Chapter II

. vol. I. _supra_.

Footnote 140:

Clem. Alex. _Protrept_. c. II.; Arnobius, _op. cit_. Bk VI. c. 21, calls it “the well-known senarian verse of a poet of Tarentum,” and connects it with the Sabazian rites, whence it probably found its way to Eleusis.

Footnote 141:

This relegation of the really Supreme God to an unregarded place in the pantheon is common enough in the history of religions. Thus the Shilluks of the Upper Nile take little notice of their great god Jôk, to whom they only sacrifice once a year, reserving all the rest of their worship for a being intermediate between God and man called Nyakang. See Gleichen, _The Anglo-Egyptian Soudan_, vol. I. pp. 162, 197, and _R.H.R._ 1911, Juillet-Août.

Footnote 142:

See n. 1, p. 31, _supra_. The _Dea Syria_ was otherwise called Atargatis, of which Derketo was, _teste_ Prof. Garstang, a homonym. See Strong, _The Syrian Goddess_, p. 52 and n. 25.

Footnote 143:

See n. 1, p. 31, _supra_.

Footnote 144:

Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. p. 9.

Footnote 145:

Irenaeus, _op. cit_. Bk I. c. 28, p. 227, Harvey.

Footnote 146:

ἀρσενόθηλυς, Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1, p. 139, Cruice.

Footnote 147:

See next note.

Footnote 148:

Ἀπὸ σοῦ πατὴρ καὶ διά σε μήτηρ, τὰ δύο ἀθάνατα ὀνόματα, Αἰώνων γονεῖς, πολῖτα οὐρανοῦ, μεγαλώνυμε ἄνθρωπε, Ηiρροlytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1, p. 140, Cruice. Salmon points out that almost the same words occur in Hippolytus’ account of the heresy of Monoimus the Arab, where he describes the monad as being among other things: Αὕτη μήτηρ, αὕτη πατήρ, τὰ δύο ἀθάνατα ὀνόματα, _op. cit._ Bk VIII. c. 12, p. 410, Cruice. He is inclined to attribute this to the real or supposed fact that both the Naassenes and Monoimus borrowed from the _Apophasis_ of Simon. See Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Monoimus.

Footnote 149:

Τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐκεῖ [ἐστιν] ὅπου καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ὀνομάζεται καὶ ὁ Υἱός, ἐκ τούτου [καὶ ἐκ] τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκεῖ γεννώμενον; κ.τ.λ., Ηippolytus, _op. cit._ Βk V. c. 9, pp. 174, 185, Cruice. The words in brackets are Cruice’s emendation. Duncker and Schneidewin omit them and read γεννώμενος for γεννώμενον. Giraud, _op. cit._ pp. 92, 93, agrees with Cruice’s reading, and points out that both the Spirit and the Son are here put forward as the masculine and feminine forms respectively of the great Adamas. It is evident, however, that among the earlier Ophites represented by Irenaeus’ Greek text, the Spirit or First Woman was thought to come into being _after_ the First Man and the Son of Man. See Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 227, Harvey.

Footnote 150:

Thus after saying that “he who says all things are composed (συνεστάναι) from one (substance) errs, but that he who says they are framed from three speaks the truth,” he goes on to say Mία γάρ ἐστι φησιν, ἡ μακαρία φύσις τοῦ μακαρίou ἄνθρωπου τοῦ ἄνω, τοῦ Ἀδάμαντος· μία δὲ ἡ θνητὴ κάτω· μία δὲ ἡ ἀβασίλευτος γενεὰ ἡ ἄνω γενομένη, κ.τ.λ., “For one is the blessed nature of the blessed Man above, viz.: Adamas, and one is the nature below which is subject to death, and one is the kingless race which is begotten above,” etc. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 157, Cruice.

Footnote 151:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1, p. 140, Cruice.

Footnote 152:

ὰποκατάστασις (see p. 57 _infra_). As Salmon has shown with great clearness, this, rather than the redemption of individual souls, is the aim of all post-Christian Gnostic systems, _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Gnosticism.

Footnote 153:

Philo, _de Sacrificantibus_, c. 13; II. p. 261, Mangey.

Footnote 154:

Acts xiv. 11-18.

Footnote 155:

Postea, dicunt, exultante primo homine cum filio suo super formositate Spiritus, hoc est foeminae, et illuminante eam, generavit ex ea lumen incorruptibile, tertium masculum, quem Christum vocant. So the Latin version of Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 227, Harvey. The Greek text, which should contain Irenaeus’ own words, only says: Ἐρασθῆναι δέ φασι τὸν πρῶτον Ἄνθρωπον, καὶ τὸν δεύτερον, τῆς ὥpas τoῦ Πveύμaτoς ... καὶ παιδοποιῆσαι φῶς ... ὁ καλοῦσι Χριστόν. Something, however, has evidently been expunged from the earlier version of the story, and it is possible that the later interpolation is due to the desire of the translator to make the teaching of the heretics as repulsive as possible. Theodoret merely copies the Latin text of Irenaeus.

Footnote 156:

εἰς τὸν ἄφθαρτον ἀνασπασθῆναι Αἰῶνα, ἣν καὶ ἀληθινὴν ἐκκλησίαν καλοῦσι. Irenaeus, _loc. cit._ p. 228, Harvey.

Footnote 157:

This Divine Family or Council must have been an old idea in post-exilic Judaism. Justin Martyr, _Dial. c. Tryph._ c. 126, says that Christ is called the “Angel of the Great Council” by Ezekiel, but the expression is not to be found in the A.V. Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk V. c. 53, also speaks of a prophecy in which Jesus was described as the “Angel of the Great Council, because he announced to men the great counsel of God”—a pun which curiously enough is the same in Greek as in English. The Jews of Elephantine worshipped in their temple a god and a goddess who were looked upon as the assessors, if the inferiors, of Yahweh (see n. 4, p. 32, _supra_). In the Talmud, it is said that God has an upper or celestial _familia_ or tribunal without consulting which he does nothing, and which is indicated by the “holy ones” of Dan. iv. 17. See Taylor, _Pirke-Aboth_, Cambridge, 1877, II. p. 43, n. 7. The expression “Angel of the Great Council” recurs in the Gnostic epitaph from the Via Latina given later (