Robinson. Texts and Studies: Contributions To Biblical and Patristic Literature. 1891. Volume 1.

BINDING LIST WW 1 5 1928
j.
AND STUDIES
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE
EDITED BY
J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.
FELLOW or CHRIST S COLLEGE CAMBBIDGE
VOL. I.
THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA
I
THE LORD S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH
THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891
TEXTS AND STUDIES 3
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE
EDITED BY
J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.

FELLOW OF CHBIST S COLLEGE CAMBKIDOE
VOL. I.
No. 4. THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON
CAMBRIDGE
1891
Sontum: C. J. CLAY AND
SONS,
CAMBKIDGE UNIVEKSITY PRESS WAEEHOU
AVE MAEIA LANE.
DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO,

F. A. BROCKHAUS.
gorfe : MACMILLAN AND CO.

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

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
PATRI CARISSIMO
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGES
INTRODUCTION 1-49
The MSS. of Origen s Commentaries on S. John ... 1
31
The Date and Teaching of Heracleon
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.
OF the 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
from
contained many common lacunae, pointed to their derivation
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.

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

turbato male conservatus et inscriptus (/>uX. pi/3 , 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, from ruled lines, there being one
hanging
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 inaccurate. Most of Bk. x. of the Comm.
in Matt, is there, and also Bk. xvii. 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 m. iii.
Catalogo librorum ducis Bavariae
12. "In
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
rnemoratus liber in bibliothecae Bavaricae Catalogo" (in. 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
f
1
topiyevovs e^rjyrjo-is et? TO Kara MarOalov teal tear Itodwvfp

KTrifJia /3i]<ro-apla)vos Kap$r)va\. rwv Toa/cXtov.
The MS. is dated 1374. It is written in minuscules
hanging
from ruled with one column of 36 lines on a page, and about
lines,
60 letters in each line. It consists of ff. 330 of which ff. 1117
contain the Comm. in Matt. Bks. 10 17 (inclusive). F. 118 con
tains a preface on Origen s
blasphemy, beginning TroXhwv JAW and
THE MSS. OF ORTGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 3
ending KOI avOis atywpeOa. This preface has nothing to do with

the preface in the Munich Codex concerning the marginal notes in
its ancestor. The words rov ySao-tXew? at the head of this preface
Ff. 112
point probably to some connexion with Constantinople.
(recto) 294 (verso) contain the Commentaries on S. John. So
numbered. The remainder, to 330, are left blank
far the folios are
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

et
triginta duos distributus fuit, hac arte lacunas et hiatus celare,
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 inm di

Maluasiae et finitto ad X Ottobr. 1555."
To this we shall have occasion to refer when 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:
f flpiyevovs rwv et? TO Kara Iwdvvrjv evayye\Lov
*f rov avrov et? TO Kara MarBatov TO/AOL e drro rov Setcdrov

avev dp%f)s oWo? yite^pt rov t 5
ro/jLov .
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
is written in minuscules hanging from ruled lines. This was the
MS. on which Hnet 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. Misc. 58: used by Delarue. This
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 rdâ and are for the most part based
on Ferrarius s Latin Version. The second, which are distinguished
by the word to-o)?, 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. I Abbe* Pieralisi. It contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew
(beginning at Book X. rore a<et? TOI)? o^Xou?, and ending eVt-
crrpe^rai 717)09 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 Ylepl TOV ftlov Maxreo)?.
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 TIVI e \aôvcnv ev rofc VTTO-
See<7Tepo?,
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 0. 32. It is a folio MS.
written on paper, containing ff. 30G, 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 OllIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. O
about 40 letters in a line. It contains the preface which is found

in Codex Venetus, headed by the words + rov /âcrtXect)? +,
beginning on the 2nd recto TroXXdw rov topirytvyv aiperitcov
r^fyiaapkvtov, and ending on the 2nd verso KOI avOis
The Commentaries begin on the 3rd recto with the
title ooptyevovs rutv et? TO Kara Icodvvrjv vay<ye\iov egrj yrjriKwv
royu-o? TT/JWTO?. It is divided into 32 books and is dated at the

end afyve ev firjvl avyovo-rov k.
:
After this follows the name of the scribe in cryptograph.
That is to say irapd
The cryptograph used is the common one in which the scribe

takes the Greek alphabet with the three letters F, Cj, 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 226; ff. it is in the same hand as O. 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
rdre a<ei5 rou? o^Xou?) and ending at the 27th (eiFurrptycu 737705
avrov).
The MS. is dated a five. o/crca/Spiov /3 . and signed ef"^0^8*
K0~^0- e<r^)Qo- ^r^âv. After this it has on f. 225 the preface
on Origen s blasphemies, with the same heading + rov /3ao-tA,eo>5 +
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 must be a mistake for Cj
which would represent i.
(j THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
VIII. The transcription of Codex Bodleianus (IV.) made by

Herbert Thorn dike 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 doubtful. In Miller s
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 Maxreax;, Hepl TOV filov
7ro\i,TLKov (Joseph), and Tie pi vbpwv dypdcfxov (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 MSS. to one another must now be con
relations of these
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. (q) 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.
Monac. (I)
/
XIV
Yen. (II)
XVI
Matrit.(VIl
Barl. (VI)
Reg. (Ill)
XVII
mistake as to the latter point has arisen from the fact that Books
xvi. and xvn. are not divided as the other books are. But the
last words contained in this part of the MS. are eiria-rpe^rai 777)09
avrov, the ending of Book xvn. ;
and a calculation of pages easily
shews that both Books xvi. and xvil. are contained in the MS., for
Book xv. begins on f. 62, Book xvi. on f. 77, and the Comm. in
Matt, end on f. 110. Thus while Book xv. takes only ff. 15, what
is Book xvi. takes 33, though in Lommatzsch s edition
called
Books xv. and xvi. cover very nearly the same number of pages
each. In the in Joann. there is no difference of contents,
Comm.
(ii)
The words which occur in the Cod. Monac. are TIVI Be
first
XdfjL-^rova-Lv
ev rot? uTroSeetrrepoi? which occur towards the end of
Book x. chap. 3 (Lomm. ill. 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 TraXiv oôia ecmv 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.
More direct proofs of copying are not

wanting.
Lomm. I.
p. 118, 1. 22. Cod. Monac. has Trapaê^v...^ the
intervening space being worm-eaten, Cod. Reg. has -n-apaê^.. vai
leaving space for about four letters.
p. 152, 1. 15. Cod. Monac. reads ovOev, but the 6ev is hidden
by a piece of parchment fastened on over it.
Reg. omits the
word leaving a space for three letters.
6 uios_
p. 177, 1. 5. Cod. Monac. has ôvoyev^ do; the 6 vibs being
an interlinear insertion by a later hand. Cod. Reg. has o povo-
yevr)<s u/o? 0bf all in the text.
p. 272, In the Munich Codex the words avrov rj
1. 6.
d/juapria
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. -/JLOV ovSev jiev-. In Cod. Mon. these
letters are obliterated. Cod. Reg. omits the same letters, leaving
space for them.
p. 108, 1. 11. Trepl erepwv. The same phenomenon occurs
here with regard to the letters Trepl erep.
p. 117, 1. 1. elo-eXdelv. Cod. Reg. omits the word. In Cod.
Monac. the letters creX, are almost obliterated.
p. 127, 1. 15. arjiâivet, yap TO fiev TOIOVTOV. Here again we
have an indication. Both manuscripts erroneously repeat the
letters fâlvei yap TO.
The proof may be completed by two passages from the text of
the Commentaries on S. Matthew Book xi.
chap. ix. ;
Lomm. in. p. 91, 10. el rt? ovv. The el ? is stained and

1.
indistinct in Cod. Mon. Cod. Reg. omits the words,

leaving a space.
1. 11.
TrevrjTwv. 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 of the two MSS. are numerous but not im
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
I subjoin a list of their divergences (other than mere

itacisms and cases of
first 30 pages
the addition or omission of v t<pc\Kv<r6v} which occur in the
of Tom. xiii. of the Comtn. in Joann. (Loinmatzsch s edition).
Monacensis
Regius
26 14 r
>
nfp \
27, 6 eV *
8 f cos-
9 lfpoa-6Xvp.il bis
10 V omit
11 0VlKOt
12 om. co ms .
23 /cat
6fi6r(pov omit
28, 11
29, 6 01 lovSatoi lovdaioi

30, 2 K adc\r)vas Ka6e\flv as
6 tiyyeAXots dyye Aotj
10 ^
Cocfe Barberinus II. (VI). I can
(6)
only speak from slight
knowledge of this MS. The Barberini Library was closed
during
Vacation when I was in Rome in
October, and it was 1888, only
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 TMSe Xôuw. 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 also MS
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
at
many, any rate, of
the same warnings against
Origen s blasphemies, which are con
tained in Cod. Monac., as for instance
Lomm. I. 96 (opposite
vircpexopcvo? VTTO rov ruv
p. 6\<ov
Oeov K.T.\.) favapehtVo? #eo? yap 6 wo? rc5

TrarpL
108 (opposite V7r6 rov rov
^p. fcpeiTrovo<;...7rapa \6yov) opa
$61)76 /BXaa^rj/juel yap.
The following readings, when contrasted with the
correspond-
mg 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,
PMR.
1. 1 CKTVTTOV
p. 13, 1. 16 MR.
Trepl TO
p. 13,
1. 17 a* erov MR.
p. 14, 1. 1 evBetva rot? PMR.
p. 60, 1. 12 \eyovrai MR. eyovrai P.
p. 60, 1. 13 d7roK\ia-0elo-(u$ PMR.

p. 108, 1. 9 -fJiov ovSev pev- om. PR.
(In M the words are worm-eaten.)

p. 108, 1. 11 Trepl erepwv om. R.
cov P.
(In M the letters Trepl erep are damaged.)

p. 132 M has
the following marginal note : KOI fju}v tcai TU
repara X W P^ T v r7?At
<
WI/
"
evprjrai o>?
eV rfj atSfj rfj pera rrjv
Sui/BcKTiv r^? epvOpas dvare6eiarj TW dew Oav/jLao-rds yap tyrjorlv
eV86f co? TTQI&V repara.

(I have printed the contracted
words in full.) R has the same
note exactly: P has it, but has made two mistakes in copying, read
ing dav/jLacrrd for 0avp,acrTo<;

and omitting rrj. a>Sf/
p. 73, 1. 1 M has CLK...OVT(I, the intervening letters being
damaged.
R reads dK...ovra, 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 Bia(f)0opd<>.
R $ia(f)0opdv.
p. 137, 1. 15. The erroneous repetition of paiveu yap TO found

in M (and copied by P) is not followed by R.
p. 291, 1. 13 MP /care. R tcaTe/Si].
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
copied early in the ICth century, Cod. Barberinus late in the
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 are afforded in copying some
places.
Lomm. I. p. 117, 1. 12 (in the first
fragment of Heracleon).
After the word OvdKevrivov for about nine letters. is left
space
The same lacuna occurs in Codex but in it there has been
Venetus,
an erasure.
Lomrn. n. 7, 1. 2. After
p. evKunjry there has been an
erasure in Cod. Yen, A corresponding lacuna is left in Cod.
Bodl.
Lomm. n. p. 53, 1. 7. Codex Venetus reads

Iptfs (sic). Cod,
Bodl. has
(b) was not able to notice

I
any divergence of Codex Bar-
berinus (V) from the Venice MS. except that in the
I.
passage
mentioned above it leaves no
space after OuaAezmW, from which
of course no conclusion can be drawn. The fact that the Com
mentaries on S. Matthew
begin at the of the beginning 10th Book
(r6re a TOI)? 0^X01/5), considered in connexion with
<et?
the date
of the MS. (saec. xv. or
XVL), 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 Siafepovra
ydp ^crt Ven. Bar
II.
p. 9, 1. 20 e6rj Ven. Bar.
p. 13, L 16 irapd TO Ven. Bar.
(Codex Bodleianus has Trapa rov.)

p. 14, 1. 1 eV SwaroLS Ven. Bar.
p. 122, 1. 1 el Ven. Bar.
p. 122, 1. 9 rou? eVSeSuyaeVou? Ven. Bar.
p. 376, 4 rpia/coo-Tov irpwrov Ven. Bar.

1.
p. 376, 6 TpiaKoa-ro) Bevrepo) Ven. Bar.

1.
(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
found here. And in the case of p. 41, the sug
section, are also
gestion found in Cod. Ven. in the margin (olâi 7rapaaxf.lv T^V

vTrapfyv Kal irXdaiv Kal rd ecBrj} is put in the margin also in
rrji>
the Madrid MS. See also I. 23, Lomm. p. 44, 7 QavpaC.ziv rrjv 1.
dfteXrwpiav TWV 7ro\\wv. The word d/3\Twpiav 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 at Madrid exactly agree with the note in the
Venice MS., except that the latter has October 10 instead of
October 2. As we can hardly imagine that the preface (7ro\\a>v
TOV QpLyevrjv K.T.\.) took 8 days to copy it occurs in O. 47
after the colophon we must leave this discrepancy unexplained.
3. Thus there seems to be no reasonable doubt as to the

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. Ven. 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. I. c. 4 (Lomm. p. 11) L. and Delarue read ypafavTa teal

KCUT eôvcriav, ov JJL^V TO e*Xi#pti4? rwv etc 06Las eTrnr
After Cod. Monac. is illegible until the word ei
ypa<f>evra
but between eôvo-iav and ov fjLrjv there must have been at least 17
more letters, of which some near the end were I think aTroo-roXi/c.
Cod. Ven. leaves space between these two words for about 25
letters.
Bk. I. c. 6 (Lomm. p. 14) reXo? avrov Trapa TM loodwrj.

These words are nearly illegible in Cod. Monac., but there must
have been about 14 more letters, and Cod. Ven, leaves for space
15 more letters after Îwavvy.
On the same page elpw/cw SiSda/cecv is similarly stained in
Cod. Monac., and Cod. Ven. omits the passage, except the word
elpwiccos, leaving a space.

Bk. I. c. 8, Lomm. p. 18. .../cal on o\ov. In Cod. Monac. we
find after faov, TO 0X... /*.((?)....?.(?) OTL: then more than half a
line illegible, the MS. being damaged as in the other cases.
Cod. Ven. has o\ov (space II) 2 OTCLV yap (space J line) viovs
K.T.\.
Bk. I. c. 9, Lomm. p. 20.

eK\aâveiv...ovTw XpiaTia- eVrti/
2/09. All this Monac. and mostly illegible, but
is
damaged in Cod.
there is room for about 20 more letters than are contained in the
words as they stand in Delarue and Lommatzsch. Cod. Ven.
contains all that is in the printed texts, and after TrepiTeTftrjfievo?
leaves a space of about f of a line, after which it has OVTCO Xpi-
aTiavos K.T.\.
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, KOI rfj v\y \eyovra.
This is all
damaged in Cod. Monac., but the following facts are
discoverable.
(1) It omits ol/juai and rrjv virapfyv.
(2) Between el KOI and elvreiv there is room for about 23 more
letters.
(3) is, I think, not contained in it.

e<rrlv 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 :
el KCU ra? ovatOG â\7rov pev ovv ira^vrepov elireiv.

Cod. Ven. has rfj v\y (space 20) then /cal ra K.T.\. to
; el ical
as in the texts ;
after which (space 23), elTrelv K.T.\.
In the margin it has ol/jiai, Trapaaêlv rrjv virap^tv KOI rrjv
TT\aaiv Kal 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. ri? 6 ev avrfj Xoyo?...e?re/9;Ta
O-KOTTOVVTI. Damaged in God. Monac., which has space for more.
Cod. Ven. leaves a space of one line between
enrepêrai and O-KO-
TTOVVTl.
Bk. xin. c. 39, Lomm. Vol. II.

p. 73, rjrot ovra.
God. Monac. has rjrot, OLK(space 3 or 4) ovra, the letters inter
vening being damaged. God. Ven. has jjroi (space 5), then ovra.
Such evidence as this must hold good against much textual
divergence and it must be admitted that the scribe of Cod. Ven.
;
has made rather free use of conjectural alteration. But a com

parison of the readings of Cod. Ven. with those of Cod. 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 is

missing ;
hence the displace
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 Be Xdfi-^rovo-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
God. Ven. of words contained in Cod. Mon.\ as indications of

course, not as proofs.
Bk. XI. c. 18, Lomm. pp. 120, 121. 6 KCU rpavrj ecrrat
â>Xo9
o 2a>Xo9.
Cod. Ven. omits /cal rpavrj 6 p&>Xo?.
Bk. XII. c. 1, Lomm. p. 127. /cal (papiaaioL. irpeafBevovcri

yap ol /lev fyapKTaioi.
Cod. Ven. omits irpeaftevovai fyapiaalot,.

The following passage supplies clear proofs. (Bk. XH. c. 20.)
r
E-Tret Se OVK eVeSeêro 7r/3o- Cod. Ven. T rotavra airo-
f
fta le- re\a-6at.

ava\o-
r
os To* 6 Cod. Ven. omits, leaving space
rrjv ^frv^v av- (15).
TOV 6VCK6V e^/AOV Vp^(I6L
avrrjv, ^ta rovro $i avrov
6t? Ie/300-oXfyLta tl7T\0lV, WO,
l"7roXXa TraOtov ev^ eicelvois Cod. Fen. omits, leaving space
/C.T.X. (10).
The words between the signs

r 1 are in each case damaged in
Cod. Monac.
Bk. xii. c. 24, Lomm. p. 170, <f>ep
elireiv ra j3aat,\iSov rj,
damaged in Cod. Monac. Cod. Ven. omits âcrtXiSou, leaving a
space (7). And for rj

it reads xal.
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 such that the lacunae in these places cannot for the
is
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. xiii. 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.
Delaruewider knowledge whether he had examined any
s
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 it for granted that any reading adopted
by Huet in his text was necessarily that contained in the
Paris Codex. The undue influence of this Codex, which it has
exercised owing toits 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 is at times mentioned separately. Possibly

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 followinglist of some

pro-Syrian readings supported by Cod.
Monac. have added in a few cases interesting readings from the other MSS.
I
In these cases the MS. authority is added in brackets.
Lomm. i.
10
p. 177. Jn. i. 15. o clrruv. See Tisch. (Or. 4 -)
Jn. i. 18. povoyevr)? dfos. (See above, p. 8.)
o &v om. Heracleon (?)
210. Jn. i. 24. QTrforaX/ieVot. See Tisch. (Or. 4 12:
^
<)
211. ML iii. 10. Se /cat (Yen.)

214 f. Mk. i. 2. om. efiirpoo-Oev crov. See Tisch. (Or. 4<12r>
222. Jn. i. 26. ea-rrjKfv

Jn. i. 27. avros t<mv o om.
(but in Or. vi. 23 Mon. ins. o). See Tisch. (Or. 4 130
)
234. Jn. i. 26. onjjcft ;Heracleon)

dvTr/Kei (Bodl. Cf. Eusebius) Ven.
[292. Mk. i. 27. 6a^6W av. See Tisch. (Or. 4 1 )] -
[293. Luke iv. 40. tOcpanfvev (Paris. Ven.

Monac.)
fdepdnevo-fv (Bodl.)]
Lomm. II.
p. 5. 1 Cor. iv. 11. yvfjLViTfvopfv (Par. Bodl. Mon. Ven.)

9. Jn. iv. 16. aov rov avSpa (Bodl. Ven.)
18. Jn. iv. 14. ov Sn/ô-ei (Ven.)
ov /zj) dt^r/o-d (Bodl.)
ov p.f) 8i\lsTJo-T) (Par. Mon.)
See Tisch. (Or. 4 220
)
57. Jn. iv. 31. tv r<p fifrau 8e (Bodl. Ven.)

68. Jn. xiv. 28. o narr/p 6
Trt/z^ny fj.e
om. o TTOTTIP (Bodl. Ven.)

92. Mt. xii. 42. SoXo/iwi/os (Par. Mon.)

104. Jn. iv. 42. OVTOS etrnv d\r)0<as (Bod. Veil.)
106. 1 Cor. ix. 1. eopaica (Par. Mon.)
109. Jn. iv. 44. avros 6 to- sec. loc. (Ven. Bodl.)
tert. loc. (Bod. Mon.)
110. (Ven. Bodl.)
114. Jn. ii. 15. avfo-rpeêv (Par. Mon.)
See Tisch. (Or. 4 270811 -) -
prj TroifjTf (Par. and ?Mon.)

115. Jn. ii. 16.
Jn. ii. 23. ev rfj foprfj ev rw Traoâ (Bodl.)

ev rfj foprfj TOV jroo-â (Ven.)
123. Mt. x. 28. V^X 7
)"
KOL 0-oo/na (Monac. Ven.)
130. Mt. viii. 8. o TTOIS pov om. (Par. Mon.)
248. Mt. v. 28. 0? av >j8XVrfl (Mon.)
264. Jn. viii. 44. OVK Zo-rrjKfv (Par. Mon.)
N.B. It will be seen that in the above list I have given some examples
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 2 20 ) 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 Rome 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 pen, so far as opinions are concerned.
s
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
ofthem have the appearance of being taken from Homilies, others
from eVtcrT/yuetcoo-ei?. 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 d^êiwarj Be TWO,
rpoTTov and 13 eVet ovv tye/crav (Lomm.

arj/jLau OfMevw p. 435
and p. 449) occurred almost exactly, but in each case the rest of
9 _2
the fragment was different from the text of the Commentaries.

Nor was the result of a closer examination of two Catenae, xxvn
x.) and xxvm (saec. XL), at Venice different.
(saec.
Of these
the former contains more matter, though occasionally the frag
ments in the latter have pieces omitted in Cod. xxvu. On the
whole, however, Cod. xxvm. is much more curtailed. The greater
part of what is contained in Corderius is in Cod. xxvu. 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 Yen.
xxvu. 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. xxvu. 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. XIIL 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.-
Kvo-riKa 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 Beritley 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 (= V) and R 2 (= VI). The left column gives the
t
text of Lommatzsch.
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. 21
P. 1, Title TO ToV M
1. 1 av ZBo^f. P ai/e M
THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLKON.
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. 23
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN.
23 om. B
P. 13, 1. 1 airy MVBP
1 ante vvv ins. KCU VB (V intra lin.)
3 aXXo/xeVov M
4 crol MP
5 Sr/Xovor i V
6 M
9 MP
11, 12 aXXo/xeVou M
13 ttTTO aV V
15 V7TO K VB
16 7Tpt TO MR 2 :
?rapa TO "V"!^
?rapa TOV B
17 (OS ToV ws d atT<3v VB (sed in V o- o at
seriori, ut videtur, manu sunt
scripta) cJ CTOI MR.,

P. 14, 1. 1 evSeu/a rots f ev SwaTOis VRjB: ei/8etiâ TOIS M
1, 2 e ci/yeyu/xvao-/xeVots
M
7 ante TOT) ins. TO VB
9 Xc yoi/Tos Xeyoi/Tcs
MVPB B :
ing. Xe yoi/Tos
10 y(W<TKOV(n ytl/tOCTKOUO
tl/ M
P. 15, 1. 1 ETf evfle ws erreuflecrecos MP
2 eXeye eXcyev M
5 otovet f otoj BV
TI
oiov ei M
10, 12 cx7reâv avSpt om. VB
14 7T(OS >s
MVB
19 2a/xapetrts M
21 Ka6 oi/
22 Kat om. MP
23 f 7ra.pa,Ti0eto-av MVB
24 SteXcx^^vai P
P. 16, 1. 2, 3 aXX aiSia) dXXa tSta)
/x,ci/
ovv Tt MP
5 o f(SB
6 aTreâve aTreOavev M
6 5 fcSB
11 -ijpvrjTO t T/pmTo VB
1 6 e8o)K eSoKtv M
P. 17, 1. 1 oT/xai
otvat M eti at P (sed ser. man.
oTvai)
3 ante TOVS ins. ?rpos VB B :
mg. raâ Trpo/
THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
1 4 AeycTe
XeycTat MP
21 Stavo/xiys VB
23 TOV am. VB
23, 4 SeKao-/xos VB: B mg.
24 P Sewov M
25 M
P. 24, 1. 3, 4 TO fj.l
TO /xc/ (sic) P : P mg. 7-175
11 MP
12 2iwv M
13 e ori iv M
13 OLTTCp M
14 pOSt V7TO om. TO VB
1 f
16
*
>;>; v; 7;
M
1 i/â
icpaTCVfJia VB : t
M
18 Trpoo-ayovTat VB
1 9 VOfJLOV MVP
21 ante a ins. TT;V MVPB
26 epxeTai 0ai P
27 eon M
29 eW tv M
29 oT/xat ot/xat M
P. 25, 1. 3, 4 TTpOKOTTYJV TTpOfTKOTTTCLV MP
P
7, 8 vo//,i a M
8 yow VB
10 P
13, 4 M
14 -tJ/ M
1 6 7Tl M
17 TO om. VB
20
01
J1 finyV MVP
25 KttV ttV
TrpO<f>1f]TV(t)/AV
MVB
26 tvwo-Kto/u,i/ MVB
26 /xeTtt 8e Tcurra CI ravra 8e VB
P. 26, 1. 1 ttVTT7? </>V0-l
avo-et MP :
avTiys
5 8t ayvotav Siavotav P: 8t
cuyvotav B
B mg. oY ayi/oiav
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTAKIES ON s. JOHN. 29
12 OIK OIKV M
14
14 T BV T M
15 post riV VB
ins. TpoTra)
17 TO MVPB
18
evcXcyKara M
19 * mil. lac. MP : ins. &?A.oi/ VB
I 9 ctT
ctTraXXayet T;
M
23 Tr
23 ob v M
P. 27, 1.
3, 4 &T60o AaKT M
4 OpOS Op OS M
6 fv
7 o>os epos M
8 (S ok P
9 lepoo-dXvpia lepoo-oAu/ta bis P
10 <S om. P
10 opos opos M
II ot om. M
12$ om. M
12 ot om. VB
14 7rpO(TKi;v7ycrT P
1 5 arvfJiTra.paXaiJ.f3a afjil3dvt M
16
20
^
{i7r
^8et VB
MVPB
19, V7ro\afji/3av6fji.fvov
21 3^ S?7/uoupyoi/ P sed ser. man. in
correctum est
23 ^CWp^TT/KWTepOl/ B
23 post <ra(f)ecrTpov
ins. /cai OfLorcpov MVB
P. 28, 1. 3, 4 TTpOO /CVl Ol O O M
4 KpCLTTOV (US MVB
6 to-a
cto-ayyeXoi MP
8 crvfj.Trpi(f>epu>vTaL
VB :
pOVTO.1 M
9 TOIS om. VB
10 MP
10, 11 voeio-00) P
1 1 TrpocTttTroSeSw/ M
15, 6 Trpoa"KW7J(rcTC irpoa-Kvvrjcrai MP
20 eo-rt co-riv M
22 pr)T<Z opcL VB : o prjTu P sed ser. man.

deletur o
as
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.
OF of Heracleon hardly
the personal history anything is
known. Clement
Alexandria, quoting his comment on a of
passage of S. Luke, calls him the most famous of the Valentinian

School 1 Origen prefaces his first citation from Heracleon s Com
.
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 rrjs QvaKevrivov
2
Origen, Coinm. in Joann. n. 8, TOV OvaXevrivov \ey6fj.evoi> clvai. It yi>upi/j.oi>.
seems probable that Origen here uses the word yvupi/j.os in the sense of pupil, a
meaning which it often bears. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 11, TOVTO &pa /SotfXercu
Kal Ty HvOayopy i) Trerracr/as ffiwiri) -^v rots
yvwpl/jwis irapeyyvq, and Ibid. II. 4.
Hippolytus, Refutatio, I. 13, ATJÔ/C/HTOJ 5 AevKiwirov yiverai. yi>upt/jLos. Justin
Martyr, ApoL I. 32, <5>
(sc. iruXov) eKtXevffev ayayelf avri^ rbre TOI)S yvupl/jiovs

aurov. Joseph. J. iv. 8. 3,
I-TTO EXio-crat oi; TOV trpo^-fiTOV
yvupijjios 8e yv OUTOS
I>.
HXt a /cai Siddoxos. Philo

201. 6 (ed. Mangey), aware yap
I. Ttirrei eucppo-
irarrjp vibi>
vl$uv $ diddffKa\os yvupt/j.ov, and i. 208. 4. Plutarch, 2. 448 E (Francofurt. 1G20),

avrl yvupi/j.wv /cai fj.a.Or]Tu>v epaa-rai /caXoêvot xai oj/res
(of the gradual growth of the
pupil s affection for his master). Cf. also Strabo 1. 1. 11. Philostratus 529 41. (2.
9 ed. Teubner), 578 (2. 84. 13), and 583 (2. 88. 4), and Suidas mb roce. The
growth of the meaning may be traced in such passages as Xen. Mem. 2. 3. 1,
d5e\0w yu^y ciXXTjXotJ/, ecu/Tc^ (sc. 2wK/)drei) 5e yi>()pi/j.w.
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 Ptolemaeus
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 is placed after Ptolemaeus. 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 wrong in telling a story of him
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 et Panormeorum Theodorus, quique omnium per Sicilian!
erant episcoporurn synodum exorantes gestis eum audire decre-
uerunt et uniuersas adsertiones eius dirigentes ad sanctum Alex-
andrum episcopum rogauerunt, ut ad eum confutandum
urbis
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 ubinam deuenisset penitus nullus sciret.
ultra
The date is
impossible, and 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, Eefutatio Oinn. Haeres., vi. 35.
4
Theodoret, Haeret. Compend. i. 8, Kai aXXoi 5e jj-vpiot tvrevdev dve^rjaav
aiptaews dpXTjyoi, Ko<rcriaj>6s, 9e65oros, Hpa<AeW, IlroXf/Acuos, Map/cos, Sid<popa
6
Photius, Ep. 134 (ed. Eic. Montacutius).
6
Praedestinatus, Haer. 16.
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 33
est :
1
from Augustine (c. 16) Heracleonitae ab Heracleoiie : from
air avrov
Epiphanius (Haer. XXXVI.) Hpa/eAeW KOI ol
K\Q)Virai: and from Origen (passim), e.g. ol air avrov,
aurofc? rd T^? /-lufloTroua?, ol airo rfjs yvco/jLt](;
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 (Comm. in Joann. II. 8) is
uncertain, but the phrase used (yvoopipo*;) 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 (\ey6fjuevov). In the absence of more direct evidence
we have noreason to distrust this tradition. On the other hand,

stresshas been laid on the probability that the heads of the
Western or Italic School 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 very precarious. The constant connexion of the
names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, not always 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. we know for certain is, that
All
Heracleon s Commentary on John was in existence before 228,
S.
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 their composition. Lipsius points out the probability that
Irenaeus had heard of himwhen he came to Rome about 17C
or 177: 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,
established at that time We may perhaps go a little further.

1
.
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. This evidence is independent of the disputed question of
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
is a considerable
there 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 Yalentinus. 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 than type
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 and that the Refutatio,

great,
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, 18G7,
p. 81.
2
Lightfoot, Clement of Home (2nded.), vol. n. p. 414.
3
Ibid. p. 423.
4 Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die Heiligc Schrift,
p. 13.
5
See Fragment 49.
c
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
vTTo/jLVJJ/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 ef77701^6^09 rov TOTTOV 6
f
Hpa/c\a)i ,
K.r.X. 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 TT)? ySacriXeta? efeXeucrozmu
(Text. Rec. eK^rjOâovrai}, to prove the destruction of the men
of the Demiurge.
The place of Heracleon among the Valentinians is given

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.
Dicensprincipium csse 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
generationem multorum adserit prin- aeones. Deinde introducit totum
cipiorum. Valentinum.
What word is to be supplied to fill up the lacuna in the

account of Ps.-Tertullian, has been sufficiently discussed by others 4 .
The phrase ex ilia monade just below certainly suggests that

monadem is the only natural reading. Thus we get Mom? as
the starting point of the Heracleonic system, according to the
1
Origen, Comm. in Joann. vi. 8 ev ofs Ka.Ta\{\onrei> UTTO^VÔLGIV.
2
See Fragment 51 (note).
3
Origen, Comm. in Joann. xm. 59.
4
Cf. Lipsius, Quellenkritik dcs Epiphanies, p. 170.
32
Syntagma of Hippolytus, the almost certain source of the accounts

which we are considering. And this agrees exactly with the
account given by Hippolytus in the Refutatio, where the system
described under the section devoted to Valentinus starts from
a novas dyevvrjTos, a$6apTos K.T.\. (see Hippolytus, Ref. Omn.
Haeres. vi. 29). Combining this with the direct statements of
Irenaeus (l.
xi. 1) with regard to the tenets of Valentinus himself,
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 next step 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 NoO? and AXty&ia: and very
possibly he may have often referred to it as dXijOeia: compare the
use in the Fragments of the term TW Trarpl rrjs d\7)0eia<:. The
exact agreement of this with the account given in the Refutatio
must be noted. We need only quote vi. 29, Trpoeftakev ovv /cal
eyevvrjaev avros 6 irarr^p, wcnrep ijv fibvos, vovv /cal d\r)0eiav
rovreo-TL SvaSa. The next clause also agrees well enough with
the rest of Ps.-Tertullian and Philaster: r}? /cvpla KCU
Kal ^rrjp Trdvrcov TWV eVro? 7r\7jpa>fjLaTO<; Karapi
<yeyove
alwvwv. 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
Zur Quellenkritik der Gesclnclite 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 iiltesten Ketzer-
geschichte, p. 67 n.) has shewn that Tertullian reproduces this

section of Irenaeus
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>oT?79, EJ/OTT;?, Moi/a? and *Ez/, is attributed to Marcus, with a
reference apparently to this passage, by means of the words icaO
a TTpoeiprjrai (Irenaeus I. xv. I) 1 We may also compare the words
.
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 is open to grave suspicion. But, in his
article on Valentinus, Lipsius has shewn that Hippolytus cannot
have derived his statements as to the pupils of Valentinus
(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 rerpa? Se%t,d and dpccrrepd, and the two av^vyot,
respectively, are not so attributed by Hippolytus, while the dis

tinction of the two ô(f>Lai, assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus
(i. xi. 2), is in Hippolytus assigned to them both. The connexion

then is so very loose that, when we find that Hippolytus (see
Ps.-Tcrtullian, 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 clarus magister
But the ipsius will hardly bear out this ; and as no mention has been made in
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 ct Ptolemaei.

1
See Neander, Gcnetische Entwickelung dcr gnostischcn Systcmc, p. 169 with :
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.
Ketzergcschichte, pp. 169, 170; and his
article on Valuntiuus, Diet, of Christ. Biotjr. vol. iv. p. 1084.
is Moôr?;?. There would seem then to be no valid reason for
rejecting the information afforded by Hippolytus

on the ground of
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.
Minor Heresiologists
The only other information afforded by the
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 Epiphanius need not detain us long. His
1
of
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 dvOpooirov (Frag. 35)
lends plausibility to the supposition that the aXXot of Irenaeus
I. xii. 4 may have some connexion with Heracleon, and that he
did call the Father of All dv0pa)7ros. But, as a Commentator like
Heracleon was bound to make use of the Evangelic phrase u/o?
dvOpwirov, the identification is precarious. For the rest we should
perhaps notice the parallelism of y^re dppev prjre 6fj\v with Hipp.
Ref. VI. 30 (ev fAV yap TW dyevvrjTM, faa-lv, earl irdvra O/JLOV, ev Se
rot? <yevvi]TOLs,
TO /j,ev 6r}\v...ro Se dppev), because of the fyrjcrl,
with which we must The

description of the Sevrepa
deal later on.
^rr)p is a natural description of what formed part of every

Valentinian Epiphanius might easily have added it
system.
himself, without deriving it from any particular source. The
1
Epiphanius, Haer. xxxvi.
words /3ov\eTai 8e vrXetora rwv irpo avrov teal OUTO? \eyei,v, 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
the name of
Hippolytus in the Refutatio is to be connected with
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. It will not be out of place here, however, to trace
shortly the illustrations which
the Fragments offer of those pas
of the Refutatio, which are confessedly derived from a
sages
document quoted, noticing also again the parts of such passages
which shew similarity to the account of Heracleon given in the
Syntagma. The first of these passages (Ref.
vi. 29), tfv oXw?, <?/<n,
ovBev, Trarrjp 8e yv povos ayewijTO?, ov TOTTOV

yevvrjTov e%o>i>,
ov xpbvov, ov crvii(3ov\ov, ovrc d\\r)v nvd /car ovoeva rcov rpoirwv
wrj&fjwu Svva/jievrjv ova-lav, is in thorough harmony with the

account in the Syntagma. The description of dyaTTT), though
on 6fjio\oyia, offers no
worthy of the author of the Fragment (50)
point of contact with the Fragments. The agreement of the next
sentence, TrpoejBdXev ovv. .Tovreari SvdSa,
. K.T.\., with the Syntagma
has been pointed out, but it is not directly .attributed to the
document. The next sentence so attributed, TOVTOV yap, ^crl,
in harmony with the Pythagorean
T\eioTepov dpiOfjiov /c.r.X., is
tendency to dwell on numbers, which is seen in Fragments 16, 18,

40, where Heracleon explains the significance of the 46 years
six husbands (ac
occupied by the building of the Temple, the
cording to his text) of the woman of Samaria,
and the seventh
hour when the son of the /rWtXt/co? was healed. With the
sentence eV fjuev yap rw dyevvijrw, fricrlv, K.T.\. we have dealt
before. With the following avr^j e crrt, (frrjalv, 77 djaOrj, 1} eirovpd-

c
vios et? r)v e7njyyL\aTo 6 $eo? elcrayayelv TOVS

Iepouo"aXr/yu,,
u/oi)? ^\<rpar]\ must be compared ihe lepovaa^fji of Fragment 13,
of which the -vfriHô? TOTTO?, typified in John ii. 13 by lepoao-
\vfia, is an GLKUJV. (Cf. the note in loc.)

In chapter 32, after the explanation of dp^f)

crotyias </>o/3o<?
fcvpLov (Prov. i.
7), by the use of tprjo-l to the same
attributed
document, we find a long passage, which it will be
necessary to quote
in full. Se TrvpwSijs,
"Eo-rt
(prjcrlv, 77 ^vîKi) ovala, Ka\elrai Se
fCal T07T09 [/^CCTOTT/TO?] VTT CiVTWV fCCli
ejSSo/Jbds KOI TTdXaibs rWV
KOI ova roiavra \eyovo~i Trepl rovrov, ravra elvai rov
,
ov fyacTiv elvai rov KOCTÔV fypiovpyov ecrri Se TrvpwSrjs.
\eyei, (pijcrl,
/cal M.wva-fj<;Kvptos 6 crov Trvp earl 6eo<s
<f>\eyov
KOI KaravakiaKov. KOI yap rovro ovrws yeypd^dat, Oe\ei. nr\r)

8e Tt9 ecrTt,, (f)rja-lv, rf TOV TTVpo? ecri yap irvp 7ra/jL(f)dyov,
Svvafjiis
fcaTao-/3cr0rjvai /JLIJ &vvd/j,VOV.../caTd rovro roivvv TO /te/Do? Ourjrtj

rt9 eo-riv rj -fyvxf), pecroTrjs rt? ovaa ecrrt yap e/3Sofj,ds KOI
KCLT air averts. VTro/cdra) ecrrl evrlv
ydp rfjs dySodSos, OTTOV 77
(Toîa, rjfjiepa /jie/jLOpcpwfjuevrj, vTrepdvw 8e rr)<$ uX?;?, 779 earl 8rj-
piovpyos. edv ovv efopouoQjj rot9 dva), rfj oySodSi, dOdvaros

eyei/ero /cal tf\0ev els rrjv oySodSa, tfris ecrrl, (pijcrlv, lepovcraXrjfjb
tTTOvpdvios edv Se eôjjuoiwOf) rfj v\rj, rovreo-Ti, rots Trddeai, TOLS
V\IKOLS, eo-rai /cal aTrcwXero [? ea-rt teal It
<f)0apTr) aTroXXurat].
is
impossible to determine how much of this passage is actually
quoted from the document in question : but the 7-077-09 [^0-0x77x09]
reminds us of Frag. 13, rov tyw%t,Kov TOTTOV, Frag. 40, rw VTTO-
ftefirj/coTi fjuepet, rfj? /jLeo-orijros, and Frag. 35, virep rov TOTTOV.
And the account of ^vîKr) over La as e/SBo/juds, and of the con
ditions under which it
may become dddvaros, vividly recalls the
description of ^^77 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 ficopla &e,
(frrjo-lv, earlv 77 SiW/-u9 rov fy/jLiovpyov. On the agreement, or
disagreement, of the next sentence, /u,w/509 yap fy, K.T.\., with
Fragment 2, see the note iti loc.
The rest of the quotations from the document, and there are
practically only two more, offer 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 Hippolytus shews that he is quoting a particular
tfyrja-l
1
Gnostic document It has never been proved that Valentinus
.
1
The researches of Stiihelin (Harnack, Tcxte und Untersuchiimjcn vi. 3) do not
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OP HERACLEON. 41
cannot have been the author of this document. But if the view,
that the Pythagoreanising element was chiefly developed by
Heracleon is true, the Valentinian authorship is highly im
1
,
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 is Heracleonic ;
while certain differences lead us to
attribute it rather to the school of Heracleon, than to the founder
of the school himself. speak of course of the system on which
I
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 eryVyo? of the Father, which we may attribute with
are not
probability, though not with certainty, to Heracleon,
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 Theodoto it not necessary to speak

is
at length here. The chief illustrations of the Fragments afforded
by them will be referred to in the notes. Considerable verbal

similarities exist, but we are not yet, if indeed we ever can be, in
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 TT?? aXrfOda^
(Fr. 20). We hear in Fr. 16 of a rer/sa?, tf aTrpocrTrXotfo?, which
i.e. the
isprobably the highest Tetrad of the Valentinian system,
four highest male Aeons. The next highest Aeon of whom we
affect the question under discussion. He admits the trustworthiness of Hippolytus s
authority in this section of the Eefutatio.

1
See also Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiplianios> p. 170.
read perhaps the dva) Xpto-ro?, who, according to the Hip-

is
polytean account, sent the KOIVOS rov TrX^wyLtaro? KapTros 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 KOWOS
Kapiros
in the Refutatio. 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 Sia, he was the

cause of the creation of the world by the
Demiurge (irapao-êlv
air Lav yevecrews rov KOCT/JLOV
Tr)v -7-779 ru>
Through his in
$.).
dwelling activity the Demiurge worked. The Trvev/jLan/col were in

a stricter sense created by him, avro?
jap rrjv Trpwrr^v fjibpfywcriv
rrjv Kara rrjv yevecriv avrol? Trapeaê, ra VTT a\\ov cnrapivra
6*9 teal -ia-fjbov Kal
f*>op<f)r]v
et? </>O>T
Trepiypacfrrjv ISlav dyaywv Kal
dvaSeiga?. He is the true Creator, and is also called
Xpto-ro?
(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 Kal ol avv avrw eXOovres (Fr. 22), as is shewn by what
follows: e%fj\0ev...6 Xoyo? et? rr)v OL/covfjievrjv. We hear of the
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

is the of that of the
history archetype redemption of the
TTvev/jLarifcol, which is
represented as the true of the
meaning
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 Xoyo?, the Demi
urge, inspired by him, is its immediate creator (Fr. 1). He it
was, in all probability, unconsciously, the pneumatic who sowed,

seeds which were formed and fostered by the Word He
(Fr. 3).
is typified by John the Baptist, who, when he professed his
unworthiriess 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 of John iv. 46.
/3a<ri\iKo<;
He is, as it were,
a petty king (Fr. 40), set over a small kingdom by the Great
King. His kingdom is the TOTTO? /mea-orrjTo^, 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, assured by the words of Christ in Matt. viii. 12.
is His
nature is such that it requires signs and wonders before it can
believe it cannot \6yy Tria-reveiv.
: 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 nature. Such can be saved, though the salvation
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 ea-nv 6 ^TJTWV KOL
icpivwv the Judge is the Demiurge, the Saviour s minister, who
performs the will of Him to whom all judgment has been com
mitted.
The Sia/3oXo? 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 /cocy-co?
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 error and falsehood
(Fr. 47). His substance is different kind from the \oyiKr)
in
ova-la of the Saints (Fr. 45). He has desires but no will (Fr. 46).
The xoiKol are his children by nature, of the same substance

as he.
Corresponding to XOYO?, Srj/jLiovpyov, St,dfto\os we find the }
usual triple division of men into Trvev/juari/col,

^ruîKol, ÔLKOI or
l (cf. Fr. 44,
erepas outrta? rvy^dvovn Trap oi)? /caXovcn
?; TrvevpaTiKovs). The 7rveu/j,aTi/col are in some sense
identical with the ^070?, 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^va-rjâ,
which is apparently the psychical part of those men who
possess
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 was
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, awôêvov, and incorruptible
(Fr. 37). Faith corresponds to their true nature, and henceforth
offer to the Father of Truth that spiritual
they 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
^vîfcol
who are capable of salvation. They pour forth what has been
given them, unto the eternal life of others (erepoi). So Heracleon
interprets the uXkopevov of John iv. 14 (Fr. 17). It is
through
and by the pneumatic that the psychic is to the Saviour
brought
(Fr. 27).
The TTvevâTiicoi are consubstantial with God, and are destined
to With the -^v^Kol it is not so. They are the
salvation.
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 Trpovaos, the sphere of the Levites service, is the true symbol
of their destined home. They are many in number, and form
the K\V)<TL^,
in contrast to the small number of the spiritual
eK\oy^. But we learn most about their nature in

Fragment 40.
Like the TrvevâTiKol they are entangled in and they are v\<rj
:
sick, sick unto death. But their case is not hopeless the psychic ;
nature possesses fitness for salvation (brinfieiaxs 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 seern then to be a freedom of choice. The tyv%iKol

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
%oiKol are by nature the sons of the Devil. The ^jrv^Kol
can, by doing his works, become sons of the Devil deaet, or a%ia,
but only the xoi/col 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 set free the TrvevfiariKol, and to save those -^v^LKol who
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 KOIVOS rov TrX^^wyLtaro?
of the Hippolytean account, came down from the
and took flesh as an uTro&â (Fr. 8). As we learn
this from a fragment which is dealing with the words of the
Baptist, /-tetro? V^JLWV arrjtcei, K.T.\., and as in Fr. 10 a dis
is made between the a-cofia and that which dwells in it,
tinction
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 not 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 awav the sin of the world is the Higher
O Beinsr, o>
who dwells in the body. Traces of Docetism are to be found in

the account of His healing of the son of the fiacrCKiKos (Fr. 40,
Karaffds Trpo? rov /cd/jLVOvra teal laaa/Jievo^ CLVTOV), 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 declared to the people by the
is
Baptist. Through his representative the Baptist, the Demiurge

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 His own words, the
by
higher class of -^vî/col 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 TrvevârLKol 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 the ^vîKol is more fully described in Heracleon s
for
interpretation of the miracle of the healing of the son of the

ftavikiKos, which has been considered already.
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, //-era rrjv e/c veicpwv
Se/caoKra) fjirjcrl \eyeiv SiareTpifyevai avrov crvv TO?<?
and I. xxx. 14, remoratum autem eum post resurrection em

xvni mensibus.
Of the Eschatology of the system we do riot hear much. The
v\iKol are obviously doomed to destruction, and so are such of the
^rv^LKol 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 TrvevârLKol, 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
seen at his best in the description of True Confession,
is
in Life and 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, ovSels rov Oeov
ewpa/cev Trwirore (Jn. i. 18), is not part of the Baptist s speech,
but added by the Evangelist himself (Fr. 3). His interpretation

is
of d\\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 MT; rt? tfveryicev avra) ;
(f>a<yelv
and the self-satisfied stupidity of the Jews in their suggestion

of Mrirt, d-rroKTevel Indeed he is often at his best in
eavrov ;
those places where Origen complains of his want of spiritual
insight and servile adherence to the letter. But his explanatory
remarks are often strangely unfortunate. 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 Gospela system which has only a superficial
and verbal connexion with it. Yet, on the whole, though we
cannot but feel that the author of Fragment 50 might have
employed his ability in a more fruitful manner than he has some
times done, there is much
interesting matter, apart from the his
torical investigation of Valentinianism, to repay a careful study of
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.
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
1. Orig. Comm. in loann. ii. 8 (R. IV. GG; L. i.

117).
Se olfJLai KOI fiaprvplov rov OvaXevrivov

%ft>/n?
f
Jo. i. 3.
\<yo/JLvov
elvat, ^vwpiôv Hpa/cA,ea>z>a, &M<iyov/jLVov TO HANTA
Ai Ayioy epeNGTO, eêCkêvai HANTA rov Koa/jiov KOI ra
ev avro), KK\ioma rwv HA SITCON, TO oa-ov 7rl rfj vTrodecrei
avrov, ra rov KCHT/JLOV /cal roov ev avro) Siatyepovra. yap (f>i]crl
5
1. 3. The exclusion of TO, rov /v6<r- avudevTrjs (ro0/as (Hipp. Refut. vi.35).
TUV tv avT$ Siafapovra from In the account given by Hippolytus

fjiov Ko.1
the iravra is noticeable. Contrast we hear of seventy Xo7oi projected

by Sophia and her the
1
Irenaeus i. viii. 5 Travra. Si avrov tnîryos, KOU>OS
eytvero /cat %W/HS avrov eytvero ovdt Ka.pir6<>. Probably

v" iraffi yap rots ûer avrbv aiwcri
Heracleon s A67o$ corresponds to the
teal yevfoeus ainos 6 \6yos o-Jîryos of Sophia. At any rate he
(j.op(f>T)s
tytveTo. 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 Refut. vi. 42) cannot be assigned
ing of Heracleon is more nearly allied definitely to any place in the system,
to that of Irenaeus, frequently who but ismost probably to be regarded
insists on the inclusion of the KO<T/J.OS as the <Tvvyos of ZWT;. Except there
in iravra., as against the ordinary fore that the term (A67os) 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. ev T$ aluvi came into being the A67os of Heracleon.
before the A67os gives us a clue to his 5. SicKfitpovra.. (pyffi yap] An un
views with regard to the Ao7os, who fortunate transposition of yap and
must be identified with the A67os 0i7fft in Cod. Yen. 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 \6yos 6 TTJS tion of cKK\tovra x.r,\. excluden-
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 51
Ov rov alcova 97
TO, ev rat al&vi yeyovevai Bid rov
\6yov, ariva oierai rrpo rov \6yov yeyovevai. dvctLBecrrepov
Be icrrd/jievos Trpos TO KA I
XP C ^Y"rof ereNeio oyAe GN, /JbrjSe Jo. i. 3.
evXaftovfjievos ro MH
npocGHC TO?C Aoroic AY TOY, TNA Mh eAepIn Pr. xxx. 6
,
a , , "
. / (xxiv. 29).
ce KAI VGYAHC reNH, rrpoa-rivriai rw OYAe GN TWZ/ ev
t >,
10
KOCT/JLO) TO>
teal Ty KTicrei. KOI eirel 7rpo<pavyj ecrrl rd VTT avrov Xe-

y6/JLva (ripoSpa êîacr^va /cal irapd rrjv evdpyeiav eTray-
rd vofjUô/meva avrw Oela eKK\eierai rwv HAUTCON,
yeXX-o/jLei a, el
rd Se, co? e /cetô? olerai, TravreXws (frOeipo/jueva Kvpiws HANTA
15 KaXeirai, ovrc eTriSiarpnrreov rfj dvarpoirfj rwv avrbOev rrjv
droTTiav eâivovrwv olov Be /cal ro T?;? ypatyrjs \eyov(T7]<i
Xoopic AYTOY ereNGTO ofAe GN Trpo&nOevra avrov dvev Trapa-

fjivOias T?7? drro ypacfrrjs ro rwv ev Koo-fjuu* real
rf]<>
ru>
ry Kricreu /jirjBe perd mOavor^ro^ diroâivecrdaL, mo~reve(rOai

20
dîovvra o/u-o/co? Trpo^tjrais rj avrocrToXot? Tot? /ZGT et-ovaias
KOI dvvTreuOvvws KaTa\ei7rovcri TO?? tcaO* avrovs KOI /ji0
auTou? awrrjpia rov HANTA
ypd/jifjiara. en Be t Sico? KOL
AiAYTOY GfGNGTO ^r)Kovcr, (f)d(T/ca}v rrjv dlrlav irapa- Tov
a-%6vra T^? yeveaews rov KOCT/JLOV rw BvjfMiovpyw, rov
75
\6yov ovra, eivai, ov rov d(j) ov rj v(j) ov, d\\a rov
8 /UTjSe] /x^. 12 efa/xyetai ] eittpytiav.
ternquantum ipsius fert hypothesis is not found in Delarue s text, the

ex omnibus praestantissima quaequc word being omitted in Cod. Bodlei-
mundi et eorum quae ipso continen- awi/s, 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 ro may be taken :
excellent than the world and its con- with and though the
a7ro0cuVecr#cu,
tents are of course, as
explain- is construction awkward it is not im- is
ed in the following words, the aluv 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 ry, viz. olov -rrpocmd^vTa
tents, he excludes from -rravTa. all dirfxpaiveffdai. But the olov 5 is
that is of a higher nature. unsatisfactory, and it has been well

6. cu wi/i] For this sense of alwv, suggested that we should probably
derived no doubt originally from the here read otoj>
5?). For one who recog-
Timaeiis (38 A), cf. Frag. 18, r\v yap nizes the authority of Scripture, to
ai)r^s 6 avTip h T cu uw, and Frag. make unwarrantable additions to it
22, 6 lv cuum. without any attempt to justify them,
16. TO T?}S 7pa0^s \eyov<Tys]
Hil- is a fair example of TUI> avrbdev TTJI/
genfeld, omitting \eyov0"r)S, which droTriav i[JL<pa.i.v6vTWv.
42
52 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Bi ov ev avvrjOela typdo-iv
TO
Trapd rrjv rfj
**(*-.
eV8e^d/u<ei/o9
r
rep ay par wv
t \ //)
yeypau/jLevov. ei yap <w?
voei ^ a\j)ueia rwv
fjv, e$6i orujuovpyov yeypdfyQai rrdvra yeyovevai

Bid rov
VTTO rov \6yov, ou^t oe dvdrcd\iv Bid rov \6yov vrro
rov
Kai T^/xet? pev rf/ BS ov ^priadfjievoi
arcoôvuws 30
BnLiiovpyov.
rfj o-vvrjOeia, OVK dudprvpov efcBo^v d^rjKapev. eicelvos
rrjv
TW arj drro rwv Oelwv ypa^drayv

Be, 7T/305 rrapapepvdrlcrOai
TO d\r)6e$ Kai
rov Ka& eavrov vovv, fyaiverai Kai vTrorrrevcras
dvaiBws avra>
dvnftêtyas l
ydp (ptja
w? UTT d\\ov onOvx
evepyovvros avros errolei o Xdyo?, tV ovra) vovjOfj 35
26 Trapd TTJV] ire pi c5v. Cod. Bodl. in mg. rd%a TWI>.
The reading of tion is independent of Heinrici,

26. -n-apa TTJV]
Cod. Monac. irepl wi>,

which is repro whose note (Die Vol. Gnosis, p. 135)
I had not seen when I first made it.
duced in all its copies, is impossible.
Ferrarius s translation, exponens id 32. Trpos r /AT) irapafj.efj.v0TJ(r6ai]
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
got it from thehow he tion of that MS. to Cod. Monacensis

easy to see
Greek which was before him, and in see Introduction p. 8. Delarue s
the context in which the words occur obviously right conjecture of ry for
it no intelligible sense. Hilgen- TO is now substantiated by the
gives
evidence of Cod. Monacensis. Un
feld s conjecture Trepirr^v is hardly
more How is it to be trans fortunately the same error (TO for T )
helpful.
lated The conjectural emendation
? was made
independently by the
which most obviously suggests itself scribes of Codd. Reg. and Bodl.
is Tra/m The confusion of Trapd

TTJJ>.
35. 6 Xcryos] The position of the
and irepl is one of the commonest Ao 7os here is exactly that given to
characteristics of Cod. Monac., as Sophia in Hippolytus (Refut. vi. 33),
also, may be added, of its de

it dyvoovvTi O.VT$ (sc. r drjôvpyy) ??
scendants. And when once Trapd was o-o0a i>rjpyr)<Te,

which corresponds to
changed to Trept, rrjv may have be Heracleon s avrov evepyovvros repos
come TWP, which might easily be cTrofci, where the repos is obviously
c5v. Possibly the original the Demiurge. It may be noticed
corrupted to
that in this passage Hippolytus gives
reading may have been Trapd XT/I/ T&V,
which accounts more easily for the a general reference, using \tyov<rw and
corruption, if the construction thus not 0->7<riV.

We should also compare
Either the account of Irenaeus (i. v. i.),
given to (ppaffiv is possible.
of these readings will give the re especially the words /j,a\\ov 8e TOV
quired contrast to Origen s position Scoria 6V auT?}s; and shortly before,

stated just below, TJ/XCIS 5e aVoXotftfcos (of the Demiurge) XeX?70oTws Kivot-
ry ffwrjddg. /c.r.X. We may compare /j.vov VTTO TTJS /j.r)Tpos. Heracleon may
such passages as xiii. 17, opa 5 el ^ have assumed some similar relation
Kai Trapd TTJV a.KO\ov9tav T&V between Ao7os and So0ta, at any rate
os K.T.\. This sugges it would have been easy for him to
e/f&ed>f*
TO Ai Ayrof, aAA avrov evepyovvros ere/509

ov rov Trapovro? 8e Kdtpov ecrrlv eXeyâi TO /J,rj rov
ovpyov vTTTjperrjv rov \6yov yeyevrjfjbevov rov KOO~/JLOV

Ktvav, Kal aTToSeifcvvvai, ori VTrrjperrjs rov 8rj/j,iovpyov y
40 6 Xo7O9 TOJ>
KocrfMov Karecr/cevacre. Kara yap rov
Aa/3/8 9e6c e?ne KAI ereNHOHCAN* eNereiAATO KAI eKTi cGHCAN. Ps. cxlviii.
eNejei AATO yap 6 dyevvrjros $eo9 rcT npoaroTOKcp TTACHC KTICGOOC,
KAI 6KTIC6HCAN, OV /JLOVOV 6 KOafJUO^, Kal TO. V aVTU>, d\\a

/cal rd \oL7rd nravra eTre OpoNOi efre KypiOTHrec APXAI e\~re Col. i. 16,
45 erre eloyciAr HANTA r^p Ai AY TOY KAI eic AYTON IKTICTAI, KAI AYTOC
ecTi npo HANTCON.
2. Ibid. ii. 15 (R. iv. 73; L. i.

130).
Hdvv 8e /3tGUft>9
Kara rov roTrov yev6[j,evo<$
6
TO "0 refONGN GN AYToj ZOOM HN e^6L\ij(f)6v dvrl To> N AY TO) Jo. i. 4.
Et9 TOU9 dvOpwTTOvs vev/JLari KOV 9, olovel ravrov Toi)9 7T
vofjiiaras elvai, rov \6yov Kal TOV9 TrvevfiariKOVS, el Kai fjirj
5 cra0w9 TaiV e lpijKe Kal wcrrrepel alno\oyd)v (frqa-iv AUTO 9
Kapirov Kal Trjs TOVTOV

modify the system sufficiently to <ro0tas
et s
obtain the necessary adaptation to TOV K6ff/j.ov: and also the interpreta
the Prologue of St John. The same tion of aXXos 6 airdpuv Kal aXXos 6
relation, however, between Sophia 6epifai> given by Heracleon (Frag.

and the Demiurge is assumed in the 35). But it is more probable that
second part of iheExcerpta ex Theo- the aXXos is the Demiurge, the
doto (c. 49, cTrel 5e OVK eyivwo-Kev TT\V work of the A670$ being that which
5t avTov tvepyovcrav /c.r.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 TTJV wpw-
available as a means of differenti rt]v iibp(f>w<nv T7)V Kara TT)V yfre&u ,
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 atfros instead of o 0eoj, and of Creation. Much closer parallels,
repeats the ai)ros before everei Xaro. however, to this passage are found
2. 5. Two explanations of this in the Excerpta ex Theodoto. Cf.
passage are possible. The d XXos 57, yivtTai ovv.../j.6p<pu<ri.s

TOV irvev-
whose sowing the A67os completed ârtKoO, and 48, diaKpivas Se 6 Srj-
may be the KOIVOS TOV TrXT/pw/Aaros fjuovpybs TO, Kadapa airb TOV
Ka/>7r6s,
in which case cf. Hippolytus, ws av fviduv TT]v eKaTep
Refutat. vi. 34, X67<n
avuQtv /care- eTToiT/o-ei/, TOVTtffTiv tfpavtpuffcv Kal eis
dTTO TOO KOLVOV TOV TT\TJpU- (/>cDs

Kal IStav wpoariyayev, which is
yap TTJV TrpwTTjv fjiop^wcr iv rrjv Kara Trjv yivecriv

aurot? Trape(T%e, ra VTT aXXou (nrapevTa et?
Kal et? fywTicr JJLOV teal Trepiypa^rjv IS lav dyayoov
dva$elj~a$. ov TrapeTrfprjae Se Kal TO Trepl TOOV Trvev/JLaritcwv
rcS Hlav\M Xeyopevov, OTI, dvdpwTrovs avTovs direaiw- 10
Trapd
1 Cor. ii.
Trrja-e YYXIKOC ANGpconoc oy AexeTAi TA TOY TTNeyMATOC Toy
l>
14>
Oeoy, McopiA rp AYTCO ecTi Ae nNeyMATiKoc ANAKPINGI TTANTA.
yap ov /Jirrju avrov afMev eir rov Trvev/JLarifcov /J>r)
TO dvOpwTros. KpeiTTov yap r) dvOpaiTros 6

S, TOV dvOptoTTOV rJTOl 6V "^V^fj 7)
V GtoâTl r) V 15
apa/CTtipiôjjLevov, ovî oe Kal ev

rw TOVTWV
irvevfJLaTi, ov KaTa /jiTO^r)v eTTLKpaTovaav xprj \LCLTI-
o TTvev/JiaTiKo*;. apa 8e Kal TCL r^? ToiavTris vTroOeaews
KCLV dTTOâivofjuevrjs a7roSetfea>? dirofyaiveTai, ovBe
^ TW%ovo-r)S TTiOavoT^TO^ (frOdcrai eh TOV Trepl TOVTCOV 20

s \6yov. Kal raura fMev Trepl eKeivov.
8
3. Ibid. vi. 2 (R. iv. 102; L. i.

177).
Jo. i. 19. KAI AYTH GCTIN H MApTypiA Toy IcoANNoy. SevTepa

dvayeypa/JL/jievr) Iwdvvov TOV XptcrroO fBaTTTia"Tov Trepl
C
Jo. i. 15. Tvpia, r^? TrpoTepas dp%a/jLevr)s diro TOV OYTOC HN 6 einooN
o nicoo Moy e pxoMGNOc, Kal \r)yovo-i]s et? TO MoNOfGNHC 6e(k d
ov elnov 6 uto5
3 6 eiTTiov (sic). 4 fj-ovoyevr/s Ocbs (sic).
qualified in the next section by the hand, afford instructive examples in

words end 5e oJ/c eyivw<rKei> TTJV 6t the history of the transmission of
aJrou 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 (b /movoye^

and read /cat ISeav. But the phrase wos 6e6s) which is quoted in Tischen-
jrfpLypatftrjv ibiav is not intrinsically dorfs critical digest is thus traced
objectionable. to its origin.
12. The transposition of ia-rlv This is not the only case where
and avry in Huet and the other Origen complains of Heracleon s in-
editions is due to an error of the terpretation of a passage, where the
scribe of Cod, Rcyius. The right latter is probably right. (See West-
order is preserved in the other MSS. cott s Commentai y on St John, in
3. 4. The interlinear insertions in foe.)
Cod. Monac., which are by a later
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEKACLEON. 55
TON KOATTON TOY HATpOC Ke?NOC eH|-HCATO. 18.

OVft V*y6lK Jo.
10 i.
5 0>N
f
Se 6 HpaK\ea)v i>7ro\a/j,{3dvei OyAeic TON 9eoN ed pAKeN nconoTe
Km T(l 6^9 (f)dcrKa)v elprjcrOai OVK diro TOV ftaTTTKrrov
aXX a7ro TOV /uiadrjrov el yap teal KCUT avTov TO K TOY Jo. i. 1C,
TTAHpOOMATOC AYTOY HM?C HANT6C eAABOMGN, KAI )(AplN ANTI X<*plTOC,
10 OTI 6 NOMOC AlA MOOYC603C GAOOH, H X^P IC ^H6eiA AlA IhCOf KA>I "
XpicTof epeNGTO VTTO rov ftaTTTicrTOV etp^rat, TTW?

OVK afco\ov-
6ov TOV eK TOY nAHpcoMATOC TOY XpicTof etX^ôra teal x^P N
AIA Mcoceo^c
Sevrepav Trporepas ÂpiTOC, o/jLoXoyovvrd re
eirl
(JLGV $e$6(T0ai, TON NOMON, THN $ X^P IN KA J HN AAhBGIAN AlA
is lncof XpicTof yeyovevcu, IK T&V diro TOY nAnptoMATOC e9

avrov e\7j\v06ra)v vevorjKevai, TTCO? OGON oYAeic eoapAKGN
nconoTe /cat TO TON MONOpeNH eic TON KO ATTON ONTA TOY nATpoc
avry Kal TTCLGI TOL* GK TOY nAnpcoMATOC et\r)(f)6a-t,
; ov yap vvv nrpwrov efyyijeaTo <0 CON> eic
20 TON KoAnoN TOY nATpoc, ovSevos eTTLTTj&eiov TrporepovyeyevT]-

co?
\a(3elv a rot? aVocrToXot? Scrjyija-aro, eiye TTpiN ABpAAM Jo.viii. 58.
SiSacr/cet T/yLca? TOV

u>v
A/Spaa//. rjya\\iad6ai FN A Jo.viii. 56.
TAH THN HMepAN avTov Kal ev %apa yeyovivat,.
7, 8 paTTTi<TTou.../j.a0TjTov]
cod. Sed literis apdy seriori manu inter lineas
insertis transponuntur jSaTrrtaroO et /ua^roO. 8 /car avrw] Kara TO.VTOV.
19 6 <3i>]
om.
d vi. 8 (R. iv. 117; L. i.

200).
Ou davfjiaaTov Se el /jirj ijKpiftovv OTI, aiJro? ecrrt XpiCTOC Jo. i. 20,
Kal o npoc{)HTHC, ot to-Taôi/T65 Trepl Icodvvov, urjiroTe auro?
Xpicrro? ^* a-KoKovdov yap TW irepl TOVTOV SiaTay/AW TO

dyvoelv TOV avTov elvai XpicTON Kal TON npocj)HTHN. eXaOe
19. The insertion of 6 wi>

by Latin, which represents the ets 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, periude quasi nullus etc., is 4.1. X/NCTTOS /cat 6 7r/3o0^r7?s] 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 (6 are indeed omitted by
u>v)
he used, translating Christus et ille
the first hand of Cod. Sinaiticus (N), Propheta. In the Munich MS. the
and Cod. Vercellcnsis (a) of the Old article is not wanting.
56 THE EXTANT FHAGMENTS OF HEUACLEON.
Be 701)9 TTO\\OV? r) Biafopd TOV 6 npocfmTHc /cal npocbHTHC, ^9 5

/cal TOV Hpa/cXecova, OO-TLS avTals Xefecrt (frrjcriv 0^9 apa
^\wdvvi)<$ a)jjio\6yr)o-e prj elvai, xpiCTo c, d\\d fjujBe
o
npO(J)HTHC, iJ,rjoe HAiAC. /cal Seov avTov OVTW etckaflovTa

eêTao-ai TO, /caTa roz)9 TOTTOVS, TTOTepov dXrjOevei \eywv //,?;
eivat, rrpO(|)HTHC, fj,r]8e HAIAC, rj ov 6 Be JMTJ 67ri(TTno~a<> 7049 K

ev 0^9 KaTa\e\oi7rev VTro^v^jfjiao Lv
>,
dveêTacrTa)? irape-
Ta TijAtLKavTa, (Tcboopa o~\,t, f ya /cat/
Tot? 6^779 eiTTdov, Trepi (bv evOeo)^ epovLLev.
6 apa] ap ei.
5. Jfo d vi. 12 (R. iv. 120; L. i.

206).
Jo. i. 23. AvvaTai fjievTot ye TO Epoo ({XJONH BOOQNTOC IN ThT

Kal TO ef^9 to-oz; elvai, TW 01
8 Eyco elpi Trepl
003Nh BOOQNTOC, ce;9 fiocovTa elvai, TOV Icodw^v, TOVTOV TYJV /cal
(frwvrjv ev Trj eprjpa) (Bodv EyeyNATe THN OAON KYpiOY- Svo-fa-

Be 6 Hpa/cXecov Trepl Iwdvvov Kal TU>V
Trpo^TcSv 5
avwv, (frtjaiv OTL O \6<yo$ /j,ev 6 â)Trjp eaTiv,

e
H Be 77 eN TH
epn MCp 77 Bid "Iwdvvov Biavoov/nevrj,
9. The only alteration necessary vious. For the construction we may

is the omission of rj before \tyuv (H compare a fragment of Origen in an
after ei). The
must qualify &\rj- ou unpublished Catena at Venice (Bibl.
Bevci, not Xfywc.
Huet follows the Marciana Graec. xxvii.) 6 pa 5 ei dv-
reading of Codex Regius which con
tains the 77 and omits the
6, thus direlv <rvv<rT
Y)Kcva.i....us elvai TO TTOLV
joining the two sentences and pro ypdfj,/j,a TOV v6fjt.ov /cat TrpoQifruv /cat
ducing an unintelligible statement. TWV XOITTWJ ypa<j>uv

OTTO TOV Toiovde
10.
is
Hilgenfeld, in
misled by a misstatement of
his critical TTTjXov, $ /cat xP^ ai Set TOI)S TUV ^
note, f3\Tr6i>Twv 6(f)da\fj.ovs.
Delarue sreproducedbyLommatzsch. 7. diavoovfj.fr r)] Heracleon twice
The /i^ (after 6 )
is not
wanting uses ôetcrflai, as he here uses 5ta-
in the Bodleian.
voeladai, of a higher power symbol
5. 3. ws] It is remarkable that ised, represented, made intelligible,
while Codex Venetus omits the ws, so to speak, (as far as is possible), on
its copy Codex Bodldanus inserts it. earth by an earthly being. Cf. Frag.
But the scribe of the latter may very 8 (Orig. Comm. in loann. vi. 23) Trepl
well have inserted it from the Latin TOV wpoo-uirov TOVTOV 5ta TOV Iw-
(?)
of Ferrarius, ut clamante lohanne : awov and Frag. 35
voov/j.e i>ov,
(Orig.
the want of some such insertion for Ibid. xiii. TOUS
48) 0e/H<rras TT^TTCI
grammar s sake would be quite ob Sia TU
8e irdaa Trpo^TjriKrj raft?, \ercreov Be TT/OO? avrbv,

ort EAN AAhAoN CAAnir^ (booNh N AcT oi)Set9 TTApA- 1 Cor. xiv.
&<77Tp
10 CKeyAZGTAI GIC TTOAeMON, KCU 6 %O>/H9

AfAHHC e%Gt)Z>
TNCX)CIN
r) npocbHTeiAN 76701/6 X^ K OC HX^N H KYMBAAON Of. 1 Cor.

X1
A AAAAZON, o#T&>9 et fjUfjBev eanv erepov ??%09 ?}
77
TT pointer)
<f)a)vr},
7TCU9 dvaTrefMTTow ij/ua? eV avrrjv 6 ^wrrjp EpeyNAie,
(
Jo. v. 3 J.
<^r/0-t,
TAG rp^ÂC, OTI YMG?C AOK?T6 N AyTA?C ZOOh N AIWNION
15 exeiN KAI 6Ke?NAi enicTeyere Moace?,
eiciN AI tcai Ei Jo. v. 46.
MApTypofcAr
enicTeyere AN GMOI, nepi 6Moy eK6?NOC erpAye /cal KAAOQC Mt. xv. 7, r<^p
enpoc^Hieyce nepi YMOON HcA AC, AepooN AAOC oyroc TO?C c f Igi i
XeiAeci Me TIMA; oJ/c olSa yap el rov aa-rj/jiov r)X ov irapa&eêTal, xxix. 13.
Ti9 euA,o7&>9
UTTO roO 2&)rr;po9 eiraivelaBai, rj
Gvearu Trapa-
20 a/cevdc-aa-Oai, atro TU>V
<ypa(f>a)V,
009 TTO CJJCONHC
evepyeias iroXeôv, AAnAoy C|)OONHC H XOY Tvyâvova-^.

riva
$e TpOTrov, el pr} dydirr]v efyov ol irpo^ffrai /cal Bid TOVTO
XAAKOC r]craz/ TJôwre?, r} KyMBAAON AAAAAZON, eVl TOV

!
25 avrcov, 0)9 efceivoi el\t )<f)aa
tv ) dvaTre/jiTrei 6
dopevovs ; OVK olSa S OTTO) 9 X^p^ Trda-ijs KaTaaicevfjs
fyaiverai rrfv (frcovrjv oi/ceioTepav ovcrav raj \oyw \o<yov
QJ9 teal TTJV yvval/ca els dv

The usage may well have sprung that of the Swr^p (cf. Irenaeus, i.
from Bom. i. 20 ra yap dbpara av- vii. 3). All the Valentinian sects
TOV OLTTO KTi<reus Ko<rfj.ov
rots TTotâtTij recognized to some extent the reve-
voot/j-eva Ka.Oopd.Tai.. 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 ZCTTIV ore 6 /card extentthan most. Cf. Frag. 20,
TOV Irjo-ovjt TpoTTLKus t> oov /j.ev os avdpw- where the Jews are placed above
TTOS OVK eiredri/j-ec ry /3t y,
and Ibid. irdvTes ol irpb VO/J.QV /cat ol iQviKol.
xx. 29, IMVOV TOV /cara TOV Swr?7pa 28. /xerarêo-ât] The Vermlinn-
i>oov/j,evov avQpu-rrov dpx^dev ?/i> <pwfi. lichung of the female was taught
8. TOOS] With the implied dis- in the Anatolic School. Cf. Ex-
paragement of the Prophets may be cerpta ex Theodoto, 21, rd ovv dppc-
VIKO. /xerd TOV \6yov ffvveaTdXrj, rd #77-
compared Hippolytus, Refut. vi. 35,
irdvTes ovv ol Trpo<pTJTat.
/cai 6 v6/j.os \VKO, dt diravbpuQtvTO. evovTai rots
\d\i](rav diro TOV 8Tjfj.iovpyov, fj-wpou dyy\ois /cat ets TrX^pwâ X WP 6 ^ ta
X^-yei êoO fjuapoi ovdev ddoTes. He- roOro rj ywi] els dvdpa fj.eTaTi8ea6ai
racleon s explanation of Xo7os, <f>uvr), Xêrat, /cat ^ evTavda e/c/cXTjo-ta ets
TJXOS, and the possibility of a change dyyt\ovs, where by Xeêrai 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 Sou-

Kal W9 egovalav e-^wv rov Bojâriêtv Kal mo-reveaOai Kal
TTpoKOTrreiv, rw ?} % (f^rjalv eaeaOai rrjv els <f)(ovrjv per a- 3
(So\r)v, /juadrjrov fjiev ^wpav $t>&ov<i

rfj fjLera/3a\\ovar) et9
\o<yov <f>(t)vfj,
Bovkov Be rfj drro ?} %oi> et? fywvrjVKal el pev
07ro>9 Trore TTiOavorrjra ecfrepev errl r&> avrd KaraaKevdaai,
Kav rjyo)vio-d/ji0a Trepl 7-179 rovrcov dvarpoTrrjs, dp/eel Se et?
dvarpOTrrjV rj dTrapa^vO^ros 7ro0a<Jt9. OTrep &e virepeOe- 35
fjieOa ev rot9 TT/OO TOVTWV eêrdaai, TTUX; KetcivriTai, vvv <f>epe
SiaXd/Bwêv. 6 /jLev yap ^wrrjp, Kara TOP Hpa/cêwva,

(frTjaiv avrbv Kal npO(f)HTHN KOL HAiAN, auro9 &e efcdrepov
TOVTWV dpvelrai. Kal npocfu-iTHN jjuev ât HAiAN 6 ^wrrjp
eirdv avrov OVK avrbv d\\d rd Trepl avrov, (frycrl,
\e<yrj, 40
i, orav 8e MGI ZONA npo4>HT(2)N Kal GN
rore avrov rov Io)dvvr]v
avros Trepl eavrov epwrw/Jievo^ drroKpiverai
06, (j>rj(7l,
6 Iwaz/^7/9, ou rd Trepl avrov oarjv Be /3d(ravov rêls

Trepl rovrwv Kara ro Bvvarov TreTTOLêOa, ovBev drrapa- 4.5
eoovres rwv \e<yo/jievci)v opcov av^Kplvai rot9 VTTO
, are OVK eôvalav e%ovros rov \eyeiv o /3ov\erai,

rrws jdp ori Trepl rwv Trepl avrov ro e<rn
32 0WI/77] 0wi>V rj. 34 yyuvura/Jieda]
\ov 5e /c.r.X. a passage in i\\eExcerpla, MS. is impossible. The alteration of

57, rov /j-ev, /ut,6p<f>w<ri.s
TOU Trvevfian- Cod. Venetus (fxavrj $ is so far right
/roD, TOU 5e, /uLerddea-is TOV \f/vx<.Kov
e /c that it required dative.
gives the
SouXei as ets e\evdepiav. In the pro- But the conjecture contained in the
ceding section the allegory of Gal. iv. margin of Cod. Bodlcianus is right,
isinterpreted by making Israel repre- rdxa TO* H 7rap<f\/cet.
We may with-
sent 6 Tn>evfj.a.TiK6s, and (apparently) out hesitation adopt the reading
the children of the bondwoman cor- (fiwvy.
respond to the ^VX<-KO

L
(cf. OTO.V ovv 48. irepi TUV wepl OLVTOV} The
TO. faxi-Ka eyKevTpiffdy). Thus the omission of TW trepl in the Editions
0wj>rj
here
may represent the -rrvevâ- is due to its erroneous omission in
TIKOI who
are given as j/i/^cu to the Cod. Regius, where however a later
angels, while -fo * corresponds to the hand has inserted rd irepl inter lineas.
But it is dangerous to pur-
\f/vx<.Koi. The words are necessary to the con-
sue such hints at interpretation into text, asHeracleon has shortly before
too great detail. The Excerpta offer classed the assertions TO RXiav avrbv
yet another parallel in 79, "Ews ovv Kal irpo^Tijv elvat among the TO, wepl
d/x6p0wro^, (pa.ffii ,
ZTI TO <nrtp/j.a,
O.VTOV as opposed to those by which
QrjXetas eari TKVOV poptyuOh 5e yttere- OLVTOV Tbv \ua.vvr\v xapa-KTypifci. The
TÔij ets avdpa. Trept T&V is perhaps awkward, but it is
32. <pwrj]
The Quvty ^ of the exactly parallel to the succeeding irepi
HAIAN avrov KOI npo4)HTHN elvau, Kal Trepl avrov TO

50 (booNiHN avrov elvai BOGONTOC IN TH tpHMtT, ovSe Kara TO
TVVOV d\\d
OTL irepl Ta
avTov olovel evSvpaTa TJV eTepa avTov,
Kal OVK av epwTtjOels Trepl TWV evSvjJidTwv, el aOro?

eiij Ta evSvfjiaTa, aTreKpidij av TO Nat. TTCO? yap
eVSu/aara TO elvai TOV HAIAN TON MeAAoNTA epxecOAi CCTTW

Mt. xi. 14.
55
Iwdvvov, ov Trdvv TL Kar avTov Oewpw Taya Ka6* ^/-ta?,

a5? ê8vvti/jL0a SnyyijcraiJievovs TO GN TTNGYMATI KAI AYNAMGI Lc. i. 17.
HAioy, Svva/jLevov TTO)? ~\,e<yeo~0ai,

TOVTO TO HNGYMA HAioy
ev Svvd/jLei elvau TTJ? \wdvvov i/ri;^?. QeXwv S ert Trapa-
59 ei\wv 5 TI]
ai;roO. Ferrarius had the true text are required, and 0\uv oe, or more
before him in Cod. Venetus, but he probably diKwv 5 eri, would seem
has missed the point of the passage best to fulfil the required condi
by putting the following Vox cla- tions. The introduction of a fresh

mantis in the same class as Pro- stricture by means of 6-1 5e is cha
5e alone is hardly
racteristic of Origen
pheta. ;
55. The absence of etrrlv in the strong enough to suit the context ;
Editions is due to another error in cf. ii. 8, xiii. 51, and just below, ri
Cod. Rcyins. 5 ov /j.6vos"H.pa.K\ewi>

K.T.\. And the
59. cv 8vi>d/j.ei elvai] It is hard following sentence ov KO.K&S ..oinra- fj.fi>

.
to get any satisfactory meaning out vv ok e^7?racr/x^ws 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 ev irvev- opponent, that the passage must
fjiari /cat 8vvdfj.fi. HAt ou. Thorndike surely contain a piece of Heracleon s
conjectures ZvSvfj-a elvai. This suits Commentary. For the exact phrase
very well the context in which the compare Origen c. Cehum iv. 88
words stand. (Philocalia xx. L. xxv. 150) Oe\wv
6e\wv 5 The reading Oe\ov- 5 5ta TrXetoj Wf ...aTro^Tji ou, where
<?n
TL\
res, which is found in Cod. Mona- 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 X<fyoi rupted by itacism to O, 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, ei rj <pv<ris TTJS t ctcrewj context. Hilgenfeld has naturally
yevo/J.evr) T ot/cety TTJS dv air av crews omitted the passage in his collection
The scribe of Cod. Rcyius
dp<.0^<$.
of the Fragments, but there were not
has probably stumbled by an itacism the same reasons for omitting the
on the right reading, Xeêt TO. If next sentence /cat iraKiv K.T.\. where
this be so, a nominative singular the X^yei can only refer to Heracleon.
participle and a connecting particle

The proposed alterations restore the
arTrjo-ai, Bid rl lepeis /cal Aevlrat ol eTrepwrwvres a?ro TWV 60

r
IouoWa)j>
TrefJi^devre^ elalv, ov /catca)<$
[lev \eyei TO Ort
TOVTOIS 7TpO<rfjfCOV r)V 7T 6 pi TOVTO)V TToXvTT pay /JLO V I V
/cal irvvdaveaOai, rot? rc3 6ew Trpoa-tcapTepovartv, ov

r/
TTGLVV Be e^rjTao-fjievcos rd Ort /cal avros IK rfjs A.evlTi/cr)<$
(j)V\rjs tfv, wcnrep TrpoajropovvTes ^J/iet? e^raa-aêv, on el 65
rjBeurav TOV Icodvvrjv ol Tre/jLÔevTe^ /cal TTJV êveaiv avrov,

TTCO? ^wpav clôv TTwOdvecrOai, Trepl rov el avrbs HAiAC
Jo. i. 21. eaTiv ; /cal iraKiv ev rc3 Trepl TOV el 6 rrpoc})HTHC e\ cy, /j,rjBev
eâiperov oto/ieô? o-rj/jialvecrOai, /caTa rrjv TrpoaOrjK^v TOV
apdpov, \eyei OTL ^TrrjpwTrjcrav el TrpotyrjTrjs eirj, TO 70
ov\6êvoi padelv. &TI Be ov
,
ak\a ocrov eV e/J^fj IcrTOpiq teal TrdvTes ol
evT\rj d/j,(j)i,l3o\iav
StacrretXao-ât JJL^ SeSvvrjfjLev
HX/ou /cal TTCLVTWV TWV Trpo^TjTGQV TOV ^\(tiavvr)v
Lc. vii. 28. ta TO Mei zoaN eN reNNHioIc PYNAIKCON IcoANNoy oyAei c eciiN, 75
U "
ill OU X opwvTe<^
OTL d\7]0e^ TO OyAeic MEIZOON NOOANNOY ^
TO?C PYNAIKOON Biôi)^ yLveTai,, ov fjtbvov TO) avTov elvai
lieifyva, d\\d /cal TW tVou? avTwelvai Tiva? d\rjde^ jdp,
i(TO)v OVTWV avTa) 7ro\\wv Trpo^rjTajv, /caTa Tr]V oeSofjLevfjv
auTw x^P LV r ^HAENA TOUTOU MeizoNA elvai. olWat Se tcaTa- 80
o~ /cevdea 0ai, TO MEIZONA TW Trpo^TjTevedOaL VTTO
61 Tre/j.(f)d{i>Tes]
Hie male laesus est codex, videtur autem plus x litteras
habuisse; Cod. Yen. habet oi ire^(f)d. \eyei r6] Xôt TO. 80, 81
KaraffKevafccrdcu] TO /caracr/cei/aêcrâi. ry] om. codex; addito, ut videtur,

in mg.
grammar of the sentence, and make 80. Delarue, reading ofcTcu 8t TO

the passage a continuous and con- /caTacr/ceydfccrât TO
ndfrva elvai irpo-
sistent whole. ^revea-dai, remarks, nos sanam
61. 7refj.<t>0VTes]
Whether Cod. restituimus lectionem e codice Bod-
Monac. read oi ire/A^d wres 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. /xefftw] It is uncertain whe- into the text, I find that the same
ther Heracleon omitted the irpofir)-
has been proposed by Thorndike in
T7?s of the Received Text as well as the margin of his transcript of Cod.
Origen, or not; but the subsequent

Bodleianus. The insertion or omis-
meution of Josiah in Origen s re- sion of elmi, which appears to have
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,

VTTO
deov TGOV TrcoTTore Trpo^rjrevcrdvTCOv. a\.r)6ws w? 6
/cara<j)pova)V rrjs TraXata? ^pârtôucr^? SiaO^/cr]?, KOL fJirj

85
Tripiioras KOI avTbv HXiav TTpoîjrevo/jievov, TOUT a7rero\^ r]- i
crev eiTrelv KOI yap HXta? Trpo^rjreveraL VTTO M.a\a%iov

lAov AnocreAAoo YM?N HAiAN TON OecBiTHN, oc AHO- Mai. iii.
,
, ,
jxv 23(iv.4f.).
KATACTHCei KApAlAN HATpOC HpOC YION ....... Kdl TdVTd t?
T *7 ? trpoTrereias rov aTro^rjva/jLevov

go Icodvvov 7rpo(j)r}Tev(T0ai, eipqffffw, ravra elpr)KOTo<$ ev TW
6e\Giv avrov Sirjyela-Oat, ri TO Epcb (J)OONH BOCONTOC eN TH Jo. i. 23.
Ip HMO).
89 TT/soTreretas] ex coniectura Ruaei ;

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

L. I. 213).
o? ovv ev vBari, oy BAHTIZGI, AAA oi MAGHTAI AYTOY, Jo. iv. 2.
w Be Tripel TO TO) Afico TTNeyMATi BAHTIZGIN KAI nypi Cf. Mt. iii.
o HpafcXewv -rov rwv

o5? uîco? elprjêvov Trepl rov o$>ei\ecrdai TO
5 /tat HXia /cat iravrl Trpo^rjrr], avrais \e%ecri <$>r]criv
Ot?
TO ftaTTTiêiv, real e/c rwv elprj pevwv
<y%6/jLevo<>, fJLa\i(Tra Se on, Kowbrepov

TON npoc{)HTHN vevorfKev ov
yap eêi Setât TIVCL TWV Trpo-
(frijTuiv (3a7TTi(rai>Ta.
OVK (nnOdvws Be <j)r)(ri
irwddvea-Oai
10 TOI)? ^>aptcraibu?
AcaTa T?}Z>
auTW^ iravovpyiav,
7 on] ore.
6. 7. Kou^Tepov] By failing to notice perov olbfjievos
the distinction between 6 TT/JO^TJTTJS irpoadriKTiv rov apdpov. Heracleon, in

and 7r/)o0TjT7js. Cf. Frag. 4, Xo0e 5^ the words which follow this last pas-
roi>s 7ro\Xoi>5 17 5ta0opa...ws /cat T^ sage, seems to use the word Koivbre-
,
and Frag. 5, /n?5&> eâf- pov in a different sense.
7. Ibid. vi. 15 (R. iv. 130 ;

L, I.
222).
Jo. i.
26, AneKplNATO AYTO?C 6 ICOANNHC Ae fOON EfOi BATTTIZCO eN
M6COC [Ae] YMO3N CCTHKCN ON YMelc OY*K oTAATG, [AYTOC 6CTIN ()] OTTICCO
MOY epxoMGNoc, [of] OYK CIMI era Alioc I NA AYCGO AYTOY TON IMANTA
joy YnoAHMATOC. 6 /j,V HpafcXecov oleTat,, on, ATro/cplverai,
6 Io)dvvr)<; rot? etc TWV <&api,crai(Dv Treaty 6 el a iv, ov 5
7T/30? o eicelvoi eTrrjpoorwv, aXX o auro? e/3ov\6ro,

eavrov \av6dvwv OTL /car^jopei rov Trpo^rov a/jiaOias, el 76
a\\o epa)Tto/JLVOS Trepl d\\ov aTroKpiverai %prj jdp /cal rovro
<f)v\dTTO dai, ft)? ev KOivo\oyia d^dpTrj/Aa T/yu-et?
TV<y%avov.
Se (âfjuev on fjudXiara TT/Ô? eVo? ecrrlv

aTroKpidis 77 TT/OO?
10
Jo. i. 25.
<ydp
TO Ti OYN BAHTIZEIC, ei cf OYK el o XP |C TOC; rt aX,Xo
elirelv, $ TO tStov TrapaaTfjaai âTTTia/Ji

Tvy%dvov ; Era 7/3, (fayo lv, BAHTI ZOO GN fAATi /cat TOVTO
elirwv TTpo? TO Ti OYN BAHTi zeic; Trpo? TO SevTepov, Ei CY OYK el
o xpiCTOC, Soô\oyiav Trepl T^? Trpoyyov/jLevris ovaia<$ Xpio-TOi) 15
i, OTL Bvva/jiiv ToaavTrjv e%et, w? at dopaTOS elvcu Trj
avTov, irapwv nrawTi dvOpwirw, TravTl Be /cal oXw TW

OTrep StjKovTai Sid TOV Mecoc
o-vfATrapefCTeivofjievos
YMO3N eCTHKCN.
2 Se] ins. intra lineas. atfrfo eo-Tii/ 6] om. in txt. sed in mg. add.
pr. man. 3 oC] ins. intra lineas. 7
11 Tt out ] ins. intra lineas. rl oXXo ex/)^"]

rl dXXots xpî/ (sic).
TO
12 rd] T^ (sic).
7. 1. aTrc/cp/faro] There is other itwas copied. Thus one of the three

authority for this reading, LT^TJ references to Origen in Tischcndorf s
and some cursives (vid. Tischendorf, note must in all probability be
critical
in loc.). I have retained the 5 omitted, as also one of those quoted
and the airros IVTLV 6, as they are in support of the insertion of 5.
added apparently prima manu. But 12. The re TO of the Editions is
when other similar phenomena in due to the scribe of Cod. 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).
O Be Upa/cXecov TO Me coc YMOON CTHKGI (frycnv avrl TOV Jo. i. 26.
TrdpecTTL real e&Tiv ev TW KoafJLU* Kal ev dvOpwTrw

Kal e/jLcfravrfs eo~Tiv 17877 TTCLGIV vîlv. TOVTWV Be Bid
nrepiaipel TO nrapacrTaOev Trepl TOV Bia7re<poiTr)Kevai

avTov oY
5 oXou TOU Koafjiov. \KTov yap Trpo? avTov Trore yap ov
irdpeo-TLv; TroVe Be OVK e<TTW ev TO>
KOCT/JLO); Kal TavTa TOV
evayye\iov Xeôz/ro? N TCO KOCMCO HN, KAI 6 KOCMOC Ai AYTOY Jo. i. 10.
ereNGTO. teal Sta TOVTO Kal OVTOI, Trpo? 01)9 o ^,0709 o "ON Jo. i. 2G.
YMeTc OYK orAAre, OVK otSaoriv avTov, eVel ouSeVo) TOV KOV/JLOV
10 eê\ri\vdaa-Lv^Q Be KOCMOC AYTON OYK IPNOO. irolov Be %povov Jo. i. 10.
SieXeiTre TOV ev avOpw jrw elvai; rj OVK ev Haaia tfv, \e<yovTt,
TTN6YMA KYpiOY en eMe, OY ei NeKGN e xpice MG* KUL EMC})ANHC Is. Ixi. l.
8
MH ZHTOYCI ; \eyeTworav Se el fjbrj Kal ev c ^
role eMe ^ x
77^, OVK avTov \eyovTi Efoo Ae KATecTAGHN BACiAefc 20.
d(j>
5 fn AY TOY en CIWN opoc TO A PION AYTOY, Kal oaa eK 7rpocra>7rov

i
XptejToO ev tyd\/jLois dvayeypaTTTai. Kal TL fj.e Bel
aTToBeiKvvvai irapaaTrjaai evapyws

Bvcreâpidfji rjTOV 6Wo>9,
Bvvdfjievov, oTi del ev dvdpcoTroy yv, 7rpo9 TO e\ey%ai ov% vyiax;
elprfiievov TO "HBrj Trdpeo~Ti Kal eo~Ti,v

ev Kocr/jiw Kal ev
Trapd TOJ Hpa/e\eow TOV Mecoc Y M ^ N J-
f
10 i- 2 ^-
dvdpwirw et9 Bnjyrjcriv
ecTHKeN ; OVK diriOdvws Be Trap avTw \eyeTat, OTI TO Oni coo

MOY epôMCNOC TO TrpoBpofjiov eivai TOV Iwavvvjv TOV
Tpe%a)v TOV Kvpiov. 7roX,i) Be d7r\ovo-Tepov TO OYK eiMi Alioc

Jo. i. 27.
25 FNA AYCOO AYTOY TON IMANTA TOY YTTOAHMATOC eêi\r]<êv, OTL ovBe
elvai Bid TOVTCOV 6 (3a7TTiO~Trjs 6fJio\oyei. TrXrjv
18 5vi>d/u.ei>oi>]
dw
8. 12, 13. c/xâvTjs êj 6/x^j ] The Hilary and Ambrosiaster.

quotation does not agree exactly with 17. dva-eâpid/j.rjToi 6Wws] An awk
the LXX., which has eyevri- EfjL<f>a.vrjs

ward phrase, but the correction in
Bt\v rots e/xe ^177 cTrepwrwcrtj , vp6t)v Cod. Venetus dvffeâpi0/J.rjTOV oVros is
rots fj.t IJ.T] ftrovviv. In Romans the no better. has been plausibly
It
clauses are transposed, and S. Paul suggested that we should read 8va-
has The exact form is
tyei>6/u.-r)i>. eâpLff/nriTUV &VTWV rut>
found in two Latin MSS. (d, e) and in evapyus 8vva.tJ./i>(i)i>.

ravTijv TTJV ercBoxrjV OVK aTTiOdvws vTroê/BXrjKe TO OVK

iKavos, iva St e yite Kare\0y airo /jLeyeOovs teal
\dftrj cJ? viro^rifjia, Trepl 379 670; \6<yov

diro- 3
Bovvai ov Bvvafjiai, ovBe Siijyrja-ao-Oai, rj

eVt XOereu
Tr)v Trepl avrfjs ol/covo/jiiav dSporepov Be Kal fj,eya\o-
<f)ve(TTpov
6 auro9 HpaicXecov Koa/jbov TO vTro^rjâ eVSefa-
fieTeo Tr] eirl TO do~e/3e(TTepov dTrofyrjvaa Oai TCLVTCL

Seiv aKoveadai TrpoawTrov /cal Trepl TOV 35
TOVTOV Bid TOV voovfjuevov. TOV

*\<oavvov oterat <ydp
SijfjLiovpybv TOV fcocr/jbov, e\aTTOva OVTCL TOV Xpto-roO,

TOVTO 6fjio\o<yeiv Sta TOVTCOV T&V \egea)v, ttTrep ecrrt
TrdvTWV do-eftearTaToV o yap Trefji^ra^ avTov TraTiijp, 6 TWV
Ivjaovs fjiapTVpel, TOV TOV
Mt. xxii.
32*
zaiNTOON 0eoc, a)9 auro?
3| \ \r^>i/fCv\^
ICAAK Kai TOV lAKOOB, TOVTO KVplOS TOV OVpaVOV K.CU T??9
OLCL
/ ^9ABpAAM KOI\A /s
4
Cf. Lc.
ry^9, OTL TreTrolrj/cev avTa, oi T09 ical JJLOVOS dyado?, Kal fjuei^wv
Jo. xiv. 28. TOV lff/^BivTO^ el Be Kal, co9 TTpoeipijtca/jLev, dBpoTepov
vevorjTCU, Kai 7r9 o /cocryu-09 vTroB^jfjua elvai TOV I?;cro{)
TO) *}ipaK\ea)vi, aA,V OVK olpai Belv o~v<yKaTaTi6ecrdaL 45
35 TrpocrwTTou] Cod. Bodleianus habet in margine rax XetVei TOU

post quod, alia manu, /caXws ^x et ^^ ?r/)oeip^/ca uej ]
-
/
29. /caTA^T;] This passage a- where we should have expected 5?;-

grees with Heracleon s Italic posi- which was probably what
fuovpyov,
tion. Cf. Hippolytus Refut. vi. 35, Heracleon s ipsissima verba con-
\f/vxi.Kov ipaffl TO (Tu/j,a TOV Iâou ye- tained, in order to emphasize the
yovfrat Kal 5ta TOVTO itrl TOV /Scurrier- impiety (etrl r6 da-cfito-Tepov) of He-
yuaros TO ws TrepiaTepa /care-

irvev/uia racleon s interpretation. But TOVTOV
\j\v0c. For ntyeBos cf. Irenaeus i. is not impossible.
xiii. 3. 36. voov^vov ] See Frag. 5 (note).
30. virbo-rjiJ.Q. } May we see in 37. Actrropa OVTO] We may perhaps
the interpretation of vTr6drj/j.a as KO<T-
compare Hipp. Refut. vi. 36, ^yi/w (6
pot, a groping after the idea of the 8r)fj.<.ovpyos) 8i5a%êis VTTO T^S <ro<f)ias
Lord having taken humanity upon TOV KpelTTova, though there the re-
Himself, though only as a vw6dr)ij.a. ference is to the Father Himself. In

which the Ao7os 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 5-rj/jLiovpyov should be substi- him by Sophia. Cf. also Frag. 40
tuted for it or should we read TOV
; (Orig. xiii. 59) &Vt fuTnoTos 6 Sr/ît-
0eov instead of it ? In this case we ovpy6s.

must suppose that Origen wrote 0eov
9. Ibid. vi. 24 (K IV. 140; L. I. 237).
TAYTA IN BnGABApA epeNGTO nepAN TOY lopAANoy, onoy HN Jo. i. 28.
MCOANNHC BATTTIZGON. OTI pev o~%eBbv ev 7rdo~i OVTL- TO<?
tceiTai TAYTA EN BHGANI A epeNeTO ovtc dyvoov/jLev, /cat

ypd<f>oL<;
eottce TOVTO KOI en TrpoTepov <yeyovevai teal Trapd HpaicXewvi,
5 yovv BHGANI AN dvejvw/jiev.

tytveTo] bis.
10. Ibid. vi. 38 (R. iv. 159; L. I. 271).
Tld\iv ev TW T07T6) o HpaicXewv yevofjLevos, %ct)pt

teal TrapaOeo-ews p,apTvpiwv aTrotyaiveTai, OTL TO
AMNOC TOY Geof w? npoc^FTHC <j>r)o-lv
o Iwai/z//;?, Jo. i. 29.
TO Se OAIpaN THNAMApTIAN TOY KOCMOY

HeplCCOTepON <W?
Lc. vii. 26.
5 npocpHTOy. Kal oieTai TO fiev TrpoTepov trepl TOV crco-

avTov \eyeo-0ai, TO Be BevTepov irepl TOV ev TO>
TW TOV dfjivov aT\rj elvai ev TW TWV Trpo-

i,
yevei, OVTCO Be Kal T& awâ 7rapa0eo~e{, TOV

evoitcovvTos avTut. TO Be Te\eiov el e/3ov\TO, cfcvjcrl,
10 TO) crcb/jiaTi, /jbapTvpfjaai, Kpiov enrev av TO ê\\ov
dvea-Oai. ovy ôvâi Be elvai dvayicalov fjieTa TVJ\I-
10 (restart] elTrei av TO] elire iv O.VTO.
9. 1. Since Cod. Monac. a few lines volume, as quoted by Tischendorf),

lower down
reads BrjQapapa, we must Codd. Ven. et Bodl. read B^flapa in
probably conclude that Rydapa is due both places. On p. 142 Cod. Monac.
to the scribe s error, arising from reads Bi]0apapa, on p. 280 (Comm. in
the omission of ]3a between two very loann. xiii. 60) B-rjeapa. 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).
EyOapa is found in a Syriac MS. (See 10. 6, 7. TOV ev ry crw/xcm] This in

wsem.
Tischendorf in conjunction with Frag. 8 establishes
2.
loc. (syr.
Or .
4. 140, 142,
280). Heracleon s Italic position, which
As bearing on Tischendorf s note otherwise could not be very clearly
it may be well to state that while proved from the Fragments. Cf.
Cod. Monac. reads Bydapapa. in the Hippolytus (Refut. vi. 35), ytyove T
second instance where the word oc K.T.X.
curs on p. 140 (of Delarue s fourth
B.
fcavras yeyevrj/jievas eêracret? revrdêiv Trepl TOV TOTTOV,

s TT/JO? TOL evreXa)? VTTO TOV Hpa/cXeeoz/o? elptj-
fiovov Be TOVTO eTrio-rj/jieiwTeov, OTL wcrirep /jLoyis
Ph. ii. 7. %wpr)o~v 6 /coa/ios TOV KENCJOCANTA eAyTON, oirra>9

dfjivov teal 15
f
ov /cpiov eSeijOij, iva Ap6n avTOv f A
13
11. Ibid. x. 9 (R. iv. 170; L. i.

291).
Jo. ii. 12. O fjbevToi 76

r
H/>a/cXea>z>
TO META TOYTO KATCBH eic
<j)r)<rl, $r)\ov(T0ai, ovtc dpyws TOV K^TeBH

KCLL (jiTjaL Trjv Katyapvaov/jL arj/jLaiveiv TavTa TO,
TOV /coa/jiov, TavTa ra v\i/cd el? a /car^Xê, /cal Sid TO 5
dvoitceiov, (frrjcrlv,
elvai TOV TOTTOV, ovSe TreTroivj/cws TI
\eyTai ev avTrj fj XeXaX^/cco?. el fiev ovv fjur)Be ev rot?
t? 6vajy\loi<; TreTroirj/cws TL rj XeXaX^/ô)? ev 777
6 /cvpios TUL&V dveyeypaTTTO, Taya dv eSio-Taâ-

Trepl TOV TrapaSeâo-Qcu avTov TTJV ep^veiav. vvvl &e 6 10
Mt. iv. 13, fjiev Margate?
KATAAITTONTA fyrjal TOV Kvpiov T^/JLCOV THN NAZAPA,
6A00NTA KATCOKHKeNAI GIC KAÂpNAOyM THN HApAGAAACCIAN, KOI
AHO TOTG dpfflv TOV KHpycceiN TreTroiTJcrOcu \eyovTa META-
NoeTre, MffiKe r^P H BACIACI A TOON OY PANOON ...... raura Be TCCLVTCL
Trepl TWV ev ââpvaov/ju rw ^(OTrjpt eiptj/jievcov

ical Tre- 15
f
Trapeo-Tijo-a/jiev vTrep TOV eXeyâi Tr)v Hpa-

epfjLrjveiav, \eyovTO$ Ata TOVTO ovSe
Ti \e<yTai
ev avTrj rj \e\a\rjKO)<;. rj yap Svo e
10
12. revTdeii>]
The rev being hard Capernaum cf. Frag. 40 (Orig. Comm.
to decipher, the scribe of Cod. Ven. in loann. xiii. 59), rbv
conjectured Tavrifav, while the scribe vaobn vibv O.VTOV dtrjyeiTai. rbv iv
of Regius contented himself

Cod. hrofkfhiic&n /x^pet TTJS //co-^rTjroy,
with leaving a small lacuna before irpos daXaffcrav , rovrlvn

rofetj . On
the bearing of this, and fdvtp rrj v\y. The whole passage
the omission of avrov rj a/j-aprta, on there quoted is hardly consistent with
the origin of Cod. Regius, see Intro- the ovdt TreTronj/tws of the text cf. a :
duction, p. 8. little further on, Xy 5<: on K ara/Sas
11. 1 ff. For the interpretation of irpbs TOV Ka.fj.vovTa.,

Kal avros T^9 Katyapvaova Kal TrapLcrrdra) Kal

20 crdrco Troias, 77
TOVTO rcoirjcrai ar) SvvdfjLevos c rov
\eyeiv rov âyrfjpa fidrrjv nvl TOTTW eTTio eo rj/jirjKevaL KOI
e, deov 6^Soz/T09, yevofjuevoi Kara rd roiavra T?9
o~vvavayv(ao-cos, OTTOV 86%ai, av /jLrjBev rjvvicevai
^wptois rial, 7reipao~6[ji0a TO /JLTTJ fudraiov r

25 avrov
21 Tivl] nvl ry. 23 oirov...rivvKvai] TTOV doêav fj-fj^v &v rjv v/cât (sic).
12. Ibid. x. 14 (K. iv. 179; L. i.

309).
C
O fievTOi ye
(
}lpaK\6WV Avrrj, (f>r)o-iv, rj /xeyd^rj eo/or?} Of. Jo. ii.
rov yap TrdOovs rov Scor^po? TUTTO? r)V, ore ov povov

dvrjpelro TO irpoftarov, d\\d real av art av G iv rrapelêv
eaO LOjjbevov, Kal dvoftevov TO rrdOos rov Swr^po? TO
5 ev icocrfJiU) ea-rjfjiaivev, eo-Q iopevov 8e rr)v avdrravGiv
r
rrjv ev ydp,co. rrapeOefjieOa Be avrov w?

rrjv \e%iv, (va TO
ev TijXiKovTOK; dvaa-rpefyeiv rov dvSpa Trapeppi^êvw^ Kal
vSapws aerd /j,r}Sevos KaraarKevaornKOV Qewprjaavres, fjid\\ov
avrov Kara<f)povr/cra)/jLev.
4 TO Traces] TOL! irddovs. 5 earj/j.cuvev ]
23. OTTOV /c.T.X.] The reading of

the MS. is corrupt, and the conjecture Unfortunately Hippolytus has said
in Cod. Venetus TTOV Sotiacrys ^dkv av nothing about the eschatology of the
fyvKtvai 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. 7-6 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 Cod. gous completed the system
ya.fj.os :
Venetus. as the of the TrdOtj of Sophia

6i6peu<Tis
5. TT]v dpaTravffiv] Cf. Excerpta was accomplished by means of her

ex Theodoto 63, TJ yuev ovv T&V irvev- marriage with the KOIVOS rov TrX^pw-
fj.ariKwi>
avaTravvis ev KVpiaKrj ev 07- /uciTos KapTr6s, SO the Trvevfj.ari.Kol would
800,81.... dra. TO 8eiirvov ruv yd.fj.uv. naturally receive the final 5i6p6w<ris
Irenaeus i. vii. 1, TOI>S

by 70^01, no doubt with the Xo7<u
projected by Sophia and her

vv(j,(pa.s diroSodrifffffQcu rots irepl rbv
52
13. Ibid. x. 19 (R iv. 194; L. i.

338).
Se KOI Ta Hpa/cXewô?, os fyrja-i Trjv els lepo-

croXi/yita avobov <rv) fjiaiveuv TT/V TTO TWV V\LKWV els TOV
^rvîKov TOTTOV, Tvy%av OVT a eiKova TTJS Iepou<raXr}//,,
Jo. ii. 14.
dvdfiao-iv TOV /cvplov. TO Be EypeN 6N TO>
iepoj, KOI
oi/^t Trpovdw,
(Herat elpf)(r6ai virep TOV /JLT) TT)V /c\r)<ri,v 5
fJLOVIJV VOtjO^jVai TT)V %O)pl<}

TTVev JJLCLTOS
VTTO TOV Kvplov r)<yelTai yap ra fjuev ayia TWV d<yli
Heb. ix. 7. etât TO fepoN, els MONOC 6 Apxiepeyc el<rlei,

evOa ol/
avTov \eyeiv TOVS irvevâTLKovs %aypeiv ra 8e TOV TTpo-
vdov, OTTOV Kal ol Aeu trat, (rv/jipoXov elvai, TWV 10
efa) TOV r
jT\^pwfjLaTos ^V^LKWV evpia- KO/jbevcov ev
Jo. ii. 14.
(TWTrjpia. IIpo? TOVTOLS Toyc eypicKOMGNoyc
EN TOJ lepciu ncoAofNTAC BOAC KA) npoBATA KAI ne-
AC, KAI Toyc KA0HM6Noyc KepMATiCTAC e feê faro
VTl T(t)V fjLTjbeV
%aplTl OlOOVTWV, XX e/jLTTO- 15
1 eis] om. 2 (rty/xcuVeu 5 irpovoup] rCjv
13. 1. e^s has been rightly sup

plied by Cod. Bodleianus. 5. irpov<up\
The T&V avu of the
TT]V et s K.T.X.] This sentence can MSS. is
impossible. Neander s con
only mean that the Lord s journey jecture T$ is in the right direc
va<{>
from Galilee to Jerusalem symbo tion, but should we not read irpovd^
lises the journey from the v\u<a (cf. 1. 9, TO. S TOV Trpovdov)? Other
(cf. Fragg. 12 and 40)
to the ^VX^KOS wise we must suppose, either that
T67ros, which r67ro$ is an ekc^ or the meanings of vao$ 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 -rrpovdov in 1. 9 would be
ture that Heracleon spoke of the awkward.
Hebdomad, the abode of the Demi 5, 6. The distinction of K\rj<ns
urge, as an eiKuv of the Ogdoad which (jLovr] x^pts TTpetViaros agrees with
ij
was the abode of Sophia, or from the division of men in Hipp. Eefut.
another point of view was Sophia vi. 34, KaroiKijTripiov TTOT fjLtv ^fX^s
herself. This will account for the fj.6vr)$...TroT 5e i/ ux^s /cat \6ywv. See
distinction between lepoixraXrj/i and also Excerpta ex Theod. 58,
Iepoff6\vfj.a which the MSS. have faith
fully preserved. Cf. Bishop Light- TO ycX^roj ,

TO ^kv irapa T??S
foot s note on Gal. iv. 26. Perhaps TO Trvev/j-aTiKov, TO 5 e/r TTJS oiKovoîas
in 1. 3 we should read TT?S dVu lepou- TO
piav KepSos Trjv TWV êvwv et? TO lepov io~oSov

teal
TOV ISiov /cepSou? /cal <pL\apyvpla<; eve/cev

,
et? Tr)v \aTpeiav TOV Oeov Ovaias %opr)yovvTo)v.

/cal TO c^pApeAAio N Se TreTroirjo-Oai, etc o~%ot,ViQ)v VTTO TOV Jo. ii. 15.
ov%l Trap d\\ov Xa/SoWo?, t&iOTpbVa>? d7rayye\\ei,

20 1 770-01),
\eywv TO cbpApeAAiON eiKova Tvy^dveiv 7775 Swaêus

tvcpyeias TOV dyiov TrvevfjuaTO^, roi)? /c<pvo~a)VTo<;
Kal âi To 4)pAreAAiON Kal TO \ivov

aivSova Kal oaaToiavTa euKova r^9 8vvdfjLea)<;
25 TTj? evepyelas elvau TOV dyiov TTVGV //.aro?. evretra
7rpoo-i\ rj(f)e TO
fjurj ryeypafjLfjievov, w? cipa et? %v\ov
TO (f)paye\\iov, oirep %v\ov TVTTOV K\a/3(iov elvai
TOV o~Tavpov, (b rjo i TOUTCO TCO v\(p ai>T)\G)o~u at, Kai
rjfyav iaOau TOI)? KvftevTas GKTropovs Kai Trao~av Trjv
30 KaKiav. Kal OVK otS OTTO)? $\vapwv fyrja-Lv GK Bvo TOVTCOV
TrpayfjiaTcov (f>paye\\iov KaTao-Kevd%eo~6ai, %rjT<x>v
TO
VTTO TOV Ir]o~ov yevopevov. Ov yap K Sep/jiaTos,
f
veKpov eTTOLTjaev avTO, iva Trjv G.KK\if](Tiav

OVKCTL AHCTOON Kal e/JLTropwv cnHAAiON, aXXa Mt.xxi.13.
<TKevdo-rj
? * )^-y/c>\\ Cf. Jer. /
350IKON TOY TTATpoc auToW \eKTeov oe TO avayKaLOTaTov v ^ n

\
Tcepl T/7? OeoTrjTos Kal eK TCOV prjTcov

TOVTWV Trpo?
yap TO ev lepoo oXi/yiioi? lepov OI KON TOY l&iov TTATpoc
elvai o I?7croi}?, TOUTO 8e TO lepov et? $6%av TOV KTio~avTO<> TOV
ovpavov Kal yeyove, TTCO? OVK tivTLKpvs SiSacrKoueda

Trjv yfjv
40 fj,r) eTepov TLVOS vo/j,i%iv vlov eivai Trapa TOV TroirjTrjv ovpavov
Kal 7775 TOV vlov TOV deov ;
14 Ibid. x. 19 (R. iv. 196; L. i.

342).
e
%d>6opa
Be 7rapan-7JTft)? o HpaK\eo)v oleTai TO zflAoc Jo. ii.17.
, i > i " >
n^ Ps Ixix
TOY OIKOY COY KATA(J)AreTAI MG
TTpOaWTTOV TOOV 6/C Kp A,r)- /j x v jjj \
^Q
OevTwv Kal dva\w6evTwv VTTO TOV ScoT^po?
14. 2. KctTd^cryeTcu] There is a the masc. with dvva.fji.ewv we may
difference of reading in the LXX. compare Ep. Vienn. ct Lugd. ap.
here. fcsB read Kara^cêrcu, A /car^- Euseb. H. E. v. i. 9, TWV irpoeffTt]-
(paye. Cf. Origen Comiu. in loann. KOTWV TTJS TroXews eôvcnwv, and ibid.
x. 19 (L. I.
341). 30, TrapaTre/j.irovT(t}v TWV
3. Svva/J.ewv~\ Cf. the 5a.ifJ.oves of eov<Tiwv.
Hipp. Befut. vi. 34. For the use of

70 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON.
\eyea-0ai, pr) Svvd/j,evo<>

TOV etpfjiov rr;? ev TW -^ra\fjiaj 7rpo(f)ij-
T6ta? Trjpfacu, voov/jievov IK TrpocrcoTrov TWV K/3\t]0evTa)v Kal 5
dva\a)0evTa)v $vvd/j,ea)v \eyecr6ai. dfc6\ov9ov Se ecm KCLT*

Ps. Ixix. avTov /col TO "EAooKAN eic TO BpooMA MOY X^^ N <*"n exelvwv
(lxviii.)22. ,. / /j , i * / A ~ v
rw avrw âXfJuw a\\
>
i > >
< >
\eyeauai ev avayeypa/A/jLevov co? eiicos
erdpaêv avrov TO KATACÂfeTAi M co? JJLY) ^vvdêvov VTTO
7rayye\\cr0ac ov% opcovTa TO } edo<$ TWV dvOpwTro- 10
7Tpl Oeov KOi XpHTTOV \6yCOV.

10 Ol/X
15. Ibid. x. 21 (R. iv. 199 ;

L. I.
351).
f
O fievToi ye Hpa/cXecoi/ TO* EN rpiciN <f)7]crlv
dvTt TOV Ez^
Jo. ii. 19. TpiTrj, (j,rj epewijcras, KdiToi ye eTna-Târas TW EN TplciN,
ev rpialv r) az/acrrao-t? evepyelTai T/yu-epat?. ert Se /cat
^ TpiT7]v (f>7ja-l Tr)v 7rvevjj,aTi,Kr)v rifêpav, ev fj

oiovrai
8rj\ovcr0at, TTJV r^9 eK/c\r)o-las dvdcrTaaiv. TOVTCOV be 5
a/co\ovuov ecrTi TrpooTrjv \eyeiv elvau TTJV

TTJV SevTepav Trjv ^wîKrjv, ov yeyevrj/jievrjs
T^9 avacrTaaea)? ev aurat?.
5. voovfj.evov] We should expect 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 which has crept
of Cod. Monacensis,
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, ei-rj tf)v<ns
K.T.\.
tion. And the agreement of vooti- 10.Does this mean simply
?0os]
fj.evov with elp/j.6v is very awkward. custom, usage, or should we com-
As it stands the passage can only pare Origen s use of TO h Wti \t-yo-
mean that Heracleon s interpretation /u.ei>oj>, tropice, and perhaps TO, Wt]
fails because he cannot grasp the Orig. Conwi. in loann. xiii. 5?
general drift of the prophecy, which ovx bpuvTa] The reading of all the
he interprets as being spoken by the MSS. Huet apparently conjectured
But the text is unsatis-
5vi>&fj.eis.
ov x^poCj/ra, which is the probable
factory,and I am inclined to suspect source of Delarue s note Keg. (quern
that the words yoov/j-evov \cyea6at H. sequitur) ov
16. Ibid. x. 22 (R. iv. 201 ;

L. I.
356).
"Eot/ee Be ical Kara ra M.a/CKa/3a i,Ka TroXXrj TI<$

d/cara- Cf. 1 Mace.
/ \ \ \ v \ \ \ i
-95 i. 22 ff.
crrao-ia yeyovevai, rrepi TOV \aov
KCU TOV vaov, KCLI OVK oLOa
el Tore avwicoBof^rjOr] TOQ-OVTOW erea-iv o vaos. o pevToi <ye
Hpa/eXeW, pr)Be eVto-TfJcra? rfj la-ropia, facri T6v SoXo- Cf. Jo. ii.
5 reccApAKONTA KA) el e reci KaTeo-Kevaicevat, TOV

/jLwvra
vaov, elicova rvy^dvovra TOV ^(DTrjpos, Kai TOV S"
dpid/JLov i<;
TrfV v\r)V, TovTea-Ti TO TrXao-^ta, dvatyepei,*
TOV 8e TGOV Tecraapd/covTa, o rerpa? ecrrt, (frrjcnv, t]
tcai TO ev rw e^^vatj-
dirpoo-TrXoKos, els TO i^^va^â
10 Be el SvvaTov, TOV /JLCV Sid ra T&o~apa
fj,aTicnrepfjia. opa fju
TOV crTOiêla ev TO?? tjywvLo-fjievois els

tcoo-fjiov
TOV vaov e<y-
KaTaTaa-Q-ofjieva \afjbf3dveiv, TOV Be

S* Sta TO TTJ GKTVJ
yeyovevat, TOV dvOpwirov.

11 dywviffêvoLS.
16. 6, 7. TOV Frag. 18, r a/H0/*oV] Cf. ibid. vi. 34, KaroiKr)r-rjpi.ov . . .TTOTC 5
Heracleon s interpretation of the six /cat \6ywit, oiTLves et<ri

\6yoi
(as he read) husbands

of the Samari Ko.reaTra.pfj.evoL dirb TOV KOLVOV
tan woman. With the whole fragment TOV 7rX?7/)wâTos Kapirov /cat TT)S cro0taj
we must compare Excerpta ex Thco- ets rovrov rbv Kocr/Aov, KaroiKovvres ev
doto 50, XctjSdw xv v aTro TTJS yrjs...
fax*!" 7 e ^57j KOU v\iKT]v ereKrriva.ro... The agreement of this passage,

o 8e KaO 6/j.oiu<nv rr\v avrov rou Stj- with the fragment of Valentinus pre
/uLiovpyou, Ke ii 6s tanv ov els rovrov served in Clement (Strom, iv. 13), and
eve<f>v<r~r)aev
re /cat eveffirtipev 6/j.oiov- his explanation of it, will be more
cribv TI avry 5t dyye\wi>
evdtis. And conveniently considered in an ad
53, ^trxe 5^ 6 A5d/i aSTjXws avr<$
ditional note.
virb rrjs <ro<f>ias ivffirapev rb oirepâ rb 8, 9. TeT/xis r) aTrpoffirXoKos] The
n-vevâriKOV eij ryv ^vxty, Starayeis, reference is probably in the first
07?o-t, 5t dyye\wi>
ev -xfipl pefflrov... instance to the original rerpaKrvs of
llp&rov oZv (T7re/j/u.a irvevârLKov TO ev the Valentinian system (i.e. probably
rip ASd/j, 7rpoe/3aXcj/ TJ ffocpia iva. rj TO the four male aeons of the Ogdoad),
offrovv ij \oyiKri Kai ovpavia ^vxn yiuj and then more generally to the spiri
Kevr) a\\d fj.ve\ov yt/J.ovcra TrvevfAariKov, tual nature which is incapable of
which is more closely parallel. See real union with any lower nature.
also Hipp. Refut. vi. 34, ToOro e<m Cf Irenaeus i. vii. 4 (where he is speak
.
TO elpi>)/J.evov...Kal evefitiffyaev els rb ing of the Demiurge s various views

Trpbcruwov avrov irvoyv ^CJTJS KO! eyevero as to prophecy) 17 TOV dvdpwirov, rj TT}J/
o dvOpuwos ets ûx 7
?"
fwo <"
>
and for irpoffTr\OKr}v TWV x ei povuv (MS.
the TO ev T efj.<pv<rri/J.aTi cirepfj.a,
Lat. pejorum).
72 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HER AC LEON.
17. Ibid. xiii. 10 (R. iv. 220; L. n. 18).
Se /cal rd et9 rou? TO TTOU?,

"IS&>/ie*>
HparcXecovo? oo-ri?
(/>ijo-iv"Arovov /cal Trpocricaipov /cal 7rt,\ei7rovaav e/cei-
vr)v yeyovevai rr}v i^wrjv, KOI rr)v /car avrrjv Sogav
/coapi/cr) yap, <f>âlv, ^v /cal olerai rov KoaîKrjv avrijv
elvau d-jr6&ei%iv e/c rov rd GpeMMATA rov
<j>epeiv
"Ia/cw/3 ef 5
avrrjs TreTTw/cevai /cal el fiev arovov /cal Trpovicaipov /cal
eiriXeiirovtrav &dp/3ave rr)v e/c
pepov? yvwcnv, rjrot, rfj
aTTO TWV ypa<f>wv o-vy/cpio-ei rwv apprjrwv p^^drwv, a ov/c
e%bv dv6pW7ru> \a\rjcrai,, Traaav rrjv vvv SL eaoirrpov /cal
alviyfj,aro<i
/carapyov/jievrjv orav e\6rj TO
<yivop{-vr)v <yvw<Tiv, 10
reXeiov, ov/c av avraj eve/caXeaafjiev. el Be

virep TOV SiaftdX-
\eiv rd 7ra\aid TOVTO Troiei, ey/c\7jreo^ av
eirj. O Se Si&ay- |N
o-iv vScop 6 ZcoTrjp, tfrrjo-lv elvat e/c rov Trvevparos /cal

Jo. iv. 14. T7?9 Svvdfjuect)? auroO, ov -êvôêvo^ /cal et? TO Oy MH
AiyHCH 8e eic TON AIOONA aTroSeSco/cev avrais Xegecrw ourw?,
15
Atco^to? yap r) fa)?} avrov, /cal fjLrjSeTrore (f>6et,pofj,evr),
w? Trpwrij r) e/c rov

/cal 77 d\\d pevovaa dva- <^>/)eaT09,
Cf. Rom. (fralperos yap H X^P IC fcal H AcopeA rov 2,Q)Tr)po? r]pwv,
/cal pri dva\K7/co/j,evr)
fjLrjSe (frQetpo/jLevrj ev rw yu,ere-
%OI/T* avrfjs. (f)6eipo/jievijv Se rrjv Trpwrrjv Bi&ovs elvai 20

2 Cor. iii. ?&}*>, el pevKara TO ypdppa e\eye, tyjrwv rrjv rfj
rr)v
nepi-
Al TOY KAAYMMATOC yivoêvt]v Kara TO HNGYMA /cal
CfiEx. pecei evpi-
xxxiv. 34. O-KCOV, vyiws av eKeyev. el Se iravrv) /caryyopel <f>6opdv
ru>v
Heb. x. 1.
TraXatcSz/, 8f)\ov on rovro iroiel w? prj opoov rd dyaOd
11 ai}r] 21
aiJro. rV] om. 22 yivo/j.hi)v] yivo^vr] r,.
17. 19, 20. /xer<fxoj/Ti] There is no O7r6re ofo ^5ei fyOfyai TO

difference of reading here in the MSB.
T^V rrj] Hilgenfeld plausibly al-
Delarue sRegius (quern H.
note, ters theV^ of the uss. to rrjv. Per-
sequitur) /êraaxoVTi, is due to Huet haps it is better to insert both articles
and not to Cod. Regius. Huet very (cf.Frag. 1). At any rate the in
rj
likely conjectured /xerao-x^Ti from the next line cannot be right. We

Ferrarius ( particeps fuerit ). may reasonably suppose that after
21. frrwv] With this comment had been corrupted to 71-
ytvofj.i>r)i>
of Origen we may compare Hipp. vo^v^ (dative because of the pre-

Refut. vi. 35, 6re /cr/ats the r^v
T<?\OS
Act/3ej> 77 ceding Trepiaiptvet), may have
...rr\v airoKaXv\f/iv TT\V eyKfKa\vfji/j.evr)v dropped out.
...feat e?xe tiri
Ka.\v/j./j.a TTJV Kapdiav
25 MeAAoNTOON e )(eiN eKelva THN CKIAN. OVK a. iriOdvws Be TO

AAAOM6NOY Birjyô-aTO Kal roi)? fj,Ta\a[jL(3dvovTa<; TOV
dvwOev eTrLôprjyov/JLevov TrXouo-tw?, KOI auroi)? eV-
/3\va-ai et? TTJV erepcov alwviov ^wr)v ra eTriKeôprj-
yrjfjueva aurot?. d\\d KOI eTraivet rrjv âfjiapeinv ooo~dv
30 ev&eigafAevriv rrjv dBid/cpirov Kal Kard\\rj\ov rfj
<f>v(Ti eavrrfS TTLO-TLV, fj,r) SiaicpiOelaav ol? e\eyev e^>
avrfj. el fjiev ovv T^V Trpoaipeariv aTreSeêro, /JirjSev Trepl
(f)v<TCd$ alviTTOfJievos co? Sia^>6pouo"779,

real rêls (iv avyKare-
0efj,e0a el $e rfj (frvcriKf) KaraaKevfj dvafyepei rrjv r/J? a-vytcaTa-
35 êVea)? alriav, w? ov Tracrt

ravrrjs Trapova-rjs, dvarpeTrreov
<
rov \6<yov.
OVK oi$a Be TTCO? o H.paK\ewi> TO fjurj
eK\a/3(av (fryo-i TT/DO? TO Adc MOI TOYTO TO yAoop Jo. iv. 15.
Co? dpa Rpa%ea BiavvÔelaa TOV \6yov e/jui VTTO

\oiTcbv Kal TOV TOTTOV etceivov TOV \eyo/j,evov
40 uSaro?. ert 8e :al Trpo? TO Adc MOI TOYTO TO yAoop TN<\ MH
Aiycb MHAe Aiep)(coMAi GNGAAe ANTAe?N (frycrlv OTI TauTa \eyet
r) yvvrj fJL(j)aivovo~a TO enr i/jLOÔov /cal 8vo~7r6pLo-Tov
/cal aTpotyov eKelvov TOV vSaTos TroOev ydp SeiKvvvat,
aTpocfrov elvai TO TOV
25
18. Ibid. xiii. 11 (R. IV. 221 ;

L. II.
20).
Be 6 ttpaK\eo)v TTÔ? TO Aepei AY TH A^Xoi/ oTt

r
<f)
rjo~i Jo. iv. 16.
TL \eya)v Et êXet? \aftelv TOVTO TO vBwp,

(})CC)NHCON TON ANApA COY KCU oleTdl TTj^ SttyLta-
? TOV \ey6fjievov UTTO TOU ScoT^po? dvSpa TO
25. The text, even after fX LV Ka ^ ^ a ^ ^v

r< a,l ra. ro^rots OI
has been substituted for the impos- 33. 0uVews] Fragg. 19, 44. Cf.
sible ?x ei i s unsatisfactory.
>
The Origen s criticism of the doctrine of
omission of ra, ayada, would make it 0ycrews 5ia0opa 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 Heracleouism, as this was the deepest
has crept into the text. and most characteristic fault of the
27, 28. Kzl avrovs e/c/3Xwrcu] Cf. Ex- system, and indeed of gnosticism in
cerpta ex Theod. 58, TO \J/VX<-KOI>,
6 general.
dveawvev Kal dvrjveyKev airep dveXafie,
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEKACLEON.
77X77 pa)/j,a eivai avTrjs, iva o~vv eiceivw yevofievi] 77/309 5
TOV ^(DTrjpa KO/uLicraaOaL Trap avTOv TTJV Bvva/JLLV /cal

TTJV evcocTLV KOI Trjv dvaKpaaiv TTJV 77/309 TO 77X77 p ft a ft)
avrrjs Bvvtjdy ov jap jrepl dvBpos, (frrjcrl, KOCT/JLLKOV

eXeyev avrfj Iva Ka\eo-r), eTreinrep OVK tjyvoei on OVK
el%e dvBpa. 77/30 77X0)9 Be evTavOa pidêrai, \eywv
vofjii/jbov to
avrfi rbv ^coTTJpa elpyKevai Ô ^NHCON coy TON

KAI eA6e GNOAAe, $tj\ovi>Ta TOV CLTTO TOV
av^vjov eiTrep yap TOV(? OVTCOS el%ev, e^prjv TOV avSpa teal
Tiva TpoTrov eo~Tai avTov eiTrelv, tva o~vv avTco
<j)(i)vr)Teov
yevrjTai 77/309 TOV ^(OTrjpa. aXX eVel, 009 6 Hpa/cXewv 15
(frrjo-l,
KaTa TO
voovp-evov rjyvoei TOV iSiov avSpa, /caTci Be TO
ci7r\ovv fcr^vveTO eiTrelv OTI ôiôv ov%l Be dvBpa
el%e, 770)9
ov%t /JLciT rjv eo-Tai TrpoaTfio-o-cov 6 Xeycov "YrrAre (})OC>NHCON TON
ANApA coy KAI eA6e eN0AAe; elra 77/309 TOVTO AAnGec ei pHKAC
OTI ANApA OYK e x eiC
fal&W E7T66 6 1/ TO) O(7/Ltft) OVK el%eV 2O
dvBpa ij 2a/Lta/oetTt9, TJV yap ai)r^9 6 dvrjp ev ra> alwvi.

fêv ovv dveyvw/jiev TTeNTe ANApAC ecyec Trapd Be ra5
14 eiweiv] om. 21
18. 6. Grabe suggests

Kopiaaadai] here follows the Western text. As
which is followed by Hil-
K0fj.ie<r6ai., Origen has twice quoted the words
genfeld. But there is no need to with the reading e^co 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. TT]v tvucnv K.T.X.] Cf. Excerpt. At the same time the retention in
ex Theod. 22, eyetpo/AeOa ovv ij/Ae is Cod. Monacensis of a less well-
i(rdyy\oi rocs cippecnv a.TroKa.Ta<TTa.6ev- known reading in only one of several
rts...ei j eVwcrti ,
and 64, K0[u$/ji,eva passages would not be unparalleled.
teal aura rous Wfuftlovt TOUS d~yye\ovs Other interesting variants in Hera
lavrwv, els TOV vvfjupuva evros TOV opov cleon s text are found in (1) Fr. 9,
etcriacrt ...... ei s TOVS voepous /cai alwviovs B?70aj/(a. See the note in loc. (2)
yd[j.ovs TTJS ffvfrvyias. Fr. 18, l dvSpas, a reading other
Tr\ripufj.a] On Heracleon s use of wise unknown. (3) Fr. 40, tyvxhv
?r\^/)Wyaa and ai wv, see additional Kol 0-ufj.a. Mt. x. 28. (4) Fr. 40,
note p. 105. ee\eucrot>Tai (et s TO <r/c6ros TO
14. Hilgenfeld s substitution of a Western variant for (f/
direlv for l(rrat 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
elireiv, or perhaps 5-rj\u<rai,
has fallen much material from which we can
out after O.VTOV. form a judgment.
20. lx*i*] Heracleon, or Origen,
evpofiev "E AN A p AC ec)(ec. KOI epjjirjvevei ye

rrjv v\LKr)v Trdaav Ka/ciav Brj\ovcr0ai Bid rwv ef
25
dvBp&v, f, o-vve7rerr\eKTo real 67T\rjcria^v Trapd \6yov
Tropvevova-a, ical evvfBpiôiievr) Kal dderovfievrj /cal
eyKara\L7rofjievij vrf avrwv \eKreov Be TT/OO? avrov
on elrrep erropvevev ij TrvevfJLanKr), rfâpravev r] irvevâ-
ritcr) el Be tf/jLapravev 77 TrvevfAaritcrj, AeNApON AfAGoN OVK
30 fa TI TrvevfMaTiKij /card yap TO evayye\iov Oy AYNATAI Mt. vii. 18.
/cal Brj\ov ort,

AeNApON Ar^QoN KApnoyc noNHpoyc 6NerKe?N.
ofyerai avrols rd fivOoTroitas, el Be dBvvarov eari TO
rrj<>
Af^QoN AeNApON (frepeiv noNnpoyc KApnoyc Kal Af^QoN AeNApoN

r; âjuapelrw, are Trvev/jLaTifcrj rvy^dvova-a, dicoKovOov avru)
35 \eyetv early, on rjroi OIK r\v d/juapria r; iropveia avrrjs, rj
OVK
avrr} eiropvevcrev.
19. Ibid. xiii. 15 (R. iv. 224 ;

L. n. 25).
f
O Be ra avrd prjfiara \eyei Eucr^7;^6^ft)? Cf. Jo. iv.
(x HpaKXewv
a)fjLo\oyrjKevai rtjv
\
et?
^ \fj Vl9
ââpeiriv ra vrc avrov rrpos
avrrjv elpijfJLeva TLpotfrrjrov ydp /JLOVOV, eo~nv <f>r)(Ti,v,
elBevai rd rrdvra, ^revBofievo^ eKarepo)^ Kal ydp ol dyye-

5 X-ot ra roiavra Bvvavrai elBevai, Kal 6 Trpocfrr/nis ov rrdvra
olBev, EK Mepoyc r^p HNCOCKOMCN KAI K Mepoyc npo^HreyoMGN, 1 Cor. xiii.
KOLV rrpofyrjrevwpev rj yLvaHTKco/j-ev. fMerd Be ravra erraivel
w? rrperrovrws rfj avrrjs (pixrei rcoiriacicrav rrjv

pelrLV, Kal [tijre ^revaafjievrjv fjiijre avriKpvs
yâacrav rrjv eavrrjs do ^rjiôcrvvrji ,
rrerreia fjuevriv re
avrrjv,
cfrrjo-iv rrpo^r^rri^ on epwrdv avrov, d/j,a e trj,
rrjv alrlav ep<f)alvov(7av

Bi* rjv egeiro pvev&ev, on BS
ayvoiav deov Kal r^5 Kara rov Oeov Xarpe/a? d
CLVTTJS
19. 3. TrpoQr/Tov K.T.X.] Contrast TTJS ov iravroi olftev of its point.

Heracleon s views on the prophets 12 14. 6Vt...aê\?7(rao-aj/ is strange
in Fragment 5. but possibly be explained as an
may
4. Hilgenfeld alters ra iravTa. in- extension of such usages as 5r)\oi>
to Kal an alteration which,

TO.VTO., 6Vt. Hilgenfeld plausibly suggests
besides having no MS. authority, are.
deprives Origen s criticism 6

aacrav /cal TTCLVTWV TWV Kara TOV ftiov avrfj dvayicaiwv

teal aXX-ttf? del TWV ev jBiw Tvy^dvovaav ov yap
TO>
15
av, avrrj rjpêro eVt TO (frpeap,

(frrjalv, TT}? TroXew? efo>
TV*y%dvov. ov/c olSa Se TTW? evo/juaev efJL(f>alveo-6ai, TT]V

alriav TOV e/CTreTropvev/cevai, rj dyvoiav alriav yeyove-
TWV 7r\7)ijiijLe\ )jfjidTwv Kdi T??9 Kara Oeov XO-T peias.
VCIL eTTL
aXX eoi/ce ravra W9 ervêv ecrêSta/ceâi, Tracr?;? TTiOa- %ft>/3fc?

20
voTrfTo^. Trpoarldrjo-l re TOVTOIS on ôv\o/nev7) /juaQeiv

TTCO? rivi evapeo-rrjaaaa /cal 6ea) Trpoa/cvvrjo-ao-a
/cal
Jo. iv. 20.
d7ra\\ayeirj rov Tropveveiv, \eyei TO Oi n^jepec H
EN TcL opei Toyja) npoceKYNHCAN /cal TO
oe eaTW eveXeytcTa TCL elprj/jieva Trodev yap OTL /Sot-Xerat 25
TIVL evapea-T^craa-a diraXkayeiT] TOV
,
Tropveveiv ;
15 rQtv ev] TTJV e/c. 25 eve\eyitTa]
20. Ibid. xiii. 16 (R. iv. 225 ;

L. n. 26).
Jo. iv. 21. Aepei AYTH d MHCOYC TTicjeye MOI, TYNAI, OTI epxeTAi O>PA,
6 ie
OY TG SN TU) 6 pei TOYTCO ofVe EN lepocoAYMoic npocKYNHcere TOJ

ore eBoge iriQavwTaTa TeTrjprj/cevai, 6 H/ja/cXewv ev
TO E?rl /êz^ TW^ TTpoTepwv fir) elprjo-Qai, avTrj
MOI rYNî, vvv Se TOVTO avTy Trpoo-TeTa^BaL, 5
rore eVeôXwcre TO ft?) dirlOavov TrapaTrfprj/Aa, elirmv "Opoc
TOV $(,d{3o\ov \eye<r6ai, rj TOV KOCT/JLOV avTov,
15. Grabe s alteration of rr\v into been the cause of her \arpeia, though
TUV 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 diroTvyxdvovffav Origen seems to have misunderstood
after ava.yKa.iwv balances the sentence the words which he quotes.
better, but then d XXws rvyxwovaav 21. re] The irepl 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^ceX?)- the scribe of Cod. Regius. Cod.
aacrav after dvayKatw, or (ii) to omit Monac has ,
(sic) which he has mig .
the KO.I after dpe\j<raffar. But it is taken for -rrepl
doubtful if even then a possible sense 2 2. T ( v (\ Cod. Venetus inserts
can be obtained.
rp ^^ but it is more natural that the
19. Kal TT/S /card deov \arpelas] expression here should be similar to
Ignorance can hardly be said to have that in 1. 26.
//.epo<?
ev 6 Sta/9oXo9 0X7;? TT}?
6 Be KOCT/JLOS TO (TVfjiTrav
T^? icaicias opo?, eprjfjiov
10
Trjpiov OrjpiwVj 7rpo(7Kvvovv Trdvres ol Trpo VO/JLOV a>
teal ol eOviKOi lepocoAyMA 8e rrjv K.TIGIV rj TOV KTiGTrjv

u>
Trpoa-ercvvovv ol louScuot. AXXa KOI SevTepws "Opoc
fJLev ryv rcrio iv fj ol eOviicoi Trpocretcvvovv

ev6/jLi(Tv elvai
lepocoAyMA Be rov KridT^v, w ol lovSaioi e\drpevov.

15 u/zet? ovv, (fctjcrlv, olovel ol Trvev/jLarifcol, ovre rfj /cricreL,
ovre TM Brj/jLiovpyw npocKyNHcere, aXXa TW Trarpl T^?
Kal (rv/jiTrapaXa/Aftdvei ye, (frrjcrlv, avr>}v w?
TTicTTrjv, Kal (rvvapi0fjLOVfJLev r]v rot? /card aXrjOeiav
13 oi] om. 14
21. Ibid. xiii. 17 (R. iv. 226 ;

L. n. 28).
npocKyNeTre o OYK oTAAre, HMG?C npocKyNoyMeN o Jo. iv. 22.
OTI H C(JOTHplA K TO3N loyAAIOON GCTIN. TO YMeIc, 0(TOl>
eVt Trj Xefet, ol âpapels oo-ov &e eVt ry dvaycoyf), ol irepl

Ta? fy/3a(/>a? erepo&oôi. TO 8e HMelc, ocrov eVl TW p^Tw, ot
-
5 Ioi/8atofc oo-oi/ Se eVt T$ dXKrjyopia, eyw 6 \6yos, Kal ol K.CLT
e/Jbe fjLefjbop<f)(i)iJLevoi,, TI)V a-coTypiav eôvre^ diro TGOV lovSa iKwv

\6ywv TO yap 4>ANep<jo0eN NyN MycTHpioN 7re<f)avepa)Tai,
AIA re Rom. xvi.
20. 8. With the description of o 6 apx^v rov xofffj-ov TOVTOV.
didj3o\os as /i^pos v o\7ys rjjs v\rj^ cf. 9, 10. ofcnynj/jtoi ^Tjptwi/] Cf. Hipp,
the cosmogony of Hippolyttis Refut. Refut. vi. 34, KaToiKr)Tr)pioi>...oTav
vi. 32^34, e/c r^s vXtx^j ovaLas Kal 5al[j.oves fj.r) (rvvoiKwcri rrj ^vxy, and
5ia/3oXi/c^s ewoiriffev 6 dij/miovpyos ra?s Valentinus ap. Clem. Al. Strom, ii.
i/ yxcus TO, (Tw/aara, and e/c TTJS i-Ai/c^s 20, 17 Kap8la...Tro\\uv ov<ra
5cu/j.6i>ui>
ytyovev (as must be supplied, see Hil- OLK^T^PLOV. These passages shew that
genfeld Ketzergescluclite, p. 4G8) et/cwi the phrase of the master was remem-
5id/3o\os, and TTJV de diropiav daifj.ovwi . bered by his pupils, and applied in
See also Irenaeus i. v. 4, IK de r??s different ways.
Xi^Trr/s ra irvevfj.ariKa. rrjs irovrjpias... 11. Kriffiv] i.e. the world of the
odev rov Std/SoXoy. Demiurge. The distinction between
9. d de /c6<r/xos]
Here regarded as the nations and the Jews may be
the world of the Devil, cf. Irenaeus, compai ed with the description (Hipp.
loc. cit. ov Kal Kotr/j-oKparopa Ka\ovfft, Refut. vi. 34) of the children of Abra-
and Hipp. Refut. vi. 33, 3id/3oXoj ham, as the children of the Demiurge.
2 Tim. i.
npO(|)HTIKOON KOI THC
TOY Kvpfov HMGON eTTl4>ANeU\C
10.
|HCOY XpicToy. Kal irapa rrjv dtco\ov9iav
opa 8e el /it?) I8ia>s
(
rwv prjTwv 6 HpaK\ea)v e/<:Sef/Ltez/o9 TO YMeTc dvrl rov Ol 10
I of Sat o*, eOviKol, 8irjyrj(7aro. olov Se eVrt Trpo? rrjv
âfjiapelnv \eyeo-0ai, Jyitet? ol lofSatot, 77 TT/JO?
V/JL6LS OL lOviKoL d\\ , OVK O&dkT/ 76 Ofc

6Tp6SoÔL O
KWOVGW, OTI rrr\daâ ecrrl, /cat ou/c aXêta, /cat pvOos /cal
ov MycTHpiA. o 8e TTpocrKVVwv Tov BTjfjLiovpybv, jjid\iaTa Kara 15

Rom. ii. TON N KpynTU) loYAA?ON, KOL TOl)? Xo yOl 9 TOj)? TTVeVfJLaTi/COVS
29.
euro? o o?Ae npocKyNe?. TroXi) Se ecrrt zî5^ irapa-
rov Hpa/cXewô? r /37;r a?ro roi) eT
Herpov Kijpvy/jLaros TrapaXa^âvoêva KOI io-raadai

aura eferafo^ra? /cat ?repi roO /3i{3\iov,7r6T6p6v7roT6 yvrjcriov 2
IQ-TIV rj voOov rj fJLitCTOV SioTrep exovres vTrepriOefjieOa, ravra

avrov, w? Tlerpov StSa| a^T09,
r
pbvov eTricnj/Aeiovfievot, (frepetv

f/
M?) Sett K a^ EX\7;â5 irpoatcvvelv, rd rrjs V\TJ<; irpdy-
15 23
21. 12. 717)65 2a ua/3e?Tti ]

-
This is ing 5i67rep e/c6fres virepTidfj.e6a mean
strange but possible. The definite ingless.
article in the first clause restricts the 23. *o0 "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 Ka.6c\tiv as) which Huet had to fol
tm has, either intentionally or by low, and which led him to conjecture
itacism, improved the text, reading /car edviKovs. The passage from the
the preceding Saâpemj
âfj.apeiTfjv ; 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 e/cetpoi JJ.OVOL ol6fj.zvoi rov debv
sically far more suitable. yivuffKeiv OVK e-n-tcrTavTai, \aTpeuovres

15. ov] This correction (found 0,77^X015 Kal
in Cod. Yen.) is necessary, whether
we retain the Kal or not. Origen expresses a decided opinion
17. 7roXi>
5J The scribe of on the Preaching of Peter in the De
Cod. Venetus fell into the natural Principiis, Praef. 8 (interp. Rufino)
transcriptional slip of inserting /cdX- Respondendum quoniam ille liber
\LOV, 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.
KOI \arpevovras f^Xot? Kal

25 \i0ois, /jirjSe Kara lof Saiov ? aefteuv TO Oelov, eTretTrep
Kai avrol JJLOVOI, olo/nevoi eTriaracrOai deov, dyvoovcriv
avTov, \arpevovres dyye\oi,<;
real /Jirjvl Kal a-e\r)vy.
24 \arpeuovTas] \OLTpetovTes.
26 fj.6voi oiofjievoi] /j.6i>ois
22. Ibid. xiii. 19 (R. IV. 229; L. II. 33).
(
To /jievToi, ye HMeic npocKyNoyMeN 6 HpaK\ea)v oie-rai elvau J . iv. 22.
O ev alwvu Kal ol avv avry e\06vre<; ovroi
yap, âlv,
yoecrav TIVL TrpocrKVVovcri,, Kara d\ij0eiav rrpoaKV-
vovvres. a\\a Kal TO "On H ccornpiA EK loyAAi coN GCTIN, TCX>N
5 eTrel ev rfjlovSaia, (frrjcrlv, eyevr/Oij, aXX OVK ev avrols

ov yap 6t? irdvras avrovs eyAoKHce Kal on ef Cf. 1 Cor.
eKeivov rov e0vovs 62HA96N rj (Twrrjpla Kal o .
\oyo<$^;^,
eic THN OIKOYMGNHN Kara 8e TO
voov/juevov K TWV lou- (xviii.) 5.
Saicov rrjv crwTrjpiav SirjyeiTai X>
yeyovevai, eTreLtrep el- ^Q

10 Koves OVTOL rwv ev 7r\r)pa)/jLaTi avrw elvai vofii- ru>
ôvrau. e^prjv 8e avTov Kal roi)? air avrov (=Ka<rrov rwv ev

TTI \arpeia SeiKvvvai, TTCO? eaTiv eiKtov rwv ev rw ir K^pwfiarL,
el
ye firj /JLOVOV (fxovy rovro \eyovcriv, d\\d Kal aXrjdeia
<j>pOVOV(TlV
aVTO. 7T/305 TOVTOLf TO 6N nNGYMATI KAI AAH0eiA Jo. iv. 24.
15 npocKYNe?c9Ai TON GeoN r/yov/jievos, \eyet, on Oi irporepov
Trpoa-Kvvrjral ev aapKl Kal ir\dvr) Trpoa-eKvvovv ro5
Trarpl, coare Kal ravrov 7re7T\avfja-0ai, Trdvras TOT)?
lit)
(
TO>
&tjfj,i,ovpya), Kal einfyepei ye 6 Upa-
N TH KTI CGI, Kal ov TO) Kar d\r)6ei,av cf Rom.
i. 25.
11 ^/cocrrov] eKaffTUv.
24. \arpe6ovTas] The MS. read- 44, TOI)J 5^ appevas AyytXovs robs <ri>v
ing is probably due to the following aur eKire{j.<p6{vTas. And see also
\arpe6ovTes. Frag. 40, ol TTJS oiKovonlas ayyeXot.
22. 2. 6 h O.IUVL Kal ol <riV
aury A- 15.^yo^ôs] We may perhaps
0<Wes]
These may be naturally iden- accept Huet s suggestion scribas
tified with the /cotpos rov TrXTjpwâros 5i.yyovfji.fvos.
Kapirbs and the 70 Xôt projected by 19. Krlrei] 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 Theod. founded on Rom. i. 25.
Jo. i. 3. KTl cTH, 05 (TTi X/5K7T05, 1

<?
T7AIMTA A l
AYTO? e
KAI ^P c AYTOY ereNeio OY AGN.
23. Ibid. xiii. 20 (R. iv. 229 ;

L. n. 33).
Jo. iv. 23. KAI n*p o nATi-ip TOIOY TOYC ZHTE? royc TTPOCKYNOYNTAC AYTONT
ZHTG? 6 TTATHp, $ld TOV vloV ZHTG?, TOV 6\7J\V00TO<; ZHTHCAI
el
Lc.xix.10. KA COOCAI TO A noAooAoc, OVGTIVCLS tcaOaipwv /cal TraiBeixov TOJ

I
Z
iv 16 ^7^ Ka ^ T0 ^ vyiecri, Soy/jLaai, Karao-Kevdêi a\r]dLvoi>s TTpocr-
J
KwrjTa^. A7ro\a)\evai, Se IT)<JIV

6 HpaicXewv ev rfj (3a- 5
Oeia v\y r^? TrXaz^Ty? TO oiicelov Trarpl, oirep TO>
ZHTe?TAi i va 6 nATHp VTTO rwv oltceicov

Cf. Lc. xv. el /juev ovv ecopa TOV irepl T^? aTrwXeta? TWV TrpojSdrcov \6yov,
KOI TOV dTTOTrecrovTOS TUIV TOV TraTpos VLOV, KCLV

avTov TTJV Sir/yrjaiv. eVel Se /j,v6o7roiovvT<i ol airo r^? jvca- 10
fir)? avTov OVK olS* o TL Trore Tpavws TcapiGTacri irepl
diro\w\via^ ovSev o-aê?

Trvev/jLaTi/crjs <f>vo-eco<;,
cricovTes tj/Jids Trepl Twv TTpo T^? aTTcoXeta? avTijs
rj alwvwv
ovSe ydp Tpavovv ^vvavTai eavTwv TOV \6yov. Bid
TOVTO auTOi)? eicovTes TrapaTre/jL^lro/jieOa, TOCTOVTOV eTrcnropr)- 15
4 d\r]divovs] ahydots TOI)S. 9 vlov] mot. Cod. Bodleianus habet in

margine rcixa vlov, sed in txt. habet vlov.
20. X/H(rr6s] In the Excerpta ex must refer to the same, the tertiary
Theod. 45, the section describing predicate (contained in d\tjd. TOVS
the creative work of the Soter, eis irpoaK.) would be very awkward.
oixriav TJyayev avrd re /cat [TO] rrjs 5. aTroXwXât] There is of course
Seur^pas Sta^^crcws, is similarly closed no necessary reference here to a
with the words irdvra 5t O.VTOV K.T.\. commentary of Heracleon s on S.
23. 4. d\T]divovs] This correction in Luke, though we know from Clement
Cod. Venetus restores the grammar that he commented on some part of
of the sentence ;
ova-nva^ Ka.da.lpuv it (see Frag. 50 ; Clem. Al. Strom, iv.
can of course be separated off as a 9. Here however he only ap-

73).
complete relative sentence, but as ova- pears to have explained Luke xix. 10
rtj as, TO a7roXwX6s, and irpoffKvvr)Ta.s in illustration of S. John s words.
24. Ibid. xiii. 25 (K. iv. 234 ;

L. n. 43).
Et? fjuevToi ye TO TTNeyMA 6 Oedc 6 HpaKêwv (fryer

iv Jo. iv. 24.
payro? 7p KaOapd Kal doparos rj Oeia (frv-

^ctt
avTOv. OVK olBa 8e el eSlSaêv rîds, ravra eTrenrwv,

d 6edc TTNeyMA eo~Ti. TO Be royc npocKyNoyNTAC GN TTNey-
5 MATI KAI AAHGeiA Ae? npocKyN6?N arafyrjviêiv vopi^wv, $v]a-iv
A^/a>9
TOV Trpoo-Kvvovftevov Trvev jJbdT news ov o-ap/ci-
Kal yap avTol r^? ai)r^? ûcrew? oi/re? TO) TraTpl
el(T\v, o iTives KCLTO. d\r)8eiav Kal ov KCLTOL
r
rr\avr)v Trpoa-tcvvovcri, Kadd Kal 6 aTrocrroXo? StSdcrfcei
io\ey(0v AopiKHN AArpei AN TTJV TOiavTrjv Oeocrefteiav.

eTTio-Tr/aco/jLev be el /JLTJ a~(f)6Spa eaTiv acreê? oôoucrtou? TTJ
dyevv?jT(p(frvcret,
Kal TrajjL/naKapia \eyeiv elvai, rou? TrpocrKv-
vovvTas ev irvev/âTi rw dew, oO? Trpo /3pa%eos eljrev auro?
o eKTreTTTWKOTas, Tr)V âpapelTiv \eycov
*}i{paK\ewv
15 TTvev/jiaTiKfjs (pvcrecos ovcrav eKTreTropvevKevai. a\X
ovy^ opwviv [ol TavTa \eyovTes^\ OTL \rrav TO Ofioova-Lov]
Kal TWV avTWv $KTIKOV. el 8e eSeâro TO jropvevo~ai r) irvev- r
fJLaTLKr) (frvais, o/jLoovaios ovaa [TU> dyevvrjTw], avoaia Kal dOea

Kal daeftri aKoXovdel TW \6ya) rw /car auroi)? Trepl 6eov ovBe
20 (fravTacnwdfjvai dKivSwov eo~Tiv
2 r/] /cat. 11 o/ioofcrt ouj] o/j.oovffioi>. 16 ot raCra X^yovres] om.

lac. 13 circa litterarum relicta: Codex Bodleianus in margine ot raura Xe-
yovres. irav rb o/j-oovcnov] TravTos, post hoc verbum relinquitur lacuna (12
circa litt.) in Codice. Cod. Bodl. in margine T&V evavrluv. 18 0i7crtj]
f<rws
(pvffeis. r ayevvriTtf)] om. lacuna (12 litt.) relicta: Cod. Bodl. in mar
gine T<f) dyevv/jTij). 20 dAX-^Xots]
24. 2. -^ 0et a] There being no nominative is required and the mar-

exemplar the scribe of
article in his ginal conjecture in Cod. Bodleianus
Cod. Voietus removed the difficulty fulfils the required conditions.
by altering the last /cat into 77. TraV rb o/xooucrtoj ]

On this con-
10. \arpeiav] Correspond-
\oyiKT)i> jecture see Additional Note C.
ing to their nature. Cf. /cat yap avrol 18. T<
ayevvr}Tu>\
A conjecture pro-
TTJS auTrjs 0i;crews dWej, and Frag. 45 bably derived from Ferrarius, which
TJ]V TUV ayluv \oyiK<2v ovalav. admirably suits the requirements of
16. oi raOra \tyovres] Some such
15.
25. Ibid. xiii. 27 (R. iv. 237; L. n. 49).

f
Opa Be Kal rov Hpa/cXewva ri <f)r}aiV \eyei yap on

eSeêro TI
rov Xpicrrov,
etcrc\ij<ri* /cal errerreio-ro
rrepl avrov OTI, rd rrdvra /JLOVOS e/ceLVos errio-rarai.
26. Ibid. xiii. 28 (R. iv. 238; L. n. 51).

T
Jo. iv. 20. Kal Hpa/c\ea)v Be
o 7rpo9 ro Epco eiMi, 6 AAACON
<j>rj<ri
coi
77 â/jLapetTis Trepl rov

ort Wirrep errerreto-ro
<w?
apa e\6(ov Travra d7ra yye\6L r
avrfj, (frrjai
OTL etcelvos ov TrpocrSo/ca?, elfil 6 \a\a)i> crot Kal e<yw
ore GO /j,o\6<yr)O ev eavrov rov TrpocrSo/cw/jievov \rj\v- 5
Jo. iv. 27. devai, HA00N, (fyjjcrlv, oi M&6HTAI npdc AYTON, 81 oi)?
e\7)\vOei e/9 TTJV â/Jbdpeiav. 7ro)9 Be Sia roi)? paffffras
e\rj\vOei et9 TT)^ Zapdpeiav, o irives Kal rrporepov avrw
o-vvfjaav ;
1 crot] post (rot relinquitur lacuna (4 vel 5 litt.).
27. Ibid. xiii. 30 (R. iv. 241 ;

L. n. 56).
O oe THN fApl ^N rrjv SeKriKrjv

HpaK\ea)i> ^"0)^9
vrro-
\afjijBavei elvai SidOeo-iv Kal evvoiav Kal rrjs

r^9 rrapa rov Scor^po9, fyvriva Kara\eirrovo~a,
Trap avra), rovrkanv eôvaa Trapd ra) Zwrfjpi, ro
roiovrov dKevos, ev w \t}\v6ei \a(3elv ro %wv vSwp, 5
4 Trapa] irepl.
25. 2. }) (KK\if}a-ia] i.e. ot Trvevfj-ctTiKoi. to the latter word. It must mean

Cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 41. thought, conception, or the like, not
27. 2. /cai] The Kal before T^S power of thinking or conceiving the
Swdpeus is probably right. The diW/uj. Below (1. 13) Ferrarius re-
vdpia is the Sidêtrts and &VOLO. which fuses to take rrfv frvoiav r^s 8vva-
is deKTtK-r} rijs fw^s Kal TT^S dwa/j-eus. /xews together. Probably we should
Hilgenfeld s omission of the /ecu, there read, as here, Kal tvvoiav Kal
which makes dependent on
dvvd.fji.ews r
, gives an unnatural meaning
rov Koauov evayyeXiô/jsevrj rfj K\rj-

els
XptcrroO Trapovalav. Bid ydp rov rrvevâro^

crei rrjv
Kal vrro rov TTvevuaros Trpocrdyerai rj i|ru%r) rw Sft)-

rrjpi. Karavovjcrov Br/, Bvvarai Irraivov^vr] rvy^dveiv r)
el
10
vBpia avrrj rravrri dcfrie/JLevr) A(|)HKe jap, THN yApiAN <jyir](rl,
Jo. iv. 28.
AYTHC H fY N ^ v yap Trpo&Keirai on A^HKesi auTrjv irapa TW

^wrripi. vrctl? KaraXeiTrovcrav avrrjv
Se KOL OVK aTriOavov
rrjv Se/CTiKrjv îdOeaiv, Kal rrjv evvotav rrjs

rr)<> ^coi-js
8vvdfji(i)<; r^9 nrapa rov "%wrf)pos, Kal TO crKevos ev

15 w e\r)\v0L \aftelv TO vBcop, aTreKrjXvOevai et? TO^ <wz>
rovra)i>, eva^je\i(TaaOat rfj K\rjo~et, rrjv

reap ova lav ; TTO)? Se Kal 77 TrvevfjiariKr) pera
rocrovrovs Xoyou5 ov Treireto rai, cra^xw? Trepl rov XpicrTov,
d\\d MH TI oyjoc GCTIN 6 Xpicroc
(f>rjcn
Kal ro ElfiAGoN ;
Jo. iv. 29,
10 8e e THC noAeooc St^ yTjcraTo dvrl rov E/c T^? rrporepas

avrwv dvaar pofyrjs, ovo~r)<$ KocrfAiKrjs Kal rjpôvro
Bid T^? TT/o-Tew?, (/>7?crl, 7T/DO? TOi^ ^wrrjpa. \eKreov
Be Trpos avrov 7rc3? /JLevei, Trap avrols ra<; Ayo HMepAC ot) ;
yap rerrjprjKev o irpoTrapeOefjieOa rj/Aels Trepl rov ev rfj 7ro\ei

25 avrov dvayeypd(f)0aL MGMeNHKeNAi Ta? Ayo HMe
19 fJ.ri
TI our6s] fJ-rj TOLOVTOS.
25 ava.yeypd(p6ai] Cod. Bodleianus in margine Ta%a XetVei
28. Ibid. xiii. 32 (R. iv. 242 ;

L. n. 60).
O Se
r
HpaXea)^ fyrio~lv on
avru>
% wv dyopdcravres drro rr}<>
^
6. K-XTJO-IS] Cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 24. A negative is obviously ne-
58, rb K\t]rbv . . .rb IK rrjs olxovo- cessary : cf. Orig. Comm. in Joann.
/j.ias TO ^vxf-Kov and the words irpocr- xiii. 29. We can either place /J.TJ
dyercu -f) ^v^f] which occurs in this before dvayeypd^dai with the margin
passage (1. 8). The woman herself of the Bodleian, or before ev ry ?r6Xci.
was a representation of the fK\oyri. 28. 1. The general sense of the frag-
21. Koir/jiiKrjs] Cf. Frag. 17 (the ment is recoverable, but it is hope-
account of the woman s former life), lessly corrupt. The third sentence
KoaniKT) ydp rjv, and Frag. 20, where may possibly have run TTWS 5, oZ/tcu,
the fc6<r/ios
is the kingdom of the did- ol fj.a.d-rjra.1 TO, awrct efxeti> \tyovrai..
jSoXos.Heracleon seems also to have And in line 8 it would be natural to

used the word as almost equivalent alter TTOTOU into eXaiov, for we can
to humanity, see Frag. 8. hardly justify it on the strength of
62
tccio-av. TaBe (f)rjcrlv i va Tivd* * al TTCVTC pupal TrapOevou

Cf Matt.
.
* rtvro TOV pv/JL(f)iov. Tret)? Be olfjbcu * * * TO, avra eêiv * * *
* * rat? aTroKKeia-Oelcrais
\e<yovTai pwpals irapOevois, afyov 5
IBelv KaTTjyoplav TrepteôvTa TWV fjuaOyToov rot? ai/rot? Kot/jua)-
/jbevcov rat? fjbwpal^ TrapOevoLs. ecm &e teal avro dvo/juoiov rov
fCOL TOV 7TOTOV TTpO? TO, * ** *
^)60T09 TTpOS TpO<f>r}V, /BpCO/jLCtTa.
*0-az/ra? aiTiavaa-Qai rrjv eKô^v, KaiTrep tcard n Svvd-
fievov o-a<f)rj Troirjaai TOV \6yov e^prjv avrov Bid 7r\ei6vwv 10
, KaracrrcevdôvTa rrjv ISlav
3 post riva lacuna (6 circa litt.). post irapetvoi lacuna (45). 4 post
oZ/mi lacunapost ?x (8). lv lacuna (6). 5 post \tyovrai lacuna (10).
8 post ppu/j.aTa lacuna (19). 9 Kaiirep] xdirep. /card] ins. intra lineas.
29. Ibid. xiii. 34 (R. iv. 245 ;

L. n. 65).
Jo. iv. 32. Efoc>

BpoociN e)(a> (f)Are?N, HN y/weTc OY K oTAAje ov&ev
Be et9 TTJV
30. Ibid. xiii. 35 (R. iv. 245 ;

L. ir. 65).
Jo. iv. 33. "EAefON oyN 01 MAGHTAI npoc AAAH Aoyc MH TIC HNefKeN
4>AreiN ;
el KOI (rapKi/ctos VTroXa/jL/Bdvei ravra \eyecr0ai 6
Hpate\O)V VTTO
TcnreivoTepov Sia- TWV fMiG rjTMV, w? en
voovpevwv Kal rrjv âpapelriv /jnôvpevwv \eyovcrav
Jo. iv. 11. Oyre ANTAHMA e xeic, KAI TO 0peAp ecTi BA0y a%iov â? 5
ISeiv, prj Trore fiXeTrovre? TI Oeiorepov ol fjiad^rai (fraai, Trpbs

dXXrjXov? MH TIC HNefKCN AyT(o cf)Are?N ;
rd-â yap virevbovv
<t
r
y<ye\i,icijv
riva Bvva/jiiv evrjvoêvai, avrw
31. Ibid. xiii. 38 (R. iv. 248 ;

L. II.
70).
Jo. iv. 34. O Se

(
}^paK\e(Dv Bid rov EMON Bpa)MA tCTiN I NA nomcoo TO

BeAHMA Toy neMVfANTOC MG (frycrl Bir)ryel(r()ai TOV â)Trjpa
rots" /jiaOrjTais, OTL TOVTO o avve^r/Tei, //.era Trjs yvvai-
7r6r7?s XI/XJ/GS, and to fill up part of small patches in large rents are la
the gaps by reading KaT-qyopTJvavTas, hour wasted.
and in 1. 9 Katroi ye for Katirep. But
/eo9, /3/ow/Lia iStov \eycov TO 6eAHMA TOV Trarpos TOVTO

$ydpavTOv Tpo$rj/cal dvaTravais /cal Svvafjiis r^v. 6e-
AHMA 8e yvwvai dvdpwTrovs TOV
Trarpos e\eyev elvai TO
Trarepa, teal o-coOijvai, oTrep r/v epyov rov Swr^po? TOV
eve/ca TOVTOV aTreo-TaXfêvov et? â^dpeiav, TOVTGGTIV
et9 TOV Kocr/jiov. ftpw/jia ovv avTO êi\r)(f)6 TOV I^crou /cal
10 Trjv fjbTa Trjs â/napeiTiSos av^rjTrjcnv, O7Tp
i TO) opaaOau /cal raTrett co? /cal
eêCkrjÔai
e rpo<r} roO Scor^po? TO GeAHMA TOV vrarpo?, tra^xw? ov
TTW? 8e /cal avctTcavcris TO 6eAHMA TOV Trarpo? ;
yap 6 K.vpios a\\aôv, 0)9 ov rrravTos TOV TraTpt/cov

15 $eA,?maTO9 avaTrav crew? avTov 6Vro?. TTAT6P, ei AYNATON. Mt. xxvi.
, , , > >
, , , , , ,
39
TTApeAGATOO TO HOTHplON AH 6MOY* TlAh N OY Tl fOL) 6eA<JO,
AAAA Tl
cy. irbOev 8e /cal ort Suz/a/^t? TOU 2,o)Trjpos TO GeAHMA roO
9 aOro] avrov. Cod. Bodl. in margine raâ awr6. /cai] Cod. Bodl.
in margine rdxa TO /cat Tra/oA/cei. 10 r^s] rr/z/. 1? <rtf]
(roi.
32. 76id. xiii. 41 (R. iv. 251 ;

L. n. 79).
Kat 6 }^pa/c\ea)i> /jievTOLye OJJLQLWS rot? 7ro\Xo?9 eVt r^?

/ji6LV, fjirj oto/ueô? avTrjv dvd<yea-0ai. (frrjcrl yovi>
OTL
Top TOJV yevvrj/jLciTcov \eyei Oepio-fjbbv, w? TOVTOV fjiev GTI
Stcopiav 6%oi>Tos TeTpd/j,r)vov, TOV Be Oepicrfjiov, ov auro?

5 eXeyev, 1787; eVe<jr&)To<? /cal TOV Oepio-jjbov 8e ov/c ol& O7ro)9
e?rt r^9 ^1*^179 efei\rj(f)e TWV TCKIT&VOVTWV, \eycov OTL
dtc/jualoi teal GTOL/JLOL elat, irpo^ Oepto~fjiov /cal GTTL-
31. 6. TO 7J wi at /C.T.X.] Cp. Hipp. Origen complains first of the inter-

Refut. vi. 36. As the 5t6p#w<ns of pretation of TO as /Spw/ua /cat
dt\-r)/j.a
the Hebdomad was effected by im- TT}v...av ^r-rjffiv, then as rpofpri, then
parting to the Demiurge the know- as avairava^, and lastly as SiW^tj.
ledge of the Father, so it is natural 15. Trdrep] The omission of /xou
that the 5t6p0w<m TWV eVâSe should and eo-Tt is found in other authorities,
be accomplished by analogous means. especially among the Valentinians.
9. airrd] The marginal sugges- But this position of oV e/wu is not
tion of the Bodleian seems on the found elsewhere, nor is the rl sup-
whole to be the best reading; it ported by other authority. See Tis-
restores consistency to the passage. chendorf in loc.
86 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HE11ACLEON.
rijSeioi, 7rpo<?
TO avvaÔrjvai et? dTroOij/crjv, rovrean
Bid 7rto"T6<i)5 et9 dva7ravo~ iv, oaai ye erotyLtot, ov yap
Trdcrai at uev yap rjBr) eroiôi ^crav, (frrjcrlv, al Be eue\- 10
\ov, al Be fJie\\ovo iv )
al be eTriaTreipovTai rjBrj. ravra
Jo. iv. 35. uev ovv e/ceivos eljrev. TTW? Be ol jJbaOr^ral enAi pONTec royc
6(})0AAMOYC bvvavrai (SXeireiv ra? -^ruâ? 77877 eTrtT^Se/ou? ov-

cra? TTÔ? TO, w? oierai, et? aTroOrjK^v ei<ra%0ijvait
OVK
ol$a el Svvarai Trapacrrrjcrai. /cal en ye TTW? eTrl TWV tyvyj&v 15
Jo. iv. 37,
aX?7$e9 TO d cnei pooN, KA*I AAAoc 6 GepizooN /cat, AnecjeiAA
"AAAoc
YMAC Bepi zeiN o OYX YM?c KeKorriAKATe nva Se rpoTrov TO "AAAoi ;
K6KOniAKACI KA YM6?C 6IC TON |
eart, TrapabeâcrOai eVl T^?
16 6 Oepifav]
33. Ibid. xiii. 44 (R. IV. 255 ;

L. n. 85).
Kal epei ye 6 Hpa/cXeo)^, Taâ 8e TOUTW Kara

Tavrrjv avjJiTrepKfrepo/jievos Tt? teal
Mt. ix. 37. oTi Tw /taTa TO
C
OepiCMOc noAfc, oi Ae epr^TAi oAi roi
o/xoiw? ravra elp^rai, rw erolfjuovs vrpo?

Kal eTriTTjSeious TT/OO? TO 77877 Gvvay^Qrivai 5
aTro6r)Kr)v Sid rrjs Triarect)^ et? av CLTT av iv <i
elvai, Kal eViT^Setof? TT/JO? orwr^piav Kal

c
rov \6yov Kara aev rov U.paK\ea)va Bid rrjv

avrwv Kal rrjv $v a iv Kara Be rov eKK\r)o-ia(TTiKov Bid ruva
evrpeTTLCTfjiov rov tjye/AoviKov, eroi/jiov TT/JO? re\eiw(TLV, iva Kai 10
6epiaOf). \eKreov ovv Trpos TOU9 OUTOX? eKBeâuevovs, el (3ov-
\ovrai TrapaBeâadai fjur)

Trore yeyovevai, irpo rrjs rov SCOTÔ?
rjfjuwv eTTiBij/jiias OepiajJbov jraparr\i]O iov

r
rw OUTCO? dv e Xvrt-
crOevri aTro rwv %p6va)v rov evayye\iKov
32. 10. ai 5^] The repetition of al 5e 33. 5. tviniddovs] Of Excerpta ex.
offended the ear of the scribe of Cod. Theodoto, 46, /cat rots <rufj.a.<rt
Kara
Venetus, so that he substituted Kal (/xVip fTrtTrjdeLoT-rjTa cVeTrotr/trei ,
which
at ^j/ for the second ai 5. But the also illustrates 5ta TTJV
reading of his exemplar is right. Kal rrjv tpveiv.

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON. 87
34. Ibid. xiii. 46 (E. iv. 256 ;

L. n. 87).
f
O Se RpaK\ecov TO eepi zcoN MicGON AAMBANCI elpfja-Oai
Jo.
L, E-Tret Oepia-rrjv eavTov \eyei, (frrja-lv,

6 ôyrrjp,
fjLLo-Oov TOV Kvpiov rjfjiwv vTrdXappdvet

/cal TOV elvau TT)I>
TWV depLô/jLevcov o~a)Tr] piav Kal dTTOKarda-racrLV TU>
5 dvairavea-daL avrbv eV avrols TO Se KAI CYNAfei KApnoN

etc ZOOHN AICONION Qrj&lv eipfjffQai, rj on TO a-vvayo/juevov
aiw-
KapTros ^w^9 alwvtov ea"Tiv, 77 OTL Kal avTo ^(Drj
vi os. d\\(i avToOev vof/kifn ftteuov elvai TI]V fafffyrw avTov,
(frda/covTos TOV *a)Ttjpa

MicGoN AAMBANEIN, KOL o-vvêovTO^ TOV
10 MICGON Kal Tr)V CYNAfCOPHN TOY KApTTOY 1? 6V, (IVTlKpVS T^9
Bvo TrpdyjjuaTa rrapio-Tdar]^, cos Trpo$iri<yr]o-dne6a.
2 voftlfri] i>o/J.ifriv.
1 T? OTL] ov.
35. Ibid. xiii. 48 (E. iv. 200 ;

L. n. 95).
v TO "!NA 6 cnefpcoN OMOY X A P^ KA 0e P "

Jo>
ZGON OVTCO 8Lr)yr}o~aTo o cnreiptov

Xaipei /Jbev yap, (ftrjo iv,
OTL o-Trelpei, Kal OTL TLvd TWV aTrepaaToyv avTov

i]$rj
avvd<yTaL,
eXTTtSa e^wv Trjv avTrjv Kal rrepi TWV
$\OL7r(i)V o 8e Oepi^wv o/Aol&S TL Kal deplcreL. a\\ o
o Sei)repo? 0pl%(i)V.
fjLevTTpooro? rjpâTO o-ireipwv,
ov jdp ev TW avTw eSvvavro aft<f>OTpoi upâadai
eSeL ydp rrputTov crTrapfjvaL, etff vcrTepov OepLaurjvaL.
pevTOLje TOV a-jreipovTOS (TirelpeiP, GTL
Delarue s emendation
34. 7. OTL -fj part of the Heracleonic doctrine.
is by no means absque causa (see The sowing of this utos avdpuirov,
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 Tri/ei^cm/cot are
corruption of on to ON led to the not divided into different classes, so

omission of the -fj.
far as is known. The ^5?? is also
35. 3. 17577] Cod. Venetus has altered forcible. He rejoices in that he is
77577 to but the original reading

ei 577, 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 77 5et irLffT-qv for ws 77577 TTIO-TT}! .
7rl fjLevTOi TOV

9epuel 6 OepL^wv. TrapovTos d/jLôrepoi 10
TO iBiov epyov evepyovvTes O/JLOV %alpovaL KOIVI^V }
ftapav TTJV TWV a-TrepfjudTwv reXetorT/ra tfyov /juevot.

Jo. iv. 37. en Be /cal els TO N TOYTCO ICTIN 6 Aopoc AAHGINOC, OTI AAAoc
eciiN 6 cnei pooN, KAI AAAoc d Gepi zooN (prjcrlv
C
O yap VTrep
/juev
TOV TOTTOV v /o? di OpcDTTOV o"ireipei
o Be %Q)Tr/p wv real 15
ai^TO? ino? dvOpwTTov Oepiêi, teal OepicrTas
TOI)? ota TCOV p,a07)Twv voovfAevovs dyye X.ovs,
67rl rrjv eavrov ^frv%r]v ov Trdvv Se cra^cG? eêOero TOI)?
8vo vlovs rov dvOpwTTov, TtW? claw, &v 6 et9 /cal 6 e^
cneipei
Gepi zei. 20
10 eTrt] eTrei. 15 uios] vlov.
36. Ibid. xiii. 49 (R. iv. 263 ;

L. n. 99).
dyy\oL eicriv oi ras Xotvra? fAepi&as irapd rrjv

/cal eVt Trjs Stao-Tropa? TWV ^vû>v rera-
Jo. iv. 30. Y/LttVot, ov&ev earns drorrov TON cneipoNTA OMOY XAipeiN KA J ON
Gepi zoNTA /^6Ta TOV OepidfMOv. o 8 Hâ/cXew^ fyricrlv OTL
Ov SS avT&v, ovSe air UVTWV ea-Trdpi) TavTa TO. airep- 5
/jiaTa, (frrjo-l
Be T&V aTroorToXcov, oi Be KeKorriAKOTec
5 ou 5t a.\iT<j}v\
ov 5e O.VTUV.
15,16. AsOrigensays,thetwo sons tion must be pure conjecture. For

of man are not clearly explained. r6?ros cf. Frag. 40. It must be the
Probably they answer to the two beings rbiros fj.e(r6Tr)Tos or e/35o/ucis which is
whose temporary union in Jesus of described by Hippolytus as viroKarw
Nazareth Irenaeus criticises so strong- TTJSoydoddos where Sophia and her
ly. The Son of man who is virtp
o-i^yos dwell. For the sowing com-
rov T6iroi>
may be identified with vi. 34.
pare Hippolytus Befut.
Sophia husband: or the two sons
s
17,18. ^KOLVTOV lirlr-riv eavrov ^v X rii>]
may be the Christ whose flight So- Cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 64, ret vw
phia mourned, and the Jesus whom tMa...Kotu&neva- xal avra TOVS vv^.-
the Christ entreated the Father to rote
0t oi;s 077^X01^? eavrwi/ ets TOV
send to her, dtopdwa-ai ra -rrddr] evros TOV 6 pov
avrrjs, vvûva. elcriaffiv. ^vxn
and who became her tn^yos. The is here probably used in its wider
last will suit best the interpreta- sense. See also Irenaeus i. vii. 1,
tion of 6 ev alwi. /cat oi avv O.VT$ vvâs a.Trooo0ri<TeaOai rots -rrepl TOV
cXdwTts (Frag. 22). But the data Z
are insufficient, and such identifica-
olKovofJblas dyye\oi, Bt (ov w? MECITOON

elalv OL Cf.Gal. iii.
T?;?
eo~7rdp7] teal dveTpdfyrj. et? Be TO Y/welc eic TON KO TTON j jv 33
AYTCON eiceAHAyBATe ravra eêOero Ov yap 6 auro? /COTTO?

10 o-ireipovTwv teal OepiôvTwv ol /juev yap ev Kpvei real
vBaTi teal KOTTW TTJV yrjv a Kcnnovres dTreipovo-t,, KOI
Sfco\ov êt/u.coz o? TrjfjLe\ova L afcd\\ovTe$ real ra?
u\a? /c\eyovTe<; ol Be eh erotpov /capTrbv elae\66 i>re?
Qepov? ev(f)pai,v6 /jievoi, depiôvGiv. eêcrrat Be crvytcpl-

15 vowi rdSe r)/j,(av elprj/Aeva rw evTvy^dvovTi
/cal ra VTTO
v<$>
(
TOV HpaK\ea)vo<f, opav biroLa TWV û^yrja-ewv eiriTerev^dai,
Svvarai.
7 Ot] 6. 9 /COTTOS] (T/COTTOS.
37. Ibid. xiii. 50 (R. iv. 263; L. n. 101).

r
O Be
(
HpaK\ea)v TO pkv K THC noAecoc dvT\ TOV E/c TOV Jo. iv. 39.
Koa/juov eêL\7]<pe
TO Be AIA TON Ao fON THC fYNA?KOC TOVT-
e<TTi Bid r?75 Trvev/JLCLTi/crfS eKK\r)cria<$. real iiriariâi-
veTai ye TO noAAo) 7ro\\cSv OVTWV ^rv^tKwv Trjv Be o5?
5 fj,iav \eyei Trjv dfyGapTov r^? K\oyf}<$ KOI JJLOVO- <j)vo~iv,
eiBfj, Kal evi/crjv. ea-TrjfjLev Be ev rot? dvwTepa), w? olov re

ijVy 7T/30? raOra.
1 TO] rots. 6 olov re] oiovrai.
36. 7. oi r^s oiKovofuas 0776X01] Cod. Monacensis TTJ (ji.\ov(ru> may ac-
Compare the 70 \67ot projected by count for Huet s rfj /j^XXowi (ad
Sophia and her (r6 vyos. marg. TT7yweXoO(rt) which Delarue, fol-
7, 8. 5t wv wj /j.effiTuv e<nrdpr}]
There lowing his general custom, attributes
is a very close parallel to this in to Codex Regius.
Excerpta ex Theod. 53, &rxe.. .L-TTO 37. 2. eetXr?0e] The following
TTJS cro0t as ivairapev rb cnr^pfj.a TO TTJ/CU- double constructions are found with
fj.ari.Kbv ei s rrjv ^vxjiv, diarayeis , 07/- eK\a[j.(3di>eii>: (1) accusative followed
o-t, Si dyyt\ui> ei/xetpl/tteo-iTou..^! ay- by Girl with the genitive, rbv 0epiff/J.6i>
7^Xa>
ovv ruv apptvuv ra <nr^pfj.ara eetXrj0e TWJ Tricrrevovrav
eirl TTJS / i^X ^s
virrjpereirai ra
TrpopXyO&ra. eis ytveffiv (Fr. 32), (2) accusative followed by
For Heinrici proposes 5ta-
StaTcryetj d^Ti TOU or rovrfori as in this frag-
rayev (Die Vol. Gn. p. 118), but we ment, (3) accusative or quoted nomi-
may regard it as a quotation. native followed by accusative, eel-

9. KOTTOJ] The description which X7/0e iravra rov KOOÔV K.T.\. (Fr. 1),
follows is of the method, not the aim cf also Fr. 47.
.
of the work : O-KOTTOS therefore would 4. TroXXot] Cf. Excerpta ex Theod.

not give the required sense. 56, ov iroXXol S oi ^1/x Koi, airavioi.
12. r-r)[j.e\ov<Ti]
The reading of
38. Ibid. xiii. 51 (R. iv. 265 ;

L. n. 103).
Jo. iv. 40. O Se

(
HpaK\.ea)v et? roi)? TOTTOU? ravrd <f)?]cri,v,
AYTO?C efMeive Kal ovtc ev avTols

KOI Ayo HMepAC,
TOV eveo-T&Ta alwva, Kal TOV p,e\\ovTa TOV ev
r/ TOV 7rp6 rov TrdOovs avTOV %povov, Kal TOV /u-era TO
7r#o9, ov Trap aurot? Troirjoras, TroXXoS 7T\iovas Sid 5
TOV ISiov \o<yov eVto-rpeâ? et9 TTIO-TIV,

CLTT dVTWV. \KTOV Se TTÔ? T^ SoKOVO~O,V CLVTOV
pijcriv, OTL nAp Ayiolc /cat oi)/c ev awrot? yeypaTTTai, OTI
5
Mt. xxviii.
ofjLOLov TO)nAp AYTO?C eVrl TO lAoy, epoa MeQ YMGON GIMI HACAC
TAC HMepAC ou ya^ eiirev Ei^ uyLttz^ et/u. eVt 3e Xeycov Ta? Ayo 10
HMepAC ?7TOfc TOVTOV TOV alwva elvai Kal TOV fjbe\\ovTa,

r) TOV TTpO TOV 7Ta#OU? Kal TOV fJbeTCL TO TrdfloS, OVT6 TOU?
enepyoMGNoyc AIOONAC /ueTa TOV fJue\\ovTa vevo^Kev, irepl wv

Eph. ii. 7. ifao iv o a7ro<JToXo9 "!NA eNAei lHTAi eN TOIC AIOOCI TOIC enep)(o-
MeNoic ovT6 opa oTi ov fjiovov II p o TOV TrdOov^ Kal 15 MeTa
TO TTttÔ? O~VVO~Ti TO?9 6 pÔ fc?
TTÔ? ai;TOZ/ /J,6l>
6 I^CToO?,
/cat. /JieTa TOVTO ov ^(opl^CTaL. del ydp fjueTa TWV
wv ecrTt, jj,r)$e7ra}7roT KaTa\ei7rwv avTOvs, waTe /cal
Gal. ii.20. Xeyew avTovs Z(x) Ae oyKeTi e roo, ZH Ae GN GMOI

Xpicrdc.
5 6j/] 6. 12 TOV yuero, TO TTCIÔS] om. TOV. 13 /^XXovrct] fj.e\\ov.

17 aAXd] om. oy] om.
38. 15, 16. KCU ywerd ro irdOos] del /tera rcG? fJ.ad-r)Twv ecrrtV. The
The dXXci, which is absent from ctXXa must therefore be inserted be-
both Cod. Monacensis and Cod. Ve- fore Kal Hilgenfeld s
/zerd TOVTO.
nctus, but has been independently insertion before xwptfercu is
of ov
inserted before these words by each of course necessary, unless indeed
of their descendants Regius and Bod- we can regard the words êrd TOVTO
leianus, has been accepted by the xwptferat as a continuation of the
editors, including Hilgenfeld. But quotation of Heracleon s words, and
though after ov pbvov an dXXd is re- so negatived by the ov fj.6vov, but the
quired, this not the right place
is 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 -rrdOovs where a negative has probably drop-
and /xerd TO -rrddos also, but has not ped out. Cf. [//,?)] ev Trj jroXei. (Frag.
seen that even after this there has 27).
been no x w P t "A
t os> f r (Origen says)
39. Ibid. xiii. 52 (R iv. 2G7 ;

L. n. 108).
v Be aTrKovanepov etcXaftcov TO OYKGTI AIA THN Jo. iv. 42.
CRN AAAIAN niCTeyoMeN $770-1 AeiTreiv TO fiovrjv CTL fiev yap
77-/909
TO AYTOI fAp AKHKOAMGN, KAI OlAAMEN OTI OYTOC 6CTIN 6
ZooTHp TOY KOCMOY <j)r}(TLV Olydp dvdpCOTTOL TO fJLV TTpCOTOV

5 VTTO dvOptoTcwv oSrjjov/JLei OL TricrTevova i TOJ ^coTrjpt,,
eirdv Be evTV^wo-i rot? \6yois avTov, OVTOL ov/ceTi
di>0
pa)7rivr)v fj,apTVpiav, d\\d 5t avTrjv rrjv
40. Ibid. xiii. 59 (R iv. 274 ;

L. n. 123).
"Eot/ce Se BACIAIKON o Hpa/cXeo)i/ \eyeiv TOV &r)/j,iovp-

yov, 67rel /cai auro? e/3aal\eve TMV vir CIVTOV OKI oe
TO fjiiKpdv CLVTOV teal 7rpo<TKaipov elvai Trjv
$7)0-1, BACIAIKOC wvopdo-Orj,
olovel /jLircpos rt?
5 UTTO KaOo\L/cov /3acrtXe&>? TeTay/jLevos eVl
/âcrtXe/a? TOV Be IN KAC})APNAOYM vlov avTov
TOV ev TW VTrofteft^KOTi (j,epei Trjs yu-ecror^TO? TM
d\acraav, TOVTCCTTL TW o-vvrj/ji/jieva) Trj v\y, Kal \eyei OTI
O avTov dv0pa)7Tos dcrOevwv, TOVTe&Tiv ov KdTa
f
I Sto?
etra TO
^(Dv, ev dyvoia Kal dfjiapTr/ âaiv rjv
4 0T7<rt] (p-rjfflv rrjv pacriXdav. 10 dyvoia] dyvela.
39. 3. 6rt ouros] For the omission 7. /xecrorT/ros] The yaeo-o rT/s here
of aXrjOus see Tischendorf in loc. is clearly the same as the TOTTOS [/tead-
5. With the idea of human me- TTJTOS] of Hippolytus, Eefut. vi. 32,
diation suggested here, cf. Exc. ex called also epdofji.. In the lower
Thcod. 58, Kal SC OLVT&V Kal ra part of this, which ia most deeply
Toirrots ofj-oiovvra. involved in v\r), here represented by
40. 4. </>7jcrt]
The error of Cod. Capernaum, the tdios vios lies. In
Monac. in repeating TTJV j3a<ri\eiav
connexion with Origen s interpreta-
after ô-l led to the omission of tion of the /SacnXiKos as representing
Cod. Regius, and conse-
(f)-r)<rl
in Abraham, it is interesting to notice
quently in the Editions. It is also Hippolytus, Eefut. vi. 34, -n-potfiaXe
independently omitted in Cod. Bod- Kal 6 drjuuovpyos ûx^ s>

O-VTT] yap
leianus, for Cod. Venetus has re- ovcria fyvx.dv OVTOS ecm /car auroi)?
tained it. A^paa/ui. Kal raura TOV A/3paa/j. ra
5. Ka0o\iK6s] Cf. Excerpt, ex rtwa. Heracleon might have ac-

Theod. 47, where 6 Zwr^p is de- cepted Origen s interpretation of the
scribed as drj/juovpybs KaffoXiKos. jSacriXt/cos
and his son.
Jo. iv. 54. E THC loyAAiAC eic THN FAAIAAIAN dvrl rov etc r?;? avwdev
Jo. iv. 47. lovSaias. OVK ol&a oe OTTO)? et? TO "HjweAAeN Ano0NHCKeiN
ls rd 86<yfjLara TOJV VTTOTI-
oierai dva,Tpeirea-6ai
dOdvaTov elvai rrjv tyv%r)v, TO avro VVIJL- et<?
Mt. x. 28. /3d\\(T0ai viroKa^dvwv KOI TO YY^HN KA COOMA AnoAAycGAi I

15
EN reeNNH. /cal OVK dOdvdTov 76 elvai yyeiTai rrjv
(
6 eTrtTT/Se/w? eôvaav TT/OO?
HpaK\ea)i> }
aXX
1 Cor. xv. avrrjv \eywv elvai To eNAyoMeNON Ac^BApciAN
KAI ^Q ANA CI AN GNHTON, oVaz; KATAHOOH d GANATOC
Cf. is.xxv
61 C ISMKOC. TTyOO? TOVTOIS Kdi TO EAN MH CHMG?A KAI TePATA 2O
Jo. IV. 48. , , , ,
IAHTG oy MH nicreycHTe \e<yecruai (piô-iv oi/ceico$ vrpo? TO
TOiovTov TTpoacoTrov, 81 epycov (frvcriv e%ov KOI i al-
<T0r)o-ea)s TreiOeadai, /cal ov^l \6<yq)
TriGreveiv. TO Se
Jo. iv. 49. KATABHGI, npiN Ano9ANe?N TO nAiAiON MOY Sid TO je Aoc elvai
Cf. Eom. TOU vofjiov TON GA NATON elprjaOai dvaipovvTos
VO/LLI&I, 25
ota TWV d/jLapTi(jov irplv TeXew? ovv, OavaTwOfjvai
(frijcrl,
a Ta? ayLtapT/a?, BeiTai 6 iraTrjp TOV /JLOVOV Sft)-

20 vlK
11, 12. K dvudev rots a7r6X-

TT)S louSatas] i/Xt/cots, (pdaprrj e<rrt /cat
Co(Z. Moiuic. has the true reading \vrai (MS. ô-ra: /cat aTrciXero). It
though all its descendants have
XT??, should be noticed that this is one
erred. For the phrase, cf. Frag. 13, of the passages where by the use
where the fvxiK&s TOTTOS, represented of âl and \4yei Hippolytus shews
by Iep ff6\vfj.a, is said to be an CIKUV that he is from a single
quoting
of le/JowroXfyt, i.e. r, avu document. Cf.
lepowraXfo. also Excerpt, ex
See also Hipp. Refut. vi. 32, where Theod. 56, r6 Se ^VXIKW, dt>Teov-
the Ogdoad is called

lepovaaXrj/j, e?r- aiov ov eTrtr^Seior^Ta ?x <-
^pos re
ovpdvios. iriffTiv /cat d$6apaiav, /cat irpbs airi-
15, 16. The text is the reading of ariav Kal Qdopav.

Monac. and Yen. 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 ff. Heracleon s language with of this whole passage, to state what
regard to the immortality of the soul appears to be Heracleon s position
vividly recalls Hipp. Refut. vi. 32, so far as it can be gathered. He
dv-riT-fi r s fffrlv 77 î>x?7, fteffoTrjs TIS seems to have affirmed that $vxh is
ouaa &m yap e/35o/*ds Kal Kardirav- rb <pdaprbv
TO ei>dvo/m.evoi> dtydapviav.
ffl * ...... Ea " oSv to/j,oiw8fj TOIS dVw, Its death comes 5ta TO -rtfXos elvai TOV
Ty dydoddi, dddvaTos eytveTo /cat yXdev TOV Qa.va.rov, dvaipovvTos did TWV
/o>ou
fis oydodda,
TTJV IJTIS eo-rt, ^<rlv, dfj-apTiw, for of course the children
lepov<Ta\T)fj. e-rrovpdvios, cdv 8e eo- of the Demiurge are under the Law.
fj,oiu6rj Trj v\y, TOVT^TI rots 7rd6c(Tt
7-77/909, iv a ftorjdija-y TOJ vlut, TOVTeo~Ti ry ToiaSe

TT/OO? TOVTOIS TO yioc coy ZH Kara drvcfriav elprjo-Qai Jo. iv. 50.
30 TO) ^WTTJ pi e%ei\rj(f)v, ejrel ovte eljre ZtrjTQ) ovBe eve^rfvev

avTos Trapea^rja-OaL Tr)v ^wrjv. \eyei Be OTL Kara/39
7T009 TOV KafjivovTa teal laadfjievo^ avTov TTJS voaov,
TOVTeCTTi TGOV d /JLtt pT LtoV, K at Sid TrjS a0CT6ft)9 ^ft) 0-
C
7roir)<ra<;
elnev yioc coy ZH ical ir<Xyei ?rpo9 TO Eni- Jo. iv. 53.
1
35 cieyceN d ANBpoonoc OTI Eu7rto-T09 teal o Arj/jiiovpyos

ea-Tiv, OTL SvvaTai o ^wTrjp teal fir) irapwv OepaTreveuv.
AoyAoyc Be TOY BACiAiKoy e%ei\r)<$)e
rou9 TOV d<y<ye\ovs
C
A.vj/jLiovp yov, dTra<y

r
coy ZH
ye\\ovTas ev TM n<\?c
OTL K al tcaTa TpoTrov eêi, TT pdaawv fjLrjfceTi

OLKLO)<;
40 TO, dvolteeLa. teal Bid TOVTO vo/iiêt d7ra ry ye\\eLV r&) i
/3aO~L\LKO> TOU9 So^\OU9

TCL 7T pi TOV VLOV CT(i)Tr}- Trj<>
eTrel TrpcoTovs ot erat (B\e Treiv ra9 7rpd%ei<$

r
pias, teal
ev TM Koa-ô) dvdpwTrwv roi)9 776Xou9, el eppay-

teal el\LKpivw<^ TTO\LTVOLVTO dnro r^9 TOV
45 Sft)T7;po9 eTTLBrj/jLia^. GTL 7T/J09 TT)V eBAOMHN oopAN \eyet

OTL Ata r^9 &pas xapa/cTrjplêTaL r; TOV laOev-
$V(TL<;
ro9. eVl 7rao-fc TO Eni creyceN AYTOC KAI H OIKIA Ayroy oAn
eTrl Trjs dyye\Lfer)<; elpfjaOaL Taêcos, teal
TWV oltceLOTepwv avTw. ^TfTelo-Oai Be âi
50 ire pi TLVWV dyyeXwv, el (rcodrjcrovTai, TWV teaTe\0 OVTWV
eTrl TAG TOON AN0poancoN GyfATepAC. teal TWV dvOpwirwv Gen. vi. 2.
Be TOV ArjfjLLovpyov Trjv d7rco\Lav Br)\ovcrQaL z/o/u W

ev TO> Oi yioi THC BACIAGI AC e 5eAeycONTAi eic TO CKOTOC TO elw- Mt. viii.
TepON. tea Trep TOVTWV TOV

OV aaa^ TrpoijTeveLV TO
55 Yioyc IpeNNHCA KAI Y YOOCA, AY TOI Ae Me HGETHCAN, ovo~TLva<? yioyc Is. i. 2.
,, ^ , v , , \ , . v Cf. Is. i. 4.
a\\oTpiovs Kai cnepMA noNnpoN teat ANOMON tea\L teaL
AKANGAC TTOIHCANTA. teal TavTa JJLGV TO, Hpa- Cf I s v
- - -
, airep ToX/jirjpoTepov KOL dae/BeaTepov elprj/jieva typijv

KaTa&teevrjs aTroBeBelÔaL, eiTrep i]v d\r]0r]. ovte
60 olBa Be 7Tft)9 teal Trepl d6avao~ias 1^^979 dTnaTel, yit?)
39 et] ^x etl/ ^1 wQpuirwv ] bis. 59 a
35. euVio-Tos] On this point the Irenaeus i. vii. 4.
Valentinians seem to have been 37. For the angels of the Demi-
agreed. See Hipp. Refitt. vi. 3f>
; urge cf. Excerpt, ex Theod. 47.
Trocra (TiffuUvercu etc rrjs Oavaros fywvrjs. KaOopwvTa yap

eBei TO crrifjLaivoiJLevov per eVtcrAre êa)? KOI dfcpifBeias IBeiv el
Kara Trdvra TO, (nj/JLaivofjieva Ov^rr) ecrriv. el (juev yap on

Ez. xviii.
BeKTi/crj dfjiapTLas, yYX H
AMApTANioycA AYTH Arro9ANe?TAi, ^ ^
/cal rjfjiels epov/jiev avrrjv OvrjrrjV.
el Be rrjv TravTe\r] Bid\vo~iv f>5
/cal eâfyav icr fjt,bv avTrjs ddvarov voîêi, rêls ov Trpoo~7]cr6-
/j,e0a ovSe pe^pi errwow ISeiv Swd/jievoi, ova-lav OvtjTrjv

y
/j.era/3fi\\ov(Tav et? aOdvarov teal fyvaiv Ôaprrjv 7rl TO
acj)6apTOi> O/JLOIOV yap TOVTO rco \eyeuv /x6ra/3aXXe^ TL dnro
et? da-MfJiaTOV, a>?

vTroiceiêvov rtyo? KOIVOV r^? TWV 70
dcrwâTwv (/wo-eco?, ojrep /jbevet, wcrTrep peveiv

/cal
TO V\LKOV ol Trepl raOra Seivol, TWV TTOIOTIJTCOV

et? d$6apo-lav. ov Tavrov Be eVrt TTJV
(f)V(7LV eNAyecGAi Ac{)6Apci AN teal TO TTJV fyOapTrjv (f)V(Tiv
(3d\\eiv et? d(f)6apo-iav, ra 8 aura Trep T179 ONHTHC

:al 75
\eKTeov, ov /AeraySaXXoua?;? /xei/ et? AOANACI AN, GNAYOMGNHC Be
avTijif. Ti eTreiTrep Tyv TJrv%iKr}v fyvaiv atJjOrj Bi,

epywv
fcal ala Or] crews ireLOecrOaL ov%l Be \by(DV,
avTOv Trepl Tlav\ov Trota? (ûcrea)? rji>.
el fjuev yap
80
TiKr)<$, 7T&5? Bid TepacrTiov e7ri(f)avelas ireTricrTevKev ; el B*
T77<?
OVK a\\co<> eBvvaTO irio-Teveiv rj Bid Tepacrriov eTTifyaveias Tr)<$
dfco\ovOel KaT avTOvs /cal avTov elvai ^TV^LKOV. TTO)? Be
OVK aVe/Se? TO rrpo TOV ^fjaovpyov roi)? dyye\ovs avTov

Oewpelv TO eppwfjbevov /cal TO el\iKpives TT/S TroXtreta?
TWV V7ro BvvdfjLews TOV 2<(0Tf}po$ {3e\TLO)9evTa)v, /cal irapa
Tr}<$
85
TO evapyes TOV Trepl TOV ^fjaovpyov \6yov, eVt Be /cal Trapd

T y V ypa(f>r)v n]v \eyovo-av Ei KpyBHcerAi AN0pconoc GN oic Kpy(t>Ai
Gl KaOopwvTa] Ka.6a.pa.VTa. 79, 80 7n>eu/icm/c?}s] Tri/euâTi/c^. TTCOS] OTTWS.
80, 81 repaffrLov] repaffreiov. 83 OVK] /ecu.
01. KaOopuvra.} Though the fol- Heracleon has only made use of such
lowing criticisms of Origen contain expressions as evdveffOai. adavaaiav
no new matter of Heracleon, the /c.r.X.which Origen allows to be o
whole chapter must he examined ravrbv. For Origen s argument with
together. I have therefore thought regard to ,ueTa/3dXXe see Aristotle,
it betterprint it in full.
to The Met. A. 2 (1009 b), ov yap TO, evavTia
criticisms are not easy to follow. /xera/SaXXet. ^rt TO ptv vTro^tvei, TO
So far as he has stated Heracleon s 5 cvavTlov oi>x viro/mtvei taTiv apa TL
views, the confutation of /u.era^ciXXeij TP LTOV irapa TO. cvavTia, i] v\rj.
ei s adavaaiav is not to the point, for

KAfob OYK oyoMAi AYTON teal Kypioc ETAZOON Nec^poyc KA KAPAIAC, Ps. vii. 10.
; I
/ / , , Ps. xciii. ,
KCLl
KyplOC PNGOCKOON TOYC AlAAOflCMOYC TOON ANGpOOTTOON KAN XC iv.) 11. (
90 toci MA TAIOI TTO)? Se crftjcret /col TO eiAooc TA TTANTA TTP IN Hist.

/ >
AYTOON
;
~ v
ert oe /jia\\ov
c^\ it/ /
Susann.
42.
; "fr)
(u<jt?
âpa/crTjpi-
rov laOevros CLTTO rov apiOfjbov rrjs copas irj
r^? Ida-ews yiVOftewj ] TW olKelw rfj ava-navaei apuO-

fjia).
TO $e Sia(f)0opas elvai "fyw^Ltcwv,
eVl reXet coy ejjede-
avTou o^ww/Jiia XP W
VTT ~
95 fjbeOa elprjfjLevwv avaê^pafjiiJLevov^
fjievov ecrrt, KOI eTepav (frvcriv elcrdjovTO^ TTapTrjv, oTrep ov
41. Ibid. xix. 3 (R. iv. 296 ;

L. n. 167).
O 76 HpafcXecov, e/cê/êô? r^y Trep) TOV yaô- Cf. Jo.

%/>/> *\ * c^
>
r\ >
viii. 12 ff.
<pv\ciKiov \e%iv, ovbev eLirev ei? avTrjv. et? oe TO Unoy era) j v iii.2i.
yM6?c oy AyNAcGe eA6e?N tfaari

II co? e y dryvoia KOI
/cal d/JbapT^fJiacriv o^re? e^ d^Bapaia bvvav-

5 rat <yevecr6oLi ; /^rjSe ev TOVTW KaTa/covwv eavrov el yap ol
ev dyvoiq /cal diridria real d/jiapTrj fjiacnv OVTCS ev
yap.
91. tri 8e fj.a\\ov. Heracleon s dva.Travfffi api6fj.$, but the stages of
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, (\(/vx^) fffrlv efido- light.

/was /cat KaraTrawis. TOV Ia6vros is 96. er^pav (fivcriv] A reference
equivalent to TOV i/a/xi/coC. Whether probably to Origen s argument with
Origen understood this or not is un- regard to /j.eTapa\\eiv. Heracleon
certain, as his criticism is obscured would recognize three 0i5<rets,
irvev-
by hopeless corruption in the text. panic}), \f/vxucr), v\iicf). The dia<j>dopa.
Delarue s el r/ x a P OLK1 rlp fc Tai <f>vo~is

"
L
^VXIKOV cannot take place unless we
comes from Cod. Fen., but leaves assume eTtpov viroKeifj-evov which re-
the sentence impossible and unin- mains while the TrotoTTjres change.
telligible. It is tempting to sup- This would be to introduce a fourth
pose that a good deal of the sentence <f>v<ns.
may have been erroneously inserted 41. 4. Airiffria] Cf. Excerpt, ex

from the statement of Heracleon s Theod. 56, quoted above, p. 92.
view above, and that Origen may 6. ev ayvola}
Hilgenfeld s state-
have written some simple sentence rnent that these words are omitted
such as eTi 5 /ma\\ov i) (fivcris x a P ai( - i n Cod. Regius appears to originate
TOV laOevTos, TI otVet o; Trj in the fact that in line 7 it omits
apo~ la ov SvvavTai yeveo 0ai,, TrcG? ol aTroaroXot ev

d(f>0
dyvoia Trore KOI ev dirtcnLa teal ev d/jbaprrj/jLao-i, yevo/jievot,

ev d(f)0apo-ia yeyovao-f, ; ovvavTai ovv ol ev dyvoia teal
ev aTTiCTTiCi /cat ev dfiaprrj âcri yevo/jievoi yeveo~0ai ev i<
d<f>0ap(Tia,
el fj,Ta/3d\\oiev, Svvarov avrovs /jLeraj3a\eiv.
42. Ibid. xix. 4 (R. iv. 302 ;

L. n. 180).
(
Kal
^{paK\ewv jJievTOiye 009 n7T\ovo-repov elprjêvov rov
o
Jo. viii. 22. MHTI ArroKjeNe? EAYTON (frrjalv on Tlovrjpws Siaôyiô/jLevoi

ol lov&aioL ravra e\eyov /cal fjueiôva^ eauroi)? diro-
(âLvofJbevoi rov ^wrrjpo^, /cal v7ro\afJLJBdvovre^ on

avrol fjiev avreXeu aovrat TTÔ? rov 6eov et? dvcnravaiv 5
alcoviov, Se âyrrfp et? (f)0opdv /cal et9 Bdvarov,

o
eavrov Siaxeipicrd/jLevos, OTTOV eavrovs ov/c e\oyiovTo

d jre\6elv.
r
aurat? Xefecr/ real <prjo-tv
OTI "lovro \eyeiv
TOV âyrrjpa ol lovSatoi OTL E^yco e/juavrov Siaêipi-
(rd^bevo^ et? (j)0opdv /xeXXw iropeveo-Oat, OTTOV vfjiels i<
ov SvvaaOe e\6elv. ov/c olSa 8e TTCO? /card TOV eljTovra
Jo. viii. 12. Efoc>

eiMi TO cf)(X)C TOY KO CMOY /cal rd ^579, fjv \e<yeiv
on Eyw
efJuavTov o Laxetpio-d/jievos et9 (frOopdv fjie\\a) Tropev-
eo-6ai. edv Se r^9 ~h>eyrj /IT)
TOV %a)Tr)pa TavTa elprj/cevai TOVS
Se IofSatof9 avTo vTrovevorj/cevat, Srj\ov epel TOVS lov- OTI, ij
7T(f)povrjfcevai Trepl avrov OTI (j)BelpovTat, ol e

/cal ovSev TJTTOV eVotet raOra
,,
/cal /co\ao-0r/0ecr0ai,, OTrep r\v /caTa TrdvTa rfki-

0LOV.
15 avro\ aura). 18, 19 Kara. TTOLVTO. rj\idLOV~\ Ka.Trj\idiov.
the fv of iv ayvoia,, 8. fact which dpcryuryr? has led him into a captious
Delarue notices. criticism of Heracleon. Cf. Fr. 30,
The importance of this fragment dyytXiK-riv TLVO. 8vi>a/j.ii>

/c.r.X.
consists in the fact that Heracleon s 5. ava.Tra.v<ni[

For the doctrine of
interpretation depends on his funda- ctmTrawis cf. Irenaeus i. 7. 1 Ex- ;
mental error as to Qucris and Kara- cerpt. ex Theod. 03, 86.

ffKevr) (see Frag. 17), to which Origen Kar&vrfrrai}X0Mr] As there
18, 19.
so often rightly takes exception (cf. is no authority for the form KCITTJ-
Fragments 17, 33). \ldiov, I have retained the conjecture
42. 1. ctTrXotfo-Te/xw] 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).
YIvvuavoi/j,0a & av TWV ra? cret9 el&ayovTWv, KOI et? <u
TO 6 Adpoc 6 SMOG oy
(
"On
X^P^ ^ N YM?N dTroSiSovrcov Kara Jo.viii.37.
HpaK\Q)va Ata TOVTO ov )(oope?, OTL dveTTiTrjSeioL,

O.TL
rjTOi Kar ovaiav, Kara yvw/jLrjv, TTCO? ol dve imr)$eiot,

rj
r
5 tear ova lav HKOYCAN HApA roy HArpdc ; a\\a /cal jrorepov Jo. viii. 38.
Trore npoBATA OVTOI tfcrav rov

XpiarTov, rj aXkorpioi, VTrrjpôv
avrov ; el 8e rjaav aXXorpioi, TTW? HKOYCAN Toy HApA HATpdc,
o-aô)?, &)9 otovrai, Xeyofjievov Trpos roi)? d\\orpiov<; on Ai A Jo. viii. 47.
Toyro yMeic OYK AKoyere, on oyK ecre EK TOON npoBATOON TOON Jo. x. 20.
10 eMO)N ; el fj,r) apa erepw droTrw eavrovs Trepu-
6\LJ36fjLevoi
(Bd\\ov(Ti,, \eyovres TTApA pev Toy nATpdc d/cy/coevaL roi)?
d/covetis Be rovs avTovs TOVTOVS
r) Trapa TOV
el S* olfceloi, TOV S
avrov AnoKreNAi ;
?
Adpoc oyK e
xobpei ev avrols ;
10 eavroi)j] eai;Tot)s (sic). 12 7ra/>a]
44. 7M. xx. 18 (R iv. 332 ;

L. n. 240).
O fjLevroi ye HpaKXew vTroKa^^dvei Kirlav

TOV AyNACGAi avTOV? AKoyeiN TON I^croO AdfON,
/jir) Jo. viii. 43.
e TINCOCK6IN aVTOV THN AAAlAN V TO) YMe?C 6K TOy
TTATpoc Toy AiABoAoy ecTe. avTals yovv Xegecrl (f>r)<TL

AA-
s
t
aTL Be oy AyNAcGe AKOYGIN TON AO TON TON EMO N ; rj OTL
YMe?c eK Toy TTATpdc Toy AiABoAoy ecTe, dvrl TOV E Jo. viii. 44.
TOV SiaftoXov; fyavepwv avTols ~ÔITTOV

2 lyo-ov] TV.
43. 4. Kara yv6/j.r}v] See below, that verse.

Fr ag. 46. 44. 5, 6. There are traces of cor-
8, 9. The words Aid TOVTO têts OVK ruption. Probably Xyei has dropped
dKoteTe are quoted in Tischendorf s out somewhere, in consequence of
digest on John x. 26 from this pas- the 07/o-i, without it the &vrl TOV can
sage there is no other authority for
:
hardly stand.
them, as forming part of the text of
B. 7
rrjvfyv o~ LV avr&v, teal ?T p 0\<y 0,9 avrovs, OTL ovre

rov A/3pad/jL elai re/cva, ov yap ov eîffovv avrov,
ovre rov Oeov, no ov K r]âirwv avrov. ical el uev TO 10
c
YMe?c eK TOY TTATpoc TO? AiABoAoy ecre eêoeâro o$9 ev rot?

dvwrepa) $ir)yr)0 d[ji,e6a /cal e\eye Ata TO en vucis eivai eV rov
)
rHa/3oAoi>, Oy AyNAcGe AKoyeiN TON AofON TON EMON, icav irape-

a avrov rrjv ^Lr)yri(TLV. vvvl Se 8^7X05 eanv 6/jioovo-iov<;
rw StaySoXft) \e<ya)v dvOpwTrovs, ere pa?, a;? oiovrai 01 15
air avrov, ovo-las rvy^dvovn Trap o?)? Ka\ovai

r)
10 o#re] ovd. 13, 14 7rape5ea/ze#a]

15 otoi^rat]
45. 76id. xx. 20 (R. iv. 337 ;

L. n. 250).
Et? ravra Be 6 Hpa/cXeo)!/ (frrjcrl TIpos 01)5 o Xoô? CK

rfjs -ova Las rov Sia/36\ov r^crav, &5? erepas OVO-TJS T^9
TOU SiafioXov ovo-las rrapd rrjv rwv ayiayv Xoyi/coov ovaiav.
ofjiOLOv $e ev rovrw JJLOL TreirovOevai fyaiverat, To3 erepav
ovalav (frda/covn 6(f)6a\/jiov Trapopwvros teal erepav op&vros. 5
46. Ibid. xx. 20 (R. IV. 339 ;

L. n. 253).
Jo.viii.44. Toaavra KOI irpos rov Upa/cXewvos \oyov etvro^TO? TO

EK TOY nATpoc TOY AiABoAoy dvrl rov E/c TT;? ovaias rov
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?7s ovaias TOV 5ia/J6Xou] uXt/fT). See also Irenaeus, and Ex-
With this and the preceding fragment cerpta ex Thcod. 48.
we must compare Hipp. Refut. vi. 34, 3. \O-)IKWI> ova-iav] Cf. Hippolytus s
f- T^S uXtx^s ofo Kal diapoXtKTJs ^TTOITJ- account of the projection of the 70
(rev 6 Arj/juovpy&s ra?s ûxats ra <rw-
Xo7oi. It is not necessary to alter the
/xara, and 6 u\ix6s, <t>daprbs, drAetos, MS. reading, but it is very probably an
eK r?75 Stct/SoXi/djs o^crt as TrcTrXaffôs. error of assimilation (due to the pre-
The close connection of i/Xt*^ and ceding genitive), for \oyucfiv.
exactly reproduced in
diafidXiKr) is 46. 2, 3. roO 5ta/3oXow] This seems
these fragments of Heracleon, where the only reading that will make sense,
the Sta/3oXtK-77 is contrasted with the The TOV Trarpos of the MS. is doubtless
and ^VXLKT], as a third due to the preceding ex TOV Trarpfa.
Sia/36\ov elpi]o~Qa). iraKiv els TO TAC eniGyMiAC TOY TTAipdc

Y MOON OeAere noie?N SmcrreXXerai, \eywv Toy 8id/3o\ov fjirj
e%eiv 0e\rjina, aAA eTTiOvfJilas. KOI e/jt,(f)alvTat avTodev

TO dSiavorjTov TOV \6yov 6e\etv yap ra Trovrjpd Tm? av rt?
ofjio\oyr)o~ai e/ceivov. o~vvd%ei<$

8e KOI avro?, el KOI eVl TOV
ev Trpoêipw ov/c eô/êv TrapaOeaOai, ei TTOV ev Ty
fj
TO 6e\eiv eVl TOV BiaftoXov rera/CTat. Mera raOra
10 (j)rjo-iv 6
Hpa/cXewv w? apa TaOra eiprjraL ov TT/JO? TOI)?
(frvaei TOV Sia/36\ov viovs TOVS %OIKOV$, d\\d Trpos
roi)? i/ru^t/coi)?, deaeL vlovs 8ia{36\ov yivo/jievovs, a^>
dov Trj (friKrei SvvavTai rtz/e? /cal Oiaet viol deov

XP 1!
/uLaTiaai. KOI âi je OTi Hapd TO vyaTT rjKevat. TAC
i5eni6yMi Ac TOV 8ia(36\ov teal noie?N Te/cva OVTOL TOV
Si,a{36\ov yivovTai, ov (pvaei TOLOVTOI o^re?. KOI Sia-
o~Te\\Tai (w? apa Tp^cS? Sel dfcoveiv Trjs KOLTCL Te/cva
ovofj,ao~ias, TrpwTov SevTepov yvco/jLy
<$>vo~ei,
dla. /cal eo~Ti TO yevvrjOev VTTO

(f>v<76i /JLev, (frijcrlv,
20 yevvrjrov, b icvpiws TZKVOV /caXetrat

/cai yvw/JLr) Be,
ore TO de\rj/jLd r^? TTOIWV rtô? Sid TT/V eavTov yvw^v,
Te/cvov e/celvov ov Troiei TO 6e\r){ia tca\eiTai dlq
1
8e icaG o \e yovTai rtzê? peeNNHC T^KVCL KOI CTKOTOVS

r
Cf. Mt.
111
Kal dvofjbias, /cal ofyewv /cal e)(iANOC)N reNNHMATA ov
go
25 yap yevva, (j)rjo~l, TavTa TIVCL TTJ eavTcov (frvaei <f)0opo-
Trotd yap Kal dva\iaKOVTa TOI)? e/^ySX^êz^ra? et?
avTa, aAA eVet eirpaâv ra e/celva)v epya Te/cva av-
TWV eLprjTai. TOiavT rjv Be Siao~TO\r)v 5eSa)/c&)? ov8e /caO*
OTTOO~OV aTro Toov ypatycov Trape/jLvdrjaaTO Trjv ISlav 8njyr]o~iv.
30 L7roLf.iev 8 av TT/OO? avTOV, OTI el /jurj (frvcrei,

aXX dgla peeN-
NHC Te/cva ovo/jLaêTat, Kal CTKOTOVS Kal avofiias, <f)8opo-
2, 3 TOV StajSo Xou] rou Trarpoy. 6 ddiavoyTOv] diavoyToit 8 ^x /* 61 ].
foxo/j.ev (ut videtur). 23 X^yojrat] Xêrat. 28, 29 K0.6 birbvov} Kara

rb iroffov. 30 d|ip] d|t aj.
6. adiav6tjToi>]
This necessary cor- 25. ravra TWO.] ravra of course is
rection of his exemplar was made by subject, object.
ru>& Cf. below ovx
the scribe of Cod. Venetus. Cod. 6n yewa was 6 5td/3oXos. The in-
Regius retains the mistake. sertion of roiaOra (Cod. Venetus after

23. X^yoi/Tcu] Here again the scribe raOra) is not necessary, though per-
of Cod. Ven. has made a necessary haps it simplifies the sentence.
alteration.
72
TTOia yap ravra teal dva\la/covra /JLCI\\OV ijrrep avvi-
Eph. ii. 3. ardvra, TTCO? 6 IIo-OXo? fyr\<ii

rrov TO "HM60A (J)Ycei TGKNA o prfic
obc KAI 01 Aoinoi ; r) \eyerwaav r}fMv OK ov/c eariv dva\a)TL/cbv
/cal fJidXiara /car avrov (f>6opo7roibv rj opyr), fjs TEKNA HMG- 3?
0A. (f)T]crlv
TeKva rov Sta/3oXou vvv \eyei
ird\iv OTL
TOUTOf?, ovy on ryevva Tivas o 8ta/SoXo9, X\ on

TOL epya rov StaôXou TTOIOVVTGS ca/jboi,co0 rjo~ap avrq).
Troao) Se (3e\Tiov irepl irdvTwv rwv rov 8ia(36\ov re/cvwv

Jo.viii.il. rovro drrofyaivecrOai, w? 6/jLot,ovfjL6va)v avrw rcS TToie?N epfA T<\ 40
al ov 8ta rrjv ova lav /cal rrjv KaraaKevrjv rrjv

ls eproiN rktcvwv Sta^SoXov
32, 33 avvLaravToi] GVVIG* ra (sic). 35 i] opyr] ijs] rj opyr/s.
47. Ibid. xx. 22 (R. iv. 345 ;

L. n. 264).
r J
Jo.viii. 44. Hyitet9 /êv ovv rov TH AAnGeiA oyK ecTHKeN d/covo/JLev
N
ov^ w? (frvaiv roiavrrjv eâivovro^, ovSe ro d&vvarov Trepl

rov eo-T7)K.vai, avrov ev d\rjdeia Trapivravres. 6 Be Hpa-
K\ewv et? ravra (frrjo-i
ro Ov yap /c
rfjs d\ri6ei,a<$ ^ (frvcris
(rrlv avrov, aXX etc rov evavriov rfj d\rj6ela, eic 5
7r\dvr)S xal dyvoias. Sto, (frrjcrlv,

ovre arrival ev d\rj-
deia ovre a%elv ev avrw d\rj6eiav Svvarai,, e/c
avrov <ucrea)5 I$LOV e^cov ro ifrevSos, (pvaitca)*;

$vvd/jLv6<;
Trore d\r^6eiav elrrelv. \eyeu S on Ov
avros tyevarys earlv, d\\d /cal 6 irarr/p avrov, i&Utft 10
rrarrjp avrov e/cXa/jiftdvcdv rrjv fyvaiv avrov, erreirrep

IK TrXdvrjs /cal tyeva yLtaro? aweary, ravra 8e o\a
pverai rov $id/3o\ov rravros tyoyov /cal eyKXrj/JLaros teal
os ouêt? yap ev\6y(t)s dv tyei;ai rj e<y/ca\eaaL rj I*/JL-
rw fir) rre^VKort rrpos rd rcpeirrova. drv^r)<;

ovv 15
r) ^6ro9 6 Sm/3oXo5 /card rov HpatcXewvd eariv.
2 ou5] afire. 14, 15 ya^/ii/ airo] yu.ûi/ cuTe TO. 16 ê/crds] \{/evKTos
(ut videtur).
35. ij dpyrj fjs] This emendation teration of the MS. reading.

satisfiesthe requirement of the con- 41. naraaKwiv] Cf. Frag. 33.
text best, while it involves least al-

48. Ibid. xx. 30 (R. iv. 359 ;

L. n. 290).
O fieVTOl
(
l{paK\(DV TO "ECTIN 6 ZHTOON KAI KplNGON

J Jo. viii. 50.
C
OVK dvatyepei eVl rov Trarepa, rotavra \ycov ZHTOON KAI
KP/NOON ecrrlv 6 efcSiKtov //,e, 6 inrripeT ris o els rovro
TTay/j,evo$, o MH GIKH THN MA)(AipAN cbopa>N, 6 EKAIKOC Rom. xiii.
5 rov /3ao~tXec)9. M&)<7^9 Be ecmv ouro?, /cada Trpoei-

prjicev avrois \e<ya)v Eic ON YMG?C HAHICATG. elr eVt- Jo. v. 45.
on KPI NOON /cal /co\da)V ecrrl Mwcr?;?, TOV-

avros 6 vo/jLoOerr)?. /cal fjbera TOVTO eavrov 7rpo<$
<
7ra7rope2 6 U.paK\ecoi> \ejwv IIcS? ovv ov \e*yei THN

10
Kpl dN TTACAN TTdpaSeSo aQa i aVTW ; KCLL VOfjU<OV
\V6iV
rrjv dv0V7ro(j)opdv ravrd $r)(ri- Ka\co9 \ejei, 6 yap /c/otr?)?
co? VTrrjpeTrjs TO 6e\rnjba rovrov TTOLCOV tcpivei, oacnrep
Kal eirl ru>v
dvdpa)7ra)i> fyaLverai, yivo/jievov. TTCO? Se
d\\(o Tivl dvaridycri rrjv icpicriv co? vTroSeearepw rov
15 icaO o vofJLiêi, TCO ArjjAiovpyw, ouS ovrco aTroSetât
cra<^&)9 yeypa/A/jievov
TOV OyAe r^p o nATHp KpiNei oyAeNA AAAA Jo. v. 22.
THN KplCIN HACAN AeAOOKG TO) Y Ka^ T V EloyCIAN eAOOKGN

<V
Jo. V. 27.
AYTOJ Kpi ciN noie?N, OTI YIOC ANGpobnoY ECTIN.
5 OUTOS] OI/TWS.
49. CLEM. ALEX. Edog. Prophet. 25, p. 995 (ed. Potter).

f
O
Io)rti/^9 (jyrjalv oTt Erob MEN YÂC Y AATI BATTTI ZOO, epxeTAi Cf. Mt. iii.
Ae MOY dnicoo o BAHTI ZOON ^M^C eN HNEYMATI KAI nypi. Trvpl Be T.

3. 111.
ovBeva efidTTTia-ev. evtoi Be, W9 âiv HpafcXewv, rd Trvpl

cara rwv cr<ppayi%oiuLei>a)v Karecrr)fj,TJvavTO,
5 TO a7rO<TTO\LKOl .
4 KO.Twrnj.riva.vTo] KI
48. 6. ijXTrtVaTe] No authority for indeed, we may see a reference to

the aorist in the text of S. John is this identification in the words atfrds
quoted by Tischendorf. 6 vofj-oOfrys.
ry A-r)/j.iovpy$] Apparently He-

15. 49.1. It is not 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. Tovrov efyyovfAevos rov TOTTOV HpatcXewv, 6 rfjs OvaXev-
rivov 0-^0X179 So/ayu,a>TOT09,
/card \efyv (fyr)<riv
elvat rrjv pels ev rfj iriareL teal vroXtreta, n)v Se ev

(frcovf). 77 /juev ovv ev (jxovf) 6fjLO\oyia /cal eTrl rwv eov-
criwv yiverai,, fjv fjbovrjv, ffnprlv, oô\oyiav yyovvrai, 5
elvai ol TroXXot, ou^ vyi&s. Svvavrai 8e ravrrjv rrjv

yiav /cal ol VTro/cpiral 6/jio\oy6iv, aXX o08
6fjLO\o
r
evpeOijaerai OUTO? o Xo70? /caôXt/ca)? eipijpivos ov

yap Trai/re? OL atoôpevoi a)/jLO\6<yr)o~av TTJV Bid rrj^
6/jio\oylav ical ef;r}\6ov, 6% wv Margate?, ^>t-
10
ctfyu-a?, Aeul? /cat aXXot TroXXot. /cat ecmv

r ta T179 fywvrjs 6fjLO\oyia ov
/ca0o\itcr) 8e, T;I/ zÔz/ \eyei, rr}v ev
/eaTaXX>;Xot9 rj9 et9 avrov 7rio~Te
rfj 6/Jio\o<yia
real J] fjt,epi/crj rj eTrl rwv eôvcriwv, edv oerj 15
Xo709 aipfj. 6fjio\oyTJo-ei yap ovros

/cal 6 ical rfj cfxovf),
opOws Trpoo fJio\oyr)O as Trporepov rfj 8iaOeo~ei. /cal
/caXco9 eTrl roov 6/jLO\oyovvra)v, N eMo i

elirev, eTrl Se
1 T07TOI ] .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 Clement him-
it to 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 TQVTOV ^Tjyov/j-evos
regarded as containing Heracleonic rbv r6irov, as to whether Heracleon

doctrine. We can hardly therefore wrote a Commentary on S. Luke.
quote the continuation of this passage The MS. reading rpbirov is interesting,
as proof that Heracleon read dia- but, as in Clement a long quotation
Kadapat. 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. Aeins] For the early distinction
and noted its variants in the digest. of Levi from Matthew, Origen c.
cf.
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 OaSScuoj (Me. iii. 18).
TWV dpvovfjievcov, TO Eiwe TT

pocreOij/cev. ovrot yap KCLV
10 rf) (f)Q)vfj 6fjio\oyijcrc0o~iv avTov, dpvovvrai avrov rrj
rrpdêi (Mr) 6 /jLO\oyovvTe<;. /JLOVOI, ev avra) O/JLO\O- 6"
yovcriv ol ev rf) icar avrov 6/jLO\oyta ical rrpdêi

,
ev ot? Kal avros ojjbo\o yel eveu\r] fi/uLevos
r
Kal eô/jievo^ VTTO TOVTWV. StoTrep ApNHCAcOAi 2 Tim. ii.
25 EAYTON ovSeTTore AY NATAI* dpvovvrai 8e avrov ol /j,rj

oz/re? ev avra). ov ydp elwev Oc ApNHCGTAi ev epol
aA-X, EMe. ov8el<>
ydp TTOTG wv ev avrw dpvelrai
"EMrrpocGeN TOON ANGpoanooN, teal rwv
avrov. TO Be aw-
1
ôfjievwv real rwv eOviKWv Be o/u/otco?, Trap ol? fjiev Kal

30 rfj 7ro\LTeia Trap ol? Be Kal ry fywvfj.
) SioTrep A PNH-
CAcGAi avrov ovBeTTore Bvvavrai, dpvovvrai, Be avrov
c
ol fjurj ovres ev avrw. Tavra pev 6 HpaK\eo)v.
24 avrols] aurous.
51. PHOTIUS Ep. 134 (cd. Rich. Moritacutius),

rrpwroarcaOapiw Kal Trpwrovorapia) TO e rrlK\ rjv Xpucro-
r
(Ep. GO, ed. Baletta).
OvBe yap efi vftpei Kal Bia(3o\y rov vofiov TO H X^P IC Jo - 17 -
Ae KAI AAnGeiA Ai lucoy Xpicroy ereNeio rot? e 1)^776 A, t/cot?

(
Oecr/jLois TrepL^p/jLoaev. ^paK\ewv yap dv OUTW? eirroi Kal

ol
51. 1. I have given the full title, interesting, as extreme antagonism to

as irpuTo<nra.Odpios is not sufficiently the law does not seem to have been
distinctive as a description of the characteristic of him (see Frag. 20j.
recipient of an Epistle from Photius. Perhaps his followers may have de-
The same letter is also found in his veloped 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 (Ketzcrgeschichte, 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 (e/cetVov TOV irXda-fj-aros). These were due to Him who had placed
in man the seed of the higher essence (5ta rbv dopdrws ev aJry 0-n-^p/m.a deduKora TTJS
avuOev oimas). Compare Heracleon s explanation of the forty and six years
(Frag. 16), ryv iJXrjv TCVTGTL rb 7r\a<r//,a...T6 fr r<
e/u.<f)vo"r)/j,aTt airpfj.a. Heracleon
has retained the terminology of his master. With the Angels compare Frag. 36, ot
rrjs oiKOi>o[j.las ayye\oi, dt uv us peaLT&v effwapr) Kal dverpdcpr). Valentinus goes on to

speak of an "Kvdpu-jros in whose name Adam was formed this may perhaps throw ;
some light on the important position assigned to "AvOpurros in Heracleon s account

of the two viol TOV avdpuirov (Frag. 35).
Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 20, p. 488. The expulsion of every evil spirit from
2.
the heart of man reminds us of Heracleon s interpretation of the words

#7X0? TOV
OIKOV ffov KaTa<pdyeTat fj.e as being spoken e/c
Trpoauirov rdv ixpXrietvTuv Ka
TWV virb rov ZWTTJ/JOS dvrdficvr (Frag. 14) : and with the words vvfipij;bvTuv
fj-iais compare Heracleon s description of the former life of the Samaritan woman,
Kal ddeTovfji&r) Kal tyKaTa.Xenrofj.tvr] (Frag. 18). On Tro\\wi>
daipbvuv
see the note on Frag. 20 (p. 77).
Clem. Alex. Strom, in. 7, p. 538. The Docetism of this Fragment should be
3.
compared with Heracleon s teaching on the pp&fj.a toiov of the Lord (Frag. 31), and
the healing of the Euler s son (Frag. 40) but the question of Heracleon s Docetism ;
has been discussed in the Introduction (p. 46).

4.
children over
Clem. Alex. Strom,iv. 13, p. 603. With alwvios and the victory of its
compare Frag. 17 cu wnos yap ij fay avrov Kal wdtiroTe
<f>eopa,
^
<j>deipo-
t^vrj. The distinction between /cooyxos and in the last sentence of Valentinus, KT[<TIS
orav yap rbv fitv Kboôv \vrjre, avrol de w Kara\v-r}crde, Kvpievere TTJS KTiVews /cat T^S
0ôpas explained by Frag. 20, where Heracleon speaks of the K6o>tos as the
aTraff-rjs, is
world of the Devil, and connects Krt with the /CT/CTTT/S or Demiurge, whom the
<rts
Jews worshipped.
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 105
5. Clem. Alex. ibid. As this is the most important Fragment of Valentinus
in the present connexion, it may be well to quote his words in full.
Orroffov eXarruv 17 eiKUv TOU favros irpoffwirov, roffovrov rjffffwv

6 KOfffJ.os rov favros
alwvos. T^J ovv alria rrjs eiicbvos; fj-eyaXufffyrj rov irpoffutrov TrapeffXTj/J-evov Ty faypdcpy
rbv TUTTOV, iva rifj-r/drj 5i 6v6fj.aros avrov. ov yap avOevriK<2s evptdr) [j.op(pri,
dXXa rb
6vo/j.a eir\ripuo~ev rb vffreprjo av ev TrXdcret. ffvvepyel 5e /cat T6 TOU deov doparov els wiffrtf
Here 6 /cocôs is used in its wider sense. The meaning of the Fragment must
be that as the likeness is inferior to the living person, so the world (created
is
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 aluv, contrasted with KOOTXOJ, 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 aluvi. /ecu ol avv awry
e\0oWes and tireiTrep eiKoves OVTOI (sc. ol louScuot) TUV ev rip TrX^pciârt aury 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 ;
rj eiK&v
= the Demiurge, Sophia s created to give glory to the Father TO $&v
Tr\d<rfj,a
:
iTpoffwirov
=
the Father, the True God: furypa0os Sophia. = [As the Demiurge is
inferior to the Father, so is the /coov/os to the living Aeon.] The Demiurge is an
dKwv (of the Father) as being dirb the production of Sophia. The offspring of
ei>6s,
a ffvfvyia. are not ei/coi/ej but TrX^pw/iara (cf. Excerpta ex Theud. 32). The next
sentence is hardly intelligible. But the words TO e^varnj.a rov diafiepovros Trvev/j.aros,
7) e/c /tceo-oTTjTos ^vx~n, and o rr} tyvxy, shew great similarity of substance
e/j.iri>eirai
with the teaching of Frag. 16 and the use of Tr\r}pw/M 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, vi. 6, p. 767. Beyond the implied restriction of r/ e/c/cXTj-
<rla to the irvevâriKol (cf. Frag. 25 Fragment offers no further points
etc.) this
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.

was in Florence last December (1890), I made use of the opportunity to
When I
collate thetwo Fragments of Heracleon which are contained in the Stromatcis and
Eclogae Proplictlcae of Clement, and also the whole of the Exccrpta 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.
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 bp&viv is as follows :
AXX oi/x bpuaiv (12) 6Vt iravTos (13) /cat TUV O.VT&V deKTixbv.
It is important to start from this, as all conjectural restorations seem to have
been based upon the words T&V ivavTiuv, 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 and is certainly later than f<rws,
the other emendator, who uses the word Tdx.

Origen s argument seems to be as follows. Is it not dVe/3es to call the spiritual
worshippers, whom Heracleon lias just called adulterers (in that he has just said
that the Samaritan woman Trpeiy-tart/dys (pixreus oCcra has committed adultery), b/moov-
ffioi with God? Heracleon and his followers do not see that, etc. But if the Trvevfj-a-
TiKT) being oyuootfcrios with God could commit adultery, impious deductions
(pv<Tis
follow from their argument concerning God. The impious deduction is clearly
something equivalent to dexerai 6 0eos rd iropvevaai.. Origen refutes the position of
Heracleon, that God and the Tn>v/j.a.TiKoi are bfj-ooixrioi, by a reductio ad absurdum
through two syllogisms :
(1) major. (?)
minor. God and the Tn/ev/um/cT? are (f>v<ri$ 6/xoo;<rta :
God and the irv. are rwv

0y<rts
Se/cTi/cd. O.VTUI>
(2) major. God and the irv. (pvais are TWV avTwv SCKTIKO. :
minor. The irv. 0iVu eSeaTo TO TropvevaaL .
God dtx eTai T b iropvevffai: (for if the irv. (pu<r. e5âTo, then it is
SKTIKOV of that which
This seems to be the strict argument, though of course 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 TO, b
avTdv deKTiKa. I would therefore propose to read, TO buoovaiov /ecu TW O.VTUV llai>
Se/cri/coi This preserves the TUV O.VTUV which is attested by all the MSS., ruv lva.v-
.
rLwv 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 (d ot e5ta.To...0eov) Quod si
[Heracleon ac sui sequaces] admiserint spiritualem
naturam quae sit eiusdem essen-
tiae [cum divina et undequaque beata natura ut ipsi tradunt] meretricari, profana
sense of the sentence,
etimpia et irreligiosa sequuntur rationem ipsorum, gives the
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. eKTreiropvevKevai. Regius ireiropvevKevcu, Mox Codex Bod-

iravTos TUV ivavr uav /ecu TUV
leianus habet AXX bpuxnv oi ravra X^yoires, on
"
oi>x
O.VTUIV dcKTiKov. Ei 5e tSâro TO iropvevcrai rj irvev/j-aTLKr] 0i;cris, bfj.oov<nos ovaa. TTJ ayev-
vrfry cbocria &c. sicque sanitati omnia restituuntur.

Modo pro /ecu TWV O.VTUV legas
Ko.1 TO ai/ro."
Codex Eegius reads eKTre-n-opvevKevaL. All the marginal suggestions of the
Bodleian MS. are set down

they occurred in its original text. as if
How omnia sanitati restituuntur by reading Tb avrb for ruv afiruv I cannot
see. God and the Tn/euâri/cr) 05(ris would hardly even by the impious Heracleon
be called Tb
cu5r6. The point is not that r6 avri is SeKTUcbv TUV ivavrtuv. The only
deduction from this and the following sentence would be that God being (?) identical
capable of contrary things to what it
with the n-i evfj.a.TtKr] is is capable of, i.e.
0tf<s
I suppose TO fj.i) Tropvevffcu, which deduction is not av6ffiov. The point is rather
that God and the irv. (j>v<ris, being b/j.oov<ria, are
TUV O.VTWV Se/cri/cd. Sense can be
extracted from Grabe s Hilgenfeld, on iravTos KoXoO TO
conjecture, adopted by
irvfvfji.a KO.I The argument would then be I suppose some
TUV ivavTiwv ov deKTtKov.
what as follows. T6 Trj/eOâ is not deKTiKov of good and evil at the same time.
The Trvfv/ji.aTi.KTi (pfots tSâro Tb KaKov: therefore it cannot 6^x eo at T Ka\6v: and "^
therefore God, being 6/uoownos with it, is not 5e/cn/c6s TOV KO\OV, and is therefore
dfKTiKbs TW fravTtuv i.e. of evil. But the objections to it are insuperable: (a) It
makes Origeu guilty of unparalleled obscurity.

has no support whatever
(/3)
It
from the MSS. (7) It is based on the unfortunate conjecture TUV evavrlwv. (8) It
would require TOV ivavTlov. (e)
It makes rb Trvev/J.a
= ri wvevfj-aTiKj] <pfais.
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 iiscd
where the reference is doubtful.
Gen. vi. 2 93 Jo. iv. 16 73 f.
[Ps. xix. (xviii.) 5 17

79] 74
Ps. Ixix. (Ixviii.) 10 69 18 f 75
Is. i. 2, 4 93 20 f 76
v.l, 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 38 f 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. 811 102 54 92
xix. 10 80 v. 45 101
Jo. i. 3 50, 80 viii. 12 ff 95 f.
4. 21 f 95 f.
37 f 97
43 97
44 97, 98, 100
47 97
50 101
Horn. i. 25 79
[v. 15 72]
vi. 21 92
14f. 68 f. xiii. 4 101
17 69 1 Cor. x. 5 79
19 f. 70 f. 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.
110 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. Ill
xaeo\iK6s 40, 5 ; 50, 12 77 2, 7

/ca0oXi/c<2s 50, 8 s, irpurij 2, 6
/co/efa 13, 30 ; 18, 24 ; 20, 9 48, 5
KaTapatveiv 11, 3 ; 40, 31

KaraXetTretz/ 27, 3 va6s 16, 6
/caraXXr/Xos 17, 30 ; 50, 14 ?KOS 40, 20

KaraffKevdêiv 5, 79 ; 13, 31 ; 1C, 5 voelv 1, 35 ; 8, 36 ; 13, 6 ; 22, 8 ; 35, 17
KaraaKfvri 33, 8 vo/j.ifj.os 18, 10
Kare\0elv 8, 29 ; 11, 5 ; 40, 50
KaQapvaovfj. 11, 4 ; 40, 6 j/6/xoj 20, 10 ; 40, 25
jrf/>5os 13, 16 j/6<ros
40, 32
Kepfj.a.Ti<TTr)s 13, 14
KX77<r 13, 5 ; 27, 1C #vos 13, 16
KOivbrepov 5, 70 ^Xoi/ 13, 26
KoXdfriv 48, 7
/coTriaj/ 36, 6 68r)ye ia dcu 39, 5
LOTTOS (?) 36, 9 otVaos 5, 27 ; 23, 6 ; 40, 49
17, 4 ; 18, 8 ; 27, 21 oiK(i<i)s
40, 21
1, 3 ; 8, 2 11, 5
; 18, 20 ; ; 20, 7 olK-rjrripiov 20, 9
27, 6 ; 31, 9 ; 37, 2 ; 40, 43 oiKovofjua 8, 32 ; 11, 2 ; ot r?}s oiV.
n6s 10, 10 36, 7
6, 10 22, 8
20, 11 ; 22, 19 4, 7 ; 8, 38; 19,2; 26, 5; 50, 7

20, 11 ; 22, 20 o/j.o\oyia 50, 2
is 13, 29 ovofioffia 46, 18
,
20 opos 20, 6
oi)(rfa 43, 4 ; 44, 7 ; 45, 2 ; 46, 2
\arpeia 13, 18 ; 19, 13 ; 24, 10 ojis 46, 24
\arpe6ew 20, 14 ; 21, 24 ; 22, 19

Aevis 50, 11 Traces 12, 2 ; 38, 4
Aevlni* 13, 10 Travovpyia 6, 10

AeiuTi/c6s 5, 63 ,
7
X<ts 8, 38 10, 8
\ivov 13, 23 ia 27, 7
Xo7i/c6s 24, 10 (?) 2,

8
X67os, 6 1, 7; 5, 6 ; 22, 7 ; 33, 8 ; 44, 5 ; 45, 1 irepurabrepov 10, 4

Ittrpos 21, 22
(jt-aprvpia, dvOpwirlvr) 39, 7 irXavdv 22, 17
Mcrrflcuos 50, 10 Tr\dvr) 22, 16 ; 23, 6 ; 24, 9 ; 47, 6
fj.dxa.ipa 48, 4 7rXeur/*a 16, 7
M<?7e0os 8, 29 TrX^pw/xa 13, 11 ; 18, 5 ; 22, 10
/iept*6s 50, 12 7rXi7(TiafetJ> 18, 25

36, 7 Tn/eu/io 13, 6 ; 17, 13 ; 24, 8 ; 27, 7 ; r6
r
40, 7 #7- TTV. 13, 22
fj.Ta.pd\\eiv, see 40, 68 vveviM.TiK&s 2, 3 ; 15, 4 ; 20, 15 ; 23, 12 ;
/xera/SoXiJ 5, 30 24, 15 ; 37, 3
/ierar^/u 5, 28 Tri/eu/ian/cws 24, 6

34, 3 TroXtret a 50, 3
37, 5 7roXtTei5fcr0at 40, 44

112 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
5, 61 rerpas 16, 8
vorqpfa 40, 56 eti/ 36, 12
Trovrjpuis 42, 2 11, 6 ; 13, 3 ; 17, 39 ;
6 virep TOV T.
TropeveaOai, et s
<p8opav 42, 10 vids a.v6p(j}irov 35, 14
TrpeirovTws 19, 8 Tp67ros 40, 39
irpârov 10, 7 ; 12, 3 ; 13, 13 Tpo<f>ri 31, 5
7rp65po/xos 8, 22 TI^TTOS 12, 2 ; 13, 27
Trp6vaos 13, 9
wpoa-dyeiv 27, 8 vdpla 27, 1
TrpotrS^-xfffdai. 25, 2 0X77 16, 7; 20, 8; 21, 23; 23, 6; 36, 13;
7rpo<r5oKai> 26, 4 40, 8
irp6<TKaipos 17, 2 ; 40, 3 Wu/cos 11, 5 ; 13, 2 ; 18, 24
5, 62 vTrrjpecria. 8, 26
8, 35 ; 14, 2 ; 40, 22 virrjptrris 48, 12
5, 80 VTToppT)KU)S 40, 7
,
8 ; 5, 39 ; 10, 3 ; 19, 3 vir6Swa 8, 30
7T/)o0?7Ti/c6s, Trp. rats 5, 8 VTTOKplTrjS 50, 7
vTTOTi6e(T0ai 40, 13
2a/i/>eia 26, 7; 28, 2; 31, 8
us 24, 6 (pavepovv 44, 7
22, 16 ; aap/ca Xa/Setj/ 8, 30 âpurcuoi 6, 10 ; 7, 5
24
13, 00apr6s 40, 18
<TKa\\eiv 36, 12 17, 16
ffKevos 27, 5 10
,
O-KOTOS 46, 23
00opo7roi6s 46, 25
16, 4 <pL\apyvpia 13, 17
2, 7 ; 35, 2 ; 36, 8 50, 10
16, 10; 35, 3; 36, 5 ; 40, 56 o/ 13, 19
13, 28 64
?7 5,
31, 3 cDs 47, 8
31, 10 17, 31; 19, 8; 23, 12; 24, 2; 33,
13, 10
ai>ij.fio\ov
9; 37, 5; 40, 10; 44, 8; 46, 11 ; 47, 4
<rvfjL7rapa\a.fji,(3di>eij> 20, 17 0amayx6s 2, 8
<TVfJ.TT\^KlV 18, 25
18
o-vvapid/j-elv 20, 35, 2
avviardvat 46, 32
X apa 35, 12
ffwrypia 13, 12 22, 7 33, 7 34, 4 42
; ; ; ;
5, ; 40, 46
40, 17 13, 23
crcêt* 31, 7 ; 40, 50 ; 50, 9 Xot/c6s 46, 11
13, 18
rais 5, 8; 40, 48 46, 13
30, 3
10, 9 47, 8
35, 12 \f/evfffj.a 47, 12
, 26 47, 10
rAos 40, 24
27, 8 ; 32, 6 ; 35, 18 ; 40, 14
32, 4 13, 3 ; 37, 4 ; 46, 12
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY c. j. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT TIIE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

111.
The following numbers of the series are now published :
Vol. I. No. 1. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES :

by J. REXDEL HARRIS,
M.A. with an Appendix
by THE EDITOR.
:
5s. net.
No. 2. THE PASSION OF S.

PERPETUA, with an Appendix
on the Scillitan
Martyrdom :
by THE EDITOR. 4s. net.
No. 3. THE LORD S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH :
by F. H. CHASE, B.D. 5s. net.
X<>. 4. THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON A. E.

:
by
BROOKE, M.A. 4s. net.
A separate title
page for binding is issued with the last number
of the volume (No. 4).
The following is
nearly ready:
Vol. II. No. 1. A STUDY OF CODEX BEZAE :
by J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A.
The following is in course of

preparation :
THE TKSTAMKXT OF ABRAHAM: by M. R. JAMES, M.A. :
with an Appendix
containing Translations from the Arabic of the
Testaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, \V.
by K. BAKXKS, M.A.
University of Toronto
Library
DO NOT
REMOVE
THE
CARD
FROM
THIS
POCKET
Acme Library Card Pocket

Under Pt Index
"Ref. Ffle"
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU

Robinson. Texts and Studies: Contributions To Biblical and Patristic Literature. 1891. Volume 1.

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Robinson. Texts and Studies: Contributions To Biblical and Patristic Literature. 1891. Volume 1.

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

BINDING LIST WW 1 5 1928

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.

FELLOW or CHRIST S COLLEGE CAMBBIDGE

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.

No. 4. THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO,

gorfe : MACMILLAN AND CO.

NEWLY EDITED FROM THE MSS.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

[All Eights reserved]

The MSS. of Origen s Commentaries on S. John ... 1

TEXT AND NOTES 50-103

ADDITIONAL NOTES 104-107

Heracleon and Valentinus 104

Index of passages of Scripture quoted, explained, or referred

OF the extant manuscripts of the Commentaries on S. John,

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

frequenti abbreviatione in folio, ff. 305, saec. xm. foliorum ordine

Of the Commentaries on S. John it contains Bks. 1. 2. 6. 10.

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

&quot;Ex electorali Bibliotheca sereniss.

notatur Tomus Undecimus initio quoque mutilus cum proxime

says,he has copied as he found them.

topiyevovs e^rjyrjo-is et? TO Kara MarOalov teal tear Itodwvfp

ending KOI avOis atywpeOa. This preface has nothing to do with

A callido librario in Tomos

composition to which he was sometimes reduced in consequence of

corrupt for conjecture.

Fuit copiatus per Georgium Triphon inm di

To this we shall have occasion to refer when we are dealing

*f rov avrov et? TO Kara MarBatov TO/AOL e drro rov Setcdrov

Codex Chartac. xvi. saec. scriptum quo continentur Origenis

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

Century. Its resemblance to II. is very close. It is now bound

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,

ab Italo (ut videtur) scriptum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana Oxonii Num. E. 2. 6, 7, 8.&quot;

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

royu-o? TT/JWTO?. 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 irapd

The cryptograph used is the common one in which the scribe

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

containing 226; ff. it is in the same hand as O. 32 and a MS. of

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

More direct proofs of copying are not

Lomm. in. p. 91, 10. el rt? ovv. The el ? is stained and

indistinct in Cod. Mon. Cod. Reg. omits the words,

I subjoin a list of their divergences (other than mere

29, 6 01 lovSatoi lovdaioi

Oeov K.T.\.) favapehtVo? #eo? yap 6 wo? rc5

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

p. 60, 1. 12 \eyovrai MR. eyovrai P.

p. 60, 1. 13 d7roK\ia-0elo-(u$ PMR.

(In M the words are worm-eaten.)

(In M the letters Trepl erep are damaged.)

Sui/BcKTiv r^? epvOpas dvare6eiarj TW dew Oav/jLao-rds yap tyrjorlv

eV86f co? TTQI&V repara.

ing dav/jLacrrd for 0avp,acrTo&amp;lt;;

p. 73, 1. 1 M has CLK...OVT(I, the intervening letters being

p. 137, 1. 15. The erroneous repetition of paiveu yap TO found

"Ex electorali Bibliotheca sereniss.

ab Italo (ut videtur) scriptum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana Oxonii Num. E. 2. 6, 7, 8."

ing dav/jLacrrd for 0avp,acrTo<;

57. Jn. iv. 31. tv r<p fifrau 8e (Bodl. Ven.)

22 pr)T<Z opcL VB : o prjTu P sed ser. man.