 |
Zosimus and the anthropos-doctrine
|
|
|
|
ZOSIMUS AND THE ANTHROPOS-DOCTRINE
That, moreover, the Anthrō pos-doctrine, to the spirit of which the whole commentary of our S. exegete is accommodated, was also fundamental with the adherents of the Trismegistic tradition, may be clearly seen from the interesting passage (which we give in the Fragments at the end of the third Volume) of Zosimus, a member of what Reitzenstein calls the Pœ mandres Community, who flourished somewhere at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century A. D. 1
The sources of Zosimus for the Anthrō pos-doctrine, he tells us, are, in addition to the Books of Hermes, certain translations into Greek and Egyptian of books containing traditions (mystery-traditions, presumably) of the Chaldæ ans, Parthians, Medes, and Hebrews on the subject. This statement is of the very first importance for the history of Gnosticism as well as for appreciating certain elements in Trismegisticism. Though the indication of this literature is vague, it nevertheless mentions four factors as involved in the Hebrew tradition; the Gnostic Hebrews, as we should
p. 197
expect, were handing on elements from Chaldæ an, Parthian, and Median traditions. Translations of these books were to be found scattered throughout Egypt, and especially in the great library at Alexandria.
There is, in my opinion, no necessity precisely, with Reitzenstein (p. 106, n. 6), to designate these books the “Ptolemaic Books, ” and so to associate them with a notice found in the apocryphal “Eighth Book of Moses, ” where, together with that of the Archangelic Book of Moses, there is mention of the Fifth Book of the “Ptolemaic Books, ” described as a book of multifarious wisdom under the title “One and All, ” and containing the account of the “Genesis of Fire and Darkness. ” 1
Another source of Zosimus was the Pinax of Bitos or Bitys, of whom we shall treat in considering the information of Jamblichus.
From all of these indications we are assured that there was already in the first centuries B. C. a well-developed Hellenistic doctrine of the descent of man from the Man Above, and of his return to that heavenly state by his mastery of the powers of the cosmos.
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA ON THE MAN-DOCTRINE
This date is further confirmed by the testimony of Philo (c. 30 B. C. -45 A. D. ).
For, quoting the verse: “We are all sons of One Man, ” 2 he addresses those who are “companions of wisdom and knowledge” as those who are “Sons of one and the same Father—no mortal father, but an immortal Sire, the Man of God, who being the Reason (Logos) of the Eternal, is of necessity himself eternal. ” 3
And again, a little further on:
p. 198
“And if a man should not as yet have the good fortune to be worthy to be called Son of God, let him strive manfully to set himself in order 1 according to His First-born Reason (Logos), the Oldest Angel, who is as though it were the Angel-chief of many names; for he is called Dominion, and Name of God, and Reason, and Man-after-His-Likeness, and Seeing Israel.
|
|
|
“And for this reason I was induced a little before to praise the principles of those who say: ‘We are all sons of One Man. ’ For even if we have not yet become fit to be judged Sons of God, we may at any rate be Sons of His Eternal Likeness, His Most Holy Reason (Logos); for Reason, the Eldest of all Angels, is God’s Likeness [or Image]. ” 2
Thus Philo gives us additional proof, if more were needed, for the full Anthrō pos-doctrine was evidently fundamental in his circle—that is to say, in the thought-atmosphere of the Hellenistic theology, or the religio-philosophy, or theosophy, of his day, the beginning of the first century A. D.
This date alone is sufficient for our purpose; but it is not too bold a statement even to say that the Man-Mystery was a fundamental concept of the brilliant period of the Hellenistic syncretism which succeeded to the founding of Alexandria—the period of the expansion of Hellas beyond her national borders; in other words, her birth into the greater world.
It is enough to know that the Mystery was hidden and yet revealed in the shadow-garments of Chaldæ an, Babylonian, Magian, Phœ nician, Hebrew, Egyptian, Phrygian, Thracian, and Greek mystery-traditions. It was, in brief, fundamental in all such wisdom-shows, and necessarily so, for it was the Christ-Mystery.
Footnotes
139: 1 C. H., i, 12.
139: 2 Contra Om. Hæ r., I. xxx.; ed. A. Stieren (Leipzig, 1853), i. 263 ff.
139: 3 Hæ r. Fab., I. xiv.
140: 1 F. F. F., pp. 188 ff.
142: 1 Both ḥ and ch being transliteration devices for the same Hebrew letter ח in the word נ ח ש.
142: 2 We know of the two titles, The Greater and The Lesser Questions of Mary; the general title is thought by some to be the proper designation of one of the sources of the composite document known as Pistis Sophia, and has been suggested as its more appropriate general epigraph.
143: 1 Philos., v. 1-11, of which I published a preliminary translation, under the heading “Selections from the ‘Philosophumena, ’” in The Theosophical Review (August and September 1893), xii. 559-569, xiii. 42-52, and a summary in F. F. F., pp. 198-206.
143: 2 Ed. L. Duncker and F. G. Schneidewin (Gö ttingen, 1859); and ed. P. Cruice (Paris, 1860).
144: 1 The date of the writing of the Philosophumena is placed somewhere about 222 A. D.
146: 1 S. 132, 1—134, 80; C. 139, 1—141, 2.
146: 2 The worship of the serpent, according to H.
146: 3 Cf. the strange logos, preserved in Matt. x. 16 alone: “Be ye therefore wise as serpents. ”
146: 4 The reading can be slightly emended by H. ’s epitome in x. 9; but the phrase π α ρ ὰ τ ὸ ν α ὐ τ ῶ ν λ ό γ ο ν still remains an enigma.
146: 5 The Celestial Adam, the Adam Kadmon of Kabalistic tradition, or the Intelligible Cosmos of Hellenistic theology. See Cruice, note in loc.
146: 6 Or hymns of subtle meaning.
146: 7 That is, Man as Cause and Substance of all things.
146: 8 Sc. Powers.
146: 9 That is, presumably, “names of power” (Egyptice); the Adam who gave their “names” to all the “animals. ”
|
|
|
147: 1 Geryon, the triple-headed or triple-bodied Giant, who plays a prominent part in the myth of Hercules.
147: 2 Or spiritual, psychic, and earthy.
147: 3 That is, the learning to know.
147: 4 Cf. § 25, J.
147: 5 That is, as we shall see later, C.
147: 6 λ ό γ ω ν.
147: 7 Celsus (c. 150-175 A. D. ) knows of groups of Harpocratians—that is, worshippers of Horus—some of whom derived their tradition from Salō mē, others from Mariamnē, and others again from Martha (Origen, C. Celsum, v. 62). This suggests an Egyptian setting. (For Salome and Maria or Miriam (Mariamnē ), the Sisters of Jesus, see D. J. L., 405 f.; for Martha, Our Lady, see ibid., 375 ff. ) In the Gnostic Acts of Philip, Mariamnē, or Mariammē (both forms being found in the MSS., according to R. A. Lipsius, Die apokr. Apostelgeschichten—Brunswick, 1884—iii. 12), is the “virgin sister” of Philip, and plays an important rô le as prophetess. She is to Philip as Thekla to Paul, or Helen to Simon. Compare with this the “sister wife” whom Paul demands the right to take about like “the rest of the Apostles and the Brethren of the Lord and Cephas” (1 Corinth. ix. 5; D. J. L., 229). Salmon (art. “Mariamne” in Smith and Wace’s D. of Christ. Biog., iii. 830) refers to the Mary (Magdalene) of the Pistis Sophia, the chief questioner of the Master and His favourite disciple, the sister of Martha. The tradition of the Gnosis from James, the Brother of the Lord, is asserted by Clement of Alexandria in Book VI. of his lost work, The Institutions, where he writes: “The Lord imparted the Gnosis to James the Just, to John and Peter, after His resurrection; these delivered it to the rest of the Apostles, and they to the Seventy” (Euseb., Hist. Eccles., ii. 1; cf. D. J. L., 226).
148: 1 From here onwards we use the revised critical text of Reitzenstein (pp. 83-98), who appends what we may call an apparatus criticus of the emendations and conjectures of the various editions of our solitary MS. R., as usual, however, gives no translation.
148: 2 Is. liii. 8—same reading as LXX. Cf. also 25 § J.
148: 3 A remark of the writer of S., which, as we shall see at the end, is divided into Texts and Commentary.
148: 4 The “he says” may be ascribed to any subsequent hand; I have marked them all H. to avoid further complication.
149: 1 “Burstings forth, ” inspirations, revealings, or mysteries.
149: 2 In Greek transformation, son of Apollo and the daughter of Minos, born in Libya. This points to a very ancient myth-connection with the old Cretan civilisation. Garamas was also called Amphithemis (q. v. in Roscher’s Lex. ); he appears also, according to one tradition, to have been the father of Ammon. (See “Garamantis Nympha, ” ibid. )
149: 3 This passage is doubly interesting, for it is not only a source, but a source within a source. Already a number of scholars have recognised it as an Ode; and not only so, but conjectured with much probability that it is by no less a master than Pindar himself. Nay, further, it is part of a Hymn to Jupiter Ammon—an additionally interesting point for us as showing strong Egyptian influence. It is true that in our text of Hippolytus the order of the words has been frequently changed to bring it into prose form; but the reconstruction of most of it is not difficult, and quite convincing. I translate from the text of Bergk’s final revision, as given S. 134, 135; C. 142. R., for some reason or other, does not refer to this interesting side-light.
150: 1 Sc. of the Fate-Sphere.
150: 2 This looks back, though with variants, to Ephes. iii. 15.
150: 3 Sc. the image-man, or Adam of “red” earth.
150: 4 Sc. the Chaldæ ans.
150: 5 τ ύ π ῳ.
150: 6 Sc. the Naassenes.
150: 7 This is a further indication of the environment of the Naassenes. Cf. C. H., x. (xi. ) 7.
|
|
|
150: 8 That is from Man (Father), Man Son of Man (Son), or Flowing Chaos (Mother)—corresponding in Hellenic mythology to Kronos, Zeus, and Rhea. For Rhea (from ρ έ ε ι ν, “to flow”) is the Moist or Liquid Nature, as with the Stoics; she is the a-cosmic or unordered Earth, the Prima Materia (the First Earth, the Spouse of Heaven—Uranus), Hyle Proper, who carries in her bosom the Logos. For references, see R., p. 99, n. 2.
151: 1 Cf. Ex. viii. 8.
151: 2 The preceding paragraph is evidently composed of selections from S. R. (p. 85, n. 1) thinks that we have here the description of only one aspect of Soul, and that the description of the remaining two aspects has been omitted by H.
151: 3 Sc. the Naassenes, in H. ’s view.
152: 1 μ ο ρ φ ῆ ς —lit., either form or beauty.
152: 2 Sc. of cosmos.
152: 3 This paragraph and § 7, together with the accompanying overworkings, seem to have been misplaced by H., according to R. (pp. 99, 100).
The sudden introduction of the name Attis without any preliminaries, indicates another lacuna; the transition from the Assyrian to the Phrygian Mysteries of the Great Mother is too brusque.
152: 4 The threefold nature of the Soul is thus distinguished by: (i. ) The union (or marriage) which joins it to generation, or to earth-life—the nature of things on earth; (ii. ) The union which joins it with death—the nature of the things “beneath” the earth; (iii. ) The union which joins it with formal beauty, or beauty in form (μ ο ρ φ ή )—the nature of super-terrene (or sublunary) things, here regarded as the Elysian state.
The love of the Mother of the Gods for the Soul represents the “fourth state” (the turī ya of Vedantic mystic psychology), or the absorption of the masculine power of the Soul by its own higher Feminine Nature. Cf. in Damascius’ “Life of Isidores” (Photius, Bibl., ed. Bekker, 345 a. 5: “I fell asleep, and in a vision Attis seemed to appear to me, and, on behalf of the Mother of the Gods, to initiate me into the feast called Hilaria—a mystery which discloses the way of our salvation from Hades. ” Hades, the realm of Selē nē, is not Tartarus, the realm of Death.
153: 1 Compare the so-called Second Epistle of Clement (an early homily incorporating extra-canonical Gospel-materials), xii. 2: “For the Lord Himself being asked by some one when his Kingdom should come, said: When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female neither male nor female”; and also the well-known logoi, from The Gospel according to the Egyptians, quoted several times by Clement of Alexandria: “When Salome asked how long Death should prevail, the Lord said: So long as ye women bear children; for I am come to destroy the work of the Female. And Salome said to Him: Did I therefore well in bearing no children? The Lord answered and said: Eat every Herb, but eat not that which hath bitterness. When Salome asked when these things about which she questioned should be made known, the Lord said: When ye trample upon the Garment of Shame; when the Two become One, and Male with Female neither male nor female. ” And with the last logos of the above compare the new-found fragment of a lost Gospel: “His disciples say unto Him: When wilt thou be manifest to us, and when shall we see Thee? He saith: When ye shall be stripped and not be ashamed. ”—Grenfell and Hunt, New Sayings of Jesus (London, 1904), p. 40. The environment is Egyptian and ascetic; it is a saying addressed to a community, as may be seen from one of the previous logoi: “Having one garment what do ye [lack]? ”
|
|
|
153: 2 See Rom. i. 20-23, 25-27.
153: 3 ἀ ό ρ α τ α.
153: 4 ἀ ΐ δ ι ο ς —evidently a word-play.
153: 5 The received Pauline text is slightly shortened here.
154: 1 Evidently a reference to the Chaldæ an fourfold (man-eagle-lion-bull) glyph of what Later Orphicism and Platonism called the Autozō on, representing the four main types of Animal Life; the same mystery which Ezekiel saw in the Vision of the Mercabah, or Celestial Chariot—a reflected picture, I believe, from the Chaldæ an Mysteries.
154: 2 Verses 24 and 25 of the Received Text are omitted.
154: 3 ἀ σ χ η μ ο σ ύ ν η —meaning also “formlessness. ”
154: 4 Cf. Ex. v. 2.
154: 5 That is, baptism.
154: 6 We wonder what “they” really did say? They may have argued in their private circles that even in the foulest things the clean soul could recognise the reversed signs of the Mysteries of Purity; for certainly these things require an explanation—nay, more urgently do they require an interpretation in proportion to their foulness. The hateful suggestion of Hippolytus that these ascetic and spiritually-minded folk—for their doctrines plainly show them to be so—were as foul as those of the Flood, only shows the ineradicable prejudice of unwitting self-righteousness.
155: 1 Completion of R.
155: 2 Picking up “Blessed Nature” from the first paragraph of 6.
155: 3 Cf. Ex. viii. 6, note.
155: 4 At fourteen a boy took his first initiation into the Egyptian priesthood.
155: 5 Cf. Littré, Traduct. des Œ uvres d’Hippocrate, tom. i. p. 396.
155: 6 Presumably referring to Seed.
155: 7 Perhaps, however, they meant something very different, and perhaps even their analogies are not so foolish as they seemed to H.
155: 8 The material here seems to follow directly on § 5. It is a summary by H.; but seeing that there is more in it of S. than of H., we will print it as S., indicating H. when possible.
156: 1 Isis, or Nature, as the seven spheres and the eighth sphere (? the “black” earth).
156: 2 That is the Celestial Nile or Heaven-Ocean, which fructifies Mother Nature. “The Alexandrians honoured the same God as being both Osiris and Adonis, according to their mystical god-blending (syncrasia). ” Damascius, “Life of Isidorus” (Phot., Bibl., 242; p. 342 a. 21, ed. Bek. ).
156: 3 Sc. the Egyptians.
156: 4 Prov. xxiv. 16—same reading as LXX. Cf. Luke xvii. 4.: “If he trespass against thee seven times in a day and turn again to thee, saying, ‘I repent’; thou shalt forgive. ” This saying is apparently from the “Logia” source; cf. Matt, xviii. 21, and compare the idea with the scheme of the “repentance” of the Pistis Sophia.
156: 5 The seven planetary spheres; but it may also connect with the idea of the falling “stars” as the souls descending into matter, according to the Platonic and Hermetic doctrine.
156: 6 Probably the Egyptians in their Mysteries, connecting with what is summarised by H. at end of § 6 and beginning of § 7.
157: 1 Evidently a logos from some Hellenistic scripture. In the evidence of Zosimus which we adduce at the end of our Trismegistic Fragments, he quotes (§§ 15 and 7) from the “Inner Door”—a lost treatise of Hermes Trismegistus—as follows: “For that the Son of God having power in all things, becoming all things that He willeth, appeareth as He willeth to each. ” Thus we have S. quoting the original logos, which, I suggest, belongs to the “Pœ mandres” type of Trismegistic literature. Therefore that type was in existence before S. This confirms our attribution of the “they declare” to the Egyptians and their Mysteries (Trismegisticism being principally the Hellenised form of those Mysteries), and also the completion of R. at the end of the first paragraph of § 7 above.
157: 2 Cf. Matt. xix. 17 = Mark x. 18 = Luke xviii. 19. The first clause agrees with Mark and Luke, the second with Matthew (omitting “the” before “Good”). The presumably primitive reading of the positive command, “Call me not Good, ” has disappeared entirely from this phase of tradition.
157: 3 A different form from Matt. v. 45, but the same idea; for the other tradition, see Luke vi. 35.
158: 1 Cf. Matt v. 15 = Mark iv. 21 = Luke viii. 16 and xi. 33.
158: 2 Cf. Matt. x. 27 = Luke xii. 3.
158: 3 That is, symbolically distinguished statues of Hermes.
|
|
|
158: 4 The text is faulty; but compare Pausanias, VI. xxvi. 5, where, speaking of Cyllene, he says: “The image of Hermes which the people of the place revere exceedingly, is nothing but an ithyphallus on a pedestal. ” This famous symbolic figure at Cyllene is mentioned also by Artemidorus, Oneirocr., i. 45; and by Lucian, Jupiter Tragæ dus, 42. Cf. J. G. Frazer’s Pausanias (London, 1898), iv. 110.
159: 1 Psychagogue and psychopomp—or leader and evoker of souls—apparently here meaning him who takes souls out of body and brings them back again to it.
159: 2 μ ν η σ τ ή ρ ω ν —lit., meaning “recalling to mind”; and also “suitors. ” Cf. Od., xxiv. 1 ff.
159: 3 Empedocles, On Purifications (Diels, 119; Stein, 390; Karsten, 11; Fairbanks, First Philosophers of Greece, 206); Empedocles continues: “. . . have I fallen here on the earth to consort with mortals! ”
159: 4 The Naassenes, in H. ’s opinion.
159: 5 The souls.
159: 6 Some editors think this is a mistake for Ialdabaō th. The name, however, appears in the system of Justinus (Hipp., Philos., v. 26) as Esaddaios, evidently the transliteration of El Shaddai, as one of the twelve Paternal Angels, the Sons of Elohim, the Demiurge of the sensible world, and of Eden, the Maternal Potency or Nature.
159: 7 τ ο ῦ ἰ δ ι κ ο ῦ κ ό σ μ ο υ —the cosmos of species and not of wholes. Cf. § 17 below for the passage of C. from which H. takes this. Compare Ptah-Hephaistos, the Demiurge by Fire, the Fourth, in the Inscription of London given in Chap. VI. above.
160: 1 Sc. Hermes.
160: 2 The continuation of the above quotation—Od., xxiv. 2 ff.
160: 3 Cf. C. H., i. 14: “he who hath power over the lives of cosmos. ”
160: 4 Ps. ii. 9—same reading as LXX.
160: 5 Or “get back memory, ” or “become suitors. ”
160: 6 Eph. v. 14—a shortened form of the present Pauline text; Paul himself, however, seems to be quoting from some older writing. If the intermediate reading (ἐ π ι ψ α ύ σ ε ι for ἐ π ι φ α ύ σ ε ι ) can stand (see W. H., Ap. 125), it would mean “Christ shall touch thee” with His rod.
160: 7 Cf. Plutarch, De Is. et Os., xxxiv. After saying that Osiris, or the Logos, is symbolised as Ocean and Water, and that Thales took his idea of Primal “Water, as the cause of things, from the Egyptians, the initiated priest of Apollo and learned comparative mythologist continues: “The Greeks say that ‘son’ (ὑ ι ό ν ) comes from ‘water’ (ὕ δ α τ ο ς ) and ‘to moisten’ (ὕ σ α ι ), and they call Dionysus ‘Hyes’ (ὕ η ν ) as Lord of the Moist (ὑ γ ρ ᾶ ς ) Nature, he being the same as Osiris. ” Stoll in Roscher’s Lex. (sub vv. ) says that “Hyē s” and “Hyē ” were respectively designations of Dionysus and Semele, and that the meaning is the “Moistener” and the “Moistened” (references loc. cit. ). The nymphs who reared Bacchus were also called Hyades (Pherecydes, 46; p. 108, ed. Sturz). Hyē s was also a popular epithet of Zeus as god of rain. See also Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 782 and 1045 ff.; Anecd., Bekk., p. 202: Some say that Hyē s = Attis, others that Hyē s = Dionysus; “for Zeus poured (ὕ σ ε ) ambrosia upon him. ” One of the names of Bacchus was Ambrosia (Pherecy., ibid. ; Non., xxi. 20). I would therefore suggest that the mystic cry “Hye Kye” meant “O Moistener beget! ”
161: 1 Ps. xix. 4. That is the Sound (= Word) of the Heavens; quoted also in Rom. x. 18.
161: 2 Cf. Od., xxiv. 5. And compare also Hamlet, I. i.:
“The sheeted dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets. ”
161: 3 Od., ibid. ff.
161: 4 Ps. cxviii. 22. Quoted in Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10; Luke xx. 17; Acts iv. 11.
162: 1 Taken by C. from S. and J., § 20; but I think that C. has missed the true meaning of the “corner-stone” in the brain.
162: 2 Cf. Eph. iii. 15.
162: 3 Is. xxviii. 16—reading ἐ ν τ ά σ σ ω for ἐ μ β ά λ λ ω of LXX.; quoted also in Eph. ii. 20 and 1 Pet. ii. 7.
162: 4 Sc. Isaiah.
162: 5 Completion of the lacuna by R.
162: 6 χ α ρ ά κ ω μ α —a technical term also for the “Gnostic” supernal Horos or Boundary.
162: 7 Dan. ii. 15.
162: 8 Compare the “complaints of the souls” in the K. K. fragments.
162: 9 Od., xxiv. 9 f.
162: 10 Od., ibid.
163: 1 Cf. Il., xiv. 201, 246; Hymn. Orph., lxxxiii. 2.
163: 2 Ps. lxxxii. 6.
163: 3 Cf. Gal. iv. 27: “But Jerusalem Above is free, which is our Mother. ” (W. and H. text. )
163: 4 The final quotation within the quotation is also from Ps. lxxxii. 6. Here, then, we have a quotation from a scripture (“what is written”), glossed by J. with his special exegesis, but already being an exegesis of an Old Testament logos. It is not only a halacha, to use a term of Talmudic Kabbinism, but it is an authoritative apocalypse of the Jewish Gnosis.
163: 5 John iii. 6.
163: 6 Sc. the Naassenes, according to H.
164: 1 I am persuaded that this stood originally in J., and not in C. —being LXX. for Joshua.
164: 2 This paragraph summarises S. See next S.
164: 3 ἀ β σ ί λ ε υ τ ο ς —that is, presumably, those who have learned to rule themselves, the “self-taught” race, etc., of Philo.
164: 4 Eusebius (Præ p. Evang., IX. xxviii. and xxix. 5 ff.; ed. Dind. i. 505 ff. and 508 ff. ), quoting from Alexander Cornelius (Polyhistor), who nourished about 100 B. C., has preserved to us a number of verses from a tragedy (called The Leading Forth) on the subject of Moses and the Exodus story, by a certain Ezechiel, a (? Alexandrian) Hebrew poet writing in Greek. In these fragments of Ezechiel’s tragedy, Mariam, Sepphō ra, and Jothō r are all dramatis personæ . These spellings and that of Madiam are, of course, all LXX. (that is, Greek Targum) forms of our A. V. Miriam, Jethro, Zipporah, and Midian.
165: 1 Il., xv. 189.
165: 2 Cf. Luke viii. 10. Luke seems to preserve the reading of the source more correctly than Matt. xiii. 13 or Mark iv. 12. The Saying looks back to Is. vi. 9.
165: 3 Cf. § 30 J.
165: 4 These three names are based on the Hebrew text of Is. xxviii. 13, A. V.: “But the Word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little. ” LXX.: “κ α ὶ ἔ σ τ α ι α ὐ τ ο ῖ ς τ ὸ λ ό γ ι ο ν κ υ ρ ί ο υ τ ο ῦ θ ε ο ῦ, θ λ ῖ ψ ι ς ἐ π ὶ θ λ ῖ ψ ι ν ἐ λ π ὶ ς ἐ π ’ ἐ λ π ί δ ι, ἔ τ ι μ ι κ ρ ὸ ν ἔ τ ι μ ι κ ρ ό ν. ” That is: “And the logion [oracle, the Urim-and-Thummim, or instrument of the Logos, according to Philo] of God shall be to them tribulation on tribulation, hope on hope, still little still little. ” See Epiphanius, Hæ r., xxv. 4. “Saulasau saulasau” = “tribulation on tribulation, tribulation on tribulation; ” “kaulakau kaulakau” = “hope on hope, hope on hope; ” “zeē sar [zeē sar]” = “still little still little”—that is, the “Height of Hope, ” the “Depth of Tribulation, ” and the “As yet Very Little”—evidently referring to the as yet small number of the Regenerate. Cf. Pistis Sophia, 354: “One out of a thousand, and two out of ten thousand. ” See Salmon’s article, “Caulacau, ” in Smith and Wace’s D. of Ch. Biog., i. 424 f. It is also to be noticed that Epiphanius ascribes the origin of these names to the Nicolaï tans. In Hebrew the corresponding name would be Balaamites; and Balaam or Bileam (Nico-laus) was one of the Rabbinical by-names for Jeschu (Jesus). See D. J. L., p. 188.
165: 5 This and the following paragraph seem to have been misplaced by J. or C., for § 19 connects directly with the exposition concerning the ithyphallic Hermes. See R. 100, n. 4.
166: 1 ὡ ς ἐ κ γ ῆ ς ῥ έ ο ν τ α Ι ` η -ρ υ ό ν -η ν.
166: 2 Mē n was the Phrygian Deus Lunus. See Drexler’s admirable art. s. v. in Roscher, ii. 2687-2770.
166: 3 κ ε κ έ ρ α κ ε —a word-play on κ έ ρ α ς (horn), unreproducible in English.
166: 4 John i. 3, 4. So the present text; but it must have been “nothing” in the text which lay before C.
166: 5 Cf. the logos, from The Book of the Great Logos according to the Mystery: “Jesus, the Living One, answered and said: Blessed is the man who knoweth this [Word (Logos)], and hath brought down the Heaven, and borne the Earth and raised it heavenwards, and he becometh the Middle, for it (the Middle) is ‘nothing. ’”—Schmidt (C. ), Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus (Leipzig, 1892), p. 144; and Koptisch-gnostische Schriften (Leipzig, 1905), p. 259.
166: 6 That is the world of phenomena, or cosmos of species (ἰ δ ι κ ό ς ) and not of genera or wholes.
166: 7 The fourth Demiurgic Power of the Sensible World was Esaldaios, as we have already seen from J., § 12. The indications are too vague to recover the “measures” and “numbers” of the system. But the “third and fourth” are apparently both “fiery”—the former giving “light, ” the latter “heat. ” Compare § 23 C., who speaks of the third Gate, or entrance to the third Heaven. This Heaven, the third from below, would correspond with the first æ theric sphere—there being, presumably, three before the fourth or middle, the “Fiery Ruler. ”
167: 1 Sc. “Heavenly Horn of Mē n. ”
167: 2 Cf. Gen. xliv. 5.
167: 3 Bergk includes these verses among the Anacreontica, n. 63, p. 835. Cf. Anacr., i. 10 (Bergk, 50, 10).
167: 4 The last line is reconstructed by Cruice (not. in loc. ). Cf. Anacr., xxvi. 25, 26. Was Omar Ḵ hayyā m, then, “Anacreon palingenē s, ” or was the same spirit in each?
167: 5 Cf. John ii. 11. The reading of our quotation, however, is very different from that of the familiar Textus Receptus.
167: 6 Cf. Luke xvii. 21.
167: 7 Cf. Matt. xiii. 44.
167: 8 Cf. Matt. xiii. 33 = Luke xiii. 20.
168: 1 This seems to connect immediately with the end of § 16. See R. 100, n. 4.
168: 2 S. probably had “For, ” which was glossed by J. into “Moreover. ”
168: 3 But this “statue, ” as we have seen, was the ithyphallus simply.
168: 4 Or Typal Man.
168: 5 Or, generated or born from Above.
168: 6 Cf. John vi. 53, which reads in T. R.: “Amē n, Amē n, I say unto you, if ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not Life in yourselves. ”
168: 7 Cf. Matt. xx. 22 = Mark x. 38 (where the phrase is put in a question).
168: 8 Cf. John viii. 21 and xiii. 33. It is remarkable that in the text of our Gospels these logoi are addressed to the Jews; C., however, takes them as sayings addressed to the disciples. It is possible that we may have here a “source” of the Fourth Gospel!
169: 1 These “tribes, ” then, were not the Jewish tribes, ten of which did not return, but twelve typical natures of men, and something else.
169: 2 See Immisch’s excellent art., “Kureten u. Korybanten, ” in Roscher, ii. 1587-1628.
169: 3 Κ ο ρ ύ β α ς, the Lord of the Corybantes, or frenzied priests of Cybele, is thus feigned by mystical word-play to be ὁ ἀ π ὸ -κ ο ρ υ φ ῆ ς -β α ς, “he who descends from the head. ”
169: 4 Cf. C., § 14.
169: 5 Apparently a quotation from some Jewish apocryphon. Cf. John v. 37: “Ye have never at any time heard His voice nor have ye seen His form. ”
170: 1 Cf. Ps. xxviii. 10.
170: 2 Ibid., 3.
170: 3 Conflation of LXX. of Ps. xxiv. 17 and Ps. xxi. 21.
170: 4 A paraphrase of LXX. —Is. xli. 8.
170: 5 A paraphrase of LXX. —Is. xliii. 1.
170: 6 Isaiah; or the Word speaking through the prophet.
170: 7 Is. xliii. 1.
170: 8 Sc. Isaiah.
170: 9 Paraphrase of LXX. —Is. xlix. 15.
170: 10 Is. xlix. 16.
171: 1 Ps. xxiii. 7 and 9.
171: 2 Ps. xxiii. 10.
171: 3 Sc. a “Serpent. ”
171: 4 Ps. xxi. 6.
171: 5 Ps. xxiii. 10 and 8.
171: 6 Sc. the psalmist; or, rather, the Logos through the psalmist.
171: 7 Job xl. 27.
171: 8 Gen. xxviii. 7.
171: 9 Sc. Jacob.
171: 10 Gen. xxviii. 17.
171: 11 Cf. John x. 9—“true” not appearing in the traditional text.
171: 12 Sc. “Jacob”—using the name in the Philonean sense.
172: 1 This is the Zeus Phrygius of Diodor. iii. 58, and Eustathius, 565, 3. Cf. R. 163, n. 3, and Zwei relig. Fragen, 104, n. 3.
172: 2 ἔ π α υ σ ε.
172: 3 π α ῦ ε π α ῦ ε, a mystical word-play on π ά -π ά.
172: 4 Cf. Eph. ii. 17.
172: 5 Cf. what underlies Matt, xxiii. 27, Luke xi. 44, and Acts xxiii. 3.
172: 6 Cf. “Jesus, the Living [One]” in the Introduction to the newest found Sayings; and also passim in the Introduction (apparently an excerpt from another document) to the First Book of Ieou, in the Codex Brucianus.
172: 7 Cf. what underlies Matt, xxvii. 52, 53.
173: 1 Some words have apparently been omitted, corresponding to the final clause of the last sentence in S. See R., p. 101.
173: 2 Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2-4.
173: 3 Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14.
173: 4 Cf. John vi. 44. Instead of “Heavenly Father, ” T. R. reads “the Father who sent me. ” Compare with this the longest of the newest found logoi, concerning “them who draw us” towards self-knowledge or the “kingship within. ” (Grenfell and Hunt, op. cit., p. 15. )
173: 5 Cf. Matt. vii. 21.
174: 1 Cf. Matt. xxi. 31. T. R. reads “The Kingdom of God. ”
174: 2 Or perfectionings, or completions, or endings, or initiations; also taxes—here a mystical synonym for pleromata (fullnesses) or logoi (words).
174: 3 Or, collectors of dues.
174: 4 1 Cor. x. 11.
174: 5 Cf. the logos underlying Matt. xiii. 3 ff. = Mark iv. 3 ff. = Luke viii. 5 ff.
174: 6 Slightly paraphrased from LXX. —Deut. xxxi. 20.
174: 7 In that they are rulers of themselves, members of the “self-taught” Race—ἀ β α σ ι λ ε ύ τ ο υ ς, that is, free from the Rulers of Destiny, or Kā rmic bonds.
175: 1 Cf. Matt. iii. 10= Luke iii. 9. Cf. also Hipp., Philos., vi. 16, in his maltreatment of the “Simonian” Gnosis.
175: 2 That is, Sons of the Logos.
175: 3 Cf. note on the third Ruler in § 17 C.
175: 4 Presumably the Phrygians.
175: 5 If our attribution of this to J. is correct (R. gives it to C. ), we have perhaps before us a logos from the Phrygian Mysteries.
175: 6 This may possibly be assigned to C.; but C. usually comments on J. and does not lead, and the terminology is that of J. and not of C.
175: 7 A simple form of Matt. vii. 6. Is it by any means possible an underlying mystical word-play on the Eleusinian logos “ὕ ε κ ύ ε ”; hence ὕ ς (pig)—a synonym of χ ο ῖ ρ ο ς and κ ύ ω ν (dog)?
175: 8 This section seems to be misplaced, and § 25 probably followed § 23 immediately in the original; the antithesis of Fruitful and Unfruitful following one another, as above (§ 22), the antithesis of Dead and God.
175: 9 α ἰ -π ό λ ο ς, vulg. = “goat-herd. ”
176: 1 S. had probably “ignorant. ”
176: 2 ἀ ε ι π ό λ ο ς, τ ο υ τ έ σ τ ι ἀ ε ὶ π ο λ ῶ ν. Cf. Plato, Cratylus, 408 C, D.
176: 3 This is not very clear. But see Mozley’s article, “Polus, ” in Smith, Wayte, and Marindin’s D. of Gk. and Rom. Antiquities (London, 1891), ii. 442, 443: “Both in [Plato’s] Timæ us, 40 B. and [Aristotle’s] De Cæ lo, ii. 14, π ό λ ο ς is used, not for the entire heaven, but for the axis of heaven and earth, around which the whole revolved. Again in the De Cæ lo, ii. 2, the π ό λ ο ι are the poles, north and south, in our sense of the word. ” Compare also the rubric in one of the rituals in the Greek Magic Papyri—C. Wessely, Griechische Zauberpapyrus, in Denkschr. d. Akad., ph. hist. Kl., xxxvi. (Vienna, 1888)—where it is said that the Sun will then move towards the Pole, and the theurgist will see Seven Virgins (the Seven Fortunes of Heaven) approach, and Seven Youths, with heads of bulls (the Pole-lords of Heaven), who make the axis turn (661-670). Compare this with the “cylinder” idea in the fragment of K. K. Then there will appear the Great God “in a white robe and trowsers, with a crown of gold on his head, holding in his right hand the golden shoulder of a heifer, that is the Bear that sets in motion and keeps the heaven turning in due seasons. ” This God will pronounce an oracle, and the theurgist will then receive the gift of divination. The special interest of this tradition is that it contains a Magian element (to wit, the “trowsers”), and this connects closely with Phrygia and the cult that was wedded most closely with the Mithriaca, namely, that of the Mother of the Gods.
176: 4 Od., iv. 384. In the Proteus myth Egypt is the Nile—that is, the “Great Green, ” the Heaven Ocean. Proteus was also said to have been the messenger or servant of Poseidon, the special God, it will be remembered, of Plato’s Atlantis.
177: 1 π ι π ρ ά σ κ ε τ α ι, a synonym of π ω λ ε ῖ τ α ι, which, besides the meaning of “coming and going, ” or “moving about, ” also signifies “is sold”; but I do not see the appositeness of the remark, unless the “ignorant” so understood it.
177: 2 Is. liv. 1; quoted also in Gal. iv. 27. Cf. Philo, De Execrat., § 7; M. ii. 435, P. 936 (Ri. v. 254): “For when she [the Soul] is a multitude of passions and filled with vices, her children swarming over her—pleasures, appetites, folly, intemperance, unrighteousness, injustice—she is weak and sick, and lies at death’s door, dying; but when she becomes sterile, and ceases to bring them forth, or even casts them from her, forthwith, from the change, she becometh a chaste virgin, and, receiving the Divine Seed, she fashions and engenders marvellous excellencies that Nature prizeth highly—prudence, courage, temperance, justice, holiness, piety, and the rest of the virtues and good dispositions. ”
There are, thus, seen to be identical ideas of a distinctly marked character in both J. and Philo. Did J., then, belong to Philo’s “circle”? Or, rather, did Philo represent a propagandist side of J. ’s circle? In other words, can we possibly have before us in J. a Therapeut allegorical exercise, based on S., by an exceedingly liberal-minded Hellenistic Jewish mystic?
178: 1 Cf. Matt. ii. 18, which depends on Jer. xxxi. 15 (LXX. xxxviii. 15). In T. R., however, the reading is by no means the same as in LXX. C. favours the Gospel text rather than that of LXX.
178: 2 This shows a very detached frame of mind on behalf of J. Perhaps it may be an interpolation of C.
178: 3 Jer. xvii. 9.
178: 4 This has all the appearance of a quotation from some mystic apocryphon of the Gnosis.
178: 5 See Cumont (F. ), Mystè res de Mithra (Brussels, 1898). In the monuments representing the bull-slaying myth of the Mithriaca, the bull’s tail is frequently terminated in “une truffe d’epis”—the number varies, being either one, three, five, or seven. In the Bundahish all things are generated from the body, especially from the spinal marrow, of the slain bull. Sometimes the wheat-ears are represented as flowing like blood from the wound above the heart inflicted by the dagger of Mithras, the Bull-slayer (op. cit., i. 186, 187). The constellation of the Wheat-ear in the Virgin, which was supposed to give good harvests, presumably refers to the same idea (cf. Eratosth., Cataster., 9). See op. cit., i. 202, 205, n. 2. The wheat-ear, therefore, symbolised in one aspect the “generative seed”—in animals and men-animals the spermatozoa, in man a mystery. Mithraicism had the closest connection with the Phrygian Mystery Cult; indeed, the Magna Mater Mysteries were used by it for the initiation of women, who were excluded from the Mithriaca proper.
179: 1 The Light-spark of Pistis Sophia nomenclature.
179: 2 That is, the hierophant initiate of the Great Mother.
179: 3 ὑ π ὸ π ο λ λ ῷ π ύ ρ ι, lit., “to the accompaniment of much fire. ” This refers, I believe, to the brilliant illumination of the Temple, or, as it was variously called, the Initiation Hall (τ ε λ ε σ τ ή ρ ι ο ν ), the Mystic Enclosure (μ υ σ τ ι κ ὸ ς σ η κ ό ς )—though this was probably the inner court surrounding the Temple proper the Great Hall (μ έ γ α ρ ο ν ), or Palace (ά γ ά κ τ ο ρ ο ν ). As Hatch says, in the tenth of his famous Hibbert Lectures for 1888: “And at night there were the mystic plays: the scenic representations, the drama in symbol and for sight. The torches were extinguished; they stood outside the Temple [in the Mystic Enclosure, presumably] in the silence and darkness. The door opened—there was a blaze of light—before them was enacted the drama. ” Hatch (E. ), The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church (4th ed., London, 1892). See also my “Notes on the Eleusinian Mysteries, ” in The Theosoph. Rev. (April 1898), xxii. p. 151.
180: 1 See especially Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 587 ff.
180: 2 ἤ λ θ ο μ ε ν, this verb forming its tenses from √ ε ρ and √ ε λ υ θ, and ἔ λ ε υ σ ι ς meaning also “coming. ”
180: 3 Emend, by Keil.
180: 4 ἀ ν ε λ θ ε ῖ ν.
180: 5 It need hardly be said that this is all mystical word-play; ἀ ν α κ τ ό ρ ε ι ο ν is philologically derived from the same stem as ἄ ν α ξ, “a king. ” Cf. the Anaktoron or Palace as the name of the Eleusinian Temple of Initiation.
180: 6 Heracleitus, Fr. (25, Diels; 101, Fairbanks, First Philosophers of Greece). “Deaths” may also be rendered destinies, fates, or dooms.
181: 1 Sc. the first path.
181: 2 These verses are from some unknown poet, who is conjectured variously to have been either Parmenides or Pamphus of Athens. See notes in loc. in both Schneidewin and Cruice.
181: 3 Sc. those of Persephonē.
181: 4 Sc. the Greater Mysteries; in which, presumably, the candidate went through some symbolic rite of death and resurrection.
181: 5 Or true virility, ἀ π η ρ σ ε ν ω μ έ ν ο υ ς, which equates with ἀ π -α ν δ ρ ο υ μ έ ν ο υ ς, I believe, and does not mean demasculati, or exuta virilitate, as translated respectively by Schneidewin and Cruice. For the “death” mentioned above and the “casting away of the garments, ” see the Mystery Ritual in The Acts of John (F. F. F., 431-434); and for the latter and the “Virginal Spirit, ” the passages on the Sacred Marriage which I have collected in the chapter on the main doctrines of Philo.
182: 1 A loose reference to LXX. —Is. vii. 14.
182: 2 Or Eternity of Eternities.
182: 3 Cf. Matt. vii. 13, 14; our text, however, is an inversion of the clauses, with several various readings, of T. R.
182: 4 This seems to connect with the Fruitful of § 25. See below, in the Hymn “Whether blest Child, ” the “cut wheat-ear” that Amygdalos brought forth.
182: 5 This refers to the First Man.
182: 6 Vulg., Almond-tree.
182: 7 In the Mithriaca, Mithras, in the most ancient myth, was represented as in (? born from) a Tree. See Cumont.
182: 8 Reading ο ἱ ο ν ε ὶ δ ι α φ ύ ζ ο ν τ α with S., C., and R.; but the Codex has ο ι ο ν ἰ δ ί α σ φ ύ ζ ο ν τ α. If we read ᾠ ό ν for the corrupt ο ι ο ν, we get “the Egg throbbing apart” or in separation—and so link on with the Orphic (Chaldæ an) tradition.
182: 9 δ ι ή μ υ ξ ε, the synonym of a term which occurs frequently in the Pistis Sophia, “I tore myself asunder. ”
182: 10 That is, to Man Son of Man.
183: 1 The somewhat boastful tone, shown in several passages already, probably betrays C.; it may, however, be assigned to J.
183: 2 ἀ μ ύ ξ α ι, a play on Amygdalos.
183: 3 That is, “scarifications. ”
183: 4 Cf. John i. 3., reading, however, ο ὐ δ ὲ ν and not the ο ὐ δ ὲ ἕ ν of W. H.
183: 5 The Piper; properly, the player on the syrinx or seven-reeded Pan-pipe. Compare the Mystery Ritual in The Acts of John: “I would pipe; dance all of you! ” (F. F. F., p. 432); and, “We have piped unto you and ye have not danced” (Matt. xi. 17 = Luke vii. 27).
183: 6 Or harmonised; that is, cosmic or ordered. Cf. C. H., i. 15: “For being above the Harmony, He became a slave enharmonised”; also Orph. Hymn., viii. 11; and also Acts of John, where the Logos is spoken of as “Wisdom in harmony” (F. F. F., 436).
183: 7 Cf. John iv. 24.
183: 8 A conflation of John iv. 21 and 23. The “mountain, ” when used mystically, signifies the inner “Mount of initiation. ” Jerusalem in the text signifies the Jerusalem Below. The true worshippers worship in the Jerusalem Above.
184: 1 Sc. the Son.
184: 2 Sc. the Piper.
184: 3 ρ ῆ μ α —used also by Philo and LXX.
184: 4 With slight verbal omissions the opening lines down to “foundation” are identical with the beginning of The Great Apocalypse or Announcement of the “Simonian” tradition, an exceedingly interesting document from which some quotations have been preserved to us by Hippolytus elsewhere (Philos., vi. 9). The “Simonian” tradition was regarded by all the Church Fathers as the source of all “heresy”; but modern criticism regards The Great Announcement as a late document of the Christian Gnosis. The quotation of this document by J., however, makes this opinion, in my view, entirely untenable. If my analysis stands firm, The Great Announcement is thus proved to be pre-Christian, according to the traditional date. I am also inclined to think that in this quotation itself we have already the work of a commentator and not the original form of the Apocalypse.
185: 1 Cf. § 16 J.
185: 2 Cf. Matt. xiii. 31 = Mark iv. 30 = Luke xiii. 18.
185: 3 Sc. the Heavens of the Psalm, that is, the Æ ons and the rest above.
185: 4 Ps. xviii. 3.
185: 5 The Naassenes, in H’s view.
185: 6 ἀ π ρ ο ν ο ή τ ω ς.
185: 7 κ ι θ ά ρ α ν —the ancient cithara was triangular in shape and had seven strings.
185: 8 The text of the following Ode has been reconstructed by Wilamowitz in Hermes, xxxvii. 328; our translation is from his reconstruction.
185: 9 ἄ κ ο υ σ μ α —a hearing, an instruction, lesson, discourse, sermon, applied to the public lectures of Pythagoras (Jamb., V. P., 174). It means also a song or even a “singer, ” a “bard. ” “Their singers (ἀ κ ο ύ σ μ α τ α ) are thus called ‘bards’” (Posid. ap. Athen., vi. 49). The Hearers (ο ἱ ἀ κ ο υ σ μ α τ ι κ ο ί ) were the Probationers in the School of Pythagoras (see s. vv. in Sophocles’ Lex. ). Schneidewin and Cruice adopt Hermann’s “emendation, ” ἄ κ ρ ι σ μ α (mutilation), but I prefer the reading of the Codex, as referring to the “mournful piper, ” or Logos, in the flowing “discord” of Rhea or Chaos, and therefore the “song” that Rhea is beginning to sing as she changes from Chaos to Cosmos.
186: 1 Perhaps Quick, for θ ε ὸ ς is from θ έ -ε ι ν, “to run, ” to imitate the word-play of our mystics.
186: 2 Or cut.
186: 3 β ό μ β ο ι ς.
186: 4 Lit., “bellower. ”
187: 1 The Hebrew Naḥ ash, as we have already seen.
187: 2 There being more of J. than of H. in this, I have printed it as J. though it is a defaced J. I am also persuaded that in what follows we have a quotation from a “Simonian” document by J. rather than J. himself.
187: 3 That is, temples.
187: 4 Who derived all things symbolically from “Water. ”
187: 5 Cf. Deut. xxxiii. 17.
187: 6 Cf. Gen. ii. 10 (LXX. ).
188: 1 Cf. Gen. ii. 11, 12.
188: 2 Ibid., 13.
188: 3 Ibid., 14.
188: 4 Ibid.
188: 5 The substance of this is also to be found in the “Simonian” tradition “refuted” by Hippolytus.
188: 6 Cf. Gen. i. 7.
188: 7 Cf. John iv. 10.
189: 1 Lit., the Heracleian stone.
189: 2 κ ε ρ κ ί δ ι. Cf. Hipp., Phil., v. 17, on system of Sethiani (S. 198, 36). Both S. and C. translate it correctly as “spina, ” meaning “backbone”; it has, however, been erroneously translated as “spur. ” Plutarch, De Is. et Os., lxii. 3, tells us that the load-stone was called by the Egyptians “bone of Horus”; and Horus is the “hawk” par excellence, the “golden hawk. ” Cf. Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, ii. 246, who says that we are informed by Manetho (thus making Manetho the main source of Plutarch) that the “load-stone is by the Egyptians called the ‘bone of Horus, ’ as iron is the ‘bone of Typho. ’” In the chapter of the Ritual dealing with the deification of the members, the backbone of the deceased is identified with the backbone of Set (xlii. 12). Elsewhere (cviii. 8) the deceased is said “to depart having the harpoon of iron in him. ” This seems to suggest the black backbone of death and the golden backbone of life.
189: 3 Cf. John ix. 1; τ υ φ λ ὸ ς ἐ κ γ ε ν ε τ ῆ ς, perhaps mystically meaning “blind from (owing to) genesis. ” Cf. the “blind accuser” in the Trismegistic treatise quoted by Zosimus in our Fragments.
189: 4 John i. 9.
189: 5 This is evidently to be attributed to J., or rather his “Simonian” source, as it follows directly on the sentence about “every nature selecting. ” Either C. has suppressed the opening words of J. ’s paragraph and substituted his own gloss, or H. has mangled his text.
190: 1 A lacuna in the Codex which is thus completed by S. and C.
190: 2 Cf. Is. xl. 15.
190: 3 That is, Messiah-ites, or Anointed-ones.
190: 4 Cf. 1 Sam. xvi. 13.
190: 5 1 Sam. x. 1.
190: 6 The text of this Hymn is in places very corrupt; I have followed Cruice’s emendations mostly. Schneidewin, for some reason or other which he does not state, omits it bodily from his Latin translation.
191: 1 This attribution may be thought by some to be questionable; but as it is far more similar to the thought-sphere of J. than to that of C., I have so assigned it. It belonged to the same circles to which we must assign the sources of J.
191: 2 γ ε ν ι κ ὸ ς —perhaps “general” simply.
191: 3 Or, of the Whole.
191: 4 The Codex has ἔ λ α φ ο ν, which, with Miller, we correct into ἐ λ ά φ ο υ. Is this a parallel with the “lost sheep” idea? Can it possibly connect with the conception underlying the phrases on the golden tablets found in tombs of “Orphic” initiates, on the territory of ancient Sybaris: “A kid thou hast fallen into the milk” (“Timpone grande” Tablet a, Naples Museum, Kaibel, C. I. G. I. S., 642); and, “A kid I have fallen into milk” (“Campagno” Tablet a, ibid., 641, and Append., p. 668)? But this connection is very hazy; it more probably suggests the nebris or “fawn-skin” of the Bacchic initiates (see my Orpheus, “The Fawn-skin, ” pp. 243 ff., for an explanation). Cruice proposes to substitute ὑ δ α ρ ὸ ν (“watery”); but there seems no reason why we should entirely reject the reading of the Codex, especially as C. ’s suggestion breaks the rule of the “more difficult” reading being the preferable.
191: 5 β α σ ι λ ε ί α ν —kingdom or kingship.
191: 6 The Codex reads ε ἶ π ε ν δ ι η σ ο ῦ ς ἐ σ ὸ ρ. Can this possibly be a glossed and broken-down remains of Ἰ α ω Ζ ε η σ α ρ (Iaō Zeē sar)?
192: 1 Cruice thinks this refers to the breath of God’s anger; but surely it refers to the Holy Spirit of God?
192: 2 Sc. the soul, the “wandering sheep. ”
192: 3 Cf. “the bitter Water, ” or “Darkness, ” or “Chaos, ” of the Sethian system in Hipp., Philos., v. 19; and see the note to the comments following Hermes-Prayer v., p. 92.
192: 4 The Logos in His descent through the spheres takes on the Forms of all the Powers.
192: 5 Is it, however, possible that the original Hymn had Naas (Ν ά α ν ) and not Gnosis (Γ ν ῶ σ ι ν )?
193: 1 Cf. R. 99, 100; and 100, n. 4.
195: 1 Wilamowitz’ hesitating attribution of it to the reign of Hadrian (117-138 A. D. ) is, in my opinion, devoid of any objective support whatever. (See R., p. 102. ) Reitzenstein himself (p. 165) would place it in the second century B. C.
195: 2 Incidentally also it may be pointed out that this analysis gives the coup de grâ ce to Salmon’s contention (“The Cross-references in the Philosophumena, ” Hermathena, 1885, v. 389 if. ) that the great systems of the Gnosis made known to us only by Hippolytus are all the work of a single forger who imposed upon the credulity of the heresy-hunting Bishop of Portus. This contention, though to our mind one of the most striking instances of “the good Homer nodding, ” was nevertheless practically endorsed by Stä helin (Die gnostische Quellen Hippolyts in seiner Hauptschrift gegen die Haeretiken, 1890; in Texte u. Untersuchungen, VI. ), who went over the whole ground opened up by Salmon with minute and scrupulous industry. The general weakness of this extraordinary hypothesis of forgery has, however, been well pointed out by De Faye in his Introduction à l’É tude du Gnosticisme au IIe et au IIIe Siè cle (Paris, 1903), pp. 24 ff.; though De Faye also maintains a late date.
196: 1 R. p. 9.
197: 1 Dieterich, Abraxas, 203 ff.
197: 2 Gen. xlii. 11.
197: 3 De Confus. Ling., § 11; M. i. 411, P. 326 (Ri. ii. 257).
198: 1 To make himself a cosmos like the Great Cosmos.
198: 2 Ibid., § 28; M. i. 426, 427, P. 341 (Ri. ii. 279).
p. 199
|
|
|
