II. Könyv

——–

Előszó.

1. Az első könyvemben, amely ezt közvetlenül megelőzi, feltártuk a „tudásnak – hamisan így nevezettet,” megmutattam neked, nagyon kedves barátom, hogy az egész rendszert sokféleképpen és ellentétesen alakították ki azok, akik a Valentinus iskolájából származnak, hogy mindez hamis és alaptalan volt. Elődeik tételeit is bemutattam, bizonyítva, hogy nemcsak különböznek egymástól, hanem már régen eltértek magától az Igazságtól. Teljes szorgalommal elmagyaráztam Marcus, a mágus tanát és gyakorlatát, mivel ő is ezekhez a személyekhez tartozik; és gondosan észrevételeztem azokat a részeket, amelyeket kiválogatnak az Írásból, azzal a céllal, hogy saját elképzeléseikhez igazítsam őket.

Megemlítettem a gnosztikusok azon sokaságát, akik tőle fakadtak, és megjegyeztem a köztük levő különbségek pontjait, számos tanításukat, és az egymás utáni sorrendet, miközben bemutatom mindazokat az eretnekségeket, amelyeket általuk nyerték eredetüket. Megmutattam továbbá, hogy mindezek az eretnekek, miután Simontól származnak, hamis és istentelen tanokat vezettek be ebbe az életbe; és elmagyaráztam „megváltásuk” természetét és módszerüket arra, hogy avatják be azokat, akiket „tökéletesekké” tesznek, meghívásaikkal és misztériumaikkal együtt. Azt is bebizonyítottam, hogy egy Isten van, a Teremtő, és hogy Ő nem valami hiba gyümölcse, és nincs sem felette, sem utána semmi.

2. Ebben a könyvben meghatározom azokat a pontokat, melyek illeszkednek tervemhez, amennyiben az idő megengedi, és hosszabb kezelés által külön fejezetek alatt, megdönthetem az egész rendszerüket; ezért, mivel ez leleplezése és felforgatása véleményeiknek, így jogomban áll e munka megfogalmazása. Mert illik, egyszerű feltárásával és kapcsolataik megdöntésével véget vetni ezeknek a rejtett szövetségeknek, és magának Büthosznak (mélység), és így bebizonyítani, hogy soha nem létezett semmilyen korábbi időpontban, és most sem létezik.

I. Fejezet – Csak egy Isten létezik: másképp lehetetlen.

1. Helyes tehát, hogy az első és legfontosabb fejezettel kezdjem, vagyis a Teremtő Istennel, aki megalkotta az eget és a földet, és minden benne rejlő dolgot (akit ezek az emberek istenkáromló módon hiba gyümölcsének tartanak) és annak bemutatásával, hogy semmi nincsen sem fölötte vagy utána; sem azt, hogy bárki befolyásolja, hanem saját szabad akaratából teremtett mindent, mivel Ő az egyetlen Isten, az egyetlen Úr, az egyetlen Teremtő, az egyetlen Atya, aki mindent tartalmaz, és maga parancsolja be a dolgokat a létezésbe.

2. Mert hogyan lehet bármilyen más Teljesség, Alapelv, Hatalom, vagy Isten fölötte, mivel szükségszerű, hogy Isten, mindezek Plerómájának (Teljesség) tartalmaznia kell minden dolgot az Ő végtelenségében, és semmi másnak nem szabad magába foglalnia? De ha van valami rajta kívül, akkor Ő nem mindenek Pleromája, és nem is tartalmaz mindent. Mert, amiről azt mondják, hogy túl van rajta, hiányozni fog a Plerómából, vagy [más szavakkal], abból az Istenből, aki mindenek felett áll. De ami hiányos, és bármilyen módon összeesik, az nem minden dolog Plerómája. És ha Neki van vége, azoknak a dolgoknak a vonatkozásában, amelyek lentebb vannak, akkor kezdete is van azon dolgok vonatkozásában, amelyek fent vannak. Hasonló módon teljességgel szükségszerű, hogy meg kell tapasztalnia minden más ponton teljesen ugyanazt, és a létezésben kell tartania, korlátozni és bezárni, amelyek rajta kívül vannak. Mert ez a lény, akinek lefelé van vége, szükségszerűen körülhatárolja és körülveszi őt, aki végét megtalálja benne. És így, szerintük mindenek Atyja (vagyis akit Proönnek és Proarchének hívnak) Plerómájukkal, és Markion jó Istene, be van építve és be van zárva valamilyen másikba, és kívülről veszi körül egy másik hatalmas Lény, akinek szükségszerűen nagyobbnak kell lennie, amennyiben a tartalma nagyobb, mint ami benne van. De akkor az, amelyik nagyobb erősebb is, és nagyobb mértékben Úr; és ami nagyobb, és erősebb, és nagyobb mértékben Úr – ennek kell Istennek lennie.

3. Mivel tehát szerintük létezik még valami más is, amelyet Plerómán kívülinek nyilvánítanak, amelybe távolabb tartanak, oda szállt az a magasabb hatalom, amely tévútra ment, minden szempontból szükséges, hogy a Pleroma egyrészt tartalmazza azt, amely rajta túl van, és még azt, ami a tartalma. (mert különben nem lesz túl a Plerómán; mert ha van valami a Plerómán túl, az lesz a Pleróma, amelyen belül ez az igazi Pleróma, amelyről megállapítják, hogy kívül áll a Plerómán, és a Pleromát pedig az fogja tartalmazni, ami túl van azon: és a Plerómával együtt megértik az első Istent is); vagy ismét, végtelen távolságnak kell lenniük egymástól elválasztva – [mármint] a Pleróma, és attól, ami túl van rajta. De ha ezt fenntartják, akkor létezik egy harmadik fajta létezés, amely mérhetetlenül elválasztja a Pleromát és azt, ami azon túl van. Ez a harmadik fajta lét tehát megköti és magában foglalja a többit, és nagyobb lesz, mint a Pleroma, és annál, ami túl van rajta, amennyiben mindkettő benne van. Ily módon örökké folytatódhat a beszélgetés azokról a dolgokról, amelyek tartalmazzák, és azokról, amiket tartalmaznak. Mert ha ennek a harmadik létnek a kezdete fent van, és a vége alul van, akkor feltétlenül szükséges, hogy az oldalakon is legyen korlátozva, akár kezdődik, akár megszűnik bizonyos más pontokon, [ahol új létezések kezdődnek]. Ezeknek, ismét, és másoknak, amelyek fent és lent vannak, kezdetük bizonyos más pontokon lesz és így tovább végtelenül; így gondolataik soha nem fognak megnyugodni egy Istenben, hanem, a létezőn túl való keresés következtében arra vándorol, aminek nincs létezése, és eltávozik a valódi Istentől.

4. Ezek az észrevételek hasonló módon alkalmazhatók Markion híveivel szemben. Mert az ő két istenüket is hatalmas térköz foglalja magába és határolja körül, amely elválasztja őket egymástól. De akkor szükségszerű az istenek sokaságának feltételezése, amelyeket minden oldalon hatalmas távolság választ el egymástól, kezdve az egyiktől a másikig, és egyik a másikba végződik. Ez a helyzet azzal az érvelési folyamattal, amelyről azt állítják, hogy van egy bizonyos Pleróma vagy Isten az ég és a föld Teremtője felett, bárki, aki úgy dönt, hogy alkalmazza, fenntarthatja, hogy van egy másik Pleroma a Pleroma felett, amely felett megint egy másik, és Büthosz felett egy Istenség másik óceánja, míg ugyanígy ugyanazok az utódlások vonatkoznak az oldalakra is; és így tanításuk a végtelenbe ömlik, mindig szükség lesz más Pleromára, és másik Büthoszra, hogy így soha ne álljon le bármely időben, hanem mindig folytassa a másik keresését a már említetteken kívül. Ráadásul bizonytalan lesz, hogy ezek, amelyeket elképzelünk, alatta vannak-e, vagy tulajdonképpen maguk is azok, amelyek fent vannak; [és hasonló módon kétséges lesz] azoknak a dolgoknak a tiszteletben tartása, amelyekről azt mondják, hogy fent vannak, függetlenül attól, hogy valóban fent vagy alul vannak; és így véleményünknek nincs rögzített következtetése vagy bizonyossága, de szükségszerűen vándorolnak a korlátok nélküli világok és nem számolható istenek után.

5. Ezek a dolgok tehát, ha így vannak, minden istenség megelégszik a saját javaival, és nem mozgatja meg semmiféle kíváncsiság mások dolgai iránt; különben igazságtalan és kapzsi lenne, és megszűnne az lenni, ami Isten. Minden teremtmény is a saját alkotóját fogja dicsőíteni, és elégedett lesz vele, nem ismer mást; különben a legigazságosabban ítéltetne lázadónak az összes többi által, és bőségesen megérdemelt büntetést kapna. Mert vagy annak kell lennie, hogy van egy Lény, aki mindent magába foglal, és a saját területén alkotta meg mindazt, ami az Ő akarata szerint létrejött; vagy ismét, hogy számos korlátlan számú alkotó és isten létezik, akik egymástól kezdődnek, és minden oldalon egymásban végződnek; és akkor szükséges megengedni, hogy az összes többit kívülről zárja be valaki, aki nagyobb, és hogy mindegyikük be van zárva a saját területére, és ott is marad. Ezért egyikük sem Isten. Mert mindegyiküknek [sok] lesz a hiánya, és csak egy nagyon kis részt birtokol az összes többihez képest. A Mindenható neve így megszűnik, és az ilyen vélemény szükségképpen istentelenségre vezet.

II. Fejezet – A világot nem angyalok vagy más lények alkották, ellentétben a Magasságos Isten akaratával, hanem az Atya a Beszéd által alkotta.

1. Azok pedig, akik azt mondják, hogy a világot angyalok, vagy annak bármely más alkotója teremtette, ellentétben Ővele, aki a Legfelsőbb Atya, mindenekelőtt ebben a pontban tévednek, hogy azt állítják, hogy az angyalok a Magasságos Isten akaratával ellentétben ilyen és oly hatalmas teremtést alkottak. Ez azt jelentené, hogy az angyalok hatalmasabbak voltak Istennél; vagy ha nem, akkor gondatlan volt, vagy gyenge, vagy nem törődött azzal, ami a tulajdonában történt, akár rosszul, akár jól, hogy elűzze és megakadályozza az egyiket, míg a másikat dicséri örvendezett neki. De ha valaki még egy bármilyen képességű embernek sem tulajdonít ilyen magatartást, mennyivel kevésbé Istennek.

2. Ezután mondják meg nekünk, vajon ezek a dolgok az Ő által meghatározott korlátokon belül és az Ő megfelelő területén alakultak-e ki, vagy másokhoz tartozó és Őt meghaladó régiókban? De ha azt mondják [hogy ezek a dolgok Őt meghaladóan történtek], akkor minden már említett képtelenségekkel kell szembenézniük, és a Legfelsőbb Istent be fogja zárni az, ami rajta kívül van, és ebben is szükség lesz arra, hogy megtalálja a maga végét. Ha viszont [ezek a dolgok] az Ő saját területén történtek, akkor nagyon haszontalan lenne azt állítani, hogy a világot így az Ő saját területén az Ő akarata ellenére alakították ki angyalok, akik maguk is az Ő hatalma alatt állnak, vagy bármely más lény, mintha ő maga nem látna mindent, ami a saját tulajdonában történik, vagy nem lenne tudatában az angyalok tennivalóinak.

3. Ha azonban [az említett dolgok] nem az Ő akarata ellenére történtek, hanem az Ő egyetértésével és tudásával, amint egyesek [ezek közül] gondolják, az angyalok, vagy a világ Alkotója [bárki is volt az], többé már nem lesznek okai ennek a kialakításnak, hanem Isten akarata. Mert ha Ő a világ Alkotója, Ő alkotta az angyalokat is, vagy legalábbis ő volt teremtésük oka; és Ő alkotta a világot, aki előkészítette kialakulásának okait. Bár azt állítják, hogy az angyalok hosszú egymásutánban jöttek létre lefelé, vagy hogy a világ Alkotója a Legfelsőbb Atyától származott, ahogy Basilides állítja; mindazonáltal az, ami a létrejött dolgoknak az oka, még mindig Őhozzá fog vezetni, aki egy ilyen sorozatnak a Szerzője volt. [Az ügy éppen úgy áll], ami a háborús sikert illeti, amelyet annak a királynak tulajdonítanak, aki előkészítette azokat a dolgokat, amelyek a győzelem okai; és hasonló módon bármely állapot vagy bármilyen munka létrehozása ahhoz tartozik, aki az utólag meghozott eredmények megvalósításához anyagokat készített. Ezért nem mondjuk, hogy a fejsze vágta a fát, vagy a fűrész osztotta szét; de nagyon helyesen azt mondanánk, hogy az az ember vágta és osztotta, aki erre a célra a fejszét és a fűrészt formálta, és [aki szintén megalkotta] sokkal korábban minden szerszámot, amellyel magát a fejszét és a fűrészt formálta. Az igazságosság mellett tehát, egy analóg érvelési folyamat szerint, mindenek Atyját nyilvánítják e világ Alkotójának, és nem az angyalokat, sem pedig a világ más [úgynevezett] alkotóját, kivéve Őt, aki a világ Szerzője volt, és korábban egy ilyen jellegű alkotás előkészítésének volt az oka.

4. Ez a beszédmód hihető vagy meggyőző lehet azok számára, akik nem ismerik Istent, és akik egy szűkölködő emberi lényhez hasonlítják Őt, és azokhoz, akik nem tudnak közvetlenül és segítség nélkül semmit sem alkotni, hanem sok eszközre van szükségük ahhoz, hogy megvalósítsák, amit szándékoznak. De egyáltalán nem tartják valószínűnek azok, akik tudják, hogy Istennek nincs szüksége semmire, és mindent az Ő Beszéde által teremtett és alkotott, miközben nem volt szüksége angyalokra, hogy segítsenek neki a dolgok létrehozásában, amelyek elkészültek, sem bármely erőre, amely nagymértékben alacsonyrendű Őhozzá képest, és az Atyát illetően tudatlan, sem bármely hiányosságból vagy tudatlanságból, azért, hogy akinek ismernie kell Őt, emberré válhasson. De Ő maga önmagában, olyan módon, amelyet sem leírni, sem elképzelni nem tudunk, eleve elrendelt mindent, tetszése szerint formálta meg őket, harmóniát adott mindennek, és kijelölte nekik saját helyüket és teremtésük kezdetét. Ily módon a szellemi dolgoknak szellemi és láthatatlan természetet adott, a legfinomabb dolgoknak égi, az angyaloknak angyali, az állatoknak állati, azoknak a lényeknek, amelyek úsznak, a vízhez illő természetet, és azoknak, akik a szárazon élnek, a szárazföldnek megfelelőt – mindnyájuknak, röviden, a rájuk bízott élet jellegéhez illő természet – miközben Ő formált meg mindent, amit Beszéde által alkotott, amely soha nem fárad el.

5. Mert ez Isten felsőbbrendűségének sajátossága, hogy nincs szükség más eszközökre a létezésbe behívott dolgok megteremtéséhez. Saját Beszéde alkalmas és elégséges minden dolgok kialakítására, ahogyan János, az úr tanítványa kijelenti felőle: „Minden általa lett, és nála nélkül semmi sem alkottatott.” Nos, a „minden”-nek a mi világunkat is fel kell ölelnie. Ezért azt is az Ő Beszéde által tette, ahogy az Írás azt mondja nekünk a Teremtés könyvében, hogy Beszéde által mindent összekapcsolt világunkkal. Dávid is ugyanezt az igazságot fejezi ki [amikor azt mondja]: „Mert Ő szólt, és lettek; Ő parancsolt, és megteremtettek.” Kinek higgyünk tehát a világ teremtését illetően: ezeknek az eretnekeknek, akikről már szó volt, és akik oly ostobán és következetlenül beszélnek erről a témáról, vagy az úr tanítványainak és Mózesnek, aki egyszerre volt Isten hűséges szolgája és próféta? A világ formáltatását először ezekkel a szavakkal mesélte el: „Kezdetben teremtette Isten az eget és a földet”, és minden mást egymás után; de sem isteneknek, sem angyaloknak [nem volt részük a munkában].

Nos, hogy ez az Isten a mi urunk, a Felkent Jahósua Atyja, Pál, az apostol is kijelentette [ezt mondva:] „Egy az Isten, az Atya, aki mindenek felett van, aki mindenek által és mindenekben.” Valóban bebizonyítottam már, hogy csak egy Isten van; de ezt tovább fogom bizonyítani maguktól az apostoloktól és az úr beszédeiből. Mert miféle magatartás lenne, ha elhagynánk a próféták, az úr és az apostolok beszédeit, hogy odafigyeljünk ezekre a személyekre, akik egy szót sem beszélnek ebben az értelemben?

III. Fejezet – A valentiánusok Büthosza és Plerómája, valamit Markion istene, akikről bebizonyosodik, hogy képtelenek; A Világot tulajdonképpen ugyanaz a létező teremtette, aki annak gondolatát elgondolta és nem a hiba vagy a tudatlanság gyümölcse volt.

1. A Büthosz tehát, akit az ő Pleromájával együtt képzelnek el, és Markion Istene következetlenek. If indeed, as they affirm, he has something subjacent and beyond himself, which they style vacuity and shadow, this vacuum is then proved to be greater than their Pleroma. But it is inconsistent even to make this statement, that while he contains all things within himself, the creation was formed by some other. For it is absolutely necessary that they acknowledge a certain void and chaotic kind of existence (below the spiritual Pleroma) in which this universe was formed, and that the Propator purposely left this chaos as it was, either knowing beforehand what things were to happen in it, or being ignorant of them. If he was really ignorant, then God will not be prescient of all things. But they will not even [in that case] be able to assign a reason on what account He thus left this place void during so long a period of time. If, again, He is prescient, and contemplated mentally that creation which was about to have a being in that place, then He Himself created it who also formed it beforehand [ideally] in Himself.

2. Let them cease, therefore, to affirm that the world was made by any other; for as soon as God formed a conception in His mind, that was also done which He had thus mentally conceived. For it was not possible that one Being should mentally form the conception, and another actually produce the things which had been conceived by Him in His mind. But God, according to these heretics, mentally conceived either an eternal world or a temporal one, both of which suppositions cannot be true. Yet if He had mentally conceived of it as eternal, spiritual, and visible, it would also have been formed such. But if it was formed such as it really is, then He made it such who had mentally conceived of it as such; or He willed it to exist in the ideality of the Father, according to the conception of His mind, such as it now is, compound, mutable, and transient. Since, then, it is just such as the Father had [ideally] formed in counsel with Himself, it must be worthy of the Father. But to affirm that what was mentally conceived and pre-created by the Father of all, just as it has been actually formed, is the fruit of defect, and the production of ignorance, is to be guilty of great blasphemy. For, according to them, the Father of all will thus be [regarded as] generating in His breast, according to His own mental conception, the emanations of defect and the fruits of ignorance, since the things which He had conceived in His mind have actually been produced.

IV. Fejezet – A feltételezett vákuum (űr) abszurditása és az eretnekek hiánya bizonyított.

1. Utána kell tehát kutatni, hogy mi az oka, hogy ennek az Istennek ilyen az üdvrendje; de a világ kialakulása nem tulajdonítható másnak. És mindenről úgy kell beszélni, mintha Isten előre elkészítette volna őket, hogy olyanná legyenek, amilyennek meg lettek alkotva; de az árnyékot és ürességet (vákum, űr) nem kell létezéssé varázsolni. De hadd kérdezzem meg, honnan jött ez az üresség (űr) [amiről beszélnek]? Ha valóban Ő készítette, aki szerintük Atya és Szerzője az olajos dolgoknak, akkor tiszteletben egyenlő és rokon az Aeonok maradékával, valószínűleg még náluk is régebbi. Sőt, ha ugyanabból a forrásból származik [mint ők], akkor természetében hasonlónak kell lennie ahhoz, aki létrehozta, valamint azokhoz, akikkel együtt előállították. Ezért feltétlenül szükség lesz arra, hogy a Bythus, akiről beszélnek, és Sige is, természetében hasonló legyen a vákuumhoz; vagyis hogy Ő valóban vákuum; és hogy a többi Aeon, mivel ők az üresség testvérei, szintén mentesek legyenek az anyagtól. If, on the other hand, it has not been thus produced, it must have sprang from and been generated by itself, and in that case it will be equal in point of age to that Bythus who is, according to them, the Father of oil; and thus vacuity will be of the same nature and of the same honour with Him who is, according to them, the universal Father. For it must of necessity have been either produced by some one, or generated by itself, and sprung from itself. But if, in truth, vacuity was produced, then its producer Valentinus is also a vacuum, as are likewise his followers. If, again, it was not produced, but was generated by itself, then that which is really a vacuum is similar to, and the brother of, and of the same honour with, that Father who has been proclaimed by Valentinus; while it is more ancient, and dating its existence from a period greatly anterior, and more exalted in honour than the remaining Aeons of Ptolemy himself, and Heracleon, and all the rest who hold the same opinions.

2. But if, driven to despair in regard to these points, they confess that the Father of all contains all things, and that there is nothing whatever outside of the Pleroma (for it is an absolute necessity that, [if there be anything outside of it, ] it should be bounded and circumscribed by something greater than itself), and that they speak of what is without and what within in reference to knowledge and ignorance, and not with respect to local distance; but that, in the Pleroma, or in those things which are contained by the Father, the whole creation which we know to have been formed, having been made by the Demiurge, or by the angels, is contained by the unspeakable greatness, as the centre is in a circle, or as a spot is in a garment,-then, in the first place, what sort of a being must that Bythus be, who allows a stain to have place in His own bosom, and permits another one to create or produce within His territory, contrary to His own will? Such a mode of acting would truly entail [the charge of] degeneracy upon the entire Pleroma, since it might from the first have cut off that defect, and those emanations which derived their origin from it, and not have agreed to permit the formation of creation either in ignorance, or passion, or in defect. For he who can afterwards rectify a defect, and does, as it were, wash away a stain, could at a much earlier date have taken care that no such stain should, even at first, be found among his possessions. Or if at the first he allowed that the things which were made [should be as they are], since they could not, in fact, be formed otherwise, then it follows that they must always continue in the same condition. For how is it possible, that those things which cannot at the first obtain rectification, should subsequently receive it? Or how can men say that they are called to perfection, when those very beings who are the causes from which men derive their origin-either the Demiurge himself, or the angels-are declared to exist in defect? And if, as is maintained, [the Supreme Being, ] inasmuch as He is benignant, did at last take pity upon men, and bestow on them perfection, He ought at first to have pitied those who were the creators of man, and to have conferred on them perfection. In this way, men too would verily have shared in His compassion, being formed. perfect by those that were perfect. For if He pitied the work of these beings, He ought long before to have pitied themselves, and not to have allowed them to fall into such awful blindness.

3. Their talk also about shadow and vacuity, in which they maintain that the creation with which we are concerned was formed, will be brought to nothing, if the things referred to were created within the territory which is contained by the Father. For if they hold that the light of their Father is such that it fills all things which are inside of Him, and illuminates them all, how can any vacuum or shadow possibly exist within that territory which is contained by the Pleroma, and by the light of the Father? For, in that case, it behoves them to point out some place within the Propator, or within the Pleroma, which is not illuminated, nor kept possession of by any one, and in which either the angels or the Demiurge formed whatever they pleased. Nor will it be a small amount of space in which such and so great a creation can be conceived of as having been formed. There will therefore be an absolute necessity that, within the Pleroma, or within the Father of whom they speak, they should conceive of some place, void, formless, and full of darkness, in which those things were formed which have been formed. By such a supposition, however, the light of their Father would incur a reproach, as if He could not illuminate and fill those things which are within Himself. Thus, then, when they maintain that these things were the fruit of defect and the work of error, they do moreover introduce defect and error within the Pleroma, and into the bosom of the Father.

V. Fejezet – Ezt a világot nem más Létezők alkották azon a területen belül, amelyet az Atya birtokol.

1. Az észrevételek tehát, amelyeket nem sokkal ezelőtt tettem, alkalmasak válaszul azoknak, akik azt állítják, hogy ezt a világot a Plerómán kívül alkották, vagy egy „jó Isten” alatt; „És az ilyen személyek, az Atyával akiről ők beszélnek, egészen elszakadnak majd attól, amely a Plerómán kívül van, amiben ugyanakkor szükséges nekik végül belenyugodni. Válaszul azoknak, ismét, akik azt állítják, hogy ezt a világot bizonyos más lények alkották azon a területen, amelyet az Atya magában foglal, mindazok a pontok, amelyeket most észrevettek, képtelenségektnek és következetlenségeknek fognak tűnni számukra; és kénytelenek lesznek elismerni, hogy mindazok, amelyek az Atyán belül vannak, világosak, teljesen, és erőteljesek, vagy [pedig] vádolni az Atya világosságát, mintha nem tudna mindent megvilágítani; vagy Plerómájuk egy részét, annak egészét üresnek, kaotikusnak és sötétnek kell tekinteni. And they accuse all other created things as if these were merely temporal, or [at the best], if eternal, yet material. But these (the Aeons) ought to be regarded as beyond the reach of such accusations, since they are within the Pleroma, or the charges in question will equally fall against the entire Pleroma; and thus the Christ of whom they speak is discovered to be the author of ignorance. For, according to their statements, when He had given a form so far as substance was concerned to the Mother they conceive of, He cast her outside of the Pleroma; that is, He cut her off from knowledge. He, therefore, who separated her from knowledge, did in reality produce ignorance in her. How then could the very same person bestow the gift of knowledge on the rest of the Aeons, those who were anterior to Him [in production], and yet be the author of ignorance to His Mother? For He placed her beyond the pale of knowledge, when He cast her outside of the Pleroma.

2. Moreover, if they explain being within and without the Pleroma as implying knowledge and ignorance respectively, as certain of them do (since he who has knowledge is within that which knows), then they must of necessity grant that the Saviour Himself (whom they designate All Things) was in a state of ignorance. For they maintain that, on His coming forth outside of the Pleroma, He imparted form to their Mother [Achamoth]. If, then, they assert that whatever is outside [the Pleroma] is ignorant of all things, and if the Saviour went forth to impart form to their Mother, then He was situated beyond the pale of the knowledge of all things; that is, He was in ignorance. How then could He communicate knowledge to her, when He Himself was beyond the pale of knowledge? For we, too, they declare to be outside the Pleroma, inasmuch as we are outside of the knowledge which they possess. And once more: If the Saviour really went forth beyond the Pleroma to seek after the sheep which was lost, but the Pleroma is [co-extensive with] knowledge, then He placed Himself beyond the pale of knowledge, that is, in ignorance. For it is necessary either that they grant that what is outside the Pleroma is so in a local sense, in which case all the remarks formerly made will rise up against them; or if they speak of that which is within in regard to knowledge, and of that which is without in respect to ignorance, then their Saviour, and Christ long before Him, must have been formed in ignorance, inasmuch as they went forth beyond the Pleroma, that is, beyond the pale of knowledge, in order to impart form to their Mother.

3. These arguments may, in like manner, be adapted to meet the case of all those who, in any way, maintain that the world was formed either by angels or by any other one than the true God. For the charges which they bring against the Demiurge, and those things which were made material and temporal, will in truth fall back on the Father; if indeed the very things which were formed in the bosom of the Pleroma began by and by in fact to be dissolved, in accordance with the permission and good-will of the Father. The [immediate] Creator, then, is not the [real] Author of this work, thinking, as He did, that He formed it very good, but Hef who allows and approves of the productions of defect, and the works of error having a place among his own possessions, and that temporal things should be mixed up with eternal, corruptible with incorruptible, and those which partake of error with those which belong to truth. If, however, these things were formed without the permission or approbation of the Father of all, then that Being must be more powerful, stronger, and more kingly, who made these things within a territory which properly belongs to Him (the Father), and did so without His permission. If again, as some say, their Father permitted these things without approving of them, then He gave the permission on account of some necessity, being either able to prevent [such procedure], or not able. But if indeed He could not [hinder it], then He is weak and powerless; while, if He could, He is a seducer, a hypocrite, and a slave of necessity, inasmuch as He does not consent [to such a course], and yet allows it as if He did consent. And allowing error to arise at the first, and to go on increasing, He endeavours in later times to destroy it, when already many have miserably perished on account of the [original] defect.

4. It is not seemly, however, to say of Him who is God over all, since He is free and independent, that He was a slave to necessity, or that anything takes place with His permission, yet against His desire; otherwise they will make necessity greater and more kingly than God, since that which has the most power is superior to all [others]. And He ought at the very beginning to have cut off the causes of [the fancied] necessity, and not to have allowed Himself to be shut up to yielding to that necessity, by permitting anything besides that which became Him. For it would have been much better, more consistent, and more God-like, to cut off at the beginning the principle of this kind of necessity, than afterwards, as if moved by repentance, to endeavour to extirpate the results of necessity when they had reached such a development. And if the Father of all be a slave to necessity, and must yield to fate, while He unwillingly tolerates the things which are done, but is at the same time powerless to do anything in opposition to necessity and fate (like the Homeric Jupiter, who says of necessity, „I have willingly given thee, yet with unwilling mind”), then, according to this reasoning, the Bythus of whom they speak will be found to be the slave of necessity and fate.

VI. Fejezet – Az angyalok és a világ Teremtője nem lehettek tudtatlanok a Legfelsőbb Istent iránt.

1. Ismét, hogyan lettek volna képesek az angyalok, vagy a világ Teremtője, tudatlanok lenni a legfelsőbb Istennel kapcsolatban, látva, hogy az Ő tulajdona és teremtményei, és Ő foglalja magába őket? Valóban láthatatlan lehetett számukra felsőbbrendűsége miatt, de semmiképpen sem lehetett számukra ismeretlen a gondviselése miatt. Mert bár igaz, amint kijelentik, hogy [természetükből fakadó] alsóbbrendűségük miatt nagyon távol voltak Tőle, mégis, mivel uralma mindnyájukra kiterjedt, ismerniük kellett Uralkodójukat, és annak különösen tudatában kellett lenniük, hogy Ő, aki teremtette őket, mindenek Ura. Mivel az Ő láthatatlan lényege hatalmas, mindeneknek mély elmebeli ráérzést adományoz és az Ővé a leghatalmasabb érzékelés, igen, mindenható nagyság. Azért, bár „senki sem ismeri az Atyát, csak a Fiú, sem a Fiút, kivéve az Atya, és akinek a Fiú kinyilatkoztatja őt,” mégis minden [lény] ismeri legalább ezt az egy tényt, mert az elméjükbe ültetett értelem mozgatja őket, és feltárja előttük [az igazságot], hogy egy Isten van, mindenek Ura.

2. És ezért [közmegegyezéssel] minden annak uralma alá került, akit a Magasságosnak és a Mindenhatónak neveznek. Azáltal, hogy segítségül hívták, még urunk eljövetele előtt, az emberek megmenekültek a leggonoszabb szellemtől (Megjegyzés: JHVH – Iaó, a héberek Istene nevében végzett démonűzésekről maradtak fenn tárgyi emlékek is a pogányok között is), mindenféle démontól és mindenféle elpártoló hatalomtól. Nem mintha földi szellemek vagy démonok látták volna Őt, hanem azért, mert tudták, hogy létezik Ő, aki mindenek feletti Isten (Jak. 2:19), akinek megszólításától (segítségül hívásától) megremegtek, ahogyan reszket minden teremtmény, fejedelemség és hatalom és minden erővel felruházott létező az Ő kormányzása alatt. Ehhez hasonlatosan azok, akik a rómaiak birodalma alatt élnek, bár soha nem látták a császárt, hanem távol vannak tőle, mint szárazföldön mind tengeren, jól ismerik, amint megtapasztalják uralmát, ki az, aki birtokolja a főhatalmat az államban? Hogyan történhetett hát, hogy azok az angyalok, akik [természetben] magasabb rendűek voltak nálunk, vagy még az is, akit a világ Teremtőjének neveznek, nem ismerte a Mindenhatót, amikor még az állatvilág is megremeg és enged nevének segítségül hívására (invocation)? És ahogyan ezek nem látták Őt, mégis minden a mi Urunk nevének van alávetve, így kell legyen Őiránta is, aki mindent az Ő beszéde által teremtett és megalapozott, mivel nem más, mint Ő alkotta a világot. És emiatt a zsidók még most is menekülésre kényszerítik a démonokat éppen ezzel valódi démonűzéssel, mivel minden lény fél annak a megszólításától, aki teremtette őket.

3. Ha azután visszahúzódnak [az eretnekek] attól, hogy állítsák, hogy az angyalok oktalanabbak, mint a néma állatok, rá fognak jönni, hogy ezekre illik, habár ők nem látták Őt, aki mindenek felett Isten, hogy ismerjék hatalmát és korlátlan uralmát. Mert valóban nevetségesnek fog tűnni, ha azt állítják, hogy ők maguk, akik a földön laknak, ismerik azt, aki Isten mind azok felett, akiket még soha nem láttak, de nem engedik meg annak, aki véleményük szerint alkotta őket és az egész világot, bár a magasban és az egek felett lakik, megismerni azokat a dolgokat, amelyekkel ők maguk, bár lent laknak, ismeretségben állnak. [Ez a helyzet], hacsak véletlenül azt nem állítják, hogy Büthosz a föld alatt lévő Tartaroszban él, és hogy ebből a szempontból eljutottak az Ő ismeretére azon angyalok előtt, akik a magasban tartózkodnak. Így rohannak az őrület olyan szakadékába, hogy kijelentik, hogy a világ teremtője a megértés hiánya. Valóban szánalmat érdemelnek, mivel ilyen teljes bolondsággal állítják, hogy Ő (a világ Teremtője) sem az Anyját, sem annak magvát, sem az Aeonok Pleromáját, sem a Támogatót (proprator) nem ismerte, sem azokat a dolgokat, amelyeket készített; hanem hogy ezek azon dolgok képmásai, amelyek a Plerómán belül vannak, a Megváltó titokban azon munkálkodott, hogy ezeket [a tudattalan Demiurge által] így kellett megformálni azon dolgok tiszteletére, amelyek fent vannak.

VII. Fejezet – A teremtett dolgok nem azok az eónok képei, akik a Pleroma-n belül vannak.

1. While the Demiurge was thus ignorant of all things, they tell us that the Saviour conferred honour upon the Pleroma by the creation [which he summoned into existence] through means of his Mother, inasmuch as he produced similitudes and images of those things which are above. But I have already shown that it was impossible that anything should exist beyond the Pleroma (in which external region they tell us that images were made of those things which are within the Pleroma), or that this world was formed by any other one than the Supreme God. But if it is a pleasant thing to overthrow them on every side, and to prove them vendors of falsehood; let us say, in opposition to them, that if these things were made by the Saviour to the honour of those which are above, after their likeness, then it behoved them always to endure, that those things which have been honoured should perpetually continue in honour. But if they do in fact pass away, what is the use of this very brief period of honour,-an honour which at one time had no existence, and which shall again come to nothing? In that case I shall prove that the Saviour is rather an aspirant after vainglory, than one who honours those things which are above, For what honour can those things which are temporal confer on such as are eternal and endure for ever? or those which pass away on such as remain? or those which are corruptible on such as are incorruptible?-since, even among men who are themselves mortal, there is no value attached to that honour which speedily passes away, but to that which endures as long as it possibly can. But those things which, as soon as they are made, come to an end, may justly be said rather to have been formed for the contempt of such as are thought to be honoured by them; and that that which is eternal is contumeliously treated when its image is corrupted and dissolved. But what if their Mother had not wept, and laughed, and been involved in despair? The Saviour would not then have possessed any means of honouring the Fulness, inasmuch as her last state of confusion did not have substance of its own by which it might honour the Propator.

2. Alas for the honour of vainglory which at once passes away, and no longer appears! There will be some Aeon, in whose case such honour will not be thought at all to have had an existence, and then the things which are above will be unhonoured; or it will be necessary to produce once more another Mother weeping, and in despair, in order to the honour of the Pleroma. What a dissimilar, and at the same time blasphemous image! Do you tell me that an image of the Only-begotten was produced by the former of the world, whom again ye wish to be considered the Nous (mind) of the Father of all, and [yet maintain] that this image was ignorant of itself, ignorant of creation,-ignorant, too, of the Mother,-ignorant of everything that exists, and of those things which were made by it; and are you not ashamed while, in opposition to yourselves, you ascribe ignorance even to the Only-begotten Himself? For if these things [below] were made by the Saviour after the similitude of those which are above, while He (the Demiurge) who was made after such similitude was in so great ignorance, it necessarily follows that around Him, and in accordance with Him, after whose likeness be that is thus ignorant was formed, ignorance of the kind in question spiritually exists. For it is not possible, since both were produced spiritually, and neither fashioned nor composed, that in some the likeness was preserved, while in others the likeness of the image was spoiled, that image which was here produced that it might be according to the image of that production which is above. But if it is not similar, the charge will then attach to the Saviour, who produced a dissimilar image,-of being, so to speak, an incompetent workman. For it is out of their power to affirm that the Saviour had not the faculty of production, since they style Him All Things. If, then, the image is dissimilar, he is a poor workman, and the blame lies, according to their hypothesis, with the Saviour. If, on the other hand, it is similar, then the same ignorance will be found to exist in the Nous (mind) of their Propator, that is, in the Only-begotten. The Nous of the Father, in that case, was ignorant of Himself; ignorant, too, of the Father; ignorant, moreover, of those very things which were formed by Him. But if He has knowledge, it necessarily follows also that he who was formed after his likeness by the Saviour should know the things which are like; and thus, according to their own principles, their monstrous blasphemy is overthrown.

3. Apart from this, however, how can those things which belong to creation, various, manifold, and innumerable as they are, be the images of those thirty Aeons which are within the Pleroma, whose names, as these men fix them, I have set forth in the book which precedes this? And not only will they be unable to adapt the [vast] variety of creation at large to the [comparative] smallness of their Pleroma, but they cannot do this even with respect to any one part of it, whether [that possessed by] celestial or terrestrial beings, or those that live in the waters. For they themselves testify that their Pleroma consists of thirty Aeons; but any one will undertake to show that, in a single department of those [created beings] which have been mentioned, they reckon that there are not thirty, but many thousands of species. How then can those things, which constitute such a multiform creation, which are opposed in nature to each other, and disagree among themselves, and destroy the one the other, be the images and likenesses of the thirty Aeons of the Pleroma, if indeed, as they declare, these being possessed of one nature, are of equal and similar properties, and exhibit no differences [among themselves]? For it was incumbent, if these things are images of those Aeons,-inasmuch as they declare that some men are wicked by nature, and some, on the other hand, naturally good,-to point out such differences also among their Aeons, and to maintain that some of them were produced naturally good, while some were naturally evil, so that the supposition of the likeness of those things might harmonize with the Aeons. Moreover, since there are in the world some creatures that are gentle, and others that are fierce, some that are innocuous, while others are hurtful and destroy the rest; some have their abode on the earth, others in the water, others in the air, and others in the heaven; in like manner, they are bound to show that the Aeons possess such properties, if indeed the one are the images of the others. And besides; „the eternal fire which the Father has prepared for the devil and his angels,” -they ought to show of which of those Aeons that are above it is the image; for it, too, is reckoned part of the creation.

4. If, however, they say that these things are the images of the Enthymesis of that Aeon who fell into passion, then, first of all, they will act impiously against their Mother, by declaring her to be the first cause of evil and corruptible images. And then, again, how can those things which are manifold, and dissimilar, and contrary in their nature, be the images of one and the same Being? And if they say that the angels of the Pleroma are numerous, and that those things which are many are the images of these-not in this way either will the account they give be satisfactory. For, in the first place, they are then bound to point out differences among the angels of the Pleroma, which are mutually opposed to each other, even as the images existing below are of a contrary nature among themselves. And then, again, since there are many, yea, innumerable angels who surround the Creator, as all the prophets acknowledge,-[saying, for instance, ] „Ten thousand times ten thousand stood beside Him, and many thousands of thousands ministered unto Him,” -then, according to them, the angels of the Pleroma will have as images the angels of the Creator, and the entire creation remains in the image of the Pleroma, but so that the thirty Aeons no longer correspond to the manifold variety of the creation.

5. Still further, if these things [below] were made after the similitude of those [above], after the likeness of which again will those then be made? For if the Creator of the world did not form these things directly from His own conception, but, like an architect of no ability, or a boy receiving his first lesson, copied them from archetypes furnished by others, then whence did their Bythus obtain the forms of that creation which He at first produced? It clearly follows that He must have received the model from some other one who is above Him, and that one, in turn, from another. And none the less [for these suppositions], the talk about images, as about gods, will extend to infinity, if we do not at once fix our mind on one Artificer, and on one God, who of Himself formed those things which have been created. Or is it really the case that, in regard to mere men, one will allow that they have of themselves invented what is useful for the purposes of life, but will not grant to that God who formed the world, that of Himself He created the forms of those things which have been made, and imparted to it its orderly arrangement?

6. But, again, how can these things [below] be images of those [above], since they are really contrary to them, and can in no respect have sympathy with them? For those things which are contrary to each other may indeed be destructive of those to which they are contrary, but can by no means be their images-as, for instance, water and fire; or, again, light and darkness, and other such things, can never be the images of one another. In like manner, neither can those things which are corruptible and earthly, and of a compound nature, and transitory, be the images of those which, according to these men, are spiritual; unless these very things themselves be allowed to be compound, limited in space, and of a definite shape, and thus no longer spiritual, and diffused, and spreading into vast extent, and incomprehensible. For they must of necessity be possessed of a definite figure, and confined within certain limits, that they may be true images; and then it is decided that they are not spiritual. If, however, these men maintain that they are spiritual, and diffused, and incomprehensible, how can those things which are possessed of figure, and confined within certain limits, be the images of such as are destitute of figure and incomprehensible?

7. If, again, they affirm that neither according to configuration nor formation, but according to number and the order of production, those things [above] are the images [of these below], then, in the first place, these things [below] ought not to be spoken of as images and likenesses of those Aeons that are above. For how can the things which have neither the fashion nor shape of those [above] be their images? And, in the next place, they would adapt both the numbers and productions of the Aeons above, so as to render them identical with and similar to thoseth at belong to the creation [below]. But now, since they refer to only thirty Aeons, and declare that the vast multitude of things which are embraced within the creation [below] are images of those that are but thirty, we may justly condemn them as utterly destitute of sense.

VIII. Fejezet – A teremtett dolgok nem a Pleroma árnyéka.

1. If, again, they declare that these things [below] are a shadow of those [above], as some of them are bold enough to maintain, so that in this respect they are images, then it will be necessary for them to allow that those things which are above are possessed of bodies. For those bodies which are above do cast a shadow, but spiritual substances do not, since they can in no degree darken others. If, however, we also grant them this point (though it is, in fact, an impossibility), that there is a shadow belonging to those essences which are spiritual and lucent, into which they declare their Mother descended; yet, since those things [which are above] are eternal, and that shadow which is cast by them endures for ever, [it follows that] these things [below] are also not transitory, but endure along with those which cast their shadow over them. If, on the other hand, these things [below] are transitory, it is a necessary consequence that those [above] also, of which these are the shadow, pass away; while; if they endure, their shadow likewise endures.

2. If, however, they maintain that the shadow spoken of does not exist as being produced by the shade of [those above], but simply in this respect, that [the things below] are far separated from those [above], they will then charge the light of their Father with weakness and insufficiency, as if it cannot extend so far as these things, but fails to fill that which is empty, and to dispel the shadow, and that when no one is offering any hindrance. For, according to them, the light of their Father will be changed into darkness and buried in obscurity, and will come to an end in those places which are characterized by emptiness, since it cannot penetrate and fill all things. Let them then no longer declare that their Bythus is the fulness of all things, if indeed he has neither filled nor illuminated that which is vacuum and shadow; or, on the other hand, let them cease talking of vacuum and shadow, if the light of their Father does in truth fill all things.

3. Beyond the primary Father, then-that is, the God who is over all-there can neither be any Pleroma into which they declare the Enthymesis of that Aeon who suffered passion, descended (so that the Pleroma itself, or the primary God, should not be limited and circumscribed by that which is beyond, and should, in fact, be contained by it); nor can vacuum or shadow have any existence, since the Father exists beforehand, so that His light cannot fail, and find end in a vacuum. It is, moreover, irrational and impious to conceive of a place in which He who is, according to them, Propator, and Proarche, and Father of all, and of this Pleroma, ceases and has an end. Nor, again, is it allowable, for the reasons already stated, to allege that some other being formed so vast a creation in the bosom of the Father, either with or without His consent. For it is equally impious and infatuated to affirm that so great a creation was formed by angels, or by some particular production ignorant of the true God in that territory which is His own. Nor is it possible that those things which are earthly and material could have been formed within their Pleroma, since that is wholly spiritual. And further, it is not even possible that those things which belong to a multiform creation, and have been formed with mutually opposite qualities [could have been created] after the image of the things above, since these (i.e., the Aeons) are said to be few, and of a like formation, and homogeneous. Their talk, too, about the shadow of kenoma-that is, of a vacuum-has in all points turned out false. Their figment, then, [in what way soever viewed, ] has been proved groundless, and their doctrines untenable. Empty, too, are those who listen to them, and are verily descending into the abyss of perdition.

IX. Fejezet.- Csak egy Teremtője van a világnak, az Atya Isten: Ezt az Egyház állandó hite.

1. Hogy Isten a világ teremtője, még azok a személyek is elfogadják, akik sok szempontból ellene szólnak, de mégis elismerik Őt, Teremtőnek nevezve, és egy angyalnak, arról nem is beszélve, hogy az Írás teljessége [ugyanezen értelemben] mutat rá, és az úr erről az Atyáról tanít minket, aki a mennyben van, és senki másról, amint ezt a munka folytatásában megmutatom.

Jelenleg azonban az a bizonyíték, amely azoktól származik, akik a velünk ellentétes tanításokra hivatkoznak, önmagában elegendő, sőt, minden ember egyetért ezzel az igazsággal: a régiek a maguk részéről különös gondossággal őrzik meg az első megformált emberről való hagyományt, ezt a meggyőzést, miközben egy Isten, az ég és föld Teremtőjének dicséretét ünneplik; másokat, megint utánuk, Isten prófétái emlékeztetnek erre a tényre, míg a pogányok magából a teremtésből tanulták meg. Ugyanis a teremtés feltárja Őt, aki alkotta, és maga az elvégzett munka sugallja Őt, aki készítette, és a világ megmutatja Őt, aki elrendezte azt. Az egyetemes Egyház ráadásul az egész világon megkapta ezt a hagyományt az apostoloktól.

2. Ezt a [gnosztikus] Istent tehát elfogadva, mint mondtam, és tanúságot kapva létének ténye felől, hogy egy Atya, akit létükbe varázsolnak, kétségtelenül elfogadhatatlan, és nincs tanúja [létének]. Simon Mágus volt az első, aki azt mondta, hogy ő maga Isten mindenek felett, és hogy a világot az angyalai alkották. Aztán azok, akik utódai voltak, amint azt az első könyvben megmutattam, számos nézetükkel még tovább rontották [tanítását] a Teremtővel szembeni hamis és istentelen tanításaik révén. Ezek a [most hivatkozott eretnekek] az említettek tanítványai lévén, a beleegyezésük rosszabbá teszik őket, mint a pogányok. Hiszen az előbbiek „inkább a teremtést szolgálják, mint a Teremtőt,” (Róm. 1:25) és „azokat, amelyek nem istenek,” (Gal. 4:8) jóllehet, hogy az első helyet annak az Istennek tulajdonítják, aki a világmindenség Alkotója. De utóbbiak azt állítják, hogy Ő [azaz ennek a világnak a Teremtője] egy hiba gyümölcse, és úgy jellemzik, hogy állati természetű, és olyan, aki nem ismeri azt a Hatalmat, amely felette van, miközben így kiált: „Én vagyok az Isten, és rajtam kívül nincs más Isten.” (Ézs. 46:9) Erősítgetve, hogy Ő hazudik, maguk bizonyulnak hazugoknak, mindenféle gonoszságot tulajdonítanak neki; és azt gondolják, hogy az, aki nem e Létező felett van, mint aki valóban létezik, így saját káromló nézeteik miatt ítéletet mondanak a valóban létező Isten ellen, miközben létezés nélkül isteneket varázsolnak a saját kárhoztatásukra. És így azok, akik „tökéletesnek” vallják magukat, és minden tudással rendelkeznek, rosszabbak, mint a pogányok, és még a Teremtőjükkel szemben is istenkáromlóbb véleményeket fogalmaznak meg.

X. Fejezet – A Szentírás ferde értelmezése az eretnekek által: Isten mindent a semmiből teremtett, és nem a már létező anyagból.

1. Ezért a legmagasabb fokon alaptalan, hogy ne vegyük számításba Őt, aki valóban Isten, és aki mindenektől bizonyságot kap, miközben azt tudakozzuk, hogy van-e fölötte az a [másik lény], akinek valóban nincs léte, és soha senki nem hirdette. Mert hogy semmit nem mondtak világosan róla, ők maguk tesznek arról bizonyságot; mivelhogy szánalmas sikerrel viszik át ehhez a Lényhez, akit ők elképzelnek, azokat a [szentírási] példabeszédeket, amelyeket bármi formában is elbeszélik Őt, [e célból] keresik őket, [ezért] nyilvánvaló, hogy most alkotnak egy másik [istent], akit korábban soha nem kerestek. Mert azzal, hogy így igyekeznek megmagyarázni a Szentírás kétértelmű részeit (kétértelműek azonban nem mintha egy másik istenre utalnának, hanem az [igaz] Isten üdvrendjét illetően), egy másik istent építenek, szőnek, mint ahogy korábban mondtam, mint homlokkötőket, egy kevésbé fontos kérdéshez egy fontosabbat igazítanak. Mert egyetlen kérdést sem lehet egy másikkal megoldani, amely maga is várja a megoldást; sem az érzék azon birtoklásának véleményével sem lehet a kétértelműséget megmagyarázni egy másik kétértelműséggel, sem a rejtélyeket egy másik nagyobb rejtély segítségével, hanem az ilyen jellegű dolgok azoktól nyerik megoldásukat, amelyek nyilvánvalóak, következetesek, és világosak.

2. De ezek [eretnekek], miközben az Írás idézeteinek és a példabeszédek megmagyarázására törekszenek, felvetnek egy másik fontosabb, és valóban istentelen kérdést, ennek érdekében, „Vajon létezik-e valóban más isten ezen az Istenen felül, aki a világ Teremtője volt?” Nem tudják megoldani a kérdéseket [amelyeket indítványoznak]; mert hogyan találhatnának erre eszközöket? De egy fontos kérdést csatolnak a kisebb következményekkel járó kérdéshez, és így [találgatásaikba] belehelyeznek egy megoldhatatlan akadályt.

Mert azért, hogy megismerhessék magát a „tudást” (gnózist) (mégsem tanulják meg ezt a tényt, hogy az úr, amikor harminc éves korában eljött az igazság bemerítésére), istentelenül megvetik azt az Istent, aki a Teremtő volt, és aki elküldte őt az ember megváltásáért. És hogy képesek legyenek tájékoztatni minket, honnan van az anyag lényege, miközben nem hiszik el, hogy Isten az Ő tetszése szerint, saját akaratának és hatalmának gyakorlásával alkotott meg mindent (úgy, hogy azok a dolgok, amelyeknek most létezniük kell) abból, ami korábban nem létezett, hiábavaló beszédeket gyűjtöttek össze. Így valóban felfedik hitetlenségüket; nem hisznek abban, ami valóban létezik, és beleestek annak [hitébe], ami valójában nem létezik.

3. Mert amikor azt mondják nekünk, hogy minden nedves anyag Akhamót könnyeiből származik, minden tiszta anyag az ő mosolyából, minden szilárd anyag szomorúságából, minden mozgékony anyag a rémületből, és így fenséges tudással rendelkeznek, amelyek felsőbbrendűek a többieknél, hogyan lehet, hogy ezeket a dolgokat nem tekintik megvetésre méltónak és valóban nevetségesnek? Nem hiszik, hogy Isten (lévén hatalmas és minden erőforrásban gazdag) magát az anyagot teremtette, mivel nem tudják mennyi mindent képes elérni egy szellemi és isteni valóság. De azt hiszik, hogy az Anyjuk, akit ők nőből való nővé formálnak, a fent említett szenvedélyeiből formálta ki a teremtést oly hatalmas anyagi valóságát. Arról is kérdezősködnek, honnan állt rendelkezésére a Teremtőnek a teremtés anyaga (lényege); de azt nem kérdezik, honnan [állt rendelkezésére] Anyjuknak (akit ők Enthümézisznek és az Aeonok impulzusának neveznek, amely eltévedt) ekkora mennyiségű könny összessége, vagy izzadság, vagy szomorúság, vagy az, ami az anyag maradékát létrehozta.

4. Mert a teremtett dolgok anyagát (lényegét) annak hatalmának és akaratának tulajdonítani, aki mindenek Istene, mind elismerésre, mind elfogadásra méltó. Az is elfogadható [érvelés], és egy ilyen hitről jól elmondható, hogy „ami embereknél lehetetlen, Istennél lehetséges”. Míg az emberek valóban nem tudnak valamit csinálni a semmiből, csak a már létező anyagból, Isten azonban e tekintetben kiemelkedően felsőbbrendű az embereknél, akiket Ő maga hívott létre teremtésének anyagát, ami korábban nem létezett. De hihetetlen az az állítás, hogy az anyag egy tévútra tévedő Aeon Enthümesiséből származott, és hogy az Aeon [amelyre hivatkozunk] messze elkülönült az Enthümesisétől, és hogy ismét szenvedélye és érzése önmagától elválva anyaggá vált – hihetetlen, megszállott, lehetetlen és tarthatatlan.

XI. Fejezet – Az eretnekek az igazságban való hitetlenségük miatt a tévedés mélységébe estek: Rendszereik vizsgálódásai okai miatt.

1. Nem hiszik azt, hogy Ő, aki mindenek felett Isten, Beszéde által alkotott, saját területén, ahogy Neki Magának tetszett, a különféle és változatos [műveit a teremtésnek, amely létezik], amennyiben Ő mindenek előtti, mint egy bölcs építőmester, és a leghatalmasabb uralkodó. De azt hiszik, hogy az angyalok vagy valamilyen Istentől elkülönülő hatalom, aki nem tudott róla, alkotta ezt az univerzumot. Ezen az úton tehát nem adnak hitelt az igazságnak, hanem a hazugságban fetrengve veszítették el az igazi élet kenyerét, és ürességbe és árnyék szakadékába estek. Olyanok, mint Ezópusz kutyája, aki elejtette a kenyeret, és megpróbálta megragadni Árnyékát, így elveszítette az [igazi] ételt. (lásd Ezópusi Mesék 22. o.) Könnyű bizonyítani az úr szavaiból, hogy elismeri a világ egyetlen Teremtőjét és Atyját, és az ember Alkotóját, akit a törvény és a próféták hirdettek, miközben nem ismert mást, és hogy ez Egy valóban mindenek felett Isten; és hogy azt tanítja, hogy az Atyához tartozó fiak ama örökbefogadása, amely az örök élet, saját maga által történik, adományozva azt [ahogy Ő teszi] az összes igaznak.

2. De mivel ezek az emberek szívesen megtámadnak minket, és az valódi szőrszálhasogató jellemük szerint olyan pontokban támadnak meg minket, amelyek valójában egyáltalán nem mondanak ellenünk, [továbbá] példázatok és [fogatos] kérdések sokaságát hoznak fel velünk szemben, jónak gondoltam, hogy mindenekelőtt a következő kérdéseket intézem hozzájuk saját tanaikra vonatkozóan, hogy kimutassam valószínűtlenségüket, és véget vessek merészségüknek. Miután ez megtörtént, [szándékom] előadni az úr beszédeit, hogy ne csupán támadásunk eszközei nélkül maradjanak, hanem hogy mivel képtelenek ésszerűen válaszolni a feltett kérdésekre, láthassák, hogy érvelési tervük megsemmisült; hogy vagy visszatérve az igazsághoz, megalázva magukat, és felhagyva sokféle képzelgésükkel, engeszteljék Istent az ellene kimondott istenkáromlásért, és elnyerhessék megmentésüket (üdvösség); vagy hogy ha még mindig kitartanak a hiú dicsőségnek abban a rendszerében, amely hatalmukba kerítette elméjüket, akkor legalább szükségesnek találhassák, hogy megváltoztassák az ellenünk való érvelésüket.

XII. Fejezet – Az eretnekek Triacontad-ja (harminc Aeon) tévedésből és túlzásból is hibádzik: Sophia soha semmit nem tudott volna produkálni hitvesén kívül; Logos és Sige nem lehettek kortársak.

1. We may remark, in the first place, regarding their Triacontad, that the whole of it marvellously falls to ruin on both sides, that is, both as respects defect and excess. They say that to indicate it the Lord came to be baptized at the age of thirty years. But this assertion really amounts to a manifest subversion of their entire argument. As to defect, this happens as follows: first of all, because they reckon the Propator among the other Aeons. For the Father of all ought not to be counted with other productions; He who was not produced with that which was produced; He who was unbegotten with that which was born; He whom no one comprehends with that which is comprehended by Him, and who is on this account [Himself] incomprehensible; and He who is without figure with that which has a definite shape. For inasmuch as He is superior to the rest, He ought not to be numbered with them, and that so that He who is impassible and not in error should be reckoned with an Aeon subject to passion, and actually in error. For I have shown in the book which immediately precedes this, that, beginning with Bythus, they reckon up the Tricontad to Sophia, whom they describe as the erring Aeon; and I have also there set forth the names of their [Aeons]; but if He be not reckoned, there are no longer, on their own showing, thirty productions of Aeons, but these then become only twenty-nine.

2. Next, with respect to the first production Ennoea, whom they also term Sige, from whom again they describe Nous and Aletheia as having been sent forth, they err in both particulars. For it is impossible that the thought (Ennoea) of any one, or his silence (Sige), should be understood apart from himself; and that, being sent forth beyond him, it should possess a special figure of its own. But if they assert that the (Ennoea) was not sent forth beyond Him, but continued one with the Propator, why then do they reckon her with the other Aeons-with those who were not one [with the Father], and are on this account ignorant of His greatness? If, however, she was so united (let us take this also into consideration), there is then an absolute necessity, that from this united and inseparable conjunction, which constitutes but one being, there should proceed an unseparated and united production, so that it should not be dissimilar to Him who sent it forth. But if this be so, then just as Bythus and Sige, so also Nous and Aletheia will form one and the same being, ever cleaving mutually together. And inasmuch as the one cannot be conceived of without the other, just as water cannot [be conceived of] without [the thought of] moisture, or fire without [the thought of] heat, or a stone without [the thought] of hardness (for these things are mutually bound together, and the one cannot be separated from the other, but always co-exists with it), so it behoves Bythus to be united in the same way with Ennoea, and Nous with Aletheia. Logos and Zoe again, as being sent forth by those that are thus united, ought themselves to be united, and to constitute only one being. But, according to such a process of reasoning, Homo and Ecclesia too, and indeed all the remaining conjunctions of the Aeons produced, ought to be united, and always to coexist, the one with the other. For there is a necessity in their opinion, that a female Aeon should exist side by side with a male one, inasmuch as she is, so to speak, [the forthputting of] his affection.

3. These things being so, and such opinions being proclaimed by them, they again venture, without a blush, to teach that the younger Aeon of the Duodecad, whom they also style Sophia, did, apart from union with her consort, whom they call Theletus, endure passion, and separately, without any assistance from him, gave birth to a production which they name „a female from a female.” They thus rush into such utter frenzy, as to form two most clearly opposite opinions respecting the same point. For if Bythus is ever one with Sige, Nous with Aletheia, Logos with Zoe, and so on, as respects the rest, how could Sophia, without union with her consort, either suffer or generate anything? And if, again, she did really. suffer passion apart from him, it necessarily follows that the other conjunctions also admit of disjunction and separation among themselves,-a thing which I have already shown to be impossible. It is also impossible, therefore, that Sophia suffered passion apart from Theletus; and thus, again, their whole system of argument is overthrown. For they have yet again derived the whole of remaining [material substance], like the composition of a tragedy, from that passion which they affirm she experienced apart from union with her consort.

4. If, however, they impudently maintain, in order to preserve from ruin their vain imaginations, that the rest of the conjunctions also were disjoined and separated from one another on account of this latest conjunction, then [I reply that], in the first place, they rest upon a thing which is impossible. For how can they separate the Propator from his Ennoea, or Nous from Aletheia, or Logos from Zoe, and so on with the rest? And how can they themselves maintain that they tend again to unity, and are, in fact, all at one, if indeed these very conjunctions, which are within the Pleroma, do not preserve unity, but are separate from one another; and that to such a degree, that they both endure passion and perform the work of generation without union one with another, just as hens do apart from intercourse with cocks.

5. Then, again, their first and first-begotten Ogdoad will be overthrown as follows: They must admit that Bythus and Sige, Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia, do individually dwell in the same Pleroma. But it is impossible that Sige (silence) can exist in the presence of Logos (speech), or again, that Logos can manifest himself in the presence of Sige. For these are mutually destructive of each other, even as light and darkness can by no possibility exist in the same place: for if light prevails, there cannot be darkness; and if darkness, there cannot be light, since, where light appears, darkness is put to flight. In like manner, where Sige is, there cannot be Logos; and where Logos is, there certainly cannot be Sige. But if they say that Logos simply exists within (unexpressed), Sige also will exist within, and will not the less be destroyed by the Logos within. But that he really is not merely conceived of in the mind, the very order of the production of their (Aeons) shows.

6. Let them not then declare that the first and principal Ogdoad consists of Logos and Sige, but let them [as a matter of necessity] exclude either Sige or Logos; and then their first and principal Ogdoad is at an end. For if they describe the conjunctions [of the Aeons] as united, then their whole argument fails to pieces. Since, if they were united, how could Sophia have generated a defect without union with her consort? If, on the other hand, they maintain that, as in production, each of the Aeons possesses his own peculiar substance, then how can Sige and Logos manifest themselves in the same place? So far, then, with respect to defect.

7. But again, their Triacontad is overthrown as to excess by the following considerations. They represent Horos (whom they call by a variety of names which I have mentioned in the preceding book) as having been produced by Monogenes just like the other Aeons. Some of them maintain that this Horos was produced by Monogenes, while others affirm that he was sent forth by the Propator himself in His own image. They affirm further, that a production was formed by Monogenes-Christ and the Holy Spirit; and they do not reckon these in the number of the Pleroma, nor the Saviour either, whom they also declare to be <i>totum (all things). Now, it is evident even to a blind man, that not merely thirty productions, as they maintain, were sent forth, but four more along with these thirty. For they reckon the Propator himself in the Pleroma, and those too, who in succession were produced by one another. Why is it, then, that those [other beings] are not reckoned as existing with these in the same Pleroma, since they were produced in the same manner? For what just reason can they assign for not reckoning along with the other Aeons, either Christ, whom they describe as having, according to the Father’s will, been produced by Monogenes, or the Holy Spirit, or Horos, whom they also call Soter (Saviour), and not even the Saviour Himself, who came to impart assistance and form to their Mother? Whether is this as if these latter were weaker than the former, and therefore unworthy of the name of Aeons, or of being numbered among them, or as if they were superior and more excellent? But how could they be weaker, since they were produced for the establishment and rectification of the others? And then, again, they cannot possibly be superior to the first and principal Tetrad, by which they were also produced; for it, too, is reckoned in the number above mentioned. These latter beings, then, ought also to have been numbered in the Pleroma of the Aeons, or that should be deprived of the honour of those Aeons which bear this appellation (the Tetrad).

8. Since, therefore, their Triacontad is thus brought to nought, as I have shown, both with respect to defect and excess (for in dealing with such a number, either excess or defect [to any extent] will render the number untenable, and how much more so great variations? ), it follows that what they maintain respecting their Ogdoad and Duodecad is a mere fable which cannot stand. Their whole system, moreover, falls to the ground, when their very foundation is destroyed and dissolved into Bythus, that is, into what has no existence. Let them, then, henceforth seek to set forth some other reasons why the Lord came to be baptized at the age of thirty years, and [explain in some other way] the Duodecad of the apostles; and [the fact stated regarding] her who suffered from an issue of blood; and all the other points respecting which they so madly labour in vain.

XIII. Fejezet – Az eretnekek által fenntartott első termelési sorrend teljesen védhetetlen.

1. I now proceed to show, as follows, that the first order of production, as conceived of by them, must be rejected. For they maintain that Nous and Aletheia were produced from Bythus and his Ennoea, which is proved to be a contradiction. For Nous is that which is itself chief, and highest, and, as it were, the principle and source of all understanding. Ennoea, again, which arises from him, is any sort of emotion concerning any subject. It cannot be, therefore, that Nous was produced by Bythus and Ennoea; it would be more like the truth for them to maintain that Ennoea was produced as the daughter of the Propator and this Nous. For Ennoea not the daughter of Nous, as they assert, but Nous becomes the father of Ennoea. For how can Nous have been produced by the Propator, when he holds the chief and primary place of that hidden and invisible affection which is within Him? By this affection sense is produced, and Ennoea, and Enthymesis, and other things which are simply synonyms for Nous himself. As I have said already, they are merely certain definite exercises in thought of that very power concerning some particular subject. We understand the [several] terms according to their length and breadth of meaning, not according to any [fundamental] change [of signification]; and the [various exercises of thought] are limited by [the same sphere of] knowledge, and are expressed together by [the same] term, the [very same] sense remaining within, and creating, and administering, and freely governing even by its own power, and as it pleases, the things which have been previously mentioned.

2. For the first exercise of that [power] respecting anything, is styled Ennoea; but when it continues, and gathers strength, and takes possession of the whole soul, it is called Enthymesis. This Enthymesis, again, when it exercises itself a long time on the same point, and has, as it were, been proved, is named Sensation. And this Sensation, when it is much developed, becomes Counsel. The increase, again, and greatly developed exercise of this Counsel becomes the Examination of thought (Judgment); and this remaining in the mind is most properly termed Logos (reason), from which the spoken Logos (word) proceeds. But all the [exercises of thought] which have been mentioned are [fundamentally] one and the same, receiving their origin from Nous, and obtaining [different] appellation according to their increase. Just as the human body, which is at one time young, then in the prime of life, and then old, has received [different] appellations according to its increase and continuance, but not according to any change of substance, or on account of any [real] loss of body, so is it with those [mental exercises]. For, when one [mentally] contemplates anything, he also thinks of it; and when he thinks of it, he has also knowledge regarding it; and when he knows it, he also considers it; and when he considers it, he also mentally handles it; and when he mentally handles it, he also speaks of it. But, as I have already said, it is Nous who governs all these [mental processes], while He is himself invisible, and utters speech of himself by means of those processes which have been mentioned, as it were by rays [proceeding from Him], but He himself is not sent forth by any other.

3. These things may properly be said to hold good in men, since they are compound by nature, and consist of a body and a soul. But those who affirm that Ennoea was sent forth from God, and Nous from Ennoea, and then, in succession, Logos from these, are, in the first place, to be blamed as having improperly used these productions; and, in the next place, as describing the affections, and passions, and mental tendencies of men, while they [thus prove themselves] ignorant of God. By their manner of speaking, they ascribe those things which apply to men to the Father of all, whom they also declare to be unknown to all; and they deny that He himself made the world, to guard against attributing want of power to Him; while, at the same time, they endow Him with human affections and passions. But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men. For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good-even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God.

4. He is, however, above [all] these properties, and therefore indescribable. For He may well and properly be called an Understanding which comprehends all things, but He is not [on that account] like the understanding of men; and He may most properly be termed Light, but He is nothing like that light with which we are acquainted. And so, in all other particulars, the Father of all is in no degree similar to human weakness. He is spoken of in these terms according to the love [we bear Him]; but in point of greatness, our thoughts regarding Him transcend these expressions. If then, even in the case of human beings, understanding itself does not arise from emission, nor is that intelligence which produces other things separated from the living man, while its motions and affections come into manifestation, much more will the mind of God, who is all understanding, never by any means be separated from Himself; nor can anything [in His case] be produced as if by a different Being.

5. For if He produced intelligence, then He who did thus produce intelligence must be understood, in accordance with their views, as a compound and corporeal Being; so that God, who sent forth [the intelligence referred to], is separate from it, and the intelligence which was sent forth separate [from Him]. But if they affirm that intelligence was sent forth from intelligence, they then cut asunder the intelligence of God, and divide it into parts. And whither has it gone? Whence was it sent forth? For whatever is sent forth from any place, passes of necessity into some other. But what existence was there more ancient than the intelligence of God, into which they maintain it was sent forth? And what a vast region that must have been which was capable of receiving and containing the intelligence of God! If, however, they affirm [that this emission took place] just as a ray proceeds from the sun, then, as the subjacent air which receives the ray must have had an existence prior to it, so [by such reasoning] they will indicate that there was something in existence, into which the intelligence of God was sent forth, capable of containing it, and more ancient than itself. Following upon this, we must hold that, as we see the sun, which is less than all things, sending forth rays from himself to a great distance, so likewise we say that the Propator sent forth a ray beyond, and to a great distance from, Himself. But what can be conceived of beyond, or at a distance from, God, into which He sent forth this ray?

6. If, again, they affirm that that [intelligence] was not sent forth beyond the Father, but within the Father Himself, then, in the first place, it becomes superfluous to say that it was sent forth at all. For how could it have been sent forth if it continued within the Father? For an emission is the manifestation of that which is emitted, beyond him who emits it. In the next place, this [intelligence] being sent forth, both that Logos who springs from Him will still be within the Father, as will also be the future emissions proceeding from Logos. These, then, cannot in such a case be ignorant of the Father, since they are within Him; nor, being all equally surrounded by the Father, can any one know Him less [than another] according to the descending order of their emission. And all of them must also in an equal measure continue impassible, since they exist in the bosom of their Father, and none of them can ever sink into a state of degeneracy or degradation. For with the Father there is no degeneracy, unless perchance as in a great circle a smaller is contained, and within this one again a smaller; or unless they affirm of the Father, that, after the manner of a sphere or a square, He contains within Himself on all sides the likeness of a sphere, or the production of the rest of the Aeons in the form of a square, each one of these being surrounded by that one who is above him in greatness, and surrounding in turn that one who is after him in smallness; and that on this account, the smallest and the last of all, having its place in the centre, and thus being far separated from the Father, was really ignorant of the Propator. But if they maintain any such hypothesis, they must shut up their Bythus with. in a definite form and space, while He both surrounds others, and is surrounded by them; for they must of necessity acknowledge that there is something outside of Him which surrounds Him. And none the less will the talk concerning those that contain, and those that are contained, flow on into infinitude; and all [the Aeons] will most clearly appear to be bodies enclosed [by one another].

7. Further, they must also confess either that He is mere vacuity, or that the entire universe is within Him; and in that case all will in like degree partake of the Father. Just as, if one forms circles in water, or round or square figures, all these will equally partake of water; just as those, again, which are framed in the air, must necessarily partake of air, and those which [are formed] in light, of light; so must those also who are within Him all equally partake of the Father, ignorance having no place among them. Where, then, is this partaking of the Father who fills [all things]? If, indeed, He has filled [all things], there will be no ignorance among them. On this ground, then, their work of [supposed] degeneracy is brought to nothing, and the production of matter with the formation of the rest of the world; which things they maintain to have derived their substance from passion and ignorance. If, on the other hand, they acknowledge that He is vacuity, then they fall into the greatest blasphemy; they deny His spiritual nature. For how can He be a spiritual being, who cannot fill even those things which are within Him?

8. Now, these remarks which have been made concerning the emission of intelligence are in like manner applicable in opposition to those who belong to the school of Basilides, as well as in opposition to the rest of the Gnostics, from whom these also (the Valentinians) have adopted the ideas about emissions, and were refuted in the first book. But I have now plainly shown that the first production of Nous, that is, of the intelligence they speak of, is an untenable and impossible opinion. And let us see how the matter stands with respect to the rest [of the Aeons]. For they maintain that Logos and Zoe were sent forth by him (i.e., Nous) as fashioners of this Pleroma; while they conceive of an emission of Logos, that is, the Word after the analogy of human feelings, and rashly form conjectures respecting God, as if they had discovered something wonderful in their assertion that Logos was I produced by Nous. All indeed have a clear perception that this may be logically affirmed with respect to men. But in Him who is God over all, since He is all Nous, and all Logos, as I have said before, and has in Himself nothing more ancient or late than another, and nothing at variance with another, but continues altogether equal, and similar, and homogeneous, there is no longer ground for conceiving of such production in the order which has been mentioned. Just as he does not err who declares that God is all vision, and all hearing (for in what manner He sees, in that also He hears; and in what manner He hears, in that also He sees), so also he who affirms that He is all intelligence, and all word, and that, in whatever respect He is intelligence, in that also He is word, and that this Nous is His Logos, will still indeed have only an inadequate conception of the Father of all, but will entertain far more becoming [thoughts regarding Him] than do those who transfer the generation of the word to which men gave utterance to the eternal Word of God, assigning a beginning and course of production [to Him], even as they do to their own word. And in what respect will the Word of God-yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word-differ from the word of men, if He follows the same order and process of generation?

9. They have fallen into error, too, respecting Zoe, by maintaining that she was produced in the sixth place, when it behoved her to take precedence of all [the rest], since God is life, and incorruption, and truth. And these and such like attributes have not been produced according to a gradual scale of descent, but they are names of those perfections which always exist in God, so far as it is possible and proper for men to hear and to speak of God. For with the name of God the following words will harmonize: intelligence, word, life, incorruption, truth, wisdom, goodness, and such like. And neither can any one maintain that intelligence is more ancient than life, for intelligence itself is life; nor that life is later than intelligence, so that He who is the intellect of all, that is God, should at one time have been destitute of life. But if they affirm that life was indeed [previously] in the Father, but was produced in the sixth place in order that the Word might live, surely it ought long before, [according to such reasoning, ] to have been sent forth, in the fourth place, that Nous might have life; and still further, even before Him, [it should have been] with Bythus, that their Bythus might live. For to reckon Sige, indeed, along with their Propator, and to assign her to Him as His consort, while they do not join Zoe to the number,-is not this to surpass all other madness?

10. Again, as to the second production which proceeds from these [Aeons who have been mentioned],-that, namely, of Homo and Ecclesia,-their very fathers, falsely styled Gnostics, strive among themselves, each one seeking to make good his own opinions, and thus convicting themselves of being wicked thieves. They maintain that it is more suitable to [the theory of] production-as being, in fact, truth-like-that the Word was produced by man, and not man by the Word; and that man existed prior to the Word, and that this is really He who is God over all. And thus it is, as I have previously remarked, that heaping together with a kind of plausibility all human feelings, and mental exercises, and formation of intentions, and utterances of words, they have lied with no plausibility at all against God. For while they ascribe the things which happen to men, and whatsoever they recognise themselves as experiencing, to the divine reason, they seem to those who are ignorant of God to make statements suitable enough. And by these human passions, drawing away their intelligence, while they describe the origin and production of the Word of God in the fifth place, they assert that thus they teach wonderful mysteries, unspeakable and sublime, known to no one but themselves. It was, [they affirm, ] concerning these that the Lord said, „Seek, and ye shall find,” that is, that they should inquire how Nous and Aletheia proceeded from Bythus and Sage; whether Logos and Zoe again derive their origin from these and then, whether Anthropos and Ecclesia proceed from Logos and Zoe.

XIV. Fejezet – Valentinus és követői a pogányoktól származtatták rendszerük alapelveit; Csak a nevek változnak.

1. Sokkal jobban hasonlít az igazsághoz, és tetszetősebb az a beszámoló, amelyet Antiphanes, az egyik ókori komikus költő ad Teogóniájában minden dolog eredetéről. Mert a Káoszt úgy beszéli el, mint ami az Éjszakából és a Csendből származik; azt meséli, hogy a Szerelem a Káoszból és az Éjszakából fakadt; ebből ismét, a Fény; és hogy ebből, véleménye szerint, származtak az istenek első nemzedékének összes többi tagjai. Ezek után bemutatja az istenek második generációját és a világ teremtését; majd elbeszéli az emberiség kialakulását az istenek második rendje által. Ezek az emberek (az eretnekek), akik magukénak fogadták ezt a mesét, mintegy természetes folyamat folytán szerteágazó véleményt alkottak róla, csak a hivatkozott dolgok nevét változtatták meg, és előadták minden dolgok nemzedékének és létrejöttének valóban ugyanazon kezdetét. Az Éjszaka és a Csend helyére Büthoszt és Sige-t helyettesítik; a Káosz helyére Noust rakták; és a Szerelem helyett (aki által, mondja a komikus költő, minden mást rendbe állítottak) a Beszédet (logosz) hozták; míg az elsődleges és legnagyobb istenek helyett megalkották az Aeonokat; és a másodlagos istenek helyett anyjuk teremtményéről mesélnek, amely a Pleromán kívül található, és a második Ogdoadnak nevezik. Azt hirdetik nekünk, mint az említett író, hogy ebből (Ogdoadból) jött ki a világ teremtése és az ember formáltatása, azt állítva, hogy egyedül ők ismerik ezeket a kimondhatatlan és ismeretlen titkokat. Azokat a dolgokat, amelyeket mindenhol a legtisztább hangú humoristák játszanak a színházakban, átviszik saját rendszerükbe, kétségtelenül ugyanazon érvek segítségével tanítják őket, és csupán a neveket változtatják meg.

2. És nem csak azért ítélik el őket, mintha saját [eredeti ötleteikként] hozták volna elő azokat a dolgokat, amelyek a komikus költők között találhatók, hanem összegyűjtik azokat a dolgokat is, amelyeket mindazok mondtak, akik tudatlanok voltak Istenről, és akiket filozófusoknak neveznek; és egy halom szánalmas rongyból tarka ruhadarabot varrva össze, kifinomult kifejezésmódjukkal olyan köntössel ruházták fel magukat, amely valójában nem az övék. Igaz, újfajta doktrínát vezetnek be, amennyiben egy újfajta művészet váltotta fel [a régit]. Valójában azonban régi és haszontalan, hiszen éppen ezeket a véleményeket varrták össze a tudatlanságtól és a vallástalanságtól tündöklő ősi tanokból. Például a milétoszi Thalész azt állította, hogy a víz volt minden dolog teremtő és kezdeti alapelve. Most hát, ugyanaz a helyzet, akár vizet, akár Bythust mondunk. Ismét, Homérosz, a költő azon a véleményen volt, hogy Ókeánosz, Thetisz anyjával együtt voltak az istenek eredete: ezt az eszmét ezek az emberek Büthoszra és Sigé-re is átvitték. Anaximander lefektette, hogy a végtelenség minden dolognak az első alapelve, mivel magától értetődően magában hordozza mindannyiuk nemzedékét, és ebből kijelenti, hogy a hatalmas világok [amelyek léteznek] keletkeztek: ezt is újra felöltöztették, és és Büthoszra és Aeonjaikra hivatkoztak. Anaxagoras ismét, akit „ateistának” is neveztek, úgy vélte, hogy az állatok az égből a földre hulló magvakból jöttek létre. Ezt a gondolatot is átvitték ezek az emberek Anyjuk „magjára”, amelyeket önmaguknak tartanak fenn; így elismerve egyúttal, mint érzékkel rendelkezők ilyen megítélésében, hogy ők maguk a vallástalan Anaxagorasz utódai.

3. Ismét, adaptálva Démokritosztól és Epikurosztól az árnyék és űr (vákuum) [ideáit], ezeket saját nézeteikhez illesztették, követve azokat a [tanítókat], akik már sokat beszéltek a űrről (vákuumról) és az atomokról, amelyek közül az egyiket annak nevezték, ami van, a másikat pedig annak, ami nincs. Hasonló módon ezek az emberek valóságos létezésnek nevezik azokat a dolgokat, amelyek a Pleromán belül vannak, ahogyan azok a filozófusok az atomokat; miközben azt állítják, hogy a Pleromán kívül élőknek nincs valódi létezése, akárcsak azok, akik tisztelik az űrt (vákuumot). Így száműzték magukat ebbe a világba (mivel itt vannak a Pleromán kívül) egy olyan helyre, amely „nem létezik”. Ismét, amikor azt állítják, hogy ezek a dolgok [lent] azok képei, amelyek [fent] valódi létezéssel rendelkeznek, ismét a legnyilvánvalóbban Démokritosz és Platón tanát mondják fel. Ugyanis Démokritosz volt az első, aki azt állította, hogy számos és különböző alakok úgymond [a fenti dolgok] formáival bélyegeztek, és az egyetemes térből szálltak alá ebbe a világba. De Platón a maga részéről anyagról, mindapéldányról, és Istenről beszél. Ezek az emberek, követve ezeket a megkülönböztetéseket, olyan stílust alkottak, amit ő ideáknak nevez, és mintapéldánynak, és azon dolgok képeinek, amelyek fenn vannak; miközben puszta névváltoztatás révén azzal dicsekednek, hogy az effajta képzeletbeli fikciók felfedezői és kitalálói.

4. Ez a vélemény is, miszerint a Teremtő a korábban létező anyagból alkotta a világot, mind Anaxagorasz, mind Empedoklész, mind Platón hangoztatta előttük; amint, valóban, megtudhatjuk, ők is Anyjuk sugalmazására teszik [ezt]. Még egyszer, az a vélemény, hogy minden szükségszerűség átmegy azokra a dolgokra, amelyekről állítják, az is kialakult,és hogy Isten ennek a szükségszerűségnek a szolgája, hogy így ne adhasson halhatatlanságot a halandónak, és ne ruházhassa fel romlatlansággal azt, ami romlandó, hanem mindenki önmagához hasonló természetű szubsztanciába megy át, mind azok akiket Sztoikusoknak nevezzük a portikuszból (stoa), mind pedig mindazok, akik nem ismerik Istent, költők és történészek egyaránt ugyanezt vallják. Azok [az eretnekek] akik a hitetlenség hasonló [rendszerét] vallják, kétségtelenük a szellemi lényeknek tulajdonították saját megfelelő területét, – vagyis ami a Pleromán belül van, de az állati (lelki) lényeknek a köztes teret, míg a testihez azt rendelik, ami anyagi. És azt állítják, hogy maga Isten nem tehet másként, hanem az említett [különféle anyagok] mindegyike átmegy azokhoz a dolgokhoz, amelyek azonos természetűek [önmagukkal].

5. Sőt, ami azt illeti, hogy azt mondják, hogy a Megváltó az összes Aeonbó alakult úgy, hogy mindegyikük, úgymond, saját különleges virágát helyezte el benne, semmi újat nem hoznak fel, ami ne található Hésziodosz Pandorájában. Mert amit ő mond róla (nőnem), ezek az emberek a Megváltóval kapcsolatban célozgatnak, elénk hozva őt Pandoroszként (Mindennel-megajándékozott), mintha az Aeonok mindegyike megajándékozta volna azt, amit Ő a legnagyobb tökéletességben bírtokolt. Ismét, véleményük a húsok és más cselekedetek közömbösségéről, és arról a gondolkodásukról, miszerint természetük nemességéből adódóan, semmilyen fokon nem tudnak beszennyeződni (a szennyezéssel kapcsolatba kerülni), bármit esznek vagy végrehajtanak, ezt [a gondolkodást] a cinikusoktól származtatták, mivel valójában ugyanahhoz a társasághoz tartoznak, mint ezek [a filozófusok]. Arra is törekednek, hogy a hit kérdéseinek kezelésébe átültessék azt a szőrszálhasogató és kérdések feltevésének kényes (finom) módszerét, ami valójában Arisztotelész másolása.

6. Ami pedig azt a vágyat illeti, hogy ezt az egész világegyetemet számokkal mutassák be, azt a pitagoreusoktól tanulták. Mert ők voltak az elsők, akik a számokat minden dolog kezdeti alapelveként határozták meg, és mint egyenlő és egyenlőtlen [írták le] kezdeti alapelvüket, amely [két tulajdonságból] kigondolták, hogy mind az értelmes, mind az anyagtalan dolgok [ebből] származtatták eredetüket. És [azt tartották], hogy első elvek egyik csoportja adta a [dolgok] anyagának felemelkedését, egy másik pedig a formáját eredményezte. Állítják, hogy ezekből az első alapelvekből minden dolog elkészült, ahogy egy szobor is annak a fémjéből és különleges formájából. Nos, az eretnekek ezt a Pleromán kívüli dolgokhoz igazították. A [pythagoreusok] fenntartották, hogy az értelem alaelve arányos az erővel, amellyel az elme, mint az érthető befogadója folytatja kutatásait, amíg kimerülten fel nem oldódik az Oszthatatlan és Egy hosszában. Állítják továbbá, hogy a Tyúk – vagyis az Egy – minden dolog első alapelve, és mindenek anyaga (lényege) ami kialakult. Ebből keletkezett ismét a Dyad, a Tetrad, a Pentad, és a többek sokfajta nemzedéke. Ezeket a dolgokat az eretnekek szóról szóra ismétlik, Pleromára és Büthoszra hivatkozva. Ugyanebből a forrásból igyekeznek népszerűsíteni azokat a kapcsolatokat is, amelyek az egységből lettek. Marcus úgy büszkélkedik az ilyen nézetekkel, mintha azok a sajátjai lennének, és mintha valami újszerűbbet fedezett volna fel, mint mások, miközben egyszerűen a Pythagoras Tetradját fejti ki, mint minden dolog kiinduló elvét és anyját.

7. De csak annyit mondok ezekkel az emberekkel szemben: Tudták vagy nem tudták az igazat mindazok, akikkel bizonyítottan megegyeznek kifejezéseikben? Ha tudták, akkor a Megváltó leszállása ebbe a világba felesleges volt. Mert [ebben az esetben] miért szállt alá? Vajon azért, hogy elhozza azt az igazságot, amely [már] ismert volt azok számára, akik ismerik azt? Ha viszont ezek az emberek nem tudták, akkor hogyan lehet az, hogy miközben ugyanazokkal a szavakkal fejezitek ki magatokat, mint azok, akik nem ismerték az igazságot, azzal dicsekedtek, hogy egyedül ti rendelkeztek azzal a tudással, amely mindenek felett áll, habár azok, akik nem ismerik Istent, ők birtokolják ezt? Így aztán a nyelv teljes elferdítésével az igazság ismeretének tudatlanságát formálják, és Pál jól mondja [róluk], hogy „a hamis tudás szavainak újszerűségeit” használják. Mert ez a tudásuk valóban hamisnak bizonyult. Ha azonban szemtelenül viselkednek e pontok tekintetében, kijelentik, hogy az emberek valóban nem ismerték az igazságot, hanem Anyjuk, az Atya magva hirdette az igazság titkait az ilyen embereken keresztül, akárcsak a prófétákon keresztül, míg Demiurgosz tudatlan volt [e folyamat tekintetében], akkor először is azt válaszolom, hogy az előre jelzett dolgok nem voltak olyan természetűek, hogy senki számára ne legyenek érthetőek; mert a férfiak maguk is tudták, mit mondanak, ahogy a tanítványaik is, és azok ismét követték ezeket. És, a következő helyen, ha akár az Anya vagy az ő magja tudta és hirdette ezeket a dolgokat, amelyek az igazságból valók (és az Atya az igazság), akkor az ő elméletükben a Megváltó hamisan beszélt, amikor azt mondta: „Senki sem ismeri az Atyát hanem a Fiú”, hacsak nem állítják, hogy magvuk vagy Anyjuk Senki.

8. Thus far, then, by means of [ascribing to their Aeons] human feelings, and by the fact that they largely coincide in their language with many of those who are ignorant of God, they have been seen plausibly drawing a certain number away [from the truth]. They lead them on by the use of those [expressions] with which they have been familiar, to that sort of discourse which treats of all things, setting forth the production of the Word of God, and of Zoe, and of Nous, and bringing into the world, as it were, the [successive] emanations of the Deity. The views, again, which they propound, without either plausibility or parade, are simply lies from beginning to end. Just as those who, in order to lure and capture any kind of animals, place their accustomed food before them, gradually drawing them on by means of the familiar aliment, until at length they seize it, but, when they have taken them captive, they subject them to the bitterest of bendage, and drag them along with violence whithersoever they please; so also do these men gradually and gently persuading [others], by means of their plausible speeches, to accept of the emission which has been mentioned, then bring forward things which are not consistent, and forms of the remaining emissions which are not such as might have been expected. They declare, for instance, that [ten] Aeons were sent forth by Logos and Zoe, while from Anthropos and Ecclesia there proceeded twelve, although they have neither proof, nor testimony, nor probability, nor anything whatever of such a nature [to support these assertions]; and with equal folly and audacity do they wish it to be believed that from Logos and Zoe, being Aeons, were sent forth Bythus and Mixis, Ageratos and Henosis, Autophyes and Hedone, Acinetos and Syncrasis, Monogenes and Macaria. Moreover, [as they affirm, ] there were sent forth, in a similar way, from Anthropos and Ecclesia, being Aeons, Paracletus and Pistis, Patricos and Elpis, Metricos and Agape, Ainos and Synesis, Ecclesiasticus and Macariotes, Theletos and Sophia.

9. The passions and error of this Sophia, and how she ran the risk of perishing through her investigation [of the nature] of the Father, as they relate, and what took place outside of the Pleroma, and from what sort of a defect they teach that the Maker of the world was produced, I have set forth in the preceding book, describing in it, with all diligence, the opinions of these heretics. [I have also detailed their views] respecting Christ, whom they describe as having been produced subsequently to all these, and also regarding Soter, who, [according to them, ] derived his being from those Aeons who were formed within the Pleroma. But I have of necessity mentioned their names at present, that from these the absurdity of their falsehood may be made manifest, and also the confused nature of the nomenclature they have devised. For they themselves detract from [the dignity of] their Aeons by a multitude of names of this sort. They give out names plausible and credible to the heathen, [as being similar] to those who are called their twelve gods, and even these they will have to be images of their twelve Aeons. But the images [so called] can produce names [of their own] much more seemly, and more powerful through their etymology to indicate divinity [than are those of their fancied prototypes].

XV. Fejezet – Semmilyen beszámoló nem adható ezekról a Létrejövőkről.

1. But let us return to the fore-mentioned question as to the production [of the Aeons]. And, in the first place, let them tell us the reason of the production of the Aeons being of such a kind that they do not come in contact with any of those things which belong to creation. For they maintain that those things [above] were not made on account of creation, but creation on account of them; and that the former are not images of the latter, but the latter of the former. As, therefore, they render a reason for the images, by saying that the month has thirty days on account of the thirty Aeons, and the day twelve hours, and the year twelve months, on account of the twelve Aeons which are within the Pleroma, with other such nonsense of the same kind, let them now tell us also the reason for that production of the Aeons, why it was of such a nature, for what reason the first and first-begotten Ogdoad was sent forth, and not a Pentad, or a Triad, or a Septenad, or any one of those which are defined by a different number? Moreover, how did it come to pass, that from Logos and Zoe were sent forth ten Aeons, and neither more nor less; while again from Anthropos and Ecclesia proceeded twelve, although these might have been either more or less numerous?

2. And then, again, with reference to the entire Pleroma, what reason is there that it should be divided into these three-an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad-and not into some other number different from these? Moreover, with respect to the division itself, why has it been made into three parts, and not into four, or five, or six, or into some other number among those which have no connection with such numbers as belong to creation? For they describe those [Aeons above] as being more ancient than these [created things below], and it behoves them to possess their principle [of being] in themselves, one which existed before creation, and not after the pattern of creation, all exactly agreeing as to the point.

3. The account which we give of creation is one harmonious with that regular order [of things prevailing in the world], for this scheme of ours is adapted to the things which have [actually] been made; but it is a matter of necessity that they, being unable to assign any reason belonging to the things themselves, with regard to those beings that existed before [creation], and were perfected by themselves, should fall into the greatest perplexity. For, as to the points on which they interrogate us as knowing nothing of creation, they themselves, when questioned in turn respecting the Pleroma, either make mention of mere human feelings, or have recourse to that sort of speech which bears only upon that harmony observable in creation, improperly giving us replies concerning things which are secondary, and not concerning those which, as they maintain, are primary. For we do not question them concerning that harmony which belongs to creation, nor concerning human feelings; but because they must acknowledge, as to their octiform, deciform, and duodeciform Pleroma (the image of which they declare creation to be), that their Father formed it of that figure vainly and thoughtlessly, and must ascribe to Him deformity, if He made anything without a reason. Or, again, if they declare that the Pleroma was so produced in accordance with the foresight of the Father, for the sake of creation, as if He had thus symmetrically arranged its very essence, then it follows that the Pleroma can no longer be regarded as having been formed on its own account, but for the sake of that [creation] which was to be its image as possessing its likeness (just as the clay model is not moulded for its own sake, but for the sake of the statue in brass, or gold, or silver about to be formed), then creation will have greater honour than the Pleroma, if, for its sake, those things [above] were produced.

XVI. Fejezet – A világ Teremtője vagy saját maga alkotta meg az elkészítendő dolgok képeit, vagy a Pleroma valamely korábbi rendszer képmása után alakult ki; És így tovább. a.d. Infinitum.

1. But if they will not yield assent to any one of these conclusions, since in that case they would be proved by us as incapable of rendering any reason for such a production of their Pleroma, they will of necessity be shut up to this-that they confess that, above the Pleroma, there was some other system more spiritual and more powerful, after the image of which their Pleroma was formed. For if the Demiurge did not of himself construct that figure of creation which exists, but made it after the form of those things which are above, then from whom did their Bythus-who, to be sure, brought it about that the Pleroma should be possessed of a configuration of this kind-receive the figure of those things which existed before Himself? For it must needs be, either that the intention [of creating] dwelt in that god who made the world, so that of his own power, and from himself, he obtained the model of its formation; or, if any departure is made from this being, then there will arise a necessity for constantly asking whence there came to that one who is above him the configuration of those things which have been made; what, too, was the number of the productions; and what the substance of the model itself? If, however, it was in the power of Bythus to impart of himself such a configuration to the Pleroma, then why may it not have been in the power of the Demiurge to form of himself such a world as exists? And then, again, if creation be an image of those things [above], why should we not affirm that those are, in turn, images of others above them, and those above these again, of others, and thus go on supposing innumerable images of images?

2. This difficulty presented itself to Basilides after he had utterly missed the truth, and was conceiving that, by an infinite succession of those beings that were formed from one another, he might escape such perplexity. When he had proclaimed that three hundred and sixty-five heavens were formed through succession and similitude by one another, and that a manifest proof [of the existence] of these was found in the number of the days of the year, as I stated before; and that above these there was a power which they also style Unnameable, and its dispensation-he did not even in this way escape such perplexity. For, when asked whence came the image of its configuration to that heaven which is above all, and from which he wishes the rest to be regarded as having been formed by means of succession, he will say, from that dispensation which belongs to the Unnameable. He must then say, either that the Unspeakable formed it of himself, or he will find it necessary to acknowledge that there is some other power above this being, from whom his unnameable One derived such vast numbers of configurations as do, according to him, exist.

3. How much safer and more accurate a course is it, then, to confess at once that which is true: that this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him-He Himself receiving from Himself the model and figure of those things which have been made-than that, after wearying ourselves with such an impious and circuitous description, we should be compelled, at some point or another, to fix the mind on some One, and to confess that from Him proceeded the configuration of things created.

4. As to the accusation brought against us by the followers of Valentinus, when they declare that we continue in that Hebdomad which is below, as if we could not lift our minds on high, nor understand those things which are above, because we do not accept their monstrous assertions: this very charge do the followers of Basilides bring in turn against them, inasmuch as they (the Valentinians) keep circling about those things which are below, [going] as far as the first and second Ogdoad, and because they unskilfully imagine that, immediately after the thirty Aeons, they have discovered Him who is above all things Father, not following out in thought their investigations to that Pleroma which is above the three hundred and sixty-five heavens, which is above forty-five Ogdoads. And any one, again, might bring against them the same charge, by imagining four thousand three hundred and eighty heavens, or Aeons, since the days of the year contain that number of hours. If, again, some one adds also the nights, thus doubling the hours which have been mentioned, imagining that [in this way] he has discovered a great multitude of Ogdoads, and a kind of innumerable company of Aeons, and thus, in opposition to Him who is above all things Father, conceiving himself more perfect than all [others], he will bring the same charge against all, inasmuch as they are not capable of rising to the conception of such a multitude of heavens or Aeons as he has announced, but are either so deficient as to remain among those things which are below, or continue in the intermediate space.

XVII. Fejezet – Vizsgálat az eonok létrejöttével kapcsolatban: Bármi legyen is a feltételezett természete, minden tekintetben ellentmondásos; És az eretnekek hipotézise szerint még Noust és magát az Atyát is tudatlanság szennyezné.

1. That system, then, which has respect to their Pleroma, and especially that part of it which refers to the primary Ogdoad being thus burdened with so great contradictions and perplexities, let me now go on to examine the remainder of their scheme. [In doing so] on account of their madness, I shall be making inquiry respecting things which have no real existence; yet it is necessary to do this, since the treatment of this subject has been entrusted to me, and since I desire all men to come to the knowledge of the truth, as well as because thou thyself hast asked to receive from me full and complete means for overturning [the views of] these men.

2. I ask, then, in what manner were the rest of the Aeons produced? Was it so as to be united with Him who produced them, even as the solar rays are with the sun; or was it actually and separately, so that each of them possessed an independent existence and his own special form, just as has a man from another man, and one herd of cattle from another? Or was it after the manner of germination, as branches from a tree? And were they of the same substance with those who produced them, or did they derive their substance from some other [kind of] substance? Also, were they produced at the same time, so as to be contemporaries; or after a certain order, so that some of them were older, and others younger? And, again, are they uncompounded and uniform, and altogether equal and similar among themselves, as spirit and light are produced; or are they compounded and different, unlike [to each other] in their members?

3. If each of them was produced, after the manner of men, actually and according to its own generation, then either those thus generated by the Father will be of the same substance with Him, and similar to their Author; or if they appear dissimilar, then it must of necessity be acknowledged that they are [formed of some different substance. Now, if the beings generated by the Father be similar to their Author, then those who have been produced must remain for ever impossible, even as is He who produced them; but if, on the other hand, they are of a different substance, which is capable of passion, then whence came this dissimilar substance to find a place within the incorruptible Pleroma? Further, too, according to this principle, each one of them must be understood as being completely separated from every other, even as men are not mixed with nor united the one to the other, but each having a distinct shape of his own, and a definite sphere of action, while each one of them, too, is formed of a particular size,-qualities characteristic of a body, and not of a spirit. Let them therefore no longer speak of the Pleroma as being spiritual, or of themselves as „spiritual,” if indeed their Aeons sit feasting with the Father, just as if they were men, and He Himself is of such a configuration as those reveal Him to be who were produced by Him.

4. Ha, ismét, az Aeonok a Logoszból származnak, a Logosz a Nuszból, és a Nusz a Büthoszból, ahogy a fények (lámpák) meggyulladnak egy fényből – mint például a fáklyák egy fáklyából -, akkor kétségkívül különböznek egymástól nemzésükben (generációjuk) és méretükben; de mivel egy lényegből (szubsztancia) létrejöttük Szerzőjével, vagy mindannyian örökké lehetetlen kell maradniuk, vagy magának Atyjuknak szenvedélyében kell részt venniük. Mert az a fáklya, amelyet később gyújtottak meg nem kaphat másfajta fényt, mint az azt megelőző. Ezért fényeik egybekeverve visszatérnek eredeti azonosságukhoz, mivel ez az egyetlen fény akkor keletkezett, amely még a kezdetektől létezett. De nem beszélhetünk magának a fénynek a vonatkozásában arról, hogy valamely része eredete újabb és egy másik ősibb (mert az egész csak egy fény); nem beszélhetünk még azokról a fáklyákról sem, amelyek megkapták a fényt (mert ezek mind tárgyi anyagukat tekintve kortársak, mert a fáklyák anyaga/lényege egy és ugyanaz), hanem egyszerűen annak meggyújtásának [idejétől lángoltak, mert az egyiket nem sokkal ezelőtt tették világosság, a másikat pedig most gyújtották fel.

(lásd még Tertulliánusz: Valentiánuszok ellen XII. „1. Így alak és tudás tekintetében mindegyikük egyenlő lett, mindegyik olyan, mint bármelyik másik. Senki sem más, mindegyik olyan mint a másik.” *Megjegyzés: Az Aeonok lényegüket és formájukat tekintve egyek, bár nem azonosak. Csak a viszonylatokban és a funkcióikban különböznek egymástól. Kísérteties hasonlóság a szentháromság dogmatikával!)

5. Ennek a szenvedélynek a jiányossága tehát, amely a tudatlanságra vonatkozik, vagy egyformán fog kapcsolódni egész Pleromájukhoz, mivel [minden tagja] ugyanabból a lényegből származik; és a Propator osztozni fog a tudatlanság e hiányosságában – vagyis tudatlan lesz Önmagáról; vagy, másrészt, mindazok a fények, amelyek a Pleromán belül vannak, örökre szenvedélymentesek maradnak. Honnan ered tehát a legfiatalabb Aeon szenvedélye, ha az Atya fénye az, amelyből az összes többi fény keletkezett, és amely természeténél fogva szenvedélymentes? És hogyan lehet egy Aeonról fiatalabbként vagy idősebbként beszélni, mivel az egész Pleromában csak egy fény van? És ha valaki csillagoknak nevezi őket, mindazonáltal úgy tűnik, hogy mindannyian ugyanabban a természetben vesznek részt. Mert ha „az egyik csillag dicsőségében különbözik a másiktól”, de nem tulajdonságaiban, sem lényegében, sem abban, hogy szenvedélyre képes (romlandó) vagy szenvedélymentes; így mindezeknek, mivel egyformán az Atya fényéből származnak, vagy természetüknél fogva szenvedélymentesek és állandóak, vagy mindegyiknek az Atya fényével együtt szemvedélyre képesnek (romlandónak) kell lennie, és képesnek a romlás (szenvedély) különböző fázisaira.

6. The same conclusion will follow, although they affirm that the production of Aeons sprang from Logos, as branches from a tree, since Logos has his generation from their Father. For all [the Aeons] are formed of the same substance with the Father, differing from one another only in size, and not in nature, and filling up the greatness of the Father, even as the fingers complete the hand. If therefore He exists in passion and ignorance, so must also those Aeons who have been generated by Him. But if it is impious to ascribe ignorance and passion to the Father of all, how can they describe an Aeon produced by Him as being passible; and while they ascribe the same impiety to the very wisdom (Sophia) of God, how can they still call themselves religious men?

7. If, again, they declare that their Aeons were sent forth just as rays are from the sun, then, since all are of the same substance and sprung from the same source, all must either be capable of passion along with Him who produced them, or all will remain impassible for ever. For they can no longer maintain that, of beings so produced, some are impassible and others passible. If, then, they declare all impassible, they do themselves destroy their own argument. For how could the youngest Aeon have suffered passion if all were impassible? If, on the other hand, they declare that all partook of this passion, as indeed some of them venture to maintain, then, inasmuch as it originated with Logos, but flowed onwards to Sophia, they will thus be convicted of tracing back the passion to Logos, who is the Nous of this Propator, and so acknowledging the Nous of the Propator and the Father Himself to have experienced passion. For the Father of all is not to be regarded as a kind of compound Being, who can be separated from his Nous (mind), as I have already shown; but Nous is the Father, and the Father Nous. It necessarily follows, therefore, both that he who springs from Him as Logos, or rather that Nous himself, since he is Logos, must be perfect and impassible, and that those productions which proceed from him, seeing that they are of the same substance with himself, should be perfect and impassible, and should ever remain similar to him who produced them.

8. It cannot therefore longer be held, as these men teach, that Logos, as occupying the third place in generation, was ignorant of the Father. Such a thing might indeed perhaps be deemed probable in the case of the generation of human beings, inasmuch as these frequently know nothing of their parents; but it is altogether impossible in the case of the Logos of the Father. For if, existing in the Father, he knows Him in whom he exists-that is, is not ignorant of himself-then those productions which issue from him being his powers (faculties), and always present with him, will not be ignorant of him who emitted them, any more than rays [may be supposed to be] of the sun. It is impossible, therefore, that the Sophia (wisdom) of God, she who is within the Pleroma, inasmuch as she has been produced in such a manner, should have fallen under the influence of passion, and conceived such ignorance. But it is possible that that Sophia (wisdom) who pertains to [the scheme] of Valentinus, inasmuch as she is a production of the devil, should fall into every kind of passion, and exhibit the profoundest ignorance. For when they themselves bear testimony concerning their mother, to the effect that she was the offspring of an erring Aeon, we need no longer search for a reason why the sons of such a mother should be ever swimming in the depths of ignorance.

9. I am not aware that, besides these productions [which have been mentioned], they are able to speak of any other; indeed, they have not been known to me (although I have had very frequent discussions with them concerning forms of this kind) as ever setting forth any other peculiar kind of being as produced [in the manner under consideration]. This only they maintain, that each one of these was so produced as to know merely that one who produced him, while he was ignorant of the one who immediately preceded. But they do not in this matter go forward [in their account] with any kind of demonstration as to the manner in which these were produced, or how such a thing could take place among spiritual beings. For, in whatsoever way they may choose to go forward, they will feel themselves bound (while, as regards the truth, they depart entirely from right reason) to proceed so far as to maintain that their Word, who springs from the Nous of the Propator,-to maintain, I say, that he was produced in a state of degeneracy. For [they hold] that perfect Nous, previously begotten by the perfect Bythus, was not capable of rendering that production which issued from him perfect, but [could only bring it forth] utterly blind to the knowledge and greatness of the Father. They also maintain that the Saviour exhibited an emblem of this mystery in the case of that man who was blind from his birth, since the Aeon was in this manner produced by Monogenes blind, that is, in ignorance, thus falsely ascribing ignorance and blindness to the Word of God, who, according to their own theory, holds the second [place of] production from the Propator. Admirable sophists, and explorers of the sublimities of the unknown Father, and rehearsers of those super-celestial mysteries „which the angels desire to look into!” -that they may learn that from the Nous of that Father who is above all, the Word was produced blind, that is, ignorant of the Father who produced him!

10. But, ye miserable sophists, how could the Nous of the Father, or rather the very Father Himself, since He is Nous and perfect in all things, have produced his own Logos as an imperfect and blind Aeon, when He was able also to produce along with him the knowledge of the Father? As ye affirm that Christ was generated after the rest, and yet declare that he was produced perfect, much more then should Logos, who is anterior to him in age, be produced by the same Nous, unquestionably perfect, and not blind; nor could he, again, have produced Aeons still blinder than himself, until at last your Sophia, always utterly blinded, gave birth to so vast a body of evils. And your Father is the cause of all this mischief; for ye declare the magnitude and power of your Father to be the causes of ignorance, assimilating Him to Bythus, and assigning this as a name to Him who is the unnameable Father. But if ignorance is an evil, and ye declare all evils to have derived their strength from it, while ye maintain that the greatness and power of the Father is the cause of this ignorance, ye do thus set Him forth as the author of [all] evils. For ye state as the cause of evil this fact, that [no one] could contemplate His greatness. But if it was really impossible for the Father to make Himself known from the beginning to those [beings] that were formed by Him, He must in that case be held free from blame, inasmuch as He could not remove the ignorance of those who came after Him. But if, at a subsequent period, when He so willed it, He could take away that ignorance which had increased with the successive productions as they followed each other, and thus become deeply seated in the Aeons, much more, had He so willed it might He formerly have prevented that ignorance, which as yet was not, from coining into existence.

11. Since therefore, as soon as He so pleased, He did become known not only to the Aeons, but also to these men who lived in these latter times; but, as He did not so please to be known from the beginning, He remained unknown-the cause of ignorance is, according to you, the will of the Father. For if He foreknew that these things would in future happen in such a manner, why then did He not guard against the ignorance of these beings before it had obtained a place among them, rather than afterwards, as if under the influence of repentance, deal with it through the production of Christ? For the knowledge which through Christ He conveyed to all, He might long before have imparted through Logos, who was also the first-begotten of Monogenes. Or if, knowing them beforehand, He willed that these things should happen [as they have done], then the works of ignorance must endure for ever, and never pass away. For the things which have been made in accordance with the will of your Propator must continue along with the will of Him who willed them; or if they pass away, the will of Him also who decreed that they should have a being will pass away along with them. And why did the Aeons find rest and attain perfect knowledge through learning [at last] that the Father is altogether incomprehensible? They might surely have possessed this knowledge before they became involved in passion; for the greatness of the Father did not suffer diminution from the beginning, so that these might know that He was altogether incomprehensible. For if, on account of His infinite greatness, He remained unknown, He ought also on account of His infinite love to have preserved those impassible who were produced by Him, since nothing hindered, and expediency rather required, that they should have known from the beginning that the Father was altogether incomprehensible.

XVIII. Fejezet – Szófia soha nem volt igazán Tudatlanságban vagy Szenvedélyben; Enthümasiszét nem lehetett volna elválasztani önmagától, vagy nem mutathatott saját hajlamokat.

1. How can it be regarded as otherwise than absurd, that they also affirm this Sophia (wisdom) to have been involved in ignorance, and degeneracy, and passion? For these things are alien and contrary to wisdom, nor can they ever be qualities belonging to it. For wherever there is a want of foresight, and an ignorance of the course of utility, there wisdom does not exist. Let them therefore no longer call this suffering Aeon, Sophia, but let them give up either her name or her sufferings. And let them, moreover, not call their entire Pleroma spiritual, if this Aeon had a place within it when she was involved in such a tumult of passion. For even a vigorous soul, not to say a spiritual substance, would not pass through any such experience.

2. And, again, how could her Enthymesis, going forth [from her] along with the passion, have become a separate existence? For Enthymesis (thought) is understood in connection with some person, and can never have an isolated existence by itself. For a bad Enthymesis is destroyed and absorbed by a good one, even as a state of disease is by health. What, then, was the sort of Enthymesis which preceded that of passion? [It was this]: to investigate the [nature of] the Father, and to consider His greatness. But what did she afterwards become persuaded of, and so was restored to health? [This, viz.], that the Father is incomprehensible, and that He is past finding out. It was not, then, a proper feeling that she wished to know the Father, and on this account she became passible; but when she became persuaded that He is unsearchable, she was restored to health. And even Nous himself, who was inquiring into the [nature of] the Father, ceased, according to them, to continue his researches, on learning that the Father is incomprehensible.

3. How then could the Enthymesis separately conceive passions, which themselves also were her affections? For affection is necessarily connected with an individual: it cannot come into being or exist apart by itself. This opinion [of theirs], however, is not only untenable, but also opposed to that which was spoken by our Lord: „Seek, and ye shall find.” For the Lord renders His disciples perfect by their seeking after and finding the Father; but that Christ of theirs, who is above, has rendered them perfect, by the fact that He has commanded the Aeons not to seek after the Father, persuading them that, though they should labour hard, they would not find Him. And they declare that they themselves are perfect, by the fact that they maintain they have found their Bythus; while the Aeons [have been made perfect] through means of this, that He is unsearchable who was inquired after by them.

4. Since, therefore, the Enthymesis herself could not exist separately, apart from the Aeon, [it is obvious that] they bring forward still greater falsehood concerning her passion, when they further proceed to divide and separate it from her, while they declare that it was the substance of matter. As if God were not light, and as if no Word existed who could convict them, and overthrow their wickedness. For it is certainly true, that whatsoever the Aeon thought, that she also suffered; and what she suffered, that she also thought. And her Enthymesis was, according to them, nothing else than the passion of one thinking how she might comprehend the incomprehensible. And thus Enthymesis (thought) was the passion; for she was thinking of things impossible. How then could affection and passion be separated and set apart from the Enthymesis, so as to become the substance of so vast a material creation, when Enthymesis herself was the passion, and the passion Enthymesis? Neither, therefore, can Enthymesis apart from the Aeon, nor the affections apart from Enthymesis, separately possess substance; and thus once more their system breaks down and is destroyed.

5. But how did it come to pass that the Aeon was both dissolved [into her component parts], and became subject to passion? She was undoubtedly of the same substance as the Pleroma; but the entire Pleroma was of the Father. Now, any substance, when brought in contact with what is of a similar nature, will not be dissolved into nothing, nor will be in danger of perishing, but will rather continue and increase, such as fire in fire, spirit in spirit, and water in water; but those which are of a contrary nature to each other do, [when they meet, ] suffer and are changed and destroyed. And, in like manner, if there had been a production of light, it would not suffer passion, or recur any danger in light like itself, but would rather glow with the greater brightness, and increase, as the day does from [the increasing brilliance of] the sun; for they maintain that Bythus [himself] was the image of their father (Sophia). Whatever animals are alien [in habits] and strange to each other, or are mutually opposed in nature, fall into danger [on meeting together], and are destroyed; whereas, on the other hand, those who are accustomed to each other, and of a harmonious disposition, suffer no peril from being together in the same place, but rather secure both safety and life by such a fact. If, therefore, this Aeon was produced by the Pleroma of the same substance as the whole of it, she could never have undergone change, since she was consorting with beings similar to and familiar with herself, a spiritual essence among those that were spiritual. For fear, terror, passion, dissolution, and such like, may perhaps occur through the struggle of contraries among such beings as we are, who are possessed of bodies; but among spiritual beings, and those that have the light diffused among them, no such calamities can possibly happen. But these men appear to me to have endowed their Aeon with the [same sort of] passion as belongs to that character in the comic poet Menander, who was himself deeply in love, but an object of hatred [to his beloved]. For those who have invented such opinions have rather had an idea and mental conception of some unhappy lover among men, than of a spiritual and divine substance.

6. Moreover, to meditate how to search into [the nature of] the perfect Father, and to have a desire to exist within Him, and to have a comprehension of His [greatness], could not entail the stain of ignorance or passion, and that upon a spiritual Aeon; but would rather [give rise to] perfection, and impassibility, and truth. For they do not say that even they, though they be but men, by meditating on Him who was before them,-and while now, as it were, comprehending the perfect, and being placed within the knowledge of Him,-are thus involved in a passion of perplexity, but rather attain to the knowledge and apprehension of truth. For they affirm that the Saviour said, „Seek, and ye shall find,” to His disciples with this view, that they should seek after Him who, by means of imagination, has been conceived of by them as being above the Maker of all-the ineffable Bythus; and they desire themselves to be regarded as „the perfect; „because they have sought and found the perfect One, while they are still on earth. Yet they declare that that Aeon who was within the Pleroma, a wholly spiritual being, by seeking after the Propator, and endeavouring to find a place within His greatness, and desiring to have a comprehension of the truth of the Father, fell down into [the endurance of] passion, and such a passion that, unless she had met with that Power who upholds all things, she would have been dissolved into the general substance [of the Aeons], and thus come to an end of her [personal] existence.

7. Absurd is such presumption, and truly an opinion of men totally destitute of the truth. For, that this Aeon is superior to themselves, and of greater antiquity, they themselves acknowledge, according to their own system, when they affirm that they are the fruit of the Enthymesis of that Aeon who suffered passion, so that this Aeon is the father of their mother, that is, their own grandfather. And to them, the later grandchildren, the search after the Father brings, as they maintain, truth, and perfection, and establishment, and deliverance from unstable matter, and reconciliation to the Father; but on their grandfather this same search entailed ignorance, and passion, and terror, and perplexity, from which [disturbances] they also declare that the substance of matter was formed. To say, therefore, that the search after and investigation of the perfect Father, and the desire for communion and union with Him, were things quite beneficial to them, but to an Aeon, from whom also they derive their origin, these things were the cause of dissolution and destruction, how can such assertions be otherwise viewed than as totally inconsistent, foolish, and irrational? Those, too, who listen to these teachers, truly blind themselves, while they possess blind guides, justly [are left to] fall along with them into the gulf of ignorance which lies below them.

XIX. Fejezet – Az eretnekek abszurditásai saját származásukat illetően: véleményük a Demiurgosz tiszteletben tartásáról, amely egyformán tarthatatlannak és nevetségesnek bizonyult.

1. But what sort of talk also is this concerning their seed-that it was conceived by the mother according to the configuration of those angels who wait upon the Saviour,-shapeless, without form, and imperfect; and that it was deposited in the Demiurge without his knowledge, in order that through his instrumentality it might attain to perfection and form in that soul which he had, [so to speak, ] filled with seed? This is to affirm, in the first place, that those angels who wait upon their Saviour are imperfect, and with out figure or form; if indeed that which was conceived according to their appearance was generated any such kind of being [as has been described].

2. Then, in the next place, as to their saying that the Creator was ignorant of that deposit of seed which took place into him, and again, of that impartation of seed which was made by him to man, their words are futile and vain, and are in no way susceptible of proof. For how could he have been ignorant of it, if that seed had possessed any substance and peculiar properties? If, on the other hand, it was without substance and without quality, and so was really nothing, then, as a matter of course, he was ignorant of it. For those things which have a certain motion of their own, and quality, either of heat, or swiftness, or sweetness, or which differ from others in brilliance, do not escape the notice even of men, since they mingle in the sphere of human action: far less can they [be hidden from] God, the Maker of this universe. With reason, however, [is it said, that] their seed was not known to Him, since it is without any quality of general utility, and without the substance requisite for any action, and is, in fact, a pure nonentity. It really seems to me, that, with a view to such opinions, the Lord expressed Himself thus: „For every idle word that men speak, they shall give account on the day of judgment.” For all teachers of a like character to these, who fill men’s ears with idle talk, shall, when they stand at the throne of judgment, render an account for those things which they have vainly imagined and falsely uttered against the Lord, proceeding, as they have done, to such a height of audacity as to declare of themselves that, on account of the substance of their seed, they are acquainted with the spiritual Pleroma, because that man who dwells within reveals to them the true Father; for the animal nature required to be disciplined by means of the senses. But [they hold that] the Demiurge, while receiving into himself the whole of this seed, through its being deposited in him by the Mother, still remained utterly ignorant of all things, and had no understanding of anything connected with the Pleroma.

3. And that they are the truly „spiritual,” inasmuch as a certain particle of the Father of the universe has been deposited in their souls, since, according to their assertions, they have souls formed of the same substance as the Demiurge himself, yet that he, although he received from the Mother, once for all, the whole [of the divine] seed, and possessed it in himself, still remained of an animal nature, and had not the slightest understanding of those things which are above, which things they boast that they themselves understand, while they are still on earth;-does not this crown all possible absurdity? For to imagine that the very same seed conveyed knowledge and perfection to the souls of these men, while it only gave rise to ignorance in the God who made them, is an opinion that can be held only by those utterly frantic, and totally destitute of common sense.

4. Further, it is also a most absurd and groundless thing for them to say that the seed was, by being thus deposited, reduced to form and increased, and so was prepared for all the reception of perfect rationality. For there will be in it an admixture of matter-that substance which they hold to have been derived from ignorance and defect; [and this will prove itself] more apt and useful than was the light of their Father, if indeed, when born, according to the contemplation of that [light], it was without form or figure, but derived from this [matter], form, and appearance, and increase, and perfection. For if that light which proceeds from the Pleroma was the cause to a spiritual being that it possessed neither form, nor appearance, nor its own special magnitude, while its descent to this world added all these things to it, and brought it to perfection, then a sojourn here (which they also term darkness) would seem much more efficacious and useful than was the light of their Father. But how can it be regarded as other than ridiculous, to affirm that their mother ran the risk of being almost extinguished in matter, and was almost on the point of being destroyed by it, had she not then with difficulty stretched herself outwards, and leaped, [as it were, ] out of herself, receiving assistance from the Father; but that her seed increased in this same matter, and received a form, and was made fit for the reception of perfect rationality; and this, too, while „bubbling up” among substances dissimilar and unfamiliar to itself, according to their own declaration that the earthly is opposed to the spiritual, and the spiritual to the earthly? How, then, could „a little particle,” as they say, increase, and receive shape, and reach perfection, in the midst of substances contrary to and unfamiliar to itself?

5. But further, and in addition to what has been said, the question occurs, Did their mother, when she beheld the angels, bring forth the seed all at once, or only one by one [in succession]? If she brought forth the whole simultaneously and at once, that which was thus produced cannot now be of an infantile character: its descent, therefore, into those men who now exist must be superfluous. But if one by one, then she did not form her conception according to the figure of those angels whom she beheld; for, contemplating them all together, and once for all, so as to conceive by them, she ought to have brought forth once for all the offspring of those from whose forms she had once for all conceived.

6. Why was it, too, that, beholding the angels along with the Saviour, she did indeed conceive their images, but not that of the Saviour, who is far more beautiful than they? Did He not please her; and did she not, on that account, conceive after His likeness? How was it, too, that the Demiurge, whom they can call an animal being, having, as they maintain, his own special magnitude and figure, was produced perfect as respects his substance; while that which is spiritual, which also ought to be more effective than that which is animal, was sent forth imperfect, and he required to descend into a soul, that in it he might obtain form, and thus becoming perfect, might be rendered fit for the reception of perfect reason? If, then, he obtains form in mere earthly and animal men, he can no longer be said to be after the likeness of angels whom they call lights, but [after the likeness] of those men who are here below. For he will not possess in that case the likeness and appearance of angels, but of those souls in whom also he receives shape; just as water when poured into a vessel takes the form of that vessel, and if on any occasion it happens to congeal in it, it will acquire the form of the vessel in which it has thus been frozen, since souls themselves possess the figure of the body [in which they dwell]; for they themselves have been adapted to the vessel [in which they exist], as I have said before. If, then, that seed [referred to] is here solidified and formed into a definite shape, it will possess the figure of a man. and not the form of the angels. How is it possible, therefore, that that seed should be after images of the angels, seeing it has obtained a form after the likeness of men? Why, again, since it was of a spiritual nature, had it any need of descending into flesh? For what is carnal stands in need of that which is spiritual, if indeed it is to be saved, that in it it may be sanctified and cleared from all impurity, and that what is mortal may be swallowed up by immortality; but that which is spiritual has no need whatever of those things which are here below. For it is not we who benefit it, but it that improves us.

7. Still more manifestly is that talk of theirs concerning their seed proved to be false, and that in a way which must be evident to every one, by the fact that they declare those souls which have received seed from the Mother to be superior to all others; wherefore also they have been honoured by the Demiurge, and constituted princes, and kings, and priests. For if this were true, the high priest Caiaphas, and Annas, and the rest of the chief priests, arid doctors of the law, and rulers of the people, would have been the first to believe in the Lord, agreeing as they did with respect to that relationship; and even before them should have been Herod the king. But since neither he, nor the chief priests, nor the rulers, nor the eminent of the people, turned to Him [in faith], but, on the contrary, those who sat begging by the highway, the deaf, and the blind, while He was rejected and despised by others, according to what Paul declares, „For ye see your calling, brethren, that there are not many wise men among you, not many noble, not many mighty; but those things of the world which were despised hath God chosen.” Such souls, therefore, were not superior to others on account of the seed deposited in them, nor on this account were they honoured by the Demiurge.

8. As to the point, then, that their system is weak and untenable as well as utterly chimerical, enough has been said. For it is not needful, to use a common proverb, that one should drink up the ocean who wishes to learn that its water is salt. But, just as in the case of a statue which is made of clay, but coloured on the outside that it may be thought to be of gold, while it really is of clay, any one who takes out of it a small particle, and thus laying it open reveals the clay, will set free those who seek the truth from a false opinion; in the same way have I (by exposing not a small part only, but the several heads of their system which are of the greatest importance) shown to as many as do not wish wittingly to be led astray, what is wicked, deceitful, seductive, and pernicious, connected with the school of the Valentinians, and all those other heretics who promulgate wicked opinions respecting the Demiurge, that is, the Fashioner and Former of this universe, and who is in fact the only true God-exhibiting, [as I have done, ] how easily their views are overthrown.

9. For who that has any intelligence, and possesses only a small proportion of truth, can tolerate them, when they affirm that there is another god above the Creator; and that there is another Monogenes as well as another Word of God, whom also they describe as having been produced in [a state of] degeneracy; and another Christ, whom they assert to have been formed, along with the Holy Spirit, later than the rest of the Aeons; and another Saviour, who, they say, did not proceed from the Father of all, but was a kind of joint production of those Aeons who were formed in [a state of] degeneracy, and that He was produced of necessity on account of this very degeneracy? It is thus their opinion that, unless the Aeons had been in a state of ignorance and degeneracy, neither Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, nor Horos, nor the Saviour, nor the angels, nor their Mother, nor her seed, nor the rest of the fabric of the world, would have been produced at all; but the universe would have been a desert, and destitute of the many good things which exist in it. They are therefore not only chargeable with impiety against the Creator, declaring Him the fruit of a defect, but also against Christ and the Holy Spirit, affirming that they were produced on account of that defect; and, in like manner, that the Saviour [was produced] subsequently to [the existence of] that defect. And who will tolerate the remainder of their vain talk, which they cunningly endeavour to accommodate to the parables, and have in this way plunged both themselves, and those who give credit to them, in the profoundest depths of impiety?

XX. Fejezet – A tizenkettedik Aeon szenvedéseinek bemutatására felhozott érvek hiábavalósága a példázatokból, Júdás árulásáról és Megváltónk szenvedéséről.

1. That they improperly and illogically apply both the parables and the actions of the Lord to their falsely-devised system, I prove as follows: They endeavour, for instance, to demonstrate that passion which, they say, happened in the case of the twelfth Aeon, from this fact, that the passion of the Saviour was brought about by the twelfth apostle, and happened in the twelfth month. For they hold that He preached [only] for one year after His baptism. They maintain also that the same thing was clearly set forth in the case of her who suffered from the issue of blood. For the woman suffered during twelve years, and through touching the hem of the Saviour’s garment she was made whole by that power which went forth from the Saviour, and which, they affirm, had a previous existence. For that Power who suffered was stretching herself outwards and flowing into immensity, so that she was in danger of being dissolved into the general substance [of the Aeons]; but then, touching the primary Tetrad, which is typified by the hem of the garment, she was arrested, and ceased from her passion.

2. Then, again, as to their assertion that the passion of the twelfth Aeon was proved through the conduct of Judas, how is it possible that Judas can be compared [with this Aeon] as being an emblem of her-he who was expelled from the number of the twelve, and never restored to his place? For that Aeon, whose type they declare Judas to be, after being separated from her Enthymesis, was restored or recalled [to her former position]; but Judas was deprived [of his office], and cast out, while Matthias was ordained in his place, according to what is written, „And his bishopric let another take.” They ought therefore to maintain that the twelfth Aeon was cast out of the Pleroma, and that another was produced, or sent forth to fill her place; if, that is to say, she is pointed at in Judas. Moreover, they tell us that it was the Aeon herself who suffered, but Judas was the betrayer, [and not the sufferer.] Even they themselves acknowledge that it was the suffering Christ, and not Judas, who came to [the endurance of] passion. How, then, could Judas, the betrayer of Him who had to suffer for our salvation, be the type and image of that Aeon who suffered?

3. De valójában a Felkent szenvedése nem hasonló a Aeon szenvedélyéhez, és nem hasonló körülmények között zajlott. Mert az Aeon a felbomlás és a pusztulás szenvedélyén ment keresztül, így őt (nő) aki szenvedett is az elpusztulás veszélye fenyegette. De az úr, a mi Felkentünk egy érvényes és nem csupán véletlen szenvedésen ment keresztül; nem csupán magát nem fenyegette a pusztulás veszélye, hanem saját erejéből megalapozta a bukott embert, és visszahívta a romlatlanságba. Az Aeon, ismét, egy szenvedélyen ment keresztül, miközben az Atyát kereste, és jelentős volt, hogy megtalálja Őt; de az úr szenvedett, hogy azokat, akik eltévedtek az Atyától, visszahozza tudáshoz és az Ő közösségéhez. Az Atya nagyságának kutatása a pusztulásba vezető szenvedélyévé vált számára (nőnem); de az úr, miután szenvedett, és átadta az Atya ismeretét, megadta a szabadulásunkat. Az ő (nő) szenvedélyéből, amint kijelentik nekünk, női utód született, gyenge, beteg, formálatlan és hatástalan; de az Ő (hímnem) szenvedése az erő és hatalom felemelkedését adta. Mert az Úr a szenvedés útján „felemelkedett a magas helyre, fogságba vitte a fogságot, ajándékokat adott az embereknek,” (Ef. 4:8; Zsolt. 68:9) és a benne hívőknek hatalmat adott „kígyókon és skorpiókon taposni, és az ellenség minden erején” (Luk. 10:19) vagyis az elpártolás vezérén. A mi urunk szenvedése által a halált is elpusztította, és eloszlatta a tévelygést, véget vetett a romlottságnak, és megsemmisítette a tudatlanságot, miközben kinyilatkoztatta az életet és kinyilatkoztatta az igazságot, és a romolhatatlanság ajándékát adta. De az ő Aeonjuk, amikor szenvedett, megalapozta a tudatlanságot, és előhozott egy alak nélküli szubsztanciát, amelyből minden anyagi mű keletkezett – a halál, a romlás, a tévedés és hasonlók.

4. Judas, then, the twelfth in order of the disciples, was not a type of the suffering Aeon, nor, again, was the passion of the Lord; for these two things have been shown to be in every respect mutually dissimilar and inharmonious. This is the case not only as respects the points which I have already mentioned, but with regard to the very number. For that Judas the traitor is the twelfth in order, is agreed upon by all, there being twelve apostles mentioned by name in the Gospel. But this Aeon is not the twelfth, but the thirtieth; for, according to the views under consideration, there were not twelve Aeons only produced by the will of the Father, nor was she sent forth the twelfth in order: they reckon her, [on the contrary, ] as having been produced in the thirtieth place. How, then, can Judas, the twelfth in order, be the type and image of that Aeon who occupies the thirtieth place?

5. But if they say that Judas in perishing was the image of her Enthymesis, neither in this way will the image bear any analogy to that truth which [by hypothesis] corresponds to it. For the Enthymesis having been separated from the Aeon, and itself afterwards receiving a shape from Christ, then being made a partaker of intelligence by the Saviour, and having formed all things which are outside of the Pleroma, after the image of those which are within the Pleroma, is said at last to have been received by them into the Pleroma, and, according to [the principle of] conjunction, to have been united to that Saviour who was formed out of all. But Judas having been once for all cast away, never returns into the number of the disciples; otherwise a different person would not have been chosen to fill his place. Besides, the Lord also declared regarding him, „Woe to the man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed; ” and, „It were better for him if he had never been born; ” and he was called the „son of perdition” by Him. If, however, they say that Judas was a type of the Enthymesis, not as separated from the Aeon, but of the passion entwined with her, neither in this way can the number twelve be regarded as a [fitting] type of the number three. For in the one case Judas was cast away, and Matthias was ordained instead of him; but in the other case the Aeon is said to have been in danger of dissolution and destruction, and [there are also] her Enthymesis and passion: for they markedly distinguish Enthymesis from the passion; and they represent the Aeon as being restored, and Enthymesis as acquiring form, but the passion, when separated from these, as becoming matter. Since, therefore, there are thus these three, the Aeon, her Enthymesis, and her passion, Judas and Matthias, being only two, cannot be the types of them.

XXI. Fejezet – A tizenkét apostol nem volt az Aeonok típusa.

1. If, again, they maintain that the twelve apostles were a type only of that group of twelve Aeons which Anthropos in conjunction with Ecclesia produced, then let them produce ten other apostles as a type of those ten remaining Aeons, who, as they declare, were produced by Logos and Zoe. For it is unreasonable to suppose that the junior, and for that reason inferior Aeons, were set forth by the Saviour through the election of the apostles, while their seniors, and on this account their superiors, were not thus foreshown; since the Saviour (if, that is to say, He chose the apostles with this view, that by means of them He might show forth the Aeons who are in the Pleroma) might have chosen other ten apostles also, and likewise other eight before these, that thus He might set forth the original and primary Ogdoad. He could not, in regard to the second [Duo] Decad, show forth [any emblem of it] through the number of the apostles being [already] constituted a type. For [He made choice of no such other number of disciples; but] after the twelve apostles, our Lord is found to have sent seventy others before Him. Now seventy cannot possibly be the type either of an Ogdoad, a Decad, or a Triacontad. What is the reason, then, that the inferior Aeons are, as I have said, represented by means of the apostles; but the superior, from whom, too, the former derived their being, are not prefigured at all? But if the twelve apostles were chosen with this object, that the number of the twelve Aeons might be indicated by means of them, then the seventy also ought to have been chosen to be the type of seventy Aeons; and in that case, they must affirm that the Aeons are no longer thirty, but eighty-two in number. For He who made choice of the apostles, that they might be a type of those Aeons existing in the Pleroma, would never have constituted them types of some and not of others; but by means of the apostles He would have tried to preserve an image and to exhibit a type of those Aeons that exist in the Pleroma.

2. Moreover we must not keep silence respecting Paul, but demand from them after the type of what Aeon that apostle has been handed down to us, unless perchance [they affirm that he is a representative] of the Saviour compounded of them [all], who derived his being from the collected gifts of the whole, and whom they term All Things, as having been formed out of them all. Respecting this being the poet Hesiod has strikingly expressed himself, styling him Pandora-that is, „The gift of all”-for this reason, that the best gift in the possession of all was centred in him. In describing these gifts the following account is given: Hermes (so he is called in the Greek language), Ai9muli/ou; te lo/gouj kai\ e0pi/klopon h\qoj au0tou=j Ka/tqeto (or to express this in the English language), „implanted words of fraud and deceit in their minds, and thievish habits,” for the purpose of leading foolish men astray, that such should believe their falsehoods. For their Mother-that is, Leto –secretly stirred them up (whence also she is called Leto, according to the meaning of the Greek word, because she secretly stirred up men), without the knowledge of the Demiurge, to give forth profound and unspeakable mysteries to itching ears. And not only did their Mother bring it about that this mystery should be declared by Hesiod; but very skilfully also by means of the lyric poet Pindar, when he describes to the Demiurge the case of Pelops, whose flesh was cut in pieces by the Father, and then collected and brought together, and compacted anew by all the gods, did she in this way indicate Pandora and these men having their consciences seared by her, declaring, as they maintain, the very same things, are [proved] of the same family and spirit as the others.

XXII. Fejezet – A harminc Aeon nem jellemezhető az által a tény által, hogy a Felkent a harmincadik évében merítették be: Ő nem szenvedett a bemerítkezése utáni tizenkettedik hónapban, de több mint ötven éves volt, amikor meghalt.

1. Megmutattam, hogy a harmincas szám minden tekintetben cserbenhagyja őket; túl kevés Aeon, ahogy ők ábrázolják őket, egy időben a Plerómán belül találhatóak, majd ismét túl sok [hogy megfeleljenek ennek a számnak]. Nincs tehát harminc Aeon, és a Megváltó sem azért jött, hogy bemerítkezzen harminc éves korában, azért hogy megmutathassa rendszerük harminc néma Aeonját, különben mindenekelőtt el kell különíteniük és ki kell vetniük [a Megváltót] magát mindenek Plerómájából. Továbbá, azt erősítgetik, hogy Ő a tizenkettedik hónapban szenvedett, így a bemerítkezés után egy évig hirdetett; és igyekeznek hogy a próféták által alapozzák meg ezt a pontot (mert meg van írva, „hogy hirdesd JHVH kedves esztendejét és a megtorlás napját”), lévén valóban vakok, amennyiben azt állítják, hogy rájöttek a Büthosz titkaira, de mégsem értik azt, amit Ésaiás JHVH kedves évének, sem a megtorlás napjának nevez. Mert a próféta nem beszél egy napról, amely magában foglalja a tizenkét órát, sem egy évről, amelynek hossza tizenkét hónap. Mert még ők maguk is elismerik, hogy a próféták nagyon gyakran hasonlatokban és allegóriákban fejezték ki magukat, és nem a szavak puszta hangja szerint (ti. szószerint) [érthetőek].

2. Azt nevezték tehát a megtorlás napjának, amelyen JHVH megfizet mindenkinek az ő cselekedetei szerint, vagyis az ítéletet. JHVH elfogadható esztendeje, ismét, ez a jelen idő, amikor azokat, akik hisznek benne, Ő hívja el, és Isten számára elfogadhatóvá válik – vagyis a teljes idő az Ő eljövetelétől tovább [minden dolgok] beteljesüléséig, melynek során megszerzi magának [az irgalmasság tervének] gyümölcseiként azokat, akik megmentettek. Ugyanis a próféta kifejezésmódja szerint a megtorlás napja az [elfogadható] évet követi; és a próféta bűnösnek bizonyul hazugságban, ha az úr csak egy évig prédikál, és ha beszél róla. Mert hol van a megtorlás napja? Mert elmúlt az év, és még nem jött el a megtorlás napja; de mégis „felkelteti napját a jókra és a gonoszokra, és esőt ad az igazakra és hamisakra”. Az igazak pedig üldöztetést szenvednek, sanyargatnak és megöletnek, míg a bűnösök bőségben részesülnek, és „hárfa- és muzsikaszóra isznak, de nem figyelnek az JHVH cselekedeteire”. De a [próféta által használt] nyelvezet szerint ezeket egyesíteni kell, és az [elfogadható] évet követnie kell a megtorlás napjának. Mert ezek aztok a szavak: „hirdetni JHVH kedves esztendejét és a megtorlás napját”. Ezért ezt a jelen időt, amelyben az embereket az Úr hívja és megmenti, helyesen úgy kell érteni, hogy „JHVH elfogadható éve” jelöli, és ezután következik a „megtorlás napja”, vagyis az ítélet. És az így említett időt nem csak „évnek”, hanem „napnak” nevezi mind a próféta, mind pedig Pál, amiről az apostol az Írásra emlékeztetve ezt mondja a Rómaiakhoz intézett levélben: „Amint meg van írva, érted ölnek minket egész nap, vágójuhoknak számítanak.” De itt az „egész nap” kifejezést mindarra az időre írjuk, amely alatt üldöztetést szenvedünk, és juhként ölnek meg bennünket. Mivel ez a nap nem tizenkét órából álló napot jelent, hanem azt az egész időt, amely alatt a Krisztusban hívők szenvednek és megölnek érte, úgy az ott említett év sem tizenkét hónapból állót jelöl, hanem a hit teljes ideje, amely alatt az emberek hallják és elhiszik az evangélium hirdetését, és Isten számára elfogadhatóvá válnak azok, akik vele egyesülnek.

3. De nagyon csodálatos, hogy történhet meg az, hogy miközben azt állítják, hogy felfedezték az Isten titkait, nem vizsgálták meg az evangéliumokat, hogy megbizonyosodjanak arról, hogy bemerítkezése után hányszor ment vfel az úr, a páska idején Jeruzsálembe, a zsidók szokása szerint minden helyről, és minden évben, hogy összegyűljenek ebben az időszakban Jeruzsálemben, és ott ünnepeljék a pászka ünnepét. Először is, miután a galileai Kánában borrá tette a vizet, felment a páska ünnepére, amely alkalomból meg van írva: „Mert sokan hittek benne, amikor látták a jeleket, amelyeket tett, ” ahogy János, az Úr tanítványa feljegyzi. Aztán ismét visszavonulva [Júdeából], Szamáriában találják; ez alkalommal is találkozott a szamaritánus asszonnyal, és távollétében egy szóval meggyógyította a százados fiát, mondván: „Menj el, a fiad él.” Utána másodszor is felment, hogy megtartsa a páska ünnepét Jeruzsálemben; mely alkalommal meggyógyította a bénult férfit, aki harmincnyolc éve feküdt a medence mellett, és felszólította, hogy keljen fel, vegye fel az ágyát , és távozzon. Ismét visszavonult onnan a Tibériai-tenger túlsó partjára, és látta, hogy nagy sokaság követte őt, öt vekni kenyérrel etette az egész sokaságot, és tizenkét kosárnyi törmelék maradt utána. Aztán, amikor feltámasztotta Lázárt a halálból, és a farizeusok összeesküvést szőttek ellene, visszavonult egy Efraim nevű városba; és arról a helyről, amint meg van írva: „Hat nappal pészah előtt jött Betániába”, és Betániából Jeruzsálembe ment, ott ette a páskhát, és másnap szenvedett. Nos, hogy a páskának ez a három alkalma nem beszámítható egy évbe, minden embernek el kell ismernie. És hogy az a különleges hónap, amelyben a páskát ünnepelték, és amelyben az úr is szenvedett, nem a tizenkettedik, hanem az első hónap volt, azok az emberek, akik azzal kérkednek, hogy mindent tudnak, ha ezt nem tudják, Mózestől tanulhatják meg. Ezért az évre és a tizenkettedik hónapra vonatkozó magyarázatuk hamisnak bizonyult, és el kell utasítaniuk vagy magyarázatukat, vagy az evangéliumot; különben [ezt a megválaszolhatatlan kérdést erőlteti rájuk], Hogyan lehetséges, hogy az úr csak egy évig hirdetett?