Chapter IX

).

Footnote 158:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 227, 228, Harvey.

Footnote 159:

Giraud, _op. cit._ p. 95, thinks that in the Naassene teaching matter does not really exist, all things being contained in Adamas. The absolute antagonism of God and matter is, however, too strongly marked a feature of nearly all the sources from which the Ophites can have drawn their doctrine for his theory to be entertained. Berger, _Études des Documents nouveaux fournis sur les Ophites par les Philosophumena_, Nancy, 1873, p. 25, puts forward the same idea as a mere figure of speech and in order apparently to reconcile the Ophite doctrine with St John’s statement that without the Word “nothing” was made. Later he (_ibid._ pp. 61, 104, 105) points out that the tendency of the Ophite like all other Gnostic doctrine is to widen rather than to narrow the abyss between Spirit and Matter.

Footnote 160:

This is a variant, and an important one, of the Babylonian myth which makes Bel, after defeating Tiamat the Dragon of Chaos, cut her in two halves and make out of them the visible heaven and earth. See Rogers, _op. cit._ p. 126. The heaven which there is fashioned from the powers of evil, is here at any rate half divine. In later systems, such as one of those in the _Pistis Sophia_ and especially that of the Manichaeans, the older Babylonian idea is returned to. It would therefore seem that for the modification here introduced, the Ophites were indebted to Jewish influence and forced it to agree with the story of Genesis. See Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 28, p. 229, Harvey.

Footnote 161:

Irenaeus, _loc. cit._ p. 228, Harvey. This is the first unmistakable allusion to the figure of the Sophia which is so prominent in most of the Gnostic systems and reappears in Manichaeism. There can, I think, be no doubt that she is in effect the Great Goddess worshipped throughout Western Asia, who appears under different names in Lydia, Phrygia, Syria, Ionia, Crete, and Greece, and who is to be identified on etymological grounds, if Prof. Garstang (n. 1, p. 31, _supra_) is correct, with the Babylonian Ishtar. That the Alexandrians saw her in their goddess Isis has already been shown in Chap. II. Her most prominent characteristics show her to be a personification of the Earth, the mother of all living, ever bringing forth and ever a virgin, as is shown in the “Goddesses Twain,” Demeter and Cora. The dove was throughout Asia her symbol and perhaps her totem animal (Strong, _The Syrian Goddess_, pp. 22-24 for authority), as the serpent was that of her spouse or male counterpart (Justin Martyr, _First Apol._ c. XXVII.; Clem. Alex. _Protrept._ c. II.). In the Orphic cosmogonies she appears under her name of Gaia or Ge as the “first bride” (Abel’s _Orphica_, fr. 91) spouse of Uranos, as well as under all her subsequent personifications. She seems, too, to bear much analogy with the Persian Amshaspand, Spenta Armaiti, who is also identified with the earth, and is called Sophia or Wisdom (Tiele, _Religion of the Iranian Peoples_, Eng. ed. Bombay, 1912, pp. 130, 131). Whether the Persians also drew this conception from the Babylonian Ishtar is a question which some years ago might have been answered in the affirmative. Now, however, it has been complicated by the identification of this Spenta Armaiti with the Aramati of the Vedas—for which see M. Carnoy’s article _Aramati-Armatay_ in _Le Muséon_, Louvain, vol. XIII. (1912), pp. 127-146—and the discovery of Winckler that the Vedic gods were worshipped in Asia Minor before 1272 B.C. Her appearance in the cosmology of the Gnostics under the name of Sophia is, however, probably due to the necessity of effecting by hook or by crook a harmony between Gentile and Jewish ideas, and is doubtless due in the first instance to the passage in the Book of Proverbs VIII., IX., where Wisdom חָכְמָה or Ἀχαμώθ (in both languages feminine) is described as existing from the beginning and the daily delight of Yahweh, rejoicing always before him and his instrument in making the universe (Clem. _Hom._ XVI. c. 12). It is said that Simon Magus called his mistress Helena by the name of Sophia, but the story only occurs in Victorinus of Pettau and is probably due to a confusion with the Sophia of later sects like that of Valentinus. In all these, with the single exception of that of Marcion, she plays a predominant

## part in the destiny of mankind.

Footnote 162:

This appears in the Latin version of Irenaeus only.

Footnote 163:

Ὑφ’ ἑκάστου δὲ τούτων ἕνα οὐρανὸν δημιουργηθῆναι, καὶ ἕκαστον οἰκεῖν τὸν οἰκεῖον. Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 28, p. 230, Harvey.

Footnote 164:

Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 32. This Ialdabaoth or Jaldabaoth appears in the systems or heresies of the Nicolaitans and of those whom Epiphanius calls “Gnostics” _par excellence_. See Epiphanius, _op. cit._ Bk I. t. ii., _Haer._ 25, p. 160, and _Haer._ 26, p. 184. Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ Bk V. c. 9, makes him belong also to the system of the Sethians. In all these he is the son of Sophia and presides over one or more of the super-terrestrial heavens, although the particular place assigned to him differs in the different sects. In the _Pistis Sophia_ he is described (in the story of Pistis Sophia proper) as a power “half flame and half darkness” (cf. Ezekiel viii. 2) projected by one of the “triple-powered” gods of our universe and sent down into Chaos for the destruction of the heroine; in one of the later documents of the book we see him as lord of a particular portion of Chaos, where he presides over the punishment of a certain class of sinning souls. His name offers many difficulties. Gieseler reads it ילדא בהות, “son of Chaos,” and this Salmon, _Dict. Christian Biog._ s.h.v., considers the most probable derivation, although Harvey’s reading of יה־אל־דאבהות “Lord (or Jah) God of the Fathers,” is certainly more appropriate. In the great Magic Papyrus of Paris, the name appears as ⲁⲗⲑⲁⲂⲱⲧ, which can hardly be anything else that Aldabôt or Adabôt, since we have ⲁⲗⲑⲱⲛⲁⲓ for Adonai in the next line (Griffith, _The Old Coptic magical texts of Paris_, p. 3; extract from the _Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache_, Bd. XXXVIII.). In Papyrus XLVI. of the British Museum (Kenyon, _Gk. Pap._ p. 69), we find βαλβναβαωθ, probably a clerical error for Jaldabaoth, which is again followed as before by the name Αδωναι. In the Leyden Papyrus which calls itself the “8th Book of Moses,” we have a god invoked as Aldabeim, which is there said to be an Egyptian name, and to be the φυσικὸν ὄνομα “natural name” of the sun and the boat in which he rises when he dawns upon the world (Leemans, _op. cit._ pp. 87, 119, 127). It is not at all certain, however, which of these is the right spelling, for the German editors of Hippolytus read in one place Esaldaios for Ialdabaoth, and the Magic Papyrus last quoted has a name Aldazaô which is said to be quoted from a book of Moses called _Archangelicus_ (Leemans, _op. cit._ p. 157). The name Ialdazaô (“El Shaddai”?) is used as that of the “God of Gods” in the great Magic Papyrus of Paris, with whose name that of the aeon Sophia is mentioned (Wessely, _Griech. Zauberpap._ p. 50). The most probable conclusion is that Jaldabaoth represents some name or epithet of God current among the Semitic Babylonians which had fallen into disuse and had been much corrupted by being turned into and out of demotic. So Revillout (_Revue Égyptologique_) gives an instance where the invocation ἐπίσχες ἐπί με “Come unto me!” by a like process became transmogrified into “_episkhesepimme_” without being recognized by the scribe as Greek.

Footnote 165:

εἰδικὸς κόσμος, Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 153, Cruice. By the expression Demiurge he means that he fashioned it from pre-existent matter, as a workman builds a house.

Footnote 166:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 230, Harvey.

Footnote 167:

Thus Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 18, p. 198, Harvey, in summarizing the teaching of Saturninus says that the god of the Jews was one of the (world-creating) angels. That Saturninus’ opinion was derived from or coincided with that of the Ophites, see Salmon, _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Saturninus. Hippolytus Naassene also calls Jaldabaoth “a fiery god” and “a fourth number,” _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 153, Cruice, in allusion to the text about God being a consuming fire and to his Tetragrammaton or four-lettered name. Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXXVII. c. 4, p. 500, Oehler, says Κaὶ οὗτός ἐστι, φασίν, ὁ θεὸς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ὁ Ἰαλδαβαώθ, “And this Ialdabaoth is, they [the Ophites] say, the God of the Jews.”

Footnote 168:

Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 32.

Footnote 169:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk IV. c. 11.

Footnote 170:

See the picture by Faucher Gudin of the universe according to the Babylonians in Maspero, _Hist. Ancienne des Peuples de l’ Orient Classique_, Paris, 1895, t. I. p. 543.

Footnote 171:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 231, 232, Harvey. A sort of echo or perhaps a more detailed repetition of the story is found in one of the latest documents of the _Pistis Sophia_, where Jesus tells His disciples that the ἀρχοντες or rulers of Adamas once rebelled and persisted in begetting “archons and archangels and angels and serving spirits and decans”; that the 12 aeons, who are evidently the Signs of the Zodiac, divided into two companies of six, half of them under the rule of one Jabraôth repenting and being translated into a higher sphere, while the others were “bound” in our firmament under the rule of the five planets. Perhaps the origin of the whole story is the battle of the Gods and the serpent-footed giants, which appears on the Mithraic bas-reliefs, for which see _P.S.B.A._ 1912, p. 134, and Pl. XVI, 7. It is certainly of Asiatic or Anatolian origin, and seems to be connected with volcanic phenomena. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 13, p. 192, Cruice, says this rebellion is a “Chaldaean” doctrine.

Footnote 172:

τὸν δὲ ἀθυμήσαντα, εἰς τὴν τρύγα τῆς ὕλης ἐρεῖσθαι τὴν ἔννοιαν, καὶ γεννῆσαι υἱὸν ὀφιόμορφον ἐξ αὐτῆς, “and [they say that] he being enraged, beheld his thought in the dregs of matter, and a serpent-formed son was born from it,” Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 232, Harvey. Perhaps this explains how the Ennoia or Thought of God was supposed to take definite shape. Other editors wish to read ἐρείδεσθαι “fixed” for ἐρεῖσθαι.

Footnote 173:

Hippolytus, Bk V. c. 9, p. 178, Cruice.

Footnote 174:

See n. 1, p. 45, _supra_. So Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 178, Cruice, when speaking of the Ophites frequenting the mysteries of the Magna Mater, says that there is no temple anywhere [he means in Phrygia] without a serpent. See Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. pp. 51, 87. As King, _Gnostics and their Remains_, p. 225, noted, all the principal cities of Asia Minor, Ephesus, Apamea and Pergamum depicted serpents on their coins. For the story of Alexander’s birth, see Budge, _Alexander the Great_ (Pseudo-Callisthenes), p. 8.

Footnote 175:

See Ramsay in last note.

Footnote 176:

_Acta Philippi_ (ed. Tischendorf), _passim_.

Footnote 177:

dehinc et Spiritum, et animam et omnia mundialia; inde generatum omnem oblivionem, et malitiam, et zelum, et invidiam, et mortem. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 232, Harvey. So Dionysos, whose emblem (Clem. Alex. _Protrept._ c. II.) was the serpent, is identified with the soul of the world. Cf. Berger, _Études sur la Philosophumena_, Nancy, 1873, pp. 39 _sqq._

Footnote 178:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 178, Cruice.

Footnote 179:

_Ibid._ Bk V. c. 7, pp. 144, 145, Cruice.

Footnote 180:

Is this the origin of the ideas on the Macrocosm and the Microcosm? See