FOOTNOTES
[1] pp. [63], [117], [119]; Vol. II, 148, 150 infra.
[2] Hippolytus, like all Greek writers of his age, must have been entirely ignorant of the Egyptian religion of Pharaonic times, which was then extinct. The only “Egyptian” Mysteries of which he could have known anything were those of the Alexandrian Triad, Osiris, Isis, and Horus, for which see the translator’s Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, Cambridge, 1915, I, c. 2.
[3] The pre-Christian origins of Gnosticism and its relations with Christianity are fully dealt with in the work quoted in the last note.
[4] Save for a few sentences quoted in patristic writings, the only extant Gnostic works are the Coptic collection in the British Museum and the Bodleian at Oxford, known as the Pistis Sophia and the Bruce Papyrus respectively. There are said to be some other fragments of Coptic MSS. of Gnostic origin in Berlin which have not yet been published.
[5] An account by the present writer of this worship in Roman times is given in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for October 1917, pp. 695 ff.
[6] II, pp. 125 ff. infra.
[7] II, p. 124 infra.
[8] The facsimile of a page of the MS. is given in Bishop Wordsworth’s Hippolytus and the Church of Rome, London, 1880.
[9] B. E. Miller, Origenis Philosophumena sive Omnium Hæresium Refutatio, Oxford, 1851.
[10] L. Duncker and F. G. Schneidewin, Philosophumena, etc. Göttingen, 1856-1859.
[11] P. M. Cruice, Philosophumena, etc. Paris, 1860.
[13] Deutsche Zeitschrift für Christliche Wissenschaft und Christliches Leben, 1852.
[14] References to nearly all the contributions to this controversy are correctly given in the Prolegomena to Cruice’s edition, pp. x ff. An English translation of Dr. Döllinger’s Hippolytus und Kallistus was published by Plummer, Edinburgh, 1876, and brings the controversy up to date. Cf. also the Bibliography in Salmon’s article “Hippolytus Romanus” in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography (hereafter quoted as D.C.B.).
[15] See the English translation: Early History of the Christian Church, London, 1909, I, pp. 227 ff.
[16] This is confirmed by Dom. Chapman in the Catholic Encyclopedia, s. vv. “Hippolytus,” “Callistus.”
[17] The statue and its inscription are also reproduced by Bishop Wordsworth in the work above quoted.
[18] Hist. Eccles., VI, c. 20.
[19] Haer. Fab., III, 1.
[20] Peristeph II. For the chronological difficulty that this involves see Salmon, D.C.B., s.v. “Hippolytus Romanus.”
[21] Duchesne, op. cit., p. 233.
[22] “The Cross-references in the Philosophumena,” Hermathena, Dublin, No. XI, 1885, pp. 389 ff.
[23] “Die Gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts” in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, VI, (1890).
[24] Introduction à l’Étude du Gnosticisme, Paris, 1903, p. 68; Gnostiques et Gnosticisme, Paris, 1913, p. 167.
[25] The theory that all existing things come from an “indivisible point” which our text gives as that of Simon Magus and of Basilides reappears in the Bruce Papyrus. Basilides’ remark about only 1 in 1000 and 2 in 10,000 being fit for the higher mysteries is repeated verbatim in the Pistis Sophia, p. 354, Copt. Cf. Forerunners, II, 172, 292, n. 1.
[26] Scottish Review, Vol. XXII, No. 43 (July 1893).
[29] p. [41]; II, p. 83 infra.
[30] II, pp. 119, 151 infra.
[31] For the arithmomancy see p. [83] ff. infra; the borrowings from Sextus begin on p. [70], the tricks of the magicians on p. [92]. For other mistakes, see the quotation about the Furies in II, p. 23, which he ascribes to Pythagoras, but which is certainly from Heraclitus (as Plutarch tells us), and the Categories of Aristotle which a few pages earlier are also assigned to Pythagoras. His treatment of Josephus will be dealt with in its place.
[32] This is especially the case with the story of Callistus, as to which see II, pp. 124 ff. infra.
[33] Haer. xxxi., p. 205, Oehler.
[34] Haeret. fab. I, 17-24.
[35] πάλαι.
[36] In D.C.B., art. cit. supra.
[37] See Oehler’s edition of Tertullian’s works, II, 751 ff. The parallel passages are set out in convenient form in Bishop Wordsworth’s book before quoted.
[38] Études sur de nouveaux documents historiques empruntés à l’ouvrage récemment découvert des Philosophumena, Paris, 1853.
[39] II, pp. 43, 47 infra.
[40] ὁμιλοῦντος Εἰρηναίου. For the whole quotation, see Photius, Bibliotheca, 121 (Bekker’s ed.).
[41] Tertullian (Oehler’s ed.), II, 751. St. Jerome in quoting this passage says the heretics have mangled the Gospel.
[42] Thus the tractate makes Simon Magus call his Helena Sophia, and says that Basilides named his Supreme God Abraxas. It knows nothing of the God-who-is-not and the three Sonhoods of our text: and it gives an entirely different account of the Sethians, whom it calls Sethitæ, and says that they identified Christ with Seth. In this heresy, too, it introduces Sophia, and makes her the author of the Flood.
[43] Euseb., Hist. Eccles. IV, c. 22. He is quoting Hegesippus. See also Origen contra Celsum, VI, c. 11.
[44] II, p. 3 infra.
[45] II, pp. 61 ff. infra.
[46] pp. [103], [119]; II, pp. 1, 57, 148, 149 infra.
[49] II, p. 97 infra.
[50] II, p. 116 infra.
[53] II, p. 20. In II, p. 49, it is mentioned in connection with the heresy of Marcus, and on p. 104 the same theory is attributed to the “Egyptians.”
[54] p. [66]; II, pp. 21, 64 infra.
[55] ἀγαπητοί, p. [113] and p. [180] infra. It also occurs on p. 125 of Vol. II in the same connection.
[56] λόγος, pp. [107] and [120] infra. He uses the word in the same sense on p. [113].
[59] Pseudo-Hieronymus, Isidorus Hispalensis, and Honorius Augustodunensis, like Epiphanius, begin their catalogues of heresies with the Jewish and Samaritan sects. Philastrius leads off with the Ophites and Sethians whom he declares to be pre-Christian, and then goes on to Dositheus, and the Jewish “heresies” before coming to Simon Magus. Pseudo-Augustine and Prædestinatus begin with Simon Magus and include no pre-Christian sects. See Oehler, Corpus Hæreseologicus, Berlin, 1866, t. i.
[60] II, p. 150 infra.
[61] δόγματα, p. cit.
[62] So Origen, Cont. Cels., VI, 24, speaks of “the very insignificant sect called Ophites.”
[63] II, p. 116 infra, where he says that he did not think them worth refuting.
[64] For the search made both by pagan and Christian inquisitors for their opponents’ books, see Forerunners, II, 12.
[66] Cf. Salmon in D.C.B., s.v. “Hippolytus Romanus.”
[67] Hippolytus’ denial of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews probably appeared in some work other than our text. Or it may have been cut out by the scribe as offensive to orthodoxy.
[68] A flagrant case is to be found in p. 81 Cr. where Π (P) has, according to Schneidewin, been written for R, a mistake that could only be made by one used to Roman letters. Cf. Serpens and serviens, p. 487 Cr.
[69] ἀφότε for ἀφ᾽οὗ, p. 453 Cr.
[70] e. g. φυσιογονική (p. 9 Cr.), κοπιαταὶ (p. 86), ἰχθυοκόλλα (p. 103), ἀρχανθρώπος (p. 153), ἀπρονοήτος (p. 176), κλεψιλόγος (p. 370), πρωτογενέτειρα (p. 489), κατιδιοποιούμενος (p. 500), ἀδίστακτος (p. 511), ταρταρούχος (p. 523).
[73] II, p. 99 infra.
[74] II, pp. 177 ff.
[75] See Augustine’s sermon in Hypatia.
[78] II, p. 2 infra.
[79] II, p. 99 infra.
[80] II, p. 175 infra.
[81] See pp. [122], [133], [134], [135], [137], [142], [143] infra.
[84] II, p. 102.
[85] II, p. 109.
[86] See Forerunners, I, lxi ff.
[87] This applies to the chief Peratic author quoted. The long catalogue connecting personages in the Greek mythology with particular stars is, as is said later, by another hand, and is introduced by a bombastic utterance like that attributed to Simon Magus.
[88] Hippolytus attributes it to the Orphics; but see de Faye for another explanation.
[89] Forerunners, II, 49.
[90] Justinus is left out of the account because he does not seem to have been an Ophite at all. The Serpent in his system is entirely evil, and therefore not an object of worship, and his sect is probably much later than the other three in the same book.
[91] Acts of Paul and Thekla, passim.
[92] E. A. T. Wallis Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in Dialect of Upper Egypt, London, 1915, pp. 579 ff.
BOOK I[1]
THE PHILOSOPHERS
p. 1,
Cruice.These are the contents[2] of the First Part[3] of the Refutation of all Heresies;
What were the tenets of the natural philosophers and who these were; and what those of the ethicists and who these were; and what those of the dialecticians and who the dialecticians were.
Now the natural philosophers mentioned are Thales, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Parmenides, Leucippus, Democritus, Xenophanes, Ecphantus, and p. 2. Hippo. The ethicists are Socrates, pupil of Archelaus the physicist and Plato, pupil of Socrates. These mingled together the three kinds of philosophy. The dialecticians are Aristotle, pupil of Plato and the founder of dialectics, and the Stoics Chrysippus and Zeno.
Epicurus, however, maintained an opinion almost exactly contrary to all these. So did Pyrrho the Academic[4] who asserts the incomprehensibility of all things. There are also the Brachmans[5] among the Indians, the Druids among the Celts, and Hesiod.