Author:

Estimated Range of Dating: 175-185 A.D.

Chronological List of Early Christian Writings
Online Text for Fragments of Rhodon

Roberts-Donaldson English Translation
Online Resources for Fragments of Rhodon

Offline Resources for Fragments of Rhodon

Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings
Information on Fragments of Rhodon

Rhodon wrote c. 165-175.

Some there are, my son Rheginos, who want to learn many things. They have this goal when they are occupied with questions whose answer is lacking. If they succeed with these, they usually think very highly of themselves. But I do not think that they have stood within the Word of Truth. They seek rather their own rest, which we have received through our Savior, our Lord Christ. We received it when we came to know the truth and rested ourselves upon it. But since you ask us pleasantly what is proper concerning the resurrection, I am writing you that it is necessary. To be sure, many are lacking faith in it, but there are a few who find it. So then, let us discuss the matter.

How did the Lord proclaim things while he existed in flesh and after he had revealed himself as Son of God? He lived in this place where you remain, speaking about the Law of Nature – but I call it ‘Death’. Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of Truth, before this structure had come into being. In this many dominions and divinities came into existence.

I know that I am presenting the solution in difficult terms, but there is nothing difficult in the Word of Truth. But since the Solution appeared so as not to leave anything hidden, but to reveal all things openly concerning existence – the destruction of evil on the one hand, the revelation of the elect on the other. This is the emanation of Truth and Spirit, Grace is of the Truth.

The Savior swallowed up death – (of this) you are not reckoned as being ignorant – for he put aside the world which is perishing. He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality. Then, indeed, as the Apostle said, “We suffered with him, and we arose with him, and we went to heaven with him”. Now if we are manifest in this world wearing him, we are that one`s beams, and we are embraced by him until our setting, that is to say, our death in this life. We are drawn to heaven by him, like beams by the sun, not being restrained by anything. This is the spiritual resurrection which swallows up the psychic in the same way as the fleshly.

But if there is one who does not believe, he does not have the (capacity to be) persuaded. For it is the domain of faith, my son, and not that which belongs to persuasion: the dead shall arise! There is one who believes among the philsophers who are in this world. At least he will arise. And let not the philosopher who is in this world have cause to believe that he is one who returns himself by himself – and (that) because of our faith! For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, “He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe.” Great are those who believe.

The thought of those who are saved shall not perish. The mind of those who have known him shall not perish. Therefore, we are elected to salvation and redemption since we are predestined from the beginning not to fall into the foolishness of those who are without knowledge, but we shall enter into the wisdom of those who have known the Truth. Indeed, the Truth which is kept cannot be abandoned, nor has it been. “Strong is the system of the Pleroma; small is that which broke loose (and) became (the) world. But the All is what is encompassed. It has not come into being; it was existing.” So, never doubt concerning the resurrection, my son Rheginos! For if you were not existing in flesh, you received flesh when you entered this world. Why will you not receive flesh when you ascend into the Aeon? That which is better than the flesh is that which is for (the) cause of life. That which came into being on your account, is it not yours? Does not that which is yours exist with you? Yet, while you are in this world, what is it that you lack? This is what you have been making every effort to learn.

The afterbirth of the body is old age, and you exist in corruption. You have absence as a gain. For you will not give up what is better if you depart. That which is worse has diminution, but there is grace for it.

Nothing, then, redeems us from this world. But the All which we are, we are saved. We have received salvation from end to end. Let us think in this way! Let us comprehend in this way!

But there are some (who) wish to understand, in the enquiry about those things they are looking into, whether he who is saved, if he leaves his body behind, will be saved immediately. Let no one doubt concerning this. […]. indeed, the visible members which are dead shall not be saved, for (only) the living members which exist within them would arise.

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth! Indeed, it is more fitting to say the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ.

But what am I telling you now? Those who are living shall die. How do they live in an illusion? The rich have become poor, and the kings have been overthrown. Everything is prone to change. The world is an illusion! – lest, indeed, I rail at things to excess!

But the resurrection does not have this aforesaid character, for it is the truth which stands firm. It is the revelation of what is, and the transformation of things, and a transition into newness. For imperishability descends upon the perishable; the light flows down upon the darkness, swallowing it up; and the Pleroma fills up the deficiency. These are the symbols and the images of the resurrection. He it is who makes the good.

Therefore, do not think in part, O Rheginos, nor live in conformity with this flesh for the sake of unanimity, but flee from the divisions and the fetters, and already you have the resurrection. For if he who will die knows about himself that he will die – even if he spends many years in this life, he is brought to this – why not consider yourself as risen and (already) brought to this? If you have the resurrection but continue as if you are to die – and yet that one knows that he has died – why, then, do I ignore your lack of exercise? It is fitting for each one to practice in a number of ways, and he shall be released from this Element that he may not fall into error but shall himself receive again what at first was.

These things I have received from the generosity of my Lord, Jesus Christ. I have taught you and your brethren, my sons, considering them, while I have not omitted any of the things suitable for strengthening you. But if there is one thing written which is obscure in my exposition of the Word, I shall interpret it for you (pl.) when you (pl.) ask. But now, do not be jealous of anyone who is in your number when he is able to help.

Many are looking into this which I have written to you. To these I say: Peace (be) among them and grace. I greet you and those who love you (pl.) in brotherly Love.

DSS 4q521

F.2 + F.4 col.2

(…. For the heavens) and the earth shall listen to His Messiah and all which is in them shall not turn away from the commandments of the holy ones.

Strenghten yourselves, O you who seek the Lord, in his service. Will you not find the Lord in this, all those who hope in their heart? For the Lord seeks the pious and calls the righteous by name.

Over the humble His spirit hovers, and He renews the faithful in His strength. For He will honor the pious upon the Throne of His eternal kingdom, setting prisoners free, opening the eyes of the blind,
raising up those who are bowed down.

And forever I shall hold fast to the hopeful and pious (…) (…) shall not be delayed (…) and the Lord shall do glorious things which have not been done, just as He said. For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall revive the dead, He shall send good news to the afflicted. He shall (… the ….), He shall lead the (…), and the hungry he shall enrich (?) (…) and (…)

F.7 + F.5 col.2

(…) see all that the Lord has made, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them and every reservoir of water and the streams. (…) those who do good before the Lord (shall bless … and not) as these who curse. They shall be destined to die, when the One who revives raises the dead of His people. Then we shall give thanks and relate to you the righteous acts of the Lord that (…) those
destined to die. And He shall open graves (..) and (…) and (…) so commit your works (…) and a bridge of (…) the accursed shall be little esteemed(?) (…) and the heavens shall meet (…) and all the angels (…)

Online Text for History of the Rechabites

Not available.
Online Resources for History of the Rechabites

Jewish Encyclopedia: Rechabites
Abstract by Alan Turnbull
Tyndale Notes
The Provenance of the “History of the Rechabites”
Abstract: Is the History of the Rechabites Really a Jewish Composition?
Offline Resources for History of the Rechabites

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume Two
The Apocryphal Old Testament
Information on History of the Rechabites

James Charlesworth writes (The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, pp. 224-226):

The nature of the present monograph precludes a discussion of the literary history of this work. For the present a brief outline of an hypothesis must suffice. The work consists of twenty-two chapters (cf. James, pp. 96-108; and Craigie, pp. 220-24) of which possibly the first and certainly the last were appended later because only they are written in teh third person, while chapters two to twenty-one are in the first person. It is not surprising to perceive accretions appearing at the end and beginning of a text; in fact the Armenian recension (cf. Zanolli, p. 153) even adds to chapter one the idea that Yovsimios lived on a mountain on Schizia, an island at the end and beginning of a text; in fact the Armenian recension (cf. Zanolli, p. 153) even adds to chapter one the idea that Yovsimios lived on a mountain on Schizia, an island in the Ionian Sea. Also belonging to this latest level is the last sentence of chapter twenty-one, which defines the work as Zosimus’ testament (he diatheke aute). Chapters nineteen to twenty-one were appended earlier to the work, because Zosimus’ name does not appear in them and the narrative is out of character for this powerless monk. These chapters appear to be a remnant of an early account of Jesus’ conquest of the Devil (ho Diabolos) during the forty days of temptation, because forty days are mentioned more than once, bcause only the traditions attributed to Jesus aptly fit the Devil’s lamentation (“Woe is me that by one man I have lost the world [These chapters are under the influence of Rom 5.], for he has conquered me by his prayer.”), and because the judgment of the Devil suggests Jesus’ authority (“Then I dismissed him, dispatching [him] and the demons with him into the eternal fire.”). Attributing chapters nineteen to twenty-one to another literary stratum explains why Zosimus’ tablets (tas plakas) are called “the book” (ten biblon) in chapter nineteen, and why Satan (chaps. 6, 18) is called the Devil only in chapters nineteen, twenty, and twenty-one. Chapters two and fifteen-b through eighteen are earlier prefixed and suffixed additiosn to the core because the name Zosimus appears in them nine times. These appear to be by the same scribe since the river is called Eumeles only in chapters two and fifteen-b. Either the scribe of this stratum was a Christian, or his work was redacted by a Christian. The remainder of the document, chapters three through fifteen-a, is the core inw hich the name of Zosimus does not occur and which appears to be Jewish with frequent indications that the original was composed in a Semitic language (viz. “lamented with great lamentation,” chps. 6 and 7; “rejoiced with great joy,” chp. 7). In the core, which is an apocalypse, the seer is called “a man of God” (chp. 4), “the man of vanity” (chp. 5), or simply “man” (chp. 6). The allocation of chatpers one and six to two different literary strata explains the contradiction between Zosimus’ unworthiness (ouk ei axios) and the man’s worthiness (kai katexiosen me). The parallels in the core with The Lost Tribes indicate that it may have been composed around A.D. 100. Behind these chapters, however, there seems to be a very ancient core, chapters seven through nine, which concerns the history and present abode of the descendants of Rechab, the son of Jonadab, who were not scattered over the earth but are in a place encircled by an abyss and a cloud (chp. 9). Chapters six and ten, with their impressive similarities, appear to reveal that the evolution moved centrifugally from chapters seven through nine. Since the ancient core, the Rechabite text, claims that God turned away his anger from Jerusalem (chps. 7 and 8) and that God’s mercy came to Jerusalem (chp. 7), it would be unwise to ignore the possibility that this oldest section is a Jewish work that predates the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

If the above analysis is generally correct, then it is possible that the ancient core and the core, because of their Semitic flavor and concern for Jerusalem, were written somewhere in Judaea. This suggestion is corroborated, but of course not proved, by the superscription in a British Library Syriac Manuscript of the work (B. M. Add. MS 12174, f. 209v); “But it was translated from Hebrew into Greek, and then from Greek into Syriac by the Holy Mar Jacob of Edessa.” It is difficult, therefore, to agree with K. Kunze (no. 1475), who claims that this work was composed in Greek in the sixth century. We can be relatively certain that the original is Jewish and has been redacted by Christians (so also G. Graf, Geschichte, p. 214; J.-C. Picard, no. 1476; Nau, RevSem 6 [1898] 265; L. Ginzberg, Legende, vol. 6, p. 409).

The above hypothesis may be outlined as follows:

V. Testament of Zosimus (chps. 1 and 22)
IV. Jesus’ Conquest of the Devil (chps. 19-21)
III. Christian Additions (chps.2,15b-18)
II. Apocalypse (chps. 3-6, 10-15a)
I. Rechabite Text (chps. 7-9)

An unexpected confirmation of some of this hypothesis comes from the Syriac tradition. This version ends with chapter 16 and is entitled “The History of the Blessed Sons of the Rechabites” (B. M. Add. MS 12174, f. 209v).

James Charlesworth writes: “The date of the History of the Rechabites is the crucial issue, and it is related to the Jewish or Christian character of the various sections. In its present form the work may date from the sixth century A.D., as M. R. James contended. Comparison of the Syriac manuscripts reveals that the document, like many pseudepigrapha (viz. 4Ezra), has received interpolations by Christians; the same observation results from a mere cursory examination and comparison of the Greek manuscripts, and by the recognition that the Greek is expanded by chapters 19 through 23, which are certainly Christian. The Ethiopic, moreover, has been extensively expanded by scribes who were obviously Christian. Some of the present document is Christian, but the Christian interpolations—sometimes found in only one manuscript—raise the possibility that 12:9a-13:5c and 16:1b-8 are not original but a Christian insertion into an earlier document. This hypothetical earlier writing could be a Christian revision of inherited Jewish traditions, or it could be a Christian expansion of an original (partly preserved) Jewish document. James, A. Zanolli, Nau, G. Graf, L. Ginzberg, J.-C. Picard, and B. McNeil have perceived evidence of a Jewish original behind the present Christian document. Nau even used such terms as ‘the Christian translator,’ ‘the primitive text,’ ‘the Hebrew text,’ and ‘the Hebrew author.’ Working with only the Greek document generates the impression that the beginning and end are Christian and that the central chapters, 3-15, are originally Jewish. Focusing upon the Syriac document leaves the impression that only 12:9a-13:5c and 16:1b-8 are clearly Christian and appear to be interpolated, because they interrupt the flow of thought and contain intrusive ideas. The mention of the name ‘Zosimus’ in the latter section (16:8) suggests that perhaps all passages connected with this name may be from a later stratum, hence chapters 7:12-16:1a, which do not identify the traveler as ‘Zosimus,’ would be earlier and possibly Jewish. It is only in these chapters, and specifically in 8-10, that mention is made of the Rechabites and their history in Jerusalem during the days of Jeremiah. At this stage in our work it is best to suggest only that sections of this document are Jewish or heavily influenced by Jewish traditions, and that they may antedate the second century A.D.” (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, pp. 444-445)

Estimated Range of Dating: 40-80 A.D.

Chronological List of Early Christian Writings
Online Text for The Lost Sayings Gospel Q

The Contents of Q
A Synopsis for Q
Gregory Riley: NRSV Translation of Q according to Funk/Miller
The Critical Text of Q
Burton Mack’s Translation
J.D. Tabor: The Q Source Based on Luke
Stevan Davies: Q Sayings in Luke
Stevan Davies: Q // Thomas Parallels
The Five Gospels Parallels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas; English)
Four-Color Synopsis (Matthew, Mark, Luke; Greek)
Online Resources for The Lost Sayings Gospel Q

The Existence of Q
The Synoptic Problem (Defense of the Two Source Hypothesis)
The Two Source Hypothesis (Summary by Stephen Carlson)
The Case Against Q (Against the Two Source Hypothesis)
Review of Goodacre’s The Case Against Q by Kloppenborg Verbin
NT Gateway: Q (Excellent Collection of Links)
The Current State of Q (By Nancy R. Heisey)
The Canonical Status of Q (By Mahlon Smith)
Testing Temptation: The Meaning of Q 11:4b (By Jeffrey Gibson)
Jesus’ Death in Q (By David Seeley)
Blessings and Boundaries: Interpretations of Jesus’ Death in Q (by David Seeley)
The Search for a No-Frills Jesus (By Charlotte Allen)
The Real Jesus of the Sayings “Q” Gospel (By James M. Robinson)
The Gospel of Q (By B.A. Robinson)
Q & Its Late Dating (By Bernard Muller)
William Arnal’s Summary of Kloppenborg’s Q Stratification
The Sayings Gospel Q: a Bibliography (By Rick Fowler)
Offline Resources for The Lost Sayings Gospel Q

John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1987).
Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins 1993).
Christopher M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q (Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1996).
Marcus J. Borg, The Lost Gospel Q : The Original Sayings of Jesus (Publishers’ Group West 1999)
John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2000)
Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Pr Int 2002)
Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings
Information on The Lost Sayings Gospel Q

According to the Two Source Hypothesis accepted by a majority of contemporary scholars, the authors of Matthew and Luke each made use of two different sources: the Gospel of Mark and a non-extant second source termed Q. The siglum Q derives from the German word “Quelle,” which means “Source.” Q primarily consists of the “double tradition” material, that which is present in both Matthew and Luke but not Mark. However, Q may also contain material that is preserved only by Matthew or only by Luke (called “Sondergut”) as well as material that is paralleled in Mark (called Mark/Q overlaps). Although the temptation story and the healing of the centurion’s son are usually ascribed to Q, the majority of the material consists of sayings. For this reason, Q is sometimes called the Synoptic Sayings Source or the Sayings Gospel. Some scholars have observed that the Gospel of Thomas and the Q material, as contrasted with the four canonical gospels, are similar in their emphasis on the sayings of Jesus instead of the passion of Jesus.

Arguments in favor of the Two Source Hypothesis can be found in the essay on The Existence of Q.

On the matter of whether Q was written, Tuckett writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 568): “The theory that Q represents a mass of oral traditions does not account for the common order in Q material, which can be discerned once Matthew’s habit of collecting related material into his large teaching discourses is discounted (Taylor 1953, 1959). Such a common order demands a theory that Q at some stage existed in written form.”

C. M. Tuckett comments on the argument that variations between Matthew and Luke are due to variant translations of an Aramaic Q (op. cit., pp. 567-568):

It is doubtful if more than a very few cases of variation between Matthew and Luke can be explained in this way. The Semitic nature of Q’s Greek does not demand an Aramaic Vorlage; influence from LXX is quite conceivable in a Greek-speaking Jewish-Christian milieu. Many of the alleged translation variants turn out to be simply cases of synonyms, and the differences between Matthew and Luke can often be explained just as well as due to the redactional activity of the evangelists (Kloppenborg 1987). For example, in Luke 11:41, Luke’s “give alms” may well be LkR (Lukan redaction), reflecting Luke’s concern for almsgiving. In other parts of the Q material, the verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke amounts to virtual verbal identity in Greek (Luke 3:7-9; 11:9-10 and pars.). In these instances the measure of verbal agreement seems to demand a common Greek source. Further, some features of Q’s Greek can be shown to be characteristic of a source originally written in Greek and uncharacteristic of translation Greek (Turner 1969). This suggests that much of the Q material was available to Matthew and Luke in Greek form.

Udo Schnelle comments on the provenance of Q (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 186):

The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings: Buy at amazon.com! The Sayings Source presumably originated in (north) Palestine, since its theological perspective is directed primarily to Israel. The proclamations of judgment at the beginning and end of the document are directed against Israel (cf. Luke 3.7-9Q; Luke 22.28-30Q), numerous logia are centered on Palestine by their geographical references and the cultural world they assume (cf. only Luke 7.1Q; 10.13-15Q), the bearers of the Q tradition understand themselves to be faithful to the Law (cf. Luke 16.17Q; Luke 11.42Q), and Q polemic is directed against Pharisees (cf. e.g. Luke 11.39b-44Q).

Helmut Koester comments on the provenance of Q (Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 164):

Ancient Christian Gospels: Buy at amazon.com! Q 10:13-15 announces the coming judgment explicitly with the view to two Galilean towns, Chorazin and Bethsaida: even Tyre and Didon will be better off in the coming judgment. And the same saying threatens that Capernaum will be condemned to Hades. Except for the lament over Jerusalem (Q 13:34-35) and the localization of John the Baptist’s activity in the area of the Jordan (Q 3:3), these are the only names of places which occur in Q. It is, therefore, tempting to assume that the redaction of Q took place somewhere in Galilee and that the document as a whole reflects the experience of a Galilean community of followers of Jesus. But some caution with respect to such conclusion seems advisable for several reasons. One single saying provides a very narrow base. Polemic against the Pharisees cannot confirm Galilean provenence – Greek-speaking Pharisees could be found elsewhere in the diaspora, viz., Paul who persecuted the church in Greek-speaking synagogues, probably in Syria or Cilicia. Even the sayings used for the original composition of Q were known and used elsewhere at an early date: they were known to Paul, were used in Corinth by his opponents, employed perhaps in easter Syria for the composition of the Gospel of Thomas, and quoted by 1 Clement in Rome at the end of the 1st century. The document itself, in its final redacted form, was used for the composition of two gospel writings, Matthew and Luke, which both originated in the Greek-speaking church outside of Palestine.

Udo Schnelle writes about the dating of Q (op. cit., p. 186):

The Sayings Source was composed before the destruction of the temple, since the sayings against Jerusalem and the temple in Luke 13.34-35Q do not presuppose any military events. A more precise determination of the time of composition must remain hypothetical, but a few indications point to the period between 40 and 50 CE: (1) Bearers of the sayings tradition, which possibly extends all the way back to pre-Easter times, included both wandering preachers of the Jesus movement as well as local congregations. Thus the conditions in which the Sayings Source originated included both continuity with the beginnings and with the developing congregational structures across the region. (2) The Sayings Source presupposes persection of the young congregations by Palestinian Jews (cf. Luke 6.22-23 Q; Luke 11.49-51 Q; Luke 12.4-5 Q; 12.11-12 Q). About 50 CE Paul mentions in 1 Thess. 2.14-16 a persecution of Christians in Judea that had already taken place. The execution of James the son of Zebedee by Agrippa I (cf. Acts 12.2) occurred around 44 CE. (3) The positive references to Gentiles in Q (cf. Luke 10.13-15Q; Luke 11.29-31Q; Matt. 8.5-13 Q; Matt. 5.47 Q; Matt. 22.1-10 Q) indicate that the Gentile mission had begun, which is probably to be located in the period between 40 and 50 CE.

Burton Mack writes about Mark and Q (The Lost Gospel, pp. 177-179):

The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins: Buy at amazon.com! Mark wrote his story of Jesus some time after the war and shortly after Q had been revised with the Q3 additions. If we date Q3 around 75 C.E. to give some time for the additions obviously prompted by the ware, Mark can be dated between 75 and 80 C.E. . . . For Mark, Q was extremely useful, for it had already positioned Jesus at the hinge of an epic-apocalyptic history, and it contained themes and narrative material that could easily be turned into a more eventful depiction of Jesus’ public appearance. Q provided Mark with a large number of themes essential to his narrative. He was taken with the epic-apocalyptic mythology, the theme of prophetic prediction, and the announcment of judgment upon the scribes, Pharisees, and “this generation.” The figure of the son of man intrigued him, as did the notion that the kingdom of God would be fully revealed only at the eschaton when the son of man (or Jesus, according to Mark) (re)appeared. Q also provided material that could easily be turned to advantage as building blocks in a coherent narrative account. The John-Jesus material was a great opener. The figure of the holy spirit was ready-made to connect the Q material on John and Jesus with the miracle stories Mark would use. Q’s characterization of Jesus as the all-knowing one could be used to enhance his authority as a self-referential speaker in the pronouncement stories Mark already had from his own community. The notion of Jesus as the son of God could be used to create mystique, divide the house on the question of Jesus’ true identity, and develop narrative anticipation, the device scholars call Mark’s “messianic secret.” The instruction for the workers in the harvest could be turned into a mission charge, and the theme of discipleship could be combined and given narrative profile by introducing a few disciples into the story. The apocalyptic predictions at the end of Q could then become instructions to the disciples at that point in the story where Jesus turns to go to Jerusalem. And, as scholars know, there are a myriad of interesting points at which the so-called overlaps between Mark and Q show Mark’s use of Q material for his own narrative designs.

Udo Schnelle comments on the relationship between Q and Mark (op. cit., p. 195):

The common material in Q and Mark (cf. Mark 1.2; 1.7-8; 1.12-13; 3.22-26, 27-29; 4.21, 22, 24, 25; 4.30-32; 6.7-13; 8.11, 12; 8.34-35; 8.38; 9.37, 40, 42, 50; 10.10-11; 10.31; 11.22-23; 12.37b-40; 13.9, 11, 33-37) has repeatedly led to the hypothesis of a literary dependence of Mark on Q. But if Mark had known Q, his criteria for selecting the material he used, and especially the sayings he omitted, cannot be explained. The reasons given remain hypothetical (Mark as supplement to the sayings source, Q as supplement to Mark, a critical debate by Mark with the Christology of the sayings source), and fail to make plausible the considerable differences in the literary configuration and theological orientation between Q and Mark. A direct literary connection between Mark and Q must be regarded as improbable. The text complexes they share point rather to independent access of each to old Jesus-traditions, but contacts between the two streams of tradition at the pre-redactional level are not to be excluded.

Tuckett observes (op. cit., pp. 570-571):

A much discussed feature of Q arises out of Q’s version of the mission charge. Here the Q missionaries are told to take absolutely nothing for their journey, not even the basic necessities of life such as food or clothing. Elsewhere, too, Q sayings seem to presuppose an extremely radical break with past personal ties. The Q Christians are told that they must “hate” their own families (Luke 12:46 par.); they are told that they must take up their cross (Luke 14:27 par.). They are not to worry about their daily needs (Luke 12:22-34 par.) since God will provide for them. They are to be followers of the Son of Man, who has nowhere to lay his head; and they are to break with their past in such a radical way that they are not even to go home to bury a member of their own family (Luke 9:57-60 par.). These sayings have led to the plausible theory that behind Q lies a group of Christians who obeyed these instructions to the letter. Hence Q presupposes the existence of wandering prophets or charismatics who made a radical break with their own homes and went about preaching the message of the kingdom (Hoffmann 1972; Theissen 1979). However, the presence of sayings like 10:2 par. may suggest that the final stage of Q also presupposes a group of settled Christians providing backup support for the wandering preachers (Zeller 1982, 1984).

Udo Schnelle summarises the stratification proposed by Kloppenborg (op. cit., pp. 188-189):

J. S. Kloppenborg proposes to explain the origins of Q in terms of a three-stratum model. In his view the oldest layer of Q was composed of ‘wisdom speeches,’ including the nuclear elements of the Sermon on the Plain/Mount and the Missions Discourse, as well as Luke 11.2-4, 9-13 Q; Luke 12.2-12, 22-34 Q; Luke 13.24-14.35 Q, and others. At a later stage this complex was combined with, and partly reshaped by, materials that treat the proclamation of judgment against Israel (preaching of the Baptist, the nobleman of Capernaum, the Baptist’s question, the Beelzebul controversy, the demand for signs, the Q apocalypse). The third and final stratum was provided by the temptation story, which presents Jesus as a model for one’s relationship to God.

Helmut Koester states (op. cit., p. 150):

The original version of Q must have included wisdom sayings as well as eschatological sayings. It cannot be argued that Q originally presented Jesus as a teacher of wisdom without an eschatological message. The close relationships of the Gospel of Thomas to Q cannot be accidental. Since the typical Son of man sayings and announcements of judgments which are characteristic of the redaction of Q are never paralleled in the Gospel of Thomas, it is evident that its author had no knowledge of the final version of Q, nor of the secondary apocalyptic interpretation that the redactor of Q superimposed upon earlier eschatological sayings. The Gospel of Thomas is either dependent upon Q’s earlier version or upon clusters of sayings employed in its composition.

Helmut Koester observes (op. cit., p. 159):

For the followers of Jesus whose tradition is represented in the original composition of Q, the turning point of the ages is the proclamation of Jesus. In the sayings of Jesus, his followers find the continuation of this announcement. These sayings are not only reassurance of the eschatological moment, they are also the rule of life for the community of the new age insofar as Jesus continues to speak in sayings of wisdom and in rules for the community. Jesus may indeed have been viewed as the heavenly Wisdom. This is especially evident in Q 10:21-22 which defines the relationship of Jesus to the Father in terms of the established sapiental concept of Wisdom and God. If Q 13:34-35, the lament over Jerusalem, should belong to the original composition of Q, Jesus is also the one who sends Wisdom’s envoys.

Just as the departure of Wisdom or of her envoy does not constitute a change in the urgency of the message, so too Jesus’ death would not be seen as a crisis of his proclamation. The disciples are already called to follow in the steps of Jesus, in their discipleship (Q 9:57-62) as well as in their task to carry on his proclamation (Q 10:2-12). Jesus’ departure would make this call even more urgent. The ages have already begun to turn through Jesus’ announcement. Any emphasis upon Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection would e meaningless in this context. Thus Q can not be seen as a teaching supplement for a community whose theology is represented by the Pauline kerygma. Q’s theology and soteriology are fundamentally different.

Helmut Koester states (op. cit., p. 165): “On the other hand, the Synoptic Sayings Source is an important piece of evidence for the continuation of a theology of followers of Jesus that had no relationship to the kerygma of the cross and resurrection. It is evident now that this was not an isolated phenomenon. The opponents of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-4, the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the Savior, and the opponents of the Gospel of John in the Johannine community all shared this understanding of the significance of Jesus’ coming.”

Tuckett writes (op. cit., p. 571)

Recent studies have shown how fruitful a redaction-critical approach to Q can be. At first sight such work may appear to be extremely hypothetical, being based on what some would argue is a very questionable presupposition (the very existence of Q as a single document). However, the very distinctiveness of the Q material as shown by the recent redaction-critical studies of Q is in itself an indication that this material did exist as a separate entity at some stage in the development of the synoptic tradition. Theories about the theology of Q, if successful, may therefore provide support for the hypothesis of the existence of Q. Q may also alert us to the great variety within primitive Christianity. It shows us a version of the Christian faith which is perhaps less cross centered than, say, Paul or Mark; but it is nonetheless real for that.

Archive Notes

This is a word for word quotation of Ptolemy’s letter, preserved by Epiphanius in his work Against Heresies, 33.3.1 – 33.7.10. It relates the Gnostic view of the Law of Moses, and the situation of the Demiurge relative to this law. (The translation presented here is unfortunately inferior to the fine modern translation provided by Bentley Layton in The Gnostic Scriptures.)

Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora

The Law was ordained through Moses, my dear sister Flora, has not been understood by many persons, who have accurate knowledge neither of him who ordained it nor of its commandments. I think that this will be perfectly clear to you when you have learned the contradictory opinions about it.

Some say that it is legislation given by God the Father; others, taking the contrary course, maintain stubbornly that it was ordained by the opposite, the Devil who causes destruction, just as they attribute the fashioning of the world to him, saying that he is the Father and maker of this universe. Both are completely in error; they refute each other and neither has reached the truth of the matter.

For it is evident that the Law was not ordained by the perfect God the Father, for it is secondary, being imperfect and in need of completion by another, containing commandments alien to the nature and thought of such a God.

On the other hand, one cannot impute the Law to the injustice of the opposite, God, for it is opposed to injustice. Such persons do not comprehend what was said by the Savior. For a house or city divided against itself cannot stand [Matt 12:25], declared our Savior. Furthermore, the apostle says that creation of the world is due to him, for Everything was made through him and apart from him nothing was made. [John 1:3] Thus he takes away in advance the baseless wisdom of the false accusers, and shows that the creation is not due to a God who corrupts but to the one who is just and hates evil. Only unintelligent men have this idea, men who do not recognize the providence of the creator and have blinded not only the eye of the soul but also of the body.

From what has been said, it is evident that these persons entirely miss the truth; each of the two groups has experienced this, the first because they do not know the God of justice, the second because they do not know the Father of all, who alone was revealed by him who alone came. It remainds for us who have been counted worthy of the knowledge of both these to provide you with an accurate explanation of the nature of the Law and the legislator by whom it was ordained. We shall draw the proofs of what we say from the words of the Savior, which alone can lead us without error to the comprehension of reality.

First, you must learn that the entire Law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator – I mean, not by God alone, some commandments are Moses’, and some were given by other men. The words of the Savior teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to God alone, and his legislation; the second to Moses – not in the sense that God legislates through him, but in the sense that Moses gave some legislation under the influence of his own ideas; and the third to the elders of the people, who seem to have ordained some commandments of their own at the beginning. You will now learn how the truth of this theory is proved by the words of the Savior.

In some discussion with those who dispute with the Savior about divorce, which was permitted in the Law, he said Because of your hard-heartedness Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife; from the beginning it was not so; for God made this marriage, and what the Lord joined together, man must not seperate. [Matt 19:8] In this way he shows there is a Law of God, which prohibits the divorce of a wife from a husband, and another law, that of Moses, which permits the breaking of this yoke because of hard-heartedness. In fact, Moses lays down legislation contrary to that of God; for joining is contrary to not joining.

But if we examine the intention of Moses in giving this legislation, it will be seen that he did not give it arbitrarily or of his own accord, but by the necessity because of the weakness of those for whom the legislation was given. Since they were unable to keep the intention of God, according to which it was not lawful for them to reject their wives, with whom some of them disliked to live, and therefore were in the danger of turning to greater injustice and thence to destruction, Moses wanted to remove the cause of dislike, which was placing them in jeopardy of destruction. Therefore because of the critical circumstances, choosing a lesser evil in place of a greater, he ordained, on his own accord, a second law, that of divorce, so that if they could not observe the first, they might keep this and not turn to unjust and evil actions, through which complete destruction would be the result for them. This was his intention when he gave legislation contrary to that of God. Therefore it is indisputeable that here the law of Moses is different from the Law of God, even if we have demonstrated the fact from only one example.

The Savior also makes plain the fact that there are some traditions of the elders interwoven in the Law. For God,he says, Said, Honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, But you , he says addressing the elders, …have declared as a gift to God, that by which you have nullified the Law of God through the tradition of your elders. Isaiah also proclaimed this, saying, This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, teaching precepts which are the commandments of men. [Matt 15:4-9].

Therefore it is obvious that the whole Law is divided into three parts; we find in it the legislation of Moses, of the elders, and of God himself. This division of the entire Law, as made by us, has brought to light what is true in it.

This part, the Law of God himself, is in turn divided into three parts: the pure legislation not mixed with evil, which properly called Law, which the Savior came not to destroy but to complete [Matt 5:17] — for what he completed was not alien to him but needed completion, for it did not possess perfection; next the legislation interwoven with the inferiority and injustice, which the Savior destroyed because it was alien to his nature; and finally, the legislation which is allegorical and symbolic, an image of what is spiritual and transcendent, which the Saviour transferred from the perceptible and phenomenal to the spiritual and invisible.

The Law of God, pure and not mixed with inferiority, is the Decalogue, those ten sayings engraved on two tables, forbidding things not to be done and enjoining things to be done. These contains pure but imperfect legislation and required the completion made by the Savior.

There is also the law interwoven with injustice, laid down for vengeance and the requital of previous injuries, ordaining that an eye should be cut out for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and that a murder should be avenged by a murderer. The person who is the second one to be unjust is no less unjust than the first; he simply changes the order of events while performing the same action. Admittedly, this commandment was a just one and still is just, because of the weakness of those for whom the legislation was made so thay would not transgress the pure law. But it is alien to the nature and goodness of the Father of all. No doubt it was appropiate to the circumstances, or even necessary; for he who does not want one murder comitted, saying, You shall not kill and then commanded a murder to be repaid by another murder, has given a second law which enjoins two murders although he had forbidden one. This fact proves that he was unsuspectingly the victim of necessity.

This is why, when his son came, he destroyed this part of the law while admitting that it came from God. He counts this part of the law as in the old religion, not only in other passages but also where he said, God said, He who curses father or mother shall surely die.

Finally, there is the allegorical (exemplary) part, ordained in the image of the spiritual and trascendent matters, I mean the part dealing with offerings and circumcision and the sabbath and fasting and Passover and unleavened bread and other similar matters.

Since all these things are images and symbols, when the truth was made manifest they were translated to another meaning. In their phenomenal appearance and their literal application they were destroyed, but in their spiritual meaning they were restored; the names remained the same but the content was changed. Thus the Savior commaned us to make offerings not of irrational animals or of the incense of this worldly sort, but of spiritual praise and glorification and thanksgiving and of sharing and well-doing with our neighbors. He wanted us to be circumcised, not in regard to our physical foreskin but in regard to our spiritual heart; to keep the Sabbath, for he wishes us to be idle in regard to evil works; to fast, not in physical fasting but in spiritual, in which there is abstinence from everything evil.

Among us external fasting is also observed, since it can be advantageous to the soul if it is done reasonably, not for imitating others or from habit or because of a special day appointed for this purpose. It is also observed so that those who are not yet able to keep the true fast may have a reminder of it from the external fast. Similarely, Paul the apostle shows that the Passover and the unleavened bread are images when he says, Christ our passover has been sacrificed, in order that you may be unleavened bread, not containing leaven (by leaven he here means evil), but may be a new lump. [1 Cor 5:7]

Thus the Law of God itself is obviously divided into three parts. The first was completed by the Savior, for the commandment, You shall not kill , You shall not commit adultery, you shall not swear falsely are included in the forbiding of anger, desire and swearing. The second part was entirely destroyed, for An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth interwoven in with injustice, was destroyed by the Savior through its opposite. Opposites cancel out, For I say to you, do not resist the evil man, but if anyone strikes you, turn the other cheek to him.

Finally, there is the part translated and changed from the literal to the spiritual, this symbolic legislation which is an image of transcendent things. For the images and symbols which represent other things were good as long as the Truth has not come; but since the Truth has come, we must perform the actions of the Truth, not those of the image.

The disciples of the Savior and the Apostle Paul showed that this theory is true, speaking of the part dealing with images, as we have already said, in mentioning The passover for us and the Unleavened bread; for the law interwoven with injustice when he says that the law of commandments in ordinances were destroyed [Eph 2:15]; and of that not mixed with anything inferior when he says that The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good [Rom 7:12]. I think I have shown you sufficiently, as well as one can in brief compass, the addition of human legislation in the Law and the triple division of the Law of God itself.

It remains for us to say who this God is who ordained the Law; but I think this too has been shown you in what we have already said, if you have listened to it attentively.

For if the Law was not ordained by the perfect God himself, as we have already thaught you, nor by the devil, a statement one cannot possibly make, the legislator must be some one other than these two. In fact, he is the demiurge and maker of this universe and everything in it; and because he is essentially different from these two and is between them, he is rightly given the name, intermediate.

And if the perfect God is good by nature, in fact he is, for our Savior declared that there is only a single good God, his Father whom he manifested; and if the one who is the opposite nature is evil and wicked, characterized by injustice; then the one situated between the two is neither good nor evil or unjust, but can properly be called just, since he is the arbitrator of the justice which is his.

On the one hand, this god will be inferior to the perfect God and the lower than his justice, since he is generated and not ungenerated — there is only one ungenerated Father, from whom are all things [1 Cor 8:6], since all things depend on him in their own ways. On the other hand, he will be greater and more powerful than the adversary, by nature, since he has a substance of either of them. The substance of the adversary is corruption and darkness, for he is material and complex, while the substance of the ungenerated Father of all is incorruption and self-existent light, simple and homogeneous. The substance of the latter produced a double power, while the Savior is an image of the greater one.

And now, do not let this trouble you for the present in your desire to learn how from one first principle of all, simple, and acknowledgedby us and believed by us, ungenerated and incorruptible and good, were constituted these natures of corruption and the Middle, which are different substances, although it is characteristic of the good to generate and produce things which are like itself and have the same substance.

For, if God permit, you will later learn about their origin and generation, when you are judged worthy of the apostolic tradition which we too have received by succession. We too are able to prove all our points by the teaching of the Savior.

In making these brief statements to you, my sister Flora, I have not grown weary; and while I have treated the subject with brevity, I have also discussed it sufficiencly. These points will be of great benefit to you in the future, if like fair and good ground you have received fertile seeds and go on to show forth their fruit.

Archive Notes:

Irenaeus, in his work The Detection and Overthrow of Falsely So-Called Gnosis (written c. 180, also called Adversus Heraeses or “Against Heresies”), recorded a commentary written by the Valentinian teacher Ptolemy (second century) on the Prologue to the Gospel of John (Irenaeus, Adversus Heraeses 1.8.5). In this commentary, Ptolemy interpreted the prologue of John’s gospel (John 1:1-14) as it related to the first octet of Aions, the initial “outflow” of divine emanation from the First Source. This emanational structure can be shown graphically as follows:

Parent – Loveliness
/ \
Only-Begotten – Truth
/ \
Word – Life
/ \
Human Being – Church
The full Valentinian Gnostic myth, with its many variations and psychological subtleties, is too complex a topic for this introduction. For further discussion, see the Gnostic Society Library section Valentinus and the Valentinian Tradition: Valentinian Theology. Another Gnostic text from the Johannine tradition, The Apocryphon of John, gives a cognate mythological vision of this initial series of emanation.

Ptolemy’s Commentary On The Gospel of John Prologue

Translation by Bentley Layton

John, the disciple of the Lord, intentionally spoke of the origination of the entirety, by which the Father emitted all things. And he assumes that the First Being engendered by God is a kind of beginning; he has called it “Son” and “Only-Begotten God.” In this (the Only-Begotten) the Father emitted all things in a process involving posterity. By this (Son), he says, was emitted the Word, in which was the entire essence of the aions that the Word later personally formed.

Now since he is speaking of the first origination, he does well to begin the teaching at the beginning, i.e with the Son and the Word. He speaks as follows: “The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning, with God.” [Jn 1:1] First, he distinguishes three things: God; beginning; Word. Then he unites them: this is to show forth both the emanation of the latter two, i.e. the Son and the Word, and their union with one another, and simultaneously with the Father. For the beginning was in the Father and from the Father; and the Word was in the beginning and from the beginning. Well did he say, “The Word was in the beginning”, for it was in the Son. “And the Word was with God.” So was the beginning. “And the word was God”; reasonably so, for what is engendered from God is God. This shows the order of emanation. “The entirety was made through it, and without it was not anything made.” [Jn 1:3] For the Word became the cause of the forming and origination of all the aions that came after it.

But furthermore (he says), “That which came into being in it was Life.”[Jn 1:4] Here he discloses a pair. For he says that the entirety came into being through it, but Life is in it. Now, that which came into being in it more intimately belongs to it than what came into being through it: it is joined with it and through it it bears fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as he adds, “and Life was the light of human beings”, [Jn 1:4] in speaking of human beings he has now disclosed also the Church by means of a synonym, so that with a single word he might disclose the partnership of the pair. For from the Word and Life, the Human Being and the Church came into being. And he called Life the light of human beings because they are enlightened by her, i.e. formed and made visible. Paul, too, says this: “For anything that becomes visible is light.” [Eph 5:13] So since Life made the Human Being and the Church visible and engendered them, she is said to be their light.

Now among other things, John plainly made clear the second quartet, i.e. the Word; Life; the Human Being; the Church.

But what is more, he also disclosed the first quartet. describing the Savior, now, and saying that all things outside the Fullness were formed by him, he says that he is the fruit of the entire fullness. For he calls him a light that “shines in the darkness” [Jn 1:5] and was not overcome by it, inasmuch as after he had fitted together all things that had derived from the passion they did not become acquainted with him. And he calls him Son, Truth, Life, and Word become flesh. We have beheld the latter’s glory, he says. And its glory was like that of the Only- Begotten, which was bestowed on him by the Father, “full of grace and truth”. [Jn 1:14] And he speaks as follows: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; we have beheld its glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father.” [Jn 1:14] So he precisely discloses also the first quartet when he speaks of the Father; Grace; the Only-Begotten; Truth. Thus did John speak of the first octet, the mother of the entirety of aions. For he referred to the Father; Grace; the Only-Begotten; Truth; the Word; Life; the Human Being; the Church.

Estimated Range of Dating: 140-160 A.D.

Chronological List of Early Christian Writings
Online Text for Fragments of Ptolemy

Ptolemy’s Commentary on the Prologue of John
Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora
Online Resources for Fragments of Ptolemy

Catholic Encyclopedia: Ptolemy the Gnostic
Offline Resources for Fragments of Ptolemy

Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings
Information on Fragments of Ptolemy

In the preface to his work, Irenaeus states: “I intend, then, to the best of my ability, with brevity and clearness to set forth the opinions of those who are now promulgating heresy. I refer especially to the disciples of Ptolemaeus, whose school may be described as a bud from that of Valentinus.”

Here is Irenaeus in Against Heresies 1.8.5.

Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,-that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. By him the Word was produced, and in him the whole substance of the Aeons, to which the Word himself afterwards imparted form. Since, therefore, he treats of the first origin of things, he rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. And he expresses himself thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.” [John 1:1-2] Having first of all distinguished these three-God, the Beginning, and the Word-he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For “the beginning” is in the Father, and of the Father, while “the Word” is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God”-this clause discloses the order of production. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;” [John 1:3] for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Aeons that came into existence after Him. But “what was made in Him,” says John, “is life.” [John 1:3-4] Here again he indicated conjunction; for all things, he said, were made by Him, but in Him was life. This, then, which is in Him, is more closely connected with Him than those things which were simply made by Him, for it exists along with Him, and is developed by Him. When, again, he adds, “And the life was the light of men,” while thus mentioning Anthropos, he indicated also Ecclesia by that one expression, in order that, by using only one name, he might disclose their fellowship with one another, in virtue of their conjunction. For Anthropos and Ecclesia spring from Logos and Zoe. Moreover, he styled life (Zoe) the light of men, because they are enlightened by her, that is, formed and made manifest. This also Paul declares in these words: “For whatsoever doth make manifest is light.” [Eph. 5:13] Since, therefore, Zoe manifested and begat both Anthropos and Ecclesia, she is termed their light. Thus, then, did John by these words reveal both other things and the second Tetrad, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. And still further, he also indicated the first Tetrad. For, in discoursing of the Saviour and declaring that all things beyond the Pleroma received form from Him, he says that He is the fruit of the entire Pleroma. For he styles Him a “light which shineth in darkness, and which was not comprehended” [John 1:5] by it, inasmuch as, when He imparted form to all those things which had their origin from passion, He was not known by it. He also styles Him Son, and Aletheia, and Zoe, and the “Word made flesh, whose glory,” he says, “we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten (given to Him by the Father), full of grace and truth.” [compare John 1:14] (But what John really does say is this: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”) Thus, then, does he [according to them] distinctly set forth the first Tetrad, when he speaks of the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia. In this way, too, does John tell of the first Ogdoad, and that which is the mother of all the Aeons. For he mentions the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia. Such are the views of Ptolemaeus.

Irenaeus also refers to the views of Ptolemy in Against Heresies 1.12.

1. But the followers of Ptolemy say that he [Bythos] has two consorts, which they also name Diatheses (affections), viz., Ennoae and Thelesis. For, as they affirm, he first conceived the thought of producing something, and then willed to that effect. Wherefore, again, these two affections, or powers, Ennoea and Thelesis, having intercourse, as it were, between themselves, the production of Monogenes and Aletheia took place according to conjunction. These two came forth as types and images of the two affections of the Father,-visible representations of those that were invisible,-Nous (i.e., Monogenes) of Thelesis, and Aletheia of Ennoea, and accordingly the image resulting from Thelesis was masculine, while that from Ennoea was feminine. Thus Thelesis (will) became, as it were, a faculty of Ennœa (thought). For Ennoea continually yearned after offspring; but she could not of herself bring forth that which she desired. But when the power of Thelesis (the faculty of will) came upon her, then she brought forth that on which she had brooded. 2. These fancied beings (like the Jove of Homer, who is represented as passing an anxious sleepless night in devising plans for honouring Achilles and destroying numbers of the Greeks) will not appear to you, my dear friend, to be possessed of greater knowledge than He who is the God of the universe. He, as soon as He thinks, also performs what He has willed; and as soon as He wills, also thinks that which He has willed; then thinking when He wills, and then willing when He thinks, since He is all thought, [all will, all mind, all light, ]155 all eye, all ear, the one entire fountain of all good things. 3. Those of them, however, who are deemed more skilful than the persons who have just been mentioned, say that the first Ogdoad was not produced gradually, so that one Aeon was sent forth by another, but that all the Aeons were brought into existence at once by Propator and his Ennoea. He (Colorbasus) affirms this as confidently as if he had assisted at their birth.Accordingly, he and his followers maintain that Anthropos and Ecclesia were not produced, as others hold, from Logos and Zoe; but, on the contrary, Logos and Zoe from Anthropos and Ecclesia. But they express this in another form, as follows: When the Propator conceived the thought of producing something, he received the name of Father. But because what he did produce was true, it was named Aletheia. Again, when he wished to reveal himself, this was termed Anthropos. Finally, when he produced those whom he had previously thought of, these were named Ecclesia. Anthropos, by speaking, formed Logos: this is the first-born son. But Zoe followed upon Logos; and thus the first Ogdoad was completed. 4. They have much contention also among themselves respecting the Saviour. For some maintain that he was formed out of all; wherefore also he was called Eudocetos, because the whole Pleroma was well pleased through him to glorify the Father. But others assert that he was produced from those ten Aeons alone who sprung from Logos and Zoe, and that on this account he was called Logos and Zoe, thus preserving the ancestral names. Others, again, affirm that he had his being from those twelve Aeons who were the offspring of Anthropos and Ecclesia; and on this account he acknowledges himself the Son of man, as being a descendant of Anthropos. Others still, assert that he was produced by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who were brought forth for the security of the Pleroma; and that on this account he was called Christ, thus preserving the appellation of the Father, by whom he was produced. And there are yet others among them who declare that the Propator of the whole, Proarche, and Proanennoetos is called Anthropos; and that this is the great and abstruse mystery, namely, that the Power which is above all others, and contains all in his embrace, is termed Anthropos; hence does the Saviour style himself the “Son of man.”

In the Qumran commentaries on the Psalter, the Teacher of Righteousness, the Wicked Priest, and the Man of the Lie are on center stage (see the Introduction for an initial discussion of these figures). The largest surviving fragments of 4Q171 preserve a running commentary on Psalm 37, which deals with the necessity of the righteous to keep faith in God despite the apparent successes of the wicked. God will ensure that both righteous and wicked get their due: for the righteous, a reward for their faithfulness; for the wicked, punishment.

The Yahad members and their leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, represent the righteous of the psalms, while their enemies, the Wicked Priest and the Man of the Lie, who have persecuted them, represent the wicked. The psalm and its attendant commentary are shot through with a passionate desire to see the injustices of the world put right, tempered with a recognition that patience is required for the suffering that is inevitable while waiting for God to act. These commentaries, then, have an eschatological fervor that the more historical commentaries, such as text 4 (A Commentaries on Habakkuk) and text 21 (A Commentary on Nabum) only occasionally display.

The righteous, who belong to the sect, must endure suffering, but may expect that a final judgment will set all accounts right.

4Q171 Frags. 1-2 Col. 1 20[“He will make your innocence shine like the light and your justice like noonday” (37:6). [ . . . ] the will of 22[ . . . ] lunatics have chosen 23[ . . . ] those who love dissolution and lead astray 24[ . . . ] wickedness through the power of [God].
25[“Be] silent before [the LORD and] wait for him, and do not be jealous of the successful man 26who does wicked deeds” (37:7).

[This refers] to the Man of the Iie who led many people astray with deceitful 27statements, because they had chosen trivial matters but did not listen to the spokesmen for true knowledge, so that Col. 2 1they will perish by sword, famine, and pestilence.
“Renounce your anger and abandon your resentment, don’t 2yearn to do evil, because evildoers will be wiped out” (37:8-9a).

This refers to all who return 3to the Law and do not hesitate to repent of their sin, because all who refuse 4to repent of their faults will be wipecl out.
“But those who trust in the LORD are the ones who will inherit the earth” (37 9b).
This refers Sto the company of His chosen, those who do His will.

The sect’s eschatological timetable allowed that there would beforty yearsfrom the time of their Teacher’s death to the final eschatological showdown between Good and Evil.

“Very soon there will be no wicked man; 6look where he was, he’s not there” (37:10).
This refers to all of the wicked at the end of 7the forty years. When they are completed, there will no longer be any wicked person 8on the earth.
“Then the meek will inherit the earth and enjoy all the abundance that peace brings” (37:11).
This refers to 9the company of the poor who endure the time of error but are delivered from all the snares of “Belial. Afterwards they will enjoy all the [ . . . ] of the earth and grow fat on every 11human luxury].

The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes [his teeth against him. But the LO]RD laughs at him; for he knows l3his day is coming” (37:12-13).

This refers to the cruel Israelites in the house ofJudah who ‘4plot to destroy those who obey the Law who are in the society of the Yahad. But God will not leave them in their power.

Ephraim and Manasseh are already present as code names in the Commenta~ry on Nahum. They represerlt the religio-politicalfactions that side with the sect’s enemies. The reference to “the Priest” is obscureÑis he the same as the Teacher of Righteousness or a dfferent leader?

“The wicked have drawn a sword, they have bent their bows, to strike down the poor and needy, to slaughter those who live honestly. May their sword pierce themselves, may their bows break!” (37:14-15).

This refers to the wicked of”Ephraim and Manasseh,” who will try to do away ‘8with the Priest and the members of his party during the time of trial that is coming upon them. But God will save them ‘9from;1 their power and afterwards hand them over to the wicked Gentiles for judgment.
Better is the little the righteous man has than the great abundance of the wicked” (37:16).

[ . . . This refers to] 22the one who obeys the Law who does not [. . .]
23for wicked things, for “the arms [of the wicked will be broken, but supporting the righteous] 24is the LORD” (37:17).

[“The LORD cares about the life of the pure; what belongs to them will last forever” (37: 18)
.] [This~refers to those with whom] 2sHe is pleased [ . . . ]

“Returning from the wilderness” may mean that some of the sect were in exile but would return at the Last Days.

26 “They [will no]t be put to shame in [an evil time”] (37:19a).

[This refers to] Col. 3 the ones who return from the wilderness, who will live a thousand generations in virtue. To them and their descendants belongs all the heritage of 2Adam for ever.
“In a time of famine, they wil1 have plenty, but the wicked will perish” (37:19b-20a).
This means that He will sustain them in famine during the time of e[rro]r, but many 4will perish from famine and pestilence, all who did not go forth [ . . . ] to jo[in] the company of His chosen.

Those who love the LORD are as magnificent as rams” (37:20b).

This refers to [the company of His chosen] who shall be leaders and princes, [like leaders ofl 6sheep among their flocks.

Al1 shall vanish like smoke (37:20c)

This refers to the wicked princes who oppressed His holy people, and who shall scatter like smoke that dissipates in the wind.

Control over the Temple Mount and the sacrifices made at the Temple was an important ambition of the Qumran group.

“The wicked borrow and do not repay; 9but the righteous give generously, for those whom (]od blesses will inherit the earth, but: those whom He curses will be exterminated” (37:21-22).
This refers to the company of the poor, w[ho will ge]t the possessions -of all [ . . . ], who will inherit the lofty mount of Is[rael and] enjoy His holy mount. [“Those whom He curses] I will be exterminated”: these are the cruel Jews, the w]icked of Israel who will be exterminated and destroyed forever.

[“A man’s path] is ordained by the LORD; he delights in all His ways. If he stu[mbles, he shall not] fall, because the L[ORD holds his hand”] (37:23-24).
This refers to the priest, the Teacher of R[ighteousness, whom] l6God [ch]ose to be His servant [and] ordained him to form Him a company [ . . . ] 7[his] way He smoothed for the truth.
[“I have been young], and now I am old, but I have not [seen a righteous man] 18abandoned and his children be~gging food. [Al1 the time] he is lending generously, and his chil[dren are blessed”] (37:25-26).

19[This] refers to the Teacher of [Righteousness . . . ]

Col. 4 “. . . judg[ment, and will not forsake his devotees. For]ever they are protected. But the descendants of the w[icked will be exterminated”] (37g.28).

[This refers to] the cruel 2[Israelites . . . ] the Law.

“The righteo[us will inherit the earth and dwell for]ever on it” (37:29).

[This refers to . . . ] for a thousand~[generations].

3[“The righteous man utters] wisdom, his tongue speaks 4[justice, in lhis heart is God’s Law: that’s why his steps are sure” (37:30-31).

This refers to] the truth that the [Teacher] spoke 5[ . . . ] he declared it to them.

The wording of the following comment implies that the Teacher was in danger from the Wicked Priest, but still alive, at the time of composition. The writer is confident that the Teacher will live through this time of trial. The mention of the “Law that the Teacher sent to the Priest” is intriguing, and scholars have suggested that this “Law” may 6e text 84, A Sectarian Manifesto, or text 131, The Temple Scroll.

“The wicked man observes the righteous man and seeks [to kill him. But the LO]RD [Wi11 not leave him in his power and will not co]ndemn hlm when he comes to trial” (37:32-33).

This refers to the wicked [Pri]est who ob[serv]es the [Teach]er of Righteous[ness and seeks] to kill him [ . . . ] and the Law 9that he sent to him, but God will not le[ave him in his power] and will not [condemn him when] he comes to trial. But to the [wicked God will give] his just [de]serts, by putting him into the power of the cruel Gentiles to do with him [what they want].

[“Look to the L]ORD and obey his rules; then He will honor you so that you will inherit the earth. You will look on] while the wicked are: exterminated” (37:34).

[This refers to . . . ] who will see judgement passed on the wicked with [the company of] His chosen they will rejoicw in a sure heritage [forever].
l3[“I once saw a wicked man, cruel and stretched [out like a stately tree. But] when I passed by his home again, he was gone. I [looked for him] lbut he was l4[nowhere to be found”] (37:35-36).

[This refers to] the Man of the Lie, [who . . . ] against God’s chosen~people [and sought to put an end to [ . . . ] 15[ . . . ] judgment [ . . . ] he defiantly presumed 16[ . . . ]

[“Take note of the pure, observe] the honest, [for there is a future for the man] of peace” (37:37).

This refers to [ . . . ] 17[ . . . ] of peace.

“Sinners i8perish as one, and the future [of the wicked will be cut short”] (37:38).

[This refers to . . . ] they will perish and be exterminated 19from the company of the Yahad.

“The [deliverance of the righteous is the LORD’S work; He is their stronghold in time of trouble. The LORD helps them and] 20rescues them and saves them from the wicked [and delivers them because they trusted in Him”] (37:9-40).

[This refers to . . . ] God will deliver them and save them from the power of the wi[cked . . . ]

Since the commentary on Psalm 45 comes immediately after that on Psalm 37, it is evident that the writer did not attempt to comment on every verse of the Psalter.

23″To the choirmaster, on [Shosan]im. [For the sons of Korah, a wisdom psalm, a song of love . . . “] (45: heading).

[This refers to . . . t]hhey are the seven divisions of 24the captivity of Is[rael . . . ]

My heart is [astir] with a good message: [I address my poem to: the king”] (45:1a).

[This refers to . . . ho]ly soirit, for[ . . . ] books of [ . . . ]

“My tongue is the pen of 27[an adept scribe”] (45:1b).

[This refers to] the Teacher of [Righteousness . J! ] God [gave] with an eloquent tongue [ . . . ]

Frag. 13 3″God spoke [in His holiness, I will joyfully divide Shechem] 4[and the valley of Succ]oth I will measure. [Gilead is mine, Manasseh is mine, Ephraim is my chief fortress”] (60:6-7).

[This refers to Gile]ad and the half-tribe [of Manasseh . . . ] 6they shall be gathered [ . . . ]

4Q173 Frag. 1 2[“. . . vain] for you [to get up early, stay up late, eat your meals in worry, for truly] 3[He gives his friends sleep”] (127:2).

[This refers to those] who seek [ . . . ] 4[ . . . secr]et things to the Teacher of Righteousness [ . . . ]
5[the pr]iest for the ti[me] to come [ . . . ]

7[“Now children are a perpetual gift from the LORD”] (127:3).

[This refers to] those who inherit the possessions [ . . . ]

A very fragmentary interpretation of Psalms was found in Cave 1. The few legible pieces speak, like the HabakFuk interpretation, of the “Kittim.”

lQ16 Frag. 3 2[ . . . ] they had recognized [ . . . ] 3[ . . . ] “Kings of great armies flee, [flee away; even the housewife shares the spoil” (68:12).]

[This refers to]J[ . . .3 the beauty of [ . . .3 5[ . . . ] who will share [ . . . ]

Frag. 8 2[ . . . ~`In the midst maidens beating tambour]ines; in assemblies bless God” (68:25-26).

3[This refers to . . . ] the convocation to bless the Name [ . . . ]

Frag. 9 [“From Your temple overlooking Jerusalem, kings bring You] tribute” (68:29).

This refers to all the rul[ers ofl 2[the Kittim . . . ] before him in Jerusalem.

“You have rebuked [the swamp beast,] that herd of bulls, the Gentile heifers; he tramples on bars ofl silver” (68:30).
The “swamp beast” refers to 4[ . . . the] Kittim [ . . . ]