A Syriac Valentinian Hymn

7/28/2019 A Syriac Valentinian Hymn

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-syriac-valentinian-hymn 1/34

A Syriac Valentinian Hymn

Author(s): William Romaine NewboldSource: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 38 (1918), pp. 1-33Published by: American Oriental Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/592581 .

Accessed: 07/05/2013 10:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of

the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 50.14.22.33 on Tue, 7 May 2013 10:28:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/592581?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/592581?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos



A SYRIAC VALENTINIAN HYMN

WLLIAM ROMAINE NEWBOLD

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

EPIPHANIUSrefixes to the account of the Valentinians whichhe copied from Irenaeus a brief account of his own composition,presumably based upon a document then in his hands, and sub-joins a copy of a portion of this document. It is of

peculiarinterest as being one of the very few scraps of Valentinian liter-ature that have survived and the only one that deals at anylength with the essential features of the system. Yet it hasbeen strangely ignored by modern students of Gnosticism;indeed the only recent study of it known to me is that of OttoDibelius (Studien zur Gcschichte der Valentinianer: II. DerValentinianische Sendbrief, in ZNTW 9 (1908), p. 329-340), inwhich he provides a translation of the very difficult text with a

brief discussion of the doctrine and of its place in the historyof Valentinianism.

The anonymous author gives a list of the Greek names of thethirty Aeons differing somewhat from those preserved by Ire-naeus (1. 1. 2-3; p. 8-11) and iippolytus (6. 29-30).1 Thedocument concludes with a series of words, written in Greek let-ters but not Greek in form, which Epiphanius supposed to bethe original names of the Aeons, the Greek names being trans-

lations of these. His statement seems not to have been ques-tioned by any one until the appearance of Holl's edition of thePanarion. In a footnote (p. 385) Holl says:

The language of the fragment is Aramaic with Jewish coloring, but theforms of the several words are so corrupted that a complete reconstructionseems impossible. J. Marquart and H. Gressmann think, however, thatthey are able to recognize with approximate certainty that 'Adrap(1. 'Ay&p)

1 References to 'Irenaeus,' 'Hippolytus,' 'Epiphanius' signify theadversus Haereses, the Refutatio, and the Panarion. Quotations from the

Greek text of Irenaeus and Epiphanius follow the text of Karl Holl 's newedition (1915), Die Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten dreiJahrhunderte, vol. 25, pt. 1: Epiphanius, vol. 1, but references to the adMtHaer., unless otherwise indicated, are to Massuet 's paragraphs and thepages of Harvey 's first volume. Quotations from Hippolytus follow thetext of Duncker and Schneidewin.

1 JAOS 38







2 William Romaine Newbold

Bap/6a should be taken as equivalent to KNIt bfn (he girded on his

sword), 'Eo-X'v (1. 'Eo8vj) Oibavavhvo 1'flnl F11n (favor and compassion),

Aava44K OIPtV4Kto pfl111

pnD33(for him who is going out and him who

has gone out). This makes it at once evident that the formula contains

at all events not names of Aeons, but a continuous sentence or sentences.

The ' translation ' of Epiphanius is therefore quite as worthless as that

propounded Haer. 19. 4. 3; p. 221, 13 ff.

Epiphanius gives two copies of this list in his introductory

account and a third in his copy of the original document. The

MS tradition is therefore derived from three distinct sources and

the variants which it presents show that the three lists were in

large measure copied independently and not corrected one byanother, a circumstance which makes much easier the reconstruc-

tion of the underlying text.

According to Holl (TU, no. 36, pt. 2, 1910) the text of the

Panarion rests upon two MSS, the Vaticanus (V) and the

Marcianus (M), all others being derived from them. V is of

the beginning of the ninth century, M was written A.D. 1057.

V has been corrected by a nearly contemporary scholar, who

introduced readings, sometimes valuable, from one or more MSSwhich he had at his disposal.

There are then six more or less independent witnesses to the

text, V, Vi, M, MI being Epiphanius's first two copies in V and

M respectively, and V2, M2 his copy in the text of the document.

I give Holl's text (H), the word-divisions recognized by him

being indicated by periods, and place beneath it the variant

readings of the six witnesses so arranged as to bring each letter

under the corresponding letter of Holl's text. Letters to which

nothing there corresponds are additions; omission of letters

accepted by Holl is indicated by a minus sign. In the upper-

most line I have placed my own emendations (N).

Epiphanius, Panarion; haer. 31. 2: vol. 1, p. 385, 2.

N AAQ N 0 T A A 0

H AM4IOrT. ATPAAN. BOTKOTA. OAPAOTOT.V2M2 0 -- -oVMVIMlN A PHH OTBOTKOTA. eAPAEAAEIN. MEPEgA.V2M2V A H

M A -VI A H

Ml A - H







A Syriac Valentinian Hymn 3

N B B A 0T X AH ATAP. BAPBA. OTAOT AK. E2THNV2 KA

M2VMVI OT -

Ml OT -

N ----- - AAAD2N-HH [OTAOTOTAK. EM2AHN.] [AM4'AIN.V2 -- X E-M2 2 EV

MVI _MINH E2 OTMEN.] OTANANIN. AAMEPTAPAE.V2 AI -M2 rVMVIMIN AA Io P KH AOAMEX. 2OTMIN. AAACPA. KOTBIAOA.V2 HM2

V - B KM E B KVIMl HN AM-AA N A AAH A AKN A A A P I A. A A M.M U.V2 -- AM2V A AAAQ?PAM A AAAI2PA AVI A A M N NMl A A M Q M A NN A AA N E

H QPHN. AANA4'EK. OTAIN4EK. EM-IV2 A X N eIM2 N EV X A AM XM X AM X NEVI AM XMl AM XN p O-H BOXE. BAPPA. AZZIOT. AXE. BEAIM.V2M2V T-AM T-A - - A E

Ml-

_ _-

N M IN--H AEZAPIXE. MA2 EMO2N.V2 M __M2 M N--V N--M IN--VIMI







4 William RomaineNewbold

The text proves to be a fragment of a Syriac poem consisting

of stanzas composed of eight verses, each of five or six syllables.

One complete stanza and seven verses of a second still remain.The poem was a Valentinian hymn, and, of the two stanzas, the

first celebrates the deeds of the 'Celestial Light' and the second

those of the 'Celestial Firmament.'

aXXdbovoipa av cat |io. Ha That Celestial Light

3OVK0AX~apov6ov comlou i .1 Came to be in every Place,

oVJoVKo06XIap aU88epj ? l? 4L c And in every Place in which

he was diffused,ALepgcarag pafc9a J_4& 441 zZ&o From the Head he pro-

claimed tidings about the

Father,

5 ovdovovaxo-5-ov zsm - No And he showed kindness

Xadcbvrolovulev En MI To the Aeons, contending,

ovavdVLV aipra cZiH aJ-L&,o And mercies to the Lady

8ed~aAeo-a-ovXdLv tr so 1z1? Who came from RejectedOnes.

aXXcbtopoVKia 1 ilAS The Celestial Firmament

10 OdacL/adpcav r >4_? Restrained strife

XadXuojbpnv^ D Among the Ages, quarreling;

acU'd0EK ova dY0EK ' koia r9 That which was going out heexpelled;

iwpetPoXepdOa 12i1mm The Sprays bringing forthfirst fruits

daoffovaXepe3XL A=o -?1 He healed, and [any?] cor-

rupted ones15 8etdptXiALJ~aetv MLam Which were beginning to

wither.

NOTES2

The MS tradition is surprisingly accurate. The original text

was written with great care, the author endeavoring to express

the exact sounds as he heard them without reference to any

customary system of phonetic equivalents, and the greater num.-

ber of the corruptions can be explained as due to resemblancesbetween the letters of the uncial script. I have therefore in

2My friend the Editor, Prof. J. A. Montgomery, has been so kind as

to read these notes, making a few corrections and adding a number of

valuable suggestions.








several cases retained the spelling of the MSS even when it isdifficult to explain and interpret and when simple emendationswould remove the difficulties.

v. 1, 9: aXAô: the corrupt forms AM1IO and AAAQPcorre-spond almost stroke for stroke, although the identification ofI and Q is questionable. For the doubled -X-see N6ldeke, Syr.Gram. 2d ed., p. 13: 'Als verdoppelt hat so ziemlich jeder Con-sonant zu gelten, dem ein kurzer Vocal vorhergeht und irgendein Vocal folgt.' The a-sound is expressed by o in this wordand in v. 2 aovobut not elsewhere; by o in v. 6 Xa8wvq,. 11 wpqjv

and perhaps v. 11 XaaXku. The -C- s consonantal here and inv. 10 Xaaptav; elsewhere it is a vowel.

v. 1-2: vovpa av: this represents the readings of the majorityof the texts and gives the better sense; the demonstrativeimplies that the author expects his readers to understand whatis meant by the 'Celestial Light.' But the meter requires thatin reading the final -a of vovpa be elided. The pronunciation,therefore, would be the same as that of the alternative reading

vovpavwhich would represent o0 limo , in which the 06 is theenclitic pronoun, emphasizing the preceding word. But in v. 2the ov repeats the subject.

v. 2, 3: -nov-: v. 8, -oov-: v. 9, -pov-: in the Palestinian dia-lects of Aramaic the Syriac swa is not infrequently representedby 1, e. g. MJtn13, MTg, Ij'IMf(Duval, Gr. p. 90, n. 3; N6ldeke,ZDMG 22 (1868), p. 458-9).

v. 2: aovo ov: all texts save one have 8ovov,which should

represent 0x loo.- But for this construction there seems to beno authority; moreover it would offend against both the meterand the thought of the verse, for ' v ' v is not a permissibleform and the sense requires a past tense. M2 has Soov and Ihave ventured to take this as evidence of the loss of an -o-.

v. 3: ov-: in view of the care with which vocalic swa isthroughout represented by some Greek vowel, this ov- must beregarded as a vowel, analogous to the Hebrew idiom (Dalman,

Gram. p. 191: 'According to Socin's Codex 84 of TargumOnkelos, I is always pronounced .I before AD,n 3 and beforenon-gutturals except I if they have stwa, which then disappears,'

i. e. is silent). So also v. 5: ovaovova bo. But v. 7, ovavavtv

may represent either a."o or L








v. 3: 8E8Epy: Taw assimilated to Dalath according to rule(Duval, ? 111). The penult represents s.wa, for of this rootonly Pe. and Ethpe. are used in Syriac (PS Lex.).

v. 4: the transliteration of this verse is uncertain. The textwithout emendation makes tolerable Syriac, i=- i2-l'(any) one committing impiety he caused to fall into the Void.'Against the most serious objection to this reading, namely theuse of the case absolute ' ~ia without A, one might allegethat the case is determined by the indefinite idea contributed bythe '- of the preceding line. Moreover, this is good Valen-

tinian doctrine. For the sin of the Pleroma was impiety-thedesire to know the Father without regard to his wish to beknown; the 'Void' or 'Waste' is the vaguely conceived infinitespace beneath the Pleroma (Iren. 1. 3. 5: p. 31; 2. 2. 6: p. 257),and, according to Hippolytus (p. 276), the first duty of Christ-Holy Spirit-here represented by the Celestial Light-was toexpel Sophia 's bEKrpw/mafrom the Pleroma. Nevertheless, thedifficulties involved in the acceptance of this reading are to me

insuperable. (1) The introduction of a new idea at the openingof the phrase by the case absolute is intolerably harsh. (2) Itis not probable that pyeea represents i for in no othercase is the silent swa given a vowel, e. g. xeo'8-qvvepma,X(w, aV4EK

(for the threeapparentexceptionssee the note on Eo(-ovpIEv, v. 6).(3) The meaning of the verse would be inappropriate to the con-

text. It would ascribe to the Celestial Light the function of

removing the results of sin from the Pleroma, while in the second

stanza that function is expressly ascribed to the Celestial Firma-

ment. It is true that the Firmament is but an aspect of the

Light (see p. 26), but the very aim of these two stanzas is the

discrimination of the Light and the Firmament by means oftheir functions, how then could the same function be ascribedto both ?

The emendations required by the reading above adopted are

justifiable from the palaeographical point of view, and the func-tion which the verse then ascribes to the Celestial Light. that

of enlightening the Aeons about the nature of the Father, is onewhich is ascribed to Christ-Holy Spirit in all Valentinian sys-tems. The assimilation of the final Nun of 71oto the initialconsonant of the next word, both here and in v. 8 ecao-ovXaav,

is in accordance with Barhebraeus's rule (Duval, p. 106) that








the assimilation takes place except when the consonant is Alaf,He, Heth, Yodh, Nun, 'E, Pe. The failure to double

thep is also according to rule (Noeld., ? 21). But ara,13 for aTTIEq3

requires explanation. The use of a for e probably merely indi-eates that the vowel-sound was obscure; still more surprisingis the appearance of a in place of an t or y in v. 6, aovova for -".

The same inference may be drawn from the spellings of somewords in the Jewish Palestinian dialect e. g. Pa. Db2; Aph.

,ON, a1lnR IVnN of which Dalman remarks (p. 206,n. 2): 'Whether one may infer pronunciation with a from spell-

ing without Yodh remains uncertain. The supralinear vocalisa-tion recognizes this pronunciation only in case of gutturals.'

The failure; to double the r is a much more serious matter.In every other case where Syriac requires that a letter be doub-led in pronunciation the doubling is scrupulously indicated, e. g.aXAwto, SESSEpq,laf3/3a, aovova, pcorcrovAa&v,oat, not to speak of its

being indicated where not called for in Syriac, EoJoJov1fv,EIuao-Ecv.

Its omission here is probably due to the structure of the verse,

which permits only two accents and requires the elision of eitherthe final syllable of IEpEeaor the first of aTa/3. Thus the twowords were pronounced as one with but one accent, /pEpeaTaCL3.Since the doubling of the T is not organic but is due to thepresence of the accent upon the 'weak' prefix (Duval, ?? 113,157) the loss of the accent should entail the omission of thedoubling.

v. 4: f/a/3f/a: Duval, ? 224a: 'Dans le sens figure de "pere

spirituel"

Y

l avait le beth redouble.' For the construction,cf. PS (Thes. col. 432): 'ai.. }

s7de eo BO III,

2, 208; rogavit eum [quid sentiret] ?A^?oj de religione

Arabum, ib. II, 423.'v. 5: Iloll, at Marquart's suggestion, recognizes the duplica-

tion of this line (see p. 3) as due to a marginal gloss. Thedittograph which he brackets contains, however, the purer text.

v. 5: X~rwv: Heth occurs seven times. Twice, in this word

and v. 14, X438cAq/,t is represented by X; four times, v. 4,ovaovova, v. 7, ovavavtv,v. 10, Oaa/A nd Xaaptav, by hiatus; once,v. 6, when initial, it has no representative, Eauovptev. The m. pl.abs. occurs seven times; in six cases the ending is obviouslyof'-, although spelled in four ways (v. 5, 11, --qv; v. 6, -cv; v. 7,








8, -tv; v. 15, -etv); the sole exception, v. 14, -qu, s probably due

to textual corruption and is not recognized in the transliteration.

v. 6: Roll and Marquart bracket the words AM$DAINEX~OYMENas a gloss upon AOA MEEXOYMEN.

v. 6: Xa~ov'q: 'E occurs five times. Twice, v. 1, 9, aXkkno,V.

13, evoct, as initial it is unrepresented; twice, v. 9, apovKta, v. 11

XaaXAw, t is represented by hiatus. In Xa~wvy it disappears

altogether, allowing the vowels between which it stood to con-

tract. This indicates that it had here its softer sound, approxi-

mating that of Alaf, and this, again, is confirmed by the

Palestinian Aramaic words KN11MM,?'"T, which contain thesame root (Dalman, p. 70).

v. 6: caaovuEv: there are three occurrences of the Pe. act. part.

in. pl. abs., the others being v. 11, op-qvand v. 15 XEcuauEcv. The

f. pl. emph. occurs once, v. 13, floxcpa~a. In the three which

come from triliteral roots the s.wa, which would be silent in

Syriac (Duval, Gr. ? 100), is expressed by -ov-, -a-, -e-. This is

not a case of negligence but represents an earlier pronuncia-

tion, still found in the Aramaic of the Onkelos MS, Cod. Socin84, the pointing of which indicates that in such inflected forms

of the participle the second radical was pronounced with a semi-

vowel (Dalman, Gram. p. 55-56). For the doubling of the

second radical in these participial forms there seems to be no

direct parallel. Since the short, closed syllables followed by

vocalic s.wa &'-uovyv,x4EV-,ao-tv are equivalent in value to the

corresponding long open syllables 4-uovuEv,Xa-puaa-av,t may be

that the former spellings represent merely peculiarities in

pronunciation on the part of the transcriber.v. 7-8: XauEpTa EaOa: these words present several difficulties.

If, -IApra be a feminine noun -aOa should be -aOaG. But the only

masculine noun correspondingto -/spram 2A yields no sense

(PS Lex. 'the plucking out, pulling off' of hair or feathers;

'baldness; plumes, fine apparel'). If a feminine it corresponds

most closely to '/-L (op. cit.: 'bitterness, gall, bile'). This also

yields no sense. The preceding words, 'showed mercies to, 'indicate that the complementary idea must be that of a person,

and I4Qo 'Lady,' gives just the meaning required, for this

'Lady' is of course the fallen Sophia of the Valentinians. To








this identification several objections present themselves. (1)

The first vowel of the word it4 is Zqafa, which was pronouncedby the Nestorians as a, by the Jacobites as 5. It may be allegedthat, while a short a (Pthakha) often passes into e in Syriac, along a (Zqafa) never does. Moreover, the word occurs in Greekletters elsewhere, e. g. in the NT, as the proper name, Map~a,which shows that the first. vowel was an a, although it leavesits quantity undetermined. (2) The usual equivalent of Tawis 0, as in Map~a; r ought to represent Teth. Asregards the first objection: the history of vowel-change, both

in quantity and quality, in Syriac, is involved in such obscuritythat the rules of the grammarians can seldom be regarded asauthoritative. Even the grammarians themselves often cannotagree UpOll fundamental issues. Thus Duval teaches that dis-tinctions of quantity have been virtually so merged into thoseof quality as to have lost all significance (p. 44). N6ldeke ismore cautious; he does not deny the existence of vowel-quantityin Syriac, but he does deny that the utterances of the Syrian

grammarians on the subject are entitled to any weight (Syr.Gram. p. 9). David lays strong emphasis on the quantity ofvowels (p. 185 f), and intimates in a footnote (p. 192) that theblunders of Duval, N6ldeke, and other European Orientalists aredue to their ignorance of the proper pronunciation of the Orien-tal languages. His own treatment of the subject is neither clearnor consistent, but apparently he recognizes in the Nestorianpronunciation no difference in quality between Pthakha and

Zqafa but only in quantity, while among the Jacobites theydiffer in quality, as a from o, and each may be either long orshort. Similar differences of opinion are-found withreference to the question now at issue, namely the quantity ofthe 'long' vowel in a closed syllable. David says (p. 209) thatat the present time both Jacobites and Nestorians make such avowel short (morta, marta); Ndldeke (p. 29) attributes thistendency to the Nestorians, and Barhebraeus bears witness thatin the 13th century the same confusion was prevalent among

them. Duval cannot admit Barhebraeus 's evidence, which isfatal to his own theory, and is driven to the desperate expedientof assuming that, with the exception of a few cases, (p. 77)'cest son oreille qui est en defaut et son raisonnement qui estmauvais, car les nuances de a et a etaient parfaitement sensibles,








en dehors meme du redoublement.' In general, (p. 92) 'ce

serait une erreur de croire . . . que les Syriens abregeaient

la voyelle dans une syllabe ferme . .. II y avaitplut6t la une oscillation entre les sons clairs et les soiisobscurs.' These differences of opinion are due in part

to the fact that the vowel-points introduced in the 8th century

do not adequately represent the sounds of the language and in

part to the fact that the sounds which they do represent cannot

be reduced to a coherent system. Yet they are themselvesintended to simplify and standardize current pronunciation.

They cannot therefore afford conclusive evidence as to the pro-nunciation of a period long anterior to that in which they were

adopted. The evidence of the new fragment confirms this infer-

ence. Setting aside the question as to the precise phonetic

values of the Greek letters at the time when and the place where

the transcription was made, it manifestly does not bear witness

to the simple and rigid scheme of the 8th century grammarians.The u-sounds are represented by ov, the i- and e-sounds by E, L,

ELt a, seemingly without distinction; even the long, accented i ofthe pass. part. has E (XeI3eAXLL).Twice e appears as a (aptav,aAAwto). Pthakha is generally a but once e (EvpE). Zqafa

seems to possess the least stability. Usually it is a, but twice w

(aXado, )p'qv) [thrice ? a/A(], twice o (aXkwto, /3oXepa~a) [thrice? aovo], twice e followed by a doubled consonant (Eooov/Ev,

xeMjuaErtv). Vocalic swa is ov, a, E. The bearing of these facts

upon the problems of Syriac phonetics I must leave to those

more competent to judge, for the subject lies far outside my

proper field. But this, at least, one may infer-the fact that

the grammarians of the 8th century pointed li4 with Zqafa

does not prove that the tendency to pronounce it mdrta, which

has been present from the 13th century to the present day

among the Nestorians, originated after the pointing was

adopted. It may well, indeed, have been found in some dialectsmany centuries earlier. The change of a to e in a closed syllableis very common in Syriac. Duval asserts (p. 79) that it never

takes place when the syllable is closed by a guttural or an r.That it sometimes does is shown by the first word of the phraseJ.co..*N-1 mdrde yawma, which is so pronounced by the Nestorians

while to the Jacobites it is merde. One should also note that in

the two occurrences of vocalic swa before r in the poem it is







A Syriac Yalentinian Hymn 11

expressed by e (8I8,Epq,8oxEpa~a) which shows that the authoris not conscious of any especial preference for an a-sound beforer. The use of T for Taw may be explained on similarprinciples. The author, as his practice elsewhere shows, is notfollowing any accepted system of transliteration, and it maywell be that T rather than 0 expressed to his ear the sound ofthe hard, non-aspirated Taw in lJZc. If -Imprameans'lady,' -a~a should probably be emended into -aOa<6>. Butforms without the final Taw occur in Babylonian Aramaic;those, for example, of WIN are given by Levias (A Grammar

of the Aramaic Idiom contained in the Babylonian Talmud,Cincinnati, 1900, ? 601) as M1NK MNM, KJ1K, MINnK

KN1U?J? ?11N. and -ala, therefore, is not absolutely impossible.v. 8: ,krroovXaSv: one is tempted to emend - arovXaiv into the

classical Syriac word dPlo orov'Xav,which is derived from the

Lamadh-Alaf root Ui, or into aov'Atav,which would be derivedfrom the same root treated as Lamadh-Yodh. The meaning ofboth would be the same, 'dross, dirt, refuse'-a singularly apt

designation, from the Valentinian point of view, of the resultsof sin in the Pleroma. Yet, as I try to show in the commentary(p. 26) pcrcrovXatv gives the passage a meaning for whichindirect support can be found in extant sources. In classicalSyriac the Peat pass. part. m. pl. abs. would be , but

forms analogous to that of the text occur in Babylonian Aramaic(Levias, ? 560, j"'2, 11W, ?"fe') and also in Biblical Aramaic

(Kautzsch, p. 80E).

v. 11: AaaXccw: the -a is probably due to corruption of -e or-et but possibly represents a transition form between the primi-

tive 1- and the classical S such as -a or -ai, assimilated

in quality to the following o. Compare the Babylonian spellingV', IXN= which Levias (? 989a) points t'e, 'tW. Insteadof AaaXMQ,aaXbwJight be read.

v. 11: wpqv; v. 15: -$aps: for the failure to double -p- see

Nbldeke, Gram. ? 21.

v. 12: SavacK ova: the imperfect tense compounded of thepresent participle and the enclitic lom sometimes expresses anact or event regarded from a point of view in the past as immi-nent (Nbldeke, Gram. p. 208). It is in this sense that the formmust here be taken (see the commentary, p. 26).








v. 12: avOeK: in Babylonian Aramaic, according to Levias

(? 374), the j frequently remains unassimilated before gutturals,

emphatic consonants, sibilants, 3, 'I and B. The -4- probablyrepresents the unaspirated Syriac p, which was much less

emphatic than the Greek a.

v. 13: evcls: the word may also be transliterated WI-~rpo'.mnra,

'Personalities, ' and this also makes fairly satisfactory sense.

But in view of the participle 3oXEpa~ahe proposed reading is

preferable, for 'bearing first fruits' is an attribute appropriate

to sprays but not to personalities.

v. 13: floXepa~a:both MSS have Y for ? in the first list (VM),P in the second (ViMi), and PP in the third (V2M2).

This shows that both are descended from a common archetypein which the same name was written in three different ways,which, again, proves that the scribe of that archetype copied

faithfully what he thought he saw before him without tryingto correct one list by another. The error perhaps arose in the

first copy, probably made by a professional scribe, from Epi-

phanius's-presumably cursive-autograph.v. 14: XE,/EXA:s quite certainly the passive participle. The

active, A would mean 'in travail' which is not appro-

priate to sprays; moreover, judging from the analogy of

errov~v and XcIA/etv, it would be spelled xE433EXtu.v. 15: 8&eapt:The representation of gin by $, here and v. 4

-peta, is, so far as I can learn, not found elsewhere. The 3. m.

pl. ending X is not represented. This may indicate that it was

not pronounced at all or that it was a consonantal w whichcould not be represented in Greek letters. The latter is the

view of Duval (p. 55: 'a defaut de preuves contraires, on devra

s'en tenir a la prononciation revue ew, iw') and of David, whose

opinion, as being orientalis homo (p. 189), is of especial inter-

est (p. 189: 'Veras diphthongos non habent Syri, sed cum jodhet waw apud eos sunt verae consonantes, lingua Syriaca syllabas

habet quarum consonans finalis est jodh vel waw . . . in qui-bus . . . secunda littera non est vocalis sed consonans').Nbldeke takes the former view (Gram. Syr. p. 26: 'o und &

sind beide viel zu vocalisch, als dass sie im Auslaut einer Silbe

wahre Consonanten sein k6nnten; sie bilden dann stets einfacheVocale oder Diphthonge, also . . . . . . galliu [nicht

galliw], etc.').








v. 15: XeIApameLV:myp- ith V2M2, after the analogy of v. 6,eOrcrov1V. Thie -EIN of M explains the -EM of V2 and isprobably the true reading. The final syllable -av which Holltakes from ViM1 is obviously a dittograph, for Epiphaniusproceeds: ZYvOVO/ATWV pp/Lvetat clCTV aGrBe.

The syntax of the poem presents nothing worthy of noteexcept the rather free use of the case absolute, which is suchas to suggest that it has not as yet lost its proper meaning. Theconceptions which are unquestionably clearly defined to thereader are all in the emphatic bio J, J.J l 1- 1W O, Aid

I1a'- Three which ought to be indefinite are in the absoluteAnd A . Two which might be conceived as definedare in the absolute m4l and \ - ^' both of which designatethe same things. Whether the use of the absolute here has anysignificance, throwing the concepts in question out of the focusof consciousness into the margin, so to speak, it is not possible todetermine. So also of the active participles. Two of the three,D IAM Y and =o1 - should, according to rule, be taken

as predicates, equivalent to h vaI? which I have indicatedin translation by placing a comma between them and the nounsthey modify, but the third, l-- which seems to be aparallel construction, tends to discredit this inference and toindicate that there is no real difference of meaning between thetwo cases. The choice between them may be determined byother factors, possibly metric or euphonic, the value of whichwe cannot appreciate.

Each verse contains two accented and three or four unac-cented syllables. Vocalic s.wa belonging to the word proper isnot counted as a syllable: following the prefixes %or it mayor may not be, seemingly at pleasure. The metre correspondsto that termed by Grimme 'Grundform 2' (CollectaneaFriburgensia, Fasc. II, Der Strophenbau in den GedichtenEphraems des Syrers, 1893, p. 5), but differs from it in that therhythmic scheme which Grimme regards as fundamental, thatis, as most frequent, 'v v ', occurs five times only (v. 2, 8, 10,

13, 14); that which he makes an infrequent substitute v' vu'voccurs twice (v. 4, 12), while the eight remaining verses (1, 3,5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15) fall under the second of his other two sub-stitutes v 'iv. Of the fourth scheme, 'vvu u, no exampleoccurs.








Each verse contains five or six syllables. If the final syllableof ~ in v. 9 be elided, the numerical scheme'for the firststanza would be 55565556, and for the second, 5556555, fromwhich one may infer that the missing last verse of the stanzaalso contained six syllables and that the scheme for the firstis that for all the stanzas of the poem. While this scheme isnot found among Ephraem's poems (see Lamy's revised list inhis Ephraemi Syri Hymni et Sermones, vol. 4, Mechlin, 1902, p.486-495), it is of the type used by him and other Syrian poets.3

COMMENTARY

Both stanzas deal with the same theme, the reconstitution ofthe Pleroma after its harmony had been destroyed by the appear.-ance of sin within its borders. The first recounts the deeds ofthe Celestial Light, the second those of the Celestial Firmament,in this work of restoration.

Of this scene three more or less complete versions are extant.Irenaeus gives two (1. 2, ? 1-2, p. 13-16; ? 3-6, p. 16-23), inti-

mating that the second is derived from a different source thanthe first (p. 16: 'VIotf avTrWv ovTrs Tro oatCors TV/ As0f)L KaL Tr'v

E7rTrTp/oV vJvOoXoyovcLtv), and Hippolytus the third (6. 31, p. 274-

278). A few incidents, some of which belong to other versionsthan the above, may be gleaned from other passages in Irenaeusand from Clement of Alexandria's Excerpta ex Theodoto etc.Nearly all the incidents to which the Syriac text alludes canbe identified in one or another of the extant sources, but as awhole the system presupposed by the

poemdoes not

correspondto any Valentinian system hitherto recognized.

I classify the poem 's structure in accordance with both of the rival

theories as to the nature of Syriac verse because, in my opinion, no issue is

raised between them. The fact that Syrian grammarians, and Syrian poets

also, recognized in poetry only one formal principle that of the number

of syllables in a line-does not prove that no others were in use any more

than the theories of those English prosodists who see in English verse no

other rhythms than those formed by the sequence of accented and unaccented

syllables prove that English poets are deaf to the subtle harmonies ofquantities, consonantal qualities, assonances, pauses, and cadences. An

English or German ear, accustomed to stress-rhythms, cannot doubt that

they are present in Syriac poetry, even though the grammarians have not

formulated the laws which govern them.








The 'Celestial Light,' or, more literally, the 'Light on High,'is that stream of revivifying spiritual consciousness which wasemanated by the Father, the Abyss, in order to repair the rav-ages wrought by sin in the Pleroma. It is not mentioned inIrenaeus's first source; in his second and in that used by Hip-polytus, its first manifestation is termed 'Christ-Holy Spirit.'It-or, more properly, he-is of course light, as are all spiritualbeings, but at least some Valentinians called him 'Light' in apeculiar sense. Epiphanius, in his preliminary account, says(31. 4. 4; p. 388, 8 Holl; vol. 2, p. 140, Dindorf): ov S' [se.

Atwva] :(wTrVpa KaXeLV ... Elvat 'S arov a7ro Trov avw Xpw-Trov

Kat STa roVTro7ra~rpWVV/ALKW KaXeL-O'at koS 8 La T o a VW WS

and Irenaeus's language seems to be based upon similar termin-ology (1. 4. 1; p. 33): (apav(rtKa 8e [sc. TrvVo04tav] KVWOdL(avarov

. pwrTTOn, brL. N/TV/tv OpLr/O-aL To V K a T a LT oVT oS V TnV4 T 6S. Epiphanius's ro t ~v Ox is the precise equivalent ofthe term which I render 'The Celestial Light.'

The Celestial Light 'came to be in every Place.' 'Place'

among the later Gnostics meant 'region' or 'Plane' of thespiritual world and every such 'region' is itself a spiritualbeing or angel (Iren. 1. 5. 2; p. 44: rOv~s? 7rTra oipavovs vat voepov'q

[voVTovisHoll] /aO3Va- alyyEXovs 8E v'rovs v7roTrevrat). But, since at theperiod to which the poem refers the Light had not as yet reachedevery region of the lower universe, the term here probably signi-fies the 'regions' of the Pleroma, that is, the Aeons. It is in thissense that it is used by Marcus (Iren. 1. 14. 1; p. 128): aVT'qV

7V77V 7raVV7rEPTaTv d7roT TWv aopaTO)V Kat aKaTOvopacrTTOV T 0 7r 0) V Tcr pa&a

KaTEXr/XVOEvaL OXwAaTt yVVaLKELW 7rpos aVTOV (4rqut).

v. 3-4. The 'Head' is the first emanation of the Abyss,usually called Novs or Movoyev s, but often llaMrp or 'ApX' (ofwhich latter word the Syriac i- is an appropriate translation),because from him all the other Aeons are derived: (Iren. 1. 1. 1;p. 9) TOV SE NoVv TOVTOV Kat MovoyEv KaXoVOLat HaT epa KaL

'A p X v T W(V 7r a'V v; (1. 8. 5; p. 75, transcribed from aValentinian Commentary upon the prologue to St. John's Gos-

pel) 'IWavvVs, o /LaO'rTr/s TOV) Kvptov. 80ovXo'/xfvos i7retv TV/V TWV okwv7EVC0tV, KaO' VJVTa 7rav'ra 7rpof/3aXcv o HaTqp, a p X q V T t v a v7r7OTLCTat

TO 7rp(OTOV YCVVV/0EV TOV)&OOV, 0 Kat VtOV KaL /LOVO7EV/OCOVKiKX-qKfV,

eV w Ta 7raVTa o iaTrNp Tpoeà~ cr7rep~MTLK(s







16 WilliamRomaineNewbold

It was 'from the Head' that the Light proclaimed tidings, for,

being himself an emanation of Novs, who alone knew the Father,

he derived from him all that he proclaimed to the Aeons. Buteven this was not knowledge of the Father but only knowledge

abouthim, namely, that he is unknowable: (Iren. 1. 2. 5; p. 21)

.... Tov Movoy n 7LXLv geTpav 7rpoflaX'oOaL cr0-VZLavKaTa 7rpouf'OeLav

rov 0LaTpo', Lva /.L7 O/AOLO)'; TavTr 7TaO77 -T' Tv A'vwow, XpLOT"V KaL llvdv'ta

4ytov Ci'; 7Tqiv Kat crT?7pLyUoV TOV) lX-tvp',uxa'ros, vL' 'Wv KaTapTtW7'vai

< OaOLV > 7 ovys ALO)Va'S. Tov /uEvyap XpLOro0V &&$atL aVaToV\ TvrvyLat'

4VoLVtyEVV 7TOv KaTaXt7LfLV )yLV(L)OKOVra'; LKavov's d5vaL a v a y o p v oaa

T f E V a V T o LS TIV TOV larpo' E7rLyV)(TLV, O T L a X A P 7 -T o S; T L K aL a K a T aXA 7r T O s Kai OVK& TTLvo0TC It)T v'c avKOV(TaL

av'rov t 8L& ,uoVo V TO MovoyVvo V yLVW KEaL

.... Er 8? [tv] llvcfa To &ytov s cToevTas avrovs 7ravTas cvXapUTnIEW

48LSaeEVKai T7tqV aXt7qOivrjVva7ral0Dv <CE0> t7yqOaTao.

v. 5-8. The 'kindness' which the Celestial Light showed the

Aeons consisted in bringing them these tidings about the Father.

The significance of the word 'contending' will be discussed

later. The 'Lady who came from Rejected Ones' correspondsto the second Sophia or Achamoth of Irenaeus, called by Hip-

polytus (p. 282, 44) ) ('EZoYoqa, who was composed of the

K'rpWla or 'abortive offspring' of the first Sophia, or, as the

Valentinians also called it, the first Sophia's v'orTpvua or 'short-

coming '-that by which she fell short of attaining to the knowl-

edge of the Father. While 4 does not reproduce the idea

of either lKTpW/1a or v0,TEp7ya, it is an appropriate designation for

the dark mass of Ignorance which had been rejected and

expelled from the Pleroma, as I shall presently endeavor to

show. To Achamoth, Christ-Holy Spirit 'showed mercies,' for

he took pity upon her wretched state and came to her from the

Pleroma in order to give her some glimmering of an idea of the

glory from which she had been cast out and to inspire in her

a desire to return: (Iren. 1. 4. 1; p. 31) TVV 'EV t-pAqnTV /; av

1o4ta';, q'VKat 'AXauM'0 KaXovaOwV, d4opur-cdoav To) <avw> llXV/pW4uTaro;

avv ' VEOVOv eV OK~aT KaL KEV/aTOg 0oLT EK/83c/3pawa7aL KaT'

IVayK?7V Nw yap I/XoT CyEVCTO Kat

I

XVp6/1wro , a op4.os KaL avCLfOs

(aOOTry CK~rpW/a, 8La TO /1?784V KaTetXkqc4vat. o LK T p aVT a 8 a T v

T 0 V <a a T 0 V Kai 8la To^ :TravpoZ E7rCKTa0EvTa T I

SVVaO4IEL1Opc/0SK&aL 1JopcfW0TLV, TV/vKaT' ovut'av uIoVovaA ov0T7vVaT(L yVOt0Lv

KaL irpo4avra ToVToavaSpaudIv, a-va-TTLXavTaav'OVT-/V 8'va/Jv KaL KaTaXL-








7rELv<av'7v> >, 07oratuT&OMEv?7

Tov7rEpt avTt7v

7ra'Oovs 8da\ TV)v acraXXay-vTov IIXqptw'zmros pEXO, TWYv tacepovTrWv, ETXovaa Itva O8/U.7V a&/apaOas

ElyKaraaXEtqLckEaavv'7, < v7r > Tov XpurVo iat vyiov lv4laTos.

Compare also Hippolytus, 6. 31; p. 276, 50-278, 61.The 'Celestial Firmament' or 'Firmament on High' is the

"Opos, 'Boundary,' or Y.-avp0s, 'Stake' or 'Cross' of the Valen-tinians. To the Firmament four functions are ascribed in the

poem:

(1) He restrained strife among the Aeons.(2) He expelled that which was going out, or about to go out.

(3) He healed the Sprays bearing their firstfruits.(4) The corrupted ones, which were beginning to wither, he

(the verb is lacking).

Of the Valentinian conceptions of -Horus four chief versions

are extant, that of Valentinus himself, those of Irenaeus's two

sources, and that given by Hippolytus.Valentinus recognized two "Opot,one between the Pleroma and

the Abyss and the other that which separates the fallen Sophiafrom the Pleroma (Iren. 1. 11. 1; p. 100): e'Opovg Tr 8Vo Va5t49-To,

eva AEv LETa$) rovi Bvf9Ov Kat roZ XoTroV HX-pW',arog, 8toptLgovTa rov

yEv<v> -qroVs Alwavag a&roov ayEvKv> /rov Harpo', E'rEov E Tov aoopi-

govTa avriv r?\v MqTEpa acro rov HllXpwiarog.

In Ireneaus 's first source Horus is the boundary of thePleroma. Sophia's sin consisted in seeking to know more of theFather than he had willed to have known; this is symbolizedby describing her, that is to say her Thought or Intention

(EvGA-qti), as striving to go out beyond the limits of the

Pleroma and to penetrate into the very depths of the Abyss.Her presumptuous attempt was frustrated by Horus whosefunction it is to assure the stability of the universe by keepingit 'outside of' the Ineffable Vastness.

Iren.1.2.2; p. 13-15) 7rporXaTo S n-oXv o' [0-oXvllHoll]

TEXEvTatosKaL vEwraTos T7/S 8W8EKa'8O T7/S V7ro Tov) 'Av~pW7rovKa' Trs 'EKKXq-

tas'a 7rpot8E,8X7qEu`V7S AtWv TovTcEOTLV Yocta KaL E7raOE 7raLOosavCv T?73 i7rt7rXo-

KS TOV < a-v > ?yov -ov RX-qov, 0oEV&paTo fLv 1V TOTS 7cpEt Tov NovvKat -n7v 'A1u79ceav c7rEKLc 86 CIS TOVTOV TOY rapaTparEvTa, 7 auct JLEyaya.

7rT To'X, [l. ToXAF?Hloll, TOX/Lf N. ] 84,8LaTo /r KCK0Wt0V7W9a Tq) La'rpr

T6 TCXCALc,a&OJX ai o Novs. To 8 7ra'OovLvat tT-r)0-tV TovlHarpok *0,EXc

yap, vs XE'yova- \0T-yE VoV3vTov KaraXa/ldv. E7rEtTa u\a Svvv?7e&vTaLa To

2 JAOS 38








a'8vva' s7rL3claXEtv 7rpaypuaLT Kat cv 7roXXco ravv ayivt 7vouvov.....

E K T c t V O u c V O V act 4rt ToT rpoIE Vro TnS YXvKUTnTOS TEXEvTaLOV

,K T\

V 0

3

aE

X_~ 30

.,

1aV KcTa7rE7roo-Oat Kat avaEXUvoOat cts TVrV o'vv O1vtaV, 'Et /LV T C T V/ L -

OV(TV KCL EKT~ T~ CL~V/TOL~EOO3 'v Xa o--v-aq?}-aqeKro T o v u Ey ' 0 o vus vAaa-

a o v Ta o A vvETVXE 8vva'E 1 . TCVTaq E TV/V 8vvC/LV\a%

O p o V KaXovctv, 'W' bs x'rEaXvaOatat EcTTVPL'XOaLKaL MOuyL3 7rto-7pEi/avTa

ELS cavTOV Kat 7rELOUEvTa, aKaTa'KCTA7rT0'T EcTtv o HlaTV/p, 7OUECOat TV

7rpoTEpav EvOV/`LV/ctv aTvv T.67rLqEVoLEV

7raCOEt 6K TOy E'K7TrXKTOV EKELVOV OaV-

lyaTagS

Irenaeus's second source does not describe Sophia's effort to

penetrate into the Abyss as being frustrated by Horus; it failsbecause she has attempted an impossible task, and results in theproduction of a shapeless embryo; filled with distress, fear,agitation, and perplexity she turns to the Father for relief andthe other Aeons join in her prayer. In reply the Father ema-nates Horus to remove the cause of the disorder in the Pleromaand thus to settle, re-establish and 'heal' not only Sophia butall the other Aeons, for they too are moved by the spectacle of

her distress: (1. 2. 4; p. 19-20) 8taL 8E To1 'OpOV TO1TOV 4autKIEKaOacpOat Ka\ 'TTVpt`XOaat TVV YofotCav KCL\roKa3 TaOaVvat TflTv-v7L.

X Wp I a- 0 E L0aqr3s y a p T rR v 0 v t4 rRa- c W s a 7r a v T \ s

TvV TL E'7rtyEvo/.EVwp(raLOEt,lvTV/V LEV E'VTO\ llXVpqW'/JTOs /ELvat, T-VV

8E EVOv/LV/oTtvVTVq aTvV TO 7racLt v 7ro TOv Opouv -opa a-

Ov aL Ka L a7oCTTavpwO vat Kat EKTO\ avrTOv EVO/EV/v

etvat /.EV 7rVEUvIaTLKV/V OVcTAV, < twi> c/VOTLKV/V TtVa Aiwvos op/.Luv TVy-

xavovuav a/LOp4OV 8E KaL avEctOV &La TO ALV8/EV KaTaXa/3ELV. Kal 8ta\TOvTO

Kap7r 0 V aaO E VT KaLt RIXvv alvTT/V X`yOV0TL. (1. 3. 3; p. 28) (The

healing of the woman with an issue of blood symbolized thehealing of Sophia.) q, yap EtEX9ovaa VUvaAlL TOy VttoZ (lvat &E aLvTrqV

ToV'Opov OOTV) EOpL a7r cV o cV avTqV Kat TO 7rtcLOOXWp TaV

air' aVTV/S. (1. 3. 4; p. 29) 'E7ctTa 7rEpL TOy Opov LKTa\V OV

7rXE0o01V oVo/JaXaLV KaXovcL, 8ovo EvEp7Etas EXELV avToV a7rocbaLVOVTaL, TV/V TE

'EpaWTTLKVv Ka\ TV /ITV KaOoK /LEv E'patEL Kal CTTV/ptEL, ETfLpOV

GLM, Kaoo &E /EpI4EL Kalt 8topIt, 'Opov.

Hippolytus's account is very like Irenaeus's second source but

restricts the functions of Horus within narrower limits, ascrib-ing the removal of the EKTpW/JXL to Christ-Holy Spirit, while

Horus merely fences it off from the sight of the Aeons and

prevents it from again entering the Pleroma: (6. 31; p. 276, 35)

e7rTL7rpOflX/OCEL o'v o XpLUTOs Kai To\ a'7ytov HlvEva vro2 TOV Nov Kat TV)S







A Syriac Valentinian Hymnn 19

'AXv09as, cVw0E TO EKTp . .. TovTo ... aroxwpft'W V XwovAhwvwv, 'va

,tq /XE'7rovreg vro rapa1o(o-VTaL T)V/vaLoporav ol rXEtoL ALWcves. LV'oVV

,r-' o'Xw roZs AWLoatoZs rEXELLo3araccavfLofT'KKTpW)/uaro3 alpopot'a rJa'Xv

6 llarr)p '7rLlrpo/3aXXEL'va Eva rov Traupov,os . ... ELs c/poVpav

xapaKwI-a TWV ALiWvWv7rpo~l8 X-qu9vos, J p o s yi'v7EraLroy Hllqpw',uaro%

EXwv EVTOs EcLavrov 7ravraVc e0/V TOVs TpLaKOVTa AWvcM .... KaXETraC 8E 'Oposa T t 3 'tEL3 \ ^roZ IX qp ' r a,> \ co #

,ULV OVTO4a Oc4 acOptIEL a7ro Tov llX?7puaTos Act To VOTEpVqa ....

The phrase 'that which was going out,' or, 'that which wasabout to go out,' may refer either to the offending Aeon or toher Thought or Intention only. The immediate context is in

favor of the former interpretation: 'He restrained strife amongthe Aeons, quarreling; the one which was about to go out heexpelled.' But this is incompatible with v. 8. The 'Lady' is

quite certainly the Being called in other systems the secondSophia or Achamoth, and, whatever the meaning of - uov>aiv, aOa

LEJ- can scarcely have any other meaning than 'came from'

in the sense of 'is composed of.' The 'Lady' then cannot beidentical with the Aeon Sophia, as was taught by Valentinus

and Theodotus, but must be derived from the results of sin inthe Pleroma, which is the doctrine of Irenaeus's two sourcesand of that used by Hippolytus.

Thus the second of the four functions ascribed by the poemto the Firmament possesses features in common with both thefirst and the second of Irenaeus's two sources. With the first,it conceives the offending Aeon, or her Thought, as on the pointof going out of the Pleroma in search of the Father; with thesecond, it describes the Firmament as expelling her Thought

from the Pleroma.The significance of the third and fourth functions will not

be obscure to any one familiar with Valentinian ideas. Theword J.l.e properly denotes the twigs or tips of the branchesfrom which immediately spring the leaves and fruit. Here theAeons themselves are conceived as shoots or offshoots of the

TOa JV 7ravrwv (Iren. 1. 1. 1; p. 9), the avapXos p ta (ib. 1. 2. 1;p. 13); the 'sprays' are those portions of them, so to speak, in

which growth and the other life-functions are taking place, thatis to say their 7rpoft3oAaemanations,' which, again, means theirthoughts and in particular their thoughts about the Father.

These Sprays or Thoughts the Firmament examines anddivides into two classes, those which are bearing their firstfruitsand those which are corrupted and beginning to wither away.








The first contains those emanations or thoughts which arealready developing into approximately true conceptions of the

Father; these he 'healed'-he relieved them of whatever errorwas present in them and brought them into a healthy condition.A similar function was ascribed by Valentinus himself to theHoly Spirit (Iren. 1. 11. 1; p. 101) KaL TO HIVEVp/a 8E TO a-tov

V{rO "q 'AXl0ELOas alt 7rpo,8e|Xirf0at e I a'v K PLU L V K a L K a p -

7To0 o p La v T()V AhIVwV, aOpaToS HVS vT OVktctov OtJ TOV\ AlW-

vas Kap7ro4opEdv Ta 4aXXa4 Us; &X-0eMas. The 'corrupted ones'are the emanations or thoughts which were so erroneous as to

be incapable of emendation-and here the fragment ends, withno indication of their fate. But the imagery is obviously sug-

gested by the Parable of the Vine in John 15: 7ravKX~Ara 4VtEo/l

ur 4EpOV Kap7rov, atpet avTon Kat 7r a V T O K a P 7 V p 0 V7

K a 6 a Cp f t a V T 0 Wva Kap7rOV 7rXetova (Ep,E . .. Eav Eu- Tt3 bevy EV

C~~ 0 ayovoa?vEav'ra/3k qOl) Zn &s t\ KXvua K a C P a V0 vKa aa

KaL ?o To vTrp paAAXvo v Kat KaLEra, and the inference is not unwar-

ranted that the corrupted ones met with some such fate as the

unfruitful branches.Verse 8 supplies a clue for the more precise determination of

their fate. For -what can the 'Rejected Ones' be if not the

imperfect Fruits of the corrupted and withering Sprays. The

system represented by the poem differs, then, from those of

Irenaeus and Hippolytus in that the 'Lady' Achamoth is com-

posed, not of Sophia's thoughts and passions alone, but of those

of all the Aeons who had sinned as she had. This, again, is a

new feature. In all the systems known to us Sophia alone is

responsible for the introduction of sin into the Pleroma; the

other Aeons are guiltless. Here they share the guilt.The first of the four functions ascribed to the Firmament--

he restrained strife among the Aeons-must be viewed in the

4Epiphanius has PVTa',which is accepted by both Harvey and Holl; the

Latin has folia, i. e. OvAXa. That this is the true reading the poem makes

extremely probable. vrvd implies that the Aeons are conceived as 'good

ground' which bears good 'plants,' but in the poem they are conceived

as 'sprays' or 'twigs' of the Abyss, and therefore can bear 'leaves,''blossoms,' or 'fruits,' but not 'plants.'

'It is probable that the title Kaprwr'sy attributed to Horus by Irenaeus

(1. 2. 4; p. 18), refers to this function and should be translated 'Plucker.'

But there are good reasons for accepting Grabe 's translation 'Emanci-

pator' (Harvey, note ad Zoo.) and therefore the point cannot be pressed.







A Syriac Valentinian Hymn '21

light of these other ideas the significance of which I have beenendeavoring to make clear. Strife among the Aeons is anentirely new idea; it is not mentioned in any of our sources forValentinianism. Yet its presence in this system is exceptionallywell attested. No less than three words, 'contending' (v. 6),'strife' (v. 10), and 'quarreling' (v. 11) imply it, and it is notlikely that all three are due to erroneous transliterations fromGreek into Syriac.

Irenaeus's first source admits that Sophia's rarJogwas sharedLo a certain extent by the other Aeons: (1. 2. 1; p. 13) vat ot

piv Xouroit0/oZw- AlVES /ov QNwAV rTe7rTOOOVV TO' 7rpo/o3XEa TOV Trp/aTOS

VTWV LSISEVKat Tn'V aIvapXoI tav 'o-Topr(out-. In fact the 7rJOogorigi-nated, not with Sophia, but with Logos and Life and from them'infected' the entire Pleroma, all the way down to Sophia, thelast of the Aeons (see the text, quoted p. 17). That this impli-cation of the other Aeons in Sophia's ra7o was a matter ofmoment Irenaeus sees clearly: (2. 17. 5; p. 309) Si autem omnes(sc. Aeones) dicunt participasse passionis hujus (i. e. Sophiae)

qItemadmodum quidam audent dicere, quiia a Logo quidemcoepit, derivatio autem in Sophiam, inl Logum hujus (i. e.Sophicae) [Nun Propatoris] passionem revocantes arguentur, etNun Propatoris et ipsum Patrem in passione futisse confitentes.Yet the mere 7rawOor desire to know the Father was not itselfsinful; sin entered in when the desire led to the formation ofconceptions about the Father without the assistance of 00Xyro's,'Approved.' Such conceptions were necessarily erroneous andhence sinful.

In the system reported by Hippolytus the Aeons not merelydesire to know the Father but actually form conceptions abouthinm, et without committing sin, for they conceive these thoughtsKaTa avtvvyLay: (6, 30; p. 274, 99) E'vqOEV (se. ,

Vog4a) ort ot /uey

akXot 7racvTes AcovCesEY)vv7TOV7rapXOVTCEara aitVVta4v Evv(wOaty,O 8E llarT\p

uLoYvoS atryOs yEEVVYqO V. Sophia's sin consisted in the fact that she(274, 2) 'OEX,/ctu'-aaoOatr TOY llaTEpa Kat yEvV 'at KaO' 4EavrTv Stxa

Troy Oav(vyov tvaLVGrL)V l Ep7OV V7r0&EtTEpOV TOU llarpoS E~pyaOEVr)

Marcus also teaches that each Aeon has a conception of theFather and adds the further details that each conceives theFather after his own likeness and has no knowledge of the con-ceptions formed by any other, but imagines his own to be anadequate representation of the Whole. (It should be remem-








bered that in Marcus's system each Aeon is represented as aLetter, the thirty Letters constituting a Ao'yos which was ToZ'Aopa'rovliopkq.) (Iren. 1. 14, 1; p. 130) EKaaTTo of& ( TOLXELWV

tsta ypaLJALTa Kat LtoT/ XapaKTrpa Kat Lotav E5KOr)YV/TLV KaLTXuaTa Kat

ELKOval EXELV Kat uqSEi avTrv ElTva'Q r Kv4KELVOV KaOopca uLp4/p v ovlTEp

avro 0rolToLX(ELOVOT a&' ovc 7LVOaTKELV6 aV 0o E /LuqY TqV To1)

70n7Oatov aVToV EKaaTOV EKO/XvW)cTLv 7LVYOXKfLVaa aX.ca 0 avTro\ E'K4(iVEL, WS To

7rav EK4wo~o1Ta, To JXov yydaOat o6'oua/LEtv.

These three closely related theories are probably later andemended forms of an earlier doctrine, no doubt that of Valen-

tinus himself, which was retained with little change in thesystem representedby the poem. This earlier doctrine may bereconstructed omewhatas follows.

All the Aeons not only desired to know the Father but alsoactually formedconceptionsof him, each after his own likeness.All of these conceptionswere, in a sense, true, for each Aeon isan aspect or attribute or manifestation of the Father, indeedValentinusseemsto have taught that they were constituentsof

the Divine Consciousness: (Tert. adv. Val. c. 4, p. 181 Kroy-mann CSEL vol. 47, pt. 3) eam (viam) postmodurmtolomaettsintrauit, nominibus et numerisAeonum distinctis in personalessubstantias, sed extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus inipsa summa diuinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.7But no one of them was an adequate expressionof the DivineBeing as a Whole; such an expression could be found only inall, collectively, which totality constituted the 'Pleroma' or'Fulness' of God. But they were not content thus to possesseach only a partial knowledgeof the Father; each claimed topossessa completeand adequate knowledgeof him and denied

I The reading 7LVWTKE1V is that of Hippolytus and is supported by the

Latin (sed ne quidem proximi ejus unumquodque enuntiationem s c i r e).

Epiphanius, according to Dindorf (Holl 's second volume in which this

passage would be found is not yet published), reads roXLopKed, for which

Dindorf substitutes the 7rXeoVeK7ed of the parallel passage, Epitome, p.

365, 12, rejecting (vol. 3, p. 666) the evidence of Hippolytus and the

Latin for reasons which seem to me inadequate. Harvey reads PytvTKCetv.

7K reads affectus <et> motus, which yields no clear idea. How can

the Aeons be conceived as 'motions' distinct from conscious states ?

Tert. is using a Greek idiom, perhaps following a Greek source W'stioOesW

Kal 7rd0ovS KLvehOE5, 'as being excitations of perception and of emotion'

within the Godhead.








the validity of all conceptions except his own. Hence aroseamong them rivalry, strife, and even unseemly bickering and

quarreling. Moreover, not content with the conceptions of theFather afforded by the constitution of their own natures, theysought to overstep these divinely appointed limits and toconceive of the Father as at once transcending all possible con-ceptions and yet capable of being comprised within such concep-tions. From such attempts nothing could result except errorand confusion of mind. And Sophia, the youngest and lowestof all, was the worst offender among them, for Sophia repre-

sents at once the Wisdom of God as expressed in the organiza-tion of the material universe and the 'wisdom' of man, whatthe Greeks called uoota or tLXoofta, which consists chiefly inthorough knowledge of the material universe, and of all concep-tions of God none are so inadequate and erroneous as those whichare derived from material things.

One can readily see that such a theory as this, which repre-sented the very Godhead as torn asunder by jealousy and strife,

would give no little offence and would speedily be modified.The three extant theories are most easily explained as attemptsto eet the difficulties raised by the original doctrine. Ptolemy,for the theories contained in Irenaeus's first and second sourcesare quite certainly different forms of the teachings currentamong his followers, held that no Aeon save Sophia formed anyconception of the Father at all until instructed by Christ-HolySpirit.8

The source used by Hippolytus taught that, although all the

Aeons conceived thoughts of the Father, all except Sophia didso in the divinely appointed way, through conjugal union, andtherefore none of their 'offspring' was 'shapeless,' that is,erroneous.

Marcus declares that no Aeon had any knowledge whateverof the thought of God entertained by any other, from which it

8 Tertullian, indeed, does charge Sophia with jealousy of Nous (adv.

Val. c. 9, p. 187, 15 Kr.: sed enim sub praetexto dilectionis in patremaemulatio superabat in Nun, solum de patre gaudentem). But there isno reason to suppose that Tertullian had any better ground for it thanhis own malicious fancy; the Latin version of Irenaeus, which Tertullianprobably had before him, has, like the Greek original, not 'jealousy' but'presumption, ' temeritatis.








would follow that there could be no rivalry and strife between

them.

Yet these various revisions were not so thorough as to oblit-erate all traces of the original theory. Hippolytus alone

describes at any length the 'tumult' of emotion which con-

vulsed the Aeons when they beheld Sophia's plight; according

to him it was composed of sympathy for Sophia and fear lest

a similar fate should befall them and their offspring: (6. 31;

p. 274, 18) yEvo4uLEVy' ov ErVTs llk opzaTos alyVoWs KaTa' Tfv YO4t)av

Kat a/1opcLaS KaTa' To yEvvrLua Tfls :optas, 0 o p v 8 o s Cye'veTo Ev

Tp ll1fl7po4LAaTL 1 ALNVE OL YEVO/UVOL [1. TdLs Azcrt OLKTLtOULVOLS ?] OTL

7rapa7ryoriws /luopca Kat a&TcX1yevVareatTOv At(VwovTa yevv-,uara Kat

cfA0pa TVJ KaTaX277I/raL OVK CIS uaKpaV 7TOTe TOVs Auawas. Yet in his

account of the reconstitution of the Pleroma Hippolytus lays

especial weight upon the restoration of 'peace,' 'concord,'

'unity,' and 'unanimity' among the Aeons: (6. 32; p. 278, 62)1E(LOVV Ua TLSV W Lp q V 7 Kat r vp c v t'a 7ravTwv TvErvTo's ll7pW

,uaros A0vwv, eò$cv avTols ,uq ,uovov KaTa ovtvyiav CSO4CtKevaLav1rov. o4a'-

Crat<8 C>

KatLa 7rpocroopa- Kap7rwv 7rpe7roVTwvrp

larpt.7ravres oVV V/OoKr-

aav ot TpLaKovTaANves Eva -rpo3aXCELvA-va, KOLVO\VOZ Ikl77pzo4aT0o Kap7r0V, I V ^ $ \ C I I I

tv 7)T2 o T qTT o s avrV Kat T's o ,u o Vp o apVvcs.

But these ideas surely imply preceding strife, discord, disunion,

and disagreement. Even more clearly do these tell-tale traits

betray their presence in Irenaeus's account, according to which

the process of reconstitution consisted chiefly in the obliterationof all distinction between the several Aeons, by virtue of which

each became identical with all the others: (1. 2. 6; p. 22)To

\['v] llvcvua To ayLOV e L 0- f Ev T a s avTovs 7ravTag EVXaPUrTELV

CE&$a$EVa\ T17v&X77OLv-qVVa7ravOtv<EUT> flyforaTo. ovTr Te u o p 4 7

K a t y v () ,~lu L (7 0 V s KaTacrTaOVVaL ToVs AvWa Xcyovot, 7ravTag yevoO/Lvovs

No'as Kat 7ravTas AoyovS Kat 7ravTas 'Avwpo7rovS Kat 7ravTag XpLOrToV, Kat

Trag 0OryXdas o,uoiws 7ravTas 'AX770Et'as Kalt 7raras ZWas KaU IIve L aTa KaL

'EKKXVrt'a3. What can this mean except that the differences

between them were the chief causes of the disorder?

The twelfth Ode of Solomon also bears marks of this revision:

7b For he (the Word) was Light and the dawning of Thought,8 And the Ages through him talked one with another,

To speech came those that were silent;9

91. 8b: read eoe CAB? ?ua WAS>: oeoa;o The first coot is here

equivalent to ECyevovro, the second to jcraa.








9 And from him came Love and Equality,

and they told one another what they had,

And they were penetrated by the Word,10 and they knew him that made them,

because they were in equality.

Whether the 'Ages' or 'Worlds' here are Aeons or Star-spirits is irrelevant; the picture is at all events suggested bythe Valentinian model and the author uses such elements of itas suit his purpose. The Logos plays the part of the CelestialLight of the poem, and he also is Light. The Ages correspond

to the Aeons; they receive 'equality' as in Irenaeus and 'love'as in Hippolytus. But there is no intimation of strife; rather

does it seem that before the advent of the Logos the Ages weredumb, incapable of communicating or of receiving an idea,which is analogous to the conception bf Marcus that no Aeonknows anything of the thought of any other. But when theLogos gave them the gift of speech each communicated to theothers his conception of God; thus all were brought into love

and equality, 'and they knew him that made them because theywere in equality'-for each now possesses all the conceptionsof the Father entertained in the Pleroma and the sum of themall constitutes all that can be known of him. And this also isMarcus's doctrine.

Disconnected as the ideas of the poem are, it is possible toreconstruct out of them the author's theory of the origin of sinand his conception of the early stages of the process which isto end in sin 's annihilation. Each Aeon was an individualexpression or attribute of the Transcendent Reality. Each con-ceived his Source in his own likeness, each asserted that his ownconception and n6 other was at once true and adequate, whencearose jealousy, bickering, and strife. Sophia went far beyondall the others, so far that her Thought was on the point ofgoing out of the Pleroma and losing itself in the Abyss. Thenit was that the Celestial Light was emanated. He diffused him-self throughout every Region or Aeon, bringing with him infor-

mation about the Father which he had received from the Heador Source, that is Nous. In this way, and no doubt in others,such as are described by Irenaeus, he showed kindness to theAeons. The Celestial Firmament is not an Aeon absolutelyindependent of all others. As Christ is a cloud of dazzling








Light invading the Pleroma and spreading throughout it, so

is the Firmament the advancing Boundary (opos) of this Light,

which, when the Light has filled the entire Pleroma, becomesidentical with the boundary of the Pleroma itself. Thus its, or

rather his, functions are merely aspects of the functions of the

Light. In general it was to restrain strife among the Aeons-

not necessarily to put a stop to all rivalry, but to bring it

within proper limits. This he did in three steps. First he

expelled from the Pleroma that Thought or Intention of

Sophia's which had presumed to try to break its bounds.

Second, every Spray or Shoot or Thought about the Fatherwhich was producing its firstfruits, that is, issuing in an

approximately true conception, he healed-brought to a state of

health and perfection. For such a Thought is itself light and

the advent of the Light will still further illumine and strengthen

it. Third, every Spray which is not bearing such fruit but is

incurably corrupted and on the point of withering away he no

doubt cut off and cast out of the Pleroma. In the outer Dark-

ness and Void Sophia's Thought and all the other erroneousand rejected Thoughts coalesced into a murky and seething

mass, composed almost wholly of Ignorance and frenzied Pas-

sions. This is what some Valentinians called 'Achamoth,'

what this author calls 'the Lady who came from Rejected Ones.'

To her the Celestial Light showed mercy, no doubt as in Ire-

naeus's second source by permitting some measure of his radi-

ance to shine through Horus in order to penetrate into and

become part of her consciousness.

One at least of the new doctrines presented by the poem, thatwhich derives Achamoth from all the Aeons, can be identified

with considerable confidence as the teaching of Secundus, the

pupil of Valentinus.

Of Secundus nothing is known except the little told by Ire-

naeus and Hippolytus. These two accounts are almost identical

and it is obvious that Hippolytus is either copying Irenaeus or

drawing from the same source-supposed to be the lost 1vvTaypxa

of Justin Martyr. Tertullian, Epiphanius, Pseudo-Tertullian,Filaster, and Theodoretus give more or less distorted reproduc-

tions of this same account; no one of them possesses any

independent source of information.







A Syriac Valentiniian Hymn 27

Iren. I. 11. 1; p. 101: Hipp. 6. 38; p. 292, 94:

Secundus autem MeKOOv30o Adz' TLS KaTa rb

av7-6 6a ac llroXqeatqi yev6jueVos,

primam ogdoadem sic tradidit, dicens: oVTCrwsXlyet -

quaternationem esse dextram et quater- rerpac3a et-at 36etav Kal rerpac3a apLta-

nationem sinistram, et lumen et tenebras; TepdP, Kal Ads Ka TK6oTos

et discedentem autem <et> destitutam Kai TPV d7-uT~aoTav Kai baTepoao-aV

virtutem, non a triginta Aeonibus vautv OVK drbr TCjV Tpta'KOVTa AWn'Wv

dicit fuisse, sed a fructibus eorum. Xg-yet yeyev}oOat, adXXa dro TCOV KaprCov

ai7r6v.

The first statement, that Secundus divided the First Ogdoadinto two Tetrads, a Right and a Left, Light and Darkness, hasno bearing upon any of the ideas of the poem and thereforeneed not now be discussed.

The second statement is ambiguous. Its more obvious mean-ing would be: 'The Power which deserted and failed was

derived not from the Thirty Aeons but from their Fruits.'It is in this sense that Tertullian, whose sole source is Irenaeus,

understands it (adv. Val. c. 38, p. 211, 11 Kroymann): .

tantum quod desultricem et defectricem illam uirtutem non wdltab aliquo deducere Aeonum sed a fructibus de substantia uen)i-

entibus.10 This interpretation would distinguish the theory ofSecundus both from that of Valentinus and Theodotus, whichmade Achamoth a fallen Aeon, and from that of Ptolemy andothers, which made her the fruit of an Aeon, in that it makesher the offspring of the fruits of Aeons, which fruits in turncame from the substance of the Aeons, thus placing her in the

third instead of the second generation from the Pleroma.It is possible, however, to take 7ro"TrV KTA. in a less obvioussense as nearly equivalent to a partitive genitive (Kiihner-Gerth, Ausfilhrliche Gramm. d. gr. Spr. 3d ed. 3. p. 457), in whichcase the meaning would be: 'The Power which revolted aindfailed was not (any one) of the Thirty Aeons but was (one or

'0Kroymann adopts the MS reading ueniant, upon which he remarks:ueniant PMF, uenientibus Pam(elius); non sequor quia nec ex Irenaeo Iiic

deficiente nec ex interprete nec ex Epiphanio emendandi rationem accipio.Pamelius 's emendation is quite satisfactory; the fact that neither theLatin nor Epiphanius throws any light upon the passage is not surprising,for there is every reason for supposing that this is one of Tertullian 'sinnumerable glosses upon Irenaeus's text.








more) of their Fruits.' If this be the meaning, the negativeassertion distinguishes Secundus's theory from that of Valen-

tinus, but the positive does not clearly distinguish it from thatof Ptolemy, for he also held that Achamoth was the Fruit ofan Aeon. It is in this sense that Ps.-Tert. understands it (adv.

omn. haer. c. 4, p. 221, 12 Kroymann): Post hunc extiteruntPtolomaeus et Secundus haeretici, qui cum Valentino per omniaconsentiunt, in illo solo differunt: nam cum Valentinus Aeonas

tantum triginta finxisset, isti addiderunt alios compiures; quat-

utor enim primum, deinde alios quatuor adgregauerunt. et quod

dicit Valentinus Aeonem tricesimum excessisse de Pleromate, utin defectionem, negant isti: nontenim ex illa triacontada fuisse

hunc, qui fuerit in defectione propter desiderium, uidendi

propatoris.Epiphanius's paraphrase is even more obscure than the orig-

inal, but it would seem that he also takes Ad7ro TW-V KTX. as equiva-

lent to a partitive genitive (haer. 32. 1. 6; p. 439, 13 Holl):

rqv &E a&Too-rao-cv Tr Kal VLoTep'acaaWV 8Uva/LtV iAq elvat aoT TwV TrptaKovTa

AvW'vwv,nXXna ,LTa%TV

TpaKOVTa AWvas,us elvata7T0 TWV iETa TT/V Qy-

Soa8oRT/V aAXX-vKarwrepw yevouvwvwv -'not of the Thirty Aeons but

after the Thirty Aeons, in the sense of being of the (emanations)which came into existence on a lower (plane) after the Second

Ogdoad.' According to all sources save one the Second Ogdoadis itself the offspring of Achamoth; this makes Achamoth the

offspring of the Second Ogdoad. The sole exception is the

Valentinian document which quotes this Syriac poem. In it

niention is made of a Second Ogdoad derived directly from the

First. It is composed (Epiph. haer. 31. 6. 2; p. 393, 5 Holl) ofthe 'males' Mo'vog,Tpt'iog, E'1,7rrog, t'EftSouo-, and the 'females'

Avads, TcrpaLs, 'Eta's, 'Oy~oas, and seems to be identical with the

Meaosn (ib. 31. 6. 9; p. 395, 9). There is unfortunately nothingin the document to determine the relations of these emanations

to Achamoth. It is possible that Epiphanius is here drawingfrom that portion of the document which he has not copied, yet

11Holl reads dirb T7I' <Kap7rWJP CSaT7UD TWI'> Av-T& T?) KTX. While this

emendation does not materially affect the sense, the MS reading is prefer-

able; dbrb -Cv . . . .7evoVgve is Epiphanius's paraphrase of dbr6 rWIV KaprwJ

avwi'r. For yevotte'vwv the MSS have yevoud&qv, again without materially

affecting the sense.








in his own sketch of the Valentinian doctrine, presumably basedupon that document, he derives the Second Ogdoad from the

-arepvyuan the usual way (31. 4. 2; p. 388, 2).Returning to Irenaeus's text: while both these interpretations

are admissible, the context is distinctly in favor of the second.For this paragraph follows immediately after a sketch of thedoctrine of Valentinus in the course of which Irenaeus says(1. 11. 1; p. 100) : alro Se roV 'Av~pw7rovKat rgs 'EKKX#L'aSSW'-

&fKa (c. AVvajCLS AE'Yet vpofEffaO-OOaL) 'V /ltav d o c r a a a V K a L

v a r c p o- a cr a v rv XoL7rqv 7rpay/ardtav cEiroIoat. The sketch

concludes: haec quidem ille; Secundus aeutem,etc., from whichit is manifest that when he proceeds to say of the same Uvajmll

in Secundus's system that it was not aro rTwVTpLaKovTa Awv(Ov,hemeans to distinguish Secundus's doctrine from that of Valen-tinus; a7ro-CV KTA. then is equivalent to a partitive genitive.In like manner JAXa Jro rToV Kaplr-v av'TCOVmust mean 'of' or

'among their Fruits,' that is, 'is identical with some of theirFruits.' But this is the doctrine of the poem.

The interpretation which I have above given of the poemrests entirely upon the reading jmaaouoXaiv. The emendationswhich yield the alternatives picoraovAavand IEvC(COUXtav are simple,defensible, and would bring the doctrine of the poem into linewith that of Ptolemy. Indeed, all my earlier attempts at initer-pretation proceeded upon the assumption that some such emnen-dation was necessary; it was not until experience had provedthat the fewer the emendations the better the sense that Ireluctantly tried to make sense of mo-o-ovAo. The above inter-pretation of the poem's doctrine had been reasoned out fromthe text and written out substantially as it now stands beforeI observed that Irenaeus's statement of Secundus's theory couldbe taken as expressing the same thought, and when I didobserve it, it seemed to me, and still seems, a striking confirma-tion of the reading.

The poem manifestly presupposes on the part of the readera knowledge of the system of thought which underlies it and

should be regarded as essentially a hymn of praise, designedto stimulate devotional feeling. Since the first stanza glorifiesthe saving work of the Celestial Light and the second that ofthe Celestial Firmament, one may infer that a third sang thepraises of the Y.(,T) who descended from the Pleroma to deliver








Achamoth from despair and initiate the construction of the

material universe, and a fourth those of Jesus who descended

to earth to bring salvation to mankind. Whether the poem con-

tained more than four stanzas must remain undetermined.

To the author and precise date of the poem there is no clue.

The fact that it preserves one of the doctrines of Secundus

does not prove that Secundus wrote it; in fact, since nothingis known of Secundus's nationality, it is not known whether

he wrote in Syriac or not. One naturally thinks first of Bar-

daisan, the Syrian Valentinian, to whose authorship the hymns

used in the denomination which he founded were popularlyascribed, or of his son Harmonius, who, according to Sozomen

(HE 3. 16), 'had, people say, a Greek education and was the

first to adapt his mother tongue to meters and rules of music'(Ov Owan la' ruv 7rap''EXX-qrLXoywv aXOE'vra 7rprov /eLpots KfLL vo/oLs

OV(TLKOLS TV/V 7Ta'Trptov ckn)v vT ayaydlv). But the poem contains

nothing known to be characteristic of Bardaisan or of his

school, and in the hundred and fifty years or so which elapsed

between the death of Bardaisan and the appearance of thepoem in the pages of Epiphanius there is ample time for the

composition of many hymns by Syrian Valentinians. The only

other Syrian Valentinian known by name is Axionicus, a con-

temporary of Tertullian (adv. Val. c. 4; p. 181, 12 Kr.: solus

ad hodiernum Antiochiae Axionicus memoriam Valentini integra

custodia reguilarum eius consolatur), but there is little ground

for attributing the poem to him. If, as seems probable, the

source used by Hippolytus was the work of Axionicus,12 the

"2Hippolytus 's main account of Valentinianism (6. 29-36) is a coherent

exposition of a single system, obviously based upon a written source to

which he makes frequent allusions, and with occasional digressions in which

he compares variant forms of these doctrines with those which he is

expounding. In the course of this exposition and as an integral part of

it occurs (c. 35) the doctrine that the body of Jesus was composed of

spiritual substance, emanated by Sophia and molded by the Demiurge.

This gives occasion for the remark that the Valentinians are divided upon

this issue, that the Italian school, to which belong Heracleon and Ptolemy,hold that Jesus' body was psychic and that the spiritual element did not

enter it until his baptism, while the Eastern school, to which belong

Axionicus and 'Ardesianes '-no doubt Bardaisan-hold that it was

spiritual. The doctrine is then restated in almost the same words as have

already been used, although more briefly. It is somewhat more than a fair








poem cannot possibly be his, for the system there expounded isvery different from that of the poem. One may, perhaps, inferfrom the form and character of the poem the existence of anaudience instructed in the doctrines of the system which itrepresents and capable of appreciating its allusions-possibly acongregation which used such hymns in its liturgy, as the Bar-daisanian churches certainly did. This would indicate a laterrather than an earlier date for its composition. But the primi-tive type of its doctrine forbids its assignment to the latestdevelopments of Valentinian speculation; it is probably not

later than the middle of the third century and may well beearlier.

The relation of the poem to the document in which it is quotedinvolves so many and such difficult problems that it cannot bediscussed here. One may, however, observe that the words withwhich it is introduced-flov',Xo/at 8Ev'uas ytvo4KEtv-imply that theauthor is in full agreement with the doctrine of the poem.

These same words suggest an explanation of Epiphanius 's

strange mistake-and very strange it is that 'Father Epiphan-ius of the five tongues,' as he is called by Jerome (c. Rufinum,3. 6; Migne, 23, col. 462: Pater Epiphanitus 7rc'rai-Acoyoos),whocredits him with a knowledge of Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, Egyp-tian, and some Latin (op. cit. 2. 22; M. col. 446), a native ofPalestine and even alleged to be of Jewish birth and upbringing,should have mistaken a Syriac poem for a list of names. Whatlittle Syriac Epiphanius knew he probably knew, as do most ofus, through the eye only, not through ear or tongue, and hencethe words in their Greek dress conveyed at first glance no mean-ing to his mind and no hint of the language which they repre-sented. On the other hand, the portentous introduction-' Iwish you to know'-addressed as it is to the Perfect Ones, sug-gested a Secret, and completely misled him. Among all prac-titioners of Holy Magic (lepovpyta, Ocovpyta), such as many Gnos-tics certainly were, the most highly prized secret was knowledgeof the hidden Names, for he that possessed it could make the

beings designated by those Names his servants and compel them

inference that the source which Hippolytus is using was the work of eitherAxionicus or Bardaisan-presumably of Axionicus, since he is given theprecedence.








to do his bidding. These Names were usually strange combina-tions of vowels and consonants, of barbarous appearance to the

Greek eye, and the good Father saw before him a column or listof just such words. What more natural than the inference,what more pleasing than the thought, that he had detected andcould now make public the very Secret of secrets, the verySecret which the detestable heretics would most dislike to haveexposed? Moreover, the Valentinians grouped their spiritualbeings in pairs; the lines of the column, or sub-divisions of thelist, nearly all contained just two words each-then the first

fifteen lines must contain the names of the Thirty Aeons! Andthis is the reason why he transcribed just fifteen lines of thepoem and no more, thus preserving for us one complete stanzaand only seven of the eight verses of the second.

That Epiphanius did in fact derive his notions of Valentiniandoctrine from such a column or list he virtually tells us himself;Panar. 31. 2. 6; p. 384, 22 Holl: O'pa &ETrv Toy ayvprov TErpa-

yW&7J87V14V 11vfo0071oav Kat /.LoX'Orpav SLoaGfKaXtav. TpLaKovTa yap ovTos% S

E407v, atWo~vaqfSovTat 7rapLtTav,ors Kat

O6Eois ovo/taWCL, 8EKa71rEVTreaZppevasKaL OrnXEias T-ocavTaq Ovat XEyov. EKa(fTOV SE aiGva Jppcv6'r7Xvv Knit Zi'yok

4nrtv avToJ KaLL ot avroV CEKawrEvTc E Svaoag 4cwov Rival a's ov(vytas

KaXoVutr. TOv apL6/.ov SE ELvatTptaKovTa (atvas, E K a if T v 8 07Xv t av

yE v v a V a7T O ) e V T O v S K a 0 E aL OV1 a 3 * KTX.

Where did Epiphanius get the idea that each female Aeon

'generates from the male the succeeding Aeons'? It is, of

course, not true in any Valentinian system; that it was not truein this system he would have perceived if he had taken the trdu-

ble to read the document before his eyes in which the genealogyof the Aeons is given as follows:

BvO6s qtyX

Aa-r7p +I--+ty2

AvOpwros + 'EKK\1X-oa A6,yos + Zwh

I IAAC~des AeKds

I think the most probable explanation is that he mistook the

column of verses for a genealogical table, in which each pair







A Syriac Valentinian, Hymn 33

was the progenitor of the next and so of all the subsequentpairs.

This same hypothesis, that Epiphanius had before him whathe supposed to be a list arranged column-wise, explains hishitherto inexplicable repetition of the list. The passage abovequoted proceeds: tvaL SC 7oTroVs s V'rT aKTat, Kant avrtrapa'Oetv

eKaWTOV appCVtKOV OVO/.xaTOS TeTay/.xEvOv aVTtKpVS TOV' 077XVKOV OVO/,aTOs

[i. e. he writes them in a doublecolumn] KaL CiTLv1 [herefollowsthe list]. Kat ovTrws 1EV YVyKEtvrat (Us1KaTa rv(vgytav appevov Xoos [i. e.the above arrangement exhibits the Aeons in connubial union as

fifteen bisexual beings], 'v 8 Ad KoXovOL' KaTa StaSoX'v oJrws [i. e.to exhibit them in sequence and due succession as thirty indi-vidual beings they should be arranged as follows; the list isthen repeated unchanged. No doubt Epiphanius in his originalMS arranged them either in a single column or. simply in lineas we now have them]. Wv o3vota'rwv poprevtat' dotv a&ts Bv6OS

Kat' Yy', No3s Kalt 'AX'6cta [and so on, the thirty Greek namesbeing given in fifteen pairs]. KaTa' 8E alptLOov8VaJoXX)S Kai alKOXov6Las

[i.e. but to exhibit the number of the Aeons contained in thissuccession and sequence] a7roTov) avwTaTov aKaTovo/AacTov llarpos Kat

Bv~ovi rap' av'TOLs vo/atoLe'vov EWs TOVTOV TOv Ka9' 77/La- ovpavov o Tov

TpUKoITa VpL~fts OiTWS eXEL [the same list follows, but the namesare not linked in pairs by KLat's]. When the copyists disregardedthe differences of arrangement by which Epiphanius sought torepresent the distinction between fifteen bisexual beings and thethirty individual Aeons, the first two lists became indistinguish-able.

3 JAOS 38

Documents

A Syriac Valentinian Hymn