bE SE a er aEaE ee

NAG HAMMADL
;
a

- GNOSTICISM, and
aee
enrae
er

|EARLY CHRISTIANITY

ACPL ITEM.
DISCARDED
7
|
| Edited by | i

|CHARLES W. HEDRICK |
_ [ROBERT HODGSON, JR oo
 ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY

REA
 2

i oA a
 -NAG HAMMADI,
GNOSTICISM,
& EARLY CHRISTIANITY
 NAG HAMMADI,
GNOSTICISM,
& EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Contributors
Harold W. Attridge Douglas M. Parrott
Stephen Gero Birger A. Pearson
Charles W. Hedrick Pheme Perkins
Helmut Koester James M. Robinson
Bentley Layton Hans-Martin Schenke
George W. MacRae+ John D. Turner
Elaine H. Pagels Frederik Wisse

Edited by
Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr.

Wipf & Stock

POO BE SibvE RS
Eugene, Oregon
Wipf and Stock Publishers
199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3
Eugene, OR 97401

Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity

Edited by Hedrick, Charles W. and Hodgson, Robert Jr.
Copyright©1986 by Hedrick, Charles W. and Hodgson, Robert Jr.
ISBN: 1-59752-402-6
Publication date 10/17/2005
Previously published by Hendrickson, 1986

Excerpts in chapter 7 from: Soziologie des Urchristentums by G. Theis-

sen. Copyright © 1979 by J. C. B. Mohr. Trajectories through Early Chris-
tianity by J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Copyright © 1968 by Fortress.
The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom by S. L. Davies. Copyright
© 1983 by Seabury. Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the
Synoptic Tradition by M. E. Boring. Copyright © 1982 by Cambridge
University Press. The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts by R.
Cameron ed. Copyright © 1982 by Westminster. Le Origini dello Gnos-
ticismo: Colloquio di Messina 13-18 Aprile 1966 by U. Bianchi, ed.
Copyright © 1970 by E. J. Brill. Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic
Religions Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birth-
day by R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren eds. Copyright © 1981 by
E. J. Brill. Used by permission.
George W. MacRee, S. J.
1928-1985
In Memoriam
vats oma tte
a is ‘caad .
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface xl

Abbreviations and Short Titles xiii

Introduction

I. Non-Christian Gnosticism
1. The Problem of “Jewish Gnostic”
Literature Birger A. Pearson 15
2. The Riddle of the Thunder (NHC
VI,2): The Function of Paradox in a
Gnostic Text from Nag Hammadi Bentley Layton 37
3. Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary
History John D. Turner 55

II. Gnosticism, New Testament, and

Early Christian Literature
4. Gnosticism and the Church of John’s
Gospel George W. MacRae+ 89
5. Gnostic Sayings and Controversy
Traditions in John 8:12-59 Helmut Koester 97
6. The Function and Background of the
Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of
John Hans-Martin Schenke 111
7. On Bridging the Gulf from Q to the
Gospel of Thomas (or Vice Versa) James M. Robinson 127
8. The Use of Early Christian Literature
as Evidence for Inner Diversity and |
Conflict Frederik Wisse 177

Ill. Gnosticism and the Early Church

9. Gnostic and Orthodox Disciples in the
Second and Third Centuries Douglas M. Parrott 193

vii
vili TABLE OF CONTENTS

10. Ordering the Cosmos: Irenaeus and

the Gnostics Pheme Perkins 221
11, The Gospel of Truth as an Exoteric
Text Harold W. Attridge 239
12. Exegesis and Exposition of the
Genesis Creation Accounts in
Selected Texts from Nag Hammadi Elaine H. Pagels 257
13, With Walter Bauer on the Tigris:
Encratite Orthodoxy and Libertine
Heresy in Syro-Mesopotamian
Christianity Stephen Gero 287

Index of Ancient Texts 309

Index of Modern Authors 329
 ABOUT THE EDITORS

Charles W. Hedrick was awarded the Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate

School in 1977. His dissertation under James M. Robinson, aliterary and
source analysis of the Apocalypse of Adam, was published by Scholars
Press in 1980. Since receiving his degree, his academic interests have
led him to Southwest Missouri State University, where he has served as
an Associate Professor of Religious Studies since 1983.
Dr. Hedrick’s publications include articles in the Journal of Biblical
Literature, New Testament Studies, and Novum Testamentum. A major
contributor to the understanding of gnosticism, Dr. Hedrick is the vol-
ume editor of Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, and XIII, and is currently
working on NHC VIII. Other projects range from a translation of a 16th
century French commentary on the Gospel of Mark to involvement in
professional societies such as the Society of Biblical Literature, Studi-
orum Novi Testamenti Societas, and the International Association for
Coptic Studies.
Outside of academic circles Dr. Hedrick has been a minister, a deputy
probation officer (for Los Angeles county), and he is currently serving as
a chaplain in the Army Reserve.

Robert Hodgson, Jr. graduated with honors from Heidelberg University

in 1976. He holds an undergraduate degree in philosophy from Gonzaga
University (1965) and a master’s degree in theology from Marquette
University (1970).
From 1977 to 1980 he served as an appointed missionary to St.
Andrew’s Theological Seminary and the Southeast Asian Graduate
School of Theology in Manila, Republic of the Philippines. During this
period he was executive secretary to the Anglican-Roman Catholic
Dialogue of the Philippines.
His doctoral dissertation, entitled “Die Quellen der paulinischen
Ethik,” was written under Erich Dinkler. He has contributed articles to
the Anchor Bible Dictionary, the Journal of Biblical] Literature, Zeit-
schrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, and Biblica.
 4 S74 oy Pe
_ le ‘

wat eae!
“2 é :
et

ai. 7m Cndediogtte.t mae e rencn an

_ ie Goastigs |
fea 11... Tha Goepal of Tet oe sa heaters
e i -.% hace te
2 Penge: et Aue Rees
eee mina Aes ae ~e

v 2)
‘aatyt oe
, ‘ ate Y ; ohtek S38 igist

nat ei.ermdw agtateia ht

* ov pal pesdnper ans
|

ne
Ls eotraid: vail ti ae | i
wtcottaiaoms icant Si pn baeciapenT so oy

age pientinl: pesesuite te

die
geet mene ae es etyGai : tS .BNGt :
stiugnalht mort ‘ygiteact-2 % <
aa *freey snarl
Jeet crunches ‘eihinesfas hisae arene TGS om
legeber? sel2A tasesioue eit tyem wonttineed leniyotiath’ sa)
ail gctut? soadggilittods to siiduqa® AesM pi yel .
ee oModiad emioh stat ‘pak ‘wilt Oo. ‘netnrsee organs awesi
Bebe
7 une
dadzatafiusg seb srelliney itt” tedtend inedianiendd |‘beoieb 3k
Seas
a bewotamy esd oP volta oh tela catia mur” allt a:
JS eters! feito lomine} a8) Seeonetten athe aden 4
= ee. peter eaeeateis '
 PREFACE

This book includes thirteen papers circulated and discussed at the 1983
Springfield, Missouri Working Seminar on Gnosticism and Early Chris-
tianity. The Springfield Seminar, in session from March 30 to April 2,
1983, followed in the tradition of conferences held at Messina, Italy;
New Haven, Connecticut; Stockholm, Sweden; and Montreal, Canada.
It differed from these earlier conferences because it was the first to
concentrate exclusively on the relationship between gnosticism and
early Christianity.
Each contributor is an internationally recognized scholar in the dis-
ciplines of gnosticism, New Testament studies, and early church history.
Each received the general charge from the editors to prepare a paper
that would represent the cutting edge of current research and would
stimulate further exploration of the literary, historical, and theological
bonds between gnosticism and early Christianity. The choice of. the
specific topic fell to the individual scholar. The reader will note, how-
ever, that a common thread runs through all the papers: the investigation
of the recently discovered (1945) Nag Hammadi Library with its fifty-one
tractates. By gathering the papers under three headings (Non-Christian
Gnosticism; Gnosticism, the New Testament, and Early Christianity;
Gnosticism and the Early Church) the editors have identified for the
reader the scope of the Working Seminar and the general direction of
ongoing research as well.
The book acquaints the beginner with the topic of gnosticism and
early Christianity and presents to the specialist some of the new fron-
tiers their colleagues are exploring. For the beginner there is a concise
introduction to gnosticism. It covers the issues of origin, literature,
leading ideas, and possible links with early Christianity. Each contrib-
utor has prepared a preface to his or her paper that points to its salient
features and explains how the essay fits into the overall subject of the
book.
The editors have prepared an Abbreviations and Short Titles List for
the bibliographical entries in the footnotes:to each paper. The List can
also serve the reader as a basic bibliography for the subject of gnos-

xi
xii PREFACE

ticism and early Christianity. The editors have also provided the selec-
tive indices to ancient texts and modern authors.
The editors have held to the original text and spirit of the working
papers as far as possible. They have standardized grammar, spelling,
and style in each paper but not among papers. Thus, for example, one
author may capitalize “gnosticism,” while another does not. A desire for
clarity and correct usage has guided all editorial changes. Although each
contributor has verified the accuracy of footnotes and bibliographical
entries, readers are encouraged to communicate lapses to the editors.
Heartfelt thanks are due to a long list of individuals and institutions
for the success of the Working Seminar and the publication of the book:
The National Endowment for the Humanities; Hendrickson Publishers;
the former President and Provost of Southwest Missouri State Univer-
sity, Drs. Duane Meyer and Robert Gilmore, respectively; the former
Dean of the College of Arts and Humanities, Dr. Holt Spicer; Media
Productions at Southwest Missouri State University, particularly Pat
Gosley and Gary Ellis; The Chamber of Commerce and the Hilton Inn
of Springfield, Missouri.
Thanks also go to Drs. Gerit J. tenZythoff and Stanley Burgess for help
in drafting the original grant proposal to the National Endowment for
the Humanities. JoAnne Brown provided efficient and cheerful logistical
support. Patrick H. Alexander of Hendrickson Publishers copyedited
the manuscript and drew up the biographical sketches.
Finally, the editors and contributors wish to temper the loss of their
friend and colleague, George W. MacRae, S. J. by dedicating this book to
his memory. His sudden death on September 6, 1985 robbed the
academy and the church of a genial scholar whose life’s work indeed
redounded ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

Robert Hodgson, Jr.

 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

I. Abbreviations of Biblical Books and Related Texts

a. OLD TESTAMENT

Gen Genesis Ps Psalms

Exod Exodus ’ Prov Proverbs
Num Numbers Isa Isaiah
Deut Deuteronomy Jer Jeremiah
1 Kgs 1 Kings Ezek Ezekiel

b. New TESTAMENT

Matt Matthew 1 Thess 1 Thessalonians

Rom Romans 2 Thess 2 Thessalonians
1 Cor 1 Corinthians 1 Tim 1 Timothy
2 Cor 2 Corinthians 2 Tim 2 Timothy
Gal Galatians 1 Pet 1 Peter
Eph Ephesians 2 Pet 2 Peter
Phil Philippians Rev Revelation
Col Colossians

c. APOCRYPHA, PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, QUMRAN TEXTS, MISHNA, TARGUMIC MATERIAL AND

Ear.y PAtRIsTic WRITINGS

Adam and Eve Books of Adam and Eve 1QSb Appendix B

Apoc. Mos. Apocalypse of Moses (Blessings) to 1QS
CD Cairo Damascus Document 4QTestim Testimonia text from
2 Clem. 2 Clement Qumran Cave 4
Did. Didache m. Sanh. Mishna Sanhedrin
2 Enoch Slavonic Enoch Sir Sirach
2 Esdr 2 Esdras Test. Adam Testament of Adam
Jub. Jubilees Tg. Ps.-] Targum Pseudo-
Mid. Gen. Rab. Midrash Genesis Rabbah Jonathan
Odes Sol. Odes of Solomon T. Judah Testament of Judah
1QM War Scroll T. Levi Testament of Levi
1QS Manual of Discipline T. Reub. Testament of Reuben
Wis Wisdom of Solomon
Xiv ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

d. Coptic GNostic TRACTATES

I,1 The Prayer of the Apostle Paul Pr. Paul

1,2 The Apocryphon of James Ap. Jas.
1,3 The Gospel of Truth Gos. Truth
1,4 The Treatise on the Resurrection Treat. Res.
15 The Tripartite Tractate Tri. Trac.
II,1 The Apocryphon of John Ap. John
II,2 The Gospel of Thomas Gos. Thom.
II,3 The Gospel of Philip Gos. Phil.
11,4 The Hypostasis of the Archons Hyp. Arch.
11,5 On the Origin of the World Orig. World
IL,6 The Exegesis on the Soul Exeg. Soul
II,7 The Book of Thomas the Contender Thom. Cont.
II,1 The Apocryphon of John Ap. John
III,2 The Gospel of the Egyptians Gos. Eg.
III,3 Eugnostos Eugnostos
III,4 The Sophia of Jesus Christ Soph. Jes. Chr.
III,5 The Dialogue of the Savior Dial. Sav.
IV,1 The Apocryphon of John Ap. John
IV,2 The Gospel of the Egyptians Gos. Eg.
V,1 Eugnostos Eugnostos
V,2 The Apocalypse of Paul Apoc. Paul
V,3 The (First) Apocalypse of James 1 Apoc. Jas
V,4 The (Second) Apocalypse of James 2 Apoc. Jas.
V5 The Apocalypse of Adam Apoc. Adam
VI,1 The Acts of Peter and
the Twelve Apostles Acts Pet. 12 Apost.
VI,2 The Thunder: Perfect Mind Thund.
VI,3 Authoritative Teaching Auth. Teach.
VI4 The Concept of our Great Power Great Pow.
V1.5 Plato, Republic 588b-589b Plato Rep.
VI,6 The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth Disc. 8-9
VI,7 The Prayer of Thanksgiving Pr. Thanks.
V1.8 Asclepius 21-29 Asclepius
VII,1 The Paraphrase of Shem Paraph. Shem
VII,2 The Second Treatise of the Great Seth Treat. Seth
Vil,3 The Apocalypse of Peter Apoc. Pet.
VII,4 The Teachings of Silvanus Teach. Silv.
VIIL5 The Three Steles of Seth Steles Seth
VIII,1 Zostrianos Zost.
VIII,2 The Letter of Peter to Philip Ep. Pet. Phil.
IX,1 Melchizedek Melch.
IX,2 The Thought of Norea Norea
IX,3 The Testimony of Truth Testim. Truth
Marsanes Marsanes
XI,1 The Interpretation of Knowledge Interp. Know.
XI,2 A Valentinian Exposition Val. Exp.
XI,2a On the Anointing On Anoint.
XI1,2b On Baptism A On Bap. A
XI,2c On Baptism B On Bap. B
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES XV

XI,2d On the Eucharist A On Euch. A

XI1,2e On the Eucharist B On Euch. B
XI1,3 Allogenes Allogenes
XI1,4 Hypsiphrone Hypsiph.
XII,1 The Sentences of Sextus Sent. Sextus.
XII,2 The Gospel of Truth Gos. Truth
XII,3 Fragments Frm.
XIII,1 Trimorphic Protennoia Trim. Prot. -
XIII,2 On the Origin of the World Orig. World
BG,1 The Gospel of Mary Gos. Mary
BG,2 The Apocryphon of John Ap. John
BG,3 The Sophia of Jesus Christ Soph. Jes. Chr.
BG,4 The Act of Peter Act Pet.

e. OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

ad loc. ad locum, at the place LXX Septuagint

B.C.E. Before the Common Era (=B.c.) MS manuscript
BG Papyrus Berolinensis Gnosticus ‘MT Masoretic Text
ca. circa, around Nn. note
C.E. Common Era (=a.D.) NT New Testament
cf. confer, compare OT Old Testament
ch(s). chapter(s) par. parallel(s).
col(s). column(s) pi. plate(s)
cont. continued plu. plural
e.g. exempli gratia, for example | PB. Oxy. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus
esp. especially p(p). page(s)
ET English translation SC. scilicet, namely
et al. et alii, and others seq. et sequentia,
f(£). and following and following
fem. feminine — sg. singular
ibid, ibidem, in the same place S.V. sub verbo, under
id. idem, the same the word
i.e. id est, that is vol(s). volume(s)
no(s). number(s) vs. versus, contrary to
vs(s) verse(s)

II. Short Titles

AB Anchor Bible
Abbeloos-Lamy, Chronicon Abbeloos, J. B. and Lamy, Th. J., eds. Gregorii
Barhebraei chronicon ecclesiasticum. 3 vols. Louvain: Peeters, 1872-77.
Abramowski, “Eunomios” Abramowski, L. “Eunomios,” RAC 6 (1966) cols. 936-47.
Abu al-Barakat, Lampe des ténébres Abu al-Barakat ibn Kabar. Livre de la
lampe des ténébres, et de l’exposition lumineuse du service de I'église. Edited
and translated by L. Villecourt. PO 20. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1929, 579-733.
Xvi ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

AcOr Acta Orientalia

AKG __ Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte
Akinian, Kanones_ _— Akinian, P. N., ed. Die Kanones der Synode von
Schahapiwan. Wien: Mechitharisten-Driickerei, 1953.
Akinian, Koriwn __ Akinian, P. N., ed. Koriwn, Biographie des hl. Ma&toc. 2nd ed.
Wien: Mechitharisten-Driickerei, 1952.
Aland, Gnosis _ Aland, B., ed. Gnosis: Festschrift fiir H ans Jonas. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.
Aland, “Herakleon” _—_ Aland, B. “Erwahlungstheologie und Menschenklassenlehre.
Die Theologie des Herakleon als Schliissel zum Verstandnis der christlichen
Gnosis?” in M. Krause, ed. Seventh Conference on Patristic Studies, 148-81.
Albinus, Did. Didaskalikos
Altaner-Stuiber, Patrologie Altaner, B. and Stuiber, A. Patrologie. 7th ed.
Freiburg: Herder, 1966.
Altheim-Stiehl, Araber Altheim, Fr. and Stiehl, R., eds, Die Araber in der Alten
Welt. 7 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965.
AnBib Analecta biblica
ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts.
ANF _ The Ante-Nicene Fathers
ANRW _ Aufstieg und Niedergang der rémischen Welt
AP Anthologia Palatina
AP] __ Planudean Appendix
Arai, Christologie Arai, S. Die Christologie des Evangelium Veritatis: Eine
religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
Arai, “Christologie” Arai, S. “Zur Christologie des Apokryphons des Johannes.”
NTS 15 (1969) 302-18.
Aristot. Metaph. _—_ Aristotle, Metaphysica
Aristotle, Po Aristotle, Poetica
Armstrong, “Gnosis” § Armstrong, A. H. “Gnosis and Greek Philosophy” in Aland,
Gnosis, 87-124.
Asatir | Gaster, M. The Asatir. The Samaritan Book of the Secrets of Moses.
Oriental Translation Fund, New Series 26. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1927.
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai
Attridge- MacRae, “Gospel of Truth” Attridge, H. W. and MacRae, G. W. “The
Gospel of Truth” in Attridge, Nag Hammadi Codex I, 55-81.
Attridge, Nag Hammadi Codex I Attridge, H. W., ed. Nag Hammadi Codex I
(The Jung Codex). 2 vols. NHS 22-23. Leiden: Brill, 1985.
Attridge-Oden, Philo Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A. Philo of Byblos: The
Phoenician History. CBQMS 9. Washington: CBA, 1981.
Attridge-Pagels, “Tripartite Tractate” Attridge, H. W. and Pagels, E. “The
Tripartite Tractate” in Attridge, Nag Hammadi Codex I, 159-90.
Augustine, De haeresibus §_Augustine. De haeresibus. CC, series latina 46.
Turnhout: Brepols, 1969. .
Bammel, “Q” Bammel, E. “Das Ende von Q” in Bécher-Haacker, Verborum
Veritas, 39-50.
Barc, Colloque _ Barc, B., ed. Colloque International sur les Textes de Nag
Hammadi. Québec: Université Laval, 1981.
Barc, L’'Hypostase ~ Barc, B., ed. L'Hypostase des Archontes: Traité gnostique sur
lorigine de l'homme, du monde et des archontes NH II.4. BCNH, Section
Etudes 1. Québec: Université Laval; Louvain: Peeters, 1981.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES xvii

Barc, “Samaél” _ Barc, B. “Samaél-Saklas- Yaldabaéth: Recherche sur la genése

d’un mythe gnostique” in Barc, Colloque, 123-50.
Bardy, “Borboriens” Bardy, G. “Borboriens.” DHGE 9 (1937) 1778-79.
Barnes-Browne-Shelton, Cartonnage Barnes, J. W. B.; Browne, G. M.; and
Shelton, J. C., eds. Nag Hammadi Codices: Greek and Coptic Papyri from the
Cartonnage of the Covers. NHS 16. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Bauer, Orthodoxy. _ Bauer, W. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity.
Translation of German 2nd ed. Edited by R. A. Kraft and G. Krodel.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
Bauer, Rechtgldubigkeit Bauer, W. Rechtglaubigkeit und Ketzerei im dltesten
Christentum. BHT 10. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1934; 2nd ed. Tubingen: Mohr,
1964.
BCNH Bibliothéque copte de Nag Hammadi.
Beardslee, Literary Criticism Beardslee, W. A. Literary Criticism of the New
Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.
Beardslee, “Proverb” Beardslee, W. A. “Uses of the Proverb in the Synoptic
Gospels.” Int 24 (1970) 61-73.
Beardslee, “Wisdom Tradition” Beardslee, W. A. “The Wisdom Tradition and the
Synoptic Gospels.” JAAR 35 (1967) 231-40.
Beck, “Ephraem” Beck, E. “Ephraem Syrus.” RAC 5 (1962) cols. 520-31.
Becker, “Abschiedsreden” Becker, J. “Die Abschiedsreden Jesu im
Johannesevangelium.” ZNW 61 (1970) 215-46.
Becker, “Aufbau” Becker, J. “Aufbau, Schichtung und theologiegeschichtliche
Stellung des Gebetes in Johannes 17.” ZNW 60 (1969) 56-83.
Becker, Reden _ Becker, H. Die Reden des Johannesevangeliums und der Stil der
gnostischen Offenbarungsrede. FRLANT 68. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1956.
Bedjan, Acta _ Bedjan, P., ed. Acta martyrium et sanctorum. 7 vols. Paris/Leipzig:
Harrassowitz, 1891. _
Bedjan, Histoire | Bedjan, P., ed. Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres.
patriarches, d’un prétre et de deux lalques, nestoriens. Paris/Leipzig: Harras-
sowitz, 1895.
Bell-Skeat, Unknown Gospel __ Bell, H. I. and Skeat, T. C. Fragments of an
Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri. London: British Museum,
1935.
Beltz, Adamapokalypse __ Beltz, W. Die Adamapokalypse aus Codex V von Nag
Hammadi: Jiidische Bausteine in gnostischen Systemen. Dr. Theol. diss.; Hum-
boldt-Universitét, 1970.
Beltz, “Samaritanertum” Beltz, W. “Samaritanertum und Gnosis” in Tréger,
Gnosis, 89-95.
Benko, “Phibionites” | Benko, S. “The Libertine Gnostic Sect of the Phibionites
according to Epiphanius.” VC 21 (1967) 103-19.
Bergman, Ex Orbe Religionum _ Bergman, J. et al., eds. Ex Orbe Religionum:
Studia Geo. Widengren oblata. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Bergman, Isis Bergman, J. Ich bin Isis. Acta Universitatis Upsalliensis, Historia
Religionum 3; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1968.
BETH Beitrdge zur Evangelischen Theologie
Bethge, “Nebront” —_Bethge, H.-G., et al. “‘Nebront’; Die zweite Schrift aus Nag-
Hammadi-Codex VI: Eingeleitet und ubersetzt vom Berliner Arbeitskreis fur
koptisch-gnostische Schriften.” ThLZ 98 (1973) 97-104.
xviii ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Bethge, “Petrus an Philipus” Bethge, H.-G. “Der sogenannte ‘Brief des Petrus an
Philipus’: Die zweite ‘Schrift’ aus Nag- Hammadi-Codex VIII eingeleitet und
lbersetzt vom Berliner Arbeitskreis fiir koptisch-gnostische Schriften.” ThLZ 103
(1978) 161-70.
BETL __ Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BHT Beitrdge zur historischen Theologie
Bianchi, “Colloque” —_ Bianchi, U. “Le colloque international sur les origines du
Gnosticisme. Messine, avril 1966.” Numen 13 (1966) 156-59.
Bianchi, Origini _ Bianchi, U., ed. Le Origini dello Gnosticismo: Colloquio di
Messina 13-18 Aprile 1966. Numen Supplement 12. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Bianchi, “Probléme” _ Bianchi, U. “Le probléme des origines du gnosticisme” in
Bianchi, Origini, 1-27.
Bianchi, “Proposal” Bianchi, U., ed. “Proposal for a terminological and
conceptual agreement with regard to the theme of the Colloquium” in Bianchi,
Origini, xxvi-xxix.
Bidez, Philostorgius . Bidez, J., ed. Philostorgius. Kirchengeschichte. GCS 21;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913.
BKV __ Bibliothek der Kirchenvater
Blum, Rabbula '_ Blum, G. Rabbula von Edessa. Der Christ, der Bischof, der
Theologe. CSCO 300; Louvain: Secrétariat CSCO, 1969.
Bocher-Haacker, Verborum Veritas Bicher, O. and Haacker, K., eds. Verborum
Veritas. Festschrift fir Gustav Stéhlin zum 70. Geburtstag. Wuppertal:
Brockhaus, 1970.
Bohlig, “Adamapokalypse” Bohlig, A. “Jiidisches und Iranisches in der
Adampokalypse des Codex V von Nag Hammadi” in Bohlig, Mysterion, 149-61.
Bohlig, “Antimimon” Bohlig, A. “Zum Antimimon Pneuma in den koptisch-
gnostischen Texten” in Béhlig, Mysterion, 162-74.
Béhlig-Labib, Apokalypsen _ Bohlig, A. and Labib, P. Koptisch-gnostische
Apokalypsen aus Codex V von Nag Hammadi im Koptischen Museum zu Alt
Kairo. Halle-Wittenberg: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-
Universitat, 1963.
Bohlig, Gnosis _—_Béhlig, A., ed. Die Gnosis. 3 vols.; Zirich/Munchen: Artemis, 1980.
Bohlig- Wisse, Gospel of the Egyptians Bohlig, A. and Wisse, F., eds. Nag
Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2: The Gospel of the Egyptians. NHS 4. Leiden:
Brill, 1975.
Bohlig, “Hintergrund” Bohlig, A. “Der jiidische Hintergrund in gnostischen
Texten von Nag Hammadi” in Bohlig, Mysterion, 80-101.
Bohlig, “Manichdismus” _ Bohlig, A. “Der Manichdismus im Lichte der neueren
Gnosisforschung” in Bohlig, Mysterion, 188-201.
Boéhlig, Mysterion _Bohlig, A. Mysterion und Wahrheit: Gesammelte Beitrdge zur
spdtantiken Religionsgeschichte. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Béhlig-Labib, Schrift ohne Titel Béhlig, A. and Labib, P. Die LOpileh glicatveatns
Schrift ohne Titel aus Codex II von Nag Hammadi. Deutsche Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut fiir Orientforschung. Veréffentlichung 58.
Berlin: Akademie, 1962.
Bohlig, “Triade” —_ Bohlig, A. “Triade und Trinitat in den Schriften von Nag |
Hammadi” in Layton, Rediscovery, 2.617-34.
Bohlig, “Ursprache” Bohlig, A. “Ursprache des Evangelium Veritatis.” Le Muséon
76 (1966) 317-33.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES xix

Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus Boring, M. E. Sayings of the Risen Jesus:
Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 46. Cambridge:
University Press, 1982.
Borsch, Sonof Man __ Borsch, F. H. The Son of Man in Myth and History. NTL.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.
Bousset, Kyrios Christos Bousset, W. Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in
Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. Translated by J. E. Steely;
Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1970.
Bowersock, Greek Sophists | Bowersock, G. W. Greek Sophists in the Roman
Empire. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Brandt, Mandidische Religion Brandt, W. Die manddische Religion. Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1889.
Braun, Mdrtyrer _ Braun, O. Ausgewdhlte Akten persischer Martyrer. BKV 22.
Munchen: Késel, 1915.
‘Braun, Nicaena Braun, O. De sancta Nicaena synodo. Miinster: Schéningh, 1898.
Brock, “Christians” Brock, S. P. “Christians in the Sasanian Empire: A Case of
Divided Loyalties.” Studies in Church History 18 (1982) 1-19.
Brock, “Greek Words in Syriac” Brock, S. P. “Some Aspects of Greek Words in
Syriac” in Dietrich, Synkretismus, 80-108.
Brockelmann, Lexicon Brockelmann, C. Lexicon syriacum. Halle: Niemeyer,
1928. ;
van den Broek, “Autogenes” Broek, R. van den. “Autogenes and A.jamas: The
Mythological Structure of the Apocryphon of John” in Krause, Eighth
Conference on Patristic Studies, 16-25.
van den Broek-Vermaseren, Studies Broek, R. van den and Vermaseren, M. J.,
eds. Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions. Presented to Gilles Quispel
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Etudes préliminaires aux religions
orientales dans l’Empire romain 91. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Brown, Community of the Beloved Disciple Brown, R. E. The Community of the
Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist, 1979.
Brown, “Gospel of Thomas” _ Brown, R. E. “The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth
Gospel.” NTS 9 (1962/63) 155-77.
Brown, Johannine Epistles | Brown, R. E. The Johannine Epistles. AB 30. Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982.
Brown, John Brown, R. E. The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. AB 28-29.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966-1970.
Brown, “Sheep” Brown, R. E. “‘Other Sheep not of this Fold’: The Johannine
Perspective on Christian Diversity in the Late First Century.” JBL 97 (1978) 5-22.
Brown-Griggs, “Apocalypse of Peter” Brown, S. K. and Griggs, C. W. “The
Apocalypse of Peter: Introduction and Translation.” Brigham Young University
Studies 15 (1975) 131-45.
Brox, “Nikolaos und Nikolaiten” Brox, N. “Nikolaos und Nikolaiten.” VC 19
(1965) 23-30.
Budge, Book of Governors _ Budge, E. A. W., ed. The Book of Governors. The His-
_ toria Monastica of Thomas of Marga A. D. 840. 2 vols. London: Kegan Paul, 1893.
Budge, Coptic Apocrypha _ Budge, E. A. W. Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of
Upper Egypt. London: British Museum, 1913.
Bullard, Hypostasis of the Archons . Bullard, R. A. The Hypostasis of the Archons.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970.
XX ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Bultmann, Johannes Bultmann, R. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Meyer/K. 2;

18th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.
Bultmann, John _‘ Bultmann, R. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by
G. R. Beasley-Murray, et al. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.
Bultmann, Primitive Christianity | Bultmann, R. Primitive Christianity in its
Contemporary Setting. Translated by R. H. Fuller. New York: Meridian, 1956.
Bultmann, Theologiedes NT — Bultmann, R. Theologie des Neuen Testaments.
Tiibingen: Mohr, 1948 (1st ed.), 1958 (3rd ed.).
Bultmann, Theology Bultmann, R. Theology of the New Testament. Translated
by K. Grobel. 2 vols. New York: Scribners, 1951-55.
Burkert, “Craft versus Sect” Burkert, W. “Craft versus Sect: The Problem of
Orphics and Pythagoreans” in Meyer-Sanders, Self-Definition, 183-89.
Burkitt, Church and Gnosis Burkitt, F. C. Church and Gnosis: A Study of
Christian Thought and Speculation in the Second Century. Cambridge:
University Press, 1932.
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZNW Beihefte zur ZN W
Cameron-Dewey, ManiCodex Cameron, R. and Dewey, A. The Cologne Mani
Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780) “Concerning the Origin of His Body.” SBLTT 15.
Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1979.
Cameron, The Other Gospels § Cameron, R., ed. The Other Gospels: Non-
Canonical Gospel Texts. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.
von Campenhausen, Bible © Campenhausen, H. von. The Formation of the
Christian Bible. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.
Carr, Angels and Principalities | Carr, W. Angels and Principalities. The
Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase hai archai kai
hai exousiai. Cambridge: University Press, 1981.
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly—Monograph Series
CC Corpus Christianorum :
CG Cairenensis Gnosticus (cf. NHC)
Chabot, Chronique §_ Chabot, J.-B., ed. Chronique de Michel le Syrien. 1899-1910.
Reprint. 4 vols. Bruxelles: Culture et Civilization, 1963.
Chabot, Synodicon Chabot, J.-B. Synodicon orientale. Notices et extraits des
manuscrits de la Bibliothéque Nationale 37. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1902.
Chadwick, “Enkrateia” Chadwick, H. “Enkrateia.” RAC 5 (1962) cols. 349-51.
Charles, APOT — Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament. 2 vols. 1913. Reprint. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.
Chaumont, “L’inscription” | Chaumont, M.-L., ed. “L’inscription de Kartir a la
‘Ka ‘bah de Zoroastre’ (Texte, Traduction, Commentaire).” JA 258 (1960) 339-80.
Chérix, Le Concept — Chérix, P., ed. Le Concept de Notre Grande Puissance (CG
VI, 4). Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1982.
Cherniss, Moralia _Cherniss, H., ed. Plutarch’s Moralia. LCL 13.2. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard, 1976.
Cherniss-Helmbold, Plutarch’s Moralia Cherniss, H. and Helmbold, W., eds.
Plutarch’s Moralia. LCL 12. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1968.
Cicero, Nat. Deor. Cicero, De Natura Deorum
Cicero, Or. Cicero, De Oratore
Clem. Alex., Strom. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata
Collins, Morphology __ Collins,J. J., ed. Apocalypse: The pedolasi ofa Genre.
Semeia 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1979.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES xxl

Colpe, “Messina Kongress” Colpe, C. “Vorschlage des Messina Kongresses von

1966 zur Gnosisforschung” in Eltester, Christentum, 129-32.
Colpe, “Sethian Ages” Colpe, C. “Sethian and Zoroastrian Ages of the World” in
Layton, Rediscovery, 2.540-52.
Colpe, “Uberlieferung” Colpe, C. “Heidnische, jiidische, und christliche
Uberlieferung in den Schriften aus Nag Hammadi III.” JAC 17 (1974) 125-46.
Conzelmann, “Literaturbericht” Conzelmann, H. “Literaturbericht zu den
synoptischen Evangelien.” ThR 37 (1972) 220-72.
Cornford, Cosmology = Cornford, F. Plato’s Cosmology. LLA. Indianapolis: Bobbs
Merrill, n.d.
CRAIBL Comptes rendus de I’Academie des inscriptions et de belles lettres.
Cross, The Jung Codex _ Cross, F. L., ed. The Jung Codex: A Newly Discovered
Gnostic Papyrus. London: Mowbray, 1955.
Crossan, In Fragments Crossan, J. D. In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus. San
Francisco: Harper and Row, 1983.
CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium
CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum
_ Dahl, “Archon” Dahl, N. A. “The Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia: Jewish
Traditions in Gnostic Revolt” in Layton, Rediscovery, 2.689-712.
Dan-Talmage, Jewish Mysticism Dan, J. and Talmage, F., eds. Studies in Jewish
Mysticism. Proceedings of Regional Conferences Held at the University of
California, Los Angeles, and McGill University in April 1978. Cambridge:
Association for Jewish Studies, 1981.
Daniélou, Gospel Daniélou, J. Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture.
Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973.
Dauer, Passionsgeschichte Dauer, A. Die Passionsgeschichte im
Johannesevangelium. SANT 30. Miinchen: Késel, 1972.
Dauer, “Wort des Gekreuzigten” Dauer, A. “Das Wort des Gekreuzigten an seine
Mutter und den ‘Jiinger, den er liebte.’” BZ 11 (1967) 222-39; 12 (1968) 80-93.
Davies, Thomas and Wisdom Davies, S. L. The Gospel of Thomas and Christian
Wisdom. New York: Seabury, 1983.
DCB Dictionary of Christian Biography.
Dehandschutter, “L’Evangile de Thomas” Dehandschutter, B. “L’Evangile de
Thomas comme collection de paroles de Jésus” in Delobel, Logia, 507-15.
Dehandschutter, “Thomasevangelie” | Dehandschutter, B. “Het Thomasevangelie:
Overzicht van het onderzoek,” Dissertation, Leuven, 1975.
Delobel, Logia Delobel, J., ed. Logia: Les paroles de Jésus - The Sayings of Jesus.
BETL 59. Leuven: Peeters & Leuven University, 1982.
Demke, “Logos-Hymnus” Demke, C. “Der sogennante Logos-Hymnus im
johanneischen Prolog.” ZNW 58 (1967) 45-68.
DHGE Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques
Dietrich, Synkretismus Dietrich, A., ed. Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen
Kulturgebiet. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Gottingen,
phil.-hist. Klasse, 3. Folge 96. Géttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975.
Dillon, Middle Platonists __ Dillon, J. The Middle Platonists. A Study of Platonism
80 B.C. to A.D. 220. London: Duckworth, 1977.
Disdier, “Atticus” Disdier, M. “Atticus, patriarche de Constantinople.” DHGE 5
(1931) 161-66.
Dodd, Historical Tradition Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth
Gospel. Cambridge: University Press, 1963.
xxii ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Dodds, “The Parmenides of Plato” | Dodds, E. R. “The Parmenides of Plato and

the Origin of the Neoplatonic One.” Classical Quarterly 22 (1928) 129-42.
Dodds, Proclus Dodds, E. R. Proclus: The Elements of Theology. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1963.
Doresse, “Livres gnostiques” Doresse, J. “Trois livres gnostiques inédits.” VC 2
(1948) 137-60. :
Doresse, Livres secrets Doresse, J. Les livres secrets des gnostiques d’Egypte. 2
vols. Paris: Plon, 1958-59.
Dorrie, “Cosmologie” Dorrie, H. “Divers aspects de la cosmologie de 70 avant J.-
C. a 20 aprés J.-C.” RThPh 3.22 (1972) 400-5.
Douglas, Symbols _— Douglas, M. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology.
New York: Random House, 1973.
Drijvers, Bardaisan _— Drijvers, H. J. W. Bardaisan of Edessa. Assen: van Gorcum,
1966.
Drijvers, “Bardaisan, Reprdsentant des syrischen Synkretismus” Drijvers, H. J. W.
“Bardaisan von Edessa als Reprasentant des syrischen Synkretismus im 2.
Jahrhundert n. Chr.” in Dietrich, Synkretismus, 109-22.
Drijvers, “Christentum” Drijvers, H. J. W. “Edessa und das jiidische
Christentum.” VC 24 (1970) 4-33.
Drijvers, “Edessa” Drijvers, H. J. W. “Edessa.” ThRE 9 (1982) 277-88.
Drijvers, “Odes” —_ Drijvers, H. J. W. “Odes of Solomon and Psalms of Mani:
Christians and Manichaeans in Third-Century Syria” in van den Broek-
Vermaseren, Studies, 117-30.
Drijvers, “Quq” _ Drijvers, H. J. W. “Qugq and the Quqites. An Unknown Sect in
Edessa in the Second Century A. D.” Numen 14 (1967) 104-29.
Drijvers, “Rechtglaubigkeit” Drijvers, H. J. W. “Rechtgldubigkeit und Ketzerei im
altesten syrischen Christentum.” OrChrA 197 (1974) 291-370.
Drijvers, “Syriac-Speaking Christianity” Drijvers, H. J. W. “Facts and Problems in
Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity.” The Second Century 2 (1982) 157-75.
Drower-Macuch, Mandaic Dictionary — Drower, E. S. and Macuch, R. A Mandaic
Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.
Dubois, “Contexte” Dubois, J.-D. “Le contexte judaique du ‘nom’ dans I’Evangile
de Vérité.” RThPh 24 (1974) 198-216.
Diimmer, “Angaben” Diimmer, J. “Die Angaben tiber die gnostische Literatur bei
Epiphanius, Pan. haer. 26” in Koptologische Studien in der DDR. Halle-Witten-
berg: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther- Universitat, 1965, 191-219.
Diimmer, “Sprachkenntnisse” Dimmer, J. “Die Sprachkenntnisse des
Epiphanius” in Altheim-Stiehl, Die Araber, 5.1. 428-30.
EEF _ Egypt Exploration Fund
EKK _ Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
Eltester, Apophoreta _ Eltester, W. Apophoreta: Festschrift fur Ernst Haenchen zu
seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964. BZNW 30. Berlin:
Tépelmann, 1964.
Eltester, Christentum Eltester, W. Christentum und Gnosis. BZNW 37. Berlin:
Tépelmann, 1969.
Ephrem, Contra haereses Ephrem. Hymnen contra haereses. Edited by E. Beck.
CSCO 169. Louvain, Secrétariat CSCO, 1957.
Ephrem, De paradiso _ Beck, E., ed. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de
Paradiso und Contra Julianum. CSCO 174. Louvain: Secréteriat CSCO, 1957.
Epiph..Pan. Epiphanius, Panarion
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES xxiii

van Ess, Hdresiographie Ess, J. van, ed. Frtihe mu‘ tazilitische Hdresiographie.
Beirut: Orient- Institut, 1971.
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. Edited by K. Lake and
J. E. L. Oulton. 2 vols. Cambridge and London: Heinemann, 1964-65.
Eutychius, Annales _Eutychius of Alexandria. Eutychii patriarchae Alexandrini
annales pars 2. Edited by L. Cheikho, et al. CSCO 50-51. Louvain: Imprimerie
Orientaliste, 1954.
EvTh _ Evangelische Theologie
Fallon, “Apocalypses” Fallon, F. T. “The Gnostic Apocalypses” in Collins,
Morphology, 123-58.
Fallon, Enthronement Fallon, F. T. The Enthronement of Sabaoth. Jewish
Elements in Gnostic Creation Myths. NHS 10. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Farmer, Jesus Farmer, W. R. Jesus and the Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
de Faye, Gnostiques Faye, E. de. Gnostiques et gnosticisme. 2nd ed. Paris:
Geuthner, 1925.
Fecht, “Der erste ‘Teil’” - Fecht, G. “Der erste ‘Teil’ des sogennanten Evangelium
Veritatis (s. 16, 31-22, 2).” Or 30 (1961) 371-90.
Fendt, “Borborianer” Fendt, L. “Borborianer.” RAC 2 (1954) 510-13.
Fendt, Mysterien Fendt, L. Gnostische Mysterien. Minchen: Kaiser, 1922.
Fiey, Jalons _ Fiey, J. M. Jalons pour une histoire de I’Eglise en Iraq. CSCO 310.
Louvain: Secréteriat CSCO, 1970.
Fiey, “Marcionites” Fiey, J. M. “Les Marcionites dans les textes historiques de
l’Eglise de Perse.” Le Muséon 73 (1970) 183-87.
Filastrius, Haer. Filastrius of Brescia. Diversarum haereseon liber. Edited by F.
Heylen. CC, series latina 9. Turnhout: Brepols, 1959.
Fineman, “Piety” Fineman, J. “Gnosis and the Piety of Metaphor: The Gospel of
Truth” in Layton, Rediscovery, 1.289-318.
Finnestad, “Fall” Finnestad, R. B. “The Cosmogonic Fall in the Evangelfumi
Veritatis.” Temenos 7 (1971) 38-49.
Fischer, “Christus” Fischer, K. M. “Der johanneische Christus und der gnostische
Erldser” in Tréger, Gnosis und Neues Testament, 245-66.
Fitzmyer, “Gnostic Gospels” Fitzmyer, J. A. “The Gnostic Gospels according to
Pagels.” America 123 (16 February, 1980) 122-24.
Fitzmyer, Luke Fitzmyer, J. A. “The Gospel According to Luke I-1X. AB 28.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981.
Foerster, Die Gnosis Foerster, W., ed. Die Gnosis. 3 vols. Ziirich: Artemis, 1969-
80.
Foerster, Gnosis Foerster, W., ed. Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts.
Translated and edited by R. McL. Wilson. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972-74.
Forestell, Word Forestell, J. T. The Word of the Cross: Salvation as Revelation in
the Fourth Gospel. AnBib 57. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1974.
Francis-Meeks, Conflict at Colossae Francis, F. O. and Meeks, W. A., eds. and
trans. Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity
Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies. Sources for Biblical Study 4. Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975 rev.
Fredouille, Tertullien Fredouille, J.-C. Tertullien, Contra les Valentiniens. SC
280. Paris: Cerf, 1980.
Friedlander, Gnosticismus _ Friedlander, M. Der vorchristliche juidische
Gnosticismus. Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1898; Farnborough: Gregg
International, 1972.
XXiV ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

FRLANT _ Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments.
Garsoian, Heresy Garsoian, N. G. The Paulician Heresy. The Hague: Mouton,
1967.
GCS ____ Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte
Geerard, Clavis | Geerard, M. Clavis patrum graecorum. 4 vols. Turnhout: Brepols,
1974-83.
Gero, Barsauma __ Gero, S. Barsauma of Nisibis and Persian Christianity in the
Fifth Century. CSCO 426. Louvain: Peeters, 1981.
Gero, “Kirche” Gero, S. “Die Kirche des Ostens. Zum Christentum in Persien in |
der Spatantike.” OSt 30 (1981) 22-27.
Gero, “See of Peter” Gero, S. “The See of Peter in Babylon: Western Influences
on the Ecclesiology of Early Persian Christianity” in N. Garsoian et al., eds. East
of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period. Washington:
Dumbarton Oaks, 1982, 45-51.
Gignoux, “L’inscription” | Gignoux, Ph., ed. “L’inscription de Kartir 4a Sar Mahad.”
JA 256 (1968) 387-418.
Giversen, Apocryphon _ Giverson, S. Apocryphon Johannis. Copenhagen:
Munksgaard, 1963.
GOF Gottinger Orientforschungen
Goguel, Introduction | Goguel, M. Introduction au Nouveau Testament. 4 vols.
Paris: Leroux, 1923-26.
Graf, Geschichte Graf, G. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. 5
vols. Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica, 1944-53.
Grant, Gnosticism: A Source Book Grant, R. M. Gnosticism: A Source Book of
Heretical Writings from the Early Christian Period. New York: Harper, 1961.
Grant, Gnosticism Grant, R. M. Gnosticism and Early Christianity. 2nd ed. rev.
New York: Harper and Row, 1966.
Grant, “Manichees and Christians’ Grant, R. M. “Manichees and Christians in
the Third and Fourth Centuries” in Bergman, Ex Orbe Religionum, 430-39.
Grenfell-Hunt, LOGIA Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S. LOGIA IESOU: Sayings of
Our Lord from an Early Greek Papyrus. London: Frowde, 1897.
Grenfell-Hunt, PapyriI Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri,
Part I. London: EEF, 1898.
Grenfell-Hunt, PapyriIV _ Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S. The Oxyrhynchus
Papyri, Part IV. London: EEF, 1904.
Grobel, Gospel of Truth Grobel, K. The Gospel of Truth: A Valentinian .
Meditation on the Gospel. New York: Abingdon, 1960.
Grobel, “Thomas” Grobel, K. “How Gnostic is the Gospel of Thomas?” NTS 8
(1961/1962) 367-73.
Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism Grunewald, I. Apocalyptic
and Merkavah Mysticism. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Gruenwald, “Controversy” | Gruenwald, I. “Aspects of the Jewish-Gnostic
Controversy” in Layton, Rediscovery, 2.713-23. ne
Gruenwald, “Merkavah” Gruenwald, I. “Jewish Merkavah Mysticism and
Gnosticism” in Dan-Talmage, Jewish Mysticism, 41-55.
Guidi, Chronica —_Guidi, I., ed. Chronica Minora I. CSCO 1. 1903. Reprint.
Louvain: Secréteriat CSCO, 1960.
Guillaumont, “Sémitismes” Guillaumont, A. “Les sémitismes dans |’Evangile
selon Thomas: Essai de classement” in van den Broek- Vermaseren, Studies, 190-
204.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES XXV

Guillaumont, Thomas _—_ Guillaumont, A.; Puech, H.-Ch.; Quispel, G.; Till, W. and
“Abd al Masih, Y., eds. The Gospel According to Thomas. Coptic Text
Established and Translated. Leiden: Brill, 1959.
Haardt, Gnosis _ Haardt, R. Die Gnosis: Wesen und Zeugnisée. Salzburg: Muller,
1967.
Haardt, Gnosis: Character Haardt, R. Gnosis: Character and Testimony.
Translated by J. F. Hendry. Leiden: Brill, 1971.
Haardt, “Struktur” Haardt, R. “Zur Struktur des Plane-Mythos im Evangelium
Veritatis des Codex Jung.” WZKM 58 (1962) 24-38.
Hadot, Porphyre _— Hadot, P. Porphyre et Victorinus. 2 vols. Paris: Etudes
Augustiniennes, 1968.
Haenchen, Acts Haenchen, E. The Acts of the Apostles. Translated by B. Noble
and G. Shinn. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.
Haenchen, Johannesevangelium Haenchen, E. Das Johannesevangelium. Edited
by U. Busse. Tiibingen: Mohr, 1980.
Haenchen, “Literatur” Haenchen, E. “Literatur zum Codex Jung.” ThR 30 (1964)
39-82.
Hamman, Patrologiae © Hamman, A., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus.
Supplementum. Series latina. 5 vols. Paris: Garnier, 1963-74.
Harder, “Schrift Plotins” Harder, R. “Eine neue Schrift Plotins.” Hermes 71
(1936) 1-10.
von Harnack, Altchristlichen Literatur | Harnack, A. von. Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893.
von Harnack, Dogma Harnack, A. von. History of Dogma. Translated by N.
Buchanan. 3rd German ed. 7 vols. New York: Russell and Russell, 1958.
von Harnack, Ketzer-Katalog §_Harnack, A. von. Der Ketzer-Katalog des Bischofs
Maruta von Maipherkat. TU Neue Serie 19:4.3. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899.
von Harnack, “Nicolaitans” Harnack, A. von. “The Sect of the Nicolaitans and
Nicolaus, the Deacon of Jerusalem.” JR 3 (1923) 413-22.
von Harnack, Studien Harnack A. von. Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen
Testaments und der Alten Kirche. AKG 19. Berlin/Leipzig: de Gruyter, 1931.
Hartmann, “Vorlage” Hartmann, G. “Die Vorlage der Osterberichte in Joh 20.”
ZNW 55 (1964) 197-220.
Hauschild, Geist | Hauschild, W.-D. Gottes Geist und der Mensch: Studien zur
fruhchristlichen Pneumatologie. Miinchen: Kaiser, 1972.
Hawkin, “Beloved Disciple” Hawkin, D. J. “The Function of the Beloved Disciple
Motif in the Johannine Redaction.” LThPh 33 (1977) 135-50.
Hedrick, “Adam” Hedrick, C. W. “The Apocalypse of Adam: A Literary and
Source Analysis” in L. C. McGaughy, ed. The Society of Biblical Literature One
Hundred Eighth Annual Meeting Book of Seminar Papers Friday-Tuesday, 1-5
September 1972 Century Plaza Hotel-Los Angeles, CA. 2 vols. Los Angeles: SBL,
1972, 1. 581-90.
Hedrick, Apocalypse Hedrick, C. W. The Apocalypse of Adam: A Literary and
Source Analysis. SBLDS 46. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1980.
Hedrick, “Gnostic Proclivities” Hedrick, C. W. “Gnostic Proclivities in the Greek
Life of Pachomius and the Sitz im Leben of the Nag Hammadi Library.” NovT
22 (1980) 78-94.
Hedrick, “Kingdom Sayings and Parables” Hedrick, C. W. “Kingdom Sayings and
Parables of Jesus in the Apocryphon of James: Tradition and Redaction.” NTS
29 (1983) 1-24.
Xxvi ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Heldermann, “Isis” Heldermann, J. “Isis as Plane in the Gospel of Truth” in

Krause, Eighth Conference on Patristic Studies, 21-46.
Heldermann, “Zelten” Heldermann, J. “‘In ihrer Zelten . . .’: Bemerkungen zu
Codex XIII von Nag Hammadi, p. 47: 14-18 in Hinblick auf Joh. 1:14” in T.
Baarda, et al., eds. Miscellanea Neotestamentica. NovTSup 47-48. 2 vols.
Leiden: Brill, 1978, 1.181-211.
Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha __ Hennecke, E. W. and
Schneemelcher, W. New Testament Apocrypha. Edited by R. McL. Wilson. 2
vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963.
Henrichs, “Mani Codex” Henrichs, A. “Literary Criticism of the Cologne Mani
Codex” in Layton, Rediscovery, 2.724-33.
Henrichs-Koenen, “Mani-Kodex” Henrichs, A. and Koenen, L. “Der Kélner
Mani-Kodex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780).” ZPE 19 (1975) 1-85.
HThKNT ___Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte Hilgenfeld, A. Die Ketzergeschichte des
Urchristentums. Leipzig: Fues (R. Reisland), 1884.
Hinz, “Inschrift” Hinz, W., ed. “Die Inschrift des Hohenpriesters Karder am
Turm von Nagqsh-e Rostam.” Archdologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 3 (1970) 251-
65.
Hipp. Ref. | Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium
Hodgson, “Dialogue with James M. Robinson” Hodgson, R. “On the Gattung of Q:
A Dialogue with James M. Robinson.” Biblica 66 (1985) 73-95.
Hodgson, “Testimony Hypothesis” Hodgson, R. “The Testimony Hypothesis.” JBL
98 (1979) 361-78.
Hoffmann, Ausztige Hoffmann, G. Ausztige aus syrischen Akten persischer
Martyrer. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1880.
Hoffman, Theologie der Logienquelle Hoffman, P. Studien zur Theologie der
Logienquelle. NTAbh NF 8. Minster: Aschendorff, 1972.
Holl, Anakephalaiosis = See Holl, Epiphanius
Holl, Epiphanius Holl, K. Epiphanius: Ancoratus und Panarion. GCS 25, 31, 37. 3
vols. Leipzig: Henrichs, 1915-33.
Horig, Dea Syria Horig, M. Dea Syria. Studien zur religiésen Tradition der
Fruchtbarkeitsgéttin in Vorderasien. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1979.
Hort-Mayor, Clement Hort, F. J. A. and Mayor, J. B., eds. Clement of Alexandria:
Miscellanies Book VII. London: Macmillan, 1902.
HR History of Religions
HTR Harvard Theological Review
Htibschmann, Grammatik Hutbschmann, H. Armenische Grammatik. 2 vols.
Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1897.
Hussey, Socrates __ Hussey, P., ed. Socratis scholastici historia ecclesiastica.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1853.
IDBSup _‘ Supplementary volume to the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Inglisian, “Leben” Inglisian, V. “Leben des heiligen Maschtotz von seinem
Schiiler Koriun” in W. Schamoni, ed. Ausbreiter des Glaubens im Altertum
zusammengestellt und eingeleitet von Wilhelm Schamoni. Diisseldorf: Patmos,
1963, 119-46.
Int Interpretation
Iren. Haer. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses.
JA _ Journal asiatique
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES XXVii

JAAR __ Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JAC _Jarhbuch fur Antique und Christentum
Jaeger, Paideia = Jaeger, W. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Translated by G.
Highet. 2nd German ed. New York: Oxford, 1945.
Jansen, “Spuren” Jansen, H. L. “Spuren sakramentaler Handlungen im
Evangelium Veritatis?” AcOr 28 (1964) 215-19.
Janssens, Trimorphe Janssens, Y. La Protennoia Trimorphe (NH XIII, 1): Texte
établi et présenté. BCNH, Textes 4. Québec: Université Laval, 1978.
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
Jer. Ep. Jerome, Epistolae
Jeremias, “Schicht” Jeremias, J. “Die alteste Schicht der Menschensohn-Logien.”
ZNW 58 (1967) 159-72.
Jeremias, Sprache _Jeremias, J. Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion
und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums. MeyerK.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.
Jonas, “Evangelium Veritatis” Jonas, H. “Evangelium Veritatis and the
Valentinian Speculation” in F, L. Cross ed. Studia Patristica 6. TU 81. Berlin:
Akademie, 1962, 96-111.
Jonas, Gnosis Jonas, H. Gnosis und spdtantiker Geist. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.
Jonas, Gnostic Religion Jonas, H. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien
God and the Beginnings of Christianity. 2nd ed. rev. Boston: Beacon, 1958.
Jonas, “Gnostic Syndrome” Jonas, H. “The Gnostic Syndrome: Typology of its
Thought, Imagination, and Mood” in Jonas, Philosophical Essays, 263-76.
Jonas, “Hymn of the Pear!” Jonas H. “The Hymn of the Pearl: Case Study of a
Symbol, and the Claims for a Jewish Origin of Gnosticism” in Jonas, °
Philosophical Essays, 277-90.
Jonas, Philosophical Essays _ Jonas, H. Philosophical Essays: From Ancient Creed
to Technological Man. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Jonas, “Review of Malinine” Jonas, H. “Review of Malinine, Evangelium
Veritatis.” Gnomon 32 (1960) 327-35. ;
de Jonge, L’Evangile de Jean _ Jonge, M. de, ed. L’Evangile de Jean: Sources,
rédaction, théologie. BETL 44. Gembloux: Duculot, 1977.
Jos. Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
Jos. Ap. Josephus, Contra Apionem
JR Journal of Religion
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
Justin, 1 Apol. Justin, First Apology
Kaestli, “Valentinianisme” Kaestli, J.-D. “Valentinianisme italien et
valentinianisme orientale: leurs divergences a propos de la nature du corps de
Jésus” in Layton, Rediscovery, 1.391-403.
Ka&semann, Testament K&semann, The Testament of Jesus. Translated by G.
Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968.
Kee, “Christology” Kee, H. C. “Christology and Ecclesiology: Titles of Christ and
Models of Community” in K. H. Richards, ed. SBL Seminar Papers. Chico,
Calif.: Scholars, 1982.
Kelber, Oral and Written Gospel _ Kelber, W. The Oral and Written Gospel.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
El-Khoury, Interpretation _El-Khoury, N. Die Interpretation der Welt bei
Ephraem dem Syrer. Mainz: Griinewald, 1976.
XXVili ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Klijn, Seth Klijn, A. F. J. Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature.

Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Kloppenborg, “Synoptic Sayings Source” Kloppenborg, J. S. “The Literary Genre
of the Synoptic Sayings Source.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
St. Michael’s College, Toronto, 1984. ;
Kloppenborg, Formation ofQ Kloppenborg, J. S. The Formation of Q:
Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Studies in Antiquity and
Christianity 2, forthcoming.
Koenen, “Baptism” § Koenen, L. “From Baptism to the Gnosis of Manichaeism” in
Layton, Rediscovery, 2.734-56.
Koep, Buch __ Koep, L. Das himmlische Buch in Antike und Urchristentum. Bonn:
Hanstein, 1952.
Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels” Koester, H. “Apocryphal and
Canonical Gospels.” HTR 73 (1980) 105-30.
Koester, “Dialog und Sprachiiberlieferung” Koester, H. “Dialog und Sprachiiber-
lieferung in den gnostischen Texten von Nag Hammadi.” EvTh 39 (1979) 544-56.
Koester, Einfihrung _ Koester, H. Einftihrung in das Neue Testament. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1980 (ET = Koester, Introduction).
Koester, “Gnomai” _ Koester, H. “Gnomai Diaphoroi: the Origin and Nature of
Diversification in the History of Early Christianity” in Robinson-Koester, Trajec-
tories, 114-57.
Koester, “Gnostic Writings” Koester, H. “Gnostic Writings as Witnesses for the
Development of the Sayings Tradition” in Layton, Rediscovery, 1.238-61.
Koester, Introduction Koester, H. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated
by H. Koester. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982 (German = Koester,
Einftihrung). , 2
Koester, “Thomas” _ Koester, H. “Introduction to the Gospel of Thomas” in Layton,
Nag Hammadi Codex II.
Koester, “Tradition and History” Koester, H. “Tradition and History of the Early
Christian Gospel Literature.” Shaffer Lectures, Yale University, 1980.
Koester, “Uberlieferung und Geschichte” Koester, H. “Uberlieferung und
Geschichte der friihchristlichen Evangelienliteratur.” ANRW 2 (Principat). 25.2,
1463-1542.
Koschorke, “Patristische Materialien” Koschorke, K. “Patristische Materialien zur
Spatgeschichte der valentinianischen Gnosis” in Krause, Eighth Conference on
Patristic Studies, 120-39.
Koschorke, Polemik — Koschorke, K. Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das
kirchliche Christentum. NHS 12. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Kotter, Schriften Kotter, B., ed. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. 4
vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981.
Kragerud, “Apocryphon Johannis” Kragerud, A. “Apocryphon Johannis: En
formanalyse.” NTT 66 (1965) 15-38.
Kragerud, Lieblingsjtinger Kragerud, A. Der Lieblingsjinger im
Johannesevangelium. Oslo: Universitétsverlag; Hamburg: Wegner, 1959.
Kramer, Ursprung _Krdamer, H. J. Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik:
Untersuchung zur Geschichte des Platonismus zwischen Platon und Plotin.
Amsterdam: Schippers, 1964.
Krause, Drei Versionen __ Krause, M. Die drei Versionen des Apokryphon des
Johannes im koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES XXiX

Krause, Eighth Conference on Patristic Studies | Krause, M., ed. Gnosis and
Gnosticism: Papers Read at the Eighth International Conference on Patristic
Studies. Oxford, September 3rd-8th, 1979. NHS 17. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Krause, Essays _ Krause, M., ed. Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of
Alexander Béhlig. NHS 3. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Krause, “Eugnostosbriefes” Krause, M. “Das literarische Verhaltnis des
Eugnostosbriefes’zur Sophia Jesu Christi: Zur Auseinandersetzung der Gnosis
mit dem Christentum” in S. Stuiber and A. Hermann, eds. Mullus: Festschrift
Theodor Klauser. JAC Erganzungsband 1. Minster, Westfalen: Aschendorff,
1964, 215-23. :
Krause, Seventh Conference on Patristic Studies Krause, M., ed. Gnosis and ~
Gnosticism: Papers Read at the Seventh International Conference on Patristic
Studies (Oxford, September 8th-13th 1975). NHS 8. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Krause-Labib, Codex II und Codex VI Krause, M. and Labib, P. Gnostische und
hermetische Schriften aus Codex II und Codex VI. Gliickstadt: Augustin, 1971.
Kropp, Zaubertexte | Kropp, A. M. Ausgewdhlte koptische Zaubertexte. 3 vols.
Bruxelles: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1930-31.
Kriiger, Corpus _ Kriiger, P., ed. Corpus iuris civilis. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Berlin:
Weidmann, 1887-95.
Kimmel, Einleitung Ktimmel, W. G., et al. Einleitung in das Neue Testament.
12th ed. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer, 1963.
Kimmel, Introduction Ktimmel, W. G. Introduction to the New Testament.
Translated by A. J. Mattill, Jr. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.
Kimmel, Investigation | Kimmel, W. G. The New Testament: The History of the
Investigation of its Problems. Translated by S. M. Gilmour and H. C. Kee.
Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1970.
Labourt, Christianisme — Labourt, J. Le Christianisme dans I’empire perse sous la
dynastie sassanide 224-632. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1904.
Langbrandtner, Weltferner Gott Langbrandtner, W. Weltferner Gott oder Gott
der Liebe. Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 6. Frankfurt a.M.:
Peter Lang, 1977.
Layton, “Hypostasis” Layton, B. “The Hypostasis of the Archons, or the Reality of
the Rulers.” HTR 67 (1974) 351-426; 69 (1976) 31-102.
Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II Layton, B., ed. Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7,
together with XIII, 2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926 (1) and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655: Volume 1:
Gospel According to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the
Archons, Indexes. Coptic Gnostic Library; NHS 20. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.
Layton, Rediscovery Layton, B., ed. The Rediscovery of Gnosticism; Proceedings
of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connec-
ticut March 28-31, 1978. Supplement to Numen 41. Studies in the History of
Religions 41. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1980-81.
Layton, “Resurrection” Layton, B. “Vision and Revision: A Gnostic View of
Resurrection” in Barc, Colloque, 190-217.
Layton, “Riddle” Layton, B. “The Riddle of the Thunder, (NHC VI, 2).” Paper
presented and discussed at the NEH Working Seminar on Gnosticism and Early
Christianity, March 30-April 2, 1983, at Springfield, Missouri.
LCC Library of Christian Classics
EGE Loeb Classical Library :
Leisegang, Gnosis Leisegang, H. Die Gnosis. Stuttgart: Kroner, 1941 (3rd ed.); 1955
(4th ed.).
XXX ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Liboron, Gnosis __ Liboron, H. Die karpokratianische Gnosis, Leipzig: Vogel, 1938.

Lidzbarski, Ginza Lidzbarski, M., ed. Ginza. Der Schatz oder das grosse Buch
der Mandter. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925.
LLA Library of Liberal Arts
Logan-Wedderburn, New Testament and Gnosis _ Logan, H. B. and Wedderburn,
A.J. M., eds. The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of Robert McL.
Wilson. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983.
Lorenzen, Lieblingsjunger Lorenzen, T. Der Lieblingsjunger im
Johannesevangelium. SBS 55. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1971.
LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon
LThPh Laval théologique et philosophique
Ludin, “Spuren” _Ludin, J. H. “Spuren sakramentaler Handlungen im Evangelium
Veritatis?” AcOr 28 (1964) 215-19. .
Luhrmann, “Liebet eure Feinde” = Liihrmann, D. “Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6, 27-
36/Mt 5, 39-48).” ZTHK 69 (1972) 412-58.
Luttikhuizen, “Peter to Philip” —_Luttikhuizen, G. P. “The Letter of Peter to Philip
and the New Testament” in Wilson, Nag Hammadi, 96-102.
MacDonald, “Male and Female” MacDonald, D. R. “There Is No Male and
Female: Galatians 3:26-28.” Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Harvard University;
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978.
MacRae, “Apocalypse of Adam” § MacRae, G. “The Apocalypse of Adam V,5:64,1-
85,32” in Parrott, Codices V and VI, 151-95.
MacRae, “Nag Hammadi” MacRae, G. “Nag Hammadi.” IDBSup, 613-19.
MacRae, “Nag Hammadi and the New Testament” MacRae, G. “Nag Hammadi
and the New Testament” in Aland, Gnosis, 144-57.
MacRae, “Sophia Myth” MacRae, G. “The Jewish Background of the Gnostic
Sophia Myth.” NTS 12 (1970) 82-101.
MacRae, Thunder MacRae, G. W. The Thunder, Perfect Mind: Protocol of the
5th Colloquy of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern
Culture, 11 March 1973. Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1975.
Malinine, Evangelium Veritatis | Malinine, M.; Puech, H.-Ch.; Quispel, G.
(Zacharias, G. P.; Wall, H.]. Evangelium Veritatis: Codex Jung f. VIIIV-XVIV (p.
16-32)/f. XIX™-XXII* (p. 37-43). Studien aus dem C. G. Jung- Institute 6. Ziirich:
Rascher, 1956.
Melinine, Evangelium Veritatis Supplementum Malinine, M.; Puech, H.-Ch.;
Quispel, G.; Till, W.[Wilson, R. McL.]. Evangelium Veritatis: [Supplementum]
Codex Jung F. XVII'-F. XVIII¥ (p. 33-36). Studien aus dem C. G. Jung-Institute
6. Zurich and Stuttgart: Rascher, 1961.
Malinine-Puech, Epistula lacobi §_Malinine, M.; Puech, H.-Ch.; Quispel, G.; Till,
W.; Kasser, R.; Wilson, R. McL.; and Zandee, J., eds. Epistula Iacobi Apocrypha. |
Codex Jung F. I'-F. VIII (p. 1-16). Zurich and Stuttgart: Rascher, 1968.
Marcovich, “Naasene Psalm” §Marcovich, M. “The Naasene Psalm in Hippolytus
(Haer. 5.10.2)” in Layton, Rediscovery, 2.770-78.
Marrou, “Diffusion” | Marrou, H. “L’Evangile de Vérité et la diffusion du comput
digital dans l’antiquité.” VC 12 (1958) 98-103.
Martin, “Homélie” Martin, F., ed. “Homélie de Narsés sur les trois docteurs
nestoriens.” JA 14 (1899) 446-92.
Martyn, Fourth Gospel = Martyn, J. L. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel.
2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1979.
McCue, “Valentinianism” McCue, J. F. “Conflicting Versions of Valentinianism?
Irenaeus and the Excerpta ex Theodoto” in Layton, Rediscovery, 1.404-16.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES XXxi

Ménard, “Datation” Ménard, J.-E. “La datation des manuscrits.” Histoire et

archéologie 70 (1983) 12-13.
Ménard, “Elucubrations” Ménard, J.-E. “Les élucubrations de Evangelium
Veritatis sur le ‘Nom.’” Studia Montis Regii 5 (1962) 185-214.
Ménard, L’Evangile de Vérité Ménard, J.-E. L’Evangile de Vérité: Traduction
frangaise, introduction et commentaire. NHS 2. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Ménard, L’Evangile’selon Thomas _—_Ménard, J.-E. L'Evangile selon Thomas. NHS
5. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Menard, Pierre a Philippe Ménard, J.-E. La Lettre de Pierre a Philippe. Québec:
L’Université Laval, 1977.
Ménard, “Plane” Ménard, J.-E. “La plane dans I’Evangile de Vérité.” Studia
Montis Regii 7 (1964) 3-36.
Ménard, “Structure” Ménard, J.-E. “La structure et la langue originale de
l’Evangile de Vérité.” RevScRel 44 (1970) 128-37.
Merlan, “Plato to Plotinus” Merlan, P. “Greek Philosophy from Plato to Plotinus”
in A. H. Armstrong, ed. The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early
Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: University Press, 1967, 14-132.
Meyer K H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar tiber das Neue
Testament
Meyer, Peterto Philip | Meyer, M. W. The Letter of Peter to Philip. Text,
Translation, and Commentary. SBLDS 53. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981.
Meyer-Mommsen, Leges Meyer, P. M. and Mommsen, Th., eds. Leges novellae
ad Theodosianum pertinentes. Berlin: Weidmann, 1905 (=Mommsen,
Theodosiani, vol. 2).
Meyer-Sanders, Self-Definition Meyer, B. F. and Sanders, E. P. Jewish and
Christian Self-Definition. 3 vols. London: SCM, 1982.
Millar, Empire Millar, F., ed. The Roman Empire and Its Neighbours. New
York: Delacorte, 1967.
Momnmsen, Theodosiani Mommsen, Th., ed. Theodosiani libri XVI cum
Constitutionibus Sirmondianis. 2 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1905. (=Meyer-
Momnsen, Leges).
Montgomery, Samaritans Montgomery, J. The Samaritans. 1907. Reprint. New
York: KTAV, 1968.
Morard, “Adam-interprétation” Morard, F. “L’Apocalypse d’Adam de Nag
Hammadi: un essai d’interprétation” in Krause, Eighth Conference on Patristic
Studies, 35-42.
Morard, “Adam-polémique” Morard, F. “L’Apocalypse d’Adam du Codex V de
Nag Hammadi et sa polémique anti-baptismale.” RevScRel 51 (1977) 214-33.
Moses Khorenaci Moses Khorenaci, Patmut‘ iwn Hayots‘ (History of the
Armenians). Tiflis, 1913. Reprint. R. W. Thompson, ed. Delmar: Caravan, 1981.
Muhlenberg, “Erlésungen” Miihlenberg, E. “Wieviel Erlésungen kennt der
Gnostiker Herakleon?” ZNW 66 (1975) 170-93.
Miller, Engellehre §_Miiller, C. D. G. Die Engellehre der koptischen Kirche.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1959.
Miller, “Parakletenvorstellung” Miller, U. B. “Die Parakletenvorstellung im
Johannesevangelium.” ZThK 71 (1974) 31-77.
Murray, “Ephraem” Murray, R. “Ephraem Syrus.” ThRE 9 (1982) 755-62.
Murray, “Exhortation” Murray, R. “The Exhortation to Candidates for Ascetical
Vows at Baptism.” NTS 21 (1974/1975) 59-80.
al-Nadim, Fihrist | al-Nadim. The Fihrist of al-Nadim. Translated by B. Dodge. 2
vols. New York and London: Columbia University, 1970.
XXxli ; ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Nagel, “Auslegung” = Nagel, P. “Die Auslegung der Paradieserzahlung in der

Gnosis” in Tréger, Altes Testament, 49-70.
Nagel, “Codex II” Nagel, P. “Grammatische Untersuchungen zu Nag Hammadi
Codex II” in Altheim, Araber, 5.2. 393-469.
Nagel, “Herkunft” Nagel, P. “Die Herkunft des Evangelium Veritatis in
sprachlicher Sicht.” OLZ 61 (1966) 5-14.
Nagel, Studia = Nagel, P., ed. Studia Coptica. Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten 45.
Berlin: Akademie, 1974.
Nagel, “Thomas” Nagel, P. “Thomas der Mitstreiter (zu NHC II, 7: p. 138,8)” in
Mélanges offerts 4 M. Werner Vycichl. Bulletin de la Société d’ Egyptologie
Genéve 4. Genéve: Société d'Egyptologie, 1980, 65-71.
Nau, BarhadbeSabbG _— Nau, F., ed. La seconde partie de |’histoire de
Barhadbe’abba Arbaya. PO 9, 5. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1913.
Nau, La lettre @ Cosme Nau, F., ed. Histoire de Nestorius, d’aprés la lettre a
Cosme et I'hymne de $liba de Mansourya. PO 13,2. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1916.
NEH _ National Endowment for the Humanities
Neirynck, “Q” Neirynck, F. “Q” in IDBSup, 715-6.
NH(C) Nag Hammadi (Codex)
NF Neue Folge
NHLE Nag Hammadi Library in English
NHS Nag Hammadi Studies
NTAbh _ Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen
NTL New Testament Library
NTS New Testament Studies
NTT Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift
Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth” _—Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Apocalyptic and
Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11.” JBL 96 (1977) 383-405.
Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature | Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Jewish Literature Between
the Bible and the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.
Nickelsburg, “Related Traditions” Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Some Related
Traditions in the Apocalypse of Adam, the Books.of Adam and Eve and 1 Enoch”
in Layton, Rediscovery, 2.515-39.
Nickelsburg, Resurrection Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Resurrection, Immortality, and
Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1972.
Nock-Festugiére, Hermés Nock, A. D. and A.-J. Festugiére. Hermés
Trismégistes. 4 vols. Paris: Société d’Edition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1946-54.
Nock, “Library” | Nock, A. D. “A Coptic Library of Gnostic Writings.” JTS 9 (1950)
314-24,
Néldeke, Chronik Néldeke, Th. Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische
Chronik. Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften 128, 9. Wien: Tempsky, 1893.
Noldeke, Grammatik § Niéldeke, Th. Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik. 2nd ed.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977.
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements
Oehler, Corporis haereseologici | Oehler, F. Corporis haereseologici continens
scriptores haereseologicos minores latinos. 5 vols. Berlin: Ascher, 1856-61.
Ohlert, Ratsel | Ohlert, K. Ratsel und Rdtselspiele der alten Griechen. 2nd ed.
Berlin: Mayer & Miiller, 1912.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES XXXxii

OLZ Orientalische Literaturzeitung

Or Orientalia (Rome)
Orbe, Procesi6n del Verbo _— Orbe, A. Hacia la primera theologfa de la procesién
del verbo. Estudios Valentinianos-Volume 1.1. Analecta Gregoriana 99. Series
Facultatis Theologicae, Sectio A (n. 17). Rome: Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae,
1958. :
OrChrA Orientalia Christiana Analecta
Orlandi, “Catechesis” Orlandi, T. “A Catechesis against Apocryphal Texts by
Shenute and the Gnostic Texts of Nag Hammadi.” HTR 75 (1982) 85-95.
Origen, Cels. Origen, Contra Celsum
Origen, Comm. in Mt. Origen, Commentarii in Matthaeum
Ost Ostkirchliche Studien
Oulton-Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity | Oulton, J. E. L. and Chadwick, H.
Alexandrian Christianity. LCC 2. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954.
Outtier, “Ephrém” Outtier, B. “Saint Ephrém d’aprés ses biographes et ses
oeuvres.” Parole de I'Orient 4 (1973) 11-33.
Overbeck, Ephraemi Overbeck, J. J. S. Ephraemi Syri Rabbulae episcopi
Edesseni Balaei aliorumque opera selecta. Oxford: Clarendon, 1865.
Pagels, “Controversies concerning Marriage” Pagels, E. “Adam and Eve, Christ
and the Church: A Survey of Second Century Controversies concerning
Marriage” in Logan-Wedderburn, New Testament and Gnosis, 146-75.
Pagels, Gnostic Gospels Pagels, E. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random,
1979.
Pagels, Gnostic Paul = Pagels, E. The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of Pauline
Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.
Pagels, “Gnosticism” Pagels, E. “Gnosticism.” IDBSup, 364-68.
Pagels, “Valentinian Eschatology” Pagels, E. “Conflicting Versions of Valentinian
Eschatology: Irenaeus’ Treatise vs. the Excerpts from Theodotus.” HTR 67 (1974)
35-53.
Parmentier, Theodoret Parmentier, L. Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte. GCS 44.
2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie, 1954.
Parrott, Codices V and VI Parrott, D. M., ed. Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2-5 and
VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4. NHS 11. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Parrott, “Relation between Gnosticism and Christianity” Parrott, D. M. “The
Significance of the Letter of Eugnostos and the Sophia of Jesus Christ for the
Understanding of the Relation between Gnosticism and Christianity” in The
Society of Biblical Literature One Hundred Seventh Annual Meeting Seminar
Papers—28-31 October 1971 Regency Hyatt House—Atlanta, Ga. 2 vols. SBL,
1971, 2. 397-416.
Parrott, “Religious Syncretism” Parrott, D. M. “Evidence of Religious Syncretism
in Gnostic Texts from Nag Hammadi” in Pearson, Syncretism, 173-89.
Pearson, Codices IX and X Pearson, B., ed. Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X.
NHS 15. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Pearson, “Exegesis” Pearson, B. A. “Biblical Exegesis in Gnostic Literature” in M.
Stone, ed. Armenian and Biblical Studies. Jerusalem: St. James, 1976, 70-80.
Pearson, “Gnostic Self-Definition” Pearson, B. A. “Jewish Elements in Gnosticism
and the Development of Gnostic Self-Definition” in Sanders, Christianity, 151-
60.
Pearson, “Haggadic Traditions” Pearson, B. A. “Jewish Haggadic Traditions in the
Testimony of Truth from Nag Hammadi (CG IX, 3)” in Bergman, Ex Orbe
Religionum 1.457-70.
XXXiV ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Pearson, “Judaism and Gnostic Origins” Pearson, B. A. “Friedlander Revisited:

Alexandrian Judaism and Gnostic Origins.” Studia Philonica 2 (1973), 23-39.
Pearson, Man and Salvation Pearson, B. A. Philo and the Gnostics on Man and
Salvation. Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and
Modern Culture, 1977.
Pearson, “Marsanes” Pearson, B. A. “The Tractate Marsanes (NHC X) and the
Platonic Tradition” in Aland, Gnosis, 373-84.
Pearson, “Norea” Pearson, B. A. “The Figure of Norea in Gnostic Literature” in
Widengren, Proceedings, 143-52.
Pearson, “Review” Pearson, B. A. “Review of B. Barc, L’Hypostase des
Archontes.” The Second Century 2 (1982) 183-85.
Pearson, “Seth” Pearson, B. A. “The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature” in
Layton, Rediscovery, 2.472-504.
Pearson, “Sources” Pearson, B. A. “Jewish Sources in Gnostic Literature” in
Stone, Jewish Writings, 443-81.
Pearson, Syncretism Pearson, B. A., ed. Religious Syncretism in Antiquity.
Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1975.
Pearson, Terminology _— Pearson, B. A. The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology.
SBLDS 12. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1973.
Pearson, “Tree” Pearson, B. A. “‘She Became a Tree’—A Note to CG II, 4:89, 25-
26.” HTR 69 (1976) 413-15.
Peeters, “Observations” Peeters, P. “Observations sur la vie syriaque de Mar Aba
catholicos de ]’église de Perse (540-552)” in Peeters, Recherches, 1.117-63.
Peeters, “Pour l'histoire” Peeters, P. “Pour l’histoire des origines de l’alphabet
arménien” in Peeters, Recherches, 1.171-207.
Peeters, Recherches _ Peeters, P. Recherches d'histoire et de philologie orientales.
2 vols. Brussels: Sociétés Bollandi, 1951.
Perkins, “Genre and Function” Perkins, P. “Apocalypse of Adam: The Genre and
Function of a Gnostic Apocalypse.” CBQ 39 (1977) 382-95.
Perkins, Gnostic Dialogue Perkins, P. The Gnostic Dialogue. New York: Paulist,
1980.
Perkins, “Irenaeus and the Gnostics” Perkins, P. “Irenaeus and the Gnostics:
Rhetoric and Composition in Adversus Haereses Book One.” VC 30 (1976) 193-
200.
Perkins, Johannine Epistles Perkins, P. The Johannine Epistles. New Testament
Message 21. Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1979.
Perkins, “Soteriology” Perkins, P. “The Soteriology of Sophia of Jesus Christ” in
The Society of Biblical Literature One Hundred Seventh Annual Meeting
Seminar Papers—28-31 October 1971 Regency Hyatt House—Atlanta, Ga. 2
vols. SBL, 1971, 2.165-81.
Petermann, Thesaurus _— Petermann, H., ed. Thesaurus s{ive] Liber magnus. 2 vols.
Leipzig: Pietz, 1967-.
PG J. Migne, Patrologia Graeca
Philo, Abr. Philo, De Abrahamo '
Philo, Aet. Mund. Philo, De Aeternitate Mundi
Philo, Conf. Philo, De Confusione Linguarum
Philo, Fug. Philo, De Fuga et Inventione
Philo, Her. Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres sit
Philo, L.A. _ Philo, Legum Allegoriarum
Philo, Mig. Philo, De Migratione Abrahami
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES XXXV

Philo, Op. Mund. Philo, De Opificio Mundi

Philo, Post. Philo, De Posteritate Caini
Philo, Prob. Philo, Quod omnis probus liber
Philo, Quaest. in Exod. Philo, Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum
Philo, Quod Deus _ Philo, Quod deus sit immutabilis
Philo, Somn. Philo, De Somniis
Philo, Virt. Philo, ‘De Virtutibus
Philo, Vit. Mos. Philo, De Vita Mosis
PL J. Migne, Patrologia Latina
Plato, Cra. Plato, Cratylus
Plato, Laws _— Plato, The Laws
Plato, Tim. Plato, Timaeus
Plutarch, Com. Not. De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos
Plutarch, De Fac. Lun. _De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet
Plutarch, Def.Or. De defectu oraculorum
Plutarch, Is. Osir. De Iside Osiride
Plutarch, Plat.Qu. Platonicae quaestiones
Plutarch, Stoic. Repug. . De Stoicorum repugnantiis
PO sPatrologia orientalis
Poirier, “L’Evangile de Vérité” —Poirier, P.-H. “L’Evangile de Vérité, Ephrem la
Syrien et le comput digital.” Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 25 (1979) 27-34.
Polag, Christologie der Logienquelle — Polag, A. Die Christologie der Logienquelle.
WMANT 45. Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977.
Polotsky, Kephalaia _Polotsky, H. J., ed. Kephalaia, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1940.
Porph. Vit. Plot. | Porphyry, Vita Plotini
Prigent, “L’hérésie asiate” § Prigent, P. “L’hérésie asiate et |’église confessante de
l'Apocalypse a Ignace.” VC 31 (1977) 1-22.
Priscillian, TractatusI __ Priscillian, Tractatus I. CSEL 18. Edited by G. Schepps.
Wien: Tempsky, 1899.
Przybylski, “Calendrical Data” = Przybylski, B. “The Role of Calendrical Data in
Gnostic Literature.” VC 34 (1980) 56-70.
Ps.-Clem. Hom. Pseudo-Clementine Homilies
Ps.-Clem. Rec. Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions
Ps.-Ephrem, Testament Pseudo-Ephrem. Testament des heiligen Ephrem des
Syrers Sermones IV. CSCO 334. Edited by E. Beck. Louvain: Secréteriat CSCO,
1973.
Ps.-Tertullian, Haer. § Pseudo-Tertullian, Adversus omnes haereses. Edited by E.
Kroymann. Vol. 2. in Tertullian, Opera. 2 vols.; CC series latina 1-2. Turnhout:
Brepols, 1953-54. 2.1401-10.
Puech, “Allogéne” Puech, H.-Ch. “Fragments retrouvés de l’Apocalypse
d’Allogéne” in En quéte de Ia gnose. 2 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1978, 1.271-300.
Puech, “Archontiker” Puech, H.-C. “Archontiker.” RAC (1960) 1.634-35.
Puech, “Gospel of Truth” Puech, H.-Ch. “The Gospel of Truth” in Hennecke-
Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1.233-40,
Puech, “Review of Drower” Puech, H.-Ch. “Reveiw of E. S. Drower, The
Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran.” RHR 124 (1941) 63-74.
PW __sPauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopddie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft
Quasten, Patrology § Quasten, J. Patrology. 3 vols. Utrecht-Antwerp: Spectrum,
1966.
XXXVI ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Quispel, “Borborianer” Quispel, G. “Borborianer (Borboriten).” RGG (1957)

1.1365.
Quispel, “Ezekiel” Quispel, G. “Ezekiel 1:26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis.” VC
34 (1980) 1-13.
Quispel, “Gnosis” Quispel, G. “Gnosis” in Vermaseren, Die orientalischen
Religionen, 413-35.
Quispel, “Gnostic Demiurge” Quispel, G. “The Origins of the Gnostic Demiurge”
in Gnostic Studies. 2 vols. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch
Instituut, 1974-75, 1.213-20°
Quispel, “Jung Codex” Quispel, G. “The Jung Codex and its Significance” in
Cross, The Jung Codex, 35-78.
Quispel, “Valentinian Gnosis” Quispel, G. “Valentinian Gnosis and the
Apocryphon of John” in Layton, Rediscovery, 1.118-27.
RAC Reallexikon ftir Antike und Christentum
Reinink, “Problem” _ Reinink, G. “Das Problem des Ursprungs des Testaments
Adams.” OrChrA 197 (1972) 387-99.
Rensberger, “Apostle” Rensberger, D. K. “As the Apostle Teaches: The
Development of the Use of Paul’s Letters in Second Century Christianity,”
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, 1981.
RevScRel _ Revue des sciences religieuses
RGG __ Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart
RHR Revue de histoire des religions
Roberge, Norea _ Roberge, M. Norea. BCNH, Texte 5. Québec: Université Laval,
1980.
Robinson, “Collections” Robinson, J. M. “Early Collections of Jesus’ Sayings” in
Delobel, Logia, 389-94.
Robinson, Facsimile Edition Robinson, J. M. ed. The Facsimile Edition of the
Nag Hammadi Codices. 12 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1972-84.
Robinson, Future of Our Religious Past Robinson, J. M., ed. The Future of Our
Religious Past: Essays in Honour of Rudolf Bultmann. Translated by C. E.
Carlston and R. P. Scharlemann. London: SCM, 1971.
Robinson, “Gattung of Mark” _—_—Robinson, J. M. “On the Gattung of Mark (and
John)” in Jesus and Man’s Hope. 2 vols. Pittsburgh, Penn.: Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary, 1970, 1.99-129.
Robinson, “Gnosticism and the New Testament” Robinson, J. M. “Gnosticism
and the New Testament” in Aland, Gnosis, 125-43.
Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus” Robinson, J. M. “Jesus from Easter to
Valentinus (or to the Apostles’ Creed).” JBL 101 (1982) 5-37.
Robinson, “Jung Codex” Robinson, J. M. “The Jung Codex: The Rise and Fall of a
Monopoly.” Religious Studies Review 3 (1977) 17-30.
Robinson, “LOGOI SOPHON” Robinson, J. M. “LOGOI SOPHON: On the
Gattung of Q” in Robinson, Future of our Religious Past, 84-130.
Robinson, “LOGOI SOPHON” Robinson, J. M. “LOGOI SOPHON: Zur Gattung
der Spruchquelle Q’ in E. Dinkler, ed. Zeit und Geschichte. Tiibingen: Mohr,
1964, 77-96.
Robinson, Nag HammadiCodices_ _ Robinson, J. M. The Nag Hammadi Codices.
2nd ed. rev. Claremont, Calif.: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 1977.
Robinson, “Narrative” Robinson, J. M. “The Gospels as Narrative” in F.
McConnell, ed. The Bible and the Narrative Tradition. New York: Oxford
University, forthcoming.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES XXXVIi

Robinson, NHLE __ Robinson, J. M., gen. ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in
English. New York: Harper and Row, 1977.
Robinson, “Sethians” Robinson, J. M. “Sethians and Johannine Thought: The
Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Gospel of John” in Layton,
Rediscovery, 2.643-62.
Robinson, “Steles” _—_Robinson, J. M. “The Three Steles of Seth and the Gnostics of
Plotinus” in Widengren, Proceedings, 132-42.
Robinson-Koester, Entwicklungslinien Robinson, J. M. and Koester, H.
Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des friihen Christentums. Tubingen: Mohr,
1971.
Robinson-Koester, Trajectories Robinson, J. M. and Koester, H. Trajectories
through Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968.
Robinson, S., Adam Robinson, S. E. The Testament of Adam: An Examination of
the Syriac and Greek Traditions. SBLDS 52. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1982.
Roloff, “Lieblingsjiinger” Roloff, J. “Der johanneische ‘Lieblingsjiinger’ und der
Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit.” NTS 15 (1968/1969) 129-51.
Rousseau-Doutreleau, Haereses _—_ Rousseau, A. and Doutreleau, L., eds. Irénée de
Lyon: Contre les hérésies. Paris: Cerf, 1979.
RThPh Revue de théologie et de philosophie
Rudolph, Baptisten Rudolph, K. Antike Baptisten: Zu den Uberlieferungen uber
fruhjtdische und christliche Taufsekten. Sitzungsberichte der sdchsischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Phil.-hist. Klasse Bd. 121, Heft 4.
Berlin: Akademie, 1981.
Rudolph, “Christentum” Rudolph, K. “Das Christentum in der Sicht der
mandaischen Religion.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-
Universitat Leipzig. Gesellschaftliche one sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 7
(1957-1958) 651-59.
’ Rudolph, “Gnosis, ein Forschungsbericht” Rudolph, K. “Gnosis und
Gnostizismus: Ein Forschungsbericht.” ThR 34 (1969) 121-75, 181-231, 358-61; 36
(1971) 1-61, 89-124; 37 (1972)289-360 and 38 (1973) 1-25.
Rudolph, Gnosis: Nature and History _—_Rudolph, K. Gnosis: The Nature and
History of Gnosticism. Translated by R. McL. Wilson. San Francisco: Harper
and Row, 1983 (=Gnosis: Wesen und Geschichte).
Rudolph, Gnosis: Wesen und Geschichte Rudolph, K. Die Gnosis: Wesen und
Geschichte einer spdtantiken Religion. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1977 (=Gnosis: Nature and History).
Rudolph, Gnostizismus _—_Rudolph, K., ed. Gnosis und Gnostizismus. Wege der
Forschung 262. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975.
Rudolph, “Weltreligion” Rudolph, K. “Gnosis-Weltreligion oder Sekte (Zur
Problematik sachgemasser Terminologie in der Religionswissenschaft).” Kairos
21 (1979) 255-63.
Rudolph, Mandder _— Rudolph, K. Die Mandéer. 2 vols. Géttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1960-61. ;
Runia, “Philo” Runia, D. T. “Philo’s Aeternitate Mundi: The Problem of its Inter-
. pretation.” VC 35 (1981) 105-51.
Sachau, Chronology _ Sachau, E., ed. The Chronology of Ancient Nations.
London: Allen, 1879. :
Sachau, Klosterbuch — Sachau, E. Vom Klosterbuch des Sabuéti. Abhandlungen
der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse 10. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1919.
XXXViii ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Sanders, E., Christianity | Sanders, E. The Shaping of Christianity in the Second

and Third Centuries. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
SANT _ Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
SBL _ Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLSP __ Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SBLTT SBL Texts and Translations
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
SC Sources chrétiennes
Schelkle, “Zeugnis” | Schelkle, K. H. “Das Evangelium Veritatis als
kanongeschichtliches Zeugnis.” BZ 5 (1961) 90-91.
Schenke, G., “‘Dreigestaltige Protennoia’” | Schenke, G. “Die dreigestaltige
Protennoia’: Eine gnostische Offenbarungsrede in koptischer Sprache aus dem
Fund von Nag Hammadi eingeleitet und tibersetzt vom Berliner Arbeitskreis fur
koptisch-gnostische Schriften.” ThLZ 99 (1974) 731-46.
Schenke, G.,“Protennoia” § Schenke, G. “Die dreigestaltige Protennoia (Nag-
Hammedi-Codex XIII) herausgegeben und kommentiert,” Dr. Theol.
Dissertation, Rostock, 1977.
Schenke, H.-M., “Book of Thomas” Schenke, H.-M. “The Book of Thomas (NHC
II. 7): A Revision of a Pseudepigraphical Epistle of Jacob the Contender” in
LoganWedderburn, New Testament and Gnosis, 213-28.
Schenke, H.-M., “Christologie” | Schenke, H.-M. “Die neutestamentliche
Christologie und der gnostische Erldser” in Tréger, Gnosis, 205-29.
Schenke, H.-M., “Gnosis” | Schenke, H.-M. “Die Gnosis” in J. Leipoldt and W.
Grundmann, eds. Umwelt des Christentums. 3 vols. 6th ed. Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1982, 1.371-415.
Schenke, H.-M., Gott“Mensch” _—Schenke, H.-M. Der Gott “Mensch” in der
Gnosis, Géttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962.
Schenke, H.-M., Herkunft Schenke, H.-M. Die Herkunft des sogennanten
Evangelium Veritatis. Berlin: Evangelischer Verlag, 1958; Géttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.
Schenke, H.-M., “Jakobusbrief” | Schenke, H.-M. “Der Jakobusbrief aus dem
Codex Jung.” OLZ 66 (1971) 117-30.
Schenke, H.-M., Melchisedek“ Schenke, H.-M. “Die jiidische Melchisedek-
Gestalt als Thema der Gnosis” in Tréger, Altes Testament, 111-36.
Schenke, H.-M., “Review” Schenke, H.-M. “Review of Le Origini dello
Gnosticismo.” ThLZ 93 (1968) 903-5.
Schenke, H.-M., “Review of Ménard” _- Schenke, H.-M. “Review of Ménard,
L‘Evangile selon Thomas.” OLZ 77 (1982) cols. 262-64.
Schenke, H.-M., “Sethianism” § Schenke, H.-M. “The Phenomenon and
Significance of Gnostic Sethianism” in Layton, Rediscovery, 2.588-616.
Schenke, H.-M., “Studien I” Schenke, H.-M. “Nag Hammadi Studien I: Das
literarische Problem des Apokryphon Johannis.” ZRGG 14 (1962) 57-63.
Schenke, H.-M., “Studien II” Schenke, H.-M. “Nag Hammadi Studien II: Das
System der Sophia Jesu Christi.” ZRGG 14 (1962) 263-78.
Schenke, H.-M. “System” § Schenke, H.-M., “Das sethianische System nach Nag-
Hammadi-Handschriften” in Nagel, Studia, 165-73.
Schenke-Fischer, Einleitung § Schenke, H.-M. and Fischer, K. M. Einleitung in die
Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1978.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES XxXxix

Scher, Theodorus bar Koni Scher, A.; ed. Theodorus bar Koni, Liber Scholiorum.
CSCO 65-6. 2 vols. Parisiis. E Typographeo Reipublicae, 1910. Reprint. Louvain:
CSCO, 1954.
Schmidt, “Borborianer (Borboriten)” Schmidt, C. “Borborianer (Borboriten).”
RGG2? (1927) 1.1200.
Schmidt, “Irenaeus” Schmidt, C. “Irenaeus und seine Quelle in adv. haer. I. 29”
in A. Harnack, etval., eds. Philotesia. Paul Kleinert zum LXX. Geburtstag. Berlin:
Trowizsch, 1907, 315-36.
Schmidt, Schriften Schmidt, C. Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus
dem Codex Brucianus. TU 8. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1892.
Schmidt-MacDermot, Bruce Codex Schmidt, C. and MacDermot, V., eds. The
Books of Jeu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex. NHS 13. Leiden: Brill,
1978.
Schmidt-MacDermot, Pistis Sophia Schmidt, C. and MacDermot, V., eds. Pistis
Sophia. NHS 9. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Schmidt-Till, Schriften Schmidt, C. Koptisch-gnostische Schriften. Erster Band.
Die Pistis Sophia. Die beiden Bticher des Jeti, Unbekanntes altgnostisches Werk.
Edited by W. Till. CGS 45. 3rd ed. Berlin: Akademie, 1962. :
Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics. | Schmithals, W. Paul and the Gnostics.
Translated by J. E. Steely. Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1972 (German 1965).
Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium Schnackenburg, R. Das
Johannesevangelium. HThKNT 4.3 vols. Freiburg: Herder, 1965-1975.
Schnackenburg, “Jiinger” Schnackenburg, R. “Der Jiinger, den Jesus liebte.” EKK
2 (1970) 97-117. ;
Schoedel, “Monism” Schoedel, W. R. “Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth”
in Layton, Rediscovery, 1.379-90.
Schoedel, “Theology” Schoedel, W. R. “Topological Theology and Some Monistic
Tendencies in Gnosticism” in Krause, Essays, 88-108.
Schoeps, Zeit Schoeps, H. J. Aus friihchristlicher Zeit. Tiibingen: Mohr, 1950.
Scholem, Traditions | Scholem, G. Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and
Talmudic Traditions. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965.
Scholar, Nag Hammadi Bibliography Scholer, D. M. Nag Hammadi
Bibliography 1948-1969. Leiden: Brill, 1971.
Schottroff, “Animae” Schottroff, L. “Animae naturaliter salvandae” in Eltester,
Christentum, 65-97.
Schottroff-Stegemann, Jesus _—_Schottroff, L. and Stegemann, W. Jesus von
Nazareth: Hoffnung der Armen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978.
Schrage, “Evangelienzitate” Schrage, W. “Evangelienzitate in Oxyrhynchus-
Logien und im koptischen Thomas-Evangelium” in Eltester, Apophoreta, 251-68.
Schrage, Verhdltnis | Schrage, W. Das Verhaltnis des ThEv zur synoptischen
Tradition und zu den koptischen Bibeltibersetzungen. BZNW 29. Berlin:
Tépelmann, 1965.
Schulz, Q Schulz, S. Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Ziirich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1972.
Schultz, “Ratsel” Schultz, W. “Ratsel.” PW 1A/1 (1914) 62-125.
Schultz, Ratsel aus dem hellenischen Kulturkreise | Schultz, W. Rdatsel aus dem ~
hellenischen Kulturkreise. 2 vols. Mythologische Bibliotek III/1, V/1. Leipzig:
Henrichs, 1909, 1912.
Scobie, John the Baptist Scobie, C. John the Baptist. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964.
xl ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Scopello, “Youel et Barbelo” Scopello, M. “Youel et Barbelo dans le traité de

l Allogéne” in Barc, Colloque, 86-98.
Segel, Two Powers in Heaven _ Segel, A. F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early
Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Segelberg, “Confirmation Homily” Segelberg, E. “Evangelium Veritatis: A
Confirmation Homily and its Relation to the Odes of Solomon.” Orientalia
Suecana 8 (1959) 3-42.
Seneca, Ep. Seneca, Epistulae morales
Shellrude,“Adam” _ Shellrude, G. M. “The Apocalypse of Adam: Evidence for a
Christian-Gnostic Provenance” in Krause, Eighth Conference on Patristic
Studies, 82-91.
Shibata, “Character” Shibata, Y. “Non-Docetic Character of the Evangelium
Veritatis.” Annual of the Japanese Bible Institute 1 (1975) 127-34.
Sieber, “Barbelo Aeon” Sieber, J. “The Barbelo Aeon as Sophia in Zostrianos and
Related Tractates” in Layton, Rediscovery, 2.788-95.
Sieber, “Zostrianos” Sieber, J. “An Introduction to the Tractate Zostrianos from
Nag Hammadi.” NovT 15 (1973) 233-40.
Siegert, Register Siegert, F. Nag-Hammadi-Register. Tubingen: Mohr, 1982.
Siegert, “Selbstbezeichnungen” Siegert, F. “Selbstbezeichnungen der Gnostiker
in den Nag-Hammadi-Texten.” ZNW 71 (1980) 129-32.
Smart, Worldviews = Smart, N. Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human
Beliefs. New York: Scribners, 1983.
‘Smith, “Garments” Smith, J. Z. “Garments of Shame.” HR 5 (1965/1966) 217-38.
Smith, “Gnostikos” | Smith, M. “History of the Term Gnostikos” in Layton,
Rediscovery, 2.796-807.
Smith, Secret Gospel: Discovery |§ Smith, M. The Secret Gospel: The Discovery
and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel according to Mark. New York: Harper
and Row, 1973.
Smith, Secret Gospel of Mark Smith, M. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret
Gospel of Mark. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1973.
Smith, Thesaurus Smith, R. P. Thesaurus syriacus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon,
1879-1901.
Socrates, Hist. eccl. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
Speyer, “Vorwirfen” Speyer, W. “Zu den Vorwiirfen der Heiden gegen die
Christen.” JAC 6 (1963) 129-35.
Stahlin-Frtichtel, Clem. Alex., Stromata Stahlin, O. and Friichtel, L., eds.
Clemens Alexandrinus. 2. Band. Stromata Buch I-VI. CGS 52. 3rd ed. Berlin:
Akademie, 1960.
Standaert, “L’Evangile de Vérité” Standaert, B. “L’Evangile de Vérité: critique et
lecture.” NTS 22 (1975) 243-75.
Standeert, “Titre” | Standaert, B. “‘Evangelium Veritatis’ et ‘veritas evangelium’:
La question du titre et les temoins patristiques.” VC 30 (1976) 138-50.
Stegemann, Das Evangelium und die Armen Stegemann, W. Das Evangelium
und die Armen: uber den Ursprung der Theologie der Armen im Neuen
Testament. Munchen: Kaiser, 1981.
Stone, Jewish Writings Stone, M. E., ed. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo,
Josephus. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.2. Assen:
Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES xli

Stone, Profile of Judaism _Stone, M. Scriptures, Sects, and Visions: A Profile of

Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Story, Truth = Story, C. I. K. The Nature of Truth in the “Gospel of Truth” and in
the Writings of Justin Martyr. NovTSup 25. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Strecker, “Bergpredigt” Strecker, G. “Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt 5 21-48
par).” ZNW 69 (1978) 36-71.
Stroumsa, Another Seed Stroumsa, G. Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic
Mythology. NHS 24. Leiden: Brill, 1984.
Tardieu, “Epiphane contre les gnostiques” Tardieu, M. “Epiphane contre les
gnostiques.” Tel Quel 88 (1981) 64-91.
Tardieu, “Les livresde Seth” Tardieu, M. “Les livres mis sous le nom de Seth, et
les Séthiens de I’hérésiologie” in Krause, Seventh Conference on Patristic
Studies, 204-10.
Tardieu, “Mythes” Tardieu, M. Trois Mythes Gnostiques: Adam, Eros et les
animaux d'Egypte, dans un écrit de Nag Hammadi (II, 5). Etudes Augus-
tiniennes: Paris, 1974.
Tate, “Allegory” —_— Tate, J. “Allegory, Greek” and “Allegory, Latin.” Oxford Classical
Dictionary. 2nd ed. Clarendon, 1970, 45-46.
Theissen, “Itinerant Radicalism” Theissen, G. “Itinerant Radicalism.” Radical
Religion 2 (1975) 84-93.
Theissen, Sociology § Theissen, G. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity.
Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.
Theissen, Soziologie § Theissen, G. Soziologie der Jesusbewegung. Miinchen:
Kaiser, 1977. ;
Theissen, Studien Theissen, G. Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums.
WUNT 19. Tiibingen: Mohr, 1979.
Theissen, Followers _‘ Theissen, G. The First Followers of Jesus. Translated by J.
Bowden. London: SCM, 1978.
Theissen, “Wanderradikalismus” Theissen, G. “Wanderradikalismus.” ZThK 70
(1973) 249-71,
Theissen, “Nachfolge und soziale Entwtirzelung” Theissen, G. “Wir haben alles
verlassen (Mc 10:28): Nachfolge und soziale Entwiirzelung in der jtidisch-
paldstinischen Gesellschaft des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.” NovT 19 (1977) 161-96.
Theod. Hist. eccl. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica
ThLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
Thomas, Mouvement baptiste | Thomas, J. Le mouvement baptiste en Palestine et
Syrie (150 av J.-C - 300 ap. J.-C). Gembloux: Duculot, 1935.
Thomson, Moses Thomson, R. W. Moses Khorenaci, History of the Armenians.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1978.
ThR Theologische Rundschau
ThRE Theologische Realenzyklopddie
Thyen, “Entwicklungen” Thyen, H. “Entwicklungen innerhalb der
johanneischen Theologie und Kirche im Spiegel von Joh 21 und der
Lieblingsjtingertexte des Evangeliums” in de Jonge, L’Evangile de Jean, 259-99.
Thyen, “Johannes13” = Thyen, H. “Johannes 13 und die ‘kirchliche Redaktion’ des
vierten Evangeliums” in G. Jeremias, et al., eds. Tradition und Glaube: Festgabe
fir Karl-Georg Kuhn. Géttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971, 343-56.
Thyen, “Johannesevangelium” Thyen, H. “Aus der Literatur zum
Johannesevangelium (3.Fortsetzung).” ThR 42 (1977) 213-61.
xlii ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Till, “Bemerkungen” Till, W. C. “Bemerkungen zur Erstausgabe des ‘Evangelium

veritatis.’” Or 27 (1958) 269-86.
Till-Schenke, Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 __‘Till, W. C. and Schenke, H.-M. Die
gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502. TU 60. 2nd ed.
Berlin: Akademie, 1972.
von Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphae __Tischendorf, K. von. Apocalypses
Apocryphcee. 1866. Reprint. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966.
Trenchard, Ben Sira _ Trenchard, W. C. Ben Sira’s View of Women: A Literary
Analysis. Brown Judaic Series 28. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1982.
Tréger, Altes Testament _ Tréger, K.-W., ed. Altes Testament-Fruhjudentum-
Gnosis: Neue Studien zu “Gnosis und Bibel.” Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1980.
Troger, Gnosis _ Tréger, K.-W., ed. Gnosis und Neues Testament: Studien aus
Religionswissenschaft und Theologie. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973.
Tréger, “Spekulativ-esoterische Ansaétze” Tréger, K.-W. “Spekulativ-esoterische
Ansatze (Friihjudentum und Gnosis)” in J. Maier and J. Schreiner, eds. Literatur
und Religion des Fruiihjudentums. Wiirzburg: Echter, 1973, 310-19.
Troger, “Attitude” | Trdoger, K.-W. “The Attitude of the Gnostic Religion towards
Judaism as Viewed in a Variety of Perspectives” in Barc, Colloque, 86-98.
TU Texte und Untersuchungen
Turner, “Threefold Path” Turner, J. “The Gnostic Threefold Path to
Enlightenment: The Ascent of Mind and the Descent of Wisdom.” NovT 22
(1980) 324-51.
van Unnik, “Document” Unnik, W. C. van. “A Document of Second Century
Theological Discussion (Irenaeus, A. H. I. 10.3).” VC 31 (1977) 205-26.
van Unnik, “Neid” Unnik, W. C. van. “Der Neid in der Paradiesgeschichte nach
einigen gnostischen Texten” in Krause, Essays, 120-32.
van Unnik, “Komponente” Unnik, W. C. van. “Die jtiidischen Komponente in der
Entstehung der Gnosis” in Rudolph, Gnostizismus, 65-82.
van Unnik, “Gospel of Truth” Unnik, W. C. van. “The Gospel of Truth and the
New Testament” in Cross, The Jung Codex, 79-129.
van Unnik, “Origin” Unnik, W. C. van. “The Origin of the Recently Discovered
‘Apocryphon Jacobi.’” VC 10 (1956) 149-56.
vc Vigiliae christianae
Venables, “Aetius” Venables, E. “Aetius.” DCB, 1.50-53.
Vermaseren, Die Orientalischen Religionen _Vermaseren, M. J. ed. Die
Orientalischen Religionen im Rémerreich. Etudes préliminaires aux religions
orientales dans ]’Empire romain 93. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Vielhauer, Aufsdtze Vielhauer, Ph. Aufsditze zum Neuen Testament.
Theologische Biicherei 31. Mtinchen: Kaiser, 1965.
Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn” Vielhauer, Ph. “Gottesreich und
Menschensohn in der Verktindigung Jesu” in W. Schneemelcher, ed. Festschrift
fiir Gunther Dehn zum 75. Geburtstag am 18. April 1957 dargebracht von der
Evangelisch-Theologischen Facultdt der Rheinischen Friedrich Wilhelms-
Universitat zu Bonn. Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Erziehungsverein, 1957, 51-79.
Vielhauer, “Jesus und der Menschensohn” Vielhauer, Ph. “Jesus und der
Menschensohn: Zur Diskussion mit Heinz Eduard Todt und Eduard Schweizer.”
ZTHK 60 (1963) 133-77.
Vilmar, Abulfathiannales _-Vilmar, E., ed. Abulfathi annales samaritani quos ad
fidem codicum manuscriptorum Berolinensium, Bodlejani, Parisini edidit et
prolegomenis instruxit. Gotha: no publisher, 1865.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES xliii

Véd6bus, Asceticism Véébus, A. History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient.

CSCO 184. Louvain: Secrétariat CSCO, 1958.
Véébus, Canons _—Védbus, A., ed. The Canons Ascribed to Maruta of Maipherkat
and Related Sources. CSCO 439. Louvain: Peeters, 1982.
Vé6ébus, Celibacy Védbus, A. Celibacy, a Requirement for Admission to Baptism
in the Early Syrian Church. Stockholm: Almavist, 1954.
Vosté, Theodori Mopsuestensi _ Vosté, J. M., ed. Theodori Mopsuestensi
commentarius in Evangelium Johannis. CSCO 115. Louvain: Peeters, 1940.
Wegner, “Image of Woman” Wegner, J. R. “The Image of Woman in Philo” in K.
H. Richards, ed. Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers. SBLSP 21.
Chico, Calif.; Scholars, 1982, 551-63.
Welburn, “Identity” | Welburn, A. J. “The Identity of the Archons in the
‘Apocryphon Johannes.’” VC 32 (1978) 241-54.
Whittaker, “Self-Generating Principles” | Whittaker, J. “Self-Generating Principles
in Second Century Gnostic Systems” in Layton, Rediscovery, 1.176-89.
Widengren, Proceedings | Widengren, G. Proceedings of the International
Colloquium on Gnosticism, Stockholm August 20-25, 1973. Kungl. Vitterhets
Historie och Anikvitets Akademiens. Handlingaar, Filologisk-filosofiska serien
17. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell; Leiden: Brill, 1977. ~
Williams, “Stability” | Williams, M. A. “Stability as a Soteriological Theme in
Gnosticism” in Layton, Rediscovery, 2.819-29.
Wilson, Gnosis Wilson, R. McL. Gnosis and the New Testament. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1968.
Wilson, Nag Hammadi _— Wilson, R. McL., ed. Nag Hammadi and Gnosis: Papers
at the First International Congress of Coptology (Cairo, December 1976). NHS
14. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Wilson, “Valentinianism” Wilson, R. McL. “Valentinianism and the Gospel of
Truth” in Layton, Rediscovery, 1.333-45.
Winston, Philo _-Winston, D., ed. Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, the
Giants, and Selections. New York: Paulist, 1981.
Winston, Wisdom of Solomon ___ Winston, D. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 43. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1979.
Wisse, “Monasticism in Egypt” Wisse, F. “Gnosticism and Early Monasticism in
Egypt” in Aland, Gnosis, 431-40.
Wisse, “Prolegomena” Wisse, F. “Prolegomena to the Study of the New
Testament and Gnosis” in Logan- Wedderburn, New Testament and Gnosis, 138-
45.
Wisse, “Epistle of Jude” Wisse, F. “The Epistle of Jude in the History of
Heresiology” in Krause, Essays, 133-43.
Wisse, “Heresiologists” Wisse, F. “The Nag Hammadi Library and the
Heresiologists.” VC 25 (1971) 205-23.
Wisse, “Redeemer Figure” Wisse, F. “The Redeemer Figure in the Paraphrase of
Shem.” NovT 12 (1970) 130-40.
Wisse, “Die Sextus-Spriiche” Wisse, F. “Die Sextus-Spriiche und das Problem der
gnostischen Ethik” in A. Béhlig and F. Wisse, eds. Zum Hellenismus in den
Schriften von Nag Hammadi. GOF 6.2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975, 55-86.
WMANT ___ Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament.
Wright, Julian Wright, W. C., ed. The Works of the Emperor Julian. 2 vols.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard; London: Heinemann, 1913-23.
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
xliv ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

Wutz, Onomastica = Wutz, F. Onomastica Sacra. TU 41. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914-

1915.
WZKM Weiner Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes.
Yamauchi, “Jewish Gnosticism?” | Yamauchi, E. M. “Jewish Gnosticism? The .
Prologue of John, Mandaean Parallels, and the Trimorphic Protennoia” in van
den Broek-Vermaseren, Studies, 467-97.
Yamauchi, Gnosticism | Yamauchi, E. M. Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of
the Proposed Evidences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.
“ZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZPE Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik
ZRGG _ Zeitschrift ftir Religions-und Geistesgeschichte
ZThK Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche
 INTRODUCTION: NAG HAMMADI,
GNOSTICISM, AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY
—A BEGINNER’S GUIDE

Charles W. Hedrick

I. The Problem of Definitions

Bianchi, Origini, xx-xxii, 1-60; Jonas, Gnostic Religion; Pagels, “Gnosticism”;
Wilson, Gnosis; Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 13-26.

he term “gnosticism” is a noun that derives from a Greek word

(yvaors) meaning “knowledge.” In general, the term “gnosticism” is
applied to a series of widespread and rather diverse religio-philosoph-
ical movements in late antiquity that nevertheless are understood to
have some similarities. Although a precise definition of gnosticism and a
clear dating for its emergence in the Hellenistic world are stil] matters of
scholarly debate, working definitions have generally included certain
elements. It is understood to have an anti-cosmic or world-rejecting
stance. In the religio-philosophical systems the highest spiritual order of
reality is diametrically opposed to the created order of things. Indeed,
the highest spiritual reality has nothing to do with the origins of cosmic
or created reality. The material realm does, however, hold trapped
within it elements from the spiritual realm. The ignorant or slumbering
spiritual elements reside in the material, in humankind, like dying
embers in a cold fire-pit. While these elements possess the full potential
of the spiritual realm, their current situation is hopeless. They may only
be awakened, informed, and reclaimed for the highest spiritual order by
the activity of an emissary sent from the highest levels of the spiritual
order; he enters the material realm and brings a special knowledge,
which alone can ignite the spark and cast off the chains of the great
ignorance that enslave the spiritual element. Of course, the movements

1
2 CHARLES W. HEDRICK

and their systems differ. And the student may expect to find a bewild- .
ering array of actors participating in the various mythological narratives
describing this divine drama.
All can agree that the term “gnosticism” and the common elements to
the above working description apply to those clearly developed gnostic
systems of the second century CE. as they are described and refuted by
such church fathers as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Epi-
phanius. Not all are agreed, however, that gnosticism existed earlier
than the second century CE. Some argue that gnosticism is strictly a
second-century phenomenon and propose other ways to describe gnos-
tic motifs and features found in the pre-second-century literature, such
as the Pauline correspondence, the Deutero-Paulines, the Pastorals, the
Gospel of John, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. During the first international
conference on gnosticism held in 1966 at Messina in Italy, it was
proposed, for example, that the term “gnosticism” be reserved for the
developed gnostic systems of the second century CE. and that one
should use the term “gnosis” when referring to similar phenomena prior
to the second century C.E. This distinction, however, has not generally
been followed.
Other scholars argue that these rather sophisticated second-century
religio-philosophical systems did not get that way overnight, since it
would appear that a certain amount of lead time is required for their
development. Indeed, such syncretistic and widespread systems must
have had a pre-history that extended into the first century CE. It is
further argued that there is no reason to think that the church fathers,
who were primarily concerned with combating heresy and diversity
within Christianity, would have been interested in non-Christian gnostic
movements. They would simply have ignored the non-Christian roots of
the second-century systems until their influence began to affect Chris-
tianity. Since there is evidence of a non-Christian substratum to some of
these developed gnostic systems of the second century C.E., it seems
reasonable to assume that their matrix in the first century was a type of
non-Christian “gnosticism” existing side by side with early Christianity.

II. The Problem of Sources

Foerster, Gnosis; Haardt, Gnosis; Robinson, NHLE; Schmidt-MacDermot,
Bruce Codex; Schmidt-MacDermot, Pistis Sophia (Askew Codex); Till-
Schenke, Papyrus Berolinensis 8502.

The debate over definitions is largely due to a lack of primary source

material datable into the first century C.E. Until the middle of the twen-
tieth century, students of gnosticism were limited primarily to the
 INTRODUCTION 3

second-century descriptions of gnostic-Christian heretics found in the

writings of the church fathers: who opposed and refuted them. These
church writers focused their refutations on those movements within
Christianity that posed a threat to the church. Included among these
extensive apologetical refutations one finds only short quotations from
gnostic teachers along with brief descriptions of gnostic systems.
In addition to these secondhand reports, scholars did have access to
three ancient Coptic manuscripts of primary source material, none of
which were dated into the first century: Codex Brucianus, Codex
Askewianus, Codex Berolinensis Gnosticus 8502. These manuscripts
contain only seven: individual gnostic writings, and reflect a type of
speculative Christian gnosticism. Because the primary source material is
later than the first century C.£. and reflects a type of Christian gnos-
ticism, the conclusion that gnosticism was a second-century C.E., post-
Christian phenomenon appeared inevitable.

III. The Problem of Origins

Grant, Gnosticism; von Harnack, Dogma, 1.222-364; Jonas, Gnostic Religion, 3-
27; Segel, Two Powers in Heaven, Wisse, “Heresiologists”; Yamauchi, Gnos-
ticism.

The debate over where and when gnosticism originated has continued
for some time. Until the end of the nineteenth century, gnosticism was
thought to have begun as a Christian heresy. The church fathers, for
example, traced the origins of gnosticism to Simon Magus (cf. Acts 8:10),
whom they considered “the father of all heresies.” Its rapid growth in
the ancient world was fueled and fostered by an early Christian fasci-
nation with Greek philosophy and mythology. The classic statement of
this position was made by Adolph von Harnack, the great church
historian of the nineteenth century, who described gnosticism as the
“acute Hellenization of Christianity.” Rejecting their Old Testament and
Jewish roots and embracing Platonic dualism (the philosophical distinc-
tion between areal [visible] and ideal [unseen] world), radical Christians
attempted to fuse Christianity with Greek culture and philosophy. The
result was gnosticism.
Near the beginning of the twentieth century, a few history of religions
scholars (scholars who studied Christian origins in the context of its
cultural setting) challenged this monolithic view of gnostic origins that
had persisted since the second century C.E. Working with the meager
and mostly secondary evidence in the reports of the church fathers,
early scholars such as F. C. Baur, R. Reitzenstein, and W. Bousset suc-
ceeded in uncovering evidence that pointed to an origin in the East,
4 CHARLES W. HEDRICK

specifically in Iranian, Mandaean, and Persian thought. More recently,

Hans Jonas, has described gnosticism as a syncretistic phenomenon, a
widespread mood of late antiquity which may be described as a wave of
latent Eastern mysticism (astrological fatalism and magic) expressed in
the logical categories of Greek thought. Hence, according to Jonas,
gnosticism had no one single point of beginning but was an attitude of
late antiquity that simultaneously emerged throughout the ancient world
with the blending of Eastern and Greek ways of thinking.
Others have sought the origins of gnosticism in the context of radical
Judaism, either in the frustration of Jewish apocalyptic movements to
realize the immediate appearing of God’s kingdom, or in the challenge
to God’s character because of the presence of evil in the world. By
definition, a righteous and benevolent God could not be the source of
evil and disorder in the universe. And since the creator God of the Old
Testament can be understood to have acted in capricious and ques-
tionable ways (as for example in Job), it would naturally follow that he is
not the righteous and benevolent father; rather, he proves to be merely a
blind and ignorant fashioner of worlds.
The lack of primary source material simply would not permit a defin-
itive answer to the issue of origins that satisfied everyone. The dis-
cussion seemed to have reached an impasse, with scholars divided over
the significance of the evidence for gnosticism in the first century C.E.

IV. The Nag Hammadi Library

Attridge, Nag Hammadi Codex I; Barnes-Browne-Shelton, Cartonnage;
MacRae, “Nag Hammadi”; Parrott, Codices V and VI; Pearson, Codices IX and
X; Robinson, Nag Hammadi Codices; Robinson, NHLE, particularly, 1-25.

In 1945 in Upper Egypt near the large modern village of Nag Hammadi
a peasant accidentally discovered a collection of twelve leather-bound
papyrus books and one individual tractate. The texts contain some fifty-
one individual writings, the bulk of which were unknown to scholarship '
prior to their discovery. In general, they may be described as heretical
Christian-gnostic writings, although they are really more diverse than
that general designation implies. The collection contains a number of
texts that were not composed in a Christian-gnostic context but derive,
for example, from Greek wisdom literature, Sethianism, Hermeticism,
and Judaism. Other texts reflect a type of non-Christian gnosticism
having a superficial Christianizing “veneer” added sometime after the
original composition of the text. While the books were manufactured in
the middle of the fourth century C.E., some of the texts they contain date
from within the first or early second centuries C.E. The discovery of the
 INTRODUCTION 5

Nag Hammadi Library casts new light on the questions of definition and
gnostic origins. Indeed, while the library presents new source material,
it also raises new questions at almost every level of research into the
relationship between gnosticism and early Christianity. In the light of
this phenomenal archaeological discovery, an entire generation of
scholarship will have to be rethought.
‘A Facsimile Edition of the library was completed in 1977, and trans-
lations of all the manuscripts appeared in English only as recently as
1977. To date, critical editions containing transcription, translation,
introduction and notes of Codices I; III,2 and IV,2; III,5; Codices V and
VI; IX and X; and a cartonnage volume have appeared. Critical editions
of Codices XI, XII and XIII; and Codex II are to appear in 1987. The
remainder (about twenty percent of the library) is expected to ae in
the near future.
There are three major centers throughout the world where team
research is being conducted on the manuscripts: The Institute for
Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont, California (U.S.A.), under the
direction of Professor James M. Robinson; Humboldt University in East
Berlin (The People’s Democratic Republic of Germany) by the Berliner
Arbeitskreis under the direction of Professor Hans-Martin Schenke; the
University of Laval (Quebec, Canada), a French language team under
the leadership of Professor Paul-Hubert Poirier.

V. Early Christianity and Gnostic Influence

Bauer, Orthodoxy; Bousset, Kyrios Christos; Bultmann, Primitive Christianity;
Bultmann, Theology, 1.164-83; Francis-Meeks, Conflict at Colossae; Schmithals,
Paul and the Gnostics; Yamauchi, Gnosticism.

Working backwards from the apologetical reports of the church fathers,

many scholars did find indirect evidence of gnostic influence on early
Christianity within the New Testament itself. Certain New Testament
passages, it was argued, reflected evidence of gnostic influence on the
development of early Christianity in the first century. For example,
some argued that the opponents with whom Paul debated in certain of
his letters were gnostic, or had fallen under the influence of gnosticism.
If this was the case, then one could reconstruct their theological position
on the basis of Paul’s own statements. Like reconstructing the unheard
half of a telephone conversation, one asks: What is it that the opponent
must have said to have prompted such a response by Paul. (Many find a
continuum between such reconstructions and the second-century sys-
tems.) Sometimes in the debate Paul will use the language of his
opponents. For example, in 1 Cor 2:14-3:1, Paul uses the expressions
6 CHARLES W. HEDRICK

“the spiritual man,” “the natural man,” and “the fleshly man.” These
terms appear in gnostic systems of the second century as technical ways
of sorting out classes of humanity. Another example is the “Christ hymn”
in Phil 2:5-11. Since the nineteenth century, scholars have thought it to
be an early, independent composition whose concepts derive ultimately
from gnosticism and general Hellenistic cosmology. Paul, it is argued,
borrowed and preserved the hymn (a stylized and well-balanced lit-
erary unit consisting of two strophes having three stanzas with three
lines each) just as he had used confessional statements from the pre-
Pauline Hellenistic churches, in which he learned the Christian “basics”
(cf. 1 Cor 15:3-5). In this way, in spite of the lack of gnostic texts from the
first century C.E., many scholars are able to reconstruct points of contact
between early Christianity and gnostic-like groups contemporary with
the New Testament.
Gnostic influence has been detected at many points in the New
Testament literature. For example, some have argued that the purpose
of Luke-Acts is to counter a gnostic polemic against history. The pro-
logue to the Gospel of John has been seen as a Johannine adaptation of a
gnostic hymn or poem; the emphasis in the Gospel of John upon a
realized existential eschatology, as opposed to a futuristic cosmic escha-
tology, also reflects a gnostic concern. Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessa-
lonians, the Epistles of John, the Pastorals and the General Epistles, it is
argued, reflect traces of the first-century debate between Christianity
and its gnostic opponents.
Those who see gnostic influence on early Christianity find that from
the very beginning Christianity developed diverse theological and socio-
logical patterns. Only later, when one of the many diverse strands
achieved an ascendancy over the others, is there a standardizing, and a
developing of an “orthodox” tradition. This diversity in the early period
is clearly reflected in the New Testament. For example, the Hellenistic
Christian confession that Paul used in Rom 1:2-5 says that Jesus was
“designated” Son of God by his resurrection, rather than having pre-
existed in that role. The “Christ hymn” in Phil 2:5-11 describes Jesus as a
totally divine figure who was not truly human. He had merely tem-
porarily adopted human form as a guise.
The standards for “orthodox” Christianity that one finds articulated in
the Pastorals, 1 John and the Apostolic Fathers constitute attempts to
standardize and domesticate the great varieties of early Christian move-
ments in the formative period. The second-century gnostic systems
should also be understood as a part of those diverse early Christian
traditions that fell victim to standardization and institutionalization in
 INTRODUCTION 7

Christianity. The end of this development from diversity to uniformity is

reached with the emergence of the early Roman Catholic Church.
Of course, it has continued to be objected that the lack of evidence for
gnosticism in the form of primary source material datable within the first
century C.E. puts such studies on a hypothetical footing. Hence, the
discovery of new source material in the Nag Hammadi Library has
begun an entirely new chapter in the discussion of these issues.

VI. The Nag Hammadi Library:

Problems and Possibilities
Hedrick, Apocalypse; Hedrick, “Kingdom Sayings and Parables”; Koester,
“Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels”; MacRae, “Nag Hammadi and the New
Testament”; Robinson, “Gnosticism and the New Testament”; Robinson,
“Sethians”; Robinson, “Jung Codex”; Wisse, “Heresiologists.”

The discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, as with most modern

archaeological discoveries, initially presented more problems than solu-
tions. There were political monopolies that had to be broken in order to
get the material into the public domain. The papyrus originals had to be
reconstructed, conserved, and photographed prior to the publication of
the Facsimile Edition, whose completion in 1977 made the materials
available to all Coptic scholars around the world, simultaneously giving
free and open access to the texts. This was followed by the time-
consuming task of producing translations and critical editions of the
texts. Hence, the assessment of these materials for understanding the
origins of gnosticism and its interaction with early Christianity has only
just begun. The Yale Conference on Gnosticism in 1978, the Quebec
Conference on the Nag Hammadi Codices in 1978, and the Springfield
Working Seminar on Gnosticism and Early Christianity in 1983 are the
first three conferences on gnosticism to be conducted since the publica-
tion in 1977 of the Nag Hammadi Library in facsimile and English trans-
lation. The Springfield Conference was the first to focus specifically on
the relationship between gnosticism and early Christianity since the
publication of the Nag Hammadi Library, and the only Working
Seminar in the history of the discussion.
One problem that has emerged in the discussion is the present
inability of scholarship to harmonize satisfactorily the texts in the Nag .
Hammadi Library with the categories under which the church fathers
discussed their gnostic opponents. Some of the Nag Hammadi texts can
be identified with certain of those groups opposed by the church fathers
in the second century and later. For example, the second tractate of
8 CHARLES W. HEDRICK

Codex XI, lacking an ancient title, has been given the modern title A
Valentinian Exposition, because of its affinities with the second-century
gnostic teacher Valentinus. Likewise the Gospel of Truth in Codex I and
Codex XII, the Tripartite Tractate in Codex I and the Gospel of Philip in
Codex II have also been identified as Valentinian documents. Others
have been identified with the Hermetic literature: the Discourse on the
8th and 9th, the Prayer of Thanksgiving, and Asclepius. Certain other
texts belong to a cycle of documents associated with Sethianism: the
Apocryphon of John, the Hypostasis of the Archons, the Gospel of the
Egyptians, the Apocalypse of Adam, Three Steles of Seth, Zostrianos,
Melchizedek, the Thought of Norea, Marsanes, Allogenes, and Tri-
morphic Protennoia. Excluding certain other previously known texts,
such as the Sentences of Sextus and the excerpt from Plato’s Republic,
the bulk of the library does not fit easily into any of the gnostic systems
described by the church fathers, although there are abundant parallel
motifs.
The lack of a common thread of theology or mythology that joins the
library together is another difficulty. The texts do not appear to be a
collection of religious writings composed for one particular community,
although even radically different writings could have been widely
collected and used by a single community. Nor has a communal center
for the users of the texts yet been identified, as in the case of Qumran for
the Dead Sea Scrolls. A series of excavations at Faw Qibli near the site
of the discovery has succeeded in clarifying the historical period (ca. 350
C.E.) in which the manuscripts were buried and their place of manufac-
ture (ancient Bau), but not yet the group or groups that used them.
Nevertheless, the diversity of these texts and the lack of archaeo-
logical evidence for a particular user community does not exclude the
collecting and use of the library by a particular gnostic-Christian group
in antiquity. The Bible itself is a quite diverse collection of texts sacred
to two ancient religions (Judaism and Christianity) spanning some two
thousand years, and yet both collections are used as the holy literature
of diverse Christian groups in the twentieth century.
The discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library clearly solves one of
those problems faced by scholars in previous generations. What they
lacked in primary source materials is supplied in the Nag Hammadi
corpus. It is a massive amount of material that must be carefully ana-.
lyzed and studied in relationship to other ancient literature. In a sense
the very wealth and abundance of the discovery is a hurdle that will not
be completely overcome by the present generation of scholars.
There is as yet no consensus in the dating of individual texts.
Scholarship agrees that the papyrus manuscripts themselves date from
 INTRODUCTION 9

the middle of the fourth century CE., and it concurs that their compo-
sition occurred at an earlier period. But how much earlier is unclear,
and debated. At least two of the texts have been dated as early as the
first century: The Apocalypse of Adam and the Gospel of Thomas. The
former appears to reflect a type of Jewish gnosticism that has emerged
out of Jewish apocalypticism. The latter is a collection of the traditional
words of Jésus; some of which are identical to sayings in the canonical
Synoptic Gospels. Other sayings are not found in the canonical Gospels,
but nevertheless are very much at home in that setting. Most of the
sayings in the collection are quite different in character and spirit from
the synoptic tradition.
That late manuscripts contain narratives composed at a much earlier
time should not be surprising. Research into the canonical Jesus tradi-
tions proceeds on the basic assumption that the canonical Gospels,
although dating from 70 C.E. and later, contain traditions that come from
a much earlier period of time. And an accepted canon of textual
criticism holds that late manuscripts do contain earlier readings.
The Nag Hammadi Library may prove to bea key that will help to
unlock the secret of the origins of gnosticism. Because the library does
contain several gnostic texts that show no evidence of having been
influenced by Christianity (the Apocalypse of Adam, the Paraphrase of
Shem, the Three Steles of Seth, and Eugnostos), it demonstrates beyond
question that gnosticism was not simply a Christian heresy. For further
support one may also point to other originally non-Christian texts that
were later appropriated for Christian gnosticism through a sometimes
extremely thin veneer of Christianizing: the Gospel of the Egyptians, the
Apocryphon of John, the Hypostasis of the Archons and the Trimorphic
Protennoia. While there may be no extant gnostic manuscripts from the
early first century C.E. to show that there existed a pre-Christian
gnosticism in a chronological sense, these texts clearly demonstrate the
existence of pre-Christian gnosticism in an ideological sense. Such hard
evidence presents a previously unavailable avenue for investigating the
interaction between Christianity and its gnostic opponents. They pro-
vide concrete sources not only for studying a gnosticism uninfluenced by
Christianity but they also give us an insight into the influence of
Christianity upon gnosticism, and gnosticism upon Christianity.
Because it presents new primary source material, it is likely that the
Nag Hammadi Library may also open up new possibilities for exam-
ining the social worlds of gnosticism and early Christianity. Where, for
example, would one expect to find “gnostics” in the ancient world? Were
there gnostic monastic communities or churches? Would we expect to
find schools of gnostic teachers and students? Could the “schools”
10 CHARLES W. HEDRICK

reflected in the Johannine correspondence, and the clearly defined

parties at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1-4) with their heroes, claims to
wisdom, and exclusiveness parallel or be related to the kind of social
matrix in which gnosticism may have flourished into the developed
schools of the second century?
All of these issues and more may be clarified in future research. The
nature of the new materials clearly reflects worshipping communities in
competition both with early Christianity and other gnostic groups. Such
texts as Zostrianos, the Three Steles of Seth, the Gospel of Philip, A
Valentinian Exposition and Trimorphic Protennoia present the raw
material requisite to a worshipping community: hymns, prayers, creeds,
liturgy and sacraments. The gnostic attempt to evangelize Christian
communities appears in gnostic tracts such as the Sophia of Jesus Christ
and the Tripartite Tractate. The partial success of their evangelistic
efforts may be seen in the Christianizing of the Gospel of the Egyptians.
A Valentinian Exposition gives us a much clearer view of the schools in
Valentinianism. Compared to early Christianity the role of women
seems to be improved in gnosticism, where women appear as revealers
of the arcane gnosis. In the canonical Gospels, on the other hand,
women play a subordinate role in receiving and giving revelation (e.g.,
cf. Mark 16:8; Luke 24:10-11, and John 21:14 where Mary does not
appear to be counted as receiving a revelation). In the gnostic revelation
material, however, they are given equal status with males as revealer
figures; Mary even has a gospel under her name.

VII. The Discussion Continues

Foerster, Gnosis, 365-67; Haardt, Gnosis, 398-416; Jonas, Gnostic Religion, 342-
52; Rudolf, “Gnosis, ein Forschungsbericht”; Scholer, Nag Hammadi Bibli-
ography, updated annually in Novum Testamentum beginning with volume
thirteen (1971).

Essays presented in this volume are a part of the continuing discussion.

They were prepared for criticism and evaluation at the first inter-
national Working Seminar on Gnosticism and Early Christianity held in
Springfield, Missouri 29 March through 1 April 1983 and modified after
discussion for publication in this volume. Each essay provides the
reader with new insights into Christian and gnostic origins; each sug-
gests new approaches to the old problems and sets the discussion of
gnosticism and early Christianity in new directions. Professor Pearson’s
essay argues “that the earliest Gnostic literature was produced by Jewish
intellectuals, as a product of their revolt against the Jewish God and his
capacity as World-Creator and Lawgiver.” Professor Robinson's paper
 INTRODUCTION tt

compares and contrasts two early collections of the sayings of Jesus, Q (a

hypothetical early Christian sayings collection) and the Gospel of
Thomas (a collection of sayings influenced in part by gnosticism). He
assesses their significance for reciprocal understanding, and pulls
together. the various strands in the debate over the dating of the Gospel
of Thomas. Drawing upon Nag Hammadi texts and related documents,
Professor Schenke’s essay aims at solving the puzzle of the function and
background of the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John. Professor
Perkins focuses upon the debate between Irenaeus, the second-century
c.E. Christian apologist, and his gnostic opponents over the issue of
creation. Professor Attridge proposes that the Gospel of Truth is a
Valentinian document written as a missionary tract for circulation
among ordinary Christians, an open invitation to Christians to become
followers of Valentinus. Professor Pagels argues that certain Nag
Hammadi texts drew upon Genesis chapters 1-3 and the writings of Paul
to develop their ethical and cosmological arguments. Professor Parrott
investigates the role of named and unnamed disciples in gnosticism and
early Christianity. Professor Layton’s essay identifies the paradoxical
Thunder as a “riddle,” whose solution will surprise the reader. Professor
Turner's contribution clarifies the characteristics of Sethianism as an
independent religious movement in antiquity and discusses its inter-
action with early Christianity. Professor Gero’s paper traces references
to certain groups in early Mesopotamian Christianity that may be iden-
tified with the gnostic sect, the “Borborites,” found in Epiphanius.
Professor MacRae discusses the background of the Gospel of John and
points out seven points of contact between John and gnosticism that
need further discussion. Drawing on parallels in the Gospel of Thomas,
the Apocryphon of James, the Dialogue of the Saviour, and Papyrus
Egerton 2, Professor Koester identifies traditional sayings of Jesus lying
behind the speeches in John chapter 8. Professor Wisse contends that
the conflict between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” in the third and fourth
centuries C.E. should not be applied to an earlier period. This obser-
vation has significant implications for the study of early Christianity and
gnosticism.
 oe
: bade waiel” gee add te boven sili aaieccelly waliaa’ sais |
bo sideman |oA ie teehdnetr dae nsnsien FESR DIO. ie.
domed t+ lereet) altatoh oar fa pcre siaarathvsinat ce
arg . ae i a ;

Spriayiiais Maa i
A Basch res aoa:sons es2 Shes
dimcsmeiat ae Gubligaitiog 36 Oly cece Rathi ao dea
render ith now idsigiats Ams fxosetia Be
Rasty Patgy ApaTOachiny ty as haeae ey poste arti: each wage
ser tothe, beasts
gasctcean and gaaip Chrietian:) sh ee ance a0
eesey orginee “thatthe onrlien Cnonts a Pies waite CARE ID 7
sa ba
lines esectae ke eee pirednt. at toade Heol
maparitysna Waskd Creasar- aepee
 PART I
NON-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICISM
 1
THE PROBLEM
OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE

Birger A. Pearson

Birger Pearson is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of California,

Santa Barbara. Gnostic studies have been his main research activity since 1968.
As a member of the Coptic Gnostic Project of the Institute for Antiquity and
Christianity (Claremont), Professor Pearson has helped in the translation and
preparation of several Nag Hammadi Codices.
Professional services include being a former officer, section chairperson, and
series editor for the Society of Biblical Literature. He also is a member of the
American Society for the Study of Religion, Studiorum Novi Testamenti
Societas, The International Association for Coptic Studies, and The American
Schools of Oriental Research, as well as several others.
His more recent publications have been in the area of gnostic studies and his
monograph on Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians, first pub-
lished in 1973 (Scholars) remains a standard in Pauline studies. He has contrib-
uted to such publications as the Harvard Theological Review, the Encyclo-
paedia Judaica, and the Journal of Biblical Literature.

Preface
he problem of Jewish Gnostic literature is part of the larger issue of
the relationship among Gnosticism, Judaism, and Christianity. The
Nag Hammadi discoveries have decisively put to rest the old idea that
Gnosticism is a Christian heresy in its origins. The massive array of
Jewish traditions found in many Nag Hammadi texts have brought the
issue of the relationship between Gnosticism and Judaism to the fore-
ground of the discussion, even if most (but not all!) of the Nag Hammadi
texts in question appear in Christian dress. In this paper two Nag
Hammadi documents are taken up for special consideration: the Apoc-
ryphon of John and the Apocalypse of Adam. Both are treated as
examples of “Jewish Gnostic” literature; the Apocryphon of John has

15
16 BIRGER A. PEARSON

been subjected to Christian redaction whereas the Apocalypse of Adam

shows no Christian traits at all. The form and content of these docu-
ments are analyzed with special attention to their use of Jewish literary
genres, Jewish literature, and Jewish exegetical traditions. It is argued
that the earliest Gnostic literature was produced by Jewish intellectuals,
as a product of their revolt against the Jewish God in his capacity as
World-Creator and Lawgiver. The Apocalypse of Adam is illustrative of
the development of non-Christian forms of Gnosticism, of which Man-
daeism emerges as the most important enduring example. The Apoc-
ryphon of John illustrates the appropriation by Gnostics of the Christian
message about Christ and the widespread tendency to attribute the
Gnostic revelation to Jesus Christ. During the second century C.E. the
Christian forms of the new Gnostic religion tend to predominate, while
at the same time the Jewish elements in the Gnostic religion begin to
recede into the background. The two documents treated here, therefore,
exemplify the complicated relationships among Judaism, Christianity,
and Gnosticism in the second century of our era.

I. Introduction
As implied in the title of this paper, to speak of Jewish Gnostic literature
involves a larger problem of considerable proportions, one which is
crucial to an understanding of the genesis and development of Gnos-
ticism itself. This larger problem is the historical relationship between
Gnosticism and Judaism. To be sure, it can no longer be doubted that
Gnosticism, especially in its earliest forms, displays a fundamental
indebtedness to Jewish concepts and traditions. The Nag Hammadi
discovery has provided much new material of relevance here. Never-
theless, the precise historical relationship between Gnosticism and
Judaism is still a very controversial issue. Some scholars, the present
author included, have argued that Gnosticism originated from within
Judaism.’ Other scholars contend that such a circumstance is improb-

*An early proponent of. this view was Friedlander, Gnosticismus; cf. Pearson,
“Judaism and Gnostic Origins.” For some recent treatments see e.g., Quispel, “Gnostic
Demiurge,” and “Gnosis”; MacRae, “Sophia Myth”; Dahl, “Archon”; Pearson, “Haggadic
Traditions,” esp. 469-70, and “Gnostic Self-Definition,” esp. 159-60. For other studies see
Rudolph’s discussion in “Gnosis, ein Forschungsbericht,” esp. ThR 36 (1971) 89-119; cf.
also Rudolph, Gnosis: Wesen und Geschichte, 291-99 (ET=Gnosis: Nature and History,
275-82).
 THE PROBLEM OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE i?

able, if not impossible.’ Still others adopt a broader view of Gnosticism,

and speak of various forms of the Gnostic religion: Jewish, Christian,
and pagan. In this view, one which I share, one can legitimately speak of
Jewish Gnosticism,’ as well as Christian and other forms of Gnosticism.
‘Such a Jewish Gnosticism should, of course, be differentiated from the
kind of Jewish Gnosticism described by G. Scholem in one of his famous
books;‘ this is more appropriately designated as Jewish mysticism.
Gnosticism should really be understood as a religion, or worldview, in
its own right.* There are very good reasons for using such a designation
as the Gnostic religion instead of Gnosticism or Gnosis, terms which
have been used with a notable lack of precision in scholarly discourse.’
When one begins to assess the relationship between the Gnostic religion
and Judaism one runs into the difficulty that the former seems to be
essentially anti-Jewish, especially so in its earliest forms. The Gnostic
spirit is radically anti-cosmic, whereas Judaism is the clearest example
in late antiquity of a religion which affirms the cosmos, with its doctrine
of the one and only God, Creator of heaven and earth.’ The anti-Jewish
character of the Gnostic religion is tied to its anti-cosmicism, in that it
adopts a hostile stance vis-a-vis the Jewish Creator God.’ To speak of a
. Jewish Gnosticism, therefore, appears, at first glance, to imply a contra-
diction in terms. But history, especially religious history, is not the same
thing as logic!
It is one of the curious facts of the religious history of late antiquity
that certain Jewish intellectuals could, and did, use the materials of their

* See e.g., Jonas, “Hymn of the Pearl,” and “Gnostic Syndrome,” esp. 274; and van
Unnik, “Komponente.” More recent studies in which the Jewish factor is minimized are
nevertheless more ambiguous on the question. See e.g., Yamauchi, “Jewish Gnosticism?”;
Gruenwald, “Controversy,” and “Merkavah.” In the last-named article, for example,
Gruenwald takes issue with my contention that Gnosticism “originates in a Jewish
environment” (p. 44, italics his), yet eight pages later he expresses his agreement with K.
Rudolph that “Gnosticism emerged from a Jewish matrix” (p. 52)!
See e.g., Stone, Profile of Judaism, 99-103.
“Scholem, Traditions.
5° See e.g., Jonas, “Hymn of the Pearl,” 288; Gruenwald, “Merkavah,” 41-42. Cf. also
Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, esp. 110.
®T take “religion” and “worldview” here to be functional equivalents, though one
could also say that the Gnostic “worldview” develops into various Gnostic “religions,”
such as Manichaeism and Mandaeism. On “worldviews” and their analysis as “religions”
see Smart, Worldviews. The best full-length study of the Gnostic religion is indubitably
Rudolph, Gnosis: Nature and History.
” Cf. the attempt at defining Gnosticism set forth at the Messina Colloquium on the
Origins of Gnosticism, published in Bianchi, Origini, xxvi-xxix. Cf. Rudolph’s criticisms
in “Gnosis, ein Forschungsbericht,” ThR 36 (1971) 13-22.
These issues are treated with extraordinary insight by Trager, “Attitude.” Cf. also his
article, “Spekulativ-esoterische Ansatze,” esp. 318.
® This important point is stressed by Dahl, “Archon.”
 18 BIRGER A. PEARSON

ancient religion, the Bible and various extra-biblical sources and tra-
ditions, in giving expression to a new, anti-cosmic religion of tran-
scendental gnésis “knowledge.” Such a step involved a fundamental
religious protest against the older traditions, an apostasy from Judaism as
normatively defined. The religious movement thus conceived expressed
itself in literature. It is against this historical background (reconstructed,
to be sure) that one can speak of Jewish Gnostic literature. This Jewish
Gnostic literature adopted and adapted the forms of the (non-Gnostic)
Jewish literature of the Second Temple period (apocalypse, testament,
scriptural commentary, midrash, and epistle)."° The Gnostic documents
were also frequently attributed pseudonymously to important patriarchs
and other personages of the Bible (e.g., Adam, Seth, Enosh, Enoch,
Shem, Ham, Moses, Abraham, Melchizedek, Solomon),"* as was the case
with so much of the Jewish pseudepigraphic and apocryphal literature
of the period. We must assume that the vast bulk of this Gnostic
literature is irretrievably lost.
As it happens, it is the Christian forms of the Gnostic religion which
are the best known, and whose materials and testimonies are the most
abundant. Indeed, one can hardly speak of the problem of Jewish
Gnostic literature without addressing the central theme of this Working
Seminar: “Gnosticism and Early Christianity.” The theme itself involves
the crucial clash of religions, Gnosticism and Christianity, which looms
so large in second-century C.E. religious history. We have to do with two
- religions, each of them (I would argue) rooted in a third (Judaism) and
one of them (Christianity) threatened with being engulfed and swal-
lowed up by the other (Gnosticism). The importance of this for our
special topic is that much (but not all!) of the relevant Gnostic material
now extant appears in Christian dress, i.e., in Christianized versions.
I cannot take up the full range of the evidence for discussion here.”
What I intend to do, instead, is to examine two examples of what I take
to be Jewish Gnostic literature, look at them as Jewish Gnostic texts, and
then examine their relationship to Christianity. Admittedly, what I will
*° For a good treatment of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period see Nickels-
burg, Jewish Literature. See now also Stone, Jewish Writings.
*" Adam: see below. Seth: NHC III,2; VII,2 and 5; XI,1; plus numerous patristic and
other references (See Pearson, “Seth,” 491-96). Enosh: Mani Codex (Cameron-Dewey)
48.16-60.12 (apocalypses of Adam, Seth, Enosh, Shem, and Enoch, perhaps not Gnostic).
Enoch: Mani Codex; Pistis Sophia 99,134. Shem: Mani Codex; NHC VII,1. Ham:
Basilidians according to Clem. Alex. Strom. 6.6.53.5. Moses: Cf. Orig. World II,5: 102,
8-9. Abraham: Sethians according to Epiph. Pan. 39.5.1; Audians according to Theodore
Bar Konai (on which see Puech, “Allogéne,” 273). Melchizedek: NHC IX,1. Solomon: Cf.
Orig. World I1,5:107,3, Cf. also Norea, wife-sister of Seth: NHC IX,2; cf. Orig. World I1,5:
102,10-11.24-25; and numerous patristic references (see Pearson, “Norea”),
See my article, “Sources,” 443-81.
 THE PROBLEM OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE 19

be doing is “rushing in” (like the proverbial fool) to an area of con-

troversy where more timid souls (like the proverbial angels) may per-
haps fear to tread. One of the examples I have chosen, I will argue, is
not in any sense a Christian document: the Apocalypse of Adam."* The
other one, in my view, has undergone secondary Christianization: the
Apocryphon of John.‘ This material having been examined, some
general conclusions may then be extrapolated pertaining to Jewish
Gnostic literature on the one hand, and the relationship of Jewish
Gnosticism to Christian forms of the Gnostic religion on the other.

II. The Apocryphon of John

This document is extant in two basic recensions, a shorter one and a
longer one.** While there are some minor differences to be observed
among all four versions, two of them” are very fragmentary and can
safely be ignored for our present purposes. The Apocryphon of John is
surely one of the most important of all Gnostic texts known, for it
contains a basic Gnostic myth which was widely used and elaborated.
For example, this myth probably served as the basis for the Gnostic
mythology of the Christian Gnostic teacher Valentinus, and was further
elaborated by Valentinus’ disciples.” The Apocryphon of John is widely
(and correctly) taken to be a key text of Sethian Gnosticism.”
In its extant form, the Apocryphon of John is an apocalypse, con-
taining a revelation given by the risen Christ to his disciple John.”
Within the apocalypse frame at the beginning and end of the document
there are two main sections, a revelation discourse and a commentary
on Genesis 1-6. The commentary has been editorially modified, in a
rather clumsy manner, into a dialogue between Jesus and his inter-
locutor John. A number of sources seem to be reflected in the document
as a whole, and considerable internal confusion is evident. The basic
structure, nevertheless, is quite clear.
The following outline represents my analysis of the structure and

8 NHC V5.
* NHC II,1; III,1; IV,1; BG,2.
15 For the texts see Till-Schenke, Papyrus Berolinensis 8502; Krause, Drei Versionen
(NHC II,1; III,1; IV,1); and Giversen, Apocryphon (NHC I],1). The shorter recension is
- represented by BG,2 and NHC III,1; the longer by NHC II,1 and IV,1.
16 NHC III,1; IV,1. For ET of NHC II,1, by F. Wisse, see NHLE, 98-116; for that of
BG,2, by M. Krause and R. McL. Wilson, see Foerster, Gnosis, 1. 105-20.
7 See esp. Quispel, “Valentinian Gnosis.”
For ground-breaking studies of the Sethian Gnostic system see H.-M. Schenke,
“System,” and “Sethianism.” See also Stroumsa’s important monograph, Another Seed.
?® An especially useful discussion of the structure and form of the Apocryphon of John
is that of Kragerud, “Apocryphon Johannis.”
20 BIRGER A. PEARSON

content of the Apocryphon of John. I use as a basis the version in NH

Codex II, and show the corresponding sections in BG in parentheses:

Preamble and apocalyptic frame 1,1-2,26 (19,6-22,17)

I. Revelation discourse 2,26-13,13 (22,17-44,18)
A. Theosophy
1. Negative theology; the unknown God 2,26-4,10 (22,17-26,6)
2. The heavenly world 4,10-9,24 (26,6-36,15)
B. Cosmogony ag
1. Fall of Sophia 9,25-10,23 (36,15-39,4)
2. The cosmic world of darkness 10,23-13,5 (39,4-44,9)
3. Blasphemy of the demiurge 13,5-13 (44,9-18)
II. Dialogue: soteriology 13,138-31,25 (44,19-75,15)
1. Repentance of Sophia 13,13-14,13 (44,19-47,18)
2. Anthropogony” 14,13-21,16 (47,18-55,18)
3. Adam in Paradise 21,16-24,8 (55,18-62,3)
4. Seduction of Eve; Cain and Abel 24,8-34 (62,3-63,12)
5. Seth and his seed 24,35-25,16 (63,12-64,12)
6. Two spirits; classes of men 25,16-27,30 (64,12-71,2)
7. Production of Heimarmené “Fate” 27,31-28,32 (71,2-72,12)
8. Noah and the Flood 28,32-29,15 (72,12-73,18)
9. The angels and the daughters of men 29,16-30,11 (73,18-75,10)
10. The triple descent of Pronoia “Foreknowl-
edge”! 30,11-31,25 (75,10-13)
Apocalyptic frame and title 31,25-32,9 (75,14-77,5)

I have already stated my view that the Apocryphon of John is a

document whose present form represents a secondary Christianization
of previously non-Christian material.” Its literary structure suggests such
a conclusion: when we remove from the Apocryphon of John the
apocalyptic framework at the beginning and the end, together with the
dialogue features involving the ten questions put to Christ by his
interlocutor John, we are left with material in which nothing Christian
remains, except for some easily removed glosses. The revelation dis-
course (I in our outline), containing the theosophical and cosmogonical
teaching, may originally have been a separate unit. Indeed it is this

°'The longer recension has a lengthy section devoted to the work of 365 cosmic
angels: 1I,1:15,29-19,2. Cf. the reference to 360 angels in BG,2:50,8-51,1.
The hymn of the triple descent of Pronoia is absent from BG.
*2 The classic example of such a Christianizing redaction of non-Christian material is
Sophia of Jesus Christ (NHC III,4; BG,3) in relation to Eugnostos (NHC III,3; V,1). The
latter is an “epistle” containing a discussion of the unknown God and the heavenly
world, reflecting a sophisticated Gnostic exegesis of key texts in Genesis. It has no
obvious Christian elements in it. Sophia of Jesus Christ is a composite document in which
the text of Eugnostos has been taken over and opened up into a revelation dialogue
between Christ and his disciples. See esp. Krause, “Eugnostosbriefes,” and Parrott, “Reli-
gious Syncretism.”
 THE PROBLEM OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE 21

material which is parallel to Irenaeus’ description of the doctrine of the

“Barbelognostics.”** Apparently this is all that Irenaeus had; he certainly
gives no indication that he is excerpting a section from an “Apocryphon
of John.”* The dialogue (II in our outline) consists essentially of a
commentary on Genesis 1-6, expanded by means of questions 1-3 + 10
of the dialogue between Christ and John. The material treated in
questions 4-9 on the destiny of the soul (II,6 in our outline) is extraneous
material which has been interpolated into the commentary.*
As for the aforementioned Christianizing glosses, these vary in extent
from one version to another. For example, the heavenly aeon Autogenes
is identified by means of glosses with the pre-existent Christ in the first
part of the revelation discourse; this identification is made initially in the
BG version at 30,14-17, but it is absent from the parallel passage in
Codex II.** Sophia in Codex II is called “our sister Sophia” in the BG
version.” On the other hand, whereas the BG version has Epinoia
“Thought” (a manifestation of Sophia) teach Adam and Eve knowledge
from the forbidden tree, in the other version it is Christ who does this.”
Such examples could be multiplied, but the main point here is that the
various versions of the Apocryphon of John, taken together, show that
the Christian elements in it are altogether secondary.” We have essen-
tially to do with a Jewish Gnostic body of literature, as can be seen from
its content.
A survey of the content of the Apocryphon of John will show that its
various sections, especially the basic myth, are based upon the Jewish
Bible and Jewish traditions of biblical interpretation, as well as Jewish
apocryphal writings. The Jewish traditions in question are not only those
of Greek-speaking diaspora Judaism but there are also some from
Aramaic-speaking Palestinian Judaism. Now to specifics.
The theology of the “unknown God” in the Apocryphon of John (1,A,1
in our outline) is based upon a Platonizing Jewish theology of divine
transcendence, such as is richly documented in first-century Judaism. To
be sure, the Platonic ingredient here is important. As is well known,

78 Haer. 1.29.
24 Cf. H.-M. Schenke, “Studien I,” and Krause’s discussion in Foerster, Gnosis, 1.100-
103.
25 So Kragerud, “Apocryphon Johannis,” 31, 34-35; cf. Krause in Foerster, Gnosis, 1.
100-101. Krause suggests that this material was already in dialogue form before being
woven together with the commentary material.
26 6,23-25.
27 Cf. NHC II,1:9,25 and BG,2:36,16. Both versions, however, have “our sister Sophia”
in a later passage: II,1:23,21 and BG,2:54,1 (restored in a lacuna).
28 Cf. BG,2:60,16-61,2 and II,1:23,26-28.
2° This has been shown conclusively by Arai, “Christologie.” Cf. also Perkins, Gnostic
Dialogue, 91-92; and H.-M. Schenke, “Sethianism,” 611.
22 BIRGER A. PEARSON

doctrines of divine transcendence were developing in Platonic schools

of the period, and the via negativa of the sort found here in the
Apocryphon of John could be accounted for without recourse to
Judaism. But, in my view, the Platonic elements have been mediated
through Hellenistic Judaism. Philo of Alexandria provides numerous
examples of the sort of Jewish-Platonic theology I would posit as a
theological background for the Apocryphon of John’s doctrine of divine
transcendence.” Josephus is also an interesting witness to a first-century
C.E. Jewish theology of transcendence. According to him, Moses repre-
sented the biblical Creator as “One, uncreated, and immutable to all
eternity; in beauty surpassing all mortal thought, made known to us by
His power, although the nature of His real being passes knowledge.”™
What the Gnostics do, of course, is split the transcendent God of the
Bible into a supreme ineffable being (1,A,1) and a lower creator respon-
sible for the material world (I,B). It is precisely this radical dualism
which marks the decisive step out of (normative) Judaism taken by the
Gnostic thinkers.
The heavenly world as presented in the Apocryphon of John (1,A,2) is
populated by a number of emanations from the supreme God; chief
among them are the “thought” (ennoia) of God, called “Barbelo,” and her
product “Autogenes” (“self-begotten”). Dependent upon the latter are the
four luminaries (Armozel, Oriel, Daveithai, and Eleleth). Heavenly
prototypes of Adam and his son Seth are also given prominence. While
much of this is presumably based upon theological speculations of
contemporary philosophy,” the key figures have their origin in Jewish
biblical exegesis and incipient Jewish mysticism. The supreme God is
given the esoteric name “Man,” obviously read out of Gen 1:26f.,°* and
possibly Ezek 1:26 as well.**-The. figures of Autogenes and (Piger)-
adamas may have been spun out of an earlier Jewish Gnostic Anthropos

°° See e.g., Somn. 1.67: God is “unnameable (axarovépacros), “ineffable” (dppnros), and
“incomprehensible” (axaraAnmros). All three of these terms are reflected in the Coptic
text of a single passage in Ap. John BG,2:24,2-6. Cf. also Quod Deus 62; Quaest. in Exod.
2.45; Post. 168-69. On the basis of such passages as these H. Jonas has argued that Philo
was really a Gnostic! See Jonas, Gnosis, 2.1, 70-121. Philo is more appropriately
considered as standing within the tradition of Middle Platonism. See e.g., Dillon, Middle
Platonists, 139-83.
31 Ap. 2.167 (Thackeray's translation in the LCL edition). Note especially the phrase
émoios b€ Kar’ovcia éotiv dyvworov. The term dyvyworos “unknown,” as applied to the
transcendent God, is widely regarded as a favorite term of the Gnostics. It does not occur
in the Apocryphon of John, however. On “the Unknown God in Neoplatonism” .see
Dodds, Proclus, Appendix I, 310-13.
82 See e.g., Whittaker, “Self-Generating Principles.”
§3 See H.-M. Schenke's ground-breaking study, Gott “Mensch.”
4 Quispel, “Ezekiel.”
 THE PROBLEM OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE 23

myth.* The esoteric name for the first divine emanation, “Barbelo,” is
probably based on a wordplay on the divine tetragrammaton.” The four
luminaries have their biblical prototypes in the four angelic beings
beneath the throne of God in Ezekiel’s vision.” The heavenly Adam and
Seth are Platonic projections into the divine realm of the biblical
patriarchs,* and recall the Platonizing exegesis of the double creation
story in Genesis 1 and 2 such as is found, for example, in Philo.** Adam
and Seth also play key roles in the development of Gnostic Heils-
geschichte.”
The Gnostic figure of Sophia—her fall, repentance, and subsequent
role in salvation-history are central features of Gnostic mythology“'—is
clearly derived from the Wisdom theology of Judaism. What is said of
Sophia in the Gnostic sources cannot be understood without attention to
her pre-history in Jewish tradition, even if (or because) the Gnostics turn
much of this tradition upside down.”
The myth of the origin of the Gnostic demiurge* as an “abortion” of
Sophia (I,B,1; 11,1) reflects a sophisticated reworking of the biblical
traditions of the fall of Eve, the birth of Cain, and the fall of the “sons of
God,” together with extra-biblical Jewish traditions of interpretation.”
The use of the word “abortion” in this connection reflects a Hebrew
wordplay documented in rabbinic haggadah.*
The description of the world of darkness (1,B,2), with its demonization
of the seven planets and the twelve zodiacal signs, is based upon
contemporary astrological speculation enriched by specifically Jewish
lore.”
The tradition of the “blasphemy of the demiurge,” found in a number

35 Van den Broek, “Autogenes.”

38 barba’’élo, “in four, God.” This etymology, first proposed by W. Harvey in his 1857
edition of Irenaeus (vol. 1, 221, n. 2) but not widely accepted, has been more convincingly
stated by Scopello, “Youel et Barbelo”; see esp. 378-79.
” Ezek 1:4-21. See Boéhlig, “Hintergrund,” 84. Cf. also the four archangels of 1 Enoch
9-10, suggested by Stroumsa, Another Seed, 55. On the use of 1 Enoch in the Apoc-
ryphon of John see below.
$8 Gen 5:1-3.
3° Op. Mund. 66-135. Cf. Pearson, Man and Salvation, 3-8.
4° These roles are especially important in the Apocalypse of Adam; see below.
“! See I,B,1; II,1-8, 10, in our outline.
‘2 See esp. MacRae, “Sophia Myth.”
43 On the names “Yaldabaoth,” “Saklas,” and “Samael,” as applied to the demiurge, see
Pearson, “Haggadic Traditions,” 466-68; and Barc, “Samaél.”
44 houhe “abortion,” BG,2:46,10.
48 Gen 3:4-6; 4:1; 6:1. This is admirably treated in Stroumsa, Another Seed.
‘8 nepilim, “fallen ones"—nepalim, “abortions”; see Midr. Gen. Rab. 26.7, and
Stroumsa, Another Seed, 106; cf. 65-70. Dahl (“Archon,” 703) traces the concept of the
demiurge as an “abortion” to Jewish interpretations of Isa 14:19.
4” See esp. Welburn, “Identity.”
24 BIRGER A. PEARSON

of other Gnostic sources as well,*® reflects the end-product of a dis-

cussion in Judaism concerning “two powers in heaven,” in which a
number of biblical texts appear both in the background and in the
foreground. Here in the Apocryphon of John, Exod 20:5 and Isa 46:9 are
combined. This tradition is a succinct reflection of the “revolution” on
the part of Jewish Gnostics against the biblical Creator-Lawgiver.
The anthropogony which follows the blasphemy of the demiurge and
the repentance of Sophia (II,2 in our outline) is organized around
several key texts in Genesis: 1:2; 1:26-27; 2:7; and 2:18. The Gnostic
commentary is based upon Jewish traditions of exegesis, both Alexan-
drian and Palestinian. For example, one can see in it both the Alexan-
drian Jewish tradition that God relegated the creation of man’s mortal
nature to the angels® and the Palestinian tradition that God created man
as a golem (“formless mass”).*! I have treated these and other details in
the text elsewhere.
The rest of the material in the second main section of the Apocryphon
of John (except II,6 and 10) continues an elaborate commentary on
Genesis 1-6, much of which has parallels in other Gnostic texts.
Especially important is the section on the birth of Seth (11,5 in our
outline), built upon the key texts Gen 4:25 and 5:3. Seth is the prototype
of the Gnostic; indeed his “seed” or “race” constitutes the totality of the
Gnostic elect. In contrast to some other “Sethian” Gnostic texts, here in
the Apocryphon of John Seth (with his seed) assumes a passive role in
salvation. That is, there does not seem to be explicit here the notion of
Seth as “savior.” It is the Mother (Sophia in her various manifestations)
who initiates salvation for the race of Seth, by sending down her
“spirit.”*

“* E.g., Hypostasis of the Archons NHC II,4, On the Origin of the World NHC IL5;
Gospel of the Egyptians NHC III,2 and IV,2; Iren. Haer. 1.29 and 30.
“° See Dahl's seminal study, “Archon.”
5° E.g., Philo, Fug. 68-70; cf. Plato, Tim. 41A-42B.
51 E.g., Midr. Gen. Rab. 14.8; cf. Ps 139:16.
52 Pearson, “Exegesis”; cf. Man and Salvation, 9-15.
°° The hymn of the triple descent of Pronoia (II,10), absent from BG, may be regarded
as a re-interpretation of, or alternative to, the triple appearance of the redeemer Seth in
other Gnostic texts, such as the Apocalypse of Adam and Gospel of the Egyptians (see
below). The Pronoia hymn constitutes the basis for the structure and content of
Trimorphic Protennoia NHC XIII,1. See Turner, “Threefold Path,” 326-28, and his
contribution to this volume..On II,6 see below.
5 See esp. Hypostasis of the Archons NHC II,4 and Barc’s edition with introduction
and commentary, L’Hypostase.
5° Numerous studies have appeared on the role of the Gnostic Seth and his seed, and
the Jewish traditions reflected in the Gnostic material. See e.g., Klijn, Seth; Pearson,
“Seth”; Stroumsa, Another Seed.
5°1],1:25,2-16. Cf. Pearson, “Seth,” 481.
 THE PROBLEM OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE 25

The section corresponding to the account in Gen 6:1-4 of the descent

of the “sons of God” (II,9 in our outline) is undoubtedly dependent upon
1 Enoch 6-8, which itself is part of a commentary on Gen 6:1-4.” It also
shows influence from other Jewish apocryphal texts dealing with that
crucial passage in Genesis 6, which in Second Temple Judaism was a
locus classicus for the explanation of the origins of evil on earth.® For
example, the Apocryphon of John has the angels assume the likenesses
of the husbands of the daughters of men in order to accomplish their
purpose. This detail is found in T. Reub. 5:5-7, but not in 1 Enoch.® The
occurrence of the “Imitation Spirit” also represents a deviation from 1
Enoch, and ties this section with the passage on the “two spirits” and the
classes of men found earlier (II,6). The editor who interpolated that
passage into the Apocryphon of John may also be responsible for work-
ing the “Imitation Spirit” into the material taken from 1 Enoch.
The interpolated passage on the two spirits and classes of men has
been referred to as a Jewish “catechism,” in which the ultimate fate of
the human soul is tied to the operation of two spirits: the “Spirit of Life”
and the “Imitation Spirit.”** The resemblance of this doctrine to that of
the Rule Scroll from Qumran® has also been noted, and it can hardly be
doubted that it has been Gnosticized here in the Apocryphon of John.
“The immoveable race” on whom the “Spirit of Life” descends is, of
course, the “race” of Gnostics. The interpolated passage now stands in
the text of the Apocryphon of John as an anthropological excursus,
elaborating upon the previous section in the text dealing with Seth and
his seed. ;
In summary, it must be seen that the basic content of the Apocryphon
of John is Jewish Gnostic, in that its various elements have been drawn
from Jewish traditions. The Christian veneer applied in its final redac-
tion is a thin one indeed!

571 have discussed the use of 1 Enoch in the Apocryphon of John and other Gnostic
texts in my study, “Sources.”
58 See Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth.”
5° Cf. Stroumsa, Another Seed, 37-38.
®°T prefer this translation of pepneuma et8és (II,1:27,32-33 and elsewhere) to
“despicable spirit,” the rendering in NHLE. Cf. BG,2:71,4-5: antimimon pneuma. See
Béhlig, “Antimimon.” Presumably the Coptic etSés is a misreading of antimimon as
atimon (“despicable”).
®1 See Hauschild, Geist, 225-47.
82 41QS 3,13-26.
®8 So Kragerud, “Apocryphon Johannis,” 35.
26 BIRGER A. PEARSON

III. The Apocalypse of Adam

This document consists essentially of a testamentary revelation medi-
ated by Adam to his son Seth, setting forth the subsequent history of the
world and the salvation of the elect (i.e., the Gnostics). Its first editor, A.
Bohlig,” regards this text as a document of pre-Christian Sethian Gnos-
ticism, originating in a Jewish Gnostic baptismal sect in Palestine or
Syria. Its most recent editor, G. MacRae, takes cognizance of the
document’s dependence upon Jewish apocalyptic traditions, and sug-
gests that it represents a “transitional stage in an evolution from Jewish
to gnostic apocalyptic.”* To be sure, the Jewish-Gnostic background of
the document has not gone unchallenged in recent scholarly discussions,
and some scholars argue for a comparatively late date for the docu-
ment.” In my view, however, it is still possible to regard the Apocalypse
of Adam as an example of “Jewish Gnostic” literature, a point which will
be elaborated in what follows.
A complicating factor in the discussion is the question of the literary
history of the Apocalypse of Adam. C. Hedrick has recently argued, for
example, that the document as it now stands is the product of the
amalgamation of two distinct sources, edited with additions by a final
redactor at around the end of the first century C.E. The starting point for
this source-analysis is the presence of what are taken to be two intro-
ductions and two conclusions. The first introduction (64,6-65,23 + 66,12-
67,12) is assigned to source A, the second (65,24-66,12 + 67,12-67,21) to
source B. The first conclusion (85,19-22a) is assigned to source A, and the
second (85,22b-31) to the redactor.” These observations are more cogent
than the division of the main body of the text, i.e., the apocalypse
proper, into sources and redaction, for Hedrick’s analysis breaks up the
tripartite structure of the Gnostic history of salvation, organized around
the three critical events of flood, fire, and end-time struggle. This
structure is integral to the document as a whole.” An alternative way of
understanding the obvious seams dividing up the two “introductions”
would be to posit the redactional weaving-together of materials which
might have occurred previously in sequence, i.e., to posit that the
material in Hedrick’s second introduction followed upon that of his first

® Bohlig-Labib, Apokalypsen.
°° MacRae, “Apocalypse of Adam,” 152; cf. Hedrick, Apocalypse, 85-87.
* For discussion of the literature on the Apocalypse of Adam see Hedrick, Apoc-
alypse, 9-17.
” Hedrick, Apocalypse, esp. 21-28. ;
** See Perkins, “Genre and Function,” 387-89; but cf. Hedrick, Apocalypse, 31 and 48
n.46.
 THE PROBLEM OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE 27

introduction. To be sure, such a suggestion implies the activity of an

editor, who might also be responsible for additions to his source.
As an example of additional editorial activity, I would cite the passage
concerning the thirteen kingdoms plus the “kingless generation.” I sub-
scribe to the argument of those who see in this passage a later
interpolation into the text, presumably by the document's final redac-
‘tor. The second conclusion may also be assigned to the redactor, as
Hedrick has suggested.
My understanding of the structure and content of the Apocalypse of
Adam may be set forth in the following outline:

Introduction 64,1-5
I. The Setting: Adam’s testamentary speech to Seth 64,5-67,21
A. Adam relates his and Eve’s experiences with their
Creator 64,5-65,23
B. Adam's dream vision: three heavenly men ad-
dress him in a revelation 65,24-66,8
C. Adam and Eve's experiences (continued) 66,9-67,14
D. Adam intends to transmit the heavenly revela-
tions to Seth 67,14-21
II. The Revelation 67,22-85,18
A. The end of Adam’s generation” 67,22-28+
B. The Flood, first deliverance 69,2-73,29
C. Destruction by fire, second deliverance 73,30-76,7
D. Third episode: end-time threat and redemption 76,8-85,18
1. Coming of the Illuminator 76,8-77,3
2. The Powers’ wrath against the Illuminator 77,4-18
3. Interpolation: competing views about the
Illuminator 77,18-83,4
a. The Powers’ quandary 77,18-27
b. The thirteen kingdoms 77,27-82,19
c. The generation without a king 82,19-83,4
4. Final struggle, repentance of the peoples 83,4-84,3
5. Condemnation of the peoples 84,4-28
6. Final salvation of the seed of Seth 85,1-6
E. Revelations put on a high rock 85,7-18
First conclusion 85,19-22
Second conclusion and title 85,22-32

8° 77 18-83,4. See e.g., MacRae, “Apocalypse of Adam,” 152. For a contrary view see
Stroumsa, Another Seed, 82-103. Bohlig-Labib refer to this passage as an “excursus”
(Apokalypsen 87, 91-93, 109). Hedrick includes the passage in his source B, yet sees it as
originally a separate unit (Apocalypse, 115-19).
° The death of Adam is implied in the phrase, “after I have completed the times of
this generation” (67,22-24). Noah is probably to be supplied in the lacuna in line 28. Cf.
Hedrick’s translation (Apocalypse, 233): “[then Noah], a servant [of God...].” Cf. also the
translation, by Krause and Wilson, in Foerster, Gnosis, 2.17. Note also that p. 68 in the
MS is blank.
28 BIRGER A. PEARSON

Formally, the Apocalypse of Adam is both an “apocalypse” and a

“testament.” It is an apocalypse in that it contains a revelation given by
heavenly informants to Adam, who mediates the revelation to his son
Seth. It adheres closely to the “apocalypse” genre.” It is also a
“testament,” with close formal connections with the Jewish testamentary
literature, in that it is presented as a speech given by Adam to his son
just before his death, “in the seven hundredth year.”
The close parallels between the Apocalypse of Adam and the Jewish
Adam literature, especially the Life of Adam and Eve and the Apoc-
alypse of Moses, have often been noted.”* G. Nickelsburg, for example,
posits the existence of an apocalyptic testament of Adam as a common
source utilized by the Apocalypse of Adam and Adam and Eve.”
Another Adam book has also recently been brought into purview,
namely the Syriac Testament of Adam.”* The prophetic section of this
work (ch. 3) consists of a prophecy given by Adam to Seth of future
catastrophes of flood and fire, and the coming of a savior who will
deliver the elect posterity of Adam. G. Reinink has noted the close
correspondences between the Apocalypse of Adam and the Syriac
Testament, and has plausibly posited the existence of an early document
upon which both are based.”
. We should also take note here of the Adam apocalypses referred to in
the Mani Codex. Indeed an Adam “apocalypse” is quoted in that
important document, in which a radiant angel says to Adam, “I am
Balsamos,” the greatest angel of light. Wherefore take and write these
”! See Fallon, “Apocalypses,” 126-27; and Perkins, “Genre and Function.”
64,4. See MacRae, “Apocalypse of Adam,” 152; Perkins, “Genre and Function,” 384-
86; Hedrick, Apocalypse, 243. The figure of 700 follows the Lxx of Gen 5:3, setting Adam's
age at the birth of Seth at 230 rather than 130, as in the MT. Adam’s death at the age of
930 years (Gen 5:4) would then account for the figure of 700. Cf. also Jos. Ant. 1.67, where
the same figures are used.
See Perkins, “Genre and Function”; Pearson, “Seth,” 492-94; Nickelsburg, “Related
Traditions.”
’4 Nickelsburg, “Related Traditions,” esp. 537.
”® See now S. Robinson, Adam. Robinson has published the Syriac text, with English
translations, of three recensions of this important work, with a very useful discussion of
its place in the Adam cycle of traditions. Unfortunately he omits any consideration of the
apocalypses of Adam mentioned in the Mani Codex, on which see below.
76 Reinink, “Problem,” esp. 397-98.
The name is originally that of the Phoenician “Lord of Heaven” (Ba‘al Samém); cf.
Beelsamén in the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos (see Attridge-Oden, Philo, 40-1,
81). “Balsamos” is the name of an angel in the Coptic Apocalypse of Bartholomew (Rec.
A) in a hymn sung by angels to Adam in Paradise. See Kropp, Zaubertexte, 1.80.
Balsamos’ name is in a lacuna in the MS used by Budge, Coptic Apocrypha; see pl. XXIII
and p. 23 (transcription), 198 (ET). Cf. also Muller, Engellehre, 310. “Balsamos” is also
found in a list of names which the Basilidian Gnostics pretended to take from Hebrew
sources, according to Jer. Ep. 75.3. The other names mentioned by Jerome are Armazel,
Barbelon, Abraxas, and Leusibora.
 THE PROBLEM OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE 29

things which I reveal to you on most pure papyrus, incorruptible and

insusceptible to worms.” The text goes on to say that this angel revealed
many things and that Adam beheld angels and great powers. It also
refers to other “writings” produced by Adam. The writings referred to
may very well have been Jewish Adam books,” but the use of our
Gnostic Apocalypse of Adam by Mani may perhaps be indicated in the
following statement: “And he became mightier than all the powers and
the angels of creation.”® Be that as it may, it can hardly be doubted that
the Apocalypse of Adam is closely related to the Adam cycle of Jewish
literature which goes back, at the latest, to the first century C.E. Josephus
is acquainted with such literature, and may be relying on an early
testament of Adam when he tells of Adam’s predictions of deluge and
fire and the erection by the progeny of Seth of inscribed steles of stone
and brick for the purpose of preserving their lore.”
Of course it cannot be doubted that the Apocalypse of Adam is a
Gnostic text from beginning to end. It therefore has a far different slant
in its interpretation of the Adam-Seth traditions from that of the other
Jewish and Christian Adam books. This is already evident in its first
section wherein Adam addresses Seth and gives him a biographical
account of his and Eve’s misadventures after their creation. A com-
parison with Adam and Eve is especially instructive. In Adam and Eve
the two protoplasts have been banished from Paradise for their sin, and
are duly repentant.” In the Apocalypse of Adam, on the other hand,
Adam and Eve see themselves as naturally “higher than the god who
had created us and the powers with him.”* The Creator acts against
Adam and Eve out of jealous wrath, in a manner quite reminiscent of
the devil in Adam and Eve, banished from heaven because of his
refusal to worship the newly-created Adam.” The author of this material
is therefore not only dependent upon early Jewish Adam traditions, but
is also critical of them, supplying a radically new perspective on biblical
history.
This perspective is carried over into the revelation proper, which
constitutes the bulk of the Apocalypse of Adam (II in the outline). In
form this revelation is a “historical apocalypse” in which the salvation of

78 49,3-10. See Cameron-Dewey, Mani Codex. The text of pp. 1-72 of the codex was
first published by Henrichs-Koenen, “Mani-Kodex.”
So e.g., Henrichs, “Mani Codex,” 725; Stroumsa, Another Seed, 146.
8 50.1-4; cf. Apoc. Adam V,5:64,18-19. This would tell against the late third-century
date for the Apocalypse of Adam proposed by Beltz, Adamapokalypse.
81 Ant. 1.67-71; cf. the Apocalypse of Adam, II,E in our outline.
® Chs. 1-11.
30 BIRGER A. PEARSON

the elect seed of Seth (the Gnostics) is the dominant concern. The three
cataclysms from which the Gnostics are to be saved are the flood (II,B), a
destruction by fire clearly identified as the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah (II,C), and the final “day of death.” The elect are rescued
from each catastrophe by the savior, who is Seth.
An Iranian background has been posited for the tripartite structure of
this historical apocalypse.” But it is not necessary to posit a direct
Iranian influence on this material since the Jewish sources provide an
altogether adequate background.” The destructions by flood and fire are
set forth in the Adamic traditions already referred to,“ and there are
(non-Gnostic) Jewish texts in which the destruction by fire is separated
from the end-time, which constitutes the third and last catastrophic
judgment. The Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch is an especially
important example, inasmuch as that document might have influenced
the Adam testament posited as the common source lying behind the
Apocalypse of Adam and Adam and Eve.” The Apocalypse of Weeks
has a threefold scheme of judgments: flood, fire, and final judgment.”
Moreover the association of the fiery judgment with the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah occurs not only in Gnostic texts,” but even in
Philo.” To be sure, our Gnostic author has a slant on these traditions
which would have been abhorrent to Philo or other non-Gnostic Jewish
writers.
The essential point here, therefore, is that the Apocalypse of Adam is,
from beginning to end, a Gnostic text in which the numerous Jewish
traditions it inherits, including even the genre itself (apocalyptic testa-
ment), are thoroughly reinterpreted in the interests of a higher gndsis.
With consummate irony our author sets forth the “real truth” concerning
the heavenly origin of the spiritual “seed of Seth” (the Gnostics) and the
utter folly of servitude to the Creator.” It is a Jewish Gnostic document
in the sense that its genre and materials are derived from Judaism, and
could only have been written by someone who was thoroughly
acquainted with biblical and extra-biblical Jewish traditions. Yet in its
® ILD; see 76,16-17.
*° Bohlig, “Adamapokalypse”; cf. Colpe, “Sethian Ages.”
®” See esp. Perkins, “Genre and Function,” 387-89; and Stroumsa, Another Seed, 103-
13.
88 Adam and Eve 49.2-50.2; Jos. Ant. 1.68-70; Test. Adam (Syriac) 3.5.
8° Nickelsburg, “Related Traditions,” 535-37.
°° 1 Enoch 93:4,8; 91:11-15. The judgment by fire (93.8) is interpreted as the burning of
the Temple.
** Gos. Eg. II1,2:60,9-18; Paraph. Shem VII,1:28,34-29,33.
* Vit. Mos. 2.53-58, 263; Abr. 1. See Stroumsa, Another Seed, 106.
*? See Perkins, “Genre and Function,” for a perceptive discussion of the Gnostic irony
in the Apocalypse of Adam.
 THE PROBLEM OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE 31

intentionality it is anti-Jewish in the extreme, a product of the Gnostic

revolt against the Jewish God and his ordinances.
In our discussion of the Apocryphon of John we were able to
distinguish its essential features from the thin Christian veneer which
has been secondarily applied to it. The Apocalypse of Adam lacks such
Christianizing features. The revelation is mediated not by Christ but by
Adam. The “savior” (illuminator) is not Jesus Christ but Seth, who
appears in various manifestations for the salvation of his seed.“ To be
sure, some scholars have thought they could find traces of Christian
influence in the Apocalypse of Adam, particularly in the passage
treating the final appearance of the Illuminator.” But this passage and its
context can be interpreted without recourse to the New Testament or
Christian tradition, for it adheres to a pre-Christian Jewish literary
pattern based on OT traditions. The pattern in question deals with the
persecution and subsequent exaltation of the righteous man, and has
been convincingly delineated by G. Nickelsburg, with special reference
to Wisdom 1-6 and other intertestamental Jewish literature.” This
pattern is fully represented in the Apocalypse of Adam; it will also be
noticed that it is disturbed by the interpolation on the competing views
about the Illuminator:”

1. Earthly persecution
Signs and wonders of the Illuminator 77,1-3
Conspiracy against him 77,4-15
Punishment of the Illuminator 77,16-18
2. Exaltation, judgment
The peoples acknowledge their sin 83,4-84,3
Condemnation of the peoples 84,4-28
Exaltation of the elect 85,1-18

The author of the Apocalypse of Adam has taken over a well-

established Jewish pattern, rooted especially in Isaiah 52-53 and

*4 The imperishable illuminators who came from the holy seed: Yesseus, Mazareus,
Yessedekeus” (85,28-31) may represent “the three avatars of Seth at each of his comings,”
according to Stroumsa (Another Seed, 102). The names are therefore mystical names of
Seth. The last one, “Yessedekeus,” could have been modelled on the name ‘Iwoedex in Jer
23:8 (LXx).
Maes the sentence, “Then they will punish the flesh of the man upon whom
the holy spirit has come” (77,16-18). See Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 107-15, esp. 110;
Shellrude, “Adam,” esp. 85-87.
°° Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 48-111.
87 11.D,3 in our outline; cf. discussion of the literary history of the Apocalypse of Adam,
above. The pattern set forth here has also been noted with reference to the Apocalypse
of Adam by Perkins, “Genre and Function,” 390-91. Cf. also Nickelsburg, “Related
Traditions,” 537-38. -
32 BIRGER A. PEARSON

developed fully in Wisdom 1-6, in setting forth his prophecy concerning

the final coming of the Illuminator. This pattern is especially apposite,
for it corresponds to the “history” of the seed of Seth in the first two
catastrophes of flood and fire: threatened with destruction they were
rescued by heavenly intervention. In the final catastrophe a manifes-
tation of Seth himself suffers with his seed, and with his seed achieves
final victory and vindication. All of this is fully intelligible without
reference to Christian history.
The references to baptism in the Apocalypse of Adam have also been
interpreted in relation to Christianity. G. Shellrude, accepting the
arguments of those who see in the Apocalypse of Adam a polemic
against baptism,” sees in such passages as 83,4-8; 84,4-26; and 85,22-26 a
polemic against orthodox Christianity and its baptismal practice. The
Gnostics’ opponents, according to Shellrude, claim the same redeemer
as the Gnostic community, and baptism is associated with their accep-
tance of the redeemer, which can only be Christ.” But the spiritual-
ization of “holy baptism” in the Apocalypse of Adam (85,25) does not
imply a rejection of water baptism. And the main passage which has
been taken as implying a rejection of baptism has more recently been
seen to show just the opposite.” The Gnostics of the Apocalypse of
Adam were, in fact, a baptismal sect (analogous to the Mandaeans),’™
and there is no reference to Christian baptism, either orthodox or
heretical, anywhere in the text.
Is the Apocalypse of Adam therefore a “pre-Christian” Jewish Gnostic
text? Here we must take up briefly the argument of G. Stroumsa, based
upon the excursus on the competing views about the Illuminator, which
he refers to as “the Hymn of the Child.”’** Thirteen “kingdoms” are listed
in this passage, each with a different interpretation of the Illuminator,
and each ending with the clause, “and thus he came to the water.”?”

** E.g., Morard, “Adam-interprétation” and “Adam-polémique”; cf. Hedrick, Apoc-

alypse, esp. 192-215, on the redactor of the Apocalypse of Adam.
Shellrude, “Adam,” 88-90.
10° g4,4-10. “Micheu and Michar and Mnesinous, who are over the holy baptism and
the living water,” are positive, notnegative, figures. See MacRae, “Apocalypse of Adam,”
191; H.-M. Schenke, “Sethianism,” 598, 603; and Béhlig’s remark in the seminar
discussion printed in Layton, Rediscovery, 2. 557-58.
°! Cf. Béhlig-Labib, Apokalypsen, 94-95. For an excellent summary of the evidence
on ancient baptismal sects see now Rudolph, Baptisten; on the Mandaeans in this
connection see 17-19.
° 11,D,3 in our outline. See Stroumsa, Another Seed, 88-103.
13 A number of interesting studies have been done on the religious background of the
various “kingdoms.” See e.g., Béhlig, “Adamapokalypse,” 154-61, and Beltz, Adam-
apokalypse, 135-75. The “coming to the water” is probably a reference to the descent of
the savior in each case, rather than to baptism. See Hedrick, Apocalypse, 145-47.
 THE PROBLEM OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE 33

Stroumsa argues that the first twelve “kingdoms,” to whom the savior
comes in various forms, represent the twelve tribes of Israel, while the
thirteenth kingdom represents the Christian church. The reference to
the “word” (logos) which is said to have “received a mandate there” is
taken to reflect the Logos doctrine of early Christianity. The Gnostic
community, on the other hand, is represented by the “generation without
a king over it,” those who alone have true knowledge concerning the
identity of the savior (i.e., the heavenly Seth), and who alone constitute
the “seed” who “receive his (the savior’s) name upon the water.”** The
Apocalypse of Adam, therefore, represents a strain of Sethian Gnos-
ticism resistant, and in reaction, to the Christianizing of Sethian gndsis.’”
It seems to me that Stroumsa’s interpretation of the first twelve
“kingdoms,” as referring to Israel, is forced. Indeed the first twelve
kingdoms may better be seen as elaborating on the “twelve kingdoms” of
Ham and Japheth referred to earlier in the text.’” The thirteenth would
then presumably refer to the Shemites, and the “mandate” or “ordi-
nance”? could be taken as referring to the Law.
If Stroumsa is correct, however, in his interpretation of the thirteenth
kingdom, the Apocalypse of Adam, far from being a “pre-Christian”
Gnostic text, is rather one in which the original themes of Sethian gndsis,
based on Jewish traditions, are retained against a tendency on the part
of Gnostic opponents to see in Jesus Christ the true incarnation of the
Gnostic savior. The Gospel of the Egyptians, with which the Apocalypse
of Adam shares much material in common,’ represents that other side
of Sethian gndsis, as does the Apocryphon of John.
It is therefore unimportant for our discussion whether or not the
Apocalypse of Adam is chronologically a “pre-Christian” text inasmuch
as it represents a very early type of Gnosticism in which the Jewish
components are central, and in which no Christian influence occurs.
Even if the Apocalypse of Adam were chronologically late, it would
represent:a form of Jewish Gnosticism which resisted the kind of
Christianization we have noted in the case of the Apocryphon of John.
Its possible relationships with Mandaean and Manichaean forms of the
Gnostic religion deserve further investigation.”

104 213-15.
108 89 19-20; 83,4-6.
106 Stroumsa, Another Seed, 94-103.
10 7328-27:
108 155, 82,15.
108 See MacRae, “Apocalypse of Adam,” 152.
110 Cf. Beltz, Adamapokalypse, and Bohlig, “Adamapokalypse.”
 34 BIRGER A. PEARSON

IV. Conclusions
The two documents chosen for special consideration here are intended
to exemplify the problem of Jewish Gnostic literature. The Apocryphon
of John shows how a Jewish Gnostic text, or collection of texts, could
become Christianized in final form. The Apocalypse of Adam, on the
other hand, shows how a Jewish Gnostic text could retain its essential
features without taking on a Christian cast. To be sure, these are only
two examples, albeit important ones; others could have been chosen to
make the same point, e.g., the Hypostasis of the Archons’' and the
Paraphrase of Shem.‘ We have seen, in the documents we have chosen
for examination here, how biblical and other Jewish texts and traditions
have been radically reinterpreted in the service of a higher gndsis which
. denigrates the Creator and his world and overthrows the centrality of
the Law. The “building blocks” of this new gndsis, as expressed in
literature, are Jewish; yet the interpretation can be seen to be “anti-
Jewish” in the extreme, if by “Judaism” we mean (at least) devotion to
the Creator, his Law, and his people."* This new gnosis quickly assumed
Christian forms, as is illustrated by the Apocryphon of John, wherein
Jesus Christ assumes the role of a revealer. But while there seems to be a
necessary relationship between Gnosticism (at least in its earliest forms)
and Judaism, there is no such necessary relationship between Gnos-
ticism and Christianity. Nor is there a single trajectory running from
Jewish to Christian forms of the Gnostic religion.
The early Gnostics utilized and created a great number of books, and
had access to exegetical and other Jewish traditions which were in oral
circulation. What we have available now, as the result of chance
discoveries, is undoubtedly only the “tip of the iceberg.” In the material
at our disposal we can see how specifically Jewish literature (especially
the Bible), Jewish exegetical and theological traditions, and Jewish
literary genres have been utilized to express a drastic reorientation of
values and perceived religious truth. A question inevitably arises: Who
were the people who created these writings, and for whom did they
write? Here, unfortunately, we are faced with a lack of external
evidence, and the concomitant necessity of applying our imagination to
the texts themselves in order to extrapolate some answers.’“ Intimate
11 NHC II,4. See esp. Barc’'s edition, L’Hypostase.
‘12 NHC VII,1. See esp. Wisse, “Redeemer Figure.”
"8 We should recall, though, that “normative Judaism” did not begin to emerge until
the end of the first century CE, in connection with the post-Temple reorganization at
Jamnia.
4 Contrast the case of ‘the Dead Sea Scrolls: We have not only the scrolls themselves
but massive evidence for the community which utilized them, as a result of the
 THE PROBLEM OF “JEWISH GNOSTIC” LITERATURE 35

familiarity with specifically Jewish forms and traditions, an awareness

of popular philosophy and pagan lore, a highly sophisticated and
creative hermeneutical approach, a sensitivity to profound questions of
human existence—such are the chief characteristics of the early Gnostic
literature. We can readily posit as authors and avid readers of the
Gnostic materials Jewish intellectuals who, estranged from the “main-
stream” of their own culture and dissatisfied with traditional answers,
adopted a revolutionary stance vis-a-vis their religious traditions, not by
rejecting them altogether but by applying to them a new interpretation.
These were religious intellectuals,’** not secularized apostates such as
those Jews with whom Philo was well acquainted in Alexandria.’ In
reinterpreting their Jewish religious traditions, however, they burst the
bonds of Judaism and created a new religion.'” We are thus presented
with the anomaly of Jews who finally intended to be “no longer Jews.”"””
That, in a nutshell, is the problem of Jewish Gnostic literature.
excavations at Khirbet Qumran. The only “external” evidence we have for the Gnostics is
the polemics of the heresiologists. Caveat lector!
181 would posit groups of Gnostics, perhaps at first still formally attached to the
synagogue but developing their own religious life. Aspects of this religious life can be
extrapolated from the documents, to some extent. Note e.g., the references to baptism in
the Apocalypse of Adam. The Apocryphon of John contains material which could have
been used in catechesis.
*® See Virt. 182; Conf. 2-3. Philo’s own nephew, the notorious Tiberius Alexander, is
one of the most famous examples of a Jewish apostate in antiquity.
2” Cf. our discussion at the beginning of this essay. In its Manichaean form Gnosti-
cism became a world religion. See Rudolph, “Weltreligion.”
18 Trenaeus reports of the Basilidian Gnostics: “They say they are no longer Jews, but
not yet Christians” (Haer. 1.24.6).
 igor
teas
: Law. ae on

Satelite Capeeire tomes ieodie

SMG TEE NEP PE PE
hed gixiese te tegeitoad end thor lenedsimed
‘iirgulstion..Wwhat we have auvetiebls mode as the. eee
aarti is undinaikedly aply the “ip of theieekaty * Vath at, |
atone Hapoel. Wee Sst ee ‘Riv epeciticsally dowwh Rugcgtiars Grenadin th
thee Belk Fetes: eengeiien! ang thawlogicns eediname, and 3
Wai 93“gagret hace ert, Uline te egivenso lees Pedi
“aSake sek ee eohpens Wass.& quantlod rewitiog |
were thé sauna wis 2 eet these erage, ad a
wees? ene eritpesaa ie at
| svideeiie.aneie Sesion iaetaies af
che tack Haris nO38 gitar 29 “sebapee a, anes
inetd tosii. MGs BARRY, ae“donee Sade us
_ MNNNO FL: Soeone Pie,” “asBecekie Chasete:® pe
Se sede ceswll, Moga, chat “crmadine qabatan"
at gatbegan
tise ans 08 he
Ciet Srmiry, Sk AAOEEASW Se, RD paertrTe ipl
; ims Se

Te cansse he cape Witheetoad eee8Sines, cibee inecaibiaie sie

Set mee idee ae:“Baa.—— snare Ct ee
~ , “aie . a
 2
THE RIDDLE OF THE THUNDER (NHC VI, 2):
THE FUNCTION OF PARADOX
IN A GNOSTIC TEXT FROM NAG HAMMADI

Bentley Layton

Bentley Layton is Professor of Ancient Christian History at Yale University. As a

member of the Cairo team that prepared the official UNESCO edition of the
Coptic Gnostic Library, Professor Layton has written scholarly editions of eight
ancient gnostic works, as well as related commentaries and essays. He is also a
leading expert on the language and manuscripts of Coptic Egypt, having served
as president of the International Association for Coptic Studiés. Bentley Layton
is author of The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and
Introductions.

Preface

ne of the important components in the literary and theological

background of earliest Christianity was the collection of wisdom
sayings. Such collections must have been the direct ancestors of works
like the Synoptic Sayings Source (“Q”) and the Gospel According to
Thomas. As the original Hellenistic Jewish genre (Sayings of the Wise)
developed into various gnostic counterparts, one of its salient evolu-
tionary features was the appearance of dark sayings, whose interpre-
tation was not plain, was riddlesome, or was even said to be “secret”
(logoi apokryphoi). At this point the line of development merged
temporarily with the Greek riddle, until the genre was ultimately trans-
muted into outright obscure paradox. A few paradoxical sayings are
already present in the Gospel According to Thomas; but not until the
appearance of alittle-known Gospel of Eve did one find relatively pure
forms of the new genre, which we may call the Riddle Gospel. The
present essay explores several works in the thrall of the Gospel of Eve,

37
38 BENTLEY LAYTON

chief among them being Thunder, Perfect Intellect (NHC VI,2). At this
ultimate stage in the line of development, the voice of Dame Wisdom
has become the voice of a riddle, and traditional sapiential content has
been totally neutralized by paradox, making way for the construction of
a mythic hyponoia (“buried meaning”) more typical of the symbolic
world of gnosticism.

I. The Literary Character

of Thunder, Perfect Intellect
Thunder, Perfect Intellect (or simply, Thunder) is a powerful poem of
some two hundred verses, originally composed in Greek. This poem has
been called unique’ in the surviving Mediterranean literature, primarily
because of its combination of the rhetorical mode of omnipredication
(best known from Isis aretalogy) with a logic of antithetical paradox that
negates the possibility of taking predication seriously. A few lines from
the opening of the poem can serve to remind us of the extraordinary
impression made by this most bizarre of all works from the Nag Ham-
madi corpus:
It is from the power that I, even I, have been sent
And unto those who think on me that I have come;
And I was found in those who seek me.
Look upon me, 0 you (plu.) who think on me.
And you listeners, listen to me!
You who wait for me, take me unto yourselves,
And do not chase me from before your eyes.

For, it is I who am the first: and the last.

It is I who am the revered: and the despised.
It is I who am the harlot: and the holy.
It is I who am the wife: and the virgin.

It is I who am the mother of my father: and the

sister of my husband.
And it is he who is my offspring.
It is I who am the servant of him who begot me:
It is I who am the governess of my (own) offspring.

* According to MacRae (Thunder, 1) “[The Thunder] presents an especially interesting

challenge to the student of Gnostic literature. In its form and content it is unique in the
Nag Hammadi collection and virtually unique as a distinct literary work in the context of
literature from the Roman and Hellenistic periods. Though it shares features of both
form and content with passages in several types of ancient religious literature, it has no
counterpart as a separate work.” MacRae’s essay together with responses by B. Pearson
and T. Conley printed in the same volume constitute the major pieces of scholarly
discussion on this tractate.
 THE RIDDLE OF THE THUNDER 39

It is I who am incomprehensible silence:

And afterthought, whose memory is so great.

For, it is 1 who am acquaintance: and lack of acquaintance.

It is I who am reticence: and frankness.
I am shameless: I am ashamed.?

This short sample makes clear all the poem’s salient features. (1) The
text is a monologue, concerned not with plot, but with the building up of
persona. In ancient rhetorical practice, this is éthopoiia (“delineation of
character”). Time, place, and occasion are still relevant, but they must be
deduced from the éthopoiia.
(2) An important element of this 6thopoiia is the speaker's use of the
formula ego eimi, “It is I who am... .” This somewhat cumbersome
English translation of the formula is meant to take account of a contrast,
expressed in Greek and in Coptic, between pairs like phds eimi tou
kosmou versus ego eimi to phés tou kosmou, “I am the light of the world”
versus “it is I who am the light of the world.”* The first option answers
the question, “To what class of thing do you belong?”; while the second
answers, “Who is the light of the world?” This second option, the egd
eimi option, was the hallmark of Isis propaganda, used in advertising
campaigns of the deity as she competed for adherents in a syncretistic
milieu, where each divine being claimed to be all good things to all
people. Thus Isis grandly claims, “Isis am I, mistress of every land... . It
is I who overcome fate.”*
(3) Another aspect of the speaker’s 6thos (“character”) is what she
predicates of herself. On the one hand, there is the outrageous pairing of
the predicates so as to express a paradox, often phrased in balanced
antithesis. Since paradox is utterly foreign to the content of Isis mono-
logues the strong disjunction between self-predicating (Isiac) rhetoric
and paradoxical logic is the true exegetical crux of our text. On the other
hand, the poem gives us specific details about the speaker's family
relations, social status, moral and mythic attributes, and abilities.» These

? Thund. VI,2:13,2-14,30, trans. by Layton.

3 John 9:5 versus 8:12.
‘Isis aretalogy of Cyme, verses 3a and 56. I translate from the text in Bergman, Isis,
301-303.
5 Family relations: wife, virgin, mother, daughter, barren, has many children, married,
unmarried, midwife, lying-in-woman, bride, bridegroom, begotten by her own husband,
mother of her own father, sister of her own husband, mother of her own husband,
begotten by her own offspring. Social status: first, last, revered, despised, governess of her
own offspring, servant of her own father, declared publicly, denied, spoken of with truth
and with lies, recognized, unrecognized, wealthy, poor, has many images, has no images,
male, female, restrained, pursued, collected, scattered, celebrated, uncelebrated, spared,
smitten, citizen, alien, rich, poor, distant, nearby, unified, dissolved, persistent, weak, has
40 BENTLEY LAYTON

details may be clues that our gnostic author has left behind in setting up
this riddle.
(4) Modern interpretation stresses the combination of egd eimi and
paradox as the characteristic feature of this text;° yet, in fact, the same
number of lines is given to a quite different rhetorical mode, the
philosophical sermon or gnostic diatribe. Examples of gnostic diatribe
are well known,’ and one should not forget its resemblance to exhor-
tations of Jewish Wisdom in texts like the eighth chapter of Proverbs.’ In
this mode, the monologuist addresses the audience, issuing commands
and invitations, disparaging their actions and attitudes, and posing
rhetorical questions of a damaging sort. Rhetorical antithesis is very
typical, though paradox is not. Now, in our text about one-half of the
verses belong more or less to this mode.*® But many of them have also the
paradoxical character of the eg6 eimi predications, suggesting that the
audience as a whole shares in the paradoxical nature of the mono-
loguist.”*

descended, has ascended. Moral and mythic attributes: holy, harlot, afterthought,
memory of afterthought, voice of manifold sound, discourse of manifold imagery, gnGsis,
agnosia, frankness, reticence, shameless, ashamed, peace, war, mighty, disgraced,
merciful, cruel, continent, weak, bold, fearful, thriving, feeble, wise, foolish, speaks,
silent, sophia of Greeks, gnésis of non-Greeks, judgment, life, death, law, lawless, divine
pantheon, godless. Abilities: source of power for her own offspring, dependent upon her
own offspring in her old age, strong, afraid (i.e., weak), teacher, uneducated.
® MacRae, Thunder, 2.
” A classic example is Corpus Hermeticum VII, Poi Pheresthe O Anthrodpoi: “O men,
whither are you being swept away? You are drunk! You have drained to the last drop the
unmixed drink of the teaching of ignorance. You cannot carry it, but are even now
vomiting it. Quit your drinking; turn sober; look upwards with the eyes of the heart, and
if you cannot all do so, at least let those who can. For this evil of ignorance floods the
whole earth; it corrupts the soul imprisoned in the body, not permitting it to anchor in the
harbors of safety” (Corpus Hermeticum 7.1, trans. F. C. Grant in Grant, Gnosticism: A
Source Book, 224-25, at 224). The Greek text is edited by A. D. Nock in Nock-Festugiére,
Hermés, 1. 78-84. A typical Sethian gnostic example of this literary mode occurs in the
Nag Hammadi Library in Zost. VIII,1:130,14-132,5.
E.g., Prov 8:4-7 Lxx, “O people, I exhort you, and I send forth my voice unto the
children of humankind. O you who are simple, consider subtlety. And you who are
untaught, take in (wisdom of the) heart. Listen to me, for I am speaking of solemn things
and uttering straight (thoughts) from my lips. For my throat is going to meditate on truth;
and deceitful lips are abominable before me.” MacRae (Thunder, 2) calls attention to
such passages, although he is making a somewhat different point.
I am not proposing here a hypothesis of isolatable sources behind the poem; I only
mean to observe a constant shift among several literary modes or genres that charac-
terizes the way our author writes. Indeed, some verses resist simple classification under
one head alone: the uniquely first-person utterances are usually paradoxical; the
uniquely second-person utterances (commands, rhetorical questions, accusations) are
usually diatribic; but, for example, first-person utterances addressed to the second person
are harder to classify (16:18 seq. “It is | who am what you have scattered: and you have
collected me”). Note also the wise cautionary remarks by MacRae, Thunder, 4.
’° Thus, e.g., “Why, 0 you who hate me, do you love me, And hate those that love me?
 THE RIDDLE OF THE THUNDER 41

(5) Finally, there is a fragmentary mythic framework, comprising a

mere twelve verses: at the beginning," “It is from the power that I, even
I, have been sent/ And unto those who think on me that I have come;/
And I was found in those who seek me”; in the middle,” “It is I who cry
out:/ And it is upon the face of the earth that I am being cast out”; and at
the end,** “For—many and sweet are the .. . passions ... which people
restrain,/ Until they become sober and flee up to their place of rest./
And they will find me there,/ And live, and not die again” (i.e., not
become reincarnate in a prisonlike body).
Brief as it is, this summarizes a myth of the soul’s descent into the
body, its entrapment in a disastrous cycle of reincarnations, and the
descent of a savior from another realm of power and rest, who suffers,
recalls the soul to soberness and her proper home, and reascends,
showing the way for those who will be saved.
To recapitulate: nearly half of the verses are egd eimi self-predi-
cations, mostly paradoxical; nearly another half are diatribic, and also of
these very many are paradoxical; and only a few verses are elements of
a mythic setting.

II. Paradox and Riddle

What can be said about the female persona built up by this curious
intersection of rhetorical modes? First, she likes to talk! We may call her
“she,” but gender is ultimately irrelevant since she is only a traveling
voice. She is the savior of mankind; she saves by preaching, demanding
a reorientation of mind and heart. She invites comparison with the
authority of Isis and thence Dame Wisdom. She is an element within
those to whom she is sent: the instrument of broadcasting and the
instrument of reception are one and the same.“ She and they are in the
same paradoxical situation,” so that self-knowledge and knowledge of
the savior may at least partly be the same. Finally, she and the saved
have the same home.
The exegetical crux, namely the meaning of the speaker’s paradoxical
self-predications, raises the acute question of whether or not one should
take the text seriously (e.g., “It is I who am the mother of my father: and

Declare me publicly, o you that deny me: And deny me, o you who declare me publicly”
(Thund. VI,2:14,15 seq.).
™ Thund. VI,2:13,2-4.
% Thund. VI,2:19,28-30.
*8 Thund. VI,2:21,20-32.
14“T was found in those who seek me... . You listeners, listen to me!” (Thund.
VI,2:13,4.7).
38 Cf, the discussion above with n. 9.
42 BENTLEY LAYTON
the sister of my husband”).’* Or should one, with modern interpretation,
attempt only an overall history of religions assessment and assert that
“the use of paradox in the I style . . . implies the rejection of all value
systems that are at home in the world”?”
The broad solution is discomfiting: first, because the critic has a duty
to work, if possible, at the level of textual details; second, because there
is no substantial connection between the paradoxical omnipredication
of our text and, as commentators have claimed,” the philosophical
method of via negativa. Few ancient Greek thinkers would have con-
sidered the via negativa and the assertion of antithetical paradox to be
interchangeable in such a way.”
Consequently, one ought to ask, What was the normal locus of out-
rageous paradox in the ancient Mediterranean world? The very simplic-
ity of the answer may explain why it has eluded earlier students of this
text: it is the Greek riddle.”
While egé eimi language has nothing in common with the Greek
riddle as a specific grammatical form,”: paradoxical dichotomy is a very
salient feature of the riddle genre, as Aristotle pointed out long ago.”
After Aristotle, the Peripatetic school took a serious interest in the topic,
and theorists of the early Christian period continued to analyze the
riddle mode.” Since modern scholars are not always acquainted with

*® Thund. VI,2:13,30-32.
” MacRae, Thunder, 3.
*® MacRae, Thunder, 3, apparently accepted also by the discussants of the colloquy
(Thunder, 25-26).
1 should note, however, that apophatic language was on rare (I think) occasion
combined with assertions of divine polyonymy. Thus, an oracle text in an inscription
found at Oenoanda and studied by L. Robert (CRAIBL 1971, pp. 597-619) tells us that
[APropuns, adidaxros, dunrwp, aorupeAtkros, ovvoua 47 xwpGv, ToAVWYLMOS, év TUpL Valo»,
rovro Geds: «rAd (Robert, p. 602), which Robert translates “Né de lui-méme, 4a la sagesse
infuse, sans mére, inébranlable, ne comportant pas de nom, aux noms multiples, habitant
du feu, voila ce qu’est Dieu.” It was Prof. H.-D. Saffrey who kindly drew my attention (in
another context) to this interesting amplification of the via negativa. Needless to say,
polyonymy in itself is old and fairly common in Greek religious philosophy; it is not the
same as paradox.
0 Basic studies include: Schultz, “Ratsel”; Schultz, Rdtsel aus dem hellenischen
Kulturkreise; Ohlert, Rdtsel.
*1 So at least as we find the examples cited, collected, or rephrased in ancient sources.
For the Hellenistic period one of our principal sources is the literary epigram in which
popular riddles were recast for a literate audience.
? Po, 1458826, aiviyparos ida airy éort rd A€yovra bmdpxovra ddvvara cvvawar xara
Mev ody Thy Tav dvoudrwy civOecw ody oldv Te TodTo mojo. Kara 8& THY perapopay
évd¢éxerat, which Ohlert (Rdtsel, 18) translates “Der Begriff des Ratsels ist der, dass man,
indem man von wirklichen Dingen spricht, unmégliches verbindet. Das kann man nicht
durch die Verbindung der eigentlichen Ausdriicke, aber man kann es durch die
Anwendung der Metapher.”
*? Ohlert, Ratsel, 17-22.
 THE RIDDLE OF THE THUNDER 43

the form of Greek riddles—the surviving examples are often in verse—it

may be useful to quote some typical riddles.
oddels BrACmwv Bremet pe, uy BACTwv 5” dpa:
6 wn AAG Aare, 6 uN Tpexwy TpExer’
Wevdns 5” drdpxw, mavra tr’ adnOF A€ywv.
No one seeing sees me, but one who does not see beholds me.
One who does not speak speaks; one who does not run runs.
And | am aliar, yet say all things true.
Solution—a dream.**

mnynrép” éuny rikxrw Kat rixropat ciut d¢ ravTns

GdAore pev petCwv, GATE jecorepn.
I give birth to my own mother, and I am born; and Iam
Sometimes greater than she, sometimes lesser.
Solution—unfortunately, not preserved.”

mrapbevos cipt yuri kat mapOévov eiut yuvatkos

katxar’” éros rixrw mapbévos ovea yun.
I am a virgin woman, and the daughter of a virgin;
And I give birth once a year, remaining a virgin.
Solution—a date palm.”

Riddling” was an ancient and important social game in Greek-

speaking culture, and so the style features of a riddle would have been
easily recognized by an ancient Greek reader.” Riddles had not only a
recognizable set of conventional forms, but also a characteristic logic—
Aristotle called it adynata synapsai, “conjoin as mutually exclusive
things.” Riddle style, then, was recognizable in the ancient world; and it
is likewise a recognizable element among the literary conventions of our
text.”°

24 AP 14.110 = Schultz, Ratsel, No. 4. Cf. also Ohlert, Rdtsel, 178-79.

75 AP 14.41 = Schultz, Rdtsel, No. 6. Schultz, Rdtsel aus dem _hellenischen
Kulturkreise, 1. 23 (differing from Ohlert, Rdtsel, 96). I am told (by Victoria Lord) that this
riddle is transmitted in modern Greek culture and that a traditional solution is “a child.”
26 AP 14.42 = Schultz, Rdtsel, No. 90. According
to a lemma in cod. Laurentianus, the
solution is Badavos gowtxwy (Schultz, Rdtsel aus dem hellenischen Kulturkreise, 1. 62).
Ohlert (Rdtsel, 174) proposes “a grapevine” as the true solution.
27 The principal terms for riddle were aivypa and ypipos. For ancient theorists’
attempts to explain a difference between these two words, see Ohlert, Rdtsel, 17-22
(other ancient Greek words for riddle are noted there on 22 n. 2).
28 For details one can consult Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae X 448b-459b.
28 This is not, of course, to say that our text is a riddle pure and simple. However,
some passages sound quite like a series or list of short riddles. E.g., 16:3 seq., “For, it is I
who am the wisdom [of the] Greeks: And the acquaintance of [the] non-Greeks. It is I who
am judgment for Greeks: And for non-Greeks. I am he whose image is manifold in Egypt:
And she who has no image among the non-Greeks. It is I who have been hated
everywhere: And who have been loved everywhere. It is I who am called life: And
whom you have called death. It is I who am called law: And whom you have called law-
lessness. It is I whom you have chased: And it is I whom you have restrained. It is I who
am what you have scattered: And what you have collected.”
44 BENTLEY LAYTON

Thus the Thunder owes its peculiar character to the blending of three
ordinarily unrelated literary modes: the Isis/Wisdom proclamation,
asserting the power, sovereignty, and special knowledge of the speaker;
the philosophical sermon, with its vision of life falling into two neat
moral, intellectual, and anthropological options (Two Ways) and exhort-
ing the listener to choose only the higher way; and the riddle, which
demands, first, a solution and, second, a reexegesis of the entire text as
riddle to see how the solution applies. Riddles often speak with a
mythic” directness that demands the active application of the listener’s
intellect, in a way that sermons and aretalogies rarely do.

Ill. The Solution to the Riddle

A riddle is the occasion for rethinking the sense of what otherwise
seems obviously impossible, a time for a shift in perspective, a search for
a deeper meaning. Even when the solution has been revealed or
recognized, the riddle itself must finally be reread—exegeted—to dis-
cover how the solution applies, how a seeming paradox is not really a
paradox. This invitation to exegesis is part of the riddle game. Riddles
share these features with gnostic ways of treating scripture and tradition.
The hermeneutic of riddles compares with e.g., the rereading of Genesis
proposed by texts such as the Secret Book of John, the Reality of the
Rulers, or the Revelation of Adam.** In one important sense, the
function of such texts is not so much to replace Genesis as to lead the
reader into a new relationship with it. Riddles can make use also of
monologue, as in the Thunder. But riddles have one thing that most
gnostic texts do not—namely, a definite solution. For this reason, to the
extent that our text belongs to the riddle genre, it is not unreasonable to
ask, “Who is the thunder?” External testimonia provide a narrative

8° “The oldest riddles mostly have a mythical or cosmic origin, and hence they retain
the oldest mythical view of nature in a purer manner than do many other branches of
literature. Birth, growth, and decay in nature as well as in human life; the rising and
setting of the stars; the struggle between light and darkness; the changing images formed
by the clouds of heaven—all these were riddles which demanded a solution and which
were reclothed in the garb of a riddle because the solution could not clearly and
meaningfully be found. Most peoples also clothed oracles and proverbs in the obscure
language of the riddle; these were viewed as utterances of superior, divine insight.
Hence in earliest times, riddles, oracles, and proverbs had the character of a secret and
sanctified treasure. Even in the riddles of later time, many traces of early mythic
components lie hidden. But in the course of time, profound insight into their original
meanings became blurred in the spirit of the people and gradually was lost” (Ohlert,
Ratsel, 1).
a2 Le Apocryphon of John, Hypostasis of the Aeeca Apocalypse of Adam.
*? The three Greek riddles quoted above are typical. Descriptive (third-person) riddles
are also common.
 THE RIDDLE OF THE THUNDER 45

context for the riddle material in the Thunder. Both these testimonia
and the internal details of the text point to one and the same solution:
Eve.* Six items are worth noting.
(1) First, in the untitled tractate commonly called On the Origin of the
World (NHC II,5) virtually an excerpt from the Thunder (though prob-
ably not an actual quotation from our text) is sung by Sophia Zoe, alias
Eve of Life, the celestial androgynous child of Pistis Sophia, at the
moment when she creates the animate or psychic Adam (see Table 1).
This creation, for the author of On the Origin of the World, is distinct .
from the creation of fleshly Adam and the extraction of a fleshly woman
from his side.*
(2) Second, the Reality of the Rulers (Hypostasis of the Archons), a
classic “Sethian” text in Schenke’s terminology, quotes the same
material, although more briefly** and no longer as a monologue. The
Hypostasis of the Archons narrates only a single creation of Adam,
namely the fleshly one. Adam is originally a lifeless androgyne.” The
female spiritual principle (hé pneumatiké) enters Adam’s prone body
and gives it life. When the rulers (archons) surgically excise the female
half of the androgyne (that half is the fleshly Eve) the pneumatiké is
excised along with her.*® Adam, recovering from his post-operative
trance, then addresses her with words of the same hymn that we find in
On the Origin of the World (see Table 2). Because of its brevity, the
paradoxical character of this second citation is much less obvious. But
another element is now additionally present: a famous series of puns on
Hawa (see Table 2), the Aramaic name of Eve.” The common source of
these two texts probably contained both a riddle-like aretalogy and a

$8 partly seen by Bethge, “Nebront,” 99: “Nebront [ie., Thunder] expliziert keinen
Mythus, ist jedoch weitgehend nur dann in seinen Selbstaussagen versténdlich, wenn
hinter vielen der gegensatzlichen Aussagen ein Mythus vom Fall und der Errettung der
Sophia steht.” He goes on to refer to the split of Sophia in Valentinianism and the
degrading fall of the divine female consort in Simonianism. For the mixture of contrary
emotions in the Lower Sophia or Achamoth of Ptolemaean Valentinianism, see Iren.
Haer. 1.4.1-2.
34 For the creation of animate (psychic) Adam, see Orig. World II,5:113,25, and for
fleshly Adam see Orig. World II,5:114,29.
35 1.-M. Schenke, “Sethianism,” 588-616.
36 Not, I think, from the Untitled Tractate but from a common source, whose
reconstruction I shall discuss below.
97 Hyp. Arch. II,4:88,4-6.
38 According to the author of Hypostasis of the Archons, the rulers’ or archons’
motivation for this surgical procedure is their desire to extract and rape the female
spiritual principle.
8° First explained, I think, by Alexander Béhlig in Béhlig-Labib, Schrift ohne Titel,
73-75. For the philological details, cf. now my notes 57-69 in “Hypostasis” (HTR 69 [1976]
55-58).
46 BENTLEY LAYTON

TABLE 1

The Song of Eve in Thund. VI,2:13,19-14,8

and Orig. World II,5:114,4-15

' Thunder (rearranged for comparison) On the Origin of the World

Eve, then, is the first virgin, who gave birth

to her first offspring without a husband. It
is she who served as her own midwife. For
this reason she is held to have said:
Iam the melé of my mother. “It is I who am the meros of my mother.
It is I who am the mother: And it is ]who am the mother.
and the daughter.
It is I who am the wife (? shime): I am the wife (hime)
and the virgin (parthenos). and the virgin (parthenos).
It is I who am the barren:
And who have many children. It is I who am pregnant.
It is I who am the one whose marriage is
magnificent; and who have not married.
It is I who am the midwife: It is I who am the midwife.
And she who does not give birth;
It is I who am consolation: of my own It is I who am consolation of
travail. travail.
It is 1 who am the bride: and the
bridegroom.
It is my husband who has begotten me.
It is I who am the mother of my father: It is I who am his mother.
and the sister of my husband...
It is 1 who am the servant of him who And it is he who is my father and my
prepared me... master.
And my power (dynamis) comes from him. And it is he who is my
I am the staff of his power (cdm) power (Com)
in his childhood;
[And] it is he who is the rod of my old age,
And whatever he wishes happens to me. He says whatever he wishes reasonably, I
become (it).”

series of riddlesome Aramaic puns on the name of Eve.” The areta-

logical material is more fully quoted in On the Origin of the World, the
puns in the Hypostasis of the Archons. Possibly the original setting is
given by the Hypostasis, since On the Origin of the World distributes
what ought to be one block of pun material—though not the aretalogy—
over two episodes, that is, the two creations of Adam." The true setting,
then, might be a monologue of the saving spiritual principle (hé pneu-
“° They are also present in On the Origin of the World.
* First episode, Orig. World II,5:114,8-15; second episode, Orig. World II,5:116,6-8
(“you have given me life” = Aramaic hayyitani).
 THE RIDDLE OF THE THUNDER 47

TABLE 2

The Song of Eve in Thund. VI,2:13,15-22

and Song of Eve in Hyp. Arch. II,4:89,11-17

Thunder (selected vss. rearranged) Hypostasis of the Archons

And the spirit-endowed woman came to

him and spoke with him, saying, “Arise,
Adam.” And when he saw her, he said:
“It is you who have given me life;
You will be called ‘Mother of the Living.’
For—... For—
It is 1 who am the mother. . . It is she who is my mother.
It is 1 who am the midwife. . . It is she who is the midwife,
It is 1 who am the wife (? shime)... and the wife (? shime),
It is I who am the barren:
And who have many children. And she who has given birth.”

NOTES: “you have given me life”—hayyitani

“mother of the living”—Gen 3:20
“my mother’—Gen 3:20, cf.
Thunder
“midwife”—hayy*ta’
“the woman”—cf. Gen 2:23 and
Thunder
compakre slightly later:
“she became a tree”—the tree of
hayyayya’ (life)
“the pneumatiké came [in] the
snake, the instructor”
“snake”—hew®*ya’
“instructor”—*hawé' (hypo-
thetical form)

matiké), spoken from within the body of the fleshly Eve after her
separation from the masculine half of the Adam androgyne. It is a kind
of encoded euaggelion, a good news riddle, which if solved will reveal
the immanent but hidden presence of a savior principle within the
world.“
“2 The hidden immanence of the divine within humankind appears to be an important
theme also in the Sethian tractate First Thought in Three Forms (Trimorphic Proten-
noia), which in other important ways, discussed below, has connection with our text: cf.
Trim. Prot. XIII,1:35,2.10.13-20.24-25; 36,23; 37,1 (?); 40,31; 41,20; 42,12.25; 45,21; 46,17.22-
24; 48,20. Taken in isolation, some of these passages might be understood alternatively as
referring to a Messiasgeheimnis (“messianic secret”).
48 BENTLEY LAYTON |

It is easy to construct kinship riddles** based on Eve once we review

the cast of characters in the setting of the Hypostasis of the Archons.
Fleshly Adam: the brother of Eve while they were an androgyne;
her father or parent, because she was extracted from him;
her husband, eventually;
her son, because during her confusion with hé pneumatiké, she is
(in the words of Gen 3:21) mother of the living, and Adam is alive.
Fleshly Eve: the inverse of all the above.
The pneumatiké, the celestial Eve:
mother of Adam;
mother of Eve (fleshly Eve);
remains a virgin vis-a-vis the rulers when they rape the fleshly
Eve.“

This paradoxical network of relationships will explain the kinship

riddles in the Thunder, once we allow that in gnostic Sethian myth two
figures are called by the name “Eve” (celestial Eve, fleshly Eve) and so
the attributes of both figures can be invoked in the answer to the riddle
(“Eve”).
(3) Third, there may be a reference to this common source in
Epiphanius’ account of the Gnéstikos (or Sethian) sect who, he says, read
a Book of Norea,** a prophecy of Barkabbas, a Gospel of Perfection
(contents not summarized), and a Gospel of Eve (Euaggelion Euas),
named after her on the grounds that she “discovered the food of gndsis
(divine acquaintance) through revelation spoken to her by the snake.”
This is close to the setting of the Hypostasis of the Archons—since in the
latter, the female spiritual principle returns precisely in the snake to
teach the good news of liberation. Thus in the Gospel of Eve, or at least
in one part of it, the heavenly Eve or pneumatiké, speaking now from
within the snake, addressed the fleshly Eve. Epiphanius then goes on to
characterize the literary mode of the Gospel: its predications (rhémata)
are self-contradictory (ouk isa)—one should recall Aristotle’s definition
of riddle, adynata synapsai (conjoin as mutually exclusive things)—“as
though,” says Epiphanius, “(uttered) in the unstable frame of mind of a
drunkard given to uncontrollable talk; some (predications) are made for

** This basic class of riddles is briefly investigated by Schultz, Rdtsel aus dem
‘hellenischen Kulturkreise, 2. 22.
““ Hyp. Arch. 11,4:89,23-28. Even Epiphanius (Pan. 39.6.3) had to admit that in a
certain sense Adam's wife was his own sister, since she was formed of his own flesh and
blood. He adds that this was not illegal since at the time there were no other women to
marry.
“* Explicitly cited by the author of On the Origin of the World (II,5:102,10.24) as one of
his sources of information.
ws ebpovons To Bpaya rhs yuwoews ef Amoxadvews tod Aadroavros airy sews
(Epiph. Pan. 26.2.6 = I 278,1-2 H.).
 THE RIDDLE OF THE THUNDER 49

laughter, the others filled with weeping.””” Epiphanius quotes from the
opening frame story of the Gospel. The story is set on a high mountain—
like Paradise, according to On the Origin of the World. The speaker,
presumably the fleshly Eve, hears a phoné brontés, a voice of thunder,
and it—the voice of thunder**—speaks:
I am thou, and thou art I,
And wherever thou art, it is I who am there;
And I am sown in all things.
And whence thou wilt, thou gatherest me;
But when thou gatherest me, then gatherest thou thyself.*°

The first part of this quotation (“I am thou, etc.”) disappointingly has no
verbal parallel in our text. It can nonetheless be understood as a kinship
riddle; indeed, it is the voice of one Eve addressing the other. But what
the thunder says about her own paradoxical dispersion in the hearers is
used in the Nag Hammadi Thunder: “I was found in those who seek me”
(13,4); “It is I who am what you have scattered:/ And what you have
collected” (16,18 seq.); “Do not cause greatnesses, (dispersed) in parts (or
particulars), to turn away from smallnesses;/ For it is from greatnesses
that smallnesses are recognized” (17,28 seq.). Here the words spoken by
the thunder to fleshly Eve are generalized and extended to all the saved.
There is some chance that the Gospel of Eve used by Epiphanius’
GnGstikoi is the text that stands behind the two main testimonia (nos. 1
and 2 above) and the Nag Hammadi Thunder. If so, one is faced with a
situation in which it is possible to detect ancient literary responses—all
of them in mighty works—to what critics might call a presupposed
“strong text.” While one can.point to some of its probable characteristics,
a definite reconstruction of even a part of the text is out of the question.
Let me throw caution to the wind for a moment and speculate on
these probable characteristics, realizing that some will probably be only
incidental to our testimonia and not in the original. It is a riddle gospel,
called euaggelion, in which the possibility of liberation is implied by
monologues of the heavenly Eve or female spiritual principle. It uses the
authoritative Isiac and/or Jewish Wisdom style, combined with the
paradox of Greek riddle. It is set in Paradise atop a high mountain,
where reference to thunder (bronté) is at home. It also contains riddle-

7 cal Somep ev dorarw yvoun pedvovTos Kat mapadradodvros ovk iva ein Ta pyuara, AAG
ra pty yédAwrt memoinueva erepa db KAavOMod Ewmdea (Pan. 26.2.6 = I 278,3-5 H.).
® Orig. World II,5:121,1, where the rulers expel Adam and drive him down (Coptic
epitn) from Paradise to (Coptic ejn-) the adjoining land.
4° And not, as Wilson translates, “he” (Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha 1.
241).
eyo ob Kal ov eye, Kat Srov eay Ts, ey exet clus, nat ev Amacty clus eomappevos. cai Sev
av OéAns, TvAACyets pe, Ewe bE TVAACywy Eavrov ovaAdréyes (Pan. 26.3.1 = 1 278,8-13 H.).
50 BENTLEY LAYTON

some puns based ultimately on a Semitic language. It is addressed in

the first place to one or both of the fleshly protoplasts, perhaps alter-
nately. The speaker also lapses into the style of the gnostic diatribe (it is
hard to imagine just how this transition was made, or how often—our
Thunder text was not necessarily arranged like the lost gospel). The time
is perhaps a series of moments between the vivification of Adam and the
birth of Nérea and Seth, with whom a new incarnation of the spiritual
seed begins; perhaps it was at this point that the Gnostic Book of Norea
took up the story.
(4) The likelihood that such a text actually existed is strengthened by
the existence of a Hellenistic Jewish tradition of paradoxical Eve riddles
in Greek. An instance of this riddle type in the Planudean Appendix to
the Palatine Anthology combines the two main motifs of Greek riddle,
impossible kinship ties and self-contradictory predicates.
aunp ye yevvG, Kat rarnp dnep piow:
(wiv cadet pe xat Gavarov mpoadepw.
A human being begot me, and my father is supernatural.
He calls me Life, and I bring him death.

The solution is given by Michael Psellus: Eve.”

(5) This riddle would be hard to date and call Jewish, were it not for a
similar turn of thought in Philo (Quis Rerum 11.52), who speaks of the
fleshly Eve—allegorized as sensory perception—whom Adam, the
earthbound intellect, saw just after her creation and “gave the name of
Life (ZGé) to his own death,” i.e., to the eventual source of his sin and
death.** Schultz, the learned editor of the Greek riddle corpus, thinks
that this may be an allusion to an Eve riddle, and I am inclined to
agree. The circulation of such an Eve riddle, and the theological
reflection surrounding it, could have been the seed from which the
Gospel of Eve developed.
(6) I am loath to comment upon the sixth item—the speech of a fallen

*? As I have noted in “Hypostasis” (HTR 69 [1976] 53) the presence of such puns does
not in itself indicate that the work was originally composed in a Semitic language. The
circulation of etymological glossaries of Semitic biblical names, composed in Greek,
made the necessary philological information available to any interested Greek-speaking
readers. Ancient glossaries of such a type have been collected and edited by Wutz,
Onomastica. We can see their use reflected as early as the time of Philo.
5? AP! 7.44 = Schultz, Rdtsel aus dem hellenischen Kulturkreis, no. 100.
°° Cf. Thund. VI,2:16,11 seq. “It is I who am called life: And whom you have called
death.”
** Referring, of course, to Gen 3:21 in the Lxx, where Adam is said to call his wife not
“Eve” but “Zé” (life). Schultz (Ratsel aus dem hellenischen Kulturkreise, 1. 65) does not
commit himself on the precise relationship of the Philonic passage to the riddle as
phrased in the Planudean Appendix.
 THE RIDDLE OF THE THUNDER 51

Wisdom figure, Ewath-Ruha, in the Mandaean Ginza.* The Ginza is

presumably much later than the hypothetical gospel, and may merely
attest to the hardiness of the Gospel of Eve’s influence, perhaps in
mediated forms. Does the speaker’s unusual Mandaean name (Ewath)
encode the original solution (expressed not in Mandaean Aramaic but in
Greek) to our riddle, namely Eua (Eve)?

IV. Conclusions
From this solution of the riddle of the Thunder, several conclusions can
be drawn.
(1) One is now closer to understanding the obvious resemblance of the
Thunder to certain passages of the Hypostasis of the Archons and On
the Origin of the World, and possibly even a part of Mandaean
scripture. This resemblance can be explained by the hypothesis of a
common textual antecedent, known and responded to by the authors of
these works. But from another perspective, one is also talking about
ancient authors’ perception of a distinct and indelible persona belonging
to the main feminine character of the gnostic Sethian spiritual drama, a
persona developed at a stage before the composition of these four works
and marked by such strength and rhetorical peculiarity that subsequent
writers did not escape it when writing of this character’s interventions in
our world.
(2) The exploration of the persona’s antecedent components—the self-
predications of Isis-Wisdom, the paradoxes of the Eve riddle, the
diatribic language of sapiential exhortation—allows one to postulate a
concrete ‘literary antecedent in which these strands were fused and
against which we might measure other literary works. That this ante-
cedent was the Gospel of Eve is by no means the only possible
construction of the evidence, though it may be the simplest one. The
specific literary hypothesis is unproven and unprovable. The real point

58 idzbarski, Ginza (right), 205-207 (noted by MacRae, Thunder, 7).

58 It is not within the scope of this essay to exegete the text in detail or to examine all
the evidence for the speaker’s identity. This evidence is summarized above in n. 5. For
her paradoxical family relations see discussion above with n. 43; on this basis can be
explained her paradoxical abilities. Both the speaker's puzzling genealogy and her social
and moral ambiguity were first encapsulated in the vulgate tradition of Eve riddles
(above, with n. 53) and no doubt given poignancy by the widespread belief that biblical
Eve had on one occasion disported with the devil (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 4:1; Klijn, Seth, 3-8); in
gnosticism this ambiguity finds systemic expression in tandem pairs of female emanations
called pronoia:epinoia (forethought:afterthought) or high and lower wisdom (sophia), who
are (respectively) less and more involved in materiality. The speaker's philosophical
attributes are discussed in the section that follows below. Pearson’s remarks in MacRae,
Thunder, 11, partially and unconsciously anticipate the correct solution.
52 BENTLEY LAYTON

of this essay is only to show the coherence and identity of the persona as
such, and to assert that the presence of this persona in a certain body of
ancient texts indicates that they are somehow genetically related.
(3) The ambiguous Eve (who is essentially the female spiritual prin-
ciple or heavenly Eve) is another strand in the network of evidence that
binds certain texts together in the so-called gnostic Sethian system.
Establishing the identity of this persona might lead one to the conclusion
that the Thunder is gnostic and Sethian to the same degree that the
Hawa puns in the gnostic Sethian Hypostasis of the Archons are gnostic
and Sethian.
(4) Probably this persona is also Jewish to the same degree that the
Hypostasis of the Archons is Jewish. The literary mode of Eve texts is,
however, not predominantly “targumic” but rather “Isiac” (biblical critics
have for some time recognized Isis rhetoric as a characteristic of
Hellenistic Jewish wisdom texts).
(5) From Epiphanius one knows to associate the persona as found in
the Gospel of Eve with a sect called Gndstikos. The relationship of this
sect to the texts under discussion, and indeed to the whole gnostic
Sethian cluster, needs careful consideration. .
(6) Incidentally, one gains new awareness of a link between the Nag
Hammadi corpus and a heresiological report in one of the antignostic
fathers.
(7) Despite ‘certain resemblances to Dame Wisdom of Hellenistic
Judaism, the most obvious cross-referent of the persona was Isis—an
essentially Egyptian or Egyptianizing feature within gnostic Sethianism.
This feature constitutes a kind of evidence, though certainly incon-
clusive, that the persona was invented and known in Egypt. This
Egyptian connection is suggested also by other kinds of evidence:
Epiphanius knew the Gnédstikos sect from a personal visit to that
country;” On the Origin of the World was obviously written in Egypt; all
the texts under consideration in this essay, indeed all the texts in
Schenke’s gnostic Sethian cluster (except perhaps some excerpts in
Irenaeus) were at least transmitted in Coptic-speaking Egypt.
(8) After hypothesizing that the Thunder belongs to the gnostic
Sethian group, one is entitled to look for individual details or parallels in
the Thunder that echo other texts of the Sethian group. There are a few
obvious possibilities:
a. Thund. VI,2:13,1 (title), “Thunder—Perfect Intellect.”
Trim. Prot. XIII,1:43,13-15, “The lots of destiny and those which
traverse (or measure) the houses were greatly disturbed by a
sharp thunderclap.”

5” Pan. 26.17.4 = I 297,15-21 H.

 THE RIDDLE OF THE THUNDER 53

. Thund. VI,2:18,9, “It is I, however, who am the [perfect] intellect.”

Trim. Prot. XIII,1:47,7-9, “And I taught [. . .] by the [. . .] by perfect
intellect.”
Steles Seth VII,5:121,23-25, “O you (sc. Barbéld) who are called
perfect!”
Ibid. 123,21, “You are intellect.”
. Thund. VI,2:13,4, “I was found in those who seek me.”
Trim. Prot. XIII,1 (cf. passages listed in n. 42; there are no
verbatim parallels).
. Thund. VI,2:14,4, “My power comes from him (my offspring).
I am the staff of his power in his childhood.”
Ap. John II,1:22,32-23,2, “And it (the ruler) extracted a portion of
his power from him and performed another act of modeling, in
the form of a female . . . and into the modelled form of
femaleness it brought the portion it had taken from the power
of the human being.”
. Thund. VI,2:14,9-10, “It is I who am... afterthought, whose
memotry is so great.”
Ap. John II,1:30,24, “I, who am the memory of the forethought.”
(Cf. ibid. 28,1-2, “The afterthought of the luminous forethought.”)
Thund. VI,2:14,12-14, “It is I who am the voice whose sounds are
so numerous:/ And the discourse whose images (or kinds) are
so numerous./ It is I who am the speaking: of my (own) name.”
Ibid. 20,30-31, “It is I who am the speaking that cannot be
restrained./ It is I who am the voice’s name, and the name’s
voice.”
Ibid. 19,9, “It is I who am... unrestraint.”
Ibid. 19,20-22, “It is I who am .. . the speaking that cannot be
restrained.”
Ibid. 19,32, “It is I who am acquaintance with my name.”
Trim. Prot. XIII,1:37,20-24, “The sound that has derived from my
thinking exists as... a voice... . It contains within it a verbal
expression... .”
Trim. Prot. XIII,1:38,11-16, “It is I who am... the unrestrainable
and immeasurable sound.”
. Thund. VI,2:15,8, “You will find me in the kingdoms.”
Apoc. Adam V,5:77,27-82,19.
. Thund. VI,2:16,6-8, “I am he whose... and she who....”
Trim. Prot. XIII,1:45,2-3, “I am androgynous.”
Ap. John II,1:27,33-28,2, “It is the mother-father who is greatly
merciful... and the afterthought of the luminous forethought.”
Gos. Eg. IV,2:73,11-12 (=III,2:61,25-62,1) “The masculine female
virgin, the Barbélo.”
54 BENTLEY LAYTON

i. Thund. VI,2:20,1, “I am manifest [and ...] travel [. . .].”

Ap. John II,1:30,13-14, “I existed . . . traveling in every path of
travel”; similarly 30,17; 30,23; 30,33.
On balance, this evidence is inconclusive. I regard the hypothesis as not
yet verified.
(9) It is historically necessary to understand the literary background of
Thunder as including a traditional female figure known from religious
literature. Yet insofar as our text treats that figure as the solution to a
riddle, she no longer functions here as a persona but is reduced to a
mere word (“Eve”). It lies in the nature of riddle solutions that such a
word can be construed in various ways, that is, can have a multiplicity of
referents (see above with n. 43).
(10) Finally, there are many predications in the Thunder that cannot
be explained by simple reference to the solution “Eve.” It is undeniable
that the genuine riddle mode is mixed with traditional topoi from Jewish
sapiential tradition or Isiac propaganda, transmuted of course into
dichotomous paradox. This has a purpose. It strengthens the speaker’s
claim to authority, but also undermines confidence in the content of the
actual Wisdom tradition. Much of gnosticism can be seen not as a revolt
against, but as a revision of, traditional religions, especially in their
textual manifestations. What the Hypostasis. of the Archons does to
Genesis, what the Treatise on Resurrection does with second-century
Christian creeds,** and what the Gospel According to Thomas pre-
sumably would have us do with the sayings tradition™ (if only it would
tell us how!), the Thunder does to traditional sapiential aretalogy. On the
one hand, it presupposes the normative authority of the sapiential
persona, while on the other hand, it hollows this traditional form of its
original meaning and refills it with what, for gnostics, always takes
precedence over scripture and tradition: namely, the gnostics’ own myth
of the origin and fate of the soul, her salvation by a heavenly teacher,
and her ultimate return to her home.
The mythic figure of Thunder says as much, in her own (orale (at least
in my translation):
It is I who am the meaning of text,
And the manifestation of distinction; .. .
Behold, then,. . . all the texts that have been completed.”
It has generally been held that the Thunder contains no distinctive
Christian, Jewish, or gnostic allusions and does not seem clearly to
presuppose any gnostic myth. Perhaps this essay, for all its brevity, has
suggested another way out.
°° Layton, “Resurrection,” 190-217, esp. at 209-17.
5® Gos, Thom. II,2:32,12-14.
6° Thund. VI,2:20,33-21,12.
 3
SETHIAN GNOSTICISM:
A LITERARY HISTORY

John D. Turner

John D. Turner is both Professor of Religious Studies and Professor of Classics

and History at the University of Nebraska—Lincoln, having taught at that insti-
tution since 1976. Professor Turner has devoted much of his academic career to
Nag Hammadi studies both in terms of writing and service.
He has served on the Society of Biblical Literature Nag Hammadi Seminar as
well as on the Steering Committee of the Nag Hammadi Section of that society.
From 1971-72 he was an associate of the Technical Subcommittee for the
International Committee for the Nag Hammadi Codices of UNESCO and the
ARE.
Written contributions to Nag Hammadi studies have included numerous
articles on the relationship of Gnosticism to Platonic philosophy and the editio
princeps of the Book of Thomas the Contender.

Preface
he following analysis of the literary dependencies and redactional
. history of the Sethian gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi and else-
where allows one to assign them to various periods during the first four
centuries of the Christian era. The texts thus dated seem to reflect a
coherent tradition of mythologumena that includes: (a) a sacred history
of Seth’s seed, derived from a peculiar exegesis of Genesis 1-6; (b) a
doctrine of the divine wisdom in its primordial, fallen, and restored
aspects; (c) a baptismal rite, often called the Five Seals, involving a
removal from the fleshly world and transportation into the realm of light
through the invocation of certain divine personages; (d) certain Christo-
logical speculations relating Christ to prominent Sethian primordial
figures such as Adam and Seth; and (e) a fund of Platonic metaphysical
concepts relating to the structure of the divine world andaself-actuated
visionary means of assimilating with it.

55
56 JOHN D. TURNER

The result of the study suggests that Sethianism interacted with

Christianity in five phases: (1) Sethianism as a non-Christian baptismal
sect of the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. which considered itself primor-
dially enlightened by the divine wisdom revealed to Adam and Seth, yet
expected a final visitation of Seth marked by his conferral of a saving
baptism; (2) Sethianism as gradually Christianized in the later first
century onward through an identification of the pre-existent Christ with
Seth, or Adam, that emerged through contact with Christian baptismal
groups; (3) Sethianism as increasingly estranged from a Christianity
becoming more orthodox toward the end of the second century and
beyond; (4) Sethianism as rejected by the Great Church but meanwhile
increasingly attracted to the individualistic contemplative practices of
third-century Platonism; and (5) Sethianism as estranged from the ortho-
dox Platonists of the late third century and increasingly fragmented into
various derivative and other sectarian gnostic groups, some surviving
into the Middle Ages.

I. The Sethian Literature

Mainly following the lead of Hans-Martin Schenke of the Berliner
(DDR) Arbeitskreis ftir koptisch-gnostische Schriften,’ current scholar-
ship considers the following literature to be representative of Sethian
Gnosticism: The Barbeloite report of Irenaeus (Haer. 1.29); the reports on
the Sethians (and Archontics) by Epiphanius (Pan. 26 and -39-40),
Pseudo-Tertullian (Haer. 2) and Filastrius (Haer. 3); the untitled text
from the Bruce Codex (Bruce); and the following treatises from the Nag
Hammadi Codices and BG8502: four versions of the Apocryphon of
John (Ap. John BG8502, 2 and NHC III,1 (short version}; NHC II, 1 and
IV, 1 [long version]); the Hypostasis of the Archons; the Gospel of the
Egyptians; the Apocalypse of Adam; the Three Steles of: Seth; Zos-
trianos; Melchizedek; the Thought of Norea; Marsanes; Allogenes, and
Trimorphic Protennoia.

II. The Sethian Themes

So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above originated
in the period 100-250 C.E. They seem to derive their content from five
basic complexes of doctrines: (1) a fund of Hellenistic-Jewish specu-

1 H.-M. Schenke, “System” and “Sethianism.”

 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 57

lation on the figure of Sophia, the divine wisdom; (2) midrashic interpre-
tation of Genesis 1-6 together with other assorted motifs from Jewish
scripture and exegesis; (3) a doctrine and practice of baptism; (4) the
developing Christology of the early church; and (5) a religiously oriented
Neopythagorean and Middle-Platonic philosophical tradition of onto-
logical and theological speculation.

A. Sophia Speculation
As appropriated by Sethianism and the Gnostics in general, Sophia is
a hypostatized form of Hokmah (i.e., the divine Wisdom of Proverbs 8,
Job 28, Sirach 24) and is regarded as a female deity, perhaps also
connected with the Spirit that moved over the water in Gen 1:2-3. In the
gnostic texts, Sophia functions at many levels under various names in a
highly complex way. She functions as a creator and savior figure on a
higher level as the divine Thought, which increasingly distinguishes
itself from the high deity through various modalities, and gives rise to
the divine image in which man is made. But she also functions on a
lower level as the mother of the ignorant demiurge and the enlightener
and savior of the divine image captured by the demiurge in human
form. N. A. Dahl, in this regard, stresses the role played by the thought
of Philo in this complex of ideas, particularly the notion of Sophia as
Mother of the Logos and as the Mother figure in a divine triad of God
the Father, Sophia the Mother, and Logos the Son.’
B. Interpretation of Genesis 2-6
Given the existence of an upper (either undeclined or restored) and
lower Sophia, conceived as Mother, and her upper and lower sons, the
Logos and the Archon, the peculiar Sethian reinterpretation of Genesis
2-6 easily follows: the anthropogony; the inbreathing of the divine
Spirit; the sending of Eve or her extraction from Adam; the eating from
the tree of knowledge; expulsion from paradise; the birth of Cain, Abel,
Norea, and Seth and his seed; the flood and intercourse between
women and the angels, with the addition of the story of Sodom and
Gomorrah; and a final judgment and salvation. These episodes are
interpreted in terms of a series of moves and countermoves between the
upper Mother and Son and the lower Son in a contest over the control of
the divine Spirit in mankind. In avery early period, still within the
context of a disaffected and heterodox Judaism (and working with
Jewish materials and gnosticizing Hellenistic-Jewish principles of inter-
pretation), the peculiar Sethian doctrines concerning the origin, incar-

2 Dahl, “Archon,” 2. 689-712; see in particular pp. 707-8, and n. 44 (p. 708).
58 JOHN D. TURNER

nation, subsequent history, and salvation of these Gnostics were worked

out in terms of the upper and lower Adam, Seth, and seed of Seth. In
particular this involved the doctrines of heavenly dwellings (the four
Lights) for the exalted counterparts of the “historical” Sethians, and the
tripartitioning of history into four basic epochs of salvation. These
epochs could be delineated by events in the lower world, such as the
flood, the conflagration, and the final overthrow of the Archons (as in
the Apocalypse of Adam and the Gospel of the Egyptians). Or these ~
epochs could be marked by the three descents from the upper world of a
Savior (as Father, Mother and Son) involving (1) the inbreathing of the
divine Spirit into Adam, (2) the arrival of the luminous Epinoia (a Sophia
figure) in the form of Eve, and (3) the final appearance of Seth as the
Logos (or Christ; cf. the Apocryphon of John, and the Trimorphic
Protennoia). Other schemes or combinations of these episodes were also
worked out. If there is anything peculiarly Sethian in the tractates under
discussion, it would show itself here, since these speculations in fact
constitute the sacred history of the Sethian Gnostics.

C. The Baptismal Rite

In addition, it is clear that some form of baptismal ritual is peculiar to
the Sethians. In whatever baptismal tradition the Sethians stood, it is
clear that it was spiritualized as part of a general trend that shows itself
throughout the first century in both Christian and probably non-Chris-
tian baptizing circles. In particular, the Sethian baptismal water was
understood to be of a celestial nature, a Living Water identical with light
or enlightenment, and the rite itself must have been understood as a
ritual of cultic ascent involving enlightenment and therefore salvation.
This could also involve polemic against ordinary water baptism, as in
the Apocalypse of Adam.
D. Christianization
Gradually, but especially during the second century, Sethianism was
Christianized, particularly by the identification of the Logos (the last
member of the Father-Mother-Son triad) with Christ. This process could
move in a positive direction by adding explanatory Christological
glosses as in the Gospel of the Egyptians, or even casting Sethian
materials into the framework of a revelation dialogue between Christ .
the revealer and a revered disciple as in the Apocryphon of John. Or it
could move in a more polemical direction, as in Trimorphic Protennoia.
So also the reverse movement could occur, in which Sethian materials
were built into originally Christian materials circulating among Seth-
ians, as could be the case with Melchizedek. .
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 59

E. The Platonic Contribution

Finally, during the late first and throughout the second and third
centuries, Neopythagorean and Platonic metaphysics made a strong
impact on Sethianism. They served to structure its world of transcendent
beings by means of ontological distinctions, and to explain how the
plenitude of the divine world might emerge from a sole high deity by
emanation, radiation, unfolding, and mental self-reflection. Neopytha-
gorean arithmology helped to flesh out the various triadic, tetradic, ©
pentadic, and ogdoadic groupings of the transcendental beings. Besides
metaphysics, there was also at home in Platonism a by-now-traditional
technique of self-performable contemplative mystical ascent toward and
' beyond the realm of pure being, which had its roots in Plato’s Sym-
posium (cf. 210A-212A). Interest in this technique shows itself in such
figures as Philo, Numenius, the author(s) of the Chaldean Oracles, and
in Plotinus. This technique not only supplemented earlier apocalyptic
notions of ecstatic visionary ascent (perhaps associated with the spirit-
ualized Sethian baptismal ritual as in Trimorphic Protennoia, Gospel of
the Egyptians, Zostrianos, and perhaps in Marsanes), but it also created
new forms apparently independent of such a baptismal context as in
Allogenes and Three Steles of Seth. Most importantly, though, the older
pattern of enlightenment through gndsis “knowledge,” conferred by a
descending redeemer figure, could be replaced by a self-performable
act of enlightenment through contemplative or visionary ascent, whether
for individuals (Allogenes and Marsanes) or for a community (Three
Steles of Seth).

III. Chronology and Redaction

On the background of these basic complexes of ideas, the following
reconstruction of the composition and redaction of the Sethian treatises
is suggested, although it is impossible to know which version of a
particular document may have been available at each stage to the
composers of the various treatises. Thus one ought perhaps to speak
more generally of the redaction and incorporation of doctrines and
traditions rather than of the particular extant documents that today serve
as their exponents or instances.

A. Before 100 C.E.

One might begin with the (already Christianized) Ophite system of
Irenaeus (cf. Haer. 1.30), where one finds the triad of beings Man, Son of
Man, and Third Male, the first two of whom, as suggested above, may
60 JOHN D. TURNER

have been conceived as androgynous. There is also a lower mother

figure, the Spirit, who emits Sophia-Prunicos, who by gravity descends
to and agitates the waters below, taking on a material body. When she is
empowered from above to escape this body and ascend to the height,
she becomes the father of the Archon Yaldabaoth. The Archon produces
seven sons named as in the Apocryphon of John, and boasts that he
alone is God, to which his mother responds that “Man and the Son of
Man” are above him. Then follows the making of the man and the
woman both of whom are specially enlightened by Sophia, and the
stories of the tree of gndsis, the expulsion from paradise, the birth of
Cain, Abel, Seth and Norea, the flood, and finally the incognito descent
of Christ, the Third Male, through the seven heavens. He puts on Sophia
and rescues the crucified Jesus. Many of these motifs are at home in the
Sethian treatises, but especially in Ap. John BG8502,2:44,19ff.; NHC
II,1:13,3ff. (similarly in other versions), which is not paralleled by the
Barbeloite system of Iren. Haer. 1.29. Much of this material common to
the Apocryphon of John and the Ophites is connected with the inter-
pretation of Genesis 2-6, and one also finds versions of this material in
the Apocalypse of Adam, Hypostasis of the Archons, and summarized in
the Gospel of the Egyptians. The Ophite system describes repeated
salvific acts of Sophia: providing the divine model for the protoplast,
enlightening of Eve, protecting her light-trace from conception through
the Archon, aiding the conception through the Archon, revealing the
significance of Adam and Eve’s bodies, and aiding the conception of
Seth and Norea and the birth of the wise Jesus. The final salvific act is
the deliverance of Sophia and Jesus by Christ.
1. Early Sethian Eschatology. The Sethian versions of this activity
structure it into four distinct epochs of saving history marked by the
flood, the conflagration and the judgment of the powers as in the
Apocalypse of Adam and Gospel of the Egyptians. Or the epochs are
marked by three distinct manifestations of a being more exalted than
Sophia who descends first in a male mode, then in a female mode as
Epinoia, and finally as the Logos (as in the Apocryphon of John,
Trimorphic Protennoia and Gospel of the Egyptians). What makes the
Sethian versions’ adoption of this history of deliverance distinctive is
their stress on Seth and their self-identification with Seth’s seed, “the
unshakeable race,” who since the flood and conflagration live simul-
taneously on earth and in the aeons of the four Lights until the judgment
of the Archons by a dramatic eschatological manifestation of Seth as the
Logos. Between the conflagration and the final judgment of the Archons,
the Sethians keep in contact with their heavenly counterparts by means
of: (a) revelations Seth left behind inscribed on steles of brick and clay,
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 61

or on wooden tablets, or in certain books, all preserved on a special

mountain, as well as by means of (b) a ritual of celestial ascent
conceived in baptismal imagery, which Seth conferred upon his seed for
their enlightenment.
2. Sethian Tripartitions. In accord with their tripartition of the
history of salvation and of the modes in which the redeemer appears
throughout this history, the Sethians structured their transcendent world
into Father-Mother-Son triads as a more distinctive way of conceiving
the saving work of the transcendent (aspect of) Sophia than was the
(more biblical) triad of Man (the high deity), Son of Man (the androg-
ynous heavenly Adam), and a Son of the Son of Man (Seth; cf. the
terminology of the non-Sethian Eugnostos and Sophia of Jesus Christ).
The androgynous image of God could be conceived either as the
heavenly Adam (Adamas, Geradamas) or, stressing its female aspect, as
the Thought (Ennoia) of the high deity who could be conceived as the
Mother of the Son of Man. Thus her voice reveals to the Archon the
existence of her higher consort, Man or the Father, and of her offspring,
the Son of Man. Of course, conceiving the second member of the triad
as female, a transcendent Sophia-figure distinguished from the Sophia
who worked below, meant a transformation of the second member into
a Mother (still androgynous) figure distinguished from Adamas the Son
of Man (who now takes third place). This duplication is reflected in the
alternate but equivalent designations of the Mother as, for instance,
male virgin, womb, Father of the All, first Man, and thrice-male. Note,
for example, how the second part of the Apocryphon of John in NHC II
prefers the designation Mother-Father (II,1:5,7; 19,17; 20,9; 27,33) instead
of the designation “merciful Father” or “merciful Mother” as in
BG8502,2 (but cf. 77,11 which has “Mother-Father”). While this might
account for the identification of the Father and Mother portion of the
triad, the identification of the Son is a more complex problem. Given the
tripartite Sethian history of salvation, the Son would be involved in the
third and finally decisive salvific manifestation of the divine into the
world. He could be the third manifestation of the Illuminator (Apoc-
alypse of Adam) or the Logos which puts on Jesus, which in Gospel of
the Egyptians is identified with Seth or in Trimorphic Protennoia with
Christ. Or he could be viewed as the Christ who has appeared to John
the son of Zebedee after the resurrection (Apocryphon of John). Or he
could be simply conceived as the third and finally effective saving
manifestation of the divine as in the Pronoia-hymn at the end of the
Apocryphon of John II,1 (not even distinguished as Son).
This divine triad could be conceived in two fundamental ways: as a
vertically schematized ontological hierarchy that gives rise to and struc-
62 JOHN D. TURNER

tures the transcendent world, or else as a horizontally schematized

succession of three divine manifestations. In the latter case, the three
manifestations might be conceived as three manifestations of a single
being in three modes such as the Father-Voice, Mother-Speech, Son-
Logos (Trimorphic Protennoia), or as three separate beings in some
sense identical with but mythologically distinguished from a higher
being, such as the Autogenes, the Epinoia of Light, and Christ, all sent
by the (Mother-)Father in the Apocryphon of John. The vertical scheme
is illustrated in the Invisible Spirit, Barbelo, and the Autogenes in Allo-
genes, Zostrianos, Three Steles of Seth and Marsanes. In the Chris-
tianized Sethian theogonies, the third level is called either Christ (Iren.
Haer. 1.29, Apocryphon of John and the first part of Trimorphic
Protennoia) or the Thrice-Male Child of the Great Christ (Gospel of the
Egyptians).
3. Hymnic Accounts of the Savior’s Descent. A careful reading of
the Apocryphon of John (longer version) reveals that Trimorphic
Protennoia is, in part, an expansion of the concluding Pronoia hymn
(Ap. John II,1:30,12-31,25). The hymn contains a brief aretalogical self-
predication of the divine Pronoia speaking in the first person singular
(31,12-16) followed by the narration of her three descents into Chaos or
Hades taking on the form of the seed to save them (30,16-21;_30,21-31;
30,31-31,25). In the third stanza there is a sudden shift from a third
person plural to a third person singular designation for her seed,
introduced by a gloss in 31,4 identifying the prison of Hades as the
prison of the body. This seems to introduce material originally foreign to
the hymn (reflected once earlier in Ap. John II,1:23,30-31) employing the
topos of awakening sleepers (cf. Eph 5:14) ensnared in the bonds of
oblivion by reminding them of their predicament (31,4-10 and 31,14-22).
It seems likely that the third stanza of the original hymn must have
concluded:
And I entered into the middle of their prison and I said: “I am the Pronoia of the pure
light; I am the thinking of the virginal Spirit, he who raised you (plural) up to the
honored place.” And | raised them up and sealed them in the light of the water with
Five Seals in order that death might not have power over them from this time on.

One finds a very close equivalent of this hymn in the second half of
the Naasene Psalm (Hipp. Ref. 5.10.2), where Jesus says:
Look Father: this prey (the fallen soul) to evils is wandering away to earth, far from thy
Spirit, and she seeks to escape the bitter Chaos but knows not how to win through. For
that reason send me, Father. Bearing Seals I shall descend; I will pass through all the
Aeons; I shall reveal all the mysteries and I shall deliver the secrets of the holy way,
calling them Gnosis.
* See Marcovich, “Naasene Psalm,” whose translation I adopt.
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 63

Clearly these two hymns have been influenced by the same complex
of ideas: the descent of a revealer bearing seals into Chaos, and its
bitterness, to rescue the soul below. While the Naasene Psalm also tells
of the descent of the soul and displays the male Jesus as savior, the
Pronoia hymn tells only of the threefold descent of the feminine Pronoia
(or remembrance thereof), the last of which succeeds in raising up
Pronoia’s members, who are viewed as consubstantial with her.
4. A Descent Hymn Elaborated: Trimorphic Protennoia. The Pro-
noia hymn, or something much like it, then underwent expansion in its
first stage as an aretalogy of Protennoia as Father-Voice, Mother-
Speech, and Son-Word now found in Trimorphic Protennoia. Further-
more, another stage of composition was devoted to spelling out the
“mysteries” communicated by the revealer as well as the nature of the
(Five) “Seals” brought by him or her. A final stage saw to its Christianiza-
tion.
Assuming that Trimorphic Protennoia finds its basis in the hymnic
ending of the longer version of the Apocryphon of John, a closer
analysis shows the following approximate compositional history for
Trimorphic Protennoia. The underlying basis of the tractate can be seen
in the consistent egd eimi “I am” self-predications of Protennoia which
are structured into an introductory aretalogy (XIII,1:35,1-32) identifying
Protennoia as the divine Thought (35,1-32) followed by three egé eimi
aretalogies of about forty lines each in the same style. The second and
third of these aretalogies form separate subtractates in Trimorphic
Protennoia (Protennoia is the Voice of the Thought who descends first as
light into darkness and gives shape to her fallen members [35,32-36,27;
40,29-41,1]; Protennoia is the Speech of the Thought’s Voice who
descends second to empower her fallen members by giving them spirit
or breath [42,4-27; 45,2-12; 45,21-46,3]; and Protennoia is the Word of the
Speech of the Thought’s Voice who descends athird time in the likeness
of the powers, proclaims the Five Seals, and restores her seed [members]
into the Light [46,5-7; 47,5-23; 49,6-23; 50,9-20)). If this, or something like
it, is what the author started with, it can be seen that he has expanded
this tripartite aretalogy with six doctrinal insertions (36,27-40,29; 41,1-
42,2; 42,27-45,2; 46,7-47,top; 47,24-49,top and 49,22-50,9). Three of these
insertions are “mysteries” which Protennoia is said to have commu-
nicated to her sons. The first and longest insertion (36,27-40,29) narrates
_ the story of the Autogenes Christ and his four Lights. The last of these
Lights (Eleleth) emits Sophia (his Epinoia) to produce the demon Yalda-
baoth who steals the Epinoia’s power to create the lower aeons and man.
It concludes with the restoration of Epinoia-Sophia who is regarded as
completely innocent of fault. It is constructed in third person narrative.
64 JOHN D. TURNER

The first of the “mysteries” (41,1-42,2) narrates the loosening of the

bonds of flesh by which the underworld powers enslave Protennoia’s
fallen members. This mystery is announced in direct discourse to a
second person plural audience. The second mystery (42,27-45,2), called
the “mystery of the (end of) this age” (42,28), is addressed to a similar
group in the second person plural. It narrates an apocalyptic announce-
ment of the end of the old age and the dawn of the new age with the
judgment of the authorities of chaos, the celestial powers, and their
Archigenetor. The third mystery (47,24-49,top), called “the mystery of
Gnosis” (48,33-34) is again addressed to a second person plural audi-
ence, now called the “brethren.” It narrates the descent of Protennoia as
the Word who descends incognito through the various levels of the
powers and strips away the corporeal and psychic thought from her
brethren and raises them up to the Light by means of a baptismal-
celestial ascent ritual identified as the Five Seals.
It is clear that Trimorphic Protennoia has been secondarily Chris-
tianized. Three glosses identifying the Autogenes Son with Christ in the
first subtractate (37,[31]; 38,22; 39,6-7) probably derive from the tradi-
tional theogonical materials common to the Apocryphon of John and
Iren., Haer. 1.29, upon which the author has drawn. But in the third
subtractate the situation is much different, and seems to suggest that
Trimorphic Protennoia has undergone three stages of composition.
First, there was the triad of aretalogical eg6 eimi self-predications of
Protennoia as Voice, Speech, and Word. Second, this was supplemented
by doctrinal insertions based upon traditional Sethian cosmological
materials similar to those of Apocryphon of John and Iren. Haer. 1.29, as
well as upon (apparently non-Sethian) traditional materials treating the
harrowing of hell and the eschatological overthrow of the celestial
powers, and again upon Sethian traditions about the baptismal ascent
ritual of the Five Seals. After circulation as a Sethian tractate in this
form, the third stage of composition seems to have been the incor-
poration of Christian materials into the aretalogical portion of the third
subtractate.
Specifically, the narrative of the incognito descent of Protennoia as
Word, hidden in the form of the Sovereignties, Powers, and Angels,
culminating in the final revelation of herself in her members below,
seems to have undergone a Christological interpretation. In 47,14-15, it
is said that as Logos, Protennoia revealed herself to “them” (i.e.,
humans?) “in their tents” as the Word (cf. John 1:14). In 49,7-8 it is said
that the Archons thought Protennoia-Logos was “their Christ,” while
actually she is the Father of everyone. In 49,11-15, Protennoia identifies
herself as the “beloved” (of the Archons), since she clothed herself as
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 65

Son of the Archigenetor until the end of his ignorant decree. In 49,18-20
Protennoia reveals herself as a Son of Man among the Sons of Man
even though she is the Father of everyone. In 50,6-9, Protennoia will
reveal herself to her “brethren” and gather them into her “eternal
kingdom.” In 50,12-16, Protennoia has put on Jesus and borne him aloft
from the cross into his Father’s dwelling places (cf. John 14:2-3). In this
way traditional Christological titles such as Christ, Beloved, Son of God
(“Son of the Archigenetor”) and Son of Man are polemically interpreted
in a consciously docetic fashion. By implication, the “orthodox” Christ is
shown to be the Christ of the “Sethian” Archons; the “orthodox” Beloved
is the beloved of the Archons; the “orthodox” Son of God is the “Sethian”
son of the ignorant Archigenetor; and the “orthodox” Son of Man is only
a human among the sons of men, while for the Sethians, the true Son of
Man is Adamas, the Son of the supreme deity Man (the human form in
which the deity revealed himself as in Ap. John II,1:14,14-24 and Gos.
Eg. III,2:59,1-9), or perhaps he is Seth, the Son of Adamas as in Ap. John
II,1:24,32-25,7. Therefore, the Protennoia-Logos is in reality the Father
of everyone, the Father of the All who only appears as the Logos “in
their tents” (skéné; a gloss on “the likeness of their shape” in Trim. Prot.
XIII,1:47,16 in what seems to be conscious opposition to John 1:14). That
is, he appeared in the “likeness of their shape” but did not become flesh
as the “orthodox” believe. In only disguising himself as the “orthodox”
Christ, the Logos indeed had to rescue Jesus from the “cursed” (not
redemptive!) cross and restore him to the “dwelling places of his Father.”
In what seems a conscious reference to John 14:2-3, Jesus did not
prepare a place for his followers; instead, the Logos, invisible to the
celestial powers who watch over the aeonic dwellings (i.e., the four
Lights?), installs Jesus into his Father’s dwelling place (Trim. Prot.
XIII,1:50,12-16; perhaps in the Light Oroiael as in Gos. Eg. III,2:65,16-
17}:
Most of these polemical Sethian reinterpretations of “orthodox” Chris-
tology in Trimorphic Protennoia seem to depend on key texts from the
Gospel of John in order to score their point in any acute fashion,
although this has been a matter of scholarly dispute.‘ It seems that the

4Cf. the discussions of G. Schenke, “Protennoia”; Helderman, “Zelten”; H.-M.

Schenke, “Sethianism,” 607-12; and summarizing the debate, Robinson, “Sethians.” My
own position is that Trimorphic Protennoia underwent superficial Christianization in its
second stage of redaction, but specific and polemical Christianization in its third stage of
redaction. The superficial resemblances to the Johannine prologue scattered throughout
Trimorphic Protennoia are to be explained by the emergence of both texts from
gnosticizing oriental sapiental traditions at home in first-century Syria and Palestine, as
suggested by Colpe, “Uberlieferung,” 122-24. The Christological glosses in the first sub-
tractate are to be explained by the influence of the theogonical section of the Apoc-
66 JOHN D. TURNER
key to the resolution of this dispute lies in the recognition that Tri-
morphic Protennoia, in its first two stages of composition, was a product
of non-Christian Sethianism, drawing its Logos-theology from a fund of
oriental speculation on the divine Word and Wisdom as did the pro-
logue to the Gospel of John in a similar but independent way. But both
the prologue and Trimorphic Protennoia later underwent Christianiza-
tion in a later stage of redaction; the prologue in Johannine Christian
circles, and Trimorphic Protennoia in Christianized Sethian circles.
Indeed, Trimorphic Protennoia may have undergone Christianizing
redaction in the environment of the debate over the interpretation of the
Gospel of John during the early second century. This debate is reflected
in the Johannine letters, and a bit later in western Valentinian circles is
concerned with the interpretation of the Logos (e.g., The Tripartite
Tractate of NHC I) and of the Gospel of John (e.g., Ptolemaeus in Iren.
Heer. 1.8.5 and the Fragments of Heracleon).
5. The Early Sethian Baptismal Rite. The spiritualized conception of
baptism as a saving ritual of enlightenment reflected in the Sethian texts
must also have been current in the first century, to judge from the
complex of ideas in Col 2:8-15, where circumcision (regarded as a
stripping off of the body of flesh) is connected with a baptism conceived
as a dying and rising, and Christ’s death is interpreted as a disarming of
the principalities and powers. To judge from the Sethian baptismal
mythologumena, the Sethians, wherever they derived their original rite,
must have developed it in close rapprochement with Christianity. They
must have sustained their initial encounter with Christianity as fellow
practitioners of baptism, indeed a baptism interpreted in a very sym-
bolic and spiritual direction. For example, the Sethian name for their
Living Water, itself a conception found also in Johannine Christianity
(John 4:7-15), is Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus, which seems very
much like a version of the name of Jesus into which Christians were
baptized, perhaps in a threefold way. Yet to adopt this name did not
necessarily mean understanding oneself principally as a Christian, as
the rather cryptic and concealed form of this name suggests. Indeed it
was adopted by the redactor of the (apparently in all other respects)
non-Christian Apocalypse of Adam.
In many respects, the baptismal rite seems to have provided the
ryphon of John. But the more striking parallels to the Gospel of John discussed here, as
well as the explicit application of apparent Christological titles to Protennoia-Logos, seem
to me to constitute deliberate “Christianization,” although in a strictly polemical vein.
Whether the redactor of the third compositional stage hypothesized by me is really
Sethian or heterodox Christian is impossible to tell; in any case he is certainly not an
“orthodox” or “apostolic” Christian, though perhaps he might be a “super Johannine”
(heretic) of. the sort suggested by Brown, “Sheep.”
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 67

context or occasion for many of the principal Sethian themes to coalesce

in various combinations. This is quite obvious in the case of the Sethian
rite of cultic or individual ascent, and also in the theme of the descent of
the redeemer bearing the Five Seals. Yet the web of interlocking themes
could be even more complex, as in the case of Apocalypse of Adam, part
of which seems to draw on an old mythical pattern to illustrate thirteen
versions of the descent of the Illuminator. It exhibits a myth which could
be developed in various ways to portray the origin of mankind, the
origin of the Savior, and perhaps the origin of both water baptism and
celestial baptism as well.
‘In a very illuminating article, J. M. Robinson® drew attention to a
series of striking parallels between the structure and motifs of the
thirteen kingdoms, i.e., thirteen opinions concerning the coming of the
Illuminator “to the water,” and a similar mythical structure to be found
in the NT Apocalypse of John (Rev 12:1-17) and reflected in the baptism
and “temptation” stories of Mark 1:9-13, and in some fragments from the
Gospel of the Hebrews. As can be seen from Robinson’s study, there
underlies Mark 1, Revelation 12 and Apoc. Adam V,5:77,26-82,19 a basic
mythical structure concerning a divine child and his divine mother who
are threatened by an evil power, but who are rescued and find safety in
the wilderness until the evil power is destroyed. This general pattern
could be made to apply not only to Adam and his divine mother or to
Seth and his mother Eve, but also to the birth of Jesus, to Mary and their
flight to Egypt from Herod, and perhaps more aprile to certain
aspects of the Isis-Osiris-Horus cycle.
For our immediate purposes, however, it is important to see that facets
of such a myth were applied to baptism not only in Mark (where
wilderness is also ultimately a place of safety) and in the fragments of
Gospel of the Hebrews but also in Apocalypse of Adam. In Mark the
Savior is baptized in the (ordinary) water to which he comes, after which
the Spirit descends to the Savior together with a Voice that pronounces
him Son of God. The parallel in Matthew agrees, but has reservations
about the baptism in water by John. Luke omits explicit mention of
Jesus’ baptism by John, and has the Spirit descend on Jesus during his
post-baptismal prayer. The Fourth Gospel suppresses Jesus’ explicit
baptism by John in mere water, demoting John to the Voice of one
crying in the wilderness, whose only subsequent function is to witness to
the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus. Instead, the Fourth Gospel (John
4:7-15) understands Jesus as the source of Living Water, which to drink
means eternal life, and as the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit,

5 Robinson, “Gattung of Mark,” 119-29.

68 JOHN D. TURNER
which the author identifies with the Living Water (John 7:37-39). Like-
wise, the second compositional stage of Trimorphic Protennoia regards
the Logos, who descends with the Five Seals at the conclusion of the
first-stage aretalogy, as the Logos-Son. He pours forth Living Water upon
the Spirit below out of its source, which is the Father-Voice aspect of
Protennoia, called the unpolluted spring of Living Water. So also Gospel
of the Egyptians understands the descent of Seth as Logos to be the
bestowal of a holy baptism, probably in Living Water. These baptismal
descents of the Logos or Seth are initiated by Barbelo, the Father-
Mother, an exalted Sophia figure, who communicates to those who love
her by Voice or Word (the Johannine prologue, Trimorphic Protennoia).
Jewish wisdom texts portray the exalted Sophia as the fountain or spring
(cf. Sirach 24; Philo, Fug. 195) from which comes the Word like a river
(Philo, Somn. 2.242; cf. Fug. 97), the Mother of the Word through whom
the universe came to be (Fug. 109; cf. Trimorphic Protennoia and the
Johannine prologue). To be baptized in her water is to receive true
gnosis. Thus her Voice (bath qol) is the revelation of the truth: e.g., “Man
exists and the Son of Man” in the Apocryphon of John or the Gospel of
the Egyptians; “This is my beloved Son” in Mark 1:11 (cf. 9:7), where the
heavenly Voice comes down to water; similarly the Voices in Trim. Prot.
XIII,1:40,8-9; 44,29-32 and Apoc. Adam V,5:84,4. Indeed it is likely that
Trimorphic Protennoia derived its scheme of Voice, Speech, and Logos
from such a complex of notions.
The conclusion to be drawn from these clusters of ideas is that the
Sethian soteriology involving the saving descent of Barbelo, or of her
Voice, or of Seth or of the Logos was most likely worked out in a
baptismal environment characterized by speculation on the significance
of words spoken and waters involved (cf. Zost. VIII,1:15) during the first
century.’ In this environment it rubbed shoulders with Christianity, but
® Gnostic Sethianism must have originated among the numerous baptismal sects that
populated Syria and Palestine, especially along the Jordan valley, in the period 200 B.c.£-
300 c.E.: the Essenes/Dead Sea sect, the pre-Christian Nasareans of Epiphanius, John the
Baptist and his followers, the Jewish-Christian Nazorenes, the Ebionites, Pauline and
Johannine Christians, Naasenes, Valentinians/Marcosians, Elkasaites, Sabeans, Dosi-
theans, Masbotheans, Gorothenians, Hemero-baptists, Mandeans, and the groups behind
the Odes of Solomon, Acts of Thomas, Pseudo-Clementines, Justin’s Baruch, etc. (cf.
Thomas, Mouvement baptiste). These baptismal rites, often representing a spiritualizing
protest against a failing or extinct sacrificial temple cultus (so Thomas), are mostly
descendants of ancient Mesopotamian New Year enthronement rituals in which the king,
stripped of his regalia, symbolically undergoes a struggle with the dark waters of chaos,
cries for aid, is raised up and nourished by water or food, absolved and strengthened by
a divine oracle, enthroned, enrobed, and acclaimed as king, acquiring radiance and
authority (e.g., tablets III and IV of “I will praise the Lord of Wisdom,” ANET 434-36).
Similar imagery of struggle and exaltation can be found in Psalms 18, 30, 69, 80, 89, 110,
114 and 146 (cf. 1 Kgs 1:38-47; it may be that suffering in the water and baptism [or drink]
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 69

probably did not fully take the step of identifying their savior with
Christ or Jesus, which it would soon do, but in a rather polemical
fashion.
are two aspects of the function of water in these rites). In 2 Esdr 13:1-6 the rising of the
Son of Man is accompanied by the issuance of his cosmic voice. In 2 Enoch 22, Enoch is
raised up before God by Michael, stripped of his earthly garments, anointed and enrobed
in glory so that he shines. In the Maccabean period, T. Levi 8:2-10 portrays the priest
Levi as “a priest forever” (cf. Melchizedek); he is commanded to put on priestly garments
(including the garment of truth), but then is invested as a royal figure (anointed, given a
staff, washed, fed bread and wine, clad with a glorious robe, linen vestment, purple
girdle and crowned). In T. Levi 18:6-7 at the advent of the eschatological priest, a star
arises, emitting the light of knowledge; the Father's voice issues from the heavenly
temple; the spirit of understanding rests on him in the water; the priest will open the
gates of paradise, feed the saints from the tree of life and bind Beliar.
Baptismal and ascensional motifs occur frequently in patristic heresiological reports:
the Sethians (Hipp. Ref. 5.19.21: washing in and drinking from living water, celestial
enrobing); Justin’s Baruch (Hipp. Ref. 5.27.2-3: drinking from and baptism in living water
as opposed to earthly water); the Naasenes (Hipp., Ref. 5.7.19: washing in living water,
anointing; 5.8.14-18: issuance of the divine voice over the flood, passing through water
and fire, lifting up of gates; 5.9.18-20: drink of living water) and the Marcosians (Iren.
Haer. 1.21.3-5 baptism in the name of Achamoth, anointing in the name of Jao, anointing
for heavenly ascent). Valentinian baptism is reflected in the baptismal appendices to A
Valentinian Exposition and in the Gospel of Philip. Baptismal motifs occur in the Odes of
Solomon, especially Ode 11:7-16 (drinking living water, stripping away of folly, enrobing
with radiance and enlightenment) and Ode 24:1-5 (the voice of the Dove above the
Messiah and the opening of the abysses; cf. Ode 17:1-16 and its parallels with Trim. Prot.
XIII,1:41,4-42,2 which is interpreted as a baptism). The sequence of acts in the Five Seals
of Trim. Prot. XIII,1:48,15-35 is very much like the sequence of acts in the Mandaean
Masbita as summarized by Rudolph, Mandder, 2.88-89: entrance into the “Jordan,” triple
self-immersion, triple immersion by the priest, triple sign with water, triple drink,
crowning, invocation of divine names, ritual handshake, and ascent from the “Jordan”).
In Trimorphic Protennoia, the one baptized is enrobed before baptism as seems to be the
case among the Qumran sectaries, the Mandaeans, and later Christian rites (apparently
only Elchasaites were baptized naked).
It is quite likely that the early Sethian baptismal milieu was the setting for the
baptismal mythologumena in the Sethian treatises, and especially for the hymnic
materials in Gos. Eg. III,2, pp.66-67, Apoc. Adam V,5, pp.78-82, Melch. XI,1, pp.5-6 and
16-18, and in the baptismal material of Trimorphic Protennoia. These materials seem to
envision the descent of the savior into the world, corresponding to the descent of the king
or of the one baptized into water or world of chaos, but also the spiritual visionary ascent
of the one baptized out of the water, or world, into the light, corresponding to the
enthronement and exaltation of the king, priest, or priest-king. Allogenes, Three Steles of
Seth, and especially Zostrianos with its celestial baptism reflect in their visionary ascent
scheme only the enthronement-exaltation-glorification aspect of the baptismal rite. There
seems to be a close correspondence of the pattern of baptismal immersion and emer-
gence with the humiliation and exaltation pattern of the ancient enthronement rituals.
On such grounds certain of the NT Christological hymns employing a similar pattern may
also be seen against a baptismal environment, especially the Johannine prologue, Phil
2:6-11, Col 2:9-15, 1 Tim 3:16, and 1 Pet 3:18-22. The portrayal of the deliverer or his
forerunner as a light dawning (anatellein or anatolé) or entering the world is associated
with the advent of the priest-king of T. Levi 18 and of John the Baptist (of priestly
. descent) in Luke 1:76-79 (and perhaps in the Johannine prologue if it once applied to the
Baptist). Such texts may in part reflect the eschatological advent of the star and scepter of
Num 24:17 (often interpreted as referring to a royal and a priestly messiah by the Dead
70 JOHN D. TURNER
6. The Earliest Sethian Compositions.. Thus I would suggest that by
the end of the first century, Sethians possessed at least the following
sacred texts. First, several versions of a possibly hymnic narrative of the
threefold descent of the divine Mother like the one contained at the end
of the longer version of Apocryphon of John according to which the
third descent was finally effective and was understood to be the myth-
ical origin of a Sethian baptismal rite called the Five Seals. This might
also have existed in the form now embedded as source B in C. W.
Hedrick’s redactional theory of the Apocalypse of Adam,’ in which three
men (!) appear to Adam in a dream to awaken him from the sleep of
death (V,5:65,24-66,12; 67,12-21). They speak of the third descent of the
Illuminator who performs acts that disturb the God of the powers. He
cannot recognize the power of this “man” and punishes his flesh only
after he has caused his elect to shine and he has withdrawn to the holy
houses (the four Lights?) in the great aeon from which he had come
(V,5:76,8-11; 76,14-82,17; 82,19-83,4). Indeed, the redactor leads us to
believe that prior to his withdrawal, he imparted to his elect a secret
gnosis which is “the holy baptism of those who know the eternal
Sea sect; cf. 1 QM 11,6; 1 QSb 5,20-25; 4 QTestim 9-13; CD 7,9-21; also T. Judah 24 and
Rev 22:16).
‘The judgment upon the sons of Seth reflected in Num 24:17, as interpreted in the
Damascus Document (CD 7,9-21) and the Samaritan tradition (Asatir I1,3), that Seth
founded Damascus have been used to show that the Samaritans of Damascus claimed to
be the true generation of Seth (the people of the Northern Kingdom) whom the scepter,
the prince of the Qumran community, was coming to destroy (Beltz, “Samaritanertum”).
Since no orthodox Samaritan traditions reflect this Qumran tradition, Beltz suggests it
was a Samaritan sectarian tradition, and that it was the Dositheans who thought of
themselves as sons of Seth, an identification perhaps reflected in the mention of
Dositheus in Steles Seth VII,5:118,10-19. While a connection between the Sethians and
Dositheans is only a suggestion, certain Dositheans apparently constituted a baptizing
sect of the first and second centuries c.£. (Vilmar, Abulfathi annales, 151-59; Ps. Clem.
Rec. 2.8 and Hom. 2.24; Origen, Cels, 1.57; 6.11; Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 4.22; cf. Montgomery,
Samaritans, 253-63). The Pseudo-Clementines link Dositheus with Simon Magus and
John the Baptist (Rec. 1:54-63; 2.8; Hom. 2.15-24; 3.22); these accounts are of doubtful
historical value, but they may reflect an original association of John or Simon or
Dositheus with Samaria. A possible connection between John (and Jesus!) and Samaria
occurs in the first four chapters of the Fourth Gospel, especially if his baptismal activity
at Ainon near Salim is to be located in Samaria as Scobie thinks (John the Baptist, 163-
77; 187-202; perhaps this Ainon=spring has to do with “ainon” in Gos. Eg. IV,2:44,25 and
“ainos” in Trim. Prot. XIII,1:39,1). These possible links between the Baptist, heterodox
Samaritanism, the Fourth Gospel and early Sethianism deserve further investigation. In
any case, both John the Baptist and Seth are portrayed as eschatological figures who
introduce a baptismal rite, as Jesus also is portrayed insofar as he is identified with Seth
in the Sethian literature. The introduction of this rite is connected with a cosmic
judgment, involves a passing through water and, in the synoptics, a pending baptism with
fire (or the Holy Spirit). These are complexes of ideas which in an early Sethian
baptismal environment might have been linked to the Sethian tripartite eschatology
marked by flood, fire and final judgment.
” Hedrick, “Adam,” and more fully, Apocalypse.
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 71

knowledge through those born of the word and the imperishable

illuminators (the four Lights?) who came from the holy seed (of the
celestial Sethians): Yesseus, Mazareus, Yessedekeus, [the Living] Water”
(V,5:85,22-31). Furthermore, the tripartite narrative attributed above to
the first redactional stage of Trimorphic Protennoia would belong here.
B. 100-125 C.E.
The first quarter of the second century must have seen the devel-
opment of a theogonical account of the successive begettings of the triad
Father-Mother-Son conceived as the Invisible Spirit, Barbelo, and their
Son. Such an account underlies the Barbeloite system in Iren. Haer.
1.29. By now, the basic triad has been embellished by the addition of an
elementary set of hypostatized divine attributes, which themselves could
form pairs so as to produce further beings, such as the four Lights which
were probably objects of vision in the spiritualized Sethian baptismal
rite of the Five Seals. The first quarter of the second century seems to
have been a period of vigorous arithmological speculation on the first
ten numbers, but especially the first four numbers, comprising the
Pythagorean tetraktys “the sum of the first four numbers.” This was
carried on by such Pythagoreanizing Platonists as Theon of Smyrna and
Nicomachus of Gerasa, who in turn depend in part on similar arith-
mological and mathematical theories produced by such early first-
century Platonist figures as Dercyllides, Adrastos of Aphrodisias (a
Peripatetic commentator on Plato’s Timaeus) and Thrasyllos, a court
philosopher under the Emperor Tiberius. The harmonic ratios produced
by these first four numbers and the geometric entities of point, line,
surface, and solid had been applied to the structure and the creation of
the world soul long before by Plato and his successors in the old
Academy, especially Speusippus and Xenocrates. Thus it is not neces-
sary to assume that the Barbeloite system of Iren. Haer. 1.29 is depen-
dent upon Valentinus or his successors, Polemy and Heracleon, or vice
versa, since this arithmological lore was by now readily available in the
handbooks employed in the dense network of urban schools where
anyone who wished to become literate might study them alongside the
Timaeus itself. Although this Sethian “Barbeloite” theogonical material
exists in a number of treatises each of which adds its own special
touches (e.g., Iren. Haer. 1.29, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of the
Egyptians, Allogenes, Zostrianos, Three Steles of Seth, Marsanes and
Trimorphic Protennoia), it seems’that the material common to the
Apocryphon of John and Iren. Haer. I.29 represents the earliest form.
In the early second century the principal emphasis of gnostic specu-
lation on the beyond seems to be the explanation of how the current
72 JOHN D. TURNER

world came to be and how and whence the savior originated and
descended with enlightening gndsis. This speculation seemed to require
a Father and Mother who produced and sent the Son. The peculiar
exegesis of Genesis 1-6 with its emphasis on the primordial origins of
the heavenly and earthly Sethians was the only obvious aetiology by
which the Sethians could maintain any sense of separate identity as the
elect ones. This mythology, presented in narrative as a temporal suc-
cession of successive human generations, required to be matched by a
similar but less temporally conceived succession of the unfolding hypos-
tases and offspring of the high deity.
1. The Apocryphon of John. To judge from Iren. Haer I.29 and the
four versions of the Apocryphon of John (which represent already
Christianized versions of the Sethian myth of Barbelo the Mother and
the sender of both the primordial saviors, Autogenes and Epinoia
[Sophia, Eve] and also the eschatological savior, the Autogenes [Chris- _
tianized as Christ], the Apocryphon of John first exhibited the following ~
profile. The Father, the invisible virginal Spirit, emitted his female
aspect conceived as his Thought (Ennoia) which took shape as his First
Thought (or Forethought) named Barbelo, who in Jewish tradition was
probably a manifestation of the divine Name. Since (as her name
suggests) God is in four, she requests the Invisible Spirit to realize four
of her attributes as separate hypostases: Foreknowledge, Incorrupti-
bility, Eternal Life and Self-begotten or Autogenes. The last of these is
later identified with her Son Adamas, or Christ. Since Barbelo is the
self-begotten divine Mind and wisdom of God, her Son should likewise
possess similar powers and so his own attributes (Mind, Will, Logos and
Truth) are manifested. At this point, there remains to be explained the
origin of the four Lights, the celestial dwellings of Adamas, Seth, the
celestial seed of Seth, and the future home of the historical Sethians.
They are a traditional part of the Sethian’s baptismal lore as shown in
Gos. Eg. III,2:64,9-65,26 and in the baptismal prayer in Melch. IX,1:16,
16-18,7. The four Lights are explained by forming a tetrad of pairs
composed of the hypostatized attributes of both Barbelo and her Son so
that the “Autogenes” attribute of the Son and the Incorruptibility aspect
of Barbelo produced the four Lights: Harmozel, Oroiael, Davithe, and
Eleleth. At that point, to judge from the current versions of the
Apocryphon of John and the Gospel of the Egyptians, Barbelo caused a
further pairing of her attribute of Eternal Life and her Son’s attribute of
Will (Theléma). They give rise to four further feminine attributes, Grace,
Will (Thelésis), Understanding, and Wisdom (the upper Sophia, perhaps
called Phronesis; cf. Hyp. Arch. II,4:93,18-19 and 94,2-4). This sets the
stage for the fall of Sophia, a lower aspect of the Mother. After giving
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 73

rise to the Archon, she projects the image of the Son, Adamas. Later still,
she causes the conception of Seth and his seed, whom she also rescues,
either by herself or, as in the Apocalypse of Adam, by angelic beings,
perhaps the servants of the Lights. In order to provide even more
primordial spiritual prototypes of these beings, a further pairing of
attributes, the Mother’s Foreknowledge and the Son’s Mind, must have
produced the archetypal patterns for Adam, Seth, and his seed. They are
. then placed in the first three of the four Lights, leaving the fourth as a
dwelling for the restored lower Sophia.
The systems of Irenaeus and the Apocryphon of John each contain
subtle departures from this hypothetical arrangement, either by way of
_ simplification, confusion, or more likely, in the case of the Apocryphon
of John, to enhance the position of Christ instead of Adamas as the Son
in the wake of Christianization. As van den Broek has pointed out,’ the
birth of Autogenes from Ennoia and Logos found in Irenaeus is sup-
pressed in the Apocryphon of John because Autogenes is identified with
the Christ who has, in the extant versions of the Barbeloite system,
become identified as the Son of the Father and Barbelo. He points out
that while in the Apocryphon of John Christ the Son is identified with
his Autogenes aspect, in Iren. Haer. 1.29, this Autogenes and his son
Adamas are lower beings produced by Ennoia and Logos. They receive,
however, great honor in a way that would suit a much higher being. He
shows convincingly that, since Irenaeus says all things were subjected to
Autogenes, the Barbeloite system originally considered him little less
than God, crowned with glory and honor and given dominion over all
things, an application of Ps 8:4-6. Originally, therefore, Autogenes had a
higher rank. This would be the rank that Christ the Son now holds in the
Christianized system, although this presupposes astage still prior to the
Father-Mother-Son triad in which there was Man and the Son of Man,
little less than God. Thus the development of the bisexual nature of the
Son of Man into Mother and Son demoted the Son, the Autogenes
Adam, one notch. The Barbeloite system preserved the rank of Auto-
genes by identifying him with Christ (Ap. John BG8502,2:30,6; but not in
NHC II,1) but demoted Adamas. On the other hand, Irenaeus’ version
demoted both Autogenes and Adamas, leaving only Christ as the
supreme Son.
The Apocryphon of John results from a combination of this theogony
with the Sethian story of Yaldabaoth’s creation of the protoplasts and
the subsequent struggle between him and the Mother depicted in terms
of Genesis 2-6. The entire work is then construed as the final revelation

® “ Autogenes.”
74 JOHN D. TURNER
of the Mother who in the form of Christ reveals the whole thing to his
disciple John. The source upon which the longer and shorter versions
seem to depend may possibly have been produced during the first
quarter of the second century. The long negative theology of the
Invisible Spirit at the beginning seems quite in keeping with the
interests of such thinkers of this period as Basilides, the Neopythagorean
Moderatus and, farther afield, of Albinus. As E. R. Dodds showed in
1928,° this negative theology is only a natural development of Plato’s
doctrine of the Good “beyond being in power and dignity” in the
Republic, 509B and of the speculations about the non-being of the One
in the Parmenides, 137Cff.
Perhaps by the end of the first quarter of the second century, the
shorter recension (BG8502,2 and NHC III,1), supplemented by the short
excursus on the soul (BG8502,2:64,9-71,2) came into existence in the
form of a dialogue between the resurrected Christ and his disciple John,
son of Zebedee, together with the appropriate Christian glosses sub-
stituting Christ for the Autogenes Adam (cf. the similar phenomenon in
the case of Eugnostos and the Sophia of Jesus Christ).
2. Trimorphic Protennoia. Perhaps at.this time the second composi-
tional stage of the Trimorphic Protennoia was also achieved by the
addition of the four mysteries to the triple descent aretalogical narrative,
as discussed above. The first of these mysteries indeed seems dependent
on the already Christianized system common to the Apocryphon of John
and Iren. Haer. 1.29, and the fourth draws on the Sethian baptismal
tradition of the Five Seals.
C. 125-150 C.E.
Toward the end of the first half of the second century, Trimorphic
Protennoia may have reached its present (polemically) Christianized
form. This period may also have seen the redaction of the longer version
of the Apocryphon of John in Codices II and IV by the addition of a long
section on the many angels that contributed parts to the body of the
protoplastic Adam, claimed to be derived from a “book of Zoroaster”
(11,1:15,29-19,11) and the inclusion of the Pronoia hymn at the end
(I1,1:30,11-31,25; discussed above).
1. The Apocalypse of Adam (Source B). The redactional combina-
tion of a triple descent narrative culminating in the Sethian rite of
baptismal enlightenment with a major version of the Sethian history of
salvation derived from an exegesis of Genesis 1-6 in the case of the
Apocryphon of John may have occurred at about the same time that part

® “The Parmenides of Plato,” esp. 132-33.

 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 75

of a similar triple descent narrative (fleshed out with the opinions on the
thirteen kingdoms) in source B of the Apocalypse of Adam was con-
nected by its redactor with the Genesis-inspired Sethian salvation
history of source A. At the same time he also incorporated Sethian
baptismal tradition, but in a polemical way. Although the Apocalypse of
Adam was not Christianized in an obvious way by the redactor, it is at
least arguable that Source B contained concepts that originated in close
contact with Christianity such as the punishing of the flesh of the man
upon whom the spirit has come (V,5:77,16-18) and the (unsatisfactory)
speculations on the origin of the Illuminator as the son of a prophet, or
son of a virgin or son of Solomon attributed to the second, third, and
fourth kingdoms (V,5:78,7-79,19). Just as is the case with the Christo-
logical motifs in the third subtractate of Trimorphic Protennoia, such
concepts seem to be introduced in a polemical vein, suggesting that the
triple-descent motif may have been developed in connection with an
attempt to distinguish Sethianism from Christianity with its increasing
stress on the once-for-all nature of Christ’s redeeming activity. For
Christianity, the period of Israel was one only of preparation for the
advent of salvation in Christ, while for the Sethians, salvation had been
in principle already achieved in primordial times, with the raising of
Seth and his seed into the Aeon. Thus the first and second descents of
the redeemer had actually already performed the fundamental work of
salvation in primordial times and left witnesses to it on inscribed steles
and in books. The third descent of the redeemer is therefore only to
remind the earthly Sethians of what had been accomplished for them in
the past, and to grant them a means of realizing this in the present
through the baptismal ascent ritual.
That this third descent of the redeemer is identified with the pre-
existent Christ who brings salvation as gnosis rather than salvation
through his death on the cross should occasion no surprise. There were
tendencies toward such views in Johannine Christian circles as well.
One should bear in mind that also during this period (140-160 C.E.)
Valentinus likewise developed the notion of a pneumatic Christ coming
to waken the sleeping spirit in humankind, a notion which lies at the
core of his system. Valentinus and his successors made Christ the focus
of their system and thus were allied principally with Christianity. The
Sethians, however, seemed to find their sense of uniqueness in oppo-
sition to the Church on the grounds just mentioned. Since various groups
were not isolated from one another but freely made use of texts and
ideas borrowed from other groups, the adoption of Christ into their
system was only natural, but did not fundamentally change its basically
non-Christian nature and inner cohesion.
76 JOHN D. TURNER

2. The Hypostasis of the Archons. Finally, it is also probable that in

the mid-second century or slightly later, Hypostasis of the Archons
reached its present Christianized form, perhaps derived from a hypo-
thetical “Apocalypse of Norea,” posited by H.-M. Schenke” as the
source common to Hypostasis of the Archons (II,4) and On the Origin of
the World (II,5). The prominence in this work of Norea as sister of Seth
and offspring and earthly manifestation of Sophia through Eve may
have inspired the short treatise Norea, which conceives Norea in two
levels. She is the upper Sophia who cried out to the Father of the All
(i.e., Adamas conceived as Ennoia) and was restored to her place in the
ineffable Epinoia (perhaps the Light Eleleth to whom she cries in
Hypostasis of the Archons) and thus in the divine Autogenes. Yet she is
also the lower Sophia manifested as daughter of Eve and wife-sister of
Seth who is also yet to be delivered from her deficiency, which will
surely be accomplished by the intercession of the four Lights, or their
ministers. It is interesting that here Adamas is himself the Father of the
All, yet is also called Nous and Ennoia as well as Father of Nous, a set of
identifications which recalls the bisexual nature of Adamas as both
Father and Mother, or Man and Son of Man (which are perhaps the two
names that make the “single name” Man).
In this presentation, I have urged an early dating (125-150 C.E.) for the
Apocalypse of Adam, Hypostasis of the Archons, Norea, Trimorphic
Protennoia, and the longer recension of the Apocryphon of John; earlier
yet (100-125 CE.) for the shorter recension, the first two compositional
stages of Trimorphic Protennoia prior to its Christianization, and source
B of the Apocalypse of Adam; andastill earlier date (prior to 100 C.E.) for
the traditional materials they include: the Sophia myth, the exegesis of
Genesis 1-6 and other OT traditions, and an already spiritualized Seth-
ian baptismal rite. Christian influence was at work in all these periods
and explicitly so in the last two, while Neopythagorean speculation be-
comes influential around 100-125 C.E. On the other hand, the polemical
use of Christological motifs appears in the last period, 125-150 C.E.,
when explicit heresiological summaries and refutations of the gnostic
systems begin to appear, e.g., Justin’s lost Syntagma. All these docu-
ments stress the movement of salvation from above to below by means
of descending redeemer revealers appearing at certain special points in
primordial and recent history, bearing gnésis and not infrequently
conferring a baptismal rite (not in Norea or Hypostasis of the Archons).

1° “Sethianism,” 596-97.
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY a/

D. 150-200 C.E.
Aside from Allogenes, Zostrianos, Marsanes, and Three Steles of
Seth, there are two of the Sethian works which I have not placed in this
period: Melchizedek and Gospel of the Egyptians. The latter seems to
me to have taken shape a bit later, somewhere in the second half of the
second century, since it seems to presuppose the existence of the extant
versions of the Apocryphon of John, Trimorphic Protennoia, and the
baptismal nomenclature (especially Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus)
known to the redactor of Apocalypse of Adam. Melch. 1X,1:16,16-18,7
and 5,17-6,10 also seem to presuppose, especially in its baptismal
doxology, the five doxologies in Gos. Eg. IV,2:59,13-29; III,2:49,22-50,17;
53,12-54,11; 55,16-56,3; 61,23-62,13. The key element is the mention of
Doxomedon as first-born of the Aeons, a name apparently unattested
elsewhere except in Gospel of the Egyptians and Zostrianos.
1. The Gospel of the Egyptians. As H.-M. Schenke has suggested, the
emphasis of Gospel of the Egyptians seems to lie upon baptismal
traditions and prayers which conclude it (cf. III,2:64,9-68,1), while the
preceding sections seem to function as a mythological justification for
them. Indeed the first part of the Gospel of the Egyptians seems to be
built almost entirely on these five doxologies or presentations of praise
which enumerate the origins of the principal transcendent beings of this
treatise. These are the great Invisible Spirit, the male virgin Barbelo, the
Thrice-Male Child, the male virgin Youel (a double of Barbelo),
Esephech the Child of the Child (a double of the Triple Male Child), the
great Doxomedon Aeon (containing the last three beings; cf. Zost.
VIII,1:61,15-21 and Gos. Eg. III,2:43,15-16: the great aeon, where the
Triple Male Child is), and various other pleromas and aeons. Appar-
ently Gospel of the Egyptians understands the Invisible Spirit, Barbelo
and the three beings (Thrice-Male Child, Youel and Esephech) con-
tained in the Doxomedon aeon to constitute the Five Seals. This suggests
a baptismal context for these doxologies, perhaps also suggesting
Schenke’s notion of a divine pentad (cf. Ap. John II,1:6,2 and Steles
Seth VII,5,120,20) of names (cf. Trim. Prot. XIII,1:49,28-32; “the Five
Seals of these particular names”) which are invoked in the course of the
baptismal ascent (in five stages: robing, baptizing, enthroning, glorifying,
rapture into the light, XIII,1:48,15-35). Thus the Son figure of the Father-
-Mother-Son triad of the Apocryphon of John has been subdivided into
another Father-Mother-Son triad, leaving the Autogenes Logos dangling
in this system, although still produced by the (Invisible) Spirit and

11 Fy.M. Schenke, “Sethianism,” 603-4.

78 JOHN D. TURNER

Barbelo (“Pronoia”) and still establishing the four Lights by his Word. It
would appear that the Gospel of the Egyptians has combined two
traditions. They are the Invisible Spirit-Barbelo-Autogenes triad from
the system of the Apocryphon of John and Trimorphic Protennoia, and
another tradition of a pentad, derived from the Sethian baptismal
tradition. Strikingly, Gospel of the Egyptians also seems to move towards
the postulation of another triad (which is possibly developed, for
example, by Allogenes into the Triple Power) between the Invisible
Spirit and Barbelo, namely “the living Silence,” an unspecified Father
and a Thought (Ennoia, which in turn becomes the Father in the triad,
Father/Ennoia, Mother/Barbelo, and Son/Thrice-Male Child). Finally,
Adamas seems to occupy astill lower rank, as in the Apocryphon of
John (where he is produced by Foreknowledge and Mind): Adamas
follows and is separated from the Autogenes Logos, and is produced by
“Man” (perhaps the Invisible Spirit) and a lower double of Barbelo,
Mirothoe. In turn Adam conjoins with Prophania to produce the four
Lights and Seth, who conjoins with Plesithea to produce his seed.
Gospel of the Egyptians seems also to know the myth of Sophia from
the version found in Trimorphic Protennoia according to which a voice
from the fourth Light Eleleth urges the production of a ruler for Chaos,
initiating the descent of the hylic Sophia cloud, who produces the chief
archon Sakla and his partner Nebruel, the makers of twelve aeons and
angels and of man. After Sakla’s boast and the traditional voice from on
high about the Man and Son of Man, a double of Sophia (Metanoia) is
introduced to make up for the deficiency in the Aeon of Eleleth due to
Sophia’s descent. She descends to the world which is called the image of
the night, perhaps reflecting an etymology of Eleleth’s name, perhaps
Lilith or léyla “night,” and suggesting that Eleleth is ultimately respon-
sible for the created order.
Gospel of the Egyptians also mentions the three parousias of flood,
conflagration and judgment through which Seth passes, which seems to
show awareness of the scheme of Apocalypse of Adam in its presently
redacted form. Again this tradition is set in a baptismal context, since the
third descent of Seth serves to establish a baptism through a Logos-
begotten body prepared by the virgin (Barbelo?). And indeed this Logos- -
begotten body turns out to be Jesus, whom Seth puts on, as in Trim. Prot.
XIIJ,1:50,12-15 (cf. the Ophite version of this theme in Iren. Haer.
1.30.12-13).
Finally there is the lengthy list of the various baptismal figures (Gos.
Eg. III,2:64,9-65,26) and the two concluding hymnic sections (Gos. Eg.
III,2:66,8-22, and 66,22-68,1) which Béhlig-Wisse have adroitly recon-
structed in the form of two separate hymns of five strophes each,
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 79

perhaps again reflecting the tradition of the Five Seals. In this regard,
the Five Seals tradition may even have given rise to the fivefold
repetition of the doxologies (enumerated above) constituting the basis of
the theogony in the first part of Gospel of the Egyptians. The concluding
baptismal hymns are strongly Christian in flavor, especially the first one,
mentioning Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus and, very frequently, Jesus.
The list of baptismal figures preceding the prayers reveals a multitude of
new figures (most of which show up in the baptismal sections of
Zostrianos) alongside the more traditional ones, such as Micheus,
Michar, Mnesinous, Gamaliel and Samblo (in Apocalypse of Adam and
Trimorphic Protennoia), and Abrasax and Yesseus Mazareus Yesse-
dekeus (in Apocalypse of Adam). Also included are Adamas, Seth and
his seed, and Jesus residing in the four Lights Harmozel, Oroiael,
Davithe, and Eleleth (as in Apocryphon of John and Trimorphic Proten-
noia).
Before passing on to the Allogenes group of treatises, one should also
note the occurrence of Kalyptos in Gos. Eg. IV,2:57,16, a name which
may be present in translated form also in Trim. Prot. XIII,1:38,10 as a
cognomen for Barbelo. Likewise in Gos. Eg. IV, 2:55,25 there seems to
occur the phrase “the First One who appeared,” likely a translation of
Protophanes (here apparently a cognomen for the Thrice-Male Child), a
term occurring also in Ap. John II,1:8,32 as a cognomen for Geradamas, -
further suggesting an original connection between Adamas and the
Triple Male Child. Perhaps also Prophania, who in Gospel of the
Egyptians functions as Adamas’ consort in the production of Seth and
the four Lights, is a feminine variant of Protophanes, again suggesting
the bisexual Adamas, the Son of Man, as the first to appear, doing so in
Sethian terms as both female (Mother, Barbelo, the Ennoia of the First
Man) and male (the Autogenes Son).
2. Allogenes and Zostrianos. Zostrianos is heavily indebted to the
Sethian dramatis personae especially as they occur in Gospel of the
Egyptians, and collects these into three rather distinct blocks (Zost.
VIII,1:6; also pp. 29-32 and 47). But the bulk of Zostrianos is cast in a
truly new scheme and conceptuality, which seems to have been devel-
oped independently by the author of Allogenes and adopted by Zos-
trianos in a somewhat confused way. This new scheme is the Sethian
practice of visionary ascent to the highest levels of the divine world,
which seems to be worked out for the first time by the author of
Allogenes utilizing a large fund of philosophical conceptuality derived
from contemporary Platonism, with no traces of Christian content.
Zostrianos appears to be based on the scheme of visionary ascent and
the philosophical conceptuality of Allogenes, but it makes a definite
80 _ JOHN D. TURNER

attempt to interpret this ascent in terms of the older tradition of

baptismal ascent and its own peculiar dramatis personae, especially as
they occur in Gospel of the Egyptians.
The metaphysical structure of both Allogenes and Zostrianos, as well
as Three Steles of Seth, appears to be centered on the triad Father-
Mother-Son as is the case with the Gospel of the Egyptians, Apocryphon
of John, and Trimorphic Protennoia. In Zostrianos this triad is con-
ceived as a vertical hierarchy of beings. The Father at the metaphysical
summit (perhaps himself beyond being) is the Invisible Spirit and is
accompanied by his Triple Powered One. Below him, the Mother
member of the triad is named Barbelo, who herself subsumes atriad of
hypostases. The highest of these is Kalyptos, the Hidden One. The next
lowest is Protophanes, the First-Appearing One, who has associated
with him another being called the Triple Male (Child). The third of the
triad is the Son called the divine Autogenes.
So also the various levels of the Aeon of Barbelo, the divine Mind
(Nous), are described in terms of their content, again expressed in terms
of the Platonic metaphysics of the divine intelligence (“noology”). As the
contemplated Mind, Kalyptos contains the paradigmatic ideas or au-
thentic existents; Protophanes, the contemplating Mind, contains a
subdivision of the ideas (“those who exist together”), i.e., universal ideas,
perhaps “mathematicals,” distinguished from the authentic existents by
having “many of the same” and being combinable with each other
(unlike the authentic existents; cf. Plato, according to Aristot. Metaph. I.
6 and XIII. 6), and also distinguished from the ideas of particular things.
(“the perfect individuals”). The particular ideas (“the [perfect] indi-
viduals”) are contained in Autogenes, a sort of demiurgic mind (the
Logos) who shapes the realm of Nature (physis) below. Since the
distinction between the “individuals” in Autogenes and “those who exist
together” in Protophanes is rather slight for the author of Allogenes, the
Triple Male Child fits nicely as a sort of mediator between them. This
mediating function of the Triple Male also qualifies him for the title of
Savior (Allogenes X1,3:58,13-15).
The doctrine of the Triple Powered One found in Allogenes also
occurs in Three Steles of Seth, Marsanes, and Zostrianos. It is clearly
the most intriguing feature of these treatises and perhaps the crucial
feature by which they can be placed at a definite point in time (and in
the Platonic metaphysical tradition). In Allogenes, Three Steles of Seth,
and Zostrianos, the Triple Powered One of the Invisible Spirit consists
of three modalities: Existence, Vitality or Life, and Mentality or Knowl-
edge (or Blessedness). In its Existence modality, the Triple Powered One
is continuous with (i.e., potentially contained within) and indistinguish-
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 81

able from the Invisible Spirit. In its Vitality modality, the Triple
Powered One is the boundlessness of the Invisible Spirit proceeding
forth in an act of emanation both continuous and discontinuous with the
Invisible Spirit and its final product, Barbelo, the self-knowledge of the
Invisible Spirit. In its Mentality modality, the Triple Powered One has
become bounded as Barbelo, the self-knowledge of the Invisible Spirit.
It has taken on form and definition as perceiving subject with the
Invisible Spirit as its object of perception.
This is the same doctrine as is found in the anonymous Parmenides
commentary (Fragment XIV) ascribed by Hadot to Porphyry,” where the
Neoplatonic hypostasis Intellect unfolds from the absolute being (to
einai) of the pre-existent One in three phases. In each phase the three
modalities of the Intellect (namely Existence, Life, and Intelligence)
predominate in turn. First as Existence (hyparxis), Intellect is purely
potential, resident in and identical with its ideas, the absolute being of
the One. In its third phase, Intellect has become identical with the
derived being (to on) of Intellect proper (the second Neoplatonic
hypostasis) as the hypostatic exemplification of its paradigmatic idea, the
absolute being of the One. The transitional phase between the first and
third phase of Intellect is called Life and constitutes the median
modality of Intellect (boundless thinking). The same idea is also found in
Plot. Enn. 6.7. 17,13-26:
Life, not the life of the One, but a trace of it, looking toward the One was boundless, but
once having looked was bounded (without bounding its source). Life looks to the One,
and determined by it, takes on bound, limit, form ... it must then have been determined
as (the Life of) a Unity including multiplicity. Each element of multiplicity is deter-
mined multiplicity because of Life, but also is a Unity because of limit . . . so Intellect is
bounded Life.

What is really original in Allogenes, besides the importation of

Platonic metaphysics into Sethianism, is the scheme of visionary ascent
experienced by Allogenes. Certainly Sethianism was familiar with
accounts of the ecstatic visionary ascents of Enoch, Elijah, Abraham,
Jacob, Paul and others contained in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic.
Allogenes, however, is distinguished by a Platonically inspired visionary
ascent of the individual intellect in which it assimilates itself to the
hierarchy of metaphysical levels with which it was aboriginally consub-
stantial but from which it had become separated.” In Allogenes, one
undergoes the ascent according to a. prescribed sequence of. mental
states: earthbound vision; ecstatic extraction from body and soul involv-
ing a transcending of traditional gnosis; a silent but unstable seeking of
‘2 Hadot, Porphyre.
** See my “Threefold Path,” 341-46 and Williams, “Stability.”
82 JOHN D. TURNER

oneself; firm standing; and sudden ultimate vision characterized as an

ignorant knowledge devoid of any content that might distinguish
between subject and contemplated object. Each stage is characterized
by increasing self-unification, stability and.mental abstraction, a move-
ment away from motion and multiplicity to stability and solitariness.
The prototype of such an experience is found already in Plato’s
Symposium 210A-212A, where Socrates recounts his path to the vision
of absolute beauty into which he had been initiated by Diotima. In such
mysteries, ultimate vision or epopteia was the supreme goal, also
expressed as assimilating oneself to God insofar as possible (Plato,
Theatetus, 176B). This was a traditional quest of religious Platonism not
only in Plato, but also later in such figures as Philo (who, however,
shunned the notion of total assimilation to God), Numenius, Valentinus,
perhaps Albinus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and many others
besides. In the period under discussion, this tradition culminates in
Plotinus.
In such a way, Allogenes achieves a vision of the Aeon of Barbelo and
the beings comprising it (Allogenes X1,3:57,29-58,26), then transcends his
earthly garment and even his own knowledge by means of a vacant
ignorance and sees the Mentality, Vitality, and Existence aspects of the
Triple Powered One of the Invisible Spirit (XI,3:58,27-60,37). At this
point, Allogenes is suddenly filled by a primary revelation of the
Unknowable One and his Triple Power (Allogenes XI,3:60,37-61,22).
The rest of the treatise is mostly devoted to an interpretation of his
visionary experience in terms of a negative theology (Allogenes XI,3:61,
32-62,13; supplemented by a more positive theology, XI,3:62,14-67,20).
This negative theology contains a nearly word-for-word parallel with
the one found in the beginning of the Apocryphon of John: Allogenes
XI,3:62,28-63,23=Ap. John II,1:3,18-35=BG8502,2:23,3-26,13. Allogenes
is thus likely to have borrowed from the Apocryphon of John.
E. 200-300 C.E.
When one realizes that Allogenes and Zostrianos are probably to be
included in the “apocalypses of Zoroaster and Zostrianos and Nicotheus
and Allogenes and Messos and those of other such figures” (Porph. Vit.
Plot. 16) whose stance was attacked by Plotinus and whose doctrines
were refuted at great length by Amelius and Porphyry himself in the
period 244-269 CE. one may date Allogenes around 200 CE, with
Zostrianos coming a bit later around 225 CE. (Porphyry certainly recog-
nized it as a spurious and recent work). Allogenes is also to be included
among the various Sethian works under the name of Allogenes men-
tioned by Epiphanius around 375 C.E. (Pan. 39.5.1; 40.2.2). Furthermore,
Plotinus, in his antignostic polemic (Enn. 3.8; 5.8; 5.5 and 2.9, tractates
 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 83

30-33 in chronological order, which constitute the original complete

antignostic tractate recognized by Harder, “Schrift Plotins”), probably
has these tractates in view.
1. Zostrianos. While Allogenes (like Three Steles of Seth) takes no
interest at all in the realm of Nature below Autogenes (mentioned only
once at Allogenes XI,3:51,28-32 as containing failures rectified by
Autogenes), Zostrianos and Marsanes do treat this realm. They seem to
enumerate six levels of being below Autogenes, called the thirteen
cosmic aeons (i.e., the world), the airy earth, the copies (antitypoi made
by the Archon) of the Aeons, the Transmigration (paroikésis); the
Repentance (metanoia) and the “self-begotten ones” (plural). Although it
is unclear in Zostrianos as it now stands, the Untitled Text of the Bruce
Codex (Schmidt-MacDermot, Bruce Codex, 263,11-264,6) allows us to
conjecture that “the self-begotten ones” constitute the level at which
Zostrianos is baptized in the name of Autogenes. It contains the Living
Water (Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus), the baptizers Micheus, Michar
(and Mnesinous), the purifier Barpharanges, a figure called Zogenethlos
and, besides these, the four Lights Harmozel, Oroiael, Davithe, and
Eleleth, together with Sophia. In Zostrianos, Adamas is found in
Harmozel; Seth, Emmacha Seth and Esephech the Child of the Child, in
Oroiael; and the seed of Seth, in Davithe. In addition, certain triads of
beings are either residents in or cognomens of the four Lights (Zost.
VIII,1:127,16-128,7). It is unclear whether the repentant souls (of the
historical Sethians?) are contained in Eleleth, as would be expected, or
in the level of Metanoia immediately below the self-begotten ones. It
appears also that the figures of: Meirothea (Zost. VIII,1:30,14-15) and
Plesithea (Zost.VIII,1:51,12) and Prophania (Zost.VIII,1:6,31) also belong
to the self-begotten ones. It seems that in comparison to Allogenes,
Zostrianos really is guilty of multiplying hypostases, but these are no
doubt derived from the Sethian baptismal tradition, not only from free
invention. It seems fair, then, to see Zostrianos as a derivative from
Allogenes and Gospel of the Egyptians.
2. The Three Steles of Seth. The Three Steles of Seth clearly
represents the same system as Allogenes; yet it is constructed as a
triptych of presentations of praise and blessing to Autogenes, Barbelo,
and the pre-existent One in connection with a communal practice of a
three-stage ascent and descent. After an initial revelation and various
blessings rendered by Seth (Steles Seth VII,5:118:25-120,28) who praises
the bisexual Geradamas as Mirothea (his mother) and Mirotheos (his
father), the rest of the treatise uses the first person plural for ascribing
praise to (1) the Triple Male, (2) to Barbelo who arose from the Triple
Powered One (characterized by being, living and knowing, and is also
called Kalyptos and Protophanes), and (3) to the pre-existent One who is
84 JOHN D. TURNER

characterized by the existence-life-mind triad. The whole concludes

with a rubric (Steles Seth VII,5:126,32-127,22) that explains the use of
the steles in the practice of descent from the third to the second to the
first; likewise, the way of ascent is the way of descent. The fact that the
method of descent is mentioned first is strange (one notes that the Jewish
Merkabah mystics called themselves Yordé Merkabah, “descenders to
the Merkabah”). Another instance of the interdependence of these texts
is a common prayer tradition: Steles Seth VII,5:125,23-126,17, Allogenes
XI1,3:54,11-37 and Zost.. VIII,1:51,24-52,24; 86,13-88, bottom.
3. Marsanes. Last of all, Marsanes and the Untitled Text of the
Bruce Codex should be mentioned as probably the latest of the Sethian
treatises that we possess. Like Zostrianos and Allogenes, Marsanes
records the visionary experience of a singular individual, probably to be
regarded as one of the many manifestations of Seth. B. A. Pearson in his
fine introduction to this tractate,“* suggests that the name Marsanes,
mentioned in the Untitled Text of the Bruce Codex (Schmidt-Mac-
Dermot, Bruce Codex, 235,13-23) in connection with Nicotheos (and
Marsianos by Epiphanius (Pan. 40.7.6] in his account of the Archontics),
reflects a Syrian background for its author, and dates Marsanes in the
early third century. But one might argue for dating it to the last quarter
of the third century since it indeed posits an unknown Silent One above
even the Invisible Spirit, in much the same way as Iamblichus during
the same period posited an “Ineffable” beyond even the One of Plotinus.
As mentioned previously, the first ten pages of Marsanes present a
visionary ascent to, and descent from, the highest level of the divine
world. They depict the same basic structure as Allogenes, but with the
omission of the Triple Male and the addition of at least the Repentance
(perhaps in unrecoverable parts of the text one would find mention of
the Transmigration and Antitypes) and the “cosmic” and “material”
levels. From page 55 onward one notes the occurrence of a few
baptismal terms, such as “wash,” “seal,” and perhaps “{Living] Water”
(Marsanes X,1:65,22). Indeed the entire perceptible and intelligible
universe is structured according to a hierarchy of thirteen seals. Aside
from the narrative of the unfolding of Barbelo from the Triple Powered
One (of the unknown Silent One, or of the Invisible Spirit?) and the
plentiful occurrence of Platonic metaphysical terms such as “being,”
“non-being,” “truly existing,” “partial,” “whole,” “sameness,” “difference”
9 6

(esp. Marsanes X,1:4,24-5,5), one learns that Marsanes has not only
come to know the intelligible world, but also that “the sense-perceptible°
world is [worthy] of being saved entirely” (X,1:5,22-26), an idea quite in
line with Allogenes as well. These texts, Allogenes, Zostrianos, Three

4 Dearson, Codices IX and X, 229-50.

 SETHIAN GNOSTICISM: A LITERARY HISTORY 85

Steles of Seth, and Marsanes, which I call the “Allogenes group,” all
exhibit a tendency not only toward an ontological monism, but also, save
' perhaps in the case of Zostrianos with its Sophia myth, a rather positive
attitude toward the sense-perceptible world, the realm of Nature. Even
‘Zostrianos, which affirms the existence of the demiurgic work of the
Archon, its artificiality and its death-threatening bondage, concludes:
“Release yourselves,’ and that which has bound you will be dissolved.
Save yourselves, in order that it may be saved” (VIII,1:131,10-12).
4. The Untitled Text of the Bruce Codex. Finally, as previously
mentioned, the Untitled Text of the Bruce Codex also belongs among
the Sethian treatises, and seems to have affinity mostly with Zostrianos
and Gospel of the Egyptians. It is almost entirely devoted to an elaborate
cosmology involving the transcendent Sethian dramatis personae
arranged into various levels and groups called “fatherhoods” and
“deeps” consisting of myriads of powers. It narrates the descent of the
light-spark and Christ through Setheus, bearing a salvation which seems
to be effected by the baptismal rite already discussed. It is by all
standards a most complex work defying any simple analysis. I can do no
more than state that Schmidt’ has dated it to the end of the second
century, although I would be inclined to put it a bit later, around 350
C.E., but for no reason other than its extraordinary prolixity in com-
parison with the other Sethian treatises.

IV. Conclusion
It may be that the Sethians’ gradual shift away from their original
communal baptismal context, interpreted by means of a rich history of
their primordial origins and salvation, towards the more ethereal and
individualistic practice of visionary ascent contributed to the eventual
decay and diffusion of those who identified with the Sethian traditions.
Around 375 CE., Epiphanius has difficulty recalling where he had
encountered Sethians, and says that they are not to be found every-
where, but now only in Egypt and Palestine, although fifty years before
they had spread as far as Greater Armenia (Pan. 39.1.1-2; 40.1). Perhaps
the burgeoning pressure of officially sanctioned Christianity after Con-
stantine drove them away from their former community centers. Their
initial rapprochement with Christian ideas, alternating between positive-
in the case of Apocryphon of John, Hypostasis of the Archons and
Melchizedek, and more negative and polemical in the case of Tri-
morphic Protennoia, Gospel of the Egyptians, and the Apocalypse of
Adam, may have proved aliability. While Christological concepts could

18 Schmidt, Schriften, 664.

86 JOHN D. TURNER

clearly depict the eschatological advent of Seth in their own era, to

adopt these meant also to reinterpret them in a Sethian way and thus
challenge a more “orthodox” Christological interpretation. Although this
preserved for a time their separate conscious identity as an elect body,
in the long run it must have earned the hostility of the increasingly
better organized, institutional, “orthodox” church. Certainly influential
church fathers holding powerful positions in the church singled out the
Sethians along with many others for attack. At first, this attack was
perhaps rather pedantic, sarcastic, and theoretical, but in the case of a
Tertullian or later an Epiphanius, it could become brutal and libelous.
Though thrust away by the church, many Sethians no doubt held on to
their own version of Christianized salvation history, but concentrated
more and more on spiritualizing it along a vertical, transcendent axis.
Such an emphasis on vertical transcendence at the expense of a sense of
primordial history must have weakened their sense of traditional histor-
ical grounding and communal solidarity.
The final stage seems achieved in the Allogenes group, where the
Sethians, if they thus identified themselves any longer, moved into
rapprochement with pagan Platonism. Epiphanius tells us that the
Archontic branch of Sethianism had rejected baptism and the sacra-
ments associated with the church. This happened possibly around the
inauguration of the Sassanide era, the time of the vision and mission of
Mani, who also rejected baptism. Without some cultic or communal
form of this rite, individual Sethians were left to their own devices. An
increasing emphasis on self-performable techniques of spiritual ascent
with its attendant possibilities for individualism possibly entailed a
further weakening of communal awareness traditionally grounded in
ritual and primordial history. While initially welcomed into Platonic
circles, their insistence on enumerating and praising their traditional
divine beings with hymns, glossalalia, and other forms of ecstatic
incantation must have irritated more sober Platonists such as Plotinus,
Porphyry and Amelius. Although the Platonists initially regarded the
Sethians as friends, soon they too, like the heresiologists of the church,
began writing pointed and lengthy attacks upon them for distorting the
teaching of Plato which they adapted to depict their own spiritual world
and the path toward assimilation with it. This rejection, coupled with the
official sanction of Christianity under Constantine and the attendant
pressure against the very paganism the Sethians had turned to, may
have contributed to the fragmentation of the Sethian community into a
multitude of sectarian groups (e.g., Audians, Borborites, Archontics;
perhaps Phibionites, Stratiotici, and Secundians), some of which sur-
vived into the Middle Ages—a true scattering of the seed of Seth!
A photograph of the Nag Hammadi Codices taken by Jean Doresse in Cairo in 1949 prior
to their early conservation in plexiglass by Martin Krause and Pahor Labib. Institute for
Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont, California (IAC) photo.

Outside of the cover of Nag Hammadi Codex II. It is the most decorated of the leather
covers. IAC photo by Peggy Hedrick.
 eR
AS
EE
Rw

> * * att ‘ Fe
Ati 3 le om i ae
In the courtyard of the Coptic Museum James M. Robinson and Charles W. Hedrick
confer on a reading in Nag Hammadi Codex VI: The Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Apostles. IAC photo by Peggy Hedrick.

Charles W. Hedrick at work in the Coptic Museum in Cairo on the reconstructed papyrus
roll of Codex IV. IAC photo by Peggy Hedrick.
Behind the modern quarry (white area near the center of the picture) lie the “crocodile
caves,” where, at the beginning of this century, a discovery of papyri stuffed inside
mummified crocodiles is reported. IAC photo by Peggy Hedrick.

iE A
Pte ian

ri ie
am
hy
ar eS
jue

ev afl
er

Columns from the ancient Basilica of St. Pachomius lie scattered about the surface of the
ground. In modern times the site served as a threshing floor for the village of Faw Qibli.
Wheat is still winnowed as in biblical times. IAC photo.
In the background: the Jabal al-Tarif, the awesome cliff face at the base of which the Nag
Hammadi Codices were discovered; in the foreground: three shadoofs, part of a primitive
system of irrigation still in use in Upper Egypt. IAC photo by Peggy Hedrick.

The east wall of Tomb 8, cleared during the first and second seasons of excavation at the
Jabal al-Tarif, was inscribed with the beginning lines of psalms, perhaps as a memory aid
for monks who meditated in the cool tombs in the heat of the day. IAC photo by Peggy
Hedrick.
 PART Il
GNOSTICISM, NEW TESTAMENT,
AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
ate ‘oka Te aye et ory neee erat ne? deh which dap
le
t ce:
; ; cae | Meer bas one OR
snag se siepence
 4
GNOSTICISM AND
THE CHURCH OF JOHN’S GOSPEL

George W. MacRaet

Educated at Boston College, Johns Hopkins, and Cambridge University, George

MacRae was Stillman Professor of Roman Catholic Studies at Harvard Divinity
School from 1973 until his untimely death on 6 September 1985.
Professor MacRae served on the Editorial Board for the Hermeneia commen-
tary series, was an editor for New Testament Abstracts, and had contributed
articles to professional journals throughout his prestigious career. As an active
member of professional societies like the international Studiorum Novi Testa-
menti Societas (member of the editorial board), the Council on the Study of
Religion (vice-chairman, 1969-74), and the Society of Biblical Literature (Execu-
tive-Secretary), Professor MacRae offered invaluable counsel to sections of the
academic community.

Preface
his presentation to the Working Seminar is a contribution to the
discussion of “Primitive Christianity and Gnosticism.” It focuses on
issues in the scholarly discussion of possible Gnostic influences on the
Gospel of John and Johannine Christianity, giving principal attention to
points at which the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts shed light on the issues.
The Fourth Gospel has long been a pivotal text for investigating the
interaction of Gnosticism and Christianity. This presentation does not
aim at surveying the vast literature on the topic nor at arguing in detail
the case, which it espouses, for Gnostic influence. Instead it lists a
number of areas, some based on previous research, others programmatic
suggestions for further study, in which the issue of Gnostic influence
warrants discussion. The following points are raised:
(1) The relationship between the language and imagery of the Johan-
nine Prologue and the Gnostic mythological structure of the Nag Ham-
madi tractate Trimorphic Protennoia.

89
90 GEORGE W. MacRAE

(2) The genre of revelation discourse which is shared by John and

many Gnostic writings.
(3) Patterns of Gnostic and Johannine Christology and soteriology.
(4) The theme of becoming children of the Father by virtue of
revelation of the Father in the Son, a theme common to John and the
Gospel of Truth.
(5) Johannine and Gnostic dualism, which of itself and in isolation is
not seen as compelling evidence of Gnostic influence.
(6) The possible Gnostic interaction of the Johannine Christians who
were rejected by the author of the First Epistle of John.
(7) As a suggestion for further study, the relationship of the Gnostic
and the Johannine debt to the wisdom tradition.

I. Introduction
This presentation is intended to be a survey of selected issues in the
discussion of the Fourth Gospel and Gnosticism. The title, however, may
be somewhat misleading. It was chosen to be broadly representative of,
the relationship between the Johannine tradition and Gnosticism, not to
focus on questions of Johannine ecclesiology as such. These latter
questions depend, among other things, on different types of source and
redaction criticism. The amount of modern scholarly literature that deals
with John and Gnosticism is enormous and it is as diverse in its
conclusions as one might imagine. It is by no means the intention of this
brief survey to catalogue such literature. In fact, the viewpoint adopted
here is that the study of Gnostic texts is indeed relevant to the under-
standing of the Fourth Gospel, and that decision eliminates from the
survey, though not of course from serious consideration, a good deal of
the literature.
Since the work of Rudolf Bultmann in particular, the question of a
relationship of the Fourth Gospel to Gnosticism has been a burning one
and is well-reflected in commentaries, monographs, and the voluminous
periodical literature. Consequently the chief focus of this presentation
will be on what the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts has
added to the discussion. No wholly new hypotheses will be propounded
here, but what is suggested is presented in the hope that scholarly
discussion may elicit points of consensus or clear rejection. As is well
known, the Gospel of John has variously been characterized as Gnostic,
 GNOSTICISM AND THE CHURCH OF JOHN’S GOSPEL 91

gnosticizing, anti-Gnostic, or totally immune from the Gnostic debate.

Are there any objective criteria for deciding among such options?

II. The Context of the Johannine Prologue

The most clearly focused and concrete contribution to the discussion of
a possible Gnostic background to the Fourth Gospel is the suggestion
that the Johannine Prologue is related to the mythological scheme of the
Nag Hammadi Trimorphic Protennoia NHC XIII,1. We owe this sug-
gestion to the work of the Berliner Arbeitskreis fur die koptisch-
gnostische Schriften’ and in particular to the dissertation of Gesine
Schenke.’ Perhaps the discussion of this whole issue needs to go back to
the observation of Bultmann that the figure of the Logos, especially in
John 1:5, can be explained only by a mythological (i.e., Gnostic) context,
not by a philosophical or even quasi-philosophical one.’ The (apparently
Sethian) Gnostic work Trimorphic Protennoia shows the concept of
Logos as a revealer figure set in the context of a complex of divine
emanations (apparently non-Christian despite the superficial and most
likely secondary Christianization of the text): Voice, Sound, Word. The
parallel is strengthened by a substantial list of common epithets
including life, light, and others.‘ The heart of the argument invokes a
principle that may be of wider significance in the comparison of ancient
texts: “One has the impression that the relevant statements of Pro-
tennoia stand in their natural context, whereas their parallels in the
Johannine prologue . . . seem to have been artificially made serviceable
to a purpose really alien to them.”’ In any case, it is easier to envisage
the spread of the relevant attributes in the Gnostic work as original, than
to suppose that the author dismantled the narrowly focused Prologue of
the Fourth Gospel to spread the attributes throughout a much broader
mythological context. It is important to note here that no one seriously
argues that the Fourth Gospel is indebted to the Nag Hammadi tractate
as to a literary work. Clearly both are dependent on developments of the
wisdom tradition and may simply have had a common ancestor. But
whether that ancestor is already a Gnostic modification of the wisdom
tradition is the question at stake.

G. Schenke, “‘Dreigestaltige Protennoia.’”

“Protennoia.”. See also Colpe, “Uberlieferung.” The whole debate on this issue is
treated by Robinson, “Sethians.”
9 John, 19-31.
‘ For lists of the alleged parallels see Robinson, “Sethians.”
5G. Schenke, “‘Dreigestaltige Protennoia,’” 733; translation by Robinson, “Sethians,”
651.
. 92 GEORGE W. MacRAE

’ TII. The Revelation Discourse Genre

In a lucid and informative book Pheme Perkins has analyzed the form
and function of the Gnostic dialogue as a distinctive literary genre.® She
frequently deals with Gnostic interpretation of Johannine dialogic pas-
sages but does not investigate Gnostic influence on the Johannine
material. Such an investigation might indeed prove interesting, how-
ever. Here I would like to suggest a somewhat different genre of
discourse that is shared by both the Fourth Gospel and the Gnostic
sources. The model was sketched by Bultmann and in more detail by his
student Heinz Becker, whose dissertation was posthumously published
by Bultmann.’ Becker attempted to account for the major discourses of
the Fourth Gospel by appeal to a (somewhat ideal) form of Gnostic
discourse (Offenbarungsrede) consisting of self-predication (“Autodox-
ologie”) in the “I-style,” invitation or call to decision, and promise of
reward or threat of punishment—all three elements loosely organized in
repetitive or “spiral” form and set against a background of cosmic
dualism. Though this style of discourse has its roots in the wisdom
tradition, it nevertheless seems to bea distinctively Gnostic genre. It is
represented in the Nag Hammadi collection in numerous works such as
Thunder NHC VI,2; the Trimorphic Protennoia XIII,1; the longer
ending of the Apocryphon of John NHC II,1:30,11-31,25, and others. It is
noteworthy that some of these examples show either no Christian
influence or at best a merely superficial Christianization.
That this discourse genre appears in the Fourth Gospel in numerous
passages is quite clear (e.g., 6:35-51b; 8:12-47; 10:7-18). Frequently the
Gospel examples show the revelation discourses embedded in dia-
logues, but the similarity to what Becker described and to what we find
in many Nag Hammadi examples is clear. It should be noted that there
is no suggestion here that the Fourth Evangelist used a Gnostic reve-
lation discourse as a source for the discourses of Jesus, but only that in
the composition of them he was influenced by the Gnostic genre.

IV. The Patterns of Christology and Soteriology

The most widely discussed claim of Gnostic influence in the Fourth
Gospel is in the area of Christology and soteriology, and in this survey
we can only allude to the discussion. Since the work of Bultmann many
have taken the Gnostic background of Johannine thought for granted;

® Gnostic Dialogue.
” Reden.
 GNOSTICISM AND THE CHURCH OF JOHN’S GOSPEL 93

others have continued to emphasize the non-Gnostic elements of the.

Gospel. In any case, the Gospel portrays Christ as a pre-existent, in some
sense divine, figure who descends from the world of the Father into the
created world for the purpose of offering salvation to humanity by
revealing the Father. Apart from the question of the origin of this type of
thought, one must recognize the fact that it resembles nothing in the
ancient world so much as the Gnostic revealer myth. The very concept
of salvation as revelation to be appropriated by knowledge (John 17:3) is
universally characteristic of Gnosticism and, in the New Testament,
unique to the Fourth Gospel.’ Here there are no metaphors of redemp-
tion, reconciliation, justification, sacrifice, and the like, but only the
word of revelation.
It is possible to assume a radical position and assert that the Fourth
Gospel is in this respect a thoroughgoing Gnostic reinterpretation of
Jesus.° Iam more inclined to side with Bultmann in the debate and see
the notion of incarnation (John 1:14) and the reality of Jesus’ death as
brakes upon the tendency toward a consistent Gnostic view. However
Gnostic its language and thought-structures, the Fourth Gospel is not
docetic. Recent contributions to the discussion have tended to reinforce
the Gnostic debt of the Evangelist without abandoning the idea that the
Gospel falls short of outright Gnosticism and docetism.”

V. Children of the Father

The Nag Hammadi Gospel of Truth NHC 1,3 affords an interesting
parallel to an aspect of the Fourth Gospel that is not often alluded to.
This Gnostic gospel clearly makes use of much of the New Testament by
implicit quotations, exegesis of passages, and allusions. But a recent
commentator has remarked that it is not clear that the work is familiar
with the Gospel of John despite the fact that it contains some notable
parallels to that Gospel (e.g., Christ as Logos, the Christology of the
name). The point of interest here is the way in which the Gospel of
Truth, ostensibly a meditation on the role of Christ as Son and name of
the Father, really focuses on the Gnostics themselves as children of the
Father. Christ is the revealer of the Father, to be sure, but he is also a
® In addition to Bultmann’s commentary see the excellent study of Forestell, Word.
® See among others Kdésemann, Testament.
10 See H.-M. Schenke, “Christologie.” In the same volume Fischer (“Christus”) argued
for Gnostic influence on the basis of an exegesis of John 10 seen as best understood
against the background of a typical Gnostic myth. This fascinating article confronts us
with the classic question of whether a passage is written against a Gnostic background or
is merely capable of a consistent Gnostic interpretation.
1! Ménard, L’Evangile de Vérité, 8.
94. GEORGE W. MacRAE

paradigm for the Gnostic. At the conclusion of the work the author says
of the Gnostics:
They rest in him who is at rest, not striving nor being involved in the search for truth.
But they themselves are the truth; and the Father is within them and they are in the
Father. .. . And his children are perfect and worthy of his name, for he is the Father: it
is children of this kind that he loves.”

In the dynamic of the work the Gnostics become children of the Father
by virtue of Christ's revealing the Father to them in himself.
The resemblance to the Fourth Gospel is close. The Prologue
announces the theme in 1:12: “But to all who received him, who
believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.” The
body of the Gospel does not return to this theme of being children of
God until the revelation of the Father by Jesus is complete (cf. 14:8-11;
as part of the farewell discourses this passage is a proleptic comment on
the passion narrative). In the resurrection appearance to Mary Magda-
lene the Johannine Jesus dramatically transforms the Easter message to
say: “Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father
and your Father, to my God and your God” (20:17). Those who believe in
Jesus have become children of God.
The notion of a filial relationship to God is not, of course, unique to
the Fourth Gospel in the New Testament. There is for example the
importance of adoptive sonship in the theology of Paul. But the parallel
between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Truth, if indeed the latter
is not dependent on the former, may be significant precisely in the role
of revelation of the Father in bringing about the kinship.

VI. Dualism
Underlying most of the points raised so far is the much-discussed issue
of Johannine dualism, which has been compared variously with Platonic
thought, Qumran speculation, and, of course, Gnosticism. Taken in
isolation, this issue is not in my view decisive for determining Gnostic
influence on the Fourth Gospel, no matter how suggestive are the
Johannine dualistic statements (e.g., 3:31; 8:23; etc.)."° Though I think it
probable that the dualistic pattern of Johannine thought is indebted to
contemporary Gnostic ideas, it is clear that the Fourth Gospel has
adapted a cosmic dualism to its own purposes, which are not ultimately

NHC I, 3:42,21-28; 43,19-24.

** On this issue and other aspects of Gnostic influence on the Fourth Gospel, see the
thesis of Langbrandtner, Weltferner Gott.
 GNOSTICISM AND THE CHURCH OF JOHN’S GOSPEL 95

Gnostic. The rift between the world of light, the world above, the world
of the Father on one hand, and on the other the world of darkness, the
below, the fleshly, is not in the Fourth Gospel unbridgeable. The
assertion that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (3:16) is
difficult to imagine in a thoroughly Gnostic context. If the Fourth
Evangelist derived his dualistic perspective from contemporary Gnostic
speculation, he clearly transposed it onto an ethical plane: “And this is
the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved
darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (3:19). Though
the dualism of John by itself is not clear evidence of Gnostic influence, it
may be very significant in the context of other arguments for such
influence.

VII. The Johannine Church

There is at least one further stage that one should investigate in the
study of the relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Gnostic tradition,
namely the role of the First (and Second) Epistle of John in the
subsequent history of the Johannine community."* Without taking a clear
position, I wish only to suggest some lines for further research. Everyone
is agreed that the First Epistle rejects a docetic interpretation of the
Gospel, but there remains disagreement about whether the interpre-
tation of the Gospel among those Johannine Christians whom the Epistle
opposes is already Gnostic or only tending in that direction. I am
inclined to the former alternative—on the grounds that non-Gnostic
docetism is difficult to identify in the early second century CE. In my
view, the Gospel itself clearly favors a Gnostic interpretation—and that
was historically the case as we know from such Valentinian interpreters
as Heracleon and Ptolemy. But whether the radical wing of the com-
munity itself was in fact Gnostic remains debatable.

VIII. Wisdom, Gnosticism, Johannism

It is clear from the foregoing survey that the root problem in identifying
the background of the Fourth Gospel is the fact that the Jewish wisdom
tradition can be used to account for much of what some interpreters
regard as Gnostic. The real issue then becomes: is the Fourth Gospel an
independent development from the wisdom tradition or is it part of a

14 See Brown, Community

of the Beloved Disciple and Johannine Epistles; Perkins,
The Johannine Epistles.
96 GEORGE W. MacRAE

larger movement of speculation in which Gnosticism also reinterprets

wisdom? I suggest that this remains the central issue in Johannine
studies, and the weight given to specifically Gnostic adaptations of
wisdom, in comparison with the Fourth Gospel, will be determinative of
the history of religions question.
 J
GNOSTIC SAYINGS AND
CONTROVERSY TRADITIONS
IN JOHN 8:12-59

Helmut Koester

Professor Helmut Koester holds the significant distinction of being both the John
H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and the Winn Professor of
Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University. Born in Germany, Professor
Koester studied under such noted scholars as Rudolf Bultmann, Heinrich Frick,
and Wilhelm Mauer, and taught at the University of Heidelberg. In addition to
academic service Professor Koester has also served as a minister to several
congregations of the Lutheran Church.
A recognized authority on the history of early Christianity and its religious
environment, Professor Koester has written many scholarly and professional
journal articles, encyclopaedia entries, and books. His most recent major pub-
lication is a two-volume introduction to the New Testament.
His academic service has been marked by distinguished roles as the Chair-
man of the Committee on Advanced Degrees at Harvard, an Associate Trustee of
the American Schools of Oriental Research, and a Trustee of the Albright
Institute of Archaeological Research. He is a member of such notable profes-
sional societies as Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, the Society of Biblical
Literature, and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is
also Chairman of the New Testament Editorial committee of Hermeneia and
Editor of the Harvard Theological Review.

Preface
he origin and composition of the Johannine discourses and dia-
logues are still among the major unsolved problems of New Testa-
ment scholarship. Rudolf Bultmann had argued for a major written
source of revelation discourses that was used by the author of the Fourth
Gospel.' This theory has been rejected almost unanimously by subse-

1 Bultmann, John. The German original was first published in 1941.

97
98 HELMUT KOESTER

quent scholarship. More recent commentators usually acquiesce in

describing the elements. of the characteristic style of these discourses
and treat them as a whole as compositions of the author.’ The effort to
identify traditional sayings of Jesus incorporated in these discourses has
so far brought very limited results because the Synoptic Gospels were
used as the primary criterion in this search.’ As I have argued else-
where,‘ it seems to me that comparison with apocryphal gospels such as
Papyrus Egerton 2, the Gospel of Thomas,’ the Dialogue of the Savior,
and the Apocryphon of James can give us some clues for understanding
the process of composition of the Johannine discourses and for identi-
fying the traditional sayings utilized in their composition.
In this study, I propose to use John 8:12-59 as a test case for two
reasons. (1) Parallels to this chapter frequently occur in gospels of the
Nag Hammadi corpus, especially in the Gospel of Thomas. (2) This
Johannine section contains controversies of Jesus with his Jewish oppo-
nents. These controversies are of the same type as those of John 5:39-47
which are paralleled by a section of the “Unknown Gospel,” i.e., they
could possibly be identified as materials drawn from a written source.*

I. Composition of the Passage

Traditionally, the unit John 8:12-59 has been viewed as highly proble-
matical and disjointed. Bultmann split this section into nine disparate
smaller units which he assigned to various sections in his attempt to
reconstruct the original order of John’s Gospel.’ Brown says: “An anal-
ysis of the structure of ch. viii (12ff.) is perhaps more difficult than that of
any other chapter or discourse in the first part of the Gospel.”* One may
wonder, however, whether the interpreters have asked the right ques-
tion. Well-organized discourses, like the discourse on the bread that has
come down from heaven in John 6, have led to the assumption that the
“CE. Brown, John, 1. cxxxii-cxxxvii (with literature).
;Dodd, Historical Tradition, 335-420.
“Cf. my Introduction, 2. 178-85; and my articles “Dialog und Sprachuberlieferung”;
“Gnostic Writings.”
Brown (“The Gospel of Thomas”) investigated in detail the parallels to the Gospel of
John in the Gospel of Thomas, but he simply assigned these parallels to Johannine
influence upon the second, i.e., gnostic, source of the latter Gospel. In his commentary,
Brown repeatedly refers to those parallels in the Gospel of Thomas, but does not draw
any consequences for the analysis of the Johannine discourses.
7c. my article “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels.”
” Cf. his John, passim. The various segments of 8:12-59 appear in the following order
and context: 7:19-24; 8:13-20; 6:60-7:14; 7:25-29; 8:48-50; 8:54-55; 7:37-44; 7:31-36; 7:45-52;
8:41-47; 8:51-53; 8:56-59; 9:1-41; 8:12; 12:44-50; 8:21-29; 12:34-36; 10:1-12:32; 8:30-40.
* Brown, John, 1. 342. Cf. his comment on the first part of this section (p. 343): “Yet,
within 12-20 the thought skips and jumps.”
 GNOSTIC SAYINGS AND CONTROVERSY TRADITIONS 99

primary criteria of organization must be cohesion and logical progress of

the argument. The author may have achieved that in some of the
Johannine discourses, but the first stage in the process of composition
was the collection of originally independent smaller units which did not
necessarily have the same thematic orientation. Different sections of the
Gospel of John indeed represent very different stages of development
along the trajectory from the collection of oral materials to the composi-
tion of coherent literary units.’ John 8:12-59 may belong to a compara-
tively early stage in this process. If this is the case, the more original
units will be more clearly recognizable in this chapter. Its disjointed
appearance, then, is simply an indication of a more original stage in the
development of this literature. It is, therefore, not surprising that mate-
rials used here for the composition are still more easily recognizable
than in other chapters of this Gospel.
The section begins with one of the characteristic egd eimi “I am” self-
predications of Jesus, followed by a promise:
I am the light of the world.
He who follows after me, will not walk in the darkness,
but will have the light of life. (John 8:12)

The structure of this self-predication (recognition formula)*® and the

promise are exactly the same as in John 6:35:"
I am the bread of life.
He who comes to me, will not hunger,
and he who believes in me, will never thirst.

It has not been possible to demonstrate that sayings with the “I am”
formula in the Gospel of John are traditional.” Rather, one must assume
that the author of the Fourth Gospel employs the formula in order to
reshape, as self-predications of Jesus, materials which were available to
him ina different form. In John 6:35, such materials are at his disposal in
the form of a midrash on the manna from heaven. But for the metaphor
of the light utilized in the self-predication of 8:12, no such OT materials
are available. The fundamental contrast between light and darkness that

° | am referring to the model of composition in several stages, suggested by Brown. Cf.

his John, 1. xxxiv-xxxix; id. Community of the Beloved Disciple, 17-24.
” Cf. Bultmann, John, on John 6:35.
11 Cf, also 10:9; 11:25; 16:5. There are several modifications of this formula: 6:51; 10:7,
11, 14; 14:6; 15:1. All of these are products of the author of the Fourth Gospel.
12 Becker (Reden) has demonstrated that the form of the “promise” is clearly
traditional. But he is less convincing in his attempt to show the traditional character of
the Johannine “I am” formula—notwithstanding the fact that self-predications are, of
course, widespread in the religions of the time. See on the whole question Brown, John,
1, 535-38.
100 HELMUT KOESTER

appears here has parallels in the literature from Qumran,” but it is

missing in the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.” It can be found,
however, in sayings of Jesus preserved in writings from Nag Hammadi.
Compare the following:
Dial. Sav. III,5:127,1-6
If one does not[... the] darkness, he will (not] be able
to see [the light]. Therefore [I] tell you[... of the]
light is the darkness. [And if one does not] stand in [the
darkness, he will not be able] to see the light.

Gospel of Thomas logion 24:

There is light within a man of light,
and he lights up the whole world,
If he does not shine, he is darkness.

That such sayings were known to the author of the Fourth Gospel is
evident from John 11:9-10:
If someone walks in the day, he does not stumble,
because he sees the light of this world. But if some-
one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light
is not in him."

In John 8:12, the fundamental contrast (“not walk in the darkness”—

“have the light of life”) corresponds to the contrast expressed in these
sayings. One can, therefore, assume that the entire “I am” saying,
together with the promise, is a Johannine reformulation of a traditional
saying about light and darkness.
The subsequent discussion about Jesus’ martyria “testimony” con-
tinues earlier debates of Jesus with his opponents in the Gospel of John,
in particular the debate of John 5:35-47.° It seems to me that all
discussions about the martyria ultimately rely upon traditions origi-
nating in the debates of the early Johannine community with its Pales-
tinian Jewish opponents. References to Scripture, Moses, the Law, and
to John the Baptist dominate these traditions.” The close relationship to
13 Brown, John, 1.340.
‘* “You are the light of the world” (Matt 5:14) uses the word “light” only as an image,
but lacks the contrast of light and darkness as metaphors for the realms of good and evil.
*® Variants of this saying are present in John 12:35f.; 9:4. It is typical for the style of
such sayings that they play with the ambiguity of the metaphor and shift from its use as
an “image” to its understanding as a principal metaphysical designation. Cf. also 1 Thess
5:4-6.
© Bultmann (John, on 8:13-20) considers the section beginning with 8:13 as the
conclusion of the complex comprising John 5:1-47 and 7:15-24.
On the “midrashic” structure of these traditions, cf. Martyn, Fourth Gospel.
Although the term martyria is typically Johannine, it is hardly a creation of the author of
the Gospel. It also occurs in this context in Papyrus Egerton 2; see below.
 GNOSTIC SAYINGS AND CONTROVERSY TRADITIONS 101

these traditions is also evident in the formulation of John 8:14a (“And

even if I testify to myself, my testimony is true”)—a deliberate contradic-
tion to John 5:31 (“If I testified to myself, my testimony would not be
true”). For one portion of the debate about martyria in 5:31-47, there is
external confirmation for the hypothesis that the author of John was
using older, and indeed written materials. Papyrus Egerton 2, the
fragment of an “Unknown Gospel” published in 1935," reproduces a
debate between Jesus and the lawyers and rulers of the people about the
testimony of the Scriptures and Moses that was most probably the
source for John 5:39 and 45.”
John 8:14b (“because I know whence I came and where I am going,
but you do not know whence I come and where I am going”) cannot be
ascribed to the same source. Rather, it is an adaptation of a traditional
saying of Jesus. Its character is patently gnostic, and while it is used
elsewhere in John with respect to Jesus,” it can also be used of the
believers who share his origin and destiny.
Compare the following:

Gospel of Thomas logion 49:

Blessed are the solitary and elect
for you will find the kingdom.
For you are from it,
and to it you will return.

Gospel of Thomas logion 50:

If they say to you,
“Where did you come from?”
say to them,
“We came from the light... .”

John 8:15-16 resumes the discussion of the realized eschatology of

5:22-24. These verses belong to the author’s own reinterpretation of the
expectation of a future judgment by God (or by Jesus) which was widely
held in early Christian circles.” The purpose of this “flashback” to 5:22-
24 is perhaps only to introduce a statement about the unity of Jesus and
the Father. The preparation for this statement is further supplemented

18 Bell-Skeat, Unknown Gospel; for further literature, cf. my article “Apocryphal and
Canonical Gospels,” 119.
19 For further discussion of the relationship of Papyrus Egerton 2 to the Gospel of John
see “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” 119-21.
2° Cf. John 16:28: “I have gone out from the Father and have come into the world;
again I leave the world and I am going to the Father.”
21 On John’s critical reinterpretation of traditional Christian eschatology, cf. Bultmann,
John, on John 3:19 and 5:21.
102 HELMUT KOESTER

by another fragment from the tradition of earlier debates with Judaism

from which John had already drawn 8:13-14a. The reference to the law
is explicit in 8:17 (“and it is written in your law”) and there is no doubt
about the conscious reference to the legal rule of two witnesses (Deut
17:6; 19:15). That John 8:18 (where Jesus is pointing to himself and to the
Father as the two witnesses) contradicts this rule which requires two
witnesses in addition to the person concerned, should not lead to the
surprise question why Jesus “does not mention John the Baptist who-was
sent to testify to the light,” nor can it be explained by reference to
exceptions in rabbinic jurisprudence.” Rather, this sentence is formu-
lated by the author in order to provoke the question “where is your
father?” (8:19a), which in turn gives the opportunity to quote once more a
traditional saying that concludes this section.
John 8:19b (“You do not know me nor the Father; if you knew me, you
would also know my Father”) reflects the saying that is most fully
preserved in Matt 11:27 and Luke 10:22:
No one knows the Son except the Father,
and no one knows the Father except the Son
and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

This saying is cited in several other passages of the Gospel of John, all of
them certainly independent of the Synoptic Gospels (cf. especially John
14:7-10)* and it also appears in Dial. Sav. III,5:134,14-15:
And if he does not know the Son,
how will he know the [Father]?

Compare
Gospel of Thomas logion 69:
Blessed are they who have been persecuted within themselves.
It is they who have truly come to know the Father.

John 8:20 seems to be entirely redactional.* Although 8:21 introduces a

new theme, the explicit remark that “no one arrested him, because his
hour had not yet come” interrupts the context more than necessary. I
would suggest that at this point the author returned to his source from
which he had drawn the debates of Jesus with his Jewish opponents.
Papyrus Egerton 2 confirms this: in this fragmentary papyrus the first
preserved section, containing the parallels to John 5:39 and 45 (see
22 Brown, John, on John 8:18.
23 Cf. my article “Gnostic Writings.”
*4 Bultmann (John) finds in this verse the conclusion of the entire section that began in
5:1 (see above, n. 16).
 GNOSTIC SAYINGS AND CONTROVERSY TRADITIONS 103

above), was followed—after a lacuna of uncertain length—by a frag-

ment that begins as follows:
[to gather] stones together to stone him. And the
rulers laid their hands on him that they might arrest him
and [deliver] him to the multitude. But they [were not
able] to arrest him because the hour of his betrayal [was]
not yet [come]. But he himself, the Lord, escaped out of
(their hands] and turned away from them.

This was obviously the conclusion of the debate with the lawyers and
rulers preserved in the first fragment of the papyrus. In John 8:20, the
author of the Fourth Gospel used only a part of this conclusion. Other
sentences from this report of an attempted arrest of Jesus appear in John
7:30, 44; 10:31, 39.75

II. Tradition History

Rather than proceeding with a detailed analysis of the subsequent
sections of John 8, I shall give a brief survey of John 8:21-59, indicating
those instances in which one can assume either the utilization of tradi-
tional sayings or the dependence upon other source materials.
John 8:21-22: A traditional saying:
I am going away and you will seek me...
' Where I go, you cannot come.”

Cf. Gospel of Thomas logion 38:

There will be days when you will look for me and not find me.

Ap. Jas. 1,2:2,22-27:

“Have you departed and removed yourself from us?”
But Jesus said: “No, but I shall go to the place whence I
came. If you wish to come with me, come.””

John 8:21b, 23-24: “You will die in your sins,” and the discussion about
“being from below/the world” and “being from above/not from the
world” is the interpretation of the author of the Gospel.
5 It is far more likely that John utilized this report repeatedly (in order to create the
impression of an increasing hostility of the Jews) than to assume that the passage in
Papyrus Egerton 2 was pieced together from passages in three different chapters of the
Gospel of John.
2° The same saying is used in John 7:34, 36 (“You will seek me and not find me, and
where I am you will not be able to come”) and John 13:33 (“You will seek me, and as I
said to the Jews, where I am going you will not be able to come”). ,
2? Cf. Ap. Jas. I,2:14,20-21: “I shall ascend to the place whence I came.”
104 HELMUT KOESTER

John 8:25-26a: A traditional saying:

They said to him:
“Who are you?”
Jesus said to them:
“First of all, what I say to you. ”
I have many things to say and to judge about you.” *

Cf. Gospel of Thomas logion 43:

His disciples said to him:
“Who are you that you should say these things to us?”
{Jesus said to them:]
“You do not realize who I am from what I say to you,
but you are like the Jews. ...”

John 8:26b-29 is the interpretation of the author of the Fourth Gospel,

using the typical Johannine motif of the eg6d eimi in relation to the
“raising up of the Son of Man,” i.e., the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. John 3:14;
18:5,6,8; but also 8:58). It is clear from this interpretation that the author
understands very well the identity of Jesus’. person with his speaking:
“You will recognize that it is I (egd eimi) and that I do not do anything
from myself, but that I speak as my father has taught me” (8:28).

John 8:30: A composition of the Evangelist.

John 8:31-32: A traditional saying:
If you remain in my word,
you will truly be my disciples,
and you will know the truth,
and the truth will make you free.

Gospel of Thomas logion 19:

If you become my disciples,
and listen to my words,
these stones will minister to you.
There are five trees in paradise...
Whoever becomes acquainted with them,
will not experience death.

John 8:33-36: This section could be assigned to the same source from
which John drew other materials of debates of Jesus with his Jewish

*° On the notorious difficulties of translating this sentence, cf. Brown, John, note on
8:25. The point seems to be the same as the one of the parallel in Gospel of Thomas
logion 43, i.e., that whatever Jesus says represents his identity.
2° How difficult this passage is, if one does not recognize the dependence upon a
traditional saying, is clearly expressed in Bultmann’s statement that a decision is not
possible (John, on 8:25-27).
 GNOSTIC SAYINGS AND CONTROVERSY TRADITIONS 105

opponents. C. H. Dodd® has argued that John 8:35 (“The slave does not
remain in the house forever; the son remains forever”) is a traditional
saying. He also points to the fact that “The truth will set you free” and
“He who commits sin is a slave” are “Stoic maxims.” This suggests that
the final phrase of the saying of John 8:31f. may have been added by the
author of John in view of his interpretation offered here. Indeed, this
final phrase has no parallel in the possibly more original form of the
saying as quoted in Gospel of Thomas logion 19.
John 8:37-50: The analysis of this section is difficult, and I am not able
to present a convincing solution. It seems to me, however, that further
efforts in isolating more traditional sayings in the gospel literature of the
Nag Hammadi writings would result in further clarification. The prob-
lem in this section is twofold. (1) Traditional sayings are modified by the
author of John. (2) They are very closely interwoven with fragments of
the Fourth Gospel’s source, relating debates of Jesus with his Jewish
opponents. What follows are just a few suggestions, all questionable.
John 8:37: Reference to John’s source reporting attempts to arrest
Jesus.
John 8:38: “What I have seen from my father that I speak.” Possibly a
variation of a saying quoted in 8:26-27.
John 8:39-41: Comments on the source containing debates of Jesus
with his opponents.
John 8:42: “I have come from God .. .”: Traditional saying.
John 8:43: Johannine expansion of the discourse.
John 8:44: Quote of a tradition about the devil as murderer.”
John 8:45-46: Johannine expansion of the discourse.
John 8:47: “He who is from God hears God’s words”: Variation of a
traditional saying.
John 8:48-50: “You are a Samaritan and you have a demon”: From a
source containing Jesus’ debates with opponents; cf. Mark 3:20-22.
The last section is more readily recognized with respect to its com-
ponents.
John 8:51: A traditional saying:
Truly, truly I say to you:
Whoever keeps my word,
will not see death into eternity.®

8° Historical Tradition, 379-82.

51 Dodd, Historical Tradition, 380; cf. 330.
82 Bultmann (John, on 8:44) has made it very likely that such a tradition is used here as
well as 1 John 3:8, 15.
38 Cf, John 6:63: “The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
106 HELMUT KOESTER

Cf. Gospel of Thomas logion 1:

Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings
will not experience death.

Dial. Sav. III,5:147, 18-20:

{ Junderstands this
{ ]will live for [ever].

John 8:52-59, the interpretation, clearly uses the same source of Jesus’
debates with Jewish opponents which I posited for several preceding
sections. This is confirmed by 8:59, “They took up stones to throw them
at him. But Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple”; cf. the passage
from Papyrus Egerton 2 quoted above.
In conclusion, let me reiterate that the disjointed appearance of this
chapter of the Gospel of John seems to result from the use of two types
of traditional materials which have not been fully developed into a
logical discourse: (1) traditional sayings of Jesus; most of them have
parallels in gospels that are usually called “gnostic,” although there are a
number of parallels in the Synoptic Gospels. The history of these
sayings, however, still needs to be integrated into the history of the
sayings of the Synoptic tradition; (2) a (written) source of debates of Jesus
with his Jewish opponents of which a sample has been preserved in
Papyrus Egerton 2. The character of these debates and of their rela-
tionship to the Synoptic controversy stories still needs further clarifi-
cation.

Il]. Nag Hammadi Parallels to John

Future analysis of the discourses of the Gospel of John will profit from
the search for further traditional sayings preserved in Nag Hammadi
writings. I will simply list some of the Johannine passages to which
striking parallels exist in the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the
Savior, and the Apocryphon of James. The list does not claim to be
complete,“ and traditional sayings of John documented from other
sources have not been included.*

**T am not listing all possible parallels between John and the Gospel of Thomas which
Brown assembled in his article (see above, note 5), but only those instances in which the
same traditional saying seems to be used.
°° E.g., the saying of John 3:3, 5 which is also quoted in Justin, Apol. 1.61.4. On other
Synoptic materials, cf. Dodd, Historical Tradition, 335-65.
 GNOSTIC SAYINGS AND CONTROVERSY TRADITIONS 107

John 3:35:
The Father loves the Son and has given everything into his hand. *

Cf. Gospel of Thomas logion 61:

I am he who exists from the Undivided.
I was given some of the things of my Father.

John 4:14:
He who drinks from the water that I give him,
will never thirst into eternity.
But the water that I will give him
will become in him a spring of bubbling water
for eternal life. ”

Cf. Gospel of Thomas logion 13:

You have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the
bubbling spring that I have measured out.

John 6:63: See above, on John 8:51.

John 7:33-34 (see above on John 8:21-22):
I am going to the one who sent me.
You will seek me and not find me,
and where I am you cannot come.

John 7:37-38: See above, on John 4:14.

John 9:4: See above, on John 8:12.
John 10:29: See above, on John 3:35.
John 11:9-10: See above, on John 8:12.
John 12:35-36: See above, on John 8:12.
John 13:33: See above, on John 8:21-22.
John 14:2-3 (2-12): A close parallel to this discourse, probably a more
original variant, is preserved in Dial. Sav. III,5:132,2-19;* cf. also Ap.
Jas. 1,2:2,24-26.
John 14:9:
Such a long time I have been with you,
and you have not known me, Philip?
Cf. Ap. Jas. 1,2:13,39-14,2:
I have revealed myself to you (sg.), James,
and you (plu.) have not known me.

38 Cf, also John 10:28-29; 13:3.

3” Cf, also John 7:38-39.
For a more detailed analysis cf. my article “Gnostic Writings,” 250-51.
108 HELMUT KOESTER

John 16:23-24:
Truly, truly, I say to you,
Whatever you ask the Father,
he shall give to you in my name...
Ask and you will receive,
so that your joy will be full. *

Cf. Gospel of Thomas logion 92 (cf. 94):

Seek and you will find.
Dial. Sav. III,5:129,14-16:
And he who (knows, let him] seek and find and [rejoice].
Ap. Jas. I,2:10,32-34 and 10,39-11,1:
Invoke the Father,
implore God often,
and he will give to you....
Rejoice and be glad as sons of God.

John 16:23a, 30 (in the form of a question of the disciples):

23: And on that day you will not ask me anything.
30: Now we know that you know everything,
and have no need that someone ask you.

Cf. Gospel of Thomas logion 92:

Yet what you asked me about in former times
and which I did not tell you then,
now I do desire to tell,
but you do not inquire after it.”

John 16:25 (cf. 16:29):

Those things I have spoken to you in parables.
The hour is coming, when I shall no longer speak
to you in parables,
but I shall speak to you about the father openly.

Cf. Ap. Jas. 1,2:7,1-6:

At first I spoke to you in parables,
and you did not understand;
now I speak to you openly,
and you do not perceive.”

John 16:28: See above, on John 8:14.

3° Koester, “Gnostic Writings,” 238-40.

*° Cf. also Dial. Sav. I11,5:128,1-5; Acts of John, 98.
“? This version of the saying resembles Mark 4:10-12 more closely than John 16:25.
 GNOSTIC SAYINGS AND CONTROVERSY TRADITIONS 109

John 17: There are numerous parallels to passages in gnostic gospels

and discourses* as well as to sayings already quoted above. In its genre
and style, however, John 17 resembles literary gnostic discourses much
more closely than other parts of this Gospel. Therefore, this chapter
would require an investigation involving different methodological cri-
teria.
John 20:29:
Blessed are those who have not seen
and yet believe.

Cf. Ap. Jas. I,2:12,38-13,1:

Blessed will they be who have known me;
woe to those who have heard and have not believed.
Blessed will they be who have not seen yet [have believed].

IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, let me point out a few challenging problems concerning
my hypothesis.
(1) In most of the gnostic texts traditional sayings are already em-
bedded in dialogue and discourse. It is difficult to isolate them, and the
exegete’s eyes are not sufficiently trained for this task.
(2) The type of sayings tradition which confronts us here is funda-
mentally different from the one that we are accustomed to in the
Synoptic Gospels, because interpretations are not added to traditional
sayings; rather, they are expressed in the transformation of the sayings
themselves. E.g., Dial. Sav. III,5:125,19 “The light of the body is the
mind” has replaced the traditional term “eye” by the interpretive term
“mind.” Thus, original metaphors can disappear in favor of their new
epexegetical equivalents.
(3) There seems to be little respect for the original “form” of a saying;
i.e., basic formulations (“There is light within a man of light, and he
lights up the whole world”) can be transformed into I-sayings (“I am the
light of the world”).
(4) Compared to the Synoptic tradition, there is an ever increased
tendency to attract materials which are not true “sayings,” but rather

4? E.g., John 17:9-10; cf. Gospel of Thomas logion 100; John 17:23; cf. Ap. Jas. 1,2:4,40-
5,5.
‘8 Cf. also Ap. Jas. I,2:7,17-25.
110 HELMUT KOESTER
creedal statements, catechisms, wisdom lists, and formulations of bib-
lical exegesis.
(5) We know too little about “gnostic hermeneutics.” What are the
rules and criteria of interpretation, and how have they been applied in
the process of transmission and exegesis of traditional materials?
Success in solving at least some of these problems will certainly lead
to the realization that there was a much broader base to the first-century
sayings tradition than the Synoptic Gospels would suggest.
 6
THE FUNCTION AND BACKGROUND |
OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE
IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Hans-Martin Schenke

Hans-Martin Schenke, Professor of New Testament Literature and Theology at

Humboldt University, Berlin, GDR (East Germany), holds doctorates both in
theology (1956) and philosophy (1960); his lectureship in theology was also
completed at Humboldt (1960).
Professor Schenke has distinguished himself in such prestigious societies as
Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, the Association Internationale d’Etudes
des Patristiques, and the Société d’Archéologie Copte.
His special interests concern the value of the recent Nag Hammadi manu-
scripts for the history of religion in late antiquity. Professor Schenke is a prolific
writer in these areas and has made many invaluable contributions to Nag
Hammadi studies.

Preface*

his paper raises and addresses the following question: is it possible

to solve the special problem of the function and background of the
Johannine Beloved Disciple with the help of the gnostic parallels found
in the Nag Hammadi documents and related texts? This question of
identity appears as a specific query within the larger question—which,

* The present contribution was not specifically prepared for the Working Seminar on
Gnosticism and Early Christianity. Originally it was a lecture given at Princeton
Theological Seminary and at the State University of California in Long Beach on a
lecture tour across this country from October 11 to November 20, 1982. But now Iplace it
at the disposal of this seminar. For, in my opinion, it fits nicely with the topic of the
seminar. Nevertheless, in this new context and as a contribution to the discussion on the
relationship between Primitive Christianity and Gnosticism the paper receives another
bias. I should like to thank my colleagues James: M. Robinson, Robert Hodgson, Jr. and
Harold W. Attridge for their advice and assistance in improving the English style of the
present paper.

111
112 HANS-MARTIN SCHENKE

according to the program of the seminar will be addressed by the

Working Seminar in a variety of approaches—namely, the question of
the overall importance of the Nag Hammadi texts for understanding the
Gospel of John and Johannine Christianity. Consequently, I feel com-
pelled to outline or to restate my own position regarding the larger
general question.
During my work two Nag Hammadi texts have surfaced as especially
relevant for the exegesis of the Gospel of John, namely, the Book of
Thomas (=Thomas, the Contender), which has previously been recog-
nized as significant to such discussion, and the Trimorphic Protennoia.
Regarding the relevance of the Book of Thomas (NHC II,7) there are two
further points. On the one hand, the material of the Book of Thomas
displays striking parallels to some obscure passages of John 3. Book of
Thomas II,7:138,21-36 contains parallels to John 3:12 and 3:21 (plus 1
John 1:6). Book of Thomas 1I,7:140,5-18 throws light on John 3:11. On the
other hand, the dialogue framework of the Book of Thomas as a whole
proves attractive for Johannine scholarship since the Book of Thomas
and John are obviously linked by the phenomenon that the Savior’s
dialogue partner(s) frequently misunderstand him.’
For my general view regarding the importance of the Trimorphic
Protennoia (NHC XIII,1) for the understanding of the prologue of the
Gospel of John—a view identical with that of our group, the Berliner
Arbeitskreis ftir koptisch-gnostische Schriften—I may simply refer to
James M. Robinson’s contribution to the Yale Conference (“Sethians”)
and the respective discussion.’
Beyond this it may be worth noting that Christoph Demke’s inter-
pretation® has subsequently caused me to change my earlier literary-
critical analysis of the prologue of John together with the corresponding
reconstruction of its source.‘ That earlier analysis was characterized by
the understanding that the source extended only to 1:12b and by the
hypothesis of a double redaction (evangelist and ecclesiastical redactor).
But nowI think that it is necessary to attribute also John 1:14, 16, and 18
to the source. There are five reasons for this:
1. The parallel to Trimorphic Protennoia with its threefold revelation,

F_ For the details cf. H.-M. Schenke, “Book of Thomas,” sections 1, 2, 4.

"Layton, Rediscovery, 2, 643-62 and 662-70.
* Cf. Demke, “Logos-Hymnus.” Compare especially p. 64: “By this we can conclude the
research of the shape of the source. Our result is: As sources for the prologue the
evangelist uses (1) a song of the ‘celestials,’ which used to be performed in the service of
the congregation (vss 1, 3-5, 10-12b); (2) the confession of the ‘terrestrials’ of the
congregation, responding to this song (vss 14, 16)” (author’s translation).
“Cf. H.-M. Schenke, “Christologie,” 226-27.
 FUNCTION & BACKGROUND OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 113

where the Christianization also occurs only within the third part (the
keyword “tent” oxnv7, e.g., appears in the third part).
2. My own argument in the Melchizedek paper’ that John 1:14a (“And
the Word became flesh”) could very easily have been conceived in a
gnostic way. At the very least this possibility cannot be excluded.
3. My vivid impression that among the numerous explanations of the
insertion of John the Baptist (1:6-8), the explanation of Rudolf Bultmann
—with its implication (namely, that the “prologue” was originally a
hymn on John the Baptist)—is the best one after all. Especially in view
of the role of the Baptist as it now appears from Nag Hammadi texts,
Bultmann’s interpretation seems quite conceivable. (In this case 1:15
also comes from the evangelist.)
4. My view of the Sethians, from which the possibility emerges of
seeing Sethians, Mandaeans, and the disciples of John the Baptist in a
certain parallel development, appears to support Bultmann’s analysis.
5. In principle the new and different style of 1:14, 16, 18—including
the “we,” which, as an element presumably coming from the evangelist,
repeatedly took me into increasing difficulties—could be sufficiently
explained along the lines of Demke’s view. But I would prefer to
conceive of a poetic structure in which just the style changes between
stanzas two and three. Sucha shift of style—and of the person imagined
as the speaker—is well known from the Nag Hammadi texts (and, e.g.,
also from the Odes of Solomon).
Finally, I cannot avoid asking a very subtle but irresistibly suggestive
question, although I feel unable to judge whether it warrants pursuit: is
the relationship between Trimorphic Protennoia and the prologue of
John only a specific example of a much more general relationship
between Sethianism and the whole Gospel of John? This suggests that
Sethianism could be understood as the gnostic background of (the
discourses of) the Fourth Gospel. For the time being it seems as if this
might explain several obscure aspects of the Fourth Gospel from one
common root. These aspects are, above all, the following four:
1. The polemic against John the Baptist and his disciples. The rivals of
the Johannine community would have been Samaritan baptists who
considered their founder, John the Baptist, to have been an incarnation
of the celestial Seth as the Logos.
2. The specific Johannine conception of the Son of Man. This “Son of
Man” would be in principle the celestial Seth as the son of the celestial
Adamas or his incarnation.

5 Cf. H.-M. Schenke, “Melchisedek,” 124-25.

114 HANS-MARTIN SCHENKE

3. The Paraclete figure. The “other” Paraclete would be the next form
in which the celestial Seth will assist his race.
4, The prominent role of the Samaritan motif in the Fourth Gospel
(provided that Sethianism is actually rooted in Samaritanism).

I. Introduction
The figure of the Beloved Disciple is admittedly one of the great puzzles
in the mysterious Fourth Gospel. The expression “Beloved Disciple”
usually refers to that nameless and shadowy disciple of Jesus whom
John alone denotes according to the pattern “the disciple whom Jesus
loved”*® (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). The problems raised by this
figure in the Fourth Gospel are both numerous and complex. Who or
what is the Beloved Disciple? Is he a real figure or an ideal one? If real,
is he an eyewitness to all that is reported in the Gospel or only the
guarantor of certain episodes and facts? In this latter case, is he identical
with one of the known followers of Jesus, such as John, the son of
Zebedee; John Mark; the Ephesian John; Lazarus; Matthias; Paul? If
ideal, is he a symbol for Gentile Christianity or for the charismatic
function of the church? Is it the purpose of this figure, in either case, to
project back into the life of Jesus the Christian group which forms the
social basis of the Fourth Gospel? Has the figure two levels of meaning
such that the ideal witness simultaneously serves as a literary monument
to a key figure in the history of the Johannine circle? How is 21:24, the
final statement that the Beloved Disciple, having died in the meantime,
is the author of the Gospel related to the preceding passages about the
Beloved Disciple? How is this statement to be understood at all? How
many passages actually referring to the Beloved Disciple are there? Does
the figure appear even where the stereotyped designation does not?
How can the strange distribution of the Beloved Disciple passages be
13:23 fv dvaxeipevos eis ex Tov pabnrav adrod év TS Kddmw Tod *Inood, by Hydra 6
*Incods: “One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus”
(RSV).
19:26 *Inoods ody dey thy unrepa Kat Tov padnrhy napectara dy yyana: “When Jesus saw
his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near. . .” (RSV).
20:2 kat epxerat mpos Linwva Tlérpov Kat mpos rov GAdAov pabnryny bv epire & *Inoods:
“. , and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved” (RSV).
21:7 A€yer ody 6 pabnrns exeivos Sv jyana 6 "Inoods: “That disciple whom Jesus loved
said. . .” (RSV).
21:20 ’Emorpadgels 6 Ilérpos Bdére roy padnrny dv jyama 6 "Incods dxodovbodvra: “Peter
turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved” (RSV).
 FUNCTION & BACKGROUND OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 115

explained; that is, why does he not appear (at least distinctively) before
13:23? Do the formulae in 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20 referring to the
figure of the Beloved Disciple belong to the same literary stratum in the
Gospel of John, or are they distributed among two different layers? What
claim is made by the designation “Beloved Disciple’? How should one
understand this claim? There is, after all, a considerable difference
between a sentence like “Jesus loved the disciple so-and-so”’ and a
sentence like “It is the disciple so-and-so whom Jesus loved.” The
difference would seem to be between an instance of general love and
one of exclusive love, the latter ultimately assigning the other disciples
to the category of “non-beloved.” But even if the designation “Beloved
Disciple” does not denote a radical exclusivity, it does at least connote a
comparative one (“the disciple whom Jesus loved more than all the
others”).
The questions are numerous, and so too the answers—numerous, and
embarrassing. But a history-of-research would be out of place here, for
the reader may easily go and read it in the relevant literature.*
All these problems are interlaced one with another, although the
intersections are not equidistant at every point. The question about the
function of the Beloved Disciple in the Fourth Gospel, however, is a
point in the network of questions where especially many lines converge,
and one may conveniently start here. There are also some new things to
be said here. First of all, what is new is a general change of view within
German Johannine research with respect to the question of function, a
change which can be noticed and should be taken up, though one must
try to keep it from getting out of hand. The second part of the present
paper will later, under the ambiguous rubric “background,” raise the
following question: is it possible that new light can be thrown upon the
set of problems concerning the Beloved Disciple from outside the
Gospel of John and Johannine research?

II. On the Function

of the Beloved Disciple
Even in addressing only one of the major issues regarding the Beloved
Disciple, it would be impossible within the scope of a paper to take up
all the individual problems connected with it. That would, indeed, mean
to start from zero once again. So one must avoid devoting the same
_ 7 Cf. 11:5 Fydma 8 & "Inoois. . .rov Adfapov: “Now Jesus loved. . .Lazarus.”
8 Cf. Kragerud, Lieblingsjunger; Roloff, “Lieblingsjuinger”; Schnackenburg, “Jiinger”;
id., Johannesevangelium, 3.449-64; Lorenzen, Lieblingsjunger, Thyen,“Johannesevange-
lium”; id., “Entwicklungen.”
116 HANS-MARTIN SCHENKE

amount of attention to others’ points of view as one does to one’s own or

to those of one’s particular scholarly tradition.’ Thus it becomes increas-
ingly necessary to reveal one’s own premises. The bases from which the
following remarks begin are the—certainly widespread—views (1) that
neither the Gospel of John as a whole nor certain parts of it can be
thought of as guaranteed by a historically trustworthy person or
regarded as written by an eyewitness; and (2) that the whole of chapter
21 is redactional. Starting from these premises, the question about the
function of the Beloved Disciple hinges on the stratum or strata to which
one assigns the Beloved Disciple passages. The Beloved Disciple clearly
appears, it is true, in the supplementary chapter of the redaction (21:1-14
and 15-24) but also in three earlier sections (20:1-10; 19:25-27; 13:21-30).
In the tradition of New Testament scholarship in which this writer is
rooted it is usual to reckon the Beloved Disciple passages in chapters 13,
19, and 20 to the stratum of the evangelist, who speaks here rather
vaguely of the Beloved Disciple. It is thought that either the evangelist
introduces here an ideal or symbolic figure into the history of Jesus; or,
‘that he appeals in these places to a real person as guarantor of the
pertinent events. But the editor, while trying to imitate the evangelist on
the whole, has in chapter 21 blatantly and recklessly identified the
Beloved Disciple as the author of the Gospel. This tradition of scholar-
ship appears most markedly in the commentary on John by Rudolf
Bultmann and it is, accordingly, almost a matter of course both in the
Bultmannian school and in the wider sphere of its influence.
This hypothesis, however, does not fit, and ends ultimately in a
dilemma, as the pertinent literature clearly shows. There seems to be
only one way out of the dilemma, a way which is practical without much
ado and follows from the assumption that the Beloved Disciple is
already redactional in chs. 13, 19, and 20. The Beloved Disciple would
have penetrated into the Gospel from behind, that is to say, from ch. 21.
This theory would have to say, then, that all the. Beloved Disciple
passages belong to the same stratum, namely to the latest, or that of the
redactor. The Beloved Disciple, thus, is a redactional fiction who func-
tions to give the Fourth Gospel the appearance of being authenticated
and written by an eyewitness. But this is, in principle, only the resump-
tion of an earlier theory under now modified conditions.”
* Recently an article appeared, the title of which is almost identical with the title of
this paper, but its author is rooted in a different scholarly tradition and so in fact
approaches other problems. Cf. Hawkin, “Beloved Disciple.” Prof. Paul-Hubert Poirier,
director of BCNH anda participant in the Working Seminar, kindly provided me with a
copy of this article.
™ Cf. Kragerud, Lieblingsjunger, 11-12 and add to his survey: Goguel, Introduction, 2.
361-64; Harnack, Studien, 126 n. 2.
 FUNCTION & BACKGROUND OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 417

Interestingly, however, this earlier view, appropriately modified, fre-

quently reappears as a “new” solution to the Beloved Disciple problem
in that part of German Johannine scholarship which is wrestling with
the Bultmann heritage. Two sentences from Hartwig Thyen evidence
the feeling that such a general change of view has made some headway.
He writes in the first instance: “We shall see that—contrary to Bult-
mann’s explanation—in current research the awareness of the unifor-
mity of all the Beloved Disciple passages in the Gospel, including
chapter 21, is more and more keenly felt.”*! In the second instance he
writes: “After all, a growing and by no means uncritical consensus holds
that the literary figure of the Beloved Disciple as located on the level of
the text must correspond with a concrete person on the level of the real
history of Johannine Christianity.” Advocates of this new view are, in
addition to Thyen himself, his student Wolfgang Langbrandtner, and
above all Ernst Haenchen."*
In the Thyen school, however, this return to an older basic assumption
about the purely redactional character of the Beloved Disciple assumes
a specific form which the present writer is unable to accept. In Thyen’s
view of the Beloved Disciple one meets two basic tendencies in German
‘Johannine scholarship of the era after Bultmann; or, at least, one
suspects that Thyen’s view is being developed against the background of
these tendencies. On the one hand, the extent of the material ascribed to
the redactor is increasing to such an extent that the evangelist is about to
disappear. On this hypothesis the work of the evangelist in a sense takes
on the function of Bultmann’s conjectural source consisting of revelation
discourses (Offenbarungsreden). For the work of the evangelist becomes
itself a gnosticizing source, whereas the role of the Bultmannian evan-
gelist is conferred upon the redactor, who thus becomes the main level
of interpretation. On the other hand (and at the same time), the Fourth|
Gospel and Johannine literature as a whole are no longer seen as the
intentional creation of one author (or, if necessary, of more than one
author); instead, the Gospel as a whole and all the material contained in
it are seen primarily as the product of a special Johannine tradition, of a
Johannine history of preaching, or of a Johannine “trajectory.”** What
triggered these two tendencies is one and the same factor, namely, the

" Thyen, “Johannesevangelium,” 222 (author's translation).

12 Thyen, “Johannesevangelium,” 223 (author's translation).
*8 Cf. Thyen, “Johannes 13”; id., “Johannesevangelium’”; id., “Entwicklungen”; Lang-
brandtner, Weltferner Gott; Haenchen, Johannesevangelium, 601-5.
14 Cf Becker, “Aufbau”; id., “Abschiedsreden”; Robinson-Koester, Entwicklungslinien,
233-35; Miiller, “Parakletenvorstellung.”
118 HANS-MARTIN SCHENKE

rejection, even in the Bultmann school, of a source of revelation dis-

courses.
In this context, then, the redactional fiction of the Beloved Disciple, in
the view of Thyen, receives a second dimension (cf. the second quo-
tation above). The Beloved Disciple is taken to bea fiction only on the
literary level of the Gospel. On the level of the real history of Johannine
Christianity, however, a real person (who enjoyed general veneration)
corresponds to him. A literary monument has been set up to the memory
of this person in the Gospel by devising the Beloved Disciple figure. The
historical role and appreciation of this person, as Thyen sees it, emerged
from his settling a serious crisis within Johannine Christianity over
Christological issues, which crisis ended in schism.
Against Thyen’s extension and evaluation of the jointly shared basic
assumption, the present writer wishes to retain as much as possible of
Bultmann’s model of literary criticism. Accordingly, one ought not to
assign more of the Beloved Disciple passages to the redactor than is
absolutely necessary. Moreover, provided it is correct to read the
Beloved Disciple passages, so to speak, backwards, it follows that the
technique used by the redactor in editing the Beloved Disciple into ch.
21 is possibly the same as in other places where the Beloved Disciple
appears with Peter. In other words, the most likely assumption is that, as
in ch. 21, the figure of Peter in 13:21-30 and 20:1-10 belonged already to
the text that the redactor edited. Thus, in the supposed text of the
evangelist in chapter 13, it would have been Peter himself who asked
Jesus to disclose the traitor and to whom the traitor was revealed.
Accordingly one would have to imagine the original form of the section
as follows:
When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I
say to you, one of you will betray me.” The disciples looked at one another, uncertain
of whom he spoke. One of his disciples was lying close to the breast of Jesus, Simon
Peter. Therefore they beckoned to him, that he should ask who it is of whom he
spoke. So lying thus close to the breast of Jesus he said to him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus
answered, “It is he to whom I shall give the morsel, when I have dipped it.” So when
he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. Then after
the morsel Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do
quickly.” Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that,
because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the
feast”; or, that he should give something to the poor. So, as receiving the morsel he
immediately went out; and it was night.

Along the same lines, in ch. 20 (in the Vorlage prior to its redaction)
Peter would have run together with Mary Magdalene to the empty tomb.
It is easier to describe the work of the redactor in ch. 20 than in ch. 13.
One simply needs to transpose the ready-made results of literary-critical
 FUNCTION & BACKGROUND OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 119

analysis from the relation source/evangelist to the relation evangelist/

redactor.* One would reconstruct the original form of the section 20:1-
10 as follows:
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early while it
was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she
ran, and went to Simon Peter and said to him, “They have taken the Lord out of the
tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” Peter then came out (with her)
and they went toward the tomb. Stooping to look in, Peter saw the linen clothes lying
and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but
rolled up ina place by itself. And he saw, and wondered in himself; for as yet he did
not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciple went back
to his home.”®

The third Beloved Disciple passage (apart from the supplementary ch.
21) is 19:25-27. Located shortly before a (widely accepted) editorial gloss
(19:34, 35), it is the only Beloved Disciple scene in the Fourth Gospel
with a theme other than the superiority of the Beloved Disciple to Peter.
One may without difficulty attribute the whole double verse 19:26/27,
which is in any case clearly discernible as an insertion into an earlier
context, to the redactor (instead of the evangelist). In this case 19:26-27
and 19:34b, 35 belong to the same stratum and the “eyewitness” of 19:35
denotes directly and “originally” the Beloved Disciple mentioned
before. The intention of 19:26-27 is to have the Beloved Disciple, in the
dying-hour of Jesus, appointed his successor on earth.” But, as Anton
Dauer has convincingly pointed out, the essential point here is that this
appointment as successor is accomplished by making the Beloved
Disciple, in a sort of adoption, the brother of Jesus.*® We will have to
return to this point in the third part.
Contrary to Thyen, therefore, the Beloved Disciple passages are only a
simple fiction of the redactor. Reference is made to the alleged Beloved
Disciple in the same way as the Pastorals refer to Paul. The function of
the Beloved Disciple is to ground the Fourth Gospel (and the tradition of
the Christian group in which it originates and has its influence) in the
eyewitness testimony of one who was especially intimate with Jesus.
This kind of deception may find its explanation and, what is more, its
justification, only within a particular historical situation of conflict. The
circumstances, however, do not point to a conflict within the group, but
rather to a confrontation with another Christian (Petrine) tradition.

18 Cf. esp. Schnackenburg, “Jiinger,” 102-5; Hartmann, “Vorlage.”

18 Cf, the reconstruction of the Greek text in Hartmann, “Vorlage,” 220.
1” Cf. Thyen, “Johannesevangelium,” 225.
18 Cf. Dauer, “Wort des Gekreuzigten”; id., Passionsgeschichte, 192-200, 316-33.
120 HANS-MARTIN SCHENKE

III. On the Background

of the Beloved Disciple
Turning to the question of the background of the Beloved Disciple
fiction, possible sources of light from outside the Gospel will be con-
sidered. The Beloved Disciple nomenclature appears outside John in the
special material of the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark, a gospel used on
certain occasions in the church of Alexandria. This material is quoted in
a recently discovered letter of Clement of Alexandria to a certain
Theodore.” In a quotation from the narrative of the resurrection of a
young man, one reads: “Then the young man, having looked upon him,
loved him” (III,4).”° And in a second quotation from this special material
the young man is referred to as: “(the young man) whom Jesus loved”
(III,15).2 If the letter of Clement be genuine it is probable that the
resurrection story of the anonymous youth in the Secret Gospel of Mark
represents an earlier stage, in terms of the history of tradition, of the
narrative we know as the resurrection of Lazarus in the Fourth Gospel.
So the question could be raised whether the new evidence does not
prove that those scholars were right who have always taken Lazarus to
be the Beloved Disciple.” On the other hand, this resurrected youth who
submits himself to the mystery of initiation six days after his resurrection
assumes the symbolic role of an ideal figure. And it is this role that
seems to connect the resurrected youth once again with the Johannine
Beloved Disciple.
The two parallels between the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John
and the resurrected youth of the Secret Gospel of Mark are, however,
not really quite parallel. First, one should note that there is a difference
between Jesus doing the loving in the Gospel of John and the resur-
rected youth doing the loving in the Secret Gospel of Mark. Actually,
this motif of loving Jesus fits perfectly the context in the Secret Gospel of
Mark and, therefore, seems to be original here. The resurrected youth
has every reason to be grateful to Jesus for raising him, and hence to say
“he loved Jesus” fits the flow of the narrative. To be sure, there is a later
reference in the Secret Gospel of Mark to Jesus loving the resurrected
youth. But this shift from the youth loving Jesus to Jesus loving the youth
makes sense in this second reference. For here Jesus is refusing to
receive some women who are related to the resurrected youth, and

1° Smith, Secret Gospel of Mark; id., Secret Gospel: Discovery.

20 § 8 veavloxos guBréwas aire Hyanyncev adrov.
*1 (6 veavioxos) Sv nydna adrov & ’Incods.
*Eg., J. Kreyenbihl, R. Eisler, W. K. Fleming, F. V. Filson, J. N. Sanders, K. A.
Eckhardt.
 FUNCTION & BACKGROUND OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 121

hence it needs to be made clear that Jesus is not also rejecting the youth
by affirming that Jesus did in fact love him. There is a second difference
between the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John and the resurrected
youth in the Secret Gospel of Mark: the love for the Beloved Disciple
has an exclusive overtone; or, at least a comparison is made which
favors the Beloved Disciple over against the others. For by calling the
beloved person a disciple, the suggestion is that Jesus did not love the
other disciples as much as he did the Beloved Disciple. But when the
resurrected youth in the Secret Gospel of Mark is loved by Jesus, this
suggests only that Jesus cared for the deceased and raised him from the
dead. There is implied no diminution of all the other young men or of
the disciples of Jesus. A third difference between the two stories is that
the fiction or role differs in the two cases. The context of the resurrected
youth in the Secret Gospel of Mark is cultic—a sacrament is involved,
probably the baptism and higher initiation of the youth. The resurrected
youth is thus a symbolic portrayal of the validity of a secret initiation,
since it projects the initiation back into the life of Christ. But the Beloved
Disciple in the Gospel of John is something quite different. While both
figures are fictional (indeed the resurrected youth in the Secret Gospel
of Mark is a mere phantom), the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John
is portrayed as a person of flesh and blood, and, consequently much
more historicized.
A more promising starting point for elucidating the background of the
Johannine Beloved Disciple is the assumption that the redactor in
modeling the fictitious Beloved Disciple had in view a special legendary
disciple-figure of Jesus who, advanced in years, had died a natural death
and about whom various legends had arisen.”* The question, then, would
be whether it is possible to identify this figure. To begin with, the
typology of the “Beloved Disciple” takes one a step further, since the
designation “the disciple whom Jesus loved” means no less than “the
disciple whom Jesus loved more than all the other disciples.” Now, there
is a passage in the Gospel of Philip that may present a fuller context for
such a view:*
{As for Majry Mag{dallene, the S{avior lovjed hejr] more than [all] the disciples [and
used] to kiss her [oftlen on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples wenlt to (them in
order to] make [dema]nds, They said to him: “Why do you love her more than all of
us?” The Savior answered and said to them: “Why do I not love you like her?”

The type of disciple-figure to whom this applies is one who is loved by

Jesus more than all the other disciples. Such figures representing this

23 Cf. Bultmann, Johannes, 554.

24 Section 55b; NHC II,3:63,33-64,5.
122 HANS-MARTIN SCHENKE
type of the “Beloved Disciple” appear often in the apocryphal tradition,
the most prominent ones being Mary Magdalene (as in the quotation
above), James, the brother of the Lord, and Judas Thomas. Mary Magda-
lene appears as the “Beloved Disciple” also in another passage of the
Gospel of Philip:
There were (only) three (women) always keeping company with the Lord: Mary his
mother and h<is> sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his consort. His
sister and his mother and his consort were each a Mary.

In this connection it is worth noting that this view of Mary Magdalene

has provided the framework as well as the title for the Gospel of Mary
(BG8502,1). From this text two passages are cited:
Peter said to Mary: “Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of
women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember—which you know (but)
we do not, nor have we heard them.” Mary answered and said: “What is hidden from
you I will proclaim to you” (10,1-9).

Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about
the Savior: “Did he really speak with a woman without our knowledge (and) not
openly? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?” Then
Mary wept and said to Peter: “My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think
that'I thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?” Levi
answered and said to Peter: “Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see
you contending against the woman like an adversary. But if the Savior made her
worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
That is why he loved her more than us” (17,15-18,15).

James, the brother of the Lord, also serves as a type of the “Beloved
Disciple,” as the three Nag Hammadi tractates that bear the name
“James” reveal: the Apocryphon of James (NHC I,2), the (First) Apoc-
alypse of James (NHC V,3), and the (Second) Apocalypse of James
(NHC V,4). There is also saying 12 of the Gospel of Thomas (NHC II,2),
which makes the “Beloved Disciple” James appear to be the sole founda-
tion of the church:
The disciples said to Jesus: “We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our
leader?” Jesus said to them: “Wherever you came from, you are to go to James the
righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being” (34,25-30).

Judas Thomas, too, embodies the “Beloved Disciple” idea, and one
may first of all refer to the entire Syrian Judas Thomas tradition,
especially in the light of Helmut Koester’s research.” Two passages
deserve special attention here. One is the section of the Gospel of
Thomas dealing with the creed-like statement of Thomas:”’

*5 Section 32; NHC II,3:59,6-11.

26 Robinson-Koester, Entwicklungslinien, 118-34.
27 Logion 13a; NHC II,2:34,30-35,7.
 FUNCTION & BACKGROUND OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 123

Jesus said to his disciples: “Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like.”
Simon Peter said to him: “You are like a righteous messenger.” Matthew said to him:
“You are like a wise philosopher.” Thomas said to him: “Master, my mouth is wholly
incapable of saying whom you are like.” Jesus said: “I am not your master because
you have drunk (yourself) and become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I
have measured out.”

Even more suggestive for the “Beloved Disciple” character of Judas

Thomas is the beginning of the Book of Thomas (NHC II,7). The
framework for the first part of its parenetic materials is a revelation
discourse delivered by Jesus to Thomas (138,4-21). In it Thomas is
addressed or mentioned three times as the (physical) brother of Jesus.
There are also the following words which bear on the character of Judas
Thomas: “You are my twin and my true friend” (138,7-8). Against Peter
Nagel” one can show that the second predicate of the sentence really
means “my true friend” and not “my fellow contender.” One is thus
justified in supposing a Greek original with this meaning “you are... my
true friend” behind the Coptic.” Transposed into a form parallel with
that of the Gospel of John, this would read “you are the one I truly love,”
or, in the third person singular, “he is the one whom Jesus truly loved.””
On the whole two considerations seem important. On the one hand, it
lies in the nature of these “Beloved Disciple” figures that they claim
superiority to Peter. This is evident in some of the quoted examples. In
the Apocryphon of James this goes to the extent that Peter, as the foil of
James within this pair of disciples, has to play the fool.** On the other
hand, the “Beloved-Discipleship” seems to connote certain family ties
between the respective disciple and Jesus. One is inclined to ask
whether the natural predisposition to love among family members might
not have facilitated the conceiving and applying of the “Beloved
Disciple” idea.
In this connection the observation about John 19:26-27, where Jesus
entrusts his mother to the Beloved Disciple, reveals its full relevance.
While all the other Beloved Disciple scenes of the Fourth Gospel are
designed to reveal the superiority of the Beloved Disciple to Peter, this
scene serves “only” to make the Beloved Disciple the brother of Jesus.
Here the question suggests itself whether Judas Thomas, the most
mysterious of all the brothers of Jesus, might not have been the historical
model (in terms of history of tradition) for the Beloved Disciple figure of
the Fourth Gospel. In other words, has the redactor of the Fourth Gospel

28 Nagel, “Thomas.”
20 oh el... 6 pidos pov 6 Andes.
9° ob ef Sv GAG GANOGs, OF: adbrds ori Sv epirer GANGds 4 'Iqoois.
31 Cf, H.-M. Schenke, “Jakobusbrief,” 117-18.
124 HANS-MARTIN SCHENKE

made use here of one of the versions of the Thomas legend? This seems
to be particularly plausible if Johannine Christianity be localized in
Syria, which is otherwise known as the home of the Thomas tradition.
What is needed in order to make this theory really plausible is evidence
to the effect that Jesus promised Thomas that he would tarry till he
comes, i.e., that he would not die before the return of Christ. Perhaps it
is possible to understand logion 1 in the Gospel of Thomas and the
strange tradition about the mysterious “three words” in logion 13b” as
‘such evidence, or at least the remains of this supposed promise.
Turning to the Gospel of Thomas, one may note that after the confes-
sion of Thomas in logion 13, acknowledged by Jesus as being the truth,
the text continues:
And he took him and withdrew and told him three “words.” When Thomas returned
to his companions, they asked him: “What did Jesus say to you?” Thomas said to
them: “If I tell you one of the ‘words’ which he told me, you will pick up stones and
throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up” (35,7-14).

Only this second part of the logion has a parallel in the Acts of Thomas
47, where Thomas addresses Jesus in a prayer thus: “Who did set me
apart from all my companions and speak to me three words, wherewith .
I am inflamed, and tell them to others I cannot!”** It does not require
much to imagine that one of these three “words” could have been
something like: “You will remain until I come” or “you will not expe-
rience death until I come.”** At any rate a promise of this sort would lead
understandably to the anticipated jealousy of the other disciples.
Logion 1 of the Gospel of Thomas reads: “And he (Jesus (?]) had said:
‘Whoever finds the explanation of these sayings will not experience
death’” (32,12-14). This could easily be taken to be a transformation (like
John 21:23b) of “Jesus had said to Thomas: ‘Since you have found the
explanation of my sayings, you will not experience death.”
If this suggestion be correct, the redactor of the Fourth Gospel would
in fact have doubled the figure of Thomas. For Thomas appears in the
Gospel of John also under his own name, especially in the part of the
Gospel written by the Evangelist,** and then reappears in the part of the
Gospel added by the editor as the anonymous Beloved Disciple. But this
duplication would not necessarily disprove such an hypothesis. There
are several possible reasons for the doubling, e.g., the redactor could

82 Cf. Acts of Thomas, 47.

2% adopicas pe Kar “iBiay exé Tey éraipwy pov TavTwy, Kat eimay pot Tpets AOvous Ev ols eyw
extrupodpat, kat ddous eineiy adra od dvvapat.
:ov pévers tas €pxopat.
ov od pn yevon Gavarov ews epyomat.
98 Cf. John 11:16; 14:5, 22(?); 20:24, 26, 27, 28; 21:2.
 FUNCTION & BACKGROUND OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 125

have done it without realizing it; or, he could have done it deliberately
and, for that very reason, have chosen the mysterious paraphrase. After
all, Thomas appears in two roles even in the Gospel of Thomas: as he
who reports, i.e., as the (alleged) author (in the incipit), and as a person
who is reported on (logion 13). Finally it seems easy to reverse the whole
question and to look upon the conspicuous role that Thomas plays in the
text of the unrevised Fourth Gospel as created under the influence of
the same Syrian Judas Thomas tradition, which, then, would have
affected the Fourth Gospel at two stages in its development.
 7 Patek
cate ener “A eto
ECan

Seabee ae. soroden ast Seopa cae

teks hie @iaay Stacey gatliieeeh
inmenSite words
4 wip eeietied, aed gettthenr tg athers P game" 3p dood
OR Hetero UR ad ew diene“aepatnla”
ae aa Rsspaseee aeécee

yat
be tga ch
santa aeeseaed
Avda Que cxpland ts: ot thaws -abylags eeltlohe
2 peat,Thie could wely be tebantebe
-4Ee eee

dap cehten: aero bac ieee di |

Oe FOV BEES ‘porate Neha
S te eee
© 6h AbeofPhotog. eta
§ bBo lvae fe ao tae by binboisaay ie ip
fers pass. weed:th Aste tml week, 1 ani
; rs, Aue tee Sexoeeae
on 2h py wrists dinkinebee
BasYo va
#e iA sh,iarBiamo.ene, = ain
 Z
ON BRIDGING THE GULF
FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS
(OR VICE VERSA)

James M. Robinson

James M. Robinson is currently the Director of the Institute for Antiquity and
Christianity at the Claremont University Center, Professor of Religion at the
Claremont Graduate School, and Affiliate Professor of Theology and New
Testament at the School of Theology at Claremont, California.
Among his various academic and professional duties, Professor Robinson is a -
member of the New Testament Board of the Hermeneia commentary series. He
is a member of such prestigious professional societies as the Society of Biblical
Literature and the International Association for Coptic Studies.
Professor Robinson is internationally known for his work in Gnostic and New
Testament studies. He has written numerous journal and dictionary articles and
perhaps is best-known for being the general editor of the highly regarded Nag
Hammadi Library in English. Significant books by Professor Robinson include A
New Quest of the Historical Jesus, The Problem of History in Mark, and
Trajectories through Early Christianity, which he co-authored with Helmut
Koester.

Preface
he problem of the relation of gnosticism to early Christianity is all
too complex, and progress toward a solution of the various inter-
fined problems has been too slow and convoluted. The discovery of
the Nag Hammadi Codices and the making of them accessible has not
provided a simple solution. In a sense the flood of new source material
has so engrossed scholarly energy that our generation seems to be lost in
the detail of translation and interpretation with the broader questions in
part lost from view.
The present paper addresses the problem area first by assessing the
relevance of the Messina definition of gnosticism for this problem.

127
128 JAMES M. ROBINSON

Rather than that definition facilitating the solution of the problems, it is

argued below that it solidified them by creating additional language
difficulties. A second section introduces a somewhat new ingredient into
the usual discussions of gnosticism, by working not back from second-
century gnosticism, where one is sure to be talking about gnosticism, but
rather forward from Jesus’ immediate Galilean followers (for whom the
same surely cannot be said) in search of a hypothetical sociological
roadbed for a trajectory from Jesus to gnosticism. Third, two documents
of similar genre near the two poles of such a roadbed, Q and the Gospel
of Thomas, are brought into focus, and it is argued that they cannot be
kept apart, as those seeking to keep the New Testament and gnosticism
apart would maintain. For in the kind of dating that applies to them they
overlap, and thus produce a continuum, putting, so to speak, rails on the
roadbed. Then ina final section the discussion of the problem of the
genre of such sayings collections, a discussion I had initiated some
twenty years ago, is brought more nearly up to date.
This paper thus does not solve the problems posed by the topic of our
colloquium, but it does seek to blaze a trail for an important discussion
that could track the course of the trajectory from Jesus to gnosticism.

I. The Messina Definition of Gnosticism

The Messina Colloquium on “The Origins of Gnosticism” set up a
committee composed of Geo Widengren, Hans Jonas, Jean Daniélou,
Carsten Colpe, and Ugo Bianchi, aided also by Marcel Simon and Henri
Irenée Marrou, to prepare during the meeting a draft of a “proposal for a
terminological and conceptual agreement with regard to the theme of
the Colloquium.” Their draft was then debated, emended, and adopted
at a final three-hour session of the Colloquium. Since both the draft and
the debate were in French, I was asked to be the English translator of
the document, which meant I was to read the final English translation at
the conclusion of the discussion. Thus, though the English is mine, I was
involved neither in the preparation of the draft nor in the discussion
itself, during which time I was more than busy emending my draft
translation back and forth as the debate wound its way through the draft
document. For at each turn of the debate I had to be certain that I had
noted the formulation finally agreed upon and had correctly translated it
into English. The published English translation is as I read it at the end
of the lengthy discussion.’

* Bianchi, “Proposal,” xxvi-xxix. It had already been published in the brief announce-
ment by Bianchi, “Colloque.” Carsten Colpe, who had been entrusted with preparing the
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 129

The document began with the stated purpose, “to avoid an undiffer-
entiated use of the terms gnosis and gnosticism.” This proposal is already
in its inception a problem, in that especially German language sensi-
tivities (and the German part of English-language sensitivities) have a
built-in pejorative feeling for -isms, perhaps to an extent Romance
languages do not. Ugo Bianchi, whose own introductory essay at the
Colloquium had in view the final document, dismissed such a pejorative
note found in German literature, as exemplified in a comment by Hans-
Martin Schenke:
Incidentally, in research one not infrequently uses instead of or alongside of “gnosis”
also the concept “gnosticism.” Here one occasionally means by gnosticism Christian
gnosis in distinction to pre-Christian pagan gnosis. The concept gnosticism is in any case
pejorative and basically is on a level with the terminology of the heresiologists.’

Yet Bianchi himself, while distancing himself from this pejorative usage,
does not favor using the term gnosticism of “the true gnosis established
by the orthodox in polemic with the gnostics.” He merely extends its
usage to mark the distinction both from that orthodox gnésis and from
other more neutral kinds of gnGsis. Thus “gnosticism” becomes a purely
descriptive, phenomenological term—that nonetheless is not to be iden-
tified with mainline Christianity!
In past usage the German noun Gnosis and the English term gnos-
ticism have been largely synonymous, one translating the other, al-
though Germans have sometimes had a broader definition of the phe-
nomenon itself than have the English. Thus confusion is invited by the
potentiality of applying the new distinction between the terms to older
literature where they were roughly synonymous, and indeed in applying
it to ongoing usage which has not been basically changed by the action
at Messina. For the German discussion has by and large rejected the
Messina distinction:
On the other hand the ripping apart of gnosis and gnosticism is unfortunate and
dangerous, since both terms are already so closely connected with the well-known
phenomenon of late antiquity. “Gnosis” itself was employed by the Christian heresi-
ologists to designate it. With the term “gnostics” (gnostikoi) the connection has been
made to the central idea and in part to the self-designation. . . .°

German translation, asked, understandably enough, that his presentation of the German
translation be deferred until after the Colloquium. Hence it is absent from that preprint
but was included in the Messina volume itself, pp. xxix-xxxii, and was reprinted:
“Messina-Kongress,” 129-32.
2 Bianchi, “Probléme,” 4, n. 2, citing H.-M. Schenke, “Gnosis,” 375.
$ Rudolph, “Gnosis, ein Forschungsbericht” (1971) 18-19. He reports H.-M. Schenke, in
his review of Bianchi, Origini, as saying one “cannot do much” with this expanded sense
of gnosis (ThLZ 93 [1968] 905) and Karl Schubert as questioning whether the distinction
between the two terms “helps us further” (Origini, 527). He reports A. Béhlig as
130 JAMES M. ROBINSON

As the last sentence suggests, a by-product of the problem is that the

noun and adjective “gnostic” have become ambiguous. In actual practise
they are used to refer to gnosticism. What would the adjective be to go
with the noun gnésis? What noun would one use to refer to a person
whose religion was gnosis but not gnosticism?
A few illustrations of the chaos in translation that would arise in
implementing the clear terminological distinction between gndsis and
gnosticism will suffice to indicate how impractical the Messina proposal
actually is. When for example Rudolf Bultmann wrote: “Der Kampf
gegen die Gnosis... ,” Kendrick Grobel rightly translated: “The struggle
against gnosticism. .. .* When in 1924 Hans Leisegang entitled his gnostic
anthology Die Gnosis and in 1961 Robert M. Grant entitled his com-
parable book Gnosticism, they were writing source books on the same
phenomenon, gnosticism.’ When Leisegang’s work was superseded a
generation later by a three-volume work produced by a team of Ger-
mans under the leadership of Werner Foerster with the title Die Gnosis,
it was the same subject matter, gnosticism, that was covered (with of
course the addition of material that had become available in the inter-
vening period).* When an English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson,’
used the English title Gnosis, this usage was inappropriate, if it was
taken to mean not what Bultmann, Leisegang and Foerster meant, but
some distinct, much broader thing legislated by the Messina Collo-
quium. For the collection contains only what the editors took to be
gnosticism, rather than including the broader phenomenon gnGsis. Thus,
the English title is a mistranslation, if one is to think in Messina terms.
The same is true of Robert Haardt’s volume on gnosticism entitled in
German Gnosis, with the English translated by J. F. Hendry also entitled
Gnosis.’ All these works are collections of what the German authors
consider gnostic texts in the sense of gnosticism, just as much as Grant’s
collection Gnosticism is meant in the sense of gnosticism.
The Messina definition of gnosticism proposes “beginning methodo-
logically with a certain group of systems of the Second Century A.D.

welcoming the distinction as something that can “in fact help,” but then conceding that
“what gnosis as a religious world view might mean is not yet grasped concretely” (Origini,
703
*ultmann, Theologie des NT (1st ed.), 168 = 3rd ed. 1958, 172; ET=Theology, 1.168.
®Leisegang, Gnosis; Grant, Gnosticism: A Sourcebook.
® Die Gnosis, vol. 1: Zeugnisse der Kirchenvater, ed. W. Foerster with E. Haenchen
and M. Krause; vol. 2: Koptische und Manddische Quellen, ed. C. Andresen and W.
Foerster with M. Krause and K. rab ea vol. 3: Der Manichdismus, by A. Béhlig with
Jes,Peter Asmussen.
” Foerster, Gnosis.
® Haardt, Gnosis; ET=Gnosis: Character.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 131

which everyone agrees are to be designated with this term.”® The defi-
nition of that phenomenon is quite specific:
The gnosticism of the Second Century sects involves a coherent series of characteristics
that can be summarized in the idea of a divine spark in man, deriving from the divine
realm, fallen into this world of fate, birth and death, and needing to be awakened by
the divine counterpart of the self in order to be finally reintegrated. Compared with
other conceptions of a “devolution” of the divine, this idea is based ontologically on the
conception of a downward movement of the divine whose periphery (often called
Sophia or Ennoia) had to submit to the fate of entering into a crisis and producing—
even if only indirectly—this world, upon which it cannot turn its back, since it is
necessary for it to recover the pneuma—a dualistic conception on a monistic back-
ground, expressed in a double movement of devolution and reintegration.”

It is, of course, to be welcomed when any phenomenon in the history

of religions is defined with relative precision on the basis, as here, of
typological and historical study. But the problems begin to emerge when
one moves toward language for the penumbral areas surrounding this
crisp phenomenon. For, “in distinction from this [second-century phe-
nomenon], gnosis is regarded as ‘knowledge of the divine mysteries
reserved for an elite.’”” This very broad definition of gnGsis, however,
makes it rather useless, in that many religions would qualify as such
gnosis. To describe something as gnosis in this sense would say no more
than that is is like apocalypticism, Qumran, John the Baptist, Paul, and
Mark. One might compare the terms pietism and piety—to describe a
religion as pietism provides a relevant characterization, but to describe
it as piety is so general as to be hardly worth saying. But according to the
Messina document one cannot go beyond this vague gnosis unless a
religious phenomenon “is conditioned by the ontological, theological
and anthropological foundations indicated above.” Since the definition
to which this refers is very specific and doctrinal, there is no middle
ground between the extremes, no bridge, to use the metaphor of the title:
Not every gnosis is gnosticism, but only that which involves in this perspective the idea
of the divine consubstantiality of the spark that is in need of being awakened and
reintegrated. This gnosis of gnosticism involves the divine identity of the knower (the
gnostic), the known (the divine substance of one’s transcendent self), and the means by
which one knows (gnosis as an implicit divine faculty [that] is to be awakened and
actualized. This gnosis is a revelation-tradition of a different type from the Biblical and
Islamic revelation-tradition)."

Thus, the Messina document has already ruled that the biblical tradition
does not include the gndsis of gnosticism, at which point the basic
problem of our Working Seminar on Gnosticism and Early Christianity

® Bianchi, Origini, xxvi.

10 Bianchi, Origini, xxvi-xxvii.
11 Bianchi, Origini, xxvii.
132 JAMES M. ROBINSON

would be conveniently solved for us, if we were simply to appropriate

the Messina document.
If one nonetheless has the temerity to inquire about gnosticism before
the second century, one is given an option between pre-gnosticism and
proto-gnosticism:
If it is a matter of pre-gnosticism one can investigate the pre-existence of different
themes and motifs constituting such a “pre-” but not yet involving gnosticism. But if it is
a matter of proto-gnosticism, one can think to find the essence of gnosticism already in
the centuries preceding the Second Century A.D., as well as outside the Christian
gnosticism of the Second Century.”

Yet pre-gnosticism, like gndsis, is so broad as to include almost anything

and hence to say almost nothing, whereas proto-gnosticism may be
found, by those who so choose, anywhere from Iran to Orphism, except
not, by definition, in normative Judaism and Christianity:
Some scholars have also inquired as to the position of Christianity in relation to pre-
gnosticism or proto-gnosticism. In this regard it seems to the authors of this report that, if
gnosticism as defined in I above involves the “devolution” of the divine, it is impossible
to classify it as belonging to the same historical and religious type as Judaism or the
Christianity of the New Testament and the Grosskirche.’*

Thus, in practise, the purely descriptive definition of second-century

gnosticism and its substantive precursor, proto-gnosticism, are by defi-
nition ruled out of first-century Christianity. Hence, rather than the
study of gnosticism and early Christianity over the next generation being
in an open situation due to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codicés,
the Messina definition has in effect ruled that the most recent assured
result to which scholarship should be bound as it seeks to adjust pre-
vious scholarship to the new situation created by the Nag Hammadi
Codices is the traditional view dominant up to the turn of the last
century: Christian gnosticism is after all only a second-century phenom-
enon, a view immortalized in the English language world a generation
later by F. C. Burkitt’s Church and Gnosis: A Study of Christian Thought
and Speculation in the Second Century“ (although to be sure he was not
yet a party to the terminological maneuvering and hence did not realize
that he should have said “gnosticism”). Thus, to the extent that matters of
historical fact can be settled by committee action and definition, our
problem is again solved before we actually get into it. Here one can only
agree with Hans-Martin Schenke:

2 Bianchi, Origini, xxvii.

*® Bianchi, Origini, xxviii.
** Burkitt, Church and Gnosis.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 133

I am of the opinion that clarity of concepts can under certain conditions also obscure
the issue at stake (and does so here). . . . With regard to the proposed concept
“gnosticism,” in my view this is after all a step backward, insofar as here not only does
the old view of gnosticism (German: Gnosis] = Christian heresy appear conserved (even
if only terminologically), but also and especially what belongs materially and histor-
ically together with the systems of the second century, and which has been recognized
as such (certain heresies of the NT, Simon Magus, Menander, Hermetica, Mandeans), is
artificially separated’ off (again), so that then the origin of this “gnosticism” actually
presents only a sham problem."

But, since the final solution arranged for us at Messina has not yet
actually been imposed, the problem may still be investigated briefly in
terms of pre-postmodern historical method. It is to this purpose that the
present paper is dedicated..
The solution to the traditional problem of gnosticism and early Chris-
tianity has not been solved by the publication of the Nag Hammadi
Codices. For the early heralding of such a gnostic text as the Apocalypse
of Adam as “pre-Christian” proved somewhat premature, in that Alex-
ander Béhlig has clarified his usage of that term in the editio princeps to
mean no more than that the text was not yet under Christian influence,
irrespective of the century of its composition.”* To be sure, a much later
dating of that text has subsequently been retracted by Hans-Martin
Schenke.
I should like to take this opportunity formally to reject my earlier objection to Béhlig’s
evaluation of the Apocalypse of Adam as a product of pre-Christian gnosis. I must also
retract my counter-hypothesis that the Apocalypse of Adam should be regarded asa late
product of gnosis; this former view of mine, which now seems unjustified in the broader
perspective, is still occasionally attributed to me in the literature, to my regret.”

And the possibility of sources imbedded in it suggests a still earlier

origin for its mythology; yet, neither it nor the other Nag Hammadi
texts have settled the question in favor of pre-Christian gnosticism to the
satisfaction of those whose argument rests its case on the positivistic
observation “no texts, no history.”
Furthermore, one only need recall the complexity of the definition of
gnosticism in the Messina document to see how hopeless it would be to
try to demonstrate that the full system was, item for item, in Pauline
congregations of the 50s or the like. To be sure, if one were, in analogy to
the Messina procedure, to define orthodox Christianity in second-cen-

15 H-M. Schenke, “Review.”

1® Bohlig-Labib, Apokalypsen, 95: “The writing comes from pre-Christian Gnosticism.”
The subsequent clarification was in a personal communication.
17 41.-M. Schenke, “Sethianism,” 2.607. He is there retracting the view he had ex-
pressed in his review of Béhlig’s editio princeps, OLZ 61 (1966) 31-32.
18 Hedrick, Apocalypse. See in this regard the critique by Birger Pearson in the pres-
ent volume.
134 JAMES M. ROBINSON

tury terms, for example in terms of the Apostles’ Creed, there would be
as little orthodox Christianity as gnosticism in primitive Christianity and
the New Testament, thereby reopening the discussion in. an original
way. Hence, the strategy implicit in limiting gnosticism to the second
century and thereafter, namely the resultant allocation of first-century
Christianity to orthodoxy, cannot be carried through, lest on the same
logic the absence of second-century orthodoxy in the first century lead to
the allocation of first-century Christianity to—heresy! Yet when such a
leading authority on Nag Hammadi and the New Testament as Hans-
Martin Schenke fails to find gnosticism in Pauline congregations during
Paul's lifetime, one should take note of this fact,* even if he has re-
opened the question in the light of Dennis R. MacDonald’s argument
that Paul is opposing a gnostic concept of baptism in Gal 3:26-28.”°
Although for the question of the origins of gnosticism it would be very
important to know whether gnosticism were present in the Christianity
of the 50s, for example, in Pauline congregations, this may not only be a
moot question, but also a less relevant way to pose the question, if the
inquiry is directed less to the problem of gnosticism than to the problem
of the development of early Christianity, which is in fact the point of
departure for the research of most of us here. If one may assume that
there must be some lead time to any movement in the history of ideas,
then one may legitimately inquire as to what there was in primitive
Christianity that would have provided a congenial point of departure, a
seedbed, an impetus, which, once gnosticism began to emerge in the
environment, would have invited that trend to express itself in some
strands of Christianity rather than in others. Thus, rather than straining
to argue on the basis of inadequate evidence whether full-blown gnos-
ticism was or was not presupposed at any given point, one would turn to
the documentation that does exist and inquire whether materials that
are not clearly gnostic are nonetheless what could develop into Chris-
tian gnosticism, given the necessary incentives in that direction. To be
sure, such an approach would not explain how “gnosticism began to
emerge in the environment” or the origin of the “incentives in that
direction,” and to this extent a solution to the origins of gnosticism would
not be attained. But such an approach would conform to the recent
recognition that gnosticism is a “parasite” religion grafting into “host”
religions such as early Judaism and Christianity: Where is one to locate
the “hospitality” of primitive Christianity that was greater than, for
1° Schenke- Fischer, Einleitung.
20 MacDonald, “Male and Female.”
7 Rudolph, “Gnosis, ein Forschungsbericht” (1971) 23, with reference to Bianchi as the
originator of the concept.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 135

example, that of the imperial cult, which did not develop a gnostic wing?
Such an approach might make it possible, to an extent not yet achieved,
to trace the trajectories in early Christianity leading into gnosticism and
thus might provide a major contribution to our understanding of the
beginnings of Christianity and of Christian gnosticism. The present
paper is intended to help launch such an undertaking.

II. The Sociological Substructure

The sociological substructure presupposed in gnosticism, namely an
ascetic life style, seems particularly related to the bearers of the sayings
of Jesus: wandering, begging charismatics. Gerd Theissen has charac-
terized their life style as lack of home, family, possessions, and pro- .
tection, in distinction from the village life of the sympathizing Jews or
Jewish Christians who made that life style possible.” Luise Schottroff
has emended this presentation to argue that there was not much dif-
ference between the economic plight of the wandering charismatic and
that of the sedentary peasant, whose misery produced hobos as a by-
product.” Wolfgang Stegemann has drawn attention to the distinction in
class structure between Jesus’ followers in Palestine before 70 C.E., who
were dirt poor (his idiom is “beggar-poor,” Greek ptdchoi), poor to where
it hurt, with all the physical and social consequences of real privation,
and the Christians outside Palestine, with whom we are more familiar
through the books of the New Testament, beginning in the 50s CE. with
Paul. Here the Christians are from the lower and middle classes of
handworkers (penétes), but hardly desperately poor.* Paul’s churches
were able to take up collections for Jerusalem-based Christians, which
may suggest not only “Peter’s pence,” a kind of loyalty oath, but also an
economic distinction. Now it is primarily from Q that we know about
these Palestinian “poor.”** They are “blessed” (Q 6:20, to make use of the
Lucan numeration), and it is to them that “the good news is preached” (Q
7:22).
Another dimension of this same reality has to do with itinerant beggar
charismatics who would of necessity wander from hamlet to nearby
hamlet, each no more than a day’s journey from the other. For they were

22 Theissen, Followers = Sociology; cf. especially 10-14; German original: Soziologie.

This was first worked out in Theissen, “Wanderradikalismus,” 249-52, reprinted in
Studien, 83-86; ET = “Itinerant Radicalism.”
23 Schottroff-Stegemann, Jesus, 64, 66-67. She considers Theissen’s presentation in part
improved in “Nachfolge und soziale Entwurzelung” (reprinted in Theissen, Studien, pp.
106-41). ;
ny eh wwacace Das Evangelium und die Armen, 17-25.
Stegemann, Das Evangelium und die Armen, 17, 23.
 136 JAMES M. ROBINSON

unable to involve themselves in grandiose Pauline-like travel plans,

based on a portable job, or make use of “public transportation.” By way
of contrast, Diaspora Christianity was comprised of widely separated
metropolitan centers, provincial capitals, travel to which involved not
only overland trips of considerable distances, but especially necessitated
the use of commercial traffic by ship from port to port. The shift from
fishing boat to passenger ship prefigured.that from farm to slum. No
sooner would wandering charismatics from the hamlets sail to such a
port and find themselves in the slums of the port area than a new life
style would come upon them, with all the unintentional but very real
shifting of the Christian message that this entailed.
It is to such a wrenching in the sociological reality of primitive
_ Christianity that Gerd Theissen appeals to explain the shift from Q to
the Gospel of Thomas;
The sayings tradition could extend itself beyond its original situation in places where it
changed its character. Where it was not possible to practice its ethical radicalism, it was
possible to transform it into gnostic radicalism. The radicalism in action became in this
way a radicalism in knowledge which did not necessarily require concrete results in
behavior. We find a sayings tradition modified in just such a direction in the Gospel of
Thomas..

By means of this theory Theissen supplies a much-needed sociological

supplement to my presentation worked out too exclusively in terms of
the history of ideas:
Not only is the Gospel of Thomas a modified sayings tradition,. but it is also a tempered
gnosticism. The concrete demands are softened and transformed into a speculative
mode. This change is not simply inevitable in the sayings tradition form (as J. M.
Robinson proposes in “LOGOI SOPHON"), but probably presupposes a change in the
carriers of the tradition, another social milieu in which the words of Jesus were no
longer practical in their concreteness.”

It is, of course, the case that the genre of the sayings collection will not
automatically end in gnosticism. Wisdom literature continued as wisdom
literature; Pirke Aboth is not a gnostic text. That the sayings collection
lacks the flesh and bones of a narrative framework, and hence a
biographical cast such as the canonical Gospels present, does mean,
however, that it might well be congenial to gnostic docetism, since only
the message of the gnostic Redeemer, even in the form ofa letter (the
Hymn of the Pearl), is all that is actually needed. But it should have
been obvious without having to be said that the gnosticizing proclivity of
the sayings collection does in fact need some catalyst to go into effect.
°° Theissen, “Wanderradikalismus,” 269 = Studien 103 = “Itinerant Radicalism,” 90.
*” Theissen, “Wanderradikalismus,” 269= Studien, 103 = “Itinerant Radicalism,” 93, n.
24, citing Robinson, “LOGOI SOPHON,” Zeit und Geschichte, 77-96. Enlarged ET in
Future of Our Religious Past, 84-130, and in Robinson-Koester, Trajectories, 71-113.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 137

Yet the main trajectory of the sayings collection in primitive Chris-

tianity, which one might traditionally mock up as Q, QMt, Matthew,
Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, need not have involved such a geo-
graphical-sociological jolt as Theissen suggests, as one moves beyond
the Galilean Jesus movement into the Diaspora (although this would
indeed be the case if one were to move from Chorazin and Bethsaida to
Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria and Rome). Rather, there was one direc-
tion in which the expansion of Christianity could have been by osmosis,
from hamlet to nearby hamlet: toward Syria.
Theissen has made the point that one of the shifts involved in moving
from the hamlet to the city had to do with language—the native lan-
guages persisted for centuries in the countryside long after the metro-
politan centers had become functionally Greek, or at least with a Greek
hegemony in a multi-lingual cosmopolitanism.” Thus, the shift from
Aramaic to Greek is less a matter of from Palestine to the Diaspora than
from the hamlet to the metropolitan center, where in the case of the
Diaspora the movement would tend to get stuck. For once arrived at a
provincial capital, the itinerant Galilean charismatic could not move
back into the rural life style of hamlets outside the metropolitan area,
where the native languages of the hamlets would now also be foreign—
except in the area of Aramaic hegemony.
This consideration points clearly in one direction on a map, where the
only land bridge for expansion out of Galilee hamlet by hamlet is
through the Fertile Crescent, into Syria. Here the Aramaic mission could
expand by small increments without any real awareness of provincial
frontiers, indeed without any real need for a metropolitan point of
departure. To whatever extent Jerusalem might at first have functioned
as a sort of headquarters for the itinerant mendicant mission, it could
readily have been replaced by Antioch. The shift of the itinerant leader
Peter from Jerusalem to Antioch might serve as a symbol for this option.
To be sure, in view of its prominence throughout the Synoptic gospels (Q
7:1), Capernaum might seem to have played that role. Perhaps that is
why things came to a crisis there leading to the woe pronounced on that
town when it stamped out the Jesus movement (Q 10:15). For, in spite of
the presentation in Acts, one need not think of a single centralized
headquarters even for a particular brand of early Christianity such as
the sayings tradition seems to represent. From Chorazin and Bethsaida
(Q 10:13) or from Capernaum to Tyre and Sidon or to the Decapolis
(Mark 3:8; 5:20; 7:24.31) is a progression that would have been relatively
imperceptible. There need have been no sudden wrenching of the

28 Theissen, “Wanderradikalismus,” 267 = Studien 101 = “Itinerant Radicalism,” 90.

138 JAMES M. ROBINSON

sayings tradition, once it could presuppose the literacy and Greek

reflected in the redaction of Q, as it moved between Q and the Gospel of
Thomas, even if this meant between (the regions of) Antioch and
Edessa. This evolution, rather than cultural revolution, is in fact sug-
gested by Theissen’s characterization of Thomas as “tempered gnos-
ticism.”
It may be that the contrast between “conduct radicalism” in Q and
“epistemological radicalism” in the Gospel of Thomas has also been
overdrawn, as Kendrick Grobel has tended to argue in the case of the
Gospel of Thomas: :
In several places Jewish subject-matter is detectable. I cannot convince myself that
Thomas’ “make the Sabbath Sabbath” (27) is to be spiritualized into vapour as it is by
most commentators. After all, Jewish Christians—and some Gentile Christians, too?—
continued literal Sabbath-observance long after they were Christian. There is also
evidence in Thomas for a social concern which it would not surprise us to find among
either Jews or Christians but which, so far as I am aware, is unknown among gnostics.
Usury (a Jewish topic!) is explicitly forbidden in 95: “If you have coins, do not lend at
usury but give them to him from whom you shall not get them (back),” which by
omitting any reference to “hope” or “expect” apparently goes beyond even Luke vi. 34, °
35 in enjoining generosity. Concern for one’s fellow man is crystal clear in 25 (“...
protect—or : keep—him as the pupil of thine eye”), and so, as I understand it, is 69b:
“Blessed are they that go hungry in order that they may fill the stomach of him who
desires (to be filled).” The Coptic has some ambiguities here, but I think this translation
is justifiable.”

Thus the sociological substratum of the trajectory from Q to Thomas

may help to explain the way in which the gnosticizing proclivity in the
genre of sayings collections was activated. But, on just these terms, the
shift in context may not have been as sudden or drastic as Theissen
would seem to suggest, corresponding to the fact that the actual dif-
ference between the two texts in terms of conduct versus speculation
may not have been as great as he has indicated. The trend already
perceptible in Q to mark off an unbelieving Judaism as a hopeless last
“sinful and adulterous generation” is already a head start in the direc-
tion in which the Gospel of Thomas may have moved toward a gnostic
perception of reality, without there being a real rupture in the curve of
the trajectory.
M. Eugene Boring has defined the early Christian prophet as the
primary bearer, moulder, and creator of the sayings tradition. This
provides an important supplement to our understanding of its socio-
logical substructure. But he, like Schottroff, yet in a somewhat different
way, seeks to break down the distinction between the charismatic
prophet and the local congregation:
2° Grobel, “Thomas,” 373. This passage is quoted by Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 7.
Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 139

Gerd Theissen in particular has argued that the sayings of Jesus were transmitted in
part by prophetic bands at the edge of society and church. Theissen’s view that
traditions were transmitted by charismatics is well-documented and is to be accepted.
His view that sayings of Jesus which include a call for radical abandonment of home
and family could only have been handed on by a homeless group on the fringe of
society and church need not be accepted.”

The itinerant approach is attributed to a misreading and over-gener-

alizing on the part of Adolf von Harnack of the then newly discovered
Didache. Boring argues that the association of prophets with itinerant
apostles in Didache 11 does not necessarily imply that the prophets were
also itinerant, even though false itinerant apostles are called “false
prophets.” For Boring takes this to be “a general pejorative term that
may be applied to a variety of types of fraudulent church leaders.””
Even the arrival of a prophet from outside in Did. 13:1 need not imply
itinerancy, since the prophet may be coming froma settled life else-
where to settle in the new location.
This somewhat strained interpretation, and similar remarks about
admittedly itinerant prophets in other sources, seem to be intended to
avoid an inference from itinerancy that is not necessary. Boring uses
such pejorative extreme terms as “a ‘wandering’ stranger who does not
belong within the churches he addresses”; “an outsider to the local
churches”;9, 6 “a traveling prophet who intrudes his oracles into a commu-
nity to which he does not essentially belong”; “a ‘wandering’ itinerant
who troubles the life of the ‘settled’ churches”; “wandering bearers of an
individualistic charisma”; an “individualistic anthropology”; “wander-
ing, individualistic prophets”; “an extra-church transient loner on the
fringes of stable congregational life.”** The mission of the Twelve/
Seventy would seem not to presuppose congregations in the hamlets to
which the itinerant went, but rather unevangelized Jewish communities
with a town synagogue and varying degrees of hospitality and sympa-
thizers. To be sure, ultimately congregations would have emerged in at
least some of these hamlets, and there may have been a congregation
from which the itinerant took his or her departure and to which they
from time to time returned, as Boring insists:
This speech implies a somewhat settled, structured community, from which wandering
missioners are sent out and to which they return. The very existence of the Q-tradition
that precipitated a Q-document also implies a settled community. We should probably
think of a scene resembling Acts 13:1-3 as a representative event in the life of this
community and the setting for such a missionary charge as this speech.”

51 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 77.

? Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 59.
Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 59-62.
54 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 149.
140 JAMES M. ROBINSON

Yet it seems to go a bit too far when Boring suggests that it may not have
been those who were sent out who were the bearers of the Q sayings:
Some of these messengers may themselves have been prophets, but not necessarily all
of them. The mission is seen from a prophetic point of view, but this is because the
speaker is a prophet. In view of the frequent assertion that early Christian prophets
were “wandering,” it should be noted here that it is those who are addressed who
“wander,” not necessarily the prophet-speaker of this mission charge himself.**

Yet the itinerant messengers are instructed to say “The kingdom of God
has come near to you” (Q 10:9), which fits Boring’s definition of the
prophet as re-presenting Jesus’ sayings (Mark 1:15).°° This is more
explicit in Mark 6:11: “And if any place will not receive you and they
refuse to hear you...” (Matt 10:14 “... listen to your-words ...”). At this
Marcan position Luke 9:2 presents in indirect discourse (“And he sent
them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal”) the Q saying that
he quotes in direct discourse at the Q position (Luke 10:9), but that
Matthew quotes in direct discourse in this Marcan context (Matt 10:7).
And, of course, the prototype on whose tongue the Q community put its
message was himself itinerant, with “nowhere to lay his head” (Q 9:58).
Boring is most comfortable with what he takes to be the Matthean:
situation:
But the Matthean community also knows arelatively small number of “wandering”
prophets, prophets who were not independent free lancers but delegated missioners of
the Matthean church. In addition, there was a larger group of congregational leaders in
the church, who were not “wandering” but resident in the congregation, who recog-
nized that discipleship to Jesus was to be practiced in prophetic terms. They performed
prophetic functions in the community, including speaking in the name of the risen Lord.
These are not sharply distinguished from the disciples in general but they did form a
recognizably distinct group. This is the picture of prophecy in the Matthean church that
I accept. It would seem, therefore, that peculiarly Matthean statements about Christian
prophets, and traditions representing the Matthean church, might be used in character-
izing prophecy in Palestine-Syria in the last third of the first century.”

Though this may be the goal and the outcome of the charismatic
prophetic movement, it may well be somewhat anachronistic to read Q
in terms of it. The situation may be conceptualized in analogy to a more
familiar discussion: infant baptism. could hardly have predominated in
the first generation, due to the lack of Christian parents to produce
Christian children, even though infant baptism may have been known at
the time in instances of the conversion of a whole household. But a
generation or so later the practice that might have begun as an exception

°5 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 149.

°° So already Theissen, “Wanderradikalismus,” 253=Studien, 87=“Itinerant Radical-
ism,” 86.
*” Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 45.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 141

became more nearly the rule, as the sociological reality of Christianity

shifted into that of a religion with a tradition and a culture of its own.
Just so itinerant prophets may initially have wandered from pillar to
post, with at best a home base to which to return as part of a “circuit,”
but with nowhere to rest their heads or to be sure of a square meal while
out “in the field.” But a generation or so later some of the households
that had taken them in had become house churches, until the network of
such local congregations would gradually come to represent the rule
rather than the exception. Thus the itinerant charismatic would increas-
ingly become an exception, to be monitored and ultimately to be given
an honored, limited, and thereby domesticated role in the development
that led to Christian monasticism—and gnosticism. One may compare
the later experience of emergent monasticism; there the rigors of asce-
ticism were acceptable as long as limited to the monks but heretical if
universalized as conditions for admission to salvation on the part of all
Christians (the heresy of the Egyptian ascetic Hieracas; see already Matt
19:12). |
In Boring’s detailed characterization of the charismatic prophet as
bearer of the tradition of Jesus’ sayings various aspects, though surely
not necessarily gnostic, do, like the “wandering radicalism” of Theissen,
provide a congenial trunk into which gnosticism could be grafted, a
proclivity that could under certain circumstances be developed in a
gnosticizing way. One is instinctively reminded of the Pauline oppo-
nents of 1 Corinthians when one reads of these prophets:
Being subject to the judgment of the community does not relativize the authoritative
form of the prophet’s speech, which is delivered with a sense of absolute authority.
Consequently, the form and tone of such sayings would be very like the sayings of Jesus
himself (Matt. 7:29) and distinguishable from the sayings of ordinary Christian teachers
and scribes.”

Or, to return to the encratite life style:

Paul understands that apostles and the brothers of the Lord have the right to marry, and
as an apostle he has that right. However, he and the prophet Barnabas are not married
(I Cor. 9:5), which may reflect their prophetic ministry, though Paul himself does not
make this connection explicitly. The successors of Paul, claiming the authority of
prophetic revelation, opposed abstinence from marriage (I Tim. 4:1-5), but this may be
because Paul’s earlier prophetic-eschatological idealization of the unmarried state (I
Cor. 7:25-40) was no longer understood eschatologically, but as a part of the general
gnostic rejection of the world.... There is some significant evidence, then, that early
Christian prophets typically were committed to poverty and sexual abstinence, and we
may expect to find that sayings originating from, or shaped by, such prophets may
sometimes manifest this commitment.”

38 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 90.

5® Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 94.
142 JAMES M. ROBINSON

Thus one may conclude that both in terms of the sociological analyses
of wandering charismatics by Theissen, Schottroff, and Stegemann and
in terms of Boring’s clarification of early Christian charismatic prophets
a religious type tends to emerge that would be intelligible as the socio-
logical substratum of the trajectory from the sayings tradition reflected
in Q and the Gospel of Thomas on into gnosticism and monasticism.

III. The Dating of Q and the Gospel of Thomas

Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt reported in 1897 concerning
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1 (Gospel of Thomas Sayings 26-33, 77a):
Since the papyrus itself was written not much later than the beginning of the third
century, this collection of sayings must go back at least to the end of the second century.
But the internal evidence points to an earlier date. The primitive cast and setting of the
sayings, the absence of any consistent tendency in favour of any particular sect [!], the
wide divergences in the familiar sayings from the text of the Gospels, the striking
character of those which are new, combine to separate the fragment from the “apoc-
ryphal” literature of the middle and latter half of the second century, and to refer it
back to the period when the Canonical Gospels had not yet reached their pre-eminent
position. Taking 140 a.D., then, as the terminus ad quem, and postponing for the present
the question of the terminus a quo, we proceed to consider the possibility, which the
provenance of the papyrus naturally suggests, that our fragment may come from the
“Gospel according to the Egyptians.” This Gospel, of which only a few extracts survive,
was probably written about the beginning of the second century, and seems for a time
to have attained in Egypt and even elsewhere a high degree of authority....
A more satisfactory view, though not free from difficulties, is that this fragment is
what it professes to be, a collection of some of our Lord’s sayings. These, judging from
their archaic tone and framework, were put together not later than the end of the first or
the beginning of the second century; and it is quite possible that they embody atradition
independent of those which have taken shape in our Canonical Gospels. .. .
Of the peculiar tenets of developed gnosticism we have here not a vestige. Even if
the prevailing judgment of these sayings should be that they were preserved in gnostic
circles, and themselves show some.trace of the tendencies out of which gnosticism
developed, it does not follow that they are therefore inventions. And, whether free or
not from gnostic influence, the genuine ring of what is new in this fragment, and the
primitive cast of the whole, are all in favour of its independence of our Gospels in their
present shape.“

They concluded “that they were earlier than 140 A.D., and might go back
to the first century.””
With the discovery a few years later of P. Oxy. 654 (Gospel of Thomas
Prologue and Sayings 1-7) there was no basic change in their view:
Accordingly, we should propose A.D. 140 for the terminus ad quem in reference to 654
with greater confidence than we felt about 1 in 1897.

*° Grenfell-Hunt, LOGIA, 16,18,20.

“* Grenfell-Hunt, Papyri I, 2.
*? Grenfell-Hunt, Papyri IV, 15.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 143

To be sure, they did not realize that P. Oxy. 655 was also part of the
Gospel of Thomas (Sayings 24, 36-39), and did give it on its own terms a
somewhat later date, suspecting that it might presuppose the canonical
Gospels:
The Gospel from which 655 comes is likely to have been composed in Egypt before A.D.
150, and to have stood in intimate relation to the Gospel according to the Egyptians and
the uncanonical source used by the author of IJ Clem. Whether it was earlier or later
than these is not clear.“

If Grenfell and Hunt had known only less primitive segments of the
Gospel of Thomas, they might well have dated it later than they did.
Perhaps for this reason the standard edition of the Coptic Gospel of
Thomas introduced the modern discussion in language that opted for the
“terminus ad quem” rather than the turn-of-the-century date actually
favored within the spectrum earlier proposed:
We are dealing here with a translation or an adaptation in Sahidic Coptic of a work the
primitive text of which must have been produced in Greek about 140 a.D., and which
was based on even more ancient sources.“

A much different assessment of the chronological situation was pro-

posed in 1971 by Helmut Koester, and in a way that would seem to put Q
and Gospel of Thomas side by side. In Koester’s view the Gospel of
Thomas is a second edition of a “sayings gospel,” a gospel similar to the
one of which Qis also the second edition.
The basis of the Gospel of Thomas is a sayings collection which is more primitive than
the canonical gospels, even though its basic principle is not related to the creed of the
passion and resurrection. Its principle is nonetheless theological. Faith is understood as
belief in Jesus’ words, a belief which makes what Jesus proclaimed present and real for
the believer. The catalyst which has caused the crystallization of these sayings into a
“gospel” is the view that the kingdom is uniquely present in Jesus’ eschatological
preaching and that eternal wisdom about man’s true self is disclosed in his words. The
gnostic proclivity of this concept needs no further elaboration.
The relation of this “sayings gospel,” from which the Gospel of Thomas is derived, to
the synoptic sayings source Q, is an open question. Without doubt, most of its materials
are Q sayings (including some sayings which appear occasionally in Mark). But it must
have been a version of Q in which the apocalyptic expectation of the Son of Man was
missing, and in which Jesus’ radicalized eschatology of the kingdom and his revelation
of divine wisdom in his own words were dominant motifs.
Such a version of Q is, however, not secondary, but very primitive. At least Paul’s
debate with his opponents in 1 Corinthians seems to suggest that the wisdom theology
which Paul attacked relied on this understanding of Jesus’ message. These opponents
propagated a realized eschatology. They claimed that divine wisdom was revealed
through Jesus. And at least one saying which Paul quotes in the context of his refutation
is indeed found in the Gospel of Thomas 17 (1 Cor. 2:9).
This would prove that such sayings collections with explicit theological tendencies

48 Grenfell-Hunt, Papyri IV, 28.

Guillaumont, Thomas, vi.
144 JAMES M. ROBINSON

were in use quite early, and not only in Aramaic-speaking circles in Syria; that the
source “Q,” used by Matthew and Luke, was a secondary version of such a “gospel,” into
which the apocalyptic expectation of the Son of Man had been introduced to check the
gnosticizing tendencies of this sayings gospel; and that the Gospel of Thomas, stemming
from a more primitive stage of such a “gospel,” attests its further growth into a gnostic
theology.‘

Koester’s presentation would seem to postulate a four-stage pro-

cedure: (1) a pre-apocalyptic (written? Greek?) precursor of Q without
the Son of Man but oriented to radicalized realized eschatological and
sapiential traditions; (2) usage of (1) by the Gospel of Thomas with
similar traits; (3) a bifurcation of the trajectory, with our Q using a Son-
of-Man apocalypticism to oppose the gnosticizing proclivity to which (4)
the Gospel of Thomas in effect yielded.
Meanwhile Koester has developed his position in considerably more
detail. This is somewhat less apparent in his most recent publication,
where his presentation is in the context of a vast survey where specifics
cannot be itemized:
Q certainly had preliminary stages, such as occasional collections of sayings for
catechetical, polemical, and homiletical purposes. But in. its final composition and
redaction, Q became an ecclesiastical manual which sought to bind the churches for
which it was written to a particular eschatological expectation, and to conduct which
was in keeping with this expectation. Its central feature was the waiting for the coming
of Jesus as the Son of Man (Luke 17:22-37). This expectation, which seems to be missing
in the oldest stages of the Synoptic sayings of Jesus, is derived from Jewish apocalyptic
concepts (Dan 7:13-14). In Q it has become the key christological concept for the under-
standing of Jesus as the redeemer of the future. In contrast, the older expectation of the
coming of the rule of God recedes into the background. ...
Another tradition of interpretation of the sayings of. Jesus, which also originates from
the realm of Syria/Palestine, renounced the eschatological expectation which looks to
- the future. Characteristic for this tradition are sayings in which Jesus appears as a
teacher of wisdom, or in which he speaks with the authority of the heavenly figure of
Wisdom. With such words Jesus grants salvation to those who are able and prepared to
hear and understand them. Similar sayings of Jesus are also preserved within the Q
tradition (Matt 11:25-30; Luke 11:49-51), but they are unimportant in comparison with
the dominating expectation of Jesus as the Son of Man. Through the discoveries of Nag
Hammadi it has become possible to identify more clearly the interpretation of Jesus’
sayings in terms of revealed wisdom, a tradition which apparently goes back to the
earliest period of Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas... was probably written during I
cE in Palestine or Syria. The absence of any influence from the canonical gospels and
the location of the Thomas tradition in Syria are strong arguments for this date and
provenance (cf. the later Acts of Thomas, which are certainly Syrian).
In contrast to other writings from the Nag Hammadi Library, the Gospel of Thomas
shows no trace of the kerygma of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus. It is more
sparing than Q in its use of christological titles; even the title of Son of Man is
missing. ... The contrast between Thomas and Jesus’ brother James, which appears in
Sayings 12 and 13 of the Gospel of Thomas, allows the conjecture that the author of this
gospel belongs to Christian circles which sought to strengthen and defend the right of
the tradition of Thomas against the authority of James, without denying the latter's

“° Robinson-Koester, Trajectories, 186-87.

 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 145

claim to leadership in ecclesiastical matters. This seems to reflect a politico-ecclesias-

tical situation in Palestine in I cE better than a controversy froma later period.“

In the Introduction to his forthcoming edition of the Gospel of Thomas

Koester goes into considerably more detail concerning his understand-
ing of the composition and dating of this text. And here he provides
more specific reasons for his views. Relevant excerpts are with his
permission here presented for discussion:
[The Gospel of Thomas] was written in Syria between A.D. 70 and 100.... If the
canonical gospels of the New Testament were used in the Gospel of Thomas, it could be
classified as a writing of the second century which combined and harmonized sayings
drawn from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Examples of such sayings collections appear in
2 Clement and Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150). But in the Gospel of Thomas no such
dependence can be demonstrated ..., nor is any other early Christian writing used.
- Rather, the Gospel of Thomas is similar to the sources of the canonical gospels, in
particular the synoptic sayings source (Q). Therefore a date of composition in the first
century A.D. is likely. . ..
A comparison with the Synoptic parallels ... demonstrates that the forms of the
sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are either more original than they or developed from
forms which are more original. The biographical framework of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke and their editorial changes are not reflected in the Gospel of Thomas. Parallels in
the Synoptic gospels appear most frequently in those sections which reproduce older
collections (Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6; Mark 4 and Matthew 13; Mark 4:22-25; Luke
12:35-56)....
Sayings which Matthew and Luke have derived from their common source, the
Synoptic Sayings Source (Q), occur frequently in the Gospel of Thomas (cf. especially
Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6). However, the sayings about the future coming of the Son of
Man which Q seems to have added to the older tradition of the sayings of Jesus are
missing (in saying 86, “son of man” means “human being”; cf. saying 106). On the other
hand, sayings about the kingdom (“of the father”) are very frequent in the Gospel of
Thomas (sayings 3, 20, 22, 27, 46, 49, 54, 57, 82, 96-99, 109, 113-114). If the sayings of
Jesus about the kingdom indeed belong to an older stage of the sayings tradition than
the Son of Man sayings, the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas derive from a stage of the
developing sayings tradition which is more original than Q. This implies also that some
of those sayings in the Gospel of Thomas which have no parallels in the Synoptic
gospels could derive from the earliest stage of the tradition of sayings of Jesus. ...
Analogous to the Gospel of Thomas, however, is the earlier sayings tradition which
preceded the final redaction of Q, in which the title Son of Man was introduced.
With respect to the development of ecclesiastical authority, the Gospel of Thomas
reflects the authority position of James, the brother of Jesus (saying 12; cf. Gal. 1:19; 2:9,
12; Acts 15:13; 21:18). His authority, however, is superseded by that of Thomas, who is
entrusted with the secret tradition (saying 13). At the same time, Thomas’s authority is
contrasted with that of Peter, which was well established in Syria (Gal 1:18; 2:7-9; Matt
16:15-19), and that of Matthew, whose name may have been associated with the sayings
tradition at an early date. ... The authority of figures such as James and Peter (as also of
Paul) would have been recognized during their lifetime in areas where they actually
worked. In order to confirm these apostles’ authority after their death, pseudonymous
writings were produced under their names as early as the last three decades of the first
century, especially when apostles were quoted on different sides of controversial issues
(cf. 2 Thess 2:1-2). The Gospel of Thomas is intended to confirm Thomas's authority in
contrast to claims made on behalf of ecclesiastical traditions under the authority of

48 Koester, Einfihrung, 584, 586-87; ET=Introduction, 2.147-48, 150, 152-53.

146 JAMES M. ROBINSON

James, Peter and Matthew—not because an apostolic name was needed to confirm the
authority of Jesus, the author of the sayings, but in order to safeguard the special form of
the tradition of churches which looked back to Thomas as their founder or as the
_ guarantor of their faith.
The ascription of an early Christian wisdom book, composed of sayings of Jesus, to
Matthew constitutes important evidence for the transmission of secret wisdom under
apostolic authority. 1 Cor 1:11-17 attacks claims to possess special wisdom under the
authority of Peter, Paul, Apollos and Jesus. This establishes an early date for the
claiming of apostolic authority for secret wisdom. An “apocryphal” saying quoted by
Paul in 1 Cor 2:9 is also preserved in the Gospel of Thomas (saying 17). We do not know
how early the name of the apostle Thomas was associated with such traditions, But the
ascription of wisdom books to the authority of an apostle is certainly an early form of
_ pseudepigraphical literary production in the history of Christianity.’

In his Shaffer Lectures at Yale in 1980, still unpublished and hence

also excerpted with his permission here for discussion, Koester de-
scribed the relation of Q to the Gospel of Thomas or its major source as
follows: ~
In that source [behind the Gospel of Thomas] as well as in the Gospel of Thomas one
finds the same type of sayings materials: prophetic sayings, wisdom sayings and
proverbs, metaphors and parables, I-sayings, and community regulations. It is striking,
however, that the sayings about the coming Son of Man which are characteristic of the
Synoptic Sayings Source do not appear in the Gospel of Thomas. Furthermore, apoc-
alyptic sayings are comparatively rare, while wisdom sayings and revelation sayings—
not absent from the Synoptic Sayings Source—predominate. The Gospel of Thomas is
thus an old Christian sayings collection, or else based upon an older collection, which is
more closely related to the genre of the wisdom book than the second common source
of Matthew and Luke.*

Then this nuanced comparison of Q and the Gospel of Thomas is

worked out in considerably more detail:
Sayings of Jesus must have been widely used in the first decades of the early Christian
communities, and they were certainly collected and perhaps even written down at an
early time. One of the several interests which prompted such collections was the need
for instruction of the members of the churches. Sayings of Jesus were thus composed
into catechisms, often combined with sayings and proverbs which had been drawn
from the Jewish catechism of the “Two Ways,” the way of life and the way of death.
Paul already knew such catechetical materials, perhaps also collections of rules for the
community composed of sayings... .
A second type of early collections of sayings concerns the wisdom sayings. The
beginnings of such collections cannot be described with any certainty. But traces can be
discovered very early. Wisdom sayings were known in the church in Corinth as early as
its foundation by the apostle Paul. It is interesting that one of these wisdom sayings is

_ *? Koester, “Thomas,” in Nag Hammadi Codex II, para. 1, 3, 10, 7, 12, typescript pp. 1, .
3, 9-10, 6-7, 15.
Koester, “Tradition and History,” 11.3, typescript, p. 55. Since the Shaffer Lectures
were in large part a translation and adaptation of a German article written by then, but
only published in 1984, reference to it will provide further details: Helmut Koester,
“Uberlieferung und Geschichte.”
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 147

quoted by Paul as “scripture” in 1 Cor 2:9.... Whatever the origin of this saying—it
probably comes from a Jewish wisdom book—the Gospel of Thomas demonstrates that
it found entrance into the tradition of wisdom sayings of Jesus (Gospel of Thomas 17).
Moreover, there are some striking terminological similarities between the vocabulary of
1 Cor 1-4 and wisdom sayings preserved elsewhere as sayings of Jesus, especially with
Matt 11:25-30 and Luke 10:21-24.... Such sayings may have been current among the
Corinthians who spoke of Jesus as the revealer of heavenly wisdom. Indeed, in these
sayings of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks in the first person singular with the voice
of heavenly wisdom. The close relationship to traditional Jewish wisdom sayings is
evident in Luke 11:49-51 where such a saying is quoted.... Matthew 23:34-35 simply
omits the quotation formula and thus changes this quotation from a wisdom book into a
saying of Jesus. In another instance, the origin of a saying in the wisdom tradition is
evident from the conclusion “Yet wisdom is justified by all her children” (Luke 7:35; cf.
Matt 11:19). Another wisdom tradition appears in Matt 23:37-39 (Luke 13:34-35) in
which heavenly wisdom recalls all she has done in the past to save Jerusalem. The
widespread occurrence of such sayings leads to the conclusion that the earliest wisdom
books circulating in early Christian communities seem to have been collections of
Jewish wisdom sayings, Once these sayings or the whole book were ascribed to Jesus,
Jesus became the teacher of wisdom; this seems to have been the case in the Corinthian
church. The further development of this tradition, however, shows that Jesus was more
and more identified with the figure of heavenly wisdom.
1 Corinthians 1-4 indicates that the wisdom teaching of Jesus was understood as a
secret teaching for the perfect; it is exactly this point that is attacked by Paul. A similar
perspective has also been connected with the transmission of the parables of Jesus. A
written collection of parables was included in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 4). Twice in this
collection it is emphasized that the mystery of the kingdom of God is given solely to the
disciples, not to those “outside.” Only to the disciples does Jesus explain the parables
(Mark 4:10-12, 33-34). That this concept was not an isolated phenomenon and that it
predates the Gospel of Mark, is now confirmed by the Gospel of Thomas, where the
reproduction of a group of parables is introduced by the saying: “It is to those who‘ are
worthy of my mysteries that I tell my mysteries” (Gospel of Thomas 62). The parables of
the kingdom are no longer understood as prophetic proclamation of the coming of a
new age, but in analogy to the wisdom theology as special revelation to the elect which
had been hidden until now and remains hidden for those outside. The concept of
wisdom hidden and revealed also occurred in the wisdom sayings of Matthew 11
mentioned above; Paul explicitly refers to it in 1 Cor 2:6-7; and it is expressed in
numerous other wisdom sayings (e.g., Mark 4:21-22; Luke 12:2-3).
In addition to the composition of catechisms and community regulations and to the
written collections of wisdom materials in analogy to the Jewish wisdom books, there is
evidence for a third development which resulted in the written composition of sayings
of Jesus. This latter development is closely associated with the eschatological expecta-
tion of early Christian communities, perhaps even specifically with the Christian
community in Jerusalem. But it must also be presupposed for the Pauline mission. ...
This apocalypse in Mark 13 is one of the cases where one can be fairly certain that
Mark used a written source, probably a brief writing composed for purposes of
instruction or propaganda. Part of the apocalyptic orientation expressed here is the
expectation of the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (Mark 13:26). The
same expression dominates the apocalyptic sayings which the Synoptic Sayings Source
has combined with older wisdom materials (cf. especially Luke 17:22-37), This partic-
ular Jewish expectation, ultimately deriving from the book of Daniel, may have been
the catalyst for the collection of apocalyptic sayings of Jesus, including those materials
which are determined by the quite different, and probably older, expectation of the
coming of the kingdom of God.
Smaller written collections of wisdom sayings and of apocalyptic traditions, both
transmitted under the authority of Jesus, must be presupposed for the first Christian
148 JAMES M. ROBINSON

sayings gospel for which we have some more tangible evidence: the so-called Synoptic
Sayings Source. The dual character of this sayings gospel is evident, both in its
attestation in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke. Wisdom material
occurs repeatedly in the parallel passages of these two gospels, and a major collection
of wisdom sayings in the form of a wisdom book seems to have been the basis of this
sayings gospel and originally determined its genre. But the final redaction of this book is
dominated by those sayings which proclaim the coming of the Son of Man (e.g., Luke
17:22-37). ... Admonitions in view of the unexpected coming of the parousia occupy the
center stage (Luke 12:35-46). Even materials which belong to the genre of church order
express this eschatological orientation. The Christian missionary is requested to reject
all material possessions and not to settle anywhere (Luke 10:1-16; Matt 9:35-10:16). If
Matt 10:23 (“You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of
Man comes”) can be assigned to the Synoptic Sayings Source (there is no parallel in
Luke), the hypothesis of the localization of this writing in the Christian mission in
Palestine as well as the urgency of the eschatological expectation would find a strong
support. At the same time, the Synoptic Sayings Source clearly differentiates between
the Christian expectation and the national and political messianism of contemporary
Palestinian Judaism: the emphasis upon the commandment of loving one’s enemies
rejects indisputably all apocalyptic movements which want to force the coming of God's
tule by hostile actions against the enemies of God (Luke 6:27-30). For the relation of the
Synoptic Sayings Source to Judaism, two points are characteristic:. The question of the
Law does not seem to play any role; but the originally inner-Jewish polemic against the
leaders of the people as the murderers of the prophets has been incorporated into the
sayings of Jesus (Luke 11:49-51; cf. Matt 23:37-39). Also this indicates that the circles
which produced this book must be located in Palestine, and that these Christians had
indeed experienced persecution by Jewish authorities; cf. also the macarism of those
who are persecuted because of the Son of Man (Luke 6:22-23). In this apocalyptic
orientation which tries to establish a critical distance to the social and religious
environment of Palestinian Judaism, the wisdom element of the tradition incorporated
in this writing plays only a minor role in comparison with the dominant eschatological
orientation. :
In the Gospel of Thomas, however, a closely related sayings gospel, the wisdom
element predominates. .... Many of the sayings of the Synoptic Sayings Source also
appear in the Gospel of Thomas. But the apocalyptic sayings about the coming of the
Son of Man are missing completely, while wisdom sayings are more numerous than
eschatological and prophetic sayings. Thus this gospel is more true to its genre, the
wisdom book. For the genre of the wisdom book it is typical that many sayings are
formulated as general truths (Gospel of Thomas 31-35, 47, 67, 94), that admonitions to
recognize oneself occur repeatedly (2, 29, 49, 50, 67, 111), and that also the figure of
heavenly wisdom appears and speaks about herself. However, instead of wisdom, it is
now Jesus who speaks about himself in the style of I-sayings. The most striking of these
I-sayings presents Jesus in analogy to wisdom who came into the world but did not find
either an abode for herself, nor people who wanted to listen to her voice (Gospel of
Thomas 28). ... Parables of Jesus, most of them originally prophetic announcements of
the coming of the kingdom, as well as prophetic sayings are interpreted as expressions
of the presence of the kingdom of the heavens (or: kingdom of the Father). It is present
in the person of Jesus for the disciples (Gospel of Thomas 3, 51, 52, 91). But the future
expectation is never emphasized.... A typical example is the reformulation of the
Parable of the Fishnet, which is used in Matt 13:47-48 as an illustration of the coming
judgment; in the Gospel of Thomas (8) it is a parable about the finding of the treasure of
wisdom. ... That the parables are understood as secret instruction (Gospel of Thomas
62) corresponds to the understanding of the parables in Mark 4, and the general concept
of the wisdom words of Jesus as secret words (Gospel of Thomas prologue) has its
analogue in the understanding of wisdom teaching among the Corinthians against
whom Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 1-4. Thus, so far the Gospel of Thomas presents an
understanding of the wisdom sayings of Jesus which is in agreement with the principles
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 149

of the wisdom book that was the catalyst for the earliest written collections of these
sayings.“

The position of Koester has found its most direct echo in a collection
of non-canonical gospels edited by his pupil Ron Cameron, who ac-
knowledges that Koester “helped me establish a set of methodological
questions with which to explore their treasures,” and that it was “at his
recommendation I. was able to undertake this project.”® Indeed in a
Foreword Koester himself explains:
Some would argue that these gospels add little to our picture of the historical Jesus. Our
picture, however, is dependent upon our understanding of the transmission of traditions
about and from Jesus and of the process of the formation of written gospel texts. The
non-canonical gospels are important witnesses to these developments. In many in-
stances, they are directly dependent upon the earliest stages of the collections of sayings
of Jesus and stories about him; and they show little, if any, influence from the gospels of
the New Testament. Students of early Christian literature will be greatly enriched if
they utilize these materials as they learn to understand how the earliest oral traditions
of Jesus were used and transformed in Christian communities: how they were collected,
put into writing, edited, and repeatedly revised.*

In his Introduction Cameron spells out criteria for dating, which one
may assume are derived from Koester’s orientation:
One of the most vexing problems in the study of gospel literature is determining with
any sort of precision the date of composition of a particular document. This is no less.a
problem in seeking to date the gospels of the New Testament than it is in dating the
non-canonical gospels. There are, however, techniques available that permit one to
suggest, with a reasonable degree of confidence, a plausible date of composition:
1. Form criticism provides a means of ascertaining the relative dating of discrete
pieces of the tradition. Texts whose literary forms are relatively spare can generally be
dated to a period earlier than those which exhibit a more elaborate, developed stage of
the tradition.”

The relative position of a given saying from the Gospel of Thomas

within the morphology of the form of that saying may have implications
for the relative chronology of the saying when it received this particular
form. One might think of the parables that in the Gospel of Thomas
occur in a non-allegorical form that is presumably “relatively spare”
compared to the allegorical form of these parables in. the canonical
Gospels. Thus they represent what is often called a “pre-Synoptic” layer.
But the Gospel of Thomas also presents sayings in “a more elaborate,
developed stage of the tradition,” when compared with their canonical
equivalents, such as Saying 22. It is precisely the presence in the same
document of sayings that are “relatively spare” as well as of sayings that

48 Koester, “Tradition and History,” III.2, typescript, pp. 83-93.

5° Cameron, The Other Gospels, 11.
51 Cameron, The Other Gospels, 9.
52 Cameron, The Other Gospels, 17.
150 JAMES M. ROBINSON

are “a more elaborate, developed stage of the tradition” that should

warn us against assuming that the chronological implications of an
individual saying can be generalized to apply to the document as a
whole. One may not assume that every saying received the form it has in
a given document at the time the document itself was composed. Of
course the more sayings from the Gospel of Thomas that can be placed
at a relatively early date, the more appealing an early date for the basic
composition of the Gospel of Thomas becomes, in which case segments
pointing to a late date come to seem more like secondary accretions in
the process of the transmission of the already-composed document. But
this is at best a cumulative and relative argument.
2. Compositional parallels in the gospel tradition furnish additional evidence. When
the history of a saying or story in one text can be paralleled in another whose develop-
ment can be determined and to which a date can be assigned, then a contemporaneous
date of composition can generally be given to both texts.**

Even if the parallel has to do with the composition of the whole rather
than the form of the individual unit, contemporaneity is not necessarily
evident. Matthew and Luke share compositional traits without being
necessarily contemporaneous, at least not for Koester, who says of
Matthew that it was composed “in the last [the German edition only
inserts: two] decades of I CE,” but of Luke that it “cannot have been any
later than ca. 125.% Nor do the compositional parallels between Mark
and John make them strictly contemporaneous, for they are usually
dated a generation apart. Hence compositional parallels between Q and
the Gospel of Thomas need not make them strictly contemporaneous.
But compositional parallels would in a sense shift the burden of proof
upon the side of the argument that seeks to separate the parallel texts
widely in time. For arguments for the perseverence of the compositional
trait through a period of time as well as extenuating circumstances
suggesting the parallel texts are not contemporaneous, would need to be
provided.
3. The role given to persons of authority, whose position in a particular community
serves to authenticate its transmission of the tradition, supplies further confirmation of a
likely date of composition. At a certain point in the history of early Christianity,
communities began to appeal to revered figures of the past in order to legitimate the
traditions of their own groups. The period in which the community that fostered the
Gospel of John began to revere the memory of the Beloved Disciple and Peter by
looking to them as the guarantors of its traditions, for example, was most likely
contemporary with the time when the community of the Gospel of Thomas began to
esteem Thomas and James by appealing to them as authorities in the transmission of its
traditions.”

5° Cameron, The Other Gospels, 17.

54 Koester, Einfuhrung, 608 and 749 = Introduction, 2.173, 310.
*® Cameron, The Other Gospels, 17-18.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 151

Parallel stages in the morphology of the social structuring of commu-

nities behind gospels, in such matters as authority figures accrediting
gospels, an argument to which Koester himself had appealed, do not
date the documents themselves unless the relevant evidence can be
shown to have been introduced at the redactional stage. Sayings 12 and
13 in the Gospel of Thomas could have been sensed in their relevance
for authenticating the tradition as early as the time when the Beloved:
Disciple and Peter were introduced in a comparable role in the tra-
jectory of the Gospel of John. But whereas John 21 is on other grounds
known to be redactional, so that the interaction of the Beloved Disciple
and Peter in that chapter can be located chronologically at the time of
the Johannine redactor (which is of course later than the date which one
ascribes to the basic composition of the Fourth Gospel), Sayings 12 and
13 of the Gospel of Thomas are not known to coincide chronologically
with the time of the author. The references to Thomas in the title and
opening line of the text may well have Saying 13 in view, but such an
appeal to apostolic authority for the Gospel of Thomas by the author
could have taken place later than the formulation of the competitive
Sayings 12 and 13. Perhaps one could argue that the choosing of these
two sayings and the placing of them side by side would indicate on the
part of the author a sensitivity comparable to that of John 21, although
the author’s decision not to place them at an emphasized position such
as the beginning or end of the text may illustrate the inconclusiveness of
such reflection.
4. Literary dependence of one document upon another, datable one establishes the
earliest possible date at which the dependent document was composed. Thus, the date
of the composition of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke is later than that of
the Gospel of Mark, since Mark was used by Matthew and Luke as a source of their
respective writings.
The view that the Gospel of Thomas is independent of the canonical
Gospels, apart from secondary accretions after the basic composition, for
example when translated into Coptic, has gained ground over the past
generation, with the result that the automatic dating of the Gospel of
Thomas after the canonical Gospels and hence necessarily into the
second century must be considered increasingly an anachronism in the
history of research. But there are individual instances that must be
considered on their merits, and, if dependence on the canonical Gospels
seems more probable to certain instances, one must weigh whether this
indicates that a reversal of this scholarly trend is in order or whether
one has to do with isolated secondary interpolations.

°° Cameron, The Other Gospels, 18.

152 JAMES M. ROBINSON

5. When a text refers to historical events, the text must have been composed
sometime during or after those events took place. The Gospel of Mark’s reference to the
destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 cz, for example, means that this
document in its final form could not have been composed before that time.”

The Gospel of Thomas hardly refers to historical events, so that this

criterion for dating is hardly applicable, although the argument of
Jacques-E. Ménard (see below) that Saying 53 presupposes a second-
century debate would perhaps fall within this category. Koester’s argu-
ment (see above) that the Gospel of Thomas does not cite early Christian
literature might fall also in this category in the sense of an argumentum
e silentio.
6. The existence of external witnesses to a text gives fairly reliable confirmation of at
least the latest possible date of composition of the text."

Manuscript evidence providing a latest possible date is not relevant

for the position of Koester, who is concerned with an earliest possible
date. But when one considers the dating of those who advocate as late a
date as possible (see below), then one may wonder how late they might
have been if one only had the fourth-century Coptic copy of the Gospel
of Thomas and not the early third century Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1. And
when would one date the Gospel of Mark?
When Cameron comes to introducing specifically the Gospel of
Thomas, it is the methodological principles he has enumerated that
presumably lie behind the formulation:
Most of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the “synoptic” gospels of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the New Testament. Analysis of each of these sayings
reveals that the sayings in the Gospe! of Thomas are either preserved in forms more
primitive than those in the parallel sayings in the New Testament or are developments
of more primitive forms of such sayings. The particular editorial changes which the
synoptic gospels make, including the addition of a narrative structure and the inclusion
of traditional sayings and stories within a biographical framework, are totally absent
from the Gospel of Thomas. All of this suggests that the Gospel of Thomas is based on a
tradition of sayings which is closely related to that of the canonical gospels but which
has experienced a separate process of transmission. The composition of the Gospel of
Thomas, therefore, is parallel to that of the canonical gospels. Its sources are collections
of sayings and parables contemporary with the sources of the canonical gospels. In this
respect, the Gospel of Thomas can be profitably compared with the Synoptic Sayings
Source, common to Matthew and Luke, generally referred to as Q.... Since the
composition of the Gospel of Thomas parallels that of the gospels of the New
Testament, the most likely date of its composition would be in the second half of the
first century, almost certainly in Syria.”

This assessment thus tends to coincide with that of Koester himself, as

5” Cameron, The Other Gospels, 18.

58 Cameron, The Other Gospels, 18.
5° Cameron, The Other Gospels, 24-25.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 153

is to be expected, in that “he read various drafts of this manuscript with

critical insight and consummate skill; the final draft has benefited
immeasurably from his comments.”
If Helmut Koester’s presentation is unmistakably in the German
tradition, he has found an advocate with regard to dating whose instincts
are in effect in the British tradition, Stevan L. Davies, whose information
about Koester’s position is up-to-date only as of 1971:
In this book I shall first argue that in no meaningful sense is Thomas “gnostic.” Then I
shall show that although Thomas is by no means a systematic document, it does have a
comprehensible set of ideas, which are, for the most part, drawn from the Jewish
Wisdom and apocalyptic traditions. Finally, I shall place Thomas in its context in the
very early church. It is a collection of sayings used to instruct newly-baptized Chris-
tians. It appears to reflect an early form of Johannine preaching and probably came into
being at about the same time as the Q document. ... Thomas should be dated ca. A.D.
50-70."

The question as to whether the Gospel of Thomas is gnostic or not is in

Davies’s view decisive as to whether the Gospel of Thomas is to be taken
seriously:
’ Unfortunately, almost immediately after the publication of the Gospel of Thomas, books
and articles were written which dismissed Thomas as “gnostic.” Because of these books
and articles, there has been very little discussion of Thomas during the past fifteen
years. If Thomas is “gnostic” then perhaps Christians need pay little attention to it. But if
it is not “gnostic” in any meaningful sense, then Christian scholarship has falsely
denigrated and subsequently ignored a text of great importance.”

Thus Rudolph’s view that the term gnosticism is no longer pejorative®

seems a bit premature, although one may recall that Grenfell and Hunt
had already in 1897 pointed out that if the Gospel of Thomas should turn
out to be gnostic “it does not follow that they [the sayings] are inven-
tions.” Of course Koester himself is an instance of a contemporary (and
Christian) scholar who considers the Gospel of Thomas as gnostic but
does not for that reason dismiss it, but considers it of utmost importance.
Davies comes to identify the pejorative view of “gnostic” that he
originally limited to “Christians” and “Christian scholarship” as that of
scholarship as such, namely, as an overarching euphemism for “heresy”:
As it is most commonly used today, “gnostic” in the language of scholarship does not so
much describe asect or set of ideas as pronounce upon the orthodoxy or acceptability of
certain texts over against others.... As the term “heresy” became one which scholar-
ship decided not to use, the term “gnostic” has come to serve as a substitute.

®° Cameron, The Other Gospels, 11.

2 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 4.
62 Navies, Thomas and Wisdom, 3.
®° Rudolph, “Gnosis, ein Forschungsbericht,” 36 (1971) 19, citing U. Bianchi (see n. 1
and 2 above).
4 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 32-33.
154 JAMES M. ROBINSON

This view is apparently characteristic of Davies’s own usage, but hardly

that of many critical scholars, who would seek a more objective descrip-
tive usage free of such value-laden overtones.
Davies's polemic against defining Gospel of Thomas as gnostic is due
not only to these pejorative overtones, but also to the implications they
have for him with regard to a late dating:
The reason usually, if not always, given for dating Thomas in the second century is once
more the supposition that Thomas is a gnostic document. ... Arguments for an early or
mid-[second-|century date are based entirely (to the best of my knowledge) on the idea
that since Thomas is gnostic it must necessarily be a second-century text. If Thomas
cannot be said to be gnostic in any meaningful sense, its date may be considerably
earlier than A.D. 140. It may well have been written in the mid-first century.*

Koester had also associated the unexamined assumption of a mid-

second-century date with the association of the Gospel of Thomas with
gnosticism. Koester’s response is to affirm that gnosticism may well be
present in the first century, as may other traits traditionally treated as
secondary because apocryphal. But Davies seems to share the traditional
second-century association of the concept of gnosticism. Indeed he
considers some instances, where an affinity to gnosticism may be pres-
ent, such as Sayings 111b and 114, as a later gloss or an addition by a
later redactor.®
Davies rightly points out that it was premature to assume that because
the Gospel of Thomas is in the Nag Hammadi Library it is necessarily
gnostic, in that subsequent study has shown that the library contains
non-gnostic material in a few cases, and specifically in the case of
wisdom literature (the Teaching of Silvanus and the Sentences of
Sextus).” He also points out that the earlier view of the dependence of
the Gospel of Thomas on the canonical Gospels has been largely
abandoned, with the result that the Gospel of Thomas need not on this
ground be dated later than the canonical Gospels.* He, like Koester,
appeals to the pre-Synoptic material in the Gospel of Thomas as “one of
the strongest indications that the Gospel of Thomas is of first century
date.”® Further, he argues that collections of Jesus’ sayings are charac-
teristic of an early period, rather than being a second-century phenom-
enon, by which time such collections occur only imbedded in other
documents.” For the imbedding of Q in Matthew and Luke was not a

85 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 18, 33.

® Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 22, 30, 149-55.
®” Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 4, 22-24.
°8 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 5.
8° Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 5.
7° Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 13.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 155

pair of isolated events, but part of an all-encompassing trajectory that

Davies characterizes as follows:
Mark also did this as his parable collection in chapter four indicates. Independent
collections of Jesus’ sayings were a form of written tradition quickly succeeded by
narrative gospels, dialogues of the resurrected Christ, parenetic letters, apologies, etc.,
some of which served as frames for sets of sayings.”!

Thus Davies finds my earlier reasoning, which was in terms of an

uncritical assumption of the conventional date, “a curious conclusion.”
Of course, the question is whether all of early Christianity went the
route of submerging the sayings collection in a narrative framework, or
whether the admittedly early genre of sayings collection was continued
in one strand of Christianity in the second century. The latter alternative
would not require a second-century date for the Gospel of Thomas, but
would render intelligible a continuity of genre between Q and the
Gospel of Thomas, even if there were a time spread, rather than
requiring that the two texts reflect quite independent genres, as was
assumed by the view of Kiimmel I was then opposing. To consider the
two texts to be contemporary would of course serve the same purpose
even more effectively, if it could be substantiated.
Davies also presses the point that having traditions superior to the
Synoptics
would probably not have been possible much later than the year A.D. 90. Are there any
sayings of Jesus in second-century writings which are considered superior to their
parallels in the synoptics?”*

He further argues that parables, wisdom sayings, and proverbs “are

certainly not characteristic of second-century Christian texts,””* though
one might think of the role of parables in the Apocryphon of James.
Thus Davies concludes, partly in dependence on Koester:
Thomas appears to be a document from very early times, roughly the time of Q. It has
an early format; it has much early material. In some ways {in terms of Wisdom
speculations) Thomas may be “later” than Q; in some ways (in terms of apocalyptic Son
of Man speculations) Q may be “later” than Thomas. ... Thomas may be as old as, or
even older than, Q.”

Davies exploits Koester’s observation that the Gospel of Thomas lacks

the apocalyptic Son of Man and the Pauline kerygma to query: “Might
Thomas have come into being before these trends became wide-
71 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 15.
72 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 14, referring to Robinson-Koester, Trajectories, 102.
See more recently Robinson, “Collections,” 389-94.
73 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 16.
74 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 16.
78 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 17.
156 JAMES M. ROBINSON

spread?” He argues that “First Corinthians 1-4 is testimony to the

antiquity of many of the central ideas in the Gospel of Thomas.”” Of
course by this time the Pauline kerygma was widespread, though the Q
and Thomas communities may have been exceptions.
Davies even speculates that the Synoptics may be dependent on the
Gospel of Thomas:
There may be instances of radical revision of Thomas’ sayings in the synoptics,
instances where mystagogic sayings have been transformed into parenetic sayings
(Logion 22 and Mark 9:42-10:15?, Logion 24 and Matthew 6:22-23 and Luke 11:34-36?,
Logia 6 and 14 and Matthew 6:2-18?, Logion 13 and Mark 8:27-30?).”*

To be sure, this is a possibility difficult to take seriously, in that one

would tend to prefer to conjecture, if not the reverse procedure, at least
a sharing of common traditions. Hence Davies adds:
As these sayings in their canonical form are so utterly familiar and those in Thomas so
seemingly strange it is unlikely that any contemporary critical methodology will provide
means to determine radical reworking.”

Thus Davies concludes with a basic reorganization:

The Christology, or Jesusology, of Thomas is complex but it does not stem from decades
of Christian theological speculation. It derives from a naive application of manifold
Wisdom speculations to Jesus. The lack of Manichean or Marcionite dualism, the
absence of any mythology of Sophia’s fall or of Christ's ascent or descent through
hostile realms populated by inimical Archons indicate that Thomas’ sophiological
Christology existed prior to or in ignorance of what many call gnosticism....
Its background is that of Jewish Wisdom speculation. It is wholly independent of the
New Testament gospels; most probably it was in existence before they were written. It
should be dated A.D. 50-70....
Thomas does not presuppose the Johannine or synoptic gospels or the theology of
Paul; even less does it presuppose the mythologies of second-century theologians such
as Valentinus or Heracleon. In reference to the sayings of Jesus, the synoptic gospels
depend upon and incorporate sayings which first circulated in Thomas’ and Q’s logoi
sophon form. In reference to baptism, Paul’s eschatological reservations may presup-
pose Thomas’ orientation to present fulfillment in baptism. In reference to a dualism of
light/dark, world/“world,” and to ego eimi discourses of Jesus, John may bea later
development of what we find here and there in Thomas.
The Gospel of Thomas is a mid-first-century text. It is an early document of
sophiological Christianity oriented toward baptismal initiation, and it can be considered
gnostic in no meaningful sense. When the time comes that Thomas is understood to
have come into being ca. A.D. 50-70, our knowledge of the history of the early church
will immeasurably increase.”

Thus Koester and Davies present arguments for quite early datings of

78 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 29.

7? Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 145.
78 Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 145.
7° Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 145.
8° Davies, Thomas and Wisdom, 146.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 157

the Gospel of Thomas on the alternate assumptions that it is an instance

of early gnosticism or that it is in effect pre-gnostic.
The way in which Koester has for all practical purposes placed the
Gospel of Thomas back into the time of the canonical Gospels, Q, or
even earlier, has not gone uncontested. Howard Clark Kee has taken
Koester to task for rearranging the source material to fit his preferences:
Or again, one may be uncomfortable with the apocalyptic expectation that pervades the
Q material as we have it in the gospels, and one may correctly observe that the Q
material as incorporated into the Gospel of Thomas has been deeschatologized. But that
provides no basis for the historical conclusion that Q was originally non-eschatological,
and that the element was later introduced into the tradition by those combatting gnos-
ticism by apocalyptic counterclaims. The discovery of the immensely important Nag
Hammadi gnostic library vastly increased knowledge of second and third century
gnosticism, but it sheds no clear light on the question as to whether there was a pre-
Christian gnosticism. Instead, it seems to confirm the theory that gnosticism was a
growth on second century Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas is a prime example of the
adaptation of earlier Christian tradition to portray Jesus as a gnostic revelatory figure,
just as the Q material is thoroughly eschatological, rather than manifesting a sprinkling
with later apocalyptic condiments. It is against backgrounds which exist in tangible
form, rather than in terms of conceptual anachronisms, that the christological images
are to be perceived and analyzed....
The task of christological research ... demands holistic study of New Testament
texts, rather than surgical analysis of hypothetical components or sources. It can
perhaps avoid the foolish stance that, while it is fine for “all flesh to see God’s
salvation,” they ought to see it our way.”

Of course the basis of Koester’s view is not an uncomfortable feeling

about Q being pervaded with apocalypticism, as if he were the victim of
his dogmatic prejudices, but rather the view first worked out by Philip
Vielhauer® that has gained considerable ground of late to the effect that
Jesus had an eschatology oriented only to the kingdom of God, with the
concept of the Son of Man being first introduced by the church. This
view has had an impact on Q studies, to the effect that its apoca-
lypticism, in the sense of its Son-of-Man Christology, not in the sense of
its kingdom-of-God eschatology, has for some become alate ingredient
in the tradition. The absence of a Son-of-Man Christology perhaps
51 Kee, “Christology,” 236, 242.
82 Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn” (reprinted in Vielhauer, Aufsttze); and |
“Jesus und der Menschensohn” (reprinted in Aufsdtze).
” 6
83 Schulz, Q, lists among “the more recent Q traditions” “apocalyptic sayings and even
an apocalypse,” although “the expectation of the apocalyptic arrival of the Son of Man
Jesus determined the life and proclamation of the very earliest congregation in a decisive
way.” Luhrmann, “Liebet eure Feinde,” 425, follows Koester, and speaks of a “reapoc-
alypticizing of the proclamation of Jesus” in Q. Strecker, “Bergpredigt,” 67, note 95: “The
question remains contested, whether and to what extent one can demonstrate for Q,
along side ofa strict expectation of judgment (Polag, Christologie der Logienquelle, 155),
also an acute imminent expectation of the parousia (thus Hoffmann, Theologie der
Logienquelle, 34-39). But it is certain that later Q layers are oriented apocalyptically to a
high degree.”
158 JAMES M. ROBINSON

from the Sermon on the Mount/Plain in Q* is, for example, an indica-

tion that this “Sermon,” which on other grounds may be a very old
sayings collection imbedded in Q, may have been oriented only to the
kingdom of God, and thus tends to document Koester’s hypothesis. This
possibility is too serious a matter to be dismissed with invidious lan-
guage about source criticism, which is after all a generally accepted and
highly successful method in our discipline. Koester is not so foolish as to
think everyone should see it his way, but he is seeking to carry through
methodically the important form-critical task of expanding in terms of
small collections the history of the Synoptic tradition, a purpose for
which he should only be commended, irrespective of the degree of
success one attributes to his efforts thus far.
An analogous criticism was levelled by Joseph A. Fitzmyer against
Koester's pupil Elaine Pagels and against gnostic gospels in general, as
the schlock that is supposed to pass for “literature”... . It has been mystifying, indeed,
why serious scholars continue to talk about the pertinence of this material to the study
of the New Testament.”

Hence it may be no coincidence that Fitzmyer has supported for the

Gospel of Thomas the latest possible date:
The Greek copies are dated roughly to the first half of the third century A.D., but the
Gospel itself may well have been composed toward the end of the second century.”

Indeed a further argument used by Koester for dating the Gospel of

Thomas earlier than the traditional dating is that the latter reflects just
such prejudice:
The terms “apocryphal” and “canonical” reflect a traditional usage which implies deep-
seated prejudices and has had far-reaching consequences.”

Fitzmyer’s dating coincides with that of Jacques-E. Ménard who, in

fact, argues
that the milieu to which the Gospel of Thomas belongs is that of the New Testament
apocrypha. ... From this rapprochement with the Naassenes it seems to us that one can
conclude that the Gospel of Thomas belongs in its ensemble—the exceptions will come
to confirm the rule—to the milieu of the New Testament apocrypha, and one must say
of it as of the other writings of this genre that it depends on the canonical Gospels. In its
case in particular one must add that these canonical Gospels reached it by the
intermediary of the Syriac versions.”

%4 Jeremias, “Schicht,” 159-72; Fitzmyer, Luke, 635.

Fitzmyer, “Gnostic Gospels,” 123, cited by Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical
Gospels,” 106.
86 Fitzmyer, Luke, 85.
” Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” 105.
88 Ménard, L’Evangile selon Thomas, 3.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 159

The view that the Gospel of Thomas is dependent on Syriac versions

of the canonical Gospels has also been suggested by Antoine Guil-
laumont in his recent judicious sorting of the semitisms of the Gospel of
Thomas into various distinguishable categories.
There are a number of cases, however, where the Aramaic substratum, far from
remaining a pure conjecture, takes on for us tangible form. Many semitisms of the
Gospel of Thomas seem indeed to have their source in the Syriac versions of the New
Testament, with which the text of this apocryphon presents evident affinities. ...
The Gospel of Thomas presents, in addition, in the logia that have Synoptic parallels,
a certain number of variants in relation to the Greek text of the New Testament that are
quite well explicable if one considers them as translations of ambiguous terms em-
ployed in the Syriac versions, or in one or the other of them....
The Gospel of Thomas presents, nonetheless, in relation to the text of the Synoptics,
variants that are not found in the Syriac versions of the New Testament nor are they
explicable, in terms of the ambiguity of a term, on the basis of them. They seem to have
their explanation in an Aramaic substratum other than the known Syriac versions and
are, for this reason, of great interest..
Indeed the existence of a Syriac state of the collection, earlier than the Coptic state
that has been preserved, is proven by a certain number of facts: first of all, the close
affinities that we have seen between the Coptic text of the logia and the old Syriac
versions of the New Testament; further, a large number of Aramaisms listed above.
could equally well be Syriacisms; finally, there are some linguistic particularities that
are incontestably Syriacisms. ..
Hence the study of the semitisms preserved in the Coptic text of the Gospel of
Thomas leads to important conclusions. It shows, on the one hand, the close ties that
exist between this work and the milieu of the Syriac tongue and leads one to think that
there must have been prior [to the Coptic translation] a redaction in this tongue. On the
other hand, some of them permit, it would seem, to go beyond that and to perceive,
particularly for the logia that have Synoptic parallels, an Aramaic substratum that they
would have in common with the latter.”

Here it is not clear why one need assume a dependence ona Syriac
translation of the New Testament to explain the instances where the
Syriac canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas share a variant from
the Greek New Testament or where the Syriac canonical Gospels
present an ambiguous term with one of its meanings found in the Greek
New Testament and one in the Gospel of Thomas. For the Syriac
translations of the canonical Gospels no doubt made use of oral tra-
ditions of the sayings of Jesus in Syriac or Aramaic, which in given
instances could have influenced the author of the Gospel of Thomas, but
not the canonical Gospels; or, ambiguous semitic terms could have been
translated by the canonical Gospels one way, by the Gospel of Thomas
the other. That variants between the canonical Gospels and the Gospel
of Thomas can at times be explained as translational variants of ambig-
uous Syriac or Aramaic terms that do not occur in the extant Syriac
translations of the canonical Gospels indicates that the phenomenon at

58 Guillaumont, “Semitismes,” 197-99, 201, 203-204.

160 JAMES M. ROBINSON

times occurs where it cannot be argued that the Gospel of Thomas was
dependent on the canonical Gospels in Syriac translation.
Ménard infers from the dependence of the Acts of Thomas (beginning
or middle of the third century) on the Gospel of Thomas that the latter
“could hence date from the end of the second century,” thereby
elevating the terminus ad quem into the terminus a quo. He supports his
late dating with the following argument:
The uselessness of physical circumcision in Saying 53 of the Gospel of Thomas picks up
the debate between Tineius Rufus and Rabbi Akiba, in which the former emphasized
that if circumcision were necessary children would be born circumcised. Now Tineius
was governor of Judea in 132 and Akiba died in 135, and the rescription of Hadrian
making circumcision like castration a crime subject to capital punishment was one of
the causes of the revolt of 132."

Even if it were clear, however, that the Gospel of Thomas were

dependent on this incident, one must consider here as elsewhere the
option of late interpolations. The latest trait in a sayings collection is far
from being an assured indication of the date when the basic collection
was made.
B. Dehandschutter has presented in its most extreme and explicit form
an antithesis to the position of Koester:
One wonders whether the solution of Koester (and of those who have followed him)
does not lose too much from view that the problem of Q is in the first place a problem of
the literary criticism of the Synoptics, whereas the Gospel of Thomas is in the first place
an apocryphal “gospel” dating from the end of the second century.”

Dehandschutter seeks to carry out this contrast in terms of genre, but in

the process does no more than reveal again the dogmatic point of
departure of this late dating (see below).
It should be clear from what has been said thus far that a distinctive
problem of dating the Gospel of Thomas has to do with the fluidity of the
text of a non-canonical sayings collection in translation. This problem is
recognized by Koester:
It is quite likely that the Coptic text of the Gospe! of Thomas does not directly reflect the
original text of this gospel; differences between the Coptic version and the Greek
fragments from Oxyrhynchus show that the text was not stable; similar observations can
be made for the transmission of other gospels during the 2d century."

Not only does the Gospel of Thomas share afluidity of text with other
non- or not-yet-canonical literature, but also a fluidity of text partic-
ularly characteristic of sayings collections, where there is no train of
°° Ménard, L’Evangile selon Thomas, 156.
*! Ménard, “Datation,” 12.
* Dehandschutter, “L’Evangile de Thomas,” 510.
*8 Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” 116.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 161

thought or causal nexus to stabilize the text from saying to saying. A

saying can be added or subtracted, a sequence can be altered, quite
imperceptibly.
There is in fact some indication that some dependence of the Gospel
of Thomas on the canonical Gospels may have been introduced at the
level of the translation into Coptic. A comparison of the Greek frag-
ments P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 with the Coptic Gospel of Thomas by Wolfgang
Schrage shows “that the translator has assimilated the logion [Gospel of
Thomas 33] to the Synoptics.”* He describes the relation of the two
versions to each other as follows:
The translator (Schrage concedes he could also speak of the redactor or copyist] did not
proceed slavishly in his work of clothing the logia in a different linguistic dress, but
permitted himself the freedom of additions and deletions of various kinds in translating
the New Testament quotations, which he fully recognized as such. In general he
translated exactly and retained differences from the Synoptic form of the logia.... In
individual cases he distanced himself further from the New Testament or left out
quotations. .. . But there is no indication that the Coptic Gospel of Thomas represents an
advanced stage of gnostification. The translator even partially assimilated the logia to
the canonical sayings of the Lord.... This assimilation, however, is also not motivated
by greater faithfulness to the New Testament biblical text, nor is it to be understood as a
compromise with “orthodoxy.” Rather it indicates that the translator, where he could,
made use of an already known Coptic Gospel version. ... Whether this familiarity of
the translator with a Coptic Gospel version goes back to a form already fixed in writing
is difficult to say. In view of the brevity of the quotations it is more probable that the
translator himself had this Coptic translation in his ear or his memory rather than in his
hands. It is striking that in individual cases the Coptic Gospel of Thomas stands nearer
to the original New Testament text than does the Sahidic. ..."

To be sure, this does not seem to indicate that the Sahidic Gospel of
Thomas was directly dependent on the Sahidic New Testament, as Kurt
Rudolph, following Peter Nagel, has pointed out:
A series of important grammatical differences speak against a dependence of Gospel of
Thomas on the Sahidic New Testament.”

Yet the way in which the Sahidic translation of the Gospel of Thomas
seems to have been free to interact with the New Testament should
warn against assuming automatically that such canonical parallels argue
in favor of the original Greek Gospel of Thomas having been dependent
on the canonical Gospels, as Schrage does in his monographic com-
parison of the Sahidic Gospel of Thomas with the Sahidic New Testa-
ment.”

* Schrage, “Evangelienzitate,” 266.

°§ Schrage, “Evangelienzitate,” 267-68.
°° Rudolph, “Gnosis, ein Forschungsbericht,” 34 (1969) 361. He refers there to Peter
Nagel, “Codex II,” 447, n. 24; 453-54, 462,
Schrage, Verhdltnis.
162 JAMES M. ROBINSON

The fluidity of the text has other implications with regard to the
assessment of the text and hence by implication to its dating, as a
summary of secondary literature by John Dominic Crossan illustrates:
Detailed comparisons between the Greek and Coptic texts make it evident, however,
that the latter is not just a straight translation of the former but is, minimally, a
deliberate redaction of it, “an adapted translation” (Fitzmyer,1974:416), or, maximally,
both are “very different recensions of the Gospel of Thomas” (Marcovich:64). On this
point the combination of Gospel of Thomas 30+77b in OxyP 1 is very significant since
that conjunction is a special indication “that the Coptic version is not a direct translation
of the Greek, for we have here atripartite saying, whereas the Coptic has preserved the
two parts separately” (Fitzmyer,1974:398). It is of course a separate question whether it
was the Coptic translation that redactionally separated an originally unified Greek
saying (Hofius:187; Kuhn:1960:317-18), or, whether it was the Greek recension in Oxy P
1 that did so [ie. united two sayings] while the different and more original Greek
recension translated into Coptic did not (Marcovich:69). That former interpretation
seems preferable, and in that case the Coptic would be a much more gnosticizing
version of the Greek (Jeremias,1964:106-111).”

Harold W. Attridge has, however, warned against inferring from the

scant evidence the necessity of postulating different recensions:
Yet it also remains possible that the recension which the Coptic represents was based
on one of the P. Oxy. texts; none of the differences between the Greek and Coptic
versions necessarily precludes this possibility.**

If in fact the text of the Gospel of Thomas (or Q) was never stable, but
continued its own life throughout the whole period from the earliest
sources imbedded in it down to the copying of the Gospel of Thomas in
Codex II (or of Q in Matthew and Luke), one must reconceptualize the
procedures for dating: rather than the whole text of the Gospel of
Thomas (or Q) being read synchronically, so that all the sayings con-
tribute to establishing the one date of authorship and all the sayings are
interpreted in terms of that one dating, one must learn to read dia-
chronically, placing the individual sayings and indeed specific traits in
them along the trajectory of the life of the text. This is, of course, not a
completely new methodological insight, but it has not been implemented
systematically, and indeed the modalities for, and the implications of, its
implementation have not yet been worked out.
Perhaps the most important thing to be said about the relative dating
of Q and the Gospel of Thomas is that they overlap, in that at least the
“pre-Synoptic” versions of such canonical sayings as the parables in
Gospel of Thomas are as old or older than at least the composition of Q
(in that, e.g., they probably include authentic sayings of Jesus), although

°8 Crossan, In Fragments, 32-33.

* See “Appendix: The Greek Fragments,” prepared by H. W. Attridge in Layton, Nag
Hammadi Codex II.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 163

of course the Q trajectory itself also goes back in part to authentic

sayings. Koester’s appeal to a source imbedded in the Gospel of Thomas
consisting of such “pre-Synoptic” parables, if its status as a written
source could be established, would, as a pendant to the source
imbedded in Mark 4, illustrate the point.
Conversely, it is an asymmetrical comparison to compare Q with the
Gospel of Thomas ‘as we have it in Nag Hammadi Codex II. For in
talking about Q, scholarship has in view a source two stages behind the
manuscript evidence, (the canonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke).
First, one separates out QMt and QLk; second, one separates out Q as the
common precursor to which the symbol Q traditionally refers. Thus one
would be comparing this reconstructed source at more than one remove
from the manuscript evidence with the Gospel of Thomas in its last, late-
fourth-century stage represented by the one relatively complete manu-
script to have survived. In the comparison of two different stages in the
morphology of texts as fluid as sayings collections, it is not at all sur-
prising that a temporal spread can be demonstrated. But no more is
proven by such an observation than the truism regarding a single
sayings collection, that one stage is older than the other, ¢.g., that Q as
the common ancestor of Matthew and Luke is earlier than e.g., QMt or
Matthew itself, or, in terms of the Gospel of Thomas, that the text of the
late fourth-century Coptic Gospel of Thomas is later than that of the
fragmentary third-century Greek texts from Oxyrhynchus.
Of course it is a valid scholarly objective to assign a date to a major
compositional activity in the trajectory of a sayings collection such as the
moment when it was put in writing; or, the moment when smaller
written and oral collections were brought together into something like its
present size; or the moment when editing went beyond the inter-
pretation implicit in the selection and ordering of the sayings and
introduced redactional comments created by the author in order to make
explicit the given interpretation. But to argue, as scholarship has tradi-
tionally done, that some such event or events in the case of the Gospel of
Thomas is later than in the case of Q, may not, even if it were true, be
the relevant chronological observation. Of course it might be an impor-
tant fact in a chronicle of early Christian literature. But it might not be of
great significance for most other purposes, such as tracing the history of
the transmission of the sayings attributed to Jesus. Any “history of the
Synoptic tradition” of the future must include among its primary source
material much of the Gospel of Thomas along with Q and Mark 4, as
well as oral traditions established by form criticism in its description of
what lies behind the Synoptic Gospels. Unfortunately one does not have
in the case of the sources imbedded in the Gospel of Thomas two
164 JAMES M. ROBINSON

documents in which any of them are imbedded, as one does in the case
of Q. As a result, a reconstruction of sources lying behind the Gospel of
Thomas would be more like the problem of reconstructing the Signs
Source used by John, and hence calls for more detailed argumentation
than has thus far been provided. But, just as some kind of Signs Source
should in my view be included in any future “history of the Johannine
tradition,” just so must some kind of assessment of the older layers in the
Gospel of Thomas be included in any such study of what lies behind the
canonical Gospels. The late date of [the translation of, interpolations
into, the final redaction of, the scribe of ?] the Gospel of Thomas cannot
be validly used as an argument for leaving this text out of the study of
the Synoptic tradition, any more than it would be legitimate to eliminate
the Synoptic Gospels themselves, dating from the last third of the first
century, from discussions of a person who lived in the first third of that
century, about whom they contain traditions going back to his lifetime.

IV. The Genre of Q and the Gospel of Thomas

Apart from the discussion in my essay “LOGOI SOPHON” scant atten-
tion has been devoted in the study of Q and the Gospel of Thomas
during the past generation to the question of the literary genre to which
they might be attributed. Other than the general recognition that Q is not
just a paraenetic supplement to the gospel, as had earlier been assumed,
but is in effect a gospel of a different kind than the canonical Gospels,
little has been done. One may mention, however, that in 1970 Ernst
Bammel associated Q with testamentary literature.’ But this view
depends on the testamentary motif with which Q is thought to have
terminated, Luke 22:29, 30b. Verse 29, however, which Bammel con-
siders decisive, is not in Matthew, and hence is on methodological
grounds difficult to treat as decisive for establishing the genre of Q. One
may merely recall the blunt comment of Hans Conzelmann: “But: the
last section did not stand in Q.”*" Even if this verse should be attributed
to Q, such a testamentary motif may be more relevant as a partial
explanation for the absence of a “theology of the cross” and hence of a
resultant passion narrative than as a positive explanation of the struc-
ture of the body of the work as a testament’s collection of sayings.
In 1979 Robert Hodgson, Jr., our co-host at the Springfield Seminar,
had sensed that my “history of the Gattung ‘Sayings of the Sages’ from
Jewish wisdom literature to gnosticism revealed a development not un-
10° Bammel, “Q,” 39-50, esp. 49-50.
*°? Conzelmann, “Literaturbericht,” 243. Jeremias (Sprache, 290-91) considers the
verses redaction because of their Lucanisms.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 165

related to the history of the OT testimony tradition,” to which his own

study is largely directed. But this dimension of his work has not yet been
fully developed at the time the present paper was completed, so that an
evaluation of its implications seemed premature. Thus one may turn to
the often tacit assumptions regarding genre that the essay “LOGOI
SOPHON?” was opposing and the discussion of that proposal thus far.
One of the major views about the Gospel of Thomas held that it
consisted of material abstracted from the canonical Gospels so as to
conform to the gnostic perspective that only the knowledge imparted by
the gnostic redeemer was relevant. The result was that the narrative
framework of the sayings of Jesus and other materials in the canonical
Gospels were deleted. But this derivation of the form of the Gospel of
Thomas presents various problems. Other gnostic texts from Nag Ham-
madi indicate that gnostics would not need to eliminate the narrative
framework as thoroughly as one would have to assume to have been the
case in the Gospel of Thomas. For they were able to impose a gnos-
ticizing tendency on narratives such as the passion and resurrection, as
well as the baptism. Furthermore it is not reasonable to assume that
sayings in a meaningful context with one another in the canonical
Gospels would be scattered randomly throughout the Gospel of Thomas.
If one has had to give up the assumption that since the Gospel of John is
a “spiritual” Gospel it could use the Synoptic Gospels in a way that mere
mortals cannot make sense of, one needs also to give up the assumption
that gnostics were so unreasonable that they too acted in ways that one
need not seek to comprehend rationally. Finally, the distinctive editorial
traits of the canonical Gospels are not present in the Gospel of Thomas
to indicate that its sayings went through that editorial process. The
Gospel of Thomas comes froma period in time (irrespective of whether
one dates it at 140 CE. or earlier) when sayings of Jesus were still being
transmitted orally. Hence dependence on the canonical Gospels is not
yet the normal assumption when sayings of Jesus are cited.
The disassociation of the genre of the Gospel of Thomas from that of
the sayings collection in preference for explaining the form of the
Gospel of Thomas as the outcome of the removal of the narrative and
other undesirable ingredients from the canonical Gospels (without really
reflecting on the resultant postulation of something like a reductionist
genre) seemed in some cases to reflect at least in part a perhaps uncon-
scious desire to disassociate the heretical Gospel of Thomas from
apostolic Christianity, represented in this instance by Q. This came

102 Hodgson, “Testimony Hypothesis,” 361-78, esp. 375, n. 74. Cf. now Hodgson,
“Dialogue with J. M. Robinson.”
166 JAMES M. ROBINSON

forcefully to my attention in the following statement of 1963 by Werner

Georg Kiimmel.
But whether or not a very old tradition parallel to the Synoptics is at the basis of the
Gospel of Thomas, the writing as such is doubtless no late form of the same literary
genre as Q, but alater stage of a different kind in the development of the transmission
of sayings of Jesus... . This results not only from the complete absence of any narration
and substantive ordering, but especially from the absence of any Christology at all, and
thus of any connection with the development of gospels that first becomes visible in
Mark. The Gospel of Thomas presupposes the reinterpretation of the person of Jesus
into the role of the Gnostic revealer and thus shows itself to be a literary form of a later
time.'®

B. Dehandschutter recognizes that Kimmel “has contributed greatly to

disseminate this point of view,” and that Trajectories through Early
Christianity by Koester and myself was “decisive” in presenting the
alternate thesis that seeks to trace “the ‘prehistory’ of the Gospel of
Thomas as a collection of sayings.”** Dehandschutter’s essay is in effect
an attempt to vindicate Kimmel’s position especially over against that of
Koester. It is for this reason that he sets up the antithesis between, on the
one hand, “the ‘Sayings Collection’ as a particular genre, designed to
conserve these sayings in their original form,” “constituted of sayings
well separated,” and on the other, a “‘mixed’ genre,” characterized by
“incoherence.” In the case of the latter he emphasizes “the secondary
character of these compositions,” a genre that “distances itself from the
first Christian tradition,” by “creating” sayings and “not for themselves,
but to support a doctrine.” Dehandschutter thus underscores especially
the tendentious and creative nature of the latter process, a deficiency he
assumes was not characteristic of the Synoptic tradition..° Thus,
Dehandschutter has constructed a pure genre of discrete authentic
sayings of Jesus without doctrinal tendency, a genre that never existed in
fact, either as Q or otherwise, as a foil over against which the Gospel of
Thomas becomes more like the typically second-generation gnostic
genre of dialogues of the Resurrected with his disciples—a genre com-
pletely unrelated to Q. The antithesis between a genre to “conserve”
authentic sayings and a genre to “form” inauthentic sayings is rather a
18 Kimmel, Einleitung, 41; ET of the 14th edition of 1965, Introduction, revised
edition based on the 17th edition of 1973, trans. Howard Clark Kee, 1975, 75-76. Quota-
tion is from the 1963 edition.
aos Denandschutter, * ‘L'Evangile de Thomas,” 508.
» 1°Dehandschutter, “L’ Evangile de Thomas,” 510-15. This view had been worked out
in 1975 by Dehandschutter in a Leuven thesis, “Thomasevangelie,” which was echoed by
his Leuven professor Frans Neirynck, “Q,” 716.: “This is, however, a gnostic composition
which borrows from the canonical gospel, and its literary genre is more probably of a
later origin. The Q source may represent a primitive Christian genre sui generis. Since it
is not a mere ‘collection of sayings’ (Logienquelle), Schtirmann prefers to call it a
‘discourse source’ (Redequelle).”
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 167

product of the modern conservative repudiation of critical scholarship,

as is the antithesis between a genre with no theological tendency and a
genre sold out to a theological tendency. No such antitheses exist in the
primary sources. The irony of this effort is that one is thus presented
with a sharp contrast between two pure genres, to which neither Q nor
the Gospel of Thomas belongs. Neither is a chain of isolated logia, both
are instances of a “‘mixed’ genre” with fused logia and the beginning of
discourse traits; and both reflect theological tendencies. Thus both fall
between these imaginary extremes, and in this sense .. . fall together.
It was largely in response to this view of Ktimmel that the article
“LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q” was composed. That: the
Gospel of Thomas, like Q, depends primarily on the living oral tradition,
even though smaller collections, perhaps even written collections, may
have been incorporated in either or both, has become the growing edge
of subsequent scholarship, especially in the work of Koester.
Hans-Martin Schenke has recognized this aspect of Koester’s work on
the Gospel of Thomas as the most important reconceptualization that the
discovery of this text has produced:
For this too is to be said of the twenty years of research on the Gospel of Thomas: There
has been a wealth of insights and new bits of information, but in my view only one
ingenious and convincing conception for the whole—and this comes precisely from
Helmut Koester, and says in essence that the Gospel of Thomas is to be seen within the
framework of the living process of the transmission of the sayings of Jesus, which
presupposes as bearer a special, indeed a onesided variant of early Christianity, namely
sapientially determined Christianity.’”

Thus, Schenke sees Koester transcending the then current debate as to

whether the Gospel of Thomas was dependent on the canonical Gospels
or on apocryphal gospels, by seeing it in the same position as Q in the
morphology of Jesus traditions, directly feeding upon and growing out of
the oral tradition of Jesus’ sayings and smaller collections.
Koester’s view in 1971 in Trajectories was that the basic source
behind Q. had been a sapiential collection such as the genre title “logoi
sophon” suggested, without the Son-of-Man apocalypticism character-
istic of Q as we know it, but much like the postulated point of departure
for the Gospel of Thomas. In the Shaffer Lectures of 1980 this view is
resumed:
The Gospel of Thomas is thus an old Christian sayings collection, or else based upon an
older collection, which is more closely related to the genre of the wisdom book than the
second common source of Matthew and Luke. ... But the apocalyptic sayings about the

106 Robinson, “LOGOI SOPHON,” 77-96; Future of Our Religious Past, 84-130;
Trajectories, 71-113. :
107 Fy-M. Schenke, “Review of Ménard,” 262.
168 : JAMES M. ROBINSON

coming of the Son of Man are missing completely [from the Gospel of Thomas}, while
wisdom sayings are more numerous than eschatological and prophetic oe Thus
this gospel is more true to its genre, the wisdom book.’”

This then raises the question as to the deviation of Q from the genre of
the wisdom book. Koester wrote in his Introduction:
Q certainly had preliminary stages, such as occasional collections of sayings for
catechetical, polemical, and homiletical meepare. But in its final composition and
redaction, Q became an ecclesiastical manual... .*”

But the basic ingredient in Q according to the Shaffer Lectures is a

Jewish, non-Christian wisdom book (see above). In connection with the
Gospel of Thomas Koester had spoken in the Shaffer Lectures similarly
of “the wisdom book that was the catalyst for the earliest written
collections of these sayings.” Thus Q and the Gospel of Thomas would
seem to have received their first written impetus, initially determinative
of their genre, from sapiential books. But the secondary intrusion of an
apocalyptic Son-of-Man Christology is for Koester responsible for the
final redaction of Q (see above). Koester would hence seem to con-
jecture at least two written stages in the composition of Q, one at least in
part under sapiential influence, one under apocalyptic.
Boring has put in question the Christianizing of a Jewish wisdom book
by pointing out that the Bultmannian interpretation of the quotation
formula in Luke 11:49 as referring to a wisdom book has given way in
recent Q studies to other interpretations.“ Boring also questions the
post-Bultmannian assumption that the Son of Man title was not part of
Jesus’ own vocabulary, even when the term refers to the final judge as
someone other than Jesus, a view rather important in relegating the Son-
of-Man sayings to a secondary stage in the Q tradition:
Jesus did speak of the Son of Man who was to come in the future, a transcendent,
eschatological figure with whom he did not identify himself, yet with whom he did
associate himself very closely. It is only within this category of sayings that we may look
for authentic sayings of Jesus [about the Son of Man]. I am myself unable to account for
the distinction between the Jesus who speaks in these sayings and the Son of Man who
is to come in the future (Mark 8:38 par.; Luke 12:8-9 par.; 17:22, 24, 26, 30 par.; 18:8;
Matt, 19:28; 25:31) on any other basis than that it (the distinction, not necessarily these
sayings) goes back to Jesus himself. As Tédt so succintly states: “What is stated here is
constructed as a soteriological correlation, not at all as a Christological continuity.” The
fact that Jesus did speak of the Son of Man as someone other than himself, who, in the
eschatological drama, would vindicate discipleship to Jesus, does not mean that all
sayings that evince this distinction are from Jesus. The genuineness of any particular
saying must be settled from case to case, not a priori because it belongs in a particular
formally-defined group..

*°8 Koester, “Tradition and History,” 11.3, typescript, p. 55; III.2, typescript pp. 90-91.
Koester, Introduction, 2.147.
° Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 157-58.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 169

In attributing even the sayings that make this distinction to the early church, thus
making the distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man both originate in, and, when
it becomes problematic, be dissolved by, the early church, Vielhauer and those who
hold his view labor under an insuperable difficulty. To the objection that the church
would not have distinguished Jesus and the Son of Man, Vielhauer replies “so long as
‘Son of Man’ had an apocalyptic meaning, it could not be applied to an earthly being.
Thus the church had to distinguish between the earthly Jesus and the Son of Man”
(“Jesus und der Menschensohn,” pp. 143, 170ff). But this very argument militates against
Vielhauer’s other key. point, that it was Christian prophets who first spoke Son-of-Man
sayings in Jesus’ name. The prophets did not, however, retroject sayings into the Sitz im
Leben Jesu; it was not the earthly Jesus to whom they were attributing their sayings. The
Jesus-ego with which they spoke was that of the exalted Lord, not the earthly Jesus, so
they would not have distinguished Jesus from the Son of Man on the grounds given by
Vielhauer. Thus the sayings that distinguish Jesus and the Son of Man must be either
genuine, modeled on genuine words of Jesus, or secondary but non-prophetic. But if
they are non-prophetic, they must belong to that later stratum of secondary Son-of-Man
sayings that are dependent for their Son-of-Man terminology on the earlier, prophetic
sayings. In Vielhauer’s view this cannot be, for he properly regards these sayings as the
oldest precisely because of the distinction they make between Jesus and the Son of
Man. These are then used as the pattern for the later, secondary Son-of-Man sayings,
thereby accounting for the fact that “Son of Man” occurs only in the third person in
them. Unless the sayings in which the distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man is
made are prophetic, the whole structure of Vielhauer’s reconstruction collapses—yet
they cannot be regarded as prophetic on his grounds.
In the light of our hypothesis, an apparent explanation for this constellation of
phenomena immediately suggests itself: not only did Christian prophets contribute
sayings to the developing synoptic tradition of Jesus’ words by promulgating individual
sayings in the name of the exalted Son of Man, but they stand at the transition-point
between the sayings of the historical Jesus about the Son of Man and the sayings of the
post-Easter Jesus who speaks through his prophets as the Son of Man. If this hypothesis
is true, there is a sense in which explicit (titular) christology, and therefore Christian
theology, began in the immediately post-Easter revelations of Christian prophets; these
experiences may have been very closely related to the Easter experiences of the first
disciples, or even identical with them.™

Such a return to Bultmann’s attribution of such Son-of-Man sayings to

the historical Jesus is reminiscent of another unexpected advocate of
attributing more sayings in the Q tradition to the historical Jesus—Gerd
Theissen:
If one understands by “church” congregations settled in one place together with their
institutions, then there is no sociological continuity between Jesus and primitive
Christianity. But it is different with wandering charismatics. Here the social situation of
Jesus and a branch of primitive Christianity is comparable: Jesus was the first wan-
dering charismatic. The transmitters of such sayings took over his life style, the tropous
kuriou (Did. 11.8). What was shaped by their life style is hence for that reason far from
being “inauthentic.” Their wandering radicalism goes back to Jesus himself. It is
authentic. Probably more sayings are “suspect” of being authentic than many modern
sceptics would like.‘

111 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 241, 292 (n. 13), 242-43.
112 Theissen, “Wanderradikalismus,” 257=Studien, 91=“Itinerant Radicalism,” 87.
170 JAMES M. ROBINSON

Thus the problem of the genre of Q becomes intertwined with the

layering of Q, which in turn becomes a question of the first steps in
primitive Christian theology, which then becomes a question of where
Jesus left off and primitive Christianity took over. To be sure, the well-
worn authenticity question loses some of its theological freight once one
recognizes that in terms of wandering radicalism and charismatic
prophets, that is to say, in terms of the Christianity represented by Q and
Gospel of Thomas, not only is less shift to be expected as one moves
from Jesus to this “church.” Also that Jesus is less an isolated or unique
phenomenon, as subsequent Christology made him, and is more im-
bedded in the Jesus movement of Palestinian Judaism during the half-
century that straddled the middle of the first century, of which New
Testament Christianity, i.e, Diaspora and ultimately Gentile Chris-
tianity—Christianity as a historical movement—is a broken derivative.
The familiar question of the legitimacy with which the proclaimer
became the proclaimed may resolve itself into the question of faithful-
ness to the canon behind the canon—and to what is behind Q and the
Gospel of Thomas.
As a result of these disagreements with the position worked out by
Koester, Boring has argued that Q is less a sapiential book than a
prophetic book:
Likewise, the Q-materials are not well described by the term “Words of the Wise”
(LOGOI SOPHON). While it is true that Q has many points of contact with the wisdom
tradition in both form and content, Q is in no sense a “Christian Book of Proverbs”
. [Vincent Taylor]. Over against those who claim to live by traditional wisdom, the Q-
community knows itself to live by revelation (Luke 10:21-22). The manner of address of
wisdom materials is that of a “timeless truth,” which speaks to the hearer because of its
inherent validity, although it may be incidentally attached to a figure of the past:
Solomon, Ahikar, Sirach. We have seen that Q does contain expressions of what was
once gnomic wisdom, just as it contains teachings appropriate to a rabbi but, as
proclaimed and heard in the Q-community, these tend to be transformed into the
prophetic address of the exalted Jesus who is imminently expected as the Son of Man
and judge of the world.... More than one mode of address is thus still present in Q,
representing the literary remains of struggles to perceive Jesus as rabbi or teacher of
wisdom, as well as exalted Lord, but the fundamental orientation of the Q-sayings as
they came to Matthew and Luke is neither the timeless mode of wisdom nor the
traditional mode of rabbinica but the present/future mode of prophecy.
In addition to the analysis of particular sayings, there are some general features of
the Q-complex of materials that relate it to Christian prophecy. Streeter has pointed out
that the form of the “book” itself is prophetic, beginning with the baptism and
temptation stories analogous to a prophetic “call” and continuing with a collection of
oracles and a minimum of narrative, somewhat like Jeremiah. While the point may not
be pressed, Q is probably closer to Jeremiah than to Proverbs, related more to
traditional prophetic forms than to wisdom."

8 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 180-81.

 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 171

It may well be the case that the sapiential material in Q had lost the
banality we usually associate with that concept, as indeed William A.
Beardslee has pointed out, for example, that the wisdom sayings
ascribed to Jesus have taken on an acuteness not typical of this genre.‘
To this extent one might say that Q is moving toward the “secret sayings”
version of this genre, to which Mark 4 (“riddles”) and the Gospel of
Thomas belong, and: which Irenaeus (Haer. I.1.5; 1.28.7) associated with
gnostic usage. Boring documents the revelation motif precisely by
material usually held to be late in the development of Q. And it has
been recognized that Q, in beginning with the baptism and temptation,
indicates, precisely because of Mark, some modulation out of the
sapiential tradition toward a more “historical” or “biographical” cast
such as one finds also in Jeremiah. But Boring himself has pointed out
“that prophecy in the early church manifests some wisdom features,”
so that “wisdom and prophecy are not alternatives.”"* And, although
Koester has attributed the Son-of-Man apocalypticism to a secondary
stage in the Q tradition, he has attributed to the earlier sapiential phase
a radicalized eschatology, so that here, too, no either-or alternative
seems to be involved. The efforts to bring to light the sapiential strand in
primitive Christianity are not intended as a replacement of other strands
that have been firmly established in the scholarly tradition, but rather to
include in our total overview a strand that has been neglected.
Boring’s most important contribution to the discussion of genre may be
his tracking of a gradual bifurcation in the transmission of traditions
about Jesus that led to sayings collections on the one hand and historical
narrations or biographies on the other, alternatives represented at the
outset by Q and Mark. With regard to Q:
The historical Jesus was indispensable for the theological understanding of the Q-
community. He had been the decisive prophetic messenger of transcendent Wisdom
and had been exalted to become the Son of Man. His words, and a few of his deeds,
had formed the original nucleus of the Q-materials. But the prophetic understanding of
the Q-community tended more and more to focus on the post-Easter exalted Jesus.
What Jesus of Nazareth had said became dissolved in what the post-Easter Jesus said
through his prophets. If these two categories of material were ever distinguished, they
had ceased to be by the time of the redaction of the Q-materials. While the dissolution
of the word of the historical Jesus into the word of the heavenly Jesus had not yet
occurred in Q, the center of gravity had shifted, so that Q was moving in the direction of
a collection of “sayings of the living Jesus” such as the Gospel of Thomas.”

114 Beardslee, “Wisdom Tradition,” 231-40; “Proverb,” 61-73; “Insight,” in Beardslee,

Literary Criticism 39-41.
15 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 141.
116 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 281, n. 141.
117 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 182. See also Robinson, “Narrative.”
172 JAMES M. ROBINSON

Or, as Boring puts it with regard to Q 12:4-7:

Even if the sayings, or some elements from them, derive from Jesus himself, these
words would be heard in the Q-community as the address of the exalted Jesus to the
current situation of the threatened Q-community. ... Rather than sayings of the risen
Jesus being placed in the mouth of the historical Jesus by the Q-community, it appears
that the tendency was the other way: traditional, even pre-Easter sayings of Jesus are
claimed for the risen Lord.’”

Over against this tendency in Q Boring squarely places Mark:

The study of the sayings of the risen Jesus in Q and Mark respectively has revealed an
important difference that is fundamental to understanding the relation of Christian
prophecy to the canonical gospels. Whereas Q contains a considerable number of
prophetic sayings, is tending to be understood as a whole as sayings of the risen Jesus
and by its nature is open to continued expansion by the addition of new revelatory
sayings, Mark contains only a few prophetic sayings, which are entirely contained
within the historicizing pre-Easter framework, closing the door to further prophetic
expansion....
It might be assumed that Mark has few prophetic sayings as a result of including only
a few of any kind of sayings. The hypothesis being proposed here is that precisely the
opposite relation obtains: the paucity of sayings in Mark is to be explained on the basis
of Mark’s view of the prophetic sayings..
Mark has so few sayings of Jesus because he is suspicious of Christian mecniaeh as it
is present in his community and expressed in the sayings-tradition. He creates a new
prophetic form intended as an alternative.
We have seen that Q contained substantial prophetic materials and was coming to be
regarded as altogether “sayings of the risen Jesus.” It was not a rabbinic Q against which
Mark was reacting but a prophetic Q....
The most probable reason for Mark’s hesitating use of the Q-material is to be found
in his suspicion of the genre that it represents the post-Easter revelations of the risen
Lord. .. . But the message of the risen Lord is now bound to, and contained with, the
tradition of Jesus of Nazareth as this is contained within a narrative presented entirely
in a pre-Easter framework.
What he opposes is the view that the risen Lord comes to speech in the collections of
sayings such as Q that were so open to being considered the post-Easter address of the
exalted Lord, an address no longer grounded in history. Such collections were not only
composed of material much of which did in fact come into being after Easter, they were
open to this interpretation in toto and to continued growth and expansion by the risen
Lord.
To counteract this tendency, Mark took a step at once paradoxical and radical: he
presented the message of the living Lord in a narrative form in which the post-Easter
Jesus, in the narrative story-line, says nothing. His message is confined entirely to the
pre-Easter framework of the gospel form that Mark devised for this purpose. There is
an intentional dialectic here. It is no accident that Mark ends at 16:8 with the announce-
ment that Jesus is risen, but without his having appeared. To tell an appearance story is
to have the risen Lord speak in an undialectical way and to open the door to a flood of
post-Easter revelations of which Mark is very critical. .. . Mark is absolutely unwilling
to tell the story in such a way that the risen Lord continues to speak in the story-line
after Easter.’

18 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 167-68.

11° Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 195-202.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 173

' If Mark stands thus clearly one step to the “right” of Q, the fact that it
is only one step to the right is illustrated by comparing Mark with the
next step, Luke, where the orthodox outcome is already evident:
The relation of the power of God to the unfolding mission of the church in Acts is
conceived by Luke in a different way than as the continuing ministry of Jesus, as we
have seen above. The point may be seen by comparing Luke to Mark in this regard. In
Mark, the “then” of Jesus’ ministry is dialectically represented as the “now” of Mark’s
and his reader's own time. For Luke, Jesus’ word and ministry are past history; but all
revelations of the Spirit, all new communications from heaven, must be judged by the
recollection of the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus. God leads his
community forward, but not along a line contrary to his definitive revelation in
Jesus. . . . This is clearly illustrated, for example, in the ways in which Mark and Luke
respectively handle the missionary charge of Jesus to his disciples. Mark 6:8-11 changes
the original radicality of the instructions to make them more realistically applicable to
Mark’s own day, because he intends them to be heard as the present address of the
risen Lord. The missioners are thus permitted to take a staff and to wear sandals. In
Luke, on the other hand, the original radicality of the Q-form of the saying is preserved
in the instructions of the disciples during Jesus’ ministry (9:3; 10:4) but is “corrected” by
Jesus at the end of his ministry (22:35-6). The teaching of Jesus is directly applicable
only during the “midst of time,” the historical time when Jesus was on the earth. The
teaching of Jesus is still authoritative but no longer addressed the reader directly as the
word of the living Lord.
We are thus faced with the conclusion that Luke, who pictures the church as guided
by the Spirit and frequently addressed by Christian prophets, does not understand
these prophets to have produced new words of Jesus. . . . The form of Christian
prophecy in Acts is not that of “sayings of the risen Jesus” (11:28; 21:11). We have seen
that this is not a result of accurate historical tradition but of Lukan Tendenz.’”

This could well throw new light on the background of Luke’s innovation
in adding to his Gospel an Acts of the Apostles, a step of far-reaching
consequences to which Franz Overbeck first drew sharp attention. Prior
to Luke, it was still possible for Mark to contemporize the narration
about Jesus to such an extent that the implications for the church of the
evangelist’s time were transparent. But not only did this put severe
limitations about what guidance could be provided the present in such a
refracted medium, it also would have continued the strain on the
traditional sayings of Jesus, which was the problem charismatic prophets
posed to Mark, as Mark’s own updating of Jesus’ sayings indicates. Luke
solved both these problems by replacing the resurrected Christ with the
Holy Spirit as the church's contemporary authority. Thus the traditions
about Jesus could be left back in the past as a venerable authority no
longer directly binding on the present, but all the more securely fixed as
an unchanging if indirect authority (on the way to canonicity). The
presentation of the life of the church could then be brought out from
behind the veil of the life of Christ into the light of day as the life of the
Holy Spirit. The ambivalence of the proclamation of charismatic proph-
120 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 228-29.
174 JAMES M. ROBINSON

ets in the name of the resurrected Christ is replaced by the less ambig-
uous leadership of the Holy Spirit.
Boring drew my attention to the fact that his thesis of the bifurcating
trajectory between the sayings collection of the living and speaking Lord
and the narrative biography of the Jesus of the past, which he arrived at
by means of his analysis of early Christian prophecy, converges in a
striking way with the implications I drew from an analysis of the
diverging visualizations of the resurrected Christ in my presidential
paper at the Society of Biblical Literature which he heard in December
1981:

This ambivalence of the sayings tradition and hence of early sayings collections was not
fully satisfactory to either side in the emerging polarization. If the orthodox manage to
use and lose Q and to block the canonization of the Gospel of Thomas, opting for the
biographical pre-Easter cast provided by the canonical Gospels, the gnostics, while
accepting the Gospel of Thomas, really prefer another genre of gospel, the dialogue of
the resurrected Christ with his disciples. It is this trajectory from the sayings collection
to the gnostic dialogues, as well as its pendant in the orthodox trajectory from Q to the
canonical Gospels, that is now to be sketched. ...
Thus both Mark and John seem aware of the pair of contrasting terms [“in parables”/
“openly”], and both agree in placing the shift from one level to the other before rather
than after Easter. ...
Wrede failed to recognize that Mark has, apparently intentionally, shifted that
turning point back into the middle of his Gospel.
This may indeed be the key to the perennial problem of the gospel genre. The fact
that Mark and John transfer the shift to the higher level of meaning back prior to the
crucifixion may be their most explicit rationale for playing down didactic revelations at
Easter and filling almost their whole books with the period prior to Easter, the period
when Jesus was teaching in his physical body on earth. Luke would in his way carry this
to its logical outcome in defining the qualifications of an apostle so as to include not just,
a la Paul; the resurrection, but the whole period since John the Baptist (thus reaching
the position made standard in the English language tradition through the idiom “public
ministry” Acts 1:21-22).’?

Boring andI both take satisfaction in this convergence, not only in that
we are pleased to agree with each other, but also because we both
consider such a converging of views worked out independently of each
other and primarily in terms of independent source materials (in his
case the sayings of Jesus, in my case the appearances of Jesus) to be an
unexpected supplemental confirmation of the basic validity of this
position. It is also interesting to notice that much the same relationship
of Q and Mark has been worked out in terms of the shift from orality to
textuality by Werner H. Kelber,’*? who has already sensed the affinity of
his results to those of Boring. Thus it may be that in this area new
insights are converging that can be fruitful in the continuing study of the
genre of primitive Christian literature and the implications of the study
12? Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus,” 22, 36.
122 Kelber, Oral and Written Gospel.
 FROM Q TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 175

of the question of genre for the understanding of the history and

theology of primitive Christianity.
The most recent and comprehensive analysis of the genre of Q is the
1984 Toronto dissertation of John S. Kloppenborg. After a survey of
genres of sayings collections in antiquity and a tracing of the stages
_ through which Q went, he reaches the conclusion:
Though Q, like any of the other instructions, gnomologia, and chriae-collections
surveyed, has its peculiarities, idiosyncracies and unparalleled aspects, it is at the same
time intelligible against the background of antique sayings genres. The shifts which
have occurred in the course of Q's literary evolution from instruction to proto-biography
do not present serious anomalies when viewed in terms of the generic typicalities and
inner dynamisms of instructions, gnomologia and chriae collections. Both the instruc-
tion and the gnomologium had the potential for a gnosticizing hermeneutic as the
Pythagorean acousmata and the Teach. Silv. show.... While the association of the
speaker of the wise words with a divine agent (Sophia or God) is present both in the
initial formative stage, and in the second recension, the editing of Q strengthened the
historicizing side of the dialectic, first by introducing chriae, and then by the use of a
biographical/narrative preface. These movements, it should be emphasized, do not
represent a violation of the genre, or an attenuation of the “natural” development of Q
as a wisdom collection.”

Such a detailed analysis can only serve to lead further and in a more
nuanced and documented way the interest of twenty years earlier that
came to expression in my essay “LOGOI SOPHON.”

123 Kloppenborg, “Synoptic Sayings Source,” pp. 423-24=Formation of Q.

 ‘e a Kone nas tn cag Pas eiBcottoha otms
> Pe, den seunane et Var ee natiot<i
. Wis.pines mate o-oo nb hactate pegeaee
ee Slee TY es Sow

mo Bethy: aut) eth adi sega : ss

tie ete Hincasd: io opie With each sther, but ato ta
oangidir such a Souverspas offyi: annie, eat
itr and pains ay ut tess Ot inden
Eee ine Seyingl scum, wa rash one i.

widen! one ead brs Sosenerd 3) La

positni. Sly Glas teteeegiingto notice Had Minch Sees
iQ wad Mines hee HOS worked sat fa tomnse of the: ;
" thafhatity Sy Warne 1 Release hae aaeady Renae #
bis. rasisiey et heen af Gectng. Thus kay Oe VRE a
ineigare ars2men re Saturwe fre2a) in tha: don
agi rot pein Cosviiesierncan unethe
” Robitices. “esa A scam Pasion ia tpdesatueas? es
M*Kelve tral cat 9 ria See Bees att
 8
THE USE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
AS EVIDENCE
FOR INNER DIVERSITY AND CONFLICT

Frederik Wisse

At the present time, Frederik Wisse is Associate Professor of New Testament at

McGill University in Montreal. Born in the Netherlands, Dr. Wisse received his
theological education in the United States and eventually was awarded a Ph.D.
in Religion from Claremont Graduate School. He has done post-graduate work
at Tibingen and Miinster, Germany.
Dr. Wisse’s research interests and publications are in the areas of Textual
Criticism, Nag Hammadi Studies, Coptology, and the History of Early Christian-
ity. He is co-editor of the Nag Hammadi Studies monograph series.

Preface
he historian of early Christianity faces serious methodological diffi-
culties in the attempt to reconstruct the inner diversity and conflicts
within the church before 200 C.E. The few surviving historical accounts
of the Christian movement during this period offer only partial and
often questionable information, as well as a theologically biased picture
of the earlier conflict situations which they include. Thus the historian
must resort to other early Christian writings in order to reconstruct the
actual situation. It is difficult enough to evaluate the historical informa-
tion which can be gleaned from these diverse writings even if the larger
historical framework were clear. In the current state of research, how-
ever, even the framework itself must be inferred from writings which
are ill-suited for this purpose.
Major steps towards the reconstruction of a satisfactory historical
framework were taken during the last 150 years, particularly by F. C.
Baur and W. Bauer. Nonetheless, serious difficulties remain in placing
many of the early texts in this framework; this is true for some canonical

q77
178 FREDERIK WISSE

and early patristic writings as well as for gnostic and apocryphal texts.
The present essay argues that the nature of the conflict between ortho-
doxy and heresy during the third and fourth centuries C.E. mistakenly
was assumed to apply also to the earlier period. This led to the false
assumption that early Christian texts reflected the doctrinal diversity of
competing factions or communities. This assumption is particularly
inappropriate for gnostic texts, but it also does not apply to most other
early Christian writings. In the heterodox situation which characterizes
primitive Christianity, authors were not confined by community stan-
dards of orthodoxy. Thus conflicts usually arose over issues of practice
and ecclesiastical authority. This recognition has profound implications
for the historical analysis of early Christian and gnostic texts.

I. F. C. Baur’s Categories
of Early Christian Literature
Beginning with F. C. Baur, the central importance of locating and
defining individual writings in terms of diverse or competing branches
_ of the early church has been recognized in the critical study of early
Christian literature. Baur took his starting point from such cccasional,
polemical writings as Paul’s Corinthian correspondence and letter to the
Galatians, which, he thought, gave proof of a conflict between com-
peting Christian ideologies represented by Paul, on the one hand, and”
Judaizing Christians on the other.’ With this basic division in primitive
Christianity established on firm exegetical grounds, it became necessary
to explain why the book of Acts presents a much more harmonious
picture of the same period. Baur answered this by means of Tendenz-
kritik, “tendency criticism.” He argued that the author of Acts could not
admit to a state of disunity and conflict in apostolic times and thus made
the conflict appear relatively minor, local, and temporary.
Baur realized that there was a third category of early Christian
literature which needed to be explained in terms of the two factions in
the church. In addition to polemical writings like Galatians and histories
like Acts, there are a significant number of early Christian writings
which are not overtly polemical and thus cannot be assigned readily to
either the Pauline or Petrine parties. These books he assigned to an
irenic or mediating faction. He claimed that from the Jewish Christian
side the letter of James shows this mediating spirit, while Hebrews and 1

* For the following summary of Baur’s position see the excerpts from Baur’s writings
and the bibliography in Kimmel, 127-40.
 USE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 179

Peter tried to mediate from the Pauline side. He located the Gospel of
John a step beyond the fusion of the two factions into the early Catholic
church.
We are indebted to F. C. Baur for a clear understanding of the task
and problematics of the history of early Christianity. The standard had
been set: to explain an early Christian text historically is to locate it in
terms of the different movements and controversies which characterized
the early church. His own reconstruction of this period remains one of
the high points of historical analysis.
For obvious reasons, the polemical writings and passages have a
primary claim to our attention for they present direct evidence of
diversity and conflict. They set the stage; all other literary evidence must
be defined with reference to them. Nonetheless, polemical writings pose
a special set of difficulties for the historian. Polemics are often highly
personal and limited in scope. The position defended or attacked need
not involve more than one person; one cannot, without further ado,
assume that it characterized a larger group or faction. Baur was well
aware that Paul’s polemics against the Judaizers were, to a large extent,
a self-defense. His letters appear to be as much the cause of a division
between Jewish and Gentile Christianity as the result thereof. Had they
been written by a lesser figure, and had they remained without positive
response among Gentile Christian readers, they would have become an
idiosyncratic phenomenon on the fringes of primitive Christianity.
We cannot assume that the relationship between the few surviving
pieces of early Christian polemical literature and the main instances of
conflict and factions in the church was a simple and direct one. In most
_ cases we lack the corroborating evidence to determine whether the
conflict reflected in our literature was widespread or local, major or
incidental, lasting or of short duration. The role that the writing in
question played in the conflict is often obscure and open to various
interpretations. The reconstruction of the larger picture of diversity and
conflict from such writings is a highly speculative, if not an impossible,
undertaking.
Particularly for those canonical and other early Christian writings
which soon found wide acceptance and use, it is important to distinguish
between the historical situation which they reflect and the historical
situation they created. For the former we need clear internal or sup-
portive external evidence to conclude that the position defended or
attacked is shared by a larger group or community. Religious books are
‘generally not written to state what is but what the author thinks should
be. The historian who ignores this runs the danger of creating parties or
180 FREDERIK WISSE

religious communities which never existed or which did not yet exist
when the book was written. Even if the polemicist refers to all those
who support his position, one should evaluate such claims critically. The
tendency is to portray one’s own position as that of the majority and as
being in keeping with the apostolic tradition, while that of the opponent
is by definition aberrant and isolated.
This touches on the second problem the historian must face in
evaluating polemical literature. One cannot expect that the position of
the other side has been represented fairly and completely in the heat of
the controversy. What is claimed about the opponents may well have
been quoted out of context, misconstrued, wrongly inferred or slan-
derous. This well-known drawback of polemics is particularly unfor-
tunate if, as is often the case, our knowledge of certain movements in
early Christianity is limited to refutation by opponents. As a conse-
quence our knowledge of the refuted individuals or.groups may be so
limited and distorted that the historian has difficulties identifying cor-
rectly surviving or newly found literature stemming from the refuted
party. One is tempted to assign such writings to a previously unknown
group. As a result, the ancient misrepresentation will have been com-
pounded through the creation by a modern interpreter of a ficticious
party in early Christianity.
The second category of ancient Christian literature for which the
historian must account is comprised of the ancient historical accounts.
As Baur correctly recognized, these accounts are hostile witnesses to
diversity and conflict within primitive Christianity, and their vision has
been distorted by what the author thinks should have been. It is very
‘modern to look at diversity as something positive, to make the necessity
of change into a virtue and to stress the salutary effects of conflict. In
contrast, ancient Christian historians from the author of Acts to Eusebius
tended to explain diversity in terms of truth and falsehood: change was
seen as falsification and conflict as instigated by demonic forces. Insofar
as they were aware of diversity in the primitive church they would try to
ignore it, make it look innocuous, or exploit it for their own partisan
purposes. This makes such histories of dubious value for modern
historians. Our knowledge of the first three centuries of the church,
however, is so limited and haphazard that we cannot do without these
histories. Nevertheless, this predicament is not as bad as it sounds, for if
the special theological bias of these histories is taken into account, they
prove to be invaluable witnesses for diversity and conflict in spite of
themselves.
The third, and by far the largest, group of early Christian texts which
 USE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 181

the historian must place in the historical framework of early Christian

literature are those which are not overtly involved in inner Christian
polemics. This large and diverse group reflects a great variety of beliefs
and practices. For this category F. C. Baur’s evaluation has not proven
satisfactory. He wrongly assumed that all early Christian literature was
somehow related to the main conflict he perceived. Though we cannot
preclude the possibility that some early Christian books intended to
mediate between competing factions, such a function is far from obvious
for the New Testament books he mentions. As with polemical writings,
mediating literature can only be identified as such—and could only
have been effective as such—if it identified itself as such. If a writing
lacks the expected features and references germane to its polemical or
mediating purpose, then the historian must try to explain it in some
other way. The real purpose of such literature may be catechetical,
homiletical, exegetical, apologetic, speculative or pee pevengizing rather
than an attempt to mediate between opposing views.
To account historically for this group of writings is far more difficult
than is generally realized. Some of them may fit comfortably into one of
the factions identified on the basis of polemical and historical texts, but
many do not. This is particularly true for the earliest among them. It is
far from clear what the relationship of such writings was to the different |
theological, ethical, ritual and organizational positions current in Chris-
tian churches at the time of their writing. As in the case of polemical
literature, one may not assume that the views advocated in these
writings reflect the beliefs and practices of a distinct group. There are, of
course, documents commissioned by a larger group which represent
community views. These, however, are relatively rare and the reader is
normally informed of the special background of the document. If these
clues are absent from the texts the burden rests upon the historian to
give sufficient reasons as to why the text in question ought to be taken as
representative of a larger group or faction. In practice this means that
one must show compelling reasons why the author reflects in the writing
the beliefs and practices of a wider community. As we shall see, the
reflection of the faith and practice of a wider community presupposes a
Sitz im Leben “life situation” of an established “orthodoxy.” If no such
controlled “orthodox” environment can be assumed for a text—and this
is more the rule than the exception in early Christianity—then it
becomes very questionable to attribute the special features of the text to
a certain, otherwise unknown, branch of early Christianity.’

? | have argued this in greater detail in “Prolegomena,” 138-45.

 182 FREDERIK WISSE

II. W. Bauer’s Use of Early Christian Literature

Even though F. C. Baur’s reconstruction of the history of early Chris-
tianity has made the traditional view untenable, it still took more than a
century before W. Bauer gave it the coup de grdce in his Rechtgldubig-
keit und Ketzerei im dltesten Christentum.* He proved that there is no
historical basis for the traditional claim that orthodoxy preceded heresy
logically and chronologically. The pure beginnings of the church were
not a historical fact, but a theological concept imposed on the facts by
the author of Acts, Hegesippus, and Eusebius. What the church fathers
called heresy was not necessarily a deviation from the earliest form of
Christianity. In stating this W. Bauer clarified what F. C. Baur and others
had already said, or implied.
The new contribution W. Bauer made was his use of early Christian
literature to prove that second-century orthodoxy was not the majority
view but was a view largely limited to the churches in Rome, Corinth,
Antioch, and Western Asia Minor. He argued ingeniously that else-
where various forms of “heresy” held sway and that they were even able
to threaten the outposts of orthodoxy outside of Rome. It is not my
- purpose here to question Bauer’s conclusions about the various geo-
graphical areas in which the church was located. Rather, we must see
how he uses early Christian literature as evidence for inner diversity
and conflict.
Little needs to be said about Bauer’s uses of polemical literature. It
was not his intention to reinterpret the literary evidence for ancient
Christian heresies nor to give a comprehensive picture of the diversity in
belief and practice during the second century. By limiting himself
largely to second-century heresies for which there is multiple attes-
tation, such as Montanism, Marcionism, and Gnosticism, he was able to
escape the difficulties and pitfalls which early Christian polemical
literature presents to the historian.
In contrast, a reexamination of ancient Christian historical accounts is
central to Bauer's thesis. Much of his book, and especially ch. 8, is
preoccupied with questioning the chief “hostile” witness for the second
and third centuries, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, and the earlier
historical sources which it incorporates. Both Eusebius and Bauer
appeal to second-century Christian literature in order to support their
understanding of the relationship between orthodoxy and heresy, but
they come to opposite conclusions. Eusebius refers to a significant

* Bauer, Rechtgldubigkeit. References are to the English translation of the second

German edition of 1964: Bauer, Orthodoxy.
 USE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 183

number of orthodox authors and titles from the period prior to 200 CE.‘ It
is clear from the titles that some of these books were anti-heretical but
for others this is not so certain. Eusebius claims repeatedly that these
orthodox writings and many others like them “are still preserved to this
day by a great many brethren.”* In other words, Eusebius gives the
impression that from early days on there was a large and widely
dispersed body of orthodox literature which defended the truth and
refuted heresy. By comparison, the heretics of the same period stood
isolated and condemned.
Bauer quite rightly questions the evidence Eusebius presents.® It
appears Eusebius has grossly inflated the list of orthodox authors and
books by repeatedly referring to “very many others” of whom he cannot
recount the names.’ His claim that these works “have reached us” and
can still be examined cannot be taken seriously. Though he was asso-
ciated in Caesarea with what was likely one of the most extensive
Christian libraries of that time, he shows no knowledge of the contents
of most of the writings to which he refers. Bauer has good reasons to
suspect that they did not survive. Eusebius assumed that many more
orthodox books survived. But if he had evidence for this why did he not
present it?
The question remains why most of the orthodox writings of the second
century did not survive until the first half of the fourth century when
Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History. Harnack suggests that these
“writings were no longer suited to the later dogmatic taste.”* Bauer
proposes another reason. He believes that the orthodox writers rather
than the heretics stood isolated, and that their writings were suppressed
by the “heretical” majority well before the “dogmatic taste” changed.’
Thus Eusebius’ evidence is turned against him and is used to support the
opposite of what he wanted to prove.
It is noteworthy that Bauer does not seriously question Eusebius’ claim
that the second-century writings. he lists were indeed orthodox, even
though Eusebius most likely knew the content of only a few of them. He
shares with Eusebius the belief that second-century Christian literature
was either doctrinally orthodox or heretical; there is no third option.
Bauer does not challenge Eusebius’ assumption that second-century
authors who wrote against the heretics must have been doctrinally
orthodox in their other writings. Both assume that all Christian literature
* Eccl. Hist. 4.8 and 21-28.
* Eccl. Hist. 4.25.
® Bauer, Orthodoxy, 149-59.
” Eccl. Hist. 5.27.
® Altchristlichen Literatur, 1/1.248.
® Bauer, Orthodoxy, 166.
184 FREDERIK WISSE

of that period was in some way part of an ideological struggle between

competing “orthodoxies.”
A second piece of evidence which Bauer takes from the Ecclesiastical
History and turns against its author is the curious scarcity of anti-
orthodox polemics in the heretical literature.** Though it would appear
that second-century heretical authors were far more prolific than their
orthodox counterparts, they appear uninterested in refuting the ortho-
dox position. The Nag Hammadi texts tend to confirm this impression.”
In terms of Eusebius’ understanding of the situation in early Chris-
tianity, this lack of anti-orthodox polemic would be due to the numerical
and theological superiority of the orthodox, who isolated the heretics
and put them on the defensive.
For Bauer the evidence points in the opposite direction. He argues
that the absence of anti-orthodox polemics was due to the fact that the
heretics were dominant and secure in large geographical areas during
the second century.” There was no need for them to refute orthodox
teaching. In contrast, the orthodox churches were hard-pressed, and
were forced to attack the heretics wherever and whenever they could.
According to Bauer, behind the anti-heretical struggle stood the church
of Rome with its aggressive, imperialistic policies.”

III. The ad hominem Nature of Early Christian Polemics

There is another factor which needs to be taken into account in order to
evaluate properly the evidence which early Christian literature gives of
inner diversity and conflict. The focus of Christian polemics in this
period is basically ad hominem, i.e., directed against persons, rather
than ad doctrinam, i.e., directed against teaching. Bauer was not un-
aware of this," but he is mainly interested in proving the numerical
superiority of the heretics in most areas. This predominant focus seems
strange if the conflict was mainly due to a clash between different
doctrinal positions. What is easily forgotten is that at this early period
there was no comprehensive and widely accepted rule of faith which
could function as a standard for truth and falsehood. Hence polemics
were hardly possible at the level of doctrine. As a consequence, heresy
at this time was not so much a teaching that was at variance with
established doctrine, as it was the teaching—any teaching!—of someone

10 Bauer, Orthodoxy, 169f.

‘! The few cases of anti-orthodox polemic are discussed by Koschorke, Polemik.
‘2 Bauer, Orthodoxy, 170.
‘8 Bauer, Orthodoxy, ch. 6.
‘4 Bauer, Orthodoxy, ch. 7.
 USE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 185

who was either unauthorized by the leadership or who for some reason
or other was considered unworthy and unacceptable. The converse also
applies: whatever was taught by someone who was approved by the
leadership, or by the author in question, was by definition orthodox.®
This means that “orthodoxy” must have begun as orthocracy, i.e., the
truth claim of a teaching depended on the accepted authority of the
person who taught it. Even at the time of the Pastoral Epistles “sound
doctrine” does not appear to have had aclear and stable content, but
“sound doctrine” was basically the teaching of sound people, such as the
apostles of old and the official church leadership of that time. This also
explains the many pseudepigraphical writings from this period. It was
not just an ancient “sales gimmick” or a way of honoring an admired
member of the apostolic circle; rather, it was a necessity. Since there
was not yet a standard by which to judge the truth claim of a writing on
the basis of its content, soundness came to depend on the reputation of
the author. Thus also, conflict and refutation had to focus on the author,
though not just of necessity, but more likely because the conflict itself at
this early period centered on persons and their functions.
The ad hominem polemics which characterized conflict in early
Christianity exhibit the following features:
(1) The opponent was associated with villains from the Old Testament
(e.g., Cain, the Sodomites, Balaam, Korah, Jezebel), or with reported
opponents of the apostles (e.g., Judaizers, Simon Magus). Just as the
opponent was guilty by association, so the protagonist claimed trust-
worthiness by associating himself with the apostolic circle and other
acknowledged heroes of the past.
(2) The opponent was pictured as a fulfillment of the prophecies about
the eschatological false prophets or antichrists.”” This meant that he was
a tool of Satan.
(3) Immoral practices were often attributed to the opponent. Any sign
of virtue must be a pretense for deceiving unsuspecting believers.
Though this claim would have been in most cases untrue, it cannot
simply be called slander, since it was not considered possible for a false
believer to speak the truth and live a genuinely moral life.”
(4) The opponent must have gotten his ideas from pagan sources, and
as such was not really “of us,” Falsehood could not issue from truth or
from a true believer.”®
8 See my discussion in “Prolegomena,” 139-40.
® See also my discussion in “Epistle of Jude,” 133-43.
17 E.g., 1 John 2:18f.
18 See Wisse, “Die Sextus-Spriiche,” 55-86.
18This is the basic premise on which Hippolytus based his Refutatio omnium
haeresium.
186 FREDERIK WISSE

(5) In case heretical teachings are mentioned, these tended to be the

already refuted heresies of the past (e.g., Jewish law) or the denial of
generally accepted truths (e.g., 1 John 2:22).
(6) Opponents are said to reject proper authority (Jude 8). For
Thebutis, Valentinus, and Marcion it was claimed that they turned to
falsehood because their aspirations for high church office were frus-
trated.” There can be little doubt that the recognition of authority played
a central role in the conflicts of this period. .
In this kind of polemic there is no need to refute the opponent’s
teaching. It is, therefore, also impossible to reconstruct his teaching on
the basis of the polemic. The few beliefs attributed to the opponents
were not really descriptive but merely part of the ad hominem attack.”
This is even true for Irenaeus and later heresiologists who refute their
opponents by exposing heretical “teaching.” The idea is that to see
heretical teaching is to reject it. By listing details from heretical books
which most Christians would consider foreign or grotesque, the author
and readers of such books have been discredited. The place of these
details in the thinking of the author often remains obscure.
Even when actual refutation was attempted, the arguments the heresi-
ologist could muster were far from conclusive. The appeal to revelation
and the gift of prophecy was not limited to one side in the conflict. One
could try to discredit the prophet but it was not possible to rule out
prophecy. Also appeals to Scripture could not easily be falsified, since
there were no established standards for interpretation, and allegori-
zation opened up unlimited possibilities for the interpreter. The best
argument would seem to be the one based on reason. It is already
present in Paul's arguments against the Judaizers in Galatians and the
enthusiasts in Corinth, but it is only fully developed in Irenaeus’
writings.” The truth is characterized by coherence, inner logic, and
unity, while falsehood is incoherent, confusing, and contradictory.
Irenaeus’ description of heretical teaching in Adversus haereses I is
designed to show this.
It is only in terms of an appeal to “reason” that we can speak of
orthodoxy in the true sense of the word. The rational coherence of ideas
provided an internal standard of truth. Only what coheres with tradi-
tional dogma is acceptable; what does not cohere with it is heresy. What
stood over against this emerging understanding of orthodoxy was not a
rival or internally coherent ideology but rather heterodoxy, i.e., an open
and eclectic situation allowing for wide ranging theological speculation,
20 Eccl. Hist. 4.22.5; Tertullian, Adversus Valentianos, 4.
*1 T have argued this for Jude, “Epistle of Jude,” 133-43.
22 Esp. in Adversus haereses, II-V.
 USE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 187

and tolerating diversity. This heterodoxy was firmly rooted in the

charismatic beginnings of gentile Christianity. It presented a major and
long-lasting threat to the emerging orthocracy. The established leader-
ship could not tolerate theological speculation outside of its control, and
heterodox “teachers” could not tolerate this ecclesiastical control. The
appeal to reason presented a way to reject heterodox speculation on the
basis that it did not cohere logically with generally accepted tenets of the
faith, rather than that it came from an unapproved author. There was
now an objective basis to evaluate “new” teaching; if it proved to cohere
it was not really new but already implied in apostolic teaching and if it
did not cohere it had to be heresy. The appeal to reason went hand in
hand with the claim of catholicity. Some of Irenaeus’ views may well
have been as peculiar and novel as those of Valentinus, but insofar as
he could claim that they were derived from traditional and widely
accepted dogma they could be called the teaching of true believers
everywhere.

IV. Implications for the Reconstruction

of Early Christian History
We must now state what the implications of this reconstruction are for
the relationship between early Christian literature and the diversity and
conflict in the church. W. Bauer was right in arguing that “heresy”
appears to precede “orthodoxy” in most areas. He continued to use,
however, the traditional terms “orthodoxy” and “heresy” and thus con-
fused the picture. He can be misunderstood to say that the traditional
view of primitive Christianity was correct; only the terms must be
reversed. Heresy rather than orthodoxy came first and orthodoxy is
really a late foreign element which was able to win only because it had
as its spokesman the powerful and aggressive church in Rome; yet, the
evidence would indicate that not heresy but heterodoxy preceded
orthodoxy, and that it continued to be the majority view through most of
the second century except where orthocracy had been able to establish
itself. Orthodoxy evolved from orthocracy as a result of the conflict with
heterodoxy.
The existence of a large number of writings from this period which
were not overtly polemical is no longer a problem. Bauer is not far off
the mark by implying that they were written in areas where “heresy”
was not challenged by “orthodoxy.” The situation becomes clearer if we
pose a heterodox milieu for them which was conducive to theological
innovation and speculation, and in which a diversity of views was
tolerated. Some of this heterodox literature found wide acceptance and
188 FREDERIK WISSE

became part of the New Testament canon and orthodox collections, but
most of it was later considered suspect or heretical. This heterodox
literature was not written within clear limits of tolerance, nor was there
a need for the authors to reflect the beliefs and practices of Christian
communities.
It is not really possible to separate heterodox literature into orthodox
and heretical texts. Such categories apply if at all, only in retrospect.
Thus it is no surprise that not much of this literature survived until the
time of Eusebius. Even writings of authors who were later considered
orthodox because of their heresiological reputation were unlikely to fit
the fourth-century standards for orthodoxy.
If indeed most Christian literature before 200 C.E. was written in a
heterodox milieu, this has major consequences for the historian. It
means that the beliefs and practices advocated in these writings, insofar
as they vary from those reflected in other Christian texts, cannot be
attributed to a distinct community or sect. Rather, these writings were
more likely idiosyncratic in terms of their environment. The “teaching”
they contain was not meant to replace other teaching but to supplement.
They did not defend the beliefs of a community but rather tried to.
develop and explore Christian truth in different directions. In this
heterodox milieu there were few limits to such private speculation.
There was room for the prophet and the visionary. One heterodox
writing would inspire the creation of another.
Christian-gnostic literature offers us the most extreme examples of
heterodox literature. The orthodox heresiologists did not understand
this. They assumed that the gnostic books contained the teachings of
different sects. Since no two writings agreed in their teaching, they
pictured the gnostics as hopelessly divided among themselves. With
generally only literary evidence available to them, they were not able to
see their mistake.”
Because gnostic texts were produced as heterodox literature in a
syncretistic situation conducive to speculative thought, they were part of
a literary rather than a sectarian phenomenon. Similar in origin and
function to Orphic, Neo-Pythagorean, and Middle Platonic literature,
they presuppose no organized sect in the background, as is becoming
increasingly clear.* These writings reflect only the visions and specu-
lations of individuals and the literature they used and imitated. One
expects to find such individuals among itinerant preachers, sages, magi-
cians, ascetics, visionaries, philosophers, and holy men.

23 See Wisse, “Prolegomena,” 140-41.

*4 Cf. Burkert, “Craft versus Sect,” 183-89.
 USE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 189

V. Conclusion
In conclusion I want to return to the beginning. F. C. Baur discovered in
Paul’s writings evidence for two opposing factions in the primitive
church. It would appear that this conflict arose against the background
of heteropraxis, i.e., a situation in which diverse practices were tol-
erated. Both Gal 2:3 and Acts 15:19 agree that the leaders of the
Jerusalem church allowed gentile Christians to be free from the obliga-
tions of circumcision and the law which remained valid for Jewish
Christians. By implication, Paul must also have agreed to this double
standard. By the time of the Antioch incident, however, orthopraxis had
gained the upper hand in the Jerusalem church. Paul saw the behavior
of Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jews in the church of Antioch as a
breach of the earlier agreement. In the letter to the Galatians Paul in
turn was no longer willing to tolerate heteropraxis, for he argues now
that also the Jewish Christians are free from the law.
How the Jewish Christians were able to integrate the law and faith is
unclear. Most likely they did not try to integrate them theologically. The
fact that Paul does not refute a coherent Jewish-Christian theology
would indicate that there was no Jewish-Christian orthodoxy at this
time. The Jewish Christians from their side used ad hominem polemic
against Paul by challenging his authority as an apostle and by claiming
that he incited believers to sin (Rom 3:8). Thus the conflict appears to be
between orthopraxis and Paul’s idiosyncratic teaching on faith and
works.
Paul did not imposea strict orthopraxis on his churches but argued for
tolerance and freedom except in the case of immorality. There was no
established leadership and the stress on spiritual gifts created a pro-
foundly heterodox situation. Divergent views in the congregation were
not treated as heresy, but Paul tried to curb factions by arguing that
edification of the community should be the common goal. The situation
has changed drastically in the Pastoral Epistles. The need for orthocracy
is obvious to the author. The readers are warned against false teachers,
most likely itinerant preachers who try to impress women (2 Tim 3:6)
and are, among other things, adept in speculative myths. He even
associates them with the “heretics” of old, the circumcision party (Titus
1:10), the teachers of the law (1 Tim 1:7), which the great apostle had
already refuted. The situation is now dominated by the conflict with
gnostic heterodoxy.
Thus for the earliest Christian period (i.e., before the middle of the
second century C.E. in Rome and well beyond that elsewhere) it would
be a mistake to try to define its remaining literature in terms of
190 FREDERIK WISSE

competing theological positions or the conflict between orthodoxy and

heresy. In the heterodox situation which prevailed at this time there was
considerable tolerance to doctrinal diversity, partly of necessity, because
on most issues the theological structure needed for refutation was
lacking. The relative isolation of Christian communities and the lack of
knowledge about sister churches no doubt contributed to this heterodox
milieu and apparent tolerance for diversity. This explains the absence of
clear polemic in some of the writings from this period. W. Bauer’s thesis
that it was due to the fact that heresy was dominant and unopposed in
most areas would appear to be an anachronistic explanation. Conflict
and polemics in this early period had their basis mainly in diversity of
practice, both ethical and liturgical, and claims of authority. Attributing
false doctrine to one’s opponents at this point is usually an ad hominem
polemical device.
Orthodoxy arose out of the increasing conflict between heterodoxy
and orthocracy. The ecclesiastical leadership in such cities as Rome, no
longer willing to tolerate heterodox teachers in its midst, attached the
teaching function to its own office. The heterodox side was represented
mainly by Montanists and various gnostics. In this conflict, the appeals
to the rational coherence of ecclesiastical teaching and its assumed
catholic and apostolic nature began to play an increasing role. Only at
this point can we speak of orthodoxy and heresy. Orthodox writings are
those which have been written consciously within the limits of doctrinal
tolerance set by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Earlier heterodox literature
becomes orthodox retrospectively if it falls within these limits of tol-
erance, or heretical if it does not. The disappearance of most early
Christian writings by the time of Eusebius, even the non-polemical
writings of reputed heresiologists, would be explained if most of these
books did not meet the later standards of orthodoxy. If this reconstruc-
tion of early Christianity is correct it will set clear limits and guidelines
to the use of early Christian literature as evidence for inner diversity
and conflict.
 r Or MOC
ae ue We

MATIE TN CSR ONAT COTS ort bores :

TVETONTaN ANAYAN EMSYOYS: corte
Np epee MCN TIOTATCEIOSBA iriKkee
aesoRaiaehAnira et AntMexeeuite tutes
Ap Hae ye nT Nig Joes -
ee Pett Te EOE NITSYE eRe ee

TeeAAs Sire Se TitTe eer Sy 2ae :

ecr IN HY HSLOE? OO FOO NN YAN A

BOT ‘ TERS! Wr EVNAK OOM EN EES ware ye,
“ere MAY ECAR SHE? HitreTtH- MAAT Mr eee
Narre CTTOPLYCROARIM TI KAY ror e
Fremenavanezoc rremct magn meTyor
NAVX EMAPEMATITAM SA CROAN NTN
oe ICTIOMESREUGAANAT NWN UTE e
Ne? Cabs zHHtTEATIOK pracy Mocs
\RACEEINAACH UOC
pretowe Noy LEY ONT EY EINER
mMQkTN SITS ECU MERE nse
NZooyTe ve Ke@pyn emosrer
re pPrnve St aes
ST eeSee ey
Goan ne

ae fron
OCAYO G9 (Fe

” Famieripocntyy :
CEMOOTIN BEET
Ser, ON tN)

Coptic page 51 of Nag Hammadi Codex II showing the title of the Gospel of Thomas, an
ancient collection of the sayings of Jesus. IAC photo.
Mahmoud, a professional digger from the village of Kuft in upper Egypt, was the principal
“digger” in the excavation of Tomb 8. Note the adz he used in his work. IAC photo by
Peggy Hedrick.
The face of the Jabal al-Tarif near the site of the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codices.
Camels are still used in Upper Egypt as a principal means of transportation. IAC photo by
Peggy Hedrick.

A group of villagers from Hamra Dom, a village near the site of the discovery. The man in
the dark garment serves as a chief guard for the Egyptian Antiquities organization. IAC
photo by Charles W. Hedrick.
Jeff Purcell drawing a balk (unexcavated area between excavated squares) during the
excavation of the Basilica of St. Pachomius at Faw Qibli. Pachomius is credited with
establishing the first communal monastery in the fourth century C.E. IAC photo by Charles
W. Hedrick.

Conference participants. Seated left to right: Harold W. Attridge, Stephen Gero, Douglas
M. Parrott, Elaine H. Pagels, James M. Robinson, Helmut Koester. Standing left to right:
Robert Hodgson, Jr., Paul-Hubert Poirier, Hans-Martin Schenke, John Sieber, John D.
Turner, Birger A. Pearson, Bentley Layton, George W. MacRae, Frederik Wisse, Charles
W. Hedrick. Southwest Missouri State University photo by Patricia Goslee.
 g
GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES
IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES

Douglas M. Parrott

As an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of California-

Riverside, where he teaches courses in the Bible, Douglas Parrott’s area of
expertise covers both Gnosticism and New Testament Christianity.
Dr. Parrott is the editor of Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI, with Papyrus
Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4, in the Coptic Gnostic Library Series. He also contri-
buted to various of the tractates included in that volume. In addition, he is the
editor of the forthcoming critical edition of the gnostic tractates Eugnostos and
the Sophia of Jesus Christ, to be published in the same series. He is currently at
work on a commentary on the twotractates.
Dr. Parrott participates in the Society of Biblical Literature, the American
Academy of Religion, the Catholic Biblical Association, and the Institute for
Antiquity and Christianity (Claremont).

Preface
he question to be dealt with here is whether there were two groups
of disciples recognized in the second and third centuries, the one
gnostic, the other orthodox. The first part of the discussion (sections I
and II) examines the Sophia of Jesus Christ and deals with the problem
of why the five disciples named in that tractate are the only ones named,
since they are only a portion of the twelve men and seven women
present. The four men identified are the second group of four in the lists
of disciples in the Synoptic Gospels. It will be argued that they are
named because they are not associated with the particularistic ground-
ing of revelation with which the first four disciples are connected; that, it
will be suggested, would have made them more acceptable to non-
Christian Gnostics, to whom the Sophia of Jesus Christ was directed.
The second part (sections III and IV) explores whether the influence
of the concept of two groups of disciples, the one orthodox and the other

193
 194 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

‘ gnostic, can be seen in other literature of the period as well as in the oral
traditions.

I, An Examination of the Sophia of Jesus Christ

The Sophia of Jesus Christ is found in BG8502, where it is the third
tractate (77,8-127,12), and also in NHC III, where it is the fourth tractate
(90,14-119,18). The Sophia of Jesus Christ is a Christianized gnostic text.
The case for this was first argued by Jean Doresse’ and was supported
with further argumentation by Martin Krause’ and the present writer.°
Although there were early doubters (W. C. Till‘ and H.-M. Schenke’), at
present there is a consensus on its character. The case is based on the
similarity of large parts of the text with the non-Christian gnostic text
Eugnostos (NHC III,3 and V,1).°
The text presents oral teaching of Christ, sometimes identified as
“savior,” to the twelve disciples and seven women who continued to
follow him after his resurrection. The teaching occurs in the time period
between the resurrection (NHC III,4:90,14-16) and the ascension (III,4:
119,10), and takes place on a mountain identified only as “Divination
and Joy” in Galilee (IIJ,4:91,1-2). The writer is represented as an eye-
witness (“But his resemblance I must not describe. No mortal flesh could
endure it, but only pure and perfect flesh like that which he taught us
about on the mountain called ‘of olives’ in Galilee” [III,4:91,14-20)). It
may be that we are to think of him (or her) as one of the named disciples.
An alternative would be to think of the disciples taking turns writing, at
least during the dialogue portion of the text, as in Pistis Sophia I-III
(71,18-72,20). In either case, the reader is clearly expected to think of the
Sophia of Jesus Christ as coming directly from the immediate followers
of Christ.
As to date, a fragment of the Greek version of the Sophia of Jesus
Christ (P. Oxy. 1081) has been dated as late third or early fourth century,
' “Livres gnostiques,” 150-54.
? “Eugnostosbriefes.”
: Relation between Gnosticism and Christianity,” 405-6.
sTill-Schenke, Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 54.
*“Studien II,” 264-67. Schenke has since changed his views and now accepts the
priority of Eugnostos.
°R. McL. Wilson has found in Eugnostos a number of parallels to words and phrases
in the New Testament (Gnosis, 115-16). From these he suggests the possibility of
Christian influence. None of them, however, are confined to the New Testament, and
they are most likely explained as having come from a common stock of vocabulary and
ideas.
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 195

thus providing a terminus ad quem.’ H.-Ch. Puech suggests the tractate

might have been composed in the second half of the second century C.E.,
or at the latest, in the third century, but he gives no reason.’ Jean
Doresse places the Sophia of Jesus Christ close to the first books of Pistis
Sophia.’ Till suggests a relative dating between the Apocryphon of John
(NHC II,1; III,1; I1V,1; BG8502,2) and Pistis Sophia. He argues that in-the
Sophia of Jesus Christ the understandable philosophical viewpoint
‘found in the Apocryphon of John and its consistent development is
diminished, while it represents an early stage in the development of a
Weltbild (philosophical system) that ends in Pistis Sophia.”
As to the position of Doresse, a comparison of the Sophia of Jesus
Christ and Pistis Sophia shows that the former is much more restrained
than the latter. The points of contact, as far as the systems go, are only of
the most general nature. One would certainly want to say that the
Sophia of Jesus Christ was considerably earlier. As to Till’s dating of the
Sophia of Jesus Christ after the Apocryphon of John, a comparison of
these texts reveals that the systematic material is more developed and
the mythic material is much more developed in the Apocryphon of John.
That suggests that the Sophia of Jesus Christ is earlier, although one
must be cautious about any effort at relative dating, since it cannot be
assumed that Gnosticism presents us with a single straight-line devel-
opment. About all that can be said from these conclusions is that the
arguments for a late dating of the Sophia of Jesus Christ are not
persuasive.
Another approach is suggested by the idea proposed by P. Perkins that
the Sophia of Jesus Christ was written not to convince non-gnostic
Christians to accept gnostic Christianity but to convince non-Christian
Gnostics to accept Christian Gnosticism." Supporting that conclusion is
the allusive nature of the references to gnostic teachings that are not
specifically Christian in the Sophia of Jesus Christ, while the doctrine of
Christ is quite fully developed. That suggests that the intended audience
knew non-Christian gnostic teachings, but did not know the teaching
about Christ.” If Perkins is correct, then the Sophia of Jesus Christ could
be dated near the time when Christianity appeared in Egypt as a new

7 Puech in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1.245.

® Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1.248.
® “Livres gnostiques,” 159.
1° Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 56.
11 “Soteriology,” 177; Gnostic Dialogue, 98.
12 For further elaboration cf. the introduction to my forthcoming critical edition of
Eugnostos and the Sophia of Jesus Christ to be published by E. J. Brill in the Coptic
Gnostic Library series.
196 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

religious vitality.» An early date is also suggested by the fact that it

seems free of anti-orthodox polemics and moreover seems not to have
been influenced by any of the great Christian Gnostic systems, although,
conversely, one finds elements that could have come from the Sophia of
Jesus Christ in those systems—elements that seem to be elaborated or
modified. In addition, the text it is based upon, namely Eugnostos, may
be dated to the first century. A date early in the second century for the
Sophia of Jesus Christ, then, does not seem unreasonable.
The basic pattern of thought in the Sophia of Jesus Christ is the same
as that in Eugnostos. It begins with a theogony: Unbegotten Father; Self-
begotten; Begetter (Immortal Man); First-begotten (Son of Man); and All-
begetter (Savior; also identified as Son of Son of Man). All except
Unbegotten Father and Self-begotten are androgynous, and the female
part is called Sophia in each case. Each one creates various elements
with which to furnish their respective aeons (other aeons, angels, fir-
maments, etc.). Finally the aeon of Immortal Man that appeared in
chaos is described. It provides the patterns for everything that comes to
be subsequently. It should be noted that the use of the name Adam
(I1I,3:81,12; V,1:9, [23]) points to familiarity with Jewish tradition.
Insertions into this pattern at various points in the Sophia of Jesus
Christ seem designed to do three things: (1) establish that Christ is now
the great Savior (III,4:94,13-14), i.e., revealer, by virtue of his having
come from Infinite Light (III,4:93,8-12); (2) describe in detail the salvific
role of Christ in relation to the fallen pleromatic drop (III,4:106,24-
108,14; BG8502,3:103,10-106,14; and again in III,4:114,13-118,25; BG8502,
3:118,1-126,5); (3) place Christ in the theogony, where he is identified
with First-begotten, Son of Man (III,4:104,20-22).

II. The Problem

In the Sophia of Jesus Christ the revelation is given to the twelve
disciples and seven women. They all participate in the dialogue, but
only five disciples are named: Philip, Thomas, Mary (Mariam), Mat-
thew, and Bartholomew (listed in order of their appearance). Of all the
revelation dialogue tractates, gnostic or orthodox, Sophia of Jesus Christ
8 That Egypt is the probable provenance of the Sophia of Jesus Christ is based upon
research I have done on Eugnostos, which will be published in the forthcoming edition
of the Sophia of Jesus Christ and Eugnostos in the Coptic Gnostic Library series. The
crucial bit of information in Eugnostos is the reference to the 360-day year, which was
commonly accepted in our period only in Egypt. The close relationship between
Eugnostos and the Sophia of Jesus Christ would then suggest an Egyptian origin for the
latter as well. Other, less likely, possibilities exist for the 360-day year; see, Przybylski,
“Calendrical Data.”
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 197

is the only one with this particular configuration of names. Two ques-
tions arise from this: Why are these disciples named and not the others?
And why are the twelve and the seven mentioned at all? The second
question will be dealt with later in the paper. It is to the first question
that we now turn.
The presence of Mary (presumably Magdalene) in other gnostic dia-
logues (Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Mary, Pistis Sophia) and her
absence from tractates that are orthodox, and probably orthodox, sug-
gests that she functioned in gnostic circles simultaneously as the repre-
sentative of the female followers of Jesus and as a symbol of the
importance of women among the Gnostics. Occasionally, to be sure,
other women are mentioned (Pistis Sophia; Gospel of Thomas, logion
61), but Mary predominates. In the Sophia of Jesus Christ the represen-
tative character is quite clear, since she is the only one of the seven
named.
But why are Philip, Thomas, Matthew, and Bartholomew named, and
none of the other men? There appear to be four possibilities:
(1) The choice could have been simply randomly made by the writer
from an available list. But why just four? After all there are thirteen
questions, and if one assumes those questions had been framed before
the choosing of the names, it is strange that he did not simply use the
whole list of disciples and add Mary. There is no special virtue in the
naming of four male disciples in gnostic circles, judging from other
gnostic literature—the Sophia of Jesus Christ is the only one with four.
Random choice is not an adequate explanation.
(2) Pistis Sophia I-III contains a tradition that Philip, Thomas, and
Matthew are the “official scribes,” and as such, in a special sense the
three witness to “everything of the Kingdom of God” (71,18-72,20). That
might provide an explanation, if one were to assume the existence of
that tradition at the time of the composition of the Sophia of Jesus
Christ—but only for the presence of those three disciples. Bartholomew
would remain unaccounted for.
(3) One might think that the use of these names is related to their
common usage in other gnostic literature. Certainly Philip, Thomas, and
Matthew are found frequently, but Bartholomew appears only in Pistis
Sophia IV and 1 Jeu, and in neither of these is his name found with all
’ the others (which might have suggested a grouping), even if one were
somehow to overcome the problem of the probable dating (Sophia of
Jesus Christ early; Pistis Sophia IV and 1 Jeu late).

4 See Elaine Pagel’s excellent discussion of the place of women in Gnosticism, in her
Gnostic Gospels, 59-69.
198 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

(4) The one place where these names are grouped together is the list of
disciples in Mark; the same list is followed by Matthew and Luke. They
come immediately after Peter, James, John, and Andrew. In the absence
of other possibilities, it seems likely that the synoptic list is the source
used by the author of the Sophia of Jesus Christ. But that does not
explain why these names are used.
In the synoptics, this group disappears. Their names never appear
after they are named in the list. Philip and Thomas, of course, appear in
John, but Matthew and Bartholomew do not. None plays any special
role in Acts. There is nothing, then, in the Gospels or Acts that gives a
hint about why this group was chosen. If nothing in the source itself
suggests a reason for the choice, we must look elsewhere. The choice
may have been related to the context of the composition, particularly
those whom the author wanted to influence, namely, the intended
audience. .
As indicated above, the intended audience probably was made up of
non-Christian Gnostics. Their religious position was without doubt
understood by the writer of the Sophia of Jesus Christ to be reflected in
Eugnostos. One can assume that from the fact that he used Eugnostos as
his basic source for Sophia of Jesus Christ. It is also implied by the way
Eugnostos in Codex III has been edited to lead into the Sophia of Jesus
Christ, which is the next tractate (“All I have just said to you, I said in
the way you might accept, until the one who need not be taught appears
among you, and he will speak all these things to you joyously and in
pure knowledge” [III,3:90,4-11]). Someone, whether the author of the
Sophia of Jesus Christ or another, thought that one who accepted
Eugnostos might well be interested in hearing the same things repeated
by “the one who need not be taught.” It is reasonable to conclude, then,
that Eugnostos represents the position of the non-Christian Gnostics to
whom the writer of Sophia of Jesus Christ wanted to appeal.
In the largest sense, Eugnostos is an effort to ground religious affir-
mations in universal cosmic structures rather than in particular and
particularistic religious traditions.’* The effort to move from the par-
ticular to the universal in religion has a long history in antiquity and can
be traced in the development of the use of the allegorical method, which
began with Theagenes of Rhegium in the second half of the sixth
century B.C.E. He used it to defend Homer against those who opposed his
theology. Later the Stoics used it in the interests of philosophy. It
‘ST am indebted in what follows to the discussion of A. von Harnack on the difference
between the second-century orthodox apologists and the Gnostics. Even though his view
of the origin of Gnosticism is outdated, he very clearly understood the struggle between
particularism and universalism during the period. See Dogma, 2.169-77.
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 199 -

allowed them to develop the conception that the gods were personified
natural forces.”
The urge to universalize was a special problem for Judaism, because
Judaism was particularistic as well as particular; that is, it was not only a
separate and distinct religious tradition, but it asserted the absolute
superiority of its tradition over all others. Ben Sira attempted to bridge
the gap between Judaism and universal concepts by identifying Torah
with wisdom (Sirach 24). Aristobulus used the allegorical method to
demonstrate the reasonableness of Torah. The writer of the Wisdom of
Solomon moved beyond Ben Sira and separated Wisdom (now fully
personified) from Torah. Wisdom is what makes it possible to under-
stand Torah in universalistic terms (Wis 9:9-17). As David Winston has
put it, “She (Wisdom) was the perfect bridge between the exclusive
nationalist tradition of Israel and the universalist philosophical tradition
which appealed so strongly to the Jewish youth of Roman Alexandria.””
Philo attempted to reconcile on a grand scale the particularism of
Judaism with the universalism of the Hellenistic philosophical tradition
through the use of the allegorical method.** There were, however, those
who were not satisfied with these efforts, but who felt that the gap was
unbridgeable. They concluded that the particular and particularistic
tradition simply had to be relinquished. Philo possibly had such people
in mind when he wrote:
It is best to trust in God and not in obscure reasonings and insecure conjectures:
“Abraham put his trust in God and was held righteous” and Moses holds the leadership
since he is attested as being “faithful in all of God’s house.” But if we mistakenly trust
our private reasonings we shall construct and build the city of the mind that destroys
the truth: for Sihon means “destroying.” For this reason one who has had a dream finds
on awakening that all the movement and exertions of the foolish men are dreams
devoid of reality. Indeed, mind itself was found to be a dream. For to trust God is a true
teaching, but to trust empty reasonings is a lie. An irrational impulse issues forth and
roams about both from the reasonings and from the mind that destroys the truth;
wherefore also he says, “There went forth a fire from Heshbon, a flame from the city of
Sihon.” For it is truly irrational to put trust in plausible reasonings or in amind that
destroys the truth (L.A. 3.228-229).”°

Philo is in this instance contending that mental speculations can go wild

unless rooted in the tradition; such rootage would allow the speculations
to be in some measure controlled.

1® For a brief but valuable discussion of Greek allegory with helpful notes, cf.
Winston, Philo, 4-7. See also Tate, “Allegory.” For the origin of the interest in univer-
salism among the Greeks, cf. Jaeger, Paideia, ch. 9 (“Philosophical Speculation: The
Discovery of World Order”).
1” Wisdom of Solomon, 37.
18 Winston, Philo, 4.
1® Winston, Philo, 150-51. The translation is by Winston.
200 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

Eugnostos is a speculative system that at first glance resembles what

Philo is speaking against. But there is a difference. The problem of
control is addressed but in a way Philo had not anticipated. Eugnostos
writes: “Now, if anyone wants to believe the words set down (here), let
him go from what is hidden to the end of what is visible, and this
Thought will instruct him how faith in those things that are not visible
was found in what is visible” (III,3:74,12-19; see also V,1:3,29-4,7). In
other words, one is able to check the correctness of statements about
invisible things by examining visible things with the aid of Thought
(Ennoia). This is because visible things are thought of as reflections of
the invisible. Codex V, puts it this way: “For the higher faith is that those
things that are not visible are those that are visible” (V,1:4,5-7). Thus the
answer to the problem of control in mental speculation is not an ancient
tradition but visible experience, enhanced or clarified by a divine
revelatory element (Thought).
Eugnostos then is a speculative system cut free of any particular or
particularistic tradition. The Sophia of Jesus Christ is calculated to
appeal to those who accepted that kind of system. It is an attempt to “win
them for Christ,” to speak in modern evangelistic terms. Christ is placed
in the system, by being identified with one of the major cosmic powers.
Further, his role as savior is extensively described and is seen in the
context of a universal arrangement directly related to the cosmological
structure. At no point is he related to the particularistic traditions of the
Old Testament.
If Christ is the ultimate revealer, then the revelation about him, to be
fully authoritative, must not come from some third party, but from his
own mouth. This requires the setting as we have it in the Sophia of Jesus
Christ—after the resurrection (when his divinity is fully revealed) and
before the ascension, with disciples present so the revelation can be
transmitted. But who are to be identified among those transmitters?
One might think of the first disciples in the synoptic list, Peter, James,
John, and Andrew, as obvious choices. The first three are the disciples
most mentioned in the synoptic accounts. To cite but the most prominent
examples: Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ (Mark 8:29); Peter,
James, and John alone accompany Jesus when he restores Jairus’
daughter (Mark 5:37), when he goes up the Mount of Transfiguration
(Mark 9:2), and when he enters the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:33).
Moreover, Peter, James, John, and Andrew are the recipients of the
“secret revelation” contained in Mark 13 (see 13:3).
But on the other hand, Peter and John, and probably Andrew and
James, through close connection with them, were identified with the
grounding of Christ in the Jewish tradition. Peter and John were pillars
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 201

of the church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9 and 1:18), the bastion of Jewish
Christianity. Peter’s speeches in Acts are exercises in the grounding of
Christ in the scriptural traditions of Judaism (note the frequent refer-
ences to the prophets and such phrases as “the God of Abraham and of
Isaac and of Jacob” [3:13]—see particularly 2:14-35 and 3:12-26; 4:11;
10:43), and the Petrine letters continue that understanding of Christ (see
e.g., 1 Pet 1:10-12; 2 Pet 3:1-2). Also the Gospel of John, in spite of the
prologue, that equates Christ with universal Logos-Wisdom, primarily
understands him in the categories of Jewish tradition (e.g., the pascal
Lamb [1:29], Messiah [1:41], Son of God—King of Israel [1:49], and
Prophet [4:19]). In all likelihood these disciples had already been used by
early Christian evangelists as authorities for the understanding of Christ
according to Jewish tradition. Perhaps writings ascribed to them or
thought to have been influenced by them (e.g., Mark) were circulating—
writings that were Judaistic, in the sense we have been speaking of.
Perhaps those whom the writer of the Sophia of Jesus Christ wanted to
influence had already been exposed to the Judaistic approach and
disliked it. Whatever the reason, however, it is clear that he did not
choose Peter, James, John, and Andrew as bearers of the universalistic
interpretation of Christ.
The next four disciples on the synoptic list are, however, not con-
nected with the Judaistic interpretation of the post-resurrection period.
In John’s Gospel during Jesus’ life, Philip places Jesus in the context of
Jewish tradition when he speaks to Nathanael: “We have found him of
whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth,
the son of Joseph” (1:45). But this is prior to the post-resurrection/pre-
ascension time during which the full truth was to be revealed (see Iren.
Heer. 1.30.14).
Matthew, of course, is associated with the very Jewish-tradition-
oriented gospel bearing his name. But that association is obviously late.
The earliest suggestion of it comes from Papias, who claimed that
Matthew “compiled the sayings (of Jesus) for (those of) the Hebrew
language” (‘EBpatd: diadexrw ra Adyia ovveragaro, Euseb. Eccl. Hist.
3.39.16). This seems to be followed by Irenaeus (cf. Haer. III.1.1). But it is
not at all clear that “sayings” are the same as a gospel. General agree-
ment does exist among scholars that the Gospel of Matthew was not
originally written in Hebrew but in Greek. So one can not be at all sure
that Papias had our gospel in mind when he wrote. Nevertheless, that
gospel may have been later ascribed to Matthew on the basis of Papias’
words.
A very different and perhaps much earlier understanding of Matthew
occurs in the Gospel of Thomas, logion 13. In response to Jesus’ question
202 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

about who he (Jesus) is like, Matthew answers: “A wise philosopher.”

This suggests that he is interested in and knowledgeable about philos-
ophers. That interest places him outside, or beyond, those oriented
solely to Jewish tradition and suggests a more cosmopolitan orientation.
(Interestingly, it is Peter who gives the Judaistic answer, “a righteous
angel or messenger,” which is an obvious variation on Mark 8:29.)
As for Thomas and Bartholomew, neither is connected with the
Judaistic interpretation of Christ in the post-resurrection period. The
same is true of Mary. Although she accompanies Jesus during parts of
his ministry (Luke 8:2; Mark 15:40-41; Matt 27:55-56) and witnesses the
resurrection, the gospels give her little to say, and nothing that might
imply a Judaistic interpretation of Jesus.
One further problem is why four male names were used rather than
three. As has been noted, Bartholomew tends to be overlooked in
gnostic tradition. Even in the Sophia of Jesus Christ he is only given one
question, whereas Philip, Matthew, and Mary have two each, while
Thomas has three. The most likely answer is that the writer was
presenting a group that would not only replace in a sense the orthodox
group (Peter, James, John, and Andrew) but would also mirror them as
closely as possible (as far as the males were concerned). And since the
orthodox group has a minor player, namely Andrew, the gnostic group
should have one too, namely Bartholomew.”
This section has argued, then, that the reason for the choosing of
Philip, Thomas, Matthew, Bartholomew, and Mary to be named in the
Sophia of Jesus Christ is that the more obvious disciples, Peter, James,
John, and Andrew, were already identified with a particular way of
understanding Christ that the writer of the Sophia of Jesus Christ knew
would have a negative impact upon his intended audience, presumably
because it had negative overtones to him. Thus, these five were selected
to be the gnostic disciples, not because of anything that was known
about them, but precisely because little or nothing was known about
them and hence they could easily be used in the presentation of gnostic
Christianity. If the Sophia of Jesus Christ is to be dated as early as I have
argued, and if these five disciples (the Philip circle) were indeed thought
of as the special gnostic five in contrast to the orthodox four (the Peter
circle), one would expect to find that distinction reflected in subsequent
literature and traditions. It is to the examination of that material that we

*° Twice Philip and Bartholomew are connected in gnostic tractates: in Pistis Sophia
IV (Schmidt-MacDermot, Pistis Sophia, 353, lines 15-16) where they are paired, and 1 Jeu
41,11-12, where they are listed together in a grouping with James. These instances may
simply be reflecting the pairing of Philip and Bartholomew in the synoptic lists (Mark
3:18 and par.).
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 203

now turn. We will be looking for indications that support the above
position, as well as those that might disprove it.

Ill. Examination of Revelation Dialogues

Other than the Sophia of Jesus Christ
The texts to be examined are revelation dialogues involving Christ and
his disciples in which disciples are named. I have divided them into four
groups: first, clearly gnostic tractates in which members of the Philip
circle either are named alone or seem dominant (Thomas the Con-
tender, Dialogue of the Savior, the Gospel of Mary, Pistis Sophia IV and
I-III); second, clearly gnostic tractates in which only a member of the
Peter circle is named, or a member of that circle seems dominant (the
Apocryphon of John, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Letter of Peter to
Philip); third, the clearly orthodox tractates (Epistula Apostolorum and
The Questions of Bartholomew); fourth, the probably orthodox, or at
least non-gnostic, tractates (the Apocryphon of James, the Acts of Peter
and the Twelve Apostles).
Group One: The Philip Circle Alone or Dominant
1. Thomas the Contender. Only Judas Thomas and Matthaias are
present. Here Matthaias is the recorder, taking no part in the dialogue
himself. Who is Matthaias? The spelling could be a variant for either
Matthew, the original apostle, or Matthias, the replacement for Judas.
That Matthew is the correct identification is supported by the presence
of Thomas and Matthew together in the Dialogue of the Savior (see
below) and the tradition that Matthew was one of the three recorders of
revelation dialogues in Pistis Sophia I-III. Why should they be picked
out from the Philip circle, assuming there was a recognition of the
group? John Turner suggests that the tractate was composed in Syria, in
part because of the prevalence of Thomas traditions there.“ Matthew
was: also connected with Syria.” Thus it may be that Thomas and
Matthew alone are referred to because of their identification with the
place where the tractate was composed.
2. The Dialogue of the Savior. Twelve disciples are referred to
(II1,5:142,24), but only Matthew, Judas (presumably Thomas), and Mary
are named. Regarding Matthew and Thomas, see the discussion under
Thomas the Contender. i
3. The Gospel of Mary. The number of male disciples is not extant

71 Robinson, NHLE, 188.

22 W. Bauer in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 2.60.
204 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

and may not have been given. Those named are Peter, Andrew, and
Levi (presumably Matthew). Mary is present, and from the title of the
tractate a reader would probably have assumed that she was the one
who preserved the account. The interesting feature from the perspective
of this paper is that Peter and Andrew question the veracity of Mary’s
account of the revelation she received from the savior; furthermore,
Mary is defended by Levi (presumably Matthew), who sternly rebukes
Peter (BG8502,1:17,7-18,21). Thus two disciples from the Peter circle are
pitted against two from the Philip circle, and the latter two end the
tractate in a morally superior position.
4. Pistis Sophia IV. Here the disciples as a group are designated, but
no number is given. The only ones named are, of the males, Thomas,
Andrew, James, Simon the Canaanite, Philip, Bartholomew, Peter, and
John; and, of the females, Mary and Salome. Thus the list of males is a
combination of all the Peter circle and three from the Philip circle. The
fourth disciple from that group, Matthew, has been replaced by Simon
the Canaanite. This is the only instance in the gnostic dialogues of the
use of the name of a male disciple from the last four given in the
synoptic list. It is noteworthy that Matthew is replaced by someone from
the area with which he himself was identified.
In this tractate Mary predominates in the dialogue, while all the male
disciples are given second place (and remain unnamed through the bulk
of the dialogue). Although four crucial pages of the text are missing
(Schmidt-MacDermot, Pistis Sophia, 374), little reason exists to doubt
that Mary has played the lead, when we read Peter’s complaining re-
quest, “My Lord, let the women cease to question that we may also ques-
tion” (Schmidt-MacDermot, Pistis Sophia, 377,14-15). Philip, Thomas,
and Bartholomew receive no special status in the dialogue, perhaps
indicating that in this rather late tractate (first half of the third century)”
the distinction among the males has been lost, under the influence of the
(by the third century) standard orthodox emphasis on the totality of the
(male) disciples.
5. Pistis Sophia I-III. The male disciples named are Peter, James,
John, and Andrew, and three from the Philip circle, Philip, Thomas, and
Matthew. There is no indication of a larger body of male disciples. As
noted above, Philip, Thomas, and Matthew are afforded special status as
the recorders of the dialogue and as the three witnesses to “everything of
the kingdom of God” (71,18-72,20). Three female disciples are named:
Mary (Magdalene), Martha, and Salome. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is
also named. Mary Magdalene predominates throughout as the most

*° Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1.250-51.

 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 205

frequent and insistent questioner of Jesus. At one point she takes the
lead and represents all the disciples to Jesus (Schmidt-MacDermot,
Pistis Sophia, 218,10ff.). At another point the opposition between her and
Peter is emphasized. There she states her fear of Peter, because he
threatens her and hates “our race” (the gnostics? women?—Schmidt-
MacDermot, Pistis Sophia, 162,16-18).
John also figures prominently and, in fact, is named along with Mary
as surpassing the other disciples (Schmidt-MacDermot, Pistis Sophia,
233,1-2). This is explicable on the basis of the tradition, found in the
Apocryphon of John (see next section), that John converted to Gnos-
ticism. Here then he should probably be included among the gnostic
disciples. Pistis Sophia I-III is generally dated in the second half of the
third century.”
Summary of Group One. In these tractates Philip circle disciples,
with, in one late case, the addition of John, appear by themselves or
dominate. The Peter circle in the Dialogue of the Savior is simply
submerged into “the twelve.” When Peter appears (in the Gospel of
Mary [with Andrew], and Pistis Sophia IV and I-III), he is portrayed as
opposing the female (and gnostic) disciples, particularly Mary Mag-
dalene. Significantly for our study, this attitude is found elsewhere in
the Peter circle only in the case of Andrew (Gospel of Mary). It should
also be noted here that evidence indicates that the distinction among the
male disciples began to break down in the third century.”
Group Two: The Peter Circle, Alone or Dominant
1. The Apocryphon of John. Only one disciple, John, the son of
Zebedee, appears. Although the grammatical third person is used in
speaking of John at the very beginning and ending of the tractate, the
first person is generally employed elsewhere. This suggests that the
reader is expected to think of John himself as the author. The title
“Apocryphon” may be intended to contrast with the Gospel; that is, we
may be expected to think that the tractate contains the secret teachings
communicated to John by Christ after the ascension (II,1:1,10-12), in

24 trennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1.250-51.

Another tractate where the distinction among the males is lost is 1 Jeu. In it none of
the apostles named actually enters into individual dialogue with Jesus. The emphasis is
on the apostles speaking “with one voice” (40,3, passim) behind which one can see the
influence of the orthodox emphasis on the totality of the apostolic witness. The writer is
either somewhat confused, or the tractate is really a compilation of a number of sources
that have not been fully reconciled, since in the beginning of it we are told that all the
apostles are Matthew, John, Philip, Bartholomew, and James (41,1-12); but later we hear
(once) about “the twelve” (92,23). That there are only five disciples may reflect the
tradition found in’ Talmud, Sanhedrin, 43a.
206 DOUGLAS M: PARROTT

contrast to the public ones in the Gospel, which were communicated

prior to the ascension.
As in the Sophia of Jesus Christ, the issue here is Christ. The topic is
initially broached by the question of the Pharisee Arimanius and it is
continued by the questions John raises (II,1:1,21-24). In the revelation
that follows, Christ is identified with the divine Autogenes (II,1:7,10-11,
passim). Thus, as does the Sophia of Jesus Christ, the Apocryphon of
John places Christ in a universal structure. Furthermore, he is never
connected to the Jewish tradition.
Why was John, the Son of Zebedee, chosen to be the recipient of this
revelation? Apparently a polemical situation lies in the background.
John is initially depicted as closely attached to Judaism. We are given
the impression that he regularly attends the worship at the temple
(II,1:1,5-8). We observe him in conversation with a Pharisee, but the
Pharisee attacks Christ. He has told lies and “turned you from the
traditions of your fathers,” Arimanius asserts. John does not respond, but
he leaves the temple and goes to a desert place. This scene reveals the
polemical situation. Arimanius’ charges against Jesus emerge from a
Jewish context. But they cannot be answered within that context. To
deal with the doubts that Arimanius raised, John must leave the Jewish
context (temple) and seek (in the desert) a different basis for his faith,
and that basis is, as we have said, a revelation of the place of Christ
within the universal scheme of things. Thus the polemical situation
reflects the struggle between those who think that Christianity can keep
its Jewish roots, and those who contend that that is not possible, but who
opt, instead, for a clean break. John is portrayed in this tractate as
moving from one side to the other. He who had been a devout tradi-
tional Christian is depicted here as becoming a gnostic Christian.”
2. The Apocalypse of Peter. Here only Peter is present. Presumably
Peter wrote or dictated the account, since he speaks in the first person.
The revelation is received while Peter is in a trance-like state (VII,3:84,
12-13), which accounts for the surrealism of portions of the account.
Probably we are to envision the source of the account as the resurrected
Jesus, and perhaps even the ascended Jesus, since a terrestrial Jesus
(whether pre- or post-resurrection) could have spoken directly to Peter.”
°° A tradition of the conversion of John to gnostic Christianity through a revelation
from Christ may also be reflected in the revelation dialogue found in the Acts of John 97-
102 (which might have been included here), having to do with the Cross of Light. Note its
similarities to the Apocryphon of John. (See the discussion by Hornschuh in Hennecke-
Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 2.80-82.)
*” Perkins takes the position that the revelation occurred before the resurrection
(Gnostic Dialogue, 116), as does the Berlin Arbeitskreis (Tréger, Gnosis, 62); similarly,
Brown-Griggs, “Apocalypse of Peter,” 133. James Brashler (in Robinson, NHLE, 339-40)
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 207

The tractate is an anti-orthodox polemic in which ordinary church

members (VII,3:73,23ff.) and church authorities (VII,3:79,22ff.) are
attacked; worship of the crucified savior is derided (VII,3:74,13ff.), and
the reality of Christ's crucifixion is denied (VII,3:81,12ff.). Moreover,
Peter is supposedly the founder of the gnostic Christian community
(VII,3:71,15-22). The tractate accepts the idea that Peter is generally
regarded as the leader of the orthodox. The sons of this world, we are
told, will slander Peter because of their ignorance (VII,3:73,16-21). This
slander refers to the church's laying claim to Peter as the authority for its
teaching, as Klaus Koschorke has correctly seen.” But, the writer claims,
Peter will be praised “in knowledge” (VII,3:73,21-23); that is, those who
have attained true understanding will know that Peter is really a
Gnostic. One cannot be sure whether the writer is aware of traditions
that connect Peter with Gnosticism or whether this is said for polemical
reasons, i.e., to cast doubt on orthodox beliefs by casting doubt on the
orthodox authority. In view of the polemical tone of the whole docu-
ment, however, the latter is more likely the case.”
3. The Letter of Peter to Philip. “Apostles” are present, but no
number is given. One can assume that all eleven or twelve are present
from VIII,2:133,12-13 (“Then Peter gathered the rest”). No women are
mentioned, only Peter and Philip are named, and Peter alone is named
in the dialogue portion of the tractate.
The tractate begins with a letter from Peter to his “beloved brother
and fellow apostle,” Philip, and the brothers with him (VIII,2:132,13-15).
The identity of these “brothers” is unclear. Perhaps they are simply
other Christians, but they may possibly be other apostles. Peter states
that Philip and his group have been separated from “us” (Peter and the
apostles with him—VIII,2:133,1-2), and further that he (Philip) did not
want to come back together “so that we might learn to limit ourselves
(row-) in order to preach the gospel” (VIII,2:133,3-5), Peter, however,
has orders from Jesus.
What is the separation about? Marvin Meyer suggests that it refers to
the separation that occurred when all the Christians except the apostles
left Jerusalem because of persecution (Acts 8:1-4). But the Philip
involved in that separation was Philip the Evangelist, not Philip the
Apostle (Acts 8:4-40). Meyer suggests that the two have been confused
by the writer, and indeed there is some evidence of that having

is noncommital, but is said by Perkins to hold that the revelation takes place after the
resurrection (Gnostic Dialogue, 116, n.6).
78 Polemik, 32.
For a similar view, cf. Perkins, Gnostic Dialogue, 122.
208 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

happened elsewhere.” However, no evidence in Acts indicates that

Philip the Evangelist refused to return to Jerusalem. Meyer speculates
that the writer of the Letter of Peter to Philip may have had access to
traditions that would have clarified that point.”
There is, though, another way to interpret the text, which does not
require the assumption of a confusion between Philip the Apostle and
Philip the Evangelist, nor speculation about lost traditions. The writer
may be thinking of Philip and Peter as representing different ap-
proaches to the preaching of the gospel. Their separation, then, would
dramatize those differences, and the unwillingness to come back to-
gether for the purpose of somehow limiting themselves (geographically?
in what they preach?) would become understandable.
Jacques E. Ménard thinks that Philip and Peter represent two dif-
ferent groups, although he considers the two to be gnostic.** However,
the evidence from gnostic tractates, for Peter’s having been considered a
gnostic apostle is quite weak. Ménard refers to Acts of Peter and the
Twelve Apostles, Apocalypse of Peter and the Apocryphon of James.**
But of these only the Apocalypse of Peter can be considered gnostic with
any assurance, and there Peter may be included not as a representative
of some gnostic group but as part of the anti-orthodox polemic.
Koschorke refers also to the Greek Acts of Peter in support of a gnostic
Peter, but Schneemelcher doubts the gnostic character of the work.*
The passage cited by Koschorke (ch. 20) may be docetic, but it could also
be taken as simply an affirmation of the paradox of the divine-human
nature of Christ. Thus the result of the letter (Philip’s rejoining Peter and
the other apostles) does not necessarily point to a reconciliation of two
gnostic groups, as Ménard suggests. Indeed, it does not appear to point to
reconciliation at all, since at the end of the tractate we learn that the
apostles separated (VIII,2:140,11) and “divided themselves into four
words (waxe—“messages”—Meyer) so they might preach” (VIII,2:140,
23-24). (The “four words” may mean four different approaches to
preaching, and would therefore be reflective of the kind of self-limita-
tion referred to in VIII,2:133,3-4.}** Neither does the result of the letter
°° Meyer, Peter to Philip, 93-94; similarly Luttikhuizen, “Peter to Philip,” 97.
51 Meyer, Peter to Philip, 96.
82 Pierre a Philippe, 7.
83 Pierre a Philippe, 6-7. Cf. the discussion of these tractates later in this paper.
34 Polemik, 33, n. 27.
* Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 2.275.
°° Ménard and Meyer, with different degrees of certainty, see here a reference to the
fourfold gospel (Pierre a Philippe, 47; Peter to Philip, 160-61). But a literal rendering of
the text makes that unlikely. The fourfold gospel meant to Irenaeus the same message
expressed in four gospels, all of which (presumably) were bound together in his time
(Haer. III.11.7-8). There was not a different message for different places, as seems to be
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 209

reflect the submission of Philip to Peter’s authority, as Meyer proposes.”

In truth, Philip submits not to the authority of Peter but the authority of
Christ (VIII,2:133,7-8).
About all that can be said is that the letter sets the stage for the
presence of both Philip and Peter at the revelation given by Christ
(during which none of the disciples are named) and the subsequent
dialogue, mostly among the disciples, in which Peter takes the lead (and
only he is named). Peter and Philip then both receive a very gnostic
revelation from Christ. In the subsequent discussion on suffering, Peter
takes a gnostic position on the sufferings of Christ. He lists the things that
happened to Jesus according to the traditional passion account in
creedal fashion (VIII,2:139,15-21), and then he states that Jesus in fact
did not experience suffering in all this (VIII,2:139,21-22). Suffering
comes to those who are “in the transgression of the mother” (VIII,2:139,
22-23). What Jesus did when he was “among us” only resembled suf-
fering (VIII,2:139,24—25).**
The exclusive focus on Peter in the last part of the tractate (after the
revelation proper) implies that the writer was interested in associating
him with the above gnostic position. His failure to mention Philip is
difficult to explain. One attractive possibility is that a gnostic audience
would have had no trouble knowing where he stood in regard to the
suffering of Christ.
Summary of Group Two. These tractates challenge the thesis of this
section. They are gnostic, but have Peter and John as their major figures.
The question is whether these apostles are in fact being thought of as
gnostic apostles. If so, that would call the thesis into question. However,
in each case it is possible to understand their use as part of the gnostic
the case here. Perkins mistakes “words” for “worlds” and therefore misses the lack of
unity (Gnostic Dialogue, 124). Bethge suggests emending the text to emiqrooy Nca, “four
directions” (“Petrus an Philipus,” col. 168-70, n. 58).
9” Peter to Philip, 96-97.
58 | take this passage to be essentially docetic and an elaboration of VIII,2:136,21-22. I
assume, then, that VIII,2:138,18 (“He suffered on [our] account”) should be read as having
a hidden qualifier. Meyer contends that the tractate affirms the paradoxical position that
Jesus both suffered and was a stranger to suffering (Peter to Philip, 154-56); similarly
Bethge (“Petrus an Philipus,” col. 164). But this position seems more contradictory than
paradoxical. Ménard holds that what is being alluded to is the concept of the double
identity of Jesus: the mortal form that suffered and the immortal being who only smiles at
the suffering of his form (Pierre 4 Philippe, 46). But textual support is lacking. Luttik-
huizen takes VIII,2:139,20-22 to mean “for Jesus this suffering is strange,” suggesting that
he did suffer, but that it was unusual for him to do so (“Peter to Philip,” 101). But that
changes the natural meaning of the text. The Coptic of lines 21-25 is nacnny oywhmo
Mmeixi MKag me iC’ AAAA ANON TETE Al[N]xX!I NKa2 2N TMapasacic NTmaay ayw
ETBE Mai aqeipe Nowe NIM KATA OYEINE 2pai N2uTN, which I translate: “My brothers,
Jesus is a stranger to this suffering. But it is we who have suffered as a result of the
transgression of the Mother. And therefore he did everything among us in a semblance.”
210 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

anti-orthodox polemic. The Apocalypse of Peter offers the clearest

instance of this, with its contrast between the common understanding of
Peter, and the understanding available to the gnostic elite. But the same
pattern can be detected in the Letter of Peter to Philip and the Apoc-
ryphon of John. These disciples whom “worldly” people consider the
pillars of orthodoxy are secretly (it is claimed) Gnostics.
There is a difference, to be sure, between the way John and Peter are
treated in these texts. John is depicted as a genuine convert to Gnos-
ticism, a paradigm of the orthodox Christian who almost literally “sees
the light.” Peter, however, is set in the context of his leadership role in
the church and among the disciples, so his public orthodoxy is more
evident.

Group Three: The Orthodox

1. The Epistula Apostolorum. Eleven disciples are named: John,
Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nath-
anael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas. The clear intention is to name all the
disciples without exception or discrimination. The list contains both the
Peter circle and the Philip circle, but it differs from the synoptic lists in
the final group. The presence of Nathanael suggests that the writer may
have used the Gospel of John, since only there is he listed among the
disciples. (It may be significant in this regard that John and Thomas are
given precedence over Peter in the list.) However, the last two names
are found neither there nor in the synoptic lists. Their source, therefore,
remains a mystery. The Epistula Apostolorum is dated in the first half of
the second century.”
2. The Questions of Bartholomew. “All the apostles” are present (I.1),
but only Bartholomew, Peter, Andrew, and John are named and par-
ticipate in the dialogue (with the exception of the very first question).
Mary, the mother of Jesus, is also present. Here one notes that apostles
from the Peter circle (Peter, Andrew, and John) are with Bartholomew
from the Philip circle, who is the principal questioner. Bartholomew
appears to express conceptions that would have favored the orthodox
side. For example, in II.3 he acknowledges the leadership of Peter
among the apostles (an idea that is repeated elsewhere in the document),
and in III.61-62 he affirms the reality of Jesus’ crucifixion and suffering.
In addition, Mary the mother may serve as a counterpoint to Mary Mag-
dalene in the gnostic tractates. She, too, acknowledges the authority of
Peter (I1.7; IV.2) and, furthermore, she offers to defer to him because he
is a male (II.7; IV.1-5). Research on the text has disclosed elements

°° Duensing in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1. 190-91.

 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 211

coming from different periods, and so one must be hesitant about

drawing conclusions that are too firm. The earliest portions of the
document are dated in the third century."
Summary of Group Three. These two tractates, the first early and
the second late, show the emphasis often noted as characteristic of the
orthodox approach, namely the totality of the apostolic witness. What
has not so often been noted is that this is an exclusively male witness.
The Epistula Apostolorum names all the male disciples (although the list
is not completely in agreement with the synoptic lists), but no female
disciples. The Questions of Bartholomew names only three of the Peter
circle (Peter, Andrew, and John—is James considered martyred by the
time of the tractate?) as well as Bartholomew. But again, no female
disciples. Bartholomew apparently functions in a polemical way, just as
Peter and John did in the gnostic tractates. Mary the mother of Jesus,
possibly serves as a foil to Mary Magdalene.

Group Four: Probably Orthodox or Non-Gnostic.

1. The Apocryphon of James. Twelve disciples are present and
initially all participate in the dialogue, but only two are named: James
and Peter. These two alone receive the revelation, a revelation whose
reception provides entrance into the kingdom of heaven (I,2:2,29-35).
The one responsible for the preservation of the record is James (I,2:1,8-
18). Here the Philip circle disciples are unnamed. Only two disciples,
both from the Peter circle, are given the privilege of receiving the
revelation.“* How does one account for this if the Peter circle represents
the orthodox side and if Apocryphon of James is gnostic? The answer
may lie in the possibility that the Apocryphon of James is not a gnostic
document at all. Nothing clearly renders it gnostic. Motifs are present
that are found in gnostic literature, such as sleep, drunkenness, and
sickness; and there is an emphasis on knowledge. But all of these can be

49 Scheidweiler in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1.488.

There is a possibility that James in this tractate is the Lord’s brother and not the son
of Zebedee. That is the opinion of Puech, which he sets. forth in his introduction to the
editio princeps (Malinine-Puech, Epistula Iacobi, xxi-xxii; see also Hennecke-Schnee-
melcher, NT Apocrypha, 1.335). He argues that the role played by James in the tractate is
like that which James the Just plays elsewhere. His position is followed by F. E. Williams
in Robinson, NHLE, 29, and the Berlin Arbeitskreis (Tréger, Gnosis, 26). The opposite
position is taken by W. C. van Unnik in “Origin,” 149-56 (see also, Malinine-Puech,
Epistula Iacobi, xx-xxi). Several things should be noted here: James the Just is apparently
never placed among the twelve elsewhere, as he is here (I,2:2,7-16); nowhere in the
tractate does Christ refer to a special relationship with James, as he does, e.g., in the
(First) Apocalypse of James; finally, it is worth recalling that our knowledge of James the
son of Zebedee is very limited—he may well have played an important role among the
disciples before his martyrdom.
 212 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

detected in non-gnostic literature. Furthermore, the very orthodox insis-

tence on the reality of the suffering and crucifixion of Christ (I,2:5,9-21)
and the necessity of believing in the cross to be saved (I,2:6,1-7) hardly
favor a gnostic setting. Moreover, the crucifixion as atonement is
affirmed (1,2:13,23-25).”
It is true that the presence of the Apocryphon of James in the Jung
Codex creates a presumption that it is gnostic. But its presence could be
"an instance of a non-gnostic tractate attracting gnostics because of its
motifs. If it is indeed orthodox, then the naming of James and Peter,
only, would be understandable. What at first glance is less explicable is
why the special revelation is granted only to them and not to the other
disciples. This feature seems to violate the orthodox tradition that
revelation is transmitted through all the apostles. That tradition, how-
ever, seems to be a late development within orthodoxy. Peter, James,
John, and Andrew are all involved in special revelations during Jesus’
earthly life according to the canonical Gospels, as noted earlier in this
paper. Paul claims a special post-resurrection revelation concerning
“his” gospel ‘in Gal 1:12. The tradition of prophecy within the early
church presumes special revelations, of which the last book of the New
Testament is an example. All this suggests that the Apocryphon of James
is a fairly early work, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the editors
of the editio princeps date it in the second century (Malinine-Puech,
Epistula Iacobi, xxx), and that van Unnik has suggested a date in the
second quarter of the second century.“
2. The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles. Eleven apostles are
indicated, despite the title (see VI,1:9,21). Here Peter is the major figure
among the apostles, and otherwise only John is named. The tractate is
probably not gnostic; to be sure it has motifs that would have been
attractive to Gnostics, as does the Apocryphon of James, but in fact it
possesses no distinctive gnostic doctrines.“ If it originated in orthodox
circles, or at least non-gnostic circles, it is understandable why only
Peter and John are named. The presence of motifs easily adapted by
Gnostics would probably account for its being in NHC VI, which
contains other non-gnostic tractates as well (the Thunder: Perfect Mind
[probably], Plato, Republic 588b-589b, the Discourse on the Eighth and
Ninth, Prayer of Thanksgiving, Asclepius).
“ For the varieties of opinion among the editors of the editio princeps on the issue
discussed in this paragraph, see Malinine-Puech, Epistula Iacobi, xx-xxv. Williams
expresses the cautious judgment that the Apocryphon of James “may be a Gnostic
document” (Robinson, NHLE, 29).
“8 See “Origin,” 156.
“* See Parrott, Codices V and VI, 202. Perkins takes the opposite view, but gives no
specifics (Gnostic Dialogue, 127,n.35).
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 213

Summary of Section III

There is nothing in the evidence examined thus far that requires
significant modification of the hypothesis that both gnostic and non-
gnostic tractates recognize in appropriate ways a circle of gnostic
disciples connected with Philip, and another group of orthodox, or at
least non-gnostic, disciples connected with Peter. In the first group of
tractates examined above we found that Peter, when present, was
invariably seen as subordinate to and/or in opposition to one or more of
the gnostic disciples. (One could assume that was the normal feeling
among Gnostics about Peter and those associated with him, viz. Andrew
in the Gospel of Mary.) In the second group, Peter and John were given
center-stage in gnostic tractates. But that can be understood in each case
as part of an anti-orthodox polemic. In groups three and four, in
tractates that are definitely or probably orthodox, or at least non-gnostic,
either all the disciples are listed as a group or only Peter circle disciples
are listed (with the single exception of Bartholomew, as noted). Conse-
quently we are justified in saying that in the gnostic tractates, Philip
circle disciples are present routinely and Peter circle disciples appear
only where there is some polemical reason. And the same situation,
mutatis mutandis, prevails in the orthodox or non-gnostic tractates.
It is interesting to note in this connection that the female disciples
(primarily Mary Magdalene) are present in all but one of the group one
tractates, but they are absent in those that are orthodox or probably
orthodox (groups three and four). In all likelihood their absence from
group two tractates (gnostic) is because these tractates feature orthodox
apostles. The gnostic authors may have considered it inappropriate to
have women disciples appear in tractates in which those opposed to
them played major roles. Also, the authors might have anticipated that
their tractates would be used to influence orthodox Christians (almost
certainly the case with the Apocryphon of John), who might have been
negatively influenced by the presence of women disciples.

IV. Tradition Chains

But the revelation discourse was not the only way by which it was
claimed that truth was conveyed from the source of revelation. The
other way was through an oral tradition chain, originating with an
apostle. We must now test the thesis against the reports about such
chains. The questions to be addressed in this section are these: Who are
the apostles from whom the Gnostics claim their tradition chains origi-
nated? Who are the apostles about whom the orthodox make the same
214 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

claim? Do they support or challenge the two circles we have identified

above? How are these claims to be assessed?
A distinction must be made here between public and secret tradition
chains. The orthodox emphasized a tradition chain that was public—the
chain of oral teaching that had been passed from the apostles to their
successors, who were the leaders of the various churches, i.e., the
bishops (Iren. Haer. III.3.1-2). And indeed Irenaeus, in the section just
cited, argues that the public tradition is the complete tradition. The
apostles would certainly, he says, have transmitted any secret teachings
they had to those who would be most likely to assure their preservation,
namely to those who followed them as leaders in their churches. That
they did not suggests there was no such tradition.
But that does not prevent Clement of Alexandria, when he writes his
Stromata, from claiming that he is transmitting secret traditions received
from a chain of teachers that began with the apostles. He looks back not
to all the apostles, however, as we might expect, but specifically to Peter,
James, John, and Paul (1.11.3). The only ambiguity here has to do with
the identity of James. Is he the son of Zebedee or the Lord’s brother?
According to Eusebius, Clement wrote in his Hypotyposes, Book 7, that
after his resurrection Christ gave the gift of knowledge to James the Just,
John, and Peter, and they delivered it to the rest of the apostles, who in
turn passed it on to the seventy (Eccl. Hist. 2.1.4). This, at first glance,
leads one to think that James the Just is meant in the Stromata reference.
However, in Hypotyposes, Clement seems to be referring to a quite
public tradition rather than the secret one he speaks of in the Stromata.
A clearer light on the secret tradition occurs in Origen, Clement’s
younger contemporary in Alexandria. He writes in various places that
he considers the only true Gnostics among the apostles to be Peter and
the two sons of Zebedee (Cells. 2.64; 4.16; 6.77; Comm. in Matt. 12.36,41).
Thus it seems likely that the James referred to by Clement in the
Stromata is James the son of Zebedee. It is unclear why Paul is
included by Clement. Possibly he became attached to the tradition at
some point because of 1 Cor 2:6-7: “Yet among the mature we do impart
wisdom ... a secret and hidden wisdom of God... ,” and because of his
claim to have had a revelation from Christ (Gal 1:12). His presence
supports orthodox traditions from outside the original group of apostles.
It seems, then, that the apostles involved in the secret orthodox tradition
support the assumption of an orthodox Peter circle.
** Hornschuh takes an ambivalent position on the question (Hennecke-Schnee-
melcher, NT Apocrypha, 2.82-83).
“© For a discussion of what that secret tradition might have contained, see Hornschuh
in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 2:80-85.
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 215

Now we must turn to the Gnostics. Just as Clement writes down the
traditions he received, we might expect that the Gnostics would at some
point have written down their traditions. We would expect loose collec-
tions of sayings and anecdotes. The obvious candidates in the Nag
Hammadi collection are the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip.
In the first case, an introduction identifies the words as the secret
sayings of Jesus, and states that Thomas is the writer. By that we are
probably to understand that the words were preserved within the
tradition that was thought to have originated with Thomas. As to the
Gospel of Philip, it does not identify itself as the Gospel of Thomas does;
the title is given only in a subscript. It is a miscellaneous collection,
some of which is said to come from Jesus, but most of which one would
have to ascribe (because of the subscript) to the Philip tradition itself.
Thus two of the tradition collections of the Gnostics are attributed to
apostles within the Philip circle.
Apparently at least one other such collection circulated in antiquity:
The Traditions of Matthias, which may have been synonymous with
The Gospel of Matthias.‘” Clement of Alexandria is probably referring to
such a collection when he writes:
Now regarding the sects, some are called by a personal name, as “The Sect of
Valentinus” and “of Marcion” and “of Basilides,” even if they boast that they bring
forward the opinion of Matthias; for just as the teachings of all the apostles was one, so
also was the tradition (Strom. 7.17.108).

The last clause makes clear that Clement is speaking of “tradition” (7

mapasoots), and making a distinction between it and something more
formal, which he calls “teachings” (3:3acxadia). That he has in mind,
nonetheless, a literary document, is clear from references elsewhere to
“The Traditions” in connection with Matthias (Strom. 2.9.45.4; 7.13.82.1).
Hippolytus (Ref. 7.20.1) presumably alludes to this collection when he
writes that Basilides and Isidore “say that Matthias told them secret
teachings, which he heard from the savior in private instruction” (@notv
eipnxevat MarOlav adrois Adyous Amoxpvqpors, ods HKovee Tapa TOD TwTHpos
kat idtay didaxdeis).
One might wonder why Matthias would have been chosen by the
Gnostics. A certain answer is elusive, but it might have had something to
do with his encratite views, as reported by Clement (Paed. 2.1.16). Also
he seems to have been overlooked by the orthodox, as is suggested by
his omission from the list of apostles in the Epistula Apostolorum.
In addition, according to Hippolytus, the Naassenes also claimed

47 On the literature ascribed to Matthias, see Puech’s discussion in Hennecke-

Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1.308-13. ©
216 ’ DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

traditions originating with James, the Lord’s brother, and transmitted

through Mary (Ref. 5.7.1). In this case, someone was chosen who was not
only not an original apostle but who never became an apostle. He was,
of course, very prominent in the early community and was clearly
identified with Jewish tradition (Acts 15:13-21 and Gal 2:12). But the
Gnostics, as happened with John, developed traditions about James’
becoming a Gnostic as a result of revelations from Christ—cf. (First)
Apocalypse of James and (Second) Apocalypse of James. The trans-
mission through Mary may have been a way of separating the “false”
orthodox tradition from the “true” gnostic one, since presumably Mary
would have been able to sort out the one from the other. There is no
suggestion in Hippolytus that these traditions existed in written form,
although the existence of other written collections makes that a real
possibility.
The traditions examined thus far support the concept of a gnostic
circle of disciples. Those attributed to Thomas and Philip clearly do.
Those connected with Matthias and James, the brother of the Lord,
certainly do not challenge the idea, and can be thought of as lending
additional support to traditions and teachings stemming from the circle.
There are two other reports that must now be examined that are much
less secure than the above. These are the reports that have been taken to
mean that the Basilidians had a tradition attributed to Peter, and the
Valentinians had one attributed to Paul.** They are found in Clement of
Alexandria’s Stromata and are given in the context of Clement’s argu-
ment that the establishment of the Christian-gnostic movement was later
in time than the establishment of the church. He states (Strom. 7.17.106)
that the Basilidians boast that Basilides “signed up for Glaucias as his
teacher,” and he was “the interpreter of Peter” (kav TAavtay ém-
ypapnrat didaoKadov, ws adyodow adroi, rov Térpov éEpunvea).” Likewise
Clement says “they (the Valentinians) say that Valentinus heard
Theodas (as a student)—but he was an acquaintance of Paul” (acavrws
b€ kat Ovadrevrivoy Qcoda diaxnxoevar Pepovoww yvwpysos 8° odTos yeyovet

“*Tt is an intriguing possibility that Hippolytus, when he refers to Mary, may be

confusing her with the priest Mareim, who is identified in the (Second) Apocalypse of
James as the writer of the tractate (V,4:44,13-17).
“° See Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 2.85-86; also Pagels, Gnostic Paul,
°° The Greek here is ambiguous and permits of the following translation by Hort-
Mayor: “Basilides, in spite of his claiming to have been taught by Glaucias, whom they
themselves boast to have been the interpreter of Peter” (Clement, 189). The structure of
the next sentence, with ¢épovow clearly referring to the preceding rather than the
following, strongly suggests that adxotew also goes with the preceding. That is the way it
is taken in the ANF translation.
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 217

IlavAov). Clement is implying that these claims for antiquity are ridicu-
lous because of the time gap involved.
We, however, must ask who said what and who claimed what. Clearly
the Basilidians said that Basilides was taught by Glaucias, and the
Valentinians assert that Valentinus heard Theodas. But who claimed
that these teachers were, respectively, “the interpreter of Peter” and “the.
acquaintance of Paul,” suggesting thereby that they knew those apostles?
It seems unlikely that either the gnostic leaders or their followers would
have moved so far from reality as to have claimed that Basilides and
Valentinus, who flourished in the middle third of the second century,
could have been taught by those who would have been mature during
the same period in the first century. It seems more likely that in this
polemical context Clement himself adds the descriptions of these
teachers, descriptions designed to make the Basilidians and the Valen-
tinians appear foolish.
But it is nonetheless possible that there was some truth in what
Clement says. Possibly Glaucias and Theodas, as teachers of Basilides
and Valentinus respectively, taught about Peter and Paul—however, not
in the first century, but in the second. And perhaps Clement felt that he
was not stretching things too much to describe the one as an interpreter
and the other, as an acquaintance; it is, after all, only in the context of
his argument that one receives the clear impression that these two
teachers were contemporaries of the apostles in question. Clement
makes no mention of the transmission of secret teachings. Considering
that, and the nature of these statements as we have examined them, one
would have to say that Clement provides no real evidence for secret oral
traditions among the Basilidians and the Valentinians purporting to stem
from Peter and Paul respectively.

V. Conclusion
Before summarizing the argument of the paper, one question raised
earlier remains: Why are the twelve and the seven referred to in the
Sophia of Jesus Christ, when only four men and one woman are named?
This problem is shared by the Dialogue of the Savior in regard to the
twelve. One plausible response is that the term “the twelve” symbolizes
the whole body of the apostles. Likewise, the “seven women” (in the
Sophia of Jesus Christ) would be another way of saying that all the
women disciples were there too (given the general understanding of
seven as expressing fullness or completeness). So these terms mean that
the totality of possible witnesses were present for the revelation, even
though not all were named. It may have been necessary to make that
218 DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

point in order to deal with the orthodox emphasis on the totality of the
apostolic witness, as in the Epistula Apostolorum (see also the Didache).
But since the orthodox emphasis may have been a response to gnostic
stress on special disciples, it might be that the twelve and the seven
were later editorial additions in the gnostic tractates. Irenaeus suggests,
in fact, that the Gnostics originally claimed only the named disciples,
when he states that they held that Jesus “instructed a few of his
disciples, whom he knew to be capable of understanding such great
mysteries, in these things, and was then received into heaven” (Haer.
1.30.14). Since the numbers only appear once in each tractate (at the very
beginning of the Sophia of Jesus Christ and at Dial. Sav. III,5:142,24), it
is easy to imagine their having been added after the original composi-
tion.
In summary, this study has sought to demonstrate that early in the
Christian gnostic movement a circle of disciples of Jesus was chosen to
be the bearers of the distinctive Christian-gnostic message, while at the
same time another group was identified with the orthodox position.
Further, an examination of tractates and collections of traditions has
made it apparent that those choices had a significant influence subse-
quently; that is, the use of these names in later gnostic and orthodox
revelation dialogues and in collections of traditions is consistent with the
initial usage. Although the first use of the names was probably not
polemical (e.g., the Sophia of Jesus Christ), but rather governed by the
needs of early evangelism, their subsequent use tended to reflect the
struggle between the Gnostics and their orthodox opponents. In the
gnostic revelation dialogues, Peter, Andrew, James, and John, at one
time or another, are seen as being secretly gnostic, in an inferior position
in relation to the gnostic disciples, as opposed to the active role of the
female (gnostic) disciples of Jesus, or as converting to Gnosticism. And
the orthodox appear to have used at least one gnostic disciple in a
similar fashion.
The polemical interest in the gnostic tractates focuses on Peter, though
not to the exclusion of others. That is quite different from the sharing of
the spotlight that occurs among the disciples of the Philip circle. All,
with the exception of Bartholomew, have their day, and then step back
to make room for someone else. This difference may reflect both the
polemical and the sociological situation. On the one hand, Peter natur-
ally had a prominent place, since he was perceived as in some sense the
founder of orthodoxy and the authority for its teachings, and thus for the
Gnostics, the chief representative of the opposition. On the gnostic side,
on the other hand, no one disciple emerged to whom the Gnostics
looked as their founder. Sociologically, the focus on Peter may reflect
 GNOSTIC AND ORTHODOX DISCIPLES 219

the increasingly monarchical situation within orthodoxy, while the lack

of any corresponding focus upon any particular individual in the Philip
circle reflects the rather fluid leadership situation within the gnostic
movement.
One probable conclusion of this study is that there was probably no
Petrine gnostic group, as has been suggested by some.” The use of the
name Peter was apparently governed entirely by the needs of the
struggle between the Gnostics and the orthodox. He is not adopted by
any group of Gnostics. In this connection it is significant that we do not
have a Gospel of Peter comparable to the Gospels of Thomas and Philip
(i.e., a sayings collection, suggesting a period of oral transmission within
a group).”

*? For example, Perkins (Gnostic Dialogue, 115), Ménard (Pierre 4 Philippe, 5-7) and
the Berlin Arbeitskreis (Tréger, Gnosis, 62).
For a discussion of the extant Gospel of Peter, which is a passion- -resurrection
narrative, see Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1.179-87.
 emtee
“Peete mae HeSsett ae

ereeene wopieis ei
peal, Nae eet ig
 10
ORDERING THE COSMOS:
IRENAEUS AND THE GNOSTICS

Pheme Perkins

Pheme Perkins is professor of Theology (New Testament) at Boston College

where she has taught since 1972. She received her Ph.D. from Harvard Univer-
sity. Dr. Perkins is Vice-president (and President elect) of the Catholic Biblical
Association and of the New England Region of the American Academy of Reli-
gion. She serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Biblical Literature,
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Horizons and College Teaching and on the advisory
councils for Interpretation, Trinity Monograph Series and Biblical Research.
She has written fourteen books, among them, The Gnostic Dialogue (1980),
Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (1984) and
Who is This Christ with R. Fuller (1983), as well as numerous articles on
gnosticism and New Testament. She lectures widely to both scholarly and lay
groups in the U.S. and Canada. Current projects include studies of tradition
history in gnostic cosmologies; work on Jesus as teacher, and a revision of her
text Reading the New Testament.

Preface
his study is a limited analysis of Irenaeus’ argument with the
Gnostics; it will demonstrate that the objections in the cosmological
section of his argument in Adversus Haereses form a pattern that
derives its coherence from topoi of polemic between philosophical
schools. The rhetorical genre of this section of Adversus Haereses is the
demonstration of the opponent'’s self-contradictions and is itself a well-
established pattern in the second-century philosophical schools. The
investigation of the more striking philosophical topoi in Adversus
Haereses reveals a pattern of anti-Platonist polemic that derives from an
earlier attempt to compare the superior Christian account of creation,
God, and providence with accounts that were common in philosophic
circles. Because both the rhetoric of this section of Adversus Haereses

221
222 PHEME PERKINS

and the opposition to popular Platonism (a Platonism that appears, for

example, in Albinus’ Didaskalikos) are at home in Irenaeus’ native
Smyrna, it is possible that he learned this form of argument in Christian
circles at Smyrna. He is able to turn it against the Gnostics because
Platonic strains turned up in Gnostic writings. This explains why his-
torians of Middle Platonism refer to the Valentinian system as “under-
world Platonism.” The genre which Irenaeus uses, however, has its
limitations. Like Plutarch, who refutes Stoicism, Irenaeus is not com-
pelled to represent the doctrine of his opponents accurately. It is even
possible that Irenaeus has “over-Platonized” the Gnostic system. For
Irenaeus is convinced that his Gnostic opponents are the sort of people
who say anything that comes into their heads, a charge which Plutarch
raises against Chrysippus.

I. Introduction
Studies of the Valentinian system reported in Irenaeus’ Haer. I.1-8 have
often pointed to the parallels between the cosmic structure of the
Valentinian system and that of Middle Platonist speculation.’ J. Dillon
describes the Valentinian system as a parody of Plato’s Timaeus; the
Valentinian account of the ignorant demiurge creating the world makes
it clear that there is no possibility for the Platonic salvation embodied in
the upward movement of the soul.? What Dillon does not notice, how- —
ever, is that Irenaeus brings that same objection against the Valentinian
system: it makes salvation impossible (Haer. I1.5.1-2).° And W. R.
Schoedel’s study of the topological argument in Gnostic texts has shown
that Gnostic teachers responded to such philosophical criticism of their
systems.‘

* Dillon, Middle Platonists, 384-89. Dérrie, “Cosmologie,” 400-405 sees the end of the
Hellenistic period as one of dissatisfaction with previous cosmologies and of revolu-
tionary philosophical changes. The elements of the second-century Gnostic systems, he
argues, were germinating in the oral traditions of the first century; cf. Kramer, Ursprung
238-62. Daniélou (Gospel, 339) thinks that the vocabulary of negative theology in
Gnosticism, and particularly in Valentinus, was borrowed from Middle Platonism.
? Dillon, Middle Platonists, 387-88.
Irenaeus is aware that salvation and knowledge are philosophical issues. His
collection of diverse philosophical sources for Gnostic opinions (Haer. II.14) includes the
charge that either the earlier philosophers had the truth, in which case special revelation
of gnosis is unnecessary; or they did not have the truth, in which case the Gnostic views
based on them are untrue.
“Schoedel, “Theology,” 88-108; Armstrong, (“Gnosis,” 87-124) argues against any
 ORDERING THE COSMOS 223

This present study is not aimed at further investigation of the relation-

ship between Gnostic and philosophical speculation. Instead, it un-
covers the philosophical substructure behind Irenaeus’ refutation of the
Valentinian system in Haer. II. This presupposes W. C. van Unnik’s
analysis of the topics appropriate to theological speculation in Haer.
1.10.3 which has pointed out that Irenaeus’ refutation does not only
address the issues raised by the Gnostics, but that it moreover contains
other material not developed in that setting, though the appropriate
topics may have been part of the discussion with them.’ Thus, one must
read Irenaeus with attention to the hints of the wider theological debates
of the 160s and 170s, the era that informed his argument. Van Unnik
observed that Irenaeus deliberately opposes this material to positions
held by “those teachers destitute of divine insight.” Though that objec-
tion might be thought to point to the heretical teachers, it is directed to a
school that emphasizes the contrast between the One God of Chris-
tianity and the plurality of divine ideas beyond the creator. That objec-
tion goes well beyond the Valentinians to whom it is applied in Haer. II;
it attacks a fundamental Platonic patterning of the world. Speculation
about the supreme God and the demiurge, and the location of ideas in
the divine mind are characteristic of second-century Platonism.’ Van
Unnik observed also that in these contexts Irenaeus expands his typical
“creator of heaven and earth” motif with “things temporal and eternal,
visible and invisible.”
Irenaeus’ stock arguments against the Valentinians have a parallel in
Philo’s arguments against the Platonists. Philo’s reconciliation of Genesis
with Platonic speculation providing for the divine creation of the intel-
ligible world, concludes with a list of five points that characterize the
truth taught in Moses’ story:
(1) The deity is and has been from eternity (against atheists).
(2) God is One (against polytheists who transfer the chaos of mob rule
from earth to heaven).
(3) The world came into being (against those who claim that it is
without beginning and eternal and thus deny the superiority of God).’

Gnostic influence on Middle Platonists like Plutarch and Atticus and he thinks that the
philosophical content of Gnostic systems is vastly overrated.
5 van Unnik, “Document,” 205; 225-26.
van Unnik, “Document,” 203-4.
” Dillon, Middle Platonists, 6-7, 113-14.
8 Haer, I.4.5; 22.1; IV.5.1; see van Unnik, “Document,” 211-12.
® Daniélou (Gospel, 324) traces the epithet agenétos “unoriginated” (cf. Haer. 11.8.3) to
Hellenistic Jewish apologetic. Those apologists who adopt Middle Platonism use agen-
nétos, “ungenerated.”
224 PHEME PERKINS

(4) The world, like God, is one and unique (against those who think
that there may be a plurality or an infinite number of worlds).”
(5) God exercises providence over creation (against those who deny
providence, for the laws of nature show that the maker cares for what
has been made as the parent for children)." .
To summarize, Philo’s five points provide a “handbook” defense by
which one can evaluate competing claims about the origin of the cosmos
and its relationship to God. They do not embody, as he admits, the
subtleties of the account of creation which were given earlier in the
treatise. Such a pattern of stock argumentation also underlies Irenaeus’
arguments. The anti-Platonic character of these arguments form part of
a persistent theme in Haer. II.
It is possible that the anti-Platonic substructure of the argument
Irenaeus employs against the Gnostics was learned in Christian circles
in Smyrna. After all, the Smyrna of Irenaeus’ youth was one of the three
flourishing centers of the Sophistic movement in the second century and
harbored two famous Platonist teachers, Albinus and Theon. Galen, the
second-century physician and medical writer (C.E. 129-ca. 200), also
studied with Albinus in Smyrna between C.E. 149 and 157.” Irenaeus’
letter to Florinus, dissuading him from his attraction to the Gnosticism
which he had apparently learned in lower Asia Minor (Smyrna?),
documents this intellectual climate (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.20.1-6).

II. The Genre of Adversus Haereses II.1-19

Irenaeus learned more than doctrines from his teachers. He also learned
the forms of argument which he employs.’ In this section he promises to
subvert the opinions of his opponents by first showing the improbability
of Gnostic doctrines. It is followed by arguments against their misinter-
pretation of the “discourses of the Lord” (Haer. II. Preface; 11.2). The
demonstration of the improbability of Gnostic doctrine is then divided
into two subsections, each ending with a summary (at II.8.3 and II.19.9).
Both of these subsections of the first half of the argument demonstrate
* Both Stoics and Platonists rejected the Epicurean claims that there could be an
infinite number of worlds (Cicero, Nat. Deor. I.20). The five solids of the Timaeus led
Plutarch to an elaborate defense of the possibility of five rather than the commonly
accepted one (Def. Or. 421F-425D).
Philo, Op. Mund. 170-71. The Epicureans were regularly attacked for destroying
divine providence. Philo extends the attack to all who deny that the world is “created.”
“Cf. Dillon, Middle Platonists, 267 on the Middle Platonists in Smyrna. For the
flourishing of these Asia Minor cities in the second century see Bowersock, Greek
Sophists, 17-29 and Millar, Empire, 196-97 and 154 on the connection between Asia
Minor and Gaul.
*3 On the rhetorical structure of Haer. I see Perkins, “Irenaeus and the Gnostics.”
 ORDERING THE COSMOS 225

the contradictory character of Gnostic propositions, while the second

half expands upon points already mentioned in the first half. Although
arguments about Gnostic contradictions appear in the concluding sec-
tion of the work as well, they are not its primary aim. In the conclusion,
Irenaeus turns directly to scriptural demonstration of his points."
The opening sections of Haer. II.1-19 fit a well-established genre in
philosophical polemic flourishing in the period in which Irenaeus
lived: refutation of adversaries by demonstrating the contradictions in
their system. Recognizing the genre of a treatise such as Irenaeus’ Haer.
II.1-19 is necessary for evaluating the accuracy of their evidence for
doctrines held by opponents. Dillon describes the interschool polemic as
typified by “a high degree of rhetorical unreasonableness.”* H. Cher-
niss’s detailed introduction to Plutarch’s treatise On Stoic Self-Contra-
dictions provides a warning both against those who would condemn the
author of such atreatise for failing accurately to represent an opponent
and against those who suppose that such treatises have no order at all.
Such a work is neither intended to be an exegesis nor an aid to the
opponent to reconcile his inconsistencies. An author's use of repetitious,
ambiguous or careless formulations in arguing against his opponent does
not prove that he was unfamiliar with the more sophisticated arguments
of the opponent's philosophy.”
These catalogues seek to convict the opponent of as many inconsis-
tencies as possible. For example, though he is using this genre, Plutarch
does have a guiding theme in his refutation of Chrysippus. The opening
collection of inconsistencies looks to prove that Chrysippus is “a person
who says absolutely anything that may come into his head” (Stoic.
Repug. 1047B). That summary of inconsistencies is followed in Stoic.
Repug. 28-29 by a collection that appears to be random until one
realizes that Plutarch has organized it around a theme: Chrysippus’
disregard for evidence and authority, especially Plato and Aristotle.”

14 These divisions might be intended to divide the book as a whole into the tripartite
structure of the philosophical thesis; see the discussion of the thesis structure in Runia,
“Philo,” 118-19. Haer. I serves Irenaeus as the necessary doxographical compilation for
sucha thesis; on the doxographical compilation see Runia, “Philo,” 124.
‘8 The Epicurean school opens (Nat. Deor. I.8-15) with a condensed catalogue of
paradoxes of other schools much like the summaries that Irenaeus uses in Heer. II.
Plutarch’s surviving writings on the self-contradictions of the Stoics represent only part of
his own writings in this genre, since he also composed such works against the Epi-
cureans.
Any argument that comes to hand may be used in such a refutation. It need not
reflect the author's own views or even those of his school. See Dillon, Middle Platonists,
248-49; Runia, “Philo,” 130-31.
” Cherniss, Moralia, 402-404.
‘8 Cherniss, Moralia, 387.
226 PHEME PERKINS

Irenaeus uses a similar logic: not only do the Gnostics show that they
do not know what they are talking about, but they also have no regard
for authority. The Gnostics have shown themselves to be as vacuous as
the void in their cosmological systems (Haer. 11.8.3). What is worse, their
views about the creator contradict both the universal agreement of
humanity and the explicit authority of Scripture (Haer. I1.9.1). Such
disregard for the sources of truth can only lead to ignorance (Haer.
1I.11.1-2).
This argument from “universal agreement of humanity” frequently
appears in theological debate. Both the Stoic and Epicurean schools
claimed that universally held “common notions,” to use the Stoic term,”
attested to the truth. Plutarch, who devoted a treatise to Stoic common
notions, invokes the common notion of God to argue against Chrysippus.
To add to the authority of the common notion of God, he quotes a
definition of God from Antipater of Tarsus. He argued that though Jews,
Syrians and poets do not agree that everyone considers God benign, no
one believes that God is subject to the kind of generation and destruc-
tion suggested by the Stoics (Stoic. Repug. 1051E).
Plutarch is quite willing to use the Stoics’ doctrine of common notions
against their own system in the treatise on that topic. Not only do their
“common notions” fall short of standards required of conceptions held
by people generally, the Stoics even admit that only selected common
notions are a natural guide to truth. Indeed, what is a common notion in
one part of the system may contradict a common notion in another part
(Com. Not. 1070DE; 1076CD).”
Though Irenaeus’ own standard is finally the “rule of truth” which is
universally believed (Haer. 1.10.2; III.2.1),2* he carefully includes the
broader appeal in his use of the argument from consensus against his
opponent’s view of the creator (Haer. II.9.1). The pagans learn from
nature, he argues, what all believers have learned from Scripture,
namely, that the cosmos has been created and ordered by God.
Plutarch’s treatment of the Stoic notion of “the whole of things” (to
pan), ie., the cosmos with the void (kenon apeiron), not only has
parallels in Irenaeus, but it also suggests a rhetorical strategy which
Irenaeus may have appropriated. Plutarch argues that the Stoic concept

Both the Epicurean and Stoic representatives use this argument in Cicero, De
Natura Deorum. The Platonist expresses skepticism, preferring to rely on the authority of
the tradition handed down from the fathers (Nat. Deor. III.7). If the existence of God
were indeed a universal notion, then discussion and argument about it could only
produce doubt, he argues (Nat. Deor. III.8).
?° Cherniss, Moralia, 627-30.
*1 For Irenaeus the content of the regula veritatis, or tradition, is identical with what is
handed on in Scripture, so Daniélou, Gospel, 151-53.
 ORDERING THE COSMOS 227

actually coincides with the common notion that people have of the non-
existent. He argues that when Stoics claim to apprehend the non-
existent, they render their whole doctrine incoherent and unintelligible
(Com. Not. 1073E-1074D).
Irenaeus also employs similar tactics against the Gnostics. He asserts
that when they discern a god beyond the creator, they have, in effect,
searched out the non-existent (Haer. I].1.3). Their account of the cosmos
leaves the plérdma “Fullness” situated in an infinite abyss of plérdmata
and depths (Haer. II.1.4). Indeed, he points out that there is no logically
consistent account of the origins of the Gnostic void (Haer. II.4.1; 8.3).
Thus, the arguments of the opponents are without substance, and they
and their audience have become “empty” (Haer. II.8.3; 11.1). Because
this pattern of argument resembles so closely Plutarch’s treatment of the
Stoic notions of “the All” and “the void,” it would appear that Irenaeus
has borrowed the argument and reapplied it to his debate with the
Gnostics.
Irenaeus begins Book II with a catalogue of Gnostic self-contra-
dictions. Such a catalogue gathers as many arguments as possible in
order to prove that his opponents’ views are irrational, self-contradictory
and contrary to common opinion. This process of listing arguments often
includes insights from different schools and need not reflect the account
that an author would give in a non-polemical, philosophical analysis.
One of the stock rhetorical ploys of the interschool rivalry between
Platonists and Stoics equated the “indefinite void” of the Stoic cos-
mology with the “emptiness” of Stoic argument. Hence, the Gnostic
description of the cosmos as pléréma and kendma provided Irenaeus
with a ready-made pattern of argument to use against his opponents.

Ill. Ideas and the Divine Mind

Irenaeus’ mode of argument against the Gnostics reflects the polemic of
Platonists against Stoic cosmology. Since Irenaeus is not the first Chris-
tian to adapt such argumentative topoi to a defense of the biblical
cosmology, he has most likely learned this argument from the Christian
polemic against philosophers. Further investigation of the content of
Irenaeus’ arguments suggests that they come fromatradition of Chris-
tian polemic less favorably disposed toward Platonism than, for exam-
ple, the Alexandrian tradition.
The most striking examples of anti-Platonic argument occur in Ire-

2 The argument against infinity in the world, or infinity of worlds, is a standard topos
of anti-Epicurean polemic.
228 PHEME PERKINS

naeus’ treatment of ideas and of the divine mind. Albinus’ textbook

summary of Platonism provides a guide to established Platonic concepts
up to the mid-second century (Did.10-22). Since he taught at Smyrna,
Albinus would have represented the Platonism known to Irenaeus and
his teachers. Since according to Albinus Platonism distinguished the
transcendent, self-intelligizing god from the active demiurgic one, it also
separated the highest god from the world. Assimilation of the demiurge
to the Stoic logos “World Soul” thus led to placing the ideas in the mind
of the second or demiurgic god.” For Albinus, the World Soul is an
irrational entity which must be awakened by the demiurge.* Once
awakened, the World Soul creates order by looking upward toward the
objects of intellection in the demiurge.
Dillon observes that the mythological strains in this account are more
typical of the “underworld Platonism” in Valentinianism than of the
strictly academic interpretations of Plato.* Similar mythic topoi in Plu-
tarch’s use of the Isis and Osiris myth, however, caution one against too
sharp a division between academic and “underworld” Platonism.
The discovery of truth through the exegesis of “ancient traditions”
appears to have been a preoccupation of Platonists in general. For
example, Plutarch defends the introduction of a principle of disorder
into cosmology with a stock catalogue of dualistic opinions from myth
and philosophy (Is. Osir. 369E-370E). Having established by means of
the catalogue the antiquity and universality of his view, Plutarch inter-
prets Tim. 35A as a veiled account of a doctrine which Plato later put
forward explicitly in Laws, 896DF, namely that there are two motions in
the universe, the beneficent and the maleficent. Though the good always
predominates, evil inheres inevitably in the body and soul of the cosmos
(Laws, 370E-371B). Plutarch acknowledges the originality of this exe-
gesis of the Timaeus. When God created the cosmos, Plutarch contends,
he ordered the initially irrational soul by introducing into it intelligence
and reason. Only at that point can it be spoken of as “World Soul” (Tim.
1014A-1015F: De animae procreatione).” The example of Plutarch
shows that Platonist exegesis turns to the Timaeus to support the view
that the world had a beginning, although as far as is known, Atticus is
the only Platonist to agree that the world must have been created.”

*° Dillon, Middle Platonists, 45-48. Albinus’ teaching appears to have been particularly
“mixed” in its use of Aristotelian and Stoic categories and arguments; so Merlan, “Plato to
Plotinus,” 64-65.
74 Albinus, Did. 10,3; Dillon (Middle Platonists, 282-87) notes on p. 46 the comparison
with Isis rejoicing at being impregnated by the divine logos (Plutarch, Is. Osir. 369ff.).
* Dillon, Middle Platonists, 286-87.
2° Cherniss (Moralia, 136-37) emphasizes Plutarch’s originality in this interpretation.
*” See Cherniss, Moralia, 148, n. a; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 229 and 252-54.
 ORDERING THE COSMOS 229

These unusual views may have been the result of a wider development
in Platonist circles that sought to interpret Plato in light of “ancient
traditions.” On this basis one can surmise that Plutarch possibly owes his
interest in Zoroastrian theology to his teacher Ammonius.”
Irenaeus’ arguments against the Gnostic account of the ignorant
demiurge presuppose a cosmology in which the divine logos provides
the ideas by which the demiurge/World Soul brings the world into
being (Haer. III.7; 16.1). Irenaeus’ objection to a creator of the world,
who derives his plan from a conception outside himself, could apply to
any formula that presupposed a series of “gods” involved in the creative
process, since it would permit an infinite series of artificers (Haer.
III.7.5). Irenaeus contrasts such a cosmology with the Christian view that
there is one God, the Artificer who formed the world according to forms
that he himself made.
This qualification fits the revision of Platonic theory in Philo, who
rejects the passivity and transcendence of the God above the demiurge
in favor of the activity of the creator. The paradigm, which the Timaeus
holds to be independent of the demiurge, becomes God's creation. For
Philo, on the other hand, the act of divine creation first provides the
noetic world which is itself the necessary pattern for subsequent mate-
rial creation (Op. Mund. 7-20). This double creation provides as many
classes of being in the intelligible world as in the sensible one (Op.
Mund. 16).”* Hence, Philo rejects the view that the ideas exist some-
where outside of God, insisting that they are not in any “place” but
constitute the divine logos. No other “place,” he argues, could contain
the divine powers; created being cannot do so. God is forced to limit his
powers when he bestows divine goodness on creation (Op. Mund. 16-
20). In sum, the central apologetic function of Philo’s cosmology is to
demonstrate the superiority of the Mosaic revelation of the single
creator God to Platonic views.
Irenaeus’ topological argument in Haer. II.3.1 to 4.3 also speaks of the
overwhelming greatness of God, which is not limited to a particular
place. He does not follow Philo’s tradition of presenting the logos as the
divine archetype. In fact, Irenaeus’ tradition contrasted the Christian
doctrine of creation to all systems of creation according to a divine
paradigm. The argument against such a scheme contrasts the divine
power and eternity to the changeable nature of the created world.
This argument against the view that created things are images of
aeons in the plérdma raises the objection that, if the lower world was

28 Dillon, Middle Platonists, 203.

28 Dillon, Middle Platonists, 157-60.
 230 PHEME PERKINS

created to honor the heavenly, it would have to continue eternally.

Honor from a transitory creation is useless (Haer. II.7.1). Most Platonists
understood “creation” in the Timaeus to be merely symbolic. Philo
argued, for example, that the world was created because it was depen-
dent upon divine power for its existence. Creation, however, could not
mean a beginning in time, since time is created by the motion of the
world (Aet. Mund. 13-19).
Irenaeus does not have to argue with the Gnostics over the creation of
the world. The argument about images appears to have begun from the
fact of the corruptibility of the cosmos and to have been used to argue
that the cosmos could not have been created according to heavenly
archetypes. Had creation been based on heavenly archetypes, the
world, like that of which it is an image, would be eternal. Such an
argument cannot be addressed to Platonists, since they would agree that
the cosmos is eternal. It presumes a dispute over the creation of the
cosmos. Further challenges to the theory of “a world of ideas” might well
apply to most Platonist accounts. Philo, perhaps dependent upon
Eudorus,” held that there was an idea corresponding to each natural
thing, although no ideas corresponded to an artificial thing—a view also
held by Albinus.
Irenaeus, who frequently chides the Gnostics for thinking that thirty
~ aeons would be sufficient to generate the multiplicity of beings in this
world (Haer. II.7.3), grounds his argument in a theory of forms. He holds
that the multiplicity of the animal creation cannot be represented as
images of things in the heavenly world, since it includes wild, as well as
tame, animals. This objection is based on a principle about spiritual
being that Irenaeus uses throughout: spiritual being does not permit
differentiation of quality in the sense that one spiritual entity could be
defective, inferior or inharmonious with another. Beyond numerical
speculations about the introduction of “difference” into the world of
ideas, second-century Platonism gave little attention to the problems
reflected in this objection. There was little concern over how to relate
the diversity of the material world to the world of ideas.*
Irenaeus presses the argument. He argues that forms can only be the
basis of the material world if one admits into the eternal realm the

*° Dillon, Middle Platonists, 132f.; Runia, “Philo,” 126.

31 Dillon, Middle Platonists, 128.
%? For Albinus’ teaching as a summary of common Platonic topoi, see Dillon, Middle
Platonists, 42; Xenocrates apparently attempted to combine the five solids with a material
element in order to explain how the ideas could shape the material world (Dillon,
Middle Platonists, 31).
 ORDERING THE COSMOS 231

limitations of space, figure, and corruptibility (Haer. II.7.6), but no one

would make such an admission, as Philo’s description of the relationship
between the forms and the divine logos makes clear. This line of attack
suggests that Irenaeus is not speaking from a tradition of Christian
Platonism, for even his discussion of the divine mind diverges from such
a tradition.* Clearly, any biblical interpretation of creation has to depart
from the dual image of the passive, self-contemplating One and the
active demiurge.
Philo describes the creative activity of God as the central facet of his
divinity. He reminds the reader that one must think of God as doing all
_ things simultaneously: there is no distinction between the thought
behind what God does and the activity of commanding things into
existence (Op. Mund. 13). Likewise Irenaeus draws upon the simul-
taneous character of divine operations to undermine the validity of the
mind analogy. God, he contends, is all mind, all reason and active spirit
(Haer. 11.28.4-5). His opponents have misunderstood mental analogies
because they think of separable activities such as humans experience.
Irenaeus believes that the dual use of logos among the Greeks con-
tributed to this mistake, because they used logos to represent both the
principle of things and the instrument by which thought is expressed.
Prior to making this argument, Irenaeus has attempted to ward off the
‘objection that the ordered world would have to be co-eternal with the
activity of the divine intellect, insisting that one cannot ask the question
of what God was doing prior to the creation of the world (Haer. II.28.3).
Irenaeus is apparently using a tradition which had been formulated to
dispute the Platonist teaching about the creation of the world. That
tradition had rejected the distinction between a passive, transcendent
God and an active demiurgic logos on the grounds that the activity of the
divine creation was its highest mode of operation. Platonists, the tradi-
tion argued, were deceived in drawing too close an analogy between
divine and human. This tradition further attacked the theory that the
world was created according to eternal patterns, the forms. Since the
forms are regularly situated in the divine mind, the two topics must be
treated together. This world cannot be created according to unified,
eternal patterns. Its diversity, its temporal limitations, and its spatial
character see to that. Thus, Irenaeus presents the Christian doctrine of a
single, active creator as superior to the Platonic view.

88 The unity which is a fundamental characteristic of the spiritual world is later used
as an argument against qualitative differences among the aeons. Sophia cannot, thus,
have been “younger, weaker, separated from her consort” (Haer. II.12.2).
- 232 PHEME PERKINS

IV. Creation and the Pronoia of God

When Irenaeus rejects the creation of the cosmos according to eternal
archetypes, he introduces the reader to another central theme in the
interscholastic debates of the second century: pronoia “divine provi-
dence.” Irenaeus holds that the Gnostics cannot account for the produc-
tion of the world without a doctrine of divine foresight; yet, the doctrines
of divine forms and of divine foresight conflict. If the forms are models
for a creation that is arranged according to divine providence, then
honor goes to what is actually arranged according to that providence,
namely creation (Haer. II.15.3). The anti-Platonist cast of this argument
becomes clear since Irenaeus goes on to describe the relationship
between the model and creation. The model is like the clay model used
to make a bronze or gold statue. It is nothing once the statue is made.
This model analogy completely reverses analogies used in Platonic
circles in which the form was likened to the ideal concept in the mind of
the artist or the architect: matter is like wax which must receive the seal
(Plutarch, is. Osir. 373AB; Seneca, Ep. 65; Philo, Op. Mund. 20; Cicero,
Or. 7-10).°*
Both Stoics and Platonists of the period appealed to their vision of
divine providence in arguments against the “chance” of Epicurean
cosmologies. Seeking to avoid the determinism attached to the Stoic
view of providence/necessity, Platonism had adapted elements of the
Stoic logos to its account of pronoia.* Irenaeus’ argument is clearly anti-
Platonist when it proposes the doctrine of divine Pronoia as evidence
that creation is superior to the transcendent world of forms. Although
this argument might be a Stoic rather than a Platonist view of provi-
dence, the disparagement of forms (Haer. II.7.6) makes it clear that
Irenaeus does not support the Stoic view, since the latter makes the
divine immanent in the world.
Irenaeus’ argument drives a wedge between the heavenly, divine
world and this one, for it rejects the possibility of any sympatheia
“harmony” between heaven and earth. For the Stoic, on the other hand,
cosmic harmony proved the existence of divine control over the cosmos
(Cicero, Nat. Deor. II.5.15). Philo likewise rejected the doctrine of
sympatheia because he objected to a divinized cosmos (Mig. 178-84).
Moses, he argues, corrected such doctrines by making it clear that the

** Cicero makes “eloquence” itself the reflection of an idea. The uniformity of ideas
guarantees that they are the same for every intellect. See Dillon, Middle Platonists, 93-
94.
38 On the relationship between the logos and pronoia, see Dillon, Middle Platonists,
167-68.
 ORDERING THE COSMOS 233

creator of the world is entirely transcendent.® Plutarch challenges the

Stoic claims for providence because their physics, in assigning all
elements in the universe to their natural places, contradict, as far as
Plutarch is concerned, their claims for divine providence. Their physics
deprive God of the two fundamental activities of providential care:
maintaining the cosmos in existence and unification of its diverse sub-
stances (Stoic. Repug. 1055D; also De Fac. Lun. 927AB).
Irenaeus’ argument against cosmic sympatheia reflects the problem of
unifying the diverse substances of the cosmos. Cosmic harmony be-
tween heaven and earth is not possible because the two are in fact
contradictory: light over against darkness; fire over against water.
Directed against the Stoics, this argument becomes a dispute about the
character of the so-called four elements. Plutarch, for example, knows
that for Stoic physics the elements air and fire are primary, while the
elements earth and water are “mixed”—they can only maintain their
unity through mixture with fire (Com. Not. 1085C-E). There does appear,
then, to have been atradition used by Irenaeus which protested the
Stoic account of the elements as contradictory. Irenaeus’ argument plays
on that contradiction, rejecting Stoic doctrines of cosmic sympathy, as
well as the Platonic tradition of creation through divine ideas.
_ The debate over pronoia serves primarily as testimony to the divine
ordering of the cosmos, as in the Stoic defense of the existence of God
(Cicero, Nat. Deor. I1.30.75-77). Plutarch’s unusual argument which
supposes there to be a finite number of worlds created by the demiurge
(one to correspond with each of the solid figures in the Timaeus) makes
the additional claim that a finite plurality of worlds would not impinge
upon divine providence or oversight, since there is neither less dignity
nor more labor involved in administering several worlds rather than
one. The basic premise of this argument is the distinction between the
Platonic understanding of spiritual reality and Stoic materialism. With
regard to the Stoics, Plutarch points out that a spiritual being is not tied
to place or matter (Def. Or. 425E-426E).” That God cannot be tied to
place or matter is a postulate of Irenaeus’ argument for the unity of God
in Haer. II.1.1, where God must contain all things (Haer. I1.1.1-2).
Irenaeus’ anti-Platonist traditions pursued the argument for the unity of
God within the context of debates about divine providence. For Albinus

3° See Runia, “Philo,” 132-33.

37 Both Stoics and Platonists accused the Epicureans of denying providence. Plutarch
admits preferring the Stoics to the Epicureans in that regard (Stoic. Repug. 1051E) but he
insists that their physics of natural motion/place makes providence unnecessary.
234 PHEME PERKINS

(Did. 12,1) and Plutarch (Plat. Qu. 1007E; De Fac. Lun. 926), however,
providence cannot be attributed to the highest god.*
A second feature in the conventional treatments of pronoia is easily
adapted to the cosmological argument. As Cicero’s Stoic comments (Nat.
Deor. I1.30.75-77), to deny divine providence is to claim that either the
gods are ignorant of the most important things or they are powerless to
bring them about. Divine knowledge and omnipotence are characteristic
elements in Irenaeus’ argument. Because, for example, the argument
about divine place forces the opposition to admit that the creation
cannot be “outside” God, it becomes impossible to claim that either
ignorance or opposition to God could come to be within his domain.
Consequently, the attempts of some to interpret the within/without of
Gnostic myth as knowledge or ignorance are equally contradictory
(Haer. II.7.1-2).
The argument for divine providence had also come to be linked with
the argument for divine creation in some circles. Plutarch enunciates the
basic principle of such views: whatever did not come into being has no
need of a guardian (Plat. Qu. 1013EF).° Thus, providence supports
‘Plutarch’s unusual interpretation of the “created” in the Timaeus as a
literal coming into being. Philo, who also knows that those who elimi-
nate pronoia (like the Epicureans) eliminate true piety, couples this
topos with his argument for the creation of the world. The maker
naturally cares for what he has made as the father naturally cares for his
offspring. Therefore, the doctrine of divine providence is most logically
supported by the view that God himself created the universe (Op. Mund.
9-10).
The creation-providence link also implies another activity of divine
providence which is central to the Stoic and Platonic understanding of
providence—the divine activity which keeps the world in existence.”
Irenaeus’ vision of providence includes the divine creation of the cos-
mos and the divine omnipotence in governing and maintaining it (Haer.
II.11.1). He is even more uncompromising than Philo in rejecting the
possibility that the creation of the world is mediated by an entity which

** Atticus’ careful distinction is possibly another sign of his dependence upon Plutarch;
for this theory, see Dillon, Middle Platonists, 252-53.
Cherniss (Moralia, 148, n. a) points to Proclus In Platonis Timaeum as an indication
that Atticus called pronoia the divine cause.
° Philo’s critique of those who claim that the world is “forgetful” could be paralleled
to Irenaeus’ objections to ignorance in the aeons.
“* Runia (“Philo” 126-27 and 133) argues that Philo goes beyond Platonism in holding
that it is not the nature of God that is reflected in providence, but his mercy and his
omnipotence. The quality of God’s omnipotence is also central to Irenaeus’ under-
standing of divine providence.
 ORDERING THE COSMOS 235

represents the active side of creation and governance. Irenaeus’ logos

never fills in for the demiurge of Platonic speculation, as it does for
Philo. While this uncompromising refusal to allow any instrumentality
in divine creation may have been sharpened by the conflict with the
Gnostic picture of the demiurge, it originates in the traditional attack
-upon the cosmology of Platonism. Irenaeus makes it quite clear that God
has no need of instruments to create (Haer. II.2.4-5).”
Irenaeus also connects providence and divine creation by arguing that
the invisible, omnipotent creator is known through his providence
(Haer. II.6.1). This knowledge of God makes the saving power of God
available to all people outside the specific revelation in Christ (Haer.
II.6.2). The basis for this knowledge of God is the “strong mental
intuition” produced in all by the omnipotence of the creator. Although
arguments for divine existence on the basis of providence are frequent,
Irenaeus’ claim that such knowledge of God is based on a “mental
intuition” appears to revive a Stoic “common notion” in defense of
divine existence. Later Stoics had to qualify those “common notions”
which combined the certainty of truth with the specification “clarity”
(Plutarch, Com. Not. 1074E).** Irenaeus claims that the power of the
divine providence is part of the transcendence of God in his invisibility.
This combination may also be part of the anti-Platonic tradition used by
Irenaeus. Rejecting all mediators by which Platonist philosophers close
the gap between the transcendent God and the world, Irenaeus finds a
formulation of divine providence which will provide the necessary link.
With respect to his Gnostic opponents, it now ensures the possibility of
knowledge of God throughout creation.

V. Divine Omnipotence
and the Creation of Matter
According to the Platonists, evil and disorder appear in the material
world because material creation cannot realize the divine form. Al-
though Irenaeus stands close to that tradition insofar as he rejects the
doctrine of images and emphasizes the discordant transitory nature of
the world, his understanding of providence and divine presence does

5? The logos is not a replacement for the demiurge. Irenaeus is more radical than Philo
on this point. He has gone out of his way to avoid any suggestion that there could be a
mediator of creation. See the discussion of this phenomenon in Carr, Angels and
Principalities, 159-60.
43 Cherniss (Moralia, 629, n. b) argues that though enargeia “self-evident truth” does
not appear in Stoic circles earlier than Antipater (Plutarch, De Stoic. Repug. 1017EF), the
adjective enargés (Plutarch, Com. Not. 1047C) was probably used to qualify conceptions
as early as Chrysippus.
236 PHEME PERKINS

not include any weakening of divine power or presence in creation

(Haer. II.8.2). Irenaeus exploits the weakness and transitory character of
the world to destroy the doctrine of its creation according to the image of
eternal forms. He also attacks the common Platonist explanations of evil
and disorder (chaos) that can be attached to the Gnostic cosmologies.
These explanations include: (1) the necessity to which Plato refers in
Tim. 48; (2) the doctrine of a primordial, irrational motion that affects the
World Soul—a doctrine peculiar to Plutarch and Atticus in our sources;
(3) the account of matter as a pre-existent principle.
The cosmological necessity of Tim. 48 forced Platonists to distinguish
their view of the world from the necessity inherent in Stoic cosmologies.
Plutarch invokes an apparent Platonist slogan, “the better is always in
control of the necessary (to katenagamenon)” (De Fac. Lun. 928C).“
Platonists, who held that the world always existed, took the “chaos” in
the Timaeus to represent necessity, that element of the world which did
not come under divine control. For example, Plutarch argues that chaos
(=necessity) signifies the primordial disordered soul whose shaping by
the logos results in creation (Is. Osir. 370F).** He claims that a principle
of disorder is required because primordial matter is without any quali-
ties. Consequently, the combination of the activity of the beneficent god
and a formless matter could not give rise to anything but good (Tim.
1014E-1015A: De animae procreatione). This account fits in with Plu-
tarch’s allegorization of the Isis and Osiris myth (Is. Osir. 369A-D).
Similar cosmological allegorization appealed to Irenaeus’ opponents.“
Albinus, for his part, uses the existence of unformed matter as part of a
series of arguments by which he demonstrates the existence of ideas.’
Irenaeus rejects any attempt to place a principle between God and his
creation. He does not follow Justin in finding “unformed matter” in Gen
1:2 (1 Apol. 10,2; 59,1). Philo likewise wavers between accepting such
an accommodation with the Timaeus (Her. 160) and asserting that God is
responsible for the creation of matter (L.A. 2,2; Prob. 18).*° Hence,
Irenaeus’ protest against the Gnostic stories of the origin of chaos,
“4 Cherniss-Helmbold, Plutarch’s Moralia, 95.
Cornford, Cosmology, 37.
“® Plutarch never embraces the negative judgments of Gnosticism, but one must at
least allow that the necessity of giving such an account of evil in the cosmos and his
fascination with mythological exegesis would make Gnostic views palatable to some as
possibly legitimate philosophical reflection. He uses the image of the aging world (Tim.
1026EF: De animae procreatione) against the Stoic doctrine of sympatheia. See Dillon,
Middle Platonists, 201-206.
‘’ Dillon, Middle Platonists, 281.
*° Daniélou, Gospel, 115-16.
*° Dillon (Middle Platonists, 158) thinks that the view that the supreme god is the
causal principle of all matter should be traced to Eudorus (p. 127).
 ORDERING THE COSMOS 237

matter, and the disorder of the lower world, draws upon all the objec-
tions to Platonism. He argues that it is not possible that something could
exist through the agency of an intermediate being that is contrary to the
good-will of the Father, because then the freedom of God becomes
captive to necessity, and then necessity would come to rule the cosmos
(Haer. 11.5.2). Rejection of “necessity” as a cosmic principle is a stock
topos of anti-Stoic polemic. For example, Plutarch wishes to avoid the
implication that the necessity of the Timaeus might be equated with the
Stoic concept of necessity so he insists that necessity cannot be taken as
negative (Tim. 1014B: De animae procreatione). Even the irrational
element in the World Soul is not evil, strictly speaking: it is merely the
origin of motions from which evil results. Thus do Irenaeus’ objections
to the view that matter has an origin outside God employ Platonic
principles against the possibility of any external causes or principles
beside the will of the creator.
The image of a “disordered soul” as one primal principle in Plutarch’s
account of Isis and in the Valentinian description of Sophia is invali-
dated by other philosophical principles. Irenaeus believes that it is
impious to. attribute to Sophia’s desire the first cause of evil—a con-
clusion that Plutarch also attempted to avoid in his allegorizing of Isis.
In typical Platonist language Irenaeus challenges the Gnostic allegory: it
is impossible to attribute disorder to a spiritual being (Haer. II.7.4). He
uses a second principle of spiritual beings to counter the view that the
lower world is a shadow of the heavenly one (Haer. II.8.1): spiritual
bodies do not cast shadows.
This same principle helps Plutarch to refute the Stoic view that the
moon is a fiery substance because of its location (De Fac. Lun. 921EF).
Against the Stoic claim that matter and proper place are conjoined in
the order of the cosmos, Plutarch holds that the variety of places in
which elements are found—including the earthly moon in the heavens
—testifies to providence’s beneficent arrangement of the cosmos (De
Fac. Lun. 927CD). Also Philo’s exegesis of “Bezalel” (Exod 31:2) iden-
tifies the “shadow” of God with the logos, the paradigm by which all
things were made (L.A. 3, 95-96). Irenaeus, however, rejects all media-
tion of creation. Therefore it is impossible to call something a “shadow”
of the divine—least of all matter.”

5° Dillon, Middle Platonists, 207-208.

51 The possibilities of God’s exercise of power in the sublunar realm are limited. Philo
assigns God's regal power to that realm. But the demiurge of Middle Platonism is never
the cause of evil; see Dillon, Middle Platonists, 169-70.
52 Haer. II.8.2 also rejects the argument that the shadow could reflect distance from
. God, since divine power extends throughout his domain.
238 PHEME PERKINS

Irenaeus also denies that the “substance of matter” has an origin

outside the will of God and his creative power. To claim the opposite is
to attack the power of God.®* Like the case of analogies to the divine
mind, so the belief in primordial matter rests upon another false analogy
between the human and the divine. Human inability to create without
some prior material does not justify the assumption that God, who has
the power to call into being the “substance of creation” (Haer. I1.10.2-4),
is similarly limited. The creation of matter ultimately demonstrates the
superiority of the Christian vision of God, the creator, for it preserves the
freedom and omnipotence of God against analogies falsely developed
from the material world and from human modes of thought, feeling, and
creation.

°° Plutarch, Is. Osir. 372E. Isis’ procreation in matter is described as the eikon tés
ousias “image of being.”
 ad
THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH
AS AN EXOTERIC TEXT*

Harold W. Attridge

Dr. Harold Attridge has studied at Cambridge University, the Hebrew Univer-
sity of Jerusalem and Harvard University, where he took a doctorate in 1975.
After post-doctoral work at Harvard he joined the faculty of Perkins School of
Theology, Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Since 1985 he has
been a member of the Theology Faculty of the University of Notre Dame.
Dr. Attridge has made contributions to many aspects of the history of religion
in Greco-Roman antiquity, particularly Hellenistic Judaism and Gnosticism.’
Among his publications are studies of first-century Cynicism and of the use of
the Hebrew scriptures in the Jewish historian Josephus. For the Coptic Gnostic
Library project he was the volume editor of Codex I of the Nag Hammadi
collection and was responsible for the editions of the Gospel of Truth and the
Tripartite Tractate.

Preface
he problem of the relationship of the Gospel of Truth to the Valen-
tinian tradition has troubled scholars since the discovery of the text. .
This paper suggests, through an analysis of the rhetorical techniques of
the work, why that problem has been so acute. The text deliberately
conceals whatever might be the particular theology of its author, al-
though there are abundant hints that this theology is a developed form
of Valentinian speculation. The presupposed theology is concealed so
that the author may make an appeal to ordinary Christians, inviting
* The suggestions made about the Gospel of Truth in this paper reflect and elaborate
elements in the introduction and notes to the text published in the critical edition
(Attridge-MacRae, “Gospel of Truth”), edited by George W. MacRae and myself. In
developing some of the ideas presented here, I have had the benefit of Fr. MacRae’s
reflections and criticisms. He, of course, bears no responsibility for the form in which
these suggestions are now presented.

239
240 HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

them to share the basic insights of Valentinianism. Thus the text should
be considered more exoteric than esoteric.

I. Introduction
Since its initial publication in 1956,’ the Gospel of Truth has been the
object of considerable discussion in regard to its general theological
affiliation and its literary techniques. Much of the earlier debate about
the possible relationship of the text to Valentinianism was surveyed by
R. McL. Wilson in his paper at the 1978 Yale Conference on Gnosticism’
and it is not necessary to rehearse the details of that survey here. It will
suffice simply to summarize the results of Wilson’s critical essay by
noting the spectrum of opinion which he traces. Some of the earliest
attempts to relate the Gospel of Truth to Valentinianism argued that the
text reflects a more primitive stage of Valentinian speculation than that
represented, for example, in the Ptolemaic system on which Irenaeus
reports.’ Scholars holding to this option have frequently suggested that
the text was an original composition of Valentinus from early in his
career.‘ Another hypothesis on the subject held that the text rather
presupposes, but does not fully articulate, a Valentinian system. Schol-
ars of this opinion have tended to be agnostic on the question of the
identity of the author.’ Finally, some scholars have maintained that the
text is not specifically Valentinian at all.
Since Wilson's survey, the debate has continued and each of the three
positions on the spectrum of opinion has found its adherents. Opting, for
instance, for the association of the text with Valentinus himself is Benoit
Standaert, in an article not treated by Wilson but mentioned at the Yale
Conference in the discussion of Wilson’s paper.’ Standaert provides a
literary analysis of the Gospel of Truth and compares it with the few
fragments of Valentinus’ own writings and suggests that commonalities
of style indicate common authorship. In the same volume from the Yale
* Malinine, Evangelium Veritatis and id., Evangelium Veritatis Supplementum.
? Wilson, “Valentinianism.”
9 Tren. Haer. I.1-8.
*Cf., e.g., van Unnik, “Gospel of Truth,” 98-99; Quispel, “Jung Codex,” 50; Grobel,
Gospel of Truth, 26.
_ *Cf., eg. Jonas, “Review of Malinine”; .id., “Evangelium Veritatis”; id., Gnostic
Religion, 309-19; Nock, “Library”; Puech, “Gospel of Truth”; Ménard, L’Evangile de
Vérité, 34-38.
° Cf., e.g., Haenchen, “Literatur”; Schenke, Herkunft, 20-25.
” Standaert, “L’Evangile de Vérité.” See the comments on Wilson's paper in Layton,
Rediscovery, 1.142.
 THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH AS AN EXOTERIC TEXT 241

Conference there is another important paper which represents a form of

the second option. This paper, by William Schoedel,* maintains that the
Gospel of Truth reflects a revisionist, monistic Valentinianism, also
evidenced in Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses II. The text thus presupposes
not only Valentinian theology as that developed in the school of
Ptolemy, for example, but also orthodox criticism of that theology. As
such it represents an attempt to accommodate some of the principles of
that critique. Finally, Carsten Colpe presents a version of the third
position on the spectrum in an essay which is part of an analysis of the
Jewish, pagan, and Christian components in gnostic texts. Colpe argues
that, while the author of the Gospel of Truth probably knew some
Valentinian theology, he departs from it in important respects and “goes
his own way.”
Later this paper will review some of the detailed arguments used to
support these various positions, but first, one should note a second, less
well-defined, set of issues which bear on the question of the Valentinian
affiliations of the text. Much of the discussion of the literary character
and techniques of the text has focused on the question of its genre. Most
scholars agree with the original editors of the text that it is in some sense
a homily,” although there have been various attempts to nuance that
judgment. Scholars have suggested, for example, that the work is a
meditative homily or even a “meditation,” although what precisely is
meant by that characterization remains unclear.’ That the work is
“esoteric” in some sense is often implied and frequently stated.” Pre-
sumably, those who use this category mean that the work is rich in
allusion and, whatever its relationship to Valentinian or other traditions,
it presupposes more than it explicitly states. This characterization
assumes that the text utilizes this allusive quality in a distinctive, evoca-
tive way to recall in the minds of its enlightened readers the truths of the
system to which it subscribes and which it presupposes.**
® Schoedel, “Monism.”
*Colpe, “Uberlieferung,” especially 131-46. The comment cited here appears on pp.
144-45.
1°Cf. Malinine, Evangelium Veritatis, xv. See also H.-M, Schenke, Herkunft, 10;
Haardt, “Struktur”; Grobel, Gospel of Truth, 19-21; Ménard, L’Evangile de Vérité, 35.
™ Cf., e.g., H.-M. Schenke, Herkunft, 11; Standaert, “L'Evangile de Vérité,” 255. Note
the discussion between Wilson and Joel Fineman on the issue in Layton, Rediscovery,
1.143-44. ;
12.Cf Malinine, Evangelium Veritatis, xiv. See, however, Ménard, L’Evangile de
Vérité, 1: “A example de la Lettre a Flora de Ptolémée, I’Evangile de Vérité serait plus
exotérique qu’ésotérique.” Cf. also Fredouille, Tertullien, 1.34-39, a discussion brought to
my attention by Paul-Hubert Poirier.
13 Note, e.g., the remark of Wilson in the discussion of his paper at the Yale Confer-
ence (Layton, Rediscovery, 143): “It seems implausible that an author would write with
the intention of provoking confusion. It is more likely that he wrote cryptically to those
242 HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

This paper challenges both the characterization of the Gospel of Truth

as an esoteric work as well as the presupposition about how it functions.
It proposes a model for construing the text which has been largely
ignored in the discussion of the Gospel of Truth. The Gospel of Truth,
precisely because of the systematic ambiguity and polyvalence,” is an
exoteric text, a text designed to be read and understood by people who
do not share the fundamental theological presuppositions of its author. If
correct, this proposal has implications for the question of the work’s
Valentinian affiliations.
An assessment of the theological aims and rhetorical techniques of the
Gospel of Truth may usefully begin with a simple observation about the
constant interplay between the familiar and the unfamiliar in the text.
Among elements of the work which would, no doubt, be familiar to most
Christians of the second and third centuries are the numerous allusions
to early Christian literature, especially to those portions of it which
eventually came to be canonized as the New Testament. Since cata-
logues of such allusions have frequently been made in the past,” it will
be sufficient to note that on any evaluation of the data the author of the
Gospel of Truth apparently knows and uses a large number of the
writings of what came to be the canonical New Testament. These
include the Synoptic Gospels,“* Johannine literature,” and Pauline
literature.”* It needs to be recognized, of course, that in no case do we
find an explicit citation of a New Testament text as scripture or even as
an authoritative source.”
The author of the Gospel of Truth does not, however, confine himself
to allusions to materials canonized as the New Testament in the second
and subsequent centuries.” Some alleged allusions may, in fact, derive
who could, he knew, decipher it.” The alternatives implicit here, a cryptic vs. a confusing
writing, are hardly the only ones.
4 The best analysis of these literary qualities of the text may be found in Standaert,
“L'Evangile de Vérité,” esp. 255-60.
*® Cf. van Unnik, “Gospel of Truth,” 115-21; Schelkle, “Zeugnis,” 90-91; and Ménard,
EP
Evangile de Vérité, 3-9.
Sk,g., Matt 5:48 at Gos, Truth 1,3:27,24-25; Matt 11:25 at 19,25; Mark 14:24 at 20,15-16;
Luke 2:46-49 at 19,19-20.
” E.g., John 3:19 at Gos. Truth 1,3:25,35-36; John 10:3-4 at 21,33-34, 22,21-22; John
11:37 at 30,15-16; 1 John 1:1 at 30,27-31; and Rev 3:5, 5:2-4 at 19,35-36.
‘8 E.g., Rom 8:30 and 1 Cor 8:2-3 at Gos. Truth I,3:19,32-34; 1 Cor 7:31 at 24,20-24; 1
Cor 8:6 at 18,34-35; 1 Cor 15:53-54 and 2 Cor 5:2-4 at 20,29; Phil 2:8 at 20,29; Phil 3:10 at
30,26; and the deutero-Pauline texts, Eph 3:3-4:9 at 18,15; Col 2:14 at 18,24; 1 Tim 2:4 at
19,12-17. Such lists could be considerably expanded and, while there might be debate
about the possibility of specific allusions in individual cases, the examples listed above
are all fairly clear references to New Testament texts.
Contrast, e.g., the explicit citation of “the apostle” in Treat. Res. I,4:45,24-28.
*° For discussion of the history of the canon, see, Campenhausen, Bible and Farmer,
Jesus, 178-259.
 THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH AS AN EXOTERIC TEXT 243

from sources, written or oral, which were never canonized.” Further-

more, the author clearly draws on a corpus of early Christian literature
larger than that of the canonical New Testament. Evidence for this
appears particularly in connection with certain images and metaphors
which are not at home in New Testament works. Schenke, in particular,
has drawn attention to parallels between the Gospel of Truth and the
Odes of Solomon.” From such parallels he infers that the text is not to be .
associated with Valentinianism. Although this inference is unwarranted,
Schenke’s analysis rightly calls attention to the diversity of sources’
which underlie the text’s imagery. The flexibility in the author's use of
early Christian literature generally may have some implications for
dating the work. Because the Gospel of Truth does not seem to pre-
suppose a fixed New Testament canon, it may well be dated in the
middle and late second century, a period when figures such as Clement
of Alexandria regularly draw upon a broad range of early Christian
sources without strict regard for their canonical status, a situation which
changes significantly by the middle of the third century. Caution,
however, is required in this area, first, because the Gospel of Truth itself
renders no explicit judgment on the authoritative status of the works to
which it seemingly alludes and, second, because the development of a
strictly limited canon did not take place at the same pace and with the
same rigor throughout the Christian world.
Alongside the elements of the text which with the proper qualifi-
cations one can judge to be familiar, common, early Christian property,
there are in the Gospel of Truth a number of distinctive elements more
closely associated with gnostic, and particularly Valentinian, traditions.
These include the basic soteriological principle, repeatedly enunciated
in the text, that the fundamental problem of the human condition is
ignorance, which is eliminated by the coming of gnosis, “Knowledge,””
and such specific details as the technical terms “the Totalities,”* “those
of the middle,”* “the spaces,” and “emanations.””

21 Cf, Ménard, L’Evangile de Vérité, 8 and Koester, “Gnostic Writings.”

22 Cf, H.-M. Schenke, Herkunft, 26-29. Note, e.g., the image of the Holy Spirit as the
Father’s breast in Gos. Truth I,3:24,9-11 and the similar imagery in Odes Sol. 19:2-4; or
the image of truth as the Father’s mouth in Gos. Truth I,3:26,34-35 and Odes Sol. 12:3.
23 Tonas (“Review of Malinine,” 330), in particular, has called attention to this formula
(Gos. Truth I,3:18,10-11; 24,30-32) and to its significance for understanding the Valen-
tinian association of the text.
24 Gos. Truth I,3:17,5, and frequently.
25 Gos. Truth I,3:17,35.
6 Gos. Truth I,3:20,22.
27 Gos. Truth I,3:21,37.
244 HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

Il. The “Familiar” Features

Even more significant perhaps than the juxtaposition of “familiar” and
“unfamiliar” features in the text is the way in which each feature is
treated. Throughout the work there is an attempt to render the familiar
unfamiliar and vice versa. The process begins in the opening paragraph ~
where the topic of the discourse is said to be the gospel.” All that is said
about the gospel in the first lines of the text would hardly surprise the
ordinary Christian reader or listener; yet, the note that the gospel, “a
proclamation of hope,” is also the “discovery for those who search for
him (sc. the Father),”” introduces, in a muted and ambiguous way, what
is distinctive in the text. Here it is not so much that the familiar is made
unfamiliar, but that a specific twist is given to the familiar, “the gospel,”
which introduces the gnostic perspective.
After describing the human condition in terms of Plané (“Error”), the
text enunciates its soteriology in traditional and broadly acceptable
language. Jesus, the Christ, came to enlighten those in darkness and
show them a way, which is the truth.” In the process, he was persecuted
by cosmic powers and “nailed to a tree.”*? While both the language and
the conceptuality would be familiar to most early Christians, the text
continues and throws a new and surprising light upon the historical
event of Christ’s passion. By being “nailed to the tree,” Christ becomes
“a fruit of knowledge of the Father.” This trope suggests a further
allusion to the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden, for Christ, as the
fruit of knowledge, “did not become destructive.” Through the sym-
bolic reinterpretation of the death of Christ effected here, the general
soteriological principle of the text* once again emerges. While the

?° For discussion about the titulary significance of the incipit, see especially Standaert,
“Titre,” 138-50.
*° Gos. Truth 1,3:17,2-4. The description of the Gospel as a proclamation possibly
contains a play in Greek on edvayyeAla and dvayyeAia, or something similar.
Note that this title appears in the text only here (18,16) and at 36,14.
*! Note the strikingly Johannine language. Cf. John 1:5, and 14:6. This is but one of the
numerous allusions to Johannine images and themes. The contention of Ménard (L’Evan-
gile de Vérité, 8) that the author “ne cite pas davantage le quatriéme Evangile,” is
surprising. While in all cases of the author’s use of early Christian literature there is
more allusion than citation, the evidence for allusions to Johannine traditions is quite as
abundant as is evidence for use of other New Testament texts.
*? Gos. Truth I,3:18,22-24. Cf. 1 Cor 2:8; Acts 5:30; 10:39.
* Gos. Truth I,3:18,26. The language here is ambiguous and the verb could be trans-
lated intransitively, “become destroyed,” as suggested by Till (“Bemerkungen,” 272). The
transitive rendering, with its allusion to Genesis, is, however, more likely. Cf. Ménard,
L'Evangile de Vérité, 89.
** Cf. n. 23 above.
 THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH AS AN EXOTERIC TEXT 245

Gospel of Truth does not, inastrictly docetic fashion,* deny the reality
of the physical death of Jesus, it does “correct” the familiar interpreta-
tion of that death as an atoning sacrifice.”
The movement from a more familiar or “orthodox” to a more “heter-
odox” or gnostic Christology has been noted before,” although the pre-
cise nature of the movement has not been correctly perceived. It is
hardly the case, for example, that the text as a whole moves from a more
“orthodox” to a more “heterodox” position. Instead, at all points where
the “familiar” descriptions of Christ’s person and work are given (and
they appear subsequent to the passage under discussion)" that familiar
presentation is reinterpreted with unfamiliar metaphors.
A further example of the process underway throughout the work
appears in the discussion of the “living book,” a particularly varied
symbol whose development is Protean and complex. The theme is
enunciated at 19,35-36, where the “little children”” are said to have had
revealed in their hearts the “living book of the living.” Already, in the
initial deployment of the image, the familiar and the unfamiliar unite.
For, while the notion of the heavenly book into which the names of the
righteous are inscribed is familiar from Jewish and early Christian
apocalyptic sources,“ it is striking that the “book” is within the heart of
the “children” and that it is, at the same time, “the one written in the
thought and the mind [of the] Father.”*? The intimate connection of the
subject, object, and agent of the revealing gndsis is thus symbolically
suggested.‘

35 On the question of whether the text maintains a docetic Christology, cf. Arai,
Christologie and Shibata, “Character.” For recent discussion of the divergences within
the Valentinian tradition on the nature of Christ's flesh, cf. Kaestli, “Valentinianisme.”
For a clear Valentinian affirmation of the reality of the Incarnation in NHC I, see Tri.
Trac. 1,5:114,31-35.
- °° The Gospel of Truth thus continues the sort of reinterpretation of the significance of
Christ's passion found in the Gospel of John where the primary meaning of the event is
seen to be revelatory. A
Si Ofs e.g., Fecht, “Der erste ‘Teil,'” 387; Ménard, L’Evangile de Vérité, 10, 15; and
Colpe, “Uberlieferung,” 138, 143.
3° Cf, e.g., Gos. Truth 1,3:20,4-14 and 30,32-31,12.
3° There is here a possible allusion to such texts as Matt 11:25 and Luke 10:21.
4° It has been suggested that this and similar phrases are evidence of a Syriac original.
Cf. Nagel, “Herkunft,” but this hypothesis is highly unlikely. Cf. Béhlig, “Ursprache,” and
Ménard, “Structure.”
41 For a thorough survey of the motif, cf. Koep, Buch.
*? Gos. Truth I,3:19,36-20,1.
43 The connection of the subject and object is explicitly affirmed at 18,30-31: “he (sc.
the Father) discovered them in himself, and they discovered him in themselves.” The
connection of subject and agent of the revelation is affirmed in various ways, but
particularly in the dialectic on the “name” at 38,7-40,22.
246 HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

Developing the image of the “book,” the text reverts to the familiar, in
what is clearly an allusion to Rev 5:9: “the (book) which no one was able
to take since it is reserved for the one who will take it to be slain.”** The
suggestion is made that the book is the mode of revelation, for on it
depends the “belief in salvation.” Although the author may still be
moving in the realm of relatively traditional symbolism, the revelatory
function of the book must be understood in the light of its “interiority”
which has already been described, and, to this extent, the imagery has
already received a new dimension.
The surprising novelty in the image rapidly increases in the next
segment of the text where the book, in rapid succession, becomes a
specific type of document and, metaphorically, that which surrounds or
embodies the revealer. The next phase of the exposition begins with a
simple analogy, comparing the revelation of “the all” to the opening of a
will. As a will when opened reveals the material substance (ousia) of the
testator, so the book when opened by the death of Christ reveals the
spiritual substance (ousia)** of the Father, the source of the totality. The
image of the testament, already used in several New Testament texts, is
familiar although the pun on ousia develops it in a new and specifically
gnostic way. The familiar becomes even more unfamiliar as the meta-
phorical language changes. For Jesus takes, and implicitly opens, the
revelatory book by “putting it on.””7 Without explaining this arresting
image, the author reverts to familiar language: Jesus was “nailed to the
tree,” and thereby, “published the edict.”** One may suspect an allusion
to Col 2:14, although the author takes the image of the book in another
direction and, once again, a familiar image is reinterpreted. The edict,
unlike the bill of accusation in the deutero-Pauline text, is not negative,
but positive. At the same time, the “donning” of the book receives a
fuller explanation, for at his death on the cross Christ “puts on”
imperishability, and rectifies the condition of “naked” oblivion.*® In
other words, the death of Jesus is once again seen to be a revelatory act.
For Jesus himself, the significance of his death is that it is the point of
entry to “imperishability.” For all others, that death taught a lesson about
the transcendent Father, a lesson which reverses the human condition
created by the work of Error. Because the passion is primarily construed

“* Gos. Truth 1,3:20,3-6. The syntax of the Coptic here is somewhat problematic. The
translation follows the suggestion of Till (“Bemerkungen,” 273), who construes the
feminine subject in eckw as impersonal and the conjunctive Nce2A2wag as comple-
mentary.
8® Gos. Truth I,3:20,15-17.
® For the two senses of odaia used here, cf. LS] 1274b.
os4, G08: Truth 1,3:20,24.
“8 Gos. Truth 1,3:20,25-26.
*° Gos. Truth I,3:20,37-38.
 THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH AS AN EXOTERIC TEXT 247

as a revelatory event, it may be imagined as the opening of a book, and

because, at the same time, it reverses the human condition symbolized
both by the “nakedness” of fallen humanity and its clothing in “perish-
able rags,” it may be depicted with the image of stripping and clothing.”
After this complex metaphorical development, the author returns to a
simpler and more familiar image of the book. Those who receive the
teaching (about the Father, conveyed by Jesus) are inscribed in the book
of the living.” At this point, the focus of the metaphor shifts from the
nature of the book and the process of its “opening” to the preconditions
and results of that revelatory process, symbolized by the actof inscrip-
tion. Those written in the book of life are not, as in Rev 20:12-15, the
martyrs who have borne testimony to Jesus, but those whom the Father
“knew in advance”® and who have thus heard the Father's call.
The image of the book surfaces once again after an exploration of the
interrelated themes of naming and calling.* In a final application of the
image® the focus shifts once again to the topic with which the whole
symbolic development began, namely, the content of the “book.” The
revelation provided by the “book” contains a “knowledge in which all
the emanations concur”® and the letters written in the book are the
agents of this knowledge. In an unfamiliar and surprising way the
author affirms that the contents are not expressed in simple “vowels or
consonants,”” but in “true letters,” each of which “is a complete
thought.”** The image of the book now provides a vehicle for com-
menting on the nature of the “gospel” as conceived in the text, as it
affirms that the whole is in each of its parts equally. While the message
°° The clothing imagery here was, of course, traditional in baptismal contexts. Cf.
Smith, “Garments.” There have been several discussions of sacramental allusions in the
Gospel of Truth. Cf. especially, Segelberg, “Confirmation Homily,” and Jansen, “Spuren.”
While the author clearly utilizes images and themes widespread in early Christian ritual
practice, the fact that such themes are well-known and widely used in early Christian
literature precludes any simple inference about a liturgical setting for the work. The
following chart illustrates the symbolic oppositions of nakedness and being clothed. The
reception of the revelation provided by Christ reverses the process inaugurated by
Oblivion. There is an ellipse in the presentation of the symbolic opposition, since the
clothing of humanity in “perishable rags” is only implicit.
Humanity: “made naked by oblivion” : clothed in perishable rags -
(20,37-38) (Cf. Gen 3:6-7)
Christ: “strips off perishable rags” : “clothed in the book and in
(20,30-31) imperishability” (20,32)
51 Gos, Truth I,3:21,3-5.
52 Gos. Truth I,3:21,26.
53 Gos. Truth I,3:21,27-31.
54 Gos. Truth I,3:21,6-22,37.
55 Gos, Truth I,3:22,38-23,18.
56 Gos. Truth I,3:22,36-37.
57 Gos. Truth I,3:23,3-5.
58 Gos, Truth I,3:23,11.
248 . HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

may appear complex, it is ultimately simple and the formal unity of the
message mirrors its material unity; it is a message about the unity of the
Father and the beings dependent on him.”
The enunciation of the theme of unity, followed by a hymnic section
on the Wisdom and Word of the Father,” concludes the first major
segment of the text.** Thereupon, the image of the book is abandoned,
but the author’s literary method of making the ordinary unusual con-
tinues.
The image of the shepherd® offers a second example of the same
technique. The passage is rich in allusions to gospel material, partic-
ularly to the synoptic parable of the shepherd. These allusions, how-
ever, develop into the famous numerological symbolism explaining the
significance of 99 and 100. While the details of the symbolism are hardly
transparent,“ the basic point of the allegory is clear. Jesus is the
shepherd who provides perfection to the lost sheep which he draws up
from the pit. This act provides “interior knowledge,”® enabling its
recipients to speak from the “day from above, which has no night” and
“from the light which does not sink.”® Here, a group of traditions and
widespread images are combined to provide a new application of the
basic pastoral image.
60
a ON especially Gos. Truth I,3:24,9-25,19.
®° Gos. Truth I,3:23,18-24,9.
** There have been many attempts to analyze the structure of the work. Cf. Grobel,
Gospel of Truth; Story, Truth; H.-M. Schenke, Herkunft; and Ménard, L’Evangile de
Vérité, who largely follows Schenke. The most elaborate analysis of the work's structure
has been proposed by Fecht (“Der erste ‘Teil’”) although his detailed analysis only
extends through 22,20. Colpe, “Uberlieferung,” builds upon Fecht's work.
While all the proposed structural analyses offer some insight into the complexities of
the work, none is entirely satisfactory, for the Gospel of Truth defies a single simple
structural explanation. Standaert’s description of the author’s technique is apt, “La .
pensée evolue telle une abeille qui butine de fleur en fleur, a-t-on méme écrit trés
joliment . . .” (“L’Evangile de Vérité,” 245).
Any analysis of the structure needs to recognize the function of two discrete sections
of the text, the hymnic material of 23,18-24,9 and the exhortation of 32,31-33,32, which
mark major divisions in the text.
®2 Gos. Truth I,3:31,35-32,30.
*8 Matt 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7; cf. also John 10.
For discussion of the symbolism, see the remarks of Grobel, Gospel of Truth, 129-31;
Ménard, L'Evangile de Vérité, 150-51; Marrou, “Diffusion”; and Poirier, “L'Evangile de
‘Verité.” The imagery can be interpreted in several ways. Basically it seems to provide a
model of the process of redemption which follows the reception of revealing gnosis. That
process involves a movement from the inferior (material, left) to the superior (spiritual,
right). The process also involves the attainment of unity, just as it is the number 1 which
is involved i in the shift from 99, counted on the left hand, and 100, counted on the right.
*° Gos. Truth I,3:32,38. Note that lines 38 and 39 on this page were meant to follow
line 23. They were accidentally omitted by the scribe, who wrote them at the bottom of
the page with sigla indicating their proper placement.
*° Gos. Truth 1,3:32,26-31.
 THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH AS AN EXOTERIC TEXT 249

The passage on the shepherd is followed by another highly structured

segment of the text which apparently concludes the second major
portion of the argument. Here the literary technique of the work is
particularly evident. The passage” consists of a series of exhortations,
remarkable, initially at least, for their attention to ordinary physical
needs (“make firm the foot of those who have stumbled . . . feed those
who are hungry . . . give repose to those who are weary”); yet, the
familiar soon becomes unfamiliar. In the exhortations to “raise up those
who wish to rise and awaken those who are asleep,” the metaphorical
quality of the injunctions becomes clear, and one may detect a meta-
phorical significance even within the opening hortatory salvo. The
exhortations become less usual as the section proceeds and the author
urges his audience to “be concerned with yourselves,”® and finally
grounds his imperatives in the indicative dictated by his fundamental
theology, “do the will of the Father, for you are from him.””
One could construe these injunctions as esoteric, metaphorical invi-
tations to spread the gnostic gospel, and they may indeed have been
perceived as such by members of the author’s audience who shared his
basic perspective. They could, however, just as easily be construed as
operating in a way similar to expository sections of the text, namely, by
trading on what was familiar in the general Christian tradition, and
gradually transforming it into a new mode.
One final example of the author’s literary procedure may be cited. In
the final segment of the text one finds the much discussed passage on the
Son as the name of the Father.”* Since the roots of the language and
conceptuality of this pericope have frequently been explored, it is
sufficient to note that the basic categories with which our author
operates derive from a variety of sources familiar to second-century
Christians, such as the inherited Jewish speculations on the divine
name; New Testament passages such as John 17 or Philippians 2, which
may reflect such speculations and which describe the divine name as
being borne or revealed by Jesus; and second-century Christological
reflections on Christ as the Word.
What the author does with the theme of the name bears some rela-
tionship to these various speculative strands; although his development
of it is not simply a reproduction of any one of them. At the risk of

87 Gos. Truth I,3:32,32-33,32.

88 Gos. Truth I,3:33,6-8.
88 Gos. Truth I,3:33,1-30.
7° Gos. Truth I,3:33,31-32.
MGA e.g., Orbe, Procesién del Verbo, 68-97; Ménard, “Elucubrations”; Dubois,
“Contexte”; and Fineman, “Piety.”
250 HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

oversimplifying the complex dialectic on the Father’s name, one may

note that it basically makes two affirmations. The first asserts that the
Son bears the name of the Father.” The second, and more important,
asserts that the Son functions as the name of the Father, indicating the
reality of the object named.” The first affirmation is in some ways a
“familiar” element, reflecting especially the New Testament’s remarks
about Jesus and the divine name. It should be noted, however, that the
precise name which Jesus bears is not specified, an observation which
bears on the meaning of the term “name” itself, to which we shall return
presently. The second affirmation, that Jesus reveals the Father, is also,
to a degree, familiar; yet, here Jesus reveals the Father in virtue of the
fact that he is the Father’s name.” At this point, the familiar becomes
strangely unfamiliar.
The passage on the Son as name owes its subtlety and obscurity, in
part, to the fluidity of the term “name” itself, a fluidity or polyvalence
similar to the development of the image of the “book.” The significance
of the term “name” fluctuates, in fact, between two poles. On the one
hand, the name is external to the thing named. Hence, the Son, as name,
is distinct frem the Father whom he names.” On the other hand, the
name is the essence of the thing named and is thus identical with it.”
Hence, the Son, as name, is identical with the Father.” The relationship
between these two, apparently contradictory, notions about the name
becomes more transparent when one realizes that in this superficially
epistemological discussion important ontological principles are being
affirmed. In this complex interplay of traditional language about lan-
guage with a particular metaphysics and theology, the unfamiliarity of
the text is most obvious. The two contrary affirmations about the status
or function of the Son as name are simply ways of speaking about the
intimate relation of Father and Son. The Son is the name of the Father
in the second sense (i.e., is the essence of the Father), because that
”2 Gos. Truth I,3:38,11-12: “He gave him his name which belonged to him,” and 40,26:
“he gave the name to him.”
”* Gos. Truth I,3:30,25-28.
’4 Contrast the complexity of the treatment of the name in the Gospel of Truth with
the much simpler and more logical treatment of the name “Son” in the Tri. Trac. 1;5:51,
14-15.
7° E.g., the Son, as “name,” “comes forth from the Father,” Gos. Truth I,3:28,9.
7° F.g., “the name is invisible because it alone is the mystery of the invisible” (Gos.
Truth I,3:38,17-19). The epistemological and semantic roots of the theory expressed here
may be found in the Greek philosophical tradition. Cf. especially the theory of natural
names in Plato, Cra. 383A and Aristotle's discussion of the meaning of odaia in Metaph.
Z, where it is seen to be primarily the ro ri qv efvat or “essence,” which is expressed in a
definition: dere ro ri Rv elvat.éoriy Sow 5 Adyos éarwv Sptopds (1030a6). Cf. also 1030b4-6,
1031a12-14, 1032b1-2,
” Gos. Truth I,3:38,9.
 THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH AS AN EXOTERIC TEXT 251

which comes forth from the Father is the Father himself.” In the
language of later Christological dogma, the Son is homoousios (i.e., one
in being) with the Father.” The Son is the name of the Father in the first
sense (i.e., the visible pointer to the invisible reality e the Father)
because he does indeed “come forth.”
Consequently, the familiar first and second-century Christalégical
speculation and early creedal affirmations are here transformed. The
text does so not simply in order to wrestle with a fundamental Christo-
logical problem, the like of which troubled theologians from the second
to the fourth centuries and beyond, but primarily in order to convey the
same sort of insight suggested by the earlier intricate metaphorical
developments of the image of the “book.” The subject of this whole
work, the revelation provided by the gospel, is—obliquely to be sure®—
conveyed in this passage. The gospel proclaimed by Jesus provides
insight for its recipients into their essential identity with the tran-
scendent source of all reality. The agent of the revelation is capable of
awakening that insight because, in a primary sense,” he is identical with
-that.reality. He and his revelation provide not only extrinsic information
about, but effective unity with,” that transcendent reality. When those
on whom the name (Son = essence of Father) rests “utter the name”
along with both Father and Son,” this unity is expressed and expe-
rienced.

lil. The “Unfamiliar” Features

The phenomenon which we have been exploring has focused on one
type of material in the Gospel of Truth, which, for convenience, has
been labeled the “familiar,” that is, images, motifs, and terminology
which appear to be widespread in early Christianity and closely related
to texts that eventually came to be associated with orthodoxy. The
literary dynamics of the text can also be illuminated by an examination
of the less familiar, more typically gnostic, elements of the work. Here

”® Gos. Truth I,3:38,9.

79 For a similar affirmation of the consubstantiality of the Father and Son, cf. Tri.
Trac. I,5:56,1-58,18 and the comments ad loc. in the notes to the text in Attridge-Pagels,
“Tripartite Tractate.”
This discussion of the passage on the Son as name has necessarily overlooked a
number of exegetical difficulties which contribute to the obscurity of the text at this point.
For a fuller treatment, see the notes in Attridge-MacRae, “Gospel of Truth.”
51 The Son “did not receive the name on loan” (40,9-10), but it is the proper name
(képsov évoya). For similar language about the divine names, cf. Tri. Trac. I,5:51,8-52,6.
2 Cf. Gos. Truth I,3:25,3-24; 26,33-27,4.
83 Gos. Truth I,3:38,25-32.
252 HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

the inverse procedure seems to obtain: the unfamiliar is, to some extent,
domesticated.
Nowhere is this more clear than in the discussion of Error or Plané at
17,5-19,23. The discussion of the Valentinian affiliations of the work has
often centered on this pericope and on the cosmogonic myth which the
text may presuppose." That some such myth is presupposed is suggested
in particular by the remark that “for this reason, Error became powerful.
It set about creating, with (all its) might preparing, in beauty, a substitute
for the truth.”** Error also emerges as a quasi-personal force or power in
the remark that she (or it) grew angry at the revealer and persecuted -
him.” The second personification, however, already makes difficult the
attempt to identify the sources of the image. While the cosmogonic
function of Error parallels that of Sophia, Error in persecuting Jesus
belies that identification, since Sophia “Wisdom” nowhere is said to act
in that way.
If there is a cosmogonic myth of the Sophia variety behind our text, it
is well concealed. There are two important dimensions to that process of
concealment, the first and most important of which is the studied
ambiguity in the use of the motif of Error. The — is a similarity in
the motif’s deployment to Pauline language.
One difficulty in assessing the provenance and affiliation of Error is
that the use of the term fluctuates between personification of a cosmic
force and a psychological category. Such fluctuation, while not unusual
in gnostic and other early Christian literature, is particularly striking
here. On the one hand, there are passages (already cited) which suggest
that Error is a potent objective force.” On the other hand, there are
passages where such cosmic dimensions are lacking.” Because similar
ambiguity affects other related central’ terms such as “oblivion”® and
“deficiency,” it would appear that the fluidity and polyvalence of the
terminology constitute a deliberate and systematic attempt to prohibit a
single, simple application of any of the key terms to cosmic or personal
psychological spheres.”
The author of the text may have found a particular model for his use

**Cf., e.g. Jonas, Gnostic Religion, 309-19; Haardt, “Struktur”; Ménard, “Plane”;
Finnestad, “Fall”; and Heldermann, “Isis.” ‘
Gos. Truth 1,3:17,14-20.
8 Gos. Truth I,3:18,21-23.
8” Gos. Truth I,3:17,14-20; 18,21-23; 26,19-20.
88 Gos. Truth 1,3:17,28; 22,21-24; 31,25; 32,37.
8° Gos. Truth I,3:17,33; 18,1; 18,10; 18,18; 20,38; 21,36.
°° Gos. Truth I,3:24,21; 25,1; 35,8-9; 35,33-36,13.
*? On the intentional ambiguity of the author’s language, cf. Standaert, “L'Evangile de
Vérité,” 258-60.
 THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH AS AN EXOTERIC TEXT 253

of language in such Pauline texts as Rom 5:12-6:14, where Sin and

Death appear as personified cosmic powers, although it is clear that Paul
understands these terms as pertaining primarily to the personal, human
sphere.” While the categories of the Gospel of Truth reflect the par-
ticular, gnostic orientation of the author, their deployment is, when
compared to such early Christian texts as Romans, hardly unfamiliar.
Another “unfamiliar,” distinctively gnostic, or even Valentinian ele-
ment, in the text is’a suggested partition of humanity into several
classes.* The presence of such an anthropological theory has, in fact,
been disputed,“ and it must be admitted that the evidence is weak.
There is certainly no explicit distinction between pneumatics, psychics
and hylics. Indeed, the text seems to treat all offspring of the Father as
members of a single group. Nonetheless, there are a few indications that
a more complex theory is presupposed in the text. Some passages divide
humanity into at least two groups, those who ultimately accept and those
who ultimately reject the saving revelation of the Gospel of Truth. The
former are “those who will receive teaching,"“ whose names are
“inscribed in the book of the living,” whose “names have been
called,”®” who “are from above.”* One passage developing the imagery
of the jars contrasts the two groups as full vessels to empty ones.” The
text once identifies the second group in recognizable and common.
Valentinian terms: “the material ones are strangers.”'”
These references to two contrasting types of human beings, together
with the various remarks made about them in the text, suggest the
spirituals and hylics of gnostic anthropology. Particularly problematic,
however, for those who see the text as Valentinian is the lack of any
explicit reference to psychics.
The one passage where there may be an allusion to the third, inter-
mediate class of human beings appears toward the end of the text. After
a lengthy discussion of the soteriology proper to the first class'* (which —

* Cf. esp. Rom 4:12; 6:1; 6:15.

°8 The significance of the Valentinian anthropological theory continues to be a matter
of dispute. Cf. Schottroff, “Animae”; Muhlenberg, “Erlésungen”; Aland, “Herakleon”;
Pagels, “Valentinian Eschatology” and McCue, “Valentinianism.”
“ See, e.g., H.-M. Schenke, Herkunft, 22.
® Gos. Truth I,3:21,2.
°° Gos. Truth I,3:21,4-5.
*” Gos. Truth I,3:21,25-34.
°8 Gos. Truth I,3:22,3-4.
8 Gos. Truth I,3:26,10-15. The text may here echo Pauline language; cf. Rom 9:22-23; 2
Cor 4:7. At the same time there may be here a further development of the image of Error
working on matter (17,14-20).
100 Gos. Truth I,3:31,1.
191 Gos, Truth I,3:41,14-42,39.
254 HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

for convenience we may call the pneumatics, though the term is absent
from the text), the author affirms that “for the rest, may they know in
their places, that it is not fitting for me .. . to speak of anything else.”*”
This remark hardly pertains to the “material ones,” because the author
has commented frequently on this group. It would seem, then, that the
people in view here are members of neither class to which reference
has been made, but constitute a third group.
The language of the allusive comment supports the suggestion, for
such people are invited to know something, implying that they are not
totally beyond the pale of revelation. Furthermore, they are said to be
“in their places.” This comment would be insignificant were it not for
the technical sense of the term “place” in the preceding discussion.
There, the pneumatics’ are said to ascend in thought to that place
which is their root.’* They thus, in other words, anticipate through the
reception of gnosis an eschatological return “to the source of their
being.” This eschatological or proleptic reintegration into one’s proper
place is apparently not possible for the hylics, who have neither root nor
fruit’’® and who do not intellectually “ascend” to the Father because of
their mistaken belief in their own autonomous existence.’ Thus, the
expressions “the rest” and “in their places”’"” presuppose a third group
distinct from both pneumatics and hylics.
There is one further argument to support the hypothesis that the
author of the Gospel of Truth has in mind a tripartite division of
humanity. In a section already mentioned where the text describes the
soteriology of the pneumatics, there is an allusion to their understanding
of the Father. They think of him not as “small,” “harsh,” or “wrathful,”
but as “a being without evil, imperturbable, gentle, knowing all spaces
before they come into existence.”** This description of the under-
standing of the nature of God resembles what is characterized else-
where in gnostic literature generally, and Valentinian literature in
particular, as the inadequate theology of psychics.’” While this does not
conclusively demonstrate that the author works witha tripartite anthro-
pology, it does suggest that this section of the text owes its description of
pneumatic beings to a distinction between pneumatics and psychics.
One final detail is relevant to this topic. On several occasions the text

102 Gos. Truth I,3:42,39-43,2.

103 Or emanations or pleromas, cf. Gos. Truth I,3:41,15-16.
14 Gos. Truth I,3:41,24-26.
15 Gos. Truth I,3:28,16-17.
106 Gos. Truth I,3:28,20-24.
197 Gos. Truth I,3:42,39-40.
108 Gos. Truth I,3:42,5-9.
1° Cf. Ptolemy's Letter to Flora, in Epiph. Pan. 33.3.2-7. Cf. also Tri. Trac. 1,5:110,22-
213}4.
 THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH AS AN EXOTERIC TEXT 255

refers rather obscurely to the revealer “coming into the midst.”* This
language has biblical parallels," but they do not fully account for the
unusual usage of the phrase in the text. At best, they illustrate once
again the interplay between familiar and unfamiliar in the work. The
absolute use of the term “midst” or “middle” may well reflect a cosmo-
logical scheme, apparent in many other gnostic works, where the realm
dominated by psychic forces is the stage on which the drama of
redemption is played out.”
The anthropology of the Gospel of Truth illustrates clearly that the
author does not offer anything like a systematic account either of the
whole soteriological process or of the division among humankind
effected by the Savior’s appearance.’* There are enough hints, however,
to indicate that some such systematic account is presupposed. The
author’s reticence on this score is easy enough to understand if the text is
designed primarily as an exoteric work. The Valentinian doctrines of the
three classes of humanity were among the more offensive elements of
the school’s. teaching, to judge from the severe criticism of these doc-
trines by opponents of the school.

IV. Conclusion
If our reading of the literary dynamics of the Gospel of Truth is correct,
then the discussion of Error and the allusions to the recipients of gndsis
represent the obverse of the coin presented by the biblical imagery of
the work, and the text becomes a carefully constructed attempt to
domesticate the unusual and to minimize the potentially problematic. At
the same time, through a careful manipulation of traditional imagery,
the text inculcates and reinforces a fundamental theological perspective
that stands in some tension with important elements of that traditional
material.
This analysis explains why there has been so much debate about the
Valentinian affiliation of.the Gospel of Truth: the text conceals major
elements of the system which it presupposes. While one consequence of
this position is that a firm determination of the affiliations of the work is
probably impossible, it still remains highly likely that the work is based
on some form, and possibly a highly developed form, of Valentinian
theology. The work itself simply does not provide enough information to
decide the question of where that form fits in the development of
Valentinian theory.

110 Cf €; armunte, similarly at 19,19; 20,9-10; 26,4-5; 26,27-28.

111 Cf, Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 26.
112 Cf Iren. Haer. I.7.5 and Pistis Sophia, passim.
113 Contrast Tri. Trac. I,5:118,14-124,25.
 Loaeh oncP coe a ’
se ruth See ene

ea 2.7 sekt
vera os et ate
eee x :
SPE Petes dition oy Fire,
tS.
3
oo
 T2
EXEGESIS AND EXPOSITION
OF THE GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS
IN SELECTED TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI

Elaine H. Pagels

Princeton University welcomed Elaine Pagels as Harrison Spear Paine Professor

of Religion in 1982. Professor Pagels distinguished herself early in her career
through her first two books (The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, 1973;
The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters, 1975) as well as
numerous articles appearing in the Journal of. Biblical Literature, Harvard
Theological Review, Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, and many other
journals. She participates in numerous professional societies including the
American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, where she
chaired the section on Nag Hammadi for six years.
Professor Pagels’ current responsibilities as a member of the Coptic Gnostic
Library Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity include co-
authorship (with Harold Attridge, Helmut Koester, and John Turner) of intro-
ductions and textual notes for four of the Nag Hammadi texts.
Professor Pagels is best known outside of academic circles for her third book,
The Gnostic Gospels, 1979, which won the National Book Award and the
National Book Critic’s Circle Award, and has been translated into fourteen
languages. Each chapter of The Gnostic Gospels first appeared in scholarly form
in the above mentioned journals.

Preface
D rawing upon a selection of Nag Hammadi texts, this paper inves-
tigates a wide range of gnostic exegeses of Genesis 1-3. Com-
parison of such texts as the Testimony of Truth, Apocryphon of John,
Exegesis on the Soul, and Hypostasis of the Archons suggests that their
authors concern themselves not only with “cosmological speculation,” as
scholars too often have assumed, but equally with practical issues—

257
258 ELAINE H. PAGELS

specifically, issues concerning sexual behavior: marriage, procreation,

celibacy.
A comparison of the Testimony of Truth and the Apocryphon of John
shows, for example, how different gnostic authors can use contrasting
hermeneutical methods to validate the same practical conclusion:
namely, that sexuality is directly—but antithetically—related to spiri-
tuality.
The Hypostasis of the Archons, finally, as scholars have recognized,
draws upon a wide range of sources, and uses a common gnostic scheme
(cf. On the Origin of the World) in order to present an elaborate
mythical exegesis of Genesis 1-3. This paper demonstrates, however,
that the Hypostasis of the Archons draws upon another body of sources
its author values as much as the Genesis accounts themselves: the letters
of Paul (or, alternatively, written sources upon which Paul himself
drew). Comparison of Greek and Coptic parallel passages shows that the
author of the Hypostasis of the Archons, interpreting Genesis 1-3,
closely follows, in dramatic sequence and in terminology, Paul’s own
exegesis of Genesis 2, which he gives in 1 Cor 15:43ff. Then, turning
from the theme of creation to revelation, the author draws especially
upon such passages as 1 Corinthians 2, to show how the archons, “being
psychic, could not grasp the things that are spiritual” (cf. 1 Cor 2:14; Hyp.
Arch, II,4:87,17-18). So, confusing spiritual with sexual knowledge, they
failed to grasp the hidden power of Wisdom, “whom none of the archons
of this age knew” (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-8). The Hypostasis of the Archons, far
from being superficially “Christianized,” draws its specific structure and
much of its terminology from the only authority the author actually
cites—the “spirit-inspired apostle,” Paul.
Diverse as their hermeneutical methods are, these gnostic authors
agree on the same practical conclusions, requiring celibacy of all truly
“gnostic” Christians.

I. Introduction
Gnostic authors, fascinated by the creation accounts of Genesis 1-3,
often incorporated these into their theological and mythological con-
structions. But what is it about the creation accounts that so fascinates
the gnostics? What do they hope to understand or “explain” from their
own diverse exegeses?
What Clement, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus told us 1a ago—that
gnostics abused the scriptures to construct their own “bizarre inven-
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 259

tions”—appears confirmed by recently discovered texts. Contemporary

scholars, however, attempting to answer the same questions, usually
attribute such exegesis to gnostic “interest in cosmological and theo-
logical speculation.” This observation, so far as it goes, states the
obvious. Such texts as the. Apocryphon of John, Hypostasis of the
Archons, and On the Origin of the World, elaborating dazzling images
of the heavenly hierarchies and narrating complex interplay between
celestial and demonic forces, certainly do evince their authors’ concern
with issues of cosmology, theodicy, and anthropology. But closer investi-
gation of specific elements in such texts—in particular, their exegesis of
such passages as Gen 1:28 and 2:24-25—suggests another perspective.
What motivates these authors, as much as any interest in cosmological
speculation, is common concern with urgent practical matters, espe-
cially sexual desire, intercourse, marriage, and procreation.
Clement of Alexandria, attacking “heretics” whose teaching depre-
cates the God of creation, directly connects such doctrines, above all,
with implications for sexual practices. Clement challenges those who
claim that marriage is “an invention of the law” to make their practices
consistent: “Why do you not oppose all the commandments? For (the
Lord) said, ‘Increase and multiply’ (Gen 1:28). You who are opposed to
the creator ought to abstain from sexual relations altogether.”* Some
heretics, Clement admits, agreed with him, explicitly linking doctrine
with practice. But their continence itself, he charges, serves only “to
blaspheme ... both the creator and the creation,” since they teach “that
one must reject marriage and procreation.”
Their orthodoxy notwithstanding, Clement and his colleagues wres-
tled with the same problems that engaged their opponents. How might
Christians, in the light of Christ’s revelations, obey the divine order
established, in Jesus’ words, “from the beginning” (cf. Mark 10:6, par.)?
Those passages traditionally read as divine commands instituting pro-
creation and marriage—Gen 1:28 and 2:23-24—presented particularly
thorny problems. Throughout the early centuries of Christian history the
exegesis of the Genesis creation accounts—and their practical impli-
cations—formed a storm center of controversy.
Concern with the sexual ethos of Genesis 1-3, was, of course, shared
by Christians with the majority of their Jewish predecessors and con-
temporaries. As early as the second century B.C.E., Jewish teachers often
introduced passages from the creation accounts into discussions of
sexual practices. The author of Jubilees, for example, cites passages from

1 Clem. Alex., Strom. 3.37 (Oulton-Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity), 56.

2 Clem. Alex., Strom. 3.45 (Oulton-Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity), 61.
 260 ELAINE H. PAGELS

the creation accounts to promote strict observance of the laws on sexual

purity and nakedness;’ the author of the Apocalypse of Moses reads into
Genesis his own deprecating view of sexual intercourse;‘ the author of
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs sees there warnings against sexual
pleasure;’ and Ben Sira agrees with many others that Genesis 2-3 offers
reasons for avoiding women.*® Philo simultaneously builds into his
various exegeses warnings against sexual pleasure, women, and sexual
acts not conducive to procreation.’ Rabbinic literature echoes and
amplifies, of course, many of the same themes.’ Jesus himself, according
to synoptic tradition, mentions the Paradise story only once, citing Gen
1:27 and 2:24 to answer a practical question concerning the grounds for
divorce.® Paul invokes the latter passage to warn against intercourse
with prostitutes; he knows from Genesis 2 that Christian women, like
their Jewish contemporaries, must accept subordination to men in
. worship as well as in the social order." This use of the creation accounts
does not surprise us, for anthropological studies have shown how, in
various cultures, creation accounts establish as if “in the nature of
things” the generally accepted values of a given society.”
' Jesus’ and Paul’s pronouncements raised, however, more problems
than they solved. Controversies concerning the correct interpretation of
Genesis 1-3 split second-century Christian groups into hostile factions,
driving a wedge between radically ascetic Christians, who insisted that
“the gospel” abolished procreation and marriage, and the Valentinians,
who took an equally radical but opposite position, namely, that Christ
sanctified marriage, at least for gnostic Christians. Furthermore, such
controversy divided both ascetics and Valentinians, in turn, from groups
represented by such teachers as Clement who claimed that Genesis,
read through the teachings of Jesus and Paul, both affirms and trans-
forms Christian sexual practice.* The aim of this paper is to explore the
Testimony of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Exegesis on the Soul, and
Hypostasis of the Archons to see how these authors, equally obsessed
with the Genesis creation accounts, interpret their theological—and
practical—meaning.

* On purity laws, cf. Jub. 3:4-12; on nakedness, esp. 3:26-32 (Charles, APOT).
*Cf., for example, Apoc. Mos. 19:3-21:6 (von Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphae;
or Revelation of Moses, ANF, 8.565-70).
° T, Reub. 2:1-9; 4. Cf. Genesis 6 to T. Reub. 5:1-7 (Charles, APOT).
® Sir 25:24-26 (Charles, APOT); for discussion, cf. Trenchard, Ben Sira.
” Cf., for some examples, Wegner, “Image of Woman.”
® For only a few examples, cf. Midr. Gen. Rab. 17.8; 18.2; 20.11; 22.2.
* Cf. Mark 10:2-9, 10-12, par.
*° 4 Cor 6:16.
*) 4 Cor 11:2-11.
*2 Cf. Douglas, Symbols, 77-92.
18 Pagels, “Controversies concerning Marriage.”
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 261

II. The Testimony of Truth

The author of the Testimony of Truth, while affirming teaching that
Clement condemns (that marriage is “an invention of the law”), avoids
the inconsistency with which Clement charges other “heretics.” Refer-
ring indirectly to Gen 1:28 and 2:24-25, the author of the Testimony of
Truth sees the law's “defilement” manifested especially in the com-
mands to “take a husband or a wife, and to beget, and to multiply.”
Whoever fulfills the law by engaging in sexual intercourse (or, worse, by
taking pleasure in it) thereby enslaves himself to the “archon of [dark-
ness],”"* the “archon of the womb.”** Sayings like Luke 16:16 (“The law
and the prophets were until John”) and Luke 7:28 (“among those born of
women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the Kingdom of
God is greater than he”) seem to underlie the author’s symbolic exegesis
of John’s baptism:
The Jordan river is the power of the body, that is, the senses of pleasures. The water of
the Jordan is the desire for sexual intercourse. John is the ruler of the womb.”

John’s own birth, initiated through sexual intercourse, stands in direct

antithesis to the birth of Jesus.** The Spirit’s descent, effecting his virgin
birth and signalling his baptism, ends “the domination of carnal pro-
creation” initiated, apparently, through Adam and Eve. Christ himself,
appearing in the form of the serpent, taught the primordial parents the
folly of obeying the creator, opening “the eyes of (their) mind.””
Receiving gndsis “knowledge,” they responded immediately by covering
their genitals.
What the exegesis of the Genesis story here only suggests, the author
elsewhere states explicitly. The author intends to lay aside “loquacity
and disputations” to concern himself or herself above all with “deeds”
which alone distinguish true followers of Christ from their imitators:
“(Those that are] from the seed [of Adam] are manifested by their [deeds]
which are their work.”” Even professed Christians, the author says, fail-

14 Testim. Truth IX,3:29,26-30,4. Translation from Pearson, Codices IX and X, 122-203.

For a discussion of this specific point, cf. p..103.
18 Testim. Truth IX,3:30,16.
18 Testim. Truth 1X,3:31,4-5.
”” Testim. Truth 1X,3:30,30-31,5.
18 Testim. Truth 1X,3:45,6-18.
1° Testim. Truth IX,3:30,30.
20 Testim. Truth IX,3:46,7, cf. Pearson, “Haggadic Traditions”; van Unnik, “Neid” and
Nagel. “Auslegung.”
Testim. Truth IX,3:44,8-9.
22 Testim. Truth 1X,3:67,9-11.
262 ELAINE H. PAGELS

ing to understand Christ spiritually,” “follow the law and obey it,”*
including the commands to marry and procreate; and “not only that”: for
sake of pleasure alone “they have intercourse while they are giving
suck,”* !
Apparently on the same basis—a concern for practice, not doctrine—
this author censures certain gnostic teachers: Isidore and Basilides, who
accept the validity of marriage;”* the Simonians, who “take [wives] (and)
beget children”;”” and certain Valentinians who allow (or even advocate)
marital intercourse among allegedly gnostic Christians.”
Accompanied by such “deeds,” profession of faith means nothing. No
less than Clement, this author insists upon direct correlation between
doctrine and practice, and censures an immature concern with the body
both in faith and in corresponding action. Professing faith in Jesus’ in-
carnation and bodily resurrection, for example, they advocate and prac-
tice martyrdom.” But if the “sons of Adam” manifest their affiliation with
their prototype through their deeds, those who belong to Christ manifest
theirs through opposite action: “he who is able to renounce (money and
sexual intercourse) shows [that] he is [from] the generation of the [son of
man], and has the power to accuse them.” The law joins male and
female; the word of the cross, on the other hand, divides “the males from
the females” and “separates us from the error of the angels.””
The author of the Testimony of Truth bases this antithesis between
marriage (ordained by the law) and celibate renunciation (initiated
through Christ’s word) upon a literal—and negative—reading of Gen
1:28 and 2:24-25. Other ascetically inclined exegetes often understood
the description in Gen 2:18 of the divine intention to send Adam a
feminine “helper” as the end of Adam’s pure and solitary communion
with God—in Philo’s words, “the beginning of all evils.”** Yet others,

8 Testim. Truth IX,3:50,1-2.

*4 Testim. Truth IX,3:50,8-9.
* Testim. Truth IX,3:67,30-31.
® Testim. Truth 1X,3:57,6, cf. Clem. Alex., Strom. 3.1.
” Testim. Truth IX,3:58,2-4.
*® Testim. Truth IX,3:56,1-7. Pearson (Codices IX and X, 116), noting doctrinal
parallels between the author of the Testimony of Truth and Valentinian gnosticism,
comments, “Yet, as we have seen, our gnostic author regards the Valentinian Gnostics as
foremost among the ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’!” The apparent paradox may be resolved
if the basis of our author's opposition concerns not doctrine so much as the practice they
advocate: cf. Clem. Alex., Strom. 3.1; Iren. Haer. 1.6.1; cf. Pagels, “Controversies con-
cerning Marriage.”
Testim. Truth IX,3:34,1-37,9.
°° Testim. Truth IX,3:68,8-12.
51 Testim. Truth 1X,3:40,25; 41,4.
82 Philo, Op. Mund., 152.
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 263

while agreeing with the author of the Testimony of Truth’s negative

view of sexual differentiation, procreation, and marriage, adopted oppo-
site hermeneutical patterns. Some, reading “spiritually,” that is, symbol-
ically, both the injunction to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28) as well
as the accounts of Eve’s creation (Gen 2:18) and Adam’s recognition of
her .(2:24-25), claimed to find in these very passages inspiration for
sexual renunciation.

Ill. The Apocryphon of John

The author of the Apocryphon of John, for example, reads in Gen 2:24 a
“spiritual” meaning. He explains that Adam’s divinely sent helper, far
from being a mere human partner, manifests the luminous epinoia
“intelligence” called ZGé, who “helps the whole creation” as she teaches
Adam in order to restore him to his pléréma “fulness.”** Genesis 2:24-25,
read “spiritually,” then, initiates not his degrading involvement with
carnal marriage, but rather his restoration to primordial union with his
spiritual syzygos “counterpart.”
When Adam first sees beside himself the woman formed by the
creator, the luminous epinoia appears simultaneously, so that he
recognizes in her his “counterimage,”™ the spiritual power of Sophia.
Adam expresses this act of spiritual recognition in an amplified version
of Gen 2:24-25:°
“This is indeed bone from my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” Therefore the man will
“leave his father and his mother and he will cleave to his wife, and they will both be
one flesh, for they will send him his consort, and he will leave his father and his mother
... <‘His mother’ is> our sister Sophia, she who came down in innocence, in order to
rectify her deficiency. Therefore she was called Life, which is, “the mother of the
living” (cf. Gen 3:20).

Adam’s experience prefigures that of the gnostic Christian, who, while

imprisoned within the body, is awakened, like Adam, and raised from
the “deep sleep” of ignorance, when the pronoia “forethought” of the
pure light, the “thought of the virginal spirit” appears to him.*
Whence, then, the fierce resistance to spiritual revelation that human

88 Ap. John BG8502,2:68:19; translation here from Giversen, Apocryphon. While

awaiting the forthcoming volume of Codex II from the Nag Hammadi Studies series, I
have referred to Giversen for his reconstruction of the Coptic text, checking this with
Wisse’s translation published in the NHLE, 98-116. Further citations follow Wisse’s
numeration and translation, except where indicated.
$4 Ap. John II,1:23,9.
35 Ap, John II,1:23,10-24.
86 Ap. John II,1:30,32-31,22,
264 ELAINE H. PAGELS

beings experience, the internal opposition that hinders humanity from

recognizing its spiritual “fulfillment”? To answer this question, among
others, the author of the Apocryphon of John narrates a complex drama,
played out in three stages: theological, cosmological, and anthropo-
logical. Underlying the whole drama is an assumption shared by many
others that sexuality and spirituality are essentially—but antithetically—
related energies: the first is the insidious, dark side of the second. _
Without entering into the intricacies of the dramatic plot, let us note
that this theme dominates the whole narrative. The author of the Apoc-
ryphon of John shares with other gnostics an ontological perspective in
which all being, apart from the original Monad, is drawn by divine
inspiration not toward solitude but toward communion.” Since each
element of spiritual being is essentially interdependent, each strives
toward union with its appropriate counterpart. But after one aeon—
Sophia—fails to achieve harmonious union with the spirit, her mascu-
line syzygos,* the cosmic drama expands ina series of broken symme-
tries. Yaldabaoth, born from Sophia’s isolated energy, himself joins in a
series of degrading unions, first with his aponoia “madness,” a union that
engenders the authorities.” Uniting himself with them in turn,“ his
deficient creative energies bring forth the cosmos and then the psychic
form of Adam, each of which suffers from the same deficiencies. ,
The introduction of sexuality into human experience involves, at
every stage, a series of hostile acts in the archontic powers’ attempt to
capture and enslave the human race for themselves. The chief archon,
after joining with his powers to commit adultery with Sophia, sends his
angels to the daughters of men to “raise offspring for their enjoyment”
(cf. Genesis 6). Failing at first to accomplish this, “they created a
despicable spirit who resembled the spirit who had descended, so as to
pollute the souls through it,” leading them into desires for material
things, seducing them with “many deceits,” and finally luring them into
sexual union and procreation.”
As the Apocryphon of John describes it, the battle for control of Adam
also proceeds in several stages. First the powers construct a psychic and
material body that engenders in Adam the demonic impulses expressed
in pleasure, desire, grief, and fear.‘* Because Adam received afterwards

*” For discussion of the schéma, which the author of the Apocryphon of John shares,
for example, with the Valentinians, cf. Pagels, “Controversies concerning Marriage.”
88 Ap. John II,1:9,25-35.
8° Ap. John II,1:10,26-28.
4° Ap. John II,1:12,10-12.
*? Ap. John II,1:29,16-30,11.
“2 Ap. John II,1:15,13-19,15.
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 265.

the luminous epinoia, the powers cast him in “earth and water and fire
and the pneuma ‘air’ all of which originate in matter (the ignorance of
darkness and desire) and in their opposing spirit (the tomb of the newly
formed body).”* Finally, the powers place in Paradise the “tree of their
life,” whose “fruit is death, and desire is its seed.”** After the serpent
“taught (the man and the woman) toeat. from wickedness, procreation,
lust, and destruction,”** the man and woman found themselves bound in
traditional marriage: the man dominates his wife, and she prepares
herself for intercourse with him. But the chief archon intervenes,
himself seducing the woman. Through this act, which temporarily
deprives her of spiritual life, “he planted sexual desire in her who
belonged to Adam. And he produced through intercourse the copies of
the bodies, and he inspired them with his opposing spirit.”"” As a result
of these successive acts of violence, seduction, and betrayal, “sexual
intercourse continued to the present day.”
Redemption occurs only for those in whom spiritual power overcomes
the “despicable spirit,” men and women, who, recognizing the presence
of pronoia within themselves, renounce that hostile spirit and all its
works. Apocryphon of John implies that they too, like Adam, by
rejecting carnal marriage and procreation, receive restoration to that
primordial spiritual marriage in union with the divine spirit.

IV. The Hypostasis of the Archons

The author of Hypostasis of the Archons shares with many other gnostic
teachers the conviction that sexuality bears a direct but antithetical
relation to spirituality. Like Testimony of Truth, Hypostasis of the
Archons depicts the commands to marry and procreate as deceptions
that lesser spiritual powers have invented to enslave humanity. And like
Apocryphon of John, Hypostasis of the Archons uses the literary genre
of pesher to comment on the Genesis creation accounts.” Birger Pearson
characterizes the account of human creation in the Hypostasis of the
Archons as “an epexegetical commentary on Gen 2.7 (and other pas-
sages), i.e., on how man derives his spiritual nature.” Here, Pearson
observes, however, “traditional exegesis of Gen 2.7 has been overlaid

43 Ap. John II,1:20,28-21,13.

“4 Ap. John II,1:21,34-35.
45 Ap, John II,1:22,10-15.
48 Ap. John II,1:23,37-24,3.
47 Ap. John II,1:24,28-31.
48 Ap. John II,1:24,26-27.
4° Tardieu, Mythes, 23; Pearson, Terminology, 61.
5° Pearson, Terminology, 73.
266 ELAINE H. PAGELS

with new interpretations peculiar to this discussion.”** What sources

have contributed to such “new interpretations”? In his brief discussion,
Pearson does not name them, but his analysis here and elsewhere agrees
with other commentators that they are to be found in Jewish apocryphal
sources as well as in such philosophical sources as Plato’s Timaeus.”
Bentley Layton concurs:*
The plundering of Genesis 1-4, despite characteristic inversion of Scriptural categories,
shows deep dependence upon Jewish sacred texts. The author, or his sources, also
draws from a reservoir of apocryphal or parabiblical tradition.

Layton adds that the author of the Hypostasis of the Archons draws,
however, upon another body of sources which is second in importance
only to Genesis (or perhaps even equal to Genesis, being essential for his
exegetical understanding): the letters of Paul.** As Layton points out, “the
whole story is explicitly an elaboration of St. Paul’s reference to the
Christian struggle with malevolent rules and authorities of heaven.”*
The opening lines of the texts cite two passages attributed to “the great
apostle, who is inspired by the spirit of the Father of truth,” and signal
the intention to read Genesis through Paul’s eyes.
Although some commentators treat these lines either as a superficial
attempt to “Christianize” the author’s sources or as a gloss tacked on to
non-catholic material by an hypothetical redactor,* our analysis suggests
the opposite view. The author of the Hypostasis of the Archons,
intending to read Genesis 1-3 “spiritually,” closely follows and then
mythically elaborates Paul’s own exegesis of the creation account given
in 1 Corinthians 15. Second, when the author turns from the theme of
creation to revelation, he or she tends to read this process through
passages such as 1 Corinthians 2 and Ephesians 3-5.
In saying this, I do not intend to deny, of course, that the author made
use—often extensive use—of non-Christian images and sources as did
the Testimony of Truth and the Apocryphon of John; nor do I intend to
deny that the Hypostasis of the Archons draws on philosophical and
mythical traditions and above all upon Jewish traditions concerning
Adam’s creation. This raises the following question: how has he or she
(and other gnostic authors) incorporated and adapted such traditions
into this specific exegesis of the creation accounts? Like many other

+52 poatson, Terminology, 73.

82 Bearson, Terminology, 51-81; cf. also id. “Haggadic Traditions.”
Layton, “Hypostasis.” I follow Layton’s text and translation here unless otherwise
indicated. This is a point well-illustrated, as Layton notes, by Fallon’s Enthronement.
54 Layton, “Hypostasis, ” 373,
=; Layton, “Hypostasis,” 364.
°° For the most recent example, cf. Barc, L’Hypostase; Roberge, Norea.
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 267

“spiritually minded” Christians, this author intends, while interweaving

diverse materials into this exegesis, to read Genesis through the frame-
work offered by the “spirit-inspired” apostle. I will return to this text
below.

V. The Exegesis on the Soul

The Exegesis on the Soul offers a limited parallel. This text expresses
the same antithesis found in Testimony. of Truth and the Apocryphon of
John between carnal marriage and procreation and their spiritual coun-
terparts. Setting aside for the present the obvious differences between
the texts, one may note a few basic similarities. Like the Apocryphon of
John, Exegesis on the Soul describes the soul in isolation as essentially
unstable. Drawn in two opposite directions, the soul must join either
with the “opposing spirit” or with the holy spirit. Having fallen into the
body and come into the “hands of many robbers,”” the soul suffers rape,
or, at best, seduction.** What can release her from her spiritual and
physical® prostitution?
Like the author of the Apocryphon of John, the author of the Exegesis
on the Soul sees in Gen 2:24 not the problem but the beginning of its
resolution. Citing the passage explicitly, this author (like the author of
the Apocryphon of John) rejects the literal interpretation that refers it
only to “the first man and woman,” and to the institution of “carnal
marriage.” Read “prophetically”* or symbolically, with the help of
specific Pauline passages, Gen 2:24-25 signals the soul’s restoration to
her primordial spiritual union with her “true love, her real master.””
Having cited 1 Cor 5:9 and Eph 6:12 to show how the soul’s pros-
titution leads to actual sexual immorality (in the author’s understanding,
to “prostitution of the body as well”), the author can claim Paul’s sup-
port for his exclusively symbolic reading of Gen 2:24, even invoking for
this purpose passages generally read in reference to actual marriage.”
Rejecting the literal meaning of Gen 1:28 and 2:24-25 and the practice
they advocate, the author says, permits the soul to fulfill spiritually the
prophetic significance of the Genesis commands. Freed from the bon-
dage of “carnal marriage,” burdened nonetheless “with the annoyance

8” Exeg. Soul I1,6:127,25-27; cf. Ap. John II,1:21,10-12.

58 Exeg. Soul I1,6:127,29-32.
5° Fxeg. Soul II,6:130,28-131,8.
8° Fxeg. Soul II,6:132,27-35.
®1 Exeg. Soul II,6:133,1.
*,,
- Exeg. Soul Il,6:133,1-11.
°° Fxeg. Soul II,6:130,28-131,13,
°* For example, Eph 5:23.
 268 ELAINE H. PAGELS

of physical desire,”® the soul joins in spiritual union with her heavenly
bridegroom, receiving from him “the seed that is the lifegiving spirit,” to
fulfill “the great, perfect marvel of birth.”®

VI. The Hypostasis of the Archons

Returning to the Hypostasis of the Archons, we recall again that our
author begins by invoking the authority of the “great apostle, inspired by
the spirit of God,”” to explain the nature of spiritual struggle. If quoting
from Col 1:13, the author may have in mind Paul’s prayer that the
hearers be “filled with knowledge (émtyvwovv) of (the Father’s) will, in all
wisdom and spiritual understanding (é€v macy codia Kat cuvere mvev-
parc, Col 1:9-10), for he or she interprets the Father’s will® as it is
revealed through Eleleth (tmntTpmN2HT), which Layton takes as the
Coptic translation of cvvects)® and Sophia (94,5). Ldveows and cogia
become, in this account, hypostasized figures who reveal the spiritual
meaning of the primordial drama. As Col 1:15 describes the revelation of
the “image of the invisible God,” so Hypostasis of the Archons, having
explained that “starting from the invisible world the visible world is
created,”” determines that although the “image of God” first appeared to
the authorities in the waters,”’ they failed to grasp that spiritual image:
“for psychics cannot grasp the things that are spiritual” (cf. 1 Cor 2:14).”
These opening passages already indicate the interplay of. herme-
neutics and theme that the rest of the text clearly demonstrates. Like
/
Basilides and the Valentinians, this author intends to take Pauline words
and phrases as veiled allusions to mythical acts, drawing out, as it were,
“the story behind the story.” What Paul states either abstractly (cf. Col
1:9) or in principle (cf. 1 Cor 2:14) becomes in Hypostasis of the Archons
clues to each act of the primordial drama.
Some scholars, noting the peculiar character of “Pauline” passages

=4g EXe8: Soul I,6:132,27-133,15.

°° Exeg. Soul 11,6:133,31-134,5. Although striking, such exegetical practice is far from
unique. Tatian, Julius Cassianus, and the authors of the apocryphal Acts agree with this
author in reading the Corpus Paulinum (especially Ephesians) as advocates of total
renunciation of marriage and procreation in favor of the spiritual counterparts.
°” Hyp. Arch. II,4:86,20-21.
4p" FyP: Arch. II,4:87,20.
®° Hyp. Arch. II,4:93,19; Layton, “Hypostasis,” p. 67, n. 130: “We can conclude that in
our text. . tmntrmnhet (“understanding”) corresponds to ovvecis.”
”°Hyp. Arch. 11,4:87,11-12.
7,Hyp. Arch, II,4:87,32; 87,14; cf. Layton, “Hypostasis,” p. 49, n. 22.
rae. Arch, II,4:87,17-18; for Coptic and Greek citations of this and other parallels,
cf. Table I.
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 269

most often cited in the Tripartite Tractate, suggest, alternatively, that the
author, rather than using Paul’s own letters, used sources upon which
Paul himself drew. This possibility cannot be excluded and deserves
exploration. For the purpose of the present study, however, it is impor-
tant to note that the author of the Tripartite Tractate consciously intends
to evoke Paul’s authority for this exegesis.
The contrast between psychic and pneumatic perception, first drawn
‘in the archons’ futile attempt to grasp the image, recurs thematically
throughout a drama in which each act intensifies the conflict. After
failing to “grasp” the image appearing in the waters, the archons hope to
seize upon it by means of its modeled form.” Foiled, they attempt to
seize and rape the woman who manifests it,” and, failing that, to capture
her progeny.”
As the scene changes from the archons’ experience to the story of
Adam and Eve, the thematic contrast between psychic and pneumatic
perception expresses itself in the antithesis between “carnal knowledge”
and “spiritual knowledge.” The assertion that “our contest is not against
.flesh and blood, but against authorities of the universe and spirits of
wickedness””® bears anthropological as well as cosmological implica-
tions. Read in the context of the concern shown by the Hypostasis of the
Archons with sexuality, this passage suggests that opposition to the spirit
derives not merely from physical and emotional impulses arising from
our bodily nature, but from sinister spiritual forces that, having created
these impulses, surface in them.
While the archons create a man (oypwme) out of “soil from the earth,”
(oyxoyc €B8OA 2M mKag; cf. Gen 2:7), they nonetheless mold their
creature as one entirely “made of earth,” a term that, as Layton notes,
Paul uses in his own exegesis of Gen 2:7 (1 Cor 15:47).” Despite the
creation of man’s psychic body, the archons, because they do not
understand the power of God (raynamic Mmnoyrte), find themselves
too weak to raise him from the earth: “They could not make him (the
psychic man) arise because of their weakness.” Only the spirit possesses
power to raise their psychic creation; when the spirit descends, “man
became a living soul” (Gen 2:7).”*
Scholars have noted in such exegesis the influence of both the
Genesis creation epic and apocryphal and other Jewish legends.” To
78 Hyp. Arch. II,4:87,34-88,2.
74 Hyp. Arch. II,4:89,19-24.
Ӥ Hyp. Arch. II,4:91,9-12 (passim).
76 Hyp. Arch, II,4:86,24-25; Eph 6:11-12.
”” Layton, “Hypostasis,” p. 49, n. 31.
78 Hyp. Arch. II,4:88,12-15.
7° Cf., for example, Béhlig-Labib, Schrift ohne Titel, 19-35; H.-M. Schenke, Gott
270 ELAINE H. PAGELS

this,.one may add that the author of Hypostasis of the Archons owes this
version of Adam’s creation to Paul, specifically and appropriately to
Paul’s own exegesis of the creation account of Genesis 2 in 1 Corinthians
15. In short, terminology and action in Hypostasis of the Archons offer a
dramatized version of Genesis 2 read through 1 Cor 15:43b-48:
Sown in weakness, it is raised in power (ometperat év Goeveia, eyeiperar ev dvvdper).
What is sown a psychic body is raised a pneumatic body (omeiperar capa Wuytxor,
éyeiperat c@pua mvevparixoy). If there is a psychic body, there is also a pneumatic body (Ei
forw capa Wuyixov, éorw Kai mvevparixov). Thus it is written, “The first man Adam
became aliving soul”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the
pneumatic which is first, but the psychic, and then the pneumatic (aAA” 0d mpa@rov ro
mvevparixoy GANA TO WuyiKoy, emecra TO TvEvparixov). The first man was made of earth,
choic; the second is from heaven (6 mp@ros avOpwaos ex yijs xotkos, 0 devrepos avOpwros ef
ovpavod). Like the choic, so are those who are choic; and like the heavenly, so are those
who are heavenly.

As Hypostasis of the Archons tells it, the archons, sensing in their

weakness (dcOeveia, TOYMNTAT6OM)” that their hold over Adam is
threatened by the spirit’s plot to lull him back to ignorance, attempt to
lay hold of the divine image within Adam by opening his side. The spirit
departs, and “Adam became wholly psychic.”" But the spirit (here per-
sonified as the pneumatic woman) returns to that “psychic body,” and
bids it: “Arise, Adam.”” Here again, I suggest, the author is translating
Paul’s statements into dramatic action: “sown in weakness,” the psychic
body is “raised in power” at the spirit’s descent.
Although the Apocryphon of John and Exegesis on the Soul interpret
Gen 2:24-25 “spiritually,” allowing Adam to recognize his pneumatic
“co-likeness,” Hypostasis of the Archons, on the contrary, avoids the
passage—deliberately, one supposes, because of its association with
marriage and sexual union. To emphasize that Adam here awakens to
spiritual and not carnal knowledge, the author chooses Gen 3:20 (“It is
you who have given me life; you will be called ‘Mother of the living’”*’)
to express the awakening of Adam’s spiritual knowledge. Likewise she
whom Adam recognizes is not the “carnal woman” whom the text later
calls “his wife”; instead, she is Adam’s pneumatic “female counterpart,
Eve,” who manifests Wisdom, his spiritual mother.
From this point in the drama, the thematic contrast between psychic
and pneumatic modes of perception (cf. 1 Cor 2:14) turns on the paradox >

“Mensch,” 61-154; Bullard, Hypostasis of the Archons, 42-114; Fallon, Enthronement,

25-88; Barc, L’Hypostase, 74-130; and relevant remarks in Layton, “Hypostasis,” 372-73,
and Pearson, “Haggadic Traditions.”
8° Hyp. Arch. II,4:86,6; 87,15; 88,3.
81 byxikoc THpq: Hyp. Arch. II,4:87,16; 88,3; 88,6.
82 Hyp. Arch. II,4:89,14.
88 Hyp. Arch. II,4:89,14-17; cf. Iren. Haer. 1.30.2.
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 271

of Eve’s identity. Adam, himself raised from psychic to pneumatic per-

ception, recognizes Eve spiritually. The archons, however, aroused
instead to passion, attempt to “know” her sexually. As the revelation
section of Hypostasis of the Archons suggests even more clearly, the
author alludes to the description of wisdom’s (co¢ia) hidden identity in 1
Cor 2:6-8, whom “none of the archons of this age knew (ijv ovdets rev
apxdvtwr rod aidvos rovrou éyvwxev). When their third attempt to “grasp
what is spiritual” ends, like the others, in failure, Eve laughs at their
foolish (royMNTaTeHT MN. TOYMNTBAAE)™ confusion of sexual with
spiritual knowledge. Their foolishness and consequent condemnation
recalls not only 1 Cor 2:14a that the author of Hypostasis of the Archons
previously paraphrased but also the verses that directly follow:
The psychic . . . does not receive the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness
to him (uwpia yap abr& éorw), nor can he know them (kat od dvvarat yvdvat) because
they are spiritually discerned (87: avevparixas dvaxpiverat). But the pneumatic judges all
things, but himself is judged by no one (6 d¢ mvevparixos dvaxpivet yey mavra, adros d¢ ba”
ovdsevos dvaxpiverat).

Escaping rape at their hands, “she became atree.” “In the original
exegesis implied by this metamorphosis,” as Layton notes, “undoubtedly
(she became) the ‘Tree of Life’ (Gen 2:9), since the Aramaic hayyaya,
‘life, gives another pun on the name Hawwéah, ‘Eve.’’* The pun
probably extends, as Layton and Pearson agree, to her next metamor-
phosis as the Instructor manifested in the form of the serpent. Yet the
author’s familiarity with the verbal connection between Eve, Life,
Instructor, and Beast, as well as his or her later identification of Eve with
Wisdom,” suggest a more direct scriptural source of inspiration: the
Wisdom passages of Proverbs 1-4. Prov 3:18 specifically identifies Wis-
dom as a “tree of life”: “She is a tree of life to those who lay hold upon
her; those who hold her fast are happy.” Prov 4:13 not only combines the
image of “holding on” to wisdom with the term for Instruction (zatdeia)
but again identifies her with life (Eve): “Keep hold of Instruction; do not
let her go; guard her, for she is your life.””
According to Hippolytus, Basilides juxtaposes passages from Proverbs
with those from the Pauline letters, reading both, like the author of

8 Hyp. Arch. II,4:89,25.

85 Layton, “Hypostasis,” 57.
8° Hyp. Arch. I1,4:89,33; Layton, “Hypostasis,” 55; Pearson, “Haggadic Traditions.”
Pearson (“Tree”) recently has added to his previous research an example of a Pompean
mosaic that illustrates a similar transformation.
87 Hyp. Arch. II,4:94,4f.
58 We note too that Prov 1:11f. warns “fools” who attempt to “get gain by violence” that
their own violence deprives them of “life”; cf. 1:19. Like the Eve of Hypostasis of the
Archons, Wisdom herself laughs “at their calamity” and eludes their pursuit.
272 ELAINE H. PAGELS

Hypostasis of the Archons, as references to specific acts in the pri-

mordial drama. Basilides explains, for example, that Prov 1:7 (“The fear
of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”) refers to the Great Archon’s
‘terror at discovering the power of Wisdom above him. Repenting for his
arrogant ignorance, he receives oral instruction concerning the “wisdom
of God spoken in a mystery” (cf. 1 Cor 2:7), wisdom “not revealed to
previous generations” (cf. Eph 3:4b-5a).* One need not assume, of
course, that the author of Hypostasis of the Archons knows the work of
Basilides, Valentinus, and other exegetes. What the parallels do suggest
is an acquaintance with widespread hermeneutical methods and prac-
tices.
In the Hypostasis of the Archons Eve's escape, separating her spiritual
being from its bodily form, focuses the dramatic tension on the paradox
of her identity. The pneumatic feminine principle (tTmNneymartixH),
appearing as Instructor (fem. rpeqramo), now engages in dialogue with
her sarkic counterpart (tc2ime Ncapkiku) who, after receiving spiritual
instruction partakes of the tree of knowledge and persuades her hus-
band, so that “these psychic beings ate.” Recognizing their spiritual
nakedness, they respond by covering their sexual organs. Here again the
narrative uses Genesis to emphasize the antithesis between sexual and
spiritual knowledge.
The arrogant archon, discovering their transgression, “cursed the
woman.” But which woman? The obvious answer is that he cursed the
sarkic woman along with the snake. But the narrator, having previously
used tc2ime: to designate both pneumatic and sarkic manifestations,
here leaves the term tc2ime ambiguous, implying that the archon’s
cursing of the woman and the snake unwittingly (and blasphemously)
includes their instructor, the spiritual woman, as well.
The sarkic woman answers the archon’s charge, accusing the serpent
of seducing her. Nonetheless the sarkic man and woman suffer exile
from Paradise. The archons then attempt to bring humanity into “great
distraction (mepicmacmoc) and intoa life of toil” to prevent them “from:
devoting themselves to the holy spirit.”** The author may have in mind

%° According to Rensberger (“Apostle,” 134-40) Hippolytus knows that Basilides cites

Prov 1:7 to describe the Great Archon’s terror at discovering the powers above him (Ref.
7.26.2): receiving oral instruction through Christ, he learns the “wisdom spoken in a
mystery,” cf. 1 Cor 2:7; “not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the
spirit,” 1 Cor 2:13; wisdom “not known to previous generations,” Eph 3:4b-5a (Ref. 7.25.3).
Cf. also Luke 8:10 and 10:21.
°° Hyp. Arch. II,4:90,15. This translation clarifies the text for me more than Layton’s
version of the line.
®. Hyp. Arch. II,4:90,30.
% Hyp. Arch. II,4:91,9-12.
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 273

not only Paul’s warning that marriage involves both husband and wife
in concern for ra rod xécpov, but also the apostle’s antidote: Let those
who remain unmarried devote themselves to the Lord ameptomdaorws
“without distraction” (1 Cor 7:32-36).*
Expelled from paradise, the woman, now impregnated by the archons,
bears “their son” Cain.“ Then “he knew his wife,” and she bears Abel.”
Clarifying the antecedents to the text’s ambiguous pronouns, Layton
identifies Cain and Abel’s mother as Eve, and Abel's father as Adam.”
Yet the author’s ambiguity is both intentional and significant. The
proprietary archons, who regard their creature (plasma) as “their
Adam,”” regard his female companion as Eve, because she is formed,
like him, in their image.” But this, as the author sees it, is their fatal
mistake. The archons’ plasma, “their man,” remains nameless, allowing
the spirit to name Adam, a name that, according to Hypostasis of the
Archons, attests his spiritual vitality.* In a second descent the spirit
speaks his name and raises him to gndsis: “Arise, Adam.”*” Recognizing
his spiritual mother, Adam calls her, in turn, by her true name, “Mother
of the Living,” Eve." That Hypostasis of the Archons attributes this
name to the spiritual mother—and withholds it, in turn, from the woman
who, raped by the archons and “known” sexually by her husband, bore
Cain and Abel—is, as Barc recognizes, no accident.’* Following the
birth of Cain and Abel, “Adam knew his feminine counterpart, Eve,”
and the naming of the two partners indicates that this sentence narrates
not an act of “carnal knowledge” as Layton infers'* but a reawakening
*3 Shortly before, in fact, Paul even quotes from Gen 2:24, a passage Hypostasis of the
Archons avoids. Using a rather shocking exegesis of the Genesis passage, Paul grounds
his condemnation of porneia “fornication” in the sense of intercourse with a prostitute in
this text contrasting porneia with the believer's spiritual union with Christ (1 Cor 6:16-
20). Ascetic and gnostic Christian exegetes made widespread use of these passages. For
examples, cf. Pagels, “Controversies concerning Marriage.”
°* Hyp. Arch. II,4:91,13; cf. Layton, “Hypostasis,” p. 60, n. 4. Barc, L’Hypostase, 104-
7
*° Hyp. Arch. II,4:91,14: Layton infers Adam (“Hypostasis,” p. 61, n. 85); Barc infers
Sabaoth (L’Hypostase, 104-107).
°° In agreement with Barc (L’Hypostase, 104-107); yet I do not find his more complex
theory of Abel’s paternity conclusive.
97 Hyp. Arch. II,4:89,19; 91,4; cf. also 89,5; 90,5.
*8 Cf. especially Hyp. Arch. II,4:92,20-21.
%° Hyp. Arch, II,4:88,16-17; for discussion, cf. Barc, L'Hypostase, 82.
100 Hyp. Arch. II,4:89,13.
101 Hyp. Arch. II,4:89,14-17; cf. Layton, “Hypostasis,” p. 57, n. 57.
102 As Barc perceptively observes (L’'Hypostase, 93-94): “Dans Gn., 3,20 l'exégése du
nom d’Eve est ‘Mére de tous les vivants.’ La suppression du mot ‘tous’ est certainement
intentionnelle et veut exprimer qu’a la différence de Genése Eve n'est pas la femme
charnelle, mére de tous les hommes, mais la Femme spirituelle, mére des seuls vivants
véritables, les spirituels.”
“3 Hyp. Arch. II,4:91,32; Layton, “Hypostasis,” p. 61, n. 92. I agree here with Barc, who
 274 ELAINE H. PAGELS

of the spiritual knowledge initiated in their first encounter. The mutual

. act of spiritual “knowing” produces Seth, born “through God” (cf. Gen
- 4:25). Just as the spirit previously gave “birth” to Adam and put him in
the place of the archons’ psychic “man,” so now she replaces the psychic
Abel with Seth, born of the spirit. Finally, the spiritual mother, like her
sarkic predecessor, receives a second child, now fully “born of the
spirit”: Norea. Hypostasis of the Archons explains that Norea’s birth
spiritually fulfills’® the command of Gen 1:28 (“be fruitful and mul-
tiply”).
The archons, aroused at this new subversion, decide to obliterate the
whole creation. Opposed by their ruler, who attempts to sabotage their
plan, they encounter Norea’s outright defiance. The drama reaches its
first climax when the riddle of the mother’s identity explodes into open
confrontation.
The archons, responding with their characteristic error, go to meet
Norea in order to seduce her. Their ruler declares to Norea “your
mother Eve came to us”—sexually.’* But Norea challenges them all, for,
in her view, it is a case of mistaken maternity. She attacks them where
they are most vulnerable; again they are confusing sexual with spiritual
knowledge: “You did not know my mother: instead, it was your female
counterpart that you knew.”"” Having raped the female plasma, they
imagined that they had “known” Eve. Norea declares, however, that
they never “knew” her since she is “known” only spiritually. Norea sets
them straight: having mistaken her mother’s identity, they mistake hers
as well. Norea knows that she is not born from the female plasma, wife
of “their Adam”; she is born rather from “his feminine counterpart, Eve,”
the spirit: “I am not your descendant; rather, it is from the world above
that I come.”** And, as Norea soon learns from Eleleth, Eve’s own
mother is wisdom,’” “whom none of the archons of this age knew” (cf. 1
Cor 2:8).
But the arrogant archon, rejecting the revelation of Eve’s true
identity—and, consequently, Norea’s—persists in his error, demanding
that Norea submit sexually to him and his archons, “as did also your

comments (L’Hypostase, 108) that “Eve, la mére de Seth et de Noréa, est donc la Femme
spirituelle, celle qui est venue d’en haut pour s’unir 4 Adam. Seth est le fruit d’une union
opérée dans le monde céleste entre Adam le spirituel et la Femme spirituelle.”
104 Hyp. Arch. I1,4:91,33-34.
108 Hyp. Arch. II,4:92,4-5.
108 Hyp. Arch. I1,4:92,19-21; cf. Layton, “Hypostasis,” p. 68, n. 103.
107 Hyp. Arch. II,4:92,24-25.
108 Hyp. Arch. II,4:92,25-31.
10° Cf. Hyp. Arch. II,4:95,7f.
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 275

mother Eve.”"*° Norea, recognizing her need for spiritual understanding,

cries out for help to “the God of the Entirety, ” pleading for help from the
holy spirit.
Does the author of the Hypostasis of the Archons have in mind Paul’s
quotation from Isa 40:13 at 1 Cor 2:16: “who has known the mind of the
Lord? Who can teach him?” Possibly; for, as Paul explains in 1 Cor 2:10,
only the spirit reveals “the deep things of God”; thus, only those taught
by the spirit, the pneumatics, understand “the gifts bestowed on us by
God” because they receive gnosis through oral instruction. The apostle
discloses, too, the content of that teaching: it is the “wisdom hidden in a
mystery, whom none of the archons of this age knew” (a passage that our
author reads, apparently, in terms of a double meaning of “knowing”
suggested in Genesis 1-4). Paul’s prayer in Col 1:9 that Hypostasis of the
Archons alludes to at the beginning of his exposition is fulfilled in
Eleleth’s appearance to Norea. Personifying spiritual understanding
(cvvéoer. mvevparixyn cf. Col 1:9), Eleleth reveals to Norea “all wisdom”
(cf. Col 1:10). Specifically, he reveals the mystery concerning cod¢ia pre-
viously unknown to the archons (cf. 1 Cor 2:8, Ephesians 3); that mystery
fills the spiritual one with “knowledge of (the Father's) will” (cf. Col 1:9).
Describing wisdom’s creative work without any hint of deprecation or
blame, Eleleth explains that whatever evil later derived from such work
came into being “through the will of the Father of the whole” (noywu)
MITeiwT MIOTHPY).’”
Norea’s second question to Eleleth barely conceals her own anxiety
concerning her mother’s identity. Although her defiance had once con-
cealed her anxiety from the archons, she now asks, “Sir, am I also from
their matter (hylé)?”"* Having already heard that she and her generation
are from “the place where the virgin spirit dwells,”"* Norea now learns
her paternal identity as well: she and her offspring are from the
primordial Father.’ She and her “seed” (cmepma) receive spiritual life
“in the midst of mortal humanity,” but that “seed” will not be manifested
until after three generations.’*
To what source does Hypostasis of the Archons owe this specific
conjunction of images? The contrast among those who have come to
know “the way” and are immortal (and are freed from the mortality
otherwise common to all humanity), “the seed” that awaits future

110 Hyp. Arch. II.4:92,30-31.

111 Eyp. Arch. I1,4:96,13; cf. 87,21-23.
112 Fyp. Arch. II,4:96,18-19.
113 Hyp. Arch. II,4:93,30.
114 Fyp. Arch. II,4:96,20-22.
118 Hyp. Arch. II,4:96,25-27.
276 ELAINE H. PAGELS

manifestation, and the three generations that must come into being
before that “seed” comes to be known occur commonly in gnostic
literature. There is, however, one Pauline passage already used by the
author of Hypostasis of the Archons to interpret Genesis 2 that contains
and links all three images together: 1 Cor 15:35-50. If Plato introduces
the sperma terminology into the Timaeus account of human creation,"
so does Paul. Paul, however, goes on (as Plato does not) to connect the
image of the sperma not only with the theme of mortality, but also with
the origin and destiny of three distinct gené “generations”: pneumatic,
psychic, and choic. And in this respect he stands close to Hypostasis of
the Archons. a
We note that the author of Hypostasis of the Archons reads Paul’s
account in terms of a concern with the primordial process of creation
apparently taking the clue from 1 Cor 15:45, where Paul quotes Gen 2:7,
and he reads this text as a reference to creation and to eschatological
transformation.
Rebuking those who “have no knowledge of God (&yvwaoiav yap beod
twes €xovow), Paul explains that what is “sown,” and spiritually raised is
not “the body which is to come into being” but the “bare kernel” of seed:
For God gives to each body, as he wills, and to each of the seeds {xat éxaorw rav
onepyarwy) its own body. Not all flesh is the same flesh . .. there are heavenly bodies,
and earthly bodies (kat cwpara érovpana, cat cwpara émiyeta).

Paul says additionally that “what is sown in corruption is raised in

incorruption; sown in weakness, it is raised in power; sown a psychic
body, it is raised a pneumatic body.” The author of Hypostasis of the
Archons reads Paul’s reference to three gené in 1 Cor 15:42-48, espe-
cially in 1 Cor 15:47, as an anticipation of the eschatological result of the
interplay of archontic and spiritual powers in human creation:
The first man is from earth, choic (cf. Hyp. Arch. 11,4:87,26); The second man is from
heaven (6 devrepos avOpwros ef obpavod). Like the choic, so are those who are choic; like
the heavenly, so are those who are heavenly.

How long must one await the manifestation of that spiritual seed, the
heavenly race? The author gives Norea’s question a Pauline answer: one
must wait until that “heavenly man” (cf. 1 Cor 15:48), the “true man,”
appears in human form to reveal it.
"6 Dearson (Terminology, 79-81), seeking a source for the introduction of the
onépua/oneipw terminology in Valentinian exegesis of Gen 2:7 (cf. Iren. Haer. I.5.6),
rightly notes that “one must look outside the book of Genesis for its origin.” While
acknowledging that the Valentinians themselves attribute their terminology to Paul,
Pearson argues, surprisingly, that “the Valentinians themselves probably forgot the
ultimate source of their terminology,” and proceeds to trace it instead to the influence of
Plato’s Timaeus!
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 277

At the revelation of the second, spiritual Adam, those who belong to

his generation, freed from bondage to the archons
will trample under foot death (cenapxatanate! MmMoy), which is from the powers
(Ne x0ycia), and will ascend into the eternal light, where this seed belongs.

Here again our author owes the inspiration to Paul (specifically 1 Cor
15:24-29):
Then comes the end, when (Christ) will give the kingdom to God the Father, when he
shall destroy every rule and every authority and every power (macav dpynv Kat macav
éfovciay xat suvauiy) for it is necessary that he shall reign until he puts all his enemies
under his feet (dxpx of 67 mavras robs éxOpovs i rovs 7odas adrod). The last enemy that
shall be destroyed is death (6 @avaros). For God has placed all things under his feet (i20
Tovs médas adrod). And when all are subjected to him, then the Savior himself will be
subjected to him who has subjected all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Scholars have noted (and usually attributed to a redactor) increased

scriptural references in the closing lines of Hypostasis of the Archons.’”
Michel Tardieu, for example, finds several allusions to Ephesians. Hyp.
Arch. II,4:97,14, for example, reporting that “all the children of the light
will truly know the truth,” alludes, he suggests, to Eph 5:8 (“once you
were darkness, but now you are light . . . walk as children of light; cf.
also 1 Thess 5:5). Reference to the newt MntHpq refers, Tardieu
suggests, to such passages as Eph 4:6 (eis Oe0s cai marnp mavrwy). The
image of the son, who “presides over all” (Coptic pitW “is over”; Hyp.
Arch. II,4:97,19) recalls Eph 4:6. The concluding phrases of 97,20-21 may —
refer to such passages as Rom 16:27 and Eph 3:21."
Hypostasis of the Archons derives the content and action of its drama,
then, as Béhlig, Schenke, Fallon, Barc, and others have indicated,
primarily from a wide range of Jewish traditions and shares the common
schema with, for example, the authors of the Apocryphon of John and
On the Origin of the World.* But the author of Hypostasis of the
Archons casts the sources into Pauline form, and narrates that common
scheme in specifically Pauline terminology. If, as Barc notes, this author
“chooses to conserve the vocabulary of Genesis, wherever possible,”!”
he or she chooses as well to conserve the technical vocabulary found in
Paul.
117 Cf. Bullard, Hypostasis of the Archons, 114-15: “The editor of the document was a -
Christian Gnostic, and is responsible for what Christian influence can be seen in the
writing.” Bullard acknowledges, however, that “This is evident not only in the beginning
and closing, but in parenthetical statements throughout.” Barc presents a complex theory
involving two redactors (L’Hypostase, passim) which Pearson (“Review”) criticizes. To me
Eph 4:6 recalls 1 Cor 15:28 as well.
118 Tardieu, Mythes,; cf. especially textual notes on 295.
11° For Barc’s analysis of this scheme, see L’Hypostase, 1-48.
120 Barc, L’ Hypostase, 83.
278 ELAINE H. PAGELS

VII. Conclusion
This investigation, then, takes up the research agenda Schenke sug-
gested.’ The starting point was obvious since Hypostasis of the Archons
names only one authority, the “great apostle,” and the work begins with
explicit citations from Paul and ends with multiple Pauline allusions.
We can hardly be surprised, then, that its exegesis of Genesis 2 reflects
the influence of Paul’s own exegesis of the same chapter (and of other -
passages in which the apostle refers to spiritual conflict with hostile
cosmic powers; cf. 1 Corinthians 2; Colossians 1; Ephesians 5-6). The
exegetical techniques Hypostasis of the Archons adopts have parallels
in the work of the Naassenes, of Basilides, and of the Valentinians. It
shares, too, with many of its contemporaries, a radically ascetic reading
of Paul's meaning.” But comparing Hypostasis of the Archons’ reading
of the primordial drama with that of related texts, one finds its approach
quite unique. The author of On the Origin of the World, for example,
envisioning a triple manifestation of Adam (deriving, apparently, from
Gen 1:3, 1:26, and 2:7), shows no interest in following the type of Pauline
scheme that 1 Corinthians 15 suggests to the author of Hypostasis of the
Archons.
The gnostic texts surveyed here diverge widely in their hermeneutical
approaches to Genesis; yet, their authors demonstrate remarkable agree-
ment when they interpret the practical implications of the creation
accounts. Testimony of Truth, Exegesis on the Soul, Apocryphon of
John, Hypostasis of the Archons, and On the Origin of the World all
agree (against the range of views expressed, for example, by Basilides,
Isidore, the Valentinians, and by “orthodox” Christians) that marriage
and procreation, instigated by archontic powers who foisted them upon
the human race as “divine commands” (Gen 1:28 and 2:24-25) have no
place in the Christian life. “Carnal marriage” stands in radical antithesis
to spiritual union. Sexual intercourse and procreation, so closely related
with spiritual “increase” that they form its demonic “imitation,” remain
anathema to those regenerated through the spirit. While avoiding the
hortatory form so popular among their orthodox opponents, these
authors leave no doubt about the practical implications of such Genesis
exegesis. As they see it, the ontological structure of being itself as well as
the historical structure of divine revelation impose the demand of
celibate renunciation upon all genuinely “gnostic” Christians.

121 FM. Schenke, Gott “Mensch,” 156.

12? Among recent studies, see Rensberger, “Apostle” and Pagels, “Controversies
concerning Marriage.”
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 279

APPENDIX

PASSAGES PARALLEL TO HYPOSTASIS OF THE ARCHONS

IN THE PAULINE CORPUS AND PROVERBS
Introduction:
The author, invoking the authority of “the great apostle, inspired by’
. the spirit of the Father of truth,” promises to explain the reality of
the rule exercised by “powers of darkness” (Col 1:13)
86,22 [87,14] Col 1:13 |
NEXOYCIAMMKaAKe, ds ppdoaro thas ex rijs éovetas rod
oKOTous.
and the nature of the spiritual struggle in which we are engaged
(Eph 6:11-12).
86,23-25 Eph 6:11-12
TINGJWXE WOOT AN OYBE Caps 21 Sr odk Eorw Hiv 7 WAAN Tpos alua
[cnNog], aAAa EqoyBe NEXOYCIA Kat oGpKa, GAAG mpos Tas apxas, mpos
Mmkoc[MOc] MN MMNEYMATIKON tas é€ovaias, mpos To’s Koc poKxpaTopas
NTIMONHPpIA. TOD oKOTOUS TOVTOL, pos TA TVELPATIKA
Tis movnptas év rots émovpaviors.

Part I: The Drama of Creation

A. The “image of God” appears in the waters; from that “image of
the invisible God” (cf. Col 1:15) all things come into being, including
“all things visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, rules and
powers” (Col 1:17).
87,32 Col 1:15-17
a i Pe 53 24 a a a
Time] MMNOYTE. ds ore €ikwy TOD Ge0d Tod doparov,
87,14 MPWTOTOKOS TAO NS KTicews, Ort ev aVTO
AMECINE OYWN2 EBOA 2NN MMOOY. éxria6n Ta mavra év Tois Ovpavots Kat
Cf. 87,11-12 emt Tis yis, T2 para xat ra ddpara, eire
XE EBOA 2N NECHN ayze Opovor etre kuptornres etre dpyat eire
ANETOYONZ EBOA. eLoveiat.
ERENT ERE RIE Oe tae ea ae aa . > / yp

B. The “powers of darkness” (87,15; Col 1:13) cannot grasp that

image, “since those that are psychic cannot grasp the things that are
spiritual” (cf. 1 Cor 2:14).
280 ELAINE H. PAGELS

87,17-18 1 Cor 2:14

xe MPyxikoc Naw TEZE Woxtxos d¢ dvOpwmos od d€xeTat TA TOD
MITINEYMATIKOC aN. mvevparos Tod Geod.
C. For the authorities are from below; the “image of God” from
above (cf. Col 3:2).
87,19-20 : : Col 3:2
XE 2NNaBOA NE Mica MmITN, NTOY Ta dvw ppoveire, pn Ta ent THs ys.
AE OYEBOA ME MICA NTME.

D. The author claims to convey knowledge of “the will of the

Father” (cf. Col 1:9).
87,22 Col 1:9
TOYwy Mew.’ tva mAnpwOfre Thy éemiyvwow Tod GeAT-
patos adrod év maon codia Kat cvveces
TVEVMATEKT}.

E. The archons plan to create a man (cf. Gen 1:26) who will be “dust
from the earth” (Gen 2:7): they mold him wholly “from the earth,
~ choic” (cf. 1 Cor 15:47).
87,24-26 1 Cor 15:47
ANAPXWN... MEXay XE “AMHEITN 6 mp@ros avOpwmos ex yijs xotkos.
NTNTAMIO NOYPWME NNOYXOYC
€BOA MKAZ.” ayp MAacce
Mroyta[mMio] €ypMNKa2 THPY TE.

F. The archons, “because of their weakness” (roymNT6ws; acdeveia

88,3) do not understand “the power (tTaynamic) of God”; further-
more, “because of their weakness” (86,6) they cannot raise the
psychic man from the earth (1 Cor 15:43b-44a). Previously, “because
of their weakness,” (87,15) they could not grasp “the things which
are spiritual” (87,15; cf. 1 Cor 2:14).
88,3-7 1 Cor 15:43b-44
eyPp no[e]i an Ntaynamic MmNoyTe oweiperat év dadeveia, dyeiperas év duva-
EBOA 2N TOYMNTATOOM. ayW aqniqe pet omeiperat gene Woy exon, éyetperat
E2OYN 2M mEqG20 (Gen 2:7a) ayw Tapa TvEevpariKoy.
ATTPWME Wwe MPyXIKOC 21XM
KAZ N22... MMOYyu) ON GoM 6E
NTOYNOCY ETBE TOYMNTATOOM.

28 On the role of ctveots and cogia, cf. pp. 268 and 275 above.
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 281

G. The power of God descends in the spirit to dwell within the

psychic man, “and the man became a living soul” (Gen 2:7b;
compare 1 Cor 15:44b-47).
88,1-16 1 Cor 15:44b-47
MMNNCA NAEl A<TI>TINA NAY ei Core cpa Woxixdv, €otiy Kat mvEv-
> a / wv \

ATTPWME NYPyxiKoc 21XM MKAZ. AYW parixdy. orws kat yéypanrat’ éyévero 6
ATTITNA El EBOA 2M MKAZ... ACEI mparos avOpwros ’ Adap eis oxy
EMITN. AGOYW2 N2HTY. AMPwWME (cay: 6 écyaros ’Adap cis mvedpa
ETMMAY Wwe ayPyXxH EcoNne (Gen Cwomrotody. GAA’ ov mp&rov ro mvevpa-
2:7b). Sa eager ae eae ae
TLKOV GAAQ TO WuyxtKon, ETELTA TO TVEV-
partkov. 6 mpa@ros avOpwmos ex yrs
XOtKds, 6 devTEpos AvOpwmos ef odpavod
se ff € , ” 2 > a

(Gen 2:7b).
H. The archons throw humanity into “great distraction” (mepi-
cmamoc) and into the toils of earthly life, so that they will be occu-
pied with worldly affairs and not be able to devote themselves to
the holy spirit. Compare 1 Cor 7:32-35, where Paul warns against
marriage, which involves concern for ra rod xéopov, hindering one’s
devotion to the Lord.
91,8-12 1 Cor 7:32-35 :
AYNOYX PpwmME AE EVPal a2Nno6d Oddrw de bas dpepipvous eivas.
>
6 Gyapos
MITTTEPICTIACMOC MN 2N MKAQ NTE Mepava Ta TOU Kuplov, Tas dpern Ta
TIBIOC, WINA ENOYPWME NAWwE upto’ 6 8€ yaunoas pepyuva Ta TOD Koo-
NBIWTIKOC NCETMP CXOAAZE Mov, Tas Gpean TH yvvarki, Kat pepe-
apmpockaprTrepec EnnmNa ETOYAAB. piorat. Kat } yuvn 7) &yapos Kat 7 map-
O€vos peptpva Ta Tod Kupiov, iva 7 ayia
Kal T@ owpart kal TO mvedpars’ 7 de
yapnoaca mepiuva Ta Tod Koopov, Tas
apéon T@ dvdpl. rodro de mpos To tuav
avTa@v cvppopoy A€ya, ov iva Bpoxov
> a“ ‘ , 3 7 /

vty émtBarw, GAG mpos TO Eve NOY

€- °° ¥ > \ A A a

Kat evmapedpov TO Kuplw ameptaomacTus.

282 ELAINE H. PAGELS ©

Part II: The Drama of Revelation

A. Norea identifies those who claim to have “known” her mother
Eve (and so wisdom) sexually as “rulers of darkness” (cf. related
phrase in Col 1:12). She declares that “you did not know my mother”
(Eve, nor her mother, Sophia), accusing them of confusing sexual
with spiritual “knowledge.” In so doing, they mistake “their female
plasma” for the spiritual woman (and her mother, Sophia), who, as
this author reads Paul’s words, “none of the archons of this age
knew” (cf. 1 Cor 2:6-15).
92,23 [Norea speaks] 1 Cor 2:6-8
NTWTN NE NAPXWN MITKAKE... Lodiav de AaAodpev ev rots TeAciots,
codiap d¢ ov Tod al@vos Tovrov ovde TeV
4 \ > a A , eh A
OY. TE MTIETNCOYWN TAMAAY AAAA
NTATETNCOYWN TETNUBPEINE. dpxdvrwy Tod aidvos rovrov ray karap-
youpevwy' &dAB AadAodpev Ge0d codiav
év prornplo, Thy dmoKexpuppevny, Hv
mpowpicen 6 Beds mpo T&v aiwvwy eis
ddgav Hudy iv ovdets Tov Gpydvrwy rod
aidvos rodrou éyvaxev™
Cf. 89,24-25 1 Cor 2:14
The spiritual woman laughed at the Woxixos 5¢ avOpwaos ov d€xerat Ta TOU
\ \ ov > , A A

folly roymNtarext of those who, TvEvpaTos TOD Geod: pwpia yap a’r@
being psychic, cannot “grasp what is ori, Kat od duvarat yvavat, rt mvEv-
spiritual” (87,17-18/1 Cor 2:14) and so Parts dvaxpivera.
fail to “know” the spiritual woman.
89,25-26 Col 3:1-2
ANOK OYEBOA rap AN 2N THNE, AAAA Ta dvw ppoveire, pn Ta emi THs ys.
NTaei<ei> EBOA 2N NA ICA NTNE. 1 Cor 15:47
4 mp@ros AvOpwros ex yijs xotkos,
6 devrepos AvOpwros e& ovpavod.
e€ , ” 3 >: a

B. The archons, attempting to reduce Adam to his former ignorance,

bring upon him a “deep sleep” (cf. Gen 2:21) and open his side; the
Spirit departs from him, and he becomes “wholly psychic” until the
Spirit comes to raise him, the second Adam, as a pneumatic man (cf.
1 Cor 15:43-44,46). As the first Adam was psychic, a “living soul,”
the second is pneumatic, receiving spiritual life from above (cf. 1
Cor 15:45-47).
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 283

89,11-13 1 Cor 15:43b-48

ayw-aAaaam wwe MPyxiIKOC THPY. omeiperat ev aobeveia, éyelperat ev dvva-
‘ > > / ° / ° es

AYW TC2IME MITNEYMATIKH acl pel omElperat TOpa Woyikoy, eyelperat

Wapog. acwaxe NMMaAgq, MEXaC XE —- fe cca
re on
capa mvevpartKkov. El €orw capa Woxt-
“PWOYN AAaAM.” KOV, €OTLY Kat TYEVPATLKOY. OUTWS Kat
yéypanrau éyévero 6 mparos GvOpwos
*Adau eis Woxny (car: 6 éoyxaros
*Aday eis tvedua (worro.ody" GAA” od
MPOTOV TO TvEvpaTiKoY GAAQ TO Woyxe-
cal A \ > \ \

KOV, ETELTA TO TVELMATLKOY. 0 TPATOS

avOpwros ex ys xotkos, 0 Sevtepos avd-
” ° a o ¢ , wv

pwmos e& ovpavod.

C. The archons pursue Eve, “daughter of wisdom” (95,7f.), and she,
laughing at them for their folly, eludes them as she “became a tree”
(89,25), the Tree of Life (cf. Gen 2:7). This episode reflects specific
wisdom sayings of Proverbs 1-4, which declare, of wisdom, “she is a
tree of life to those who lay hold upon her” (Prov 3:18), and identify
her with “instruction,” adding that “she is your life” (Zw7, Eve).
Passages here quoted from cxx: cf. Hebrew text.
Prov 1:22b-26
est wv oe mw” 2
ot d€ Adpoves THs UBpews ovTes EmLOV-
pnrat. Tovyapoty Kay (i.e., copia) rH
byerépa dmwrela emryeAdoouat.
Prov 1:29
Eutonoay yap cogiav.
° / A /

Praise of wisdom:
89,24-25 Prov 3:18
ayw accwBe NCWOY EBOA 2N EvAov (wis €or tact rots avrexopevors
TOYMNTATCOHT MN TOYMNTBAAE. Gvrijs, Kat Tots émrepetdopevots er” avTny,
ws émt Kuptov argadns.
© EON ‘ > /
AYW AEP OYYHN.
Prov 3:19
‘O Ocos rH copia eepedrlwoe THv yy.
Prov 4:13
-EmAaBod euijs madeias, un Adis, AAAG
ovaAakov adrny ceavta cis Cwyv cov.
284 ELAINE H. PAGELS

D. Eleleth proceeds to reveal to Norea what this author apparently

considers the “mystery of wisdom” (1 Cor 2:7) hidden from “the
archons of this age” (1 Cor 7:8). Norea learns that she and her
generation are from the Father, from above, from the “imperishable
light,” and so are saved from the “power of darkness” (cf. Col 1:12-
*43).
96,20-22 (Eleleth speaks] Col 1:12-13
“NTO MN NOYWHPE, EPEHT ATIEIWT edxaptoTodvres TO TaTpt TO ixavwcayrt
E€TWOOT XIN NwWopn, NTANOYPyXH Heads eis TNv pepida Tod KANpov Trav
€1 <E>B0A 2M ICA NTME EBOA 2M dyiwy év To part ds éppioaro judas éx
MOYOEIN NNATTEKO. Ala TOYTO Tis eLovatas Tod cKdTovs.
NESOYCIA NAG T2NO AN EQOYN Cf. 86,23; 87,14; 92,23
eEpooy. where Norea curses the archons, say-
ing
“NTWTN NE NAPXWN NIMKAKE.”
E. Norea learns that she and those who belong to her are “immortal
in the midst of mortal humanity”; they are the seed (cmepma) that
shall be manifested only after three generations (cf. 1 Cor 15:35-49).
96,25-29 1 Cor 15:35-39
OYON AE NIM NTAQ2COYWN TET2ZOAOC "AAAG epel Tis’ Tas eyeipovrat of vexpoi;
Nae! Cewoon Nae@anaToc 2 TMHTE mrolw S€ cmpart épxovrat; ddpwr, cd 6
NPPWME EqayMOy. aaaa o7reipets, ov Cwomotetrat éay uy amrodavn’
TIECTIEPMA ETMMAY NAOYWN2 AN kat 8 omeipets, od TO cGua Td yevnod-
. EBOA TENOY. AAAA MNNCA WOMTE pevov omeipers, AAG yupvon KoKKov et
NPENEA AYNAOYWNQ. TUXOL otrov 7HTwos Tv Aoumav’ 6 bE
Norea asks how long she must await Geos didwow adTe cdpua xabws 70€-
the manifestation of that “seed”; and Angev, Kat ExaoTS trav omepuarwn idiov
\ , a a

learns that she must await the revela-

a
capa. ov naca capt 7 abrn odpé, GAAG
tion of the mpwme Naanei(noc) GAN pev avOpwrwy, GAN be capt
96,32-35. KTnvav, GAN d€ capE mryvar, GAAN de
ixdvwv. kal odpara emovpdvia, Kat
gTwpara émiyeta.
Paul goes on to describe the three
yevy: pneumatic, psychic, and choic,
concluding with the words:
6 mp&ros GvOpwros éx yijs xotkds, 6
dedrepos GvOpwros e odpavod. ofos 6
XOtKds, ToLodTor Kat of xotKol, Kat olos 6
érroupantos, ToLodrot Kat ot émovpantot
Kat kadws epopecapen riv eixdva Tod
XotKod, Popécopen kat rnv cixdva rod
éxrovpaviov (1 Cor 15:47-49).
 GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 285

F. Those belonging to the “seed” of the coming “true man” (96,34),

being freed from bondage to the deception of the authorities (96,30)
and freed from spiritual blindness (97,6), shall “trample under foot
death, which is of the authorities” (97,7-8). The authorities shall
relinquish their power (97,11) to the Son (cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28).
96,30 1 Cor 15:24-28
NqNOY X€ EBOA MMOOY NTMppe eira To TéAos, bray mapadidot rH Bact-
NTIMAANH N<N>E€RO0YCIAa. Aelav TO OeG xat warp, Srav carapyjnon
macav apxny kat macav efovciay Kat
97,6 dvvapuy.
TOTE CENANOYXE EBOA MMOOY det yap abrov Bactrevew axpe ov OF
MITMEEYE BBAAE. mavras Tous €xOpovs
97,7-8
ayw CENAPKATAM ATE! MIMMOY imd robs modas adrod. €rxaros éxOpos
¢ \ A / > a 3 \

NNeEXOYCIAa. Karapyetrat 6 Odvaros

97,11
mavra yap bneragev br rovs modas
/ A e Ls ¢ \ \ /
TOTE NEXOYCIA CENAKW NCwWoy
NNOYKAIPOC. avrod...
97,18-19 8rapy d¢ bmoTay7 a’To Ta TavTa, Tore
Noa sate WOON oe !
AYW TIMHPE ZIXN MTHPG,. K@t QUTOS O VLOS UTOTAYTIGETAL...

97,15
TIEIWT MITTHPY. iva 7Pe:6 Geos
a \
mavra
/
év9 Tact.
a

Eph 4:6
els Oeds Kat marnp mavrwn, 6 ém mavrwv
‘ \ 3 / Cv 2% /

kat 8a wavrwy Kat éy mac.

G. The author concludes with a scene of all the children of light

unanimously giving glory to God, through the trisagion, and pro-
nouncing amen (cf. Eph 3:21 and Rom 16:27).
Cf. Col 1:12; cf. above, 96,20-22.
97,14 Eph 5:8
TOTE NWHPE THPOY MMOYOEIN as Téxva pwros mepimareire.
CENACOYWN... TEIwT MITHPY MN
<m>mWa €TOYAaB.
97,20 Rom 16:27
AYW EBOA ZITN OYON NIM Wa NIENE? povw cope be, da "Inood Xpicrod & 7
NENE?, 2arioc 2arioc Zarioc d0€a eis rovs aldvas rav alovwy' dunv.
2AMHN. Eph 3:21
avre 7 d0ka év rH éxxAnoig Kat év
Xpirr@ "Inood eis macas ras yeveds rod
aidvos Tov alwvwy' dauny.
 age

er vc le ee
:
oe
aoe end,

Seo Se eaeee ae Bea

ee Teast erveesh erst
atesDuets tet awed the towtia. ~ Gyan 3
dee SO EY, 16949 Biay as
be is ee on. ~ age
Ge ah <a fen re sect ete

coe eae aaa

wd ovaSt Gr Saw yaa”
na sertiacoie sealer
os lee skopdnak feot8sph
Sayrdrany ats Garde ahsFoege
afro’ servabe
negareoy
Fe
 7s"
WITH WALTER BAUER ON THE TIGRIS:
ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY
AND LIBERTINE HERESY IN
SYRO-MESOPOTAMIAN CHRISTIANITY

Stephen Gero

The University of Tubingen welcomed Dr. Stephen Gero to its faculty in 1980, as
Professor of Oriental Studies. His areas of specialization are the history and
philology of the Christian Orient, including Byzantium; he has written two
monographs on Byzantine iconoclasm and one more recently on Syriac church
history.
After an undergraduate education at McGill University, Dr. Gero received his
Ph.D. from Harvard University. He held several fellowships including the pres-
tigious Arthur Darby Nock Fellowship at Harvard (1971-72). He was Assistant
Professor of Religious Studies at Brown University from 1973 to 1980.
Dr. Gero has a specific research interest in Gnostic studies and has written
numerous articles for such periodicals as Novum Testamentum, Harvard Theo-
logical Review, and the Journal of Jewish Studies. His breadth of language com-
petency, which includes Armenian, Georgian, Syriac, Arabic, and Coptic, has
permitted him to participate in a variety of academic forums from a discussion of
medieval Hebrew texts to an investigation of textual problems in oriental ver-
sions of early Christian apocrypha.

Preface
he self-definition and development of Christianity in the East pro-
ceeded in certain respects in a manner quite different from that in
the West. In particular, due to an array of special political and cultural
conditions, a number of heterodox groups survived or maintained a
dominant role in the general area of eastern Syria and Mesopotamia
well into late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. The discovery of the

287
288 STEPHEN GERO

Nag Hammadi texts, several of which have demonstrable affinities to

the Syrian cultural milieu, has reawakened scholarly interest in the
special features of Syrian Christianity, building upon the pioneering
insights of the German church historian and exegete Walter Bauer. But
the generally ascetic ethical stance of the new texts has prima facie
reinforced the hitherto prevalent opinion that Syrian Christianity,
whether orthodox or heretical theologically, was uniformly encratite in
temper, and that libertine, non-ascetic gnosticism is but an invention of
the hostile orthodox heresiographers and apologists.
In the present paper the contention is made that this blanket rae.
terization of Syro-Mesopotamian Christianity needs to be modified; a
dossier of texts, from Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Arabic,
and Mandaean sources, pertaining to the history of one such libertine
gnostic group (called “Borborites”) known only from reports of its
opponents, is presented and analyzed asa test case. Even after all due
allowance has been made for tendentious and distorted representation,
it will appear that there is an element of factuality, a historical core in
these reports. The Borborites survived tenaciously in Mesopotamia and
elsewhere in the Christian East. As the widely scattered material from
various independent sources demonstrates, they were not just a fiction
of the prurient imagination of celibate ecclesiastical heresy-hunters.
This group reacted to the—admittedly prevailing—ascetic ethos of fast-
ing and sexual abstinence. In its stead they preached (and acted upon):
the view that salvation from the evil powers which rule the world can
only be obtained through a deliberate and full exercise of human sexual
potentialities, specifically in a ritual form wherein the various sexual
emissions, male and female, played a central, sacramental role, and ina
manner which was aimed at the prevention of conception and birth.
This widespread, yet clandestine movement should be strictly distin-
guished from other non-ascetic gnostic sects of a more “nihilistic” kind.
The possibility furthermore exists that the Borborites (whose separate
existence cannot be traced earlier than to the third century) derive from
the still older Nicolaitan sect, which is already noted with disappro-
bation in the canonical book of Revelation. This and other connections
of the various Eastern non-encratite sects with what one can call
“libertine” phenomena in earliest Christianity deserve to be investigated
further. The study of the material does show the fascinating ethical
diversity within the gnostic movement itself, and more generally in
Eastern Christianity, in the context of which the gnostic movement as a
historical phenomenon is to be placed.
 ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY AND LIBERTINE HERESY 289

I. Introduction |
Walter Bauer found one of the most impressive pieces of evidence for
his revolutionary thesis of the priority of “heresy” to “orthodoxy” in a
rather exotic hagiographical source, the Syriac biography of Mar Aba, a
‘sixth-century patriarch of the Christian community in the Persian
Empire.’ Only some of the details of the episode in question, the fateful
encounter of Mar Aba with a Christian ascetic, as he was about to cross
the Tigris river swollen by spring rains, directly concern us now;? the
important statement is that Mar Aba, at the time still a Zoroastrian,
mistook the monk° for a Jew or a kristyGna—i.e., “Christian,” the current
local designation for the Marcionites, according to the hagiographer.‘
The traveler, not just a simple monk but in fact a learned scholar from
the famous Nestorian ecclesiastical academy of Nisibis, claims the
name méih@ya, “Messianist,” for himself, hastening, however, to explain
its etymological equivalence to kristyana.° An intriguing text indeed!
Though the material he presents can be expanded and placed more
solidly in a historical context, Bauer was surely on the right track in
directing his attention first of all to Syria and Mesopotamia and the
native Syriac sources.
The precise import of the various eastern Syriac designations for
“Christian” is still not quite clear; but it is likely that the loanword
kristyan@ was introduced by Greek-speaking immigrants from the
Byzantine provinces, at a relatively early date,’ and this later became
the most common self-designation.* The Marcionites’ possession of the

* Rechtgldubigkeit, 28; text edited by Bedjan, Histoire, 206ff.; the translation is not
always accurate: Braun, Madrtyrer, 188ff.
Cf. Peeters, “Observations,” 122.
$ Bedjan, Histoire, 213, lines 8-9.
* Bedjan, Histoire, 213, lines 2-3 from the bottom.
* ‘eskolaya had malpana (Bedjan, Histoire, 211, line 9). Braun’s translation of ’eskolaya
as “Student” (Mdrtyrer, 189-90) is misleading. Cf. Peeters, “Observations,” 122. Bauer
merely calls him “a Christian ascetic.”
Bedjan, Histoire, 214, lines 6-7. The Syriac words in question, correctly given in
Syriac script in the German edition, are not quite accurately transcribed in the English
translation of Bauer's book (Orthodoxy, 23).
This is attested by the occurrence of the (persecuted) group of the klstyd’n (read
kristid@n) in two third-century Middle Persian inscriptions of the res gestae of the
Zoroastrian priest Kartir (Chaumont, “L'inscription,” 343, line 10; 347; Gignoux,
“L'inscription,” 395). In a third inscription the word in question has been read by the
editor as kristiyan (Hinz, “Inschrift,” 258 (translation 261]. The precise significance of the
various groups mentioned, in particular that of the n’cl’y (Nazarenes ) is still sub judice.
See below, n. 9.
® Brock, “Greek Words in Syriac,” 91ff. This very plausible explanation does not, to my
mind, exclude the possibility that in certain areas these “Greek” immigrants were in fact
Marcionite refugees. Marcionism, unlike Manicheeism, was not of native Mesopotamian
290 STEPHEN GERO

name “Christian,” according to this text, points to their predominance

among rival Christian groups,® and relatively late, in eastern Mesopo-
tamia. In fact there is other evidence which indicates that the peak of
Marcionite presence and influence in Persian territory should be dated
to the fifth and sixth centuries; the immediate reason for this may have
been the increasingly effective drive by the Byzantine state authorities to
impose ecclesiastical uniformity, which in turn occasioned the flight of
non-conforming groups of various sorts to Persian territory."
In contrast to the situation in Byzantium, “orthodox” Christianity in
Persia came to be centrally organized only at a late date,"* was but a
politically suspect minority religion** and, except on rare occasions, did
not have the secular arm at its disposal in its struggle against dissidents.
Admittedly the late flourishing of Marcionite Christianity in Persian
Mesopotamia presupposes an earlier strong presence in the eastern
Roman provinces. Bauer, however, seems to overtax the evidence of the
Mar Aba text when, returning to his original focus of interest, he
growth. Incidentally in one ninth-century hagiographical text, recounting a missionary
enterprise already in the Islamic period, the Marcionites and the Manichees are still the
only identifiable groups among the pagan masses in an outlying region of Persia (Budge,
Book of Governors, 1.261, line 14).
The juxtaposition of mihaya with the (supposedly “secret”) confession of Judaism by
the monk who bears the very Hebraic name of “Joseph who was called Moses” (Bedjan,
Histoire, 211, lines 11-12) should be noted. Bauer makes no comment on it, being
interested in the “Marcionite” aspect of the text. Another early Syriac designation for
Christians (not discussed by Bauer at all) was nasrayG, which in the Syriac NT uniformly
translates both Nazoraios and Nazarénos. The word has been linked with the n’cl’y (read
nazarai ?) of the Kartir inscriptions (Chaumont, “L’inscription,” 343). Cf. further Brock,
“Greek Words in Syriac,” 92. In. a Coptic Manichaean Text Mani is represented as
debating with a Nazoreus (variant, Nazoraios) who denies that God can be legitimately
described as a judge, krités, because that would ipso facto make him responsible for
objectively evil, violent acts (Polotsky, Kephalaia, 222). Rather than identifying the
Nazoreus as a Mandaean, nasuraya, as do, for example, Rudolph (Mandder, 1.44, n.1)
and Bohlig (“Manichdismus,” 189, 193), it is to my mind more likely that the text
(generally admitted to go back through a Greek intermediate stage to an Aramaic
Vorlage) in fact presents the typical objection of a Marcionite, who bears the still current
Syriac designation for Christians, namely “Nazarene.” H.-Ch. Puech has earlier, in a
book review, suggested the identification of the Nazoreus as a Marcionite, but gave no
reasons for it (“Review of Drower,” 64,n.1).
‘° Fiey, “Marcionites,” 183ff., expanding the documentation collected in Védbus,
Asceticism, 1.45ff. Much of the evidence about Marcionites in Persia comes from the
Chronicle of Se‘ert, an eleventh-century ecclesiastical chronicle in Arabic, which,
however, depends on earlier sources. Bauer, in a somewhat summary fashion dismisses
this text, to which he only alludes apropos an apocryphal story of Ephrem and Bardaisan
as “eine nestorianische Sammlung von Erzdéhlungen” (Rechtgldubigkeit, 35, n.1).
The coming of Manichees and Marcionites to Persian territory, along with other
heretics, because of expulsion from Byzantium is explicitly noted in a creedal statement,
dated 612 cz. presented by Christian bishops to the Sasanian emperor Hosrou II
(Chabot, Synodicon, 567, lines 20ff.; translation 585).
2 Cf. Gero, “See of Peter” and “Kirche.”
*$ Cf. Brock, “Christians.”
 ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY AND LIBERTINE HERESY 291

disarmingly claims that the situation must have been similar with
respect to the beginnings of Christianity in Edessa;’* unfortunately the
evidence directly pertaining to Edessa cited by him is not nearly as
cogent.” He is either not quite aware of, or fails to inform the reader of,
dissimilar features in the historical development of Christianity in
Byzantine Syria on the one hand and in Persian Mesopotamia on the
other.** In particular, the previously noted, very specific reasons which
seem to have led to the upsurge of Marcionite influence militate against
linking the Persian evidence to the thesis of the Marcionite origin of
Edessene Christianity.
The study of the intellectual and religious situation in Mesopotamia in
late antiquity has made much progress since the first publication of
Bauer’s book, and has led to a modification of his all too rigid distinction
between “orthodoxy” and “heresy.”” Concretely, the very priority of the
Marcionite presence in Edessa as claimed by Bauer has been chal-
lenged, in part because of the possible (though not undisputed) rele-
vance of “Thomas” material from Nag Hammadi." Is there any other
relation between groups or sects identifiably connected with the Nag
Hammadi texts and those in Walter Bauer’s Edessa? Bauer does briefly
mention the Edessene Valentinians;* their presence cannot be traced
past the late fourth century in Mesopotamia.” The special case of the
“worldly” Bardaisan (supposedly influenced by Valentinianism) is not
directly relevant to the Nag Hammadi corpus and will be left aside here,
as will be the sect of the Qugites.”* What about the other gnostic groups?
' The appearance of the Syrian “Thomas” tradition in the Nag Hammadi

“4In Bauer’s own words: “Liegt es da nicht nahe, Ahnliches fiir die Anfange des
Christentums in Edessa zu behaupten” (Rechtgldubigkeit, 29).
*S Bauer, Rechtgldubigkeit, 41, n. 1, with a precarious argument from silence.
18 Tt is, to my mind, telling that Bauer is apparently unaware of the (still standard)
history of Persian Christianity by Labourt (Christianisme). See now also Fiey, Jalons.
’’ In particular through the work of Drijvers; cf. e.g., his articles “Edessa,” “Recht-
glaubigkeit,” “Christentum” and “Syriac-Speaking Christianity.”
*®8 Cf. Koester’s seminal article, “Gnomai.”
1° E.g., Rechtgldubigkeit, 29.
2° On the famous incident, known from Ambrose’s letters, of the Valentinian meeting
house, Valentinianorum conventiculum in Callinicum in the Osrrhoene cf. Koschorke
“Patristische Materialien,” 124, 133. We are of course talking about concrete, identifiable,
“institutional” presence; the mere survival or influence of certain gnostic ideas (e.g.,
Védébus, Asceticism, 1.55, n. 120: Liber graduum and Valentinianism) is beyond our
purview here. The appearance of Valentinianism in lists of exotic Christian heresies
presented by Muslim authors who lived in Mesopotamia is seemingly only literary
antiquarianism (cf. e.g., al-Nadim, Fihrist, 2. 815, s.v. Waldnashiyah [sic]; al-Akbar,
Hdresiographie, 82 [Arabic], lines 1-2, s.v. Walintiniya; cf. comment, 81).
21 Cf. Drijvers, “Bardaisan, Reprdsentant des syrischen Synkretismus,” evaluating
critical reactions to his monograph, Bardaisan. On the case of the Qugites, where the
sources in part coincide with those here investigated; cf. the same author's “Quq.”
292 STEPHEN GERO

texts has made scholars even more acutely aware of the predominantly
ascetic character of early Syrian Christianity, whether gnostic or not.
More generally, the evidence of the Nag Hammadi corpus as a whole
has increasingly led to the interpretation of gnosticism, at last seen
through its own texts, as a uniformly ascetic, encratite movement.” But
one abiding lesson of Bauer’s pioneering work is that one should
patiently look for evidences of variety before opting for uniformity.
Our specific goal here is to explore the possibility of still more variety,
specifically of a non-encratite type within the movement broadly char-
acterized as Syro-Mesopotamian Christian gnosticism. Our study will
furthermore concentrate on material pertaining only to one group, that
of the Borborites, and will attempt to trace the “trajectory,” on the basis
of, in part, very scattered and fragmentary evidence.

Il. The Borborites in the Fourth Century and Later

Though we intend to deal with Syro-Mesopotamian gnosticism, para-
doxically the key evidence comes from Epiphanius’ well-known, sup-
posedly firsthand description of the practices of the sect of the Bor-
borites in Egypt.** We take Epiphanius’ evidence™ as defining at a
particular time and place the character of the group, in a sense fixing a
small portion of its trajectory. We shall first attempt to project this
forward, tracing its presence elsewhere in the fourth century and later,
and then backward, to its origins in the early Christian centuries. The
occurrence of the epithet “Borborite” or “Borborian,”* though not a self-
designation,” and occasionally perhaps quite inaccurately used, will
serve as afirst diagnostic feature in sifting the material.
22 Cf. the programmatic statements of Wisse, “Die Sextus-Spriiche.”
23 For orientation and a partial listing of the sources, cf. Fendt, “Borborianer” and
Bardy, “Borboriens.” .
Epiph. Pan. 26 (Holl, Epiphanius, 1.275ff.).
25 Borboritai (Holl, Epiphanius, 1.268, line 21); Borborianoi (279, line 7); so also
Philostorgius. In Syriac the form barboryané (Ephrem, Vita of Rabbula, catalogue of
Maruta) seems to be the earlier, and corresponds to Borborianoi; the form barboryGnu
(Letter to Cosmas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Testament of Pseudo-Ephrem, Michael
Syrus, Bar Hebraeus, Theodor bar Koni) is later, with the Grecizing plural-suffix & (cf.
Néldeke, Grammatik, 59). The Armenian plural form Borboritonk‘ (Moses Khorenaci)
reflects Borboritai; the other Armenian form, Borborianosk‘ (Koriwn), corresponds to
“Borborians.” Priscillian, Augustine, Jerome, and Gennadius attest the Latin form
Borborita, whereas Filastrius has Borborianus. The imperial legislation attests both
Borborita and Borborianus. In the subsequent discussion we shall, merely as a matter of
convenience, stay with the uniform designation “Borborite.”
*® That “Borborite” is originally a deformation of some name connected with Barbelo
(e.g., cf. Epiphanius’ Barbelita; Holl, Epiphanius, 1.279, line 26) though sometimes
asserted (e.g., Quispel, “Borborianer”) is not imperative. In any case, the immediate
derivation from borboros “slime” (the metaphorical use of which as “moral filth” is early
 ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY AND LIBERTINE HERESY 293

Epiphanius’ account of the Borborites has been repeatedly the object

of close scrutiny;” only a few salient features will be registered here.
Epiphanius completed the Panarion sometime in the 370s;” since he
refers to experiences of his youth in the text in question, we are
probably dealing with the Borborites around 340. Epiphanius presents
the sect as being already widespread in his time, and seemingly well
organized. Its adherents were known under several names,” though, as
was the case with several other groups, their preferred self-designation
was that of Gndstikoi.° Epiphanius does not claim that the sect is of
recent vintage, and he does not link it with an individual founder. It is
described as being closely connected with the sect of the Nicolaitans,
but the two groups are not regarded by him as identical.”
The central, distinguishing feature of the sect, its devotion to the so-
called sperma cult, described by him in vivid detail, can hardly be
dismissed as a prurient invention. In the simplest of terms it involved
the extraction, collection, and solemn, sacramental consecration and

and well attested) is fairly clear. It should perhaps be noted that in one Armenian text
the rare adjective borboriton is employed in a context not connected with the Borborites,
describing the amours of Semiramis in the sense of “lascivious” (Moses Khorenaci, Book
I, ch. 15 (Tiflis edition, 48, line 15; cf. Thomson, Moses, 96, n. 1 and Hiibschmann,
Grammatik, 344). B. Pearson suggested in the course of the discussion of the paper that
nevertheless the pejorative epithet may have eventually been adopted as a self-
designation, much like “Cynic.” ,
2” Benko, “Phibionites”; Fendt, Mysterien, 3ff.; Leisegang, Gnosis, 186-95. For a
complete translation and a commentary cf. Tardieu, “Epiphane contre les gnostiques.” I
owe this reference to the kindness of P.-H. Poirier. Koschorke’s sweeping denial of any
reliability to the patristic material about libertine gnosticism (Polemik, 123-4) is unfor-
tunately not based on an analysis as detailed and careful as his close investigation of the
Nag Hammadi texts; it is marred by an unargued dismissal of Epiphanius’ testimony and
a regrettable refusal to enter into dialogue with scholarship which has been willing to
take the patristic evidence into serious consideration. It is to be hoped that Wisse’s
announced monograph on the ethics of gnosticism (cf. “Die Sextus-Spriiche,” 123, n. 23)
will put the entire matter in a more balanced perspective.
28 Quasten, Patrology, 3. 388.
2° For a listing cf. Holl, Anakephalaiosis, 1.235, lines 17-22 (a post-Epiphanian?)
compendium of the Panarion). Stratiotikoi, Phibionitai, Sekundianoi are, according to
Epiphanius, Egyptian designations; elsewhere they are known as Sokratitai, Zakchaoi,
Koddianoi, and Borboritai. Not mentioned here are the exclusively homosexual Levitai (a
self-designation), supposedly regarded as the elite of the sect (Holl, Epiphanius, 1.292,
lines 9ff.). -
8° E.g., Holl, Epiphanius, 1.274, line 18..Cf. below, n. 106.
51 F.g., the deluded Gndstikoi derive from Nikolaos (Holl, Epiphanius, 1.275, line 1).
One should not obliterate too readily the distinction between the Borborites and other
groups, though affinities surely existed (cf. below, n. 114). Thus M. Tardieu's inter-
pretation of a passing remark of Epiphanius about a detail of “Sethian” mythology,
shared by several groups (Pan. 40; Holl, Epiphanius, 2.88, lines 10-12) as implying that
“Sethiens, Archontiques et Gnostiques [i.e., Borborites] ne constituent pas trois groupes
distincts, mais une seule et méme ideologie” (“Les livres.de Seth,” 206, n. 11) unjustifiably
neglects Epiphanius' very precise data about the origins of the Archontics.
294 STEPHEN GERO

consumption of bodily fluids, male and female,” which contributed to

the further propagation of the human race, and thus to the continued
entrapment of divine substance by the evil archons. In these fluids is
concentrated the spiritual element, found scattered in the world, in
particular in food-stuffs (including meat!), of which the initiates can and
should partake.** The mythology proper is a version of the Barbelo-
gnostic myth, as known from Irenaeus and the Apocryphon of John.”
Epiphanius reports the sectarians’ use of biblical texts, and gives
samples of their allegorical exegesis; more interestingly he cites at some
length from a number of apocryphal works. In particular the “Questions
of Mary” give a taste of the kind of “libertine” gnostic literature which is
conspicuously missing from the Nag Hammadi Library, and their “Birth
of Mary” gives a violently anti-Jewish version of the murder of
Zacharias.** The Gospel of Philip used by the Borborite “Levites” gives a
liturgical formula for the ascent of the soul through the archontic
spheres; perhaps from the same source comes the story of the ascetic
prophet Elijah’s inability to ascend to heaven, because of his having
begotten children with a female demon through involuntary pollutio
nocturna.* None of this material is found in the Nag Hammadi Gospel
of Philip.
No extracts are given by Epiphanius from the Borborites’ Apocalypse
of Adam, so one cannot say whether a relation to the Nag Hammadi text
by this name exists.” A stronger connection is found, however, between
their book Noria and the Nag Hammadi Hypostasis of the Archons; as
one investigation suggests, the Borborite text may bealiturgical adapta-
tion of a common source.” The quotation from the Borborite “Gospel of
*? The menstrual discharge was popularly regarded as actively contributing to
generation; hence the Borborite preoccupation with it and its designation as haima tou
Christou (Holl, Epiphanius, 281, lines 16-17).
38 Holl, Epiphanius, 1.285, line 25-286, line 4. The same pantheistic notion is of course
operative in the (ascetic) eating habits of the Manichaean elect (cf. e.g., Béhlig, Gnosis,
37). What is here missing is the Manichaean sense of guilt connected with the con-
comitant wounding of nature.
54 Cf. Schmidt, “Irenaeus,” 334 and “Borborianer (Borboriten),” and Fallon, Enthrone-
ment, 81ff.
*5 On these fragments cf. Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1. 338, 344.
°° Holl, Epiphanius, 1.293, lines 1ff. It should be noted that according to Epiphanius,
the members of the pseudo-monastic sect of the “First Origenists” (Pan. 62), who in their
ethical aberrations were related to the Gndstikoi, imitated Onan, son of Judah and
carefully stamped their sexual emissions into the soil, lest the demons get hold of them
(Holl, Epiphanius, 2.399, lines 21-23). One wonders what the Acts of Andrew used by this
group (399, lines 25-26) were like, and their relation, if any, to the extant encratite Acts of
Andrew!
*” Bohlig-Labib is cautiously optimistic about a possible connection (Apocalypsen, 86).
Diimmer, “Angaben,” 205-7; slightly expanded in the same author's “Sprachkennt-
nisse,” 429-30.
 ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY AND LIBERTINE HERESY 295

Eve,” concerned with the mystical “ingathering” theme has now been
tentatively linked to the intriguing Nag Hammadi tract called Thunder,
and toa large cluster of other “Sethian” texts.”
Supposedly as a result of Epiphanius’ denunciation, the Borborite -
clique he personally knew was exposed and expelled from the city
(Alexandria?).”° At any rate the Borborite trail in Egypt comes to an end
here. In the Latin West the Borborites existed for the most part only in
the late learned “Epiphanian” heresiological tradition." What was the
situation in Syria and adjacent areas? One could surmise that Epi-
phanius already hints at the existence of a Syrian branch by giving an
Aramaic etymology for Koddianoi,® one of the many names of the sect;
however, this may well be just part of his pedantic exhibition of a much-
praised, but in fact rather limited multilingualism.“* It has been sug-
gested, on rather general history-of-religions grounds, that the sect
originated in Syria; we shall discuss this matter later. But there is other,
more solid literary evidence, of an abundant and varied sort, for the
continued presence of the Borborites in the Levant, including the region
of Edessa. This material, though understandably overshadowed by
Epiphanius’ detailed and very sensational report, deserves further
scrutiny.
On the western flank of the Syrian region, there is evidence for the
presence of Borborites, specifically in Cilicia in southern Asia Minor,
8° Cf. above Layton, “Riddle,” pp. 37-54.
*° Holl, Epiphanius, 1.298, lines 14ff. The plural “to the bishops (episkopois) in that
place” is curious—Alexandria surely had only one bishop. Is Epiphanius referring to
secular authorities?
“1 Cf. Filastrius of Brescia, Haer. (written between 385 and 391; see Altaner-Stuiber,
Patrologie, 369), ch. 83, 247-48 for a curious reference to the Borborites as membra sua
deformantes (248, line 1); Augustine, De haeresibus (written ca. 428, dependent on
Filastrius [Altaner-Stuiber, 425]), ch. 6, 292-93. Priscillian writing earlier (ca. 380) makes a
perhaps independent passing mention of the Borborita heresy in a list of anathematized
sects (Tractatus I, Schepps edition, 23, line 16).
Epiphanius derives the name from kodda which, he says, in the syriake dialektos
means “dish” (paropsis, tryblion); he would relate the designation to their enforced
solitary eating habits—no one would have table fellowship with such polluted folk! (Holl,
Epiphanius, 1.279, lines 18 ff.). Is there anything trustworthy here? Kadda in Jewish
Aramaic in fact refers to a narrow-necked jug for water or grain; the corresponding
Syriac word is kadGnda (See Brockelmann, Lexicon, 318). Could perhaps the name rather
allude to the practice of abortion and be connected with Syriac kuda “placenta” or
“afterbirth,” admittedly a rare medical term (Brockelmann, Lexicon, 320)?
43 See Dimmer, “Sprachkenntnisse,” 396ff. The Aramaic and Hebrew etymologies for
the name of the prophet Barkabbas, whose writings circulated among the Borborites
(Holl, Epiphanius, 1.277, lines 3ff.), have no evidential value.
44 “1 Inzweifelhaft hat die Sekte ihren Ursprung in Syrien gehabt; der ganze orgias-
tische Kult mit seinen Obszénitéten erinnert nur zu sehr an die berihmten Schil-
derungen von Herodot uber den phénikischen Astarte-Kult” (Schmidt, Schriften, 575, n.
2). The crucial difference of course is that the Astarte rites were part ofafertility cult—
though it is precisely the gnostics who can be expected to reverse the original purpose!
296 STEPHEN GERO

approximately at the same time as Epiphanius encountered them in

Egypt. A fifth-century source* preserves a very curious story, hardly a
heresiological commonplace: the Arian Aetius was roundly defeated in
disputation by a Borborite; his despondency was only cured by his
subsequent rhetorical victory over a Manichaean notable. Epiphanius
himself mentions that (this ?) Aetius unmasked the Palestinian ascetic
Peter, founder of the sect of the Archontics, as belonging to the
Gndstikoi (a term which for Epiphanius is, of course, synonymous with
“Borborites”).”” Aetius of Antioch was, as it is well known, the founder of
the extreme Arian party of the Anomoeans.“ Against the background of
his antignostic and anti-Manichaean activities and the generally ration-
alistic tendency of his adherents, one can understand the apparent
negative reference to the Anomoeans in the Nag Hammadi tractate
Concept of Our Great Power (VI,4), as indeed a concrete allusion to the
Arians, reflecting perhaps original contact in a Palestinian or Syrian
milieu,” and not merely as the gnostics’ adoption of orthodox heresio-
logical cliches.*

“5 The ecclesiastical chronicle of the Arian Philostorgius, preserved for the most part
only in a Byzantine epitome. Cf. Quasten, Patrology, 3.530-32.
* Bidez, Philostorgius, 46, lines 15ff. The episode took place during the early part of
the reign of Constantius II, ca. 340, when Aetius was forced to go into one of his several
exiles (cf. Venables, “Aetius,” 52). Unfortunately the contents of neither disputation are
indicated.
*” Haer. 40; Holl, Epiphanius, 2.81, lines 12ff. Admittedly the Aetius in question is
usually identified with another, local Palestinian bishop (cf. Venables, “Aetius,” 53 and
Puech, “Archontiker,” cols. 634-5). But, despite some minor chronological difficulties,
there is no cogent reason against taking this Aetius to be the Arian controversialist, who
was ordained bishop without see in the early 360s. The Borborite component of the
Archontic system may well explain the split of the sect into an ascetic and an antinomian
group (Holl, Epiphanius, 2.82, lines 20ff.). This very specific anchoring of a gnostic group
in monasticism should be welcome support to recent attempts to situate the Nag
Hammadi Library in a Pachomian milieu (e.g., Wisse, “Monasticism in Egypt,” 430ff.;
Orlandi, “Catechesis,” 85ff.; Hedrick, “Gnostic Proclivities”).
** This is explicitly asserted e.g., by Epiphanius (Haer. 76; Holl, Epiphanius, 3.414,
lines A5ff.). Cf. further Abramowski, “Eunomios,” cols. 936ff.
® “Hand out the word and water of life. Cease from the evil lusts and desires and (the
teachings of) the Anomoeans (ni-anhomoion)” (NHC VI, 4:40,5-7; translation by Wisse in
Parrott, Codices V and VI, 304). It should be noted; however, that Krause renders the
crucial phrase as just “ungleiche Dinge” (Codex IJ und Codex VI, 155); Chérix translates
it as “ces (énergies) disparates” (Le Concept, 14) and argues rather cautiously against
Wisse’s interpretation (Le Concept, 27 n. 56. A recently published word-list gives as
equivalent “was (dem Gnostiker) nicht entspricht” (Siegert, Register, 213). The matter
clearly demands further investigation.
*° It should be noted that Ephrem mentions the Arians and the Aetians (‘a’etyané) in
‘the same listing of Edessene heresies as that in which the Borborites also appear (Contra
haereses, Beck edition, 79, line 11; 84, line 29). Cf. below, p. 298. The Arian persecution
of the Valentinians in Edessa is attested in a letter of the emperor Julian (Wright, Julian,
3.126).
5 So Wisse, “Heresiologists,” 208; Koschorke, Polemik, 8, n. 15.
 ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY AND LIBERTINE HERESY 297

At any rate, the Asia Minor Borborites lived on; Jerome, who resided
for a long time in the East, in his commentary on Galatians (composed
around 387-89)” mentions the Borborites among the heretics who posed
a danger to the see of Ancyra in Galatia.** The famous dyophysite
theologian, Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia (in Cilicia!), in his commen-
tary on the Gospel of John, written in the early fifth century, and extant
in its entirety only in Syriac translation,‘ refers to the Borborites,
ostensibly in a historical context, but one which seems to indicate his
acquaintance with the sect either from his earlier years in Antioch or
through his episcopal experience in the Asia Minor milieu. In the course
of commenting on John 16:2, Theodore identifies the crypto-Christian
followers of Simon Magus with the Borborites** and makes the nefarious
deeds of the sectarians responsible for the second-century persecution
of Christians in Gaul, during the reign of the Emperor Verus, as reported
by Eusebius of Caesarea.*
Turning now to Syria proper, we find the earliest mention of the
Borborites there in a poetical work of Ephrem the Syrian, the hymns
' Contra haereses, written probably in the late 360s, after his migration
from Nisibis to Edessa.” The “Borborites who defiled themselves”® are

52 Altaner-Stuiber, Patrologie, 400.

°8 PL, 26 (1884), col. 383 BC.
54 Altaner-Stuiber, Patrologie, 321; Geerard, Clavis 2.350-51.
°> “They are called Borborites (barboryanu) by many and are with difficulty dis-
tinguished from the faithful” (Vosté, Theodori Mopsuestensi, 289, line 29-290, line 1).
Vosté, Theodori Mopsuestensi, 290, lines 11ff. A sixth-century author, Barhad-
beSabba of Halwan, in reworking this passage misinterpreted the name of the emperor as
Pér6z, the Sasanian ruler of Persia in the late fifth-century (Nau, La Lettre G Cosme, 190).
The resulting picture of a persecution of Christians in fifth-century Iran occasioned by
the misdeeds of the Borborites, so presented in this writer’s earlier discussion of the
matter (Gero, Barsauma, 18), should be modified accordingly.
°? The date of Ephrem’s coming to Edessa is not known; probably it was 363 CE. the
year of Jovian’s surrender of Nisibis to the Persians, or slightly later. Ephrem died in 373
(Guidi, Chronica, 5, lines 6ff.). The Edessene origin of the hymns Contra haereses,
apparently assumed as a matter of course by Bauer (Rechtgldubigkeit, 26), is not an
undisputed datum. Beck, the foremost expert on Ephrem and indefatigable editor of his
works, regards the Contra haereses as ideologically an early work, on the same level as
the Paradise hymns (“Ephraem,” cols. 521-22), but he has not spelled out his views in
detail. El-Khoury (Interpretation, 155), following Beck's hint, explicitly sets the Contra
haereses in the Nisibine period (306-363). R. Murray: would date the work to the early
Nisibine period, because supposedly the Arians do not yet appear among the opponents
(“Ephraem,” 755); this is simply not correct, since Arians and Aetians are mentioned in
madra&a 22 (see above, n. 50). That these hymns against heresies were written in Edessa
rather than in Nisibis seems, to my mind, indicated by the fact that Ephrem identified
himself with the local “Palut” tradition, and that the spectrum of heresies is much
broader than what can be extracted from the Nisibine works. The whole question,
however, deserves further study.
58 Contra haereses, Beck edition, 79, line 15.
298 STEPHEN GERO

mentioned inalist of heresies, though no detailed description of their

practices is provided. Despite the activities of the bishop Quné, of
whom Bauer makes so much,” one can assume that the subsequent
weakening of episcopal authority in Edessa, in the latter half of the
fourth century, in the wake of the Arian controversy, contributed to the
survival of various heterodox groups there. But then Rabbula, the
powerful bishop of Edessa in the early fifth century (412-436),” accord-
ing to his Vita, drove out the Borborites entirely from his diocese;*
unfortunately the biographer was so outraged at their conduct and tenets
that he refuses to describe the same! A like reticence about the
“shameful folly” of the Borborites is found in the Christological homily
of Narsai, which ranges them among the docetists.*
Energetic inquisitorial action against the Borborites is recorded as
having been undertaken in the Byzantine-controlled section of Armenia
by no less a person that Ma&tog (Mesrop), the inventor of the Armenian
alphabet, the father of Armenian literature—and longtime friend of
Rabbula! According to his Vita, Ma8toc had little success in converting

5° The pseudonymous Testament of Ephrem also mentions the Borborites (Ps.-Ephrem,

Testament, 58, line 505); this is probably based on the passage just noted from the Contra
haereses. The Testament, according to the latest investigations, is in its entirety post-
Ephremic; it dates perhaps from the fifth century, at any rate from before 502 (cf. Outtier,
“Ephrem,” 24-25).
e Rechtgldubigkeit, 38ff.
®* Theodoret mentions the presence of Messalians in Edessa in the 380s (Hist. eccl.
IV.10; Parmentier, Theodoret, 230, lines 10ff.). It is telling that it is not by the bishop of
Edessa that they are exposed, but by the bishop of Antioch, Flavian, who sends a
contingent of monks to Edessa to apprehend them!
®? Cf. Blum, Rabbula, 7, 39 on the chronology of Rabbula’s episcopate.
*8 Overbeck, Ephraemi, 194, lines 2ff. Bauer paraphrases at some length this portion of
the Rabbula biography (Rechtgldubigkeit, 30ff.); but singles out only the mention of the
Marcionites and Manichees.
*4 Tt should be noted that the Borborites, in contrast to the 'Audayé and Zaduqayé are
not said to possess ecclesiastical buildings which could be confiscated. The Borborites
further are regarded as totally incorrigible; by contrast Marcionites, Manichees, and
Messalians are but erring sheep, who could be easily integrated into the orthodox
community (Overbeck, Ephraemi, 194, lines 9ff.). G. Hoffmann’s attempt to identify the
Zaduqayé mentioned in the Syriac Vita of Saba, missionary in the fifth century in
Persian Kurdistan (Bedjan, Acta, 2.67), with these Edessene victims of Rabbula’s zeal is
already very doubtful; but clearly untenable is his further linking of the Kurdistan sect
with the “Levite” section of the Borborites, merely because the Kurdish Zaduqdyé are
‘said to have been like the Sodomites! (Auszuge, 124). Their worship of a boar’s head
(probably the boar incarnation of the Persian divinity V¢retragna) is hardly to be
connected with the Borborites’ Sabaoth archon, who had the head of an ass or a boar
(Holl, Epiphanius, 1.287, lines 15ff.). Harnack unfortunately accepts Hoffmann’s tentative
identifications and asserts accordingly that the Borborites of the patristic sources
worshipped a boar’s head and were to be found in Kurdistan (Ketzer-Katalog, 10, n. 7).
*° bedya dagkiruta (Martin, “Homélie,” 471, line 17). Narsai was active in Edessa and
Nisibis in the late fifth century; cf. Gero, Barsauma, 60ff.
*° Written by his disciple Koriwn: Cf. Akinian, Koriwn, 40, lines 55ff. For a partial
 ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY AND LIBERTINE HERESY 299

the Borborites; thereupon, with the active aid of the Byzantine author-
ities,” he turned to the harsher methods of imprisonment and even
torture. Since the Borborites, despite these steps, remained recalcitrant,
they were all branded (a common punishment for heresy),** smeared ©
black, then painted various colors,” and finally expelled from the land.
Rather significantly, no similar measures are reported in the Persian-
controlled part of Armenia.
The presence of the Borborites is attested not only in these provincial
areas; a fifth-century Syriac source explains why, at the time of his
coming to Constantinople, Nestorius had to resort to energetic, and in
part unpopular, measures: ecclesiastical discipline was in such disarray
that the Arians were openly building a church for themselves, normally
cloistered monks were sauntering in public places, and “the Borborites
went freely into the churches together with the Christians.” The sixth-

translation based on the critical edition cf. Inglisian, “Leben,” 123ff.

*” The later writer Moses Khorenaci (ninth century?) claims to reproduce the text of a.
letter from the emperor Theodosius II and the patriarch Atticus to Magto¢g and his
superior, the catholicos Sahak, authorizing them either to convert or to expel the
Borborites (III.58, Tiflis edition, 334-35; translation by Thomson, Moses, 330). Moses
further implies that Masto¢g or his agents had recourse to capital punishment (Tiflis
edition, 337). This is not corroborated by Koriwn; he only mentions in more general terms
an imperial rescript which authorized, inter alia, that steps be taken against “the
pestilential sect of the Borborianos” (Akinian, Koriwn, 36, line 36). Moses gives the
spelling Borboriton for the name of the sect (Tiflis edition, 337, line 19).
®8 The council of Sahapiwan, legislating against adherents of the sect of the Mc]né
(literally “filthy,” which would well correspond to “Borborite”; but probably Messalians
or even Paulicians are meant), decreed, inter alia, branding in the face with “the sign of
a fox” (aluesdro’m) (Akinian, Kanones, 93, line 444); for a translation cf. Garsoian,
Heresy, 83.
°° Obviously some ancient Armenian equivalent of tarring and feathering! Inglisian
supposes this to have been the punishment for the Borborites’ smearing themselves with
semen in their sacramental rites (“Leben,” 183, n. 22).
7° The whole episode is approximately dated by the patriarchate of Atticus (406-425);
in fact one can arrive at a closer date of 422 for the visit of Magtog to the Byzantine
capital (Peeters, “Pour l’histoire,” 180-81). I suspect, though, that we may be dealing with
a tendentious substitution, and Ma&gto¢’s patron was in fact the patriarch Nestorius!
Though Atticus did urge Amphilocius of Iconium to deal sternly with the Messalians, he
was not, it seems, a heresy-hunter by inclination; he is in fact remembered for his
conciliatory attitude to the Novatians and the diehard followers of John Chrysostom (cf.
Disdier, “Atticus”). In contrast to Nestorius he was not a controversial figure and for
patriotic Armenian historiography, moreover, had the great advantage of being a native
of Sebasteia in Lesser Armenia (Socrates, Hist. eccl. V1:20; Hussey, Socrates, 718, lines
5ff.). But it was Nestorius who was from the outset a malleus haereticorum (Socrates,
VII.29; Hussey, Socrates, 799); his contact with Borborites in the capital and the imperial
law of 428 against heretics by name would also have provided a more natural setting for
the launching of a campaign against Borborites in the eastern provinces. But for the
hagiographer Koriwn (or a later reviser?), of course, it would have been highly compro-
mising to make his hero the agent of the future archheretic Nestorius; hence the possible
doctoring of the chronology and of the name of one of the principals in the episode in
question. ;
 300 ; STEPHEN GERO

century chronicle of Barhadbe3abba elaborates the account, claiming

that Nestorius had to oppose hidden Borborites and Manichees among
the clergy of the capital.”
It is hardly a surprise to find an imperial law, in the name of
Theodosius II and Valentinian III, dated a few months after Nestorius’
accession (and promulgated at his instigation?) in which for the first time
the Borborites are mentioned along with a number of other heretical.
groups, in part very actual (Arians, Macedonians, Eunomians, Mani-
chees); they are forbidden to build churches and to hold religious
services.” The validity of the enactment was reiterated in a novella
“decree” of the same emperors some ten years later.”
In the following century a summary of the original enactment is again
found, in the Justinianic codex.” The Borborites are then further men-
tioned in an independent novella of Justinian, concerned with prevent-
ing heretics from giving binding legal testimony.”> The persecuting
pressure indicated by these surviving pieces of legislation may have had
some effect: the so-called pseudo-Nicene canons, probably composed in
Syria in the late fifth century,”* mention the Borborites among those sects
whose converted adherents should be rebaptized.” Gennadius of Mar-
seilles also notes the Borborites in a similar connection, among heretics
whose baptism is invalid because they do not employ the trinitarian
formula.”
That Borborites in the post-Justinianic period were not merely a
curiosity of the law books is made plausible by the account preserved in
the twelfth-century monophysite chronicle of Michael the Syrian, which
goes back to good, earlier sources. According to this text, during the
reign of Justinian’s successor, Emperor Justin II (565-78),”° the Borborites

71 Nau, BarhadbeSabba, 530, lines 9ff.

72 Mommsen, Theodosiani, 1. pt. 2. 878 (Book XVI, 5, 65, dated May 30, 428).
”8 Meyer-Mommsen, Leges, 10 (novella 3, dated January 31, 438).
74 Kriiger, Corpus, 59.
”® Kruger, Corpus, 59 (I, 5, 21, dated 531 c.E).
78 See Graf, Geschichte, 1.587-88.
”” dbus, Canons, 57, line 19; translation is found in CSCO volume 440 (1982), 52 and
Braun, Nicaena, 62. .
The name of the Borboritae is already in the list of the genuine, short recension of
_ the text (ch. 22; PL, 42, 1217), composed in the 470s, and is also kept in the sixth-century
long recension (ch. 52; PL, 83, 1238 D; PL, 58, 993 D; Oehler, Corporis haereseologici,
1.348). On the two recensions of the work cf. Hamman, Patrologiae, 3.722.
”® The text has “Justinian the Second,” but the context makes it clear that the events
take place in the sixth century. Hence the emperor in question cannot be Justinian II,
who reigned at the end of the seventh and in the early eighth century. “Justin” and
“Justinian” are easily confused in Syriac script. Doresse’s statement about the Borborites
(Livres secrets, 1.354) should accordingly be rectified.
 ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY AND LIBERTINE HERESY 301

“who are called mlywn’ in our language”® supposedly affected by anti-

Manichaean persecution," left Persian territory, went first to Armenia
and then to Syria. They disguised themselves there as monks and
occupied monasteries abandoned by the monophysites, fleeing Chalce-
donian oppression. Michael further attributes ritual child murder, magi-
- cal practices, and promiscuous behavior to these pseudo-monastic
sectarians.” The thirteenth-century chronicle of Bar Hebraeus copies
Michael's account, and additionally claims that the immoral feasts in
question are also attested in one particular Muslim source.”
The foregoing material, though frankly of unequal value, already
illustrates the widespread and persistent presence of the Borborites in
the Orient, and should give a pause to those inclined to dismiss the
statements of the early heresiographers; but it provides relatively little
concrete information about the Borborites tenets. It should be admitted
that no other source gives information as detailed as that found in
Epiphanius, and some later notices in fact are merely the literary echoes
of Epiphanius’ work.” .
A number of authors (out of genuine indignation or merely to shield
their ignorance?) refuse to recount particulars. Thus the (fifth-century?)
heresy catalogue, attributed to Maruta of Mayperkat (Martyropolis)*
only says: “Because of their obscenity and their defilement, great las-
civiousness and abominable deeds and foul works and (because) they
pour out the blood of babes for sorcery, I am excused from their story,
from writing anything about them.”* The work of Barhadbesabba,
®° To be vocalized malyoné? The Syriac designation is a hapax legomenon and has no
obvious explanation. Bar Hebraeus gives the form mlywny (vocalized malyondayé?);
Brockelmann merely glosses the word as “borborianoi secta” (Lexicon, 391), following
Smith (Thesaurus, col. 2138).
®1 Probably the Zoroastrian sect of the Mazdakites are meant, heavily persecuted by
the Persian emperor Hosrou I. The chronicler’s additional connecting of these Borborites
with the Marcionites is either a simple lapsus, or the result of a confusion with the sect of
the Markianites, a Messalian group in Byzantium at this time.
82 Chabot, Chronique, 4.312, inner column, top; for translation cf: vol. 2, pp. 248-9.
83 Abbeloos-Lamy, Chronicon, 1. cols. 219-21. The eleventh-century Muslim scholar
al-Birini, to whom Bar Hebraeus explicitly refers, does not associate any sexual excesses
with the Nestorian feast al-Magu8 (for translation cf. Sachau, Chronology, 309); but
promiscuous sexuality is mentioned in this context by the tenth-century writer al-Sabusti
(Sachau, Klosterbuch, 11).
84 E.g., Theodore bar Koni (eighth century?): Scher, Theodorus bar Koni, 300, lines 9-
12; John of Damascus (eighth century), Liber de haeresibus, ch. 26: Kotter, Schriften, 4.27.
The appearance of the Borborites in an extremely long, learned list of heresies in the
seventh-century Epistula synodica of Sophronius of Jerusalem (PG 87.3, 3189 C) is
seemingly also merely due to the literary influence of Epiphanius’ Panarion.
Bauer mentions the preamble of this text (Rechtgldubigkeit, 33), but takes too
literally, it seems, the rhetorical expressions about the prevalence of heresy in the
writer's milieu (Byzantine Armenia’).
® Véebus, Canons, 25, lines 11-16.
302 STEPHEN GERO

already noted,” expands this entry; it singles out the Borborite belief that .
the world was created by angels, and claims that the central rite
consisted of the ritual defilement of ten virgins in the sanctuary. If one
of these conceived, the foetus was extracted and sacramentally con-
sumed. Interesting is the additional detail that the woman in question
was thereupon worshipped “in the place of Mary.””
It is this last trait of eccentric Mariolatry which is seemingly taken up
in the tenth-century Arabic chronicle of the patriarch Eutychius of
Alexandria. He makes the Barbaraniyyah into tritheists, who associated
‘Christ and Mary as gods alongside the supreme divinity, and dates the
sect back to the time of Constantine and the council of Nicaea.” The
fourteenth-century compendium of Abu’l-Barakat reproduces bodily the
accounts of both Maruta and of Eutychius.”
Potentially more important than these late literary echoes are what
appear to be concrete allusions to Borborites in the ninth book of the
Mandaean Right Ginza. The work mentions specifically a sect (literally
“gate”) of the mnunayya, characterized by immorality and magical
practices;” one of the epithets specifically seems to correspond to the
designation “Borborite.”* From the viewpoint of the puritanical Man-
daean family ethic the text further execrates, in “Borborite” terms,
Christian ascetics, male as well as female.“ It connects the Christian
‘sacramental practices of baptism and communion with infanticide and

8” Cf. above, pp. 297, n. 56 and p. 300.

re NSU: BarhadbeSabba, 190.
ag
® Eutychius, Annales, Cheikho ed., 126, lines 1-4. On the author cf. Graf, Geschichte,
2.32ff.
°° Abu al-Barakat, Lampe des ténébres, 689, 694-95. On the author, cf. Graf,
Geschichte, 2.438ff.
’ Petermann, Thesaurus, volume 1; translation is found in Lidzbarski, Ginza.
Petermann, Thesaurus, 1.225, lines 10ff.; translation and commentary in Lidzbarski,
Ginza, 226. As Lidzbarski points out (226, n. 4), though the designation is similar to that of
the Manichees (in Syriac manindyé), these cannot be meant, since the Manichees,
devotees of Mar-Mani, are later separately described. Lidzbarski further already suggests
a possible connection with malyonayé, the alternative designation for Borborites in Bar
Hebraeus (cf. above, n. 80).
°° Namely kita m&akna, “a slimy clod” (Petermann, Thesaurus, 1.225, line 15). The
adjective m3akna is derived from Sikna “mud” or “filth” (see Lidzbarski, Ginza, 226, n. 5).
As the Syriac 3kanG, it could also specifically refer to “faeces”; so translated in Drower-
Macuch, Mandaic Dictionary, 279. The epithet paradoxically coupled with this, sada d-
gubria gabaria, “block ofmighty men” (Petermann, Thesaurus, 1.225), could @ la rigueur
reflect the Syriac zakayé “victorious ones” underlying Zakchaioi (Holl, Epiphanius, 1.
279, line 25), an alternative designation for the Borborites.
“The semen of the former runs down their legs, the latter destroy the foetus in the
womb! All this is regarded as part of a mysterious qudsa d-atana d-arba ligria “sacrament
- of the she-ass with four legs” (Petermann, Thesaurus, 1.226, lines 11ff.). Cf. Lidzbarski,
Ginza, 27.
 ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY AND LIBERTINE HERESY 303

the consumption of sexual excretions;® like charges are made against the
Manichees.” The virulence and specificity of this battery of charges
leads one to surmise that perhaps the Borborites were in fact relatively
strong and numerous in the seventh and eighth centuries” in the
marshes of southern Mesopotamia, where, like the Mandaeans them-
selves earlier, they found, in Persian territory, a haven from persecution.

III. The Borborites Before the Fourth Century

Now we turn to the second part of the investigation: can one trace the
history of the Borborites further back than Epiphanius and Ephrem, the
fixed points of fourth-century heresiology? The violence of the late
Mandaean polemic last noted is in fact paralleled by the well-known
statements in the Pistis Sophia and the Second Book of Jeu, works
commonly dated, on rather general grounds to be sure, to the third
century.” These gnostic texts, without mentioning the Borborites by
name, polemize against those reprobates who make the consumption of
semen and menstrual fluids a sacramental action.” The statements give
the impression that the people involved are nevertheless regarded as
part of a gnostic sub-culture, so to speak.’” To proceed even further
back, one can explore the implications of Epiphanius’ claim that the

®° Specifically, the wine of the eucharistic cup is mixed with the menstrual discharge
of an adulterous nun (Petermann, Thesaurus, 1.226, lines 11ff.). On the historical context
of this very crude polemic cf. Rudolph, Mandder, 1.47ff. and in more detail the same
author's “Christentum,” 656. Cf. also Brandt's useful study, Manddische Religion, 140ff.
8 Called zandiqia and mardmania (Petermann, Thesaurus, 1.228, line 10). The first
epithet is the standard Arabo-Persian designation for dualist heretics; Drower-Macuch
suggest that the second is a corruption of d-mar mania, “of the Lord Mari” (Mandaic
Dictionary, 253). These Manichees are accused of mixing semen obtained through coitus
interruptus with (sacramental?) wine. In an eastern Syriac source from approximately
this period, Manichees of a particular village in the southern Euphrates region are
accused of several “Borborite” practices; Guidi, Chronica, 33, lines 14ff.; cf. further
Noldeke, “Chronik,” 36-37.
*” The prophet Mohammed and Muslim (civil?) wars are mentioned in the text. On the
dating question see Lidzbarski, Ginza, 221.
98 Schmidt-Till, Schriften, XXIV, XXXII; Rudolph, Gnosis: Wesen und Geschichte, 32.
At least as far as the Pistis Sophia is concerned, the dating would have to be revised if
Drijvers’s arguments for the presence of anti-Manichaean polemic in the Odes of
Solomon (several of which are incorporated and commented on in the Pistis Sophia)
have any cogency (“Odes,” 117ff.).
% Pistis Sophia IV,147: Schmidt-MacDermot, Pistis Sophia, 381; Second Book of Jeu,
ch. 43: Schmidt-MacDermot, Bruce Codex, 100-101.
100 See Schmidt-MacDermot, Bruce Codex, 100-101; the Second Book of Jeu claims to
know that these serve “the eight powers of the great archon” and that their true god is the
“third power of the great archon,” the lion- and pig-faced Taricheas! The recipients of
‘the revelations are explicitly warned against sharing the secrets with them. By contrast,
in the Pistis Sophia the culprits are described in more general terms, almost as hearsay.
304 _ STEPHEN GERO

Borborites formed an offshoot of the older sect of the Nicolaitans; this

is a specific statement, which to my mind deserves prima facie some
credence (in contrast to Theodoret’s improbable derivation of the Bor-
borites from the Valentinians).’*” Rather significantly, Epiphanius says
that one group among the Nicolaitans proclaimed the general imperative
of gathering the scattered seed of Prunikos from bodies, that is to say,
from sexual excretions.’® This is not the place to review the whole
dossier pertaining to the Nicolaitans. It is pertinent to our problem that
several sources from the late second and early third centuries talk about
the Nicolaitans’ luxurious and dissolute mode of living,’* and some
attribute to them a dualistic cosmological system;’* there is no cogent
reason to dismiss out of hand all of this evidence as mere invention.
Furthermore it is possible that this sect, as it appears at the end of the
second century, possesses a historical continuity with the group of the
Nicolaitans in Asia Minor, perhaps a hundred years earlier, as
described, in summary terms, in the canonical book of Revelation.’
This, of course, has to be kept strictly separate from the problematic
claim (of the sectarians themselves or of the orthodox heresiologists?)
that the shadowy deacon Nicolaos of Acts was their founding father.’”
That the Borborites originate from within a loosely knit Nicolaitan
movement of the second century, and specifically developed from the
above-mentioned splinter group, perhaps at the end of the second or
early third century, is entirely feasible; the actual splitting off was
marked by an adoption of Barbelo-gnostic cosmology coupled with the
establishment of the ingathering of the pneumatic seed, through a
variety of sexual acts, as the central, constitutive ritual.
This tentative chronology is supported by the fact that the self-
1°1 Cf. above, p. 293.
102 BG, 83, 361C. In fact inversely Valentinianism may be tributary to the Barbelo-
gnosticism of the Apocryphon of John (Quispel, “Valentinian Gnosis,” 118ff.).
108 Holl, Epiphanius, 1.270, lines 1-2. By contrast Epiphanius’ imputation of specific
sexual “ingathering” rites to the Simonian gnostics (Holl, Epiphanius, 242, lines 20ff.) is, to
my mind, not credible, and seems to be simply an elaboration of Irenaeus’ remarks on
the licentious living and erotic sorceries of the Simonians (Haer. 1.23.4; Rousseau-Dou-
treleau, Haereses, 318).
E.g., Iren. Haer. 1.26.3 (Rousseau-Doutreleau, Haereses, 348); Clem. Alex. Strom.
3.25 (Stahlin-Frichtel, Clem. Alex., Stromata, 207).
‘5 In particular cf. Ps.-Tertullian, Haer., ch. 5 (reflecting Hippolytus’ lost Syntagma’),
1401, Cf. Harnack, “Nicolaitans,” 415-6.
‘°° To my mind, this is still the valid result of the first portion of Harnack’s basic study
(cf. preceding note), confirmed by the recent investigation of Prigent (“L’hérésie asiate,”
17ff.). I do not share Wisse’s total scepticism vis-a-vis the veracity of the patristic material
concerning the Nicolaitans (“Die Sextus-Spriche,” 65ff.).
*°” See Brox, “Nikolaos und Nikolaiten.” This is not the place to go into this exegetical
problem, but it is probably safest to conclude as Haenchen does (Acts, 264) that the
connection with the obscure deacon of Acts is a later fiction, based on the name only.
 /

ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY AND LIBERTINE HERESY 305

designation of the group was Gnostikoi, a self-designation they shared

with a number of other non-ascetic second-century groups,’ though not
with the Nicolaitan mother body.’” Though the Nicolaitans first appear
in the cities of western Asia Minor, it would be hazardous thereupon to
claim this area as the place of origin of the derivative Borborite move-
ment; admittedly the orgiastic cults, associated with various mother
goddesses in Asia Minor and Syria that survive into the Roman period,
provide a more plausible background than Egypt.’” At any rate, the
spread of the movement from Syria to Egypt by the third century would
be consonant with what is known about some other groups.

IV. Conclusion
It would be an error to attribute too great an antiquity to this Christian
sect, the Borborites;’* it seems to represent already a fairly developed
stage of libertine thinking. In particular a direct link with scattered
traces of what is generally designated as antinomianism and libertinism
in the writings of the early Christian communities” cannot be found.
The preoccupation with frustrating the process of generation is hardly
compatible with an eschatological fervor. The roots of Borborite ide-

18 In particular the followers of Prodicus and the Carpocratians but also the Ophites
and Naassenes. (On Gnostikoi as a heretical subdivision cf. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte,
230ff.) It is telling that Epiphanius specifically refuses to grant the label “gnostic” to the
(half-mythical?) group of the Valesians, who supposedly systematically practiced cas-
tration (Holl, Epiphanius, 2.358, lines 8-9). Specifically on Prodicus see Smith,
“Gnostikos,” 802-4. Quispel suggests that the Alexandrian Gnostics of Prodicus’ party may
have reached Carthage before the arrival of Tertullian-type orthodoxy (“Valentinian
Gnosis,” 119). In this connection it is noteworthy that neither gndstikos nor any Coptic
equivalent thereof is found as a self-designation in the Nag Hammadi writings (see
Siegert, “Selbstbezeichnungen,” 129, n. 1). Did the “ascetic gnostics” feel that the term
had acquired undesirable “libertine” connotations?
10° Particularly intriguing is the unnamed heresiarch (known to Clement) who claimed
to be a gnostic, and proclaimed that one combats hédoné through the use of hédoné
(Clem. Alex., Strom. 2.20.117,5: Stéhlin-Frichtel, Clem. Alex., Stromata, 176). Clement
compares this view to those of the Nicolaitans, but does not say that the individual
belonged to them (contra Schoeps, Zeit, 260).
110 Cf. Hérig, Dea Syria.
1111) his youth Origen had to share the hospitality provided by a patroness in
Alexandria with a famous Antiochene heretic (a Gnostic?) called Paulus (Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist. 6.13). The Manichees in Egypt would be another example (cf. Grant, “Manichees
and Christians,” 431-2).
112 This view is usually combined with the assumption that the Borborites were a
pagan sect subsequently Christianized; so Fendt, Mysterien, 13-14 and de Faye,
Gnostiques, 128. Speyer’s argument (“Vorwiirfe,” 133) that the charges of immorality and
cannibalism recorded in the early apologists imply the existence of all the libertine sects
described by Epiphanius already in the second century needs refinement.
118 For a convenient collection of such texts cf. Smith, Secret Gospel of Mark, 258ff.
 306 STEPHEN GERO

ology are to be sought elsewhere. The theoretical advocacy and actual

practice of sexual and dietary encratism is well attested in the second
and third Christian centuries. Despite the carefully balanced attitude of
intellectuals like Clement and Origen, it often resulted in what can be
called a demonization of sexuality.‘
Particularly interesting, however, is that the uncompromising solution
that celibacy is a requirement for full membership in the Christian
community was only put into effect in Syria-Mesopotamia, under cir- .
cumstances and for a length of time which are not entirely clear."* The
attachment to asceticism, in fact, cut across party lines, so to speak, and
the encratite zeal of Mesopotamian Valentinians and Marcionites, for
instance, rivalled that of the orthodox.
The evidence of several texts from Nag Hammadi which reflect
encratite Syrian traditions reinforces this picture. The Borborite option
was simply the other facet of the preoccupation with fasting and
sexuality, and is best understood as having initially taken shape in this
particular Mesopotamian religious environment. The Borborites knew
- and rejected the encratite alternative as deceptive and ineffective,”° and
were, it seems, also dissatisfied with the general libertine notion of
regarding the free exercise of sexual appetites as simply a symbolic
expression of moral indifference or ethical nihilism.’” They maintained
the encratite emphasis on sexuality, but claimed to be able to master it,
to neutralize its venom, through a purposeful, systematic exercise
thereof.
The Borborites constituted for the most part a secret society that led a
clandestine existence within other Christian groups (lay or monastic) in
contrast to, for instance, the well-defined Valentinian church in Meso-
potamia. Thus it is perhaps safer to talk in terms of a metamorphosis
rather than of an extinction of the movement, even when the evidence
seems to disappear.’*® The movement drew its sustenance from, and

14 See Chadwick, “Enkrateia,” cols. 349ff.

148 Védbus, Celibacy; for updating and critique see Murray, “Exhortation,” 59-80.
“®The polemical thrust is made particularly clear by the story of the (attempted!)
ascension of Elijah (cf. above, p. 294). By contrast, according to Ephrem, Elijah could
ascend to heaven before the eyes of admiring angels because of his virginity (De
paradiso, V1.24: Beck, 25, lines 1-2).
1” This seems to have been the case in particular with the Carpocratians. See Liboron,
Gnosis, 28ff. Possible specific connections between the Borborites and the Carpocratians
deserve to be investigated in more detail. But one should avoid constructing a syn-
thetized picture of libertine gnosticism, where the real differences of the various groups
are disregarded (as unfortunately Jonas [Gnosis, 1.233ff.] does).
“1° Tn particular the possibility of a late fusion with Messalianism deserves to be
looked at, although this is to some extent explaining obscurum per obscurius. One also
should note the astonishing similarity. of the details of the sexual practices of the Frankist
 ENCRATITE ORTHODOXY AND LIBERTINE HERESY 307

owed its astonishing persistence to, the same religious and psychological
factors which led so many Christians from early on to regard the
restraining, or entire suppression, of sexual appetites as absolutely
central to salvation. As such, it deserves the attention of historians of
religion, in particular of those who, following the insights of Walter
Bauer, attempt, in specific historical contexts, to do justice to all of the
rich diversity within early Christianity.

sect (the final stage [eighteenth-nineteenth century] of the Jewish Messianic movement
launched by Sabbatai Zvi) to those of the Borborites, reported again by opponents, to be
sure (see Schoeps, Zeit, 269-70).
 Cumenenity wn aoly a i esi“SytiaMeerpunamlac
meee ord a Seenek“4
1

SN intintege top Aiecgeamiedeen,12

<" ~ Teri T im i — ) +

s — a Ps a a i

eee aan ae tone Hee Massie which wate

onivatite Syetct: Ween ceindsrcas thispictave, TheBoctortee epran’”
thaw proqseupation with Inating aad
| wl sSesezing tha cehee Fats oF“he
suinelly, sentta petcxpliotescd eohevehy ieslally da Meee Re

! in eenppviadOm seacealliy, ber Sicoedoak ema e

eae hve gh» peo quent.
FheBeach astnattocet H-cn nentpenn aneERS t Jeda.
stantsbeviaesettiacheeCorolle divapsGare nomamra) Ws
é eee Read Vadonticuar coarch$eMame |
| palmei These 2% pecpspe vefer to talk Sntenee of @ mietgnveption ae
~tihad Chan of 7%.etainciiun ofthe muvemeni, sven:whee theevidences
Pee Senee Themovement der ox atest fa 8
Ss
+ 5 ies Saat ee son. e ou -
 ANCIENT TEXTS

A. Old Testament Num

24:17 69, 70
Gen
1-3 11, 23, 257-78 Deut
1-4 266, 275 17:6 102
1-6 19, 21, 24, 55, 57, 60, 72-74, 76 19:15 102
12 24, 236
1:2-3 57 1 Kgs
1:3 278 . 1:38-47 68
1:26 278, 280
1:26-27 22, 24, 280 Ps
1:27 260 ' 8:4-6 73
1:28 259, 261-63, 267, 274, 278 18 68
2 258, 270, 276, 278 30 68
2-6 73 69 68
an 265, 269, 276, 278, 280, 281-83 80 68
2:9 271 89 68
27 24 110 68
2:18 24, 262, 263 114 68
wen 282 139:16 24
2:23 147 146 68
2:23-24 259
2:24 260, 263, 267, 273 Prov
2:24-25 259, 261-63, 267, 270, 278 1-4 271, 283
3:2 47 1:7 272
3:4-6 23 1:11-12 271
3:6-7 247 1:19 271
3:20 47, 220, 263, 270, 27 1:22-26 283
3:21 48, 50 1:29 283
4:1 23, 51 3:18 271, 283
4:25 24, 274 3:19 283
5:1-3 23, 24, 28, 57 4:13 271, 283
5:4 28 8 .
57
6 264 8:4-7 40
6:1 23 General 170
6:1-4 25
General 54, 74, 244, 272, 277 Isa
14:19 23
Exod 40:13 275
20:5 24 46:9 24
31:2 237 52-53 31

309
310 ; INDEX

Jer 170 4:33-34 147

5:20 137
ob 5:37 200
; 28 57 6:8-11 173
General 4 6:11 140
: 7:24 137
Evak 7:31 137
1:4-21 23 8:27-30 156
1:26 22 8:29 200, 202
8:38 168
Dan 9:2 200

See ois ee 10:15 ER

‘ 10:2-9 260
B. New Testament 10:6 259
10:10-12 260
Matt j 13 147
. 13:3 200
re i 13:26 147
548 349 14:24 242
‘5 14:33 200
aa te 15:40-41 202
7:29 141 16:8 10, 172
9:35-10:16 148 General 181, 143, 145, 150-52, 155, 166,
10:7 140 172, 173, 198, 201
10:14 140 6
10:23 148 sone te 6
11:19 147 Sadtae sis
1Aceo 242, 245 . 6 145
11:25-30 144, 147 6:20 : 135
11:27 102 6:22-23 148
13 1 6:27-30 148
13:47-48 148 6:34-35 138

19:12 141 7:28 261

19:28 168 7:35 147
23:34-35 147 8:2 202
23:37-39 147,148 8:10 272
25:31 168 : 9:2 140
27:55-56 202 9:3 173
General 67, 145, 150-52, 154, 158, 162- 9:58 140
64, 167, 170, 198, 201, 202 10:1-16 148
s 10:4 173
Mark 10:9 140
1:9-13 67 10:13 137
1:11 68 . 10:15 137
1:15 140 10:21 245, 272
3:8 137 10:21-22 170
3:18 202 10:21-24 147
3:20-22 105 10:22 102
4 145, 147, 148, 163, 171 11:34-36 156
4:10-12 108, 147 11:49 168
4:21-22 147 11:49-51 144, 147, 148, 168
4:22-25 145 12:2-3 147
 ANCIENT TEXTS 311

Luke, cont. 5:1-47 100

12:4-7 172 5:21 101 -
12:8-9 168 5:22-24 101
12:35-46 148 5:31 101
12:35-56 145, 148 5:31-47 101
13:34-35 147 5:35-47 100
15:4-7 248 5:39 101, 102
16:16 261 5:39-47
17:22 168 5:45
17:22-37 144, 147, 148 6:35
168 6:35-51
168 6:51 94, 99
168 6:63 105, 107
168 7:15-24 100
10 7:30 103
164 7:33-34 107
164 7:34 103
173 7:36 103
10 7:37-38 107
24:36 255 7:37-39 68
General 6, 67, 145, 150-52, 154, 158, 7:38-39 107
162, 163, 167, 170-74, 198 7:44 103
8 11, 103
John 8:12 39, 98, 99, 100, 107
1:1-18 6, 66, 68, 69, 89, 91, 94, 112, 8:12-20
113, 201 8:12-47
1:1 112 8:12-59
1:3-5 112 8:13
1:5 91, 244 8:13-14
1:6-8 113 8:14
1:10-12 112 8:15-16
1:12 94,112 8:17
1:14 64, 65, 93, 112, 113 8:18
1:15 113 8:19
1:16 112, 113 8:20
1:18 112, 113 8:21-29
1:29 201 8:21
1:41 201 8:21-22
1:45 201 8:21-59
1:49 201 8:23
3 112 8:23-24
3:3 106 8:25
3:5 106 8:25-26
3:11 112 8:25-27
3:12 112 8:26-29
3:14 104 8:26-27
95 8:28
94, 101, 242 8:30
112 8:30-40
94 8:31-32
106, 107 8:33-36
66, 67 8:35
107 8:37-50
201 8:37
102 8:38
312 INDEX

John, cont. 16:23-24 108

8:39-41 105 16:25 108
8:42 105 16:28 101, 108
8:43 105 16:29* 108
8:44 105 16:30 108
8:45-46 105 17 109, 249
8:46 101 17:3 93
8:47 105 17:9-10 109
8:48-50 105 17:23 109
8:51 105, 107 18:5 104
8:52-59 106 18:6 104
8:58 104 18:8 104
8:59 106 19 116
9:1-41 98 19:25-27 116, 119
9:4 107 19:26 114, 115
9:5 39 19:26-27 119, 123
10 93, 248 19:34 119
10:1-12:32 98 19:34-35 119
10:3-4 242 19:35 119 .
10:7 99 20 116, 118
10:7-18 92 20:1-10 116, 118, 119
10:9 99 20:2 114, 115
10:11 99 20:17 94
10:14 99 20:19 255
10:28-29 107 20:24 124
10:29 107 20:26 124, 255
10:31 103 20:26-28 124
10:39 103 20:27 124
11:5 115 20:28 124
11:9-10 100, 107 20:29 109
11:16 124 21 116, 118, 151
11:25 99 21:1-24 116
11:37 242 21:2 124
12:35 100 21:7 114, 115
12:34-36 98 21:14 10
12:35-36 100, 107 21:15-24 116
12:44-50 98 21:20 114, 115
13 116-18 21:23 124
13:3 107 21:24 114
13:21-30 116, 118 General 2, 9-11, 66, 67, 70, 75, 89-96,
13:23 114, 115 111-25, 150, 164, 174, 179, 297
13:33 103, 107
14:2-3 65, 107 Acts
14:2-12 107 1:21-22 174
14:5 124 2:14-35 201
14:6 99, 244 3:12-26 201
14:7-10 - 102 3:13 201
14:8-11 94 4:11 201
14:9 107 5:30 244
14:16 99 8:1-4 207
14:22 124 8:4-40 207
45:1 99 8:10 3
16:2 297 10:39 244
16:5 99 10:43 201
16:23 108 11:28 173
 ANCIENT TEXTS 313

Acts, cont. 15:24-29 277.

13:1-3 139 15:28 277
15:13 145 15:35-39 284
15:19 189 15:35-50 276
15:13-21 216 15:42-48 276
ae me 15:43ff. 258
; 15:43-44 280, 282
General 6, 173, 178, 180, 182, 198, 208, 15:43-48 270, 283
304 15:44-47 281
15:45 276
Rom 15:45-47 282
1:2-5 6 15:46 282
3:8 189 15:47 269, 276, 280, 282
4:12 253 15:47-49 284
we 004 253 15:48 276
ae 253 15:53-54 242
pa na General 141, 143
9:22-23 253 2 Cor
16:27 277, 285 4:7 253
vere 5:2-4 242
1-4 9, 147, 148, 156 Gal
et Se 1:12 212, 214
2 258, 266, 278 4:19 1 45
2:6-7 147, 214 oa 188
2:6-8 271, 282 F
2:6-15 282 ae aa6
2:7
SLA 272,
ona 284 a2 eatiant
2:12 145, 214, 216
2:8 244, 274, 275 3:23 189
2:9
2:10
143, 146, 147
275
3:26-28
General
= 134
178, 186, 189, 297
2:13 272
2:14 258, 268, 270, 271, 279, 280, Eph
282 3 275
2:14-3:15 3-5 266
2:16 275 3:3-4:9 242

6:16 260 3:21 277, 285

6:16-20 273 4:6 277, 285
7:8 284 5-6 278
7:25-40 141 5:8 : arte 285

7:31 242 5:14 62

7:32-35 281 5:23 267
7:32-36 273, 281 6:11-12 269, 279
8:2-3 242 6:12 267
8:6 242 General 2,6, 277
9:5 141
11:2-11 260 Phil
15 266, 270, 278 2 249
15:3-5 6 2:5-11 6, 69
15:22 277 2:8 242
15:24-28 285 3:10 242
314 INDEX

Col 2 John 95
278
268, 275, 280 Rev
1:9-10 268, 275 3:5 242
275 5:2-4 242
282, 285 5:9 246
284 12:1-17 67
268, 279 20:12-15 247
268, 279 22:16 70
279 General 288, 304
279
66, 69
242, 246 C. NT Apocrypha
282
280 Acts of John
97-102 . 206
98 108
100
277 Acts of Thomas
47 124

145 Epistula Apostolorum

203, 210, 211, 215, 218

189 Gospel of Peter 219 .

242
Pap. Eg. 2 11, 98, 100-103, 106
141
Pap. Oxy. 1 142, 152, 162, 163
189 Pap. Oxy. 654 142, 161, 163
Pap. Oxy. 655 143, 161, 163
189
Questions of Bartholomew
11 210
186 11.3 210
IL.7 210
James 178 III.61-62 210
IV.2 210
1 Pet IV.1-5 210
1:10-12 281 General 203, 211
3:18-22
General 178
D. OT Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha,
2 Pet Qumran, Mishna, Targumic Material
3:1-2 201
Adam and Eve
1 John 1-11 29
asd 242 12-17 29
1:6 112 49.2-50.2 30
2:18-19 185 . General 28-30
2:22
3:8 105 Apoc. Mos.
3:15 105 19:3-21:6 260
General 6, 90, 95 General 28, 260
 ANCIENT TEXTS 315

Asatir II,2 70 Test. Adam

3
CD 3:5 30
7,9-21 70
Tg. Ps.-J.
1 Enoch Gen 4:1 51
6-8 25
9-10 23 Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
9111-15 30 260
93:4 30
93:8 30 T. Judah
24 f 70
2 Enoch
ae 69

2 Esdr 69
69
13:1-6 69
69
Jub. 69
3:4-12 260
3:26-32 260
General 260
259
260
Mid. Gen. Rab. 260
14.8 24 25
17.8 260
18.2 260 Talmud
20.11 260 Sanh. 43a 205
22.2 260
26.7 23 Wis
1-6 31, 32
Odes Sol. 9:9-17 199
11:7-16 69 37 199
12:3 243
17:1-16 | 69
19:2-4 243 E. Apostolic and Church Fathers
24:1-5 69
General 68, 113, 243, 303 Augustine
Haer.
Pirke Aboth 136 6.292-93 295

1QM 2 Clement 143, 145

11,6 70
Clement of Alexandria
1QS Strom.
3,13-26 25 deadio 214
2.9.45.4 215
1QSb 2.20.117.5 305
5,20-25 70 3.1 263
3.25 304
4QTestim 3.37 259
9-13 70 3.45 — 259
6.6.53.5 18
Sir 7.13.82.1 215
24 57, 68, 199 7.17.106 216
25:24-26. 260 7.17.108 215
 316 INDEX

Clement of Alexandria, cont. Filastrius

Paed. Haer.
2.1.16 215 3 56
83.247-48 295
Ep. Theod. (Secret Gospel of Mark)
3.4 120 Hippolytus
3.15 120 Ref.
5.7.1
Didache - 5.7.19
11 139 5.8.14-18
11.8 169 5.9.18-20
13.1 139 5.10.2
General 139, 218 5.19.21
5.27,.2-3
Ephrem 7.20.1
de paradiso 7.25.3
6.24 306 7.26.2

Haer. Irenaeus
296-98
Haer.
Epiphanius (see K. Holl) I 186, 224, 225
Pan. 1.1-8 222, 240
1.1.5 171
26 56,292
1.4.1-2 45
26.2.6 48, 49
26.3.1
1.4.5 223
1.5.6 276
26.17.4
1.6.1 262
33.3.2-7 17.5 255
39.1.1-2 1.8.5 66
39.5.1 1.10.2 226
39.6.3 1.10.3 226
39-40 1.10.3 223
40 1.21.3-5 69
40.1 1,.22;1 223
40.2.2 1.23.4 304
40.7.6 1.24.6 35
62 1.26.3 304
76 1.28.7 171
General 1.29 21, 24, 56, 60, 62, 64, 71-
74
Eusebius 1.30 24, 59
Eccl. Hist. 1.30.2 270
2.1.4 1.30.12-13 78
3.39.16 1.30.14 201, 218
4.8 II 223, 241
4.21-28 II-IV 186
4.22 -
II.Preface 224
4.22.5
II.1.1 233
4.25
II.1.1-2 233
II.1-19 224-38
5.20.1-6
11.1.3 227
5.27
11.1.4 227
6.13
II.2.4-5 235
1I.3.1-4.3 229
Eutychius 11.4.1 227
 ANCIENT TEXTS 317

Irenaeus, Haer., cont. Comm. in Matt.

I1.5.1-2 222 12.26 214
11.5.2 237 12.41 214
11.6.1 235
11.6.2 235 Priscillian
11.7.1 230 Tractatus I 295
II.7.1-2 234
I1.7.3 230 Pseudo-Clementines
11.7.4 237 Hom.
11.7.6 231-32 2.15-24 70:
2.24 70
11.8.1 237
3.22 70
11.8.2 236, 237
11.8.3 223, 224, 226, 227
Rec.
11.9.1 226
1.54-63 70
II.10.2-4 238 2.8 70
1111.1 234
I].11.1-2 226, 227 Pseudo-Ephrem
1.11.2 224 Test.
11.12.2 231 58.505 298
II.14 222
II.15.3 232 Pseudo- Tertullian
II.19.9 224 Haer.
11.28.3 231 2 _ 56
II.28.4-5 231 5 304
III.1.1 201
III.2.1 276 Socrates
III.3.1-2 214 Eccl. Hist.
III.7 229 VI.20 299
III.7.5 229 VII.29 299
III.11.7-8 208
III.16.1 229 Tertullian
Ad Val.
4 186
Jerome
Comm. in Gal. 297 Theodore of Mopsuestia
Ep. 75.3 28 Comm. in Joh.
16.2 297
John of Damascus
Haer. Theodoret
26 301 Eccl. Hist.
IV.10 298
Justin
1 Apol.
1.61.4 106 F. Classical and Hellenistic Texts
10.2
59.1 236 Albinus
Did.
Origen 10-22 228
Cels. 10.3 228
1.57 70 12.1 234
2.64 214
4.16 214 Aristotle
6.11 Po.
6.77 214 1458a26 42
318 INDEX

Aristotle, cont. 109 68

Metaph. 195 68
1.6 80
1030a6 250 Her.
1030b4-6
1031a12-14
250
250
160 236
1032b1-2 250
L.A.
XIIL6 80
2.2 236
Athenaeus 3.95-96 237
Deipnos. 3.228-29 199
X.448-59 43
Mig.
Cicero 178-84 232
Nat. Deor.
1.8-20 225 Op. Mund.
1.20 224 7-20 229
11.5.15 232 9-10 234
1I.30.75-77 233, 234 13 231
III.7 226 16 229 .
III.8 226 16-20 229
20 232
Or. 66-135 23
7-10 ; 232 152 262
170-71 224
Corpus Hermeticum
1.78-84 40 Post.
Ted 40
168-69 22
Josephus
Prob.
Ap.
2.167 22
18 236

Ant. Quest. in Exod.

1.67 28
2.45 22
1.67-71 29
1.68-70 30 Quis Rerum
11.52 50
Palatine Anthology
14.41 43 Quod Deus
14.42 43 62 22
14.110 43
Somn.
Philo of Alexandria 1.67 22
- Abr. 2.242 68
1 30
Virt.
Aet. Mund. 182 35
13-19 230
Vit. Mos.
Conf. 2.53-58 30
2-3 34 2.63 30
Fug. Philo of Byblos
68-70 24 Phoenician Hist.
97 68
28
 ANCIENT TEXTS 319

Planudean Appendix Com. Not.

7.44 50 1047C 235
1070DE 226
Plato 1073E-1074D 227
Cra. 1074E 235
383A 250 1076CD
1085C-E 233
Theat.
176B 82 Is. Osir.
369A-D
Laws 369ff.
370E-371B 228 369E-370E
896DF 228 370F
372E
Symp. 373AB
210A-212A 59, 82
General 58 - Def. Or.
421F-425D
Tim. 425E-426E
35A 228
41A-42B 24.
Stoic. Repug.
48 236
28-29
1014A-1015F 228
1017EF
1014B 237
1047B
1014E-1015A 236
1051E 226, 233
1026EF 236
1055D 233
General 71, 222, 224, 229, 230,
233, 234, 237, 266, 276
Porphyry
Rep.
Vit. Plot.
16 82
509B 74
588B-589B 212
Proclus
General 8
In Plat. Tim. 234
Parm.
137C 74
Seneca
Ep. 65 232
Plotinus
Enn.
2.9 82 G. Nag Hammadi Codices; Other Gnostic
3.8 82 and Related Literature
5.5 82
6.7.17.13-26 81 1,2 Ap. Jas.
30-33 83 1,8-18 211
2,7-16 211
Plutarch 2,22-27 103
De Fac. Lun. 2,24-26 107
921EF 237 2,29-35 211
926 234 4,40-5,5 109
927AB 233 5,9-21 212
927CD 237 6,1-7 212
928C 236 7,1-6 108
7,17-25 109
Plat. Qu. 10,32-34 108
1007E 234 10,39-11,1 108
1013EF 234 12,38-13,1 109
320 INDEX

Ap. Jas., cont. 21,33-34 242

13,23-25 212 21,36 252
13,39-14,2 107 21,37 243
14:20-21 103 22,3-4 253
General 11, 98, 106, 122,155,203, 22,20 248
208, 211 22,21-24 252
22,36-37 247
1,3 Gos. Truth 22,38-23,18 247
17,2-4 244 23,3-5 247
17,5 243 23,11 247
17,5-19,23 252 23,18-24,9 248
17,14-20 252, 253 24,9-11 243
17,28 252 24,9-25,19 - 248
17,33 252 24,20-24 242
17,35 243 24,21 » 252
18,1 252 24,30-32 243
18,10 252 25,1 252
18,10-11 243 25,3-24 251
18,15 242 25,35-36 242
18,16 244 26,4-5 255
18,18 252 26,10-15 253
18,21-23 252 26,19-20 252
18,22-24 244 26,27-28 255
18,24 242 26,33-27,4 251
18,26 244 . 26,34-35 243
18,30-31 245 27,24-25 242
18,34-35 242 28,9 250
19,12-17 242 28,16-17 254
19,19 255 28,20-24 254
19,19-20 242 30,15-16 242
19,25 242 30,25-28 250
19,32-34 242 30,26-31 242
19,35 242 30,27-31 242
19,35-36 245 30,32-31,12 245
19,36-20,1 245 31,1 253
20,3-6 246 31,25 252
20,4-14 245 31,35-32,30 248
20,9-10 255 32,26-31 248
20,15-16 242 32,31-33,32 248
20,15-17 246 32,32-33,32 249
20,22 243 32,37 252
20,24 246 32,38 248
20,25-26 246 32,39 248
20,29 242 33,1-30 249
20,30-31 247 33,6-8 249
20,32 247 33,31-32 249
20,37-38 246, 247 35,8-9 252
20,38 252 35,33-36,13 252
21,2 253 36,14 244
21,3-5 247 38,7-40,22 245
21,4-5 253 38,9 250, 251
21,6-22,37 247 38,11-12 250
21,25-34 259 ise- 38,17-19 250
21,26 247 38,25-32 251
21,27-31 247 40,9-10 251
 ANCIENT TEXTS 321

Gos. Truth, cont. : 23,30-31 62

40,26 250 23,37-24,3 265
41,14-42,39 253 24,26-27 265
41,15-16 254 24,28-31 265
41,24-26 254 ’ 24,32-25,7 65
42,5-9 254 25,2-16 24
42,21-28 94 27,32-33 25
42,39-40 ' 254 27,33 61
42,39-43,2 254 27,33-28,2 53
43,19-24 94 28,1-2 53
General 8, 90, 93, 94, 239-55 , 29,16-30,11 264
30,11-31,25 62, 74, 92
1,4 Treat. Res. 30,12-31,25 62, 74
45,24-28 242 20,13-14 53
General . 54 30,16-21 62
: 30,17 54
1,5 Tri. Trac. 30,21-31 | 62
51,8-52,6 251 30,23 53
51,14-15 250 30,24 53
56,1-58,18 251 30,31-31,25 62
. 110,22-113,1 254 30,32-31,22 263
114,31-35 245 30,33 54
118,14-124,25 255 31,4 62
General 10, 66, 269 31,4-10 62
31,12-16 62
II,1 Ap. John 31,14-22 62
1,5-8 206 General 8, 9, 15, 16, 19-25, 31,
1,10-12 _ 205 33-35, 44, 56, 58, 60-62,
1,21-24 206 64, 66, 68, 70-74, 76-80,
3,18-35 82 85, 195, 203, 205, 206,
5,7 61 210, 213, 257-60, 263-67,
6,2 77 277, 278, 294, 304
6,23-25 21
7,10-11 206 II,2 Gos. Thom. (Logia)
8,32 79 Prologue 142, 148
9,25 21 : 1 54, 106, 124
9,25-35 - 264 1-7 142
10,26-28 264 a 148
12,10-12 264 3 145, 148
13,3ff. 60 6 156
14,14-24 65 8 148
15,13-19,15 264 12 122, 144, 145, 151
15,29-19,2 20 13 107, 122, 124, 125, 144,
15,29-19,11 74 : 145, 156, 201
19,17 61 14 156
20,9 61 : 17 143, 146, 147
20,28-21,13 265 , 19 104, 105
21,10-12 267 20 145
21,34-35 265 22 145, 149, 156
22,10-15 265 24 100, 143, 156
22,32-23,2 53 25 138
23,9 263 26-33 142
23,10-24 263 27 138, 145
23,21 21 28 148
23,26-28 21 29 148
322 INDEX

Gos. Thom., cont. 87,19-20 280

30 162 87,20 268
31-35 148 87,21-23 275
33 161 87,22 280
36-39 143 87,24-26 280
38 103 87,26 280
43 104 87,32 268, 279
46 145 87,34-88,2 269
47 148 88,3 270, 280
49 101, 145, 148 88,3-7 276
50 101, 148 88,4-6 45
51 148 88,6 270, 280
52 148 88,11-16 281
53 152, 160 88,12-15 269
54 145 88,16-17 273
57 145 89,5 273
61 107, 197 89,11-13 283
62 147, 148 89,11-17 47
67 148 89,13 273
69 102, 138 89,14 270
77 142, 162 89,14-17 270, 273
82 145 89,19 273
86 145 89,19-24 269
91 148 89,23-28 48
92 108 89,24-25 ' 282, 283
94 108, 148 89,25 271, 283
95 138 89,25-26 282
96-99 145 89,33 271
100 109 90,5 273
106 145 90,15 272
109 145 90,30 272
111 148, 154 91,4 273
113-14 145 91,8-12 281
114 154 91,9-12 269, 272
General 9-11, 37, 54, 98, 124, 91,13 273
127-75, 215 91,14 273
91,32 273
II,3 Gos. Phil. 91,33-34 274
59,6-11 122 92,4-5 274
63,33-64,5 121 92,19-21 274
General 8, 10, 69, 215,
294 92,20-21 273
92,23 282, 284
11,4 Hyp. Arch. 92,24-25 274
86,6 270, 280 92,25-31 274
86,20-21 268 92,30-31 275
86,22 279 93,18-19: 72
86,23 284 93,19 268
86,23-25 279 93,30 275
86,24-25 269 94,2-4 72
87,11-12 268, 279 94,4-5 271
87,14 268, 279, 284 94,5 268
87,15 270, 279, 280 95,7-8 274, 283
87,16 270 96,13 275
87,17-18 258, 268, 280, 282 96,18-19 275
 ANCIENT TEXTS 323

Hyp. Arch., cont. III,2 Gos. Eg.

96,20-22 275, 284, 285 43,15-16 77
96,25-27 275 49,22-50,17 77
96,25-29 284 53,12-54,11 77
96,30 285 55,16-56,3 77
96,32-35 285 59,1-9 65
96,34 285 60,9-18 30
97,6 285 61,23-62,13 77
97,7-8 285 61,25-62,1 53
97,11 285 64,9-65,26 72, 78
97,14 277, 285 64,9-68,1 77
97,15 285 ; 65,16-17 65
97,18-19 277, 285 66-67 69
97,19 277 66,8-22 77
97,20 285 66,22-68,1 | 77
97,20-21 277 General 8-10, 18, 24, 33, 56, 58-
General 8, 9, 24, 34, 44-46, 48, 51, 62, 68, 71, 77, 78, 80, 85
52, 56, 60, 76, 85, 257-60,
265-85, 294 ‘ IlI,3 Eugnostos

74,12-19 200
1,5102,8-9
Orig. World 18
S132
90,4-11
466
198
102,10 48 General 9, 20, 61, 74, 193, 194,
102,10-11 18 | 409.126, 200
102,24 48
III,4 Soph. Jes. Chr.
ee : 90,14-119,18 194
L 90,14-16 194
a - 91,1-2 194
1144-15 x 91,14-20 194
114,8-15 46 93,8-12 196
ar28 - 94,13-14 196
416,6-6 46 104,20-22 196
121,1 49 106,24-108,14 196
General 24, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 258, 114,13-118,25 198
259, 277, 278 119,10 194
General 10, 20, 61, 74, 193-219
II,6 Exeg. Soul
127,25-27 267 IL,5 Dial, Sav.
127,29-32 267 125,19 109
130,28-131,8 267 127,1-6 100
130,28-131,13 267 128,1-5 108
132,27-35 267 129,14-16 108
132,27-133,15 268 132,2-19 107
133,1 267 134,14-15 102
133,1-11 267 142,24 203, 218
133,31-134,5 268 147,18-20 106
General 257, 260, 267, 268, 278 General 98, 197, 203, 205, 217
11,7 Thom. Cont. _ IV,2 Gos. Eg.
138,4-21 123 44,25 70
138,7-8 123 55,25 79
138,21-36 112 57,16 79
140,5-18 112 59,13-29 77
General 111-25, 203 73,11-12 53
 324 INDEX

V,1 Eugnostos
VI,2 Thund.
3,29-4,7 200 13,1
4,5-7 200 13,2-4
9,23 196 13,2-14,30
13,4
V,3 1 Apoc. Jas. 13,4-7
General 122, 211, 216 13,15-22
13,19-14,8
V.4 2 Apoc. Jas.
13,30-32
44,13-17 216 14,4
General 122, 216 14,9-10
14,12-14
V,5 Apoc. Adam 14,15
64,6-65,23 26 15,8
64,16-19 16,3
65,24-66,12 16,6-8
66,12-67,12 16,11-12
67,12-21 16,18
67,22-24 16,18-19
67,28 17,28-29
68 18,9
73,26-27 19,9
76,8-11 19,20-22
76,14-82,17 19,28-30
76,16-17 19,32
77,1-3 20,1
77,4-15 20,30-31
77,16-18 20,33-21,12
77,18-83,4 21,20-32
77,26-82,19 General 11, 37-54, 92, 212, 295
78,7-79,19
78-82 VI,4 Great Pow.
82,13-15 40,5-7 296
82,15
82,19-20 VI,6 Disc. 8-9
82,19-83,4 General 8, 212
83,4-8
83,4-84,3 VI,7 Pr. Thanks.
84,4 General 8, 212
84,4-10
84,4-28 VI8 Asclepius
85,1-18 General 8, 212
85,19-22
85,22-26 VII,1 Paraph. Shem
85,22-31 28,34-29,33 30
85,25 General 9, 18, 34
85,28-31
General VII,2 Treat. Seth
8, 9, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26-35,
General 18
44, 58, 60, 61, 66, 67, 73-
79, 85, 133
VII,3 Apoc. Pet.
VI,1 Acts Pet. 12Apost. 71,15-22 207 .
9,21 73,16-21 207
212
73,21-23 207
General 203, 208, 212 73,23ff. 207
 ANCIENT TEXTS 325

Apoc. Pet., cont. IX,1 Melch.

74,13ff. 207 5-6 69
79,22ff. 207 5,17-6,10 TL.
81,12ff. 207 16-18 69
84,12-13 206 16,16-18,7 Vand.
General 203, 206, 208, 210 General 8, 18, 56, 58, 77, 85

VII,4 Teach. Silv. IX,2 Norea

General 154, 178 General 8, 18, 56, 76

VII,5 Steles Seth IX,3 Testim. Truth

118,10-19 70 29,26-30,4 261
118,25-120,28 83 30,16 261
120,20 77 30,30 261
121,23-25 53 30,30-31,5 261
123,21 53 31,4-5 - 261
125,23-126,17 84 34,1-37,9 262
126,32-127,22 84 a 40,25 262
General 8-10, 18, 56, 59, 62, 69, 41,4 262
71, 77, 80, 83, 85, 91 44,8-9 261
45,6-18 261
VIII,1 Zost. 46,7 261
6 79 50,1-2 262
6,31 83 : 50,8-9 262
15 68 56,1-7 262
29-32 79 57,6 262
30,14-15 77 58,2-4 262
47,79 79 67,9-11 261
51,12 83 . 67,30-31 262
51,24-52,24 84 : 68,8-12 262
61,15-21 77 General 257, 258, 260-63, 265-67,
86,13-88, bottom 84 : 278
127,16-128,7 83
130,14-132,5 40 X Marsanes
131,10-12 85 4,24-5,5 84
General 8, 10, 56, 59, 62, 69, 71, © 5,22-26 84
77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85 55ff. 84
65,22 84
VIII,2 Ep. Pet. Phil. General 8, 56, 59, 62, 71, 77, 80,
132,13-15 207 83-85
133,1-2 207
133,3-4 208 XI,1 Inter. Know.
133,3-5 207 General 18
133,7-8 209 © : .
133,12-13 207 XI,2 Val. Ex.
136,21-22 209 General 8, 10, 69
138,18 209
139,15-21 209 XI,3 Allogenes
139,20-22 . 209 51,28-32 83
139,21-22 209 54,11-37 84
139,21-25 209 57,29-58,26 82
139,22-23 209 58,13-15 80
139,24-25 209 58,27-60,37 82
140,11 208 60,37-61,22 82
140,23-24 208 61,32-62,13 82
General 203, 210 62,14-67,20 82
326 INDEX

Allogenes, cont. 49,6-23 63

62,28-63,23 82 49,7-8 64
General 8, 56, 59, 62, 69, 77-81, 49,11-15 64
83, 85, 86 49,18-20 65
49,22-50,9 63
XII,1 Sent. Sextus’ - 49,28-32 77
General ~ 8, 54 50,6-9 65
50,9-20 63
XIII,1 Trim. Prot. 50,12-16 65, 78
35,1-32 63 General 8-10, 24, 53, 56, 58-63,
35,2 47 66, 71, 74-77, 79, 80, 85, :
35,10 47 89, 92, 112, 113
35,13-20 47
35,24-25 47 BG,1 Gos. Mary
35,32-36,27 63 10,1-9 122
36,23 47 17,7-18,21 204
36,27-40,29 63 17,15-18,15 122 ©
37,1 47 General . 197, 203, 205, 213
37,20-24 53
37,31 64 BG,2 Ap. John
38,10 79 ; 23,3-26,13 82
38,11-16 53 24,2-6, 22
38,22 64 30,6 73
39.1 70 30,14-17 21
39.6-7 64 36,16 21
40.8-9 68 44,19ff. 60
on,
40,31 47 ate
5 ey" : 21
41,4-42,2 63, 64, 69 60,16-61,2 a
pee e 64,9-71,2 74
Safoe/, 63 68,19 263
$2.12 7 71,4-5 25
42,25
42,27-45,2
47
63, 64
77,11 61
42,28 64 BG,3 Soph. Jes. Chr.
aa S 77,8-127,12 194
i aed = 103,10-106,14 196
45,2-3 aes 118,1-126,5 196
45,2-12 63
_ 45;21 47 Pistis Sophia
45,21-46,3 63 71,18-72,20 194, 197, 204
46,5-7 63 99,134 18 z
46,7-47, top 63 General 195, 197, 202-5, 255, 303
46,17 47
46,22-24 47 - 1Jeu
47 ,5-23 63 40,3 205
47,7-9 53 41,1-12 205
47,14-15 64 41,11-12 202
47,16 65 92,23 205
47,24-49, top 63, 64 General 197, 202, 205
48,15-35 69, 77
48,20 47 2 Jeu
48,33-34 . 64 43 303
 ANCIENT TEXTS 327

Bruce Codex (Untitled Text)

235,13-23 84
263,11-264,6 83
General 56, 84

H. Miscellaneous Texts

Mandaean Ginza (right)

51,302

Mandaean Masbita
69

Mani Codex
1-72 : 29
48,16-60,12 18
49,3-10 29
50,1-4 29
General 18, 28
 eh
a
rs
oe
;
ae
me Uy

Bh

i
¥

<j
=

&
t ee “£8

*
 MODERN AUTHORS

Abbeloos, J.B. 301 Braun, O. 289, 300

Abramowski, L. 296 Brock, S.P. 289,290
Abu al-Barakat 302 Brockelmann, C. 295, 301
al-Akbar 291 van den Broek, R. 23, 73:
Akinian, P.N. 298, 299 . Brown, R. 66, 95, 98-100, 102, 104, 106
Aland, B. 253 Brown,S.K. 206
Altaner, B. 295, 297 Browne,G. 4
Andresen, C. 130 Brox, N. 304
Arai, S. 21, 235 Budge, E. A.W. 28, 290
Armstrong, A.H. 222 Bullard, R.A. 269, 277
Asmussen, J.P. 130 Bultmann, R. 5, 91, 93, 98-102, 104, 105,
Attridge, H. 4,11, 28, 111, 162, 239, 251, 113, 116-18, 121, 130
257 Burkert, W. 188
Burkitt, F.C. 132
Bammel, E. 164
Barc, B. 23, 34, 266, 270, 273, 277 Cameron, R. 29, 149-53
Bardy,G. 292 von Campenhausen, H. 242
Barnes, J.W.B. 4 Carr, W. 235
Bauer, W. 5, 177, 182-84, 187, 190, 203, Chabot, J.-B. 290, 301
288-92, 297, 298, 301 Chadwick, H. 259, 306
Baur, F.C. 3, 177-79, 181, 182, 189 Chaumont, M.-L. 289, 290
Beardslee, W. 171 Cheikho, L. 303
Beck, E. 296, 297, 306 Cherix, P. 296
Becker, H. 92, 99 Cherniss, H. 225, 226, 228, 234-36
Becker, J. 117 Colpe, C. 30, 65, 91, 128, 241, 245, 248
Bedjan, P. 289, 290, 298 Conley, T. 38
Bell, H.I. 101 Conzelmann, H. 164
Beltz, W. 29, 32, 33, 70 Cornford, F. 236
Benko,S. 293 Crossan, J.D. 162
Bergman, J. 39
Bethge, H.-G. 45, 209 Dahl, N. 16, 17, 23, 24, 57
Bianchi, U. 1,17, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, Daniélou, J. 128, 222, 223, 226, 236
153 Dauer, A. 119
Bidez, J. 296 Davies, S.L. 138, 153-56
Blum, G. 298 Dehandschutter, B. 160, 166
Béhlig, A. 23, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 45, 78, 129, Demke, Ch. 112, 113
130, 133, 245, 269, 277, 290, 294 Dewey, A. 29
Boring, M.E. 138-41, 168-74 Dillon, J. 22, 222-25, 228-30, 232, 234, 236,
Bousset, W. 3,5 237
Bowersock, G. 224 Disdier, M. 299
Brandt; W. 303 Dodd, C. H. 98, 105, 106
Brashler, J. 206 Dodds, E.R. 22,74

329
330 INDEX

Doresse, J. 194, 195, 300 von Harnack, A. 3, 116, 139, 183, 198, 298,
Dorrie, H. 222 304
Douglas, M. 260 Hartmann, G. 119
Doutreleau, L. 304 | Harvey, W. 23
Drijvers, H.J.W. 291, 303 Hauschild, W.-D. 25
Drower, E.S. 290, 302, 303 Hawkin, D.J. 116
Dubois, J.-D. 249 Hedrick, C.W. 7, 26-28, 32, 70, 133, 296
Duensing, H. 210 Heldermann, J: 65, 252
Diimmer, J. 294-95 Helmbold, W. 236
Hendry, J.F. 130
Eckhardt, K. A. 120 . Hennecke, E.W. 49, 195, 203-6, 208, 210,
Eisler, R. 120 211, 214-16, 219, 294
Henrichs, A. 29
Fallon, F.T. 28, 266, 269, 277, 294 Hilgenfeldt, A. 305
Farmer, W. 242 Hinz, W. 289
de Faye, E. 305 Hodgson, R. 111, 164-65
Fecht,G. 245, 248 Hoffmann, G. 157, 298
Fendt, L. 292, 293, 305 Hofius,O. 162
Festugiére, A.-J. 40 Holl, K. 292-96, 298, 302, 304, 305
Fiey, J.M. 290, 291 Horig, M. 305
Filson, F. V. 120 Hornschuh, M. 214
Fineman, J. 240, 249 Hort, F.J. A. 216
Finnestad, R.B. 252 Htibschmann, H., 293
Fischer, K.M. 93, 134 Hunt, A.S. 142, 143, 153
Fitzmyer, J. 158, 162 Hussey, P. 299
Fleming, W. K. 120
Foerster, W. 2, 10, 19, 21, 27, 130 Inglisian, V. 299
Forestell, J.T. 93
Francis, F. 5 Jaeger, W. 199
Fredouille, J.-C. 241 Jansen, H.L. 247
Friedlander, M. 16 Jeremias, J. 158, 164
Friichtel, L. 304, 305 Jonas, H. 1,3, 4,10, 17, 22, 128, 240, 243,
Fuller, R. 221 252, 306

Garsoian, N.G. 299 Kaestli, J.-D. 245

Geerard,M. 297 Kdsemann, E. 93
Gero, S. 11, 290, 297, 298 Kee, H.C. 157, 166
Gignoux, Ph. 289 Kelber, W.. 174
Giverson, S. 19, 263 El-Khoury, N. 297
Goguel,M. 116 Klijn, A. F.J. 24, 54
Graf, G. 300, 302 Kloppenborg, J.S. 175
Grant, F.C. 40 Koenen, L. 29
Grant, R. M. 3, 40, 130, 305 Koep, L. 245
Grobel, K. 138, 240, 241, 248 Koester, H. 7, 11, 98, 101, 102, 107, 108,
Grenfell, B. P. 142, 143, 153 117, 122, 127, 136, 143-58, 160, 163, 166-
Griggs,C.W. 206 68, 170,171, 243, 257, 291
Gruenwald,I. 17 Koschorke, K. 184, 207, 208, 291, 293, 296
Guidi, I. 297, 303 Kotter, B. 301
Guillaumont, A. 143, 159 Krause, M. 19-21, 130, 194, 296
Kraemer, H.J. 222
Haardt, R. 2, 10, 130, 241, 252 Kragerud, A. 19, 21, 25, 115, 116
Hadot, P. 81 Kreyenbuhl, J. 120
Haenchen, E. 117, 130, 240, 304 Kruger, P. 300
Hamman, A. 300 Kuhn, K.H. 162
Harder, R. 83 Kummel, W.-G. 155, 166, 167, 178
 MODERN AUTHORS 331

Labib, P. 26, 27, 32, 45, 133, 269, 294 Outtier, B. 298
Labourt, J. 291 Overbeck, J.J.S. 173, 298
Lamy, Th. J. 301
Langbrandtner, W. 94, 117 Pagels, E. 1, 11, 158, 197; 216, 251, 253,
Layton, B. 11, 32, 45, 50, 54, 112, 162, 240, 260, 262, 264, 273, 278 ‘
241, 266-74, 295 Parmentier, L. 298 .
Leisegang, H. 130, 293 Parrott, D. 4,11, 20, 193-95, 212, 296
Liboron, H. 306 Pearson, B. 4, 10, 16, 23-25, 28, 38, 51, 84,
Lidzbarski, M. 51, 302, 303 133, 261, 262, 265, 266, 270, 271, 276, 277,
Lord, V. 43 293
Lorenzen, T. 115 Peeters, P. 289, 299
Luhrmann, D. 157 Perkins, P. 11, 21, 26, 28, 30, 31, 92, 95,
Luttikhuizen, G. P. 208, 209 195, 206, 207, 209, 212, 219, 224
Petermann, H. 302-3
Macuch, R.A. 302, 303 Poirier, P.-H. 5, 116, 241, 248, 293
Macdonald, D.R. 134 Polag, A. 157
MacDermott, V. 2, 83, 84, 202, 204, 205, Polotsky, H.J. 290
303 Prigent, P. 304
MacRae, G. 4,7, 11, 16, 23, 26, 27, 28, 32, Przybylski, B. 196
33, 38, 40, 42, 51, 239, 251 Puech, H.-Ch. 18, 195, 211, 212, 215, 240,
Malinine, M. 211, 212, 240, 241 290, 296 ;
Marcovich, M. 62, 162
Marrou, H. 128, 248 Quasten, J. 293, 296
Martin, F. 298 Quispel, G. 16, 19, 22, 240, 292, 304, 305
Martyn, J.L. 100
Mayor, J.B. 216 Reinink, G. 28
McCue, J. F. 253 Reitzenstein, R. 3
Meeks, W.A. 5 Rensberger, D. K. 272, 278
Ménard, J.-E. 93, 152, 158, 160, 167, 208, Roberg, M. 266
209, 219, 240-45, 248, 249, 252 Robert, L. 42
Merlan, P. 228 Robinson, J.M. 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 65, 67, 91,
Meyer, M. 207-9 112, 117, 122, 136, 144, 155, 165-67, 171,
Meyer, P.M. 300 174, 203, 206, 211, 212 ©
Millar, F. 224 Robinson, S. 28, 111
Mommsen, Th. 300 Roloff,S. 115
Montgomery, J. 70 Rousseau, A. 304
Morard, F. 32 Rudolph, K. 10, 16, 17, 32, 35, 69, 129, 130,
Mihlenberg, E. 253 134, 153, 161, 290, 303
Miller, U.B. 28, 117 Runia, D. T. 225, 230, 233, 234
Murray, R. 297, 306
Sachau, E. 301
al-Nadim 291 Saffrey,H.-D. 42
Nagel, P. 123, 161, 245, 261 Sanders, J.N. 120
Nau, F. 297, 300, 302 Scheidweiler, F. 211
Neirynck, F. 166 Schelkle, K.H. 242
Nickelsburg, G. 18, 25, 28, 30, 31 Schenke, G. 65, 91
Nock, A.D. 40, 240, 287 Schenke, H.-M. 2, 5, 11, 19, 21, 22, 32, 45,
Néldeke, Th. 292, 303 52, 56, 65, 76, 77, 91, 93, 112, 113, 123, 129,
132-34, 167, 194, 240, 241, 243, 248, 253,
Oden, R.A. 28 269, 277, 278
Oehler, F. 300 Scher, A. 301
Ohlert, K. 42, 43, 44 Schmidt, C. 2, 83-85, 202, 204, 205, 294,
Orbe, A. 249 295, 303
Orlandi, T. 296 Schmithals, W. 5
Oulton, J.E.L. 259 Schnackenburg, R. 115, 119
332 INDEX

Schoedel, W.R. 222, 241 Wegner, J. R. . 260

Schoeps, H. J. 305, 307 Welburn, A.J. 23
Scholem, G. 17 Whittaker, J. 22
Scholer, D. 10 Widengren, Geo. 128
Schottroff, L. 135, 138, 142, 253 Williams, F.E. 211, 212
Schrage, W. 161 Williams, M. 81
Schulz, S. 157 Wilson, R. McL. 1, 19, 27, 49, 130, 194, 240,
Schultz, W. 42, 43, 48, 50 241
Schiirmann, H. 166 Winston, D. 199
Scobie, C. 70 Wisse, F. 3, 7, 11, 19, 34, 78, 177, 181, 185,
Scopello,M. 23 186, 188, 263, 292, 293, 296, 304
Segel, A.F. 3 Wrede, W. 174
Segelberg, E. 247 Wright, W.C. 296
Shellrude, G.M. 31, 32 Wutz, F. 50
Shelton, J.C. 4
Shibata, Y. 245 Yamauchi, E. 1, 3,5, 17, 31
Siegert, F. 296, 305
Simon, M. 128
Skeat,T.C. 101
Smart, N. 17
Smith, J..Z. 247
Smith, M. 120, 305
Smith, R.P. 301
Speyer, W. 305
Stéhlin,O. 304, 305
Standaert, B. 240-42, 244, 248, 252
Stegemann, W. 135, 142
Stone, M. 17,18
Story,C.1.K. 248
Strecker,G. 157
Stroumsa,G. 19, 23-25, 27, 29-33
Stuiber, A. 295, 297

Tardieu, M. 265, 277, 293

Tate, J. 199
Taylor, V. 170
Theissen,G. 135-37, 139, 140, 142, 169
Thomas, J. 68
Thompson, R.W. 293, 299
Thyen, H. 115, 117-19
Till, W.C. 2,19, 194, 195, 244, 246, 303
Trenchard,W.C. 260
Tréger, K.-W. 17, 206, 211, 219
Turner, J. 11, 24, 81, 203, 257

van Unnik, W.C. 17, 211, 212, 223, 240,

242, 261

Venables, E. 296
Vielhauer, Ph. 157, 169
Vilmar, E. 70
Voédbus, A. 290, 291, 300, 301, 306
Vosté, J.M. 297
 Religion / New Testament

“[This] book acquaints the beginner with the topic of gnosticism and early
Christianity and presents to the specialist some of the new frontiers their
colleagues are exploring. For the beginner there is a concise introduction to
gnosticism. It covers the issues of origin, literature, leading ideas, and possible
links with early Christianity. Each contributor has prepared a preface to his or her
paper that points to its salient features and explains how the essay fits into the
overall subject of the book.”
—from the Preface

“This important collection of essays comprises the papers of the only major
conference on gnosticism to focus exclusively on the relationship between
gnosticism and the early church. This book has critical importance as a significant
contribution to the pressing task of reconstructing an integrated, holistic,
dynamic, socio-theological history of the early church free of anachronism and
forced dichotomies. The fine introductory essay of Charles Hedrick makes the
volume accessible to the non-specialist. . . . The book can be used both as a
general introduction to the issues of Lee for the non-specialist and as a
study volume for more advanced students and scholars.”
—David M. Scholer
editor of Gnosticism in the Early Church

Charles W. Hedrick is Distinguished Professor etoaitCee ram Cece mntetc

University. Among his many publications are The Apocalypse of Adam, Many
Things in Parables: Jesus and His Modern Critics, and When History and Faith
Collide: Studying Jesus. He is the co-editor of Gospel of the Savior: A New Ancient
Gospel, and Ancient Fiction: The Matrix ofEarly Christian and Jewish Narrative.

teloaue Hodgson, Jr. is Dean eethe American Bible Society Nida Institute for
Biblical Scholarship.

A) MCMC RAL ISBN 1-59752-402-6

il
Eugene, Oregon * www.wipfandstock.com

: Cover Design by James Tedrick roe

1597"5