Sophia Scriptura

Against Heresies 2.13.1–2.15.3

Irenaeus of Lyons · Against Heresies · ca. 180–190 · Lyons · 22 passages

Latin text: Harvey 1857 (Latin text: Harvey (1857), transcribed from archive.org OCR of the printed volumes; section numbers checked against Stieren (1853)).English: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), public domain (CC0). Compare: Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 (1885), Irenaeus, Against Heresies.

Against 2, chapter 13

2.13.1Harvey 1:280–281

Er ipsum quidem primum ordinem emissionis ipsorum reprobabilem esse sic ostendimus. Emissum enim dicunt de Bytho et hujus Enncea Nun et Alethian, quod quidem contrarium ostenditur. Nus enim est ipsum quod est principale, et summum, et velut principium, et fons universi sensus. Ennoia autem quse Sab hoc est qualislibet et de quolibet facta motio. Non capit igitur ex Bytho et Ennoia emissum esse Nun: verisimilius enim erat dicere eos, de Propatore et de hoc Nu emissam esse filiam Ennoiam, Non enim Ennoia mater est Noos, sicut dicunt; sed Nus pater fit Ennoie. Quemadmodum autem et emissus est Nus a Propatore, qui principalem et primum ejus que est intus abscondit et invisibilis affectionis locum continet? a qua sensus. generatur, et Ennoia, et Enthyinesis, et alia, quze non alia sunt preter Nun; sed illius ipsius, quemadmodum praediximus, de aliquo incogitatu dispositae qualeslibet motiones; secundum perseverationem et augmentum, non secundum immutationem vocabula emisse, sensu manente intus et condente, et administrante, et gubernante libere et ex sua potestate, quemadmodum et vult, qure praedicta sunt.

We show as follows that the very first order of their emission is to be rejected. For they say that Nus and Aletheia were emitted from Bythus and his Ennoia, which is shown to be contradictory. For Nus is itself what is chief and highest, and as it were the principle and source of all understanding; and Ennoia, which comes from it, is any motion concerning anything. It does not fit, then, that Nus was emitted from Bythus and Ennoia; it would have been more plausible for them to say that Ennoia was emitted as a daughter from the Propator and this Nus. For Ennoia is not the mother of Nus, as they say, but Nus becomes the father of Ennoia. And how was Nus emitted from the Propator, when it holds the chief and first place of the hidden and invisible affection within him? From it are generated perception, Ennoia, Enthymesis and other things, which are nothing other than Nus, but, as we said before, certain motions of that same Nus concerning some object of thought, named according to their continuance and increase, not according to change, the mind remaining within, founding, administering and governing freely and by its own power, as it wills, the things mentioned.

Notes and citation

Summary: Mind (Nus) is the source of thought (Ennoia), not its product, so the Valentinian order of emission is backwards.

  • Harvey's chapter title (“How the first order of their emission is shown to be of no account”), a fragment of his notes and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title; fragment of Harvey's notes intruded into the text; stray digit; stray mark): Quomodo nullius momenti ostendatur primus ordo emissionis vpsorum. → ; ipsorum 1 reprobabilem → ipsorum reprobabilem; sed x. variations. rectione carnis; lib. 1, 3, et 5, contra δ Cod. CLERM. ad, as 8180 ARUND. — Marcionem: Corpus animale capit dici, Nus → sed Nus; secundum ! perseverationem → secundum perseverationem.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.13.1 (Harvey 1:280–281; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-13-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-13-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.13.2Harvey 1:281–282

Prima enim motio ejus de aliquo, ennoia appellatur; perseverans autem et aucta, et universam apprehendens animam, enthymesis vocatur. Haec autem enthymesis multum temporis faciens in eodem, et velut probata, sensatio nominatur. Haec autem sensatio in multum dilatata, consilium facta est; augmentum autem et motus in multum dilatatus consilii, cogitationis examinatio: quze etiam in mente perseverans, verbum rectissime appellabitur; ex quo emissibilis emittitur verbum. Unum autem et idem est omnia que praedicta sunt, a No initium accipientia, et secundum augmentum assumentia appellationes. Quemadmodum et corpus hominis, aliquando quidem novellum, aliquando quidem virile, aliquando autem senile, seeundum augmentum et perseverantiam accepit appellationes, sed non secundum substantise demutationem, neque secundum corporis amissionem: sic et illa. De quo enim quis contemplatur, de eo et cogitat: et de quo cogitat, de hoc et sapit: de quo autem et sapit, de hoc et consiliatur: et quod consiliatur, hoc et animo tractat: et quod animo tractat, hoc et loquitur. Hsc autem omnia, quemadmodum diximus, Nus gubernat, cum sit ipse invisibilis, et a semetipso per ea quse predicta sunt, sicut per radium, emittens verbum, sed non ipse ab alio emittitur.

For its first motion concerning something is called ennoia (thought); when it continues, grows and takes hold of the whole soul, it is called enthymesis (reflection). This enthymesis, spending much time on the same thing and as it were tested, is named sensatio (judgement). This judgement, greatly expanded, becomes counsel; and the increase and greatly expanded motion of counsel becomes the weighing of thought; which, remaining in the mind, will most rightly be called word (logos), from which the uttered word is sent forth. And all these things are one and the same, taking their beginning from Nus and receiving names according to their increase. Just as the human body, now young, now in its prime, now old, has received names according to increase and continuance, not according to change of substance or loss of body, so with these. For what one contemplates, about that he thinks; what he thinks about, about that he is wise; what he is wise about, about that he takes counsel; what he takes counsel about, that he turns over in his mind; and what he turns over in his mind, that he speaks. And all these, as we said, Nus governs, being itself invisible, and sending forth the word from itself through the things mentioned as through a ray, but is not itself sent forth by another.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: Thought, reflection, judgement, counsel and word are stages of one mind, not separate beings.

  • Words lost in the scan of Harvey's edition are supplied from Stieren's edition. A running head and margin debris are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin debris; running head; OCR slip): per LIB. 11. xv. e& quse → per ea quse; verbum, sed o. ix xi s ὃ. → verbum, sed.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.13.2 (Harvey 1:281–282; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-13-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-13-2) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.13.3Harvey 1:282

Et hsec quidem in hominibus capit dici, cum sint compositi natura, et ex corpore et anima subsistentes: qui autem dicunt ex Deo emissam esse Enncam, et ex Enncea Nun, deinceps ex iis Logon, primo quidem arguendi sunt improprie emissionibus usi; post deinde hominum affectiones, et passiones, et intentiones mentis describentes, Deum autem ignorantes: qui quidem ea que obveniunt hominibus ad loquendum eos, applicant omnium Patri, quem etiam ignotum omnibus dicunt; negantes quidem ipeum mundum fecisse, ut ne quidem pusillus putetur, hominum autem affectiones et passiones donantes. Si autem Scripturas cognovissent, et a veritate docti essent, scirent utique quoniam non sic Deus, quemadmodum homines; et non sic cogitationes ejus, quomodo cogitationes hominum. Multum enim distat omnium Pater ab his quz proveniunt hominibus affectionibus et passionibus: et simplex, et non compositus, et similimembrius, et totus ipse sibimetipsi similis, et aequalis est, totus cum sit sensus, et totus spiritus, et totus sensuabilitas, et totus enncea, et totus ratio, et totus auditus, et totus oculus, et totus lumen, et totus fons omnium bonorum; quemadmodum adest religiosis ac piis dicere de Deo.

These things can rightly be said of men, since they are composite by nature, consisting of body and soul. But those who say that Ennoia was emitted from God, and Nus from Ennoia, then Logos from these, are first to be refuted as having used emissions improperly; and then as describing men's affections, passions and intentions of mind, while ignorant of God. They apply to the Father of all, whom they also call unknown to all, what happens to men in speaking; denying that he made the world, lest he be thought small, yet giving him human affections and passions. But if they had known the Scriptures and been taught by the truth, they would surely know that God is not as men are, and his thoughts are not as the thoughts of men. For the Father of all is far removed from the affections and passions that come to men: he is simple and not composite, without diverse members, wholly like and equal to himself, since he is wholly mind, wholly spirit, wholly perception, wholly thought, wholly reason, wholly hearing, wholly eye, wholly light, and wholly the fountain of all good things, as the religious and pious may rightly say of God.

Isa 55:8 (allusion, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: The heretics project human mental processes onto God, who is simple, wholly mind and light, and unlike man.

  • Allusion: Isa 55:8. A stray mark is removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (stray mark): ! ad loquendum → ad loquendum.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.13.3 (Harvey 1:282; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-13-3).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-13-3) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.13.4Harvey 1:282

Est autem et super hxc, et propter haec inenarrabilis. Sensus enim capax omnium bene et recte dicetur, sed non similis hominum sensui: et lumen rectissime dicetur, sed nihil simile ei, quod est secundum nos lumini. Sic autem et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium Pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum haec propter dilectionem, sentitur autem super hzec secundum magnitudinem. Si igitur et in hominibus ipse quidem sensus non emittitur, neque separatur a vivo qui emittit reliqua, motiones autem ejus et affectus perveniunt ad manifestum; multo magis Dei qui totus sensus est, ipse a semetipso nequaquam separabitur, neque quasi ab alio aliud emittitur.

And he is above these, and therefore unspeakable. For he will well and rightly be called a Mind containing all things, but not like the mind of men; and he will most rightly be called light, but nothing like the light around us. So too in all the rest the Father of all will be like nothing in human smallness; and he is spoken of in these terms because of love, but is perceived to be above them by his greatness. If, then, even in men the mind itself is not emitted, nor separated from the living man who emits the rest, but its motions and affections come into the open, much more will God, who is wholly mind, never be separated from himself, nor be emitted as one thing from another.

Notes and citation

Summary: God is above all our names for him; even in man the mind is not emitted from itself, much less in God.

  • A misplaced chapter title (“That mind could not be emitted, since it itself emitted the rest; and what emission is”), running heads and margin references are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title, misplaced in the OCR; margin reference; running head; stray letters): omnibus LB. Π. xv. nulli → omnibus nulli; dicitur 5 Ἢ HL. xvi. -quidem → dicitur quidem; super EX hzec → super hzec; Quoniam, sensus non potuisset emitti quia upse emattebat reliqua: et quid est emissio. → ; a vivo 318 qui → a vivo qui.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.13.4 (Harvey 1:282; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-13-4).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-13-4) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.13.5Harvey 1:282

Si enim sensum emisit, ipse qui emisit sensum, secundum eos compositus et corporalis intelligitur, ut sit separatim. quidem qui emisit, Deus, separatim autem qui emissus est, sensus. Si autem de sensu sensum dicant emissum, praecidunt sensum Dei et partiuntur. Quo autem, et unde emissus est? Quod enim ab aliquo emittitur, in aliquod subjectum emittitur. Quid autem subjacebat antiquius quam sensus Dei, in quod emissum dicunt eum? Quantus autem et erat locus, ut susciperet et caperet Dei sensum Si autem, quemadmodum a sole radium dicant, sicut subjacet aér hic susceptior, et antiquior erit quam ipse radius, et illic ostendant subjacens aliquid, in quod emissus est sensus Dei, capabile ejus et antiquius. Post oportebit, quemadmodum solem minorem esse quam omnia videmus, longe a semetipso emittentem radios, sic et Propatorem dicere extra et longe a semetipso emisisse radium. Quidnam autem extra aut longe sentiri a Deo potest, in quod radium emisit?

For if he emitted mind, then he who emitted mind is, according to them, understood as composite and bodily, so that God who emitted is apart, and the mind that was emitted is apart. But if they say mind was emitted from mind, they cut off God's mind and divide it. And where and from where was it emitted? For what is emitted from something is emitted into some subject. What lay beneath, older than God's mind, into which they say it was emitted? And how great was the place, to receive and contain God's mind? If they speak as of a ray from the sun, then as the air beneath receives it and is older than the ray, so let them show something lying beneath there, into which God's mind was emitted, able to contain it and older than it. Then, as we see the sun, which is smaller than all things, sending rays far from itself, so they will have to say that the Propator emitted a ray outside and far from himself. But what can be conceived outside or far from God, into which he emitted the ray?

Notes and citation

Summary: An emitted mind would make God composite and would require something older than God to receive it.

  • A stray Greek mark is corrected to a question mark.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (stray Greek for a question mark): radium emisit ἢ → radium emisit?.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.13.5 (Harvey 1:282; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-13-5).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-13-5) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.13.6Harvey 1:282–284

Si autem non emissum extra Patrem illum dicant, sed in ipso Patre; primo quidem superfluum erit etiam dicere emissum esse eum; quemadmodum enim emissus est, si intra Patrem erat? Emissio enim est ejus, quod emittitur, extra emittentem manifestatio. Post deinde hoc emisso, et is qui est ab eo Logos erit intra Patrem: similiter autem et relique Logi emissiones. Jam igitur non ignorabunt Patrem, cum intra eum sint; nec secundum descensionem emissionum minus aliquis cognoscet eum, undique omnes a Patre aequaliter circumdati: sed et impassibiles omnes deminoratione nemo ipsorum erit. Non enim est deminoratio Pater, nisi forte, velut in cireulo magno minor continetur circulus, et intra hune rursus alter minor; aut velut sphaerae similitudine, aut tetragoni, Patrem dicant intra se undique continere sphare similitudinem, vel quadratam reliquam 7Eonum emissionem, unoquoque illorum cireumdato ab eo qui est super eum major; et circumdante eum, qui post se est, minorem; et propter hoc minorem et ultimum omnium in medio constitutum, et multum a Patre separatum, ignorasse Propatorem. Si autem haec dixerint, in figura et cireumscriptione concludent Bythum ipsorum, et circumdantem, et circumdatum: cogentur enim et extra illum confiteri esse aliquid, quod circumdet eum. Et nihilominus in immensum de his qui continent et continentur incidet sermo: et corpora. inclusa esse omnes manifeste apparebunt.

But if they say it was not emitted outside the Father but within the Father himself, first it will be superfluous even to say it was emitted; for how was it emitted if it was within the Father? For emission is the manifestation of what is emitted outside the one who emits. Then, this being emitted, the Logos that comes from it will be within the Father, and likewise the other emissions of the Logos. So they will no longer be ignorant of the Father, since they are within him; nor will anyone know him less according to the descent of the emissions, all being equally surrounded by the Father on every side; and all will be impassible, and none of them will be in diminution. For with the Father there is no diminution; unless perhaps they say, as in a great circle a smaller circle is contained, and within it again another smaller one, or after the likeness of a sphere or a square, that the Father contains within himself on every side the rest of the emission of the Aeons in the likeness of a sphere or square, each of them surrounded by the greater one above it and surrounding the smaller one after it; and that therefore the smallest and last of all, placed in the middle and far separated from the Father, did not know the Propator. But if they say this, they will shut up their Bythus in shape and circumscription, both surrounding and surrounded; for they will be forced to confess that there is something outside him that surrounds him. And none the less the talk of those that contain and are contained will run on to infinity, and all will plainly appear to be enclosed bodies.

Notes and citation

Summary: If the Aeons were emitted within the Father, none could be ignorant of him unless God is made a bounded body.

  • Running heads, margin references and a stray mark are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; running head; stray mark): Jam LIB. I. xv. igitur → Jam igitur; nec secundum xi. descensionem → nec secundum descensionem; inclusa esse ! omnes → inclusa esse omnes.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.13.6 (Harvey 1:282–284; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-13-6).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-13-6) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.13.7Harvey 1:284

Adhuc etiam aut vacuum esse eum confitebuntur, aut omne quod est intra eum; omnes similiter participabunt de Patre. Quemadmodum in aqua circulos si quis faciat, vel rotundas vel quadratas figuras, omnia haec similiter participabunt de aqua: quemadmodum et quze in aére fabricantur, necesse est participare de acre; et que in lumine, de lumine: sic et qui sunt intra eum, omnes similiter participabunt de Patre, ignorantia apud eos locum non habente. Ubi enim participatio Patris adimplentis? Si autem adimplevit, illic et ignorantia non erit. Solvetur igitur ipsorum deminorationis opera, et materie emissio, et reliqua mundi fabricatio, quae ex passione et ignorantia volunt substantiam habuisse. Si autem vacuum illum confitebuntur, in maximam incidentes blasphemiam, denegabunt id quod est spiritale ejus. Quemadmodum enim est spiritalis is, qui ne quidem ea quae intra eum sunt, adimplere potest

Further, they will confess either that he is void, or that all that is within him will equally share in the Father. As, if someone makes circles in water, or round or square figures, all these will equally share in the water, and things formed in air must share in air, and things in light in light: so those within him will all equally share in the Father, and ignorance will have no place among them. For where is the participation of the Father who fills them? If he has filled them, there will be no ignorance there. So their work of diminution is dissolved, and the emission of matter, and the rest of the making of the world, which they will have to have had its substance from passion and ignorance. But if they confess he is void, falling into the greatest blasphemy, they will deny his spiritual nature. For how is he spiritual who cannot even fill the things within him?

Notes and citation

Summary: All within the Father must share in him, leaving no room for ignorance; otherwise he is a void.

  • A stray letter is removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (stray letter): vel c. quadratas → vel quadratas.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.13.7 (Harvey 1:284; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-13-7).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-13-7) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.13.8Harvey 1:284–285

Hiec autem, que dicta sunt de sensus emissione, similiter et adversus eos, qui a Dasilide sunt, aptata sunt: et adversus reliquos Gnosticos, a quibus et hi initia emissionum accipientes, convieti sunt in primo libro. Sed quoniam quidem reprobabilis et impossibilis prima Noos, id est sensus, ipsorum emissio est, manifeste ostendimus. Videamus autem et de reliquis. Ab hoc enim Logon et Zoén fabricatores hujus Pleromatis dicunt emissos, et Logi, id est Verbi, quidem emissionem ab hominum affectione accipientes, et addivinantes adversus Deum, quasi aliquid magnum adinvenientes in eo quod dicunt, a Nu esse emissum Logon: quod quidem omnes videlicet sciunt, quoniam in hominibus quidem consequenter dicatur; in eo autem qui sit super omnes Deus, totus Nus et totus Logos cum sit, quemadmodum praediximus, et nec aliud antiquius,. nec posterius, aut aliud alterius habente in se, sed toto aequali et simili et uno perseverante, jam non talis hujus ordinationis sequetur emissio. Quemadmodum qui dicit eum totum visionem, et totum ipso et videt), non peccat: sic et qui ait, totum illum Sensum et totum Verbum, et in quo Sensus est in hoc et Verbum esse, et Verbum esse ejus hunc Nun, minus quidem adhue de Patre omnium sentiet; decentiora autem magis quam hi, qui generationem prolativi hominum verbi transferunt in Dei seternum Verbum, et prolationis initium donantes et genesin, quemadmodum et suo verbo. Et in quo distabit Dei Verbum, imo magis ipse Deus cum sit Verbum, a verbo hominum, si eandem habuerit ordinationem et emissionem generationis?

What has been said about the emission of mind fits likewise those who follow Basilides and the other Gnostics, from whom these too took the beginnings of emissions, and who were refuted in the first book. But that their first emission of Nus, that is, mind, is unacceptable and impossible we have plainly shown. Let us look at the rest. For from it they say Logos and Zoe, the makers of this Pleroma, were emitted; taking the emission of Logos, that is, the Word, from human affection, and guessing about God as though they had found something great in saying that Logos was emitted from Nus. All know, of course, that this is consistently said of men; but in God who is above all, since he is wholly Nus and wholly Logos, as we said before, and has nothing older or later, or one thing different from another, but remains wholly equal, like and one, such an emission in this order no longer follows. As one who says he is wholly sight and wholly hearing … does not err, so one who says he is wholly Mind and wholly Word, and that where Mind is there is the Word, and that this Mind is his Word, will still think too little of the Father of all, but more fittingly than those who transfer the generation of the uttered word of men to the eternal Word of God, giving it a beginning of utterance and a generation like their own word. And in what will the Word of God, or rather God himself, since he is the Word, differ from the word of men, if he has the same order and emission of generation?

Notes and citation

Summary: God is wholly Mind and wholly Word; to model the Word's generation on human speech gives the eternal Word a beginning.

  • Words are lost in the OCR, marked “…”; ANF's text has: “(for in what he sees, in that he also hears, and in what he hears, in that he also sees)”. Margin references and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; margin reference inside a word; stray mark; stray mark for a question mark): imrm. IL possibilis → impossibilis; manifeste on. 11. xvii. ostendimus → manifeste ostendimus; ^generationem → generationem; generationis ! → generationis?.

Topics: Christology, Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.13.8 (Harvey 1:284–285; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-13-8).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-13-8) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.13.9Harvey 1:285–286

Peccaverunt autem et circa Zoén, dicentes eam sexto loco emissam, quam oportebat omnibus praeponere, quoniam Deus vita est, et incorruptela, et veritas. Et non secundum descensionem et que sunt talia acceperunt emissiones; sed earum virtutum quse semper sunt cum Deo appellationes sunt, quemadmodum possibile est et dignum hominibus audire et dicere de Deo. Appellationi enim Dei coobaudientur sensus, et verbum, et vita, et incorruptela, et veritas, et sapientia, et bonitas, et omnia talia. Et neque sensum vita antiquiorem aliquis potest dicere, ipse enim sensus vita est; nec vitam posteriorem a sensu, uti non fiat aliquando sine vita is qui est omnium sensus, id est Deus. Si autem dixerint, in Patre quidem fuisse vitam, sexto autem loco prolatam, ut vivat Verbum; multo ante eam quidem oportebat quarto loco emitti, ut vivat Nus, et adhuc etiam ante hunc cum Bytho, ut vivat Bythus ipsorum: eum Propatore enim ipsorum annumerare quidem Sigen, et hanc conjugem ei donare, non connumerare autem Zoén, quomodo non super omnem est insipientiam?

They have also erred about Zoe, saying she was emitted in the sixth place, when she ought to have been put before all, since God is life, incorruption and truth. And such things did not receive emissions by descent; they are names of the powers that are always with God, as far as it is possible and fitting for men to hear and speak of God. For with the name of God are understood mind, word, life, incorruption, truth, wisdom, goodness and all such things. And no one can say that mind is older than life, for mind itself is life; nor that life is later than mind, so that he who is the mind of all, that is, God, should at some time be without life. But if they say that life was in the Father, but was brought forth in the sixth place so that the Word might live, much earlier it ought to have been emitted in the fourth place, so that Nus might live, and even before him, with Bythus, so that their Bythus might live. For to count Sige with their Propator and give her to him as consort, but not to count Zoe with him, how is this not beyond all folly?

Notes and citation

Summary: Life cannot come sixth, since God is life; mind, word, life and truth are names of God's eternal perfections, not successive emissions.

  • Running heads and margin references are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; running head; stray mark for a question mark): LIB. H. xv. et veritas → et veritas; neque sensum GR. I. Ἢ xxi vita → neque sensum vita; insipientiam ! → insipientiam?.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.13.9 (Harvey 1:285–286; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-13-9).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-13-9) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.13.10Harvey 1:286–287

De ea autem quz est ex his secunda emissione? Hominis et Ecclesiae, ipsi patres eorum falso cognominati Gnostici, pugnant adversus invicem, sua propria vindicantes, et malos fures semetipsos convincentes, aptabile esse magis emissioni dicentes, uti verisimile, ex Homine V erbüm, sed non ex Verbo Hominem emissum: et esse Hominem Verbo anteriorem, et hunc esse qui est super omnia Deus. Et usque hoc quidem, quemadmodum praediximus, omnes hominum affectiones, et motiones mentis, et generationes intentionum, et emissiones verborum conjieientes verisimiliter, non verisimiliter mentiti sunt adversus Deum. Ea enim quz accidunt hominibus, et quaecunque patientes ipsi recognoscunt, ad divinam rationem adducentes, apta dicere videntur apud eos qui ignorant Deum, et per humanas has passiones transducentes eorum sensum, genesin et probolen quinto loco Verbo Dei enarrantes, mirabilia mysteria et inenarrabilia et alta, a nullo alio cognita dicunt se docere, de quibus et dixerit Dominus: Quarite et invenietis, ut quaerant scilicet, qui de Bytho, et Sige, et Nu, et Alethia processerunt: si sunt ex eis rursus Logos et Zoe; dehinc ex Logo et Zoe, Anthropos et Ecclesia.

As for the second emission from these, of Anthropos and Ecclesia, their very fathers, the falsely named Gnostics, fight one another, each claiming his own, and proving themselves wicked thieves, saying it is more fitting for emission, as being plausible, that the Word was emitted from Man and not Man from the Word, and that Man is before the Word, and that he is the God who is above all. And so far, as we said before, heaping together plausibly all human affections, motions of mind, generations of intentions and emissions of words, they have lied implausibly against God. For by applying to the divine reason what happens to men and what they recognize themselves experiencing, they seem to say fitting things among those who do not know God; and, leading their minds through these human passions, while recounting the birth and emission of the Word of God in the fifth place, they say they teach wonderful, unspeakable and deep mysteries known to no one else, about which the Lord said, “Seek and you will find”: so that, of course, they should seek how Nus and Aletheia proceeded from Bythus and Sige, whether Logos and Zoe in turn come from them, and then Anthropos and Ecclesia from Logos and Zoe.

Matt 7:7 (quotation, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: The Gnostics quarrel over whether Man or Word came first, projecting human processes onto God and misusing 'Seek and you will find'.

  • Quotation: Matt 7:7. Harvey's chapter title (“That the emissions they speak of fit men rather than God”) and a misplaced chapter title at the end (“How the pagans gave a more plausible and pleasing account of the origin of all things, and how the Valentinians took their beginnings from them”) are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title; editor's chapter title, misplaced in the OCR): Quoniam he, que ab iis dicuntur emissiones, hominibus congruunt magis quam Deo. → ; Quomodo et hinc ethnici verisimilius de universorum generatione responderunt et gratius: et quomodo ab wpsis qui sunt a Valentino initia sumpserunt, ejusque sunt secundum eos regula. -1. → .

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.13.10 (Harvey 1:286–287; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-13-10).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-13-10) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

Against 2, chapter 14

2.14.1Harvey 1:287–289

Mutro verisimilius et gratius de universorum genesi dixit unus de veteribus Comicis Antiphanes in Theogonia. Ile enim de nocte et silentio Chaos emissum dicit, dehinc de Chao et nocte Cupidinem, et ex hoc lumen, dehinc reliquam secundum eum generationem inducit, et mundi fabricationem; dehinc de secundis fabulam, quasi naturali disputatione commenti sunt,- solummodo demutantes eorum nomina, idipsum autem universorum generationis initium et emissionem ostendentes; pro nocte et silentio, Bythum et Sigen nominantes; pro Chao autem, Nun; et pro Cupidine, (per quem, ait Comicus, reliqua omnia disposita) hi Verbum attraxerunt; et pro primis ac maximis diis, Aonas formaverunt; et pro secundis diis, eam, que est extra Pleroma, matris ipsorum enarrant dispositionem, secundam Ogdoaden vocantes eam; ex qua mundi fabricationem, et plasmationem hominum similiter atque ille annunciant, inenarrabilia et incognita mysteria solos se dicentes scire: qux ubique in theatris ab hypocritis splendidissimis vocibus comeedisantur, transferentes in suum argumentum, imo vero eisdem argumentis docentes, tantum immutantes nomina.

Much more plausibly and pleasingly did one of the old comic poets, Antiphanes, speak of the origin of all things in his Theogony. For he says Chaos was emitted from Night and Silence; then Love from Chaos and Night, and from him Light; then he brings in the rest of the generation [of the gods], in his view, and the making of the world; then of the second … the fable, they have fashioned as though by a natural discussion, merely changing the names, and showing the very same beginning and emission of the origin of all things: for Night and Silence they name Bythus and Sige; for Chaos, Nus; and for Love (through whom, the comic poet says, all the rest was arranged) they have brought in the Word; for the first and greatest gods they have formed the Aeons; and for the second gods they tell of the arrangement of their Mother outside the Pleroma, calling it the second Ogdoad; from which they proclaim, just as he does, the making of the world and the formation of men, saying that they alone know unspeakable and unknown mysteries; things which are played everywhere in the theatres by actors with the clearest voices, they transfer into their own system, or rather teach with the same plots, only changing the names.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: The Valentinian system copies the theogony of the comic poet Antiphanes, merely changing the names.

  • A line is lost in the OCR, marked “…”; ANF's text has: “gods, and then the formation of mankind by the second gods. These men, adopting this”. Antiphanes' Theogony survives only through such reports. Running heads, margin references and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (OCR debris (digit); margin reference; margin reference inside a word; running head; stray mark; stray marks): ! Antiphanes → Antiphanes; 2Cupidinem → Cupidinem; eum Gn. IL. ti. xix. * generationem → eum generationem; secundis 2iv. 11 fabulam → secundis fabulam; LIB. II. xviii, matris → matris; voΘΚ. 11. xix. cantes → vocantes; plasmationem — * 5 hominum → plasmationem hominum.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.14.1 (Harvey 1:287–289; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-14-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-14-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.14.2Harvey 1:289–291

Et non solum que apud Comicos posita sunt arguuntur quasi propria proferentes; sed etiam quz apud omnes, qui Deum ignorant, et qui dicuntur Philosophi, sunt dicta, hzec congregant et quasi centonem ex multis et pessimis panniculis consarcientes, finctum superficium subtili eloquio sibiipsis praeparaverunt: novam quidem introducentes doctrinam, propterea quod nunc nova arte substituta sit: veterem autem et inutilem, quoniam quidem de veteribus dogmatibus ignorantiam et irreligiositatem olentibus, hzec eadem subsuta sunt. Thales quidem Milesius universorum generationem et initium aquam dixit esse. Idem autem est dicere aquam et Bythum. Homerus autem poéta Oceanum deorum genesin, et matrem Thetin dogmatizavit: que quidem hi in Bythum et Sigen transtulerunt. Anaximander autem hoc quod immensum est omnium initium subjecit, seminaliter habens in semetipso omnium genesin, ex quo immensos mundos constare ait: et hoc autem in Bythum et in ZIZonas ipsorum transfiguraverunt. Anaxagoras autem, qui et Atheus cognominatus est, dogmatizavit facta animalia decidentibus e colo in terram seminibus: quod et hi ipsi in Matris sus transtulerunt semina, et esse hoc semen seipsos: statim confitentes apud eos, qui sensum habent, et ipsos esse que sunt Anaxagorae irreligiosi semina.

And not only are they shown to bring forward as their own what is found in the comic poets, but they gather what has been said by all who do not know God, the so-called philosophers, and, stitching together a patchwork from many miserable rags, they have prepared for themselves a feigned covering with subtle eloquence; introducing a doctrine new in that it has now been set up by a new art, but old and useless, since it has been stitched together from old teachings smelling of ignorance and irreligion. Thales of Miletus said that water was the origin and beginning of all things; and to say water is the same as to say Bythus. The poet Homer taught that Ocean was the origin of the gods, and Tethys their mother; and these men have transferred these to Bythus and Sige. Anaximander posited the infinite as the beginning of all things, having in itself the origin of all things as seed, from which, he says, immeasurable worlds arise; and this too they have transformed into Bythus and their Aeons. Anaxagoras, who was also called the Atheist, taught that animals were made from seeds falling from heaven onto the earth; and these men have transferred this to the seeds of their Mother, and say that they themselves are this seed; at once confessing, among those who have sense, that they themselves are the seeds of the irreligious Anaxagoras.

Notes and citation

Summary: The Gnostics have stitched their system together from the philosophers: Thales, Homer, Anaximander and Anaxagoras.

  • Allusions: Homer, Il. 14.201 (Ocean the origin of the gods, Tethys the mother); Thales and Anaximander (no entries in the list of extrabiblical texts). A fragment of Harvey's notes, margin references and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (OCR debris (digit); fragment of Harvey's notes and running head; margin reference; margin reference and stray marks; stray letters; stray mark): 5aquam → aquam; 9Homerus → Homerus; deorum lannunciant, Codd. CLAROM. Voss. LIP.ILxvi. genesin → deorum genesin; hi in GR IL. xix. Bythum → hi in Bythum; transtulerunt. } Anaximander → transtulerunt. Anaximander; es J dogmatizavit → dogmatizavit; terram 118. IL xvid. seminibus → terram seminibus; et GR. IL xix esse → et esse; sensum *" * 141. habent → sensum habent.

Extrabiblical texts: Homer, Il. 14.201 (Homer, Iliad; allusion); Anaxagoras (Anaxagoras; allusion)

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.14.2 (Harvey 1:289–291; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-14-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-14-2) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.14.3Harvey 1:291–292

Umbram autem et vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epicuro sumentes sibimetipsis aptaverunt, cum illi primum multum sermonem confecerint de vacuo et de atomis, quorum alterum quidem quid esse vocaverunt, alterum vero, hoc quod non est, appellaverunt: quemadmodum et hi esse quidem illa, que sunt intra Pleroma, vocant, quemadmodum ili atomos; non esse autem haec, que sunt extra Pleroma, quemadmodum illi vacuum. Semetipsos ergo in hoc mundo, cum sint extra Pleroma, in locum qui non est deputaverunt. Quod autem dicunt imagines esse haec eorum que sunt, rursus manifestissime Democriti et Platonis sententiam edisserunt. Democritus enim primus ait, multas et varias ab universitate figuras expressas descendisse in hunc mundum. Plato vero rursus materiam dicit, et exemplum, et Deum. Quos isti sequentes, figuras illius et exemplum imagines eorum qui sunt sursum, vocaverunt, per demutationem nominis semetipsos inventores et factores hujusmodi imaginari: fictionis gloriantes.

Their shadow and void they took from Democritus and Epicurus and fitted to themselves, since those first discussed at length the void and the atoms, calling the one what is and the other what is not; just as these men call what is within the Pleroma what is, as those called the atoms, and what is outside the Pleroma what is not, as those called the void. So they have placed themselves, being in this world outside the Pleroma, in the place that is not. And when they say these things are images of what is, they are again most plainly setting out the opinion of Democritus and Plato. For Democritus first said that many and various figures, stamped from the universe, came down into this world; and Plato speaks of matter, the pattern, and God. Following them, these men have called his figures and pattern images of the things above, and by a change of name imagine themselves the inventors and makers of such a fiction, boasting of it.

Notes and citation

Summary: The Gnostics' void and images come from Democritus, Epicurus and Plato.

  • Running heads, margin references and stray marks are removed; a broken word (mundum) is restored.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (broken word joined to the next; margin reference; running head; stray mark; stray marks; OCR slip): et? Epicuro → et Epicuro; alterum L1B.11.xvii, quidem → alterum quidem; est, GR. ΗΠ xix appellaverunt → est, appellaverunt; sunt x'-$ jntra → sunt intra; mun1Plato → mundum. Plato.

Extrabiblical texts: Democritus (Democritus (fragments); allusion); Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments); allusion); Plato, Tim. 28a–29b (Plato (works); allusion)

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.14.3 (Harvey 1:291–292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-14-3).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-14-3) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.14.4Harvey 1:292

Et hoc autem quod ex subjecta materia dicunt fabricatorem fecisse mundum, et Anaxagoras, et Empedocles, et Plato primi ante hos dixerunt; ut videlicet datur intelligi, et ipei a Matre sua inspirati. Quod autem ex necessitate unumquodque in illa secedit, ex quibus et factum esse dicunt; et hujus necessitatis servum esse Deum, ita ut non possit mortali immortalitatem addere, vel corruptibili incorruptelam donare, sed secedere unumquemque in similem nature suae substantiam, et hi qui ex porticu Stoici appellantur, et universi quotquot Deum ignorant, poéte et conscriptores affirmant. Eandem habentes infidelitatem, spiritalibus quidem suam regionem attribuerunt, eam que est intra Pleroma: animalibus autem medietatis: corporalibus autem, quod choicum: et preter hc nihil posse Deum, sed unumquemque praedictorum ad ea, quae sunt ejusdem substantiae, secedere affirmant.

And that the maker made the world from underlying matter, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Plato said first, before these men; inspired, it seems, by their Mother too. That each thing necessarily departs into those from which they say it was made, and that God is a slave of this necessity, so that he cannot add immortality to the mortal or give incorruption to the corruptible, but each departs into a substance like its own nature: this the so-called Stoics from the Porch affirm, and all poets and writers who do not know God. Holding the same unbelief, they have assigned to the spiritual their own region, within the Pleroma; to the animal, the middle; to the bodily, the earthly; and they affirm that God can do nothing besides this, but each of these departs to things of the same substance.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: Creation from pre-existing matter and the rule of necessity over God come from Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Plato and the Stoics.

  • Words lost in the scan of Harvey's edition are supplied from Stieren's edition. Running heads, margin references and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (OCR debris (digit); margin reference; margin reference inside a word; running head inside a word; stray marks): fabricaGR. IL xx torem → fabricatorem; et ' Anaxagoras, et * Empedocles, et? Plato → et Anaxagoras, et Empedocles, et Plato; 4servum → servum; unumLIB. quemque → unumquemque; porticu 9! OR | 1) xix 1 Stoici → porticu Stoici.

Extrabiblical texts: Anaxagoras (Anaxagoras; allusion); Empedocles (Empedocles (fragments); allusion); Plato, Tim. 30a (Plato (works); allusion)

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.14.4 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-14-4).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-14-4) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.14.5Harvey 1:292

Quod autem Salvatorem ex omnibus factum esse ZEonibus dicant, omnibus in eum deponentibus velut florem suum, non extra Hesiodi Pandoram novum aliquid afferunt. Quze enim ille ait de illa, heec hi de Salvatore insinuant, Pandoron introducentes eum, quasi unusquisque ZEonum, quod haberet optimum, donaverit ei. Ipsam autem eduliorum et reliquarum operationum indifferentem sententiam, et quod putent a nemine in totum posse coinquinari propter generositatem, licet quodcunque manducent vel operentur, a Cynicis possederunt, cum sint cum eis ejusdem testamenti. Et minutiloquium, et subtilitatem circa questiones, cum sit Aristotelicum, inferre fidei conantur.

And when they say the Saviour was made from all the Aeons, each depositing in him as it were its flower, they bring nothing new beyond Hesiod's Pandora. For what he says of her, these men insinuate of the Saviour, presenting him as Pandoros (All-gifted), as though each of the Aeons had given him what it had best. Their opinion that food and other actions are indifferent, and that they think they can be defiled by no one at all because of their noble birth, whatever they eat or do, they have taken from the Cynics, since they belong to the same company. And they try to bring into the faith hair-splitting and subtlety about questions, which is Aristotelian.

Notes and citation

Summary: The Saviour 'made from all the Aeons' copies Hesiod's Pandora; their indifference to conduct comes from the Cynics, their subtlety from Aristotle.

  • Allusion: Hesiod, Works and Days 60–82 (Pandora). Stray marks and digits are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (OCR debris (digit); margin debris; stray mark; stray marks): ! Pandoron → Pandoron; manducent 6 vel → manducent vel; minutiloquium^*, → minutiloquium,; conantur. 5. € → conantur..

Extrabiblical texts: Hesiod, Op. 60-82 (Hesiod, Works and Days; allusion); Aristotle (Aristotle (works); allusion)

Topics: Heresy, Christology

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.14.5 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-14-5).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-14-5) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.14.6Harvey 1:292

Quod autem velint in numeros transferre universum hoc, a Pythagoricis acceperunt. Primum enim hi initium omnium numeros substituerunt, et initium ipsorum parem et imparem, ex quibus et ea que sensibilia et insensata sunt, subjecerunt. Et altera quidem substitutionis initia esse: altera autem sensationis et substantiae: ex quibus primis omnia perfecta dicunt, quemadmodum statuam de aeramento et de formatione. Hoc autem ii his qui sunt extra Pleroma aptaverunt. Sensationis autem initia dixerunt, in quem sensus intelligens est ejus quod primum assumptum est, querit quoadusque defatigata ad unum et indivisibile concurrat. Et esse omnium initium, et substantiam universe generationis Hen, id est Unum: ex hoc autem Dyadem, et Tetradem, et Pentadem, et reliquorum multifariam generationem. H:ec hi ad verbum de Plenitudine suorum et Bytho dicunt: unde etiam et eas quz sunt de uno, conjugationes annituntur introducere, quze Marcus velut sua jactans, velut novius aliquid visus est preter reliquos adinvenisse, Pythagorae quaternationem, velut genesin et matrem omnium enarrans.

And their wish to turn this universe into numbers they took from the Pythagoreans. For these first set numbers as the beginning of all things, and their beginning the even and the odd, from which they posited both perceptible and imperceptible things; and that some are beginnings of underlying matter and others of perception and form, from which first things all things are completed, as a statue from bronze and shaping. This these men have fitted to the things outside the Pleroma. The beginnings of perception they said are where the mind, understanding what is first taken up, searches until, wearied, it comes to the one and indivisible. And the beginning of all things and substance of all generation is Hen, that is, One; and from it the Dyad, the Tetrad, the Pentad, and the manifold generation of the rest. These men say this word for word of their Pleroma and Bythus; whence also they strive to introduce the conjunctions that come from the One, which Marcus, boasting of them as his own, seemed to have found as something newer than the rest, setting out the Tetrad of Pythagoras as the origin and mother of all things.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: Their number-mysticism, and Marcus's Tetrad, come from the Pythagoreans.

  • Words lost in the scan of Harvey's edition are supplied from Stieren's edition. A margin reference and a stray mark are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; stray mark): GR. hi xix. 2ex quibus → ex quibus; ! Et altera → Et altera.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.14.6 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-14-6).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-14-6) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.14.7Harvey 1:292

Dicemus autem adversus eos: utrumne hi omnes qui praedicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini, cognoverunt veritatem, aut non cognoverunt?* Et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est Salvatoris in hune mundum descensio. Ut quid enim descendebat? An nunquid ut eam que cognoscebatur veritas, in agnitionem adduceret his, qui cognoscunt eam hominibus? Si autem non cognoverunt; quemadmodum eadem cum his, qui veritatem non cognoscebant, dicentes, solos vosmetipsos eam que est super omnia cognitio habere gloriamini, quam etiam, qui ignorant Deum, habent? Secundum antiphrasin ergo veritatis ignorantiam agnitionem vocant, et bene Paulus ait vocum novitates false agnitionis. Vere enim falsa agnitio ipsorum inventa est. Si autem impudenter agentes super haec dicent, homines quidem non cognovisse veritatem, Matrem autem ipsorum, semen paternale, per tales homines, quemadmodum et per Prophetas, enunciasse mysteria veritatis, ignorante Demiurgo: primo quidem non talia enarrant, quae sunt praedicta, ut non et a quolibet intelligantur: etenim ipsi homines sciebant quz dicebant, et discipuli ipsorum, et horum successores; post deinde, vel Mater vel semen si cognoscebant et enarrabant ea que erant veritatis, veritas autem pater, Salvator ergo secundum eos erit mentitus, dicens: Memo cognovit Patrem, nisi Filius. Si enim cognitus est vel a matre, vel a semine ejus, solutum est illud, quod Nemo cognovit Patrem nist Filius; nisi si semen ipsorum, vel matrem neminem esse dicunt.

But we shall say against them: did all these men mentioned, with whom you are shown to say the same things, know the truth or not? If they knew it, the Saviour's descent into this world was superfluous; for why did he descend? Was it to bring into knowledge, for men who knew it, the truth that was already known? But if they did not know it, how is it that, saying the same things as those who did not know the truth, you boast that you alone have the knowledge above all things, which even those who do not know God have? By antiphrasis, then, they call ignorance of the truth knowledge, and Paul well says, “novelties of words of false knowledge.” For their knowledge has truly been found false. And if, acting shamelessly about this, they say that men did not know the truth, but that their Mother, the Father's seed, announced the mysteries of truth through such men, as also through the prophets, while the Demiurge did not know: first, the things mentioned are not such as no one could understand; for these men knew what they were saying, and so did their disciples and their successors. Then, if either the Mother or the seed knew and declared the things of the truth, and the truth is the Father, then according to them the Saviour lied when he said, “No one has known the Father except the Son.” For if he was known either by the Mother or by her seed, the saying “No one has known the Father except the Son” is dissolved; unless they say their seed or Mother is no one.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

1 Tim 6:20 (allusion, medium confidence) · Matt 11:27 (quotation, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: If the philosophers knew the truth, the Saviour's coming was needless; if not, the Gnostics' 'knowledge' is theirs too, and false.

  • Words lost in the scan of Harvey's edition are supplied from Stieren's edition. Allusions: 1 Tim 6:20; Matt 11:27 (quoted, “has known”). Margin references and a stray mark are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; stray mark): 9*.1L xi Si autem → Si autem; homines quidem ziv. 7. non → homines quidem non; ipsorum, * semen → ipsorum, semen.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.14.7 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-14-7).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-14-7) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.14.8Harvey 1:292

Et usque hoc quidem per humanas affectiones, et per id quod similia dicant multis ignorantibus Deum, verisimiliter visi sunt abstrahere quosdam, attrahentes per ea ' quze assueti sunt in eum qui est de omnibus sermonem, Verbi Dei genesin exponentes, et [Veritatis et] Vite, adhuc etiam Sensus, et Dei emissiones obstetricantes. Que autem ex his non verisimiliter et sine ostensione, omnia ex omnibus mentiti sunt. Quemadmodum qui assuetas escas, et ut illiciant, praemittunt, uti capiant aliquod animal, sensim blandientes eis per assueta pabula, quousque accipiant; sumentes autem ea captiva, alligant amarissime, et ducunt per vim abstrahentes quocunque ipsi voluerint: sic autem et hi paulatim mansueti dissuadentes per pithanologiam assumere predictam emissionem, inferunt neque congruentia, neque opinatas reliquarum emissionum species ex Logo quidem et Zoe [decem] dicentes /Eonas emissos, de Anthropo autem et Ecclesia, duodecim: et horum nec ostensionem, nec testimonia, nec verisimilitudinem, nec in totum aliquid talium habentes, frustra autem et prout evenit, /Eonis exsistentibus emissum esse Bythium et Mixin, Insenescibilem et Unitionem, Naturalem et Delectamentum, Immobilem et Contemperamentum, Monogenem et Macariam. De Anthropo autem et Ecclesia similiter Aconis exsistentibus emissum esse Paracletum et Pistin, Patricon et Elpida, Metricon et Agapen, Ainon et Synesin, Ecclesiasticum et Macarioteta, Theleton et Sophiam.

So far, then, through human affections, and by saying things like many who do not know God, they have seemed plausibly to draw some away, attracting them by what they are used to into a discourse about all things, expounding the birth of the Word of God and of [Truth and] Life, and also of Mind, and acting as midwives to the emissions of God. But what follows from these they have lied implausibly and without proof, all of it from beginning to end. Like those who set out familiar food as bait to catch some animal, coaxing it little by little with familiar fodder until they take it, and once captured bind it most bitterly and drag it by force wherever they wish: so these men, gently and little by little persuading by plausible speech to accept the emission mentioned, bring in things neither consistent nor expected as forms of the other emissions, saying that [ten] Aeons were emitted from Logos and Zoe, and twelve from Anthropos and Ecclesia; having neither proof, nor testimony, nor plausibility, nor anything at all of the kind for these, but at random and as it happens: that from Aeons there were emitted Bythius and Mixis, Ageratos and Henosis, Autophyes and Hedone, Acinetos and Syncrasis, Monogenes and Macaria; and likewise from Anthropos and Ecclesia, being Aeons, were emitted Paracletus and Pistis, Patricos and Elpis, Metricos and Agape, Ainos and Synesis, Ecclesiasticus and Macariotes, Theletos and Sophia.

Notes and citation

Summary: The heretics lure people with plausible talk of the Word's generation, then impose the baseless names of the further Aeons.

  • The Latin translates most of the Aeons' names (e.g. Insenescibilis, Unitio, Naturalis, Delectamentum, Immobilis, Contemperamentum); they are given in their Greek forms as in 1.1.2. “Truth and” and “ten” are Harvey's supplements. Running heads, margin references, his note on a reading and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (Harvey's note on a reading; margin reference; running head; stray letter; stray letters; stray mark): per id LIB. II. quod → per id quod; visi 9R. CIE iie sunt → visi sunt; assueti sunt in E eum → assueti sunt in eum; *[Veritatis et] → [Veritatis et]; emissiones 1. vi. obstetricantes → emissiones obstetricantes; neque * opinatas → neque opinatas; */Eonas → /Eonas; Bythum ] Bythium] → Bythium; ! Naturalem → Naturalem; c.u Theleton → Theleton.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.14.8 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-14-8).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-14-8) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.14.9Harvey 1:292

Hujus autem Sophie passiones et errorem, et quemadmodum periclitata est perire propter inquisitionem Patris, quemadmodum dicunt, et extra Pleroma operositatem, et ex quali labe mundi fabricatorem emissum docent, in eo qui est ante hunc libro sententias hsereticorum enarrantes, cum omni diligentia exposuimus: Christum autem, quem postgenitum his omnibus emissum esse dicunt, et Sotera autem ex his qui in labe facti sunt /Eonibus habuisse substantiam. Necessario autem nunc nominum istorum meminimus, ut ex istis sit manifestum absurdum eorum mendacium, et confusio fictae nominationis. Ipsi autem detrahunt /Eonibus suis hujusmodi appellationibus multis, ethnicis verisimilia et credibilia apponentibus nomina his qui vocantur duodecim dii ipsorum, quos et ipsos imagines duodecim ZEonibus esse volunt; imaginibus multo decentiora, et magis potentia, per etymologiam ad intentionem divinitatis. adducere nomina habentibus.

The passions and error of this Sophia, how she was in danger of perishing through her search for the Father, as they say, and her labour outside the Pleroma, and from what deficiency they teach the world-maker was emitted, we set out with all diligence in the book before this, recounting the heretics' opinions; and Christ, whom they say was emitted after all these, and that Soter had his substance from the Aeons who came to be in deficiency. But we have now mentioned these names of necessity, so that from them their absurd lie and the confusion of their invented naming may be plain. They themselves disparage their Aeons by many such names, while the pagans give plausible and credible names to those called their twelve gods, whom these men also will have to be images of the twelve Aeons: the images having names far more fitting and more able, by etymology, to lead the mind to divinity.

Notes and citation

Summary: Irenaeus lists the Aeons' names to show their absurdity; even the pagan gods, supposedly their images, have better names.

  • Stray marks and a digit are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (OCR debris (digit); stray mark; stray marks; OCR slip): Pleroma ˆ operositatem → Pleroma operositatem; quem 7 postgenitum → quem postgenitum; ^ Necessariex: → Necessario; */Eonibus → /Eonibus.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.14.9 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-14-9).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-14-9) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

Against 2, chapter 15

2.15.1Harvey 1:292

Revertramur autem nos ad praedictam emissionum quaestionem. Et primo quidem dicant nobis causam hujusmodi emissionis Atonum, ut nihil tangant eorum que sunt conditionis. Non enim illa propter conditionem dicunt facta, sed conditionem propter illa: et non illa horum imagines, sed haec illorum esse dicunt. Quemadmodum igitur imaginum causam reddunt dicentes, mensem quidem triginta habere dies propter triginta 7Eonas, et diem duodecim horas, et annum duodecim menses, propter duodecim /7Eonas quz sunt intra Pleroma, et qusecunque alia delirant; nune dicant nobis causam istam Z7Eonum emissionis, quid quia facta est talis: propter quid autem prima et archegonos omnium octonatio emissa est, et non quinio, vel trinitas, aut septenatio, aut aliquid eorum, que in alterum numerum confiniuntur? Et quid quia ex Logo et Zoe decem emissi sunt /Eones, et non plures aut minus: et rursus ex Anthropo et Ecclesia duodecim, cum possent et haec, aut plus aut minus fieri?

But let us return to the question of emissions mentioned before. First let them tell us the reason for such an emission of the Aeons, without touching anything belonging to creation. For they say those were not made because of creation, but creation because of them; and that those are not images of these, but these of those. As, then, they give the reason for the images, saying the month has thirty days because of the thirty Aeons, the day twelve hours and the year twelve months because of the twelve Aeons within the Pleroma, and whatever other nonsense they talk, let them now tell us the reason for this emission of the Aeons: why it was such; why the first and archetypal Ogdoad of all was emitted, and not a Pentad, or a Triad, or a Heptad, or any of those bounded by another number. And why were ten Aeons emitted from Logos and Zoe, and not more or fewer; and again twelve from Anthropos and Ecclesia, when these too could have been more or fewer?

Notes and citation

Summary: Irenaeus asks the Valentinians to give a reason for the numbers of their Aeons apart from creation.

  • Harvey's chapter title (“Question about every kind of emission, and the inconsistency of the Pleroma”) is removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title): Quastio de omn? specie emissionis, et de Pleromatis tnconsequentia. → .

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.15.1 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-15-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-15-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.15.2Harvey 1:292

Universe quoque Pleroma, quid utique tripartitum est in octonationem, et decadem, - et duodecadem: et non alterum quendam preter hos numerum? Et divisio autem ipsa quid utique in tres, et non in quatuor, vel quinque, vel sex, vel in alterum quendam facta est numerum nihil tangentes eorum numerorum, qui sunt conditionis? antiquiora enim illa his dicunt, et oportet ea propriam habere rationem; eam quse est ante constitutionem, sed non eam quz est secundum constitutionem consentientes ad consonationem.

And why is the whole Pleroma divided in three, into an Ogdoad, a Decad and a Duodecad, and not into some other number besides these? And why was the division itself made into three, and not into four, or five, or six, or some other number, without touching the numbers of creation? For they say those are older than these, and they must have their own reason, the one that comes before the constitution, not one that agrees with the harmony of the constitution.

Notes and citation

Summary: Why the Pleroma is divided into eight, ten and twelve must be explained from the Pleroma itself, not from creation.

  • Running heads and margin references are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; running head): propriam habere 303 | LIB. II. xix. rationem → propriam habere rationem; est GR. li. xx. secundum → est secundum.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.15.2 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-15-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-15-2) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.15.3Harvey 1:292

Quam quidem nos de conditione enuntiantes, aptabilia dicimus; apta est enim hec rhythmizatio his que facta sunt huie rhythmizationi: illos autem propriam causam de his que anteriora sunt, et a semetipsis perfecta, non habentes enuntiare, in summam aporiam incidere necesse est. Qus enim nos de constitutione velut ignorantes interrogant, ipsi de Pleromate e contrario interrogati, vel humanas affectiones enarrabunt, vel in eum descendent sermonem, qui est erga consonantiam que est in creatura, improprie respondentes de secundis, et non secundum eos de primis. Non enim de ea quz» est secundum creaturam consonantia, nec de humanis affectionibus interrogamus eos; sed quia utique Pleroma ipsorum, cujus imaginem creaturam esse dicunt, octiforme, et deciforme, et duodeciforme est, vane et improvide Pleroma ejusmodi figurae effecisse Patrem ipsorum fatebuntur, et deformitatem circumdabunt Patri, gi irrationabiliter aliquid fecit. Aut rursus si secundum providentiam Patris dicent sic emissum Pleroma propter creaturam, uti bene rhythmizati ipsam essentiam, jam non propter se factum erit Pleroma, sed propter eam quz secundum similitudinem ipsius futura esset imago: (quemadmodum quze de luto est, non propter semetipsam figuratur statua; sed propter eam quze ex seramento, vel auro, vel argento habet fieri) et honoratior creatura erit quam Pleroma, si propter illam illa emissa sunt.

This harmony we, speaking of creation, say fittingly; for this rhythm fits the things made for this rhythm. But they, having no proper reason to declare about the things that are prior and complete in themselves, must fall into the greatest perplexity. For what they ask us about the constitution, as though we did not know, they themselves, asked in turn about the Pleroma, will either recount human affections or go down to the discourse about the harmony in creation, answering improperly about secondary things and not, by their own account, about the first. For we do not ask them about the harmony in creation, nor about human affections; but since their Pleroma, of which they say creation is an image, is eight-formed, ten-formed and twelve-formed, they will confess that their Father made the Pleroma of such a shape vainly and without foresight, and will surround the Father with unseemliness, if he made something without reason. Or again, if they say the Pleroma was emitted so by the Father's providence for the sake of creation, so that its very essence might be well proportioned, then the Pleroma will no longer have been made for its own sake, but for the sake of the image that was to be after its likeness (as a clay statue is not shaped for its own sake but for the one to be made of bronze, gold or silver); and creation will be more honoured than the Pleroma, if those were emitted for its sake.

Notes and citation

Summary: If the Pleroma's shape has no reason, the Father acted irrationally; if it was shaped for creation's sake, creation is more honoured than the Pleroma.

  • A margin reference, a broken word and a stray mark are corrected.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; split word; stray mark): Quam 6. xv-% quidem → Quam quidem; affectioni, bus → affectionibus; creaturam, * uti → creaturam, uti.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.15.3 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-13-1/#p-2-15-3).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-15-3) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).