Chapter XXX.—Valentinus’ Explanation of the Birth of Jesus; Twofold Doctrine on the Nature of Jesus’ Body; Opinion of the Italians, that Is, Heracleon and Ptolemæus; Opinion of the Orientals, that Is, Axionicus and Bardesanes.

All the prophets, therefore, and the law, spoke by means of the Demiurge,—a silly god,688    Epiphanius, Hær., xxxi. 22. he says, (and themselves) fools, who knew nothing. On account of this, he says, the Saviour observes:  “All that came before me are thieves and robbers.”689    John x. 8. And the apostle (uses these words): “The mystery which was not made known to former generations.”690    Col. i. 26. For none of the prophets, he says, said anything concerning the things of which we speak; for (a prophet) could not but be ignorant of all (these) things, inasmuch as they certainly had been uttered by the Demiurge only. When, therefore, the creation received completion, and when after (this) there ought to have been the revelation of the sons of God—that is, of the Demiurge, which up to this had been concealed, and in which obscurity the natural man was hid, and had a veil upon the heart;—when (it was time), then, that the veil should be taken away, and that these mysteries should be seen, Jesus was born of Mary the virgin, according to the declaration (in Scripture), “The Holy Ghost will come upon thee”—Sophia is the Spirit—“and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee”—the Highest is the Demiurge,—“wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy.”691    Luke i. 35. For he has been generated not from the highest alone, as those created in (the likeness of) Adam have been created from the highest alone—that is, (from) Sophia and the Demiurge. Jesus, however, the new man, (has been generated) from the Holy Spirit—that is, Sophia and the Demiurge—in order that the Demiurge may complete the conformation and constitution of his body, and that the Holy Spirit may supply his essence, and that a celestial Logos may proceed from the Ogdoad being born of Mary.

Concerning this (Logos) they have a great question amongst them—an occasion both of divisions and dissension.  And hence the doctrine of these has become divided: and one doctrine, according to them, is termed Oriental, and the other Italian. They from Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemæus, say that the body of Jesus was (an) animal (one).  And on account of this, (they maintain) that at his baptism the Holy Spirit as a dove came down—that is, the Logos of the mother above, (I mean Sophia)—and became (a voice) to the animal (man), and raised him from the dead. This, he says, is what has been declared: “He who raised Christ from the dead will also quicken your mortal and natural bodies.”692    Rom. viii. 11, 12. For loam has come under a curse; “for,” says he, “dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”693    Gen. iii. 19. The Orientals, on the other hand, of whom is Axionicus694    Axionicus is mentioned by Tertullian only (see Tertullian, Contr. Valent., c. iv; [vol. iii. p. 505, this series]). and Bardesianes,695    Bardesianes (or Ardesianes, as Miller’s text has it) is evidently the same with Bardesanes, mentioned by Eusebius and St. Jerome. assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual; for there came upon Mary the Holy Spirit—that is, Sophia and the power of the highest. This is the creative art, (and was vouchsafed) in order that what was given to Mary by the Spirit might be fashioned.

[35] Πάντες οὖν οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ νόμος ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, μωροῦ, λέγει, θεοῦ, μωροὶ οὐδὲν εἰδότες. διὰ τοῦτο, φησί, λέγει ὁ σωτήρ: «πάντες οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἐληλυθότες κλέπται καὶ λῃσταί εἰσι», καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος: «τὸ μυστήριον», «ὃ ταῖς προτέραις γενεαῖς οὐκ ἐγνωρίσθη». οὐδεὶς γάρ, φησί, τῶν προφητῶν εἴρηκε περὶ τούτων οὐδέν, ὧν ἡμεῖς λέγομεν: ἠγνοεῖτο γὰρ πάντα, ἅτε δὴ ἀπὸ μόνου τοῦ δημιουργοῦ λελαλημένα. Ὅτε οὖν τέλος ἔλαβεν ἡ κτίσις, [φησί,] καὶ ἔδει λοιπὸν γενέσθαι «τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶ(ν) υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ»_τουτέστι τοῦ δημιουργοῦ_, [καὶ ἀνακαλύψαι τὴν πνευματικὴν οὐσίαν,] τὴν ἐγκεκαλυμμένην, ἥν, φησίν, ἐγκεκάλυπτο ὁ ψ(υ)χ(ι)κὸς ἄνθρωπος καὶ εἶχε «κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὴν κα(ρ)δί(αν) [αὐτοῦ]»: ὁπότε οὖν ἔδει ἀρθῆναι τὸ κάλυμ[μ]α καὶ ὀφθῆναι ταῦτα τὰ μυστήρια, γεγέν[ν]ηται ὁ Ἰησοῦς διὰ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον: «πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ»_ πνεῦμα [δ'] ἔστιν ἡ Σοφία_, «καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι»_ ὕψιστος [δ'] ἔστιν ὁ δημιουργός: _«διὸ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται». γεγέν[ν]ηται γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ ὑψίστου μόνου, ὥσπερ οἱ κατὰ τὸν Ἀδὰμ κτισθέντες [ἄνθρωποι] ἀπὸ μόνου ἐκτίσθησαν τοῦ ὑψίστου_ τουτέστι [τῆς Σοφίας καὶ] τοῦ δημιουργοῦ: _ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς, «ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος», [ὁ] ἀπὸ Πνεύματος ἁγίου [καὶ τοῦ ὑψίστου]_τουτέστι τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ_, ἵνα τὴν μὲν πλάσιν καὶ κατασκευὴν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὁ δημιουργὸς καταρτίσῃ, τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα παράσχῃ τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ γένηται λόγος ἐπουράνιος ἀπὸ τῆς Ὀγδοάδος, γεν[ν]ηθεὶς διὰ Μαρίας. Περὶ τούτου [οὖν] ζήτησις μεγάλη ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς καὶ σχισμάτων καὶ διαφορᾶς ἀφορμή: καὶ γέγονεν ἐντεῦθεν ἡ διδασκαλία αὐτῶν διῃρημένη, καὶ καλεῖται ἡ μὲν ἀνατολική τις διδασκαλία κατ' αὐτούς, ἡ δὲ Ἰταλιωτική. οἱ μὲν [οὖν] ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας, ὧν ἐστιν Ἡρακλέων καὶ Πτολεμαῖος, ψυχικόν φασι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ βαπτίσματος τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰ κατελήλυθε_ τουτέστιν ὁ λόγος ὁ τῆς μητρὸς ἄνωθεν, τῆς Σοφίας_, καὶ γέγωνε τῷ ψυχικῷ καὶ ἐγήγερκεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. τοῦτό ἐστι, φησί, τὸ εἰρημένον: «ὁ ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζωοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν», [τουτέστι] [καὶ] τὰ ψυχικά, [οὐ καὶ τὰ χοϊκά]. ὁ χοῦς γὰρ «ὑπὸ κατάραν» ἐλήλυθε: «γῆ γάρ», φησίν, «εἶ κ(αὶ εἰς γ)ῆν ἀπελεύσῃ». οἱ δ' αὖ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς λέγουσιν, ὧν ἐστιν Ἀξιόνι(κο)ς καὶ [Β]αρδησιάνης, ὅτι πνευματικὸν ἦν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ σωτῆρος: Πνεῦμα γὰρ ἅγιον ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν Μαρίαν_τουτέστιν ἡ Σοφία_καὶ «ἡ δύναμις τοῦ ὑψίστου»_ [τουτέστιν] ἡ δημιουργικὴ τέχνη_, ἵ[ν]α διαπλασθῇ τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος τῇ Μαρίᾳ δοθέν.