¹ The classic study remains that of Marmorstein, A., The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God (London: Oxford University, 1927).Google Scholar For a modern theological assessment of rabbinic anthropomorphism, see Rosenzweig, F., Kleinere Schriften (Berlin: Schocken, 1937) 531.Google Scholar

² See the material collected by Festugière, A.-J., Corpus Hermeticum I (3d ed.; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972)Google Scholar traité X, Appendice A, 137–38. Cf. the demonstration of the antiquity of these conceptions by Broek, R. van den, “The Sarapis Oracle in Macrobius, Sat. I, 20, 16–17,” in de Boer, M. B. and Edridge, T. A., eds., Hommages a Maarten J. Vermaseren (EPRO 68; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 1. 123–41.Google Scholar

³ See my “The Incorporeality of God: Context and Implications of Origen's Position,” Religion 13 (1983).Google Scholar

⁴ See Attridge, H. W., “The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire,” ANRW 16:2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980) 45–78.Google Scholar

⁵ For a typical view, see Augustine Episi. 148 (PL 33, 622 B). On the early Patristic exegesis of Gen 1:26, See Wilson, R. McL., “The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen. 1.26,” StPatr I; (TU 63; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957) 420–37.Google Scholar

⁶ For a general statement of the problem, see Prestige, G. L., God in Patristic Thought (2d ed.; London: SPCK, 1950)Google Scholar chap. 1. The most notorious exceptions to the prevalent belief in God's incorporeality are, on the one hand, Tertullian's view, based on the Stoic conception that there can be no incorporeal being (see, e.g., Adv. Prax. 7) and, on the other, the Audians and the Anthropomorphist monks of the Egyptian desert, who insisted on a literal reading of Gen 1:26. See H.-C. Puech, “Audianer,” RAC 1, 910–15, and Guillaumont, A., Les ‘Kephalaia Gnostica’ d'Evagre le Pontique et l'histoire de l'Origénisme chez les Grecs et les Syriens (Patristica Sorbonensia 5; Paris: Le Seuil, 1962) 59ff.Google Scholar On the link between corporalist conceptions of God and of the soul, see Fortin, E. L., Christianisme et culture philosophique au Ve siècle: la querelle de l'âme humaine en Occident (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1959) 60–64.Google Scholar The affirmation (traditional from Origen to Bardenhewer) of Melito of Sardis’ anthropomorphism is unfounded; cf. Perler, O, ed., trans., Méliton, Sur la Pâque (SC 123; Paris: Cerf, 1966) 13 and n. 1.Google Scholar

⁷ For Philo's rejection of anthropomorphism and his immaterial conception of God, see, e.g., Op. mund. 69 and Vit. Mos. 1.158. In the second century C.e. Numenius still testifies that Jews consider God to be incorporeal (Origen C. Cels. 1.15; SC 132. 116 Borret).

⁸ Dial. 114; Justin refers to anthropomorphic interpretations of Ps 8:4.

⁹ In Gen. hom. 1.13 (GCS 6. 15–17) and ibid. 3.1 (6. 39).

¹⁰ See, e.g., Lange, N. De, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in the Third Century (Cambridge Oriental Publications 25; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1976) 44.Google Scholar Cf. my “The Hidden Closeness: on the Church Fathers and Judaism,” Meḥqarei Yerushalaim bemaḥshevet Yisrael 2 (1982) 170–75 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

¹¹ Basil of Caesarea Hom. de hominis struc. 1.5 (SC 160. 176–78).

¹² Adv. nationes 3.12 (CSEL 4. 119–20).

¹³ See “Le couple de l'Ange et de l'Esprit: traditions juives et chrétiennes,” RB 88 (1981) 42–61.Google Scholar

¹⁴ It should be noted that the same ambiguous use of the “form” or “forms” of God is also found in Medieval Jewish texts. For instance, in the Sefer ha-Bahir (the very first writing of Medieval Kabbalah, which first appears in late twelfth-century Provence, but no doubt retains many earlier traditions), the “Holy Forms” (ha-ṣurot ha qedoshot) refer sometimes to the angels, and sometimes to the manifestations of God himself in the members of Primordial Man. See Scholem, G., Les Origines de la Kabbale (Paris: Aubier, 1966) 64Google Scholar n. 10. One of the central symbols developed in the Sefer ha-Bahir and in later kabbalistic literature, the Cosmic Tree, can also be found in Gnostic teachings, as Welburn, A. J. has pointed out: “The Identity of the Archons in the ‘Apocryphon Johannis,’” VC 32 (1978) 245–46.Google Scholar Related, no doubt, to the same ancient speculations is Sa'adia Gaon's notion of “Created Glory,” superior to the angels, supreme revelation of God and the figure seen by the prophets in their visions. This “Created Glory” (ha-kavod ha nivra) is said to have “a human form.” See Altmann's, A. discussion, “Saadya's Theory of Revelation: its Origin and Background,” in Studies in Religious Philosophy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1969) 140–60, esp. 157.Google Scholar

Similarly, R. Judah ben Barzilai (eleventh century) states that when R. Ismael had seen one of the forms of the primordial light, he had in fact seen the angel Akhatriel; see Halberstam, Sh., ed., Judah, R. b. Barzilai, , Perush Sefer Yeṣirah (Jerusalem: Maqor Reprints, 1971) 20–21.Google Scholar On Akhatriel, cf. Scholem, , Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (2d ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965) 43–55.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See, e.g., the bibliographical references given by Behm, B., “μορϕή,” TDNT 4 (1967) 742–59Google Scholar, esp. 746–48. Cf. Reitzenstein's analysis of the notion in Hellenistic mysteries and magic: the essence of the god is known through his name and his form(s), which thus “almost reach an independent existence of [their] own” (Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen [2d ed.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1926] 357–58).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Schoedel, W., “Topological Theology and Some Monistic Tendencies in Gnosticism,” in Krause, M., ed., Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Böhlig (NHS 3; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 107.Google Scholar

¹⁷ These were mainly studied by Dodd, C. H., The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935) 99–209.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See. Pearson, B. A., “Jewish Elements in Corpus Hermeticum I (Poimandres),” in van de Broek, R. and Vermaseren, M. J., eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, presented to G. Quispel (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 336–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Scholem refers to the two expressions in Vaillant's translation of 2 Enoch: “l'étendue de mon corps” and “l'étendue du Seigneur” (19.11, 12–13; 39 Vaillant). See his Elements of the Kabbalah and its Symbolism (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1977) 165Google Scholar (in Hebrew). The expression itself, denoting a tall structure, is also found in Ps. 151a from Qumran, as S. Talmon has convincingly argued. See Sanders, J. A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11 QPs^a) (DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) 55Google Scholar, 11. 8–10, and Talmon, S., “Apocryphal Hebrew Psalms from Qumrān,” Tarbiz 35 (1966) 223–24 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

²⁰ Corp. Herm. 1.12 (1. 10 Nock-Festugière). For an analysis of the figure of Anthropos and its place in the mythical structure between Nous and the earthly man, see Schenke, H.-M., Der Gott-‘Mensch’ in der Gnosis: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Diskussion über die paulinische Anschauung von der Kirche als Leib Christi (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962)Google Scholar chap. 5. Schenke distinguishes between two types of Gnostic conceptions of the God-Man; in the first one, mainly represented by the Apocryphon of John, the earthly Adam is the direct image of the God-”Man”; the other type, to which the Poimandres belongs, adds an intermediary figure, and implies a jewish allegorical exegesis of Gen 1:26 as its basis.

²¹ Corp. Herm. 1.14 (1. 11).

²² ibid.

²³ See n. 73 below.

²⁴ Corp. Herm. 12.15 (1. 180). Cf. Asclepius 31 (Corp. Herm. 2. 339): “huius dei imago hie effectus est mundus,” or ibid. 8 (2. 308): “dei, cuius imagines duae mundus et homo.”

²⁵ Ps. Anthimus 14–15 (Corp. Herm. 4. 143–44).

²⁶ CG II, 14:20–24; text in Krause, M. and Labib, P., Die drei Versionen des Apocryphon des Johannes (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962) 149Google Scholar. For a provisional translation of the new Gnostic texts, see Robinson, J. M., ed., The Nag Hammadi Library (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977).Google Scholar

²⁷ CG II, 87:11–33. I use the following edition: Layton, B., “The Hypostasis of the Archons,” HTR 67 (1974) 351–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “The Hypostasis of the Archons (Conclusion),” HTR 69 (1976) 31–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In one of the earliest stages of Gnostic thought, this image of God reflected in the water is explicitly identified with God's Spirit (Gen 1:2); see the Megale Apophasis attributed to Simon Magus, in Hippolytus Refut. 6.14.5f. (139–40 Wendland).

²⁸ CG II, 103:28–30. Text in Böhlig, A. and Labib, P., Die koptisch-gnostische Schrift ohne Titel aus Codex II von Nag Hammadi (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962) 48.Google Scholar

²⁹ CG III, 76:19–24.

³⁰ Adv. haer. 1.29.3 (1. 224 Harvey).

³¹ CG VIII, 13:7–11. See also the Paraphrase of Shem, where Derdekeas (cf. Aramaic dardaka', “youth”), who is the son of the incorruptible and infinite light, reveals the “hidden form” of God (CG VII, 8:4–25). Cf. Allogenes, where the aeon Barbelo is called “the image of the Hidden One” (CG XI, 51.11–17). On Jewish mythological conceptions of the first Adam and his cosmic dimensions, see Urbach, E. E., The Sages (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975)Google Scholar chap. 10; cf. Bare, B., “La taille cosmique d'Adam dans la littérature juive rabbinique des trois premiers siècles après J.-C,” RechSR 49 (1975) 173–85Google Scholar, where the relevant texts are translated. Barc's late dating for these teachings (end of the third century), however, remains unconvincing. In the Nag Hammadi texts, the figure of Geradamas (or Pigeradamas = ⋯ γεραιòς ἄδαμας) is best understood as a rendering of adam qadmon (a figure hitherto found only in Medieval Hebrew texts)—or its Aramaic equivalent, adam qadmaia. See Quispel, G., “Ezechiel 1:26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis,” VC 34 (1980) 1–13Google Scholar, esp. 3–4. For a listing of the other suggestions see Pearson, B. A., ed., Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (NHS 15; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 36–37.Google Scholar About Gnostic Urmensch myths and their Jewish background, see Quispel, G., “Der gnostische Anthropos und die jüdische Tradition,” Mensch und Erde: ErJb 22 (Zürich: Rhein, 1954) 195–234Google Scholar; Rudolph, K., “Ein Grundtyp gnostischer Urmensch- Adam-Spekulation,” ZRGG 9 (1957) 1–20Google Scholar; and Tardieu, M., Trois Mythes Gnostiques: Adam, Eros et les animaux d'Egypte dans un écrit de Nag Hammadi (II, 5) (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1974) 85–139.Google Scholar

³² CG I, 133:18–21.

³³ ibid., 116:28–32.

³⁴ Exc. ex Theod. 31.4 and 32.2 (SC 23; 128–30 Sagnard).

³⁵ The parallel versions are published in Musajoff, Sh., Merkavah Shelemah (Jerusalem, 1921) 32a–43a.Google Scholar Cf. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 36 n. 1. Cf. Scholem's interpretation of the text in Von der mystischen Gestalt der Gottheit: Studien zu Grundbegriffen der Kabbala (Zürich: Rhein, 1962) 7–48.Google Scholar For an English presentation of the fragments’ content, see Gruenwald, I., Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU 14; Leiden/Köln: Brill, 1980) 213–17.Google Scholar

³⁶ A. Altmann, “Moses Narboni's ‘Epistle on Shi'ur Qomā,‘” in Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism, 195.

³⁷ J. Dan has recently argued that the Shi'ur Qomah's reductio ad absurdum of God's dimensions actually implies a non-anthropomorphic attitude; see “The Concept of Knowledge in the Shi'ur Qomah” in Stein, S. and Loewe, R., eds., Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History presented to A. Altmann (University of Alabama, 1979) 67–73.Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. Altmann's article cited above (n. 36). In all probability, Maimonides' statement at the very beginning of his Guide of the Perplexed (1. 1) is intended to counter Jewish rather than Moslem anthropomorphists (against Wolfson, H. A., The Philosophy of the Kalām [Cambridge: Harvard University, 1976] 98–111).Google Scholar See also Twersky, I., Rabad of Posquières: A Twelfth-century Talmudist (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1962) 283–85.Google Scholar

³⁹ Jewish Gnosticism, 40.

⁴⁰ In the article cited in n. 35 above.

⁴¹ Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (3d ed.; New York: Schocken, 1961) 65.Google Scholar

⁴² ibid., 66.

⁴³ Cf. ibid., 68–69, and Jewish Gnosticism, 41–42.

⁴⁴ Meṭaṭron, šě-šěmô kě-šēm rabbō, b. Sanhedrin 38b.

⁴⁵ Musajoff, Merkavah Shelemah, 39b: ve-ha-na'ar qomato male' 'olam … ve-ha-na'ar haze Meṭaṭron sar ha-panim. On the appellation na'ar (youth, servant) for Meṭaṭron in Merkavah literature, see Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 50. I have studied some implications of this term's amphibology in “Polymorphic divine et transformations d'un mythologème: l'Apocryphon de Jean et ses sources,” VC 35 (1981) 412–34.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ On the Māgharīya and their theology see Golb, N.“Who were the Magārīya” JAOS 80 (1960) 347–59.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ According to Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-Milal wa'al Niḥ (169 Cureton). This text is translated and analyzed by Wolfson, H. A., “The Pre-existent Angel of the Magharians and Al-Nahāwandī,” JQR 51 (1960–1961) 89–106, esp. 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ According to Hippolytus, the book proclaimed a new remission of sins in the third year of Trajan's reign (ca. 101); Refut. 9. 13.4. The heresiographical texts about Elchasai are conveniently reprinted and translated in Klijn, A. F. and Reinink, G. J., Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Suppl. to NovT 36; Leiden: Brill, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The relationship between the book of Elchasai and the Shi'ur Qomah material, was already pointed out by Smith, M., “Observations on Hekhalot Rabbati” in Altmann, A., ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Philip W. Lown Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies, Brandeis University; Studies and Texts 1; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963) 151.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cf. “Le couple de l'Ange et de l'Esprit” (cited n. 13 above). For a parallel to this duplication of the divine hypostasis, see also Ps. Clem. Horn. 3.2, where it is attributed to Simon Magus.

⁵⁰ See, e.g., Ch. Kannengiesser, , “Philon et les Pères sur la double création de l'homme,” in Philon d'Alexandrie (Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 11–15 septembre 1966; Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1967) 277–96. For a discussion of the “image of God” in Philo and in rabbinic literature, see Schenke, Der Gott-Mensch, 120–34. For a recent evaluation of the dualistic tendencies implicit in Philonic anthropogony, see R. van den Broek, “The Creation of Adam's Psychic Body in the Apocryphon of John,” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions (cited n. 18 above) 44–45.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See, e.g., the famous passage in Conf. 146; ibid. 41; Leg. All. 1.43; ibid. 65; Quaest. in Gen. 1.4.

⁵² ”How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?” in Altmann, ed., Biblical and Other Studies, 141. The passage referred to by Liebermann is Aboth de - R. Nathan, chap. 39 (116 Schechter). Cf. the Marcosian doctrine about man's creation κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τ⋯ς ἄνω δυνάμεως Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.18.1 (1. 170 Harvey).

⁵³ Gaster, M., “Das Schiur Komah,” in his Studies and Texts (London: 1923—1928) 2. 1330–53, esp. 1344. Cf. Scholem, Major Trends, 65. On the mythologization of λήθεια cf. Gos. Phil. 62,14–15, which may ultimately stem from John 14:6.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.14.1 (1. 129 Harvey).

⁵⁵ ibid., 1.14.3 (1. 134 Harvey). This system of grouping the letters of the alphabet is also known in kabbalistic literature, where it is called atbash. For similar techniques in Antiquity, see Dornseiff, F., Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie (Leipzig: Teubner, 1922).Google Scholar Islamic anthropomorphists also know of this conception according to which God's body was made up of the letters of the alphabet. See al-Hadīd, Ibn Abī, Sharḥ Nahg albalāghah (ed. Ibrāhīm, M. Abū al Faḍal; Cairo, 1959) 3. 227. (I owe this reference to Sarah Stroumsa.)Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.14.2 (1. 133 Harvey).

⁵⁷ ibid., 1.14.1 (1. 131 Harvey).

⁵⁸ Exc. ex Theod. 10.1 (76 Sagnard).

⁵⁹ CG II, 104:35–105:20 (52 Böhlig-Labib). Cf. the seventy-two δυναμείς in Eugnostos, CG III, 93:14–15.

⁶⁰ ”Polymorphie divine et transformation d'un mythologème,” cited above n. 45.

⁶¹ Merkavah Shelemah, 39b.

⁶² Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.15.1 (1. 145–46 Harvey). Cf. Gos. Phil. (CG II, 3) 56,3–4: “‘Jesus’ is a secret name; ‘Christ’ is a revealed name.” On esoteric/exoteric names, see also Zosimos, , On the Letter Omega (ed. and trans. Jackson, H. M.; SBLTT, Greco-Roman Religion; Missoula: Scholars, 1978) 10. 28–29.Google Scholar

⁶³ Von der mystischen Gestalt der Gottheit, 276 n. 19.

⁶⁴ The theme also plays a major role in other writings of the Pauline and deutero-Pauline corpus, particularly in Eph 4:12–16. For a bibliography of research between 1930 and 1960, see Colpe, C., “Zur Leib-Christi-Vorstellung im Epheserbrief,” in Judentum, Urchristentum und Kirche, Festschrift für J. Jeremias (BZNW 26; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964) 172–87.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See, e.g., Schlier, H., Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief (Tübingen: Mohr, 1930)Google Scholar; or, more recently, P. Pokórny's studies, such as Der Epheserbrief und die Gnosis: die Bedeutung des Haupt-Glieder-Gedankens in der entstehenden Kirche (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagenstalt, 1965).Google Scholar The obvious problem with such an approach is the purely hypothetical character of this pre-Christian Gnosticism; it often implies understanding Pauline concepts through the prism of second-century technical Valentinian meanings, as Father Benoît points out. See Benoît, P., O.P., “L'hymne christologique de Col. 1:15–20: Jugement critique sur l'état des recherches,” in Neusner, J., ed., Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for M. Smith (SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 1. 226–63.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See, e.g., Benoît, P., “Corps, tête et plérôme dans les Épîtres de la Captivité,” RB 63 (1956) 5–44, esp. 17–18.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ This seems to be true even of those scholars who recognized traces of a “Jewish,” or “Jewish-Christian,” Gnosis in the Pauline corpus; see, e.g., Schenke, H.-M., “Der Widerstreit gnostischer und kirchlicher Christologie im Spiegel des Kolosserbriefes,” ZThK 61 (1964) 391–403, esp. 399.Google Scholar See also Lohse, E., Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 52 nn. 151–52 (on Col 1:18).Google Scholar Lohse cites parallel conceptions of the cosmic body of the divinity from Pahlavi literature, the Mahabarata, the Timaeus, the Orphic fragments and Magic Papyri, but makes no reference to Jewish texts.

⁶⁸ ”Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil. 2:6–11,” in Dinkler, E., ed., Zeit und Geschichte, Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann (Tübingen: Mohr, 1964) 263–93, esp. 291.Google Scholar For many bibliographical references on the hymn, see also O'Connor, J. Murphy, “Christological Anthropology in Phi. 2:6–11,” RB 83 (1976) 25–50.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Jeremias, J., “Zu Phil. II, 7: EAYTON EKENΩΣEN,” NovT 6 (1963) 182–88Google Scholar; for bibliographical references, see Oepke, A., “κενόω,” TDNT 3 (1965) 661–62.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Cf. n. 4 above. The same conception about the esoteric name of the Father given to the Son is developed in Gnostic texts. See Gos. Phil. (CG II, 3) 54,5–13, and Gos. Truth (CG I, 3) 38,7–24; in this text the son is the Father's name. For Jewish-Christian traditions about the divine Name, see Daniélou, J., Théologie du Judéo-Christianisme (Tournai: Desclee, 1958) 199–216.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Charlesworth, J. H., The Odes of Solomon (SBLTT 13, Pseudepigrapha Series 7; Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 36Google Scholar; cf. 37 n. 4. For the importance of the christological hymn of Col 1:15–20 in the Odes, cf. ibid., 77 n. 20.

⁷² See, e.g., O'Connor, J. Murphy, Colossians: a Scripture Discussion Outline (London/Sidney: Sheed and Ward, 1968) 17.Google Scholar

⁷³ See, e.g., Martin, R. P., Mορϕή in Philippians II.6,” ExpTim 70 (1958–1959) 183–84Google Scholar; Bornkamm, G., “Zum Verständnis des Christus-Hymnus Phil. 2:6–11,” in his Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze 2 (BEvTh 28; München: Kaiser, 1959) 179.Google Scholar Both scholars note that μορϕή, which is identical to εἰκών, renders demūt, demūta. Bartina, S. is of the same opinion: “‘Christo, imagen del Dios invisible’ según los papiros (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4),” SPap 2 (1963) 13–33.Google Scholar C. Spicq, on the other hand, seeks to find a subtle semantic difference between τ⋯ς κκλησίας ιο κα αὐτός στιν κεϕαλ το⋯ σώματος, see “Note sur MOPΦH dans les Papyrus et quelques inscriptions,” RB 80 (1973) 37–45.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ The apposition of τ⋯ς⋯κκλησιας to και κατ μν τ μέγεθος ἄγνωστος is most probably an interpolation of the writer of the letter.

⁷⁵ CG II, 3; 52,21–24 (ed. Leipold, J.; Das Evangelium nach Philippos [Patristische Texte und Studien 2; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963]).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ CG II, 3; 54,5–8; cf. nn. 44 and 70 above.

⁷⁷ CG II, 3; 56,3–4; cf. n. 62 above.

⁷⁸ CG II, 3; 62,11–17.

⁷⁹ See van Unnik, W. C., “Three Notes on the ‘Gospel of Philip,’“ NTS 10 (1963–1964) 465–69, esp. 466 (reference to Schenke on 466 n. 4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar This passage has also been discussed by my colleague, Yehuda Liebes, “The Messiah of the Zohar,” App. 6: “Shim'on bar Yohai and Jesus Christ in light of the Gnostic Gospel of Philip,” in The Messianic Idea in Israel (Jerusalem: Israel National Academy of Sciences, 1982) 230–32 and n. 16 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ ”Three Notes,” 466. The text is in Adv. haer. 4.4.2 (and not 4.2.4. as stated). On Irenaeus' presbyter, see Sobosan, H. G., “The Role of the Presbyter: an Investigation into the Adv. Haer. of St. Irenaeus,” SJT 27 (1974) 129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸¹ I quote according to A. Rousseau's edition (SC 100) 420–21, whose translation is mistaken: “le Fils en effet est la mesure du Père, puisqu'il le comprend.”

⁸² ”‘Topological’ Theology and Some Monistic Tendencies in Gnosticism,” cited n. 16 above.

⁸³ See, e.g., Adv. haer. 4.20.1 (624–25 Rousseau) or 4.20.4 (634–35 Rousseau): óκατ μν τ μέγεθος ἄγνωστος In Adv. haer. 4.19.2 (618–19 Rousseau), in the context of his discussion of God's infinite greatness, Irenaeus refers to Eph 3:18 (“what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height”), a verse which probably refers to the immeasurable dimensions of the universe, as has been argued by Dahl, N. A., “Cosmic Dimensions and Religious Knowledge (Eph. 3:18),” in Ellis, E. Earle and Grässer, E., eds., Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für W. G. Kümmel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 57–75.Google Scholar On other traces, in Patristic literature, of a “special” conception of God, see Grant, R. M., The Early Christian Doctrine of God (Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1966)Google Scholar, which I could only consult in the French translation: Le Dieu des premiers Chrétiens (Paris: Le Seuil, 1971) 114ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Plato had insisted, in opposition to Protagoras, that it was God who was the μέτρον of all things; see, e.g.. Leg. 4, 716C, Thaet. 152A, Crat. 385E. Same conception in Philo: SacrAC 15, 59 (2. 138 LCL); De somn. 2, 192–93 (5. 530 LCL); cf. Quis div. her. 47. 227–29 (4. 396–97 LCL).

⁸⁵ There is no way to know whether the μέτρον of God would have been, in Hebrew, his shi'ur rather than his midda. Both words would seem possible; see, however, Irenaeus Adv. haer. 2.35.3 (1. 386 Harvey): “Eodem modo et Jaoth … mensuram praefinitam manifestat.” In his note, Harvey postulates μέτρον) (for mensuram) in the lost Greek text, and suggests that the term might be a mistranslation of midda, which means, in its abstract sense, attribute of God (although he refers to a certain middat ha-gezera unknown in rabbinic theology). One should also refer to the seventeenth Pseudo-Clementine homily, which teaches that God, despite his invisibility, has a form—the most beautiful form (καλλιστν μορϕν ἔχει)) —according to which he has modelled man. See B. Rehm, ed., Die Pseudoklementinen, vol. 1: Homilien (GCS 42) 17. 7.2, 232. Cf. ibid., 10. 6, 11. 4 and 16. 19, where the same conception is expressed. This doctrine, which is no doubt to be attributed to the Jewish-Christian background of the Pseudo-Clementine literature, has already been referred to in relation to the Shi'ur Qomah traditions. See Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 41.

⁸⁶ The various attempts to find the origin of the word meṭaṭron are listed and discussed by Odeberg, H., 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch reprinted with a Prolegomenon by J. C. Greenfield (New York: Ktav, 1973) 125–34. Odeberg reports that A. Jellinek had suggested μέτρον as an etymology “on the assumption that Metatron was identical with Horos” (134). S. Liebermann has recently offered a contribution to the subject in an Appendix to I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (cited n. 35 above): “Metatron, the Meaning of His Name and His Functions,” 235–41.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ When I discussed with him the passage of Irenaeus Adv. haer. 4.4.2, Prof. Pines suggested μέτρον as a possible etymology of Meṭaṭron.

⁸⁸ Major Trends, 65.

⁸⁹ This parallelism between Christianity and Gnosticism is well emphasized by G. W. MacRae: “The Gnosticism of the Nag Hammadi documents is not a Christian heresy but if anything a Jewish heresy, just as primitive Christianity itself should be regarded as a Jewish heresy or a set of Jewish heresies” (“Nag Hammadi and the New Testament,” in Aland, B., ed., Gnosis: Festschrift für Hans Jonas [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978] 150).Google Scholar