WAS HERMAS A TRINITARIAN

**WAS HERMAS A TRINITARIAN?**

The *Shepherd of Hermas* is a significant early Christian work, often grouped among the Apostolic Fathers. J.B. Lightfoot affirms its ancient pedigree, writing that *The Shepherd of Hermas* “is entitled in the most ancient notices.” The dating of the work is debated; some scholars place it as early as 80 AD, while others suggest it was written in the middle of the second century. Regardless of the exact date, the text represents a pre-creedal theology—one not influenced by later developments such as the doctrine of the Trinity.

While the terms “God,” “Lord,” and “Holy Spirit” appear frequently throughout the text, they are never arranged in a triadic formula nor portrayed as coequal persons of one divine essence. Indeed, it would take, as some might say, considerable *mischievousness* to find a Trinitarian framework in this work. The language and structure of *Hermas* consistently oppose the later Trinitarian theology articulated in the fourth-century councils.

Hermas begins his ethical instruction in *The First Mandate* with an unambiguous affirmation of monotheism:

> “First of all, believe that God is One, even He Who created all things and set them in order, and brought all things from non-existence into being.” (*Mandate 1.1*)

Here, God is singular. There is no mention of a triune nature, no coequal persons. God is identified clearly as *He*—not *They*—and as the sole Creator. Hermas does not write, “Believe God is Three,” or “Believe God is One, even They who created all things.” On the contrary, God is “One,” and He alone “brought all things from non-existence into being.” This language is more compatible with strict monotheism than Trinitarianism. Indeed, if all things were brought into existence by this One God, that would logically include the Son—suggesting that the Son is part of creation rather than coeternal with the Father.

In *Mandate Eleven*, Hermas offers insight into the nature of the Holy Spirit:

> “This then is the greatness of the power as touching the Pneuma of the deity of the Lord.” (*Mandate 11.5*)

He also refers to “the angel of the prophetic spirit,” indicating that the Pneuma is a messenger or a functional agent rather than a personal being. The Spirit is consistently described in terms of power, function, and inspiration, not as a distinct person within a triune godhead.

Another revealing passage comes from *Similitude 5.7*, as translated by Lightfoot (p. 207):

> “God ... created the people, and delivered them over to His Son ... (who) is Himself Lord of the people, having received all power from His Father. ... The Holy Pre-existent Spirit, Which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that He desired. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was subject unto the Spirit.”

In this passage, Hermas outlines a hierarchy: God the Father is the Creator, who gives authority to the Son. The Spirit, described as “Holy” and “Pre-existent,” is the power by which creation occurred—but not a person coequal with God. Rather, God *made* this Spirit “to dwell in flesh,” which is a direct reference to the incarnation of the Son. Notably, “this flesh ... was subject unto the Spirit,” indicating the subordination of the Son to the indwelling Pneuma. In Hermas’s framework, the Father gives power, the Spirit empowers, and the Son obeys. This is a functional hierarchy, not a triune equality.

Trinitarians often cite *Similitude 9.12* (Lightfoot, p. 229):

> “The Son of God is older than all His \[God’s] creation, so that He became the Father’s adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is ancient.”

At first glance, this might appear to affirm the Son’s eternality. But Hermas says the Son is “older than all His creation,” not uncreated. He calls the Son the “Father’s adviser,” not His equal. The term “adviser” evokes Proverbs 8:22–30, where Wisdom says:

> “The LORD created me at the beginning of His course, as the first of His works of old. ... I was with Him as a confidant.” (*Jewish Tanakh*)

Hermas appears to draw on this tradition, portraying the Son as preeminent within creation but still subordinate and derived. The use of “ancient” is not synonymous with “eternal.” The Son is portrayed as having a beginning—as being brought forth as a helper in God’s creative work, not as an uncaused cause or coeternal being.

Perhaps the most ambiguous—and potentially henotheistic—statement occurs in *Similitude 9.23* (Lightfoot, p. 236):

> “If God and our Lord, Who ruleth over all things and hath the authority over all His creation ... ”

The phrase “God and our Lord” can be interpreted in two ways. It may refer to two persons: God (the Father) and our Lord (the Son). Or, more controversially, it could be that Hermas applies the title “God” to the Son in this singular instance. If so, then Hermas has presented *two Gods*—one who delegates power, and another who receives it and rules. This is not the language of one being in three persons, but of two distinct beings with divine titles—supporting a henotheistic framework.

In conclusion, *The Shepherd of Hermas* does not support Trinitarianism. Its portrayal of God, the Son, and the Spirit is hierarchical and functional, not ontologically unified. God is One—the Creator of all things, including the Son. The Son is “ancient,” preeminent in creation, but not eternal or coequal. The Spirit is a divine power, not a person. At best, Hermas’s theology may be considered henotheistic, acknowledging the supremacy of one God while also granting divine status to the Son. But it is a far cry from the Trinity.

WAS BARNABAS A TRINITARIAN

WAS BARNABAS A TRINITARIAN?

The Epistle of Barnabas, referenced by early church father Clement of Alexandria, remains a unique voice among early Christian writings. J.B. Lightfoot notes: “It stands alone in the literature of the early Church” (The Apostolic Fathers, p. 133). Though some in antiquity believed it to be authored by Paul’s early missionary companion (Acts 13:2), the epistle was not universally accepted as canonical. Scholars generally assign it a date between 70–79 AD, placing it close to the apostolic era but independent in tone and theology.

The question arises: was Barnabas a Trinitarian? A close reading of the epistle provides a resounding no. Those looking for a formal Trinitarian doctrine — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as coequal, coeternal persons in one essence — will be disappointed. The work lacks any developed theology remotely resembling later creeds such as the Nicene or Athanasian definitions.

The epistle begins by invoking divine authority: “Blessed be God who has placed wisdom, understanding, and insight of his ordinances within us through his Spirit” (Barnabas 1.1). Some eager Trinitarian interpreters attempt to construct a triadic formula from such verses: “God,” “Spirit,” and later, “the Lord.” However, this loose grouping does not suggest co-equal persons or a divine essence shared among three. These are not presented as one God in three persons, but as distinct entities functioning in different capacities.

A commonly cited passage comes from Barnabas 5.5. It reads:

“If the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, He being Lord of the whole world, unto whom God said from the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness,’ how did He endure to suffer at the hands of men?”

Here, two beings are plainly mentioned: one is "the Lord," identified with Jesus who suffers; the other is "God," who speaks to this Lord. The quotation from Genesis 1:26 is key: “Let us make man in our image.” According to this passage, God is addressing the Lord (Jesus), attributing to Him preexistence and involvement in creation. But the relationship is dialogical—one speaks to another—not ontological in the Trinitarian sense. There is no conflation of being or essence. Rather, the distinction between the speaker (God) and the one addressed (the Lord) is clear.

The term “Lord of the whole world” is worth examining. The passage calls Jesus “Lord of the whole world,” a title that implies dominion and divine authority. But this title is not exclusive. Near the conclusion of the epistle, Barnabas writes:

“And may God, who is Lord of the whole world, give you wisdom, understanding, and knowledge of his judgments.” (Barnabas 21.3)

This statement assigns the title “Lord of the whole world” to God — presumably the Father, Yahweh. If the same title is given to both Jesus and God, then by any fair and literal reading, Barnabas is speaking of two divine figures. This does not resolve into a singular divine being with three coequal persons, but rather two distinct beings: God and the Lord. The title is shared, not unified. As such, Barnabas’s theology is best described as henotheistic — the belief in one supreme God while acknowledging the existence (and even worship) of other divine beings.

This is further confirmed in Barnabas 6.12, where the Genesis 1:26 quotation appears again:

“The Son of God says again to the Jews, when they smote Him: ‘Why do you strike me, who have prepared your way?’ If the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, though He was Lord of the whole world, to whom God said from the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness,’ how did He endure to suffer at the hands of men?”

Once again, God speaks to the Son, and the Son is presented as subordinate — not coequal. This is not Trinitarianism. It is a hierarchy: God above, the Son beneath, and the Spirit barely mentioned at all.

Indeed, references to the Spirit are extremely rare in the letter. Aside from the mention of “his Spirit” in 1.1, the Spirit does not play a central role in Barnabas’s theology. There is no discussion of the Spirit as a divine person, no doxologies involving the Spirit, and no language that would support later formulations of a divine third person of the Godhead. This absence is striking when compared with the works of later Trinitarian theologians.

Even when divine actions are attributed to the Spirit, such as imparting wisdom or inspiration, the language used is functional, not personal. The Spirit is a means by which God acts, not a coequal identity within a unified Godhead.

In sum, The Epistle of Barnabas offers no evidence that its author was a Trinitarian. Rather, the document reflects an early Christian worldview in which God (Yahweh) is supreme, Jesus is his exalted agent — even preexistent — but clearly distinct from God, and the Spirit is an impersonal force or power. When titles like “Lord of the whole world” are applied to both God and the Son, this is not an affirmation of one God in three persons, but rather an acknowledgment of divine hierarchy and shared authority.

Thus, the theology of Barnabas aligns more closely with early Jewish-Christian henotheism than with the later philosophical doctrines of the Trinity. The epistle stands as an early witness against Trinitarianism, not for it.

Mary Conceiving the Gospel of Philip

Jesus' Two Mothers: The Ebionite and Valentinian View of Spirit, Birth, and Resurrection

Both the Ebionites and the Valentinians present a compelling, non-Trinitarian framework for understanding the origins and exaltation of Jesus. Far from the later creeds that declared Jesus to be eternally divine, these early movements emphasized his humanity, his adoption by God, and his new birth by the spirit at the resurrection. From this perspective, Jesus is the natural child of Joseph and Mary, adopted as the Son of God at his baptism and fully made the Son of God in power by the resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:3–4). In both Ebionite and Valentinian thought, Mary is understood as the mother of Jesus according to the flesh, but not the source of his imperishable life. His new birth through the Holy Spirit makes the spirit his second mother—one who gives him life in truth.

This idea is made explicit in The Gospel of Philip, a Valentinian text that challenges the idea of Mary conceiving by the Holy Spirit. It states:

“Some said Mary became pregnant by the holy spirit. They are wrong and do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever get pregnant by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom none of the powers defiled. This is greatly cruse to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and apostolic persons. This virgin whom none of the powers defiled [wishes that] the powers would defile themselves. The master [would] not have said, ‘My [father who is] in heaven,’ if [he] did not also have another father. He would simply have said, ‘[My father].’” — Gospel of Philip

This passage contains multiple layered implications. First, it clearly asserts that Mary did not conceive by the Holy Spirit. The argument hinges on the fact that in Hebrew, the word “spirit” (ruach) is grammatically feminine. As the author of Philip quips: “When did a woman ever get pregnant by a woman?” The logic is not about divine impossibility but about coherence within spiritual typology: the Holy Spirit as a feminine power cannot be the cause of physical conception in Mary. This means Mary’s pregnancy was natural, not supernatural. Jesus was the biological son of Joseph and Mary, a position also affirmed by the Ebionites and by Paul in Romans 1:3.

The Valentinians, like the Ebionites, believed Jesus became the Christ at his baptism. From that point, the Spirit descended on him, adopting him as God’s son. However, his full glorification came at the resurrection, when he was “born again” by the Spirit into imperishable life. The Gospel of Philip says:

“The Lord was conceived (born again) from what is imperishable, from God. The [Lord arose] from among the dead. But [He did not come into being as he was. Rather [his body] was [completely] perfect. It was of flesh, and this [flesh is indeed] true flesh.¹ [Yet our flesh] is not true, but rather a mirror-image of the true [flesh].” — Gospel of Philip

This is congruent with Paul's teaching in Romans 1:3–4:

“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”

Thus, Jesus’ true identity as the Son of God was not established by his birth from Mary, but through the resurrection—his new birth from the Spirit. This new birth is described in Johannine language as being “born from above” or “born again”:

“What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has been born from the spirit is spirit. Do not marvel because I told you, YOU people must be born again. The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone that has been born from the spirit.” — John 3:6–8

Here, the Spirit is again portrayed in feminine terms—as one who gives birth. To be born from the spirit is to have the spirit as a mother. This clarifies The Gospel of Thomas Saying 101 (not 110):

“Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does [not] love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a [disciple] to me. For my mother [gave me falsehood], but [my] true [mother] gave me life.”

The mother who gave Jesus “falsehood” is Mary—not because she sinned, but because the flesh inherited from her (and Joseph) was subject to mortality and what Paul calls "condemnation." By falsehood, we understand this to mean the genetic inheritance of Adamic mortality—cellular aging and death. Jesus, being born from flesh, inherited the condition of death and had to be saved from it, as Hebrews 5:7 confirms:

“In the days of his flesh, he offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his piety.”

Jesus’ true mother, then, is the Holy Spirit, who raised him from the dead into incorruptibility. The resurrection is the moment he is born from the spirit—conceived anew from the imperishable.

The Ebionite and Valentinian perspectives converge in rejecting the idea that Jesus’ physical birth involved divine impregnation. Both affirm his full humanity and assert that divine sonship is a title bestowed through obedience and resurrection, not divine DNA. The “powers”—angels, elohim, and even the Holy Spirit—did not touch Mary. Jesus’ true transformation came not at Bethlehem but at the empty tomb, when he was declared the Son of God in power, born not of flesh, but of the Spirit.

Thus, Jesus has two mothers: Mary, who gave him corruptible life according to the flesh, and the Spirit, who gave him imperishable life according to the resurrection.

Mary Conceiving the gospel of philip, gospel of thomas, 

Mary Conceiving

Some said Mary became pregnant by the holy spirit. They are wrong and do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever get pregnant by a woman?

Mary is the virgin whom none of the powers defiled. This is greatly cruse to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and apostolic persons. This virgin whom none of the powers defiled [wishes that] the powers would defile themselves.

My Father

The master [would] not have said, “My [father who is] in heaven,” if [he] did not also have another father. He would simply have said, “[My father].”

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman [she was not defiled when the holy spirit impregnated her through David's seed see my study The Artificial Insemination of Mary with David's semen. Because David's seed and Mary's egg were implanted. Later the embryo was holy but still Adamic by which we mean our fall sinful nature].
[Mary was impregnated by the Father however Mary is not the true mother of Jesus, the true mother of Jesus is the Holy Spirit ]

Jesus has two Mothers: Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to Me. And whoever does [not] love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a [disciple] to Me. For My mother [gave me falsehood], but [My] true [Mother] gave me life." Gospel of Thomas Saying 110

In Hebrew the word spirit is a feminine noun. That is why it can be spoken of as a Mother giving birth. Therefore Jesus has 2 mothers Mary is Jesus' natural mother according to the flesh who could only give him falsehood or death by genetic inheritance. By falsehood we understand this to mean adamic condemnation which brings forth death which Jesus needed to be saved from Hebrews 5:7

when the holy spirit overshadowed Mary this was a miracle however Jesus was made of human nature his flesh was the same as our flesh he did not an immaculate nature or angelic nature. Therefore he would need to be born of the spirit to have eternal life

However the holy spirit is Jesus' mother by his resurrection from the dead by being born again.

The Lord was conceived (born again) from what is imperishable, from God. The [Lord arose] from among the dead. But [He did not come into being as he was. Rather [his body] was [completely] perfect. It was of flesh, and this [flesh is indeed] true flesh.¹ [Yet our flesh] is not true, but rather a mirror-image of the true [flesh]. (¹Jn 1:14, 20:27, II-Jn 7; NHS p. 174 Gospel of Philip

Romans 1:3  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Jesus came in the flesh of the seed of David when he was resurrected from the dead by the spirit of holiness he was born of the spirit

John 3:6 What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has been born from the spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel because I told you, YOU people must be born again.
8 The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone that has been born from the spirit.”

Notice the feminine description of the spirit in v8 one is born of the spirit. to use the langue of being born is describing the holy spirit as a mother

Mt 11:19 But wisdom is justified by her children.

Therefore the holy spirit is a feminine aspect of God

The holy spirit is a force, the invisible power and energy of the Father by which God is everywhere present. The chosen messengers have been given only the power and authority from Yahweh they need to accomplish their mission. Gen 1:2; Num 11:17; Mt 3:16; John 20:22; Ac 2:4, 17, 33. The Spirit is not a 'separate' or 'other' person. Ac 7:55, 56; Re 7:10 It is God's own radiant power, ever out flowing from Him, by which His 'everywhereness' is achieved. Ps 104:30; 1 Cor 12:4-11.
The Spirit is personal in that it is of God Himself: it is not personal in the sense of being some other person within the Godhead"

Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled [she was a Righteous woman]. She [Mary – the symbolic “womb” of spiritual birth] is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men [even these were anathema because they were all still “double minded” and could not comprehend what Mary truly represented at the time]. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves.

And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father [the other father was the “first man Adam” through His physical “genetic” seed line for one must first be born of flash for "that", says Jesus himself, "which is born of the flesh is flesh" (John 3:6)  and this Paul explains in another place by saying, that "He sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3) in the offering of his body once (Heb. 10:10,12,14). Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died; for he was born of a woman, and "not one" can bring a clean body out of a defiled body;], but he would have said simply "My father"  [Jesus also had a physical father in Eli and was adopted in the Royal family by Joseph].

The real historical Jesus

**The Real Historical Jesus**

The real historical Jesus was not the divine figure later fashioned by Gentile Christianity but a man born of two human parents—Joseph and Mary. He entered the world in the ordinary way all humans do and was known simply as Jesus of Nazareth. It was only at the age of thirty, when he was baptized by John in the Jordan, that the Spirit descended upon him, marking the beginning of his public role as prophet. This event, not his birth, was the turning point in his life. As one early source put it, "It was only at his baptism, at thirty years of age, that the Spirit descended upon him and he became a prophet."

His teachings, remembered and treasured by his followers, were preserved orally. The earliest community of believers—known as the **Ebionites**—regarded these Sayings as a sacred deposit to be passed on with fidelity. To them, Jesus was not a pre-existent divine being but a man specially chosen and anointed by the Spirit of God. Indeed, the title *Christ* (Greek *Christos*, meaning "anointed") did not indicate a supernatural identity but a status similar to that of Old Testament figures such as Saul, David, and the prophets. "It is true that Jesus was 'Christ,'" they believed, "but so also would anyone who was anointed with the Holy Spirit like Saul, David and the prophets."

The Ebionites rejected any notion of Jesus being divine or pre-existent. Church historian Epiphanius of Salamis recorded that they saw Jesus as fully human and described him as "the biological son of Joseph and Mary, who, by virtue of his righteousness in perfectly following the letter and spirit of the Law of Moses, was adopted as the son of God to fulfill the Hebrew scriptures." Their Christology was strictly adoptionist, meaning that Jesus became the Son of God not by nature but by divine selection and moral excellence.

In fact, their view of Jesus was deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. They saw him as the prophet foretold in *Deuteronomy 18:15-19*, the one like Moses who would arise from among the people of Israel. In this sense, Jesus was not the fulfillment of a Greco-Roman mystery religion, but the next phase in Israel’s own prophetic heritage. As one scholar notes, "The Ebionites viewed Jesus as a Messiah in the mold of a new 'prophet like Moses'… They believed Jesus came to call all descendants of the Twelve Tribes of Israel who had strayed from the covenant with God… to repent and follow both the Law of Moses and Jesus' own expounding of the Law."

For the Ebionites, Jesus had a mission of national and spiritual reform. He was calling his people back to covenantal faithfulness, not establishing a new religion. His life was a model of obedience to the Torah, and he taught a stricter interpretation of it, emphasizing inner righteousness and ethical purity. There was no contradiction between Jesus and Moses—Jesus was Moses renewed.

Furthermore, according to *Epiphanius*, the Ebionites believed Jesus "proclaimed the abolishment of animal sacrifices," which placed him in direct opposition to the Temple priesthood. He sought to replace the elaborate and corrupt system of temple rituals with a simpler, more ethical religion rooted in mercy and justice. Consequently, he was seen not as a sin-bearing sacrifice but as a prophet-martyr. The Ebionites did not believe that "Jesus suffered and died for the atonement of the sins of Israelites or mankind." Instead, his death was the tragic result of his bold public challenge to the existing religious order and his messianic claim. Jesus was arrested and crucified not to fulfill divine wrath, but because he "was arrested and sentenced to death by crucifixion, both for his messianic claim and his failed attempt at ending the Temple sacrificial system."

The earliest believers did not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. The idea that Jesus existed in heaven before his birth would have been foreign and blasphemous to the Ebionites, who held firmly to Jewish monotheism. As the Church Fathers repeatedly attest, "The Church Fathers agree that most or all of the Ebionites rejected many of the precepts central to proto-orthodox Christianity, such as Jesus' divinity and pre-existence."

Instead, they awaited a future revelation of the Messiah. Jesus had come once as a prophet, but his role as king and messianic ruler was still to come. As one account puts it: "He was a manifestation of the Messiah… but he had not yet appeared as the Messiah; that would only be at his second coming." The Ebionites believed in a literal future reign of the Messiah on earth, when all nations would be subject to Israel, and a thousand years of peace and justice would follow.

In this light, Paul was seen not as a true apostle, but as an apostate. He taught doctrines utterly alien to the Jesus they had known and revered. "They naturally repudiated Paul and his new doctrine entirely; for them Paul was a deceiver and an apostate from the Law, they even denied that he was a Jew." The Ebionites clung to the Law of Moses and the teachings of Jesus as inseparable. In their eyes, Paul's antinomian gospel—divorced from Torah observance and reliant on a dying-rising savior—was heresy.

In conclusion, the real historical Jesus, as preserved in the memory of the Ebionites, was not a divine being but a righteous man and prophet. He was the anointed one of God in the same sense that many before him had been anointed: by the Spirit, for a mission. He lived and died as a reformer within Israel, calling his people back to God through repentance, mercy, and obedience. His memory was cherished not as that of a god, but of a just man who was willing to die for truth.

The Ebionites

The Ebionites: An Overview of Beliefs and Practices

The Ebionites were a sect of Jewish Christians whose beliefs and practices diverged significantly from what became the dominant form of Christianity. Drawing upon Jewish traditions and scriptures, the Ebionites maintained a strong commitment to the Law of Moses, strict monotheism, and a deeply human view of Jesus. Patristic sources—primarily hostile—portray the Ebionites as a heretical group, yet these reports also preserve vital historical details that shed light on the diversity of early Christian thought.

Adherence to the Law and Jewish Identity

The Ebionites were characterized by their rigorous observance of Jewish law. They are said to have revered Jerusalem as the holiest city and maintained kosher dietary practices, limiting table fellowship to Gentiles who had fully converted to Judaism. They did not consider belief in Jesus to be a replacement for the Torah but saw his message as a call to stricter obedience to it. This emphasis placed them at odds with Gentile Christianity, which increasingly distanced itself from Jewish customs in the second century.

Christology: A Human Jesus Adopted by God

One of the defining features of Ebionite theology was their rejection of the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity and pre-existence. According to Church Fathers like Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, the Ebionites held that Jesus was a man born naturally of Joseph and Mary. He became the "Son of God" not by nature, but by adoption at his baptism, when the Christ—the Spirit or angel of God—descended upon him. This separationist Christology is emphasized by Epiphanius, who claimed that the Ebionites made a distinction between Jesus and the Christ, viewing the latter as a heavenly being who temporarily indwelt Jesus.

Although all Ebionites denied the pre-existence of Jesus, there were variations within the sect regarding the virgin birth. Theodoret, relying on earlier sources, described two sub-groups: one that denied the virgin birth and used the Gospel of the Hebrews, and another that accepted it and used the Gospel of Matthew. Even within the latter, their version of Matthew was reportedly edited to begin at Jesus’ baptism, omitting the infancy narratives which later orthodox Christianity emphasized. This demonstrates a strong tendency within the Ebionite tradition to focus on Jesus’ adult life and prophetic mission, rather than supernatural origin stories.

Scriptural Sources and Textual Traditions

The Ebionites are commonly associated with Jewish-Christian gospels, particularly versions of Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic. Irenaeus reported that they used a truncated form of Matthew’s Gospel, starting with the baptism by John the Baptist, and lacking the nativity account. This version reflected their theological perspective: Jesus became important not by divine birth but by divine commissioning. These scriptural texts were seen as complementary to the Hebrew Bible, which they continued to regard as authoritative.

Jesus as Prophet and Reforming Messiah

The Ebionites viewed Jesus as the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15–19—the prophet like Moses—sent to recall Israel to covenant faithfulness. Jesus’ messianic role, in their eyes, was not to die for sin but to instruct and reform. He came to guide both Jews and righteous Gentiles to a purer observance of the Law, emphasizing mercy, justice, and personal repentance.

The Ebionite understanding of Jesus’ death was likewise distinctive. According to Epiphanius, they denied that Jesus died for the sins of the world. Instead, they saw him as a martyr who was executed for his challenge to the Temple priesthood and the animal sacrificial system. Jesus, in this interpretation, sought to restore a more ethical, spiritual form of worship grounded in repentance and moral action rather than ritual bloodshed. His death was thus seen as a consequence of prophetic opposition, not a salvific offering.

Prophets and Inspiration

In their views on prophecy, the Ebionites also differed from both Judaism and emerging orthodox Christianity. Methodius of Olympus claimed they believed that the Hebrew prophets spoke by their own insight rather than being inspired by the Holy Spirit. If accurate, this suggests a rationalistic or moralistic understanding of divine guidance, where righteousness and wisdom arose from obedience and reflection rather than supernatural possession.

Conclusion

The Ebionites represent a significant stream within early Christianity—one that remained deeply rooted in Jewish tradition, emphasizing the humanity and prophetic role of Jesus. Their rejection of Christ’s divinity, their strict adherence to the Law, and their use of alternative gospels place them outside the trajectory that led to Nicene orthodoxy. Yet, their theology preserves a vision of Jesus as a human reformer, calling for ethical renewal and faithfulness to the covenant. In many ways, the Ebionites embody an early Christian attempt to follow Jesus without abandoning the religious framework of first-century Judaism.

Although known almost entirely through the writings of their opponents, the Ebionites challenge modern readers to reconsider the range of beliefs held by the earliest followers of Jesus and the complex process by which one version of Christianity emerged as dominant. Their commitment to the Law, their view of Jesus as a righteous man chosen by God, and their moral focus offer a glimpse into a form of Christianity that has largely been forgotten but was once a living and competing vision of the faith.

The Valentinian Understanding of Matthew 10:28 and the Rejection of Reincarnation

 **The Valentinian Understanding of Matthew 10:28 and the Rejection of Reincarnation**    

Matthew 10:28 states:  

*"Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."*  

Valentinian theology, as expressed in the writings of Heracleon and Theodotus, rejects the notion of reincarnation. Their interpretation of Matthew 10:28 emphasizes that the soul is not an immortal, transmigrating entity but is instead perishable, subject to destruction along with the body. This stands in direct opposition to the idea that the soul is continually reborn into different bodies.  

### **Heracleon’s Refutation of Immortality and Reincarnation**  

Heracleon, an early Valentinian commentator, explicitly uses Matthew 10:28 to refute the idea of an immortal soul. He states:  

*"By the words ‘it was at the point of death,’ the teaching of those who claim that the soul is immortal is refuted. In agreement with this is the statement that ‘the body and soul are destroyed in Gehenna.’ (Matthew 10:28) The soul is not immortal, but is possessed only of a disposition towards salvation, for it is the perishable which puts on imperishability and the mortal which puts on immortality when ‘its death is swallowed up in victory.’ (1 Corinthians 15:54)"* (*Fragment 40, on John 4:46-53*)  

Heracleon directly challenges the idea that the soul exists eternally in different forms. Instead of teaching that the soul reincarnates, he emphasizes that it is *perishable*—it does not continue in an endless cycle of rebirths. Rather, it must be transformed, putting on imperishability through divine intervention, specifically at the Resurrection. If the soul could move from one body to another, as in reincarnation, it would be inherently immortal and not subject to ultimate destruction, which Heracleon explicitly denies.  

### **Theodotus on the Soul’s Corporeality and Final Judgment**  

Theodotus further reinforces this view by arguing that the soul is corporeal and does not survive independently in an eternal cycle of reincarnation. He states:  

*"The demons are said to be incorporeal, not because they have no bodies (for they have even shape and are, therefore, capable of feeling punishment), but they are said to be incorporeal because, in comparison with the spiritual bodies which are saved, they are a shade. And the angels are bodies; at any rate they are seen. Why even the soul is a body, for the Apostle says, ‘It is sown a body of soul, it is raised a body of spirit.’ And how can the souls which are being punished be sensible of it, if they are not bodies? Certainly he says, ‘Fear him who, after death, is able to cast soul and body into Gehenna.’"* (*Theodotus 14*)  

By affirming that the soul is a *body*, Theodotus denies the dualistic idea that the soul exists apart from the physical realm in a cyclical rebirth process. In reincarnation beliefs, the soul is typically seen as an immaterial essence that migrates from one body to another. Theodotus refutes this by arguing that the soul, like the body, is corporeal and therefore subject to dissolution rather than transmigration. If the soul could move between bodies, it would need to be an independent, non-physical essence—an idea that Valentinianism rejects.  

### **Destruction in Gehenna as the Final End**  

Theodotus continues this theme by emphasizing that the psychic nature, which includes both the body and the soul, can be permanently destroyed:  

*"Therefore man is in man, ‘psychic’ in ‘earthly,’ not consisting as part to part but united as whole to whole by God's unspeakable power. Therefore he was created in Paradise in the fourth heaven. For there earthly flesh does not ascend but it was to the divine soul as material flesh. This is the meaning of ‘This is now bone of my bones,’ – he hints at the divine soul which is hidden in the flesh, firm and hard to suffer and very potent, – and ‘flesh of my flesh’ – the material soul which is the body of the divine soul. Concerning these two also, the Saviour says, ‘That is to be feared which can destroy this soul and this body, the psychic one, in Gehenna.’"* (*Theodotus 51*)  

Here, Theodotus clarifies that Jesus’ warning in Matthew 10:28 concerns the final destruction of the *psychic* nature—both body and soul—in Gehenna. This destruction is not a transition to another life but a definitive end. If reincarnation were true, destruction in Gehenna would be temporary, merely a transition before rebirth into another body. However, Theodotus, like Heracleon, insists that the psychic self is completely subject to annihilation unless it is transformed through salvation.  

### **The Valentinian Alternative to Reincarnation: The Resurrection**  

Rather than teaching reincarnation, Valentinianism emphasizes the Resurrection as the means by which those destined for salvation attain imperishability. Heracleon’s reference to *1 Corinthians 15:54*—*"the perishable puts on imperishability"*—demonstrates that eternal life is not a matter of repeated earthly existences but a singular transformation at the end of the age. This aligns with Paul’s teaching that the body of the soul is *sown* as perishable but *raised* as imperishable (*1 Corinthians 15:42-44*).  In 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, the "natural body" (σῶμα ψυχικόν) refers to the "body of the soul," indicating that the body and soul are equivalent expressions. The "natural body" is not merely a vessel for the soul but is itself the soul in its embodied form, showing they are synonymous. Paul’s use of "soul-body" terminology affirms that the body and soul, in this context, represent the same entity rather than two separate components.*.  

### **Conclusion: Valentinianism Rejects Reincarnation**  

The Valentinian interpretation of Matthew 10:28 provides a strong argument against reincarnation:  

1. **The Soul Is Not Immortal** – Heracleon explicitly denies the immortality of the soul, which contradicts the fundamental premise of reincarnation.  

2. **The Soul Is Corporeal and Perishable** – Theodotus argues that the soul, being a body, does not transmigrate but is subject to destruction along with the physical form.  

3. **Gehenna Represents Final Destruction, Not a Transition** – Matthew 10:28 is interpreted as a warning against the ultimate annihilation of the psychic self, not as a reference to the soul continuing in another body.  

4. **Salvation Comes Through Resurrection, Not Rebirth** – Instead of multiple lives, the Valentinian hope is for transformation through Resurrection, where the perishable is *clothed with imperishability*.  

Ultimately, Valentinian theology does not support the idea of reincarnation. The soul does not migrate from one existence to another but is either transformed into a spiritual body through salvation or faces destruction in Gehenna. This interpretation of Matthew 10:28 affirms a linear eschatology focused on Resurrection, rather than the cyclical framework of reincarnation.

Valentinian Theology: Emanation, the Rejection of the Trinity, and the Nature of Monogenes

### Valentinian Theology: Emanation, the Rejection of the Trinity, and the Nature of Monogenes

Valentinianism stands as one of the most influential strands of early Christian Gnosticism, notable for its distinctive cosmology and theology rooted in emanation rather than the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Contrary to orthodox Christianity’s affirmation of the co-eternal, co-equal Persons of the Godhead, Valentinians developed a complex system in which the divine reality unfolds through successive emanations from the ineffable Father, rather than existing as a triune unity. This difference reveals a fundamentally divergent understanding of the divine nature, one that avoids the language and dogma of the Trinity and instead emphasizes hierarchical emanations and distinct hypostases.

#### Historical Context: Early Christian Groups and the Rejection of the Trinity

Historical evidence from patristic sources such as Epiphanius of Salamis highlights that many early Christian groups rejected the doctrine of the Trinity altogether. In his *Panarion*, Epiphanius lists groups such as the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Merinthians, and Basilidians as contemporaneous with or preceding the Valentinians, all of whom held adoptionist or unitarian Christologies. These groups emphasized a singular divine power and rejected the notion of a triune Godhead. The Valentinians, who appeared somewhat later, inherited and developed this rejection of a triune God in favor of an emanationist worldview.

The Ebionites, for example, are well known for their strict monotheism and rejection of Jesus’s divinity as co-equal with the Father. Cerinthus similarly denied the full divinity of Christ, teaching instead that the Christ-spirit descended upon the man Jesus at baptism but was not himself the eternal Son. These early adoptionists and unitarians set the stage for Valentinian theology by insisting on the Father's supremacy and singularity, denying any co-eternal or co-equal Son within the Godhead.

This theological background is crucial for understanding Valentinianism’s departure from the later orthodox Trinitarian formulations. When the Arian controversy arose in the early fourth century, Arius himself distanced his views from those of Valentinus by denying that the Son was an emanation of the Father as Valentinians taught. This distinction illustrates that Valentinian emanationism was recognized even by orthodox opponents as a heterodox alternative to the orthodox Trinity.

#### Emanation and the Structure of the Valentinian Divine Reality

At the heart of Valentinian theology lies the concept of emanation (Greek: *proodos*), where the One ineffable Father—the primal Depth or *Bythos*—emanates divine hypostases that progressively unfold the fullness (*pleroma*) of divine reality. This process is not one of three equal persons in eternal relationship but a hierarchical unfolding where each emanation arises from the preceding one, and ultimately from the Father.

The primary emanation from the Father is *Monogenes*, the Only-Begotten. However, unlike orthodox Christology, Monogenes is not co-eternal or co-equal with the Father but is rather a secondary hypostasis that derives from the primordial Depth and Silence. Within Monogenes, there is a further internal duality: it consists of two aeons—*Nous* (Mind, masculine) and *Aletheia* (Truth, feminine). This androgynous duality reflects a principle of cosmic balance and completeness within the divine emanation. The unity of male Mind and female Truth within Monogenes produces a complete but derivative expression of divinity.

Thus, Monogenes is an emanation, not an eternal person equal to the Father. It is a mediated and contingent reality that exists within the fullness of the pleroma but is ontologically subordinate to the Father. This theological structure sharply contrasts with the orthodox Trinity, which holds Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as co-eternal, consubstantial, and equally divine.

#### Theological Implications of the Valentinian Trinity as Emanation

The Valentinian rejection of the Trinity doctrine stems from a deeper metaphysical view that insists on the transcendence and ineffability of the Father, who is utterly beyond being and the cosmos. For the Valentinians, the Father cannot be approached directly by creation or even by the subsequent emanations without mediation. Hence, the unfolding of the divine realm in successive emanations is necessary for the revelation and interaction with lower realms, including the natural and material worlds.

The triadic structure within Valentinianism—often called the Valentinian Trinity—should not be confused with the orthodox Trinity. It is better understood as a threefold distinction of natures or principles: the Spirit (the highest divine principle, often associated with the Father or the ultimate Godhead), the Soul (associated with the Demiurge or the creator god of the material cosmos), and Matter (associated with the material realm and the powers that govern it). This theological schema mirrors the tripartite division of human nature into spirit, soul, and flesh.

Therefore, the Valentinian Trinity is more a cosmological and anthropological framework than a statement of co-equal divine persons. It represents emanations or aspects of reality rather than a single Godhead existing simultaneously as three persons.

#### Monogenes as an Androgynous Emanation

The concept of Monogenes being composed of male Mind and female Truth underscores the complexity and nuance of Valentinian emanation. This androgyny is not merely symbolic but conveys the fullness and completeness of the divine emanation in its intermediate role. Mind and Truth represent complementary principles that together constitute the perfect, balanced emanation from the Father.

By emphasizing that Monogenes is a derivative emanation, Valentinians reject the orthodox understanding of the Son’s eternal equality with the Father. Instead, they present the Son as an expression of the Father’s fullness, yet ontologically dependent and created. This allows the Valentinians to maintain the absolute transcendence of the Father while explaining the presence of a divine mediator who relates to creation.

#### Conclusion

Valentinian theology represents a distinctive early Christian alternative to the doctrine of the Trinity. Rooted in the rejection of co-equal persons within the Godhead, it embraces a hierarchical emanationist worldview in which the divine reality unfolds progressively from the ineffable Father through intermediate emanations like Monogenes, who is himself an androgynous hypostasis of Mind and Truth. This system aligns with earlier unitarian and adoptionist groups and was explicitly rejected by orthodox Christianity, which saw Valentinian emanationism as heretical.

Understanding the Valentinian Trinity as emanation rather than consubstantial persons clarifies the profound theological divergence between Gnostic and orthodox Christian theologies. It also reveals how Valentinianism sought to reconcile the transcendence of the Father with the presence of divine mediators without compromising the absolute oneness of the ultimate God.

---

Valentinians and the Doctrine of Emanation: A Rejection of the Orthodox Trinity**

Valentinians and the Doctrine of Emanation: A Rejection of the Orthodox Trinity

The theological framework of the Valentinians stands distinct from the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, primarily because Valentinians did not believe in the triune God as conceived by later Christian orthodoxy. Instead, their theology revolves around a doctrine of emanation—a dynamic and hierarchical unfolding of divine realities. This fundamental difference has led to confusion and debate throughout Church history, especially in the early centuries when the nature of God and Christ was hotly contested.

### The Valentinian Understanding of Divine Reality

Valentinian Gnosticism, a prominent form of early Christian Gnosticism, developed a complex metaphysical system centered on the idea of the Pleroma—the fullness of divine powers and Aeons. These Aeons are emanations or divine hypostases, flowing forth from a primal, ineffable source often called the “Father” or the “One.” Unlike the later orthodox Trinity, which emphasizes co-equal, co-eternal persons within the Godhead, Valentinians viewed the divine realm as a cascading hierarchy of emanations. Each emanation unfolds from the prior one, preserving a metaphysical distinction between the source and its expressions.

In Valentinian theology, God is not a single triune substance but a multiplicity of divine beings or Aeons that gradually emerge from the primal source. This emanationist model emphasizes the gradual descent of divinity into matter and the cosmos. The highest Aeon, often called the “Bythos” or “Depth,” remains unknowable and ineffable, while subsequent Aeons manifest various divine attributes. These include the Logos (Word) and Sophia (Wisdom), the latter of whom plays a critical role in the cosmological drama of creation and the fall. This hierarchical and processional conception of divinity is fundamentally different from the orthodox affirmation of three co-equal persons sharing one essence.

### Valentinians and the Rejection of the Orthodox Trinity

The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, fully articulated in the Nicene and later councils, posits one God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who are consubstantial and co-eternal. This doctrine emphasizes the unity of God’s essence while maintaining a distinction of persons. The Trinity is a mystery of one being and three co-equal persons, not a sequence or hierarchy of divine emanations.

Valentinians rejected this model for several reasons. Their experience of the divine was not as three persons coexisting eternally in one essence but as a series of emanations or hypostases, each proceeding from a higher level of the Pleroma. This allowed for a more fluid and complex cosmic narrative involving fall, redemption, and restoration, in which the material cosmos and human souls play crucial roles.

Consequently, Valentinians did not conceive of Jesus Christ as a “person” within a triune Godhead but as a divine Aeon—the Logos—who descends from the Pleroma to impart knowledge (gnosis) and salvation to humanity. The Holy Spirit in their thought is similarly an emanation or a power, not a distinct person. This stands in marked contrast to orthodox theology, where the Holy Spirit is fully divine and personal.

### Arius and His Strategic Distancing from Valentinian Emanationism

Arius (c. 256–336), a presbyter in Alexandria, famously contested the nature of Christ’s divinity, arguing that the Son was created by the Father and therefore not co-eternal or consubstantial with Him. His teachings sparked the Arian controversy, which challenged the emerging orthodox consensus on the Trinity.

To defend himself against accusations of heresy, Arius wrote letters and treatises aimed at clarifying his position. One notable element in his defense was to assert that his theology was distinct from Valentinian thought. He explicitly denied teaching that the Son is an emanation of the Father, a key characteristic of Valentinian Gnosticism. Arius stated: “I don’t teach that the Son of God is the emanation of the Father, as Valentinus taught.” This distancing was strategic, as Valentinian Gnosticism was widely regarded as heretical, and aligning himself with such views would undermine his credibility.

Arius sought to present his Christology as a middle ground: the Son is indeed created by the Father but remains uniquely exalted above other creatures. He argued against both the full equality of the Son with the Father and the notion of multiple emanations or Aeons. Instead, Arius emphasized a singular God who alone is unbegotten, while the Son has a beginning in time.

### The Theological Implications of Arius’s Denial

Arius’s rejection of Valentinian emanationism highlights the stark theological differences between Gnostic and proto-orthodox Christianities. While Valentinians embraced a cosmology based on gradual emanations and layered divine realities, Arius attempted to maintain a sharp ontological distinction between the one God and His created Son.

This episode also shows how early Christian debates often involved accusations of heresy based not only on doctrinal content but on affiliation with controversial traditions. Arius’s explicit disavowal of Valentinus’s teachings served to mark clear boundaries in the fluid theological landscape of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

### Conclusion: Valentinians, Emanation, and the Trinity

Valentinians did not believe in the orthodox Trinity as later defined by Church councils. Their faith was built on a doctrine of emanation, wherein the divine unfolds through a series of Aeons emanating from a primal source. This model allowed for a more dynamic cosmology that included multiple divine powers, the role of Sophia, and a material cosmos entwined with spiritual realities.

The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, by contrast, emphasizes one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons sharing the same essence. This difference is more than theological nuance; it marks fundamentally distinct worldviews about the nature of God, creation, and salvation.

Arius’s historical claim that he did not teach the emanationist views of Valentinus reflects this crucial difference. His rejection of Valentinian emanationism was part of a broader effort to articulate a Christology that could serve as a foundation for orthodox Christian identity, even as it sparked intense controversies that shaped the future of Christian doctrine.

In summary, understanding the Valentinian rejection of the Trinity in favor of emanationism not only clarifies their theological worldview but also illuminates the broader context of early Christian debates over the nature of God and the interpretation of Scripture.

---

Abraxas and Abracadabra: Gnostic Origins and Magical Uses

**Abraxas and Abracadabra: Gnostic Origins and Magical Uses**

**

---

**1. The Meaning of Abracadabra**

The word *Abracadabra* is among the most widely recognized magical incantations in history, yet its exact origin remains uncertain. The earliest known appearance of the word occurs in the **second century AD**, but scholars and mystics have debated its etymology for centuries. Some have proposed that *Abracadabra* derives from **Aramaic**, possibly from the phrase **אברא כדברא** (*avra kedavra*), meaning “I create as I speak” or “I create like the word.” This phrase would suggest a deep connection between speech, creation, and power—a theme common in ancient esoteric traditions.

Other scholars have noticed similarities between *Abracadabra* and **Greek and Latin** phrases or symbolic sequences. One theory points to the resemblance between the first letters of the Greek alphabet (ΑΒΓΔ — alpha, beta, gamma, delta) and the early part of the word. Another, more compelling connection, is with the name **Abraxas**, a prominent Gnostic figure. While no single explanation has been proven conclusively, the association of *Abracadabra* with magical language, healing, and spiritual protection is well-documented, and **the word's power was always considered to reside in its form, repetition, and spoken force**, regardless of its exact meaning.

---

**2. The First Appearance of Abracadabra**

The earliest documented use of *Abracadabra* appears in a medical text by **Serenus Sammonicus**, a Roman scholar and physician to Emperor Caracalla. In his work *Liber Medicinalis* (also known as *De Medicina Praecepta Saluberrima*), written in the second century, Serenus prescribes the word *Abracadabra* as a **remedy against fever and other illnesses**, particularly malaria.

Sammonicus advised that the word be written on parchment in the form of an inverted triangle, removing one letter at each line to gradually diminish the word's presence:

```

ABRACADABRA  

ABRACADABR  

ABRACADAB  

ABRACADA  

ABRACAD  

ABRACA  

ABRAC  

ABRA  

ABR  

AB  

A

```

This triangular form was to be **worn as an amulet around the neck** by the afflicted person. The logic was that as the word physically diminished, so too would the illness. Sammonicus claimed that such a talisman could **drive away lethal diseases**, and this practice gained popularity among Roman elites. Even emperors like **Geta** and **Severus Alexander** may have used the incantation under the guidance of Sammonicus's teachings.

Though Sammonicus was writing as a physician, the practice reflected a blend of medicine, mysticism, and ritual magic—an approach that blurred the lines between empirical healing and spiritual invocation. His recommendation to use *Abracadabra* as a **protective charm** represents one of the earliest fusions of esoteric language and physical medicine in Western tradition.

---

**3. Abracadabra, Abraxas, and the Greek Magical Papyri**

To understand the deeper symbolic significance of *Abracadabra*, we must turn to its probable connection with **Abraxas**, a powerful being in **Gnostic cosmology**, particularly in the sect of **Basilides** (2nd century AD). In Gnostic tradition, **Abraxas** is an enigmatic entity associated with the divine fullness (Pleroma) and is sometimes depicted as a **composite figure with a rooster’s head, human torso, serpent legs, and bearing a shield and whip**. His name, when written in Greek (ΑΒΡΑΣΑΞ), carries a **numerical value of 365**, which many Gnostics interpreted as the number of heavens or spiritual rulers—one for each day of the year.

Abraxas was not merely a deity or angel but a **mediator between the unknowable Deity and the created cosmos**, and his name was inscribed on **Gnostic amulets and gemstones**—often called *Abraxas stones*—used for protection, healing, and invoking spiritual aid. These talismans sometimes featured the name *Abracadabra* alongside *Abraxas*, suggesting that the word itself had become associated with the **mystical power of Abraxas**.

The **Greek Magical Papyri**, a collection of magical spells and rituals from Egypt (dating from the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD), also contain similar strings of mystical names and incantations used for healing, summoning, and protection. These papyri reflect the blending of Egyptian, Greek, Jewish, and Gnostic traditions. Names like *Iao*, *Adonai*, *Sabaoth*, and *Abraxas* appear frequently, interwoven with long, complex strings of vowels and magical words—some of which resemble or include *Abracadabra*. In these contexts, such names functioned as **vocalized symbols of divine power**, intended to align the speaker with higher, healing forces.

The **use of magical words in triangular form**, as found in Sammonicus's amulet, also appears in these papyri. The triangle, representing **descent or dissipation**, may have symbolized the banishing of illness or evil. It mirrored the cosmological descent of divine energy into the material world—a theme common in Gnostic thought, where healing often involved **restoring spiritual order** by invoking the names and symbols of the higher aeons.

---

**Conclusion**

Though often dismissed today as a child’s chant or stage magician’s cliché, *Abracadabra* has deep roots in ancient mysticism and Gnostic religion. Its appearance in the second century as a medical charm, its triangular inscription for protection, and its probable association with **Abraxas** all point to a once-powerful role as a **sacred word of healing and cosmic invocation**. Whether derived from Aramaic speech, Greek numerology, or Gnostic theology, *Abracadabra* remains a relic of a time when **words were seen not just as labels, but as vehicles of power**, echoing the voice of creation itself.

Sige and Barbelo: Similarities and Differences

**Sige and Barbelo: Similarities and Differences**

In Valentinian and Sethian thought, the figures of *Sige* (Silence) and *Barbelo* occupy foundational roles in the emanative structure of the divine. Both are closely associated with the First Principle—Bythus or the Invisible Spirit—and each plays a maternal function in the generation of aeons. Yet they differ significantly in their roles, characterization, and the metaphysical status they occupy within their respective systems. This document will explore their similarities and differences based on key texts.

---

### **I. Similarities Between Sige and Barbelo**

1. **Both Are Paired with the First Principle**

   Sige and Barbelo both stand at the beginning of the divine unfolding and are intimately connected to the ineffable source. According to Irenaeus:

   “There existed along with him \[Bythus] Ennœa, whom they also call Charis and Sige.” (*Against All Heresies*, I.1.1)

   Similarly, Barbelo is described as the *first Aeon*, the first to appear in the light of the One:

   “Great is the first aeon, male virginal Barbelo, the first glory of the invisible Father, she who is called ‘perfect’. Thou (Barbelo) hast seen first the One who truly pre-exists.” (*Three Steles of Seth*)

   In both cases, these feminine figures are the first companions of the primal source and receive or reflect its emanations.

2. **Both Function as Wombs of Emanation**

   Sige and Barbelo are both described using reproductive imagery, emphasizing their roles in generating or birthing other divine beings. Irenaeus states:

   “\[Bythus] deposited this production (which he had resolved to bring forth) in his contemporary Sige, even as seed is deposited in the womb. She then, having received this seed, and becoming pregnant, gave birth to Nous.” (*Against All Heresies*, I.1.1)

   Likewise, Barbelo is:

   “the womb of everything” (*Apocryphon of John*) and “the aeon-giver” (*Three Steles of Seth*).

   Both thus represent the receptive and creative aspects of the divine, generating further aeons from the primal source.

3. **Both Originate in Silence and Thought**

   Silence is both a name and an attribute. In the *Tripartite Tractate*, the Father is described as dwelling “alone in silence, and silence is tranquility.” This state precedes all emanations, and Sige personifies this mode. Barbelo too is closely associated with thought and silent reflection:

   “She \[Thought - Ennoia] came forth… the perfect power which is the image of the invisible, virginal Spirit.” (*Apocryphon of John*)

   And in the *Trimorphic Protennoia*, she says:

   “I am the Image of the Invisible Spirit, and it is through me that the All took shape.”

   Both figures thus emerge from a silent act of divine self-contemplation.

---

### **II. Differences Between Sige and Barbelo**

1. **Ontological Role and Identity**

   Sige is more of a passive *condition* or *environment* of emanation. Her name, “Silence,” suggests stillness, latency, and receptivity. She is not described in terms of activity or identity beyond being the vessel for the seed of Bythus. Irenaeus never describes her as creating anything independently; she is the space in which creation begins.

   By contrast, Barbelo is an *active principle*. She is consistently described with robust identity—as Mother, First Thought, Womb, Aeon-giver. In *Trimorphic Protennoia*, she claims:

   “I… am the Thought of the Father, Protennoia, that is, Barbelo, the perfect Glory… It is through me that the All took shape.”

   Barbelo possesses agency, glory, and will. She glorifies the Father and becomes the matrix from which all divine powers emerge.

2. **Theological Systems: Valentinian vs. Sethian**

   Sige is primarily a figure in *Valentinian theology*, whereas Barbelo appears in both *Sethian and Valentinian texts*, but is especially emphasized in Sethian cosmology. In Valentinianism, Sige helps initiate the Tetrad (Bythus, Sige, Nous, Aletheia), serving as the mother of Nous.

   Barbelo, however, is central to *Sethian metaphysics*, in which the Invisible Spirit reflects upon itself and brings forth Barbelo as its image:

   “This is the First Thought (Protonoia), his image; she became the womb of everything.” (*Apocryphon of John*)

   Thus, Barbelo is a hypostasis of divine reflection, while Sige is a condition of divine silence.

3. **Emanative Function and Glory**

   Barbelo actively glorifies the Invisible Spirit and participates in emanating further Aeons. She is described as the source of the Upper Aeons:

   “We bless thee (Barbelo), producer of perfection, aeon-giver (…) thou hast become numerable (although) thou didst continue being one.” (*Three Steles of Seth*)

   Sige does not emanate Aeons by herself. Rather, she receives the seed of Bythus and passively gives birth to Nous. Her role is more akin to a metaphysical womb, necessary but inert in thought and will.

4. **Self-Identification and Speech**

   Barbelo speaks. She identifies herself, proclaims her role, and glorifies the Invisible Spirit. For instance, in *Trimorphic Protennoia*, she narrates:

   “I am the Thought of the Father… the perfect Glory… through me the All took shape.”

   Sige never speaks. She *is* silence. She is spoken *about*, not by.

---

### **Conclusion**

Sige and Barbelo are both primordial feminine principles linked to the divine source. Both receive a seed or thought from the Father, both function as wombs, and both initiate the process of emanation. However, Sige represents the *silent stillness* in which thought begins, while Barbelo represents *thought in action*—the self-awareness of the One becoming productive.

Sige is the *condition* of emanation; Barbelo is the *agent* of it. Sige is passive, still, unmanifest; Barbelo is active, glorious, and manifest. Where Sige is silence, Barbelo is voice. Where Sige is receptivity, Barbelo is creation. In this way, the two represent complementary aspects of divine origination—the silent depth of the ineffable and the first brilliant echo of its self-recognition.