How to Write about Economics and

Public Policy 1st Edition Katerina

Petchko
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/how-to-write-about-economics-and-public-policy-1st-e
dition-katerina-petchko/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Essaying The Past How To Read Write And Think About

History Jim Cullen

https://textbookfull.com/product/essaying-the-past-how-to-read-
write-and-think-about-history-jim-cullen/

Practicing Professional Ethics in Economics and Public

Policy 1st Edition Elizabeth A.M. Searing

https://textbookfull.com/product/practicing-professional-ethics-
in-economics-and-public-policy-1st-edition-elizabeth-a-m-searing/

Applied Mainline Economics Bridging the Gap between

Theory and Public Policy 1st Edition Matthew D.
Mitchell

https://textbookfull.com/product/applied-mainline-economics-
bridging-the-gap-between-theory-and-public-policy-1st-edition-
matthew-d-mitchell/

How To Write A Marketing Plan John Westwood

https://textbookfull.com/product/how-to-write-a-marketing-plan-
john-westwood/
How To Write Your Literature Review Bryan Greetham

https://textbookfull.com/product/how-to-write-your-literature-
review-bryan-greetham/

How to Write a Business Plan Thirteenth Edition

Mckeever

https://textbookfull.com/product/how-to-write-a-business-plan-
thirteenth-edition-mckeever/

How to Write Anything A Complete Guide 1st Edition

Laura Brown

https://textbookfull.com/product/how-to-write-anything-a-
complete-guide-1st-edition-laura-brown/

How to Write a Business Plan 4th Edition Mike Mckeever

https://textbookfull.com/product/how-to-write-a-business-
plan-4th-edition-mike-mckeever/

How To Write Qualitative Research Marcus B. Weaver-

Hightower

https://textbookfull.com/product/how-to-write-qualitative-
research-marcus-b-weaver-hightower/
How to Write about
Economics and Public
Policy

FIRST EDITION

Katerina Petchko
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo,
Japan
Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Dedication

Preface
Target Audience for This Book

Purposes of This Book

How This Book Came About

Special Features
 A Focus on Disciplinary Writing

Acknowledgments
Disclaimer

Chapter 1: What Is Academic Writing?

Abstract

Academic Writing as a Universal Set of Skills

Academic Writing vs. General-Purpose Writing

The Notion of Genre in Academic Writing

Disciplinary Differences in Academic Writing

Academic Writing: A Definition

Academic Writing as Research

Academic Writing as a Dialog

The Demands of Graduate Writing

Special Problems of Non-English Writers

Learning to Write Like an Expert

Chapter 2: Research in Public Policy and Economics

Abstract
 What Is Research?

Research in Public Policy and Economics

Empirical vs. Nonempirical Research

Purposes of Empirical Research

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research

Which Approach Is Prevalent in Public Policy Programs?

The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Research Designs in Public Policy and Economics

Examples of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches

Chapter 3: Research Topics and Paper Options

Abstract

Possible Topics

Narrowing Down a Topic

Suggestions for a Good Topic

Common Problems with Topic Selection

Research Paper Options

Chapter 4: Identifying Literature to Review

Abstract
 What Is Academic Literature?

Scholarly Literature

Policy Literature

Popular Literature

Hierarchy of Academic Literature

Looking for Relevant Literature: Where to Start

How to Read Literature Reviews

Suggestions for Searching for Empirical Literature

Where to Look for Literature

Chapter 5: Reading and Analyzing Literature

Abstract

Understanding the Structure and Organization of Research Papers

Reading Empirical Studies

How Many Studies to Read?

Analyzing Empirical Studies

Common Flaws in Empirical Studies

Chapter 6: Research Questions, Hypotheses, and

Purpose Statements
 Abstract

What Is a Research Question?

Where Do Research Questions Come from?

Do All Studies Have a Research Question?

Closed-Ended vs. Open-Ended Questions

Empirical vs. Normative Questions

Other Nonempirical Questions

Research Questions in a Paper

Formulating Empirical Questions

Characteristics of a Good Research Question

Hypotheses

Purpose Statements

Examples of Research Questions

Research Question Analysis

Chapter 7: Research Proposals

Abstract

Ways to Develop a Research Project

What if I Just Have a Point to Prove?

How to Prepare a Research Proposal

 The Research Proposal: What to Include

Common Problems

Making and Supporting Claims in a Proposal

Sample Proposals

Am I Ready to Write a Proposal?

Chapter 8: Structure of a Research Paper

Abstract

Common Structure of a Research Paper

Conceptual Parts of an Empirical Paper

Sections in an Empirical Paper: Examples

Chapter 9: Justifying a Study: The Introduction

Abstract

Problem and Its Importance

Research Gap

Contribution of the Study

Chapter 10: Theory and Theoretical Frameworks

Abstract
 What Is Theory?

Components of a Theory

Theory across Disciplines

Role of Theory in Research

Where Should My Theory Come from?

Theories vs. Models in Economics

Placement of Theory in a Paper

Describing Theory in a Paper

Chapter 11: Situating a Study: The Literature Review

Abstract

Suggestions for Using the Literature

Organizing the Literature to Make a Point

Common Problems

Chapter 12: Literature Review: Models and

Examples
Abstract

Annotated Extracts from Published Studies

Annotated Literature Review from a Student Paper

 Model Literature Reviews from Student Papers

Chapter 13: Data and Methodology

Abstract

Research Question and Methodology

The Ideal vs. the Real Methodology

Methodology Section in a Paper

Concepts and Measures

Data

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Data Analysis

Describing a Quantitative Methodology

Mathematical Writing: Basic Principles

Describing a Qualitative Methodology

Chapter 14: Results, Discussion, and Conclusion

Abstract

Results in an Empirical Study

Where to Describe Results?

Results in a Quantitative Study

How to Report Results in a Quantitative Study

 Reports of Quantitative Results: Examples

How to Report Results in a Qualitative Study

How to Discuss Results

Writing a Conclusion

Using Visuals: Tables and Figures

Hedging in Public Policy and Economic Writing

How to Qualify Claims

Chapter 15: Data, Methodology, Results, and

Discussion: Models and Examples
Abstract

Describing Data and Measures

Describing Methodology

Describing Results

Chapter 16: Writing Skills

Abstract

Using and Citing Sources

What Requires a Citation

What Does Not Require a Citation

 Citing Information from Sources You Have Not Seen

Reporting Verbs and verb Tenses

Academic Style for References and Citations

Quoting and Summarizing

How to Quote

How to Summarize

Paragraph Writing

Style, Grammar, and Expression

Punctuation

Common Collocations

Appendix A: Citation Guides

Appendix B: Model Papers

Appendix C: Data Sources

Appendix D: Journals in Economics and Public

Policy
Corpus Details
Journals Included in the Corpus

References
References for Academic Writing and Research

Published Studies

Student Papers

Index
Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United
Kingdom
525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101,
United States
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA
02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford
OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
Details on how to seek permission, further
information about the Publisher’s permissions
policies and our arrangements with organizations
such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the
Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our
website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions

contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are
constantly changing. As new research and
experience broaden our understanding, changes in
research methods, professional practices, or
medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on

their own experience and knowledge in evaluating
and using any information, methods, compounds,
or experiments described herein. In using such
information or methods they should be mindful of
their own safety and the safety of others, including
parties for whom they have a professional
responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the

Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage
to persons or property as a matter of products
liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use
or operation of any methods, products,
instructions, or ideas contained in the material
herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the
Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from
the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-12-813010-0

For information on all Academic Press publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-
and-journals
Publisher: Candice Janco
Acquisition Editor: J. Scott Bentley
Editorial Project Manager: Susan Ikeda
Production Project Manager: Anusha Sambamoorthy
Cover Designer: Victoria Pearson

Typeset by SPi Global, India

To Andrew, who gave me so much to think
about. Without that, I would have finished
this book in half the time.
Preface

Target Audience for This

Book
This book is for graduate students from both
English-speaking and non-English-speaking
countries, who are studying economics, public
policy, public administration, public affairs, public
finance, or policy analysis in English and who seek
guidance on designing and completing a research
study in their chosen area. It is especially relevant
for students who are not familiar with professional
research writing in economics and public policy.
This book also serves the needs of undergraduate
students majoring in economics or public policy,
particularly in programs that emphasize research.
Students in such programs will find many useful
suggestions for conducting research in economics
and public policy and preparing a high-quality
research paper.
Many issues covered in this book may appeal to a
broader audience, including graduate students of
management, sociology, and political science,
particularly to those who are new to graduate study
and who do not have a strong background in
disciplinary research. The material covered in this
book is also appropriate for novice researchers
working in public-policy-related fields who would
like to improve their proficiency in disciplinary
English.
This book can be used for self-directed learning, as
a reference, or as a text in a writing course for
graduate students.

Purposes of This Book

This book has been written for graduate students in
public policy and economics with three purposes in
mind. The first purpose is to familiarize students
who are new to graduate study with the basics of
research in public policy and economics. To achieve
this purpose, the book describes quantitative and
qualitative approaches to research; outlines options
for writing a research proposal and a research paper;
and makes suggestions for reading, analyzing, and
evaluating academic literature.
The second purpose of the book is to familiarize
students with the expectations of those who will be
evaluating their work—professors, journal editors,
and more experienced colleagues. This is achieved
by providing an explicit description of the elements,
features, and structural arrangement patterns that
readers of economics and public policy papers
expect to find in a research paper.
The third purpose of the book is to show how
professional authors employ a range of rhetorical,
linguistic, and organizational devices to meet their
readers’ expectations. To achieve this purpose, the
book provides and analyzes a diverse set of
examples from papers in economics and public
policy, showing how authors accomplish various
communicative goals such as justifying a study,
explaining its motivation, or describing its
contribution, and how they make their arguments
persuasive to their colleagues. By analyzing
professional writing in their research field, students
can improve their own understanding of
disciplinary discourse and their own writing.

How This Book Came About

This book has evolved out of my own educational,
teaching, and research experience. Initially, I wrote
parts of it in response to my nearly decade-long
experience as a graduate student in public policy
and public administration and, later, in applied
linguistics. The initial ideas were further developed
and clarified as I researched academic writing to
create courses, materials, and programs for my
graduate students and as I began to teach.
My earlier experiences as a graduate student in
public policy and public administration had been
marked by a great deal of frustration at the inability
to find a suitable textbook that would help me, a
non-native speaker of English unfamiliar with
Western-style education, to understand what was
required of me as a graduate student writer, and to
produce the kind of writing that my supervisors
would find acceptable. I learned to write research
papers in those programs in an ad hoc manner, by
collecting and analyzing samples of professional
writing that I found clear and persuasive. It was
only later that I was able, as a doctoral student in
applied linguistics, to look back at those earlier
experiences in a more systematic manner and to find
a name for what I had been doing—I was essentially
acquiring a metacognitive awareness of the
rhetorical strategies, organizational patterns, and
discourse markers through which writers in public
policy accomplish their communicative purposes.
Later, as I began teaching academic writing to
graduate students in economics and public policy
and as I engaged in researching it in order to
prepare justifiable writing curricula and teaching
materials, I became painfully aware of the
discrepancies between the discipline-specific
language practices of professional writers and the
generic writing advice of many English for
Academic Purposes courses and textbooks. Many
ideas reflected in this book grew out of the
discrepancies that I had observed.
During the preparation of this book, I drew
heavily on my dual specialization in public policy
and applied linguistics, which enabled me to take a
unique perspective on academic writing as both
research and discourse practices. My education in
public policy and public administration gave me an
understanding of the research methods and
approaches that are used in public policy and, to
some extent, economics research; this knowledge
was very useful as I tried to clarify the connections
between content and writing. My training in applied
linguistics equipped me with the tools I needed to
analyze written text as well as with an awareness of
the differences in how genres are implemented in
different disciplines and social contexts. These tools
enabled me to extract the features of various texts in
economics and public policy that I believe are
essential to understanding how those texts work.
And yet, my own educational and research
experiences are just that—my own. To make this
book useful, I needed to base my advice on
something more objective than individual
experiences. This was particularly important
because I wanted to make this book useful for
writers not only of public policy but also of
economics, a discipline of which I have a limited
grasp. My solution was to construct a representative
corpus of over 400 research articles, which I
obtained from more than 50 journals in public policy
and economics and to analyze those articles for
structure, organization, rhetorical strategies, and
linguistic markers in order to understand how
professional authors engage in dialogue with their
readers and persuade them to accept their
knowledge claims. This book is in large part a
distillation of my analysis.

Special Features
The following features make this book unique
among books that teach academic writing.

• The book focuses on disciplinary writing in

public policy and economics.
• The book covers writing on a wide range of
issues in public policy and economics.
• The book focuses on, and provides suggestions
for, three areas that are important for the
successful completion of an academic paper—
research, reading, and writing.
 • The book presents over 300 writing samples—
including whole papers and proposals—taken
from the work of international researchers and
graduate students.
• The concepts taught in this book apply to
students from both English-speaking and non-
English-speaking backgrounds.

A Focus on Disciplinary
Writing
Academic discourse refers to the ways in which
language is used in the academy. Until recently—
and in many writing programs even today—
academic discourse has been treated as a
homogeneous set of skills and steps, which, once
mastered, would transfer across disciplines and
genres. Yet, recent research in disciplinary writing
has shown that disciplines differ greatly in how they
approach knowledge construction and in how they
represent the constructed knowledge in writing.
Contrary to what many students and teachers
believe, the ideas we put down on paper when we
write are not entirely “ours”—they are influenced
greatly, and to a large extent implicitly, by the
expectations, assumptions, and beliefs of our
readers. Discourse in an academic discipline,
therefore, can best be understood as a collection of
specific rhetorical and linguistic practices that
members of that discipline use to formulate
problems, frame questions, and present knowledge
claims in ways that colleagues find persuasive.
Disciplines differ considerably on what their
members see as persuasive writing. One way to
understand what makes writing persuasive in a
particular discipline is to engage in rhetorical and
linguistic analysis of academic texts and to relate
their features—their structure, organization, and the
specific language forms used—to both the logic
behind the research approach used by the authors
and the authors’ communicative purposes. This is
what I have done in the preparation of this book. My
intention here is to show what makes writing in
economics and public policy persuasive by
demystifying the relationship between academic
language and scientific content and by showing how
texts in economics and public policy are constructed
and how they work.
 To achieve this goal, I present academic discourse
in economics and public policy in three different
ways: as an outgrowth of the process of scientific
inquiry, with its own favored methods, approaches,
and tools; as a product of knowledge construction,
with its own preferred modes of argumentation; and
as a dialogue in which writers engage with their
readers as they attempt to persuade them to accept
their knowledge claims. Using a genre-based
approach to writing—an approach that relates the
communicative purposes of the writer, the existing
conventions of the discipline, and the language,
structure, and organization of the text—I also show
how texts can be analyzed for organizational
patterns, rhetorical strategies, and language use and
how that analysis can help novice writers improve
their writing.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 in Four or God in Tetrad, and the derivation is approved by
Hort (Dict. of Christian Biog. s.h.n.). It appears more likely,
however, that it is to be referred to the Hebrew root ‫בבל‬
“Babel” or confusion, a derivation which Hort also mentions. In
Irenaeus’ Greek text the name is spelt βαρβηλὼ, in the Latin
“Barbelo” with an accusative “Barbelon,” and in Epiphanius
βαρβηλὼ and βαρβήρω. If we might alter this last into
βαρβαριωθ, we might see it in a great: number of magic spells
of the period. Cf. Wessely, Ephesia Grammata, Wien, 1886,
pp. 26, 28, 33, 34.

472. Pistis Sophia, p. 16, Copt. The five words are zama, zama,
ôzza, rachama, ôzai. Whatever they may mean, we may be
quite sure that they can never contain with their few letters the
three pages or so of text which are given as their
interpretation. It is possible that the letters are used
acrostically like the A G L A, i.e. ‫ ?( ניבר לעולם אדני‬Ahih ? )‫אהיה‬
‫ אתה‬Ate Gibor Lailam Adonai, “The mighty Adonai for ever”
(or “thou art the mighty and eternal Lord”) commonly met with
in mediaeval magic. Cf. Peter de Abano, Heptameron, seu
Elementa Magica, Paris, 1567, p. 563; or, for other examples,
F. Barrett, The Magus, 1801, Bk II. pp. 39, 40. The notable
feature in these mysterious words is the quantity of Zetas or
ζ’s that they contain which points to the use of some sort of
table like that called by Cabalists ziruph, or a cryptogram of
the aaaaa, aaaab, kind. It should be noticed that Coptic
scribes were often afflicted with what has been called
Betacism or the avoidance of the letter Beta or β by every
means, which frequently led to the substitution for it of ζ as in
the case of Jaldabaoth = Ιαλδαζαω given above (Chap. VIII, n.
3, p. 46 supra).

473. This idea of certain powers being the members or “limbs” of

him from whom they issue recurs all through the Pistis
Sophia. Cf. especially p. 224, Copt., where it is said that the
χωρήματα or “receptacles” of the Ineffable go forth from his
last limb. It is probably to be referred to the conception of the
 Supreme Being as the Man κατ’ ἐξοχήν, which we have seen
current among the Ophites. See Chap. VIII, n. 2, p. 38 supra.
That the ancient Egyptians used the same expression
concerning their own gods and especially Ra, see Moret, “Le
Verbe créateur et révélateur,” R.H.R., Mai-Juin, 1909, p. 257.
Cf. Amélineau, Gnosticisme Égyptien, p. 288. So Naville, Old
Egyptian Faith, p. 227.

474. That is to say, their names make up his name as letters do a

word. So in the system of Marcus referred to in Chap. IX
supra, Irenaeus (Bk I. c. 8, § 11, p. 146, Harvey) explains that
the name of Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) which might be uttered is
composed of six letters, but His unutterable name of twenty-
four, because the names of the first Tetrad of Ἄρρητος
(Bythos), Σιγή, Πατὴρ (Monogenes or Nous) and Ἀλήθεια
contain that number of letters. See also § 5 of same chapter.
Those who wish to understand the system are recommended
to read the whole of the chapter quoted. As Irenaeus has the
sense to see, there is no reason why the construction from
one root of names founded on the principle given should not
go on for ever.

475. This is probably either the Horos or Stauros that we have

seen brought into being in the teaching of Valentinus as a
guard to the Pleroma, or, as is more probable, an antitype of
the same power in the world immediately above ours. That
there was more than one Horos according to the later
Valentinians appears plain from the words of Irenaeus above
quoted (see Chap. IX, n. 1, p. 105 supra). Probably each
world had its Horos, or Limit, who acted as guard to it on its
completion. That in this world, the Cross, personified and
made pre-existent, fulfils this office seems evident from the
Gospel of Peter, where it is described as coming forth from
the Sepulchre with Jesus (Mem. Miss. Archéol. du Caire,
1892, t. IX. fasc. 1, v. 10). Cf. too, Clem. Alex. Paedagogus, Bk
III. c. 12, and Strom. Bk II. c. 20.
476. Ὁ μηνευτος. The word is not known in classical Greek (but cf.
μηνυτής “a revealer”), and appears to have its root in μήν “the
moon,” as the measure of the month. From the Coptic word
here translated “Precept,” we may guess it to be a
personification of the Jewish Law or Torah which, according to
the Rabbis, before the creation of the world existed in the
heavens. Later in the book it is said that it is by command of
this power that Jeû places the aeons (p. 26, Copt.); that the
souls of those who receive the mysteries of the light (i.e. the
psychics) will have precedence in beatitude over those who
belong to the places of the First Precept (p. 196, Copt.); that
all the orders of beings of the Third χὠρημα are below him (p.
203, Copt.); and that he is “cut into seven mysteries,” which
may mean that his name is spelled with seven letters (p. 219,
Copt.).

477. Χάραγμαι. Are these the letters mentioned in last note?

478. Πρεσβευτής, properly, “ambassador” or “agent.” Doubtless a

prototype of our sun. Elsewhere in the book, Jesus tells His
disciples that He brought forth from Himself “at the beginning”
power (not a power), which He cast into the First Precept,
“and the First Precept cast part of it into the Great Light, and
the Great Light cast part of that which he received into the
Five Parastatae, the last of whom breathed part of that which
he received into the Kerasmos or Confusion” (p. 14, Copt.).
The Great Light is also called the Χάραγμα of the Light, and is
said to have remained without emanation (p. 219, Copt.).

479. Παραστάται, “Comrades” or “witnesses” or “helpers.” They

can here hardly be anything else but the Five Planets. It is
said later that it was the last Parastates who set Jeû and his
five companions in the “Place of the Right Hand” (p. 193,
Copt.). When the world is destroyed, Jesus is to take the
perfect souls into this last Parastates where they are to reign
with him (p. 230, Copt.) for 1000 years of light which are
 365,000 of our years (p. 243, Copt.). Προηγούμενος
“Forerunner” does not seem to occur in classical Greek.

480. We hear nothing more definite of these Five Trees, but they
appear again in Manichaeism, and are mentioned in the
Chinese treatise from Tun-huang, for which see Chap. XIII
infra.

481. This is a most puzzling expression and seems to have baffled

the scribe, as he speaks of them, when he comes to repeat
the phrase (p. 216, Copt.), as the “Twin Saviours,” which is a
classical epithet of the Dioscuri. In Pharaonic Egypt, Shu and
Tefnut the pair of gods who were first brought into being by
the Creator were sometimes called “The Twins.” See Naville,
Old Egyptian Faith, p. 120. Cf. p. 171 infra.

482. It is evident from the context that we here begin the

enumeration of the Powers of the Left, who are hylic or
material and therefore the least worthy of the inhabitants of
the heavens. According to Irenaeus, the Valentinians held that
all of them were doomed to destruction. Τριῶν ὠν ὄντων, τὸ
μὲν ὑλικὸν, ὃ καὶ ἀριστερὸν καλοῦσι, κατὰ ἀνάγκην
ἀπὸλλυσθαι λέγουσιν, ἅτε μηδεμίαν ἐπιδέξασθαι πνοὴν
ἀφθαρσίας δυνάμενον (Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 11, p. 51,
Harvey). “There being three forms of existences, they say that
the hylic, which they call the left hand, must be destroyed,
inasmuch as it cannot receive any breath of incorruption.” So
in the Bruce Papyrus to be presently mentioned, the “part of
the left” is called the land of Death. At their head stands “the
Great Unseen Propator,” who throughout the Pistis Sophia
proper is called by this title only, and occupies the same place
with regard to the left that Iao does in respect of the middle,
and Jeû of the right. In the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 359,
Copt.) he is called by the name ἀγραμμαχαμαρεχ which
frequently appears in the Magic Papyri. It is there spelt
indifferently ακραμνικαμαρι, ακραμμαχαρι, ακραμμαχαμαρει,
ακραμμαχαχαχαρι, and in a Latin inscription on a gold plate,
 acramihamari (see Wessely, Ephesia Grammata, p. 22, for
references), which last may be taken to be the more usual
pronunciation. One is rather tempted to see in the name a
corruption of ἀγραμματέον in the sense of “which cannot be
written,” but I can find no authority for such a use of the word.
As the ruler of the material Cosmos he might be taken for the
Cosmocrator who, as we have seen, is called by Valentinus
Diabolos or the Devil (but see n. 1, p. 152 infra). Yet he
cannot be wholly evil like Beelzebuth for it is said in the text
(p. 41, Copt.) that he and his consort Barbelo sing praises to
the Powers of the Light. So in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p.
378, Copt.) he is represented as begging for purification and
holiness when the Great Name of God is uttered. It is plain
also from the statements in the text (pp. 43, 44, Copt.) that in
the Pistis Sophia he, Barbelo, and the Αὐθάδης or Arrogant
Power make up a triad called the great τριδυναμεῖς or “Triple
Powers” from whom are projected the powers called the
“Twenty-four Invisibles.” In another document of the same
MS. (p. 361, Copt.) a power from him is said to be bound in
the planet Saturn.

483. This Εἱμαρμένη or “Destiny” is the sphere immediately above

our firmament. It is evidently so called, because on passing
through it the soul on its way to incarnation receives the Moira
or impress of its own destiny, of which it cannot afterwards rid
itself except by the grace of the mysteries or Valentinian
sacraments. Cf. Chap. IX, n. 3, p. 115 supra.

484. Ἄρρητος. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 5, § 1, p. 99, Harvey.

Innominabilis, Tertullian, adv. Valentinianos, c. 37. So Clem.
Alex. Strom. Bk V. c. 10, says that God is ineffable, being
incapable of being expressed even in His own power.

485. Χωρηματα: τόποι.

486. That [i.e. the First] mystery knoweth why there emanated all
the places which are in the receptacle of the Ineffable One
and also all which is in them, and why they went forth from the
 last limb of the Ineffable One.... These things I will tell you in
the emanation of the universe. Pist. Soph. p. 225, Copt.

487. Ibid. p. 222, Copt.

488. Ibid. p. 127, Copt.

489. See Chap. IX, pp. 121, 122 supra.

490. Heb. vi. 19.

491. p. 203, Copt. Why there should be 24, when the dodecad or
group of Aeons in the world above was only 12, it is difficult to
say. But Hippolytus supplies a sort of explanation when he
says (op. cit. Bk VI. c. 33, p. 292, Cruice): Ταῦτά ἐστιν ἃ
λέγουσιν· ἔτι [δὲ] πρὸς τούτοις, ἀριθμητικὴν ποιούμενοι τὴν
πᾶσαν αὐτῶν διδασκαλίαν, ὡς προεῖπον [τοὺς] ἐντὸς
Πληρώματος Αἰῶνας τριάκοντα πάλιν ἐπιπροβεβληκέναι
αὐτοῖς κατὰ ἀναλογίαν Αἰῶνας ἄλλους, ἵν’ ᾖ τὸ Πλήρωμα ἐν
ἀριθμῷ τελείῳ συνηθροισμένον. Ὡς γὰρ οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ
διεῖλον εἰς δώδεκα καὶ τριάκοντα καὶ ἑξήκοντα, καὶ λεπτὰ
λεπτῶν εἰσὶν ἐκείνοις, δεδήλωται· οὕτως οὗ τοι τὰ ἐντὸς
Πληρώματος ὑποδιαιροῦσιν. “This is what they say. But
besides this, they make their whole teaching arithmetical,
since they say that the thirty Aeons within the Pleroma again
projected by analogy other Aeons, so that thereby the
Pleroma may be gathered together in a perfect number. For
the manner in which the Pythagoreans divide [the cosmos]
into 12, 30, and 60 parts, and each of these into yet more
minute ones, has been made plain” [see op. cit. Bk VI. c. 28, p.
279, where Hippolytus tells us how Pythagoras divided each
Sign of the Zodiac into 30 parts “which are days of the month,
these last into 60 λεπτὰ, and so on”]. “In this way do they [the
Valentinians] divide the things within the Pleroma.” Cf. Μέρος
τευχῶν Σωτῆρος p. 364, Copt. In another book of the
Philosophumena (Bk IV. c. 7 Περὶ τῆς ἀριθμετικῆς τέχνης) he
explains how the Pythagoreans derived infinity from a single
principle by a succession of odd and even or male and female
 numbers, in connection with which he quotes Simon Magus
(op. cit. p. 132, Cruice). The way this was applied to names
he shows in the chapter Περὶ μαθηματικῶν (op. cit. Βk IV. c.
11, pp. 77 sqq., Cruice) which is in fact a description of what
in the Middle Ages was called Arithmomancy, or divination by
numbers.

492. p. 224, Copt. See also p. 241, Copt.—a very curious passage
where the Ineffable One is called “the God of Truth without
foot” (cf. Osiris as a mummy) and is said to live apart from his
“members.”

493. In the beginning of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 252, Copt.)
it is said of the Ineffable that “there are many members, but
one body.” But this statement is immediately followed by
another that this is only said “as a pattern (παράδειγμα) and a
likeness and a resemblance, but not in truth of shape” (p. 253,
Copt.).

494. What he does say is that the Ineffable One has two χωρήματα
or receptacles and that the second of these is the χώρημα of
the First Mystery. It is, I think, probable that an attempt to
describe both these χωρήματα is made in one of the
documents of the Bruce Papyrus. See pp. 191, 192 infra.

495. In addition to the enumeration contained in the so-called

interpretation of the mysterious “Five Words,” there appears in
the 2nd part of the Pistis Sophia (pp. 206 sqq. Copt.) a long
rhapsody in which it is declared that a certain mystery knows
why all the powers, stars, and heavenly “places” were made.
These are here again set out seriatim, and as the order in the
main corresponds with that in the five words translated in the
text, it serves as a check upon this last. The order of the
powers in the text was given in the article in the Scottish
Review before referred to, and, although this was written 20
years ago, I see no occasion to alter it.
496. It is the “last Parastates” who places Jeû and his companion
in “the place of those who belong to the right hand according
to the arrangement (i.e. οἰκονομία) of the Assembly of the
Light which is in the Height of the Rulers of the Aeons and in
the universes (κοσμοὶ) and every race which is therein” (p.
193, Copt.). A later revelation is promised as to these, but in
the meantime it is said that Jeû emanated from the chosen or
pure (εἰλικρινής) light of the first of the Five Trees (loc. cit.).

497. See nn. 1 and 3, p. 141 supra. As has been said, it is difficult
not to see in this “1st Precept” a personification of the Torah
or Jewish Law.

498. See n. 3, p. 146 supra.

499. See n. 2, p. 136 supra.

500. So Secundus, Valentinus’ follower, taught according to

Hippolytus (v. Chap. ΙΧ supra) “that there is a right and a left
tetrad, i.e. light and darkness.” This may be taken to mean
that the constitution of the light-world was repeated point for
point in the world of darkness. The middle world is of course
that where light and darkness mingle.

501. Jeû is generally called the ἐπίσκοπος or overseer of the Light.

He it is who has placed the Rulers of the Aeons so that they
always “behold the left” (p. 26, Copt.). He is also said to have
bound “in the beginning” the rulers of the Aeons and of
Destiny and of the Sphere in their respective places (p. 34,
Copt.), and that each and every of them will remain in the
τάξις or order and walk in the δρόμος or course in which he
placed them. We also hear in the Pistis Sophia proper of two
“books of Jeû” “which Enoch wrote when the First Mystery
spoke with him out of the Tree of Life and the Tree of
Knowledge in the Paradise of Adam” (p. 246, Copt.). In the
first part of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, however Jeû is
described as “the First Man, the ἐπίσκοπος of the Light, and
the πρεσβευτής or Ambassador of the First Precept” (p. 322,
 Copt.); and it is further said in the same book that “the Book of
Jeû (not books) which Enoch wrote in Paradise when I
(Jesus) spoke with him out of the Tree of Life and the Tree of
Knowledge” was placed by His means in “the rock Ararad.”
Jesus goes on to say that He placed “Kalapataurôth the ruler
who is over Skemmut in which is the foot of Jeû, and he
surrounds all rulers and destinies—I placed that ruler to guard
the books of Jeû from the Flood and lest any of the rulers
should destroy them out of envy” (p. 354, Copt.).

502. Melchizidek is very seldom mentioned in the Pistis Sophia,

but when he is, it is always as the great παραλήμπτωρ or
“inheritor” of the Light (p. 34, Copt.). Jesus describes how he
comes among the Rulers of the Aeons at certain times and
takes away their light, which he purifies (p. 35, Copt.). He is
said to have emanated from the light of the 5th Tree of the
Treasure House, as Jeû did from that of the 1st (p. 193,
Copt.). In the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, he is called the great
παραλημπτής or “receiver” of the Light (p. 292, Copt.). In the
2nd part of the last named document he is called Zorocothora
Melchizidek, an epithet which C. W. King in The Gnostics and
their Remains translates “light-gatherer.” It is also said in the
same 2nd part that “he and Jeû are the two great lights,” and
that he is the πρεσβευτής or “Legate” of all the lights which
are purified in the Rulers of the Aeons (p. 365, Copt.). We
may perhaps see in him and Jeû the antitypes of which the
Great Light and the First Precept are the paradigms.
Hippolytus, op. cit. Bk VII. c. 36, p. 391, Cruice, says that there
was a sect, the followers of one Theodotus, a τραπεζίτης or
money-changer, who said that there was “a greatest power
named Melchizidek who was greater than Christ.” Pseudo-
Tertullian repeats the same story and adds that Melchizidek is
“a celestial virtue of great grace,” who does for heavenly
angels and virtues what Christ does for men, having made
himself “their intercessor and advocate.” See auct. cit.
(probably Victorinus of Pettau) Against all Heresies, c. XXIV. p.
279, Oehl. He doubtless founded his opinion on the passage
 in the Hebrews. The name seems to mean “Holy King” Cf. the
“King of Glory” of the Manichaeans, see Chap. XIII infra.

503. p. 35, Copt.

504. He is said to have emanated from the 2nd Tree (p. 193, Copt.)
and is nowhere distinctly named. But one may perhaps guess
from the order in which he occurs in the 2nd part of the Μέρος
τευχῶν Σωτῆρος that his name was Zarazaz, evidently a
cryptogram like those mentioned in n. 1, p. 139 supra. It is
also said that the Rulers call him “Maskelli after the name of a
strong (i.e. male) ruler of their own place (p. 370, Copt.).” This
name of Maskelli, sometimes written Maskelli-maskellô, is
frequently met with in the Magic Papyri. Cf. Wessely, Ephesia
Grammata, p. 28.

505. They are said to have emanated from the 3rd and 4th Tree
respectively (p. 193, Copt.).

506. p. 193, Copt. He is evidently called the Good because there is

a wicked Sabaoth sometimes called Sabaoth Adamas, and
the Great because there is a Little Sabaoth the Good who
seems to act as his messenger. It is this last who takes the
power from the Great Sabaoth the Good which afterwards
becomes the body of Jesus and “casts it into matter and
Barbelo” (p. 127, Copt.). He seems to be set over or in some
way identified with what is called the Gate of Life (p. 215,
Copt.) both in the Pistis Sophia and the Μέρος τευχῶν
Σωτῆρος (p. 292, Copt.).

507. p. 12, Copt., where he is oddly enough called the Little Iao the
Good, I think by a clerical error. Later he is said to be “the
great leader of the middle whom the Rulers call the Great Iao
after the name of a great ruler in their own place” (p. 194,
Copt.). He is described in the same way in the second part of
the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 371, Copt.).

508. See last note.

509. p. 12, Copt. This “power” is evidently the better part of man’s
soul like the Logoi who dwell therein in the passage quoted
above from Valentinus, see Chap. IX, p. 112 supra.

510. p. 194, Copt.

511. See n. 3, p. 137 supra.

512. So the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 321, Copt.).

513. The likeness of Mary the Mother and Mary Magdalene to the
seven Virgins appears in the translation of Amélineau (Pistis
Sophia, Paris, 1895, p. 60). Schwartze (p. 75, Lat.) puts it
rather differently. See also Schmidt, K.-G.S. bd. 1, p. 75. The
“receivers” of the Virgin of Light are mentioned on p. 292,
Copt.

514. p. 184, Copt.

515. pp. 340, 341, Copt. As ⲒⲞϨ (ioh) is Coptic for the Moon, it is
just possible that there may be a kind of pun here on this word
and the name Iao. Osiris, whose name was often equated by
the Alexandrian Jews with their own divine name Jaho or Jah,
as in the Manethonian story of Osarsiph = Joseph, was also
considered a Moon-god. Cf. the “Hymn of the Mysteries”
given in Chap. VIII, where he is called “the holy horned moon
of heaven.”

516. See note 1, p. 138 supra. The Bruce Papyrus (Amélineau,

Notice sur le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce, Paris, 1882, p. 220)
speaks of the “Thirteenth Aeon, where are the Great Unseen
God and the Great Virgin of the Spirit (cf. the παρθενική
πνεῦμα of Irenaeus) and the twenty-four emanations of the
unseen God.”

517. See n. 2, p. 142 supra.

518. See Chapter IX, p. 104 supra.

519. p. 116, Copt.

520. I suppose it is in view of this maternal aspect of her nature

that she is alluded to in the latter part of the Μέρος τευχῶν
Σωτῆρος as βαρβηλω βδελλη “Barbelo who gives suck”? Her
place, according to the Bruce Papyrus (Amélineau, p. 218), is
said to be in the Twelfth Aeon.

521. There have been many attempts to make this name mean
something else than merely “Faith-Wisdom.” Dulaurier and
Renan both tried to read it “πιστὴ Σοφία” “the faithful Wisdom”
or “La fidèle Sagesse.” If we had more documents of the style
of Simon’s Apophasis, we should probably find that this
apposition of two or more nouns in a name was not
infrequent, and the case of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris will occur to
every Egyptologist. The fact that the name includes the first
and last female member of the Dodecad of Valentinus (see p.
101 supra) is really its most plausible explanation.

522. This Adamas seems to be an essentially evil power, who

wages useless war against the Light on the entry of Jesus into
his realm (p. 25, Copt.). His seat is plainly the Twelve Aeons
or Zodiac (p. 157, Copt.), and it is said in the Μέρος τευχῶν
Σωτῆρος that his “kingdom” is in the τοποι κεφαλης αἰωνων or
Places of the head of the Aeons and is opposite the place of
the Virgin of Light (p. 336, Copt.). In the second part of the
same document (i.e. the μ. τ. σ.) it is said that the rulers of
Adamas rebelled, persisting in the act of copulation
(συνουσία) and begetting “Rulers and Archangels and Angels
and Ministers (λειτουργοί) and Decans” (Δεκανοί), and that
thereupon Jeû went forth from the Place of the Right and
“bound them in Heimarmene and the Sphere.” We further
learn that half the Aeons headed by Jabraoth, who is also
once mentioned in the Pistis Sophia proper (p. 128, Copt.,
and again in the Bruce Papyrus, Amélineau, p. 239), were
consequently transferred to another place, while Adamas,
now for the first time called Sabaoth Adamas, with the
 unrepentant rulers are confined in the Sphere to the number
of 1800, over whom 360 other rulers bear sway, over whom
again are set the five planets Saturn, Mars, Mercury, Venus,
and Jupiter (pp. 360, 361, Copt.). All this seems to me to be
later than the Pistis Sophia proper, to have been written at a
time when belief in astrology was more rife than in Hadrian’s
reign, and to owe something to Manichaean influence. The
original Adamas, the persecutor of Pistis Sophia herself,
seems identifiable with the Diabolos or Cosmocrator of
Valentinus, in which case we may perhaps see in the “Great
Propator” a merely stupid and ignorant power like the
Jaldabaoth of the Ophites and their successors. See p. 163
infra.

523. p. 145, Copt. So Irenaeus in his account of the Valentinian

doctrines, Bk I. c. 1, p. 12 sqq. I suppose there is an allusion
to this in the remark of Jesus to Mary that a year is as a day
(p. 243, Copt.). But all the astrology of the time seems to have
divided the astronomical day not into 24, but into 12 hours. It
was the same with the Manichaeans. See Chavannes and
Pelliot, “Un Traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine,” Journal
Asiatique, série X, t. XVIII. (Nov.-Dec. 1911), p. 540, n. 4.

524. But curiously enough, not the “souls” of fish. So in the Middle
Ages, the Manichaeans of Languedoc did not allow their
“Perfects” to partake of animal food nor even of eggs, but
allowed them fish, because they said these creatures were
not begotten by copulation. See Schmidt, Hist. des Cathares,
Paris, 1843. Is this one of the reasons why Jesus is called
Ἰχθύς?

525. This idea of man being made from the tears of the eyes of the
heavenly powers is an old one in Egypt. So Maspero explains
the well-known sign of the utchat or Eye of Horus as that “qui
exprime la matière, le corps du soleil, d’où tous les êtres
découlent sous forme de pleurs,” “Les Hypogées Royaux de
Thébes,” Ét. Égyptol. II. p. 130. Moret, “Le verbe créateur et
 révélateur en Égypte,” R. H. R. Mai-Juin, 1909, p. 386, gives
many instances from hymns and other ritual documents. It
was known to Proclus who transfers it after his manner to
Orpheus and makes it into hexameters:

Thy tears are the much-enduring race of men,

By thy laugh thou hast raised up the sacred race of
gods.

See Abel’s Orphica, fr. 236.

526. See n. 1, p. 148 supra.

527. This is, perhaps, to be gathered from the Pistis Sophia, p. 36,
Copt. Cf. Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, pp. 337-338. In another
part of the last-named document, the Moon-ship is described
as steered by a male and female dragon (the caduceus of
Hermes?) who snatch away the light of the Rulers (p. 360,
Copt.).

528. This seems to be the passage referred to later by Origen. See

n. 2, p. 159 infra.

529. The usual epithet or appellation of Osiris Neb-er-tcher = Lord

of Totality or the Universe. Cf. Budge, Book of the Dead,
passim.

530. So in the Ascensio Isaiae, of which Mr Charles says that “we

cannot be sure that it existed earlier than the latter half of the
2nd century of our Era,” it is said (Chap. IX, v. 15) “And thus
His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the
heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.” Charles, The
Ascension of Isaiah, p. 62. Cf. ibid. pp. 67, 70, 73 and 79.

531. pp. 39, 40, Copt. The reference is apparently to the Book of
Enoch, c. LXXX. (see Charles, Book of Enoch, pp. 212, 213,
and the Epistle of Barnabas, N.T. extra can., c. IV. p. 9,
Hilgenfeld). In the Latin version of the last-quoted book, it is
 assigned to Daniel, which shows perhaps the connection of
Enoch with all this quasi-prophetic or apocalyptic literature.

532. According to the Valentinian system, his name was Θελητὸς

or “the Beloved.” See Chap. IX, p. 101 supra.

533. See Chap. VIII supra. Here he occupies a far inferior position
to that assigned him by the Ophites. In the Μέρος τευχῶν
Σωτῆρος he sinks lower still and becomes merely one of the
torturers in hell (p. 382, Copt., κ.τ.λ.). Thus, as is usual in
matters of religion, the gods of one age become the fiends of
the next. In the Bruce Papyrus (Amélineau, p. 212) he
appears as one of the chiefs of the Third Aeon. It is curious,
however, to observe how familiar the name must have been to
what Origen calls “a certain secret theology,” so that it was
necessary to give him some place in every system of
Gnosticism. His bipartite appearance may be taken from
Ezekiel viii. 2.

534. Probably the latter. See what is said about the Outer
Darkness in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, p. 319, Copt. where
it is described as “a great dragon whose tail is in his mouth
who is without the whole κόσμος and surrounds it.”

535. p. 83, Copt. So in the Manichaean legend, the First Man, on

being taken captive by Satan, prays seven times to the Light
and is delivered from the Darkness in which he is imprisoned.
See Chap. XIII infra.

536. This demon in the shape of a flying arrow seems to be well

known in Rabbinic lore. Mr Whinfield in J.R.A.S., April, 1910,
pp. 485, 486, describes him as having a head like a calf, with
one horn rising out of his forehead like a cruse or pitcher,
while to look upon him is certain death to man or beast. His
authority seems to be Rapaport’s Tales from the Midrash.

537. The basilisk with seven heads seems to be Death. See

Gaster, “The Apocalypse of Abraham,” T.S.B.A. vol. IX. pt 1, p.
 222, where this is said to be the “true shape” of death. Cf.
Kohler, “Pre-Talmudic Haggadah,” J.Q.R., 1895, p. 590.
Death, as we have seen in Chap. IX, p. 107, was in the ideas
of Valentinus the creature of the Demiurge. For the dragon,
see Whinfield, ubi cit.

538. These “three times” are not years. As the Pistis Sophia opens
with the announcement that Jesus spent 12 years on earth
after the Resurrection, we may suppose that He was then—if
the author accepted the traditional view that He suffered at 33
—exactly 45 years old, and the “time” would then be a period
of 15 years, as was probably the indiction. The descent of the
“two vestures” upon Jesus is said (p. 4, Copt.) to have taken
place “on the 15th day of the month Tybi” which is the day
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. Bk I. c. 21) gives for the birth of
Jesus. He says the followers of Basilides gave the same day
as that of His baptism.

539. Epiphanius, Haer. XXVI. t. II. pt 1, p. 181, Oehler.

540. This doctrine of ἑρμηνεία occurs all through the book. The
author is trying to make out that well-known passages of both
the Old and New Testaments were in fact prophetic
utterances showing forth in advance the marvels he narrates.
While the Psalms of David quoted by him are Canonical, the
Odes of Solomon are the Apocrypha known under that name
and quoted by Lactantius (Div. Inst. Bk IV. c. 12). For some
time the Pistis Sophia was the only authority for their
contents, but in 1909 Dr Rendel Harris found nearly the whole
collection in a Syriac MS. of the 16th century. A translation
has since been published in Cambridge Texts and Studies,
vol. VIII. No. 3, Cambridge, 1912, by the Bishop of Ossory,
who shows, as it seems conclusively, that they were the
hymns sung by the newly-baptized in the Primitive Church.

541. Astrological doctrine first becomes prominent in Gnostic

teaching in the Excerpta Theodoti which we owe to Clement
of Alexandria. We may therefore put their date about the year
 200. This would be after the time of Valentinus himself, but
agrees well with what M. Cumont (Astrology and Religion, pp.
96 sqq.) says as to the great vogue which astrology attained
in Rome under the Severi. Its intrusion into the Valentinian
doctrines is much more marked in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος
than in the Pistis Sophia, and more in the Bruce Papyrus than
in either.

542. See Chap. VIII, pp. 73, 74 supra.

543. Origen, cont. Cels. Bk VI. c. 34.

544. Hippolytus (Chap. IX, p. 92), speaks of the Jesus of

Valentinus as the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma simply. Irenaeus
(Bk I. c. 1, p. 23, Harvey) goes into more detail: Καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς
εὐποιΐας ταύτης βουλῇ μιᾷ καὶ γνώμῃ τὸ πᾶν Πλήρωμα τῶν
Αἰώνων, συνευδοκοῦντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος, τοῦ
δὲ Πατρὸς αὐτῶν συνεπισφραγιζομένου, ἕνα ἕκαστον τῶν
Αἰώνων, ὅπερ εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ κάλλιστον καὶ ἀνθηρότατον
συνενεγκαμένους καὶ ἐρανισαμένους, καὶ ταῦτα ἁρμοδίως
πλέξαντας, καὶ ἐμμελῶς ἑνώσαντας, προβαλέσθαι
προβλήματα εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν τοῦ Βυθοῦ, τελειότατον
κάλλος τε καὶ ἄστρον τοῦ Πληρώματος, τέλειον καρπὸν τὸν
Ἰησοῦν ὃν καὶ Σωτῆρα προσαγορευθῆναι, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ
Λόγον πατρωνομικῶς καὶ κατὰ [καὶ τὰ] Πάντα, διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ
πάντων εἶναι. “Αnd because of this benefit, with one will and
opinion, the whole Pleroma of the Aeons, with the consent of
Christos and the Spirit, and their Father having set his seal
upon the motion, brought together and combined what each
of them had in him which was most beautiful and brightest,
and wreathing these fittingly together and properly uniting
them, they projected a projection to the honour and glory of
Bythos, the most perfect beauty and star of the Pleroma, the
perfect Fruit Jesus, who is also called Saviour and Christ, and
after his Father Logos, and Pan, because He is from all.”
Compare with these the words of Colossians ii. 9: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ
 κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς. “For in
him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

545. That the Valentinians considered the Dodecad (and a fortiori

the Decad) as having a collective entity, and as it were a
corporate existence, seems plain from what Hippolytus says
in narrating the opinions of Marcus: ταῦτα γὰρ δώδεκα ζώδια
φανερώτατα τὴν τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου καὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας θυγατέρα
δωδεκάδα ἀποσκιάζειν λέγουσι. “For they say that these 12
signs of the Zodiac most clearly shadow forth the Dodecad
who is the daughter of Anthropos and Ecclesia” (Hipp. op. cit.
Bk VI. c. 54, p. 329, Cruice). And again (loc. cit. p. 331,
Cruice): ἔτι μὴν καὶ τὴν γῆν εἰς δώδεκα κλίματα διῃρῆσθαι
φάσκοντες, καὶ καθ’ ἒν ἕκαστον κλίμα, ἀνὰ μίαν δύναμιν ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανῶν κατὰ κάθετον ὑποδεχομένην, καὶ ὁμοούσια
τίκτουσαν τέκνα τῇ καταπεμπούσῃ κατὰ τὴν ἀπόρροιαν
δυνάμει, τύπον εἶναι τῆς ἄνω δωδεκάδος. “These are also
they who assert that the earth is divided into twelve climates,
and receives in each climate one special power from the
heavens and produces children resembling the power thus
sent down by emanation, being thus a type of the Dodecad
above.” The doctrine of correspondences or, as it was called
in the Middle Ages, of “signatures” is here most clearly stated.
In all this the Valentinian teaching was doubtless under the
influence of the ancient Egyptian ideas as to the paut neteru
or “company of the gods,” as to which see Maspero’s essay
Sur L’Ennéade quoted above.

546. It is said (p. 9, Copt.) that it is by him that the universe was
created and that it is he who causes the sun to rise.

547. As has before been said, this is attempted in one of the

documents of the Bruce Papyrus. See pp. 191, 192 infra. In
the present state of the text this attempt is only difficultly
intelligible, and is doubtless both later in date than and the
work of an author inferior to that of the Pistis Sophia.
548. p. 16, Copt. Yet the First Mystery is not the creator of Matter
which is evil, because Matter does not really exist. See Bruce
Papyrus (Amélineau, p. 126) and n. 2, p. 190 infra.

549. As mentioned in the Scottish Review article referred to in n. 1,

p. 135 supra, there is no passage but one in the Pistis Sophia
which affords any colour for supposing that the author was
acquainted with St John’s Gospel. All the quotations set forth
by Harnack in his treatise Über das gnostische Buch Pistis-
Sophia, Leipzig, 1891, p. 27, on which he relies to prove the
converse of this proposition, turn out on analysis to appear
also in one or other of the Synoptics, from which the author
may well have taken them. The single exception is this (Pistis
Sophia, p. 11, Copt.), “Wherefore I said unto you from the
beginning, Ye are not from the Cosmos; I likewise am not from
it”; John xvii. 14: “(O Father) I have given them thy word; and
the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world,
even as I am not of the world.” The parallel does not seem so
close as to make it certain that one document is copying from
the other. Both may very possibly be taken from some
collection of Logia now lost, but at one time current in
Alexandrian circles; or from the Gospel of the Egyptians, from
which the Pistis Sophia afterwards quotes.

550. See Chap. IX, p. 107 supra.

551. See last note. The Authades or Proud God of the Pistis
Sophia seems to have all the characteristics with which
Valentinus endows his Demiurge.

552. So Pistis Sophia sings in her second hymn of praise after her
deliverance from Chaos (p. 160, Copt.) “I am become pure
light,” which she certainly was not before that event. Jesus
also promises her later (p. 168, Copt.) that when the three
times are fulfilled and the Authades is again wroth with her
and tries to stir up Jaldabaoth and Adamas against her “I will
take away their powers from them and give them to thee.”
That this promise was supposed to be fulfilled seems evident
 from the low positions which Jaldabaoth and Adamas occupy
in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, while Pistis Sophia is said to
furnish the “power” for the planet Venus.

553. See Chap. IX, p. 108 and n. 1 supra.

554. All the revelations in the Pistis Sophia are in fact made in
anticipation of the time “when the universe shall be caught
up,” and the disciples be set to reign with Jesus in the Last
Parastates. Cf. especially pp. 193-206 Copt.

555. The idea may not have been peculiar to Valentinus and his
followers. So in the Ascensio Isaiae (x. 8-13) the “Most High
the Father of my Lord” says to “my Lord Christ who will be
called Jesus”: “And none of the angels of that world shall
know that thou art Lord with Me of the seven heavens and of
their angels. And they shall not know that Thou art with Me till
with a loud voice I have called to the heavens, and their
angels, and their lights, even unto the sixth heaven, in order
that you may judge and destroy the princes and angels and
gods of that world, and the world that is dominated by them.”
Charles, Ascension of Isaiah, pp. 70-71.

556. p. 194, Copt.

557. p. 230, Copt.

558. On the belief in the Millennium in the primitive Church, see

Döllinger, First Age of Christianity and the Church, Eng. ed.
1906, pp. 119, 123 and 268 and Ffoulkes, s.v. Chiliasts, in
Dict. Christian Biog.

559. p. 230, Copt. Cf. Luke xxii. 29, 30.

560. p. 231, Copt. “disciples” not apostles. So the Manichaeans

made Manes to be attended by twelve disciples. See Chap.
XIII infra.