Adolf Harnack, On the Monarchian Gnosis of Apelles (1874), Part One: The Sources

From the same dissertation, Part One, pages 9–54: the sources from which the doctrine of Apelles is to be drawn, called to examination.

[p. 9]

Part One

The sources from which we shall draw the doctrine of Apelles are called to examination

I.

It is not often, as we explore the life and doctrine of the founders of heresies of the second century, that we are able to use accounts written by men who not only shared the time and age of the heretics but also contended with them face to face. Concerning Apelles, Eusebius¹⁾ has preserved for us the words of Rhodon of Asia. This Rhodon was a disciple at Rome of the famous Tatian,²⁾ and had as his contemporaries Clement of Alexandria, Narcissus of Jerusalem and Apelles himself.³⁾ Eusebius relates that Rhodon disputed and composed books against the various and many-shaped opinions of the Marcionites, and from the remains of these books it is easy to see that he had looked deep into the heresy of the Marcionites, so that, having looked into it to its foundations, he might root it out from its foundations.⁴⁾ But to overthrow the doctrine of Apelles Rhodon used not only his pen,

[p. 10]

but also, having held a conversation with him, defended the catholic doctrine and refuted that heretic’s opinions. Rhodon himself put into writing a summary of this conversation, which surely did more honour to Apelles than to its author, and inserted it into the books he wrote against the Marcionites, and Eusebius has preserved it for us. So it comes about that in Eusebius we find some things that Apelles himself professed, and some things that Rhodon, his contemporary, urged against him.

A) What we read about Apelles in the fragments of Rhodon is this:

1) That Apelles was a disciple of Marcion.¹⁾
2) That at the time when Rhodon wrote he was an old man, venerable in his way of living and acting.²⁾
3) That he preached one principle.³⁾
4) That Apelles taught that the prophecies took their origin from an opposing spirit.⁴⁾
5) That he composed many books in order to heap abuse on the law and the words of God.⁵⁾
6) That he followed the utterances of a certain possessed virgin named Philumene.⁶⁾

B) The words of Apelles himself, recorded by Rhodon and preserved by Eusebius, are these:

Rhodon wrote: „Ὁ γέρων Ἀπελλῆς συμμίξας ἡμῖν πολλὰ μὲν κακῶς λέγων ἠλέγχθη, ὅθεν καὶ ἔφασκε, μὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ’ ἕκαστον, ὡς πεπίστευκε, διαμένειν. Σωθήσεσθαι γὰρ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἠλπικότας ἀπεφαίνετο, μόνον ἐὰν ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς εὑρίσκωνται. Τὸ δὲ πάντων ἀσαφέστατον ἐδογματίζετο αὐτῷ πρᾶγμα, καθὼς προειρήκαμεν, τὸ περὶ θεοῦ.

[p. 11]

Ἔλεγε μὲν γὰρ μίαν ἀρχὴν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος. Εἶτα προθεὶς αὐτοῦ πᾶσαν τὴν δόξαν ἐπιφέρει (scil. ὁ Ῥόδων) φάσκων· λέγοντος δέ μου πρὸς αὐτὸν· „πόθεν ἡ ἀπόδειξις αὕτη σοι, ἢ πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν μίαν ἀρχὴν, φρᾶσον ἡμῖν; ἔφη, τὰς μὲν προφητείας ἑαυτὰς ἐλέγχειν, διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ὅλως ἀληθὲς εἰρηκέναι· ἀσύμφωνοι γὰρ ὑπάρχουσι καὶ ψευδεῖς καὶ ἑαυταῖς ἀντικείμεναι. Τὸ δὲ πῶς ἐστι μία ἀρχὴ, μὴ γινώσκειν ἔλεγεν, οὕτω δὲ κινεῖσθαι μόνον. Εἶτ’ ἐπομοσαμένου μου τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, ὤμνυεν ἀληθεύων λέγειν, μὴ ἐπίστασθαι πῶς εἷς ἐστιν ἀγέννητος θεὸς, τοῦτο δὲ πιστεύειν. Ἐγὼ δὲ γελάσας κατέγνων αὐτοῦ, διότι διδάσκαλος εἶναι λέγων οὐκ ᾔδει τὸ διδασκόμενον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ κρατύνειν.“

[English: “The old man Apelles, when he met with us, was shown to be wrong in many things he said; and so he also said that one ought not to examine the doctrine at all, but that each should remain as he had believed. For he declared that those who had set their hope on the crucified would be saved, provided only that they were found in good works. But the most obscure matter of all that he taught, as we have said before, was that concerning God. For he spoke of one principle, as our doctrine also does.” Then, having set out the whole of his opinion, he (that is, Rhodon) goes on to say: “When I said to him, ‘Where do you get this proof, or how can you say there is one principle? Tell us,’ he said that the prophecies refute themselves, because they have said nothing at all that is true; for they are inconsistent and false and contradict themselves. But how there is one principle, he said he did not know, but that he was simply moved to it. Then when I adjured him to tell the truth, he swore that he was speaking the truth in saying that he did not understand how there is one unbegotten God, but that he believed it. And I laughed and condemned him, because, while saying he was a teacher, he did not know how to establish what he taught.”]

There are two things that we note from this speech of Apelles.¹⁾ First, that Apelles himself professed that only one principle exists; second, that he asserted that the prophecies refute one another, since they contradict themselves. It is greatly to be regretted that Eusebius did not excerpt more from the books of Rhodon. From the beginning of § 6 (προθεὶς αὐτοῦ πᾶσαν τὴν δόξαν [having set out the whole of his opinion]) we can conclude that Rhodon gave a summary of all of Apelles’ opinions. If Eusebius had copied it out, we should enjoy the surest accounts of Apelles; for it is clear that, since Apelles’ writings are lost, we can look for no better authority than Rhodon, Apelles’ contemporary.

II.

Tertullian, in the books he wrote against the heretics, quite often finds fault here and there with the opinions of Apelles.²⁾ Already, in what we set before this inquiry, we have shown that Tertullian mentioned Apelles together with

[p. 12]

the great founders of heresies;¹⁾ but today we read in Tertullian no continuous exposition and refutation of Apelles’ doctrine. Rather, as occasion offered, especially where he meant to refute the heretical opinions on the nature of Christ, he briefly explained and rebutted the dogmas of Apelles. Tertullian did indeed write a separate little book against the Apelleiaci, as we proved above from the passage De carne Chr. 8;²⁾ but that book perished long ago and seems to have left no trace of itself. Indeed we should not know at all that Tertullian ever put a refutation of the Apelleiaci into writing if he had not referred to his little book himself; for of the writers of a later time there seems to have been no one who mentioned the book, much less copied it.³⁾

So it comes about that about the plan and content of the lost little book we can say nothing, apart from what Tertullian himself took from it and put into his other books (cf. De carne Chr. 6–9, etc.); but from what follows you will see that Pseudo-Tertullian too gives us a handle for looking in some part into the content of the little book.⁴⁾ Tertullian has confirmed for us some of the things

that Rhodon handed down about Apelles. He says that Apelles, before he thought out his own doctrine, was a disciple of Marcion; he calls him “a disciple and later a deserter

[p. 13 holds only the rest of note 4 of p. 12, marked [p. 13] in that note]

[p. 14]

of Marcion,”¹⁾ and blames him for having brought forth nothing good from Marcion’s bad treasure;²⁾ in the same place he calls him “a corrector instead of a disciple” and Marcion himself “the instructor and shaper beforehand of Apelles.”³⁾ But Tertullian not only reports that Apelles departed from Marcion and changed his doctrine altogether;⁴⁾ he also tells us what cause moved Apelles to leave Marcion’s schools and build new roads for himself. For he wrote in De praescript. haer. 30: “Apelles, having fallen through a woman, a deserter of Marcionite continence, withdrew from the eyes of his most holy master to Alexandria”;⁵⁾ by which words Tertullian seems to mean that Apelles, having committed a mortal sin, shut himself out of the fellowship of the Marcionites. But this is certainly a slander, invented either by Tertullian himself or by someone else. Let us remember what Rhodon told us of the venerable holiness of Apelles’ life.⁶⁾ This alone can we keep from Tertullian’s words and hold for true: that Apelles,

having left Marcion’s school, moved to Alexandria and there worked out his doctrine. In several places Tertullian speaks of the virgin Philumene, “by whose possession Apelles was taken in and wrote down what he learned from her as Phaneroseis [Manifestations],” and he gives more about her than Rhodon does.¹⁾

[p. 15]

In describing Apelles’ doctrine Tertullian agrees with Rhodon, since both bear witness that he kept and preached the monarchy. Tertullian indeed nowhere says this in so many words; yet that he was not ignorant of Apelles’ genuine opinion about God can be concluded from the fact that he calls the creator of the world, whom Apelles brought in besides the higher God, an angel of the higher God;²⁾ and from De resurr. 5 and De anim. 23 it is clear that a certain Fiery One too, of whom Tertullian speaks here and there,³⁾ was an angel of the higher God and not a God born of himself, although called a god. That in Tertullian’s view Apelles confessed one God, then, no one will deny. We have already said above that Tertullian attacks above all the christology of Apelles; those who wish to examine what Tertullian has brought forward on Apelles’ doctrine must remember this. The other dogmas of Apelles Tertullian touched on only lightly, as if in passing, and

[p. 16]

nowhere set out the whole doctrine; for wherever he sets it out he refutes it, and he sets it out in order to refute it. What he brings forward is therefore broken off and cut short, and no less obscure and very hard to explain. And it is very hard indeed to make out how Tertullian both understood Apelles’ doctrine of God and the angels himself and wanted it to be understood; for the passages De carne Chr. 8 and De praesc. haer. 34, where he finds fault with Apelles’ opinion on the angels, are obscure and truly twisted.

But we must above all ask now how much Tertullian’s accounts are worth. Only by comparing the descriptions of Apelles’ doctrine given by other men with Tertullian’s can we pass a sure judgment; but a priori, as they say, you would conclude that Tertullian’s account is of the greatest authority. Rhodon testifies that Apelles spread his doctrine while living at Rome, and he is also the authority for his being still alive at the end of the second century, at Rome, that is, if you listen to Tertullian, who reports that he returned from Alexandria to Rome.¹⁾ That Rhodon held his conversation with Apelles at Rome is very likely; to put it briefly, Apelles is a Roman heretic. We know that Tertullian, an African by birth, spent several years at Rome.²⁾ Eusebius counts him among „τῶν μάλιστα ἐπὶ Ῥώμης λαμπρῶν“ [“those most distinguished at Rome”],³⁾ and by this honourable mention he clearly indicates that he was at Rome for no short time. Learned men have made a reckoning of the time when Tertullian stayed at Rome;⁴⁾ for my part I am persuaded that Tertullian left Rome and returned to Carthage in the first years of the Emperor Septimius Severus. He was at Rome, then, in the reign of Commodus (180–192).⁵⁾ But Apelles he did not see

[p. 17]

at Rome, which can be proved from the passage De praesc. haer. 30, where we read: “There are still in the world those who remember them (Marcion, Valentinus, Apelles), even their own pupils and successors, so that later men cannot deny it.” It follows from these words that Apelles was already dead at the time when Tertullian was at Rome; for Tertullian would certainly not have appealed to others if he himself had been Apelles’ contemporary. Using this reckoning we can define more precisely the time when Rhodon conversed with Apelles at Rome. The conversation took place not under the Emperor Commodus but under Marcus Aurelius (161–180); for in the time of Commodus Tertullian, living at Rome, learned that Apelles was already dead and saw people from whom he got information about Apelles’ life. Tertullian, then, counts Apelles among the men of an earlier age.¹⁾ I have no doubt that he learned of Apelles’ reputation at Rome,²⁾ but I do not therefore wish to deny that followers of Apelles also came to Carthage in Tertullian’s time.

Looking more closely at Tertullian’s little books, we notice that in some places he cites the words of the Apelleiaci themselves, and that in various places he repeats certain notions of the Apelleian doctrine always in the same words; and so you will easily persuade yourself that he reproduces and accurately hands down the terms of the Apelleiaci themselves. What I have noted on this matter I shall set out in what follows.

I) In several places Tertullian brings in the Apelleiaci, or Apelles himself, as speaking, citing their opinions with these words: “they say,” “they declare,” “they confess,” “he relates.” But take care not to suppose that wherever

[p. 18]

Tertullian uses these words he is repeating the genuine words of the heretics; for very often, taking the heretics’ part himself, he speaks in their sense, and more often still he has worked out their opinions and set them out at greater length, so that, once they had been thought out and built up to the end, he could more easily pull them down.¹⁾ But in truth, if we look at what he has handed down about Apelles, there is no reason for us to deny that Tertullian either read the books of Apelles himself or of the Apelleiaci,²⁾ or heard their words. Add to this that we find interpretations of Holy Scripture thought out by the Apelleiaci reproduced in Tertullian’s volumes.³⁾

Finally, we nowhere read that Tertullian appeals to refutations of Apelles’ doctrine written by other men; it is very likely, therefore, that he drew what he brought forward from the best sources, namely from the writings of Apelles or of the Apelleiaci.

II) The terms of Apelles that Tertullian repeated in various places, rendered into Latin in the same words, are these:

Superior deus (ὁ ἄνω θεός) [the higher God].
Superior mundus (ὁ ἄνω κόσμος) [the higher world].
Substantiae superioris mundi (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ ἄνω κόσμου) [the substances of the higher world].
Angelus inclitus (gloriosus) creator (ὁ ἄγγελος ἔνδοξος κτιστής) [the famous (glorious) angel, the creator].
Igneus angelus (ὁ ἄγγελος πυρινός) [the fiery angel].

[p. 19]

Then compare, please, these passages:

Comparing these, you will surely conclude that Apelles himself or the Apelleiaci themselves affirmed that Christ carried about a body ἀληθῶς [truly]: for Tertullian, Apelles’ enemy, would surely not have pressed that ἀληθῶς if Apelles himself had not professed again and again that Christ had a true body.

I have no doubt that Apelles himself named the “fiery angel” the God of Israel and of the Catholics.

You may rightly conclude that Apelles wrote: „Ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ ἄνω κόσμου ἐδανείσατο ὁ Χριστὸς τὴν σάρκα“ [English: “Christ borrowed his flesh from the elements of the higher world”].

Compare, finally, the description of the fall of the souls from heaven (De carne 8 and De anim. 23), given in almost the same words.

All that we have brought forward points to this: that we should believe that Tertullian had in view the words or the writings of Apelles himself. But Lipsius has put forward another opinion.¹⁾ To that most learned man it seems likely that Tertullian, where he refuted Apelles’ doctrine, drew some things from Hippolytus’ treatise πρὸς ἁπάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις [Against All the Heresies]. Before we examine this view, we must inquire what Hippolytus handed down about Apelles.

[p. 20]

III.

It is well known that the treatise of Hippolytus, of which Photius is the last witness, is lost. Lipsius, with the greatest acuteness, undertook to restore the lost work, and with the greatest diligence carved the book out of the volumes of Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius and Philastrius.¹⁾ But in truth I would not dare to maintain, so as to leave no doubt, that the book which those three copied was really Hippolytus’ treatise.²⁾ The case is still before the judge. And yet whether that book which Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius and Philastrius used to refute the heretics was written by Hippolytus himself or by someone else matters not so very much for the question we are now working at, since we grant that the book was composed at the beginning of the third century.³⁾

In the place cited, p. 209–215, Lipsius called to examination what Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius and Philastrius reported, in order to establish what Hippolytus had told in his treatise about Apelles’ doctrine. On the relation between Hippolytus and Tertullian he says this: „Bemerkenswerth sind jedenfalls die zahlreichen sachlichen und theilweise auch wörtlichen Berührungen Tertullians mit den Epitomatoren Hippolyts. . . Tertullian aber verfasste gegen Apelles eine besondere Schrift, welche, da sie höchst wahrscheinlich später entstanden sein wird als das Syntagma Hippolyts, ganz wohl unter Mitbenutzung des letzteren geschrieben sein kann“ [English: “Remarkable in any case are Tertullian’s numerous points of contact, in substance and partly also in wording, with the epitomizers of Hippolytus. . . But Tertullian wrote a separate treatise against Apelles, which, since it will very probably have been written later than Hippolytus’ Syntagma, may very well have been written with the help of the latter”]. In these words Lipsius has put forward two opinions: first, that Tertullian’s accounts are related to Hippolytus’; second, that the author of the accounts was Hippolytus. To each

[p. 21]

opinion we have already replied briefly elsewhere,¹⁾ but we shall now give them a fuller answer in these pages. For this above all must be asked: whether we have one authority for the Apelleian doctrine or two. If we use only one, we shall be persuaded either that Hippolytus copied Tertullian’s books or that both drew from one and the same source.

1.

First we shall compare Pseudo-Tertullian with Tertullian:

[p. 22]

If you take account of this table, you will grant me that Tertullian and Pseudo-Tertullian very often agree word for word in what they have handed down about Apelles. If, then, Pseudo-Tertullian really copied Hippolytus’ treatise here, as Lipsius supposed, we shall affirm with the fullest right that either Tertullian used Hippolytus’ book or Hippolytus used Tertullian’s volumes; for no one will hold that both drew from one and the same source, from some book of Apelles himself; for those words, “after he had fallen in the flesh with a woman,” can in no way have been taken from the books of Apelles himself. Lipsius therefore seems to have judged rightly when he suspected that the one copied the other’s refutation. But I am greatly surprised that the very learned man overlooked one thing. It is agreed among all that Hippolytus wrote in Greek. If, then, both Tertullian and Pseudo-Tertullian really copied Hippolytus’ words translated into Latin, the one paying no attention to the other’s version, how could it happen that they so often agree word for word? This one observation prevents us from referring what we read in agreement in Pseudo-Tertullian and

[p. 23]

Tertullian to Hippolytus’ treatise.

But what reason is there to hold that those words of Pseudo-Tertullian were drawn from Hippolytus’ treatise? Lipsius indeed points out that when the volumes of Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius and Philastrius are compared with one another, it is necessary to refer those words of Pseudo-Tertullian to Hippolytus. If this reckoning were proved, Lipsius would have to confess that Tertullian and Pseudo-Tertullian were one and the same; otherwise how will he explain the agreement of the translation? But no one will dare to deny that the writer of the little book entitled Against All Heresies was not Tertullian but some unknown man. We therefore put forward this dilemma: if what we read in Pseudo-Tertullian really stood in Hippolytus’ treatise, we shall hold that the little book Against All Heresies was written by Tertullian; if it did not, we shall rightly affirm that Pseudo-Tertullian used and copied Tertullian’s books.

This being so, we go on to set out what Hippolytus handed down about Apelles. As we are about to work at this in what follows, we give this warning in advance: let no one rashly suppose that anything was taken from Hippolytus’ book that only one of those three witnesses has brought forward. Remembering that both Epiphanius and Philastrius mixed some things in with Hippolytus’ words, we shall hold as purely Hippolytean only what two authorities attest together and alike.

2.

Lipsius, l. c. p. 209, says this: „Die Vergleichung zeigt, dass Hippolyt zunächst der Excommunication des Apelles durch Marcion wegen fleischlicher Vergehungen Erwähnung gethan haben muss“ [English: “The comparison shows that Hippolytus must first have mentioned the excommunication of Apelles by Marcion for sins of the flesh”]. But there is no reason for us to agree with the learned man; for Pseudo-Tertullian alone tells this tale. What account Hippolytus put before his explanation and refutation of Apelles’ doctrine can be traced with certainty by comparing Epiphanius with Philastrius; for Epiphanius seems to have kept the opening of Hippolytus’ refutation very accurately. Hippolytus first told that Apelles was a disciple of Marcion; then he made Apelles himself speak and repeated his words, by which the heretic loosed the bond that joined him to Marcion. Since both Epiphanius and Philastrius have given Apelles’ words in direct speech, I have no doubt that both drew from the same source, namely from Hippolytus’ treatise.

If you look at the form of the speech itself, you will judge that each of them contracted it into a shorter form. Philastrius, however, put in the words “when asked by some people,” to make the speech clearer.¹⁾ In the speech, whether it is genuine or invented I do not care at present, we read that Marcion brought in two principles; but nowhere is there a place where we could insert that little story of Apelles’ unchastity. I am persuaded, moreover, that Epiphanius would by no means have neglected this tale, but rather

[p. 26]

would greedily have seized it for himself and set it out at length, if rumour had brought it to his ears; from which it follows that Hippolytus made no mention of this tale in his little book. We may use a sure argument besides: Hippolytus told that Apelles was not thrown out of Marcion’s school but left it of his own accord; but if he had heard that Apelles had violated a virgin, he would certainly have reported that he was shut out by Marcion.

This being so, you will judge more rightly if you leave Lipsius’ opinion and hold that Pseudo-Tertullian did not draw that tale from Hippolytus’ treatise. If you settle this, you will call into doubt Lipsius’ other opinion, which he put forward in these words: „Offenbar gibt Epiphanios hier die Worte Hippolyt’s nur unvollständig und umschrieben wieder“ [English: “Evidently Epiphanius here gives Hippolytus’ words only incompletely and paraphrased”]. For there is no reason for us to hold that Epiphanius here badly mutilated Hippolytus’ words; rather, having looked deeply into the accounts of both Epiphanius and Philastrius, and remembering that neither knew the other, we cannot but hold it likely that Epiphanius copied Hippolytus almost word for word;¹⁾ whereas we find that Pseudo-Tertullian, touching only lightly on Apelles’ doctrine, has changed the whole character of the speech; and besides, we find notions in him that neither Epiphanius nor Philastrius supplies. That Pseudo-Tertullian followed in the footsteps of an authority other than Hippolytus is therefore clearer than daylight. And now I point out this: wherever he departs from Epiphanius and Philastrius, he sides with Tertullian. And yet I freely grant that Pseudo-Tertullian was not unacquainted with Hippolytus’ treatise, which can be concluded with full right from the plan and content of the whole Pseudo-Tertullian account. What shall I say? Pseudo-Tertullian’s account may be used to restore the text of Hippolytus’ treatise. Epiphanius, after setting out Apelles’ monarchian doctrine, passes in one stretch from Apelles’ God himself to the

[p. 27]

creator-angel whom Apelles brought in, using these words: „ἀλλὰ ὁ αὐτὸς ἅγιος ἄνωθεν θεὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς ἐποίησεν ἕνα ἄλλον θεόν“ [English: “but the same holy God from above, the good one, made one other God”]. In Philastrius, however, we read some words put in between: “which God made the angels, he made also another power,” and only then does he pass to the creator. Almost the same words, to the letter, we read written in Pseudo-Tertullian: “That he (God) made many powers and angels, and besides another power.” This being so, you may rightly conclude that those words stood in Hippolytus’ book itself. But these same words, though neglected by Epiphanius, nevertheless prove Epiphanius’ own diligence in copying the treatise.

For both Philastrius and Pseudo-Tertullian called the creator “another (a different) power,” and did not use the word “power” in what precedes. But Epiphanius did use it, where he reported that Apelles professed „ἕνα θεόν, μίαν δύναμιν“ [one God, one power]. Those two, then, left out the word „δύναμιν“ [power] in the earlier place, and Epiphanius in the later; and so it happened that Philastrius and Pseudo-Tertullian speak of “another power” without ever mentioning the first. The Hippolytean text may therefore be restored in this way:

εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς θεὸς καὶ μία ἀρχὴ καὶ μία δύναμις ἀκατονόμαστος, ᾧ ἑνὶ θεῷ ἤγουν μιᾷ ἀρχῇ οὐδὲν μεμέληται τῶν ἐνταῦθα ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ γεγενημένων. Ἀλλὰ ὁ αὐτὸς ἅγιος ἄνωθεν θεὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς ἐποίησεν ἐξουσίας πολλὰς καὶ ἀγγέλους,¹⁾ ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ ἄλλην δύναμιν, ὃν θεὸν οἶδα εἶναι δεύτερον.²⁾ Ὁ δὲ γενόμενος ἄλλος θεὸς ἔκτισε τὰ πάντα, οὐρανὸν

[p. 28]

καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ.¹⁾ Ἀπέβη δὲ οὐκ ἀγαθὸς καὶ τὰ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γενόμενα, φησὶν, οὐκ ἀγαθῶς εἰργασμένα.²⁾

[English: “There is one good God and one principle and one power that cannot be named, and this one God, that is, this one principle, has no care for the things that have come to be here in this world. But the same holy God from above, the good one, made many authorities and angels, and he made also another power, whom I know to be a second God. And this other God who came to be created all things, heaven and earth and all that is in the world. But he turned out not good, and the things that came to be by him, he says, were not well made.”]

Up to this sentence the Hippolytean text is restored; but when we try to explain what follows, we run into a great difficulty. Epiphanius adds nothing new when he goes on: „ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ φαύλην διάνοιαν τὰ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἔκτισται“ [English: “but they were created by him according to his own mean understanding”]. But Philastrius seems to build an altogether different road when he brings forward this: “but he (that is, the creator) is subject to that God by whom he too was made, and obeys his nod and command and precepts in all things.”

Pseudo-Tert., finally, relates that the creator “mixed repentance into the world he had founded.” Lipsius thought this disagreement among the authorities could be resolved: he proposes that Pseudo-Tertullian has in view the words of Hippolytus preserved by Epiphanius, and that Philastrius’ account is to be explained by Pseudo-Tertullian’s words.³⁾ He judges, then, that Hippolytus’ treatise contained those three statements, and that Epiphanius copied the first, Pseudo-Tertullian the second and Philastrius the third. If you call this plausible opinion to examination, you will surely refuse to embrace it. Who will persuade himself that fortune has handed down to us, in this wonderful way, the series and continuity of Hippolytus’ words? On the contrary, comparing the three accounts of the nature of the creator whom Apelles had brought in, we find that Epiphanius contradicts Pseudo-Tertullian. Epiphanius says that in Apelles’ opinion the creator is not good; Pseudo-Tertullian sets him down as an angel who indeed suffers from faults, but is truly conscious of his faults; Epiphanius indicates that the creator made all things according to his own evil mind, while Pseudo-Tertullian, on the contrary, reports that the creator founded this world in imitation of that higher world. The one description

[p. 29]

can in no way be joined with the other. Add to this that Pseudo-Tertullian’s account of the repentance mixed into the world, which corresponds to the accounts of neither Epiphanius nor Philastrius, agrees very well with Tertullian’s,¹⁾ so that you would hesitate to refer it to Hippolytus’ treatise. But if what Pseudo-Tert. supplies is missing in Hippolytus’ little book, then Philastrius’ judgment on the creator too seems unable by any art to be combined into one with Epiphanius’ words; for Lipsius combined the accounts of Epiphanius and Philastrius into one by calling in Pseudo-Tertullian, but we have proved that Pseudo-Tertullian’s words here were by no means drawn from Hippolytus’ treatise. With Pseudo-Tertullian, the peacemaker, removed, who then will reconcile Philastrius and Epiphanius? Who will restore the text of Hippolytus’ treatise? And yet we think we can bring some light, so that what Hippolytus argued about the nature of the creator whom Apelles had brought in may be understood.

Epiphanius says „ἀπέβη (scil. creator) οὐκ ἀγαθός“; and these words can be neither translated nor understood otherwise than as “the creator turned out by no means good.” When Epiphanius says that the creator turned out evil, he clearly reports that he was once good. But it is not Epiphanius who reports it but Hippolytus himself, with Philastrius as witness.²⁾ Hippolytus, then, seems to relate this: that in Apelles’ opinion the creator was indeed good at first, but then became by no means good and strayed from the good higher God; and that the proof of this straying is the very founding of the world, undertaken and carried out κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ φαύλην διάνοιαν [according to his own mean understanding].

But in truth Tertullian and Pseudo-Tertullian held an altogether different opinion to be the genuine Apelleian one. For so far is it from being the case, according to their accounts, that the creator whom Apelles brought in founded the world „κατὰ τὴν φαύλην διάνοιαν“ [according to his mean understanding], that he himself founded it in imitation of the higher world and with the help of Christ’s power. But perhaps someone will say that, with Philastrius as witness, Hippolytus’

[p. 30]

epitomizer says that the creator is subject to the higher God and obeys his nod and command and precepts in all things, and therefore that Hippolytus too is a witness to the creator’s better character. I hear it. But look whether Philastrius kept the order of Hippolytus’ words rightly, or changed it altogether by mixing in what he had taken from elsewhere. For it is certain that Hippolytus wrote that the creator turned out not good. How then could it happen that the same writer, who told such things about the creator’s nature and indicated that the very founding of the world was a proof of his corrupt character, should in one stretch report that he obeyed the higher God after the founding of the world? If, then, we must assume that Philastrius has Hippolytus’ words in view here, we must restore the order of Hippolytus’ words in this way: “But this God who made the world was subject to that God by whom he too was made, and obeyed his nod and command and precepts in all things; but he turned out by no means good, and all his works were fashioned according to his own evil mind.”

It is very likely, I do not say certain, that Hippolytus held and put forward this doctrine as purely Apelleian. But I deny that the text of Hippolytus’ treatise can be restored here in sure lines, since the authorities disagree among themselves. This, however, I affirm: that Tertullian ascribed to Apelles an opinion on the nature of the creator altogether different from Hippolytus’; and Lipsius buried this discrepancy between the two accounts by assigning Pseudo-Tertullian’s words to Hippolytus’ little book without any right. But if anyone, pressing Philastrius’ authority and calling our arguments into doubt, should maintain that according to Hippolytus too the creator obeyed the higher God after the creation, we shall refer him again and again to that Hippolytean „ἀπέβη“ [turned out]. I shall sum up briefly what I have conjectured: according to Tertullian’s account the creator is an angel inspired by Christ himself to found the world, good by nature, though lower and imperfect; according to Hippolytus’ account the creator is an angel who strayed from the God to whom he was subject and set himself against him: for he brought the world into being against God’s will and never returned to God.

Looking at the narrowness of the sources, we openly and freely declare that the opinion we have put forward on the text of Hippolytus’ little book would remain uncertain and not sufficiently confirmed unless we could gather other arguments to prove it; but in what follows you will find other very weighty evidence, from which it will become clear that in Hippolytus’ opinion the creator became hostile to the higher God from the time of the creation. But this you will certainly have recognized from what we have discussed so far: so far are we from persuading ourselves that Tertullian copied Hippolytus’ little book, that the one must be judged to be altogether at variance with the other.¹⁾

[p. 31]

Having called to examination the passages in the volumes of Epiphanius, Philastrius and Pseudo-Tertullian where they speak of Apelles’ theology, we have found that those three drew from the same source (namely from Hippolytus’ little book), that Epiphanius kept Hippolytus’ words best, and that Pseudo-Tertullian followed a second authority besides Hippolytus (namely Tertullian).

We now go on to inquire what relation exists between Epiphanius and Philastrius and Pseudo-Tertullian in describing the christology of Apelles.²⁾

3.

οὕτως γὰρ, φησὶν, ἔφη ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ „γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται.“ χρῶμαι γὰρ, φησὶν, ἀπὸ πάσης γραφῆς ἀναλέγων τὰ χρήσιμα. εἶτα, φησὶν, ἔδωκεν ὁ Χριστὸς ἑαυτὸν παθεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ σώματι, καὶ ἐσταυρώθη ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀνέστησεν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἔδειξεν αὐτὴν τὴν σάρκα τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς. καὶ ἀναλύσας, φησὶν, αὐτὴν τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν ἑαυτοῦ ἀπεμέρισε πάλιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν στοιχείων τὸ ἴδιον ἀποδοὺς, τὸ θερμὸν τῷ θερμῷ, τὸ ψυχρὸν τῷ ψυχρῷ, τὸ ξηρὸν τῷ ξηρῷ, τὸ ὑγρὸν τῷ ὑγρῷ. καὶ οὕτως διαλύσας ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ πάλιν τὸ ἔνσαρκον σῶμα ἀνέπτη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, ὅθεν καὶ ἧκε.

[English (Epiphanius, continued): “For so, he says, he said in the gospel, ‘Be approved money-changers.’ For I use, he says, gathering from every scripture what is useful. Then, he says, Christ gave himself to suffer in that very body, and was crucified in truth, and buried in truth, and rose in truth, and showed that very flesh to his disciples. And having undone, he says, his very incarnation, he distributed it again, giving back to each of the elements its own, the hot to the hot, the cold to the cold, the dry to the dry, the moist to the moist. And so, having again loosed from himself the fleshly body, he flew up to heaven, from where he had also come.”]

[p. 33, continued]

If you take account of this table, you will surely agree with Lipsius, who said:¹⁾ „Einzelne Weglassungen und kleinere Aenderungen abgerechnet, hat Epiphanios hier den Text Hippolyts wörtlich wiedergegeben“ [English: “Apart from single omissions and smaller changes, Epiphanius has here reproduced the text of Hippolytus word for word”]. For in many places the words of Epiphanius, copying Hippolytus, are confirmed by Philastrius and Pseudo-Tertullian; each of these contracted Hippolytus’ account considerably, Pseudo-Tertullian cutting the later part and Philastrius the earlier. All without exception begin what follows with the word “he says” (φησίν); all without exception bear witness that Apelles rejected ordinary docetism. But Philastrius and Pseudo-Tertullian changed by contracting and contracted by changing. It is clear that Hippolytus wrote, giving Apelles’ opinion: „καὶ ἐλθόντα οὐ δοκήσει πεφηνέναι, ἀλλὰ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ σάρκα εἰληφέναι“ [and that having come he did not appear in seeming but took flesh in truth]; and Pseudo-Tertullian was unwilling to attribute this to Apelles; so he wrote: “He says that Christ was neither in a phantasm, as Marcion says, nor in the substance of a true body, as the gospel teaches.” Philastrius,

[p. 34]

for his part, was led by the brevity of his words to violate and destroy almost the whole sense of the speech; and yet here and there he bears witness that Epiphanius copied Hippolytus’ treatise most accurately. He rendered Epiphanius’ (Hippolytus’) „πεφηνέναι“ [to have appeared] by the word “apparuisse”; by the words “carnem deposuisse” [laid down flesh] he has in view that Hippolytean „ὑποστήσασθαι τὸ σῶμα“ [furnished the body]. From this you may rightly conclude that Philastrius wrote not “desumpsisse” [taken]¹⁾ but “deposuisse” [laid down]; for the words „ὑφίστασθαι“ and “deponere” correspond to each other. He denies that in Apelles’ opinion Christ fashioned flesh for himself from heaven, because he had read in Hippolytus’ treatise „ἐν τῷ ἔρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπουρανίων . . . . συνήγαγεν ἑαυτῷ σῶμα“ [in coming from the heavenly places . . . . he gathered a body for himself]. Since both Philastrius and Pseudo-Tertullian compared Apelles’ christology with the christology of another founder of a heresy, Philastrius with the Valentinian, Pseudo-Tertullian with the Marcionite, it is likely that Hippolytus himself made some comparison, which Epiphanius indeed neglected. Hippolytus certainly called the Marcionite christology into comparison; but Philastrius could not use the Marcionite, because he had deliberately left out those words „οὐ δοκήσει“ [not in seeming]; so he called in the Valentinian. Hence we restore the text of the treatise in this way: „καὶ ἐλθόντα οὐ δοκήσει πεφηνέναι, ὡς Μαρκίων φησὶν, ἀλλὰ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ σάρκα εἰληφέναι“ [and that having come he did not appear in seeming, as Marcion says, but took flesh in truth]. Besides this, so that the relation between Philastrius and Epiphanius may be seen thoroughly, I add this:

1) Philastrius repeats that word „φησίν“ [he says] at the opening of the later part of the description of the christology; Epiphanius repeats the same in the same place; then toward the end of the exposition of the christology Philastrius uses this word again, and again we find Epiphanius using the word „φησίν“.

2) Philastrius uses the words “dimittere, reddere, elementa” [let go, give back, elements]; cf. Epiphanius’ „ἀναλύειν (διαλύειν), ἀποδιδόναι, στοιχεῖα“. For

[p. 35]

Epiphanius’ phrase „ἀνέπτη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν“ [he flew up to heaven] Philastrius has “ascendit in coelum” [he ascended to heaven].¹⁾

But Pseudo-Tertullian too sides with Epiphanius, rendering excellently the order and sense of the words „καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπουρανίων ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν γῆν καὶ συνήγαγεν ἑαυτῷ ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων σῶμα“ [and in coming from the heavenly places he came to the earth and gathered for himself a body from the four elements]; for he wrote: “but that, because he came down from the higher regions, he wove for himself in the very descent . . . flesh.”²⁾

Remembering that neither Pseudo-Tertullian nor Philastrius used Epiphanius’ volumes, we shall declare with our right that in Epiphanius’ accounts of Apelles Hippolytus’ words lie hidden, preserved and not much changed. But one thing we have so far passed over. Pseudo-Tertullian calls Christ’s flesh “starry and airy,” words which Lipsius³⁾ suspects were taken from the treatise, but which are found neither in Epiphanius nor in Philastrius; Tertullian, however, offers something similar.⁴⁾ Reflecting, then, on the relation between Pseudo-Tertullian and Tertullian, we shall not doubt that the epitomizer here left Hippolytus’ footsteps to repeat something of Tertullian’s: for between Tertullian and Hippolytus there is no relation. Each offers his own material, drawn from the best sources. Epiphanius and Philastrius copied Hippolytus’ little book; Pseudo-Tertullian, however, used the volumes of both Hippolytus and Tertullian and contracted the two accounts into one shorter one.

4.

These things proved, we may go on to another question. It is agreed that Pseudo-Tertullian had Tertullian as an authority, but we must now ask from which of Tertullian’s books the epitomizer

[p. 36]

drew; for it is hardly credible that he gathered various passages from various writings of Tertullian where Tertullian had found fault with the Apelleiaci. Who will persuade himself that Pseudo-Tertullian, in order to make a short summary of the Apelleian doctrine, turned over all of Tertullian’s volumes? And if anyone should perhaps wish to suspect that everything he reported together with Tertullian can be traced to chapters 6–9 of the book De carne Christi, he will throw that suspicion away once he has looked deeply into the relation between them. Add to this that Pseudo-Tertullian brings forward some things that are altogether at variance with Hippolytus’ words and are not found in the writings of Tertullian that we now have. They fit very well, however, with what Tertullian handed down about Apelles, but they are missing in the books of Tertullian available to us.¹⁾ This being so, I have no doubt that Pseudo-Tertullian used Tertullian’s book written against the Apelleiaci, now indeed lost. If we settle this, we shall escape all difficulties; for in that book everything Tertullian had set out on Apelles’ doctrine was gathered into one. Having looked into that book, Pseudo-Tertullian could do without the use of Tertullian’s other books in order to sketch Apelles’ doctrine. Pseudo-Tertullian certainly did look into it, and in this way it has come about for us that from his description and from Tertullian’s own words, which he put here and there into his volumes to refute Apelles, we can restore some fragments of the lost book. A certain sad fate carried off those most notable refutations of Apelles composed by Rhodon, Tertullian and Hippolytus and destroyed them entirely; a kinder fortune has given us a handle to restore them in some part: Eusebius preserved fragments of Rhodon’s little book; Epiphanius, Philastrius and Pseudo-Tertullian are the authorities for Hippolytus’ treatise; and Tertullian himself and Pseudo-Tertullian have willed some particles of Tertullian’s little book against the Apelleiaci to survive. Apart from these, whose origins can most certainly be traced either to Tertullian

[p. 37]

or to Hippolytus,¹⁾ Pseudo-Tertullian offers very few things of which Tertullian, in what we now read, makes no mention. These are:²⁾

1) “He uses only the apostle, but Marcion’s, that is, not the whole.”

2) “He has besides his own books, which he entitled ‘of Syllogisms,’ in which he wishes to prove that whatever Moses wrote about God is not true but false.”

Lipsius judges that these words were taken from Hippolytus.³⁾ You would more rightly conjecture that they are to be referred to Tertullian.⁴⁾ Nor should you wonder at all that some things are in Pseudo-Tertullian’s reports which today are missing in Tertullian; on the contrary, you will be glad that almost everything Pseudo-Tertullian supplies from the book against the Apelleiaci can be tracked down in the volumes of Tertullian that now survive. Hippolytus, however, seems to have told nothing of Philumene, nothing of her visions as sketched by Apelles, nothing of the Syllogisms.

What Hippolytus put in writing about Apelles’ doctrine, apart from his description of the Apelleian theology and christology, is hard to know. Since Philastrius is silent, Epiphanius is our only authority. Yet there is no reason to think that Epiphanius acted with less care in copying these things. Lipsius called in Pseudo-Tertullian to show that Epiphanius, where he spoke of Apelles’ use of Holy Scripture, had disturbed the order of Hippolytus’ words;⁵⁾ but that the two cannot be

[p. 38]

compared here is already clear from what we said above. For Hippolytus (Epiphanius) offers some things, and Tertullian (Pseudo-Tert.) offers others.¹⁾

Finally, so that we may examine everything Tertullian and Hippolytus reported, one more thing must be brought forward. Each of them set out Apelles’ view of the fall of souls. Lipsius conjectured here too that Tertullian copied Hippolytus;²⁾ once you have carefully gone through the description of each Father, you will hardly embrace this opinion of that most learned man.

No connection can be traced here. Hippolytus says that the souls were lured to earth by the creator himself, Tertullian by some fiery angel. Let us remember, however, that Hippolytus nowhere mentions the fiery angel: indeed, by his report the creator himself is hostile to the higher God, while Tertullian makes that fiery angel the one who opposes the higher God! This is a most weighty observation, and we shall work at explaining it below.³⁾

[p. 39]

It remains for us to ask where Epiphanius drew what he brought forward to refute Apelles’ doctrine: whether he composed the refutation himself, or here too followed in someone else’s footsteps and copied it. I would hardly have raised this question myself had Lipsius not paved the way. With his usual outstanding sagacity that most distinguished man found that the refutation of Apelles which Epiphanius offers differs greatly from the other refutations that Epiphanius no doubt wrote himself: „Es bedarf nur eines sorgfältigen Aufmerkens auf Stil und Gedankengang, um zu bemerken, wie auffallend (die Widerlegung des Apelles) von dem gewöhnlichen ketzerrichterlichen Geschwätz des Epiphanios absticht. Statt des Geschimpfes haben wir eine ruhige, nüchterne Entwicklung, statt frommer Tiraden ein verständiges, oft scharfsinniges und treffendes Urtheil“.¹⁾ [English: “It takes only careful attention to style and train of thought to notice how strikingly (the refutation of Apelles) stands out from Epiphanius’ usual heresy-hunting chatter. Instead of abuse we have a calm, sober development; instead of pious tirades, a sensible, often sharp and apt judgment.”] No one will deny this observation, and if anyone is reluctant to accept it, Lipsius has brought a sure and firm argument to persuade any doubter. In Epiph. l. c. cap. 7 init. we read: „Τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων καὶ ῥηθέντων, τίς ἔτι μοι χρεία ἐστὶ κατατρίβεσθαι περὶ τούτου τοῦ ζωπύρου σφηκίου καὶ οὐδενὸς ὄντος ἀνατροπῆς ἕνεκα ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς πραγματείας.“ [English: “Since these things are so and have been said, what further need have I to wear myself out over this smouldering little wasp, which is nothing, for the sake of overthrowing it or of any other labour?”] In these words, and in those that follow, you will not only recognize the marks of Epiphanius’ own style that are missing in the earlier chapters; you will also, bearing in mind the word „ῥηθέντων“ [having been said] which he himself put in, not deny that in the refutation too Epiphanius used the same author he had followed in describing Apelles’ doctrine, since he himself admitted it.

Epiphanius therefore transcribed the whole chapter in which Hippolytus speaks of Apelles, plundering Hippolytus’ treatise from c. 1 to c. 6 not only in describing the heretic’s doctrine but also in refuting it. And it is well known that in other places too, where Epiphanius attacked heretics, he prides himself on other men’s goods; for who does not know that, when he refutes the Noetians, he transcribed almost word for word Hippolytus’ „Εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν Νοήτου τινὸς ὁμιλίαν“ [Homily against the heresy of a certain Noetus]?

[p. 40]

So Epiphanius took most of it from Hippolytus’ treatise and added some things himself, as Lipsius has already noted;¹⁾ but it is not possible to define precisely in every place where Epiphanius either shortened or enlarged Hippolytus’ words. We shall, however, give Epiphanius more authority in restoring Hippolytus’ treatise than Lipsius does; for not everywhere that Lipsius thought he had mutilated or left out Hippolytus’ words have we caught him guilty of a gap.

5.

As we are about to bring to an end our inquiry into the source from which Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius and Philastrius drew, we have come to the point of asking where Hippolytus took what he related about Apelles. For it matters a great deal that we know the origin of what Hippolytus handed down about Apelles’ theology and christology (Epiph. l. c. c. 1 and 2). We already noted above that Hippolytus made Apelles himself speak, Epiphanius repeating that „φησίν“ [he says] eleven times. I therefore have no doubt that Hippolytus here transcribed the words of Apelles himself. But let us bring forward sure arguments:

1) Hippolytus described Apelles’ theology before his christology,²⁾ and when he was about to refute it, he opened the refutation itself with these words: „καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πρὸς αὐτὸν ὡς πρὸς παρόντα ἐρῶ. λέγε μοι, ὦ οὗτος. δώσεις γὰρ, ὦ Ἀπελλῆ, ἢ τὸν θεὸν ἄγνωστον τῶν μελλόντων πεποιηκότα θεόν κτλ.“ [English: “And for this reason I shall speak to him as to one present. Tell me, you there. For you will grant, Apelles, either that the God who made a god did not know what was to come, etc.”] It is hardly believable that Hippolytus would have set up a refutation of this kind unless he had cited Apelles’ own words with that „φησίν“; but if he had cited Apelles’ own words,

[p. 41]

who will be surprised that he chose the form of a dialogue to refute Apelles’ doctrine? The words „αὐτὸν ὡς παρόντα“ [him as one present] therefore show that the „φησίν“ is not made up.

2) Then, if you look at Apelles’ christology, into whose description Hippolytus inserted that „φησίν“ again and again, you will surely be struck by how often Hippolytus there points out that, in Apelles’ view, Christ carried about real flesh; for you will find these words repeated seven times in that short description.¹⁾ But hardly anyone will persuade himself that Hippolytus, Apelles’ fiercest opponent, set about of his own accord to affirm over and over that Apelles kept the true nature of Christ’s flesh. Who would believe that Hippolytus, free of all partisanship and anger, set out Apelles’ view in this way on his own and turned it to the good side? But if we are persuaded that what Hippolytus transcribed here are Apelles’ own words, the form and character of the language will trouble no one. What you read inserted in Epiphanius’ words is, if you will, an apology rather than a description given by an enemy: an apology written by Apelles himself and refuted by Hippolytus.²⁾ This being so, we have the best right to conclude that Hippolytus brought Apelles in speaking because he was able to use some little book of his; for it is most probable that Apelles’ own words lie hidden in Epiphanius’ refutation. Now we can understand why Hippolytus handed down nothing about Apelles’ life, character, and so on, and left out altogether many things of which Tertullian gave knowledge: having got hold of a little book or some discourse in which Apelles had set out his doctrine himself, he did without other authorities and thought it enough to refute Apelles’ own words.³⁾ That Tertullian

[p. 42]

likewise used Apelleian books is probable; but whether he used Apelles’ own books or not can be doubted. If we must conclude that he used Apelles’ own words to set out and refute his views, we shall have to acknowledge that the Apelleian doctrine was somewhat changed by its author himself, since what Tertullian related and what Hippolytus set out do not agree everywhere. Besides, Tertullian followed certain authorities who had told him about Apelles’ age and life.

IV.

In the book entitled „Omnium haeresium refutatio“ [Refutation of All Heresies] (the Philosophumena), Hippolytus II¹⁾ attacks Apelles’ doctrine three times.²⁾

In Book VII, c. 12 he offers a short and at the same time not very fitting outline of the Apelleian doctrine, which he rashly made up for himself.³⁾

He set out Apelles’ doctrine more fully in c. 38 of the same book. Lipsius⁴⁾ rightly noted that Hippolytus II, where he related Apelles’ christology, had in view the earlier description he had published in the treatise;⁵⁾ for their reports agree in almost every part, and where Hippolytus II departs from Epiphanius you will be persuaded that he enlarged the words of Hippolytus I with additions.

Lipsius did, however, point out two places where he thought one must ask whether Hippolytus II has not kept the words of Hippolytus I more correctly than Epiphanius. 1) Epiphanius wrote: „Χριστὸν δὲ ἥκειν φῇς ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν καιρῶν υἱὸν ὄντα τοῦ ἄνω ἀγαθοῦ θεοῦ“ [English: “And you say that Christ came at the last times, being the son of the good God above”]; but Hippolytus II wrote: „Τὸν δὲ Χριστὸν ἐκ τῆς ὕπερθεν

[p. 43]

δυνάμεως κατεληλυθέναι, τουτέστι τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, κἀκείνου αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱόν.“ [English: “and that Christ came down from the power above, that is, from the good one, and is that one’s son.”] Lipsius noted here: „Der Ausdruck ἐκ τῆς ὕπερθεν δυνάμεως hat sicher in der Quelle gestanden“ [English: “The expression ‘from the power above’ certainly stood in the source”]; but who can either affirm or deny this! 2) We read in Hippolytus II that Christ made a body for himself and lived on earth in this body without the powers of the world knowing it.¹⁾ Epiphanius is silent about this theologoumenon. So no one can define with certainty whether Hippolytus I related it or Hippolytus II added it from his own opinion; but it is probable that Hippolytus II kept the author’s words more carefully here, for we know from Pseudo-Tertullian’s report that Hippolytus I spoke of the powers (ἐξουσίαι) which the higher God had created.²⁾

Hippolytus II set out Apelles’ doctrine of the Saviour’s resurrection and ascension more fully than Epiphanius. But it is most probable that Hippolytus II enlarged the words of Hippolytus I at his own discretion; for, led on by Apelles’ words „καὶ ἔδειξεν αὐτὴν τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ τοῖς μαθηταῖς“ [and he showed his very flesh to the disciples], which he had read in Hippolytus I, he worked the verse of the Gospel of John 20:25 into the passage; for it cannot be shown that Apelles himself cited this verse, since we do not know for certain whether that heretic received John’s Gospel.

So that the relation between Hippolytus II and Hippolytus I can be judged in some part, we have had this short comparison set in type:

[p. 44]

From what we have laid open it follows that Epiphanius and Hippolytus II drew here from the same source. That „φησίν“ too, which Hippolytus I very often inserted into Apelles’ words, is found in Hippolytus II.¹⁾ We now affirm as certain that Hippolytus II, in describing Apelles’ christology, followed Hippolytus I in everything.

But we are struck by what Hippolytus I [so printed; the context requires Hippolytus II] said toward the end: that Apelles taught that Christ, ascending into heaven, left the seed of life in the world for those who believe. From the words of Apelles kept by Epiphanius (Hippolytus) we can bring forward nothing to compare with this saying, a striking and memorable one, and certainly remarkable in the mouth of any Gnostic. Nowhere in that discourse does Apelles assign anything to faith; rather he said: „Χριστὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον θεοῦ πνεῦμα . . . . ἥκειν ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν εἰς γνῶσιν αὐτοῦ ἐρχομένων“ [English: “that Christ and the Holy Spirit of God . . . . came for the salvation of those who come to the knowledge of him”], and in another place: „Χριστὸς πέφηνεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς τὴν ἄνω γνῶσιν“²⁾ [English: “Christ appeared in the world and taught us the knowledge from above”].

From this it follows that Apelles taught that Christ came for the salvation of the Gnostics. But let no one therefore rashly suppose that Hippolytus II added those words at his own discretion! For a defender of the faith of the church and of Christians would never of his own accord have granted to any Gnostic the acknowledgment that he promised salvation to those who believe, unless the heretic himself had professed this in definite words. We shall therefore firmly deny that those words were made up by Hippolytus II. Add to this that we find some similar things in the discourse of Apelles preserved by Rhodon. Rhodon relates that Apelles said „σωθήσεσθαι τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἠλπικότας, μόνον ἐὰν ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς εὑρίσκωνται“ [English: “that those who have set their hope on the Crucified will be saved, if only they are found in good works”]; and in another place „μὴ ἐπίστασθαι (Apelles says) πῶς εἷς ἐστιν ἀγέννητος θεός, τοῦτο δὲ πιστεύειν“ [English: “that he does not know how there is one unbegotten God, but that he believes this”]. Here too Apelles said nothing about gnosis,

[p. 45]

but assigned everything to faith. What, then, prevents us from granting that Apelles himself professed „Χριστὸν τὸ τῆς ζωῆς σπέρμα τοῖς πιστεύουσι καταλιπεῖν“ [that Christ left the seed of life to those who believe], or something like it? But if we grant it, we shall not be able to deny that our authorities contradict one another; and not only the authorities, but Apelles himself, since both Rhodon and Hippolytus I preserved his own words: in the one, Apelles seems to have asserted that salvation is promised to gnosis, in the other, to faith. This difference of views can indeed be resolved if we consider the time at which Apelles uttered each saying. We have heard that Apelles spoke with Rhodon when he was near the end of his life; but it is surely not probable that he assigned everything to faith alone from the beginning. It may be that at first he praised gnosis more highly, but then, having seen through the vanity of gnosis and knowledge, gave himself wholly to faith, which he had never entirely neglected. So far, then, are we from thinking that either Rhodon (Hippolytus II) or Hippolytus I corrupted Apelles’ words, that from the very things each of them relates we can in some part see the inner progress of Apelles’ views. We shall therefore judge that Apelles himself gradually changed his doctrine in the course of time. If we succeed in uncovering the causes of this change, we shall be able to bring the differing reports of the authorities together into one body, and set aside all subtleties of interpretation. It remains, however, to ask where Hippolytus II drew that notable saying of Apelles.

Before we answer this question, another must be settled: where the things came from that Hippolytus II reported about Apelles’ doctrine apart from the christology. We have proved that he used Hippolytus I as his authority in describing the christology; but you will easily notice that where he briefly set out Apelles’ doctrine of God, of the angels, and of Holy Scripture, he followed another authority.

For Hippolytus II wrote: „Ἀπελλῆς λέγει. Εἶναί τινα θεὸν ἀγαθόν, καθὼς καὶ Μαρκίων ὑπέθετο, τὸν δὲ πάντα κτίσαντα εἶναι δίκαιον, ὃς τὰ γενόμενα ἐδημιούργησε, καὶ τρίτον τὸν Μωσεῖ λαλήσαντα, πύρινον δὲ τοῦτον εἶναι, εἶναι δὲ καὶ τέταρτον ἕτερον, κακῶν αἴτιον. τούτους δὲ ἀγγέλους ὀνομάζει. Νόμον δὲ καὶ προφήτας δυσφημεῖ, ἀνθρώπινα καὶ [p. 46] ψευδῆ φάσκων εἶναι τὰ γεγραμμένα, τῶν δὲ εὐαγγελίων ἢ τοῦ ἀποστόλου τὰ ἀρέσκοντα αὐτῷ αἱρεῖται. Φιλουμένης δέ τινος λόγοις προσέχει ὡς προφήτιδος φανερώσεσι.“

[English: “Apelles says that there is a certain good God, as Marcion also supposed, and that the one who created all things is just, he who fashioned the things that came into being; and a third, the one who spoke to Moses, and that this one is fiery; and that there is also another, a fourth, the cause of evils. These he calls angels. He speaks ill of the law and the prophets, saying that what is written is human and false; and of the gospels or the apostle he chooses what pleases him. He gives heed to the words of a certain Philumene as to the revelations of a prophetess.”]

[p. 46]

From these words we set out the following:

1) Besides the creator-angel, the just one, Hippolytus II names another, a “fiery angel”; but Hippolytus I nowhere calls the creator „δίκαιον“ [just], but everywhere „φαῦλον, οὐκ ἀγαθόν“ [base, not good],^a) and nowhere speaks of that fiery angel;^b) Tertullian, on the contrary, both reports some things about the fiery angel^b) and describes the creator’s nature in such a way that he is recognized as just rather than evil.^a)

2) Tertullian calls that fiery one “praeses mali” [the ruler of evil];¹⁾ Hippolytus II brings forward a certain „αἴτιον κακῶν“ [cause of evils],²⁾ of whom Hippolytus I seems to have made no mention.

3) Hippolytus II, following Tertullian’s way of speaking, calls those three, the just creator and the evil one [with the fiery one], “angels” in so many words; but Hippolytus I calls the creator a power and never an angel.

4) Hippolytus II, having set out Apelles’ doctrine of the angels, inserted before he described the christology the words „νόμον δὲ καὶ προφήτας δυσφημεῖ“ [he speaks ill of the law and the prophets]; at the same place in Tertullian (Pseudo-Tertullian) we read “legem et prophetas repudiat” [he rejects the law and the prophets].

5) Both Hippolytus II and Pseudo-Tertullian (“Solo utitur et apostolo, sed Marcionis, id est non toto” [He uses only the apostle, but Marcion’s, that is, not the whole]) mention Apelles’ „τὸν ἀπόστολον“ [the apostle].

6) Hippolytus II says of Apelles: „Φιλουμένης δέ τινος λόγοις προσέχει ὡς προφήτιδος φανερώσεσιν“ [he gives heed to the words of a certain Philumene as to the revelations of a prophetess]; in Ter-

[p. 47]

tullian (Pseudo-Tert.) we find: “Habet lectiones suas, quas appellat Phaneroseis, Philumenes cujusdam puellae, quam quasi prophetissam sequitur.” [English: “He has his own readings, which he calls Phaneroseis (Revelations), of a certain girl Philumene, whom he follows as a prophetess.”]

This being so, we hold it probable that Hippolytus II not only followed Hippolytus I as his authority but also used Tertullian’s lost book against the Apelleiaci; otherwise I do not see how the agreement of the two reports, which meets us six times in those few lines of Hippolytus II, could be explained.¹⁾ But surely no one will be surprised that Hippolytus, who lived at Rome in the sixth or seventh lustrum [five-year period] of the third century, knew Tertullian’s books; for it is not hard to show that at that time some of Tertullian’s writings were known to the Roman church. But if Hippolytus really did follow Tertullian too as an authority when he wrote the Philosophumena, it may be that we should be persuaded that he took that saying about the worth of faith from the little book against the Apelleiaci.

[p. 48]

But no one will dare to point to anything certain.

In Book X, chap. 20 Hippolytus II gave a short outline of Apelles’ doctrine. Repeating his theology, he counted Christ as a fifth god, so as to increase the number of gods (angels) assumed by Apelles. In the recapitulation he added nothing new to the earlier description,¹⁾ except at the very end, where he says: „Οὕτως κατὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν συντάγματα ἐποίησε, καταλύειν αὐτοὺς ἐπιχειρῶν ὡς ψευδῆ λελαληκότας καὶ θεὸν μὴ ἐγνωκότας.“ [English: “Thus he made treatises against the law and the prophets, attempting to overthrow them as men who had spoken falsehoods and had not known God.”] Of these treatises we read nothing in Philos. VII, 38, and Hippolytus I too is silent about them. Pseudo-Tertullian (Tertullian), however, offers something similar, for he wrote: “Habet praeterea suos libros, quos inscripsit Syllogismorum, in quibus probare vult, quod omnia quaecunque Moyses de deo scripserit vera non sint, sed falsa sint.” [English: “He has besides his own books, which he entitled ‘of Syllogisms,’ in which he wishes to prove that whatever Moses wrote about God is not true but false.”] It leaps to the eye that here too Hippolytus II sides with Tertullian.

It remains for us to gather up briefly the sum of our inquiry. We have traced the reports of Tertullian, Pseudo-Tertullian, Hippolytus II, Epiphanius and Philastrius back to two sources, Tertullian’s book against the Apelleiaci and Hippolytus’ treatise, both of them lost. Epiphanius, Philastrius, Pseudo-Tert. and Hippolytus II are witnesses to the treatise; Pseudo-Tert. and Hippolytus II, however, besides the treatise, used Tertullian’s little book to set out the Apelleian doctrine, while Epiphanius, where he either set out or refuted Apelles’ doctrine, transcribed Hippolytus I.

Tertullian and Hippolytus, however, faithfully render the views of Apelles himself or of the Apelleiaci; for each, as we have proved, drew from the best source. Yet they do not agree with each other: they differ in what they report Apelles thought about the nature and character of the creator, about the worth of knowledge and of faith, and about the authority of Holy Scripture. Rhodon seems

[p. 49]

to side with Tertullian.¹⁾ From this disagreement among the best witnesses we may conclude that Apelles himself was not consistent and did not always teach the same thing in the same way, or at any rate that his disciples turned aside from their master’s doctrine. Whether it was Apelles himself or his disciples who changed the doctrine cannot be decided by firm and sure arguments. But if you consider Apelles’ discourse as preserved by Rhodon, you will hold it most probable that Apelles himself gradually changed his doctrine. Hippolytus is the witness of the earlier form, Tertullian and Rhodon of the later.

V.

We now go on to examine the reports of the writers of the middle and late ages, which were drawn from the volumes of Epiphanius and other writers.

1.

Augustine,²⁾ in the preface of his book “De haeresibus,” himself names the sources from which he took his description of the heresies: the volumes of Epiphanius and of Philastrius.³⁾ He praises Epiphanius far more highly, saying that he is much more learned than Philastrius. Yet it can be shown that in recounting the doctrine of Apelles and his disciples he used Philastrius’ book no less than Epiphanius’; for the words “hunc Apellem dicunt quidam etiam de Christo tam falsa sensisse, ut diceret, eum non quidem carnem deposuisse de caelo, sed ex elementis [p. 50] mundi accepisse, quae mundo reddidit, cum sine carne resurgens in caelum ascendit” [English: “some say that this Apelles also held such false views about Christ as to say that he did not indeed bring flesh down from heaven, but received it from the elements of the world, and gave them back to the world when, rising without flesh, he ascended into heaven”] were clearly copied from Philastrius’ book. What comes before them, however, has the smell of Epiphanius’ words:

[p. 50]

So here Augustine followed both Epiphanius and Philastrius. The editors, however, attached to the next chapter (c. 24, against the Severians) a silly and worthless story about Philumene, which most certainly belongs to the heresy of Apelles, if it is right to refer it to Augustine’s book at all. This little tale is found nowhere in the manuscripts; the Benedictines therefore rightly judged that the words were noted by someone in the margin of the book and then carried over to this place by drowsy copyists.¹⁾

2.

It can easily be proved that the author of the book that goes about under the name of Praedestinatus, who lived at Rome, drew both from a great many sources and from the tradition of the Roman church. But in setting out Apelles’ doctrine it is clear that he followed Augustine.²⁾ He enlarged Augustine’s words, however, and added some things out of his own head, helped by no writings of other men.

[p. 51]

We do not care to set out a table from which the relation between Praedestinatus and Augustine could be seen.¹⁾ At the end of the chapter the author, bringing in the Apology for Origen perhaps written by Pamphilus,²⁾ relates that Origen completely overcame the Apelleiaci.

3.

Jerome, in De vir. illust. c. 37, copied out the words of Rhodon preserved in Eusebius, and Pseudo-Jerome³⁾ repeated them. Besides this, Jerome related in various places some things about Apelles, though less notable ones. In his Commentary on Galatians, on 1:8, he copied out Tertullian’s⁴⁾ words about Apelles; in the preface to his Commentary on Matthew he mentioned a certain gospel of Apelles, writing . . . . “ut est illud (scil. evangelium) juxta Aegyptios et Basilidis et Apellis” [such as that (namely the gospel) according to the Egyptians, and those of Basilides and of Apelles]; in his letter to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians he called Philumene the companion of Apelles, and so on. All of this he could have drawn from open and common tradition.

4.

Isidore of Seville, Origines Book VIII, chap. V, n. 12, has Tertullian and Pseudo-Jerome as his authorities.⁵⁾ With the words “qui creatorem nescio quem affirmans” [who, asserting some creator or other] he copied Tertullian to the letter, and with the words “Christum non deum in veritate, sed hominem in phantasia apparuisse” [that Christ appeared not as God in truth but as a man in appearance] he copied Pseudo-Jerome.

5.

Paulus⁶⁾ and Honorius of Autun,⁷⁾ in their little books on the heresies, followed Isidore of Seville and not Pseudo-Jerome;

[p. 52]

for they offer that “apparuisse” [appeared], which Pseudo-Jer. does not have.

6.

Volkmar²⁾ already rightly saw that Theodoret, where he briefly set out Apelles’ doctrine,¹⁾ used Hippolytus II as his authority, and he also proved that, since Theodoret knew nothing at all of the first nine books of the Philosophumena, he drew from the tenth book. The pieces of evidence from which you may recognize Theodoret’s relation to Hippolytus are these:

1) Hippolytus II, in Book X, 20 (it is otherwise in VII, 38), relates that Apelles brought in five gods; and Theodoret gives Apelles just as many when he says that Apelles added one to Marcion’s principles, for Theodoret assigns four principles to Marcion.³⁾

2) Hippolytus II in Book X, 20 says that Christ made himself a body „ἐκ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου οὐσίας“ [from the substance of the world]. The same words are read in Theodoret. But in VII, 38 we find the words „ἐκ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας“ [from the substance of the universe].

3) Theodoret wrote „οὗτος καὶ ἕτερον βιβλίον συνθείς“ [he, having also composed another book], but did not name the other little book. In fact Apelles, besides the Phaneroseis, wrote another little book, of which Hippolytus II made no mention in VII, 38, but did in X, 20.

7.

John of Damascus, in his book on heresies, c. 44,⁴⁾ copied out Epiphanius’ words. We read this: „Καὶ οὗτος ὁ Ἀπελλῆς τὰ ὅμοια Μαρκίωνι καὶ Λουκιανῷ δογματίζει. κακίζει γὰρ τὴν πᾶσαν ποίησιν καὶ τὸν πεποιηκότα. οὐχ ὁμοίως δὲ τούτοις τρεῖς ἀρχὰς ὑφηγήσατο, ἀλλὰ μίαν ἐν ἀρχῇ, καὶ ἕνα [p. 53] θεὸν ὄντα ἀνώτατον καὶ ἀκατονόμαστον. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν ἕνα πεποιηκέναι ἄλλον. καὶ οὗτος, φησίν, ὁ γεγονὼς πονηρὸς αἱρεθεὶς τῇ αὐτοῦ φαυλότητι τὸν κόσμον ἐποίησεν.“

[English: “This Apelles too teaches things like Marcion and Lucian. For he reviles the whole creation and the one who made it. But unlike them he did not set forth three principles, but one in the beginning, and one God who is highest and cannot be named; and this one God made another. And this one who came into being, he says, was found to be evil, and in his baseness made the world.”]

[p. 53]

If you compare Epiphanius’ report, you will easily discover the source of these words.¹⁾

8.

Timothy the Presbyter took what he handed down about Apelles²⁾ from Euseb. hist. eccl. V, 13.

John Zonaras³⁾ seems to have had Epiphanius in view, shortening and mutilating his words at will. But I do not wish to deny that John may also have followed other authorities that we now lack. For he writes: „Μίαν ἀρχὴν κηρύττει μὲν ὁ Ἀπελλῆς, ἕνα τε θεὸν ὁμολογεῖ ἀνώτατον. τὸν ἕνα δὲ ἕτερον πεποιηκέναι αὖθις, φησίν, ὃν ὡς πονηρὸν δημιουργὸν γεγεννῆσθαι τοῦ κόσμου δογματίζει. πονηρὸς ὢν ἐκεῖνος ἀχάριστόν τε κτίσμα πυρὸς ἄξιον μόνον.“ [English: “Apelles proclaims one principle and confesses one highest God. And this one God, he says, in turn made another, who, he teaches, was begotten as the evil maker of the world. That one, being evil, [made] a thankless creation, worthy only of fire.”]

VI.

What is found in Pacian, bishop of Barcelona,⁴⁾ in Cyprian,⁵⁾ in Firmilian,⁶⁾ and in others⁷⁾ is of almost no weight, since from open and common

[p. 54]

tradition they seem to have been drawn. But so that we do not go home loaded with cheaper booty, we have kept to the end the reports of two authorities who have handed down to us weighty things, well worth attention: I mean Ambrose and Origen. Each has supplied us with a fragment from Apelles’ own books;¹⁾ Origen, moreover, made use of Apelles’ writings and attacked the heretic’s doctrine in various places.²⁾ We shall bring forward each of these in its own place; but this we note here in advance: Origen, since he read Apelles’ own books through, will be our most outstanding guide and teacher.³⁾