[45] The source of this chapter can hardly have been a written book or MS. The style is distinctly that of Hippolytus himself; the passion for plays on words which he has before exhibited, but has kept under restraint while quoting from serious writers like Basilides and Valentinus, here resumes its sway; and he adds to it a fancy for putting several nominatives in apposition without the τουτέστι which he has heretofore generally employed. This, and the nature of the rhetoric all go to show that he is here quoting not from a written, but from a spoken discourse. The author of this is of course unknown to us; and Hippolytus, who may very likely have forgotten his name, gives us no clue to his identity; but it is fairly clear that he must have been a follower of Valentinus. The Three Aeons who went forth from the first ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων correspond to the Nous, Logos and Anthropos who rule over the Valentinian Ogdoad, Decad and Dodecad, and the care taken to bring the number of Aeons up to thirty practically settles this, while the existence of Horos is hinted at, and that of the Sophia is barred only by the attribution of both sexes to all the Aeons. Perhaps, however, the most striking proof of Valentinianism is the myth of all the Aeons coalescing to produce the Jesus who brings salvation, a myth which is not to be found in any other system. If the theory be accepted that Hippolytus’ source for the chapter was a Valentinian sermon, the name of Julius Cassianus as its author deserves consideration. He is described by Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, 13, sqq.) as the founder of Docetism, and as connected with the school of Valentinus, while certain Logia quoted by him appear also in the Valentinian Excerpta Theodoti. For other particulars about him see D.C.B., s.nn. “Cassianus” and “Docetism.”
[46] This “Monoimus Arabs” is known to no other heresiologist save Theodoret who here as elsewhere probably copied from Hippolytus. Salmon (D.C.B., s.n. “Monoimus”) suggests that the name may cover the Jewish appellation of Menahem, which is not unlikely. His system as here disclosed has this in common with that of the Ophites or Naassenes of Book V that both begin with a Divine Being called “Man” for no other assigned reason than that his manifestation here below is known as the Son of Man. He is not, however, here called Adamas as with the Naassenes, and the remark about his being at once father and mother is not necessarily connected with the Naassene hymn quoted on p. 140 Cr. For the rest, there is, pace Salmon, nothing distinctly Christian about Monoimus’ doctrine, and although the passage from Colossians about the Pleroma dwelling in the Son of Man is here again introduced, the context makes it possible that this is the comment of Hippolytus rather than a direct quotation. On the other hand, Monoimus several times speaks slightingly of those who believe that the Son of Man was born of a woman, and he shows a reverence for the Law and the Passover which a Christian of the second century would hardly have exhibited. His opinions seem in fact to be more pantheistic than Christian or Judaic, although as Macmahon truly remarks, his similes about the Creation are not far removed from those of Philo. His remarks about numbers have possibly been corrupted in the copy, and are unintelligible as they stand; but it is not unlikely that they cover some early Cabalistic notions and that his “Perfect Man” may be the Adam Cadmon of the Cabala.
[47] γεγένηται μακράν, longe abest, Cruice, “was far removed,” Macm.
[48] This line does not occur in our editions of Homer. It is apparently a conflation of the statement in Il., XIV 201 that Oceanus is the “Father of the Gods” and that in l. 246 that he is the “Father of them all.”
[49] Ἦν καὶ ἐγένετο. This has been thought a quotation from St. John’s opening chapter, but the parallel is not very close. As Salmon (art. cit.) points out, it signifies Being and Becoming.
[50] πρὸς ἑαυτήν.
[51] The Naassene hymn in Vol. I, p. [120] supra runs: “From thee comes father and through thee mother, two immortal names, parents of Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, man of mighty name!” It is quite possible that Hippolytus, remembering this, is merely here repeating part of it as comment and without attributing the quotation to Monoimus.
[52] Cruice points out that this κεραία or tittle is the acute accent placed over a letter of the Greek alphabet which converts it into a numeral. Thus, ι = Iota, ί = 10.
[53] Cf. Col. i. 19, “For it pleased (the Father) that in Him the whole fulness should dwell.”
[54] Salmon (art. cit.) points out that this is “at first sight mere pantheism.” It is difficult to put any other construction upon it.