PTOLEMAEUS

PTOLEMAEUS

515

tSis working of a higher spiritual nature (Jude19 - 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15; compare also xv. 44-46).In the \ alentinian system this contrast issharpened, and is made to depend on an originaldifference of nature between the two classes ofmen, a mythical theory being devised whichprofessed to account for the origin of the differentelements in men’s nature (see Gnosticism,Vol. II. 682 6, Valentinus); the psychic elementbeing something higher and better than the merematerial element, but immeasurably inferior tothe pneumatic. It may well be believed thatin the language of the Gnostic sects, the “ pneu-matici” were those who had been initiated inthe mysteries of the sect, ordinary Christiansbeing brauded as “ psychici.”

Such was also the use made of the latter wordby Tertullian, who in his latest works, writtenafter his Montanism had involved him in com-plete separation from the church, habituallyuses the word Psychici to designate those fromwhom he had separated. [G. S.]

PTOLEMAEUS (1) (nroAe/icttos-), a discipleof Valentinus [Valentinus], some remains ofwhose writings have come down to us. He isspoken of in the Philosophumena (vi. 35) alongwith Heracleon as head of the Italic (i.e.Western) school. He was still living circa a.d,180, when Irenaeus composed his great workAgainst Heresies. Irenaeus writes in his Prae -fatiOj c. 2: “ Kal Kadois bvya/xts 7}udv, r^v reyvufir^v avr&y rchv vvv irapabiba<rK6yrcoy, \eyeahi} r<ov irept TlroXe/xaTov, dirdvQurpa oZtxav r?)$QvaKevTwov <rx°A$)s, <Tvvr6fL<as koX <ra<pu)S airay-yeXovpey /cal acpop/xas Zdcofiev Kara rfyy 7}fj.ere-pav fA€Tpi6r7}ra irpbs rb ayarpeirety avr’fjy.” Inthese words he not only declares his intentionto give a special description and refutation ofthe Ptolemaic form of Valentinian Gnosis, butexpressly intimates that he is moved thereto bythe fact that oi irepl TlroXe/xaioy are his owncontemporaries. The phrase appears to admitof no other interpretation than this, that Ptole-maios was still living when Irenaeus wrote, andstanding at the head of his school. We knowno more of the circumstances of his life. ForHippolytus he belongs already to the past. Inthe Syntagma against all heresies he is associatedwith Secundus, in the Philosophumena withHeracleon, without our informant seemingable to give us any further account of him.The excerpt in Pseudo-Tertullian {Haer. xiii.)joins together Ptolemaeus and Secundus asValentinus’ two first disciples (post hunc sc.Valentinum extiterunt Ptolemaeus et Secundushaeretici ) ; but all the epitomator is able to tellus is taken from the statements of Irenaeus (I. ii.?> concerning Secundus and other Valentin-lans who are unnamed. Philaster dedicates aspecial article to each of these heretics, andplaces Ptolemaeus at the head of all the succes-sors Valentini whom he enumerates {Haer. 397) ;but what he relates concerning a double tetradot Aeons finds its explanation in Pseudo-Tertullian,a ^ 01 ’^ n g to whom “ Ptolemaeus and Secundus ”added ( addiderunt ) a double tetrad to the thiityeons of Valentinus. Hippolytus, on the otherand (as is evident from the epitomators), had^longer any acquaintance with Ptolemaeusand his system. The Philosophumena introducea notice (vi. 38, p. 199) taken from Irenaeus

a is, i) concerning those “qui sunt circaPtolemaeum scientiores ” with the words, oi 5e7rep! rby TlroXefxa'tov . . . Xeyovffi. Otherwisethey have nothing more to tell us about Ptole-maeus than what was mentioned above, that hewas a head of the Italic school. For in thethird place, where they yet again refer to him(vi. 38, p. 198) they put him in conjunctionwith Secundus just after the manner of theexcerpt in Pseudo-Tertullian — Se/cothdlos pevrisKara rb avrb a pa rip YlroXefxa'ap yevbuevosovrcos Xeyet. The system of teaching which isreported in the sequel is the same as that givenby Irenaeus (I. 11, 2), or the older source fromwhich he borrows, as that of Secundus only.Theodoret ( Haer. Fab. 1, 8) barely mentions thename of Ptolemaeus. Epiphanius, on the otherhand, has a whole article upon him based onIrenaeus (I. 12, 1), in which he makes moredefinite use than the Philosophumena of thenotices there given concerning the “ more know-ing ” adherents of Ptolemaeus, and that for thepurpose of describing Ptolemaeus’ own doctrine(Epiph. Haer. 33, 1). Tertullian appears how-ever to have had a more correct view of Irenaeus'meaning when he refers what he says of thedoctrine of the yvwcrriK&repot irepl rdv TlroXe-(xa'iov not to Ptolemaeus and his original school,but to certain reformers of it {emendatore s Ptole -maei Adv. Valentin. 33).

Concerning the date of Ptolemaeus no safeconclusion can be drawn from the order ofsuccession in which later haeresiologists mentionhis name. If Hippolytus and his epitomatorsassign him a place at the head of the disciplesof Valentinus in advance of both Secundus andMarcus, this is simply explained by the fact, thatIrenaeus names Ptolemaeus before either of theothers (and independently of the oi Trepl rbvUroXe/xaiiov of the Preface) at the end of thefragment taken from one of his writings (I. 8, 5);while Secundus is first mentioned (I. 11, 2) ina summary account drawn from another source ;and Marcus, although certainly one of the oldestdisciples of Valentinus, is brought in still later(I. 13 sqq.). A further and independent noticeconcerning Ptolemaeus is found in Tertullian,who relates {Adv. Valentinian. 4) of him that indistinction from Valentinus, who had regardedthe Aeons as mere affections of the Deity, he(Ptolemaeus) made of them independent personalsubsistences :—Earn (sc. viam) postmodum Ptole-maeus intravit nominibus et numeris Aeonum dis-tinctis in personates substantias , sed extra Deunideterminates, quas Valentinus in ipsa summadivinitatis ut sensuset affectus etmotus incluserat.The accuracy of this statement, no less than itsorigin, we are quite unable to determine; wecan only conjecture that Tertullian may havederived it from the work of Proculus againstthe Valentinians.

To what extent the account given by Irenaeus(I. 1-8) was drawn from the writings of Ptole-maeus must likewise remain doubtful. Onefragment only can with certainty be referred toPtolemaeus himself (Iren. I. 8, 5). After givingin previous paragraphs an anthology of alle-gorical interpretations of Scripture made byValentinians, Irenaeus adds a long connectedpiece of a Valentinian commentary on theprologue of St. John, and follows up this extractwith the words (omitted by Epiphanius): et