Revelation 13.18, the infamous number of the beast. In
variations of the Greek text, 616, rather than 666, is given as the number, which leads to an
elegant solution, that both versions describe the name Nero Caesar as written in Hebrew. For
666 we have 10p i 1 1 J (200 + 60 + 1 00, 50 + 6 + 200 + 50); for 616 the final nun is dropped, a
standard option in Hebrew for rendering foreign names.34 If this interpretation of the
number of the beast is correct, it implies that Christians were active participants in the
earliest days of Hebrew and Aramaic isopsephy.
The earliest explicit examples of Rabbinic Jewish gematria come from second-
century tannaim. Rabbi Yehudah (fl. mid 2d c. CE, in Galilee), interpreting Jeremiah 9.10,
concludes that "no one passed through Judea for fifty-two years" because of the numerical
value of the word Behemah (beast). Rabbi Nathan (fl. 2d-3d c. CE, in Palestine) suggests that
the gematria of "These are the words" in Exodus 35.1 hints at the thirty-nine categories of
34 If this is the solution to Rev 13.18, it should be noted that it attests to the lateness of the system of
Hebrew gematria that employed the final form of five letters for the values five to nine hundred.
Under this later, Kabbalistic system the final nun would have given Nero Caesar the value 956. On the
number 616 see above, p. 1 71 .
339
work forbidden on the Sabbath.35 The most famous example of Rabbinic isopsephy deals
with Genesis 14.14 and the three hundred eighteen servants of Abraham, a tradition
transmitted under the name of Bar Qappara' (2d-3d c., son of R. Eliezer).36 Noting that the
name of Abraham's servant, Eliezer, also adds up to three hundred eighteen, Qappara'
claims that the text meant simply that Abraham took only his servant to rescue LotF In a
tradition dating back no earlier than the ninth century CE, Rabbi Eliezer (2d c., in Palestine)
is said to have devised thirty-two rules of Biblical interpretation, of which the twenty-ninth
concerns gematria.38 Genesis 14.14 is cited as a prime example. Although this tradition is
much later than the second-century rabbi upon whom it is projected, it confirms the
observation that the second century proved to be a fertile period for the development of
Jewish techniques of isopsephy in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Throughout the period covered by the Talmud, Jewish teachers used the term
gema�ria (� � 1tJD � ) or i1 � � 1tJD ) ) to describe any number of methods of interpretation that
use grammatical analysis. The term is built upon a Greek word, probably YQLX.f.lf.lLX.TEta., not
YEWf.lETQLCX., as often cited.39 Somewhere around the time the Talmud was compiled,
probably the sixth century, the term came to be used more narrowly, of the procedure we
35 Shab. 70a .
36 Ned. 32a, Gen. R. 43.2.
37 This is to be compared with ps.-Barnabas, Epistle 9.7-9, who suggest that the 318 servants is a
prophecy of Christ. After all, written in Greek (nfl'), the number stands for the Cross ('r) and the first
two letters of Jesus's name (tT]). For the relationship between second century Christian and Jewish
exegeses of Gen 14.14 see Ferguson, "Was Barnabas a Chiliast?"; Hvalvik, "Barnabas 9,7-9";
Leiberman, "Mesopotamian Background," 1 68 n. 47; and Gevirtz, "Abram's 31 8."
38 Lieberman, "Mesopotamian Background," 159.
39 Sambursky, "Gematria," is the authority most often cited. He attempts to show that gematria derives
from a sixth century instance of yc:wflETQLKOV LXQL8f16V in Iamblichus (cited in Proclus, Jn Timaeum
2.278), which I treat above, p. 241 n. 45.
34 0
have been discussing. Thus, whereas Greek used isopsephy, the term still used in modem
Greek, Hebrew Aramaic used gematria, the term most familiar in modem western
languages.40
In summary, psephy seems to have first emerged in the early- to mid-first century
CE, after alphabetic numeration was already well-known and well established. The date is
not hard and fast, but the phenomenon could not occurred without the cultural and political
rise of Alexandria in the third century BCE. Psephy emerged first with Greek writers, and
was later used in Hebrew. In dozens of early examples we find the phenomenon on both a
popular and literary level. It occurs in poetry, riddles, theological systems, and divinatory
techniques. It gained enough popularity that tables were composed, juxtaposing interesting
and ironic isopsephisms, possibly an aid to party-goers who, after dinner, would often
entertain themselves with "puzzles and riddles and sets of names in numbers."41
Isopsephy rose shortly after Pythagoreanism was resurrected (see excursus A). The
idea that arithmetic could be applied to names so as to lay bare the secrets of the universe
meant that psephy soon began to be seen as Pythagorean. Hippolytus saw the isopsephic
exercises of Colarbasus and others as a Pythagoreanizing (i.e., corruption) of Christianity
(see chapter 6). Iatromathematical texts that depend upon a close reading of the isopsephy
of a patient's name and the lunar day are regularly linked to Pythagoras in the manuscript
tradition (see excursus D). Isopsephy started as an arithmological tradition independent of
40 Isopsephy was very popular in Arabic, and was known as h_isiib al-jummal or, in an Iranian sect,
h.urufi.
41 Plutarch, Table Talk S.pref (673AB): aiviyf.laTa Kat yQiq>ouc; Kat 8£anc; OVOf.lUTWV i:v UQL8f.1oic;. For
a table of amusing psephisms from the early second century see Skeat, "Table of Isopsephisms."
341
Pythagorean number symbolism, the two were often (but not always) conflated from at least
the second century onwards.
342
Excursus 0
Types of Greek Numerology
Greek numerology was first developed in the first or second century CE. Cicero, in his De
divinatione, outlines all the major forms of divination, including astrology (then relatively
new), but numerology is not included, even when discussing Pythagoras.1 By the fourth
century, numerology was so prominent that Iamblichus has Pythagoras teach Abaris
"instead of divination by the entrails of sacrificed animals . . . fore-knowledge through
numbers, believing this to be purer, more divine, and more suitable to the heavenly number
of the gods."2 Artemidorus, who discusses rules for the psephic interpretation of dreams, is
the earliest datable text. (The system upon which he bases his advice, however, was either
his own invention or a minority tradition: Artemidorus' s principles are replicated in none of
the manuscripts I have so far investigated, and they contradict more standard techniques.)
Vettius Valens, also from the late second century, may allude to isopsephic numerology
when he mentions the technique of "reckoning the moon" (1VfJcJ:>tl:w 'rTJV crEAT]vf}v).3
Hippolytus' s Refutation of All Heresies is the next earliest datable text to report numerology,
and the technique he describes is one we find scattered throughout Byzantine manuscripts.
1 1 .3.5; 2.58.1 19.

2 Pythagorean Way of Life 19.93 (Dillon trans., 117) . Cf. Iamblichus, Common Mathematical Knowledge 23.
3 Anthologies 1 .24.6; cf. 1 .23 (Bara ed., 220.2).
343
Thus, numerology was well established in the early third century, and blossomed from
there.
After reviewing an extensive part of the catalog entries for the relevant manuscript
tradition I have identified two major and four minor forms of Greek numerological
prognostication, as well as numerous hybrids. The distinction between major and minor
reflects the frequency with which these techniques appear in the manuscripts. I present
below these types of Greek numerology. For each technique, I explain the procedure,
discuss the variations, and list the relevant manuscripts, based on my examination of
various catalogs, principally but not exclusively the CCAG. After introducing the main types
I include two more areas of special relevance to Greek numerology. First, I list texts that
explain auspicious days, since these texts have important bearing on the diagrams known as
The Circle of Petosiris. Second, I note other forms of Greek prognostication that depend upon
or draw significantly from numerology or number symbolism.
This is a preliminary attempt to classify a family of texts that have not been studied
adequately. Catalog editors occasionally do not understand the numerological technique at
play in a given text, and so allow errors to creep in their entries. None of these texts have
been critically edited. The article by Neugebauer and Saliba ("On Greek Numerology") is
the most extensive scholarly discussion of Greek numerology, but because the manuscript
tradition is far more extensive than the dozen manuscripts they studied, their findings must
be considered merely a prelude to further work. This excursus provides the next step.
My taxonomy is provisional. Further work on the manuscripts could very well show
that a "variant" is really an earlier stage of that particular form of numerology. The same
applies to the titles I have given to each type of numerology -I have merely attempted to
344
replicate the form of the title that appears most frequently in the manuscripts. If there is no
author or title listed, as frequently happens in variations, I have supplied one.
I am aware of more than thirty other works in manuscript form, whose catalog
entries, although vaguely worded, suggest that numerology - often unclassifiable, based on
the catalog entry alone -is at play. I have not included them in this excursus. I have also not
attempted to discuss evidence from other languages of ancient numerological traditions that
depend, in part or whole, on the Greek tradition.4
1 . PYTHAGORAS TO TELA UGES, OR THE LITTLE PYTHAGOREAN PLINTH
In the pseudepigraphal letter often attached, Pythagoras promises Telauges that this
method allows one to find out, given two combatants, which will defeat the other. The letter
plays on the tradition that claims that Pythagoras wrote, or Telauges compiled, a treatise
titled On Gods (or Sacred Discourse), a treatise inspired by Orphic number symbolism and
number mysticism.5 The names of the author and recipient of this numerological letter
occasionally vary .6
Although the method is intended primarily for predicting the outcome of contests, it
can be employed for other purposes as well, such as determining the suitability of a
marriage, the prospects of a journey, the outcome of a new job, or the chance of catching a
4 On an Armenian form of numerology see Russell, "Six Thousand."

5 Iamblichus, The Pythagorean Way of Life 18.145-47.
6 The recipient is also called Lais (Paris gr. 2009, f. 1 r; London cod. Add. 36753, f. 217v), Augia
(Madrid 4631, f. 158), Iliades (Florence LXXXVI, 14, f. 37; Cambridge R.15.36, f. 17v; Bononiensis 3632,
f. 274r; Florence LXXXVI, 14, f. 38r). In Oxford cod. Baroccianus 95, f. 307, the letter is said to be from
Thrasyllos to Ammon, king of Egypt. But confusing syntax in the MS epigraph may obscure its
original attribution to Pythagoras.
345
runaway slave. The manuscripts provide ways the method can be suitably applied to
d ozens of situations. Oftentimes one or several charts, called plinths, are attached, to help
the user know, at a glance, who will vanquish whom.
Michael Psellos distinguishes this technique, which he calls "the little Pythagorean
plinth" (n) Tiu8a.yoQLKOV bf. nALv8 tbLov), from the technique assigned to Petosiris's letter to
Nechepso, on which see below?
The Technique
First, find the psephic value of each contestant's name. Reduce each number mod 9
(divide by nine until there is a remainder; if there is no remainder, then use the number 9).
The residue is then checked against a chart. If one number is odd and the other even, the
larger number wins. If both are odd, or both are even, the smaller number wins.8 If both
numbers are equal and odd (i.e., 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9), then the challenger wins, because odd
numbers are male and therefore aggressive. If both numbers are equal and even, the
challenged will win, again for reasons associated with gender.
Variations
Mod 7: All rules apply, except reduce the numbers by mod 7, not mod 9. Attested:
Hippolytus, Refu tation of All Heresies 4.14.8-10.
Mod 7, vowels only: All rules apply, except only the vowels in a name are used.
Reduce psephic sums by mod 7, not mod 9. Attested: Hippolytus, Refu tation of All Heresies
4.14.19.
7 Tannery, Diophantus, 2:41; CCAG 8.1 :131 .

s Paris gr. 2426 reports the exact opposite assessment.
346
Coun t doubled letters only once: All rules apply, but if a letter appears twice, and only
twice, count it only once. Attested: Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.12. See my
discussion at chapter 6.
Separate classes of letters: All rules apply, but first separate the vowels, semivowels,
and consonants in each name. The procedure is applied to the psephic values of each of the
three classes of letters. The best of three wins. Attested: Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies
4.14.19, Paris gr. 2426. In the Paris MS the procedure is likened to the letter Y.9 Its stem
represents the innocence of childhood; its branches, the good and evil spirits that
accompany a p erson throughout life. Upon this Y is depicted the three classes of letters:
vowels on the good branch, semivowels on the morally neutral stem, and consonants on the
evil branch.
Value reassignment: All rules apply, but different numerical values are assigned
(arbitrarily?) to each letter. Attested: Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.20.
Rematches: All rules apply, but first determine how many times the contestants have
already met in combat. If this is their second match, drop the first letter of each name; if
their third, drop the first two letters. Attested: Hippolytus, Refutation ofAll Heresies 4.14.20.
Coun t isodynamic letters once: All rules apply, but if the name has two letters with the
same root value (e.g., w [= 800] and fJ [= 8], which have the same root, eight), count only one
of them. Attested: Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 4.14.14. See my discussion above,
chapter 6.
9 On medieval and renaissance Pythagorean symbolism of the letter upsilon see, e.g., Harms,
"Pythagoreische Y," and Dornseiff, Alphabet in Mystik und Magie, 24. See also p . 348.
347
Survival in marriage: All rules apply, but to the names of husband and wife. Add the
psephic value of their two names together. If the result is even, the husband will die first; if
odd, the wife. Attested: Madrid BN 4616, fol. 83v. In the same MS see also the scholium by
Constantine Lascaris, who suggests a variation can be used to determine the gender of a
firstborn child.
Detailed plinth for marital harmony: All rules apply to the two names of the couple,
taken separately. But the resultant two numbers reduced mod 9 are used to find the correct
entry in a list of forty-five items-the number of unordered pairs that can be formed from
two series of elements. Each appropriate entry in the list explains how harmonious the
marriage will be. The list does not display any obvious arithmetical pattern that might
determine whether a given combination will be harmonious or not. Attested: Madrid BN
461 6, fols. 48v-86r; Athens, 211, fols. 46r-48v.
The elder wins: All rules apply, but if there is a tie, the decision is made with regard to
who is older, not who was the challenger. Attested: Florence LXXXVI, 14, fol. 37r.
Simple marital harmony: Take the psephic values of both names of the couple, add,
and reduce mod 9. The result is checked against a nine-item list that explains what is to be
expected. Attested: Athens, 1265, fol. 61r; Athens, 1275, fol. 49v.
Patient versus the stars: Follow all rules, but let the two names be those of the patient
and the name of the star of the day when he fell ill. If the patient wins, he or she will live; if
the star, then death will occur. Attested: Athens, 1506, fol. 26r.
Psephic value of days: There exists a chart "of the days of the week" that lists the
numbers one through nine spelled out in one column and the psephic value of the name of
the number in a second. These charts resemble those that accompany the Circle of Petosiris
348
(on which see below). It is unclear how these charts were to be used, but it does not seem
coincidental that the list presents nine, and not seven, "days of the week," and that
Pythagoras to Telauges uses mostly mod-9 operations. Possibly the two are related, but
further work on the manuscripts is needed to determine this. Attested: Paris gr. 2419, fol.
33r.
Manuscripts
In the manuscript tables in this chapter any entry described as containing assorted or
multiple techniques refers to a MS whose entry in the CCAG is so abbreviated it cannot be
determined precisely what techniques are discussed. The MS in question may also contain
techniques I classify separately. Other listed MSS may have multiple techniques at play, too,
but the CCAG, compiled with astrology as its primary focus, does not specify the contents.
CCAG
City Codex Foliis voL page Comments
Rome Angelicus 17 (C.5, 327v-328v 5.1 3 Assorted techniques, the circle of
4) Petosiris, and the plinth.
Oxford Holkhamicus 292 1 92v-194r 9.2 73-74 Assorted techniques.
Athens 1265 61r 10 23 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :151
Athens 1275 49v 10 25 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :101
Athens 1350 2r 10 27
Athens 1506 26r-v 10 32 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :142-44.
Athens 211 46r-48v 10 50 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :133-35
Athos Esphimenou 267 unstated Lampros, KaTailoyo£;, 1:195, no. 2280
Athos Panteleemon 787 134r Lampros, KaTailoyo£;, 2:433, no. 6294
Berlin 1 73 1 73v-175r 7 61
Bonn 3632 274r-278r 4 41
Cambridge BibL Univ. Gg. 1 .2 29r-30v 9.2 41 Multiple techniques.
Cambridge CoiL S. Trinit. 15v 9.2 49-50
R.15.36
Cambridge CoiL S. Trinit. 1 7v-18v 9.2 50
R.15.36
Erlangen Univ. ms. 93 l lv-12v 7 75
Florence LXXXVI, 14 37 Described in Bandini, Catalogus,
3:338ff. See Desrousseaux, "Sur
quelques manuscripts d'Italie."
349
CCAG
City Codex Foliis vol. page Comments
Florence LXXXVI, 14 37r-39v 4 75
Jerusalem Patr. libr. 1 v-2v Papadopoulos-Kerameus,
'lEpoaoi\Vf.I!TLK� �c�i\ w8r]KT), 4:189,
no. 220
London Add. 36753 217v 9.2 32
London Harl. 5596 5v-6r 9.2 14-15
Madrid BN 461 6 82v-83v 1 1 .2 59 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:139-42
Madrid BN 4616 83v-84v 1 1 .2 59-60 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:142-44
Madrid BN 4616 84v-86r 1 1 .2 60 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:145-47
Madrid BN 4631 158-159v 1 1 .2 72-73 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:139-40 n. 1
See Iriarte, Regiae bibliothecae
matritensis codices graeci mss, 438-39
Meteoron Mon. Barlaam 204 1 82v-185v See Bees, Manuscrits des Meteores,
2:323. Fols. 184v-185v includes a list
of personal names and their
reduction mod 9.
Modena 85 (III, C, 6) 77r-v 4 31
Moscow Mus. Hist. Mos. 78rv 12 75
gr. 415 ( Vladim.
=
509)
Munich 287 1 34v-135v 7 21 Ed. Hardt, Catalogus, 3:204-5.
Naples II.C.33 (olim 34) 237r 4 54-55 For Cumont's a<w>T<r]>Q<o>c; read
m[au]Q[6)c;.
Naples II.C.33 (olim 34) 44r-v 4 53
Oxford Auct. F.4.14 304r-305r 9.1 75
Oxford Auct. T.V.8 248 9.1 94
Oxford Barocc. 95 307r-308r 9.1 14 Example given is that of Zeno, not
Hector.
Oxford Cromw. 12 1 213r-v 9.1 50
Oxford Misc. gr. f.2 72v-75r 9.1 57-58
Oxford Misc. gr. f.2 76v-77r 9.1 58
Paris Supp. gr. 464 8v-10v =Hippolytus, Refu tation of All
Heresies 4.13-15, ed. Marcovich
Paris gr. 2009 1 r-2v 8.3 11 Ed. Tannery, "Notice," 248-52;
Sti.idele, Briefe des Pythagoras, 357-58
Paris gr. 2256 593v 8.3 23 Ed. Tannery, "Notice," 248-52
Paris gr. 2419 32r-33r 8.1 26-27 Ed. Tannery, "Notice," 255-60
Paris gr. 2419 33r 8.1 26 Chart of the nine days of the week.
Ed. Tannery, "Notice," 248-52.
Paris gr. 2426 16 8.3 62
Paris gr. 322 1 4v 8.4 95
Paris Supp. gr. 1 148 1 82r-184v 8.3 86 Multiple techniques
Paris Supp. gr. 2244 319v 8.3 21
Paris Supp. gr. 2256 593v-594r 8.3 23
Paris Supp. gr. 2316 335r-v 8.3 36 Multiple techniques
Paris Supp. gr. 2426 1 6r 8.3 62
Paris Supp. gr. 637 58r-v 8.3 76
Paris Supp. gr. 696 64r-66r 8.4 86-87 Multiple techniques
350
CCAG
Rome Palatinus Vat. 312 1v-2r 5.4 72 Multiple techniques
Rome Palatinus Vat. 73 2r 5.4 67 Only the plinths mentioned.
Rome Vat. gr. 952 (olim 1 68v 5.4 10
740)
Rome Vat. gr. 952 (olim 1 69r 5.4 10 Specimen o f the variant Patient
740) versus the stars?
Rome Vat. gr. 952 (olim 1 70r-174v 5.4 1 0-1 1 Includes chart of men's names,
740) reduced mod 9. Some entries may be
reclassified based on a more secure
reading, esp. of fol. 1 74.
St. Bibl. Publicae gr. 1 1 8r-122v 12 33-34 Multiple techniques
Petersburg 575
St. Bibl. Publicae gr. 11 12 55
Petersburg 576
St. Bibl. Publicae gr. 26v 12 56-57
Petersburg 576
Turin C, VII, 15 (c, I, 43) 39v-39bisv 4 5 Pasini, 283
Vienna phil. gr. 108 pinax chap. 7 6 2 Title only
An Arabic form of this technique is discussed by Bouche-Leclercq, Histoire de la Divination,
1 :263.
2. PETOSIRIS TO NECHEPSO
The prognostic text of Petosiris, named after the pseudepigraphal letter often prefaced,
purports to predict primarily whether a sick person will recover or not.10 Hippolytus,
mentioning the use of psephisms to tell whether or not a doctor will heal someone easily,
possibly refers to this technique when he mentions "the wisdom of the Egyptians."1 1 If so,
10 The letter is also ascribed to others. In Vat. gr. 432, f. 138v; Vat. gr. 509, f. 31 lv; and Vat. gr. 578, f.
176r-v it is said to be written by a priest Florentinos to Ptolemy. Par. gr. 985, f. 316r assigns it to
Pythagoras.
11 Refutation of All Heresies 4.44.3: liMa Ked i.a-rQ6c; < nc;> Of10L0 ¢T]cjx,u CxQQWmovc; 8 t:Qamun· t:i. bE.
ivavTLa � lJnlcj>oc;, ov 8t:Qamun (>qblwc;. TOUTOLc; TOLe; CxQL8f10Lc; nQOa!:'XOVTEc;, oaa OflOLa lJ
i\oy(i:.;ovnn Ka-ra -r6vbt: -rov vouv, o< i.> flEV Ka-ra cj>wvf]t:v-ra f16va, oi bE. Ka-ra m:Xv-ra -rov CxQL8f16v.
TOLaUTll Kat r'] Ai.yurn(wv aocj>(a, bt' Tic; TO 8 t:iov boE_ai:.;ov-rt:c; ytvwGKnv VOfl Ll;ovmv. Marcovich
351
then this is the earliest securely dated reference (early third century) we have to this
technique.
The Technique
The method of Petosiris lends itself to predicting the capture of slaves, the outcome
of one-on-one matches, and so forth. To begin, find the psephic value of the patient's name,
preferably his proper name. Next, find the lunar date on which he or she fell ill. Look up the
lunar date on a chart to get a second, larger number (see "The Lunar Chart," below). Now
add the psephic value of the patient's name to the appropriate number for the lunar date.
Reduce mod 29 (division charts occasionally accompany the text, to simplify the procedure).
The remainder is then checked against a chart, often in the shape of a wheel with eight
spokes- The Circle of Petosiris (on which, see below).
Michael Psellos distinguishes this technique, which he calls "the matters babbled by
Petosiris to Nechepso concerning life and death" (Orr6aa b[ T4J TinoaLQEL TIQOC:: NEXE'l\Jw
rrEcj:>AV£XQ11TaL TIEQL (wf]c:; Kat 8avaTou), from the technique ascribed to the Pythagoreans
(see above).12
added ntc;> in imitation of the previous sentence, concerning the medical application of plants whose
names' have auspicious psephic values. But his emendation suggests an unparalleled practice, the
choice of a particular physician based on his name's psephic value (see Marcovich's ed., 129 at line
1 1 ). I think it more likely that the original text was something like Ctl\Aa Kai. iaTQoc; (sc. i\oyta8ivTac;,
as in 4.44.3.13) 6!-LOLVW<c;> �f]¢cv liQQWaTovc; 8EQann)n, which makes the practice one of
prognostication, instead of folk medicine.
1 z Ed. Tannery, Diophantus 2:41; CCAG 8.1:131 .
352
The Lunar Chart
In the procedure, one factors in not the numeral of the lunar date but a psephic value
of the lunar date, spelled out. The lunar chart lists the psephic values of all thirty days in the
lunar month. There is considerable variation across the MSS. Neugebauer and Saliba have
successfully analyzed much of the rhyme and reason behind the way the charts assign
various numbers to different lunar dates.13 For instance, Lun 1 = 7TQW'r1J [ sc. iJftEQt:;t] = 1288.
..
Thus, if a person falls ill on the first of the lunar month, the psephic value of his or her name
will be added to 1288 (not 1 ) .
Neugebauer and Saliba, however, d o not mention additional rules that were used to
develop these tables. They have already noted that the psephic value of aE;\:r1VYJ (200 + 5 + 30
+ 8 + 50 + 8 = 301) is to be added to the psephic value of the spelled-out numeral to achieve
the number indicated on the charts.14 In addition, KOLAtJ, which has the psephic value of 138,
probably underlies the frequent variant where all dates of the lunar month (normally from
the 16th to the 30th) are 138 greater than the psephism of the ordinary numeral words.
Also, one variation makes the first element in a compound number take on its
adverbial form. Thus, 'rQL'rlJ KctL bEKlhlJ (= 1 088) is to be read 'rQLc; KctL bEKthlJ (= 979). This is
explained in Madrid BN 4616, fol. 87r, despite serious scribal errors. The method is
employed in Neugebauer and Saliba's 1<2, F, and H.15 The authors state that 1<2, representing
"the backbone of the whole numerical system," spells out word by word the numbers used
1 3 "On Greek Numerology."

1 4 Ibid., 200, 206 n 3.
1 s Ibid., 201 .
353
to construct the table, but they do not provide the Greek. An edition of Vat. gr. 852, fol. 1 86
remains a desideratum.
The Circle of Petosiris
The manuscripts attribute this diagram to Petosiris, although occasionally the Circle
is attributed to someone else.l6 In its most elaborate form, the Circle consists of eight radial
spokes, evenly distributed across the arc. The diagram is labeled in various parts by the
numbers one through twenty-nine or thirty. The sectors of the circle are also labeled. The
upper half is assigned to "life"; the lower, to "death." Each half is divided in three parts, and
"great," "medium," or "small" are assigned to each part. The location of the number within
the circle indicates the subject's fate, and its degree of intensity. The Circle has been
simplified in other manuscripts. Sometimes the numbers are listed on two lines. The
numbers in the upper row are associated with life, and those associated with death are
placed in the lower row. Other diagrams take the form of a cross designed so that the upper
quadrants represent life; the lower, death.
Neugebauer and Saliba reproduced one figure and four charts, showing the location
of each number on the scheme of life versus death. For instance Madrid BN 4616, fol. 87r
and Naples, II C33, fol. 310r give the following:

1 3 4 7 9 10 1 1 13 14 1 6 17 19 20 22 23 26 28 life
2 5 6 8 12 15 18 21 24 25 27 29 30 death
Observing the variations in the MSS, Neugebauer and Saliba did not attempt to
assign priority. They also noted that there is no obvious rhyme or reason to the distribution
16 In PGM 1 2.351-64 it is called the Sphere of Democritus.
354
of the numbers. Although they suggested there might be astrological motivations, they left
the problem open. Hopefully this list of manuscripts will assist in an eventual solution to
the problem, which, I suggest, cannot be answered without investigating all variations. This
is also why I discuss the auspicious days of the month, below.
Variations
Mod 30: Follow all rules, but use mod 30 instead of mod 29. Attested: Madrid 4616,
fol. 87r; Vienna, med. VIII, fol. 295v-296r (second method).
Otherfactors: Take the psephic value of the name, add ten, the hour of the moon, and
the number of the day. The result, mod 30, is checked on the two-line chart for victory.
Attested: Madrid 4616, fol. 87r(a).
Analyze separately lunar date and name: Perform the procedure separately on the lunar
date and the name of the subject. If the lunar number is "subterranean" (unoydcp) on the
Circle but the number of the name (reduced mod 29) is "above ground" (ypergio) the subject
will be in danger but eventually escape. If vice versa, then despite the appearance of good
things, misfortune will occur. If both numbers are above ground all will be well, but if both
are subterranean, misfortune is predicted. Attested: Florence Viet. pl. 38 cod. 24, fol. 174v.
Include name of mother: Follow all rules, but also add the psephic value of the subject's
mother's name. Attested: Angelicus 1 7, fol. 327r.
Calculate by the week: Follow all rules, but use psephic values attached, not to the
spelled-out lunar date, but to the spelling of the name of the day of the week. A chart is
attached, listing the psephic values for each day of the week, as well as the name of the god
ruling the feria. According to the abbreviated information in catalog entries, certain texts (in
this variation and, more broadly, across the numerological tradition) require the user to
355
know and incorporate the name of the god ruling the day. Attested: Madrid, BN 4616, fol.
75v; Cambridge, Bibl. Univ. Gg. 1 .2, fol. 30; Cambridge, Coli. S. Trin. R.15.36, fol. 23r.
Manuscripts
CCAG
Athens 1 350 1 08v-109r 10 30
Athens 1501 19 10 31 Could b e Pythagoras to Te/auges.
Athens 1 906 1 13v Polites, LV/17Ii\T)pW}llXTLKoi, 29. Title:
'l'fJ<jJoc; nu8ay6Qnoc; Cwf]c; Kai
8ava'wv. May be a hybrid
Berlin 1 73 81v--82r 7 53 Table of psephic values of stars and
days. Also, assignment of vowels to
planets
Bonn Univers. 3632 270r 4 40 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :573.
Technique uses mod 30
Cambridge CoiL S. Trinit. 19r 9.2 50
R.l 5.36
R.15.36
R.l5.36
Cambridge CoiL S. Trinit. 87r-88r 9.2 53
R.15.36
Cambridge CoiL S. Trinit. 77r-80r 9.2 47 Cf. "Arch. Pembr. sc. [70] 18. 4to.,"
0.7.39 which depends on this MS.
Cambridge Bib!. Univ. Gg. 30 9.2 41
1 .2
Florence LXXXVI, 14 95v-96v 4 76
Florence Plut. 28 cod. 14 pinax chap. 1 25 Title only
241
Florence Plut. 28 cod . 14 pinax chap. 1 25 Title only
243
Florence Viet. pl. 38 cod. 1 74v Riess, "Nechepsonis et Petosiridis
24 fragmenta magica," 382-83 no. 37
Florence Plut. 28 cod. 34 21 1 61
Florence Plut. 28 cod. 34 23r-v 1 61-62 Three charts for finding reductions
mod 29, mod 30, and mod 36
Krakow bib!. univ. 2526 98r-v 6 57 Gollob, 24
F.F.VI, 5
Lei den Vossianus gr. fol. 279v 9.2 94
59
Lei den P.Lugd.Bat. J 384 lines 351-64 PGM 12.351-64. Called the Sphere of
(V) Democritus
London Regius 16 C.II 50r 9.2 26
Madrid BN 4616 75v 1 1 .2 58 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:125
356
CCAG
Madrid BN 461 6 86v-87r(bis) 1 1 .2 60-61 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:148-49. Riess,
"Nechepsonis et Petosiridis
fragmenta magica," 386-87 no. 40
Madrid BN 4616 89r-90r 1 1 .2 61 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:152-53
Iriarte, 338-39; Riess, "Nechepsonis
et Petosiridis fragmenta magica,"
385-86 no. 39
Neugebauer & Saliba, 190 (Text F)
Madrid BN 4616 130r-131v 1 1 .2 69-70 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:163--64. Biblical
example given
Madrid BN 4631 159v 1 1 .2 73 Iriarte, 438-39
Milan H 2 inf. 246v-249v 3 15 Two methods listed
Milan H 2 in£. 252rv 3 15
Modena 85 (= III, C, 6) 78r-v 4 31
Modena 1 74 (II.F.9) 262r-263v 4 34-35 ed. CCAG 4:120-21
Neugebauer & Saliba, 190 (Text H;
corrects the CCAG)
Munich 287 136r 7 21 ed. Hardt, 206. Neugebauer & Saliba,
190 (Text E). Technique mod 30, plus
10, and chart in form of cross
Naples II.C.33 (olim 34) 1 7r 4 51
Naples II.C.33 (olim 34) 308r-309v 4 55-56 Neugebauer & Saliba, 121 (Text L )
Naples II.C.33 (olim 34) 310nr 4 56 Neugebauer & Saliba, 121 (Text L)
Oxford Barocdanus 70 379r-380v 9.1 4
Oxford Baroccianus 1 1 1 21 1 v 9.1 15
Oxford Baroccianus 1 66 1 63v-164r 9.1 19
Oxford Cromw. 1 2 (olim 1214r-1216v 9.1 50-51 Two examples of the technique
297) preserved.
Oxford Cromw. 1 2 (olim 457 (pinax to 9.1 46--47 Epistle of Petosiris to Nechepso, title
297) chap. 128) only, preserved in the Syntagma of
Hephaiston.
Paris supp. gr. 446 43v--44r 8.3 75-76 Example used is that of David and
Goliath
Paris supp. gr. 637 59r-v 8.3 76
Paris gr. 985 316r 8.4 5-6 Attributed to Pythagoras
Paris supp. gr. 1 148 77v 8.3 83
Paris gr. 1405 65v 8.3 6
Paris gr. 1405 67v-68v 8.3 6
Paris gr. 1405 81r 8.3 6
Paris gr. 1 991 48rv 8.1 4
Paris gr. 1991 50r-51r 8.1 4
Paris gr. 2009 2r 8.3 11 Tannery, 9:25. Neugebauer & Saliba,
1 90 (Text D)
Paris gr. 2139 1 15r-1 18r 8.3 12
Paris gr. 2139 90r-92r 8.3 12
Paris gr. 2184 211r-v 8.4 12
Paris gr. 2316 332r 8.3 34-35
357
CCAG
Paris gr. 2419 155v-156r 8.1 47--48 Ed. Berthelot, Introduction, 89-90),
Bouche-Leclerq, L 'astrologie grecque,
540, fig. 45 (Neugebauer & Saliba
note [ 1 90): "with incorrect
emendation" ). See also Riess,
"Nechepsonis et Petosiridis
fragmenta magica," 387 no. 42,
Neugebauer & Saliba, 1 90 (Text B)
Paris gr. 2419 32r 8.1 26 Ed. Berthelot, Introduction, 87-88),
Bouche-Leclerq, L'astrologie grecque,
539, fig. 44. See also Tannery, 9:42-
50; Riess, "Nechepsonis et Petosiridis
fragmenta magica," 387 no. 41;
Neugebauer & Saliba, 1 90 (Text A)
Paris gr. 2419 33r 8.1 26 Tannery, 9:47 no. 9; N eugebauer &
Saliba, 190 (Text G)
Paris gr. 2426 16r 8.3 62 Tannery, Memoires Scientifiques, 9:40-
43, photo opp. 29; Neugebauer &
Saliba, 190 (Text C ' )
Paris gr. 2426 6r 8.3 60 Neugebauer & Saliba, 1 90 (Text C)
Paris gr. 2509 120 8.4 68 Epistle of Petosiris to Nechepso, title
only, preserved in the Syntagma of
Hephaiston.
Paris 2847 1 69rv 8.4 72
Paris 2847 1 70v-172v 8.4 72
Paris gr. 2892 1 r-2r 8.4 73
Paris gr. 2992 372r-373r 8.4 73-74
Rome Barberinianus 7r-8r 5.4 35
Vat. 1 14
Rome Barberinianus 9r 5.4 36
Vat. 1 14
Rome Palatinus Vat. l r, 2r 5.4 72
312
Rome Vat. gr. 285 ( olim 301v 5.4 5-6
224)
Rome Vat. gr. 509 ( olim 31 1v 5.4 7 Said to be by a priest, ¢lAWQ£VTivoc;,
338) to Ptolemy.
Rome Vat. gr. 915 47v 5.4 8
Rome Rossianus Vat. 388v-389r 5.4 108
986 (olim XI 136)
Rome Vat. gr. 578 ( olim 1 76rv 5.4 7-8 Said to be by a priest, G>AwQEVTivoc;,
610) to Ptolemy.
Rome Vat. gr. 432 (olim 138v 5.4 6-7 Said to be by a priest, G>AwQEVTivoc;,
931) to Ptolemy.
Rome Vat. gr. 1379 1 1 1r-112v 5.3 71-72
Rome Vat. gr. 952 ( olim 137v-138r 5.4 8
740)
358
CCAG
Rome Vat. gr. 952 ( olim 1 68v-169v 5.4 10 Circle ofPetosiris. Neugebauer &
740) Saliba, 121 (Text K1)
Rome Vat. gr. 952 ( olim 1 75r-176r 5.4 11 Epistle from TinwoUQT]c; to king
740) Bcxvt/Jw. Neugebauer & Saliba, 1 21
(Text K1)
Rome Vat. gr. 952 (olim 184v-186v 5.4 1 1-12 Neugebauer & Saliba, 121 (Text Kz)
740)
Rome Vat. gr. 1077 197r 5.4 14 Only chart of psephic value for days
(olim 770) of the week and the associated god's
name. CCAG cites the psephic value
of Kg6vou as .<j>' (sic), a scribal or
editorial error for tji'.
St. Bib!. Acad. 65v 12 6 Title: Tou ainov [= Leo the Wise]
Petersburg Scient. XX Aa-8 tjifJcj:>oc; bwywuonKI'l (<ufJc; Kat
8avcnov
St. Bib!. Publ. gr. 26r 12 56
Petersburg 576
Uppsala gr. 5 1 1 7v (new = 9.2 1 08
120v)
Venice Marcianus 335 380 2 70 Epistle of Petosiris to Nechepso, title
only, preserved in the Syntagma of
Hephaiston.
Venice Marcianus 336 259r 2 72
Vienna Nessel. 7 cod. 294r-296v Two methods outlined
med. VIII
Vienna med. gr. 8 294r-v 6 56 Hunger & Kresten, Katalog 50
Vienna philos. gr. 37 288-90 6 50 Epistle of Petosiris to Nechepso,
collected in the Syntagma of
Hephaiston. Unlike other three
specimens, entire text is preserved.
Vienna phil. gr. 108 pinax chap. 6 6 2 Title only
Vienna phil. gr. 1 79 122v 6 35 Technique mod 30. Hunger, Katalog,
287
Latin versions are found in pseudo-Bede, De divinatione mortis et vitae (PL 90:963-66), and
John of Mirfeld, Aldridge's trans., 71 . The Catalan tradition is discussed by Lucas, Astrology
and Numerology, 50-56.
359
3. METHOD OF CHALETH (CHAETH/CHAEL) OR METHOD OF LEO THE WISE
(BIBLICAL NUMERICAL PROGNOSTICATION)
It is well known that many early Christians randomly selected portions of the Bible to help
interpret their circumstances or tell the future. The famous example is Augustine, who used
this method while he sat in the garden at Milan to contemplate whether or not he should
become a ChristianP Less well known is that there were formalized techniques for doing so.
The Method of Chaleth combines the finding of a random passage with numerological
calculation. The text is sometimes called a revelation to Chaleth (said in some texts to be one
of the seventy-two translators of the Septuagint) and sometimes ascribed to Leo the Wise,
the ninth century emperor and litterateur. The method is used to determine whether a
specified course of action should be pursued or not.
The Technique
My description of the method follows Delatte's edition of Athens, 210, fols. 20r-26v,
the best edition of the text so far. After praying to the Trinity and the Theotokos the inquirer
is to take the Gospels or the Psalter and pick a line at random. Take the first four letters of
the line as the answer, which is deciphered in the following manner.
All letters are classified as single or double, based on their value as alphabetic
numerals. Single letters are a, y, � E, (., 8, A, v, o, Q, 1:, ¢, l[J and double (literally "yoked" :
'
(.uya) letters are �, b, TJ, L, K, !J., E,, n a, u, x, w . Note that the letters in th e first series have
numerical values that are odd when reduced mod 10; those in the second series, even
values. (The assignment of the episemon to the single letters is strange for three reasons:
1 7 See his defense of this decision at his Letter 55.20.37.
360
neither the qoppa nor the sampi are included; the episemon is out of order; and its value of
six would suggest it belongs in the second list.)
Take the four randomly drawn letters and convert them to a sequence of singles and
doubles based on their classification as single or double. Since there are four letters drawn,
there are sixteen possible combinations. The inquirer then consults a sixteen-item list and
finds the one assigned to his or her combination of singles and doubles. This is the
interpretation of the question.
Each item in the list is assigned a descriptive name often associated with astrology.
For example, a combination of four single letters is called Path (6b6c;), and it implies a
beneficial outcome to the matter in question. A combination of four double letters is called
People (Aa6c;) and Summation (auvaQL8!-16s), and it implies strife and a detrimental
outcome to the matter in question. The list is of the same type as those used in geomancy
(on which, see below). There is probably a genetic connection between the two prognostic
techniques, but scholarly investigation into the matter has slowed after the work of Tannery
and Delatte.18
Manuscripts
CCAG
Paris gr. 2419 226v-241v 8.1 49-53 Delatte and Delatte, "Un traite
byzantin de geomancie."
Athens Hist. Soc. 210 20r-25v 10 46 Ed. Delatte, A necdota, 1 :1 05-10
Berlin 75 l r--4v 7 33 Attr. to Leo the Wise
Florence LXXXVI.14 28v-29v 4 74 Attr. to Leo the Wise
J s Tannery, "Rabolion"; Delatte, Anecdota, passim; Delatte and Delatte, "Traite byzantin." Tannery has
a chart detailing the descriptive names of the items in the list. For an assessment of scholarship since
then, and prospects for determining the relations between the various forms of geomancy, see van
Binsbergen, "Astrological Origin," and Charmasson, "Lectura Geomantiae."
361
CCAG
Jerusalem Patriarch. Libr. 272r-275v Papadopoulos-Kerameus,
502 1Epoaoi\Vf1LTLKT) {3tf3i\w8r)K1J, 1 :455
Attr. to Chaleth
London Brit. Mus. cod. 1v-3r 9.2 14 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :388-91
Harleianus 5596
Madrid Scor. II. <:1>.14 44r-45r 1 1 .1 111
N aples II.C.33 (olim 34) 43 4 53
Oxford B aroccianus 111 205v-21 1 r 9 15
Oxford Baroccianus 1 1 1 216r-219r 9.1 16
Paris gr. 1043 73v 8.3 4 Attr. to Chaleth
Paris gr. 2406 81r 8.4 20 Attr. to Charouth
Paris gr. 2494 58v-60r 8.3 64 To Chael/Chaleth. Ed. Delatte,
Anecdota, 1 :557-61 .
Paris supp. gr. 1 191 33r-34v 8.3 87 Attr. to Chaeth/Chaleth
Paris supp. gr. 223 Br-Dr 8.4 77 Ed. Drexl, 332, as app. crit. to
Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :557-61.
Paris supp. gr. 338 185v 8.4 78
Paris supp. gr. 696 30v 8.4 85
Rome Vat. gr. 952 (olim 1 65v-166v 5.4 9 Attributed to Nikolaos
740) Chartophylax, metropolitan of
Thessalonike
Torino C.VII.lO (B.VI.12) 4r-v 4 5
4. TECHNIQUE OF HERMES (DECAN PROGNOSTICATION)
This tedmique is most similar to Petosiris to Nechepso, but it employs conventions of the
Egyptian calendar, and the resultant chart is based on predictable arithmetical patterns. The
method is used to determine whether and how a patient will recover from sickness. The
manuscripts often attribute the technique to Hermes Trismegistos.
362
The Technique
Take the day upon which the subject fell ill and count the number of days it comes
after 25 Epifi. Add 870.19 Reduce the sum mod 36. The result is checked against a table of
outcomes, specifying life or death, or stipulating the kind of recovery. Usually the table
consists merely of three lines with all numbers 1 through 36 distributed evenly: 1, 4, 7, . . . ; 2,
5, 8, . . . ; 3, 6, 9, . . ..
Variation
Coun t from the vernal equinox: All rules apply, but start counting the number of days
from May 18.20 Nothing is specified about reckoning the subject's name, adding 870, or other
psephic elements. Apply mod 36 to this sum and consult the 36-element chart. Attested: St.
Petersburg, Acad. Mus. Palaeogr., fol. 1 1 7; Paris, gr. 2419, fol. 33r; Athens, cod. 1275, fol. 46.;
B erlin, 173, fols. 1 19v-120r.
Manuscripts
CCAG
Athens 1275 46 10 25 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :151
Berlin 1 73 1 19v-120r 7 55 Ed. CCAG 7:191
Bonn Univ. 3632 270 4 40 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :572-73
Cambridge Bibl. Univ. Gg. 30v 9.2 41
1 .2
Florence Plut. 28, cod. 13 239v 1 20
1 9 Neugebauer and Saliba ("On Greek Numerology," 196) suggest that 870 is a psephism, but do not
attempt to suggest the word or phrase that underlies the sum.
20 This date is signifies either the vernal equinox at the time this text was composed, or the reputed
day of Creation. If the former, then the technique would be date approximately to the sixth or
seventh century, when the equinox would be observed three days earlier than its date on the
calendar. If the latter, then the text cannot be dated precisely, but its circle of origination might be
identified.
363
CCAG
Florence Plut. 28, cod. 14 pinax, chap. 1 25 Title only
240
Florence Plut. 28, cod. 34 20r 1 61 Ed. CCAG 1 :1 28. The three lines are
labeled ( K, and 8 for (wTJ,
KLVDUVQS, and eavaToc;
Madrid BN 4616 87v 1 1 .2 61 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:149-50
Munich gr. 287 135v 6 21 Hardt, 205
Naples II.C.33 (olim 34) 3 l l r-312r 4 56
Paris supp. gr. 1148 92v-93v 8.3 84
Paris gr. 1405 67v 8.3 6
Paris gr. 2139 87v 8.3 12
Paris gr. 2327 293 Described in Berthelot, Origenes, 35
Paris gr. 2419 33r 8.1 26-27 Tannery, 259 no. 1 1
Rome Barb. Vat. 127 203v 5.4 57
(olim 340)
Rome Vat. gr. 952 ( olim 184v 5.4 11
740)
St. Acad. Mus. 117 12 24
Petersburg Palaeogr.
St. Bib!. Acad. 126 12 7
Petersburg Scient. XX Aa-8
Vienna phil. gr. 179 122v 6 35 Hunger, 287
5. APPROVED PSEPHOS CONCERNING THE SICK (MEDICAL PROGNOSIS, USING THE
FERIA)
The title I have assigned to this brief technique comes from the Greek, Wf]¢oc; TrEQL
tXQQWCJ'rouvrwv b6KLf..toc; (Paris, gr. 1991, fol. 49v). The method allows one to learn the
chances of the recovery of a patient, according to the d ay of the week of the start of the
illness. If the patient is to die, one can use the same technique to learn the day of the week of
the impending death.
The Technique
Take the psephic value of the subject's name, and reduce mod 3. Find out the day on
which the patient fell ill. If on a Sund ay or Wednesday, and if the remainder is 1, he or she
364
lives; if 2, has a long sickness; and if 3, dies. If the patient fell ill on Monday or Thursday,
and if the remainder is 1, he or she dies; if 2, gets healthy; if 3, will be sick for a long time.
The other three days are also listed.
If the subject is expected to die, then take the psephic value of the patient's name and
reduce mod 3. If the remainder is 1, expected death on Tuesday, Friday, or Saturday; if 2,
Monday or Thursday; if 3, Sunday or Wednesday.
Manuscripts
CCAG
Bonn Univers. 3632 270v 4 40 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :573
Florence Plut. 28 cod. 34 22v 1 61
Modena 1 74 (= II.F.9) 263r 4 34-35
Paris gr. 1405 67r 8.3 6
Paris gr. 1 991 49v 8.1 4
Paris gr. 231 6 333r 8.3 35
Paris gr. 2847 1 70r 8.4 72
Rome Barb. Vat. 1 14 8v 5.4 36
Rome Barb. Vat. 127 204r 5.4 57
Rome Palatinus Vat. 73 2 5.4 66-67 Chart only
Rome Vat. gr. 952 1 86r 5.4 12
Vienna philos. gr. 1 79 122v 6 35 Hunger, Katalog, 288
6. ZODIACAL ISOPSEPHY
This technique is a preliminary step to an astrological calculation. It is used to discover the
house under which the subject was born, presumably for cases where the birthday is
unknown.
The Technique
Instead of determining dates and times of birth, psephic calculations are made on the
subject(s) and their kin. To discover a person's planet of birth, find the psephic value of his
or her name and his or her parents. Reduce this mod 7. The result is the planet under which
365
he or she was born. The same technique may apply to find a zodiacal sign for a couple: add
the psephic value of the names of the groom and his mother, then do the same for the bride
and her father. Reduce both numbers mod 1 2. The results are assigned to a house of the
zodiac and its appropriate element (earth, water, air, or fire), then the compatibility of the
couple is assessed by consulting the values in a table.
Manuscripts
CCAG
Athens 355 92v 10 4 Ed. CCAG 10:57
Athens 1265 28v 10 15 E d . Delatte, A necdota, 1 :68
Athens 1265 49 10 21 Ed. CCA G 10:98-99
Athens 1265 50v-51r 10 21 E d . CCAG 10:99-100
Berlin 1 73 1 1 9v 7 55 Ed. CCAG 7:191
Paris supp. gr. 1 148 92v 8.3 84
7. HYBRID TECHNIQUES
Greek numerology is effusive and diverse. There are many texts that blend or adapt the
better-known techniques. What follows are some of the most interesting hybrids.
1 . To learn the outcome of a prospective job, investigate the day i t starts, and add to
this number the letters of the inquirer's name by assigning one to alpha, nine to beta, and so
on.21 Add the name of the planet for the day, and the name of the city. The sum, reduced
mod 12, yields the number of days, weeks, months, or years the job will take. The success of
the job is determined by the sum of the names of the boss, of the planet, and of the city. If
21 What numbers were assigned to what letters is not extant, and is assumed to be known to the
reader. Compare the variation "Value Reassignment" under "Pythagoras to Telauges," above.
366
this sum, reduced mod 9, is even it will be unlucky; if odd, lucky. Attested: Madrid, BN
4616, fol. 86v (CCAG 1 1 .2:60; ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:148).
2. Take 301 (the psephic value of crEi\.ftvll) and add to it the number of feet in your
shadow at the time of inquiry. Reduce this sum mod 8. If the result is even, expect
misfortune; if odd, fortune. Attested: Madrid, BN 4616, fol. 86v (CCAG 1 1 .2:60; ed. CCAG
1 1 .2:148).
3. Find the psephic value of the patient's name, and reduce this mod 3. The result is
checked on a table of seven lines, one for each day of the week, representing the day upon
which the patient fell ill. The appropriate entry states whether the patient will live, die, or
remain sick for a long time. Compare the three-line table used in the Technique of Hermes,
discussed above. Attested: Madrid, BN 4616, fol. 87v (CCAG 1 1 .2:61; ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:150).
4. The psephic value of the patient's name, after reduction mod 3, indicates the day
of the week upon which he or she will die. Attested: Madrid, BN 4616, fol. 88r (CCAG
1 1 .2:61; ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:150); Oxford, Baroccianus 1 1 1, fol. 123 (CCAG 9.1:14-15); Leiden,
Vossianus gr. Fol. 59, fol. 284r (CCAG 9.2:95).
5. The number of syllables in the names of a married couple are counted and
checked against the list of zodiacal signs to determine who will outlive whom. Attested:
Athens, 21 1, fol. 48v (CCAG 1 0:50; ed. CCAG 1 0:243).
6. In Paris, gr. 2419, fols. 143v-144r (CCAG 8.1 :45-46; ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :451-
55) a whole litany of uncommon numerological procedures appear in Book 2, chap. 89 of a
miscellany attributed to George Mitiales. The instructions are tersely worded, which
suggests that the reader should already know the preliminary steps necessary to determine
367
the required number before reduction mod x. The individual methods, in their MS order,
are as follows:
• Add together the psephic values of the subject's name, the name of the planet
ruling the day (to find this consult the table), and the "chapters of things
inquired of" (presumably the number of an item in a long list of topics, similar
to lists as employed in the Sortes Astrampsych1). Reduce this sum mod 8. The
result indicates the subject matter to be inquired of. (The numbers one through
eight are assigned to different topics of inquiry.)
• To find something lost. If reduction mod 2 equals 1, it will not be found; if 2, it
will. Reduce mod 7 to learn the kind of place where it will be found. (Numbers
1 through 7 are assigned to various things and places.)
• To know the sex of an expected child. If reduction mod 2 equals 1, it is a male; if 2, a
female.
• To know if he will take the woman he wants. If reduction mod 2 equals 1, he will
not take her; if 2, he will.
• To know if the woman is bad. If reduction mod 3 equals 1, she is bad; if 2 or 3, she
is good.
• To know if the woman is a virgin. If reduction mod 3 equals 1, then she is not; if 2,
she is; if 3, she is not, but because of a slave.
• To know if she loves you. If reduction mod 4 equals 1, then she does not love you;
if 2 or 4, she does; if 3, she is indifferent.
• To discern recovery of health. If reduction mod 3 equals 1, then death is expected;
if 2, then life; if 3, then a long sickness.
368
• Concerning soldiery (aTQan:lac;). If reduction mod 2 equals 1, he doesn't go; if 2,
he goes.
• To know if the path is good. If reduction mod 3 equals 1, it is bad; if 2, good; if 3,
difficult.
• Concerning av8EV'tla and life. Reduce mod 7 and check the result against chart.
(Included is a seven-item list detailing what is to be expected.)
• To know about the recovery of a theft. If reduction mod 12 equals 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, or
12 expect discovery; if 2, 5, 7, 8, or 1 1, then do not.
• To know the whereabouts of a slave or runaway animal. Reduce mod 12. Check
against the list. (Included is a twelve-item list detailing locales.)
• To know what will happen in a regnal year. Reduce mod 7 and check the result
against chart. (Included is a seven-item list detailing what is to be expected.)
• To know the whereabouts of a runaway. Reduce mod 12. Check against the list.
(Included is a fragmentary twelve-item list detailing locales.)
• To know the whereabouts of a hidden thing. Reduce mod 12. Check against the list.
(Included is a twelve-item list detailing locales.)
• Regarding fear. If reduction mod 2 equals 1, have no fear; if 2, have fear.
• To know about the fate of a traveler. If reduction mod 3 equals 1, the traveler is
delayed but will eventually return; if 2, there will be a quick return; if 3, the
traveler died.
• To know if he died. If reduction mod 3 equals 1, yes; if 2, he is sick; if 3, he is not
well (KaK6c;).
369
• Concerning war. If reduction mod 4 equals 1, your enemy wins; if 2, you win; if
3, there will be peace; if 4, war.
• To find out where a thief is from. If reduction mod 3 equals 1, he is a neighbor; if 2,
he is of your household; if 3, he is a stranger.
• Concerning color. If reduction mod 5 equals 1, then black; if 2, white; if 3, red; if
4, yellow; if 5, dappled.
• To know if runaways will be retrieved. If reduction mod 2 equals 1, he will not be
found; if 2, he will.
• Concerning living together. If reduction mod 2 equals 1, it will be bad; if 2, good.
• To know if the missing thing is in that place or not. If mod 2 equals 1, then yes; if 2,
then it is elsewhere.
• To know where the lost thing is. Reduce mod 7 and check against the list.
(Included is a seven-item list detailing locales.)
7. Add together the following: 3, the lunar day, and the psephic value of the name
of the subject who saw the dream. Reduce this sum mod 8. Refer to Psalm 1-8. The number
of Psalm matching the remainder holds the key to the interpretation of the dream. Attested:
Paris, gr. 251 1, fols. 26v-27r (CCAG 8.4:70; ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :526).
8. Add together the following: the quantity of the lunar day; the day of the month
on which the dream was seen; the number of syllables of the name of the subject who saw
the dream; the four evangelists and the prophet Daniel (this instruction is not explained
further); and the day, whatever it may be. Reduce the sum (by an unspecified denominator)
to find the right Psalm, which explains the dream. Attested: Paris, gr. 2315, fol. 239r (CCAG
8.3:28; ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :546-47).
370
9. Take a couple, and count the number of syllables in each name. Starting from
Aries, move that number of houses across the Zodiac. If the number is exhausted by the
time you get to Leo, the man will die before the woman. If the number goes to Virgo or
beyond, the man will outlive the woman. Attested: Athens, 241, fols. 48v-49r (CCAG 1 0:50;
ed. CCAG 1 0:243).
10. Add together the following: the psephic value of the subject's name, the day on
which he or she inquires, the seven vowels (this instruction is not explained further), and
the number of lunar days. Take the sum and reduce mod 3. If the result is 1, expect good; if
2, neither good nor bad; if 3, bad. Attested: Berlin, 173, fol. 120r (CCAG 7:55; ed. CCAG
7:191); Paris, supp. gr. 1 148, fol. 93r (CCAG 8.3:84).
8. AUSPICIOUS DAYS OF THE MONTH
A number of charts list, day-by-day through the lunar month, which days are auspicious for
what activities, or stipulate what conditions will determine whether a patient who gets sick
on that day will recover or die. These texts seem related to the Hippocratic tradition, which
considered different days to be critical for the outcome of a sickness, and The Circle of
Petosiris. It is likely that some numerological or astrological principle helps determine
whether a given day is full of life or death (and how much), or how long or troubled the
recovery will be. Neugebauer and Saliba attempted to determine this principle based on
their study of a handful of manuscripts, but failed to find anything satisfactory, and left the
problem open. If the problem is to be solved, then all the relevant texts must be studied. The
list below will hopefully assist in this effort.
371
The manuscripts cover several distinct texts or text types, both pagan and Christian.
One pagan model assigns to each day a Greek god. In Christian usage, this type is converted
into a revelation from God to Esdras, and each day of the month is assigned to a biblical
figure or event, from Adam up through Samuel. Some lists help determine whether a dream
is auspicious or not, depending upon which lunar day it is dreamt. Other lists simply list in
two rows the "lit" and "unlit" days of the month, similar to the greatly simplified Circle of
Petosiris, discussed above. Not all texts that purport to be "selenodromia" are also
"auspicious days" texts, but many of them are labeled as such.22
It is worth noting that there is a variant of these "auspicious days" lists, one that
itemizes the auspicious hours of the days of the week (e.g., Harleianus 6295, fol. 142r [CCAG
9.2:23]), or auspicious hours of the lunar month. I have chosen to include in the table only
auspicious days of the month because of their affinity to the texts of Petosiris to Telauges.
Further research, however, may show distinct numerological patterns in all these lists.
None of these manuscripts have been studied in detail. Rather than attempting to
separate the types based on CCAG entries that are sometimes too incomplete for full
identification I have incorporated all discemable auspicious-days texts into a single table,
without differentiating the various types that are no doubt present.
Manuscripts
CCAG
Athens 1 005 96r-97r 10 7-8 Esdras
Athens 1275 105r 10 30 Selenodromion. Ed. Delatte,
Anecdota, 1 :204-5
22
For further discussion, see Cumont, "Presages lunaires," which discusses pagan archetype and
Christian revision.
372
CCAG
City Codex Follis vol. page Comments
Athens 1 275 22r-25v 10 23 Biblical characters. Selenodromion of
David and Solomon. Ed. CCAG
10:1 22-26
Athens 1 275 26r 10 23 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :1 82-83
Selenodromion (David and
Solomon)
Athens 1 275 44v 10 25 Esdras. Ed. CCAG 10:136-37
Athens 1 275 46v--47r 10 25 Ed. CCAG 10:137-38
Athens 1 275 47v--48r 10 25 Ed. CCAG 10:138-39
Athens 1 275 48v--49r 10 25 Attributed to BouKOUQ£aT[ou. Ed.
CCAG 10:139
Athens 1 350 79v 10 29 Biblical characters. Ed. CCAG
10:1 96-200
Athens 1506 26v-27r 10 32 Biblical characters/Esdras
Athens 1506 28r 10 32
Athens 462 185v 10 4 Esdras
Athens 879 274v 10 7 Esdras
Athens Bib!. Sen. Athen. 84 69r 10 47
Athens Bib!. Soc. hist. 210 57v-58r 10 47
Athens Bib!. Soc. hist. 211 38r-39r 10 50 Esdras
Athens Bib!. Soc. hist. 21 1 49v-56v 10 50 Ed. CCAG 10:243--47
Athos Iveron 1 74 25v-28v Selenodromion of David. Lampros,
KaTaAoyo<;, 2:46, no. 4294
Athos Iveron 174 35r--40r Selenodromion of David. Lampros,
KaTaAoyo<;, 2:204, no. 4809
Athos Docheiarios 243 130r-131v Lampros, Kaux,ioyo<;, 1 :260, no. 2917
Athos Koutloumousios 177 67r-69v Lampros, KaTaAoyo<;, 1 :291, no. 3250
Berlin 1 68 llv 7 43 Selenodromion attributed to
patriarch Nikephoros
Berlin 1 73 150r-152r 7 59 Diagnostic device of lunar days
Berlin 1 73 177r-1 80v 7 62 Selenodromion/Biblical characters
Berlin 1 73 182r 7 62 Lit/unlit days
Berlin 1 73 83r 7 53 Lit/unlit days
Berlin 314 291v 7 65
Bonn 3632 333v 4 44 Selenodromion
Cambridge Coli. S. Trin. R.15.36 122v 9.2 54
Dresden Bib!. reg. pub!. Da 257r-262r 7 70
33
Erlangen Univ. Ms. 93 6r-1 0v 7 75 Selenodromion
Florence Antinori Chartae. 242r-245 1 74 Biblical characters
Florence LXXXVI, 14 121 r-v 4 76 Includes lit/unlit days
Leiden Vossianus gr. fol. 59 280v-282r 9.2 94
London p.Lond. 121 PGM 7.1 55-67
London Regius 16 C.II 49v 9.2 26
London Soc. Medic. Lond. 14 44r--46r 9.2 33 Esdras
Madrid BN 461 6 88r-v 1 1 .2 61 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:151-52
Madrid BN 4616 91r(bis) 1 1 .2 61-62 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:154-56
Madrid BN 461 6 92r-95r 1 1 .2 62 Ed. CCAG 1 1 .2:157-62
373
CCAG
Madrid Scorialensis I.R.14 153r-157r 10 9 Ed. CCAG 1 0:134-44
(erat III. 1"1.5; IV.I.l )
Meteoron Mon. Barlaam 204 1 62r-170r Melampous. Bees, Manuscrits des
Meteores, 2 :322
Milan A 45 supp. 20r-21v 3 3 Biblical characters
Milan E16 sup. 39v-46v 3 12 E d . CCAG 3:32-39
Milan E 1 6 sup. 47r 3 12 Selenodromion. Ed. CCAG 3:39-40
Milan E16 sup. 47v 3 12 Ed. CCAG 3:40
Milan H2 infer. 242v-243r 3 15 Ed. Delatte, Anecdota, 1 :631-32
Milan H2 infer. 243r-245r 3 15
Naples II.C.33 (olim 34) 237v 4 55 Selenodromion
Naples II.C.33 (olim 34) 396r-397v 4 58 Ed. CCAG 4:142-45
Oxford Baroccianus 1 1 1 212r 9.1 15
Oxford Baroccianus 1 1 1 214r-v 9.1 15
Oxford Baroccianus 166 164v-165r 9.1 19
Oxford Baroccianus 206 130r-v 9.1 22 Biblical characters
Oxford Baroccianus 224 1 9.1 24
Oxford Baroccianus 27 321v 9.1 3 To Sedrach
Oxford CoiL Line. gr. 7 193r-v 9.1 96 Melampous (6 i\a flnov�)
Oxford Dorvillianus 1 1 0 105v 9.1 52 Text called Curse of Solomon
Oxford Dorvillianus 1 1 0 1 06r-v 9.1 52 Two methods: lit and unlit days;
Melampous
Oxford Dorvillianus 1 1 0 107r-1 12v 9.1 52 Biblical characters
Oxford Misc. gr. f.2 78r-v 9.1 58
Oxford Misc. gr. f.2 82v-85v 9.1 58
Paris gr. 1612 79r 8.4 1 2-13
Paris gr. 1630 1 1 2r-v 8.3 10 Two lists
Paris gr. 1884 139v-140r 8.4 8-9 Two methods attributed to
Melampous. Ed. CCAG 8.4:103-4
Paris gr. 1884 150v-153r 8.4 9 Descriptive paragraphs for each
number of the day. Selenodromion.
Ed. CCAG 8 .4:105-7
Paris gr. 2149 165r-166r 8.3 13 To Esdras. Two lists
Paris gr. 2184 103r-v 8.4 15
Paris gr. 2184 21 1 r-212r 8.4 1 2-13 Two lists, both to Esdras
Paris gr. 2184 212v 8.4 13 Days of the week
Paris gr. 22 277r 8.3 3 To Esdras. Partial trans. in Nau,
"Analyse de deux opuscules
astrologiques," 14-15
Paris gr. 2243 648v-649r 8.3 17 To Esdras. Two lists
Paris gr. 2243 650v-654r 8.3 17 "Aristotle's" interpretation. No
Biblical characters. Partial trans. in
Nau, "Analyse de deux opuscules
astrologiques," 1 6
Paris gr. 2286 1 1 0r-1 1 1 r 8.3 26 Variation: days of the week. Still
directed to Esdras. Partial trans. in
374
CCAG
Paris gr. 2286 56r-57r 8.3 23-24 Several charts; Esdras. Ed.
Boissanade, "Traite alimentaire du
medicin Hierophile," 187
Paris gr. 2287 273r 8.4 12
Paris gr. 2292 373r 8.4 74 Esdras
Paris gr. 2294 137v 8.4 17
Paris gr. 2294 263r 8.4 17
Paris gr. 2313 23v-24r 8.4 12-13
Paris gr. 2315 239r 8.3 28 Selenodromion. Ed. Delatte,
Anecdota, 1 :546--47
Paris gr. 2316 329v-331v 8.3 34 Several lists
Paris gr. 2316 331r 8.3 34
Paris gr. 2316 331rv 8.3 34 Biblical characters
Paris gr. 2316 332v 8.3 35
Paris gr. 2316 428v 8.3 41 Selenodromion
Paris gr. 2316 438rv 8.3 42
Paris gr. 2317 13r 8.4 17 Days of the week
Paris gr. 2317 14r 8.4 17 Lit/unlit days
Paris gr. 2381 77r 8.3 53 Lit/unlit days
Paris gr. 2494 63v 8.3 64 Esdras. Two lists. Partial trans. in
Paris gr. 2511 26r 8.4 70 Selenodromion. Ed . Delatte,
Anecdota, 1 :525-26
Paris supp. gr. 1 148 144r-147r 8.3 85
Paris supp. gr. 1 148 189r-1 95r 8.3 86 Selenodromion/Biblical characters.
Partial trans. in Nau, "Analyse de
deux opuscules astrologiques," 1 6-
21
Paris supp. gr. 1 148 79v 8.3 83 Lit/unlit days
Paris supp. gr. 1 191 59v--64v 8.3 88 Partially translated in Nau, 16.
Prognostic device of lunar days.
Esdras
Paris supp. gr. 636 134r-136r 8.4 80 Several methods; two to Esdras
Paris supp. gr. 684 35r 8.3 80
Rome (Reginensis) Pii II 256v 5.4 1 06
Vat. 39
Rome Barb. Vat. 344 360r 5.4 61
Rome Palatinus Vat. 1 99 476v 5.4 69 Esdras
Rome Palatinus Vat. 220 8v 5.4 69 Esdras
Rome Palatinus Vat. 312 207r 5.4 95 Lit/unlit days
Rome Palatinus Vat. 363 379v 5.4 101 Biblical characters
Rome Rossianus Vat. 986 389r 5.4 1 08-9
Rome Vat. 299 (olim 235) 129r 5.4 6 Biblical characters
Rome Vat. 342 (olim 902) 280r 5.4 6
Rome Vat. 573 ( olim 607) 214r 5.4 7
Rome Vat. 952 (olim 740) 168v 5.4 10 Lit/unlit days
375
CCAG
Rome Vat. gr. 1 753 18v-20v 5.4 23 To Esdras. Numbers rather
insignificant in this version. Ed.
CCAG 5.4:155-63
St. Petersburg Acad. Mus. Palaeog. 1 1 6r 12 23
St. Petersburg Acad. Mus. Palaeog. 1 1 7v 12 24
Thessalonike Panepistemiou 87 23 Polites, Kcm:H oyo<;:, 82--83
Venice Marcianus 335 16v 2 38 Esdras
Vienna med. gr. 27 1 1 9r 6 56 Esdras. Hunger and Kresten, Katolog,
75
Vienna med. gr. 49 253r-259r 6 57 Selenodromion
Vienna philos. gr. 190 73r-v 6 51 Melampous/Esdras. Hunger, Katolog,
299
A Latin version is preserved in pseudo-Bede, De minutione sanguinis, sive, De phlebotomia (PL
90:959-62).
Sample of Arrangement of Auspicious and Inauspicious Days
In the following table a sample of MSS are collated to show at a glance some
common variations in the way days are assigned as auspicious or not. Plus signs (+) indicate
the day is regarded as auspicious; minus signs (-), inauspicious; plus and minus sign (±),
mixed or neutral. Any sign followed by a plus or minus sign in superscript represents a
qualified prognosis. For example, ±- represents a day that is mixed, but more negative than
positive. The sign 0 represents a value missing from the manuscript.
In the upper tier of the table are manuscripts with charts and lists that have simple,
binary values (e.g., the simplified Circle of Petosiris, lit versus unlit days). In the lower tier are
charts and lists with modified values (e.g., the Circle of Petosiris, which often distinguishes
between "great," "medium," and "small" death or life; likewise, the chart by Melampous
and its Christian versions specify exactly how dangerous or beneficial a given day is).
Manuscript 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Madr. BN4616:87 + + + - + - + + + - + + - + + - + + - + + + - +
Madr. BN4616:87 + - + + + - + + + - + + - + + - + + - + + - - + - + - -
376
Manuscript 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Madr. BN4616:61 (CCAG 1 1 .2:154) + + + - + - + + + - + + - + + - + + - + + - - + - + - -
Madr. BN 4631:159 + - + + - + + - - + - + + - -
Bonn Univ. 3632:270 + + - + "' + - + - + - -
Munich 287:136 + - - + + + - + - -
Naples IIC33:310 + - + + - - + - + + + - + + - + + - + + - + + - - + - +
p.Lond. 121 + + + + + - + + + - + + - + + - + + + - + + + -
Tannery, MemSc 9:50 + + + - - - + - + + + - + + - + - - - + + - + - - + - +
Madr. BN4616:88 ± ± + ± � ± � r - - + ± ± ± + ± ± + + + - � � � + + + ± ± ± +
Madr. BN4616:91b + ± - ± ± - ± ± � - - + ± + - + ± + ± + r + + ± ± - � � - ±
Madr. BN4616:92-95 + + - + - + - + ± + + � ± + + + - + + + ± + + r � + + ± ± +
9. NUMEROLOGY AS A PART OF OTHER PROGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES
Other prognostic techniques regularly employ number symbolism or numerology. To my
knowledge, no one has systematically studied the numerological aspects of these
techniques. My notes here are intended to suggest avenues of further study.
1. Astrology is the most famous and most complicated form of Greek
prognostication. Practitioners use the positions of the stars and planets, in conjunction with
circumstances about the subject (such as his or her birthday), to determine either the answer
to a specific question, or to the subject's future in general.Z3 Number symbolism is
incorporated in the arithmetical or geometrical proportions oftentimes used to assess the
relationship of the stars and planets. Other numerological aspects can be incorporated into a
horoscope, as noted in the technique discussed above, "Zodiacal Isopsephy."
2. Dream interpretation was as complex as astrology, and the number of
manuscripts carrying oneirocritica shows that the technique was popular.24 Practitioners
occasionally used numerology. Artemidorus (Dream Book 2.70; 3.28, 34; 4.24) advises that
23 On ancient astrology, the most accessible point of entry is Barton, Ancient Astrology.
24 On oneirokritika, see the translation and commentary by White, Interpretation of Dreams;
Oberhelman, "Oneirocritic Literature"; and Mavroudi, Dream Interpretation.
377
when called for, one can use isopsephy to interpret a dream. His technique, which relies on
the reduction or assessment of numbers one hundred or less, is quite complex, and uses
numerological procedures different from those discussed in this excursus. A second (non
Artemidoran) numerological strand in dream interpretation incorporates more conventional
numerological techniques, such as the calculation of the number of letters in the name of the
day upon which the dream was seen, to help broker the interpretation (Paris, gr. 22, fols.
277v-278r [CCA G 8.3:3]; Paris, gr. 2381, fol. 62r [CCA G 8.3:46]).
3. Geomancy, prognostication using earth, was developed some time in later first
millennium. The practitioner would take a handful of earth or stones and toss them. The
resulting pattern would be read as a four-element series of odds and evens, and from this
would be generated a matrix, from which the practitioner could determine the answer to the
question by consulting a sixteen-item list.25 This list is similar to that found in the "Method
of Chaleth," discussed above. The technique depends upon the odd-even number
symbolism of ancient Pythagoreanism for the coherence of the list. It is also symbolic that
this method both depends upon the lowest of the four elements for its medium and also
frequently handles figures in sets of four.
4. Lot divination was one of the most widely practiced forms of prognostication in
the ancient world. Practitioners would have the inquirer throw dice, or pick a number from
one to ten. The resultant numbers would be checked against a list of values, either directly
zs On geomancy, see above, n. 18.
378
or after further operations.26 By virtue of the method, the number symbolism ten and six are
invoked. Although numbers are not the focus of the procedure, they are integral to it.
5. There are a number of texts that help predict the future based on natural
phenomena such as thunder, eclipses, and earthquakes. These brontologia, ecliptologia, and
seismologia often invoke the date of the month, or the hour of the day, on which the
phenomenon occurs to anticipate what is to happen. Occasionally these lists exhibit the
authors' interest in numerical patterns and number symbolism.
26
For recent scholarship on lot divination, see van der Horst, "Sortes"; Stewart, "Oracles of
Astrampsychus"; and idem, Sortes Astrampsychi.
379
Excursus E
The Ori ginal Sequence of Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1
Another Suggestion
In his 1991 article David Tripp argues plausibly and with concise logic that the original
sequence of book one of Against Heresies was (a) chapters one through twelve (the
Valentinian systems), (b) chapters twenty-three through thirty-one (the succession of
heretics, beginning with Simon), (c) chapters thirteen through the first two sections of
chapter sixteen (Marcus), and (d, £, g) the rest of the text through chapter twenty-two (the
various heretics challenged, en masse, as a conclusion to book one).1 The stimulus for this
proposed reorganization is the first section of book two's preface, which recapitulates the
contents of book one in seven clauses, lettered by Tripp a-g. The order of this recapitulation,
as he observes, seems not to reflect the order of the contents of book one as we have it. The
relevant section of book two's preface, which is critical to Tripp's argument, and my own
analysis here, reads:
In primo quidem libro, qui ante hunc est,
1 "Original Sequence." Unless otherwise specified, chapter numbers alone in this excursus refer to
Against Heresies book one.
380
(a) arguentes falsi nominis agnitionem ostendimus tibi, dilectissime, omne ab his qui
sunt a Valentino per multos et contrarios modos adinuentum esse falsiloquium;
(b) etiam sententias exposuimus eorum qui priores exstiterunt, discrepantes eos
sibimetipsis ostendentes, multo autem prius ipsi veritati;
(c) et Marci quoque magi sententiam, cum sit ex his, cum operibus eius omni
diligentia exposuimus, et quanta ex Scripturis eligentes adaptare conantur fictioni
suae diligenter retulimus, et quonam modo per numeros et per xxnn elementa
alphabetae veritatem adfirmare conantur et audent, minutatim perexivimus;
(d) et quemadmodum conditionem secundum imaginem invisibilis apud eos

Pleromatis factam dicunt et quanta de Demiurgo sentiunt ac docent renuntiavimus;
(e) et progenitoris ipsorum doctrinam Simonis magi Samaritani et omnium eorum

qui successerunt ei manifestavimus, diximus quoque multitudinem eorum qui sunt
ab eo Gnostici, et differentias ipsorum et doctrinas et successiones adnotavimus,
quaeque ab eis haereses institutae sunt omnes exposuimus;
(f) et quoniam omnes a Simone haeretici initia sumentes impia et irreligiosa dogmata
induxerunt in hanc vitam ostendimus;
(g) et redemptionem ipsorum et quomodo initiant eos qui perficiuntur et adfationes

ipsorum et mysteria manifestavimus, et quia unus Deus Conditor et quia non
postremitatis fructus et quia neque post eum est aliquid.
Tripp argues that chapters twenty-three through thirty-one of book one cannot be
identified with (e) for two reasons. First, since (a), (c), and (d) correspond to a continuum of
text (l .pr.l-1 .20.3), (b) seems to correspond to no text, and therefore to no stage in the
argument. The position of (b) in the preface, however, suggests that it should correspond to
a key part of the argument of book one. Second, (b) seems to refer to a group of people who
precede Valentinus' s teaching career, which means that the ex his of (c) refers to Simon and
his line of succession. This phrase sets Marcus in succession to Simon, not to Valentinus. In a
third line of argumentation Tripp points out that (g) implies that book one originally ended
with a refutation of their rituals and an affirmation that there is only one God, the Creator,
beyond whom there is no other. This, of course, is not the way book one ends. Tripp claims
381
that his third argument addresses whether chapters twenty-three through thirty-one should
be assigned to (b) or (e). I cannot see the connection. But the third argument is important for
recovering the original order of book one, especially its conclusion, as we shall see.
Tripp tentatively proposes that book one of Against Heresies was written originally in
several scrolls. The scrolls were at some time inadvertently shuffled and a middle scroll -
what became our chapters twenty-three through thirty-one - were mistakenly placed at the
end of book one. The mistake was an easy one to make, since no part of the book but the
first states explicitly where it belongs in the sequence of Irenaeus' s argument. A later scribe,
noticing the preface to book two did not correspond to the new and mistaken order of book
one, inserted (e) so that the preface would conform to book one.
The theory is stimulating, and the argumentation shows Tripp a keen reader of
Irenaeus's text, but I believe most of it should not be accepted.2 First, the argument depends
merely on the preface of book two. But a survey of the structure of the entirety of book two
shows that it follows roughly the same order as book one, as we have it currently. The bulk
of book two refutes the Ptolemaeans, Valentinians, and Marcus (2.1-2.30, corresponding to
1 .1-1.22), and the last chapters treats Simon and Carpocrates (2.31-2.34, corresponding to
1.23 and 1 .25), Basilides (2.35.1, corresponding to 1 .24.3-7), and the "Gnostics" (2.35.2-3,
corresponding to 1 .29.1-1 .31 .2). To posit alteration in book one requires the supposition that
the exact same alterations occurred to book two, an unlikely scenario, unless Irenaeus
intentionally mixed up books one and two to follow the same new order. Second, Tripp's
theory cannot account for 1 .31 .3-4, which clearly announces its place in the sequence of
2 I completed this excursus prior to publication of Thomassen's Spiritual Seed, which agrees (12-1 3) in
many respects with my critique.
382
book one, since it anticipates book two. By contrast, 1 .22.2, which Tripp would consider the
original conclusion, does not announce the closure of one book and the beginning of
another. Third, Tripp's interpretation of clauses (a-c) in the preface of book two is not the
only one possible. Clause (a) may refer only to chapters one through nine (and not through
twelve): multos et contrarios modos may refer to their methods (see f.1E8oboc; and f.1E8obda at
Against Heresies 1 .9.1 ), drawn from, but contradictory to, the sources upon which the
methods depen d - nature, mathematics, and Scripture. Thus, room is made for (b) in
chapters ten through twelve. This makes sense, since, just as the preface to book two
promises that those in (b) precede those in (a), so, according to Irenaeus, Valentinus
precedes the Valentinians who taught the system described in chapters one through nine.
Irenaeus says as much in Against Heresies 1 .9.5, where he says that he is about to turn from
this Valentinian circle to "the very fathers of this myth." Thus, what follows chapter nine is
a new section altogether, treating the predecessors to the teachers of the system he has just
exposed. Further, (b) makes it clear that (a) does refers not to Valentinus but to those who
got their start from him, i.e., the second or even third generation. Then clause (c) states that
Marcus comes ex his, that is, from Valentinus and other early teachers of the system, referred
to in (b). Therefore, (a) refers to 1.1-1 .9, (b), to 1 . 1 0--1 .12, and (c), to 1 .13.1-1 . 1 6.2, all three
sections dealing with the various Valentinian circles.3 Fourth, in 2.14.6 Irenaeus presents
Marcus as a recent Valentinian, one who boasted to have achieved a new level of
innovation.
3 See ibid., 14 and n. 14, for similar conclusions.
383
What of Tripp's observation that (f) and (g) refer to chapters twenty-one and twenty-
two? There is one problem with this. Clause (g) has two parts. The first, et redemptionem . . .
manifestavimus, refers to the exposure of the peculiar doctrine of "redemption"
(cbroAu'rQWCHc;) discussed at length in chapter twenty-one. The second, et quia unus Deus . . .
aliquid, refers to the proclamation of the rule of faith in chapter twenty-two. That is, (g)
refers to both twenty-one and twenty-two. To what exactly, then, does (f) belong? Tripp
does not address this question, but I see no reason why (e) and (f) should not be taken
together as a single unit describing the same range of text.4 After all, the first half of (e)
presents three groups -Simon, his followers, and the "Gnostics" - ordered carefully
according the three major sections of 1 .23.1-1 .32.2. The second half of (e) recounts the kinds
of material to be found in this discussion: their differences, their doctrines, their chain of
succession, and the traditions they have established. Clause (f), which indicates a discussion
of the groups' daily implementation of Simon's doctrines, fits nicely in the class of subjects
mentioned in the second half of (e).
Thus, (a-f) follow perfectly well the order of book one. But only half of the problems
motivating Tripp's suggestion have been resolved. He seems almost certainly right to
identify (g) with chapters twenty-one and twenty-two of book one. This seems to be the only
outstanding inconsistency between the sequences of book two's preface and the contents of
book one. It is a significant difference, since whenever Irenaeus recapitulates an argument
he has just made, he carefully orders its individual parts.5 Thus, according to Tripp, the
content and position of (g) suggest that book one originally ended with chapter twenty-two.
4 This is how Thomassen groups the text as well; see Spiritual Seed, 13.
s See 1 .14.9, which summarizes in order the previous 8 sections of chapter 14.
384
It seems to me that if book one originally followed the sequence different from the
we have today, then it followed that of the preface to book two.6 If this is the case- call it
option one - then chapter twenty-two originally concluded book one, whose order was 1 .1-
1.20, 1 .23-1 .31 .2, 1.21-1 .22, and 1.31 .3-1 .31 .4. But if book one as we have it today is its
original order- option two - then chapter twenty-two was not the original ending, and
clause (g) was mistakenly put at the end of the preface, instead of between (d) and (e).
For the first option, I can think of no compelling argument. How did it happen? Was
it accidental or intentional? If the latter, to what end? Tripp's original suggestion of
misplaced scrolls seems not to apply here. The ostensibly rearranged portions are too small
to occupy scrolls of their own. Further, to have 1 .31 .3 follow on the heels of 1 .22.2 creates a
very disjointed narrative.
The second option seems somewhat more plausible, on the grounds, for instance,
that Irenaeus placed (g) last in his recapitulation so as to anticipate the major themes of book
two. This is quite possible, but I do not find it compelling either, since the wording and
placement of (g) does not serve much dramatic or rhetorical effect. Maybe Irenaeus finished
book two's preface, then realized that he forgot to recapitulate the arguments of chapters
twenty-one and twenty-two, a minor oversight. This argument for option two is more
plausible. It posits that everything in the preface to book two perfectly reflects the contents
of book one, except the final clause, which Irenaeus appended because he forgot a major
stage in his argument in book one. I accept that this scenario is possible, but I do not find it
convincing enough to end discussion on the matter.
6 There is another option, that book one originally followed neither order, but I can find no evidence
to consider this anything more than a speculative possibility.
385
I offer here a third, tentative option, one that I find more compelling than the other
two options. Before explaining the suggestion, however, I must make some observations
about book one.
First, book one recounts two lines of succession. Irenaeus's primary interest seems to
be the Valentinians, a school and movement that includes the Ptolemaeans, Secundus,
Marcus, and a number of other writers who have a highly developed theology of aeons.
Irenaeus does not place all these schools and teachers in a strict line of succession, but does
so when he can, capping the line of development with Marcus, whose system is the most
intricate and developed of the various Valentinian groups (see chapter 3). Further, when
Irenaeus discusses the Valentinians, he focuses on their disagreements, in part to show how
the succession of Valentinus produces rebels who reject their own roots, a tactic Tertullian
also uses (Against the Valentinians). The other line of succession in book one centers on
Simon, and follows sequentially a well-defined chain: Simon, Menander, Saturninus,
Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebionites, Nicolaitians, Cerdon, Marcion, and Tatian.
Then follow others who fall under the rubric "Gnostic," the third group identified in (e), a
group that can be seen as the most intricate and developed of the line derived from Simon.
Thus, Irenaeus presents two lines of heretics: Valentinian and Simonian. This two-line
system is reflected also in the plan of book two, which deals primarily with Valentinians,
but then appends, without any attempt at smooth integration, the other groups discussed in
the second half of book one, the ones descended from Simon (with the exceptions of
Marcion and Basilides, on whom see below).
A second observation pertains to transitions. At 1.22.2 Irenaeus nicely segues from
his discussion on the Valentinian line of succession to that on the Simonian. But chapter
386
twenty-three does not look back whatsoever to the preceding material, aside from the enim,
the second word of the chapter. Rather than look back, the enim looks forward, as if it marks
the beginning of a new treatise. Once Simon is introduced, Irenaeus does not mention
Valentinus until 1 .28.1, when Irenaeus compares him in passing to Tatian. The next time
Valentinus is discussed, at 1 .30.15, it presumes that the reader is aware that the
aforementioned groups, especially the Ophite group discussed in chapter thirty, come from
the school of Valentinus: Tales quidem secundum eos sententiae sunt: a quibus . . . multiplex
capitibus fera [de] Valentini scola generata esf.? The reason: the group under discussion
identified the serpent with Wisdom, the wayward aeon whose childbearing led to the
creation of the Demiurge and the subsequent material creation, according to the Irenaeus' s
first Valentinian system, discussed in chapters one through nine. For Irenaeus to mark only
this parallel is unusual. There is ample material in chapters twenty-nine and thirty,
especially the former, suitable for comparison with Valentinus and Ptolemy. But Irenaeus
does not use it, and he reserves any comparison for the end of the section. Indeed, in 1 .29.1,
which introduces the Gnostics of chapters twenty-nine and thirty as among the groups
derived from Simon, Irenaeus does not suggest that Valentinus was a part of Simon's line of
succession. Thus, 1 .30. 1 5 - the last section of chapter thirty -is somewhat forced, as if
Irenaeus thought that a simple fiat was enough to integrate this latest material with his
exposition of the Valentinian schools, the subject of the first part of the book. The placement
of 1 .31 .1-2 is also awkward, as if Irenaeus had arbitrarily decided to insert a discussion of
this group (the so-called Cainites) without integrating it into the rest of book one.
7 [de] secluded by the editor. See Rousseau and Doutreleau, 1 .1 (SC 263): 311 .
387
The next and last time Valentinus is mentioned in book one (1.31 .3), Irenaeus refers
to the entire chain of heresies descended from Simon and explains - almost apologetically -
that he had to discuss them so as to show how the circles of Valentinus emerged. Irenaeus' s
explanation is not very convincing. Despite the passing mention of Valentinus at 1 .28. 1,
chapters twenty-two through twenty-eight do little if anything to show how the doctrines of
Valentinus emerged. Chapters twenty-nine and thirty show the comparison somewhat
better, by virtue of the typological similarities between the aeonology of the Barbelo-Gnostic
system and that of the Valentinians, but the connection is not made explicit until 1 .30.15,
which concerns itself, not with pleromas, syzygies, or aeons (the expected comparison), but
with a more peripheral part of Ophite theology. Irenaeus's conclusion to book one claims an
association between the Valentinians and the Simonians, but in his exposition of the
Simonians he never argues for this claim, and he never makes the connection explicit.
All this corroborates the widely shared view that Irenaeus adapted (if not copied)
earlier heresiological material at 1 .22.1-1.30.2 (for convenience, let us call this section On
Simon, since it presents the successors of Simon).8 Aside from what I have already discussed,
there are other reasons for isolating this particular section of text from the rest of book one.
On Simon makes no reference to, and has no bearing on, the rest of book one, and vice versa.
The preface to book one promises discussions pertaining only to the Valentinian schools; it
is completely silent about Simon and his successors. Compare this with the prefaces to
books two through five, which state clearly the content of their books. The content of On
s For various scholars' attempts to trace On Simon to earlier heresiological texts such as Justin
Martyr's Syntagma, see the studies cited at Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 10 n. 4 and Greer, "Dog and the
Mushrooms," 147. For the Syntagma see Justin Martyr, Apology 1 .26.8 and Eusebius, Church History
4.11 .10.
388
Simon differs from the rest of book one in important ways. There are no colorful, sarcastic
asides, so characteristic of Irenaeus.9 The author of On Simon never directly addresses his
reader, as in other parts of book one.10 Further, most of On Simon carefully names names,
and puts them in a precise chain of succession, using transitional phrases such as successor
and ex his. n In the rest of book one, Irenaeus follows a similar technique, but not with the
same emphasis on chronology or succession: the discussion of first Valentinian system
precedes the discussion of "Valentinus"; in going from one system to the next in chapters
eleven and twelve, Irenaeus does not suggest who comes after whom the way On Simon
does.12
Thus, I agree with previous scholars, who suggested that On Simon was taken nearly
wholesale from a previous heresiology and inserted into book one. The awkward position of
On Simon may explain Eusebius's comment that Simon's doctrines and customs "are
9 E.g., Against Heresies 1 .8.1 : their interpretation of the Scriptures is like someone changing the mosaic
of a king to that of a dog; 1 . 1 1 .4: a Valentinian tetrad could be made out of a gourd, cucumber, and
melon; 1 .14.8: crying babies glorify Marcus; 1 .15.4: the body of Truth must have come into existence
after Kadmos.
10 Ibid . 1 .pr.2, 1 .9.1, 1 .12.2, 1 .14.9, and 1 .1 6.3. In these instances he is addressed ayanrp:i or, in the
Latin translation, dilectissime.
11 Against Heresies 1 .23.5, 1 .24. 1 . A notable exception is chapters twenty-nine through thirty-one,
which I discuss below.

12 Tertullian, Against the Valentinians 33-38, follows the order of Irenaeus's Against Heresies in its
explication of the first Valentinian system. But the proponents ofAgainst Heresies 1 .1 1-1 .12, to whom
Irenaeus refers as the myth's fathers (see above), Tertullian rearranges. He omits Valentinus (ibid .
1 . 1 1 .1 ) and the "more knowledgeable" Ptolemaeans (ibid. 1 .12.1 ) and discusses the groups from
Against Heresies 1 . 1 1 .5, 1.12.3, 1 .1 1 .3, then 1 . 1 1 .2, in that order. Tertullian also treats them as successors
to Ptolemy (Against the Valentinians 33.1 ) . Tertullian's order, like Irenaeus's, does not follow any
chronological order.
389
transmitted in Irenaeus's aforementioned book not superfluously."1 3 The implication of
Eusebius's litotes is that it was easy to regard On Simon as a gratuitous addition.
Not everything in On Simon is of even quality, and it should not be thought of as a
single work. Note, for instance, that (e), from the preface to book two, claims to treat each of
three different classes of heretics: Simon, his followers, and the "gnostics." The list in (e),
like the rest of the preface, is very specific. It identifies in order the three subgroups
discussed in 1 .23.1-4, 1.23.5-1 .28.2, and 1 .29-1 .31 . There is good reason to think that On
Simon originally consisted only of the first two sections (1 .23-28}, and that Irenaeus (or an
intermediary) redacted it and added the third section (1 .29-31). The first two sections have
characteristics distinctive from the third section. First, there is the language of (e), which
makes the topic of the first two sections- Simon and his followers - a complete whole; it is
unclear how the "gnostics" fit in, other than that they come "from him" (ab eo), which
suggests that they came straight from Simon, with no intermediaries such as Menander or
Satuminus. Second, groups and persons are identified by name in chapters twenty-three to
twenty-eight. But the groups discussed in chapters twenty-nine through thirty-one are
anonymous, or identified merely by alii, a term used frequently in the rest of book one, but
not in On Simon. Third, at 1 .31 .2, Irenaeus claims that he himself assembled writings of a
particular group (the so-called Cainites); this is the kind of self-referential comment found in
the rest of book one, where he refers to himself, to his community, or to materials to which
1 3 Church History 2.13.5.
390
he has special access. Nowhere else in On Simon does the author refer to himself. These
three factors suggest that Irenaeus is the chief author of the third part of On Simon.14
Determining Irenaeus's source for the rest of On Simon is not the most pressing issue
here. Rather, noting the awkward place of On Simon lends some plausibility to the third
option I want to suggest, that Irenaeus produced two editions of the first two books of
Against Heresies. In his first draft of book one, Irenaeus dealt exclusively with the schools of
Valentinus, the movement that posed the greatest concern to the recipient of the treatise.
This original book one consisted of the preface, chapters one through the first section of
chapter twenty-two, and concluded with the last section of chapter thirty-two. This original
plan is best seen in the preface to book one, where Irenaeus mentions only the Valentinians
and the Ptolemaeans, and nothing about Simon and his successors. According to my
suggestion book one's preface would have described exactly -no more and no less -the
original contents of book one.
When lrenaeus started book two, his preface there contained only clauses (a-d) and
(g). As he developed his argument, however, he realized that his refutation applied not just
to the Valentinians, but to Marcion and his followers. Both groups share a notion of a split in
the godhead, and Irenaeus' s argument depends essentially on this split. Irenaeus first
1 4 There is a fourth, weaker argument. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6, draws heavily from
book one, except Against Heresies 1 .29-1 .31 . In pseudo-Tertullian' s Against All Heresies, the core of
which dates to the early third century (DECL, s.v. Zephyrinus) the heretics of On Simon are discussed
well before the Valentinians are. Filastrius, Book of Various Heresies, follows a similar order, despite his
effort to revise the chronology to fit into the entire range of Biblical and ecclesiastical history.
Hippolytus's omission and the Latin heresiologists' order do nothing to establish the authorship,
order, and parts of On Simon, but they corroborate the notion that Irenaeus did not originally write
On Simon, except possibly the last two chapters.
391
introduces Marcion at 2.1.2, in the middle of his argument against the Valentinians' notion
of the divinity and their invocation of the Father as Foresource. The phrase et Marcionis
bonus Deus comes almost as an afterthought, as if Irenaeus only then realized that Marcion' s
theology illustrates his point even better. The remainder of book two deals with Marcion in
many places, since Irenaeus' s arguments often apply to him just as well as they do to the
Valentinians.
While writing book two, however, Irenaeus noticed that in book one he had not
discussed the origins of Marcion, whose system he was now refuting.15 This prompted him
to revise book one, to change it from a expose merely of Valentinianism to a global
heresiology, to put all the heretics of book two in some historical perspective, and to explain
the appearance of Marcion. He consulted his library and found a brief history of Simon,
Marcion, and other heretics - the raw material of our On Simon. He put this new material in
the back of book one. He inserted a transitional paragraph (1 .22.2) to segue into On Simon,
appended his new research on the "Gnostics," and then appended another paragraph
(1 .31 .3) to bring the treatise back to the main subject, the Valentinian schools. The rest of
book one went relatively untouched in this revision.16 Irenaeus then felt that he should
1s This realization must have hit Irenaeus early on in writing book two. At 2.9.2 he mentions Simon
and his succession and refers the reader to his discussion in book one.
1 6 An objection to this principle might be based upon 1 . 1 1 .1, where Irenaeus says the Valentinians'
doctrine of the left-side Archon, accompanying the Demiurge, resembles "the falsely called gnostics
whom I will be describing" ('toic; QT]8T]OOf.dVOLc; u¢' i] p&N tj!cvbwvvpwc; fvwanKoic;). This would
suggest that when he wrote chap. 1 1, Irenaeus clearly planned to write chaps. 29-31, since these latter
deal with the groups he calls "gnostics." but the objection does not hold, in my opinion, since just
lines before this key (and puzzling) phrase in 1 . 1 1 Irenaeus claims that Valentinus got his start "from
the so-called gnostic heresy" (imo 'If]c; i\c:yopiv11c; yvwanKf]c; aiQiac:wc;). To first call them so-called,
and only a few lines later promise that he will term them so, is inconsistent. The contradictory
terminology suggests multiple drafts. In producing the second edition, Irenaeus saw 1 .1 1 as an
392
refute some of the heresies newly inserted into book one, so he tacked on an appendix to
book two, the material covered in chapters thirty-one to thirty-fiveP This section
corresponds loosely to some of the groups discussed in On Simon.
Irenaeus then revised the preface to book two. He inserted (e-f) between (a-d) and
(g), possibly for several reasons. First, to Irenaeus, (g) was still the natural culmination of the
original argument, and so still seemed a natural way to conclude the recapitulation. Second,
to insert (e-f) after (g) would require another clause, (h), to summarize and conclude the
new book one in the same way (g) did for the old one. But every clause in the preface to
book two corresponds to a substantial block of material. To insert a new clause, (h), would
require commensurate material, and this does not exist at 1 .32.3-4. Third, inserting (e-f) in
its current place reemphasizes the new argument of the revised book one: Valentinus' s
chain of succession depends upon Simon's. To insert (e-f) after (g) would obscure that
revised plan.
This third option for explaining the difference between book one and the preface to
book two, should it be correct, illumines an unusual aspect of Against the Heresies, Irenaeus' s
uneven treatment of Marcion. In book one, Irenaeus treats Marcion only in passing, and has
comparatively little to say about his theology. Marcion's "two-god" theology is summarized
tersely at 1 .27.2, and Irenaeus's greatest concern is with Marcion's tampering of the
Scriptures and his soteriology. But in book two the emphasis is quite different. He treats
Marcion extensively. He also focuses on Marcion's distinction between the Father and the
appropriate place to alert the reader to the new material of the revised edition, but he altered only the
second phrase, which might have read originally, mi.:; Myof-lEVOLI:; tjJ w bwV VflWs fvwanKoic;.
1 7 Greer, "Dog and the Mushrooms," 154 calls this section just that, an appendix.
393
God who made the world, a doctrinal point only very briefly mentioned in book one.
Nothing is made in book two of Marcion's treatment of Scripture.
Should this suggestion be correct, two other points follow:
1. Irenaeus, pace Tripp, considered Marcus to be of the school of Valentinus, and he
should be treated as such (see chapter 3);
2. The plan and structure of Against Heresies is to be assessed in light of the text's two
instantiations: the earlier, pressing concern with Valentinian thought, and the subsequent,
broader concern for placing Valentinus in the global genealogical tree of heresy, with Simon
at the root.
394
Excursus F
Italian versus Eastern Valentinianism?
Three and only three ancient sources support the notion that the Valentinian school was
geographically divided into an Italian branch and an Eastern one.
The first source comes from the title to Clement of Alexandria's notes on the
theology of Theodotus, written in the late second century: EK TON E>EOL10TOY KAI THE
ANATOAIKHI: KAAOYMENHI: 11111AI:KAAIAI: KATA TOYI: OYAAENTINOY
XPONOYI: ETIITOMAI ("Extracts from the Works of Theodotus and the So-Called Oriental
Teaching at the Time of Valentinus").1
The second source, written in the early or mid-third century, comes from
Hippolytus, who mentions an Italian and an Eastern division when he comes to the end of
his discussion of the Valentinian system. The relevant text, in full:
Kai ytyovcv £vrcu8cv iJ l'HbaaKaAla atnwv And hence the doctrine of these has become
bLTJQllf.lEVll, Kai KaAEL'rm iJ f.lEV £iva1:ot\LKTJ divided: and one doctrine, according to
nc; bLbaaKaAla Ka'r ' a{novc;, iJ b£ them, is termed Oriental, and the other
'hat\LWHKTJ. Ol f.lEV OVV am) n)c; 'hat\iac;, WV Italian. They from Italy, of whom is
[anv 'HQaKAtwv Kai. TI'rot\Ef.lal:oc;, tiJuXLK6v Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say that the
¢am 1:0 awf.la mu l11aou ycyov£vm, Kai body of Jesus was (an) animal (one). And
bux 'r0l)'[0 E7Tl 'rOU �lX7T'rlGf.llX'rOc; 1:0 7TVEUf.llX because of this, (they maintain) that at his
1 Trans. Casey.
395
w<; nEQLU'TEQa K£X'TEAftAv8E -'TOV'TECJ'TLV 6 baptism the Holy Spirit as a dove came
A6yo<; 6 'TTJ<; f.!Y)'TQO<; avw8Ev, 'Tf]s L:ocpl.a<; down -that is, the Logos of the mother
Kai. y£ywvE 'Tc}J lVvXLKc}J K£XL i:yftyEQKEV above, (I mean Wisdom) - and became (a
al'nov EK VEKQWV. wfn6 i:an, cpYJCYL, n) voice) to the animal (man), and raised him
EiQYJf1€vov· "6 i:ydQas XQLan'>v i:K vEKQwv from the dead. This, he says, is what has
l:wonOLftan Kai. 'Ta 8vY)'TU CYWf1£X'T£X Uf.!WV," been declared: "He who raised Christ from
'TOV'TECJ'TL [Kai.] 'TU \)JVXLKa, ou Kai. 'TU XO.LKa. the dead will also quicken your mortal and
6 xou<; yaQ "uno K£X'TtXQav" i:Aft;\v8E· "yf] natural bodies." For loam has come under a
yaQ," cpYJCYLV, "d K(ai. Ei<; y)f]v anE;\ElJUt;J." curse; "for," says he, "dust thou art, and
oi b' av ano 'TTJs ava'ToAf]s A£yovmv, wv unto dust shalt thou return." The Orientals,
i:anv A,SLovL(Ko)<; Kai. BaQbYJULtXVYJ<;, on on the other hand, of whom is Axionicus
nvEvflanKov ijv 'TO awfla 'Tov aw'Tf]Qos· and Bardesianes, assert that the body of the
f1VEVf1£X yaQ ayLOV fj;\8Ev i:ni. 'TTJV Saviour was spiritual; for there came upon
MaQLaV -'TOV'TEanv i] L:ocpi.a -Kai. "i] Mary the Holy Spirit- that is, Wisdom and
bUV£Xf.! Ls 'TOU v\)J(a'TOV" -'TOV'TEG'TLV TJ the power of the highest. This is the creative
bY)f.!LOVQY LKTJ 'TEXVYJ -LV£X bLan;\aa8ij 'TO art, (and was vouchsafed) in order that what
uno 'TOU I1VEVf1£X'TO<; 'TlJ M£XQLq bo8£v. was given to Mary by the Spirit might be
fashioned.2
The third account is an allusion by Tertullian to two schools in Valentinianism:
munus enim his datur unum: procurare concinnationem Aeonum et ab eius officii societate
duae scholae protinus, duae cathedrae, inauguratio quaedam dividendae doctrinae
Valentini ("These two [Christ and the Holy Spirit] have one duty -to stabilize the aeons.
From the association of these two in this duty, two schools arise, two pulpits and the
beginning (of sorts) of a division in the Valentinian teachings").3
Based on these three accounts scholars conclude that there was a significant division
between the eastern and western (specifically Italian) branches of the Valentinian tradition.
They accordingly use these three texts and the geographical distinction they legitimate to
2 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.35.5--6.35.7, trans. Macmahon.

3 Trans. Riley.
396
classify various Valentinian texts and systems as eastern or western. I argue here that these
texts cannot justify these claims.
It has been recognized that the first text, the title to Clement's Extracts, is probably a
later scribal addition.4 There are important differences that make this clear. The Exctracts
purports to draw from Theodotus and from "the Valentinians" or "the followers of
Valentinus," without suggesting any geographical parameters. The title is more specific,
pointing to an eastern teaching. Whereas the Extracts refers to the Valentinians, that is, the
successors to Valentinus, the title refers to contemporaries of Valentinus, not his successors.
It is a very real possibility that the scribe simply made up the title, based on knowing
that there was an eastern strain of Valentinianism. He need not have had special
information to help him accurately identify the Extracts with eastern Valentinianism. As we
shall see, Hippolytus knew there was a division, but he knew next to nothing about it. Why
should we think any different of this scribe? Leaf through almost any catalogue of Greek
manuscripts and you will come across several if not numerous treatises that are assigned
blatantly incorrect titles or attributions.
But let us suppose the scribe knew what he was talking about. In this case there are
new problems to consider. The main one is that the scribe is far more precise than Clement
is. The title claims that Clement consulted a body of texts, and that these came from two
sources: Theodotus and the so-called Eastern school. This Eastern school was current in the
time of Valentinus. It does not claim that this Eastern school was a sect of Valentinianism.
4 See Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 28 n. 3 and refs. there.
397
Indeed, it suggests that this eastern teaching was not Valentinian. There are two reasons
why I say this.
First, the Extracts refers frequently to oL Ouw\EvnvLavo( and oL arro Ovai\Evdvov.
Had the title's scribe known the contents of the book, he would have used the same
formulas that Clement did, something like 'rWV 8mb6'Wu K£XL n)c; A.vet'rOALKf]c; KaAOVf.lEVT}c;
bLbaaKa;\(ac; n�.JV OuaAEvnvL£Xvwv E71L'rOf.1£XL By using Valentinus's personal name and not
that of his followers the scribe has corrected Clement, specifying that Clement used source
texts that are contemporary with Valentinus.
Second, the phrase Ket'ril . . . XQOVovc; identifies only contemporaneity, nothing more.
In Clement's corpus, the name of the person whose lifetime marks the era under discussion
is embedded inside the prepositional phrase. In the Protrepticus he refers to Nikegoras of
Zela, "in the days of Alexander"; in the Stromateis, to Ezra, "in the time of Artaxerxes king of
the Persians."5 Both of these examples establish a chronological framework, but they do not
imply any other relationship. Clement's use of the phrase is typical for Greek authors. Now,
it may be argued that this is simply further evidence that the title was written by a later
scribe, who used the phrase loosely. But if that is the case, then we must wonder what other
terms in the title are used loosely, and we must still seriously question any special claims we
make for this text.6 But for the sake of argument we have presumed here that the scribe
knew what he was talking about. If he did, then we have new, more precise information
about the content of the Extracts, namely, that it draws upon older texts that were current in
s Protrepticus 4.54.4; Stromateis 1 .22.149 .3.

6 For instance, Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 28 n. 3, would have the Kai be epexegetical. Can this be so
straightforward if the KaTa . . . XQ6vout; phrase is used so loosely?
398
the days of Valentinus and were known as "eastern." The implication is clear. The scribe
would have us believe that the Valentinians whom Clement quotes were themselves
quoting eastern texts that were current in Valentinus's day. But these texts need not have
been Valentinian. In fact, in this scenario we cannot determine at all the relationship
between the eastern teaching and Valentinus. For all we know, this eastern teaching had
little or no formal connection with Valentinus and his school. Or maybe it was a system
from which Valentinus drew to develop his own doctrines. Or maybe it drew inspiration
from Valentinus. Whatever the case may be, the so-called eastern teaching does not come
from Valentinus. Not, at least, according to the vocabulary of the title of Clement's Extracts.
Whether or not this scribe knew what he was talking about, the text proves to be
very difficult for establishing anything more than the existence of an "eastern teaching"
associated in some unknown fashion with Valentinus. The author of the title to the Extracts
knew that there was something called the eastern teaching, and that it was associated with
Valentinus in some way, temporally or otherwise. But we cannot say more than this without
presuming too much of the text.
As for the second proof text, there is reason to question whether Hippolytus knew
anything whatsoever about the divisions in Valentinianism. The names he gives as
representatives from each branch are suspect. Heracleon and Ptolemy, Hippolytus's
examples of the Italian branch, so prominent in other heresiological literature, were well
known in the third century (although we might question how "Italian" they really were).
But the two examples Hippolytus gives of the eastern branch suggest he knew little if
anything about this group. Axionicus is mentioned in extant literature only in Tertullian' s
Against Valentinus: solus ad hodiernum Antiochiae Axionicus memoriam Valentini integra
399
custodia regularum eius consolatur ("At Antioch alone to this day Axionicus consoles the
memory of Valentinus by a full obedience of his rules")? Tertullian' s point here is that in his
era (the first decade of the 200s, or else in the days of his source) Axionicus was sui generis,
a teacher unlike the other Valentinians, who have all widely departed from the doctrines of
their founder. Tertullian's testimony to Axionicus does not square with Hippolytus's.
Tertullian suggests that Axionicus was out on his own; Hippolytus makes him the center of
a significant movement. Bardesanes, Hippolytus's other example, is also doubtful, since the
only other ancient source that claims Bardesanes had any connection with Valentinianism
states that he began there, but then rejected it.8 There is, in fact, little concrete resemblance
between Valentinianism and Bardesanes' extant fragments and testimonies? Thus,
Hippolytus has listed as the chief examples of the eastern Valentinians an isolated teacher
from or at Antioch, and a Syriac writer who had only initial contact (if any at all) with
Valentinianism.
Throughout his earlier discussion of the Valentinian system Hippolytus mentions
their many disagreements. The chief one pertains to monadic versus dyadic schemes (on
which see chapter 2). He also mentions differences as to (1) whether Silence is a consort of
the Father or not, (2) the source of the decad and duodecad, and (3) whether Silence is
7 Trans. Riley.
8 Eusebius, Church History 4.30. Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 503, seems to wish retain the name
Ardesanes, in accordance with the single, error-riddled manuscript that contains Hippolytus's text. It
seems clear to me, as to Marcovich and all other editors, that Bardesanes is meant: Ardesanes is
nowhere in all of Greek literature attested as a personal name (as Thomassen admits), and the
manuscript mangles numerous personal names, not to mention ordinary words.
9 Of the many ancient testimonies to Bardesanes, see, e.g., Epiphanius, Panarion 56, where no
connection to Valentinianism is made, implicitly or explicitly. Had Epiphanius known of such a
connection, he would have publicized it.
400
among the thirty aeons.10 Of these, the first and the third are subsets of the monadic/dyadic
dichotomy. Clearly, this dispute was important to Hippolytus. But when he distinguishes
the Italian and eastern branches, he makes no suggestion that the monadic/dyadic issue was
relevant. Rather, the only point of disagreement pertains to whether Jesus's body was
spiritual or soulish. According to Hippolytus's terminology, the Italian Valentinians, by
claiming that Jesus's body is soulish, were not thereby also claiming that he had no spiritual
component. The claim is merely that the substance - the material cause, to use the
Aristotelian terminology familiar in the third century - of Jesus's body is soul, and the spirit
is the active agent- the efficient cause. The eastern Valentinians, according to Hippolytus,
have switched that equation: the material cause is given by the Spirit, and it is molded by
the efficient cause, which is the Demiurge, the lord of the soulish realm.
Few Valentinian texts and testimonies corroborate Hippolytus' s solitary doctrinal
distinction between oriental and Italic Valentinians. Irenaeus and Tertullian, for example,
when recounting the Valentinian theory on the generation of Jesus, state that he consisted of
four different substances, but they do not suggest that the Valentinians held to a hierarchy
among the substances, or that they assigned to one or more substances material or efficient
causes.1 1 The distinction, however, does appear in Hippolytus's description of the peculiar
Valentinian system he knew, and there the Demiurge is the efficient cause to the spirit's
material.J 2 Clement's Excerpts from Theodotus seems to refer to the opposite system, since it
states that Jesus's body "was spun for him out of invisible psychic substance."1 3 Clement
10 Hippolytus, Refutation ofAll Heresies 6.30.3-5, 6.31 .3.

1 1 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 .7.2; Tertullian, Against the Valentinians 2 .7.2.
1 3 Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus 59.4, trans. Casey.
401
does not discuss a system that could be classed, based on Hippolytus' s single criterion, as
eastern.14 This is further evidence that Hippolytus and Clement do not mean the same thing
by ava'roALK� btbaaKaA[a; if they did, then Clement's account of the spiritual origin and
constitution of Jesus's body would resemble the one Hippolytus offers for the eastern
branch of Valentinianism.15
In light of the problems with the first two texts, the third text, by Tertullian, is hardly
any clearer. His assertion that there are two schools is a polemic, a sarcastic use of the
syzygies to lampoon the Valentinians. For all we know Tertullian knew of multiple
Valentinian schools, yet chose to mention only two for rhetorical force.16 Certainly, in other
parts of Adversus Valentinianos Tertullian emphasizes multiple schoolsP Even Thomassen,
who would like to use this passage to corroborate the eastern-western Valentinian divide
admits that we do not know exactly what this text means.18
The evidence, as I have presented it, shows that Clement and Hippolytus used
eastern to refer to two different groups. We know little or nothing about the group Clement
refers to, either its doctrines or its relationship to Valentinus. As for the classification of
second-generation Valentinianism into eastern and Italian forms, we depend completely
1 4 Casey, "Two Notes," 296, suggests that Excerpts from Theodotus 23.3 is eastern Valentinian, but this
passage merely points out that the savior has two kinds of substances, the left and the right. It does
not suggest any kind of causal hierarchy. The combination of soulish and spiritual matter in Jesus
recurs at Against Heresies 1 .14.1-2, which Casey, loc. cit., presents as "Italian," once again erroneously,
since he fails to take into account the causal roles at work in Hippolytus's distinction.
1 5 For other, similar internal problems with Hipplytus' s testimony, see Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 43-
45.
16
See ibid., 39.
17 1 .4, 1 .33-38.
1s Spiritual Seed, 39-40.
402
upon Hippolytus. The two teachers he or his source assigns to eastern Valentinianism
suggest that Hippolytus knew little more about this group than their position concerning
the essence of Jesus's body, if that. Hippolytus' s isolated, doubtful witness presents more
questions than it answers.
In sum, it is clear that two writers in antiquity knew about an eastern school that was
associated with Valentinus or Valentinians. The particulars of that association are
completely unknown to us because the two writers are either inconsistent or vague. We
know nothing about this school's doctrines, and we cannot even say if it was Valentinian.
403
Excursus G
The Structure of Clement of Alexandria's
Excursus on the Decalo gue
Clement's excursus on the Decalogue, Stromateis 6.133-48, demonstrates the principle,
discussed earlier in book six, that Christians can use the four mathematical disciplines in a
beneficial way.1 In his excursus Clement applies arithmetic to Scripture, and, vice versa,
Scripture to arithmetic. The excursus models how an a dvanced Christian might attempt to
use his education -especially in arithmetic or geometry - to understand the Bible.
The excursus begins by considering the question, What is a decalogue? Clement
explains how the Ten Commandments typify other decalogues found in creation, and then
turns in the second part of his excursus to expound the individual Commandments (see
outline below). One by one, he goes through the various Commandments, spending the
most time on the Commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. There Clement pursues a
lengthy tangent, to discuss the relationship between the numbers six, seven, and eight
(§138.5).2 He interrupts this tangent- which draws from Jewish, Christian, and Hellenistic
arithmology - with yet another, an arithmological interpretation of the Transfiguration
1 On the four mathematical disciplines, the quadrivium, see excursus B4.

2 In this excursus, the symbol § refers to Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis book 6.
404
(§140.3), arguably the centerpiece of the entire excursus on the Decalogue. To buttress his
reading of the Transfiguration, Clement explains it in light of the episemon and the
mismatch between the alphabet and the alphabetic numerals, the so-called Milesian system
of numeration (see excursus C). From there, Clement returns to the lore surrounding the
numbers six, seven, and eight, then finishes the excursus by explaining several of the
remaining commandments of the Decalogue. Although Clement appears to meander
considerably within the excursus, there is a discemable ring structure at work, evident
below. Clement's discussion on the Commandments frame that on the six, seven, and eight,
which itself frames the account of the Transfiguration.
133.1 Introduction to the Decalogue

133.1-2 The Decalogue an image of the creation of nature
1 33.3 The heavenly decalogue
133.4 The earthly decalogue
133.5 The ark a symbol of wisdom
1 33.5-134.1 The Decalogue as the two covenants and the two warring parts of man
1 34.2 The human decalogue
1 34.3 How the Decalogue relates to the human decalogue
1 35.1-2 On the ruling principle (iJYEf10VLK6v)
135.3--4 Difference between the fleshly spirit and the ruling principle
136.1-2 On the care of the fleshly spirit
136.3 Man an image of God according to the Logos.
136.4-137.1 The Decalogue applies twofold to the human decalogue's two parts
Explication of the Decalogue
137.2 First Commandment (TIQWTfJ . . . ivmt\i]): God is one
137.3 Second Commandment (bn'nEQOc; . . . t\6yoc;): Don't use God's name for
creation
137.4-138.4 Third Commandment (TQLToc; . . . t\6yoc;) : Rest on the Sabbath
138.5 Excursus on the connection between eight and seven, seven and six
On six
1 38.6 Cosmogony and meteorology
139.1 Embryology
1 39.2 Pythagorean epithet: "midpoint"
139.3 Pythagorean epithet: "marriage"
139.4 Organic motions
On seven
405
1 40.1 Pythagorean epithets: "motherless," "childless"
On eight
140.2 Pythagorean epithets: "cube," "fixed sphere"
On the Transfiguration
1 40.3 Exegesis of Transfiguration: Christ is the episemon Ogdoad
140.4-141.2 On the episemon and the disjunction between numbers and letters
Examples of the episemon in Scripture
1 4 1 .3 Sixth day of creation
141.4 Sixth hour of salvation
141 .5 Geometrical relationship of seven to eight and six to seven
141.6-7 Heavens and vowels represent the seven glorifying the ogdoad
141.7-142.1 What is rest? (after Aristobulus)
142.2-4 Rank and honor in creation, and its unfolding in time
On seven
143.1 Archangels, planets, Pleiades, the Bear
143.2 Phases of the moon
144.1 Strings on the lyre
144.2 Orifices
144.3-6 Ages of life (after Solon)
145.1 Diagnosis of sickness
145.2 See also Hermippus
145.3 David's testimony to seven and eight (Ps 89.7-10)
145.4-6 On the process of creation (Gn 2.2)
145.7 The Decalogue = iota = Jesus
146.1-2 [Fifth] Next Commandment (n:iflmoc; iE,fi c; . . . A6yoc;): Honor father & mother
146.3 Next Commandment (i:'n:nm . . . ;\oyoc;): Against adultery
147.1 NT prooftext: Gal 5.20, Col 3.5
OT prooftext: Jer 2.27
147.2 Next Commandment (;\6yoc; in:aKo;\ov8 Ei): Against murder
147.3 Next Commandment (Mer a bE: wi:rrov . . . A6yoc;): Against theft
147.4-148.3 Pagans err by misappropriating credit for the function of the universe
148.4 Tenth Commandment (biKa'roc; . . . A6yoc;): Against covetousness
Inspection of the outline might suggest that the excursus, as we have it, is incomplete, or
that Clement was careless. He omits the Second Commandment, and he identifies the Third
as the second (§137.3) and the Fourth, as the third (§137.4). Once he finishes his longer
exposition of the Fourth/third Commandment, he discusses the next Commandment, the
Fifth, as the fifth (§146.1). Thus the numbering seems to get back on track after the Fifth
406
Commandment, except that Clement discusses only four more, and he does not refer to the
Ninth Commandment. To resolve these inconsistencies is important, because they call into
question Clement's commitment to number symbolism.
These mismatches cannot be attributed to mere forgetfulness. Philo is just as prone to
forgetfully meander as Clement is, if not more, but Philo carefully touches on every
Commandment in both of his extant discourses on the Decalogue.3 Clement, a careful reader
of Philo, is not likely to have missed or misnumbered four Commandments if he was, like
his predecessor, attempting to expound the entire Decalogue. Further, Clement elsewhere
quotes the Second and Ninth Commandments, so he was neither unaware of their existence,
nor working from a deficient Biblical text.4 A further argument against Clement's
forgetfulness that in other parts of his excursus he carefully composes numerically governed
lists, as we will see, below.
There are two obvious ways to resolve the problems in enumeration. The first would
be to identify passages where Clement conflates Commandments. For instance, one could
see in §137.3 a reference to both the Second and Third Commandments, and therefore a
conflation of the two. But Clement's wording suggests that he was not considering the
Second. He mentions nothing of idols or likenesses (LXX Ex 20.4, Dt 5.8: dbwAov . . .
61-lo[wl-la) and nothing of the promise God makes to visit punishment on the third and
fourth generations. This is telling. Clement is already focusing on the numerical features of
the Bible and the Second Commandment is a prime candidate for an arithmological reading
3 Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres 35 (167-73), De decalogo.

4 Instructor 3(12).89; Protrepticus 1 08(10).5; Instructor 3(12).89; Stromateis 2.32(7).4; Who is the Rich Man
to be Saved? 4.5
407
of the numbers three and four. But Clement does not go this way. Instead, Clement's second
commandment is a prohibition against taking (or putting) the name of the Lord God "upon
a vain thing," a phrase that clearly depends upon only the Third Commandment.5 Thus,
Clement does not refer to the Second Commandment at §137.3. In a similar fashion, to
account for Clement's apparent omission of the Ninth Commandment, some have tried to
identify it with his treatment of the Eighth, or even that of the Tenth, but there is, in my
opinion, nothing explicit in the Greek to suggest this association.6 The expected
buzzwords - tjJwbOj.lClQWQi)m:u:;;, ro\lla(ov, j.lClQ'WQ(a, and tjlwb6c; (LXX Ex 20.1 6, Dt
5.20) - their cognates, and their synonyms are nowhere in §§147.3-148.6, where they would
be expected to appear, if Clement were indeed conflating texts.
A second way to resolve the discrepancy might be to compare the jump from Three
to two and Four to three with Clement's proposal (upcoming at §138.5), that the eight is to
be identified with seven, and seven, with six. That is, if Clement felt the numbers six, seven,
and eight could be transformed one into another, why couldn't the numbers of the
Commandments? This does not work for four reasons. First, the introductory formulas of
§§137.3 and 4 invoke none of the language involved in the excursus detailing the
relationship between six, seven, and eight (§§138.5-145.7). Second, this proposal has
Clement omit a Commandment that has the potential to make such a point more explicit.
After all, if Clement had intended to explain the shift of the Fourth Commandment to the
third, he would not have likely passed by without comment the numerical phrase, "the
5 LXX Ex 20.7, Dt 5.11 : ov AiJ fltJn:l . . . inl. fl1X'HXL4-J; Clement, turning the "vain thing" into the
accusative: flTJ bciv Aaflf)avnv flT)b£ bwpEQE LV bd -ra ycvT)-ra K£XL fllXTa.L£X.
6 See the attempts in ANF 2.515nl, 2.522 and SC 446:356n4.
408
third and fourth generation," part of the Second Commandment? Such a phrase is ripe for
this kind of explanation. Third, unlike the upcoming subexcursus on the Transfiguration
and the episemon, where Clement emphasizes the abrupt intrusion of a figure (the
episemon) and does not mention a subsequent loss, here the emphasis is the reverse: we
have the loss of a Commandment, and nothing "entering in" to effect the shift. As we shall
see, the shifting of six to seven and seven to eight depends for its force on the disruption
created when Christ became human. No such reflection on the Incarnation is at work in
Clement's numbering of the Commandments. Fourth, even if the misnumbering of the
Fourth Commandment could be justified by this analogy, the absence of the Ninth
Commandment remains unexplained .
My suggested solution is simpler, and somewhat more pedestrian. At the opening of
the discussion of the Decalogue, Clement proposes to treat his subject "in a cursory
manner." (§133.1 : KCX'[(X 7WQCXOQOflrlV). He uses this same phrase twice in the rest of his
extant corpus, once to introduce an overview of a few of the earliest Greek philosophers and
elsewhere to describe the manner in which David prophesied Christ's divinity in Psalm 23
(24).8 But in the first of these two passages Clement does not present a complete catalog of
pre-Socratic philosophers, and in the second he suggests that David, in some haste, only
briefly touched upon this Christological theme. Thus, Ka'H'x TWQCXOQOflrlV, as Clement uses it
elsewhere, suggests that not all the Commandments will be discussed, and that the
composition will show something of the author's haste. This is why, at the beginning of his
discussion of the Decalogue, Clement states that he will bypass, for the time being, a
7 Ex 20.5, Dt 5.9.
8 Clement, Exhortation 5.64; idem, Stromateis 7.10.58.3.
409
discussion of why and how the decad is holy (§133.1). Instead, he moves straight into a
discussion of the antitypes of the Decalogue.
Against my proposal, that the excursus is a cursory treatment of the Decalogue, is
this. Clement seems to enumerate carefully each of the Commandments as he goes from one
to the next. The specific ordinals he uses are "first," "second," "third," "fifth," and "tenth."
Clement seems to proceed systematically through the Commandments.
But observe two features in Clement's vocabulary. First, the phrase used to introduce
the Fifth Commandment is strange: 0 b£ 71Ef171Toc; £.Si]c; £an Aoyoc; (§146.1). "Next" and
"fifth" are redundant. Indeed, "next" is a superfluous clarification of "fifth," and "fifth" has
the hallmarks of someone who wanted to clarify what "next" meant. Could a copyist prior
to the eleventh century have inserted 71Ef171Toc; to bring the reader back on track? This
suggestion, offered by Descourtieux, makes sense, since from this point on, no other
Commandment is assigned a number until the last, called the "tenth."9
Second, only the first Commandment is properly called a "commandment"
( £vToAr'J). The others are called "accounts" or "discourses" (A6yoc;). This change in
terminology may be important, since Clement uses EVToAi} to refer specifically to the Ten
Commandments, whereas A6yoc; is more versatile (cf. §§134.1, 1 36.4). Clement presents the
First, calling it a "Commandment." The second he calls a A6yoc;, not an EVToAt1, referring
now to the points of his narrative, not to the Commandments (since he intended to cover the
Decalogue cursorily, each Commandment's number was not as important). The so-called
fifth A6yoc; is really just the "next" point for discussion (adopting the worthwhile
9 See SC 446:352 n. 1.
410
suggestion that 71Efl7l'TO� is a later scribal addition). By the time Clement reaches the last
Commandment a mild anacolouthon enters into his narrative, and he calls it the tenth
t\6yo�, instead of the tenth EV'Tot\fj, since he stopped numbering the points of his discourse
long ago, probably forgot about the original plan while writing his two lengthy tangents
(§§138.5-145.7), and this was the last Commandment to be discussed.
Clement intended to discuss cursorily only several of the Ten Commandments. His
interest in the Decalogue got the better of him and he wound up discussing most of the
Commandments. My solution draws from two of Clement's tendencies -his meandering
and his precise wording - to make sense of his apparent carelessness. As shown in chapter
8, Clement was anything but a careless writer.
41 1
Abbreviations
ANF Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. Ante
Nicene Fathers. 1885-87. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1 995.
BCNH. E Bibliotheque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section " E tudes"
BCNH.T Bibliotheque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section "Textes"
BT Babylonian Talmud
CAG Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca
CCAG Catologus codicum astrologorum graecorum. Brussels, 1 898-1940.
CCL Corpus Christianorum, series Latina
CCCM Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis
CIL Corpus Inscriptorum Latinorum
CPG Geerard, Maurice. Clavis Patrum Graecorum. 5 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1974--
87.
CQ Classical Quarterly
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
DECL Dopp, Siegmar, and Wilhelm Geerlings; eds. Dictionan; of Early Christian
Literature. Trans. Matthew O'Connell. New York: Crossroad, 2000.
412
FGrH Jacoby, Felix. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin: Weidmann,
1923-58.
FOTC Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America
Press, 1947-.
IG Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin: Georgium Reimerum, 1 903-.
IG P IG. Vol. 1, Inscriptiones A tticae Euclidis anna (403/2) anteriores. 3rd ed. 1981-98.
IGLS Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Beirut-Paris: P. Geuthner, 1 929-.
IGUR Moretti, L. Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae. Rome, 1 968-90.
JJP Journal of Juristic Papyrology
LSJ Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Rev. Henry
Stuart Jones et al. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 996.
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LThK Lexikon for Theologie und Kirche. 3rd ed. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1993-
2001.
LXX Septuagint
NH Nag Hammadi
NHS Nag Hammadi Studies (later called Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies)
NP Cancik, Hubert, and Helmuth Schneider, eds. Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopiidie der
Antike. 1 9 vols. Stuttgart: J. B . Metzler, 1996-2003.
NT Novum Testamentum: An International Quarterly for New Testament and Related
Studies
OCD Hornblower, Simon, and Antony Spawforth, eds. Oxford Classical Dictionary.
3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
413
PG Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca. 161 vols. in 166 pts. Paris, 1 857-
66.
PGM Priesendanz, K., et al., eds. Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die Griechischen
Zauberpapyri. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973-74.
PL Patrologiae cursus completus, Series latina. 221 vols. in 222 pts. Paris, 1 844-
80.
PRE Pauly's Real-Encyclopi:idie der dessischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: J. B.
Metzler, 1837-52.
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
sc Sources chretiennes
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicorum Graecorum
SP Studia Patristica
SVF von Amim, Hans Friedrich, ed. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. 4 vols. Stuttgart:
Teubner, 1 968.
TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae
TRE Krause, Gerhard, and Gerhard Muller, eds. Theologische Realenzyklopi:idie.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977-.
VChr Vigiliae Christianae
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
YT Jerusalem Talmud
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenli:indischen Gesellschaft
ZPE Zeitschrift for Papyrologie und Epigraphik
414
Bibliography
PRIMARY SOURCES, ORDERED BY ANCIENT AUTHOR OR TEXT
Aelius Herodian. See pseudo-Herodian
Aetius
Placita
Diels, Hermann. Doxographi graeci. 1 879. Reprint, Leipzig: W. de Gruyter,
1929.
Albinus
Epitome of Platonic Teaching
Louis, Pierre, ed. Epitome. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1945.
Alexander of Aphrodisias
Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics
Hay duck, Michael, ed. Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis metaphysica
commentaria. CAG 1 . Berlin: Reimer, 1 891.
Alexander Polyhistor
Fragments and testimonies
415
Muller, Karl Otfried, ed. Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. 4 vols. Paris:
Didot, 1841-70. 3:210-44.
Ammonius of Alexandria
On Porphyry's Eisagoge
Busse, Adolf, ed. Ammonius in Porphyrii isagogen sive quinque voces. CAG 4.3.
Berlin: Reimer, 1891.
Anatolius of Laodicea
On the Decad
Heiberg, J. L. Sur les dix premiers nombres. Macon: Protat, 1901 .
Anonymous. See specific treatise titles
Anthologia Graeca
Beckby, Hermann, ed. Anthologia Graeca. 4 vols. 2nd ed. Munich: Heimeran,
1965.
Apocalypse of Paul (NH 5.2)
Murdock, William R., and George W. MacRae, eds. Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-
5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,1 and 4. Ed. Douglas M. Parrott.
NHS 1 1 . Leiden: Brill, 1979. Pp. 47-63.
Apocryphon ofjohn (NH 4.1). See also Nag Hammadi
Waldstein, Michael, and Frederik Wisse, eds. The Apocryphon ofjohn: Synopsis
of Nag Hammadi Codices II,l, III,l, and IV,l with B G 8502,2. Leiden: Brill,
1995.
Apollonius Dyscolus. See Dionysius Thrax.
Apollonius of Rhodes
416
Argonautica
Frankel, Hermann, ed. Argonautica. 196 1 . Reprint with corrections, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1970.
Apophasis Megale. See Hippolytus, Refutation ofAll Heresies
Apuleius
Florida
Vallette, Paul, ed. Apologie; Florides. 1924. Reprint, Paris: Les Belles Lettres,
1971.
Archytas of Tarentum. See also Pythagorean Texts
Diels, Hermann, and W. Kranz. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 8th ed.
Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1 957.
Huffman, Carl A. Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher, and
Mathematician King. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Aristotle
Fragments
Rose, Valentinus, ed. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. 1 886.
Reprint, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1967.
Metaphysics
Ross, W. D., ed. Aristotle's metaphysics. 2 vols. 1924. Reprint with corrections,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
On the Generation of Animals
417
Dressaart Lulofs, H. J., ed. Aristotelis de generatione animalium. 1965. Reprint,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Physics
Ross, W. D., ed. Aristotelis physica. 1950. Reprint with corrections, Oxford:
Problemata
Bekker, Immanuel. Aristotelis opera. 5 vols. 1 831. Reprint, De Gruyter, 1 960.
3:859a1-967b27.
Aristoxenus
Wehrli, Fritz, ed. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Vol. 2, Aristoxenos. 2nd ed. Basel:
Schwabe, 1967.
Artemidorus
Dream Book
Pack, Roger A. Artemidori Daldiani Onirocriticon libri v. Leipzig: Teubner, 1963.
Asclepius of Tralles
Commentary on Nicomachus of Gerasa, Introduction to Arithmetic
Tarcin, L., ed. "Asclepius of Tralles: Commentary to Nicomachus'
Introduction to Arithmetic." Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, n.s. 59.4 (1969): 24-72.
Athenagoras
Legatio
418
Schaedel, William R., ed. Legatio and De resurrectione. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1 972. Pp. 2-86.
Augustine
Confessions
O'Donnell, James J., ed. Confessions. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992.
De ordine
Green, W. M., ed. Contra academicos. De beata vita. De ordine. CCL 29.
Turnhout: Brepols, 1970. Pp. 87-137.
De quantitate animae
PL 32:1035-80.
Letters
Goldbacher, AI., ed. S. Avreli Avgvstini Hipponiensis episcopi Epistvlae. Pt. 2, Ep.
31-123. CSEL 34.2. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1898.
Retractions
Mutzenbecher, Almut, ed. Sancti Aurelii Augustini Retractationum libri II.
CCSL 57. Turnhout: Brepols, 1984.
pseudo-Barnabas
Epistle
Kraft, Robert A., ed. Epztre de Barnabe. SC 172. Paris: Cerf, 1 971 .
Basil of Caesarea
Hexaemeron
419
Giet, Stanislas, ed. Homelies sur l'hexaemeron. 2nd ed. SC 26bis. Paris: Cerf,
1968.
Boethius
De unitate et de uno
PL 63:1075-78.
Institution ofArithmetic; Institution of Music
Friedlein, Gottfried, ed. De institutione arithmetica libri duo. De institutione
musica libri quinque. Accedit Geometria quae fertur Boetii. 1 867. Reprint,
Frankfurt: Minerva, 1966.
Books offeu
Schmidt, Carl, ed. The Books offeu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex.
Trans. Violet MacDermot. NHS 13. Leiden: Brill, 1 978.
Bruce codex (untitled treatise). See Books of feu
Cassiodorus
Institutions
Mynors, R. A. B., ed. Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1937.
Chalcidius
Commentary on the Timaeus
Moreschini, Claudio, ed. Commentario al "Timeo " di Platone. Milan: Bompiani,
2003.
Chrysippus
Fragments
420
SVF 2.
Cicero
De divinatione
F alconer, William Armistead, trans. De senectute. De amicitia. De divinatione.
LCL 154. 1 923. Reprint, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1 938.
Clement of Alexandria
Excerpts from Theodotus
Casey, Robert Pierce, ed. and trans. The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of
Alexandria. London: Christophers, 1934.
The Instructor
Marrou, H.-I., M. Harl, C. Mondesert and C. Matray, eds. Le pedagogue. 3 vols.
SC 70, 108, 158. Paris: Cerf, 1 960-70.
Protrepticus
Mondesert, Claude, ed. Le protreptique. 2nd ed. SC 2. Paris: Cerf, 1949.
Stromateis
Descourtieux, P., ed. Stromate VI. SC 446. Paris: Cerf, 1999.
Hort, Fenton John Anthony and Joseph B. Mayor, eds. Clement of Alexandria:
Miscellanies, Book VII: The Greek Text with Introduction, Translation,
Notes, Dissertations and Indices. London: Macmillan, 1 902.
Mondesert, Claude, ed. Stromate II. SC 38. Paris: Cerf, 1954.
421
SUihlin, Otto, L. Friichtel, and Ursula Treu, eds. Clemens Alexandrinus. Vols. 2
(3rd ed.) and 3 (2nd ed.). GCS 52(15), 17. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1960-70.
Van Den Hoek, Annewies, ed. Stromate IV. Trans. Claude Mondesert. SC 463.
Paris: Cerf, 2001.
Wilson, W., trans. ANF 2:299-567.
Who is the Rich Man to be Saved?
Stahlin, Otto, L. Friichtel, and Ursula Treu, eds. Clemens Alexandrinus. Vol. 3
(2nd ed.). GCS 17. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970. Pp. 159-91 .
Clement of Rome
Letter to the Corinthians
Jaubert, Annie, ed. Epitre aux Corinthiens. SC 1 67. Paris: Cerf, 1971 .
Concept of Our Great Power (NH 6.4)
Wisse, Frederik, and Francis E. Williams, eds. Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and
VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,1 and 4. Ed. Douglas M. Parrott. NHS
1 1 . Leiden: Brill, 1979. Pp. 291-323.
Cyril of Alexandria
Against Julian
Burguiere, Paul, and Pierre Evieux, eds. Contre Julien. SC 322-. Paris: Cerf,
1985-.
Damascius
Commentary on Parmenides
422
Ruelle, C. E ., ed. Damascii successoris dubitationes et solutions. 1 899. Reprint,
Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1964. 2:5-322.
Democritus. See Presocratics
Diogenes Laertius
Lives of the Philosophers
Long, H. S., ed. Vitae philosophorum. 2 vols. 1964. Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1966.
Dionysius Thrax (along with scholia by Apollonius Dyscolus, Melampous, and other anonymous
authors)
Uhlig, Gustav, Richard Schneider, et al., ed. Grammatici Graeci. Vol. 1,
Dionysius Thracis Ars grammatica et scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem
grammaticam. Vol. 2, Apolonii Dyscoli quae supersunt. Vol. 3, Herodiani
Technici reliquiae. Vol. 4, Theodosii Alexandrini canones et Georgii
Choerobosci scholia in canones nominales, Choerobisci scholia in canones
verbales et Sophronii excerpta e characis commentario. 1 883. Reprint,
Leipzig: Georg Olms, 1965.
Epiphanius
Panarion
Williams, Frank, trans. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. NHS 35-36.
Leiden: Brill, 1987-94.
Holl, Karl, ed. Epiphanius. Vols. 1-3, Ancoratus und Panarion. GCS 25, 31, 37.
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915-33.
Epistle to Rheginos (NH 1 .4)
423
Peel, Malcolm Lee, ed. The Epistle to Rheginos: A Valentinian Letter on the
Resurrection. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969.
Peel, Malcolm Lee, ed. Gnosis und Auferstehung: Der Brief an Rheginus von Nag
Hammadi. Trans. Wolf-Peter Funk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1974.
Evagrius of Pontus
On Prayer
PG 79:1 165-1200.
Eugnostos (NH 3.3)
Parrott, Douglas M., ed. Nag Hammadi codices III, 3-4 and V, 1 with Papyrus
Berolinensis 8502, 3 and Oxyrhynchus papyrus 1 081: Eugnostos and The
Sophia of Jesus Christ. NHS 27. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
Eusebius
Church History
Bardy, Gustave, ed. Histoire ecclesiastique. 3 vols. SC 31, 41, 55. Paris: Cerf,
1952-67.
Preparation of the Gospel
Mras, Karl, ed. Eusebius Werke. Vol. 8, Die Praeparatio evangelica. GCS 43.1-2.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954-56.
Favonius Eulogius
Disputation on the Dream of Scipio
van Weddingen, Roger-E., ed. Disputatio de Somnio Scipionis. Collection
Latomus 27. Brussels: Latomus revue d'etudes latines, 1957.
424
Filastrius of Brescia
Book of Different Heresies
Heylen, F., ed. Filastrii Brixiensis Diversarum hereseon liber. CCSL 9. Turnholt:
Brepols, 1957. Pp. 208-324.
First Apocalypse of James (NH 5.3)
Schaedel, William R., and Douglas M. Parrott, eds. "The (First) Apocalypse of
James." In Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis
8502,1 and 4. Ed. Douglas M. Parrott. NHS 1 1 . Leiden: Brill, 1979. Pp.
65-103.
Galen
Protreptic to Medicine
Wenkebach, E., ed. "Galens Protreptikosfragment." Quellen und Studien zur
Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und Medizin 4.3 (1935) 90-120.
Gellius, Aulus
Attic Nights
Serra, F., ed. Noctes Atticae. Pisa: Giardini, 1993-.
Gospel of Philip (NH 2.3)
Schenke, Hans-Martin, ed. Das Philippus-Evangelium: (Nag-Hammadi-Codex
II,3). Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1 997.
The Gospel of Truth (NH 1.3)
Attridge, Harold W., and George W. MacRae, eds. "The Gospel of Truth." In
Nag Hammadi Codex I (the Jung Codex). NHS 22-23. Leiden: Brill, 1985.
22:55-122; 23:38-135.
425
Grammatici Graeci. See Dionysius Thrax
Gregory of Nazianzus
Orations [43]
Boulenger, Femand, ed. Discours funebres en l 'honneur de son frere Cesaire et de
Basile de Cesaree. Paris: Picard, 1908.
Hellanicus
FGrH 4.
Heracleon. See also Origen, Commentary on John
Fragments
Wucherpfennig, Ansgar. Heracleon Philologus: Gnostische Johannesexegese im
zweiten Jahrhundert. WUNT 142. Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.
Hermas
The Shepherd of Hermas
Whittaker, Molly, ed. Die apostolischen Vater. Vol. 1, Der Hirt des Hermas. GCS
48. 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1967.
Hermetic fragments
Nock, A. D., ed. Corpus Hermeticum. Trans. A. J. Festugiere. 4 vols. 6th ed.
Paris: Belles Lettres, 1983.
pseudo-Herodian
IIEpi apLe11wv
Estienne, Henri, ed. Thesaurus graecae linguae. Paris: A. Firmin Didot, 1 831-65.
8:345 (appendix).
Hierodes
426
On the Golden Poem
Kohler, Fridericus Guilelmus, ed. Hieroclis in aureum Pythagoreorum carmen
commentarius. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1974
Hippocrates
On Hebdomads
Roscher, W. H., ed. Die hippokratische Schrift von der Siebenzahl. Studien zur
Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 6. 1913. Reprint, Paderbom:
Schoningh, 1967.
Hippolytus
Refu tation of All Heresies
Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Refutatio omnium haeresium. Patristische Texte und
Studien 25. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1 986.
Macmahon, J. H., trans. ANF 5:9-153.
Wendland, Paul, ed. Refutatio omnium haeresium. GCS 26. 1 91 6. Reprint, New
York: Olms, 1977.
Homer
Iliad
Allen, Thomas W., ed. Homeri Ilias. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931.
Odyssey
von der Miihll, P., ed. Homeri Odyssea. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1962.
Iamblichus. See also Theology of Arithmetic
Commentaries on Plato; On the Soul
427
Dillon, John M., ed., trans., and comm. Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis
Dialogos Commentariorum Fragmenta. Leiden: Brill, 1 973.
Common Mathematical Knowledge
Festa, Nicolaus, ed. Iamblichi de communi mathematica scientia liber. Corrected
by Udalricus Klein. 1891. Reprint, Leipzig: Teubner, 1975.
The Pythagorean Way of Life
Deubner, Ludwig, ed. Iamblichi De vita Pythagorica liber. Corrected by
Udalricus Klein. 1937. Reprint, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1 975.
Dillon, John, and Jackson Hershbell, trans. On the Pythagorean Way of Life:
Text, Translation, and Notes. Texts and Translations 29. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1991.
De mysteriis
des Places, E duard, ed. Les mysteres d'Egypte. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1 966.
Irenaeus of Lyon
Against Heresies. For parts of book 1, see also Epiphanius, Panarion
Rousseau, A., L. Doutreleau, et al., eds. Contre les Heresies. 1 0 vols. SC 263-64
(Book 1), 293-94 (Book 2), 210-1 1 (Book 3), 1 00 (Book 4), 152-53 (Book
5). Paris: Cerf, 1979-2002. [Referred to by book and volume. E.g.,
Rousseau and Doutreleau ed., 2.2 = SC 294]
Unger, Dominic J., and John J. Dillon, trans. St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the
Heresies. Ancient Christian Writers 55. New York: Paulist, 1992.
Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and W. H. Rambaut, trans. ANF 1 :315-
567.
428
Harvey, W. Wigan, ed. Sancti Irenaei episcapi Lugdunensis libri quinque adversus
haereses. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 857.
Fragments
Harvey, W. Wigan, ed. Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis libri quinque adversus
haereses. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 857. 2:470-
51 1 .
Jordan, D. Hermann. "Armenische Irenaeusfragmente." Texte und
Untersuchungen 36.3 (1913).
Proof of the Apostolic Preaching
Ter Mekerttschian, Karapet, and S. G. Wilson, eds. "The Proof of the
Apostolic Preaching with Seven Fragments." Patrologia Orientalis 12
(1919): 655-731 .
Isidore of Seville
Etymologies
Lindsay, W. M., ed. Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarvm sive Originvm
libri xx. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 191 1 .
Jerome
Letters
Hilberg, Isidore, ed. Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae. 2nd ed. CSEL 54-56.
Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1996.
De viris illustribus
429
Bernoulli, Carl Albrecht, ed. De viris inlustribus. 1 895. Reprint, Frankfurt,
Minerva, 1 968.
John Chrysostom
Homilies on John
PG 59:23-482.
John of Damascus
Philosophical Chapters
Kotter, Bonafatius, ed. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. 5 vols.
Patristische Texte und Studien 7. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969. 1 :47-142.
John Lydus
On the Months
Wunsch, Ricardus. Liber de mensibus. 1 898. Reprint, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1 967.
John of Mirfeld
Works
Horton-Smith Hartley, Percival, and Harold Richard Aldridge, trans. Johannes
de Mirfeld of St. Bartholemew's, Smithfield: His Life and Works.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 936.
John Philoponos
Commentary on Aristotle's De anima
Hayduck, Michael, ed. Joannis Philoponi in Aristotelis de anima libros
commentaria. CAG 15. Berlin: Reimer, 1 897.
Julian
To the Untaught Dogs
430
Rochefort, G., ed. Oeuvres completes. 2 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1963.
2.1:144-73.
Julius Pollux
Onomasticon
Bethe, Erich. Pollucis onomasticon. 2 vols. Lexicographi Graeci 9. 1931 . Reprint,
Leipzig: Teubner, 1967.
Justin Martyr
Apologies; Dialogue with Trypho
Goodspeed, E. J., ed. Die iiltesten Apologeten. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1915.
pseudo-Justin Martyr
Exhortation to the Nations
Otto, J. C. T., ed. Corpus apologetarum Christianorum saeculi secundi. 9 vols. 3rd
ed. 1879. Reprint, Jena: Mauke, 1879. Vol. 3.
Lactantius
Divine Institutes
Brandt, Samuel, and George Laubmann, eds. L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera
omnia. CSEL 19. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1 890-97.
Lamprias. See also Plutarch
Catalogue
Sandbach, F. H., trans. Moralia. Vol. 15. LCL 429. C ambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1969. Pp. 3-29.
Leonides of Alexandria
431
Page, D. L. Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1981. Pp. 503-41 .
Logica et Quadrivium
Heiberg, J. L., ed. Anonymi Logica et quadrivium: cum scholiis antiquis.
Copenhagen: Andr. Fred. H0st & S"m, 1929.
Lucian
Vitarum auctio
Harmon, A. M., trans. Lucian in Eight Volumes. Vol. 2. LCL 54. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1915. Pp. 450-510.
De lapsu inter salutandum
Kilburn, K., trans. Lucian in Eight Volumes. Vol. 6. LCL 430. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1959: 172-88.
"Lysis." See Pythagorean texts
Macrobius
Dream of Scipio
Regali, Mario, ed. Commento al Somnium Scipionis. 2 vols. Biblioteca di studi
antichi 38, 58. Pisa: Giardini, 1983-90.
Magical texts
Priesendanz, K., et al., eds. Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die Griechischen
Zauberpapyri. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1 973-74.
Marcus [Magus]. See Irenaeus, Against Heresies
Marsanes (NH 10.1)
432
Funk, Wolf-Peter, Paul-Hubert Poirier, and John D. Turner, eds. Marsanes:
NH X, Bibliotheque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section "Textes" 27.
Louvain: Peeters; Quebec: Presses de l'Universite Laval, 2000.
Pearson, Birger A., ed. Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X. NHS 15. Leiden: Brill,
1981. Pp. 211-347.
Martial
Epigrams
Shackleton Bailey, D. R., ed. Epigrams. 3 vols. LCL 94, 95, 480. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Martianus Capella
On the Marriage of Philologia and Mercury
Willis, James, ed. Martianus Capella. Leipzig: Teubner, 1983.
Maximos of Tyre
Dialexeis
Hobein, H., ed. Maximi Tyrii philosophumena. Leipzig: Teubner, 1910.
Melampous. See Dionysius Thrax
Moderatus of Gades
Fragments
Mullach, F. W. A., ed. Fragmenta philosophorum Graecorum. 1 860-81 . Reprint,
Aalen: Scientia, 1 968. 2:48-49.
Monoi:mus. See Hippolytus, Refutation ofAll Heresies
Nag Hammadi. See also individual treatises
433
Layton, Bentley, trans. The Gnostic Scriptures. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1987.
Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library. Rev. ed. San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1988.
Nemesius
On the Nature of Man
Morani, Moreno, ed. Nemesii Emeseni De natura hominis. Leipzig: Teubner,
1 987.
New Testament
Nestle, E., et al., eds. Novum Testamentum graece. 27th rev. ed. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004.
Nicomachus of Gerasa. See also Theology ofArithmetic
Introduction to Arithmetic
Hoche, Richard, ed. Nicomachi Geraseni Pythagorei introductionis arithmeticae
libri ii. Leipzig: Teubner, 1866.
D'Ooge, Martin Luther, trans. Introduction to arithmetic. With studies in Greek
arithmetic by Frank Egleston Robbins and Louis Charles Karpinski.
New York: Macmillan, 1926.
Odo of Morimond
Analytica numerorum et rerum in theographyam
Lange, Hanne, ed. Analytica numerorum et rerum in theographyam. Traitt�s du
XIIe siecle sur Ia symbolique des nombres. Copenhagen: E. Paludan,
1989.
434
On Simon. See under Irenaeus, Against Heresies
On the Mysteries of the Greek Letters
Hebbelynck, A., ed. Les mysteres des lettres grecques. Louvain, 1902.
[On the Numbers]
Delatte, E tudes, 171-75.
Origen
Commentary on John
Blanc, Cecile, ed. Commentaire sur saint Jean. 5 vols. SC 120, 157, 222, 290. 385.
Paris: Cerf, 1 966-92.
Heine, Ronald E., trans. Commentary on the Gospel according to John. 2 vols.
FOTC 80, 89. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America
Press, 1989-93.
Against Celsus
Borret, Marcel, ed. Contre Celse. 5 vols. SC 132, 136, 147, 150, 227. Paris: Cerf,
1967-76.
Letter to Gregory Thaumaturgus
Koetschau, Paul, ed. Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes.
Freiburg: Mohr, 1 894. Pp. 40-44.
Origin of the World (NH 2.5/13.2)
Painchaud, Louis, ed. L 'E crit sans titre: traite sur l 'origine du monde (NH II, 5 et
XIII, 2 et Brit. Lib. Or. 4926[1]). With two contributions by Wolf-Peter
Funk. BCNH.T 2 1 . Quebec: Presses de l'Universite Laval, 1995.
Pachymeres, George
435
Quadrivium
Tannery, P., ed. Quadrivium de Georges Pachymere. Revised by E. Stt�phanou.
Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1 940.
Pappus of Alexandria
Synagoge
Hultsch, Fridericus, ed. Pappi Alexandrini collectionis quae supersunt. 3 vols.
1876-78. Reprint, Berlin: Weidmann, 1965.
Philo
Allegorical Interpretation (Leg. all.); On Abraham (De Abr.); On Rewards and Punishments
(De praem. et poen.); On the Contemplative Life (De vita cont.); On the
Creation of the World (De opif. mundi); On the Decalogue (De dec.); On the
Preliminary Studies (De congr. erud. gratia); On the Special Laws (De spec.
leg.); On the Unchangeableness of God (Quod Deus sit immut.); Who Is the
Heir of Divine Things ? (Quis rerum div. heres)
Cohn, Leopold, Paul Wendland, et al., eds. Philonis Alexandrini opera quae
supersunt. 7 vols. 1896-1930. Reprint, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1 962-63.
[On Arithmetic]
Staehle, Karl, ed. Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon von Alexandreia. 1 931 . Reprint,
New York: Garland, 1987.
Questions and Answers on Genesis (Quaest. in Gen.)
Petit, Fran�oise, ed. Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum: Fragmenta Graeca. Les
oeuvres de Philon d' Alexandrie 33. Paris: Cerf, 1978.
436
Mercier, Charles, ed. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim: e versione armeniaca.
Les oeuvres de Philon d' Alexandrie 34ab. Paris: Cerf, 1979.
Philolaus
Huffman, Carl A., ed. Philolaus of Croton: Pythagorean and presocratic: A
Commentary on the Fragments and Testimonia with Interpretive Essays.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Photius
Biblioteca
Bekker, Immanuel, ed. Photii bibliotheca. Berlin: G. Reimeri, 1824-25.
Henry, Rene, ed. Bibliotheque. 9 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1 959-91.
Pinax of [Kebes]
Prachter, K., ed. "Cebetis tabula quanam aetate conscripta esse videatur."
Diss. Marburg, 1885.
Pistis Sophia
Schmidt, Carl, ed. Pistis Sophia. Trans. Violet MacDermot. NHS 9. Leiden:
Brill, 1978.
Plato
Parmenides; Republic; Timaeus
Burnet, John. Opera. 5 vols. 1900-1907. Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1967-73.
Pliny the Elder
Natural History
437
Rackham, H., et al., trans. Natural History. 1 0 vols. LCL 330, 352, 353, 370, 371,
392, 393, 418, 394, 419. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1967-75.
Plotinus
Enneads
Henry, Paul, and Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer. Plotini opera. 3 vols. 1951-73.
Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.
Plutarch. See also Lamprias
Genesis of the Soul in the Timaeus; The Obsolescence of Oracles; On the E at Delphi; Roman
Questions; Table Talk
Babbitt, Frank Cole, et al., ed. and trans. Moralia. Vol. 1 LCL 197. Cambridge,
Hubert, C., et al., eds. Plutarchi moralia. Leipzig: Teubner, 1925-.
Isis and Osiris
Gwyn Griffiths, John, ed. Plutarch 's De Iside et Osiride. Cambridge:
University of Wales Press, 1 970.
pseudo-Plutarch
On Music
Ziegler, K., ed. Plutarchi moralia. Vol. 6.3. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1966. Pp.
1-37.
Porphyry
On the Soul
438
Bidez, J .. ed. Vie de Porphyre, le philosophe neo-platonicien, avec les fragments des
traites Peri agalmtiton et De regressu animae. Leipzig: Teubner, 1913.
Life of Pythagoras
Nauck, A. Porphyrii philosophi Platonici opuscula selecta. 2nd edn. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1886. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1963. Pp. 17-52.
Presocratics (Archytas, Democritus, Philolaus, Solon)
Diels, Hermann, and Walther Kranz, eds. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker:
Griechisch und deutsch. 6th ed. 1951. Reprint, Zurich: Weidmann, 1985-
87.
Produs
Commentary on the First Book of Euclid 's Elements
Friedlein, Gottfried, ed. Procli Diadochi in primum Euclidis elementorum librum
commentarii. 1873. Reprint, Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1992.
Commentary on Plato's Republic
Kroll, Wilhelm, ed. Procli Diadochi in Platonis rem publicam commentarii. 2 vols.
1899-1901. Reprint, Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1 965.
Commentary on the Timaeus
Festugiere, A.-J., ed. and trans. Commentaire sur le Timee. Paris: J. Vrin, 1966-
68.
Taylor, Thomas, trans. The Commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato, in
Five Books: Containing a Treasury of Pythagoric and Platonic Physiology.
London, 1820.
Commentary on the Parmenides
439
Morrow, Glenn R., and John M. Dillon, trans. Proclus ' Commentary on Plato's
Parmenides Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Psellos, Michael
Interpretation of the Twenty-Four Letters
Duffy, J. M., and D. J. O'Meara, eds. Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora. Vol. 1,
Opuscula logica, physica, allegorica, alia. Leipzig: Teubner, 1989-92.
Opusculum 36.
Tannery, Paul, ed. Diophanti Alexandrini Opera omnia: cum Graecis
commentariis. Leipzig: Teubneri, 1 893-95. 2:41 .
Ptolemy [Valentinian]
Letter to Flora
Quispel, Gilles, ed . Lettre a Flora. 2nd ed. SC 24 bis. Paris: Cerf, 1966.
[Claudius] Ptolemy
Harmonics
During, Ingemar, ed. Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios. Goteborgs
Hogskolas Arsskrift 36. Goteborg: Elanders, 1930.
pseudo-Pythagoras
Golden Poem
Diehl, Ernest, ed. Theognis. Corrected by Douglas Young. 1 971 . Reprint,
Stuttgart: Teubner, 1 998. Pp. 86--94.
Pythagorean texts (pseudo-Archytas, "Lysis")
440
Diels, Hermann, and Walther Kranz, eds. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker:
Griechisch und deutsch. 6th ed. 1951. Reprint, Zurich: Weidmann, 1985-
87.
Thesleff, Holger, ed. The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period. Abo: Abo
Akademi, 1965.
Revelation to Marcus. See Irenaeus, Against Heresies
Scholia in Dionysius Thrax. See Dionysius Thrax
Seneca
Letters
Reynolds, L. D., ed. L. Annaei Senecae Ad Lucilium epistulae morales. Oxford:
Septuagint
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX
interpretes. 1935. Reprint, 2 vols. in 1, Stuttgart: Wiirttembergische
Bibelanstalt, 1979.
Sextus Empiricus
Against the Logicians (= Against the Mathematicians 6-7); Against the Physicians
Mau, Jiirgen, and Hermann Mutschmann, eds. Sexti Empirici opera. 4 vols.
1914. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1984.
Simon Magus. See Hippolytus, Refu tation of All Heresies
Simplicius
Commentary on Aristotle's Physics
441
Diels, Hermann, ed. Simplicii in Aristotelis physicorum Iibras octo commentaria. 2
vols. CAG 9-10. Berlin: Reimer, 1882-95.
Socrates Scholasticus
Ecclesiastical History
Hansen, G. C., ed. Histoire ecclesiastique. Translation by Pierre Perichon and
Pierre Maraval. Introduction and notes by Pierre Maraval. SC 477,
493. Paris: Cerf, 2004-.
Solon. See Presocratics
The Sophia of Jesus Christ (NH 3.4)
Barry, Catherine, ed. La Sagesse de Jesus-Christ (BG, 3; NH III,4). BCNH.T 20.
Quebec: Presses de l'Universite Laval, 1993.
Speusippus of Athens. See also Presocratics
Taran, Leonardo, ed. Speusippus ofAthens: A Critical Study with a Collection of
the Related Texts and Commentary. Philosophia Antigua 39. Leiden:
Brill, 1981.
Stobaeus
Eclogae
Hense, Otto, and Curtis Wachsmuth, eds. An thologium. 5 vols. 1 884-1912.
Reprint, Berlin: Weidmann, 1958.
Syrianus
Commentary on the Metaphysics
442
Kroll, Wilhelm, ed. Syriani in metaphysica commentaria. CAG 6.1 . Berlin:
Reimer, 1902.
Tacitus
Annales
Heubner, Henricus, ed. Ab excessu divi Augusti. Stuttgart: Teubneri, 1983.
Tertullian
Against the Valentinians
Fredouille, Jean-Claude, ed. Contre les Valentiniens. SC 280-81. Paris: Cerf,
1980-81 .
Riley, Mark Timothy, trans. "Q. S. Fl. Tertulliani Adversus Valentinianos:
Text, Translation, and Commentary." PhD dissertation, Standford
University, 1971 . Published online
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/riley_adv_val/riley_OO_index.htm.
Accessed October 2005.
On the Soul
Waszink, J. H., ed. De anima: Edited with Introduction and Commen tary.
Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1947.
pseudo-Tertullian
Against All Heresies
Kroymann, E., ed. Opera. 2 vols. CCSL 1-2. Tumholt: Brepols, 1 953-54.
2:1399-1410.
The Tetraktys Suspending and Apportioning All Things Four-fold
Delatte, E tudes, 187.
443
Themistius
Analyticorum posteriorum paraphrasis
Wallies, Maximilian, ed. Themistii analyticorum posteriorum paraphrasis. CAG
5. 1 . Berlin: Reimer, 1900.
In Aristotelis libros de anima paraphrases
Heinze, Richard, ed. Themistii in libros Aristotelis de anima paraphrasis. CAG
5.3. Berlin: Reimer, 1899.
Theodore of Asine
Testimonies
Deuse, Werner, ed. Theodoros von Asine: Sammlung der Testimonien und
Kommentar. Palingenesia 6. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973.
pseudo-Theodosios of Alexandria
On Grammar
Gottling, Karl Wilhelm, ed . Theodosii Alexandrini grammatica. Leipzig: Libraria
Dykiana, 1 822.
Theodoret
Compendium of Heretical Fables
PG 83:336-556.
Letters
Azema, Yvan, ed. Correspondance. 3 vols. SC 40, 98, 1 1 1 . Paris: Cerf, 1955-65.
On Providence
PG 83:556-773.
Theology of Arithmetic. See also Iamblichus
444
d e Falco, Victorius, ed. (Iamblichi) theologoumena arithmeticae. Corrected by
Udalricus Klein. 1 922. Reprint, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1975.
Waterfield, Robin, trans. The Theology of Arithmetic: On the Mystical,
Mathematical and Cosmological Symbolism of the First Ten Numbers.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Phanes, 1989
Theon of Alexandria
Commentary on Ptolemy's Almagest
Rome, A., ed. Commentaires de Pappus et de Theon d'Alexandrie sur l 'Almageste.
3 vols. Studi e testi 54, 72, 1 06. Rome: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana,
1931-43. Vols. 2 and 3.
Theon of Smyrna
Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato
Hiller, Eduard, ed . Theonis Smyrnaei philosophi Platonici expositio rerum
mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium. Leipzig: Teubner, 1878.
Theophilus of Antioch
To Autolycus
Grant, Robert M., ed. Ad Autolycum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 970.
The Tripartite Tractate (NH 1 .5)
Attridge, Harold W., and Elaine Pagels, eds. "The Tripartite Tractate." In Nag
Hammadi Codex I (the ]ung Codex). NHS 22-23. Leiden: Brill, 1985.
22:159-337, 23:217-497.
Thomassen, Einar, ed. Le traite tripartite (NH I, 5). BCNH.T 19. Quebec:
Presses de l'Universite Laval, 1989.
445
Tzetzes, John
Chiliades
Kiesslingius, Theophilus, ed. Historiarum variarum Chiliades. Leipzig, 1 826.
A Valentinian Exposition (NH 1 1 .2)
The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. Vol. 10, Codices XI, XII, and
XIII. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Turner, John D., ed. "NHC Xl,2: A Valentinian Exposition 22, 1-39,39." In Nag
Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII. Ed. Charles W. Hedrick. NHS 28.
Leiden: Brill, 1990. Pp. 89-1 72.
pseudo-Valentinus (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1 . 1 1 . 1 ). See Irenaeus
Varro
Nine Books of Disciplines
Ritschl, Friedrich. Opuscula philologica. 5 vols. 1866-79. Reprint, Hildesheim ;
New York : Olms, 1978.
V ettius Valens
Anthologies
Bara, Joelle-Frederique, ed. Anthologies, Livre I. E tudes preliminaries aux
religions orientales dans !'Empire romain III. Leiden: Brill, 1989.
Vitruvius
De architectura
Granger, Frank, trans. On Architecture. 2 vols. LCL 251, 280. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1931-34.
Xenocrates
446
Isnardi Parente, Margherita, ed. Frammenti. Naples: Bibliopolis, 1 982.
Xenophon
Memorabilia
Marchant, E. C., ed. Memorabilia and Oeconomicus. LCL 168. Cambridge,
Zeno
Fragments
SVF 1 .
STUDIES ORDERED BY MODERN AUTHOR
Apatow, Robert. "The Tetraktys: The Cosmic Paradigm of the Ancient Pythagoreans."
Parabola 24.3 (1999): 38-43.
Armstrong, Arthur Hilary. "Dualism." In Wallis, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Pp. 33-54.
Attridge, Harold W., and George W. MacRae, eds. "The Gospel of Truth." In Nag Hammadi
Codex I (the ]ung Codex). NHS 22-23. Leiden: Brill, 1 985. 22:55-122; 23:38-135.
Attridge, Harold W., and Elaine Pagels, eds. "The Tripartite Tractate." In Nag Hammadi
Codex I (the ]ung Codex). NHS 22-23. Leiden: Brill, 1985. 22:159-337, 23:217-497.
Baltes, Mathias. Der Platonismus in der Antike. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann
Holzboog, 1987-.
Bandini, Angelo Maria. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae.
1764. Reprint, Leipzig: Zentral-Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik,
1961 .
447
Barton, Tamsyn. Ancient Astrology. London: Routledge, 1994.
Bean, George Ewart, and Terence Bruce Mitford . Journ eys in Rough Cilicia 1964-1968.
bsterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse,
Denkschriften 102. Wien-Graz: Bohlau in Komm., 1970.
Beaujouan, Guy. "Le symbolisme des nombres a I' epoque romane." In Cahiers de civilisation
medievale, Poitiers 4 (1961): 159-69.
Bechtle, Gerald, and Dominic J. O'Meara, eds. La Philosophic des Mathematiques de l 'Antiquite
Tardive. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 2000.
Beckby, Hermann, ed. Anthologia Graeca. 4 vols. 2nd ed. Munich: Heimeran, 1965.
Bees, Nikos A. Les manuscrits des Meteores: Catalogue descriptif des manuscrits conserves dans les
monasteres des meteores. 2nd ed. Athens: Academy of Athens, 1998-.
Behr, John. Asceticism and anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
Bekker, Immanuel, ed. Aristotelis opera. 5 vols. 1831 . Reprint, De Gruyter, 1960. 3:859a1-
967b27.
- - - . Photii bibliotheca. Berlin: G. Reimeri, 1 824-25.
Berthelot, M. Introduction a l'etude de la chimie des anciens et du moyen-age. 1888. Reprint Paris:
Librarie des sciences et des arts, 1938.
- - - . Les Origenes de l 'alchemie. Paris: G. Steinheil, 1885.
Berthelot, M., and Ch. Em. Ruelle. Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs. 3 vols. 1 888. Reprint,
London: Holland Press, 1963.
Blumenthal, H. J., & E. G. Clark, eds. The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods.
London: Bristol Classical Press, 1 993.
448
Boissonade, J. F. "Traite alimentaire du medicin Hierophile, extrait de deux manuscripts de
la Bibliotheque du Roi." Notices et extraits 1 1 .2 (1827): 178-273.
Bouche-Leclerq, Auguste. L 'astrologie grecque. 1899. Reprint, Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1979.
- - - . Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquite. 4 vols. 1 879. Reprint, Brussels: Culture et
Civilization, 1963.
Bowen, A. C. "The Foundations of Early Pythagorean Harmonic Science: Archytas,
Fragment 1 ." Ancient Philosophy 2 (1982): 79-104.
Brumbaugh, Robert S. Plato on the One: The Hypotheses in the Parmenides. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1961.
Burkert, Walter. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Trans. Edwin L. Minar, Jr.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1 972.
- - - . Weisheit und Wissenschaft: Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Platon. Niirnberg: H.
Carl, 1962.
Casey, Robert Pierce, ed. and trans. The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria. London:
Christophers, 1934.
- - - . "Two Notes on Valentinian Theology." Harvard Theological Review 23 (1930): 275-98.
Cassio, A. C. "Nicomachus of Gerasa and the dialect of Archytas, Fr. 1 ." CQ, n.s. 38 (1988):
135-39.
Castellano, Antonio. La exegesis de Origenes y de Heracle6n a los testimonios del Bautista.
Santiago: Pontificia Univ Cat6lica de Chile, 1998.
Catalogue general des manuscrits des bibliotheques publique des departements. 7 vols. Paris:
lmprimerie nationale, 1 849-85.
449
Charmasson, Therese. "Lectura Geomantiae." In Hermes Latinus. Vol. 4, pt. 4, Astrologia et
Divinatoria. CCCM 144C. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001 . Pp. 349-97.
Chrisomalis, Stephen. "The Egyptian origin of the Greek alphabetic numerals." A ntiquity
77.297 (September 2003): 485-96.
Choufrine, Arkadi. Gnosis, Theophany, Theosis: Studies in Clement of Alexandria 's Appropriation
of His Background. New York: P. Lang, 2002.
Crouzel, Henri. Theologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origene. Aubier: E ditions Montaigne; 1956.
Crum, W. E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
Cumont, Franz. "Les presages lunaires de Virgile et les Selenodromia." L 'Antiquite Classique 2
(1933): 259-70.
Danielou, Jean. Les Symboles chretiens primitives. Paris: du Seuil, 1961 .
Davison, James E. "Structural Similarities and Dissimilarities in the Thought of Clement of
Alexandria and the Valentinians." Second Century 3.4 (1983): 201-17.
de Falco, Victorius, ed. (lamblichi) theologoumena arithmeticae. Corrected by Udalricus Klein.
1922. Reprint, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1 975.
Delatte, Armand. Anecdota Atheniensia. 2 vols. Paris: Champion, 1927.
- - - . Etudes sur la litterature pythagoricienne. Paris: Champion, 1 915.
Delatte, Armand, and E. Delatte, "Un traite byzantin de geomancie (codex Parisinus 2419)."
Annuaire de l 'Institut de philologie et d 'histoire orientales et slaves 4 (1936): 575-658.
Derda, Tomasz. "Some remarks on the Christian symbol XMr." JJP 22 (1992): 21-27.
Descourtieux, P., ed. Stromate VI. SC 446. Paris: Cerf, 1999.
Desjardins, Michel. "The Sources for Valentinian Gnosticism: A Question of Methodology."
VChr 40 (1986): 342-47.
450
Desrousseaux, M. A. M. "Sur quelques manuscrits d'Italie." Melanges d'archeologie et
d'histoire 6 (1886): 536-41.
Deuse, Werner, ed. Theodoros von Asine: Sammlung der Testimonien und Kommentar.
Palingenesia 6. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973.
Diels, Hermann. Doxographi graeci. 1879. Reprint, Leipzig: W. de Gruyter, 1929.
Diels, Hermann, and Walther Kranz, eds. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: Griechisch und
deutsch. 6th ed. 1951. Reprint, Zurich: Weidmann, 1 985-87.
Dillon, John M., ed., trans., and comm. Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis Dialogos
Commentariorum Fragmenta. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
- - - . The Middle Platonists: 80 be to ad 220. Revised edition with a new afterword. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1996.
- - - . "Pleroma and Noetic Cosmos: A Comparative Study." In Wallis, Neoplatonism and
Gnosticism. Pp. 99-1 10.
Dillon, John, and Jackson Hershbeli, trans. On the Pythagorean Way of Life: Text, Translation,
and Notes. Texts and Translations 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1 991 .
Dodds, E. R. "The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One' ." CQ 22
(1928): 129-42.
Dornseiff, Franz. Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie. Leipzig: Teubner, 1925.
Drexl, F. "Zu A. Delatte, Anecdota Atheniensia 1." Byzantinische Zeitschrift 38 (1938): 332.
Dupont-Sommer, Andre. La doctrine gnostique de la lettre "Waw, " d'apres une lamelle arameenne
inedite. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1946.
Edwards, Mark J. " "Clement of Alexandria and his Doctrine of the Logos." VChr 54.2 (2000):
159-77.
451
- - - . Origen Against Plato. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.
- - - . "Simon Magus, the Bad Samaritan." In Portraits: Biographical Representation in the
Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1 997. Pp. 69-
91 .
Ehrman, Bart. "Heracleon, Origen, and the Text of the Fourth Gospel." VChr 47 (1993): 1 05-
18.
The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. Vol. 10, Codices XI, XII, and XIII. Leiden:
Brill, 1 973.
Ferguson, Everett. "Was Barnabas a Chiliast? An Example of Hellenistic Number
Symbolism in Barnabas and Clement of Alexandria." In Greeks, Romans, and
Christians. Minneapolis : Fortress, 1990. Pp. 157-67.
Ferwerda, R. "Plotinus on Sounds: An Interpretation of Plotinus' Enneads V,5,5,19-27,"
Dionysius 6 (1982): 43-57.
Festugiere, A.-J., ed. and trans. Commentaire sur le Timee. Paris: J. Vrin, 1966-68.
Finamore, John F. "Iamblichus, the Sethians, and Marsanes." In Turner and Majercik,
Gnosticism and Later Platonism, 225-57.
Forster, Niclas. Marcus Magus: Kult, Lehre und Gemeindeleben einer valentinianischen
Gnostikergruppe: Sammlung der Quellen und Kommentar. WUNT 1 14. Tiibingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1999.
Fouts, David M. "Another Look at Large Numbers in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions." Journal
of Near East Studies 53 (1994): 205-1 1 .
452
Frickel, Josef. Die Apophasis Megale in Hippolyt's Refutatio (VI 9-18): Eine Paraphrase zur
Apophasis Simons. Orientalia Christiana analecta 182. Rome: Pont. institutum
orientalium studiorum, 1968.
Friedlein, Gottfried, ed. De institutione arithmetica libri duo. De institutione musica libri quinque.
Accedit Geometria quae fertur Boetii. 1867. Reprint, Frankfurt: Minerva, 1966.
Funk, Wolf-Peter, Paul-Hubert Poirier, and John D. Turner, eds. Marsanes: NH X,
Bibliotheque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section "Textes" 27. Louvain: Peeters;
Quebec: Presses de l'Universite Laval, 2000.
Galtier, M. Emile. "Sur les Mysteres des lettres grecques." Bulletin de l'Institut fran�ais
d'archeologie orientale 2.2 (1902): 139-62.
Gardthausen, V. Griechische Palaeographie. 191 1-13. 2 vols. Reprint, Leipzig:
Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1978.
Gersh, Stephen. From Iamblichus to Eriugena. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Gevirtz, Stanley. "Abram's 31 8." Israel Exploration Journal 19.2 (1969) : 1 10-13.
Gollob, Eduard. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften in Osterreich auszerhalb Wiens.
Vienna: C. Gerold's Sohn, 1903.
Graef, Hilda C. "L'image de Dieu et la structure de l'ame chez les Peres grecs." Supplement
de La vie spirituelle 22 (1952).
Greer, Rowan A. "The Dog and the Mushrooms: Irenaeus' View of the Valentinians Assessed."
In The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Vol. 1, The School of Valentinus. Ed. Bentley Layton.
Leiden: Brill, 1980. Pp. 146-75.
Gwyn Griffiths, John, ed. Plutarch 's De Iside et Osiride. Cambridge: University of Wales
Press, 1970.
453
Haar, Stephen. Simon Magus: The First Gnostic? Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche 1 19. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2003.
Haase, R. "Ein Beitrag Platons zur Tetraktys." Antaios 1 1 (1969): 85-91 .
Hadot, Ilsetraut, Arts liberaux et philosophie dans la pensee antique. Paris: E tudes
Augustiniennes, 1984.
Hamann, Carl. De Psalteria triplici Cusano. Hamburg: Liitcke & Wulff, 1 89 1 .
Hamman, A.-G. L 'homme image de Dieu: Essai d'une anthropologie chretienne dans l'Eglise des
cinq premiers siecles. Paris: Desclee; 1987.
Harding, G. Lankester. An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and
Inscriptions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971 .
Hardt, Ignatius. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum Bibliothecae regiae Bavaricae.
Munich: I. E. Seidel, 1806---1 2.
Harms, W. "Das ypthagorische Y auf illustrierten Flugblatten des 17. Jahrhunderts." Antike
und Abendland 21 (1975): 97-1 1 0.
Harvey, W. Wigan, ed. Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis libri quinque adversus haereses. 2
vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 857.
Hayduck, Michael, ed. Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria. CAG 1 .
Berlin: Reimer, 1891.
Hebbelynck, A., ed. Les mysteres des lettres grecques. Louvain, 1902.
Heberdey, Rudolph, and Adolf Wilhelm. Reisen in Kilikien, ausgefii.hrt 1 891 und 1892 im
auftrage der Kaiserlichen akademie der wissenschaften. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen
454
akademie der wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische classe 44. Vienna: C.
Gerold's Sohn, 1896.
Heiberg, J. L., ed. Anonymi Logica et quadrivium: cum scholiis antiquis. Copenhagen: Andr.
Fred. Host & Son, 1929.
- - - . Sur les dix premiers nombres. Macon: Protat, 1901 .
Heine, Ronald E., trans. Commentary on the Gospel according to John. 2 vols. FOTC 80, 89.
Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1989-93.
Heintz, Florent. Simon "le magician ": Actes 8, 5-25 et [ 'accusation de magie contre les prophetes
thaumaturges dans l 'antiquite. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 39. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1 997.
Heinzerling, R. "Bileams Ratsel: die Zahlung der Wehrfahigen in Numeri 1 und 26 -
Interpretations and meanings behind the Gematria of divine names." Zeitschr�ft for
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 1 1, no. 3 (1999): 404-15.
Hellgardt, Ernst. Zum Problem symbolbestimmer und formal-asthetischer Zahlenkomposition in
mittelalterlicher Literatur: Mit Studien zum Quadrivium und zum Vorgeschichte des
mittelalterliche Zahlendenkens. Miinchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen
Literatur des Mittelalters 45. Munich: Beck, 1973.
Hense, Otto, and Curtis Wachsmuth, eds. Anthologium. 5 vols. 1 884-1912. Reprint, Berlin:
Weidmann, 1958.
Heylen, F., ed. Filastrii Brixiensis Diversarum hereseon liber. CCSL 9. Turnholt: Brepols, 1957.
Pp. 208-324.
Hill, Charles E. From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus ' Apostolic Presbyter and
the Author of "Ad Diognetum. " Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
455
Hiller, Eduard, ed. Theonis Smyrnaei philosophi Platonici expositio rerum mathematicarum ad
legendum Platonem utilium. Leipzig: Teubner, 1878.
Hort, Fenton John Anthony and Joseph B. Mayor, eds. Clement ofAlexandria: Miscellanies,
Book VII: The Greek Text with Introduction, Translation, Notes, Dissertations and Indices.
London: Macmillan, 1902.
H0yrup, Jens. "Mathematics, Algebra, and Geometry." In Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York:
Doubleday, 1992. S.v.
Huffman, Carl A. Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher, and Mathematician King.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
- - - . "The Authenticity of Archytas Fr. 1 ." CQ 35.2 (1985): 344-48.
- - - . Philolaus of Croton: Pythagorean and presocratic: A Commentary on the Fragments and
Testimonia with Interpretive Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 993.
- - - . "The Role of Number in Philolaus' Philosophy." Phronesis 33 (1988): 1-30.
Hunger, Herbert. Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Osterreichischen Nationalbibliothek
Vol. 1, Codices philosophici et philologici. Vienna: Georg Prachner Verlag, 1961 .
Hunger, Herbert, and Otto Kresten. Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Osterreichischen
Nationalbibliothek. Vol. 2, Codices iuridici, codices medici. Vienna: Georg Prachner
Verlag, 1969.
Hunger, Herbert, and Wolfgang Lackner. Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der
osterreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Vol. 3, Codices Theologici 201-337. Vienna, 1 992.
Hvalvik, R. "Bamabas-9,7-9 and the Authors Supposed Use of Gematria." New Testament
Studies 33, no. 2 (1987): 276-82.
456
Ifrah, Georges. From One to Zero: A Universal History of Numbers. Trans. Lowell Bair. New
York: Viking, 1985.
Iriarte, Joannes. Regice bibliothecce matritensis codices grceci mss. Madrid: Antonii Perez de Soto,
1769.
Itter, Andrew. "Method and Doctrine: Esoteric Teaching in the Writings of Clement of
Alexandria." Ph.D. diss., La Trobe University, 2003.
Jakab, Attila. Ecclesia alexandrina: Evolution sociale et institutionnelle du christianisme alexandrin
(lie et IIJe siecles). Christianismes anciens 1 . Bern: Lang, 2001 .
Jannaris, A. N. "The Digamma, Kappa, and Sampi as Numerals in Greek." CQ 1 (1907): 37-40.
Janowitz, Naomi. Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity. University Park, Pa.:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002.
Janssens, Lucien. "La datation neronienne de l'isopsephie." Aegyptus 68 (1988): 1 03-15.
Jeffery, L. H. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 990.
Jordan, D. Hermann. "Armenische Irenaeusfragmente." Texte und Untersuchungen 36.3
(1913).
Kahn, Charles H. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History. Indianapolis: Hackett,
2001 .
- - - .The Verb "Be " in Ancient Greek. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2003.
Kalvesmaki, Joel. "Isopsephic Inscriptions from Iasos (Inscriften von Iasos 419) and Shnan
(IGLS 1403)." ZPE (forthcoming).
Karpati, A. "The Musical Fragments of Philolaus and the Pythagorean Tradition." Acta
Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 34 (1993): 55-67.
Keil, Bruno. "Eine Halikamassische Inschrift," Hermes 29 (1894):
457
Kovacs, Judith L. "Concealment and Gnostic Exegesis: Clement of Alexandria's
Interpretation of the Tabernacle." SP 31 (1997): 414-37.
Kroll, Wilhelm, ed. Syriani in metaphysica commentaria. CAG 6.1 . Berlin: Reimer, 1902.
Kucharski, Paul. E tude sur Ia doctrine p!Jthagoricienne de Ia tetrade. Paris: Societe d' edition "Les
Belles Lettres," 1952.
Kuhnert, Friedmar. Allgemeinbildung und Fachbildung in der A ntike. Deutsche Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Schriften der Sektion fur Altertumswissenschaften 30. Berlin, 1961.
Labuschagne, Caspar J. "De numerieke structuuranalyse van de bijbelse geschriften."
Theologisch Tijdschrift 41.1 (1987): 1-16.
- - - . "Neue Wege und Perspektiven in der Pentateuchforschung." Vetus Testamentum 36.2
(1986): 146-62.
- - - . "On the Structural Use of Numbers as a Composition Technique: [Ps 79; Deut 3:1-
17]." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 12 (1984): 87-99.
Ladner, G. B. "The Concept of the Image of God in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine
Iconoclastic Controversy." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953): 1-34.
Lamberton, Robert. Plutarch. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.
Lampropoulou, S. "TIEQL nvwv Tiu8ayOQE LWV cpu\oaocpLKWV 71QOTUQWV 11CXQCx I1AaTWVl.11
Platon 27 (1975): 7-19.
Lampros, Sypridon P. KaTaAoyoc;- Twv iv Taic;- f3Lf3;\ w8�xmc;- TOiJ Ayiov 'Opovc;- fAA1JVlKWV
KWOLKWV. 2 vols. London: C. J. Clay, 1895.
Lankester-Harding, G. An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971 .
458
Larfeld, Wilhelm. Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik. 2 vols. 1 898-1907. Reprint, New
York: G. Olms, 1971 .
Layton, Bentley. A Coptic Grammar with Chrestomathy and Glossary: Sahidic Dialect. 2nd ed.,
rev. and expanded with an index of citations. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004.
- - -, trans. The Gnostic Scriptures. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987.
le Boulluec, Alain. "Exegese et polemique antignostique chez !renee et Clement
d' Alexandrie. L'exemple du centon." SP 17.2 (1982): 707-13.
Lieberman, Stephen J. "A Mesopotamian Background for the So-called Aggadic 'Measures'
of Biblical Hermeneutics?" Hebrew Union College Annual 58 (1987): 157-225.
Llewelyn, S. R. "The Christian Symbol XMf, an Acrostic or an Isopsephism?" In New
Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol 8, A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and
Papyri Published 1984-85. Grand Rapids-Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998. Pp. 156-68.
Lohr, Winrich A. "La Doctrine de Dieu dans la lettre a Flora de Ptolemee." Revue d'Histoire et
de Philosophie Religieuses 75.2 (1995) : 77-91.
Lucas, John Scott. Astrology and Numerology in Medieval and Early Modern Catalonia: The
Tractat de prenostication de la vida natural dels homens. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
MacCoull, Leslie S. B. "An isopsephistic encomium on Saint Senas by Dioscorus of
Aphrodito." ZPE 62 (1986): 51-53.
Mansfeld, Jaap. Heresiography in Context: Hippolytus ' Elenchos As a Source for Greek Philosophy.
Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Refutatio omnium haeresium. Patristische Texte und Studien 25.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986.
459
Markschies, Christoph. Gnosis: An Introduction. Translated by John Bowden. London: T & T
Clark, 2003.
- - - . " New research on Ptolemaeus Gnosticus." Zeitschrift for antikes Christentum 4.2
(2000): 225-54.
- - - . "Valentinian Gnosticism: Toward the Anatomy of a School." In The Nag Hammadi
Library After Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature
Commemoration. Edited by J. D. Turner and A. McGuire. NHS 44. Leiden: Brill, 401-
38.
- - - . Valentinus Gnosticus ? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis. WUNT 142.
Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.
Marrou, H.-I., M. Harl, C. Mondesert and C. Matray, eds. Le pedagogue. 3 vols. SC 70, 108,
158. Paris: Cerf, 1960-70.
Marx, J. Verzeichnis der Handschriften-Sammlung des Hospitals zu Cues bei Bernkastel a./Mosel.
Trier: Schaar und Dathe, 1905.
Mattei, Jean-Fran\ois. Pythagore et les pythagoriciens. Paris: Presses universitaires de France,
1996.
Mavroudi, Maria. A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation: The Oneirocriticon of Achmet and
Its Arabic Sources. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
McCree, John Woodrow. "Valentinus and the 'Gospel of Truth' in Their Biblical and
Cultural Matrix." Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 2004.
Meautis, Georges. Hermoupolis-la-Grande. Lausanne: la Concorde, 1918.
Merki, Hubert. Omoiosis Thea: Von der Platonischen Angleichung an Gott zur Gottiihnlichkeit bei
Gregor von Nyssa. Paradosis 7. Freiburg: Paulusverlag; 1 952.
460
Merritt, Benjamin D., ed. Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora. Princeton: American School of
Classical Studies at Athens, 1966.
Meyer, Marvin W., Richard Smith, and Neal Kelsey, eds. Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic
Texts of Ritual Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
Miller, E. "Glossaire grec-Iatin de la bibliotheque de Laon." Notices et extraits des manuscrits
29.2 (1880): 1-230.
Mondesert, Claude, ed. Le protreptique. 2nd ed. SC 2. Paris: Cerf, 1949.
- - -, ed. Stromate II. SC 38. Paris: Cerf, 1954.
Morrow, Glenn R., and John M. Dillon, trans. Proclus ' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 987.
Mouraviev, Serge N. "Valeurs phoniques et ordre alphabetique en vieux-georgien." ZDMG
134 (1984): 61-83.
Mullach, F. W. A., ed. Fragmenta philosophorum Graecorum. 1 860-81 . Reprint, Aalen: Scientia,
1968. 2:48-49.
Murdock, William R., and George W. MacRae, eds. Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI with
Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,1 and 4. Ed. Douglas M. Parrott. NHS 1 1 . Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Pp. 47-63.
Nau, F. "Analyse de deux opuscules astrologiques attribues au prophete Esdras et d'un
calendrier lunaire de I' ancien testament attribue a Esdras, aux E gyptiens et meme a
Aristote." Revue de !'Orient Chretien 12 (1907): 14-21.
Navia, Luis E. Pythagoras: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland, 1990.
Der Neue Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Leiden: Brill, 2002-.
461
Neugebauer, Otto. The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1952.
Neugebauer, Otto, and G. Saliba. "On Greek Numerology." Centaurus 31 (1988): 1 89-206.
Nikulin, Dmitri. Matter, Imagination, and Geometry: Ontology, Natural Philosophy, and
Mathematics in Plotinus, Proclus, and Descartes. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2002.
Oberhelman, Steven M. "The Oneirocritic Literature of the Late Roman and Byzantine Eras
of Greece: Manuscript Studies, Translations and Commentaries to the Dream-Books
of Greece during the First Millennium ad, with Greek and English Catalogues of the
Dream-Symbols and with a Discussion of Greek Oneiromancy from Homer to
Manuel the Palaeologian." PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1981.
O'Meara, Dominic J. Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Orbe, Antonio. Cristologia gn6stica: Introducci6n a la soteriologia de los siglos II y III. Biblioteca
de autores cristianos 384-85. Madrid: Edica, 1 976.
Page, D. L. Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 981 . Pp. 503-
41.
Pagels, Elaine. See Turner, John.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. '1Epoaoi\ VJ1LTLK7J �L�i\ w81]K1], 7JTOL Kaui'i\oyoc;- Twv tv Tatc;
�L�i\ w87]Kmc;-. 1891-1915. Reprint, Brussels, 1 963.
Parrott, Douglas M., ed. Nag Hammadi codices III, 3--4 and V, 1 with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,
3 and Oxyrhynchus papyrus 1 081: Eugnostos and The Sophia of Jesus Christ. NHS 27.
Leiden: Brill, 1991.
462
Pasini, Joseph. Codices manuscripti Bibliothecae regii Taurinensis Athenaei. Turin: Typographia
regia, 1 749.
Patterson, L. G. "The Divine Became Human: Irenaean Themes in Clement of Alexandria."
SP 31 (1997): 497-516.
Pearce, Laurie E. "The Number-Syllabary Texts." Journal of the American Oriental Society
1 1 6.3 ( 1996): 453-74.
Pearson, Birger A., ed. Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X. NHS 15. Leiden: Brill, 1 98 1 . Pp. 21 1-
347.
Peel, Malcolm Lee, ed. The Epistle to Rheginos: A Valentinian Letter on the Resurrection.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969.
- - -, ed. Gnosis und Auferstehung: Der Brief an Rheginus von Nag Hammadi. Trans. Wolf
Peter Funk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974.
Perkins, Pheme. "Beauty, Number, and Loss of Order in the Gnostic Cosmos." In Wallis,
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Pp. 277-96.
Pohlenz, M. Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung. 4th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1970-72.
Polites, Linos. Kauii\oyoc;- XELpoypa¢wv Tov 7WVETIWTTJf1iov E>wiJai\oviKT]c;-. Thessalonike:
Aristotle University, 1 991 .
- - - . L.vf1Tii\ T]pWf1aTLKoi KaTai\oyoL XELpoypa¢wv A.yiov 'Opovc;-. Thessalonike: Hetaireia
Makedonikon Spoudon, 1973-.
Pouderon, Bernard. "Les doctrines medicales dans la notice d'Hippolyte sur Simon." In
Medecine et theologie chez les Peres de l'Eglise. Theologie historique 1 17. Paris: E ditions
Beauchesne, 2005.
463
Prachter, K., ed. "Cebetis tabula quanam aetate conscripta esse videatur." Diss. Marburg,
1885.
Quacquarelli, A. L 'ogdoade patristica ei suoi riflessi nella liturgia e nei monumenti. Quademi di
Vetera Christianorum 7. Bari: Adriatica, 1973.
Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. 3 vols. Utrecht: Spectrum Publishers, 1964-66.
Radke, Gyburg. Die Theorie der Zahl in Platonismus: Ein systematisches Lehrbuch. Tiibingen:
Francke, 2003.
Rappe, Sara. Reading Neoplatonism: Non-Discursive Thinking in the Texts of Plotinus, Proclus,
and Damascius. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Reindel, Kurt. "Vom Beginn des Quadriviums." Deutsches Archivfur Erforschung des
Mittelalters 15 (1959): 516-22.
Riedweg, Christoph. Pythagoras: Leben, Lehre, Nachwirkung. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 2002.
Riess, Ernst. "Nechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magica." Philologus Suppl. 6 (1 891-93):
325-94.
Riley, Mark Timothy, trans. "Q. S. Fl. Tertulliani Adversus Valentinianos: Text, Translation,
and Commentary." PhD dissertation, Standford University, 1971. Published online
http://www. tertullian.org/articles/riley_adv_val/riley_00_index.htm. Accessed
October 2005.
Robert, Louis. "Pas de date 1 09, mais le chiffre 99, isopsephie de Amen." In Hellenica: Recueil
d'epigraphie de numismatique et d'antiquites grecques. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1960.
1 1 :310-1 1 .
Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library. Rev. ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1988.
464
Ross, W. D ., ed. Aristotelis physica. 1950. Reprint with corrections, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1 966.
- - - . Aristotle's metaphysics. 2 vols. 1924. Reprint with corrections, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1 970.
Rousseau, A., L. Doutreleau, et al., eds. Contre les Heresies. 10 vols. SC 263-64 (Book 1 ), 293--
94 (Book 2), 210-1 1 (Book 3), 1 00 (Book 4), 152-53 (Book 5). Paris: Cerf, 1 979-2002.
[Referred to by book and volume. E.g., Rousseau and Doutreleau ed., 2.2 = SC 294]
Rou tledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London-New York: Routledge, 1998.
Runia, David T. "Why Does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo 'the Pythagorean' ?" VChr 49
(1995): 1-22.
Russell, J. R. "The Book of the Six Thousand: An Armenian Magical Text." Bazmavep 147
(1 989): 221-43.
Safty, Essam. La psyche humaine: Conceptions populaires, religieuses et philosophiques en Grece,
des origines a l'ancien stoi"cisme. Paris: L'Harmattan, 2003.
Sagnard, Fran�ois-M.-M. La gnose valentinienne et le temoignage de Saint Irenee. E tudes de
philosophie medievale 36. Paris: libraire philosophique J. Vrin, 1947.
Salles-Dabadie, J. M. A. Recherches sur Simon le Mage. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 1 0. Paris: J.
Gabalda, 1969.
Sambursky, Shmuel. "On the Origin and Significance of the Term Gematria." Journal of
Jewish Studies 29 (Spr 1978): 35-38.
Sbordone, F. "Per la storia antica e recente del numero quattro." In Scritti in onore di Nicola
Petruzzellis. Naples: Giannini, 1981. Pp. 337-42.
465
Schenke, Hans-Martin. Der Gott "Mensch " in der Gnosis: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur
Diskussion iiber die paulinische Anschauung von der Kirche als Leib Christi. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962.
- - - , ed. Das Philippus-Evangelium: (Nag-Hammadi-Codex II,3). Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
1997.
Schindler, Karl. Die stoische Lehre von den Seelenteilen und Seelenvermogen insbesondere bei
Panaitios und Posidonios. Munich: Salesianischen offizin, 1934.
Schmidt, Carl, ed. The Books of feu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex. Trans. Violet
MacDermot. NHS 13. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
- - -, ed . Pistis Sophia. Trans. Violet MacDermot. NHS 9. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Schmidt, Josef. "Die Ratselzahl 666 in Offb 13:1 8: Ein Losungsversuch auf der B asis
lateinischen Gematria." NT 44 (2002): 35-54.
Schoedel, William R., and Douglas M. Parrott, eds. "The (First) Apocalypse of James." In
Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4. Ed. Douglas
M. Parrott. NHS 1 1 . Leiden: Brill, 1979. Pp. 65-103.
Serra, F., ed. Noctes Atticae. Pisa: Giardini, 1993-.
Shaw, Gregory. "Eros and Arithmos: Pythagorean Theurgy in Iamblichus and Plotinus."
Ancient Philosophy 19 (1999): 121-43.
- - - . Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1 995.
Skeat, T. C. " A Table of Isopsephisms (P.Oxy. XLV.3239)." ZPE 31 (1978): 45-54.
Smit Sibinga, J. "The Composition of 1 Cor 9 and Its Context." NT 40 (1998): 136-63.
- - - . "Melito of Sardis: The Artist and His Text." VChr 24 (1970): 81-104.
466
Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1984.

.
Spanneut, Michel. Le Stoi cisme des peres de l'eglise. Paris: E ditions du Seuil, 1957.
Staab, Gregor. Pythagoras in der Spiitantike. Studien zu De Vita Pythagorica des Iamblichos von
Chalkis. Beitrage zur Altertumskunde 1 65. Munich: K. G. Saur, 2002.
Stadele, Alfons. Die Briefe des Pythagoras und der Pythagoreer. Beitrage zur klassischen
Philologie 1 15. Meisenheim am Clan: Hain, 1 980.
Staehle, Karl, ed. Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon von Alexandreia. 1 931 . Reprint, New York:
Garland, 1987.
Stahlin, Otto, L. Friichtel, and Ursula Treu, eds. Clemens Alexandrinus. Vols. 2 (3rd ed.) and 3
(2nd ed.). GCS 52(15), 17. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960-70.
Stead, G. Christopher. "In search of Valentinus." In The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Vol. 1, The
School of Valentinus, ed. Bentley Layton. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Pp. 75-95.
- - - . "The Valentinian Myth of Sophia." Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1969): 75-104.
Stein, Ludwig. Die Psychologie der Stoa. Berlin: S. Calvary, 1 886-88.
Stevenson, Kenneth. "Animal Rites: The Four Living Creatures in Patristic Exegesis and
Liturgy." SP 34 (2001): 470-92.
Stewart, Randall. "The Oracles of Astrampsychus." In Anthology of Ancient Greek Popular
Literature, ed. W. Hansen. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998.
- - -, ed. Sortes Astrampsychi. Vol. 2. Munich: K. G. Saur, 2001.
Talmon, Shemaryahu, Jonathan Ben-Dov, and Uwe Glessmer. Qumran Cave 4. Vol. 1 6,
Calendrical Texts. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 21. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
2001 .
467
Tannery, Paul. Diophanti Alexandrini Opera omnia: cum graeciis commentariis. Stuttgart:
Teubner, 1 974.
- - - . Memoires scientifiques. 16 vols. Toulouse: E. Privat, 1912.
- - - . "Notice sur des fragments d'onomatomancie arithmetique." Notices et Extraits des
manuscrits de la Biblotheque nationale 31 .2 (1886): 231-60. Reprinted in Memoires
Scientifiques. 9:12-50.
- - - . "Le Rabolion -Traites de geomancie arabes, grecs et latins," in Memoires
scientifiques. 4:295-41 1 .
Taran, Leonardo, ed. "Asclepius o f Tralles: Commentary to Nicomachus' Introduction to
Arithmetic." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 59.4 (1969): 24-72.
- - - . Speusippus of Athens: A Critical Study with a Collection of the Related Texts and
Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 1981 .
Taylor, Thomas, trans. The Commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato, in Five Books:
Containing a Treasury of Pythagoric and Platonic Physiology. London, 1 820.
Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. A Commentary on Plutarch 's Table Talks. Studia Graeca et Latina
Gothoburgensia 51, 53, 62. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1989-96.
Ter Mekerttschian, Karapet, and S. G. Wilson, eds. "The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching
with Seven Fragments." Patrologia Orientalis 1 2 (1919): 655-731 .
Thesleff, Holger. A n Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period. Abo: Abo
akademi, 1961 .
- - -, ed. The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period. Abo: Abo Akademi, 1965.
Thomassen, Einar. "The Derivation of Matter in Monistic Gnosticism." In Turner and
Majercik, Gnosticism and Later Platonism, 1-18.
468
- - - . "L'histoire du valentinisme et le Traite Tripartite." Annuaire Ecole pratique des hautes
etudes, Section-sciences religieuses 1 03 (1994-95): 301-3.
- - - . "Notes pour la delimitation d'un corpus valentinien a Nag Harnrnadi." In Les textes
de Nag Hammadi et le probleme de leur classification: actes du colloque tenu a Quebec du 15
au 19 septembre 1993, ed. Louis Painchaud and Anne Pasquier. BCNH. E 3. Quebec:
Presses de l'Universite Laval, 1 995. Pp. 243-59.
- - -, ed. Le traite tripartite (NH I, 5). BCNH.T 19. Quebec: Presses de l'Universite Laval,
1989.
- - - . The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the "Valentinians. " NHS 60. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Tod, M. N. Ancient Greek Numerical Systems. Chicago: Ares, 1979.
Tornau, Christian. "Die Prinzipienlehre des Moderatos von Cades: Zu Sirnplikios in Phys.
230,34-231,24 Diels." Rheinisches Museum for Philologie 143 (2002): 197-220.
Tripp, David H. "The Original Sequence of Irenaeus Adversus Haereses I: A Suggestion."
Second Cen tury 8.3 (1991): 157-62.
Turner, John D., ed. "NHC XI,2: A Valentinian Exposition 22,1-39,39." In Nag Hammadi
Codices XI, XII, XIII. Ed. Charles W. Hedrick. NHS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Pp. 89-172.
Introduction by Elaine Pagels; notes by Turner and Pagels.
- - - . Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition. BCNH. E 6. [Sainte-Foy], Quebec: Presses
de l'Universite Laval, 2001 .
Turner, John D. and Ruth Majercik, eds. Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and
Texts. SBL Symposium 12. Atlanta: SBL, 2000.
Uguzzoni, A. "Note sulla lingua dei Pitagorici Filolao ed Archita." Quaderni dell' Istituto de
Glottologia 7 (1962): 53-71; 8 (1964-65): 87-109.
469
Uhlig, Gustav, Richard Schneider, et al., ed. Grammatici Graeci. Vol. 1, Dionysius Thracis Ars
grammatica et scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem grammaticam. Vol. 2, Apolonii Dyscoli
quae supersunt. Vol. 3, Herodiani Technici reliquiae. Vol. 4, Theodosii Alexandrini canones
et Georgii Choerobosci scholia in canones nominales, Choerobisci scholia in canones verbales
et Sophronii excerpta e characis commentario. 1 883. Reprint, Leipzig: Georg Olms, 1 965.
Unger, Dominic J., and John J. Dillon, trans. St. Irenaeus ofLyons Against the Heresies. Ancient
Christian Writers 55. New York: Paulist, 1 992.
van Binsbergen, Wim. "The Astrological Origin of Islamic Geomancy." Paper read at the
SSIPS/SAGP 15th Annual Conference, "Global and Multicultural Dimensions of
Ancient and Medieval Philosophy and Social Thought: Africana, Christian, Greek,
Islamic, Jewish, Indigenous and Asian Traditions," Binghamton University, 1 996.
Online at http://www.shikanda.net/ancient_models/BINGHAMTON%201996.pdf.
Accessed October 2005.
van Bladel, Kevin Thomas. "Hermes Arabicus (Hermes Trismegistus)." PhD Dissertation,
Yale University, 2004.
Van Den Hoek, Annewies, ed. Stromate W. Trans. Claude Mondesert. SC 463. Paris: Cerf,
2001 .
van der Horst, P. W. "Sortes: Sacred Books as Instant Oracles in Late Antiquity." In The Use
of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, ed. L.V. Rutgers et al. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Pp.
143-74
van Straaten, Modestus. Panetius, sa vie, ses ecrits et sa doctrine. Amsterdam: H. J. Paris, 1 946.
Vidman, L. "Koppa Theta = Amen in Athen." ZPE 1 6 (1975): 215-16.
470
von Albrecht, Michael, et al. Pythagoras: Legende, Lehre, Lebensgestaltung. Reprint of 1963 ed.
with new interpretive essays. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002.
Waldstein, Michael, and Frederik Wisse, eds. The Apocryphon of fohn: Synopsis of Nag
Hammadi Codices II, l, III,l, and IV,l with BG 8502,2. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Wallis, Richard T., ed. Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1992.
Waterfield, Robin, trans. The Theology of Arithmetic: On the Mystical, Mathematical and
Cosmological Symbolism of the First Ten Numbers. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Phanes, 1989
Wendland, Paul, ed. Refutatio omnium haeresium. GCS 26. 1916. Reprint, New York: Olms,
1977.
White, Robert J. The Interpretation of Dreams = Oneirocritica. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Press,
[1975] .
Williams, Burma P., and Richard 5. Williams. "Finger Numbers in the Greco-Roman World
and the Early Middle Ages." Isis 86 (1995): 587-608.
Williams, Frank, trans. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. NHS 35-36. Leiden: Brill, 1987-
94.
Williams, Michael Allen. The Immovable Race: A Gnostic Designation and the Theme of Stability
in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 1985.
- - - . Rethinking "Gnosticis m ": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1996.
Wisse, Frederik, and Francis E. Williams, eds. Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI with
Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,1 and 4. Ed. Douglas M. Parrott. NHS 1 1 . Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Pp. 291-323.
471
Wucherpfennig, Ansgar. Heracleon Philologus: Gnostische ]ohannesexegese im zweiten
]ahrhundert. WUNT 1 42. Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.
Wunsch, Ricardus. Liber de mensibus. 1 898. Reprint, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1967.
Zhmud, L. Wissenschajt, Philosophie und Religion im fruhen Pythagoreismus. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1997.
472

Formation of The Early Christian Theology of Arithmetic Number Symbolism in The Late Second and Early Third Century PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formation of The Early Christian Theology of Arithmetic Number Symbolism in The Late Second and Early Third Century PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

Formation of the Early Christian Theology of Arithmetic

Number Symbolism in the Late Second and Early Third Century

Submitted to the Faculty of the

Department of Early Christian Studies

School of Arts and Sciences

Of the Catholic University of America

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Number Symbolism in the Late Second and Early Third Century

Joel Kalvesmaki, Ph.D.

Director: William McCarthy, Ph.D.

to approach the subject.

The Christian debates have striking parallels in roughly contemporary non-Christian

I argue for several important ancillary points. Pythagoreanism was reinvented

major types of Greek numerological prognostication. Furthermore, I argue for a new

dichotomies eastern versus western, and monadic versus dyadic Valentinianism.

Christoph Markschies, Ph.D., Reader

5 The Paraphrase of the Apophasis Megale 118

8 Clement of Alexandria 182

10 Numeri ex regula 262

A Pythagoreanism in Outline 273

B Themes in Pythagorean Number Symbolism

2 Odd and Even Numbers as Male and Female 296

3 The Tetraktys 305

4 The Quadrivium 310

5 The Number Five: Marriage 321

C The Elements and History of Psephy (Gematria) 325

D Types of Greek Numerology 343

F Italian versus Eastern Valentinianisrn? 395

G The Structure of Clement of Alexandria's Excursus on the Decalogue 404

throughout the Greco-Roman antiquity by Christians, Jews, Mithraites, polytheists, and

commentaries on the meaning of stones discussed in Scripture; time, of meteorological

important complement to the Christian material I cover.

Ideally, this study would constitute the fourth of a five-volume introduction to

reemergence of Pythagoreanism in the Roman Empire and the transformation of Hellenistic

critical to understand my argument, but go beyond the chronological boundaries of this

study, I explore in the footnotes and excursuses.

everyone's favorite -Augustine. In my conclusion I suggest some trends in the emergent

basis for further analysis.

To get to the heart of my argument, I have had to omit a number of elementary,

mathematics, such as the anonymous Theology of Arithmetic (the namesake of my study),

study, so appears as an excursus.

It may seem that by focusing on groups traditionally thought of as gnostic, and by

are less frequent and important as they are in other texts.

V alentinian theories of how everything began, a nuance missing in similes such as

1 Foremost of these studies is Williams, Rethinking "Gnosticism "

properties and operations of discrete numbers (e.g., adding, multiplication), is a proper

interchangeably. For a study on ancient number symbolism, however, the distinction is

than our modem term mathematics.

a�:_H8!-1oAoy(a, a hapax legomenon.

One further terminological clarification: I use psephy, psephic, and isopsephy to

of this study, the first three terms are more appropriate.

be excellent candidates for future research.

All unaccredited translations are my own. I sometimes suggest emendations to the

116p<t>wow n)v KaTa yvwmv·--