Chapter XIII

_infra_.

Footnote 468:

So that Judas Iscariot received a super-excellent soul as well as the other eleven, unless we are to suppose that his successor and substitute Matthias was one of those chosen from the beginning. It is curious that neither in this nor in any other Valentinian document is there any allusion to the treason of Judas. The phrase “Archons of the aeons” means, as will be seen later, the rulers of the twelve signs of the Zodiac.

Footnote 469:

The “Sphere,” here as elsewhere in the book, means the sphere of the visible firmament, which is below that of Heimarmene or Destiny.

Footnote 470:

Τhis παρθένος τοῦ φωτός or Virgin of Light appears here, I think, for the first time in any Gnostic document, although she may have been known to the Valentinians. See Irenaeus, Bk II. c. 47, § 2, p. 368, Harvey. She is, perhaps, a lower analogue of Sophia Without, and is represented as seated in or near the material sun which is said to give its light in its “true form” only in her τόπος or place, which is 10,000 times more luminous than that of the Great Propator or Forefather mentioned later (_Pistis Sophia_, p. 194, Copt.). Her function seems to be the “judging” of the souls of the dead, which does not apparently involve any weighing of evidence, but merely the examination of them to see what “mysteries” they have received in previous incarnations, which will determine the bodies in which they are reincarnated or their translation to higher spheres (_ibid._ pp. 239, 292). She also places in the soul a power which returns to her, according to the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, on the death of its possessor (_ibid._ p. 284, Copt.), thereby discharging the functions assigned in the last book of Plato’s _Republic_ to Lachesis. She is also on the same authority (_i.e._ the Μ. τ. Σ.) one of the rulers of the disk of the sun and of that of the moon (_ibid._ pp. 340-341, Copt.), and her place is one of the “places of the Middle” and is opposite to the kingdom of Adamas, which is called the “head of the aeons” (_ibid._ p. 236, Copt.). She reappears in Manichaeism and it is said in the _Acta Archelai_ that at the destruction of the world she will pass into “the ship” of the moon along with Jesus and other powers where she will remain until the whole earth is burnt up (c. XIII. p. 21 of _Hegemonius, Acta Archelai_, Beeson’s ed., Leipzig, 1906, p. 21). In the Turfan texts (F. W. K. Müller, _Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo Schrift aus Turfan_, III. Teil, Berlin, 1904, p. 77) appears a fragment of a prayer in which is invoked _yîšô kanîgrôšanâ_ which Dr Müller translates Ἰησοῦς παρθένος τοῦ φωτός, “Jesus, Virgin of Light”; but it is possible that there is some mistake in the reading.

Footnote 471:

Barbelo is a name very frequently met with in the earlier heresiologists. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 26, §§ 1, 2, pp. 221-226, Harvey, declares that there was a sect of Simonians called Barbeliotae “or Naassenes” who suppose “a certain indestructible (the Latin version says ‘never-ageing’) Aeon in a living virgin spirit whom they call Barbelo (masc.),” and gives an account of a string of other aeons issuing not from, but at the prayer of, this Barbelo, which is far from clear in the present state of the text. The sect appears, from what can be made out of his description, to have resembled the Ophites, of which it may have been a branch. Hippolytus, however, says nothing of them, and the account of Epiphanius (_Haer._ XXV. and XXVI., Vol. II, pt 1, pp. 160, 184), Oehler, is untrustworthy, inasmuch as he assigns the worship of Barbelo to two sects, one of which he calls Nicolaitans and the other Gnostics simply. To both of them he attributes after his manner unimaginably filthy rites, and it is plain from his making Barbelo the mother of Jaldabaoth and giving her a seat in the eighth heaven that he confuses her wilfully or otherwise with the Sophia of the Ophites. Her place in the system of the _Pistis Sophia_ will be described in the text. The name is said by Harvey to be derived from the Syriac _Barba elo_, the Deity in Four or God in Tetrad, and the derivation is approved by Hort (_Dict. of Christian Biog._ _s.h.n._). It appears more likely, however, that it is to be referred to the Hebrew root בבל “Babel” or confusion, a derivation which Hort also mentions. In Irenaeus’ Greek text the name is spelt βαρβηλὼ, in the Latin “Barbelo” with an accusative “Barbelon,” and in Epiphanius βαρβηλὼ and βαρβήρω. If we might alter this last into βαρβαριωθ, we might see it in a great: number of magic spells of the period. Cf. Wessely, _Ephesia Grammata_, Wien, 1886, pp. 26, 28, 33, 34.

Footnote 472:

_Pistis Sophia_, p. 16, Copt. The five words are _zama_, _zama_, _ôzza_, _rachama_, _ôzai_. Whatever they may mean, we may be quite sure that they can never contain with their few letters the three pages or so of text which are given as their interpretation. It is possible that the letters are used acrostically like the A G L A, _i.e._ ניבר לעולם אדני (? Ahih ? אהיה) אתה _Ate Gibor Lailam Adonai_, “The mighty Adonai for ever” (or “thou art the mighty and eternal Lord”) commonly met with in mediaeval magic. Cf. Peter de Abano, _Heptameron, seu Elementa Magica_, Paris, 1567, p. 563; or, for other examples, F. Barrett, _The Magus_, 1801, Bk II. pp. 39, 40. The notable feature in these mysterious words is the quantity of Zetas or ζ’s that they contain which points to the use of some sort of table like that called by Cabalists _ziruph_, or a cryptogram of the _aaaaa_, _aaaab_, kind. It should be noticed that Coptic scribes were often afflicted with what has been called Betacism or the avoidance of the letter Beta or β by every means, which frequently led to the substitution for it of ζ as in the case of Jaldabaoth = Ιαλδαζαω given above (Chap. VIII, n. 3, p. 46 _supra_).

Footnote 473:

This idea of certain powers being the members or “limbs” of him from whom they issue recurs all through the _Pistis Sophia_. Cf. especially p. 224, Copt., where it is said that the χωρήματα or “receptacles” of the Ineffable go forth from his last limb. It is probably to be referred to the conception of the Supreme Being as the Man κατ’ ἐξοχήν, which we have seen current among the Ophites. See Chap. VIII, n. 2, p. 38 _supra_. That the ancient Egyptians used the same expression concerning their own gods and especially Ra, see Moret, “Le Verbe créateur et révélateur,” _R.H.R._, Mai-Juin, 1909, p. 257. Cf. Amélineau, _Gnosticisme Égyptien_, p. 288. So Naville, _Old Egyptian Faith_, p. 227.

Footnote 474:

That is to say, their names make up his name as letters do a word. So in the system of Marcus referred to in Chap. IX _supra_, Irenaeus (Bk I. c. 8, § 11, p. 146, Harvey) explains that the name of Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) which might be uttered is composed of six letters, but His unutterable name of twenty-four, because the names of the first Tetrad of Ἄρρητος (Bythos), Σιγή, Πατὴρ (Monogenes or Nous) and Ἀλήθεια contain that number of letters. See also § 5 of same chapter. Those who wish to understand the system are recommended to read the whole of the chapter quoted. As Irenaeus has the sense to see, there is no reason why the construction from one root of names founded on the principle given should not go on for ever.

Footnote 475:

This is probably either the Horos or Stauros that we have seen brought into being in the teaching of Valentinus as a guard to the Pleroma, or, as is more probable, an antitype of the same power in the world immediately above ours. That there was more than one Horos according to the later Valentinians appears plain from the words of Irenaeus above quoted (see Chap. IX, n. 1, p. 105 _supra_). Probably each world had its Horos, or Limit, who acted as guard to it on its completion. That in this world, the Cross, personified and made pre-existent, fulfils this office seems evident from the Gospel of Peter, where it is described as coming forth from the Sepulchre with Jesus (_Mem. Miss. Archéol. du Caire_, 1892, t. IX. fasc. 1, v. 10). Cf. too, Clem. Alex. _Paedagogus_, Bk III. c. 12, and _Strom._ Bk II. c. 20.

Footnote 476:

Ὁ μηνευτος. The word is not known in classical Greek (but cf. μηνυτής “a revealer”), and appears to have its root in μήν “the moon,” as the _measure_ of the month. From the Coptic word here translated “Precept,” we may guess it to be a personification of the Jewish Law or _Torah_ which, according to the Rabbis, before the creation of the world existed in the heavens. Later in the book it is said that it is by command of this power that Jeû places the aeons (p. 26, Copt.); that the souls of those who receive the mysteries of the light (_i.e._ the psychics) will have precedence in beatitude over those who belong to the places of the First Precept (p. 196, Copt.); that all the orders of beings of the Third χὠρημα are below him (p. 203, Copt.); and that he is “cut into seven mysteries,” which may mean that his name is spelled with seven letters (p. 219, Copt.).

Footnote 477:

Χάραγμαι. Are these the letters mentioned in last note?

Footnote 478:

Πρεσβευτής, properly, “ambassador” or “agent.” Doubtless a prototype of our sun. Elsewhere in the book, Jesus tells His disciples that He brought forth from Himself “at the beginning” power (not _a_ power), which He cast into the First Precept, “and the First Precept cast part of it into the Great Light, and the Great Light cast part of that which he received into the Five Parastatae, the last of whom breathed part of that which he received into the Kerasmos or Confusion” (p. 14, Copt.). The Great Light is also called the Χάραγμα of the Light, and is said to have remained without emanation (p. 219, Copt.).

Footnote 479:

Παραστάται, “Comrades” or “witnesses” or “helpers.” They can here hardly be anything else but the Five Planets. It is said later that it was the last Parastates who set Jeû and his five companions in the “Place of the Right Hand” (p. 193, Copt.). When the world is destroyed, Jesus is to take the perfect souls into this last Parastates where they are to reign with him (p. 230, Copt.) for 1000 years of light which are 365,000 of our years (p. 243, Copt.). Προηγούμενος “Forerunner” does not seem to occur in classical Greek.

Footnote 480:

We hear nothing more definite of these Five Trees, but they appear again in Manichaeism, and are mentioned in the Chinese treatise from Tun-huang, for which see Chap. XIII _infra_.

Footnote 481:

This is a most puzzling expression and seems to have baffled the scribe, as he speaks of them, when he comes to repeat the phrase (p. 216, Copt.), as the “Twin Saviours,” which is a classical epithet of the Dioscuri. In Pharaonic Egypt, Shu and Tefnut the pair of gods who were first brought into being by the Creator were sometimes called “The Twins.” See Naville, _Old Egyptian Faith_, p. 120. Cf. p. 171 _infra_.

Footnote 482:

It is evident from the context that we here begin the enumeration of the Powers of the Left, who are hylic or material and therefore the least worthy of the inhabitants of the heavens. According to Irenaeus, the Valentinians held that all of them were doomed to destruction. Τριῶν ὠν ὄντων, τὸ μὲν ὑλικὸν, ὃ καὶ ἀριστερὸν καλοῦσι, κατὰ ἀνάγκην ἀπὸλλυσθαι λέγουσιν, ἅτε μηδεμίαν ἐπιδέξασθαι πνοὴν ἀφθαρσίας δυνάμενον (Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 11, p. 51, Harvey). “There being three forms of existences, they say that the hylic, which they call the left hand, must be destroyed, inasmuch as it cannot receive any breath of incorruption.” So in the Bruce Papyrus to be presently mentioned, the “part of the left” is called the land of Death. At their head stands “the Great Unseen Propator,” who throughout the _Pistis Sophia_ proper is called by this title only, and occupies the same place with regard to the left that Iao does in respect of the middle, and Jeû of the right. In the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 359, Copt.) he is called by the name ἀγραμμαχαμαρεχ which frequently appears in the Magic Papyri. It is there spelt indifferently ακραμνικαμαρι, ακραμμαχαρι, ακραμμαχαμαρει, ακραμμαχαχαχαρι, and in a Latin inscription on a gold plate, _acramihamari_ (see Wessely, _Ephesia Grammata_, p. 22, for references), which last may be taken to be the more usual pronunciation. One is rather tempted to see in the name a corruption of ἀγραμματέον in the sense of “which cannot be written,” but I can find no authority for such a use of the word. As the ruler of the material Cosmos he might be taken for the Cosmocrator who, as we have seen, is called by Valentinus Diabolos or the Devil (but see n. 1, p. 152 _infra_). Yet he cannot be wholly evil like Beelzebuth for it is said in the text (p. 41, Copt.) that he and his consort Barbelo sing praises to the Powers of the Light. So in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 378, Copt.) he is represented as begging for purification and holiness when the Great Name of God is uttered. It is plain also from the statements in the text (pp. 43, 44, Copt.) that in the _Pistis Sophia_ he, Barbelo, and the Αὐθάδης or Arrogant Power make up a triad called the great τριδυναμεῖς or “Triple Powers” from whom are projected the powers called the “Twenty-four Invisibles.” In another document of the same MS. (p. 361, Copt.) a power from him is said to be bound in the planet Saturn.

Footnote 483:

This Εἱμαρμένη or “Destiny” is the sphere immediately above our firmament. It is evidently so called, because on passing through it the soul on its way to incarnation receives the Moira or impress of its own destiny, of which it cannot afterwards rid itself except by the grace of the mysteries or Valentinian sacraments. Cf. Chap. IX, n. 3, p. 115 _supra_.

Footnote 484:

Ἄρρητος. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 5, § 1, p. 99, Harvey. _Innominabilis_, Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 37. So Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk V. c. 10, says that God is ineffable, being incapable of being expressed even in His own power.

Footnote 485:

Χωρηματα: τόποι.

Footnote 486:

That [_i.e._ the First] mystery knoweth why there emanated all the places which are in the receptacle of the Ineffable One and also all which is in them, and why they went forth from the last limb of the Ineffable One.... These things I will tell you in the emanation of the universe. _Pist. Soph._ p. 225, Copt.

Footnote 487:

_Ibid._ p. 222, Copt.

Footnote 488:

_Ibid._ p. 127, Copt.

Footnote 489:

See Chap. IX, pp. 121, 122 _supra_.

Footnote 490:

Heb. vi. 19.

Footnote 491:

p. 203, Copt. Why there should be 24, when the dodecad or group of Aeons in the world above was only 12, it is difficult to say. But Hippolytus supplies a sort of explanation when he says (_op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 33, p. 292, Cruice): Ταῦτά ἐστιν ἃ λέγουσιν· ἔτι [δὲ] πρὸς τούτοις, ἀριθμητικὴν ποιούμενοι τὴν πᾶσαν αὐτῶν διδασκαλίαν, ὡς προεῖπον [τοὺς] ἐντὸς Πληρώματος Αἰῶνας τριάκοντα πάλιν ἐπιπροβεβληκέναι αὐτοῖς κατὰ ἀναλογίαν Αἰῶνας ἄλλους, ἵν’ ᾖ τὸ Πλήρωμα ἐν ἀριθμῷ τελείῳ συνηθροισμένον. Ὡς γὰρ οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ διεῖλον εἰς δώδεκα καὶ τριάκοντα καὶ ἑξήκοντα, καὶ λεπτὰ λεπτῶν εἰσὶν ἐκείνοις, δεδήλωται· οὕτως οὗ τοι τὰ ἐντὸς Πληρώματος ὑποδιαιροῦσιν. “This is what they say. But besides this, they make their whole teaching arithmetical, since they say that the thirty Aeons within the Pleroma again projected by analogy other Aeons, so that thereby the Pleroma may be gathered together in a perfect number. For the manner in which the Pythagoreans divide [the cosmos] into 12, 30, and 60 parts, and each of these into yet more minute ones, has been made plain” [see _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 28, p. 279, where Hippolytus tells us how Pythagoras divided each Sign of the Zodiac into 30 parts “which are days of the month, these last into 60 λεπτὰ, and so on”]. “In this way do they [the Valentinians] divide the things within the Pleroma.” Cf. Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος p. 364, Copt. In another book of the Philosophumena (Bk IV. c. 7 Περὶ τῆς ἀριθμετικῆς τέχνης) he explains how the Pythagoreans derived infinity from a single principle by a succession of odd and even or male and female numbers, in connection with which he quotes Simon Magus (_op. cit._ p. 132, Cruice). The way this was applied to names he shows in the chapter Περὶ μαθηματικῶν (_op. cit._ Βk IV. c. 11, pp. 77 _sqq._, Cruice) which is in fact a description of what in the Middle Ages was called Arithmomancy, or divination by numbers.

Footnote 492:

p. 224, Copt. See also p. 241, Copt.—a very curious passage where the Ineffable One is called “the God of Truth without foot” (cf. Osiris as a mummy) and is said to live apart from his “members.”

Footnote 493:

In the beginning of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 252, Copt.) it is said of the Ineffable that “there are many members, but one body.” But this statement is immediately followed by another that this is only said “as a pattern (παράδειγμα) and a likeness and a resemblance, but not in truth of shape” (p. 253, Copt.).

Footnote 494:

What he does say is that the Ineffable One has two χωρήματα or receptacles and that the second of these is the χώρημα of the First Mystery. It is, I think, probable that an attempt to describe both these χωρήματα is made in one of the documents of the Bruce Papyrus. See pp. 191, 192 _infra_.

Footnote 495:

In addition to the enumeration contained in the so-called interpretation of the mysterious “Five Words,” there appears in the 2nd part of the _Pistis Sophia_ (pp. 206 _sqq._ Copt.) a long rhapsody in which it is declared that a certain mystery knows why all the powers, stars, and heavenly “places” were made. These are here again set out _seriatim_, and as the order in the main corresponds with that in the five words translated in the text, it serves as a check upon this last. The order of the powers in the text was given in the article in the _Scottish Review_ before referred to, and, although this was written 20 years ago, I see no occasion to alter it.

Footnote 496:

It is the “last Parastates” who places Jeû and his companion in “the place of those who belong to the right hand according to the arrangement (_i.e._ οἰκονομία) of the Assembly of the Light which is in the Height of the Rulers of the Aeons and in the universes (κοσμοὶ) and every race which is therein” (p. 193, Copt.). A later revelation is promised as to these, but in the meantime it is said that Jeû emanated from the chosen or pure (εἰλικρινής) light of the first of the Five Trees (_loc. cit._).

Footnote 497:

See nn. 1 and 3, p. 141 _supra_. As has been said, it is difficult not to see in this “1st Precept” a personification of the Torah or Jewish Law.

Footnote 498:

See n. 3, p. 146 _supra_.

Footnote 499:

See n. 2, p. 136 _supra_.

Footnote 500:

So Secundus, Valentinus’ follower, taught according to Hippolytus (_v._ Chap. ΙΧ _supra_) “that there is a right and a left tetrad, _i.e._ light and darkness.” This may be taken to mean that the constitution of the light-world was repeated point for point in the world of darkness. The middle world is of course that where light and darkness mingle.

Footnote 501:

Jeû is generally called the ἐπίσκοπος or overseer of the Light. He it is who has placed the Rulers of the Aeons so that they always “behold the left” (p. 26, Copt.). He is also said to have bound “in the beginning” the rulers of the Aeons and of Destiny and of the Sphere in their respective places (p. 34, Copt.), and that each and every of them will remain in the τάξις or order and walk in the δρόμος or course in which he placed them. We also hear in the _Pistis Sophia_ proper of two “books of Jeû” “which Enoch wrote when the First Mystery spoke with him out of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge in the Paradise of Adam” (p. 246, Copt.). In the first part of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, however Jeû is described as “the First Man, the ἐπίσκοπος of the Light, and the πρεσβευτής or Ambassador of the First Precept” (p. 322, Copt.); and it is further said in the same book that “the Book of Jeû (not books) which Enoch wrote in Paradise when I (Jesus) spoke with him out of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge” was placed by His means in “the rock Ararad.” Jesus goes on to say that He placed “Kalapataurôth the ruler who is over Skemmut in which is the foot of Jeû, and he surrounds all rulers and destinies—I placed that ruler to guard the books of Jeû from the Flood and lest any of the rulers should destroy them out of envy” (p. 354, Copt.).

Footnote 502:

Melchizidek is very seldom mentioned in the _Pistis Sophia_, but when he is, it is always as the great παραλήμπτωρ or “inheritor” of the Light (p. 34, Copt.). Jesus describes how he comes among the Rulers of the Aeons at certain times and takes away their light, which he purifies (p. 35, Copt.). He is said to have emanated from the light of the 5th Tree of the Treasure House, as Jeû did from that of the 1st (p. 193, Copt.). In the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, he is called the great παραλημπτής or “receiver” of the Light (p. 292, Copt.). In the 2nd part of the last named document he is called Zorocothora Melchizidek, an epithet which C. W. King in _The Gnostics and their Remains_ translates “light-gatherer.” It is also said in the same 2nd part that “he and Jeû are the two great lights,” and that he is the πρεσβευτής or “Legate” of all the lights which are purified in the Rulers of the Aeons (p. 365, Copt.). We may perhaps see in him and Jeû the antitypes of which the Great Light and the First Precept are the paradigms. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 36, p. 391, Cruice, says that there was a sect, the followers of one Theodotus, a τραπεζίτης or money-changer, who said that there was “a greatest power named Melchizidek who was greater than Christ.” Pseudo-Tertullian repeats the same story and adds that Melchizidek is “a celestial virtue of great grace,” who does for heavenly angels and virtues what Christ does for men, having made himself “their intercessor and advocate.” See _auct. cit._ (probably Victorinus of Pettau) _Against all Heresies_, c. XXIV. p. 279, Oehl. He doubtless founded his opinion on the passage in the Hebrews. The name seems to mean “Holy King” Cf. the “King of Glory” of the Manichaeans, see Chap. XIII _infra_.

Footnote 503:

p. 35, Copt.

Footnote 504:

He is said to have emanated from the 2nd Tree (p. 193, Copt.) and is nowhere distinctly named. But one may perhaps guess from the order in which he occurs in the 2nd part of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος that his name was Zarazaz, evidently a cryptogram like those mentioned in n. 1, p. 139 _supra_. It is also said that the Rulers call him “Maskelli after the name of a strong (_i.e._ male) ruler of their own place (p. 370, Copt.).” This name of Maskelli, sometimes written Maskelli-maskellô, is frequently met with in the Magic Papyri. Cf. Wessely, _Ephesia Grammata_, p. 28.

Footnote 505:

They are said to have emanated from the 3rd and 4th Tree respectively (p. 193, Copt.).

Footnote 506:

p. 193, Copt. He is evidently called _the Good_ because there is a wicked Sabaoth sometimes called Sabaoth Adamas, and the Great because there is a Little Sabaoth the Good who seems to act as his messenger. It is this last who takes the power from the Great Sabaoth the Good which afterwards becomes the body of Jesus and “casts it into matter and Barbelo” (p. 127, Copt.). He seems to be set over or in some way identified with what is called the Gate of Life (p. 215, Copt.) both in the _Pistis Sophia_ and the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 292, Copt.).

Footnote 507:

p. 12, Copt., where he is oddly enough called the Little Iao the Good, I think by a clerical error. Later he is said to be “the great leader of the middle whom the Rulers call the Great Iao after the name of a great ruler in their own place” (p. 194, Copt.). He is described in the same way in the second part of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 371, Copt.).

Footnote 508:

See last note.

Footnote 509:

p. 12, Copt. This “power” is evidently the better part of man’s soul like the Logoi who dwell therein in the passage quoted above from Valentinus, see Chap. IX, p. 112 _supra_.

Footnote 510:

p. 194, Copt.

Footnote 511:

See n. 3, p. 137 _supra_.

Footnote 512:

So the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 321, Copt.).

Footnote 513:

The likeness of Mary the Mother and Mary Magdalene to the seven Virgins appears in the translation of Amélineau (_Pistis Sophia_, Paris, 1895, p. 60). Schwartze (p. 75, Lat.) puts it rather differently. See also Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ bd. 1, p. 75. The “receivers” of the Virgin of Light are mentioned on p. 292, Copt.

Footnote 514:

p. 184, Copt.

Footnote 515:

pp. 340, 341, Copt. As ⲒⲞϨ (ioh) is Coptic for the Moon, it is just possible that there may be a kind of pun here on this word and the name Iao. Osiris, whose name was often equated by the Alexandrian Jews with their own divine name Jaho or Jah, as in the Manethonian story of Osarsiph = Joseph, was also considered a Moon-god. Cf. the “Hymn of the Mysteries” given in Chap. VIII, where he is called “the holy horned moon of heaven.”

Footnote 516:

See note 1, p. 138 _supra_. The Bruce Papyrus (Amélineau, _Notice sur le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce_, Paris, 1882, p. 220) speaks of the “Thirteenth Aeon, where are the Great Unseen God and the Great Virgin of the Spirit (cf. the παρθενική πνεῦμα of Irenaeus) and the twenty-four emanations of the unseen God.”

Footnote 517:

See n. 2, p. 142 _supra_.

Footnote 518:

See