Book X. the summary of their contents is also omitted.

This seems almost to point to a deliberate removal of just
» F. F. F., pp. 18S ff.
THB MYTH OF BiAN IN THE MYSTERIES 141
that inf onnation which would be of pricelees value to U8 to-daj, not only for the general history of the erolution of religious ideas, but also for filling in an important part of the background of the environment of infant Christianity.
Why, then, were these books cut out? Were the subsequent Christian Orthodox deterred by religious scruples, or were they afraid to circulate this informa- tion ? Hippolytus himself seems to have had no such hesitation ; he is ever delightedly boasting that he is giving away to the multitude the most sacred secrets of others ; it seems to have been his special nUtier to cry aloud on the house-tops what had been whispered in their secret chambers. It was for him a delicious triumph over "error" to boast, "I have your secret documents, and I am going to publish them ! "
Why, then, should those who came after him hesitate? Surely they were like-minded with Hip- polytus, and would have been as delighted as himself in humbling the pride of the hated Mystery-institutions in the dust ? Can it possibly be that they saw far more clearly than he did that quite other deductions mig^t be drawn from his '* startling revelations " ?
The Naasbenes
That far other deductions could be drawn from the Mystery-rites and Mystery-myths was at anyrate the view of a tradition of early Jewish and Christian mystics whom Hippolytus calls Naassene& The claim of these Gnostics was practically that Christianity, or rather the Good News of the Christ, was precisely the consummation of the inner doctrine of the Mystery- institutions of all the nations ; the end of them all was the revelation of the Mystery of Man.
142 THRICB-OREATEST HERMES
It is further to be noticed that these Naassenes, ** who call themselves Gnostics " (v. 2), are the very first school of Christian "heresy" with which Hippolytus deals; he puts them in the forefront of his Be/iUcUum, as being, presumably, in his opinion, the oldest, or, at any- rate, as representing the most ancient form of Christian "heresy."
Although the name Naassene (Naa^tri^vo/) is derived from the Hebrew Nahask (Serpent), Hippolytus does not call them Ophites ; indeed, he reserves the latter name to a body to which he also gives (viiL 20) the name Cainites and Nochaitse (NoxoiVa/)— ? Nachaitse, again, from Nachask^ — and considers them of not sufficient importance for further mention.
These Naassenes possessed many secret books or apocrypha — that is, books kept back from general circulation — and also regarded as authoritative the following scriptures: The Oospel of Per/eeHon, The Ooepel of Eve, Hie QuedioM of Mary? Concerning the Ojffkjmng of Mary, The Oospel of Philip, The Oospel according to Thomas, and The Oospel according to the Egyptians, All of which points somewhat to an Alexandrian or Egyptian circle.
Analysis op Hippolytus' Account op the Naassene Document
One of their secret MSS. had fallen into the hands of Hippolytus. It is in the Bishop of Portus' quotations
^ Both K and ch being transliteration devices for the same Hebrew letter n in the word ^\,
* We know of the two titles, The QreaUr and The Lemr QuatUnu of Mary ; the general title is thought by some to be tiie proper designation of one of the sources of the composite document known as PxMbU Sophia, and has been suggested as its more appropriate general epigraph.
THB MYTH OF MAN IN THB MYSTERIES 143
from this document that Beitzenstein (pp. 81 ff.) seeks to discover what he calls the *' Hellenistic Myth of the God Anthropos." His theory is that, by eliminating the Christian citations and thoughts of the Naassene writer, we are face to face with a purely Heathen document.
The reproduction of their views, as given by Hippo- lytus,^ falls according to Beitzenstein into three divisions.
(i) The first begins with the explanation of the name *• Naassene " (S. 131, 1 ; C. 139, 1 «), and, after giving a few brief headings, ends (S. 134, 8 ; C. 141, 2) with the statement that the writer of the MS. said they had their tradition from James, the Brother of the Lord, who had delivered it to Mariamne.
(iii) The third begins (S. 170, 64; C. 178, 1) with another explanation of the name. In both of these parts are found remains of hymns from some liturgical collection.
(iL) Between i and ii lies a longer exposition in which Hippolytus tries to show that the Naassene doctrines are taken from the Mysteries, culminating in the assertion that the Naassenes, as a matter of fact, were nothing else than sectaries of the Mysteries of the Mother of the Gods, in proof of which he quotes at length from a secret document of their school
Our interest in these quotations, however, is very different from that of Hippolytus, for, as Beitzenstein has now shown, it is manifest on inspection that the Christian quotations and thoughts in this document
^ Philo8.f V. 1-11, of which I published a preliminary traiiBlatioii, under the heading ** Selections from the ' Philosophumena,' " in The Theoiophieal Review (August and September 1893), xii. 559- 569, xiiL 42-52, and a summary in F, F, F.^ pp. 198-206.
* £d. L. Dunoker and F. Q. Schneidewin (Oottingen, 1859) ; and ed. P. Cruice (Paris, 1860).
144 THRICB-GRBATBST HERMES
violently disrupt its underlying continuity, and that tbey are for the most part easily removable without damage to the sense.
With regard to the Old Testament quotations it is not always so easy to diMntangle them from the Hellenistic source, much less from the New Testament quotations; the phenomena, however, presented by them are of such a nature that, in my opinion, there is ample evidence before us that there was a Jewish working-over of the matter before it came into the hands of the Christian overwriter. Beitzenstein, how- ever, does not venture so far.
Even, then, if we were content with Beitzenstein's analysis only, it is quite clear that the quotations from the Old Testament formed no part of the original ; and that we have, therefore, before us what was once a purely Heathen text, with Gnostic Christian scAo/ia, or rather overworked by a Christian Gnostic The original Pagan text had, accordingly, been cut up by the Naassene overwriter before ever it came into the hands of Hippolytua
Now, as the Christianised text must have been for some time in private circulation before it reached the library of the Bishop of Portus^ — even if we make no allowance for a Jewish Hellenistic stratum of over- writing, still seeing that Hippolytus' own view was that, in the Naassene MS., he had before him a basic document of those whom he r^arded as the earliest Christian " heretics " — ^it is quite evident that if we were to place the date of the original Hellemstic source in the first century, we should not be doing violence even to the ecclesiastical traditional absurdity that Gnosti- cism first sullied the orthodox purity of the Church only
^ The date of ine writing of the Philotophumena is placed Bome- where about 222 ▲.d.
THB MYTH OP MAN IN THE MYSTERIES 145
in the reign of Trajan (96-117 A.D.). But we will re- turn to the question of date later on.
As the whole matter is not only one of considerable interest for the student of our treatises, but also of the greatest importance for the student of the history of Gnosticism, I shall give a translation of Hippolytus' introductory and concluding sections, as well as of the intermediate section which specially concerns us, so that the reader may have a view of the whole medley as it comes to us from the hands of the heresy-hunting bishop.
I shall, moreover, proceed a stage further in the analysis of the material of Hippolytus than Keitzenstein has done, and hope, when the evidence has been laid before the reader, to win his assent to what appears to me to be the natural sifting out of the various elements, with resultant phenomena which are of the greatest importance for the history of Gnosticism, and, therefore, of the evolution of Christian dogmatics, and which lead to conclusions that are far too serious to be treated m the short space of a single chapter of our present
In the following analysis H. stands for Hippolytus ; G. for the Christian Gnostic final overwriter, the *' Naas- aene" whose MS. lay before H. ; J. for the Naassene Jewish mystic who preceded C. and overworked the original ; S. for the original Heathen Hellenistic Source.
As H. and C. are of secondary importance for our immediate enquiry, though of themselves of the greatest value and interest, I shall print them in smaller type. J. I shall print in the same type as S., as nearer in contact with S. than C, and as being some- times more difficult to detach from S. than from C.
The reader, to have the text of Hippolytus before him, must neglect all the critical indications and read straight on.
VOL. L 10
146 THRICE-GREATEST HEEBIES
With these brief preliminary indications we will, then, present the reader with a translation of the first section, or introductory part,^ of Hippoljtus' exposure or exposition of the Naassene doctrines, begging him to remember throughout that it is a portrait painted by the hand of one of their bitterest foes.
HippoLTTUs' Introduction
H. The priests and cYdeh of [this] doctrine' were first of all those who were called Naaaseni — so named in Hebrew, [in which] "serpent" is called naoi^ Bat subsequently they called themselves Qnostics, pretending that they alone knew the Depths^
From these many separated themselves and [so] turned the school, which was originally a single one, into numerous sects^ setting forth the same ideas in various doctrinal forms, as our argument wiU show as it advances.
These [Naassenes] honour as the Logos (Reason) of all universals* Man, and Son of Bfan. This Man is male-female, and is called by them Adamas.* And they have many intricate * hymns in his hcmour. These hymns— to dispose of them briefly — ^run somewhat as follows :
J. ***From Thee '[is] Father, and 'Through Thee* ^ Mother — the two Immortal Names,® Parents of .£on8, O Thou who hast the Heaven for Thy City, O Man of Mighty Names." •
» S. 132, 1—134, 80 ; C. 139, 1—141, 2.
' The worship of the serpent, according to H.
> Cf. the strange logoi, preserved in Matt z. 16 alone : therefore wise as serpents."
^ The reading can be slightly emended by H.'s epitome in