The article discusses the meaning of chaos in the series of four elements introduced by Irenaeus in haer. 1, 30, 1 to characterize the system of the so-called “Ophites”. Contrary to the explanation that renders this Gnostic system dualistic, it is argued here that, in reality, the “Ophites” of Irenaeus anticipates what we find in other Gnostic families (Naassenes, On the Origin of the World, The Hypostasis of the Archonts) and continues the Orphic tradition that appeared in the Theogony of (...) Jerome and Hellanicus, in which the eternal chaos had been domesticated with the Jewish monotheism of Genesis, and, according to which, this chaos would come to be something like a “hollow”, not eternal, which precedes the material world, shelters it and then favors the appearance of the corporeal. Its status as a Principle should always be understood in a derivative sense, with no obstacle to monism: the Primordial Light (Lumen primum), the only absolute principle, provokes the appearance of the region of the shadow (chaos), but it does so indirectly through the intermediate veil (Spiritus Sanctus). Nothing justifies speaking, therefore, of the “Ophite” system as an ontologically dualistic system. (shrink)

Sometimes Theophilus used neologisms in his apologetic presentation of the faith. This is the case with ajsumbivbastoç. The term corresponds to a Christological interpretation of Is. 40,13-14 in an anti-Hermogenian context (anti-middle platonic). We should translate it as “not counsel - able”, an allusion to the Creator God's self-sufficiency, who deliberates with his Logos-counsel without resorting to eternal matter.

Sometimes Theophilus used neologisms in his apologetic presentation of the faith. This is the case with ajsumbivbastoç. The term corresponds to a Christological interpretation of Is. 40,13-14 in an anti-Hermogenian context. We should translate it as “not counsel - able”, an allusion to the Creator God's self-sufficiency, who deliberates with his Logos-counsel without resorting to eternal matter.

At the beginning of Irenaeus of Lyons’ Adversus Haereses, the doctrine of the Valentinian Ptolemy is presented using terms from the semantic field of time and eternity, which were undergoing a semantic evolution in contemporary Middle Platonic philosophy. These allow us to identify three phases, from a chronological point of view, at the beginning of the Valentinian myth: strict, supra-durational, eternity – eternity of indefinite duration – moment ante tempus.