Booke. The Fragments of Heracleon. 1891.

TEXTS AND STUDIES
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE
EDITED BY
J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.

FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE
VOL. I.
No. 4. THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891
Ponton: C. J. CLAY
AND SONS,
CAMBBIDGE UNIVEESITY PKESS WAEEHOUSE,
AVE MAEIA LANE.
DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO,

ILdpjifl: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
gork : MACMILLAN AND CO.

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON
NEWLY EDITED FROM THE MSS.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
BY
A. E. BROOKE M.A.
FELLOW OP KING'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE
CAMBRIDGE
1891
[All Rights reserved]

(Eambrtoge :
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
THE INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

10 EL?/: LEY
.
TORCH rO G,
DEC 171831
5* ORt*T
PATRI CARISSIMO
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGES
INTRODUCTION 1-49
The MSS. of Origen's Commentaries on
The Date and Teaching of Heracleon
S. John ... 1
31
TEXT AND NOTES 50-103
ADDITIONAL NOTES 104-107

Heracleon and Valentinus 104
Collation of the 'Excerpta ex Theodoto' 105
On the Text of Fragment 24 106
INDICES 108-112
Index of passages of Scripture quoted, explained, or referred
to by Heracleon . 108
Index of Greek words in the Fragments of Heracleon . . 109
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN.
OFthe extant manuscripts of the Commentaries on S. John,

three only have been used by the editors. So far as I have been
able to discover, there are seven in existence. If we count Thorn-
dike's transcription of the Bodleian Manuscript, there are eight.
The existence of a ninth is doubtful, but this question will be
more easily discussed later on. The three which seem to have
been used by the editors are at Paris, Rome and Oxford. The
similarity of the text contained in them and the fact that
they all
contained many common lacunae, pointed to their derivation from
a near common ancestor. The following pages are an attempt to
shew that this ancestor still exists,
though unfortunately in a bad
state of preservation, in the Library at Munich.
The Manuscripts are as follows :
I. Codex Monacensis. In the Munich State Library, Graec.

"
cxci thus described in the Catalogue, Bombycinus charta obso-
;
leta et laesa atramento flavescente literis minutis et elegantibus
frequenti abbreviatione in folio, if. 305, saec. xni. foliorum ordine

turbato male conservatus et inscriptus <f>v\. pifi', Origenis Comm.
in Matt, et Jn."
Of the Commentaries on S. John it contains Bks. 1. 2. 6. 10.
13. 19. 20. 28. 32 (33 according to Hardt's Catalogue, but this is
an error). Thus the MS. follows the true division of the Books.
The Ferrarian division (that invented or adopted by Ambrosius
Ferrarius in his translation) into 32 books is added in the margin
by a later hand.
Minuscules are used, hanging from ruled lines, there being one
column of 30 lines on each page, in the Commentaries on S. John.
B. 1
2 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
The Commentaries on S. Matthew are in another hand and contain

36 lines on a page.In both red semi-capitals are often used at
the beginning of sentences, but not uniformly. The MS. is stained
at the top and bottom, and worm-eaten in many places. The order
of the folios in S. Matthew is much confused, and one or two pages
are wanting.
The title-page of the MS. has the following description :
"Origenis in D. Matt. Ev. tomus 11 init. mut. 12. 13. 14. 15.
16. et in evang. Johann. torn. 1. 2. 6. 9. 13. 19. 20. 32."
In the middle of the page are the arms, below which is written :
"Ex electorali Bibliotheca sereniss. utriusque Bavariae Ducum."

This description is Most of Bk. x. of the Comm.
inaccurate.
in Matt, is there, and also Bk. xvn. And with regard to the
Comm. in Joann. 9 is a mistake for 10, and 28 should have been
inserted.
Huet mentions a MS. of the Commentaries on S. Matthew in
his Origeniana in. "In Catalogo librorum ducis Bavariae
iii. 12.
notatur Tomus Undecimus initio quoque mutilus cum proxime
sequentibus quinque." And as to the Commentaries on S. John he
was again misinformed. "Eosdem (i.e. 1. 2. 6. 10. 13. 19. 20. 28.
32) complectitur Tomos praeter decimum et vigesimum octavum

memoratus liber in bibliothecae Bavaricae Catalogo" (ill. iii. 14).
The 10th and the 28th books are contained, as well as the rest, in
the Manuscript. The Catalogue which he used must have had
the same mistakes which occur on the title-page of the MS.
The Commentaries on S. John are preceded by a short preface
stating that in the archetype of the MS. were several marginal
notes drawing attention to Origen's blasphemies, which, the scribe
says, he has copied as he found them.

II. Codex Venetus. In the Bibliotheca Marciana at Venice,
Graec. 32. The title as given in the MS. itself is
et? TO Kara MarOaiov KOI KCUT laydvvrjv

/cap$r]va\. ratv To<r/c\fc>i/.
The MS. is dated 1374. It is written in minuscules
hanging
from ruled lines, with one column of 36 lines on a page, and about
60 letters in each line. It consists of ff. 330 of which ff. 1 117
contain the Comm. in Matt. Bks. 10 17 (inclusive). F. 118 con-
tains a preface on Origen's blasphemy, beginning TroXXtSu (JLCV
and
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN.
ending avOis a^rwêOa. This preface has nothing to do with

teal
the preface in the Munich Codex concerning the marginal notes in

its ancestor. The words TOV /3a<7tXeo>9 at the head of this preface
point probably to some connexion with Constantinople. Ff. 112
(recto) 294 (verso) contain the Commentaries on S. John. So
far the folios are numbered. The remainder, to 330, are left blank
and unnumbered.
This MS. was used by Ambrosius Ferrarius, who in A.D. 1551
translated the Commentaries on S. John into Latin. They are
divided in the MS. into 32 books. "A callido librario in Tomos
triginta duos distributus fuit, hac arte lacunas et hiatus celare, et
apud incautos dissimulare, et pro integro venditare volente," says
Huet. The fraud is sufficiently patent; if conviction were necessary,
we have only to look at the fragments quoted as from the fourth
and fifth books of the Commentaries in the Philocalia. The diver-
gences between the text of this MS. and Ferrarius's translation are
not more than can be accounted for by the loose and paraphrastic
character of translations of that time, or by the necessity of original
composition to which he was sometimes reduced in consequence of .
his inability to understand the Greek, which is in some places too
corrupt for conjecture.

At the end of the MS. the following note has been added :
"Fuit copiatus per Georgium Triphon ium di

Maluasiae et finitto ad X Ottobr. 1555."
To this we shall have occasion to referwhen we are dealing

with the seventh manuscript. The same scribe is known to have
been working at Venice also in 1548 (see Gardthausen, Griechische
Palaeographie, p. 322).
III. Codex Regius. Graec. CDLV. in the Bibliotheque Natio-
nale at Paris ;
thus described in the manuscript itself:
"|* 'Qpiyevovs T&V et<? TO Kara ÎcadvvTjv evaê\iov e^rpyyTiKa
TOfJLOt, X(D'.
"f"
TOV avTOV ets TO Kara "M.aT0aiov To/jLOi diro TOV SetcaTov
avev d'js 6Wo? Jêt, TOV
Codex Chartac. xvi. saec. scriptum quo continentur Origenis
commentaria in Johannem et Matthaeum quae primus in lucem
protulit Daniel Huetius.
12
In the early parts of the Commentaries on S. Matthew the

folios are in wrong order and there are large lacunae. The Codex
iswritten in minuscules hanging from ruled lines. This was the
MS. on which Huet based his text, though his text is not identical
with that of the MS., as Delarue seems often to have assumed. It
was used by Perionius in his translation of the Commentaries on
S. John.
IV. Codex Bodleianus. 58: used by Delarue. This
Misc.
MS. is described in the Bodleian Catalogue as being of the 17th
Century. Its resemblance to II. is very close. It is now bound
in three volumes of which the first contains ff. 183, the second
183, and the third 182. It contains only the Commentaries on

S. John. In the margin it has two sets of emendations. The first
are introduced by the word Ta%a and are for the most part based
on Ferrarius's Latin Version. The second, which are distinguished
by the word Ifo-w?, are later and inferior. In the copy of Huet
belonging to the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, Bentley
has noted in the margin a great many readings from this MS.,
1
though apparently he did not make a full collation .
V. Codex Barberinus I. In the Barberini Library at Rome ;
of the 15th or 16th Century, in the opinion of the Librarian,

M. 1' Abbs' Pieralisi. It contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew
(beginning at Book X. rore <ei9 TOI)<? o^Xof?, and ending eVt-
<rrptyai 7r/>o9 avrov, Bk. XVII.) and the Commentaries on S. John,
divided into 32 Books. It is bound up with a MS. (in the same
hand, I think) of Philo Hepl rov ftlov Mwcrew?.
VI. Codex Barberinus II. Of the same date as the preceding.
It contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew and S. John, but
the former begin with the words rlvi Se \dptyov<rw ev rofc VTTO-
Beea-repo^, and there is no trace of a folio having been lost. This,
as will be seen later on, is almost conclusive proof as to its origin.
VII. Codex Matritensis. In the Biblioteca Nacional at Madrid.
This MS. I have not myself seen, and I am indebted to my friend
Mr W. Gilchrist Clark of King's College, Cambridge, for the
following information. It is numbered O. 32. It is a folio MS.
written on paper, containing ff. 306, with 30 lines on a page, and
1
He writes at the beginning of Huet's text " Collatus ad Cod. Mstum. Chartaceum
ab Italo (ut videtur) scriptum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana Oxonii Num. E. 2. 6, 7, 8."
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN 8 COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. 5
about 40 letters in a line. It contains the preface which is found

in Codex Yenetus, headed by the words + rov /3a<7tXect>9 +,
beginning on the 2nd recto TroXXcT^ rov wptyevrjv alperiKov
virdp-)(ew î]^>icraêv(t)v, and ending on the 2nd verso KOI av6i<s
d\lra)/jLe0a. The Commentaries begin on the 3rd recto with the
title wpiyevovs rwv et? TO Kara 'Icodvvrjv evayyeXiov dgrjyrjri/cwv
rofios Tjyxwro?. It is divided into 32 books and is dated at the

end a five ev fj,rjvl avyovcrrov k.
:
After this follows the name of the scribe in cryptograph.
That is to say trapd TewpyLo) ro>
The cryptograph used is the common one in which the scribe

takes the Greek alphabet with the three letters F, Q, and ~^|, thus
getting 27 letters. These he divides into 3 parts of 9 letters

each, and substitutes the first for the last, the 2nd for the last but
one, and so on, in each group. Thus the middle letters of each 9
are unchanged, viz. e, v, and $. It will thus be seen that the
colophon exactly tallies with the note at the end of Codex Venetus,
in date (1555) and name.
It may be as well to notice here, on account of its connexion
in origin with the foregoing, a MS. of the Commentaries on S.
Matthew, numbered O. 47. It is a folio, written on paper and

containing ff. 226; it is in the same hand as 0. 32 and a MS. of
the Contra Celsum in the same Library. It contains the Com-
mentaries on S. Matthew, beginning at the 10th (with the words
Tore a<ei5 TOI)<? aggXot/f) and ending at the 27th (eTriarTpeifrai TT/OO?
The MS. is dated a five, o/crcoftpiov /3'. and signed

feo-^fQo- ilr~^x<t>(fv. After this it has on f. 225 the preface
on Origen's blasphemies, with the same heading + rov /3ao-tXe&)9 -f-
as in 0. 32. The scribe has thus copied this passage twice, at the
end of S. Matthew and again at the beginning of S. John.
1
The 6 must be a mistake for Cj
which would represent t.
VIII. transcription of Codex Bodleianus (IV.) made by

The
Herbert Thorndike needs no further description. It is now in the
Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (numbered B. 9. 11). It is
not without value however, as the writer has inserted several con-
jectural emendations in the margin, and there are also three pages
of critical notes at the beginning.
IX. The existence of a ninth MS. is In Miller's
doubtful.
Catalogue of the Escurial Library, pp. 305 ff., is given a list, found in
one of the Escurial MSS. (x. i. 15), of the Greek Manuscripts which
belonged to Cardinal Sirlet's Library, and passed into the posses-
sion of Cardinal Ottoboni (Alexander VIII.). Subsequently Bene-
dict XIV. is said to have placed them in the Vatican. Among
these a MS. containing Origen's Commentaries on S. Matthew
is
and S. John, and Philo Hepl TOV fiiov TOV Mwo-ew?, Tlepl TOV ftlov
TTO\ITIKOV (Joseph), and Tlepl VOIMWV wypdfytov (Abraham). In
the Catalogue of the Ottobonian part of the Vatican Library,
which has not yet been published, but exists in manuscript in the
Vatican, I could find no trace of it. But the description answers
very nearly to the MS. now in the Barberini, which I have num-
bered V. Is it possible that this MS. passed from the hands of
any of its former owners into the possession of the Barberini ? If
not,we must suppose that this MS. has been lost, unless indeed
the MS. Catalogue of the Ottobonian Manuscripts is incomplete.
'
Delarue constantly refers to a Codex Barberinus/ and generally
the readings he quotes from it would seem to be taken from No. V ;
but his citations are not always accurate. The existence of two
manuscripts in the Barberini does not seem to have been known
to any one.
The relations of these MSS. to one another must now be con-
sidered. For the sake of clearness I subjoin a diagram shewing
what I conceive their relations to be. After this I propose to
consider the relations (1) of the Munich Codex to those MSS.
which seem to be directly copied from it, (2) of the Venice Codex
to those which are, I believe, its descendants, and (3) of the
Venice to the Munich MS.
1. (a) Let us then consider first the relation of the Paris
Codex to that at Munich. The contents of the two are practically
the same, so far as concerns the subject of our present enquiry.
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN.
(i) As pointed out above, the statement that the God. Monac.
contains of the Comm. in Matt. Books xi. (mutilated) to XVI. is
incorrect. It contains also most of Book X., and Book xvn. The
SAEC.
XIII
Monac. (I)
XIV
Yen. (II)
XV
XVI
7
Barb. (V)
\ Matrit. (VII)
Keg. (Ill)
XVII
Bodl. (IV)
mistake as to the latter point has arisen from the fact that Books
XVI. and xvii. are not divided as the other books are. But the
last words contained in this part of the MS. are eTricn-ptyat, TT/OO?
avrov, the ending of Book xvii. and a calculation of pages easily
;
shews that both Books xvi. and xvii. are contained in the MS., for
Book XV. begins on f. 62, Book and the Comm. in
xvi. on f. 77,
Matt, end on f. 110. Thus while Book XV. takes only ff, 15, what
is called Book xvi. takes 33, though in Lommatzsch's edition
Books XV. and xvi. cover very nearly the same number of pages
each. In the Comm. in Joann. there is no difference of contents,
(ii) The first
words which occur in the Cod. Monac. are rivi Se
\aôv(nv ev rot? vTrobeecnepois which occur towards the end of
Book x. chap. 3 (Lomm. III. p. 15). In the Paris MS. the leaves
are not in right order, but the first words which occur (they are
on f. 255) are Trd\w bpoia e<mv K.T.\. (Mt. xiii. 44) which begin
chap. 4 of Book x. Thus the scribe seems to have begun his MS.
with the first whole chapter contained in his exemplar. If then
this MS. is copied from the Munich MS., the latter must already
have lost its first leaf in the 16th century.
Moredirect proofs of copying are not wanting.

Lomm. I. p. 118, 1. 22. Cod. Monac. has 7rapafjLfj,v...<r% the
intervening space being worm-eaten, Cod. Reg. has TrapapefA.. aai
leaving space for about four letters.
p. 152, 1. 15. Cod. Monac. reads ovOev, but the Oev is hidden
by a piece of parchment fastened on over it. Reg. omits the

word leaving a space for three letters.
_
p. 177, 1. 5. Cod. Monac. has fj,ovo<yevr)s 0<r, the 6 vlb? being
an interlinear insertion by a later hand. Cod. Reg. has o fjbovo-
yevrjs vios Oeo^ all in the text.
p. 272, 1.In the Munich Codex the words avrov $ d/juapria
6.
are almost illegible, either because the scribe turned over the page
before it was dry, or owing to the subsequent effect of damp on
the manuscript. The blot appears on the opposite leaf. Cod. Reg.
omits the words.
Lomm. II.
p. 108, 1. 9. -/-tou ov&ev /juev-. In Cod. Mon. these
letters are obliterated. Cod. Reg. omits the same letters, leaving
space for them.

p. 108, 1. 11. Trepl erepcov. The same phenomenon occurs
here with regard to the letters irepl erep.
p. 117, 1. 1. elo-e\0elv. Cod. Reg. omits the word. In Cod.
Monac. the letters <re\ are almost obliterated.
p. 127, 1. 15. o-rjfiaivei, jap TO fjuev TOIOVTOV. Here again we
have an indication. Both manuscripts erroneously repeat the
letters fiaivei yap TO.
The proof may be completed by two passages from the text of

the Commentaries on S. Matthew Book xi. chap. ix. ;
Lomm. ill. p. 91, 1. 10. el' rt? ovv. The el rt? is stained and
indistinct in Cod. Mon. Cod. Reg. omits the words, leaving a space.
1. 11. TrevtjTwv. The first four letters are hardly legible in
Cod. Mon. In Cod. Reg. we find a space for four letters followed
by TWV.
The divergences two MSS. are numerous but not im-
of the
portant. Most of them are due to ordinary transcriptional

blunders. The rest may be explained by the supposition that
the scribe of the Paris MS. was more than usually careless and
ignorant.
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 9
subjoin a list of their divergences (other than mere itacisms and cases of
I
the addition or omission of v e(f>f\Kvo~TiK6v) which occur in the first 30 pages

of Tom. xin. of the Comm. in Joann. (Lommatzsch's edition).
Monacensis Begins
P. 1, Title TOV TO
2, 1. 10 TO <av <ov
3, 14 ha Zv
4, 3 \fftr)TO)V \(VlTO)l>
[M generally has the old form of ft i.e. 'w']

5 dnfKTfiva dwoKTfivai
1 O " *
10 fJ,(i)(TT]S fJKOVO'r) ff
I Q * *
Trept Trapa
5, 10 OfUHUV OfJLOlOV
11 TO' 6s ait off av
18 TO voijpaTt
7, 11 StaAXeTtu
8, 8 tit TIS ft omit

[both om. the clause TTJV diKaioo-vvrjv e
15
9, 6
15
10, 3 TOV Koa-fjiov omit
on
20
*
OKOVWV
' '
anovto
'
11, 22 TOU nvfVfjLdTos nvevâTos

13, 16 Trept TO Trept TOU
17 o> eVoi/ toy TOV
15, 14 TT(5$r TTWS
23 irapaTiQeiaav
24 SteXey^î/at
18, 5 OTOVOV O.TOVOS
8 TO 0pfp.fj.aTa om. ra
26 yivofifvr] yfvop-fvrj
V
19, 1
18
20, 24 'HpafcXe'aw 'HpaicXe'toi/
'
C\ "I A * ^
'
221, 4 T) nVlKT) TTVIKT)
22, 1 KaTa\i<f)0fVTas KaTaXfKpdfvros

16 'lo'O'aâp
23, 4 o'oXo/nwi'off
I1 o*a/iapevff
A i e, c '
24, 17 eV$adepaTev/ua f'vOddf

22 fp^fTdi f'pxfo-6ai
25, 7 (pddvovras (pOdvovra

26, 5 5t'
ayi/otai/
didvoiav
Monacensis Regius
26, 14 T
27, 6 eV
8 <B
9
10 co
11 fdviKOl
12 om. <u
23 ai tfeiorepov
28, 11 7rpoa.7ro8c8wKafJiv
29, 6 ot 'lov&uot 'lovSatoi
30, 2 Ka0f\f)v as /tad9eXeii/ ay

6 dyyeXXoty dyyeXoiy
10 SeT Se
(b) Codex Barberinus II. (VI). I can only speak from slight
knowledge of this MS. The Barberini Library was closed during
Vacation when I was in Rome
and it was only
in October, 1888,
through the great kindness of the Librarian that I was allowed to

work for two hours at the manuscripts which it contains.. But I
was fortunately able to obtain sufficient evidence to determine
their relative places in the groups almost with certainty.
The first words of the Comm. in Matt, which this MS. contains
are TIVI Se \dôvcri,v. As these are the first words contained in
Cod. Monac., though they occur towards the end of a chapter and
paragraph in the Commentaries, this is in itself almost conclusive
proof of the origin of the MS. For, as has been stated above,
Cod. Monac. has lost a leaf at the outset. The Barberini MS. also
contains the true division of the Comm. in Joann. in red. The
'
'
Ferrarian divisions have been added in the margin, but are in
the hand of the original scribe. It has also many, at any rate, of
the same warnings against Origen's blasphemies, which are con-
tained in Cod. Monac., as for instance
Lomm. I.
p. 96 (opposite vTrepefto/jLevos VTTO TOV TWV o\cov
deov /c.T.X.) <f)\vapi<; ttro? #eo? jap 6 wo? T&> iraTpL
p. 108 (opposite VTTO TOV /cp6iTTovo<;..,7rapa TOV \6jov) opa
following readings, when contrasted with the correspond-

The
ing variants of the Venice group, point to the same conclusion
I have designated Codex Monacensis as M, Codex Regius as P,

Codex Barberinus as R.
Lomm. II.
p. 6, 1. 1 CKTVTTOV PMR.
p. 13, 1. 16 ireplMR. TO
p. 13, 1. 17 w erov MR.

p. 14, 1. 1 evoewd rot? PMR.
p. 60, 1. 12 \eyovrat, MR. eyovrai P.
p. 60, 1. 13 dirofc\i<r0ia-a^ PMR.

p. 108, 9 -ftov ovSev pev- om. PR.
1.
(In M the words are worm-eaten.)
p. 108, 1. 11 Trepl erepwv om. R.

wv P.
(In M the letters Trepl erep are damaged.)

p. 132 M has the following marginal note : /cal fjurjv /cat TO.
ev
repara %/?t<? T(Sv a-rjptltov evprjrai, w<? rfj wSfj rfj /juerd rrjv
8id/3a<ri,v TT/? epvOpds dvareOeicrri

TO) 6e<p Oav/juaa-Tos yap (frrja-lv
e^Soô)? TTOIWV repara.

have printed the contracted words in full.) R has the same
(I
note exactly: P has it, but has made two mistakes in copying, read-
ing Oav/JLaa-rd for Oav/jbaa-ro^ and omitting a>8f/ T$.

p. 73, 1. 1 M has d/c...ovra }
the intervening letters being
damaged.
R reads dtc...ovTa, leaving a space corresponding to the dots.
P has hazarded a conjecture, and a very unfortunate one.
The only divergences from the Munich MS. which I was able
to notice were
Lomm. II.
p. 137, 1. 9 M BiatyOopas. R Sia<j)0opdv.
p. 137, 1. 15. The erroneous repetition of jjualvei, ydp TO found

in M (and copied by P) is not followed by R.
p. 291, 1. 13 MP tcare. R Kare^r).

Thus Codex Barberinus must be copied either from Codex
Monacensis or from a copy of that MS. The passages quoted
prove conclusively that it is
not a copy of Codex Regius. There
are several omissions, with corresponding spaces left blank, in this
MS. which do not occur in Cod. Regius. These, I imagine, are
attributable to the worm-eaten and stained condition of Cod.
Monacensis, and tend to shew that Cod. Regius must have been
Cod. Barberinus late in the
copied early in the 16th century,
same century, and that Cod. Monac., wherever it was (I was unable
to obtain any information as to its history at Munich), was neg-
lected during this period.
2. (a) The relation of the Bodleian MS. to that at Venice is

not hard to determine. Their divergences are very slight, being
for the most part ordinary transcriptional blunders or corrections,
and even of these there is only a very small number. The rest
may be explained by the fact that the scribe of the Bodleian MS.
knew Greek. Direct proofs of copying are afforded in some
places.
Lomm. 12 (in the
i.
p. 117, 1. first fragment of Heracleon).
After the word OvaXevrivov space is left for about nine letters.
The same lacuna occurs in Codex Venetus, but in it there has been
an erasure.
Lomrn. II.
p. 7, 1. 2. After evKivrjTG) there has been an
erasure in Cod. Ven. A corresponding lacuna is left in Cod.
Bodl.
7T 777775
Lomm. ii.
p. 53, 1. 7. Codex Venetus reads /o%^? (sic). Cod.
Bodl. has
(b) was not able to notice any divergence of Codex Bar-

I
berinus I. (V) from the Venice MS. except that in the passage
mentioned above it leaves no space after OvaXevrlvov, from which
of course no conclusion can be drawn. The fact that the Com-
mentaries on S. Matthew begin
at the beginning of the 10th Book
(rore dfals TOI)? o^\oi/s), considered in connexion with the date

of the MS. (saec. xv. or xvi.), proves that it belongs to the Venice
as opposed to the Munich group, and the division into 32 books
points to the same conclusion. The following readings tend to
prove the identity of its text with that of Codex Venetus.

Lomm. I.
p. 117, 1.16 Siafyepovra yap (frrjcri
Ven. Bar.
II.
p. 9, 1. 20 e'07? Ven. Bar.
p. 13, 16 Trapa TO Ven. Bar.
1.
(Codex Bodleianus has Trap a rov.)

p. 14, 1. 1 eV Svvarois Ven. Bar.
p. 122, 1. 1 el Ven. Bar.

p. 122, 1. 9 TOI)<? evSe$v/j,6vovs Ven. Bar.
p. 376, 1. 4 Tpiatc6<rTov 7rpa>rov Ven. Bar.

p. 376, 1. 6 rpia/cocrrw Sevrepq) Ven. Bar.
(Ven. has notes in the margin stating that its exemplar read
28th and 29th.)
Lomm. II.
p. 73, 1. 1, lacuna (room for 5 letters) before ovra
Ven. Bar., see above, p. 11.
(c) The correspondence

of the cryptograph in the MS. at
Madrid with the note at the end of Codex Venetus is sufficient
proof of the origin of the former. And with this the information
which I have received as to the text agrees. The lacunae in the
text (Lommatzsch i. pp. 11, 14, 18, 36, 41, 43), which occur in the
Cod. Venetus and which will be discussed more fully in the next
section, are also found here. And in the case of p. 41, the sug-
gestion found in Cod. Ven. in the margin (olâi 7rapacrxf.iv ryv

vTrapfyv teal TTJV TrKacriv ical ra eiBrj) is put in the margin also in
the Madrid MS. See also I. 23, Lomm. p. 44, 1. 7 Oavpafav rrjv
ajBekTtiplav rcov TTO\\WV. The word aê\TripLav is omitted in

Codex Monacensis, and also in Codex Venetus, but in the latter it is
added in the margin. In Cod. Matritensis it is also added in the
margin.
It can easily be shewn that O. 47 is copied from the 1st part of
the Venice MS. which contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew.
Thus the colophons Madrid exactly agree with the note in the
at
Venice MS., except that the latter has October 10 instead of
October 2. As we can hardly imagine that the preface (TroXXcG^
TOV 'Qpi<yvr]v tc.r.\.) took 8 days to copy it occurs in O. 47
after the colophon we must leave this discrepancy unexplained.
3. Thus there seems be no reasonable doubt as to the

to
derivation of all the other manuscripts from Cod. Monacensis and
Codex Venetus. The more extensive divergences of these two at
first led me
to suppose them to be independent of each other, but
a closer examination disclosed convincing proof of the dependence
of the latter on the former. Their divergences give us only too
clear an insight into the freedom with which the text of an
exemplar was handled, at any rate in the 14th century. An ex-

amination of the Contra Celsum manuscripts affords, I believe, an
instructive parallel 1 The relation of Cod. Yen. to Cod. Monac.

.
remains to be considered in detail. Several lacunae caused in

Cod. Monac. by damage done to the MS. by water, or in other
ways, are matched in Cod. Ven. by corresponding places left
blank by the scribe. These lacunae occur almost entirely in
the first book. The chief instances are the following :
Bk. 4 (Lomm. p. 11) L. and Delarue read <ypa<f>evTa ical

I. c.
KCVT eôvcrlav, ov /Jirjv TO elXi/cpives r&v e/c Oelas eiriTrvolas \6<y<dv.

After rypa<f>evra Cod. Monac. word ei\(,/cpi,ve<;,
is illegible until the
but between eôvaiav and ov iirjv there must have been at least 17
more letters, of which some near the end were I think aTrooroXt/c.
Cod. Ven. leaves space between these two words for about 25
letters.
Bk. I. c. 14) reXo? avrov irapa ro3 *Ia)dvvr).

6 (Lomm. p.
These words are nearly illegible in Cod. Monac., but there must
have been about 14 more letters, and Cod. Ven. leaves space for
15 more letters after 'laydwrj.
On
the same page et/a^/eeo? ...... SiSda-Keiv is similarly stained in
Cod. Monac., and Cod. Ven. omits the passage, except the word
elprjKws, leaving
a space.
Bk. I. c. 8, Lomm. p. 18. ...KCU on o\ov. In Cod. Monac. we
find after oXoz/, TO <f)L\...fi. f( ?)...*>.(?) <m: then more than half a
line illegible, the MS. being damaged as in the other cases.
2
Cod. Ven. has o\ov (space II) ordv yap (space ^ line) viov?
K.T.\.
Bk. I. c. 9, Lomm. p. 20. co-rlv e/c\afjL^dv6iv...ovTco Xptarâ-

vos. All this is damaged in Cod. Monac. and mostly illegible, but
there is about 20 more letters than are contained in the
room for
words as they stand in Delarue and Lommatzsch. Cod. Ven.

contains all that is in the printed texts, and after Tre/HTer/uêi/o?
leaves a space of about f of a line, after which it has ovra* Xpi-
Bk. I. c. 17, Lomm. p. 36. Similar phenomena occur again

here.
1
Cf. an Article in the Journal of Philology Vol. xvm. No. 36, "On the text of
Origen against Celsus," esp. pp. 294, 295.

2 The numbers after the word
'space' refer in each instance to the (approxi-
mate) number of letters which the space left could contain.
Bk. I. c. 22, Lomm. p. 41. rot? overt /cal 777 v\y

\eyovra.
This is all damaged in Cod. Monac., but the following facts are
discoverable.
(1) It omits olîat, and TTJV virapfyv.

(2) Between el KOI and elirelv there is room for about 23 more
letters.
(3) ea-rlv is, I think, not contained in it. The words are
illegible, but the ink has to some extent stayed on the opposite
leaf. Reading backwards, I thought I could trace somewhat as
follows :
ra? ov&las %a\e7rov [lev ovv ira^vrepov elirelv.

el /cal
God. Ven. has rfj v\y (space 20) then /cal rd K.T.\. to ;
el /cal
as in the texts ;
after which (space 23), elirelv K.T.\.
In the margin it has olâi irapacrêlv rrjv virapfyv /cal Trjv
ir\d(Ttv /cal rd eiSrj.
Thus we get some valuable information by which to attempt a

restoration of the text, and very sure indications of the relations
of the two MSS.
Bk. I. c. 23,Lomm. p. 43. rt9 6 ev avrfj Xo<yo9... ewepêrat
(T/coTTovvri. Damaged in God. Monac., which has space for more.
God. Ven. leaves a space of one line between eirepêrai and cr/co-
irovvTi.
XIII. c. 39, Lomm. Vol. II.

p. 73, rjroi, ovra.
hBk. Monac. has

God.
vening being damaged.
rjroi die (space 3 or 4) ovra, the letters inter-
God. Ven. has tfroi, (space 5), then ovra.
Such evidence as this must hold good against much textual
divergence and it must be admitted that the scribe of God. Ven.
;
has made rather free use of conjectural alteration. But a com-

parison of the readings of God. Ven. with those of God. Monac.,
which are given at the end of the Introduction, will shew, I think,
that this supposition will explain the facts better than any other
theory.
Similar evidence may also be obtained from an investigation of
the first parts of the MSS. which contain the Commentaries on
S. Matthew. Perhaps a short statement on this part of the
evidence may not be out of place. Here in Books X. and XI. the
leaves of the Munich Codex have been bound up in wrong order,
and two or three are wanting. In the Venice MS. the leaves are
in their right order, and nothing

missing hence the displace-is ;
ment and the loss of leaves in Cod. Monac. is subsequent to

1374, the date of the Venice MS.
The Munich MS. has lost its first leaf it now begins with the ;
words rivi Se \dfji\lrova-iv, Bk. x. c. 3, Lomm. p. 15. These occur

in Cod. Ven. on the 2nd recto, line 5.
We may first notice two omissions, due to homoioteleuton, in
Cod. Ven. of words contained in Cod. Mon.\ as indications of
course, not as proofs.
Bk. XI. c. 18, Lomm. pp. 120, 121. o ^coXo? Kal rpav} earac
o 2&>Xo9. Cod. Ven. omits /cal rpavrj o ô>Xo?.
Bk. XII. c. 1, Lomm. p. 127. /cal (ftapiaaloL Trpecrfievovcri,
yap ol JAW <f)api(TaioL

Cod. Ven. omits Trpeo-fievovai <f>aptaa2oi.
The following passage supplies clear proofs. (Bk. XII. c. 20.)
Be OVK eveSeêro r 7rpo- Cod. Ven. rd roiavra airo-

r
^\eo-9ai efo> le- TeXeaOai.
povcra\r}fjL, a7rw\eiav ava\o-
r ro* o Cod. Ven. omits, leaving space
ytav %ov<Tav TT/JO?
rrjv tyv%riv av- (15).

TOV VKV
avrrjv, &ta TOVTO eSei avrov
iva
r 7roXXa TraOwv ev~\ Ifceivois Cod. Ven. omits, leaving space
K.T.\.
The words between the signs

r n are in each case damaged in
Cod. Monac.
Bk. XII. c. 24, Lomm. p. 170, </>epe eiTreiv rd fiaatXiSov rj,
damaged in Cod. Monac. Cod. Ven. omits fiao-iXiSov, leaving a
space (7). And for rj

it reads teal.
Thus there can be no doubt that the Venice MS. is derived
from that at Munich. On this MS. therefore we are entirely
dependent for the text of the Commentaries on S. John. Un-
fortunately its present condition at the bottom and top of several
leaves is such that the lacunae in these places cannot for the
most part be filled up; though in some cases hints as to length
and individual words can be obtained, which may serve as useful
guides for conjectural restoration.The Venice Codex is our best

authority for this group of the MSS. of the Comm. in Matt,
in the places where Cod. Monacensis is now defective, as the
other direct copies of this MS. have apparently been made since
its mutilation. The alterations introduced by the scribe of
Cod. Yen. frequently deserve consideration, and are not seldom
obviously right.
The marginal notes on blasphemy suggest the possibility
of the suppression of some passages on account of the doctrine
contained in them. But all the lacunae and there are several in
Cod. Monac. due to its original, besides those due to the damage
done to the MS. itself cannot be explained by this hypothesis of :
this Bk. XIIL c. 32 will serve as an example. But while much

must be given up as no longer recoverable, a good deal of light
may be thrown on the text of many passages in the Commentaries
by the use of Cod. Monac. With a view to further work on them
I made a collation in September 1889 of the Commentaries on
S. John.
Huet knew of the Manuscript, but does not seem to have
used it. He occasionally agrees with it against the Paris MS.
on which his text was based, but such readings are probably
emendations of his own, or were suggested by the versions.
Through the version of Ferrarius he became acquainted with
a text like that of the Venice MS.
Delarue's wider knowledge whether he had examined any
MSS. himself I cannot discover is marred by inaccuracy of
statement as to the readings contained in MSS. In particular
he seems to have taken granted that any reading adopted
it for
by Huet in his text was necessarily that contained in the

Paris Codex. The undue influence of this Codex, which it has
exercised owing to its relation to Huet's text, must be set aside.
But when all has been done that is possible by the ordinary
methods of textual criticism, a large sphere will remain in which
conjectural emendation alone can be of any avail.
The notes of Th. Mangey preserved in the British Museum
(MSS. Add. 6428) do not contain fresh material. Those on the
Commentaries on S. John appear to be a partial collation of
Huet's text with something of the type of Cod. Venetus, not the
B. 2
Bodleian MS. which mentioned separately. Possibly

is at times
he was working with the Codex Barberinus of that type. But
whatever his source was, it contains nothing helpful which is not
otherwise known.
It may be worth while to bring together here some examples

from Cod. Monac. of important New Testament Readings of
an ancient type, which have been subsequently brought into
conformity with the ordinary Syrian text, either by its correctors
or in its descendants. These will be sufficient to shew that it
may throw some further light on the problem of the text of
the New Testament used by Origen, while they will serve to
illustrate the manner in which the text of quotations from the
New Testament has been handled in the MSS. of the Fathers.
In the following list of some pre-Syrian readings supported by Cod.
Monac. I have added in a few cases interesting readings from the other MSS.
In these cases the MS. authority is added in brackets.
Lomm. i.
p. 177. Jn. i. 15. o flirw. See Tisch. (Or. 4 '

102
)
Jn. i. 18. novoyevr)? 6eos. (See above, p. 8.)

o &v om. Heracleon (?)
123
210. Jn. i. 24. aTreoraX/xe'i/ot. See Tisch. (Or. 4 '
211. Mb. iii. 10. tffy dt K a\ (Ven.)

125
214 f. Mk. i. 2. om. t^poo-Bev o-ov. See Tisch. (Or. 4 -
222. Jn. i. 26. eo-Trjicev
Jn. i. 27. avTos COTIV 6 om.

(but in Or. vi. 23 Mon. ins. o). See Tisch. (Or. 4>13 )
234. Jn. i. 26. o-nJKt (Heracleon)

etonjKct (Bodl. Ven. Cf. Eusebius)
"
[292. Mk. i. 27. Mapfydrjo-av. See Tisch. (Or. 4 1 -
)]
[293. Luke iv. 40. eOfpanevev (Paris. Ven. Monac. )

eucpaTTfvcrfv (Bodl.)]
Lomm. n.
p. 5. 1 Cor. iv. 11. yvfiviTvofj.v (Par. Bodl. Mon. Ven.)

9. Jn. iv. 16. a-ov rov avbpa (Bodl. Veil.)
18. Jn. iv. 14. ou St^crei (Ven.)
ov fj.r) 8i\fsrjo~i (Bodl.)
ov fj,fi 8i\lsi]o-T] (Par. Mon.)
4 - 220
See Tisch. (Or. )
57. Jn. iv. 31. eV TO> ^ra^v 8t (Bodl. Ven.)

68. Jn. xiv. 28. o irarrip 6 Tre/nâs- /nc
om. o Trarrip (Bodl. Ven.)

92. Mt. xii. 42. 2oAo/i<Bvos (Par. Mon.)

104. Jn. iv. 42. OVTOS eVrii/ aXjj&os (Bod. Ven.)
106. 1 Cor. ix. 1. eopaxa (Par. Mon.)
109. Jn. iv. 44. avrbs 6 tcr sec. loc. (Ven. Bodl.)
tert. loc. (Bod. Mon.)
110. (Ven. Bodl.)
114. Jn. ii. 15. dvecrrpfêv (Par. Mon.)
See Tisch. (Or. 4 270 * -)- 5
115. Jn. ii. 16. pr) TTOITJTC (Par. and ?Mon.)

Jn. ii. 23. cv rfj eoprfj ev rw Trooâ (Bodl.)
fv rrj foprfi TOV Tracrâ (Ven.)
123. Mt. x. 28. ty>xn v KOI o-wâ (Monac. Ven.)
130. Mt. viii. 8. o TTOLS pov om. (Par. Mon.)
248. Mt. v. 28. os av >/3Xe'\/^ (Mon.)
264. Jn. viii. 44. ov< co-TrjKev (Par. Mon.)
N.B. It will be seen that in the have given some examples

above list I
of readings not pre-Syrian. These are cases of attestation where further

examination of the Manuscripts of Origen has corrected or supplemented
Delarue's information, on which of course Tischendorf depended. The
references to Tischendorf are to his critical digest in locc. His references
to Origen (e.g. Or 4 220 ) refer to the volume and page in Delarue's edition.
'
remains to say a few words about Catenae on S. John.

It only
At Munich there are two fragments attributed to Origen in a
Catena of the xith century (Gr. 437). At Home there are several
in the Catenae Vat. 1423, Regin. 9. The larger fragment in the
Munich Catena occurred also with considerable variations in
Regin. 9. I was unable at Rome to do more than glance at these
fragments. The fragments pointed to the same conclusions as
may be drawn from an examination of those published by Cor-
derius from an Antwerp MS. Most of them at any rate might
have come from Origen 's pen, so far as opinions are concerned.
But in the comparatively few instances where they cover common
ground with the extant Commentaries, the text and even the
contents are either wholly different or widely divergent. Some
of them have the appearance of being taken from Homilies, others
from eTrKTrjfjLeittHreis. The
nearest agreement with the extant
Commentaries was in the case of two fragments in Regin. 9, where
the text of Orig. Comm. in Joann. XXXII. 11 a-Tj/jLeitocrr) Be rlva
rpoTTov a'rjfjLau'OfjLevti) and 13 evret ovv tye/crav (Lomm. p. 435
and p. 449) occurred almost exactly, but in each case the rest of
22
the fragment was different from the text of the Commentaries.

Nor was the result of a closer examination of two Catenae, xxvii
(saec. x.) and xxvm (saec. XL), at Venice different. Of these
the former contains more matter, though occasionally the frag-
ments in the latter have pieces omitted in Cod. xxvii. On the
whole, however, Cod. XXVIIT. is much more curtailed. The greater
part of what is contained in Corderius is in Cod. xxvii. some- ;
times he gives the fullest text, and sometimes the Venice MS. is
fuller. There is also a good deal at Venice which is not found in
his edition. There is, I think, a close connexion between Ven.
xxvii. and Regin. 9 at Rome, but I did not bring away enough
information from Rome to determine this. I was able at Venice
to copy the fragments attributed to Origen in the Catena on
all
S. John in Cod. xxvii. Much more must be done elsewhere

before they can be made serviceable, but there is promise of
considerable addition to the published writings of Origen from
this Catena alone, though the critic's knife is not unneeded.
The textual results are the same as might be gathered from
the MSS. at Munich and Rome. The sense of lost parts of the
Commentaries may be recovered, but not much of the actual
text. This of course was to be expected. I can only conclude
with the hope that I may be able to bring to light some of this
buried matter if I am
allowed to continue working at the text of
Origen's Commentaries on S. John.

As I intend to quote in the apparatus criticus readings from
the Munich MS. only, I subjoin a full collation of the first 30
pages of Tom. xin. of the Commentaries on S. John, in the
edition Lommatzsch, with Codd. Monacenis (M), Venetus (V),
of
Regius (P), and Bodleianus (B). The quotations of differences

of accent or breathing, of obvious itacistic blunders and v e<eX-
KvaTi/cd are not exhaustive, but I have endeavoured to make the
collation of Cod. Monac. as complete as I could. The readings
marked by (() are readings of the Bodleian, where it differs
from Huet, which Bentley has not noticed in the margin of the
copy in Trinity College Library. In a few cases, where I knew
them, I have given the readings of the Barberini Codices under
the symbols R x (= V) and R 2 (= VI). The left column gives the
text of Lommatzsch.
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. 21
P. 1, Title TO roV M
1 av M
4 M
10 M
P. 2, 1. 1 om. VB
9, 10 7Tt TO
^ 7Tt TOO .T
-D
10 TO
~ ;V P
' ~D
10 CTTCt Jr
11 om. MP
11 a'XX' a'XXd MY
15 eWt COTtV M
18 ws avTos O MP
P. 3, 1. 4 alrrjcraL M
9 f /3a0 os MYB
11 CK TOV bis V
12 M
13 ^v MP
14 & eva M
15 TOV TOVTOV MP
1 6 eTTlXtTToVTOS 7rtXet7rOI/TO9 MP
16 Kaff O KO.OZ VB
18 811^17
v Seu/r^v MP
18 y f om. VB
2 1 Stcyoyyv^c M
P. 4, 1. 3 M Xevtrwv P
3 f ?7<r0tu)yai/ VB
f e^yayTat B
5 aTTOKTetvai Kttt a7TKTtV VB a7TKTtVa M
6 Et7T MP
6 VfJUV M
9 TjMP
9 7TtV(OVTtOI/ t TmvoVrwv B
11 yoyyvo*/xov eTrotow ot 7rt ot
Xoyot MP
Xoy ot
12 -T;
M
13 f 7Tia>jU,0a B V
13 ante OT f ins. Xeyoj/TS VB
13 e/3o'r;cr
MP
13 -Ts MVB
22 THE FRAGMENTS OF HER ACL EON.
16 f pa<j>i$r)v VB
1 8 Trapa TTCpl M
P. 5, 1. 1 Seti/'oj/xev
M
f yVfJiVLTVOfJ.V MVPB
TTptOTOl/ ins. TO VB
2 Snj/rjv M Sfutfv P
2 ytverat M
3 vyiaiVovo~t vyLawovcTLv o~a>/xao"tv M
3 MP
4 MP
* TTIVMV TTCtVCOV M
5 S 11/07 o~ei Beuf/tjcrti M
7
77'
MVPB B :
mg. iW CZ
7\ Taâ
KCU
/
B ing. Kai a-a^)a
10 TOVTO~Tl M
10 Sti/^Vet M
10 OfJLOLOV o>otW MVB
11 pOSt OVl/ f ins. TO MVB
12 M
16 ov ?a0os MP
17 /a M ai/et/xo/xei/a P
18 f om. VBP
19 post oo-ots lac. (3) MP
P. 6, 1. 1 post cTravcTravVaTo lac.
(6) M (4) PB (7) V
1 rapavrjv Tcpav yv VRjB: B mg. a?ro-
piav eTepav
1 CKTVTTWl/ ZKTVTTOV MR P 2
4 t MVP
B
6 MP
f KOL *X VB
8 Tro'/W-ttTO? V
11 ava/3Avo-0aVeiv VB
11 VB
P. 7, 1. 1 M
2 P
2 pOSt CUKIVT/TO) lac. (10) VBR, : null. lac. MP
3 <epovTos <f>CpOVTl MP
4 post otov lac. (10) MR P (12) V 2
null. lac. B
7 d Olii. MP
10 eVl 67T t M
11 StaXX^rat P
MP
13 aXXeTat
16 ad fin. cap. 3 V in mg. opa o a
P in mg. opa d dvayo...ft\aa-<j>yj-
/JLLO.V TiKpio-
M in mg. opa o ai/ayti/wo-Kwi/ (3\a(r-
P. 8, 1. 3 post ârl ins. o MP

5 OSt 7Tt f ins. TO YB
5 M
5 M
6 Tr)V e TIS et MR 2
: om. omnino P
Orjvai eoTiv, t TIS
7 7ro om. MP
8 V7TOir)TOV M
V TT
post Trtwrjv /cat ins. TO V
t7TO/Jtl/ P
12 TO TTpoVcDTTOV TO 7rpOO"W7T(i) P 7rpOO"W7T(U MVB
13 -
M
14 Xeyovra VB
15 t M
P. 9, 1. 3 Tt om. P
ao VB
5*
OVT
> *
av MP
6 TTICW Cir M
6 TraparrjprjTaLOV M
t
otovei
\
otov ei MP
8 cTrayyeXXero eTrryyyeXXcTO VB
8 post Trapc f ins. auTTj VB
8 î/ yap MP
9, 10 ToV avSpa o~ov VB
TOV aVSpa
11 C eTTto'Tr/o'o/xev MP
15 TOV TWV P
15 Snj/rjv
P
17 MVP: B mg. Ta
17 a aXXo/xevov M
20 ow v VB
20 f 1^ VBR^ B mg. Ta X a ^cZa

P. 10, 1. 1 f 7^ B 3e V T?
1 ccrriv M
3\
TOV
/
om. P
4 CTTTtt
5 post ypa'</>cti/
ins. o V
7 rfv rj
MP r^ #<w VB
9 "A B mg. raâ et
10 <f>rjviv om. YB
11 f B mg. raâ i
J.
12 f.
J
14 &rtl MV
IK
1
"
côvtrt M
16 TTCTTWKCKTl TreTrwKacrtv M TTCTroKacrt V
18 7ra<ri Tracnv M
' '
T>
20 CtKOvW OLKOlHl) i
20 X a- âAatTTtoTepa MP
P. 11, 1. 1 rd t TO MVPB
9 AeAaA7^Kao"tv M
10 ovs 0^9 M
12 ^CTTt COTIV M
J
19 T
20 MP
21 f </>$aVoi/TaVB
22 SlSttKTCt f 8t8aKTt/ca VB
22 ante Tri/cv/xctTos t ins. TOV MVB
22 aAAo/xcvov M
P. 12, 1. 1
Trrjyirjv
VB
4,5 f om. VB
6 em9 M
7 7TtV6 M
10, 11 ms M
13 f aKaipeo-TCpot VB
14 Ta om. VB
17 ]a/x,apems M
17 CTTtJ/e l7TtVV MVB
19 epôo/xat VB
21 5a/xapetVts M
22
>
(TTl
\
M
23 CTTtTTO ITI aiTet B mg.
23 _ om. B
P. 13, 1. 1 avrfjs arj MVBP
1 ante vvv ins. Kat YB (V intra lin.)
3 a/ aXXo//,ej/ov M
o-ol MP
5 S^Xov OTI OTt V
6 M
9 ai MP
11, 12 aXXo/xc'vov i'ov M
13 aVo aVV
15 VTTO V VB
16 TTCOt TOV 7Tpt TO MR 2 :
Trapa TO VIlj
Trapa TOV B
17 005 ws o aiTwv VB (sed in V o- o at
seriori, ut videtur, manu sunt

scripta) w CTOV MR 2
P. 14, 1. 1 evSeii/a rots f ev SwaTOt? VIljB: evSctva TOIS M

1, 2 e
efyyv/xj/ao-/xeVot5
M
7 ante TOV ins. TO VB
9 Xeyovros MVPB B :
mg. Xeyovros
10 yivoxTKOu M
P. 15, 1. 1 Etr ci^c't MP
2 IXecv
eycv M
5 f OtOV BV
tj
OlOV t M
10, 12 aTreâve avSpi erepw om. VB
14 7T(DS 7TWS MVB
19 2a/xaptrts â/xapciTts M
21 Ka^'ov KttÔV
22 om. MP
23 f 7rapaTiOtlcra.v MVB
24 SteXe^^vat P
P. 16, 1. 2, 3 aXX* atSc'a) aXXa tSta) /xev ouv Tt MP
5wo f(SB
6 a7re' aTreâvev M
6 f<SB
11 f T^pl/CtTO VB
16 cSa>/< I8(OKI/ M
P. 17, 1. 1 oi)uai otvat M cti/at P (sed ser. man.
otvat)
3 ante ins. Trpos VB B :
ing. T<x;(a
THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
M
MVPB
5 at M
7 /cat f Tn/ev/xaTiKcG VB
10 7T6J/TC eMP
nvews av yc V
us yc MP
15 on om. V
1
lo Q C >
VTT avTr)<;
/>
eipyy/xevtov VTT au-nys VB '
25 &TIC C7TIC1/ M
P. 18, 1. 1 vreTTtOKeVa "\" TreTTO/cevat VB
5 arovov aroi/os P
8 post TOV f ins. ra MVB
9 TTCTTOKei/at VB
1 eXa/x/?ai/ t\dfji(3avev MV
14, 15 f evei/KaA(rayu,V VB
18 om. V
18 Suf/ya'r)
MP
22 v om. VB
24, 5 SiSovs elvat eti/ai 81801)5 â>î/ B :
^wrjv
otoovs V
25 lAcye cXeyev M
26 f TrpLaLpyj(7L VB
26 P: yivoptv-Yj MVB
P. 19, 1. 1 M
1 VB : K tVa M
6 f r
M
* * $ t ~\7"D '
6 a a.v
evoigap.vrjv V i>
9 VlTTO//,ei>O5 M
11 TT7S f om. B
<*
T\/r
12 Tra wacrw 1V1
16 /
M
17
'
MP
18
18 8e VB
18 P
P. 20, 1. 1 ra TO MVPB
3 rov av8/oa erov o"ov TOV avSpa B
6 KO/Aure(r$ai H MP
-IT"
8 avr^s V
9 lAeyev aur^ om. VB
THE MSS. OF OKIGENS COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. 27
10 M
14 MP
21
22 M
23 f yap YB
24 'HpafcXeWi 'Hpa/cXccoi/ P
26 $
P. 21, 1. 1 I ^ VB
4 ante ins. MVB
77
8 jjivOoTroiCias MP
9, 10 KCU aya06V...Kap7rous om.

10 Sayaapems M
1 3 7TOpVV0' MVB
14, 5 7rpo<J>rjTr)<; T/Tts P
16 XeyT Aeyerat P
1 6 OTtV eVrat MP
17, 8 trts M
23 MR 2 (hie laesus est
Codex Monac.)
23 auriys avrots VBRj om. avr^s : R 2 (lac.
relicta)
P. 22, 1. 1 Kara\L<j>OevTO<s PB :
ras MV
3 tSctv 7rpo<t>rJTr]v eii/cu Trpo<f>rjTYjv etvat tSetv VB
5 TOO"OVTOV Totrov VB
7> CIS TOUTO c2s TO TO MVPB
12 S VB
16 '] M
16 Bevia/mV Bcv'ta/xryv V
17 X VB
17 VB
P. 23, 1. 1 wv MP
4 a a6 VB
4 MVB
Xeyovo-tv M
/
i/evo/At/ce l/yO/UKJ/ M
7 post ins. ^ T<38 PM TW VB
9 ai/ M
11 els P
1 3 TOVTto TOVTO P
14 MP
21
23 rov om. VB
23, 4 8eKaa"/xo5 VB: B mg.
24 wi/ P ^cwov M
25 M
P. 24, 1. 3, 4 TO TO /xei/ (sic) P P :
mg.
11 MP
12 M
13 (7Tt CO-TIV M
13 OLTTfp (XTTCp M
14 pOSt U7TO om. TO VB
16 J}j
17 e VB: e
M
18 7rpoo"ayovTat VB
19 i/o'/xov; vo>oi/ MVP
21 ante a ins. -njv MVPB
26 epêrat P
27 eo-Tt CO"TtV M
29 ô-Tt M
29 oT/xat ot/xat M
P. 25, 1. 3, 4 TrpoKOTrrjv MP
7 <0avovTas P
7, 8 vo/uo/A0a <o/x,â M
8 yow VB
10
13, 4 M
14 M
16 7Tl M
.'-: 17 TO om. VB
20 Sa/xapemv
21 MVP
25 KttV MVB
26 MVB
26 jU,TO, 8e TttVTtt l TttVTa 8 VB
P. 26, 1. 1 aVTT7? <f)V<TL avT^s </>avo"t MP :
avrrj<; < V
5 8t ayvotav 8tavotav P : 8t'
evyvotav B
B mg. 6Y ayvotav
12 OIKC eoi/ccv M
14 7rpo(TTiOr}(rLV M
14 T BV T M
15 TlVt ins. rpoTTw VB
17 TO TO MVPB
18
eveXeyKTa eveXeyKara M
19 * mil. lac. MP : ins. VB
19 ciTraXXayet T;
M
23 7rpO<TKVVTJO'TCU P
23
w
8o^v M
P. 27, 1.
3, 4 & e7reôXo)(7v M
4 opos opos M
/ 1
7 opos epos M
8 (5 (OS?
9 'lepoo-oXv/xa 'lepoo-oXv/Aa bis P
10 <S om. P
10 opos opos M
11 ol om. M
12 <5 om. M
12 ol om. VB
14
15 M
16 VB
19, 20 MVPB
21 8?7/uovpyoV P sed ser. man. in 8c
correctum est
23 6ca)pr)Tr)ii)Tepov B
23 ins. /cat OcioTtpov MVB
P. 28, 1. 3, 4 7rpoo"KWOvcrt TrpovKvvovorw M
4 KpflTTOV MVB
COS
6 I
rayyeXoi MP
8 o-v/xirepiêpooj/rai VB :
poi/rat M
9 rots om. VB
10 KepSijarovcrw MP
10, 11 voetcr^w P
11 7rpoo"a7ro
M
15, 6 7TpO(7KUV?7<rT MP
20 eVri M
THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
VB : o 3 P sed ser. man.

deletur o
P. 29, 1. 3 KUjptbv
4 tav M
6
'
01 MB
1 \ -TT"
6 e V
7 M
tViv
2a/x-a/3triv M
7, 8 : V
9 7rpocTKwov<nv MVB
10 ou KatMP
13 post TroXv Se ins. KaXXtoi/ VB
16 post avra ins. Kat B
17 fJLLKTOV fJLCLKTOV M
P. 30, 1. 2 Ka^cXî/ as M : K as
Ka.0* V
cX^vas
5 /XOVOt OLOfJLWOL /xovois to/xevot MP
6 ayyeXots ayye'XXots M
10 ft
12 (TTp\f/ M
13 post oTSa ins. S MVPB
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.
OF the personal history of Heracleon hardly anything is

known. Clement of Alexandria, quoting his comment on a
passage of S. Luke, calls him the most famous of the Valentinian
Origen prefaces his first citation from Heracleon's Com-
1
School .
mentary on the Gospel of S. John with the information that he

was said to have been a pupil (or, perhaps, an acquaintance) of
2
Valentinus He is mentioned once by Irenaeus in conjunction
.
with Ptolemaeus, and possibly with Valentinus, who is at any

rate mentioned several times by name shortly before, as the chief
1
Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9, p. 595 (ed. Potter), 6 T^S OvaXevrivov o-%oX^j
/xwraros.
Origen, Comrn. in Joann. n. 8, rbv OvaXevrlvov \ey6jj.evov elvcu yvuptfjLov. It
2
seems probable that Origen here uses the word yvupi/jios in the sense of 'pupil,' a
meaning which it often bears. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 11, TOVTO &pa /SotfXercu
Kal T Hvdayopq. 17 Trevraerlas criwTr^ r/v TOIS yvupi/m-ois irapeyyvq, and Ibid. II. 4.
Hippolytus, Refutatio, i. 13, A77/^6/cptros AevKlinrov yiverai yvwpifj.os.

5 Justin
Martyr, Apol. I. 32, Si/ (sc. TrwXoj/) eit&evffev ayayeiv atfry r6re rot)s yv(i)pL/u.ovs
avrov. Joseph. B. J. IV. 8. 3, UTTO 'EXtffffatov TOV irpo^rov yvupt./Jios 5e rjt>
'HMa /cat SidSoxos. Philo 201. 6 (ed. Mangey), OTrore 70^ irar^p vibv ri^Trrei (r
I.
vlQav 17 5i5oo-/caXos yvwptôv, and i. 208. 4. Plutarch, 2. 448 E (Francofurt. 1620),

avrl yvupL^wv Kal ô.Qt]rdv epaa-ral Ka\oij/j.evoi Kal ovres (of the gradual growth of the
pupil's affection for his master). Cf. also Strabo 1. 1. 11. Philostratus 529 (2. 41.
9 ed. Teubner), 578 (2. 84. 13), and 583 (2. 88. 4), and Suidas sub voce. The
growth of the meaning may be traced in such passages as Xen. Mem. 2. 3. 1,
d5eX0w fj.v dXX^XoiJ', eaur (sc. Zw/cpdret) 5e yvwpiû.
At the same time the word would hardly be used of one who had joined a school
after the death of the Master. Its use is not compatible with any great difference
of date between Valentinus and his pupil.
exponent of the opinions under discussion 1 . Tertullian also

refers to him once as having developed the Valentinian teaching
on the lines suggested by Ptolernaeus
2
The author of the.
Refutatio^ mentions him and Ptolemaeus as the chief exponents of

the Italic school of Valentinianism. In the preface at the beginning
of the sixth book he
placed after Ptolemaeus.
is Theodoret 4
mentions him after Secundus, in quite general terms, with Cossia-
nus, Theodotus, Ptolemaeus, Marcus. He is also once referred to
5
by Photius .
6
Praedestinatus is certainly in telling a story of him
wrong
which connects his name with the Roman episcopate of Alex-
ander (c. 110 A.D.). 'Hie in partibus Siciliae inchoauit docere :
contra hunc susceperunt episcopi Siculorum, Eustachius Lily-

baeorum Panormeorum Theodoras, quique omnium per Sicilian!
et
erant episcoporum synodum exorantes gestis eum audire decre-
uerunt et uniuersas adsertiones eius dirigentes ad sanctum Alex-
andrum urbis episcopum rogauerunt, ut ad eum confutandum
aliquid ordinaret. Tune sanctus Alexander ad
singula quaeque
capita hydri singulos gladios dei uerbi de uagina diuinae legis
eiciens librum contra Heracleonem ordinans, feruentissimum in-
genio Sabinianum presbyterum destinauit, qui et scriptis episcopi

et adsertione sua ita eum confutaret, ut nocte media nauis prae-
sidio fugeret, et ultra ubinam deuenisset penitus nullus sciret.'
The date is.impossible, arid the heretical views on baptism

attributed to him in the same account (nihil obesse baptizatis
peccata memorabat) have no greater claims to be accepted as part

of his teaching.
That he had a school of followers we know from Praedestinatus,
'
Sextadecima haeresis Heracleonitarum ab Heracleone adinuenta
1
Irenaeus n. 4. 1, Honorificentius reliquis aeonibus ipsius (?) Ptolemaei et
Heracleonis et reliquis omnibus qui eadem opinantur.
2
Tertullian, adv. Valentinianos c. 4, Deduxit et Heracleon inde tramites quos-
dam et Secundus et magus Marcus.
3
Hippolytus, Refutatio Omn. Haeres., vi. 35.
4
Theodoret, Haeret. Compend. I. 8, Kal aXXoi de fttptoL evrevOev
aipfoeus apxyyoi, Ko<rcriavbs, 6e65oroy, 'Hpa/cXew*', IlToXe/xcuoy, Mcp/cos,
6
Photius, Ep. 134 (ed. Kic. Montacutius).
6
Praedestinatus, Haer. 16.
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 33
est' : from Augustine 1 (c. 16)

'
Heracleonitae ab Heracleone': from
Epiphanius (Haer. XXXVI.) 'HparcXeayv Kal ol air avrov 'Hpa-
/c\Ci)Virat,: and from Origen (passim), e.g. ol air avrov, ofyerai
avToi? rd rfjs [jivOoTrotLas, ol a?ro r^9 yvw/jLrjs avrov.

The a school of his disciples was in existence when
fact that
Origen wrote his Commentaries on S. John (of which parts at any

2
rate were written before A.D. 228 ), does not necessitate any earlier
date for Heracleon than the end of the second century. The exact
meaning of Origen's description of him (Gomm. in Joann. II. 8) is
uncertain, but the phrase used (7^60/3^09) would hardly be natural,
unless Heracleon had been a prominent member of the school
during the lifetime of Valentinus. And we cannot lay much

stress on the fact that Origen admits that his account is only
from hearsay (\6y6/jL6vov). In the absence of more direct evidence
we have no reason to distrust this tradition. On the other hand,
stress has been laid on the probability that the heads of the
Western or ItalicSchool of Valentinians were contemporary,
or nearly so, with those of the Anatolic School to whom they are
opposed in the Refutatio. But as there is nothing to tell us
how quickly the two schools respectively developed, or whether
those who were regarded by a later age as most representative of
them were those who stood at the head at the same time, such
an argument is The constant connexion of the
very precarious.
names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, not alwavs in the same order, */
is our only guide. As the order is never necessarily chronological,

its variation does not prove that they were absolutely contempo-
rary, but it certainly gives a high probability to the supposition

that they were nearly so. All we know for certain is, that
Heracl eon's Commentary on S. John was in existence before 228,
and that a comment of his on Luke xii. 8 11 was quoted by
Clement as early as 193. Clement's silence as to the Commen-
taries on S. John affords no evidence of a later date than this
for theircomposition. Lipsius points out the probability that
Irenaeus had heard of him when he came to Rome about 176
or 1*77: and at any rate the school of Ptolemaeus was well
Augustine, De haeresibus liber, c. 16 (ed. Migne, vol. vin. p. 27).

1
2
See the Article 'Origen' in Diet, of Chr. Biogr. vol. iv. p. 114.
B. 3
established at that time

1
We may
perhaps go a little further.
.
It may be reasonably assumed that the lectures of Irenaeus, on

2
which, according to the most probable interpretation of Photius ,
the Compendium of Hippolytus was founded, were delivered not

later than 177 3 ,
and we know that in this Compendium the heresy
of Heracleon was described. This can be gathered, almost with
certainty, from the place assigned to him in the Minor Heresiolo-
gists. independent of the disputed question of
This evidence is
the date of the Syntagma of Hippolytus. Thus we have no

evidence which necessitates an earlier date than 170 for the
appearance of Heracleon as a Heresiarch, but on the other hand
there is a considerable probability, if we allow to the expression of
Origen the full force of its most natural interpretation, that the
true date is somewhat earlier, and in closer proximity to the
4
death of Valentinus. Heinrici has made use of the reference to
5
Heracleon in Clement's Eclogae Propheticae which he regards as ,
a very early work of the Alexandrine Father, to press the earlier

date ; but, if we take the more common view that these formed
6
part of the lost books of the Hypotyposes this argument has of ,
course no weight.
The only other possibly available evidence is such as might be
deduced from the character of the Valentinian doctrine dealt with
in the Refutatio, supposing that we ought to regard this doctrine
as Heracleonic. It is always allowed to be of a later type than
that represented in Irenaeus, and thus its contents might possibly
give us some clue to Heracleon's date ;
but with this question we
are not yet in a position to deal. Suffice it to say here that the
chronological difference need not be great, and that the Refutatio,

if ithas any connexion with Heracleon, represents in all probability
a stage of Heracleonism more developed than the teaching of the
Master himself. Here then we must leave, at any rate for the
present, the question of Heracleon's date.
1
Lipsius in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1867,
p. 81.
2
Lightfoot, Clement of Rome (2nded.), vol. n. p. 414.
3
Ibid. p. 423.
4 Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die Heilige Schrift, p. 13.
5
See Fragment 49.
6
See Diet, of Chr. Biogr. vol. i. p. 564 'Clement.'
We know from
Origen's direct statement, as well as from
the fragments cited by him, that Heracleon was the author of
1
vTro/juvrf/jLara These included Commentaries on at any rate
.
large portions of the Gospel according to S. John, and probably

also on that according to S. Luke. This follows from Clement's
statement on Luke xii. 8 11, TOVTOV efyyovfjuevos TOV TOTTOV 6
'Hpa/cXecov, K.T.\. Whether he also wrote on S. Matthew is

2
uncertain . That he used it as authoritative follows from his
3
citation of Matt. viii. 12, ol viol
eêXeucrozmu TT}<? ySacrtXeta?
(Text. Rec. eK/3\r)6r)<TovTai), to prove the destruction of the men
of the Demiurge.
The place of Heracleon among the Valentinians givenis
differently by different heresiologists. Philaster and Pseudo-

Tertullian place him next to Secundus Epiphanius and Augus- ;
tine after Colarbasus. We

do not possess sufficient information,
either in the fragments of his own writings which remain, or in the
very scanty references of other writers, to clear away the obscurity

which shrouds his system. The statement of Ps.-Tertullian,
Qui cum Valentino paria
'
sentit sed nouitate quadam pronun-
tiationis uult uideri alia sentire/ is perhaps unfair in its im-
putation, but it comes as near the truth as we can get. The
information given by the Minor Heresiologists is but scanty.
PHILASTRIUS. PS.-TERTULLIANUS.
Dicens principium esse unum Introducit enim in primis illud

quern dominum appellat, deinde de fuisse quod...pronuntiat, et deinde ex
hoc natum aliud, deque his duobus ilia monade duo ac deinde reliquos
generatioriem multorum adserit prin- aeones. Deinde introducit totum
cipiorum. Valentinum.
What word is to be supplied to fill

up the lacuna in the
4
account of Ps.-Tertullian, has been sufficiently discussed by others .
'
The phrase ex ilia monade just below certainly suggests that
'
monadem the only natural reading. Thus we get Mom? as

' '
is
the starting point of the Heracleonic system, according to the
1
Origen, Comm. in Joann. vi. 8 ev o?s Ka.Ta\\onrev vTro/ui.v^fj-a<ni>.
2
See Fragment 51 (note).
3
Origen, Comm. in Joann. xm. 59.
4
Cf. Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, p. 170.
32
Syntagma of Hippolytus, the almost certain source of the accounts

which we are considering. And
agrees exactly with the
this
account given by Hippolytus in the Refutatio, where the system
described under the section devoted to Valentinus starts from
a novas dyevvtjTos, afyOapTO? tf.r.X. (see Hippolytus, Ref. Omn.
Haeres. VI. 29). Combining this with the direct statements of
Irenaeus (i.
with regard to the tenets of Valentinus himself,
xi. 1)
we may regard it as most probable that, whereas Valentinus's

system starts with an original Dyad, his more Pythagoreanising
pupil Heracleon referred the origin of all things to an eternal
Monad. Other more distinctly Pythagoreanising tendencies of
Heracleon and his school will come under notice later on.
The nextstep is more obscure. The most natural explanation
of the facts recorded by the Minor Heresiologists is that Heracleon
spoke of his second principle indifferently as one, or as a Dyad, of

which the two principles were not very clearly distinguished. It
must correspond to the Valentinian Nofo and 'AXrj#eta and very :
possibly he may have often referred to it as akrjOeia: compare the

use in the Fragments of the term rw irarpl rfjs a\r)6eias. The
exact agreement of this with the account given in the Refutatio
must be noted. We need only quote vi. 29, Trpoeffakev ovv /cal
eyevwrjcrev avros 6 Trarrjp, cacnrep r^v vovv KOI d\ij@eiav
fiovo?,
Tovrea-Ti SvaSa. The next clause also agrees well enough with
the rest of Ps.-Tertullian and Philaster: ^rt? icvpia /cal
yeyove Kal /jL^r'rjp TTCLVTWV rwv evros TrXTjpw/jiaTOS Kar

altovtov. This combines the 'deinde reliquos aeones* of Ps.-Ter-
tullian, and Philaster's 'deque his duobus generationem multorum
adserit principiorum.'
But here a digression is necessary. Harnack in an interesting
1
note has suggested that the 'alius clarus magister' of Irenaeus
1
ZurQuellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus, p. 62 n. He further sug-
gests that Tertullian, in his copy of Irenaeus, may have found Heracleon 's name
in this place (Irenaeus, i. xi. 3). But Lipsius (Die Quellen der dltcsten Ketzer-
shewn that Tertullian reproduces this section of Irenaeus
geschichte, p. 67 n.) has
almost verbatim, subsequently to his mention of Heracleon, without connecting it
with Heracleon's name (Tert. adv. Valent. c. 37). Harnack also sees in the words
of Irenaeus n. 4. <
honorificentius...reliquis aeonibus ipsius Ptolemaei et Hera-

1,
cleonis,' a hint that Ptolemaeus and Heracleon agreed in prefixing to the ordinary
series of Valentinian Aeons, projected
by the Father, a series of higher beings.
(i. xi. 3) should perhaps be identified with Heracleon. But it has

been pointed out that exactly the same teaching, with regard to
MOJ/OTT;?, 'EJ/OTT;?, Moi/a? and *Ev, is attributed to Marcus, with a
reference apparently to this passage, by means of the words icaO'
a TrpoeiprjTcu (Irenaeus I. xv. I)
1
compare the words
. We may also
with which Marcus is introduced in c. xiii. 1 (the Greek is not
available, as Epiphanius has here epitomised the words of
Irenaeus); 'alius uero quidam ex iis, qui sunt apud eos, magistri
emendatorem se esse glorians; Marcus est autem illi nomen.'
We may therefore conclude that the section I. xi. 3 refers to
2
Marcus and not to Heracleon. But Lipsius is inclined to regard
the description of Heracleon, which Hippolytus gives in the
Syntagma, as based on this passage of Irenaeus. If this is right,
it follows of course that the information to be found in the

Syntagma about Heracleon isBut, in his
open to grave suspicion.
article on Valentinus, Lipsius has shewn that Hippolytus cannot
have derived his statements as to the pupils of Yalentinus
(Secundus, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon) from the account of
Irenaeus (i. xi. xii.) alone, but must have used some other source
as well, if indeed he used this passage at all: and that the parti-
cular doctrines assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus and Ptolemaeus,
those of the rerpd? Sem
and dpio-repd, and the two o-v&yoi
respectively, are not so attributed by Hippolytus, while the dis-
tinction of the two 2)o</ua, assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus
(i.
in Hippolytus assigned to them both.
xi. 2), is The connexion
then is so very loose that, when we find that Hippolytus (see
Ps.-Tertullian, quoted above) makes Heracleon's first principle to
be Moz/a?, we need hardly assume that he derived this from
Irenaeus I. xi. 3, where the first principle of the Belarus magister'
But the '
ipsius
'
and as no mention has been made in
will hardly bear out this ;
the chapter at all of Ptolemaeus, the 'ipsius' is in any case strange. It would
refer much more naturally to Valentinus, who alone has been mentioned so far.
Perhaps we should insert an et after ipsius,' reading ipsius et Ptolemaei.'

' ' ' '
See Neander, GenetiscJie Entivickelung der gnostischen Systeme, p. 169 with

1
:
this must be compared Dr Salmon's article on 'Epiphanes,' Diet, of Christ. Biogr.

vol. ii.
2
See his article on '
Irenaeus,' Diet, of Christ. Biogr. vol. in. p. 261. But we
should also compare Die Quellen der alt. Ketzerrjeschichte, pp. 169, 170; and his
article on Valentiuus,' Diet, of
'
Christ. Biogr. vol. iv. p. 1084.
is MOZ/OTT;?. There would seem then to be no valid reason for
afforded by Hippolytus on the ground of

rejecting the information
its derivation from this passage of Irenaeus, which refers to another
teacher. Whence Philaster derived his statement that Heracleon

called his first principle 'Dominum' is not known. It is quite
possible that he may have used the term Kvpios (cf. /cvpia, Hipp.
Refut. VI. 29) ; but of this we know nothing.
The only other information afforded by the Minor Heresiologists
is 'Deinde introducit totum Valentinum,' which is probably true
enough. With the probable exceptions already considered there
is no reason to suppose that Heracleon materially altered the
system of his master, or that he laid any particular stress on the

details of the system. His interest seems to have been more in the
general theological and philosophical teaching of Valentinianism,
and the interpretation by it of the Canonical Books which he
regarded as authoritative, and especially of the Gospel according
to S. John.
The patchwork of 1
Epiphanius need not detain us long. His
points of contact with Philaster and Ps.-Tertullian betray the use
of the Syntagma ; and most of the rest consists so obviously of
gleanings from Irenaeus that it is unnecessary to look further for

his authority. The choice of Marcosian sources for his investiga-
tions was the natural consequence of the relative positions he
assigns to Marcus, Colarbasus and Heracleon. At the same time

the teaching of Heracleon on the two viol dvOpwirov (Frag. 35)
lends plausibility to the supposition that the aXkoi of Irenaeus
I. xii. 4 may have some connexion
with Heracleon, and that he
did call the Father of All avOpwTros. But, as a Commentator like
Heracleon was bound to make use of the Evangelic phrase mo?
dvdpwTTov, the identification is precarious. For the rest we should
perhaps notice the parallelism of /^'re dppev ^re 6rj\v with Hipp.
Ref. VI. 30 (ev fiev yap TOJ dyevvrfrft), (frrjcrlv, ecrrl irdvra OJJLOV, ev Be
ro? ryevvrjTols, TO fiev Orj\v...ro 8e dppev), because of the <f>r)(ri,
with which we must deal later on. The description of the Sevrepa
fJsrjTijp
a natural description of what formed part of every
is
Valentinian system. Epiphanius might easily have added it

himself, without deriving it from any particular source. The
1
Epiphanius, Haer. xxxvi.
words fiovXercu Se nrKeLova TWV Trpo avrov /cal ouro? \iyeiv, when
compared with the statement of Ps.-Tertullian quoted above, point
to the existence of some such accusation in the Syntagma.
We know from the Refutatio that Heracleon belonged to the
Italic school of Valentinians ;
but beyond this no further informa-
tion as to his teaching has come down to us, apart from his own
writings; unless indeed the account of Valentinianism given by

Hippolytus in the Refutatio is to be connected with the name of
Heracleon. This question can only be settled by an examination
of the points of contact between the two in matter and lan-
guage; and this it will be better to reserve for the notes on the
Fragments. be out of place here, however, to trace
It will not
shortly the illustrations which the Fragments offer of those pas-

sages of the Refutatio, which are confessedly derived from a
document quoted, noticing also again the parts of such passages
which shew similarity to the account of Heracleon given in the
Syntagma. The firstof these passages (Ref. vi. 29), tfv oXw?, </>?;crt,
ryevvrjTov ovBev, Trarrjp Be r}V /JLOVOS dfyevvrjros, ov TOTTOV

ov xpovov, ov crv/jLftovXov, OVK d\\r)V TIVCL /car* ovfteva TMV
vorjdrjvai $vva/j,evrjv ovo-lav, is in thorough harmony with the
account in the Syntagma. The description of dyaTrrj, though
worthy of the author of the Fragment (50) on o/uoXoyia, offers no
point of contact with the Fragments. The agreement of the next
sentence, TrpoefiaXev ovv. .rovrecm Svdo'a,
. with the Syntagma /c.r.X.,
has been pointed out, but it is not directly attributed to the

document. The next sentence so attributed, TOVTOV yap, (frycrl,
reXeiorepov dpiQfiov /e.r.X., is in harmony with the Pythagorean
tendency to dwell on numbers, which is seen in Fragments 16, 18,
40, where Heracleon explains the significance of the 46 years
occupied by the building of the Temple, the six husbands (ac-
cording to his text) of the woman of Samaria, and the seventh
hour when the son of the /3a<rtXt/to9 was healed. With the
sentence eV pev <yap ro3 d<yevvr)Tu>, fyjalv, K.T.\. we have dealt
before. With the following avrTj earl, fyrjcrlv, 77 dryadrj,.^ eirovpd-
'lepovo-aXr/fj,, et? rjv eTrrjyyefaaro 6 #eo<? elo-ayayetv TOI)?
e
'Io-paij\, must be compared the l6povo-a\rjfji of Fragment 13,

'
of which the tyv%iKb<s TOTTO?, typified in John ii. 13 by
\vfjua, is an elicwv. (Cf. the note in loc.)
In chapter 32, after the explanation of dp^rj crocfrias </>o/3o<?
Kvpiov (Prov. i.
7), attributed by the use of cfrrjcrl
to the same
document, we find a long passage, which it will be necessary to quote
in full. "Eo-rt Be TrvpobBrjs, cfrrjcrlv, r) tyv%itcrj ovcria, Ka\elrai Be
KOi TO7T09 [/<te<70T?7T09] V7T aVTCOV KCU e{3Bo/jid<; KOi TToXaLOS rWV
teal roiavra \eyovcn Trepl rovrov, ravra elvai rov
ocra
v, ov cf)acrLv elvai rov KOO~/J,OV B^fjbiovpyov' ecrri, Be
\eyet,, cf>r)crl,
Kal Mwua/J?' Ku/oto? o ^609 crof Trvp earl
KOI KaravaKicricov. /cat yap rovro ovrcos yeypd(j)0at, 6e\ei.
Be rt9 6<rri, (frrjcrlv, tj

rov irvpos' ecm yap Trvp
Svvafjiis
KaTaafiea'Orjvai //,*} Bvvdfj,evov...Kard rovro TOIVVV TO /j,epo<;

rt9 ecmv rj ^v^r)) yu-ecroT^9 Tt9 ovaa' eari yap eftBo/ju
KOST air aver i<$. vTro/cdTQ) ydp earl T^9 oyBodBos, OTTOV ecrrlv r)
rjfjiepa fJLe/mopcfrcofjLevr), vTrepdva) Be T^9 vXrjs, ^9 earl Brj-
edv ovv eô/JLOta)dfj ro?9 avco, rrj oyBodBi,

'
eyevero Kal rj\6ev et9 Trjv oyBodBa, ^rt9 ecrrt, (f)r)(rlv,

7roupdvi,os' edv Be eôfjuot,a)6fj rf) v\r), TOVTeari rot9
i5\t/cot9, (j)0aprr) ecrraL teal aTrfwXero [? ecm, /col aTroXXurat]. It
isimpossible to determine how much of this passage is actually
quoted from the document in question but the ro7T09 [yLtecrdr^To?] :
reminds us of Frag. 13, rov ^V^LKOV TOTTOV, Frag. 40, T&> VTTO-
ftefiij/coTi, r^9 yu.ecroT7;T09, and Frag. 35, vTrep rov TOTTOV.
fiepei,
And the account of ^vîfcrj ovcria as 6/3So/i,a9, and of the con-
ditions under which it may become dOdvaTos, vividly recalls the
description of û%>; in Fragment 40.

In chapter 34 (sub fin.), apart from the quotation from 1 Cor.
ii. 14, all that is necessarily taken from the document is pcopla Be,
cfrrjcrlv, rov BrjjMovpyov. On the agreement, or

ecrrlv r) Bvva/j,i<;
disagreement, of the next sentence, pcopos yap TJV, tc.r.\., with

Fragment 2, see the note in loc.
The from the document, and there are
rest of the quotations
practically only two more, otfer no points of comparison or of

contrast. But this examination reveals a very decided similarity
between such parts of his system as can be discovered from the
Fragments of Heracleon, and the passages of the Refutatio where by
the use of cfrrjcrl Hippolytus shews that he is quoting a particular
1
Gnostic document It has never been proved that Valentinus
.
1
The researches of Stahelin (Harnack, Tcxte und Untersuchungen vi. 3) do not
cannot have been the author of this document. But if the view,
that Pythagoreanising element was chiefly developed by
the
1
Heracleon is true, the Valentinian authorship is highly im-
,
probable. The similarity of its contents to the Fragments of

Heracleon do not prove that he was the author, but they render
such a supposition very probable indeed. The more detailed
comparison of the rest of the account in Hippolytus with the
Fragments proves, I think, that the system on which the account
is based Heracleonic; while certain differences lead us to
is
attribute it rather to the school of Heracleon, than to the founder

of the school himself. I speak of course of the system on which
Hippolytus bases his account :

divergent systems and opinions are
frequently mentioned.
Thus no certain evidence for Heracleon's date can be gained
from the Refutatio. The Pythagoreanising tendency, and the
absence of a av^vyos of the Father, which we may attribute with
probability, though not with certainty, to Heracleon, are not
necessarily late elements. The details of the system, which are
generally regarded as of a later type, may or may not be his.
Of the Excerpta ex Tkeodoto it is not necessary to speak
at length here. The chief illustrations of the Fragments afforded
by them will be referred to in the notes. Considerable verbal
but we are not yet, if indeed we ever can be, in
similarities exist,
'
'
a position to deal certainly with the Quellenkritik of the
Excerpta.
We must now turn to the surer ground of the Fragments
themselves, and conclude with a short summary of the teaching
of Heracleon, as it can be derived from his own writings.
The nature of God is in itself unspotted, pure, invisible. He
is and can only be worshipped duly by those who are
Spirit,
of the same nature as Himself, and whose worship is spiritual, not
carnal (Fr. 24). Elsewhere he is called 6 Trarrjp rrjs a\rjOeia^
(Fr. 20). We hear in Fr. 16 of a rer/ja?, tf aTr/ooo-TrXo/co?, which
isprobably the highest Tetrad of the Valentinian system, i.e. the
four highest male Aeons. The next highest Aeon of whom we
affect thequestion under discussion. He admits the trustworthiness of Hippolytus's

authority in this section of the Refutatio.
1
See also Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, p. 170.
read perhaps the dvo) Xptcrro?, who, according to the Hip-

is
polytean account, sent the KOWOS rov TrX^pcoyLtaTo? Kapiros to

Sophia but the interpretation of Fr. 35 is uncertain. The
;
Xo7o? of Heracleon is not a member of the original Pleroma,

or Aeon, according to Heracleon's usage of the term. The
inhabitants of the Aeon came into being before him (Fr. 1).
His position seems to correspond to that of the KOIVOS /capjrbs
in the Eefutatio. All things, with the exception of the Aeon
and its inhabitants, came into being through him ;
that is to say,
according to Heracleon's strange interpretation of 8ia, he was the

cause of the creation of the world by the Demiurge (Trapaaêlv
Trjvalriav rrjs ryevecrews rov Kocrpov rc3 S.). Through his in-
dwelling activity the Demiurge worked. The Trvev/jLart/col were in
a stricter sense created by him, auro? jap rrjv Trpobrrjv fjuop^wcnv
rrjv Kara rrjv <yevecri,v avrofc Trapecrê, TO, VTT a\\ov airapevra
et? /jLop(f)r)v KOI et? (fHOTicr/jLov /cal Trepiypatyrjv l$lav dyaywv KOI
dvaelj;a<;. He is the true Creator, and is also called Xptcrro?

(Fr. 22). He is further identified with the Saviour (Fr. 5),
and it is probably he, to whom reference is made in the words
6 ev alwvi, /cal ol avv avrw e\6ovres (Fr. 22), as is shewn by what
follows: \6yos et? TTJV ol/covpevTjv. We hear of the
e%fji\Qev...o
Holy Spirit as driving out evil (Fr. 13), but nothing further
is said on the subject.
Sophia is never mentioned in the Fragments, but her

history is the archetype of that of the redemption of the
TrvevâriKol, which is
represented as the true meaning of the
story Samaritan Woman, and it is not possible to

of the
separate archetype from copy in Heracleon's interpretation of the
story.
The Demiurge is frequently mentioned. Though in one
sense the world came into being through the ^0709, the Demi-
urge, inspired by him, is its immediate creator (Fr. 1). He it
wa, in all probability, who sowed,

unconsciously, the pneumatic
seeds which were formed and fostered by the Word (Fr. 3). He
is typified by John the Baptist, who, when he professed his
unworthiness to loose the latchet of Christ's shoe, is represented
by Heracleon as speaking in the person of the Demiurge, who is
thus made to confess his inferiority to the Christ (Fr. 8). He is
the Creator whom

the Jews worshipped, and is represented by
Jerusalem, the seat of the imperfect worship which was soon
to pass away (Fr. 20). The worship offered to him by all his
worshippers was carnal and mistaken (Fr. 22). He is again

represented by the /Bacrikiicos of John iv. 46. He is, as it were,
a petty king (Fr. 40), set over a small kingdom by the Great
King. His kingdom is the TOTTO? /-tea-oV^ro?, in the inferior

part which, represented by Capernaum, his son lies sick.
of
His nature is psychic, as is that of his son, which is represented
by the number seven. This nature is capable of salvation by
being assimilated to the higher spiritual nature, but the de-
struction of those who remain his men,' and are not thus assimi-
*
lated, is assured by the words of Christ in Matt. viii. 12. His

nature is such that it requires signs and wonders before it can
believe : it cannot \6<y(p irio-Teveiv. Yet he is easily persuaded of
the superior power of the Saviour. He
has his angels, here
represented as slaves, who report to him on the well-being of
his subjects, and the progress which they are making in conse-
quence of the Saviour's advent. He and his house represent ' '
his whole angelic order, and those men who are more nearly
akin to his own
Such can be saved, though the salvation
nature.
of some of the angels is doubtful, and the destruction of those
men, who are merely men of the Demiurge/ is certain. Once
'
more, according to one interpretation of <TTLV 6 fyrcov KOI

tcpivwv the Judge is the Demiurge, the Saviour's minister, who
performs the will of Him to whom all judgment has been com-
mitted.
The 8ta/3oA,o? comes next in importance in Heracleon's
teaching. He is represented by the Mountain of Samaria (Fr.

20), which is one part of the whole mountain of evil, the #007409
worshipped by all before the Law, and since the Law by the
Nations of the Gentiles. He cannot stand in the truth, because
his nature is not of the truth, but of its opposite, of error and
ignorance. Falsehood is his own by nature ;
he is physically
incapable of speaking truth. His nature (for so Heracleon in-
terprets 6 Trarrjp avrov) is composed of and falsehood

error
(Fr. 47). His substance is different in kind from the \ojt/cr)

ovala of the Saints (Fr. 45). He has desires but no will (Fr. 46).
44 THE FRAGMENTS OF HER ACL EON.
The ôiKol are his children by nature, of the same substance

as he.
Corresponding to \6yos, Srj/jLiovpyos, Sta/3oXo<?, we find the

usual triple division of men into irvevâriicoL^ -Û^KOL, %OIKOI or
i (cf. Fr. 44, erepas ovo-ias Tv<yyavQVTi Trap 01)9 KaKovcn
T) trvevfjiaTiKovs). The Trvevparitcol are in some sense

identical with the \6yos, who imparted to them their form and
personality (Fr. 2). The Holy of Holies, into which the High
Priest alone enters, symbolises the place of their final destination
(Fr. 13). The spiritual seed has been sown in the e/ûo-â,
which apparently the psychical part of those men who possess
is
it (Fr. 16). Before the coming of Christ their spiritual nature

was imprisoned in matter, corrupted by adulterous and irrational
intercourse with hylic wickedness. Their former life was weak,
temporal, deficient, because it was cosmic. When they are rescued
by the Saviour, the life which He gives them is eternal and
incorruptible (Fr. 17). Through ignorance of God and the
true worship which should be offered to Him, they lived in
former times no true life (Fr. 19). Yet the spiritual nature wa
not wholly dormant the Church awaited Christ, and was persuaded
;
that He knew all things, and was thus prepared to receive Him
(Fr. 25). But their rescue depends in no way on themselves;
the spiritual nature is
fyvaei and incorruptible
awôêvov,
(Fr. 37). Faith corresponds to their true nature, and henceforth
they offer to the Father of Truth that spiritual worship which is
their rational service (Fr. 24). This they can do, because they
are of the same nature as God. Rescued themselves, they are
instrumental in the salvation of others, especially of those ûîKol
who are capable of salvation. They pour forth what has been
given them, unto the eternal life of others (erepot). So Heracleon
interprets the aXkopevov of John iv. 14 (Fr. 17). It is through
and by the pneumatic that the psychic is
brought to the Saviour
(Fr. 27).
The TTvevfjiariKol are consubstantial with God, and are destined
to salvation. With the ^v^LKol it is not so. They are the
children of the Demiurge and share his nature. They are repre-
sented by the Jews, who worshipped the Creator, the
Demiurge,
instead of the Father of Truth (Fr. 19), who
thought they knew
God, but knew Him not,worshipping angels and months and

moons (Fr. 21) \ They can be saved, but cannot enter the Pleroma :
the irpovaos, the sphere of the Levites' service, is the true symbol
of their destined home. They are many in number, and form
the *:X?5<m, in contrast to the small number of the spiritual
e/cXoyri.
But we learn most about their nature in Fragment 40.
Like the irvev/jLart/col they are entangled in v\rj and they are :
sick, sick unto death. But their case is not hopeless ;

the psychic
nature possesses fitness for salvation (eVtT^SetW eôvaav) ;
it
is the corruptible which puts on incorruption. Its nature is
symbolised by the number seven. The Hebdomad, we learn from

Hippolytus, is the abode of the Demiurge, having affinities both
with the Ogdoad above, and the Hyle (whose number is six)
below. The psychic can rise to salvation or sink to destruction.
There would seem then to be a freedom of choice. The tyv%iicol
are the mean between the necessarily saved and the hopelessly
lost. But whether the freedom of choice is real or only apparent,
it is hard to say.
The
ôiKol are by nature the sons
of the Devil. The ^wî/col
can, by doing his works, become sons of the Devil Oecrei or a%lq,
but only the xoiicol are such by nature (Fr. 46). They are of the
same substance with the Devil, and thus differ in kind from the
other classes of men. Though it is nowhere expressly so stated, it
follows from the position which they hold in the system that their
destruction is inevitable.
To and to save those ^jrvîfcol who
set free the TrvevâriKol,
were capable of salvation, was the work of the Saviour on earth.
The exact nature of the Saviour who appeared on earth is
nowhere explicitly stated. But we learn that the Christ, who,
as we saw, probably corresponds to the KOWOS rov TrX^pcafiaro^
of Hippolytean account, came down from the
the
and took flesh as an v7r6Sr)fj,a (Fr. 8). As we learn
this from a fragment which is dealing with the words of the
Baptist, yLteo-o? vpwv <rrr]Ke^ K.T.\., and

as in Fr. 10 a dis-
tinction is made between the o-wfjba and that which dwells in it,
'
we may assume that Heracleon's '

Italic position is confirmed by
1
On Heracleon's use of the Preaching of Peter, see Fr. 21 (note), and Hilgen-
feld, Nov. Test, extra Canon, receptum, iv. p. 64.
the Fragments (see Hipp. Refut. vi. 35). We do riot know

whether he commented on John i. 14 or not. The flesh which
Christ took was imperfect and fitly represented by the Lamb.
'
He who '
taketh away the sin of the world is the Higher Being,

who dwells in the body. Traces of Docetism are to be found in
the account of His healing of the son of the j3ao-i\iKb<; (Fr. 40,
Kara/Set? TT/OO? rov /cd/juvovra KOI lao-aêvo^ avrov), and in the
description of His food as the performance of the Father's will.

The interpretation of His journeys as typifying His passing from
the hylic to the psychic sphere, or His appearing in the world, of
course proves nothing, and the symbolical interpretation does not
exclude the historical. On the other hand the expressions used
with regard to the Passion are surprisingly literal for a Gnostic.
Not only does the Passion divide the two periods of the Saviour's
sojourn on earth (Fr. 38), but the slaying of the lamb at the
Great Feast is typical of the Passion of the Saviour, as again
the eating of it symbolises the Marriage Feast of the future
(Fr. 12).
He appears publicly on earth first,apparently, at the time
of the Baptism. His presence is declared to the people by the
Baptist. his representative the Baptist, the Demiurge

Through
acknowledges the superiority of the Saviour. His journey to Caper-
naum symbolises His descent into the hylic portions of the world :
but the nature of this place is unsuitable, He can here neither

do nor say anything. The journey to Jerusalem represents His
ascent to the psychic sphere He cleanses the Holy of Holies,
;
the home of the pneumatic, and also, apparently, the Levites'

court, which belongs to the psychic. The powers of evil are driven
out by the might of the Holy Spirit, and the Ecclesia becomes
again the House of His Father. He goes down to Samaria
to rescue the spiritual Church from the entanglements of matter,
and the adulterous intercourse in which she had lived with her
six husbands (Fr. 17); to restore her to her true husband above, and,
for the present, to teach her the worship of the Father, ' in spirit
and in truth.' By her means, and later by His own words, the
higher class of "fyw%iicol are also rescued, and leave their former
cosmic life. Thus the spiritual Church is rescued He gathers
;
it in as a reaper, and sends forth His

angels, represented here on
earth by the Disciples, each one to his own

partner: the final
consummation is not till the irvevâTiKol are given as brides
to the angels, and enter the Pleroma for the
great Marriage Feast.
He is said to have come to Samaria, in some sense, for the sake of
the Disciples. Perhaps this may mean
to rescue for the angels,
whom they represent, their spiritual brides. The Saviour's own
work for the -fyvyiicol is more fully described in Heracleon's
interpretation of the miracle of the healing of the son of the
which has been considered already.
(3acn\(,Ko<;,
His work was not ended by the Passion. After the Resur-
rection, no doubt, of the psychic Christ, the Saviour again
appeared among His disciples and converted many more to faith

than during the first period of His work. At length He was
parted from them. The period between the Resurrection and
the Ascension was probably regarded by Heracleon as considerably
longer than forty days. This opinion was also held by other
Gnostics cf. Irenaeus I. iii. 2, fjuera rrjv e/c
:
veicpwv dvacnaaw
Se/caoKTO} /jLrjcrl \eyeiv Siarerpêvai, avrov crvv rot? fjLaOrjTais,
and I. xxx. 14,
'
remoratum autem eum post resurrection em
xvni mensibus.'
Of the Eschatology of the system we do riot hear much. The
are obviously doomed to destruction, and so are such of the
l who are not raised and assimilated to what is
higher ;
the rest go to their own place of salvation, which we learn is

without the Pleroma. The TrvevfiariKol, as we may reasonably
conjecture from what is said, are given as brides to the angels
of the Saviour, and enter into the Pleroma to partake of the
eternal rest of the Marriage Feast and the highest worship of the
Father in '
spirit and in truth.'
Enough examples have been given to shew the general character

of Heracleon as a Commentator, but so far we have seen his worst
side. He is seen at his best in the description of True Confession,
in Lifeand not in Word only (Fr. 50). This whole fragment is of
great interest and surprising excellence. At times in his Com-
mentary on S. John he is an acute and accurate observer. He
has seen rightly that the passage beginning, ouSet? rov Oeov
eoopafcev TrcoTrore (Jn. i. 18), is not part of the Baptist's speech,
but added by tbe Evangelist bimself (Fr. 3). His interpretation

is
of a\\o/jievov (Jn. iv. 14) is fanciful, but striking. What he says

of the Will of the Father in Fr. 31 certainly does not deserve the
censure it receives from Origen. He has interpreted rightly the
simplicity of the disciples in asking Mij ? rjve^Kev avrw (frayeiv ;
and the self-satisfied stupidity of the Jews in their suggestion

of MIJTI d-rroKrevel eavrov ; Indeed he is often at his best in
those places where Origen complains of his want of spiritual
insight and servile adherence to the

letter. But his explanatory
remarks are strangely unfortunate.
often We may cite as
examples his account of Christ's inability to teach or work
miracles at Capernaum (Fr. 11); his remark on the objections
raised by the Pharisees to John's baptism (Fr. 6); and his
distinction of what the Saviour said about John himself, from
what He said about the things concerning him (Fr. 5). And his
whole system of metaphorical interpretation is the most arbitrary
attempt to read into the Fourth Gospel the details and teaching
of the system in which he had been brought up. At the same
time we must remember that, though the application is more arbi-
trary, the general method is exactly the same as that of Origen
himself. Both extract the meaning they desire from the words on
which they are commenting by a violent system of metaphorical
distortion. But whereas Origen applies his method more con-
sistently, and endeavours to find a meaning which is based on a
system formed from the study of the Fourth Gospel as a whole
and of other books whose teaching is not alien to that of this
Gospel, Heracleon attempts, very often with excessive wildness,
to discover in the Gospel a system which has only a superficial
and verbal connexion with it. Yet, on the whole, though we
cannot but feel author of Fragment 50 might have
that the
employed his ability in a more fruitful manner than he has some-

times done, there is much interesting matter, apart from the his-
repay a careful study of
torical investigation of Valentinianism, to
the earliest Commentary on the Gospel of S. John.
The bearing of Heracleon's Commentary on questions con-
nected with the authorship and acceptance of the Fourth Gospel
does not come within the scope of this book. A list of passages of
Scripture quoted, or referred to by him, will be found at the end.
In it I have omitted one or two of those generally cited,

where the quotation or reference is probably made by Origen
and not by Heracleon himself. The Index of Words will
supply further assistance for the study of his vocabulary and

his teaching.
B.
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
1. Comm. in loann. ii. 8 (R. IV. 66; L. I.

117).
Orig.
fcal fiaprvpiov rov Qva\evrivov

Jo. i. 3. \ey6fjievov elvai 'UtpatcXecova, îrjiyotifjievov TO HANTA
AYTOY ereNejo, 6^6L\r)<p6vaL HANTA rov KOCTUOV /cal ra

ev avrw, eKK\eiovra rwv TTA'NTOON, TO tiaov eirl rfi viro6eo-ei
avrov, ra rov KOQ-ÔV Kal rv
ev avru> Siaêpovra. fyâl yap 5
The exclusion of ra rov

1
1. 3. KOO-- rrjs <ro<j)tas
rdv %v avrtp Statp^povra from In the account given by Hippolytns

fiov Kal
the Travra is noticeable. Contrast we hear of seventy Xo7ot projected
Irenaeus i. viii. 5 iravra 6V avrov by Sophia and her <rvfvyos, the KOIVOS
rov
eyfrero Kal X W P^ S avrov iytvero ovfit 7rA77/>u>;uaro$ Kapirbs. Probably
%v' irao~i rot's avrbv atoxrt Heracleon's A67os corresponds to the
yap jwer'
6 (rvvyos of Sophia. At any rate he
jj,op<pijs Kal yevfaews afrtos \67os
lytvero. The Valentinians generally- occupies a position below the aiuv
deduced from the Prologue to the and above the Demiurge. The A67os
Fourth Gospel the origin of the who appeared to Valentinus in the
Pleroma and its inhabitants. Cf. form of a new-born babe (Hipp.

Excerpta ex Theodoto 6. The teach- Eefut. vi. 42) cannot be assigned
ing of Heracleon is more nearly allied definitely to any place in the system,
to that of Irenaeus, who frequently but is most probably
to be regarded
insists on the inclusion of the /r60>ios as the crvfryos of Zw??. Except there-
in Trdvra, as against the ordinary fore that the term (Ao7os) owes its
Valentinian interpretation of the origin to the Prologue to St John's
passage. Heracleon's supposition Gospel, it has no connexion with
that ra tv r$ aluvi came into being the A67os of Heracleon.
before the A67os gives us a clue to his 5. yap] An un-
8ia(p{poi>ra. <pTjffl
views with regard to the A67os, who fortunate transposition of yap and
must be identified with the Affyos 077<rt in Cod. Ven. has
misled Fer-
who, according to the Italic school, rarius into translating this passage,
represented by Ptolemaeus and Hera-
'
Per sermonem inquit non insignia
cleon, descended on the Son of Mary non seculum etc.' Huet's transla-
at the Baptism, 6 Xo7os 6 r^j tion of lKK\elovra K.r.\. 'excluderi-
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 51
Ov TOV dld)Vd rj
Ta ev dl&vi yeyovevai Sid TOV
TO>
\6yov, ctTiVd oieTdi Trpo TOV \6yov yeyovevai. dvaibea-Tepov

Be icrTa/jLevos Trpbs TO KA'I
XP'IC ^yjof ereNGTO oyAe 6N, fjLTjSe Jo. i. 3.
ev\d/3oviJLevos TO MH npoc0HC TO?C Aoroic Ay'roy, I'NA Mh eAer^H '

Pr. xxx. 6
> \ >
//) >. \ / (xxiv. 29).
10 ce KAI yeyAnc reNH, Trpoo-Tivrjcri TW oyAe GN TCDV ev TO> Kocrfjuw
Kdl T?j KTicrei. Kdl enrel 7rpO(j)dvrj eo~Ti TCL vir dVTov \e-
o~<p6Spd /3e/3ido~/jL6Vd Kdl TTdpd TTJV evdpyeidv eirdy-
K f f 9 /> /"I /^ \ / f*
',,
ei Ta vo/uLiô/jLevd dVTw ueLd eKK\ei,6Tdi TCOI
TCL Se, &)<? eKivo<; oleTdi, Tra^reXo;? (frOeipo/jLevd Kvplcos
15 Kd\eLTdi OVK eTTiSidTpLTTTeOV
} dvdTpOTTTJ TWV dVTodeV
Trj
droTTidv efjL(f)dtvovTd)v' olov oe Kdl TO r^9 ypdcbrjs \eryovcr'r)<i
Xoopic Ayrof ereNGTO oyAe EN Trpoo-TtQevTd dVTov dvev irdpd-

(i7ro Tris vpdcbris TO TWV ev rc3 KOCTLLW Kdl
rj
KTLcrei /jLr)8e //-era TriOavoTyTOS aTrocfralveo-Oai, iriaTevecrOat,
20
dîovvTd o/jioicos 7rpo<j)ijTdis rj aTTOCTToXot? rot? //,er' e
Kdl dvwirevOvvws KdTd\e ITT overt, rot? Kd0* dVTOvs Kdl
avTovs crayTijpta ypdafidTd. GTI Be I8la)<? Kdl TOV HANTA
Ai' aiiiav Trapa-
Ayroy eresieTO J~r)KOvcr, fydcrKotv Tov TTJV
crôvrd r^9 yevecrecos TOV KOCT/JLOV r&5 $r)fju,ovpyq), TOV
_-v/
?
M
\oyov ovTd, eivdi ov TOV acp ov i] v<p ov, a\\a TOV
v \ >i,\ci>r- v
- \ \
a
8 12 evapyeiav]
ternquantum ipsius fert hypothesis isnot found in Delarue's text, the

ex omnibus praestantissima quaeque word being omitted in Cod. Bodlei-
mundi et eorum quae ipso continen- anus, plausibly substitutes T for TO.
'
tur is unintelligible in connexion But not necessary to alter the
it is
with the context. The things more '

attested reading TO may be taken :
excellent than the world and its con- with and though the
d,7ro0cuVe0-0cu,
construction is awkward it is not im-
'
tents are of course, as is explain-
ed in the following words, the alwv possible, and not more awkward than
and its contents. By explaining that which would be obtained by
iravra. to be the world and its con- reading T$, viz. olov irpocTiQtvTa.
tents, he excludes from iravra. all aTTotpaiveffdai. But the olov 5 is
that is of a higher nature. unsatisfactory, and it has been well

6. a.iu>vL\ For this sense of altav, suggested that we should probably
derived no doubt originally from the here read ofoj' 5^. For one who recog-
Timaeua (38 A), cf. Frag. 18, fy y&p nizes the authority of Scripture, to
avTfy 6 WTip ev T< aluvi, and Frag. make unwarrantable additions to it
22, 6 ev al&vi. without any attempt to justify them,
16. TO T^S ypa<J>7)s \eyovo">is] Hil- is a fair example of TUV avr69ev
genfeld, omitting \eyov<rijs t which droiriav

52 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Si ov y Trapd rrjv ev rf) crvvrjOeia (f>pdatv e/eSe^d/zez/o? TO
yeypafji/jilvov.
el yap c9 zôet r) a\rj6eia rwv Trpay/jLarcov
fjv, eSei Sta yeypdfyOai irdvra yeyovevai

TO Srj/jLiovpyov
VTTO rov \6yov, ov^l Be dvdiraXiv Sid rov \6yov VTTO rov
SfjLLtovpyov. fcal rjêl^ fjêv Tf) 01 ov ^prâaêvoi a/coXovucos 30
rrj crvvrjOeia, ov/c d^dprvpov rrjv e/cSo^TJv d(j)r)/ca/jL
Se, ?r/)05 TO) fjirj TrapafJue/juvOrjaOac

diro TWV 0eia)v
rov icaO* eavrov vovv, fyaiverai /cal viroTnevcras TO d\7jOes /cal
evepyovvros auTo? eTrolei 6 \6yos, 'iv ovro) vorjdfj 35
26 Trapa TTJV] irepl wv. Cod. Bodl. in mg. rax
26. Trapa TTJV] The reading of tion independent of Heinrici,

is
Cod. Monac. irepl v, which is repro- whose note (Die Vol. Gnosis, p. 135)
duced in all its copies, is impossible. I had not seen when I first made it.
'
Ferrarius's translation, exponens id 32. Trpos r< /XT) Trapa/Ae/Aiô-flai]
quod scriptum est phrasin esse con- On the bearing of this passage as it
suetam,' is not helpful. It is not stands in Codex Regius on the rela-
easy to see how he
got it from the tion of that MS. to Cod. Monacensis
Greek which was before him, and in see Introduction p. 8. Delarue's
the context in which the words occur obviously right conjecture of T$ for
it gives no intelligible sense. Hilgen- TO is now substantiated by the
feld's conjecture irepiTrty is hardly evidence of Cod. Monacensis. Un-
more helpful. How is it to be trans- fortunately the same error (TO for r)
lated ? The conjectural emendation was made
independently by the
which most obviously suggests itself scribes of Codd. Eeg. and Bodl.
is Trapd TTJV. The confusion of Trapd 35. 6 Xo7os] The
position of the
and Trepi is one of the commonest Ao'7os here is exactly that given to
characteristics of Cod. Monac., as Sophia in Hippolytus (Eefut. vi. 33),
also, may be added, of its de-
it dyvoovvn ai)r (sc. r drj/Movpyy) rj
scendants. And when once Trapd was <ro(j)ia tv/ipyrjo-e, which corresponds to
changed to Trepi, rty may have be- Heracleon's atfroO tvepyovvTos 2repos
come TU>J>, which might easily be cTrofet, where the #repos is obviously
corrupted to wv. Possibly the original the Demiurge. It may be noticed

reading may have been Trapd r^v r&v, that in this passage Hippolytus gives
which accounts more easily for the a general reference, using \{yovo-u> and
corruption, if the construction thus not We
should also compare
tftrja-iv.
given to <f>pcunv is possible. Either the account of Irenaeus (i. v. i.),

of these readings will give the re- especially the words ftaXXov de rov
quired contrast to Origen's position Scoria 61 O.VTTJS;and shortly before,
stated just below, ?;/xets 5e aVoXoi5#ws (of the Demiurge) XeXTjtfo'rws KIVOTL>-
Tfl <rvi>r)6et<f. K.T.\. We may compare fjievov VTTO T^J /uTprpos. Heracleon may
such passages as xiii. 17, 6'pa 5 d ^ have assumed some similar relation
idlws Kal Trapd TTJV d,KO\ovdio.v TUV between AOYOS and So<fa, at any rate
v K8e%d/j,vos K.T.\. This sugges- it would have been easy for him to
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEKACLEON. 53
TO Ai' AYTof, aXV avTov

ere/oo? evepyovvTos
ov TOV 7rap6vTO$ Be /caipov ecrrlv e\eyât, TO prj TOV
ovpybv vTrypeTyv TOV \6yov yeyevrj/juevov TOV Koafiov

tcevai, real aTroSeifcvvvai, OTL VTrrjpeT'rj^ TOV Sr)fj,iovpyov
40 6 A.070? TOV Kocrfjiov KaTecTK6vacre. KCLTO, yap TOV

c
fcS 0eoc elne KA'I ereNH0HCAN* |NTI'AATO KAI GKTI'CGHCAN. Ps. cxlviii.
jap 6 dyevvrjTos #eos TO npooTOTOKO) TTACHC KTi'ceooc, c l. i. 15.

)
GKTl'cGHCAN, OV JJLOVOV 6 /COO~/J,OS, KOI TO. V aVTG), d\\d
KOI Ta XotTra irdvTa efre 0poNOi erre KypioiHTec efre ApX<M Col. i. 16,
1
45 erre eSoyciAr TTANTA r^p Ai Ayroy KAI eic AYTON IKTICTAI, KA'I
ecu npo
2. d ii. 15 (R. iv. 73; L. i.

130).
Haw Se /Stato)9 ârcz roz/ TOTTOV yevo/jievos 6

r
Hpa/c\ea)v
"
TO reroNeN eN AyTco ZOOM MM eêi\r)(f)v dvTi TOV EN AYTCO Jo. i. 4.
Efc? TOU5 dvOpCOTTOVS TOU9 7rV6VfJ,aTlKOVS, OlOVel TdVTOV

vo/jilcras elvai TOV \6yov /cal TOV$ TrvevâTLKOv^, el KOL firj
5 cra^co? TCLVT eiptrj/ce'

ical wcnrepel alTio\oyd)v <f)rjo~lv
AUTO?
the to Kaptrov /cai TTJS ffoQtas et's TOVTOV
modify system sufficiently
obtain the necessary adaptation to TOV Koffôv. and also the interpreta-
the Prologue of St John. The same tion of aXXos 6 ffireipuv K.a.1 aXXos 6
relation, however, between Sophia Qepifav given by Heracleon (Frag.

and the Demiurge is assumed in the 35). But it is more probable that
second part of the Excerpta ex Theo- the d'XXos Demiurge, the
is the
doto (c. 49, eirel 5e OVK eyivwaKev rty work of the Abyos being that which
di avrov evepyovvav K.T.X.). It was is described in the passage quoted
probably part of the original system from Hippolytus as a sowing. This

of Valentinus, and is therefore not suits better the description T-TJV
available as a means of differenti- TT]V ^bp(f>w<nv Triv /cara T^V

ating the systems of his pupils. and gives to the action its natural
41. The LXX. in this passage place (chronologically) in the history
reads auros instead of o 0eos, and of Creation. Much closer parallels,
repeats the auros before tverdXaro. however, to this passage are found
2. 5. Two explanations of this in the Excerpta ex Theodoto. Cf.
57, yiveTcu ouj>.../A6/30w<rts TOV
The aXXos irvev-
passage are possible.
whose sowing the A67os completed fj.a.TiKov, and 48, diaKptvas Se 6 Srj-
be the Kotvbs TOV TO, Ka.6a.pa. dirb TOV typpLdovs

may TrX^pw/iaros IMovpybs
KapTtos, in which case cf.
Hippolytus, WS O.V TTjV KO,T^pOV (pVffiV 0WS
Ka.1 et's
Refutat. vi. 34, X67<u dvwdev fcare- t(pa.vtpu<Tev
OLTTO TOV KOIVOV TOV TT\f)p(i)-

Ka.1 iUav -rrpocrriyayev, which is
ffirapfJI.VO(.
yap Tr)V TrpMTrjv popfywo- iv Trjv /cara rrjv yeveaiv

Trapeze, ra VTT d\\ov cnrapevra et9
/cal (f>ci)Tto-/jiov
Kal Trepiypacjirjv I dyaywv K.ai
dva8eij;a<t. ov TrapeTrjprjcre Se Kal TO Trepl T&V Trvev/j,aTiKwv
Trapd rc5 HavXw dvQpWTrovs avTovs aireo-iw-

\ey6fjuevov, on, 10
1 Cor. ii.
TTTjo-e' TYXIKOC ANGpoonoc oy AexeiAi TA TOY HNeyMATOc TOY
060Y, MCOplA r^P AYTCO CCTIN* O Ae nNGYMATIKOC ANAKplNGI TTANTA.
'
?7//.6t9 yap ov fjudr^v avrov ^>aêv

ITTI rov TrvevfJLaTifcov fir)
Trpoo-TeOei/cevai TO avOpwjros. /cpeiTTov yap r) av0pa)7ro<; o

TOV vpcoTrov rTOL v r e ev 15
ev > TOVTWV
ov KaTa fjL6TO^rjv emKpaTova-av
6 a/jua $e Kal TCL
KO.V
TOVTCOV 20
\6yov. Kal raura /j,ev Trepl eKelvov.

8
3. Ibid. vi. 2 (R. iv. 102; L. i.

177).
Jo. i. 19. KA'I AYTH GCTIN H

MApTYpiA TOY NCOANNOY. BevTepa avrrj
dvayeypajj,fj,evr) 'Icodvvov TOV (BaTTTi<nov Trepl Xpio-Tov /nap-
Jo, i. 15. Tvpia, Tjj9 7rpore/oa9 dpâ/jbevrjs OLTTO TOV OYTOC H'N 6 einooN '0
dnicco MOY ep)(6MNOC, Kal \r)yovo~r)<; et9 TO MoNOfeNHc 6eoc 6
ov elirov 1HOS
3 6 etVwj' (sic). debs (sic).
qualified in the next section by the hand, afford instructive examples in

words enei Se OVK eyivwcrKev TTJV 5i' the history of the transmission of
avrov frepyovaav. It is tempting to Patristic quotations (see Introduc-
restore our text on the lines of the tion, pp. 8, 18) and the curious con-
;
passage quoted from the Excerpta, flation of Codex Regius (6 ftovoyevTis

and read /cat lUav. But the phrase utos 0eos) which is quoted in Tischen-
irepiypa<f>r)v idiav is not intrinsically dorfs critical digest is thus traced

objectionable. to its origin.
12. The transposition of ea-rlv This not the only case where
is
and wry Huet and the other
in Origen complains of Heracleon's in-
editions is due to an error of the terpretation of a passage, where the
scribe of Cod. Regius. The right latter is probably right. (See West-
order is preserved in the other MSS. cott's on St John, in
Commentary
3. 4. The interlinear insertions in loc.)
Cod. Monac., which are by a later
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HER ACL EON. 55
5 CON 6IC TON KOATTON TOY TTATpOC Ke?NOC elHTHCATO. OV% VryiCOS Jo. i. 18.
(
e 6 H pa/cXecov
vTrdXa^^dvei OyAeic TON 060N ea pAKGN noonoTe
Kal rd e^9 <j)dcrKCi)v elprjcrdat OVK drro rov ftaTTTKTTov
d\\* drro rov fiaOrjTov' el <ydp teal KMT avrov TO 'K Toy Jo. i. 16,
nAHpOOMATOC AyTOy HMe?C TTANTCC eAABOMGN, KAI )(AplN ANTI X<*plTOC,

10 OTI 6 NOMOC AIA Mooyceooc eAo0H, H X^P IC KA<I " Ân'OeiA AIA '|HCOY
XpiCTof epeNGTO VTTO rov âjmarov eiprirai, TTW? OVK d/co\ov-

6ov rov eK TOY nAHpoaMATOc TOY XpicToy el\if]^6ra /cal x^p'N
Sevrepav eVt irporepas x^p'TOC, 6/j,6\oryovvrd re AIA Mooceoac
/j,ev SeSoadaL TON NOMON, THN Be x^p |N KA 'i THN AAHSeiAN Ai<\
iS'lncof XpicToy rwv drrb TOY nAHpcjOMATOC

ryeyovevai, etc et?
avrov e\rj\vd6ra)v vevorj/cevai, TTOO? OeoN oyAe'ic
noanoTe /cal TO TON MONOfeNH eic TON KoAnON O'NTA Toy
avr<p Kal Trdat, rots" eK TOY nAHpcoMATOC ei\r)<f)6<n,
rrjv ef;rjyr)cri,v
TrapaSeSwKevai ; ov ydp vvv irpwrov e^rjyrjcraro <'0 OON> eic

20 TON KoAnoN Toy nATpdc, <9 ovSevos eirirrjo'eLOV Trporepovyeryevr)-
fjievov \af3elv a rot9 aTrocrroXot? $t,rj

r
yija-aro, et<ye TTp'iN 'ABpAAM Jo.viii. 58.
peNe'cGAi <uv Si^da/cei rjfjid^ rov 'Aftpadfji tfyaXhidcrOai, TN A Jo.viii. 56.
I'AH THN HMepAN avTov real ev 'X.cipa yeyovevai,.
7, 8 f3a.TTTiffTov...fjt.ad'r)Tov'] cod. Sed literis aj857 seriori manu inter lineas

insertis transponuntur âimaTov et fj.aO-rjTov. 8 /car' avrov] /cara TO.VTOV.
19 6 t3i/] om.
4. Ibid. vi. 8 (R. iv. 117; L. I.

200).
Ov Oavâarov Se el /J,rj rjicpiftovv on, aJro? ecrri XpiCTOC Jo. i. 20,

\e I t & I If ^>T' ' ' ^ 21.
icai o npocpHTHC, 01 Oio~Ta%ovre<$ Trepi icoavvov, firjjrore avros
XptcrT09 aKoKovOov yap ro3 Trepi rovrov Sicrray/AO) TO

rjV
dyvoelv rov avrov elvai XpiCTON Kal TON npoc()HTHN. e\ade
19. The insertion of 6 &v by Latin, which represents the e$ by

Cod. Venetus, followed by Ferrarius 'solus,' but the omission leaves no
in his translation 'Non enim nunc suitable sense in the present con-
primum enarravit, Qui est ad sinum text.
Patris, perinde quasi nullus etc.,' is 4. 1. XpKTTos /cat 6 Trpo<f>riT7js] Ferra-

the simplest emendation of the cor- rius has rightly suggested the article,
rupt text of its exemplar. These which was absent from the MS. which
'
words wv] are indeed omitted by
(6 he used, translating Christus et ille
the first hand of Cod. Sinaiticus (tf), Propheta.' In the Munich MS. the
and God. Vercellensis (a) of the Old article is not wanting.
56 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON.
Se TOV9 7roXXou9 rov 6 npo<J)HTHC KOI npo4>HTHC, o>9

r) $t,a<f>opd 5
KOI TOV (1ApaK\ewva, oar is avrals Xefe<rt âiv o$9 apa

'\wdvvrjs (tifjuoXoyrjae pr) elvai d XpiCTOC, d\\d fjLijSe
ltpO<|>tiTHCj lAijSe 'HAi'AC.
Kal &eov avTov ovrws etcXafiovra
eêrdcrai, rd Kara TOI)? TOTTOVS, Trorepov d\7j6evei Xeycov fjurj
elvat, npO({)HTHC, /u-^Se 'HA/AC, rj

ov' 6 8e yu.?} eTricrTTyo-a? Tot? i
T07rot9, eV ol? KaTa\e\oL7rev vTro/jLvrj/JLaaiv dvet;Td(TTa)s Trape-

rd
ev rot? wv, Trepl &v eJ#e&>9 epovpev.
6 a pa] ap* el. 9
5. Tfcid vi. 12 (K iv. 120; L. I.

206).
Jo. i. 23. AiWrat fjuevroi ye TO 'Epcio 4)OONH BOOONTOC IN TH" epH

Cf. IS. Xl. \ X * V <
T7( ^ > X ? /
t TO 779 taw etz/at TW l!/ya> etfti Trept- ou yeypaTrrai
c})GOisih Boa)NTOC, co9 ftocovTO. elvai rov *Icodvwr]v, teal TOVTOV rrjv
ev rfj eprjfj,(p ftoav Ey6YNATe THN OAON Kypi'oy. Sucr^)?;-
e
Se 6 }lpaK\ea)v jrepl 'Iwdvvov Kal rwv irpo^Twv 5
vayV) (faqa-lv ore

e
O
\6yo$ /j,ev 6 Swrrjp ecrrti/,
(|)(X)NH Se 77
N TH epHMCp 7] Sid 'Iwdvvov Siavoov/JLevrj,
9. The only alteration necessary vious. For the construction we may

is the omission of 77 before \tywv (H compare a fragment of Origen in an
after ei). The
must qualify a\rj-
ov unpublished Catena at Venice (Bibl.
6etiet,, not X^ywi/. Huet follows the Marciana Graec. xxvii.) 6'pa 5 ei 5tf-
reading of Codex Regius which con- vacrai ira<ra.v rrjv ypa(f>7]v...5i'r]yoi''/J.vos
tains the 77 and omits the 6, thus avvecrTr]K^vai...(ji}S elvai rb irav

joining the two sentences and pro- TOV vop.ov Kal irpo(f>r)r<2v Kal
ducing an unintelligible statement. riav AotTrwj' ypafiwv airb rov rotoDSe

10. Hilgenfeld, in his critical Kal %pr<rat Set TOVJ r(av fti)
note, is misled by a misstatement of 6<f)6a\/j,oijs.
Delarue'sreproducedbyLommatzsch. 7. 56aôo^^>;] Heracleon twice

The /AT) (after 6 5) is not wanting uses voelffQai, as he here uses 5ta-
in the Bodleian. voeiffda.^ of a higher power symbol-
5. 3. remarkable that
ws] It is ised, represented, made intelligible,
while Codex Venetus omits the ws, so to speak, (as far as is possible), on
its copy Codex Bodleianus inserts it. earth by an earthly being. Cf. Frag.
But the scribe of the latter may very 8 (Orig. Comm. in loann. vi. 23) TTC/H
well have inserted from the Latin it TOV irpocruirov TOIJTOV (?) dia TOV 'Iw-
of Ferrarius, 'ut clamante lohanne': awov voov^vov, and Frag. 35 (Orig.
the want of some such insertion for Ibid. xiii. 48) 0e/H<rrds TrtftTrei TOVS
grammar's sake would be quite ob- dia T&V (JLadrjTuv voovpevovs ayyt\ovs.
8e Trdaa 7rpo(p7jrifcrj rat?. \e/creov Se avrov,

on, SaTrep 'EAN A'AHAON cAAnifS <{>a>Nh N Aa oi)8et9 1 Cor. xiv.
8.
10 CK6YAZGTAI GIC TTOAeMON, KOl 6 %0>/H9 AfATTHC fNOiCIN
%0)V
npocbHTeiAN yeyove XAAKOC H)(OON H KYMBAAON
rj Cf. 1 Cor.
xiii. 1, 2.
A'AAAAZON, o$r&>9 et ecrriv erepov y ^%o? ^ Trpotfyrjrucrj
TTO;? dvaTre/jLircov eV avrr)v o Swr^p 'EpeyNAie, Jo. v. 39.
TAG rp^<t>Ac, OTI AOK?re GN AYTA?C ZOOHN AIOONION

*
15 )(IN' KAI eK?NAl' GICIN Al /Cat El eniCT6Y6T Jo. v. 46.
AN GMOI, nepi eMof eKe?NOC erpAye" ical Mt. xv. 7,

8.
nep) 'HcAiAC, AepcoN '0 AAOC OYTOC TO?C Cf. Is.
i'Me TIMA; OVK olSa yap el rov ao-rj/jbov fyov TrapaSe'geTal xxix. 13.
6^X070)9 VTTO rov Sa)T?7po9 eiraivela-Oai, rj evecm Trapa-

10 (r/cevdo-aa-Oai, CLTTO TCOV c9 CLTTO CJXJONHC CAAniproc
rypafjxav,
e^>' a9 dva7refjL7r6fj,60a, et9

avTiK&i^kva^ TOV TTpb? r9
evepyeias TroKepov, AAH'AOY 4>ooNHC HXOY Tvy%avov<rr]s. rlva
be rpOTTOv, el fj,rj dyaTrrjv el%ov ol Trpo^rjrai teal Bid TOVTO
XAAKOC r)(rav ôO^re?, 77 KYMBAAON AAAAAZON, eVl rov tfxov

25 avr&v, e9 e/ceivoi,
etXâaw, dvaTre/jLTret 6 /cvpios uxf)e\'rjO'rj-
ao/jLevovs ; oi)/c oZSa 8' OTTO) 9 %w/)t9 7rd<7r}S Karaa Kevrj<s arco-
<f>aiverai, rrjv (frcovrjv ol/ceiorepav ovaav rw Xoyw \6yov

ai, W9 KOI rrjv yvval/ca et9 avbpa perariOecrOai.
The usage may well have sprung that of the Swr^p (cf. Irenaeus, i.
from Rom. i. 20 rd yap dbpaTa. av- vii. 3). All the Valentinian sects
TOV dwb /crtcrews /coojitou rots iroir)fJict(nv recognized to some extent the reve-
voovfj,va KadopaTai. We may com- lation of the Old Testament pos- :
pare also Origen's own use, Comm. sibly Heracleon did so to a greater
in loann. xx. 12, OVK eVrt? ore 6 /card extent than most. Cf. Frag. 20,
TOV 'Irjcrovv rpoTrt/cws voovpevos dvdpu- where the Jews are placed above
TTOS OVK f7redrifj,i ry fily, and TrdVres ot irpb vopov /cat oi edviKoL*
êran'0o-0ai] The Vermann-

'
xx. 29, fJiovov TOV /card Tbv 28.
lichung of the female was taught

'
voovu*vov dvdp&Trov dpxnêv yv
8. 17x05] With the implied dis- in the Anatolic School. Cf. Ex-
paragement of the Prophets may be cerpta ex Theodoto, 21, rd ovv dppe-
compared Hippolytus, Eefut. vi. 35, viKd /uerd roO Xo^you o-vveffTdXrj, rd #77-
rrdvTes ovv oi 7rpo<j>TJTai /cat 6 v6yu,os Xv/cd 5e"
diravSpuOtvTa evovTai rots
eXdX^crai' roO dy/juovpyov, /xwpoO

aTro d77^Xots Kal ets irX^pu/â xwpel' did
Xe*7ei êoO fju^pol ovdev et'56res. He- TOVTO 77 yvvi} ets dvdpo. /xerarêirâi
racleon's explanation of X67os, (puvri, Xêrat, /cat 17 evTavda e/c/cX^crta ets
an ^ the possibility of a change

r)X os i dyytXovs, where by Xêrat are in-
from one to the other, is obscure. troduced words very similar to those
It may point to some theory of a of Heracleon.
gradual revelation culminating in We should also compare with dov-

teal &><? eôvaiav e%a)v TOV Bo<y/jiaTLêiv teal TricrrevecrOat, KOI
TrpoteoTTTeiv, TO) tfxP <

/
)7
7"^ eaecrOai TTJV et<? (frcovrjv fjLra- 3
(3o\r)V, /juaOrjTov fjuev ^wpav StSou? rfj /jbeTa/SaXXovcrrj

\6<yov <j>(i>vy,
BovKov Be rfj CLTTO rfxv et? <$>tovr)v' teal el
OTTO)? TTore TTidavoTrjTa <j)6pv eVt TO) avTo, KaTacricevdo~ai }
Kciv r)ya)vicrd/j,60a Trepl riy? TOVTCOV avarpoTrfjs, dpieel Be et?
dvarpoTrrjv r} dTrapafjUvOrjTO? aTroâcrt?. oirep Be vTrepeOe- 35

a ev rot9 TT/JO TOVTOJV eêrdaai, TTW? tceKivrjTai, vvv (f>epe
(ofJt>ev. 6 /ACTS yap ^wrrjp, tcara TOV 'Hpa/cXewva,
avrbv teal npO(}>HTHN teal 'HAiAN, avros Be etcdrepov
TOVTWV dpvelTai. teal npO(|)HTHN fjuev /cat'HAi'AN 6 2<a)Tr)p
v avrbv OVK avrov d\\d rd Trepl avrov, (prjcrl,
\eyrj, 40
,
'brav Be MGI'ZONA npocfJHTOiN teal eN r^NNHToIc
,
rore avTov TOV 'Icodvvrjv âpaterrj piêi.
avros Be, (^rjal, Trepl eavrov epa)TWfJievos dTrotepiverai,
6 'Icodvvrjs, ou rd Trepl avrov' ocrrfv Be ftdcravov rfjjieis
Trepl TOVTWV teard TO BvvaTov TreTrot,?i/j,0a, ovBev dirapa- 45
TWV \ejo/jLevcov opwv crvytepivai, rot9 viro
,
are OVK eôvcrlav GÔVTOS TOV \eyetv o ySouXerai,
TTW? yap OTL Trepl TWV Trepl avTov <TTI TO
32 <j>wi>fj'] (fxiovrfv TJ.

34 rjyuvuraiJ.eBa] 7]
Xou de /c.T.X. a passage in iheExcerpla, MS. is impossible. The alteration of

57, TOV fji.fr, /i6/>0w<ns TOU Cod. Venetus (pavy ?} is so far right
KOV, TOU Se, fj.Ta.0e<ns TOV ^VX.I-KOV c/c that it gives the required dative.
SovXeias els t\ev6eplav. In the pre- But the conjecture contained in the
ceding section the allegory of Gal. iv. margin of Cod. Bodleianus is right,
isinterpreted by making Israel repre- Taxa TO* H Trapf"\Ki. We may with-
sent 6 ?r'eu u,ari/c6s, and (apparently)
/
out hesitation adopt the reading
the children of the bondwoman cor- tpwy.
respond to the \{/vxi-Kot (cf. OTO.V ovv 48. Trepl T&V irepl a.vrbv\ The
TO, \f/vxiKa yKevTpi<r0Tj). Thus the omission of T&V Trepl in the Editions
0wf7j here may
represent the irvevâ.- is due to its erroneous omission in
TIKOI who are given as vvâi to the Cod. Regius, where however a later
angels, while 7Jxs corresponds to the hand has inserted TO, irepl inter tineas.
\f>vx<-Koi. But it is dangerous to pur- The words are necessary to the con-
sue such hints at interpretation into text, as Heracleon has shortly before
too great detail. The Excerpta offer classed the assertions T& 'HXlav avTov
yet another parallel in 79, "Ews ovv Kal Trpo^rjT'rjv elvai among the rd Trepl
dfji.6p(j)(i)Toi>, <f>acrii>, TO o-Tre'pfj.a, O.VTOV as opposed to those by which

ecrrl Tbv'}
els wopa,. irepl TWI> is perhaps awkward, but it is
32. <pwvfj] The (pwrjv TJ of the exactly parallel to the succeeding irepl
AN avTov KOI npo4>HTHN elvai, real Trepl avrov TO

50 (J)ooNHN avTov elvai BOGONTOC CN TH epHMo ovSe Kara TO ,
TV%OV TreipaTai aTroSei/cvvvat,' d\\d xpfjrat, Trapao'ely/AaTi,,

OTL Ta Trepl avTov olovel evSv/âTa rjv erepa avrov,
ical OVK dv epa)T7)6 els Trepl TOOV evBvfiaToyv, el avTO?
eirj ra evBv par a, aTretcpiOr) av TO Nat. TTCW? yap
55 evbv/JiaTa TO elvai TOV 'HAiAN TON MeAAoNTA ep)(ec9Ai' e&Tiv Mt. xi. 14.
'Iwdvvov, ov Trdvv TL KaT avTov Oecopoi)' rdâ fcafl* tffMas,

cw? o'eSvvrjfJieOa Siriyrio-aiievovs TO 6N nNeyMATi KAI AYNAMCI Lc. i. 17.
'HAi'oy, Swafjievov TTW? \eyeo~0ai, TOVTO TO HNEYMA 'HAi'oy

ev Swdftei, elvai, TTJS *Ia)dvvov A/TL;^?. OeXcov & ert irapa-
59 5' de\ovres.
O.VTOV. Ferrarius had the true text are required, and 6e\wv 8e, or more
before him
in Cod. Venetus, but he probably 6e\wv 5' tn, would seem
has missed the point of the passage best to fulfil therequired condi-
by putting the following 'Vox cla- tions. The introduction of a fresh
mantis' in the same class as 'Pro- stricture by means of fri de is cha-
pheta.' racteristic of Origen ;
de alone is hardly
55. The absence of tariv in the strong enough to suit the context;
Editions is due to another error in cf. ii. 8, xiii. 51, and just below, en
Cod. Regius. 8e ov //,6i'os'H/3a/cXeujj' K.T.\. And the
59. ev dwdpei elvcu] It is hard following sentence ov /ca/cw s /*e v. ov ird . .
to get any satisfactory meaning out vv 8e tZijTOfffdvws is so thoroughly in

of these words, or to see how they the style of Origen's criticisms of his
can be an interpretation of kv trveti- opponent, that the passage must
IJ.O.TL Thorndike
Kal 5wd/j.i 'HXiou. surely contain a piece of Heracleon's
conjectures ti>8v/j.a elvai. This suits Commentary. For the exact phrase
very well the context in which the compare Origen c. Celsum iv. 88
words stand. (Philocalia xx. L. xxv. 150) 6e\wv
6e\ui> 5' ft-t] The reading Bt\ov- 5' n Sid ir\et6vuf...dTro(f>r)vai, where
res, which found in Cod. Mona-
is Origen states the argument of Celsus
censis, is corrupt, and the insertion of before he proceeds to refute it. If
5e by Cod. Venetus does not restore the n of 0EAHNAETI was cor-
the true text. The subsequent \tyoi rupted by itacism to 0, the letters
TO cannot be right.For a similarly ONAETI might easily become
impossible optative which has been ONTEC hands of a scribe
in the
allowed to remain, cf. Origen Comm. who did not pay great heed to the
in loann. xiii. 59, eiij (fivcris TTJS Ideeus context. Hilgenfeld has naturally
"yevofj-finrj T< Oi'/cet'y r^s avawavcreus omitted the passage in his collection
dpidfj.$. The scribe of Cod. Regius of the Fragments, but there were not
has probably stumbled by an itacism the same reasons for omitting the
on the right reading, \eyei rb. If next sentence KCU ird\iv K.T.\. where
this be so, a nominative singular the \eyei can only refer to Heracleon.
participle and a connecting particle The proposed alterations restore the
Sta TI lepels KOI Aevirai, ol eTrepwTMVTes

, dwo TWV 60
*
l(0V TTe/JL<f)OeVT<> eiO~lv, OV KCLKWS /JLV \yl TO 'O T I
Trpoo-rjicov r)v Trepl TOVTWV TroXvTrpay/JLOvelv
real TTVvOdveo-Oai,, TO?? T&> Oew Trpocncaprepovo-tv, ov
f/
Trdvv Se 6%r)Tacrfjieva)<; ro Ort /cal avros e/c rfjs AeviTi/cr)?
<j)V\fj$ tfv, axTTrep irpoaTropovvre^ ^//-et? eîjTao-afjuev, ort 6^65
TOV Îwdvvrjv ol TrefjiÔevre^ Kal rrjv ryeveaiv avrov,
'
%a)pav el'xpv Trvv9dveo~6ai Trepl TOV el auro?

Jo. i. 21. eo~riv ; /cal iraKiv ev TO) Trepl TOV el 6 npocJ)HTHC ei cy,
eâlpeTOV olo/juevos crrj/jiaivecrdaL KCITO, Trjv TrpoadrjKriv TOV

dpOpov, \eyei, OTL 'J&TrrjpwTrjo-av el TrpoîjTij^ eiy, TO 70
KoivoTepov ftovXofjievoi, paOelv. ert 8e ov IJLOVOS 'Hpa-

K\ecov d\\d }
ocrov ITT e/Jifj lo-Topia Kal TrdvTes ol e
evT\r) djn(f)Lô\lai> iacrTel\ao-6at, pr) Se^vvrj pivot,,
'H\toy Kal irdvTwv TU*V TrpotyrjToov TOV 'Icodvvrjv VTrei\r}<f)ao-i,
Lc. vii. 28. Bid TO Mei'zooN EN reNNHTO?c PYNAIKCON 'looANNoy oyAei'c GCTIN, 75
Cf. Mt. xi
11. op&vTes OTI d\r)6es TO OyAek MGI'ZOON MOOANNOY ^N reNNH-
ryNAIKOON St^CO? îvGTat,, OV fjLOVOV TO) aVTOV GLVai TTaVTCOV
va, d\\d /cal TO) Icrovs ai>Tu> elvau Tiva<?
LCTCOV OVTCOV avTO) TTO\\WV KOTO, Trjv
TrpofyvjTwv,
avTu> xdpw TO MinAeNA TOVTOV MGIZONA elvai. oterat Se Kara- 80
o-tcevde(70ai TO MEIZONA ro3 rrpo^rjTeveo'OaL viro
61 irefjupdevres] Hie male laesus est codex, videtur autem plus x litteras
habuisse; Cod. Yen. habet ol ire^Q. \e"yei TO] X^yot rb. 80, 81
KaTcurKevafcffdai] TO AcarcKr/ceuaêcrflcu. r<] om. codex; addito, ut videtur,
in mg. elvai.
grammar and make

of the sentence, 80. Delarue, reading ol'ercu 8e rb
the passage a continuous and con- Ka.TacrKevdfe<rdai TO fj,eioi>a elvai irpo-
sistent whole. <t>rjTije(rdcu, rem.arks, 'nos sanam
61. Trcfjuftdfrres] Whether God. restituimus lectionem e codice Bod-
Monac. read oi ire^d^Tes or not is leiano'; but his text seems hardly
uncertain, but in any case the article satisfactory. After making the con-
can hardly be retained. jecture which has been introduced
75. peifav] It is uncertain whe- into the text, I find that the same
ther Heracleon omitted the Trpo<J>ri-
has been proposed by Thorndike in
rris of the Eeceived Text as well as the margin of his transcript of Cod.
Origen, or not; but the subsequent Bodleianus. The insertion or omis-
mention of Josiah in Origen's re- sion of which appears to have
elvai,
futation of Heracleon's Comment been added in the margin of Cod.

makes it highly probable that he Monacensis, is a matter of no im-
did so. portance.
tov, ey? yu,r/Seô9 ravrrf^ rrjs TI^T)? tj ^tcofjievov VTTO

6eov TGOV TrcoTTore Trpo^rjrevcrdvTWv. dXrjQoos 8' 009
rr}<; TraXaias xprj/jLaTiôvo-rjs SiaOrjKrjs, /cal //,?}
85
Tr)pY)(ra<s /cal avrov'HXiav 7rpo<t>r)Tv6/jLevov, TOUT' oVeToX//,?;-
aev Kal yap 'HXta? 7rpo<p7]reveraL VTTO M.dXaîov
eiTrelv'
Xe7ozn-o9 'lAoy ATTOCTeAAoo YMIN 'HAiAN TON OecBiTHN, oc ATTO-MaLiii

/ .' e/ \ * ,\ , 23(iv.4f.).
KATACTHCGI KApAiAN nAjpoc npoc YION ....... /cat ravra be et?
ias TOV a,7ro<j)r)vafjLevov M^Sez/a 7r\r)v
at elprâOw, ravra elpTj/coTos ev rw
0e\6iv avrov Sirjyelo'Oat, rt TO 'Efcb (|)(JONH BOOONTOC eN TH Jo. i. 23.
epHMCO.
89 TrpoTrereias] ex coniectura Ruaei ;

cod.
6. Ibid. vi. 13 (R IV. 125 ;

L. I. 213).
09 ovv ev vSari, oy BAirnzei, AAA oi MAGHTAI AYTOY, Jo. iv. 2.
M Se rijpei TO TO) AP'CO nNeyMATi BAHTIZGIN KA'I nypi'* Cf. Mt. iii.
os Be 6 'H/oa^Xeo)^ TOV TMV Qapio-atcov \6yov, T

'
...
,p
0)9 vyiws elprfiJbivov Trepl TOV o<et'Xe<70at TO âirr
5 Kal 'HXta /cal avrai? Xeêo~t

Traz^Tt 7rpo<f>r)Tr),
o</>e/XeTat TO ftaTTTiêiv, Kal e/c TWV

Se on,
TON npo<t>HTHN v6vor)KV ov yap êi> $ij;ai Tiva rwv TT/OO-
(frrjToov âirri(TavTa. OVK diriOdvo)^ Se fyi^Gi Trvvddvea-Oai

10 TOV9 3>api<ralov<: /card TTJV avr&v Travovpyiav, ov%l 0)9
padelv
7 6Vt] 6Ve.
6. 7. /coii'6repoj/] By failing to notice perov oi'6/tevos ffrj/jialveffdai KO.TCL

rty
the distinction between 6 TT/SO^TT/S TOV dpdpov.
Trpoa-d^Krjv Heracleon, in
and 7rpo0i7T?;s. Cf. Frag. 4, Xa0e 5^ the words which follow this last pas-
TOI)S TroXXoiJs i] 8ia<j>opa...ws KOI rbv sage, seems to use the word Koiv6re-
,
and Frag. 5, w8b e%ai- pov in a different sense.
7. Ibid. vi. 15 (R. iv. 130 ;

L. i.
222).
Jo. i. 26, AY'TO?C 6 'IOWJNHC Ae'rooN 'Era BATTTI'ZOO CN

27.
Mecoc [Ae] YMOJN CCTHKCN ON YMC?C OYK oTAATe, [AY'TOC ecTiN 6] oni'cco
MOY epxoMeNoc, [of] OY'K eiMi e'ra Alioc I'NA AYCCO AYTOY TON IMANTA
TOY YTTOAHMATOC.
6 'Itodvvrjs To?9
ft
6 iiev
e/c
^pd/cXecov oleTai, OTI KITO K p iveTai
TWV Qapicraiajv
'
7re/JL(j)Oeia' iv,
I
ov 5
o etcelvoi o
eavrov \avOavtov ore Karrjjopel rov d/jt,a6ias, el ye

TOVTO
9 ev KOivd\oyLa d/jud
Se OTI /jbd\i<TTa 7rpo9 e?ro9 e
(fra/jiev 7T/909
10
Jo. i. 25. yap TO TV OYN BAHTIZCIC, ei CY OYK e? o TL a\\o e%pfjv

eiTreiv, rj TO iSiov TrapaaTrja-ai
Tvy%dvov ; 'Era ydp (frrjo-lv, BAHTIZCO
y e'N KOI TOVTO
eiTTotv 7rpo9 TO Ti' OYN BAnrizeic; ?rpo9 TO SevTepov, Ei CY OYK ei
d xp'CTOC, $oj;o\oyiav Trepl T^9 vrporjyov/jievrjs ov<ria<s Xpto-ToO 15

f
i, OTi fivva/Aiv TocravTyv e%et, 0)9 teal dopaTO$ elvai Trj
CIVTOV, nrapwv TravTl dvOpcoTrq), iravT\ $e KOI oX&> TW

r*
oTrep SrjXovTai Sid TOV Mecoc
YMO3N eCTHKCN.
2 5^] ins. intra lineas. atfrfo k<jnv 6] om. in txt. sed in mg. add.
pr. man. 3 o5] ins. intra lineas. 7 \av0wuv]
m
11 T/ ovv] ins. intra lineas. rl cfXXo ex/"??] rl dXXois XPV V (sic).
TO
12 TO] T^ (sic).
7. 1. dTre/fpâro] There is other it was

copied. Thus one of the three
authority for this reading, LT b
TJ references to Origen in Tischendorf 's
and some cursives (vid. Tischendorf, critical note must inprobability be
all
in loc.). I have retained the 3 omitted, as also one of those quoted
and the auro's teriv 6, as they are in support of the insertion of .
added apparently prima manu. But 12. The re TO of the Editions is

when other similar phenomena in due to the scribe of God. Regius,
this MS. are taken into consideration who inserted both the error and its
itappears more than probable that correction which he found in his ex-
they were not in the MS. from which emplar.
8. Ibid. vi. 23 (R. iv. 138 ;

L. I.
234).
r
O 8e 'HpaKhecov TO Mecoc YMOON CTHKGI (frrjcrlv dvrl TOV Jo. i. 26.
TrdpecrTi fcal ecmv ev TU> Koo-fjiw teal ev

ecmv rjSij iracnv vfjblv. Sid TOVTWV Se
irepiaipel TO Trapao-TaOev Trepl TOV SiaTretyoLTrjKevai, avTov oY

5 o\ov TOV Koa/jiov. Xe/creoz/ yap 77/305 avTov' ydp ov
TTOTC
TrdpecTTiv ; TTOTG Be OVK ecrriv ev ro5 KOCT/JLCD; Kal TavTa TOV

evayyeXiov \eyovTos 'N TCO KOCMCO HN, KAI 6 KOCMOC Ai* Ay'roy Jo. i. 10.
epeNejo. /cal Si,a TOVTO /cat OVTOI, Trpo? 01)5 6 Ao<yo<? o "ON Jo. i. 26.
YMeTc oyK 01 AATG, OVK oibacriv avTov, eVet ovSe7ra> TOV KOCT/JLOV
10 ej*e\ri\v6acrt,v, '0 Se KOCMOC AVION OYK efNCo. nrolov Se %povov Jo. i. 10.
TOV ev dvdpooTra) elvai; rj OVK ev 'Hcrata tfv, \eyovTi

J
KYpi'oy en e/we, OY efNGKGN expice MG' Kal 'EMC|)ANHC Is. ixi. l.
TOIC
"
Me MH ZHTOYCi
\<yeTO)crav et, ;
fjirj
-\/
KCLI
?>v'\\>ev
be
Is. Ixv.
* 1
o^/f a<^>* auroi) \e<yovTi, 'Efoa Ae KATECTAGHN BACiAeyc

,
2 -
YTT' AY'TOY en) CICON dpoc TO A'PION AYTOY, t o<ra e/c

TrpocrooTrov
ev tyaX/jLols dvayeypaTTTai. Kal TL pe Set KCL& GKCLVTOV
OVTCOS, irapaarTricrat, evapyws

,
OTL del ev dvOpdtTro) TJV, TT/OO? TO
elprj/jbevov TO "HS?/ 7rdpeo~Ti Kal CCTTIV ev KOO-JAO) Kal ev

'
20 dvOpa>7T(p et9 biriyrjcnv Trapa H/ja/cXeo)^ TOV Mecoc Y'M^>N TW Jo. i. 26.
ecTHKGN ; OVK dinOdvo)^ 8e Trap" aura) Xeyerow OTI TO 'Oni'cca

MOY ep)((JMeNOc TO TrpoSpofiov elvai TOV 'Icodvvrjv TOV
X/9to~Toi) S^Xot* d\r}0a)<; yap (ocnrepel olKeTr)? ecrTl Trpo-
Tpe%a>v TOV Kvplov. TroXi) Se d7T\ovcrTpov TO OYK eiM'i <\2ioc Jo. 27.
i.
25 FNA Ayco) AYTOY TON IMANTA TOY YTTOAHMATOC egefa'rjfav, OTI ov$e
TTJS aTi/JLOTaTrj^ VTrrjpecrlas T^? Trpo? Xpio-Tov

elvai Sid TOVTCOV 6 /3a7TTio~Tr)<; ofio\oyel. 7r\rjv
18 dwaftevov] Svva^vo).
8. 12, 13. e/A0avT7S t-fevt>Mv] The Hilary and Ambrosiaster.

quotation does not agree exactly with 17. oVrws] An awk-
Svaeâpid/j.-riTov
the LXX., which has' E/i0aj/T}s iyev-fj- ward phrase, but the correction in
Qt\v rots ^/xe py e7repwrcj<rtj', evptfrjv Cod. Venetus 5v(re%apt0fj.TiTov ovros is
rots e/*^ /XTJ frrovviv. In Romans the no better. It has been plausibly
clauses are transposed, and S. Paul suggested that we should read 5u<r-
has tyevowv. The exact form is eâpid/j.'ffrwv &VTWV r&v Trapa<TT7J(rai
found in two Latin JTSS. (d, e) and in evapyus
OVK aTriOdvws vTro/3eft\r)K TO OVK e<y co

ravr'ijv Trjv efcSoxfjv
el/jul iKavos, iva Si* eyite Kare\6rj

airo /jbeyeOovs ical
crdpKa \dfirj &><? vTroS^fjia, Trepl 17? 700 \6yov 7ro-3

Sovvai ov Svva/Jiai, ovSe Sirjiyrja-acrOai,, rj e7ri\vcrai
TrjV Trepl avrrjs ouKovo^Lav' dSporepov Se /cal fieyaô-
<j>veaTepov 6 auro? '}lpaK\eci)v KOCTÔV TO VTroS^fJia KSef*d-
/juevos, fjierecrrrj eTrl TO dcrefteo'Tepov aTrofyrjvaG'Oai TCLVTCL
TrdvTa Setv dicovea-Oai Kal Trepl TOV irpoawTrov 35
TOVTOV Sid TOV 'Iwdvvov voovpevov. oterat yap TOV
SrjfjuLovpyov TOV KOO-JJUOV, e\aTTOva OVTO, TOV X

TOVTO 6fJLo\oyeiv Sid TOVTCOV TCOV \ej~ecov, OTrep
dcrefteGTdTOv' 6 yap Tre/Aâs CLVTOV TraTijp, 6
Mt. xxii.
6eoc, a)? auro? 'Iâ-oO? fjiapTvpei, TOV 'ABpAAM Kal TOV 4
32.
/cal TOV 'lAKoaB, 6 Sid TOVTO Kvpios TOV ovpavov Kal Trjs
Cf. Lc. OTL TreTrolv}Kv ouTa, OVTOS Kal yu,dz/o5 dyaObs, Kal fjuel^cov
,
xviii. 19. a' i c>v v f f ^ i '
Jo. xiv. 28. TOV nGfMpv&rro? oe Kai, to? TrpoeiprjKafjLei', aopoTepov

f.
vevorjTai Kal Tra? o KOCT/JLO^ vTroSTjfAa elvai TOV 'I^troO

f
H/>aXeo)^f, aXX* OVK olfAai Seiv o-vyKaTaTiOeadai,. 45
35 irpo<r<!)Trov'] Cod. Bodleianus habet in margine raâ \elTret TOV

post quod, alia manu, /caXws ^x et - ^ Trpoeipr)Ka(j,i>]
29. Kar^\drf\ This passage a- where we should have expected dy-

grees with Heracleon's Italic posi- tuovpyov, which was probably what
tion. Cf. Hippolytus Eefut. vi. 35, Heracleon's ipsissima verba con-
\f/vxiKov (f>a<rl TO crc5/*a TOV 'Ivjcrov ye- tained, in order to emphasize the
yovtvcu Kal Sia TOVTO tirl TOV fiairTio*- impiety (eirl TO acre fit crTepov) of He-
yuoros TO TrvevfJ.0. cos TrepiffTepa /care- racleon's interpretation. But TOVTOV
\7]\vde. For ^yedos cf. Irenaeus I. is not impossible.
xiii. 3. 36. voovfj.fr ov~\ See Frag. 5
(note).
30. U7r65i7/*a] May we see in 37. AciTTOfa OVTO\ We may perhaps
the interpretation of virbdy/jia. as KOV- compare Hipp. Eefut. vi. 36, tyvw (6
fj.os, a groping after the idea of the dfjfMOVpyos) SidaxQels v-rrb Trjs <ro<f>tas
Lord having taken humanity upon ' '
TOV KpelTTova, though there the re-
Himself, though only as a virb^tjâ. ference is to the Father Himself. In

which the Aoyos laid aside ? the fulness of time the Demiurge is
35. The
suggestion of the margin made to confess before men his su-
of the Bodleian deserves attention. perior; hitherto he has kept secret
But TOVTOV unnecessary, and per-
is the mystery of the aeons revealed to
haps TOV SrjfjLiovpyov should be substi- him by Sophia. Cf. also Frag. 40
tuted for it ; or should we read TOV (Orig. xiii. 59) OTL euTrioros 6
Qeov instead of it ? In this case we ovpyos.
must suppose that Origen wrote 0eoO
9. Ibid. vi. 24 (R. iv. 140; L. I. 237).
eN BhOABApA ereNeTO nepAN TOY 'lopAANOY, OTTOY HN Jo. i. 28.
MOOANNHC .BATTTI'ZOON. OTL fj,ev o-%e$bv ev Tcaai rofc dvTi-
<ypd(j)ois
Kelrai TAYTA eN BHOANI'A epeNeTO OVK dyvoov/jbev, /ecu
eoitce TOVTO /cal eTi TrpoTepov <ye<yovevcu' KOI Trapd'HpaicXecovi,
5 yovv BHOANI'AN dveyvcopev.
bis.
10. Ibid. vi. 38 (R. iv. 159; L. I. 271).
Tid\iv ev rw TOTTM 6 '}lpafc\ea)v

KaTacncevfjs KOI TrapaOeo-ecos /jLaprvpiwv dTrofalverai,, OTI TO
fj,ev 'AMNOC TOY 0eof THC ^rjo-lv 6 'Icodvvrjs,
? npoc})!-'
Jo. i. 29.
TO Se'OAIpaN THNAMApTIAIM TOY KOCMOY <W? HeplCCOTepON Lc. vii. 26.
5 npocJ)HTOY. Kal oiercu TO /juev irpoTepov Trepl TOV <7&>-

avTOv \eyea0ai,, TO Se SevTepov Trepl TOV ev ro3
,
TW TOV d/jivov aTe\rj elvai, ev rcS TCOV Trpo-
v fyevet,, OVTO) Se ical TC) <7<a/j,a irapadecret, TOV
avT<p. TO Se Te\eiov el
e/3ov\eTO, <f>r)(ri,,
10 TW crcoyLtart /jbapTvpfjaai,, tcpiov elirev dv TO fj,e\\ov
6 veer 6 a i. ov rjyovfjiat, 8e elvat dvay/caiov /-tera Trj\t-
10 TO. etirev av TO] etVetv atro.
9. 1. Since Cod. Monac. a few lines volume, as quoted by Tischendorf),

lower down
reads Erjdaâpa, we must Codd. Ven. et Bodl. read Rydapa in
probably conclude that 'ByOapa is due both places. On p. 142 Cod. Monac.
to the scribe's error, arising from reads Eydafiapa, on p. 280 (Comm. in
the omission of /3a between two very loann. xiii. 60) B-rjOapa. On Hera-
similar syllables. At the same time cleon's Biblical text, see the note on
itshould be noticed that the reading p. 74 (Frag. 18, Jo. iv. 17).
Erjffapa is found in a Syriac MS. (See 10. 6, 7.. TOV tv TV crw/iaTi] This in
assem
conjunction with Frag. 8 establishes
2
Tischendorf in loc. (syr.
- -
Heracleon's Italic position, which

'
Q r< 4. 140, 142, 280\ '
As bearing on Tischendorf 's note otherwise could not be very clearly

Cf.
it may be well to state that while proved from the Fragments.
Cod. Monac. reads RyQafiapa in the Hippolytus (Refut. vi. 35),
second instance where the word oc-

curs on p. 140 (of Delarue's fourth
B.
eêracreis revrdêw Trepl TOV TOTTOV,

ra evT6\d)<; VTTO TOV 'Hâ/cXecovo? elprj-
7T/305
/PS\
be TOVTO
/r/<"/
OTL
/
/jbei>a' fjiovov eTrio-rjfjbeiwTeov, uxnrep fjioyis
Ph. ii. 7. e^wprjarev 6 #0071.09 TOV KGNGOCANTA CAYTON, ourw? d/jbvov KOI 15
f
ov Kpiov eSetjOr), (va Ap6H avTOV i-'
13 a
11. Ibid. x. 9 (R. iv. 170; L. I.

291).
Jo. ii. 12. 'O /juevTOi ye 'HpaKkecov TO MeTA TOYTO KATeBH eic
TTCL\(,V OLt
ov 9 ToO KATeBH elprj/ievov'

KCLI $t)(Ji Trjv K.a(j)apvaovfJL o-rjfiaiveiveo"%aTa TavTa TO,
TOV KOCTfJLOV, TttVTa TO, vXltcd 6t9 d KCLTrj\d, KOI $ld TO 5
dvol/ceiov, <f>rjo~lv, elvai TOV TOTTOV, ov8e TreTroirjicws TI

\eyeTai ev avTrj r) \e\a\r)K(os. el fiev ovv fj,r)Se ev Tot9
Xot7rot9 eva<y>ye\loi,s TreTrotr)/co)<; TI r) \e\a\r)KQ)<; ev
Ka(f>apvaovfji 6 /cvptos r}/jL(Sv dveyeypaTTTO, Taya dv eSio~Tc
/jiev TOV TrapaBeâa-Oai, avTov Tr)v epfjuqvelav. vvvl Se 6

Trepl
TO
Mt. iv. 13, /JLev MaTâto9 KATAAinoNTA <j>r)(rl TOV tcvpiov r}fjbdov THN NAZApA,
17.
eAOONTA KAT(X>KHK6NAI IC
KA(J)ApNAOyM THN TTApA0AAACCIAN, KOi
AHO TOT dpxrjv TOV KHpycceiN TreTTOirjo-Oai \ejovTa MGTA-
Noe?Te, HfriKe r<^P H BACIAGI'A TOON OYPANOON TavTa Be irdvTa
Trepl T&V ev K-aâpvaov/ju TO) ^coTrjpi eiprj/juevcov KOI ire- 15
Trpay/jLevayv Trapea-Trja-afjiev VTrep TOV e\eyât Trjv 'Hpa-

K\ecovo<> epfjurjveiav, \e<yovTO$ Ata TOUTO ovBe TrTroi-r)/ca><;
TI \eyeTat ev avTrj rj XeXaX9;/cft)9. r} yap Bvo eTTivolas
10 7.
12. reinaêiv} The

rev being hard Capernaum cf. Frag. 40 (Orig. Gomm.
to decipher, the scribe of God. Ven. in loann. xiii. 59), rbv 5 v K
conjectured raiMfcii', while the scribe vi&v avrov dnrjyeiTai rbv iv
of God. Regius contented himself
with leaving a small lacuna before Trpos 6a\a.<r<rat>,
rafciv. On the bearing of this, and ^v(f TTJ v\y. The whole passage
the omission of cttfrou 77 aâprt'a, on there quoted is hardly consistent with
the origin of Cod. Regius, see Intro- the ovdt ireTrotr}K&s of the text: cf. a
duction, p. 8. little further on, \tyei Seon K ara/Sas

11. 1 ff. For the interpretation of 7T/305
TOV KO.HVOVTO,.
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEBACLEON.
KCU avros KcHpapvaov/j, ical Trapta-raTco ical 7m-

20 craTO) Troias, rj
TOVTO Troifjcrai, //.?) Swdfievos a TOV
(orrjpa ^drt]v Tivl TOTTW /cal
8e, Oeov SiSovTos, yevofievot, K rd TOiavra

,
OTTOV 8ofat dv fjLrjSev rjvv/cevai,
Tfco~l, ireLpao-ofieOa TO fjirj fjudraiov

25 avrov rpavwcrai.
21 rivl] nvl 23 r\v (sic).
12. Ibid. x. 14 (R. iv. 179 ;

L. i.
309).
f
O fjbevroi 76 A.VTTJ, eoprr)' Cf. Jo. ii.
//i
row yap irauovs
\
TOV
/
OTE ou JJLOVOV
TUTTO? T)Z/,
</ ,/ 13.
dvypeiTO TO TrpoftaTov, d\\d KCLI dvairavcriv Trapelêv
v, /cal Ovofjuevov TO Trddos TOV Sft)T^po9 TO

8e Trv dvdiravaiv
ev yd/Aw. 7rape6efjt,0a Be avTov TTJV iva TO ft) 9
ev T7)\t,KovTOi$ dvao~Tpe<j)ei,v TOV dvSpa TrapepptfJi/JLevo)^ /cal
vSapd)? fi6Ta firjSevos /caTaGiceva&Tiicov OewptjcravTes, fj,d\\ov
4 r6 TOV iradovs.
23. OTTOU K.T.X.] The reading of

the MS. is corrupt, and the conjecture Unfortunately Hippolytus has said
in Cod. Venetus TTOV So^cunjs nyStv dv nothing about the eschatology of the
yvvKtvcu is not helpful. The reading system which he describes. Perhaps
given in the text is the slightest it did not come within his scope :
alteration which will restore any his main object seems to have been
sense. to establish a case of Hellenising
12. 4. rd 7rd0os] a necessary correc- against each of the heretics whom he
tion of the MS. reading, which was refutes. But no doubt some analo-
made also by the scribe of God. gous completed the system
7ci/ios :
Venetus. as the di6p0w<ris of the irddi) of Sophia

5. T-f]v avaTravffiv] Cf. Excerpta was accomplished by means of her
ex Theodoto 63, ^ /t&/ oftv T&V irvev- marriage with the KOIVOS TOV irXypu-
fj.a.TiK&v avaTravffis v Kvpiaicfj ev 07- /AttTOJ Kapir6s, so the TrvevfJiaTiKol would

5oa5i... elra. TO deiirvov T<2v yd/j.(ijv. naturally receive the final 5iop0w<m
Irenaeus i. vii. 1, TOI>S 5 by 7a/-M>i, no doubt with the Xo7oi
projected by Sophia and her a-vvyos.
vv[j,(f>as diroSoO-ficreaOai rots irepl TQV
52
13. Ibid. x. 19 (R IV. 194; L. I.

338).
r
Se Kal ra 'H/oatfXetwz'o?, #9 fyyo-i, TT}I/ els lepo-
ao\vfjia avoSov (rrj/jbalvetv TJJV diro T&V v\itcwv TOV
f
tyv%iicbv TOTTOV, Tvy%dvovTa el/cova rfjs I ep

Jo. ii. 14.
dvdpa&iv TOV Kvpiov. TO oe EfpeN IN TO ieptu,
ov%i irpovdw, oieTai elpfjaQai VTrep rov (JLTJ TTJV /c\rjcn,v 5
/Jiovrjv vorjdrjvai, rrjv %a>pt9 Trvev/juaros ftorjOeladai

VTTO TOV /cvplov' ^yLTai <ydp rd fiev ayia TWV dylcov
Heb. ix. 7. elvat, TO iepoN, et? a MONOC 6 Apxiepeyc elcriei,, ev6a olâi
avrov \eyeiv TOV? TrvevfiarLKOv^ ^wpelv' rd Se TOV Trpo-
vdov, OTTOV KOI ol AeutTcu, crvfjipoXov elvai, T&V 10
eô) TOV Tr^rjptofjiaTos ^frv^L/ccov evpi<T KOfAevtov ev

Jo. ii. 14.
a-coTrjpla. ITpo? TOVTOLS Toyc efpiCKOMeNoyc
GN TcT iepa- TTCOAOYNTAC Bd^c KA) npoBATA KAI ne-
piCTep<\c ;
KA'I Toyc KAGHMGNOYC KGPMATICTAC efeêâro
\eyecr0ai CLVT\ TWV firjêv %dpiTi SiSovTcov, aXX* e/z.7ro- 15
1 eis] om. o"r)fji.aivei. av(a.
13. 1. efs has been rightly sup-

plied by Cod. Bodleianus. 5. irpovouif] The r&v dvu of the
rrjv els K.T.X.] This sentence can MSS. is

impossible. Neander's con-
only mean
that the Lord's journey jecture r va$ is in the right direc-
from Galilee to Jerusalem symbo- tion, but should we not read irpovdy
lises journey from the uXt/ca
the (cf. 1. 9, rd TOV Trpovaov)? Other-
(cf. Fragg. 12 and 40) to the ÛXIKOS wise we must suppose, either that
TOTTOS, which TOTTOS is an et'/cw*' or the meanings of vaos and iepov had
image of the Jerusalem above. Cf. been practically reversed by Hera-
Excerpta ex Theod. 59. If we cleon's time, or that he was ignorant
compare this with Hippolytus we of their usage. And even then the
may deduce as a reasonable conjec- change to irpovaov in 1. 9 would be
ture that Heracleon spoke of the awkward.
Hebdomad, the abode of the Demi- 5, 6. The distinction of /cX^tris
urge, as an etKuw of the Ogdoad which fjiovt) ?) x w P' $ Trvetf/AaTos agrees with
was the abode of Sophia, or from the division of men in Hipp. Eefut.
another point of view was Sophia vi. 34, K(tToiKr)Triptoi> irork (j.j> \f/vxfy
herself. This will account for the yu6j/?7$...7roT ^vx^s 5e Kal \6yuv. See
distinction between 'lepovo-aA^/u and also Excerpta ex Theod. 58, dvt>dfj.et
'Iepocr6Xi;/x which the MSS. have faith- Trjv KK\rj(riav avaXafitov TO
fully preserved. Cf. Bishop Light- TO Kkyrbv, TO fjv irapa rJJs

foot's note on Gal. iv. 26. Perhaps TO TTl'CVfJI.aTlKOt', TO 5 K T^S
in 1. 3 we should read rijs avia 'lepov- TO
piav fcepSos TTJV TWV %eva)v eis TO lepov ello-oSov

/cal
VOfJLlÔVTtoV, TOV ISLoV KepSoVS /Cal <j) L\apyV p fc'a? VeKeV

T9 et9 TTJV \arpeiav TOV deov Overlap ôpijyovvTcov.
teal TO 4>p<\reAAiON Be TreiroiijcrOai, ex aôivlayv VTTO TOV Jo. ii. 15.
20 '1 770-01),
ovyfi Trap*
d\\ov Xa/3oWo9, ISioTpOTTQ)? d7rayye\\et,
\eya)v TO 4>pAreAAiON el/cova Tvy^dveiv
/cal evepyeias TOV dylov irvev/jbaTos,
i
(f)rjo~i
To 4>pAfeAAiON /cal TO \ivov /cal
Tr)v crivSova ical oo~aTotavTa el/cova r^9 Svvd/jiecos /cal

25 r^9 evepyetas elvau TOV djiov Trvev/AaTos. eireiTa
-
TO
dpa t9 i;v\ov fir) yeypafju/jLevov, co9
TO (pa<yeXXtoy, oTrep v\ov TVTTOV e/chafiwv elvat,

TOV o~Tavpov, <pwo~t, LOVTCO TO) cv X a v 7]\ G) o~ a /cat ft) (/ i,
w<bavl<T0ai,
* i
TOU9 /cvftevTas '
e/e7rd 001/9i
/cal irdcrav TTJV
30 fca/ciav. /cal ov/c oZS' O7T(W9 <f>\vapwv fyrjcriv
e/c 8vo TOVTCOV
TrpayjjidTwv <j)paye\\i,ov tcaTao-KevdêcrOai,, ^rjToov TO
VTTO TOV 'Irjaov yevo/jievov. Ou yap e/c Sep/AaTos, <^r)o~l )
ve/cpov eTTOLTjcrev avTo, iva TTJV e/c/c\7)o-iav /caTa-

cr/cevdcrrj ov/ceTt AHCTO>N /cal e/JLTTopcov CHHAAION, aXXa Mt.xxi. 13.
350IKON
"9 r\
TOY nATpoc avTov

A \ Cf. Jer.
\KTeov oe TO avay/caioTaTov vii 11 /^>\\> /
Trepl T^9 QeoTrjTos /cal e/c TOOV prjTwv TOVTCOV ?r/309 auTO^. el
yap TO ev 'lepoo-oXv/jioi,? lepov O?KON TOY l&iov HATpoc (frrjcriv

elvau 6 'Irjcrovs, TOVTO Se TO lepov et9 $6t;av TOV KTio~avTo<$ TOV
ovpavov yeyove, 7rco9 ov/c dvTwpvs Bi,Sao~/c6fjLeOa

/cal TTJV yfjv
40 fj,rj eTepov TIVOS vojAlêiv vlov elvat, irapd TOV TroirjTrjv ovpavov
/cal yfjs TOV vlov TOV Oeov ;
14. Ibid. x. 19 (R iv. 196; L. i. 342).

C
^(f)68pa Se a7rapatT?7Tft)9 o 'Hpa/checov oterou TO zftAoc Jo. ii. 17.

/ ' > i *
/o> Ps. Ixix.
TOY OIKOY COY KATAcbApeTAi Me
,
e/c 7rpoo-(t)7rov TCOV e/cpA,7j- /i xv jjj \

IQ
06VTC0V ical dva\ci)OevTcov VTTO TOV ^coTijpos Si
/caraway ercu] There is a

14. 2. the masc. with 8vva.tJ.euv we may
difference of reading in the LXX. compare Ep. Vienn. et Lugd. ap.
here. KB read Kara^dyerai, A /car^- Euseb. H. E. v. i. 9, rQiv irpoeffTirj-
0aye. Cf. Origen Comm. in loann. KOTUV r^s roXews ôvvrtwr, and ibid.
x. 19 (L. i.
341). 30, Tra/jaTre/xTToVrwi' TW 7roXtTt/cw'
3. dwafj-euv] Cf. the dai/Aoves of

Hipp. Rcfut. vi. 34. For the use of
\eyeo~6ai, pr) Svvd/Jievos TOV elpfiov rrj<; evrw

reta? rrjprjo-at,, voovfjuevov e/c 7rpoo~a}7rov TWV e KOI 5
dva\ci)OevTa)v Swapewv \eyecr6ai. aKoXovOov /car'
Ps. Ixix. aVTOV KOL TO "EACOKAN GIC TO Bp(X)MA MOY X^" l/CeiVCDV
(lxviii.)22. ~ r /i / i % * *%v' '
\eyeavai, ev TOO avra) avayeypafji/Jievov ^raK^w aKK &>?

erdpaêv avrov TO K<vrA(}>AreTAi' Me w? /^) Svvdftevov VTTO
dTrayyeXkeo-Oai, ov% op&VTa TO eOos TWV civ@pu>7ro- 10
Trepl deov KOI Xp/<7ToO \6ycov.
10 ov
15. Ibid. x. 21 (R. iv. 199 ;

L. i.
351).
r
'O IICVTOL ye HpaK\ea)i> TO* EN rpic/N dvTi TOV
Jo. ii. 19. iTr), fir} epevvrjcra^, KO,ITOI ye eVt<7Tr;cra9 TW 'N rpiciN,
Tpuriv 77 dvda-Tao-^ evepyeiTai q/jt,epcu<;.

Ti 8e /cal
Trjv TpiTyv ^>9;<rl Trjv TrvevfiaTHcrjv yfjuepav, ev f)

olovrai
$ri\ovcr6ai, Tr)V T^9 eKK\7)(7La^ dvdcrTacriv. TOVTWV Be 5
dtcoXovdov \eyeiv elvcu Trjv xoitcrjv êpav, KOI

eo-Ti TTptoTijv
TTJV SevTepav Trjv ^vîKrjVj ov yeyevrj/jievrjs TT;? eKfc\rjo-La<;

dvao~Tdo~eco<> ev
5. should expect
vootfjiei'ov'] We may possibly be a marginal note
this word to introduce what Origen made by the reader of some ancestor
considered to be the true '
spiritual
'
of Cod. Monacensis, which has crept
meaning of the passage under dis- For a possibly similar
into the text.
cussion, and not a repetition of phenomenon we may compare Frag.

' *
Heracleon's obstinate
interpreta- 40, efy 0i;<ns /c.r.X.
tion. And the agreement of voou- 10. 20os] Does thismean simply
fjievov with dpfjiov is very awkward. 'custom, usage,' or should we com-
As it stands the passage can only pare Origen's use of TO Iv Zdei \eyo-
mean that Heracleon's interpretation ILZVQV, tropice, and perhaps ra Zd-q
fails because he cannot grasp the Orig. Comm. in loann. xiii. 5 ?
general drift of the prophecy, which of/x OP&VTO.] The reading of all the
he interprets as being spoken by the MSS. Huet apparently conjectured
8vvdfMis. But the text is unsatis- 01)xupovvra, which is the probable
factory, and I am inclined to suspect
'
source of Delarue's note Eeg. (quern
that the words vootifj.evov \tye<r0ai H. sequitur) ou
16. Ibid. x. 22 (R. iv. 201 ;

L. i.
356).
Be Kal Kara TO,MaKKaftaiKa 7ro\\rj Tt? aKaia- Cf. 1 Mace.

22
TOV ^Kaov Kai TOV
/ / \ x v \ \ \ i. ff.
o~Tao~ia yeyovevai Trepi vaov, Kai OVK oioa
el TOTe dvwKoBo/j,ij@7} TO&OVTOIS Teo~iv 6 z/<zo9. 6 fJuevToi ye
r
H0a/cXea)z>, urjBe e7rio~Trjo~as Trj IcrTOpia, (frrja-l

Tbv ô\o- Cf. Jo. ii.
, a* , \ 20.
5 fjicovTa reccApAKONTA KAI el ereci KaTea-KevaKevai TOV
"'
vaov, eiKova Tvy%dvovTa TOV SwT^po?, Kal TOV
dpiO/jubv t? TTTJV v\rjv, TOVTe<TTi TO 7rXa<j/ia, dvacfrepet,*
TOV Be T&v Teo~aapdKovTa, o TeTpds ecrTt, (frrjarlv, rj
d7rp6o~7r\oKos, et9 TO e/Ltî/o'^yu-a Kal TO ev To3 efju^vo-tj-

10
fjuaTL o-Trep/Jua. opa Be el BvvaTov, TOV uev fjf
Bid Ta Tâ-aapa
TOV Koafjiov o-Toiêla ev Tot9 tfycavMT/jievois eh TOV vabv ey-
KaTaTao~o~6fj,eva Xa/juftdveiv, TOV Be S"' Bid TO Trj KTp rjfjbepa
yeyovevai, TOV dvOpcoTrov.
11 fjyuvifffj.evois] dywvio'iy.ei'ois.
16.6,7. TOV S~' api6pjov\ Cf.Frag. 18, ibid. vi. 34, KaToiKijT-f/piov . . .iroTe d
Heracleon's interpretation of the six Î>XT/S Kal \bywv, o'iTives el<ri \6yoi
(as he read) husbands of the Samari- avwOev KaTeairappevoi dirb TOV KOIVOV
tan woman. With the whole fragment rou TrXr/pw/xaros Kapwov Kal T^S <ro<j>ias
we must compare Excerpta ex Theo- ets TOVTOV TOV Koffpov, KaToiKovvTes tv
doto 50, Xa/JuN'
if/vxty yeudrj Kal The agreement of this passage,

b de Kad' bfAoiucriv r-r\v avTOv TOV drj- with the fragment of Valentinus pre-
[uovpyov, eKe?v6s eo~Tiv bv eis TOVTOV served in Clement (Strom, iv. 13), and
eve(f>vfff]ffev re Kal tveffireipev b/j.oiov- his explanation of it, will be more
ffibv Ti avTtjj di d,yye\<i)v evdtts. And conveniently considered in an ad-
53, <rxe 8e b ditional note.
u?r6 o~o<f>ias ev TO oirepfJi,a TO 8, 9. rerpaj if dirpoffirXoKos] The
els reference probably in the first
is
07/(ri, di dyy\* instance to the original reT/aa/trus of
llp&TOV odv TO ev the Valentinian system (i.e. probably
ry 'A8ci/x, irpoefiaXev i] o~0(pla 'iva rj TO the four male aeons of the Ogdoad),
OCTTOVV ij \oyiKrj Kal ovpavia ^vxt] W and then more generally to the spiri-
Kevr) aXXd /AueXoD yejj.ovo'a irvev(j.aTiKOv, tual nature which is incapable of
which is more closely parallel. See real union with any lower nature.
also Hipp. Refut. vi. 34, ToDro eaTt. Cf Irenaeus i. vii. 4 (where he is speak-
.
TO elprj^vov ...Kal eve<pvffij(rev els Tb ing of the Demiurge's various views

irpbffuirov avTOv irvoriv fiw^s Kal eyeveTO as to prophecy) 17 TOV av8p<inrov, 17 TT/C
b avOpuwos els tyvxw fwcrav, and for TT/XHTTrXofCtyJ' TUV
the TO ev efj,<pvo~ri[ji,aTi
Lat. pejorum).
17. Ibid. xiii. 10 (R. iv. 220 ;

L. n. 18).
Be /cat ra 'Hjoa/eXe&wo? efc TOT)? TOTTOVS,
(j)7jo~iv"A.Tovov teal Trpocrfcaipov KOI e7ri\ei7rovcrav e/cei-
vrjv yeyovevai, rrjv ^corjv, KOI TTJV KCLT avrrjv Boâv

/coo-fAi/cr} yap, (frrjo-lv, tfv teal olerai TOV /coo-jjLi/crjv ainrjv
elvau a7r6Beit;i,v fyepew e/c TOV ra GpeMMATA TOV 'Ia/cwy3 ef 5
avTrjs TreTrw/cevai,' ical el fjuev CLTQVOV KOI 7rp6o~/catpov KOI
eTTiXelTTOvcrav e\d/jL/3ave rrjv GK nepovs <yvu>(Tiv, rjrot, rfj

airb T&V rypacfxav (rwy/cpio-ei, TWV dpprjrwv prjjMdTcov, a OVK
Trq) \a\rjo-ai,, Trdaav rrjv vvv St' eaoTrrpov ical
yvuxriv, /carapyov/jievrjv orav e\6rj TO

ryivofj,ev7)v 10
,
ov/c av avra) eVe/caXecrayLtez/. el 8e virep rov
av eirj. O 8e
N
\eiv rd 7ra\aid rovro
o~iv vSwp 6 ^corrjp, (frrjcrli'
elvai, etc rov Trvev/jLaros /cal
Jo. iv. 14. T?;5 8vvdfJi,6(os avrov, ov ^fevôfJLei'O^' /cal et? TO Oy MH

e eic TON AIOQNA d7ro8e8a)Kev aural? \eeo-iv OVTQ)?, 15
yap r) 0)7) avrov, KOI fjajBeTTore Ôeipoîvr],

ical Trpwrij rf eic rov (ppearos, aXXa fjuevovaa' dva-
?;
'
Cf. Bom. t/36T05 yap H X^P IC Ka ^ H ^<^>peA ToO ^corrjpo? yfjiwv,

v ' '
KOI pr) dva\iaKoiLevr) fjurjSe (frOeipo/juevrj ev TW /JLere-
avrfjs. <f)6e(,po/jLevr)v Be Trjv TTputTTjv 8^801)9 elvat 20
2 Cor. iii. t
jj,ev rr)v Kara TO ypdâ e\eye, fyroov Trjv TTJ nepi-
1 /*
*
Of* Ex
Al
pecei TOY KAAyMMATOC yivofjievrjv KaTa TO nNeyMA /cal evpi-
xxxiv. 34. (TKO)Vj vyid)? av e\eyev. el Be TrdvTrj (f>6opdv /caTrjyopei TCOV
Heb. x. 1. 7raXfua5i>, 827X0^ OTt TOUTO Troiei a5? /j,rj opoov TOL dyaOd TOON
11 21 om. 22 yLvo^vt]v"\ yivo^vrj ij.
17. 19, 20. /neT&ovTi] There is no 07r6re ofo tdei apOfyai TO

difference of reading here in the MSS. rr/v Hilgenfeld plausibly al-
TT?]
Delarue's note, 'Eegius (quern H. ters the Ty of the MSS. to ryv. Per-
sequitur) /Aerao-xoVn,' is due Huet
to haps it is better to insert both articles
and not to Cod. Regius. Huet very (cf.Frag. 1). At any rate the -fj
in
likely conjectured /uera<rx<Wi from the next line cannot be right. We

Ferrarius ('particeps fuerit'). may reasonably suppose that after
21. ^rwj'] With this comment had been corrupted to 71-
of Origen we may compare Hipp. (dative because of the pre-
Refut. vj. 35, 6Ve rAos 2\afiev TJ ceding Treptaiptvei), the r^v may have
dropped out.
...KCU Ka\vfJi/j,a. eirl ryv
25 MeAAoNTOON e'xeiN e/celva THN CKIAN. OVK airiQavw*; 5e TO

'AAAoMeNoy Birjyrjo-aTo Kal TOV? fj,Ta\ajj,/3dvovTa$ TOV
dvcoOev eTTLôpTjyovfJievov TrXovcrlcos, /cal avTov? e/c-
fiXvcrai et? rrjv erepwv alwviov ^corjv ra e rn,/ce %op'rj- r i
yrj/jLeva avTois. d\\d /cal eiraivel TTJV âfjuapecTtv u>o~dv

30 evBeiga/jLevrjv dBid/cpiTov fcal /card\\7j\ov
TTJV rfj
(f>vcri eavrrjs Trlamv, pr) SiaicpiOelcrav e
avrfj. el /lev ovv rrjv Trpoalpeaiv aTreSeêro, /j,r)8ev
aiviTTOfJievos o$9 Siafapovo-r)?, KOI rêls

(f)i>o-eci)<;
0ejj,e0a' el Be rf) (pvcri/cfj KaracrKevf} dvafiepei rrjv r^9 crvy/caTa-
35 êcrea>9 alriav, &J9 ov Traci ravrr)? Trapovo-rjs,

dvarpeTrreov
avrov TOV \6yov. OVK ol8a Be 7T&59 o 'ttpa/cXewv TO /AT)
yeypa/jipevov licKa/Sav (ftrjcrt, 77/309 TO Adc MOI TOYTO TO yAoop Jo. iv. 15.
c9 dpa Rpa%ea Siaw^delo'a VTTO TOV \6yov fj,io~T]cre

\oi jrbvr
/cal rov TOTCOV eiceLvov TOV Xeyo/Aevov ZWVTOS
09. Tl Be KOI 7T/309 TO A()C MOI TOYTO TO fAOOp fNA MH
MHAe AiepxcoMAi eNOÂe ANTAe?N (f>r]cr\v OTI TavTa \eyei
77 yvvr) efjiâivovo-a TO eTrl/juo^dov /cal BvaTropia-Tov
/cal a,Tpo(j)ov e/celvov TOV vBaTos' TroOev yap Bei/cvvvat,
aTpo<j)ov elvai TO TOV 'Ia/cco/3 vBojp ;
25
18. Ibid. xiii. 11 (R. IV. 221 ;

L. II.
20).
f
Be 6 Hjoa/cXea>z/ 7T/309 TO Aepei AYTH <jyrj<rl Arj\ov OTI Jo. iv. 16.
TI \eya)v' Et êXet9 \a(3eiv TOVTO TO vBcop,

fnApe, 4>cJaNHCON TON ANApA coy' T^9 2a//,a- fcal oleTat
petTiBos TOV \ey6fjuevov VTTO TOV ^coTrjpos dvBpa TO
25. The text, even after /cat 8t' avrwj' /cat rd Totfrots 6/Aotoi/j'ra.
has been substituted for the impos- 33. 0ifcews] Fragg. 19, 44.
Cf.
sible ^%et, is unsatisfactory. The Origen's criticism of the doctrine of

omission of ra aya6d would make it 0wrews diafapd is one of the most
simpler, and it is possible that these important parts of his refutation of
words may be a marginal gloss, which Heracleonism, as this was the deepest
has crept into the text. and most characteristic fault of the
27, 28. /cat atfroi>s e/cj3\tf<rcu] Cf. Ex- system, and indeed of gnosticism in
cerpta ex Theod. 58, TO \{/vx<-Kot>, 8 general.
/cat dvfjveyKev dVep aW\a/3e,
TT avv e/ceivy yevopevrj TTpo?

\tjpo) pa elvai avrrjs, Lva 5
TOV ^WT-fjpa KOfjbLaao-6ai Trap* avTOv Trjv Svva/Jiiv KOI

TTJV evwcriv /cal rrjv dvd/cpao-iv TTJV Trpos TO
avrfjs o'vvijO'fj' ov yap irepl dvSpos, ty^crl,
f
e\eyev avrfj (va KaXecry, eireiTrep OVK tfyvoei on OVK

v6/Jii,fj,ov avftpa. TrpoBij\a}<i Be evTavOa fiidêrai,, \eyci)v
to
rov %a)T7)pa elprjtcevat, ^WNHCON coy TON

'I eAGe eNGAAe, SrjXovvTa TOV CLTTO TOV
6L7Tp yap TOV0* UTft)? *XP^ V TOV
^X eV '
Tiva TpoTrov (frwvijTe eaTai avTov eljrelv, iva crvv

yevrjTai, TT/DO? TOV ^coTrjpa. aXX' eTrel, w? o 'Hâ/cXeojz/ 15
(^rjcrl,
KaTa TO voov/nevov tjyvoet, TOV ibiov avSpa, KCLTCL 8e TO
anrKovv rjcr^vveTO ov^l be avfipa et%e, TTOJ?
eiTcelv oTtr /JLOIÔV
aT^v eo~Tai Trpoo'Tao'O'tov 6 Xeywv "YnApe C^CONHCON TON

coy KA'I eA0e N0AAe; elra TT/JO? TOVTO 'AAnGec eFpHKAC
OTI ANApA oyK exeic, (frrjo-iv 'ETrei ev ro3 /coo-fta* OVK elêv 20
avSpa TI âfiapelTi^j rjv yap avTrjs 6 dvr).p ev TO> alwvi.

ovv dveyvco/juev TTeNTe ANApAC ec)(ec' Trapa Be
14 om. 21
18. 6. Grabe suggests

Ko[jil<ra<T6ai] here follows the Western text. As
Koptfrffdai, which is followed by Hil- Origen has twice quoted the words
genfeld. But there is no need to with the reading e?xw shortly before,
alter the MS. reading, which is in it- this passage may reasonably be sup-
self preferable. posed to represent Heracleon's text.
7. Ti]i> evwffiv K.r.X.] Cf. Excerpt. At the same time the retention in
ex Theod. 22, eyeipofJieQa ovv êts Cod. Monacensis of a less well-
iffdyye\oi rots appeviv diroKa.Ta<rTa6tv- known reading in only one of several

Ts...eis evoxriv, and 64, K0fj,i^6fj.eva passages would not be unparalleled.
Kol aura TOI>S i>v/j.<f>iovs rous 0776X01;$ Other interesting variants in Hera-
eaurwi', eis rov vvfj.<j)uva evrds TOV opov cleon's text are found in (1) Fr. 9,
el<riao-i ...... eis rovs voepovs /cat aiuvlovs Brjdaviq.. See the note in loc. (2)
<rvvytas. Fr. 18, ? dvdpas, a reading other-
On Heracleon's use of wise unknown. (3) Fr. 40, û%V
and al&v, see additional Kal ffufM. Mt. x. 28. (4) Fr. 40,
note p. 105. ee\ev(rovTai (eis TO (r/coros TO ewre/>oi'),
14. Hilgenfeld's substitution of a Western variant for Kp\r)6ri<rovTai.
eltreiv for ecrrai is possible, but it is So far as we can tell he used a text of
simpler to suppose with Huet that a Western type, but we have not
etVetv, or perhaps 5i)\u<rai, has fallen much material from which we can
out after avrov. form a judgment.
20. ^x e ] Heracleon, or Origen,
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HER ACL EON. 75
evpopev "El AN A p AC Icyec. Kal ep/jbrjvevei, ye

rrjv vXiKrjv Tracrav KdKiav BrjXovcrOat, Bid rwv e
dvBpwv, o-vv67T67r\fCTo Kal e7r\v] & La%6 v Trapd \6yov
ff
TTOpvevovcra, ical evvftpiôfAevrj KOI dOerov/jbevr) Kal

VTT avr&V Xe/creov Be Trpo? avrov
OTI eiTrep eTTopvevev 77 TrvevfJLaTifcr), rjfJudpTavev
el Se ^/JLapravev r) TrvevfJbariKr), AeNApON AfAGoN ov/c
30 rjv tj 7rvev/j,aTiKij' /card yap rb eva<y<ye\iov Oy AYNATAI Mt. vii. 18.
AeNApoN AfAGoN KApnoyc noNHpoyc eNen<e?N. ical 8rj\ov on,
avrois rd rrjs fjbvOoTrouas. el Be dBvvarov ecm, TO
AeNApoN (frepew noNnpoyc KApnoyc KOI APAGON AeNApoN

TJ â/jbapelri,?, are Trvevfjianfcrj rvy^dvovcra, d/c6\ov0ov avrqy
35 \eyew ecrrlv, ori rjrot, OVK rjv d/jbapria rj iropveLa avTrjS, rj
OVK
avrr) eiropvevo-ev.
19. Ibid. xiii. 15 (R. iv. 224 ;

L. n. 25).
f
O 8e 'HpatcXeayv els rd avrd
r-v
(tifjLohoyrjKevai
/
rrjv
NV 2,a/jiapet,Ti,v
pr)fj,ara
ra
\
\eyet Euo-^7;/i,o^ft)5
e
VTT
t *
avrov irpos
\
Of. Jo. iv.
19.
avrrjv elprjfjieva' TlpocfrijTov jdp povov, <f>r]o-lv,

eo~rlv
el&evai rd Trdvra, ^rev86/Jivo<; e/care/ow?* teal yap ol dyye-
5 Xofc rd rotavra Svvavrai, elSevai, Kal 6 TT/JO^TT;? 01; iravra
olSev, 'EK Mepoyc r^p HNCOCKOMGN KA) CK Mepoyc npocJ)HTeyoMeN, 1 Cor. xiii.
KOLV 7rpo<t>r)Teva)iJLev 17 yLvwo-Kw/jiev. fj,erd Be ravra eirawel

&$9 TrpeTTovTcos TTJ avrrjs fyvcret, 'jroirjcrao'av rrjv â/jua-
pelriv, Kal /Jbtjre Tjrevaa/jLevijv fjbijre avTlKpVS 0/1.0X0-
10 yrjaaaav rrjv eavrrjs o"%'T]fJ,oo~vvr)V i TreTretcr fjuevrjv re
(prjcrw avrrjv,- ort TrpocfriJTrjs eirj, epwrdv avrov, afjua
alriav efJL(j)aivovo~av Bi,' rjv eêiropvevcrev, on Bi,
1
rrjv
ayvoiav Oeov Kal rfjs Kara TOV 6ebv \arpeias a/ueX^-
8 our^s 0tf<ret] avrfy Qatiffei.
19. 3. Trpo<priTov K.r.X.] Contrast rrjs ov iravra oldei> of its point.
Heracleon's views on the prophets 12 14. oTi...d/j.e\â-a<rav is

strange
in Fragment 5. but may possibly be explained as an
4. Hilgenfeld alters rd iravra in- extension of such usages as 8ij\ov
to an alteration which,
Kal TauTa, on. Hilgenfeld plausibly suggests
besides having no MS. authority, are.
deprives Origen's criticism 6

(racrav /cat TTCLVTWV TWV Kara TOV LOV avTy dvay/calcov

/cal a'XA,ft>9 del TWV ev r&> /3/ Tvyftdvovo-av' ov ydp 15
dv, (frrjo-lv, avrrj rjpêTO eTrl TO (frpeap, eo> TTJS 7roXeft>9
Tvy%dvov. OVK olSa Be 7rew9 evo/mto-ev efjuâlveaOai, TVJV

alriav TOV e/cTreTropvevtcevai,, rj dyvoiav air lav yeyove-
vai eTrl TWV 7r\fjfji/jie\r)fjidTCi)v /cal r^9 /card Oeov \arpeias.
eouce Tavra o$9 <Tê^taKvai, ^copl^ 7rd<rr)<$ iriOa- 20
ervêv
oarlOrjo-l re TOVTOLS ort Bov\ofêvrj
7TC09 /cal TIVI evapecrrijo-acra /cal
Jo. iv. 20. d7ra\\ayeifj TOV Tropveveiv, \eyet TO 01 TTATepec H
GN TO) opei Toyrco npoceKyNHCAN /cal TO ef^9. o-(f)6Spa
Be eaTiv eve\ey/CTa TCL elprjêva' 7r66ev yap OTL /So^Xerat 25
vapeo~Tr}o-ao~a a7ra\\ayeir) TOV Tropvevew ;
15 TWV TTJV K. 25 eueXe7/cra]
20. Ibid. xiii. 16 (R. iv. 225 ;

L. n. 26).
Jo. iv. 21. Aepei AYTH d 'iHcoyc TTicjeye MOI, TYNAI, on epyeTAi copA, ore
eyre eN TU) Toyrco oyVe eN 'lepocoAyMoic npocKyNHceie TOJ
6'pei
i. ore eSofe TrtBavcoTaTa TeTrjprj/cevai, 6 'Rpa/cXecov ev

TO 'E?rl /juev TWV TTpOTepwv eipfjo~6ai, avTy fj,rj
n/creye MOI TYNAI, vvv Be TOVTO avTy Trpoo-TeTaÔai,, 5
Tore 7re06\a)cre TO jjbr)

diriOavov TrapaTijpijfjLa, elnrwv "Opoc
jj,ev TOV Sid/3o\ov \eyeo-0ai, rj TOV KOO-JJLOV CLVTOV,
15. Grabe's alteration of rrjv into been the cause of her \arpeta, though
is the only satisfactory emenda- Heracleon probably put it forward as
tion here. But this is not enough. the cause of the errors in her service.
Massuet's insertion of dirorvyxôvo-av Origen seems to have misunderstood
after dvayKaiwv balances the sentence the words which he quotes.
better, but then aXXws Tvyxdvovcrav 21. re] The wepl of the Editions is
becomes an awkward anticlimax. another interesting example of the
Two simple emendations suggest influence of the mistakes made by
themselves, either (i) to place d,ueA?7- the scribe of Cod. Regius. Cod.
\
ffa.a'o.v after dvayKaiwv, or to omit Monac. has T

(ii)
(sic) which he has mis-
the Kal after dfji.\^ffaffav. But it is taken for TrepL
doubtful if even then a possible sense 22. Cod. Venetus inserts
rlvi\
can be obtained. more natural that the
rpoTry, but it is
19. /ecu TTJS /caret 6eov Xar/jei'as] expression here should be similar to
Ignorance can hardly be said to have that in 1. 26.
THE EXTANT FKAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 77
GV 6 $id/3o\o<;
6 $ KOCT/JLOS TO (rv/Ji7rav rrj? /caiclas 0/309, eprjfjiov ol/crj-
10
Tr'jpiov 6r)pia>v, Trpocre/cvvovv Trdvres ol Trpo VO/JLOV
a>
KOI ol eOviKoi' 'lepocoAyMA Se rrjv KTICTIV 77 TOV KTIO-TIJV'

c5
Trpocreicvvovv ol 'louSeuot. 'AXXa teal Sevrepa)*;
"Opoc
/lev evojAicrev elvaL TTJV KTicrt,v ol e0vt,Ko\ Trpocre/cvvovv'
f/
'lepocoAyMA 5e TOV /crlar^v, w ol 'louSatOi e\arpevov.

15 u/tet9 ovv, (f)r)(rlv,
olovel ol Trvev/jLarifcol, ovre rfj /crto-ei,
ovre T<p 8r)/j,iovp<y(0 npocKyNHcere, d\\d rw Trarpl rrjs
d\7]0eia<;' ical o-v/jLTrapaXa/jLfidvei <ye, cfrijcrlv, avrrjv 009
17877 TTKrTrjv, /cal o-vvapiOfjLOVfJLevijv TO?9 Kara d\r)6eiav
13 oi] om. 14 om.
21. Ibid. xiii. 17 (B, iv. 226 ;

L. n. 28).
'Y/weTc npocKYNeTje o oyK OI'AATG, HMelc npocKyNoyMeN o Jo. iv. 22.
AMGN, OTI H COOTHplA K TO)N 'loyAAl'oON GCTl'N. TO 'YMelc, OCTOV

eVl rf) Xeêt, ol Sa/âpefc' ocrov Se eVt rfj dvaywyf), ol Trepl
c
ra9 7paca9 erepoSoôi. TO Se HMe?c, oaov eVl rc5 prjra), ol

5 'louSatot' ocroz/ Se e?rfc TTJ d\\r)yopta, eyoo 6 Xo709, /cal ol Kar
'
ptycofjievoi,, TTJV o~a)T7jplav eô^T9 CLTTO Tcov lovbai/cwv

v' TO <ydp 4)ANepoa6eN N?N MYCTH'PION irefyavepwTat, AIA re Kom. xvi.
26.
20. 8. With the description of o 6 rov KOGIIOV rovrov.

Cf.
5ia/3oXos as ptpos v 0X77? T?}S v\f]S cf. 9, 10. olKyr-fipiov 0r)plwi>] Hipp.
the cosmogony of Hippolytus Eefut. Eefut. vi. 34, KaroiKfjr^piov...oTav
vi. 32 34, K rijs uXu-^s ovaias /cat dai/AOves ftr) ffvvoiKuai TT/ TJ/VXV, and
eTroi-rjfrev 6 drjfjuovpyos ra?s Valentinus ap. Clem. Al. Strom, ii.
rd (rw/iara, and ^/c T^S uXtK^s 20, i] Kap8ia...iro\\<2v ovcra da.ifj.6vwv
ytyovev (as must be supplied, see Hil- These passages shew that
oiKijrripiov.
genfeld Ketzergeschichte, p. 468) the phrase of the master was remem-
5td/3oXos, and TTJI' 5e awoplav bered by his pupils, and applied in

See also Irenaeus i. v. 4, e/c 5e T^ different ways.
XI^TTTJS ra TTt'eu/Aan/cd T^S 11. Kri<riv] i.e. the world of the

odev rov Demiurge. The distinction between
9. o S /COO-/AOS] Here regarded as the nations and the Jews may be

the world of the Devil, cf. Irenaeus, compared with the description (Hipp.
loc. cit. ov Kal KOO jj.oKpa.To pa KaXovcri, Eefut. vi. 34) of the children of Abra-
and Hipp. Eefut. vi. 33, ham, as the children of the Demiurge.
2 Tim. i.
rpMxx>N TTpotbHTiKoaN /cal THC eni4>ANeiAC TOY Kvptov HMOON
/cal irapa rrjv atcoKovQlav
'|HCOY Xpicroy. opa &e el fJLrj IBio)^
TWV pijTwv 6 *H/>a/cXeft>j/ TO 'YiweTc avrl TOV Ol 10
'Iov8alot, e0 vi /col, î^rjaaro. olov be ecrrt TT/JO? rrjv
%ajj,apeiTi,v \eyeo~0ai, vpels oi 'lou&uot, 77 TT/OO? Zââpetnv,

v/jiels ol edviKoi ; aXX' oiJ/e oiftaal ye
ol erepoSoôL o irpocr-
Kwovcrw, on 7r\d<r/jia eVrl, real ov/c d\r)0et,a} /cal fjuvOos /cal

ov MycTHpiA. o Be Trpocr/cvvoov TOV Sy/jLiovpyov, /âXtcrra KCLTCL 15
Rom. ii. TOU9
29.
'lovSai/covs, OUT09 o o?Ae npocKyNe?. TroXz) Se eVrt vvv Trapa-
f
TOV H/3a/cXea)ô? TO. prjTa CLTTO TOV
/cal
avra J;eTdovTa$ /cal TreplTOV /3i/3\iov, iroTepov TTOTC yvrj<Tibv

ea-Tiv TJ voOov rj ILIKTOV' SioTrep e/c6vT$ vTrepTiOe/jieOa, TavTa
fiovov eTTio-rj/jLeiov/jLevot, (frepeiv avTov, w? TLeTpov
f/
Mr) Selv a^' EXX7;â9 Troaicvvelv TO.
8 Kvptov] XoG. 15 ou] om. 23 KaO' "EXXiji/a?]
21. 12. -Tr/aos Sa/xapcmi'] This is ing 5i6Trep eKbvres vTrepri.dtfji.e0a. mean-
strange but possible. The definite ingless.
K
article in the first clause restricts the 23. /ca0' EXX??i/as] The reading of
application to the particular subject the Munich MS. explains the strange
of the story, while in the second production of its copy (Cod. Reg.
clause general. But Cod. Vene-
it is Kade\eTv as) which Huet had to fol-
tus has, either intentionally or by low, and which led him to conjecture
itacism, improved the text, reading /car' edviKoi/s. The passage from the
Sa/xapemji'; the preceding Sajuapem*' Preaching of Peter is quoted at
would easily account for the change, greater length in Clement (Strom, vi.
and the more general application 5) where the last sentence stands Kal
suggested by the masculine is intrin- yap eKeivoL fibvot oto/ievoi TOV debv
sically far more suitable. yivwffKew OVK eirlffTavrat, Xar/>ei5oj>Tes

15. ou] This correction (found dyyAcus Kal apxay"y\ois, fjnjvl Kal
in Cod. Yen.) is necessary, whether
we retain the Kal or not. Origen expresses a decided opinion
17. TroXi) 5] The scribe of on the Preaching of Peter in the DC
Cod. Venetus fell into the natural Principiis, Praef. 8 (interp. Kufino)
transcriptional slip of inserting KO\- 'Respondendum quoniam ille liber
\tov, thus getting a more familiar inter libros ecclesiasticos non habe-
phrase. But intrinsic and
transcrip- tur; et ostendendum quia neque
tional probability alike forbid us to Petri est ipsa scriptura, neque alteri-
follow Hilgenfeld in retaining the us cuiusquam qui spiritu Dei fuerit
insertion. It would make the follow- inspiratus.'
Kal \arpevovTas
, uXot? Kal
25 \l6ois, fiTjSe Kara 'lovSaiovs aeffeiv TO Oelov, eireiTrep
Kal avTol JJLOVOI olo/juevot, 7rl(TTacrdai Oebv, dyvoovcriv
avTov, \aTpevovTes dyye\oi<$ teal fjbrjvl /cal cre\t]vrj.
24 Xar/aeôvras] Xarpei;oj>Tes. 25
26 PJOVOL oio/xevoi] JJLOVOIS loêvoi.
22. Ibid. xiii. 19 (R. iv. 229 ;

L. n. 33).
To ye 'HMeTc npocKyNoyMGN o 'Hpa/cXeau/ olerat

fievTot, eZz>at Jo. iv. 22
'O ev aloovi Kal ol CTVV avrq) e\66vre<s' ovTot, yap,

fjSea-av TIVI TT p o or KVV overt,, Kara d\rfOei,av
vovvres. a\\a Kal TO "On H ccoTHpiA eK TO>N 'loyAAi'coisi GCT'IN,
5 eVel ev rfj 'lovSaua, (j)7)<rlv, eyevrfOi}, aXX' OVK ev avrol?

ov yap et? iravras avrovs eyAoKHce Kal on, e% Cf. 1 Cor
TOV edvovs llfiAGeN rf <7ft>T?7/Ha Kal o \6yos
eic THN oiKoyMeNHN* Kara Se TO voovpevov eK TWV 'low- (xviii.) 5.
TTJV o-wrrjpiav StêtTat yeyovevai, eTreLirep el- 13

10 KOVCS OVTOI TWV ev TO> TT^ycouaTi avrw elvat,
e^prjv 8e avrov Kal TO 1)5 air avrov eKaarrov rwv ev
rf) \arpela SeiKvvvai, 7Tft>9 ecrnv elKWV rwv
ev TU> Tr^p^ân,
ei ye fjLrj
aovov <j)O)vfj
TOVTO \eyovo~LV, d\\a Kal d\7]0ei,a
^pOVOVCTLV aVTO. 7T/JO9 TOVTOl? TO 6N HNeyMATI KAI AAhOeiA Jo. iv. 24.
15 npocKyN?c6Ai TON 060N qyovfjLcvos, \eyei, OTI Oi TrpoTepov

vrjTal ev crapKl Kal 7T\dvrj TrpoaeKvvovv TO)
rj traTpl, &o~Te Kal TavTov TreTrXavfjaOai, TravTas TOVS
TrpocrKeKvvvjKOTas TO) Bij/ntovpyq), Kal eirifyepet, ye 6 'Hpa-
K\ecov, OTI 'EAATpeyoN TH KTI'CEI, Kal ov TCO KaT d\r)6eiav cf. Rom.
i. 25.
11
24. \aTpeuovTas'] The MS. read- 44, rovs 8 appevas tryyAous TOI'S ffvv
ing is probably due to the following cn/ry eKTre^d^ras. And see also
Frag. 40, oi rijs oiKOVOfJilas ayye\ot.

\aTpcvovres.
22. 2. 6 ev aiuvi Kal oi <ritv avr$ l\- 15. ijyotfievos] We may perhaps
dbvres] These may be naturally iden- accept Huet's suggestion 'scribas
tified with the KOIVOS TOV TrX^pti/taros diyyovfjievos.'
Kapirbs and the 70 Xo7oi projected by 19. Krfrm] Heracleon probably

him and Sophia and, in the account
: refers to the second interpretation
given by Irenaeus, with the Soter and given in Frag. 20, which is no doubt
his angels. Cf. also Exc. ex TheocL founded on Rom. i. 25,
Jo. i. 3.
KTl'cTH, 09 6(7T4 X/U<7T09, 1
76 TTANTA Al AYTO? e 20
KAI ycopic AYTOY ereNero
23. Ibid. xiii. 20 (K iv. 229 ;

L. n. 33).
Jo. iv. 23. KAI r^P o TTAThip TOIOY'TOYC ZHTE? Toyc TTPOCKYNOYNTAC AYTON'
ZHT6? 6 TTATHp, Sid TOV VIOV ZHT6?, TOV e\rj\vOoTO^ ZHTHCAI
el
Lc.xix.10. KA'I cokAi TO ATToAooAoc, ovo~Tiva<; /caOaip&v KOI TraiSevcov
KOI
'A7ro\co\evai Se 6 'Hpa/cXecov ev ry f$a- 5
6eLa TO ol/ceiov reo Trarpl, oirep

ZHTejAI TTATHp V7TO TO)V
IVO, TTpOCKYNHTAI.
1
Cf. Lc. xv. el fjLev ovv eoopa TOV Trepl r^9 <z7r&>Xet'a9 TMV TrpoftaTcav \6ryov,
Kal TOV aTTOTreaovTOS TCOV TOV iraTpos viov, KCLV direSe^dfjieOa

avTov TTJV enel Be fjivOoTroiovvTes ol aTro r^? jvco- 10
aVTOV OVK O Ti 7TOT6 TpaVO)<> 7Tp

^>vcra>9, ovSev
(TKOVTGS ij/jids 7Tpl T&V TTpO T^9 a7Tft)X6ta9 dltTY)? %pOVO)V
rj
alwvcov' ov$e yap Tpavovv SvvavTai, eavT&v TOV \6yov. Sid
TOVTO avTOv? eicovTes frapanre^'ôêBa, TOQ-QVTOV eTTaTroprj- 15
4 d\-r]0i.vovs] a\T)9o$s roi)s. 9 viov] vloi. Cod. Bodleianus habet in

margine raxa viov, sed in txt. habet viov.
20. Xpi<rr6s] In the Excerpta ex must refer to the same, the tertiary
Theod. 45, the section describing predicate (contained in dXyQ. roi)s
the creative work of the Soter, eis irpoffK.) would be very awkward.
ovfflav Tjyayejt avrd re KOL\ [TO] T?}S 5. dTroXwXât] There is of course
Seurâs Sta^^crewy, is similarly closed no necessary reference here to a

with the words Trdvra 5t' CLVTOV /c.r.X. commentary of Heracleon's on S.
23. 4. aXydtvovs] This correction in Luke, though we know from Clement
Cod. Venetus restores the grammar that he commented on some part of
of the sentence; o&mi'as Ka.6a.lpuv it (see Frag. 50 ; Clem. Al. Strom, iv.
can of course be separated off as a 9. 73). Here however he only ap-

complete relative sentence, but as ov<r- pears to have explained Luke xix. 10
rtvas, rb aTroXwXds, and in illustration of S. John's words.
24. Ibid. xiii. 25 (R. iv. 234 ;

L. II.
43).
Et9 /JL6VTOI ye TO TTNGYMA 6 0eoc 6 'Hpa/cXecov

<f>r)o-iv
Jo. iv. 24.
a/o /ecu /caOapd KOI doparos tf 6eia (f>v-

avTov. ovtc olBa Be el eBlBagev 77 //,?, ravra
d Gedc TTNGYMA e'er. TO Be royc npocKfNOYNTAC GN
5 MATI KA'I AAH0eiA AeT npocKYNe?N o-a<j)i]vlet,v
TOV Trpoo-Kvvov/jievov Trvev/jLariKw^ ov (rap/ci-
/cal yap avrol r^9 avrrjs 0ucr6&)9 oz/re9 rc5
'
irarpl
TTNGYMA elarlv, oirives Kara d\r)deiav /cal ov /card
7T\dvriv Trpocr/cvvovcri,, Kadd /cal 6 a7rocrroXo9 SiSda/cei,
io\eryo)v AopiKHN AAjpei'^N TTJV roiavTijv Oeocrefieiav.
Be el fir) o~<p6Bpa efrrlv d&efies ofjuoovaiovs rfj
(frvcrei,
/cal Tra/jL/Jba/capia \eyeiv elvai rovs Trpocr/cv-
vovvras ev TrvevfjLart TW Oew, 01)9 Trpo /3/oaêo9 elirev ai}ro9
o 't{pa/c\ea)v e/cTreTrrco/coTas, rrjv âfjbapelnv
15 TrvevfjLari/c'tjs <f>v(rea)s ovcrav etCTreTropvev/cevai,.
ov% opwcrw \_ol ravra \eyovre<;J] ort \TTGLV TO O/JLOOVCTIOV]
ical TWV avTcov Be/cn/cov. el BeeBeâro TO iropvevcrai rf irvev-
fjiaTi/cr} <^>ucrt9, o/jioovcrios ovcra [rw dyevvrJTO)], dvoaia /cal adea
d/co\ovdei TU> \6<ya) roS /car' avTovs irepl Oeov'
real do-eftfj ovBe
20 <f)avTao-iw6fjvai, d/civBvvov e
2 ^] /cal. 11 6/x.oouo'toi's] o/Aootiffiov. 16 ot raura \tyovres] om.

lac. 13 circa litterarum relicta: Codex Bodleianus in margine ol ravra \t-
yovTes. irav rb o/u.ooucrioj'] Travros, post hoc verbum relinquitur lacuna (1"2
circa litt.) in Codice. Cod. Bodl. in margine fows TU>V evavrlwv. 18 </>i5<7is]
0i5o-is. ry ayevvfiT^} om. lacuna (12 litt.) relicta: Cod. Bodl. in mar-
gine T dyvv/)T<p. 20
24. 2. There being no

i] eda] nominative required and the mar-
is
article in his exemplar the scribe of ginal conjecture in Cod. Bodleianus

Cod. Venetus removed the difficulty fulfils the required conditions.
by altering the last *cat into 77. TroV rb bpoovaiov] On this con-
10. \oyiKrjv \arpeiav] Correspond- jecture see Additional Note C.
ing to their nature. Cf. Kal yap avrol 18. r A
conjecture pro-
ayevvfirq]
aur^s 0tfcreu>$ 6vre$, and Frag. 45 bably derived from Ferrarius, which
T<J}V ayluv \oyiK(av ovcrLav. admirably suits the requirements of
16. ot ravra Xôi/res] Some such the passage.
B.
25. Ibid. xiii. 27 (R. iv. 237 ;

L. n. 49).
"Opa Be Kal TOV 'RpatcXewva TL firjo-iv' \e<y6L yap OTL
TIpoo~Se'%6TO TI eKK\r)cria TOV XptcrToz>, /cal

Trepl avTov OTL TO, TrdvTa pbvos KLVO<;
26. Ibid. xiii. 28 (R iv. 238; L. n. 51).

'
Jo. iv. 26. Kat o 'Upa/cêcov Se <j>r)(ri, Trpos TO Epo^ eiMi, 6 AAAOON coi
art EtVep eVeTretcTTO Saâpetrf? Trept TOT) Xpta-roi), 97
ft)? apa e\6wv TcdvTa aTrayyeXel avTy, (frrjai Vlvaxrice

OTL 6K6LVOS 0V 7T p O(T$Otcd<;, 6<y(0 6LJJLL 6 \a\GOV &OL' KCLL
ore (a/AO\6<yr)o-ev eavTov TOV TrpocrSoKGOfievov e\rj\v-

?
Jo. iv. 27. OevaL, HA60N, ^rjalv, oi MAOHTAI npdc AYTON, SL* 01)5
et? r^v âfJbdpLav. Se Sta rou? /JLaOrjTas
TTCO?
6/9 TT)Z/ 2a//,apetaz/, otrti/es /ât irpoTepov CLVTM
crvvfjcrav ;
1 a-ot] post (rot relinquitur lacuna (4 vel 5 litt. ).
27. /ftid. xiii. 30 (R. iv. 241 ;

L. n. 56).
THN
\a/jL/3dv6L elvaL La6eaLV /cal evvoLav KCLL
r^9 Trapd TOV ^wTrjpos, rjvTLva KaTaêiirovcra,

Trap avTto, TOVTZO-TLV eôvcra Trapd T&) 2<coTr}pi TO
TOLOVTOV C7/C6U09, V \7J\V L \afteLV TO %toV
vSft)/0, (j)
5
4 irapa] Trepi.
25. 2. 17 ^/c/cXi?<rta] i.e. ot Trj/eu/wm/co/. to the latter word. It must mean

Cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 41. thought, conception, or the like, not
27. 2. Kal~\ The Kal before rrjs power of thinking or conceiving the
dwd/Aeus is probably right. The diW/xis. Below (1. 13) Ferrarius re-
vdpia is the dia9e<ris and frvoia which fuses to take TTJVZwoiav r^s dvva-
is deKTiKrj rijs fw^s /cat rrjs 5wayu,ea>s. /tews together. Probably we should
Hilgenfeld's omission of the Kal, there read, as here, Kal tvvoia.v
which makes 5wa/iews dependent on
frvoia, gives an unnatural meaning
v els rov /cocr/jiov evayye\i%ojjLevr) rfj /c\rj-

crei rr)v XptcrTOz) Trapovalav. Sid ydp rov Trvevfiaros
/cal VTTO rov Trvevfjuaros Trpoo~ayerai rj ^rv^rj rut 2)a>-
rrjpt. /caravoTjaov Srj, el Svvarai rvy^dveiv rj

eTratvov/jLevrj
vSpia avrrj irdvrr) d(f)iepei>r]' 'AcbHKe yap, <f)r)o-l, THN yApiAN Jo. iv. 28.
AYTHC H TYNH* ov ydp Trp6o-/cet,rai on A(f)HKeN aurrjv irapd ru>
ZiCdrrjpi.
5-\\5//)
trots oe ov/c amuavov real
^/
Kara\,eiTrovo~av avrrjv
\
rrjv Se/cri/crjv rrjs ^wrjs Siddeo~iv, /cal rr}v evvoiav rrjs

Svvd/jiecDS rrjsrrapd rov 2,corrjpoS) /cal TO o~/cevos ev
tÂ
s co e\r)\v0i \a/3elv ro %(v vScop, aTre\r}\v6evai els rov
/c6(TfjLOV %co/?t9 rovrcov, evayye\io~aa6ai rfj /c\rjcrei
Xpiarov Trapovalav ; TTWS Se /cal rj Trvevfjuari/crj

roorovrovs \6yovs ov TreTreicrrai o~a<f>oos Trepl rov Xpio-rov,
d\\d <p7jo-L
MH
oyroc GCTIN 6 Xpicro'c TI ; ical ro 'ElHAOoN Jo. iv. 29,
l
o Se GK THC noAeooc
Sirjyrjcraro dvrl rov 'E/c T?;9 Trporepas
avrwv dvao~rpo(f>rjS) ovorrjs /coo~fAi/crjs' /cal rjpôvro
Sid rrjs TTio~re(os, (f>rjo~l, irpbs rbv ^wrrjpa. \e/creov
Se Trpbs avrov' TTWS [tevei Trap avrols rds Ayo HMepAC ;
ov
ydp rerrjprjtcev o TrpOTrapede/jieOa repels Trepl rov ev rfj troXei
5 avrbv dvayeypd(f)0ai MGMGNHKeNAi ras Ayo HM6[
19 /ATTI
TL o5r6s] /my rotouros.
25 dvayeypd(f>9ai] Cod. Bodleianus in margine
28. Ibid. xiii. 32 (R. iv. 242 ;

L. n. 60).
Be ori /coivcovev
avra) % u>v dyopdcravres drrb rfjs âpapeias
6. K\TJ<ris] Cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 24. A negative obviously ne-
is
58, TO Khqrbv . . .rb e/c r^s OLKOVO- cessary: cf. Orig. Comm. in Joann.
/Atas TO \fjvxutov and the words irpoa- xiii. 29. We
can either place ny
dyeTat y \J/vxt which occurs in this before dvayeypdQdat with the margin
passage (1. 8). The woman herself of the Bodleian, or before kv ry 7r6X.
was a representation of the eK\oyf). 28. 1. The general sense of the frag-
21. KofffjuKys] 17 (the Cf. Frag. ment is recoverable, but it is hope-
account of the woman's former life), lessly corrupt. The third sentence
KOOTUKTJ yap and Frag. 20, where

yis, may possibly have run TTWS 5, ofytcu,
the /c6a>ios is the kingdom of the 8td- ol ra avra 2x eLV ^yovrai.

fjiaQrjTai
/SoXos. Heracleon seems also to have And in line 8 it would be natural to

used the word as almost equivalent alter TTOTOU into eXalov, for we can
to
' '
humanity, see Frag. 8. hardly justify it on the strength of
62
*
K.io~av. raSe <p7ja'lv iva TWO,* ai irevre JAW pal Tcapdevoi
jfc jfc. .*. V i / rv \ T * * *
* V
4fc V&. > \ 41$. 4
Cf. Matt. p
CLTTO rov vv/jL<piov. TTCD? oe oifjuai T aura Gêw
* * rat? a-Tro/eXetcrêtcrat? 5
\e<yovTaL [iwpals TrapOevois, afyov
tcar'rjjoplav Trepieôvra TWV fjbaOrjrwv rofc aurot? KOI/J,O)-
rat? /Mcopais irapOevoi^. eart, Se /tat ai)ro avopoiov rov
*
KOL TOV 7TOTOV
*<Tai/ra? alndo-acrOai rrjv e/cô^rjv, /catTrep Kara ri Suvd-
fjuevov cracfrr} Troirjcrai, TOV \6yov e^prjv avrov Sid TrXeiovwv 10
7rapafjiv0r)O'aa'@aiy icarao'icevdôvTa TYJV ISlav e
3 post riva lacuna (6 circa litt.). post Trapdtvoi lacuna (45). 4 post
ol/xctt lacunapost 2x etl/
(8). lacuna (6). 5 post Xtyovrai lacuna (10).
8 post f3pufj.aTa lacuna (19). 9 Kalwep] Keiirep. Kara] ins. intra lineas.
29. Ibid. xiii. 34 (R. iv. 245 ;

L. n. 65).
J
Jo. iv. 32. Eroc> Bpo>ciN exo) cÂfelN, HN yM?c OYK
'
Se 6t9 TT}^ \e%iv elirev 6
30. /Wd. xiii. 35 (R. iv. 245 ;

L. IT. 65).
Jo. iv. 33. "EAefON OYN oi MAOHTAI npoc AAAh/Aoyc MH TIC HNefKeN
(})Are?N ;
el KOI GapKiKws viroXa/jufidvei, ravra \eyecr0cu 6
'HpaicXecov VTTO rwv /jiaOrjTwv, w? en Taireivorepov 8ia-
voovfievayv ical Tr)v S a pap elnv /uLi/juovpevtov \eyovcrav
Jo. iv. 11. OYTG ANTAMMA eyeic, K&\ TO 4>pe<\p ECT'I BA6y* at,ov r)
7TOT6 /3\67TOVT<i Tt OciOTCpOV OL /JiaOlJTai (fraCTl, 7T/309
d\\rj\ovs MH
TIC HNepKeN AYTCO (J)Are?N
raâ 7^/3 vTrevoovv ;
Tjv TWO, 8vva/jLt,v wrjvo%evai avrw <f>ayeiv.
31. Ibid. xiii. 38 (R. iv. 248 ;

L. n. 70).
Jo. iv. 34. 'O Se 'HpaicXewv Sid TOV 'EMON BpooMA CCTIN I'NA HOIHCCO TO
TOY neMÂNTOC Me (frrjvl &i7)<y6i(T6ai TOV
is, QTI TOVTO o crvve^Tei fieTa Trjs yvvai-
s, and to fill
up part of small patches in large rents are la-
the gaps by reading KaTyyopyaavTas, hour wasted.
and in 1. 9 Katrot ye for Kaiirep. But
#09, iBiov \eywv TO GeAHMA rov Trarpo?' rovro

avrov rpO(f>rj /cal dv a,7T av a is ical Svvafjus r)v. Ge-
AHMA Be rrarpos e\eyv elvai TO <yvoi)vai, dvdpwrrovs rov
Trarepa, /cal epyov rov ^corrjpos rov
0-0)61)1x11, oTrep r/v
V/ca rovrov arrea-ra\iêvov et? ââpeiav, rovreariv
et9 TOV /COCT/JLOV. /3poo/j,a ovv avro eêlXrjfa rov 'Irjcrov /cal
10 rrjv /JLra rrjs SayLtape/r^So? crvtyrTjo-w, OTrep
Travri rco 6paa6ai ical rarreivw^ e%et,\r)<f)6at,
/cal
8e rpofyrj rov ^corrjpo? TO 6eAHMA rov 7rarpo9, cra^)c39 ov

7Tft)9
7rapeo-rr)(Tv' 7TC09 3e teal dv arc av or LS TO GeAHMA rov Trarpos ;

\eyei, yap o Ku'/KO9 aXXaôu, a>9 ov rravros rov rrarpucov
15 Oe\r)jj,aro^ avajravo'ea)^ avrov 6Vro9, TTATep, ei AYNATON, Mt. xxvi.
nApeAGATca TO noTHpioN An CMOY' nAhisi oy TI' lroc> GeAco, AAAA TI
cy. rrbOev Se /cal ort, Svvafj,i<? rov 2<corrjpo<; TO GeAHMA rov

Oeov ;
Cod. Bodl. in margine raâ aur6.

9 auro] avrov. Cod. Bodl.
in margine rdxa TO Kai Trapt\Ket. 10 rrjs] TI\V. 17 o-oi.
32. Ibid. xiii. 41 (R. iv. 251 ;

L. n. 79).
',1 6 'Hpa/cXecov pevroiye OJJLOLWS ro?9 TroXXofc evrl
olopevos avrrjv dvdyecrOai. yovv on

fjuei,v, pr)
'-v//5 \ t
jv y GVVTJ fjbarcov Xe^y^ i u e PKTU/OV, oos
<j>r]crl
rovrov
r \
u,ev eri,
>f
Bicopiav eôvros rerpdfirjvov, rov Be Oepio-fiov, ov avro<;

5 eXeyev, rjBij evecrrwros' /cal rov 6epi,o~fj,ov Be ov/c oZS' 07TW9
d/c/jualot /cal eroifôi eicri, Trpos depiafjiov Kal e'vri-
3 roc] TO.
T6 yvuvai K.T.X.] Cp. Hipp.

31. 6. Origen complains first of the inter-
Eefut. vi. 36. As the 5i6pdw<ns of pretation of r6 0A?7/Aa as (3pw/j.a, Kal
the Hebdomad was effected by im- Tty...<rv'r)Tr]<rtv, then as rpo^T/, then
parting to the Demiurge the know- as dPciTrawm, and lastly as 5{W/us.

ledge of the Father, so it is natural 15. irdrep] The omission of fiov
that the diopducris r&v fr6ade should and ecrrt is found in other authorities,
be accomplished by analogous means. especially among the Valentinians.
9. avrb] The marginal sugges- But this position of air epov is not
tion of the Bodleian seems on the found elsewhere, nor is the rl sup-
whole be the best reading
to it ; ported by other authority. See Tis-
restores consistency to the passage. chendorf in loc.
TO crvvaÔrjvai, els dTrodiJKqv, TOVTeaTi

9
8m 7T/o-T6ft)9 6t9 dvaTTavcriv, ocrai ye eToi/juoi,, ov yap

Trdaai' al fjuev yap 77877 GTOIÔL rj<jav, (prjcrlv, al 8e e/zeX- 10
\ov, al 8e fjue\\ovcr LV, al 8e eTTicrTreipovTai, 77877. TavTa

Jo. iv. 35. /x.ez/ ouz/ eKelvos elirev. TTGOS Be ol /juaOrjTal enAipONTec royc
ov-
cra? 7T/OO9 TO, &)? ol'eTat, et9 airoOrjKriv elo-a%6f)vai, ov/c
ol8a el Svvarai Trapao-rrjcrai. Kal en ye TTGOS eirl TG>V
Jo. iv. 37,
d\r)6es TO "AAAoc 6 cnei'pooN, KAI AAAoc 6 Oepi'zoaN /cat 'AnecreiAA
3
YMAC Oepi'zeiN o OYX Y**?c KGKoniAKATe Ttiâ 8e rpoTrov TO 'AAAoi ;
K6KOni(\KACI KAI YMe?C GIC TON KOHON A^TOON GICeAHAyOATe SvVCLTOV
e&ri TrapabeâaOai, eiri rr)<$
16 6 Bepifav]
33. Ibid. xiii. 44 (R. iv. 255 ;

L. n. 85).
Kal epel ye 6 'H/ja/cXea)^, Taâ 8e TOVTO) Kara rrjv

ravrrjv (TVfjLTrepKfrepo/Aevos Ti9 ât eK/cXrjcriao-TiKos,
Mt. ix. 37. oTt Ta> Kara TO '0 OepiCMOC noAyc, 01 Ae epr^TAi oAi'roi
cnj/uLaivofJieva) oyLtoiQ)9 TauTa e'lprjrai, TOJ erol/juovs Trpos
Oepicr/jLov Kal eTriTrjSeiovs 77/309 TO 77877 crvi>a'%0'fjvai 5
T}^ dirodrjicirjv Sid Trjs TTiarea)^ et9 dv air av
elvai, Kal eTTirrjSelov^ 7rpo9 crwrr]plav

TOV \oyov /card fjbev rov
avrwv Kal rr]v <f>v(7i,v' /card 8e TOP eKK\7)criao-Tt,Kov
f
TOV rfyejaoviKov, eroi/jLov irpos reêlwcriv, (va Kal 10
\eKTeov ovv ?r/309 TOU9 ovrcos e/c8ea//.ez>ou9, el /3ov-

\owrai 7rapaSeâo-0at /mrf Trore yeyovevai irpo rfjs rov
rj/jiwv eTTiBrj/jilas Bepia/juov 7rapa7r\tjcri,ov TW ouTt9 dv

crdevri a7ro TGOV %pova)v TOV evayye\iKov
32. 10. ai 5] The repetition of at 5e 33. 5. eTnT-rjdeiovs] Cf Excerpta ex

.
offended the ear of the scribe of Cod. Theodoto, 46, Kal rots crw/xacrt /card
Venetus, so that he substituted Kal Qvaw e7riT7;5ei6T?7ra eveTrot'âej', which

ai ê/ for the second al 5. But the also illustrates did TTJV
reading of his exemplar is right. Kal rrjv <j>ij<riv.
34. Ibid. xiii. 46 (R. iv. 256 ;

L. n. 87).
f
O 8e
(
HpaK\6a)v TO '0 Gepi'zooN MICGON AAMBANGI Jo. iv. 36.
t
OepicrTr)v eavTov \eyei, <f)r}crlv, 6
TOV ov TOV Kvpiov rjfJL&v VTrdXafJu^dvei elvai rrjv
TWV acorrjpiav /cal aTTOKardaracnv T&>
depLôfjievcov
5 dvaTraveo-Oat, avrov e?r' avrois' TO &e KA'I cyNArei KApnoN
eic ZGOHN AICONION rjcrlv elpr/arOai, rj on TO avvaôêvov
alcoviov ecrTiv, rj ort, KOI avTo %&)rj alw-
. d\\d avToOev VOfil^to fiiaiov elvcu TTJV Sirjyrjcriv CIVTOV,
(f)d(TKOVTO$ TOV ^(DTTJpa MIC00N AAMBANGIN, KCbl dVV^.OVTO^ TOV

10 MICGON Kal TT)V CYNAnJOfHN TOY KApnOY /9 V, aVTIKpVS
fj? Svo Trpdy/jiaTa TrapKIT deny?, cJ?
2 vo/j-lfct] vo/j-lfeLV. 7 TJ 6Vt] ov.
35. Ibid. xiii. 48 (R. IV. 260 ;

L. n. 95).
(
'O Se HpaK\ea)v TO IN A 6 cnei'pcoN OMOY X AI'p^ KAI Gepi'-
Jo. iv. 36.
ZOON OVTQ) Sirjyrjo-aTo' Xaipei, pev yap, (frijcriv,

6 aireiptov
OTL o~Treipet,, Kal OTI 77877 TLVOL TWV cnrepadTayv avTOv
GwdyeTai, eXTriBa 6%a)v Trjv avTrjv Kal Trepl TOOV
5\OL7T(ov' 6 Se OepLâsv oyitota)? TL Kal OepLcret,. aXX* o
IJLGV7T/5COTO9 rjpâTO (TTreiptov, o

BevTepos OepL^wv.
ov yap ev TO> avTw eSvvavTO d^ÔTepoL apâcrOai'
eSet ydp TrpwTov (TTrapfjvai,, elff vo~Tepov OepiaOrjvai.
Travaa/Aevov fjuevTOiye TOV cnreipovTos cnreipeiv,
34. 7. Delarue's emendation 77 ort part of the Heracleonic doctrine.

is by no means absque causa (see
' '
The sowing of this vibs wdpuirov,
Lommatzsch). Whence Huet derived whoever he was, must refer to the
o I do not know. It is the reading sowing by a higher power of the
of no MS. and suits neither grammar pneumatic seeds in the creatures of
nor sense. We must assume that a the Demiurge, and the Trveu/xart/cot are
corruption of or to I ON led to the not divided into different classes, so
omission of the 77. far as is known. The 77677 is also
35. 3. 77677] Cod. Venetus has altered forcible. He rejoices in that he is
77677 to but the original reading

e?677, already gathering in the earnest of
is preferable. Different kinds or the rest. For a similar confusion
classes of seeds are not insisted upon, of 77 and ei in Cod. Venetus, cf. Frag.
nor do they, so far as we know, form 20, ws Tj'det inffT-qv for u>s 77677
Oepuel 6 Oepi^wv. eVl fjbevroi TOV irapovTO^

d 10
TO IBiov epryov evepyovvTe? OJAOV ftalpovcri, /coivrjv

%apav TTJV TWV crTrepfJidrayv Te\eioT7jTa rjyov fjuevoi.
Jo. iv. 37. en Be fcal els TO 'N TOYTCO ecriN 6 Ao'foc AAHOiNOC, OTI AAAoc
âiv O
f
ecTiN 6 cneipcoN, KAI AAAoc d GepizcoN ftev yap VTrep

TOV T07TOV VIOS (ivOptoTTOV (77T6lp6t,' 6 6 Sft)T^/J CO V KOI 15
auTO? uto9 avOpwirov Oepiêt, KCU Oepicrras

TOI)? Sia TU>V fjuaOrjrwv voov/Jievovs d
7rt rrjv eavrov tyv%TJv' ov TTOLVV 8e
Svo vloix; TOV dvOpwTTOv, rives elvlv, <$v 6 et9 cnei'pei /cat o
Sepi'zei.
10 eTri] ewel. 15 vios] viov.
36. Ibid. xiii. 49 (K iv. 263 ;

L. n. 99).
Et Be ayiot, ay<ye\oL elaiv ol Trap

e/c\eKTr)v /cal v rera-
Jo. iv. 36. ov Sev eanv CLTOTTOV TON cneipONTA OMOY xîpeiN KAI TON
6epi'zoNTA /jLerd TOV depLapov. 6 8* 'H/oa/cXewz/ (frtjalv OTL

Ov &i avToiv, ovSe a?r' avTwv e(77rdprj TavTa TO, cnrep- 5
, <j)r}al
8e T&V aTrocrToXcov, ol Be
)A~1 >C>^ A
5)4*9
ov 01 aurwj/J ou 5e avruv.
9
15,16. AsOrigensays.thetwo'sons tion must be pure conjecture. For

of man' are not clearly explained. r67ros cf. Frag. 40. It must be the
Probably they answer to the two beings r6?ros /-leo^T^/ros or e/35o/uas which is
whose temporary union in Jesus of described by Hippolytus as vTro/tarw
Nazareth Irenaeus criticises so strong- TTJS where Sophia and her
(rySoctSos
ly. The 'Son of man' who is virtp <rvvyos dwell. For the sowing com-
TOV TOTTOV may be identified with pare Hippolytus Pefut. vi. 34.
Sophia's husband: or the two 'sons' 17, 18. &CCUTTOJ' CTTI r-ffv eavTou ^vxyv]
may be the Christ whose flight So- Cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 64, ra
phia mourned, and the Jesus whom fj.a.TiKa...Ko/j,i6/j.va /cat ai/rd roi)s
the Christ entreated the Father to 0t'ois roi)s dyyt\ovs eavruv els TOV
send to her, diopduxrcu ra Trddrj avT'fjs, vv/jujxjova ei/ros TOV opov elfflacriv. tyvxn
and who became her <n^vyos. The is here probably used in its wider
last will suit best the interpreta- sense. See also Irenaeus i. vii. 1,
tion of 6 iv aluvi /cat ol avv O.VT< vv/j.<f>a$ d.irooo6'f]0~e<j6a.i. ro?s wept
e\66vTts (Frag. 22). But the data
are insufficient, and such identifica-
elcrlv ol T?79 ol/covo/jt,la<? dyye\oi oV y

(ov 009 MGCITOON Cf.Gal.iii.
*
averpd^rj. et9 3e TO 'Y/ueTc eic TON KOTTON

teal j j v 33.
eiceAHAyBAre ravra egeOeTO' Ov yap 6 auro? KO

10 <77T6i,p6vT(i)v /cal p iôvT cov' ol fiev yap ev /cpvei
vSaTL /cal KOTTO) TT)V yrjv cncaTCTOVTes GTreipovcri,, /cal
SS o\ov 2et/u,c3z>o9 TT^yLteX overt, a/cd\\ovT<; real ra?
v\a$ e/c\eyovTe<i' ol oe et9 eroifjuov /capTrbv ela-e\66 vres
Oepovs ev<f)pai,v6 pevoi, Oeplôvatv. eêcrrai Se crvyicpi-

15 VOVTI raSe v<$> r^fjuwv elprjjjLeva TW evrvy^dvovn Kal rd VTTO
f
rov Hjoa;X6ft)z/09, opav OTrola TOOV
Svvarai.
7 Ot] 6. 9 /COTTOS] (TKOTTOS.
37. Ibid. xiii. 50 (R. iv. 263 ;

L. n. 101).
f
O 8e
f
TO
'
K THC noAecoc dvrl TOV 'E/c TOV Jo. iv. 39.
KOO-JJUOV
<
^6i\ rj(f)e' TO Be AIA TON AdfON THC TYNA?KOC TOUT-

ecrTi Sta T^9 Trvev/juaTifcfjs gXiy<rla9. /cal 7rt,aijiJLal-
veral ye TO noAAo) W9 TTO\\(OV OVT&V tyv%i,K,wv' Trjv Se i
yL6/a^ \eyei Trjv a^dapTov T^9 6/^X07^9 <t>vo-i,v, /cal /JLOVO-
eiSij, /cal eviicrjv. ihmffA Be ev Tot9 dvcoTepa), ce)9 oloz^ Te
777)09 TauTa.
1 roj ro?s. 6 olov re] otovrai.
36. 7. ol T^S oiKovo/uas 0776X01] Cod. Monacensis TIJ (ji.{\ov<nv may ac-
Compare the 70 \67oi projected by count for Huet's T$ ^XXoixu (ad

Sophia and her crtff1/705. marg. r?7/>ceXou<ri) which Delarue, fol-
ws necriTuv co-Trapy] There

7, 8. Si'cSi'
lowing his general custom, attributes
is a very close parallel to this in to Codex Regius.
Excerpta ex Theod. 53, ^(rx^...virb 37. 2. <?etXi70e] The following
rrjs (ro(f>las eveiraptv rb ffTr{p/j,a TO irvev- double constructions are found with
fjLO.Tt.KOv ei's Tr)V tyvxjriv, dia.Ta.yds, <f>rf- eK\afj.pdveiv: (I) accusative followed
>
<rl, dyy\wi> ev x t pi f*f<rlTov...di dy-

5t'
by eirlwith the genitive, TOV 0epLff/j.6v
ytXwv ovv TUV apptvuv TO. <rirtp/Ji.a.Ta eirl T?}S ^VXTJS e%L\r)(p TUV TrunevovTUv
inrrjpTiTai TO, ets ytveffiv Trpo(3\r)6&Ta. (Fr. accusative followed by

32), (2)
For 5tara7eis Heinrici proposes 5ta- dvTl TOV or Toin-eVn as in this frag-
Tayev (Die Vol. Gn. p. 118), but we ment, accusative or quoted nomi-
(3)
may regard it as a quotation. native followed by accusative, ee-

9. /c6?ros] The
description which \-rj<t>e wavTa TOV icdfffJiov K.T.\. (Fr. 1),
follows is of the method, not the aim cf. also Fr. 47.
of the work : O-KOTTOS therefore would 4. TroXXoi] Cf. Excerpta ex Theod.
not give the required sense. 56, oil TroXXoi 5 ot
12. Ti<]/ji.e\ov<rt] The reading of 5^ ol TTVVfJ,aTlKol.

38. Ibid. xiii. 51 (R. iv. 265 ;

L. n. 103).
Jo. iv. 40. 'O 'Hpa/cXewv els rovs TOTTOU? ravrd

Be
AYTO?C tfitly 6 KOI OVK. ev avrois' /cal Ayo HMepAC, ry
rbv eveo-ra)ra alcova, /cal rov fMe\\ovra rov ev

r/rov Trpo rov rcdOovs avrov %povov, /cal rov perd TO
7ra#o9, ov rrap" avrois iroirjara^, TroXXco rc\eiovas Sid 5
rov ISlov \6<yov emarpetyas els rrlcmv, eâypio-Orj

arc avroov. \eicreov Be Trpos rrjv Bo/covcrav avrov Traparrj-
f
ptjcriv, ori nAp' AYTO?C /cal OVK ev avrois fê^parrrai, on

5
Mt. xxviii. MeG YMOON HACAC
ofioiov ra> nap' AyroTc eorrl TO 'lAoy, epd) EIMI
TAC HMepAC' ov ydp elrcev 'Ei/ V/JLLV elfjut. en Be Xeycov rds Ayo 10
^Vofc rovrov rov alava elvai /cal rov fi,e\\ovra,

rj rov 7T/3O TOU rrddov? /cal rov fiera ro nrdOos, ovre TOI)?
enepxoMeNoyc AI(X)NAC perd rov jj,e\\ovra vevorj/cev, rrepl wv
Eph. ii. 7. o a7TocrToXo9 "|NA eNAei'lHTAi eN TO?C Aicaci TO?C
4>?jo-lv enepxo-
MeNOic' ovre opa on ov JJLOVOV Tlpo rov rrdOovs /cal MeTa 15
TO Traô? o-vveari, TO?? epôyu-eôi? TT/JO? avrov 6 'Iô-ou?,
d\\d /cal fjierd rovro ov
%a)plerai,. del yap /nerd r&v
/j,a6r)ra)v eo-n, /jujSeTrcoTrore /caraXeiTrcov avrovs, ware /cal

Gal. ii. 20.
\e<yeuv avrovs Zw Ae oyKeri e'rci), ZH Ae e*N eMoi Xpicrdc.
5 SP] 6. 12 TOV /ierd TO irdOos] om. rbv. 13

17 aXXa] om. o^] om.
38. 15, 16. KCU /xerci ro del /nerd TV fj.adijTwv cffrlv. The
The dXXa, which is absent from aXXd must therefore be inserted be-
both Cod. Monacensis and Cod. Ve- fore Kal fierd TOVTO. Hilgenfeld's
netus, but has been independently insertion before x uplfr Tai i g
of ou
inserted before these words by each of course necessary, unless indeed
of theirdescendants Regius and Bod- we can regard the words /xerd TOUTO
leianus, has been accepted by the XwptfeTat as a continuation of the

editors, including Hilgenfeld. But quotation of Heracleon's words, and
though after otf (j.6vov an dXXa is re- so negatived by the ov fwvov, but the
quired, this is not the right place sentence would then be very awk-
for it. Heracleon has admitted that ward. This is not the only instance
Christ is with them irpo TOV iradovs where a negative has probably drop-
and yuerd TO irddos also, but has not ped out. Cf. \_/j.rf] ev rrj ?r6Xa (Frag.
seen that even after this there has 27).
been no xw/>io>i6s, for (Origen says)
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HE11ACLEON. 91
39. Ibid. xiii. 52 (R. iv. 267 ;

L. n. 108).
'Hpa/cXecov 8e a7r\ovcnepov e/c\a^cov TO OYKSTI AIA THN Jo. iv. 42.
CHN AAAI'AN nicieyoMeN cfrrjo-l

Aeijreiv TO fiovrjv' ert jnev yap
TTpOS TO AYTOI fAp AKHKOAM6N, KA*I oTAAMGN OTI OYTO'c 6CTIN
ZooTHp TOY KO'CMOY îjaiv Olydp avdpwjroi TO /jue
5 V7TO dvOpCUTTCOV oSiyyOV fJiCVOl TCiaTZVOVCri TU>

7rdv Se evTV^wcri rot? Xo^yot? avTOV, OVTOI OVKC
Sid v av6pwTrivY]V /mapTVpiav, d\\d 8t' avTrjv
40. Ibid. xiii. 59 (R. iv. 274 ;

L. n. 123).
Se BACIAIKON 6 '1rlpa/c\ea)v \eyeiv TOV

yov, eirel /cal O-UTO? e(Saai\eve TGOV VTC avTov Bid Se
TO jjbiKpdv avTov /cal 7rp6<r/caipov elvat, TTJV ftacri~\,eiav,
<f)r)o-l,
BACIAIKOC covo/judo-Or], olovel [JbiKpos rt? /3
5 VTCO Ka6o\iKov y8acriXe&)9 TCTay/JLevos ejrl
'
TOV Se N KA(})ApNAOYM VLOV aVTOV
n / n \
TOV ev r&>
6d\ao~o~av TovT6o~Ti TOO crvvij/îJievo) rj7 v\r}, Kai \eyei OTL
}
'O tSfcO? aVTOV dv0p(i)7TOS d<T06V(t)V, TOVT6CTTiV OV KCLTCL

10 (frvaiv e^cov, ev dyvola /cal dpapTr) âcriv r\v' eZra TO
4 0?/(ri] (pijalu TT]v fiaaiXelav. 10 ayvolaJ] dyveta.
39. 3. 6'ri ouros] For the omission 7. fj.ff6Tr)Tos] The yueaoV?;? here
of a\t]dus see Tischendorf in loc. is clearly the same as the TOTTOS [/xetro-
5. With the idea of human me- TT/TOS] of Hippolytus, Refut. vi. 32,
diation suggested here, cf. Exc. ex called also e/35o/icis. In the lower
Theod. 58, /cat 5t' avruv Kal ra part of this, which is most deeply
TOVTOIS ofAOLovvra. involved in OX?;, here represented by
40. 4. 0770-t] The error of Cod. Capernaum, the I'Sios utos lies. In
Monac. in repeating pa<n\eiavrijv connexion with Origen's interpreta-
after 0?;crJ led to the omission of tion of the /3a<riXi/co5 as representing
(firjffl
in Regius, and conse-
Cod. Abraham, it is interesting to notice
quently in the Editions. It is also Hippolytus, Refut. vi. 34, TrpotfiaXe

independently omitted in Cod. Bod- Kal 6 8r}M,Lovpybs î>xdV avrr) yap
leianus, for Cod. Venetus has re- ov&ia \f>v%<j}i''
OVTOS ecrri /car' auroi)s
tained it.
'A/Spaa,/* Kalravra TOV 'Aj8paa/x ra
5. Ka0oXt/c6s] Cf. Excerpt, ex r^Kva. Heracleon might have ac-
Theod. 47, where 6 Zom^ is de- cepted Origen's interpretation of the
scribed as dr)/Movpybs /3a<riXi/cos and his son.
Jo. iv. 54. 'K THC 'loyAAiAC eic THN FAAIAAI'AN dvT\ TOV etc TTJS ovcodev
Jo. iv. 47. '\ovSa la$. OVK ol8a Se OTTCO? els TO "HiweAAeN AHOGNHCKGIN
KivrjOels dvaTpeTrecrdai Ta SoyfiaTa TWV VTCOTI-

oleTai
OefJbevwv dOdvaTov elvai Tr)v ^v^v, et? TO avTo av/jL-

Mt. x. 28. (Bd\\e(r6ai vTroXa^dvwv Kal TO Ty)(HN KA'I COOMA AnoAAyc0Ai 15
eN reeNNH. /cal OVK dOdvcLTOV 76 elvai fyelrai TT}V

f
6 Hyoa/cXea)i/, aXX* e7TtT?;Seta)5 eôvcrav TT/DO? o-corrjplav,
1 Cor. xv. avrrjv \eya)v elvai To eNAyoMGNON A'^GAPCI'AN (^GAproN,
53, 54.
KA) AGANACI'AN GNHTON, oTaz^ KATATT00H d GANATOC avrfjs
Cf. Is. xxv.
8. 6IC ISMKOC. 7T/)05 TOUTOt? KOL TO 'EAN MH CHM?A KAI TpATA 2O
Jo. iv. 48.
TAHre oy MH nicreycHTe Xeyea-Oai, fao-lv oliceia><; Trpo? TO
TOIOVTOV TrpoGWirov, i
epyajv (pvcnv eôv /cal $i al-
TO
Jo. iv. 49. MOY Sid TO TeAoc
KATABHOI, np*iN Ano0ANe?N TO nAiAi'oN
Cf. Rom. TOU VO/JLOV TON 0ANATON elprj(jdai VOfJUiêi, d 25
vi. 21.
Sid TWV dfjbapTiwv' TTplv TeXeo)? ovv, <f)r)crl,
i T?
d/juapTias, SeiTai 6 TraTrjp TOV fjuovov
20 j/t/cos]
'
11, 12. K rrjs dvudev TOIS u\i/co?s, <J>9apTri evri Kal dir6\-
Cod. Monac. has the true reading \vrai (MS. garai Kal aTrciXero). It
TT/S, though all its descendants have should be noticed that this is one
erred. For the phrase, cf. Frag. 13, of the passages where by the use
where the \f/vxiKbs TOTTOS, represented of 0?7<ri and X^yet Hippolytus shews
by 'lepoffoXvpa, is said to be an etKuv that he is quoting from a single
of 'lepovcraXrifji., i.e. a,vu 'Iepovffa\-^fji,. document. Cf. also ex
i] Excerpt,
See also Hipp. Eefut. vi. 32, where Theod. 56, rb Se \fsvx<-Kov, dvreôij-
the Ogdoad is called 'Ie/>ou0-aXr//* ew- ov eiriTrjSeiOTrjTa ^x et irpos re
ovpdvios. Kal d(f)dap<rLa.v, Kal Trpbs diri-
The text is the reading of

15, 16. Kal <f>6opdi>.
Monac. and Ven. The Syrian read- 22, 23. It may be well, in view of
ing has been adopted by the de- the extremely difficult criticisms of
scendants. Origen on Heracleon's interpretation
16 Heracleon's language with
ff. of this whole passage, to state what
regard to the immortality of the soul appears to be Heracleon's position
vividly recalls Hipp. Eefut. vi. 32, so far as can be gathered. He
it
Qvt]T-i] TIS effrlv i] ^f%^, /Ltecrorrys rts seems to have affirmed that ûxrj is
ov<ra' &m 701^ e/35o/tas KO.1 /caraTrau- rb (pdaprbv TO evdv6fj,cvov d<t>6ap<riav.
crts 'Edi* oSv ofjt,oi(i)0fj rots avco, Its death comes did TO rAos elvai TOV
T?J O75od5t, addvarus eytvero /cai poyiiouTOV OdvaTOV, dvaipovvTos did T&V
ets T-rjv oydodda, ^rts eori, dfj,apTiwv, for of course the children
eirovpdvtos, edi> de of the Demiurge are under the Law.

rrj MXy, TOVT^TL rots
tVa ftor)Qr)(rr) ToG tuo>, rovreari ry

777)09 TOVTOt9 TO '0 Y\oc coy ZH tcara drvfyiav elpfjaOai Jo. iv. 50.
30 TW âyrrjpi, eê'iXrifyev, eTret ov/e etTre Z^rto oi/8e evefyyvev

auT09 Trapea^rjo-dai rrjv %a)rfv. Xeyet be oVt KaTa/39
7T/009 TOZ/ KafLVOVTa KOI lo,(T d /JLVO<i dVTOV T^9 VOOTOV,
rovrecm rwv aiari^v KCL\
Troi,r}cras el'jrev '0 yidc coy ZH" al eTriXeyei 7rpo9 TO 'Eni'- Jo. iv. 53.
35 CT6YC6N ANOpOOnOC* OTi Eu7TtO-TO9 <Xt O A^yLtiO Vpy6 9

,
on Svvarai, 6 JZcoTrjp /cal pr) irapcov Oepanreveiv.
TOY BACIAIKOY êL\ri<ê T0t)9 d<y<ye\ovs rov
e
C
v, d7ra<yye\\ovTa<i ev TW n<\?c COY ZH

06*6/0)9 /fat Kara rpOTrov eêi, irpdcrawv
40 T dvoliceia. /cal Sid TOVTO vo/jblêi dirayyeXXeiv TOO
cp Toi)9 80^X01/9 T Trepl rf)? rov vlov CTWTT;-

/cat
TOO Kocr/JLO) dvOpwirav TOVS dy<ye\ovs, el eppco-

dirb
45 2ft>T?;/909 eTTlSrjfjilaS. Tl 7T/009 T?}z/ eBAOMHN CO
oTt Ata T^9 wpas âpaKTfjplêrai r) <^>vo~49 TOU laQkv-

T09. eVt 7rao-t TO 'EnicreYCGN AYTOC KAI H OIKI'A AYTOY O'AH
lirl T^9 d<yye\i,Krj<; elpfj&Oai rdêco^, /cal
v rwv ol/ceiorepcov avrw.

^Tjrelo-Oat Se (frrjo-t,
50 Trepl TIVCOV dy>ye\(i)v, el a-ajOijcrovrai,, TU>V /car\66vT(i)v
7rl TAC 0YrATp<\c. /cal
TCJON AN0p(x>n(X)N dvdptoTTtov TV Gen. vi. 2.
Se TO) ^7jfjLt,ovpyov rrjv d rr(D\eiav Srj\ovcr6ai, voîêi

r
ev TCO Oi THC B^ciAeiAC eleAeYCONTAi eic TO CKOTOC TO e2w- Mt. viii.

YIO'I
12
TepON. ical Trepl TOVTCOV rbv 'Ho-ai'a^ 'Trpo^rjreveiv TO
55 YIOYC ireNNHCA KAI fyoocA, AY'TOI Ae Me HGeTHCAN, ova-nvas Y'OYC Is- i- 2.

aXXoTptou9 /cat cnepM<\ noNHpON /cat ANOMON /ca\e2 /cal
AMneAcx>NA AKANGAC HOIHCANTA. /cal ravra pev TO, Cf Is v

- - -
'Hpa-
K\ewvo<$, aTrep roX/^rjpoTepov /cat da-e/Bearepov elpij/Aeva e%pfjv
fjuerd 7ro\\fj<i /caTao-Kevrjs dTroSeoefyOai, efaep tfv d\rj6rj. OVK

60 ot8a Se 7ro39 /cat Tret d6avao-las
39 xet] ^X etl/ ' ^-^ OJ'^P^TW] bis. 59 a7ro5e5e?x0ai] a
35. eîo-ros] On this point the Irenaeus i. vii. 4.
Valentinians seem to have been 37. For the angels of the Demi-
agreed. See Hipp. Refut. vi. 36 ; urge cf. Excerpt, ex Thcod. 47.
Troaa o-qfjualveTat, IK rf)S davaros <j)covfj$. KaOopwvra yap

TO (rrj/jiaivo/jbevov JJLGT eTTicrK e Ka IBelv el
/cara Trvra ra ecrriv. e /juev yap on
Ez.
yYX" 8e H AMApTAisioycA AYTH AnoeANe?TAi,
xviii.
d/jiapTLas,
real epov/Jiev avrrjv QvTjrrjv. el Se rrjv TravreX?) id\v<Jiv 65
Kal %a(f)avi,(7[jiov avTrjs OdvaTOV voîêi, rjfJLels ov Trpocf^cro-
fjieOa, ovSe pe^pi eTTivoia? ISeiv Svvdfjievoi ovcrlav Qvi]~rr)V
fjLeraâ\\ovcrav et? dOdvarov Kal fyvaiv ^>9aprrjv eTrl TO
a<f>6apTov O/JLOIOV yap TOVTO rw \eyeiv /jLeTaftd\\eiv TI aTro

et? daatfjiaTOv, o$9 viroKeijAevov rtiô? KOIVOV r^? TWV 70
Kal dcra)fj,dT(0v (i;creft)9, onrep /jbevei cocrTrep

TO V\LKOV ol irepl Tavra Sewol, T&V TroiOTr/TWV
l
(3a\\ov(T(t)V 6t? d(f>0apo-lav. ov ravrov Be ecrTi TTJV cj)6ApTHN
(f)V(riv 6NAyec0Al A4)6ApciAN Kal TO Trjv <f)0apTr)V /xera-

ftd\\,6iv e/9 d(j)0apo-Lav< TO, S* avrd Kal Trepl GNHTHC 75
\eKTeov, ov
avTiv. TL eTreirep TTJV fyvcriv epywv
Kal
avTov Trepl HIav\ov Troias $>v<Tew<$ rjv. el aev yap Trvev/jia-
TIKTJS, 7Tft)9 Bid TTJS TepaaTiov eTTifyaveias TreTrlcrTevKev ; el S' 8c
OVK aXXft>9 eSvvaTO Trio-Teveiv rj Btd Tr)<$ repao-riov eTTtâvela^

aKo\ov6ei KCLT avTovs Kal avTov elvai -^V^LKOV. 7rew9 Se
OVK a<76/8e9 TOV Arjfjbiovpyov roi)9 dyye\ov<i avTov

TO TT/OO
Oewpelv TO eppw/Jievov Kal TO el\LKpives Tr)<$ 7ro\iTias

TGOV VTTo r^9 SvvdfjLea)? TOV Êa)T^/?09 j3e\Tt,a)0ei>Tcov, Kal Trapd 85
TO evapyes TOV Trepl TOV Aqfjuovpyov \6yov, TI Be Kal Trapd
Jer. xxiii. r fi v ypcuj^v rrjv \eyovaav Ei KpyBhiceTAi AN0poanoc GN K
61 KadopwvTa] KO.6apa.VTa.. 79, 80 Trveu/tari/c^s] OTTWS.
80, 81 TepacrHou] TepacrTeiov. 83 OVK]
61. Kadopuvra] Though the fol- Heracleon has only made use of such
lowing criticisms of Origen contain expressions as evdve<r0ai adavacriav
no new matter of Heracleon, the /c.T.X. which Origen allows to be ov
whole chapter must be examined TavTov. For Origen's argument with
together. I have therefore thought regard to p.eTafia\\ei.v see Aristotle,
it print it in full. The
better to Met. A. 2 (1069 b), ov yap ra tvavrla
criticisms are not easy to follow. yuera/SaXXct. <?TI TO nkv vTro^vei, TO
So far as he has stated Heracleon 's 5' evavTlov oi>x viro/J.vei' Zffriv apa TL
views, the confutation of /uerajSaXXetp Trapa TO, evavria, ij v\rj.
cis adava<riQ.v is not to the point, for

Arob OYK OfOMAI AyTON }

Kdl KfplOC 6TAZOON NGCbpOYC KAI KApAlAC, Ps. vii. 10.
Ps xciii
i
Kypioc PNOOCKOON tofc AIAAOPCMOYC TOON AViGpobnooN KAN xc li.
'iv.) (
"9 i f\ &. \ \i / c/-\ > \ \ TTiaf
oe (Tdocrei Kai TO U eiAooc TA TTANTA
\ t
1181 -
go ooci MATAIOI ; TT&)<? TTPIN i
... , , , , ,
Susann.
peNeceooc AYTOON ;
en jsv
oe
paXhov YTJ <pvai<t xapafCTrjpt,- 42.
rov laOevros airo rov apiO/jiov rr)s copas eirj

?7? Idaews ryivofjievr)'^ rw oiiceiu) ry avairavcrei dpiO-
TO 8e &ia(f)0opd<; elvat, fyvîicwv, eiri reXet wv e

95 fJieOa VTT avrov elprffjLevwv dvayerypafjufjievov, 6fjLa>vvfj,ia
fjievov earrly real erepav <f>vcriv elo-dyovros reraprrjv, oirep ov

{3ov\erai.
41. Ibid. xix. 3 (R. iv. 296 ;

L. n. 167).
'O fj,VTOL ye ^pa/cXecov, eicOefJievo^ TTJV Trepl rov yaô- W\3-

t-v / -v/j *c>v * * ' ' 'c^^ '
"f~\ > * vin. 12 ff.
q>v\a/aov \eîv, ovcev eiirev et? avrrjv. et? oe TO (Jnoy erco j . v iii.21.
YêTc of AyNAcGe eA6e?N <t>rj(ri IIcG? eV dyvota Kai

ovres ev dcfrOapcrla Svvav-
/cal d/jLapT^/jiao-LV
5 rai yeveadai ; /jbrjSe ev TOVTM KaraKovwv eavrov' el yap ol

ev d<yvota Kai aTrivriq Kai d/jLapTij/nao-iv ovres ev
yap.
91. ZTC 5e /j.a\\ov. Heracleon's avairafoei but the stages of

apid/j.a},
own remark on the hour is simple corruption could not be traced. All
and obvious, when compared with is dark, and we can scarcely hope for
Hippolytus, Eefut. (^vxn} effrlv efido- light.

yttas Kai Karcnr averts, rod ladi>Tos is 96.ertpav <f>t<riv] A reference
equivalent to TOU ÛXIKOU. Whether probably to Origen's argument with
Origen understood this or not is un- regard to /j.Taj3a\\iv. Heracleon
certain, as his criticism is obscured would recognize three 0&reis, irvev-
by hopeless corruption in the text. Ha.ri.KT), \l/vxiK7), v\iKr]. The dia<pdopa
Delarue's et i] <pv(ris x a P a/CT7?/9 *êrat \f/vx<-Kov cannot take place unless we
comes from Cod. Ven., but leaves assume Zrepoi' vTroKei^vov which re-
the sentence impossible and unin- mains while the Troior^res change.
telligible. It is tempting to sup- This would be to introduce a fourth
pose that a good deal of the sentence
may have been erroneously inserted 41. 4. dTTLaria] Cf. Excerpt, ex
from the statement of Heracleon's Theod. 56, quoted above, p. 92.
view above, and that Origen may 6. ev dyvoia] Hilgenfeld's state-
have written some simple sentence ment that these words are omitted
such as efn 5 fj.a\\ov TJ 0&ris x a P aK ~ in Cod. Regius appears to originate
rov laOfrros, rip oiKeiy rrj in the fact that in line 7 it omits
a apalq ov Svvavrai, yevecrOai,, TTCOS ol airocrroKoi ev

dyvolq Trore /cal ev dino'rLq teal ev dfjiapr^fiao'i yevoêvot,
ev dfyOapcrla yeyovao-i ; Bvvavrai ovv ol ev dyvola ical
ev aTTiaria KOI ev dfj,apnj/jLa(rt, yevo/juevoi, yevecrOat, ev ro
ia, el /j,eTa/3d\\oiev, Svvarov avrovs fj,eTa@a\eiv.
42. Ibid. xix. 4 (R IV. 302 ;

L. II. 180).
Kal 6 '}ipaK\ecDV fjuevrotye <w<? airXova-repov elprffievov rov

Jo.viii.22. MHTI AnoKreNe? EAYTON (f>r)<riv on, Tlovijptos St,a\oyi6/j,evoi
ol 'louSatot ravra e\eyov Kal /i/etôâ? eavrovs CLTTO-
(fraivo/jievot, rov SCOT^/JO?, teal v rjro\a^.^dvovre^ on
avrol fjbev aTreXeu aovrai Trpbs rov Oeov dvdiravaiv et? 5
acaviov, 6 8e es opv /ca ef Od varov,

eavrov S OTTOV eavrovs OVK
dire\6elv. /cal avrai?
rov ^corrlpa ol 'lovSaioi OTL $ia%ei,pi- '7^ epavrov
els <f)0opdv yu-eXXw 7ropeveo~0at, OTTOV i5//,e?9 10
ov SvvacrOe e\0elv. OVK olSa be TTW? Kara rov eiTrovra

>
Jo.viii.l2. Eroc> eiMi TO 4)030 Toy KO'CMOY Kal rd 6^179, fjv \eyeiv OTI, 'Eyw
e/juavrov Si,aêipi,o-d/j,evo<; els (f>6opdv /J,e\\a) iropev-
eaOaL edv $e rts êyrj fjurj
rov ^corijpa ravra eiprjKevai, TOT)?
8e 'lovbaiovs avro vTrovevorjKevat,, Srj\ov OTL epel rov<; 'lou- 15
Saious TrecfrpovrjKevai, Trepl
avrov on fyOelpovrai, ol eavrovs
Siaê^ptcrd/jievot,, Kal ovSev TJTTOV eTroiei ravra Trtcrrevcov
<$>6apr)creo~6ai Kal Ko\ao-0ij0ea0at,, OTrep tfv Kara irdvTa rjKi-
O iov.
15 avrb] 18, 19 /caret TroWa rj\i6iov]
the fv of tv ayvoiy, a fact which r)

has led him into a captious
Delarue notices. criticism of Heracleon. Cf. Tr. 30,
The importance of this fragment ayyfXiKfy nva 5tii>a/j,u> K.T.\.
consists in the fact that Heracleon's 5. dvd-n-avais] For the doctrine of

interpretation depends on his funda- dm7rau<ns cf. Irenaeus I. 7. 1; Ex-
mental error as to 0i5(rts and /cara- cerpt, ex Theod. 63, 86.
aKwt) (see Frag. 17), to which Origen 18, 19. /caret Travra ij\ldiov\ As there
so often rightly takes exception (cf. is no authority for the form /car??-
Fragments 17, 33). \tdiov, I have retained the conjecture
42. 1. cbrXorforepoj/] This is not the of Cod. Venetus.
only case in which Origen's love of

43. Ibid. xx. 8 (R. iv. 316 ;

L. n. 211).
'
TivvOavoi/jLeOa av TGOV r9 (frvcreis elcraybvTWv, KOI

TO "On d Ao'roc 6 eMOC of XP e ^ ^N YM?N dtroBiBovTwv Kara Jo.viii.37.
'HpaK\ea)va on Ata TOVTO ov yoope?, on, d

tear ovcrlav, Kara ^vwfjurjv, TTCO? ol
rj
5 tear* over lav H'KOYCAN nAp<\ TOY nArpo'c ; d\\d teal

Trorepov Jo. viii. 38.
Trore npoBATA OVTOL rjaav rov Xpto-roO, 77 dXkorpiOi V

avrov ; el Be r](Tav aXXorpioi, TTCO? H'KOYCAN HApA TOY
, ft)9 olovrai, \eyojjievov TT/OO? roi)? aXXorptov? on AIA Jo. viii. 47.
eTc OYK <\KOYeTe,OTi OY'K ecTe CK TOON npoBATooN TOON Jo. x. 26.
10 GMOON ; el /jur) erepw aroTrw eavrovs Trepi,-
apa 6\i^6jjbevoL
PdXXovai, \eyovres n^p^ fjbev TOY n^Tpdc d/crj/coevai TOI)?
d\\oTptovs, fjbr} aKoveiv Be TGI)? avrovs TOVTOU9 Trapd TOV
el S* olfceiotTOV Xwr^/oo? r\Gav real r^9 pa/capias
TTCO? ezHTOYN avTov ATTOKT?NAI ; KOI TTW? 6 TOV
15 r^/90? Ao'roc OY'K e'xoopei ev avTol? ;
M
10 cai;roi>s] eauroi)s (sic). 12 Trapa] Trepi.
44. /Wd xx. 18 (R IV. 332; L. II.

240).
'O fievToi, ye 'ttpaicXecov V7ro\afji,fidvei A.lTiav d

crOai TOV AYNACOAI avroi)? AKofeiN TON 'Irjo-ov AdfON,
pr) Jo. viii. 43.
NobcKGIN ailTOV THN AÂlAN V TO) 'Y/WeTc 6K TOY

TOY AiABoAoY 6CT6. avTais yovv \e%eo-L âi Ai-
5 art Be OY AYNACOG AKOYCIN TON AO'TON TON EMO'N ; rj OTI
eK TOY TTATpdc TOY AiABoAoY ecTe, dvTi TOV 'E/e Jo. viii. 44.
o-las TOV Biaf36\ov ; (fravepwv avTols \oi7rov
2 'lyvov] Yv.
43. 4. Kara yv^fj.ijv] See below, that verse.

Frag. 46. There are traces of cor-
44. 5, 6.
8, 9. The words AtA TOVTO u/iets OVK ruption. Probably \tyei has dropped
a/cohere are
quoted in Tischendorf's out somewhere, in consequence of
digest on John x. 26 from this pas- the <f)r]<rl,
without it the dvrl TOV can
sage : no other authority for
there is hardly stand,
them, as forming part of the text of
B. 7
(frvcriv avTwv, /cal 7rpoe\e<y!;as avTOvs, OTI ovre

rov 'AySjOaa//, elo~L re/cva, ov yap av efJLiGOVV avrbv,
ovre TOV Oeov, Sib ov K tfyctTrcov avTov. /cal el /JLCV TO 10
GK TOY TT<\Tpoc TOY AiABoAoY ecre eêSefaro 9 eV rot?
o't,7i<yr)ordfj,e0a, eXeye Ata TO ert V/JLCL^ eivai e/c TOV

/cal
, Oy AyNAcee AKoyeiN TON AOCON TON EMO'N, KUV Trape-

&el;dfjL@a avrov rrjv SirtyTjo-iv. vvv\ Se 817X09 ecrrtv ofMoovcrlovs
nvds rut $iaj36\q) \e<ya)v dv0pa>7rovs, erepas, &5? olovrai ol 15
aTT* avrov, ot/<ria9 rvyxdvovri, Trap' 01)9 Ka\ovcn

rj
10 otire] ov5. 13, 14 irapedeâ/êda] Trapa.dea./j.0a,

15 otovrcLi oiovre*
45. Ibid. xx. 20 (R. iv. 337 ;

L. n. 250).
Et? ravra 8e 6 'Hpa/cXewv (fryer i Up 09 01)9 o Xo709 e/c

ova las rov 8iaj36\ov rjcrav, &)9 erepas ovcry? TTJS
rov SiafioXov ovo~ia<i Trapd rrjv TWV dyiwv Xoyi/cwv ovaiav.
o/jLoiov be ev rovra) JJLOI, Treirovdevai, fyaiverai rc5 erepav
ovariav fydcricovTi o(^0a\iôv Trapopwvros /cal erepav opwvTos. 5
46. Ibid. xx. 20 (R iv. 339 ;

L. n. 253).
(
Jo.viii. 44. Toaavra Kai Trpbs TOV
}ipaK\e(0vo$ \6yov elirovTos TO
TOY nATpdc TOY AiABo'AoY dvrl TOV 'E/c T^9 ovo-ias TOV
10. ovdt must probably be altered class, different in kind. It thus takes
to cure. the place usually assigned to the
45. 1, 2. e/c r-^s ovfflas rod 5ia^36\ou] .uXi/nJ. See also Irenaeus, and Ex-
With this and the preceding fragment cerpta ex Theod. 48.
we must compare Hipp. Eefut. vi. 34, 3. \oyiKuv ov<riav] Of. Hippolytus's
e/f TT)S vXi/c^s ofo KO.I 5ia.po\iKTJ$ eiroi-r)- account of the projection of the 70
(rev 6 &i)/j.LOVpy&s rats i/'uxats rh a&- X67ot. not necessary to alter the
It is
/*ara, and 6 u\i/c6s, <f>daprbs, drAetos, MS. reading, but it is very probably an
eK rrjs 5ta/So\t/c^s oucrta? TreTrXaa^vos. error of assimilation (due to the pre-
The close connection of uXi/c^ and ceding genitive), for \oyu<riv.
StajSoXtKTj is exactly reproduced in 46. 2, 3. TOV 5iapo\ov] This seems
these fragments of Heracleon, where the only reading that will make sense.
the diafioXiirti is contrasted with the The TOV Trarpos of the MS. is doubtless
and \f/vîKrj, as a third due to the preceding e/c TOV Trarpos.
&i,a/3o\ov elprjaOa). Trd\iv et? TO TAC eniByMiAC TOY

YMOON GeAere TTOIGMM StcKTreXXerat, \eywv Tov Sid{3o\ov
5 ex eiv aXX* tiriOvpla?. KOI epfyaiveTai avTodev
OeXrj/jLa,
TO aoiavorjTOv TOV \6yoV 6e\eiv yap TO, Trovrjpd Tra? av rt?
o/j,o\oyijcrai e/ceivov. avvdêi^ Se /cal auro?, el fcal eVt TOV

TrapovTO? ev 7rpo%eipw ov/c eô/êv TrapaOeo-Oai, el TTOV ev
<ypct(f)fj
TO 6e\eiv eiii TOV 8ia/36\ov rera/crat. Mera
(f)7j(7iv
o
Hpa/c\ea)v c9 apa TavTa eiprjTai, ov Trpos TOI)?
TOV &La/36\ov inoi)? TOI)? ôt/cou?, d\\d
xiKovs, decrei viovs oia/36\ov ryt,vopevov<
wv Trj <f>vaei SvvavTai
KOI decrei viol Beov
rtz/e?
lâTicraL /cal <fnj<ri ye OTL Hapd TO tfyaTrrjKevat- TAC
15 eniGyMi'AC TOV 8ia/36\ov /cal noie?N re/cz/a ovrot TOV
Siaf36\ov ylvovTai, ov (fivaet, TOIOVTOI ovTes. /cal Bta-
crreXXeTat cw? apa Tpt^co? Set d/coveiv r^9 KaTa Te/cva
ovo/j,acrias, TrpwTOV cfrvcrei,, SevTepov yv(0fj,r},
ala. /cal (j)vo~ei fiev, cfrrjcrlv, e<7Tt TO yevvrjOev VTTO
loyevvijTov, o /cal /cvplax; Te/cvov Ka\elTai' yvtopr) Se,
OT6 TO 6e\r)iJLd Tt? TTOLWV TIVOS Sid TTJV eavTov yva)fj,r)v,
Te/cvov e/celvov ov rroiel TO Qe\r)/jba /ca\eiTai,' dla
8e /caff o \eyovTai Tives reeNNHC Te'/cva /cal CT/COTOV? Cf. Mt.
* * *
ir^
111 '
/cal dvofjbias, /cal ocfreayv /cal eyiANcaN reNNHMATA' ov '
35 ydp yevva, (fnj&t, TavTa Tivd Ty eavTwv fyvcrei,' <f>6opo-

Troia ydp dva\icrKOVTa TOU? e/jufi^rjOevTas et?
/cal
avTa, aXX' eVet etrpagav Ta eiceivtov epya Te/cva av-

TWV elprjTai,. TOiavTTjv Be $i,ao~TO\r)v Seftco/cdbs ovSe /caff
OTTOCTOV a7ro TOOV ypafywv Trape/jLvOrjcraTO Trjv ISlav $iijyr)o~iv.

30 eiTroi/iiev 8' dv Trpos avTov, OTI el /JLTJ (frvcrei,
aXX* dgla reeN-
NHC Te/cva ovofjLaêTai /cal CTKOTOVS /cal dvofj,ias, (j)0opo-
2, 3 rov 8ta(36\ov] TOV TTCIT/JOS. 6 ddiavorjTOv] diavoijTov. 8

(at videtur). 23 Xfyoj/rcu] Xêrai. 28, 29 KO.& OTTOO-QV] /card
TO iroffov. 30 d^^t] d^/as.
aSiavoyTov] This necessary cor-

6. 25.raura Tiva] raCra of course is
rection of his exemplar was made by subject, ru/d object. Of. below ovx
the scribe of Cod. Venetus. Cod. on yevvg. TLVO.S 6 5tdj8o\os. The in-
Eegius retains the mistake. sertion of roiaura (Cod. Venetus after

23. Here again the scribe
X^yovrcu] raura) is not necessary, though per-
of Cod. Ven. has made a necessary haps it simplifies the sentence.
alteration.
72
d yap ravra Kal dva\io~KQVTa â\\ov fJTrep CTVVL-

Eph. ii. 3. ardvTa, TTCO? o IlaOXo? tyycri TTOV TO "HiweGA 4>ycei TGKNA o'prfic
d)C KA'I oi Aoinoi' ; r) \eyeTWo~av rj/j,lv co? ov/c ecmv dvaXwrucbv
teal /naXicrra KCUT avTov <f>6opo7roi,bv 77 opyrj, 779 TEKNIA HMG- 35
9<N. Trakiv (frrjalv

on Teicva rov Sia{36\ov vvv \e<yei
rivas o SâySoXo?, aXX' on
6n
f
Touroi>9, ov% ryevva

ra epya rov Sia/36\ov Troiovvres w/jLOiwO'rjcrav avrw.
TrocTft) Se /3e\,Ti,ov Trepl TTavTtov TWV Tov $ia(3o\ov re/cvcov
Jo.viii.41. rovro cuTro<f>aiveo'dai ) 009 ofjboiovêvwv
avra) rc3 TToie?N TA eppA 40
Y, fcal ov Sid rrjv over lav /cal rrjv tcaracrKevrjv
retcvcov
32, 33 ffwiaTtivTa] avviff* ra (sic). 35 TJ o/ryrj ^s] rj o/r/7/s.
47. Ibid. xx. 22 (R. IV. 345 ;

L. II.
264).
f
Jo.viii.44. H//,e?9 /AW ovv rov 'EN TH AAnOeiA oyK ecTHKeN d/covofiev
ToiavTrjv efJLffxilvovTos, ov$e TO dfivvaTov Trepl
<f)vo~tv
TOV eo-Trj/cevcu CLVTOV ev d\r)0eia Trapio-TavTes. 6 Be *Hpa-
K\ecov et9 raura <f)rjo-i
TO Ov yap eic Trjs d\ir]0eia<; rj fyvcris
eo-Tlv avTov, aXX' e/c TOV evavTiov TTJ d\<r]6eia, e/c 5
7T\dvr)<; Kal dyvoias. Sio, (frrjo-lv, OVT o~Tr)vai, ev d\r)-

Oela oi/re aêlv ev avT(p d\rjOeiav BvvaTai, e/c
avTov 0ucr6ft)9 VSiov eâtv TO i/rei)So9, ^VCTIK&S
Bvvdfjiv6<; TTore d\ij0iav eiTrelv. \eyei 8' ort Ov
i|r6VO"T779 eo~Tlv, aXXa
avTov, 18 las teal 6 TraTrjp 10
avTov eK\afj,j3dva>v Trjv (pvo~iv avTov, eTreiTrep

e/c 7r\dvri<; Kal tyevcr paro? o-vveo~Ttj. TavTa Be o\a
pveTai, TOV Bidj3o\ov TravTO? tyoyov fcal ey/cXtrffjia
yap euXo7&)9 dv ^reâi rj eyKa\eo~at
TO) fJbrj Tre^VKOTt irpo? ra KpeiTTOva. arf^^ ovv 15
fjid\\ov rj tyeKTos 6 Smy8oXo9 KaTa TOV 'Hpa/eXeaW e&Tiv.
2 ovSe] oijre. 14, 15 /i^âtro] yw^âtre rd. 16 ê/cros] \f/evKros
(at videtur).
35. i] opyij ?]s] This emendation teration of the MS. reading.

satisfiesthe requirement of the con- 41. Acaraa/ceuV] Cf. Frag. 33.
text best, while it involves least al-
48. Ibid. xx. 30 (R. iv. 359 ;

L. n. 290).
f
O ye 'HpanXewv TO "EcTiN 6 ZHTOON KA'I KPINOON
/jbevTOi,
Jo. viii. 50.
OVK dvafyepei ejrl TOV Trarepa, roiavra \eycov' '0 ZHTOON KA)
KPI'NOON ecrrlv 6 e/cbi/cwv yite, 6 vTr^perTj^ 6 els TOVTO
TeTayfj,6vo$, 6 MH GIKH THN MA)(AipAN (f>opooN, 6 IKAIKOC Horn, xiii.
5 TOV Mo>cr?79 Se eariv OVTOS, /caOd irpoei-

/3acrfcXe&)9.
prj/cev avrois \e<yc0v Eic

ON yMeic HAni'cAje. elr eiri- Jo. v. 45.
(f)epei
on '0 KPI'NOON KOI K0\awv earl M.coarjs, rov-
Tecmv aura? 6 vofjLoOerrjs. KOI fjuera rovro Trpos eavrov
eTraTropet 6 'Hpa/cXeo)^ \eya>V IIco? ovv ov \eyei, THN
10
Kpi'ciN TTACAN TrapaSeBo a Oca avTu>; KOL vofjil^cov \vet,v
rrjv dvOv7ro(j)opdv ravrd (^rjoT KaXcS? \e<yei, 6 ydp

to? vTnjperrj^ TO Be\rj/jLa TOVTOV TTOLWV icplvei,
Kal 7rl TOJV dv6 ptoTTutv fyalveTdi <yiv6fjuevov.
d\\a) Twl dvaTiOrjo-i, TT)V vTroSeecrTepw TOV
Kpiaiv co?
15 tcatf o vojjuLêi, Tc3 Arj/juiovpya), ov& OVTO) aTroSetfat
cra^>o)9 yeypa/jL/juevov TOV OyAe r^P

o TT<vmp Kpi'Nei oyAeNA AAAA Jo. v. 22.
'
THN KplCIN nACAN AeAOOKE T(|> Y'^/ K dl TOV ElOYCIAN eAOOKEN Jo. V. 27.
KplCIN TTOie?N, OTI yiOC AN9pOC>nOY 6CTIN.
5 oSros] ourws.
49. CLEM. ALEX. Eclog. Prophet. 25, p. 995 (ed. Potter).
f
O 1o>ai^9 (jyrjalp or^'Efoc) MEN BAHTI'ZOO, Cf. Mt. iii.
'
Ae MOY dnfcco 6 BAnTi'zoaN YMAC IN KAI nypi. Trvpl 8e LC jj^

e
ovSeva e/BaTTTKrev. evioi Se, <W9 <f>rj<nv
WTO, TWV (7(f)payt%o/jieva)v /caTecrrj/AijvavTO, ourft)9 d/covcravTe*;
5 TO CbTfOGToKlKOV.
4 KO.TO"r)/j,rivavTo]
48. 6. No
authority for
^\7rfo-are] indeed, we may see a reference to
the aorist in the text of S. John is this identification in the words avrbs
quoted by Tischendorf.
T$ Arifjuovpyy] Apparently He-
15. 49. 1. It isnot easy to determine
racleon must have spoken of Moses how much of Heracleon is 'embodied
as a type of the Demiurge. Origen in this section of Clement. It seems
has refuted more of Heracleon's com- however probable that we should only
ments, than he has quoted: unless, assume a reference to a practice
50. CLEM. ALEX. Strom, iv. 9, p. 595 (ed. Potter).
Cf. Lc. xii. e^yov/juevo^ TOV TOTTOV ^pa/cXecov, 6 rrjs Ova\ev-

811.
TIVOV crôX,^? SoKL/jLcoTdTos, /card \eîv (frrjcriv 'O /A0\oy Lav
elvai Trjv fiev ev Trj irLcnei ical TroXtreta, rrjv Be ev
<f>a)vfj. 77 fjuev ovv ev <f>a)vfj 6/JLO\oyia /cal eTrl TWV eov-
criaiv yiveTai, rjv fjuovrjv, (frrjo-lv, 6fJLO\oyiav rjyovvTai, 5
elvai ol TroXXot, ov% vtyiws. Svvavrai Be TavTtjv TTJV

6/jLo\oylav real ol vTrotcpiral ofji>o\o<yelv. aXX' 01)8'
ev pedrjcrerai ovro? o \6yos /ca6o\i,/c(t)<> elpfjêvo^' ov

yap Trdvres ol crcoô/jievoi, w/jioXoyrjcrav rrjv Bio,
6jj,o\oylav ical e%rj\6ov, e^ wv Mar0cuo9, t- 10
, coyLta?, Aeul? /cal a\\ot, TTO\\OL ical E
rj Std TTJS (frcovrjs 6fjiO\oy[,a ov tca0o\t,tcr), d\\d

Ka0o\t,Kr) vvv \eyei, rr/z/ ev epyois ical
Se, r}v
/cara\X>;Xot9 T^9 et9 avrov Trio-Tews. CTrerat Se

Trj 6fjuo\oyla /cal r} fj,ept/cr) rj eTrl TWV eôvcnwv, edv Bey 15
/cal 6 Xoiyo? alpy. 6/Jio\o<yrjcrei yap OVTOS /cal Trj (pcovfj,

Trpoofjio\oyrio-as irpoTepov Trj Bia6eo-ei,. /cal
l TWV 6/jLo\oyovvTa)v, 'N eMo'i elrrev, eTrl Be
1 TOTTOv] TpOTTOV.
mentioned by Heracleon. If not, the overlooked the fact that a confession

sentence which immediately follows which involves the penalty of death
in the Eclogae must be his citation is a sufficient test of sincerity. The
of a divergent version of Matt. iii. 10. history of North Africa however may
On the whole however seems more it possibly justify Heracleon's opinion.
natural to refer it to Clement him- It may be well to state that we
self, as also the remainder of the have no evidence, besides that con-
section, though it might possibly be tained in the words TOVTOV e-r)yov/j.evos
regarded as containing Heracleonic whether Heracleon
rbv rbirov, as to
doctrine. We can hardly therefore wrote a Commentary on S. Luke.
quote the continuation of this passage The MS. reading rpdirov is interesting,
as proof that Heracleon read 5ia- but, as in Clement a long quotation
immediately precedes the words, it
For the text of Fragments 49 and must be merely a scribe's error for
50 I have collated the Florence MS. rbirov.
of Clement's Stromateis and Eclogae, 11. For the early distinction

Aeuts]
and noted its variants in the digest. of Levi from Matthew, cf. Origen c.
50. 1. Clement, after quoting this Celsum i. 62, unless indeed the
passage, expresses his approval of it, reading mentioned there by Origen
only remarking that Heracleon has is a variant for QaSSouov (Me. iii. 18).
rwv dpvovuevatv, TO 'E/we TrpocreOrj/cev. ovroi jap KCLV

rr) (f)0)vf) avrov, apvovvrat, avrov rfj
6fjio\oyijo'c0o'iv
Trpdgei arj 6/j,o\oyovvres. uovot, 8' ev avru> 6uo\o-
yovcriv ol ev rfj /car* avrov 6/uio\oyla real rcpdêi
fiiovvres, ev ot? /cal avros 6/jio\oyel evei\rj jjbfLevos
KOI e^6fjievo<; VTTO TOVTWV. SioTrep ApNHCAC0Ai 2 Tim. ii.
25 EAYTON ovSeTTore AY'NATAI' dpvovvrat, Se avrov ol

ev avTa>. ov yap elirev *0c ApNHceiAi ev e
EMe. ouSet? V a P Tore wv ev avrw dpvelrai
avrov. TO Se "EMnpocGeN TOON AN0poc>ncoN, /cal roov cro)-
ôuevcov /cal rcov eOvi/cwv Se o//-oift)9, irap ol? aev teal

30 rfj rro\ireia, rrap* ot? be /cal ry (jxovfj. Sioirep ApNH-
CAcOAi avrov ovberrore Svvavrai, dpvovvrai Be avrov
r
ol fjirj
ovres ev avra). Tavra /Jiev 6 lt{paK\e(0v.
24 aurois]
'
51. PHOTIUS Ep. 134 (ed. Rich.Montacutius),
irpcoroo-Tradapiy ical
Trpcorovorapia) ro e7rl/c\r)v Xpucro-
fcepy (Ep. CO, ed. Baletta).
uSe yap e<f) v/Spei /cal 8iaj3o\fj rov vopov ro 'H

Ae KAI AAnGeiA Ai' MHCOY Xpicroy ereNeio rot? evayye\Ltcoi<;
Oecr/jLois rrept,r)piJioo~ev. ^pa/cXewv yap dv oureo? elrroi, /cal
ol
51. 1. I have given the full title, interesting, as extreme

antagonism to
as irpwToa-Tradaptos is not sufficiently the law does not seem to have been
distinctive as a description of the characteristic of him (see Frag. 20).
recipient of an Epistle from Photius. Perhaps his followers may have de-
The same letter is also found in his yeloped this line of Gnosticism more
Amphilochia, 246. than their master.
3. This reference to Heracleon is
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
A. HERACLEON AND VALENTINUS.
The extant Fragments of Valentinus offer some points of comparison with those
of Heracleon, especially with regard to language and terminology, which can be
most conveniently discussed in an Additional Note. I follow the order in which these
Fragments are given in Hilgenfeld's collection (Ketzergeschichte, p. 293), and have
adopted his text where I quote from them. I have also given references to the
pages of Potter's edition of Clement of Alexandria.

1. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 8, p. 448. Valentinus is speaking of the terror
which came upon the Angels (of the Demiurge) at the utterances of the man whom
they had created (tKelvov rod TrXaV/âros). These were due to Him who had placed
in manthe seed of the higher essence (5ta rbv dopdrws tv avry ffirtp[j.a 5e5w/c6ra rrjs
avudev oua-i'as). Compare Heracleon's explanation of the 'forty and six years'
(Frag. 16), TT\V ti\r]i> rovrfori rb 7rXacr ua...T6 Iv r
) e/x^wTûcm 0-rrtp/j.a. Heracleon
has retained the terminology of his master. With the Angels compare Frag. 36, oi
TTJS o'iKOvofjiias cfyyeXot, di <Lv ws /u.eorrwj' effirdpr) /cat dverpd^f). Valentinus goes on to
speak of an "Avdpwiros in whose name Adam was formed ; this may perhaps throw
some light on the important position assigned to "Avdpuwos in Heracleon's account
of the two rov dv6punrov (Frag. 35).
viol
2. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 20, p. 488. The expulsion

every evil spirit from
of ' '
the heart of man reminds us of Heracleon's interpretation of the words '0 ^Xos rov
ot/cou (rov KaraQdyerat /AC as being spoken e/c Trpovunrov T&V KJ$\'r)6vT(av Kal d
TWV virb TOV 2o>T77pos dwd/j-ewv (Frag. 14) and with the words evvftpiô
:
compare Heracleon's description of the former life of the Samaritan woman,

Kal dOeTovfj.&r) Kal eyKaTaXenrofj^vf) (Frag. 18). On TroXXwv daipdvuv
oiKf)T'ripioi> see the note on Frag. 20 (p. 77).

3. Clem. Alex. Strom, in. 7, p. 538. The Docetism of this Fragment should be
compared with Heracleon's teaching on the /SpcDjwa Uiov of the Lord (Frag. 31), and
the healing of the Ruler's son (Frag. 40) but the question of Heracleon's Docetism
;
has been discussed in the Introduction (p. 46).

4. Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 13, p. 603. With fw?) cu'wnos and the victory of its
children over compare Frag. 17 cu'wjuos 7<ip i] fw?) avrov Kal /^S^rore (f>0ipo*
<f>dopd,
/j.tvr]. The distinction between KOCT/J.OS and /crtVis in the last sentence of Valentinus,
orav yap rbv fttv K6<r/J.ov X^re, avrol 5e /u^ KaTa\vr)<rde, Kvpievere TTJS /cr/<rews Kal rijs
explained by Frag. 20, where Heracleon speaks of the /c60>tos as the

<f>6opds d-jrdffris, is
world of the Devil, and connects xriVts with the /CT/O-TTJS or Demiurge, whom the
Jews worshipped.
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 105
5. Clem. Alex. ibid. As this is themost important Fragment of Valentinus
in the present connexion, it may be well to quote his words in full.

eXaTTUV y etKW TOV WVTOS wpoffuTrov, TOVOVTOV Tjeffw 6 007*05 TOV
rls ovv atria TT)S ek6pos; iteydKuavvy TOV TT/XXTWTTOU irapeo~xr)P-tvov r
rbv TVTTOV, ti>a rifjt.r)dy 6Y 6t>6fj.aTos avTov. ov yap avOevTiKtSs evptdr) fJ.op<f>ri,
d\\d TO
8vo/j.a etrX-fjpwffev TO vffTeprjcrav iv 7rXa<rei. ffvvepyei d Kai TO TOU 6eov dopaTov ets tri<JTLv
TOV TreTT\a<jfj.vov.
Here 6 *6o-,uos is used in its wider sense. The meaning of the Fragment must
be that as the likeness the living person, so is the world (created
is inferior to
by the Demiurge) less than the living Aeon. The greatness of the archetype is the
cause of the copy and the name of the archetype supplies what is deficient
' '
in the copy. The use of atw, contrasted with /coV/ios, recalls Heracleon's usage of
the word, as equivalent to the Pleroma, or more generally, the spiritual sphere see ;
Fragg. 1, 18 and 22. Compare especially the phrases in 22, 6 ev al&vi Kai ol <rvv avr$>
e\66vTs and tire'urep dicoves OVTOI (sc. 01 'lovdaioi) TUV ev T< 7rX7;/)c6/xaTi airr< elvai
The terminology which Clement uses in his explanation of this Fragment of

Valentinus is of more importance. His interpretation of it appears to be as follows ;
17 ecKuv = the
Demiurge, Sophia's TrXdoyxa created to give glory to the Father TO $uv :
n-fXHTuirov the Father, the True God: fwypa0os = Sophia. [As the Demiurge is
inferior to the Father, so is the Kofffios to the living Aeon.] The Demiurge is an
dKuv the Father) as being dirb cj/6s, the production of Sophia.
(of The offspring of
a <rvvyia are not etVcoVes but Tr\ijpufj(.aTa (cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 32). The next
sentence is hardly But the words TO e^vey/ma TOV diaiptpovTos TrvevpaTos,
intelligible.
rj IK /xeo-oTT/Tos ^x^j an^ ep.irvelTo.L Ty \fsvxfj, shew great similarity of substance
with the teaching of Frag. 16 ; and the use of ir\ripwâ immediately recalls Hera-
cleon's use of it to represent the husband' of the Samaritan woman (Frag. 18).
'
It
is impossible to tell whether Clement has made use of the writings of Valentinus in
his explanation of that part of them which he quotes, and apparently misunder-
stands. But if it is so, some of Heracleon's most peculiar terminology was derived
from his master.
6. Clem. Alex. Strom, Beyond the implied restriction of eKK\rj-
vi. 6, p. 767. ij
<ria to the TrvevpaTiKol (cf. Frag. 25 etc.) this Fragment offers no further points
for comparison, and the same is the case with the remaining Fragments of
Valentinus.
Thus a detailed comparison of the language used by Heracleon and Valentinus
reveals linguistic affinities which thoroughly agree with the supposition adopted in
the Introduction (p. 38) that Heracleon did not materially alter the system of
Valentinus.
B. THE EXCERPTA EX THEODOTO. i
When was in Florence last December (1890), I made use of the opportunity to
I
collate the two Fragments of Heracleon which are contained in the Stromateis and
Eclogae Propheticae of Clement, and also the whole of the Excerpta ex Theodoto.
As I have had occasion to quote the Excerpta frequently in my notes I have thought
it worth while to append in an additional note the few variants which Dindorf has
106 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
not noticed in his digest. But he has either adopted in his text or noticed prac-
tically all the variants from Migne's text which are of any value.
Dindorf, vol. in. p. 425 1. 15 /j,era TTJV A rrjs ins. e/c intra lin.
426 1. 10 TOU rois
429 1. 11 (sic)
434 1. 3 OuaXe'T4J'taj'o4 OuaXevTiviavov
436 1. 8 oparai bpare
441 1. 19 ? corr.
445 1. 22
450 1. 30
452 1. 20 ecrri <T eras.
453 1. 13 TO
453 1. 14 6X4701;
C. ON THE TEXT OF FRAGMENT 24.
To judge from
the conjectural emendations which have been suggested, the text
of the latter part of this fragment offers a problem of great difficulty. The attested
text of the sentence beginning 'AXX' oi>x bpw<riv is as follows :
'AXX' ovx bp&ffiv (12) 6Y4 iravrbs (13) KO.I r(av
important to start from this, as all conjectural restorations seem to have

It is
been based upon the words r&v evavriw, which have no manuscript authority
whatever, and are only a guess of the "emendator" in the margin of the Bodleian,
who introduces his suggestions with the word iVws, and is certainly later than
the other emendator, who
uses the word Tdâ.
Origen's argument seems to be as follows. Is it not d<re/3es to call the spiritual
worshippers, whom Heracleon has just called adulterers (in that he has just said
that the Samaritan woman Tn/eu/Acm/c^s 0tfo-ews ofrra has committed adultery), b
ffioiwith God? Heracleon and his followers do not see that, etc. But if the
T4KT/ 0i}(rts being 6/j.ooti<rios with God could commit adultery, impious deductions
follow from their argument concerning God. The impious deduction
clearly is
something equivalent to SVxeTcu 6 0ebs rb iropvevvcu. Origen refutes the position of

Heracleon, that God and the TrvevâriKol are o/xoo&not by a reductio ad absurdum
through two syllogisms :
(1) major,
minor. God and the TrvevnariKr] 0uo*i$ are o/j-oovaia :
God and the wv. (ptitns are ruv avrwv

(2) major. God and the TTV. <pvais are r<2v avrwv
minor. The TTV. 0i/cr4S e6VciTo TO iropvevcrai :
God ^x eTCU T iropvevo-ai: (for if the irv. <f>v<r. cSâro, then it is
of that which it e6VctTo).
This seems to be the argument, though of course

strict it is stated more con-
cisely in Origen, some of the terms being suppressed.
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 107
The only major which will suit the 1st syllogism seems to be rd o/xoorftrta
a.vT(av deKTiKa. would therefore propose to read, ttav rb 6pooti <nov Kal TUV avrwv
I
This preserves the TWV avruv which is attested by all the MSS. r(av tva.v- ,
having, as was noticed before, no MS. authority.

Ferrarius gave up the sentence as hopeless, and does not translate it (see Huet's
edition Delarue has here apparently introduced his own translation into that of
:
Ferrarius). His (?) translation of the following words (el 5 e5âTo...0eou) 'Quod si
[Heracleon ac sui sequaces] admiseriut spiritualem naturam quae sit eiusdem essen-
tiae [cum divina undequaque beata natura ut ipsi tradunt] meretricari, profana
et
et impia et irreligiosa sequuntur rationem ipsorum,' gives the sense of the sentence,
but can hardly be intended for a literal translation. Thus no help is to be got
from him. Delarue's note may be quoted as an example (perhaps not a fair one,
as it is worse than most) of the treatment which the text has received at his
hands :
"Codd. Bodl. et Barb. tKireiropvevKtvaL. Kegius TrewopvevKevai. Mox Codex Bod-

leianus habet "'AXX' oi>x bpuaiv oi TO.VTO. \tyovres, STL Travrbs TU>V ivavrluv Kal TUIV
O.VTUIV deKTiKbv. Et 5e eS&jaro rb iropvevaai i] Trvev/jLaTiKr] 0tf<rts, b[J.oov<rios otiffa rrj dyev-
vrjTy dvoffta &c. sicque sanitati omnia restituuntur. Modo pro Kal r(av avruv legas
Kal TO ai)ro."
Codex Kegius reads eKireiropvevKtvai. All the marginal suggestions of the
Bodleian MS. are set down as if they occurred in its original text.
How 'omnia sanitati restituuntur' by reading rb atrb for TUV a$Tuv I cannot
see. God and the Trveu/cum/crj 0i50-is would hardly even by the impious Heracleon
be called TO aur6. The point is not that rb avrb is SeKTiKoi> TWV evavriwv. The only
, deduction from this and the following sentence would be that God being (?) identical
with the in>ev/j.aTiKri 0i;o-is is capable of contrary things to what it is capable of, i.e.
I suppose rb ^
wopvevffai, which deduction is not av6<uov. The point is rather
that God and the irv. 0i/<rts, being 6/jt.oo6<ria, are TUV avTuv deKTiKa. Sense can be
extracted from Grabe's conjecture, adopted by Hilgenfeld, 6'rt iravTos KO\OV TO
TTj/eO/wa Kal The argument would then be I suppose some-

TUV ivavriwv ov SCKTIKOV.
what as follows. T6 irvevâ. is not SexTiKbv of good and evil at the same time.
The iri>evfj.aTiKr <f>v<ns edâro rb KO.KOV therefore it cannot dtxwQa-t- TO Ko.\6v and
l : :
therefore God, being oôo&rios with it, is not SOCTIKOS TOV /caXou, and is therefore
5eKTt/cds TUV evavTiuv i.e. of evil. But the objections to it are insuperable: (a) It
makes Origen guilty of unparalleled obscurity. (/3)
It has no support whatever
from the MSS. ( /) It is based on the unfortunate conjecture TUV evavTluv, (5) It
would require TOV tvavTiov. (e) It makes r6 irvfvfjia = ri
INDEX OF PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED, EX-
PLAINED, OR REFERRED TO BY HERACLEON.
The figures refer to the number of the page. Square brackets have been used
where the reference is doubtful.
Gen. vi. 2 93 Jo. iv. 16 73f.

[Ps. xix. (xviii.) 5 79] 17 74
Ps. Ixix. (Ixviii.) 10 69 18 f 75
Is. i. 2, 4 93 20 f 76
v. 1, 2 93 22 78 f.
[xxv. 8 92] 23 80
[Jer. vii. 11 69] 24 79,81
[Ezek. xxxiv. 16 80] 2527 82
[Mt. iii. 11 101] 2831 83
Mt. viii. 12 93 32-34 84
ix. 37 86 35 86
x. 28 92 36 87 f.
xi. 11 58 37 88
xxi. 13 69 38f 89
xxiii. 15, 33 99 40 90
xxv. 1 84 42 91
[Lc. iii. 16 101] 46 91
Lc. vii. 26 65 4749 92
28..... ,58 5053 93
xii. 8 11 102 54 92
xix. 10 80 v. 45 101
Jo. i. 3 50, 80 viii. 12 ff 95 f.
4 53 21 f 95 f.
18 55 37 f 97
20 56 43 97
21 56, 58 44 97,98, 100
23 56 47 97
25 61 50 101
26 f. 62 f. Eom. i. 25 79
28 f 65 [v. 15 72]
ii. 12 f. 66 f. vi. 21 , 92
14f. 68 f. xiii.4 101
17 69 1 Cor. x. 5 79
19f 70f. xv. 53 f 92
iv. 11 84 Gal. iii. 19 89
14 72 f. 2Tim.ii. 13 103
15. ..73 Heb. ix. 7.. ..68
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS IN THE FRAGMENTS
OF HERACLEON.
The figures refer to the number and line of the Fragments.
'Appaa.fi 44, 9 19, 9
T] rats, rj 40, 48 a 30, 5

21, 27 ; 35, 17 ;
oi T-^J oticoô/xtas 17, 27 ; 40, 11
dyy. 36, 7 ;
01 0177. rou Ayfuovpyov 40, a 46, 19
37 d6paros 24, 2
', ets <f>tt)TiafJi.bt>
/c.r.X. 2, 8 aTraXXdrreiJ' 19, 23
cfyia r&v dytwv 13, 7 41, 4
d7J>oeti> 18, 9 32, 8 ; 33, 6
Ayvoia 19, 13 ; 40, 10 ; 41, 3 ; 47, 6 34, 4

dSiaKpcros 17, 30 diro\\vj><u 23, 5
adavaffia 40, 19 d7rp6(T7rXo/cos 16, 9
40, 14 d7rc6Xa 23, 13 ; 40, 52
40, 22 a/ryws 11, 3
ow 1, 6 ; 18, 21 ; 22, 2 ; 23, 14 ; 38, 3 dpiMs 16, 7
cu'cîos 17, 16 ; 34, 7 ; 42, 6 dpvi<r6ai 50, 19
d/c>c.cuos 32, 7 tfs 13, 8
dXX6rptos 40, 56 lv 40, 9

clXXus 19, 15 ^vt] 19, 10
dyaa^Tâ 40, 10 ; 41, 4 10, 7
d/zaprte 10, 4 ; 40, 26 etc. droi'os 17, 2

fiv 19, 13 &T/3000S 17, 43
s 10, 3 dru^â 40, 29
13, 4 d(f>a.vit;eii> 13, 29
tivai 2, 9 dêcris 40, 33
dvcupe> 12, 3 ; 40, 25 d<t>dap<ria 40, 18 ; 41, 4
18, 7 24, 2
17, 19 ; 46, 26
dvdXow 14, 3 /3a0i5s 23, 5 ; 30, 5
di>aira.ti<r0ai 34, 5 /3a7rrt(7T^s 3, 7 ; 8, 27
dm7rai;o-ts 12, 3 ; 31, 5 ; 32, 9 ; 33, 6 ; j3a<riXi/c6s 40, 1
42,5 9, 5
15, 5 13, 6 ; 40, 28

ri 27, 21 f3pG)(j.a 31, 4
36, 8
43, 3 40, 11
dvr)\ovv 13, 28 12, 6 ; 38, 3

dVoSos 13, 2 40, 16 ; 46, 23
dj/oketosll, 6; 40,40 7<?j>e<ns 1,
24 ; 2, 6 .
dvofj.ia 46, 31 yevvav 46, 25

110 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
32, 3 ; 46, 24 eTri8y/j.la. 40, 45

43, 4 ; 46, 18 la 46, 5
17, 7
13, 32 rfeti' 8, 31
1, 24 ; 8, 37 ; 20, 16 ; 22, 18 ;
fTrlfJI.OX00S 17, 42
40, 38 32, 11
t</3o\os 20, 7 44, 4 ; ; 45, 2 ; 46, 3 25, 3
5ta0eo-ts 27, 2 ; 50, 17
38, 6
dtaKpiveiv 17, 31 eVtT7?5e?os 32, 7 ; 33, 5
diavoeiv 5, 7 ; 30, 3 t'ws 40, 17
17, 38 e'ii' 17, 27
42, 9 5, 7 ; 20, 9
567/ia 40, 13 40, 43
56a 17, 3 11, 4
SoDXos 5, 32 40, 37
;
32, 7 ; 36, 13
Stvaius 13, 21; 14, 3; 17, 14; 18, 6; 27, 16
27, 2 ; 31, 5 elv 22, 6
dva-jr6pi<rTos 17, 42 e#7rt(rro5 40, 35
Vpl<TKlV 13, 11
18, 27 19, 1
Wvuth 20, 11 21, 11 ; 50, 29 ; 'a 46, 24
clK& 13, 3 16, 6 ; 22, 9
;
et'Xi/c/Hi'ws 40, 44 14, 1
tKpa\\etv 14, 2 a/ 40, 33
^jSXjJfew 17, 27
e/c5iKe?j> 48, 3 'HX/as 4, 8 ; 5, 39
ZicSiKos 48, 4 5, 81 40, 54 ;
13, 33
8
eKK\T](Ti<x. ; 15, 5 ; 25, 2 ; 37, 3 5,
36, 13
0dXa<r<ra 40, 8
i7 37, 5
etX-wa 31, 4 ; 46, 5
24, 14
12 Oeoaepeia 24, 10
eKiropveteiv 19, ; 24, 15
depifriv 34, 4 ; 35, 5 36, 10
13, 22
;
37 0epLfffj.6s 32, 3 ; 33, 5

8,
34, 2 35, 16
21, 23
;
46, 12
46, 26
17, 5
16, 9
evdelKW<r6ai 17, 30
0tfr0ai 10, 11 ; 12, 4
0v<rla 13, 18
40, 18
las 50, 11
5, 52
evtpyeia. 13, 22
'Iajc(6j8 17, 5
eu' 1, 35 ; 35, 11
te/)6v 13, 8
us 32, 5 ; 38, 3 '
Iepoff6\vfj.a 13, 1 ; 20, 11

37, 6 '
I epoucr 01X77/1, 13, 3

27, 2
'Iou5a/a 22, 5 ; 40, 12
10, 9
louScuot 20, 12 ; 21, 11 ; 22, 8 ; 42, 3
vrvyxfl- veLV ^9, 6
4, 7 ; 5, 7 ; 7,5; 8, 36 ; 10, 3
18, 7
i, i] (jLeyahi) 12, 1 24, 2
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. Ill
-a0oXi/c6s 40, 5 ; 50, 12 ^ 2, 7
Kado\iKu>s 50, 8 /i6/)0a;<ns, irpurri 2, 6

K a K la 13, 30 ; 18, 24 ; 20, 9 48, 5
Karapaiveus 11, 3 ; 40, 31

/caraXetTretj' 27, 3 16, 6
17, 30 ; 50, 14 40, 20

iv 5, 79 ; 13, 31 ; 16, 5 eij/ 1, 35 ; 8, 36 ; 13, 6 ; 22, 8 ; 35, 17
T) 33, 8 v6(u/J.os 18, 10

Ka.Te\0etv 8, 29 ; 11, 5 40, 50 vo/j-odfrys 48, 8
;
j^t 11, 4 ; 40, 6 v6fjios 20, 10 ; 40, 25

13, 16 >6<ros 40, 32
Kep/j.a.Ti<rTri$ 13, 14
/cX^cris 13, 5 ; 27, 16 13, 16
Kowbrepov 5, 70 13, 26
iv 48, 7
36, 6 39, 5
Kbiros (?) 36, 9 5, 27 ; 23, 6 ; 40, 49
/coo-Au/c6s 17, 4 ; 18, 8 ; 27, 21 40, 21
/c60y*os 1, 3 ; 8, 2 ; 11, 5 ; 18, 20 ; 20, 7 ; oiKT)T7]piOV 20, 9
27, 6 ; 31, 9 ; 37, 2 ; 40, 43 oiKovofjda 8, 32 ; 11, 2 ; ot TT?S OIK. &yye\oi

K pi6s 10, 10 36,7
Kptios 36, 10 oiKou/j^vr) 22, 8
KTl<ns 20, 11 ; 22, 19 6(j.o\oyiv 4, 7; 8, 38; 19, 2; 26, 5; 50, 7
20, 11 ; 22, 20 6fji.o\oyla 50, 2
ris 13, 29 wo/xocria 46, 18
46, 20 6>os 20, 6

ovffia 43, 4 ; 44, 7 ; 45, 2 ; 46, 2
Xarpe/a 13, 18 ; 19, 13 ; 24, 10 6V>ts 46, 24
\a,Tpevw 20, 14 ; 21, 24 ; 22, 19

Aevis 50, 11 7ra0os 12, 2 ; 38, 4
Aevlrrjs 13, 10 Travovpyta 6, 10

AeuiriK<5s 5, 63 irapadox'n 33, 7
X<ts 8, 38 Trapa0e<ri$ 10, 8
\Lvov 13, 23 irapovffta 27, 7
\oy iK 6s 24, 10 irepiypatf)-/] (?) 2, 8

s, 6 1, 7; 5, 6 ; 22, 7 ; 33, 8 ; 44, 5 ; 45, 1 irepLffffbrepov 10, 4
Ittrpos 21, 22
fj.aprvpia, av0p(n)Trtvirj 39, 7 TrXavai/ 22, 17
Marflcuos 50, 10 TrXai/r; 22, 16 ; 23, 6; 24, 9 ; 47, 6
/za%cu/)a 48, 4 16, 7
/x<?7e0os 8, 29 13, 11 ; 18, 5 ; 22, 10
50, 12 v 18, 25
'rjs 36, 7 7rj/eu/*a 13, 6 ; 17, 13 ; 24, 8 ; 27, 7 ; r6
40, 7 617. TTV. 13, 22
HTa.pd\\eit>, see 40, 68 irvevna.Ti.K6s 2, 3 ; 15, 4 ; 20, 15 ; 23, 12 ;
5, 30 24, 15; 37, 3

5, 28 7n/eu/iTi/cws 24, 6
34, 3 iroXireta 50, 3
^s 37, 5 iro\iTijf(r0a.i 40, 44

112 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
Tr6\virpay/j,ov?v 5, 61 rerpcts 16, 8

jrovr)p6s 40, 56 Trjfj.e\eTv 36, 12
Troj'TjptDs 42, 2 T6?ros 11, 6 ; 13, 3 ; 17, 39 ;
6 u?rep rov r.
iropeti<r0cu, els <pdopav 42, 10 wds dvdpwTTov 35, 14

TrpeirovTtos 19, 8 rp67ros 40, 39
vp&parov 10, 7 ; 12, 3 ; 13, 13 77* 31, 5
7rp65po/ios 8, 22 12, 2 ; 13, 27
Trp6vaos 13, 9
27, 8 uSpt'a 27, 1
25, 2 CXT; 16, 7; 20, 8; 21, 23; 23, 6; 36, 13;

TTpocrdoKav 26, 4 40, 8
Trpou/ccupos 17, 2 ; 40, 3 11, 5 ; 13, 2 ; 18, 24

Trpocr/caprepeti' 5, 62 rt'a 8, 26
vp6ff<airov 8, 35; 14, 2; 40, 22 48, 12
tfeiJ'
5, 80 vTTopepfjKus 40, 7
4, 8 ; 5, 39 ; 10, 3 ; 19, 3 8,30
7rpo077Tt/c6s, Trp. rais 5, 8 50, 7
viroTt8e(rdai 40, 13
tpeid 26, 7; 28, 2; 31, 8

crap/ajaDs 24, 6 (pavepovv 44, 7
<7ctp 22, 16; <rctpKa Xa/Se?!' 8, 30 4>apt(ratcK 6, 10 ; 7, 5
i/ 13, 24 00apr6s 40, 18
36, 12 <f>6eipetv 17, 16
ovceOos 27, 5 (pdopa 42, 10
a/c6ros 46, 23 00opo7rot6s 46, 25
wj' 16, 4 <f>i\apyvpla 13, 17
Z, 7; 35, 2; 36,8 <J>/Xi7r7ros 50, 10
16, 10; 35, 3; 36, 5 ; 40, 56 <j>payt\\iov 13, 19
<TTavp6s 13, 28 0uX?7 5, 64
<% J f7 r>
crvfyrecv 31, 3 i
0u<rt/cws 47, o
(rv^Tifjffis 31, 10 01^0-ts 17, 31; 19, 8; 23, 12; 24, 2; 33,
atli.po\ov 13, 10 9; 37, 5; 40, 10; 44, 8; 46, 11 ; 47, 4
<rvfji,Trapa\afj,pdviv 20, 17 r/*6s 2, 8
ffV/J.7T\^KI.V 18, 25
20, 18 35, 2
MU 46, 32 35, 12
a 13, 12; 22, 7; 33, 7 ; 34, 4 ; v 5, 42 ; 40, 46
40, 17 13, 23
fav 31, 7 ; 40, 50 ; 50, 9 46, 11
w 13, 18
rafts 5, 8; 40, 48 46, 13
raireivbrepov 30, 3
rAetot 10, 9 47, 8
TeXet6r7;s 35, 12 47, 12
reX^ws 40, 26 47, 10
r^Xos 40, 24 27, 8 ; 32, 6 ; 35, 18 ; 40, 14
TTpafJL'T]VOV 32, 4 13, 3 ; 37, 4 ; 46, 12
CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED RY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

TEXTS AND STUDIES
CONTKIBUTIONS TO
BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE
EDITED BY
J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.

FELLOW or CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE
VOL. I.
THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA
THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH
THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON
CAMBRIDGE
1891
STUDIES
G80 .

Booke. The Fragments of Heracleon. 1891.

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

Booke. The Fragments of Heracleon. 1891.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEXTS AND STUDIES

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.

No. 4. THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO,

gork : MACMILLAN AND CO.

NEWLY EDITED FROM THE MSS.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

[All Rights reserved]

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

TEXT AND NOTES 50-103

ADDITIONAL NOTES 104-107

OFthe extant manuscripts of the Commentaries on S. John,

I. Codex Monacensis. In the Munich State Library, Graec.

leta et laesa atramento flavescente literis minutis et elegantibus

frequenti abbreviatione in folio, if. 305, saec. xni. foliorum ordine

The Commentaries on S. Matthew are in another hand and contain

"Ex electorali Bibliotheca sereniss. utriusque Bavariae Ducum."

32) complectitur Tomos praeter decimum et vigesimum octavum

says, he has copied as he found them.

et? TO Kara MarOaiov KOI KCUT laydvvrjv

ending avOis a^rw^eOa. This preface has nothing to do with

the preface in the Munich Codex concerning the marginal notes in

composition to which he was sometimes reduced in consequence of .

his inability to understand the Greek, which is in some places too

corrupt for conjecture.

"Fuit copiatus per Georgium Triphon ium di

To this we shall have occasion to referwhen we are dealing

In the early parts of the Commentaries on S. Matthew the

183, and the third 182. It contains only the Commentaries on

V. Codex Barberinus I. In the Barberini Library at Rome ;

of the 15th or 16th Century, in the opinion of the Librarian,

about 40 letters in a line. It contains the preface which is found

rofios Tjyxwro?. It is divided into 32 books and is dated at the

After this follows the name of the scribe in cryptograph.

That is to say trapd TewpyLo) ro>

The cryptograph used is the common one in which the scribe

getting 27 letters. These he divides into 3 parts of 9 letters

Matthew, numbered O. 47. It is a folio, written on paper and

The MS. is dated a five, o/crcoftpiov /3'. and signed

VIII. transcription of Codex Bodleianus (IV.) made by

any of its former owners into the possession of the Barberini ? If

Moredirect proofs of copying are not wanting.

by a piece of parchment fastened on over it. Reg. omits the

space for them.

The proof may be completed by two passages from the text of

portant. Most of them are due to ordinary transcriptional

the addition or omission of v e(f>f\Kvo~TiK6v) which occur in the first 30 pages

[M generally has the old form of ft i.e. 'w']

8, 8 tit TIS ft omit

11, 22 TOU nvfVfjLdTos nvev^aTos

221, 4 T) nVlKT) TTVIKT)

22, 1 KaTa\i<f)0fVTas KaTaXfKpdfvros

24, 17 eV$adepaTev/ua f'vOddf

25, 7 (pddvovras (pOdvovra

29, 6 ot 'lov&uot 'lovSatoi

30, 2 Ka0f\f)v as /tad9eXeii/ ay

through the great kindness of the Librarian that I was allowed to

paragraph in the Commentaries, this is in itself almost conclusive

p. 108 (opposite VTTO TOV /cp6iTTovo<;..,7rapa TOV \6jov) opa

following readings, when contrasted with the correspond-

I have designated Codex Monacensis as M, Codex Regius as P,

p. 13, 1. 17 w erov MR.