Post on 07-Apr-2018
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 1/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 2/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 3/138
j.BINDING LIST WW 1 5 1928
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 4/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 5/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 6/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 7/138
AND STUDIES
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE
EDITED BY
J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.
FELLOW or CHRIST S COLLEGE CAMBBIDGE
VOL. I.
THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES
THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA
I
THE LORD S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCHTHE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 8/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 9/138
TEXTS AND STUDIES 3CONTRIBUTIONS TO
BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE
EDITED BY
J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.
FELLOW OF CHBIST S COLLEGE CAMBKIDOE
VOL.I.
No. 4. THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 10/138
Sontum: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,CAMBKIDGE UNIVEKSITY PRESS WAEEHOU
AVE MAEIA LANE.
DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO,
F. A. BROCKHAUS.
gorfe : MACMILLAN AND CO.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 11/138
THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON
NEWLY EDITED FROM THE MSS.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
BY
A. E. BROOKE M.A.
FELLOW OF KING S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 12/138
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 13/138
PATRI CARISSIMO
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 14/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 15/138
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGES
INTRODUCTION 1-49
The MSS. of Origen s Commentaries on S. John ... 1
The Date and Teaching of Heracleon 31
TEXT AND NOTES 50-103
ADDITIONAL NOTES 104-107
Heracleon and Valentinus 104
Collation of the Excerpta ex Theodoto . . . 105
On the Text of Fragment 24 . .106
INDICES 108-112
Index of passages of Scripture quoted, explained, or referred
to by Heracleon 108
Index of Greek words in the Fragments of Heracleon . . 109
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 16/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 17/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN.
OF the extant manuscripts of the Commentaries on S. John,
three only have been used by the editors. So far as I have been
able to discover, there are seven in existence. If we count Thorn-
dike s transcription of the Bodleian Manuscript, there are eight.
The existence of a ninth is doubtful, but this question will be
more easily discussed later on. The three which seem to have
been used by the editors are at Paris, Rome and Oxford. The
similarity of the text contained in them and the fact that they all
contained many common lacunae, pointed to their derivation from
a near common ancestor. The following pages are an attempt to
shew that this ancestor still exists, though unfortunately in a bad
state of preservation, in the Library at Munich.
The Manuscripts are as follows :
I. Codex Monacensis. In the MunichState
Library,Graec.
CXCI;thus described in the Catalogue,
"
Bombycinus charta obso-
leta et laesa atramento flavescente literis minutis et elegantibus
frequenti abbreviatione in folio, ff. 305, saec. xm. foliorum ordine
turbato male conservatus et inscriptus (/>uX. pi/3 , Origenis Comm.
in Matt, et Jn."
Of the Commentaries on S. John it contains Bks. 1. 2. 6. 10.
13. 19. 20. 28. 32(33 according
to Hardt s Catalogue, but this is
an error). Thus the MS. follows the true division of the Books.
The Ferrarian division (that invented or adopted by Ambrosius
Ferrarius in his translation) into 32 books is added in the margin
by a later hand.
Minuscules are used, hanging from ruled lines, there being one
column of 30 lines on each page, in the Commentaries on S. John.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 18/138
2 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
The Commentaries on S. Matthew are in another hand and contain
36 lines on a page. In both red semi-capitals are often used at
the beginning of sentences, but not uniformly. The MS. is stained
at the top and bottom, and worm-eaten in many places. The order
of the folios in S. Matthew is much confused, and one or two pages
are wanting.
The title-page of the MS. has the following description :
"Origenisin D. Matt. Ev. tomus 11 init. mut. 12. 13. 14. 15.
16. et in evang. Johann. torn. 1. 2. 6. 9. 13. 19. 20. 32."
In the middle of the page are the arms, below which is written :
"Ex electorali Bibliotheca sereniss. utriusque Bavariae Ducum."
This description is inaccurate. Most of Bk. x. of the Comm.
in Matt, is there, and also Bk. xvii. And with regard to the
Comm. in Joann. 9 is a mistake for 10, and 28 should have been
inserted.
Huet mentions a MS. of the Commentaries on S. Matthew in
his Origeniana m. iii. 12. "In Catalogo librorum ducis Bavariae
notatur Tomus Undecimus initio quoque mutilus cum proxime
sequentibus quinque."And as to the Commentaries on S. John he
was again misinformed. "Eosdem(i.e.
1. 2. 6. 10. 13. 19. 20. 28.
32) complectitur Tomos praeter decimum et vigesimum octavum
rnemoratus liber in bibliothecae BavaricaeCatalogo" (in. iii. 14).
The 10th and the 28th books are contained, as well as the rest, in
the Manuscript. The Catalogue which he used must have had
the same mistakes which occur on the title-page of the MS.
The Commentaries on S. John are preceded by a short preface
stating that in the archetype of the MS. were several marginal
notes drawing attention to Origen s blasphemies, which, the scribe
says, he has copied as he found them.
II. Codex Venetus. In the Bibliotheca Marciana at Venice,
Graec. 32. The title as
given
in the MS. itself is
f1
topiyevovs e^rjyrjo-is et? TO Kara MarOalov teal tear Itodwvfp
KTrifJia /3i]<ro-apla)vos Kap$r)va\. rwv Toa/cXtov.
The MS. is dated 1374. It is written in minuscules hanging
from ruled lines, with one column of 36 lines on a page, and about
60 letters in each line. It consists of ff. 330 of which ff. 1117contain the Comm. in Matt. Bks. 10 17 (inclusive). F. 118 con
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 19/138
THE MSS. OF ORTGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 3
ending KOI avOis atywpeOa. This preface has nothing to do with
the preface in the Munich Codex concerning the marginal notes in
its ancestor. The words rov ySao-tXew? at the head of this preface
point probably to some connexion with Constantinople. Ff. 112
(recto) 294 (verso) contain the Commentaries on S. John. So
far the folios are numbered. The remainder, to 330, are left blank
and unnumbered.
This MS. was used by Ambrosius Ferrarius, who in A.D. 1551
translated the Commentaries on S. John into Latin. They are
divided in the MS. into 32 books." A callido librario in Tomos
triginta duos distributus fuit, hac arte lacunas et hiatus celare, et
apud incautos dissimulare, et pro integro venditare volente," says
Huet. The fraud is sufficiently patent; if conviction were necessary,
we have only to look at the fragments quoted as from the fourth
and fifth books of the Commentaries in the Philocalia. The diver
gences between the text of this MS. and Ferrarius s translation are
not more than can be accounted for by the loose and paraphrastic
character of translations of that time, or by the necessity of original
composition to which he was sometimes reduced in consequence of
his inability to understand the Greek, which is in some places too
corrupt for conjecture.
At the end of the MS. the following note has been added :
"
Fuit copiatus per Georgium Triphoninm
di
Maluasiae et finitto ad X Ottobr.1555."
To this we shall have occasion to refer when we are dealing
with the seventh manuscript. The same scribe is known to have
been working at Venice also in 1548 (see Gardthausen, Griechische
Palaeographie, p. 322).
III. Codex Regius. Graec. CDLV. in the Bibliotheque Natio-
nale at Paris;thus described in the manuscript itself:
f flpiyevovs rwv et? TO Kara Iwdvvrjv evayye\Lov
*f rov avrov et? TO Kara MarBatov TO/AOL e drro rov Setcdrov
ro/jLov avev dp%f)s oWo? yite^ptrov t
5.
Codex Chartac. xvi. saec. scriptum quo continentur Origenis
commentaria in Johannem et Matthaeum quae primus in lucem
protulit Daniel Huetius.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 20/138
4 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
In the early parts of the Commentaries on S. Matthew the
folios are in wrong order and there are large lacunae. The Codex
is written in minuscules hanging from ruled lines. This was the
MS. on which Hnet based his text, though his text is not identical
with that of the MS., as Delarue seems often to have assumed. It
was used by Perionius in his translation of the Commentaries on
S. John.
IV. Codex Bodleianus. Misc. 58: used by Delarue. This
MS. is described in the Bodleian Catalogue as being of the 17th
Century. Its resemblance to II. is very close. It is now bound
in three volumes of which the first contains ff. 183, the second
183, and the third 182. It contains only the Commentaries on
S. John. In the margin it has two sets of emendations. The first
are introduced by the word rd^a and are for the most part based
on Ferrarius s Latin Version. The second, which are distinguished
by the word to-o)?, are later and inferior. In the copy of Huet
belonging to the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, Bentley
has noted in the margin a great many readings from this MS.,
though apparently he did not make a full collation1
.
V. Codex Barberinus I. In the Barberini Library at Rome;
of the 15th or 16th Century, in the opinion of the Librarian,
M. I Abbe* Pieralisi. It contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew
(beginning at Book X. rore a<et? TOI)? o^Xou?, and ending eVt-
crrpe^rai717)09 avrov, Bk. XVII.) and the Commentaries on S. John,
divided into 32 Books. It is bound up with a MS. (in the same
hand, I think) of PhiloYlepl TOV ftlov Maxreo)?.
VI. Codex Barberinus II. Of the same date as the preceding.
It contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew and S. John, but
the former begin with the words TIVI e \a^ovcnv ev rofc VTTO-
See<7Tepo?,and there is no trace of a folio having been lost. This,
aswill
be seenlater
on,is
almost conclusive proof asto its
origin.VII. Codex Matritensis. In the Biblioteca Nacional at Madrid.
This MS. I have not myself seen, and I am indebted to my friend
Mr W. Gilchrist Clark of King s College, Cambridge, for the
following information. It is numbered 0. 32. It is a folio MS.
written on paper, containing ff. 30G, with 30 lines on a page, and
1 He writes at the beginning of Huet s text" Collatus ad Cod. Mstum. Chartaceum
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 21/138
THE MSS. OF OllIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. O
about 40 letters in a line. It contains the preface which is found
in Codex Venetus, headed by the words + rov /^acrtXect)? +,
beginning on the 2nd recto TroXXdw rov topirytvyv aiperitcov
r^fyiaapkvtov, and ending on the 2nd verso KOI avOis
The Commentaries begin on the 3rd recto with the
title ooptyevovs rutv et? TO Kara Icodvvrjv vay<ye\iov egrj yrjriKwv
royu-o? TT/JWTO?.It is divided into 32 books and is dated at the
end : afyve evfirjvl avyovo-rov k.
After this follows the name of the scribe in cryptograph.
That is to say irapd
The cryptograph used is the common one in which the scribe
takes the Greek alphabet with the three letters F, Cj,and ~\ thus
getting 27 letters. These he divides into 3 parts of 9 letters
each, and substitutes the first for the last, the 2nd for the last but
one, and so on, in each group. Thus the middle letters of each 9
are unchanged, viz. e, v, and <. It will thus be seen that the
colophon exactly tallies with the note at the end of Codex Venetus,
in date (1555) and name.
It may be as well to notice here, on account of its connexion
in origin with the foregoing, a MS. of the Commentaries on S.
Matthew, numbered O. 47. It is a folio, written on paper and
containing ff. 226; it is in the same hand as O. 32 and a MS. of
the Contra Celsum in the same Library. It contains the Com
mentaries on S. Matthew, beginning at the 10th (with the words
rdre a<ei5 rou? o^Xou?) and ending at the 27th (eiFurrptycu 737705
avrov).
The MS. is dated afive. o/crca/Spiov /3 . and signed ef"^0^8*
K0~^0- e<r^)Qo- ^r^^av. After this it has on f. 225 the preface
on Origen s blasphemies, with the same heading + rov/3ao-tA,eo>5 +
as in 0. 32. The scribe has thus copied this passage twice, at the
end of S. Matthew and again at the beginning of S. John.
1 The must be a mistake forCj
which would represent i.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 22/138
(j THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
VIII. The transcription of Codex Bodleianus (IV.) made by
Herbert Thorndike needs no further description. It is now in the
Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (numbered B. 9. 11). It is
not without value however, as the writer has inserted several con
jectural emendations in the margin, and there are also three pages
of critical notes at the beginning.
IX. The existence of a ninth MS. is doubtful. In Miller s
Catalogue of the Escurial Library, pp. 305 ff., is given a list, found in
one of the Escurial MSS. (x. i. 15), of the Greek Manuscripts which
belonged to Cardinal Sirlet s Library, and passed into the posses
sion of Cardinal Ottoboni (Alexander VIII.). Subsequently Bene
dict XIV. is said to have placed them in the Vatican. Amongthese is a MS. containing Origen s Commentaries on S. Matthew
and S. John, and Philo Hepl TOV fiiov TOV Maxreax;, Hepl TOV filov
7ro\i,TLKov (Joseph), and Tiepi vbpwv dypdcfxov (Abraham). In
the Catalogue of the Ottobonian part of the Vatican Library,
which has not yet been published, but exists in manuscript in the
Vatican, I could find no trace of it. But the description answers
very nearly to the MS. now in the Barberini, which I have num
bered V. Is it possible that this MS. passed from the hands of
any of its former owners into the possession of the Barberini ? If
not, we must suppose that this MS. has been lost, unless indeed
the MS. Catalogue of the Ottobonian Manuscripts is incomplete.
Delarueconstantly
refers to a Codex Barberinus, andgenerally
the readings he quotes from it would seem to be taken from No. V;
but his citations are not always accurate. The existence of two
manuscripts in the Barberini does not seem to have been known
to any one.
The relations of these MSS. to one another must now be con
sidered. For the sake of clearness I subjoin a diagram shewing
whatI
conceivetheir relations to be. After this I
propose toconsider the relations (1) of the Munich Codex to those MSS.
which seem to be directly copied from it, (2) of the Venice Codex
to those which are, I believe, its descendants, and (3) of the
Venice to the Munich MS.
1. (q) Let us then consider first the relation of the Paris
Codex to that at Munich. The contents of the two arepractically
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 23/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN.
(i)As pointed out above, the statement that the God. Monac.
contains of the Comm. in Matt. Books XI. (mutilated) to XVI. is
incorrect.It contains also most of Book
x.,
and Book xvn. The
SAEC.
Monac. (I)
/XIV
XVI
/
Reg. (Ill)
Yen. (II)
Barl. (VI)
XVII
Matrit.(VIl
mistake as to the latter point has arisen from the fact that Books
xvi. and xvn. are not divided as the other books are. But the
last words contained in this part of the MS. are eiria-rpe^rai 777)09
avrov, the ending of Book xvn.;and a calculation of pages easily
shews that both Books xvi. and xvil. are contained in the MS., for
Book xv. begins on f. 62, Book xvi. on f. 77, and the Comm. in
Matt, end on f. 110. Thus while Book xv. takes only ff. 15, what
is called Book xvi. takes 33, though in Lommatzsch s edition
Books xv. and xvi. cover very nearly the same number of pages
each. In the Comm. in Joann. there is no difference of contents,
(ii)The first words which occur in the Cod. Monac. are TIVI Be
XdfjL-^rova-Lvev rot? uTroSeetrrepoi? which occur towards the end of
Book x. chap. 3 (Lomm. ill. p. 15). In the Paris MS. the leaves
are not in right order, but the first words which occur (they are
on f. 255) are TraXiv o^oia ecmv K.T.\. (Mt. xiii. 44) which begin
chap. 4 of Book x. Thus the scribe seems to have begun his MS.
with the first whole chapter contained in his exemplar. If then
this MS. is copied from the Munich MS., the latter must already
have lost its first leaf in the 16th century.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 24/138
8 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
More direct proofs of copying are not wanting.
Lomm. I.p. 118, 1. 22. Cod. Monac. has Trapa^e^v...^ the
intervening space being worm-eaten, Cod. Reg. has-n-apa^e^.. vai
leaving space for about four letters.
p. 152, 1. 15. Cod. Monac. reads ovOev, but the 6ev is hidden
by a piece of parchment fastened on over it. Reg. omits the
wordleaving a space for three letters.
6 uios_
p. 177, 1. 5. Cod. Monac. has ^ovoyev^ do; the 6 vibs beingan interlinear insertion by a later hand. Cod. Reg. has o povo-
yevr)<s u/o? 0bfall in
the text.
p. 272, 1. 6. In the Munich Codex the words avrovrj d/juapria
are almostillegible, either because the scribe turned over the page
before it was dry, or owing to the subsequent effect of damp on
the manuscript. The blot appears on the opposite leaf. Cod. Reg.omits the words.
Lomm. II.p. 108, 1. 9. -/JLOV ovSev jiev-. In Cod. Mon. these
letters are obliterated. Cod. Reg. omits the same letters, leaving
space for them.
p. 108, 1. 11.Trepl erepwv. The same phenomenon occurs
here with regard to the lettersTrepl ere
p.
p. 117, 1. 1. elo-eXdelv. Cod. Reg. omits the word. In Cod.
Monac. the letters creX, are almost obliterated.
p. 127, 1. 15. arji^aivet, yap TO fiev TOIOVTOV. Here again we
have an indication. Both manuscripts erroneously repeat the
letters f^alvei yap TO.
The proof may be completed by two passages from the text of
the Commentaries on S. Matthew;Book xi. chap. ix.
Lomm. in.p. 91, 1. 10. el rt? ovv. The el ? is stained and
indistinct in Cod. Mon. Cod. Reg. omits the words, leaving a space.
1. 11. TrevrjTwv. The first four letters are hardly legible in
Cod. Mon. In Cod. Reg. we find a space for four letters followed
by TWV.
The divergences of the two MSS. are numerous but not im
portant. Most of them are due to ordinary transcriptional
blunders. The rest may be explained by the supposition that
the scribe of the Paris MS. was more than usually careless and
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 25/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 9
I subjoin a list of their divergences (other than mere itacisms and cases of
the addition or omission of vt<pc\Kv<r6v}
which occur in the first 30 pages
of Tom. xiii. of the Comtn. in Joann. (Loinmatzsch s edition).
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 26/138
10 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
MonacensisRegius
26>
14 rnfp\
27, 6 eV *
8
f cos-
9lfpoa-6Xvp.il bis
10 V omit
1 1 0VlKOt
12 om. co ms.
23 /cat 6fi6r(pov omit
28, 11
29, 6 01 lovSatoi
lovdaioi30, 2 Kadc\r)vas Ka6e\flv as
6tiyyeAXots dyyeAotj
10 ^
(6) Cocfe Barberinus II. (VI). I can only speak from slight
knowledge of this MS. The BarberiniLibrary was closed during
Vacation when I was in Rome in October, 1888, and it was only
through the great kindness of the Librarian that I was allowed towork for two hours at the
manuscripts which it contains.. But Iwas
fortunately able to obtain sufficient evidence to determinetheir relative places in the
groups almost withcertainty.
The first words of the Comm. in Matt, which this MS. containsare TM Se X^ouw. As these are the first words contained inCod. Monac., though they occur towards the end of a chapter andparagraph in the Commentaries, this is in itself almost conclusive
proof of theorigin of the MS. For, as has been stated above,
Cod. Monac. has lost a leaf at the outset. The Barberini MS alsocontains the true division of the Comm. in Joann. in red. TheFerrarian divisions have been added in the margin, but are inthe hand of the
original scribe. It has also many, at any rate, ofthe same warnings against Origen s blasphemies, which are contained in Cod. Monac., as for instance
Lomm. I. p. 96 (opposite vircpexopcvo? VTTO rov ruv 6\<ov
OeovK.T.\.) favapeh tVo? #eo? yap 6 wo? rc5 TrarpL
^p.
108 (opposite V7r6 rovfcpeiTrovo<;...7rapa
rov \6yov) opa$61)76 /BXaa^rj/juel yap.
Thefollowing readings, when contrasted with the correspond-
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 27/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 11
I have designated Codex Monacensis as M, Codex Regius as P,
Codex Barberinus as R.
Lomm.II.
p. 6,1. 1 CKTVTTOV PMR.
p. 13, 1. 16 Trepl TO MR.
p. 13, 1. 17 a* erov MR.
p. 14, 1. 1 evBetva rot? PMR.
p. 60, 1. 12 \eyovrai MR. eyovrai P.
p. 60, 1. 13 d7roK\ia-0elo-(u$ PMR.
p. 108, 1. 9 -fJiov ovSev pev- om. PR.
(In M the words are worm-eaten.)
p. 108, 1. 11 Trepl erepwv om. R.
cov P.
(In M the letters Trepl erep are damaged.)
p.132 M has the following marginal note : KOI
fju}vtcai TU
repara XWP^ T v <r7?A
t "WI/ evprjrai o>?eV
rfj atSfj rfj pera rrjv
Sui/BcKTiv r^? epvOpas dvare6eiarj TW dew Oav/jLao-rds yap tyrjorlv
eV86fco? TTQI&V repara.
(I have printed the contracted words in full.) R has the same
note exactly: P has it, but has made two mistakes in copying, read
ing dav/jLacrrd for0avp,acrTo<;
and omitting a>Sf/ rrj.
p. 73, 1. 1 M has CLK...OVT(I, the intervening letters being
damaged.
R reads dK...ovra, leaving a space corresponding to the dots.
P has hazarded a conjecture, and a very unfortunate one.
The only divergences from the Munich MS. which I was able
to notice were
Lomm. II. p. 137, 1. 9 MBia(f)0opd<>.
R$ia(f)0opdv.
p. 137, 1. 15. The erroneous repetition of paiveu yap TO found
in M (and copied by P) is not followed by R.
p. 291, 1. 13 MP /care. R tcaTe/Si].
Thus Codex Barberinus must be copied either from Codex
Monacensis or from a copy of that MS. The passages quoted
prove conclusively that it is not a copy of Codex Regius. There
are several omissions, with corresponding spaces left blank, in this
MS. which do not occur in Cod. Regius. These, I imagine, are
attributable to the worm-eaten and stained condition of Cod.
Monacensis, and tend to shew that Cod. Regius must have been
copied early in the ICth century, Cod. Barberinus late in the
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 28/138
12 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
same century, and that Cod. Monac., wherever it was (I was unableto obtain any information as to its
history atMunich), was neg
lected during this period.
2. (a) The relation of the Bodleian MS. to that at Venice is
not hard to determine. Their divergences are very slight, beingfor the most part ordinary transcriptional blunders or
corrections,and even of these there is only a very small number. The rest
may be explained by the fact that the scribe of the Bodleian MS.knew Greek. Direct proofs of copying are afforded in some
places.
Lomm. I.p. 117, 1. 12 (in the first fragment of
Heracleon).After the word OvdKevrivov space is left for about nine letters.
The same lacuna occurs in Codex Venetus, but in it there has beenan erasure.
Lomrn. n.p. 7, 1. 2. After
evKunjry there has been anerasure in Cod. Yen, A
corresponding lacuna is left in Cod.Bodl.
Lomm. n.p. 53, 1. 7. Codex Venetus reads Iptfs (sic). Cod,
Bodl. has
(b) I was not able to notice any divergence of Codex Bar-berinus I. (V) from the Venice MS. except that in the
passagementioned above it leaves no space after OuaAezmW, from which
of course no conclusion can be drawn. The fact that the Commentaries on S. Matthew begin at the
beginning of the 10th Book(r6re a
<et? TOI)? 0^X01/5), considered in connexion with the dateof the MS. (saec. xv. or XVL), proves that it
belongs to the Veniceas opposed to the Munich group, and the division into 32 books
points to the same conclusion. Thefollowing readings tend to
prove theidentity of its text with that of Codex Venetus.
Lomm. I.p. 117, 1. 16 Siafepovra ydp ^crt Ven. Bar
II.p. 9, 1. 20 e6rj Ven. Bar.
p. 13, L 16 irapd TO Ven. Bar.
(Codex Bodleianus has Trapa rov.)
p. 14, 1. 1 eV SwaroLS Ven. Bar.
p. 122, 1. 1 el Ven. Bar.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 29/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 13
p. 376, 1. 4 rpia/coo-Tov irpwrov Ven. Bar.
p. 376, 1. 6 TpiaKoa-ro) Bevrepo) Ven. Bar.
(Ven.has notes in the
margin statingthat its
exemplarread
28th and 29th.)
Lomm. II.p. 73, 1. 1, lacuna (room for 5 letters) before ovra
Ven. Bar., see above, p. 11.
(c) The correspondence of the cryptograph in the MS. at
Madrid with the note at the end of Codex Venetus is sufficient
proof of the
origin
of the former. And with this the information
which I have received as to the text agrees. The lacunae in the
text (Lommatzsch I. pp. 11, 14, 18, 36, 41, 43), which occur in the
Cod. Venetus and which will be discussed more fullyin the next
section, are also found here. And in the case ofp. 41, the sug
gestion found in Cod. Ven. in the margin (ol^ai 7rapaaxf.lv T^V
vTrapfyv Kalrrji>
irXdaiv Kal rd ecBrj} is put in the margin also in
the Madrid MS. See also I. 23, Lomm. p. 44, 1. 7 QavpaC.ziv rrjv
dfteXrwpiav TWV 7ro\\wv. The word d/3\Twpiav is omitted in
Codex Monacensis, and also in Codex Venetus, but in the latter it is
added in the margin. In Cod. Matritensis it is also added in the
margin.
It can easily be shewn that O. 47 is copied from the 1st part of
the Venice MS. which contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew.
Thus the colophons at Madrid exactly agree with the note in the
Venice MS., except that the latter has October 10 instead of
October 2. As we can hardly imagine that the preface (7ro\\a>v
TOV QpLyevrjv K.T.\.) took 8 days to copy it occurs in O. 47
after the colophon we must leave this discrepancy unexplained.
3. Thus there seems to be no reasonable doubt as to the
derivation of all the other manuscripts from Cod. Monacensis and
Codex Venetus. The more extensive divergences of these two at
first led me to suppose them to be independent of each other, but
a closer examination disclosed convincing proof of the dependence
of the latter on the former. Their divergences give us only too
clear an insight into the freedom with which the text of an
exemplar was handled, at any rate in the 14th century. An ex
amination of the Contra Celsum manuscripts affords, I believe, an
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 30/138
14 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
instructive parallel1
. The relation of Cod. Ven. to Cod. Monac.
remains to be considered in detail. Several lacunae caused in
Cod. Monac. by damage done to the MS. by water, or in other
ways, are matched in Cod. Ven. by corresponding places left
blank by the scribe. These lacunae occur almost entirely in
the first book. The chief instances are the following :
Bk. I. c. 4 (Lomm. p. 11) L. and Delarue read ypafavTa teal
KCUT e^ovcriav, ovJJL^V TO e*Xi#pti4? rwv etc 06Las eTrnr
Afterypa<f>evra
Cod. Monac. isillegible until the word ei
but between e^ovo-iav and ovfjLrjv
there must have been at least 17
more letters, of which some near the end were I think aTroo-roXi/c.
Cod. Ven. leaves space between these two words for about 25
letters.
Bk. I. c. 6 (Lomm. p. 14) reXo? avrov Trapa TM loodwrj.
These words are nearly illegible in Cod. Monac., but there must
have been about 14 more letters, and Cod. Ven, leaves space for
15 more letters after ^Iwavvy.
On the same page elpw/cw SiSda/cecv issimilarly stained in
Cod. Monac., and Cod. Ven. omits thepassage, except the word
elpwiccos, leaving a space.
Bk. I. c. 8, Lomm. p. 18. .../cal on o\ov. In Cod. Monac. we
find after faov, TO 0X.../*.((?)....?.(?) OTL: then more than half a
line illegible, the MS. being damaged as in the other cases.
Cod. Ven. has o\ov (space II)2
OTCLV yap (space J line) viovs
K.T.\.
Bk. I. c. 9, Lomm.p. 20. eVrti/ eK\a^aveiv...ovTw XpiaTia-
2/09. All this is damaged in Cod. Monac. and mostly illegible, but
there is room for about 20 more letters than are contained in the
words as they stand in Delarue and Lommatzsch. Cod. Ven.
contains all that is in the printed texts, and afterTrepiTeTftrjfievo?
leaves a space of about f of a line, after which it has OVTCO
Xpi-aTiavos K.T.\.
Bk. i. c. 17, Lomm. p. 36. Similar phenomena occur againhere.
1 Cf. an Article in the Journal of Philology Vol. xvm. No. 36, "On the text of
Origen against Celsus," esp. pp. 294, 295.
2 The numbers after the word space refer in each instance to the (approxi
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 31/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 15
Bk. I. c. 22, Lomm. p. 41. rot? overt, KOIrfj v\y \eyovra.
This is all damaged in Cod. Monac., but the following facts are
discoverable.
(1) It omitsol/juai and rrjv virapfyv.
(2) Between el KOI and elvreiv there is room for about 23 more
letters.
(3) e<rrlv is, I think, not contained in it. The words are
illegible, but the ink has to some extent stayed on the opposite
leaf. Reading backwards, I thought I could trace somewhat as
follows :
el KCU ra? ovatOG ^a\7rov pev ovv ira^vrepov elireiv.
Cod. Ven. hasrfj v\y (space 20) ;
then /cal ra K.T.\. to el ical
as in the texts;after which (space 23), elTrelv K.T.\.
In the margin it hasol/jiai, Trapaa^elv rrjv virap^tv KOI rrjv
TT\aaiv Kal rd eiSrj.
Thus we get some valuable information by which to attempt a
restoration of the text, and very sure indications of the relations
of the two MSS.Bk. i. c. 23, Lomm. p. 43. ri? 6 ev avrfj Xoyo?...e?re/9;Ta
O-KOTTOVVTI. Damaged in God. Monac., which has space for more.
Cod. Ven. leaves a space of one line between enrep^erai and O-KO-
TTOVVTl.
Bk. xin. c. 39, Lomm. Vol. II.p. 73, rjrot ovra.
God. Monac. hasrjrot, OLK (space 3 or 4) ovra, the letters inter
vening being damaged. God. Ven. has jjroi (space 5), then ovra.
Such evidence as this must hold good against much textual
divergence ;and it must be admitted that the scribe of Cod. Ven.
has made rather free use of conjectural alteration. But a com
parison of the readings of Cod. Ven. with those of Cod. Monac.,
which are given at the end of the Introduction, will shew, I think,
that this supposition will explain the facts better than any other
theory.
Similar evidence may also be obtained from an investigation of
the first parts of the MSS. which contain the Commentaries on
S. Matthew. Perhaps a short statement on this part of the
evidence may not be out of place. Here in Books x. and xi. the
leaves of the Munich Codex have been bound up in wrong order,
and two or three are wanting. In the Venice MS. the leaves are
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 32/138
16 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
in their right order, and nothing is missing ;hence the displace
ment and the loss of leaves in Cod. Monac. is subsequent to
1374, the date of the Venice MS.
The Munich MS. has lost its first leaf;
it
now begins with thewords rivi Be Xdfi-^rovo-iv,
Bk. x. c. 3, Lomm. p. 15. These occur
in Cod. Ven. on the 2nd recto, line 5.
We may first notice two omissions, due to homoioteleuton, in
God. Ven. of words contained in Cod. Mon.\ as indications of
course, not as proofs.
Bk. XI. c. 18, Lomm. pp. 120, 121. 6^a>Xo9
KCU rpavrj ecrrat
o 2a>Xo9. Cod. Ven. omits /cal rpavrj 6 p&>Xo?.
Bk. XII. c. 1, Lomm. p. 127. /cal (papiaaioL. irpeafBevovcri
yap ol /lev fyapKTaioi.
Cod. Ven. omits irpeaftevovai fyapiaalot,.
The following passage supplies clear proofs. (Bk. XH. c. 20.)
E-Tret Se OVK eVeSe^eror7r/3o- Cod. Ven. T rotavra airo-
fta
f
le- re\a-6at.
ava\o-
osr To* 6 Cod. Ven. omits, leaving space
rrjv ^frv^v av- (15).
TOV 6VCK6V e^/AOV Vp^(I6L
avrrjv, ^ta rovro $i avrov
6t? Ie/300-oXfyLta tl7T\0lV, WO,
l"7roXXa TraOtov ev^ eicelvois Cod. Fen. omits, leaving space/C.T.X. (10).
The words between the signsr 1 are in each case damaged in
Cod. Monac.
Bk. xii. c. 24, Lomm. p. 170,<f>ep
elireiv ra j3aat,\iSov rj,
damaged in Cod. Monac. Cod. Ven. omits ^acrtXiSou, leaving a
space (7).
And forrj
it reads xal.
Thus there can be no doubt that the Venice MS. is derived
from that at Munich. On this MS. therefore we are entirely
dependent for the text of the Commentaries on S. John. Un
fortunately its present condition at the bottom and top of several
leaves is such that the lacunae in these places cannot for the
most part be filled up ; though in some cases hints as to length
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 33/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 17
guides for conjectural restoration. The Venice Codex is our best
authority for this group of the MSS. of the Comm. in Matt.
in theplaces where Cod. Monacensis
is
now defective,as the
other direct copies of this MS. have apparently been made since
its mutilation. The alterations introduced by the scribe of
Cod. Yen. frequently deserve consideration, and are not seldom
obviously right
The marginal notes on blasphemy suggest the possibility
of the suppression of some passages on account of the doctrine
contained in them. But all the lacunae and there are several in
Cod. Monac. due to its original, besides those due to the damagedone to the MS. itself cannot be explained by this hypothesis : of
this Bk. xiii. c. 32 will serve as an example. But while much
must be given up as no longer recoverable, a good deal of light
may be thrown on the text of many passages in the Commentaries
by the use of Cod. Monac. With a view to further work on them
I made a collation in September 1889 of the Commentaries on
S. John.
Huet knew of the Manuscript, but does not seem to have
used it. Heoccasionally agrees with it against the Paris MS.
on which his text was based, but such readings are probably
emendations of his own, or were suggested by the versions.
Through the version of Ferrarius he became acquainted with
a text like that of the Venice MS.
Delarue s wider knowledge whether he had examined any
MSS. himself I cannot discover is marred by inaccuracy of
statement as to the readings contained in MSS. In particular
he seems to have taken it for granted that any reading adopted
by Huet in his text was necessarily that contained in the
Paris Codex. The undue influence of this Codex, which it has
exercised owing to its relation to Huet s text, must be set aside.
But when all has been done that is possible by the ordinary
methods of textual criticism, a large sphere will remain in which
conjectural emendation alone can be of any avail.
The notes of Th. Mangey preserved in the British Museum
(MSS. Add. 6428) do not contain fresh material. Those on the
Commentaries on S. John appear to be a partial collation of
Huet s text with something of the type of Cod. Venetus, not the
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 34/138
18 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Bodleian MS. which is at times mentioned separately. Possibly
he was working with the Codex Barberinus of that type. But
whatever his source was, it contains nothing helpful which is not
otherwise known.
It may be worth while to bring together here some examples
from Cod. Monac. of important New Testament Readings of
an ancient type, which have been subsequently brought into
conformity with the ordinary Syrian text, either by its correctors
or in its descendants. These will be sufficient to shew that it
may throw somefurther
light onthe
problemof
the text ofthe New Testament used by Origen, while they will serve to
illustrate the manner in which the text of quotations from the
New Testament has been handled in the MSS. of the Fathers.
In the following list of some pro-Syrian readings supported by Cod.
Monac. I have added in a few cases interesting readings from the other MSS.
In these cases the MS. authority is added in brackets.
Lomm. i.
p. 177. Jn. i. 15. o clrruv. See Tisch. (Or.4 10
-)
Jn. i. 18. povoyevr)? dfos. (See above, p. 8.)
o &v om. Heracleon(?)
210. Jn. i. 24.QTrforaX/ieVot. See Tisch. (Or.
4 12:
<)
211. ML iii. 10. ^ Se /cat (Yen.)
214 f. Mk. i. 2. om.efiirpoo-Oev crov. See Tisch. (Or.
4<12r>
)
222. Jn. i. 26. ea-rrjKfv
Jn. i. 27. avros t<mv o om.
(but in Or. vi. 23 Mon. ins. o).See Tisch. (Or.
4 130)
234. Jn. i. 26. onjjcft ;Heracleon)
dvTr/Kei (Bodl. Ven. Cf. Eusebius)
[292. Mk. i. 27. 6a^6Wav. See Tisch. (Or.4 -1
)]
[293. Luke iv. 40. tOcpanfvev (Paris. Ven. Monac.)
fdepdnevo-fv (Bodl.)]
Lomm. II.
p. 5. 1 Cor. iv. 11.yvfjLViTfvopfv (Par. Bodl. Mon. Ven.)
9. Jn. iv. 16. aov rov avSpa (Bodl. Ven.)
18. Jn. iv. 14. ov Sn/^o-ei (Ven.)
ov/zj) dt^r/o-d (Bodl.)
ovp.f) 8i\lsTJo-T) (Par. Mon.)
See Tisch. (Or.4 220
)
57. Jn. iv. 31. tvr<p fifrau 8e (Bodl. Ven.)
68. Jn. xiv. 28. o 6
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 35/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 19
92. Mt. xii. 42. SoXo/iwi/os (Par. Mon.)
104. Jn. iv. 42. OVTOS etrnvd\r)0<as (Bod. Veil.)
106. 1 Cor. ix. 1. eopaica (Par. Mon.)
109. Jn. iv. 44. avros 6 to- sec. loc. (Ven. Bodl.)
tert. loc. (Bod. Mon.)
110. (Ven. Bodl.)
114. Jn. ii. 15. avfo-rpe^ev (Par. Mon.)
See Tisch. (Or.4 -270811
-)
115. Jn. ii. 16. prj TroifjTf (Par. and ?Mon.)
Jn. ii. 23. evrfj foprfj ev rw Trao^a (Bodl.)
evrfj foprfj TOV jroo-^a (Ven.)
123. Mt. x. 28. V^X7)" KOL 0-oo/na (Monac. Ven.)
130. Mt. viii. 8. o TTOIS pov om. (Par. Mon.)
248. Mt. v. 28. 0? av>j8XVrfl (Mon.)
264. Jn. viii. 44. OVK Zo-rrjKfv (Par. Mon.)
N.B. It will be seen that in the above list I have given some examplesof readings not pre-Syrian. These are cases of attestation where further
examination of the Manuscripts of Origen has corrected or supplementedDelarue s information, on which of course Tischendorf depended. The
references to Tischendorf are to his critical digest in locc. His references
to Origen (e.g.Or4 -220
)refer to the volume and page in Delarue s edition.
It only remains to say a few words about Catenae on S. John.
At Munich there are two fragments attributed to Origen in a
Catena of the xith century (Gr. 437). At Rome there are several
in the Catenae Vat. 1423, Regin. 9. The larger fragment in the
Munich Catena occurred also with considerable variations in
Regin. 9. I was unable at Rome to do more than glance at these
fragments. The fragments pointed to the same conclusions as
may be drawn from an examination of those published by Cor-
derius from an Antwerp MS. Most of them at any rate mighthave come from Origen s pen, so far as opinions are concerned.
But in the comparatively few instances where they cover common
ground with the extant Commentaries, the text and even the
contents are either wholly different or widely divergent. Some
of them have the appearance of being taken from Homilies, others
from eVtcrT/yuetcoo-ei?. The nearest agreement with the extant
Commentaries was in the case of two fragments in Regin. 9, where
the text of Orig. Comm. in Joann. XXXII. 11 d^^eiwarj Be TWO,
rpoTTov arj/jLau OfMevw and 13 eVet ovvtye/crav (Lomm. p. 435
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 36/138
20 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
the fragment was different from the text of the Commentaries.
Nor was the result of a closer examination of two Catenae, xxvn
(saec. x.) and xxvm (saec. XL), at Venice different. Of these
the former contains more matter, though occasionally the frag
ments in the latter have pieces omitted in Cod. xxvu. On the
whole, however, Cod. xxvm. is much more curtailed. The greater
part of what is contained in Corderius is in Cod. xxvu.;some
times he gives the fullest text, and sometimes the Venice MS. is
fuller. There is also a good deal at Venice which is not found in
his edition. There is, I think, a close connexion between Yen.
xxvu. and Regin. 9 at Rome, but I did not bring away enough
information from Rome to determine this. I was able at Venice
to copy all the fragments attributed to Origen in the Catena on
S. John in Cod. xxvu. Much more must be done elsewhere
before they can be made serviceable, but there is promise of
considerable addition to the published writings of Origen from
this Catena alone, though the critic s knife is not unneeded.
The textual results are the same as might be gathered from
the MSS. at Munich and Rome. The sense of lost parts of the
Commentaries may be recovered, but not much of the actual
text. This of course was to be expected. I can only conclude
with the hope that I may be able to bring to light some of this
buried matter if I am allowed to continue working at the text of
Origens
Commentarieson S. John.
As I intend to quote in the apparatus criticus readings from
the Munich MS. only, I subjoin a full collation of the first 30
pages of Tom. XIIL of the Commentaries on S. John, in the
edition of Lommatzsch, with Codd. Monacenis (M), Venetus (V),
Regius (P), and Bodleianus (B). The quotations of differences
of accent or breathing, of obvious itacistic blunders and v e</>eX.-
Kvo-riKa are not exhaustive, but I have endeavoured to make the
collation of Cod. Monac. as complete as I could. The readings
marked by (() are readings of the Bodleian, where it differs
from Huet, which Beritley has not noticed in the margin of the
copy in Trinity College Library. In a few cases, where I knew
them, I have given the readings of the Barberini Codices under
the symbols Rt (= V) and R (= VI). The left column the
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 37/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN.
ToV M
21
P. 1, Title TO
1. 1 av ZBo^f. P ai/e M
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 38/138
THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLKON.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 39/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. 23
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 40/138
24 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 41/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN.
23
P. 13, 1. 1
1 ante vvv
3
4
5
6
9
11, 12 aXXo/xeVou
13 ttTTO
15 V7TO
16
17 (OS ToV
P. 14, 1. 1 evSeu/a rots
1, 2 e
7 ante TOT)
9 Xcyoi/Tos
10y(W<TKOV(n
P. 15, 1. 1 ETf evflews
2 eXeye
5 otovet
10, 12 cx7re^av avSpt
14 7T(OS
19 2a/xapetrts
21 Ka6 oi/
22 Kat
23
24
P. 16, 1. 2, 3 aXX aiSia)
5 o
6 aTre^ave
6 5
1 1-ijpvrjTO
1 6 e8o)K
P. 17, 1. 1oT/xai
3 ante TOVS
om. B
airy MVBPins. KCU VB (V intra lin.)
aXXo/xeVov Mcrol MP
Sr/Xovori VMMPM
aV V
K VB7Tpt TO MR2 : ?rapa TO
"V"!^
?rapa TOV B
ws d atT<3v VB (sedin V o- o at
seriori, ut videtur, manu sunt
scripta) cJ CTOI MR.,
f ev SwaTOis VRjB: ei/8eti^a TOIS M
ci/yeyu/xvao-/xeVotsM
ins. TO VBXeyoi/Tcs
MVPB : B ing. Xeyoi/Tos
ytl/tOCTKOUOtl/ M
erreuflecrecos MP
eXcyevM
f otojTIBV oiov ei M
om. VB
>s
MVB M
om. MPf 7ra.pa,Ti0eto-av
MVB
SteXcx^^vai P
dXXa tSta)/x,ci/
ovv Tt MP
f(SB
aTreOavev MfcSB
t T/pmTo VBeSoKtv Motvat M eti at P (sed ser. man.
oTvai)
ins. ?rposVB : B mg. ra^a Trpo/
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 42/138
THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 43/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 27
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 44/138
28 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
1 4 AeycTe
2 1
23 TOV
23,
4
24
25
P. 24, 1. 3, 4 TOfj.l
1 1
12 2iwv
13 eori
13 OLTTCp
14 pOSt V7TO
1 f *16
>;>;
1
18
1 9
21 ante a
26 epxeTai
27 eon
29 eW29
oT/xat
P. 25, 1. 3, 4TTpOKOTTYJV
7, 8vo//,i
8 yow10
13, 4
14
1 6 7Tl
17 TO
20
01J 1
25 KttV
26
26/xeTtt 8e Tcurra
P. 26, 1. 1ttVTT7? </>V0-l
5 8t ayvotav
XeycTat MP
Stavo/xiys VBam. VB
SeKao-/xos
VB: Bmg.
P Sewov MM
TO /xc/ (sic)P : P mg. 7-175
MPM
iv M
Mom. TO VB
v; 7;M
i/^aicpaTCVfJia VB : t
M
Trpoo-ayovTat VB
VOfJLOV MVPins.
TT;V MVPB0ai P
Mtv M
ot/xat MTTpOfTKOTTTCLV MP
P
a MVB
P
M-tJ/ MM
om. VB
finyV MVPttV
TrpO<f>1f]TV(t)/AVMVB
tvwo-Kto/u,i/ MVBCI ravra 8e VB
avo-et MP : avTiys
Siavotav P: 8t cuyvotav BB oY
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 45/138
THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTAKIES ON s. JOHN. 29
12 OIK
14
OIKV M
14
15 post riV
17
1 8
19*
I 9 ctT
23 Tr
23 ob
P. 27, 1. 3,4 &T60oAaKT
4 OpOS
6 fv
7o>os
8 (S
9 lepoo-dXvpia
10 <S
10 oposII ot
12$12 ot
14 7rpO(TKi;v7ycrT
1 5arvfJiTra.paXaiJ.f3a
16 ^19, 20 {i7r
21 3^
23
23 post <ra(f)ecrTpov
P. 28, 1. 3, 4
4
6 to-a
8
9 TOIS
10
10, 11 voeio-00)
1 1TrpocTttTroSeSw/
15, 6Trpoa"KW7J(rcTC
20 eo-rt
T BV T Mins. TpoTra) VBTO MVPB
evcXcyKara Mmil. lac. MP : ins. &?A.oi/
VB
ctTraXXayet T;M
v MM
OpOS M
epos Mok P
lepoo-oAu/ta bis P
om. P
opos Mom. Mom. Mom. VB
P
afjil3dvt M^8et VB
V7ro\afji/3av6fji.fvovMVPB
S?7/uoupyoi/ P sed ser. man. in
correctum est
^CWp^TT/KWTepOl/ B
ins. /cai OfLorcpov MVB
TTpOO /CVl Ol O O MKpCLTTOV (US MVB
cto-ayyeXoiMP
crvfj.Trpi(f>epu>vTaLVB :
pOVTO.1 Mom. VB
MPP
Mirpoa-Kvvrjcrai MPco-riv M
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 46/138
30 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
22pr)T<Z opcL VB : o prjTu P sed ser. man.
deletur o
as
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 47/138
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON.
OF the personal history of Heracleon hardly anything is
known. Clement of Alexandria, quoting his comment on a
passage of S. Luke, calls him the most famous of the Valentinian
School1
. Origen prefaces his first citation from Heracleon s Com
mentary on the Gospel of S. John with the information that he
was said to have been a pupil (or, perhaps, an acquaintance) of
Valentinus2
. He is mentioned once by Irenaeus in conjunction
with Ptolemaeus, and possibly with Valentinus, who is at any
rate mentioned several times by name shortly before, as the chief
1 Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9, p. 595 (ed. Potter), 6 rrjs QvaKevrivov
2Origen, Coinm. in Joann. n. 8, TOV OvaXevrivov
\ey6fj.evoi> clvai.yi>upi/j.oi>.
It
seems probable that Origen here uses the wordyvupi/j.os in the sense of pupil, a
meaning which it often bears. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 11, TOVTO &pa /SotfXercu
Kal Ty HvOayopy i) Trerracr/as ffiwiri) -^v rots yvwpl/jwis irapeyyvq, and Ibid. II. 4.
Hippolytus, Refutatio, I. 13, ATJ^O/C/HTOJ 5 AevKiwirov yiverai. yi>upt/jLos.Justin
Martyr, ApoL I. 32, <5> (sc. iruXov) eKtXevffev ayayelf avri^ rbre TOI)S yvupl/jiovs
aurov. Joseph. I>. J. iv. 8. 3, I-TTO EXio-crat oi; TOV trpo^-fiTOV yvupijjios 8e yv OUTOS
HXta /cai Siddoxos. Philo I. 201. 6 (ed. Mangey), aware yap irarrjp vibi> Ttirrei eucppo-
vl$uv $ diddffKa\os yvupt/j.ov, and i. 208. 4. Plutarch, 2. 448 E (Francofurt. 1G20),
avrl yvupi/j.wv /caifj.a.Or]Tu>v epaa-rai /caXo^evot xai oj/res (of the gradual growth of the
pupil s affection for his master). Cf. also Strabo 1. 1. 11. Philostratus 529 (2. 41.
9 ed. Teubner), 578 (2.84. 13), and 583 (2. 88. 4), and Suidas mb roce. The
growth of the meaning may be traced in such passages as Xen. Mem. 2. 3. 1,
d5e\0w yu^y ciXXTjXotJ/, ecu/Tc^ (sc. 2wK/)drei) 5eyi>()pi/j.w.
At the same time the word would hardly be used of one who had joined a school
after the death of the Master. Its use is not compatible with any great difference
of date between Valentinus and his pupil.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 48/138
32 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
exponent of the opinions under discussion 1. Tertullian also
refers to him once as having developed the Valentinian teaching
on the lines suggested by Ptolemaeus 2. The author of the
Refutatio^ mentions him and Ptolemaeus as the chief exponents of
the Italic school of Valentinianism. In the preface at the beginning
of the sixth book he is placed after Ptolemaeus. Theodoret 4
mentions him after Secundus, in quite general terms, with Cossia-
nus, Theodotus, Ptolemaeus, Marcus. He is also once referred to
by Photius 5.
Praedestinatus6
is certainly wrong in telling a story of him
which connects his name with the Roman episcopate of Alex
ander(c. 110 A.D.). Hie in partibus Siciliae inchoauit docere :
contra hunc susceperunt episcopi Siculorum, Eustachius Lily-
baeorum et Panormeorum Theodorus, quique omnium per Sicilian!
erant episcoporurn synodum exorantes gestis eum audire decre-
uerunt et uniuersas adsertiones eius dirigentes ad sanctum Alex-
andrum urbis episcopum rogauerunt, ut ad eum confutandum
aliquid ordinaret. Tune sanctus Alexander ad singula quaeque
capita hydri singulos gladios dei uerbi de uagina diuinae legis
eiciens librum contra Heracleonem ordinans, feruentissimum in-
genio Sabinianum presbyterum destinauit, qui et scriptis episcopi
et adsertione sua ita eum confutaret, ut nocte media nauis prae-
sidio fugeret, et ultra ubinam deuenisset penitus nullus sciret.
The date is impossible, and the heretical views on baptism
attributed to him in the same account (nihil obesse baptizatis
peccata memorabat) have no greater claims to be accepted as part
of his teaching.
That he had a school of followers we know from Praedestinatus,
Sextadecima haeresis Heracleonitarum ab Heracleone adinuenta
1 Irenaeus n. 4. 1, Honorificentius reliquis aeonibusipsius (?)
Ptolemaei et
Heracleonis et reliquis omnibus qui eadem opinantur.2Tertullian, adv. Valentinianos c. 4, Deduxit et Heracleon inde tramites quos-
dam et Secundus et magus Marcus.
3Hippolytus, Eefutatio Oinn. Haeres., vi. 35.
4Theodoret, Haeret. Compend. i. 8, Kai aXXoi 5e
jj-vpiottvrevdev dve^rjaav
aiptaews dpXTjyoi, Ko<rcriaj>6s, 9e65oros, Hpa<AeW, IlroXf/Acuos, Map/cos, Sid<popa
6Photius, Ep. 134 (ed. Eic. Montacutius).
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 49/138
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 33
est : from Augustine1
(c. 16) Heracleonitae ab Heracleoiie : from
Epiphanius (Haer. XXXVI.) Hpa/eAeW KOI ol air avrov
K\Q)Virai: and from Origen (passim), e.g.ol air
avrov,aurofc? rd T^? /-lufloTroua?,
ol airo rfjs yvco/jLt](;avrov.
The fact that a school of his disciples was in existence when
Origen wrote his Commentaries on S. John (of which parts at any
rate were written before A.D. 2282
),does not necessitate any earlier
date for Heracleon than the end of the second century. The exact
meaning of Origen s description of him (Comm. in Joann. II. 8) is
uncertain,but the
phraseused
(yvoopipo*;)
wouldhardly
be natural,
unless Heracleon had been a prominent member of the school
during the lifetime of Valentinus. And we cannot lay much
stress on the fact that Origen admits that his account is only
from hearsay (\ey6fjuevov).In the absence of more direct evidence
we have no reason to distrust this tradition. On the other hand,
stress has been laid on the probability that the heads of the
Western or Italic School of Valentinians were contemporary,
or nearly so, with those of the Anatolic School to whom they are
opposed in the Refutatio. But as there is nothing to tell us
how quickly the two schools respectively developed, or whether
those who were regarded by a later age as most representative of
them were those who stood at the head at the same time, such
an argument is very precarious.The constant connexion of the
names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, not always in the same order,
is our only guide. As the order is never necessarily chronological,
its variation does not prove that they were absolutely contempo
rary, but it certainly gives a high probability to the supposition
that they were nearly so. All we know for certain is, that
Heracleon s Commentary on S. John was in existence before 228,
and that a comment of his on Luke xii. 8 11 was quoted by
Clement as early as 193. Clement s silence as to the Commen
taries on S. John affords no evidence of a later date than this
for their composition. Lipsius points out the probability that
Irenaeus had heard of him when he came to Rome about 17C
or 177: and at any rate the school of Ptolemaeus was well
1Augustine, De haeresibus liber, c. 16 (ed. Migne, vol. vin. p. 27).
2 See the Article Origen in Diet, of Chr. Biogr. vol. iv. p. 114.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 50/138
34 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
established at that time1
. We may perhaps go a little further.
It may be reasonably assumed that the lectures of Irenaeus, on
which, according to the most probable interpretation of Photius2
,
the Compendium of Hippolytus was founded, were delivered not
later than 177 3
,and we know that in this Compendium the heresy
of Heracleon was described. This can be gathered, almost with
certainty, from the place assigned to him in the Minor Heresiolo-
gists. This evidence is independent of the disputed question of
the date of the Syntagma of Hippolytus. Thus we have no
evidence which necessitates an earlier date than 170 for the
appearance of Heracleon as a Heresiarch, but on the other hand
there is a considerable probability, if we allow to the expression of
Origen the full force of its most natural interpretation, that the
true date is somewhat earlier, and in closer proximity to the
death of Yalentinus. Heinrici4has made use of the reference to
Heracleon in Clement s Eclogae Propheticae5
,which he regards as
a very early work of the Alexandrine Father, to
press
the earlier
date; but, if we take the more common view that these formed
part of the lost books of the Hypotyposes6
,this argument has of
course no weight.
The only other possibly available evidence is such as might be
deduced from the character of the Valentinian doctrine dealt with
in the Refutatio, supposing that we ought to regard this doctrine
as Heracleonic. It is
always allowed to be of a later type thanthat represented in Irenaeus, and thus its contents might possibly
give us some clue to Heracleon s date;but with this question we
are not yet in a position to deal. Suffice it to say here that the
chronological difference need not be great, and that the Refutatio,
if it has any connexion with Heracleon, represents in all probability
a stage of Heracleonism more developed than the teaching of the
Master himself. Here then we must leave, at any rate for the
present, the question of Heracleon s date.
1
Lipsius in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 18G7,
p. 81.
2Lightfoot, Clement of Home (2nded.), vol. n. p. 414.
3Ibid. p. 423.
4 Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die Heiligc Schrift, p. 13.
5
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 51/138
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 35
We know from Origen s direct statement, as well as from
the fragments cited by him, that Heracleon was the author of
vTTo/jLVJJ/jLara1
. These included Commentaries on at any rate
large portions of the Gospel according to S. John, and probably
also on that according to S. Luke. This follows from Clement s
statement on Luke xii. 8 11, TOVTOV ef77701^6^09 rov TOTTOV 6f
Hpa/c\a)i ,K.r.X. Whether he also wrote on S. Matthew is
uncertain2
. That he used it as authoritative follows from his
citation3
of Matt. viii. 12, ol viol TT)? ySacriXeta? efeXeucrozmu
(Text. Rec. eK^rjO^aovrai}, to prove the destruction of the menof the Demiurge.
The place of Heracleon among the Valentinians is given
differently by different heresiologists. Philaster and Pseudo-
Tertullian place him next to Secundus; Epiphanius and Augus
tine after Colarbasus. We do not possess sufficient information,
either in thefragments
of his ownwritings
whichremain,
or in the
very scanty references of other writers, to clear away the obscurity
which shrouds his system. The statement of Ps.-Tertullian,
Qui cum Valentino paria sentit sed nouitate quadam pronun-
tiationis uult uideri alia sentire, is perhaps unfair in its im
putation, but it comes as near the truth as we canget. The
information given by the Minor Heresiologists is but scanty.
PHILASTRIUS. PS.-TERTULLIANUS.
Dicens principium csse unum Introducit enim in primis illud
quern dominum appellat, deinde de fuisse quod...pronuntiat, et deinde ex
hoc natum aliud, deque his duobus ilia monade duo ac deinde reliquos
generationem multorum adserit prin- aeones. Deinde introducit totum
cipiorum. Valentinum.
What word is to be supplied to fill up the lacuna in the
account of Ps.-Tertullian, has beensufficiently
discussed
byothers
4.
The phrase ex ilia monade just below certainly suggests that
monadem is the only natural reading. Thus we get Mom? as
the starting point of the Heracleonic system, according to the
1
Origen, Comm. in Joann. vi. 8 ev ofs Ka.Ta\{\onrei> UTTO^V^OLGIV.2 See Fragment 51 (note).
3Origen, Comm. in Joann. xm. 59.
4 Cf. dcs
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 52/138
36 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Syntagma of Hippolytus, the almost certain source of the accounts
which we are considering. And this agrees exactly with the
account given by Hippolytus in the Refutatio, where the system
described under the section devoted to Valentinus starts from
a novas dyevvrjTos, a$6apTos K.T.\. (see Hippolytus, Ref. Omn.
Haeres. vi. 29). Combining this with the direct statements of
Irenaeus(l.
xi. 1) with regard to the tenets of Valentinus himself,
we may regard it as most probable that, whereas Valentinus s
system starts with an original Dyad, his more Pythagoreanising
pupil Heracleon referred the origin of all things to an eternal
Monad. Other more distinctly Pythagoreanising tendencies of
Heracleon and his school will come under notice later on.
The next step is more obscure. The most natural explanation
of the facts recorded by the Minor Heresiologists is that Heracleon
spoke of his second principle indifferently as one, or as a Dyad, of
which the two principles were not very clearly distinguished.It
must correspondto the Valentinian
NoO?and
AXty&ia:and
very
possibly he may have often referred to it as dXijOeia: compare the
use in the Fragments of the term TW Trarpl rrjs d\7)0eia<:.The
exact agreement of this with the account given in the Refutatio
must be noted. We need only quote vi. 29, Trpoeftakev ovv /cal
eyevvrjaev avros 6 irarr^p, wcnrep ijv fibvos, vovv /cal d\r)0eiav
rovreo-TL SvaSa. The next clause also agrees well enough with
the rest of Ps.-Tertullian and Philaster: r}? /cvpla KCU
<yeyoveKal ^rrjp Trdvrcov TWV eVro?
7r\7jpa>fjLaTO<; Karapi
alwvwv. This combines the deinde reliquos aeones of Ps.-Ter
tullian, and Philaster s deque his duobus generationem multorum
adserit principiorum/
But here a digression is necessary. Harnack in an interesting
note1
has suggested that the alius clarus magister of Irenaeus
1 Zur Quellenkritik der Gesclnclite des Gnosticismus, p. 62 n. He further sug
gests that Tertullian, in his copy of Irenaeus, may have found Heracleon s name
in this place (Irenaeus, i. xi. 3).But Lipsius (Die Quellen der iiltesten Ketzer-
geschichte, p. 67 n.) has shewn that Tertullian reproduces this section of Irenaeus
almost verbatim, subsequently to his mention of Heracleon, without connecting it
with Heracleon s name (Tert. adv. Valent. c. 37). Harnack also sees in the words
of Irenaeus n. 4. 1, honorificentius...reliquis aeonibus ipsius Ptolemaei et Hera-
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 53/138
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 37
(i.xi. 3) should perhaps be identified with Heracleon. But it has
been pointed out that exactly the same teaching, with regard to
Moj>oT?79, EJ/OTT;?, Moi/a? and *Ez/, is attributed to Marcus, with a
reference apparently to this passage, by means of the words icaO
aTTpoeiprjrai (Irenaeus I. xv. I)
1
. We may also compare the words
with which Marcus is introduced in c. xiii. 1 (the Greek is not
available, as Epiphanius has here epitomised the words of
Irenaeus); alius uero quidam ex iis, qui sunt apud eos, magistri
emendatorem se esse glorians; Marcus est autem illi nomen.
We may therefore conclude that the section I. xi. 3 refers to
Marcus and not to Heracleon. But Lipsius is inclined2to regard
the description of Heracleon, which Hippolytus gives in the
Syntagma, as based on this passage of Irenaeus. If this is right,
it follows of course that the information to be found in the
Syntagma about Heracleon is open to grave suspicion. But, in his
article on Valentinus, Lipsius has shewn that Hippolytus cannot
have derived his statements as to the pupils of Valentinus
(Secundus, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon) from the account of
Irenaeus(i. xi. xii.) alone, but must have used some other source
as well, if indeed he used this passage at all: and that the parti
cular doctrines assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus and Ptolemaeus,
those of the rerpa? Se%t,d and dpccrrepd, and the two av^vyot,
respectively, are not so attributed by Hippolytus, while the dis
tinction of the two^o(f>Lai, assigned by Irenaeus to Secundus
(i. xi. 2), is in Hippolytus assigned to them both. The connexionthen is so very loose that, when we find that Hippolytus (see
Ps.-Tcrtullian, quoted above) makes Heracleon s first principle to
be Moz/a?, we need hardly assume that he derived this from
Irenaeus I. xi. 3, where the first principle of the clarus magister
But the ipsius will hardly bear out this;and as no mention has been made in
the chapter at all of Ptolemaeus, the ipsius is in
anycase
strange.
It would
refer much more naturally to Valentinus, who alone has been mentioned so far.
Perhaps we should insert an et after ipsius, reading ipsius ct Ptolemaei.
1 See Neander, Gcnetische Entwickelung dcr gnostischcn Systcmc, p. 169 : with
this must be compared Dr Salmon s article on Epiphanes, Diet, of Christ. Biogr.
vol. ii.
2 See his article on Irenaeus, Diet, of Christ. Biogr. vol. in. p. 261. But we
should also compare Die Quellen der alt. Ketzergcschichte, pp. 169, 170; and his
article on Valuntiuus, Diet, of Christ. Biotjr. vol. iv. p. 1084.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 54/138
38 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
is Mo^or?;?. There would seem then to be no valid reason for
rejecting the information afforded by Hippolytus on the ground of
its derivation from this passage of Irenaeus, which refers to another
teacher. Whence Philaster derived his statement that Heracleoncalled his first principle
Dominum is not known. It is quite
possible that he may have used the term Kvpios (cf. /cvpia, Hipp.
Refut. VI. 29) ;but of this we know nothing.
The only other information afforded by the Minor Heresiologists
is Deinde introducit totum Valentinum, which is probably true
enough. With the probable exceptions already considered there
is no reason to suppose that Heracleon materially altered the
system of his master, or that he laid any particular stress on the
details of the system. His interest seems to have been more in the
general theological and philosophical teaching of Valentinianism,
and the interpretation by it of the Canonical Books which he
regarded as authoritative, and especially of the Gospel according
to S. John.
The patchwork of Epiphanius1 need not detain us long. His
points of contact with Philaster and Ps.-Tertullian betray the use
of the Syntagma ;and most of the rest consists so obviously of
gleanings from Irenaeus that it is unnecessary to look further for
his authority. The choice of Marcosian sources for his investiga
tions was the natural consequence of the relative positions he
assigns to Marcus, Colarbasus and Heracleon. At the same time
the teaching of Heracleon on the two viol dvOpooirov (Frag. 35)
lends plausibility to the supposition that the aXXot of Irenaeus
I. xii. 4 may have some connexion with Heracleon, and that he
did call the Father of All dv0pa)7ros. But, as a Commentator like
Heracleon was bound to make use of the Evangelic phrase u/o?
dvOpwirov, the identification is precarious. For the rest we should
perhaps
notice the
parallelism
of
y^re dppevprjre 6fj\v with
Hipp.Ref. VI. 30 (ev fAV yap TW dyevvrjTM, faa-lv, earl irdvra
O/JLOV,ev Se
rot?<yevvi]TOLs,
TO/j,ev 6r}\v...ro Se dppev), because of the
fyrjcrl,
with which we must deal later on. The description of the Sevrepa
^rr)p is a natural description of what formed part of every
Valentinian system. Epiphanius might easily have added it
himself, without deriving it from any particular source. The
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 55/138
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 39
words /3ov\eTai 8e vrXetora rwv irpo avrov teal OUTO? \eyei,v,when
compared with the statement of Ps.-Tertullian quoted above, point
to the existence of some such accusation in the Syntagma.
We know from the Refutatio that Heracleon belonged to the
Italic school of Valentinians;but beyond this no further informa
tion as to his teaching has come down to us, apart from his own
writings; unless indeed the account of Valentinianism given by
Hippolytus in the Refutatio is to be connected with the name of
Heracleon. This question can only be settled by an examination
of the points of contact between the two in matter and lan
guage; and this it will be better to reserve for the notes on the
Fragments. It will not be out of place here, however, to trace
shortly the illustrations which the Fragments offer of those pas
sages of the Refutatio,which are confessedly derived from a
document quoted, noticing also again the parts of such passages
which shew similarity to the account of Heracleon given in the
Syntagma. The first of these passages (Ref. vi. 29), tfv oXw?, <?/<n,
yevvrjTov ovBev, Trarrjp 8e yv povos ayewijTO?, ov TOTTOV e%o>i>,
ov xpbvov, ov crvii(3ov\ov, ovrc d\\r)v nvd /car ovoeva rcov rpoirwv
wrj&fjwu Svva/jievrjv ova-lav, is in thorough harmony with the
account in the Syntagma. The description of dyaTTT), though
worthy of the author of the Fragment (50) on 6fjio\oyia, offers no
point of contact with the Fragments. The agreement of the next
sentence, TrpoejBdXev ovv. . .Tovreari SvdSa, K.T.\., with the Syntagma
has been pointed out, but it is not directly .attributed to the
document. The next sentence so attributed, TOVTOV yap, ^crl,
T\eioTepov dpiOfjiov /c.r.X., is in harmony with the Pythagorean
tendency to dwell on numbers, which is seen in Fragments 16, 18,
40, where Heracleon explains the significanceof the 46 years
occupied by the building of the Temple, the six husbands (ac
cording to his text) of the woman of Samaria, and the seventh
hour whenthe son of the
/rWtXt/co?was healed. With the
sentence eV fjuev yap rw dyevvijrw, fricrlv,K.T.\. we have dealt
before. With the following avr^j ecrrt, (frrjalv, 77 djaOrj, 1} eirovpd-
viosc
Iepouo"aXr/yu,,et? r)v e7njyyL\aTo 6 $eo? elcrayayelv TOVS
u/oi)?^\<rpar]\
must be compared ihe lepovaa^fji of Fragment 13,
of which the -vfriH^o? TOTTO?, typified in John ii. 13 by lepoao-
\vfia, is an GLKUJV. (Cf. the note inloc.)
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 56/138
40 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
In chapter 32, after the explanation ofdp^f) crotyias </>o/3o<?
fcvpLov (Prov. i. 7), attributed by the use oftprjo-l to the same
document, we find a long passage, which it will be necessary to quotein full. "Eo-rt
Se TrvpwSijs, (prjcrlv, 77 ^v^iKi) ovala, Ka\elrai SefCal T07T09 [/^CCTOTT/TO?] VTT CiVTWV fCCli
ejSSo/Jbds KOI TTdXaibs rWV
KOI ova roiavra \eyovo~i Trepl rovrov, ravra elvai rov
,ov
fyacTiv elvai rov KOCT^OV fypiovpyov ecrri Se TrvpwSrjs.
\eyei, (pijcrl,/cal
M.wva-fj<; Kvptos 6 6eo<s crov Trvp earl<f>\eyov
KOI KaravakiaKov. KOI yap rovro ovrws yeypd^dat, Oe\ei. nr\r)
8e Tt9 ecrTt,, (f)rja-lv, rf Svvafjiis TOV TTVpo? ecri yap irvp 7ra/jL(f)dyov,
fcaTao-/3cr0rjvai /JLIJ &vvd/j,VOV.../caTd rovro roivvv TO /te/Do? Ourjrtj
rt9 eo-rivrj -fyvxf), pecroTrjs rt? ovaa ecrrt yap e/3Sofj,ds KOI
KCLTairaverts. VTro/cdra) ydp ecrrl rfjs dySodSos, OTTOV evrlv77
(To^ia, rjfjiepa /jie/jLOpcpwfjuevrj, vTrepdvw 8err)<$ uX?;?, 779 earl 8rj-
piovpyos. edv ovv efopouoQjj rot9 dva), rfj oySodSi, dOdvaros
eyei/ero /cal tf\0ev els rrjv oySodSa, tfris ecrrl, (pijcrlv, lepovcraXrjfjb
tTTOvpdvios edv See^ojjuoiwOf) rfj v\rj, rovreo-Ti, rots Trddeai, TOLS
V\IKOLS, <f)0apTr) eo-rai /cal aTrcwXero [? ea-rt teal aTroXXurat]. It
is impossible to determine how much of this passage is actually
quoted from the document in question : but the 7-077-09 [^0-0x77x09]
reminds us of Frag. 13, rovtyw%t,Kov TOTTOV, Frag. 40, rw VTTO-
ftefirj/coTi fjuepet, rfj? /jLeo-orijros, and Frag. 35, virep rov TOTTOV.
And the account of ^v^iKr) overLa ase/SBo/juds, and of the con
ditions under which it may become dddvaros, vividly recalls the
description of ^^77 in Fragment 40.
In chapter 34 (sub fin.), apart from the quotation from 1 Cor.
ii. 14, all that is necessarily taken from the document isficopla &e,
(frrjo-lv,earlv
77 SiW/-u9 rovfy/jLiovpyov. On the agreement, or
disagreement, of the next sentence, /u,w/509 yap fy, K.T.\., with
Fragment 2, see the note iti loc.
The rest of the quotations from the document, and there are
practically only two more, offer no points of comparison or of
contrast. But this examination reveals a very decidedsimilarity
between such parts of his system as can be discovered from the
Fragments of Heracleon, and the passages of the Refutatio where bythe use of
tfyrja-l Hippolytus shews that he is quoting a particular
Gnostic document1
. It has never been proved that Valentinus
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 57/138
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OP HERACLEON. 41
cannot have been the author of this document. But if the view,
that the Pythagoreanising element was chiefly developed by
Heracleon1
,is true, the Valentinian authorship is highly im
probable. The similarity of its contents to the Fragments of
Heracleon do not prove that he was the author, but they render
such a supposition very probable indeed. The more detailed
comparison of the rest of the account in Hippolytus with the
Fragments proves, I think, that the system on which the account
is based is Heracleonic;
while certain differences lead us to
attribute it rather to the school of Heracleon, than to the founder
of the school himself. I speak of course of the system on which
Hippolytus bases his account : divergent systems and opinions are
frequently mentioned.
Thus no certain evidence for Heracleon s date can be gained
from the Refutatio.The Pythagoreanising tendency, and the
absence of a eryVyo? of the Father, which we may attribute with
probability, though not with certainty, to Heracleon, are not
necessarily late elements. The details of the system, which are
generally regarded as of a later type, may or may not be his.
Of the Excerpta ex Theodoto it is not necessary to speak
at length here. The chief illustrations of the Fragments afforded
by them will be referred to in the notes. Considerable verbal
similarities exist, but we are not yet,if indeed we ever can be, in
a position to deal certainly with the Quellenkritik of the
Excerpta.
We must now turn to the surer ground of the Fragments
themselves, and conclude with a short summary of the teaching
of Heracleon, as it can be derived from his own writings.
The nature of God is in itself unspotted, pure, invisible. He
is Spirit, and can only be worshipped duly by those who are
of the same nature as Himself, and whose worship is spiritual,not
carnal (Fr. 24).Elsewhere he is called 6
Trarrjp TT?? aXrfOda^(Fr. 20). We hear in Fr. 16 of a rer/sa?, tf aTrpocrTrXotfo?,
which
is probably the highest Tetrad of the Valentinian system, i.e. the
four highest male Aeons. The next highest Aeon of whom we
affect the question under discussion. He admits the trustworthiness of Hippolytus s
authority in this section of the Eefutatio.
1 See also Lipsius, Quellenkritik desEpiplianios> p. 170.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 58/138
42 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
read is perhaps the dva) Xpto-ro?, who, according to the Hip-
polytean account, sent the KOIVOS rov TrX^wyLtaro? KapTros to
Sophia; but the interpretation of Fr. 35 is uncertain. The
Xo7o? of Heracleon is not a member of the original Pleroma,or Aeon, according to Heracleon s usage of the term. The
inhabitants of the Aeon came into being before him (Fr. 1).
His position seems to correspond to that of the KOWOS Kapiros
in theRefutatio. All things, with the exception of the Aeon
and its inhabitants, came into being through him;that is to say,
according to Heracleon s strange interpretation of Sia, he was the
cause of the creation of the world by the Demiurge (irapao-^elv
Tr)v airLav-7-779 yevecrews rov KOCT/JLOV ru>
$.). Through his in
dwelling activity the Demiurge worked. The Trvev/jLan/col were in
a stricter sense created by him, avro? jap rrjv Trpwrr^v fjibpfywcriv
rrjv Kara rrjv yevecriv avrol? Trapea^e, ra VTT a\\ov cnrapivra
6*9f*>op<f)r]v
teal et?</>O>T
-ia-fjbov Kal
Trepiypacfrrjv ISlav dyaywv Kal
dvaSeiga?. He is the true Creator, and is also called Xpto-ro?
(Fr. 22). He is further identified with the Saviour (Fr. 5),
and it is probably he, to whom reference is made in the words
6 ev alwvi Kal ol avv avrw eXOovres (Fr. 22), as is shewn by what
follows: e%fj\0ev...6 Xoyo? et? rr)v OL/covfjievrjv. We hear of the
Holy Spirit as driving out evil (Fr. 13), but nothing further
is said on the subject.
Sophia is never mentioned in the Fragments, but her
history is the archetype of that of the redemption of the
TTvev/jLarifcol, which is represented as the true meaning of the
story of the Samaritan Woman, and it is not possible to
separate archetype from copy in Heracleon s interpretation of the
story.
The Demiurge is frequently mentioned. Though in one
sense the world came into being through the Xoyo?, the Demi
urge, inspired by him, is its immediate creator (Fr. 1). He it
was, in all probability, who sowed, unconsciously, the pneumaticseeds which were formed and fostered by the Word (Fr. 3). Heis typified by John the Baptist, who, when he professed his
unworthiriess to loose the latchet of Christ s shoe, is represented
by Heracleon as speaking in the person of the Demiurge, who is
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 59/138
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 43
the Creator whom the Jews worshipped, and is represented by
Jerusalem, the seat of the imperfect worship which was soon
to pass away (Fr. 20). The worship offered to him by all his
worshippers was carnal and mistaken (Fr. 22). He is again
represented by the/3a<ri\iKo<;
of John iv. 46. He is, as it were,
a petty king (Fr. 40), set over a small kingdom by the Great
King. His kingdom is the TOTTO? /mea-orrjTo^,in the inferior
part of which, represented by Capernaum, his son lies sick.
His nature is psychic, as is that of his son, which is represented
by the number seven. This nature is capable of salvation by
being assimilated to the higher spiritual nature, but the de
struction of those who remain his men, and are not thus assimi
lated, is assured by the words of Christ in Matt. viii. 12. His
nature is such that it requires signs and wonders before it can
believe : it cannot \6yy Tria-reveiv. Yet he is easily persuaded of
the superior power of the Saviour. He has his angels, here
represented as slaves, who report to him on the well-being of
his subjects, and the progress which they are making in conse
quence of the Saviour s advent. He and his house represent
his whole angelic order, and those men who are more nearly
akin to his own nature. Such can be saved, though the salvation
of some of the angels is doubtful, and the destruction of those
men, who are merely men of the Demiurge/ is certain. Once
more, according to one interpretation of ea-nv 6 ^TJTWV KOL
icpivwv the Judge is the Demiurge, the Saviour s minister, whoperforms the will of Him to whom all judgment has been com
mitted.
The Sia/3oXo? comes next in importance in Heracleon s
teaching. He is represented by the Mountain of Samaria (Fr.
20), which is one part of the whole mountain of evil, the /cocy-co?
worshipped by all before the Law, and since the Law by the
Nations of the Gentiles. He cannot stand in the truth, because
his nature is not of the truth, but of its opposite, of error and
ignorance. Falsehood is his own by nature;
he is physically
incapable of speaking truth. His nature (for so Heracleon in
terprets 6 Trarrjp avrov) is composed of error and falsehood
(Fr. 47). His substance is different in kind from the \oyiKr)
ova-la of the Saints (Fr. 45). He has desires but no will (Fr. 46).
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 60/138
44 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
The xoiKol are his children by nature, of the same substance
as he.
Corresponding to XOYO?, Srj/jLiovpyov, St,dfto\os }we find the
usualtriple
division of
meninto
Trvev/juari/col, ^ru^iKol, ^OLKOI orl
(cf. Fr. 44, erepas outrta? rvy^dvovn Trap oi)? /caXovcn
?; TrvevpaTiKovs). The 7rveu/j,aTi/col are in some sense
identical with the ^070?, who imparted to them their form and
personality (Fr. 2). The Holy of Holies, into which the HighPriest alone enters, symbolises the place of their final destination
(Fr. 13). The spiritual seed has been sown in the e^va-rj^a,
which is apparently the psychical part of those men who possessit (Fr. 16). Before the coming of Christ their spiritual nature
was imprisoned in matter, corrupted by adulterous and irrational
intercourse with hylic wickedness. Their former life was weak,
temporal, deficient, because it was cosmic. When they are rescued
by the Saviour, the life which He gives them is eternal and
incorruptible (Fr. 17). Through ignorance of God and the
true worship which should be offered to Him, they lived in
former times no true life (Fr. 19). Yet the spiritual nature was
not wholly dormant ;the Church awaited Christ, and was persuaded
that He knew all things, and was thus prepared to receive Him
(Fr. 25). But their rescue depends in no way on themselves;
the spiritual nature isfyvaei, aw^o^evov, and incorruptible
(Fr. 37). Faith corresponds to their true nature, and henceforth
they offer to the Father of Truth that spiritual worship which is
their rational service (Fr. 24). This they can do, because theyare of the same nature as God. Rescued themselves, they are
instrumental in the salvation of others, especially of those^v^ifcol
who are capable of salvation. They pour forth what has been
given them, unto the eternal life of others (erepoi). So Heracleon
interprets the uXkopevov of John iv. 14 (Fr. 17). It is
throughand by the pneumatic that the psychic is brought to the Saviour
(Fr. 27).
The TTvev^aTiicoi are consubstantial with God, and are destined
to salvation. With the -^v^Kol it is not so. They are the
children of the Demiurge and share his nature. They are repre
sented by the Jews, who worshipped the Creator, the Demiurge,
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 61/138
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 45
God, but knew Him not, worshipping angels and months and
moons (Fr. 21) *. They can be saved, but cannot enter the Pleroma :
the Trpovaos, the sphere of the Levites service, is the true symbolof their destined home. They are many in number, and form
theK\V)<TL^,
in contrast to the small number of the spiritual
eK\oy^. But we learn most about their nature in Fragment 40.
Like the Trvev^aTiKol they are entangled inv\<rj
: and they are
sick, sick unto death. But their case is not hopeless ;the psychic
nature possesses fitness for salvation (brinfieiaxs e^ovaav) ;it
is the corruptible which puts on incorruption.Its nature is
symbolised by the number seven. The Hebdomad, we learn from
Hippolytus, is the abode of the Demiurge, having affinities both
with the Ogdoad above, and the Hyle (whose number is six)
below. The psychic can rise to salvation or sink to destruction.
There would seern then to be a freedom of choice. The tyv%iKol
are the mean between the necessarily saved and the hopelessly
lost. But whether the freedom of choice is real or only apparent,
it is hard to say.
The %oiKolare by nature the sons of the Devil. The ^jrv^Kol
can, by doing his works, become sons of the Devil deaet, or a%ia,
but only the xoi/colare such by nature (Fr. 46). They are of the
same substance with the Devil, and thus differ in kind from the
other classes of men. Though it is nowhere expressly so stated, it
follows from the position which they hold in the system that their
destruction is inevitable.
To set free the TrvevfiariKol, and to save those -^v^LKol who
were capable of salvation, was the work of the Saviour on earth.
The exact nature of the Saviour who appeared on earth is
nowhere explicitly stated. But we learn that the Christ, who,
as we saw, probably corresponds to the KOIVOS rov TrX^^wyLtaro?
of the Hippolytean account, came down from the
and took flesh as an uTro&^a (Fr. 8). As we learn
this from a fragment which is dealing with the words of the
Baptist, /-tetro? V^JLWV arrjtcei, K.T.\., and as in Fr. 10 a dis
tinction is made between the a-cofia and that which dwells in it,
we may assume that Heracleon s Italic position is confirmed by
1 On Heracleon s use of the Preaching of Peter, see Fr. 21 (note), and Hilgen-
feld, Nov. Test, extra Canon, receptum, iv. p. 64.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 62/138
46 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
the Fragments (see Hipp. Refut. vi. 35). We do not know
whether he commented on John i. 14 or not. The flesh which
Christ took was imperfect andfitly represented by the Lamb.
He who taketh awav the sin of the world is the Higher Beinsr,O o>
who dwells in the body. Traces of Docetism are to be found in
the account of His healing of the son of the fiacrCKiKos (Fr. 40,
Karaffds Trpo? rov /cd/jLVOvra teal laaa/Jievo^ CLVTOV), and in the
description of His food as the performance of the Father s will.
The interpretation of His journeys as typifying His passing from
thehylic
to the
psychic sphere,or His
appearingin the
world,of
course proves nothing, and the symbolical interpretation does not
exclude the historical. On the other hand the expressions used
with regard to the Passion are surprisingly literal for a Gnostic.
Not only does the Passion divide the two periods of the Saviour s
sojourn on earth (Fr. 38), but the slaying of the lamb at the
Great Feast is typical of the Passion of the Saviour, as again
the eating ofit
symbolises the Marriage Feast of the future
(Fr. 12).
He appears publicly on earth first, apparently, at the time
of the Baptism. His presence is declared to the people by the
Baptist. Through his representative the Baptist, the Demiurge
acknowledges the superiority of the Saviour. His journey to Capernaum symbolises His descent into the hylic portions of the world:
but the nature of this place is unsuitable, He can here neither
do nor say anything. The journey to Jerusalem represents His
ascent to the psychic sphere; He cleanses the Holy of Holies,
the home of the pneumatic, and also, apparently, the Levites
court, which belongs to the psychic. The powers of evil are driven
out by the might of the Holy Spirit, and the Ecclesia becomes
again the House of His Father. He goes down to Samaria
to rescue the spiritual Church from the entanglements of matter,
and the adulterous intercourse in which she had lived with her
six husbands (Fr. 17); to restore her to her true husband above, and,
for the present, to teach her the worship of the Father, inspirit
and in truth. By her means, and later by His own words, the
higher class of-^v^i/col are also rescued, and leave their former
cosmic life. Thus the
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 63/138
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 47
earth by the Disciples, each one to his own partner: the final
consummation is not till the Trvev^arLKol are given as brides
to the angels, and enter the Pleroma for the great Marriage Feast.
He is said to have come to Samaria, in some sense, for the sake of
theDisciples. Perhaps this may mean to rescue for the angels,
whom they represent, their spiritual brides. The Saviour s own
work for the ^v^iKol is more fully described in Heracleon s
interpretation of the miracle of the healing of the son of the
ftavikiKos, which has been considered already.
His workwas
not endedby
the Passion.After the Resur
rection, no doubt, of the psychic Christ, the Saviour again
appeared among His disciples and converted many more to faith
than during the first period of His work. At length He was
parted from them. The period between the Resurrection and
the Ascension was probably regarded by Heracleon as considerably
longer than forty days. This opinion was also held by other
Gnostics : cf. Irenaeus I. iii. 2, //-era rrjv e/c
veicpwvSe/caoKra)
fjirjcrl \eyeiv SiareTpifyevai avrov crvv TO?<?
and I. xxx. 14, remoratum autem eum post resurrectionem
xvni mensibus.
Of the Eschatology of the system we do riot hear much. The
v\iKol are obviously doomed to destruction, and so are such of the
^rv^LKol who are not raised and assimilated to what is higher ;
the rest go to their own place of salvation, which we learn is
without the Pleroma. The Trvev^arLKol, as we may reasonably
conjecture from what is said, are given as brides to the angels
of the Saviour, and enter into the Pleroma to partake of the
eternal rest of the Marriage Feast and the highest worship of the
Father inspirit
and in truth.
Enough examples have been given to shew the general character
of Heracleon as a Commentator, but so far we have seen his worst
side. He is seen at his best in the description of True Confession,
in Life and not in Word only (Fr. 50). This whole fragment is of
great interest and surprising excellence. At times in his Com
mentary on S. John he is an acute and accurate observer. He
has seen rightly that the passage beginning, ovSels rov Oeov
ewpa/cev Trwirore (Jn. i. 18), is not part of the Baptist s speech,
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 64/138
48 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
but is added by the Evangelist himself (Fr. 3). His interpretation
of d\\o/jievov (Jn. iv. 14) is fanciful, but striking. What he says
of the Will of the Father in Fr. 31 certainly does not deserve the
censure it receives from Origen. He has interpreted rightly the
simplicity of the disciples in asking MT; rt? tfveryicev avra)(f>a<yelv
;
and the self-satisfied stupidity of the Jews in their suggestion
of Mrirt, d-rroKTevel eavrov ; Indeed he is often at his best in
those places where Origen complains of his want of spiritual
insight and servile adherence to the letter. But his explanatory
remarks are often strangely unfortunate. We may cite as
examples his account of Christ s inability to teach or work
miracles at Capernaum (Fr. 11); his remark on the objections
raised by the Pharisees to John s baptism (Fr. 6); and his
distinction of what the Saviour said about John himself, from
what He said about the things concerning him (Fr. 5). And his
whole system of metaphorical interpretation is the most arbitrary
attemptto read into the Fourth
Gospel
the details andteaching
of the system in which he had been brought up. At the same
time we must remember that, though the application is more arbi
trary, the general method is exactly the same as that of Origen
himself. Both extract the meaning they desire from the words on
which they are commenting by a violent system of metaphorical
distortion. But whereas Origen applies his method more con
sistently, and endeavours to find a meaning which is based on a
system formed from the study of the Fourth Gospel as a whole
and of other books whose teaching is not alien to that of this
Gospel, Heracleon attempts, very often with excessive wildness,
to discover in the Gospel a system which has only a superficial
and verbal connexion with it. Yet, on the whole, though we
cannot but feel that the author of Fragment 50 might have
employed his ability in a more fruitful manner than he has sometimes done, there is much interesting matter, apart from the his
torical investigation of Valentinianism, to repay a careful study of
the earliest Commentary on the Gospel of S. John.
The bearing of Heracleon s Commentary on questions con
nected with the authorship and acceptance of the Fourth Gospel
does not come within the of this book. A list of of
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 65/138
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF HERACLEON. 49
In it I have omitted one or two of those generally cited,
where the quotation or reference is probably made by Origen
and not
byHeracleon himself. The Index of Words will
supply further assistance for the study of his vocabulary and
his teaching.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 66/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
1. Orig. Comm. in loann. ii. 8 (R. IV. GG; L. i. 117).
Se olfJLaiKOI
%ft>/n? fiaprvplov rov OvaXevrivov
Jo. i. 3.\<yo/JLvov
elvat, ^vwpi^ovf
Hpa/cA,ea>z>a, &M<iyov/jLVovTO HANTA
Ai Ayioy epeNGTO, e^eCk^evai HANTA rov Koa/jiov KOI ra
ev avro), KK\ioma rwv HASITCON, TO oa-ov 7rl rfj vTrodecrei
avrov, ra rov KCHT/JLOV/cal roov ev avro) Siatyepovra. (f>i]crl yap 5
1. 3. The exclusion of TO, rov /v6<r-
fjiov Ko.1 TUV tv avT$ Siafapovra from
the iravra is noticeable. Contrast
Irenaeus i. viii. 5 Travra. Si1
avrov
eytvero /cat %W/HS avrov eytvero ovdt
v" iraffi yap rots ^uer avrbv aiwcri
(j.op(f>T)steal yevfoeus ainos 6 \6yos
tytveTo.
The Valentinians generally
deduced from the Prologue to the
Fourth Gospel the origin of the
Pleroma and its inhabitants. Cf.
Excerpta ex Theodoto 6. The teach
ing of Heracleon is more nearly allied
to that of Irenaeus, who frequently
insists on the inclusion of theKO<T/J.OS
in iravra., as against the ordinary
Valentinian interpretationof
the
passage. Heracleon s supposition
that ra. ev T$ aluvi came into being
before the A67os gives us a clue to his
views with regard to the Ao7os, who
must be identified with the A67os
who, according to the Italic school,
represented by Ptolemaeus and Hera
on the
avudev Trjs (ro0/as (Hipp. Refut. vi.35).
In the account given by Hippolytus
we hear of seventy Xo7oi projected
by Sophia and her tn^iryos, the KOU>OS
Ka.pir6<>. Probably
Heracleon s A67o$ corresponds to the
o-J^iryos of Sophia. At any rate he
occupies a position below the aiuv
and above the Demiurge. The A67os
who appeared to Valentinus in the
form of a new-born babe (Hipp.
Refut. vi. 42) cannot be assigned
definitely to any place in the system,
but is most probably to be regarded
as the<Tvvyos
of ZWT;. Except there
fore that the term (A67os) owes its
origin to the Prologue to St Johns
Gospel, it has no connexion with
the A67os of Heracleon.
5. SicKfitpovra.. (pyffi yap] An un
fortunate transposition of yap and
0i7fft in Cod. Yen. has misled Fer-
rarius into translating this passage,
Per sermonem inquit non insignia
seculum etc. Huet s transla
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 67/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 51
Ov rov alcova97
TO, ev rat al&vi yeyovevai Bid rov
\6yov, ariva oierai rrpo rov \6yov yeyovevai. dvctLBecrrepov
Be icrrd/jievos Trpos TO KA I
XP C ^Y"rof ereNeio oyAe GN, /JbrjSe Jo. i. 3.
evXaftovfjievos ro MH npocGHC TO?C Aoroic AYTOY, TNA Mh eAepIn Pr. xxx. 6
t, ,a >,
, " . / (xxiv. 29).10 ce KAI VGYAHC reNH, rrpoa-rivriai rw OYAe GN TWZ/ ev TO> KOCT/JLO)
teal Ty KTicrei. KOI eirel7rpo<pavyj
ecrrl rd VTT avrov Xe-
y6/JLva (ripoSpa ^e^iacr^va /cal irapd rrjv evdpyeiav eTray-
yeXX-o/jLei a, el rd vofjU^o/meva avrw Oela eKK\eierai rwv HAUTCON,
rd Se, co? e/cet^o? olerai, TravreXws (frOeipo/jueva Kvpiws HANTA
15 KaXeirai, ovrc eTriSiarpnrreov rfj dvarpoirfj rwv avrbOev rrjv
droTTiav e^aivovrwv olov Be /cal ro T?;? ypatyrjs \eyov(T7]<i
Xoopic AYTOY ereNGTO ofAe GN Trpo&nOevra avrov dvev Trapa-
fjivOias T?7? drrorf]<> ypacfrrjs
ro rwv ev ru> Koo-fjuu* real
ry Kricreu /jirjBe perd mOavor^ro^ diro^aivecrdaL, mo~reve(rOai
20 d^iovvra o/u-o/co? Trpo^tjrais rj avrocrToXot? Tot? /ZGT et-ovaias
KOI dvvTreuOvvws KaTa\ei7rovcri TO?? tcaO* avrovs KOI /ji0
auTou?awrrjpia ypd/jifjiara.
en Be tSico? KOL rov HANTA
Ai AYTOY GfGNGTO ^r)Kovcr, (f)d(T/ca}vTov rrjv dlrlav irapa-
a-%6vra T^? yeveaews rov KOCT/JLOV rw BvjfMiovpyw, rov
7 5 \6yov ovra, eivai, ov rovd(j)
ovrj v(j) ov, d\\a rov
8 /UTjSe] /x^. 12 efa/xyetai ] eittpytiav.
tern quantum ipsius fert hypothesis is not found in Delarue s text, the
ex omnibus praestantissima quaequc word being omitted in Cod. Bodlei-
mundi et eorum quae ipso continen- awi/s, plausibly substitutes T for TO.
tur is unintelligible in connexion But it is not necessary to alter the
with the context. The things more attested reading : ro may be taken
excellent than the world and its con- with a7ro0cuVecr#cu, and though the
tents are of course, as is explain- construction is awkward it is not im-
ed in the following words, the aluv possible, and not more awkward than
and its contents. By explaining that which would be obtained by
iravra to be the world and its con- reading ry, viz. olov -rrpocmd^vTa
tents, he excludes from -rravTa. all dirfxpaiveffdai. But the olov 5 is
that is of a higher nature. unsatisfactory, and it has been well
6. cuwi/i] For this sense of alwv, suggested that we should probably
derived no doubt originally from the here read otoj> 5?). For one who recog-
Timaeiis (38 A),cf. Frag. 18, r\v yap nizes the authority of Scripture, to
ai)r^s 6 avTip h T cuuw, and Frag. make unwarrantable additions to it
22, 6 lv cuum. without any attempt to justify them,
16. TO T?}S 7pa0^s \eyov<Tys]Hil- is a fair example of TUI> avrbdev TTJI/
genfeld, omitting \eyov0"r)S,which droTriav
i[JL<pa.i.v6vTWv.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 68/138
52 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Bi ov Trapd rrjv evrfj avvrjOela typdo-iv eV8e^d/u<ei/o9
TO
t \ r **(*-. //)
yeypau/jLevov. ei yap <w?voei ^ a\j)ueia rwv repayparwv
fjv,e$6i Bid rov orujuovpyov yeypdfyQai rrdvra yeyovevai
VTTO rov \6yov, ou^t oe dvdrcd\iv Bid rov \6yov vrro rov
BnLiiovpyov. Kai T^/xet? pev rf/BS ov
^priadfjievoiarco^ovuws 30
rfj o-vvrjOeia, OVK dudprvpov rrjv efcBo^v d^rjKapev. eicelvos
Be, 7T/305TW arj rrapapepvdrlcrOai
drro rwv Oelwv ypa^drayv
rov Ka& eavrov vovv, fyaiveraiKai vTrorrrevcras TO d\r)6e$ Kai
dvaiBws avra> dvnft^etyas (ptjal ydp onOvx w? UTT d\\ov
evepyovvros avros errolei o Xdyo?, tV ovra) vovjOfj 35
26 Trapd TTJV] irepi c5v. Cod. Bodl. in mg. rd%a TWI>.
26. -n-apa TTJV]The reading of
Cod. Monac. irepl wi>,which is repro
duced in all its copies, is impossible.
Ferrarius s translation, exponens id
quod scriptum est phrasin esse con-
suetam, is not helpful. It is not
easy to see how he got it from the
Greek which was before him, and in
the context in which the words occur
it gives no intelligible sense. Hilgen-
feld s conjecture Trepirr^v is hardly
more helpful. How is it to be trans
lated ? The conjectural emendation
which most obviously suggests itself
is
Tra/mTTJJ>.
The confusion of Trapd
and ireplis one of the commonest
characteristics of Cod. Monac., as
also, it may be added, of its de
scendants. And when once Trapd was
changed to Trept, rrjv may have be
come TWP, which might easily be
corrupted to c5v. Possibly the original
reading may have been Trapd XT/I/ T&V,
which accounts more easily for the
corruption, if the construction thus
given to (ppaffivis possible. Either
of these readings will give the re
quired contrast to Origen s position
stated just below, TJ/XCIS5e aVoXotftfcos
ry ffwrjddg. /c.r.X. We may compare
such passages as xiii. 17, opa 5 el^
tion is independent of Heinrici,
whose note (Die Vol. Gnosis, p. 135)
I had not seen when I first made it.
32. Trpos r /AT) irapafj.efj.v0TJ(r6ai]
On the bearing of this passage as it
stands in Codex Regius on the rela
tion of that MS. to Cod. Monacensis
see Introduction p. 8. Delarue s
obviously right conjecture of ry for
TO is now substantiated by the
evidence of Cod. Monacensis. Un
fortunately the same error (TO for T)
was made independently by the
scribes of Codd. Reg. and Bodl.
35. 6 Xcryos] The position of the
Ao7os here is exactly that given to
Sophia in Hippolytus (Refut. vi. 33),
dyvoovvTi O.VT$ (sc. r drj^ovpyy) ??
o-o0a i>rjpyr)<Te,
which corresponds to
Heracleon s avrov evepyovvros repos
cTrofci, where the repos is obviously
the Demiurge. It may be noticed
that in this passage Hippolytus gives
a general reference, using \tyov<rw andnot
0->7<riV.
We should also compare
the account of Irenaeus (i.v. i.),
especially the words /j,a\\ov 8e TOV
Scoria 6V auT?}s; and shortly before,
(of the Demiurge) XeX?70oTws Kivot-
/j.vov VTTO TTJS /j.r)Tpos.Heracleon may
have assumed some similar relation
rate
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 69/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 53
TO Ai Ayrof, aAA avrov evepyovvros ere/509
ov rov Trapovro? 8e Kdtpov ecrrlv eXey^ai TO/J,rj
rov
ovpyovvTTTjperrjv rov
\6yov yeyevrjfjbevov
rov KOO~/JLOV
Ktvav, Kal aTToSeifcvvvai, ori VTrrjperrjs rov 8rj/j,iovpyov y
40 6 Xo7O9 TOJ> KocrfMov Karecr/cevacre. Kara yap rov
Aa/3/8 9e6c e?ne KAI ereNHOHCAN* eNereiAATO KAI eKTicGHCAN.
eNejeiAATO yap 6 dyevvrjros $eo9 rcT npoaroTOKcp TTACHC KTICGOOC,
KAI 6KTIC6HCAN, OV /JLOVOV 6 KOafJUO^, Kal TO. V aVTU>,d\\a
/cal rd \oL7rd nravra eTre OpoNOi efre KypiOTHrec e\~re APXAI
45 erre eloyciAr HANTA r^p Ai AYTOY KAI eic AYTON IKTICTAI, KAI AYTOC
ecTi npo HANTCON.
Ps. cxlviii.
Col. i. 16,
2. Ibid. ii. 15 (R. iv. 73; L. i. 130).
Hdvv 8e/3tGUft>9
Kara rov roTrovyev6[j,evo<$
6
TO "0 refONGN GN AYToj ZOOM HN e^6L\ij(f)6v dvrl To> N AY TO) Jo. i. 4.
Et9 TOU9 dvOpwTTOvs Toi)9 7T vev/JLari KOV 9, olovel ravrov
vofjiiaras elvai, rov \6yov Kal TOV9 TrvevfiariKOVS, el Kaifjirj
5 cra0w9 TaiV elpijKe
Kal wcrrrepel alno\oyd)v (frqa-ivAUTO 9
modify the system sufficiently to
obtain the necessary adaptation to
the Prologue of St John. The same
relation, however, between Sophia
and the Demiurge is assumed in the
second part of iheExcerpta ex Theo-
doto(c. 49, cTrel 5e OVK eyivwo-Kev TT\V
5t avTov tvepyovcrav /c.r.X.).It was
probably part of the original system
of Valentinus, and is therefore not
available as a means of differenti
ating the systems of his pupils.
41. The LXX. in this passage
reads atfros instead of o 0eoj, and
repeats the ai)ros before evereiXaro.
2. 5. Two explanations of this
passage are possible. The dXXos
whose sowing the A67os completed
may be the KOIVOS TOV TrXT/pw/Aaros
Ka/>7r6s,in which case cf. Hippolytus,
Refutat. vi. 34, X67<navuQtv /care-
dTTO TOO KOLVOV TOV TT\TJpU-
Kapirov Kal Trjs <ro0taset s TOVTOV
TOV K6ff/j.ov: and also the interpreta
tion of aXXos 6 airdpuv Kal aXXos 6
6epifai> given by Heracleon (Frag.
35). But it is more probable that
the aXXos is the Demiurge, the
work of the A670$ being that which
is described in the passage quoted
from Hippolytus as a sowing. This
suits better the description TTJV wpw-
rt]v iibp(f>w<nv T7)V Kara TT)V yfre&u ,
and gives to the action its natural
place (chronologically) in the history
of Creation. Much closer parallels,
however, to this passage are found
in the Excerpta ex Theodoto. Cf.
57, yivtTai ovv.../j.6p<pu<ri.sTOV irvev-
^artKoO, and 48, diaKpivas Se 6 Srj-
fjuovpybs TO, Kadapa airb TOV
ws av fviduv TT]v eKaTep
eTToiT/o-ei/, TOVTtffTiv tfpavtpuffcv Kal eis
(/>cDsKal IStav wpoariyayev, which is
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 70/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
yap TTJV TrpwTTjv fjiop^wcr iv rrjv Kara Trjv yivecriv
aurot? Trape(T%e, ra VTT aXXou (nrapevTa et?
Kal et? fywTicr JJLOVteal Trepiypa^rjv ISlav dyayoov
dva$elj~a$.ov
TrapeTrfprjaeSe Kal TO
Trepl
TOOVTrvev/JLaritcwv
Trapd rcS Hlav\M Xeyopevov, OTI, dvdpwTrovs avTovs direaiw- 10
1 Cor. ii. Trrja-e YYXIKOC ANGpconoc oy AexeTAi TA TOY TTNeyMATOC Toy
14>l>
Oeoy, McopiA rp AYTCO ecTi Ae nNeyMATiKoc ANAKPINGI TTANTA.
yap ov /Jirrju avrov afMev eir rov Trvev/JLarifcov /J>r)
TO dvOpwTros. KpeiTTov yap r) dvOpaiTros 6
S, TOV dvOptoTTOV rJTOl 6V"^V^fj 7)
V Gto^aTl r)V 15
apa/CTtipi^ojjLevov, ov^i oe Kal ev rw TOVTWV
irvevfJLaTi, ov KaTa/jiTO^r)v eTTLKpaTovaav xprj\LCLTI-
o TTvev/JiaTiKo*;. apa 8e Kal TCL r^? ToiavTris vTroOeaews
KCLV dTTO^aivofjuevrjs a7roSetfea>? dirofyaiveTai, ovBe
^ TW%ovo-r)S TTiOavoT^TO^ (frOdcrai eh TOV Trepl TOVTCOV 20
s \6yov. Kal raura fMev Trepl eKeivov.
8
3. Ibid. vi. 2 (R. iv. 102; L. i. 177).
Jo. i. 19. KAI AYTH GCTIN H MApTypiA Toy IcoANNoy. SevTepa
dvayeypa/JL/jievr) Iwdvvov TOV fBaTTTia"Tov Trepl XptcrroO
Jo. i. 15. Tvpia, r^? TrpoTepas dp%a/jLevr)sdiro TOV OYTOC HN 6 einooN
C
onicoo Moy epxoMGNOc, Kal \r)yovo-i]s et? TO MoNOfGNHC 6e(k d
ov elnov 6 uto5
3 6 eiTTiov(sic).
4 fj-ovoyevr/s Ocbs (sic).
qualified in the next section by the hand, afford instructive examples in
words end 5e oJ/ceyivw<rKei> TTJV 6t the history of the transmission of
aJrou frepyovaav. It is tempting to Patristic quotations (see Introduc-
restore our text on the lines of the tion, pp. 8, 18) ;and the curious con-
passage quoted from the Excerpta, flation of Codex Regius (b /movoye^
and read /cat ISeav. But the phrase wos 6e6s) which is quoted in Tischen-
jrfpLypatftrjv ibiav is not intrinsically dorfs critical digest is thus traced
objectionable. to its origin.
12. The transposition of ia-rlv This is not the only case where
and avry in Huet and the other Origen complains of Heracleon s in-
editions is due to an error of the terpretation of a passage, where the
scribe of Cod, Rcyius. The right latter is probably right. (See West-
order is preserved in the other MSS. cott s Commentaiy on St John, in
3. 4. The interlinear insertions infoe.)
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 71/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEKACLEON. 55
5 0>N 10 TON KOATTON TOY HATpOC Ke?NOC eH|-HCATO. OVft V*y6lKJo. i. 18.
Se 6f
HpaK\ea)v i>7ro\a/j,{3dvei OyAeic TON 9eoN ed pAKeN nconoTe
Km T(l 6^9 (f)dcrKa)v elprjcrOaiOVK diro TOV ftaTTTKrrov
aXX a7ro TOV /uiadrjrov el yap teal KCUT avTov TO K TOY Jo. i. 1C,
TTAHpOOMATOC AYTOY HM?C HANT6C eAABOMGN, KAI)(AplN
ANTIX<*plTOC,
10 OTI 6 NOMOC AlA MOOYC603C GAOOH, H X^P IC KA>I " ^H6eiA AlA IhCOf
XpicTof epeNGTO VTTO rov ftaTTTicrTOV etp^rat, TTW? OVK afco\ov-
6ov TOV eK TOY nAHpcoMATOC TOY XpicTof etX^^ora teal x^P N
Sevrepav eirl Trporepas ^ApiTOC, o/jLoXoyovvrd re AIA Mcoceo^c
(JLGV $e$6(T0ai, TON NOMON, THN $ X^P IN KA JHN AAhBGIAN AlA
is lncof XpicTof yeyovevcu, IK T&V diro TOY nAnptoMATOC e9
avrov e\7j\v06ra)v vevorjKevai, TTCO? OGON oYAeic eoapAKGN
nconoTe /cat TO TON MONOpeNH eic TON KOATTON ONTA TOY nATpoc
avry Kal TTCLGI TOL* GK TOY nAnpcoMATOC et\r)(f)6a-t,
; ov yap vvv nrpwrov efyyijeaTo <0 CON> eic
20 TON KoAnoN TOY nATpoc, co? ovSevos eTTLTTj&eiov TrporepovyeyevT]-
\a(3elv a rot? aVocrToXot? Scrjyija-aro, eiye TTpiN ABpAAM Jo.viii. 58.
u>v SiSacr/cet T/yLca? TOV A/Spaa//. rjya\\iad6ai FNA Jo.viii. 56.
TAH THN HMepAN avTov Kal ev %apa yeyovivat,.
7, 8paTTTi<TTou.../j.a0TjTov]
cod. Sed literis apdy seriori manu inter lineas
insertis transponuntur jSaTrrtaroO et /ua^roO. 8 /car avrw] Kara TO.VTOV.
19 6<3i>]
om.
d vi. 8 (R. iv. 117; L. i. 200).
Ou davfjiaaTov Se el/jirj ijKpiftovv
OTI, aiJro? ecrrt XpiCTOC Jo. i. 20,
Kal o npoc{)HTHC,ot to-Ta^oi/T65 Trepl Icodvvov, urjiroTe auro?
Xpicrro? ^* a-KoKovdov yap TW ireplTOVTOV SiaTay/AW TO
dyvoelv TOV avTov elvai XpicTON Kal TON npocj)HTHN.eXaOe
19. The insertion of 6 wi> by Latin, which represents the ets by
Cod. Venetus, followed by Ferrarius solus, but the omission leaves no
in his translation Non enim nunc suitable sense in the present con-
primum enarravit, Qui est ad sinum text.
Patris, periude quasi nullus etc., is 4.1. X/NCTTOS /cat 6 7r/3o0^r7?s]Ferra-
the simplest emendation of the cor- rius has rightly suggested the article,
rupt text of its exemplar. These which was absent from the MS. which
words (6 u>v)
are indeed omitted by he used, translating Christus et ille
the first hand of Cod. Sinaiticus (N), Propheta. In the Munich MS. the
and Cod. Vercellcnsis (a) of the Old article is not wanting.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 72/138
56 THE EXTANT FHAGMENTS OF HEUACLEON.
Be 701)9 TTO\\OV? r) Biafopd TOV 6 npocfmTHc /cal npocbHTHC, ^9 5
/cal TOV Hpa/cXecova, OO-TLS avTals Xefecrt (frrjcriv 0^9 apa
^\wdvvi)<$ a)jjio\6yr)o-e prj elvai, o xpiCTo c, d\\d fjujBe
npO(J)HTHC,iJ,rjoe HAiAC. /cal Seov avTov
OVTW etckaflovTae^eTao-ai TO, /caTa roz)9 TOTTOVS, TTOTepov dXrjOevei \eywv //,?;
eivat,rrpO(|)HTHC, fj,r]8e HAIAC, rj
ov 6 BeJMTJ 67ri(TTno~a<> 7049 K
>,
ev 0^9 KaTa\e\oi7rev VTro^v^jfjiao Lv dve^eTacrTa)? irape-
Ta TijAtLKavTa, (Tcboopa o~\,t, fya /cat/
Tot? 6^779 eiTTdov, Trepi (bv evOeo)^ epovLLev.
6 apa] ap ei.
5. Jfod vi. 12 (R. iv. 120; L. i. 206).
Jo. i. 23. AvvaTaifjievTot ye TO Epoo ({XJONH BOOQNTOC IN ThT
8Kal TO ef^9 to-oz; elvai, TW Eyco elpi Trepl 01
003Nh BOOQNTOC, ce;9 fiocovTa elvai, TOV Icodw^v, /cal TOVTOV TYJV
(frwvrjv
evTrj eprjpa) (Bodv EyeyNATe THN OAON KYpiOY- Svo-fa-
Be 6 Hpa/cXecov Trepl Iwdvvov Kal TU>V Trpo^TcSv 5
avwv, (frtjaiv OTLe
O\6<yo$ /j,ev 6
^a)Trjp eaTiv,H Be
77eN TH epn MCp 77
Bid "Iwdvvov Biavoov/nevrj,
9. The only alteration necessary
is the omission ofrj before \tyuv (H
afterei). The ou must qualify &\rj-
Bevci, not Xfywc. Huet follows the
reading of Codex Regius which con
tains the77 and omits the
6, thus
joining the two sentences and pro
ducing an unintelligible statement.
10. Hilgenfeld, in his critical
note, is misled by a misstatement of
Delarue sreproducedbyLommatzsch.
The /i^ (after 6)
is not wantingin the Bodleian.
5. 3. ws] It is remarkable that
while Codex Venetus omits the ws,
its copy Codex Bodldanus inserts it.
But the scribe of the latter may very
well have inserted it from the Latin
of Ferrarius, ut clamante lohanne :
the want of some such insertion for
vious. For the construction we may
compare a fragment of Origen in an
unpublished Catena at Venice (Bibl.
Marciana Graec. xxvii.) 6pa 5 ei dv-
direlv <rvv<rT Y)Kcva.i....us elvai TO TTOLV
ypdfj,/j,a TOVv6fjt.ov /cat TrpoQifruv /cat
TWV XOITTWJypa<j>uv
OTTO TOV Toiovde
TTTjXov, $ /cat xP^ai Set TOI)S TUV ^f3\Tr6i>Twv 6(f)da\fj.ovs.
7. diavoovfj.fr r)]Heracleon twice
uses ^oetcrflai, as he here uses 5ta-
voeladai, of a higher power symbol
ised, represented, made intelligible,
so to speak, (as far as is possible), on
earth by an earthly being. Cf. Frag.
8 (Orig. Comm. in loann. vi. 23) Trepl
TOV wpoo-uirov TOVTOV(?)
5ta TOV Iw-
awov voov/j.ei>ov,and Frag. 35 (Orig.
Ibid. xiii. 48) 0e/H<rras TT^TTCI TOUS
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 73/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 57
8e irdaa Trpo^TjriKrj raft?, \ercreov Be TT/OO? avrbv,
ort&<77Tp
EAN AAhAoN CAAnir^ (booNh N AcT oi)Set9 TTApA-1 Cor. xiv.
10 CKeyAZGTAI GIC TTOAeMON, KCU 6%O>/H9
AfAHHCe%Gt)Z>
TNCX)CIN
r) npocbHTeiAN 76701/6 X^KOC HX^N H KYMBAAON Of. 1 Cor.
AAAAAZON, o#T&>9 et fjUfjBev eanv erepov 77 ??%09 ?}TTpointer)
X1
<f)a)vr},7TCU9 dvaTrefMTTow ij/ua? eV avrrjv 6 ^wrrjp EpeyNAie,
Jo. v. 3 (
J.
<^r/0-t,TAG rp^^AC, OTI YMG?C AOK?T6 N AyTA?C ZOOh N AIWNION
15 exeiN KAI 6Ke?NAi eiciN AI MApTypofcAr tcai Ei enicTeyere Moace?, Jo. v. 46.
enicTeyere AN GMOI, nepi r<^p6Moy eK6?NOC erpAye /cal KAAOQC Mt. xv. 7,
enpoc^Hieyce nepi YMOON HcA i AC, AepooNC
AAOC oyroc TO?C cf Igi
XeiAeciMe TIMA; oJ/c olSa yap el rov aa-rj/jiov r)Xov irapa&e^eTal,
xxix. 13.
Ti9euA,o7&>9
UTTO roO 2&)rr;po9 eiraivelaBai, rjGvearu Trapa-
20 a/cevdc-aa-Oai, atro TU>V<ypa(f>a)V,
009 TTO CJJCONHC
evepyeias iroXe^ov, AAnAoy C|)OONHC HXOY Tvy^avova-^. riva
$e TpOTrov, el pr} dydirr]v efyov ol irpo^ffrai /cal Bid TOVTO
XAAKOC r]craz/ TJ^owre?, r} KyMBAAON AAAAAZON, eVl TOV
25 avrcov, 0)9 efceivoi el\t!
)<f)aatv
) dvaTre/jiTrei 6
dopevovs ; OVK olSa S OTTO) 9 X^p^ Trda-ijs KaTaaicevfjs
fyaiverai rrfv (frcovrjv oi/ceioTepav ovcrav raj \oyw \o<yov
QJ9 teal TTJV yvval/ca els dv
The usage may well have sprung that of the Swr^p (cf. Irenaeus, i.
from Bom. i. 20 ra yap dbpara av- vii. 3). All the Valentinian sects
TOV OLTTO KTi<reusKo<rfj.ov
rots TTot^atTij recognized to some extent the reve-
voot/j-eva Ka.Oopd.Tai..
Wemay
com- lation of the Old Testament :
pos-pare also Origen s own use, Comm. sibly Heracleon did so to a greater
in loann. xx. 12, OVK ZCTTIV ore 6 /card extent than most. Cf. Frag. 20,
TOV Irjo-ovjt TpoTTLKus t>oov/j.evos avdpw- where the Jews are placed above
TTOS OVK eiredri/j-ec ry /3ty, and Ibid. irdvTes ol irpb VO/J.QV /cat ol iQviKol.
xx. 29, IMVOV TOV /cara TOV Swr?7pa 28. /xerar^eo-^at] The Vermlinn-
i>oov/j,evov avQpu-rrov dpx^dev ?/i> <pwfi. lichung of the female was taught
8. TOOS] With the implied dis- in the Anatolic School. Cf. Ex-
paragement of the Prophets may be cerpta ex Theodoto, 21, rd ovv dppc-
comparedHippolytus, Refut. vi. 35, VIKO. /xerd TOV \6yov ffvveaTdXrj, rd #77-
irdvTes ovv olTrpo<pTJTat.
/cai 6 v6/j.os \VKO, dt diravbpuQtvTO. evovTai rots
\d\i](rav diro TOV 8Tjfj.iovpyov, fj-wpou dyy\ois /cat ets TrX^pw^a XWP6 ^ta
X^-yei ^eoO fjuapoiovdev ddoTes. He- roOro rj ywi] els dvdpa fj.eTaTi8ea6ai
racleon s explanation of Xo7os, <f>uvr), X^erat, /cat ^ evTavda e/c/cXTjo-ta ets
TJXOS, and the possibility of a change dyyt\ovs, where by Xe^erai are in-
from one to the other, is obscure. troduced words very similar to those
It may point to some theory of a of Heracleon.
gradual revelation culminating in We should also compare with Sou-
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 74/138
58 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Kal W9 egovalav e-^wv rov Boj^ari^etv Kal mo-reveaOai Kal
TTpoKOTrreiv, rw?}% (f^rjalv eaeaOai rrjv els
<f)(ovrjv per a- 3
(So\r)v, /juadrjrov fjiev ^wpav $t>&ov<i rfj fjLera/3a\\ovar) et9
\o<yov <f>(t)vfj,
Bovkov Berfj
drro?} %oi>
et?
fywvrjV
Kal el
pev07ro>9 Trore TTiOavorrjra ecfrepev errl r&> avrd KaraaKevdaai,
Kav rjyo)vio-d/ji0a Trepl 7-179 rovrcov dvarpoTrrjs, dp/eel Se et?
dvarpOTrrjV rj dTrapa^vO^ros 7ro0a<Jt9. OTrep &e virepeOe- 35
fjieOa ev rot9 TT/OO TOVTWV e^erdaai, TTUX; KetcivriTai, vvv<f>epe
SiaXd/Bw^ev. 6/jLev yap ^wrrjp, Kara TOP Hpa/c^ewva,
(frTjaiv avrbv Kal npO(f)HTHN KOL HAiAN, auro9 &e efcdrepov
TOVTWVdpvelrai. Kal npocfu-iTHN jjuev ^at HAiAN
6
^wrrjpeirdv avrov
\e<yrj,OVK avrbv d\\d rd Trepl avrov, (frycrl, 40
i, orav 8e MGI ZONAnpo4>HT(2)N
Kal GN
rore avrov rov Io)dvvr]v
avros 06,(j>rj(7l, Trepl eavrov epwrw/Jievo^ drroKpiverai
6 Iwaz/^7/9, ou rd Trepl avrov oarjv Be /3d(ravov r^els
Trepl rovrwv Kara ro Bvvarov TreTTOL^eOa, ovBev drrapa- 4.5
eoovres rwv \e<yo/jievci)v opcov av^Kplvai rot9 VTTO
,are OVK e^ovalav e%ovros rov \eyeiv o /3ov\erai,
rrws jdp ori Trepl rwv Trepl avrov e<rn ro
32 0WI/77] 0wi>V rj. 34 yyuvura/Jieda]
\ov 5e /c.r.X. a passage in i\\eExcerpla, MS. is impossible. The alteration of
57, rov /j-ev,/ut,6p<f>w<ri.s
TOU Trvevfian- Cod. Venetus (fxavrj $ is so far right
/roD, TOU 5e, /uLerddea-is TOV\f/vx<.Kov
e /c that it gives the required dative.
SouXeias ets e\evdepiav. In the pro- But the conjecture contained in the
ceding section the allegory of Gal. iv. margin of Cod. Bodlcianus is right,
is interpreted by making Israel repre- rdxa TO* H 7rap<f\/cet.We may with-
sent 6Tn>evfj.a.TiK6s,
and (apparently) out hesitation adopt the reading
the children of the bondwoman cor-(fiwvy.
respond to the^VX<-KO
L (cf. OTO.V ovv 48. irepi TUV wepl OLVTOV} The
TO. faxi-Ka eyKevTpiffdy). Thus the omission of TW trepl in the Editions
0wj>rjhere may represent the -rrvev^a- is due to its erroneous omission in
TIKOI who are given as j/i/^cu to the Cod. Regius, where however a later
angels, while -fo * corresponds to the hand has inserted rd irepl inter lineas.
\f/vx<.Koi.But it is dangerous to pur- The words are necessary to the con-
sue such hints at interpretation into text, as Heracleon has shortly before
too great detail. The Excerpta offer classed the assertions TO RXiav avrbv
yet another parallel in 79, "Ews ovv Kal irpo^Tijv elvat among the TO, wepl
d/x6p0wro^, (pa.ffii ,ZTI TO
<nrtp/j.a,O.VTOV as opposed to those by which
QrjXetas eari TKVOV poptyuOh 5e yttere- OLVTOV Tbv \ua.vvr\v xapa-KTypifci. The
T^Oij ets avdpa. Trept T&V is perhaps awkward, but it is
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 75/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 59
HAIAN avrov KOI npo4)HTHN elvau, Kal Trepl avrov TO
50 (booNiHN avrov elvai BOGONTOC IN TH tpHMtT, ovSe Kara TO
TVVOV d\\d
OTL Ta irepl avTov olovel evSvpaTa TJV eTepa avTov,
Kal OVK av epwTtjOels Trepl TWV evSvjJidTwv, el aOro?
eiij Ta evSvfjiaTa, aTreKpidij av TO Nat. TTCO? yap
55 eVSu/aara TO elvai TOV HAIAN TON MeAAoNTA epxecOAi CCTTW Mt. xi. 14.
Iwdvvov, ov Trdvv TL Kar avTov Oewpw Taya Ka6* ^/-ta?,
a5? ^e8vvti/jL0a SnyyijcraiJievovsTO GN TTNGYMATI KAI AYNAMGI Lc. i. 17.
HAioy, Svva/jLevov TTO)?~\,e<yeo~0ai,
TOVTO TO HNGYMA HAioy
ev Svvd/jLei elvau TTJ? \wdvvov i/ri;^?. QeXwv S ert Trapa-
59 ei\wv 5 TI]
ai;roO. Ferrarius had the true text
before him in Cod. Venetus, but he
has missed the point of the passage
by putting the following Vox cla-
mantis in the same class as Pro-
pheta.
55. The absence of etrrlv in the
Editions is due to another error in
Cod. Rcyins.
59. cv8vi>d/j.ei elvai] It is hard
to get any satisfactory meaning out
of these words, or to see how they
can be an interpretation of ev irvev-
fjiari /cat 8vvdfj.fi. HAtou. Thorndike
conjectures ZvSvfj-a elvai. This suits
very well the context in which the
words stand.
6e\wv 5 TL\The reading Oe\ov-
res, which is found in Cod. Mona-
censis, is corrupt, and the insertion of
5e by Cod. Venetus does not restore
the true text. The subsequent X<fyoi
TO cannot be right. For a similarly
impossible optative which has been
allowed to remain, cf. Origen Comm.
in loann. xiii. 59, eirj <pv<ris TTJS tctcrewj
yevo/J.evr)T ot/cety TTJS dv airavcrews
dp<.0^<$.
The scribe of Cod. Rcyius
has probably stumbled by an itacism
on the right reading, Xe^et TO. If
this be so, a nominative singular
participle and a connecting particle
are required, and 0\uv oe, or more
probably diKwv 5 eri, would seem
best to fulfil the required condi
tions. The introduction of a fresh
stricture by means of 6-1 5e is cha
racteristic of Origen ;5e alone is hardly
strong enough to suit the context;
cf. ii. 8, xiii. 51, and just below, ri
5 ov/j.6vos"H.pa.K\ewi>
K.T.\. And the
following sentence ov KO.K&Sfj.fi>
. ..oinra-
vv ok e^7?racr/x^ws is so thoroughly in
the style of Origen s criticisms of his
opponent, that the passage must
surely contain a piece of Heracleon s
Commentary. For the exact phrase
compare Origen c. Cehum iv. 88
(Philocalia xx. L. xxv. 150) Oe\wv
5 <?n 5ta TrXetoj Wf ...aTro^Tji ou, where
Origen states the argument of Celsus
before he proceeds to refute it. If
the n of 0EAHNAETI was cor
rupted by itacism to O, the letters
ONAETI might easily become
ONTEC in the hands of a scribe
who did not pay great heed to the
context. Hilgenfeld has naturally
omitted the passage in his collection
of the Fragments, but there were not
the same reasons for omitting the
next sentence /cat iraKiv K.T.\. where
the X^yei can only refer to Heracleon.
The proposed alterations restore the
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 76/138
60 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
arTrjo-ai, Bid rl lepeis /cal Aevlrat ol eTrepwrwvres a?ro TWV 60
IouoWa)j> TrefJi^devre^ elalv, ov /catca)<$ [lev \eyei TOr
Ort
TOVTOIS7TpO<rfjfCOV r)V 7T 6pi TOVTO)V TToXvTTpay /JLO
V I V
/cal
irvvdaveaOai,rot? rc3 6ew
Trpoa-tcapTepovartv,ov
TTGLVV Be e^rjTao-fjievcos rdr/
Ort /cal avros IK rfjs A.evlTi/cr)<$
(j)V\rjs tfv, wcnrep TrpoajropovvTes ^J/iet? e^raa-a^ev, on el 65
rjBeurav TOV Icodvvrjv ol Tre/jL^OevTe^ /cal TTJV ^eveaiv avrov,
TTCO? ^wpav cl^ov TTwOdvecrOai, Trepl rov el avrbs HAiAC
Jo. i. 21. eaTiv ; /cal iraKiv ev rc3 Trepl TOV el 6rrpoc})HTHC
e\ cy, /j,rjBev
e^aiperov oto/ie^o? o-rj/jialvecrOai, /caTa rrjv TrpoaOrjK^v TOV
apdpov, \eyei OTL ^TrrjpwTrjcrav el TrpotyrjTrjs eirj, TO 70
ov\6^evoi padelv. &TI Be ov
,ak\a ocrov eV
e/J^fj IcrTOpiq teal TrdvTes ol
evT\rj d/j,(j)i,l3o\iavStacrretXao-^at
JJL^ SeSvvrjfjLev
HX/ou /cal TTCLVTWV TWV Trpo^TjTGQV TOV ^\(tiavvr)v
Lc. vii. 28. ta TO Mei zoaN eN reNNHioIc PYNAIKCON IcoANNoy oyAeic eciiN, 75
ill
U "
OUX opwvTe<^OTL d\7]0e^ TO OyAeic MEIZOON NOOANNOY ^
TO?C PYNAIKOON Bi^oi)^ yLveTai,, ov fjtbvov TO) avTov elvai
lieifyva, d\\d /cal TW tVou? avTw elvai Tiva? d\rjde^ jdp,
i(TO)v OVTWV avTa) 7ro\\wv Trpo^rjTajv,/caTa Tr]V oeSofjLevfjv
auTw x^PLV r ^HAENA TOUTOU MeizoNA elvai. olWat Se tcaTa- 80
o~ /cevdea 0ai, TO MEIZONA TW Trpo^TjTevedOaL VTTO
61Tre/j.(f)d{i>Tes]
Hie male laesus est codex, videtur autem plus x litteras
habuisse; Cod. Yen. habet oi ire^(f)d. \eyei r6] X^ot TO. 80, 81
KaraffKevafccrdcu] TO /caracr/cei/a^ecr^ai. ry] om. codex; addito, ut videtur,
in mg.
grammar of the sentence, and make 80. Delarue, reading ofcTcu 8t TO
the passage a continuous and con- /caTacr/ceydfccr^at TO ndfrva elvaiirpo-
sistent whole. ^revea-dai, remarks, nos sanam
61.7refj.<t>0VTes]
Whether Cod. restituimus lectionem e codice Bod-
Monac. read oi ire/A^dwres or not is leiano;but his text seems hardly
uncertain, but in any case the article satisfactory. After making the con-
can hardly be retained. jecture which has been introduced
75. /xefftw] It is uncertain whe- into the text, I find that the same
ther Heracleon omitted the irpofir)-has been proposed by Thorndike in
T7?s of the Received Text as well as the margin of his transcript of Cod.
Origen, or not; but the subsequent Bodleianus. The insertion or omis-
meution of Josiah in Origen s re- sion of elmi, which appears to have
futation of Heracleon s Comment been added in the margin of Cod.
makes it highly probable that he Monacensis, is a matter of no im>
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 77/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 61
VTTO
deov TGOV TrcoTTore Trpo^rjrevcrdvTCOv. a\.r)6ws 6 w?
/cara<j)pova)V rrjs TraXata? ^p^art^oucr^? SiaO^/cr]?,KOL
fJirj
85 TripiiorasKOI avTbv HXiav TTpo^ijrevo/jievov,
TOUT a7rero\^i
r]-
crev eiTrelv KOI yap HXta? Trpo^rjreveraL VTTO M.a\a%iov
lAov AnocreAAoo YM?N HAiAN TON OecBiTHN, oc AHO- Mai. iii.
, , jxv , 23(iv.4f.).KATACTHCei KApAlAN HATpOC HpOC YION ....... Kdl TdVTd t?
T*7? trpoTrereias rov aTro^rjva/jLevov
go Icodvvov 7rpo(j)r}Tev(T0ai, eipqffffw,ravra
elpr)KOTo<$ev TW
6e\Giv avrovSirjyela-Oat,
ri TO Epcb (J)OONH BOCONTOC eN TH Jo. i. 23.
IpHMO).
89 TT/soTreretas] ex coniectura Ruaei;cod. habet
6. Ibid. vi. 13 (R. IV. 125;L. I. 213).
o? ovv ev vBari, oy BAHTIZGI, AAA1
oi MAGHTAI AYTOY, Jo. iv. 2.
w Be Tripel TO TO) Afico TTNeyMATi BAHTIZGIN KAI nypi Cf. Mt. iii.
o HpafcXewv -rov rwv
o5? u^ico? elprj^evov Trepl rovo$>ei\ecrdai
TO
5 /tat HXia /cat iravrl Trpo^rjrr], avrais \e%ecri <$>r]crivOt?
TO ftaTTTi^eiv, real e/c rwv elprjpevwv
<y%6/jLevo<>, fJLa\i(Tra Se on, Kowbrepov
TON npoc{)HTHN vevorfKev ov yap e^ei Set^at TIVCL TWV Trpo-
(frijTuiv (3a7TTi(rai>Ta.OVK (nnOdvws Be
<j)r)(ri
irwddvea-Oai
10 TOI)?^>aptcraibu?
AcaTaT?}Z>
auTW^ iravovpyiav,
7 on] ore.
6. 7. Kou^Tepov] By failing to notice perov olbfjievos
the distinction between 6 TT/JO^TJTTJS irpoadriKTiv rov apdpov. Heracleon, in
and 7r/)o0TjT7js.Cf. Frag. 4, Xo0e 5^ the words which follow this last pas-
roi>s 7ro\Xoi>517 5ta0opa...ws /cat T^ sage, seems to use the word Koivbre-
,and Frag. 5, /n?5&> e^af- pov in a different sense.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 78/138
62 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
7. Ibid. vi. 15 (R. iv. 130;L, I. 222).
Jo. i. 26, AneKplNATO AYTO?C 6 ICOANNHC Ae fOON EfOi BATTTIZCO eN
M6COC [Ae] YMO3N CCTHKCN ON YMelc OY*K oTAATG, [AYTOC 6CTIN()]
OTTICCO
MOY epxoMGNoc, [of] OYK CIMI era Alioc I NA AYCGO AYTOY TON IMANTA
joy YnoAHMATOC. 6 /j,V HpafcXecov oleTat,, on, ATro/cplverai,
6Io)dvvr)<; rot? etc TWV
<&api,crai(Dv Treaty 6 ela iv, ov 5
7T/30? o eicelvoi eTrrjpoorwv, aXX o auro? e/3ov\6ro,
eavrov \av6dvwv OTL
/car^jopeirov
Trpo^rov a/jiaOias,el
76a\\o epa)Tto/JLVOS Trepl d\\ov aTroKpiverai %prj jdp /cal rovro
<f)v\dTTOdai, ft)? ev KOivo\oyia d^dpTrj/Aa TV<y%avov. T/yu-et?
Se(^afjuev
on fjudXiara TT/^O? eVo? ecrrlv77 aTroKpidis TT/OO?
10
Jo. i. 25.<ydp
TO Ti OYN BAHTIZEIC, ei cf OYK el o XP |CTOC; rt aX,Xo
elirelv, $ TO tStov TrapaaTfjaai ^aTTTia/Ji
Tvy%dvov ; Era 7/3, (fayo lv, BAHTIZOO GN fAATi /cat TOVTO
elirwv TTpo? TO Ti OYN BAHTi zeic; Trpo? TO SevTepov, Ei CY OYK el
oxpiCTOC, So^o\oyiav Trepl T^? Trpoyyov/jLevris ovaia<$ Xpio-TOi) 15
i, OTL Bvva/jiiv ToaavTrjv e%et, w? at dopaTOS elvcu Trj
avTov, irapwv nrawTi dvOpwirw, TravTl Be /cal oXw TW
o-vfATrapefCTeivofjievos OTrep StjKovTai Sid TOV Mecoc
YMO3N eCTHKCN.
2 Se] ins. intra lineas. atfrfo eo-Tii/ 6] om. in txt. sed in mg. add.
pr. man. 3 oC] ins. intra lineas. 7
11 Tt out]
ins. intra lineas. rl oXXoex/)^"]
rl dXXots xp^i/ (sic).
TO
12 rd] T^ (sic).
7. 1. aTrc/cp/faro] There is other it was copied. Thus one of the three
authority for this reading, LT^TJ references to Origen in Tischcndorf s
and some cursives (vid. Tischendorf, critical note must in all probability be
in loc.). I have retained the 5 omitted, as also one of those quoted
and the airros IVTLV 6, as they are in support of the insertion of 5.
added apparently prima manu. But 12. The re TO of the Editions is
when other similar phenomena in due to the scribe of Cod. Regius,
this MS. are taken into consideration who inserted both the error and its
it appears more than probable that correction which he found in his ex-
they were not in the MS. from which emplar.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 79/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 63
8. Ibid, vi. 23 (R. iv. 138;L. I. 234).
O Be Upa/cXecov TO Mecoc YMOON CTHKGI (frycnv avrl TOV Jo. i. 26.
TrdpecTTL real e&Tiv ev TW KoafJLU* Kal ev dvOpwTrw
Kale/jLcfravrfs
eo~Tiv 17877 TTCLGIV v^ilv. Bid TOVTWV Be
nrepiaipel TO nrapacrTaOev TreplTOV
Bia7re<poiTr)KevaiavTov oY
5 oXou TOU Koafjiov. \KTov yap Trpo? avTov Trore yap ov
irdpeo-TLv; TroVe Be OVK e<TTW ev TO> KOCT/JLO); Kal TavTa TOV
evayye\iov Xe^oz/ro? N TCO KOCMCO HN, KAI 6 KOCMOC Ai AYTOY Jo. i. 10.
ereNGTO. teal Sta TOVTO Kal OVTOI, Trpo? 01)9 o ^,0709 o "ON Jo. i. 2G.
YMeTc OYK orAAre, OVK otSaoriv avTov, eVel ouSeVo) TOV KOV/JLOV
10 e^e\ri\vdaa-Lv^Q Be KOCMOC AYTON OYK IPNOO. irolov Be %povov Jo. i. 10.
SieXeiTre TOV ev avOpw jrw elvai; rjOVK ev Haaia
tfv, \e<yovTt,
TTN6YMA KYpiOY en eMe, OY ei NeKGN expiceMG* KUL EMC})ANHC Is. Ixi. l.
role eMe MH ZHTOYCI ; \eyeTworav Se elfjbrj
Kal ev c
8
^ ^ x
77^, OVKd(j>
avTov \eyovTi Efoo Ae KATecTAGHN BACiAefc20.
5 fn AYTOY en i CIWN opoc TO APION AYTOY, Kal oaa eK 7rpocra>7rov
XptejToO evtyd\/jLois dvayeypaTTTai. Kal TL fj.e
Bel
aTToBeiKvvvai Bvcre^apidfji rjTOV 6Wo>9, irapaaTrjaai evapyws
Bvvdfjievov, oTi del ev dvdpcoTroy yv, 7rpo9 TO e\ey%ai ov% vyiax;
elprfiievov TO "HBrj Trdpeo~Ti Kal eo~Ti,v ev Kocr/jiw Kal ev
10 dvdpwirw et9 Bnjyrjcriv Trapd TOJf
Hpa/e\eow TOV Mecoc YM^N J- i- 2^-
ecTHKeN ; OVK diriOdvws Be Trap avTw \eyeTat, OTI TO Oni coo
MOY ep^oMCNOC TO TrpoBpofjiov eivai TOV Iwavvvjv TOV
Tpe%a)v TOV Kvpiov. 7roX,i) Be d7r\ovo-Tepov TO OYK eiMi Alioc Jo. i. 27.
25 FNA AYCOO AYTOY TON IMANTA TOY YTTOAHMATOC e^ei\r]<^ev,OTL ovBe
elvai Bid TOVTCOV 6 (3a7TTiO~Trjs 6fJio\oyei. TrXrjv
185vi>d/u.ei>oi>]
dw
8. 12, 13. c/x^avTjs ^ej 6/x^j ]The Hilary and Ambrosiaster.
quotation does not agree exactly with 17. dva-e^apid/j.rjToi 6Wws] An awk
the LXX., which hasEfjL<f>a.vrjs eyevri- ward phrase, but the correction in
Bt\v rots e/xe ^177 cTrepwrwcrtj , vp6t)v Cod. Venetus dvffe^api0/J.rjTOV oVros is
rots fj.t IJ.T] ftrovviv. In Romans the no better. It has been plausibly
clauses are transposed, and S. Paul suggested that we should read 8va-
hastyei>6/u.-r)i>.
The exact form is e^apLff/nriTUV &VTWV rut>
found in two Latin MSS. (d, e)and in evapyus 8vva.tJ./i>(i)i>.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 80/138
64 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
ravTijv TTJV ercBoxrjVOVK aTTiOdvws vTro^e/BXrjKe TO OVK
iKavos, iva St eyite Kare\0y airo /jLeyeOovs teal
\dftrj cJ? viro^rifjia, Trepl 379 670; \6<yovdiro- 3
Bovvai ov Bvvafjiai, ovBe Siijyrja-ao-Oai, rj eVt XOereu
Tr)v Trepl avrfjs ol/covo/jiiav dSporepov Be Kal fj,eya\o-
<f)ve(TTpov6 auro9 HpaicXecov Koa/jbov TO vTro^rj^a eVSefa-
fieTeo Tr] eirl TO do~e/3e(TTepov dTrofyrjvaaOai TCLVTCL
Seiv aKoveadai /cal Trepl TOV TrpoawTrov 35
TOVTOV Bid TOV *\<oavvov voovfjuevov. oterat<ydp
TOV
SijfjLiovpybv TOV fcocr/jbov, e\aTTOva OVTCL TOV Xpto-roO,
TOVTO 6fjio\o<yeiv Sta TOVTCOV T&V \egea)v, ttTrepecrrt
TrdvTWV do-eftearTaToV o yap Trefji^ra^ avTov TraTiijp,6 TWV
Mt. xxii. zaiNTOON 0eoc, a)9 auro? Ivjaovs fjiapTVpel, TOV ABpAAM KOI TOV 4
32* 3| \ \r^>i/fCv\^ / ^9 /s \AICAAK Kai TOV lAKOOB, OLCL TOVTO KVplOS TOV OVpaVOV K.CU T??9
Cf. Lc.ry^9,
OTL TreTrolrj/cev avTa, oiT09 ical JJLOVOS dyado?, Kal fjuei^wv
Jo. xiv. 28. TOV lff/^BivTO^ el Be Kal, co9 TTpoeipijtca/jLev, dBpoTepov
vevorjTCU, Kai 7r9 o /cocryu-09 vTroB^jfjua elvai TOV I?;cro{)
TO) *}ipaK\ea)vi, aA,V OVK olpai Belv o~v<yKaTaTi6ecrdaL 45
35 TrpocrwTTou] Cod. Bodleianus habet in margine rax XetVei TOU
post quod, alia manu, /caXws ^xet - ^^ ?r/)oeip^/ca /uej
]
29. /caTA^T;] This passage a- where we should have expected 5?;-
grees with Heracleon s Italic posi- fuovpyov, which was probably what
tion. Cf. Hippolytus Refut. vi. 35, Heracleon s ipsissima verba con-
\f/vxi.Kov ipaffl TO (Tu/j,a TOV I^aou ye- tained, in order to emphasize the
yovfrat Kal 5ta TOVTO itrl TOV/Scurrier- impiety (etrl r6
da-cfito-Tepov) of He-
yuaros TO irvev/uia ws TrepiaTepa /care- racleon s interpretation. But TOVTOV
\j\v0c. For ntyeBos cf. Irenaeus i. is not impossible.
xiii. 3. 36. voov^vov] See Frag. 5(note).
30. virbo-rjiJ.Q.} May we see in 37. Actrropa OVTO] We may perhaps
the interpretation of vTr6drj/j.a as KO<T- compare Hipp. Refut. vi. 36, ^yi/w (6
pot, a groping after the idea of the8r)fj.<.ovpyos) 8i5a%^eis VTTO T^S <ro<f)ias
Lord having taken humanity upon TOV KpelTTova, though there the re-
Himself, though only as a vw6dr)ij.a.ference is to the Father Himself. In
which the Ao7os laid aside? the fulness of time the Demiurge is
35. The suggestion of the margin made to confess before men his su-
of the Bodleian deserves attention. perior; hitherto he has kept secret
But TOVTOV is unnecessary, and per- the mystery of the aeons revealed to
haps TOV 5-rj/jLiovpyovshould be substi- him by Sophia. Cf. also Frag. 40
tuted for it;or should we read TOV (Orig. xiii. 59) &Vt fuTnoTos 6 Sr/^it-
0eov instead of it ? In this case we ovpy6s.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 81/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 65
9. Ibid. vi. 24 (K IV. 140; L. I. 237).
TAYTA IN BnGABApA epeNGTO nepAN TOY lopAANoy, onoy HN Jo. i. 28.
MCOANNHC BATTTIZGON. OTI pev o~%eBbv ev 7rdo~i TO<? OVTL-
ypd<f>oL<;
tceiTai TAYTA EN BHGANIA epeNeTO ovtc dyvoov/jLev, /cat
eottce TOVTO KOI en TrpoTepov <yeyovevaiteal Trapd HpaicXewvi,
5 yovv BHGANIAN dvejvw/jiev.
tytveTo] bis.
10. Ibid. vi. 38 (R. iv. 159; L. I. 271).
Tld\iv ev TW T07T6) o HpaicXewv yevofjLevos, %ct)pt
teal TrapaOeo-ews p,apTvpiwv aTrotyaiveTai, OTL TO
AMNOC TOY Geof w? npoc^FTHC <j>r)o-lv
o Iwai/z//;?, Jo. i. 29.
TO Se OAIpaN THNAMApTIAN TOY KOCMOY <W? HeplCCOTepON Lc. vii. 26.
5 npocpHTOy. Kal oieTai TO fiev TrpoTepov trepl TOV crco-
avTov \eyeo-0ai, TO Be BevTepov irepl TOV ev TO>
i,TW TOV dfjivov aT\rj elvai ev TW TWV Trpo-
yevei, OVTCO Be Kal T& aw^a 7rapa0eo~e{, TOV
evoitcovvTos avTut. TO Be Te\eiov el e/3ov\TO, cfcvjcrl,
10 TO)crcb/jiaTi, /jbapTvpfjaai, Kpiov enrev av TO ^e\\ov
dvea-Oai. ovy ^ov^ai Be elvai dvayicalov fjieTa TVJ\I-
elTrei av TO] elireiv O.VTO.
volume, as quoted by Tischendorf),
Codd. Ven. et Bodl. read B^flapa in
both places. On p. 142 Cod. Monac.
reads Bi]0apapa, on p. 280 (Comm. in
loann. xiii. 60) B-rjeapa.On Hera-
cleon s Biblical text, see the note on
p. 74 (Frag. 18, Jo. iv. 17).
10. 6, 7. TOV ev ry crw/xcm] This in
conjunction with Frag. 8 establishes
Heracleon s Italic position, which
otherwise could not be very clearly
proved from the Fragments. Cf.
Hippolytus (Refut. vi. 35), ytyove T
K.T.X.
10 (restart]
9. 1. Since Cod. Monac. a few lines
lower down reads BrjQapapa, we must
probably conclude that Rydapa is due
to the scribe s error, arising from
the omission of ]3a between two very
similar syllables. At the same time
it should be noticed that the reading
EyOapa is found in a Syriac MS. (See
Tischendorf in loc. (syr.wsem. 2.
Or .
4. 140, 142,280).
As bearing on Tischendorf s note
it may be well to state that while
Cod. Monac. reads Bydapapa. in the
second instance where the word oc
curs on p. 140 (of Delarue s fourth
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 82/138
66 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
fcavras yeyevrj/jievas e^eracret? revrd^eiv Trepl TOV TOTTOV,
s TT/JO?TOL evreXa)? VTTO TOV Hpa/cXeeoz/o? elptj-
fiovov Be TOVTO eTrio-rj/jieiwTeov, OTL wcrirep /jLoyis
Ph. ii. 7.
%wpr)o~v
6
/coa/ios
TOV KENCJOCANTA eAyTON, oirra>9 dfjivov teal 15
ov /cpiov eSeijOij,
f
iva Ap6n avTOv f A
13
11. Ibid. x. 9 (R. iv. 170; L. i. 291).
Jo.ii. 12.
O fjbevToi 76
r
H/>a/cXea>z> TO META TOYTO KATCBHeic
<j)r)<rl,$r)\ov(T0ai, ovtc dpyws TOV K^TeBH
KCLL(jiTjaL Trjv Katyapvaov/jL arj/jLaiveiv TavTa TO,
TOV /coa/jiov, TavTa ra v\i/cd el? a /car^X^e, /cal Sid TO 5
dvoitceiov, (frrjcrlv,elvai TOV TOTTOV, ovSe TreTroivj/cws TI
\eyTai ev avTrj fj XeXaX^/cco?. el fiev ovvfjur)Be
ev rot?
t? 6vajy\loi<; TreTroirj/cws TL rj XeXaX^/^o)? ev 777
6 /cvpios TUL&V dveyeypaTTTO, Taya dv eSio-Ta^a-
Trepl TOV TrapaSe^ao-Qcu avTov TTJV ep^veiav. vvvl &e 6 10
Mt. iv. 13, fjiev Margate? KATAAITTONTAfyrjal
TOV Kvpiov T^/JLCOVTHN NAZAPA,
6A00NTA KATCOKHKeNAI GIC KA^ApNAOyM THN HApAGAAACCIAN, KOI
AHO TOTG dpfflv TOV KHpycceiN TreTroiTJcrOcu \eyovTa META-
NoeTre, MffiKe r^P H BACIACIA TOON OYPANOON ......raura Be TCCLVTCL
Trepl TWV ev ^a^apvaov/ju rw ^(OTrjpt eiptj/jievcovical Tre- 15
Trapeo-Tijo-a/jiev vTrep TOV eXey^ai Tr)v
f
Hpa-
epfjLrjveiav, \eyovTO$ Ata TOVTO ovSe
Ti\e<yTai
ev avTrj rj \e\a\rjKO)<;. rj yap Svo e
10
12. revTdeii>]The rev being hard Capernaum cf. Frag. 40 (Orig. Comm.
to decipher, the scribe of Cod. Ven. in loann. xiii. 59), rbv
conjectured Tavrifav, while the scribe vaobn vibv O.VTOV dtrjyeiTai. rbv iv
of Cod. Regius contented himself hrofkfhiic&n /x^pet TTJS //co-^rTjroy,
with leaving a small lacuna before irpos daXaffcrav , rovrlvn
rofetj . On the bearing of this, and fdvtp rrj v\y. The whole passage
the omission of avrov rj a/j-aprta,on there quoted is hardly consistent with
the origin of Cod. Regius, see Intro- the ovdt TreTronj/tws of the text : cf. a
duction, p. 8. little further on, Xy 5<: on K ara/Sas
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 83/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Kal avros T^9 Katyapvaova Kal TrapLcrrdra) Kal
20 crdrco Troias, 77TOVTO rcoirjcrai ar) SvvdfjLevos c rov
\eyeiv rov ^ayrfjpa fidrrjv nvl TOTTW eTTioeorj/jirjKevaL KOI
e, deov 6^Soz/T09, yevofjuevoi Kara rd roiavra
o~vvavayv(ao-cos, OTTOV 86%ai, av/jLrjBev rjvvicevai
^wptois rial, 7reipao~6[ji0a TO/JLTTJ fudraiov r
25 avrov
T?9
21 Tivl] nvl ry. 23 oirov...rivvKvai] TTOV do^eav fj-fj^v &v rjv v/c^at (sic).
12. Ibid. x. 14 (K. iv. 179; L. i. 309).
CO fievTOi ye(
}lpaK\6WV Avrrj, (f>r)o-iv, rj /xeyd^rj eo/or?} Of. Jo. ii.
rov yap TrdOovs rov Scor^po? TUTTO? r)V, ore ov povov
dvrjpelro TO irpoftarov, d\\d real avartavG iv rrapel^ev
eaO LOjjbevov, Kal dvoftevov TO rrdOos rov Swr^po? TO
5 evicocrfJiU) ea-rjfjiaivev,
eo-Q
iopevov8e
rr)v
avdrravGiv
rrjv ev ydp,co. rrapeOefjieOa Be avrov rrjv \e%iv,
r
(va TO w?
ev TijXiKovTOK; dvaa-rpefyeiv rov dvSpa Trapeppi^^evw^ Kal
vSapws aerd /j,r}Sevos KaraarKevaornKOV Qewprjaavres, fjid\\ov
avrovKara<f)povr/cra)/jLev.
4 TO Traces] TOL! irddovs.
23. OTTOV /c.T.X.] The reading of
the MS. is corrupt, and the conjecture
in Cod. Venetus TTOV Sotiacrys ^dkv av
fyvKtvai is not helpful. The reading
given in the text is the slightest
alteration which will restore any
sense.
12. 4. 7-6 7rd0os] a necessary correc
tion of the MS. reading, which was
made also by the scribe of Cod.
Venetus.
5. TT]v dpaTravffiv] Cf. Excerpta
ex Theodoto 63, TJ yuev ovv T&V irvev-
fj.ariKwi>avaTravvis ev KVpiaKrj ev 07-
800,81.... dra. TO 8eiirvov ruv yd.fj.uv.
Irenaeus i. vii. 1, TOI>S
5 earj/j.cuvev]
vv(j,(pa.s diroSodrifffffQcu rots irepl rbv
Unfortunately Hippolytus has said
nothing about the eschatology of the
system which he describes. Perhaps
it did not come within his scope :
his main object seems to have been
to establish a case of Hellenising
against each of the heretics whom he
refutes. But no doubt some analo
gous ya.fj.os completed the system :
as the6i6peu<Tis
of the TrdOtj of Sophia
was accomplished by means of her
marriage with the KOIVOS rov TrX^pw-
/uciTos KapTr6s, SO the Trvevfj.ari.Kol would
naturally receive the final5i6p6w<ris
by 70^01, no doubt with theXo7<u
projected by Sophia and her
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 84/138
68 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
13. Ibid. x. 19 (R iv. 194; L. i. 338).
Se KOI TaHpa/cXew^o?,
osfyrja-i Trjv
els
lepo-croXi/yita avobov
<rv)fjiaiveuv TT/V TTO TWV V\LKWV els TOV
^rv^iKov TOTTOV, Tvy%avOVTa eiKova TTJS Iepou<raXr}//,,
Jo. ii. 14. dvdfiao-iv TOV /cvplov. TO Be EypeN 6N TO>
iepoj, KOI
oi/^t Trpovdw, (Herat elpf)(r6ai virep TOV/JLT) TT)V /c\r)<ri,v 5
fJLOVIJV VOtjO^jVai TT)V %O)pl<}TTVev JJLCLTOS
VTTO TOV Kvplov r)<yelTai yap ra fjuev ayia TWVd<yli
Heb. ix. 7.
et^at TO fepoN, els MONOC6Apxiepeyc el<rlei, evOa ol/
avTov \eyeiv TOVS irvev^aTLKovs %aypeiv ra 8e TOV TTpo-
vdov, OTTOV Kal ol Aeu trat, (rv/jipoXov elvai, TWV 10
efa) TOV r
jT\^pwfjLaTos ^V^LKWV evpia- KO/jbevcov ev
Jo. ii. 14. (TWTrjpia. IIpo? TOVTOLS Toyc eypicKOMGNoyc
EN TOJlepciu ncoAofNTAC BOAC KA) npoBATA KAI ne-
AC, KAI Toyc KA0HM6Noyc KepMATiCTAC efe^efaro
VTl T(t)V fjLTjbeV %aplTl OlOOVTWV, XX e/jLTTO- 15
1eis] om. 2 (rty/xcuVeu
13. 1. e^s has been rightly sup
plied by Cod. Bodleianus.
TT]V et s K.T.X.] This sentence can
only mean that the Lord s journey
from Galilee to Jerusalem symbo
lises the journey from the v\u<a
(cf. Fragg. 12 and 40) to the ^VX^KOS
T67ros, which r67ro$ is an ekc^ or
image of the Jerusalem above. Cf.
Excerpta ex Theod. 59. If we
compare this with Hippolytus we
may deduce as a reasonable conjec
ture that Heracleon spoke of the
Hebdomad, the abode of the Demi
urge, as an eiKuv of the Ogdoad which
was the abode of Sophia, or from
another point of view was Sophia
herself. This will account for the
distinction between lepoixraXrj/i and
Iepoff6\vfj.awhich the MSS. have faith
fully preserved. Cf. Bishop Light- TO ycX^roj ,TO ^kv irapa T??S
foot s note on Gal. iv. 26. Perhaps TO Trvev/j-aTiKov, TO 5 e/r TTJS oiKovo^ias
5 irpovoup] rCjv
5.irpov<up\
The T&V avu of the
MSS. is impossible. Neander s con
jecture T$ va<{>
is in the right direc
tion, but should we not read irpovd^
(cf. 1. 9, TO. S TOV Trpovdov)? Otherwise we must suppose, either that
the meanings of vao$ and iepov had
been practically reversed by Hera-
cleon s time, or that he was ignorant
of their usage. And even then the
change to -rrpovdov in 1. 9 would be
awkward.
5, 6. The distinction ofK\rj<ns
(jLovr] ij x^pts TTpetViaros agrees with
the division of men in Hipp. Eefut.
vi. 34, KaroiKijTripiov TTOT fjLtv ^fX^s
fj.6vr)$...TroT 5ei/ ux^s /cat \6ywv. See
also Excerpta ex Theod. 58,
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 85/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 69
piav teal KepSos Trjv TWV ^evwv et? TO lepov io~oSov
,TOV ISiov /cepSou? /cal
<pL\apyvpla<;eve/cev
et? Tr)v \aTpeiav TOV Oeov Ovaias %opr)yovvTo)v./cal TO c^pApeAAio N Se TreTroirjo-Oai, etc o~%ot,ViQ)v VTTO TOV Jo. ii. 15.
20 1 770-01), ov%l Trap d\\ov Xa/SoWo?, t&iOTpbVa>? d7rayye\\ei,
\eywv TO cbpApeAAiON eiKova Tvy^dveiv 7775 Swa^eus
tvcpyeias TOV dyiov TrvevfjuaTO^, /c<pvo~a)VTo<;roi)?
Kal ^ai To 4)pAreAAiON Kal TO \ivov
aivSova Kal oaaToiavTa euKova r^9 8vvdfjLea)<;
25TTj? evepyelas
elvau TOVdyiov
TTVGV//.aro?.
evretra
7rpoo-i\ rj(f)eTO
fjurj ryeypafjLfjievov, w? cipa et? %v\ov
TO (f)paye\\iov, oirep %v\ov TVTTOV K\a/3(iov elvai
TOV o~Tavpov, (b rjo i TOUTCO TCO v\(p ai>T)\G)o~uat, Kai
rjfyav iaOau TOI)? KvftevTas GKTropovs Kai Trao~av Trjv
30 KaKiav. Kal OVK otS OTTO)? $\vapwv fyrja-LvGK Bvo TOVTCOV
TrpayfjiaTcov (f>paye\\iov KaTao-Kevd%eo~6ai, %rjT<x>vTO
VTTO TOV Ir]o~ov yevopevov. Ov yap K Sep/jiaTos,
veKpov eTTOLTjaev avTO,f
iva Trjv G.KK\if](Tiav
<TKevdo-rjOVKCTL AHCTOON Kal e/JLTropwv cnHAAiON, aXXa Mt.xxi.13.
? * \ )^-y/c>\\ / Cf. Jer.
350IKON TOY TTATpoc auToW \eKTeov oe TO avayKaLOTaTov v^ n
Tcepl T/7? OeoTrjTos Kal eK TCOV prjTcovTOVTWV Trpo?
yap TO ev lepoo oXi/yiioi? lepovOI KON TOY l&iov TTATpoc
elvai o I?7croi}?, TOUTO 8e TO lepov et? $6%av TOV KTio~avTO<> TOV
ovpavov Kal Trjv yfjv yeyove, TTCO? OVK tivTLKpvs SiSacrKoueda
40 fj,r) eTepov TLVOS vo/j,i%iv vlov eivai Trapa TOV TroirjTrjv ovpavov
Kal 7775 TOV vlov TOV deov ;
14 Ibid. x. 19 (R. iv. 196; L. i. 342).
%d>6opaBe 7rapan-7JTft)? o
e
HpaK\eo)v oleTai TO zflAoc Jo. ii. 17.
,i
> i "> n^ Ps Ixix
TOY OIKOY COY KATA(J)AreTAI MG 6/C TTpOaWTTOV TOOV Kp A,r)-/jxvjjj
\^Q
OevTwv Kal dva\w6evTwv VTTO TOV ScoT^po?
14. 2. KctTd^cryeTcu] There is a the masc. with dvva.fji.ewv we maydifference of reading in the LXX. compare Ep. Vienn. ct Lugd. ap.
here. fcsB read Kara^c^ercu, A /car^- Euseb. H. E. v. i. 9, TWVirpoeffTt]-
(paye. Cf. Origen Comiu. in loann. KOTWV TTJS TroXews e^ovcnwv, and ibid.
x. 19 (L. I. 341). 30, TrapaTre/j.irovT(t}vTWV
3. Svva/J.ewv~\ Cf. the 5a.ifJ.oves of eov<Tiwv.
Hipp. Befut. vi. 34. For the use of
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 86/138
70 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON.
\eyea-0ai, pr) Svvd/j,evo<>TOV etpfjiov rr;? ev TW
-^ra\fjiaj 7rpo(f)ij-
T6ta? Trjpfacu, voov/jievov IK TrpocrcoTrov TWV K/3\t]0evTa)v Kal 5
dva\a)0evTa)v $vvd/j,ea)v \eyecr6ai. dfc6\ov9ov Se ecm KCLT*
Ps. Ixix. avTov /col TO "EAooKAN eic TO BpooMA MOY X^^ N <*"n exelvwv(lxviii.)22. ,. / /j , i * / i A ~
> >
>< > v
\eyeauai ev rw avrw avayeypa/A/jLevov ^aXfJuw a\\ co? eiicos
erdpa^ev avrov TO KATAC^AfeTAi M co?JJLY) ^vvd^evov VTTO
7rayye\\cr0ac} ov% opcovTa TO edo<$ TWV dvOpwTro- 10
7Tpl Oeov KOi XpHTTOV \6yCOV.
10 Ol/X
15. Ibid. x. 21 (R. iv. 199;L. I. 351).
f
O fievToi ye Hpa/cXecoi/ TO* ENrpiciN <f)7]crlv
dvTt TOV Ez^
Jo. ii. 19. TpiTrj, (j,rj epewijcras, KdiToi ye eTna-T^aras TW ENTplciN,
ev rpialv r) az/acrrao-t? evepyelTai T/yu-epat?.ert Se /cat
^ TpiT7]v (f>7ja-l Tr)v 7rvevjj,aTi,Kr)v rif^epav, ev fj oiovrai
8rj\ovcr0at, TTJV r^9 eK/c\r)o-las dvdcrTaaiv. TOVTCOV be 5
a/co\ovuov ecrTiTrpooTrjv \eyeiv elvau TTJV
TTJV SevTepav Trjv ^w^iKrjv, ovyeyevrj/jievrjs
T^9 avacrTaaea)? ev aurat?.
5. voovfj.evov] We should expect
this word to introduce what Origen
considered to be the true spiritual
meaning of the passage under dis-
cussion, and not a repetition of
Heracleon s obstinate*
interpreta-
tion. And the agreement of vooti-
fj.evov with elp/j.6v is very awkward.
As it stands the passage can
onlymean that Heracleon s interpretation
fails because he cannot grasp the
general drift of the prophecy, which
he interprets as being spoken by the
5vi>&fj.eis.But the text is unsatis-
factory, and I am inclined to suspect
that the words yoov/j-evov \cyea6at
may possibly be a marginal note
made by the reader of some ancestor
of Cod. Monacensis, which has crept
into the text. For a possibly similar
phenomenon we may compare Frag.
40, ei-rj tf)v<nsK.T.\.
10. ?0os] Does this mean simply
custom, usage, or should we com-
pare Origens use of TO h Wti \t-yo-
/u.ei>oj>, tropice, and perhaps TO, Wt]
Orig. Conwi. in loann. xiii. 5?
ovx bpuvTa] The reading of all the
MSS. Huet apparently conjectured
ov x^poCj/ra, which is the probable
source of Delarue s note Keg. (quern
H. sequitur) ov
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 87/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 71
16. Ibid. x. 22 (R. iv. 201;L. I. 356).
"Eot/ee Be ical Kara ra M.a/CKa/3a i,Ka TroXXrj TI<$d/cara- Cf. 1 Mace.
/ \ \ \ v \ \ \ i -95 i. 22 ff.
crrao-ia yeyovevai, rrepiTOV \aov KCU TOV vaov, KCLI OVK oLOa
el Tore avwicoBof^rjOr] TOQ-OVTOW erea-iv o vaos. o pevToi <ye
Hpa/eXeW, pr)Be eVto-TfJcra? rfj la-ropia, facri T6v SoXo- Cf. Jo. ii.
5 /jLwvra reccApAKONTA KA) el e reci KaTeo-Kevaicevat, TOV
vaov, elicova rvy^dvovra TOV ^(DTrjpos, Kai TOV S"
dpid/JLov i<; TrfV v\r)V, TovTea-Ti TO TrXao-^ta, dvatyepei,*
TOV 8e TGOV Tecraapd/covTa, o rerpa? ecrrt, (frrjcnv, t]
dirpoo-TrXoKos, els TO i^^va^^a tcai TO ev rw e^^vatj-
10fj,aTi cnrepfjia. opa Be el SvvaTov, TOV
/JLCV fjuSid ra T&o~apa
TOV tcoo-fjiov crTOi^elaev TO?? tjywvLo-fjievois els TOV vaov
e<y-
KaTaTaa-Q-ofjieva \afjbf3dveiv,TOV Be S* Sta TO TTJ GKTVJ
yeyovevat, TOV dvOpwirov.
11
16. 6, 7. TOV r a/H0/*oV]Cf. Frag. 18,
Heracleon s interpretation of the six
(as he read) husbands of the Samari
tan woman. With the whole fragment
we must compare Excerpta ex Thco-
doto 50, XctjSdw xvv aTro TTJS yrjs...
fax*!" 7e^57j KOU v\iKT]v ereKrriva.ro...
o 8e KaO6/j.oiu<nv rr\v avrov rou Stj-
/uLiovpyou, Keii 6s tanv ov els rovrov
eve<f>v<r~r)aevre /cat eveffirtipev 6/j.oiov-
cribv TI avry 5tdyye\wi>
evdtis. And
53, ^trxe 5^ 6 A5d/i aSTjXws avr<$
virb rrjs <ro<f>ias ivffirapev rb oirep^a rb
n-vev^ariKOV eij ryv ^vxty, Starayeis,
07?o-t,5t
dyye\wi>ev -xfipl pefflrov...
llp&rov oZv (T7re/j/u.a irvev^arLKov TO ev
rip ASd/j, 7rpoe/3aXcj/ TJ ffocpia iva.rj TO
offrovv ij \oyiKri Kai ovpavia ^vxn yiuj
Kevr) a\\d fj.ve\ov yt/J.ovcra TrvevfAariKov,
which is more closely parallel. See
also Hipp. Refut. vi. 34, ToOro e<m
TOelpi>)/J.evov...Kal evefitiffyaev els rb
Trpbcruwov avrov irvoyv ^CJTJS KO! eyevero
o dvOpuwos ets ^ux 7?" fwo <"
>
and for
the TO ev Tefj.<pv<rri/J.aTi cirepfj.a,
dywviff^evoLS.
ibid. vi. 34, KaroiKr)r-rjpi.ov . . .TTOTC 5
/cat \6ywit, oiTLves et<ri \6yoi
Ko.reaTra.pfj.evoL dirb TOV KOLVOV
TOV 7rX?7/)w^aTos Kapirov /cat TT)S cro0taj
ets rovrov rbv Kocr/Aov, KaroiKovvres ev
The agreement of this passage,
with the fragment of Valentinus pre
served in Clement (Strom, iv. 13), andhis explanation of it, will be more
conveniently considered in an ad
ditional note.
8, 9. TeT/xis r) aTrpoffirXoKos] The
reference is probably in the first
instance to the original rerpaKrvs of
the Valentinian system (i.e. probably
the four male aeons of the Ogdoad),
and then more generally to the spiri
tual nature which is incapable of
real union with any lower nature.
Cf . Irenaeus i. vii. 4 (where he is speak
ing of the Demiurge s various views
as to prophecy) 17TOV dvdpwirov, rj TT}J/
irpoffTr\OKr}v TWV xeipovuv (MS.
Lat. pejorum).
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 88/138
72 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
17. Ibid. xiii. 10 (R. iv. 220; L. n. 18).
"IS&>/ie*>Se /cal rd HparcXecovo? et9 rou? TOTTOU?, oo-ri?
(/>ijo-iv"Arovov /cal Trpocricaipov /cal 7rt,\ei7rovaav e/cei-
vr)v yeyovevai rr}v i^wrjv, KOI rr)v /car avrrjv Sogav/coapi/cr) yap, <f>^alv, ^v /cal olerai rov Koa^iKrjv avrijvelvau
d-jr6&ei%iv <j>epeive/c rov rd GpeMMATA rov
"Ia/cw/3 ef 5
avrrjs TreTTw/cevai /cal el fiev arovov /cal Trpovicaipov /cal
eiriXeiirovtrav &dp/3ave rr)v e/c pepov? yvwcnv, rjrot, rfj
aTTO TWVypa<f>wv o-vy/cpio-ei rwv apprjrwv p^^drwv, a ov/c
e%bv dv6pW7ru> \a\rjcrai,, Traaav rrjv vvv SL eaoirrpov /cal
alviyfj,aro<i <yivop{-vr)v <yvw<Tiv, /carapyov/jievrjv orav e\6rj TO 10
reXeiov, ov/c av avrajeve/caXeaafjiev. el Be
virep TOV SiaftdX-
\eiv rd 7ra\aid TOVTO Troiei, ey/c\7jreo^ av eirj.
|NO Se Si&ay-
o-iv vScop 6ZcoTrjp, tfrrjo-lv elvat e/c rov Trvevparos /cal
Jo. iv. 14. T7?9 Svvdfjuect)? auroO, ov -^ev^o^evo^ /cal et? TO Oy MH
AiyHCH 8e eic TON AIOONA aTroSeSco/cev avraisXegecrw
ourw?, 15
Atco^to? yap r) fa)?} avrov, /cal fjLrjSeTrore (f>6et,pofj,evr),
w? /cal77 Trpwrij r)
e/c rov<^>/)eaT09,
d\\d pevovaa dva-
Cf. Rom. (fralperos yap H X^P IC fcal H AcopeA rov2,Q)Tr)po? r]pwv,
/cal pri dva\K7/co/j,evr) fjLrjSe (frQetpo/jLevrj ev rw yu,ere-
%OI/T* avrfjs. (f)6eipo/jievijv Se rrjv Trpwrrjv Bi&ovs elvai 20
2 Cor. iii. ?&}*>,el pev rr)v Kara TO ypdppa e\eye, tyjrwv rrjv rfj nepi-
CfiEx.
Al
peceiTOY
KAAYMMATOC yivo^evt]v Kara TO HNGYMA /cal evpi-xxxiv. 34. O-KCOV, vyiws av eKeyev. el Se iravrv) <f>6opdv /caryyopel ru>v
Heb. x. 1.TraXatcSz/, 8f)\ov on rovro iroiel w? prj opoov rd dyaOd
11 ai}r] aiJro. 21 rV] om. 22yivo/j.hi)v] yivo^vr] r,.
17. 19, 20./xer<fxoj/Ti]
There is no O7r6re ofo ^5ei fyOfyai TO
difference of reading here in the MSB. T^V rrj] Hilgenfeld plausibly al-
Delarue s note, Regius (quern H. ters
theV^of the uss. to
rrjv. Per-sequitur) /^eraaxoVTi, is due to Huet haps it is better to insert both articles
and not to Cod. Regius. Huet very (cf. Frag. 1). At any rate therj in
likely conjectured /xerao-x^Ti from the next line cannot be right. WeFerrarius
( particeps fuerit). may reasonably suppose that after
21. frrwv] With this commentytvofj.i>r)i>
had been corrupted to 71-of Origen we may compare Hipp. vo^v^ (dative because of the pre-
Refut. vi. 35, 6re T<?\OSAct/3ej> 77 /cr/ats ceding Trepiaiptvet), the r^v may have
...rr\v airoKaXv\f/iv TT\V eyKfKa\vfji/j.evr)v out.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 89/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 73
25 MeAAoNTOON e)(eiN
eKelva THN CKIAN. OVK a. iriOdvws Be TO
AAAOM6NOY Birjy^o-aTO Kal roi)? fj,Ta\a[jL(3dvovTa<; TOV
dvwOev eTrL^oprjyov/JLevov TrXouo-tw?, KOI auroi)?eV-
/3\va-ai et? TTJV erepcov alwviov ^wr)v ra eTriKe^oprj-
yrjfjueva aurot?. d\\d KOI eTraivet rrjv ^afjiapeinv ooo~dv
30 ev&eigafAevriv rrjv dBid/cpirov Kal Kard\\rj\ov rfj
<f>v(Ti eavrrfS TTLO-TLV, fj,r) SiaicpiOelaav e^>ol? e\eyev
avrfj. elfjiev
ovv T^V Trpoaipeariv aTreSe^ero, /JirjSev Trepl
(f)v<TCd$ alviTTOfJievos co?Sia^>6pouo"779,
real r^els (iv avyKare-
0efj,e0a el $erfj
(frvcriKf) KaraaKevfj dvafyepeirrjv r/J? a-vytcaTa-
35 ^eVea)? alriav, w? ov Tracrt ravrrjs Trapova-rjs, dvarpeTrreov
rov\6<yov.
OVK oi$a Be TTCO? o<
H.paK\ewi>TO
fjurj
eK\a/3(av (fryo-i TT/DO?TO Adc MOI TOYTO TO yAoop Jo. iv. 15.
Co? dpa Rpa%ea Biavv^Oelaa VTTO TOV \6yov e/jui
\oiTcbv Kal TOV TOTTOV etceivov TOV \eyo/j,evov
40 uSaro?. ert 8e :al Trpo? TO Adc MOI TOYTO TO yAoop TN<\ MH
Aiycb MHAeAiep)(coMAi
GNGAAe ANTAe?N(frycrlv
OTI TauTa \eyet
r) yvvrj fJL(j)aivovo~a TO enr i/jLO^Oov /cal 8vo~7r6pLo-Tov
/cal aTpotyov eKelvov TOV vSaTos TroOev ydp SeiKvvvat,
aTpocfrov elvai TO TOV
25
18. Ibid. xiii. 11(R.
IV. 221;
L. II.
20).
Be 6 ttpaK\eo)v TT^O? TO Aepei AYTH<f)
r
rjo~i A^Xoi/ oTt Jo. iv. 16.
TL \eya)v Et ^eXet? \aftelv TOVTO TO vBwp,
(})CC)NHCON TON ANApA COY KCU oleTdl TTj^ SttyLta-
? TOV \ey6fjievov UTTO TOU ScoT^po? dvSpa TO
25. The text, even after fX LV Ka ^ ^ a ^r< v a,l ra. ro^rots OI
has been substituted for the impos-33.
0uVews]Cf.
Fragg. 19,44.
sible ?xei>
is unsatisfactory. The Origen s criticism of the doctrine of
omission of ra, ayada, would make it 0ycrews 5ia0opa is one of the most
simpler, and it is possible that these important parts of his refutation of
words may be a marginal gloss, which Heracleouism, as this was the deepest
has crept into the text. and most characteristic fault of the
27, 28. Kzl avrovs e/c/3Xwrcu] Cf. Ex- system, and indeed of gnosticism in
cerpta ex Theod. 58, TO\J/VX<-KOI>,
6 general.
dveawvev Kal dvrjveyKev airep dveXafie,
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 90/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEKACLEON.
77X77 pa)/j,a eivai avTrjs, iva o~vv eiceivw yevofievi] 77/309 5
TOV ^(DTrjpa KO/uLicraaOaL Trap avTOv TTJV Bvva/JLLV /cal
TTJV evcocTLV KOI Trjv dvaKpaaiv TTJV 77/309 TO 77X77 p ft)fta
avrrjs Bvvtjdy ov jap jrepl dvBpos, (frrjcrl, KOCT/JLLKOV
eXeyev avrfj Iva Ka\eo-r), eTreinrep OVK tjyvoei on OVK
el%e vofjii/jbov dvBpa. 77/30 77X0)9 Be evTavOa pid^erai, \eywv to
avrfi rbv ^coTTJpa elpyKevai ^O^NHCON coy TON
KAI eA6e GNOAAe, $tj\ovi>Ta TOV CLTTO TOV
av^vjov eiTrep yap TOV(? OVTCOS el%ev, e^prjv TOV avSpa teal
Tiva TpoTrov <j)(i)vr)Teoveo~Tai avTov eiTrelv, tva o~vv avTco
yevrjTai 77/309 TOV ^(OTrjpa. aXX eVel, 009 6 Hpa/cXewv 15
(frrjo-l,KaTa TO voovp-evov rjyvoei TOV iSiov avSpa, /caTci Be TO
ci7r\ovv fcr^vveTO eiTrelv OTI ^oi^ov ov%l Be dvBpa el%e, 770)9
ov%t /JLciT rjv eo-Tai TrpoaTfio-o-cov 6 Xeycov "YrrAre (})OC>NHCONTON
ANApA coy KAI eA6e eN0AAe; elra77/309 TOVTO AAnGec ei pHKAC
OTI ANApA OYK exeiC fal&W E7T66 6 1/ TO)
O(7/Ltft)OVK el%eV 2O
dvBpa ij 2a/Lta/oetTt9, TJV yap ai)r^9 6 dvrjp ev ra> alwvi.
f^ev ovv dveyvw/jiev TTeNTe ANApAC ecyec Trapd Be ra5
14 eiweiv] om.
18. 6. Kopiaaadai] Grabe suggests
K0fj.ie<r6ai.,which is followed by Hil-
genfeld. But there is no need to
alter the MS. reading, which is in it
self preferable.
7. TT]v tvucnv K.T.X.] Cf. Excerpt.
ex Theod. 22, eyetpo/AeOa ovv ij/Aeis
i(rdyy\oi rocs cippecnv a.TroKa.Ta<TTa.6ev-
rts...eij eVwcrti,and 64, K0[u$/ji,eva
teal aura rous Wfuftlovt TOUS d~yye\ovs
lavrwv, els TOV vvfjupuva evros TOV opov
etcriacrt ...... eis TOVS voepous /cai alwviovs
yd[j.ovs TTJS ffvfrvyias.
Tr\ripufj.a] On Heracleon s use of
?r\^/)Wyaa and aiwv, see additional
note p. 105.
14. Hilgenfeld s substitution of
direlv for l(rrat is possible, but it is
simpler to suppose with Huet that
elireiv, or perhaps 5-rj\u<rai,has fallen
out after O.VTOV.
21
here follows the Western text. As
Origen has twice quoted the words
with the reading e^co shortly before,
this passage may reasonably be sup
posed to represent Heracleon s text.
At the same time the retention in
Cod. Monacensis of a less well-
known reading in only one of several
passages would not be unparalleled.
Other interesting variants in Hera
cleon s text are found in(1) Fr. 9,
B?70aj/(a. See the note in loc. (2)
Fr. 18, l
dvSpas,a
readingother
wise unknown. (3) Fr. 40, tyvxhv
Kol 0-ufj.a. Mt. x. 28. (4) Fr. 40,
ee\eucrot>Tai (ets TO <r/c6ros TO
a Western variant for (f/
So far as we can tell he used a text of
a Western type, but we have not
much material from which we can
form a
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 91/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 75
evpofiev "E AN A p AC ec)(ec. KOI epjjirjvevei ye
rrjv v\LKr)v Trdaav Ka/ciav Brj\ovcr0ai Bid rwv ef
25 dvBp&v, f, o-vve7rerr\eKTo real 67T\rjcria^v Trapd \6yovTropvevova-a, ical evvfBpi^oiievr) Kal dderovfievrj /cal
eyKara\L7rofjievij vrf avrwv \eKreov BeTT/OO?
avrov
onelrrep erropvevev ij TrvevfJLanKr), rf^apravev r] irvev^a-
ritcr) el Be tf/jLapravev 77 TrvevfAaritcrj, AeNApON AfAGoN OVK
30 fa TI TrvevfMaTiKij /card yap TO evayye\iov Oy AYNATAI Mt. vii. 18.
AeNApON Ar^QoN KApnoyc noNHpoyc 6NerKe?N. /cal Brj\ov ort,
ofyeraiavrols rd
rrj<>
fivOoTroitas,el Be dBvvarov eari TO
Af^QoN AeNApON (frepeiv noNnpoyc KApnoyc Kal Af^QoN AeNApoN
r; ^ajuapelrw, are Trvev/jLaTifcrj rvy^dvova-a, dicoKovOov avru)
35 \eyetv early, on rjroi OIK r\v d/juapria r; iropveia avrrjs, rjOVK
avrr} eiropvevcrev.
19. Ibid. xiii. 15 (R. iv. 224;L. n. 25).
fO Be HpaKXewv et? ra avrd prjfiara \eyei Eucr^7;^6^ft)? Cf. Jo. iv.
(x \ ^ \fj Vl9a)fjLo\oyrjKevai rtjv ^a^apeiriv ra vrc avrov rrpos
avrrjv elpijfJLeva TLpotfrrjrov ydp /JLOVOV, <f>r)(Ti,v,
eo~nv
elBevai rd rrdvra, ^revBofievo^ eKarepo)^ Kal ydp ol dyye-
5 X-ot ra roiavra Bvvavrai elBevai, Kal 6Trpocfrr/nis
ov rrdvra
olBev, EK Mepoyc r^p HNCOCKOMCN KAI K Mepoyc npo^HreyoMGN,1 Cor. xiii.
KOLV rrpofyrjrevwpev rj yLvaHTKco/j-ev. fMerd Be ravra erraivel
w? rrperrovrws rfj avrrjs (pixrei rcoiriacicrav rrjv
pelrLV, Kal [tijre ^revaafjievrjv fjiijre avriKpvs
y^aacrav rrjv eavrrjs do ^rji^ocrvvrji ,rrerreia fjuevriv re
cfrrjo-iv avrrjv, on rrpo^r^rri^ etrj, epwrdv avrov, d/j,a
rrjv alrlavep<f)alvov(7av
Bi* rjv egeiro pvev&ev, on BS
ayvoiav deov Kal r^5 Kara rov Oeov Xarpe/a? d
CLVTTJS
19. 3. TrpoQr/Tov K.T.X.] Contrast TTJS ov iravroi olftev of its point.
Heracleon s views on the prophets 12 14. 6Vt...a^e\?7(rao-aj/ is strange
in Fragment 5. but may possibly be explained as an
4. Hilgenfeld alters ra iravTa. in- extension of such usages as5r)\oi>
to Kal TO.VTO., an alteration which, 6Vt. Hilgenfeld plausibly suggests
besides having no MS. authority, are.
deprives Origen s criticism 6
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 92/138
76 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
aacrav /cal TTCLVTWV TWV Kara TOV ftiov avrfj dvayicaiwv
teal aXX-ttf? del TWV ev TO> jBiw Tvy^dvovaav ov yap 15
av, (frrjalv, avrrj rjp^ero eVt TO(frpeap, efo> TT}? TroXew?
TV*y%dvov. ov/c olSa Se TTW? evo/juaev efJL(f>alveo-6ai, TT]V
alriav TOV e/CTreTropvev/cevai, rj dyvoiav alriav yeyove-
VCIL eTTL TWV 7r\7)ijiijLe\ )jfjidTwv Kdi T??9 Kara Oeov XO-Tpeias.
aXX eoi/ce ravra W9 erv^ev ecr^eSta/ce^ai, %ft>/3fc? Tracr?;? TTiOa- 20
voTrfTo^. Trpoarldrjo-l re TOVTOIS on ^ov\o/nev7) /juaQeiv
TTCO? /cal rivi evapeo-rrjaaaa /cal 6ea) Trpoa/cvvrjo-ao-a
Jo. iv. 20. d7ra\\ayeirj rov Tropveveiv, \eyei TO Oi n^jepec H
EN TcL opei Toyja) npoceKYNHCAN /cal TO
oe eaTW eveXeytcTa TCLelprj/jieva Trodev yap OTL /Sot-Xerat 25
,TIVL evapea-T^craa-a diraXkayeiT] TOV Tropveveiv ;
15 rQtv ev] TTJV e/c. 25 eve\eyitTa]
20. Ibid. xiii. 16 (R. iv. 225; L. n. 26).
Jo. iv. 21. Aepei AYTH d MHCOYC TTicjeye MOI, TYNAI, OTI epxeTAi O>PA,6ie
OYTG SN TU) 6pei TOYTCO ofVe EN lepocoAYMoic npocKYNHcere TOJ
ore eBoge iriQavwTaTaTeTrjprj/cevai, 6 H/ja/cXewv ev
TO E?rl/^ez^ TW^ TTpoTepwv fir) elprjo-Qai, avTrj
MOI rYN^i, vvv Se TOVTO avTy Trpoo-TeTa^BaL, 5
rore eVe^oXwcre TOft?) dirlOavov TrapaTrfprj/Aa, elirmv "Opoc
TOV $(,d{3o\ov \eye<r6ai, rjTOV KOCT/JLOV avTov,
15. Grabe s alteration of rr\v into been the cause of her \arpeia, thoughTUV is the only satisfactory emenda- Heracleon probably put it forward as
tion here. But this is not enough. the cause of the errors in her service.
Massuet s insertion of diroTvyxdvovffav Origen seems to have misunderstood
after ava.yKa.iwv balances the sentence the words which he quotes.
better, but then dXXws rvyxwovaav 21. re] Theirepl of the Editions is
becomes an awkward anticlimax. another interesting example of the
Two simple emendations suggest influence of the mistakes made by
themselves, either(i)
to place d^ceX?)- the scribe of Cod. Regius. Cod.
aacrav after dvayKatw, or(ii)
to omit Monac , has (sic) which he has mig .
the KO.I afterdpe\j<raffar.
But it is taken for-rrepl
doubtful if even then a possible sense 22. T(v(\ Cod. Venetus inserts
can be obtained.rp^^ but it is more natural that the
19. Kal /card deov here should be similar to
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 93/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 77
//.epo<?ev 6 Sta/9oXo9 0X7;? TT}?
6 Be KOCT/JLOS TO (TVfjiTrav T^? icaicias opo?, eprjfjiov
10Trjpiov OrjpiwVj a> 7rpo(7Kvvovv Trdvres ol Trpo VO/JLOV
teal ol eOviKOi lepocoAyMA 8e rrjv K.TIGIVrjTOV KTiGTrjv
u> Trpoa-ercvvovv ol louScuot. AXXa KOI SevTepws "Opoc
fJLev ev6/jLi(Tv elvai ryv rcrio ivfj
ol eOviicoi Trpocretcvvovv
lepocoAyMA Be rov KridT^v, w ol lovSaioi e\drpevov.
15 u/zet? ovv, (fctjcrlv,olovel ol Trvev/jLarifcol, ovre rfj /cricreL,
ovre TM Brj/jLiovpyw npocKyNHcere, aXXa TW Trarpl T^?
Kal (rv/jiTrapaXa/Aftdvei ye, (frrjcrlv, avr>}v w?
TTicTTrjv, Kal (rvvapi0fjLOVfJLev r]v rot? /card aXrjOeiav
13 oi] om. 14
21. Ibid. xiii. 17 (R. iv. 226;L. n. 28).
npocKyNeTre o OYK oTAAre, HMG?C npocKyNoyMeN o Jo. iv. 22.
OTI HC(JOTHplA
K TO3N loyAAIOON GCTIN. TO YMeIc, 0(TOl>
eVt Trj Xefet, ol ^apapels oo-ov &e eVt ry dvaycoyf), olirepl
Ta?fy/3a(/>a? erepo&o^oi. TO 8e HMelc, ocrov eVl TW p^Tw, ot
5 Ioi/8atofc-
oo-oi/ Se eVt T$ dXKrjyopia, eyw 6 \6yos, Kal ol K.CLT
e/Jbe fjLefjbop<f)(i)iJLevoi,, TI)V a-coTypiav e^ovre^ diro TGOV lovSaiKwv
\6ywv TO yap 4>ANep<jo0eNNyN MycTHpioN 7re<f)avepa)Tai,
AIA re Rom. xvi.
20. 8. With the description of o 6 apx^v rov xofffj-ov TOVTOV.
didj3o\os as /i^pos v o\7ys rjjs v\rj^ cf. 9, 10.ofcnynj/jtoi ^Tjptwi/] Cf. Hipp,
the cosmogony of Hippolyttis Refut. Refut. vi. 34, KaToiKr)Tr)pioi>...oTav
vi. 32^34, e/c r^s vXtx^j ovaLas Kal 5al[j.oves fj.r)(rvvoiKwcri rrj ^vxy, and
5ia/3oXi/c^s ewoiriffev 6dij/miovpyos ra?s Valentinus ap. Clem. Al. Strom, ii.
i/ yxcus TO, (Tw/aara, and e/c TTJS i-Ai/c^s 20, 17 Kap8la...Tro\\uv ov<ra5cu/j.6i>ui>
ytyovev (as must be supplied, see Hil- OLK^T^PLOV. These passages shew that
genfeld Ketzergescluclite, p. 4G8) et/cwi the phrase of the master was remem-
5id/3o\os, and TTJV de diropiav daifj.ovwi . bered by his pupils, and applied in
See also Irenaeus i. v. 4, IK de r??s different ways.
Xi^Trr/s ra irvevfj.ariKa. rrjs irovrjpias... 11. Kriffiv] i.e. the world of the
odev rov Std/SoXoy. Demiurge. The distinction between
9. d de/c6<r/xos]
Here regarded as the nations and the Jews may be
the world of the Devil, cf. Irenaeus, compai ed with the description (Hipp.
loc. cit. ov Kal Kotr/j-oKparopa Ka\ovfft, Refut. vi. 34) of the children of Abra-
and Hipp. Refut. vi. 33, 3id/3oXoj ham, as the children of the Demiurge.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 94/138
78 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
2 Tim. i.
10.
Rom. ii.
29.
npO(|)HTIKOONKOI THC eTTl4>ANeU\C TOY Kvpfov HMGON
|HCOY XpicToy. opa 8e el/it?)
I8ia>s Kal irapa rrjv dtco\ov9iav
rwv prjTwv 6(
HpaK\ea)v e/<:Sef/Ltez/o9TO YMeTc dvrl rov Ol 10
I of Sato*, eOviKol, 8irjyrj(7aro.
olov Se eVrtTrpo? rrjv
^afjiapelnv \eyeo-0ai, Jyitet?ol lofSatot, 77 TT/JO?
V/JL6LS OL lOviKoL ,d\\ OVK O&dkT/ 76 Ofc 6Tp6So^OL O
KWOVGW, OTI r
rr\da^a ecrrl, /cat ou/c aX^eta, /cat pvOos /cal
ov MycTHpiA. o 8e TTpocrKVVwv Tov BTjfjLiovpybv, jjid\iaTa Kara 15
TON N KpynTU) loYAA?ON, KOL TOl)? Xo yOl 9 TOj)? TTVeVfJLaTi/COVS
euro? o o?Ae npocKyNe?. TroXi) Se ecrrt z^i5^ irapa-
rov Hpa/cXew^o? r /37;r a?ro roi) eT
Herpov Kijpvy/jLaros TrapaXa^^avo^eva KOI io-raadai
aura eferafo^ra? /cat ?repi roO /3i{3\iov,7r6T6p6v7roT6 yvrjcriov2
IQ-TIV rj voOovrj fJLitCTOV SioTrep exovres vTrepriOefjieOa, ravra
pbvov eTricnj/Aeiovfievot, (frepetv avrov, w? Tlerpov StSa|r
a^T09,
M?) Sett K a^f/
EX\7;^a5 irpoatcvvelv, rd rrjs V\TJ<; irpdy-
15 23
21. 12.717)65
2a-ua/3e?Tti ]
This is
strange but possible. The definite
article in the first clause restricts the
application to the particular subject
of the story, while in the second
clause it is general. But Cod. Vene-
tm has, either intentionally or by
itacism, improved the text, reading
^afj.apeiTfjv ;the preceding Sa^apemj
would easily account for the change,
and the more general application
suggested by the masculine is intrin
sically far more suitable.
15. ov] This correction (found
in Cod. Yen.) is necessary, whether
we retain the Kal or not.
17. 7roXi> 5J The scribe of
Cod. Venetus fell into the natural
transcriptional slip of inserting /cdX-
\LOV, thus getting a more familiar
phrase. But intrinsic and transcrip
tional probability alike forbid us to
follow Hilgenfeld in retaining the
ing 5i67rep e/c6fres virepTidfj.e6a mean
ingless.
23. *o0"EXX?;i/as] The reading of
the Munich MS. explains the strange
production of its copy (Cod. Reg.
Ka.6c\tiv as) which Huet had to fol
low, and which led him to conjecture
/car edviKovs. The passage from the
Preaching of Peter is quoted at
greater length in Clement (Strom, vi.
5) where the last sentence stands Kal
yap e/cetpoi JJ.OVOL ol6fj.zvoi rov debv
yivuffKeiv OVK e-n-tcrTavTai, \aTpeuovres
0,77^X015 Kal
Origen expresses a decided opinion
on the Preaching of Peter in the De
Principiis, Praef. 8 (interp. Rufino)
Respondendum quoniam ille liber
inter libros ecclesiasticos non habe-
tur; et ostendendum quia neque
Petri est ipsa scriptura, neque alteri-
us cuiusquam qui spiritu Dei fuerit
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 95/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 79
KOI \arpevovras f^Xot? Kal
25 \i0ois, /jirjSe Kara lof Saiov ? aefteuv TO Oelov, eTretTrep
Kai avrol JJLOVOI, olo/nevoi eTriaracrOai deov, dyvoovcriv
avTov, \arpevovres dyye\oi,<;real
/Jirjvl Kal a-e\r)vy.
24 \arpeuovTas] \OLTpetovTes.
26 fj.6voi oiofjievoi] /j.6i>ois
22. Ibid. xiii. 19 (R. IV. 229; L. II. 33).
To/jievToi, ye HMeic npocKyNoyMeN 6
(
HpaK\ea)v oie-rai elvau J . iv. 22.
O ev alwvu Kal ol avv avry e\06vre<; ovroi yap, ^alv,
yoecrav TIVL TrpocrKVVovcri,, Kara d\ij0eiav rrpoaKV-
vovvres. a\\a Kal TO "On HccornpiA EK TCX>N loyAAicoN GCTIN,
5 eTrel ev rfj lovSaia, (frrjcrlv, eyevr/Oij, aXX OVK ev avrols
ov yap 6t? irdvras avrovs eyAoKHce Kal on ef Cf. 1 Cor.
eKeivov rov e0vovs 62HA96Nrj (Twrrjpla Kal o
\oyo<$^;^,.
eic THN OIKOYMGNHN Kara 8e TO voov/juevov K TWV lou- (xviii.)5.
Saicov rrjv crwTrjpiav SirjyeiTai yeyovevai, eTreLtrep el- ^Q
X>
10 Koves OVTOL rwv ev ru> 7r\r)pa)/jLaTi avrw elvai vofii-
^ovrau. e^prjv 8e avTov Kal roi)? air avrov (=Ka<rrov rwv ev
TTI \arpeia SeiKvvvai, TTCO? eaTiv eiKtov rwv ev rw irK^pwfiarL,
el ye firj /JLOVOV (fxovy rovro \eyovcriv, d\\d Kal aXrjdeia
<j>pOVOV(TlVaVTO.
7T/305 TOVTOLf TO 6N nNGYMATI KAI AAH0eiA Jo. iv. 24.
15 npocKYNe?c9Ai TON GeoNr/yov/jievos, \eyet, on Oi irporepov
Trpoa-Kvvrjral ev aapKl Kal ir\dvr) Trpoa-eKvvovv ro5
lit) Trarpl, coare Kal ravrov 7re7T\avfja-0ai, Trdvras TOT)?
TO>
&tjfj,i,ovpya), Kaleinfyepei ye 6
(
Upa-N TH KTI CGI, Kal ov TO) Kar d\r)6ei,av cf Rom.
i. 25.
11^/cocrrov] eKaffTUv.
24. \arpe6ovTas] The MS. read- 44, TOI)J 5^ appevas AyytXovs robs <ri>v
ing is probably due to the following aureKire{j.<p6{vTas. And see also
\arpe6ovTes. Frag. 40, ol TTJS oiKovonlas ayyeXot.22. 2. 6 h O.IUVL Kal ol <riV aury A- 15. ^yo^^os] We may perhaps
0<Wes]These may be naturally iden- accept Huet s suggestion scribas
tified with the /cotpos rov TrXTjpw^aros 5i.yyovfji.fvos.
Kapirbs and the 70 X^ot projected by 19. Krlrei] Heracleon probablyhim and Sophia : and, in the account refers to the second interpretation
given by Irenaeus, with the Soter and given in Frag. 20, which is no doubt
his angels. Cf. also Exc. ex Theod. founded on Rom. i. 25.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 96/138
80 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Jo. i. 3. KTl cTH, 05 (TTi X/5K7T05, 1<?
T7AIMTA A l AYTO? e
KAI ^P c AYTOY ereNeio OY AGN.
23. Ibid. xiii. 20 (R. iv. 229;L. n. 33).
Jo. iv. 23. KAI n*p onATi-ip TOIOYTOYC ZHTE? royc TTPOCKYNOYNTAC AYTONT
el ZHTG? 6 TTATHp,$ld TOV vloV ZHTG?, TOV 6\7J\V00TO<; ZHTHCAI
Lc.xix.10. KA I COOCAI TO AnoAooAoc, OVGTIVCLS tcaOaipwv /cal TraiBeixov TOJ
iv
Z
16 ^7^ Ka^ T0^ vyiecri, Soy/jLaai, Karao-Kevd^ei a\r]dLvoi>s TTpocr-
KwrjTa^.J
A7ro\a)\evai, SeIT)<JIV
6 HpaicXewv evrfj (3a- 5
Oeia v\y r^? TrXaz^Ty? TO oiicelov TO> Trarpl, oirep
ZHTe?TAi i va 6 nATHp VTTO rwv oltceicov
Cf. Lc. xv. el/juev
ovv ecopa TOV irepl T^? aTrwXeta? TWV TrpojSdrcov \6yov,
KOI TOV dTTOTrecrovTOS TUIV TOV TraTpos VLOV, KCLV
avTov TTJV Sir/yrjaiv. eVel Se/j,v6o7roiovvT<i
ol airo r^? jvca- 10
fir)? avTov OVK olS* o TL Trore Tpavws TcapiGTacri irepl
diro\w\via^ Trvev/jLaTi/crjs <f>vo-eco<;,
ovSev o-a^e?
cricovTes tj/Jids TreplTwv TTpo T^? aTTcoXeta? avTijs
rjalwvwv ovSe ydp Tpavovv ^vvavTai eavTwv TOV \6yov. Bid
TOVTO auTOi)? eicovTes TrapaTre/jL^lro/jieOa,TOCTOVTOV eTrcnropr)- 15
4 d\r]divovs] ahydots TOI)S. 9 vlov] mot. Cod. Bodleianus habet in
margine rcixa vlov, sed in txt. habet vlov.
20. X/H(rr6s]In the Excerpta ex must refer to the same, the tertiary
Theod. 45, the section describing predicate (contained in d\tjd. TOVS
the creative work of the Soter, eis irpoaK.) would be very awkward.
oixriav TJyayev avrd re /cat [TO] rrjs 5. aTroXwX^at] There is of course
Seur^pas Sta^^crcws, is similarly closed no necessary reference here to a
with the words irdvra 5t O.VTOV K.T.\.
commentaryof Heracleon s on S.
23. 4. d\T]divovs] This correction in Luke, though we know from Clement
Cod. Venetus restores the grammar that he commented on some part of
of the sentence;
ova-nva^ Ka.da.lpuv it (see Frag. 50; Clem. Al. Strom, iv.
can of course be separated off as a 9. 73). Here however he only ap-
complete relative sentence, but as ova- pears to have explained Luke xix. 10
rtj as, TO a7roXwX6s, and irpoffKvvr)Ta.sin illustration of S. John s words.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 97/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 81
24. Ibid. xiii. 25 (K. iv. 234;L. n. 43).
Et? fjuevToi ye TO TTNeyMA 6 Oedc 6 HpaK^ewv (fryeriv Jo. iv. 24.
payro? 7p ^ctt KaOapd Kal doparos rj Oeia(frv-
avTOv. OVK olBa 8e el eSlSa^ev r^ids, ravra eTrenrwv,
d 6edc TTNeyMA eo~Ti. TO Be royc npocKyNoyNTAC GN TTNey-
5 MATI KAI AAHGeiA Ae? npocKyN6?N arafyrjvi^eiv vopi^wv, $v]a-iv
A^/a>9TOV Trpoo-Kvvovftevov Trvev jJbdT news ov o-ap/ci-
Kal yap avTol r^? ai)r^? ^ucrew? oi/re? TO) TraTpl
el(T\v, o iTives KCLTO. d\r)8eiav Kal ov KCLTOL
r
rr\avr)v Trpoa-tcvvovcri, Kadd Kal 6 aTrocrroXo? StSdcrfcei
io\ey(0v AopiKHN AArpei AN TTJV TOiavTrjv Oeocrefteiav.
eTTio-Tr/aco/jLev be el/JLTJ a~(f)6Spa
eaTiv acre^e? o^ooucrtou? TTJ
dyevv?jT(p (frvcret,Kal TrajjL/naKapia \eyeiv elvai, rou? TrpocrKv-
vovvTas ev irvev/^aTi rw dew, oO? Trpo /3pa%eos eljrev auro?
o *}i{paK\ewv eKTreTTTWKOTas, Tr)V ^apapelTiv \eycov
15 TTvev/jiaTiKfjs (pvcrecos ovcrav eKTreTropvevKevai. a\X
ovy^ opwviv [ol TavTa \eyovTes^\ OTL \rrav TO Ofioova-Lov]
Kal TWV avTWv $KTIKOV. el 8e eSe^aro TO r
jropvevo~ai r) irvev-
fJLaTLKr) (frvais, o/jLoovaios ovaa[TU> dyevvrjTw], avoaia Kal dOea
Kal daeftri aKoXovdel TW \6ya) rw /car auroi)? Trepl 6eov ovBe
20 (fravTacnwdfjvai dKivSwov eo~Tiv
2r/]
/cat. 11 o/ioofcrt ouj] o/j.oovffioi>.16 ot raCra X^yovres] om.
lac. 13 circa litterarum relicta: Codex Bodleianus in margine ot raura Xe-
yovres. irav rb o/j-oovcnov] TravTos, post hoc verbum relinquitur lacuna (12
circa litt.) in Codice. Cod. Bodl. in margine f<rws T&V evavrluv. 18 0i7crtj]
(pvffeis.r ayevvriTtf)] om. lacuna (12 litt.)
relicta: Cod. Bodl. in mar
gine T<f) dyevv/jTij). 20 dAX-^Xots]
24. 2.-^
0eta] There being no nominative is required and the mar-
article in his exemplar the scribe of ginal conjecture in Cod. Bodleianus
Cod. Voietus removed the difficulty fulfils the required conditions.
by altering the last /cat into 77. TraV rb o/xooucrtoj ] On this con-
10.\oyiKT)i> \arpeiav] Correspond- jecture see Additional Note C.
ing to their nature. Cf. /cat yap avrol 18. T<
ayevvr}Tu>\A conjecture pro-
TTJS auTrjs 0i;crews dWej, and Frag. 45 bably derived from Ferrarius, which
TJ]V TUV ayluv \oyiK<2vovalav. admirably suits the requirements of
16. oi raOra \tyovres] Some such
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 98/138
82 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
25. Ibid. xiii. 27 (R. iv. 237; L. n. 49).
f
OpaBe Kal rov
Hpa/cXewvari
<f)r}aiV
\eyei yapon
eSe^ero TI etcrc\ij<ri*rov Xpicrrov, /cal errerreio-ro
rrepl avrov OTI, rd rrdvra /JLOVOS e/ceLVos errio-rarai.
26. Ibid. xiii. 28 (R. iv. 238; L. n. 51).
Jo. iv. 20. Kal oT
Hpa/c\ea)v Be<j>rj<ri 7rpo9 ro Epco eiMi, 6 AAACON coi
ort Wirrep errerreto-ro77 ^a/jLapetTis Trepl rov
<w? apa e\6(ov Travra d7ra r
yye\6L avrfj, (frrjai
OTL etcelvos ov TrpocrSo/ca?, e<yw elfil 6 \a\a)i> crot Kal
ore GO/j,o\6<yr)O
ev eavrov rov TrpocrSo/cw/jievov \rj\v- 5
Jo. iv. 27. devai, HA00N, (fyjjcrlv,oi M&6HTAI npdc AYTON, 81 oi)?
e\7)\vOei e/9 TTJV ^a/Jbdpeiav. 7ro)9 Be Sia roi)? paffffras
e\rj\vOeiet9
TT)^ Zapdpeiav,o irives Kal
rrporepovavrw
o-vvfjaav ;
1crot] post (rot relinquitur lacuna (4 vel 5 litt.).
27. Ibid. xiii. 30 (R. iv. 241;L. n. 56).
Ooe
HpaK\ea)i> THN fApl^N rrjv SeKriKrjv ^"0)^9 vrro-
\afjijBavei elvai SidOeo-iv Kal evvoiav Kal rrjs
r^9 rrapa rov Scor^po9, fyvriva Kara\eirrovo~a,
Trap avra), rovrkanv e^ovaa Trapd ra) Zwrfjpi, ro
roiovrov dKevos, ev w \t}\v6ei \a(3elv ro %wv vSwp, 5
4 Trapa] irepl.
25. 2. }) (KK\if}a-ia] i.e. ot Trvevfj-ctTiKoi. to the latter word. It must meanCf. Excerpta ex Theod. 41. thought, conception, or the like, not
27. 2. /cai] The Kal before T^S power of thinking or conceiving the
Swdpeus is probably right. The diW/uj. Below (1. 13) Ferrarius re-
vdpia is the Sid^etrts and &VOLO. which fuses to take rrfv frvoiav r^s 8vva-
is deKTtK-r} rijs fw^s Kal TT^S dwa/j-eus. /xews together. Probably we should
Hilgenfeld s omission of the /ecu, there read, as here, Kal tvvoiav Kal
which makes dvvd.fji.ews dependent on r
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 99/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 83
els rov Koauov evayyeXi^o/jsevrj rfj K\rj-
crei rrjv XptcrroO Trapovalav. Bid ydp rov rrvev^aro^
Kal vrro rov TTvevuaros Trpocrdyerai rj i|ru%r)rw Sft)-
rrjpi. Karavovjcrov Br/,el Bvvarai Irraivov^vr] rvy^dveiv r)
10vBpia avrrj rravrri dcfrie/JLevr) A(|)HKe jap, <jyir](rl,
THN yApiANJo. iv. 28.
AYTHC H fYN^ v yap Trpo&Keirai on A^HKesi auTrjv irapa TW
^wrripi. vrctl? Se KOL OVK aTriOavov KaraXeiTrovcrav avrrjv
rrjv Se/CTiKrjv rr)<> ^coi-js ^idOeaiv, Kal rrjv evvotav rrjs
8vvdfji(i)<; r^9 nrapa rov "%wrf)pos, Kal TO crKevos ev
15 w e\r)\v0L \aftelv TO <wz> vBcop, aTreKrjXvOevai et? TO^
rovra)i>, eva^je\i(TaaOat rfj K\rjo~et, rrjv
reap ova lav ; TTO)? Se Kal77 TrvevfjiariKr) pera
rocrovrovs Xoyou5 ov Treireto rai, cra^xw? Treplrov XpicrTov,
d\\d(f>rjcn
MH TI oyjoc GCTIN 6 Xpicroc ;Kal ro ElfiAGoN Jo. iv. 29,
10 8e e THC noAeooc St^ yTjcraTo dvrl rov E/c T^? rrporepas
avrwv dvaar pofyrjs, ovo~r)<$ KocrfAiKrjs Kal rjp^ovro
Bid T^? TT/o-Tew?,(/>7?crl, 7T/DO? TOi^ ^wrrjpa. \eKreov
Be Trpos avrov 7rc3? /JLevei, Trap avrols ra<; Ayo HMepAC ; ot)
yap rerrjprjKev o irpoTrapeOefjieOa rj/Aels Trepl rov evrfj
7ro\ei
25 avrov dvayeypd(f)0aL MGMeNHKeNAi Ta? Ayo HMe
19fJ.ri
TI our6s] fJ-rjTOLOVTOS.
25 ava.yeypd(p6ai] Cod. Bodleianus in margine Ta%a XetVei
28. Ibid. xiii. 32 (R. iv. 242;L. n. 60).
O Ser
HpaXea)^ fyrio~lv on
avru> % wv dyopdcravres drrorr}<>
^
6.K-XTJO-IS]
Cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 24. A negative is obviously ne-
58, rb K\t]rbv . . .rb IK rrjs olxovo- cessary : cf. Orig. Comm. in Joann.
/j.ias TO ^vxf-Kov and the words irpocr- xiii. 29. We can either place /J.TJ
dyercu -f) ^v^f] which occurs in this before dvayeypd^dai with the margin
passage (1. 8).The woman herself of the Bodleian, or before ev ry ?r6Xci.
was a representation of the fK\oyri. 28. 1. The general sense of the frag-
21. Koir/jiiKrjs] Cf. Frag. 17 (the ment is recoverable, but it is hope-
account of the woman s formerlife), lessly corrupt. The third sentence
KoaniKT) ydp rjv, and Frag. 20, where may possibly have run TTWS 5, oZ/tcu,
thefc6<r/ios
is the kingdom of the did- ol fj.a.d-rjra.1TO, awrct
efxeti> \tyovrai..
jSoXos. Heracleon seems also to have And in line 8 it would be natural to
used the word as almost equivalent alter TTOTOU into eXaiov, for we can
to humanity, see Frag. 8. hardly justify it on the strength of
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 100/138
84 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
tccio-av. TaBe(f)rjcrlv
iva Tivd* *al TTCVTC pupal TrapOevou
Cf . Matt.*
rtvro TOVpv/JL(f)iov. Tret)? Be olfjbcu
* * *TO, avra e^eiv
* * *
\e<yovTai
* *rat? aTroKKeia-Oelcrais pwpals irapOevois, afyov 5
IBelv
KaTTjyoplav Trepte^ovTa
TWV fjuaOyToov rot? ai/rot?Kot/jua)-
/jbevcov rat? fjbwpal^ TrapOevoLs. ecm &e teal avro dvo/juoiov rov
^)60T09 TTpOS TpO<f>r}V,
fCOL TOV 7TOTOV TTpO? TO,/BpCO/jLCtTa.
* * * *
*0-az/ra? aiTiavaa-Qai rrjv eK^o^v, KaiTrep tcard n Svvd-
fievov o-a<f)rj Troirjaai TOV \6yov e^prjv avrov Bid 7r\ei6vwv 10
, Karacrrcevd^ovTa rrjv ISlav
3 post riva lacuna (6 circalitt.). post irapetvoi lacuna (45). 4 post
oZ/mi lacuna (8). post ?x lv lacuna (6). 5 post \tyovrai lacuna (10).
8 post ppu/j.aTa lacuna(19). 9 Kaiirep] xdirep. /card] ins. intra lineas.
29. Ibid. xiii. 34 (R. iv. 245;L. n. 65).
Jo. iv. 32.Efoc> BpoociN e)(a>
(f)Are?N, HN y/weTc OY K oTAAje ov&ev
Be et9 TTJV
30. Ibid. xiii. 35 (R. iv. 245;L. ir. 65).
Jo. iv. 33. "EAefON oyN 01 MAGHTAI npoc AAAH Aoyc MH TIC HNefKeN
4>AreiN ;el KOI
(rapKi/ctos VTroXa/jL/Bdvei ravra \eyecr0ai 6
Hpate\O)V VTTO TWV fMiGrjTMV, w? en TcnreivoTepov Sia-
voovpevwv Kal rrjv ^apapelriv /jn^ovpevwv \eyovcravJo. iv. 11. Oyre ANTAHMA e xeic, KAI TO 0peAp ecTi BA0y a%iov ^a? 5
ISeiv, prj Trore fiXeTrovre? TI Oeiorepov ol fjiad^rai (fraai, Trpbs
dXXrjXov? MH TIC HNefKCN AyT(o cf)Are?N ; rd-^a yap virevbovv
<t
r
y<ye\i,icijvriva Bvva/jiiv evrjvo^evai, avrw
31. Ibid. xiii. 38 (R. iv. 248 ; L. II. 70).
Jo. iv. 34. O Se(
}^paK\e(Dv Bid rov EMON Bpa)MA tCTiN I NA nomcoo TO
BeAHMA Toy neMVfANTOC MG(frycrl Bir)ryel(r()ai TOV ^a)Trjpa
rots" /jiaOrjTais, OTL TOVTO o avve^r/Tei, //.era Trjs yvvai-
7r6r7?s XI/XJ/GS, and to fill up part of small patches in large rents are la
the gaps by reading KaT-qyopTJvavTas, hour wasted.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 101/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 85
/eo9, /3/ow/Lia iStov \eycov TO 6eAHMA TOV Trarpos TOVTO
$ydpavTOv Tpo$rj/cal dvaTravais /cal Svvafjiis r^v. 6e-
AHMA 8e Trarpos e\eyev elvai TO yvwvai dvdpwTrovs TOV
Trarepa, teal o-coOijvai, oTrep r/v epyov rov Swr^po? TOV
eve/ca TOVTOV aTreo-TaXf^evov et? ^a^dpeiav, TOVTGGTIV
et9 TOV Kocr/jiov. ftpw/jia ovv avTO^ei\r)(f)6
TOV I^crou /cal
10 Trjv fjbTa Trjs ^a/napeiTiSos av^rjTrjcnv, O7Tp
i TO) opaaOau /cal raTrett co? e^eCkrj^Oai /cal
erpo<r}
roO Scor^po? TO GeAHMA TOV vrarpo?, tra^xw? ov
TTW? 8e /cal avctTcavcris TO 6eAHMA TOV Trarpo? ;
yap 6 K.vpios a\\a^ov, 0)9 ov rrravTos TOV TraTpt/cov
15 $eA,?maTO9 avaTrav crew? avTov 6Vro?. TTAT6P, ei AYNATON. Mt. xxvi.
, , , > > , , , , , , 39
TTApeAGATOO TO HOTHplON AH 6MOY* TlAh N OY Tl fOL) 6eA<JO,AAAA Tl
cy. irbOev 8e /cal ort Suz/a/^t? TOU2,o)Trjpos TO GeAHMA roO
9 aOro] avrov. Cod. Bodl. in margine ra^a awr6. /cai] Cod. Bodl.
in
margine rdxaTO /cat
Tra/oA/cei.10
r^s] rr/z/. 1?<rtf] (roi.
32. 76id. xiii. 41 (R. iv. 251;L. n. 79).
Kat 6f
}^pa/c\ea)i> /jievTOLye OJJLQLWS rot? 7ro\Xo?9 eVt r^?
/ji6LV, fjirj oto/ue^o? avTrjv dvd<yea-0ai. (frrjcrl yovi>OTL
Top TOJV yevvrj/jLciTcov \eyei Oepio-fjbbv, w? TOVTOV fjiev GTI
Stcopiav 6%oi>Tos TeTpd/j,r)vov, TOV Be Oepicrfjiov, ov auro?
5 eXeyev, 1787; eVe<jr&)To<? /cal TOV Oepio-jjbov 8e ov/c ol& O7ro)9
e?rt r^9 ^1*^179 efei\rj(f)eTWV TCKIT&VOVTWV, \eycov OTL
dtc/jualoi teal GTOL/JLOL elat, irpo^ Oepto~fjiov /cal GTTL-
31. 6. TO 7J wi at /C.T.X.] Cp. Hipp. Origen complains first of the inter-
Refut. vi. 36. As the5t6p#w<ns
of pretation of TO dt\-r)/j.a as /Spw/ua /cat
the Hebdomad was effected by im- TT}v...av^r-rjffiv, then as rpofpri, then
parting to the Demiurge the know- as avairava^, and lastly as SiW^tj.
ledge of the Father, so it is natural 15. Trdrep] The omission of /xou
that the5t6p0w<m
TWV eV^aSe should and eo-Tt is found in other authorities,
be accomplished by analogous means. especially among the Valentinians.
9. airrd] The marginal sugges- But this position of oV e/wu is not
tion of the Bodleian seems on the found elsewhere, nor is the rl sup-
whole to be the best reading; it ported by other authority. See Tis-
restores to the
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 102/138
86 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HE11ACLEON.
rijSeioi, 7rpo<?TO avva^Orjvai et? dTroOij/crjv, rovrean
Bid 7rto"T6<i)5 et9 dva7ravo~ iv, oaai ye erotyLtot, ov yap
Trdcrai at uev yap rjBr) eroi^oi ^crav, (frrjcrlv,al Be eue\- 10
\ov, al Be fJie\\ovo iv) al be eTriaTreipovTai rjBrj. ravra
Jo. iv. 35. uev ovv e/ceivos eljrev. TTW? Be ol jJbaOr^ral enAi pONTec royc
6(})0AAMOYC bvvavrai (SXeireiv ra? -^ru^a? 77877 eTrtT^Se/ou? ov-
cra? TT^O? TO, w? oierai, et? aTroOrjK^v ei<ra%0ijvai tOVK
ol$a el Svvarai Trapacrrrjcrai. /cal en ye TTW? eTrl TWV tyvyj&v 15
Jo. iv. 37, aX?7$e9 TO "AAAoc d cnei pooN, KA*I AAAoc 6 GepizooN /cat, AnecjeiAA
YMAC BepizeiN o OYX YM?c KeKorriAKATe
;nva Se rpoTrov TO "AAAoi
K6KOniAKACI KA | YM6?C 6IC TON
eart, Trapabe^acrOai eVl T^?
16 6 Oepifav]
33. Ibid. xiii. 44 (R. IV. 255 ; L. n. 85).
Kal epei ye 6 Hpa/cXeo)^, Ta^a 8e TOUTW Kara
Tavrrjv avjJiTrepKfrepo/jievos Tt? teal
Mt. ix. 37. oTi Tw /taTa TOC
OepiCMOc noAfc, oi Ae epr^TAi oAi roi
o/xoiw? ravra elp^rai, rw erolfjuovs vrpo?
Kal eTriTTjSeious TT/OO?TO 77877 Gvvay^Qrivai 5
aTro6r)Kr)v Sid rrjs Triarect)^ et? av CLTTav<i
iv
elvai, Kal eViT^Setof? TT/JO? orwr^piav Kal
rov \6yov Kara aev rovc
U.paK\ea)va Bid rrjv
avrwv Kal rrjv $v a iv Kara Be rov eKK\r)o-ia(TTiKov Bid ruva
evrpeTTLCTfjiovrov tjye/AoviKov, eroi/jiov TT/JO? re\eiw(TLV, iva Kai 10
6epiaOf). \eKreov ovv Trpos TOU9 OUTOX? eKBe^auevovs, el (3ov-
\ovrai TrapaBe^aadai fjur)Trore yeyovevai, irpo rrjs rov SCOT^O?
rjfjuwv eTTiBij/jiias OepiajJbovrjraparr\i]O iov rw OUTCO? dv eXvrt-
crOevri aTro rwv %p6va)v rov evayye\iKov
32. 10. ai 5^] The repetition of al 5e 33. 5. tviniddovs] Of . Excerpta ex
offended the ear of the scribe of Cod. Theodoto, 46, /cat rots<rufj.a.<rt
Kara
Venetus, so that he substituted Kal (/xVip fTrtTrjdeLoT-rjTa cVeTrotr/trei ,which
at ^j/ for the second ai 5. But the also illustrates 5ta TTJV
reading of his exemplar is right. Kal rrjv tpveiv.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 103/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON. 87
34. Ibid. xiii. 46 (E. iv. 256;L. n. 87).
f
O Se RpaK\ecov TO eepizcoN MicGON AAMBANCI elpfja-Oai Jo.
L,E-Tret Oepia-rrjv eavTov \eyei, (frrja-lv,
6 ^oyrrjp,
/cal TOV fjLLo-Oov TOV Kvpiov rjfjiwv vTrdXappdvet elvauTT)I>
TWV depL^o/jLevcov o~a)Tr]piav Kal dTTOKarda-racrLV TU>
5 dvairavea-daL avrbv eV avrols TO Se KAI CYNAfei KApnoN
etc ZOOHN AICONION Qrj&lv eipfjffQai, rjon TO a-vvayo/juevov
KapTros ^w^9 alwvtov ea"Tiv, 77OTL Kal avTo ^(Drj aiw-
vi os. d\\(i avToOev vof/kifn ftteuov elvai TI]V fafffyrw avTov,
(frda/covTosTOV *a)Ttjpa MicGoN AAMBANEIN, KOL o-vv^eovTO^
TOV
10 MICGON Kal Tr)V CYNAfCOPHN TOY KApTTOY 1? 6V, (IVTlKpVS T^9
Bvo TrpdyjjuaTa rrapio-Tdar]^, cos Trpo$iri<yr]o-dne6a.
2 voftlfri] i>o/J.ifriv.1 T? OTL] ov.
35. Ibid. xiii. 48 (E. iv. 200;
L. n.95).
v TO "!NA 6 cnefpcoN OMOY XA P^ KA 0e
P"
Jo>
ZGON OVTCO 8Lr)yr}o~aTo Xaipei /Jbev yap, (ftrjo iv,o cnreiptov
OTL o-Trelpei,Kal OTL i]$rj TLvd TWV aTrepaaToyv avTov
avvd<yTaL,eXTTtSa e^wv Trjv avTrjv Kal rrepi TWV
$\OL7r(i)V o 8e Oepi^wv o/Aol&S TL Kal deplcreL.a\\ o
fjLev TTpooro? rjp^aTO o-ireipwv, o Sei)repo? 0pl%(i)V.
ov jdp ev TW avTw eSvvavro aft<f>OTpoi up^aadai
eSeL ydp rrputTov crTrapfjvaL, etff vcrTepov OepLaurjvaL.
pevTOLje TOV a-jreipovTOS (TirelpeiP,GTL
34. 7. Delarue s emendation-fj
OTL part of the Heracleonic doctrine.
is by no means absque causa (seeThe sowing of this utos avdpuirov,
Lommatzsch). Whence Huet derived whoever he was, must refer to the
o I do not know. It is the reading sowing by a higher power of the
of noMS. and suits neither
grammar pneumaticseeds in the creatures of
nor sense. We must assume that a the Demiurge, and the Tri/ei^cm/cot are
corruption of on to ON led to the not divided into different classes, so
omission of the-fj.
far as is known. The ^5?? is also
35. 3. 17577] Cod. Venetus has altered forcible. He rejoices in that he is
77577 to ei577,but the original reading already gathering in the earnest of
is preferable. Different kinds or the rest. For a similar confusion
classes of seeds are not insisted upon, of77and ei in Cod. Venetus, cf . Frag.
nor do they, so far as we know, form 20, ws 775et irLffT-qv for ws 77577 TTIO-TT}! .
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 104/138
88 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
9epuel 6 OepL^wv. 7rl fjLevTOi TOV TrapovTos d/jL^orepoi 10
TO iBiov epyov evepyovvTes O/JLOV %alpovaL } KOIVI^V
ftapav TTJV TWV a-TrepfjudTwv reXetorT/ra tfyov /juevot.
Jo. iv. 37. en Be /cal els TO N TOYTCO ICTIN 6 Aopoc AAHGINOC, OTI AAAoceciiN 6 cnei
pooN,KAI AAAoc d
GepizooN (prjcrlv
C
O /juev yap VTrep
TOV TOTTOV v /o? di OpcDTTOV o"ireipeio Be %Q)Tr/p wv real 15
ai^TO? ino? dvOpwTTov Oepi^ei, teal OepicrTas
TOI)? ota TCOV p,a07)Twv voovfAevovs dyye X.ovs,
67rl rrjv eavrov^frv%r]v ov Trdvv Se cra^cG? e^eOero TOI)?
8vo vlovs rov dvOpwTTov, TtW? claw, &v 6 et9 cneipei /cal 6 e^
Gepi zei. 20
10 eTrt] eTrei. 15 uios] vlov.
36. Ibid. xiii. 49 (R. iv. 263;L. n. 99).
dyy\oL eicriv oi ras Xotvra? fAepi&as irapd rrjv
/cal eVt Trjs Stao-Tropa? TWV^v^u>v
rera-
Jo. iv. 30. Y/LttVot, ov&ev earns drorrov TON cneipoNTA OMOY XAipeiNKA JON
GepizoNTA /^6Ta TOV OepidfMOv. o 8 H^a/cXew^ fyricrlvOTL
Ov SS avT&v, ovSe air UVTWV ea-Trdpi) TavTa TO. airep- 5
/jiaTa, (frrjo-lBe T&V aTroorToXcov, oi Be KeKorriAKOTec
5 ou 5ta.\iT<j}v\
ov 5e O.VTUV.
15,16. AsOrigensays,thetwo sons tion must be pure conjecture. For
of man are not clearly explained. r6?ros cf. Frag. 40. It must be the
Probably they answer to the two beings rbiros fj.e(r6Tr)Tos ore/35o/ucis which is
whose temporary union in Jesus of described by Hippolytus as viroKarw
Nazareth Irenaeus criticises so strong- TTJS oydoddos where Sophia and her
ly. The Son of man who is virtp o-i^yos dwell. For the sowing com-
rov T6iroi> may be identified with pare Hippolytus Befut. vi. 34.
Sophia s husband: or the two sons17,18. ^KOLVTOV lirlr-riv eavrov ^vX
rii>]
may be the Christ whose flight So- Cf. Excerpta ex Theod. 64, ret vwphia mourned, and the Jesus whom tMa...Kotu&neva- xal avra TOVS vv^.-
the Christ entreated the Father to 0toi;s rote 077^X01^? eavrwi/ ets TOV
send to her, dtopdwa-ai ra -rrddr] avrrjs, vv^uva. evros TOV 6pov elcriaffiv. ^vxnand who became her tn^yos. The is here probably used in its wider
last will suit best the interpreta- sense. See also Irenaeus i. vii. 1,
tion of 6 ev alwi. /cat oi avv O.VT$ vv^as a.Trooo0ri<TeaOai rots-rrepl
TOV
cXdwTts (Frag. 22). But the data Z
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 105/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 89
elalv OL T?;? olKovofJblas dyye\oi, Bt (ov w? MECITOON Cf.Gal. iii.
eo~7rdp7] teal dveTpdfyrj. et? Be TO Y/welc eic TON KOTTON j jv 33
AYTCON eiceAHAyBATe ravra e^eOero Ov yap 6 auro? /COTTO?
10 o-ireipovTwv teal Oepi^ovTwv ol /juev yap ev Kpvei real
vBaTi teal KOTTW TTJV yrjv aKcnnovres dTreipovo-t,,KOI
Sfc o\ov^et/u.coz o? TrjfjLe\ova L afcd\\ovTe$ real ra?
u\a? /c\eyovTe<;ol Be eh erotpov /capTrbv elae\66 i>re?
Qepov? ev(f)pai,v6 /jievoi, depi^ovGiv. e^ecrrat Be crvytcpl-
15 vowi rdSev<$>
r)/j,(av elprj/Aevarw evTvy^dvovTi /cal ra VTTO
TOV
(
HpaK\ea)vo<f, opav biroLa TWV ^u^yrja-ewv eiriTerev^dai,
Svvarai.
7 Ot] 6. 9 /COTTOS] (T/COTTOS.
37. Ibid. xiii. 50 (R. iv. 263; L. n. 101).
r
O Be(
HpaK\ea)v TO pkv K THC noAecoc dvT\ TOV E/c TOV Jo. iv. 39.
Koa/juov e^eL\7]<peTO Be AIA TON AofON THC fYNA?KOC TOVT-
e<TTi Bid r?75 Trvev/JLCLTi/crfS eKK\r)cria<$. real iiriari^ai-
veTai ye TO noAAo) o5? 7ro\\cSv OVTWV ^rv^tKwv Trjv Be
5 fj,iav \eyei Trjv dfyGapTov r^? K\oyf}<$ <j)vo~iv,KOI JJLOVO-
eiBfj, Kal evi/crjv. ea-TrjfjLev Be ev rot? dvwTepa), w? olov re
ijVy 7T/30? raOra.
1 TO] rots. 6 olov re] oiovrai.
36. 7. oi r^s oiKovofuas 0776X01] Cod. Monacensis TTJ (ji.\ov(ru> may ac-
Compare the 70 \67ot projected by count for Huet s rfj /j^XXowi (ad
Sophia and her (r6 vyos. marg. TT7yweXoO(rt) which Delarue, fol-
7, 8. 5t wv wj /j.effiTuv e<nrdpr}]There lowing his general custom, attributes
is a very close parallel to this in to Codex Regius.
Excerpta ex Theod. 53, &rxe.. .L-TTO 37. 2. eetXr?0e] The following
TTJS cro0tas ivairapev rb cnr^pfj.a TO TTJ/CU- double constructions are found with
fj.ari.Kbv ei s rrjv ^vxjiv, diarayeis , 07/- eK\a[j.(3di>eii>: (1)accusative followed
o-t,Si
dyyt\ui> ei/xetpl/tteo-iTou..^! ay- by Girl with the genitive, rbv0epiff/J.6i>
7^Xa>ovv ruv apptvuv ra
<nr^pfj.araeirl TTJS / i^X ^s eetXrj0e TWJ Tricrrevovrav
virrjpereirai ra eis ytveffiv TrpopXyO&ra. (Fr. 32), (2) accusative followed by
For StaTcryetj Heinrici proposes 5ta- d^Ti TOU or rovrfori as in this frag-
rayev (Die Vol. Gn. p. 118), but we ment, (3) accusative or quoted nomi-
may regard it as a quotation. native followed by accusative, eel-
9. KOTTOJ] The description which X7/0e iravra rov KOO^OV K.T.\. (Fr. 1),
follows is of the method, not the aim cf . also Fr. 47.
of the work : O-KOTTOS therefore would 4. TroXXot] Cf. Excerpta ex Theod.
not give the required sense. 56, ov iroXXol S oi ^1/x Koi, airavioi.
12.r-r)[j.e\ov<Ti]
The reading of
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 106/138
90 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
38. Ibid. xiii. 51 (R. iv. 265;L. n. 103).
Jo. iv. 40. O Se
(
HpaK\.ea)v et? roi)? TOTTOU? ravrd <f)?]cri,v,
AYTO?C efMeive Kal ovtc ev avTols KOI Ayo HMepAC,
TOV eveo-T&Ta alwva, Kal TOV p,e\\ovTa TOV ev
r/TOV 7rp6 rov TrdOovs avTOV %povov, Kal TOV /u-era TO
7r#o9, ov Trap aurot? Troirjoras, TroXXoS 7T\iovas Sid 5
TOV ISiov\o<yov eVto-rpe^a? et9 TTIO-TIV,
CLTT dVTWV. \KTOV Se TT^O? T^ SoKOVO~O,V CLVTOV
pijcriv, OTL nAp Ayiolc /cat oi)/c ev awrot? yeypaTTTai, OTI
Mt. xxviii.ofjLOLov TO) nAp AYTO?C eVrl TO lAoy, epoa MeQ
5
YMGON GIMI HACAC
TAC HMepAC ou ya^ eiirev Ei^uyLttz^ et/u. eVt 3e Xeycov Ta? Ayo 10
HMepAC ?7TOfc TOVTOV TOV alwva elvai Kal TOV fjbe\\ovTa,
r) TOV TTpO TOV 7Ta#OU? Kal TOV fJbeTCL TO TrdfloS, OVT6 TOU?
enepyoMGNoyc AIOONAC /ueTa TOV fJue\\ovTa vevo^Kev, irepl wv
Eph. ii. 7. ifao iv o a7ro<JToXo9 "!NA eNAeilHTAi eN TOIC AIOOCI TOIC enep)(o-
MeNoic ovT6 opa oTi ov fjiovov II p o TOV TrdOov^ Kal MeTa 15
TO TTtt^O? O~VVO~Ti TO?9 6p^O /J,6l>fc? TT^O? ai;TOZ/ 6 I^CToO?,
/cat. /JieTa TOVTO ov ^(opl^CTaL. del ydp fjueTa TWV
wv ecrTt, jj,r)$e7ra}7roT KaTa\ei7rwv avTOvs, waTe /cal
Gal. ii.20. Xeyew avTovs Z(x) Ae oyKeTi e roo, ZH Ae GN GMOIXpicrdc.
56j/]
6. 12 TOV yuero, TO TTCI^OS] om. TOV. 13 /^XXovrct] fj.e\\ov.
17 aAXd]om.
oy] om.
38. 15, 16. KCU ywerd ro irdOos] del /tera rcG? fJ.ad-r)Twv ecrrtV. The
The dXXci, which is absent from ctXXa must therefore be inserted be-
both Cod. Monacensis and Cod. Ve- fore Kal /zerd TOVTO. Hilgenfeld s
nctus, but has been independently insertion of ov before xwptfercu is
inserted before these words by each of course necessary, unless indeed
of their descendants Regius and Bod- we can regard the words ^erd TOVTO
leianus, has been accepted by the xwptferat as a continuation of the
editors, including Hilgenfeld. But quotation of Heracleon s words, andthough after ov pbvov an dXXd is re- so negatived by the ov fj.6vov, but the
quired, this is not the right place sentence would then be very awk-
for it. Heracleon has admitted that ward. This is not the only instance
Christ is with them irpo TOV -rrdOovs where a negative has probably drop-
and /xerd TO -rrddos also, but has not ped out. Cf.[//,?)]
ev Trj jroXei. (Frag.
seen that even after this there has 27).
been no xwPt"A
tos>
f r (Origen says)
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 107/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 91
39. Ibid. xiii. 52 (R iv. 2G7;
L. n. 108).
v Be aTrKovanepov etcXaftcov TO OYKGTI AIA THN Jo. iv. 42.
CRN AAAIAN niCTeyoMeN $770-1AeiTreiv TO fiovrjv CTL fiev yap
77-/909TO AYTOI fAp AKHKOAMGN, KAI OlAAMEN OTI OYTOC 6CTIN 6
ZooTHp TOY KOCMOY<j)r}(TLV Olydp dvdpCOTTOL TO fJLV TTpCOTOV
5 VTTO dvOptoTcwv oSrjjov/JLei OL TricrTevova i TOJ ^coTrjpt,,
eirdv Be evTV^wo-i rot? \6yois avTov, OVTOL ov/ceTi
di>0 pa)7rivr)v fj,apTVpiav, d\\d 5t avTrjv rrjv
40. Ibid. xiii. 59 (R iv. 274;L. n. 123).
"Eot/ce Se BACIAIKON oc
Hpa/cXeo)i/ \eyeiv TOV &r)/j,iovp-
yov, 67rel /cai auro? e/3aal\eve TMV vir CIVTOV OKI oe
TO fjiiKpdv CLVTOV teal7rpo<TKaipov
elvai Trjv
$7)0-1,BACIAIKOC wvopdo-Orj, olovel /jLircpos rt?
5 UTTO KaOo\L/cov /3acrtXe&>? TeTay/jLevos eVl
/^acrtXe/a? TOV Be IN KAC})APNAOYM vlov avTov
TOV ev TW VTrofteft^KOTi (j,epei Trjs yu-ecror^TO? TM
d\acraav, TOVTCCTTL TW o-vvrj/ji/jieva) Trj v\y, Kal \eyei OTI
fO I Sto? avTov dv0pa)7Tos dcrOevwv, TOVTe&Tiv ov KdTa
^(Dv, ev dyvoia Kal dfjiapTr/^aaiv rjv etra TO
40T7<rt] (p-rjfflv rrjv
pacriXdav.
10 dyvoia] dyvela.
39. 3. 6rt ouros] For the omission 7. /xecrorT/ros] The yaeo-o rT/s here
of aXrjOus see Tischendorf in loc. is clearly the same as the TOTTOS [/tead-
5. With the idea of human me- TTJTOS] of Hippolytus, Eefut. vi. 32,
diation suggested here, cf. Exc. ex called also epdofji.. In the lower
Thcod. 58, Kal SC OLVT&V Kal ra part of this, which ia most deeply
Toirrots ofj-oiovvra.involved in v\r), here represented by
40. 4.</>7jcrt]
The error of Cod. Capernaum, the tdios vios lies. In
Monac. in repeating TTJV j3a<ri\eiavconnexion with Origen s interpreta-
after ^o-l led to the omission of tion of the /SacnXiKos as representing
(f)-r)<rl
in Cod. Regius, and conse- Abraham, it is interesting to notice
quently in the Editions. It is also Hippolytus, Eefut. vi. 34, -n-potfiaXe
independently omitted in Cod. Bod- Kal 6 drjuuovpyos ^ux^ s> O-VTT] yap
leianus, for Cod. Venetus has re- ovcria fyvx.dv OVTOS ecm /car auroi)?
tained it. A^paa/ui. Kal raura TOV A/3paa/j. ra
5. Ka0o\iK6s] Cf. Excerpt, ex rtwa. Heracleon might have ac-
Theod. 47, where 6 Zwr^p is de- cepted Origen s interpretation of the
scribed as KaffoXiKos. and his son.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 108/138
92 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Jo. iv. 54.
Jo. iv. 47.
Mt. x. 28.
1 Cor. xv.
Cf. is.xxv
Jo. IV. 48.
Jo. iv. 49.
Cf. Eom.
E THC loyAAiAC eic THN FAAIAAIAN dvrl rov etc r?;? avwdev
lovSaias. OVK ol&a oe OTTO)? et? TO "HjweAAeN Ano0NHCKeiN
ls oierai dva,Tpeirea-6ai rd86<yfjLara
TOJV VTTOTI-
dOdvaTov elvai rrjv tyv%r)v, et<? TO avro VVIJL-
/3d\\(T0ai viroKa^dvwv KOI TO YY^HN KA I COOMA AnoAAycGAi 15
EN reeNNH. /cal OVK dOdvdTov 76 elvai yyeiTai rrjv
6(
HpaK\ea)i> }aXX eTrtTT/Se/w? e^ovaav TT/OO?
avrrjv \eywv elvai To eNAyoMeNON Ac^BApciANKAI ^Q ANA CI AN GNHTON, oVaz; KATAHOOH d GANATOC
61 C ISMKOC.TTyOO? TOVTOIS Kdi TO EAN MH CHMG?A KAI TePATA 2O
, , , ,IAHTG oy MH nicreycHTe \e<yecruai (pi^o-iv oi/ceico$ vrpo? TO
TOiovTov TTpoacoTrov, 81 epycov (frvcriv e%ov KOI i al-
<T0r)o-ea)s TreiOeadai, /cal ov^l \6<yq)TriGreveiv. TO Se
KATABHGI, npiN Ano9ANe?N TO nAiAiON MOY Sid TO je Aoc elvai
TOU vofjiov TON GA NATON elprjaOai VO/LLI&I, dvaipovvTos 25
ota TWVd/jLapTi(jov irplv TeXew? ovv, (frijcrl, OavaTwOfjvai
a Ta? ayLtapT/a?, BeiTai 6 iraTrjp TOV /JLOVOV Sft)-
20 vlK
11, 12. KTT)S dvudev louSatas]
Co(Z. Moiuic. has the true reading
XT??, though all its descendants have
erred. For the phrase, cf. Frag. 13,
where the fvxiK&s TOTTOS, represented
by Iep ff6\vfj.a, is said to be an CIKUV
of le/JowroXfyt, i.e.r, avu lepowraXfo.
See also Hipp. Refut. vi. 32, where
the Ogdoad is called lepovaaXrj/j, e?r-
ovpdvios.
15, 16. The text is the reading of
Monac. and Yen. The Syrian read-
ing has been adopted by the de-
scendants.
16 ff. Heracleon s
languagewith
regard to the immortality of the soul
vividly recalls Hipp. Refut. vi. 32,
dv-riT-fi r s fffrlv77 ^i>x?7, fteffoTrjs TIS
ouaa &m yap e/35o/*ds Kal Kardirav-
ffl * ...... Ea " oSv to/j,oiw8fj TOIS dVw,
Ty dydoddi, dddvaTos eytveTo /cat yXdev
fis TTJV oydodda, IJTIS eo-rt, ^<rlv,
lepov<Ta\T)fj. e-rrovpdvios, cdv 8e eo-
rotsi/Xt/cots, (pdaprrj e<rrt /cat a7r6X-
\vrai (MS. ^o-ra: /cataTrciXero). It
should be noticed that this is one
of the passages where by the use
of ^al and \4yei Hippolytus shews
that he is quoting from a single
document. Cf. also Excerpt, ex
Theod. 56, r6 Se ^VXIKW, dt>Teov-
aiov ov eTrtr^Seior^Ta ?x <- ^pos re
iriffTiv /cat d$6apaiav, /cat irpbs airi-
ariav Kal Qdopav.
22, 23. It may be well, in view of
the extremely difficult criticisms of
Origen on Heracleon s interpretation
of thiswhole passage, to state what
appears to be Heracleon s position
so far as it can be gathered. Heseems to have affirmed that $vxh is
rb<pdaprbv
TOei>dvo/m.evoi> dtydapviav.
Its death comes 5ta TO -rtfXos elvai TOV
/o>ouTOV Qa.va.rov, dvaipovvTos did TWV
dfj-apTiw, for of course the children
of the are
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 109/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 93
7-77/909,iva ftorjdija-y TOJ vlut, TOVTeo~Ti ry ToiaSe
TT/OO? TOVTOIS TO yioc coy ZH Kara drvcfriav elprjo-QaiJo. iv. 50.
30 TO) ^WTTJpi e%ei\rj(f)v,
ejrel ovte eljre ZtrjTQ) ovBeeve^rfvev
avTos Trapea^rja-OaL Tr)v ^wrjv. \eyei Be OTL Kara/397T009 TOV KafjivovTa teal laadfjievo^ avTov TTJS voaov,
TOVTeCTTi TGOV d/JLttpT LtoV, K at Sid TrjS a0CT6ft)9 ^ft) 0-
7roir)<ra<;elnev
C
yioc coy ZH icalir<Xyei ?rpo9 TO Eni- Jo. iv. 53.
35 cieyceN d ANBpoonoc1
OTI Eu7rto-T09 teal o Arj/jiiovpyos
ea-Tiv, OTL SvvaTai o ^wTrjp tealfir) irapwv OepaTreveuv.
AoyAoyc Be TOY BACiAiKoy e%ei\r)<$)erou9
d<y<ye\ovsTOV
A.vj/jLiovp yov, dTra<y
rye\\ovTas ev TMC
n<\?c coy ZH
OTL OLKLO)<; K al tcaTa TpoTrov e^ei, TTpdaawv fjLrjfceTi
40 TO, dvolteeLa. teal Bid TOVTO vo/ii^et d7ra r
yi
ye\\eLV r&)
/3aO~L\LKO> TOU9 So^\OU9 TCL 7T pi Trj<>
TOV VLOV CT(i)Tr}-
pias, eTrel teal TrpcoTovs oterat (B\erTreiv ra9
7rpd%ei<$
ev TM Koa-^o) dvdpwTrwv roi)9 776Xou9, el eppay-
tealel\LKpivw<^
TTO\LTVOLVTO dnro r^9 TOV
45 Sft)T7;po9 eTTLBrj/jLia^. GTL7T/J09 TT)V eBAOMHN oopAN \eyet
OTL Ata r^9 &pas xapa/cTrjpl^eTaL r; $V(TL<;TOV laOev-
ro9. eVl 7rao-fc TO EnicreyceN AYTOC KAI H OIKIA Ayroy oAn
eTrl Trjs dyye\Lfer)<; elpfjaOaL Ta^ecos, teal
TWV oltceLOTepwv avTw. ^TfTelo-Oai Be ^ai50 irepi TLVWV dyyeXwv, el (rcodrjcrovTai, TWV teaTe\0 OVTWV
eTrl TAG TOON AN0poancoN GyfATepAC. teal TWV dvOpwirwv Gen. vi. 2.
Be TOV ArjfjLLovpyov Trjv d7rco\Lav Br)\ovcrQaL z/o/u Wev TO> Oi yioi THC BACIAGIAC e5eAeycONTAi eic TO CKOTOC TO elw- Mt. viii.
OVTepON. tea Trep TOVTWV TOV aaa^ TrpoijTeveLV TO
55 Yioyc IpeNNHCA KAI YYOOCA, AY TOI Ae Me HGETHCAN, ovo~TLva<? yioyc Is. i. 2.
,, ^ , v , , \ , . v Cf. Is. i. 4.
a\\oTpiovs Kai cnepMA noNnpoN teat ANOMON tea\L teaL
AKANGAC TTOIHCANTA. teal TavTa JJLGV TO, Hpa-Cf - Is - v -
, airep ToX/jirjpoTepov KOL dae/BeaTepov elprj/jieva typijv
KaTa&teevrjs aTroBeBel^OaL, eiTrep i]v d\r]0r]. ovte
60 olBa Be 7Tft)9 teal Trepl d6avao~ias 1^^979 dTnaTel, yit?)
39 et] ^xetl/ ^1 wQpuirwv]bis. 59 a
35. euVio-Tos] On this point the Irenaeus i. vii. 4.
Valentinians seem to have been 37. For the angels of the Demi-
agreed. See Hipp. Refitt. vi. 3f>; urge cf. Excerpt, ex Theod. 47.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 110/138
94 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
Trocra (TiffuUvercu etc rrjs Oavaros fywvrjs. KaOopwvTa yap
eBei TO crrifjLaivoiJLevov per eVtcrAre ^ea)? KOI dfcpifBeias IBeiv el
Kara Trdvra TO, (nj/JLaivofjieva Ov^rr) ecrriv. el(juev yap on
Ez. xviii.
BeKTi/crj dfjiapTLas, yYXH
^^
AMApTANioycA AYTH Arro9ANe?TAi,
/calrjfjiels epov/jiev avrrjv OvrjrrjV. el Be rrjv TravTe\r] Bid\vo~iv f>5
/cal e^afyav icrfjt,bv avTrjs ddvarov vo^i^ei, r^els ov
Trpoo~7]cr6-
/j,e0a yovSe pe^pi errwow ISeiv Swd/jievoi, ova-lav OvtjTrjv
/j.era/3fi\\ov(Tav et? aOdvarov teal fyvaiv ^Oaprrjv 7rl TO
acj)6apTOi> O/JLOIOV yap TOVTO rco \eyeuv /x6ra/3aXXe^ TL dnro
et? da-MfJiaTOV, a>? vTroicei^evov rtyo? KOIVOV r^? TWV 70
/cal dcrw^aTwv (/wo-eco?, ojrep /jbevet, wcrTrep peveiv
TO V\LKOV ol Trepl raOra Seivol, TWV TTOIOTIJTCOV
et? d$6apo-lav. ov Tavrov Be eVrt TTJV
(f)V(7LV eNAyecGAi Ac{)6ApciAN teal TO TTJV fyOapTrjv (f)V(Tiv
(3d\\eiv et? d(f)6apo-iav,ra 8 aura :al Trep T179 ONHTHC 75
\eKTeov, ov /AeraySaXXoua?;? /xei/ et? AOANACIAN, GNAYOMGNHC Be
avTijif. Ti eTreiTrep Tyv TJrv%iKr}v fyvaiv atJjOrj Bi, epywv
fcal ala Or] crews ireLOecrOaL ov%l Be \by(DV,
avTOv Trepl Tlav\ov Trota? (^ucrea)? rji>.
el fjuev yap
TiKr)<$,7T&5? Bid
T77<? TepacrTiov e7ri(f)avelasireTricrTevKev ; el B* 80
OVK a\\co<> eBvvaTO irio-Teveivrj
BidTr)<$ Tepacrriov eTTifyaveias
dfco\ovOel KaT avTOvs /cal avTov elvai ^TV^LKOV. TTO)? Be
OVK aVe/Se? TO rrpo TOV ^fjaovpyov roi)? dyye\ovs avTov
Oewpelv TO eppwfjbevov /cal TO el\iKpives TT/S TroXtreta?
TWV V7roTr}<$ BvvdfjLews TOV
2<(0Tf}po$ {3e\TLO)9evTa)v, /cal irapa 85
TO evapyes TOV Trepl TOV ^fjaovpyov \6yov, eVt Be /cal Trapd
TyV ypa(f>r)v n]v \eyovo-av Ei KpyBHcerAi AN0pconoc GNKpy(t>Ai
oic
Gl KaOopwvTa] Ka.6a.pa.VTa. 79, 807n>eu/icm/c?}s] Tri/eu^aTi/c^. TTCOS] OTTWS.
80, 81 repaffrLov] repaffreiov.
01. KaOopuvra.} Though the fol-
lowing criticisms of Origen contain
no new matter of Heracleon, the
whole chapter must he examined
together. I have therefore thought
it better to print it in full. The
criticisms are not easy to follow.
So far as he has stated Heracleon s
views, the confutation of /u.era^ciXXeij
83 OVK] /ecu.
Heracleon has only made use of such
expressions as evdveffOai. adavaaiav
/c.r.X. which Origen allows to be o
ravrbv. For Origen s argument with
regard to ,ueTa/3dXXe see Aristotle,
Met. A. 2 (1009 b), ov yap TO, evavTia
/xera/SaXXet. ^rt TO ptv vTro^tvei, TO
5 cvavTlovoi>x viro/mtvei taTiv apa TL
TPLTOV irapa TO. cvavTia, i] v\rj.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 111/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 95
KAfob OYK oyoMAi AYTON ;teal Kypioc ETAZOON Nec^poyc KA I KAPAIAC,
Ps. vii. 10.
/ / , , , Ps. xciii.
KCLl KyplOC PNGOCKOON TOYC AlAAOflCMOYC TOONANGpOOTTOON KAN
(XC
iv.)11.
90toci MATAIOI
; TTO)? Se crftjcret /col TO eiAooc TA TTANTA TTPINHist.
/ >
~ v c^\ it/ /Susann.
AYTOON ;ert oe /jia\\ov "fr)
(u<jt? ^apa/crTjpi- 42.
rov laOevros CLTTO rov apiOfjbov rrjs copas irj
r^? Ida-ews yiVOftewj ] TW olKelwrfj
ava-navaei apuO-
fjia).TO $e Sia(f)0opas elvai
"fyw^Ltcwv,eVl reXet coy ejjede-
95 fjbeOa VTT avTou elprjfjLevwv ava^e^pafjiiJLevov^ o^ww/Jiia XPW~
fjievov ecrrt, KOI eTepav (frvcriv elcrdjovTO^ TTapTrjv, oTrep ov
O
41. Ibid. xix. 3 (R. iv. 296;L. n. 167).
76 HpafcXecov, e/c^e/^e^o? r^y Trep)TOV ya^o-
Cf. Jo.
%/>/> *\ * > c^ r\ >viii. 12 ff.
<pv\ciKiov \e%iv, ovbev eLirev ei? avTrjv. et? oe TO Unoy era) j viii.2i.
yM6?c oy AyNAcGe eA6e?Ntfaari
II co? e y dryvoia KOI
/cal d/JbapT^fJiacriv o^re? e^ d^Bapaia bvvav-
5 rat <yevecr6oLi ; /^rjSe ev TOVTW KaTa/covwv eavrov el yap ol
ev dyvoiq /cal diridria real d/jiapTrj fjiacnv OVTCS ev
yap.
dva.Travfffi api6fj.$,but the stages of
corruption could not be traced. All
is
dark,and we can
scarcely hopefor
light.
96. er^pav (fivcriv]A reference
probably to Origen s argument with
regard to /j.eTapa\\eiv. Heracleon
would recognize three0i5<rets,
irvev-
panic}), \f/vxucr), v\iicf). Thedia<j>dopa.
^VXIKOV cannot take place unless we
assume eTtpov viroKeifj-evov which re-
mains while theTrotoTTjres change.
This would be to introduce a fourth
<f>v<ns.
41. 4.Airiffria] Cf. Excerpt, ex
Theod. 56, quoted above, p. 92.
6. ev ayvola} Hilgenfeld s state-
rnent that these words are omitted
in Cod. Regius appears to originate
in the fact that in line 7 it omits
91. tri 8e fj.a\\ov. Heracleon s
own remark on the hour is simple
andobvious,
whencompared
with
Hippolytus, Eefut, (\(/vx^) fffrlv efido-
/was /cat KaraTrawis. TOV Ia6vros is
equivalent to TOVi/a/xi/coC. Whether
Origen understood this or not is un-
certain, as his criticism is obscured
by hopeless corruption in the text.
Delarue s elr/ <f>vo~is xaPOLK1
quot;
rlp
LfcTai
comes from Cod. Fen., but leaves
the sentence impossible and unin-
telligible. It is tempting to sup-
pose that a good deal of the sentence
may have been erroneously inserted
from the statement of Heracleon s
view above, and that Origen mayhave written some simple sentence
such as eTi 5 /ma\\ov i) (fivcris xaPai(-
TOV laOevTos, TI otVet o; Trj
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 112/138
96 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
d(f>0 apo~ la ov SvvavTai yeveo 0ai,, TrcG? ol aTroaroXot ev
dyvoia Trore KOI ev dirtcnLa teal ev d/jbaprrj/jLao-i, yevo/jievot,
ev d(f)0apo-ia yeyovao-f, ; ovvavTai ovv ol ev dyvoia teal
ev aTTiCTTiCi /cat ev dfiaprrj ^acri yevo/jievoi yeveo~0ai ev i<
d<f>0ap(Tia,el fj,Ta/3d\\oiev, Svvarov avrovs /jLeraj3a\eiv.
42. Ibid. xix. 4 (R. iv. 302;L. n. 180).
Kal o(
^{paK\ewv jJievTOiye 009 n7T\ovo-repov elprj^evov rov
Jo. viii. 22. MHTI ArroKjeNe? EAYTON (frrjalvon Tlovrjpws Sia^oyi^o/jLevoi
ol lov&aioL ravra e\eyov /cal fjuei^ova^ eauroi)? diro-
(^aLvofJbevoi rov ^wrrjpo^, /cal v7ro\afJLJBdvovre^ on
avrol fjiev avreXeu aovrat TT^O? rov 6eov et? dvcnravaiv 5
alcoviov, o Se ^ayrrfp et? (f)0opdv /cal et9 Bdvarov,
eavrov Siaxeipicrd/jLevos, OTTOV eavrovs ov/c e\oyiovTo
d rjre\6elv. real aurat? Xefecr/ <prjo-tvOTI "lovro \eyeiv
TOV ^ayrrjpa ol lovSatoi OTL E^yco e/juavrov Sia^eipi-
(rd^bevo^ et? (j)0opdv /xeXXw iropeveo-Oat, OTTOV vfjiels i<
ov SvvaaOe e\6elv. ov/c olSa 8e TTCO? /card TOV eljTovra
Jo. viii. 12.Efoc>
eiMi TO cf)(X)C TOY KOCMOY /cal rd^579, fjv \e<yeiv
on Eyw
efJuavTov o Laxetpio-d/jievos et9 (frOopdv fjie\\a) Tropev-
eo- 6ai. edv Se r^9~h>eyrj /IT)
TOV %a)Tr)pa TavTa elprj/cevai TOVS
Se IofSatof9 avTo vTrovevorj/cevat, Srj\ov OTI, epel TOVS lov- ij
7T(f)povrjfcevaiTrepl
avrov OTI (j)BelpovTat, ol e
,,/cal ovSev TJTTOV eVotet raOra
/cal /co\ao-0r/0ecr0ai,, OTrep r\v /caTa TrdvTa rfki-
0LOV.
15 avro\ aura). 18, 19 Kara. TTOLVTO. rj\idLOV~\ Ka.Trj\idiov.
the fv of iv ayvoia,, 8. fact which dpcryuryr? has led him into a captious
Delarue notices. criticism of Heracleon. Cf. Fr. 30,
The importance of this fragment dyytXiK-riv TLVO. 8vi>a/j.ii> /c.r.X.
consists in the fact that Heracleon s 5.ava.Tra.v<ni[
For the doctrine of
interpretation depends on his funda- ctmTrawis cf. Irenaeus i. 7. 1;Ex-
mental error as to Qucris and Kara- cerpt. ex Theod. 03, 86.
ffKevr) (see Frag. 17), to which Origen 18, 19. Kar&vrfrrai}X0Mr] As there
so often rightly takes exception (cf. is no authority for the form KCITTJ-
Fragments 17, 33). \ldiov, I have retained the conjecture
42. 1. ctTrXotfo-Te/xw] This is not the of Cod. Venetus.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 113/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 97
43. Ibid.xx. 8 (R. iv. 316
; L. n. 211).
YIvvuavoi/j,0a & av TWV ra? <ucret9 el&ayovTWv, KOI et?
TO "On 6 Adpoc 6 SMOG oy X^P^ ^N YM?N dTroSiSovrcov Kara Jo.viii.37.(
HpaK\Q)va O.TL Ata TOVTO ov)(oope?, OTL dveTTiTrjSeioL,
rjTOi Kar ovaiav, rjKara yvw/jLrjv, TTCO? ol dve r
imr)$eiot,
5 tear ova lav HKOYCAN HApA roy HArpdc ; a\\a /cal jrorepov Jo. viii. 38.
Trore npoBATA OVTOI tfcrav rov XpiarTov, rj aXkorpioi, VTrrjp^ov
avrov ; el 8e rjaav aXXorpioi, TTW? HKOYCAN HApA Toy HATpdc,
o-a^o)?, &)9 otovrai, Xeyofjievov Trpos roi)? d\\orpiov<;on Ai A Jo. viii. 47.
Toyro yMeic OYK AKoyere, on oyK ecre EK TOON npoBATOON TOON Jo. x. 20.
10 eMO)N ; elfj,r) apa 6\LJ36fjLevoi erepw droTrw eavrovs Trepu-
(Bd\\ov(Ti,, \eyovres TTApA pev Toy nATpdc d/cy/coevaL roi)?
r) d/covetis Be rovs avTovs TOVTOVS Trapa TOV
el S* olfceloi, TOV S
avrov AnoKreNAi ;
Adpoc oyK e?
xobpeiev avrols ;
10 eavroi)j] eai;Tot)s (sic).12
7ra/>a]
44. 7M. xx. 18 (R iv. 332;
L. n. 240).
O fjLevroi ye HpaKXew vTroKa^^dvei Kirlav
TOV/jir) AyNACGAi avTOV? AKoyeiN TON I^croO AdfON, Jo. viii. 43.
e TINCOCK6IN aVTOV THN AAAlAN V TO) YMe?C 6K TOy
TTATpoc Toy AiABoAoy ecTe. avTals yovv Xegecrl (f>r)<TL
AA-
ts aTL Be oy AyNAcGe AKOYGIN TON AO TON TON EMO N ; rj OTL
YMe?c eK Toy TTATpdc Toy AiABoAoy ecTe, dvrl TOV E Jo. viii. 44.
TOV SiaftoXov; fyavepwv avTols ~^OITTOV
2lyo-ov] TV.
43. 4. Karayv6/j.r}v] See below, that verse.
Frag. 46. 44. 5, 6. There are traces of cor-
8, 9. The words Aid TOVTO t^ets OVK ruption. Probably Xyei has droppeddKoteTe are quoted in Tischendorf s out somewhere, in consequence of
digest on John x. 26 from this pas- the07/o-i, without it the &vrl TOV can
sage : there is no other authority for hardly stand.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 114/138
98 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
rrjv fyvo~ LV avr&v, teal ?Tp 0\<y 0,9 avrovs, OTL ovre
rov A/3pad/jL elai re/cva, ov yap ov e^iffovv avrov,
ovre rov Oeov, no ov K r]^airwv avrov. ical el uev TO 10
c
YMe?c eK TOY TTATpoc TO? AiABoAoy ecre e^eoe^aro o$9 ev rot?
dvwrepa) $ir)yr)0 d[ji,e6a)/cal e\eye Ata TO en vucis eivai eV rov
rHa/3oAoi>, Oy AyNAcGe AKoyeiN TON AofON TON EMON, icav irape-
a avrov rrjv ^Lr)yri(TLV. vvvl Se 8^7X05 eanv6/jioovo-iov<;
rw StaySoXft) \e<ya)v dvOpwTrovs, erepa?, a;? oiovrai 01 15
air avrov, ovo-las rvy^dvovn Trap o?)? Ka\ovai
r)
10 o#re] ovd. 13, 14 7rape5ea/ze#a]
15 otoi^rat]
45. 76id. xx. 20 (R. iv. 337;L. n. 250).
Et? ravra Be 6 Hpa/cXeo)!/ (frrjcrl TIpos 01)5 o Xo^o? CK
rfjs -ova Las rov Sia/36\ov r^crav, &5? erepas OVO-TJS T^9TOU SiafioXov ovo-las rrapd rrjv rwv ayiayv Xoyi/coov ovaiav.
ofjiOLOv $e ev rovrwJJLOL TreirovOevai fyaiverat, To3 erepav
ovalav (frda/covn 6(f)6a\/jiov Trapopwvros teal erepav op&vros. 5
46. Ibid. xx. 20 (R. IV. 339;L. n. 253).
Jo.viii.44. Toaavra KOI irpos rov Upa/cXewvos \oyov etvro^TO? TO
EK TOY nATpoc TOY AiABoAoy dvrl rov E/c TT;? ovaias rov
10. ovdt must probably be altered class, different in kind. It thus takes
to cure. the place usually assigned to the
45. 1, 2. e/c r?7s ovaias TOV 5ia/J6Xou] uXt/fT). See also Irenaeus, and Ex-
With this and the preceding fragment cerpta ex Thcod. 48.
we mustcompare Hipp. Refut.
vi. 34, 3.\O-)IKWI> ova-iav] Cf. Hippolytus s
f- T^S uXtx^s ofo Kal diapoXtKTJs ^TTOITJ- account of the projection of the 70
(rev 6 Arj/juovpy&s ra?s ^uxats ra <rw- Xo7oi. It is not necessary to alter the
/xara, and 6 u\ix6s, <t>daprbs, drAetos, MS. reading, but it is very probably an
eK r?75 Stct/SoXi/djs o^crtas TrcTrXaff^os. error of assimilation (due to the pre-
The close connection of i/Xt*^ and ceding genitive), for \oyucfiv.
diafidXiKr)is exactly reproduced in 46. 2, 3. roO 5ta/3oXow] This seems
these fragments of Heracleon, where the only reading that will make sense,
the is contrasted with the The TOV Trarpos of the MS. is doubtless
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 115/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 99
Sia/36\ov elpi]o~Qa). iraKiv els TO TAC eniGyMiAC TOY TTAipdc
YMOON OeAere noie?N SmcrreXXerai, \eywv Toy 8id/3o\ov fjirj
e%eiv 0e\rjina, aAA eTTiOvfJilas. KOI e/jt,(f)alvTat avTodev
TO dSiavorjTov TOV \6yov 6e\etv yap ra Trovrjpd Tm? av rt?
ofjio\oyr)o~ai e/ceivov.o~vvd%ei<$
8e KOI avro?, el KOI eVl TOV
ev Trpo^eipw ov/c e^o/^ev TrapaOeaOai, ei TTOV ev Ty
fjTO 6e\eiv eVl TOV BiaftoXov rera/CTat. Mera raOra
10(j)rjo-iv
6 Hpa/cXewv w? apa TaOra eiprjraL ov TT/JO? TOI)?
(frvaei TOV Sia/36\ov viovs TOVS %OIKOV$, d\\d Trpos
roi)? i/ru^t/coi)?, deaeL vlovs 8ia{36\ov yivo/jievovs, a^>
dov Trj (friKrei SvvavTai rtz/e? /cal Oiaet viol deov XP 1!
/uLaTiaai. KOI ^ai je OTi Hapd TO vyaTT rjKevat. TAC
i5eni6yMi Ac TOV 8ia(36\ov teal noie?N Te/cva OVTOL TOV
Si,a{36\ov yivovTai, ov (pvaei TOLOVTOI o^re?. KOI Sia-
o~Te\\Tai (w? apa Tp^cS? Sel dfcoveiv Trjs KOLTCL Te/cva
ovofj,ao~ias, TrpwTov <$>vo~ei, SevTepov yvco/jLy
dla. /cal (f>v<76i /JLev, (frijcrlv, eo~Ti TO yevvrjOev VTTO
20 yevvrjrov, b /cai icvpiws TZKVOV /caXetrat yvw/JLr) Be,
ore TO de\rj/jLd r^? TTOIWV rt^o? Sid TT/V eavTov yvw^v,Te/cvov e/celvov ov Troiei TO 6e\r){ia tca\eiTai dlq8e icaG
1
o \e ryovTai rtz^e? peeNNHC T^KVCL KOI CTKOTOVS Cf. Mt.
Kal dvofjbias, /cal ofyewv /cal e)(iANOC)N reNNHMATA ovgo
111
25 yap yevva, (j)rjo~l,TavTa TIVCL TTJ eavTcov (frvaei <f)0opo-
Trotd yap Kal dva\iaKOVTa TOI)? e/^ySX^^ez^ra? et?
avTa, aAA eVet eirpa^av ra e/celva)v epya Te/cva av-
TWV eLprjTai. TOiavT rjv Be Siao~TO\r)v 5eSa)/c&)? ov8e /caO*
OTTOO~OV aTro Toov ypatycov Trape/jLvdrjaaTO Trjv ISlav 8njyr]o~iv.
30 L7roLf.iev 8 avTT/OO? avTOV, OTI el
/jurj (frvcrei,aXX dgla peeN-
NHC Te/cva ovo/jLa^eTat, Kal CTKOTOVS Kal avofiias, <f)8opo-
2, 3 TOV StajSo Xou] rou Trarpoy. 6 ddiavoyTOv] diavoyToit . 8 ^x /*61 ]
foxo/j.ev (ut videtur). 23 X^yojrat] X^erat. 28, 29 K0.6 birbvov} Kara
rb iroffov. 30 d|ip] d|taj.
6.adiav6tjToi>]
This necessary cor- 25. ravra TWO.] ravra of course is
rection of his exemplar was made by subject, ru>& object. Cf. below ovx
the scribe of Cod. Venetus. Cod. 6n yewa was 6 5td/3oXos. The in-
Regius retains the mistake. sertion of roiaOra (Cod. Venetus after
23. X^yoi/Tcu] Here again the scribe raOra) is not necessary, though per-
of Cod. Ven. has made a necessary haps it simplifies the sentence.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 116/138
100 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
TTOia yap ravra teal dva\la/covra /JLCI\\OV ijrrepavvi-
Eph. ii. 3. ardvra, TTCO? 6 IIo-OXo?fyr\<ii
rrov TO "HM60A (J)Ycei TGKNA oprfic
obc KAI 01 Aoinoi ; r) \eyerwaav r}fMv OK ov/c eariv dva\a)TL/cbv
/cal fJidXiara /car avrov(f>6opo7roibv rj opyr), fjs TEKNA HMG- 3?
0A. ird\iv(f)T]crlv
OTL TeKva rov Sta/3oXou vvv \eyei
TOUTOf?, ovy on ryevva Tivas o 8ta/SoXo9, X\ on
TOL epya rov Sta^oXou TTOIOVVTGS ca/jboi,co0 rjo~ap avrq).
Troao) Se (3e\Tiov ireplirdvTwv rwv rov 8ia(36\ov re/cvwv
Jo.viii.il. rovro drrofyaivecrOai, w? 6/jLot,ovfjL6va)vavrw rcS TToie?N T<\ epfA 40
al ov 8ta rrjv ova lav /cal rrjv KaraaKevrjv rrjv
ls eproiN rktcvwv Sta^SoXov
32, 33 avvLaravToi] GVVIG* ra (sic). 35i] opyr] ijs] rj opyr/s.
47. Ibid. xx. 22 (R. iv. 345;L. n. 264).
Jo.viii. 44.r
Hyitet9 /^ev ovv rov JN TH AAnGeiA oyK ecTHKeN d/covo/JLev
ov^ w? (frvaiv roiavrrjv e^aivovro^, ovSe ro d&vvarov Trepl
rov eo-T7)K.vai, avrov ev d\rjdeia Trapivravres. 6 Be Hpa-
K\ewv et? ravra (frrjo-iro Ov yap /c rfjs d\ri6ei,a<$ ^ (frvcris
(rrlv avrov, aXX etc rov evavriov rfj d\rj6ela, eic 5
7r\dvr)S xal dyvoias. Sto, (frrjcrlv,ovre arrival ev d\rj-
deia ovre a%elv ev avrw d\rj6eiav Svvarai,, e/c
avrov <ucrea)5 I$LOV e^cov ro ifrevSos, (pvaitca)*;
$vvd/jLv6<;Trore d\r^6eiav elrrelv. \eyeu S on Ov
avros tyevarys earlv, d\\d /cal 6 irarr/p avrov, i&Utft 10
rrarrjp avrov e/cXa/jiftdvcdv rrjv fyvaiv avrov, erreirrep
IK TrXdvrjs /cal tyeva yLtaro? aweary, ravra 8e o\a
pverai rov $id/3o\ov rravros tyoyov /cal eyKXrj/JLaros teal
os ou^et?
yap ev\6y(t)s
dvtyei;ai
rje<y/ca\eaaL
rj
I*/JL-
rw fir) rre^VKort rrpos rd rcpeirrova. drv^r)<;ovv 15
r) ^6ro9 6 Sm/3oXo5 /card rov HpatcXewvd eariv.
2 ou5] afire. 14, 15ya^/ii/ airo] yu.^ui/
cuTe TO. 16 ^e/crds] \{/evKTos
(ut videtur).
35. ij dpyrj fjs]This emendation teration of the MS. reading.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 117/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 101
48. Ibid. xx. 30 (R. iv. 359;L. n. 290).
O fieVTOl J(
l{paK\(DV TO "ECTIN 6 ZHTOON KAI KplNGON Jo. viii. 50.
OVK dvatyepei eVl rov Trarepa, rotavra \ycovC
ZHTOON KAI
KP/NOON ecrrlv 6 efcSiKtov//,e,
6 inrripeT ris o els rovro
TTay/j,evo$, o MH GIKH THN MA)(AipAN cbopa>N,6 EKAIKOC Rom. xiii.
5 rov /3ao~tXec)9. M&)<7^9Be ecmv ouro?, /cada Trpoei-
prjicev avrois \e<ya)vEic ON YMG?C HAHICATG. elr eVt- Jo. v. 45.
on KPI NOON /cal /co\da)V ecrrl Mwcr?;?, TOV-
avros 6 vo/jLoOerr)?. /cal fjbera TOVTO7rpo<$
eavrov
7ra7rope2 6<
U.paK\ecoi> \ejwv IIcS? ovv ov \e*yei THN
10Kpl dN TTACAN TTdpaSeSo aQa i aVTW ; KCLL
VOfjU<OV\V6iV
rrjv dv0V7ro(j)opdv ravrd$r)(ri- Ka\co9 \ejei, 6 yap /c/otr?)?
co? VTrrjpeTrjs TO 6e\rnjba rovrov TTOLCOV tcpivei, oacnrep
Kal eirl ru>vdvdpa)7ra)i> fyaLverai, yivo/jievov. TTCO? Se
d\\(o Tivl dvaridycri rrjv icpicriv co? vTroSeearepw rov
15 icaO o vofJLi^ei, TCO ArjjAiovpyw, ouS ovrco aTroSet^at
cra<^&)9 yeypa/A/jievov TOV OyAe r^p o nATHp KpiNei oyAeNA AAAA Jo. v. 22.
THNKplCIN HACAN AeAOOKG TO) Y
<V
Ka T V EloyCIAN eAOOKGN Jo. V. 27.
AYTOJ KpiciN noie?N, OTI YIOC ANGpobnoY ECTIN.
5 OUTOS] OI/TWS.
49. CLEM. ALEX.Edog. Prophet. 25, p. 995 (ed. Potter).
f
O Io)rti/^9 (jyrjalvoTt Erob MEN Y^AC YAATI BATTTIZOO, epxeTAi Cf. Mt. iii.
Ae MOY dnicoo o BAHTIZOON ^M^C eN HNEYMATI KAInypi. Trvpl Be T.
ovBeva efidTTTia-ev. evtoi Be, W9 ^aiv HpafcXewv, Trvpl rd
cara rwvcr<ppayi%oiuLei>a)v Karecrr)fj,TJvavTO,
5 TO a7rO<TTO\LKOl .
4KO.Twrnj.riva.vTo] KI
3. 111.
48. 6. ijXTrtVaTe] No authority for indeed, we may see a reference to
the aorist in the text of S. John is this identification in the words atfrds
quoted by Tischendorf. 6 vofj-oOfrys.
15. ry A-r)/j.iovpy$] Apparently He- 49.1. It is not easy to determine
racleon must have spoken of Moses how much of Heracleon is embodied
as a type of the Demiurge. Origen in this section of Clement. It seems
has refuted more of Heracleon s com- however probable that we should only
than he has assume a reference to a
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 118/138
102 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.
50. CLEM. ALEX. Strom, iv. 9, p. 595 (ed. Potter).
Lc. xii. Tovrov efyyovfAevos rov TOTTOV HpatcXewv, 6 rfjs OvaXev-rivov 0-^0X179 So/ayu,a>TOT09,
/card \efyv (fyr)<riv
elvat rrjv pels ev rfjiriareL teal vroXtreta, n)v Se ev
(frcovf). 77 /juevovv ev
(jxovf) 6fjLO\oyia /cal eTrl rwv eov-
criwv yiverai,, fjv fjbovrjv, ffnprlv, o^o\oyiav yyovvrai, 5
elvai ol TroXXot, ou^ vyi&s. Svvavrai 8e ravrrjv rrjv
6fjLO\oryiav /cal ol VTro/cpiral 6/jio\oy6iv, aXX o08
evpeOijaerai OUTO? o Xo70? /ca^oXt/ca)? eipijpivos ov
yap Trai/re? OL ato^opevoi a)/jLO\6<yr)o~av TTJV Bid rrj^
6/jio\oylav ical ef;r}\6ov, 6% wv Margate?, ^>t-10
ctfyu-a?, Aeul? /cat aXXot TroXXot. /cat ecmv
r ta T179 fywvrjs 6fjLO\oyia ov
/ca0o\itcr) 8e, T;I/ z^Oz/ \eyei, rr}v ev
/eaTaXX>;Xot9 rj9 et9 avrov 7rio~Te
rfj 6/Jio\o<yiareal
J] fjt,epi/crj rj eTrl rwv e^ovcriwv, edv oerj 15
/cal 6 Xo709 aipfj. 6fjio\oyTJo-ei yap ovros ical rfj cfxovf),
opOws Trpoo fJio\oyr)O as Trporepov rfj8iaOeo~ei. /cal
/caXco9 eTrl roov 6/jLO\oyovvra)v, N eMo i elirev, eTrl Se
1 T07TOI] .TpOTTOV.
mentioned by Heracleon. If not, the overlooked the fact that a confession
sentence whichimmediately
follows which involves thepenalty
of death
in the Eclogae must be his citation is a sufficient test of sincerity. The
of a divergent version of Matt. iii. 10. history of North Africa however mayOn the whole however it seems more possibly justify Heracleon s opinion.
natural to refer it to Clement him- It may be well to state that we
self, as also the remainder of the have no evidence, besides that con-
section, though it might possibly be tained in the words TQVTOV ^Tjyov/j-evos
regarded as containing Heracleonic rbv r6irov, as to whether Heracleon
doctrine. We can hardly therefore wrote a Commentary on S. Luke.
quote the continuation of this passage The MS. reading rpbirov is interesting,
as proof that Heracleon read dia- but, as in Clement a long quotation
Kadapat. immediately precedes the words, it
For the text of Fragments 49 and must be merely a scribe s error for
50 I have collated the Florence MS. rbirov.
of Clement s Stromateis and Eclogae, 11. Aeins] For the early distinction
and noted its variants in the digest. of Levi from Matthew, cf. Origen c.
50. 1. Clement, after quoting this Celsum i. 62, unless indeed the
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 119/138
THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 103
TWV dpvovfjievcov, TO Eiwe TTpocreOij/cev. ovrot yap KCLV
10rf) (f)Q)vfj 6fjio\oyijcrc0o~iv avTov, dpvovvrai avrov rrj
rrpd^ei (Mr) 6 /jLO\oyovvTe<;. /JLOVOI, 6"
ev avra) O/JLO\O-
yovcriv ol ev rf) icar avrov 6/jLO\oyta ical rrpd^ei
,ev ot? Kal avros ojjbo\o
r
yel eveu\r] fi/uLevos
Kal e^o/jievo^ VTTO TOVTWV. StoTrep ApNHCAcOAi 2 Tim. ii.
25 EAYTON ovSeTTore AY NATAI* dpvovvrai 8e avrov ol/j,rj
oz/re? ev avra). ov ydp elwev Oc ApNHCGTAi ev epol
aA-X, EMe. ov8el<> ydp TTOTG wv ev avrw dpvelrai
avrov. TO Be "EMrrpocGeN TOON ANGpoanooN, teal rwv aw-^ofjievwv real rwv eOviKWv Be o/u/otco?, Trap
1
ol? fjiev Kal
30 rfj7ro\LTeia
) Trap ol? Be Kal ry fywvfj. SioTrep A PNH-
CAcGAi avrov ovBeTTore Bvvavrai, dpvovvrai, Be avrov
olfjurj
ovres ev avrw. Tavra pev 6c
HpaK\eo)v.
24 avrols] aurous.
51. PHOTIUS Ep. 134 (cd. Rich. Moritacutius),
rrpwroarcaOapiw Kal Trpwrovorapia) TO er
rrlK\rjv Xpucro-
(Ep. GO, ed. Baletta).
OvBe yap efi vftpei Kal Bia(3o\y rov vofiov TO H X^P IC Jo - 17 -
Ae KAI AAnGeiA Ai lucoy Xpicroy ereNeio rot? e1)^776A,t/cot?
Oecr/jLois TrepL^p/jLoaev.
(
^paK\ewv yap dv OUTW? eirroi Kal
ol
51. 1. I have given the full title, interesting, as extreme antagonism to
asirpuTo<nra.Odpios
is not sufficiently the law does not seem to have been
distinctive as a description of the characteristic of him (see Frag. 20j.
recipient of an Epistle from Photius. Perhaps his followers may have de-
The same letter is also found in his veloped this line of Gnosticism more
Amphilochia, 246. than their master.
3. This reference to Heracleon is
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 120/138
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
A. HERACLEON AND VALENTINUS.
The extant Fragments of Valentinus offer some points of comparison with those
of Heracleon, especially with regard to language and terminology, which can be
most conveniently discussed in an Additional Note. I follow the order in which these
Fragments are given in Hilgenfeld s collection (Ketzcrgeschichte, p. 293), and have
adopted his text where I quote from them. I have also given references to the
pages of Potter s edition of Clement of Alexandria.
1. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 8, p. 448. Valentinus is speaking of the terror
which came upon the Angels (of the Demiurge) at the utterances of the man whom
theyhad created
(e/cetVovTOV
irXda-fj-aros).These were due to
Him who had placedin man the seed of the higher essence (5ta rbv dopdrws ev aJry 0-n-^p/m.a deduKora TTJS
avuOev oimas). Compare Heracleon s explanation of the forty and six years
(Frag. 16), ryv iJXrjv TCVTGTL rb7r\a<r//,a...T6
fr r<
e/u.<f)vo"r)/j,aTt airpfj.a. Heracleon
has retained the terminology of his master. With the Angels compare Frag. 36, ot
rrjs oiKOi>o[j.las ayye\oi, dt uv us peaLT&v effwapr) Kal dverpdcpr). Valentinus goes on to
speak of an"Kvdpu-jros
in whose name Adam was formed;this may perhaps throw
some light on the important position assigned to"AvOpurros
in Heracleon s account
of the two viol TOV avdpuirov (Frag. 35).
2. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 20, p. 488. The expulsion of every evil spirit fromthe heart of man reminds us of Heracleon s interpretation of the words #7X0? TOV
OIKOV ffovKaTa<pdyeTat fj.e as being spoken e/c Trpoauirov rdv ixpXrietvTuv Ka
TWV virb rov ZWTTJ/JOS dvrdficvr (Frag. 14) : and with the words vvfipij;bvTuv
fj-iais compare Heracleon s description of the former life of the Samaritan woman,Kal ddeTovfji&r) Kal tyKaTa.Xenrofj.tvr] (Frag. 18). On Tro\\wi> daipbvuv
see the note on Frag. 20(p. 77).
3. Clem. Alex. Strom, in. 7, p. 538. The Docetism of this Fragment should be
compared with Heracleon s teaching on the pp&fj.a toiov of the Lord (Frag. 31), and
the healing of the Euler s son (Frag. 40) ;but the question of Heracleon s Docetism
has been discussed in the Introduction (p. 46).
4. Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 13, p. 603. With ^ alwvios and the victory of its
children over<f>eopa, compare Frag. 17 cuwnos yap ij fay avrov Kal wdtiroTe
<j>deipo-
t^vrj. The distinction between /cooyxos and KT[<TIS in the last sentence of Valentinus,
orav yap rbv fitv Kbo^ov \vrjre, avrol de w Kara\v-r}crde, Kvpievere TTJS KTiVews /cat T^S
0^opas aTraff-rjs, is explained by Frag. 20, where Heracleon speaks of theK6o>tos
as the
world of the Devil, and connects Krt <rts with the /CT/CTTT/S or Demiurge, whom the
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 121/138
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 105
5. Clem. Alex. ibid. As this is the most important Fragment of Valentinus
in the present connexion, it may be well to quote his words in full.
Orroffov eXarruv 17eiKUv TOU favros irpoffwirov, roffovrov rjffffwv 6 KOfffJ.os rov favros
alwvos. T^J ovv alria rrjs eiicbvos; fj-eyaXufffyrj rov irpoffutrov TrapeffXTj/J-evov Ty faypdcpy
rbv TUTTOV, iva rifj-r/drj 5i 6v6fj.aros avrov. ov yap avOevriK<2s evptdr) [j.op(pri,dXXa rb
6vo/j.a eir\ripuo~ev rb vffreprjo av ev TrXdcret. ffvvepyel 5e /cat T6 TOU deov doparov els wiffrtf
Here 6 /coc^os is used in its wider sense. The meaning of the Fragment must
be that as the likeness is inferior to the living person, so is the world (created
by the Demiurge) less than the living Aeon. The greatness of the archetype is the
cause of the copy ;and the name of the archetype supplies what is deficient
in the copy. The use of aluv, contrasted with KOOTXOJ, recalls Heracleon s usage of
the word, as equivalent to the Pleroma, or more generally, the spiritual sphere; see
Fragg. 1, 18 and 22. Compare especially the phrases in 22, 6 ev aluvi. /ecu ol avv awry
e\0oWes and tireiTrep eiKoves OVTOI (sc. ol louScuot) TUV ev rip TrX^pci^art aury elvai
The terminology which Clement uses in his explanation of this Fragment of
Valentinus is of more importance. His interpretation of it appears to be as follows ;
rj eiK&v= the Demiurge, Sophia sTr\d<rfj,a
created to give glory to the Father : TO $&v
iTpoffwirov= the Father, the True God: furypa0os
= Sophia. [As the Demiurge is
inferior to the Father, so is the /coov/os to the living Aeon.] The Demiurge is an
dKwv (of the Father) as being dirb ei>6s,
the production of Sophia. The offspring of
a ffvfvyia. are not ei/coi/ej but TrX^pw/iara (cf. Excerpta ex Theud. 32). The next
sentence is hardly intelligible. But the words TO e^varnj.a rov diafiepovros Trvev/j.aros,
7)e/c /tceo-oTTjTos ^vx~n, and o
e/j.iri>eirai rr} tyvxy, shew great similarity of substance
with the teaching of Frag. 16;and the use of Tr\r}pw/M immediately recalls Hera
cleon s use of it to represent the husband of the Samaritan woman (Frag. 18). It
is impossible to tell whether Clement has made use of the writings of Valentinus in
his explanation of that part of them which he quotes, and apparently misunder
stands. But if it is so, some of Heracleon s most peculiar terminology was derived
from his master.6. Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 6, p. 767. Beyond the implied restriction of
r/ e/c/cXTj-
<rla to the irvev^ariKol (cf. Frag. 25 etc.) this Fragment offers no further points
for comparison, and the same is the case with the remaining Fragments of
Valentinus.
Thus a detailed comparison of the language used by Heracleon and Valentinus
reveals linguistic affinities which thoroughly agree with the supposition adopted in
the Introduction (p. 38) that Heracleon did not materially alter the system of
Valentinus.
B. THE EXCERPTA EX THEODOTO.
When I was in Florence last December (1890), I made use of the opportunity to
collate the two Fragments of Heracleon which are contained in the Stromatcis and
Eclogae Proplictlcae of Clement, and also the whole of the Exccrpta ex Theodoto.
As I have had occasion to quote the Excerpta frequently in my notes I have thought
it worth while to append in an additional note the few variants which Dindorf has
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 122/138
106 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
not noticed in his digest. But he has either adopted in his text or noticed prac
tically all the variants from Migne s text which are of any value.
C. ON THE TEXT OF FRAGMENT 24.
To judge from the conjectural emendations which have been suggested, the text
of the latter part of this fragment offers a problem of great difficulty. The attested
text of the sentence beginning AXX oi>x bp&viv is as follows:
AXX oi/x bpuaiv (12) 6Vt iravTos (13) /cat TUV O.VT&V deKTixbv.
It is important to start from this, as all conjectural restorations seem to have
been based upon the words T&V ivavTiuv, which have no manuscript authority
whatever, and are only a guess of the "emendator" in the margin of the Bodleian,
who introduces his suggestions with the wordf<rws,
and is certainly later than
the other emendator, who uses the word Tdx.
Origen s argument seems to be as follows. Is it not dVe/3es to call the spiritual
worshippers, whom Heracleon lias just called adulterers (in that he has just said
that the Samaritan woman Trpeiy-tart/dys (pixreus oCcra has committed adultery), b/moov-
ffioi with God? Heracleon and his followers do not see that, etc. But if the Trvevfj-a-
TiKT) (pv<Tis being oyuootfcrios with God could commit adultery, impious deductions
follow from their argument concerning God. The impious deduction is clearly
something equivalent to dexerai 6 0eos rd iropvevaai.. Origen refutes the position of
Heracleon, that God and the Tn>v/j.a.TiKoi are bfj-ooixrioi, by a reductio ad absurdum
through two syllogisms :
(1) major. (?)
minor. God and the Tn/ev/um/cT? (f>v<ri$
are6/xoo;<rta :
God and the irv.0y<rts
are rwv O.VTUI> Se/cTi/cd.
(2) major. God and the irv. (pvais are TWV avTwv SCKTIKO. :
minor. The irv. 0iVu eSeaTo TO TropvevaaL .
God dtxeTai Tb iropvevffai: (for if the irv.(pu<r. e5^aTo, then it is
SKTIKOV of that which
This seems to be the strict argument, though of course it is stated more con
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 123/138
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 107
The only major which will suit the 1st syllogism seems to be TO, b
avTdv deKTiKa. I would therefore propose to read, llai> TO buoovaiov /ecu TW O.VTUV
Se/cri/coi . This preserves the TUV O.VTUV which is attested by all the MSS., ruv lva.v-
rLwv having, as was noticed before, no MS. authority.
Ferrarius gave up the sentence as hopeless, and does not translate it (see Huet s
edition : Delarue has here apparently introduced his own translation into that of
Ferrarius). His(?)
translation of the following words (d ot e5ta.To...0eov) Quod si
[Heracleon ac sui sequaces] admiserint spiritualem naturam quae sit eiusdem essen-
tiae [cum divina et undequaque beata natura ut ipsi tradunt] meretricari, profana
et impia et irreligiosa sequuntur rationem ipsorum, gives the sense of the sentence,
but can hardly be intended for a literal translation. Thus no help is to be got
from him. Delarue s note may be quoted as an example (perhaps not a fair one,
as it is worse than most) of the treatment which the text has received at his
hands :
"Codd. Bodl. et Barb. eKTreiropvevKevai. Regius ireiropvevKevcu,Mox Codex Bod-
leianus habet " AXXoi>x bpuxnv oi ravra X^yoires, on iravTos TUV ivavruav /ecu TUV
O.VTUIV dcKTiKov. Ei 5e tS^aro TO iropvevcrai rj irvev/j-aTLKr] 0i;cris, bfj.oov<nosovaa. TTJ ayev-
vrfry cbocria &c. sicque sanitati omnia restituuntur. Modo pro /ecu TWV O.VTUV legas
Ko.1 TO ai/ro."
Codex Eegius reads eKTre-n-opvevKevaL. All the marginal suggestions of the
Bodleian MS. are set down as if they occurred in its original text.
How omnia sanitati restituuntur by reading Tb avrb for ruv afiruv I cannot
see. God and the Tn/eu^ari/cr) 05(ris would hardly even by the impious Heracleon
be called Tb cu5r6. The point is not that r6 avri is SeKTUcbv TUV ivavrtuv. The only
deduction from this and the following sentence would be that God being (?)identical
with the n-i evfj.a.TtKr] 0tf<sis capable of contrary things to what it is capable of, i.e.
I suppose TO fj.i) Tropvevffcu,which deduction is not av6ffiov. The point is rather
that God and the irv.(j>v<ris, being b/j.oov<ria,
are TUV O.VTWV Se/cri/cd. Sense can be
extracted from Grabe s conjecture, adopted by Hilgenfeld, on iravTos KoXoO TO
irvfvfji.a KO.I TUV ivavTiwv ov deKTtKov. The argument would then be I suppose some
what as follows. T6 Trj/eO^a is not deKTiKov of good and evil at the same time.
The Trvfv/ji.aTi.KTi (pfots tS^aro Tb KaKov: therefore it cannot 6^xeo"^at T Ka\6v: and
therefore God, being 6/uoownos with it, is not 5e/cn/c6s TOV KO\OV, and is therefore
dfKTiKbs TW fravTtuv i.e. of evil. But the objections to it are insuperable: (a) It
makes Origeu guilty of unparalleled obscurity. (/3)It has no support whatever
from the MSS. (7) It is based on the unfortunate conjecture TUV evavrlwv. (8)It
would require TOV ivavTlov.(e)
It makes rb Trvev/J.a=
ri wvevfj-aTiKj] <pfais.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 124/138
INDEX OF PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED, EX
PLAINED, OR REFERRED TO BY HERACLEON.
The figures refer to the number of the page. Square brackets have been iiscd
where the reference is doubtful.
Gen. vi. 2 93
[Ps. xix.(xviii.) 5
79]
Ps. Ixix.(Ixviii.) 10 69
Is. i. 2, 4 93
v.l, 2 93
[xxv. 892]
[Jer. vii. 1169]
[Ezek. xxxiv. 1680]
[Mt. iii. 11101]
Mt. viii. 12 93
ix. 3786
x. 28 92
xi. 11 58
xxi. 13 69
xxiii. 15, 33 99
xxv. 1 84
[Lc. iii. 16101]
Lc. vii. 26 65
28 58
xii. 811 102
xix. 10 80
Jo. i. 350, 80
4.
14f. 68 f.
17 69
19 f. 70 f.
iv. 11 84
14 72 f.
Jo. iv. 16 73 f.
17 74
18 f 75
20 f 76
22 78 f.
23 80
24 79,81
2527 82
2831 83
32-34 84
35 8636 87 f.
37 88
38 f 89
40 90
42 91
46 91
4749 92
5053 93
54 92
v. 45 101
viii. 12 ff 95 f.
21 f 95 f.
37 f 97
43 97
44 97, 98, 100
47 97
50 101
Horn. i. 25 79
[v. 1572]
vi. 21 92
xiii. 4 101
1 Cor. x. 5 79
xv. 53 f. 92
Gal. iii. 19 89
2Tim.ii. 13 103
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 125/138
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS IN THE FRAGMENTS
OF HERACLEON.
The figures refer to the number and line of the Fragments.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 126/138
110 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 127/138
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. Ill
xaeo\iK6s 40, 5; 50, 12
/ca0oXi/c<2s 50, 8
/co/efa 13, 30; 18, 24
; 20, 9
KaTapatveiv 11, 3; 40, 31
KaraXetTretz/ 27, 3
/caraXXr/Xos 17, 30; 50, 14
KaraffKevd^eiv 5, 79 ; 13, 31; 1C, 5
KaraaKfvri 33, 8
Kare\0elv 8, 29; 11, 5
; 40, 50
KaQapvaovfj. 11, 4; 40, 6
jrf/>5os 13, 16
Kepfj.a.Ti<TTr)s 13, 14
KX77<r 13, 5; 27, 1C
KOivbrepov 5, 70
KoXdfriv 48, 7
/coTriaj/ 36, 6
LOTTOS(?) 36, 9
17, 4; 18, 8
; 27, 21
1, 3; 8, 2
; 11, 5; 18, 20
; 20, 7
27, 6; 31, 9
; 37, 2; 40, 43
n6s 10, 10
6, 10
20, 11; 22, 19
20, 11; 22, 20
is 13, 29
,20
77 2, 7
s, irpurij 2, 6
48, 5
va6s 16, 6
?KOS 40, 20
voelv 1, 35; 8, 36
; 13, 6; 22, 8
; 35, 17
vo/j.ifj.os 18, 10
j/6/xoj 20, 10; 40, 25
j/6<ros 40, 32
#vos 13, 16
^Xoi/ 13, 26
68r)yeia dcu 39, 5
otVaos 5, 27 ; 23, 6; 40, 49
oiK(i<i)s 40, 21
olK-rjrripiov 20, 9
oiKovofjua 8, 32; 11, 2
;ot r?}s oiV.
36, 7
22, 8
4, 7 ; 8, 38; 19,2; 26, 5; 50, 7
o/j.o\oyia 50, 2
ovofioffia 46, 18
opos 20, 6
oi)(rfa 43, 4; 44, 7
; 45, 2; 46, 2
ojis 46, 24
Traces 12, 2 ; 38, 4
Travovpyia 6, 10
,7
10, 8
ia 27, 7
(?) 2, 8
\arpeia 13, 18; 19, 13
; 24, 10
\arpe6ew 20, 14; 21, 24
; 22, 19
Aevis 50, 11
Aevlni* 13, 10
AeiuTi/c6s 5, 63
X<ts 8, 38
\ivov 13, 23
Xo7i/c6s 24, 10
X67os, 6 1, 7; 5, 6; 22, 7 ; 33, 8
; 44, 5; 45, 1 irepurabrepov 10, 4
Ittrpos 21, 22
(jt-aprvpia, dvOpwirlvr) 39, 7 irXavdv 22, 17
Mcrrflcuos 50, 10 Tr\dvr) 22, 16 ; 23, 6 ; 24, 9 ; 47, 6
fj.dxa.ipa 48, 4 7rXeur/*a 16, 7
M<?7e0os 8, 29 TrX^pw/xa 13, 11; 18, 5
; 22, 10
/iept*6s 50, 12 7rXi7(TiafetJ> 18, 25
36, 7 Tn/eu/io 13, 6; 17, 13
; 24, 8; 27, 7 ;
r6
r 40, 7 #7- TTV. 13, 22
fj.Ta.pd\\eiv, see 40, 68 vveviM.TiK&s 2, 3; 15, 4
; 20, 15; 23, 12
;
/xera/SoXiJ 5, 30 24, 15; 37, 3
/ierar^/u 5, 28 Tri/eu/ian/cws 24, 6
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 128/138
112 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
5, 61
vorqpfa 40, 56
Trovrjpuis 42, 2
TropeveaOai, et s<p8opav 42, 10
TrpeirovTws 19, 8
irp^arov 10, 7; 12, 3
; 13, 13
7rp65po/xos 8, 22
Trp6vaos 13, 9
wpoa-dyeiv 27, 8
TrpotrS^-xfffdai. 25, 2
7rpo<r5oKai> 26, 4
irp6<TKaipos 17,
2;
40,3
5, 62
8, 35 ; 14, 2; 40, 22
5, 80
,8
; 5, 39; 10, 3
; 19, 3
7T/)o0?7Ti/c6s, Trp. rats 5, 8
2a/i/>eia 26, 7; 28, 2; 31, 8
us 24, 6
22, 16 ; aap/ca Xa/Setj/ 8, 30
13, 24
<TKa\\eiv 36, 12
ffKevos 27, 5
O-KOTOS 46, 23
16, 4
2, 7; 35, 2
; 36, 8
16, 10; 35, 3; 36, 5; 40, 56
13, 28
31, 3
31, 10
ai>ij.fio\ov 13, 10
<rvfjL7rapa\a.fji,(3di>eij> 20, 17
<TVfJ.TT\^KlV 18, 25
o-vvapid/j-elv 20, 18
avviardvat 46, 32
ffwrypia 13, 12; 22, 7
; 33, 7 ; 34, 4;
40, 17
crc^et* 31, 7; 40, 50 ; 50, 9
rais 5, 8; 40, 48
30, 3
10, 9
35, 12
, 26
rerpas 16, 8
eti/ 36, 12
11, 6; 13, 3
; 17, 39;
6 virep TOV T.
vidsa.v6p(j}irov 35, 14
Tp67ros 40, 39
Tpo<f>ri 31, 5
TI^TTOS 12, 2; 13, 27
vdpla 27, 1
0X77 16, 7; 20, 8; 21, 23; 23, 6; 36, 13;
40, 8
Wu/cos 11, 5 ; 13, 2 ; 18, 24vTrrjpecria. 8, 26
virrjptrris 48, 12
VTToppT)KU)S 40, 7
vir6Swa 8, 30
VTTOKplTrjS 50, 7
vTTOTi6e(T0ai 40, 13
(pavepovv 44, 7
^apurcuoi 6, 10 ; 7, 5
00apr6s 40, 18
17, 16
,10
00opo7roi6s 46, 25
<pL\apyvpia 13, 17
50, 10
o/ 13, 19
?7 5, 64
cDs 47, 8
17, 31; 19, 8; 23, 12; 24, 2; 33,
9; 37, 5; 40, 10; 44, 8; 46, 11; 47, 4
0amayx6s 2, 8
35, 2
Xapa 35, 12
5, 42; 40, 46
13, 23
Xot/c6s 46, 11
13, 18
46, 13
47, 8
\f/evfffj.a 47, 12
47, 10
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 129/138
111.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 130/138
Thefollowing numbers of the series are now published :
Vol. I. No. 1. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES : by J. REXDEL HARRIS,M.A. : with an Appendix by THE EDITOR. 5s. net.
No. 2. THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA, with an Appendixon the Scillitan Martyrdom : by THE EDITOR. 4s. net.
No. 3. THE LORD S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH :
by F. H. CHASE, B.D. 5s. net.
X<>. 4. THEFRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON
:
by A. E.BROOKE, M.A. 4s. net.
A separate title page for binding is issued with the last numberof the volume (No. 4).
Thefollowing is nearly ready:
Vol. II. No. 1. A STUDY OF CODEX BEZAE :
byJ.
RENDEL HARRIS, M.A.
Thefollowing is in course of preparation :
THE TKSTAMKXT OF ABRAHAM: by M. R. JAMES, M.A. :
with an Appendix containing Translations from the Arabic of theTestaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by \V. K. BAKXKS, M.A.
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 131/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 132/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 133/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 134/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 135/138
University of Toronto
Library
DO NOT
REMOVE
THECARD
FROM
THISPOCKET
Acme Library Card Pocket
Under Pt "Ref. Index Ffle"
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 136/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 137/138
8/4/2019 Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robinson-texts-and-studies-contributions-to-biblical-and-patristic-literature 138/138