¹ This suggestion admittedly does raise problems in that the phrase ‘the earliest Gnostics’ is, to say the least, very ambiguous. As yet there is no agreement regarding the beginning of Gnosticism proper (as opposed to the more general ‘Gnosis’). The suggestion itself is put forward in slightly stronger terms (‘probably’) by Lightfoot, J. B., The Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon (London, 1879 ³), P. 330Google Scholar. Lightfoot wrote of course before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi writings; but even the discovery of this source does not do more than substantiate the doctrine of the Pleroma that has already been adduced from the Apologists.

² Cf. Adv. Haer. 1. 1, 1–8, 6.

³ The use of the term shows every indication of being related to, if not based on, the use of πλήρωμα in John i. 16; cf., for example, Refutatio v. 8, 30 (referring to the saying of Moses in Deut. xxxi. 20): το⋯το…⋯στì τ⋯ μ⋯λι καì τ⋯ γ⋯λα, σὖ γεσαμένους τοὑς τελεíους ⋯βασιλεὑτους γενέσθαι καì μετασχεīν το⋯ πληρώμr;ατος το⋯το…ηστì τ⋯ πλήρωμα, δι' οὖ π⋯ντα [τ⋯] γιν⋯μενα γεννητ⋯ ⋯π⋯ τοὖ ⋯γεννέτου γ⋯γον⋯ τε καì πελέρωται. On the use of the term by the Naasenes cf. Ernst, J., Pleroma und Pleroma Christi (Regensburg, 1970), pp. 47Google Scholar f.

⁴ Cf. Refutatio viii. 10, 3.

⁵ The Gnostic Religion (Boston, 1958), p. 178.Google Scholar

⁶ Refutatio VI. 29, 5; cf. Eugnostus 74 f.

⁷ Adv. Haer. i. i, 1; Panarion xxxi. 5, 2; Excerpta 22. 7; cf. Eugnostus 73 f.

⁸ Adv. Haer. i. i, 1; Panarion xxxi. 5, 5; Excerpta 6. 1; Gospel of Truth 16. 36; Rheginus 46. 24.

⁹ Adv. Haer. i. i, 1; Refutatio vi. 29, 7; Gospel of Philip 11; Eugnostus 86. 15.

¹⁰ According to Refutatio VI. 29 f. the original pair are not included in the total of 30, this number being made up by the addition of two extra aeons, Christ and Holy Spirit.

¹¹ The number 30 is accounted for in at least two different ways by the Valentinians: either by the ‘hidden’ years of Jesus between his birth and the commencement of his public ministry, or by the sum total of the hours of the workers in the vineyard (1+3+6+9+11). In both instances the figure is associated with that which is not generally known. Cf. Adv. Haer. 1. 1, 3.

¹² Excerpta 32. 1: ‘Εν πληρώματι οὖν έν⋯τητος ο03C2σης έκαστος τ⋯ν αιώνων, īδιον ἔχει πλήρωμα, τήν συЗυγíαν. δσα οὖν έκ συЗγíας, ϕασí, προέρχεται, πληρώματ⋯ έστιν, ⋯σα δέ ⋯π⋯ έν⋯ς εíκ⋯νες. Cf. Heracleon, Fragment 18 on John iv. 16–18 in Origen, in Joh. XIII. II.

¹³ Adv. Haer. 1. 2, 1; Eugnostus 71 f.

¹⁴ Refutatio vi. 31, 1; Adv. Haer. 1. 2, 2; cf. Rheginus 45. 15–20.

¹⁵ But see p. 385 n. 10 above.

¹⁶ Adv. Haer. 1. 2, 5 f. According to Refutatio vi. 31,5 f. another aeon, the Cross, was produced in order that the deficiency that had occurred within the Pleroma might not be made known to the perfect aeons. The Cross also separated that which was outside the Pleroma from the Pleroma itself, and was believed to contain in itself the thirty aeons at one and the same time.

¹⁷ Adv. Haer. 1. 2, 6. Translation from Foerster, W., Gnosis 1 (ed. Wilson, R. McL.) (Oxford, 1972), p. 130Google Scholar. Cf. also Refutatio VI. 32, 2.

¹⁸ ‘Pleroma and Fulfilment’, VC viii (1954), 192–224, esp. pp. 202 f.

¹⁹ English translations from Foerster, op. cit. II, 59 and 56 respectively.

²⁰ It is not absolutely clear to whom ‘they’ refers. The reading in Foerster suggests that ‘they’ are to be identified with those who had received – or committed – error. Grobel, K., The Gospel of Truth (London, 1960), p. 81 n. 166Google Scholar, suggests that the impersonal ‘they’ is intended.

²¹ Cf. Grobel, op. cit. p. 39 n. 20–2. The All = = τ⋯ π⋯ν. This refers either to all things in the universe or to all things in the higher sphere. We take the latter meaning to be intended.

²² Cf. Foerster, op. cit. II, 54. Irenaeus reports in Adv. Haer. III. 11, 9 that the Valentinians had a writing which they called ‘Gospel of Truth’, but there is as yet no conclusive evidence which would identify the document found at Nag Hammadi with that referred to by the Apologist.

²³ xvi. 35, xxxiv. 30, 36, xxxv. 5, 29, 36, xxxvi. 10, xl. 33, xli. 14, 16, xliii. 16.

²⁴ Grobel, op. cit. p. 35 n. 8, argues that the references ‘most likely’ Gnostic are xli. 14 and xliii. 16 To these the present author would add xvi. 35.

²⁵ So Grobel, loc. cit.

²⁶ Cf. for example Euripides, Ion 1412, Cyclops 208, Hippocrates, Aer 7.

²⁷ Herodotus 8:45; Plato, Critias 119 B.

²⁸ Cf. for example Aristophanes, Vespae 660; Appian, Mithridates 47: 185; Herodotus 3:22.

²⁹ Aristotle, Politics 3.13–4. 4; Plato, Republic 2, 371.

³⁰ Greek Inscriptions II (ed. Koehler, N.), 2, 224.Google Scholar

³¹ De Vita Mosis 2. 63. Mussner, F., Christus, das All und die Kirche (Trier, 1955), p. 49Google Scholar, understands this reference to mean ‘hugely full’, but in view of De praem. et poen. 11:65, where the word occurs in the phrase γενομένη δέ πήρωμα ⋯ρετ⋯ν, this is unlikely. It is more likely that in 2:63 the term is intended to convey the idea of completeness or great quantity.

³² De praem. et poen. 18: 109.

³³ As, for example, the comment of Hippolytus, Refutatio 1.31,5: ⋯λλ⋯ ⋯ν⋯στασιν εíναι καì πεπληρ⋯σθαι π⋯ντα καì μηδέν εἰναι κεν⋯ν. Cf. also Aet. Placita 1. 18, 5–20. 1, as cited by Ernst, op. cit. pp. 10 f. The conception of a filled-world is developed by Philo in Leg. alleg. III. 4 and is also found in Corpus Hermeticum 16:3.

³⁴ Diog. Laer. VII. 140; Galenus, De differentia pulsuum 3:6, as cited by Ernst, op. cit. p. 11.

³⁵ The same association of pleroma, cosmos and life is also found in Asclepius 29 f.

³⁶ The same conclusion is also reached by Ernst, op. cit. p. 15, Markus, op. cit. p. 201 and Dupont, J., Gnosis (Paris, 1949), p. 468.Google Scholar

³⁷ Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen, 1959), p. 61.Google Scholar

³⁸ A different view is expressed by Bultmann, R., A Commentary on the Gospel According to St John (Oxford, 1971), p. 65Google Scholar, who argues that πληρωμα here should be interpreted with reference to the pantheistic cosmology of the gnostic systems. But in view of the frequent OT references to ‘fullness’ as ‘the fullness of grace, mercy’ etc., as in Pss. v. 8, li. 3, lxix. 17, this view is to be rejected.

³⁹ Cf. Gal. v. 14; Rom. xiii. 8. In both instances the same idea, that of fulfilling the Law, is expressed by πλρ⋯ω, thus suggesting that Paul does not differentiate theologically between the two concepts.

⁴⁰ Cf. also Pss. 1. 12, lxxxix. 11, xcvi. 11 and Jer. viii. 16, where similar phrases occur.

⁴¹ πλέρωμα occurs some thirteen times in the LXX: I Chron. xvi. 32; Ps. xxiii. 1, xlix. 12, Ixxxviii. 11, xcv. 11, xcvii. 7; Eccl. iv. 6; Cant. v. 12; Jer. viii. 16, xxix. 2; Ezek. xii. 19, xix. 7, xxx. 12. The term translates the MT and .

⁴² Cf. Ernst, op. cit. p. 68.

⁴³ The parallelism between these two texts is noted by many exegetes; cf. for example Delling, G., ‘πλή;ρωμα’, T.D.N.T. 6, 303 f.Google Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., ‘“Fullness” and “Fill” in the New Testament’, S.J.T. 4 (1951), 78–86Google Scholar, exp. p. 82; Ernst, op. cit. pp. 69 f.

⁴⁴ For a survey of the problems and their possible solutions cf. Yates, R., ‘Ephesians 1: 23 – A Reconsideration’, E.T. 83 (1971–1972), 146–51Google Scholar. This article is a condensation of the same author's unpublished M.Litt. thesis of the same title, Cambridge University, 1969.

⁴⁵ So ‘A note on Ephesians 1:22, 23’, E.T. LX (1948–49), 53; ‘“Fullness” and “Fill”’, op. cit. pp. 82 f.; Colossians and Philemon (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 169 ffGoogle Scholar. In the last-mentioned note Moule is less certain of this interpretation of Eph. 1. 23 than in the earlier works. Moule totally rejects the possibility of any Gnostic influence lying behind this text although his translation itself does not seem to exclude this possibility.

⁴⁶ Schlier, H. and Warnach, V., Die Kirche im Epheserbrief (Münster, 1949), p. 110Google Scholar; cf. also his Brief an die Epheser (Düsseldorf, 1971), p. 97.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (London, 1903), pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar, 255 ff.

⁴⁸ See n. 44 above.

⁴⁹ The same idea of inclusive personality is expressed more clearly in Eph. ii. 6, 22.

⁵⁰ The same cannot be said for the epistle in general; cf. for example Excerpta 7:4, 42:1, 43:5; De Resurrections 45:24–8.

⁵¹ So Borsch, F., The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man (London, 1972), p. 66.Google Scholar

⁵² Cf. Michel, O., ‘οíκοδομή’, T.D.N.T. v, 154Google Scholar. Michel says that Col. i. 19 and ii. 9 ‘obviously belong to the fixed liturgical and kerygmatic stock of the community’.

⁵³ Part of Rom. xi. 25, though significantly not the actual πλήρωμα clause, is cited in Ex. Theod. 56:3 ff., and Eph. iv. 9 is cited at vii. 4 and xliii. 5 and is alluded to in ii. i and iv. 2; but again in no instance does the reference include the clause īνα πλερὠσε τ⋯ π⋯ντα (Eph. iv. 10A).