FOOTNOTES
[1] The promises before noted at the end of Books VIII and IX to declare the Doctrine of Truth says nothing of these epitomes, nor do they always accord with the earlier Books which may be supposed to be here epitomized. For a suggested explanation of this discrepancy see Introduction, Vol. I, pp. [18], [19] supra. It should also be noted that, while the author omits here any detailed mention of the contents of Books II, III, and IV, he can hardly have had Book I before his eyes at the time of writing, or he would have referred to it directly instead of quoting as he does from Sextus Empiricus. As has been said in the Introduction, the “epitome of the heresies” bears closer relation to Books V-IX, although it omits several heresies included in the epitomized books. That the writer, if not Hippolytus himself, is at any rate writing in his name, is plain from the wording of chap. 5, infra, and we can hardly suppose a forger so reckless as not to have read the earlier Books before attempting to epitomize them. On the other hand, it is perfectly conceivable that Hippolytus had in his possession notes from which his earlier Books were written, and that of these only a part remained when he set to work to write Book X. It would seem, therefore, that only some such hypothesis as that given in the Introduction really fits the case.
As to the style of the Book it does not differ materially from that of the others, save in one particular. This is the frequent omission of the definite article, which is so frequent as to arouse suspicion that the scribe may have been here translating from a Latin rather than copying from a Greek original.
[2] This is the main reason for supposing that this Book is that called the Labyrinth which Photius says was by the author of the work On the Universe, attributed by the list on the chair to Hippolytus. Cf. Salmon in D.C.B., “Hippolytus Romanus.”
[3] All these were probably described in the missing Books II and III, together with Book IV, supra.
[4] ἀκαλλώπιστος.
[5] Book I only is concerned with the teachings of the Greek philosophers; but Books II and III must, according to the promise in Vol. I, pp. [63], [64], have contained an exposition of the mystic rites and astrological doctrine, and Book IV is entirely taken up with magic and divination. This is confirmed by the statement in Vol. I, p. [119]. Hippolytus must therefore have forgotten this when writing Book X, or at any rate did not have the earlier Books before him.
[6] From here to the end of the section on p. 479 Cr., is a copy from Sextus Empiricus’ work, Adversus Physicos, c. 10. So close is this that we are able by its aid to correct by it the faulty text of Sextus, and vice versâ. Sextus, as a sceptic, was of course as much opposed to the study of nature as Hippolytus, and was therefore only interested in showing the discrepancies among its teachers. But how does this make the quotation from him an “epitome”?
[7] Not mentioned in Book I.
[8] Karsten, VIII, p. 45.
[9] Il., XIV, 201.
[10] Il., VII, 99.
[11] Karsten, IX, p. 49.
[12] Said to be a quotation from Euripides’ Hymns.
[13] Not mentioned in Book I.
[14] Cf. pp. [83], [84] supra.
[15] Not mentioned in Book I.
[16] Not mentioned in Book I.
[17] φυσιολογία.
[18] Cf. p. 371 Cr.
[19] In this chapter on the Naassenes, Hippolytus may be supposed to have had before him either the whole of Book V or the notes from which it was written. We may see, therefore, from this, what his idea of an epitome is. He does not try to condense his former statements so as to give us a bird’s-eye view of the whole heresy, but picks out from them a few sentences which seem to him of special importance. Hence it is only useful to us as a means of checking the text, and brings us no nearer to an appreciation of the doctrines of the sect.
[20] Cf. Vol. I, p. [69] supra, where this Ademes is called Akembes and both he and Euphrates are mentioned as astrologers only. In Vol. I, p. [149] also the order is reversed and Ademes is called Celbes. Theodoret, Haer. Fab., I, 17, quotes this chapter almost verbatim, thereby showing that it was Book X and not Book V which he copied.
[21] Words in ( ) added from Theodoret, ubi cit.
[22] Cf. Vol. I, pp. [146]-[148] supra, which this chapter follows closely.
[23] Words in ( ) added from Vol. I, p. [161] supra. Nearly four lines are wanting here which can be filled from the page quoted.
[24] Throughout this chapter, the summarizer copies closely the former account of the Sethians, for which see Vol. I, pp. [160]-[169] supra. I have not thought it worth while to draw attention to the slight differences in readings, but it is plain that the meaning in both cases was as obscure to the summarizer as it is to us.
[25] φρόνησις. This is evidently taken from the account of Simon’s doctrine in Book VI, c. 12 (p. [6] supra), which says that the unseen parts of the fire have φρόνησις “and a share of mind,” without mention of the seen parts. The rest of this chapter, with the exception of the last sentence attributing supreme power to Simon, is substantially, but not exactly word for word, identical with c. 12 of Book VI. Cf. pp. 247, 250 and 259 Cr.
[26] The only ground for this assertion seems to be Simon’s statement to Helen of Tyre (see p. [15] supra), that he was the “Power over all things,” which seems to be explained by that on p. [12] supra, that the Power which Stands, etc., is potentially in all things.
[27] πρωτογενέτειραν. While in Book VI, of which these chapters profess to be a summary, the author describes Nous and Aletheia with their projectors as the descendants of Bythos alone, he here gives an account of the rival opinion that Bythos had a spouse called Sigê, and he reckons her in with her descendants so as to make up the number of eight.
[28] This is, of course, the Horos of Book VI.
[29] This word is also used in Book VI (see p. 286 Cr.), as the exact converse of the Pleroma or Fulness.
[30] It is curious that throughout this chapter there is no attempt to quote directly from Book VI, and that it is evidently the opinions of the Italic school of Valentinus and not the Anatolic that the author is here summarizing. In the next chapter, as will be seen, he resumes direct quotations.
[31] So far, the author is transcribing almost verbatim the statements in Book VII, cf. pp. 346-350 Cr.
[32] This is not said of the Holy Spirit in Book VII, cf. pp. [70], [71] supra.
[33] This, too, is a new statement, although it may perhaps be implied from what is said on pp. [72], [73] and [76] supra.
[35] Save as before noted, everything in this chapter is to be found in the account of Basilides given in Book VII. The few exceptions show that the summarizer had assimilated its contents and an intelligent knowledge of Basilides’ teaching. He entirely omits, however, the prediction of the Great Ignorance.
[36] The summarizer here takes Justinus from among the Ophites of Book V, where he is to be found in the earlier part of the text, and puts him after Basilides.
[37] Reading αὐτῇς for αὐτοῦ.
[38] These are omitted from the text, possibly because the summarizer did not wish to repeat names which might be used in magic. Cruice supplies them in his text from Book V, Vol. I, p. [173] supra, which see.
[39] The words in round brackets ( ) are as elsewhere in this chapter supplied by Cruice from Book V.
[40] Cf. Vol. I, p. [175] supra.
[41] There is nothing in this chapter which is not taken from the account of Justinus’ doctrines in Book V, nor anything to show that the summarizer had any knowledge of these except from this.
[42] τινὰς τινῶν πρώτους!
[43] So the Codex. Cruice has γεννητόν, “begotten,” but I see no reason for the alteration.
[44] κόσμησιν. Perhaps “adornment.”
[45] ἰδέαι.
[47] ἐκτύπωμα.
[48] ἰδέαι. As before he means “patterns” or “exemplars.”
[49] παραγεννηθῆναι.
[50] Here again there is nothing which cannot be found in Book VIII (see pp. [99]-[105] supra), from which this chapter is evidently taken. As has before been said, the summarizer to arrive at this has omitted all mention of Satornilus, Menander and Carpocrates, while the other systems mentioned in Book VII, he has placed after the Docetae instead of before them.
[51] The summarizer here uses for the first time in our text the expression “First Man,” which plays so large a part in later heresies such as Manichæism. For its early appearance in Western Asia and its influence see Bousset’s Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, c. 4, “Der Urmensch,” and Forerunners, I, p. lxi, and II, pp. 292, 293.
[52] πάθη. He evidently refers to the ten plagues as on p. [109] supra.
[53] He omits the “My God ... my understanding” of the letter to Theophrastus, on p. [110] supra.
[54] He alters the ἐξιδιοποιούμενος (cf. p. 415 Cr.) to κατιδιοποιούμενος—a fair proof of the inaccuracy of the scribe. Except for the inaccuracies noted, however, there is no statement in this summary which cannot be found in Book VIII, pp. [106]-[111] supra.
[55] For these few lines, the summarizer has evidently not taken the trouble to refer to the author’s statements about Tatian in Book VIII, p. [111] supra. He now omits all reference to Justin Martyr, there said to be Tatian’s teacher, and to Tatian’s peculiar ideas about the salvation of Adam; while he introduces a special world-creating aeon not mentioned elsewhere.
[56] Here he omits the heresies of the Quartodecimans and the Encratites, which receive notice in Book VIII, pp. [113], [115], [116] supra, and passes on to Marcion, who was a contemporary of Valentinus. It is plain, therefore, that he does not attempt in the summary to keep either to order of date or to that of the earlier books.
[57] οὐδὲν ὅλως πεποιηκέναι. So the Codex. Some word seems to be missing; but perhaps the passage should read οὐδὲν τῶν ὅλων, “none of the universals.”
[58] ἀλόγως, “unreasonably.”
[59] Matt. vii. 18.
[60] This also is certainly not taken from the chapters on Marcion in Book VII, pp. [82]-[90] supra, which are mainly devoted to an attempt to prove Marcion to have plagiarized from Empedocles. Nor is it from Irenæus or from the tractate Adversus omnes hæreses.
[61] συντάγματα, “summaries”?
[62] The substance of this can be found in the account of Apelles in Book VII, pp. [96]-[97] supra; but the summarizer does not use the phrases of the earlier book, and he can hardly have had it before him.
[63] As before (p. 389 Cr.), Macmahon here translates καὶ δυνάμεις ἐπιτελέσαι, “he wrought miracles.”
[64] This, on the other hand, is taken almost verbatim from c. 33 of Book VII (pp. [92], [93] supra), the few slight differences between the two chapters being not other than a careless scribe might be expected to make.
[65] This also from Book VII, p. [93] supra, but slightly condensed.
[66] This also appears to be condensed from the account of Theodotus in Book VII, pp. [93], [94] supra. The summarizer adds to it the alleged denial by Theodotus of Christ’s divinity, which does not appear in Book VII.
[67] This, too, is not inconsistent with the account of “other Theodotians” in Book VII, pp [94], [95] supra, but omits all reference to the Nicolaitans.
[68] Here the summarizer reverts to Book VIII, pp. [113], [114] supra, from which his account of the Phrygians or Montanists appears to be taken. The phrases used are not identical, and while Book VIII merely says that the Montanist heresy agrees with the Patripassianism of the Noetian, the Summary declares that the first was absolutely derived from the second.
[69] κατὰ καιροὺς καλούμενον πρὸς τὰ συμβαίνοντα. Cf. the καλούμενον κατὰ χρόνων τροπήν, p. 434 Cr. Otherwise this chapter seems to be a condensed paraphrase rather than a series of extracts from Book IX, the summarizer having here added together the “heresies” so called of Noetus and Callistus. As mentioned in the Introduction, he is careful not to mention that Callistus was a Pope, and in the last sentence but one, he omits the name of Sabellius which is mentioned in the earlier book. Cf. p. [130] supra.
[70] He now reverts to Hermogenes, against whom Tertullian wrote, and who must therefore in the time of Callistus have long been dead. The few lines given here correspond to the opening sentences of the chapter on this heretic in Book VIII, p. [112] supra, which see.
[71] μεταγγιζόμενον, lit., “poured” as from one vessel into another—a considerable amplification of the statement in Book IX, p. [134] supra.
[72] Water and Earth are the only two “elements” mentioned in the exorcisms attributed to the Elchesaites in Book IX, p. [135] supra.
[73] The statements in this account of the Elchesaites are all to be found in the description of them in Book IX, pp. [132]-[138] supra; but the same words are not used, and there is nothing to show that the summarizer had the earlier book before him at the time of writing.
[74] Cruice suggests that the considerable lacuna that there evidently is here was filled by a summary of the chapters on the Jewish sects with which Book IX ends (see pp. 455-472 Cr.). This hardly seems to correspond with the form of what is left; but it is not impossible that we have here excerpts from the book on chronology which we know Hippolytus to have written. Another suggestion is that what follows is from his Commentary on Genesis, of which a few fragments survive.
[75] Were these ἑτέροι λόγοι the treatise “On the All” which Hippolytus wrote?
[76] As throughout the words in round brackets ( ) are supplied by Cruice. In this chapter they are mainly taken from Gen. xi., which see.
[77] Καὰθ. In all these names I have used the spelling of the A. V. as being more familiar to the general reader than that of the LXX.
[78] If Abraham did not beget Isaac until he had been twenty-five years in Canaan, the figures would be for Abraham twenty-five, for Isaac sixty, for Jacob eighty-seven, for Levi forty, for Kohath four. But this makes 216 at least.
[79] So the fragment of the Chronicon attributed to Hippolytus in Fabricius, S. Hippolyt. Opera, p. 50, which perhaps goes to show the authorship of the Summary.
[80] φιλομαθέσιν.
[81] ἐπὶ τούτων, that is reckoning from Noah to Eber.
[82] Cruice would read 495 years.
[83] ἐκτεθείμεθα. The phrase that he uses everywhere in the book for statements in this work. See n. on previous page.
[84] σοφία. This is in pursuance of Hippolytus’ favourite theory that philosophy was the source of all heresy.
[85] ἀρξάντων. Macmahon translates “were born,” but I think the word is never used in that sense by Hippolytus.
[86] ῥῆμα Θεοῦ. An unusual phrase here.
[87] Gen. i, 23.
[88] Reading γένους with the Codex instead of the γένος of Cruice.
[89] Because these “God-fearing men” were before the Flood, and the others could only have descended from Shem, Ham or Japhet.
[90] This seems to be the author’s meaning, but the reading is not very well settled. Cruice translates qui non elegantibus verbis divina coluimus, which Macmahon follows.
[91] This is, of course, an allusion to the theories of the “Barbarians” on the Deity set out in Book IV. Cf. Vol. I, p. [104] supra.
[92] It is curious that throughout this chapter he uses “spirit” as the fourth element instead of “air.” So Photius, quoting from the work “On the All,” which is attributed to Hippolytus.
[93] This work is known to us by the list on the chair mentioned in the Introduction, and by a notice by Photius, who seems to have read the work under the name of Josephus. Cf. Salmon in D. C. B., s.n. “Hippolytus Romanus.”
[94] This Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος which Philo distinguishes from the Λόγος προφορικός seems to have been a phrase first adopted into Christian theology by Theophilus of Antioch.
[95] ἅμα.
[96] τὸ κατὰ ἕν.
[97] ὑπουργῇ.
[98] Like most of the ancients, Hippolytus does not know that fish have sex.
[99] Cf. Matt. xxv. 21, 23; Luke xix. 17.
[100] ἐπιδέχεται λύσιν, “receives dissolution.”
[101] αὐτεξούσιον, “his own authority”?
[102] i. e. to his passions. See p. [178] infra.
[103] πάντα ἔχον τὰ ἐναντία.
[104] So Cruice. Macmahon says, “which evil is not consummated except you actually commit some piece of wickedness,” But the reading is very uncertain.
[105] τί καὶ νόμος ὡρίζετο, “why was the Law enacted?”
[106] πρὸ ἑωσφόρου, “Before the Morning Star.” Cf. 2 Peter i. 18, 19.
[107] διὰ τὸ προφαίνειν. The real derivation is from πρόφημι.
[108] Cruice points out the likeness between this doctrine of the Word speaking through the Prophets, and that with which Origen begins his treatise, Περὶ Ἀρχῶν (I, § 1), that before the Incarnation “Christ, the Word of God, was in Moses and the prophets.” It was doubtless this, and the likeness between the theory of the origin of evil as given on pp. 518, 519 Cr. of our text, and that of Origen in Joann, II, 7, 8, which caused some commentator to write in the margin of the Codex, Ὠριγένης καὶ Ὠριγένους δόξα: “Origen and Origen’s opinions.” The words used in the two cases are too unlike to suggest any identity of authorship or conscious borrowing; but it is perfectly probable that Origen when in Rome communicated with Hippolytus as head of the Greek-speaking community there, and that they had many ideas in common. This would account at once for the likeness between the passages noted and for the confusion between Hippolytus and Origen as the author of the Philosophumena, while it throws new light on Origen’s condemnation for heresy.
[109] ἑκουσίῳ προαιρέσει.
[110] Reading with Cruice πεφυρακότα for the πεφορηκότα of Miller. Although Miller’s reading accords with the Scriptural “put on the old man,” the allusion is evidently to the φυράμα of a few lines lower down.
[111] This is evidently an allusion to the extraordinary theory of Hippolytus’ master, Irenæus (Book II, c. 33, § 3, p. 331, Harvey), that Christ having suffered at 30 years old lived and taught after the Resurrection until He was “40 or 50,” thus “passing through every age.” Cf. Forerunners, II, p. 61 and note.
[112] σκόπον, “arm” or “goal.”
[113] φυράμα, lit., “dough” or plastic substance.
[114] An allusion to the Word on the Cross.
[115] περὶ τὸν Θεῖον.
[116] It is curious that he does not call them Romans.
[117] The Greek name for the province called by the Romans Africa.
[118] He is here repeating the phrase used on p. [150], with which he begins this Book. Its repetition shows the continuity of this last and that it was all written at the same time and by the same author.
[119] Ταρταρούχων ἀγγέλων κολαστῶν. Tartaruchian is a Coptic form. See Budge’s Miscellaneous Texts of Upper Egypt, 1915, p. 590.
[120] ὁμιλητης Θεοῦ, Cr. familiaris, Macm., “companion of.”
[121] οὐ πτωχεύει. The phrase has given much concern to commentators. Cruice suggests δὲ γὰρ πολυωρεῖ, “has a great esteem for thee.” Wordsworth translates “has a longing for thee.” Macmahon “(by such signal condescension) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection.” The phrase is probably an allusion to the heathen notion formally stated by Aelius Aristides and others that the gods had need of the sacrifices of mortals.