Against Heresies 2.16.1–2.18.7

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.

BothSource textEnglish

Show only the passage I followed

Against 2, chapter 16

2.16.1Harvey 1:292

Quoniam si quis transmotus fuerit a Demiurgo, in multos Deos et infinitos mundos excidere eum necesse est. Si autem nulli eorum assentire voluerint, quoniam convincentur a nobis, non habentes reddere causam talis emissionis Pleromatis ipsorum, cogentur concludi, uti confiteantur supra Pleroma alteram quandam esse dispositionem magis spiritalem, et magis dominantem, secundum quam deformatum est Pleroma ipsorum. Si enim Demiurgus non a semetipso figurationem creature fabricavit talem, sed secundum illorum quz: sursum erant figuram; Bythus ipsorum, qui utique hujusmodi figurationis perfecit esse Pleroma, vel a quo figuram eorum que ante ipsum facta sunt, accepit? Oportet enim vel in eo Deo qui fecerit mundum perseverare sententiam, quoniam sua potestate et a semetipso accepit exemplum mundi fabricationis: vel si motus quis ab hoc fuerit, semper quaerendi necessitas erit, unde ei qui super eum est, figuratio eorum qus facta sunt, quis et numerus emissionum, et substantia ipsius exempli? Si autem licuit Bytho a semetipso talem figurationem Pleromatis perficere; quid utique Demiurgo non licuit a semetipso mundum talem fecisse? Rursum igitur si illorum imago conditio est, quid prohibet illa eorum que super ea sunt imagines esse dicere, et quz» super ea sunt, rursus aliorum; et in immensas imagines imaginum excidere?

For if anyone is moved away from the Demiurge, he must fall into many gods and infinite worlds. But if they will agree with none of these conclusions, because they are refuted by us, having no account to give of such an emission of their Pleroma, they will be forced to conclude by confessing that above the Pleroma there is some other dispensation, more spiritual and more sovereign, after which their Pleroma was shaped. For if the Demiurge did not make such a form of creation from himself, but after the pattern of the things above, then from where did their Bythus, who brought it about that the Pleroma should be of such a form, receive the pattern of the things made before him? For either one must hold fast to the view about the God who made the world, that by his own power and from himself he received the model for fashioning the world; or, if one moves away from him, there will always be the necessity of asking from where the one above him got the form of the things that were made, what the number of the emissions is, and what the substance of the model itself is. But if Bythus was free to bring about such a form of the Pleroma from himself, why was the Demiurge not free to have made such a world from himself? Again, then, if creation is an image of those things, what prevents us from saying that those are images of the things above them, and those above them again of others, and so falling into endless images of images?

Notes and citation

Summary: If the Demiurge copied a higher pattern, the same question arises about Bythus, and the chain of models never ends.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (margin debris; page/margin numbers inside a word; split word with margin debris; stray mark): «infinitos → infinitos; convinx. centur → convincentur; crea118. rt. xx. ture → creature; erant 6R. pu figuram → erant figuram.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.16.1 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-16-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-16-1) · 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).

2.16.2Harvey 1:292

Sicut passus est Basilides, cum minime attigisset veritatem, et putans per immensam successionem eorum, quz ex invicem facta sunt, effugere talem aporiam; quando cccuxv celos per successionem et similitudinem ab invicem factos enuntiavit, et horum ostensionem esse numerum anni dierum, quemadmodum praediximus: et super hos virtutem, quam et innominabilem vocant, et hujus dispositionem: et nec sic quidem effugit talem aporiam. Interrogatus enim unde caelo ei qui est super omnes, ex quo reliquos per successionem factos vult, figurationis imago? Ab ea dispositione, dicet, quae est secundum innominabilem. Et aut innominabilem a semetipso fecisse dicet eam; vel alteram quandam super hunc potestatem esse consentire necesse habebit, ex qua accepit innominabilis ejus tantam eorum quze sunt secundum eum figurationem.

This is what happened to Basilides. Since he had not touched the truth at all, and thought that by an endless succession of beings made from one another he could escape such a difficulty, he declared that 365 heavens were made in succession and in likeness to one another, and that the proof of them is the number of the days of the year, as we said before; and that above these is a power which they also call unnameable, with its dispensation. Even so he did not escape such a difficulty. For if he is asked from where the heaven that is above all, from which he wants the rest to have been made in succession, got the image of its form, he will say: from the dispensation that belongs to the unnameable. And then either he will say that the unnameable made it from himself, or he will have to agree that there is some other power above him, from which his unnameable received so great a form of the things that belong to him.

Notes and citation

Summary: Basilides' 365 heavens only push the same question back to his unnameable power.

Basilides' system was described in 1.24.3–7.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (stray mark): fecisse * dicet → fecisse dicet.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.16.2 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-16-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-16-2) · Report an error

2.16.3Harvey 1:292

Quanto igitur tutius et diligentius, quod est verum statim initio confiteri, quoniam fabricator Deus hic, qui mundum talem fecit, solus est Deus, et non est alius Deus preter eum; ipse a semetipso exemplum et figurationem eorum quz facta sunt, accipiens: quam post tantam irreligiositatem et circuitum defessos, cogi aliquando in aliquo uno statuere sensum, et ex eo figurationem factorem …

How much safer and more careful it is, then, to confess at the start what is true: that this God, the Fashioner who made such a world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides him, who received from himself the model and form of the things that were made; rather than, worn out after so much irreligion and circling about, to be forced at last to fix the mind on some one being, and [to confess] that from him came the form of the things made …

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: It is safer to confess from the start that the Creator is the only God and took the model of creation from himself.

The digital text breaks off at the end of the section; the last clause is completed by sense (“to confess that the form of the things made came from him”). Harvey's note conjectures factorum (“of things made”) for the printed factorem.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (page/margin numbers; stray mark and margin debris at the broken end of the section): in 118.11. aliquo → in aliquo; figurationem * factorem xx. e → figurationem factorem ….

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.16.3 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-16-3).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-16-3) · Report an error

2.16.4Harvey 1:292

Quoniam que nobis qui sumus ab Ecclesia, imputant ü qui sunt a Valentino, ulis rursus imputant hi qui sunt a Basilide, et allis item alu. Erenim hoc quod imputant nobis qui sunt a Valentino, in ea quz est deorsum hebdomade dicentes nos remanere, quasi non attollentes in altum mentem, neque qus sursum sunt sentientes, quoniam portentiloquium ipsorum non recipimus, hoc idem ipsum qui a Basilide sunt his imputant, quasi his adhuc circa ea que deorsum sunt volutantibus usque ad primam et secundam octonationem, et post triginta /Eonas indocte putare eos statim invenisse eum qui supra omnia est Patrem, non investigantes sensu in id quod est super cccixv coelos Pleroma, que est supra quadraginta quinque ogdoadas. Et illis iterum juste quis imputabit, fingens quatuor millia et ccc et rxxx coelos vel JEonas: quoniam hi dies anni tantas horas habent. Si autem quis et noctium apponat, duplicans predictas horas, magnam multitudinem octonationum, et innumerabilem quandam /Eonum operositatem putans adinvenisse, adversus eum qui est super omnia Pater omnium semetipsum perfectiorem suspicans, eadem omnibus imputabit; quoniam non sufficiant in altitudinem ejus quze ab ipso dicebatur multitudo coelorum vel /Eonum; sed deficientes vel in ea quz: sunt deorsum, vel in medietate perseverant.

For what the Valentinians charge against us who are of the Church, the Basilideans charge in turn against them, and others again against others. The very charge that the Valentinians bring against us, saying that we remain in the lower Hebdomad, as if we did not lift up our minds on high or understand the things above, because we do not accept their monstrous talk, the Basilideans bring against them: that they are still tossing about among the things below, up to the first and second Ogdoad, and that after the thirty Aeons they ignorantly suppose they have at once found the Father who is above all, not searching out with their minds the Pleroma that is above the 365 heavens, which is above forty-five Ogdoads. And one might justly bring the same charge against them in turn by inventing 4,380 heavens or Aeons, because the days of the year have that many hours. And if someone adds the nights as well, doubling those hours, and thinks he has found a great multitude of Ogdoads and an innumerable labor of Aeons, supposing himself more perfect than all in relation to the Father of all who is above all, he will bring the same charge against everyone: that the multitude of heavens or Aeons spoken of by them does not reach to its height, but that they fall short and remain either among the things below or in the middle.

Notes and citation

Summary: Each sect accuses the one below it of not rising high enough, and anyone could outbid them all with a larger number of heavens.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.16.4 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-16-4).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-16-4) · Report an error

Against 2, chapter 17

2.17.1Harvey 1:292

Ejus igitur quz est secundum pleroma ipsorum dispositionis, et maxime ejus que est secundum primam ogdoadem, tantas contradictiones et aporias habentes, inspiciamus et reliqua; propter illorum insensationem, et nos de his que non sunt querentes; necessarie autem et hoc facientes, quoniam hujus rei credita est nobis procuratio, et qui velimus omnes homines ad agnitionem veritatis venire: et quoniam tu ipse postulaveris accipere a nobis multas et universas eversionis eorum occasiones,

Since, then, the dispensation of their Pleroma, and above all that of the first Ogdoad, involves so many contradictions and difficulties, let us examine the rest as well. Because of their folly we too must inquire into things that do not exist; yet we do this of necessity, because the care of this matter has been entrusted to us, and because we wish all people to come to the knowledge of the truth, and because you yourself have asked to receive from us many and complete means of overthrowing them.

1 Tim 2:4 (allusion, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Irenaeus turns to examine how the rest of the Aeons were supposedly emitted.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (Harvey's footnotes leaked into the text; footnote number; margin debris; split word with margin debris): disposix.! tionis → dispositionis; 9habentes → habentes; ad 1 Statuere, ἐρείδειν, BILLIUB; but 5 Habentes] Legendum, nisi me ani3 Factorum legendum conjicio; sicut — Grecos ταύτης ἐχούσης in Latino retinere Jgurationem eorum que facta sunt, Gr. Interpreti pro more placuisse videtur, cum 4 1. qui, i.e. numerus. dendi essent, Sed ct vulgata lectio retiv. agnitionem → ad agnitionem; acciLr» rm. pere → accipere; ΘΒ. lI xxi → .

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.1 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-1) · Report an error

2.17.2Harvey 1:292

Quecritur igitur, quemadmodum emissi. sunt reliqui Aeones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim, et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo, et a pecude pecus? Aut secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum ejusdem substantie exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut ejusdem temporis essent sibi; an secundum ordinem quendam, ita ut antiquiores quidam ipsorum, alii vero juveniores essent? Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes, et undique sibi aequales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt; an compositi et differentes, dissimiles membris suis?

I ask, then: how were the rest of the Aeons emitted? Were they united with the one who emitted them, as rays from the sun, or as distinct effects and in parts, so that each of them is separate and has its own form, as a man from a man and a beast from a beast? Or by budding, as branches from a tree? And were they of the same substance as those who emitted them, or did they have their substance from some other substance? And were they emitted at the same time, so as to be contemporaries, or in some order, so that some of them were older and others younger? And were they emitted simple and uniform, in every way equal and alike to one another, as spirits and lights are emitted, or composite and different, unlike in their members?

Notes and citation

Summary: Irenaeus lists the possible ways the Aeons could have been emitted.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR of Ae and margin debris; stray mark): 7Eones? τ" Utrum → Aeones? Utrum; an ! efficabiliter → an efficabiliter.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.2 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-2) · Report an error

2.17.3Harvey 1:292

Sed si quidem efficabiliter et secundum suam genesin unusquisque illorum emissus est secundum hominum similitudinem; vel generationes Patris erunt ejusdem substantie ei et similes generatori, vel *[si] dissimiles parebunt, ex altera quadam substantia confiteri eos [esse] necesse est. Et si quidem patris generationes similes emissori, impassibilia perseverabunt ea que emissa sunt, quemadmodum et is qui emisit illa; si autem ex altera quadam substantia, que est capax passionum, unde dissimilis substantia intra illud quod est incorruptele Pleroma? Adhuc etiam secundum hanc rationem unusquisque eorum separatim divisus ab altero intelligetur, quemadmodum homines, non admixtus, nec unitus alter altero, sed in figuratione discreta et circumscriptione definita, et magnitudinis quantitate unusquisque ipsorum deformatus; que propria corporis sunt, et non spiritus. Jam igitur non spiritale Pleroma esse dicant, nec semetipsos spiritales; siquidem velut homines, ZEones ipsorum epulantes sedent apud Patrem, et ipsum tali figuratione exsistentem, quemadmodum detegunt eum qui ab eo emissi sunt.

If each of them was emitted as a distinct effect and according to its own generation, after the likeness of human beings, then either the Father's offspring will be of the same substance as he and like their begetter, or, if they appear unlike, it must be confessed that they are of some other substance. And if the Father's offspring are like the emitter, the things emitted will remain impassible, as he who emitted them is; but if they are of some other substance capable of passions, from where did an unlike substance come within that incorruptible Pleroma? Further, by this reasoning each of them will be understood to be divided and separate from the others, like human beings, not mixed with or united to one another, but each shaped in a distinct form, a defined outline, and a quantity of size, which are properties of a body and not of spirit. Let them no longer say, then, that the Pleroma is spiritual, nor that they themselves are spiritual, if their Aeons sit feasting with the Father like men, and he himself exists in such a form as those emitted by him reveal him to have.

Notes and citation

Summary: If the Aeons were begotten like human offspring, they are either impassible like the Father or of a foreign substance, and in any case bodily.

The words in square brackets in the edition are Harvey's supplements and are translated.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (footnote number; margin debris; split word with footnote number): unde 6 dissimilis → unde dissimilis; LIP! spiritales → spiritales; epulantes OR. Il. ἢ xxn. sedent → epulantes sedent; quemin 3 admodum → quemadmodum.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.3 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-3).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-3) · Report an error

2.17.4Harvey 1:292

Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt, Aeones a Logo, Logos autem a Nu, et Nus a Bytho; velut verbi gratia, a facula facule; generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem: ejusdem autem substantie cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant, aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quie postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit. Quapropter et lumina ipsorum composita in unum in principalem unitionem recurrunt, cum fiat unum lumen quod fuit et a principio. Quod autem juvenius est et antiquius, neque in ipso lumine intelligi potest (unum enim lumen est totum) nec in ipsis que perceperunt lumen faculis: (etenim ipse secundum substantiam materi» id tempus habent; una enim et eadem est facularum materia) sed tantum secundum accensionem, quoniam altera quidem ante pusillum tempus, altera autem nunc accensa est.

But if the Aeons were kindled from the Logos as lights from a light, and the Logos from Nous, and Nous from Bythus, as, for example, torches from a torch, they will perhaps differ from one another in generation and size; but since they are of the same substance as the source of their emission, either they all remain impassible, or their Father too will share in passions. For the torch lit later will not have a different light from the one that was before it. Therefore their lights too, when combined into one, return to the original unity, since there comes to be one light, the one that also was from the beginning. Younger and older cannot be understood either in the light itself (for the whole is one light) or in the torches that received the light (for in the substance of their material they have the same age, since the material of the torches is one and the same), but only in the kindling, because one was lit a little while before and the other just now.

Notes and citation

Summary: If the Aeons were lit like torches from one light, they share one substance and either all are impassible or the Father suffers too.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (stray mark): ante* pusillum → ante pusillum.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.4 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-4).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-4) · Report an error

2.17.5Harvey 1:292

Lapsus igitur ejus qu: est secundum ignorantiam passionis, aut universo similiter Pleromati ipsorum proveniet, cum sint ejusdem substantie, et erit in ignorantie labe, id est, semetipsum ignorans Propator: aut similiter omnia impassibilia perseverabunt ea qus sunt intra Pleroma lumina. Unde igitur circa juniorem ZEonem passio, si paternum lumen est ex quo omnia constituta sunt lumina, quod naturaliter impassibile est? Quomodo autem et juvenior aliquis aut senior in ipsis Aon dici potest, cum sit unum lumen totius Pleromatis? Et si quis stellas dicat eos, nihilominus eadem universi apparebunt natura participantes. Etenim si sfella a stella in claritate differt, sed non secundum qualitatem, nec secundum substantiam, secundum quam passibile aliquid vel impassibile est; sed aut universos, ex lumine cum sint paterno, naturaliter impassibiles et immutabiles esse oportet: aut universi cum paterno lumine et passibiles, et commutationum corruptionis capaces sunt.

The fall, then, of the passion that came from ignorance will either happen alike to their whole Pleroma, since they are of the same substance, and the Forefather will be in the fault of ignorance, that is, ignorant of himself; or all the lights within the Pleroma will likewise remain impassible. From where, then, came the passion in the youngest Aeon, if the light from which all the lights were constituted is the Father's, which is by nature impassible? And how can any Aeon among them be called younger or older, since there is one light of the whole Pleroma? And if someone calls them stars, they will nonetheless appear to share all the same nature. For even if “star differs from star in glory,” it is not in quality or in substance, by which something is passible or impassible; but either all of them, since they are from the Father's light, must be by nature impassible and unchangeable, or all of them, together with the Father's light, are passible and capable of the changes of corruption.

1 Cor 15:41 (quotation, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: If all the Aeons share the Father's light, the fall of the youngest is inexplicable unless the Father himself can suffer.

Harvey's chapter title at the start of the section is removed. The quotation is 1 Cor 15:41.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title; OCR of Lapsus; margin Scripture reference inside a word; margin debris; margin number): Ostensio quoniam Logos in diminutione non est prolatus: et Quomodo secundum hereticos voluntas Patris Laszs → Lapsus; passionis, 6. aut → passionis, aut; x. constituta → constituta; partici1Cor.xv.41. pantes → participantes; quam 118. ri. passibile → quam passibile; lumine ΘῈ 1. xxiv. cum → lumine cum.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.5 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-5).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-5) · Report an error

2.17.6Harvey 1:292

Haec autem eadem ratio sequetur, etsi, velut ab arbore ramos, dicant a Logo natam esse emissionem ZE:onum, cum Logos a Patre ipsorum generationem habeat: ejusdem enim substantie omnes inveniuntur cum Patre, tantum secundum magnitudinem, sed non secundum naturam differentes ab invicem, et magnitudinem complentes Patris, quemadmodum digiti complent manum. Si igitur Pater in passione et ignorantia, et ii utique qui ex eo generati sunt, /Eones. Si autem impium est Patri omnium ignorantiam et passionem affingere, quomodo ab eo emissum dicunt /Eonem passibilem, et hoc ipsi Sophie Dei eandem impietatem affingentes, semetipsos religiosos esse dicent !

The same reasoning will follow even if they say that the emission of the Aeons was born from the Logos as branches from a tree, since the Logos has his generation from their Father. For all are found to be of the same substance as the Father, differing from one another only in size, not in nature, and filling up the greatness of the Father as fingers fill up a hand. If, then, the Father is in passion and ignorance, so too are the Aeons generated from him. But if it is impious to ascribe ignorance and passion to the Father of all, how can they say that a passible Aeon was emitted from him, and, ascribing the same impiety to the very Sophia of God, call themselves religious?

Notes and citation

Summary: The branch image fails in the same way: what is true of the Aeons must be true of the Father.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (stray mark): passibilem, ! et → passibilem, et.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.6 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-6).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-6) · Report an error

2.17.7Harvey 1:292

Si autem quomodo a sole radios, ZEonas ipsorum emissiones habuisse dicent, ejusdem substantie et de eodem omnes cum sint, aut omnes capaces passionis erunt cum eo qui ipsos emisit, aut omnes impassibiles perseverabunt. Non enim jam quosdam impassibiles, quosdam autem passibiles possunt ex tali emissione confiteri. Si igitur omnes impassibiles dicunt, ipsi suum argumentum dissolvunt. Quomodo enim passus est minor ZEon, si omnes erant impassibiles? Si autem omnes dicunt participasse passionis hujus, quemadmodum quidam audent dicere, quia a Logo quidem ccpit, derivatio autem in Sophiam, in Logum hujus Nun Propatoris passionem revocantes arguentur, et Nun Propatoris et ipsum Patrem in passione fuisse confitentes. Non enim ut compositum animal quiddam est omnium Pater, preter Nun, quemadmodum praeostendimus; sed Nus Pater, et Pater Nus. Necesse est itaque et eum qui ex eo est Logos, immo magis autem ipsum Nun, cum sit Logos, perfectum et impassibilem esse; et eas quie ex eo sunt emissiones, ejusdem subetantiz cum sint cujus et ipse, perfectas, et impassibiles, et semper similes cum eo perseverare, qui eas emisit.

But if they say that their Aeons were emitted as rays from the sun, then, since all are of the same substance and from the same source, either all will be capable of passion together with the one who emitted them, or all will remain impassible. For they cannot then confess that from such an emission some are impassible and some passible. If, then, they say that all are impassible, they dissolve their own argument: for how did the least Aeon suffer, if all were impassible? But if they say that all shared in this passion, as some dare to say, that it began from the Logos and flowed down into Sophia, they will be convicted of tracing this passion back to the Logos, the Nous of the Forefather, and of confessing that the Nous of the Forefather and the Father himself were in passion. For the Father of all is not some composite living being, distinct from Nous, as we showed before; rather, Nous is Father and Father is Nous. Necessarily, then, the Logos who is from him, or rather Nous itself, since it is Logos, is perfect and impassible; and the emissions from him, since they are of the same substance as he is, are perfect and impassible and remain always like him who emitted them.

Notes and citation

Summary: If the Aeons came forth like rays from the sun, their passion would reach back to Nous and the Father himself.

“As we showed before”: see 2.13.8.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (margin debris; margin debris inside a word; stray mark): Si autem * quomodo → Si autem quomodo; et MAS δ. 1.18. p. Pater → et Pater; immo ΟἿ xxi. magis → immo magis; impassibixviL7, lem → impassibilem.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.7 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-7).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-7) · Report an error

2.17.8Harvey 1:292

Non igitur jam Logos quasi tertium ordinem generationis habens ignoravit Patrem, quemadmodum docent hi: hoc enim in hominum quidem generatione fortasse putabitur verisimile esse, eo quod sspe ignorant suos parentes; in Logo autem Patris omnimodo impossibile est. Si enim exsistens in Patre cognoscit hunc in quo est, hoc est semetipsum non ignorat: et quze ab hoe sunt emissiones, virtutes ejus exsistentes, et semper ei assistentes, non ignorabunt eum qui se emisit, quemadmodum nec radii solem. Non capit igitur Dei Sophiam, eam quz intra Pleroma est, cum sit a tali emissione, sub passione cecidisse, et talem ignorantiam concepisse. Possibile est autem, eam quz est a Valentino Sapientiam, cum sit de diaboli emissione, in omni passione fieri, et profundum ignorantie fructificare. Ubi enim ipsi testimonium perhibent de matre sua, dicentes eam /Eonis errantis generationem esse, jam non qu:erere oportet causam, propter quam filii hujusmodi matris

So the Logos, as one holding the third rank of generation, was not ignorant of the Father, as these people teach. That might perhaps be thought plausible in human generation, because people often do not know their parents; but in the Father's Logos it is altogether impossible. For if, existing in the Father, he knows him in whom he is, that is, he is not ignorant of himself; and the emissions from him, being his powers and always standing by him, will not be ignorant of the one who emitted them, any more than rays are ignorant of the sun. It is not possible, then, that the Sophia of God, the one within the Pleroma, since she is from such an emission, fell under passion and conceived such ignorance. But it is possible that the Wisdom of Valentinus, since she is from the devil's emission, came to be in every passion and bore fruit in a depth of ignorance. For when they themselves bear witness about their mother, saying that she is the offspring of an erring Aeon, one need no longer seek the reason why the sons of such a mother

Notes and citation

Summary: The Logos and the Aeons from him could not be ignorant of the Father; Valentinus's Wisdom, a devilish emission, is another matter.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (split word with margin number; stray mark): impoe9. sibile → impossibile; solem. * Non → solem. Non.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.8 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-8).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-8) · Report an error

2.17.9Harvey 1:292

Praeter has autem emissiones ego quidem jam non intelligo alteram posse eos dicere; sed ne ipsi quidem alteram quandam proprietatem emissam reddentes aliquando, cogniti sunt nobis, licet valde multam de hujusmodi speciebus quaestionem habuerimus cum eis: hoc autem solum dicunt, quoniam emissi sunt unusquisque illorum, et illum tantum cognovisse qui se emisit, ignorans autem eum qui ante illum est. Jam non autem cum ostensione progrediuntur, quemadmodum emissi sunt, aut quomodo capit tale quid in spiritalibus fieri. Quacunque enim progressi fuerint, obligabuntur, et a recta ratione caecutientes circa veritatem in tantum, uti eum qui est a Nu Propatoris ipsorun emissus Sermo, in deminorationem eum emissum dicant. Nun enim perfectum a perfecto Bytho progeneratum jam non potuisse eam quie ex eo est emissionem facere perfectam, sed obcaecatam circa agnitionem et magnitudinem Patris: et Salvatorem symbolum mysterii hujus ostendisse in eo qui a nativitate cecus fuit, quoniam sic caecus emissus est a Monogene Aeon, id est ignorantia: ignorantiam et. cecitatem commentientes Verbo Dei, secundam secundum eos a Propatore emissionem habenti. Admirabiles sophiste, et altitudines investigantes incogniti Patris, et supercaelestia sacramenta enarrantes, in quc cupiunt angeli prospicere, uti discant quoniam a Nu ejus Patris, qui super omnia est, emissum Verhum cecum emissum, id est ignorans Patrem qui se emisit !

Besides these kinds of emission I do not see that they can name any other; nor have they themselves ever been known to us to put forward some other particular mode of emission, although we have had a great deal of discussion with them about such forms. They say only this: that each of them was emitted, and knew only the one who emitted him, but was ignorant of the one before that one. Yet they do not go on to show how they were emitted, or how such a thing can happen among spiritual beings. For whichever way they proceed, they will be bound, and, blind to right reason concerning the truth, they will go so far as to say that the Word emitted from the Nous of their Forefather was emitted in a state of diminution. For, they say, Nous, begotten as perfect from the perfect Bythus, could no longer make the emission that came from him perfect, but only blinded with regard to the knowledge and greatness of the Father; and the Savior showed a symbol of this mystery in the man who was blind from birth, because the Aeon was emitted blind in this way by Monogenes, that is, in ignorance. So they falsely ascribe ignorance and blindness to the Word of God, who according to them holds the second emission from the Forefather. Admirable sophists, searching out the heights of the unknown Father and recounting supercelestial mysteries “into which angels long to look,” so that they may learn that the Word emitted from the Nous of the Father who is above all was emitted blind, that is, ignorant of the Father who emitted him!

John 9:1 (allusion, high confidence) · 1 Pet 1:12 (quotation, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: The Valentinians claim the Word was emitted blind, ignorant of the Father, citing the man born blind as its symbol.

The man born blind: John 9:1. The quotation is 1 Pet 1:12. Sermo and Verbum here are the Valentinian Logos.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR of Aeon; footnote number; margin debris): fuerint, Lm m. obligabuntur → fuerint, obligabuntur; veritatem in GR. Apex. tantum → veritatem in tantum; Sermo, i9 in → Sermo, in; Monogene on, id est → Monogene Aeon, id est.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.9 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-9).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-9) · Report an error

2.17.10Harvey 1:292

Et quemadmodum, o vanissimi sophiste, Nus Patris, immo etiam et ipse Pater, cum sit Nus et perfectus in omnibus, imperfectum et caecum /Eonem emisit suum Logon, cum possit statim et agnitionem Patris cum eo emittere? Quemadmodum Christum postgenitum quidem reliquis, perfectum autem dicitis emissum; multo magis igitur qui est eo aetate provectior Logos, ab eodem Nu perfectus utique emitteretur, et non caecus; nec ille rursus plus caecos, quam se, Aeonas emitteret, quoadusque Sophia vestra semper exe:cata, tantam malorum enixa est substantiam. Et hujus malitiae causa est pater vester: magnitudinem enim et virtutem patris causas ignorantie esse dicitis, Bytho assimilantes eum, et nomen hoc ei apponentes innominabili Patri. Si autem ignorantia malum, omnia autem mala ex ea floruisse definitis, hujus autem causam magnitudinem et virtutem Patris dicentes, malorum factorem eum ostenditis. Id enim quod non potuerit contemplari magnitudinem ejus, causam dicitis mali. Sed si quidem impossibile erat Patri, notum semetipsum ab initio his, que ab eo facta sunt, facere, inincusabilis erat, qui non poterat ignorantiam auferre eorum qui post se sunt. Si autem postea volens eam quz secundum progressionem emissionum aucta fuerat ignorantiam, et inseminatam /Eonibus, auferre potuit, multo magis prius eam qu:e nondum erat, ignorantiam volens non permitteret fieri.

And how, you utterly vain sophists, did the Nous of the Father, or rather the Father himself, since he is Nous and perfect in all things, emit his own Logos as an imperfect and blind Aeon, when he could have emitted the knowledge of the Father together with him at once? You say that Christ, though begotten after the rest, was emitted perfect; much more, then, would the Logos, who is older than he, be emitted perfect by the same Nous, and not [blind]; nor would he in turn have emitted Aeons blinder than himself, until your Sophia, ever more blinded, gave birth to so great a mass of evils. And the cause of this wickedness is your Father: for you say that the greatness and power of the Father are the causes of ignorance, likening him to a deep (Bythus) and giving this name to the unnameable Father. But if ignorance is an evil, and you hold that all evils have sprung from it, and you say that its cause is the greatness and power of the Father, you show him to be the maker of evils. For you call the inability to contemplate his greatness the cause of evil. But if it was impossible for the Father to make himself known from the beginning to the beings made by him, he was blameless, since he could not take away the ignorance of those who came after him. But if later, when he wished, he could take away the ignorance that had grown with the progression of the emissions and been sown in the Aeons, much more, had he wished, would he earlier have prevented that ignorance, which did not yet exist, from coming to be.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: If the Father could later remove the Aeons' ignorance, he could have prevented it, so the Valentinians make him the author of evil.

A word lost in the scan of Harvey's edition (“blind”) is supplied from Stieren's edition.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR of the question mark; margin debris; margin debris inside a word; running head): emittere* Quemadmodum → emittere? Quemadmodum; que LIB.IL ab eo → que ab eo; ignoGR sa.” rantiam → ignorantiam; volens c.ix xvu. 10." eam → volens eam.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.10 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-10).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-10) · Report an error

2.17.11Harvey 1:292

Quoniam igitur quando voluit agnitus est, non tantum ZEonibus, sed et his qui in novissimis temporibus erant hominibus; non volens autem ab initio agnosci, ignoratus est: causa ignorantiae secundum vos est voluntas Patris. Si enim praesciebat hzec sic futura, quare utique, priusquam fieret, non abscidit ignorantiam ipsorum, quam postea, velut ex poenitentia, curat per emissionem Christi? Quam enim per Christum agnitionem omnibus fecit, multg ante poterat facere per Logon, qui et primogenitus erat Monogenüs. Vel si presciens voluit fieri hiec, semper perseverant ignoranti: opera, et nunquam praetereunt. Que enim ex voluntate Propatoris vestri facta sunt, perseverare oportet cum voluntate ejus qui voluit: vel si praetereunt hc, cum his preteriet et voluntas ejus, qui substantiam ea habere voluit. Quid enim et discentes requieverunt /Eones, et perfectam agnitionem perceperunt, quoniam incapabilis est et incomprehensibilis Pater? Hane autem agnitionem habere potuerunt priusquam in passionibus fierent: non enim deminorabatur magnitudo Patris ab initio scientibus his quia incapabilis et incomprehensibilis est Pater. Si enim propter immensam magnitudinem ignorabatur, et propter immensam dilectionem impassibiles debebat conservare eos qui ex se nati erant, quoniam nihil prohibebat, sed magis utile erat, ab initio cognovisse eos, quoniam incapabilis et incomprehensibilis est Pater.

Since, then, when he wished, he became known, not only to the Aeons but also to the people who lived in the last times, but, not wishing to be known from the beginning, he remained unknown, the cause of ignorance, according to you, is the will of the Father. For if he foreknew that these things would happen in this way, why did he not cut off their ignorance before it came about, instead of curing it afterwards, as if from repentance, through the emission of Christ? For the knowledge he gave to all through Christ he could have given long before through the Logos, who was also the firstborn of Monogenes. Or if, foreknowing it, he willed these things to happen, the works of ignorance remain for ever and never pass away. For what was done by the will of your Forefather must remain together with the will of him who willed it; or if these things pass away, the will of him who willed them to have substance will pass away with them. And why did the Aeons find rest and receive perfect knowledge by learning that the Father cannot be contained or comprehended? They could have had this knowledge before they fell into passions; for the Father's greatness was not diminished by their knowing from the beginning that the Father cannot be contained or comprehended. For if he was unknown because of his immeasurable greatness, then because of his immeasurable love he ought to have kept impassible those born from him, since nothing prevented it, and it was rather more useful that they should have known from the beginning that the Father cannot be contained or comprehended.

Notes and citation

Summary: On their own account the Father's will is the cause of the Aeons' ignorance, which he could have prevented by teaching them from the start.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.17.11 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-17-11).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-17-11) · Report an error

Against 2, chapter 18

2.18.1Harvey 1:292

Quomodo autem non vanum est, quod etiam Sophiam ejus dicunt in ignorantia et in deminoratione et in passione fuisse. Hec enim aliena sunt a Sophia et contraria, sed nec affectiones ejus sunt. Ubi enim est improvidentia et ignorantia utilitatis, ibi Sophia non est. Non jam igitur Sophiam passum ZEonem vocent; sed aut vocabulum ejus, aut passiones pretermittant. Et plenitudinem autem universam non dicant spiritalem, si intra ipsam ZEon hic, cum esset in passionibus tantis, conversatus est. Hec enim ne anima quidem fortis, non dicam spiritalis substantia, percipiet.

How is it not absurd that they also say that his Sophia was in ignorance, in degeneracy and in passion? For these things are foreign and contrary to wisdom, nor are they her affections. For where there is lack of foresight and ignorance of what is useful, there wisdom is not. Let them no longer call the suffering Aeon Sophia, then; but let them give up either her name or her passions. And let them not call their whole Pleroma spiritual, if this Aeon lived within it while she was in such great passions. For not even a strong soul, not to speak of a spiritual substance, would undergo such things.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: Ignorance and passion are contrary to wisdom, so the suffering Aeon cannot be called Sophia.

Harvey's chapter title is fused with the opening. Words lost in the scan of Harvey's edition are supplied from Stieren's edition.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (Harvey's footnote leaked into the text; OCR): Quomopo → Quomodo; ibi 1 statement p.82, n. 3. Sophia → ibi Sophia; vocent; Bed aut → vocent; sed aut.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.18.1 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-18-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-18-1) · Report an error

2.18.2Harvey 1:292

Quomodo autem rursus Enthymesis ejus cum passione procedens separatim poterat fieri? Enthymesis enim esse intelligitur erga aliquem, ipsa autem seorsum nunquam fiet. Exterminatur enim et absorbetur mala a bona Enthymesi, quemadmodum segrimonium ab incolumitate. Que enim erat prior Enthymesis. passionis? Exquirere Patrem, et magnitudinem ejus considerare. Quid autem suasa est postea, et convaluit Quoniam incomprehensibilis, et qui inveniri non possit, est Pater. Non igitur bonum erat, quod vellet cognoscere Patrem, et propter hoc esset passibile; sed quando suasa est quoniam investigabilis esset Pater, et convalescens. Sed ille ipse Nus qui quaerebat Patrem, cessavit secundum eos adhuc quaerere, discens quoniam incomprehensibilis est Pater.

And again, how could her Enthymesis, going forth with the passion, come to exist separately? For an Enthymesis (a thought) is understood as belonging to someone, but it will never exist by itself. A bad Enthymesis is banished and absorbed by a good one, as sickness by health. What, then, was the Enthymesis that came before the passion? To search out the Father and to consider his greatness. And of what was she persuaded afterwards, so that she recovered? That the Father is incomprehensible and cannot be found. It was not good, then, that she wished to know the Father and so became passible; but when she was persuaded that the Father is unsearchable, she also recovered. And Nous himself, who was seeking the Father, ceased, according to them, to seek further, learning that the Father is incomprehensible.

Notes and citation

Summary: A thought cannot exist apart from the one who thinks it, and the Valentinian story makes the desire to know the Father a fault.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (hyphenated word and stray mark): intel- ligitur ! erga → intelligitur erga.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.18.2 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-18-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-18-2) · Report an error

2.18.3Harvey 1:292

Quemadmodum igitur Enthymesis poterat separata concipere passiones, quze et ipsae affectiones ejus erant? Affectio enim erga aliquem fit, ipsa autem seorsum non potest esse, nec constare. Non solum autem instabile hoc est, sed etiam contrarium ei, quod est a Domino nostro dictum: Quarite, et invenietis. Dominus enim quaerendo et inveniendo Patrem, perfectos consummat discipulos. Is autem qui sursum est Christus ipsorum, per id quod praecepit JEonibus non querere Patrem, suadens quoniam etsi multum laboraverint non eum invenient, perfectos eos consummavit. Et si quidem *[se quidem] perfectos aiunt in eo quod dicant invenisse Bythum ipsorum: /Eonas autem in eo, quod suasi sint quoniam investigabilis est qui ab eis inquirebatur.

How, then, could the Enthymesis, separated, conceive passions, which were themselves her affections? For an affection belongs to someone; it cannot exist or stand by itself. This is not only untenable but also contrary to what was said by our Lord: “Seek, and you will find.” For the Lord makes his disciples perfect by seeking and finding the Father. But their Christ who is above made the Aeons perfect by commanding them not to seek the Father, persuading them that even if they labored hard they would not find him. And they say that they themselves are perfect by the fact that they claim to have found their Bythus, and the Aeons by the fact that they were persuaded that the one they were seeking is unsearchable.

Matt 7:7 (quotation, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Their Christ makes the Aeons perfect by forbidding them to seek the Father, contrary to the Lord's command to seek and find.

Harvey's chapter title at the start of the section is removed. The quotation is Matt 7:7. The words in square brackets in the edition (“themselves”) are Harvey's supplement and are translated.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (Harvey's footnotes and running head leaked into the text; editor's chapter title; OCR; margin debris; stray mark): Ostensio quomodo neque Enthymesis sine Zone propriam habuerit substantiam, neque passio sine. QuemapMopum → Quemadmodum; Affectio enim ! erga → Affectio enim erga; invenisse 3 Prior— passionis, the Greek conπατρὸς reddidit investigabile Patris. Gr. στον vocant, quemadmodum etiam Rom. 4 siquidem.... /Eonas autem. p. 21, n. 3. LIB II. xxiv. Bythum → invenisse Bythum; quoniam xviii MASS. Tl ai -investigabilis → quoniam investigabilis.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.18.3 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-18-3).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-18-3) · Report an error

2.18.4Harvey 1:292

Cum igitur ipsa Enthymesis non posset sine Aone separatim consistere, adhuc majus inferunt mendacium de passione ejus, separatim rursus dividentes eam, et hanc esse substantiam dicentes materiae. Quasi non esset lumen Deus, nec adesset Sermo qui posset eos arguere, et evertere nequitiam ipsorum. Utique enim quodcunque sentiebat A<on, hoc et patiebatur; et quod patiebatur, hoe et sentiebat: et non aliud erat apud eos Enthymesis ejus, nisi passio incomprehensibilem comprehendere excogitantis, et passio Enthymesis: impossibilis enim sentiebat.. Quemadmodum itaque poterat affectio et passio. ab Enthymesi seorsum separari, et substantia tantae materiae fieri, quando ![et] ipsa Enthymesis passio erat, et passio Enthymesis Nec igitur Enthymesis sine /Eone, nec affectiones sine Enthymesi separatim habere possunt substantiam; et soluta est et hic rursus regula ipsorum.

Since, then, the Enthymesis herself could not exist separately apart from the Aeon, they add a still greater lie about her passion, dividing it off separately again and saying that it is the substance of matter: as if God were not light, and there were no Word present who could refute them and overthrow their wickedness. For certainly whatever the Aeon thought, that she also suffered; and what she suffered, that she also thought. And her Enthymesis was, according to them, nothing other than the passion of one thinking how to comprehend the incomprehensible; and the passion was the Enthymesis, for she was thinking of impossible things. How, then, could affection and passion be separated from the Enthymesis and become the substance of so much matter, when the Enthymesis herself was passion, and passion was Enthymesis? So neither the Enthymesis apart from the Aeon nor the affections apart from the Enthymesis can have substance separately; and here again their rule is dissolved.

1 John 1:5 (allusion, medium confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Since the Aeon's thought and her passion were one and the same, neither could be separated off to become matter.

God as light: 1 John 1:5.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.18.4 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-18-4).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-18-4) · Report an error

2.18.5Harvey 1:292

Quemadmodum autem et solvebatur et patiebatur Aeon? Siquidem ejusdem substantiae cujus et Pleroma erat; Pleroma autem universum ex Patre. Quod enim simile est, in simili non dissolvetur in nihilum nec perire periclitabitur, sed magis perseverabit et augescet; quemadmodum ignis in igne, et spiritus in Spiritu, et aqua in aqua: qux autem sunt contraria, a contrariis patiuntur, et vertuntur, et exterminantur. Et sic si fuisset luminis emissio, non pateretur nec periclitaretur in simili lumine, sed magis effulgesceret et augesceret, quemadmodum dies a sole: etenim Bythum imaginem patris sui esse dicunt. Qusecunque sunt peregrina et sibi extranea animalia atque contraria natura perielitantur et corrumpuntur: que autem sibi assueta sunt et cognata, nullum patiuntur periculum in eo conversantia, sed et salutem et vitam ex eo acquirunt. Si igitur *(et] ejusdem substantiae cujus et universum Pleroma, ex eo emissus fuisset hic Aon, nunquam demutationem perciperet, cum esset in similibus et assuetis conversans, spiritalis in spiritalibus. Timor enim et expavescentia, et passio, et dissolutio, et talia, in his quidem qu sunt secundum nos et corporalibus fortassis fiant a contrariis: in spiritalibus autem et diffusum habentibus lumen, jam non tales consequuntur calamitates. Sed mihi videntur ejus passionem, qui est apud Comicum Menandrum valde amans et odibilis, /Eoni suo cireumdedisse. Magis enim infeliciter amantis cujusdam hominis apprehensionem, et mentis conceptionem habuerunt, qui haec finxerunt, quam spiritalis et divinae substantiae.

But how was the Aeon both dissolved and subject to passion? She was, after all, of the same substance as the Pleroma, and the whole Pleroma is from the Father. For what is like will not be dissolved into nothing in what is like it, nor be in danger of perishing, but will rather endure and grow, as fire in fire, spirit in spirit, and water in water; but things that are contrary suffer from their contraries, are changed, and are destroyed. So too, if she had been an emission of light, she would not suffer or be endangered in light like herself, but would rather shine and grow brighter, as the day does from the sun; for they say that [she] is the image of her father, Bythus. Whatever living creatures are foreign and strange to one another, and contrary in nature, are endangered and destroyed; but those that are accustomed and akin to one another suffer no danger by living together, but rather gain safety and life from it. If, then, this Aeon had been emitted from it, of the same substance as the whole Pleroma, she would never have undergone change, since she was living among things like and familiar to her, a spiritual being among spiritual beings. For fear, terror, passion, dissolution, and the like may perhaps happen through contraries among bodily things such as ours; but among spiritual things that have light diffused through them, such calamities no longer follow. It seems to me rather that they have wrapped their Aeon in the passion of the character in the comic poet Menander who is very much in love and hated. For those who invented these things had in mind the perception and mental conception of some unhappily loving man rather than of a spiritual and divine substance.

Notes and citation

Summary: Like is not harmed by like, so an Aeon of the Pleroma's own substance could not suffer; the Valentinians have given her the passion of a comic lover.

Harvey's chapter title at the start of the section is removed. The sentence about Bythus is ambiguous in the Latin (literally “they say Bythus is the image of his father”); Harvey's note takes it of Sophia. The comic character is the lover of Menander's Misoumenos (“The Hated Man”).

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (Harvey's footnotes leaked into the text; editor's chapter title; OCR of Aeon; margin debris inside a word; running head; stray mark): Quoniam. neque dissolvi, neque pati Hon poterat, cum QuEMADMODUM autem et solvebatur et patiebatur on Siquidem → Quemadmodum autem et solvebatur et patiebatur Aeon? Siquidem; cujus 3 Patris sui. Sophia, though a femiVoss. MSS. have nature. et universum → cujus et universum; nunquam LIB. II. xxv. demutationem → nunquam demutationem; converMass. 11. sans → conversans; Comicum ! Menandrum → Comicum Menandrum.

Extrabiblical texts: Menander (Menander (fragments); allusion)

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.18.5 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-18-5).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-18-5) · Report an error

2.18.6Harvey 1:292

Super hee quoque excogitare de quierendo perfectum Patrem, et velle intra eum fieri, et habere ejus comprehensionem, non ignorantiam nec passionem poterat inficere, et hoc AConi spiritali; sed magis perfectionem et impassibilitatem et veritatem. Nec enim ipsi, cum sint homines, excogitantes de eo qui ante ipsos est, et velut jam comprehendentes perfectum, et intra ejus constituti agnitionem, dicunt semetipsos [non] in passione consternationis esse, sed magis in agnitione et apprehensione veritatis. Etenim Salvatorem, Quaerite, et invenietis, discipulis propter hoc dixisse dicunt, ut eum, qui ab ipsis per excogitationem fictus est super fabricatorem omnium, inenarrabilem Bythum querant: et semetipsos perfectos esse volunt, quoniam inquirentes invenerunt perfectum, cum adhuc sint in terra: eum autem qui intra Pleroma sit /Eonem, totum spiritalem, querentem Propatorem, et intra magnitudinem ejus conantem fieri, et comprehensionem paternae veritatis concupiscentem habere, in passionem dicunt recidisse: et passionem talem, - ut nisi ei occurrisset virtuti, qu» omnia firmat, dissolutus fuisset in universam substantiam et exterminatus.

Moreover, to think of seeking the perfect Father, to wish to be within him and to have comprehension of him, could not bring ignorance or passion upon a spiritual Aeon, but rather perfection, impassibility, and truth. For not even they, though they are men, say that when they think about him who is before them, and as if already comprehending the perfect and established within the knowledge of him, they are in a passion of consternation, but rather in knowledge and apprehension of the truth. For they say that the Savior said to his disciples, “Seek, and you will find,” for this reason: that they should seek the ineffable Bythus whom they have invented in thought above the Maker of all things. And they want to be perfect themselves, because by seeking they have found the perfect one while they are still on earth; but they say that the Aeon within the Pleroma, wholly spiritual, seeking the Forefather, trying to come within his greatness, and longing to have comprehension of the Father's truth, fell into passion, and such a passion that, had she not met the Power that makes all things firm, she would have been dissolved into the universal substance and destroyed.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Matt 7:7 (quotation, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Seeking the Father brings perfection, not passion, as the Valentinians claim for themselves; yet they say it nearly destroyed their Aeon.

Harvey's chapter title at the start of the section is removed. The quotation is Matt 7:7. Words lost in the scan of Harvey's edition are supplied from Stieren's edition. The word in square brackets in the edition (“not”) is Harvey's supplement and is translated.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title; stray mark): Quoniam Patris exquisitio et investigatio magnitudinis ejus, neque passionem neque labem, sed statum per → ; semetipsos? [non] → semetipsos [non].

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.18.6 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-18-6).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-18-6) · Report an error

2.18.7Harvey 1:292

Vesana est haec praesumptio, et vere destitutorum a veritate sensus hominum. Quoniam enim ZEon hic melior est quam ipei, et vetustior, ipsi quoque confitentur secundum suam regulam, dicentes se esse conceptum Enthymeseos ejus /Eonis qui passus est, ita ut sit hic /Eon Matris ipsorum pater, id est avus ipsorum. Et posterioribus quidem nepotibus exquisitio Patris veritatem, et perfectionem, et confirmationem, et eliquationem a fluxibili materia facit, sicut dicunt, et reconciliationem ad Patrem: avo autem ipsorum hxc eadem inquisitio ignorantiam, et passionem, et expavescentiam, et timorem, et consternationem infecit, ex quibus et substantiam materiae factam dicunt. Exquirere ergo et investigare perfectum Patrem, et concupiscentiam communicationis cum eo et unitatis, sibi quidem salutare fieri; /Eoni autem, a quo et genus habent, dissolutionis et perditionis causam fuisse dicentes, quomodo non per omnia incongruum, et fatuum, et irrationabile? Et qui assentiunt his, vere caeci, caecis ducatoribus utentes, juste et corruunt in subjacentem ignorantiae profundum.

Insane is this presumption, and truly the thinking of men abandoned by the truth. For that this Aeon is better than they and older, they themselves confess according to their own rule, when they say that they are the conception of the Enthymesis of the Aeon who suffered, so that this Aeon is the father of their Mother, that is, their grandfather. And for the later grandchildren the search for the Father brings about truth, perfection, firmness, and purification from fluid matter, as they say, and reconciliation to the Father; but on their grandfather this same search brought ignorance, passion, terror, fear, and consternation, from which they say the substance of matter was also made. To say, then, that seeking and searching out the perfect Father, and the desire for communion and unity with him, is saving for themselves, but was the cause of dissolution and destruction for the Aeon from whom they have their very origin: how is this not in every way incongruous, foolish, and irrational? And those who agree with them, truly blind and using blind guides, justly fall with them into the depth of ignorance that lies below.

Matt 15:14 (allusion, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: The same search for the Father is said to save the Valentinians but to have ruined the Aeon who is their ancestor.

Harvey's chapter title at the start of the section is removed. Blind guides: Matt 15:14.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title; OCR): Quoniam, non capit /Eonem infra Pleroma, desiderium passionis percepisse. VxsANA → Vesana.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.18.7 (Harvey 1:292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-16-1/#p-2-18-7).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-18-7) · Report an error