stephan huller

I don't know how many people are going to be interested in this probably not many but:

The point is that as I have noted many times before Tertullian's Against the Valetinians preserves an OLDER version of the original treatise by Irenaeus than the surviving Five Books Against the Heresies. There can be no doubt that Horos was originally equated with 'the Father':

The difficulty was that the heretics were connected with the so-called 'Patripassian' tradition. They understood that Jesus was not the Son but the Father and this system didn't make any sense to later editors so we see the Latin text begin to add the word 'fillii' (Son) to describe Horos even though the term was never in the Greek original in front of Tertullian NOR the surviving Greek MSS of Irenaeus.

The original understanding was that there was a 'Propator' (Forefather) and a 'Father' the former existing in a higher realm than the latter (much like En Sof in Jewish mysticism exists higher than the Jewish god). In the end Jesus, the Horos (i.e. Jesus the Father) needs to crucify himself to repair the damage done to the world owing to his improper union with Sophia in the beginning.

If you go through the account of Irenaeus there can be no doubt that Horos is Jesus. The story of the lady with the period which lasted twelve years (sounds like my wife) who wants to touch Jesus's garment features Jesus as 'Horos.' The attempted Greek etymology of horothetes (giver of limit) is a fanciful effort by some Greek speaker in Alexandria that Irenaeus met to give an explanation to what is clearly an Aramaic name.

ALSO REMEMBER that 'Pope' comes from Papa which - in later Greek at least DOES NOT mean 'father' but 'grandfather.' This is important. Papa is an Alexandrian title. The Pope can arguably be the symbol of the Propator not the Father.

Why is any of this important?

I don't know maybe it isn't but I am starting to wonder if all things about the heretics start to come together when we accept the UNSPOKEN understanding (unspoken because Irenaeus doesn't want us to hear it) that Irenaeus and these same heretics AGREED that Jesus was the Creator of the world who decides to repair the damage that he caused at the beginning of the world by crucifying himself on the Cross (with its obvious symbolism of being shaped like the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet - i.e. showing that it is 'the end' of all things coming up).

In this way, Jesus is the REPENTANT God of the Jews who atones by effectively killing himself in order to introduce his beloved disciple into superior mysteries than the one he originally gave to Moses and the ancient Israelites.

This would be where LGM 1 of Secret Mark would come into play. It represents a 'recreation' insofar as we have all the elements in the original story - waters, God, man etc. - only now according to the common gnostic myth, Jesus/the Creator has been made aware of the higher power in heaven above him in authority (the Propator i.e. the forefather). The recreation of the new man is also the end of the old man (Adam) who is symbolized crucified on the cross.

Anyway this thread has gone on too long and off its original topic. It is however very easy to see how Horos is really goes back to the Aramaic hor which means 'the Father.' Harvey on like EVERY PAGE of the critical edition of Irenaeus's work keeps commenting how the heretical material goes back to a Syriac source. I think it is rather Jewish Aramaic and so the name Horos really means 'father.'