I

GNOSTIC TRUTH
AND CHRISTIAN HERESY
In memory of my father
John Black Logan
1904-1987
ivho first kindled in me
a love of theology
 Hev. W. Marceau, CSB

GNOSTIC TRUTH
AND CHRISTIAN HERESY

A Study in the History of Gnosticism

ALASTAJR H. B. LOGAN

Property of
St. John Fisher College
Lavery Library
Rochester, N.Y. 14618

rfcl HENDRICKSON
 Copyright © T&T Clark Ltd, 1996

Published in Great Britain by

T&T Clark Ltd
59 George Street
Edinburgh EH2 2LQ
Scotland

This edition published under license from T&T Clark Ltd by

Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.
P.O. Box 3473
Peabody, Massachusetts 01961-3473

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

First published 1996

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Logan, Alastair H. B.
Gnostic truth and Christian heresy : a study in the history of
Gnosticism /
Alastair H. B. Logan,
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-56563-243-5
1. Gnosticism. 2. Apocryphon of John—Criticism, interpretation,
etc. I. Title.
BT1390.L64 1996
273' .1—dc20 95-52625
CIP

Typeset by Waverley Typesetters, Galashiels

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Bell & Bain Ltd, Glasgow
 Contents

Acknowledgements vii
Abbreviations ix
Introduction xiii
1. The Myth and Its Makers 1
2. The Character and History of the Myth 29
3. Gnostic Theogony and Cosmogony 1: The Heavenly World 71
Appendix: The etymologies of Barbelo, the illuminators and
Adamas 98
4. Gnostic Theogony and Cosmogony 2: The Lower World 117
5. Gnostic Anthropology and Anthropogony 167
6. Gnostic Soteriology 1: The Reinterpretation of Genesis 1-4 211
7. Gnostic Soteriology 2: The Destinies of Souls 259
8. Gnostic Eschatology 301
Bibliography 321
Index of Names 341
Index of Ancient Sources 345

Plate 1 xiv
Plate 2 40
 A cknowledgements

This book is the result of many years’ labour and of the

encouragement of a few key people. It began life in the late 1960s
as a doctoral thesis at St Andrews University under the genial
fatherly eye of R. McL. Wilson, to whom I owe a great debt. Not
only was he a demon for detail and a stickler for accuracy, but he
was one of the team, based at Claremont and led by James M.
Robinson, responsible for the English translation of the Nag
Hammadi Library, and thus had draft translations of all my key
texts, to which he kindly allowed me access. I had first come across
the Nag Hammadi Library in a formative year at Harvard Divinity
School, 1968-9, an annus mirabilis for me as for so many. There I
was privileged to participate in the extremely high-powered
postgraduate Seminar on the Nag Hammadi texts led by Helmut
Koester and George MacRae. Several present luminaries of the
Gnostic and New Testament scene were members and, like them,
I owe an incalculable debt to George MacRae in particular, who
showed great courtesy and tolerance despite my lack of back¬
ground and expertise, and inspired me to tackle as a research
topic the Apocryphon of John.
The work of relating the various versions of the Apocryphon
proved a mammoth task in a field littered with abortive and
incomplete attempts, but despite the demands of a full-time
teaching post and the arrival of twin daughters, it was completed
in 1980. Then it lay dormant, to me an enormous and shapeless
mass, until the arrival in Exeter of a new colleague, Ian Markham,
an expert in a very different field, who bravely asked to read it
and encouraged me to take it up again, since he felt it contained
something important. Fired by his enthusiasm, I looked at it afresh,
and began to rewrite, discovering in the process the germ of this
book, a new way of looking at the phenomenon which kept
opening up fresh vistas and proved enormously exciting. Thanks
to the award of a Small Personal Research Grant from the British
viii Acknowledgements

Academy, which I here most gratefully acknowledge, and the

support of my colleagues in the Theology Department, I was able
to spend the summer term of 1992 in Oxford doing the major
research required. There I must acknowledge the help and
kindness shown by the Principal and Bursar of Mansfield College
in arranging accommodation and making me a Visiting Fellow of
the College. There too I enjoyed the stimulating company of a
group of ordinands of the United Reformed Church, Pauline,
Janet, David and Peter, who cheered me in my more solitary
moments.
On return to Exeter progress proved much slower, but the book
was eventually completed with financial help from the Research
Fund of Exeter University, enabling me to purchase a word-
processor and speed up the process considerably, and by con¬
tinued cheerful pressure from Professor David Catchpole, my most
understanding Head of Department, my colleagues and not least
my long-suffering wife Kathryn and children, Jacqueline, Sarah
and Roderick, who have lived under the shadow of this topic for
so long. Finally I must acknowledge the generous interest of Dr
Michael M. Waldstein of the University of Notre Dame, Indiana,
in sending me a draft copy of a synopsis of the versions of the
Apocryphon of John which has proved a godsend.

Alastair H. B. Logan
Exeter
Advent 1994
 Abbreviations

AA Apocalypse of Adam
AAA Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha
AD AIK Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archaologischen
Institute Kairo
AG Analecta Gregoriana
AGSU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des spaterer Judentums
und des Urchristentums

AJ Apocryphon of John
AJP American Journal of Philology
APS Acta Philologica Suecana
ATD Acta Theologica Danica
B Berlin Coptic Papyrus 8502
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BBA Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten
BCNH Bibilotheque copte de Nag Hammadi
BO Bibliotheca Orientalis
BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen
Testament
BZNW Beihefte zur ZNW
C Cairo Nag Hammadi Codex
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CCSL Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina
CH Church History
CH Corpus Hermeticum
CHSB Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum

IX
X Abbreviations

EPRO Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientales dans

l’Empire romain
ET English Translation
Eug Eugnostos
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten
und Neuen Testaments
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der
ersten Jahrhunderte
GE Gospel of the Egyptians
HA Hypostasis of the Archons
HTR Harvard Theological Review
JA Journal Asiatique
JbAC Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LR Long recension of the Apocryphon of John
LTP Laval theologique et philosophique
MPG Migne, Patrologia Graeca
MPL Migne, Patrologia Latina
MGWJ Monatschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des
Judentums
NedTTs Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift
NHLE The Nag Hammadi Library in English
NHS Nag Hammadi Studies
NorTT Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift
NovT Novum Testamentum
NTA New Testament Apocrypha
NTS New Testament Studies
OC Oriens Christianus
OW On the Origin of the World
PGL A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe
 Abbreviations xi

PGM Papyri Graecae Magicae, ed. K. Preisendanz

PP La Parola del Passato
PS Pistis Sophia
PTS Patrisdsche Texte und Studien
RAC Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum
RE Realencyklopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft,
ed. A. Pauly, G. Wissowa et al.
REA Revue des etudes augustiniennes
RevScRel Revue des sciences religieuses
RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart
RMM Revue de metaphysique et de morale
RSR Recherches de science religieuse
RSPT Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques
RThPh Revue de theologie et de philosophic
SAC Studies in Antiquity and Christianity
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SC Sources chretiennes
SGM Sources gnostiques et manicheennes
SHR Studies in the History of Religions
SJC Sophia of Jesus Christ
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SPAW Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preussischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlin
SR Short recension of the Apocryphon of John
ST Studia Theologica
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TP Trimorphic Protennoia
Tru Theologische Rundschau
TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
VC Vigiliae Christianae
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und
Neuen Testaments
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament
xii Abbreviations

WZKM 'Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes

ZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik
ZRGG Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte
ZTK Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche
 Introduction

The discovery in 1945-6 of the Nag Hammadi Library of Coptic

Gnostic texts1 has revolutionized our traditional understanding
of Gnosticism, which had seen it as in essence a Christian heresy.
This interpretation goes back to the first Christian heresiologists,
the early Christian Fathers, particularly Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons
(c. 140-200 ce), writing around 180,2 but was made intellectually
respectable by the great German church historian Adolf von
Harnack (1851-1930), who saw Gnosticism as the ‘thorough¬
going (akute) Hellenisation of Christianity’.3 Such a judgement
depended, of course, on the evidence then available, which
consisted almost entirely of the accounts of the Christian
heresiologists such as, in addition to Irenaeus (and his predecessor
Justin Martyr (ob. 166), the first to write a work against heresies,
since alas lost), Hippolytus of Rome (c. 160-235), Tertullian of
Carthage (c. 150-223), Clement of Alexandria (140/150-211/
215), Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyprus (315-403) and Theodoret
of Cyrrhus (395-466).4 But they, in their turn, appear to have
been largely dependent on Irenaeus (and Justin) and to have
developed particular stereotyped lines of argument, seeing
Gnosticism as a plethora of distinct sects, each with its own system,
inspired by the Devil and Greek philosophy and deriving from
the mysterious figure of Simon Magus of Acts 8.1 What direct
evidence did survive was either in the fragments preserved by the
Fathers (and thus suspect as subject to their heresiological
concerns and tendentious interpretations) or in a few late works
in Coptic such as the Pistis Sophia of the Askew Codex in the British
Library and the two Books ofjeu and Untitled Treatise from the Bruce
Codex in the Bodleian.6 Both codexes have been known to the
scholarly world since 1778, but the treatises in them appear to
represent a rather late and decadent form of Gnosticism, and so
did not seem to offer much help in the matter of the origins of
the phenomenon.

xiii
Tomb inscription of Flavia Sophe, Rome, third century. Courtesy of the Museo Nazionale Romano.
 Introduction xv

More promising might have been the discovery of the Berlin

Coptic Codex (Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 = B) reported by Carl
Schmidt in 1896.7 It contained the Gospel of Mary, the Apocryphon
of John (whose first, theogonic part represents a striking parallel
to - or according to Schmidt the actual original of - the ‘Gnostic’
system summarized by Irenaeus in his Adversus haereses 1.29), the
Sophia of Jesus Christ and the Acts of Peter (the last not a Gnostic
work at all). (Plate 1.) But because of a chapter of accidents this
most significant collection was not to appear in print until 1955.8
However, this did mean that the editor, Walter Till, was able to
have access to one of the Nag Hammadi codices (Cairensis
Gnosticus (= C) III), which contained versions of the Apocryphon
and the Sophia of Jesus Christ.
Thus it was only with the final publication, after another even
more tortuous saga, of the complete Nag Hammadi Library, first
in the Facsimile Edition9 and then in the English translation under
the editorship of J. M. Robinson, that scholars could begin to
assimilate the new primary evidence and attempt to evaluate the
claims of the Christian heresiologists, independently of their
interpretative framework. In fact the first attempt to do this and
to demonstrate the lack of correlation between the Nag Hammadi
Gnostic texts and the accounts of the heresiologists had been
Frederik Wisse’s 1971 article.10 Wisse effectively undermined
attempts to continue to use the traditional categories of inter¬
pretation and of identification in terms of particular sects,
suggesting that the only factor that appeared to unify the Nag
Hammadi texts was a developed asceticism.11 But nevertheless the
attempt was made by Hans-Martin Schenke in 1974 to identify a
number of tractates as ‘Sethian’ in terms of their content, as
representing in varying degrees ‘one and the same gnostic system’
(the Apocryphon of John, Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.29, the Hypostasis of
the Archons (C 11,4), the Gospel of the Egyptians (C III,2; 1Y,2), the
Apocalypse of Adam (C V,5), the Three Steles of Seth (C VII,5),
Zostrianos (C VIII, 1), Melchisedek (C IX,I), the Thought ofNorea (C
IX,2), and Trimorphic Protennoia (C XIII,7)).12 The fundamental
dogma of Sethianism, according to Schenke, was the self¬
understanding of these Gnostics as the seed of heavenly Seth.13
Now one of the implications of such an analysis was that the
Sethian system, as far as it could be treated as a single
phenomenon, represented a non- and indeed pre-Christian form
of Gnosticism, but one profoundly influenced by Jewish motifs,
in fact, a form of heterodox Judaism or Jewish sectarianism of the
XVI Introduction

first centuries bce and ce. This thesis of the likelyjewish origins of
Gnosticism had been developed particularly by Gilles Quispel who,
in a seminal article in 1954, argued for the Jewish origins of the
Gnostic figure of the heavenly Anthropos (and thus of Gnosticism
as a Jewish phenomenon), over against the claims of Bousset and
Reitzenstein that the heavenly Anthropos/Redeemer was of
Iranian provenance (and thus that Gnosticism was a non-Christian
religion deriving from the Orient).14 Other scholars took up this
theme, such as R. McL. Wilson, R. M. Grant, Jean Danielou,
George MacRae, Kurt Rudolph and Birger Pearson,15 although it
was criticized by some, including Hans Jonas who had
revolutionized the study of Gnosticism as a serious religious and
philosophical phenomenon by his existential analysis of it.16 But
such was the emerging consensus, buttressed by the careful
exploratory work of Martin Krause who had provisionally
distinguished three types of texts in the Nag Hammadi Library:
(1) non-, perhaps indeed pre-Christian works; (2) non-Christian
works later Christianized; and (3) purely Christian Gnostic works,17
that a major international conference on Gnosticism could be
held (in Yale in 1978) divided into two sections, one dealing with
Valentinianism (i.e. Christian Gnostics, Krause’s third category),
the other with Schenke’s ‘Sethians’ (i.e. groups included in
Krause’s first and second categories), despite Wisse’s protests
about their ‘elusiveness’.18 In all this the general view of the
Apocryphon of John (and thus of Irenaeus’ account in Adv. haer.
1.29, which was taken to be a summary of a version of it) was that
it represented a Christianization of a previous Jewish-Gnostic
‘Sethian’ treatise.19
More recent contributions such as articles by Pearson andj. D.
Turner have attempted to confirm the Jewish origins of the
‘Sethian’ sect and its leading ideas, and in the case of the latter,
suggest a literary history of ‘Sethian’ Gnosticism from its origins
in a non-Christian baptismal sect of the first centuries bce and ce
byway of increasing Christianization (the ‘Sethian-Ophite’ system
described by Irenaeus in Adv. haer. 1.30 is taken as an early
example, combined with the Apocryphon and Adv. haer. 1.29) and
Platonization, as found in the late forms of‘Sethian’ Gnosticism
(e.g. Zostrianos, Marsanes, Allogenes, etc.).20This general approach
seems to have been widely accepted, as has Gedaliahu Stroumsa’s
particular attempt to derive its characteristic mythology from
speculations on Gen 6:1-4 as answers to the question of the oriein
of evil.21
 Introduction xvi 1

But such a scenario has recently been radically questioned by

Simone Petrement, one of the few scholars who has held out from
the beginning for understanding Gnosticism as a Christian
phenomenon.22 She has argued at great length and in detail that
Gnosticism cannot be understood in its essence apart from the
idea of God as entirely unknown up to the coming of Christ as
the Pauline and Johannine Son who reveals the Father; that its
essential features and key ideas derive primarily from Pauline and
Johannine concepts (and from the enigmatic figure of Apollos);
that the heretics from Simon Magus on were Christians, the
Gnostics proper appearing from Saturninus onward; that the
Gnostics (or Sethians) of Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.29 and the
Apocryphon (this she considers a trump card) derive from the
Valentinians and not vice versa as Irenaeus was thought to indicate,
and that the Nag Hammadi and other texts claimed to be non-
and pre-Christian (as well as other non-Christian forms of Gnosis,
e.g. Hermetism and Mandaeism) are in fact, on closer analysis,
later than and influenced by Christianity.23
Finally, from the perspective not of doctrine and mythology
but of ritual and liturgy, J.-M. Sevrin has examined those ‘Sethian’
texts of Schenke which seem to display evidence of an initiatory
rite of baptism, whether spiritual or actual (Apocryphon of John,
Trimorphic Protennoia, Gospel of the Egyptians, Apocalypse of Adam,
Zostrianos, Untitled Treatise of the Bruce Codex, and Melchisedek)
and argued (a) that such an actual baptismal rite as the reception
of the saving gnosis did exist if always understood as both an actual
and a spiritual rite, with a later tendency to spiritualize it; (b) that
it was of Jewish origin and inspiration but was later superficially
Christianized; (c) that it combined two independent mythological
characteristics: the Barbeliote triad (Father, Mother, Son) and
the Sethian vision of history (the origin of Seth and his seed and
his triple parousias to save it); and (d) that a genealogy of this
family of texts presupposing such a rite can be suggested, with
the Apocryphon as the oldest, the Apocalypse of Adam the earliest
Sethian document, the Trimorphic Protennoia as influenced by the
Apocryphon, and the Gospel of the Egyptians as a syncretistic anthology
of all these traditions, containing a baptismal dossier as its final
section.24
The striking thing that emerges from all this is the central role
played by the Apocryphon of John and the related texts from Irenaeus
(Adv. haer. 1.29 and 30). They have played a key part in the various
debates and attempts to trace the origins and development of
XV111 Introduction

Gnosticism. Irenaeus’ catalogue of heresies culminating in the

‘Gnostics’ of 1.29 and 30 still forms the basis, if treated with some
scepticism and reserve, for attempts to reconstruct Gnostic origins,
sects and developments,25 and the facts that there are no less than
four versions (two in a long recension (= LR): C II, 1 and IV, 1,
and two in a short (= SR): B 8502,2 and C III, 1) of the Apocryphon,
that it appears to be echoed in other texts from Nag Hammadi
and elsewhere,26 and that it is perhaps the only uncontested
example of a Nag Hammadi Gnostic text known to the Church
Fathers,27 and one which seems to be so comparatively early, all
go to confirm the significance of this particular constellation of
documents and the myth or myths they contain. Although as great
an expert as Bentley Layton has admitted that no single telling of
what he dubs ‘the classic gnostic myth’ has survived, he thinks
one may be reflected in the Apocryphon and the Gospel of the
Egyptians (and Irenaeus’ account of Saturninus), and his own
reconstruction depends largely on the Apocryphon.28
Thus it would seem that a careful examination of the myth or
myths, system or systems underlying the Apocryphon, Irenaeus Adv.
haer. 1.29 and 30 and the related ‘Sethian’ texts from Nag
Hammadi as identified by Schenke, Pearson and Turner,29 and
in the light of Sevrin’s valuable perspective, by means of all the
main techniques developed to deal with the Gnostic phenomenon,
literary-critical, existential, motivgeschichtlich, theological and
religionsgeschichtlich, might help to answer the fundamental
questions regarding the origins and development of Gnosticism,
in particular of its so-called ‘Sethian’ form, which is central to the
issues of Gnosticism as a non- and pre-Christian phenomenon,
and of the derivation of the Gnostics (i.e. the ‘Sethians’) from
the Valentinians or vice versa.
In this enquiry my basic presuppositions, which can only be
justified by the success of the analysis and reconstruction offered
by the work as a whole, are, first, that the form or forms of Gnosticism
found in the so-called ‘Sethian ’ texts cannot be understood apart from
Christianity, and that the attempts to derive the phenomenon from
Jewish sectarianism break down both because of the lack of
evidence of the existence of the Jewish sects and heterodox
opinions that require to be posited, and because of the lack of
any coherent rationale for the revolutionary position adopted
by these Gnostics. Many scholars have demonstrated the
undoubted existence of Jewish ideas in the Gnostic, particularly
the ‘Sethian’, texts, but none, in my opinion, have been able to
 Introduction xix

derive Gnosticism directly from Judaism with any degree of

plausibility. Jonas is surely correct here in his criticism of Quispel,30
and Petrement has made a strong case for understanding the
heart of Gnosticism as the revelation by Jesus Christ of the God
who was previously entirely unknown, which makes the claim of
revelation or revealer figures prior to, or apart from, Christ
redundant.
Now if one is justified in seeing ‘Sethian’ Gnosticism as a
basically Christian phenomenon, but one that has a claim to being
a religion in its own right, with its distinctive understandings of
God, the world, humanity and salvation, and its cultus and forms
of communal life, my second presupposition is that one is justified in
seeking both a central core of ideas, a myth or myths based on and concretely
expressed in a rite of initiation as a projection of Gnostic experience, which
holds it together, and in treating it as a valid form (or forms) of
interpreting Christianity. Thus even those Gnostic texts which seem
most remote from that (Christian) myth (e.g. Zostrianos and
Allogenes) can only be understood in the light of some presupposed
form of it, and as a corollary, examination of features of the
contemporary Christianity of the ‘Great Church’ in its varied
forms, including fringe figures and the apocryphal and
pseudepigraphical literature, may well cast considerable light on
Gnostic texts and features. Some reference will thus be made^to
such material where apposite.
It follows from this that I do not find helpful the distinction,
proposed by the Messina Colloquium and accepted by some,
between elements and concepts which can be seen as either pre-
or proto-Gnostic, which have not yet developed into the full-blown
form.31 Nor do I find helpful the distinction between Gnosis as a
more general religious phenomenon prevalent in the Near East
from around the second century bce (a term and understanding
preferred by German scholars and by many Americans influenced
by them) and Gnosticism as the developed form or forms of the
second century ce onwards (a concept more acceptable to British
scholars). On my understanding there must be at the heart of the
Gnostic phenomenon some form of myth or myths, some unified
way of seeing the world, arising from genuine experience, often
visionary, on the part of a religious genius or geniuses (such as
e.g. Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, Elchasai, Mani) and in relation
to an existing rite of initiation. It will be my contention that behind
the myths and systems of the ‘Gnostics’ of Irenaeus 1.29 and 30,
as developed by the Apocryphon offohn and dependent texts and
XX Introduction

variants, we can identify a basic pattern of theogony, cosmogony,

anthropogony, soteriology and eschatology, unified by its relation
to a rite of initiation, which is the work of such a religious genius
or geniuses, and that, against Petrement, it was they who inspired
perhaps the greatest of the Christian Gnostics, Valentinus and
his school. Unlike Petrement, too, I am not claiming to explain
the whole variegated phenomenon of Gnosticism in terms of
Christianity; my more modest proposal is that this most striking
and significant myth and its dependents and variants cannot be
understood without such a premise.
My final presupposition is to assume that Irenaeus ’ summary in
Adv. haer. 1.29 is closest to the original form of the Christian Gnostic
myth of Father, Mother and Son, and that it underwent progressive
development including ‘Sethianization’, until it emerged in the latest
form of the Apocryphon, the long recension. Such a hypothesis
not only makes more sense of Schenke’s claimed ‘Sethian’
constellation of texts by showing, for example, how texts which
make no mention of heavenly Seth still belong in it, and explains
the persistence and true Christian significance of recurring
heavenly figures and ritual elements, but reveals the secondary
character of key texts in the argument for a non- and even pre-
Christian Gnosticism (e.g. the Apocalypse of Adam and the
Paraphrase of Shem), and relates Gnostic developments and
concerns to contemporary ‘orthodox’ Christian ones. The ‘classic’
Gnostic myth underlying Irenaeus 1.29 and the Apocryphon could
not but develop differently from the ‘orthodox’ version by its
downgrading of the Old Testament, its Creator God and his
prophets, its preference of the heavenly Son/Christ of Paul, John
and Hebrews to the earthly Jesus of the Synoptics, and its focus
on baptism and chrismation rather than on the eucharist as the
climax of illumination and salvation, but its claim to be a valid
interpretation of the Gnostic’s ecstatic experience of and
identification with the heavenly Revealer/Redeemer, i.e. Christ,
should not be doubted.
In my first chapter I shall attempt to identify those who created
and propagated the myth underlying the Apocryphon, the Gnostics
of Irenaeus, as Platonically-influenced Christians constructing
their own myth of origins in reaction to contemporary Jewish
persecution, a myth which in its several variants was influenced
by Johannine and Valentinian ideas and then underwent a
‘Sethian’ reinterpretation, largely as a response to ‘orthodox’
Christian criticism. My second chapter will first analyse the
 Notes to page xiii XXI

character of the myth as Christian and Platonic, a projection of

the Gnostic experience of salvation in terms of the key figures of
Christ and Sophia, articulated and held together by its basis in
the initiation rite of baptism and chrismation (the five seals), and
then attempt to suggest how it may have developed by way of a
number of redactions, and how it is related to a whole series of
Gnostic texts and systems from the late first to the late third
century ce.
The remaining chapters will then constitute the proof of my
claims by a detailed analysis of the Gnostic myth as expressed in
the Apocryphon, Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.29-30 and related texts and
systems. Chapters three and four will deal with Gnostic theogony
and cosmogony, chapter five with Gnostic anthropogony and
anthropology, chapters six and seven with Gnostic soteriology and
chapter eight with Gnostic eschatology. The basis of this analysis
of a - if not the - ‘classic’ Gnostic myth will be my reconstruction
of the redactional history of our present Apocryphon (i.e. the
relation between the versions, which is the earliest and what factors
might account for the differences between them).

Notes
1 SeeJ. M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English3 (Leiden:
Brill, 1988), Introduction; ‘The discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices’,
BA 42 (1979), 206-24; ‘From Cliff to Cairo’ in B. Bare ed., Colloque
international sur les textes de Nag Hammadi (Quebec: Universite Laval/
Louvain: Peeters, 1981), 21-58. For the earliest account, see J. Doresse,
The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics (London: Hollis & Carter, 1960).
2 In his Adversus haereses 1-5, esp. 1 (critical edition in Sources
chretiennes series vols 263-4 by A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau, Irenee
de Lyon. Contre les heresies (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1979); see also W. W.
Harvey, Sancti Irenaei Libros quinque adversus Haereses (2 vols, Cambridge,
1857)).
3 Lehrbuch derDogmengeschichti 1 (Freiburg-Leipzig, 1894), 21 Iff. (ET
History of Dogma, tr. N. Buchanan, London: Williams and Norgate, 1905,
1.253).
4Justin mentions his Syntagma in 1 Apol. 26. For a proposed
reconstruction, see P. Prigent, Justin et TAncien Testament (Paris: Gabalda,
1964); Hippolytus wrote both an early, lost work, the Syntagma, which
Adolf Hilgenfeld attempted to recontruct with the aid of Pseudo-
Tertullian, Adversus omnes haereses (= Adv. omn. haer., ed. A. Kroymann,
CSEL 47) and Epiphanius, Panarion (= Pan., ed. K. Holl, GCS 25, 31,
37, rev. ed. of 31 by J. Dummer), in Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums
XXII Notes to pages xiii-xvi

(Leipzig: Fues, 1884), and the later Refutatio omnium haeresium or

Philosophoumena (= Ref., ed. P. Wendland, GCS 26); Tertullian, who may
have been responsible for Adv. omn. haer. (see above) also wrote Adversus
Valentinianos and Adversus Mardonem (ed. CCSL 1-2); Epiphanius (see
above); Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium (= Haer., MPG
83).
5 Cf. Iren. Adv. haer. 1.22.2-31.4; 2.praef.; Hipp. Ref. 6.2f.; Tert. Praescr.
7; Eusebius of Caesarea Hist. eccl. 4.7, etc.
6 For the Pistis Sophia (= PS), see C. Schmidt and V. MacDermot, Pistis
Sophia (NHS 9) (Leiden: Brill, 1978); for the Bruce Codex, see id., The
Books of Jeu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex (NHS 13) (Leiden:
Brill, 1978).
7 ‘Ein vorirenaisches gnostisches Originalwerk in koptischen Sprache’,
SPAW (Berlin, 1896), 839-47.
8 Edited (apart from the Acts of Peter) by W. C. Till, Die gnostischen
Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 (TU 60), rev. ed. H.-M.
Schenke (Berlin: Akademie, 1972).
9 In 13 volumes (Leiden: Brill, 1972-8). A critical edition in English,
The Coptic Gnostic Library, is being published in the Nag Hammadi Studies
(= NHS) monograph series (1975ff.). For a full bibliography, see D. M.
Scholer, Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1948-1969 (NHS 1) (Leiden: Brill,
1971) and annual issues of NovTfrom vol. 13 (1971).
10 ‘The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists’, VC 25 (1971),
205-23.
11 ‘Heresiologists’, 220f.
12 ‘Das sethianische System nach Nag-Hammadi Schriften’, in P. Nagel
ed., Studia Coptica (Berlin: Akademie, 1974), 165-73. In a follow-up paper
in 1978, ‘The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism’, in
B. Layton ed., The Rediscovery of Gnostidsm: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Gnostidsm at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut March 28-31, 1978
(Leiden: Brill, 1980-1), 2.588L, he added Marsanes (C X,2), Allogenes
(C XI,-?) and the Untitled Treatise (- AnonBru) of the Bruce Codex as
well as the Gnostics, Sethians and Archontics of Epiphanius.
13 ‘System’, 166.
14‘Der gnostische Anthropos und die jiidische Tradition’, Eranos
Jahrbuch22 (1954), 195-234 (= Gnostic Studies 1 (Istanbul, 1974), 173—
95).
15 See Wilson, The Gnostic Problem (London: Mowbray, 1958, 19642)
and frequently since; Grant, Gnostidsm and Early Christianity (New York:
Columbia, 1959, 19662); Danielou, RSR 48 (1960), 603ff.; Theologie du
judeochristianisme (Tournai: Desclee, 1958; ET The Theology of Jewish
Christianity (London: Darton, Longman &Todd, 1964)); MacRae, ‘The
Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth’, NovT 12 (1970), 86-
101; Rudolph, ‘Gnosis und Gnostizismus, ein Forschungsbericht’ TRu
36 (1971), 89-119; Die Gnosis (Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1977, 19802;
 Notes to pages xvi-xvii XXlll

ET Gnosis. The Nature and History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh: T 8c T Clark,

1984), 276-82, etc.); Pearson, Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity
(SAC 5) (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), essays 1-9.
16 See Gnosis und spatantike Geist, 2 vols (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1993); The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1958,
19703); and his ‘Response to G. Quispel’s Gnosticism and the Neiu
Testament' in J. P. Hyatt ed.. The Bible in Modem Scholarship (Nashville,
1965), 279-95.
17 See W. Foerster ed., Die Gnosis 2 (Zurich: Artemis, 1971; ET Gnosis
2ed. R. McL. Wilson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974)).
18 Layton, Rediscovery, vol. 1, The School of Valentinus (1980); vol. 2,
Sethian Gnosticism (1981). See Wisse, ‘Stalking those elusive Sethians’ in
2.563-76.
19 See on this e.g. Quispel, Gnosis als Weltreligion (Zurich, 1951), 5;
Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford, 1968); Rudolph TRu 37
(1972), 31 If., etc.
20J. D. Turner, ‘Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History’ in C. W.
Hedrick and R. Hodgson eds, Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early
Christianity (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986), 55-86. Pearson’s three
stages of Sethian Gnosticism, ‘Gnosticism as Platonism’, Gnosticism 152,
n. 20, are (1) origins in a Jewish milieu; (2A) Christianization; (2B)
Platonization in a pagan milieu.
21 G. A. G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (NHS
24) (Leiden: Brill, 1984). Cf. P. Perkins, Gnosticism and the New Testament
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). ButR. van den Broek, ‘The Present State
of Gnostic Studies’, VC 37 (1983), 41-71, while accepting the distinct
Jewish (and Platonic) elements in Gnosticism, argues that it cannot be
explained exclusively from either (71).
22 Le Dualisme chez Platon, les gnostiques et les manicheens (Paris, 1947);
RMM60 (1965), 385-421; RMM85 (1980), 145-77. Cf. also the criticisms
of the pre-Christian hypothesis by E. M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism
(London: Tyndale, 1973); ‘Some Alleged Evidences for Pre-Christian
Gnosticism’ in R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney eds, New Dimensions
in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 46-70;
‘PreChristian Gnosticism in the Nag Hammadi Texts?’ CH 48 (1979),
129-41.
23 A Separate God. The Christian Origins of Gnosticism (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1991; ET of LeDieu separe: les origines du gnosticisme
(Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1984)). However, van den Broek, ‘Present State’
67—71, would reject such a derivation and Perkins, Gnosticism 206, n. 2,
dismisses the book as ‘simply outdated in its analysis of the tradition
history of the Nag Hammadi materials’.
24 Le Dossier baptismal sethien: etudes sur la sacramentale gnostique (BCNH
Section ‘Etudes’ 2) (Quebec: Universite Laval, 1986).
XXIV Notes to pages xviii-xix

25 E.g. Rudolph, Gnosis 294-300, 308-25; Petrement, Separate Part 2;

G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), chs 9-10,
etc.
26 Cf. the very similar system in Trimorphic Protennoia, the similarities
in the Gospel of the Egyptians, the exactly parallel passages in Allogenes
(62.27-63.23) and AJ (B 24.7-25.13), and the transmission of the
melothesia of Adam’s psychic body (A/B 49.9-50.14 and par) traced by
M. Tardieu in his edition (SGM 1 (Paris: Edidons du Cerf, 1984) = Ecrits)
to Syriac Christian (Audi), Manichaean and Arabic (Ismaili) sources
down to the ninth century ce (ib. 43-6, 300-8).
27 The Paraphrase of Shem (C VII, 1) seems related to Hippolytus’
‘Paraphrase of Seth’ (Ref 5.22.1), but opinion is divided about precisely
how. See Petrement, Separate 441-6 and 96.
28 See The Gnostic Scriptures (Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 5-21. Even
Perkins, while insisting that myths only exist as collections of variants
(Gnosticism 13), notes the acceptance by many scholars of a sequence of
characteristic Sethian mythemes, while insisting that the character of
myth makes it impossible to establish a chronological ordering of the
variants. We shall attempt to demonstrate that such can be done in the
case of the Apocryphon in terms of the appearance of certain
mythologoumena and similar developments in ‘orthodox’ Christianity.
29 See n. 12, Pearson, ‘The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature’,
Gnosticism 55-8; Turner, ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 56.
30 See n. 16 above. Perkins’ attempt, Gnosticism chs 2 and 4, to appeal
to Jewish traditions as the source of Gnostic mythemes (Wisdom’s fall,
Adam and Eve, etc.), to Semitic word-play and to the supposedly
superficial Christianization, are heavily dependent on the theses of
Schenke, Pearson and Stroumsa, and will be answered in detail in what
follows.
31 See on this U. Bianchi ed., Le origini dello gnosticismo: Colloquio di
Messina 13-18 Aprile 1966 (SHR/Supplements to Numen 12) (Leiden:
Brill, 1967, 19702), xx-xxxii; Rudolph TRu 36 (1971), 13-23.
 1

The Myth and Its Makers

1 Irenaeus 1.29 and the Gnostikoi

As we have seen, the myth which appears to underlie Irenaeus

Adv. haer. 1.29 and 30 and the Apocryphon of John seems to have
played a central and fundamental role in the recent debate about
the origins and development of Gnosticism. So our first task is to
attempt to establish the origin and nature of that myth, who were
responsible for it and how it developed. As is well known, the
starting point of any such investigation is paramount, since it will
have an inevitable and profound influence on any conclusions
reached. Thus some justification is required for starting where I
intend to start, with Irenaeus’ summary of the views of certain
gnostikoi in Adv. haer. 1.29 rather than with the Apocryphon and its
version of the myth. The correctness of such a procedure can only
be established by the success of my investigation as a whole, but
my provisional defence would be (a) that Irenaeus seems to have
had access to original sources, Valentinian and otherwise, which
he must have obtained from Gnostics; (b) that his procedure in
Book 1 is to lay out the views of such Gnostics in as clear and
unbiased a manner as possible, since he thinks such exposure
should constitute refutation enough:1 any blatant misrepresen¬
tation would surely have triggered Gnostic protests; and (c) that
he was in a better position to know and judge the situation than
we can ever be.2 And, as we shall attempt to demonstrate in what
follows, his account would often appear to be a more original
version of the myth than that in the Apocryphon as we have it.
What then can we learn from Irenaeus about the Gnostics,
particularly from 1.29? It is generally accepted that chapters 29
and 30 of Book 1 of Adversus haereses form a unit distinct from the
earlier heresiological catalogue of chapters 23 to 27 and its
concluding summary, chapter 28.3 Irenaeus appears to make a

I
2 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

fresh start with chapter 29, which deals with a mushroom-like

growth of ‘Gnostics’ whom he does nevertheless link with the
previous catalogue originating with Simon Magus, the source and
root’ of all heretics:4 they have arisen from the aforementioned
Simonians, he says.5 Chapter 29 then goes on to deal with the
principal opinions of some of them. However, the term ‘Barbelo
used to describe them appears to be the gloss of a later editor
based on the name of the supreme female entity and not due
to Irenaeus himself, although for convenience modern scholars
often refer to the group and its characteristic opinions as
Barbelognostic.6
Chapter 29 only deals with the theogony and cosmogony of the
myth, stopping short with the Pro(t)archon or Demiurge creating
the earthly realm and boasting that he is the only true God in the
exclusivist language of the God of the Old Testament (Exod 20:5;
Isa 45:5f.; 46:9). The account in chapter 30, on the other hand,
attributed to certain others, i.e. other ‘Gnostics’, continues (after
a similar blasphemous claim by the Demiurge, here called
Ialdabaoth) with the rest of the myth involving anthropogony,
soteriology and eschatology. Since the Apocryphon has a similar
continuation after Ialdabaoth’s blasphemy, the question arises
whether Irenaeus’ source only contained the first half of the myth
or whether it had the rest but he decided to omit it, preferring the
version in chapter 30 as perhaps more akin to the Valentinian
systems whose prototypes were, he claimed, those of chapters 29
and 30.
We shall have to deal with this question in detail later. Suffice it
to note that the Demiurge’s blasphemy, which occurs in a number
of related texts from Nag Hammadi and elsewhere,7 does form a
natural point of transition from cosmogony to anthropogony and
the obvious introduction to the Gnostic interpretation of the
opening chapters of Genesis dealing with the creation and fall of
humanity.8 And there are, in fact, examples of Gnostic works
dealing only with theogony and cosmogony, such as Eugnostos (C
III,5; V,7) limited to the heavenly world, and its offshoot the Sophia
of Jesus Christ (B; C III, 4) alluding to how the rest of the
mythological scheme would develop. More importantly, as Greer
has persuasively argued, since Irenaeus’ fundamental argument
in Books 1 and 2 is to defend his view of God as ‘containing - not
contained’, he simply selected from the Apocryphon the theological
section that best suited his interests and laid the groundwork for
his polemic.9
 The Myth and Its Makers 3

At the end of chapter 30 Irenaeus concludes his summary of

the principal opinions of two groups of ‘Gnostics’, suggesting
(although, as we shall see, the interpretation of the Latin
translation is disputed) that from them was born that many-headed
wild beast, like the Lernaean hydra, of the school of Valentinus
(30.15). That serpentine allusion leads him naturally to mention
the views of others about Sophia and the snake (30.15), and others
still (31.1) who glorify Cain and other biblical villains such asjudas.
He even mentions a writing of theirs, a ‘Gospel of Judas’, whose
contents, however, he does not seem to know. But more
intriguingly he also refers to other writings of theirs he had
collected, which urged the destruction of the works of the Womb,
i.e. the creator of heaven and earth; from these he appears to
quote an invocatory formula addressed to an evil angel (31.2).
Mention of such writings in the case of the various ‘Gnostics’ surely
confirms the hypothesis that Irenaeus had written sources for
chapters 29 and 30,10 which he chose from among a selection of
Gnostic works he knew and had obtained from various groups
including Valentinians, his chief targets, as most relevant to
demonstrate their literary and spiritual ancestry. Surely this is the
most natural reading of the opening sentences of 31.3 where,
summing up the first book and its catalogue of heresies, he speaks
of the disciples of Valentinus as issuing from such mothers, fathers
and ancestors.
Who are these ‘Gnostics’ of chapters 29 to 31 ?11 In a recent
detailed discussion of this question, Petrement considers that
R. A. Lipsius still presents the best treatment of Irenaeus’
use of the term gnosticus/gnostikos.'2 According to Lipsius,
Irenaeus often uses the term as a collective description of all
the heresies he is opposing, but that even when he does so,
one can usually deduce from the context which sects he particu¬
larly has in mind. These are sometimes the Valentinians or
both the Valentinians and the Gnostics of 1.29-31 together.
But he argues that in most cases it is the latter he is thinking
of.13 That is, Lipsius appears to be suggesting that, over against
the claim of Catholic Christians like Irenaeus to have the true
gnosis, there are the whole mass of heretics who falsely claim
that knowledge (cf. 1 Tim 6:20: ‘Gnostics’ in the more general
sense), among whom one can distinguish a group (those of
1.29-31) who make a special claim (‘Gnostics’ in the more
restricted or strict sense). However, Lipsius does admit that
Irenaeus only calls them that because he does not know what
4 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

other name to give them (i.e. the name may not be their own self¬
designation).14
As Petrement points out in her comment on Lipsius’ claim and
Irenaeus’ usage, the heretics of 1.29-31 do not appear to form a
number of distinct sects, ‘Barbelo’ seems a later gloss, and
furthermore calling the whole group ‘Gnostics would agree
with Irenaeus’ usual practice elsewhere.11 Moreover the later
heresiologists like Epiphanius and Filaster call the heretics of 1.29
Gnostics as the name of a particular sect: the names of Ophites
and Cainites were applied by them to the groups of 1.30 and 31
respectively from the mistaken deduction that they were or ought
to be separate sects.16
Such an interpretation as offered by Lipsius, suggesting the
existence of a sect of‘Gnostics’ in the strict sense, and also Irenaeus
further claim to see in them the spiritual ancestors of the
Valentinians, were generally accepted by later scholars such as
Adolf Hilgenfeld, who claimed Justin must have known them and
mentioned them in his lost Syntagma as the link between Simon
Magus and Valentinus.17 Wilhelm Bousset saw the name as
originally belonging to many small groups of the larger movement
of Gnosticism which had not yet developed into the later distinctive
schools under named individuals, and as forming the oldest level
of the Gnostic movement.18 R. P. Casey, whom Petrement does
not mention in her discussion, argued that both orthodox and
heretic claimed gnosis and the title ‘Gnostic’ in good faith, and
agreed with Lipsius that in a number of cases Irenaeus is clearly
referring to the Gnostics in the strict sense (Casey calls them
Ophites) of 1.29-31; it is out of sheer irritation at the assumption
by the heretics of the honourable title gnostikos that Irenaeus
applied it carelessly and in an ironical sense to sects who never
employed it of themselves.19
More recently Norbert Brox has re-examined the term gnostikoi
in Irenaeus and other heresiologists. On the basis of his analysis
of the heresiologists’ usage, he agrees with Bousset that originally
the Gnostics were a number of sects from a relatively early phase
of the movement, and argues that this term always applied in the
heresiologists before and after Irenaeus to particular groups and
not to the whole phenomenon.20 It was Irenaeus, Brox thinks,
who expanded the term to apply as a special designation to the
whole phenomenon.21 Brox agrees with Lipsius that Irenaeus does
sometimes use the term in a restricted sense, especially or even
exclusively to apply to the heretics of 1.29-31. But as Petrement
 The Myth and Its Makers 5

points out, whereas Brox sees Irenaeus as expanding the term from
the more restricted usage, for Lipsius Irenaeus implies the more
general sense and sometimes restricts it to one particular group,
that of 1.29-31.22 What is, of course, new and significant for our
purposes is that Brox is aware of the Apocryphon of John and claims
that Irenaeus used the first part of it to describe the Gnostics of
1.29.23
In Petrement’s critical comments, devoted, as we shall see, to
arguing in support of her main thesis of the Christian origins of
Gnosticism that there is no evidence in the heresiologists for the
existence of the Gnostics of 1.29-31 as a distinct sect prior to and
the spiritual ancestors of the Valentinians - that in fact the latter
inspired the systems of 1.29 and the Apocryphon, she casts doubt
on Irenaeus’ assertions about the relationship between the
Gnostics and the Valentinians; Irenaeus’ claims are primarily based
on the doctrinal resemblances and are expressed in a deliberately
ambiguous way. Further, they are not even accepted unanimously
by later heresiologists despite their dependence on him. Thus
Petrement finds Lipsius more correct than Brox as regards the
priority in Irenaeus of the more general over the more restricted
sense of the term.24 She can also point out, with some justifica¬
tion, to the lack of evidence for a particular sect of Gnostics with
the ideas found in 1.29-31 prior to Irenaeus and the dependence
of the later heresiologists (Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius,
Filaster), for whom the Gnostics were generally seen as a particular
sect or group of sects associated with Nicolaus and the Nicolai tans,
on Hippolytus and his interpretation of Irenaeus in his lost
Syntagma (which Lipsius attempted to reconstruct via the three
aforementioned heresiologists) and RefutatioP
Finally Petrement discusses the research paper of Morton
Smith at the 1978 Yale Conference on Gnosticism,26 in which he
investigates the original meaning of the term gnostikos and its
use by Christians and non-Christians. He traces its probable
origin to Plato, noting its restriction prior to the second century
to Platonic, Aristotelian and Pythagorean philosophers, with
the meanings ‘leading to knowledge, resulting in knowledge,
capable of knowing’.27 But it is strikingly absent from the
Septuagint, from Jewish works in Greek and from the New
Testament, and Smith concludes from his analysis, first, that
the gnostikoi of the second century probably got their claim
to be such (and also their doctrines) from the Platonic-
Pythagorean tradition,28 and, second, that the claim to be a gnostikos
6 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

was rather to be capable of knowing than to possess particular items

of information.29
Petrement in criticism rightly points to the differences between
the use of gnostikosby the Gnostics and by the philosophical schools:
the former used it of persons not of techniques or skills; they
meant by it not the capacity for knowledge but divine revelation
brought by a saviour, and their doctrines, despite the undoubted
debt to Platonism in particular, are too distinctive in structure
and style to be derivable wholly or chiefly from Platonic traditions.
She also rightly draws attention to the use of gnosis in the New
Testament, which differs as much from the classical meaning as
does the Gnostic term gnostikos from the philosophical, in having
an absolute sense, one found almost exclusively in Jewish and
Christian texts.30 But she agrees with Smith’s conclusions that the
term ‘Gnostic’, as applied by some groups to themselves, according
to the heresiologists does not necessarily designate a sect; that the
heretics may have used the term as Clement of Alexandria does,
and that Irenaeus sometimes implies certain things without daring
to state them clearly for fear of contradiction by his enemies.31
More recently, without reference to Petrement, M. J. Edwards,
in an article dedicated to distinguishing the Valentinians from
the Gnostics, has rejected Smith’s claims that Irenaeus’ usage is
deliberately confusing and designed to blacken his opponents and
that the Western Fathers followed him in applying the term
indifferently to all opponents of orthodoxy.32 In successfully
demonstrating the likelihood that the Valentinians were never
called or called themselves ‘Gnostics’, and the major differences
between the two groups, Edwards does make a good case for linking
together the ‘Gnostics’ of Irenaeus, the Naassenes (who called
themselves gnostikoi) and the opponents of Plotinus as a group of
related sects. In a later article Edwards goes further and claims to
be able to demonstrate that Plotinus, his disciples, the Christian
Fathers and the Greek alchemists all agree in their portrayal of
‘this well-defined and extraordinary sect’.33 If one is thus led to
discount Smith’s general and debatable conclusions about the
Platonic and non-Christian origin of the term gnostikos and
Irenaeus’ supposed deliberate confusion (accepting Edwards’
robust defence of the latter), what is interesting is both Smith’s
limitation of the title to those few groups, Christian and non-
Christian, whom he thinks actually used it (Prodicus and his
followers, Naassenes and Ophites, Clement, the ‘gnostics’ of
Porphyry and Plotinus - here he and Edwards agree), and his
 The Myth and Its Makers 7

allowance of the first record of Christian usage as Celsus’ report

(in Origen C. Cels. 5.61f.) that some among the different sorts
of Christians called themselves ‘gnostics’. This contemporary
non-Christian evidence surely offers some support to Irenaeus’
understanding and claims. But in the end the possibility of
establishing the existence of a Christian group calling them¬
selves ‘Gnostics’, the ‘Gnostics in the narrower sense’ of Irenaeus
1.29-31 and Lipsius, and their precise relation to the Apocryphon
of John and Valentinianism comes down to assessing the validity
and coherence of what Irenaeus himself says, to which we now
turn.34
Petrement points to the apparent ambiguity and ambivalence
of the two crucial passages in Irenaeus, 1.30.15 and 31.3, crucial
because she claims that without them no one would dream of
identifying the ‘so-called Gnostic heresy’ of 1.11.1, supposed to
have inspired Valentinus, with the doctrines described in 1.29-
31,35 Both, unfortunately, survive only in the Latin translation and,
as she points out, have been paraphrased or corrected by the
editors in their attempts to understand them.36
1.30.15 reads: ‘Tales quidem secundum eos sententiae sunt: a
quibus velut Lernaea hydra multiplex capitibus fera de Valentini
schola generata est’ (‘Such are their opinions; from which, like
the Lernaean hydra, was born the many-headed wild beast of the
school of Valentinus’). Petrement points to the lack of clarity about
the wild beast; it is derived from the school of Valentinus, but
there is nothing in the text as it stands, she claims, to make us
think the wild beast is that school.37 The editors of the Sources
chretiennes edition see the difficulty of the double derivation of
both doctrines and school, but convinced, following Irenaeus’ hint
in 1.11.1, that the many-headed Valentinian school is derived from
the Gnostics, they delete the ‘de’ in their Greek retroversion,
equating the many-headed beast with the school of Valentinus.38
They are surely correct to take ‘multiplex capitibus’ with ‘fera’
and not, as Petrement does, with ‘Lernaea hydra’. But the ‘de’
does not need to be excised: it could well represent a Greek genitive
as elsewhere in the Latin translation39 and thus one could
reconstruct the Greek original as ‘to polykephalaion therion tes
tou Oualentinou scholes’ (‘many-headed wild beast of the school
of Valentinus’) and eliminate much of the ambiguity claimed by
Petrement. Such a link of the Lernaean hydra and many-headed
with the school of Valentinus rather than with the Gnostics would
make better sense of Irenaeus’ statement than Petrement’s
8 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

interpretations, which are hard to follow in the English translation

but seem to relate the wild beast to offspring of the Gnostics of
1.29- 31, themselves derived from the Valentinians.
Further, the links with 1.11-12, where Irenaeus illustrates the
variety of views of Valentinus and his followers, are clear and do
not, as Petrement avers, simply boil down to the mention of
Valentinus adapting the basic principles of the so-called ‘Gnostic’
sect to his own school style. The Gnostics may have been recent
mushroom growths (1.29.1), but it is the Valentinians who are the
hydra! Further, Irenaeus’ following reference to the similarity
between the left-hand ruler of Valentinus and that of those he will
later mention, the ‘falsely so-called Gnostics’, overlooked by
Petrement, although not exactly corresponding to what he says of
the serpentine son of Ialdabaoth in 1.30.6, seems close enough to
establish the connection and relationship of dependence he sees
between Valentinus and the Gnostics of 1.29-31.40
Careful analysis of his usage of the term gnosticus/gnostikos does
indeed reveal a more general meaning denoting all the heretics
from Simon Magus,41 as well as a reference, which Irenaeus prob¬
ably took from his heresiological catalogue, to the Carpocratians
as calling themselves ‘Gnostics’ (1.25.6). But it also reveals a
considerable number of references specifically to the Gnostici of
1.29- 31.42 Indeed in a number of other passages in Book 1, where
Irenaeus’ mention of certain Valentinians claiming to be more
perfect than the perfect and more gnostic than the ‘Gnostics’ (e.g.
1.11.3; 11.5) has been interpreted by Petrement and others as
referring to a general quality rather than a particular sect,43 it can
be shown that Irenaeus had precisely the Gnostics of 1.29-31 in
mind.
The key texts in this regard are 2.13.8 and 10, where
Irenaeus, in rebutting the ideas of emanation of divine intel¬
ligible entities from God, claims his arguments should suffice to
refute the followers of Basilides (a reference to 1.24.3) and the
rest of the Gnostics from whom the Valentinians were convicted
in the first book of having taken the beginnings of their
emissions (‘adversus reliquos Gnosticos, a quibus et hi
initia emissionum accipientes, convicti sunt in primo libro’).
In 2.13.10 Irenaeus confirms this by reference to the internal
wrangles among the fathers (patres) of the Valentinians, ‘the
falsely so-called Gnostics (falso cognominati Gnostici)’, about
the order of emission of the aeons Man and Church, an
unmistakable allusion to 1.30.1 and 1.29.1 and 3 as well as to
 The Myth and Its Makers 9

1.12.4. Indeed the term ‘fathers’ obviously picks up the second of

Petrement’s crucial passages, 1.31.3:

A talibus matribus et patribus et proavis eos qui a Valentino sint,

sicut ipsae sententiae et regulae ostendunt eos, necessarium fuit
manifesto arguere et in medium adferre dogmata ipsorum, si qui
forte ex his paenitentiam agentes et convertentes ad unum solum
Conditorem Deum et Factorem universitatis salvari possint.

The reference in 1.11.3 and 5 and elsewhere to Valentinian claims

to be ‘more gnostic than the Gnostics’ must be seen in this context
of primal emanations: the Gnostics, Irenaeus is claiming, were
the first to develop the concept of the emission of mental states or
attributes of the Father like intelligence (nous) and reason (logos)
as hypostases. The various Valentinian attempts to posit prior
emissions and entities to these is to try to outdo these Gnostics,
their spiritual ancestors! But what about Petrement’s appeal to
the absence of any allusion to the Gnostics of 1.29-31 and their
characteristic doctrines in any heresiologist prior to Irenaeus, and
the tendency of those after him not to follow or even to reverse
his understanding of the relation between Gnostics and
Valentinians? Or what of her claim that it was the attempts of
Hippolytus and his successors to systematize the hints thrown out
by Irenaeus that led to the later heresiological identifications
of the Gnostics as a particular sect?44 She does concede that
Irenaeus himself honestly believed that the Gnostics had
influenced the Valentinians: in the end the only way to decide the
matter, as she points out, is to examine the doctrines of both and
see which interpretation is more justified, to explain the Gnostic
myth from Valentinianism or vice versa. This will be undertaken
in detail in what follows, but in the meantime it might be advisable
to suggest some preliminary conclusions about the existence and
identity of the Gnostics of Irenaeus.
(a) Although the evidence of Irenaeus, his predecessors
(Ignatius, Justin, Hegesippus, also the pagan Celsus) and successors
does not point unequivocally to the existence of an identifiable
sect, it is clear that Irenaeus himself knew and was in touch with
certain groups related by mythological systems whom for want of
a better term and from certain characteristics of their doctrines
he dubbed ‘Gnostics’.
(b) More importantly they had a varied collection of books
dealing with an all-embracing mythology involving theogony,
cosmogony, anthropogony, soteriology and eschatology of which
10 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

he summarized those parts which seemed to him to cast light on

the origins of Valentinianism. What is striking is that they appear
to have been quite happy to let him have such books: it might
even be that he got his copies of the treatises underlying 1.29 and
30 from the Valentinians he was acquainted with along with their
own ‘commentaries’.45 Whether the treatise underlying 1.29 in
particular closely resembled our present Apocryphon, as Petrement
and the other commentators usually assume, remains to be
determined.
(c) Even if Irenaeus, as Petrement argues, already saw the
Christians of the Great Church as possessing the true gnosis and
thus considered the heretics ‘Gnostics falsely so-called’, those
who wrote and/or had copies of the treatise underlying 1.29 had
very good claim to be called ‘Gnostics’ and to be fundamentally
concerned with the ontological implications of knowledge and
ignorance, such as were to be made much more explicit by the
Valentinians.46 Thus not only did they count Foreknowledge
(Prognosis) as one of the first Aeons to come forth from the supreme
Father and the consort of Intelligence (Nous),47 they dubbed the
consort of the perfect heavenly Man Adamas, Perfect Knowledge.
Not only does the union of these two, the archetypes of Adam and
Eve, thus give Adamas knowledge of the supreme God, it also leads
to their producing a son called both ‘Tree’ and ‘Knowledge’,
evidently the archetype of the tree of knowledge in Paradise,48
thereby forming the prelude for a Gnostic reinterpretation of
Genesis such as follows in the Apocryphon of John. But in it both the
consort of Adamas and their son have disappeared, to be replaced
by heavenly Seth in what I shall argue is a later process of
Sethianization.
(d) As we shall see, most if not all of those who Smith thinks
actually used the title ‘Gnostics’ after Irenaeus (Prodicus, the
Naassenes and Ophites and the ‘Gnostics’ of Plotinus and
Porphyry), will turn out to be Christian Gnostics related to those
who created, reinterpreted and were influenced by the myths
underlying Irenaeus 1.29 and 30 and the Apocryphon,49 Thus it may
well be that there is some truth in Irenaeus’ allusion to ‘Gnostics’
in the strict sense, as an identifiable group or groups, united by
their allegiance to the doctrine and ritual practice of this ‘classic’
myth. In the end the particular sect names do not matter; it is the
myth and the ritual which are decisive.50
For whatever the truth about the existence or non-existence of
a ‘Gnostic’ (or ‘Barbelognostic’) sect such as can be gleaned from
 The Myth and Its Makers 11

the literary evidence, what does exist and has had a fundamental
influence upon a whole range of Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi
and beyond, not limited to Schenke’s ‘Sethian’ corpus, is the
central mythological scheme and figures underlying Irenaeus 1.29
and 30 and the Apocryphon of John. The triad of Father, Mother
and Son which I will argue is central and fundamentally Christian;
the figures of Barbelo and her Son anointed and perfected as
Christ, the Autogenes and Adamas, aspects of Christ; the syzygies
of male and female Aeons, hypostases of divine attributes; the
four illuminators; Sophia, her archetypal fall and repentance; her
abortive offspring Ialdabaoth/Saklas, unwitting vehicle of the
saving divine light-power with his six (or seven) creator archons,
and the pattern of a Heilsgeschichte reinterpreting the Old
Testament accounts of Genesis and the prophets and Jewish
apocalyptic eschatology in terms of the repeated descents of the
Saviour (Christ/Seth) to impart revelation and finally to save the
elect seed: these are all to varying degrees reflected and
reinterpreted in other Gnostic texts.
Despite the efforts of Wisse and others to argue that there
was, indeed there could be, no single, universal Gnostic myth,
Schenke has posed a valid question by his identification of
recurring figures, patterns, mythologoumena, doxologies, all the
more surprising given the endless variety of Gnostic imagination
and the plasticity of Gnostic myth. It may be that we have to posit
some unifying factor not always obvious from the texts, such as
the kind of initiation ritual as both actual and spiritual reality
which Sevrin has identified so painstakingly behind texts like
Irenaeus 1.29 and the Apocryphon, if we are to make sense of the
phenomenon Schenke has identified. If the ‘Gnostic’ and ‘Sethian’
texts do not have the remarkable unity and continuity of the
great Valentinian or Manichaean systems, deriving as they do
from two individual religious geniuses and visionaries, they still
reflect the pervading influence of a basic mythological scheme
(and I will argue, following Sevrin, a basic rite of initiation into
saving gnosis), which can best be understood as equally the
work of a hitherto unknown visionary or visionaries, which led
to the interrelated mythological systems underlying Irenaeus
1.29 and 30 and the Apocryphon of John. And as Valentinus
and Mani can only be understood against the background of a
Christian community with its characteristic doctrines and
experiences projected in myth and ritual, so too with the ‘classic
Gnostic myth’.
12 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

We shall have to leave detailed discussion of Petrement’s thesis

deriving the Gnostics from the Valentinians to later chapters;
suffice it to say at this point that far from being only explicable
in terms of Valentinian ideas, the Gnostics would appear to
have contributed certain fundamental concepts to the former,
such as the ontological role of the concretion of divine thoughts
and emotions into the substances of the universe, the applica¬
tion of biological metaphors of sexual union and generation, of
syzygies and emanations, above all the evolution of the Sophia
myth absent in predecessors and contemporaries like Saturninus
and Basilides. As for the absence of references to the Gnostics
prior to Irenaeus (and Celsus!) and their downgrading by later
heresiologists to a minor libertine sect associated with the
Nicolaitans, this is to overlook the importance of texts to the
Gnostics. They are literary creatures, exegetes of texts, scriptural
and other, whose myths feed on existing ones, and who do not
seem to see the need for fixed interpretations and set groupings.
They possess libraries of very varied and eclectic content. If we
can query the independent existence of many of the heresiologists’
sects, we cannot query the existence of fundamental Gnostic
texts.
Further, it would seem that it was the Gnostics, along with
Saturninus, Basilides and Valentinus, who were the first
Christians to develop a thoroughgoing Platonic understanding
of the world in terms of a hierarchy of being on two levels, the
transcendent, spiritual level emanating from God the Unknown
Father, and the terrestrial, material level, a poor travesty or
imitation of it, the work of the Demiurge of the Timaeus and his
archons, with Sophia as the mediating World Soul. With this they
combine the Platonic myth of the fall of the divine spark or soul
into the material body as a tomb and its re-ascent. But against
Petrement it is they, not Valentinus, who pioneer the Sophia myth
and anticipate what she calls ‘the Valentinian turning point’51 in
their modification of the flagrant anti-Judaism of Saturninus and
Basilides by a certain rehabilitation of the Creator God as a vehicle
of the divine power and, in the system of Irenaeus 1.30, of the Old
Testament as a partial instrument of Sophia’s revelations.52
However, Petrement is surely correct to see behind this unique
combination and perspective the Pauline andjohannine theology
of the cross as the revelation of the hitherto unknown Father,
and hence of the ignorance and folly of the Creator/Demiurge
of this world and his rulers/archons, and even more so, as I will
 The Myth and Its Makers 13

stress, the theology of Hebrews with its pre-existent Wisdom/Son

Christology and blend of Jewish concepts and popular
contemporary (Middle) Platonism.

2 The Apocryphon of John and the ‘Sethians’

If Irenaeus claims that groups of ‘Gnostics’ were responsible for
the systems he summarizes in 1.29 and 30, what of the Apocryphon
of John and the claim of Schenke and others that it and Irenaeus
1.29 are the products of pre- and non-Christian Sethianism?
One of Petrement’s arguments for the late character of the Gnostic
system in 1.29, and hence of the likelihood of its having been
influenced by Valentinianism, is to appeal to the Apocryphon as
evidence, implying that Irenaeus’ version corresponded to the
first section of it, and therefore that at least that section existed
when Irenaeus wrote Adversus haereses, around 185 ce.°3 But what
if both represent a secondary Christianization of ajewish Sethian-
Gnostic original? We shall have to consider this and the precise
relation between the Apocryphon and Irenaeus 1.29, but before we
do it might be helpful to examine the Apocryphon itself, to
determine its background, character and purpose. As is well
known, it exists in four Coptic texts (B; C II,T, III,7; IV, 1),
representing two distinct traditions, a short version (SR) found
independently in B and III, and a long version (LR) found in the
similar but not identical II and IV.54 All evidently derive from
Coptic translations of a Greek original or originals. Ill and IV
are more fragmentary than II and B, which is the best
preserved and probably the most recent of all. The two versions
thus differ both internally (but II is much more similar to IV
than B is to III) and externally, and although, as will be argued
below, the latter may overall represent an earlier redaction, the
former sometimes preserves more original readings, so that, as
Sevrin points out, one must consider all the texts when seeking
the original version.50
As it stands, the work represents a post-resurrection revelation
discourse of the Saviour, Christ, to John the son of Zebedee, about
the past, present and future. Tardieu, in his recent valuable
analysis,56 identifies three principal parts apart from the frame
story with its prologue (in which Jesus appears to John in the style
usual to such apocalyptic works and proclaims himself the Father,
the Mother and the Son) and epilogue. The first part (B 22.lb-
36.15; II 2.25-9.24) is an exposition of the Saviour’s opening
14 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

proclamation, a theogony dealing successively with Father, Mother

or Barbelo, and Son, Christ, and the entities issuing from them
and him, culminating in heavenly Adam, Seth and his seed and
their aeonic abodes. The second part (B 36.16-64.13; II 9.25-
25.16) is an exegesis of the first four chapters of Genesis, i.e. a
cosmogony and anthropogony, punctuated by three questions by
John and concluding with the birth of earthly Seth. The long
version adds a long melothesia to the account of the creation of
Adam’s psychic body (II 15.29-19.2).
The third part (B 64.13-75.10; II 25.16-30.11) containsjohn’s
seven remaining questions about the fates of various souls, i.e.
soteriology, allowing a further section of biblical commentary on
the Flood and the giants (Genesis 5-9) and the origin of the
counterfeit spirit and human bondage to Fate. The long version
then has a hymnic passage in which the heavenly figure of Pronoia
(i.e. Barbelo) recounts in the first person her three saving descents
into this world, in the final one of which she illuminates and frees
the imprisoned Gnostic soul, seals it with the five seals (i.e. an
initiatory rite of baptism/chrismation?) and re-ascends. Tardieu
has shown convincingly that the short version actually knew this
hymn, but has omitted all but its first and last words.57
The value of Tardieu’s analysis is that it treats the work as a
literary unity which has undergone several redactions. However,
he does not begin from Irenaeus’ summary as a possible precursor
of the Apocryphon, but argues that the latter is based on and reflects
the structure of the concluding Pronoia hymn, an ancient source
deriving from a dissident member of the Johannine circle. This
was developed by a later theologian of the same tendency in a
commentary on the hymn employing the Fourth Gospel and
revelation treatises of Platonizing Chaldaeans, which formed the
basis of Irenaeus’ entirely independent account (Tardieu’s source
7t). This first redaction (n), dated by him around 170, was followed
by a second (n1) adding the detailed melothesia and the Pronoia
hymn: abbreviation of this (o) led to the short version, and further
redaction of it (n2) led to the long version.58 Thus for Tardieu the
work, which is essentially Christian, exhibits five essential
characteristics: a methodically elaborated construction (brilliantly
demonstrated by him); a Gospel scenario; a revelation with a
ternary rhythm; a form of argument both scriptural and dialectical;
and a basically anti-Jewish thrust and intention. The treatise is
thus for him essentially a matter of exegesis: the first part of Jesus’
words in the opening vision: ‘I am the Father, I am the Mother, I
 The Myth and Its Makers 15

am the Son’; the second of Genesis 1-4; the third a kind of

catechesis on the destiny of the soul after death.59 Moreover the
whole plan for Tardieu is focused on Seth and a midrashic
interpretation of Gen 4:25: the first part is a systematic evocation
of the transcendent God known by Adam, Seth and the original
Sethites (and present-day Gnostics); the second supplies the
analytic proof of the first, by explaining how the first four chapters
of Genesis are to be understood; the third part maps out the final
status of Seth’s descendants, i.e. the Gnostics, in the last days. As
Tardieu puts it: ‘Seth constitutes the essential articulation, which
achieves the transition from one world to another, one part to
another.’60
Tardieu’s analysis of the structure of the Apocryphon is
undoubtedly illuminating and suggestive, but, as we shall attempt
to argue, his reconstruction of the stages of development needs
to be amended and his rejection of the possibility of Irenaeus’
version having directly influenced the Apocryphon and his
characterization of the source of that version as ‘Platonizing
Chaldaean’ will be strongly contested. But his remark above about
the role of Seth is more apropos.
Indeed it recalls the claim by Schenke noted in the Introduction
that the Apocryphon and Irenaeus 1.29 and a number of texts from
Nag Hammadi and elsewhere and the systems of Epiphanius’
Gnostics, Sethians and Archontics represent a ‘Sethian system’,
built on the fundamental dogma of the self-understanding of those
involved as being ‘the seed of Seth’.61 Other fundamental
characteristics for Schenke include the lour illuminators of the
Apocryphon (and related texts) who constitute the heavenly abodes
of respectively Adamas, Seth, his offspring and later repentant
souls; the figure of Autogenes; the triad of Father, Mother and
Son, etc.62 Despite criticisms of his methodology and language
Schenke has stuck to his thesis, if modifying it in some ways in his
second article to add certain common literary features, doxologies,
etc. and emphasizing the liturgical aspect, insisting on the great
value of a synoptic treatment of the texts.63
Of course Schehnke would argue in both his contributions
that Sethian Gnosticism is originally and essentially non- and
even pre-Christian, and that the Apocryphon represents the most
Christianized version of it.64 He points to what he sees as the
artificiality of the Christian frame story of the Apocryphon and
its absence in Irenaeus’ excerpt, which itself he claims has
only a faint contact with Christianity, namely and simply its
16 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

endowing the typically Sethian figure of the Son with the name
‘Christ’.65 But he does accept in the later article that, as Klijn’s
monograph conclusively demonstrated, Jewish sources are
indifferent to Seth and thus are an unlikely source for Sethianism,66
and that the appeal to a possible origin in Samaritanism is
inconclusive.67

3 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.29 and the Apocryphon

So are we to assume that the makers of the myth were really
Sethians? Certainly Schenke’s thesis has found widespread
support, particularly as buttressed by Sevrin’s findings on the
presence of a kind of initiatory ritual, actualized and/or
spiritualized to varying degrees, in a group of Schenke’s ‘Sethian’
texts. Once again it would seem that the crucial issue lies in the
character and relationship of Irenaeus’ summary of a Gnostic-
system in 1.29 and the so-called ‘Sethian’ Apocryphon of John.
How exactly are they related? Do they represent a non- and pre-
Christian form of Sethian Gnosticism, as Schenke argues? Or is
the Apocryphon essentially a Christian work, as Petrement and
Tardieu argue from different perspectives, directly related to
Irenaeus’ summary and developed from Christian Valentinianism
as Petrement holds, or arising from the Johannine circle and
simply making use of a common Chaldaean Platonizing source
independently of Irenaeus, as Tardieu claims?
In both cases the figure of Seth is crucial: Schenke counts
Irenaeus’ summary in 1.29 as Sethian and Seth’s relation to the
four illuminators in the Apocryphon as fundamental to his case;
Tardieu points to the pivotal role of Seth in the Apocryphon. But
any reference to Seth and his seed is strikingly absent from
Irenaeus’ summary in 1.29 of the views of those he dubs ‘Gnostics’
(although earthly Seth does occur in 1.30, but as ancestor with
Norea of the entire human race); instead, as we have noted, there
is the figure of the Tree of Knowledge. Further differences between
Irenaeus’ account and the Apocryphon are noted by Krause,68
although he argues in the light of the many resemblances that
Irenaeus’ source was similar to the cosmogony and fall of
Sophia in the Apocryphon. This more guarded view of the
relation, which still assumes, if implicitly, the priority or superiority
of the Apocryphon, has tended to prevail over the original view of
Schmidt that Irenaeus had borrowed directly from our Apocryphon
itself.69
 The Myth and Its Makers 17

My contention, which will be argued in detail in what follows, is

that Irenaeus’ version in 1.29 represents an excerpt from the classic
Christian Gnostic myth as far as the cosmogony and blasphemy of
the Demiurge, complemented by the full account of the related
myth in 1.30, more relevant to his purpose of demonstrating the
spiritual ancestors of the Valentinians, and that that classic Gnostic
theogony and cosmogony of Father, Mother and Son (and the
omitted anthropogony and soteriology), after being presented as
a revelation dialogue about past, present and future between John
and Christ, has undergone a process of Sethianizadon. This process
would seem to reflect the parallel interest in Seth of Christians of
the Great Church around the beginning of the third century ce,
and was prompted by the need to demonstrate a Gnostic genealogy
and a continuing revelation in human history versus critical
‘orthodox’ Christian charges of novelty, and the development of
a speculative exegesis based on Gen 4:25f. and the idea of a race
or seed of Seth, to give this scriptural grounding. The Valentinian
concept of Seth as representing the spiritual race or element
may well have had considerable influence on this process. Thus
R. Bergmeier, in an article on the characteristic Sethian self¬
designation ‘kingless (abasileutos)', has argued both for it, as
meaningful only in the light of Valentinianism, and for Valentinian
ideas on the three generations having been reabsorbed into the
Sethian reworking of the Barbelognostic system of the four
illuminators.70
Klijn’s detailed investigation has not only shown the lack of
interest in Seth in Jewish and mainstream Christian circles (apart
from the late Byzantine chronographers), it has also focused on
the Gnostic interest in Seth as attested by the Christian
heresiologists on the one hand and by the original Gnostic texts,
in particular the Apocalypse of Adam, the Apocryphon of John and the
Gospel of the Egyptians, on the other. Further it has shown how the
heresiologists’ picture goes back to Pseudo-Tertullian’s cryptic
comments (Adv. omn. haer. 2) and Epiphanius attempt to clarify
them (Pan. 39.1.3-3.5), and stresses the role of earthly Seth in the
former as the originator of a particular human generation or pure
seed deriving from the Highest God or Mother, and continuously
assailed by hostile angelic and human (unnamed but presumably
Cainite or mixed Cainite and Abelite) forces.71
It is only therefore in the Nag Hammadi ‘Sethian’ tractates that
we hear of a rather different understanding of Seth as primarily a
heavenly being, son of heavenly Adamas and saviour of his seed,
18 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

race or generation, somehow linked with earthly Seth. Here the

chief opponent is the Creator God of the Old Testament and there
is no mention of Cainites, although in the Apocalypse of Adam we
do find a distinction between Noah, Ham and Japheth and those
of their offspring who remain loyal to the Creator, a group of the
descendants of Ham and Japheth who join the Sethites and are
saved from the wrath of the Creator, and the Sethites proper, the
seed of (heavenly) Seth.72 The Archontics of Epiphanius perhaps
come closest to the views of the ‘Sethians’ of the Nag Hammadi
tractates in that they represent the higher power descending with
the ministering angels of the good God73 and carrying Seth (called
‘the Allogenes’) above, returning him later as spiritual, as superior
to the Creator God, Sabaoth and his powers, and the source of
divine revelation.74
Now the view of earthly Seth as the progenitor of the virtuous
Sethites (identified with the ‘sons of God’ of Gen 6:1), their
battle with the Cainites and survival until the time of the
Saviour, which underlies the heresiological accounts, does not
occur in Western Greek and Latin sources before Julius
Africanus (and Pseudo-Tertullian) in the early third century,75
and the appearance of groups called Sethians with a clearly
developed system centring on Seth and his seed does not seem
attested any earlier. The significance of the Sethians of Hippolytus
and his ‘Paraphrase of Seth’, which does not seem on the surface
to have much to do with the biblical Seth, may thus well be that
they attest that growing interest in Seth and represent a system
akin to that of the Gnostics at the time the latter was in process of
Sethianization.76
On the other hand the evidence of Epiphanius about the
Gnostics, Sethians and Archontics with their collections of
books in the name of Seth and his seven sons, the ‘Allogeneis’,77
and of Theodoret giving the title ‘Sethian’ (along with ‘Ophian’
and ‘Ophite’) to the system in Irenaeus 1.30 (despite the fact
that Seth’s role in it is the very un-Gnostic one of being the
ancestor of the entire human race after Cain),78 does suggest
that by their time Seth was considered a significant figure by
various Gnostic groups. Equally it suggests that Sethian texts
with recognizable and related systems were well-known and were
in use by various circles, not all of whom could be designated
‘Sethian’. What is most significant is that, as Klijn notes, ‘Seth
was clearly introduced into an already existing system .79 And once
again, as we saw in dealing with the ‘Gnostics’, it is a matter of
 The Myth and Its Makers 19

texts and their influence on various groups not slavishly tied

to and identified exclusively with certain texts.
Finally, we must not overlook the evidence of Sevrin for
the existence of an initiatory baptismal rite both actual and
spiritualized, with its corresponding doctrine, in a family of
‘Sethian’ texts he identifies following Schenke. Despite his claim
that this rite and its mythology go back to pre-Christian Jewish
baptismal circles, which we would question, he makes the
significant observations not only (a) that the doctrine combines
a Barbeliote triad with a Sethian vision of history,80 but more
importantly, (b) that the combination of the water of life
imagery with the Barbeliote triad and the five seals in the
Apocryphon and Trimorphic Protennoia might suggest that this
(Barbeliote?) baptism was not Sethian in origin but was only
progressively integrated into a properly Sethian mythology.81
As we shall argue, Sevrin has not seen the full significance of
the prototypical Christian imagery of the anointing and perfec¬
tion of the heavenly Son in Irenaeus 1.29.1, the Apocryphon
and Trimorphic Protennoia, and is too ready to dismiss the
Christian trinitarian character of the Barbeliote triad.82 We will
argue that, ironically, it was the ‘Gnostics’ of Irenaeus who, by
their myth of the primal anointing and perfection of the
heavenly Son, were the first to claim to be Christians precisely
because of that chrism, and who may even have been responsible
for the introduction of postbaptismal anointing into ‘orthodox’
Christianity!83

Conclusion: Gnostics, Sethians and Valentinians

What then are we to make of the various candidates proposed as
makers of the myth underlying Irenaeus 1.29 (and 30) and the
Apocryphon-. Gnostics, Sethians, even Valentinians? We have already
discussed in a preliminary way Petrement’s thesis that the ‘Gnostics’
of Irenaeus and the Apocryphon can best be understood as deriving
their ideas from the Valentinians rather than vice versa, as Irenaeus
seemed to believe. Her trump card is her explanation of the origin
of the theme of the four illuminators, seen by Schenke and other
defenders of the pre-Christian origins of Gnosticism as essentially
Sethian and inexplicable from Christianity, in terms of the figure
and character of thejesus of Ptolemy’s version ofValentinianism,
the star, fruit and flower of the Pleroma.84 Indeed, the key to the
original makers of the myth would appear to lie here, as Petrement
20 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

surmises. So how convincing are the various explanations of the

origin of these key figures?
Schenke argues in his original article that the four illuminators
or aeons represent the heavenly resting places for respectively
Adam, Seth, the primal Sethians (‘ Ur Sethianer), and the historical
Sethians. The enigmatic references of the Apocryphon are solved
for Schenke by synoptic comparison with the Gospel of the Egyptians,
the Apocalypse of Adam, and the Hypostasis of theArchons. This suggests
that the four aeons correspond to four different world periods,
originally the four stars or planets of the (Iranian) world year,
ranked alongside rather than beneath one another, as he thinks
the ‘Sethian’ speculation presents it.85 But Petrement demonstrates
some of the problems and inconsistencies in Schenke’s scheme,
the confusion of transcendent and historical, and the difficulties
of distinguishing the eras of Adam and Seth, or of the sons of Seth
and the souls late in repenting.86
Tardieu, in ajoint article with P.-H. Poirier, criticizes Schenke’s
method but echoes his conclusion about the illuminators with
appeal to Colpe’s attempt to demonstrate Zoroastrian influence:
the four illuminators undoubtedly represent an angelization of
the Zervanite tetrad articulating the days of the month. Thus
Harmozel derives from Ohrmazd-el (= first day); Oroiael from Xwar
(= light/eleventh day); Daueithe from Day (= creator/twenty-third
day), Eleleth from the Aramaic ’illith, corresponding to the female
Zervanite Den, Xrad, Wisdom personified.87 Consequently Tardieu
is led to dismiss Petrement’s hypothesis without discussion,88 but
like Petrement he is unable to fit Eleleth very convincingly into
his explanation, which is entirely dependent on his assumption
that the mythologoumena of Irenaeus 1.29 and the Apocryphon,
such as the four illuminators as abodes of Adamas, etc. derive
from pre-Christian Platonizing Chaldaeans. And like Schenke
he uneasily combines the heavenly archetypes, Adamas and Seth,
with the earthly, heavenly mythology with earthly history.
Furthermore his general appeal to Iranian influences is not on
the face of it more plausible than Petrement’s Valentinian
hypothesis, and is greatly weakened if the crucial passage in the
Apocryphon on the four aeons as abodes of Seth, etc. is a later insert,
as I and Bergmeier would argue.89
If one assumes that Irenaeus’ summary is prior and that the
Apocryphon represents a Sethianization of that more original
scheme, then closer examination reveals that in Irenaeus’ excerpt
Adamas and Christ do not rest in but are removed from the
 The Myth and Its Makers 21

illuminator Armoges (= Harmozel), i.e. elevated above the realm

of the angels (1.29.3, cf. Heb 2:7 and Ps 8:4-6); that the four are
originally and primarily angelic figures, perhaps based on the
archangels of 1 Enoch 9, etc. and not places/aeons, and that, as
their later activity in Irenaeus, the Apocryphon, the Hypostasis of the
Archons and Trimorphic Protennoia suggest, they were originally of
equal rank, with the primary function of revealer/redeemer
figures, attendants of the Autogenes.90 Their soteriological role is
also evident in the fact that it was they who were somehow
responsible for the appearance of Sophia, and thus for the
existence of the Gnostics in this world, and it is in all probability
they who with the Autogenes preside over the Gnostic initiatory
ceremony of chrismation (the five seals) to which Sevrin has drawn
attention.91
It was only in the Sethianization process that they were linked
with and transformed into aeons and a clumsy attempt, echoing
the Valentinian distinction of pneumatics (corresponding to Seth)
and psychics (corresponding to Abel), was made to fit the figure
of heavenly Seth and his seed on the one hand, and the rest of
humanity on the other, into the scheme. This will be demonstrated
in detail when we come to discuss the cosmogony of the myth.
The one remaining issue is therefore Petrement’s ingenious
attempt to derive the four illuminators from the Valentinian Jesus.
Despite her efforts she cannot plausibly derive all the names from
Greek and/or Hebrew or Aramaic from characteristics of the
Saviour; Eleleth defeats her, and the fact that the Valentinian
Saviour is already accompanied by angels akin to him, might weaken
any claim that the Gnostics were led to invent four from his
characteristics.92 The four illuminators seem too deeply rooted in
Gnostic mythology and liturgical practice to be borrowed from
the Valentinians, and once we discount their function as aeonic
abodes for heavenly Adam, Seth and his seed, etc. as a later
Sethianizing interpretation and insertion, then Petrement’s
speculations about their links with the Valentinian aeons Man and
Church, however plausible, become irrelevant.93 She may be
justified in detecting Valentinian influence on the Apocryphon as
we have it, but if my analysis is correct, the Gnostics of Irenaeus
1.29 and 30 antedate both it and the Valentinians, probably even
Valentinus himself.
In conclusion, if neither Tardieu’s Platonizing Chaldaean nor
Petrement’s Valentinian hypothesis seems entirely convincing, the
latter is surely correct to relate the Gnostics of Irenaeus to the
22 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

great creative figures of the early second century, Saturninus and

Basilides associated with Antioch, and Valentinus of Alexandria,
in all likelihood influenced by the Gnostic ideas (and texts?)
Basilides brought there from Antioch. But while Petrement has
plausibly traced the development of Gnosticism in the strict sense
from Saturninus and Basilides, and pointed to the way Basilides
seems to have opened the door to Greek philosophy, particularly
Platonic and Pythagorean, her hypothesis of Valendnian origins
in the case of Irenaeus’ Gnostics has led her to omit the vital
missing link. As we have suggested already, these Gnostics are the
innovators here by their introduction and development of both
the Sophia myth missing in Saturninus and Basilides and the
concepts of the emanation of male and female aeons in syzygy,
and above all by their application of biological and psychological
processes and metaphors to theology and cosmology as well as to
anthropology. That Sophia’s emotions concretize into the
elements of the visible universe and her experiences form the
archetype of those of the Gnostic elect is a fundamental Gnostic
tenet shared with or, as I would argue, copied by the Valentinians.
The world-view of these Gnostics, as with Saturninus, Basilides
and Valentinus, is undoubtedly Platonic. It reflects the attempt to
derive the Many from the One, and to explain the visible universe
as the work of a lower god, the Demiurge, emanated from the
transcendent One beyond being, in terms of the inexplicable self¬
revelation and unfolding of the supreme God as Father, Mother
and Son. Thus it is not far removed from the ideas of Syrian Middle
Platonists of the second century like Numenius of Apamea, but as
the fundamental concept of the self-revelation of the divine triad
suggests> ^ is essentially a Christian scheme. It reflects Christian
ideas and ways of interpreting the Old Testament in the light of
the message of Paul and John, which see the God of the Old
Testament as a blind, ignorant and arrogant Demiurge, and thus
seek to discover the hitherto unknown God beyond God, first
revealed by Christ and his proclamation. And it builds its theogony
not on the basis of Genesis and the prophets, reflecting the work
of and inspired by that Demiurge, but on the basis of Christian
speculation on Christ and Wisdom such as is found in Hebrews,
derived from the Psalms and Wisdom books but interpreted in
the light of contemporary Platonic ideas. Above all it reflects the
experience of salvation through a Christian Gnostic initiation ritual
based on baptism in the name of the Gnostic triad, and unction
(or sealing) patterned on the primal chrismation and perfection
 Notes to pages 1-4 23

of the heavenly Son and promising the eschatological descent of

the Spirit.

Notes

1 Cf. Adv. haer. 1.31.3-4; 2.praef.2.

2 Cf. Petrement, Separate 15-18; R. McL. Wilson, ‘Twenty years after’
in Bare, Colloque61;P. Perkins, ‘Ireneus and the Gnostics’, VC30 (1976),
193-200; R. A. Greer, ‘The dog and the mushrooms: Irenaeus’ view of
the Valentinians assessed’ in Layton, Rediscovery 1.146ff. and discussion.
3 Cf. Wisse, ‘Library’ 213-15, who although recognizing the unity of
1.29-31.2, ascribes it to Irenaeus’ heresiological source, and not to him.
4 Cf. 1.22.2.
51.29.1. That Irenaeus is the author of 1.29-32, against Wisse, has
been convincingly demonstrated by Perkins, ‘Ireneus’.
6 See Rousseau-Doutreleau on 1.29.1 (SC 264 358 n. 1) in SC 263,
296-9. For the term ‘Barbeliote’ to describe them, cf. Sevrin, Dossier 1 If.
Even Turner, despite his focus on Sethianism, speaks of the ‘Barbeliote’
system of Irenaeus 1.29, ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 71 f. I will follow this
convention, but see below.
7 Cf. AJ B 44.14 and par; HA 86.30f.; 94.21L; On the Origin of the World
(C 11,5 = OW) 103.11-13; 107.30L; GEIII 58.25f.; TP43.33-44.2; Second
Treatise of the Great Seth (C VII,2) 53.27-31; 64.17-26; Iren. Adv. haer.
1.5.4 (cf. Hipp. Ref 6.33-Valentinians); Epiph. Pan. 25.2.3 (Gnostics);
Theodore bar Konai Schol. 11 (Ophites).
8 Schenke, ‘Nag Hamadi Studien I: Das literarische Problem des
Apokryphon Johannis’ ZRGG 14 (1962), 60ff., detects a literary seam at
this point in the Apocryphon. Cf. Krause in Foerster, Gnosis 1 lOOff.; A.
Werner, ‘Bemerkungen zu einer Synopse der vier Versionen des
Apokryphon des Johannes’ in Nagel, Studia Coptica 137-46.
9‘Dog’ 170.
10 Cf. Perkins, ‘Ireneus’, esp. 200, where she suggests Irenaeus came
across them among works he got from Valentinians.
11 The tabula capitulorum of the Mss have Gnostics in 30 and Ophites
and Cainites in 31 (Rousseau-Doutreleau 2 17).
12 Die Quellen der aeltesten Ketzergeschichte neu untersucht (Leipzig, 1875),
191-219.
13 Quellen 219.
14 219-20.
15 Separate 352.
16 Cf. Epiph. Pan. 25.2.1 (Gnostics from Nicolaus who revere Barbelo);
26.1.If. (libertine Gnostics); 37.1.If. (Ophites); 38.1.1-2 (Cainites).
17 Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums (Leipzig: Fues, 1884).
18 In his article ‘Gnostiker’ RE VII/2 1534.
19 ‘The Study of Gnosticism’, JTS 36 (1935), 48-51.
 24 Notes to pages 4-10

20 ‘Gnostikoi als haresiologischer Terminus’, 7NW57 (1966), 105-14,

esp. 106f.
21 ‘Terminus’ 109f.
22 Separate 358.
23 ‘Terminus’ 111.
24 Separate 358.
2r> Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios (Vienna, 1865).
” The Histoiy of the Term Gnostikos’ in Layton, Rediscovery 2.796-

27 ‘History’ 799f.
28 800.
29 801.
30 Separate 360f.
31 361.
32 ‘Gnostics and Valentinians in the Church Fathers’, TTSn.s. 40 (1989)
26-47, esp. 26-34.
33 ‘Neglected Texts in the Study of Gnosticism’, JTSn.s. 41 (1990), 26-
50. He would even include the Poimandres, on the basis of the original
non-Christian character of the sect’s beliefs as a ‘diverse amalgam of
older faiths’ (48).
34 For a helpful survey of the uses of gnostikos, see M. Tardieu and J.-D
Dubois, Introduction a la litterature gnostique 1 (Paris: Editions du Cerf/
Editions du CNRS, 1986), 21-9.
30 Separate 361.
361, cf. Rousseau—Doutreleau 1, 311 note on 2, 384 n. 2, dropping

37 362.
38 See n. 36.
^ Cf. e.g. 1.8.3 (SC 264 120.69 de mediis- 121.841 ton meson).
Could Irenaeus allusion imply that he knew more of the system in
1.29 than he summarizes, and that like the Gnostics of Epiph. Pan. 25.2.2,
3.4; 26.10.3-11 and the systems of HA (94.34-96.14) and OW (101.9-
107.1), it too distinguished between an arrogant chief Archon or
Demiurge (usually Ialdabaoth) and a disobedient or ambiguous rival
Archon (Sabaoth or the ‘left hand ruler’)?
4‘ E.g. in 1.23.4; 2.31.1; 3.4.2, 11.2, 12.12; 4.6.4, 33.3.
42 E.g. in 1.11.1; 2.praef. 1 where he distinguishes the Gnostics of 1.29-
31 from the heresiological catalogue of the predecessors of Valentinus
(1.23-28); 2.13.10, 35.2f.; 3.10.4, 11.1; 4.35.1; 5.26.2.
Cf. Separate 357. Casey, ‘Study’ 49, denies the claim of Lipsius (and
Petrement) that ‘Gnostics’ in these contexts can be interpreted as
Valentinians.
44 Separate 363f.
45 Cf. l.praef.2 and Perkins, ‘Ireneus’ 200.
46 Cf. e.g. Iren. 1.21.4; Gospel of Truth (C 1,3) 18 1-11
47 1.29.1.
 Notes to pages 10-16 25

48 1.29.3. This passage may reflect an Aramaic word-play on Eve

(hawwah/Eve-hawwa/\ife:hawwah/'E\e-hawja/mstructov) who awakens
and instructs earthly Adam as in HA 89.11-90.18 and AA 64.6-19. Cf.
M. A. Williams, ‘Variety in Gnostic Perspectives on Gender’, in K. L.
King ed., Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism (SAC 4) (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988), 9f.
49 Edwards, ‘Neglected’ 32ff., while clearly recognizing the Christian
character of the ‘Gnostics’ of Plotinus and Porphyry, yet asserts the
originally non- and pre-Christian nature of A], the Naassene Preaching,
etc. (48).
50 Purely for convenience, in what follows I will designate the successive
versions of the text and the mythologoumena characteristic of them in
terms of the traditional sect names; Barbelognostic, ‘Ophite’ and
‘Sethian’.
51 Separate 370ff.
52 Cf. 1.30.10-11.
53 Separate 387f., 406.
54 Coptic text of B collated with C III with German translation in W. C.
Till, Die gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 (TU
60) (Berlin: Akademie, 1955, 2nd ed. rev. H.-M. Schenke, 1972); Coptic
text of C II, III and IV with German translation in M. Krause and
P. Labib, Die drei Versionen des Apokryphon desJohannes im koptischen Museum
zu Alt-Kairo (ADAIK, Kopt. Reihe 1) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962);
Coptic text, English translation and commentary on II in S. Giversen,
ApocryphonJohannis (ATD 5) (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1963); French
translation and commentary on B, II and III in M. Tardieu, Ecrits
Gnostiques. Codex de Berlin (SGM 1) (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1984). See
also Tardieu and Dubois, Introduction 107-23.
55 Dossier 10.
56 Ecrits 26-45. For earlier, less satisfactory analyses, see Giversen’s
commentary; A. Kragerud, ‘Apocryphon Johannis. En formanalyse’,
NorTT65 (1966), 15-38.; M. Krause in Foerster, Gnosis 1 lOOf.
57 Ecrits 42, 163, 339—40.
58 38-43.
59 35.
60 33.
61 ‘System’ 165f. See Introduction p. xv and n.12 for the list.
62 ‘System’ 166.
63 ‘Phenomenon’ esp. 593—7, 602—7. For a critique, see R. van den
Broek, ‘Present State’ 55f.
64 ‘System’ 169; ‘Phenomenon’ 607, 61 If.
65 ‘Phenomenon’ 612.
66 A. F.J. Klijn, Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature (Supple¬
ments to Mw7"16) (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 28, 117.
67 ‘Phenomenon’ 592f. Cf. Stroumsa, Seed 11-13; Perkins, Gnosticism
21, n. 7.
26 Notes to pages 16-19

68 In Foerster, Gnosis 1 100-3.

69 C. Schmidt, ‘Irenaus und seine Quelle in adv. haer. 1,29’ in Philotesia.
Paul Kleinert zum 70 Geburtstag dargebracht ed. A Harnack et al. (Berlin:
Trowzisch, 1907), 335.
70 ‘Koniglosigkeit als nachvalentinianisches Heilspradikat’ NovT 24
(1982), 316-39, esp. 316-28. See also his Glaube als Gabe nach Johannes
(BWANT 112) (Stuttgart/Berlin/Koln/Mainz, 1980).
71 Cf. Klijn, Seth 81-8.
72 Cf. AA 69.4-76.7. This distinction appears to represent a Sethian
version of the Valentinian threefold division of humanity. Cf. Bergmeier,
‘Koniglosigkeit’ 323; Glaube 186ff.
73 Cf. the role of Autogenes and the four illuminators in AJB 51.9-14
par, of the illuminator Eleleth in HA 92.32-93.13, and the ascent of
Allogenes in Allogenes 58.7-60.12.
74 Epiph. Pan. 40.7.1-3.
10 Cf. Klijn, S^A61f. On Julius Africanus and Seth, see George Syncellus,
Chronographiaed. G. Dindorf (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzandnae)
(Bonn: Weber, 1829), 16-18, 34.
76 The scheme of light, darkness and intermediate spirit reflects the
Gnostic systems of Iren. 1.29 and particularly 30; the concept of the
‘unclean womb’ (Hipp. Ref. 5.19.11-22) recalls the Gnostic (‘Cainite’)
demiurgic Womb (Iren. 1.31.2; cf. Epiph. Pan. 25.5.1-3); Seth occurs as
representing the supreme light (Ref. 5.20.2); and there may even be
some trace of an initiatory baptismal rite (cf. the references to baptism,
cup of living water, and robing in 5.19.22). On the much-vexed issue of
the relation between Hippolytus’ ‘Paraphrase of Seth’ and the Nag
Hammadi Paraphrase of Seem (sic, C VII, 2: Seem is usually identified as
Shem), see Petrement, Separate AW— 6. She points to similarities between
the figure of Seem/Shem in VII,2 and Seth and to the consensus that
the two works are related, as well as the recognition, even among those
arguing for a pre- and non-Christian origin of Paraph. Shem, that behind
the revealer figure Derdekeas lies Christ. Although the claimed
influence of Valentinianism may seem exaggerated, the suggestion
that the work is late and a critical ‘correction’ and deliberate
camouflaging of an earlier, more Christian Sethian source shared by
Hippolytus’ ‘Paraphrase’, polemicizing against Sethians and their
baptismal practice, provides a more plausible explanation of the
relationship than the alternative, which would see Hippolytus’
‘Paraphrase’ as a later Christianization of Paraph. Shem.
77 Cf. Pan. 26.8.1; 39.5.1f.; 40.2.1-2, 7.1-5.
78 Haer. 1.14.
79 Seth 115 (my italics).
80 Dossier 12, 276-9, 292.
81 275f.
82 276.
 Notes to pages 19-21 27

83 See G. W. H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit (London: SPCK, 19672),

120-32. Cf. the crucial evidence of the Naassene Gnostics in Hipp. Ref.
5.7.19; 9.21f. The Valentinian rite of chrism (cf. Iren. 1.21.3-5; Gospel of
Philip (C 11,5 74.12-24; 67.19-30)) may have been adopted from the
Gnostics for whom chrism was crucial.
84 Cf. Iren. 1.2.6., Petrement, Separate 388-96. She would derive
Harmozel from the harmodios/zooi 1.2.6; Oroiael from the beauty (horaios,
in season?) of 1.2.6; Daueithefrom David, i.e. the ‘beloved’ of Valentinus
frag. 6, Gos. Truth 30.31; 40.24f., and Tripartite Tractate (= Tri. Trac. C 1,5)
87.8, and Eleleth from £/in some form, or ‘Paraclete’ in Tri. Trac. 87.8f.
as ‘he who is called to help’, as in HA 92.33-93.13, or, only too aware of
the unsatisfactory character of all the above, from the pluperfect of
lanthano meaning ‘he had been hidden’, as an off-chance hypothesis
(Separate 487)!
85 ‘System’ 166-9.
86 Separate 397ff.
87 ‘Categories du temps dans les ecrits gnostiques non valentiniens’,
LTP37 (1981), 3-13.
88 Ecrits 272f.
89 ‘Koniglosigkeit’ 328.
90 Cf. AJB 51.1-52.1 and par; HA 92.27-94.2; TP 39.13-40.4 and the
Archontics of Epiph. Pan. 40.7.1-2.
91 On the origin of Sophia, cf. Iren. 1.29.4 (Sophia emitted from the
First Angel standing beside Monogenes, i.e. Harmozel/Armoges), GE
III 56.22-57.21 and par (Eleleth apparently responsible for ‘hylic Sophia’
and Saklas), and TP 39.13-32 (Eleleth responsible for the appearance
of Saklas/Ialdabaoth, the offspring of Sophia); on the Autogenes and
the four as linked with the five seals, cf. G£TV 74.9-78.10 and par; TP
47.28-48.35; 49.20-50.20; Zost. 6.7-7.22. On the significance of the five
as on my conjecture related to the sealing with chrism of eyes, ears and
mouth of the initiate, see ch. 2, section 2 and ch. 7, section 3.
92 On the Valentinian angels escortingjesus, cf. Iren. 1.4.5; Clem. Alex.
Exc. ex Theod. 44.1, etc.
93 Separate 397—406.
 2

The Character and History of the Myth

1 The character of the Gnostic myth underlying

Irenaeus 1.29 and 30 and the Apocryphon of John

We may know little about the original makers of the two related
myths of Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.29 and 30 apart from the fact that
Irenaeus appropriately terms them Gnostics and that their ideas
profoundly influenced Valentinianism and supplied the basis for
the present Apocryphon of John. We have suggested that the most
likely location and date for their literary activities is Syrian Antioch
around the second and third decades of the second century ce.
The first thing to note, as we have already remarked, is the Christian
and specifically Christian Platonist character of the myth. If we
dismiss the Schenke thesis of a hypothetical Jewish-Gnostic
‘Sethianism’ and/or sect responsible for it, perhaps related to
Samaritanism, for the reasons outlined above, what of Tardieu’s
suggestion that the original author of the Apocryphonwas a Christian
related to, if critical of, the Johannine school, who rejected
Christian use of the Jewish Torah as either rule and text (Judaeo-
Christians) or text only (other Christians), and employed two types
of sources to achieve this: the Fourth Gospel and material Tardieu
terms ‘Chaldean’?1 The latter, he suggests, without spelling it out
in detail, are revelations written in Greek by Syrians claiming to
be simultaneously disciples of Berossus and Plato, and uniting
Chaldaean astrology and Platonically-inspired philosophy.2
He may be correct in putting forward this kind of influence for
e.g. the addition in the long version of the melothesia describing
the creation of Adam’s psychic body, purportedly taken from a
‘Book of Zoroaster’,3 and the astrological details, zodiac, etc.4 But
as argued above, his suggestion of a similar source for the
cosmogony shared by Irenaeus 1.29.1-4 and the Apocryphon does
not seem entirely plausible or necessary. Why should Christians
in Antioch influenced by the Johannine school and hostile to

29
30 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Judaism appeal to that brand ofJewish-Platonic speculation? It is

the Christian Platonists Saturninus and Basilides of Antioch, with
their virulent anti-Judaism, who develop the kind of theogonical
and cosmogonical speculations which most resemble those of
our Gnostics. However, Tardieu’s allusion to the Fourth Gospel
does seem more convincing. Further comparison with Saturninus
and Basilides brings out both the common Antiochene milieu
and the developing influence of the Gospel of John and the
Johannine community with their hostility to Judaism and concern
for their Christian identity. Yet it is worth pointing out that the
former’s influence is indirect both in the case of Basilides and the
Gnostics of Irenaeus 1.29 and of the Apocryphon: both subordinate
Logos to Nous in their account of the heavenly world, and the
secondary character of the influence of the Johannine Prologue
is even more obvious in the exegesis of it supplied by the
Valentinian Ptolemy.5
On the other hand, the continuing influence of John’s Gospel
on the myth underlying Irenaeus 1.29 in particular seems to
illustrate both certain features of it (e.g. the role of Logos destroy¬
ing the original ternary scheme, the descriptions of Christ and
Autogenes, the light motif) and of the Apocryphon and related and
dependent treatises from Nag Hammadi such as Trimorphic
ProtennoiaP And the concern of the author of the Johannine epistles
with the themes of Christian identity, of chrism and knowledge,
of Christ and counterchrists (i.e. the Antichrist), of the true and
the false spirit,7 uncannily mirrors that of our Gnostics, while
Ignatius of Antioch may be including them among those who claim
to be Christian but abstain from Catholic rites and believe injewish-
type fables.8 Finally, comparison with the christological and
soteriological interests of another Syrian Christian, Tatian, around
the mid second century, and his use and exegesis ofjohn’s Gospel,
proves instructive. Again central are the problems of cosmology
and soteriology: (a) how to understand the relation of God to the
world in terms of prevailing mediatory models (e.g. Sophia, Logos,
Holy Spirit); and (b) how to understand the problem of salvation
- was it by natural endowment or by divine gift?
As I have argued elsewhere,9 the basic Christian character of
the myth underlying Irenaeus 1.29 and the Apocryphon appears
first in its understanding of the supreme triad of Father, Mother
and Son, a theme generally admitted to be fundamental.'0 Like
the Fourth Gospel it identifies God as Spirit, but develops its myth
in terms of the progressive emanation and diversifying descent of
 Character and History of the Myth 31

Spirit understood in different ways on the various levels, on the

analogy of Being in Platonism. Thus the Father is the great Invisible
Spirit, entirely transcendent;11 the Mother is the virginal Spirit
who gives birth to the Son;12 from the first of the four illuminator
angels who surround him is derived the Holy Spirit (or Sophia,
Wisdom) ,13 whose saving activity finds its demonic counterpart in
the final events of world history in the work of a counterfeit spirit.14
It also develops the parallel Johannine theme of light: the Father
the supreme Light, the Son the product of the Mother’s bedazzle-
ment by the Father, a light like him;15 the Son emitting via an
emanation of the Father, Light, the four illuminators to surround
him, the first of these being responsible for the Holy Spirit or
Wisdom.16 Her power of light is transmitted to her abortive
offspring, the Protarchon or Jewish Creator God, by his theft, and
thus via him into this lower created world.17 The other main
theme, besides those of Spirit and light, involves the ontological
character of the basic antithesis between knowledge and obedience
and ignorance and recklessness, reflected in the contrasts between
the archetypal patterns of male initiative combined with female
action over against female initiative without male permission, and
of divine revelation, emanation and appropriate doxological
response over against demiurgical ignorance and hubris.18
The Christian character of the myth is equally evident in the, at
first sight, peculiar episode of the anointing, perfection, and
elevation of the heavenly Son, who thus becomes Christ. This
features in several of the texts related to the Apocryphon,19 but only
Sevrin has glimpsed its importance. Unfortunately, however, he
has limited his discussion to the possible liturgical implications;
he sees the long version as having adapted a purely spiritual unction
to fit the baptismal five seals rite.20 And far from being a sign of
later Christianization, this episode, which appears to have no
precise parallel in pagan or Jewish theology, is central to the
Gnostic’s self-understanding: the experience of Christ is the
archetype of that of the Gnostic, and the various heavenly entities
(Christ, Autogenes, Adamas) are both hypostatizations of the one
figure of the Son, as Petrement has rightly pointed out,21 and of
the Gnostic, who, after initiation into gnosis through baptism in
the name of the triad Father, Mother, Son, is then anointed (the
five seals of the Autogenes and illuminators) and perfected
(Christ), becoming free from all deficiency and a true image of
the Perfect Man (Adamas) .22 We should not forget that it was in
Antioch that the name ‘Christian’ first emerged (Acts 11:26),
32 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

and that second-century ‘orthodox’ Christians like Justin and

Theophilus (of Antiochl) derived the titles ‘Christ’ and ‘Christian’
from their being anointed.23
In a manner strikingly reminiscent of Hebrews 1 and 2 with its
similar idiosyncratic combination of Jewish—Christian and Platonic
ideas, these Christian Gnostics have constructed a myth of primal
Father, Mother and Son as an alternative myth of origins to Genesis
1-5, which for them applied to the later creation of the visible
universe and humanity, the work of an ignorant and arrogant
Demiurge, the God of the Old Testament, and his archons.24 Again,
rather than presuming a borrowing from supposed ‘Chaldaean’
sources for this original theogony and cosmogony, we should
recognize the creative character of the myth and its makers, who
are certainly influenced by Jewish Wisdom speculation like the
Prologue of the Fourth Gospel, but who use that speculation more
cosmologically than christologically. Thus they distinguish Christ
from Barbelo/Sophia and from the Logos, a later addition.20
The Sophia myth, pace Stead, MacRae, and Petrement,26 I would
see as the contribution of the Gnostics of Irenaeus 1.29 and 30
to Valentinus and Christian theology. One significant task of
second- century Christian theology could be said to be to determine
the role and identity of Sophia, Wisdom, in relation to the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit.27 And although MacRae has clearly illustrated
elements of the Gnostic Sophia myth from Jewish Wisdom and
other materials, he has not to my mind convincingly demonstrated
the existence of such a myth in Judaism. It was the Gnostics who
created it.28
Furthermore, these Gnostics, along with those of 1.30, may with
justice be seen as the pioneers in developing an understanding of
God as triadic or trinitarian, perhaps even in immanent as well as
economic terms. What unites the two systems of 29 and 30, besides
the light theme and the Sophia myth, is that both develop
alternative trinitarian schemes. Thus the system in 1.29, probably
mainly under the influence of the female figures of Holy Spirit
and Wisdom ofjewish Christianity,29 but also aware of the specula¬
tions of contemporary Middle Platonists and Neopythagoreans
on the divine hierarchy,30 develops a triad of Father, Mother and
Son, splitting the Mother into a higher and a lower Sophia, the
latter of whom it identifies with the Holy Spirit.
The system in 1.30, on the other hand, whose idiosyncratic
treatment of the figures of First Man and Son of Man (or Ennoia)
uniting with First Woman or Holy Spirit to produce Christ as Third
 Character and History of the Myth 33

Male has baffled commentators,31 can best be interpreted as an

attempt to develop a triad of (male) Father, (male/female) Son
and (female) Spirit, generating Christ as the Only-Begotten Son.
The Father can only reveal himself by self-projection or emanation
as his Thought (Ennoia) and thus his Son: by an intellectual
process of illumination, Father and Son generate Christ by the
Holy Spirit of Gen 1:2. Whereas the system of 1.29 splits the second
person into higher and lower Sophia and identifies the latter with
Holy Spirit and Wisdom, the system of 1.30 splits the third person
and identifies the higher as Spirit, the lower as Wisdom, and
whereas the system of 1.29 identifies Christ as the Son within the
Trinity, the system of 1.30 has Christ as fourth outside the Trinity,
ascending to it.32
This reference to emanation indicates another major char¬
acteristic of the underlying Gnostic myth to which I have already
drawn attention more than once: the pervading influence of
Platonic/Pythagorean ideas, hinted at in Basilides, even more
obvious in Valentinus.33 All three share, according to Irenaeus’
account, a concern with the ineffable, nameless, unoriginate
Father, his self-revelation by a process of emanations, of
which the first or supreme male is Nous and a later is Logos.34
In all, but most obviously in Valentinus, Neopythagorean
speculations about the monad, dyad, tetrad and ogdoad seem
to play some part.35 All three also share the concept of a
progressive descent from being and perfection until we reach
the visible cosmos and humanity, the work of a lower god, a
cross between the Demiurge of Plato’s Timaeus and the Jewish
Creator, and his subordinates, copying the heavenly world in
some fashion.36 But the Gnostics, and even more so Valentinus,
present a much more orderly scheme of emanations in terms
of male-female syzygies and multiples of two than the Basilides
of Irenaeus’ account, which I, with Petrement, would see as
closer to the original than that of Hippolytus.37 Again it would
seem - against Petrement - that the Gnostics were the creative
thinkers here, developing beyond the pioneering efforts of
Basilides and stimulating the more sophisticated and abstract
speculations of Valentinus and his followers. And it is surely
significant that, as Turner has so ably shown, it was from the Sethian
reworking of the Barbelognostic system, and not from the
Valentinian tradition, that the Zostrianos group of tractates
emerged which so profoundly affected Plotinus, Porphyry and the
later Neoplatonists.38
34 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Indeed it could be suggested that the Gnostics were among the

first Christians to be influenced by Platonism, and thus that the
claim of scholars like Schenke, Turner and Pearson to detect a
Platonization of the later Sethian writings like Allogenes, Zostrianos,
the Three Steles of Seth and Marsanes is slightly misleading: the
Gnostics were Platonists from the first! They developed their
Platonism in dialogue with the evolving Platonic tradition, perhaps
even anticipating Neoplatonism in some respects.39
Finally, although the myths of Irenaeus 1.29 and 30 and the
Apocryphon are, as Schenke, Tardieu and Stroumsa argue,
essentially literary and exegetical, developing the proper Gnostic
understanding of the Old Testament and Genesis 1-9 in
particular,40 they cannot be explained purely and simply as
originating from such a process: they are creative, original works
deriving from specific Christian groups with particular rituals.
Schenke and others are right to stress the importance of that
aspect, reflected in the recurring mention in certain texts of the
mysterious ‘five seals’.41 But rather than see such as a ritual deriving
from a supposed Jewish Sethian baptist sect, of which we have no
firm evidence apart from interpretations of the ‘Sethian’ texts, it
is surely more plausible to understand it as emerging out of the
Christian ritual of initiation. The heart of the Gnostic myth would
seem to be the archetypal experience of Christ and of Sophia -
the reception, in one’s alienated state of exile (paroikesis) or
oblivion, of the saving revelation or gnosis through a vision or
experience of the Saviour and his attendant angels. This leads to
repentance (metanoia), illumination (photismos?) and exaltation
to the status of or to union with Christ, the Autogenes or Self-
Begotten, one’s heavenly consort, symbolized by the three stages
of Zostrianos (paroikesis, metanoia, autogenes)42 and the processes of
purification (robing, baptism, enthronement, glorification, final
rapture) leading to the ‘five seals’ (i.e. symbols used in
chrismation) outlined in Trimorphic Protennoia.™
Just as in the case of Valentinus, Elchasai and Mani, whose
distinctive mythologies arose from visionary experiences within a
Christian community setting,44 so we might also conjecture with
regard to the author(s) of the Gnostic systems, particularly of
Irenaeus 1.29 and the Apocryphon. The constant character of the
basic mythologoumena of Father, Mother Barbelo, and Son; of
Christ, Autogenes, and Adamas; of the four illuminators; of Sophia
and her offspring Ialdabaoth/Saklas, and the recurring
doxological pattern of request for revelation, resulting emanation
 Character and History of the Myth 35

and thanksgiving, usually accompanied by references to living

water and the five seals in a liturgical/initiatory context, despite
the variety of interpretations and the different literary genres
involved, surely point to a unified underlying phenomenon, a
community or communities with its appropriate ritual and myth
of origins. For this last we should not so much look to the
continuing influence of hypothetical Platonizing Chaldaean
treatises borrowed from outside, as to inspired internal creation
corresponding to the existential and soteriological experiences,
desires, and needs of the community which originally produced
it, and the communities which continued to use, adapt, and
develop it, including Gnostics, Valentinians and Sethians.
The text of the Apocryphon and of those works most closely related
to it, such as Trimorphic Protennoia and the Gospel of the Egyptians,
suggest a mythology that has evolved over a considerable period
of time, that is used in different ways for different purposes,
apologetic, liturgical, catechetic, but nevertheless one that retains
a certain inner core and coherence, remarkable in the light of the
evidence, both external and internal, of the variety and plasticity
of Gnostic mythology. Schenke’s appeal, in the face of Wisse’s
criticisms of the ‘Sethian unicorn’, to the evidence of a central
concern with an initiatory rite of baptism in these texts, confirmed
by Sevrin’s researches, is surely justified. How else is one to explain
the tendency in evidently later texts not to replace such figures
but to reduplicate them and add to them; they are fundamental,
not just as individuals but as part of a central ‘classic’ myth.

2 The history of the Gnostic myth

That last point brings us to the final and perhaps most speculative
section in our discussion of the myth, its makers, and character:
namely an attempt to suggest how the myth underlying Irenaeus
1.29 and the Apocryphon, as well as the closely related one in
Irenaeus 1.30, might have evolved.45 We have attempted to
highlight the influence of Christian ideas such as those found in
Paul and the Pauline tradition, John and his community, and
especially Hebrews, a theme that will be developed further in what
follows. We have also noted the importance of exegesis, especially
of Genesis 1-9 and of Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian
speculation about Wisdom, Spirit, and Logos. We have also
suggested evidence of a process of ‘Sethianization’, in some way
related to Valentinian ideas and probably reflecting the Gnostic
36 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

response to ‘orthodox’ criticism of the novelty of their beliefs,

and have drawn attention to the continuing influence of and
dialogue with the Platonic tradition as it evolves from Middle to
Neoplatonism. Finally we have noted the significance of ritual
liturgical elements and practices, apparently centring around
initiation into gnosis (baptism and five seals), which are only hinted
at in the Apocryphon but which are more marked and more
spiritualized in certain (most likely later) texts such as the Gospel
of the Egyptians and Zostrianos.
Perhaps the boldest and most detailed attempt to sketch how
the ‘Sethian’ Gnosticism of Schenke’s group of texts might have
developed is Turner’s recent essay.46 In it he first draws attention
to the same major factors I have outlined above (Hellenistic^Jewish
speculation on Sophia; midrashic interpretation of Genesis 1-6;
doctrine and practice of baptism; the developing Christology of
the early Church; religiously orientated Neopythagoreanism
and Middle Platonism).47 But he presupposes and begins with
the Schenke thesis of Sethianism as a pre-Christian religious
phenomenon, the product of a Jewish baptismal sect of the first
centuries bce and ce, encapsulating the sacred history of the seed
of (heavenly) Seth and deriving from a peculiar exegesis of Genesis
1-6. This sect was then successively Christianized and Platonized.48
Turner sees Sethianism as having interacted with Christianity
in five phases: (1) as a non-Christian baptismal sect given primor¬
dial divine wisdom via Adam and Seth and expecting a final saving
visitation of Seth; (2) as gradually Christianized from the later
first century on by the identification of pre-existent Christ with
Seth or Adam; (3) as increasingly estranged from a Christianity
becoming more orthodox towards the end of the second century;
(4) as rejected by the Great Church but increasingly attracted to
the individualistic contemplative practices of third-century
Platonism; and (5) as estranged from orthodox Platonists of the
late third century, and increasingly fragmented into derivative and
other sectarian and gnostic groups.49
I can accept Turner’s stages (3) to (5), but, as regards (1) and
(2), as Klijn has demonstrated and I have already argued, not only
is there almost no evidence of interest in Seth as an earthly, let
alone heavenly, figure in Jewish circles in the relevant period
(including what little we know of contemporary baptist groups)
and nothing much in ‘orthodox’ Christian groups before the
third century, but Turner’s ingenious reconstruction does not
explain why Seth should be the heavenly redeemer; why not
 Character and History of the Myth 37

simply Adam? Further, it elides the vital distinction between

heavenly and earthly Seth, and fails to do justice to the texts which
Schenke and others want to claim as Sethian, but which un¬
fortunately do not actually mention Seth and his seed at all (e.g.
Hypostasis of the Archons, Trimorphic Protennoia and even Apocalypse
of Adam), or in which, as I and others argue, Seth and his seed are
a later addition which cuts across the underlying pattern of
revelation and salvation.50 Why, too, should the non-Christian
Sethians, if they existed, have wished to Christianize their beliefs?
Why not, like the Mandaeans, reject Christianity, its doctrines and
practices, in particular its baptismal practices? As Petrement has
argued, it seems much simpler to account for the antijudaism,
the hostility to the Old Testament Demiurge and his archons as
ignorant world creators, the interest in heavenly Man and Son of
Man, Adamas and Seth, and the centrality of Christ as heavenly
figure obviously identified with the Illuminator and persecuted
on his third parousia, despite efforts to suggest otherwise, by
presupposing Christian influence.31
From the perspective of the likely existence of a Sethian
baptismal rite of initiation (the five seals) Sevrin, too, while
accepting the centrality of both Sethian and Barbeliote elements
in the Apocryphon, but seeing the former as progressively integrating
the latter’s rite and doctrine of baptism into its later scheme, still
refuses to accept that the rite and doctrine could be of Christian
origin. He insists that this Barbeliote and Sethian baptism cannot
be considered Christian in its stock elements or origin, but he
does allow it might have come into being after Christianity.32 On
the basis of his analysis he finds that the Apocryphon represents the
oldest tradition, and the Apocalypse of Adam the oldest Sethian
document. Trimorphic Protennoia he sees as developing from the
data of the Apocryphon, particularly its Pronoia hymn, and echoing
a liturgical formula from the latter. This process culminates in
the Gospel of the Egyptians on the Sethian side; it also integrates the
baptismal traditions of Zostrianos. The latter must be considered a
late form (although it contains baptismal traditions prior to the
Gospel of the Egyptians). The only direct dependence he finds is
that of the Untitled Treatise in the Bruce Codex on Zostrianos.
Melchisedek appears to be a Christian work employing a hymnic/
liturgical tradition combining the Barbeliote and Sethian
elements.35
This sketch of course only applies to the liturgical material and
not to the doctrinal relationships which are our primary concern,
38 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

but it does once again confirm the priority of the Apocryphon and
from a different perspective, offering a most promising insight
into the character and unity of the ‘Sethian’ text group. It does
help to explain the way certain mythologoumena and liturgical
patterns keep on recurring, and may thus assist in any proposed
reconstruction of the underlying myth and its evolution. The unity
in diversity may be found more in practice than in doctrine, just
as conversely the differences between texts which appear to be
close doctrinally (e.g. On the Origin of the World, Hypostasis of the
Archons and Apocalypse of Adam) may derive from differences in
practice.54
Finally we might note a most significant suggestion made by
Sevrin in a footnote which would tend to confirm my claim that
the myth underlying the doctrine and practice of the Gnostics of
Irenaeus 1.29 and the Apocryphon represents an increasingly
elaborate development and reduplication of the experiences of
the Gnostic elect as expressed archetypically in those of Christ
(his heavenly virgin birth, anointing, perfection and elevation)
and Sophia (her exile, repentance, affusion and elevation). His
suggestion is that the formula applied in the Apocryphon to those
who persisted and finally repented and are placed in the fourth
aeon of Eleleth might indicate the origin of the stages of paroikesis
and metanoia in Zostrianos.55
Sevrin’s analysis is undoubtedly penetrating and suggestive but
he may be too hasty in rejecting a possible Christian origin for the
baptismal rite of his ‘Barbeliote/Sethian’ texts. He has seen and
demonstrated the secondary character of the Sethian material,
but is still too much under the spell of Schenke, Tardieu and
Poirier and their explanation of the four illuminators/aeons as
four stages of Sethian salvation history, and has been unable to
grasp the full significance of the unction of the Son in the
Apocryphon, Trimorphic Protennoia and the Gospel of the Egyptians,
and the link of the Autogenes and the four illuminators with the
initiation rite of the five seals.
Sevrin argues that the five seals rite probably involved a five¬
fold affusion (in the name of the Autogenes),56 rather than
unction, but an alternative interpretation of the evidence based
on the similar phenomenon among the Marcosians and
Naassene (and Ophite) Gnostics would seem more satisfactory.
G. W. H. Lampe has argued that it was Christian Gnostics
such as the Marcosians who first attest post-baptismal unction
with chrism and that it is to this that the term ‘seal’ is mostly
 Character and History of the Myth 39

attached.57 Quispel too has plausibly interpreted the enigmatic

epitaph of Flavia Sophe with its mention of Sophe ‘anointed
(chrio), with incorruptible holy ointment (myron) from the
baths (loutron) of Christ’ (see plate 2) as deriving from the
Italian Heracleonite school of Valentinus, who Quispel claims
derived his theology of baptism from the ‘Ophite’ Gnostics.08 If
we then ask why this practice should have developed, I
would point to the centrality of the heavenly anointing/
perfection of Christ motif among the Barbeloite (including
Naassene) Gnostics.59 The evidence suggests that they practised a
threefold baptismal affusion in the name of Father, Mother and
Son followed by chrismation (of eyes, ears and mouth using some
mystic sign = the five seals?) in the name of the Autogenes and
four illuminators.60 The last hypothesis reflects the fundamental
role of Christ/chrism and the illuminators in the myth, offers some
explanation of the number and nature of seals, and perhaps even
finds some support in the - admittedly - exceedingly obscure
language of the hymnic passage at the end of the Gospel of the
Egyptians and the ending of the Apocalypse of Adam. The former
seemingly has the baptized initiate refer to sight, understanding
and proclamation of the Father, Mother and Son, as well as to
chrism mixed with water,61 while the latter refers to Adam’s hidden
knowledge as the holy baptism of those who have eternal
knowledge through those born of the Word (Logos) and the
illuminators.62
How then did the Christian Gnostic myth underlying Irenaeus
1.29 (and 30) and the Apocryphon, as reflected in both doctrine
and ritual practice, develop? In attempting to answer this question
we shall have to consider where, when and how the major elements,
theologoumena and factors came together: the triad of Father,
Mother and Son and the Son’s anointing as Christ; the emanation
of the Father’s attributes in male/female syzygies; the appearance
of the four illuminators, of Autogenes and Adamas, and finally
the origin of Sophia and her fall, which gave rise to the ignorant
and arrogant Demiurge, Ialdabaoth, the Creator God of the Old
Testament and Judaism, as unwitting vehicle of the divine light-
power present in the Gnostics and requiring to be awakened and
rescued by divine revelation and sacramental initiation. Where
can we find such a combination of revolutionary - if modified -
anti-Judaism and anti-cosmicism; a Sophia myth involving theogony
and cosmogony rather than Christology; a Platonically-inspired
understanding of the hierarchical levels of being and of the descent
Apocryphon of John, Berlin Coptic Codex (Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 = B).
Courtesy of Staatliche Museen zu Berllin-Preussischer Kulturbesitz Agyptisches Museum
und Papyrussammlung, Budestr. 1-3, 10178 Berlin.
 Character and History of the Myth 41

and ascent of the divine soul or spark; a soteriology which centres

in the revelation to the elect of a hitherto Unknown God through
his Son, identified as the pre-existent Christ; and a sacramental
initiation apparently involving baptism and chrismation?
There may be elements of this in the fragmentary and possibly
distorted picture given by Irenaeus’ heresiological catalogue of
the figures of Simon Magus and Menander (anti-Judaism; anti-
cosmicism; Ennoia figure analogous to Barbelo/Sophia; revela¬
tion of Unknown God), but Petrement is surely right to derive
the beginnings of this kind of Gnosticism from the figures of
Saturninus and Basilides.63 Both are associated with the
cosmopolitan city of Antioch where contemporary Christians
were struggling to define their identity in the face of powerful
Jewish and pagan currents.64 And as Layton points out,
Saturninus gives perhaps the nearest approximation to a full
telling of the Christian Gnostic myth besides the Apocryphon
and the Gospel of the Egyptians,65 In Saturninus we find, appar¬
ently for the first time, such Gnostic elements as a marked
anti-Judaism and and-cosmicism (hostility to the God of the
Jews as one of the seven angels who created the world and
humanity; ascetic rejection of procreation, etc.); the descent/
ascent of a divine spark in the context of a Platonic cosmology
and anthropology fused with reinterpretation of Genesis 1-9
(the human body made by the seven angels in the divine image,
animated by a heavenly spark attracted down into it, the various
elements finally restored to their original states); a docedc
Christology (Christ sent by the Father to destroy the Jewish God
and the evil section of humanity, appearing like a man to save
those who believe in him); a critical reading or reverse exegesis
of the Jewish scriptures (Gen l:26f. applied to the creator
angels; the Old Testament prophecies divided between them and
Satan) .66
What is missing (possibly because of the compression of the
heresiological account)67 is any explanation of how every¬
thing originated, i.e. the characteristic speculations of the
Apocryphon on the One and his emergence, and above all of
anything corresponding to the Sophia myth of the Gnostics and
Valentinians. What is striking about their use of it is that it both
derives the Demiurge and the visible cosmos from the emotions
and passions of the lower Sophia, and gives the Demiurge a more
positive role as transmitter of the divine and creator of the visible
universe as the necessary theatre for the salvation of the elect. In
42 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Saturninus the basic mythology appears to involve a heavenly figure

(whether male or female is unclear) being spied and copied by
the seven angels.68
On the other hand, although we find reference in the Basilides
of Irenaeus to Sophia as one of a series of hypostatized attributes
of the Father, responsible with Dynamis for the ensuing emanated
worlds,69 there is no logical scheme of progression echoing
philosophical ideas or developed Sophia myth as with the Gnostic,s
and Valentinians. So I would argue that it is with the Gnostics of
Irenaeus that we must begin, as a Christian group reacting to Jewish
(and ‘orthodox’ Christian?) rejection of them and their claims,
with a characteristic form of initiation based on their own
experiences or (more likely) those of the creative genius respon¬
sible for their myth. Despite the lack of evidence we could plausibly
infer the existence of similar initiatory rites for the Saturninians
and Basilidians as visible sectarian groups identified by the
heresiologists from Justin onwards.70
I have attempted to sketch the original form of the Gnostic
myth elsewhere,71 and have noted the major elements above: the
supreme triad of Father, Mother and Son and the last’s heavenly
chrismation; the characteristic development of the themes of Spirit
and light in terms of two levels, the celestial and terrestrial, linked
by a descending series of emanations; the use of the figure of
Sophia as split into a higher (Barbelo) and lower (Holy Spirit),
like the Numenian Demiurge or two aspects of the Platonic World
Soul, and developed cosmologically (as in Proverbs 8 and Wisdom
of Solomon 7) rather than christologically (as in Hebrews 1 and
the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel); the fundamental similarity
with and likely influence of Hebrews 1-2 and its proof texts from
the Psalms and Wisdom literature, its understanding of the Son in
relation to the angels, as well as the growing influence of the Fourth
Gospel and the Prologue in particular, which has led to a distortion
of the original ternary structure of the myth by the introduction
of the Logos and Autogenes figures. Thus the original myth must
probably be dated as roughly contemporary with those of
Saturninus and Basilides and just prior to that of Valentinus, who
echoes its view of Adam as the creation of angels,72 and who, as I
have argued above, was very probably influenced by it.
In all likelihood this myth must have included more than the
summary in Irenaeus 1.29. If on the basis of the prototypical
experiences of Christ and Sophia we presume a form of initiation
involving invocation of the Son, Christ (with Father and Mother
 Character and History of the Myth 43

and with Adamas as the prototype heavenly Man), and the

imparting of the saving gnosis to the initiates who have seen the
light, repented of their blindness, renounced the world and
undergone baptism and chrismation, then this presupposes and
requires a developed myth which could account for past, present
and future. Such a myth would include an account of origins, an
explanation of the present paradox of the Gnostic as possessing
divine power yet needing illumination and salvation from the
ignorant and evil rulers of this world (i.e. a Gnostic history of
salvation involving reinterpretation of Genesis), as saved by
initiation yet still awaiting future perfection (i.e a realized but
also futurist eschatology).
Now there are hints even in Irenaeus’ condensed summary
in 1.29 of further developments beyond cosmogony. Thus
there is the blasphemy of the Demiurge as the natural transition
to a likely response from heaven; creation of earthly Adam and
hence Genesis reinterpretation as in 1.30 and the Apocryphon,
etc.; the title ‘Soter’ for Armoges (Harmozel); the elevation of
Christ/Light and Adamas from the angelic realm of Armoges;
the mysterious and neglected figure of Tree/Knowledge; as
well as the underlying soteriological structure I have isolated
(the prototypical experiences of Christ and Sophia). All these
point to a further necessary development of anthropogony,
soteriology and eschatology, probably along the lines suggested
by the continuation in the allied myth in 1.30, and in the
Apocryphon. Certainly the Autogenes and the four illuminators
do have a significant saving role in the Apocryphon in persuad¬
ing Ialdabaoth to breathe his stolen light-power into the inert
Adam.73 It may be that the lack of a clear consort for the Sophia
of the more original form of the Apocryphon, as compared to the
version in 1.30, much more like the Valentinian Achamoth as
sister of Christ, might have persuaded Irenaeus to take only the
theogony and cosmogony of his version of the Apocryphon in 1.29
(a1), and use 1.30 for the remaining composite material. Thus
while the theogony and cosmogony of 1.29 is much more akin to
the Valentinian system Irenaeus is attempting to refute, in the
case of anthropogony and soteriology the myth of 1.30 is more
germane. He probably included the theogony and cosmogony of
1.30 because of the relevance of the speculations about Man, Son
of Man, and Church, and Sophia split into higher and lower, with
Christ the son of the higher and brother of the lower being caught
up into heaven.74
44 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

But our hypothetical (a1) redaction of the Apocryphon probably

did not yet possess its present frame story or its developed negative
theology, and certainly not the Pronoia-Epinoia scheme, Pronoia
hymn of the long recension or Sethian material. On the other
hand it almost certainly had its triple ternary' structure, as analysed
by Tardieu, as a revelation treatise expounding the triad of Father,
Mother and Son in terms of past (myth of origins), present
(Genesis reinterpretation and history of salvation as in Irenaeus
1.30), and future (destiny of souls). Our hypothetical document
would thus contain the whole myth and resemble the source from
which Irenaeus took his excerpt, probably developing the roles of
the Tree/Knowledge, of Harmozel as Saviour and of the Son,
Christ, and presenting Sophia as an active revealer/redeemer.71
Again this redaction may not yet have had the mythologoumenon
of Ialdabaoth and the seven creator archons.76 It would certainly
not have contained the passage on the four aeons as abodes of
Adamas, Seth and his seed,77 nor that on the dispatch of the Epinoia
of light as helper which Tardieu includes in his original redaction
(n).78
Since it would only make sense for Gnostics claiming to be
Christians and evidently influenced by the Fourth Gospel and its
community to compose a pseudepigraphical work in the name of
John, son of Zebedee, when that Gospel had come to be accepted
in the Great Church, i.e. by the time of Irenaeus and Theophilus,
the next stage (a2) of adding the frame story, expanding the
negative theology section, developing the Pronoia-Epinoia scheme
with its final Pronoia hymn, and converting the revelation treatise
into a dialogue between the risen Saviour and John, must date
from that period (last quarter of the second century). The
Naassene Psalm, with its reference to the Saviour’s revelatory
descent with seals to impart awaking gnosis, in all likelihood reflects
that Pronoia hymn, as Tardieu claims.79 Sophia becomes down¬
graded and relieved of her soteriological functions, and we can
also probably ascribe to this redaction the development of the
Ialdabaoth-Saklas-Samael material, the seven archons and twelve
powers, which appears to combine traditions from the system of
Irenaeus 1.30 which are developed in the Hypostasis of the Archons.
The latter seems to presuppose a Barbelognostic theogony and
cosmogony but concentrates on and develops other traditions
about its main subject, the archons.80 That its interpretation of
Genesis 2-6 is closer to the Septuagint and betrays the influence
of Jewish midrashic material and Aramaic wordplays might
 Character and History of the Myth 45

suggest a date in the mid second century and acquaintance with

Jewish or Jewish-Christian circles and concerns. But it ultimately
seems dependent on the scheme underlying the Apocryphon, as it
in turn preserves material further developed by On the Origin of the
World.*'
The latter, as Perkins has so ably demonstrated, is best seen as a
coherent reinterpretation of the Gnostic cosmological traditions
of the Apocryphon, the Hypostasis and the ‘Ophites’ in terms of the
philosophical terminology and debates of the time, in order to
defend the author’s views against popular Middle Platonic and
Stoic alternatives.82 Thus Perkins is led to date the work to
somewhere around 175 ce.83
Despite its fragmentary nature, the very brief untitled piece (C
IX,2) dubbed The Thought ofNoreaby the American editors, reveals
enough similarity with the figures and themes of Barbelognostic
theogony, cosmogony and anthropology to link it both with the
Apocryphon and the Hypostasis (Norea herself representing both
higher and lower Sophia as Turner acutely observes;84 Father of
the All, Adamas, Nous, Light, Logos, Autogenes, Epinoia, the four
holy helpers (i.e. the four illuminators)). The prominence of
Norea in the latter may even have inspired the work, as Turner
suggests,85 and the experience of Norea/Sophia (cry to heaven,
response, rest in the Autogenes as self-generated, help from the
four) echoes the prototypical soteriological pattern I have
identified in the Apocryphon and related texts.86 A date from around
the end of the second century seems likely.87
It is only at this stage (beginning of the third century) that one
can envisage the reworking of (a2) (= Tardieu’s (n1)) into (a3), a
‘Sethian’ reinterpretation of the myth provoked by ‘orthodox’
Christian criticism of novelty: the Gnostics appealed to and
developed the myth of the Seth of Gen 4:25f. as ‘another seed
(sperma), the son of Man/Adamas and heavenly progenitor of their
race, the ‘kingless’ or ‘immovable race’.88 This would account for
salvation in the past and suggest a continuity of revelation. To
accommodate this, the four illuminator figures were transformed
into spatial aeons and the history of salvation was partitioned (not
very successfully!) into four periods. This rather predestinationist
approach, as we shall see, cuts across or ignores the earlier scheme
of salvation for various souls of redaction (a2) and reflects the
Valentinian concept of the ‘seed’ and distinction between the
pneumatics and the psychics.89 The redactor of (a ) also probably
added the further Genesis reinterpretation (chs 5-9) which
46 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

reflects Sethian themes90 and perhaps an excerpt on the creation

of psychic Adam from a certain ‘Book of Zoroaster’.91 We can
perhaps place the short recension (s) at this point. Its redactor
may not have had the material from the ‘Book of Zoroaster’ and
omitted the Pronoia hymn because of its length or because it was
difficult to reconcile it with the roles of the Saviour or the Mother.92
But the Apocryphon with the Pronoia hymn undoubtedly under¬
lies and structures Trimorphic Protennoia,93 which may be roughly
contemporary with the (a3) recension of the Apocryphon but which,
intriguingly, seems unaware of the Sethian material. Thus it seems
to mark a fascinating moment of transition in that it presupposes
and develops the Barbelognostic theogony, cosmogony and
soteriology (the triad Father, Mother and Son; Christ identified
with Autogenes; the four illuminators and servants, baptizers, etc.;
and the five seals), identifies Sophia with the Epinoia of light as a
passive figure,94 assigns aeons to the four illuminators but does
not structure them hierarchically or temporally as abodes of
Adamas, Seth and his seed:95 all these are conspicuously absent
from this supposedly ‘Sethian’ work. Turner’s detailed literary
analysis, although sophisticated and ingenious,96 is vitiated by his
assumptions that this work is Sethian, that the Sethians were a
pre-Christian breakaway Jewish sect, and that one of their
fundamental ideas was a tripartition of history involving the triple
descent scheme of a saviour figure.97
It seems simpler to assume that the redactor(s) of Trimorphic
Protennoia knew the (a2) version of the Apocryphon with the
Pronoia hymn, and developed the pattern of the three inter¬
ventions/rebukes/descents of the female saviour figure as
respectively Voice (Father), Sound (Mother) and Word (Son).98
The glosses we find added to Barbelo in the (a2) version (e.g.
‘primordial Man’, ‘triple male’, ‘with three powers, three
names’, etc.)99 form the basis of an expansion of the former’s
doctrine into the three main sections of the work and conclud¬
ing revelation. That the redactors developed an already existing
myth involving cosmogony, eschatology and soteriology, adding
aretalogies, etc., seems more likely than Turner’s supposition that
they expanded the original Pronoia hymn by aretalogies and
added doctrinal passages to them.1 The reve'aler figure Protennoia
is obviously an extrapolation of Barbelo/Pronoia. For similar,
related aretalogies one could compare passages in On the Origin of
the World,1 the ‘Gospel of Eve’ of Epiphanius’ Gnostics,3 and
Thunder: Perfect Mind.4
 Character and History of the Myth 47

One might find Turner’s redaction theory of the Protennoia

overelaborate and flawed by its Sethian presuppositions, and be
led to reject his claim of secondary Christianization, but his
interpretation of the third subtractate as a polemic, in the light of
John’s Gospel and the Prologue in particular, against certain non-
Gnostic understandings of Christ is attractive and persuasive.5 Yet
here again one must reject his claim that this was part of an explicit
Christianization: the mythology underlying the work is, as I have
argued, at bottom of Christian origin.6 The echoes of the Fourth
Gospel derive from some awareness of it and reinterpretation of
it in a Gnostic context.7 Such a reinterpretation might well have
been suggested by the reworking of the Apocryphon as a dialogue
between the risen Christ (who appears in three forms!) and John
about past, present and future. The final reference to the
Protennoia placing her seed in the holy light in silence may mark
the beginnings of Sethianization.8
For it is precisely in this period early in the third century that
we find emerging an interest in Seth as Christ and his pure seed
in the Sethoites of Pseudo-Tertullian,9 and an identification by
Julius Africanus of the ‘sons of God’ of Gen 6:1 as the righteous
descended from him (genealogoumenoi) until the time of the
Saviour.10 Further, around the middle of the century Mani knows
and quotes from an ‘Apocalypse of Sethel’ (i.e. Seth), in which
Seth is transformed into an angelic being, transported to heaven
and receives revelations of the greatest mysteries.11 The middle of
the third century also seems a likely date for the long recension of
the Apocryphon (1), the work of a harmonizer, Tardieu’s (n2) .12
Despite the efforts of the original editors and others to date it
earlier,13 the Apocalypse of Adam also seems to derive from early in
the third century. For although Sevrin considers it the earliest of
the Sethian tractates proper because of its lapidary formulae and
somewhat oblique association of the baptized with the seed of
Seth,14 it does presuppose a developed version of the cosmogony
of the Apocryphon, and introduces mythologoumena without
explanation precisely as already known traditional material.1 But
there seems no need to posit two sources in the way Hedrick does,
one (A) a Jewish—Gnostic apocalypse marking the transition from
Judaism to Gnosticism, the other (B) more clearly Gnostic, non-
Christian, less Jewish, both redacted before 150.lb Besides the
criticisms of Perkins and Sevrin which suggest that Hedrick’s
analysis separates elements which belong together, there is the
fact that both sources presuppose the same Sethian form of the
48 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Gnostic myth.18 What Hedrick’s analysis does bring out is the -

not entirely successful - attempt to combine a soteriological
scheme of archontic move and angelic countermove (A) with a
triple descent of the Phoster/Illuminator scheme (B).19
Further, Sevrin’s arguments for seeing the figure of the Phoster/
Illuminator in its context as a Christian feature, and for the work
as a post-Christian, Christian-Gnostic text, seem more persuasive
than the attempts to deny that the Apocalypse has undergone any
Christian influence.20 But I part company from Sevrin over his
interpretation of the Phoster as Seth as being non-Christian, and
of the Apocalypse as superficially Christianized, on the basis of my
analysis of the Barbeloite-Sethian myth. Perkins has rightly drawn
attention to the literary character of the work as not a Gnostic
Shorter Catechism (against Beltz)21 or as imparting any dogma at
all (against Schottroff) ,22 but an ironic polemic using existing
Jewish literary models (testament and apocalypse) to attack the
Creator God of Jews (and Christians!) and reinforce the solidarity
and identity of the Gnostic community.2,1
Here surely lies the key to understanding the work. Under the
growing influence of Seth traditions in Christianity at this period,
the Apocalypse has used the figures of Adam and Seth, the traditions
surrounding them and the literary forms of apocalypse and
testament familiar to both Jews and Christians, to defend and justify
the particular mythology and baptismal doctrine propounded by
its Christian Sethian Gnostic group. Thus Christ, the Phoster, has
continually preserved that Sethian group throughout history
against the continual attacks of the Jewish (and Christian) Creator
God and his powers (triple descent scheme), and brought the
saving knowledge and the true understanding and practice of water
baptism, defiled by non-Gnostic Christians, whose belief and
practice remain under the tyrannous sway of Saklas and his
subordinates.24 The utilization of old Jewish haggadic traditions
and the conventions of pseudepigraphical authorship (Adam’s
knowledge should not be too accurate!) have combined to conceal
the true Christian Gnostic character and late dating of what is a
sophisticated piece.25
Finally, as regards the dating, there is also some evidence to
suggest the work is post-Valentinian. That the descendants of Ham
and Japheth can participate in a kind of salvation alongside the
elect seed of Seth surely recalls the Valentinian distinction between
the psychics (the seed of Abel) and the pneumatics (the seed of
Seth) .26 And Bergmeier would argue for the actual dependence
 Character and History of the Myth 49

of the Apocalypse on Valentinian ideas on the basis of the former’s

designation of the elect seed as the ‘kingless race’.27 This
designation, he argues, only makes sense in the light of Valentinian
soteriology and eschatology: the Valentinians entitle the Demiurge
‘King’,28 and ‘kinglessness’, meaning perfect salvation in the
Pleroma as transcendence over the sphere of the Demiurge, is
only possible and comprehensible in the post-Valentinian period,
as among the Naassenes29 and in On the Origin of the World.™ Indeed,
on the basis of his analysis Bergmeier would link together as equally
influenced by Valentinianism the Naassene Preaching, the Gospel
of the Egyptians, the Apocryphon and the Paraphrase of ShemP'
Of these the Naassene Preaching and Psalm very probably
represents a learned commentary on some of the basic themes of
the Barbelognostic scheme (e.g. the designation ‘Gnostic’;
heavenly Adamas; Man and Son of Man; threefold division of
reality; the fiery Demiurge, framer of the material creation; the
inner man fallen into ‘the creature of oblivion’; the animation of
inert Adam made in the image of Adamas but created by several
powers; the soul as a fetter; the seed; the ‘kingless race’; salvation
by baptism and chrism; Jesus’ descent with the seals to impart
saving gnosis, etc.).32 The same might be said of On the Origin of the
World (heavenly image/Man and earthly copy (‘seduction of the
archons’); role of Pistis Sophia; Ialdabaoth and the seven; Adam
and Eve episode, etc.).33 But the Paraphrase of Shem, if related in
some way to Hippolytus’ ‘Paraphrase of Seth’, probably as a later
‘corrective’, and another contemporary piece of anti-baptismal
polemic like the Apocalypse of Adam,34 seems too lacking in
characteristic features, doctrinal and liturgical, to locate with any
degree of certainty in relation to the ‘classic myth’.35
Then there is the Gospel of the Egyptians. The editors of the critical
edition suggest a date of composition in the second or third
century,36 while Turner places it in the second half of the second
century since it seems to presuppose the existence of the extant
versions of the Apocryphon and Protennoia which he sets before 150.37
This work is clearly and unambiguously Sethian, a ‘mythological
history of the salvation of the Sethians’ according to Sevrin.38 The
first part (III 40.12-55.16/IV 50.1-67.1) expounds the Barbeloite-
Sethian theogony and cosmogony in detail with many new figures
as well as some merely alluded to in the Apocalypse of Adam and the
Protennoia.39 The second (III 55.16-64.9/IV 67.2-75.24) relates
the work of heavenly Seth in producing, protecting and saving his
race, while the third section (III 64.9-68.1/IV 75.24-80.15)
50 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

develops liturgical material pertaining to baptism. There is a final

conclusion (III 68.1-69.5/IV 80.15-81.2).40
Turner in his illuminating discussion develops Schenke’s claim
that the third part marks the climax and that the whole work has
thus to be understood as the mythological justification of a well-
defined baptismal ritual.41 Turner sees the first part as built almost
entirely on the five doxologies which enumerate the origins of
the principal figures (Invisible Spirit, Barbelo, Triple male child,
Youel (a double of Barbelo), Esephech (a double of the Triple
male child), the Doxomedon aeon containing the last three), and
suggests that the redactor has here combined the Barbelognostic
triad with fhe Sethian baptismal pentad.42 The redactor also
appears to be dependent on the version of the Sophia myth found
in the Protennoia, which seems to make Eleleth responsible for
Sophia and the created order. Further, the three parousias of Seth
in the treatise seem to show awareness of the scheme in the
Apocalypse of Adam.43
In his equally valuable and detailed analysis of the liturgical
elements, Sevrin also sees the work as a key text uniting traditional
Barbeloite and Sethian mythological and liturgical material in a
syncretistic and harmonizing manner, which thereby betrays its
late date.44 From his examination of a list of saving powers,
including the four illuminators now explicitly the abodes of
Adamas, etc.,45 Sevrin deduces that it is a baptismal list reworked
to harmonize the vocabulary and doctrine of the Gospel of the
Egyptians with the Sethian myth, and that it represents a kind of
profession of gnosis as a first stage of the rite of the five seals.46
Moreover he draws attention to the apparent parallels with
Christian baptismal practice and terminology particularly evident
in Codex III,47 only in the end to deny that this rite owes much to
Christianity at all!48
But this is perhaps because Sevrin has failed to understand the
symbolic significance of the primal unction of the Son, Christ,
baptism in the name of the Autogenes, etc. and the fivefold chris¬
mation of the five seals as originating in the Christian sect of the
Barbelognostics. Parallels with, indeed, as Lampe has argued,
influences on, developing ‘orthodox’ baptismal terminology, belief
and practice should be easily understandable.49 The complex rite
of ‘orthodox’ Christian initiation as we know it in the early third
century (instruction, exorcism, renunciation of Satan and his
forces, disrobing, triple immersion, profession of faith, robing,
anointing, insignation/sealing),°° surely forms the closest parallel
 Character and History of the Myth 51

to the mysterious five seals ceremony as cautiously reconstructed

by Sevrin and by myself, apart of course from the kindred baptismal,
anointing and redemption rituals of the Christian Gnostic
Marcosians of Irenaeus.51 One must also not overlook the ancient
Christian belief in the central role of guardian angels in baptism,
orthodox equivalents to the angelic illuminators of the Barbelo-
gnostic-Sethian rite.52 In the light of these parallels we could
perhaps assign the Gospel ofthe Egyptians to early in the third century.
The final stage of the history and development of the myth
underlying Irenaeus 1.29 and 30 and the Apocryphon, and one
where we seem at last to be able to assign a date with some
confidence, is the encounter of a Gnostic group championing a
collection of Barbelognostic-Sethian tractates with the nascent
Neoplatonism of Plotinus and his circle in Rome in the mid third
century. Both Schenke and Turner, along with others, have
developed the suggestion of Puech and Doresse that the Nag
Hammadi treatises Zostrianos and Allogenes'were identical with those
apocalypses of the same name mentioned by Porphyry in his Life
of Plotinus as produced or used by Gnostic attenders at Plotinus’
lectures and refuted by him and his pupils in the period between
244 and 269 ce.53 Thus Schenke and Turner would identify the
Nag Hammadi tractates Zostrianos, Allogenes, the Three Steles of Seth
and Marsanes (Turner also includes the Untitled Treatisein the Bruce
Codex)54 as belonging to the Sethian Gnostic group as it became
increasingly attracted and assimilated to the monistic metaphysics
and individualistic contemplative practices of the Neoplatonism
of Plotinus after rejection by the Great Church. ” But as Porphyry
suggests and I (and Edwards) would argue, this Sethian Gnostic
group was still Christian - at least in its own eyes!
Here it seems best to follow the generally plausible analysis,
ordering and dating of these tractates offered by Turner. Of the
group listed above he puts Allogenes first at the beginning of the
third century. This treatise is the spiritual autobiography of a seer
in which the eponymous subject first receives divine revelations,
then undergoes an inward ‘ascent’ of the soul culminating in a
primary revelation and its interpretation in a philosophical treatise,
all recorded in a book for his son Messos. The reference to the
name ‘Allogenes’ and his book recalls the traditions about Seth,
the Allogenes, among the Gnostics, Sethians and Archontics of
Epiphanius,56 and the mention of Messos recalls Porphyry’s
allusion to an apocalypse by that name among his Gnostics. The
first part (45.1-57.23) appears to recount five revelations ofYouel
52 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

(in all likelihood the male virgin of the supreme aeon of the Gospel
of the Egyptians)38 concerning the heavenly cosmology. This is
ultimately based on the Barbeloite triad of Father/Invisible Spirit,
Mother/Barbelo and her aeon divided into three, the Son/
Autogenes as lowest of the three. But the Father, representing the
supreme ontological level, is mediated as the Triple Powered One
with three modalities, Being, Vitality, Mentality,39 and the Mother
or Aeon of Barbelo, the next level, is the self-knowledge of the
Unknown God also existing in three aspects or hypostases, the
Kalyptos (Concealed), the Protophanes (First Manifest) and the
Autogenes.60 This characteristic tripartitioning of Father and
Barbelo recurs in the other treatises in the group.
The second part (57.24-69.19) recounts Allogenes’ inward
spiritual ascent through the Aeon of Barbelo and the modalities
of the Triple Power to the point where he experiences a primary
revelation of the Unknown One. This is then interpreted by the
powers of the illuminators (!) in a philosophical piece of negative
theology which reproduces virtually word for word a passage from
the negative theology section at the beginning of the Apocryphon.61
Turner is surely justified in suggesting that Allogenes, as well as
TrimorphicProtennoia, is ‘documentarily dependent on some version
of the Apocryphon of John 62
The work is very hard to interpret accurately, but Turner is
probably right to see in it the combination of nascent Neoplatonic
metaphysics (the Neopythagorean ontological or ‘stoicheological’
tripartition of the monad or One into Existence, Life, Intelligence
which emerges with Porphyry, alongside a Middle Platonic
‘noological’ tripartition of the second hypostasis, Intellect, into
inert, contemplative and planning intellects) with Sethian
mythology, the latter perhaps suggesting some of the concepts of
the former.63 His other main thesis is that while the Allogenes and
related treatises (Zostrianos, Three Steles of Seth) are more philo¬
sophical and tripartitioned structurally in terms of an ascent
through the three ontological levels, the Apocryphon and the
Protennoia are more mythological and are structured narratively
in terms of a threefold descent scheme.64
His derivation of the ‘stoicheological’ triad from the three
female divine attributes of the Father in the original Barbeliote
scheme may be far-fetched,65 but his analysis of the ontological
and psychological implications of the Barbeloite-Sethian myth
and the convertibility from myth to philosophy evident in Allogenes
and related treatises tends to confirm my contentions about the
 Character and History of the Myth 53

structure and durability of that ‘classic Gnostic myth’: it arises

directly from Christian experience of salvation expressed in the
objectifying symbolism of myth, ritual, and philosophy. Thus the
ever more complex and abstract ramifications are very much the
reduplications and further projections of the original and
continuing saving experiences, always seen in terms of the
reception of divine revelation.
This is obvious in Zostrianos, the very long and fragmentary
treatise from Codex VIII, which seems to depend both on the
structure of the heavenly world and the ascent scheme developed
in Allogenes (which it adopts in a confused fashion, interpreting
the ascent in terms of the older Sethian baptist tradition) and on
the figures of the Gospel of the Egyptians, while apparently inventing
more of its own.66 What is significant is the way the new elements
or aeons in the treatise, those of exile/sojourn (paroikesis) and
repentance (metanoia) as well as self-originate (autogenes), in all prob¬
ability represent, as I have already suggested,67 further projections
of the archetypal experience of Sophia (i.e. of the Gnostics them¬
selves) ,68 Thus Sevrin sees the principal characteristic of the work
as the close association of baptismal concepts with the mythological
system, reflecting an actual baptismal practice where repeated
baptisms marked the stages of a progressive initiation/ascent.69
Like Allogenes the work is the spiritual autobiography of an
ancient seer, Zostrianos, associated with the Persian sage Zoroaster,
in which he receives a series of revelations from various angelic
figures as he progressively ascends to the supreme God through
the interlinked heavenly spheres, being baptized in each, and then
descends. Because the work, unlike Allogenes, is not simply con¬
cerned with the supreme heavenly realms, we find a more detailed
picture of the lower aeons and the familiar entities of the Barbeloite-
Sethian pantheon, the Great Invisible Spirit, Barbelo, the Auto¬
genes, the four illuminators and their hierarchically ranked aeons,
the triple male child, Ephesech, (Ger)adamas, Seth and his seed,
the baptizers Michar and Micheus, Sophia, etc.70 However, the
apparent lack of Christian features does not make the work
necessarily non-Christian: the basic mythological and ritual structure
I have argued derive from Christianity, and Porphyry’s testimony
suggests that the work, like Allogenes (and the Three Steles of Seth?),
was the product of Christian Gnostic groups. The date of its
composition might be around the 220s to 230s.
Of the remaining Sethian works (Three Steles of Seth, Marsanes,
the Untitled Treatise in the Bruce Codex), we may note their
54 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

kinship with Allogenes and Zostrianos as regards their meta¬

physical structures and mythological cast lists. The first of these
appears to be a Gnostic hymnal of three doxologies of the
heavenly Seth to, respectively, Adamas, Barbelo and the Father,
used in a communal practice of a three-stage ascent and
descent, and containing a prayer tradition common to both
Allogenes and Zostrianos,71 Marsanes is another apocalypse (surviving
in an extremely fragmentary state) which relates the visionary
experiences of a Gnostic seer whose name is already known, and
expands the divine hierarchy of Allogenes into thirteen levels. It
has a totally transcendent supreme One reminiscent of Iamblichus
and a numerological speculation recalling the Marcosians. Turner
associates Marsanes with Syria and the late third century.72 Finally,
the Untitled Treatise of the Bruce Codex has affinities with the Gospel
of the Egyptians and is clearly dependent on Zostrianos.73 But its
syncretistic, prolix character and casual use of traditional
Barbeloite-Sethian material from Zostrianos or a source very like
it suggest a date in the late third century at the earliest: Turner
suggests around 350.74 Yet even in it traces of the Barbeloite-
Sethian baptismal initiation rite have not entirely disappeared,
despite the fact that it appears to employ baptism simply as a
metaphor for salvation.75

Conclusion
We have attempted to describe the character of the myth
underlying Irenaeus 1.29 and 30 and the Apocryphon, drawing
attention to its original Christian and Platonic colouring, its
dependence on Christian speculations about Wisdom, Spirit
and Logos, its projection of Christian soteriological experience
and its ritual expression parallel to and even influencing
contemporary Christian liturgy and belief. We have also tried
to suggest how the myth may have developed as the basis of a
wide variety of related treatises, marked by influences from John
in particular, then undergoing a process of Sethianization in the
early third century, developed polemically in debate with the
beliefs and practices of the Great Church, while at the same time
being assimilated to and even perhaps influencing the develop¬
ing Neoplatonism of Plotinus and his school, finally ending in
the syncretism and fantastic speculations of the Untitled Treatise of
the Bruce Codex. The following stemma and table illustrate that
history and the sources and redactions of the myth.
 Character and History of the Myth 55

Stemma and influence of the Gnostic myth

Dates

120s Saturninus Gnostics of Gnostics of Iren. Gospel of John

Basilides Iren 1.30 1.29 and AJ
(a)
140s Valentinus
(a1)
(Iren. 1.29)
150s (‘Apocalypse of Norea?’)
Justin’s
Syntagma tolemy Heracleon
160s (a2)
Hypostasis of the Archons-

170s Origin of the World

Celsus’
‘True Account’ I
180s
Irenaeus’
Adv. haer. Trimorphic Protennoia

‘Naassene Preaching’ || Norea

200s ‘Sethianization’ (a3) ‘Paraphrase of Seth’
Tertullian’s
Adv. Val. Apocalypse of Adam

220s short recension (s) Gospel of the Egyptians.

Hippolytus’
Refutatio Paraphrase of Shem
C III II Allogenes
B long recension (1) \
240s Neoplatonism 3 Steles Seth Zostrianos
C II C IV
260s
Plotinus’
‘Against the Gnostics’1

300s ‘Untitled Text’of Bruce Codex

330s Gnostics/Sethians/Archontics of Epiphanius

Stemma
Influence
 V
c uns
oa; 03

a
u
jj uO
O
X
03> N
O
u o _2
<u G QJ
-Q
s. G £ ■*=
f- 2 £
£ ns ■v m Q- 0
c 0
c c/5 V \ Cm •_ '3
u
V 0
c/5
E C — O
03 od CJ 0 *c
m
1
TJ X 03 1 <u
>5 03
u V 03 *—<
V 03 V
V 0 u
3
o bo C/5 N U G O
Uh Cu + + + + +

V
3
bo
O
'a. C
v ou -G jy
v 3
v 03 + o
Analysis of the Redactions

E
Q> o* — £
V - U
— <U QJ Q- £
Cl qj
2rr *Pu (j ns -r
~c03
Q- 03 c/5 — -G
C/5 *5 w
<+* •-

Dialogue on souls
*u *"qj G o C/5 t+H
^ o 2 X T3

+ Pronoia hymn
<L> 0 _05 0
U u
2 Cl H £ c
v W n JS JS 03 0
c/5 c/5
>
V
C/5 o* c5 0
<u 03 \
4-1 c
qj
u X! <u
03 c
< £ Ea ge bo 0 3
C/5
03
c g c x 13 G o3 JZ
*—>0 0 Q. 03 03
CO Cl, 3 u 0 C/5 s CL
o
< ■ C/5 + II -f c/5

03 ^-v
*-> x— C/5
2 V jD <u
— o w
« *5 1/5
/.29

0 = 3
u
^
O
G
(50 S 0
0 > H Z
J —
c
CO ^C/T <£ _0
2 -C C "
c
p
rt .Sf> SbO 2g 3
3
'o J _C
1
__v
C II
0
is
c
bo "X
C _ 3 o c
0
03 w 0 < i $J
' " + CO -1- w

<u
Counterfeit spirit
Destiny of souls
5 seals rite]
 Notes to pages 29-31 57

Notes
1 Ecrits 38-40.
2 39.
s Cf. II 15.29-19.10, and Zosimus, On the Letter Omega 10-12 (Scott-
Ferguson, Hermetica 4.106.17-107.15).
4 Cf. B 39.10-44.9 and par. But Basilides already shows an interest in
astrology according to Iren. 1.24.3, 5-7.
3 Cf. Iren. 1.8.5. On this secondary character, see P. Perkins, ‘Logos
Christologies in the Nag Hammadi Codices’, VC35 (1981), 379-96, esp.
379f.
6 See on this my article ‘John and the Gnostics: The Significance of
the Apocryphon of John for the Debate about the Origins of thejohannine
Literature’/SAT43 (1991), 41-69.
7Cf. 1 John 2:18-27; 4:1-6.
8 Cf. e.g. Magn. 4—10; Smym. 5-7.
9 ‘John’ 54-5.
10 Cf. Iren. 1.29.3; AJ B 21.19f. and par; GEIII 42.3f. and par; IV 51.20f.;
TP 37.20f.; Schenke, ‘System’ 166; Poirier-Tardieu, ‘Categories’ 3;
Tardieu, Ecrits 27, 31,245 (he derives the triad from three modalities of
Jesus in John 14:16-17); A. Bohlig, ‘Triade undTrinitat in den Schriften
von Nag Hammadi’, in Layton, Rediscovery 2.618 (although Bohlig denies
that the Gnostic triad is of Christian provenance); Sevrin, Dossier 275f.
(agreeing with Bohlig); Turner ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 57, etc.
11 Cf. AJB 22.18-23.5; 31.2-5 and par; GEWl 44.10f. and passim, Zost.
17 Ilf.; 128.20L; 129.8L; Allogenes47.7-38; PP38.10f. Cf. also HA93.21f.
12 Cf. Iren. 1.29.1; AJB 27.20f. and par; GE III 42.12f. (= male virgin
Barbelo); 7P37.3-38.16; Gnostics of Epiph. Pan. 26.10.4. One source of
these ideas would seem to be Wis 7:22ff.
13 Cf. Iren. 1.29.4. The later texts, as we shall see, associate Sophia’s
origin with Eleleth, the lowest of the four illuminators in the Sethian
reworking, the abode of those who, like Sophia, only repent late (AJB
36.7-15 and par). Thus, clearly under the influence of'Valentinian ideas,
she is the last or twelfth aeon (AJB 34.2-7 and par). This association
with Eleleth seems to underlie the obscure passages about Sophia and
her offspring Ialdabaoth in TP39.13—40.4 and GEIII 56.22-57.5.
14 Cf. AJB 67.14-18; 7l.2ff.; 74.6-75.10 and par. Cf. PS Book 1, ch. 39
(Schmidt-MacDermot 63.21L); Book 3, ch. 131 (Schmidt-MacDermot
333.14), etc.; Zos. Omega 16-18 (Scott-Ferguson, Hermetica 4.109L).
15 Cf. Iren. 1.29.1-2. Note the comment that the Mother thus marks
the beginning of the illumination and generation of the universe (‘Hanc
initium et luminationis et generationis omnium dicunt’). Again Wis
7:22ff. would seem to be a source.
16 Cf. Iren. 1.29.1-4. On the confusion caused to the original scheme
which distinguished the Son/Christ from the emanation Light, the
consort of Incorruptibility, see my article ‘John’ 51-4.
58 Notes to pages 31-32

17 Cf. Iren. 1.29.3-4 and 1.30.1-6; AJ B 37.6-39.18; 42.9-43.6; 51.1-

52.15 and par; TP 39.13-40.29 and the parallel (and dependent?)
Valentinian concept, Iren. 1.5.6; Exc. ex Theod. 49-53; Tri. Trac. 100.19-
105.35; Valentinian Exposition (C XI,2) 37.20-38.
18 Cf. Iren. 1.29.1-4; AJ B 26.19-35.20 and par and 36.16-47.14; TP
37.3-40.29; GE passim. Cf. King, ‘Sophia’ 162f.: the proper pattern of
salvation requires the combination of male permission or instigation
(the Father) and female action (the Mother/Sophia).
19 Cf. e.g. GEIII 44.22-24 and par; TP 37.30-34. The attempt of C. W.
Hedrick, ‘Christian Motifs in the Gospel of the Egyptians:. Method and
Motive’, NovT23 (1981), 242-60, to demonstrate that all the references
to Christ in GE are Christianizing interpolations, although it does
establish the secondary character of some of the passages, fails to do
justice to his central role as anointed Son, which underlies GE, a Sethian
reworking of the Barbelognostic myth of AJ (see below).
20 Dossier 38-48. He notes, but unfortunately does not feel able to follow
the interpretation of A. Orbe {La Uncion del Verbo: Estudios Valentinianos
3 (AG 113) (Rome, 1961), 100), that the transcendent unction of the
Son may represent the basis of the salvation of the gnostics, perfecting
them, removing their deficiency. King, ‘Sophia’ 162f., is also aware of
the theme but does not develop it, accepting the prevailing view of the
text as secondarily Christianized.
21 Separate 391, 412-18.
22 Cf. AJ B 64.3-13 and par; TP 49.28-50.9; HA 96.31-97.9; GE III
62.24-64.9 and par; 65.26-66.8; 66.22-68.1 and par. The Naassenes,
who call themselves ‘gnostics’ (Hipp. Ref. 5.6.4) seem to hint at a
similar combination of initiatory motifs: reverence of Adamas as bisexual
Perfect Man and Son of Man, of whom the reborn spiritual men are
images (5.6.4f.; 8.10), initiatory baptism and anointing as regeneration
(5.7.19; 5.8.21, 24, 37-8, 44; 5.9.21-2; 5.10.2: Jesus descending with the
seals!). The Ophite diagram of Celsus (Orig. C. Cels. 6.27), has the initiate,
called ‘newborn’ and ‘son’, sealed with white chrism from the tree of
life transmitted by attendant angels of light, and the Valentinians have
rites of redemption (baptism, bridal chamber, anointing), one involving
anointing first with a mixture of oil and water then with chrism (Iren.
1.21.4, cf. GE III 67.22-4) and another involving anointing the dying
(Iren. 1.21.5). Cf. also Gos. Phil. 74.12-21 on the superiority of chrism to
baptism, and the allusive language of the epitaph of the Valentinian
Flavia Sophe (Plate 2) which associates being anointed (chrio) with
ointments (myron) with the baths of Christ. See on this, G. Quispel,
‘L’inscription de Flavia Sophe’ in Melanges Joseph Ghellinck, S.J. (Museum
Lessianum-Section Historique 13), 201-14 (= Gnostic Studies 1, 58-69).
23 Cf. Justin, 1 Apol. 12.9; 2 Apol. 6.3; Dial. 63 (quoting Ps 45:7-12);
Theoph. Autol. 1.1,12. Post-baptismal chrism may already have been
practised by Antiochene Christians and the resulting composite initiation
 Notes to pages 32-33 59

rite have influenced the originators of the myth. Conversely, the Gnostic
order might have influenced later Syrian Christians to put anointing
before baptism. Cf. D. H. Tripp, ‘The “Sacramental System” of the Gospel
of Philip’, Studia Patristica 17/1 ed. E. A. Livingstone (Oxford: Pergamon,
1982), 258; P. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship
(London: SPCK, 1992), 163-71.
24 See n. 9 above.
25 See n. 6 above.
2b G. C. Stead, ‘The Valentinian Myth of Sophia’, JTS n.s. 20 (1969),
75-104 (origins in Philonic currents); MacRae, ‘Thejewish Background
of the Gnostic Sophia Myth’, NovT\2 (1970), 86-101 (origins in Jewish
concepts); Petrement, Separate 378ff. (origins in Paul).
27 For various solutions, see Justin, 1 Apol. 33, etc.; Tatian, Or. ad Graec.
5; Athenag. Leg. 10; Theoph. Autol. 2.10, 22.
28 The same criticism holds good for the efforts of Stroumsa, Another
Seed, to derive a supposed Sethian Gnostic myth of origins from Jewish
speculations on Gen 6:1-4, and for Perkins’ assertions, Gnosticism ch. 1,
about characteristic Sethian Gnostic mythemes; they may include
‘distinctive versions of first century Jewish material’ (19), but only as
included in a new overarching anti-Jewish myth of Sophia which
downgrades her and demonizes the Old Testament Creator God and
his angels. Culianu’s attempt, ‘Feminine versus Masculine. The Sophia
Myth and the Origins of Feminism: Struggles of the Gods’, Papers of the
Groningen Work Group for the Study of the History of Religions ed. H. G.
Kippenberg and H. J. W. Drijvers (Berlin/New York/Amsterdam:
Y. Kuiper, 1984), 65-98, to derive the myth from a widespread pagan
belief, seems too general.
29 Despite the value of his analysis, MacRae, ‘Jewish Background’, is
unable, like other defenders of the thesis of a Jewish origin of
Gnosticism, to account for its revolutionary character. Wisdom could be
appropriated by the Christian Gnostics from Jewish Christians precisely
because it was not authoritative or influential in contemporaryjudaism:
David (Psalms) and Solomon (Proverbs, Wisdom) are not included in
the prophets inspired by Ialdabaoth in Iren. 1.30.11! N. A. Dahl, ‘The
Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia’ in Layton, Rediscovery 2.689-
712, appeals to Philo and his view of Sophia as the mother of the Logos,
but Philo was appropriated by Christians, not by Jews. On the possible
influence of Philo on the Valentinian myth of Sophia, see Stead,
‘Valentinian Myth’ 90-101. He merely mentions the ‘Barbeliote’ system
of AJ and Iren. 1.29, and the less closely related 1.30 as the nearest
parallel.
30 Cf. e.g. J. D. Turner, ‘The Gnostic Threefold Path to Enlightenment:
The Ascent of Mind and the Descent of Wisdom’, NovT 22 (1980), 332-
41; ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 59, 71.
31 Cf. Petrement, Separate 94.
60 Notes to pages 33-34

32 Marcellus of Ancyra, on the basis of a work of Valentinus entitled

On the Three Natures, claimed that the latter was the first to conceive of a
trinity of three hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Ps. Anthimus,
De sancta ecclesia 9 = Valentinus frag. 9). Cf. Stead, ‘Valentinian Myth’
103f. The systems of Iren. 1.29 and 30 are much more explicitly trinitarian
than those of the Valentinians, apart from the more ‘orthodox’ Tri.
True. (cf. 127.25-128.19: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, but cf. also 56.31-
57.35: Father, Son, Church).
33 Cf. Petrement, Separate 186f., 343ff. On Valentinus, cf. Iren.
2.14.3; Tert. Adv. Val. 5; Hipp. Ref. 6.37.6-8; Edwards, ‘Gnostics’
34-47. On the theme of Platonism and Gnosticism, see Rudolph,
TRu 38 (1973), 12-25; Pearson, ‘Gnosticism as Platonism’ in Gnosticism
I486
34 Cf. Iren. 1.1.1 (Ptolemy); 1.11.1 (Valentinus); 1.24.3f. (Basilides);
1.29.1 (Gnostics).
35 Cf. Iren. 1.1.1-3; Hipp. Ref. 6.21.1-30.3 (Pythagorean/Platonic
roots of Valentinianism). Note Basilides’ order of three male followed
by three female divine entities, the last pair responsible for everything
else (Iren. 1.24.3), and even more the structure of the Gnostic myth
as reconstructed by me: Father revealing self to Mother as three
female emanations; then to Son as three male; their syzygies
responsible for two tetrads of ministering angels, etc. (Iren. 1.29.1-2,
‘John’52f., 68).
36 Cf. Iren. 1.2.1-4; 4.1-5.3; 11.1;Exc. ex Theod. 47 (Valentinians); Iren.
1.24.3 (Basilides); 1.29.1-4; AJ B 36.16-44.9 and par (Gnostics).
37 Petrement, Separate 336ff. versus W. Foerster, ‘Das System des
Basilides’ NTS 9 (1962/63), 233-55, etc. See on this Rudolph, TRu 38,
2-5; Gnosis 309-12, who thinks neither account reproduces the whole
original system.
38 Cf. Turner, ‘Threefold Path’ 328-51; ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 59, 79-
85; Schenke, ‘Phenomenon’ 613-5; Pearson, ‘Gnosticism as Platonism’
148-64, esp. 152; Edwards, ‘Neglected’ esp. 42ff.
39 Cf. Turner, ‘Threefold Path’ 332-9; Petrement, Separate 423-31.
Edwards, ‘Gnostics’ 34ff. may be justified in interpreting Valentinus as a
genuine Platonist, but not in entirely distinguishing him from the
supposedly superficially Platonized Gnostics on the basis of more Platonic
interpretations of matter and the Demiurge: he takes the Naassene
Preaching’s negative view of the Demiurge as his exemplar, not the
Gnostics of Iren. 1.29 and 30 who portray the Demiurge as a vehicle of
the divine, partly rehabilitating him and distinguishing him from the
cause of evil, the left-hand ruler.
40 Cf. Schenke, Der Gott ‘Mensch’in der Gnosis: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher
BeitragzurDiskussion uber diepaulinische Anschauung von der Kirche als Leib
Christi (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962); Tardieu, Ecrits 35-
7; Stroumsa, Seed 1-4.
 Notes to pages 34-38 61

41 Schenke, ‘Phenomenon’ 602-7; Turner, ‘History’ 58f.,67-9; Sevrin,

Dossier^. ch. 8. Cf. A] II 31.23-5 and par; GEIV 58.6; III 55.12; 63.3; IV
74.16; III 66.3; 7P48.30f.; 49.26ff.; 50.9f.
42 Cf. Zost. 3.23-7.22: AnonBru ch. 20 (Schmidt-MacDermot 263.13-
264.6).
43 48.12-35.
44 On Valentinus as visionary, cf. Hipp. Ref. 6.37.6-8, 42.2; on Elchasai,
cf. Hipp. Ref 9.13-15; on Mani, cf. Cologne Mani Codex p. 64
(A. Henrichs/L. Koenen ZEE 5 (1970), 108; 19 (1975), 65; L. Koenen/
C. Romer eds, Dei Kolner Mani Codex (Papyrologica Coloniensia 14)
(Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1988)).
45 On the need to take this question seriously, cf. Stroumsa, Seed 2.
46 ‘Sethian Gnosticism’.
47 ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 55-9.
48 Ibid. Cf. Pearson, ‘Gnosticism as Platonism’ in Gnosticism 152, n. 20.
49 56.
50 See p. 20, n. 86.
51 See for the debate Rudolph, TRu?>4 (1969), 161-9; E. M. Yamauchi,
‘Pre-Christian Gnosticism in the Nag Hammadi texts’, CH 48 (1979),
130-5. For arguments for AA as pre-Christian or non-Christian, see
e.g. Bohlig’s edition, 95; G. W. MacRae, ‘The Coptic Gnostic
Apocalypse of Adam’, Heythrop Journal 6 (1965), 27-35; ‘The
Apocalypse of Adam Reconsidered’, SBL 1972 Proceedings: Seminar
Papers (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1972), 573-7; P. Perkins, ‘Apocalypse
of Adam: The Genre and Function of a Gnostic Apocalypse’, CBQ
39 (1977), 382-95; L. Schottroff, “‘Animae naturaliter salvandae”
Zum Problem der himmlischen Herkunft des Gnostikers’ in W. Eltester
ed., Christentum und Gnosis (BZNW 37) (Berlin: Topelmann, 1969),
65-97, esp. 65-83. For arguments for its Christian character, see
e.g. J. Danielou, RSR 54 (1966), 31-4; R. McL. Wilson, Gnosis and
the New Testament (Oxford, 1968), 233-9; G. M. Shellrude, ‘The
Apocalypse of Adam, Evidence for a Christian Gnostic Provenance’
in M. Krause ed., Gnosis and Gnosticism (NHS 17) (Leiden: Brill, 1981),
82-91.
52 Dossier 275-9. He does allow possible later Christian influence in
some texts, and a likely post-Christian origin.
ss 292.
54 Cf. Sevrin, Dossier 293.
55 278. The same would apply to the Autogenes stage in Zost. Cf. also
the references in Plotinus (.Enn. 2.9.6) to the three stages (paroikesis,
antitypos, metanoia).
56 Cf. Zost. 6.7f.; GFIII 66.22-68.1 and par (a five-strophe hymn, as the
editors Bohlig and Wisse have shown, Gospel 198-205, reflecting baptismal
initiation and the threefold name, Father (as Autogenes), Mother and
Son). See Sevrin, Dossier 126-44. Cf. the Valentinian baptismal formulae
62 Notes to pages 39-42

in the names of Father, Mother and Christ (Iren. 1.21.3) and the role of
the Valentinian Saviour and his angels in forming Achamoth according
to knowledge (Iren. 1.4.5; Exc. ex Theod. 44-5).
57 The Seal of the Spirit (London: SPCK, 19672), 120-30. Cf. the allusions
to chrism and knowledge (and the Antichrist!) in the Johannine
community (1 John 2:20, 27), a possible context for such Christian
Gnostic developments.
58 ‘L’inscription’ 66-9.
59 Cf. esp. the revealing Naassene formula in Hipp. Ref. 5.9.22: ‘we
alone are the true Christians (Christianoi) . . . anointed (chriomenoi) with
an unutterable ointment (chrisma) . . .’ Note also the rite implied in
Celsus’ Ophite diagram in Origen, C. Cels 6.27: the initiate as ‘newborn’
and ‘son’, sealed/anointed by a figure called ‘father’, responding ‘I have
been anointed (chrio) with white chrism (chrisma) from the tree of life’,
with attendant angels of light who transmit the seal to the soul of the
redeemed body.
60 Cf. the practices of the Marcosians (Iren. 1.21.3-5), the Naassenes
(Hipp. Ref 5.7.19; 9.22; 10.2: Jesus and seals) and Celsus’ Ophites (Orig.
C. Cels. 6.27); Gos. Phil. 74.12-21; HA 96.33-97.9; PS Book 2, ch. 86
(Schmidt-MacDermot 197.16ff.). Sealing of the organs of sense and
speech would protect against archontic influence. Zost. 7.7-17 may reflect
a later echo: it has Zostrianos baptized in the name of the Autogenes
and sealed by five (!) heavenly figures to elevate him to the fourth
(Eleleth?) aeon.
61 GEIII 66.22-68.1/IV 79.3-80.15. Cf. Iren. 1.21.5 on the mixture idea.
62 AA 85.22-9.
63 Separate 330, etc.
64 Antioch is associated with the first use of the term christianos
(Acts 11:26) for a follower of Christ (or anointed one?). Cf. Ignatius’
attack on those who call themselves Christians but who appear to be
holding independent rites and to have views resembling those of
Saturninus (cf. Magn. 4.1; 8-10), and Theophilus’ defence of the title
(Autol. 1.1, 12).
65 Scriptures 14. Grant’s claim, ‘The Earliest Christian Gnosticism’, CH
22 (1953), 88-90, that Saturninus was the author of AJ, while implausible
on our evidence (e.g. no Sophia myth), still points in the right direction.
66 Iren. 1.24.1-2. See Petrement, Separate ch. 8.
67 So Layton, Scriptures 161 n.b.
68 Iren. 1.24.1. The Genesis text (1.26) might imply a heavenly
Anthropos figure. On the interpretation of Gen 1.26 and the ‘seduction
of the archons’ motif, see Schenke, Gott ‘Mensch) J. Jervell, Imago Dei:
Gen. 1.26f im Spatjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen
(FRLANT n.f. 58) (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Gottingen, 1960), 122—
70; Y. Janssens, ‘Le theme de la fornication des anges’ in Bianchi, Origini
488-94, etc.
 Notes to pages 42-45 63

69 1.24.3.
/0 Cf. Justin, Dial. 35 and his Syntagma (Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte29i.);
Hegesippus in Eus. H.E. 4.22.5, etc. Note the pregnant assertion of the
Basilidians that they were no longer Jews but not yet Christians (Iren.
1.24.6; Epiph. Pan. 24.5.5).
71 ‘John',JSNT43 (1991), 41-69.
Cf. fragment 1 in Clem. Alex. Strom. 2.8.36.2-4. See my review of
C. Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus? (WMANT 65) (Tubingen: J. C. B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992), in JTS n.s. 45 (1994), 310-13.
^ B 51.1-52.1 and par. Cf. the similar role of the Valentinian Saviour
and his angels in Iren. 1.4.5; 5.6.
/4 1.30.1-2. ‘Depth’ (Bythos) is also mentioned. Cf. the system of Ptolemy
in Irenaeus’ ‘Great Notice’ (1.1.1; 2.2-6), but also Valentinus himself
(1.11.1; 12.3).
75 Cf. e.g. the traces of speculation about the tree of knowledge in
AJ B 57.8-58.1 and par; 60.16-61.7 where the episode of Gen 2:16f.
and 3 has been reinterpreted, but not so as to exclude the tree, in terms
of the Epinoia of light figure. Cf. also the parallel treatment in OW
115.30-116.32. The derivation of the white chrism of Celsus’ Ophites
(Orig. C. Cels. 6.27) from the tree of life might suggest another aspect of
the figure in 1.29.3.
76 Thus Iren. 1.29.4 merely speaks of the Protarchon - as AJ still
does frequently (cf. B 38.14f.; 39.1f.; II 14.15f„ 25, 31; II 19.16f.;
Ill 24.1 If.; II 20.12; B 55.19; II 22.18, 29f.; II 24.9, 16, 27; II 25.8;
B 71.15). On the background, see B. Bare, ‘Samael, Saklas,
Yaldabaoth. Recherche sur l’origine d’un mythe gnostique’ in Bare,
Colloque 123-50.
77 B 35.20-36.15 and par.
78 B 52.17-54.4 and par.
79 Ecrits 44, re Hipp. Ref. 5.10.2. Cf. Turner, ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 62.
However, against Tardieu, who argues for the antiquity and
independence of the Pronoia hymn, the Naassene Psalm implies
awareness of our AJ (a2); the female Pronoia in her third mode is the
Saviour, the Jesus of the Psalm.
80 Cf. HA 86.27-87.23; 92.4-end, and Layton, Scriptures 65f. Note the
three supreme entities. Father of the All, Incorruptibility (= Barbelo),
Son; the four illuminators and saving role of Eleleth; the figure of Pistis
Sophia; Ialdabaoth’s boast, the heavenly voice and image and the
seduction of the archons; the concern with Man and with the providential
character of the whole sequence of events; the reference to anointing,
etc.
81 For editions of HA and discussion, see B. Bare, L’Hypostase des
Archontes (BCNH Section ‘Textes’ 5) (Quebec: Universite Laval, 1980);
R. A. Bullard, The Hypostasis of the Archons (PTS 10) (Berlin: De Gruyter,
1970); B. Layton, ‘The Hypostasis of the Archons or the Reality of the
64 Notes to pages 45-4 7

Rulers’, HTR67 (1974), 351-425; P. Nagel, Das Wesen der Archonten aus
Codex II der gnostischen Bibliothek von Nag Hammadi (Wiss. Beitrage der
Martin-Luther-UniversitatHalle-Wittenberg) (Halle, 1970); F. T. Fallon,
The Enthronement ofSabaoth:Jewish Elements in Gnostic Creation Myths (NHS
10) (Leiden: Brill, 1978). For OW, see the Bohlig-Labib edition. Turner
(‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 76) also suggests a date in the middle of the second
century for HA, and accepts Schenke’s hypothesized ‘Apocalypse of
Norea’ (‘Phenomenon’ 596) as the source common to HA and OW.
82 ‘On the Origin of the World (CG II.5): A Gnostic Physics’ VC 34
(1980), 36-46, esp. 44.
83 ‘Physics’ 45.
84 ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 76.
85 76.
86 See p. 67f. Cf. B. A. Pearson, ‘Revisiting Norea’, in King, Images
272-5. Petrement, Separate 437-41, notes the similarities with Iren. 1.29
and 30 and A], but finds greater kinship with Valentinianism.
87 NHLE 404.
88 Cf. F. T. Fallon, ‘The Gnostics: The Undominated Race’, NovT21
(1979), 271-88; Bergmeier, ‘Koniglosigkeit’; M. A. Williams, The
Immovable Race, A Gnostic Designation and the Theme of Stability in Late
Antiquity (NHS 29) (Leiden: Brill, 1985), etc.
89 Cf. B 64.13-71.2 and par; Bergmeier, Glaube 147f.; ‘Koniglosigkeit’
323-8; Petrement, Separate 398ff.
90 B 71.2-75.10 and par. Note the references to the‘seed’ (71.10) and
the ‘immovable race’ (73.9f.). Thus the parallels with 1 Enoch 6-8
detected here would not particularly assist claims for Jewish origins (see
Perkins, Gnosticism 24f.).
91 II 15.29-19.15; Tardieu, .Ecrite300-16. Edwards’ attempt, ‘Neglected’
41-6, to derive the myth underlying A/from a ‘Book of Zoroaster’ found
in Proclus, etc. seems rather speculative: Porphyry, Vit. Plot. 16, unmasks
it as a recent forgery.
92 Cf. the cryptic comment in B 76.1-5/III 39.18-21, omitted in the
long version, about the Mother’s saving activity in the world prior to the
Saviour’s coming. See ch. 7, section 3.
93 See Turner, ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 62; ‘Threefold Path’ 326f; Sevrin,
Dossier 50fi, 292.
94 Cf. 39.13-40.4.
90 38.30-39.13. The allusive mention of the seed of the Protennoia
figure at 50.17ff. does not in itself imply knowledge of the Sethian theme.
96 ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 63-7.
97 57ff.
98 See ch. 7, section 3.
99 B 27.21-28.4 and par.
1 63f.
2 OW 114.8-15.
 Notes to page 4 7 65

3 Pan. 26.2.6-3.5.
4 C VI,2 13.15-14.9.
5 64-7.
6 64ff. See my ‘John’ esp. 55-8.
' Sevrin, Dossier 51 n. 13, suggests ‘dechristianizing’ rather than
Wilson’s ‘dechristianized’. Perkins, Gnosticism 115, 117, argues that
neither depends directly on the other.
8 50.17-20.
9 Adv. omn. haer. 2.
10 Cf. George Syncellus, Chronographia, ed. G. Dindorf (CSHB) (Bonn:
Weber, 1829), 34. Syncellus also refers to revelations about the flood
and incarnation to Adam and to Seth when transported to heaven (16-
18). Unfortunately he does not reveal his source.
11 Cologne Mani Codex 50.7-52.7. Could Syncellus’ information on
Seth (see previous note) have come from such a work?
12 Ecrits 42, 45.
13 Cf. Bohlig and Labib, Koptisch-gnostisch Apokalypsen 95; ‘Die
Adamapokalypse aus Codex V von Nag Hammadi als Zeugnis jiidisch-
iranischen Gnosis’, OC 48 (1964), 47 (pre-Christian, but cf. his
modification in W. Eltester ed., Christentum und Gnosis (BZNW 37)
(Berlin: Topelmann, 1969), 2, n. 5); J. M. Robinson, ‘The Johannine
Trajectory’ in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories through Early
Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 234, n. 4; G. W. MacRae, in
NHLE 256; H. Goedicke, ‘An Unexpected Allusion to the Vesuvius
Eruption in 79 ad’, AJP 90 (1969), 340 (not later than the first decade
of the second century); R. Kasser, ‘Bibliotheque gnostique V: Apocalypse
d’Adam’ RThPh 16 (1967), 317-18 (end of first, beginning of second
century); Schenke, ‘Phenomenon’ 607 (pre-Christian), etc. On the
debate about its character and date, see E. M. Yamauchi, ‘Pre-Christian
Gnosticism in the Nag Hammadi Texts’ CH48 (1979), 130-5.
14 Dossier 292. Cf. AA 66.4-8.
15 E.g. it refers to Adam and Eve’s heavenly origin (64.9-12), Eve as
instructing Adam in heavenly knowledge (64.12f.,cf. HA 89.11-17, etc.),
the figure of heavenly Seth and his seed (65.5-9), Saklas as the ignorant
creator god of the Shemites (74.3-75.16, etc.), Abrasax, Samblo, and
Gamaliel (cf. GETII 52.19-53.10 and par), a third saving descent of the
Phoster (76.8ff., cf. GEIII 62.24-63.9), the thirteen kingdoms and their
god over against the fourteenth, ‘kingless’ (77.27-84.3, cf. GEIII 63.4—
64.9 and par), the baptizers Micheu, Michar, and Mnesinous (84.5-8,
cf. GEIII 64.14-20 and par), etc. Cf. Bergmeier, Glaube 185f.; Petrement,
Separate 435f., and W. Beltz, ‘Bemerkungen zur Adamapokalypse aus
Nag-Hammadi Codex V’ in Nagel, Studia Coptica 159-63, who argue for
the dependence of AA on both A] and GE. However, MacRae, ‘The
Apocalypse of Adam Reconsidered’, SBL 1972 Proceedings 2.575f., versus
W. Beltz in his ‘Habilitation’ (204-5, 215), rejects this presupposition
66 Notes to pages 47-49

argument, finding AA ‘typologically prior’ to GE, and primitive. Scott T.

Carroll, ‘The Apocalypse of Adam and Pre-Christian Gnosticism’ VC 44
(1990), 263-79, dates it to between the late second and fourth century
from an analysis of its representation of Solomonic lore.
16 ‘The Apocalypse of Adam: A Literary and Source Analysis’, SBL 1972
Proceedings 2.581-90.
17 Perkins, ‘Apocalypse’ 383 n. 5; Sevrin, Dossier 149-51.
18 Thus e.g. both have the spora and the Sethites (cf. 65.3-9 (A) and
66.3-8 (B)) and (A), the supposedJewish-Gnostic source, has Sethian
jargon like ‘alien’ (65.18f.; 69.17L).
19 Cf. the similar phenomenon in redaction (a2) of AJ. See ch. 1,
p. I7f. That the saviour figure is unambiguously male and an in¬
carnation of Seth as Christ is further evidence of the Sethianization of
the Barbeloite Pronoia/Protennoia, and of the likely dependence of AA
on the (a3) redaction of AJ.
20 Dossier 155-7. Cf. Petrement, Separate 433-5, Yamauchi, ‘Pre-
Christian’ 131f. For an allowance of a Christian element, see even Perkins,
‘Apocalypse’ 395, and MacRae, ‘Reconsidered’ 573f.; ‘Seth in Gnostic
Texts and Traditions’, P. J. Achtemeier ed., SBL 1977 Seminar Papers
(Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1977), 21.
21 ‘Bemerkungen’ 161, 163.
22 ‘Animae’ 68-83.
23 ‘Apocalypse’ 383-95. To be fair, Schottroff, ‘Animae’ 68, does classify
AA as a Gnostic polemic against the adulterated anthropology of other
Gnostic groups.
24 Stroumsa, Seed 98, has an inkling of this in seeing AA as a restoration
of the primary Sethian myth to counteract the growing influence of
Christianity, as does F. Morard, ‘LApocalypse dAdam de Nag Hammadi
etsapolemique antibaptismale’, RevScRel5\ (1977), 214-33, in her tying
the anti-baptismal polemic and lack of obvious Christian allusions to a
possible Archontic provenance or redaction. The latter (part of our
Gnostic tradition) were opposed to the traditional ‘orthodox’ water
baptism in the name of the God of the Law, but valued gnosis whereby
the redeemed soul ascended through the archontic spheres with
appropriate defences/passwords (cf. Epiph. Pan. 40.2.6-8) .
25 Cf. Petrement, Separate 434.
26 Cf. AA 73.13-27; 74.8-26; 75.17-76.24 and Iren. 1.7.5; Exc. ex Theod.
54.1-3; Bergmeier, Glaube 186.
27 82.19f. Bergmeier, ‘Koniglosigkeit’ 319-27.
28 Cf. Iren. 1.5.1; Tri. Trac. 100.19-30.
29 Hipp. Ref. 5.8.2, 30.
30 125.4-7.
31 ‘Koniglosigkeit’ 327f.
32 Cf. Hipp. Ref. 5.6.4-7; 7.6-9, 16-19, 25, 30-3, 35-6, 40-8.2, 14-21,
26-9, 40-5; 9.1-4, 21-10.2. Note the striking similarities with Norea
 Notes to pages 49-51 67

(Father of the All, bisexual Adamas: cf. Ref. 5.6.5; 9.1 and Norea
27.11; 28.29-29.5; the titles Logos, Voice, Nous: cf. Ref. 5.7.32-3
(Logos); 8.14 (Voice); 10.1 (Nous) and Norea 27.11-19; the state of
self-generation/Autogenes figure: cf. Ref. 5.7.9; 8.10, 21 and Norea
28.5-11), etc. On its Gnostic provenance, see Edwards, ‘Gnostics’ 31f.
(mistaking the adoptionist Theodotus for the Valentinian!), 36f.;
‘Neglected’ 40-2.
33 Cf. relevant passages in OW\ Tardieu, Trois mythes gnostiques: Adam,
Eros et les animaux d’Egypte dans un ecrit de Nag Hammadi (11,5) (Paris:
Etudes Augustiniennes, 1974).
34 See p. 18, n. 76; Morard, ‘polemique’ 226f.
35 Bergmeier, ‘Koniglosigkeit’ 323f., 328, would, however, place it
among the late Sethian texts, pointing to its post-Valentinian division of
the stages of salvation, etc. Cf. also Petrement, Separate 441-6.
36 Bohlig-Wisse, Gospel 38, cf. Sevrin, Dossier 82.
37 ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 77.
38 Dossier 81.
39 E.g. new entities like Domedon Doxomedon, Youel, Esephech,
Mirothoe, Plesithea, Metanoia, Hormos, Edokla and many angelic
figures. Already known figures include the angelic rescuers Abrasax,
Samblo, Gamaliel (AA 75.21-3; TP 48.27ff.), the baptizers Micheus,
Michar, Mnesinous (AA 84.5f.; TP 48.18-20) and Yesseus Mazareus
Yessedekeus (AA85.30L).
40 So Sevrin, Dossier 82-4. The editors (p. 26) end the second section
at III 66.8.
41 ‘Phenomenon’ 600.
42 ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 77f.
43 Ibid. 78. On Eleleth and Sophia, cf. GEIII 56.22-60.2 and par.
44 Dossier 8Iff., 108.
45 III 64.9-65.26/IV 75.24-77.20. Cf. AJB 35.20-36.15 and par.
46 106-9.
47 Cf. 65.26-66.8: epiklesis, apotaxis, sphragis, baptisma, pege.
48 143f. Schenke, ‘Phenomenon’ 604f., had already stressed the
centrality and soteriological significance of Sethian baptism in both
TP and GE, and noted the striking parallelism between GE III
63.9-64.9 and Col 2:11-15, involving the Gnostic imitation of the
Saviour’s putting off the body of the flesh, etc. But he too is unable
to accept any possible influence of Colossians on GE because of his
presuppositions.
49 Cf. Lampe, Seal 120-32.
50 Cf. Hipp. Apost. Trad. 19-22; Lampe, Seal 132-42.
51 1.21.1-5; cf. Gos. Phil 67.23-30; 74.12-21. As suggested above, the
Valentinians may well have borrowed chrism from the Barbelognostics
for whom it was fundamental. On a similar phenomenon, the likely
responsibility of Valentinus for pre-baptismal exorcism, reflecting his
68 Notes to pages 51-53

particular theology, see Elizabeth A. Leeper, ‘From Alexandria to Rome:

The Valentinian Connection to the Incorporation of Exorcism as a
Prebaptismal Rite’ VC 44 (1990), 6-24.
52 Cf. Tert. De bapt. 5f. and the attendant angels in Celsus’ Ophite
diagram (Orig. C. Cels. 6.27).
53 Porphyry, Vita Plot. 16. These appear, despite the ambiguity of
Porphyry’s Greek, to have been Christians. Porphyry describes them as
‘members of a sect (hairetikoi)’ and students of Greek philosophy. He
mentions Plotinus Ennead 2.9 ‘Against the Gnostics’, which was the last
of four consecutive works (3.8, 5.5, 5.8, 2.9 - 30-3 in the chronological
list). See H.-C. Puech, ‘Les nouveaux ecrits gnostiques decouverts en
Haute Egypte’ in Coptic Studies in Honor ofW. E. Crum (Boston, 1950),
91-154, esp. 106 and 126—32; J. Doresse, ‘Les Apocalypses de Zoroastre,
de Zostrien, de Nicothee . . . (Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, 16)’ in Coptic
Studies 255-63; Secret Books 155-9; J. M. Robinson, ‘The Three Steles of
Seth and the Gnostics of Plotinus’, in G. Widengren ed., Proceedings of
the International Colloquium on Gnosticism, Stockholm, August 20-25, 1973
(Stockholm: Almqvist 8c Wiksell, 1977), 132-42; J. H. Sieber, ‘An
Introduction to the Tractate Zostrianos from Nag Hammmadi’, NovT
15 (1973), 232-40; H.-M. Schenke, ‘Phenomenon’ 613-6; Turner,
‘Threefold Path’ 324-51; Pearson, ‘Gnosticism as Platonism’ in Gnosticism
148-64; Edwards, ‘Neglected’ passim.
54 ‘Threefold Path’ 325; ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 85.
55 Schenke, ‘Phenomenon’ 614—16; Turner, ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 56,
59. C. Schmidt, Plotins Stellungzum Gnostizismus und kirchlichen Christentum
(TU 20) (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901), esp. 50-83, as Schenke ‘Phenomenon’
614, notes, had already suggested this identification of Plotinus’ Gnostics
as Sethians, and included among them the Gnostics of Epiphanius Pan.
39 and 40, Iren. 1.29, the Apocryphon and AnonBru.
56 Pan. 40.7.2-6.
57 Vit. Plot. 16.
58 See p. 50 and GEIII 44.26f.; IV 59.22L; III 50.1fi; 53.24L; 61.5f., etc.
39 This may be a further development of the Barbelo figure and aeon
as first the triple power of the (a2) redaction of AJE 27.20-28.4 and par,
and then as the triad Father/Mother/Son as three powers in TP37.20-
30 and GE III 41.7-12 and par.
“Turner, ‘Threefold Path’ 328f.; ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 79f. For a
different analysis, see Layton, Scriptures 141f.
61 Allogenesd2.28-63.22>-, cf. AJB 24.9-25.19; II 3.18-35. See Turner in
Hedrick, Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII 263ff.
62 ‘Threefold Path’ 330. Schenke, ‘Phenomenon’ 599, assumes
that ‘the illuminators’ of 61.24 are the four Barbeloite-Sethian
figures.
63 ‘Threefold Path’ 328-41. But cf. the different interpretation of
Edwards, ‘Neglected’ 49f.: the earlier Numenian order Being-Mind-
 Notes to pages 53-54 69

Life of the Gnostics is displaced in Zost. and Allogenes, adapting to

contemporary trends in Neoplatonism.
64 ‘Threefold Path’ 330-2.
60 ‘Threefold Path’ 336-41.
“On the structure, cf. Turner, ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 79, 83. On the
likely dependence on GE, cf. Petrement, Separate 423f. It was in all
probability the excessive multiplication of hypostases in Zost. which
Plotinus attacks in Enn. 2.9.1,6.
67 See p. 34.
68 Cf. Plot. Enn. 2.9.6.
68 Dossier 201-3.
70 Cf. Zost. 6.7-7.22; 9.1-11.9; 13.1-14.14; 29.1-30.14; 127.15-129.16.
71 Cf. Turner, ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 83f.; Steles Seth 125.23-126.17;
Allogenes 54.11-37; Zost. 51.24-52.24; 86.13—bottom. See Robinson ‘Three
Steles’; M. Tardieu, ‘Les Trois Steles de Seth’ RSPT57 (1973), 545-75;
Schenke, ‘Phenomenon’ 593, 600-2. For a different analysis, see Layton,
Scriptures 148f.
72 ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 84. Cf. Pearson, NagHammadi Codices IX and X
(NHS 15) (Leiden: Brill, 1981); ‘The Tractate Marsanes (NHC X) and
the Platonic Tradition’ in B. Aland ed., GNOSIS: Festschrift fur Hans Jonas
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 373-84; ‘Gnosticism as
Platonism’ (which seems to suggest a later date than the ‘early third
century’ of his introduction in NHLE 417).
73 Cf. Turner, ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 85; Sevrin, Dossier 204-22, esp.
213ff.
74 ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 85; Sevrin, Dossier 207 for the earlier dating.
75 Sevrin, Dossier 220.
 R7* Marceau, CSB

Gnostic Theogony and Cosmogony 1:

The Heavenly World

We have seen the centrality of the Gnostic myth underlying

Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.29 and the Apocryphon, the problems over
the relation between the two and indeed between the various
versions of the latter, and the questions of the relation with
Valentinianism and the Christian or non-Christian character of
the original myth. We have suggested that Irenaeus’ version is
nearer to that essentially Christian original, and sketched in the
character and development of the myth and its influence on
various related texts, mainly those of Schenke’s ‘Sethian’ corpus.
Now we must put flesh on the bare bones of our thesis and justify
our presuppositions. Despite the warnings ofTardieu in particular
about the impossibility of establishing a history of the text of the
Apocryphon and getting back to the hypothetical original,1 that is
precisely what needs to be attempted, including establishing the
relationship between the long and short recensions.
Helmbold, in a slightly tongue-in-cheek article, has drawn
attention to the inconclusive and indeed contradictory results
arrived at by means of literary analysis of the Apocryphon, although
he does note that most scholars see three main subjects discussed
within the revelational frame story, namely cosmogony (descrip¬
tion of the supreme Being, the world of light, the fall of Sophia
and the creation of this world by her offspring Ialdabaoth leading
to her repentance), anthropology (including the creation of
human beings and the contest between light and darkness for
control of them), and soteriology (including the dialogue on the
destiny of souls and the Pronoia hymn).2 This doctrinal or
theological analysis of the myth as a whole in terms of its own
logic may help us to avoid or overcome some of the problems
caused by the literary-critical impasse and the shortcomings of
our texts.
Thus we shall structure our attempt to answer the questions
about the original form of the Gnostic myth and how it developed,

71
72 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

the relations between Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.29 and 30 and the
Apocryphon, the truth of the Sethian hypothesis of Schenke and
the Valentinian hypothesis of Petrement as ways of explaining the
origin of the texts, and of the claim that the myth was originally
non-Christian and later Christianized, within the framework of
the major theological divisions of the myth. The attempt begun
by the likes of Schenke and Schottroff to discover the theological
stance and purpose behind each text and version, or even the
various theological tendencies within a text or version, may well
offer the best key to unravelling the mysteries of the many-headed
hydra of the Gnostic myth. In this and the following chapter we
shall analyse the Gnostic theogony and cosmogony, look at Gnostic
anthropology in chapter five, soteriology (including Christology)
in chapters six and seven and eschatology in chapter eight.

1 The frame story

The Apocryphon begins with a frame story with features typical of
apocalyptic revelatory treatises and of the Gnostic dialogue in
particular,3 which sets the scene and encapsulates, as Tardieu has
so well demonstrated, the ternary structure of the whole work.4 It
also establishes its Christian Gnostic character and is evidently
permeated with echoes of the Fourth Gospel, not all of which
Tardieu has noted. Thus it relates how, as John the brother of
James and son of Zebedee (cf. John 21:2) is going up to the Temple,
he encounters a Pharisee named Arimanios who asks him where
his master is. John replies that he has returned to where he
originally came from (cf. John 8:14; 16:28; 20:17). The Pharisee
then claims that this Nazorean (Nazoraios; cf. John 18:5) led them
astray (plana] cf. John 7:12), closed their hearts and turned them
away from the traditions of their ancestors (cf. John 12:37-42).5
The slanders of the Pharisee (who Giversen suggests is given the
symbolical name of the evil spirit of Zoroastrianism in its Greek
form)6 both stimulate John’s doubts and questions and find their
refutation in the appearance of the Saviour to John and his
revelation of the truth. Further, it will appear at the conclusion of
the exposition that it was not the Saviour who led people astray
and closed their hearts but the counterfeit spirit, the creation of
the ignorant, arrogant, and exclusive Creator God of the Jews and
his powers.7 The frame story thus fits neatly into the main
narrative,8 but is it part of the original, as Tardieu claims, or of a
later Christianization, as Schenke, Krause and others argue?
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 73

John turns from the Temple to the mountain, a desert place,

the antithesis of the Temple and thejewish Law and the traditional
place for apocalyptic revelations, as Tardieu notes.9 In great grief
he is led to ask how the Saviour was chosen and why he was sent
into the world, who his father is who sent him, and what the nature
of the aeon (i.e. heavenly location) to which the elect will go. The
Saviour had said that the present aeon had assumed the form of
the imperishable aeon but had not given any information about
the latter.10 Clearly any ensuing revelation is going to have to deal
with the nature of God (theology) and the heavenly aeon
(cosmology), the nature of the Saviour and his work (soteriology)
and the final goal of the elect (eschatology).
And in fact when the Saviour does then appear in a vision in the
stereotyped manner of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles or the
Pistis Sophia,11 but in a threefold form (echoing the ternary
pattern?) as infant, old man and youth,12 he identifies himself as
the one who is with them for all time, the Father, the Mother and
the Son, the eternally existent, who will teach John about what
exists, what has come to be, and what is to be.13 His purpose is
summed up as to teach John about the invisible and the visible,
and about the perfect (teleios) Man, and John is bidden to pass on
this teaching to his fellow spirits of the immovable race of the
perfect Man, a theme echoed in the epilogue.14 Now the concepts
of the perfect Man and his immovable race do occur in the main
body of the Apocryphon: the perfect Man is almost certainly the
heavenly Man Adamas,15 and his ‘immovable race’ designates the
Gnostics themselves.16 But since in the later Sethian texts Seth
rather than Adamas is the real father of the immovable race,17
the latter designation would appear to be part of our Sethian
reinterpretation (a3).
Further, the description of the Revealer as appearing in three
forms and his ego eimi self-predication, although reflecting the
ternary scheme of the Apocryphon, strikingly recall the portrayal of
both Barbelo herself in the cosmogony (triple male, triple
powered, triple named) and of the triple descending Revealer/
Redeemer of the concluding Pronoia hymn of the long recension
(as well as the Protennoia of TrimorphicProtennoia) and thus I would
argue belongs to redaction (a2) .l8 Therefore neither of these links
between the frame story and the main text necessarily supports
Tardieu’s case for the originality of the former. As further possible
evidence of its secondary character, the frame story with its
Johannine colouring would only make sense in a Christian
74 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

document (such as I claim the source underlying Irenaeus 1.29

and the Apocryphon was from the outset),19 when the Fourth
Gospel was generally accepted in the Great Church. The redactor
has cleverly picked up and further exploited the Johannine
connection, one already evident in the earlier redactions, but not
original to the myth.
Thus it seems very likely that, as Schenke and Krause argue,
Irenaeus’ source (a1) did not contain the frame story, but on the
other hand he evidently considers it a Christian document and
may indeed have obtained a copy of it from the Valentinians, who
he believed derived their ideas from it.20

2 The Supreme Being: Father, Mother and Son

(a) The Father

The description of the theogony and higher cosmogony of the

myth now commences in the Apocryphon with explication of the
Supreme Being as Father, Mother and Son; the Saviour’s self-
identification: ‘I am the Father, I am the Mother, I am the Son’, is
evidently secondary, based on the reinterpretation of the Mother,
Barbelo in redaction (a2) .2I However, the assertion that the Monad
is a monarchy to which nothing is superior22 could represent an
appropriate start for an esoteric, Gnostic treatise on God, the world
and humanity.23 The supreme Being, the Father of the All, is
described first as Spirit and Light, not only major Johannine
themes but the two key categories, as I have already suggested, for
understanding the structure of the myth.24 Then follows a classic
if stereotyped passage of philosophical apophatic theology in three
sections,21 the middle section of which has, as already remarked,
an almost word-for-word parallel in Allogenes, which Turner and I
would see as borrowed from the Apocryphon, although Tardieu
may be right to suggest that both are utilizing a common piece of
tradition.26
At first sight it might seem that Irenaeus’ extremely brief and
elliptical description of the supreme Being in 1.29.1 did not
contain such a passage. However, we have already suggested that
he knew more than he says and that his source not only continued
with cosmological, anthropological and soteriological themes,27
but that it had a more developed theogony.28 Thus we find that
when Irenaeus mocks certain Valentinian epigones for trying to
be ‘more gnostic than the Gnostics’29 in positing an ogdoad of
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 75

negative hypostases, no less than four correspond to those in the

Apocryphon at this point.30 And to build on R. A. Greer’s persuasive
argument: precisely because Irenaeus’ overriding theological
concern in Books 1 and 2 was to insist on the orthodox Christian
view of God over against the Gnostics as ‘containing, not con¬
tained’,31 he would be only too anxious to omit any Gnostic negative
theology which echoed such a theme.32
Certainly it seems to have been a favourite device of Gnostic
tractates dealing with cosmogonical matters to begin with such a
passage of negative theology. It occurs at some length at the
beginning of the Tripartite Tractate,33 in Hippolytus’ description of
the system of Basilides,34 and in Eugnostos,35 a treatise on theogony
and the higher cosmogony. Even more relevant is the Sophia of
Jesus Christ, which I would argue is a more explicitly Christian
version of Eugnostos, recasting it into a dialogue between Christ
and his disciples, so similar in its frame story and many points of
detail to the Apocryphon that it seems undoubtedly dependent on
it.36 Furthermore, just such a concern with the absolute tran¬
scendence of the supreme deity seems to have been characteristic
of second-century philosophy and theology, pagan and Christian.37
As regards the relation between the recensions in this section,
despite the fragmentary state of all the texts with the partial
exception of B, there do not appear to be significant differences,
apart from the omission in LR, probably through homoeoteleuton,
of a brief reference to the Father as neither boundless (apeiros)
nor bounded but something far superior.38 The parallel in Allogenes
clearly confirms the correctness of SR at this point.39 And SR would
again appear to be more original in the catalogue of the Father’s
positive functions as eternal, life and life-giving,40 where although
LR apparently agrees with SR in describing him as ‘immeasur¬
able light’,41 it does not mention that he is light and light-giving
as SR does.42 The redactor of LR may again have been guilty of
homoeoteleuton, like Tardieu!43
Tardieu is probably correct to see the following interjection as
redactional,44 but his explanation of it as further expansion by the
redactor of SR (o) of the single Johannine-influenced exclamation
of the original (n),45 the only addition to the entire text by the
former, seems unconvincing. Its undoubtedjohannine colouring
makes it a prime candidate for my redaction (a2), the addition of
the Johannine framework and dialogue. Despite the slight
differences within SR at this point, both versions seem to suggest
the inability of the speaker to comprehend the inexpressible
76 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Father.46 But that point is then repeated in the next section which
relates the emergence of the second divine being, the Father’s
Aeon (i.e. the Mother, Barbelo), in a way which does not quite fit
the context. Thus there is a jump from mention of the Father as
head of all the aeons, ‘if there is anyone with him’ (SR) or ‘who
gives them strength’ (LR) to the assertion that ‘none of us knows
the Immeasurable except whoever has dwelt in him (LR adds:
namely the Father); he it was who has told us’ .47 The unmistakable
allusion to John 1:18 surely suggests that this passage is equally
part of the Johannine redaction. The redactor of LR has removed
the bulk of the earlier Johannine material because of its theological
implications, but failed to spot the later allusion, adding the clumsy
gloss.48

(b) The Mother

The whole problem of how the diversity and plurality of the

heavenly world, and hence of our visible world, arose from the
perfect unity of the Monad is one which exercised the minds
of the Gnostics as it did those of orthodox Christians and
pagan philosophers. But over against the tendency of the
latter two to develop a single answer, the Gnostics charac¬
teristically present a variety of views reflecting various kinds of
imagery. Thus the Apocryphon, after stressing the untroubled
rest and silence of the supreme Being’s Aeon (whether in its
hypostatic rather than spatio-temporal sense is not clear),49
suggests, as Layton points out,50 three symbolic models whereby
the Father comes to be responsible for the aeons (in the hypo¬
static sense) and the worlds which emanate from him. These
models are, first, a solitary intellect {nous) which in thinking
about itself objectifies itself; second, a solitary eye surrounded by
reflective luminous water in which it sees itself reflected, i.e.
objectified; and third, a spring (pege) of living water endlessly flowing
(cf.John 4:10,14) and thus objectifying itself.5lThe last two images
recall, of course, two of the characteristics of Wisdom in Wis 7:25-
6 (mirror and effluence), and Tardieu’s analysis of this whole
section on the Mother as a mythological exegesis of personified
Jewish Wisdom with parallels in John 1 and Colossians 1:15-17 is
surelyjustified.52 SR gives a clearer picture of these three processes
than LRand alone preserves the allusion to John 4:10 and 14 (the
spring of the spirit (pneuma) flowing from the living water of the
light and supplying (choregein/epichore[gei]) all the aeons and their
worlds).
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 77

Janssens has drawn attention to the use by Heracleon, when

commenting onjohn 4:14, of the verb epichoregein, butwhile noting
the use of choregein in B 26.22, fails to refer to the even more
apposite epichore[gei\ of III 7.7f.53 Tardieu’s allusion in the
apparatus to a fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews which speaks
of the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descending and resting on
the Lord at his baptism and addressing him as ‘my first-begotten
Son who reignest for ever’ is also apposite: another fragment speaks
of the Holy Spirit as the Mother of Christ, so that this might add
more support to seeing the triad of Father, Mother and Son as a
Christian construction developing traditions found in Wisdom
literature, Hebrews and Jewish Christian sources.54
Continuing the play on noein, the Apocryphon then has the
Father’s thought (ennoia) immediately realized and manifest as a
distinct hypostasis.55 The following list of titles of this figure, which
vary between the recensions (as Pronoia, Barbelo, First Man,
virginal spirit. Triple male, womb, Mother-Father (metropator),
etc.) forms a key element in any literary- and source-critical analysis
of the Apocryphon.™ As Tardieu recognizes, the original basis is the
appearance of Barbelo and her praising the Father for her origin
from him, and the hymnic passage with the titles derives from
later redactions.57 He rightly points to the unified character of the
doxological formulae and their association with Sethian texts like
Trimorphic Protennoia, the Three Steles of Seth, Zostrianos, Allogenes
and the Untitled Treatise in the Bruce Codex.58 But because he
refuses to consider that Irenaeus’ account could have influenced
the Apocryphon directly, hypothesizes a pre-Christian Chaldaean-
Platonizing source for both Irenaeus 1.29 and the Sethian texts,
and considers the Pronoia hymn original, he cannot use Irenaeus
as a control.
If one does, and works from the hypothesis that the Pronoia
figure and hymnic material form part of a later redaction (a2),
then one can accept many of Tardieu’s insights while making even
more sense of the overall picture. Thus it would seem from
Irenaeus’ account supplemented and at times corrected by the
Greek of Theodoret, that Barbelo is the virgin Spirit in whom
there is an aeon which is never-ageing (nunquam senescentem:
Theodoret, anolethron).59 If difficult to interpret because of the
character of the sources, this is a simpler and probably more
original picture than in the Apocryphon which, particularly in LR,
confusingly applies the epithet of virginal Spirit to both Barbelo
and the Father.60 Irenaeus’ account goes on to mention an
78 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

unnameable Father who wished to reveal himself to Barbelo and

how this Ennoia came forth and stood in his sight.61
However, the two accounts are by no means identical or entirely
reconcilable. Whereas Irenaeus depicts Barbelo as a distinct
hypostasis within whom there is an aeon whose relation to the
Father is not entirely clear at this point, and the wish of the latter
to reveal himself to Barbelo, that wish being hypostatized as Ennoia,
the Apocryphon has the much more sophisticated concept of the
self-conception and objectification of the single supreme Being
as his image. Sevrin may well be right to argue that the Apocryphon s
monistic conception and imagery is likely to be more original than
Irenaeus’ confusing hovering between an original monad and a
dyad, perhaps influenced by his desire to demonstrate the origins
of Ptolemy’s dyad.62
The self-unfolding and self-revelation of the supreme Being
continues in a stereotyped ternary pattern of request (aitein),
divine assent (kataneuein) and emergence of an aeon who praises
its originators. Here the system underlying Irenaeus and the
Apocryphon seems to be the original, developed in later
Barbelognostic-Sethian treatises.63 Thus Barbelo requests (aitein)
that she be given Prior Knowledge (prognosis/shrp hsooun).64
Theodoret’s version of Irenaeus also has Barbelo request (aitein)
prognosis, whereas in the Latin it is the Father’s Ennoia who
appears and makes the request65 After her request, the Father
nods assent (kataneuein) and Prior Knowledge appears and takes
up position with the earlier emanation, here the Ennoia which is
the Pronoia (SR), or the Pronoia which originates from the
Thought (meeue, i.e. ennoia)66 of the invisible virginal Spirit (LR) ,67
praising the Invisible Spirit and Barbelo since it came into being
through her.68
SR evidently feels the need to equate Ennoia with Pronoia (and
Barbelo) at this point, although just previously it had seemed to
distinguish them, speaking of Barbelo as the Pronoia and First
ennoia who emerged from the Father’s Pronoia!69 Similarly LR,
while distinguishing Pronoia and Ennoia here, had apparently
previously identified them.70 Again both recensions appear to
distinguish Barbelo from Ennoia when they come to speak of the
Father’s pentad of aeons.71 Further, B 28.13f. has a plural verb
form, implying that both Ennoia and Prior Knowledge came into
being because of Barbelo. For these reasons and from a comparison
with Irenaeus’ account in 1.29.1, Till, in his note on B 28.9, argues
for two original Ennoia figures.72 However, it seems best to leave
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 79

any attempt to resolve the ambiguities until the end of this process
of divine self-unfolding.
Continuing that process she again (i.e. the subject must be
Barbelo) makes a request, this time for Incorruptibility (aphtharsia/
mntattako); the Father consents and Incorruptibility appears and
takes her stand with the others, praising the Father and Barbelo.73
Once again Barbelo makes a request, this time for Eternal Life,
with the same result.74 At this point SR adds to the formula about
their origin, namely that it was through the self-revelation of the
Invisible Spirit,75 and concludes this stage by stating that this is the
Fifth (pentad?) of the aeons (B) or the five aeons (III) of the
Father.76 This pentad is identified as the First Man, the image of
the invisible, i.e. Barbelo and Ennoia and Prior Knowledge and
Incorruptibility and Eternal Life, and qualified further as
androgynous, the Tenth of the aeons (B) or ten aeons of the
Father.77
Flowever, at this point LR adds a further emanation, Truth.78
And significantly it exactly repeats the previous formula; they took
up position and praised.79 This last would appear to be the
concluding one embracing all the aeons, and so one might have
expected LR to have used a singular verb in the previous case of
Eternal Life, as with Prior Knowledge and Incorruptibility, if LR
were original here. Moreover the concluding motif in II 6.If.
unexpectedly has the singular: ‘through whom she had come into
being’, despite the plural form in the previous two instances. The
first plural might be a mistake,80 but the singular form (‘she came
into being’) is very odd after the plural (‘they praised’) and one
cannot easily understand why, if it had originally been plural, it
was ever changed to the singular.
LR then inserts the passage about the group of five aeons.81 It
has the term pentas, speaks of the First Man as the image of the
Invisible Spirit, and adds ‘that is the Pronoia’ prior to the mention
of Barbelo. Both of these are set in double apposition to the First
Man and image and separated off from the other aeons, Thought,
Prior Knowledge, Incorruptibility, Eternal Life and Truth, by the
same or a similar conjunction to that which separates off each
aeon.82 Thus unless, as with Giversen, one equates Barbelo/
Pronoia with Thought (or Ennoia), one has six, not five aeons!
Indeed, the first figure in the pentad would appear to be the First
Man with whom one must equate Barbelo/Pronoia/Thought.
Which recension is the more original, SR which omits or LR
which includes the figure of Truth? We have indicated the
80 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

confusion in the stereotyped pattern of the emergence of Truth

in LR, which might point to its secondary character, but in fact
there does seem to be similar confusion over that pattern in
previous instances in both recensions. Ideally one would have
expected each aeon to appear, take up its position, and praise the
supreme Being and Barbelo to whom it owed its origin. The pattern
actually begins with the Father’s Ennoia appearing and taking up
position before the Invisible Spirit.83 Now this precisely echoes
the Latin of Irenaeus’ account: ‘Ennoeam autem hanc progressam
stetisse in conspectu eius.’84 But whereas Irenaeus does eventually
appear to distinguish Ennoia from Barbelo, as Till points out,83
the Apocryphon ties itself in knots over whether Barbelo, Pronoia
and Ennoia are one and the same or two distinct figures, as we
saw. It would seem as if the combination of an originally distinct
Barbelo, the Father’s consort, with his Ennoia as the first projection
of his wish to reveal himself to her, can plausibly be shown to be
partly responsible for the present confused state of our Apocryphon.
The other confusing factor is plainly the figure and concept of
Pronoia. That this figure is so frequently a gloss, a characteristic
sign of later literary activity,86 and that she occurs in what are
evidently later additions which do not fit the context, e.g. the
hymnic passage to Barbelo where SR has Barbelo emerge from
her/it, while LR, evidently conscious of the awkwardness, omits
mention of her,87 and above all the concluding Pronoia hymn,
which SR may have omitted because it was conscious of a certain
lack of continuity, all suggest the secondary character of the
Pronoia material, the subject, I have argued, of redaction (a2).88
As regards the questions of whether there were originally two
Ennoia figures and a final aeon, Truth, the account in Irenaeus,
despite its brevity, may cast some light here. Thus although
Irenaeus makes no mention of individual praise as each figure
emerges, and appears to mess up the pattern by having
Incorruptibility appear at the joint request of Ennoia and Prior
Knowledge, he does mention that once the four female aeons
(including Ennoia!) have been united with their male consorts
they glorified (magnificabant) the Great Light and Barbelo.89 And
that SR with its Barbelo and the four female aeons including
Ennoia is more original than LR, appears to be confirmed by the
evidence of the Gospel of the Egyptians. It presents the first
emanations from the Invisible Spirit, in all probability under the
influence of the (a2) redaction of the Apocryphon and its triple
power designation of Barbelo, as the three powers or ogdoads of
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 81

Father, Mother or Barbelo and Son.90 Now the ogdoad of the

Father consists of the four female aeons of Irenaeus’ account and
SR of the Apocryphon (ennoia, aphtharsia, Eternal Life, and prognosis)
plus three of the male (or neuter) aeons later to appear in both
sources (logos, thelema, nous), but does not include Truth.91 Here
too Barbelo is distinct from Ennoia, who is part of the ogdoad and
self-revelation of the Father, which might be further confirmation
of the originality of Irenaeus’ version.
If indeed, as we have argued, the figure of Truth is secondary,
why was it added in LR? Again reference to Irenaeus’ version may
supply a clue. It recounts the later emanation of Truth (aletheia)
as the female consort of Autogenes.92 Now, as we shall discover,
the Apocryphon has apparently fused the two distinct figures of
Christ and Autogenes of Irenaeus’ account.93 Thus it has had to
reinterpret the mention of Truth as the consort of Autogenes,
and has simply represented it as an element (or figure) in the
Autogenes/Christ which (or who) is made subject to him.94 The
redactor of LR, faced with the Sethian pentad of aeons, which,
since he identified Barbelo/Pronoia with the Thought, only came
to four, must have felt that one was omitted and searched for a
suitable (female) candidate. Having come across the mention of
Truth at the end of the list of aeons as present in Christ/Autogenes
and among the beings subject to him, and reflecting the continuing
Johannine influence on the Apocryphon (cf. John 14:6), he must
have felt that here was the errant aeon and added it.
If the version in LR was original, as Giversen argues and Tardieu
assumes,95 and SR omitted it, first by accident then apparently
deliberately a few lines later, why does this aeon, unlike the others,
play no part in the rest of the work apart from its relation to
precisely the figure with whom it is associated in Irenaeus’ account?
And why in the Gospel of the Egyptians is it absent from the list of
aeons of the Father, but preserved precisely in relation with the
Autogenes figure distinct from Christ, as in Irenaeus?96 Once again
Irenaeus’ version would seem closer to the original, which,
paradoxically, is better preserved in the later, dependent Gospel of
the Egyptians despite its idiosyncrasies, than in one of its sources,
our Apocryphon.
Finally, as regards the mysterious androgynous pentad or decad
identified as the Father, Tardieu’s explanation of it as an editorial
gloss to assist the memory (of the bewildered reader?), seems
persuasive.97 It sums up the process so far of the emergence, at the
request of Barbelo, heavenly Wisdom, pure virginal Spirit and first
82 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

emanation of the Invisible Spirit, of appropriate feminine sapien¬

tial aspects of the supreme Being (Thought, Prior Knowledge,
Incorruptibility, Eternal Life). What is rather striking about this
process is the priority of the feminine and of Wisdom concepts
treated in a positive way and the lack of any obvious Platonic
influence at this point, apart from the general concepts of
emanation and the hierarchy of being and perfection. Even the
concept of the pentad itself, rather than being directly derivable
from Platonic-Neopythagorean speculations, would seem to echo
Sethian concerns, and be part of the Sethian reworking.98

(c) The Son

The sell-unfolding of the supreme Being now finds its completion

in the generation of the third member of the divine triad, the
Son, and in the emanation of a tetrad of male aeons/attributes of
the Father to balance and complement the females in a series of
syzygies. The uniqueness of the Son, his likeness to but distinction
from the Father, is expressed in the fact that he is generated, not
emanated, even if by a spiritual process, a form of virgin birth (by
the virginal Spirit!).99 That does mean, however, as we shall see,
that he is not coequal or perfect.1 Here SR is closer in some details
to Irenaeus’ version than LR. Thus the latter has the Father (i.e.
the Invisible Spirit?) look at Barbelo in the pure light and
brightness which surrounds the Invisible Spirit (sic). She conceives
by him and he begets a spark of light which is like the blessed light
but not equal to it in magnitude. This is the only-begotten of the
Mother-Father (metropator), the only-begotten of the Father, the
pure light.2
SR conversely seems less awkward and repetitive, and closer to
Irenaeus. Thus it has Barbelo look intently at the pure light, turn
to it and bear a spark of light like the blessed light but not equal in
magnitude. It describes him as the only-begotten (monogenes) who
appeared to (B) or in (III) the Father (cf. John 1:18), the divine
Autogenes (autogenes/-etos), the firstborn son of the All (cf. Col
1:15) from the spirit of the pure light (B), or of all who belong to
the Father, the pure light (III) / Irenaeus has Barbelo look intently
(prospicientem) at the Magnitude (magnitudinem) and, filled with
pleasure at the conception of it (conceptu delectatam in hanc), bear
a light like him (generasse simile ei lumen) .4 But if Irenaeus’ version
is more like SR in its general picture, it shows differences, such as
light instead of spark of light, and no mention of the inequality of
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 83

the light, but above all in the fact that whereas both recensions of
the Apocryphon (followed by TrimorphicProtennoia) equate this figure
with Autogenes/Monogenes, Irenaeus and the Gospel of the
Egyptians do not.0 Yet conversely the apparent gloss in Irenaeus
that Barbelo thus initiated the illumination and generation of
everything very much sums up what the Apocryphon is attempting
to say about the Son/Autogenes as firstborn son of the All and
light.6
The Invisible Spirit rejoices over the light which had come into
existence from Barbelo and anoints him with his own goodness
(abbreviations of chrestos)/ so that he becomes perfect (teleios),
free of deficiency and Christ (or good, chrestos?) .8 The Son receives
the anointing, stands before the Father and praises or glorifies
him. Tardieu points to the Johannine echoes and interprets the
triple mention of anointing as given by the Father, the Invisible
Spirit, by the mediation of the Mother, the virgin Spirit, as
equivalent to the Trinitarian invocation in Christian baptismal
practice.9 And this is precisely the point. Despite the ambiguities
of the wordplay chrestos/ christos, present but obscured by the Latin
of Irenaeus (benignitas, i.e. chrestotes) ,10 the anointed one is clearly
Christ, as also in the Gospel of the Egyptians11 and Trimorphic
Protennoia,12 Indeed the double play on chrestos/ christos may be
deliberate: the original sense of each word is drawn upon to express
both the ultimate goodness of the Father and the bestowed
goodness and Christ character of the Son. The Son is perfected by
the Father through the Mother.
Sevrin, who is the only commentator to investigate this episode
in detail, largely because he is concerned with the liturgical
implications, also insists on the originality of the wordplay, which
LR has obscured by omitting the name Christ, and appeals to
similar examples in contemporary Christian writers.13 He also
emphasizes the spiritual, metaphorical character of this episode
and compares two Valentinian parallels, but unfortunately declares
himself unwilling to follow Orbe in asking whether the
transcendent unction of Christ might not underlie this whole
development.14 Surely this is precisely the case! Wilson, noting
the absence of the name Christ in II at this point, thinks that SR
may therefore be more original here.13 But his question is rather
whether the versions represent a process of Christianization or,
indeed, a movement away from Christianity.16 To her credit, King
clearly sees that the anointing and perfection of the Son, Christ,
provides the complete model of salvation for the later lower beings,
84 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

but she has already accepted the Christianization hypothesis of

Arai and Schenke.17
Certainly the term ‘Christ’ need not necessarily be due solely to
Christian influence: its ultimate background is probably thejewish
concept of the Messiah, but that such an exalted heavenly being
should require anointing reflects not thejewish concept of kingly
or priestly anointing, but Christian speculation about the heavenly
Christ and his anointing as a transcendent event and reality not
dependent on the earthly baptism ofjesus byjohn. Wilson alluded
to the New Testament echoes of this passage without illustration,
but we might cite Acts 2:36; 4:27; 10:38; Luke 4:18 (= Isa 61:1
LXX); Heb l:8f. (= Ps 44(45):6f.).18 Again, Hebrews is the key,
alluding to Christian speculations about the pre-existent heavenly
Son, his superiority to the angels and primal unction as Christ,
based on passages in the Psalms and Wisdom literature. Sevrin’s
suggestion that the redactor of LR altered the more primitive text
form (III modified by B) because of the demands of an actual
ritual,19 which he deduces was more an affusion or perfusion than
a chrismation, and part of the five seals baptismal rite,20 I find
unconvincing; the evidence, Gnostic and ‘orthodox’ Christian,
rather suggests that the five seals rite was precisely a postbaptismal
chrismation, patterned on the anointing, perfection and elevation
of Christ.21
Following the customary ternary pattern (aitein/ kataneuein/
doxazein) and to complete the self-manifestation of the Father,
the Light/Christ asks (aitein) for a helper to be given him, namely
Nous (nous). As female attributes/aeons were appropriate to the
female, Barbelo, so male (or neuter) are for the male. At the assent
of the Invisible Spirit the Nous appeared and took up position by
Christ, praising him and Barbelo.22 Irenaeus’ account echoes
elements of this: he has Christ again (rursus) ask for a helper
(adiutorium) to be given him, namely Nous, and Nous came forth
(progressus) P But the Apocryphon, instead of completing the
doxological formula (‘because he had come into being ...’), has
a gloss which appears to mark the end of this particular pattern of
emanation and open the way to a new development. ‘All this’ says
SR, ‘ happened in silence (sige) and thought (ennoia)',24 whereas
LR only seems to mention silence and make thought the subject
of the next sentence, rather than the Invisible Spirit of SR.25
Thus there is undoubted confusion in our texts here and neither
recension seems to offer a trouble-free or persuasive interpretation
of events. Whereas SR has the Invisible Spirit initiate a new series
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 85

of emanations by deciding to complete a work by a word, with the

consequent hypostatization of that as Will (thelema), his
appearance, position beside Nous and the Light, and praise of
him (presumably the Spirit) ,26LR has Thought (i.e. Ennoia) decide
through the word of the Invisible Spirit to complete a work, which
then emerges and praises him (i.e. the Thought).27 Yet neither is
satisfactory. Why should the Invisible Spirit suddenly intervene,
as in SR, to do what is properly the responsibility of Christ, namely
to request the emergence of the Father’s male attributes/aeons?
And conversely, although Thought/Ennoia has already been
responsible for the production of all preceding aeons, and the
emergence of Will (and Word) from immanent thought is a
plausible one, recalling Valentinian theories and the immanent/
expressed Word concept of contemporary Christian Apologists,28
following the earlier pattern of emanations one would expect a
male figure (i.e. Christ) to request male attributes/aeons.
And indeed Christ appears again a line or so later, where after
all four texts come together again in agreeing that Word followed
the Will,29 they add ‘for through the Word Christ, the divine
Autogenes, created everything’.30 This is an unmistakable allusion
to John 1:3, and if we combine this with the evidence offered by
Irenaeus’ account, followed by Theodoret, which speaks of the
Father in addition to these emitting Logos, but with no mention
of Will, who yet appears a line or two later united with Eternal
Life,31 we are driven to conclude that the confusion was already
present in Irenaeus’ source, and that it was somehow associated
with the influence ofjohannine material. The symmetrical pattern
of emergence and doxology we are led to expect (three male
attributes/aeons (Nous, Will, Logos) along with Christ corres¬
ponding to the three female (Prior Knowledge, Incorruptibility,
Eternal Life) along with Ennoia), reflected in Irenaeus’ syzygies
and the Father’s ogdoad in the Gospel of the Egyptians (ennoia/ logos,
aphtharsia/Christ, Eternal Life/thelema, nous/prognosis) ,32 has been
disrupted, evidently by speculations about the Logos of the
Prologue of the Fourth Gospel.
As a tentative preliminary hypothesis to suggest how the
confusion might have arisen, one might suppose thatjohn’s Gospel
had already begun to influence the original Apocryphon (our source
(a)), leading to the substitution of the Father for Christ as emitting
the Word by an act of will.33 This was the version (our (a1)) which
Irenaeus used, which might account for his omission of Will. The
next redaction (our (a2)), perhaps under Valentinian influence,
86 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

added the gloss (‘this all happened in a silence (sige?) and a

thought (ennoia)’) to round off the emergence of Nous,34
reinstated the Will as an aeon followed by the Word, and added
the Johannine allusion as a mistaken attempt to ‘correct’ the
doxology.35 SR goes back to this source. Finally LR took Thought
rather than the Invisible Spirit as the subject.
All four texts refer unambiguously to Christ here and all identify
him with Autogenes. However, Giversen thinks that the latter term
in its root meaning of‘self-alone-begotten’ cannot properly apply
to Christ here, but only to the action of the Invisible Spirit, and
therefore both he and Janssens agree that in this case the Son is
given the name of the Father, appealing to Charlotte Baynes’
detailed analysis of the term in her edition of the Untitled Treatise
in the Bruce Codex.36 But, as Janssens admits, the title does not
even fit the supreme Being properly since he did not produce the
Son alone without a partner. Indeed, as she notes, autogenes in
other Gnostic systems, such as that of the Peratae, applies to the
intermediate being of the descending triad, Unbegotten
(agennetos), Self-begotten (autogenes), and Begotten (gennetos) ,37
Moreover, on the only occasion where the appellation ‘the divine
Autogenes’ is applied to the Invisible Spirit (III 11.4) the text is
evidently corrupt, for this figure is immediately identified as the
Son of Barbelo. Everywhere else the divine Autogenes is equated
with Christ.38
Petrement, in her detailed discussion of the problem of the
appropriateness of the term,39 which begins by accepting that it is
undoubtedly a name of Christ in the Apocryphon, refers to the
researches of J. Whittaker into its possible pagan background.40
Whittaker notes that pagan philosophers came to apply expressions
meaning ‘begotten of himself not to the first principle but to a
second principle or second god, or more generally to derived
principles. So Porphyry refers to the Nous, the second principle
of Neoplatonist metaphysics, as autogennetos and autopator, although
he proceeds from the first principle. This is because for these
philosophers the supreme principle cannot move and thus cannot
beget. But, as Petrement argues, although this idea may be found
in Numenius (second half of the second century), there is no
proof it appeared in philosophy prior to its occurrence among
the Barbelognostics. And she even claims to detect it in the
Autophues aeon of the Valentinian Ptolemy.41 She also makes the
pertinent comment that all the Valentinian male aeons are more
or less figures of Christ, and appeals to the Tripartite Tractate, despite
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 87

its obscurity, to illuminate what this idea of self-begetting might

mean.
But this is surely to explain obscurum per obscurius, and there is
little evidence to suggest that the Tripartite Tractateis early enough
or close enough to the original Valentinus to be used to illuminate
the use of the concept in Irenaeus and the Apocryphon. Which
brings us to Irenaeus’ account. Here the Autogenes is not identified
with Christ but is a later emission from the union of the aeons
Ennoia and Logos.42 Similarly, in the Gospel of the Egyptians, the
term autogenesis, not applied to Christ, the Son of the silence (sige)
who came forth from the Invisible Spirit, but to the Word, the son
of Christ.43 We have already suggested the significance of the term
and concept for the Gnostics in that it represents a primary aspect
and stage of their experience of salvation: after being enlightened
about their state of exile and repenting, they are reborn, they
literally beget themselves. In this the Autogenes aspect of Christ is
their pattern. And in this sense Petrement is right to appeal to
Autogenes (and other titles) as a figure of Christ.
This may partly explain the identification of the two in the
Apocryphon and other works dependent on it, but that such an
identification is one of the main reasons for certain confusions in
our present text is undeniable. The problems caused in our
versions by the figure of Truth, the consort of the later emission
Autogenes in Irenaeus, is one obvious piece of evidence for this
hypothesis.44 And that same identification would seem to be largely
responsible for the confused nature of the following passage in
the Apocryphon and might go some way towards explaining its
differences from Irenaeus’ version.
Thus while the latter relates how syzygies were then formed
between the female and male aeons, Ennoia with Logos,
Incorruptibility/Aphtharsia with Christ, Eternal Life with Will/
Thelema and Nous with Prior Knowledge/Prognosis, and how
these praised the Great Light and Barbelo,45 the Apocryphon
suddenly and without explanation lists four of the aeons, Eternal
Life and Will, Nous and Prior Knowledge, as standing and praising
the Invisible Spirit and Barbelo because they had come into being
through her (i.e. Barbelo) .46 This last point is not strictly true of
the male aeons, which tends to cast further doubt on the originality
of this presentation. Giversen also senses some degree of
corruption here, referring to Schmidt’s conclusion that the text
of B should be emended in line with Irenaeus and Theodoret,
since the two pairs correspond to the last two of Irenaeus and the
88 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Autogenes is completely isolated.47 Countering Till’s rejection of

such an emendation, despite its attractiveness, on the grounds
that only a few were mentioned and that there was no question of
them being arranged in pairs(!), Giversen appeals to the previous
mention of the androgynous pentad of aeons as a basic structure
of the world of light.48
All this evidence seems further confirmation of my hypothesis
that the Apocryphon does not represent the original version of the
myth in this section, whereas Irenaeus does, in that, despite
omissions and gaps, he does represent the original symmetry of
first female then male aeons emerging and forming syzygies, each
of which will be responsible for later emanations. The originality
of this and the faithfulness of Irenaeus’ account is attested by the
remarkable parallel in the Gospel of the Egyptians, which lists the
aeons precisely as do Irenaeus and Theodoret, like them reversing
the expected chronological order (female-male) in the case of
the last two, nous and prognosis.49 Why then did some redactor of
the Apocryphon fail to preserve that original symmetry and its
syzygies at this point? Again I think we can best make sense of the
situation if we assume that the redactor of (a2) identified the
originally distinct figure of Autogenes, produced by the union of
Ennoia and Logos according to Irenaeus’ version,50 with Christ.
This is precisely what van den Broek argues has happened in the
case of Autogenes and Adam.51 Such an identification led to the
suppression of the Ennoia/Logos figures and their role, both later
and here, where they are the only figures (apart from Christ’s
consort, Incorruptibility) omitted from the abrupt list in the
Apocryphon, which starts, significantly, with Christ, the Autogenes.
This conjecture finds further confirmation in the following
passage in the Apocryphon. LR has the Holy Spirit perfect the divine
Autogenes and Barbelo(?),52 despite the fact that the former, as
Christ, has already been perfected through his anointing!53 His
subsequent taking up position by the Invisible Spirit, etc. also
appears to be a doublet, since similar events have already been
described,54 unless, as I surmise, we have here the description of
the original appearance of Autogenes as an aeon distinct from
Christ, as in Irenaeus. Significantly the versions of SR are even
more confused. Ill has Autogenes, identified with the Invisible
Spirit, perfecting himself to stand beside the latter(!),55 while B
refers to the Spirit of Autogenes being praised by the aeons because
he stood before the Invisible Spirit. Both versions are evidently
nonsensical.
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 89
But the continuation in SR, which has the Autogenes greatly
honoured by the Invisible Spirit because he had originated from
his first ennoia(\), set as god over all things (III) or the All (B),56
makes good sense and is strikingly similar to Irenaeus’ version. It
has Autogenes emitted from Ennoia and Logos to ‘represent’ (?ad
repraesentationem) the Great Light, and greatly honoured (valde
honorificatum), with all things subject to him (et omnia huicsubjecta) ,57
LR would appear to be less original here in that it has the
Autogenes honoured with a loud voice (cf. Matt 3:17) and
appearing through the Pronoia.58 But it, like SR, seems to be under
the particular influence of New Testament passages about the pre¬
existent and exalted Son at this point, for it has the Spirit appoint
him as head of the All (cf. Eph 1:22f.) ,39 while SR refers to the true
God giving him all power (exousia\ cf. Matt 28:18) and
subordinating (hypotassein) the truth in him to him to enable him
to comprehend (noein) everything.60 LR has all power subjected
(hypotassein) to the Autogenes as well as the truth in him and adds
that he was called by a name more exalted than every name.61 If
the echo of Matt 28:18 is thus obscured, it is balanced by an allusion
to Phil 2:9 which SR in turn fails to recognize, with its reference to
the name as one to be spoken to those who are worthy.62 Finally,
as argued above, the original consort of Autogenes, Truth, has
been both subordinated and promoted to an earlier aeon as a
result of the identification of Autogenes with Christ.
Van den Broek is right to argue for the original distinction of
the Autogenes from Christ, for the confusion in our texts of the
Apocryphon as arising from the identification of the two, and for
the exalted station of the Autogenes as hinted at by passages such
as the above, but his further speculations about the Autogenes as
heavenly Anthropos seem not entirely necessary to explain his
status in the Apocryphon as a figure or aspect of the heavenly pre¬
existent Son, Christ of Phil 2:9f., Eph 1:21 f. and Heb 2:6-8, etc.
Tardieu’s interpretation of this passage as demonstrating, on the
basis of Phil 2:9—11 in particular, the true name of the Son as
Christ, not Jesus; that this name is hidden, alien to the earthly
Jewish and Christian Messiah; and that its institution does not
date from the earthly baptism of Jesus, but from eternity, is more
apropos.63 In the distinct yet coalescing figures of Christ and
Autogenes, as with Barbelo and Ennoia, we find that characteristic
tendency of Gnostic theology to project several hypostases of one
and the same entity, that fluidity and ambiguity which so annoyed
both Irenaeus and Plotinus.
90 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

3 The completion of the divine unfolding:

Illuminators, ministers, Adamas
The divine self-revelation first to and through the Mother, Barbelo,
by four female aeons representing feminine attributes of the Spirit,
then complemented by the appearance to and through the Son,
Christ, of four male aeons representing masculine (or neuter)
attributes, leading to their doxology and union in syzygies, now
culminates through the fruits of each union. Thus from the male
aeon the Light, identified as Christ, and the female Incorruptibility,
the four great illuminators (phoster) appear.64 This has a precise
echo in Irenaeus,65 but the Apocryphon adds that this took place
through the Spirit from the Autogenes, a clumsy pleonasm which
adds further support to the hypothesis of van den Broek and
myself that it has artificially combined the two.66 The four then
take up position by the Autogenes, echoing the pattern of
previous emanations and the Latin of Irenaeus (ad circumstantiam
Autogeni) .67
But whereas Irenaeus recounts the emanation from Will and
Eternal Life of four beings, Charis, Thelesis, Synesis and Phronesis,
to assist (subministratio) the four illuminators,68 the Apocryphon
abruptly mentions three aeons, Will, Ennoia and Life,69 whose
precise grammatical or syntactical link with what precedes or
follows is not at all clear.70 Tardieu’s ingenious attempt to interpret
them as part of an arithmological concordance of the faculties of
the self-begotten Son (1+2+3+4=10) seems a counsel of despair,
forced on him because of his refusal to use Irenaeus’ account to
help interpret the Apocryphon.71 Van den Broek tries to unravel
some of the confusion by suggesting that the mysterious ennoia
dividing the pair Will/Eternal Life was a mistake for the aionia of
the Greek source, but despite that he seems forced to suppose
that ennoia stood in the original all the same.72 So we are still left
with the mysterious three aeons and the equally enigmatic
continuation in the ApocryphonvAnch. has SR speak of the four (B)
or his four (III), namely charis, synesis, aisthesis, and phronesis,73
and LR refer to the four powers as prudence, charis, aisthesis, and
phronesis.74 As Giversen notes, prudence is an apt translation of
synesis, and since II proceeds to list charis first, there is no real
disagreement between the recensions.75
However, Irenaeus’ account does appear to diverge here in that
it has Thelesis second. But this divergence is partly lessened by
the fact that in the ensuing attribution of aeons to the four
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 91
illuminators in the Apocryphon the order is charts, aisthesis, syne sis.7
Moreover the Gospel of the Egyptians, that syncretistic yet faithful
preserver of older, particularly Barbelognostic traditions, lists the
consorts of the four great illuminators (phoster) in the order charis,
aisthesis, synesis, phronesis.17 Further, as Harvey notes, the Clermont
MS of Irenaeus reads Enthesin at this point and Thesin later, in
association with the second illuminator, Raguel.78 Thus Irenaeus’
Greek original may have read aisthesis, which was misunderstood
or miscopied in the Latin.79 Although the Gospel of the Egyptians
differs from Irenaeus’ account (and the Apocryphon) over the origin
of the four illuminators (they are produced by the power of the
great Light, the Manifestation (prophaneia) at the request of the
Autogenes Logos and Adamas),80 it bears out Irenaeus’ presenta¬
tion of the great illuminators and their female consorts. The
Apocryphon, on the other hand, evidently lacks an element explain¬
ing the relation of the three abruptly-mentioned aeons to the four
powers and the origin of the latter.
The secondary nature of the Apocryphon at this point is also borne
out by further signs of confusion and of the likely combination of
sources in what follows. Thus although, like Irenaeus’ account
and the parallel in the Gospel of the Egyptians, it associates chans
with the first illuminator, Harmozel (B) or Armozel (III, II, IV),
glossed as the angel of the first aeon (SR) or first angel (LR),81 it
proceeds to abandon this pattern of ascription in the cases of the
other three powers. And it betrays great ambiguity over the nature
of the powers/aeons and their relation to the illuminators, now
treating them as locations, now as hypostases, with the illuminators
now over, now under and now identified with them! Thus SR
associates three aeons (hypostases?) with the first aeon (in which
the illuminator is, i.e. a location), which it names as charts, truth
and form (morphe),82 while LR, having identified the illuminator
with the aeon, associates them with it.83 With the second
illuminator, Oroiael, who is set over the second aeon there are
(another: LR) three aeons, pronoiaor epinoia, aisthesisand mnemeM
But why, one wonders, has the power aisthesis been put second
whereas charis came first?
With the third illuminator, Daueithe, who was set over the third
aeon, we find three more aeons, synesis, agape and idea,85 while SR
goes on to speak of the fourth illuminator, Eleleth, as set over the
fourth aeon, with his three aeons, perfection (-teleios), eirene, and
sophia (std).86 LR diverges at this point and has the fourth aeon
set over the fourth illuminator,87 but this reverses the pattern up
92 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

to now and is clearly secondary. Yet the logic of that pattern is not
clear: why the random occurrence of the powers, charis, etc., and
the deliberate substitution in all four of sophia for phronesis?
Attempts by Giversen and Tardieu to claim that the two are
synonymous are unconvincing,88 particularly in the light of the
evidence in Irenaeus and the Gospel of the Egyptians of a fixed
tradition of the four powers/consorts and their names. And further
signs of the possible combination of traditions or sources is
furnished by the repetitive character of the continuation in the
Apocryphon dealing with the assignation of responsibility for the
illuminators and aeons.
Thus both recensions first mention the four illuminators who
stand beside the Autogenes, then the twelve aeons (are the
illuminators no longer aeons, as before?) who take up position
beside the Son, the Autogenes, through the resolve of the Invisible
Spirit,89 but then immediately go on to refer to the twelve aeons
who belong to the Autogenes again.90 This redundant statement
might be further evidence of my hypothesis, supported by the
inconsistencies in the treatment of the illuminators and aeons by
the Apocryphon, that the original Barbelognostic scheme of the
four angelic illuminators and their consorts, attested by Irenaeus
and the Gospel of the Egyptians, has been combined with a system or
systems involving four aeons as locations associated with twelve
aeons as hypostases. Now the system of four aeons as locations,
hierarchically ranked abodes of the elect and their heavenly
ancestors/prototypes, is of course a basic Sethian doctrine, about
to occur in the Apocryphon,91 while what strikes one about the twelve
aeons is not only the random character of the names, but the
insistence on the number twelve with sophia as the last. Might this
not suggest a degree of Valentinian influence, as well as the need
to have a group of twelve aeonic entities as model for the twelve
powers created by the Demiurge, Ialdabaoth?92
This then is further evidence in support of my historical sketch
in chapter two, whereby the redaction (a2) in all likelihood
incorporated material about Ialdabaoth and the archons and their
creation of the Zodiac, etc. on the model of a heavenly archetype,
the twelve aeons, the last of whom, under the influence of
Valentinian ideas, was Sophia, demoted from her original
derivation from the first angelic illuminator, Harmozel (as we shall
see), to be the last product of the fourth angelic illuminator,
Eleleth. This picture then underwent a Sethian reworking in
redaction (a3) whereby the four illuminators were related to or
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 93

transformed into hierarchically ranked aeons. And traces of this

process can be detected particularly in Trimorphic Protennoia and
the Gospel of the Egyptians.
Thus Trimorphic Protennoia\\2& the Son, Christ, identified as self-
begotten, reveal himself to the (four) aeons who originated
through him and establish them over four aeons(!), each of which
is given three names, the last being that of the four illuminators in
the usual order.93 In what follows, the fourth illuminator Eleleth
appears in connection with the manifestation both of Sophia (also
called the Epinoia of Light) and her offspring, Ialdabaoth, as
saviour of the former and responsible for the latter’s self-assertion
and creation of humanity.94 Here we have the transition of
illuminators to aeons, the number twelve, and the transfer of
Sophia, but conversely, the illuminators/aeons do not appear to
be ranked, salvation is simply into the light,95 and there is no
mention of Seth and his seed, the immovable race.
On the other hand the Gospel of the Egyptians is undoubtedly a
Sethian document. It promotes Adamas as father of heavenly Seth
higher up the hierarchy, presents the illuminators (and Seth) as
emerging in response to the request of Autogenes/Logos and
Adamas for four aeons for Autogenes and a son for Adamas, and
has the illuminators form an ogdoad with the four female
consorts.96 This last clearly reflects its own characteristic ogdoadic
theology, so that it is led to replace the male/female pairing of
individual illuminators and ministers as in Irenaeus and the
Apocryphon, but its Sethian character and dependence on the
Sethian reworking of the Apocryphon are made abundantly clear
when it too presents the illuminators as the stratified aeonic abodes
of Seth and his seed.97 We find the same phenomenon further
developed in Zostrianos, but significantly it always seems to preserve
a distinction between the four aeons and the four illuminators
over them.98 Finally the Untitled Treatise of the Bruce Codex, despite
its late date and luxuriant mythology, still preserves a distinction
between the twelve aeons, the Autogenes aeon and the four
illuminators.99
The evident confusion in the texts of the Apocryphon and the
evidence from the related Nag Hammadi documents thus suggests
that Irenaeus’ scheme of four illuminators and their consorts,
which the Gospel of the Egyptians has preserved and expanded in its
own way, was nearer the original pattern. The redactors of the
Apocryphon were led to distort and modify that scheme by
introducing new material, converting the four ministers into twelve
94 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

aeons to act not only as the heavenly archetype for the signs of the
Zodiac, but to make room for Sophia as the last aeon, furthest
from the Father, the point of transition, as Tardieu aptly puts it,
from the transcendent Wisdom who is Eternity (Aeon) to the
demiurgic Wisdom who is Time.1

4 The origin of heavenly Adamas and Seth

The Apocryphon concludes the previous stage with the summary
formula: all things (B) or the All (II) were confirmed according
to the will of the Holy Spirit through the Autogenes.2 The first
part of B’s version finds an exact parallel in the Latin of Irenaeus:
‘Confirmatis igitur sic omnibus’ (1.29.3), while the second half
bears out the earlier statement that the Autogenes was set over
everything and reasserts the theme of divine providence. The stage
is thus set for a new emanation to complete the self-revelation of
the divine triad. The Apocryphon thereupon relates how from Prior
Knowledge and the perfect Nous (i.e. a male/female syzygy)
through the good pleasure of the Invisible Spirit and the
Autogenes, [there originated] the perfect true Man, the first
revelation.3 Irenaeus’ version, however, has him emitted by the
Autogenes, with no mention of Nous and Prognosis, who alone of
the four pairs are not made responsible for anything.4 Here the
Apocryphon s version is undoubtedly the more original, supplying
Nous and Prognosis with the role proper to them but associating
the Autogenes with the action. But against van den Broek at this
point, I consider that Adamas was part of the original Barbelo-
gnostic scheme and that the interloper here is the Autogenes, in
association with Ennoia and Logos. And whereas Irenaeus attests
his more developed role as excluding Nous and Prognosis and
assuming sole responsibility for Adamas,5 the Apocryphon com¬
promises. But again there is no need to evoke the heavenly
Anthropos to explain the Autogenes, as van den Broek does. The
logic of the system, as Petrement has shown, is that all these figures,
Light, Autogenes, Adamas, are hypostadzed aspects of Christ, the
Son.6
The versions disagree over the precise name of the heavenly
Man. While B 35.5 has him called ‘Adam’,7 III 13.4 prefers
‘Adamas’,8 and II 8.34f. has the at first sight strange form
‘Pigeraadaman’, which in fact does occur in other Sethian
treatises.9 Opinions differ as to the possible derivations of this
term, but it seems a deliberate Sethian formation to distinguish
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 95
the heavenly from the earthly Adam, for we find a similar
phenomenon with the heavenly Seth.10 Irenaeus’ source appears
to provide a Greek derivation: he was called ‘Adamas’ because
neither he himself nor those from whom he originated were
subjugated (domatus)That he is dubbed the first revelation,
apparently contradicting what has already been said of Barbelo,12
need cause no concern; the application of the title to Barbelo is
part of our redaction (a2); it identified Barbelo/Pronoia as the
First Man, etc. who revealed herself to the archons of Ialdabaoth
in the form of the first, perfect Man, so that they created earthly
man in the image and with the name (Adam) of the heavenly
Man.13 Asjanssens also notes, we have here the first manifestation
of the heavenly Anthropos in the sense that he will be the first
aeon to be revealed ouside the world of light.14
SR has him set over (or on) the first aeon with the Autogenes
Christ, in the first aeon with (III), or of (B), Harmozel along with
his powers,1"’ while LR, perhaps conscious now of the evident
contradiction, simply has Adam set over the first aeon with the
Autogenes Christ alongside the first illuminator Armozel with his
powers.16 Irenaeus’ account here diverges slightly in that the Latin
appears to suggest that Adamas is separated along with the first
light from Armoges (‘remotus est cum primo lumine ab
Armoge’).17 Although Schmidt’s comment that Irenaeus is totally
mistaken in having Adamas separated with the first light from
Armoges/Harmozel since the first light is Armoges/Harmozel, is
plausible at first sight, he has overlooked the careful distinction
made in the Latin between light/lumen/phos, i.e. the Father (the
Great Light) and Christ (the (first?) Light), on the one hand, and
illuminator/luminarium/ (phoster?) on the other.18 I would argue
that the peculiar reading in Irenaeus reflects the original Gnostic
mythologoumenon, based on christological speculations centring
on Hebrews 1-2, of the pretemporal elevation of heavenly Adam/
Man and Christ above the angels. The Sethian reworking of the
myth set Adamas firmly in the first aeon, with Seth in the second
and so on.19
The Apocryphon then relates how the Invisible Spirit gave Adamas
an invincible intellectual (noeros) power,20 which is echoed by
Irenaeus,21 but prior to this the latter again differs from the
Apocryphon in that it relates the emanation by Autogenes along
with Man of Perfect Knowledge as his consort, whereby Man gained
knowledge of the being above everything.22 Later this pair produce
an offspring called lignum or xylon, who is himself also called
96 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

‘Gnosis’.23 Adamas and Perfect Knowledge can best be understood

as archetypes of earthly Adam and Eve, and the Tree/Knowledge
as the archetype of the tree of knowledge in Paradise, evidently a
soteriological character like the Instructor of the Hypostasis of the
Archons,24 or the Epinoia of the Apocryphon, who is identified as the
tree of knowledge.25 But there is no trace of that at this point in
the Apocryphon. Instead we suddenly hear of the heavenly Seth son
of Adamas being set over the second aeon, with no indication of
how he originated.26 Here we have the tell-tale sign of the later
Sethian reworking, the mention of Seth and his seed, and the
illuminators/aeons hierarchically ranked and possibly periodized
as world ages and abodes for Adamas, Seth, his seed, and others
not repenting at once, respectively.27
However, just prior to that, there is one final possible parallel
with Irenaeus. The Apocryphon has Adamas honour and praise the
Invisible Spirit because everything originated on account of him
and everything will return to him,28 ending with the words: ‘Now
I praise you and the Autogenes and the aeons, the three, the Father,
the Mother, the Son, the perfect power.’29 According to Irenaeus’
account all things {omnia) rest in the virginal Spirit, praising the
Great Aeon. Hence{hinc) was manifested the Mother, Father, Son.30
The last phrase would appear to refer to the supreme triad/trinity
of Barbelo, the unnameable Father, and Christ, the Son, whose
full manifestation is completed by this doxology; the Great Aeon
probably designates the supreme Being.31 In the case of the
Apocryphon s doxology, which is ascribed to Adamas alone, Till
and Janssens prefer the reading in III 13.15 (‘the aeon’), as
supposedly referring to the Barbelo and thus to the Barbelognostic
triad.32 But the plural of B 35.18 and II 9.10 maybe preferable not
only as the more difficult reading but also because it adds further
support to my hypothesis that the Apocryphon has combined the
original Barbelognostic scheme of the triad of Father, Mother
Barbelo and Son Christ, the four angelic illuminators and Adamas,
with the figure of the Autogenes and his four aeons.
With this culminating doxology the self-revelation and
manifestation of the supreme Being, the Great Aeon, the triad of
Father, Mother and Son, is complete: the female and male aspects
of the Father as requested by and appropriate to Barbelo and
Christ respectively, have been united and borne fruit in the
attributes of the Son, Christ (Autogenes and Adamas), and his
angelic bodyguard, the four illuminators with their female
consorts. Adamas and his consort Perfect Knowledge sum up this
 Theogony and Cosmogony 1 97

process in his possession by this union of the full revelation of

Father, Mother and Son, a perfect intellectual and light power.
But Father, Mother and Son remain distinct from the other aeons
who are emanations, and thus it is appropriate to speak of a
heavenly triad or even trinity. However, Bohlig would see this triad
of Father, Mother and Son as an originally pagan formula,
developed by the Gnostics to reflect their own metaphysic and
then, in some cases, combined with the Christian trinity of Father,
Son and Holy Spirit in the order Father, Spirit, Son.33 But his
procedure is flawed in that (a) he already admits the unique
Gnostic character of the triad and merely appeals, without citing
evidence, to the existence of such a triad in Near Eastern paganism;
(b) he analyses the triad on the basis of what we have argued are
later derivative texts like the Three Steles of Seth, and the Gospel of the
Egyptians, and not on the basis of the more original treatments,
such as Irenaeus 1.29 and 30 and the Apocryphon.
Thus Bohlig begins by speaking of Greek interpretation of the
supposed pagan mythological formula of the triad in the Gnostic
period as Father, the great Invisible Spirit, Mother as ennoia or
pronoia, and Son as Logos. But, as we have already suggested, ennoia
and pronoia are later interpretations, and Bohlig is wrong to
designate the Son as Logos; the earliest systems do not make this
identification.34 Again, while suggesting a pagan, Stoic background
for the Invisible Spirit, he ignores a more likely basis in Genesis
and John, and his appeal to Jewish traditions to illuminate the
figure of the Mother contradicts his overall explanation of the
triad as pagan. Finally, as regards the Son, his attempt to interpret
the clearer and more original picture of the Apocryphon in terms
of the fragmentary and ambiguous evidence of the Gospel of the
Egyptians leads him to further dubious assertions, e.g. that Christ
takes over in the Apocryphon the responsibility for the origin of
the four illuminators ascribed to the Logos in the Gospel of the
Egyptians, whereas the evidence points precisely in the opposite
direction!35
Conversely, Bohlig correctly points to a trinitarian characteristic
of the Apocryphon in that in the frame storyjesus presents himself
tojohn as simultaneously Father, Mother and Son, and notes that
the figure of Protennoia in Trimorphic Protennoia is designated as a
trinity.36 He asks why it is Barbelo who is the protagonist here and
not the Son, which he sees as demonstrating the difference from
the original Christian Trinity. The answer is that in fact Trimorphic
Protennoia has borrowed the Saviour/Pronoia figure of the (a2)
98 Appendix

redaction of the Apocryphon with its three modalities of Father,

Mother and Son.37
But Bohlig is right to point to the importance of the concept of
triplicity in the Apocryphon and related treatises as linked to triad
and trinity, if not as an intermediary in a causal chain:38 this is a
further development of the ternary scheme underlying the text.
And he is also justified in noting the fluidity of early Christian
trinitarian formulae. But he and his partners in the Yale discussion
fail to take that fluidity sufficiently into account either in terms of
the possible Christian character of the Barbelognostic triad, or in
terms of the figures of the Holy Spirit and Wisdom in second-
century Christian thinking. Thus Pearson is inaccurate to claim as
another point of differentiation between ‘orthodox’ Christianity
and Gnosticism that the Jewish figure of Wisdom lies behind Christ
as Logos while in Gnostic circles Wisdom becomes the Mother:
Wisdom lies just as much behind the Spirit in the former.39 And
all equally tend to overlook the doxological and liturgical character
of the triad, bound up with saving gnosis and baptismal initiation.

APPENDIX
The etymologies of Barbelo, the illuminators and Adamas
I consider that the etymologies of all these figures original to the
Barbelognostic system cannot be dealt with or solved in isolation:
the meaning of each, if there is any, must be sought in terms of
the context and must cohere with all the rest.

(a) The name‘Barbelo’

Debate continues about the possible etymology of the name, and

no consensus appears to have been reached. The main proposals
are:
(1) from the Hebrew barba‘ ’eloh, ‘in the four is God’ (so
H. Leisegang, Die Gnosis (Stuttgart: Kroner, 19554), 186; cf. W. W.
Harvey, p. 221, n. 2 of vol. 1 of his edition, suggesting the same
derivation, but from the Syriac, and H. Lewy, ‘God is in four
[letters]’, i.e. the tetragrammaton, in his art. ‘Gnosis’ in
EncyclopadiaJudaicaVII 455f. cited by G. Stroumsa, Seed 61. Bohlig,
‘Triade’ 624, also refers to the Greek tetraktys and to the phrase
‘the virgin with the four breasts’ in GEIII 56.8f.);
(2) from the Hebrew barah ba’lo, ‘daughter of the Lord’ (fille
du Seigneur (so J. Matter ap. Harvey; cf. M. Scopello, ‘Youel et
 Appendix 99

Barbelo dans la traite de l’Allogene’, in Bare, Colloque 378f., who

cites the bar baal, ‘daughter of the Lord’ of Isaac de Beausobre,
Histoire critique de Manichee et du Manicheisme 2 (Amsterdam, 1739),
327). As a variant Petrement, Separate 92f., suggests the Aramaic
barbelo, ‘son of his husband/lord’;
(3) from the Hebrew chaber baal, ‘companion of the Lord’ (so
Quispel, ‘Gnosticism and the New Testament’, PC 19 (1965), 73);
(4) the derivation suggested by M. Tardieu, Ecrits 259, pre¬
sumably from Hebrew, of bar bala, ‘the heart (spirit) has shone
brightly (le coeur (l’esprit) a resplendi)’;
(5) from a corruption of the Greek parthenos, ‘virgin’ via
Barthenos, the wife of Noah according to the Gnostics of Epiph.
Pan. 26.1.6 (so Bousset, Hauptprobleme 14, n. 3);
(6) from the Coptic belbile, ‘seed’ (so F. C. Burkitt, Church and
Gnosis (Cambridge, 1932), 54, 58-61: cf. 59, ‘a term . . . neither
Greek nor Semitic’);
(7) from incantatory voces magicae, as in the Barbarbelo of PGM
12.157, or Berbeloch of PGM 5a.l (so H. M. Jackson, ‘The Origin in
Ancient Incantatory Voces Magicae of Some of the Names in the
Sethian Gnostic System’, VC43 (1989), 74f).
If we are to assume that the name must make sense in its original
context, as Giversen argues in his discussion (165f.) but which
may be debatable, as we shall see, then it is vital to try to determine
that context. Our reconstruction of the original myth has Barbelo
emanate from the Father and request three aeons, not four as in
Irenaeus 1.29.1, and this would tie in with the underlying ternary
scheme of the myth. Further, we have suggested an origin for the
myth in Syria, and these hypotheses would appear to rule out or
weaken both suggestions (1) and (6). In any case, appeal to esoteric
Jewish traditions about the name of God might be excluded by
the anti-Jewish animus of the Gnostics and their myth, and, as
Giversen points out, the phrase ‘in four is God’ does not seem to
fit the context in the Apocryphon (165). Suggestion (5) also seems
implausible; the proposed corruption seems far-fetched and the
figure of Noah’s wife is not comparable with the supreme Mother.
Tardieu’s suggestion (4), derived from what he admits are
secondary glosses attached to Barbelo as glory titles, but without
any linguistic support or detail (e.g. the language involved or the
basis for understanding bar as heart/spirit), is also unconvincing.
Quispel’s suggestion (3) is neither very illuminating nor likely in
the light of the comments of Petrement, but her appeal to the
various forms of Barbelo which Quispel claims to find in his magic
100 Appendix

manuscript as representing variations on bar and names of the

Jewish God, perhaps tips the balance more in favour of Petrement’s
own suggestion (2), already hinted at by Matter and de Beausobre
and supported by Scopello. Jackson’s similar appeal to Greek
magical papyri, if more convincing in the case of Ialdabaoth (see
below), is less happy with Barbelo; the incantatory voces do not
refer to a heavenly female divinity, but to a subordinate male figure,
and if it makes sense for anti-Jewish Gnostics to derive their name
for the Jewish Creator God from magic, it surely would not in the
case of their supreme female figure!
If we are to accept that the name ‘Barbelo’ does have some
significance for the Gnostics, Petrement’s suggestion has some
attraction. In the earliest system as attested by Irenaeus, the Mother
is a virgin Spirit who gives birth to the Son by a purely spiritual
process, i.e. she is androgynous. But her proposal is not entirely
problem-free since it assumes knowledge of Aramaic among the
Gnostics and is a rather odd and forced expression. Thus it may
be best to assume that the name is an imaginative invention of the
creative genius (or geniuses) responsible for the myth, sufficiently
evocative of the kind of etymologies scholars have suggested to
have seized the imaginations of generations of later Gnostics and
survived various reinterpretations, Sethian, Valentinian, and
Neoplatonic.

(b) The four illuminators

As with Barbelo, the names of the four can only be determined in

the light of their role in the original myth underlying Irenaeus
1.29 and the Apocryphon. Thus Schenke and those such as Colpe,
Poirier and Tardieu who accept his ‘Sethian’ corpus and the
existence, if not of a system, yet of certain fixed mythologoumena
such as the concept of Seth and his seed, base their case very largely
on the interpretation of the four illuminators as representing
horizontal divisions of the world year, and thus as abodes of, in
turn, heavenly Adamas, Seth, his seed and the historical Sethians.
But in the light of our demonstration of the secondary character
of this Sethian material and of the primary character of the
illuminators of the Barbelognostic myth as angelic revealer/
redeemer figures, not spatio-temporal aeons, this interpretation
is flawed and unconvincing. Similarly, Petrement’s attempt to
derive the four from Valentinianism as aspects of the Saviour, Jesus,
the star and fruit of the Pleroma, although very plausible and
 Appendix 101

offering an explanation that tries to do justice to the phenomenon

as a whole (Separate 388—406), appeals to the role of the four as
not merely to surround the Autogenes Christ as angelic body¬
guards (cf. 1 Enoch 40, also 9 and 71), but also as spatio-temporal
aeons, i.e. to the Sethian interpretation of them. This later
reworking cannot contribute to the original meaning of the four.
Further Petrement admits her failure to give a satisfactory
explanation of Eleleth, and tends to appeal to later Valentinian
evidence, e.g. from Ptolemy, the Gospel of Truth and the Tripartite
Tractate to support her case. If, as I have argued, the original myth
is contemporary or even slightly earlier than Valentinus, brought
to Alexandria at the time of, perhaps even by the likes of Basilides,
then we would have to discount Valentinian influence on the
names of the four. Further, the firm picture, the distinctive
cosmogonic as well as revelatory and salvific roles of the four
in Irenaeus and the Apocryphon and related texts, and the
evident Jewish and Jewish-Christian apocalyptic background,
suggest an already existing mythologoumenon hardly derivable
from the generalized Valentinian account of the Saviour and
his angelic bodyguard. I admit that I cannot suggest more
plausible etymologies for the four names than Petrement, although
I consider there are good grounds for rejecting the Poirier/
Tardieu explanation as lacking in solid evidence for an exclusively
Iranian provenance, involving a needlessly complicated history of
transmission, and in any case totally dependent on Schenke’s
‘Sethian’ thesis. For my part, I would venture to suggest that, as
with Barbelo, the four names are imaginative, evocative inventions,
intended to designate the archetypes of the four archangels of
Jewish apocalyptic (hence the Hebrew sounding names Theodoret
remarks upon in Haer. 1.13 (364A), which again, as with Barbelo,
appear neither pure Greek nor Semitic, but seem a combination
of Greek and Semitic, with the characteristic Hebrew angelological
suffix -el). The traditional names of the four archangels of 1 Enoch,
etc. are not used, perhaps as pertaining more to the sphere of the
Protarchon, the Creator God of the Old Testament. Thus one of
the two names of his demonic serpentine son in Irenaeus 1.30.9 is
Michael.

(c) Adamas/Pigera(a)damas

There has also been debate about the meaning of the latter term,
which again can only be resolved by considering the context. The
most detailed discussion is in H. M. Jackson, ‘Geradamas, the
102 Appendix

Celestial Stranger’, NTS 27 (1980/81), 385-94. He notes first

Giversen’s proposed Coptic etymology ‘now the name is Adamas’,
Apocryphon 186f., rejecting it on grammatical and palaeographical
grounds (see also the review of Giversen by A. K. Helmbold,JNES
25 (1966), 263f.). Jackson also rejects the Greek etymology of
Tardieu in his translation of Steles Seth, RSPTbl (1973), 545-75: ‘6
venerable (geras) Adamas’, on grounds of absence of onomastic
parallel and unsuitability of meaning. Schenke’s proposal (‘System’
170, taken up by his pupil K. Wekel, 7XZ100 (1975), 571-80, esp.
573, and his 1977 doctoral dissertation), that it was a Coptic
distortion of ho hieradamas, ‘the holy Adamas’ of OW 108.23, is
subject to the criticism of Bohlig (‘Zum “Pluralismus” in den
Schriften von Nag Hammadi: die Behandlung des Adamas in den
Drei Stelen des Seth und im Agypterevangelium’, in M. Krause
ed., Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour ofPahorLabib (NHS
6) (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 25f.), in terms of Coptic rendering of
Greek, and of Jackson in terms of the lack of real parallel in the
OW passage. The inappropriateness in terms both of grammar
and meaning of the Greek substantive geras or any of its equivalents
would also appear to rule out the appeals to it or an equivalent by
Bohlig (art. cit.). Shenke’s more recent suggestion, ‘Phenomenon’
594, n. 17, abandoning his earlier one, of ho geraros Adamas, ‘the
majestic Adamas’, is better in that unlike forms of geras it is an
adjective, but the abbreviation required is still problematical.
Jackson, rightly insisting on an etymology that both relates
directly to the context (for him the Sethian system) and can find
firm onomastic corroboration, suggests the Semitic term, ger,
‘stranger’, a common prefix in Phoenician and Punic divine names
and a term for proselytes in later Hebrew and Aramaic usage. His
hypothetical reconstruction involves Samaritan Gnostic sectarians,
acquainted with the Phoenician meaning of the term, coining the
designation ‘Geradamas’ to distinguish the heavenly Adamas, like
them a stranger, from the earthly. The sect and its teachings were
later Christianized and the name survived as an occult designation
whose true significance had long been forgotten. The Semitic
derivation is plausible (see above for treatment of Barbelo and
the four illuminators), but the fact that Irenaeus’ account has the
term Adamas with a Greek etymology and the doubts I have cast
on the Sethian/Samaritan hypothesis might suggest that the term
is part of the later Sethianization process, occurring only in AJ
II 8.34; Steles Seth 118.26; lost. 6.23; 13.6; 51.7; Melch. 6.6. So
once again I would suggest that the original title was ‘Adamas’,
 Notes to pages 71-73 103

deliberately coined by the author (s) of the Barbelognostic myth

to suggest both a Greek and a Semitic background, as certainly
was the case with the four illuminators, and possibly with Barbelo.

Notes
1 Ecrits 26. It may be significant that neither Krause nor Helmbold
have published their theses on the Apocryphon and the relations between
the versions, and neither Krause’s promised synopsis (Drei Versionen 3f.,
cf. 37), nor Werner’s nor that of the Coptic Gnostic Library series has
yet appeared!
2 ‘The Apocryphon of John: A Case Study in Literary Criticism’, JETS 13
(1970), 173-9 esp. 174.
3 Appearance of revealer figure in brilliant light and varied form to
recipient in a vision; revelation of secret mysteries about the past, present
and future; instructions about preserving and communicating the
revelation to those worthy to receive it, etc. On the Gnostic ‘Dialogue’,
see K. Rudolph, ‘Der Gnostische “Dialog” als literarisches Genus’ in
P. Nagel ed., Probleme der koptischen Literatur (Wissenschaftliche Beitrage
der Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg 1) (Halle, 1968), 85-
107.
4 B 19.6-22.16; II 1.1-2.25. Tardieu, Ecrits 33-5, 239-46.
3 Cf. W. J. Blackstone, ‘A Short Note on the “Apocryphon Johannis’”,
VC 19 (1965), 163, who notes the parallel to the phrase‘turn [you] from
the traditions of [your] ancestors’ in Acts of Philip 19 (14).
6 Apocryphon 152.
7 Cf. B 75.7-10/III 39.8-11; II 30.9-11. Note the same expression as in
B 20.1.
8 The choice of John as protagonist and the evident influence of
Johannine material with its anti-Jewish bias, would suggest familiarity
and spiritual kinship with the Johannine community.
9 Ecrits 34, 241.
10 B 20.3-19; II 1.17-29. Note the battery of Johannine references
detected by Tardieu, Ecrits 84.
11 B 20.19-21.3; II 1.30-2.9. Cf. e.g. Acta Pet-rich. 20f.; PS Book 1, chs
4-6 (Schmidt-MacDermot 6.24-8.21).
12 B 21.3-13; II 2.1-9. B has omitted the youth by mistake; the text
continues with a mention of three forms (21.13; II 2.9, morphe). Tardieu
is surely incorrect to classify this vision as a dream (songe/somnium/ oneiroy,
Ecrits 242f.).
13 B 21.13-22.5; II 2.9-18. Note again the clear echoes of John and
Revelation indicated by Tardieu.
14 B 22.8-17; II 2.19-25. Cf. B 75.12-76.1/III 39.15-18; II 31.28-32/IV
49.9-13.
104 Notes to pages 13-15

15 Cf. B 35.3ff. and par and 49.5ff. and par (perfect Man Adamas);
71.12ff. and par (immovable race of the perfect Man of light). Cf. Zost.
6.23ff.; 30.4f. (mention of Adamas or Geradamas as perfect Man and of
the immovable race); Steles Seth 118.1 If.,26; 121.14ff.; Melch. 6.5f.(Man
of light, immortal Aeon Pigeradamas).
16 Cf. B 65.2f. and par; III 36.24f.; B 73.9f. and par; B 75.20-76.1 and
par.
17 Cf. GEIII 51.8f. and par; 59.13-15; 61.19f. and par; Steles Seth 118.12f.;
Zost. 51.15 (?). SJC III 97.8f./B 88.8f. probably got the phrase, like so
much, from AJ.
18 Cf. AJB 27.13-28.4 and par; II 30.11-31.25; 7P37.20-30; 42.4-27.
19 See ch. 2, pp. 30ff.
20 See ch. 1, p. 3.
21 Against Tardieu, Ecrits 31, who sees this first part as an exegesis of
the Saviour’s statement. See ch. 7, section 3.
22 B 22.17-19; II 2.26f. One might add to Tardieu’s Pythagorean
parallels the fact that the Valentinians of Hippolytus describe the
supreme Father as ‘the monad’ (monas: Ref. 6.29.2).
23 Cf. e.g. Tri. Trac. 51.1-11; Hippolytus’ description of the Valentinians
in Ref. 6.29.2: for them the beginning (arche) of everything is a Monad
(monas), unbegotten, imperishable, inconceivable, incomprehensible
etc.
24 B 22.19-23.3; II 2.28-32. See ch. 2, pp. 30ff.
25 B 22.17-25.22; II 2.26-4.10. Cf. Tardieu’s illuminating analysis, Ecrits
248-53.
26 See ch. 2, p. 52, nn. 58-9, p. 68; Tardieu, Ecrits 250.
27 See ch. 1, n. 37; ch. 2, pp. 42ff.
28 Cf. ch. 1, p. 9f.
29 Cf. 1.11.3 and 5 and ch. 1, p. 9.
30 Cf. 1.11.5 in Epiphanius: Proarche, Anennoetos, Arrhetos, Aoratos,
Arche, Akataleptos, Anonomastos, Agennetos, and AJB 23.5-24.6: Arche
over whom no-one rules, eternal, unperfectible, illimitable, indivisible
(adiakritos), immeasurable, invisible, inexpressible, unnameable.
31 Greer, ‘Dog’ 170.
32 Cf. W. C. van Unnik, ‘Die Gotteslehre bei Aristides und in gnostischen
Schriften’, 7717 (1961), 171.
33 51.1-55.40.
34 Ref. 7.20.2-21.1.
35 CIII 71.13-73.3 and par.
3b The relation between the two suggested above is the consensus view
going back to M. Krause, ‘Das literarische Verhaltnis des Eugnostosbriefes
zur Sophia Jesu Christi: zur Auseinandersetzung der Gnosis mit dem
Christentum’, Mullus: Festschrift Theodor Klauser (JbAC Erganzungsband
1) (Munster: Aschendorff, 1964), 215-23. See Rudolph TRu 34, 208-10;
C. Scholten, Martyrium und Sophiamythos im Gnostizismus nach den Texten
 Notes to pages 75-76 105

von Nag Hammadi (JbAC Erganzungsband 14) (Munster: Aschendorff,

1987), 240-61, criticizing the attempt of Tardieu {Ecrits 60, 65-7, 388,
etc.) and myself (‘The Epistle of Eugnostos and Valentinianism’ in
M. Krause ed., Gnosis and Gnosticism (NHS 17) (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 66-
75) to derive the Valentinian Doctrinal Letter (Epiph. Pan. 31.5.1-8.3)
from Eug, and suggesting that the latter was more likely itself influenced
by Valentinianism. The attempt to interpret Eug as a Jewish-Gnostic
text from Alexandria of the first century bce or ce by R. van den Broek
(‘Jewish and Platonic Speculations in Early Alexandrian Theology:
Eugnostus, Philo, Valentinus, and Origen’ in B. A. Pearson,J. E. Goehring
eds., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (SAC 1) (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1986), 190-203; cf. D. M. Parrott ed., Nag Hammadi Codices III, 3-4 and
V,1 (NHS 27) (Leiden: Brill, 1987)), seems too speculative: the internal
evidence, comparison with e.g. Monoimus (and Irenaeus 1.30?), and
the relationship with Valentinianism seems to point to a later date, in
the late second or early third century ce. On the striking parallels between
A] and SJC, see Tardieu, Ecrits 60-5. He omits the reference to the
‘immovable race’ in B 88.8f./III 97.9. However, van Unnik, ‘Gotteslehre’
I72f., is right to deny SJC depends on the apophatic theology of AJ. It
comes, of course, from Eug.
37 Cf. e.g. R. M. Grant, The Early Christian Doctrine of God (Charlottesville,
1966), 14—28; van Unnik, ‘Gotteslehre’.
38 24.13—15/III 6.8-10. Cf. II 3.22 and Krause’s apparatus ad loc./IV
5.6.
39 63.1-5. Allogenes has one or two minor differences.
40 II 4.1-10/IV 5.25-6.9.
41 Cf. B 24.6f./III 5.2f. and II 3.17/IV 4.28-5.1.
42 B 25.14f./III 6.6f.
43 Cf. Ecrits 89 translating B 25.14f. ‘lumiere dispensatrice de vie'!
44 B 26.1-6/III 6.13-19; II 4.10/IV 6.9f.
45 253.
46 Giversen’s interpretation, Apocryphon 164, against Till in his edition
(93 note to 26.3) that the reference is to the Revealer not to John, and
that he is not limited in his knowledge but (a) simply lacks words to
describe what he can grasp, and (b) cannot describe in a manner John
could understand, seems strained, although it may well explain why, as
I think, LR omitted all but the first sentence: the redactor could not
accept that the Revealer was in any way limited.
47 Cf. B 26.6—14/III 6.19-7.2; II 4.10-19/IV 6.10-20. A connection of
sorts is possible in SR but scarcely in LR.
48 On the problems of identification caused, see Y. Janssens,
‘L’Apocryphon de Jean’, Museon 83 (1970), 165. If one removes both
passages the text runs very smoothly.
49 Tardieu, Ecrits 254, takes it in the former sense as the divine Wisdom.
50 Scriptures 14f.
106 Notes to pages 76-79

31 B 26.15-27.4/III 7.2-12. Cf. II 4.19-26/IV 6.20-7.

52 Ecrits 262-3.
53 Museon 84, 43 on fragment 17 of Heracleon.
34 Cf. Novatian, De Trin. 29.14, who echoes the Gospel of the
Hebrews fragment about the whole fount of the Spirit (frag. 2 in
W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha vol. 1, rev. ed., ET ed.,
R. McL. Wilson (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991), 177).
53 B 27.4—8/III 7.12-15; II 4.26-29/IV 7.1-5.
36 B 27.8-28.4/III 7.15-8.5; II 4.29-5.11/IV 7.5-27.
37 Ecrits 256-9. For possible etymologies of Barbelo, see Appendix
(a).
38 256-61.
39 1.29.1/Theodoret, Haer. 1.13. Could there be an echo of this in Af s
phrase (B 26.6-8 and par) about the imperishable (atteko) aeon resting
in Silence, the Valentinian equivalent of Barbelo? Cf. Iren. 1.1.1 (an
eternal aeon in rest with his partner Ennoia/Sige).
60 Cf. e.g. II 4.35 (Father?); 5.11-13 (Barbelo); 6.19; 7.19 (= B 32.7f.),
23; 8.34; 14.4 (Father). In B 30.20-31.1 it applies to Barbelo, and in
37.5f. to Sophia’s male consort.
61 1.29.1. Cf. the very similar wording in AJ B 27.5-7 and par.
Theodoret has Barbelo for Ennoia.
62 Dossier 15-17.
63 Cf. GE III 50.17-55.11/IV 62.16-66.25 which is evidently a later
development, setting the process later in the theogony and jumbling
the entities and processes together.
64 B 28.4—7/III 8.5-7; II 5.11-14/IV 7.27-8.1. SR uses shrp hsooun here
but varies between it and prognosis. LR consistently reads the Greek
loanword, a characteristic of later Coptic translation from the Greek
according to Kasser, Museon 77 (1964), 6f.
63 Cf. Theodoret Haer. 1.13 and Iren. 1.29.1.
66 Cf. II 5.4, 24; 6.6; 7.4 which read the former for the latter of B 27.18;
29.12; 31.11 and par.
67 B 28.7-10/III 8.8-10; II 5.14-18/IV 8.2-7. Giversen, Apocryphon 170,
is clearly wrong to identify the Thought and the Pronoia.
68 B 28.7—13/III 8.7-13; II 5.14-20/IV 8.1-8.
69 Cf. B 27.10f./III 7.16f. and B 27.18/III 17.22 with B 28.4.
70 Cf II 5.4 and 4.32 in Krause’s reconstruction.
71 Cf. B 29.8—14/III 9.3-10; II 6.2-10.
72 297-9. Giversen, Apocryphon I70f., argues for an identification of
Barbelo, Pronoia and Ennoia but, as we shall see, his appeal to the
originality of the pentad of C II as including Truth is not persuasive.
73 B 28.13-21/III 8.13-20; II 5.20—6. Giversen, Apocryphon I70f.,
although attacking Till’s first argument for two Ennoias (298) namely
that in B the pattern of praise is that the (second) Ennoia and Prior
Knowledge praise the Father and Barbelo, then the three do the same,
 Notes to pages 79-81 107

on the grounds that in B 28.10 and 19 the MS has the singular form of
the verb, fails to note that in the parallels to the latter (III 8.18f. and II
5.24-6) the verbs are in the plural.
74 B 28.21-29.6/III 8.20-9.3; II 5.26-32/IV 8.20-4. LR refers to Barbelo
to remove any doubts about the subject. Again Giversen has failed to
note the plural verbs in all except III.
75 B 29.7f./III 9.1-3.
76 B 29.8f./III 9.3f. II 6.8 reads pentas which is the likely original. Cf.
AnonBru ch. 15 (Schmidt-MacDermot 255.24).
77 B 29.9-18/III 9.4—10. B’s reading ‘of the unoriginate Father’ at
29.l7f. seems nonsensical and may, as Janssens suggests, Museon 84, 48,
incorporate a marginal note.
78II 5.32-4/IV 8.24-7.
79 II 5.35-6.2/IV 8.27-9.
80 Although the plural is attested in both II 5.35 and IV 8.27.
81 II 6.2-10/IV 9.8-11.
82 Cf. B 29.12-16/III 9.6-8 where Barbelo and Ennoia are separated
off from each other by the same copula (mn) as separates off each in the
list.
83 B 27.4—7/III 7.12-14; II 4.26-9/IV 8.1-4.
84 1.29.1.
85 Cf. 1.29.1 and Till’s edition (299). He may be too hasty in identifying
the original Ennoia with Barbelo (298), and in that case would have no
need to explain why the account of her origin was supposedly omitted
by Irenaeus.
86 Cf. e.g. B 27.10/III 7.16f.; II 4.31f.; B 28.10/III 8.10; II 5.16/IV 8.4f.
(here LR, which particularly stresses the role of the Pronoia, has reversed
the order); II 6.5; 23.24, 29; 24.14f. (here LR adds Pronoia). On the
literary-critical principle involved, see Krause, ‘Der Stand der
Veroffentlichung der Nag Hammadi-Texte’ in Bianchi, Origini 75.
87 Cf. B 27.17-28.4/III 7.22-8.5 and II 5.5-11/IV 7.20-7.
88 Conversely, SR is evidently secondary in its avoidance of the (a2)
theme of Barbelo/Pronoia as the androgynous Mother-Father (cf. B
27.19f. and par; 30.6 and par; 48.2 and par; 51.6 and par; 52.18 and par;
71.6 and par where SR prefers ‘Father’ or ‘Mother’ to LR’s ‘Mother-
Father’; but cf. B 75.il/III 39.1 If. and par where SR has the term and
LR omits it!). See ch. 7, n. 23, p. 294.
89 1.29.1. Note that Theodoret,//acr. 1.13 (361C) preserves the singular
authis aitesases which, as we argued above, would seem to refer to Barbelo.
90 Cf. B 27.17-28.4; II 5.4-11 and GE III 41.7-42.4/IV 50.23-51.22.
91 III 42.5-11/IV 51.22-52.2. Cf. Iren. 1.29.1 and AJ B 31.5-18 and
par. Note that the GE text echoes the syzygy pairing of Iren. 1.29.1: ennoia/
logos, aphtharsia/ (Christ omitted as the subject of the third ogdoad),
Eternal Life/thelema, nous/prognosis, and retains as the final member
the androgynous Father (cf. AJ II 6.8-10).
108 Notes to pages 81-83

92 1.29.2.
93 Cf. B 30.4—9/III 9.15-19; B 32.8-14/III 11.6-11; II 7.15-24 and Iren.
1.29.If.; Theod. Haer. 1.13 (362CD-364A).
94 Cf. B 32.14-18/III 11.12f.; II 7.25-7/IV 11.18-22, an evident
distortion of Iren. 1.29.2: ‘et omnia huic subjecta. Coemissam autem ei
Alethiam.’ Cf. GEW 60.2f. See n. 91 above.
93Giversen, Apocryphon 171; Tardieu, Ecrits 262f. He ignores the
evidence of GEand explains the supposed omission by homoeoteleuton
- but was it likely that SR, having omitted it by mistake at B 29.6f. and
par, should have not noticed and thus blithely omitted it when it appeared
again only eight or so lines later at B 29.14 and par?
96 Cf. Ill 65.11f./IV 77.9f. (also the fragmentary IV 60.2f.) and AJ B
32.14—17/III 11.12f.; II 7.25f./IV 11.18-21.
97 Ecrits 264.
98 Cf. on a supposed Sethian ‘Quinity’ reflected in the five seals ritual,
Schenke, ‘Phenomenon’ 603f. and Turner, ‘Sethian Gnosticism’ 77-9,
with a valuable analysis of the structural significance of the number five
for GE. The five androgynes may be based on the five illuminators and
seals. In the original myth, of course, the figures are feminine, to be
paired with their masculine counterparts.
99 See my analysis in ‘John’ 52f.
1 Cf. King, ‘Sophia’ 162. However, her claim that this is because he
originated without the Father’s permission is perhaps exaggerated: he
is the outcome of Barbelo’s ecstatic vision of the Father’s self-revelation.
2II 6.10-18/IV 9.11-23.
3 B 29.18—30.9/III 9.10-19. B 29.20 has mistakenly identified Barbelo
with the pure light, and omitted the mention of the light being like the
blessed light by homoeoteleuton.
41.29.1. This appears to be mistranslated by Krause and Wilson, Gnosis
1104, to make the Father generate in her (Barbelo) a light like her. But
surely in hanc cannot mean ‘in her’, and Theodoret’s apotekein {Haer.
1.13: 361C) confirms that for Irenaeus Barbelo is the subject and that
she bears the light.
5Cf. Iren. 1.29.1-2 and GE IV 59.13-60.11 with AJ B 30.4-17 and
par, and TP 38.17-24.
6 Cf. Iren. 1.29.1 and AJ B 30.7-9 and par. King, ‘Sophia’ 167f. also
sees SR as more original in having Barbelo, not the Father, produce the
Son: LR omits elements and does not supply a suitable paradigm of
salvation.
7 B 30.15 mntchsr, III 9.24 mhtchrs; II 6.23 mntchfs.
8B 30.17 nchs; III 10.2 nchfs. On the debate over the wordplay
here, see Till, 40; A. Bohlig, P. Labib eds, Die koptisch-gnostische Schrift
ohne Titel aus Codex II von NagHammadi im Koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo
(Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Institut fur Orient-
forschung 58) (Berlin: Akademie, 1970), 46;Janssens, Museon84, 49-51.
 Notes to pages 83-84 109

9 Ecrits 266. Cf. A. Orbe, Uncion 108-12, esp. 112, where he identifies
four stages in the unction of the Son: (a) born as Nous or Intellect of the
Father; (b) anointed with the virginal Spirit of the Father; (c)
contemplates the Father as a consequence of the unction; (d) is deified
by the life of the Father, at the root of the paternal intuition. The ultimate
basis of this conception of unction in the Valentinians and
Barbelognostics Orbe finds in John l:3c-4a.
10 1.29.1: ‘etvidentem Patrem lumen hoc, unxisse illud sua benignitate,
ut perfectum fieret. Hunc autem dicunt esse Christum.’ Cf. Theod. Haer.
1.13.
11 III 44.23-4.
12 37.30-3. The same verb is used here as in GE III 44.23 and A], and it
also may have had Christ anointed with goodness. Line 33 preserves the
first three letters of a substantive (mnt-) which the editor,}. D. Turner,
restores as [goodness], NHLE463.
13 Dossier 4\{. He refers tojustin, 1 Apol. 6.1; 46.4; 2 Apol. 2.6; Theoph.
Autol. 1.10; Tert. Apol. 3.5; Ad nat. 1.3; Clem. Alex. Protr. 67.123; Strom.
2.14.18. But some of these are irrelevant or erroneous (e.g. Justin, 1
Apol. 6.1, 2 Apol. 2.6; Theoph. Autol. 1.10). More germane are texts
reflecting the link of Christ/anointing/Christian, based on exegesis of
Ps 45:7f., and Isa 61:1, e.g. Justin, Dial. 63, 86.3; 2 Apol. 6.3; Theoph.
Autol. 1.1,12; Lact. Div. inst. 4.13.9. Sevrin entirely overlooks Lampe’s
claim that it was Gnostics who initiated post-baptismal chrism (see ch. 1,
section 3; ch. 2, section 2).
14 Dossier 43f., referring to Orbe, Uncion, 100.
15 Gnosis 107.
16 107f.
17 ‘Sophia’ 162f., 160. See following note.
18 S. Arai, ‘Zur Christologie des Apokryphons des Johannes’, NTS 15
(1968/69), 305, would see this passage as a Gnostic interpretation of
Jesus’ baptism (Mark 1:9-10 and par), but the resemblances are not close
and the latter does not explain the title ‘Christ’. For an implied heavenly
pre-temporal anointing, cf. Justin, 2 Apol. 6.3; Lact. Div. inst. 4.13.9; for
the Christological issues raised, cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrh. 52f. (MPG
45.1249L).
19 Dossier 40, 45f.
20 46. Thus the form of B 30.19, ntafouoth naf ebol, is to be retained,
against Till, and the reading of III 10.4, as referring to the process of
perfusion.
21 See chs 1, section 3, and 2, p. 31f. Both the Marcosian rites in Iren.
1.21.3-5 have postbaptismal chrism. All this excludes attempts to treat
this motif as a later Christian interpolation into an original non-Christian
work, as e.g. Arai, ‘Christologie’ 305. King, ‘Sophia’ 162f., has rightly
grasped the soteriological significance of the anointing, but given too
negative an interpretation of Barbelo’s act of generation as defective.
110 Notes to pages 84-86

22 B 31.5-9/III 10.9-14; II 6.33-7.3/IV 10.12-18. The ‘him’ must be

Christ, not the Spirit. The redactor of III 10.13, who has both Nous and
Christ praising, may have been confused by the earlier pattern of female
aeons praising the Spirit and Barbelo.
23 1.29.1.
24 B 31.1 Of./III 10.14f. Cf. GE III 42.2/IV 51.19f„ where the Spirit
produces the three ogdoads in silence (sige) and providence (pronoia).
25II 7.3-6/IV 10.18-22. Cf. B 31.11f./III 10.15-18. The attempt of
Giversen, Apocryphon 173, and Tardieu, Ecrits 99, to take the thought of
II 7.4 with the preceding silence founders on the facts (a) that in that
case thought ought to have the indefinite article, and (b) the following
sentence lacks an identifiable subject. Janssens, Museon 84, 54f., is right
to argue that the indefinite article suggests these are abstract nouns, not
emanations, and that therefore they are unlikely to be periphrases for
the Invisible Spirit and Barbelo.
26 B 31.11—15/III 10.15-20. B 31.12f. has omitted mention of
‘word’. It may be significant that Barbelo is omitted and the stereo¬
typed doxology formula broken, as it was in the case of Nous
previously.
27II 7.4-8/IV 10.20-5.
28 Cf. e.g. the relation of ennoia and thelesis in certain Valentinians,
Iren. 1.12.1; Epiph. Pan. 31.5.4f., and the theories of e.g. Theoph. Autol.
2.10,22.
29 B 31.15f./III 10.20f.; II 7.9/IV 10.26f.
30 B 31.16—18/III 10.21-3; II 7.10f./IV 10.27-9. B 31.18f. seems to
regard the Autogenes as the subject of the following sentence.
31 1.29.1. Cf. Theod. Haer. 1.13 (364A).
32 Cf. Iren. 1.29.1 and GEIII 42.7-10/IV 51.25-52.1.
33 For such a view of the generation of the Word by the Father, cf. e.g.
Justin, Dial. 61; 100; 127-8.
34 Cf. Iren. 1.1.1.
35 If we assume the original pattern with the Logos emerging and
praising Christ and the Barbelo ‘since through him (i.e. Christ) the
Logos came into being’ (Greek: hoti diautou ho logos egeneto?), the change
to the present text of A] under the influence of John 1:3 becomes only
too understandable.
36 Giversen, Apocryphon 174f.; Janssens, Museon 84, 56; C. A. Baynes, A
Coptic Gnostic Treatise contained in the Codex Brucianus (Bruce MS. 96, Bod.
Lib. Oxford) (Cambridge, 1933), 33-5.
37 56f., with reference to Hipp. Ref. 5.12.3. Cf. also the Hermetic
Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth (C VI, 6) 57.13-18; Eug III 74.20-75.9;
82.7-15.
38 Cf. B 30.6 and par; 31.18 and par; 32.5,9 and par; 34.10-18 and par;
35.3,17 and par; 51.9.
39 Separate 412-16.
 Notes to pages 86-89 Ill

40 ‘The Historical Background of Proclus’ Doctrine of the Authupostata ,

Entretienssur TAntiquite classique2l (Vandouevres, 1975), 193-237; ‘Self-
Generating Principles in Second Century Gnostic Systems’, Layton,
Rediscovery 1.176-89.
41 Separate 414, Iren. 1.1.2.
42 1.29.2. Cf. Theod. Han. 1.13 (364A).
43IV 60.1-11. TP follows AJ in calling the Son, Christ, the Coptic
equivalent of autogenes, ‘he who came into being by himself (38.22f.).
44 See p. 81f.
45 1.29.1/Theod. 1.13 (364A).
46 B 31.19-32.2/III 10.23-11.2; II 7.11-15/IV 10.29-11.5. B 31.19
wrongly links Autogenes and Eternal Life. Janssens, Museon 84,57, points
out that in the Coptic the aeons are treated as pairs by the use of
conjunctions, particles and asyndeton.
47 Giversen, Apocryphon I75f., referring to Schmidt, ‘Irenaus’ 325.
48 I75f. referring to Till 299f. However, his reconstruction of the pentad
with a supposed original chrestotes, read by Irenaeus as christos, paired
with Incorruptibility, and with Autogenes and Truth, is not supported
by the evidence, and is redundant on my hypothesis of the pentad/
decad material as a later gloss.
49 Cf. GE III 42.7-10/IV 51.25-52.1 and Iren. 1.29.1/Theod. 1.13
(364A). R. van den Broek, ‘Autogenes and Adamas: The Mythological
Structure of the Apocryphon of John’ in Krause, Gnosis and Gnosticism
(NHS 17) 17, suggests this points to a fixed, literary tradition. GE IV
51.26-52.1 has evidently and understandably taken aphtharsia to qualify
Eternal Life.
50 1.29.2/Theod. 1.13 (364A).
51 See, n. 49 above.
52II 7.15-17/IV 11.6-9.
53 Cf. II 6.23-6 and par.
54 Cf. II 6.15-22, 26f. and par.
55 III 11.3-6.
56 B 32.8—14/III 11.6-11. Cf. Rom 9:5.
57 1.29.2. Cf. Phil 2:9-11; 1 Cor 15:27-8; Eph 1:22; Heb 2:6-8.
Van den Broek, ‘Autogenes’ 21, would see this as rendered by the
parastasis of III 11.5, but such an identification is weakened by the fact
that the Latin translator later seems to render the latter by circumstantia
and adstare (see n. 63 below, p. 112). I see Autogenes as the heavenly
archetype of John the Baptist and this as an attempt to render John 1:8b
(‘John’ 53).
58 II 7.20-2/IV 11.11-14. This may be a further example of its
preference for Pronoia. Again note possible New Testament allusions
(Eph 1:22; Col 2:10) in his being appointed head of the All: II 7.22-4/
IV 11.15-18.
59II 7.22-4/IV 11.15-18. Cf. Col 2:10.
112 Notes to pages 89-91

60 B 32.14—18/III 11.12f. Cf. Wilson, Gnosis 106. Krause, Drei Versionen

63, suggests III 11.11 omitted the exousia phrase through
homoeoteleuton.
61II 7.25-9/IV 11.18-24.
62 B 32.18f./III 11.13f.
63 Ecrits 267f. This precisely ties in with our interpretation of the primal
chrismation of the Son.
64 B 32.19—33.2/III 11.14-19; II 7.30-3/IV 12.2-6. For the possible
etymologies of the four, see Appendix (b).
65 1.29.2. Theod. 1.13 (364A) refers to other emanations ‘tas ek tou
Photos kai tes Aphtharsias’.
66 Schenke, ‘Nag-Hamadi-Studien III’, ZRGG14 (1962), 359, in support
of his claim that the aeons of A] were originally unpaired, tries to
argue that Christ and Incorruptibility are secondary, and that the original
probably read: ‘From the Light. . . through the divine Autogenes . . .’,
entirely overlooking the identification of the two here. The mention of
the consent of Christ, the Spirit and the Father here may be an echo of
the Valentinian account of the production of the Saviour and his angelic
bodyguard, cf. Iren. 1.2.6.
67 B 33.3f./III 11.19 (parastasis)-, II 7.34-8.1. II 7.34 reads: ‘he saw that
they. . .’ Hhe parastasisoilW 11.19 evidently lies behind the circumstantia
of Irenaeus. Cf., n. 57 above, p. 111.
68 1.29.2.
69 B 33.4f./III 11.20f.; II 8.If. IV omits this while III 11.20 has Eternal
Life second.
70 Giversen, Apocryphon 180, sees as a link the conjunctive de in II 8.1
and the indefinite nof B 33.4, but III 11.20 has no conjunctive at all. His
suggestion that the three plus Christ and Incorruptibility represent five
androgynous aeons and thus the decad, is unconvincing. Perhaps in
desperation the redactor of IV has omitted all mention of the three.
71 Ecrits 268f. He is forced to interpret the Christ of the text as chrestotes,
a figure distinct from Christ/Autogenes, contradicting his earlier pairing
Christ/Incorruptibility (264), and to concoct a mixed male/female triad
of which there is no evidence elsewhere.
72 ‘Autogenes’ 18, n. 6. Thus he explains the awkward fact that III
11.21 has ennoia third as looking like a partial return to the original. Cf.
Giversen, Apocryphon 181, who suggests that a copyist confused the Life
at the end of the list of five aeons with the mention of Life who with Will
reveals the four ministers.
73 B 33.5—7/III 11.21-3.
74II 8.2-4/IV 11.21-3. IV starts abruptly with prudence.
70 Apocryphon 181. Cf. II 8.4.
;6 Cf. B 33.7-34.1/III 11.23-12.11; II 8.4—16. Neither phronesis nor a
Coptic equivalent occur among the aeons of the fourth illuminator, which
are perfection, peace and sophia (cf. B 34.6f. and par).
 Notes to pages 91-92 113

77 GE III 52.9-13/IV 63.2-6.

/8 223 of vol. 1 of his edition.
/9 Thelesis might have seemed more appropriate as alluding to an
intellectual, spiritual process, more suitable at this stage. Harvey’s
suggestion, 223, that it might have been suggested by the Hebrew
equivalent of Raguel, will of God, seems far-fetched. Giversen, Apocryphon
184, prefers ‘friend of God’. The second illuminator in AJand GE is
Oroiael, which might be derived from the Hebrew ’or and ’el, i.e.
illumination of God. See Appendix (b).
80 Cf. GEIII 50.17-51.19/IV 62.16-63.14. See Bohlig-Wisse, Gospel33,
I78f.
81 B 33.7—10/III 11.23-12.1; II 8.4-6/IV 12.9-11. Cf. Iren. 1.29.2, GE
III 52.8-10 and par. LR, by reading phoster-aion (II 8.5/IV 12.9f.), has
evidently combined two entities which are distinct in SR at this point
and which LR itself later distinguishes (cf. II 8.8f.), and thus has been
led to refer to the first angel with no mention of the aeon. The phrase
‘of the light’ in B 33.9 is probably a redactional gloss.
82 B 33.10-12/III 12.1-3.
83II 8.6-8/IV 12.11-14.
84 B 33.12-17/III 12.3-8; II 8.8-12/IV 12.14-20. II 12.5 has ‘in’ rather
than ‘over’ (cf. 12.9, 11); the ‘other three aeons' associated with each
illuminatorin II 8.7, 11, 15, 19/IV 12.12(?), 18, 24; 13.2 again suggests
the attempt to fuse together a scheme (or schemes) involving aeons
understood as hypostases and/or locations with the four illuminator
scheme.
85 B 33.17-34.1 /III 12.8-11; II 8.12-16/IV 12.20-6. The reading of III
12.8f.: ‘in the third illuminator he(?) was set in the third aeon’ which is
nonsense and omits the illuminator’s name, must be secondary.
86 B 34.1-7/III 12.11-16. Ill 12.1 If. repeats its peculiar form, omitting
the illuminator’s name.
87II 8.16-20/IV 12.26-13.3.
88 Giversen, Apocryphon 182, makes the claim without any evidence.
Tardieu, Ecrits 271, appeals to Prov 8:1 and Dan 2:23 LXX, in both of
which the two terms retain distinctive meanings.
89 B 34.7—13/III 12.16-22; II 8.22-5. Ill 12.19-20 is a scribal doublet,
and there is some confusion in the versions over the figure of the Invisible
Spirit: B 34.12f. talks of the good pleasure of God, the Invisible Spirit; II
8.24f. has through the decision and God, the Invisible Spirit; and III
12.2 If. through the resolve of God and the good pleasure of the Spirit.
90 B 34.13—15/III 12.22-4; II 8.25f. B 34.15 has the form autogenetos
(cf. 30.6) and III 12.20 autogenetor.
91 Cf. AJ B 35.20-36.15 and par; GE III 65.12-22 and par; Zost. 6.7-
7.28; 29.1-20.
92 Cf. the Valentinian twelve aeons with Sophia as last in Iren. 1.1.2;
Epiph. Pan. 31.5.8 (the list also includes synesis and agape\), and
114 Notes to pages 93-95

Ialdabaoth’s union with aponoia and creation of twelve exousiai according

to the typos of the incorruptible aeons in AJ B 39.4—10/III 16.7-11.
Since LR omits any mention of Ialdabaoth’s imitation of the heavenly
model at this point (II 10.26-8), simply referring to his general imitation
later (II 12.33-13.1), it seems secondary.
93 38.16-39.13.
94 39.13-40.29. Cf. the role of Eleleth in HA and GE.
95 Cf. e.g. 37.18-20; 41.4-20; 45.12-20; 48.26-35; 50.17-20.
96 III 50.17-51.22 and par.
97 Cf. Ill 65.12-22 and par. However, its listing of mneme, agape and
eirene along with eternal life as consorts of four further ministers of the
illuminators, Gamaliel, Gabriel, Samblo, Abrasax, III 52.6-16 and par,
might be an echo of the twelve female aeons of AJ.
98 Cf. 6.7-7.22 (ascent by baptism through the four aeons); 29.1-20
(aspects of truth related to the four aeons in reverse order). Melch 6.2f.
has Christ as commander-in-chief of the four illuminators, who are
evidently angelic figures. See Petrement, Separate 403f.
99 Cf. ch. 20 (Schmidt-MacDermot 263.22-264.6).
1 Ecrits 271.
2 B 34.15-18; II 8.26-8. Ill has omitted this through homoeoteleuton.
3 B 34.19-35.5/III 12.24-13.1; II 8.28-33. The version in II 8.30f.:
‘through the revelation of the will of the Invisible Spirit’, is preferable to
the ‘through God and the good pleasure . . .’ of SR, B 34.20-35.2/III
12.25f., which repeats III 12.19f., 21f. The ‘through the good pleasure
of the Autogenes’ of B 35.2f. and II 8.31f. is preferable to the ‘before the
Autogenes’ of III 13.1. II 8.33 adds ‘and the truth’ to revelation rather
than have it qualify the Man as in B 35.4, III 13.2 (which adds ‘holy’)
and Iren. 1.29.3. See Giversen, Apocryphon 186. Janssens, Museon 84, 60,
n. 27, finds echoes of Eph 1:5 and Luke 2:14 here.
4 1.29.3. Theodoret preserves the Greek probalesthai (1.13: 364A). AJ
does involve the Autogenes, if only in terms of his agreement.
5 Cf. e.g. Zost. 30.4-9. In GE Autogenes Logos appears to be responsible
for the origin of Adamas (cf. esp. IV 60.30-61.10 - note the phrase ‘the
eye of the l[ight]\ in SJC III 105.14/B 100.14, omitted in Eug, and
probably derived from the identification of the Autogenes with the Light,
Christ, and a natural evolution from Zost. 30.5f.: Adamas as eye of the
Self-begotten).
6 Cf. Separate 391, 412, etc.
7 CL Eug III 81.12 = SJC III 105.12/B 100.14; OW 108.21, etc.
8Cf. Iren. 1.29.3/Theod. 1.13 (364AB); OW 108.23; GE III 49.19;
50.20f./IV 62.19, etc.; Zost. 6.26; 30.4; 33.17; 51.14.
9 Cf. Steles Seth 118.26; Zost. 6.23; Melch. 6.6.
10 Cf. Steles Seth 118.26-8 (Geradamas and Emmacha Seth); Zost.
6.23-6 (Geradamas and Seth Emmacha Seth). H. M. Jackson,
‘Geradamas, the Celestial Stranger’, NTS27 (1980/81), 385-94, seems
 Notes to pages 95-97 115

justified in rejecting attempts to derive the term from Greek (mainly

variations of ger, ‘old’) or Coptic, and his proposal of a Semitic origin
from ger‘stranger’ appears plausible. On the proposed etymologies for
Adamas and Pigeradamas/Geradamas, see Appendix (c).
11 1.29.3. Cf. the similar wordplay in OW 108.23-5: Adamas, of which
the interpretation is ‘the holy adamantine earth’, and AnonBru 46.4
(Baynes; cf. Schmidt-MacDermot 252.9f.).
12 Cf. B 27.8-10 and par; II 5.11, Giversen, Apocryphon 186.
13 Cf. B 47.20-49.9 and par; II 14.18-15.13 and par, and Giversen,
ibid. See ch. 7, section 3.
14 Museon 84, 61.
13 B 35.6—10/III 13.4-9. Ill 13.5 has ‘in’ following its pattern of
installation (cf. 12.5, 9, 12f.), as B and II follow theirs. Ill 13.5 also has
‘his aeon’. B 35.8 again reads autogenetdr.
16 II 8.35-9.3.
17 1.29.3. Theodoret is no help here.
18 ‘Irenaus’ 329. Cf. Iren. 1.29.1-3/Theod. 1.13 (362C/364A). Only
LR is aware of the distinction and always uses the Greek loan-word of
the illuminators (cf. II 7.32f.; 8.5 (combined with aidri), 9, 12f., 18, 20f.;
9.2 and par).
19 Thus the reading of B 35.6-9, which has Adam first set over
then in, might point to that reworking, which LR, as usual, has ‘tidied
up’.
20 B 35.10-13/III 13.9-11; II 9.4f./IV 14.If.
21 1.29.3: ‘virtutem quoque ei invictam datam a virginali Spiritu.’
22 1,29.3/Theod. 1.13 (364B).
23 Ibid.
24 Cf. HA 89.31-90.12.
25 Cf. B 57.8-12 and par.
26 B 35.20-36.2/III 13.17-19; 119.11-14.
27 B 36.2—15/III 13.19-14.9; II 9.14-24. Note too the Valentinian term
plerdma (III 14.4; II 9.20).
28 B 35.13-16/III 13.11-13; II 9.5-8/IV 14.2-6. SR starts the direct
speech immediately with Adam addressing the Spirit in the third person,
then switching to the second. LR seems to tidy this up. Ill 13.13 has
omitted ‘and because of you everything will return’ through
homoeoteleton. Cf. GElll 49.8-12/IV 61.8-14. Giversen, Apocryphon 188,
doubts an allusion to John 1:3 here, and prefers Rom 11:36. Janssens,
Museon 84, 61, also cites Rom 11:36 and adds 1 Cor 8:6.
29 B 35.17—20/III 13.14-17; II 9.9-11.
30 1.29.3/Theod. 1.13 (364B).
31 Cf. 1.29.1 where the aeon dwells in the virginal Spirit (i.e. Barbelo).
32 Till, 111 of his edition, Janssens, Museon 84, 61.
33 ‘Triade und Trinitat in den Schriften von Nag Hammadi’, in Layton,
Rediscovery 2.617-34, and discussion, 640-2.
116 Notes to pages 97-98

34 Cf. Bohlig, ‘Triade’ 622; Iren. 1.29.1, AJ B 31.11-18 and par (the
Logos as distinct from the Son and produced through him). So too with
GE TV 60.1-8 (the Autogenes (Word) as son of Christ). On Logos as
added to AJ, etc. see P. Perkins, ‘Logos Christologies in the Nag Hammadi
Codices’, VC 35 (1981), 379f.
35 ‘Triade’ 629.
36 629, 631.
37 Cf. ch. 7, section 3. This pattern of transcendent God made known
in three modalities is strikingly similar to the roughly contemporary
efforts of the Modalist Monarchians attacked by Hippolytus and
Tertullian!
38 622.
39 Pearson, ‘Triade’ discussion, 642. Cf. on Wisdom = Holy Spirit, e.g.
Athenag. Leg. 10.3 (cf. Wis 7:25f.); Theoph. Autol. 1.7; 2.15,18.
 4

Gnostic Theogony and Cosmogony 2:

The Lower World

1 The fall of Sophia

With the abrupt mention of the aeon Sophia by the Apocryphon,‘

a new section begins, involving cosmogony and anthropogony.
This will trace to her error the origin of this present world of
deficiency, ruled by an ignorant and arrogant Creator God or
Platonic Demiurge and his seven archons, who created the visible
universe and human beings in the image of the heavenly world,
in order to gain control over that world and its aeons. The idea
that a female heavenly being, often the - ironically named -
Wisdom, was responsible for the tragic split in the heavenly
world which gave rise to the present situation of the Gnostic as a
divine spark or self trapped in matter and oblivion, is a very
common Gnostic theme,2 and forms the basic presupposition of
the Valentinian system in particular.3 But in the case of the
Barbelognostics, Sophia’s wanton if innocent act of giving birth
to the Demiurge without a consort or the agreement of the
supreme deity (i.e., a virgin birth again) is a characteristic negative
reflection of Barbelo’s conception of the Son. Once more we meet
the fundamental themes of female initiative with or without male
permission and co-operation, and of knowledge and obedience
over against ignorance and recklessness.
That Sophia is called ‘our sister’ relates her to humanity and to
the Gnostic elect in particular as source and archetype;4 that she
is designated an aeon is evidently meant to identify her as the last
of the three aeons associated with the fourth illuminator Eleleth,
and thus the twelfth in order of appearance and the furthest
removed in the heavenly world from the Invisible Spirit. We have
argued in the previous chapter that this represents part of
redaction (a2) in which Sophia, perhaps partly under Valentinian
influence, is demoted from her original status and active saving

117
118 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

role. Evidence of this can be found in the omission of one of the

consorts of the illuminators, phronesis, to allow room for her, and
from comparison with the parallel in the Gospel of the Egyptians,
which added a further ogdoad of male ministers and female
consorts, including three of the Apocryphon s twelve, in addition
to the three helpers of the illuminators (charis, aisthesis, synesis).
Thus the list has the appearance of an artificial construct, in which
only the number (twelve) and the last aeon (Sophia) are
important, the number, as we suggested, producing a heavenly
archetype for the ensuing creation of the twelve signs of the Zodiac
by the Demiurge, Sophia being identified as the female aeon
responsible for the production of that Demiurge, and hence of
the created order beneath the heavenly world.
This conception, I noted, naturally recalls the Valentinian
duodecad of paired male and female aeons produced by Man and
Church, of which the last couple is Desired (Theletos) and
Sophia.3 However, Scholten, while detecting considerable
Valentinian influence on the Apocryphon both generally as regards
the Sophia myth and at this point in particular, feels that the
Apocryphon s presentation of the twelve aeons as four times three
ought not to be compared with the Valentinian arrangement of
twice six.6 But this is bound up with his acceptance of the Sethian
character of the Apocryphon and the priority of its understanding
of the structure of the heavenly world over against Irenaeus.
Conversely he finds Valentinian influence precisely in the fact
that although Sophia is presented in the Apocryphon as one of three
female aeons with no trace of a male consort, as is usual in Sethian
texts and as Irenaeus’ version attests, such a figure suddenly
appears and plays a major role in what follows.7 Indeed Scholten
traces the syzygy motif in general, which he finds strikingly absent
in the Apocryphon where we meet it in Irenaeus, to Valentinian
influence, while eschewing any attempt, such as that of Schenke,
to claim that the myth underlying Irenaeus’ account in 1.29
originally lacked a developed syzygy structure. He is content to
suggest that Valentinian ideas may have been responsible for the
concept of a consort in the Apocryphon, as they led Irenaeus to
stress the syzygy structure of his Barbelognostic source, in his desire
to explain the origins of Valentinianism.8
However, we attempted to explain in the previous chapter
how the original syzygy structure of the myth underlying the
Apocryphon was progressively distorted and obscured by the
introduction of the Autogenes figure and Truth as part of the
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 119

continuing Johannine interpretation, and by the identification

of that figure with Christ, and we pointed to a trace of that
structure in the Gospel of the Egyptians. Scholten’s preference for
texts of the Apocryphon lacking mention of that structure is not
justified. But on the other hand he is surely right to identify
Valentinian influence as being to some extent responsible for the
Apocryphon s concept of Sophia having a consort, and, as we shall
see, for her failure to act with his consent as an explanation of
her ‘fall’. Such influence may also have contributed to the theme
of the twelve female aeons, the last of which was Sophia.
As we have seen, SR calls Sophia ‘our sister’, whereas II 9.25
describes her as ‘the Sophia of Epinoia’.9 The former is echoed
in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth,10 while the Epinoia of the
latter may be a reference to the first of the three aeons with the
second illuminator, but is more likely to signify the revealer/
redeemer of the latter part of the Apocryphon, dispatched to help
Adam in his struggle with the powers of darkness and to correct
Sophia’s deficiency." However, Giversen’s suggestion that this
phrase presupposes an unknown account which has disappeared
may be even nearer the truth, in the light of the evidence of
Trimorphic Protennoia about the origin of Sophia and her relation
to Epinoia.12
Thus, after describing the appearance and establishment of
the four aeons, the Protennoia relates how, in response to a
word from the great illuminator Eleleth proclaiming his kingly
role and asking who belongs to chaos and the underworld, his
light appears endowed with Epinoia (a reference to Sophia?).
This leads to the manifestation of the great demon Saklas, i.e.
Samael, Ialtabaoth, who according to the text had taken power
from the guileless one (i.e. Sophia). He had at first over¬
powered the Epinoia of light who had descended (i.e. Sophia
again), from whom he had come forth from the first.13 The text
then speaks of the request of the Epinoia of light, apparently
to Eleleth, for a better order, the consequent agreement of the
higher order, and of how, when the great demon begins to
produce aeons in the likeness of the real aeons, the Protennoia
calls on him to desist, since she is about to descend for the sake
of her portion imprisoned there since the guileless Sophia who
had descended was conquered.14 Despite a certain degree of
ambiguity, the text appears to be describing the origin of Sophia,
the Epinoia of light, from Eleleth, and her descent and production
of Saklas/Ialdabaoth.
120 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

We shall consider the close parallelism of the whole passage

with the Apocryphon in due course, and the way the Protennoia
evidently presupposes and develops the myth underlying our
version of the latter, but at this point wish to draw attention to
certain features of the description of Sophia in these various
accounts, particularly in relation to Irenaeus’ summary of the
Barbelognosdcs. The motif of the twelve aeons in the image of
the heavenly world, absent in Irenaeus, we have suggested
represents a tradition involving Ialdabaoth, his seven archons and
twelve powers (as types of heavenly archetypes) which the
Apocryphon has incorporated as redaction (a2) into the original
scheme, which comprised four angelic illuminators and their
consorts. This involved the demotion of Sophia, perhaps also as a
result of Valentinian influence, to be the twelfth and last offspring
of the fourth illuminator, Eleleth, rather than, as apparently in
the allusive treatment of Irenaeus, of the first, Harmozel. The latter
is evidently the first angel standing beside Monogenes whom
Irenaeus records as emanating the Holy Spirit, also called ‘Sophia’
and ‘Prunicus’.15 The term ‘Monogenes’ although not used
previously, would appear to apply to the Autogenes, as in the
Apocryphon,16 which refers to the first illuminator, Harmozel, who
forms the bodyguard of Autogenes with the other three, as the
‘first angel’.17 Both Irenaeus and the Apocryphon thus appear to
represent a tradition which derives Sophia from one of the four
great illuminator angels, a tradition alluded to in more detail in
Trimorphic Protennoia and the Gospel of the Egyptians.
But both versions of the origin of Sophia appear to display a
certain degree of reserve or ambiguity, as if trying to play down
or conceal the tensions implicit in such a figure.18 In Irenaeus’
all-too-brief account Sophia would appear to be the offspring of
Harmozel with or without the co-operation of Charis, his consort,
and herself to lack a consort. Significantly perhaps, the
Barbelognosdcs insist on calling Harmozel ‘Saviour’, which might
imply the soteriological significance of his emanation of Sophia.19
Now in the evidently related Hypostasis of the Archons we find even
less explanation of the origin of Sophia, here called Pistis, but
the appearance of the great angel Eleleth, who calls himself
Understanding (i.e. phronesis rather than sophia) ,20 as revealer/
redeemer and his account of how Sophia was eventually
responsible for the production of the Demiurge, is suggestive.21
It links Eleleth to the process of Sophia’s fault and salvation. And
the pattern of Norea’s call for help and the promised rescue
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 121

echoes that of Sophia in Trimorphic Protennoia and Norea in the

Thought of Norear as the pattern of Sophia’s ignorant but guileless
action in producing the Demiurge and her subsequent repentance
and elevation recalls (and perhaps even represents the archetype
of) the souls who remain ignorant for a while but then repent
and rest in Eleleth, according to the Sethian reworking of the
ApocryphonP
Here the Hypostasis of the Archons may cast some light on the
development of the myth of Sophia, which by the allusive way it is
presented, with almost no reference to her origin, suggests both
its developed and problematic character. The Hypostasis, by its
use of the figures of the great Invisible Spirit, the four illuminators,
Sophia, Norea, and the kingless race or generation, is obviously
dependent on and indeed a variant of the Barbelognostic myth,
which develops earlier elements ofjewish provenance (the Saklas/
Samael and Ialdabaoth/Sabaoth material) which themselves have
influenced later redactions of the Apocryphon, as we shall see. It
reflects the transition from Sophia’s origin from Harmozel, as in
Irenaeus, to her origin from Eleleth, as in Trimorphic Protennoia.
Thus one can surmise that in the Hypostasis Eleleth is identified
with his consort, phronesis, perhaps even called sophia, and that
the offspring of this androgyne, Sophia, has been given the
designation ‘Pistis’ to distinguish her.24 Certainly this at least
supplies an explanation for the title lacking up to now. Both the
Apocryphon and the Protennoia stress her innocence, and Zostrianos
emphasizes her action without prior reflection: she acts in blind
faith, out of guilelessness.25
Furthermore, the evidence of the Protennoia that Epinoia and
Sophia are apparently synonymous might suggest that the
Apocryphon s ensuing distinction between the two, with the former
as revealer/redeemer and the latter as entirely in need of
redemption, represents later theological reinterpretation of an
earlier tradition, such as found in the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus and
the Valendnians, that Sophia was responsible for the original fault
or defect yet also acted as a redeemer.26 Again, as Epinoia., Sophia
appears as the afterthought, in contrast to Pronoia or Barbelo,
the Father’s first thought, appropriately linked with the fourth
illuminator and later taken as the prototype for the fourth Sethian
category, those souls who only finally gained knowledge and
repented.
Since Sophia is an aeon, the Apocryphon continues, she con¬
ceived a thought out of herself and through the thought
122 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

(enthymesis) of the Spirit and Prior Knowledge, and willed to reveal

her image.27 As Scholten points out, this theme appears at first
sight to combine the two main Valentinian versions of Sophia’s
fall: the more metaphysical one of trying to conceive the inconceiv¬
able Father (A, mainly in Irenaeus), and the more biological
one of producing an offspring without her consort (B, mainly
in Hippolytus), but differs subtly from both.28 In accordance
with the basic pattern of the myth, one would expect Sophia’s
disobedient (virginal) conception to be the negative reflection
of Barbelo’s obedient (virginal) conception. The two recen¬
sions seem to attest this while revealing some confusion and
divergence. SR has this happen although the Spirit had neither
agreed to this nor nodded assent (kataneuein), nor had her
consort (syzygos), the male virginal spirit (parthenikon pneuma),
joined in agreeing (syneudokein) .29 LR has this happen without
the wish of the Spirit, since her consort had not agreed (eudokein),
and without his thinking (enthymesis), since the person (prosopon)
of her masculinity had not joined in agreement.30
Now the preceding pattern of aeonic emanation has certainly
involved the union of male and female aeons and the agreement
of the Invisible Spirit.31 But the uncertainty in our texts over
this consort (the male virginal spirit according to SR), who only
appears here and can hardly be identified as Barbelo, as Janssens
claims,32 and who is the occasion of a very cumbrous para¬
phrase in LR, adds further support to the hypothesis that the
theme of the consort is a later attempt to reconcile the paradoxes
of Sophia and her guileless misconception along Valentinian
lines.33 LR, while accepting that Sophia has a consort, as we
shall see tends to play down or reinterpret the consort/syzygy
concept, whereas in Irenaeus the syzygies are primary, but
Sophia lacks a consort. Corresponding to Sophia’s predominantly
passive role in our present Apocryphon, she needs a consort to
help her correct her deficiency, whereas the logic underlying the
Barbelognostic system, as attested by the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus
and the Epinoia of the Apocryphon, dictates a more active role in
revelation/redemption, as with the Valentinian Sophia. But the
latter, in turn, like the ‘Ophite’ Sophia, needs a consort for
ultimate salvation. Here again the various versions are attempting
to reconcile the paradox of Gnostic experience projected in
Sophia: the need for external revelation to ensure genuine
salvation, on the one hand, but equally the fact that salvation is
ultimately self-salvation, on the other.34
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 123
This might lead us to identify the male virginal spirit with the
Epinoia, since we later hear that her consort descended to correct
her deficiency,35 that he will be sent out to her,36 and that it is
the Epinoia who will correct her fault.37 The two aspects of
Sophia, active and passive, are represented by Epinoia and
Sophia respectively. But this Pronoia-Sophia-Epinoia scheme
is a later attempt to resolve the paradoxes of Gnostic experi¬
ence projected in and by the Sophia myth: in Irenaeus’ version
the motivation for the fall is simply that Sophia has no obvious
partner as the others do, and seeks one without the agree¬
ment (bona voluntas, i.e. eudokia) of the Father.38 There is some
hint of this in the continuation in the Apocryphon that since
she had not found her partner she consented, all this without
the agreement (eudokia) of the Spirit and knowledge of her
partner.39
The Apocryphon then has Sophia produce her conception
through the wantonness (? prounikon) in her (B 37.1 Of.), or
through her watchfulness (phrourikon: III 15.2f.), or through her
invincible power (II 9.35-10.1). B’s reading obviously echoes
Sophia’s title in Irenaeus: ‘Prunicus’, and can be seen to be more
original than the evident emendations in III and II.40 The
‘invincible power’ of the latter, as Giversen suggests, is best seen
as further evidence of the tendency of LR to a more exalted, less
crude and anthropomorphic portrayal of the world of light.41
Prounikos, on the other hand, meaning ‘lustful’, ‘lascivious’ or
‘wanton’, or perhaps ‘impetuous’, ‘prodigal’,42 supplies a very
satisfactory motivation for Sophia’s action here.
In Irenaeus’ account ‘Prunicus’ is clearly a title for the Holy
Spirit, derived from her wanton and impetuous action of seeking
a consort by extending herself and looking down to the lower
regions, and when that failed, of leaping forth and finally, driven
by innocence (simplicitas, i.e akakia) and goodness (benignitas),
generating a work in which was ignorance and audacity.43 This
again is a negative counterpart of Barbelo’s procreative con¬
ception: here innocence and goodness lead to a downward,
not an upward, gaze and a deficiency which is not corrected. In
the ‘Ophite’ system of the following chapter (1.30), too, the power
which overflows from the Holy Spirit, the First Woman, as a result
of her union with First Man and his Son, is also fitly dubbed
‘Prunicus’ as well as Sophia from the wanton way (petulanter) she
stirs up the waters of chaos into which she descends in innocence
(simpliciter) ,44
124 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

M. P. Nilsson, followed independently by Petrement, has argued

that the term prounikoshas the primary sense of‘bearer’ in popular
classical usage, and that the same sense applies to the Gnostic use
of it. The Church Fathers, he and Petrement feel, are responsible
for giving the word an obscene connotation to discredit the
Gnostics, and both cite Epiphanius’ own definition.40 But, as
H. Chadwick has pointed out, it is probable that the Gnostics used
the term because of its double meaning,46 and the fact that it
occurs in a Gnostic primary document, the Apocryphon, and has
proved awkward enough to require reinterpretation, suggests that
its sexual meaning has not been foisted on the Gnostics by the
heresiologists. Petrement may be justified in querying R. A.
Bullard’s translation of the term as ‘whore’ in the Second Treatise
of the Great Seth,47 appealing to Celsus’ reference to a certain virgin
(•parthenos) Prounikos as a Valentinian title for Sophia,48 but the
paradox of the wanton virgin is a well-attested Gnostic theme. It
is at the heart of the Thunder,49 and is reflected in the Valentinian
doctrinal letter where the wantonness and procreative power of
the supreme female aeon Silence or Ennoia and her emanations
is a key theme.50
Epiphanius supplies further information about the figure
Prunicus. Discussing the Simonians he quotes a passage in which
Simon, the great power, describes his descent to his prostitute
consort, Ennoia, also called Prounikos and ‘Holy Spirit’: this figure,
comments Epiphanius, is called Barbelo or Barbero in other
heresies.51 This comment would appear to refer to the Nicolaitans,
some of whom revere Barbelo (who, like the Ennoia/Helen/
Prunicus of the Simonians, is responsible for the seduction of the
archons), and some of whom honour Prunicus.52 Barbelo and
Prunicus would appear to be akin, if not synonymous. Prunicus
also appears in Epiphanius’ account of the Ophite heresy, based
on Irenaeus, in which the former gives an explanation of the term
as ‘bad’ (achrestos) .50 This evidence not only confirms the
originality of the reading of B 37.11, but also the sexual con¬
notation of the term and its possible influence on Valentinianism.
It may also, if we accept the reliability of Epiphanius’ information
and judgement, add some weight to the hypothesis that Sophia
and Barbelo were originally identical.
Sophia’s thought, the Apocryphon continues, could not remain
idle (argon), and her work (ergon) appeared incomplete and unlike
her form because she had created it without her consort.54 This
motif of procreation/emanation by Sophia without a partner
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 125

underlies a number of Gnostic systems; what distinguishes them

is whether she has a partner and what explanation for her action
is offered. Thus Irenaeus’ account of the Barbelognostics has
Sophia seek a partner in vain and thereafter, impelled by
guilelessness and generosity, procreate a work (opus/ergon) in
which was ignorance and boldness (authadeia/audacia) ,55 The
Hypostasis of the Archons simply relates how Sophia, called ‘Pistis’,
wanted to make a work by herself without her partner, and
that work (ergon) became the images of heaven. The shadow
which came into being beneath the curtain thus formed
became matter and finally materialized as the arrogant beast-like
Demiurge, Samael/Ialdabaoth.76 Here Sophia’s responsibility for
the Demiurge is lessened by the curtain motif which may derive
from the ‘Ophite’ system described by Irenaeus.57
Hippolytus’ account of Valentinianism reflects a more
sophisticated version of the motif: Sophia attempts to imitate the
Father in procreating like him without a consort, but because
of the difference in nature she, as begotten, emanated a shape¬
less (amorphos) and incomplete (akataskeuastos) substance (not the
Demiurge but the lower Sophia, outside the Pleroma).58 The
Ptolemaeans have an even more demythologized and metaphysical
account which explains Sophia’s motivation as a desire to
comprehend the greatness of the supreme Father, a passion she
suffered apart from the embrace of her consort.59 Nevertheless
both of these teach a double Sophia. However, Valentinus himself,
whom Stead justifiably argues probably only envisaged owe erring
Sophia figure,60 shows traces of the mythologoumenon of Sophia
imitating the Father in creating without a consort. Thus in a
fragment of a homily Valentinus likens Sophia to a painter,
producing as her creation (plasma) the Demiurge who is an image
(eikon) since he originates from one, not from a syzygy.61 Although
the precise terms are different, the whole theme recalls the
Apocryphon s version.62
That version, which in B presents Sophia as acting without her
consort because of the wanton creative passion (prounikon) within
her, can credibly be seen as an early stage in the process of
development whereby the attribute (‘wanton’) became a title
(as among the Barbelognostics and ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus, the
Simonians, Nicolaitans/Gnostics and Ophites of Epiphanius,
and perhaps even among some Valentinians, as Origen and
Epiphanius attest), and the exclusively sexual and mythological
understanding of Sophia’s action became increasingly sublimated
126 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

and demythologized (as in the long recension of the Apocryphon

and the various schools of Valentinianism). In any case, the
deliberate ambiguity of the term and the stress on Sophia’s
guilelessness help exonerate her and cloak the negative character
of this ‘fall’.
The Apocryphon then relates how Sophia saw that her offspring
was of a different type (typos), with the face of a snake and a lion
and eyes gleaming like a fire.63 Sophia cast it away from those
regions lest any of the immortals see it, because she had produced
it in ignorance. She surrounded it with a cloud of light and placed
a throne in the middle of the cloud to ensure that no one saw it
except the Holy Spirit, who is called ‘the Mother of all living’,
and she called it ‘Ialdabaoth’. This, says the Apocryphon, is the First
Archon.64
Now Irenaeus’ account of the Barbelognostics simply names
the work of Sophia ‘First Archon’ (Protarchon), with no mention
of its appearance or proper name, although his reference to the
ignorance present in it recalls the Apocryphon s statement that
Sophia had produced her abortion in ignorance.60 However, the
first offspring of Sophia Prunicus, according to the ‘Ophite’ system
in the following section in Irenaeus, is called Ialdabaoth.66 This
would suggest that the Apocryphon has here combined two distinct
traditions, the one dealing with the anonymous chief or first
archon, the other with Ialdabaoth/Saklas/Samael and his off¬
spring, as we hypothesized in reconstructing the development of
the myth.67 And if we again apply the principle that the meaning
of mythical names must be determined from their context, we
find, despite differences of opinion, that the characteristic
ambiguity of Barbelognostic divine names, suggesting both Greek
and Semitic elements, is lacking here.
In her treatment of possible meanings,68 Petrement first
considers and rejects Bousset’s identification with the god
Saturn on the basis of Origen’s assertion,69 but without herself
offering an etymology. One recent popular suggestion she
notes, which goes back to J. Matter, is to derive it from the
Aramaic roots ialad ‘child’ and baoth ‘chaos’: Ialdabaoth is
the child of chaos.70 She accepts Scholem’s criticisms of this
proposal, as of Harvey’s Aramaic ia el dabahoth, ‘Lord God of
the fathers’ and Giversen’s suggested derivation, ia el taboth,
‘ruler of the God of the desires’, based on the form Ialtabaoth.71
Scholem’s own proposal, taking up suggestions by E. Preuschen
and A. Adam, is to take ialdnotas ‘child’ but as ‘father’, ‘begetter’,
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 127

and see Abaoth as the equivalent of Sabaoth: Ialdabaoth is ialda

abadth, ‘Father of Sabaoth’, the latter meaning ‘hosts’, summed
up in the figure Sabaoth.72 But both Petrement and M. Black
criticize this in that Ialdabaoth is the father of six sons, of whom
Sabaoth is only one, if the most important in the Hypostasis and
On the Origin of the Worlds Black, whom Petrement omits to
mention, also suggests an Aramaic root: ialda behuta, ‘son of
shame’, which is possible, but does not really fit the context, which
involves Sophia’s wanton and ignorant act, if committed in
innocence and goodness.74
Petrement herself prefers the suggestion made by R. M. Grant
but criticized by Scholem: to derive it from the Hebrew la El
Sabaoth.'3 She is right to stress that this figure is obviously intended
to be the God of the Old Testament, and if we take the ‘Ophite’
system as among the earliest, and a probable source for the
speculations about Sophia, the shadow/curtain, and Ialdabaoth
and his offspring, which are developed in the Hypostasis and On
the Origin of the World, then this last derivation would fit the context
as well as any.76 But that this mythologoumenon of Ialdabaoth
and his offspring has been grafted on to the Barbelognostic
cosmogony is suggested by Irenaeus’ account, which identifies the
Protarchon with the God of the Old Testament as the Creator of
this visible world, the maker (not father) of powers, angels,
firmaments, etc. the source of evil (cf. Isa 45:7 LXX), and by his
arrogant exclusivist boast (cf. Exod 20:5; Isa 45:5f., 46:9) the
jealous God of the Jews.77 He is not explicitly the demonized figure
Ialdabaoth of the Hypostasis:, indeed it may be that, as Irenaeus
himself hints, the Barbelognostics as well as the ‘Ophites’ included
a left-hand ruler, the Devil, whose traits we find reproduced in
Ialdabaoth.78
Finally, on the question of the origin of this myth of Sophia
and its relationship to Valentinianism, MacRae has pointed to
the striking parallels with Jewish Wisdom motifs and concepts
in Gnostic texts and in the Apocryphon in particular, and
attempted to derive the ‘fall’ of Sophia, clearly lacking in Jewish
texts, from Gnostic interpretation of the figure of Eve.79
Similarly Stead has appealed to the possible influence of Philo
and his views of Sophia and Logos on the original myth of
Valentinus of the one errant Sophia,80 if ignoring the relation¬
ship of the Barbelognostic and ‘Ophite’ systems to that myth.
Petrement, criticizing both for not adequately explaining
the fall element in terms of Jewish sources, suggests, as we have
128 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

seen, that Gnosticism and the myth of Sophia can best be

understood against a Christian background, and that the
Valentinian version of the myth is probably prior to that in the
Apocryphon.S]
But in arguing that the fall of Sophia can only be explained by
Gnosticism prior to Valentinus, i.e. by the anti-Jewish, anti-cosmic
attitudes of Saturninus and Basilides, and pointing to the
Valentinian ‘turning point’ in giving a more positive evaluation
of Judaism and finding elements of truth in the Old Testament,
she has once again been led by her pan-Valentinian thesis to
reject, the pioneering role of the Gnostics of Irenaeus 1.29
and 30. It is they who appear to have developed a myth or
myths of Sophia, virgin and wanton, undoubtedly based on
speculations about Jewish Wisdom and Eve, which splits her
into heavenly perfect consort (Barbelo, the virgin Mother), and
lower creative Wisdom, the dynamic figure of Proverbs, Wisdom
of Solomon and 1 Enoch, who is responsible for the produc¬
tion of this world by the Creator God of the Old Testament,
and who descends but finds nowhere to rest. It is they too who
pioneer the idea that the divine power of light is channelled
through Sophia into the Demiurge, and in the case of the
‘Ophites’, the concept of a lower Sophia who falls from the
heavenly world and whose passions solidify to form the
material elements of this visible world. Thus while the
Barbelognostics anticipate Valentinus’ single errant Sophia, the
‘Ophites’ anticipate the double Sophia of Ptolemy and others.
And both to some extent rehabilitate the Jewish Creator God,
apparently teaching a demonic counterpart and, in the case of
the ‘Ophites’, suggesting that Sophia inspired some of the Old
Testament prophecies.
That the Barbelognostic version of the Sophia myth as suggested
by Irenaeus is independent of and prior to (perhaps even a
possible influence on) Valentinus rather than vice versa might be
suggested by the evaluation of Sophia’s role in it as (a) not
produced last of twelve (or thirty) aeons of a Pleroma with its
Limit figure; (b) lacking a consort, which the later redactions have
added under Valentinian influence; (c) not associated with Christ,
as in Valentinianism; (d) identified as the Holy Spirit, a separate
figure paired with Christ in Valentinianism; (e) a single entity able
to rescue herself; and (f) directly responsible for the Demiurge
whom she battles against rather than working through secretly
via Achamoth, as in Valentinianism.
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 129

2 The creation of the world of darkness

(a) The Twelve

With the production by Sophia (without the consent of the

supreme deity) of an incomplete being, whose unlikeness to
his mother is particularly stressed, a negative counterpart of
Barbelo’s bearing of an incomplete being (but with the consent
of the Father, hence like him and perfected by him), we enter
a new stage, that of the lower beings, the even more
imperfect creations of a Demiurge and his subordinates. Thus
the Apocryphon relates that Ialdabaoth took a great power from
his mother, removed himself from her and turned away from the
region (topos) in which he had been born, taking possession of
another.82 This is closely paralleled in Irenaeus’ account which
talks of the Protarchon as creator (fabricator) of this present
condition, which certainly fits his role in the Apocryphon, seizing
a great power from his mother and departing from her into
the nether regions.83 SR relates how he created for himself a
flaming fiery aeon in which he now lives,84 which is slightly closer
to Irenaeus, who has him create a prmamentum coeli in which he is
said to dwell (habitare),85 than LR, which speaks of other aeons
and has him in the gleaming fiery flame.86
SR then has Ialdabaoth unite with his ignorance (III) or folly
(B) and beget the powers (exousia) under him and (or as) twelve
angels, each to his aeon, according to the pattern of the incor¬
ruptible aeons. He created for each of them (B), or they (the
powers?) created for themselves (III), seven angels and the angels
three powers so as to form 360 angelic beings, made according to
the appearance of the first pattern (typos) before him, but ignorant
of him who had made them.87 LR, however, has Ialdabaoth stupe¬
fied in his folly and begetting for himself powers, which are then
at once enumerated, the last being identified as over the depth
of the underworld.88 Only later do we have, in two separate
passages, parallels to this enumeration of angels and powers
(which, moreover, is different and adds up to 365),89 and to the
idea of creation after the heavenly pattern (which denies that
Ialdabaoth actually saw the heavenly world).90 Irenaeus’ account
here supplies a partial parallel which again appears to show closer
affinities with SR. His text relates that since Ialdabaoth was
ignorance he created (fecisse) powers (potestates, i.e. exousiai?)
under him and angels and firmaments and all earthly things.91
130 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Irenaeus’ summary, despite its extreme condensation, may still

be of some help in reconstructing the original sequence in the
Apocryphon. Thus his order of powers then angels may confirm
the originality of III 16.9 which has powers and the twelve angels.
This distinction would also solve the arithmetical problem of
arriving at 360 angelic beings.92 Just who these beings are will
become clear when we consider the list of twelve powers which
then follows in both recensions. SR introduces them as appearing
from the First Begetter (archigenetor), the First Archon of darkness,
and ignorant of him who begot them,93 while LR plunges straight
into the list, although it does have a similar allusion to Ialdabaoth
later as an ignorant darkness, adding an excursus on light and
darkness and the nature, names and boast of the First Archon,
absent in the short recension.94 The enumeration of the twelve
powers differs slightly in the four versions, although what survives
of IV appears to correspond to II.95 The parallel in the Gospel of
the Egyptians is unfortunately marred by lacunae (III) or very
fragmentary (IV).96 According to it, the great angel Saklas and
the great demon Nebruel together begot twelve assisting angels,
each with his aeon, and each to rule his world.97 Its list is almost,
but not quite, identical with that of the long recension of the
Apocryphon.98
Just who these twelve powers or angels are is made clear by the
continuation in SR. According to it, they all possess other names
from desire (epithymia) and wrath (orge), but also double names
given them through the glory (B) or glories (III) of heaven; it is
these latter which reveal their true nature.99 Now Saklas, SR
continues, called them by these (former?) names according to
their appearance and powers. Through the glories (III) or the
times (B) they grow distant and weak, but through these (former
names?) they regain strength and wax (auxanein).‘ Till is clearly
right to relate these twelve powers to the signs of the Zodiac, and
Giversen to argue that the names given in the Apocryphon are the
true names, given by the glory of heaven and revealing the true
nature of these powers created by Saklas in imitation of the twelve
heavenly aeons, whereas Saklas’ names for them (the customary
names of the Zodiac?) are the names of desire and wrath by which
the signs gain strength.2
The picture presented by SR of this whole section involving
the twelve powers created in the image of the twelve heavenly
aeons with their double names whereby they wax and wane, and
the 360 angelic beings deriving from them, makes good sense.
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 131
The twelve powers preside over the twelve constellations of the
Zodiac, part of the circle of the fixed stars marking the first work
of the Demiurge, which wax and wane through time, and the 360
angelic beings deriving from them represent the 360 degrees of
the zodiacal circle (or the 360 days of the civil year) ,3 This would
explain the occurrence of the list of these beings at this point
and the apparent lack of correlation of them with any later entities.
They would correspond with the potestates and angeli of Irenaeus
1.29.4.
A. J. Welburn has attempted to link the twelve names as zodiacal
signs with the Sun, Moon and five planets (or their rulers) which
the Apocryphon then proceeds to mention, beginning with Leo
(Iaoth/Athoth) associated with the Sun out to the sixth power
(Sabaoth/Kain), i.e. Capricorn, and the seventh (Kainan/Abel),
i.e. Aquarius, both associated with Saturn, then back in order to
Belias, i.e. Cancer, who must be linked with the Moon.4 This
would supply a plausible explanation for the double occurrence
of Iobel in fourth and ninth positions: Iobel would represent the
Hebrew for ‘Ram’, both fourth and ninth signs (Scorpio and Aries)
being governed by the same planet, namely Mars. Hermas would
be Hermes/Mercury and the odd form Melcheiradonin, as
equivalent to the double constellation Basilis tekai Adonis of Teucer
Babylonius in Rhetorius, would, as Giversen has suggested,5
represent Gemini.6 Welburn also supplies a plausible solution to
the question of which version of the fifth to seventh powers was
original: the long recension identified Adonaios and Sabaoth and
was thus forced to add another name after Kain/Cain, namely
Abel.7 And as he has also suggested, mention of ‘the sun’ in
seventh place (as in B and III) rather than in sixth (as in II and
G£TII and IV), fits the division of twelve signs into seven day and
five night signs.8
However, Tardieu, entirely ignoring Welburn and his case, is
content to interpret the twelve in the more common order starting
from Aries, attempting to find explanations of all the names which
link them with the appropriate sign.9 His efforts are once again
ingenious and learned, but sometimes rather strained, and he
perhaps does not offer the same degree of overall plausibility as
Welburn does. A key to evaluating their rival claims may lie in
their respective explanations of the gloss on Kain, ‘whom men
call “the sun’”. Tardieu would see this as originally a marginal
gloss attached to the fifth name, Adonaios Sabaoth, i.e. Leo, which
has progressively slipped from sixth in LR to seventh in SR, which
132 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

mistakenly distinguished Sabaoth from Adonaios. Welburn, as

noted above, conversely sees LR as having confused the original
order by identifying Adonaios and Sabaoth. But while suggesting
why the gloss might have been attached to the seventh sign as
corresponding to the day/night division, he does not explain its
appropriateness to the zodiacal sign, Aquarius, and its planetary
ruler, Saturn, of his hypothesis. Again, as we shall see, it may be a
case of two independent traditions, one involving twelve zodiacal
powers, the other seven planetary rulers, which the redactors, in
view of the overlap of names (Iaoth/Athoth, Adonaios, Sabaoth,
Adonis) have attempted to combine.
Certainly the course of events in LR, which Tardieu has chosen
to follow here without justifying his preference, is rather more
complicated. It gives no indication of who or what the twelve are,
apart from describing the last, Belias, as over the depth of the
underworld.10 It then has Ialdabaoth establishing seven kings over
the seventh heaven in accordance with the heavenly firmament
(steredma) and five over the depth of Hell, giving them a share of
his fire but not of the power of light he had taken from his mother,
since he is an ignorant darkness." Then follows the passage,
unique to LR, on the mixture of light and darkness, the three
names of the archon and his boast that he alone is God,12 after
which we have the enumeration of the angels. This passage speaks
of the archons (the number is not given; twelve would not fit the
arithmetic) creating seven powers for themselves, the powers
creating six angels for each until they made 365 angels.13 As
Giversen admits, the sum is awkward and LR seems more
concerned with the final total of 365 to which it remains faithful
(as does B to 360) than with the precise arithmetic required.14
LR then gives the names and forms of appearance of the seven
(archons?) who comprise the hebdomad of the week, repeats that
Ialdabaoth gave them a share of his fire, alludes once more to his
arrogant boast and enumerates the seven powers which he united
with the (seven?) authorities.15 Only then does LR parallel SR in
asserting that all these beings (or perhaps only the last-named)
have two names, the first according to the glory of heaven, which
renders them powerless, the second the power names given by
their First Begetter,16 and that he organized everything after the
pattern of the first aeons. But the tendentious hand of the redactor
is again evident in that LR insists that Ialdabaoth did so, not
because he had seen the incorruptible ones, but because of the
power in him which he had stolen from his mother.17
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 133
Conversely SR offers a simpler and more coherent outline of
events. After the enumeration of the twelve zodiacal powers with
their names, it has Ialdabaoth command that seven kings rule
over the (seven?) heavens and five over chaos and the
underworld.18 But that these are not the same as the twelve zodiacal
powers, as Till and the redactor of LR appear to imagine,19 is
suggested not only by the new stage marked by ‘and’ and the new
title ‘kings’, but by the fact that the seven glory names do not
correspond to the first seven glory names of the twelve powers,
with the possible exception of the first and fifth.'20 Who then are
the seven and five? It has usually been assumed that they refer to
the seven planets associated with the twelve zodiacal signs.21
Certainly the seven are expressly identified as those over the seven
heavens and as the hebdomad of the week, who control the
cosmos.22 But are they originally and fundamentally planetary
rulers? Comparison with Irenaeus’ account of the ‘Ophite’ system
is instructive here; in it Ialdabaoth and his six sons similarly form
a holy or perfect hebdomad, identified with the days of the week
and in control of the seven heavens.23 But they are only secondarily
equated with the planets,24 and this might cast some light on this
section of the Apocryphon. For the primary role of these seven
archons would seem to be the creation of psychic humanity.25 Thus
they alone are properly described as being given a share of
Ialdabaoth’s fire, but not of his power as is the case in SR.26 That
LR first attributes this to the twelve and then repeats it of the
seven surely represents a later misinterpretation.
The two recensions then agree over the seven and their forms
of appearance and over the seven powers united with them, but
LR, with its passage about the double names, which (a) would
suit the twelve zodiacal powers much better, (b) apparently implies
that the seven are stars/planets and (c) most revealingly refers to
the fact that they conform to celestial originals in the context of
double names, and not, as in SR, in the context of the union of
the seven rulers and powers (surely the more original),27 does
seem to represent a secondary reworking.
If then we assume that the version in SR (with its twelve zodiacal
powers and 360 angels distinct from the seven heavenly rulers
and five kings of the underworld assimilated to the planets) is
original, how are we to account for the differences in LR? The
two crucial factors I believe are the number 365 and the
identification of the twelve powers with the seven and five. LR
requires the first because of the mythologoumenon, not present
134 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

in SR, of the creation of humanity by 365 angels.28 It has been led

to overlook the zodiacal significance of the 360 angelic beings,
and interpret the 365 angels in terms of days of the year which
are under the control of the seven (planetary) rulers. But since it
had identified these rulers with the first seven of the twelve, it felt
compelled to transpose the account of the creation of the 365 to
after the mention of the seven and five.
This apparent identification by LR of the twelve with the seven
and five is echoed in the Gospel of the Egyptians. Despite the
fragmentary condition of the text, it seems to relate the production
by Saklas and Nebruel of twelve assisting angels and twelve aeons
for them, followed by his demand for seven (archons?) and for
each of the twelve to rule his own (aeon? world?). The names of
the twelve follow very closely those in LR, with the concluding
gloss that they are over the underworld.29 There are clear signs
that this version is more likely to be secondary and dependent on
the long recension of the Apocryphon than that it represents the
original tradition echoed by the long and distorted by the short
recensions.30
The twelve powers, we might note, appear to play no further
part in the Apocryphon.31 They are listed first among Ialdabaoth’s
creations both because they are the types of the twelve heavenly
aeons, and because they represent the twelve constellations of the
Zodiac which were considered part of the highest heavenly sphere,
that of the fixed stars. Beneath them are ranked the seven
planetary spheres. The ensuing mention of seven kings over the
heavens plus five underworld rulers of whom we hear no more,
whatever their provenance - whether representing the assignment
of the Sun, Moon and five planets to the zodiacal signs (so
Welburn and Tardieu) or not - was bound to be interpreted both
in terms of the planets and as another dodecad. Thus it is perhaps
not surprising that the two groups were confused, as in LR.
Valentinian influence may again be in evidence in the idea in LR
of the heavenly world being imitated by the Demiurge not because
he saw it, but because of his mother’s power working through
him.

(b) The seven rulers

Having dealt with the twelve powers controlling the signs of the
Zodiac, we should expect to pass to the creation and enumeration
of the seven rulers controlling the planets, each set over a
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 135
descending series of concentric spheres, to each of which was
assigned a planet. But, as we have suggested, the seven heavenly
kings appear to be only secondarily planetary rulers and primarily
chronological entities, governing the days of the week (the ‘holy
hebdomad ), and ultimately responsible for the creation of
humanity. This is the role they have in the ‘Ophite’ system of
Irenaeus which appears to have been grafted on (redaction (a2))
to the earlier Barbelognostic scheme, which simply spoke of the
Protarchon creating powers and angels. SR retains traces of their
distinct and original role, which LR has obscured by identifying
them as planetary rulers assimilated to the first seven zodiacal
signs. And significantly it is LR which continues that grafting
process by developing a more demonized picture of Ialdabaoth
than that of the ‘Ophites’, but akin to that in the Hypostasis of the
Archons, On the Origin of the World and Trimorphic Protennoia.
Thus before it enumerates the seven LR presents a digression
on Ialdabaoth as an ignorant darkness.32 As Giversen admits,
there is not even a similar idea to this in SR.33 It is sparked off by
the statement that Ialdabaoth gave a share of his fire but not of
the power of light he had taken from his mother, because he is
an ignorant darkness.34 It relates how the light mingled with the
darkness, causing it to shine, and how because of this mixture
the light became darkened, neither light nor darkness but weak.
This last term acts as a key to the second half of this digression,
describing the nature of Ialdabaoth.35 The archon who is weak, it
continues, has three names, the first Ialtabaoth, the second Saklas,
the third Samael.30 And it dwells on the folly of his ignorant boast:
‘I am God and there is no other god but me.’ In saying this he
had not confirmed the place from which he had come.37
The fact that both the opening passage (II 11.7-10 and par)
and closing section (11.19-22 and par) are doublets or expansions
of material found elsewhere as a unit in LR when in parallel with
SR;38 that the excursus on light and darkness has no parallel in
SR; and the inclusion of Samael as a title that would suit LR’s
theological tendency to stress the ignorance and blindness of the
Demiurge, all tend to undermine Giversen’s arguments that LR
represents a more original tradition here which SR abridged and
rearranged.39
After its reference to the seven heavenly kings and five
underworld rulers, SR supplies the glory-names of the seven,
whereas LR abruptly lists their bodily names after its belated
mention of the 365 angelic powers.40 Both versions attest that these
136 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

form the hebdomad of the week, SR adding the gloss, which might
suggest their planetary nature, that it is they who control the
cosmos.41 But the names which follow and occur twice in the
versions in B and II (with insignificant variations), as Tardieu has
rightly demonstrated, do not correspond directly with the planets
but represent the days of the week, as in the ‘Ophite’ system of
Irenaeus 1.30.4f. and 10, with names of the Jewish God as found
in magical sources.42 However, if remarkably similar to the
evidently related lists attested by Irenaeus, Origen and Epiphanius,
a Greek magical papyrus and amulet, a Coptic magical papyrus,
and a Nag Hammadi text,43 its version remains distinctive.
Thus while the lists in Irenaeus, Origen, the Gnostic amulet
and On the Origin of the World all begin with Ialdabaoth and then
follow with versions of the Jewish names of God in the stereotyped
order found in magical texts (Iao, Sabaoth, Adonaios, Eloaios),
concluding with two more magic names (Oraios and Astaphaios) ,44
the Apocryphon s list omits Ialdabaoth (as the creator of the seven)
and begins with the same name as in the twelve powers, Iaoth (B
41.18 and 43.13, cf. 40.5), or Aoth (III 17.22, butHaoth in 16.20),
or Athoth (II 11.26 and 12.16, cf. 10.29).43 SR assigns him the
face of a lion, LR of a sheep.46 Then comes Eloaios with the face
of an ass,47 followed by Astaphaios with the face of a hyena.48 While
all seem to agree on the name of the fourth, Iao or Iazo,49 they
differ on his face. B 42.2f. and II 11.30f. assign him the face of a
snake with seven heads, III 18.2 a lion-shaped snake face.50 The
fifth figure is sometimes Adonaios, sometimes Sabaoth,51 with a
snake face, the sixth is Adoni(n) with an ape face.52 Finally the
seventh is variously named Sabbataios (B 42.6 and 44.4),
Sabbadaios (III 18.6),Sabbede (II 11.33) orSabbateon (II 12.25).
That unlike all the rest he does not have an animal face but is
described as a flaming fire, Tardieu has plausibly explained by
the fact that in Origen and On the Origin of the World the seventh
archon (Ialdabaoth) alone has an astrological association, namely
with Saturn.53
Although, therefore, four of these names can be found in the
Apocryphon s list of twelve powers (Iaoth/Athoth, Adonaios,
Sabaoth, Adonin), the real parallel is with the names of the seven
heavenly archons, or hebdomad of the week, of the ‘Ophites’ of
Irenaeus and Origen, of On the Origin of the World, and of the
Gnostic amulet. This motif of the seven or hebdomad seems a
fairly consistent one in that the first three texts mentioned suggest,
as does the Apocryphon, a link with the planets, the middle two
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 137
and the Apocryphon refer to the First Archon as ‘lion-like’, Origen
and the Apocryphon ascribe animal faces or forms to them, and
the last two associate Ialdabaoth with the name ‘Ariel’ (‘lion of
God in Hebrew). Further, the version in On the Origin of the World
not only appears to be aware of the different order of the seven
in the Apocryphon but associates them with a list of abstract
characteristics (providence, lordship, divinity, kingship, envy,
riches, wisdom (sophia)) which, as we shall see, closely correspond
to the seven powers in the Apocryphon which are later united with
the seven heavenly rulers.54
1 he difference between the two lists of names would appear to
be explicable in terms of two independent but overlapping
traditions, one of which included Ialdabaoth as the first of the
seven, the other of which had him as the creator of the seven. On
the Origin of the World tends to confirm this by the way it begins
with the latter but then abandons it and presents the former.
But Tardieu’s persuasive interpretation of the hebdomad as not
astrological but chronological rather undermines the attempt of
Welburn to reconcile both traditions as originally and essentially
astrological.35 However, Welburn may be justified in appealing to
Origen’s account of the Ophite diagram as a key to interpreting
the evidence. Thus it seems to link the two traditions, that of the
Apocryphon with its seven theriomorphic archons created by
Ialdabaoth, the seventh apparently equated with Saturn, and that
in Irenaeus, On the Origin of the World and the Gnostic amulet,
which has Ialdabaoth, the lion-like archon equated with Saturn,
as first and progenitor of six.
Certainly both Origen’s account of Celsus’ list of the seven and
that of the Apocryphon agree in ascribing animal faces or forms,
but Origen’s list and names (lion/Michael, bull/Suriel, snake/
Raphael, eagle/Gabriel, bear/Thauthabaoth, dog/Erathaoth, ass/
Thaphabaoth or Onoel - Celsus; Onoel or Thartharaoth - Origen)
differ from those in the Apocryphon (although the two share lion
(SR only) as first, snake, dog or hyena, and ass). And Origen in
the following chapter appears to confirm the astrological character
of the seven in that he lists the Ophian formulae which allow the
Gnostic to pass unscathed through the seven heavens with their
archons in descending order, starting with the lion-headed
Ialdabaoth, with whom Saturn (ho Phainon) is in sympathy.56
Conversely the Apocryphon has Sabbataios, with a gleaming fiery
appearance (i.e. Saturn) as the seventh,57 and thus the First Archon
with the lion-like appearance must be equated with the Moon,
138 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

on Welburn’s hypothesis. Yet merely to reverse Origen’s order

does not help much in establishing a correlation with the
Apocryphon, since the former obviously corresponds with those of
Irenaeus, etc. which include Ialdabaoth as the lion-like archon.
Further, far from representing a more original order, as Welburn
argues, Origen’s list with its odd features (the omission of
Adonaios and the insertion of Astaphaios before Eloaios) actually
suggests a deliberate rearrangement to fit into a planetary scheme:
Adonaios as the Sun was overlooked, and Astaphaios as Venus
was moved from seventh to its appropriate planetary position of
fifth.
On the other hand, if Origen’s list, like those related to it, was
originally chronological, that of the Apocryphon may well, as
Welburn argues, have been more astrological from the start,
assimilating features from the Ialdabaoth tradition in redaction
(a2). Thus Welburn’s explanation of the planetary features of the
seven is quite illuminating and plausible, even if his attempt to
use Origen’s evidence as the hermeneutical key to resolve all the
problems is not wholly successful.58
The Apocryphon, stimulated by the reference to the various forms
of appearance of the seven, then relates how Ialdabaoth has a
host of forms so as to appear in every form he wishes.59 He gave
the seven a share of his fire but not of the pure light, the power
he had seized from his mother.60 He was lord over them precisely
because of what he had got from his mother, variously rendered
in terms of glory, power and light.61 For this reason, the text
continues, he called himself ‘god’, thereby disobeying the being
or reality (hypostasis) from which he had originated (SR) or the
place from which he had come (LR).62 Following the mythic
pattern, the selfishness and arrogance of the Demiurge is an exact
negative counterpart to the attitude of Adamas, giving birth to
knowledge, being given an invincible power and consequently
obediently praising the supreme deity.63

(c) The seven powers

The Apocryphon then proceeds to relate how Ialdabaoth combined

with the authorities (i.e. the seven heavenly rulers) seven powers
which originate from his speaking,64 and how he named them,
beginning from above.65 To each of the seven rulers named in
the form described above is united a power which (with one
exception) is feminine in Greek and Coptic. But while the list of
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 139
these in II 12.15—25 is identical with its second enumeration in II
15.14—23, that in B 43.11-44.4 differs slightly from its counterpart
at B 49.11-50.4, which itself is virtually identical with the parallel
in III 22.19-23.6.6b Furthermore both recensions differ from each
other. Thus B 43.12f. has providence (pronoia) with the first, Iaoth,
but it comes fourth in B 49.16/III 23.If., while it is second (with
Eloaio) in II 12.l7f. and 15.15f./IV 24.4f. But this is the only
difference in order in the three versions in SR, and the remaining
order is divinity second with Eloaios in B 43.14f., first in B 49.11;
goodness (mntcKs) third with Astaphaios in B 43.15-17 and second
in B 49.13 (although the parallel in III 22.21 appears to read
lordship (mntj[oeis\) and Till has corrected his translation of B in
line with III at this point);67 fire (koht) fourth with Iao in B 43.17-
19 and third in B 49.14f./III 22.22f. (which appears to read
[kau]ma); kingship (rhntrro) fifth with Sabaoth in B 43.19f. and
fifth in B 49.14f./III 23.2f.; [insight?] sixth with Adoni in B 44.If.
and sixth in B 50.2 {syndesis])/III 23.4; wisdom (sophia) seventh
with Sabbataios in B 44.3f., and seventh in B 50.4/III 23.5.
LR presents a much less ambiguous picture. It has goodness
ifnntchfs) first with Athoth (II 15.14 confirms this by giving the
fuller form mntchrestos), providence second as indicated, then
divinity third with Astaphaios in II 12.18f. and third in II 15.17/
IV 24.7. Lordship (mntjoeis) is fourth with Iao in II 12.19f. and
fourth in II 15.18; kingship (mntero) is fifth with Sabaoth in II
12.21f. and fifth in II 15.19./IV 24.10; envy (? koh) is sixth with
Adonein in II 12.22f. and sixth in II 15.21, while prudence
(mntrmhhet, i.e. synests?)6* is seventh with Sabbateon in II 12.24f.
and seventh in II 15.22f./IV 24.13.
However, the second enumeration is complicated by the fact
that it allots to each power the creation of one of the seven psychic
substances of the human body. In this case both recensions appear
to preserve the same order: bone, sinew, flesh, marrow, blood,
skin, hair, over against the more traditional order found in a
Zoroastrian text cited by R. C. Zaehner:69 marrow (associated with
the Moon), bones (associated with Mercury), flesh (associated
with Venus), sinews (associated with the Sun), veins (associated
with Mars), skin (associated with Jupiter), and hair (associated
with Saturn). Tardieu, in a comprehensive discussion, has
demonstrated the primary role of the Timaeus of Plato, as
interpreted in Greek philosophical, astrological and medical
traditions, in the development of this motif, and the way its
presentation in the Apocryphon has influenced Manichaean and
140 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

through them Mazdaean, as well as Syriac Christian (Audi) and

through them Ismaili, sources.70 Now Macrobius’ list, based
according toTardieu on (a) the Timaeus and (b) the De Hebdomadis
of Pseudo-Hippocrates, has the order marrow, bone, sinew, vein,
arteries (i.e. respiratory canals), flesh, skin, that is, from the
innermost to the outermost (ab imo) ,71 and awareness of this order
may be preserved in B’s version which has providence, responsible
for the marrow, first in its first list.
This at once recalls the very similar list of female names given
to the seven androgynous powers in On the Origin of the World, also
from Codex II: providence (Sambathas), lordship, divinity,
kingship, envy (koh), riches (? [mntr\mao) and wisdom (sophia),
and the fact that the first of the seven powers, Ialdabaoth, created
the head and marrow of the first man.72 And finally the passage
quoted by Theodore bar Konai from a certain Apocalypse in the
name of John (which Puech thinks identical with our Apocryphon)
ascribed to a schismatic Edessan deacon, Audi, and used by his
followers, the heretical sect of the Audians, has Audi say of the
powers responsible for his body: ‘My wisdom made the hair,
understanding the skin, Elohim the bones, and my sovereignty
the blood, Adonai made the nerves, and zeal made the flesh, and
thought made the marrow’.73 These powers, Theodore maintains,
Audi got from ‘the Chaldaeans’, i.e. astrologers.74
However, this evidently varied tradition seems to be even more
confused here. First of all, both recensions assert that Ialdabaoth
began from above, although, if we accept Welburn’s attribution
of the names and the Zoroastrian and other parallels, he began
with the ruler of the lowest sphere, the Moon. Second, as
indicated, one would have expected him to start with the marrow,
as in the Greek philosophical and magical sources, and work
outwards, rather than having the marrow fourth and separated
from the bones. Third, there is the masculine term ‘zeal’ or ‘fire’
(koh/koht) which occurs in a neuter form in III ([kau] ma) despite
the fact that all the rest are feminine.75 LR may be more correct
and consistent in its clear distinction between ‘goodness’ and
‘lordship’,76 but the version in B may be more original in that it
appears to be aware that providence which creates the marrow
did once come first. Furthermore, ‘goodness’ does not occur
either in Theodore bar Konai’s list nor apparently in the similar
one in On the Origin of the World, whereas sophia or equivalent does,
and both of these lists, like that of the short recension of the
Apocryphon, attest a sequence which has providence or equivalent
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 141

and sophia or equivalent at either end. The attribution of bodily

parts and powers preserved by Theodore’s quotation also
reproduces that in SR, although this may be because, as Tardieu
claims, the Audians got their version from the tradition found in
that recension.77
Moreover, one could explain why the creation of the marrow
comes fourth in the list better from SR than from LR. Thus
providence occurs first in the first enumeration just as she is the
female name of the first androgynous archon (Ialdabaoth) in the
list in On the Origin of the World, who, as we saw, was responsible
for creating the marrow.78 The redactor of SR, however, aware
that Iaoth in fact represented the Moon, may have felt the need
to transfer providence as creator of the marrow to fourth place,
the sphere associated with the Sun, most powerful and important
of the planets. And against Giversen it could be argued that LR
has omitted wisdom (sophia) as the last power, perhaps under the
mistaken impression that its final name, mhtrmhhet, stood for sophia
rather than synesis. Thus it was compelled to add another power
and inserted ‘goodness’ as the first..79
Of this whole section of the creation and naming of the twelve
zodiacal powers, the seven planetary rulers united with their seven
powers (and the five kings of the underworld, if distinct) Irenaeus
appears at first sight to give little or no indication. However, he
does refer to the Protarchon creating first the powers (potestas,
i.e. exousia?) which are under him, which has a clear parallel in
SR (B 39.6f./III 16.8f.) but not in LR, then angels, which could
refer to the twelve angels mentioned with the powers by SR, or to
the following total of 360, or even perhaps to the seven planetary
rulers.80 Once again SR would appear more closely related to
Irenaeus’ account than LR, which has separated the list of angels
from the twelve powers. The firmaments (firmamenta) then men¬
tioned by Irenaeus may correspond to the firmaments (steredma)
assigned to the seven powers in the Apocryphon?1 Finally, Irenaeus
refers to the creation by the Protarchon of all earthly things, which
of course has not yet taken place in the Apocryphon s version.
Again in a passage which appears to have no parallel in the
Apocryphon, Irenaeus relates how the Protarchon united with
Presumption (Authadeia) and begot Wickedness (Kakia), Envy
(Zelus), Jealousy (Phthonus), Revenge (Erinnys or better Eris,
Strife)82 and Passion (Epithymia) .83 Schmidt argued that these can
only be understood as the five rulers of chaos and the underworld
whose names probably dropped out of the Apocryphon.84 This is
142 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

an attractive suggestion; certainly the origin of evil and of the

underworld and its rulers would fit better at this point in the
Apocryphon than earlier. The tendency to identify the seven
planetary rulers and five underworld kings with the twelve zodiacal
powers to which we drew attention may have led the redactors of
the Apocryphon to move the five to their present position.85
Certainly, as already indicated, they appear rather abruptly and
play no further part, although the Apocryphon s reference to them
suggests some further knowledge. This tendency shown by
Irenaeus’ account of the Barbelognostics to make the Protarchon/
Ialdabaoth equated with the God of the Jews ultimately responsible
for evil (cf. Isa 45:7 LXX), despite the possible presence in their
system of a devil figure as outlined above,86 has clearly been
developed by the Apocryphon and the works related to it, i.e. the
Hypostasis of the Archons, On the Origin of the World, the Gospel of the
Egyptians and the Apocalypse of Adam. But the Protarchon is not
entirely evil since he remains the channel of the divine light-power,
as in the systems of the ‘Ophites’ and the Ptolemaean school of
Valentinianism, which rehabilitate him and attribute the evil in
creation to some other figure.87

3 Ialdabaoth’s arrogant boast and Sophia’s repentance

Irenaeus’ account of the Barbelognostic system concludes with

the reaction of Sophia to her son’s generation of the five evil
powers, her withdrawal above, and his arrogant boast that he is a
jealous god and that there are no others apart from him. Full of
grief she withdrew to the higher regions and became for those
counting from below the Ogdoad (octonatio). After her withdrawal
he thought that he was alone (or alone existed: ‘se solum
opinatum esse’) and for this reason said: ‘I am ajealous (zelator)
god (cf. Exod 20:5) and beside me there is no one’ (cf. Isa 45:5;
46:9).88
The Apocryphon, however, presents a different order and
conception of these events. At this point it places Ialdabaoth’s
arrrogant boast that he alone is god, but what sparks this off is his
gazing at the creation surrounding him and the host of angels
created by him, which leads him to boast; ‘I am ajealous god,
beside me there is none’ (B), or ‘I, I am ajealous god, and there
is no other god apart from me’ (II/IV) ,89 To make this identifica¬
tion of Ialdabaoth with the God of the Old Testament (and thus
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 143

of course of the Jews) doubly clear it adds the ironic comment,

pointing up the folly of such exclusivist claims, that in so doing
he had immediately indicated to the angels under him that
another god existed, for otherwise his jealousy would have no
object!90 This identification also serves to mark the beginning of
the Apocryphon s reinterpretation or ‘correction’ of the opening
chapters of Genesis, which provide the backbone of its anthro¬
pology and soteriology.
Sophia’s reaction thus comes after Ialdabaoth’s boast and is
interpreted differently from Irenaeus’ version. It is first seen in
terms of the going to and fro of the spirit of God of Gen 1:2b
LXX (epipheresthai) ,91 suitably reinterpreted, the reasons being her
realization of her deficiency in acting without her consort coupled
with her awareness of the wickedness, apostasy and imperfection
of her son.92 Thus she is said to have repented, and her lament
was heard by her brothers whose plea for help was granted by the
Invisible Spirit.93 The recensions seem to disagree over whether
her consort was sent down to her, but agree that she was led up
to the Ninth (or Ennead?) rather than being the Ogdoad as in
Irenaeus, until she perfected her deficiency.94
Now Carl Schmidt appealed to the fact that Sophia’s repentance
follows Ialdabaoth’s boast in the Apocryphon as evidence that the
work excerpted by Irenaeus extended beyond the point where
he concluded.95 Schenke, however, pointed to the differences in
motivation, etc. sketched above between the two accounts and
the appropriateness of Irenaeus’ order of events as weakening
Schmidt’s argument, also appealing to the literary seam he
claimed to detect at B 44.19, precisely where Irenaeus’ excerpt
ended, in support of his view that Irenaeus had excerpted a
complete work.96 But Schottroff proceeded to criticize Schenke’s
claim of a literary seam on the grounds that the contradictions
detected by him between the first and second parts of the
Apocryphon do not necessarily prove a suture at this point, since
there are similar contradictions within each part.97 However, the
important point he established was the appropriateness of
Sophia’s repentance prior to her son’s boast in Irenaeus’ account.
Schottroff herself in her valuable analysis of this section of the
Apocryphon suggests the secondary character of much of it, and
this can assist us in determining which order is likely to be the
more original.98
Signs of this secondary character include the repetition of the
Demiurge’s hubristic boast and Sophia’s repentance,99 the
144 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

insertion in the first example of a question byjohn on the meaning

of ‘to go to and fro’, which Schottroff would see as a piece of
polemical exegesis (‘correcting’ what ‘Moses’ had said) added
later and giving rise to the repetition.1 Then there is the
disagreement between the recensions over her going to and fro:
SR first traces it to her awareness of her deficiency, namely that
her consort had not concurred (symphonein) with her when she
was degraded from her perfection,2 while LR, in a further piece
of spiritualizing interpretation, speaks of the brightness of her
light being diminished and her becoming dark because her
consort had not agreed with her.3 But both then go on to derive
her movement from the wickedness and apostasy of her son which
would take place (SR), or had taken place (LR) ,4 LR has evidently
‘corrected’ SR at this point, seeing the difficulty, but could the
future tense of SR betray an awareness that originally Sophia’s
withdrawal preceded Ialdabaoth’s boast, as in Irenaeus’ account of
the Barbelognostics and On the Origin of the World?
Unlike the active, unrepentant figure of Irenaeus’ version,
Sophia here is presented as essentially passive and unable to
reascend. Her going to and fro, interpreted as an allusion to Gen
1:2b LXX by the Saviour’s reply to John that it was not
as ‘Moses’ said ‘over the waters’, is thus understood by the
Apocryphon as her restless movement in the darkness of ignorance,
and her feeling ashamed and not daring to return.5 Schenke’s
attempt to derive this whole mythologoumenon from an
allegorical interpretation of Gen 1:2 by appeal to the various
Gnostic exegeses of it (Valentinian, Barbelognostic, ‘Ophite’),6
has been rightly criticized by Schottroff who prefers to see here
the mythologoumenon of the wandering Sophia. She draws
attention to its associations with the Ennoia/Helen figure, the
soul in the Naassene Preaching, etc. and finds what I consider
a more likely origin in the idea of Wisdom’s sojourn on earth (cf.
1 Enoch 42.1-3).7
Further evidence that this passage with its anti-Jewish
‘correction’ of Genesis may not be original but was developed to
harmonize the earlier Barbelognostic Sophia, who acts without a
partner, with the more passive, repentant, Valentinian-influenced
figure of the Apocryphon, who needs her partner, and tie this into
the reinterpretation of Genesis which now follows, may be found
in the obvious doublets in the second passage about her
repentance. Thus after a further mention of Ialdabaoth’s taking
power from his mother coupled with reference to his ignorance
 Theogony and Cosmogony 2 145

of any power apart from her, and his self-exaltation at the sight of
the angelic hosts created by him,8 we hear once more of her
repentance and weeping on realizing that the abortion (B) or
cover (III) of darkness was not perfect because her consort had
not concurred with her.9
But the final and perhaps most conclusive evidence of the
secondary, Valendnian-influenced nature of this passage comes
in its treatment of Sophia and her consort. Thus SR, echoing
the normal ternary pattern of events (aitein—kataneuein—doxazein
or equivalent), has Sophia’s brothers (although there has
been no explicit mention of such) plead for her and the holy
Invisible Spirit assent (kataneuein) and pour a spirit over her
from the Pleroma. Her consort (syzygos) by a providential resolve
descends to correct her (III ‘their’) deficiency, but because of
her ignorance she is not elevated to her aeon at once but
remains in the Ninth until she corrects her deficiency.10 How¬
ever, LR again seems secondary here in that not only does it
fail to recognize the ternary pattern, but it betrays considerable
confusion and ambiguity, particularly over the descent of
Sophia’s consort. Thus II and IV, which normally show a high
degree of unanimity, differ in that while both agree that the
entire Pleroma of the Invisible Spirit blesses (rather than
pleads for) her,11 they divide and are confused over the
ensuing action of the Spirit: II 14.5f. has the Holy Spirit
shed over her (something?) from their whole Pleroma, while IV
22.5f., according to Krause’s reconstruction, reads: ‘And [he]
nodded assent in the sp[irit] ’, attaching the reference to the
shedding from the Pleroma to the following sentence about the
consort.12
They then seem to deny that the consort came to Sophia while
insisting that he (or something) did come down from the
Pleroma,13 but proceed to agree with SR that Sophia was not
brought up to her own heaven but remained in the Ninth until
she corrected her deficiency.14 And it is not only these
inconsistencies in LR, which may be partly due to its tendency to
play down the anthropomorphic features, as Giversen suggests,15
but the evident tension in both over the role of the consort and
over who is ultimately responsible for correcting Sophia’s
deficiency, which, in the light of the unmistakable Valentinian
colouring of this and related passages, further support my
hypothesis that the Apocryphoris version is not original here. The
whole pattern of Sophia’s repentance, the request of her brothers
146 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

or the Pleroma to the supreme being, and the descent of a

consort to perfect her deficiency is undoubtedly Valentinian, not
Barbelognostic,10 and this might also add weight to my suggestion
that, as with Irenaeus’ account of the latter, On the Origin of the
World and Trimorphic Protennoia, Sophia’s grief and withdrawal
originally came before Ialdabaoth’s boast.17 Her initiative is once
more denied by reinterpretation.
Finally, that Sophia is in the Ninth rather than in the Ogdoad,
as in the Barbelognostic and Valentinian systems, is evidently a
secondary interpretation.18 Thus Schottroff, in an excursus on this
idea, suggests that this is the heavenly region below the Pleroma
but above Ialdabaoth and the seven archons, which other systems
characterize as the Ogdoad.19 But since according to the
Apocryphon Ialdabaoth departed and created an aeon/heaven first
for himself and then for each of the seven archons, the heaven
above him would be the ninth.20 LR has attempted to clarify the
situation in that it speaks of the seven as over (he seventh heaven,21
and has Sophia in the heaven of, i.e. above, her son.22

Conclusion

On the question of the original form of the Apocryphon and the

priority of the versions, we have attempted to demonstrate that
in this section of the myth neither Giversen’s thesis of the priority
of the version in Codex II nor Tardieu’s preference for its order
adequately explain the clear differences between the recensions
over the order of events and the number and nature of the powers
created by Ialdabaoth. The evidence suggests, by and large, that
it is the short recension which has remained closer to a more
original order of events and interpretations of the powers and
angels. The long recension, with its doublets and expansions, the
passages unique to it, and its spiritualizing tendency, has obscured
and altered the original order, particularly as regards the twelve
zodiacal powers and the seven planetary rulers and five kings of
the underworld. By equating them, while insisting on its own
tradition of 365 angels responsible for the creation of earthly
Adam, it has been led to change the order of events, alter the
number of angels, add doublets and obscure the nature of the
various heavenly beings involved. Conversely the short recension
presents a logical and fairly comprehensible order which both
makes clear the nature of and distinction between the twelve and
 Notes to page 117 147

seven and retains more echoes of Irenaeus’ account at points

where some similarity is demonstrable.
Thus while the overlappings and inconsistencies in the lists of
powers suggest that the Apocryphon has taken over existing
‘Chaldaean’ traditions about the Zodiac and planets without
complete understanding, and while it leaves much unexplained,
some elements do recall Irenaeus’ brief summary, e.g. the five
underworld rulers in the former as perhaps akin to the
Protarchon’s five evil offspring in the latter. And the repetitions,
confusions and clear signs of Valentinian influence in the passage
on Sophia’s repentance and her consort, leading into the Genesis
reinterpretation, suggest that the Apocryphon may have altered a
more original order which (as in Irenaeus 1.29.4, On the Origin of
the World, Trimorphic Protennoia and Valentinianism) put Sophia’s
withdrawal and/or repentance before her son’s boast.

Notes

■Bse.ief./niM.gf.; 119.25.
2 Cf. e.g. the figure of Ennoia in Simonianism, Iren. 1.23.2f., which
Haenchen, ‘Gab es ein vorchristliche Gnosis?’ ZTK49 (1952), 316-49,
argues is part of the original, pre-Christian Gnosis of Simon. See
Rudolph, TRu 37 (1972), 323-43 on Simonianism and Petrement,
Separate Part II, ch. 1 for a denial that Simon was a Gnostic. Cf. also
Pistis Sophia in HA 94.5-96.15; OW 98.11-106.27; Sophia in SJC B
118.1-121.13; Treat. Seth 50.25-51.20, etc. See on the myth of Sophia
in Gnosticism, C. Scholten, Martyrium und Sophiamythos im Gnostizismus
nach den Texten von NagHammadi (JbAC Erganzungsband 14) (Munster:
Aschendorff, 1987), esp. part 2.
3 Cf. the Ptolemaean view in Iren. 1.2.2-5.6; Exc. ex Theod. 44.1-53.5;
67-8; Val. Exp. 33.28-38; 34.23-37. See also W. Foerster, Von Valentin zu
Herakleon (BZNW 7) (Giessen, 1928); F.-M.-M. Sagnard, La gnose
valentinienne et la temoignage de Saint Irenee (Paris, 1947); G. Quispel, ‘The
Original Doctrine of Valentine’, VC 1 (1947), 43-73; G. C. Stead, ‘The
Valentinian Myth of Sophia’yTSn.s. 20 (1969), 75-104; G. W. MacRae,
‘The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth’, NovT 12 (1970),
86-101; J. E. Goehring, ‘A Classical Influence on the Gnostic Sophia
Myth’, VC35 (1981), 16-23; D. Good, ‘Sophia in Valentinianism’, Second
Century 4 (1984), 193-201; Petrement, Separate 85-92, 378-86.
4 Cf. B54.1-4/III 25.20-3; Treat. &/A 50.25-51.7; 7P47.29-34. Tardieu,
Ecrits 274, rightly stresses the sapiential character of this passage, but
could have noted the obvious allusions to the Sophia of Wis 7:22-7 here,
a spirit who permeates all intelligent spirits, entering holy souls, as well
as Prov 7:4, cited as the basis of the expression ‘sister’ by A. Orbe ‘Sophia
148 Notes to pages 118-120

Soror’ in Melanges d’Histoire des Religions offerts a H.-Ch. Puech (Paris:

Presses Universitaires de France, 1974), 355-63, esp. 360f., and MacRae,
‘Jewish Background’ 92f., who alludes to Sophia as sister of Christ in
Iren. 1.30.11-12.
5 Cf. Iren. 1.1.2; 1.2.2; Hipp. Ref. 6.30.5f.; Epiph. Pan. 31.5.8. In Eug
the last female name of the six androgynous (i.e. twelve) beings
produced by the Saviour and Pistis Sophia which form the archetypes
of time and space, and which give rise to ‘the defect of femaleness’, is
Pistis Sophia (III 81.21-85.9).
b Martyrium 209-13, esp. 212 n. 26. Certainly the Valentinian system
has six male and six female aeons in syzygies, AJ four sets of female
aeons in threes. Cf. also Eug III 82.7-83.2 (six androgynous aeons
produced by the Saviour and Pistis Sophia with six male and six female
names, who then appear as twelve powers, the archetype of time (year,
months, days, etc.)).
7 212f. Cf. B 37.3-16 and par; 45.2-5 and par; 46.9-47.14 and par with
Iren. 1.29.4.
8209-13.
9 See n. 4 above. Schmidt, ‘Irenaus’ 329, suggests that this may indicate
that we are now in the lower world, since there is no indication in AJ of
an upper and lower Sophia, as with the Ptolemaeans and ‘Ophites’ of
Irenaeus.
10 See n. 4 above. Sophia is also described there as a prounikos acting
out of guilelessness (mhtatkakia) in 1.28f. See further below.
11 On the first possibility, cf. II 8.11/IV 12.19. B 33.16 reads pronoia.
Cf. Giversen, Apocryphon 192. On the second, cf. B 53.4-54.4 and par.
Giversen appears to identify the two Epinoias.
12 Ibid.
13 39.13-32. On the likely identification of epinoia and Sophia, see
Turner’s comments ad loc. in Hedrick, Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII,
XIII442. Cf. GE III 56.22-57.18/IV 68.5-10; 69.1—3, which has Eleleth
request a ruler for chaos and the underworld, resulting in the appear¬
ance of a cloud called ‘material (hylike) Sophia’, which issues in two
monads, Sakla the great angel and Nebruel the great demon. This is
evidently related to, and probably dependent on, the picture in TP, but
also akin to Manichaean themes.
14 39.32-40.19.
15 Cf. 1.29.4/Theod. 1.13 (364B).
lbCf. B 30.4-7 and par. Harvey’s claim (225), that the phrase ‘qui
adstat Monogeni’ is an interpolation, is not therefore justified. Indeed,
as I have argued elsewhere (‘John’ 52f.), the title Monogenes is more
original than that of Autogenes.
17 Cf. B 33.9f./III 11.24-12.1 (the angel in the first aeon) and II 8.5/
IV 12.lOf. (the first angel in the first aeon). Cf. also HA 93.8f.,18f.; 94.3,
where Eleleth identifies himself as ‘the great angel’.
 Notes to pages 120—122 149

18 Plotinus’ Gnostics, Enn. 2.9.10, are ambivalent over Sophia and

whether she actually declined or not. Cf. the reserve among the earlier
Valentinians as noted by Good, ‘Sophia’ 193-201. GE III 59.9-60.2
evidently replaces Sophia with the more abstract figure of Metanoia,
Repentance. See on this Perkins, Gnosticism 170ff.
19 Cf. 1.29.2. He, with Autogenes and the other three illuminators does
have a saving role later in AJ in being responsible for Ialdabaoth’s
inbreathing of his power of light into Adam (B 51.8-52.15 and par).
We have already suggested the major significance of the four in the five
seals rite, symbolizing the reception of spiritual illumination.
20 93.8f. mhtsabe - phronesis-. Crum, Coptic Dictionary 319ab; 93.19; 94.3f.
mhtrmhhet - phronesis-. Crum 715a. The former can render sophia, as in
Crum 319b (1 Cor 3:19), but the usage is less common. One would
have expected the Greek original to have retained the traditional term
associated with Eleleth to avoid possible confusion, but on the other
hand there may be an allusion here to the origin of the lower Sophia,
deliberately designated ‘Pistis’, from Eleleth/phronesis/sophia.
21 93.2-94.33.
22 ££ 7P 39.32-40.4; Norea 27.21-29.5. Note the reference to the four

holy helpers, i.e. the illuminators.

23 Cf. B 44.19-45.5; 46.9-47.14 and par with 36.7-15 and par.
Petrement, Separate 396, also cites Zost. 29.1 If., where Eleleth is ‘an
impulse and a preparation for the truth’, and compares Eleleth with
the Ogdoad, the dwelling place of the psychics and of Sophia, according
to the Valentinians (cf. Iren. 1.5.3, etc.).
24 Cf. the similar title ‘hylic Sophia’ of GEIII 56.26-57.1. According to
Irenaeus, Basilides had Sophia originating from Phronesis (1.24.3).
23 Cf. AJ B 51.4f./III 23.22 (not in LR); II 23.21f. (not in SR); TP
39.29; 40.15; 47.33f.; Treat. Seth 50.27-30; Iren. 1.29.4; Zost. lO.lOf.
26 Cf. Iren 1.30.3,6-13; Ptolemaeans of 1.4.1-5.6, etc. Note that for
both Sophia has a consort/brother, Christ.
27 B 36.16-37.1/III 14.9-14; II 9.25-29/IV 15.1-4. There may be a play
on enthymesis here. Sophia can conceive an enthymesis since she is a
heavenly aeon but, like all the preceding aeons, as an emanation of the
Spirit can only do it in and with the consent of the Spirit’s own prior
knowledge.
28 Martyrium 209f. Thus her thought does not encompass the Father
(as in A) but produces an image, which is not represented as generation
(as in B). Scholten compares OW98.16-18, Sophia’s work as a veil or
curtain, which he considers ‘Sethian’, despite Schenke’s exclusion of it
from his corpus, ‘Phenomenon’ 597. He could have cited the more
relevant HA 94.4-10. But the theme of the curtain also occurs in the
non-Sethian SJC III 114.13-25, and perhaps in the ‘Ophite’ system of
Iren. 1.30.3. Cf. also the shadow in Valentinus’ system (Iren. 1.11.1)
and the shadow/image of Theodotus (Exc. ex Theod. 31.4; 33.3f.).
150 Notes to pages 122-124

29 B 37.1-6/III 14.19-23. The copyist of III 14.14-19 has wrongly

inserted a passage which rightly occurs at 15.4-9, perhaps misled by the
same prepositional phrase nhets at 14.14 and 15.3f.
30II 9.29-33/IV 15.4f. The latter has syne[udokein] at 15.5 to the eudokein
of II 9.30.
31 Cf. e.g. B 32.19-33.3 and par; 34.19-35.5 and par.
32 Museon 84, 63. Cf. Scholten, Mysterium 211, n. 21, who also refers to
Schottroff, Glaubende44, n. 4, as relating the title to the supreme Father.
This seems even less likely.
33 On Sophia as having a consort but acting without him, cf. Iren. 1.2.2;
Hipp. Ref. 6.30.6-7; Val. Exp. 34.25-38. Cf. also S/C III 114.13-18.
34 King, ‘Sophia’ 171, however, would interpret the evidence in terms
of a tendency in LR both to give a larger soteriological role to the male
and to devalue the feminine.
33 Cf. B 47.3-7/III 21.8-11. Significantly, the parallel in II 14.7-9/IV
22.8-11 is confused over his descent, perhaps conscious of the original
scheme of Sophia’s self-salvation, or stressing more the independent
role of the Epinoia/Pronoia figure.
36 B 60.12—14/III 30.10-12 (‘they sent’). Again, significantly, the
parallel in II 23.14-22 is very confused, but essentially insists that it was
Sophia who descended to correct her deficiency, not her consort.
3' Cf. B 53.18-54.4 and par.
38 1.29.4.
39 b 37.6-10/111 14.23-15.2; II 9.33-5. As Tardieu notes, Ecrits 274,
the latter’s mokmek (i.e. katanoein) is a mistake for kataneuein.
40 Cf. Ill 23.21 (= B 51.3) which has the Mother (i.e. Sophia) wanting
to recover the power she had given the archon in wantonness
(prounikon).
41 Apocryphon 195. Cf. Schottroff, Glaubende 46, who argues that the
versions in III and II clearly demonstrate the problems posed by sexuality
and the way it is sublimated in AJ to exonerate Sophia. Such a process
has gone much further in the latter than in Iren. 1.29, and the lack of
explicit syzygies in AJ may be due to modesty as regards sexual matters
as well as to the interpolations of Autogenes, etc. as argued above.
42 Cf. for the first, Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed„
Oxford, 1940), 2, 1537. For a more nuanced treatment, stressing the
meanings ‘impetuous’ and a porter or peddler in new Comedy, see
A. Pasquier, ‘Prouneikos. A Colorful Expression to Designate Wisdom
in Gnostic Texts’, in King, Images 47-66, and for a response, giving more
emphasis to the sexual meaning, see M. W. Meyer, ibid., 67-70
43 1.29.4.
44 1.30.3.
45 Nilsson, ‘Sophia-Prunikos’, in Eranos (APS) 45 (1947), 169-72;
Petrement, Separate98-100. She suggests the meaning ‘to carry in front’,
i.e. to promote, bring to light, thus in the Gnostic texts, to beget, and
 Notes to pages 124-125 151

criticizes the tendency of modern scholars to accept Epiphanius’

interpretation uncritically. Pasquier, ‘Prouneikos’ 62, having suggested
similar, non-sexual meanings, does admit the sexual implications of
Epiphanius’ evidence.
46 In his edition of Origen, Contra Celsum (Oxford, 1953), 350, n.l.
47 50.28.
48 Orig. C. Cels. 6.34f.; Petrement, Separate 98f.; Meyer, art. cit. 70.
49 Cf. 13.18-20: ‘I am the whore and the holy one. I am the wife and
the virgin’, where the subject seems to be Wisdom, as both higher
(Barbelo) and lower (Sophia); OW 114.7-11 (Eve as mother, virgin,
pregnant one).
50 Cf. Epiph. Pan. 31.5.7-9. Scholten, Martyrium 210f. nn. 17 and 18,
while rightly pointing out that Prunicus is a name to the heresiologists
but a characteristic in the texts, seems to accept the sexual connotations,
rejecting other suggested etymologies. But he thinks the doctrinal letter
may have been influenced by non-Valentinian material, denying
Origen’s claim that Prounikos was a Valentinian title for Sophia. The
Valentinians may have borrowed the term, like so much, from the
Gnostics.
51 Pan. 21.2.3-5.
52 25.2.2,4; 3.2. Cf. 21.2.5-6. Epiphanius seems to have understood
the Barbelognostics not as the distinct sect of Irenaeus, but as followers
of Nicolaus.
53 37.3.2, etc. and esp. 6.2 for the definition. Cf. 25.4.If. for a fuller
treatment.
54 B 37.12—16/III 15.4-8; II 10.2-5. Note the play on argon/ergon to
which Tardieu compares Orig. Hexapla on Gen 1:2. The versions in III
15.6f.: ‘it had no morphe in her morphe , and II 10.4: ‘it was different
from her form’, seem preferable to B 37.14.: ‘it was hateful in its
appearance’, and, significantly, echo the Valentinian conception, as
Janssens notes, Museon 84, 63, whereby the female supplies the essence,
the male the form (morphe). Cf. e.g. Hipp. Ref. 6.30.6-8; Exc. ex Theod.
68. A parallel in TP 39.21-6 has the great demon Saklas having neither
morphe nor perfection, but the morphe of those begotten in darkness.
55 1.29.4. On Sophia’s guilelessness, see n. 25 above; on the arrogance
and boldness (tolma) of this figure, cf. Plot. Enn. 2.9.11.
56 94.5-17. For a more elaborate treatment, probably dependent on
HA or a common source, cf. OW 98.1-100.10. SJC III 114.14-25/B
118.10-119.16, also shares that mythologoumenon, but with echoes of
the ‘Ophite’ myth of Iren. 1.30.3 (Man/Son of Man/Christ scheme; drop/
dew of light; Ialdabaoth). Plotinus’ Gnostics, Enn. 2.9.10, have Soul (i.e.
Sophia) illuminate the darkness, thus forming an image in matter, from
which a material image of the image produces the Demiurge.
57 Cf. 1.30.3. See previous note for the possible influence of this on
SJC. On the shadow motif in Valentinus, etc. see n. 28 above.
152 Notes to pages 125-126

58 Ref. 6.30.6-8. ektroma, ‘abortion’ is the Valentinian term. Cf. HA 94.15

and AJB 46.10.
59 Iren. 1.2.2.
80 ‘Myth’ 84ff.
61 Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 4.13.89.6-90.3. Val. Exp. 34.21-38; 36.24-38
also appears to present a single Sophia who renounces her consort, leaves
the Pleroma and suffers in attempting to imitate the Father in giving
form to things. Cf. the similar role of the Logos in Tri. Trac. 76.2-77.36.
62 Scholten’s rejection, Martyrium 213, of the parallel on the basis of
the disparity between the description of the abortion in B 37.13f. as
hateful, in contrast to the positive depiction of Sophia’s motive in the
Valentinus fragment as to glorify the invisible, is undermined by the
secondary character of B, influenced by the later depiction of Ialdabaoth.
Further, Valentinus’ version of the origin of the Demiurge in the Greek
of Iren. 1.11.1 has him produced (proenegkasthai, the root of prounikos?)
by Sophia!
63 B 37.16-38.1/III 15.8-12; II 10.6-11. All three differ slighdy in detail,
but the general sense is clear. On Sophia’s offspring as lion-like, cf. HA
94.17; OW 100.7; Bullard, Hypostasis 105; PS Book 1, ch. 31 (Schmidt-
MacDermot 46.14-16); Book 2, ch. 66 (141.21 f.). On his fiery eyes, cf.
the fiery god of the Naassenes (Hipp. Ref. 5.7.30). The attempt by LR to
distinguish between the typos which is serpentine and the face which is
lion-like may be due to the awkwardness of SR which simply combines
the two.
64 B 38.1—15/III 15.13-23; II 10.11-20/IV 16.1-6. Cf. GE III
56.26-57.16. SR refers to Ialdabaoth as born (jpo: B 38.5/III
15.15), LR, again avoiding any sexual connotations, as created (tamio:
II 10.13). Cf. the Demiurge of Valentinus in Iren. 1.11.1 as pro¬
duced (emisse/proenegkasthai). All three disagree over the title given
to the Holy Spirit but clearly allude to Gen 3:20 LXX. Thus B
38.12f. has lZoe the Mother of everyone (nouon aim)', III 15.21 ‘the
Mother of all living’, and II 10.18 ‘the Mother of the living’. Here
the designation ‘Holy Spirit’ probably applies to the Mother, Barbelo
(cf. II 5.7f.), since ‘Holy’ as applied to the supreme being else¬
where (cf. II 6.29; 7.16; 8.27f. = B 34.17; also B 46.19 and par), is
merely a qualifier of his normal title, ‘Invisible Spirit’, and since it is
the Mother, Barbelo, described as ‘Holy Spirit’ who will play a saving
role later (cf. B 71.5-10 and par, glossing her as the Epinoia!). Cf. Iren.
1.29.1 on Barbelo as the origin of the illumination and generation of
everything.
65 Iren. 1.29.4. Cf. B 38.5f. and par.
66 1.30.5. On the name cf. Orig. C. Cels. 6.31f.; Epiph. Pan. 25.2.2f.;
3.4f.; 26.10.2L; 37.3.6, etc.; HA 95.8, Ilf.; 96.3f.; OW 100.14, 19, 24;
102.1 If.; 103.If.; Treat. Seth. 53.13L; 68.29; TP39.27L; SJCB 119.16; PS
Book 1, ch. 31 (Schmidt-MacDermot 46.16); Book 3, ch. 102 (258.13;
 Notes to pages 126-127 153

259.3); Gnostic gem in C. Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets (University

of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series vol. 49) (Ann Arbor, 1950), 135.
b7 See ch. 2, p. 44.
68 Separate 42-5.
69 Hauptprobleme 351-5, referring to Orig. C. Cels. 6.31.
/0 Ibid. 43. Cf. for details Giversen, Apocryphon 199f. There might be
some support for this in HA 94.10-19 and OW98.23-100.10; 103.24, in
that Ialdabaoth appears to emerge from chaos (see Bohlig-Labib ed.
42f.). The etymology offered by OW100.12f.: ‘O youth pass over here’,
is clearly specious; it might support the derivation of the first element
from the Aramaic ialad, but does imply ignorance of a likely Semitic
origin.
71 ‘Jaldabaoth Reconsidered’ in Melanges Puech 405-21; Giversen,
Apocryphon 199-201. Ialdabaoth seems the earliest attested form.
72 ‘Jaldabaoth’ 421.
/3 Separate 44; M. Black, ‘An Aramaic Etymology for Jaldabaoth?’ in
A. H. B. Logan, A. J. M. Wedderburn eds, The New Testament and Gnosis:
Essays in Honour of Robert McL. Wilson (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983),
69-72, esp. 71. In AJ Sabaoth is the fifth archon (cf. II 11.31; B 43.20/
II 12.22), and in Iren. 1.30.5 Sabaoth is the son oflao, not of Ialdabaoth
directly.
74 Ibid.
75 Separate 45, with reference to Grant, EC 11 (1957), 148-9, who
combines the proposals of Harvey and Burkitt, Church 38, viz. Iao Sabaoth,
to produce the form Ia-El-Zebaoth (= Yahweh Elohe Zebaoth).
/b In a most interesting article, ‘Samael-Saklas-Yaldabaoth. Recherche
sur l’origine d’un mythe gnostique’, in Colloque 123-50, Bare argues
for the Ialdabaoth myth as a synthesis of materials from two existing
myths, one involving Saklas, the other Samael, which the redactor of
AJ has completely reinterpreted in terms of the fall and repentance of
the Mother. But my reading of the evidence suggests that no such
developed myths existed, but merely figures and themes which were
incorporated into the more original Barbelognostic and ‘Ophite’ myths
and developed separately. Thus the rivalry Ialdabaoth/Sabaoth is already
hinted at in the Demiurge/left-hand ruler of the Barbelognostics and
Valentinus; it is required by the ambivalent character of the
Barbelognostic Demiurge - both a channel of the divine and the creator
of this evil world.
77 1.29.4.
78 Cf. Iren. 1.11.1. J. E. Goehring may be correct in finding influence
from the classical myths of Typhaon and Hephaestus on the Gnostic
figure of Ialdabaoth as presented in HA, etc. but this is not so obvious
in the case of Irenaeus 1.30 and AJ.
79 ‘Jewish Background’ passim.
80 ‘Myth’ passim.
154 Notes to pages 128-130

81 Cf. Separate 85-92 and 406-10. On 89 she admits the link, which she
proceeds to argue is best seen in terms of AJrepresenting a very similar
but later version.
82 B 38.15-39.1/III 15.23-16.4; II 10.20-24. Cf. 7P39.26-32; Plot. Enn.
2.9.10.
831.29.4. As Tardieu points out, Ecrits 276, the Coptic of B 38.15 and
III 15.23 rests on a metathesis in the Greek; II 10.20 preserves the original
(proselabe?), echoed by the abstulisse of Irenaeus 1.29.4.
84 B 39.1—4/III 16.4-6. Cf. HA 94.35-95.1; Hipp. Ref. 6.7.30.
83 Ibid. The ‘firmament of heaven’ of Irenaeus could well be described
as a flaming fiery aeon, since it is probably meant to represent the
heavenly fiery realm beyond the circle of the fixed stars, the empyrean.
Cf. Till’s edition, 119. Giversen, Apocryphon 202, thinks that the firma¬
ment idea may be referred to by II 10.25: ‘which he now is’, but this
appears to refer to the flame.
86II 10.24-6.
8/B 39.4-40.4/III 16.7-19. Ill 16.13 has omitted the 360 through
homoeoteleuton. The prominence of the theme of ignorance supports
Tardieu’s claim, Ecrits276f., that the ‘ignorance’ (i.e. agnoia) of III 16.7
(and Irenaeus 1.29.4, ignorantia/agnoia) is original and has been read
as aponoia by II 10.26 (and B 39.5). As the Creator is ignorant of his
mother Sophia, present when he creates (cf. Prov 8:27), so his offspring
are ignorant of him.
88II 10.26-11.4.
89 Cf. II 11.22-5.
90 Cf. II 12.35-13.5/IV 20.10-18.
91 1.29.4. The Coptic for beget in the Apocryphon can also be translated
as ‘create’ (poiein: cf. Crum, Dictionary 779a s.v.jpo).
92 Thus by adding twelve powers to the twelve angels we get 360 rather
than the 348 of Till (43). Cf. Giversen, Apocryphon 216ff.
93 B 39.18-40.4/III 16.15-19. On archigenetor as a title for Ialdabaoth,
cf.II 12.29/IV 20.5; SJCE 119.14f.; 125.16/III 118.20; OVP102.il; 103.4f.;
104.12; 106.13, 19; TP 40.23 (it adds ‘of ignorance’), etc. Janssens’
note, Museon 84, 403, that the term occurs in the same place in all four
versions, is inaccurate. That the term is apparently associated in SJC
and OW with Ialdabaoth’s generation of seven sons and his
arrogant boast that he is god might suggest the priority of LR, which
links it with the double names of laldabaoth’s seven sons, the planetary
rulers, not with the twelve powers governing the fixed stars (i.e. the
zodiac).
94 Cf. II 11.10-22/IV 17.16-18.6.
95 B 40.4-19/III 16.19-17.5; II 10.28-11.4/IV 17.1-5. For a detailed
comparison (omitting IV), see Giversen, Apocryphon 205-8.
96 Cf. Ill 58.7-22/IV 70.1-5.
 Notes to pages 130-131 155

9/ III 57.16-58.5/IV 69.1-5. This is evidently modelled on the twelve

aeons of AJ, produced from Christ and Incorruptibility and standing
round (B 34.9f.: paristanar, cf. GEIII 57.20f.: paras[tatai\) the Autogenes.
98 Pace Bohlig-Wisse, Gospel 184. The chief differences between the
versions are: (1) over the form of the first name, Iaoth in B 40.5; 41.18;
43.13, Haoth in III 16.20 (Aoth at 17.22 with a parallel to B 43.13
missing), and Athoth in II 10.29; 11.26; 12.16 (= IV 19.17. Cf. GE III
58.8). Both II 10.29f. and GEIII 58.8-10 add that he is called another
name by men, but both are then lacunous; (2) over the form of the
third name, B 40.8 and III 16.23 reading Galila and II 10.32 having
Kalilaoimbri (GEIII 58.12 has a lacuna which only Galila would fit. Cf.
Bohlig-Wisse, Gospel 124); more significantly (3) different names for
the fifth, sixth and seventh: B 40.9-13/III 16.23-17.1 have Adonaios,
Sabaoth, Kainan, usually called ‘Rain’, i.e. the sun (B 40.11-13 has
‘Kainan and Kae, called Kain . . .’, Ill 16.25-17.1 has ‘Kainan Kasin,
usually called “the sun”’), while II 10.33-6/IV 17.If. have Adonaios who
is called ‘Sabaoth’, Kain, whom men call ‘the sun’, and Abel (in GE III
58.15,18/IV 70.1,4 the names ‘Kain’ and ‘Abel’ are in lacunae but their
restoration by Bohlig-Wisse, ibid., would fit very well); (4) both II 11.2
and GE III 58.20 have a longer form than the Adonin of B 40.17/III
17.4, namely Melcheiradonin and Arch[eiradonin] (so Bohlig-Wisse,
ibid.) respectively.
99 B 40.19-41.6/III 17.5-12. This seems to be the sense of a confused
passage.
1 B41.6-12/III 17.12-17. The version in III 17.15‘through the glories’
is perhaps preferable to B 41.9 ‘through the times’ since the sense is
that these beings wane through the influence of and the names given
by the heavenly ones, and wax through the influence of and names given
by Saklas.
2 Till 43; Giversen, Apocryphon 203-5. But he argues that Saklas’ names
are not necessarily the usual zodiacal names, but could be other
prevalent ones.
3 Cf. Giversen, Apocryphon 217. In EugWl 83.10-84.8 and par, we have
a similar scheme whereby the twelve powers produced by the Saviour
and his consort Pistis Sophia produce 360 powers so that the twelve are
archetypes of the twelve months of the year and the 360 powers of the
360 (sic!) days of the year.
4 ‘The Identity of the Archons in the “Apocryphon Johannis’”, VC 32
(1978), 241-54, esp. 248ff.
3 Apocryphon 211. Giversen’s derivation from mlk is preferable to
Helmbold’s suggestion, fiVES 66 (1965), 269f., of the Phoenician milkart,
the god of the underworld. For an alternative derivation of Melcheir
from the Melcheira of the Ascension of Isaiah (2.12; 3.6 in Greek, etc.),
and an identification with Aquarius, see Tardieu, Ecrits 283.
6 ‘Identity’ 249ff.
156 Notes to pages 131-133

7 Ibid. The very close similarity of the parallel passage in GE suggests

it was influenced here by the long recension of AJ.
8 Ibid., 251ff. Cf. Giversen, Apocryphon 212, for a suggested division in
terms of the seven zodiacal signs on or above the celestial equator where
it divides the ecliptic (Aries to Libra) and the five below (Scorpio to
Pisces).
9Ecrits 277-84. Cf. Giversen, Apocryphon 21 If., on the two ways of
enumerating the signs.
10II 11.3f. Cf. GE III 58.21f., which has all twelve set over the
underworld [and chaos], again suggesting dependence on the long
recension of AJ.
11II 11.4-10/IV 17.16f.
12II 11.10-22/IV 17.18-18.6.
13II 11.22-5.
14 Apocryphon 216-18. Thus II 19.3 has 365, and B 50.18ff. 360, angels
create man. Tardieu, Ecrits 286, assuming twelve powers, is driven to
deriving the confusion in II from a mistaken stigma (6) instead of a
gamma (3), and adding the five epagomens to make up 365. But this
does not affect the evidently secondary character of LR here.
15II 11.26-12.26/IV 18.18-20.1. Cf. B 41.16-44.9/III 17.20-18.25.
16II 12.26-33/IV 20.2-10. Cf. B 41.1—12/III 17.7-17.
17II 12.33-13.5/IV 20.10-18. Cf. B 44.7-9. See also TP40.4-8. There
is no trace in B of the last statement; it recalls the Valentinian conception
of the Demiurge creating after the image of the Pleroma in ignorance
since it was his mother who worked through him (cf. Iren. 1.5.If.; Hipp.
Ref 6.33).
18 B 41.12-15/III 17.17-20. The form in III I7.19f. ‘chaos and the
underworld’ is preferable to B 41.15: ‘chaos of the underworld’ in the
light of the similar formula in GE III 56.25; 58.22 and TP 40.24.
19 See Till’s note to B 41.13. Thus II 11.4—10, which comes immediately
after the enumeration of the twelve, has the seven set over the seventh
heaven (i.e. they are distinct from the planetary rulers each ruling one
of the lower heavens up to the seventh), and the seven and five given a
share of Ialdabaoth’s fire, a process repeated with the seven planetary
rulers later (II12.4ff. and par), while the gloss in II11.3 which has Belias
as over the abyss of the underworld, evidently takes him as one of the
five.
20 Thus B 41.18 has Iaoth as in 40.5 and 43.13, Adonaios fifth as in
40.9. But III, although it has Adonaios fifth in 16.24 and 18.3, reads
Haoth in 16.20 and Aoth in 17.22. II, although it has Athoth in 10.29
and 11.26, has Adonaiou fifth in 10.33, but Sabaoth in 11.31.
21 Cf. e.g. Welburn’s argument in ‘Identity’ and Tardieu, Ecrits 285.
22 Cf. B 41.16f./III I7.20f. and B 42.7-10/III 18.7-9; II 11.34f./IV
18.24f.
23 1.30.4-5; 10.
 Notes to pages 133—135 157

24 Cf. 1.30.9: ‘Sanctam autem hebdomadam septem Stellas, quas dicunt

planetas, esse volunt...’ Cf. Petrement, Separate 64-72.
23 Cf. B 48.6-50.6 and par.
26 B 42.13-43.2/III 18.12-19. Cf. B 50.15-52.8 and par on the
impotence of the archons to raise Adam, until Ialdabaoth inbreathes
the power from his mother.
27 B 44.5-9. Cf. II 12.25f„ 33-13.1 and par.
28 Cf. II 15.29-19.10 and par. The ‘Book of Zoroaster’ referred to at
the end may be the source.
29 III 57.16-58.22 and par. See Bohlig-Wisse, Gospel 120-4, for
proposed reconstructions. Doresse, ‘“Le livre sacre du grand Esprit
invisible” ou “L’Evangile des Egyptiens’”,/A 254 (1966), 384f., suggests
a possible reference in 11.1—5 to the division of the twelve into seven and
five, the latter being commanded to rule over chaos. But there does not
seem enough space for such a reconstruction and the text seems to
indicate that all twelve are to rule over the underworld [and chaos].
30 E.g. Nebruel, associated with Saklas in the Manichaean cosmogony
(cf. Theodore bar Konai, Lib. Schol. 11 (CSCO 69 ed. A. Scher (Louvain,
1960), 317.9ff., etc.), and by Priscillian in his first tractate (CSEL 18 ed.
G. Schepss (Prague/Vienna/Leipzig, 1889), 17.29; 21.6, see Bohlig-
Wisse, Gospel 183); the striking similarity in the list, and the final gloss
mistakenly applying to all twelve what A/limited to the last, Belias.
31 Giversen’s appeal, Apocryphon 205, to the later passage where
Ialdabaoth plots with his powers and brings forth Fate (B 72.2—4/III
37.6f.; II 28.11-15/IV 43.24-9) is unconvincing since the powers
mentioned there are most probably the seven planetary rulers who are
responsible for Fate according to the Poimandres (CH 1.9).
32II 11.10-15/IV 17.17-23.
33 Apocryphon 212.
34 II 11.7-10.
35II 11.15-22/IV 17.24-18.6.
36 II 11.15-18/IV 17.24-18.2. Cf. TP39.26-8; HA 87.3f.; 94.25f.; 95.7f.
On these names, see Bare, ‘SamaeP passim. The reading of II 11.16:
ialtaba[oth] is confirmed by IV 17.26. Saklas is found in SR, cf. B 41.6f.;
42.10f. and par (III 18.10 reads Sakla), but not Samael. Saklas is used
without explanation by AJ as an alternative name for Ialdabaoth, the
name actually given him by his mother Sophia (cf. B 38.13f. and par).
Bare’s claim of a distinct myth of Saklas based on the GE version may be
debatable, but his link of Saklas with astrology and the twelve zodiacal
signs/aeons is illuminating, would explain the occurrence of Saklas in
SR, cast light on his role in AA as god of the thirteen aeons/kingdoms
(i.e. twelve plus his own, cf. AA 74.3f.; 77.27-82.19, etc.; GE III 63.18
and par), and tie in with our hypothesis of the twelve as originally distinct
from the seven and five. The ‘Soclan’ who is ruler (archon) of the twelve-
houred night in the Peratic system (cf. Hipp. Ref. 5.14.6) may also be
158 Notes to pages 135-136

equated with him. Although in HA 95.7f. Zoe’s retort to the first archon’s
boast that he was God: ‘You are wrong Sakla’, is related to his creation
of seven rather than twelve powers, that the interpretation of Saklas is
Ialtabaoth (not Ialdabaoth as in Bullard’s edition p. 36), as the text
continues, might hint at the combination as found in AJof the motif of
Ialdabaoth and his seven sons with Saklas and his twelve powers. Cf. TP
39.26-40.8 where the name of the great Demon ruling over the lowest
region of the underworld and chaos is given first as Sakla, that is Samael,
Ialtabaoth, who creates (twelve?) aeons in the image of the heavenly
ones. The customary derivation from Aramaic, sakla ‘fool’, would fit
the contexts in all the above Nag Hammadi works. See further, Bullard,
Hypostasis 107f.; Doresse, Secret Books 51, n. 125; 162, n. 30. Samael,
coupled with Saklas and Ialdabaoth in TP as well as here in the long
recension, is interpreted as ‘the blind god’ in //A94.25L, and OVL103.18,
or ‘the god of the blind’ in HA 87.3f., which would suit a derivation
from VnQIO. The Ophites of Theodore bar Konai set a blind Satanic
angel Samiel in the form of a pig in the first of ten heavens (Schol. 11),
while in the Acts of Andrew and Matthias 24 (Lipsius-Bonnet AAA II/1
101), the devil is called Amael (or Samael) because he is blind. Samael
along with Michael(!) is one of the two names for the devilish serpentine
son of the Demiurge in Irenaeus’ ‘Ophites’ (1.30.9: Theodoret, however,
reads Samanna). In the Jewish pseudepigrapha Sam(m)ael occurs as a
name for Satan (e.g. Asc. Is. 3.13; 5.15; 7.9; 11.41, etc.), while in rabbinic
literature he is the angel of death (e.g. in Deb. Rab. 11.10; Tg. Ps.J. Gen
3:6). See Bullard, Hypostasis 51-4. Bare’s appeal to a myth of Samael
appears less well founded than in the case of Saklas, but Bullard’s
suggestion that Samael and Saklas are popular names taken from
contemporary Jewish and magical circles to describe aspects of the
archon whose secret name is Ialdabaoth, which appears far more often
on magical amulets and in magical texts, is plausible. ‘Saklas’ would
represent his folly (cf. OW107.34f.), and ‘Samael’ his blindness. Since
LR adds that he did not actually see the heavenly world (II 13.1-5 and
par) it is not surprising that it added the name here.
37II 11.18-22/IV 18.2-6. This is evidently an expansion of II 12.8-10
and par, quoting Isa 46:9.
38 Cf. II 11.7-10 and 12.4ff. with B 42.13-18 and par, and II 11.19-22
and 12.8-10 with B 42.18-43.6 and par.
39 Apocryphon 215. Tardieu, Ecrits 41 f., also sees here the work of a later
redactor (his (n2)). The treatment of the origin, nature and three names
of the Demiurge in TP 39.13-32 would appear to be dependent on the
form reflected in LR here.
4H B 41.16-42.7/III 17.20-18.7; II 11.26-34/IV 18.18-24.
41 B 42.9f./III 18.8f. This may be a marginal note incorporated into
the text of SR (so Giversen, Apocryphon 223), or it may have been omitted
by redactors of LR because they thought that the seven were the seven
 Notes to page 136 159

powers immediately preceding (cf. II 11.23 and par) created by the

archons, who thus could not be said to control the cosmos.
42 Eciits 287f.
43 Cf. Iren. 1.30.5; Orig. C. Cels. 6.31f.; Epiph. Pan. 26.10.1-3; PGM
XIII 161-206 (A); Coptic magical papyrus XLVIII.38ff. (Kropp I x.16;
II 201); OW 101.29-34. See Tardieu, Ecrits 287-9.
44Origen’s list needs emending since it omits Adonaios and has
Astaphaios before Ailoaios (sic - Eloaios). The Gnostic amulet starts
with la on the reverse, which obviously represents the Ialdabaoth of the
obverse. Opposite the latter the amulet also has the name ‘A(a)rier, as
in OW100.25f.: ‘the perfect call him “Ariel” because he was lion-like’.
On the amulet, see C. Bonner, ‘An Amulet of the Ophite Gnostics’ in
Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear (Hesperia,
Supplement 8) (Athens, 1949), 43-6; Studies 135-8. Origen asserts, C.
Cels. 6.31, that the Ophites took the names Iao to Eloaios from the names
of God in Hebrew scripture and Ialdabaoth, Astaphaios and Horaios
from magic. See Jackson, ‘Origin’ 7Iff.
43 However, the redactor of OWmay have known A/’s distinctive form
as well as the other, more familiar one, in that in 101.10-22 he has the
archon Ialdabaoth produce first Iao, then Eloaios, then Astaphaios. That
he stops there may be because of the repetition of the fourth name, Iao
again. This might suggest that the form in B’s version of A], Iaoth, was
the original one, converted by the redactor of the long recension into
the Athoth of the twelve powers, confused by the author of OW with
the more familiar Iao.
46 B 41.18/III 17.22; II 11.27. On the first archon having a lion-like
face or form, cf. Orig. C. Cels. 6.30 (the first of the seven in Celsus’
diagram has a lion-like form and is called Michael, according to Origen,
but Ialdabaoth in ch. 31); OW 100.25-7; HA 94.17; Manichaean Kephalaia
33.9. Earlier in AJ Ialdabaoth was described as in the form of a (snake
and a) lion (B 37.20f. and par). The term translated ‘face’ (ho = prosopon)
probably applies to the head and not the whole figure, pace Giversen,
Apocryphon 219. On the animal-faced archons, cf. Orig. C. Cels. 6.30 and
33; PSBook 3, ch. 126 (Schmidt-MacDermot 317.22-319.10); Theodore
bar Konai’s Ophites (Schol. 11: Pognon, Coupes 145f., 213f.); HA
87.27-9; the Gnostics of Epiph. Pan. 26.10.6 (Sabaoth, the archon of
the seventh heaven, has the form of an ass or pig).
47 Cf. B 41.19/111 17.23 and B 43.15 (Eloaios); II 11.27f. (Eloaiou);
12.18 (Eloaio).
48 Cf. B 41.20f./III 17.24 (Astophaios) and B 43.17; II 11.29; 12.19
(Astraphaio).
49 Cf. B 42.2; 43.19; II 11.30; 12.20 (Iao); III 18.1 (Iazo; see Tardieu,
Ecrits 287, for an explanation of the form).
50 On the seven-headed snake, cf. PS Book 2, ch. 66 (Schmidt-
MacDermot 137.18f.); 3, ch. 126 (318.25-7). The version in III 18.2 is
160 Notes to pages 136-138

virtually a mirror-image of its description of Ialdabaoth in 15.11, which

might suggest it misunderstood the reference to the seven-headed snake,
or thought that Iazo represented Ialdabaoth. But, cf. PS Book 2, ch. 66
(141.22) where Sophia tramples on both the seven-headed snake and
the lion-snake-faced power.
51 Cf. B42.3/III 18.3 (Adonaios);B 43.20; II 11.31; IV 19.23 (Sabaoth);
II 12.22 (Sanbaoth). The confusion is easily understandable and has
already taken place in II 10.33f. Cf. GE III 58.13-15.
52 Cf. B 42.5 (Adoni); III 18.4f. and II 11.32 (Adonin); II 12.23
(Adonein).
53 Ecrits 289.
54 Cf. 101.9-102.2 and AJ B 43.11-44.4 and par. While the latter
preserves its characteristic conception of the heavenly aeons as male-
female syzygies, the former presents these entities as androgynous.
55 ‘Identity’ 241-7.
56 Cf. C. Cels. 6.31.
57 On Sabbataios as a transcription of the Hebrew for Saturn,
Shabbathai, and thus a play on the Hebrew for ‘Lord of hosts’, ‘seven’,
and ‘Saturn’, and Tacitus’ association of Saturn with the God of the
Jews, see Welburn, ‘Identity’ 245.
58 Thus he is justified in interpreting Eloaios as Mercury and Astaphaios
as Venus in both lists, and his interpretation of the seven-headed snake
united with Ia(z)o in terms of the Sun is illuminating. But the two lists
remain ultimately distinct. For parallels to AJ’s planetary interpretation
of the seven, cf. Poim. CH 1.9 (the Nous Demiurge fashions seven
governors embracing the perceptible world in circles) and the
Valentinians of Ptolemy in Iren. 1.5.2 (the Demiurge prepares seven
intelligible heavens/angels above which he dwells as Hebdomad).
59 B 42.10—13/III 18.9-12; II 11.35-12.4/IV 18.26-19.2. B 42.10f./III
18.9f. add ‘Saklas’, which the long recension may have omitted since it
had already explained it as one of the common names of Ialdabaoth. It
has him indwelling the various forms (II 12.1/IV 18.28), and adds a
final gloss: ‘while he is in the midst of the Seraphim’ (II 12.3f./IV 19.2).
This is probably less original, the Seraphim being the seven powers in a
possible allusion to Isa 6:2. Cf. also Ezek 1:5-14 LXX and Rev 4:6-8.
60 B 42.13-18/III 18.12-16; II 12.4f./IV 19.3f. B 42.15 adds to the gift
of fire a share of Ialdabaoth’s own power, and LR omits the reference
to his withholding the light-power he got from his mother, since it has
already mentioned it (II 11.8-10). On this motif, cf. Epiph. Pan. 37.3.6.
Plotinus seems to allude to this in Enn. 2.9.5, 8 (no share of immortal
soul given to the entire heaven and stars).
61 B 42.18-43.2: ‘because of the glory in him of the power of light of
the Mother’; III 18.16-19: ‘because of the glory of the light of the power
which is in him of the Mother’; II 12.5-8/IV 19.4—6: ‘because of the
power of the glory which is light for him from his mother’. The variations
 Notes to pages 138-139 161

probably derive from differing interpretaUons of the several genitives

of the original Greek.
B 43.2-6/III 18.19-22; II 12.8-10. LR prefers him naming himself
(II 12.8) to the implication of SR that his followers were involved (cf. B
43.3 which reads: ‘he let himself be called’ and III 18.20 which adds
‘over them’). LR also, perhaps misunderstanding the Greek loan-words
peithein and hypostasis, as is suggested by the doublet at II 11.21 f., reads
‘place’ in both passages. Tardieu,£mte289, rightly considers this motif
to be based on an exegesis of Exod 3:14; by such a hubristic claim the
God of the Jews has betrayed the ground of his being. Cf. the parallel in
GE III 58.26f., with the loan word, but apparently used positively (see
Bohlig-Wisse, Gospel 126 and 184), unlike in A], perhaps because the
former has taken over the demonized figure of Saklas and his demonic
counterpart Nebruel, whereas the latter still preserves a more positive
evaluation of Ialdabaoth. Cf. also HA 86.28-32; 94.19-23; OW103.8-15
(Ialdabaoth’s boast and sin against the All); Treat. Seth 53.27-33 and
64.17-33 (the archon’s empty boast and disagreement with the supreme
Father). The allusion to him calling himself ‘God’ is of course proleptic;
the actual boast does not occur till B 44.14f. and par.
63 Cf. Iren. 1.29.3; A]B 35.11-20 and par. The Valentinians also have
the Demiurge’s boast but characteristically trace it to his weakness and
ignorance rather than his disobedience (Iren. 1.5.4; Hipp. Ref. 6.33).
64 B 43.6-8/III 18.22-4; II 12.10-13/IV 19.10-13. LR adds that it was
through his thought as well as his speaking that they (II ‘he’) came into
existence (II 12.12f./IV 19.12L), again reflecting its tendency to greater
internal harmony and consistency: as the supreme Being brought his
offspring into being by mental conception (ennoia), so too with
Ialdabaoth. Cf. Saklas’ creative word calling forth twelve aeons and seven
beings in GZ? Ill 57.21-58.2. Janssens, Museon 84, 404, alludes to Genesis
1, Tardieu, Ecrits 290, to magical as well as biblical parallels of this divine
creative word and its consequences.
65 B 43.9-11/III 18.24L; II 12.13-15/IV 19.13-15. II 12.14/IV 19.14
has ‘every power’, and B 43.9f.: ‘he named them and established
(kathistanai) powers (exousia)’. Ill 18.25 breaks off at ‘established’, the
following two pages being lost. SR’s version may rest on a mis¬
interpretation of the Greek (kateste/hekasten exousian?).
“The parallel to II 12.15-25 in IV 19.15-26 is very fragmentary, but
appears to be identical, as is the better-preserved parallel to II 15.14-23
in IV 24.3-14.
67 On p. 139 of his edition. See his note ad loc. on the preceding page.
68 Cf. Giversen, Apocryphon 181. On the translations of mhtrmhhet, see
the remarks of Wilson in his articles in NTS 9 (1963/64), 297ff.; Les
textes de Nag Hammadi (NHS 7) (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 36f.
69 Zatspram 30.5-11 in Zaehner, Zuruan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma
(Oxford, 1955), 162, n. 1. Cf. Puech, ‘Fragments retrouves de
162 Notes to pages 140-141

l’Apocalypse d’Allogene’ in Melanges Franz Cumont 2 (Brussels, 1936),

938, n. 2, referring to the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian on Bardaisan,
which has each planet as creator of the marrow, bones, sinews, blood,
flesh, skin, hair respectively, and to the Manichaean Kephalaia ch. 42
(ed. Bohlig 1.1 107.9-32) which has the order marrow, bones, sinews,
flesh, veins, blood, skin.
70 Eciits 300-8.
/! Commentarium de Somnio Scipionis 1.6.79 (Willis 33.17-20: ‘medulla,
os, nervus, vena, arteria, caro, cuds’). Cf. with ab imo the phrase ‘from
above’ in B 43.11 and par.
72 Cf. 101.23-102.2 and 114.34f.
73 Theodore, Schol. 11; Puech, ‘Fragments’ 936ff., 942, n. 2, 952, n. 4;
see also Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NTA 1 318ff.
/4 Ibid. Puech, ‘Fragments’ 938, n.l, notes that ‘powers’ corresponds
to the Greek exousiai and designates the seven planetary archons. In n.
2 he accepts the emendation of sa‘ra, ‘skin’, for the besra, ‘flesh’, of the
MSS, and in n. 3 the emendation of binta, ‘understanding’ (i.e. synesis),
as in B instead of the incomprehensible bi'ta, ‘egg’, of the text. However,
we should note that no such piece of direct speech is found in our AJ,
although Audi may simply have been quoting a traditional passage. What
is significant is that if we take wisdom as equivalent to sophia,
understanding as synesis, Elohim as divinity, Adonai as lordship, zeal as
fire and thought as providence (pronoia), we have the exact equivalent
of the list in SR - accepting that the mhtchs of B 43.16 and 49.13 is a
mistake for mritjoeis.
75 However koh. occurs among the otherwise exclusively feminine Greek
and Coptic names in OW101.26-102.2 which designate the seven powers
of the seven heavens. The terms koh, koht and even kauma may represent
independent attempts to render a Greek substantive like zelotes or
alternatively kausis, as Giversen, Apocryphon 227, suggests.
76 Cf. the arguments of Giversen, Apocryphon 227f., and Welburn,
‘Identity’ 247f. Comparison with Theodore bar Konai’s list shows that B
43.16 has mistakenly read ‘lordship’ (mhtjs) as ‘goodness’ (mntchs).
Tardieu, Ecrits 292, suggests that the unparalleled ‘riches’ ([ tmntrm] mao)
of OW101.33f. rests on a mistake of the abbreviated loanword chrt (=
chremata, riches) for chrs (= chrestotes, goodness).
7' Cf. Ecrits 44, 301f.
78 See n. 73, above.
19 Giversen, Apocryphon 227f., evidently understands sophia to be
rendered by mhtrmhhet here in II, although earlier (181) he had argued
for synesis as the relevant term. If one removes ‘goodness’ then LR and
SR agree over the first three powers (providence, divinity, lordship),
reverse the next two (zeal, kingship), and agree over the next (synesis/
mhtrmhhet).
80 Cf. Iren. 1.29.4 and AJB 39.6—18/III 16.8-15.
 Notes to pages 141-142 163

81 Cf. B 44.5f. and par.

82 Cf. Rousseau-Doutreleau SC 263 303 notes justicatives on 264 363,
n. 2.
83 1.29.4. Cf. the similar list of evils produced by the snake-like son of
Ialdabaoth in 1.30.5: ‘oblivio, malitia, zelus, invidia, mors.’
84 ‘Irenaus’ 333. Foerster, Gott 136, also accepts that Irenaeus has
supplied the names of the five underworld kings and suggests that the
archetype for this may be the pentad of aeons beneath the supreme
God (B 29.14—16), an unlikely hypothesis in the light of our claim that
the pentad concept is secondary.
85 The same tendency in GEIII 57.20-58.22 and par may explain why
we hear little or nothing about the seven and five in it, although a
reference to them may be concealed in 58.If., as Doresse has suggested.
The compression of the whole passage concerning Sakla’s creation and
subsequent boast probably derives in part from this tendency, further
confirming its dependence on AJ.
86 See p. 127f. Although Irenaeus attributes a left-hand ruler to
Valentinus’ system, the latter and Theodotus share with the
Barbelognostics not only belief in a single Sophia but also a more
negative evaluation of the Demiurge and his angels. Cf. e.g. Valentinus
frag. 1 (Clem. Alex. Strom. 2.8.36); Exc. ex Theod. 33.3-4.
87 E.g. Ialdabaoth’s snake-like son according to the ‘Ophites’ (Iren.
1.30.5f.), or the left-hand power, world ruler or Devil according to the
Valentinians (cf. Iren. 1.5.4; Epiph. Pan. 33.7.3-7, etc.). In line with
this, ‘Saklas’ appears as a nickname for Ialdabaoth suggesting his foolish
and demonic character in AJ and related works, but not in the earlier
Barbelognostic system summarized by Irenaeus, while ‘Samael’, another
such name, is ascribed to Ialdabaoth’s snake-like son rather than himself
in Irenaeus’ ‘Ophite’ system (1.30.9). Thus Valentinus is not so different
from these Gnostics as Edwards claims, ‘Gnostics’ 43f.
88 1.29.4: ‘Ego sum Deus zelator et praeter me nemo est.’ On Sophia’s
withdrawal prior to the boast, cf. OW 100.26—33 and possibly TP39.32-
40.8; on her forming the Ogdoad, cf. the ‘Ophites’ of Iren. 1.30.3f. and
the Valentinians of 1.5.2-4. The former have the Mother occupy the
eighth place, the latter dub her ‘Ogdoad’ and have her dwell in the
supercelestial region (i.e. the Middle). If she is the Ogdoad for the
Barbelognostics, this implies there are seven heavens and rulers below
her, as in the ‘Ophite’ and Valentinian systems described by Irenaeus.
89 B 44.9-15; II 13.5-9/IV 20.18-24. The same combination of Exod
20:5 and Isa 46:9 or 45:5 occurs in GE III 58.24-26. Cf. also Treat. Seth
64.19-23 (‘I am God .. . and there is no other apart from me. I am a
jealous god . . .’: cf. Isa 45:5; 44:6; Exod 20:5). For a conspectus of all
the Nag Hammadi texts with a similar quotation from Isaiah, see Kasser
‘Citations’ in Krause, Essays 60. The form in LR has probably been
harmonized with the earlier boast of Ialdabaoth echoing Isa 46:9 in II
164 Notes to pages 143-145

11.20f. and par, part of its later redaction. The version in GE III
58.24-26, while taking up the redoubled T of LR, is closer to B’s version
as regards the latter half. On this theme of the hubris of the Demiurge,
cf. Schottroff, Glaubende 50, n. 1.
90 B 44.15-19; II 13.9-13/IV 20.24-9. Cf. my article ‘The Jealousy of
God: Exod 20:5 in Gnostic and Rabbinic Theology’, in Studia Biblica,
1978, 1: Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes (JSOT
Supplement Series 11: Sheffield, 1979), 197-203.
91 B 44.19-45.19 and par. B alone preserves the Greek which makes
the allusion to Genesis more explicit.
92 B 44.19-45.5; 45.11-19; 46.9-13 and par. Cf. the echo of this in
Plot. Enn. 2.9.4, 8.
95 B 46.13-20 and par.
94 Cf. B 46.20-47.14/III 21.6-16; II 14.5-13/IV 22.6-15.
95 ‘Irenaus’ 333.
9b ‘Nag-Hamadi-Studien I’ 59f.
97 Glaubende 50.
98 49f.
99 Cf. B 44.9-45.19 and par and B 45.19-46.15 and par. The latter
with its mention of Ialdabaoth the authades taking power from his mother
is also a doublet of B 38.15ff. and par.
1 Ibid. Cf. B 45.5-19 and par.
2 Cf. B 45.2-5.
3II 13.14—17/IV 20.30-21.3. Cf. also the earlier insertion in LR about
the character of Ialdabaoth, II 11.11-15.
4 Cf. B 45.11-13; II 13.21-3/IV 21.8-10. Against Giversen, Apocryphon
233, the references to kakia and apostasia in B surely apply to her son’s
action and boast rather than to Sophia’s sense of being diminished in
light-power. Cf. her designation as akakos/innocent in related texts (TP
39.29; 40.15; Treat. Seth 50.25-30).
5 B 45.13-19; II 13.23-6/IV 21.10-15.
b Gott ‘Mensch’79-87, with reference to Exc. ex Theod. 47; Iren. 1.18.1;
OW100.29-101.2; 104,11-13; Iren. 1.30.1.
7 Glaubende 51, 53-5. Cf. also Exeg. Soul (C 11,6) 127.19-129.5.
8 B 45.19-46.9; II 13.26-32/IV 21.16-22. Cf. B 38.15-39.10 and par
which has him imitate the heavenly archons!
9 B 46.6-15; II 13.30-14.1/IV 21.20-22.1. In making Sophia realize
she had not concurred with her consort at the moment she recognized
the imperfection, LR is probably secondary: she was aware of acting
without him from the outset. On the Valentinian term ‘abortion’ (houhe,
i.e. ektroma in B 46.10), cf. Hipp. Ref. 6.31.2.
10 B 46.15-47.14/III 21.2—15. Note both the concentration of
Valentinian technical terms, e.g. plerdma (III 21.7f. ‘their Pleroma’),
syzygos, and ‘deficiency’ (shta = hysterema), and the Valentinian theology
of Sophia, whose deficiency is precisely her action without her consort,
 Notes to pages 145-146 165

which will only be cured by her eschatological rescue of her seed and
union with her consort.
11 The appropriate response here is a request (aitein), not a blessing,
and Tardieu, Ecrits 296, is not justified in equating the eine ou smou of II
and IV with parakalein. The pattern in TP 39.35-40.4, of Sophia’s request
for a superior location (taxis) and its blessing, probably reflects
dependence on AJ.
12II 14.1-6/IV 22.1-7. The Coptic verb eidrm'm IV 22.6 does not mean
‘be amazed’ (so Krause 219), but is evidently the Sahidic oijorm, which
represents the Greek neuein, kataneuein, etc. (cf. Crum, Dictionary 785b),
and thus IV is closer to SR here.
13 II 14.7-9/IV 22.8-11. However, the two appear to distinguish
between ‘come’ and ‘come down’, as Krause does, but not Tardieu or
Wisse in their respective translations. Note the very Valentinian colouring
which might explain the oddness: her consort did not unite with her at
the beginning but was sent later from the whole Pleroma (cf. the
Valentinian Jesus of Iren. 1.4.5, etc.).
14 II 14.9-13/IV 22.11-15.
15 Apocryphon 235, 238.
16 Cf. e.g. Iren. 1.4.5; Exc. ex Theod. 43.5; Tri. Trac. 80.11-81.35; 86.4—
87.31, etc.
17 See p. 163, n. 89.
18 Giversen’s rejection, Apocryphon 236f., of Till’s translation of the
Ninth as a collective (135) is unjustified. Coptic does form a collective
precisely in this way, as with its rendering of the hebdomas of III 18.7 and
par by the tmehsashfeof B 42.8. However, IV 22.14 does add pe, ‘heaven’.
19 Glaubendebbi. To her references one should add Iren. 1.29.4; Epiph.
Pan. 25.2.2; 40.2.3; Poim. CH 1.26; HA 95.33f.; OW 104.30f.; 105.22f.;
106.7f.; 112.12, 20.
20 Cf. B 38.17-39.4 and par (II 10.24 mistakenly reads ‘aeons’ since
the following reference (1. 25) is in the singular); II 11.4—6; B 44.5-9.
This reinterpretation is further evidence of AJ's combination of two
originally independent systems, that of the Barbelognostic Protarchon
(with his own heaven and his mother above him in the Ogdoad) and
that of the ‘Ophite’ hebdomad of Ialdabaoth and his six offspring, one
to a heaven, by equating the Protarchon with Ialdabaoth.
21 Cf. II 11.4f. with B 41.16f. and par and B 44.5f., which speak of
seven heavens with a ruler to (kata) each.
22 Cf. II 14.11/IV 22.13.
 IZev. W. Marceau, CSB

Gnostic Anthropology and Anthropogony

Introduction

The famous and much-quoted definition of the essence of gnosis

in the Valentinian Excerpta ex Theodoto 78.2 reads:
Now it is not merely the washing (loutron) which liberates, but also
the knowledge (gnosis): Who were we? What have we become?
Where were we? Into what place have we been cast? Whither are
we hastening? From what have we been delivered? What is birth?
What is rebirth?

This encapsulates the heart of the Gnostic problem: the nature,

origin and destiny of the elect, estranged from their heavenly
home and origin, imprisoned in this visible universe under the
domination of ignorant and hostile powers, in need of a heavenly
revealer/redeemer to rouse them from its oblivion, reveal their
true origin and destiny, and ensure their ultimate escape from
the world in the context of a rite of initiation. But the elect form
part of humanity; human existence is the context and condition
of their salvation, and so anthropology forms the heart and pivot
of Gnostic theology. But it cannot be properly understood apart
from both cosmology and soteriology. Thus in our treatment of
Gnostic anthropology in the ‘classic’ Gnostic myth and investiga¬
tion of how and why it developed, we will necessarily have to
overlap with the previous cosmological chapter as well as dealing
with material which properly belongs to the following
soteriological and christological chapter.
If there is one point of agreement in the fantastic plethora of
Gnostic systems, it would appear to be that human beings are
composite, a mixture of heterogeneous elements, light and
darkness, good and evil, spirit and matter, corporeal and
incorporeal. Salvation is a matter of unscrambling this mixture,
of distinguishing the various kinds.1 Such a mixture can result

167
168 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

from an original monism or from an original dualism, and the

power or powers responsible for the creation of earthly man2 can
be seen both as hostile, as in the Hypostasis of the Archons, and as
unwitting agents in the divine plan of salvation, as with the
‘Ophites’, the Apocryphon of John and the Valentinians of Ptolemy’s
school. Thus, too, we can find dichotomous and trichotomous
anthropologies, sometimes a combination of both and even a
fourfold scheme.3
At the heart of this bewildering variety, however, lies the same
basic conception: humanity is a mixture of divine and anti-divine
elements, and the various, often inconsistent, anthropologies
represent attempts to do justice to this insight and dilemma: to
allow for the fact that humanity is the creation of- and under the
sway of- cosmic forces hostile to the unknown Father, the ultimate
origin of man’s divine spark, yet to try to delimit as far as possible
the extent of that sway and preserve the divine uncontaminated.
The text which gives classic and prototypical expression to this
situation is of course the opening chapters of Genesis, read with
Platonic, but more importantly, Gnostic spectacles. For it is not
simply that humanity consists in the Platonic sense of a divine
soul trapped in an earthly body; Gnosticism is much more
pessimistic about human nature. No, the Gnostic claim is that
not only is the human form, made ‘in the image of God’, not the
divine element but an inferior copy made by lower powers
ignorant of or hostile to God, if nevertheless in imitation of a
heavenly archetype; neither is the ‘divine’ soul, since it too
originates from these same powers. The real divine element for
the Gnostics is the spirit, seed, ‘inner man’ or whatever, which is
not a natural endowment but an alien element from the supra-
heavenly sphere, present only in the elect or to which they alone
respond.
Gnostic anthropology, then, does have a certain underlying
unity despite the varieties alluded to above, in that it presupposes
a central ‘self or ‘I’ present in addition to the natural twofold or
threefold structure, and present as gift or grace. Ffere Irenaeus’
sketch of the system of Saturninus, however brief, contradictory
and tendentious, can help us structure our analysis of the
paradoxes of Gnostic anthropology and assist us to understand it
better.
Thus on the surface Saturninus appears to teach a dichotomous
anthropology: man’s body is created by angels in imitation of a
heavenly archetype (cf. Gen 1:26), and animated by the spark of
 Gnostic Anthropology 169

life from heaven descending to occupy its copy and remaining

until death.4 But, as Petrement points out, there is a contradiction
here: on the one hand man needs the spark to stand upright
(implying that all possess it), on the other it later transpires that
not all possess it, only those who believe in Christ.5 Further, man
without the spark is not inanimate: he wriggles like a worm.
Petrement’s consequent interpretation of man’s elevation as
figurative6 is not entirely convincing since the spark is explicitly
said to equip him with limbs (articulare) ,7 And the later assertion
that there are two types or races of humanity, one good, the other
bad,8 seems hard to reconcile with the divine spark theory; one
cannot simply argue that all the good possess it. And finally there
are inconsistencies between the two theories as regards the
opponents: in the case of the spark theory it is the hostile God of
the Jews and his angels, in the latter the evil angels and Satan,
who is already independent of and hostile to the Old Testament
God and his fellow creator-angels.
Assuming the general accuracy of Irenaeus or his source, we
are driven to conclude that Saturninus has not resolved the
dilemma and paradox of Gnostic anthropology: all need the divine
spark to be fully human, only the elect possess it through faith,
yet it is apparently a lifelong possession. What our account presents
is at least three key but not entirely consistent anthropological
themes which recur in Gnostic texts and cast light on that
dilemma. The first is that of the divine spark descending to
animate Adam, the Golem of Jewish legend, created by angels in
the image of a heavenly being reflected in the waters of chaos. It
occurs in various guises, often involving the theme of the seduction
of the archons, with either a female or a male figure,9 or, as in the
Poimandres, involving the Narcissus motif whereby Primal Man
descends to enter his irrational reflected form.10 The second is
the idea found in the Christian Adam books and the Sethians of
Epiphanius, that originally angels, perhaps divided into good and
bad, created two human types or races, one evil, the other good
(i.e. Cainites and Sethians).11 The third theme is that of three
original principles or three substances and races, and is found in
such varying forms as Valentinianism and the three-principle
systems described by Hippolytus, particularly that of the
Naassenes.12
The other major theme in Gnostic anthropology, which
Irenaeus’ summary of Saturninus only hints at, is that the heavenly
image seen by the angels is none other than that of the supreme
170 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

being (or an emanation of his) called ‘Man’. Indeed Schenke has

claimed that the concept and myth of the God ‘Man’ is
fundamental to Gnostic mythology, arguing that it developed
directly out of exegesis of Gen 1:26f.13 Here he is building, if
critically, on the theories of scholars since the turn of the century
who have claimed to detect the figure of Primal Man behind the
various Gnostic systems. These theories have tended to select one
or two of the central themes outlined above. Thus there is (1)
the idea of the descent or fall of Primal Man, either (a) directly,
as in the Poimandres, or (b) in the form of his reflection being
seen and copied, leading to the descent of a divine spark, as in
Saturninus and the Hypostasis of the Archons. Others, however, have
taken (2) the motif of man made in the image of the divine Man
reflected in the waters of chaos, as the central Gnostic anthro¬
pological tenet. Others have insisted that the fundamental Gnostic
theme is (3) the idea of the consubstantiality of the salvandus and
the Salvator or Redeemer. That is, that either the supreme God
himself, or, since this is an impossible thought for Gnostics, his
primary emanation and image, the heavenly Primal Man, is
actually present in earthly man, i.e. a variation on motif 1 (a), or,
avoiding that dangerous conception, his image or reflection is
somehow present in earthly man and thus Primal Man does not
fall, i.e. motif 2, or a divine spark or seed from heavenly Man is
present in earthly man, i.e. motifs 1 (b) and 3.
The first thesis was represented by Bousset and Reitzenstein.14
Bousset claimed there had been an archaic cosmogonic myth
which derived the world from the body of the sacrificed Primal
Man. This formed the basis of the Gnostic myth of the divine Man
who fell into matter and this was then adapted to express the origin
of earthly man.13 But, as Schenke points out, the only Gnostic
texts in which the Primal Man occurs as a cosmogonic principle
are Manichaean.16 Reitzenstein argued that the Gnostic concep¬
tions of a divine Man developed on the basis of pre-Christian
Iranian ideas according to which the soul or inner man, seen as a
divine being, was sent down from the world of light into matter,
freed from it and recalled to heaven.17 Primal Man is here
essentially a ‘redeemed Redeemer’. Now both Bousset and
Reitzenstein had claimed support for their theory of a pre-
Christian cosmogonic (only secondarily anthropogonic) Anthropos
myth from the Naassene Preaching,18 which Reitzenstein claimed
had been interpolated.19 This claim has been contested by
Schottroff and others,20 who also cast doubt on the whole
 Gnostic Anthropology 171

assumption of a Primal Man-Redeemer, or a ‘redeemed

Redeemer (salvator salvandus)' myth underlying Gnosticism and
Christianity.21
The hypothesis of an Iranian Primal Man as proposed by
Reitzenstein and others of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule had
already been attacked by Quispel.22 He argued that the original
Primal Man myth had been a myth of Sophia, the virgin of light,
casting her shadow image (eidolon) on to the primal waters, from
which the hostile archons created the world and the human
body.23 The original female Sophia, the anima mundi of late
Platonism, later became the male Anthropos figure.24 Thus
Quispel simply reverses the Bousset-Reitzenstein thesis and takes
as the key to Gnostic cosmology and anthropology the second
theme, humanity made in the image of God, as found in the
ApocryphonP
J. Jervell also sees the relationship between heavenly image and
earthly copy as the key to understanding the Gnostic systems,26
but rejects both the Bousset-Reitzenstein and Quispel theses.
Against the former he claims that pre-Christian Gnosis such as
that underlying the Poimandres most probably did not know of a
redeemer figure called Anthropos; only under Christian influence
did he become such.27 Against Quispel he argues that it is not
Sophia but the Anthropos figure who is primary in Gnosis: he is
the Father himself as he projects himself as eikon, and all the
Gnostic systems are variations on this self-projection theme, itself
based on Gen 1:26, outlining the heavenly birth of Primal Man.
Earthly man is a copy of the heavenly: being in the image means
that the divine spirit lives in man.28 But againstjervell, (1) because
the eikon motif is not universal in Gnostic texts, he is forced to
include the concept of the divine spark or seed in that motif; (2)
the motif is frequently used in a negative and polemic fashion,
particularly in cosmogonic contexts, to explain how this hostile
world arose and how the divine became enmeshed in matter; being
in the image of a divine being does not imply or guarantee life
and salvation, but rather imperfection.29
It is noticeable how central the theme of Primal Man/Anthropos
is in all this. If the Bousset-Reitzenstein thesis is generally rejected,
both ajewish and a Christian origin have recently been canvassed.
Thus van den Broek has argued on the basis of his analysis of
Eugnostos for the existence of a Platonized Jewish-Gnostic myth
of both Anthropos and Sophia underlying not only Eugnostos and
the Apocryphon but also Valentinianism.30 On the other hand we
172 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

find Petrement claiming, in defence of her thesis of the Christian

origins of Gnosticism, that the title ‘Man’ used of God derives
from Gnostic misunderstanding of Christ’s title ‘Son of man’. She
points to the almost invariable association of ‘Son of man’ with
‘Man’ in the myths of the creation of earthly man and in passages
where the name ‘Man’ is given to God, and the fact that
speculations about God being called ‘Man’ do not occur in the
earliest systems described by the heresiologists.31 And she claims
to find Eugnostos not as pre- or non-Christian, but only to be
understood in connection with Valentinianism.32 We shall
therefore have to consider the origin and centrality of the figure
of Primal Man/Anthropos in our analysis.
But in any case, whatever the truth about the origin of the
speculation about ‘Man’, it would seem that the most common, if
not universal anthropological and soteriological theme, which
recurs in all the Gnostic texts presently available, is our third: the
idea of the consubstantiality of Redeemer and redeemed, of a
divine spark, spirit, intelligence or seed (even sometimes ‘inner
man’) present in humanity, or rather the elect. This motif
expresses the basic anthropological dualism of Gnostic theology
to which Jonas, Schottroff and Rudolph have drawn attention;33
of the Gnostic ‘self or ‘I’ (however that may be expressed) over
against the soul (or psychic element) and body (or however the
hostile element in humanity is understood).34
As will become clear from an analysis of Gnostic anthropology,
the theme of the divine spark or Gnostic ‘self can and does
embrace the motifs of heavenly Primal Man somehow present in
earthly man, of heavenly Anthropos and humanity made in his
image, and of the three races, types and substances. How far the
spiritual element or substance is a natural endowment which
ensures salvation ‘by nature’, which Bultmann would see as the
essence of Gnostic soteriology;33 or a means of expressing the
certainty of divine grace, a consequence of revelation, as
Quispel has argued;36 or simply a way of expressing the fact that
the Gnostic is saved by grace but that salvation is not an assured
possession, as Schottroff insists,37 will have to await the next
chapter. But in the meantime one cannot fail to be struck by
how closely the three respective interpretations express the
paradox of Gnostic anthropology and soteriology mirrored in the
three inconsistent theories in Irenaeus’ account of Saturninus (a
divine spark in all; a lifelong possession of believers; only a gift to
believers).
 Gnostic Anthropology 173

Now since Irenaeus’ summary of the Gnostic myth in 1.29

concludes with the boast of the Demiurge marking the end of
the cosmogony but with no explicit anthropology or soteriology,
we cannot proceed from now on exactly as before. However,
because the ‘Ophite’ version of the Gnostic myth in the following
chapter in Irenaeus is evidently related to that of the Apocryphon,
and was bracketed by Irenaeus with the Barbelognosdc system as
a source of Valentinianism, we can use it with the Apocryphon to
supply our basic framework.38 What is more, since our main thesis
is that in chapter 29 Irenaeus only excerpted the first part of what
was a complete myth, we will also be looking for possible surviving
traces of that myth by comparing the present form of the
Apocryphon with related texts, particularly the Hypostasis of the
Archons. Indeed, it is our thesis that the Apocryphon has combined
elements from both the Barbelognostic and ‘Ophite’ systems,
probably when it was also being influenced by Valentinian ideas
(i.e. redaction (a2)) and before it underwent its Sethianization
process (i.e. redaction (a3)).

1 The initial anthropogonical impulse: Ialdabaoth’s

arrogant boast and the response from heaven

N. A. Dahl claims to detect a pattern of vain claim by a Demiurge

or similar figure and heavenly response in the setting of the
Genesis creation story in a special group of texts (HA, OW, A],
GE, Iren. 1.29 and 30).39 Its complete but non-existent form
included ten items ((1) setting, (2) introduction, (3) vain claim,
(4) comment, (5) rebuke, (6) disclosure, (7) challenge, (8)
appearance of image (cf. Gen 1:2b and 3), (9) proposal to create
man (Gen 1:26), (10) formation of man (Gen 1:27 and 2:7)). He
notes that only On the Origin of the World has all the elements, but
interspersed with others, while in the Hypostasis and the long
recension of the Apocryphon some of them recur several times.40
And he rightly points to the fact that the last three items are
directly related to the creation story in Genesis 1-2, and that the
focus of interest is the creation of humanity, not of the world.41
The pattern Dahl has identified is undoubtedly there, but his
own comments about its incompleteness, repetitions and central
focus on the creation of humankind might suggest that in the
most complete form (OW) we have a combination of two originally
distinct versions of the heavenly image-reflection motif, the one
174 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

cosmogonic (Gen 1:2b and 3; i.e. items 3-8) the other (and
more original form?) anthropogonic (Gen l:26f. and 2:7; i.e. items
3-5, 8-10). More detailed analysis of the pattern and its elements
is therefore required.
The motif of the hubris and vain claim of the Demiurge clothed
in the language of the God of the Old Testament (Isa 45:5f.; 46:9)
recurs frequently in very varied forms in the heresiologists’
accounts and in the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi, as Dahl
has demonstrated.42 Thus while virtually all the texts attest the
allusion to Isaiah: ‘there is no other [god] beside me’, only four
begin with Ialdabaoth calling himself a jealous god in allusion to
Exod 20:5 (AJ, GE, Treat. Seth and Iren. 1.29).43 Yet despite the
differences, a number of texts agree in having Ialdabaoth’s claim
immediately followed by a voice from heaven in rebuke, generally
associated with Sophia, indicating his error and in several cases
affirming the existence of a superior heavenly being or beings,
Man and the Son of Man (e.g. Iren. 1.30, HA, OW, GE).
But although the Apocryphon does contain the motif of the
heavenly voice affirming the existence of Man and Son of Man,44
this is separated from the claim of Ialdabaoth by the passage
concerning the repentance and partial restoration of the Mother.
Furthermore she is not the author of the rebuke as in Irenaeus
1.30 and On the Origin of the World: it comes to her and Ialdabaoth
also hears it (despite being in a lower realm!) and thinks that it
came from his mother.45 In the light of the evidence already
adduced to suggest the secondary nature of the passage between
Ialdabaoth’s claim and the heavenly rebuke, our hypothesis that
the Apocryphon has changed the order of events at this point and
destroyed the original unity of claim and reply, partly to adapt
better to the Genesis reinterpretation, would appear to receive
further confirmation. That the voice should come to Sophia is, as
Schottroff has convincingly demonstrated, explicable in terms of
the Apocryphon s consistent reinterpretation of her to remove all
trace of the idea that she was a redeemer.46 That Ialdabaoth thinks
that the voice came from his mother not only suggests his
ignorance but also that the voice was female, and that in the
original it did indeed come from her.47
The formula ‘Man exists and the Son of Man’ occurs in two of
the three texts which unite the two titles, the Apocryphon and the
Gospel of the Egyptians, spoken anonymously and in almost identical
wording in the five documents involved.48 The ‘Ophite’ version is
rather more circuitous: it has Sophia cry out: ‘Do not lie,
 Gnostic Anthropology 175

Ialdabaoth, for above you there is the Father of All, the First Man
(primus Anthropus/protos Anthropos) and Man the Son of Man
(Anthropus filius Anthropi/huios anthropou).’49 Conversely the
parallel passage in On the Origin of the World has Pisds as the speaker
refer to Man only: ‘You are in error, Samael... an immortal light
Man exists before you!’50
The question inevitably arises as to which is primary. F. H.
Borsch, while allowing some arguments for the priority of the On
the Origin of the World version (its brevity, the existence of
comparative material about Man in e.g. Poimandres, the addition
of the Son of Man through Christian influence), prefers the
opposite supposition, in view of the preponderance of versions
with the Son of Man, and the earlier date of Irenaeus’ account.51
He suggests Irenaeus’ peculiar version may be the result either of
his attempt to combine two variants of the heavenly retort or his
use of a version which had interpolated a reference to the Son of
Man, or alternatively of his conscious or unconscious attempt to
interpret the statement he found by identifying the Son of man,
Jesus, with the Man.52 His final suggestion is that Irenaeus may
have preserved a more Semitic understanding whereby the Son
of Man is taken as a counterpart or appositional way of speaking
about the Man and not a distinct entity.53
Despite their value, however, these suggestions do not supply
an explanation of the two basic versions of the retort, with or
without the Son of Man, in terms of the texts themselves. We have
to ask (a) what is the significance of the rebuke in its context; (b)
who the figure or figures are and what part they play in the rest of
the system; and (c) what the background is to the figures of Man
and Son of Man in Gnostic theology as revealed by these and other
texts which deal with them.
As regards (a) we should note that in all but the ‘Ophite’ version
the blasphemy of the Demiurge and the heavenly rebuke are
immediately followed by the appearance of a heavenly being,
whose image is almost invariably reflected in the waters below,
and that this initiates the creation of earthly man in accordance
with the heavenly image.54 However, the ‘Ophite’ version prefers
the idea of a mental image of man supplied to the archons by
Sophia when they respond to Ialdabaoth’s exhortation ‘Let us
make man in our image!’55 Valentinus too, perhaps influenced
by this, seems to have envisaged the angelic creators not having
seen a heavenly image but fashioning Adam in the name of
heavenly pre-existent Anthropos.16
176 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

As regards (b), the figure of heavenly Man is both prominent

and easily recognizable in the last two systems mentioned: in
Irenaeus 1.30 Man is the supreme Father, while in Valentinus and
the Valentinians Man is either one of the original Ogdoad or even,
according to some, the highest deity, deduced from the fact that
Christ is called ‘Son of Man’.57 Thus the versions in Irenaeus 1.30
and Valentinus which do not employ the motif of the heavenly
image could be interpreted as secondary attempts to avoid the
implication that the supreme being could possibly be seen by the
angelic creators.
In On the Origin of the World too, the figure of the heavenly
immortal man of light is equally visible, and is hinted at in the
Hypostasis.58 Again Son of Man in Irenaeus 1.30 is plainly Ennoia,
Second Man, offspring of First Man, although Christ, the son of
First and Second Man, can also be called ‘Son of Man’!59 But who
exactly is Man and, more to the point, Son of Man in the
Apocryphon? Janssens argues that Man here is clearly the First Man,
the manifestation of Pronoia and consort of Sophia,60 the image
of Barbelo, the virginal spirit, the threefold male, androgynous,61
and that his son is the Autogenes or Monogenes who is also the
Saviour.62 Giversen also identifies Man with Barbelo or Pronoia
on the basis of the occurrences of the term Metropator in II,63 and
his son with Christ who, as he notes, is called the son of
Metropator.64 But none of these candidates, Barbelo, Sophia’s
consort and Christ, are immediately recognizable as Man and Son
of Man or as appropriate as the first two figures of Irenaeus’
‘Ophites’.
Moreover, what are we to make of the figure of Adamas,
described by the Apocryphon as ‘the perfect, true Man, the first
manifestation’?65 How is he related to the First Man we have been
discussing? Full clarification of this situation will have to await
our treatment of the motif of Adam made in the divine image,
but it is worth recalling once more the apparent secondary
character of the references to the First Man in the Apocryphon-.
Barbelo becomes First Man, or the bisexual pentad of female aeons
is First Man.66 And while the Gospel of the Egyptians seems un¬
complicated in its derivation of Adamas from the First Man,67 it
does not imply that Adamas is his son, the Son of Man of the
heavenly rebuke, nor does it appear to identify Barbelo and Christ
with Man and the Son of Man as the Apocryphon evidently does.
What we would seem to have here is, as we argued in our
suggested reconstruction of the development of the myth in
 Gnostic Anthropology 177

redaction (a2), the combination of two originally separate themes

and motifs: that of Man and Son of Man associated with the
‘Ophite’ system of Irenaeus 1.30, in which Sophia rebuts the
arrogant Demiurge Ialdabaoth’s boast by referring to the supreme
figures of the system, but no heavenly image appears; and that of
the original Barbelognostic myth where in response to the
Protarchon’s claim Sophia rebukes him and appears in the guise
of the heavenly Man Adamas. We shall develop this when we come
to examine the image motif.
But in the meantime some support for this hypothesis may come
from (c), our examination of the background of Man and Son of
Man (and Adamas) in the Gnostic texts and systems where they
occur. Petrement has devoted a chapter of her book to the theme
of the God ‘Man’, and given a persuasive critique of Schenke’s
thesis that the Gnostics deduced from (a) the consubstantiality
of humanity and the divine related to (b) Gen l:26f., its creation
‘in the image of God’, that the supreme God was called ‘Man’.68
She rejects Schenke’s consubstantiality thesis as not confirmed
by the evidence and points out that ‘Son of Man’ is best explained
in terms of the Christian title of Christ in the Gospels: if he is
called Son of man it is because God the Father ought to be called
Man.69 And she points out that there is no proof that the name
Man was given to God before the Saviour was called Son of Man;
that the earliest Gnostics according to the heresiologists do not
speculate on Man; and that those who do almost invariably link
together Man and Son of Man.70 She cites the ‘Ophites’ of
Irenaeus, certain Valentinians (Iren. 1.12.4), the Naassenes and
Monoimus of Hippolytus, the Apocryphon, Sophia of Jesus Christ and
Eugnostos, the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Gospel of Philip.1'
But if all these have the association of Man and Son of Man,
reference to Adamas is only found in the Naassenes, the
Apocryphon, the Sophia and Eugnostos and the Gospel of the Egyptians,
and, what is more, in the last three in the stereotyped form ‘Adam
the eye of the light’.72 Moreover Adam is found in the same kind
of context and in association with light in such related works as
On the Origin of the World,™ the Three Steles of Seth,™ and Melchisedek.™
All this, as well as other shared elements such as signs of
Valentinian influence,76 and the Sethian character of several of
the texts which promote Adamas up the hierarchy as son of
Barbelo or descendant of First Man and father of Seth,77 suggest
the existence and development of a cluster of mythologoumena
involving Man, Son of Man and Adamas.
178 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Now if we take as a possible key to the present state of the texts

and their complicated mythologoumena the combination of two
originally distinct motifs, one of Man and Son of Man, the other
of heavenly Adamas, we can make sense of and fruitfully link
together a whole series of texts and systems in which these figures
occur. Thus systems which appear to have Man and Son of Man
only as the supreme heavenly figures include the ‘Ophites’ of
Irenaeus and Monoimus of Hippolytus. The former we have
argued is fundamentally Christian, attempting to develop a form
of Trinity in which Christ is the offspring of Man and bisexual
Son of Man’s union with the Holy Spirit, who ascends to join it
and form the heavenly Church. Monoimus’ system is very hard to
interpret, but its presentation of Man as the unoriginate eternal
monad comprising all opposites and his son as originate and
susceptible to suffering, yet generated without time, will or
forethought and responsible for creation, being the image of his
father and wrongly thought to have been born of a woman,78 does
suggest similarity to Christian ideas, particularly those of
Hebrews.79 It also contains numerous parallels to the Naassene
system, which we will be dealing with shortly.80
Speculations on Man and Son of Man also occur among the
Valentinians, perhaps partly under the influence of the ‘Ophite’
myth, as Irenaeus suggests. Thus, as we have noted, he refers to
certain Valentinians as teaching that the Forefather of all things
was called ‘Man’ and that this was why the Saviour designated
himself‘Son of Man’.81 And the figures of Man and Son of Man
who is the Lord also occur in the Gospel of Philip. Thus in a passage
dealing with the way each species produces its own kind we hear
how the elect, the children of the bridal chamber, are called ‘the
chosen people of [the Father of the All?] and the true Man and
the Son of Man and the seed of the Son of Man’.82 The last
designation would appear to refer to the Gnostics. This seems to
be echoed elsewhere where there is mention of the Son of Man
and the son of the Son of Man. The Lord is the Son of Man (who
has power both to create and beget) and the son of the Son of
Man is created through him.83 The Lord is evidently Christ, the
Son of Man with creative power from God, and the son of the
Son of Man is the Gnostic believer created by him.84 Finally there
is reference to the coming of the Son of Man in the context of
dyeing, which may be a reference to baptism.85
What is striking in all these cases is both the way the figure and
activity of the Son of Man recall Christ in his creative and saving
 Gnostic Anthropology 179

roles, and the way no allusion is made to heavenly Adamas in

relation to Man, who is either the supreme or next to supreme
being. Valentinus does refer to earthly Adam in relation to heavenly
Man, but significantly he has him made in the name of pre-existing
Man, i.e. Anthropos not Adamas, which implies that for him at
least the two motifs have not yet been combined and that he is
only aware of the theme of Man (and Son of Man?) .86 Interestingly,
too, he combines the motif of the seed with the idea of the
presence of Man in Adam.
Adamas, on the other hand, does appear in the Barbelognostic
system summarized by Irenaeus, as the perfect, true man, long
after the generation of Christ, the Only Begotten Son, and with a
female consort and offspring.87 And to him there evidently
corresponds the heavenly light-Adam(as) of On the Origin of the
World, who is first referred to obliquely by Pistis in her rebuke of
Ialdabaoth’s vain claim,88 then appears in a light in further
response to another demiurgic retort as the angelic light-Adam/
Adamas.89 Now unlike the Barbelognostic figure he is not given a
partner and may even be androgynous, as are the creatures such
as Eros for whom he is responsible,90 but he is the archetype for
the creation of Adam, which suggests his role in the continuation
of the Barbelognostic myth, and Pistis hints that it is he who will
appear in human bodies to confront and confound Ialdabaoth
and his archons.91 In both these texts and systems there does not
seem to be a place for the couple Man and Son of Man of Sophia’s
rebuke. Conversely, both seem to represent developments of the
motif in Irenaeus’ sketch of Saturninus’ system.92
Now if we recall the secondary character of the figure of Man
in the Apocryphon, identified with Barbelo, and Son of Man
with Christ, in contrast to the obvious primary character of
Adamas, the perfect true man and first manifestation, as receptacle
of light-power and archetype of earthly Adam, this would suggest
an early if not the earliest attempt to combine the two motifs, the
‘Man and Son of Man’ of Sophia’s rebuke along with Ialdabaoth
and his six sons from the ‘Ophite’ system of Irenaeus 1.30, and
the Adamas motif of the Barbelognostics of 1.29, to form our
redaction (a2) with its Valentinian colouring. Norea, despite its
allusive character, may preserve evidence of this fluid stage: it
makes no mention of Man and Son of Man or of Ialdabaoth, uses
Valentinian themes like ‘Pleroma’ and ‘deficiency’, and has
Adamas as Father of the All and present in all the Adams.93
Certainly the Naassene Preaching, whatever the precise genesis
180 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

of that complex document, clearly combines the two themes and

also echoes Valentinian ideas, presenting bisexual Adamas as Man
and Son of Man, composed of three elements (intellectual/
psychic/hylic), archetype of earthly Adam and source of the ‘inner
man’ (also Adamas) who descends into human bodies.94
Hippolytus’ presentation of Man and Son of Man as a single
supreme figure may represent a very excusable misunderstanding
on his part.90
And it is perhaps in this line of development we can best place
that most enigmatic and much contested document, Eugnostos. It
presents a hierarchy of Forefather or Father of the All, immortal
First Man, Son of Man and Saviour, the last three bisexual each
with a female counterpart called Sophia. Now not only does the
pattern recall that of the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus and the formula
quoted above from the Gospel of Philip,96 and First Man’s
designation ‘Adam [the eye] of the light’97 suggest the combina¬
tion of the two themes perhaps initiated by the Apocryphon, but
the striking parallels in the work to the Valentinian doctrinal letter
preserved by Epiphanius are best interpreted, as Scholten has
argued, as evidence that the author has constructed his system
on a predominantly Valentinian background.98
Further, in the peculiar designation, ‘Adam, the eye of the
light’, may lie the key to the connection we have hypothesized
between these texts. For it also occurs in a passage in the Gospel of
the Egyptians which appears to be aware, if clumsily, of a distinction
between Adamas as ‘the eye of the light’ and the First Man, the
Light, a figure who only occurs here and appears to be the
supreme being.99 Not only therefore does this text supply further
support for our hypothesis that the Apocryphon has combined two
originally distinct motifs, but it offers a clue to the designation
‘eye of the light’. This enigmatic expression surely only makes
sense if the Adamas who reveals himself to the creator archons of
our hypothesized original Barbelognostic myth is understood as
the vehicle for the revelation of the supreme Light-Man of the
‘Ophite’ system. The absence of a supreme light figure in Eugnostos
as referent of the designation and its application to First Man, on
the one hand, and the virtual absence of First Man in the Gospel of
the Egyptians suggest that both are attempting to fit the existing
combined motif and peculiar designation of Adamas into their
own systems.1
Such a hypothesized combination also helps to answer the
questions about which form of the heavenly rebuke is more
 Gnostic Anthropology 181

original and about the origin of the figures of Man and Son of
Man. If we assume that the heavenly rebuke was originally
anthropogonic and associated with the Man and Son of Man
scheme, then the cosmogonic versions, such as in the HypostasiS
are in all likelihood later variants, and the version involving
immortal light-Man/Adam, which On the Origin of the World,
expands into several episodes, is evidently dependent on the
combined motif as found in the ApocryphonS Further, since
Eugnostos (and the Sophiawhich is dependent on it) equally implies
the existence of the combined motif, reflects ‘Ophite’ and
Valentinian speculations about Man and displays other parallels
with Valentinianism, it seems that the earliest speculations about
Man and Son of Man are to be associated with the ‘Ophites’ and
Valentinians.
We have already argued for the Christian character of the
‘Ophite’ system and its attempt to present a kind of Trinity, with
Christ begotten of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a fourth
(also Son of Man?) and elevated with the Holy Spirit to form the
heavenly Church. He is clearly the central figure in revelation
and salvation, along with First Man, and he ultimately descends
to be united with his sister Sophia, who is the vehicle of interim
salvation of the divine and of the revelation of First Man and Christ
via the prophets in a continuing struggle with Ialdabaoth, at whose
right hand Christ sits until he rescues all the souls akin to him.
The figure of the Second Man, the Son of Man, an emanation of
the Father, seems largely redundant. Now what this picture recalls
is not the later Christianization of Schenke’s God - ‘Man’ myth
developed on the basis of allegorization of Gen l:26f., or van den
Broek’s hypothetical Platonized Jewish Anthropos-Sophia myth
as underlying Eugnostos, but Christian speculations based on the
very Wisdom and Psalms texts the early communities used to
construct their theology and Christology, on the foundation of
the four Gospels and Paul. The clearest example is of course
Hebrews, to which we have drawn frequent attention.
Thus if we consider the role of the Son of God in Hebrews 1—2,
and in particular the interpretation of Ps 8:5-7 in Heb 2:5-10, we
find the Father (Variously attested by the Old Testament prophets)
giving his final self-revelation through his son and heir (1:1—2, cf.
Ps 2:7f.; 2 Sam 7:14), by whom he created the ages (aeons!). This
son, moreover, is the express image (charakter) of his being (1:3,
cf. Wis 7:25f.); superior to and worshipped by angels as begotten
by him (1:4-6, cf. Ps 97:7); depicted as eternally enthroned,
182 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

righteous and therefore anointed by God (l:8f., cf. Ps 45:6-7);

the original and eternal creator (1:10-12, cf. Ps 102:25-27);
elevated to God’s right hand with his enemies under his feet (1:13,
cf. Ps 110:1).
Even more striking, however, is the identification of this son as
man and son of man, subordinated for a while to the angels, but
glorified, having everything under his feet (2:5-8, cf. Ps 8:5-7
LXX). Further, the continuation could be read as implying a
distinction between the heavenly Son and Jesus who is later
rewarded for his sufferings, as in the ‘Ophite’ system.4 And it is
surely significant that the latter does not include among the
prophets chosen as mouthpieces of Ialdabaoth and his archons
David (author of the Psalms) and Solomon (author of Proverbs
and Wisdom):5 what the prophets truly proclaim about God (i.e.
First Man) and Christ they unwittingly derive from Sophia.6
Again, the fleeting Valentinian references to Man and Son of
Man also fit into this Christian framework: if they do not have the
motif of the heavenly rebuke, they do present the vain claim of
the Demiurge,7 seem to interpret the figure of Man as the supreme
deity in the light of Christ’s title ‘Son of Man’, evidently no longer
understood in its New Testament sense,8 and represent Christ as
Son of Man with creative powers.9 And it is this picture of Man as
supreme or next to supreme being associated with the Son of Man
who has creative and redemptive roles as a couple or sometimes a
single figure, frequently combined with Adamas in an anthro-
pogonic context, or distinct from him in an eschatological context,
which permeates the texts which refer to Man and Son of Man.10
Finally, the eschatological motif of the heavenly true Man and
his elect trampling on the Demiurge and his powers at the final
consummation, which occurs in several texts, once again recalls
Hebrews 1 and its redoubled mention of the Son’s enemies being
put under his feet (l:13quoting Ps 110:1 and 1:8 quoting Ps8:7),n
and the paradigmatic character of Ps 8:5-7 in its Hebrews 1-2
context for the whole theme of Man/Son of Man as creator/
redeemer, might suggest that here we have a - or the - basis for
the Gnostic mythologoumenon of the Demiurge’s vain claim to
his angels and the heavenly rebuke ‘Man exists and the Son of
Man’.
Thus I would argue that both the heavenly true man Adamas
of the original Barbelognostic myth and Man and Son of Man of
the ‘Ophite’ version originate in Christian Gnostic systems; appeal
to pagan Anthropos figures or myths or to Philo’s celestial Man
 Gnostic Anthropology 183

and double creation account and Jewish Adam legends do not

really account for them, whatever contribution such sources may
have made to their subsequent development and colouring.12
Adamas represents the characteristic Gnostic back projection of
the Adam figure as heavenly archetype for the earthly version,
the protological counterpart of Christ, the Pauline second or
eschatological Adam, the true perfect man, while Man and Son
of Man derive from Gnostic speculations based on the figure of
Christ and his title in the Gospels and on the sources used by
early Christians (the Psalms in particular) to construct their
distinctive theology and Christology.

2 The appearance of the heavenly image

and its consequences

Once again the best way to structure our discussion of this part of
the myth is by reference to Irenaeus’ sketch of the views of
Saturninus. In it we can discern three main motifs: (1) the
appearance of the luminous heavenly image; (2) the reaction of
the angels; and (3) their creation of man in the divine image but
as a wriggling Golem.
As regards the first motif, the luminous heavenly image, whereas
its identity is unclear in Irenaeus’ sketch of Saturninus - one might
deduce from the fact that the heavenly being later takes pity on
the inanimate man because of his having been made in its likeness
that it is male, but the passage equally recalls the theme of the
seduction of the archons by a female figure as in e.g. the allied
Hypostasis13 - in the case of the short recension of the Apoctyphon
the figure who appears is the Father, the First Man in the form of
a man. He reveals his likeness to the seven powers who bend down
and see the form (typos) of the image (eikon) in the water and say
to one another: ‘Let us make a man in the image (eikon) of God
and in his likeness’ (cf. Gen 1:26).14 The long recension con¬
siderably expands this. It has the holy Mother-Father (metropator),
the perfect Pronoia, the image (eikon) of the invisible, the Father
of the All through whom everything came into being (cf. John
1:3), the First Man, instruct them that itwas in a man-like (andreas)
form (typos) that he (First Man?) revealed his likeness.15
This evidently represents an attempt by the redactor of LR to
make it clear that it is Barbelo, the first emanation and self¬
reflection of the totally transcendent Father who is the subject,
and not the Father, as SR appears to suggest: it is she who appears
184 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

in a masculine form. And the continuation in LR, which records

the usual accompaniments to a theophany: trembling of the
archon’s aeon, shaking of the foundations of the abyss,
illumination of the underside of the waters above matter through
the appearance of the image (eikon) which enables the archon
and his henchmen to see it in the water,16 is a further attempt by
the redactor to increase the distance between the Demiurge and
the heavenly world and emphasize the sublime and spiritual
character of the latter.17 As we shall see, LR may be more original
than SR in making Barbelo the subject, but the evident
awkwardness of both versions would further confirm our
hypothesis that the original Barbelognostic myth lacked the
supreme Man figure and had Adamas, the first true Man (or
Sophia disguised as him), and not the Father or Barbelo, appear
to the Protarchon and his powers at this point.
Indeed that Adamas, the light-Man, was the original subject of
the theophany is implied by LR through its repeated association
of the man-like image with light,18 a point which SR only suggests
later when it has the archons exclaim: ‘Let us call him [their
creation] Adam, that his name and power may become a light for
us.’19 Now this only makes sense on the basis of a combination of
two distinct motifs; (1) the Greek wordplay on phos (= man/light)
and (2) the identification of heavenly Man as Adam (as). The first
of these is found in the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus 1.30,20 the second
in his Barbelognostics!21
But what of the similar motifs in the Hypostasis and On the Origin
of the World, which not only have a female figure appear in response
to Ialdabaoth’s vain claim,22 but also present the light being called
forth by Ialdabaoth’s taunt entirely independently of the revelation
of a heavenly figure in whose image earthly Adam is fashioned,23
or distinguish the image from the light?24 The appearance of a
female figure certainly recalls Irenaeus’ sketch of Saturninus and
the motif of the seduction of the archons, while the motif of light
reflected in the dark waters of chaos suggests a Gnostic inter¬
pretation of Gen 1:2 LXX. Whereas the former appears primarily
anthropogonic (certainly in Saturninus’ version), the latter is
plainly cosmogonic. But which came first?
In his analysis of the motif in Poimandres of the reflection of the
image of heavenly Man/Anthropos in the waters of chaos and
the desire produced in Nature to unite with it,25 Jonas claims to
detect three different ideas adroitly combined which are germane
to this issue. They are (1) that of Darkness becoming enamoured
 Gnostic Anthropology 185

of Light and getting possession of it; (2) that of Light becoming

enamoured of Darkness and voluntarily sinking into it; and (3)
that of a radiation, reflection or image of the Light projected into
the Darkness below and there held fast. Version (1) he finds in
Manichaeism, (2) in a quotation from Macrobius,26 and (3) in
the Sethians and Peratae of Hippolytus, the Gnostics of Plotinus
and the ‘barbarian’ system recorded by Basilides according to
Hegemonius.27 But only the third is really relevant here, allowing
the presence of light in some form in the midst of darkness without
having to admit a genuine fall. It can be projected as a ray,28 or if
issuing from a divine figure like Sophia or Man can appear as an
image of the divine in the dark medium.29 Jonas’ analysis thus
suggests why the motif can be used both cosmogonically and
anthropogonically.
But his examples are late and the priority of the anthropogonic
version of the motif in the texts relevant to us is suggested not
only by the consistent version of the Demiurgic vain claim: ‘There
is no other [god] apart from me!’ which demands the appearance
of a pre-existent divine being to refute him, but also by the early
and primitive character of Saturninus’ system and the way the
other versions of the motif of the heavenly voice, image and
response seem to be dependent variants of the anthropogonic
one.30
As regards our second element, the reaction of the archons to
the appearance of the heavenly image, SR has the archons say to
one another: ‘Let us make a man in the image (eikon) of God and
in the’ (B) or ‘his (III) likeness’,31 whereas LR has Ialdabaoth say
to the powers beside him: ‘Come let us make a man in the image
(eikon) of God and in our likeness, that his image (eikon) be for
us a light’.32 Clearly this is an allusion to Gen 1:26 which gives a
satisfactory answer in Gnostic terms to the awkward plural of the
text - the archons are responsible - and supplies the appropriate
scriptural grounding to their view that earthly man is made in
the (external) likeness of a divine being, heavenly Man. However,
the interpretation of both has to adjust the original (i.e. the LXX
version), for SR ignores the ‘our’, preferring the ‘in the image of
God’ of v. 27, and thus interprets the archondc action, for which
it supplies no immediate motive,33 as simply copying the divine
image, while LR ascribes the address to Ialdabaoth,34 supplies a
motive (getting control of the source of light), and distinguishes
between image and likeness (eine = homoiosis)Earthly man is
made (externally) in the likeness of God, but also (internally) in
186 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

the image of the archons. However the archontic response in both

versions presupposes the figure of Adamas in association with light
as the archetype, and suggests the motive of the creation of Adam
as to gain control of the power of light.
That externally the archontic creation looks like its heavenly
original while in essence it belongs to its creators is understood
in the Hypostasis and On the Origin of the World in terms of the
Narcissus motif: the archons hope that the heavenly archetype
will fall in love with the earthly copy and thereby be captured36 or
neutralized.37 This not only depicts Ialdabaoth and his archons as
essentially negative, demonic figures, but it implies, as the texts
later confirm, that the divine element or Man is not yet present
in the earthly copy. In an obvious attempt to counterbalance this
demonized view of the Creator, both texts proceed to stress the
divine initiative and overall plan in all this, and separate the later
descent or inbreathing of the divine from any Demiurgic
contribution as suggested by Gen 2:7.38 In contrast the Apocryphon
gives a much more positive interpretation of the image-reflection
motif and the role of the Demiurge, in that the former is
interpreted not in terms of capture or neutralization but of
illumination, and the Demiurge is the vehicle of the divine light-
power which he withholds from his offspring.39 They alone are
responsible for creating earthly (or psychic) man, who, although
made in the image of heavenly Man, remains an immobile Golem
until Ialdabaoth is prevailed on to inbreathe something of his
light-power.40
Here we have a two-stage process of the formation and
animation of Adam, evidently echoing Gen 1:26 in combination
with 2:7, but based on the Barbelognostic myth and not con¬
structed directly from speculations on Gen l:26f. as Schenke has
argued. However, the two texts do function as paradigms for
Gnostic anthropology and anthropogony, and we shall have to
explore further what role they play and how they are interpreted.
Clearly what distinguishes the Apocryphon s treatment of the two
texts from that of the Hypostasis and On the Origin of the World is
the different evaluation of Ialdabaoth, but which is more original?
Again, comparison with Irenaeus’ account of Saturninus may help
decide this.
Now in this account, the most basic presentation of the
image-reflection motif, neither the theme of light-Adamas
reflected in the waters below nor the motive of gaining control
of light by creating earthly Adam in the image and with the name
 Gnostic Anthropology 187

of his heavenly archetype is explicit, nor is there any obvious

allusion to Gen 2:7. It has Adam created by seven angels ‘after
the image (eikon) and after the likeness (homoidsis)’ (of the
heavenly light-image, i.e. no distinction between archondc
image and divine likeness) as a result of their inability to detain
the heavenly image. The result, whether willed or not by the
angels, is the descent of a spark of life from the heavenly power
to elevate the wriggling Golem and give it limbs, because of its
similarity.41
This account is paralleled more or less closely by Pseudo-
Tertullian, Filaster, Epiphanius and Theodoret,42 but Filaster and
Epiphanius, unlike the others, supply desire as a motive, perhaps
conscious of the seduction of the archons motif, Epiphanius not
unexpectedly bringing out the sexual element.43 But the sketch
remains incomplete: there is no attempt to explain why the light
appeared, no explicit identification of the image (is it perhaps
bisexual Anthropos?) linking it with cosmogony as in the
Apocryphon and Hypostasis, no trace of Ialdabaoth and no adequate
explanation of the angelic motivation apart from the later hint in
Filaster and Epiphanius. Finally there is a version of the Golem
motif with no obvious allusion to Gen 2:7: the heavenly power
sends down a spark of life out of pity.44
Now while the Hypostasis represents one of the closest parallels
to Saturninus’ scheme, it presupposes, as we have seen, the
developed Barbelognostic myth of the Apocryphon while pursuing
its own concern, the origin and nature of the archons, which often
leads to an exegesis of Genesis 1-2 closer to the original text.
More explicitly than Saturninus’ system it presents the motif of
the seduction of the archons: a female heavenly figure looks down
to the lower watery regions causing her image (eine) to appear in
them. The powers of darkness fall in love with it but cannot reach
it because of their weakness.45 The text immediately stresses the
divine initiative: it is part of the plan of the supreme Father to
unite the All with the light.46 The (seven?) archons hold a council
and say ‘Come let us make a man of dust (chous) from the earth’.47
That this represents a combination of Gen 1:26 and 2:7 is
confirmed by the continuation: man is formed (plassein) from dust
according to the body (soma) of the archons and [according to
the likeness?] of God which appeared [to them] in the waters.
Their motive is then made explicit: to trap the heavenly image in
their moulded form (plasma), the co-image, which is thus to act
as a visual lure.48
188 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

The secondary character of this is evident in such features as

the glosses (female heavenly figure glossed as masculine
pneumatic; archons glossed as bisexual to reconcile female
archetype and male copy), the uneasy combination of Gen 1:26
and 2:7 which implies awareness of the Barbelognostic motif of
Adam’s creation in the likeness of heavenly Adamas, and the
insistence on the priority of the divine initiative. The peculiar
interest of the Hypostasis is evident in the way Gen 2:7 is further
reinterpreted: the Demiurge breathes into the man’s face so that
he becomes psychic, but a Golem whom the powers cannot raise
because of their weakness, even as, despite their persistence, they
cannot trap the image which had appeared to them because of
their ignorance of its power.49 And it is only after the Spirit sees
the psychic man on the earth, comes forth from the adamantine
(adamantinos) earth, descends and settles in him that man
becomes a living soul (psyche, cf. Gen 2:7) and is named Adam
since he was found moving on the ground. ’0
This version of Adam’s creation and animation in three
stages (moulded as choic by the archons in their (bisexual) image
and in the likeness of the divine being who appeared to them,
inbreathed as psychic by Ialdabaoth/Saklas, animated as
pneumatic by the Spirit from above) represents an obvious
conflation of elements from Gen l:26f. and 2:7 in addition to
the image-reflection motif, which suggests further influence
from Genesis 1 (reflection in the waters of chaos). Gen 2:7 is
employed not only to suggest humanity’s original incomplete
choic stage but also a second psychic stage through the
inbreathing of the Demiurge.31 But this stage is really irrelevant;
the psychic element he contributes makes no appreciable
difference. The real animating element is the spirit sent down
from heaven as a gift. What is new and awkward in comparison
with Saturninus is precisely the introduction of Gen 2:7 into the
motif with its reference to the choic element and the inbreathing
Creator. Although the effect is to create a three-fold cosmological
and anthropological scheme which suggests Valentinian
influence,32 the more obvious source of the use of Gen 2:7 in
connection with 1:26 is the Apocryphon, particularly its (a2)
redaction combining ‘Ophite’ and Valentinian ideas. The same
goes for On the Origin of the Worlds Even though both texts seem
at times closer to Saturninus’ scheme than the Apocryphon does,
overall they suggest an ultimate awareness of and dependence on
the latter.34
 Gnostic Anthropology 189

3 The multiple creations of Adam

Although the series of divine moves and archontic countermoves

in the creation and animation of Adam, as presented by the
Apocryphon and related texts, properly belongs to soteriology,00
the variety of creations has a strong claim to be treated in the
context of anthropology. We shall look briefly therefore at the
way the creation of Adam is presented, first in terms of his
formation by seven powers,06 then of his arrangement by 360 (or
365) angels but as a Golem unable to move,57 and finally of his
being trapped in a material body composed of the four elements,
earth, water, fire and air.°8
On the first point, man’s creation by the seven powers, unlike
the author of the Hypostasis and certain Valentinians who in
accordance with Gen 2:7 have the archons create him from dust
as choic,59 the Apocryphon presents this first creation as psychic.
According to SR each power (the archons appear to be the
subject)60 creates a soul from his own power after the divine image
in imitation of the first perfect man.61 LR speaks instead of the
powers creating by means of each other’s powers in accordance
with the signs given them, each power supplying a characteristic
according to the form (typos) of the image (eikon) he had seen in
its (or from his) psychic (form? nature?) .62 And LR adds that each
created a hypostasis after the likeness of the first perfect man.63
This latter version looks like yet another attempt by the redactor
of LR to separate the Demiurge and his henchmen and their
creative activity from the supreme divine world: they do not see
even the original image, the first man, merely the form (typos)
reflected in the waters which, as Tardieu suggests, they interpret
in terms of the only form they know, their own.64
Then follows the archontic naming of Adam, which, as we
noted above, implies that the original image they saw was indeed
heavenly light-Adamas. Here the LR version ( Let us call him
Adam so that his name may be a power of light for us’)6° is evidently
preferable to SR which associates power with the name.66
The powers begin the process, but while all four texts are in
almost total agreement about the psychic substances created,
respectively bone, sinew, flesh, marrow, blood, skin and hair,67
the two recensions differ in their list of the powers, LR
reproducing its earlier order (goodness, providence, divinity,
lordship, kingship, zeal, understanding (mhtrrnhhet)),68 SR
presenting its earlier order with the first-mentioned power in
190 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

fourth position (divinity, lordship, zeal, providence, kingship,

understanding, wisdom (sophia)).69 As we have already argued,70
the list of psychic substances ought to begin with the marrow, as
SR seems to be aware by its change of order in the case of
providence. Certainly the version preserved in Theodore bar
Konai and attributed to the fourth-century Audians appears closer
to SR.71 Similarly On the Origin of the World has the seven archons
form man in their image but in the likeness of light-Adam. Each
was responsible for a part of his moulded body (plasma, cf. Gen
2:7), their chief (i.e. Ialdabaoth) creating the head and marrow.72
Man thus formed is described as becoming psychic (psychikos) ,73
although the text stoutly denies that he yet has a soul.74 He is a
lifeless Golem, first animated by Sophia Zoe’s inbreathing.75
Here, as with the similar picture in the Hypostasis, man’s creation
is painted in dark colours; he is a Golem, made of earth by seven
powers which are hostile and demonic, despite their positive
names. We may have traces here of what Jonas has described as
the planetary equipping of the soul.76 The seven appear to be
planetary powers, as they have become in redaction (a3) of the
Apocryphon, and as are the seven governors of the Poimandres who,
although presented in a positive light in the cosmogony, later
appear much more hostile. Hence heavenly Man is given some¬
thing from and so shares the nature of each of the seven governors,
offspring of the second highest divine being, identified with the
planetary spheres and responsible for fate (heimarmene) ,77 but his
earthly counterpart, enslaved to fate, in his ascent must strip off
the negative characteristics belonging to each of the spheres.78
And in the Apocryphon, as we shall see, the production of fate by
the First Archon and his powers is described as a wicked and
perverse plan.79 But because the Barbelognosdc and ‘Ophite’
myths underlying the Apocryphon represent Ialdabaoth as the
vehicle of the divine light-power which he inbreathes into Adam,
they have a much more positive view of him at this point, and
utilize Gen 2:7 to express that (spiritual) inbreathing and suggest
that Adam was first created psychic.
But that the Apocryphon s depicdon of the first archontic creation
as a psychic one is not original, and rather part of the ‘Sethian’
redaction (a3), is suggested by the fact that in both On the Origin
of the World and the Audian excerpt preserved by Theodore bar
Konai, there is no hint of such a psychic creation. Nor is there in
the extensive lists of Manichaean, Mazdaean and other passages
that Tardieu adduces as influenced by our Apocryphon.80 He may
 Gnostic Anthropology 191

be correct to detect the influence of a ‘Book of Zoroaster’ on

the passage about the seven soul substances, but he is not justified
in deriving the whole passage, and with it the underlying
Barbelognostic myth, from his ‘Chaldaean’ source. Conversely,
the centrality of Seth with his seed as spiritual in Valentinian
systems, and their interpretation of the Demiurge as psychic and
responsible for the psychic element, may well have considerably
influenced those responsible for the ‘Sethian’ reinterpretation
of the Barbelognostic myth.81
The Apocryphon then proceeds to involve the angels associated
with the powers in this psychic creation. The version in II is the
clearest at this point: it has the multitude of angels receive from
the powers the seven psychic substances to create the composition
of the limbs and the interconnection of all the parts.82 SR
compresses their activity into a single sentence while LR goes into
elaborate detail.83 Here Tardieu is probably right to see the source
of this description of the parts of the psychic body as the ‘Book of
Zoroaster’ mentioned by LR: SR has omitted the detailed
description of the activity of 360 angels, while LR, which speaks
of 365, has made selective use of it.84 The preference of LR for
365 is, as I have already suggested,85 thus due to its anthropological
source: SR remains faithful to its astrological 360.86
But despite their efforts Adam remains inert (LR adds ‘and
immobile’) for a long time, SR explaining that this was because
of the inability of the seven powers and 360 angels to raise him
up.87 Here finally we have the Apocryphon s version of the Golem
motif, the third anthropological element in Irenaeus’ sketch of
Saturninus. But in contrast to it and the ‘Ophite’ version of
Irenaeus, Adam here, despite being psychic, remains immobile,
as in the Hypostasis, On the Origin of the World and Naassene
Preaching.88 Only later, as we shall see in the following chapter,
does he move when inbreathed by Ialdabaoth with his light-power
(i.e. Gen 2:7).89
Finally the Apocryphon relates how the archons and their powers,
disturbed by the superiority of the animated Adam, formed
another creature of the four elements and put it on Adam as a
tomb or fetter.90 This is one of a series of moves and countermoves
by the Demiurge and his powers in reaction to the animation (i.e.
redemption) of Adam by a series of redeemer figures and
redemptive acts which we will examine in detail in the following
chapter. Suffice it to say that Sophia had asked for help for
immobile Adam. The Autogenes Christ had descended with the
192 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

four illuminators, disguised as angels of the First Archon, and

persuaded him to breathe some of his spirit (the light-power) into
Adam. As a result he moved and became superior to his creators.
They in turn brought him down to the regions beneath matter,
to which the supreme Father responded by sending as a helper
(cf. Gen 2:18?) the Epinoia of light who once more elevates him
above his creators.91
Then follows the motif of psychic man being trapped in a
material body composed of the four elements. The archons and
their powers mingle fire, earth and water with the four fiery winds,
bring Adam into the shadow of death and form another creation
as a cave or tomb, the fetter of oblivion, from the four elements
characteristically reinterpreted as matter, darkness, desire and the
opposing (B, II) or counterfeit (III) spirit.92 The psychic man is
thus trapped in the material body. This explanation of earthly
man’s origin may represent further reinterpretation of Gen 2:7,9:1
although it also suggests Greek ideas.94 But certainly the other
texts in which we find it, namely the Poimandres,95 Zosimus (who
sees it as Chaldaean lore) ,96 and certain Christian apocrypha,97
suggest a combination of Jewish and Greek influences.98
This picture of an original incomplete psychic creation involving
a multitude of creators, followed by a material creation as a trap
for the creature animated from above, is one way of explaining
how man came to be a union of soul and body in which was also
present a divine spark or spirit which represented his true essential
self. Another explanation more in line with the Fall account in
Genesis 3 is offered by the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus. When originally
created, Adam and Eve had as it were spiritual bodies, but once
cast out of paradise these became more sluggish, as did their souls,
since their creator had only inbreathed a worldly breath. Sophia
Prunicus took pity on them and restored a whiff of the sweetness
of the dew of light whereby they recognized their nudity, material
bodies and mortality.99
We find a similar motif in the Apocalypse of Adam, where Adam
and Eve, although created of earth, possess through Eve a glory
from the aeon from which they had derived and knowledge of
the eternal God, and thus are superior to the Demiurge who had
created them. When the Demiurge in wrath divides them they
lose that glory and knowledge and become slaves of the Demiurge,
under the power of death. But Adam is awakened from his oblivion
by three revealer figures who foretell the future of the Gnostics,
the seed of Adam’s son, Seth.1
 Gnostic Anthropology 193

The last two texts are clearly influenced by Jewish traditions

about Adam, but all three, despite their different ways of
presenting man’s fall into the world of matter, insist that the divine
is something in addition to his natural endowments of body and
soul, the handiwork of the Demiurge. It comes to him from above,
be it described as the Epinoia of light, a dew of light or glory and
knowledge. And precisely the same is true of Valentinian
anthropology. The spirit or seed is sown from above and is not a
natural endowment.2 Very few in fact possess it.3

4 The creation of Eve

It would not be proper to conclude a treatment of Gnostic

anthropology without some reference to the creation of the
first woman. But despite the crucial importance of the
feminine principle for the Apocryphon, the ‘Ophites , the
Valentinians and others, the earthly Eve does not play a signifi¬
cant role in Gnostic anthropology. She occurs in the Gnostic
Paradise accounts which are best interpreted as soteriological
rather than anthropological statements. They represent our
human plight and redemption in terms of the events of Genesis,
the trees of Paradise, the naming of the animals, Adam’s sleep
and the creation of Eve, the serpent, Adam and Eve’s transgression
and expulsion, the birth of Cain, Abel and Seth and so on. Earthly
Eve is frequently transmuted into the heavenly spiritual woman,
the Instructor, who comes to sleeping Adam, awakens him and
raises him up.4
However both the Apocryphon and the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus
relate the creation of earthly Eve as a device of Ialdabaoth to empty
Adam of his light-power.5 The former has him cast oblivion (not
sleep as in Gen 2:21) over Adam in an attempt to bring out the
Epinoia of light concealed in him. This fails and so he tries again.
But here the versions differ. The short recension simply has him
decide to take the power from Adam, make another creature in
female form and raise her up before him, not, as Moses said, ‘he
took a rib .. .’ (a further correction of Gen 2:21f.).6 The long
recension, however, in an attempt to clarify and improve this, has
Ialdabaoth take part of his power, fashion a female in the likeness
of the Epinoia and transfer into her the part (not his rib as in
Gen 2:21 f.) he had taken from the man’s power.7 In rather similar
fashion the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus have Ialdabaoth, full of jealousy,
devise a scheme to empty the man by means of a woman. He brings
194 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

forth from his (i.e. Adam’s) thought (enthymesis) a woman whom

Prunicus invisibly empties of power.8
The Hypostasis also appears to envisage Eve’s creation as an
archontic plan to empty Adam of his spirit. Following Genesis
more closely, it has them cast a deep sleep, similarly interpreted
as ignorance, over Adam. They then open up his side like a living
woman and build it up with flesh in her place (Gen 2:21).
Thereupon Adam becomes completely psychic.9 Bullard is prob¬
ably correct to interpret this in terms of the original bisexuality
of Adam: his female side is removed and formed into a living
woman, the spiritual woman, thus depriving him of spirit, and
the gap is filled up with flesh.10 But the spiritual woman at once
awakens and animates Adam,11 and later appears in the guise of
the serpent Instructor,12 which suggests that her role is more
soteriological than anthropological. The abrupt mention of the
fleshly woman indicates that the text has not worked out a
satisfactory way of combining the Gnostic interpretation of Eve
as the spiritual woman with the account in Genesis to which,
nevertheless, it tries to remain faithful.
On the Origin of the World solves this problem by abandoning the
idea that Eve was in any sense formed from Adam, while
developing the idea of Eve as the spiritual woman who produces
psychic Adam and as the Instructor awakens him. The archontic
reaction to this is to try to ravish her so that once defiled she will
be unable to return to her light. They will then bring an oblivion
over Adam and mislead him into believing that she originated
from his rib, thus making her subservient to him.13 Needless to
say, Eve is well aware of their plans and leaves her (psychic?)
likeness behind for them to defile. What in fact they do defile is
their own body!14
In these Gnostic texts Eve is interpreted in two ways: (1) she is
a redeemer figure, the spiritual woman awakening Adam from
his stupor (Apocryphon, Hypostasis, On the Origin)', and (2) her
separation from Adam marks the beginning of the processes of
generation, decay and death (Valentinians,15 Apocalypse of Adam,
Poimandres). Indeed, some texts attempt to relate both ideas. In
the Apocryphon and Irenaeus’ ‘Ophites’ on the one hand, Eve is a
vehicle of light-power but also the originator of reproduction,
whereas on the other, On the Origin of the World distinguishes the
spiritual Eve who remains unaffected by the archons’ sexual
overtures, from the psychic or fleshly Eve, her likeness, who is the
actual object of them.
 Gnostic Anthropology 195

Conclusion

Having concluded our analysis of the fundamental mytho-

logoumena of Gnostic anthropology and anthropogony, let us
summarize our findings. As a result of our preliminary analysis
we noted three basic anthropological theories: (1) that heavenly
Primal Man or his image fell or descended into matter; (2) that
earthly man was made in the image of God, or heavenly Man, an
emanation from God; and (3) that a part of earthly man is
consubstantial with the Godhead. The last appeared to us to be
the most comprehensive and the one best suited to express the
basic anthropological dualism of divine spirit versus body and soul
which characterizes Gnostic theology.
We then considered the initial anthropogonic impulse, the vain
claim of the Demiurge and the response from heaven, examining
the significance and background of the figures of Man and Son
of Man. We concluded that the originally independent motifs of
‘Ophite’ Man and Son of Man and Barbelognostic Adamas had
been combined by our Apocryphon, a hypothesis which enabled a
whole spectrum of texts dealing with these figures to be
understood and interrelated. And we argued for the Christian
background to such figures based on speculations such as are
found in Hebrews 1-2. We further suggested the priority of the
anthropogonic version of the motif of Demiurgic boast and
heavenly response to the cosmogonic version, and the essentially
Christian character of the earliest forms of it, those of the ‘Ophites’
and Valentinians.
Then, as regards the appearance of a heavenly image and its
consequences, we noted three motifs; (1) the appearance, (2)
the angelic response; and (3) the creation of Adam as a Golem.
Here we pointed to the centrality of Gen 1:26 in combination
with 2:7 as pioneered by the Apocryphon, and the difference of
interpretation arising from the varied evaluation of the Demiurge,
more positive in systems where he is the vehicle of the divine,
more negative where he is not.
We went on to analyse the multiple creations of Adam attested
in the Apocryphon, suggesting that its picture of an initial psychic
creation of Adam as Golem might represent part of the later
‘Sethian’ redaction, borrowing from a ‘Book of Zoroaster’. We
noted the likely influence of both Jewish and Greek sources on
the following account of a material body created from the four
elements as a trap for Adam animated from heaven. And finally
196 Notes to pages 16 7-168

we considered the motif of the creation of Eve as a device to empty

Adam of his power, noting the two interpretations of her as (1) a
heavenly redeemer figure (possibly based on the Barbelognostic
consort of Adamas and/or Sophia), and (2) representing the
beginning of separation and death, the object of archontic lust.
This picture of multiple creations of Adam, the ambiguity of
the Eve figure in the context of divine move and archontic
countermove, is evidently meant to illustrate and explain the
Gnostic sense of being a divine spirit trapped in a body with a
soul, governed by demonically inspired passions and fate and
buried in matter, to whom revelation/salvation comes not as a
permanent possession or natural endowment but as a gracious
gift or series of gifts. This again confirms the centrality of the
theme of the consubstantiality of redeemed and redeemer, of the
divine spirit, spark, ‘self or ‘inner man’ in the Gnostic elect.

Notes

1 This definition is able to encompass even such an uncharacteristic

system as that of the Basilidians of Hippolytus (Ref. 7.21.1-4; 27.Ilf.);
cf. W. Foerster, ‘Das System des Basilides’ NTS 9 (1962/3), 233-55;
Gnosis 1 62-4.
2 In what follows ‘man/he’ is used to include male and female purely
for convenience and as a common translation of the Greek anthropos
which, of course, means ‘human being’.
3 Dichotomous: e.g. Saturninus in Iren. 1.24.1 (body plus spark of life
- but see below); the system described by Zosimus, Omega 12 (Scott-
Ferguson, Hermetica 4.107 (man of four elements plus inner spiritual
man)); Poimandres, CH 1.15 (mortal body and immortal inner man);
and in Manichaeism according to the Kephalaia 65; Theodore bar Konai,
Schol. 11 (A. Adam, Texte zum Manichdismus 22f.); Ibn al Nadim, Fihrist
(ed. Flugel, (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1862), 101), etc. (mortal body and
immortal soul); trichotomous: e.g. the Baruch of Justin (Hipp. Ref.
5.26.7L: body, soul and spirit); the ‘Ophites’ (Iren. 1.30.13f.: body, soul
and spirit or trace of light, but see below); and AJ (B 48.14, 55.13 and
par.: material body, psychic body and light-power, but see below).; in
combination in e.g. the Naassenes of Hippolytus where we hear both of
the soul or inner man imprisoned in the earthly body (Ref. 5.7.30, 36),
and of the three elements or types of soul in man (5.6.6f.; 8.2-4); fourfold
in, e.g. the Ptolemaic school of Valentinians according to Iren. 1.5.5f.
and Exc. ex Theod. 50.1-52.3; 53-55.1 (hylic soul, psychic soul, spiritual
soul and flesh). But here only the hylic and fleshly are natural; the
psychic and spiritual are gifts. This Valentinian division may reflect the
 Notes to pages 169-171 197

Platonic scheme of body plus threefold soul (irrational/spirited/rational

divine). Cf. Tim. 69B-71A; 73B-D. See on this G. Quispel, ‘La con¬
ception de l’homme dans la gnose valentinienne’, Gnostic Studies 1
(Istanbul, 1974), 48ff. But more important surely is the influence of
Christian anthropology and the desire to adapt to it, evident in the
intermediate category of the psychics or Great Church Christians, saved
by works, and the spiritual as a fourth element transmitted through the
Demiurge and found only in a few elect by grace, not nature.
4 Iren. 1.24.1.
5 Separate 105. Cf. Iren. 1.24.1-2.
6 105.
7 But, cf. Rousseau-Doutreleau SC 264, 323 and 263 notes justificatives
ad loc., translating this ‘le mit debout’.
8 1.24.2.
9 Cf. e.g. HA 86.28-88.16 (Incorruptibility, a female figure); OW
103.2-32 (Pistis Sophia); 107.25-108.25; 112.25-113.10 (Light-Adam).
On this, see Y. Janssens, ‘Le theme de la fornication des anges’ in Bianchi,
Origini 488-94.
10 CH 1.12-17.
11 Cf. ‘On the Evangel of Seth’ in E. Preuschen, ‘Die apokryphen
gnostischen Adamschriften’ in Festgrufi Bernhard Stade (Giessen: Ricker,
1900), 199; Die Schatzhohle, ed. C. Bezold (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1883), 1 Off.;
‘The Books of the Rolls’ ff. 102a-106a in Apocrypha Arabica (Studia
Sinaitica VIII), ed. M. D. Gibson, 18-22; The Book of Adam andEve, trans.
S. C. Malan (London, 1882), 118-21. See also L. Ginzberg, The Legends
of the fews (Philadelphia, 1909-38), 1, 121 ff.; 5, 149f„ 172; Epiph. Pan.
39.2.1-7.
12 Valentinians, cf. Iren. 1.6.1; 7.5; Exc. ex Theod. 54.1-3; Tri. Trac.
118.14-23; three principles systems, see Foerster, Gnosis 1 chs 14-19;
Rudolph, Gnosis 9If.
13 Gott ‘Mensch’.
14 Bousset, Hauptprobleme, ch. 4, ‘Der Urmensch’ (160-220);
R. Reitzenstein, Poimandres (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904), esp. 101-8, 249;
Das iranische Erlosungsmysterium (Bonn, 1921), 116.
13 Hauptprobleme 215.
16 Gott ‘Mensch’ 19.
17Erlosungsmysterium 116. See Schenke, Gott ‘Mensch’20.
18 Bousset, Hauptprobleme 167-70; Reitzenstein, Poimandres 81ff.
19 Ibid. His reconstruction of the supposed original is on 83-97. On
the Old Testament quotations inhering in this original, see Wilson,
Problem 133, n. 27.
20 Glaubende 18.
21 Glaubende 59f., citing the criticisms of C. Colpe, Die Religions-
geschichtliche Schule: Darstellung und Kritik ihres Bildes vom gnostischen Erloser
(FRLANT 78) (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961). Cf. also
198 Notes to pages 171-172

Schenke, Gott ‘Mensch’ 16-33; ‘Die neutestamentliche Christologie und

der gnostische Erloser” in K.-W. Trdger ed., Gnosis und Neues Testament:
Studien aus Religionswissenschaft und Theologie (Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1973), 210; Perkins, Gnosticism 30, 94, etc.
22 ‘Der gnostische Anthropos und die judische Tradition’, Eranos
Jahrbuch 22 (Zurich, 1954), 195-234 (= Gnostic Studies 1 173-95).
23 ‘Anthropos’ 201f. (= Studies 1 178).
24 ‘Anthropos’ 214 (= Studies 188).
25 ‘Anthropos’ 197 (= Studies 174): ‘Schon hier begegnet uns das
eigentliche Thema der gnostischen Anthropologie, das Verhaltnis vom
gottlichen Urbild und menschlichen Abbild, welches als eine Einheit
und Wesensgleichheit der Gegensatze aufgefasst wird. Dieses Thema
kehrt nur ... in tausendfachen Variationen in der Geschichte der Gnosis
wieder.’
26 Imago Dei: Gen. l:26f im Spatjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den
paulinischen Briefen (FRLANT 76) (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1960), 122-70, esp. 122f. Similarly K. Rudolph, ‘Ein Grundtyp
gnostischer Urmensch Spekulation’, ZRGG 9 (1957), 1-20. The inter¬
pretation of Gen 1:26 in AJ (the image of Primal Man appears to archons
who create man in the image, but he is incomplete and is animated
from heaven) represents the fundamental type of Gnostic anthropology.
27 Imago 136f., n. 63.
28 169f.
29 The same arguments also apply to Schenke, Gott ‘Mensch’38ff., who
also sees the eikon motif with reference to Gen 1:26 as fundamental,
although he does interpret it in terms of the consubstantiality idea he
finds in the texts, particularly AJ: man’s essential unity consists as much
in divine form (image) as in divine content (light-power).
30 ‘Jewish and Platonic Speculations in Early Alexandrian Theology:
Eugnostus, Philo, Valentinus and Origen’, in B. A. Pearson, J. E.
Goehring eds, The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (SAC 1) (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1986), 190-203.
31 Separate 103-7.
32 Separate 450-61. Cf. Scholten, Mysterium 240-52, for a similar
conclusion.
33 Jonas, Gnosis V, 143-6; Schottroff, Glaubende 36ff.; Rudolph, Gnosis
88f.
34 Thus, as Schottroff points out, Glaubende 14ff., whereas the soul or
psychic element is ambivalent in Valentinianism, able to share in an
intermediate level of salvation, in the Naassene Preaching it is a hostile
element. Cf. Rudolph, Gnosis 91, on the reversal of soul and spirit in
Mandaeism.
35 See e.g. his Theology of the New Testament 1 (London: SCM, 1952),
168, 178, 182. On this whole problem, see Schottroff, ‘Animae’ 67ff.
36 Cf. ‘Conception’ 249-86, esp. 274ff. (= Studies 1 50).
 Notes to pages 172-174 199

37 ‘Animae’ esp. 65-8, 84-97. See E. Pagels, ‘The Valentinian Claim

to Esoteric Exegesis of Romans as Basis for Anthropological Theory’,
VC 26 (1972), 241-58, for a critique of the debate between Bultmann
and Schottroff.
38 The centrality of the ‘Ophite’ myth along with that of AJfor Gnostic
anthropology is evident from their prominence in ancient and modern
treatments. Irenaeus’ account in 1.30 is by far the longest in his
heresiological catalogue; Schottroff takes as the central theme of Gnostic
theology the statement in 1.30.8: ‘uti neque maledictionem participaret,
neque opprobrium is qui esset a principalitate spiritus’ {Glaubende 78,
82, 98); Quispel finds the original form of his projected Jewish-Gnostic
myth readily recognizable in AJ and Iren. 1.30. Cf. also Rudolph,
‘Grundtyp’ passim:, Schenke, Gott ‘Mensch ’; Turner, ‘Sethian Gnosticism’
59f., etc.
39 ‘The Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia: Jewish Traditions in
Gnostic Revolt’ in Layton, Rediscovery 2.689-712.
40 ‘Arrogant’ 693f.
41 ‘Arrogant’ 695-7.
42 ‘Arrogant’ 693-9. They include Iren. 1.5.4; 29.4; 30.6; Hipp. Ref.
5.26.15; Epiph. Pan. 25.2.3; AJ B 44.14f. and par; HA 86.30f.; 94.21L;
95.5; OW103.11-13; 107.30f.; GEIII 58.24-6; Treat. Seth 53.30f.; 64.19-
26. See also Schottroff, Glaubende 50, n.l.
43 Cf. Testim. Truth (C IX,3) 48.4-8, which also puts Exod 20:5 into
the mouth of the Demiurge, but does not mention his claim to be God.
On this theme, see Logan, ‘The Jealousy of God: Exod. 20:5 in
Gnostic and Rabbinic Theology’, Studia Biblica 1978 1. Papers on
Old Testament and Related Themes (JSOT Supplement Series, 11)
(Sheffield Academic Press, 1979), 197-203.
44 B 47.14—16/III 21.16-18; II 14.13-15/IV 22.17-20. All four texts
appear to be identical in reading fshoop hjiprdme auo pshere mprome. The
mention in LR that the voice came from the exalted aeon heaven implies
both awareness that Sophia may originally have been the source and
the need to exclude that - the voice comes to her from above - and the
spiritualizing tendency of LR to emphasize the distance between
Ialdabaoth and the heavenly world. The motif of the heavenly voice,
the bath qol of Jewish and particularly rabbinic sources (see G. F. Moore,
Judaism 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), 42If.), can be used by Gnostics
both cosmogonically to explain how the primal mixture of light and
darkness occurred, as e.g. in HA 94.23f., or christologically, as e.g. in
Treat. Seth 51.20-54.16. But its most natural and probably original context
is anthropogonical, since the consistent form of the claim ‘there is no
other [god] apart from me’ requires the appearance of a pre-existing
divine being to refute him.
45 B 47.16—20/III 21.18-21; II 14.15-18/IV 22.21-5. SR has the voice
come to Sophia, hence the omission of any reference to Ialdabaoth’s
200 Notes to pages 174-176

error. Janssens’ explanation, Museon 84, 409, that the voice is to

encourage her is further evidence of the artificiality of AJ s present
scheme, since her consort, First Man, has just descended to her and she
has been elevated. Against Tardieu’s supposition, Ecrits 120, that the
voice came to the lower hebdomad, is not only the remoteness of the
supposed referent and the fact that Ialdabaoth follows as the subject,
but the omission by LR of any mention of the object addressed, evidently
because of the awkwardness of the phrase. That Ialdabaoth did not
recognize where the voice came from (II 14.18/IV 22.24f.), an element
lacking in the lacunous and confused SR, may be a further attempt to
emphasize the ignorance of Ialdabaoth and his distance from the
heavenly world.
46 Glaubende 22, 79. This, of course, is the thrust of redaction (a2).
47 GE III 59.If. simply speaks of a voice coming from above (cf. AJ II
14.13f./IV 22.17-19), with no further identification apart from the fact
that the image which appears simultaneously and descends is said to be
like the voice. To make sense of the passage one has to infer the course
of events found, e.g. in AJ: the heavenly voice and (male?) image
corresponding to it which the archons see and imitate. On the funda¬
mental theme of voice-image-response in AJ (and TP), see ch. 7, section
3.
48 AJ B 47.14—16/III 21.l7f.; II 14.14f./IV 22.19f. (‘fshoop nji prome
auo pshere mpromej; GE III 59.2 (‘fshoop nji prome mn pshere
nprome’). This stereotyped formula suggests the Greek original: ‘estin
[ho] anthropos kai [ho] huios anthropou’.
49 1.30.6. Harvey supplies kai Anthropos to correspond to the Latin.
50 103.19f.
31 The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man (SBT second series 14) (London:
SCM, 1970), 107.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid. n. 185. Unfortunately he does not suggest what the variants
might have been or how the original statement might have read.
34 Cf. AJB 47.20-48.14/III 21.21-22.6; II 14.18-15.3/IV 22.25-23.18;
OWT03.28-32 (Sophia appears; cf. 107.17-108.31, light and Light-Adam
appear); 112.25—113.12 (Light-Adam is seen by the archons who decide
to create earthly man in the divine image); GE III 59.4-10 (see n. 47
above). Cf. HA 87.11-33 which follows the Great Archon’s blasphemy
and the heavenly rebuke with the appearance of a female being,
Incorruptibility, whose image is seen in the waters and copied by the
archons.
33 1.30.6: ‘sex autem virtutes audientes haec, matre dante illis
excogitationem hominis . . . formaverunt hominem.’
36 Frag. 1 in Clem. Alex. Strom. 2.8.36.
37 Cf. Iren. 1.30 passim, Valentinus, frag. 1 (see previous note); Iren.
1.1.1; 1.12.4.
 Notes to pages 176-177 201

58 Cf. OW103.19-28; HA 96.33-97.9.

59 Cf. 1.30.13.
60 Museon 84, 409. Cf. also 62f. On First Man, cf. B 27.19f./III 7.23f.; II
5.7/IV 7.17; B 29.10/III 9.4f.; II 6.3f./IV 9.3; II 15.10/IV 23.27f.
61 44f. referring to B 27.17-28.4/III 7.22-8.5; II 5.4-10/IV 7.20-7.
62 Cf B 30 and Museon 84, 49-54.
63 Apocryphon 239f. Cf. II 5.6ff„ 14.19ff. and n. 61 above. Tardieu, Ecrits
298, makes the same identification, failing to recall his ascription of the
title in II 5.6 to a later scholiast, and claiming that SR omitted the list of
titles here.
64 Cf. II 6.16/IV 9.19f. This passage is unique to LR.
65 Cf. B 35.3-5/III 13.1-3; II 8.32f.
66 Cf. B 27.19f. and par; B 29.10 and par. and Monoimus (Hipp. Ref.
8.12.6-13.4).
67 Cf. Ill 49.8-12. The parallel in the often more accurate version in
IV (61.8-14), although lacunous, appears to suggest that Adamas is
himself the first man, but the description that follows applies best to
the supreme Father. Cf. Bohlig-Wisse, Gospel 177.
68 Separate Part 1, ch. 4, esp. 103-7.
69 Separate 105f.
70 105f.
71 107: ‘Ophites’, Iren. 1.30.1,13; Valentinians, Iren. 1.12.4; Naassenes,
Hipp. Ref. 5.6.4; 10.9.1; Monoimus, Hipp. Ref. 8.12.2, 4; 13.3; 10.17.1; A]
B 47.15-16 and par; SJC B 98.11—12/III 104.If.; Fug III 85.10-12.
72 Cf. SJCB 100.14/III 105.12f., adding ‘because he came from light’;
EugV 9.24 (in lacuna, but seems probable)/III 81.12 (‘Adam of the
light’); GETV 61.8—10/111 49.8f. (‘Adamas, the shining light’ clearly a
paraphrase of a misunderstood expression).
73 Cf. 103.19-28; 108.20-24; 112.10, 25; ll7.28f.
74 118.26-119.11.
75 6.5f.
76 E.g. the theme of the three elements or types, spiritual, psychic and
earthly in association with Adam found both in OW117.28—118.3 (three
Adams: spiritual, psychic, choic); 122.6-9 (three races) and the
Naassenes (Hipp. Ref. 5.6.6f. (three elements in Adamas: intellectual,
psychic, choic)), and the motif of ‘kinglessness’ in OW 124.33-125.11;
127.10-17 and the Naassenes (Ref. 5.8.30, which Bergmeier,
‘Koniglosigkeit’ 322-8, has argued is only explicable from
Valentinianism). Gos. Phil, is usually classed as Valentinian, and we have
already noted the Valentinian influence on AJ. J. Frickel, ‘Naassener
oder Valentinianer?’, in Krause, Gnosis and Gnosticism (NHS 17) 95—
119, considers the Naassenes and Valentinians as dependent on an older
Christian Gnostic tradition, while Petrement, Separate357, would argue
for the dependence of the former on the latter. Edwards, Gnostics ,
etc. would, however, distinguish the Gnostic Naassene Preaching from
202 Notes to pages 177-179

Valentinianism. On the likelihood of Eug being dependent on

Valentinianism rather than vice versa, see ch. 3, n. 36, p. 104.
77 Cf. e.g. Steles Seth 118.24-121.25 (Pigeradamas as the Self-Begotten
aeon, above which is the First-Appearing aeon Barbelo); Zost. 6.21-29;
13.1-6 (hierarchy of supreme Hidden One, First-Appearing One
(Barbelo), Self-Begotten Geradamas, his son Seth Emmacha Seth);
Melch. 6.5f. GE III 49.1-16/IV 60.30-61.18 has Adamas derived via a
female entity, Mirothoe, from First Man, and the latter descend to annul
the deficiency, a favourite Valentinian theme.
78 Hipp. Ref. 8.12.1-13.4.
79 The editor of Hippolytus, Wendland, detects possible allusions to
John 1:1-3, Matt 5:18; Luke 16:17; Col 1:19; 2:9, and Matt 11:27 in this
passage.
80 On the parallels, identity of the systems and possibility that
Monoimus was the author of Hippolytus’ Naassene source, see R. P.
Casey, ‘Naassenes and Ophites’, JTS27 (1926), 374f.
81 1.12.4. Cf. also the Valentinian doctrinal letter in Epiph. Pan. 31.5.5
(Father of Truth as ‘Man’ as antitype of the supreme being), and
Valentinus frag. 1 in Clem. Alex. Strom. 2.8.36.4 (Adam with the name
of a god, the pre-existent Man).
82II 75.25-76.4. On the reconstruction ‘Father of the AH’, cf. 71.4
also concerned with the bridal chamber and Jesus, the anointed. Eug
has the pattern ‘Father of the All’ (III 73.If.), ‘Man’ (III 76.23f.), ‘Son
of Man’ (III 81.13), and even ‘son of Son of Man’ (V 13.12f.).
83 81.14-21.
84 So Borsch, Son of Man 81f.
85 63.29f. The text has a reference to a second ‘son of’ marked for
cancellation, which Borsch, Son of Man 78, argues for, appealing to 81.15
and Eug. But both Wilson, The Gospel of Philip (London: Mowbray, 1962),
115, and Menard, L ’Evangile selon Philippe (Paris: Letouzey & Ane, 1967),
70, 170, reject it as dittography.
86 Frag. 1.
87 1.29.3.
88 OW 103.8-24.
89 107.25-108.25.
90 Cf. 109.If.
91 Cf. 103.19-28; 113.5-10. However, the subject here is more probably
Christ, the eschatological light-Man. See below.
92 Cf. 1.24.1: a light image (photeine eikon) appears from the heavenly
power and vanishes; the angelic creators respond ‘Let us make man in
the image . . .’ (Gen 1:26), and the heavenly power because of the
likeness sends a spark into the wriggling Golem. Later Christ comes as a
man only in appearance to destroy the God of the Jews.
93 28.21-29.1. Cf. OVF103.19-28. The continuation (29.1-5), with its
reference to the Adams possessing the thought of Norea who speaks
 Notes to pages 180-182 203

concerning the two names which create a single name, strikingly recalls
the Naassene hymn to bisexual Adamas: ‘From thee, Father, and through
thee, Mother, the two immortal names, parents of the aeons, . . . Man
of the mighty name’ (Hipp. Ref. 5.6.5).
94 Cf. Hipp. Ref. 5.6.4-7; 7.6; 7.36. On Valentinian influence on the
text, see Bergmeier, ‘Koniglosigkeit’ 322f., 327.
95 Cf. Ref 10.9.If.
96II 75.35-76.4. See p. 178.
97 Cf. III 81.10-12/V 9.21-25 andS/CB 100.12-16/III 105.11-14.
98 Martyrium 249-52. Cf. Epiph. Pan. 31.5.5 where the first emanation,
Father of Truth, is called ‘Man’ as an antitype of the supreme being.
This last surely reflects the inference of the Valentinians of Iren. 1.12.4
that the supreme being is called ‘Man’ because of the Saviour’s title
‘Son of Man’.
99 Cf. IV 61.8—18/111 49.8-16 and Bohlig-Wisse, Gospel 177. They note
the play on phos, ‘light’, and phos, ‘man’, which underlies this passage.
Certainly the Invisible Spirit or Father is designated ‘light’ in III 40.15-
41,4/IV 50.6-15. Note also the Valentinian echo: the unknowable Father
descending to annul the deficiency (III 49.13-16/IV 61.14—18).
1 For later similar and probably dependent formulations involving
Adamas, cf. Zost. 13.6 (Pigeradamas the eye of the child); 30.4-13
(Adamas as [perfect] man, as the eye of the Self-Begotten); Steles Seth
118.26-119.18 (Geradamas as light, Mirotheos, Self-Begotten); Melch.
6.5f. (Pigeradamas as man of light); AnonBru ch. 20 (Schmidt-
MacDermot 354.3). The obscure reference in TP38.1-7 to the ‘eye of
the light’ may be to the Barbelognostic Adamas who ‘gives aeon (?) to
the Father of all the aeons’. Cf. Iren. 1.29.3 where Adamas joins in
praising the great Aeon.
2 Cf. HA 86.27-87.11; 94.8-95.13.
3 Cf. OW 103.2-32 (Pistis’ rebuke and revelation of her image); 107.17—
109.1 (the fearful and arrogant response of the Archigenetor and the
appearance of a light with a human form in it, that of the angel light-
Adam, with whom Pronoia falls in love); 112.10-113.10 (light-Adam
before his withdrawal above is seen by the archons who decide to create
a man in his image to enslave him).
4 Cf. Heb 2:8f. and Iren. 1.30.13.
5Cf. Iren. 1.30.10-11.
6 Cf. 1.30.11. The allusions to Man probably derive from Ezek 1:5,
26; Dan 10:16-21; to Christ from Amos 4:13; Hab 3:13; Dan 9:25;
7:13, and to the incorruptible light from Isa 60:19f.; 9:lf.; 42:6; 49:6 (cf.
Luke 2:32; Acts 26:23). Cf. on these prophecies Justin, Dial. 113, 126,
etc.
7 Iren. 1.5.4 (spoken through the prophets: Isa 45:5); Hipp. Ref. 6.33
(Isa 45:5). Cf. Exc. ex Theod. 49.1 (with reference to his ignorance only);
53.4; Iren. 2.9.2. See Dahl, ‘Arrogant’ 692f.
204 Notes to pages 182-183

8Cf. Iren. 1.12.4; Epiph. Pan. 31.5.5; Marcosians in Iren. 1.15.3 (Christ,
the Saviour, who descends on Jesus, confesses himself Son of Man and
is Man as possessing the whole Pleroma in himself).
9 Cf. Heracleon frag. 35 (distinguishing the Son of Man above the
Place (i.e. the Demiurge) who sows from the Saviour, Jesus, also Son of
Man, who reaps); Gos. Phil. 75.25-76.4; 81.14-21.
10 Cf. Monoimus in Hipp. Ref. 8.12.1-13.4 on the creative role of the
Son; the Naassene Preaching in Hipp. Ref. 5.6.5-11.1 on Man/Son of
Man (Christ/Logos)/Adamas in both anthropogonic and redemptive
roles; OW103.19-28; 107.25-108.25; 112.25-113.10; 117.28-30; 123.15-
125.23 on both light-Adam as an anthropogonic principle and the
immortal eschatological Man (i.e. Christ); GE III 49.8—16/IV 61.8—18
on Adamas as derived from Man who is the supreme being and cause of
both creation and redemption; Eug\ 5.30-6.4/III 76.19-24; V 6.19-
7.2/III 77.13-78.2; V 8.27-9.13; V 10.5—10/III 81.21-82.3 on the
emanations Man, Son of Man, Saviour as creative powers.
11 Cf. OW103.19-28; HA 96.33-97.9; SJC B 125.19-126.16/III 118.22-
119.8. The last, however, maybe more dependent on Luke 10:17-20, as
may Zosimus, Omega 14 (Scott-Ferguson, Hermetica 4.108). On katapatein
and kerameus, cf. Isa 41:25; Ps 2:9.
12 See on this Schenke, Gott ‘Mensch’, Borsch, Son of Man, etc. Petrement
makes a persuasive case, Separate 118-26, for seeing the pagan gnoses of
Poimandres and of Zosimus, Omega, with their Anthropos/Adam figure
as combining Platonism, Philo’s celestial Man and Genesis and as not
representing early forms of Gnosticism, but as unable to avoid Christian
Gnostic influence even when disguising it. And she too points to the
syncretistic character of such gnosis.
13 Cf. HA 86.27-87.23. The following passage (87.30-35) has man made
in the image of God, but the reference is still to the female figure of
Incorruptibility, in accordance with the seduction motif. Is the gloss
that the bodies of the archons who create man in their image are
androgynous (87.27f.), an attempt to overcome the apparent anomaly
of female archetype and male copy? On the theme, see Janssens, ‘Theme’
488-94; Stroumsa, Seed, esp. Part 1. He would derive it as well as a cluster
of related mythologoumena from the descent of the ‘sons of God’ in
Gen 6:1-4.
14 B 47.20-48.10/III 21.21-22.6. The reading in B 47.20: ‘[he
instructed them’ might appear more original than the ‘he revealed to
them’ of III 21.21 in that it is echoed in LR (cf. II 14.19/IV 22.25),
seems the more difficult reading, and makes more sense than III which
has the Father reveal himself twice (cf. Ill 21.21-24). But the text is
problematic in that (1) the pronominal suffix ‘them’, as Tardieu admits,
Ecrits 298, cannot apply to the previous plural subject, but only to the
seven archons not mentioned till later; (2) while B 48.1 has an object,
‘about him (? masc.)’ which LR omits, both read clumsily, which may
 Notes to pages 183-185 205

have led the redactor of III to change the verb; the following verb (eidrrn/
kataneuein) perhaps suits revelation better than instruction.
15II 14.18-24/IV 22.25-23.2. Compare the Naassene description of
Adamas, Hipp. Ref. 5.6.5f. (bisexual, called ‘father . . . mother’,
progenitor of aeons, in three parts).
16II 14.24-34/IV 23.3-23.14. Cf. OW108.2-13 (alightfrom the ogdoad
in response to Ialdabaoth’s own insolent response, in which is seen the
light-Man).
17 Against Tardieu, Ecrits 298, who sees LR as original. Cf. Giversen,
Apocryphon 240f.; AJB 20.19-21.2; II 1.31-3. On the motif of archontic
terror and the shaking of foundations at a theophany or heavenly voice,
cf. Treat. Seth 51.24-31; TP 40.8-22; PS Book 1, chs 2-3 (Schmidt-
MacDermot 4.20-6.24). Cf. also Isa 24:18; 1 Enoch 1:5; 60:1; As. Mos.
10:3f. and W. C. van Unnik, ‘Die “geoffneten Himmel” in der Offen-
barungsvision des Apokryphons des Johannes’, Apophoreta: Festschrift Ernst
Haenchen (BZNW 30) (Berlin: Topelmann, 1964), 269-80.
18 Cf. II 14.26-30/IV 23.5-9; 15.1-5/IV 23.14-20.
19 B 49.6-9/III 22.15-18. Cf. II 15.11-13/IV 23.29-24.2. As Janssens
points out, Museon 84, 410, this recalls and confirms that the perfect
Man is an aeon of light, and she cites OW 108.21; 112.10, 25; 117.28.
That the first man is called ‘Adam’ by the angels is the gist of a gloss in
Zos. Omega \\ (Scott-Ferguson, Hermetica 4.106.24).
20 Cf. 1.30.1 (Lumen/Homo). Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.6.28; Zos. Omega
11 (Scott-Ferguson 4.107.7-11).
21 1.29.3.
22 Cf. HA 86.27-87.23; OW 100.10-29; 103.2-32.
23 Cf. HA 94.19-33.
24 Cf. OW 107.36-108.13.
25 Religion 161-5.
26 In somn. Scip. 2.11. Jonas, Religion 158.
27 Sethiansin Hipp. Ref. 5.19 (cf. Par. Shem 1.25-4.21); Peratae in Hipp.
Ref. 5.12ff.; Gnostics in Plot. Enn. 2.9.10; Basilides’ ‘barbarians’ in
Hegemon. Acta Archelai 67.2—11.
28 Cf. HA 94.28-33.
29Jonas, Religion 162. Cf. OW103.28-32; 108.3-13.
30 For versions of the claim, see above p. 174, n. 42. The variants include
cosmogonic, as in HA 94.23ff. and christological, as in Treat. Seth
51.20-54.15.
31 B48.10-14/III 22.3-6.
32II 15.1-5/IV 23.14-20.
33 This comes several lines later in B 49.6—9 par.
34 The rabbis explained the plural in terms of God addressing or
consulting the council of angels (cf. Gen. Rab. 8.4f.). Philo interpreted
Gen 1:26 in terms of God taking others as his fellow workers (Opif. 75;
Fug. 68-72; Conf. ling. 171-5). Does the lack of explicit reference in
206 Notes to pages 185-187

both versions to Ialdabaoth’s taking part in the first act of man s creation
suggest that LR is trying to combine the motif of man’s creation by
(seven) angels with a picture more acceptable to Christians of the Great
Church - God creates through intermediaries? The ‘Ophite’ version
(Iren. 1.30.6), which has Ialdabaoth utter Gen 1:26 and his six offspring
do the actual creating, may point to an earlier stage of this process in
which Ialdabaoth is distinguished from the original seven creators, as
in Saturninus. Cf. Plato {Tim. 69C) as another source of the motif of
both Demiurge and archons being involved in man’s creation. On Gen
1:26, see R. McL. Wilson, ‘The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen.
1:26’, Studia Patristica 1, ed. K. Aland and F. L. Cross (TU 63) (Berlin:
Akademie, 1957), 420-37.
35 Cf. Crum, Dictionary 80b s.v. eine.
36 HA 87.33-88.1.
37 OVE112.25-113.2.
38 In HA 88.11-15 the Spirit descends from the adamantine earth and
settles in man, so that he becomes a living soul (cf. Gen 2:7); in OW
115.9-15 after 40 days Sophia Zoe sends her breath into the soulless
Adam so that he begins to move but cannot stand upright.
39 Cf. B 48.10-49.9 and par (man made in the heavenly likeness and
named Adam to be a power of light for the archons); B 42.10-43.6 and
par (Ialdabaoth gives his underlings something of his own power but
nothing of his mother’s light-power).
40 Cf. B 48.14-52.1 and par. In the related ‘Ophite’ myth both
Ialdabaoth and his six offspring possess the dew of light but, to avoid
the danger of them seeing an image of the supreme deity, they are given
a mental image of man in response to Ialdabaoth’s vain claim and the
heavenly rebuke. The motive for his citation of Gen 1:26 is to rally and
deceive his offspring, the heavenly motive to empty them all of the dew
of light. As created by the six Adam is a wriggling Golem until inbreathed
by Ialdabaoth with the ‘breath of life’ (Gen 2:7), including the light-
power.
41 Iren. 1.24.1; Hipp. Ref. 7.28.2.
42 Ps. Tert. Adv. omn. haer. 1; Fil. Div. haer. lib. 31; Epiph. Pan. 23.1.1—
10; Theod. Haer. 1.3.
43Fil. Div. haer. lib. 31 (‘concupiscentia . . . cupidi luminis’); Epiph.
Pan. 23.1.5f. (‘erethismos . . . pothos . . . erasmiotes’).
44 Despite Jervell’s arguments, Imago 152, there is no indication that
the spark of life is to be equated with the inner man, Anthropos, thought
of as the supreme God himself. Such an identification - always guarded
- is only explicit in Valentinian texts (e.g. Val. frag. 1; Iren. 1.5.6), the
Naassene Preaching (where Adamas does appear to descend), and
Poimandres. The Valentinian version has Sophia inbreathe the seed (Gen
2:7) as the Demiurge creates, and we have suggested the signs of
Valentinian influence on the Naassene Preaching.
 Notes to pages 18 7-189 207

45 HA 87.11-20. Note the Valentinian-sounding gloss which also implies

the male character of the image: ‘for the psychics (psychikos) will not be
able to reach the pneumatic (pneumatikos) because they are from below,
but he is from above.’
46 87.20-23.
47 87.23-6.
48 87.27-88.1.
49 88.3-10.
50 88.6-17. As Bullard notes. Hypostasis 68, a Jewish etymology is
apparent here: Adam (’dam) is named from Adamah (’damah), virgin
earth. Cf. OW108.24f. Butin 115.1-3 Adam is named after Light-Adam.
51 Although this two-stage version - the archons/angels create man in
God’s image but he is an inanimate Golem until the Creator breathes
the breath of life into him - may reflect the views of supposed ‘hetero¬
dox’ Jewish groups of the first and second centuries ce based on a dis¬
tinction between Gen 1:26 and 2:7 (cf. Gen. Rab. 14.8; 8.1; Justin, Dial.
62; Tri. Trac. 112.35-113.1; Philo, Opif. 75; Fug. 68-70; Conf. 171-5),
Jewish sources could not readily have presented the creator angels as in
ignorance of and ultimately hostile to the Creator God. HA is dependent
on the Christian Barbelognostic myth and is merely utilizing Jewish
traditions to illustrate its main theme, the evil character of the archons.
52 Cf. the frequent references to the three Valentinian classes of hylic,
psychic, pneumatic (and even to the pneumatic character of evil) in
HA 86.25 (cf. Eph 6:12 and Iren. 1.5.4; Exc. ex Theod. 48.2); 87.15-20;
88.3-17; 89.10f., 31-90.18. For other claimed Valentinian influences,
see Petrement, Separate 440.
53 Thus in it, as in HA, we find the image-reflection motif involving
two archetypes (female Sophia, male light-Adam), the arrogant
Demiurge Ialdabaoth, his seven archontic offspring and obedient son,
Sabaoth, further versions of the Narcissus and seduction of the archons
motifs, conflation of Gen 1:26 and 2:7, insistence on divine overall
control, Adam as Golem animated in stages, and a threefold cosmo¬
logical and anthropological pattern of pneumatic, psychic, hylic, etc.
54 Thus Tardieu, Ecrits 299, would see the phrase in OW 108.32, hitn
mmoou (‘through the waters’), as recalling AJ II 14.23-30 (esp. 27). The
very allusive and fragmentary version of the entire constellation (vain
claim of Saklas, heavenly rebuke, image-reflection motif, archontic
response creating man) in GE III 59.1-9, is also evidently more
dependent on the picture presented by AJ and OW than on the similarly
brief and elliptical version of Saturninus.
55 So Schottroff, Glaubende 9-12, 36-8.
56 B 48.14-50.11 /III 22.6-23.11.
37 B 50.6-51.1/HI 23.7-19; II 19.2-15. LR gives a very detailed account
of the activity of 365 angels over against the very brief summary in SR
which involves only 360.
208 Notes to pages 189-191

58 B 54.11-55.13/III 26.6-25; II 20.33-21.13/IV 32.7-27.

59 87.24-33. Cf. OW 112.33-113.1 and the Valentinians of Iren. 1.5.5;
Exc. ex Theod. 50.1-3.
60 In B 48.6ff./III 22. Iff. the entire archonship of the powers (exousia)
is the subject, whereas II 14.30f./IV 23.9f. only mention all the powers
{exousia), adding the Protarchon.
61 B 48.17-49.6/III 22.9-14.
62II 15.5-11/IV 23.20-28. ‘From his’ makes more sense. Krause
interprets the tephpsychike of II 15.9 (IV 23.26 has tepsychike) to mean
the soul.
63II 15.9-11 /IV 23.26-8. The reference to hypostasis may be an echo
of the concluding summary in B 50.9f. and par.
64 Ecrits 300.
65II 15.11-13/IV 23.29-24.2.
66 B 49.6-9/III 22.14-18. Giversen, Apocryphon 243, also argues
for the priority of LR, but his ground, namely that SR is anticipating,
is not convincing. Possession of the name was thought in the ancient
world to give one control over the power of the one named.
67 B 49.9-50.6/III 22.18-23.7; II 15.13-23/IV 24.2-14.
68 Cf. II 12.15-25/IV 19.15-26.
69 Cf. B 43.11-44.4. For an extremely similar list, cf. OW 101.26-34.
70 See ch. 4, section 2c.
71 Schol. 11.
72 OW 114.29-35.
73 114.36-115.1, an obvious allusion to Gen 2:7.
74 This is repeated no less than four times (115.5, like an abortion
without pneuma, 10f., 13f., 34), evidently to avoid misinterpretations of
the earlier allusion to Gen 2:7.
75 115.3-15.
76 Cf. his Gnosis 1 181-5; Religion 156-69.
77 Cf. CH 1.9, 12-14.
78 Cf. CH 1.24—26. The negative side of their planetary nature is evident
in the term zonal Cf. Servius, in Aen. 6.714 and Origen’s description of
the descent of the Gnostic through the seven planetary spheres in C.
Cels. 6.31.
79 B 72.2-12 and par. Cf. the Mandaeans who represent the creators
of man as the Demiurge Ptahil and the seven planets (R. Ginza,
Lidzbarski 108.4ff.).
80 Ecrits 301-4.
81 Cf. Iren. 1.5.1-6; 7.5; Exc. ex Theod. 47-50; 54. See ch. 1, section 3.
82II 15.23-29/IV 24.15-21. On psychike hypostasis, cf. Ptolemaeans in
Iren. 1.5.4.
83 Cf. B 50.6-14/III 23.7-14 and II 15.23-19.2/IV 24.15-29.5.
 Notes to pages 191—192 209

84 Ecrits 300f. Cf. II 19.6-10, against Giversen, Apocryphon 281, and

Kasser, RThPh 14, 144, who assume it was added by the redactor of LR.
For details of this passage, see Tardieu and Giversen.
85 See ch. 4, p. 133.
86 But according to Epiph. Pan. 24.7.6, Basilides derived man’s 365
bodily parts from the 365 heavens, each corresponding to an individual
power. Cf. also PS Book 3, ch. 132 (Schmidt-MacDermot 340.15) on
the 365 servitors inserting soul compounds into the body of the matter
of the world, and the phrase in the Naassene Preaching on Adam’s crea¬
tion by many powers severally described at great length (Hipp. Ref. 5.7.6).
87 B 50.15-51.l/III 23.14-19; II 19.13-15/IV 29.22-4. LR probably
omitted the reference to the angels because of its preference for 365.
88 Cf. Iren. 1.24.1 (Saturninus: unable to be raised up but crawling
like a worm); 1.30.6 (‘Ophites’: the six form him of immense length
and breadth, but he only wriggles); HA 88.3-17 (psychic man incapable
of being raised through archontic weakness until the Spirit settles in
him and he becomes a living soul; but the text then suggests Adam could
move: the Spirit names him Adam ‘because he was found moving upon
the earth’ (88.16f.)); OW115.3-15 (Adam left in a vessel for 40 days as
a breathless, soulless abortion till Sophia breathes into him and he begins
to move) ; Hipp. Ref. 5.7.6 (the Chaldaean Adam produced by the earth
lying without breath (apnous), without motion (akinetos), without a
tremor (asaleutos), like a statue, an image (eikon) of the heavenly Man
Adamas). The spiritual Man (Phos) of Zos. Omega 12, who is inbreathed
by Fate (heimarmene), is described as guileless (akakos: cf. the Barbelo-
gnostic and ‘Ophite’ Sophia Prunicus of Iren. 1.29.4 and 30.3) and
inactive (anenergetos).
89Cf.B 51.1-52.1 and par.
90 B 55.2-13 and par.
91 Cf. B 50.15-54.11 and par.
92 B 54.11-55.15/III 26.6-27.1; II 20.33-21.14.
98 So Janssens, Museon 84, 414; Tardieu, Ecrits 320, suggesting as the
source a midrashic exegesis such as in the Targum Ps. Jonathan.
94 Cf. Plato, Tim. 42E-43A; Philo, Opif. 146. However, Tardieu, Ecrits
320, sees this passage in AJas an echo of the midrashic exegesis of Gen
2:7 ’(Tg. Ps. Jon.).
95 CH 1.16f.
96 Omega 11; the parallels with AJ are striking.
97 Cf. Book of the Rolls, ed. M. Gibson 5f.; Schatzhohle, ed. Bezold 3.
98 Cf. also the picture in the Naassene Preaching: Adam as a Golem
produced by earth, an image of heavenly Adamas, made by many
powers (5.7.6); enslaved by a soul (5.7.7), the elect souls or inner men
brought down into the moulded figure of clay to serve the Demiurge
(5.7.30L; 37); the moulded creature being made of hostile elements
(5.8.19).
210 Notes to pages 192-194

"1.30.9. This account, which recalls the animation motif in

Saturninus, etc., cannot be satisfactorily harmonized with 30.6, according
to which the six powers created Adam and Ialdabaoth inbreathed his
dew of light ensuring Adam’s salvation.
'64.6-67.14.
2 Cf. Iren. 1.5.6; Val. frag. 1; Val. Exp. 37.32-8.
3 Exc. ex Theod. 55.1-56.2.
4 Thus HA 89.11-17, 31ff.; 90.12; OW 113.21-114.15; 115.30-116.8;
and AJ B 53.4-10 and par deal in their own characteristic ways with the
figure of the spiritual woman Zoe/Eve who awakens and instructs Adam.
Despite evident Jewish influence, the Gnostic archetype of this figure
could be seen as on the one hand the consort of heavenly Adamas,
Perfect Knowledge (an echo of the Hebrew/Aramaic wordplay hawwah/
haioja?) in the Barbelognostic system and, on the other, Sophia in her
second decisive intervention (see ch. 7, section 3 and Iren 1.30.7).
5 AJ B 58.10-60.16/III 28.25-30.14; II 22.18-23.26/IV 35.9-36.21;
Iren. 1.30.7.
6 B 59.12—19/III 29.18-24.
7II 22.32-23.4/IV 35.14-24. By this reworking the redactor of LR can
(a) avoid implying that Adam was deprived of all his power, and (b)
suggest how the Epinoia might be lured out by and into her counterpart,
as in the similar motif involving Adam in Saturninus and HA.
8 1.30.7. The Latin has ‘from his own thought (suaEnthymesi)', which
appears to refer to Ialdabaoth. But that is surely a mistake on the part
of the translator since (1) to make sense the plan must have woman
brought out of man and (2) man has just been described as having Nous
and Enthymesis which are the elements which are saved (30.6).
9 HA 89.3-11.
10 Hypostasis 75-80.
" 89.11-17.
12 89.31-90.12.
13 OW 115.30-116.25. On the archontic attempt to ravish Eve, cf. HA
89.17-31; Audi’s ‘Book of the Requests’ and ‘Book of the Aliens’ in
Theodore bar Konai, Schol. 11.
14 116.33-117.15. The mythologoumenon of the ravishing of Eve
appears in various forms, e.g. Iren. 1.30.7 (powers ravish Eve and
produce the angels); AJB 62.3-63.2 and par (Ialdabaoth ravishes Eve
and produces the archons lave and Elohim (Cain and Abel)); Archontics
of Epiph. Pan. 40.5.3 (the devil begets Cain and Abel by Eve). Cf. Tg.
Ps.J. Gen 4:1; 5:3; Pirqe R El. 21, etc. See on this Ginzberg, Legends 5,
133, n. 3; Bullard, Hypostasis 84; Stroumsa, Seed, passim.
15 Under this heading I include Exc. ex Theod. 21.1-3 and Gos. Phil.
70.9-22.
 6

Gnostic Soteriology 1:
The Reinterpretation of Genesis 1-4

Introduction

If we wish to know what second-century Gnostics understood by

salvation (as opposed to twentieth-century interpretations and
hypotheses) we can do no better than once again turn to the classic
Valentinian definition preserved by Clement in his Excerpta ex
Theodoto 78.1-2. Up until baptism, says Clement, the Valentinians
assert that Fate (heimarmene) is true; after it the astrologers are
no longer right. However, it is not baptism alone which sets us
free, they say, but also the knowledge (gnosis) of our origin, nature
and destiny, a knowledge which tells Gnostics who they really are
and frees them from their present state of ignorance and imprison¬
ment in an alien body and a hostile world governed by Fate.
Salvation is gnosis in this special sense and its cosmic and meta¬
physical implications are summed up most concisely in the
Marcosian formula reproduced by Irenaeus:
The perfect redemption is said to be the knowledge of the ineffable
Greatness. From ignorance both deficiency and passion arise,
through ‘knowledge’ will the entire substance derived from
ignorance be destroyed. Therefore this knowledge is redemption
of the inner man.1
This finds a precise echo in the Gospel of Truth} And the
soteriological significance of knowledge, specifically of self-
knowledge, is not limited to Christian Gnostic sources. In the
Poimandres God proclaims: ‘Let man who has Nous recognize
himself as immortal’,3 and Poimandres himself continues, If then
you learn that you consist of life and light and that you come
from these, you will go back to life.’4 Salvation, then, is special
knowledge of one’s true self, of one’s kinship with the unknown
transcendent God and of the true nature of the visible world. But
the mention of baptism is also significant, as we shall see: without

211
212 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

the divine initiative symbolized by such a rite of initiation full

revelation and salvation would not be possible.
For we do not come to such knowledge by rational investigation
and philosophical enquiry;5 it is religious knowledge; it has ethical
connotations; and above all it is a matter of revelation.6 Thus
although it might appear from the Poimandres that everyone can
save themselves by the mere possession of Nous - the conclusion
drawn by the recipient - this is explicitly denied: the saving
revelation is only near to those who by their conduct deserve it,
and who are thereby enabled to perceive the truth.7 Saving gnosis
is thus revelation from above or outside. It can be summed up by
the frequent Gnostic motif of the ‘call’ which Foerster at least
would see as the kernel of Gnosis,8 which comes to the Gnostic
self trapped in matter, ‘drunkenness’, ‘oblivion’, etc. and awakens
it so that it is enabled to recognize its true nature and escape
from imprisonment in the body and matter.9 Thus, contrary to
the arguments of e.g. Quispel and Colpe,10 salvation would not
appear to be simply or primarily a matter of self-redemption.
If then we are unable to save ourselves and need revelation
and salvation from outside, does that mean that gnosis is some¬
thing entirely new, a matter of sheer divine grace, as e.g. Quispel
has argued, appealing to a statement of Tertullian about
Valentinianism?11 This would certainly go against the traditional
interpretation of Valentinian (and a fortiori of Gnostic) soteriology,
found both in ancient heresiologists like Irenaeus and Clement
of Alexandria and in modern commentators like Bultmann, which
seized on the Gnostic claim that they were being saved by nature
(physei sdzomenos) as the key to understanding their view of salvation
as essentially determinist.12 It would also contradict what we have
been arguing is a fundamental idea in Gnostic theology, the
consubstantiality of God and the divine element in humanity - if
the saving knowledge be interpreted as recognition of one’s
essential heavenly nature. However, the deterministic interpre¬
tation of salvation as a matter of nature and substance has been
criticized particularly by Schottroff, who has argued that the
salvandus is not assured of salvation as a substance, it is rather a
matter of grace and free will: the indicative of salvation is balanced
by an imperative.18 The idea of salvation by nature or substance
she ascribes to inaccurate heresiological polemic.
However, the idea does occur in the Tripartite Tractate,14 and
E. Pagels has argued, on the basis of an analysis of Valentinian
exegesis of Romans, that both the traditional view and that of
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 213

Schottroff are misleading since they are cast in terms of the

antithesis free will-determinism, rather than of an experience
of election through grace which she finds as the basis of the
Valentinian three nature concept.13
We have already touched on this debate in the previous chapter,
noting how all three positions (salvation ‘by nature’; by divine
grace as a lifelong possession of believers, and as a gift to believers,
capable of being lost) were present in unresolved tension in
Irenaeus’ sketch of Saturninus’ views, expressing the paradox of
the Gnostic understanding of salvation.16 And it is worth noting
that the heresiologists do preserve alongside the Valentinian
concept of substance or nature the ideas that education is
necessary even for the pneumatics,17 and that they are sown as
seed, both of which suggest that same paradox: although they are
assured by the grace of revelation that they are by nature elect
and divine, yet they have to work out their own salvation (in terms
of formation and perfection), a process not complete until the
consummation (apokatastasis) .18 Thus On the Origin of the World
concludes: ‘each one by his deed (praxis) and his knowledge will
reveal his nature.’19 We shall have to examine what our texts say
on this question of nature and grace.
If salvation is to be understood in terms of the awakening call,
the saving revelation, allowing us to do what we cannot of our¬
selves, i.e. recognize our essential divine nature, this surely
implies a revealer/redeemer. Although it has been argued that
Gnosticism has no need of a redeemer, being essentially a religion
of self-recognition and a redeemer being first introduced under
the impact of Christianity,20 Schenke and others have shown
convincingly that this presupposes too limited a view of the nature
and role of a Gnostic redeemer. Schenke contends that there
is practically no Gnostic work or system without a redeemer in
some form as an integral element, from the concrete historical
figure of Simon Magus at one extreme to the abstract concept
of the ‘call’ at the other.21 Rudolph has reinforced this argu¬
ment by pointing out that the ancient concept of redeemer
corresponds more to the term liberator or rescuer , and that
this precisely describes the Gnostic redeemer whose infinite
variety he has charted.22 And Filoramo has appealed to the
existential situation of the Gnostic, longing yet unable to
escape this closed universe unless a superior power intervenes:
‘The descent of the Nous Illuminator is the necessary counter¬
part of the ascent of the soul.’ The Gnostic concept of
214 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

soteriology is the result of these two vectors and poles in

continuous tension.23
This at once raises the very vexed question of a pre-
Christian redeemer myth, conceived of in terms of a ‘redeemed
redeemer’ or salvator salvatus or salvandus.24 We cannot enter
this much-debated subject at length here, but we can ask what
light our texts throw on it, particularly since those such as
Rudolph who still consider it as part of the logic of Gnosticism
find support for this concept in the variety of saviour figures and
saving entities found in the ‘Sethian’ group of texts, which he
would see as essentially non-Christian - indeed pre-Christian.20
In this vein Arai has attempted to show that all sections of the
Apocryphon in which Christ appears must be considered
interpolations, and Schottroff and others would see the Pronoia
hymn at the end of LR as, if not original, yet containing a concept
of a Gnostic redeemer independent of Christianity.26 Schenke too
would see in the subject of the Pronoia hymn and in the figure of
Sophia in Irenaeus 1.30.3-1 la the outline of the non-Christian
redeemer as the heavenly Mother saving her children.27 In the
light of these claims we shall have to submit our thesis of an
essentially Christian origin for the myth underlying the ‘Sethian’
and related texts, and thus for their various saviour figures, to
further scrutiny.
Finally there is the question of when exactly salvation takes
place. If we take the concept of the ‘call’ as central, this might
lead us to conceive of the Gnostic understanding of salvation as
essentially timeless, or in other words existential, as indeed
Schottroff argues, appealing to the inconsistencies in the Gnostic
Heilsgeschichte. But appeal to inconsistencies overlooks the
paradoxical character of the Gnostic understanding of salvation
such as we found exemplified in Irenaeus’ account of Saturninus,
and recourse to the existentialist analysis as ^hermeneutical key
to unlock the mysteries of Gnosis, however valuable it has been,
is not justified. The existence of Gnostic texts with a kind of
Heilsgeschichte beginning with Adam and incorporating a threefold
system of ages, advents of the Saviour, etc. linked to events like
the Flood, does suggest that history is of some importance for the
Gnostic as the locus of revelation. Thus Schenke has argued that,
for the Gnostics, redemption and a redeemer existed from the
beginning of human history and that the redeemer has therefore
a twofold task: original revelation and continuous revelation
throughout history. He appeals to Manichaean and Mandaean
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 215

evidence to demonstrate that this concept is independent of

Christianity, post- as well as pre-Christian.29
This Gnostic redeemer concept, whether in its basic structure
or its various concrete forms, has, according to Schenke, at times
influenced the development of early Christology in that Jesus is
seen either as the bearer of continuous revelation or as the primal
redeemer.30 Rudolph suggests a two-sided process whereby on the
one hand Gnostic ideas were Christianized while on the other
Christian concepts were gnosticized; Gnostic redeemer concepts
were historicized and the Christian figure of Christ mythologized.31
But such views presuppose the pre-Christian character of
Gnosticism, as attested particularly in the Apocryphon of John and
related ‘Sethian’ texts such as the Apocalypse of Adam, the Gospel of
the Egyptians and Trimorphic Protennoia with their three ages and
triple descent schemes of male or female revealer/redeemers,
combining primal and continuous revelation.
However, we have argued that the Barbelognostic core scheme
underlying these ‘Sethian’ texts was originally Christian and
only later Sethianized and periodized in an attempt to counter
‘orthodox’ Christian taunts of novelty. Indeed one can find a
striking precedent for our hypothesis of a Gnostic combination
of primal and continuous revelation in response to a taunt of
novelty in the Logos doctrine of Justin Martyr. He was able to
answer pagan insinuations about the novelty (and therefore
falsehood) of Christianity by claiming that the divine Son or Logos,
known in all his fullness to Christians through the Incarnation,
was yet partially known in his primal revelation in and through
his activity in creation, and in his continuous revelation to choice
souls (Abraham, Socrates, etc.) in history.32 Schemes involving
primal and continuous revelation, particularly the threefold
systems of ages, of advents of the Saviour/Seth/Protennoia figure
so characteristic of the ‘Sethian texts, only make sense in the
light of a decisive revelation such as that of and in Christ, with
whom Seth is identified.33 Indeed the primal and continuous
revelations can only be understood as preliminary stages,
explaining how an elect seed or race was preserved until the
present era of decisive and final revelation as salvation, involving
the end of this present age and the ultimate restoration of all
things to their original status.
In enquiring about the soteriological views of the Gnostics as
found in the Apocryphon and related texts, and attempting to
suggest how those views may have developed, we shall therefore
216 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

have to ask (1) what understanding of salvation is present (is

knowledge in the sense of revelation an adequate definition?);
(2) what is the subject or object of salvation (i.e. the whole person,
the soul or the spirit?); (3) how does salvation come (i.e. is it a
matter of nature and/or grace or what?); (4) what picture of a
saviour emerges; and finally (5) when exactly salvation takes place.
In this first of two chapters on the soteriology of the Apocryphon
we shall consider what light may be thrown on these questions by
Gnostic treatment of what they consider their fundamental source
on this matter: Genesis 1-4.

The Gnostic interpretation of the Genesis primal history

As we have already indicated, the Gnostic Paradise accounts are

best interpreted as soteriological: they explain the origin and
hence the nature of our present plight, but point to the presence
of divine redeeming activity in terms of a kind of Gnostic
Heilsgeschichte. The different motifs in the early chapters of Genesis
are selected by the various documents to delineate the human
situation and isolate the activity of various redeemer figures.
Differences in selection, order, interpretation, etc. are therefore
to be ascribed to different theological aims and tendencies (where
they are evidently not the result of errors in transmission). But
the presence of certain common elements, tendencies and
influences may help further to confirm our proposed recon¬
struction of the literary and formal relationships between the texts
and illuminate our questions about the Christian character of the
original myth, the relationship with Valentinianism and our
hypothesis about the ‘Sethian’ reworking.

1 The original soteriological impulse

Both the Apocryphon and the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus initiate the

process of rescuing the divine power present in the Demiurge
with the creation of earthly man. He is not simply an archontic
device to retain or trap the divine light;34 rather, he is the chosen
instrument of the divine plan to recover the imprisoned divine
element35 and condemn the archons for their ignorance and
audacity.36 But whereas in the ‘Ophite’ system it is Sophia herself
who initiates the creation of humanity by supplying the archons
with the mental concept of Man to empty them of heavenly
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 217

power,37 in the Apocryphon the figure who reveals itself to the

archons in the form of heavenly Man is not Sophia, who is
increasingly relieved of any positive soteriological function, but,
according to LR, the Mother-Father (metropator) of the All, great
in mercy, to whom Sophia prays when she wishes to recover the
power she gave her offspring.38
However, in SR it is the Father of the All, the merciful, the light
god, who had earlier appeared as the First Man, to whom Sophia
prays,39 and in the previous chapter I suggested that LR’s version
was more original; the version in SR probably finds the figure of
Barbelo, the Mother-Father, problematic and almost always
emends to either Father or Mother.40 That priority is suggested
both by SR’s later ascription of the Father’s designation ‘rich in
mercy’ to the Mother (although the passage is evidently con¬
fused),41 and by the striking parallel role of the lower Sophia in
the ‘Ophite’ system: prior to the coming of Christ she calls in
grief to her mother, First Woman, for help, and she asks First
Man to send out Christ.42
Now the combination in the ‘Ophite’ system of Sophia’s
continuing revelatory/redemptive activity which is yet in¬
complete, with the decisive eschatological revelatory/redemptive
descent of Christ, seems to find an echo - if a confused one - in
the Apocryphon with its plethora of redeeming figures and final
Pronoia hymn. Thus not only do we hear of the Mother-
Father or Pronoia in a redeeming capacity, but also of the
Holy Spirit, Zoe ‘the Mother of the living’, the Epinoia of light,
Christ and even Sophia, in that she has to correct her own
deficiency.43 But the textual evidence just cited suggests that
that plethora may conceal an earlier, simpler picture in that
the Holy Spirit, the Epinoia of light and Zoe appear to be
ultimately one and the same figure, originally to be equated
with Sophia, as Janssens has claimed.44 Indeed the phenomenon
not only corresponds to the familiar Gnostic tendency to
reduplicate heavenly figures (particularly Christ), but more
importantly reflects, in the antithesis between the plethora of
redeeming entities and the passive Sophia who requires
redemption, her ambivalent character as salvator salvandus,
the paradigm of the Gnostic’s experience: he or she is saved
from above but must work out that salvation in a continuing
struggle with evil and ignorance until the final, eschato¬
logical denouement. The characters and events of the opening
chapters of Genesis (the Spirit, Adam, Eve, the serpent) provide
218 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

the necessary material for the Gnostic expression (via re¬

interpretation) of that experience.
The characteristic ambivalence over Sophia is well expressed,
as we saw, in the confusion over the existence and descent of her
consort; the earlier myth has no need of this, but the figure is
added both through Valentinian influence and to ease the
paradox by representing the erring Sophia as entirely passive. And
the figure/figures of the Epinoia/Zoe/Holy Spirit are similarly
presented in terms of Sophia’s helper, better half or consort.43
Not surprisingly we find various interpretations of this basic
ambivalence in texts we would see as dependent on the Apocryphon.
Thus Trimorphic Protennoia stresses the more passive aspect of both
figures in that it identifies the Epinoia of light with the guileless
Sophia who descends, produces Ialdabaoth and then begs to be
elevated.46 On the other hand the Hypostasis of the Archons
represents Sophia unequivocally as a redeemer figure, yet
alongside a similar range of redemptive entities developed from
speculations based on passages in Genesis (particularly 2:7b, 2:18;
3:20), such as those in the Apocryphon, namely her daughter Zoe,
the spirit which descends to animate Adam, and the spiritual
Woman/Eve/Instructor.47 The absence of the Epinoia of light or
equivalent in the Hypostasis I would see as further evidence of the
secondary character of the Pronoia-Epinoia scheme.48
Thus it may be that the ‘Ophite’ picture of Sophia as responsible
for initial and continuing revelation/redemption, yet ultimately
requiring the decisive redemptive Christ event, finds an echo in
earlier versions of the Apocryphon, which later, under the influence
of a Pronoia-Epinoia scheme developed round Barbelo, demoted
Sophia to a more passive figure and replaced her with a more
active one (Epinoia/Zoe/Holy Spirit).49

2 Ialdabaoth inbreathes divine power into Adam

In SR the Mother, wishing to recover the power she had given

the First Archon in compulsive desire (prounikos), comes in
innocence and makes her request to the Father.50 The innocent
wantonness whereby she originally acted without asking the Father
is hereby corrected (or recapitulated) by the innocent obedience
of her request. LR makes no mention of her motivation and since
it appears to have suppressed any reference to the compulsive
desire of Sophia it would appear to be less original here.51 But it
probably preserves a more original view in having the Mother-
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 219

Father dispatch five illuminators (II 19.18f./IV 29.27-30.1) over

against B 51.5-10 which has the Father, the light-God, send out
the Autogenes and the four lights, or III 23.22-24.3 which has
the Father and the five lights send out an unnamed subject with
his four lights.02 Thus the original version would have the Mother
praying to the Father and him sending the five illuminators, i.e.
Christ/Autogenes and his four accompanying angels.53 However,
it is not at all clear whether the continuation in LR, that the
five descend to the region (topos) of the angels of the Demiurge,54
is preferable, as Tardieu argues, to that of SR which has them
sent in the guise {typos) of those angels, a characteristic Gnostic
motif.
Thus, in accordance with a holy plan, the Autogenes/Christ
and his four illuminators advise the First Archon to breathe into
the immobile body something of his breath (pneumo), i.e. the
power of his mother, thereby emptying him of it, causing Adam
to move and become superior to the Demiurge and his archons.56
We have here an obvious allusion to Gen 2:7 LXX,07 but with
characteristic Gnostic overtones: the Creator inbreathes spirit
(pneuma), not the breath {pnoe) of the LXX, and there is a
conscious play on the themes of the compulsive desire/activity of
Sophia and her creation versus the inactivity of the Demiurge and
his.58
The presence in LR of certain features lacking in SR may be
partly explicable in terms of the theological tendencies of its
redactor. Thus it dwells characteristically on the ignorance of
Ialdabaoth in this manoeuvre: ‘he did not know since he is in
ignorance.’59 But its further reference to the Mother’s power
proceeding from Ialdabaoth into the psychic body created by the
archons in the heavenly image60 may preserve a more original
reading which might explain the oddities of SR. Thus whereas
both versions have Ialdabaoth breathe into Adam something of
his spirit, glossed as the power of the Mother, III 24.1 If. adds
‘from the First Archon into the body’, while B 51.20 only mentions
the last phrase. Now that phrase is evidently redundant in SR but
makes perfect sense in LR, which suggests that SR has omitted
through homoeoteleuton the passage in LR relating how the
power of the Mother went from Ialdabaoth into the body of Adam.
LR has typically stressed the ignorance of Ialdabaoth, the psychic
character of Adam’s body and the fact that it was in the likeness
of the first existent (i.e. First Man/Mother-Father), whose
initiative in the salvation process is all the more comprehensible.
220 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Man in the divine image is the appropriate receptacle for the

divine power.61
The ‘Ophite’ system described by Irenaeus presents a similar
general picture. To empty Ialdabaoth of the trace of light lest he
rise up against heaven because of the power he has from Sophia
Prunicus(I), his mother, she has him breathe the spirit (spiritus/
pneuma) of life into the wriggling man. Thus Ialdabaoth is secretly
emptied of power and man thereby receives nous and enthymesis,
the elements which are saved.62 Only the Valentinians of the school
of Ptolemy explicitly share this view of the Demiurge as unwitting
transmitter of the divine, but for them the ‘spirit of life inbreathed
by him is simply the psychic substance or man consubstantial with
him; the heavenly element is the seed in man sown simultaneously
with his inbreathing by or rather through the Demiurge.63
All three systems in fact distinguish between what the Demiurge
contributes of his own nature and what is actually responsible for
salvation. In the Apocryphon the Demiurge is responsible for the
power of the Mother later identified as the soul, the principle of
biological and rational life, which cannot save itself; it needs to
be united with the spirit of life which is not a natural endow¬
ment but must descend.64 The ‘Ophite’ system similarly appears
to distinguish between the trace of light or power or rational
intelligence (nous and enthymesis) which the Mother inserts via
Ialdabaoth and can remove again at will,63 and the ‘worldly
inbreathing’ (insufflatio mundialis) which is what Adam and Eve
received from Ialdabaoth as his own proper contribution, namely
the souls which are consubstantial with him.66 And in the system
of the Valentinians of Ptolemy, when the Demiurge inseminates
the psychic man consubstantial with himself into the hylic man,
Sophia simultaneously sows the spiritual seed, which alone
achieves the highest level of salvation.67 Finally Valentinus himself
betrays awareness of this conception when he refers to man, the
immobile creation of angels, expressing sentiments superior to
his created status because of the one who had invisibly deposited
in him seed of the heavenly substance.68
This similarity of approach is surely further evidence of the links
between the Apocryphon, the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus and the
Valentinians, which would add more weight to the thesis of
Irenaeus that the last-named developed from the Gnostics of 1.29
and 30. Indeed, certain features of the Valentinian system (or
systems) found in the Excerpta and the fragments of Heracleon
may themselves cast light on the Apocryphon s account at this point
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 221

and counter Petrement’s thesis that the latter developed from

the former. If we accept the reading of SR that the Autogenes
and the illuminators descended in the guise of the angels of
Ialdabaoth and ask about the significance of it, a pointer may
emerge from the Valentinian speculations about the mediating
role of the Demiurge’s angels in the creation of psychic man and
the insertion of the pneumatic seed into him. Two groups appear
to be involved here: (1) the male angels, consorts of Christ, who
are responsible for Sophia’s production of the spiritual seed and
who minister to or ‘reap’ it when ripe,69 and (2) the psychic angels
of the Demiurge who mediate the inbreathing of the psychic
element and the spiritual seed.70
If we then compare the Apocryphon s picture of Christ the
Autogenes and his four male angelic illuminators, the final
destination of the redeemed, encouraging the Demiurge to
inbreathe the divine power acquired from Sophia into psychic
man, in the guise of his angels, with that of the Valentinians of
the Saviour and his angels being responsible for Sophia’s
production of the spiritual seed then inserted into psychic man
via the Demiurge and his creator angels, we might consider it
more likely that the former, simpler picture inspired the latter,
more complex one with its various ambiguous angelic groups and
idiosyncratic theme of the Gnostic and his angel, than vice versa.
This episode, developing the Gnostic reinterpretation of
Genesis 2, sets the scene for the struggle over humanity and its
salvation between the heavenly world and Ialdabaoth and his
powers. In the power of the Mother we possess the principle of
life, biological and rational, which is the precondition of salvation.
But this is only a precondition; a divine initiative is still required
and the story is by no means over. Salvation has a history and
a goal: the light-power resulting from Sophia’s deficiency must
be united with the eschatological Spirit given through the
Saviour.71 Thus alongside the Mother-Father we also have the
Autogenes/Christ as a saviour on Sophia’s behalf,72 and the four
illuminators so closely associated with him also clearly have
soteriological functions.73 We have suggested that the baptismal
initiation (and particularly the fivefold chrismation) of the Gnostic
was in the name of the Autogenes and the four, and this would
correspond neady to this opening soteriological action: as the five
are responsible for the initial inbreathing of spirit, so they are
invoked in the descent of saving spirit in the five seals rite of
chrismation.74
222 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

3 The struggle over humanity between the

powers of light and darkness

(a) The first archontic reaction and the heavenly response

Having received the power of the Mother, Adam moves. SR has

an awkward lacuna at this point,75 while LR relates how Adam’s
body became powerful and shone.76 II 24.13f. appears to echo
the first idea, but neither it nor B refer to the man shining. But
since the archons’ aim had been that Adam made in the image
and with the name of heavenly Man might become a light-power
for them,77 and since this theme recurs in the continuation in
SR78 and is central to the Apocryphon and related texts,79 it must be
considered a necessary presupposition, whether wholly or partly
omitted by SR or added by LR in the light of the continuation.
The seven archons are inevitably jealous of Adam in that,
although he was their creation endowed with their psychic power,
his intelligence (phronesis?) was superior to theirs and the First
Archon’s.80 Because of Adam’s superior intelligence, light-power
and freedom from evil,81 they cast him down to the nethermost
region of the whole of matter.82 There then follows the episode
alluded to above in which the beneficent Mother-Father (or
Father) takes pity on the power of the Mother brought out from
the First Archon to control the body of Adam. S/he sends out the
good, merciful spirit, the Epinoia of light, as a helper (boethos, cf.
Gen 2:18 LXX) for Adam, whom he called ‘Zoe’ (cf. Gen 3:21
LXX).83 Here we have the first appearance of the principal
redeemer figure of the main body of the Apocryphon, in the closest
association with the Mother-Father or Pronoia on the one hand,
and explicitly identified with Eve, the helper and consort of the
Adam of Genesis on the other. It is also clear from what follows
that not only is she responsible for the primal revelation to Adam
but she also represents the principle of continuous revelation. As
we have already suggested, she is the positive counterpart of the
passive Sophia, who recapitulates, puts right, all that had gone
wrong in the case of the latter. She is thus Tardieu’s ‘anti-Sophia’,
part of the Pronoia-Epinoia scheme of redaction (a2), replacing
a single active redeeming Sophia, as in the ‘Ophite’ system, or a
double redeemer, Pistis Sophia and her daughter Zoe, as in the
Hypostasis.
She is said to work at the whole creation (ktisis), which in fact
from the context appears to signify Adam, since our texts continue
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 223

that she takes trouble with him, restoring him to his perfection
(pleroma). SR refers to his being enlightened about the descent
of the deficiency (hysterema) and his ascent, while LR talks of his
descent to the seed (sperma) and being instructed about the way
of ascent as identical to the way of descent.84 Epinoia’s revelatory
activity is evidently to be understood as redemptive: the spirit
labours on the creature to prepare it for its perfection and final
ascent. This would suggest a universal eschatological perspective:
humanity will not be completely saved until the end, and the
presence of the Epinoia/spirit imparts only a readiness for that
final redemption. The Apocryphon gives the idea of her presence
a special interpretation: the Epinoia is concealed in Adam not
just to escape the notice of the archons but above all to correct
the Mother’s deficiency.85 Much of this picture and terminology
(the passive Sophia, the work of her consort, the terms and
concepts of restoration, plerdma-hysterema) is strikingly parallel
to Valentinianism and further confirms the hypothesis of its
influence.

(b) The second archontic reaction: the material body

and the trees of Paradise

Because of the shadow (or particle) of light in him, Adam shone

and his intelligence elevated him above his creators.86 They stared
up and saw how superior he was,87 and the whole band of archons,
angels and powers decided on a counter-plan, mingling the
elements of fire, earth, water and the four fiery winds in a great
(con)fusion.88 Man is brought into the shadow of death through
a further creation from the four material elements which the
Apocryphon characteristically interprets as matter (hyle), darkness,
desire (epithymia) and counterfeit (antimimon: III), opposed
(antikeimenon: B) or variegated (etshbbiaeit: II) spirit (pneuma).89
In typical Gnostic fashion this material body of ours is depicted
as composed of evil hypostasized passions and hostile elements,
described as ‘the fetter’, ‘the tomb’ (spelaion) of the created form
of the body imposed on us by the robbers (the archons) and
summed up as ‘the fetter of oblivion’.90 Thus man becomes mortal
and he is described as the first to descend and the first separation.91
But as usual, lest we should feel too pessimistic about the human
situation, our imprisonment in a body enslaved to the passions,
ignorant and deficient, we are reminded of the continuous
revelatory/redemptive activity of the heavenly light figure.
224 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

However, the versions differ in that while LR refers to the Epinoia

of light who will be in Adam awakening his intelligence,92 SR talks
of the Ennoia of the pre-existent (III) or first (B) light as present
in him.93 Since such a figure could be identified as Barbelo,94
adding more weight to the hypothesis that the various redeemer
figures are fundamentally identical, LR may represent a further
attempt to remove such a risky conception and, by its use of the
future tenses, tidy up apparent inconsistencies (e.g. that the
Epinoia does not awaken Adam’s intelligence until later).90
Then follows the episode of the two trees of Paradise,
reinterpreted in terms of the hostility, deceitfulness and evil
character of our mortal existence, represented by the counterfeit
spirit (tree of life) and the presence of the redeeming power of
the Epinoia or holy spirit (tree of the knowledge of good and
evil).96 While SR remains more faithful to the Genesis account in
having the First Archon set Adam in the garden which to deceive
him he said would be a delight (tryphe, cf. Gen 2:15, 3:23f. LXX)
for him,97 LR has the archons put him in Paradise and command
him to eat at leisure.98 The difference seems to lie in alternative
interpretations by both of the wordplay tryphe/trophe which
underlies the whole passage, as Tardieu has noted.99
Thus the Apocryphon continues its interpretation of Genesis by
explaining the Paradise episode as a further archontic trick: the
delight, nourishment and beauty of the garden is bitter and
lawless; it is a deceit. The trees are hostility and impiety, their
fruit an incurable poison, their promise death.1 For the archons’
tree, the texts continue, is the tree of life in the middle of Paradise
(cf. Gen 3:4), whose secret the Saviour promises to reveal. But
both recensions then differ, SR glossing that secret as their
counterfeit (antimimos) spirit intended to turn Adam away from
recognizing his perfection, which LR, aware that this figure only
appears much later, has been led to amend to refer to their mutual
plan, namely the image of their spirit.2
The Saviour’s description of the tree of life is quite similar to
the previous one: its root is bitter, its branches shadows of death,
its leaves hate and deceit, its sap a wicked ointment, its fruit death,
its seed desire, and it grows in darkness. Those who taste it dwell
in the underworld.3 Conversely, the forbidden tree of the
knowledge of good and evil is the Epinoia of light, about which,
SR continues, command was given not to taste, i.e. not to listen to
it (cf. Gen 2:17), to prevent man looking up to and recognizing
his nakedness of perfection (cf. Gen 3:7).4 LR, however, omits
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 225

the references to Genesis and to Adam’s lack of perfection and

simply has the archons prevent him looking up, further
demonstrating its tendency to avoid or tidy up seeming awkward¬
nesses and inconsistencies. ’
The Saviour then suddenly interjects: ‘But it was I who raised
them (sicl) up and made them eat.’John is prompted to ask what
is his second question arising out of the Genesis reinterpretation:
Was it not the snake who was responsible? To this the Saviour
smilingly replies that the snake taught the sowing (spora) of desire,
defilement and destruction, i.e. sexual reproduction which would
be useful to him.6 Although the passage is clearly an insertion,7 it
may be regarded as anticipatory, stimulated by the mention of
man recognizing his nakedness of perfection.8 If it was not the
snake who instructed Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of
knowledge, i.e. listen to the Epinoia, who was it? The Saviour insists
it was he. However, it later transpires that - at least according to
SR - it was the Epinoia who instructed Adam to eat the knowledge,
not as the tree but through the tree in the form of an eagle.9 LR
is even more complicated, having Adam taste the knowledge
through the Pronoia, the Saviour (the eagle) and the Epinoia
(the tree) respectively!10 As we shall see, LR may represent an
attempt to make sense of the Saviour’s interjection, that it was he
who got Adam to eat, as also to integrate the redeemer figure,
the Pronoia of the closing hymn, more thoroughly into the
narrative.
What we have here are several not entirely consistent
interpretations of the Genesis account of the trees in Paradise,
the snake who instructs Adam and Eve, and the consequences of
their eating. The garden is a deceit, the significance and effect of
the two trees is reversed and the snake demoted. The underlying
theological paradox which the passage is employed to illustrate is
the presence of the possibility of salvation and the continuous
revelation (represented by the power of the Mother and the
Epinoia respectively) in the Gnostic’s present situation, the fetter
of oblivion, the tomb of the material body. But even the presence
of the Epinoia itself is not enough, as we shall see; humanity needs
the divine Holy Spirit itself to descend and grant decisive
redemption, presumably in the context of the five seals rite.11
These episodes of the creation of a material body as a second
stage (not explicit in Genesis)12 and the two trees of Paradise (in
Genesis but reinterpreted by the Apocryphon)13 are developed to
explain certain aspects of the Gnostic’s existence: his or her
226 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

material body and the influences it is prey to - desire and the

passions, mortality, sexual generation, ignorance of humanity’s
spiritual nature and origin. Humanity is a battleground of two
opposing spirits: the good spirit or Epinoia, and an evil spirit,
imitating the good, which prevents humanity from gaining
knowledge of its situation.14

(c) The third archontic reaction: the creation of Eve

Our human situation has not, however, been fully delineated:

sexual division has not yet taken place. This is preceded if not
initiated by Adam’s recognition of his disobedience to the First
Archon because of his superior wisdom,15 attributed by LR to the
light of the Epinoia present in him.16 The First Archon thereupon
decides to extract the power of the Mother given to Adam by him.17
In fact such a decision is repeated on two more occasions in
remarkably similar wording: it occurs after the episodes of Adam’s
oblivion and the Epinoia’s concealment in him when Ialdabaoth
is said to resolve to extract her, and again in SR before it describes
how Ialdabaoth forms a female figure and raises it up before
Adam.18 Significantly, LR obscures the last parallel in its entirely
different version, which has him take a part of Adam’s power,
create a female form like the Epinoia and insert the power into
it.19 But both recensions agree in rejecting the reference in Gen
2:21 to Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib.20
The difference between the recensions at first suggests the
existence of two distinct Gnostic interpretations of Gen 2:21. The
first, echoing the theme of the seduction of the creator archons
in Saturninus and the Hypostasis, has Ialdabaoth try to empty Adam
of his power (i.e. the Epinoia?) by creating Eve as a kind of lure,
with no attempt to utilize the rib idea.21 The second, which does
make use of it, recalls the ‘Ophite’ version in which Ialdabaoth
tries to empty Adam of his power by producing a woman from
the thought (enthymesis) which Adam had derived from his
inbreathing,22 combining with it echoes of the related theme
found in the Hypostasis and On the Origin of the World, the archontic
attempt to ravish and subjugate the spiritual woman.23 In this
version Ialdabaoth creates Eve from the power he takes from Adam
in imitation of the Epinoia (who was supposed to have concealed
herself in Adam unobserved!), presumably in order to lure her
out and seize her. In this case, the target is not the power, but the
Epinoia, whereas in SR, as with the ‘Ophites’, the creation of Eve
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 227

is apparently to be the means of removing the power. Here once

again the version in LR seems to be attempting to resolve the
inconsistencies or gaps of SR.
But the real key to the present state of the texts is surely to see
them as resulting from the combination of two distinct traditions,
one involving the power of the Mother only, the other including
the activity of the Epinoia. This has led the redactors of SR and
LR to their different interpretations of Gen 2:21. Such a
combination would explain the awkward triple repetition of
Ialdabaoth’s decision to retrieve the power noted above, which
LR has felt it necessary to modify to fit the Epinoia scheme. Further
evidence of it is demonstrated by the way the episodes involving
the Epinoia (being sent as helper, awakening Adam’s thought
and being present in Paradise as the tree of knowledge) evidently
break the (original) continuity of the tradition about the Mother’s
power. This continuity has been preserved by the ‘Ophites’ of
Irenaeus who relate how Ialdabaoth inbreathed the power of the
Mother into Adam, how he was thus exalted above his creators,
and how Ialdabaoth, full of jealousy, plotted to recover the power
by producing a woman from him.24 And comparison of the
terminology involved tends to confirm the existence of the two
traditions and the secondary character of the Epinoia tradition:
passages concerning the Epinoia use terms reminiscent of the
technical terminology of Valentinianism, while those involving
the power speak in terms more reminiscent of ‘Ophite’ ideas, of
man’s thought being stronger, more powerful or more exalted
than that of his creators.25
If then the original formulation only involved the power and
the Epinoia tradition was later conflated with it, did the sleep/
oblivion motif of Gen 2:21 (not present in the ‘Ophite’ version)
belong to that original? Certainly both recensions agree in
reinterpreting it: in pursuance of his plan to recover the power
Ialdabaoth casts an oblivion over Adam.26 This prompts John’s
third question, ‘Lord, what is oblivion? and the Saviour s
‘correction’ of‘Moses’: he did not make him sleep but veiled and
weighed down his senses in accordance with Isa 6:10.27 However,
far from this being the means for Ialdabaoth to remove the power,
as we might have expected, we suddenly hear of the Epinoia of
light concealing herself in Adam (despite the hint in LR that she
was already there!) ,28 and the resolve of the First Archon to extract
her from Adam’s side.29 Although the oblivion theme may be
original, this passage with its reinterpretation of the rib of Gen
228 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

2:21 is evidently a further intrusion into the power tradition by

the Epinoia material, which continues with the Johannine gloss
that despite the First Archon’s resolve, the Epinoia is unattainable;
although the darkness pursued her it could not reach her (cf.
John 1:5).30
Comparison with the treatment of Gen 2:21 in the Hypostasis
and On the Origin of the World?2 is instructive here. In the former,
which as usual follows the LXX of Genesis in a much more li teral
fashion, it is the archons who decide to bring oblivion (bshe) over
the spirit-indwelt Adam so that he falls asleep. This oblivion is
interpreted, as in the Apocryphon, as ignorance. They thereupon
open his side as a living woman and build it up with flesh in place
of her (cf. Gen 2:21 f.). Adam thus becomes entirely psychic, but
the spiritual woman thus formed awakens him so that when he
sees her he exclaims: ‘You will be called “the Mother of the living’”
(cf. Gen 3:21).33 Then follows the motif of the archontic rape,
not of the spiritual woman but of her shadow.34
On the Origin of the World presents a rather different picture of
events. According to it Zoe/Eve, the daughter of Pistis Sophia, is
sent to waken the inert, soulless Adam. He is enabled to stand
and when he sees her he exclaims (as in the Hypostasis) ‘You will
be called “the Mother of the living” because you gave me life’ (cf.
Gen 3:21). When the authorities hear of this they decide to seduce
her to prevent her ascent. They plan to deceive Adam into
thinking that she is from his rib, and thus subservient, by bringing
an oblivion {bshe) over him and instructing him in his sleep (cf.
Gen 2:21f.).3'> Then follows, as in the Hypostasis, the archontic
attempt to seduce Eve, which fails. What they do defile is her
likeness left secretly beside Adam.36 As we have already observed,
the same two motifs (Eve’s appearance and her seduction by the
archons) also appear side by side in the ‘Ophite’ system.37
What makes the Hypostasis and On the Origin different from the
Apocryphon is the latter’s more positive evaluation of the First
Archon as an unwitting vehicle of the divine and consequent
emphasis on the power motif. Thus the Hypostasis and On the Origin
put their stress on the spiritual woman as the source of revelation
and salvation (and thus properly entitled ‘Zoe, the Mother of the
living’), entirely distinct from Adam (and earthly Eve) and the
object of the archontic attacks. The Apocryphon, on the other hand,
at least originally (as with the ‘Ophites’), focuses rather on the
light-power, with Eve created as a means of emptying Adam of it,
and the Epinoia added only later as the main target. This analysis
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 229

is confirmed by their differing use of the oblivion motif, either

literally, to assist Eve’s creation, as in the Hypostasis, or as part of
an archontic pretence, as in On the Origin. Both are more
meaningful than that of our present Apocryphon with its abrupt
reference to the Epinoia, suggesting that originally the Apocryphon
was closer to the version found in the Hypostasis: God cast an
oblivion over Adam, removed, not his rib but the light-power, and
formed it into Eve, who is thus recognized by Adam as
consubstantial.38 This picture seems to be borne out by the
continuation in SR: when Adam sees her he immediately becomes
sober and applies Gen 2:23f. to her (i.e. she is the revealer/
redeemer rather than the Epinoia which SR has hastily inserted
in an attempt to harmonize, and she is rightly entitled ‘the Mother
of all living’, rather than the Epinoia, or even, as in LR, the
abruptly-introduced Sophia) ,39
Our present version of the Apocryphon has obscured this by its
introduction of the Epinoia. As we saw, she has been given the
attributes of the spiritual woman of the Hypostasis, On the Origin
and the ‘Ophites’, whom the archons attempt to seduce.
Ialdabaoth’s attempt to extract the light-power becomes his
unsuccessful attempt to lure out the Epinoia, and it is she, rather
than the light-power present as the spiritual Eve, who removes
the veil from Adam’s senses, and is called by Adam, ‘Zoe, Mother
of the living’.40 And this interpolation also makes sense of the
confused interpretation of Gen 2:23f. in the Apocryphon.41 With
the loss of the original reference to Adam’s abandonment of his
creators and union with his spiritual counterpart through the
substitution of the Epinoia, the text required a new interpretation.
The reference to the man was taken to apply to Sophia’s consort
(i.e. the Epinoia), that to the woman to Sophia, and man’s leaving
his parents to the future descent of the Epinoia to unite with
Sophia and correct her faults. As we have seen, SR seems to retain
a trace of the more original interpretation while LR has taken
the feminine figure named by Adam as Sophia and not as the
Epinoia.42
This complex episode enables the author(s) of the Apocryphon
to explain how the division of Adam into male and female came
about. Here we have a further element in our present situation,
the existence of woman, which implies the further fettering of
the divine through sexual reproduction and also explains (by
appeal to the prevailing Jewish legends about the seduction of
Eve) the existence of angelic intermediaries with control over the
230 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

visible world. Characteristically, alongside the tradition of the First

Archon attempting to remove the light-power from Adam and
creating woman as a means, bait and receptacle for it, we have
the presence of the Epinoia, just as in the ‘Ophite’ system we have
both the trace of light and the redemptive activity of Sophia. Even
if Ialdabaoth is successful as regards the presence of the light-
power (which as we shall see is later interpreted as the soul or
precondition for salvation) in Eve, there is still the revelatory and
redemptive activity of the Epinoia.43
The tensions and contradictions visible in both recensions are
to some extent the result of different traditions, but they also serve
to express, as do the similar phenomena in the Hypostasis and On
the Origin of the World, the classic Gnostic paradox: how to proclaim
their certainty of being the elect, possessing the divine power
within themselves, yet do justice to the elements in their own
existence which threatened that assurance: the weight of matter
and the senses, the fact of sexual differentiation, the lure of the
passions and the burden of mortality and fate.

(d) The eating of knowledge and the expulsion from Paradise

Despite frequent anticipations Adam and Eve have not yet eaten
of the tree of knowledge, already interpreted (if hesitantly by LR)
as the Epinoia. Further, they are still in Paradise and not in this
present world of ignorance, darkness and death, governed by
the demands of nature and the inexorable drive of sexual repro¬
duction, subject to the imperfect antitheses of justice and
injustice and the conventions of morality. To account for such
a situation the Apocryphon makes further use of the tree of
knowledge motif, but in this case as it occurs in Genesis 3 rather
than Genesis 2.
The heavenly initiative in getting Adam and Eve to eat is again
stressed. We were told above that the snake had merely taught
sexual reproduction: it was the Saviour himself who encouraged
them to eat.44 Now we hear that it occurred through heavenly
authority and revelation.45 But whereas SR has the Epinoia instruct
Adam through the tree in the form of an eagle to eat the
knowledge,46 LR, after reference to their tasting pefect knowledge,
suddenly has the Saviour interject: ‘It was I who appeared in the
form of an eagle on the tree of knowledge, i.e. the Epinoia from
the Pronoia ... to teach them and awaken them from deep
sleep.’47 This passage is not simply part of the attempt of the
 vv- Mar cea% CSB
Gnostic Soteriology 1 231

redactor of LR to introduce more traditional elements of exegesis

of Gen 3:6-7, as Tardieu claims,48 but rather aims to confirm the
Saviour’s ultimate identity as the Pronoia.49 By such an
identification and description of the Saviour’s redeeming activity
as teaching and awakening from sleep, this passage is brought
into harmony both with the Saviour’s earlier interjection and the
triple descent scheme of the closing Pronoia hymn.50
LR is thus led to ‘correct’ SR’s representation of Epinoia in the
form of an eagle on the tree (instead of herself being the tree as in
the earlier passage based on Genesis 2) instructing Adam to eat
the knowledge and thereby recognize his (or their) perfection.01
And it again follows Genesis (3:8) in speaking of their fall and
recognition of their nakedness, over against SR’s description of
their fault as ignorance.52 But, conscious that the Epinoia was
originally the subject, LR immediately reintroduces her as
revealing herself to them and awakening their thought.03
This sparks the inevitable archontic reaction. According to its
exegesis of Gen 3:6f., the Apocryphon has described how Adam
and Eve came to ‘eat’ the knowledge and thus become aware of
their perfection and fallen state of ignorance. Following Gen 3:8
(Adam’s concealment from God) it relates how Ialdabaoth
becomes aware that they have departed from him.54 The same
two motifs occur together in the ‘Ophite’ system: Adam and Eve
after eating the tree of knowledge recognize the supreme power
and depart from their creators.00 The Apocryphon continues the
Genesis reinterpretation with Ialdabaoth’s curse. That LR has him
curse Adam’s earth rather than him and Eve, as in SR,56 is probably
due to its more literal interpretation of Gen 3:17.°7 And Tardieu
has very plausibly traced LR’s divergence from SR (in having
Ialdabaoth discover the woman preparing herself for Adam,
adding that he was lord over her although he did not know the
mystery which had occurred through the holy counsel,08 rather
than, as in SR, that he added (prospoieisthai) of the woman that
her husband would be lord over her (cf. Gen 3:16) etc.)09 to its
misreading of prospoieisthai.60 Thus it failed to spot the reference
and amended the text in the light of Ialdabaoth’s subsequent rape
of Eve.
The ‘mystery of the holy counsel’, of which Ialdabaoth is
ignorant in ordaining the superiority of male to female, is probably
the resolution of the Mother-Father whereby the Mother’s power
was inserted into Adam by Ialdabaoth.61 But we might also recall
the use of the terms ‘mystery’ and ‘counsel’ in the previous passage
232 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

about the trees in Paradise. Over against the secret of the archons’
plan revealed by the Saviour, i.e. the counterfeit spirit which leads
to wickedness, desire and death,62 there is the secret of the
heavenly plan, the light-power hidden in Adam and Eve and the
presence of the Epinoia, who continually awakens man from his
oblivion to recognize his equal and consubstantial consort, Eve.63
In an ironic reversal of Genesis, the Apocryphon has Adam and
Eve frightened to reprove their creator and thus reveal his
ignorance to his angels.64 Finally he casts them out of the garden
(cf. Gen 3:23) and cloaks them in thick darkness.65 Thus we have
the depiction through the reinterpretation of selected motifs from
Genesis 3 (eating the tree of knowledge, ‘nakedness’, the curse,
man as lord of woman, the expulsion from Paradise) of further
characteristics of our present situation. We do not live in Paradise;
we are aware of our lack of perfect knowledge and of the tragic
splitting of our original unity, of that mystery of the power found
in us which seeks reunion, perfection. We live in a world under a
curse, the creation of an ignorant demiurge, a dominant
characteristic of which is the male’s lordship over the female,
despite their true but hidden equality and unity.66 But the Gnostic
is conscious, through the presence of the divine power within and
the work of the divine Spirit, of the mystery of the heavenly plan
of restoration and removal of the deficiency, the ignorance that
drowns that divine element in oblivion.

(e) The seduction of Eve and the origin of human generation

Besides the reality of sexual distinction there is a further deter¬

minant of human existence, the biological urge to reproduce.
Sex and generation are presented as a further device of the creator
and his satellites to keep us enslaved and blind to our true origin
and destiny. To explain this the authors of the Apocryphon have
recourse to the motif already mentioned, the archontic seduction
of Eve. This appears in various guises in Gnostic texts. In the
‘Ophite’ system, for example, Ialdabaoth’s offspring, sexually
attracted by the woman created by their progenitor, call her Eve,
and beget sons, i.e. the angels, by her. Her adultery (and claim to
be Mother of all living?) leads to another heavenly rebuke from
Sophia.67 This is followed by a second use of the motif, in
association with and partial explanation of, Adam and Eve’s
expulsion from Paradise. Ialdabaoth himself tries to rape Eve and
beget sons by her, but is unable because of Sophia’s secret
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 233

opposition and evacuation of the trace of light.68 This reveals the

characteristic hallmark of ‘Ophite’ theology: the trace of light
cannot be jeopardized and in both cases is removed beforehand.
Elements of both interpretations occur in the Hypostasis and
On the Origin of the World. In both the archons, horrified to discover
that the spiritual woman has awakened their Adam, attempt to
seduce her, but in fact merely defile her earthly image.69 The
‘Ophite’ distinction between defiled earthly Eve and the intact
heavenly trace of light appears here as the distinction between
the defiled image and the unscathed heavenly Eve. The Hypostasis,
perhaps closer to the likely original form of the motif, has the
archons motivated by infatuation,70 whereas in On the Origin their
intention is to defile her to prevent her return to heaven, thereby
ensuring the subordination of her and her offspring to themselves
and Adam.71 In it the earthly Eve is raped and produces Abel first
from the chief archon, then the rest from the seven powers and
their angels.72
The background of this motif may indeed be Gen 6:lf., as
Bullard, Janssens and Stroumsa suggest,73 but we should carefully
distinguish, asjonas argues,74 between the related but not identical
mythologoumena of the fornication of the angels (of Genesis 6)
and the seduction of the archons. The idea found in rabbinic
and Gnostic sources that the Devil (in the guise of the snake)
begot Cain (and Abel) by Eve75 has clearly played some part along
with speculation, Jewish and otherwise, on Genesis 6, in the
development of both. But whatever the precise source or sources,
the rape motif is used by the Apocryphon to explain the demiurgic
origin of sexual reproduction and the nature of the archons who
rule humanity and the cosmos, and who embody the kind of
imperfect morality (righteous/unrighteous) which pertains in this
world.
Ialdabaoth is once more the protagonist, as in the creation of
Eve and the expulsion from Paradise. According to SR he saw the
virgin standing beside Adam and became filled with ignorance
since he wanted to raise up offspring (sperma) from her.76 LR, in
that it feels constrained to add as motivation that the First Archon
had seen the Epinoia appear in Eve as life, seems secondary, a
further sign of its tendency to stress the Pronoia—Epinoia pattern.77
Thus it at once involves the Pronoia sending assistants to remove
Zoe (i.e. the Epinoia) from Eve, presumably lest she be defiled.78
This also precisely echoes the tendency noted above in the
‘Ophite’ system, the Hypostasis and On the Origin: to ensure that
234 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

the divine redeeming element remains undefiled by at times

removing it from its earthly vessel. Indeed the parallel to LR is
more marked in the ‘Ophite’ system: Sophia secretly empties Eve
of the trace of light lest the spirit from the height (principalitas =
authentia) should share either in cursing or in (sexual) abuse
(opprobrium) at the hands of Ialdabaoth.79
All four versions then agree in depicting Ialdabaoth raping Eve
and begetting two sons.80 But the two recensions reverse their
names. Whereas LR first gives them as Eloim (i.e. Elohim) and
Jave (i.e. Yahweh), assigning a bear face to Eloim and a cat face
to Jave,81 SR omits the primary identification and reverses the
ascriptions.82 Both recensions agree that one is righteous and the
other unrighteous, but continue with their reverse identifications;
Jave as righteous and Eloim as unrighteous in LR, vice versa in
SR.83 SR then has the righteous set over fire and spirit, the
unrighteous over water and earth, while LR has Jave over fire and
wind, Eloim over water and earth.84 Finally, while SR has them
called Cain and Abel by all the generations of men till today, LR
makes Ialdabaoth responsible for naming them in view of his
wickedness, apparently attaching the reference to the present day
to the following sentence.85 A few lines later we are told Ialdabaoth
set them over the elements (archai) to rule the tomb (spelaion/
mhaou), namely the material body.86
Despite the reversals in identification, the basic structure and
thrust are clear. The powers which rule the elements, and thus
material human bodies, are derived from Ialdabaoth’s rape of Eve.
The more elevated elements (fire and wind) are governed by the
righteous archon identified as Cain by humanity, the less elevated
(water and earth) by the unrighteous identified as Abel. They are
not (as in Genesis, the ‘Ophite’ system, the Hypostasis, etc.) the
sons of Adam: further, their characteristics are the reverse of the
Genesis account.87 And it is the Genesis connection which may
explain the swapping round of the names Jave and Eloim. It is
surely significant that these names alone are reversed, not their
appearance, character, the elements they control, etc. What seems
to have caused the trouble is the similar attempt by redactors of
both recensions to accommodate the identification with Cain and
Abel. Cain, the first son in Genesis 4, is yet unrighteous, Abel, the
second, righteous. SR, with its original order Jave-Eloim (cf. Gen
2:4b), has identified Eloim with the righteous archon Abel, set
over the superior elements, and Jave with the wicked Cain,
associated with water and earth: LR, with its order Eloim-Jave,
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 235

has done the same, identifyingjave with Abel and Eloim with Cain.
It is difficult to judge which of these traditions is more original,
but pointers to the priority of SR might be its more biblical order
of the archons’ names and the clumsier treatment of the naming
of Cain and Abel by LR.88
It is in this context, sandwiched between the origin and activity
of these archons who were the first product of sexual intercourse,
that the Apocryphon relates how ordinary earthly intercourse began,
the point being, of course, that it was Ialdabaoth and his powers
who initiated, control and ensure the continuation of sex and
human reproduction. Although the Saviour’s previous attribution
of this to the snake we suggested may be secondary and modelled
on Ialdabaoth’s action here,89 the snake could be seen as an agent
of or even the First Archon himself. Thus it was indeed through
Ialdabaoth that sexual intercourse began and continues, in that
he sowed a desire for reproduction in Adam.90
The gist of the following confused passage, in which B and III
differ from one another as well as from LR, seems to be that by
means of this desire and the operation of the counterfeit spirit
human images were produced.91 The key to the confusion may
lie in the ousia of SR, which LR seems to avoid and has evidently
understood here in a sexual sense and emended into the more
comprehensible (and just mentioned) synousia.92 What SR for all
its disarray may be trying to express is that the desire for offspring
sown in Adam and Eve and the counterfeit spirit represent two of
the four evil substances from which Adam was re-formed by the
archons; hence all his descendants are in their image.93 And this
would explain the rather abrupt reappearance of the two archons.
They were associated with the four elements/evil substances, and
so it is natural that they are mentioned here as set by Ialdabaoth
over the (four?) elements (archai) to control the tomb of the
human body.94

(f) The descent of the Mother’s spirit and its saving activity

With this reference to the installation of the two archons over the
human body, the Apocryphon s description of the present character
of that body, composed of evil material elements, sexually divided
with the male superior to the female, expelled from Paradise,
subject to the forces of reproduction and the constraints of an
inferior moral order derived from the archontic offspring of
Ialdabaoth, is completed. But that is not the whole story: at once
236 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

we hear of a new initiative further developing - indeed climaxing

- the Genesis reinterpretation, namely the birth of Seth and its
implications. Once again LR seems to represent a theological
expansion of SR based on the ‘Sethian’ reinterpretation. Thus
whereas SR simply talks of Adam knowing his own substance and
begetting Seth (cf. Gen 4:25) in the manner of aeonic generation
(genea) ,93 LR relates how, when Adam recognized the likeness of
his foreknowledge (prognosis), he begot the likeness of the Son of
Man and called him ‘Seth’ in the manner of begetting among
the aeons.96 LR has been led to develop the parallel with heavenly
Adam (as) and Seth: earthly Adam recognizes the image of
heavenly Man/Adamas (produced, it will be recalled, from the
aeon First Thought/prognosis) ,97 and begets Seth in that image
and with that figure’s name.
Here the ambiguity over where exactly the phrase about the
similarity to heavenly generation belongs, whether to Seth’s
production, as in III and LR, or to the following passage about
the Mother sending her spirit, as in B,98 might suggest the
secondary character of this section with its further signs of the
effects of Valentinian and ‘Sethian’ reinterpretation. Thus while
B has the Mother, in accordance with the heavenly race in the
aeons, sending what is hers, i.e. her spirit, III has the Mother being
sent her own spirit.99 Who is this Mother? Janssens argues on the
basis of the mention of the heavenly race that she must be the
Pronoia and not Sophia,1 but LR appears to assume that ‘the
Mother’ refers to Sophia. Thus it reads: ‘so (homoios) the other
Mother (i.e. Barbelo/Pronoia) sent down her spirit which is like
her’.2 SR then has the spirit descend to (or for) her to raise up
the substance (ousia) which resembles him, after the pattern
(typos) of the perfection, to rouse them from the oblivion and
wickedness of the grave,3 while LR diverges, referring to the
Mother sending down the spirit as the antitype (antitypos) of those
in perfection (pleroma), since she intended to prepare a dwelling
for the aeons who were to come down.4
Now the descent motif and the awkward ‘to her’ of B do recall
the previous mission of Sophia’s consort to correct her
deficiencies.3 LR and III have seen the awkwardness of B’s version
and tried to emend, the former by suggesting that ‘the Mother’ is
Barbelo, not Sophia, the latter making Sophia the object, both
insisting on her essentially passive role. The version in B would
thus seem more original,6 but itself a clumsy attempt to reconcile
two different traditions, the earlier that of the redeemer Sophia
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 237

restoring the divine element to Seth and his descendants after

Adam and Eve had lost it, as in the ‘Ophite’ system,7 the later the
Valentinian and ‘Sethian’ influenced tradition of the consort/
spirit who descends from the Pleroma first to the passive Sophia
and then to her spiritual descendants, the race of Seth, to correct
the deficiency.
The continuation, unique to LR, which has him (i.e. the spirit,
although the previous subject had been the Mother), cause them
to drink water of oblivion from the First Archon to make them
ignorant of where they had come from,8 is obviously the work of
LR's redactor, perhaps in an effort to give what he interprets as
Barbelo’s spirit an appropriate role, at the same time explaining
why the race of Seth was not entirely saved at that point. Since
Barbelo has already sent her spirit/Epinoia/Zoe to help Adam,
perfect creation and correct Sophia’s deficiency,9 it cannot simply
do the same here (i.e. awaken those akin to it from their earthly
oblivion, work on the seed, etc. as in SR). Instead it is given the
roles of preparing earthly dwellings for those divine beings (souls?)
to be sent down later, and ensuring that the Sethians forget their
origin, hence the need for a final divine intervention.
The secondary character of LR at this point is also evident from
the sequel: whereas SR has the seed as the object of the spirit’s
activity, in LR the seed is the subject, left dangling with no
apparent object.10 And comparison with earlier and later passages
dealing with the Epinoia’s mission suggests that LR has misunder¬
stood or reinterpreted the basic soteriological pattern which SR
reflects better.11 Just as the Epinoia, the good spirit, was sent out
to help Adam, work at the created order, etc., so too the Mother’s
own spirit has the task of awakening from oblivion those of Adam’s
descendants con substantial with it, the elect seed of Seth, and
preparing them for the final redemptive descent of the Holy Spirit
(in the rite of the five seals?).
Finally it is worth noting how the whole pattern and terminology
of this saving event13 both recall the descriptions of the mission
of the consort to Sophia,14 the Epinoia to Adam,15 and Sophia to
her seed,16 on the one hand and echo Valentinian and ‘Sethian’
language and conceptions on the other. Yet it is surely first worth
noting once again the underlying similarity to the ‘Ophite’ system:
the Apocryphon s pattern of four redemptive missions can be
reduced to involve only two figures, Sophia’s consort and herself,
as with the ‘Ophites’,17 the major difference being that whereas
the latter highlights Sophia’s redemptive role and only alludes to
238 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

her need for redemption in passing,18 the Apocryphon does the

reverse. Sophia appears predominantly in need of redemption
and only faint traces remain of her redeeming role.19 Nevertheless
both texts, as Schottroff has persuasively argued,20 have the
identical aim of exonerating Sophia from blame for the present
state of the cosmos, but achieve it by diametrically opposed
solutions. For our Apocryphon Sophia is deficient, therefore she
cannot redeem; for the ‘Ophites’ Sophia is entirely free from
blemish, therefore she does redeem.
Yet if there is an underlying similarity of structure here between
the Apocryphon and the ‘Ophites’, the influence of Valentinian
and ‘Sethian’ ideas on the former is even more unmistakable. As
regards the first, Sophia’s original request for salvation, the
consent of the Pleroma and the dispatch of her consort to correct
her deficiency unmistakably recall the pattern in certain
Valentinian texts which know of one fallen Sophia.21 Then there
is the concatenation of concepts occurring without explanation
such as awakening, oblivion, the seed, raising up or correcting,
deficiency and perfection, employed in a manner reminiscent of
their - virtually technical - usage in Valentinianism.22 And as
regards the second, we have frequently drawn attention to the
‘Sethian’ character of features found here such as the seed and
the centrality of (heavenly) Seth.

Conclusion

With the reference to Seth, the ‘other seed’ of Gen 4:25, the
Apocryphon concludes its reinterpretation of the primal history,
Genesis 1-4. Although this is the major soteriological component
of the Apocryphon, there still remain the section on the destiny of
souls, the further Genesis reinterpretation and the Pronoia hymn,
to be dealt with in the following chapter. Thus any conclusions at
this point can only be preliminary.
First, it is undoubtedly the case that the Genesis reinterpretation
is fundamental to the Apocryphon, as well as to the ‘Ophite’ system
and the related Hypostasis of the Archons and On the Origin of the
World, and is also implied, we suggested, by Irenaeus’ (incomplete)
summary of the Barbelognostic myth. It is used to explain our
present condition, enslaved in an evil material body, exiled from
Paradise, subject to the passions, sexual division and the
reproductive process, under the control of alien rulers and their
 Gnostic Soteriology 1 239

dubious morality, a battleground of two opposed spirits, one

divine, the other counterfeit. On the other handjohn’s questions
and the Saviour’s responses and interjections are undoubtedly a
later addition.
Second, Genesis is obviously reinterpreted in our texts in
accordance with an existing Gnostic myth or myths, in a plastic
and varied way, so that different interpretations occur of the
same events, as we have seen. However, behind that variety one
can detect in each text a fundamental concern (or concerns)
which tends to determine the interpretation. In the case of the
Apocryphon we can detect not only the original Barbelognostic (and
‘Ophite’) concern with the paradoxical figure of Sophia, obedient
higher and disobedient lower Wisdom, both creator and
redeemer, whose experience is paradigmatic for the Gnostic him-
or herself, but also the frame story and dialogue reworking
with its Pronoia-Epinoia scheme, playing down Sophia’s
redeeming role and replacing it with the Epinoia and the triple
descent of Pronoia, and the ‘Sethian’ reinterpretation with its
periodization of salvation history involving heavenly Seth and his
descendants. Yet all three reflect in their varying emphases the
central paradox of the Gnostic experience of salvation: the
possession on the one hand of the possibility of salvation (often
expressed as a continuing process of revelation), yet the need on
the other for a final saving revelation from heaven. This explains
the otherwise baffling and apparently inconsistent process of
salvation history charted in Genesis: Adam is continually saved by
heavenly interventions yet keeps on forfeiting that salvation
through further archontic stratagems. Salvation/revelation is
not simply original and continuous, but must be decisive and
eschatological. Conversely, the Gnostic Heilsgeschichteimplies that
salvation is not a permanent possession but a gift of grace, which
requires constant effort to retain.
Third, this paradox can help us to a provisional answer to our
opening questions about salvation. On (1) the understanding of
salvation present, we can say that the Gnostic needs not only the
possibility of salvation (the demiurgic power which all possess)
but the saving descent of the Spirit (in a rite of initiation). As
with the famous Valentinian formula with which we began, both
rite and saving knowledge are required. On (2) the subject or
object of salvation, this would seem to be not the whole person or
species but only an element illuminated by or united with the
divine, whether soul, spark, power, substance, seed or race. Adam
240 Notes to pages 211-212

himself is able to lose his divine power. On (3) whether salvation

is by nature or grace, the Apocryphon s Genesis reinterpreta¬
tion suggests that is a false dichotomy: both are intimately
involved, the possibility of salvation (nature) and the Spirit’s
saving descent (grace). On (4) the saviour figure, the Apocryphon
is less clear because of the effects of the Valentinian and ‘Sethian’
reworkings. Thus we have a series of saviour figures, the Saviour
of the frame story, the Mother/Barbelo/Pronoia, the Epinoia
and the Holy Spirit, but again the logic of the experience of
salvation suggests that they only make sense in the light of a
decisive eschatological revelation/salvation, that of and in
Christ. They explain how the possibility of salvation was always
there, but only realized now in and through the Holy Spirit of
Christ in the rite of Gnostic initiation. This in turn suggests an
answer to (5), the time of salvation. Although the possibility
was always there, only from now on, in the light of the Christ event
and the descent of the Holy Spirit, can there be decisive, final
salvation. We shall have to see how far the section on the destiny
of various souls confirms this analysis.
Finally as regards the question of the priority of the versions,
although there are again some exceptions, in the main the short
recension seems closer to the original, the long recension being
more prone to spiritualize, to attempt to reduce apparent incon¬
sistencies, and to reveal the influence of Valentinian and ‘Sethian’
interpretations.

Notes
1 Iren. 1.21.4.
2 18.4-11; cf. 24.28ff. and 16.31-17.4.
3 CH 1.18.
4 21.
5 Cf. the comments of Isidore, Basilides’ son in Clem. Alex. Strom.
6.6.53.4.
6 Cf. e.g. Filoramo, History 38-46.
7 21f.
8 Cf. Gnosis 1, 2ff.; Rudolph, TRu 36, 8; MacRae, ‘Sleep’ 496-507.
9 Cf. Gos. Truth 22.2-20.
10 Quispel, ‘Anthropos’ 234; Colpe, RGG3 2 1657. On this, see Schenke,
‘Die neutestamentliche Christologie und der gnostische Erloser’ in
Troger, Gnosis und Neues Testament 208.
11 ‘La conception de l’homme dans la gnose valentinienne’, Gnostic
Studies 1 37-57, esp. 50, citing Tert. Adv. Val. 29: ‘spiritalem ex Seth de
 Notes to pages 212-215 241

obvenientia superducunt, iam non naturalem sed indulgentiam, utquos

Achamoth de superioribus in animas bonas depluat.’
12 On physei sozomenos (the force of the participle has not always
been observed) in the heresiologists, cf. Iren. 1.6.2f.; Exc. ex Theod. 56.3;
Clem. Alex. Strom. 2.10.2; 115.1; 4.89.4; 5.33; Orig. Princ. 3.4.4f.; Comm,
inJoh. 2.14; Epiph. Pan. 31.7.6-11. See also Basilides in Clem. Alex. Strom.
5.3.2-3. On this idea in Bultmann, cf. Das Evangelium des Johannes
(Gottingen, 1941, 19622), 21-4, 96f., 114, 240 (ET 28-31, 64ff., 135,
n. 4, 250f.); Theology of the New Testament 1 (London: SCM, 1952), 168,
181-3. See also J. Zandee, ‘Gnostic Ideas on the Fall and Salvation’,
Numen 11 (1964), 13-74, esp. 18, 41, 43, 46; W. Schmithals, Gnosticism
in Corinth, tr. J. E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 28; H.-M.
Schenke in Umwelt des Urchristentums 1 (Berlin, 19713), 379.
13 ‘Animae’ 65-97, arguing on the basis of the Apocalypse of Adam and
Valentinian evidence. On this, see Rudolph, TRu 37 (1971), 12f.
14 Cf. 119.16ff.
15 ‘Valentinian Claim’, passim.
16 See ch. 5, p. 168f.
17 Cf. e.g. Iren. 1.6.1; 7.5.
18 For a balanced summary of this, see e.g. Rudolph, Gnosis 117f.
19 127.16f.
20 So e.g. Quispel, ‘Anthropos’ 234; Colpe, SchuleSO, 198; Schmithals,
Gnosticism 30, n. 12; see further Filoramo, History 103, n. 11. But, cf.
Colpe’s revised view in ‘New Testament and Gnostic Christology’ in
Religions in Antiquity (Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough) ed. J.
Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 227-43, esp. 242.
21 ‘Erloser’ 208.
22 Gnosis 118-47.
23 History 104f.
24 On this, see esp. Bousset, Hauptprobleme ch. 6, 238-76; Reitzen-
stein, Erlosungsmysterium; Colpe, Schuleand Rudolph, Tru 36, Ilf.; Gnosis
121 ff.
25 Cf. Gnosis 121, 131 f.
26Arai, ‘Zur Christologie des Apokryphons des Johannes’, NTS 15
(1968/69), 318; Schottroff, Glaubende 99. But for her the Apocryphon is
non- rather than pre-Christian.
27 ‘Erloser’ 214.
28 Glaubende 10.
29 ‘Erloser’ 21 If. On this theme of primal and continuous revelation,
see Rudolph, Gnosis 132-4.
30 217. Cf. Rudolph, Gnosis 148f.
31 Gnosis 149-52.
32 Cf. 1 Apol. 5f„ 46; 2 Apol. 8, 10, 13; Dial. 56ff.
33 Cf. e.g. the views of Epiphanius’ Sethians, Pan. 39.3.5.
242 Notes to pages 216—218

34 Cf. e.g. AJll 15.1-5/IV 23.14-20; HA 87.30-88.3. OWl 12.25-113.5

develops the latter conception: Adam is created in the image of light-
Adam to trap the latter and avert his threat to destroy the archons.
35 Cf. e.g. Iren. 1.30.6.
36Cf. e.g. OW 113.5-10; SJC III 106.24-107.11/B 103.10-104.7; TP
40.22-9. Treat. Seth 51.20-56.20 presents a christological version of the
motif.
37 Iren. 1.30.6.
38II 19.15-18/IV 29.24-7. Cf. II 14.18-24/IV 22.23-23.2.
39 Cf. B 51.1-7/III 23.19-24.1 and B 47.20-48.5/III 21.21-4. In HA
92.32-93.2, Norea cries out to a male figure, the Holy One, the God of
the All, and in Norea 27.11-22; 28.26-30, Norea cries out to various male
figures including the Father of the All (Adamas).
40 Father: cf. B 30.6/III 9.17 and II 6.16; B 48.2 and II 14.19; B 51.5/
III 23.22 and II 19.17/IV 29.27; B 52.18/III 24.25 and II 20.9f.; Mother:
cf. B 71.6 and II 27.33f. But B 75.il/III 39.1 If. have ‘Mother-Father’
where LR omits it!
41 Cf. B 7l.6f. and II 27.33f./IV 43.9f. (Mother-Father). Ill 36.19f. is
lacunous and unclear.
42 Iren. 1.30.12.
43 Mother-Father/Pronoia: cf. II 19.17ff.; 20.9ff.; 25.2-16 (‘the other
Mother’!); 27.33ff. (glossing the Epinoia as ‘of the Pronoia of light’);
Holy Spirit/Zoe/Mother of living: cf. B 38.9-13 and par; 53.4-54.4 and
par (identified with the Epinoia); II 21.13-16 and par (SR hasEnnoia);
Epinoia: cf. B 59.21-60.2 and par; B 71.5-14 and par (identified with
Holy Spirit); Christ passim;, Sophia: cf. B 47.11-14 and par; 54.18-55.4/
III 25.17-23 (Sophia to correct her deficiency through the Epinoia: LR
again emends to stress Sophia’s passivity: II 20.24-8/IV 31.24-7); II
23.20-4 (LR here revealingly has Sophia as active, identified with Zoe
etc.); B 76.1-5/III 39.18-21 (the Mother raising up her seed - perhaps
an allusion to Barbelo, but its omission by LR suggests its redactor
thought Sophia was the subject).
44 Museon 84, 412f. She appeals to B 38.7-13 and par where the Holy
Spirit who alone sees Sophia’s abortion is identified as ‘Zoe, the Mother
of all living’ (Gen 3:21 LXX), and who for Janssens is Sophia herself; to
B 44.19ff. where Sophia moving to and fro is the Holy Spirit of Gen 1:2;
and to B 53.4-10 which identifies the good, merciful spirit with the
Epinoia and Zoe. (LR seems to obscure that association by having the
helper sent through the good spirit: II 20.14-19). Tardieu, Ecrits 319,
rightly sees the origin of the figures of the Spirit, Zoe Mother of all
living, and the Epinoia of light, in all their fluidity yet ultimate identity,
in speculations based on Gen 2:7b, 2:18 and 3:20.
43 Cf. the mission of the Epinoia, named ‘Zoe’, to instruct creation
and help correct Sophia’s deficiency in B 52.17-54.4 and par; Adam’s
recognition of the Epinoia (identified as the Mother’s consort) as
 Notes to pages 218-219 243

‘Mother of the living’ (Gen 3:20) in B 59.20-60.16 and par. In the latter
LR (II 23.5-24/IV 35.26-36.17) revealingly insists that it was Sophia who
descended to correct her deficiency, identifying her as ‘Zoe’, despite its
earlier identifications of the Holy Spirit and the Epinoia with the latter
(in II 10.17f. and par and 20.17-19 respectively). There is also the odd
phrase earlier in II 9.25: ‘the Sophia of the Epinoia’, suggesting a close
connection. Tardieu’s claim, Ecrits 274, that the last phrase is a trace of
a supposed title for this whole section ‘The revelation of the Epinoia’ is
pure speculation, but he is right to point to the character of Epinoia as
‘anti-Sophia par excellence’.
46 39.13-40.19. Cf. the very similar formula describing Sophia in her
redemptive descent in AJII 23.20-4.
47 Cf. HA 88.11-15 (the descent of the spirit, an echo of Gen 2:7b and
2:18); 89.11-17 (the spiritual woman, ‘mother of the living’ ofGen 3:20);
89.31-90.12 (the spiritual woman enters the snake of Gen 3); 95.5-96.3
(Zoe, daughter of Sophia as redeemer and consort of the righteous
Sabaoth).
48 In Norea 27.11-28.12 the Epinoia (perhaps even associated with light
in the lacuna in 27.11) is evidently a heavenly soteriological figure, the
abode of Norea, whose resemblance to Sophia as her archetype we have
already noted (see ch. 2, p. 45f.).
49 The ‘Ophite’ system too, however, has traces of redeeming entities
alongside Sophia, e.g. the tree of knowledge (1.30.7) and trace of light
reintroduced into Adam and Eve (1.30.9).
50 B 51.1-7/III 23.19-24.1. The reading of III 23.21 ‘in a prouniko[s] ’,
is perhaps preferable to B 51.3f. which applies it to the archon, in light
of a supposed contrast with her present innocent state. Thus the tin
oumntatkakia of B 51.4f. is an antithesis to the }}n ouprouniko of III 23.21.
However, the earlier reference in B 37.10f. (the phrourikon of III 15.3 is
an obvious emendation) to the birth (?) of Ialdabaoth through her
prounikos might support either interpretation. TP 39.26-32 refers only
to the innocence of Epinoia/Sophia from whom Ialdabaoth took power,
while Treat. Seth 50.25-30 talks of ‘our sister Sophia (cf. AJ B 36.16/III
14.9f.) who is a prounikos' (although again in the context of innocence:
mntatkakia). See ch. 4, p. 123f.
51 Cf. II19.15-18/IV 29.24-7 and II 9.35-10.1 which refers to Sophia’s
‘invincible power’. In the light of the continuation, her production of
an incomplete abortion, this scarcely suggests such power! Such omission
by LR of a term with apparent sexual connotations is further evidence
of its spiritualizing tendency.
52 The key to the confusion seems to lie in the phrases ‘and the light-
God’ of B 51.7 and ‘the five lights’ of III 23.23. These must represent
misunderstandings of the original reading preserved in LR in which
the five illuminators were the object of the verb, not attached to the
subject. Till’s rejection (142) of‘the five lights’ of III 23.23 since there
244 Notes to pages 219-220

were only four and suggestion that the redactor of III must have read
ptou as pt (an abbreviation of pnoute), following B, is unjustified, since
(a) Giversen, Apocryphon 225, points out that five lights have already
been mentioned, namely Christ and the four; (b) such a misreading by
the redactor of III is unlikely - he is perfectly familiar with the
abbreviation ptior pnoute which he actually uses in the passage on the
origin of the illuminators (III 11.16; cf. 12.19, 21, 25), and more
importandy, (c) it alone can explain the confusion. Conversely the ‘light-
God’ of B 51.7 is a more likely misunderstanding of ptou\ Till admits
that the conjunction mn cannot have its normal meaning here, dis¬
tinguishing him from the Father. The reference to the Autogenes and
the four may have been a marginal gloss to supply the missing object of
the verb, III omitting the Autogenes.
53 Arai’s argument, ‘Christologie’ 305f., that the Autogenes of B 51.10
is an addition to the original four lights of III 24.2f., which II and IV
have emended to five to avoid inconsistency, is not convincing. He fails
to see the significance of the ‘five lights’ of III 23.23, and of the possessive
prefix in III 24.2, ‘with /hsfour lights’. The four illuminators are always
closely associated with the Autogenes in the Nag Hammadi texts (cf. GE
III 62.24ff./IV 74.9ff.; TP38.16-39.13; Zost. 127.14-128.7) and the five
appear to be key figures in the five seals rite.
54II 19.20f./IV 30.2f.
30 B 51.10-12 (smot)/III 24.3f. (typos): see Tardieu, Ecrits 317. On the
descent in disguise motif, cf. TP42.l7f. (smot); 49.6f. (}smot)\ 49.15-17
(eine); Treat. Seth 56.21-7 (eine). Arguments in favour of the latter might
include the question why a mention of angels rather than simply
Ialdabaoth (for which a possible solution will be offered below); the
need for such a disguise in order to persuade a Ialdabaoth ignorant of
any superior being; typos perhaps representing a lectio difficiliorthan topos,
and the fact that in the next saving action no mention is made of a
descent.
56 B 51.12-52.il/III 24.4-20; II 19.21-20.5/IV 30.3-26.
57 Thus the Demiurge is advised to breathe into Adam’s face (the ho
of B 51.15 and par is the prosdpon of Gen 2:7 LXX).
38 Cf. the play on prouniko and ergon/ argon in B 37.10-13 and par with
B 50.11-52.1 and par. To consider the hob of SR as a translation of ergon
(Crum, Dictionary 653a) and part of a continuing wordplay is surely
preferable to Tardieu’s strained suggestion, Ecrits 318, of hotb from a
supposed original ptoma, emended into soma by LR (II 19.25), although
he is very conscious of the wordplay on a-ergon, and its basis in Genesis 2
(despite overlooking the obvious reference in Gen 2:2 LXX to God’s
ceasing from his erga).
59II 19.27f.
60II 19.27-32.
61 Cf. the related (or original?) concept in Saturninus (Iren. 1.24.1).
 Notes to pages 220-221 245

62 Iren. 1.30.6.
63 Cf. Iren. 1.5.5-6; Exc. ex Theod. 50.2-3 (retaining the pnoe zoes of
Gen 2:7 LXX); 53.2-5.
64 Cf. B 67.1-14/III 34.3-15. LR (II 26.10-19/IV 40.25-41.6) is
clearly confused. This distinction finds an exact parallel in that of
Tatian between the human soul and the divine spirit (Or. ad Graec.
12-15).
65 Iren. 1.30.6-8.
66 30.9, 14.
67 See n. 63 above.
68 Fragment 1 in Clem. Alex. Strom. 2.8.36.2. It is not clear whether
Valentinus envisaged the deposition of the seed via the Demiurge. The
attempt of C. Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus ? Untersuchungen zur
valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins
(WUNT 65) (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992), to interpret
Valentinus solely in terms of the fragments, which in this case (13-53)
leads to a rejection of any intermediate Demiurge figure or Gnostic
myth such as found in Iren. 1.29 or the Apocryphon, is unconvincing.
The fragment cannot be properly understood without such a myth which
here would involve the Demiurge urging the creation of man, his angels
doing the work and the Logos (so rightly Markschies, 32, 50) sowing
the seed. An echo of this can perhaps be found in Heracleon’s
interpretation of sowing in fragments 35 and 36, where mention is made
of the heavenly Son of Man who sows (i.e. the Logos?) and of the angels
of the dispensation (i.e. the psychic angels of the Demiurge) as mediators
of that sowing.
69 Cf. Exc. ex Theod. 53.3f.; Iren. 1.5.6; Heracleon frags 35-6 (also Exc.
ex Theod. 2.1; 35.2-4).
70 Cf. Exc. ex Theod. 50.2; 53.2; Heracleon frag. 36.
71 Schottroffs argument, Glaubende 10, 68, that each episode represents
a complete act of salvation and that hence one should not interpret the
narrative as a Heilsgeschichte but only as a variety of ways of describing
the Gnostic’s existential situation, does not take this into account. As
Rudolph suggests, TRu 36, 29, she may be too influenced byjohannine
(i.e. Bultmannian!) lines of interpretation.
72 Cf. Janssens, Museon 84, 411.
73 We have already noted the title of Armoges, the first Barbelo-
gnostic illuminator in Iren. 1.29.2: ‘Soter’, suggesting his role in their
missing views on redemption, and the creative and revelatory func¬
tions of the fourth, Eleleth (cf. AJB 34.2-7 and par; TP 39.13-40.4; GE
III 56.22-57.1/IV 68.5-10; HA 94.2-97.21). In Norea 28.24-29.5, the
four holy helpers who intercede for her are obviously the four
illuminators.
74 See ch. 2, p. 31f. Cf. the passages on the final saving descent of the
spirit, e.g. B 64.3-13 and par; 65.3-66.13 and par; 67.1-14 and par, and
246 Notes to pages 222-223

parallels involving Autogenes/Christ, the four, the Holy Spirit and saving
initiation in GEIII 62.24-64.9 and par; //A 96.17-97.9; TP 47.28-48.35;
49.20-36; AA 85.22-31.
75 B 51.20-52.1/III 24.12-14.
76II 19.32f./IV 30.l7f. The latter is fragmentary but appears to agree
word for word.
77 Cf. B 49.6—9/III 22.15-18; II 15.3-5, 11-13/IV 23.16-20, 29-24.2.
The long recension, linking power with light, is preferable. See ch. 5,
p. 184f.
78 B 52.9f., 13—15/III 24.18f., 21-3 (Adam as wiser and having entered
the light).
79 Cf. GEIII 66.22-67.4 and par; TP45.12-20; 48.12-35; 49.28-32.
80 B 52.1—11 /III 24.14-20, 26-8; II 19.34-20.5/IV 30.19-26. On
humans as phronimoteroi than the evil powers through their under¬
standing of the true Son of God, cf. Zos. Omega 16 (Scott-Ferguson,
Hermetica 4.108.21ff.). LR omits the reference in SR to Adam’s having
the souls of the seven powers and their authorities, consistent with its
earlier failure to mention the seven and 360 of B 50.16-51.1 and par.
Cf. the Jewish mythologoumenon of the jealousy of the first angel and
his cohorts towards Adam because of his glory and God’s command to
them to worship him (Vit. Adae 12-16; Schatzhohle, ed. Bezold 4; Cyp. ,
Zel. et liv. 4 (CSEL 3.1; Hartel 421.8ff.); Aug., Gen. ad lit. 11.2.140). On
the theme of envy in the Paradise account, see W. C. van Unnik, ‘Der
Neid in der Paradiesgeschichte nach einigen gnostischen Texten’ in
M. Krause ed., Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander
Bohlig (NHS 3) (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 120-32; B. A. Pearson, ‘Jewish
Haggadic Traditions in the Testimony of Truth from Nag Hammadi’ in
Ex Orbe Religionum 1 (Supplements to Numen 21) (Leiden: Brill, 1972),
457-70 Gnosticism 39-51).
81 B 52.11-15 and III 24.20-2 derive the first two from the last. II 20.5-
7 and IV 31.27-31.1 may be preferable in correlating all three and
repeating that the man shone rather than that he entered his light.
Sophia is associated with intelligence (phronesis) in B 33.7 and 34.7
and par, and with innocence in TP 39.29; 40.15. On the ideas of light-
Adam and his innocence, cf. also Zos., Omega 12 (Scott-Ferguson
4.107.11-14).
82 B 52.15—17/III 24.23f.; II 20.7-9/IV 31.1-3. This is best seen, as
Giversen, Apocryphon 257, suggests, as a preparation for being clothed
in matter.
83 B 52.17-53.10/III 24.25-25.11; II 20.9-19/IV 31.3-8, 15f. LR omits
the description in SR of Adam as ‘the first to come down, who was called’,
probably because the first part recurs as a concluding statement in B
55.13f./III 26.25f.; II 21.13f.
84 B 53.10—18/III 25.12-17; II 20.19-24/IV 31.16-23. SR is perhaps to
be preferred in that it preserves the Valentinian contrast plerbma-
 Notes to page 223 247

hysterema, which a redactor of the Greek version of LR has failed to

spot, misreading sperma for pleroma, under the influence of the
‘Sethian’ redaction. This latter may then have suggested the phrase
about the identity of Gnostic ascent and descent as found in Steles Seth
127.20f.
85 B 53.18-54.4/III 25.17-23; II 20.25-8/IV 31.24-7. We have already
noted the way LR tends to play down or even exclude any trace of
Sophia’s positive saving role, or her identification with us as the paradigm
of the Gnostic experience of salvation, the salvator salvandus. Thus it
makes her the object of salvation here and again omits the reference in
SR to ‘our sister Sophia, who is like us’, as at B 36.16 and par. Para¬
doxically, it adds just such a reference combining Sophia as redeemer
and sister where SR omits it, at II 23.20-2!
86 B 54.5-9/III 25.23-26.3; II 20.28-31/IV 31.27-32.5. Tardieu, Ecrits
320, is probably right to see ‘shadow’ (aposkiasma) as a mistake for
‘particle’ (apospasma) and certainly right in preferring the rouein of SR
to the ouonh ebol of LR on the grounds of a mistaken understanding of
an original Greek ephane. Janssens, Museon 84, 413, sees this episode as
a simple recollection of B 52.8ff. and par, but B and III omit the original
reference to man shining (could it have been because of this doublet?)
and the cause here is different: the presence of the Epinoia rather than
of the Mother’s power. But the repetition suggests an attempt to
introduce andjustify a further stage or element in man’s history or make¬
up, viz. his material body.
87 B 54.9-1 l/III 26.3-6; II 20.32L/IV 32.5-7. Ill 26.4f. adds ‘the entire
archonship of the powers’ probably to make sense of the singular verb.
Tardieu’s rendering of it as ‘leant towards [him] ’ is not convincing.
The kataneue of SR is evidently a confusion of the original Coptic eiorm
of LR, meaning ‘stare, look intently’ (Crum, Dictionary 84b) with jorm,
‘make a sign, nod agreement’ (Crum 785b, note the Sahidic form eiorm).
Such confusion is common (cf. R. Kasser, Complements au dictionnaire
coptique de Crum (Cairo, 1964), 109) and the frequency in the text of the
Greek loan-word kataneuein in similar contexts may have abetted the
error. The reference in LR to the superiority of Adam’s thought (II
20.33/IV 31.7) seems secondary in the context, an echo of the previous
comment.
88 B 54.14-55.l/III 26.8-13; II 20.35-21.4. SR adds flame (krom) as a
fourth element and the mixture with the winds as a separate event. Since
II 20.35-21.2 uses the same word (sate) for fire and fiery winds, this may
suggest an attempt to correct SR by omitting the fourth element and
telescoping events. Giversen, Apocryphon 258, points to the striking
correspondence between the four elements and the origin of the four
bodily demons in II 18.2-6: heat, cold, damp, dryness. Here we pass
from the psychic demons and their composition to the creation of
material, perishable elements.
248 Notes to pages 223-224

89 B 55.2—9/III 26.13-19; II 21.4-9/IV 32.16-22. The elements are

now given in their more usual order from heaviest to lightest. The
identification of matter with the darkness of ignorance in II 21.7f.
appears secondary, and its adjectival form etshbbiaeit according to
Crum, Dictionary 552b, can mean either ‘variegated’ (poikilos) or
‘different, alien’ (diaphoros, xenos), but surely not the ‘opposed’ of
Krause’s translation (166). LR, perhaps misunderstanding antimimos,
consistently replaces it with etshbbiaeit (II 21.9; 24.31f.; 26.20) or etshes
(II 26.27, 36; 27.32f.; 29.24). See A. Bohlig, ‘Zum Antimimon
Pneuma in den koptischen Texten’ in Mysterion 162-74. Janssens, Museon
84, 414, argues persuasively for the antikeimenon of B 55.8f. as the
antithesis of the good spirit. The antimimos of III 26.19 is probably by
assimilation to the distinct later figure of III 34.16 and par. PS seems
to be aware of this figure as both internal element and external power,
even suggesting in ch. 132 a possible origin of the form etshbbiaeit. Cf.
Book 1, ch. 39 (Schmidt-MacDermot 63.21f.); 3 chs 111—17 (Schmidt-
MacDermot 280-301); ch. 132 (Schmidt-MacDermot 332f.: the soul
drinks a cup of forgetfulness filled with every various (etshobe) desire,
which becomes the body of the soul and like it, and is called the
antimimon pneuma).
90 B 55.9—13/III 26.20-3; II 21.9-12. The ‘fetter of oblivion’ (lethe. Ill
26.23; bshe II 21.12) is preferable to the ‘bond of matter’ of B 55.12f.
despite Till’s note (p. 302 of his edition). Cf. e.g. SJC B 103.17/III 107.5f.
It is our whole situation, subject to ignorance, passion and mortality,
not just our materiality which is summed up thus.
91 B 55.13—15/III 26.23-27.1; II 21.12-14. B omits the first point. As
noted, the second point occurs only here in II and may have been
omitted at 20.l7f. to tidy the text. The third point may reflect Adam’s
dual nature; heavenly soul on the one hand, tomb of the body on the
other. See Till’s ed. 151n. Schenke’s attempt, ‘Erloser’ 216, to see here
and in B 53.6f. and par traces of Adam the Primal Man descending to
save his members, is vitiated by his obvious confusion of heavenly Adamas
with earthly Adam.
92II 21.14-16/IV 33.1. This despite the earlier assertion in II 20.25
that she is already in him.
93 B 55.15—18/III 27.2-4. As Till suggests (150), the protos of B 55.16 is
a likely musunderstanding of the proontos of III 27.2.
94 Cf. B 27.4-19/III 7.12-23.
95 Thus Janssens, Museon 84, 413, may be correct to see this and
the earlier mention of the Epinoia’s general saving work as antici¬
patory.
96 B 55.18—57.19/III 27.4-28.16; II 21.16-22.9/IV 33.1-34.9.
97 B 55.18—56.3/III 27.4—8. tes tryphes in Gen 2:15 does occur in Jer.
Quaest. in lib. Gen. 2, 15 (CC 72.4), as well as in Gen 3:23f. LXX and
Sahidic.
 Notes to pages 224-225 249

98 II 21.16-19/IV 33.1-5. In HA 88.24-32 it is the archons who put

Adam in the garden and command him to eat, but its author is much
more faithful to the text of Genesis. Cf. OW115.27-9.
99 Ecrits 321. Cf. the trophe of III 27.9f. for the trypheofR 56.3f., 5.
1 B 56.3-10/III 27.9-14; II 21.19-24/IV 33.5-14.
2 B 56.10-17/III 27.14-21; II 21.24-9/IV 33.14-21. See n. 89 above
on the tendency of LR to misunderstand, paraphrase or avoid the term
antimimon pnenma. Cf. the role of the counterfeit demon in Zos. Omega
16 (Scott-Ferguson, Hermetica 4.108.21f.), seeking to mislead (planesai)
Adam.
3 B 56.17-57.8/III 27.21-28.6; II 21.29-22.2/IV 33.21-34.5. A summary
of a confused passage. SR seems to make more sense over the branches,
leaves and sap than LR with its awkward ‘deaths’, ‘shadow’, ‘blossom’
and darkness as a place of rest, but LR’s linking desire to the seed may
be preferable.
4 B 57.8—19/III 28.6-16; II 22.3-9/IV 34.5-9. Cf. the ‘Tree/Knowledge’
figure of the original Barbelognostic scheme (Iren. 1.29.3).
5 On the one hand it has already had the archons’ command ‘Eat!’,
and on the other the archons are not supposed to know about the
present or future existence of the Epinoia in man. Although Janssens’
insistence, Museon 84, 415f., that the Epinoia is no more to be identified
with the tree of knowledge than the counterfeit spirit with the tree of
life is defensible, her appeal to B 60.16ff. as evidence of such a distinction
in the former case is not convincing since the parallel in LR does not
support this.
6 B 57.20-58.7/III 28.16-23; II 22.9-15/IV 34.15-21. The snake here
may represent the Devil and thus correspond to the snake-like son of
the ‘Ophite’ Ialdabaoth in Iren. 1.30.5.
7 It is part of the later frame story and internally inconsistent, referring
in B 57.20/11 22.9 to ‘them’, although Eve has not yet appeared! The
redactor of III 28.16f. has seen and corrected this.
8 So too Janssens, Museon 84, 417. The integral role of the snake is
suggested by the virtual recapitulation of his role in B 63.2-6 and par,
attributed to the First Archon, of whom the snake is a manifestation.
9 Cf. B 60.16-61.4/III 30.14-19.
10II 23.24-35/IV 36.17-37.4.
11 Janssens, Museon 84, 416, is probably right to insist on the distinction
between the Epinoia who instructs, and the Saviour who raises up (B
57.20/III 28.16f.; II 22.9. Cf. B 64.6-13 and par; 76.1—5/III 39.18-21;
II 31.12-14/IV 48.14-18). That, as she admits, it is not always easy to
determine which figure, Pronoia (i.e. Saviour) or Epinoia is at work,
is due to the fluidity and ambivalence of the redeemer figures noted
above: The Pronoia of redaction (a2) frequently acts through the
Epinoia who is an emanation from her and the second main mode of
her activity.
250 Notes to pages 225-227

12 But an obvious Gnostic interpretation of the ‘coat of skin’ of Gen

3:21, cf. the Valentinian view in Iren. 1.5.5; Exc. ex Theod. 55.If. And
there are traces of a similar idea of humanity’s original superior state
and fall into mortality and ignorance in e.g. the ‘Ophite’ system of Iren.
1.30.9 and AA 64.14-65.25.
13 Particularly the tree of life as in fact ignorance and death; the
interpretation of the tree of knowledge as salvific is quite common, cf.
e.g. HA 88.26-89.3; 89.31-90.10; OWl 18.24-119.19 (the latter parallels
AJ in having Zoe/Eve enter the tree of knowledge, 116.25-9).
14 Cf. the role of the snake-like son of Ialdabaoth produced from the
dregs of matter who is the origin of (evil?) spirit, oblivion, wickedness,
etc. in Iren. 1.30.5. The doctrine of the two spirits may well originate
from Jewish sectarian ideas such as those found in the Qumran scrolls.
Cf. W.-D. Hauschild, Gottes Geist und der Mensch (Munich: Kaiser, 1972),
255f.
15 B 58.8-10/III 28.23-5; II 22.15-18. B 58.8 has Eve as the object and
a future tense over against the past tenses of III 28.24 and II 22.15f. As
Tardieu suggests, Ecrits 323, its redactor has succumbed to the influence
of the text of Genesis: Eve has not yet appeared! Neither subject nor
object is entirely clear from the pronouns; the former appears to be
Adam rather than either the previous subject, the snake, whom Eve
heeds, or the First Archon, as B (and the similar formulation atB 61.7f.
and par?) might suggest, and the latter the First Archon and not the
snake. This ambiguity has evidently been partly caused by the Saviour’s
interjection, further proof of its later character.
16 II 22.16-18. Its use of‘the light of the Epinoia’ instead of the more
usual ‘Epinoia of light’ may have been prompted by the redactor’s
awareness that the Epinoia is later said to enter Adam (II 22.28ff. and
par).
17 B 58.10—12/III 28.25-29.1; II 22.18-20/IV 34.26-8.
18 Cf. B 58.10-12 and par; 59.7-9 and par; 59.12-16/III 29.18-21. B’s
parallel is more exact than that of III.
19II 22.32-23.2/IV 35.14-22.
20 B 59.17—19/III 29.21-24; II 23.3f.
21 Cf. Iren. 1.24.1; HA 87.11-88.3. But SR, bald as it is, may imply the
‘Ophite’ version: Ialdabaoth actually takes Adam’s power to form Eve.
22 Cf. Iren. 1.30.7. Baur’s emendation: de eius (i.e. Adam’s) Enthymesi
for the desuaoi the text, is perhaps preferable here, pace Harvey, Irenaeus
1, 233, n. 2, because of the parallelism with A/’s LR.
23 Cf. HA 89.17-31; OW 116.8-117.15. There is a trace of it in Iren.
1.30.7 after Eve’s creation. Cf. also AJB 62.3ff. and par.
24 Cf. 1.30.6-7. However, the figure and activity of the ‘Ophite’ Sophia
we have argued underlies A/’s Epinoia.
25 Cf. passages involving the Epinoia (B 53.4-54.4; 55.15-18; 57.8-
19 and par) which use terms like ‘correction’, ‘perfection’ (plerdma),
 Notes to pages 227-229 251

‘deficiency’ (hysterema), ‘instruction’, ‘awakening’ and ‘formlessness’,

and passages concerning the power (B 51.8-52.15; 54.5-9; 58.8-12 and
par).
26 B 58.12-14 (bshe)/III 29.If. (ekstasis)\II 22.20f./IV M.m.(bshe). See
Crum, Dictionary 519ab s.v. obsh, which is given as rendering hypnos, lethe,
but not the ekstasis of III and Gen 2:21 LXX. However as Bullard notes.
Hypostasis 74, a Sahidic version of Gen 2:21 does read bshe.
27 B 58.14-59.6/III 29.2-12; II 22.21-8/IV 34.29-35.7. LR pedantically
adds a reference to Moses’ first book, and SR expands the allusion to
oblivion, citing the verb from Isa 6:10 as a lead-in to the quotation which
it gives in the form ‘ears of their hearts’. For the Coptic of Isa 6:10, see
R. Kasser, ‘Citations des grands prophetes bibliques dans les textes
gnostiques coptes’ in Krause, Essays 59. On a similar interpretation of
the sleep as ignorance, cf. HA 89.3-7.
28 Cf. II 22.16f. See n. 19, p. 250.
29 B 59.6-9/III 29.12-15; II 22.28-30.
30 B 59.9—12/III 29.15-17; II 22.31f. Cf. the variants of this theme of
the archontic rape of spiritual/earthly Eve in HA 89.18-31; CW116.8-
33.
31 89.3-31.
32115.31-117.15.
33 89.3-15.
34 89.17-31.
35 115.31-116.25.
36 116.25-117.15.
37 Iren. 1.30.7. Here too the archontic rape fails since Sophia empties
Eve of her power beforehand.
38 Cf. B 60.3f.: Adam recognized his own ousia. Here III 30.3f. (Adam
recognized his synousia which is like him) appears to be a compromise
between B and II 23.9 (he recognized his likeness (eine)).
39 Cf. B 59.20-60.16/III 30.1-14; II 23.4-26.
40 Cf. B 60.12-16/III 30.10-14 and II 23.18-24 where LR has been
misled by the evident gloss on the consort of Gen 2:24 to refer the title
‘Zoe, the Mother . . .’ to Sophia rather than to the Epinoia. Janssens’
attempt, Museon 84, 418f., to show the propriety of the title in the case
of earthly Eve as repository of the Epinoia/Sophia (cf. Giversen,
Apocryphon 263) is not convincing: it is not at all clear that the Epinoia is
present in earthly Eve at this point. Earlier (cf. B 38.10—13/III 15.19—
21; II 10.l7f.) the title ‘(Zoe), the Mother of (all) living’ had been
applied to the Holy Spirit, a likely synonym for the Epinoia, and at II
24.11 the Epinoia is qualified as ‘life’. And the secondary character of
the Epinoia material is also implied by the fact that in SR Adam becomes
sober before the Epinoia removes the veil and he sees his consort (cf. B
59.20f. and par).
41 B 60.3-16/III 30.3-14; II 23.9-24/IV 36.Iff.
252 Notes to pages 229-231

42 Giversen, Apocryphon 263, insists that the eros of II 23.23 must refer
to Adam’s wife, despite the fact that the text clearly has Sophia as subject.
Its understanding of her as Adam’s consort has led it to a further
reference to Gen 2:24 and the harassed copyist of II 23.17ff. to repeat
an entire sentence. Tardieu’s ingenious interpretation, Ecrits 325, in
terms of Adam and Eve’s union reversing Sophia’s failure to unite with
her consort, is undermined by the secondary character of Sophia’s
consort, as demonstrated above.
43 Even if LR’s attempt to reconcile the two traditions, that of the power
and the later one of the Epinoia, be adjudged secondary, it has developed
a suggestive concept: as Adam was created in the image of heavenly
Man to gain something of his light and power, so Eve was created in the
image of the Mother of all living (i.e. the Holy Spirit/Epinoia/offspring
of Pronoia-Barbelo), in order to gain control of her.
44 Cf. B 57.20-58.10 and par.
45 B 60.16-19/III 30.14-17; II 23.24-6/IV36.17ff. LR differs somewhat
here: II 23.24-6 has Adam and Eve taste the perfect knowledge through
the Pronoia (character or attribute?) of the heavenly authority
(authentia) and through her (the Epinoia?), while the fragmentary
parallel in IV inserts a phrase after ‘authority’ which in Krause’s recon¬
struction (p. 236) speaks of the revelation and of her (the Epinoia?)
giving Adam knowledge. This is close to B 60.18f., perhaps omitted by
II either accidentally through homoeoteleuton, or deliberately, to
remove the awkward reference to the Epinoia and reconcile this with
the Saviour’s previous assertion.
4b B 60.18—61.4/111 30.16-19. On the eagle as a supernatural messenger
and possible representation of Christ, see Janssens, Museon 84, 419f.
and Tardieu, Ecrits 326, with reference to Lampe, PGL s.v. aetos. On the
syncretistic background and likely contrast between snake and eagle
implied here, see MacRae, ‘Sleep’ 500.
47II 23.24-31/IV 36.17-29.
48 Edits 325f.
49 King, ‘Sophia’ 168f., would see in this, the earlier passage of Christ’s
interjection (II 22.3-10) and the Pronoia hymn, the tendency of LR to
replace an original Epinoia or Pronoia by Christ.
50 Note the similarities of expression and terminology in the three
episodes: the emphatic ‘I’ and the verb sehd in II 22.9 and 31.12f.; the
raising (toounos) from sleep (hineb) of 23.30f. and 31.5f. Again in 23.28f.
the Epinoia is from the Pronoia of pure light, while in 31.1 If. the Saviour
identifies himself as the Pronoia of the pure light. MacRae, ‘Sleep’ 496-
507, in arguing for the centrality of the Pronoia hymn and its three
descents scheme, finds evidence for the first (unsuccessful) mission of
the Saviour in the awakening of Adam and Eve here; although the
Epinoia is the subject in SR, he finds traces of the Saviour’s activity in it,
e.g. B 57.8-58.1.
 Notes to pages 231-232 253

51 B 60.18-61.5/III 30.16-20. Here LR tries to echo the Genesis

account in referring to ‘them’ (II 23.30f.), and III 30.18f., although
lacunous, seems aware of this by its plural ‘their perfection’. Certainly
B 61.5f. goes on to talk of the fault of both.
52II 23.31-3/IV 36.29-37.1; B 61.5-7/III 30.20-2.
53II 23.33—35/IV 37.1-4. The verbs are precisely those just employed
to describe the Saviour’s redemptive activity!
54 B 61.7—9/111 30.22f.; II 23.35f./IV 37.4-6. The similarity to B 58.8f.
and par might suggest that Ialdabaoth was the subject in the latter too,
pace Tardieu (see n. 15, p. 250). HA 90.13-29 and OW 119.19-120.3
remain much more faithful to Gen 3:7-13, using the passage to cast
further light on the ignorance of the archons.
55 Iren. 1.30.7. The only difference is that the ‘Ophites’, like the HA
and OW, give the snake a major revelatory role and treat the tree of
knowledge motif literally.
56 Cf. II 23.37/IV 37.6 and B 61.9f./III 30.23.
57 Cf. OW 120.7f. Tardieu, Ecrits 326, also sees here the wordplay adam/
adamah. The reading could also further represent its spiritualizing
tendency: as the ‘Ophite’ Sophia removes the trace of light from Adam
and Eve to avoid the divine principle sharing in the curse (1.30.8), so
LR has Ialdabaoth curse Adam’s earth.
58 II 23.37-24.4/IV 37.7-11. The subject of ‘he was lord’ is evidently
Ialdabaoth rather than Adam, as in Gen 3:16.
59 B 61.10—15/III 30.24-31.2. Ill has direct speech, perhaps under the
influence of Gen 3:16.
60 Ecrits 327.
61 So Giversen, Apocryphon 264. Cf. B 51.1-14 and par. Janssens, Museon
84, 420f., sees it as that of Gnostic marriage, the ‘great mystery’ of Gos.
Phil.: Ialdabaoth did not know of the secret power hidden in Eve to
allow Sophia to correct her deficiency.
62II 21.26-9 and par.
63 Cf. King, ‘Sophia’ 170, on the heavenly plan as involving the equality
of male and female.
64 B 61.16—19/III 31.2-4; II 24.4-6. The sahou (‘curse’) of B 61.16 is
an excusable error for the sahd- of III 31.2, and B 61.18f. is probably
mistaken in connecting the angels with the next episode. The version
in LR, which has Ialdabaoth revealing his ignorance independently and
without clear motivation (II 24.4-6) is evidently secondary, the redactor
having misread the infinitive form.
65 B 61.19-62.3/III 31.4-6; II 24.6-8/IV 37.15-17. In HA 91.3-5 and
OVE121.4f. the archons cast them out. Cf. AA 66.23-5, where darkness
comes over their eyes. This may be a Gnostic reinterpretation of the
rabbinic understanding of the ‘coats of skin’ of Gen 3:21 (see Tardieu,
Ecrits 327), but may also echo the Jewish legend of the natural darkness
which overtakes and terrifies Adam and Eve after their expulsion from
254 Notes to pages 232-234

Paradise (cf. ’Abot R. Nat. 176; Gen. Rab. 11.2; 12.6; AbocL. Zar. 8b;
Ginzberg, Legends 1, 86; 5, 112f., 116.
66 Cf. King, ‘Sophia’ 164ff.
67 Iren. 1.30.7.
68 1.30.8.
69 Cf. HA 89.17-31; OW116.8-117.15.
70 89.21. Cf. Iren. 1.30.7 (concupiscentes).
71 116.13-25. Cf. the Audians of Theodore bar Konai, Schol. 11. See
on this H.-C. Puech, ‘Fragments retrouves de l’Apocalypse de l’Allogene’,
Melanges Franz Cumont 2 946f. (- En quete de la gnose 1 280f.); Bullard,
Hypostasis 84.
72 OWll7.15ff.
73 Bullard, Hypostasis 84; Janssens, ‘Theme’ 488-94, esp. 490f.;
Stroumsa, Seed, passim.
74 Origini 495.
75 Cf. Tg. Ps. J. on Gen 1; Pirqe PL El. 21; Ginzberg, Legends 1, 105; 5,
133f.; the Archontics of Epiph. Pan. 40.5.3. In Justin’s Baruch (Hipp.
Ref. 5.26.22f.), Naas, Eden’s third angel, seduces both Adam and Eve
and is thus responsible for both adultery and pederasty.
76 B 62.3-8/III 31.6-9. The mhtathet (‘folly’) of B 62.6, while
appropriate in the context (cf. HA 89.24f.: the spiritual woman laughing
at the senselessness (mhtathet) of the archontic attempted rape), is
probably due to a misreading of the Greek agnoia underlying the other
three versions as anoia.
77II 24.8-13/IV 37.17-23. Cf. II 22.16-18/IV 34.20f., and II 23.33-5/
IV 37.1-4 where the parallels in SR make no mention of Epinoia.
78II 24.13-15/IV 37.23-6.
79 Iren. 1.30.8. Cf. II 20.14-19; 23.24-6, 37; 24.13ff.
80 B 62.8—10/III 31.10-12; II 24.15-17/IV 37.27-9. LR has to
specify the subject, the First Archon, because of its addition of the
Pronoia.
81II 24.18f./IV 38.1-3. Cf. Orig. C. Cels. 6.30; PS Book 3, ch. 126
(Schmidt-MacDermot 318.3f., 17).
82B 62.1 Of./III 31.12f. (Jave bear-faced, Eloim cat-faced).
83IV 38.4-6 (II 24.19f. has omitted the identification through
homoeoteleuton); B 62.13—15/III 31.14-16.
84 B 62.15—18/III 31.16-19; II 24.20-4/IV 38.6-10. The slight
differences in III from B are probably stylistic: its favoured term krom
(cf. 15.12; 16.5; 18.6, 13; 26.10) to the koht of B 62.16; its order ‘earth
and water’ influenced perhaps by the earlier enumeration of elements
at III 26.16. The latter passage may also explain why B 62.16f./III 31.18[?]
prefer pneuma to the ‘wind’ (tey) of II 24.22/IV 38.8.
85 Cf. B 62.18-63.2/III 31.19-21 and II 24.24-7/IV 38.10-14. The order
‘Abel and Cain’ of III 31.20f. may be the redactor’s attempt to match
names with characteristics: righteous Abel and unrighteous Cain.
 Notes to pages 234-235 255

86 B 63.9-12/III 32.3-6; II 24.32-4/IV 38.21-4. Giversen, Apocryphon

264, notes the distinct agreement between this passage and the earlier
one (II 21.6ff. and par) dealing with the creation of the material body.
Eloim and Jave govern the bodies of later generations because they
govern the elements of which human bodies are composed.
87 Cf. Iren. 1.30.9; HA 91.11-14. Giversen, Apocryphon 264, is clearly
wrong to call them Adam’s sons. On the righteous/unrighteous
syndrome, cf. Ptolemy’s Ep. ad Floram in Epiph. Pan. 33.7.7 (the
intermediate, righteous Demiurge produced a twofold power (i.e.
righteous/unrighteous?), but he himself is the image of the superior
(Good) power), and the respective roles of (unrighteous) Ialdabaoth
and (righteous) Sabaoth in HA.
88 It might have changed the order of archontic names because it knew
Elohim came (Gen 1:1) before Yahweh occurs (Gen 2:4b). And we have
noted its tendency to stress the negative character and ignorance of
Ialdabaoth (e.g. in II 19.27f.; 22.34-23.2; 24.4f. and par).
89 Cf. B 58.4-7 and par. For the similarity of language, see following
note.
90 B 63.2-6 (houepithymia hspora) /III 31.21-32.1 (houspora hepithymia);
II 24.26-9 (houspora hepithymia). The verb of B 63.2 ‘began’ (afshope)
may have been corrected to ‘continued’ (50) in III 31.22 and II 24.26/
IV 38.14 because of the earlier passage about the snake’s
role in this (cf. B 58.4-7 and par). II 24.27 has perhaps omitted the
reference to marriage in B 63.3/III 31.22 because synousia was thought
to imply it. And the form ta adam of II 24.29/IV 38.17 is obviously a
corrective by the redactors of LR - Eve is made responsible! See King,
‘Sophia’ I70f.
91 B 53.6—9/III 32.1-3; II 24.29-32/IV 38.17-21. Ill 32.1-3: ‘so that
through it (f.), namely this substance (ousia), it (f.; i.e. the desire?)
produced their image through the counterfeit (antimimon) spirit
(pneuma)', seems preferable to B 63.6-9: ‘so that it is through this
substance (ousia) which produces an image from their counter¬
feit (antimimony. II 24.29-32/IV 38.17-21 is rather different. It
reads: ‘Now he produced (tounous, an echo of Gen 4:25 LXX
exanestese/Coptic tonnes? Cf. C. Wessely, Studien zur Palaeographie
und Papyruskunde 15 (Griechische u. koptische Texte theologischen
Inhalts 4) (Leipzig, 1914), 35, cited inaccurately by Bullard,
Hypostasis 93) through the intercourse (synousia) the begetting of the
image of the bodies and provided (choregein) for them from his varying
spirit’.
92 ousia occurs in SR to refer to the identity of substance of Adam and
Eve, as in B 60.3f., where III 30.3f. reads synousia, showing how easy is
the shift we suggest LR has made. In B 63.12f. and par, where Adam
begets Seth after recognizing his own ousia, LR once again avoids and
paraphrases the term. See n. 96 below.
256 Notes to pages 235-236

93 Cf. the language of B 65.3-13 and par, with its precise echo of the
different adjectives applied to the spirit here: antimimonm SR, etshbbiaeit
in LR.
94 B 63.9—12/III 32.3-6 (spelaion); II 24.32-4/IV 38.21-4 (spelaion).
Cf. the striking similarities of language with the passages on the
four elements forming the ‘tomb’ (spelaion) of the body (B 54.11-
55.13 and par), and on the two archons set over the four (B 62.15-18
and par). On the term archai for the four elements, cf. Plato, Tim. 48B,
etc.
93 B 63.12-16/III 32.6-9. Could the ‘his own lawlessness’ (anomia) of
III 32.6f. derive from a misreading of the original capitalized Greek,
e.g. ten ousian homoian aytoi? The term genea, although unfortunately
ambiguous, seems to refer here to the process of generation rather than
the race (see following note). Despite B 63.14f., which obviously assigns
the last phrase to the following passage on the Mother sending her spirit
(cf. traces of this in the homoios of III 32.9 and II 25.2f.), it makes more
sense to relate it to Seth’s begetting as a spiritual, non-sexual process.
96 II 24.34—25.2/IV 38.24—30. The translation of genea by the Coptic
jpo in II 25.2/IV 38.29, suggests that the translators of LR certainly
understood the Greek term to refer to the process, as we argued above.
Note once again the way LR appears to avoid or paraphrase the term
ousia.
97 Cf. II 8.28f.
98 Cf. Ill 32.6-10; II 24.34-25.3/IV 38.24-31 and B 63.12-18. See n.
95 on this page.
99 B 63.14—18/III 32.8-10.
' Museon 84, 421. This is of course with reference to B only. Cf. the
role of Protennoia in TP 45.29ff.
2II 25.2-4/IV 38.30-2. The form focould be interpreted as ‘also’ here
(see Crum, Dictionary 91 s.v. ke lie and IVa), but in any case the
unqualified term ‘the Mother’ always seems to refer to Sophia in A], Cf.
B 37.17 and par; 38.17 and par; 42.l7f. and par; 43.2 and par; 44.19f.
and par; 46.1,9 and par; 51.2, 14, 19 and par, etc. The parallel to B 76.1
in III 39.19 does read ‘this Mother’ with apparent reference to Barbelo,
but this may be because the redactors of III, as here, refuse to admit
Sophia could have acted as redeemer.
3B 63.18-64.3/111 32.10-14. Ill omits the descent, the term ousia
(although its version may paraphrase the term homoousios or homoiousios),
and has the Greek loan-words plerorna, lethe and spelaion.
4II 25.2-7/IV 38.30-39.4. Cf. the roles of Sophia in Iren. 1.30.Ilf.,
the Glory in AA 77.9-12 and Seth in GE III 63.10-18 and par.
5 Cf. B 46.18ff. and par; here the form nas does not appear to be an
ethic dative, as Giversen, Apocryphon 265, argues it is in B 63.18, against
Till who sees the latter as corrupt (166).
6 So too Schottroff, Glaubende 62-4.
 Notes to pages 23 7-238 257

7 Iren. 1.30.9. Cf. the similar theme in AA 64.6-66.8.

8II 25.7-9/IV 39.4-7.
9 Cf. B 52.17-54.3 and par.
10 Cf. B 64.3—5/III 32.14f. and II 25.9-11/IV 39.7-9. All use the Greek
hypourgein, cf. the activity of the Epinoia in II 20.19f.
11 On the Epinoia, cf. II 20.14-24/IV 27.34—28.4. The introduction of
the new interpretation of the spirit’s role has meant a loss of continuity
and lack of a subject. That the previous subject was also neuter (the
spirit) might have led a Greek redactor to interpret the neuter accusative
(to sperma) as a nominative.
12 Janssens, Museon 84, 422, suggests this figure can only be the Pronoia,
the ‘blessed Father-Mother’.
13 The Spirit’s descent, the awakening (tounos) of the substance (ousia)
after the heavenly archetype from oblivion (bshe/lethe) and evil, the
mention of the seed (sperma), of the Holy Spirit raising up (taho erat-/
so he erat-) from deficiency (shta/hysterema) to perfection (pleroma).
B 47.1-13/III 21.4-13; II 14.5-13/IV 22.5-15 (pneuma, pleroma, taho
erat-/sohe, sht. Cf. B 60.12—14/III 30.Ilf. (taho erat-, hysterema).
13 B 53.4-17/III 25.6-17; II 20.14-24 (pneuma, rhob/hypourgein, taho
erat-/sohe, jok/pleroma, shta/hysterema, tounos); B 71.5—13/III 36.20-5; II
27.33-28.5 (pneuma, (shp)hise, sperma, tounos).
16 B 76.1—5/III 39.19-21 (taho erat-, sperma, hysterema). Cf. Exc. exTheod.
35.2.
17 Cf. 1.30.6-12. See Schenke, ‘Nag-Hamadi-Studien III’ 356-61.
18 Cf. 1.30.12.
19 Cf. e.g. B 47.13f. and par; 54.2-4 and par; II 23.20-2; B 76.1—5/III
39.19-21.
20 Glaubende 44ff„ 72ff., 79.
21 Cf. B 47.1-13 and par and e.g. Tri. Trac. 86.8-87.17; Exc. ex Theod.
23.If.; Iren. 1.14.5. See also Hipp. Ref. 6.32.2-5.
22 On awakening/raising up (tounos), cf. Gos. Truth 30.14-23; on
oblivion, cf. Gos. Truth 17.24, 33, 36; 18.1, 6, 8, 11, 18; 20.38; 21.36; Tri.
Trac. 77.23; 98.3; on the seed, cf. e.g. Iren. 1.5.6; 6.4; 7.If., etc.; Exc. ex
Theod. 1.1-3; 2.1; 21.If.; 26.1-3; Heracleon frags 16 and 36; Marcus in
Iren. 1.15.3; Valentinus frag. 1, etc.; on raising up and correcting
(diorthosis/epanorthosis, cf. taho erat- in Crum, Dictionary 456b and soohe
ibid., 380b), cf. Hipp. Ref. 6.32.4f.; Exc. ex Theod. 30.2; 35.2, etc.; Iren.
1.13.1; 14.5; on deficiency and perfection, cf. e.g. Hipp. Ref. 6.31.5f.;
Gos. Truth 21.14-23; 24.25-33; 24.37-25.3; 35.8-36.3; Treat. Res. (C 1,3)
48.38-49.6; Tri. Trac. 86.19-23; 87.1-4, etc. See Zandee, ‘Gnostic Ideas’
35-9; 41-3; 59-61.
 7

Gnostic Soteriology 2:
The Destinies of Souls

There now follows in the Apocryphon what appears to be a

digression in which John asks the Saviour six questions about
the destinies of various types of souls,1 followed by a seventh about
the origin of the counterfeit spirit.2 Points in favour of it as a
later interpolation would include both formal and material ones:
formally, its character as a digression, part of the later dialogue, a
self-contained piece which Giversen describes as catechetic, a
didactic account which could have stood by itself without the
question and answer framework,3 and the fact that what follows
this section corresponds quite well with what precedes it;4
materially, its abrupt reference to souls as soteriological factors,
only previously paralleled in the ‘Sethian’ passage on the
illuminators as abodes of various souls.3 In the anthropogony the
soul was an archontic product, the divine element being the
Mother’s light-power which Ialdabaoth did not share with his
offspring but himself inbreathed into Adam.6 And along with the
light-power motif we noted that of the Epinoia or Holy Spirit
descending and working on humanity to ensure its eventual
salvation.
Now both of these concepts do appear to occur in the dialogue
although, as we shall see, there is some confusion in our texts as
to their precise relationship. Thus we hear of the descent of the
Spirit of life and its union with the power, which is necessary for
full salvation.7 But there seems virtually no awareness of, let alone
attempt to accommodate, the earlier ‘Sethian’ passage about the
various classes of souls as respectively the seed of Seth, the souls
of the saints in the third aeon and those late repenting souls in
the fourth. Nor, conversely, does the earlier passage hint at a
doctrine of reincarnation such as is referred to in the dialogue
section.8 On the other hand, elements in the dialogue section
such as the references to ‘pure light’ as the goal of the elect souls

259
260 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

and of their worthiness of ‘the great lights’, do tie in with earlier

passages.9
It is true that the independent existence of just such a form
of soteriological dialogue is attested elsewhere, notably by
Pistis Sophia, much of which is taken up with the Saviour’s
answers to the questions of his disciples about who will be saved
and what will befall various types of sinners. In fact Pistis Sophia
offers the closest parallel to this section of the Apocryphon. Thus
Philip asks Jesus if he has turned upside down the bondage of
the archons and their Heimarmene for the sake of the salvation
of the world and he replies that he has for the salvation of all
souls.10 More significantly, chapters 111, 112 and 131, which deal
with what compels a man to sin, present a clear and systematized
doctrine of the three elements in humanity found in the
Apocryphon: the power (which is from above and enables man to
stand), the soul, and the counterfeit spirit (which derives from
the archons of Heimarmene and compels men to sin).11 Finally
chapters 147 and 148 deal with the questions of John about the
fate of a man who has committed no sin but who has not
discovered the Saviour’s mysteries, and of a man who has sinned
but has discovered them.1'2
However, comparison of the two seems to suggest that the
redactor of Pistis Sophia has made use of material that goes
back to the Apocryphon.13 Indeed Bohlig himself considers that
the counterfeit spirit passages in Pistis Sophia may represent a
later addition.14 He does highlight certain significant differ¬
ences between the two accounts: Pistis Sophia is not concerned
with salvation history as is the Apocryphon', it focuses on the fate of
the individual after death or before life. The two also differ in
anthropology: Pistis Sophia has a fixed scheme whereby the
power and the counterfeit spirit are in man from the beginning
and there is no mention of the spirit of life, while the Apocryphon
is less systematic. But Bohlig’s conclusion that the redactor of
the former has detemporalized and dehistoricized the tradition
of the counterfeit spirit common to both would further support
the suggestion that Pistis Sophia is later and dependent. Finally,
the ultimate difference between them: that Pistis Sophia presents
salvation in terms of knowledge of and initiation into mysteries,
while the Apocryphon presents it in terms of the descent and
presence in humanity of the spirit or Epinoia, is only super¬
ficially true and readily explicable in terms of the different
respective concerns of each.15 More interestingly, if Pistis Sophia
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 261

did know this passage of the Apocryphon, then it clearly knew it

in its present dialogue form.
The Sophia of Jesus Christ also seems dependent on the
Apocryphon, not only as regards its dialogue form, basic hierarchy
(Father/Spirit/Son), use of the Sophia myth and designation of
the Gnostic elect as ‘the immovable race’ (genea),16 but also in
its eschatological concern. In answer to a final question from
Mary about the origin and ultimate destination of the disciples,
the Saviour, after allusion to the Sophia myth of the Apocryphon
and mention of his plan to unite heavenly Spirit and demiurgic
breath, delineates the different grades and resting places of
believers in relation to Father, Spirit and Son, according to
their degrees of knowledge of these and possession of the
appropriate token.17 Moreover, although other examples of the
Saviour replying to eschatological questions of the disciples suggest
the existence of a developed genre,18 Giversen’s point about the
unity of the piece minus the dialogue frame and, more signifi¬
cantly, Tardieu’s about this passage as reflecting the necessary
third (future) part of the myth, indicate its integral character,
whether or not it was originally in the form of a dialogue.19
This primarily eschatological passage is placed here and not
at the end of the Heilsgeschichte, as in the Sophia of Jesus Christ,
for example,20 because it arises naturally from the mention of the
work of the Mother’s spirit on the seed and the escha¬
tological descent of the Spirit. And the reference in John’s
question to the pure light, as already indicated, explicitly harks
back to the opening description of the realm of the supreme
beings, establishing the continuity of this section with what
has gone before.21 According to this and the preceding passage,
then, it would seem to be the seed of the Mother, consubstantial
with her spirit, and implicitly identified in John’s question with
(some of) the souls of men, which is the object of salvation. But
the Saviour further qualifies redeeming knowledge: it is hard
to reveal to anyone other than those of the immovable (or
unshakeable) race (gcwm).22Now such a designation is a hall¬
mark of Schenke’s ‘Sethian’ Gnostics.23 Where it does appear
in the Apocryphon it seems to be secondary and form part of
the ‘Sethian’ reworking.24 Thus the reference to ‘souls’ as the
primary vehicles of salvation in the Apocryphon at this point no
longer needs to be interpreted as an interpolation, but as
perhaps reflecting an earlier - if not the original - under¬
standing.25
262 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

1 The types of souls and their salvation

In this section salvation appears to involve two elements: (a) the

descent of the Spirit of life into the soul after its birth26 (which
can also apparently be designated as having the saving
knowledge),27 and (b) the presence of the power of the Mother in
every soul, with which the Spirit must unite28 and without which
no human can stand.29 As already indicated, this does correspond
to a fundamental theme of the main body of the Apocryphon, that
salvation involves the combination of the power of the Mother,
i.e. the capacity for salvation (symbolically represented in Adam’s
raising), and the Spirit of life from the Father. The former has
been taken over by Pistis Sophia. But whereas its systematization
of the traditions in the Apocryphon has led it to stress the presence
of the counterfeit spirit in humanity from the beginning and omit
direct mention of the Spirit of life,30 the Apocryphon represents
the fate of our human souls as dependent on which spirit comes
to them, the Spirit of life or the counterfeit spirit.31 This funda¬
mental soteriological pattern suggests that the long recension,
which at one point has the Spirit of life increase and the power
come to the soul,32 is less preferable than the short, according to
which the Spirit is brought to the soul after birth (i.e. at Gnostic
baptism?), to strengthen it.33 This suggests that neither spirit is
present in all the souls,34 and appears to contradict the earlier
passage where the counterfeit spirit was one of the four elements
making up material man.33 Later on we gather that the counterfeit
spirit’s origin postdates the Flood!36
The most likely explanation of this last apparent contradiction
is, as Tardieu has shown in his analysis of the Apocryphon, the
addition by a later editor of the reinterpretation of Genesis 5-9
to complete the story, introduced - not very skilfully as we shall
see - by John’s final question about the origin of the counterfeit
spirit.37 We might explain the prior contradiction in terms of a -
not always explicit - distinction between a good or evil spirit within
humanity (i.e. a capacity for salvation or damnation) and the Holy
Spirit and his demonic counterpart who work from the outside.38
As the Holy Spirit (or Epinoia) descends to save the Mother’s
power (or seed), so the counterfeit spirit leads astray humanity,
of whose material bodies (counterfeit) spirit is a constituent part
and who reproduce by it. The body and sex are the means by
which the evil counterfeit spirit gained entry into us and whereby
we remain enslaved.39
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 263

Salvation therefore depends primarily on the descent and

presence of the Spirit of life (or of the saving knowledge), but
also on the human response. Thus the passage is led to distinguish
various types within humanity (a) by which of the two spirits
prevails and (b) by the human response. The first type or class of
souls, on whom the Spirit of life descends and unites with the
power, responds by ascetic combat of or freedom from the
passions, and use of the body as a mere, temporary instrument,
as they await reception into and purification in the great
illuminators and the final goal of eternal life.40
However, that it is the Spirit’s presence which is funda¬
mental for salvation and makes it apparently automatic, is
evident from the description of the second class of souls, those
who have not performed the good work of ascetic combat. All
they need is the presence of the Spirit after their birth and its
union with the Mother’s power, to strengthen the soul and free
it from evil.41 The reference to the fact that they will ‘in any case
(pante pantos) live’ precisely echoes both what Irenaeus quotes
certain Valentinians as claiming and a passage in the Valentinian
Tripartite Tractate: they, the pneumatics, will be saved not by
certain actions but because they are spiritual by nature.42 Further,
the idea that the soul is saved or led into evil depending on
which spirit inhabits it is reminiscent of the view of Valentinus
himself, echoed in Hippolytus’ account of the Valentinians.43
According to Valentinus the heart is like an inn inhabited by
evil spirits, or, when cleansed, by the Father, while in Hippolytus
it is a matter of the soul as an inn being occupied by demons or
heavenly Logoi.
But there are some striking differences, if also a concealed
similarity. First, unlike Valentinianism, souls are not saved by
nature, only by the descent of the Spirit after birth: all have the
capacity (the Mother’s power), not all have the Spirit. Second, it
is a matter not of plural good and evil spirits but of the Holy Spirit
versus its demonic counterpart, the counterfeit spirit.44 Conversely,
as with Valentinianism, salvation should not be understood as an
entirely automatic process. As we shall see, some souls with saving
knowledge (i.e. those initiates on whom the Spirit has descended?)
can yet reject it and turn away.45 And the whole Valentinian scheme
depends on the value of this present world as the necessary sphere
for the formation, education and perfection of the pneumatic
seed, just as the first class of souls in the Apocryphon reaches perfec¬
tion through ascetic effort.46
264 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

If then in the Apocryphon the power of the Mother is the

indispensable precondition of life and salvation, and the presence
of the Holy Spirit of life the effecter of ultimate redemption, which
is not an assured possession or automatic process but seems to
follow birth (i.e. spiritual and sacramental rebirth), what role does
knowledge play? Theodotus’ classic definition of Gnostic salvation
insists that it is notjust baptism but the unique Gnostic knowledge
which saves.47 Now the term does crop up in the context of the
third class of souls, those who have not come to complete know¬
ledge. The reason given for this situation is the activity of the
counterfeit spirit. Those ignorant souls led astray by it will be
fettered once more (in matter or bodies?) until they are saved
from forgetfulness and acquire knowledge. In this way they will
become perfect and saved.48 We have already suggested that the
motifs of the descent of the Spirit and acquiring saving knowledge
are similarly described and thus in effect equivalent.49 This is
strengthened by comparing the activities of the two spirits: the
role of the counterfeit spirit leading souls into ignorance and evil
is balanced by the descent of the Holy Spirit leading elect souls
into knowledge and perfection, as already reflected in the
mythologoumenon of the two trees of Paradise, the counterfeit
spirit and the Epinoia.50
The reference to the third class of souls is preceded by a rather
garbled passage describing the saved souls’ departure from the
flesh and evil and safeguarded ascent to the repose of the aeons
(or eternal rest),51 which once again fails to suggest any differen¬
tiation along the lines suggested in the earlier ‘Sethian’ passage,
confirming its character as a later interpolation and interpretation.
The allusions to the flesh and evil lead naturally to the question
of the ignorant souls (the third class) overcome by the counterfeit
spirit, and their fate; after being drawn to evil and forgetfulness
they are apparently stripped of their bodies (at death?), but are
once more cast by the First Archon’s authorities into chains until
finally liberated. Does this imply reincarnation, as hinted above?
Tardieu argues no, such souls are trapped in the planetary sphere
until finally liberated.52
However, Tardieu’s arguments are not entirely persuasive. One
has to consider the process, the language and the parallels, particu¬
larly in Pistis Sophia. Just as the archetypal man Adam (or rather
his soul) was finally trapped in a material body as a fetter of
oblivion, so too are the souls of his ignorant successors.53 And
since the process of salvation (being saved from forgetfulness,
 Tffisv* W Marceau, CSB,
Gnostic Soteriology 2 265

acquiring knowledge), namely baptism and chrismation promising

spiritual rebirth and the descent of the Spirit, requires a human
body, this implies reincarnation. This is surely how one must
understand the passage underlying John’s question about how
souls can possibly re-enter their mother’s womb, as also the later
remark about how by following Gnostics such souls are saved and
do not enter another flesh.54 The language of authorities consort¬
ing with and Gnostics accompanying such souls does not
necessarily imply a disembodied sojourn in the planetary spheres,
and the parallel passages in Pistis Sophia (which I have argued are
dependent on the Apocryphon and its traditions) do clearly teach
reincarnation in another body for wicked and ignorant souls.10
It is important to note here how closelyjohn’s question about
how souls can become small enough to re-enter the womb (physis)
of the mother or into the man is bound up with the prior passage
dealing with ignorant souls who, after the death of the body, are
cast into another until saved. The Saviour does not reject John’s
question but supplies a solution of a sort: such souls are given to
elect souls as their guardians and reach salvation and knowledge
by accompanying and obeying them (i.e. by being initiated
through them?).56 This means their freedom from their existing
body and no further reincarnations, not no process of reincarnation
at all! Once again there is no hint that such souls are inferior, as
the earlier ‘Sethian’ passage on the destinies of souls indicated, a
further sign of its later character.
The final class of souls comprises those who did have knowledge
but apostatized. They will be taken to the place of the angels of
poverty and finally tortured with eternal punishment along with
all who have blasphemed the Holy Spirit.57 Such an equation of
rejection of saving knowledge with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit
is further confirmation of the hypothesis outlined above that
saving knowledge and the descent of the Spirit in Gnostic initiation
are synonymous. The blasphemy against the Spirit can only involve
the rejection of the claim that through Gnostic initiation the Holy
Spirit has descended to indwell and save them.
Thus, in conclusion, the conflicting nature of the Gnostic
experience of salvation, of the reality in some of the sense of
election, the need nevertheless for ascetic denial of the world,
the facts of ignorance on the part of others and of inexplicable
rejection by still others who did have the saving knowledge, is
well reflected in this dialogue passage. The Apocryphon attempts
to do justice and reconcile this conflict by its governing theme:
266 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

the descent of the Father’s Holy Spirit as the effecter of salvation

and the presence of the Mother’s light-power as its indispensable
precondition. Salvation is thus possible for all, but not automatic:
it depends on the divine initiative (the saving descent of the Spirit
in Gnostic initiation) and on the correct human response (ascetic
freedom from the passions, or at least acceptance of the
initiative).58 It is not a matter of nature (unlike the Valentinian
threefold scheme), or gender, or of merit and reward (unlike a
Judaeo-Christian view) and does not necessarily imply different
eras, stages or degrees of salvation (unlike the later ‘Sethian’
reinterpretation or the Valentinian view).
Moreover, it attempts to combine elements of the three under¬
standings of salvation found in unresolved tension in Saturninus’
scheme, as noted in previous chapters: salvation as ‘by nature’, as
a permanent possession by grace and as a gift, capable of being
lost or rejected. Thus the soul which has united with the Spirit
will certainly be saved without the need for works; it can later be
described in terms of belonging to the ‘seed’ or the ‘immovable
race’, a concept approaching that of ‘nature’. The priority of the
gracious divine initiative is also stressed, but room is found for
the possibility of loss or rejection of the divine gift. That this
passage seems to concentrate on the soul as the essential vehicle
of salvation, and not the Mother’s power, as previously, need not
imply that the dialogue is an interpolation;59 what is fundamental
is the final saving descent of the Spirit. The Mother’s light-power
represents not a provisional salvation, as earlier passages might
suggest, but the capacity for salvation.

2 Further archontic measures and counter-measures:

the counterfeit spirit, Fate, the Flood

The narrative of the Gnostic salvation history, dealing with Genesis

5-9, is resumed afterjohn’s seventh question, about the origin of
the counterfeit spirit.60 The question evidently acts as a bridge,
and an artificial harmonizing one at that, since the answer comes
much later and there are contradictions and awkwardnesses in
the content. Tardieu has persuasively argued for this passage
dealing with Genesis 5-9 as a later editorial insertion (his (n1)),
which I would argue is part of the ‘Sethian’ reinterpretation (my
(a3)), since it involves characteristic concepts such as ‘the seed’
and ‘the immovable race’. Thus the text refers at once to the Holy
Spirit identified as the Epinoia with her seed (sperma), working
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 267

with us and awakening the thought (or seed) of the perfect

immovable race of the man of light,61 which picks up the passage
directly before the dialogue, which spoke of the Mother or her
spirit working on the seed until the descent of the Holy Spirit.62
We have already called attention to the ‘Sethian’ character of such
passages,63 and the confused state of the text here - no principal
verb, the peculiar form of III, the lack of connection with what
follows - is further evidence of interpolation and redaction.
As we have already argued, the ‘Mother’ of SR must be
understood from her activity and attributes as Barbelo, the
‘Mother-Father’ of LR, originally the higher Sophia, the consort
of the supreme being, although of course the term ‘Mother’ also
applies sometimes to the lower, fallen Sophia. Indeed, traces of
Sophia’s original status and her redeeming activity have survived
all attempts to distance her from Barbelo and from any kind of
redemptive role, and these relics at times contribute to the disarray
of our texts. Yet the main obvious source of that confusion here
is the further application of the Pronoia-Epinoia scheme. Thus
what is being described appears to be a further - or a resume of a
previous - redemptive activity of the Spirit/Epinoia in close con¬
junction with the Mother-Father, i.e. Barbelo. That LR describes
her as ‘the Epinoia of the forethought (pronoia) of light’,64 could
be seen as part of this process as well as an attempt to harmonize
more with the closing Pronoia hymn,65 as is its qualification of
the spirit as ‘in every form’:66 both strikingly recall the triple
descent of the thought (meeue, i.e. epinoia) of the Pronoia of that
hymn.67 Perhaps not surprisingly, MacRae claims to find in this
passage the second descent of the redeemer figure of the hymn,68
but there is little evidence of this in the text and little real
correlation; indeed whereas the Epinoia here successfully wakens
the elect and provokes an archontic counter-reaction, in her
second advent in the hymn the Pronoia (or Epinoia) is depicted
rather as provoking an anticipation of the End.69
The confusion in B and LR, which has the Holy Spirit/Epinoia
raise up or awaken the seed (sperma) of the elect rather than their
thinking,70 is, as I suggested above, evidently a further sign of the
effect of the ‘Sethian’ reworking, with its themes of the seed and
the immovable, perfect race. Certainly the version in III makes
more sense, recalling as it does the earlier passage about the
Ennoia awakening the thinking of Adam.71 But the idea of raising
up seed at once recalls Eve’s words about Seth in the LXX of Gen
4:25; behind the confusion in our texts may lie a deliberate
268 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

‘Sethian’ wordplay involving both the raising up of the Gnostic

race of (heavenly) Seth and the awakening of its thought.72 The
version in III is thus justified in interpreting the garbled language
of B and LR about the identity of the men or race involved: it is
the immovable race of the perfect Man of light (Adamas and
hence also Seth?) .73
Aware that humans (or the elect) surpass him in the elevation
of their wisdom, the First Archon wants to take control of their
thinking, ignorant of their superior intelligence.74 The last phrase
is further evidence of the secondary nature of this passage in that
the First Archon and even his minions had previously not been
ignorant but all too aware of the intellectual superiority of Adam
(and hence of his offspring) !7S Fate (heimarmene) is then produced
by the First Archon and his authorities, LR adding that this
resulted from their adultery with each other’s Sophia (or
wisdom) ,76 and continuing with a digression, virtually unparalleled
in SR, describing the evil nature of Fate and its universal
dominion.77 A similar negative evaluation of Heimarmene occurs
in Zosimus’ On the Letter Omega in which ‘Hermes’ and Zoroaster
are said to have asserted that the race of philosophers was superior
to Fate,78 and in which is related the ‘Hebrew’ and Hermetic myth
of the enslavement of the spiritual light-man in the earthly Adam,
the product of Heimarmene,79 and his liberation from the body
and Heimarmene through the advent and continuing activity of
the Son of God.80 Here too we find the protological and escha¬
tological figure of the counterfeit demon (antimimos daimon), lead¬
ing men astray by his false claim to be Son of God and associated
with Heimarmene which traps those who possess merely corporeal
over against intellectual (noeros) perception (akoe).s'
More relevant perhaps is the picture presented in On the Origin
of the World, where Heimarmene is seen as the fellow-worker with
seven archons, who were thrown down upon the earth and
produced demons who led humanity astray by teaching them
magic and idolatry. She originated from the agreement of the
gods of justice and injustice, and as a result the cosmos was thrown
into confusion and error, ignorance and oblivion (bshe). Humanity
served the demons from creation to the consummation and advent
of the true Man.82 This last passage appears to bear some relation
to the digression in LR. In it Heimarmene is begotten by the First
Archon and his powers (surely including the righteous and
unrighteous rulers of the material body, Jave and Eloim) as the
last of the variable bonds, stronger than that which unites gods,
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 269

angels, demons and men, the source of all evil, forgetfulness (bshe)
and ignorance, binding humanity through time.83
There is of course no exact parallel in On the Origin of the World
to the long recension of the Apocryphons conception of the powers’
adultery with each other’s wisdom (or Sophia) as the origin of
Heimarmene. But there are traces of both of these ideas/figures
in it. Thus we hear of a Sophia (of Ialdabaoth!) in the sixth heaven
responsible for the creation of the heavenly constellations and
thus for time and order in the cosmos, i.e. the Jewish creative
Wisdom figure,84 while at the final revelation of the truth in the
archons’ realm it is said that all their wisdoms are put to shame
and their Heimarmene found to be under condemnation.80 This
juxtaposition suggests that both are making use of a tradition
which traced the origin of Heimarmene to the wisdom of the
archons (perhaps envisaged more mythologically in terms of the
archons’ intercourse with the figure of creative Wisdom), and
linked the evils and ignorance in the world with Fate.
The two recensions then concur in summarizing the effect of
the creation of Fate. Everything is bound by time since Fate is
lord over everything.86 Thus although there is little trace in SR of
LR’s conception of Heimarmene’s origin and responsibility for
evil in the world, its negative view of Fate and of the archontic
plan may have stimulated LR to develop its presentation, relying
on other traditions about Heimarmene.
Having thus described the final determinant of human
existence, Fate and its instrument, time, the ‘Sethian’ redactor is
free to develop the concept of history, the genuine Heilsgeschichte
of the Gnostics as the earthly race of the heavenly Seth, by further
appeal to Genesis. The earlier reinterpretation, while active in
reworking the Cain and Abel traditions, made very little of the
birth of earthly Seth. But this addition, in order to depict the
further counter-measures of the archons in human history as part
of its schematization of world history in terms of a continuing
battle between the heavenly Sethians and the evil powers (and of
a triple descent scheme of the Saviour), makes use of the Jewish
mythologoumenon based on Gen 6:2—4 of the intercourse of
angels with the daughters of men,87 and of details of the Flood
narrative in Genesis 6 and 7. However, it reverses the order,
ignoring the biblical sequence and logic: the Flood is not the
consequence of the (fallen) angels’ misconduct with the daughters
of men. Rather, first the Flood, allegorized as darkness, then the
angelic seduction are successive - unsuccessful - attempts of the
270 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

First Archon to destroy humanity, which find their climax in the

creation of the counterfeit spirit. The angels are not fallen, nor
do they generate giants as in the Jewish interpretation; they are
deliberately sent to produce human offspring for their pleasure
as creatures in the power of the First Archon. Once again we
encounter the Gnostic freedom of reinterpretation of scripture,
particularly Genesis and its contemporary Jewish interpretation,
to accommodate and illustrate their own theology.
Echoing Gen 6:6 and 6:17, the First Archon repents of all that
had come into existence through him and decides to bring a
flood over the whole human creation.88 But once again a divine
redeemer/revealer comes to the rescue; the greatness of Pronoia,
i.e. the Epinoia (of light) according to SR, or the greatness of the
light of the Pronoia according to LR, instructed Noah.89 Although
SR may have added the gloss about the Epinoia in an attempt to
harmonize with the main body of the Apocryphon, it seems more
likely that LR, which normally tends to add references to the
Epinoia, omitted it by mistake or deliberately.90 On the other hand,
the expression in LR, ‘greatness of the light of Pronoia’ also recalls
some of the self-designations of the Pronoia revealer/redeemer
of the closing hymn, and thus may represent another attempt by
LR to integrate this passage more thoroughly.91
Noah, the text continues, tried unsuccessfully to warn humanity,92
and there follows a further ‘correction’ of Genesis: not, as ‘Moses’
said, ‘he hid himself (B) or ‘they hid themselves (III, II, IV) in
an ark’, but ‘he hid himself (B) or ‘they hid themselves (III, II,
IV) in a place’.93 No such form of words, of course, occurs in
Genesis 7: verse 7 has Noah enter the ark and verse 15 speaks of
them (Noah and family) going in. However, in 1 Enoch 10.2 an
angel says to Noah: ‘Hide yourself’ and the Apocryphon s redactor
may be echoing this kind of pseudepigraphical tradition, or a
blend of it and Genesis 7.94 It adds a further correction: not only
Noah but also other men (cf. Gen 7:23 LXX) of the immovable
race went into a place and covered themselves with a cloud of
light.95 This is evidently part of the ‘Sethian’ reinterpretation, as
is the understanding of Noah as one of the immovable race, since
in texts such as the Hypostasis and the Apocalypse of Adam (which
do not have the classic ‘Sethian’ self-designation ‘immovable
race’), Noah is an ambivalent figure associated with the evil
Demiurge or his son the righteous Sabaoth.96
Noah recognizes his heavenly authority, along with those with
him, through the light which shines upon them, because darkness
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 271

covers everything on earth.97 As Tardieu notes, the redactor

completely recasts the Genesis account, turning the Flood into
the darkness with which the small portion of light must battle,
while, as we suggested, he also reinterprets Noah as a Gnostic
and not the reluctant servant of the Demiurge.98
Then follows the motif of the angelic seduction of men based
on Gen 6:2-4 and its interpretation in Jewish andJewish-Christian
circles. But instead of the angels being cast down on the earth
for their wickedness, seducing the daughters of men and pro¬
ducing the giants out of hostility to God, as in the customary
Jewish and Christian interpretation,99 the Apocryphon makes their
action a result of the First Archon’s joint plan with them. Since
the ‘Flood’ failed and the Gnostic Noah escaped, the descent
of the angels is developed as a further counter-measure and
explanation of how humanity after Noah was enslaved: the
angels are sent to the daughters of men to produce offspring
for their (the angels’) enjoyment. But this too is given a twist:
their scheme failed at first.1 As a result they finally decide to create
a counterfeit (or despicable) spirit like the Spirit which had
come down.2 But which Spirit is involved here? Is it the Holy Spirit,
the Epinoia who wakened Adam, or the spirit of Sophia, the
Mother, sent to Adam’s descendants?3 The former seems ruled
out since in that episode the Epinoia is concealed from the
archons4 and since it is precisely the latter episode which is
picked up as the connecting link for the further Genesis
reinterpretation.3
The answer to Janssens’ question how, if the counterfeit spirit
was only created after the ‘Flood’, could it have been involved
in the creation of material man,6 is, of course, that we are deal¬
ing with two separate sources. The original source had the
counterfeit spirit produced as an element in the archontic creation
of the material body in response to the descent and conceal¬
ment of the Holy Spirit in the psychic Adam,7 while this later
version has it created in imitation of the Holy Spirit as a final
archontic device to divert humanity from salvation.8 Here one
could fruitfully compare the account in Zosimus in which the
conflict similarly takes place on and reflects two levels, one
within and one outside humanity. There is the struggle between
the inner spiritual man and the external Adam, created by the
archons and Fate and enslaved in a primal event. Then there
is the opposition between the continuous redemptive activity of
the Son of God in human history and the hostile endeavours
272 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

of his counterpart, the counterfeit demon, who appears later

on the scene and claims to be the Son of God.9 In both cases
it is not the power or inner spiritual man, which belongs to us
by nature, which ensures our redemption but the presence
and activity of the Spirit or Son of God awakening the power,
freeing the enslaved inner man. Salvation is essentially some¬
thing which comes to us and is thus a matter of grace. It can be
lost.
The Apocryphon then returns to the mythologoumenon of the
angelic seduction: the angels transformed their appearance into
the likeness of the husbands of the daughters of men, a motif
found in Jewish and Jewish-Christian circles.10 However, the
Gnostic interpretation again intervenes: this was to fill them with
the spirit of evil.11 The Enochic motif is further developed: the
angels brought precious metals to humans and led them into
distractions.12 SR adds the reason, ‘so that they should not think
of their immovable forethought {pronoia)',13 omitted by LR
perhaps because of its different view of Pronoia as the second
highest heavenly figure with the key role in redemption.14 LR then
has a passage expanding the description of human seduction into
distraction and ignorance which is evidently an addition.15 It
mentions people being led astray into many errors, growing old
and not finding rest, dying without having discovered truth or
the true God (cf. Heb 3:8-11, quoting Ps 95(94) :7—11), so that
the whole creation (ktisis) became enslaved forever from the
foundation (katabole) of the world (kosmos) until now (cf. Dan
12:1/Matt 24:21).16
The Apocryphon then recounts how the angelic initiative finally
succeeds: the angels took women and begot children from the
darkness through the counterfeit spirit.17 They closed their hearts
and became hardened through the hardness of the counterfeit
spirit until now.18 In this deliberate echo of biblical language the
Apocryphon supplies the final characteristic of human existence,
the problem of human blindness and the rejection of the saving
message and of the divine revealer/redeemer, the Holy Spirit.19
It is the work of his rival, the counterfeit spirit, who, according to
the text, is thus responsible both for humans reproducing and
for their lack of spiritual perception.20 Such a reference also neatly
links in with the opening dialogue: it was not the Saviour who led
people astray and hardened their hearts, as the Pharisee,
Arimanius, had insinuated to John, but the demonic counterfeit
spirit, the creation of the archons.21
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 273

3 The closing Pronoia hymn and epilogue

The last statement would appear to mark the conclusion of the

Heilsgeschichte and this seems to be confirmed by the marked
divergence of the two recensions at this point. SR, apparently
continuing the soteriological exposition, abruptly asserts that the
blessed Mother-Father who is rich in mercy takes form (morphe)
in her seed (sperma).22 This is followed by the Saviour’s pro¬
nouncement that at first he ascended to the perfect aeon.23
Thereupon the epilogue proper begins, echoing the prologue,
with both recensions in general agreement that, as is customary
in Gnostic gospels, the Saviour gives instructions to John about
the transmission in writing of what he has said to his fellow spirits
(homopneuma), namely the mystery of the immovable race.24 But
SR interrupts the epilogue at this point with the Saviour s
statement, which as Puech points out properly belongs to the
dogmatic exposition,25 that the Mother came another time before
him and what she did in the cosmos was to correct her deficiency
(hysterema) .26 SR then adds the Saviour’s promise, actually
unfulfilled, but echoing the prologue: ‘I will teach you (plural,
i.e. the disciples?) what will happen.’27 The two recensions then
concur in their version of the Saviour’s closing instructions to
John (in the first person in SR, but in the third in LR) to preserve
his teaching in writing and keep it safe; his curse upon any who
traffic in it for material gain; his commission to John (in the third
person in both recensions) of the mystery and his disappearance,
whereupon John proceeds to proclaim the message to his fellow
disciples.28 LR adds the phrase: ‘Jesus the Christ. Amen.’29
LR’s version of the epilogue is not broken up like that of SR, but
follows neatly from the hymnic ego eimi revelation discourse of
the Saviour, identified as the perfect Pronoia of the All, who relates
her three saving descents in disguise to this world (as Hades), in
the third of which she enters a human body to awaken and initiate
the imprisoned Gnostic (the five seals rite), to free him from the
power of death.30 LR thus begins the hymn in the first person
right after the mention of the counterfeit spirit’s activity until now,
making no mention of the Mother-Father taking form or the
Mother’s previous visitation and saving action, and starting the
epilogue (still in the first person) with the Saviour’s assertion of
his future ascent (not past, as in SR) to the perfect aeon.31
What is the precise relation between the two recensions, par¬
ticularly as regards the Pronoia hymn? Is it a late addition to LR,
274 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

either as composed by its redactor(s) or as an earlier autonomous

piece? As we shall see, the striking similarities to Trimorphic
Protennoia might suggest the latter. Was it therefore omitted by
the redactor (s) of SR as a later, not properly integrated insertion?
Conversely, is it original, supplying the fundamental structure of
the Apocryphon? Again, is it Christian or non- and pre-Christian, a
form of Jewish Wisdom hymn? Finally, as we shall argue, is it not
perhaps best interpreted as part of the Johannine framework of
redaction (a2), the triple descent of the Saviour/Pronoia as Father,
Mother and Son (Logos), which follows on naturally from the
dialogue on the souls?
Doresse, perhaps the first to discuss the relation of the recen¬
sions, refuses to commit himself: he suggests the possible
secondary character of the passage, noting its hymn-like quality,
but at once speculates whether its archaic style might not imply it
was original and omitted by SR, whose text is confused here.32
Giversen points to the special character of the passage in relation
to LR and also suggests that SR omitted it for (unspecified)
editorial reasons.33 Schottroff agrees with Giversen, arguing that
the statements of SR must be understood as redemptive and that
the redeemer’s discourse must already have been present in the
tradition underlying SR. However, she does attempt to offer the
more satisfactory reason for its omission, that it was felt to be a
doublet of Jesus’ appearance to John.34 MacRae claims to find
the three revelatory descents in the text itself (the Saviour’s
message to John being the third),35 and thus denies Jonas’
characterization of the hymn as an ‘Iranian’ insertion into an
essentially ‘Syrian’ type of Gnosticism. The best way to account
for it, says MacRae, is as ‘a Gnostic liturgical fragment probably
recited at a ceremony of initiation much in the manner of a
Christian baptismal homily or hymn’.36 While MacRae in the later
discussion admits the secondary character in time and nature of
this part of the long recension, his overall conclusion points to
the antiquity of the hymn and its pre- and non-Christian char¬
acter.37 Finally, he alludes to the striking similarities in content,
structure and form between the hymn and Trimorphic Protennoia.™
Turner, in his edition of the latter, accepts MacRae’s analysis,
arguing that, in light of the likely priority of SR, the absence of
the Pronoia hymn from it suggests that the hymn may have existed
separately from the Apocryphon. He goes on to posit that Trimorphic
Protennoia is an expansion of an earlier version of that non-
Christian ‘aretalogical, sapiental Pronoia hymn’ found in the long
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 275

recension of the Apocryphon.39 He claims to find the threefold

descent of Protennoia echoing the three descents of Pronoia in
the main body of the latter, but his identification of the first two
differs from MacRae’s.40 Moreover neither MacRae nor Turner
explore the question of the precise relation between this supposed
pre-Christian Pronoia hymn and our Apocryphon, whether, for
example, the former underlies the latter: they seem to accept it
as an ancient literary unit added later, yet also assume a necessary
correlation between the three descents of the hymn and saving
events in the main text. The failure to find or agree on a
convincing correlation between the hymn and the rest of the
Apocryphon is highly significant for any attempt to answer our
question of the relation between the recensions as regards the
hymn.
Arai also argues that the revelation discourse (or hymn) of the
Pronoia figure is a later addition, but he understands it as a
Christian interpretation of III 39.11-13 (the Mother-Father taking
form in her offspring) .41 The Mother-Father is Sophia and her
taking form is to be seen in terms of the Valentinian understanding
of the formation of shapeless and ignorant Achamoth and thus
also of the pneumatics.42 This eschatological formation and
perfection of Sophia with her offspring has been transmuted by
LR into the triple descent of Christ, with the deliberate omission
of any reference to the saving action of Sophia (B 76.1-5/III
39.19-21). But he also questions the originality of SR’s epilogue
in its present form: the dislocations and abrupt changes of subject
mark an attempt to interpolate and stress the role of Christ as
redeemer alongside the original view of Sophia alone as such.43
However, his interpretation is a little strained and far-fetched and
is undermined by Tardieu’s persuasive demonstration that SR still
retains traces of the Pronoia hymn.44
Tardieu’s own solution is also to posit the Christian character
(and Jewish Wisdom roots) of the Pronoia hymn, but as the
original basis of the Apocryphon, a pastiche of the Johannine
Prologue by a dissident member of the Johannine circle, repla¬
cing the creative Word by Providence (Pronoia) who eventually
becomes not flesh but Word. This hymn was so well-known that it
was omitted by the original redactor (n) but added by a later (n1),
only to be omitted by the redactor of SR (o).4° Indeed Tardieu
claims to find evidence of the existence and use of the hymn in
two other sources; the Naassene hymn in Hippolytus and the three
‘calls’ of Mani’s myth in his Pragmateia.46 This may be so, and his
276 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

relating of the hymn to the Johannine Prologue illuminating, but

his reconstruction and explanation of the redactional process of
omission, addition, omission is rather fanciful.
Indeed, all such attempts to argue for the antiquity and
autonomy of the Pronoia hymn stumble on the awkward fact that
it makes little or no sense on its own, unless interpreted against
the light of an existing myth, since the purpose of the first two
descents is far from clear. How Turner’s hypothetical earlier
version could have made enough sense to form the basis of
Trimorphic Protennoia is even more unclear. On the other hand it
does seem to have been excluded by SR, and the latter’s evident
unhappiness with the term and figure ‘Mother-Father’, associated
with the attributes ‘rich in mercy’ and ‘as a first Man’, as well as
what I will argue is its implied rejection of the idea that the
supreme female figure could have descended, may supply a better
explanation of the provenance of the hymn and the reason for its
omission. Here Turner, although unconvincing over the relation
of the Pronoia hymn to Trimorphic Protennoia, has rightly suggested
that the three descents in the main body of the Apocryphon are
‘essentially those to be found in On the Origin of the World (11,5),
Hypostasis of the Archons (II,4) and Irenaeus’ ‘Ophite’ account
(Haer. 1.30.6-12)’.47 Thus he sees them as a major feature of
Sethian gnostic mythology, with the Apocryphon as seemingly a
combination of the Sethian-Barbeloite cosmogony and Sophia
myth of Irenaeus 1.29 and the ‘Ophite’ anthropogony and
soteriology of Irenaeus 1.30.
If one removes the Sethian label, Turner’s analysis concurs very
much with mine, and his pointer to the pattern of three descents
in On the Origin, the Hypostasis and Irenaeus 1.30.6-12 is extremely
suggestive, if not spelled out in detail. I would propose the
following analysis of how the descent scheme and Pronoia hymn
evolved, following Turner’s suggestion. The key lies in the
changing role of Sophia. In the original soteriological section of
the Christian myth underlying the Apocryphon, not included in
Irenaeus’ summary, Sophia, as Arai rightly surmises, was the major
figure in salvation as well as cosmology, playing the kind of role
she does in the related ‘Ophite’ myth, reflecting a Christian-
Gnostic interpretation ofjewish speculations on Wisdom and her
descents to the world. Thus her first saving action or descent in
my view was her rebuke to the First Archon and appearance as
heavenly Man/Adamas, the first stage in the divine plan to recover
the lost light-power.
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 277

In the ‘Ophite’ version Sophia merely supplies a mental picture

of man and does not actually descend.48 In the elaborate,
reduplicated and clearly secondary versions in the Hypostasis and
On the Origin, either she, as Pistis (to distinguish her from her
daughter Sophia Zoe), rebukes Ialdabaoth for his boast, inserts
light into matter and descends before returning,49 or, as
Incorruptibility, looks down revealing her (man-like) image to
the creator archons,°° or she rebukes Ialdabaoth, informing him
of the existence of an immortal light-man who will appear in his
creations and destroy them, reveals her likeness and withdraws
above.01 These are evident doublets of what I would argue is the
more original version underlying our present Apocryphon, in which
Sophia rebukes Ialdabaoth for his boast of being the only god by
referring to the existence of heavenly Man, descends (or lets her
image descend) disguised as him, then reascends. It is to this,
not, as Turner claims, to the descent of Autogenes and the
illuminators to engineer Ialdabaoth’s inbreathing,52 that the first
descent of the Saviour in the Pronoia hymn corresponds.53
Turner is then correct to identify the second descent of the
Pronoia (originally the second descent of Sophia herself as Zoe,
awakening Adam by her call) with the dispatch of the Epinoia/
Zoe by the merciful Mother-Father to instruct Adam and thereby
put right Sophia’s deficiency,54 and the third with her (male)
manifestation as Christ, which, as he points out, coincides in SR
with the appearance of the Saviour in the Christian dialogical
frame story itself, and in LR with the Pronoia hymn.55 Now the
‘Ophite’ system, if not explicitly teaching a first or second descent
of Sophia, retains a trace of Sophia’s third descent when, united
with her consort Christ, she enters Jesus.56 Prior to that, like the
Epinoia/Zoe of the Apocryphon, she had worked continuously at
saving the divine dew of light and proclaimed the existence of
the true First Man and imminent descent of Christ, causing terror
to the archons.57 Moreover both the Hypostasis and On the Origin
do have a second descent in the person of Sophia’s daughter,
Zoe, as well as a final one in the person of the True Man or Word,
i.e. Christ.58 Thus in these last, evidently transitional texts, we can
observe the process whereby Sophia is no longer the predominant
saving figure who descends or intervenes three times, but is being
supplemented or replaced by offshoots (Zoe, Eve), with Christ as
the culminating Saviour.
Now what we have observed in the Apocryphon is precisely the
final replacement of Sophia as Saviour by the Pronoia (Barbelo/
278 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

merciful Mother-Father) and the Epinoia figures, the former

particularly identified with the Saviour in the prologue and
Pronoia hymn. The essential unity of the two is worth noting, since
I would contend that the Pronoia hymn is part of redaction (a2),
showing the influence of Johannine (as well as ‘Ophite’ and
Valentinian) material.59 The Johannine Saviour or Word (himself
based on Sophia/Wisdom) has been identified with the supreme
female figure, Barbelo (originally higher Sophia), as the Father’s
providence or Pronoia, in her three forms or modalities of Father,
Mother and Son (the original Gnostic triad) .60 The three initiatives
or descents of Sophia, first anthropogonic (through her voice
proclaiming heavenly Man and her heavenly Adam image), then
eschatological (through her voice awakening Adam and pro¬
claiming his future ascent and her heavenly Eve/Zoe image) and
finally soteriological (through her voice proclaiming the Word
or Son through the prophets and the Baptist and her union with
the Son, Christ in the human body), supplied the basis for the
construction of the Pronoia hymn with its three descents of the
Saviour/Pronoia, first as Father (First Man),61 then as Mother
(Zoe, Mother of all living) and finally as Son, saving the elect
through illumination and the five seals initiation rite.62 Indeed
the - overlooked - links between the passage on the destiny of
souls and the Pronoia hymn63 would support both my view of the
hymn being integral to the Apocryphon as part of redaction (a2),
and of the intervening reinterpretation of Genesis 5-9 as part of
the ‘Sethian’ reworking of redaction (a3).
However, the difficulties presented by a male Saviour identified
with a female (Pronoia) or androgynous (Mother-Father) figure,
added perhaps to the present awkwardness of correlating the three
descents with the main body of the text (vividly illustrated by
the disagreements among modern commentators!), might well
account for the omission of the Pronoia hymn by SR, as it does
for its tendency to play down references to Pronoia and its general
conversion of‘Mother-Father’ into either ‘Father’ or ‘Mother’.64
Indeed, SR’s later acknowledgement that the Mother (i.e. Sophia)
did come another time before the Saviour, and that what she did
in the cosmos was to put right her deficiency,65 could well be
interpreted as its ‘correction’ of the claim that the supreme female
being, Pronoia/Barbelo, had descended into this evil realm to
instruct and save the elect, particularly finally in the guise of the
Saviour: this may be the decisive reason why SR omitted the
hymn.66 With the omission of the hymn the Saviour’s allusion to
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 279

his future ascent was also changed by SR to refer to a past ascent

to the perfect aeon.67
The remarkable similarities to Trimorphic Protennoia can best
be explained, not in terms of the latter originating from the
Pronoia hymn as an ancient autonomous fragment expanded by
aretalogical passages of uncertain provenance, with the mytho¬
logical material (essentially the Barbeloite cosmogony) being
added later, as Turner argues, but rather in terms of the latter
being influenced by redaction (a2) as a whole, developing even
further the triadic structure of anthropogonic Voice and image
of Man, eschatological Voice and Zoe, soteriological Word and
Son, suggested in the main text and summarized in the Pronoia
hymn.68 The influence of the Johannine material evident in
redaction (a2) of the Apocryphon is more clear-cut, appropriately
enough, in the third section of Trimorphic Protennoia, producing
the ‘stupendous parallels’ of Colpe. On the other hand, the
apparent parallels with Seth and his threefold parousias in The
Gospel of the Egyptians and the triple descent of the Illuminator of
the Apocalypse of Adam are best interpreted in terms of a ‘Sethian’
adaptation of the Saviour/Pronoia scheme to fit its characteristic
periodization of history. Pressed to avoid the charge of novelty,
early third-century Gnostics developed the theme of heavenly Seth
and his ‘immovable race’, identifying the Saviour as Seth or the
Illuminator, who descends three times to save his seed from flood,
fire and the schemes of the archons, the third time putting on or
appearing in a body explicitly or implicitly that of Jesus, in the
context of initiation.69
For, as already indicated, the interest in heavenly Seth as
redeemer and progenitor of the elect race of Gnostics only seems
to emerge alongside and, as I have argued, in reaction to
‘orthodox’ interest in Seth, at the beginning of the third century.
Thus it is Epiphanius’ Christian-Gnostic Sethians who interpret
Christ as descending from Seth’s race, and indeed as ‘Seth himself,
who both now and then visits (epiphoitan) the human race’, sent
down by the supreme female deity.70
If then, as I have argued, Sophia was the original saving figure,
descending or intervening at three decisive points in world history,
on the last occasion in union with (or replaced by) Christ, where
does this idea come from? Is it based on supposed pre-Christian
Jewish-Gnostic Wisdom speculations, as e.g. MacRae would
argue,71 or is it merely a Gnostic interpretation of a much older,
widespread pagan myth of an interfering female, as Culianu has
280 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

suggested,72 or can it only be understood in terms of a Christian

understanding of Christ as bringing decisive revelation and
salvation, as I would claim? Again the function and interpretation
of the figure and myth of Sophia are fundamental. In the basic
Gnostic myth (as in Valentinianism), Sophia is the paradigm of
the Gnostic’s own experience, responsible for the present plight
of the Gnostic, fallen into matter and oblivion; awakened by the
divine ‘call’ of Christ, the saving revelation which is sealed and
confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit; working in this world
to enlighten Gnostics until the decisive eschatological descent of
Christ, her ultimate consort. Without that element of decisive
revelation as salvation brought by Christ and appropriated through
initiation, schemes involving prior descents of figures such as the
Pronoia or Seth do not seem to make much sense. What is involved
in such prior descents is more the capacity for final salvation in
term of primal and continuous revelation, or revelation at decisive
points (anthropogony, eschatological role of Eve/Zoe as ‘Mother
of all living’). One has to ask the question of this group of‘Sethian’
texts: Was salvation really final before the third descent of Christ/
the Pronoia/heavenly Seth?
That the Jewish figure of Wisdom should underlie and have
decisively influenced the Gnostic myths of Sophia, as MacRae has
shown, is not surprising: the parallels are striking, particularly with
regard to the Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom books, Ecclesiasticus and
Wisdom of Solomon. Thus Janssens and Schenke have rightly
drawn attention to the way the figure of Wisdom underlies not
only Sophia herself, but also Barbelo/Pronoia and Epinoia in the
Apocryphon and related works: they are projections of Sophia
herself, the consort and agent of the Father in creation, revelation
and redemption.73 But the earliest myths of Sophia - those of
Irenaeus’ Gnostics (and of the Valentinians) - are Christian-
Gnostic, the argument of this book. They have not undergone
later Christianization, since the anointing, perfection and eleva¬
tion of the heavenly Son, Christ, is, as I have argued above, the
fundamental paradigm of Gnostic initiation and salvation: the rite
of baptism (in the name of Father, Mother and Son) does seem
to culminate in chrismation (the five seals), associated with the
presence of the Holy Spirit.74 Here the parallels with the complex
more ‘orthodox’ Christian initiation rite of baptism, chrism and
sealing with the Holy Spirit are striking, and the likelihood of
Gnostic influence on the latter two is, as Lampe has argued, very
plausible.
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 281

However, even the earliest versions of the myth, both Gnostic

and Valentinian, show the essential ambivalence of Sophia
and the incipient tendency to split her into two, the supreme
Mother who is always salvator, and the lower Sophia (the
Valentinian Achamoth and ‘Ophite’ Prunicus), who, if salvator,
is yet originally and ultimately salvandus. The later redactions
of the Apocryphon finally eliminate virtually all traces of Sophia
as redeemer, replacing her with Barbelo/Pronoia and
Epinoia, while the ‘Sethian’ reinterpretation and texts neglect
or down-play Sophia and develop the saving role of heavenly
Seth. Thus Schenke’s understanding of Christ in the ‘Ophite’
system, the Apocryphon and Trimorphic Protennoia as the result of a
Christianization of a non-Christian Jewish-based (Sethian) Gnostic
myth seems a reversal of the truth.75
Schenke himself claims to find the classic form of an archetype
of the Gnostic redeemer myth in the second of the Three Steles of
Seth (Sophia as Mother rescuing her children), since it clarifies what
is obscure in other texts, that Sophia is Barbelo, the heavenly
consort. This he thinks influences the details of Thunder, which
itself he sees as the classic form of the Gnosticizing of the Jewish
Sophia concept. In the Apocryphon, he argues, Pronoia is just another
name for Sophia and the ‘Ophite’ system of Irenaeus 1.30 com¬
bines a pre-Christian section with Sophia as redeemer (3-1 la)
with a Christian-Gnostic (1 lb-14) in which Sophia and Christ
together redeem humanity. But in the Jewish Wisdom tradition,
Sophia’s role is much more that of co-creator and inspirer than
redeemer - and she certainly does not ‘fall’;76 why figures like
Barbelo, Pronoia and Thunder should be considered primary
expressions of Sophia rather than she herself is not explained,
and the Three Steles of Seth seems to fit better as a late ‘Sethian’
text dependent on Allogenes and its more metaphysical specula¬
tions. In the Apocryphon Sophia is clearly distinct from Barbelo/
Pronoia, and to divide the ‘Ophite’ text into two halves, one pre-
Christian, the other Christian, without adequate support in the text,
seems arbitrary. In any case, as argued above, neither Sophia nor
her replacements seem to offer decisive salvation until the final
descent into a human body. What they offer is the capacity for
that salvation via primal revelation (the creation of Adam in the
divine image) and continuous or eschatological revelation (Zoe’s
awakening Adam and instructing him and his offspring about the
future). For decisive revelation as salvation, the actual coming of
the Saviour and the subsequent Gnostic rite of initiation are vital.
282 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Conclusion

Analysis of the later soteriological passages of the Apocryphon,

namely the dialogue on the souls, the archontic counter-measures
and the closing Pronoia hymn of the long recension, has tended
to confirm our provisional conclusions in the last chapter. They
have revealed, first, that if one removes the dialogue (part of
redaction (a2)), the passage on the souls was indeed integral to
the original Apocryphon, echoing the basic soteriological pattern
of the Mother’s light-power as the capacity for salvation which
needs the descent of the Father’s Holy Spirit (in the rite of sealing/
perfection) for completion. Salvation depends on which spirit
dominates; the Holy Spirit or its demonic counterpart, the
counterfeit spirit. Further, it involves both divine initiative and
human response: it can be rejected. Thus, second, the earlier
passage with a different soteriology, assigning souls to the four
aeons of Adam and Seth corresponding to their varied responses,
we diagnosed as part of the ‘Sethian’ reinterpretation, as also the
further treatment of Genesis 5-9, involving Fate, the Flood and
the origin of the counterfeit spirit. This does not quite harmonize
with the rest and reflects typical ‘Sethian’ concerns such as the
‘immovable seed’ of heavenly Seth and the periodization of history
in terms of flood, conflagration and judgement.
Third, we were led to conclude that the Pronoia hymn of the
long recension was not an autonomous piece either basic to the
Apocryphon or tacked on later, but part of redaction (a2), the
Johannine framework of prologue, dialogue and epilogue with
its Pronoia/Epinoia scheme, which in turn profoundly influenced
Trimorphic Protennoia and other related texts. Thus, fourth, the
figure of the Saviour is not part of a Christianization of a non-
and pre-Christian Jewish-Gnostic original, but integral: redaction
(a2) transferred Sophia’s original saving descents to Barbelo, now
identified as Pronoia, with a triple mode of being as Father/
Mother/Son, instead of her original status as Mother in the primal
Gnostic triad, with the Son or Saviour, Christ, as the third mode
of Pronoia’s triple descent. Such a triple descent scheme, with its
‘Sethian’ parallel, only makes sense in the light of a Christian
understanding of salvation, involving a decisive saving act by Christ
in a human body, appropriated by the elect through a rite of
initiation; otherwise the two prior descents appear incomplete
and meaningless. Understood in this Christian-Gnostic context,
they can be seen in terms of a scheme of primal, continuous and
 Gnostic Soteriology 2 283

decisive revelation, an attempt to resolve the classic dilemma faced

by more ‘orthodox’ Christians: how to present salvation before
Christ as a genuine and continuing possibility, as a reality now in
the light of the decisive Christ event, yet not complete till the
consummation.77 The ‘Sethian’ reinterpretation attempted to
bolster the Christian-Gnostic claims to antiquity, truth and
continuity by developing the concept of heavenly Seth, his seed,
the ‘immovable race’ of the elect and, in the Apocalypse of Adam
and Gospel of the Egyptians, his three parousias, in place of the earlier
triple descent scheme of Sophia/Pronoia in the Apocryphon.
Fifth, although Jewish Wisdom speculations are central to the
Gnostic Sophia myth, the myth itself is essentially Christian, a
Christian-Gnostic understanding, parallel to but distinct from
more ‘orthodox’ contemporary Logos and Wisdom speculations
about the origin, nature and redeeming function of Christ. It
expounds the primal begetting, anointing and elevation of the
Son, Christ, and the primal fall and redemption of heavenly
Wisdom, as distinct figures and paradigms of the Gnostic experi¬
ence. Thus while the more ‘orthodox’ tendency was to unite the
Logos and Wisdom speculations to refer to the one figure of the
incarnate Son, the Gnostic tendency, so characteristic of their
mentality and mythology, was increasingly to split and multiply
the redeemer figures to avoid any idea of a heavenly ‘fall’ or actual
incarnation of the divine. Hence the later redactions of the
Apocryphon and ‘Sethianized’ texts dependent on it successively
relieve Sophia of all trace of her original active role in revelation
and redemption, and replace her with other figures, primarily a
modalist trinity based on the Mother-Father, Barbelo.78
Finally, as regards the relations between the two recensions,
SR has clearly misunderstood the integral character of the Pronoia
hymn and omitted it, in a laudable attempt to deny that the
supreme female deity could have descended into this world,
although in other respects it tends to remain more faithful to
the original. LR again shows a tendency to creative interpretation
and ‘correction’, feeling the need to emphasize the role of the
Pronoia character and integrate the hymn more successfully. It
also tends to stress the more negative aspects of Ialdabaoth and
his regime.
284 Notes to pages 25 9-260

Notes
1 B 64.13-71.2/III 32.22-36.15; II 25.16-27.31/IV 39.16-43.6.
2 B 71.2-5/III 36.15-17; II 27.31-33/IV 43.6-8.
3 Apocryphon 266.
4 Thus the reference to labour on the seeds in the expectation of the
Spirit’s future descent (B 64.3-13 and par) is picked up by the reference
to the Spirit/Epinoia labouring and elevating the seed, leading to
Ialdabaoth’s further countermove (B 71.5-72.2 and par). Indeed, the
reference to Ialdabaoth seems a more appropriate link than the garbled
passage on the seed.
5 Cf. B 36.2-15 and par.
6 Cf. B 42.15-43.4 and par.; 48.16-50.6 and par; 51.1-52.8 and par.
7 Cf. B 65.3-6/III 33.4-6; II 25.23-5/IV 39.25-8.
8 Cf. B 68.13-70.8/III 35.2-36.4; II 26.32-27.21.
9 On the ‘pure (eilikrines) light’ as the realm of the supreme
Father, cf. B 26.18f./III 7.5 (omitted by LR); B 29.18f./III 9.10-12; II
6.10f./IV 9.11-13; B 30.8/III 9.19; II 6.18/IV9.22f. On ‘the great lights’
as the four illuminators, cf. B 33. lf./III 11.17; IV 11.5f. (the lacuna seems
to require ‘great’, which II 7.32f. has omitted. Cf. GE IV 64.15-23/III
52.20-53.1 (where the ‘great light’ of the latter does not simply imply
the original Greek phoster, as is clear from the former, despite the
annoying lacunae); IV74.11; IV77.7f./III 65.12; 7P48.28f.). B’sreading
(65.7f.), ‘worthy to enter these great lights’ may be an expansion of III
33.6f., ‘worthy of these . . .’ LR’s reading ‘greatnesses’, i.e. megethos (cf.
Crum, Dictionary 251a), may show awareness of the lack of harmony with
the earlier ‘Sethian’ passage. Further, megethos is a Valentinian technical
term meaning (a) an attribute and title of the supreme being (cf.
e.g. Iren. 1.1.1; 2.1; 2.2; 19.2; 21.4; Gos. Truth 42.14; Tri. Trac.
52.26; 53.1; 54.20) and (b) angel (cf. Iren. 1.13.3; 13.6; 14.5. See on
this Sagnard, La gnose valentinienne, index s.v. megethos). However, the
term does occur in non-Valentinian texts referring to heavenly beings,
cf. EugW 3.6/III 73.5 {SJC B 86.1 lf./III 95.23f.); 6.23/III 77.17 {SJC B
95.14/III 102.5); III 86.5f. {SJCB 109.16); III 88.10f. {SJCB 113.18/III
112.10f.); GE III 54.19f./IV 66.7 (plural); OW 103.30; HA 95.1.
10 PS Book 1, chs 22-3 (Schmidt-MacDermot 32.14-23).
11 Book 3, chs 111-12 (Schmidt-MacDermot 281-91); 131 (332-7).
Cf. Bohlig, Mysterion 167-74.
12 Book 4, chs 147-8 (Schmidt-MacDermot 381.21-384.23).
13 Thus besides the three elements, power, soul, counterfeit spirit, there
is mention of the receivers {paralemptor) (ch. 112, Schmidt-MacDermot
288.21f., cf. AJB 65.4—6 and par); of the soul as made pure (eilikrines)
light (ch. 131, Schmidt-MacDermot 337.16f., cf. AJ B 64.14-16 and
par); of the power in the soul that enables people to stand (ch. 131,
Schmidt-MacDermot 336.21-337.1; 340.19-21, cf. AJE 67.4-7 and par).
 Notes to pages 260-262 285

14 Mysterion 168f.
10 Thus AJ does appear to hint at an underlying rite of initiation or
mystery (the five seals; cf. II 31.23-5) while PS (Book 4, ch. 143, Schmidt-
MacDermot 372.15-373.3) speaks of the baptisms of fire and Holy Spirit
and spiritual anointing as the supreme mystery which takes souls to the
Treasury of Light.
16 See on this Tardieu, Ecrits 62-4.
17 Cf. SJC B 117.12-124.9/III 114.8-118.3.
18 Cf. e.g. Ep. Pet. Phil. (C VIII,2) 134.18-138.3; 1 Apoc. Jas (C V,5)
28.29-30.13; Ep. Apost. 11-51.
19 See Giversen, Apocryphon 266, and Tardieu, Ecrits 35. Hauschild’s
description, Geist 234f., of this passage as based on a Jewish catechesis
in terms of the two spirits such as that found at Qumran, overlooks its
fundamental dualism, its Gnostic parallels and its Gnostic concept of
the divine power present in humanity as the precondition of salvation
which requires union with the divine spirit.
20 B 121.13-127.2. Cf. HA 96.15-97.21.
21 See n. 9 above.
22 B 64.16-65.3/III 32.25-33.3 (asaleuton); II 25.18-23/IV 39.19-
25.
23 Cf. TLZ 100 (1975), col. 97; ‘Phenomenon’, 591. The ‘immovable
race’ (genea hatkim) occurs in GE III 51.8f./IV 63.2f.; Ill 59.13-15;
61.19f./IV 73.3f.; Steles Seth 118.12f. and possibly Zost. 6.27; 51.15f. See
on this theme, M. A. Williams, The Immovable Race: A Gnostic Designation
and the Theme of Stability in Late Antiquity (NHS 29) (Leiden: Brill, 1985).
24 E.g. it occurs in the Saviour’s address to John in B 22.15f.;II 2.24f./
IV 3.20f., here and at B 75.20ff./III 39.18; II 31.31L/IV 49.12L, or as an
addition as in III 36.24f., where B and LR omit it, or in B 73.8—10/III
38.2f.; II 29.9f./IV 45.6f. where Noah and men of the immovable race
hide in a place (cf. AA 69.19-25). Its occurrence in SJC B 88.8f./III
97.8f. (see n. 16 above) suggests that it depends on AJ in its ‘Sethian’
version.
25 Cf. the ‘Ophite’ system in Iren. 1.30.14 where it is the holy souls
with knowledge (= trace of light) which are saved.
26 B 65.3f./III 33.4f.; II 25.23f./IV 39.25-27; B 66.14-67.2/III 33.25-
34.5; II 26.8ff./IV 40.21-6; B 67.7-13/III 34.9-14; II 26.15-17/IV 40.32-
41.4. Janssens, Museon 84, 423, is surely correct to identify the Spirit of
life with the Holy Spirit. Although Hauschild, Geist 255, is right to suggest
the Jewish tradition of the two spirits as found e.g. in IQS iii.13-iv.26,
as the background, more significant is surely the echo of the descent of
the Spirit on Christ at his baptism (cf. Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22;
John l:32f.; Acts 1:8).
27 Cf. B 68.13-16/III 35.2-5; II 26.32-5/IV 41.21-4 and B 69.12L; II
27.9-11, where having the knowledge is related to becoming perfect
and saved, as with having the Spirit descend. See below.
286 Notes to pages 262-263

28 B 65.4f./III 33.5; II 25.24/IV 39.27. Cf. the association of dynamis

with the descent of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:8.
29 B 67.4—7/III 34.7-9; II 26.12-14/IV 40.29-32. Cf. B 51.14-52.1 and
par. R. McL. Wilson, ‘The Spirit in Gnostic Literature’, in B. Lindars,
S. Smalley eds., Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament (Moule FS)
(Cambridge, 1973), 350, appears to identify the spirit as the biological
principle and the power as the spiritual, failing to note the identification
of B 51.14-52.1 and par.
30 See Book 3, ch. 131 (Schmidt-MacDermot 332-7). But, cf. Book 4,
ch. 141 with its references to the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus and
saving souls (Schmidt-MacDermot 368). Conversely, A/preserves a trace
of the idea that the counterfeit spirit constituted a basic element in our
human make-up (cf. B 55.2-13 and par).
31 Cf. B 67.14—18/III 34.15-18; II 26.20-2/IV 41.6-10.
32II 26.15-18/IV 40.32-41.4.
33 B 67.7-13/III 34.9-14.
34 This would weaken Hauschild’s argument, Geist 234f., about the
influence on AJ of the Qumran doctrine of two spirits in humanity,
present in equal measure from the beginning.
35 Cf. B 55.3-11 and par and B 63.5-9 and par. In the latter the
counterfeit spirit is the agent of human procreation. Seejanssens, Museon
84, 423f.
36 Cf. B 74.6-10/III 38.16-20; II 29.21-6.
37 See EcritsA\-2, 334ff. Cf. B 7l.2ff. and par, where the continuation
about the Mother and her Epinoia is linked rather clumsily to mention
of the First Arc hon.
38 This kind of distinction might underlie the Qumranic teaching. Cf.
IQS iii. 18—iv. 18 on the two angels or spirits and the two spirits in us.
See W. D. Davies, ‘Paul on Flesh and Spirit’ in K. Stendahl ed., The Scrolls
and the New Testament (London, 1958), I72f.
39 Cf. Bohlig, Mysterion 171. Thus in AJ B 65.11-66.1 and par, the elect
souls are free from passions and desire and use the flesh as an instrument
only. Although Bohlig, ibid., and Hauschild, ibid., rightly suggest the
likely influence of Jewish sectarian ideas about the two spirits in humanity
on this complex conception, in AJ it is thoroughly Gnostic and dualist-
the supreme God is not responsible for the evil spirit. PS sees the
counterfeit spirit as burdening the soul with human desires and passions
so that it sins (e.g. Book 3, ch. 111). Cf. also the picture in Zos., Omega
16 (Scott-Ferguson, Hermetica 4.108.21ff.), of the counterfeit demon,
jealous of the Son of God who is disguised in various forms, divine and
human, to save the elect, imitating him and leading men astray as before.
40 B 65.3-66.13/III 33.4-23; II 25.23-26.7/IV 39.25-40,20. Note not
only the New Testament echoes which Tardieu, Ecrits 331, alludes to: 2
Tim 2:10; Matt 19:21; Mark 10:17; Luke 10:25; 18:18, but also PS Book
4, ch. 147 (Schmidt-MacDermot 383.10f.). The version in III 33.4f., with
 Notes to pages 263-264 287

the Spirit uniting with the power, seems preferable to the more confused
versions in B 65.3ff. and II 25.23ff./IV 39.25ff. LR’s preference for
‘greatnesses’ in II 25.26/IV 39.30 instead of the ‘the great lights’ of B
65.8f./III 33.7 may represent an attempt to remove the evident lack of
agreement with the earlier passage on the illuminators as abodes of
various souls (B 35.20-36.15 and par). The ‘fear’ (hole, i.e. phobos) of B
65.15, against the phthonos of the rest, may derive from a misreading in
a Greek version. The agathon of II 26.6 is clearly an error for the original
athlon attested by IV 40.19.
41 B 66.13-67.14/III 33.23-34.15; II 26.7-19/IV 40.20-41.6. The
redactor of II has omitted the end of John’s question and the Saviour’s
reply through homoeoteleuton. LR evidently breaks the pattern of the
Spirit coming, uniting with the power (already present) and strength¬
ening the soul, and the mention in III 34.1 Of. of the Spirit being brought
to the counterfeit spirits is probably a mistaken marginal gloss to supply
an object.
42 Cf. Iren. 1.6.2/Epiph. Pan. 31.20.7, cf. 7.8 (pante te kai pantos)',
Exc. ex Theod. 56.3; Heracleon frag. 46; Tri. Trac. 119.16-18. Cf. 119.33
where it is said of the psychic race that they will be saved entirely
(pantos).
43 Cf. frag. 2 in Clem. Alex. Strom. 2.20.114.3-6; Gos. Phil. 65.1-66.4
and Hipp. Ref. 6.34.6.
44 Correspondingly, while the Valentinian concern about evil spirits
probably led them to pioneer pre-baptismal exorcism (see on this
Elizabeth A. Leeper, ‘From Alexandria to Rome: The Valentinian
Connection to the Incorporation of Exorcism as a Prebaptismal Rite’,
VC44 (1990), 6-24), the Gnostic concern with the pre-temporal anoint¬
ing of Christ and the eschatological descent of the Spirit probably led
them to introduce chrism and insignation.
45 Cf.B 70.8-71.2 and par.
46 Cf. Iren. 1.6.1; 6.4; 7.1; 7.5; Exc. ex Theod. 57; 67f.; 79. That Af s
underlying scheme has not been influenced by Valentinianism is
suggested both by the absence of the characteristic threefold division,
and by the application of the term ‘the calling’ (i.e. klesis) and the idea
of salvation by ascetic works, to the first elect group. They are evidently
not to be equated with the intermediate ‘psychics’ of Valentinianism of
whom these two ideas are characteristic (cf. e.g. Exc. ex Theod. 56.3-
58.2; Heracleon frags. 13 and 27).
47 Txr py Theod 78 1-2

48 B 68.13-69.13/III 35.2-18; II 26.32-27.11/IV 41.21-42.10. Cf. B

67.14-17 and par.
49 See n. 27 above.
50 Cf. the opposing roles of the spirit of the Archon and the Holy Spirit
according to the libertine Gnostics of Epiph. Pan. 26.6.1-4.
51 B 67.19-68.13/III 34.18-35.2; II 26.22-32/IV 41.10-20.
288 Notes to pages 264-266

52 Ecrits 332f. His arguments are: (a) the verb used of the authorities
circling round with (kite n-) rules out any idea of reincarnation; (b) the
redactor of LR (his n2) has misunderstood Af s point with its shteko of
the bodily prison (II 27.8), because (c) as John’s following question,
which in its echo of Nicodemus’ question in John 3:4 is intended to
rule out any immediate appeal to reincarnation, attests, reincarnation
is admitted in the belief in time as a term for the process of expiation,
as parallel passages of PS suggest.
53 Cf. the similarities of language in the earlier passage, B 55.2-13 and
par.
54 B 69.14-70.8/III 35.18-36.4; II 27.11-21/IV 42.11-23. Janssens,
Museon 84, 424, certainly allows the possibility of reincarnation here,
appealing to B 55 and the similarity with John 3:4; whereas in the
latter the Saviour reproaches Nicodemus for his ignorance, here he
congratulates John for his percipience (parakolouthesis), in a typical
Gnostic reverse interpretation. But like Giversen, Apocryphon 266f. and
Tardieu, she is misled by the final phrase into denying reincarnation.
PS, which does clearly teach reincarnation in an expansion of the
hints in A], in earlier passages (Book 3, chs. Ill: Schmidt-MacDermot
281.21-282.1 and 132: Schmidt-MacDermot 341.13-18; 345.8-13)
relates respectively the growth of the soul and its salvation from the
body and its original assignation to the woman and man for whom it is
destined.
55 Note in PS Book 4, ch. 147 (Schmidt-MacDermot 381.17-383.11)
the case of the ignorant, righteous soul reincarnate until it finds the
mysteries of the light (i.e. an initiation rite like the five seals?). The
‘Ophite’ system also seems to teach a cyclic process of souls being
inserted in bodies by the Demiurge until all the holy souls are saved
and he only has his own psychic souls to insert (Iren. 1.30.14), and the
libertine Gnostics of Epiphanius, whose system seems based on the myth
of AJ, have ignorant souls reincarnated by the chief Archon in animal
bodies (Pan. 26.10.8).
36 Cf. Gos. Phil. 77.7-78.12 which seems to reflect a similar situation:
initiated, anointed Gnostics with the Holy Spirit and knowledge serve
those uninitiated who remain unfree and ignorant.
57 B 70.8-71.2/III 36.4-15; II 27.21-31/IV 42.24-43.6. Cf. Matt 12:31
and par. Tardieu, Ecrits 334, claims a contrast with the similar Judaeo-
Christian belief (Ps. Clem. Horn. 3.6.1, 4f.; PSBook 4, ch. 147: Schmidt-
MacDermot 380.10-15) whereby a continual blasphemer is ultimately
annihilated. But he fails to note Apoc. Pet. (Ethiopic) 6f.; 10 (= Greek
frag. 22, 34) which does teach the eternal punishment of blasphemers
and apostates.
08 Cf. PS Book 3, ch. 104 (Schmidt-MacDermot 264.8-13) : even a
righteous, sinless man cannot be saved without initiation into the
mysteries of the kingdom of light.
 Notes to pages 266-267 289

59 Although Giversen, Apocryphon 267f., points to awareness of the

discrepancy by AJin that it equates the soul with the power (his example
from II 26.26 is based on a misunderstanding; B 67.12f./III 34.13f.
is a better one), he appeals to the different context as requiring
different terminology, and accepts that ultimately the dialogue ‘can
very well be understood as an integrated part of AJ’s account of the
teaching’.
60 B 71.2—5/111 36.15-17; II 27.31-3/IV 43.6-8 (pna etshes).
61 B 71.5-14; II 27.33-28.5/IV 43.8-17. Ill 36.18-37.1 begins with a
passage unparalleled in the others, unfortunately very fragmentary. It
has the Saviour speaking of a vision by [Holy?] Spirit into the one (f.)
rich in mercy. Here LR has its characteristic ‘Metropator’ (II 27.33f./
IV 43.9) this time to the ‘Mother’ of SR (B 71.6), rather than the more
usual ‘Father’ in such a context (cf. B 51.5f./III 23.22f. and II 19.17f./
IV 29.2f.; B 52.l7f./III 24.25-25.1 and II 20.9f./IV 31.3-5). Ill 32.9f.
has the Mother as object, perhaps aware of the ambiguity. The long
also wrongly identifies the Mother-Father with the holy spirit, the
Epinoia.
62 B 63.14-64.13/III 32.8-22; II 25.2-16/IV 38.29-39.15. The same
verbs (fhob/hypourgein) are used in B 53.il/III 25.12; II 20.19 and the
present passage (II 27.34—28.3) confirms that at II 25.9-11/IV 39.7-9
LR is wrong to make the seed the subject.
63 See ch. 6, p. 237, nn. 13ff. (p. 257).
64 II 28.If.
65 Cf. its addition of Pronoia in e.g. II 23.24, 29 (plus light); 24.13.
66 II 27.35.
67 Cf. II 30.11-15/IV.46.23-9 (the Pronoia transformed herself in her
seed (sperma) and went on every road); 30.24 (she is the remembrance
of the Pronoia); 31.11/IV 48.14-17 (she is the Pronoia of pure light,
the thought (meeue) of the virgin spirit). Cf. also TP 35.11-18 (the
Protennoia dwells in every creature); 45.21f. (she hid and revealed
herself in everyone); 47.13-17 (the third time she wore everyone’s
garment); 49.6f. (she was dwelling in them [in the form smotl of each]
one), etc.
68 ‘Sleep’ 501.
69 Cf. II 28.1-11/IV 43.12-24 and 30.21-32/IV 47.8-22. The allusive¬
ness of the latter is expanded in TP 42.17-45.2. See below for my
suggestion as to how the Pronoia hymn developed from and is related
to the main text.
70 B 71.7-14; II 27.33-28.5. Cf. Ill 36.18-37.1.
71 Cf. Ill 36.23f. and B 55.15—18/III 27.2-4. However, Ill’s dif¬
ferent version at this point may represent an attempt to clarify the
confusion in the text. II 28.4, perhaps to avoid the awkwardness of
the expression ‘seed in the thinking’, tacks the thinking on to the
seed.
290 Notes to page 268

72 The same verb (tounos with sperma) occurs of Ialdabaoth’s vain

attempt at rape, B 62.4/III 31.9 (not in LR). It is used to represent
exanistanai in the Sahidic of Gen 4:25.
73 III 36.23-37.1. II 28.3f. applies ‘perfect’ to the race rather than the
man (as in e.g. II 8.32; B 35.3/III 13.1f. of Adamas), and has lost the
connection of the race with the man. B 7l.l3f. with its addition of
‘eternal’ may be more original (cf. the eternal light man in OW103.19.
In Melch. 6.5f. and AnonBru ch. 13 (Schmidt-MacDermot 252.9f.)
Adamas is the light-Man). A copyist of a Greek version of III may have
misread ‘eternal light’ (phos aidnion) as ‘luminous’ (photeinos).
74 B71.14-72.2/III 37.1-6; II 28.5-10/IV 43.17-24. LR’s version, which
has them exalted above him in the height (II 28.6f.), is evidently an
addition, part of its spiritualizing interpretation, further distancing the
Demiurge from the spiritual world.
75 Cf. e.g. B 52.8-15/ III 24.17-23; II 20.3-7 (the three Coptic
expressions seem to render the Greek phronesis); B 54.7—11 /III 26.2-6;
II 20.30-3/IV 32.3-7. Tardieu, Ecrits 335, makes the same point and
rightly sees in LR, which omits the clause ‘since he was ignorant’ and
makes the reference to the Archon’s ignorance apply to his future
inability to control them (II 28.9-11), both the clumsy work of the
original redactor adding the whole section and that of LR, attempting
to soften the awkwardness. As a corollary, however, this passage may
well have been formed on the lines of the two referred to above,
especially the second, with its references to height and wisdom.
76 B 72.2—4/III 37.6f.; II 28.11-16/IV 43.24-30. This translation, in
line with Giversen, Apocryphon 101, seems better than their committing
adultery together with Sophia (i.e. the fallen aeon), as in Tardieu, Krause
and Wisse (in NHLE). For reasons, see below.
77II 28.15-30/IV 43.29-44.17. On the archons of Heimarmene as
responsible for human sin and wickedness, cf. PS Book 3, ch. Ill
(Schmidt-MacDermot 283.4—7). The mention of gods, angels, demons
and every [human] race being united (with a fetter, i.e. time? but since
the object is feminine and fetter masculine in Greek, perhaps something
like destiny, moira, is more likely; cf. again PS Book 3, ch. Ill: Schmidt-
MacDermot 284.4f.), has a parallel in B 72.6—10/III 37.9-12, which refer
to the archon(s) binding gods, angels, demons, men with time to entrap
them in the fetter of Fate. Since LR has already dealt with this in its
digression it omits it here.
78 5 (Scott-Ferguson, Hermetica 4.105.1 Of.).
79 12 (107.11-15).
808 (106.6-12); 14f. (107.25-108.12).
81 16-18 (108.21-109.19). Note the comparative of phronimos (1.23),
recalling the phronesis we suggested (n. 75 above) underlies AJ B 52.8f.
and par; 54.7f. and par. Zosimus’ version, however, which Edwards,
‘Neglected’ 45ff., would rather fancifully describe as ‘a digest of the
 Notes to pages 268-270 291

whole creed’, is evidently influenced by a rather different rendering of

the mythologoumenon, with its male Son of God instead of female
Epinoia/Holy Spirit, but it may attest the originality of the male
redeemer. Could his source have been a - or the - ‘Book of Zoroaster’
of A/and Porphyry (Vit. Plot. 16)?
82 OW 123.4—25. Cf. 125.28f. where the Heimarmene of the seven
archons is condemned through the appearance of the Gnosucs, although
in 121.13-20 its fixed nature prevents the archons reducing human
lifetimes. In Poimandres too Heimarmene is ambivalent: in 1.9, 15 and
16 it appears beneficent, yet in 24-6 the powers of the harmony or fate
are stripped off as the souls ascend.
83II 28.11-31/IV 43.24-44.19. Cf. PS Book 1, ch. 22 (Schmidt-
MacDermot 32.14-20), where Philip asks the Lord whether he has
turned the bondage of the archons and their Heimarmene and confused
them to save the world, and Book 3, ch. Ill (284.4-7), which speaks of
destiny (moira) guiding a man to death via the archons and their bonds
with which Heimarmene binds them.
84 102.26, 35-103.4; 112.1-10. Cf. Prov 3:19; 8:22-31; Wis 7:21-30;
9:1-3.
85 125.23-30. Bohlig (104 of his edition) cites 1 Cor 2:6ff.; the contrast
of the wisdom of this aeon with the secret wisdom of God. Cf. Wis 7:7.
86 B 72.4—12/III 37.8-14; II 28.30-2/IV 44.18-20. We have attempted
to show why LR omits the mention of gods, etc. in B 72.6-8. The
continuation in B 72.8-10/III 37.1 If. about all being in Fate’s fetter
would no longer make sense with its subject removed, nor would the
gloss in B 72.1 lf./III 37.13f. (‘a wicked and perverse idea’) with the
change from final to circumstantial clause. On the gloss, cf. Tatian, Or.
ad Graec. 8.1.
87 Cf. Tg. Yer. 1 on Gen 6:4; 1 Enoch 6-7; 64. If.; Jub. 5.1; T. Reub. 5.6-7;
Justin, 2 Apol. 5, etc.
88 B 72.12—17/III 37.14-18; II 28.32-29.1/IV 44.20-5. The Sahidic of
Gen 6:6 has the same verb (rhet) as B 72.12f. and par, and appears to be
a free rendering of the LXX influenced perhaps by Gen 6:8. Gen 6:17
in Sahidic has the same verb (eine) as II 28.35. The anastema terfoi B
72.16f./III 37.l7f. is an exact echo of Gen 7:4 and 23 LXX (pan to
anastema), as Tardieu, Ecrits 336, has noticed and duly translated, unlike
Till (185/320 of his edition) and Krause (103/282 of his).
89 B 72.17—73.2/III 37.18-21; II 29.1-3/IV 44.25f. All four attest mhtnoc,
evidently a rendering of megethos, commonly a term for the supreme
being in Valentinianism but here associated with Pronoia and identified
with the chief revealer/redeemer of the main body of AJ in SR. Cf. the
role of Wisdom in Wis 10:4 and the description of her in 7:26.
90 This last is all the more likely in the light of the fact that the version
in III 37.19f. which has the Pronoia form a thought, i.e. the Epinoia,
may represent an awareness that the two are originally distinct, hence
292 Notes to pages 270-271

the omission by LR. Cf. II 23.28/IV 36.24-6 where the Epinoia is from
the Pronoia, i.e. distinct.
91 Cf. II 30.15f. (‘I am the richness of the light, the remembrance of
the Pleroma’); 30.24 (‘I am the remembrance of the Pronoia’); 30.33f.
(‘I am the lightwhich exists in the light...’); 31.Ilf. (‘I am the Pronoia
of the pure light’).
92 B 73.2-4./Ill 37.2If.; II 29.3-6/IV 44.27-45.1. LR adds detail: Noah
told the whole race (sperma); it was those alien to him who did not listen,
i.e. Noah is one of the true Gnostics, the seed of Seth, the ‘Alien’. On
the motif, cf. 2 Pet 2:5; 1 Clem. 7.6; Josephus, Ant. 1.3.1; b. Sank. 108ab;
Gen. Rab. 30.7; Tank. Noahb, etc. See Ginzberg, Legends, 1, 153; 5, I74f.
93 B 73.4—7/III 37.22-38.1; II 29.6-8/IV45.1-5. The plural in the latter
three may be due to the influence of Gen 7:15 and 23, or to assimilation
to the following phrase: ‘not only Noah but men of the immovable race’.
94 Cf. HA 92.11 where the ruler of the forces tells Noah to hide {hop)
in the ark.
95 B 73.7-12/III 38.1-5; II 29.8-12/IV 45.5-9. The idea of a light cloud
as place of concealment is a common Gnostic topos, cf. A] B 38.6-13
and par; AA 69.19-25; 75.17-76.7. In T. Abr. 9.8-10.1 it is the vehicle of
Abraham’s heavenlyjourney.
96 Cf. HA 92.4—14 (Sabaoth as Noah’s ally versus the archons
responsible for the Flood); AA 70.10-71.8 (the Creator God’s protection
of Noah and his race). The latter may represent an early stage of
‘Sethian’ reinterpretation, however, since it alludes to the race or seed
of Seth (65.5-9). Seech. 2.
97 B 73.12—18/III 38.5-10; II 29.12-15. The reading in B with Noah as
subject is perhaps preferable as an echo of Gen 7:23; ‘Noah . . . and
those with him in the ark’ (cf. the Sahidic: mh nethmmaf hhoun htkibotos
and B 73.14f.: rhh nethmmaf hmpoueimnd Iren. 1.30.10: ‘eos . . . qui circa
Noe erant in area’). Ill 38.5-8 with its plural ‘they’ destroys the sense of
‘those with him’ and weakens any allusion to Gen 7:23 by turning the
relative clause into a circumstantial while LR introduces an allusion to
a female light-figure with Noah who shines on them (II 29.13L). This is
probably the work of its redactor, either alluding to Norea (so Tardieu,
Ecrits 337, alluding to HA 92.4-18 and Epiph. Pan. 26.1.7-9), or to the
Epinoia (cf. B 60.17-19 and par, which refer to the authority (auihentia)
by which she instructs Adam). Its continuation implying that the First
Archon is the subject, not Noah, may betray the influence of Gen 7:4
and 10.
98 Ecrits 337.
99 Cf. 1 Enochd.2 in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha 2 191; Janssens, ‘Theme’
488-94. On the use of 1 Enoch and the Pseudo-Clementine myth (Ps.
Clem. Horn. 12-13), etc., see Tardieu, Ecrits 162, 338f., and on the
theme as a key to Gnostic theology and mythology, cf. G. Stroumsa,
Seed, passim.
 Notes to pages 271-272 293

'B 73.18-74.6/III 38.10-16; II 29.16-21/IV 45.14-21. The clumsi¬

ness of SR (B 74.If. has the archon’s angels send their angels; III
38.Ilf. has him plan with his angels then send them) has perhaps led
LR (II 29.16f.) to have the archon plan with his powers then send his
angels.
2 B 74.6-10/III 38.16-20; II 29.21-6/IV 45.21-7. B has accidentally
omitted the clause ‘when they realized they had been unsuccessful’.
The addition by LR of the reason, to pollute the souls (II 29.25f./IV
45.26f.), is clearly secondary. The ‘despicable’ of II 29.24/IV 45.25 (also
II 26.27/IV 41.15f.; II 26.36/IV 41.25f.; II 27.32f./IV 43.8; II 30.11/IV
46.22) may derive from a misreading of antimimon as atimon (cf. Crum,
Dictionary 375b s.v. sosh, and Bohlig, Mysterion 164), a more likely explana¬
tion than Giversen’s qualitative of shosh, to make equal (Apocryphon 268).
Bohlig, ibid., n. 5, refers to the Sahidic of 1 Cor 12:23 where atimos is
translated by sesh.
3 For the former, cf. B 53.4—17 and par; for the latter B 63.16-64.3
and par. Cf. II 25.3ff./IV 38.29ff. which apparently interpret the spirit
there sent down as the Holy Spirit/Epinoia, resolving the dilemma.
4 Cf. B 53.18-20 and par.
5 Cf. B 63.14—64.13 and par and B 71.5-72.2 and par.
6 Museon 84, 427.
7 B 52.17-55.18 and par. Cf. the role of the counterfeit spirit in PS
Book 3, ch. Ill (Schmidt-MacDermot 280-6) as an element in humans
distinct from but bound to the soul, which grows with it and seeks to
control it.
8 The figure of the counterfeit spirit in this version very much recalls
that of the eschatological Antichrist, first alluded to in 1 John 2:18, 22;
4:3 and 2 John 7 (cf. also 2 Thess 2 and Rev 13:Ilf.), but very much
developed at the end of the second and beginning of the third centuries
(cf. e.g. Hippolytus’ commentaryDe Christoet Antichristo; MPG 10, 725ff.),
the likely period of this addition to A],
9 Omega 8, Ilf., 14f., 16-18. Cf. 2 Thess 2:1-4.
10 B 74.11—13/III 38.20-2; II 29.26-8/IV 45.27-9. B 74.12f. wrongly
has the singular and misses the reference to the likeness. On the motif,
cf. Tg. Ps.-Jon Gen 6:2; T. Reub. 5.6f.; Ps. Clem. Horn. 8.12.2-13.If. The
attempt of Perkins, Gnosticism 15f., 24f., following Stroumsa and Pearson,
to derive the basic Gnostic mythemes from Gen 6:1-4 and 1 Enoch 6:2-
8:4 as interpreted in such circles, fails if - as I contend - this section of
A]is a late addition (redaction (a3)).
11 This is the sense: the versions diverge on the details. B 74.13-16
misunderstands the phrase as a causal clause and reads ‘tormented’
(moukh) for ‘filled’ (mouh). Ill 38.22-4 is marred by lacunae, as is IV
45.30-46.2, but both seem to agree with II 29.28-30 in having the angels
fill the women with the spirit of darkness. LR adds ‘which they had mixed
for them’ then echoes III in tacking on the reference to evil.
294 Notes to pages 272-273

12 B 73. 16—75.1 /III 38.25-39.3; II 29.30-4/IV 46.2-10. Cf. 1 Enoch

8:1; 65:6-8; Ps. Clem. Horn. 8.14.1-3. The perispasmos of III 39.3 may be
a misreading of the peirasmos of B 75.1: the two are interchanged in the
MSS tradition of Ecclesiastes LXX, e.g. at 3:10, 4:8 and 8:16 where A
has p[e]irasmos to the perispasmos of X and B, and at 5:13 where X has
p[e\ irasmos to the perispasmos of A and B.
13 B 75.1-3/III 39.4f. Cf. the ‘eternal pronoia’ of Wis 17:2.
14 Cf. e.g. II 6.5; 7.22/IV 11.14; II 14.20/IV 22.25; II 23.24/IV 36.17; II
24.13f./IV 37.24f.; II 28.2; 30.12, etc.
15II 29.33-30.7.
16 Tardieu, Ecrits 162, 339, while noting the Dan 12:l/Matt 24:21 echo,
fails to register the Psalm 95/Hebrews 3 allusion, which is far more
obvious than his reference to Ecclus 40:1—10. There may also be a faint
echo of Rom 8:19-22 in the last phrase.
17 B 75.3-7/III 39.5-8: II 30.7-9. LR again qualifies the spirit as
‘despicable’ (etshes), and its reading: ‘after (kata) the likeness (eine) of
their spirit (pneuma)’, may be due either to its awareness that the text
had just mentioned the angels filling the women with the spirit (cf. II
29.26-30), or to its view of demiurgic generation as always after the image
of heavenly (cf. e.g. II 12.34-13.5; 19.28-32; 22.32-6).
18 B 75.7-10/III 39.8-11; II 30.9-11/IV 46.19-23, cf. B 20.1 and par.
Since tom can stand for either poroun or typhloun (cf. Crum, Dictionary
421b), the ‘he hardened’ of B 75.7 may be an echo of 2 Cor 4:4: ‘the
god of this aeon blinded (etyphlosen) the minds . . .’) or John 12:40: ‘he
hardened (eporosen) their hearts’ (Sahidic tom hhet: Crum, Dictionary
412b, a citation of Isa 6:10).
19 For biblical parallels, cf. e.g. Exod 8:15, 32; 9:7 (LXX barynein ten
kardian)', 4:21 (Sah ti + nshot); 9:34; 10:1 (LXX sklerynein ten kardian)',
Isa 6:10 (LXX he kardia pachynesthai = Sah nousht Crum, Dictionary 237a,
cf. Sah of Matt 13:15; Acts 28:27); Ps 95 [94] :8 (LXX sklerynein ten kardian
= Sah ti + nshot Crum, Dictionary 238a; cf. Sah of Heb 3:8); Deut 9:27
(LXX sklerotes= Sah nshot. Crum, ibid.);John 12:40 (see previous note);
Rom 9:18 (sklerynein = Sah nshot. Crum, Dictionary 237a).
20 The secondary character of this passage is perhaps further suggested
by the difference between the representations of the role of the
counterfeit spirit here and in the dialogue on the fate of souls: in the
former there is no reference to his hardening activity and errant souls
can come to salvation. Certainly this section presents a more negative
view of the Demiurge and the counterfeit spirit.
21 Cf. B 19.6-20.3/III 1.4-15; II 1.5-17.
22 B 75.10-13/III 39.11-13. That SR here finally refers to the merciful
Mother-Father, whom it had earlier identified either as Father (cf. B
30.6/III 9.17; B 48.1; B 51.5f./III 23.22L; B 52.18f./III 24.25-25.1) or
Mother (cf. B 7l.5f./III 36.18ff.), might suggest the originality of the
 Notes to pages 273-274 295

title, misunderstood by its redactors. See above chs 5, p. 183; 6, p. 217f.,

and below n. 64.
23 B 75.14f./III 39.13f. The phrase hshrp could be a version either of
‘at first’ (proton) or‘from the beginning’ (ap’arches) (see Crum, Dictionary
587b). The former would fit this sentence better; the latter might go
better with the previous sentence. ‘The perfect aeon’ is a designation
of Barbelo in B 27.14f./III 7.19. Cf. Eph 4:8-10.
24 B 75.15—76. l/III 39.14-18; II 31.27-32/IV 49.8-13. Cf. B 22.10-16;
II 2.20-5.
25 Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NTA 1 327.
26 B 76.1—5/III 39.18-21. Comparison with B 54.1-3/III 25.20-2
suggests both that the sperma of B 76.4f. is a misreading of the hysterema
of III 39.21, rather than vice versa, and that the reference here is to
Sophia and her original ‘fall’. Cf. B 47.4-14 and par.
27 B 76.5f./III 39.21f. Cf. B 22.2-6; II 2.16-18.
28 B 76.7-77.5/III 39.22-40.9; II 31.32-32.6/IV 49.13-26. LR has the
third person since it does not include the previous passage. In the light
of the opening reference in II 1.1 f., SR’s version, which has the mystery
as object entrusted, may be preferable to LR, which has the secrets
presented in a mystery.
29 II 32.6/IV 49.26.
30 II 30.11-31.25/IV 46.23-49.6. Puech, in Hennecke-Schneemelcher-
Wilson, NTA 1 327, compares Ecclus 24:32 in the Latin translation and
the descensus ad inferos motif. Bousset, Hauptprobleme ch. 6, esp. 242, 255-
60, would see the latter as an independent Gnostic theologoumenon
influencing the Christian motif. For an alternative view, seeing it and
the triple descent scheme as Christian-Gnostic adaptations of e.g. 1 Pet
3:18 and thejohannine Prologue, see below.
31II 31.25-7/IV 49.6-8. Cf. B 75.14f./III 39.14. Although there is no
mention of the Mother-Father, the common attribute of this figure,
‘the merciful one’, does occur (cf. II 31.16/IV 48.22 and II 20.10/IV
31.5; II 27.35).
32 Secret Books 209-11.
33 Apocryphon 270-3. He suggests that the Pronoia’s third appearance
is to John.
34 Glaubende 108f.
35 ‘Sleep’ 498-501; the first Adam’s awakening by the Epinoia (B 55.15-
18), the second the reference to the Epinoia’s soteriological activity
sparked by the question about the origin of the counterfeit spirit (II
27.33-28.5), and the third the Saviour’s present revelation to John.
36 502. He compares the reconstruction by P. Pokorny of a Gnostic
mystery initiation from the Naassene Preaching and CH I and XIII
(‘Epheserbrief und gnostische Mysterien’, ZAW 53 (1962), 160-94,
esp. 178-80).
37 507 and passim.
296 Notes to pages 274—277

38 502; ‘The Ego-Proclamation in Gnostic Sources’, in E. Bammel ed.,

The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in honour of C. F. D. Moule (SBT second
series) (London: SCM, 1970), 132; ‘Jewish Background’ 91 n.3. Cf.
Janssens, ‘Le Codex XIII de Nag Hammadi’, Museon 87 (1974), 342,
351-2.
39 John D. Turner, ‘NHC XIII, T in Hedrick, Nag Hammadi Codices XI,
XII, XIII 384f., 396-401. His analysis of the compositional history has
four stages; first the Grundform of the non-Christian Pronoia hymn, then
the aretalogical expansions, then the accommodation to the developed,
Christianized Sethian-Barbeloite cosmogony of Af etc. and finally the
polemical Christian-Sethian material of the third tractate. See below.
40 Thus, followingjanssens (‘Le Codex XIII’, 348-51), he finds (389f.)
the first descent of the Pronoia as ‘Merciful Father’ (or Metropator) in
B 51.1-52.3 and par (the descent of the Autogenes and the four
illuminators), the second in the figure of the Epinoia hiding in Adam
in B 52.17-54.9 and par, agreeing with MacRae over the last.
4“Christologie’311-14.
42 309-11. He misunderstands the Coptic form of Mother-Father as
‘fatherly Mother’. He associates this formation both with the prior
passage about the eschatological descent of the spirit to the seed (B
63.16-64.13/III 32.8-22) and the later passage describing the Mother’s
correcting her deficiency (B 71.1—5/III 39.19-21).
43 315. Cf. King, ‘Sophia’ 168ff., who finds in Codex II Christ taking a
larger role than figures like the Epinoia and Sophia and ‘a distinct
devaluation of the feminine and of women’ (171).
44 Ecrits 42,163, 340. In fact Arai’s identification of the Mother-Father
with Sophia is questionable since the former, often qualified as ‘rich in
mercy’, isevidendyBarbelo/Pronoia (cf. II 5.5f.; 6.16f.; 14.19ff.; 19.17f.;
20.9f.; 27.33f. and par in IV). Cf. II 31.16 describing the Pronoia/Saviour
as ‘the merciful one’.
45 Ecrits 40-3, 339-44.
46 43f.
47 ‘Codex XIII’ 390.
48 Cf. Iren. 1.30.6.
49 Cf. HA 94.19-33.
50 Cf. HA 87.11-33.
51 Cf. OW 103.2-32. Later she sheds light on Sabaoth, Ialdabaoth’s
obedient son (104.3-6), and later still, in response to Ialdabaoth’s boast
that he is the only god, and demand to see any prior deity, a light
descends in which is a man-like image, i.e. light-Adam(as) (107.17-
108.25).
52 ‘Codex XIII’ 390.
53 This is surely strengthened by the reference to the confusion caused
by the heavenly voice in Iren. 1.30.6, AJII 14.24-30; 30.16-20 and TP
40.19-22. The creation of Adam in the image of heavenly Man, not his
 Notes to pages 277-278 297
inbreathing, is surely the first soteriological step. Besides, there is no
allusion to Pronoia descending or the foundations of chaos shaking in
the inbreathing episode.
54 ‘Codex XIII’ 390, referring to B 52.17-54.9; 59.6-61.7 (not 21.7!) =
II 20.9-31; 22.28-23.36. The allusion in the Pronoia hymn to her ‘plan’
(oikonomia: II 30.27/IV 47.15, cf. Eph 1:10; 3:9; Ign. Eph. 18.1; 20.2; SJC
III 91.4/B 78.4f., etc.) could refer to this general saving activity. Although
AJ has no allusion to the upheaval caused by the second descent,
traces of it remain in OW 115.30-116.10: the consternation caused to
the archons by Sophia’s daughter, Zoe, calling Adam to awaken (cf.
HA 89.11-20). Note also the allusion to the voice sent from
Incorruptibility to help (boethia, cf. AJ B 53.6 and par) Adam in 88.17-
19, and Sophia’s second call rebuking Ialdabaoth and Eve, reminding
them of First Man and Woman in Iren. 1.30.7. This will be important
when we come to the development of TP.
55 ‘Codex XIII’ ibid.
56 Iren. 1.30.12.
57 Cf. Iren. 1.30.8-12.
58 Cf. HA 88.11-19 (the descent of the spirit to animate Adam,
linked to the voice from Incorruptibility); 89.11-17 (the coming of
the spiritual woman as Zoe, the mother of the living, calling Adam
awake); 96.33-97.4 (the appearance of the True Man in creaturely
form to teach and anoint); OW 115.11-116.33 (Sophia Zoe sends her
breath, then her daughter Eve to awaken Adam); 123.31-125.32 (about
the perfect Man and the coming of the Logos to destroy the archons’
work).
59 Note e.g. the parallel ego eimi statements in the prologue (B 21.18—
22.9; II 2.12-20) and the hymn (II 30.11-16, 24, 33-35; 31.11-16).
Aspects of the Saviour’s appearance in the prologue (light and the world
trembling: B 20.20-21.2.; II 1.31-3) find an echo in the hymn (cf. II
30.15-31.2).
60 Cf. the opening vision, B 20.19-22.9; II 1.30-2.20, where the Saviour
appears in light, causing the cosmos to shake (cf. the Pronoia hymn),
and in three male forms (corresponding to Barbelo’s designation as
triple-male, cf. B 27.21 and par?), proclaiming ‘I am the Father, I am
the Mother, I am the Son’, offering to teach about past, present and
future and about the perfect Man. On the Johannine parallels and
echoes, see Tardieu, Ecrits 340-4.
61 Hence the otherwise rather baffling stress on Barbelo/Pronoia as
the first man, the first to appear (cf. B 27.19f.; II 5.7; B 29.10-12; II 6.3-
5; II 14.18-24).
62 That elements of the final descent strikingly recall Acts 16:23-34
(imprisonment, darkness, foundations shaking, fetters falling off, light,
message of salvation through Jesus, baptism), might further confirm
the Christian character of the hymn.
298 Notes to pages 278-279

63 Thus the angels of poverty appear in both, cf. II 27.25/IV 42.29

and II 31.18/IV 48.24f., both describe our condition in this world
similarly (chains, forgetfulness and sleep, cf. II 26.3f., 7/IV 41.29-42.1,
5 and II 31.5f., 10, 20f./IV 48.6f„ 13, 28f.), and both allude to the
initiation rite involving receivers and seals (cf. II 25.36-26.3/IV 40.11-
16 and II 31.22-5/IV 49.1-6 and TP47.34-48.35; G£III 65.26-66.8/IV
78.1-10).
64 See n. 22, p. 294. SR’s mention of ‘the merciful Mother-Father’
(taking form in her offspring (sperma)) only and precisely here
where LR has no mention of it (cf B 75.10—13/III 39.11-13; II 30.11-
13), is admittedly awkward for my hypothesis of SR’s suppression of the
title: the reference to the Pronoia (i.e. Barbelo, the merciful Mother-
Father of LR) transforming herself into her offspring in the original
may have triggered it, or the previous garbled passage about the merciful
Mother (+ Father in LR) with her offspring (sperma: B 71.5-10/III 36.18-
23).
65 B 76.1-5/III 39.18-21.
66 This explanation would also resolve the otherwise awkward problem
of several saving comings of heavenly beings in AJ: Sophia’s consort,
the Autogenes and illuminators and the Epinoia.
67 This probably refers to the Ascension, cf. B 19.15f./III 1.9; II 1.1 If.
and B 20.12-19; II 1.27-29. SR might reflect continuing Valentinian
influence here: to the striking parallels to its version of the Mother-
Father taking form in her seed noted by Arai (‘Christologie’, 309-11),
one could add the title ‘ Mother-Father/metropator (used of the
Demiurge controlled by Achamoth: Iren. 1.5.1), Sophia correcting her
deficiency (cf. Hipp. Ref. 6.32.4L; Exc. ex Theod. 35.2), and the Saviour’s
original ascent as ‘first-born son’ according to Valentinus and those
closest to him (cf. Exc. ex Theod. 32.3-33.4; Iren. 1.11.1; Tri. Trac. 77.37-
78.8; Val. Exp. 33.35ff.).
68 The aretalogical passages can then be very satisfactorily explained
as expansions of the ‘I am’ statements in the prologue and Pronoia
hymn (and the added attributes of Barbelo in the main text) of redaction
(a2) of AJ (cf. also OW\ 14.7-15). Similarly the Naassene Preaching makes
most sense in the light of the Johannine and Valentinian influenced
redaction (a2) of AJ as an extended meditation on the three elements
in the universe and the Man/Adamas figure as found in pagan mytho¬
logical traditions, addressed as Father-Mother, the uncharacterized
prototype of Christ, the Logos, who in the hymn descends to inform
the Gnostics and impart saving knowledge via an initiation ceremony
involving seals.
69 Cf. GE III 62.24-64.3/IV 74.9-75.17 and AA 76.8-77.18 and the
similar speculations of the Sethians in Epiph. Pan. 39.2.4-3.5. Note the
traces of a female Sophia/Pronoia redeemer figure in the Metanoia of
GE III 59.9-60.2/IV 70?-7l.ll, and the way Seth is added to the
 Notes to pages 279-283 299

Autogenes and the four illuminators, as sent by them to undergo three

saving parousias in GEIII 62.24-64.9/IV 74.9-75.24.
70 Pan. 39.3.5; cf. 1.3.
71 ‘Jewish Background’, 86-101, esp. 88-94.
721. P. Culianu, ‘Feminine versus Masculine. The Sophia Myth and
the Origins of Feminism’ in H. G. Kippenberg, H. J. W. Drijvers eds,
Struggles of the Gods: Papers of the Groningen Work Group for the Study of the
History of Religions (Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Y. Kuiper, 1984), 65-
98, esp. 94f.
73 Cf. Janssens, Museon 84, 416; Schenke, ‘Nag-Hamadi-Studien III’
356-61.
74 Cf. HA 96.33-97.5 (True Man, Spirit, chrism/chrisma); GEIII 67.15-
68.1 (incense/stas? (= myron, cf. Crum, Dictionary 363a) mixed with water,
cf. Marcosians of Iren. 1.21.3f./Epiph. Pan. 34.20.7f.); Hipp. Ref 5.9.22
(Naassenes as only true Christians, anointed with unutterable ointment/
chrisma)-, Gos. Phil. 74.12-22. See ch. 2.
75 ‘Erloser’ 213f. Cf. MacRae, ‘Discourses’ 112.
76 In Wisdom lOf. she does save, but only those within the Jewish
heritage and in this-worldly terms.
77 Cf. a similar phenomenon in contemporary more ‘orthodox’
Christians like Justin in their use of the Logos scheme to suggest primal
revelation (the Logos in creation), continuous revelation (the Logos/
Spirit sowing seeds of truth in all and inspiring the Old Testament
prophets) and decisive revelation (the Logos incarnate). The ambiguity
in Justin and his contemporaries about the distinct role of the Spirit
Over against the Logos/Son and the precise identity of the figure of
Wisdom equally reveals how similar were their concerns and speculations
to those of the Gnostics.
78 Cf. again the contemporary modalist Monarchian speculations of
more ‘orthodox’ Christians, combatted by Hippolytus, Tertullian and
Origen. Conversely, against the argument of King, ‘Sophia’, Christ does
not replace Sophia in the later forms of A]- he was always the Saviour!
 8
— immm

Gnostic Eschatology

Introduction

Can one speak of Gnostic eschatology in the strict sense of a

doctrine of the last things?1 Zandee claims that the Gnostic is not
primarily interested in eschatology, in the development of history,
but rather in his own inner awakening to true knowledge.2 Peel
sums up the traditional view of Gnostic eschatology as being that
the Gnostic ‘knower’, by receiving the saving ‘gnosis’ of who he
is, whence he has come and whither he returns (a conscious echo
of the famous formula of Theodotus), has already obtained in his
earthly life the essentials of his eschatological hope.3 Schweizer
asserts that Gnosis does recognize an ‘eschatology’, but not in
the sense of a single all-decisive, all-perfecting action of God: rather
it is determined through the self-discovery of the Gnostic.
‘Eschatological’ means chiefly the release of spirit from matter.4
The Gnostic thus experiences a kind of ‘instant’ or ‘realized’
eschatology: with his or her response to the ‘call’ he/she
experiences awakening, resurrection, rebirth. This kind of realized
eschatology is expressed in most pregnant form by the statement
in the Gospel of Truth: ‘Since the deficiency came into being
because the Father was not known, therefore when the Father is
known, from that moment on the deficiency will no longer exist.’3
Or as Irenaeus reports of the Gnostics: ‘They . . . affirm that the
resurrection from the dead is no other than the recognition of
their so-called truth.’6
For his part Filoramo stresses both the syncretistic character of
Gnostic eschatology, borrowing contemporary elements of varying
provenance, but equally what is new in it: the role of the
descending and ascending Saviour as paradigmatic of the Gnostic
experience of redemption as well as the typical tension in its
individual eschatology between the already and the not yet ,
and the consequent necessary role of this world, time and history:

301
302 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

‘Only with the end of the world, therefore, can the drama of
Gnostic salvation be fulfilled.’7 A realized eschatology must be
balanced by a futurist, an individualist involving the heavenly
journey of the soul or self by a collective involving the Gnostic
‘Church’.
Peel isolates four facets of what he calls the traditional view of
Gnostic eschatology.8 First, he alludes to the evident close connec¬
tion in some Gnostic texts between the reception of baptism and
the present realization of future hopes.9 Second, he refers to the
idea in some texts that, through his reception of the ‘saving
knowledge’, the ‘knower’ comes to full realization of his divine
nature in the present.10 The third facet Peel refers to is the
conviction in some texts that the spiritual man, illuminated with
‘gnosis’, has already been transferred to the realm of light.11 A
final facet is the view in some texts that the eschaton is felt to
have arrived in the present for the Gnostic.12
The other major aspect of the traditional view of Gnostic
eschatology which Peel notes is the idea that death marks the point
of departure of the ‘pneuma-self from the body. He gives detailed
evidence of this view in Gnostic sources, without, however,
referring at this point to its presence in modern interpreters.13
But, as he himself goes on to suggest, there must be some final
end-goal of the ascent of this self; apparently the reabsorption of
the light-self into its original or into the Godhead. So even on
this view of ‘present’ or ‘realized’ eschatology involving the
individual self, there is, implicit or explicit, a universalist, futurist
perspective.14
Indeed this is admitted by those such as Jonas and Bultmann
who most stress the ‘realized’ nature of Gnostic eschatology and
sharpen that stress by their existentialist interpretation of Gnostic
mythology.15 For Jonas, as Schottroff points out, the saving ‘call’
contains the promise of redemption as a presupposition of final
redemption. The Gnostic world-view is essentially directed to the
future, the absolute future, that is, it is eschatological.16 Bultmann
too is aware of the futurist aspect. ‘Gnosticism,’ he says ‘tends to
produce an individualistic type of mysticism, in which the
redemption, the ascent of the Self, is anticipated in meditation
and ecstasy.’17 Anticipation, that is, implies a future consum¬
mation.
For if there is undoubtedly much support in the Gnostic texts
for an eschatology which is seen as present and realized, and which
involves the individual ‘pneuma-self and its post-mortem ascent,
 Gnostic Eschatology 303

there is also, as Peel has convincingly demonstrated, equally a

considerable body of evidence for a futurist eschatology which is
universalist, i.e. involving the whole cosmos and the ultimate
restoration of the various mixed elements to their original
condition.18 Peel gives a detailed survey of Endzeit speculation,19
but we might cite examples relevant to our discussion of the
Apocryphon. Thus the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus describe the con¬
summation as occurring when the entire trace of the spirit of light
is gathered together and taken up into the Aeon of Incor¬
ruptibility.20 The Valentinian school of Ptolemy refer to the
consummation taking place when the whole spiritual element,
the spiritual men who have perfect knowledge, is shaped and
perfected in knowledge and enters the Pleroma or bridal
chamber.21 This process is called the restoration (apokatastasis)
and the goal pictured as eternal (or ‘aeonian’) rest.22
But the question then arises: Is this process to be understood
as basically atemporal and cyclical, so that the end-time coincides
with the primal time, as Zandee argues?23 Or should we with
Haardt, Peel, Foerster, Rudolph, Filoramo and others, stress the
importance of the end-goal of the soteriological process and see
this not as cyclical but as unrepeatable, and always related to a
concluding eschaton?24 Or can we find aspects of both views to
some extent combined? Thus there is evidence that some Gnostics
believed in the transmigration of souls,23 a view we found echoed
in the Apocryphon,26 and the ‘Ophites’ of Irenaeus seem to believe
in a continuous process of souls descending, ascending and
redescending into bodies. The holy souls, i.e. those with the trace
of light or with knowledge of Christ, are rescued from this cycle
by Jesus.27 This also raises the question posed by John in the
Apocryphon: Will all the souls be saved, or to the same degree and
destination, or are there different types and degrees of salvation?
Finally there is the question mark set by Schottroff against any
kind of futurist eschatology, even as espoused by Jonas and
Bultmann in terms of the post-mortem survival and ascent of the
individual soul, or of the ecstatic anticipation of that liberation
and ultimate restoration to the heavenly world.28 She is seeking
to answer the question touched on in the previous chapter: When
is the time of salvation? Her question applies primarily to the
Fourth Gospel, but she finds in Gnosis the closest similarity to
and also the basis for the Johannine view that the time of re¬
demption is the time of revelation. Sacramental or eschatological
forms of Gnosis may have existed, but they are to be explained as
304 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

peripheral phenomena.29 Her Gnostic evidence for this claim

is primarily the Pronoia hymn of the Apocryphon, which, as we
have indicated, she considers to be independent of the main
body and not at all influenced by Christian traditions, although
post-Christian.30 However, her only concern is with the time of
redemption as it relates to Gnosis, and this narrowing down,
as we shall see, may well have distorted her view of the Gnostic
understanding of redemption and led her to play down or
ignore the integral nature of the Pronoia hymn and the
futurist eschatological element in Gnostic theology. Thus
Rudolph argues that Schottroff has gone too far in explaining
sacramental or eschatological Gnosis as peripheral phenomena
and suggests that she is too much under the spell of thejohannine
view.31
In our analysis of the eschatological ideas of the ‘classic Gnostic
myth’ presented in the Apocryphon and related texts we shall
therefore have to consider to what extent the eschatology is
predominantly ‘realized’ or ‘futurist’ or a blend of both; to what
extent it is individualist, in terms of the separation of the soul or
pneuma-self from the body and its post-mortem ascent, or
universalist, in terms of the involvement of the entire cosmos in
the restoration process; whether the ultimate redemption involves
everyone and to the same degree or destination; and finally
whether the process is cyclical or linear or one utilizing both
approaches.
Perhaps one of the most striking features about the Apocryphon,
when compared with the ‘Ophite’ or Valentinian myths and
systems described by Irenaeus or other related works from Nag
Hammadi such as On the Origin of the World, is the apparent paucity
of eschatological features and ideas, apart from the dialogue on
the destinies of souls and the Pronoia hymn. We find no mention
of the theme of resurrection, or of the syzygy concept of the
Gnostic and his/her angel and their heavenly marriage, so central
to Valentinianism. Of the geography of heaven and hell or the
apocalyptic-eschatological timetable of cosmic catastrophe and
universal restitution we only have passing hints. What we do get
are various concepts linked to the various stages of redaction, with
some attempt to harmonize them. Thus the best procedure in
this chapter, unlike the previous ones, would appear to be to
analyse the eschatological concepts according to my proposed
reconstruction of sources and redactions. Therefore we will look
first at the concepts of the original myth underlying the central
 Gnostic Eschatology 305

exposition, then at those in the frame story and Pronoia hymn,

and finally at the ‘Sethian’ material.

1 The eschatology of the main narrative

Despite the fact that the frame story and dialogue are later
additions, the threefold structure of the underlying myth, a myth
of past, present and future, is still discernible in that the original
form of the Apocryphon reconstructed by us consisted of theogony
and cosmogony (‘What was’: the primal revelation of Father,
Mother and Son and the fall of Sophia), anthropogony (‘What
is’: the origin and history of humankind in the image of heavenly
Adamas) and soteriology (‘What is to come’: the advent of the
eschatological Spirit, cosmic catastrophe, restoration of Sophia’s
‘deficiency’ by means of the final gathering of all the saved souls
into the perfect aeon). Apart from the passage on the destinies
of souls, the events of the last section are either merely hinted at
or only found in later strata, the Pronoia hymn in particular. But
comparison with related texts and systems such as the ‘Ophites’
of Irenaeus, the Hypostasis, On the Origin of the World and Trimorphic
Protennoia suggests the plausibility of such a scheme: in contrast
to their fascination with apocalyptic and the details of the end,
the Apocryphon is primarily concerned with the history of spirit
from its origin in the great invisible Spirit to its destiny in human
souls as its ultimate avatars. Thus the passage on the destinies of
human souls marks the fitting (and original) climax of the work.
We could profitably compare the climax of the Valentinian myth
of Ptolemy’s school in Irenaeus’ ‘Great Notice’: the centre of
interest lies in the relative destinies of the spiritual and psychic
beings.32
Thus the centre of eschatological interest in the main narrative
must be the passage on the destinies of souls, but there are other
eschatological allusions and motifs which must first be dealt with.
There is, for example, the deficiency/perfection theme related
to Sophia and her offspring already discussed in previous chapters,
which, although fundamental to the myth, seems to evince
Valentinian influence. The correction of Sophia’s (or Adam’s,
i.e. humanity’s) deficiency by various figures as an event with
cosmic and eschatological significance is a recurring motif in the
text.33 The Epinoia is sent out to set humanity up in its perfection
(plerdma), teach it about the descent of its defect (hysterema) and
about its own ascent.34 The archontic prohibition concerning the
306 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

tree of knowledge is an attempt to prevent Adam from looking

up to his perfection.35 Again, Adam is taught to eat the knowledge
so as to remember his perfection, the result being spatial separa¬
tion from Ialdabaoth.36 ‘Perfection’ would appear to refer to the
original state of humanity to which it is eventually to be restored,
and is thus a term, as in Valentinianism, with collective and futurist
connotations.
Then, second, there is the garbled episode of the descent of
the Mother’s spirit with the purpose, according to SR (whose
version we argued was more original),37 of awakening the sub¬
stance akin to it after the type of the perfection (plerdma), and
working for the seed in anticipation of the eschatological descent
of the Spirit to free it from defect.38 We suggested that the
confusion in this passage was originally due to the influence of
‘Sethian’ reinterpretation which attracted further redactoral
activity; B represented the more original state of affairs, a com¬
bination of the earlier tradition of Sophia as redeemer restoring
the divine element to earthly Seth and his descendants with the
Valentinian and ‘Sethian’ tradition of the consort/spirit who
descends to the passive Sophia and then to her spiritual offspring,
the seed of Seth, to correct her deficiency. The spirit’s activity
with the seed parallels on the human level that of the Mother’s
consort at a prior stage and higher level, and anticipates the
eschatological gift of the Spirit in the initiation ceremony
inaugurated by the Saviour (the five seals). The Spirit’s restoration
and perfection of the heavenly aeon, which thus depends on the
individual Gnostics, both reflects a universal-futurist dimension
and (not surprisingly) leads the redactor of LR to speak in
Valentinian fashion of the whole Pleroma thereby becoming holy
and faultless.39
Certainly we can understand the passage as an obvious bridge,
attempting to explain how the Gnostic elect survived the demi¬
urgic assaults on it up to the present revelatory and saving
descent of the Saviour and the eschatological descent of the
Holy Spirit. Although every event of this sort involving divine
revelation and activity would seem to mark a complete act of
redemption, as Schottroff would argue,40 we must realize the
decisive character of the Saviour’s descent and revelation and the
preliminary character of previous revelatory events; what the latter
manifest is a capacity for or interim degree of revelation and
salvation, which only becomes realized or perfected with the
coming of the Saviour, and his inauguration of the initiation rite
 Gnostic Eschatology 307

involving the eschatological descent and activity of the Holy

Spirit.41
Thus it is no accident that this passage on the spirit’s descent
anticipating the eschatological coming of the Holy Spirit should
lead immediately into the passage on the destinies of various souls,
the most overt treatment of eschatology in our text. Since we have
discussed the passage in detail in our previous chapter, it will be
sufficient here to highlight the eschatological implications in terms
of our questions. First it is clear that not all souls will be saved; it
all depends on which spirit descends on the soul and unites with
it, the Spirit of life or the counterfeit spirit, and on whether the
soul accepts or rejects the saving knowledge.42 Those who turn
away will suffer eternal punishment, thus implying that there will
be no ultimate restoration of all things to their original state, or
separation off into their respective elements or types as, e.g. in
the ‘Ophite’ and Valentinian schemes.43
Salvation for those souls united with the Spirit seems to be
undifferentiated and immediate on death; they enter the great
illuminators, ascending to the dignity of eternal imperishable life,
the calling and rest.44 But the very terminology of their reception
after laying aside the flesh, by its repeated echoes of New
Testament eschatological language (calling, endurance, com¬
pletion of the contest, inheritance of eternal life)45 might suggest
a futurist perspective. This is certainly the case with the prior
mention of the eschatological Spirit’s activity in perfecting the
Gnostics to establish the aeon (or Pleroma) as free of deficiency.46
And the collective character of this process is expressed by the
reference to saved souls devoting themselves ascetically to the
incorruptible (aphthartos) assembly.47 This strikingly recalls the
‘Ophite’ concepts of the incorruptible aeon and the heavenly
Church, the archetype and ultimate goal of the earthly body of
the elect.48
We even have a kind of Gnostic Purgatory: the texts refer to
enlightened souls who are worthy to enter the great illuminators
as being purified from evil ‘there’.49 This would appear to refer
to the illuminators, but they are not a kind of intermediate
purification stage, like the Valentinian ‘Middle’, the Harmony of
Poimandres or the realm of sun and moon in Manichaeism, but
represent the final destination of the elect.30 Thus after death the
saved souls escape from wickedness and through the incorruptible
oversight (episcope: SR) are brought to the repose (anapausis) of
the aeons.51 Again this might refer to the immediate post-mortem
308 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

state of the elect soul, but the term ‘repose’ often has a universal
eschatological connotation.02
Such is the destiny of those souls who have united with the Holy
Spirit and possess the saving knowledge. But even for those souls
who have been dominated by the counterfeit spirit and remain
in ignorance, there is still a chance of salvation via the process of
reincarnation. We have defended this interpretation of the text
in the previous chapter; suffice it to recall that such a process is
attested in the ‘Ophite’ system, Pistis Sophia and the speculations
of Epiphanius’ libertine Gnostics, all of which we have argued
are related to the ApocryphonP And as we argued, such reincarnate
souls are given to elect souls who act as their guardians, enabling
them to reach knowledge and be initiated and thus escape further
reincarnations. This mirrors the situation of the elect souls who
come to knowledge and are initiated through their guardian
angels, the illuminators, as e.g. Norea is by Eleleth in the
Hypostasis.54
The final category, already discussed in the last chapter, is that
of those souls who possessed the saving knowledge but apostatized.
As saved souls ascend to a particular location, the incorruptible
aeon, so apostate souls go to the place to which the angels of
poverty will withdraw, for whom (SR) or where (LR) there is no
repentance.55 They will be kept for the day (of judgement?) when
all those who have blasphemed the Holy Spirit will suffer eternal
punishment.56 The divergence between the versions may be caused
by unclarity over the status of these angels of poverty: are they the
angels of punishment characteristic of apocalyptic as LR seems
to imply,57 or are they apostate angels who are also to be punished,
as SR might suggest?58 That all four versions continue with a plural
conjunctive (‘and they will guard them’),59 and that the angels of
poverty' recur in the Pronoia hymn as to be avoided in their role
of ensnaring ignorant souls, might support the originality of LR
here.60 In any case, the text seems to teach what is essentially a
twofold scheme of salvation/damnation; salvation is assured for
those souls on whom the Holy Spirit descends at once (or after a
period of being deluded by the counterfeit spirit and of
reincarnation) and who respond positively, whereas those souls
with the knowledge who yet deny the presence of the Holy Spirit
and turn away will suffer eternal punishment.
Although this scheme, from its relative simplicity, might seem
early, it is rather sophisticated, avoiding the crude dualism of the
two types of humanity in Saturninus, and the sophisticated double
 Gnostic Eschatology 309

predestinationism suggested by the Valentinian threefold division

of the created order.61 Moreover it is demonstrably Christian,
echoing New Testament eschatological texts and strikingly akin
to mainstream Christian ideas involving the post-mortem fate of
souls. According to the latter, of course, it was only the souls of
martyrs that went straight to heaven; all the rest went to an
intermediate realm to await the judgement which, in the case of
sinners, would involve eternal punishment.66 Of course, in the
case of the Gnostics only the souls of apostates would be punished;
salvation is denied to the flesh, which inevitably narrows the
possibilities of punishment and the graphic detail beloved of
apocalyptic.
The passage on the destiny of souls thus does seem to combine
individual and realized elements (elect souls on leaving the body
at death go straight to heaven) with a collective futurist perspective
(allusion to the incorruptible gathering and aeon, and to ‘rest’
for elect souls), which, however, is not universalist (apostate
souls are eternally punished). The very qualified belief in
reincarnation (only for ignorant souls) suggests the irreversible
character of the process. On the other hand determinism is
excluded: the subde balance between divine initiative and human
response is maintained. Finally, the references to the Holy Spirit
mark the essential link with the initiation rite; pace Schottroff,
sacraments are fundamental to these Gnostics. The comparative
simplicity, optimism and distinctiveness of their scheme again
suggests the independence of the Gnostic myth in its original form
from Valentinian and other influence.

2 The eschatology of the frame story and Pronoia hymn

The eschatology of the frame story and Pronoia hymn generally

corresponds to and confirms that of the main narrative. The
treatise on theogony, cosmogony, anthropogony and soteriology,
on past, present and future, becomes a revelation dialogue
between the Saviour and John culminating in a hymn relating
the former’s three decisive revelatory descents in relation to past,
future and present. The eschatological atmosphere is established
at once by the Pharisee’s question: ‘Where is your master .. . ?’
and John’s reply: ‘He has returned to the place from which he
came.’64 Not only is this permeated byjohannine allusions,60 but
‘the place’ (topos) appears as the final location of the Gnostics
both in the dialogue on the souls66 and the Pronoia hymn.67John’s
310 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

series of questions culminates in the eschatological: ‘Of what

sort is that aeon to which we shall go?’; the Saviour having revealed
to them that that aeon was of the type {typos) of the incorruptible
aeon, but not what it was like.68 Now in the main narrative the
Father’s aeon is described as ‘incorruptible’69 and the same term
is used of the supreme heavenly realm and goal of the elect souls
in the ‘Ophite’ system of Irenaeus.70
Moreover, details of the Saviour’s epiphany and proclamation
have eschatological overtones as well as fitting in with the structure
of the main narrative. As in certain of the apocryphal Acts, Christ
appears simultaneously as one yet three: as child, old man and
youth.71 As Puech notes, underlying this is the theme of the aibn
(representing past, present and future simultaneously), but more
relevant perhaps is the triple-male category of redaction (a2).72
Further, his message has an eschatological orientation in that he
proclaims ‘I am with you (plural) always’ (cf. Matt 28:20 and John
14:16), and asserts that he has come to teach John about past,
present and future and about the perfect Man.73 The repetition
by the Saviour in the epilogue of SR of his promise to teach about
the future,74 a promise which remains unfulfilled, may be its
attempt to make up for omitting the Pronoia hymn, which does
at least give some eschatological hints, as we shall see.
In any case, the reference to the perfect Man as a protological
and eschatological figure is central to the myth of the Apocryphon
and related texts. The original, protological, true Man after whose
image we were made, we have argued, is Adamas, although
ultimately he may be seen as a projection or facet of the Son,
Christ, who is the eschatological Adam, the perfect Man.75 The
entire Naassene Preaching centres on the fall into matter and
spiritual regeneration of us creatures of the perfect Man, Adamas,
while the Hypostasis and On the Origin of the World relate the coming
of the true Man (i.e. Christ) as the climax of the redemption of
the elect and the judgement of the archons. In redaction (a2) of
the Apocryphon we have contended that Sophia and her redeeming
role were replaced by Barbelo/Pronoia as Father-Mother-Son,
who thus appears both as first Man to the archons and as the
Saviour/Pronoia figure of the final hymn.
As part of thejohannine frame story, the eschatological passage
on the destiny of souls, the original climax of the work, was recast
as a dialogue between the Saviour and John, in which John asks
six questions. The last of these (on apostate souls) was then
followed by the Pronoia hymn with itsjohannine echoes and triple
 Gnostic Eschatology 311

descent scheme based on key events in the central myth, as we

have suggested in the previous chapter. Eschatological features
include the Saviour’s description of her/himself as ‘the
remembrance of the Pleroma’ (plerdma,76 a Valentinian term with
collective futurist connotations), the perfection that is the goal
of the Gnostics,77 her/his concern on the second descent with
a plan (oikonomia), and reascent lest the (under)world be
destroyed before the time.78 Both plerdma and oikonomia suggest
progress towards a final goal, the salvation of the elect and
destruction of the cosmos. Indeed we identified this second
descent with the Epinoia’s instruction of Adam about his ascent.
Again in the third descent we hear of the Saviour filling her/his
face with the light of ‘the completion (synteleia) of their aeon’,
an obscure phrase but one which must have some cosmic-
eschatological reference.79
The honoured place to which the Saviour raises the awakened
Gnostic is clearly the spatially-conceived eschatological goal found
elsewhere in the Apocryphon,&0 although Schottroff argues that this
is not tied to some temporal future or distinguished from the
Gnostic’s hearing the call.81 That the Gnostic is further urged to
protect her/himself from the angels of poverty and demons of
chaos and is sealed with the five seals to prevent death having
power over her/him any longer, also has a final ring about it.82
Again Schottroff argues that these concepts, change of location
and victory over death, are mythological, intended to enlarge
or expand the existential act of hearing which is the essence of
redemption for this passage.83 That such an existential inter¬
pretation is required is shown, according to her, by the fact that
the two concepts cannot logically be united into a common
mythological scheme.84
However, Schottroffs treatment of the Pronoia hymn as an
independent unit we have shown to be questionable: the evident
links with the main narrative and dependent character of the
hymn demand that we take seriously the hints of a future-
eschatological perspective in it. Further, the concepts of change
of place and victory over death need not be incompatible. The
latter does not rule out a future-eschatological perspective and
the former positively invites it. A similar reply might be given to
Peel, who interprets the five seals as an example of sacramentally
realized eschatology.85 Comparison with the parallel (and
dependent) passages in Trimorphic Protennoia and the Gospel of the
Egyptians is essential here. The initiatory rituals in the former do
312 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

seem prima facie to suggest a present experience of salvation as a

result of the ceremony, although the agents involved are clearly
heavenly beings.86 The picture in the latter also suggests this-
worldly experience, if with a more evident future orientation ‘they
will by no means taste death’.87 But comparison with the
Apocryphon, which we have argued has decisively influenced both
texts, suggests the necessity of a futurist-eschatological perspective.
Souls which have the Spirit (i.e. via the five seals rite) remain in
the body until death and then ascend to the aeon to be purified
there. Hence Sophia’s ‘deficiency’ will not be removed until the
consummation, when all the elect souls are gathered in.88

3 The eschatology of the ‘Sethian’ reinterpretation

As we have shown, the eschatologies of the main narrative and of

the frame story and Pronoia hymn of redaction (a2), are consistent,
teaching an undifferentiated salvation for saved souls to the
incorruptible aeon, the realm of the four illuminators, and
damnation only for apostates. However, this is plainly contradicted
by the passage on Adamas and Seth in relation to the four
illuminators.89 Unlike the picture of these in other related
Barbelognostic texts as angelic revealers and guardians, they now
appear as hierarchically ranked spatial entities, aeons, to which
are assigned respectively heavenly Adamas, his son Seth, the elect
seed of Seth and souls who had the saving knowledge but only
repented later. These aeons appear to mark the eternal resting
places of the souls, hence final distinctions remain, as in the
Valentinian scheme of Ptolemy.90
Such a scheme also recurs in uncontestably ‘Sethian’ works from
Nag Hammadi, such as the Gospel of the Egyptians^ and Zostrianos,
where it has the form of a ladder of perfection.92 As we have
argued, this scheme is part of a ‘Sethianizing’ interpretation of
the original Barbelognostic myth which, in reaction to mainstream
Christian criticism of novelty, seeks to trace the elect back to
heavenly Seth as spiritual progenitor of his ‘seed’, ‘the immovable
race’.93 This does establish a continuity in the history of salvation
which, in dependence on Jewish legends about earthly Seth, is
structured in terms of three parousias of Seth in response to
attempts by the archons to destroy his seed through flood and
fire, but it does import an element of predestination not present
in the original. Not all souls who are initiated and respond
appropriately to the Spirit’s presence will be saved, but only the
 Gnostic Eschatology 313

‘immovable’ seed of Seth, whose salvation has been guaranteed

throughout history, and who only require the rubber stamp of
the five seals rite.94 Other souls who eventually repent may be
saved, but only to an inferior aeon.

Conclusion

Thus in answer to the questions we posed at the beginning:

although there are passages in the Apocryphon which suggest a
realized eschatology in mystical or sacramental or even
existentialist terms, they are balanced by those with a futurist-
universal perspective. Sophia’s ‘deficiency’ will not be corrected
until all the elect souls (those not only in the divine image and
with the divine power, but who are sealed and thereby united
with the Spirit and who respond in faith) are saved. Again, an
individualist stress on the soul and its destiny is balanced by the
collective concepts of the spatio-temporal heavenly aeon, or
Church, and of the heavenly Man. But any tendency to
predestinationism and automatic salvation is effectively countered
by the subtle balance of divine initiative and human response
charted in the passage on the destinies of souls. Thus while it is
the soul that is the object of salvation, not all will be saved. Yet
the outlook is optimistic: meritorious action is not necessary and
reincarnation holds out the possibility of finally acquiring saving
knowledge; damnation is retained only for the category of
apostates. Finally, the cyclic tendency implied in reincarnation is
a necessary and congruent element in an irreversible movement
towards an ultimate salvation and separation expressed in and
mediated through the five seals sacrament.
This subtle and sophisticated picture, in line with the ‘Ophite’
system yet strikingly independent of Valentinianism as of the
apocalyptic speculations of related or dependent works like On
the Origin of the World, Trimorphic Protennoia and Pistis Sophia,
underwent Valeritinian and ‘Sethian’ reworkings which intro¬
duced elements of predestinationism (the ‘seed’, the ‘immovable
race’, etc.) and weakened the tension and paradox of this
essentially Christian system. This is summed up in the para¬
digmatic figures and experiences of Sophia and of the Son, Christ:
salvation means coming to realize who one really is through exile
and repentance and self-begetting, as with Sophia, and then of
anointing and elevation to perfection, as with the Son. It tries to
do justice to the Gnostic assurance of salvation as somehow already
314 Notes to pages 301-302

present through the decisive revelation/intervention of the

Saviour and the initiation rite introduced by him, as well as to
their awareness that salvation remained provisional, dependent
on their faithful response, which would make an essential
contribution to the final consummation.

Notes

1 On Gnostic eschatology, see M. L. Peel, ‘Gnostic Eschatology and

the New Testament’, NovT 12 (1970), 141-65; Jonas, Religion 44-6;
J. Zandee, ‘Gnostische Eschatologie’, X Intemationaler Kongress fur
Religionsgeschichte 11-17 September 1960 in Marburg (Marburg, 1961), 94f.;
Rudolph, Gnosis 171-204; MacRae, ‘Apocalyptic Eschatology in
Gnosticism’ in D. Hellholm ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World
and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on
Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1983), 317-25; Petrement, Separate 160-70; Filoramo,
History 128-41.
2 ‘Eschatologie’ 94.
3 ‘Eschatology’ 143. Cf. Petrement, Separate 160ff. (‘Gnosticism has a
preference for realized eschatology’). Theodotus’ formula (Exc. ex Theod.
78) implies that liberation occurs through a combination of initiation
rite (baptism) and saving knowledge.
4 E. Schweizer, ‘Gegenwart des Geistes und eschatologische Hoffnung
bei Zarathustra, spatjudischen Gruppen, Gnostikern und den Zeugen
des neuen Testaments’, The Background of the New Testament and its
Eschatology (Studies in Honour of C. H. Dodd) (Cambridge, 1956), 500f.
5 Gos. Truth 24.28-32. Cf. the similar Marcosian formulation in Iren.
I. 15.2.
6 2.31.2.
7 History 129-33.
8 ‘Eschatology’ 150-3.
9 Illustrated from Menander, the Pronoia hymn of A], the Marcosian
baptismal formula, the Hermetica, the Naassene Preaching and the
Epistle to Rheginus.
10 Illustrated from the Gospel of Truth, Poimandres and the Apocryphon
of James as well as other Nag Hammadi texts such as the Authoritative
Teaching (C VI,5) and the Teachings ofSilvanus (C VII,4) whose Gnostic
character has been questioned (see on the former R. van den Broek,
‘The Authentikos Logos: A New Document of Christian Platonism’, VC
33 (1979), 260-86; on the latter the introduction by M. L. Peel and
J. Zandee in NITLE).
11 Illustrated from the Epistle to Rheginus, the Hermetica and the
Authoritative Teaching.
 Notes to pages 302-305 315

12 Illustrated from the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Truth and the
Dialogue of the Saviour (C III,5).
13 ‘Eschatology’ 153-5. For modern support, cf. e.g. R. Bultmann,
Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting (London: Collins, 1962),
200f.
14 Cf. MacRae, ‘Apocalyptic’ 318, who suggests that a future-
orientated apocalyptic perspective may be fundamental to the Gnostic
world-view.
13 Peel, ‘Eschatology’ 145.
16 L. Schottroff, ‘Heil als innerweltliche Entweltlichung: Der gnostische
Hintergrund der johanneischen Vorstellung vom Zeitpunkt der
Erlosung’, NovT 11 (1969), 294—317, esp. 31 If. (referring tojonas. Gnosis
I, 127; 2, 11).
17 Primitive 203.
18 ‘Eschatology’ 155-62.
19 ‘Eschatology’ 155-9.
20 1.30.14.
21 Iren. 1.6.1; 7.1; Exc. ex Theocl. 62.2-65.2.
22 On apokatastasis, cf. Iren. 1.8.4; 14.1; 21.3; Heracleon frag. 34; Treat.
Res. 44.31; Tri. Trac. 123.19, 21, 27; 133.7; Gos. Phil. 67.18. Cf. Basilides
in Hipp. Ref. 7.26.2; 27.4,11, etc. On ‘rest’ as an eschatological
phenomenon, cf. AJB 36.7ff. and par; 68.12ff. and par; Heracleon frags
12, 32-4, 42; Gos. Truth 40.30—41.14; Gos. Phil. 66.19; Book of Thomas (C
II, 7) 145.13, etc.
23 ‘Eschatologie’ 95: ‘Die Endzeit fallt zusammen mit der Urzeit’.
Zandee quotes (without identifying) Tri. Trac. 127.23-5 (‘that the end
should be as the beginning’).
24 So Peel, citing R. Haardt, ‘Das universaleschatologische Vorstel-
lungsgut in der Gnosis’ in K. Schubert ed., Vom Messias zum Christos: Die
Fulle der Zeit in religionsgeschichtlicher und theologischer Sicht (Vienna, 1964),
331; W. Foerster, Gnosis 1 7; Rudolph, TRu 36, 28f., Gnosis 202f.;
Filoramo, History 134f., etc.
25 So Peel, ‘Eschatology’ 155, with reference to the Carpocratians of
Iren. 1.25.4; Apoc. Paul (C V,2) 20.20-3; 21.17-21; and Celsus on the
Ophites in Orig. C. Cels. 6.24—38, esp. 33-6 (not Iren. Adv. haer. 1.6.24—
38 as in Peel).
26 See our treatment of B 68.13-70.8/III 35.2-36.3; II 26.32-27.21/IV
41.10-42.23 in ch. 7.
27 Iren. 1.30.14: ‘ut rursus [the Demiurge] demittateas (the holy souls)
in saeculum, tan turn eas quae sunt ex substantia eius.’
28 ‘Heil’, esp. 303, 311, 315f.
29 ‘Heil’ 315ff.
30 304.
31 TRu 36, 29.
32 Cf. Iren. 1.7.1, 5.
316 Notes to pages 305-308

33 On her awareness of her deficiency and its future effects, cf. B 44.19-
45.19 and par; on the attempt to have her correct her deficiency, cf. B
46.9-47.14 and par; on the Epinoia’s role to help Sophia correct her
deficiency (and Adam his), cf. B 53.18—54.4 and par; B 60.13—61.5 and
par; on Sophia’s descent to correct her deficiency, cf. II 23.20-4 (and
III 39.18-21); on the cosmic saving role of the eschatological Spirit, cf.
B 64.3-13 and par.
34 B 53.4-18 and par.
35 B 57.8-19 and par. II 22.7 reads pleroma. Cf. B 56.10-17 and par.
This may be a reference to Adam’s perfect heavenly archetype, but one
cannot rule out a future reference, implicit in the archetype.
36 B 61.2-9 and par. Ill 30.20 reads pleroma.
37 See ch. 6, section 3f.
38 B 63.14-64.13/III 32.8-22; II 25.2-16.
39II 25.14-16/IV 39.13-15.
40 Glaubende 9f., 97-9.
41 Cf. the very similar contemporary solution of Justin Martyr: those
before Christ who lived ‘with logos' had something of the truth, but
Christians now have the whole Logos incarnate in Christ (1 Apol. 46; 2
Apol. 13, etc.).
42 See ch. 7, section 1.
43 Cf. Iren. 1.30.14 and 1.7.1, 5.
44 Cf. B 64.3-8 and par; 65.20-66.12 and par; 67.18-68.13 and par.
45 Cf. respectively 2 Thess 1:11; 1 Cor 13:7; 2 Tim 2:10, 4:7; Matt 19:29
par, etc.
46 Cf. B 64.3-13 and par.
47 B 65.8—19/III 33.7-15 (soul} - ekklesia, cf. Crum, Dictionary 373b).
LR (II 25.30/IV 40.4) has missed the reference to the assembly.
48 Iren. 1 30.2 (the incorruptible (aphtharton) aeon, the true, holy
Church (ekklesia) . . . the calling (appellatio) . .. ). This would further
confirm the originality of this material. Cf. Orig. C. Cels. 6.35 and the
similar Valentinian concept, Iren. 1.5.6; Tri. Trac. 97.5-9. GPIII 55.2-
6/IV 66.14-19 (the incorruptible (aphthartos) spiritual (pneumatikos)
Church (ekklesia) in the four illuminators of the Autogenes) has
expanded A/’s picture.
49 B 65.3-1 l/III 33.4-9; II 25.23-9/IV 39.25-40.3.
50 Cf. Orig. C. Cels. 6.35 where Origen interprets Celsus’ allusions to
an earthly Church and circumcision as references to the belief of some
(Ophites?) in a heavenly Church and the circumcision in it as
purification. However in PS Book 2, ch. 100 (Schmidt-MacDermot
249.20-252.12) purification of souls appears to take place in this world.
51 B 67.18-68.13/III 34.18-35.2; II 26.22-32/IV 41.10-20.
52 Cf. e.g. the index to Foerster, Gnosis 2 s.v. rest, repose; OW125.8f.;
GE III 65.4. See on this P. Vielhauer, ‘ANAPAUSIS: zum gnostischen
Hintergrund desThomasevangeliums’, Apophoreta (BZNW 30) (Berlin:
 Notes to pages 308-310 317

Topelmann, 1964), 281-99. Further support for a universal-

eschatological interpretation might come from the term episcope, which
in the case ofl Pet 2:12 and of lQSiii.l8;iv.6,12,18-23, where according
to M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London: Nelson, 1961),
135, its exact parallel pequddah occurs, refers, in Black’s view, to the
Last Visitation of God.
33 See ch. 7, n. 55, p. 288. It was also apparently taught by the
Carpocratians (Iren. 1.25.1-4); Basilides (frag. 4 in Clem. Alex. Strom.
4.12.83.1; frag. 5 in Orig. In Rom. 5.1) and the Manichees (Acta Archelai
10.1-8).
34 Cf. the role of the angels of light in Celsus’ Ophite diagram, Orig.
C. Cels. 6.27.
55 B 70.8-15/III 36.4-10; II 27.21-7/IV 42.24-43.1.
56 B 70.16-71.2/111 36.10-15; II 27.27-31/IV 43.2-6.
57 Cf. e.g. 1 Enoch 56.1; 62.1 If.; 63.If.; 64; 66-7; 2Enoch 10; Apoc. Zeph.
4.1-7; T. Levi 3.2f.; T. Abr. 12; Apoc. Paul 22.1-10, etc.
58 In 1 Enoch 53.3; 54.6 we find both types of angels side by side.
59 B 70.16/III 36.10; II 27.28/IV 43.2. The form does not necessarily
imply a passive, as most translators assume.
60 Cf. II 31.18f./IV 48.24f. The possibility of repentance is surely more
applicable to the souls than to angels whose status and role is not
evidently evil. In OW'poverty’ (mhtheke) seems to be an attribute of this
world (cf. 110.12L; 112.13, 21f.; 118.1).
61 Cf. Rudolph, Gnosis 186f.
62 Esp. Matt 12:31 and par, and Matt 25:41,46. On eternal punishment
of the apostates, etc. cf. Rev 20:10; Mark 9:48; Jude 7.
63 On the martyrs’ immediate ascent, cf. e.g. Iren. 4.33.9; Tert. Anima
55-8; C. Marc. 4.34; on the intermediate realm, cf. e.g. 1 Clem. 5.4—7;
6.1; 50.3; Justin, Dial. 5.3; Iren. 5.31.If.; Ps. Hipp. C. Graec. If. (MPG
10.796A-800A); on eternal punishment, cf. e.g. Ign. Eph. 16.2; Hermas,
Sim. 9.18.2; 2 Clem. 17.5-7; Justin, 1 Apol. 8, 28; 2 Apol. 7-9; Ps. Hipp. C.
Graec. 1 (797A); 3 (801 A).
64 B 19.10-16/III 1.4-10; II 1.8-11.
65 Cf. e.g. John 7:33f.; 13:3; 16:5, 28; 20:17.
66 Cf. B 67.18-68.13. However, the term only occurs in B.
67 Cf. II 31.13f./IV 48.l7f.
68 B 20.12-19; II 1.24-9.
69 B 26.6-9/III 6.19-21 (aphthartos); II 4.10-13/IV 6.10-13. Cf. the
‘perfect aeon’ of B 75.14f./III 39.13L; II 31.25-7/IV 49.6-8.
70 1.30.2, 11, 13, 14.
71 B 21.3-13; II 2.1-9. Cf. Acta Petri 20f.; Acta Johannis 73, 88; Acta Pauli
Hamburg papyrus p. 3; Acta Andreae et Matthaiae 18. See on this Puech
in Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson NTA 1 321, n. 1. In PS Book 1,
ch. 4 (Schmidt-MacDermot 7.13-8.2) Christ appears in three light
forms.
318 Notes to pages 310-312

72 Puech refers to E. Peterson, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zum Hamburger

Papyrus-fragment der Acta Pauli’, VC3 (1949), 149—59. Peterson (158)
explains the motif in the apocryphal Acts from Tatian’s treatment of
time in Or. ad Graec. 26.1: men believe time has three forms, past, present
and future, but in reality there is only the aidn hestos.
73 The first phrase recalls Rev 1:1, 4, 9, 19; 4:1; 22:6f.
74 B 76.5f./III 39.2If. The plural reference, ‘to you’, of B 76.6, is
probably a mistake since the following ‘to you’ is singular. A copyist of
B may have misread the tenou on of III 39.22 as teyth.
75 See ch. 5, section 1.
76 C II 30.16/IV 47.If.
77 Cf. the presentation and role of the Valentinian Jesus, star and fruit
of the Pleroma in Iren. 1.2.6; Hipp. Ref. 6.32. If.; Tri. Trac. 86.23-87.23.
78 II 30.21-32/IV 47.8-22 (oyeish). In Eph 1:10, 3:2 and 3:9, oikonomia
has an evident soterio-eschatological connotation and 1:10 refers to the
oikonomia of the pleroma of the kairos (on oyeish as a Coptic equivalent of
kairos, see Crum, Dictionary 499b—500a). On pro kairou, cf. Matt 8:29; 1
Cor 4:5.
79II 31.lf./IV 47.29-48.2. Cf. its use in OW 110.13; 114.24; 121.26f.;
122.6-8, 33; 123.30f.; 125.32f.; GEIII 61.3/IV 72.12; III 62.21; 7P44.33f.
The phrase could be an allusion to John 1:5.
80II 31.13f./IV 48.l7f. Cf. B 68.4f.
81 ‘Heil’ 308.
82II 31.16-25/IV 48.22-49.6.
83‘Heil’ 309, 313.
84 313.
85 ‘Eschatology’ 150.
86 48.12-35; cf. 49.28-38.
87 GEIII 65.26-66.8/IV 78.1-10.
88 Note the futurist allusions in the post-initiation invocation in GE
(III 66.22-68.1 /IV 79.3-80.15): ‘the man in whom thou wilt purify me
into thy life .. .’ (Ill 67.19-21); ‘that I may live with thee in the peace of
the saints’ (III 67.25f.).
89 B 35.20-36.15/III 13.17-14.9; II 9.11-24.
"The attempts of Schenke (‘System’ 166f.) and Tardieu (see Ecrits
272, etc.) to see in the four illuminators/aeons a periodization of history
or of world ages seems artificial and unconvincing, particularly over the
difficulties of interpreting the last class of souls. If they represent the
historical Sethians why do they need to repent and why are they so late
in repenting?
91 GE III 65.12-22/IV 77.7-19 clearly echoes AJ B 35.20-36.15, but
assigns the sons of Seth to the third illuminator and their souls to the
fourth, in more explicit dependence on the Valentinian distinction.
92 Cf. 6.7-7.22; 29.1-20. Here the four illuminators are set over four
aeons as ascending stages in a process of purificatory baptism and
 Notes to pages 312-313 319

illumination. For a classic summary of the ‘Sethian’ understanding of

mystical ascent, cf. Steles Seth 127.20f.: ‘The way of ascent is the way of
descent.’
93 See ch. 1, sections 3 and 4, ch. 3, section 2d, etc.
94 Cf. AA 82.19-83.23; G£III 60.2-66.8/IV 71.11-78.10.
 Bibliography

A Primary literature

Adam, A. Texle zum Manichaismus (Kleine Texte fur Vorlesungen

und Ubungen 175) (Berlin, 19692).
Bare, B., L’Hypostase des Archontes: Traite gnostique sur I’origine de
Vhomme, du monde et des archontes NH 11,4 (BCNH, Section
‘Textes’ 5) (Quebec: Universite Laval/Louvain: Peeters, 1980).
Baynes, C. A., A Coptic Gnostic Treatise contained in the Codex
Brucianus (Bruce MS. 96, Bod. Lib. Oxford) (Cambridge,
1933).
Bethge, H.-G. et al., ‘“Nebront”: Die zweite Schrift aus Nag-
Hammadi Codex VI: Eingeleitet und iibersetzt vom Berliner
Arbeitskreis fur koptisch-gnostisch Schriften’ TLZ98 (1973),
97-104.
Bezold, C., Die Schatzhohle (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1883).
Bohlig, A. and Labib, P., Koptisch-gnostische Apokalypsen aus Codex
V von Nag Hammadi im Koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo
(Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universitat,
Halle-Wittenberg, Sonderband) (Halle, 1963).
Bohlig, A. and Labib, P., Die koptisch-gnostische Schrift ohne Titel aus
Codex II von Nag Hammadi im Koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo
(Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut
fur Orientforschung, 58) (Berlin: Akademie, 1962).
Bohlig, A., Polotsky, H. J. and Schmidt., C., Kephalaia 1.1
(Manichaische Handschriften der staatlicher Museen Berlin
1) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1940).
Bohlig, A. and Wisse, F., Nag Hammadi Codices III,2 and TV,2: The
Gospel of the Egyptians (NHS 4) (Leiden: Brill, 1975).
Bullard, R. A., The Hypostasis of the Archons (PTS 10) (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1970).
Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
in English (2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon, 1913).

321
322 Bibliography

Clement of Alexandria, Extraits de Theodote, ed. F. Sagnard (SC

23) (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1970).
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1-6, ed. O. Stahlin, rev. U. Treu
(GCS 52) (Berlin: Akademie, 1985).
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7-8, ed. O Stahlin, rev.
L. Fruchtel/U. Treu (GCS 172) (Berlin: Akademie 1970).
Doresse, J., “‘Le livre sacre du grand Esprit invisible” ou
“L’Evangile des Egyptiens’”, JA 254 (1966), 316-435; 256
(1968), 289-386.
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion (haer. 1-33), ed. K. Holl (GCS
25) (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915).
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion (haer. 34-64), ed. K. Holl, rev.
J. Dummer (GCS 31) (Berlin: Akademie, 1980).
Evangelium veritatis, eds M. Malinine, H.-C. Puech, G. Quispel
(Zurich/Stuttgart: Francke, 1956); Supplementum id. and
W. C. Till (Zurich: Francke, 1961).
The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices (Leiden: Brill,
1972-7).
Filaster of Brescia, Diversarum haereseon liber, ed. F. Marx (CSEL
38) (Prague/Vienna/Leipzig: Tempsky, 1898).
Foerster W., ed., Die Gnosis 1 2 (Zurich: Artemis, 1971; ET
Gnosis 1 & 2 ed. R. McL. Wilson, Oxford: Clarendon, 1972,
1974).
George Syncellus, Chronographia, ed. G. Dindorf (CSHB) (Bonn:
Weber, 1829).
Gibson, M. D., ‘The Book of the Rolls’, Apocrypha Arabica (Studia
Sinaitica 8).
Giversen, S., Apocryphon Johannis: The Coptic Text of the Apocryphon
Johannis in the Nag Hammadi Codex II with Translation,
Introduction and Commentary (Acta Theologica Danica V)
(Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1963).
Haardt, R., Gnosis, Character and Testimony, tr.J. F. Hendry (Leiden:
Brill, 1971).
Hedrick, C. W. ed., Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, and XIII (NHS
28) (Leiden: Brill, 1990).
Hegemonius, Acta Archelai, ed. C.H. Beeson (GCS 16) (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1906).
Hennecke, E. and Schneemelcher, W. (ET ed. R. McL. Wilson),
New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols, London: SCM 1963-5).
Henrichs, A. and Koenen, L., ‘Der Kolner Mani-Codex (P. Coin,
inv. nr. 4780)’, ZPE 19 (1975), 1-85; 32 (1978), 87-199; 44
(1981), 201-318; 48 (1982), 1-59.
 Bibliography 323

Hippolytus of Rome, Refutatio omnium haeresium, ed. P. Wendland

(GCS 26) (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916).
Ibn al Nadim, Fihrist: Mani: Seine Lehre und seine Schriften, ed.
G. Fliigel (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1862).
Irenaeus of Lyons, Libros quinque adversus haereses, ed. W. W. Harvey
(2 vols, Cambridge, 1857).
Irenaeus of Lyons, Contre les heresies 1, ed. A. Rousseau and
L. Doutreleau (SC 263-4) (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1979).
Janssens, Y., ‘L’Apocryphon de jean’, Le Museon 83 (1970), 157—
65; 84 (1971), 43-64, 403-32.
Janssens, Y., ‘Le Codex XIII de Nag Hammadi’, Le Museon 87
(1974), 341-413.
Janssens, Y., La protennoia trimorphe (NH XIII, 1) (BCNH, Section
‘Textes’ 4) (Quebec: Universite Laval, 1978).
Kasser, R., ‘Bibliotheque gnostique V: l’Apocalypse d’Adam’,
RThPh 17 (1967), 316-33.
Kasser, R., ‘Bibliotheque gnostique I: le livre secret de Jean =
Apokryphon loannou, RThPh 14 (1964), 140—50.
Koenen, L. and Romer, C., Der Kolner Mani Codex (Papyrologica
Coloniensia 14) (Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1988).
Krause, M. and Labib, P., Die drei Versionen des Apokryphon des
Johannes im koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo (ADAIK Koptische
Reihe 1) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962).
Krause, M. and Labib, P., Gnostische und hermetische Schriften aus
Codex II und Codex VI (Gluckstadt: Augustin, 1971).
Kropp, A., Ausgewahlte koptische Zaubertexte (3 vols, Brussels,
1930-1).
Layton, B., The Gnostic Scriptures (Garden City: Doubleday, 1987).
Layton, B., ‘The Hypostasis of the Archons or the Reality of the
Rulers’, HTR 67 (1974), 351-426; 69 (1976), 31-102.
Leisegang, H., Die Gnosis (Stuttgart: Kroner, 19554).
Lipsius, R. A. and Bonnet, M, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha
(Darmstadt, 1959).
Menard,J. E., L’EvangileselonPhilippe (Strasbourg/Paris: Letouzey
& Ane, 1967).
Nagel, P., Das Wesen der Archonten aus Codex II der gnostischen
Bibliothek von Nag Hammadi (Wissenschaftliche Beitrage der
Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg) (Halle, 1970).
Origen of Alexandria, Contra Celsum, ed. P. Koetschau (GCS 3)
(Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899).
Origen of Alexandria, Contra Celsum, ed. H. Chadwick (Oxford,
1953, 1979).
324 Bibliography

Parrott, D. M, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI (NHS 11)

(Leiden: Brill, 1979).
Parrott, D. M. ed., Nag Hammadi Codices 111,3-4 and V, 1 (NHS 27)
(Leiden: Brill, 1987).
Pearson, B. A. ed., Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (NHS 15)
(Leiden: Brill, 1981).
Plato, Timaeus in Plato, vol. 7, trans. R. G. Bury (LCL) (London/
Cambridge, Mass: Heinemann/Harvard University Press,
1961).
Plotinus, Enneads in Plotinus, vol. 2, trans. A. H. Armstrong (LCL)
(London/Cambridge, Mass: Heinemann/Harvard University
Press, 1966).
Poimandres of Hermes Trismegistus, Corpus Hermeticum 1, ed.
A. D. Nock, tr. A. J. Festugiere (Paris: Bude, 1945).
Porphyry’, Vila Plotini in Plotinus, vol. 1, trans. A. H. Ar mstrong
(LCL) (London/Cambridge, Mass: Heinemann/Harvard
University Press, 1966).
Preuschen, E., ‘Die apokryphen gnostischen Adamschriften aus
dem Armenischen iibersetzt und untersucht’ in Festgruss
Bernhard Stade (Giessen: Ricker, 1900), 163-252.
Pseudo-Tertullian, Adversus omnes haereses, ed. A. Kroymann (CSEL
47) (Vienna/Leipzig: Tempsky, 1906).
Robinson,J. M., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Leiden: Brill,
19883).
Schenke, G., ‘“Die dreigestaltige Protennoia”: Eine gnostische
Offenbarungsrede in koptischer Sprache aus dem Furrde von
Nag Hammadi eingeleitet und iibersetzt vom Berliner
Arbeitskreis fur koptisch-gnostische Schriften’, TLZ 99
(1974), 731-46.
Schenke, H.-M., ‘Das Agypter-Evangelium aus Nag-Hammadi-
Codex HE, NTS 16 (1969/70), 196-208.
Schmidt, C., Koptisch-gnostische Schriften 1, 4th ed. H.-M. Schenke
(GCS 45(13)) (Berlin: Akademie, 1981).
Schmidt, C. and MacDermot, V., Pistis Sophia (NHS 9) (Leiden:
Brill, 1978).
Schmidt, C. and MacDermot, V., The Books offeu and the Untitled
Text in the Bruce Codex (NHS 13) (Leiden: Brill, 1978).
Scott, W. and Ferguson, A. S., Hermetica (4 vols, Oxford:
Clarendon, 1924-36).
Tardieu, M., Ecrits Gnosliques. Codex de Berlin (Sources gnostiques
et manicheennes 1) (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1984).
 Bibliography 325
Tertullian of Carthage, Adversus Valentinianos, ed. A. Kroymann
in Tertulliani Opera 2 (CCSL 2) (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954).
Theodore bar Konai, Liber Scholiorum, ed. A. Scher (CSCO 69)
(Louvain, 1960); ed. and trans. H. Pognon, Inscriptions
mandaites des coupes de Khouabir (Paris: Welter, 1899).
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Haereticarum fabularum compendio, ed. J. P.
Migne, Patrologia Graeca 83.
Till, W. C., Die gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis
8502 (TU 60, rev. ed. H.-M. Schenke) (Berlin: Akademie,
1972).
Volker, W., Quellen zur Geschichte der christlichen Gnosis (Sammlung
ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellen-
schriften, Neue Folge 5) (Tubingen, 1932).
Wilson, R. McL., The Gospel of Philip (London: Mowbray, 1962).
Zosimus of Panopolis, On the Letter Omega, ed. W. Scott and A. S.
Ferguson, Hermetica 4: Testimonia.

B Secondary literature

Aland, B. ed., GNOSIS: Festschrift fur Hans Jonas (Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978).
Arai, S., ‘Zur Christologie des Apokryphons des Johannes’, NTS
15 (1968/69), 302-18.
Bare, B. ed., Colloque international sur les textes de Nag Hammadi,
Quebec 22-25 aout 1978 (BCNH Section ‘Etudes’ 1) (Quebec:
Universite Laval/Louvain: Peeters, 1981).
Bare, B., ‘Samael-Saklas—Yaldabaoth: Recherche sur la genese
d’un mythe gnosdque’ in Colloque international sur les textes de
Nag Hammadi, ed. Bare, 123-50.
Beltz, W., ‘Bemerkungen zur Adamapokalypse aus Nag-Hammadi
Codex V’ in Studia Coptica, ed. Nagel 159-63.
Benko, S., ‘The Libertine Gnostic Sect of the Phibionites
according to Epiphanius’, VC 21 (1967), 103-19.
Bergmeier, R., Glaube als Gabe nach Johannes (BWANT 112)
(Stuttgart/Berlin/Koln/Mainz, 1980).
Bergmeier, R., ‘Koniglosigkeit als nachvalentinianisch Heils-
pradikat’, NovT 24 (1982), 316-39.
Bianchi, U. ed., Le origini dello gnosticismo: Colloquio de Messina 13-
18 Aprile 1966 (SHR/Supplements to Numen 12) (Leiden: Brill,
1967).
Black, M., ‘An Aramaic Etymology for Jaldabaoth?’ in The New
Testament and Gnosis, ed. Logan and Wedderburn, 69-72.
326 Bibliography

Black, M., The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London: Nelson, 1961).
Blackstone, W.J., ‘A Short Note on the “Apocryphon Johannis’’’,
VC 19 (1965), 163.
Bohlig, A., ‘Die Adamapokalypse aus Codex V von Nag Hammadi
als Zeugnis judisch-iranischen Gnosis’, OC 48 (1964), 44—9.
Bohlig, A., ‘Zum Antimimon Pneuma in den koptisch-gnostischen
Texten’ in Mysterion and Wahrheit 162—74.
Bohlig, A., ‘Die himmlische Welt nach dem Agypterevangeliurn
von Nag Hammadi’, Le Museon 80 (1967), 5-25.
Bohlig, A., ‘Der jiidische und judenchristliche Hintergrund in
gnostischen Texten von Nag Hammadi’ in Le origini dello
gnosticismo, ed. Bianchi, 109-40.
Bohlig, A., Mysterion und Wahrheit (AGSJU 6) (Leiden: Brill, 1968).
Bohlig, A., ‘Zum “Pluralismus” in den Schriften von Nag
Hammadi: die Behandlung des Adamas in den Drei Stelen
des Seth und in Agypterevangeliurn”, in Essays on the Nag
Hammadi Texts in Honour of Pahor Labib, ed. Krause (NHS 6)
(Leiden: Brill, 1975), 19-34.
Bohlig, A., Review of Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis, BO 24 (1967),
175-7.
Bohlig, A., ‘Triade und Trinitat in den Schriften von Nag
Hammadi’ in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism 2, ed. Layton,
617-34.
Bonner, C., ‘An Amulet of the Ophite Gnostics’ in Commemorative
Studies in Honor of Leslie Shear (Hesperia Supplement 8)
(Athens, 1949), 43-6.
Bonner, C., Studies in Magical Amulets (University of Michigan
Studies, Humanistic Series vol. 49) (Ann Arbor, 1950).
Borsch, F. H., The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man (SBT second
series 14) (London: SCM, 1970).
Bousset, W., Hauptprobleme der Gnosis (FRLANT 10) (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907).
Bradshaw, P., The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (London:
SPCK, 1992).
Broek, R. van den, ‘The Authentikos Logos: A New Document of
Christian Platonism’, VC 33 (1979), 260-86.
Broek, R. van den, ‘Autogenes and Adamas: The Mythological
Structure of the Apocryphon of John’ in Gnosis and Gnosticism,
ed. Krause (NHS 17), 16-25.
Broek, R. van den, ‘The Creation of Adam’s Psychic Body in the
Apocryphon of John in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic
Religions, ed. van den Broek and Vermaseren, 38-57.
 Bibliography 327

Broek, R. van den, ‘Jewish and Platonic Speculations in Early

Alexandrian Theology: Eugnostus, Philo, Valentinus and
Origen’ in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. Pearson and
Goehring, 190-203.
Broek, R. van den, ‘The Present State of Gnostic Studies’, VC 37
(1983), 41-71.
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 (EPRO 91) (Leiden: Brill, 1981).
Brox, N., ‘Gnostikoi als haresiologischer Terminus’, ZNW 57
(1966), 105-14.
Bultmann, R., DasEvangelium desJohannes (Gottingen, 1941,19622;
ET The Gospel of John, tr. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare,
J. K. Riches, Oxford: Blackwell, 1971).
Bultmann, R., Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting
(London: Collins, 1962).
Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols, tr. K. Grobel
(London: SCM, 1952-5).
Burkitt, F. C., Church and Gnosis (Cambridge, 1932).
Carroll, S. T., ‘The Apocalypse of Adam and Pre-Christian
Gnosticism’, VC 44 (1990), 263-79.
Casey, R. P., ‘Naassenes and Ophites’,JTS27 (1926), 374-87.
Casey, R. P., ‘The Study of Gnosticism\JTS 36 (1935), 45-60.
Colpe, C., ‘Heidnische, jiidische und christliche Uber-
lieferung in den Schriften aus Nag Hammadi II’ JbAC 16
(1973), 106-26; III 17 (1974), 109-25; IV 18 (1975), 144-65;
V 19 (1976), 120-38; VI 20 (1977), 149-70; 1X23 (1980), 1 OS-
27.
Colpe, C., ‘New Testament and Gnostic Christology’ in Religions
in Antiquity (Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough), ed.
J. Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 227-43.
Colpe, C., Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule: Darstellung und Kritik ihres
Bildes vomgnostischenErlosermythus (FRLANT 60) (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961).
Culianu, I. P., ‘Feminine versus Masculine. The Sophia Myth and
the Origins of Feminism: Struggles of the Gods’ in Papers of
the Groningen Work Group for the Study of the History of Religions,
ed. H. G. Kippenberg and H.J. W. Drijvers (Berlin/New York/
Amsterdam: Y. Kuiper, 1984), 65-98.
Culianu, I. P., ‘La femme celeste et son ombre: Contribution a
l’etude d’un mythologeme gnostique’, Numen 23 (1976), 191—
209.
328 Bibliography

Dahl, N. A., ‘The Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia: Jewish
Traditions in Gnostic Revolt’ in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism 2,
ed. Layton, 689-712.
Danielou,J., Theologiedujudeochristianisme(Tourna.\: Desclee, 1958;
ET The Theology of Jewish Christianity, tr. J. A. Baker, London:
Darton, Longman Sc Todd, 1964).
Davies, W. D., ‘Paul on Flesh and Spirit’ in The Scrolls and the New
Testament, ed. K. Stendahl (London: SCM, 1958), 157-82.
Dix, G., ‘Confirmation, or the Laying on of Hands?’ (Theology
Occasional Paper no. 5) (London: SPCK, 1936).
Doresse, J., ‘Les Apocalypses de Zoroastre, de Zostrien, de
Nicothee . . . (Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, 16)’ in Coptic Studies in
Honor of W. E. Cram (Boston, 1950), 255—63.
Doresse, J., ‘Nouveaux textes gnostiques copies decouverts en
Haut-Egypte: Labibliotheque de Chenoboskion’, VC3 (1949),
130-41.
Doresse, J., The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics (London: Hollis
and Carter, 1960).
Doresse, J., ‘Trois livres gnostiques inedits: Evangile des Egyptiens
- Epitre d’Eugnoste - Sagesse de Jesus Christ’, VC 2 (1948),
137-60.
Drijvers, H. J. W., ‘The Origins of Gnosticism as a Religious and
Historical Problem’, NedTTs 22 (1968), 321-51.
Edwards, M. J., ‘Gnostics and Valentinians in the Church Fathers’,
JTSn.s. 40 (1989), 26-47.
Edwards, M. J., ‘Neglected Texts in the Study of Gnosticism\JTS
n.s. 41 (1990), 26-50.
Eltester, W. ed., Christentum und Gnosis (BZNW 37) (Berlin:
Topelmann, 1969).
Fallon, F. T., The Enthronement of Sabaoth: Jewish Elements in Gnostic
Creation Myths (NHS 10) (Leiden: Brill, 1978).
Fallon, F. T., ‘The Gnostics: The Undominated Race’, NovT 21
(1979), 271-88.
Fauth, W., ‘Seth-Typhon, Onoel und der eselskopfige Sabaoth:
Zur Theriomorphie der ophitisch-barbelognostischen
Archonten’, OC57 (1973), 79-120.
Filoramo, G., A History of Gnosticism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990).
Fischer-Mueller, E. A., ‘Yaldabaoth: The Gnostic Female Principle
in its Fallenness’, NovT32 (1990), 79-95.
Foerster, W., ‘Das Apocryphon desjohannes’ in Gottund die Cotter:
Festgabe fur Erich Fas cherzum 60 Geburtstag (Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1958), 134-41.
 329

Foerster, W., ‘Das System des Basilides’, NTS9 (1962/3), 233-55.

Foerster, W., Von Valentin zu Heracleon (BZNW 7) (Giessen, 1928).
Frickel,J., ‘Naassener oder Valentinianer?’ in Gnosis and Gnosticism,
ed. Krause (NHS 17), 95-119.
Ginzberg, L., ‘Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern’, MGWJ(1899/
1900), 1-131.
Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews (7 vols, Philadelphia,
1909-38).
Giversen, S., ‘The Apocryphon ofjohn and Genesis’, ST17 (1963),
60-76.
Goehring, J. E., ‘A Classical Influence on the Gnostic Sophia
Myth’, VC35 (1981), 16-23.
Good, D. }., ‘Sophia in Valentinianism’, Second Century 4 (1984),
193-201.
Grant, R. M., ‘The Earliest Christian Gnosticism’, CH22 (1953),
88-90.
Grant, R. M., The Early Christian Doctrine of God (Charlottesville,
1966).
Grant, R. M., Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York: Harper
and Row, 19662).
Grant, R. M., Gnosticism, An Anthology (London: Collins, 1961).
Greer, R. A., ‘The dog and the mushrooms: Irenaeus’ view of the
Valentinians reassessed’ in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism 1, ed.
Layton, 146-71.
Haardt, R., ‘Das universaleschatologische Vorstellungsgut in der
Gnosis’ in Vom Messias zum Christos: Die Fulle der Zeit in
religionsgeschichtlicher und theologischer Sicht, ed. K. Schubert
(Vienna, 1964), 315-36.
Haenchen, E., ‘Aufbau und Theologie des Poimandres’, ZTK53
(1956), 170-91.
Haenchen, E., ‘Gab es eine vorchristliche Gnosis?’, ZTK49 (1952),
316-49.
Harnack, A von, Lehrbuch derDogmengeschichte 1 (Freiburg/Leipzig,
18943; ET History of Dogma, tr. N. Buchanan, London: Williams
and Norgate, 1905).
Hauschild, W.-D., Gottes Geist und der Mensch (Munich: Kaiser,
1972).
Hedrick, C.W., ‘The Apocalypse of Adam: A Literary and Source
Analysis’ in SBL 1972 Proceedings vol. 2, ed. L. C. McGaughy
(Los Angeles: SBL, 1972), 581-90.
Hedrick, C. W., ‘Christian Motifs in the Gospel of the Egyptians-,
Method and Motive’, NovT23 (1981), 242-60.
330 Bibliography

Hedrick, C. W. and Hodgson, R. eds, Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism

and Early Christianity (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986).
Helmbold, A. K., ‘The Apocrvphon of ]ohn’,JNES25 (1966), 259-
72.
Helmbold, A. K., ‘The Apocryphon of John: A Case Study in Literary
Criticism’,JETS 13 (1970), 173-9.
Hilgenfeld, A., Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums (Leipzig: Fues,
1884).
Hyatt, J. P. ed., The Bible in Modem Scholarship (Nashville: Abingdon,
1965).
Jackson, H. M., ‘Geradamas, the Celestial Stranger’, A5HS27 (1980/
1), 385-94.
Jackson, H. M., ‘The Origin in Ancient Incantatory Voces Magicae
of Some of the Names in the Sethian Gnostic System’, VC 43
(1989), 69-79.
Janssens, Y., ‘Le theme de la fornication des anges’ in Le origini
dello gnosticismo, ed. Bianchi, 488-94.
Jervell, J., Imago Dei: Gen. 1:26 in Spatjudentum, in der Gnosis mid in
den paulinischen Briefen (FRLANT 76) (Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1960).
Jonas, H., Gnosis und spatantiker Geist I &f II (FRLANT 159)
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1993).
JoJias, H., The Gnostic Religion (rev. ed., Boston: Beacon, 1963;
19703).
Jonas, H., ‘The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics’, JR 42
(1962), 262-73.
Kasser, R., ‘Citations des grands prophetes bibliques dans les textes
gnostiques copies’ in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour
of Pahor Labib (NHS 6), ed. M. Krause (Leiden: Brill, 1975),
59-66.
Kasser, R., ‘Le “livre secret de Jean” dans ses differentes formes
textuelles coptes’, Le Museon 77 (1964), 5-16.
Kasser, R., ‘Textes gnostiques: Remarques a propos des Editions
recentes du livre secret de Jean et des Apocalypses de Paul,
Jacques et Adam’, Le Museon 78 (1965), 91-8.
Kellv, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (5th ed., London: A Sc C
Black, 1977).
King, K. L. ed., Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism (SAC 4)
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
King, K. L., ‘Sophia and Christ in the Apocryphon of John in Images
of the Feminine in Gnosticism, ed. King, 158-76.
 Bibliography 331

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

(Supplements to NovT 46) (Leiden: Brill, 1977).
Kragerud, A., ‘Apocryphon Johannis: En formanalyse’, NorTT66
(1965), 15-38.
Krause, M. ed., Gnosis and Gnosticism (NHS 8) (Leiden: Brill, 1977).
Krause, M. ed., Gnosis and Gnosticism (NHS 17) (Leiden: Brill,
1981).
Krause, M., ‘Das literarische Verhaltnis des Eugnostosbriefes zur
Sophia Jesu Christi: zur Auseinandersetzung der Gnosis mit
dem Christentum’ in Mullus: Festschrift Theodor Klauser (JbAC
Erganzungsband 1) (Munster: Aschendorff, 1964), 215-23.
Krause,. M., ‘Der Stand der Veroffentlichung der Nag Hammadi-
Texte’ in Le origini dello gnosticismo, ed. Bianchi, 61-89.
Lampe, G. W. H., The Seal of the Spirit (London: SPCK, 19672).
Layton, B., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the
International Conference at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut March
28-31, 1978 vol. 1, The School of Valentinus-, vol. 2, Sethian
Gnosticism (SHR41) (Leiden: Brill, 1980-1).
Leeper, E. A., ‘From Alexandria to Rome: The Valentinian
Connection to the Incorporation of Exorcism as a Pre-
baptismal Rite’, VC 44 (1990), 6-24.
Leipoldt, J. and Gressmann, W. eds, Umwelt des Urchristentums I
(Berlin, 19713).
Lipsius, R. A., Der Gnosticismus, sein Wesen, Ursprung und
Entwickelungsgang (Leipzig, 1860).
Lipsius, R. A., Die Quellen der aeltesten Ketzergeschichte neu untersucht
(Leipzig, 1875).
Lipsius, R. A., Zur Quellenkritik desEpiphanios (Leipzig, 1865).
Logan, A. H. B., ‘The Epistle of Eugnostos and Valentinianism’
in Gnosis and Gnosticism, ed. Krause (NHS 17), 66—75.
Logan, A. H. B., ‘The Jealousy of God: Exod 20:5 in Gnostic and
Rabbinic Theology’ in Studia Biblica 1978, 1: Papers on Old
Testament and Related Themes (/SOTSupplement Series 11)
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1979), 197-203.
Logan, A. H. B., ‘John and the Gnostics: The Significance of the
Apocryphon John for the Debate about the Origins of the
Johannine Literature’, JSNT43 (1991), 41-69.
Logan, A. 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).
Longenecker, R. M. and Tenney, M. C. eds, New Dimensions in
New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).
332 Bibliography

MacRae, G. W., ‘The Apocalypse of Adam Reconsidered’ in SBL

1972 Proceedings: Seminar Papers (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars
Press, 1972), 573-7.
MacRae, G. W., ‘Apocalyptic Eschatology in Gnosticism’ in
Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East:
Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism,
Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979, ed. D. Hellholm (Tubingen:
J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1983), 317-25.
MacRae, G. W., ‘The Coptic Gnostic Apocalypse of Adam’, The
Heythrop journal 6 (1965), 27-35.
MacRae, G. W., ‘Discourses of the Gnostic Revealer’ in Proceedings
of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism, Stockholm, August
20-2.5 1973, ed. G. Widengren (Stockholm: Almqvist and
Wiksell/Leiden: Brill, 1977), 111-24.
MacRae, G. W., ‘The Ego Proclamation in Gnostic Sources’ in
The Trial of fesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule,
ed. E. Bammel (SBT second series 13) (London: SCM, 1970),
129-34.
MacRae, G. W., ‘The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia
Myth’, NovT 12 (1970), 86-101.
MacRae, G. W., ‘Seth in Gnostic Texts and Traditions’ in SBL 1977
Seminar Papers, ed. P. J. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars
Press, 1977), 17-24/
MacRae, G. W., ‘Sleep and Awakening in Gnostic Texts’ in Le
origini dello gnosticismo, ed. Bianchi, 496-507.
McGuire, A., ‘Virginity and Subversion: Norea Against the Powers
in the Hypostasis of the Archons' in Images of the Feminine in
Gnosticism, ed. King, 239-58.
Markschies, C., Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur
valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten
Valentins (WUNT 65) (Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1992).
Menard, J. E. ed., Les textes de Nag Hammadi. Colloque du Centre
d’Histoire des Religions, Strasburg, 23-25 octobre 1974 (NHS 7)
(Leiden: Brill, 1975).
Meyer, M. W., ‘A Response to Prouneikos’ in Images of the Feminine
in Gnosticism, ed. King, 67-70.
Mina, T., ‘Le papyrus gnostique du Musee Copte’, VC 2 (1948),
129-36.
Mitchell, L. L., Baptismal Anointing (Alcuin Club Collections no.
48) (London: SPCK, 1966).
Morard, F., ‘L’Apocalypse d’Adam du Codex V de Nag Hammadi
et sa polemique anti-baptismale’, RevScRelol (1977), 214-33.
 Bibliography 333

Nagel, P. ed., Studia Coptica (BBA 45) (Berlin: Akademie, 1974).

Nilsson, M. P., ‘Sophia-Prunikos’, Eranos (APS) 45 (1947), 169-
72.
Orbe, A., Hacia la Primera Theologia de la Procesion del Verbo:
Estudianos Valentinianos 1 (AG 99) (Rome, 1958).
Orbe, A., ‘Sophia Soror’ in Melanges d’histoire des religions offerts a
H.-Ch. Puech (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1974),
355-63.
Orbe, A., La Uncion del Verbo: Estudianos Valentinianos 3 (AG 113)
(Rome, 1961).
Pagels, E., ‘Conflicting Versions of Valentinian Eschatology:
Irenaeus’ Treatises vs. the Excerpts from Theodotus’, HTR67
(1974), 35-53.
Pagels, E., ‘The Valentinian Claim to Esoteric Exegesis of
Romans as Basis for Anthropological Theory’, VC 26 (1972),
241-58.
Parrott, D. M., ‘The Thirteen Kingdoms of the Apocalypse of
Adam: Origin, Meaning and Significance’, NovT 31 (1989),
67-87.
Pasquier, A., ‘Prouneikos. A Colorful Expression to Designate
Wisdom in Gnostic Texts’ in Images of theFeminine in Gnosticism,
ed. King, 47-66.
Pearson, B. A., ‘Egyptian Seth and Gnostic Seth’ in SBL 1977
Seminar Papers, ed. Achtemeier, 25-43.
Pearson, B. A., ‘The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature’ in
Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity, ed. Pearson, 52-
83.
Pearson, B. A., ‘Gnosticism as Platonism’ in Gnosticism, Judaism,
and Egyptian Christianity, ed. Pearson, 148—64.
Pearson, B. A., Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity (SAC
5) (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990).
Pearson, B. A., ‘Jewish Haggadic Traditions in the Testimony of
Truth from Nag Hammadi’ in Ex Orbe Religionum 1 (SHR 21)
(Leiden: Brill, 1972), 457-70.
Pearson, B. A., ‘Revisiting Norea’ in Images of the Feminine in
Gnosticism, ed. King, 265-75.
Pearson, B.A., ‘“She Became a Tree” - A Note to CG 11,4:89, 25-
6’, HTR69 (1976), 413-15.
Pearson, B. A., ‘The Tractate Marsanes (NHC X) and the Platonic
Tradition’ in GNOSIS, ed. Aland, 373—84.
Pearson, B. A. and Goehring, J. E. eds, The Roots of Egyptian
Christianity (SAC 1) (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
334 Bibliography

Peel, M. L., ‘Gnostic Eschatology and the New Testament’, NovT

12 (1970), 141-65.
Perkins, P., ‘Apocalypse of Adam: Genre and Function of a Gnostic
Apocalypse’, CBQ39 (1977), 382-95.
Perkins, P., ‘Apocalyptic Schemadzation in the Apocalypse of
Adam and the Gospel of the Egyptians’ in SBL 1972 Proceedings:
Seminar Papers vol. 2 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1972),
591-5.
Perkins, P., ‘Gnostic Christologies and the New Testament’, CBQ
43 (1981), 590-606.
Perkins, P., Gnosticism and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993).
Perkins, P., ‘Ireneus and the Gnostics’, VC30 (1976), 193-200.
Perkins, P., ‘Logos Christologies in the Nag Hammadi Codices’,
VC 35 (1981), 379-96.
Perkins, P., ‘On the Origin of the World (CG 11,5): A Gnostic
Physics’, VC34 (1980), 36-46.
Perkins, P., ‘Sophia as Goddess in the Nag Hammadi Codices’ in
Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, ed. King, 96-112.
Peterson, E., ‘Einige Bemerkungen zum Hamburger Papyrus-
fragment der Acta Pauli’, VC3 (1949), 149-59.
Petrement, S., Le Dieu separe: les origines du gnosticisme (Paris:
Editions du Cerf, 1984; ET A Separate God, tr. C. Flarrison,
London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1991).
Petrement, S., Le dualisme chez Platon, les gnostiques et les manicheens
(Paris, 1947).
Petrement, S., ‘Les quatre illuminateurs. Sur le sens de l’origine
d’un theme gnosdque’, REA 27 (1981), 3-23.
Poirier, P.-H. and Tardieu, M., ‘Categories du temps dans les
ecrits gnostiques non-valentiniens’, LTP37 (1981), 3—13.
Pokorny, P., ‘Epheserbrief und gnostische Mysterien’, ZNW 53
(1962), 160-94.
Prigent, V., Justin et TAncien Testament (Paris: Gabalda, 1964).
Puech, H.-C., En quete de la gnose 1: La gnose et le temps (Paris:
Gallimard, 1978).
Puech, H.-C., ‘Fragments retrouvees de l’Apocalypse d’Allogene’
in Melanges Franz Cumont 2 (Brussels, 1936), 938-62 (= En quete
7 271-300).
Puech, H.-C., ‘Les nouveaux ecrits gnostiques decouverts en Haut-
Egypte’ in Coptic Studies in Honor of W. E. Crum (Bulledn of the
Byzantine Institute 2) (Boston, 1950), 91-134.
 Bibliography 335

Quispel, G., ‘La conception de l’homme dans la gnose

valentinienne’, Eranos Jahrbuch 15 (1947), 249-86 (= Gnostic
Studies 1 37-57).
Quispel, G., ‘L’inscription de Flavia Sophe’ in Melanges Joseph
Ghellinck, SJ. (Museum Lessianum-Section Historique 13),
201-14 (= Gnostic Studies 1 58-69).
Quispel, G., ‘The Demiurge in the Apocryphon of John’ in Nag
Hammadi and Gnosis, ed. R. McL. Wilson (NHS 14) (Leiden:
Brill, 1978), 1-33.
Quispel, G., ‘Ezekiel 1:26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis’, VC34
(1980), 1-13.
Quispel, G., Gnosis als Weltreligion (Zurich, 19722).
Quispel, G., Gnostic Studies, 2 vols (Istanbul, 1974-5).
Quispel, G., ‘Der gnostische Anthropos und die jiidische
Tradition’, Eranos Jahrbuch 22 (1953) (Zurich, 1954), 195-234
( = Gnostic Studies 1 173-95).
Quispel, G., ‘Origen and the Valentinian Gnosis’, VC 28 (1974),
29-42.
Quispel, G., ‘The Original Doctrine of Valentine’, VC 1 (1947),
43-73.
Reitzenstein, R., Das iranischeErlosungsmysterium (Bonn, 1921).
Reitzenstein, R., Poimandres (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904).
Robinson, J. M. ‘The Coptic Gnostic Library Today’, NTS 14
(1967/8), 365-401.
Robinson, J. M., ‘The discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices’,
BA 42 (1979), 206-24.
Robinson. J. M., ‘From Cliff to Cairo’ in Colloque international sur
les textes de Nag Hammadi, ed. Bare, 21-58.
Robinson, J. M., ‘The Three Steles of Seth and the Gnostics of
Plotinus’ in Proceedings of the International Colloquium on
Gnosticism, ed.Widengren, 132-42.
Robinson, J. M. and Koester, H., Trajectories through Early Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971).
Rudolph, K., ‘Gnosis und Gnostizismus, eine Forschungsbericht’,
TRu 34 (1969), 121-75; 181-231; 358-61; 36 (1971), 1-61.
Rudolph, K., Die Gnosis: Wesen und Geschichte einerspatantikeReligion
(Leipzig: Koehler and Amelang, 1977; ET Gnosis, tr. R. McL.
Wilson et al., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1984).
Rudolph, K., ‘Der gnostische ‘Dialog’ als literarisches Genus’ in
Probleme der koptischen Literatur, ed. P. Nagel (Wissenschaftliche
Beitrage der Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg 1)
(Halle, 1968), 85-107.
336 Bibliography

Rudolph, K., ‘Ein Grundtyp gnosdscher Urmensch Spekulation’,

ZRGG9 (1957), 1-20.
Sagnard, F.-M.-M., La gnose valentinienne et le temoignage de S. Irenee
(Paris, 1947).
Schenke, H.-M., Der Gott ‘Mensch’ in der Gnosis: Ein religions-
geschichtlicher BeitragzurDiskussion iiber diepaulinische Anschauung
von der Kirche als Leib Christi (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1962).
Schenke, H.-M., ‘Nag-Hamadi-Studien I: Das literarische Problem
des Apokryphon Johannis’, ZRGG 14 (1962), 57-63;
‘Nag-Hamadi-Studien II: Das System der Sophia Jesu
Christi’, ib., 263-78; ‘Nag-Hamadi-Studien III: Die Spitze
des dem Apokryphon Johannis und der Sophia Jesu
Christi zugrundeliegenden gnostischen Systems’, ib., 352-
61.
Schenke, H.-M., ‘Die neutestamentliche Christologie und der
gnostische Erloser’ in Gnosis und Neues Testament, ed. Troger,
205-25.
Schenke, H.-M., ‘Das sethianische System nach Nag-Hammadi
Schriften’ in Studia Coptica, ed. Nagel, 165-73.
Schenke, H.-M., ‘The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic
Sethianism’ in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism 2, ed. Layton, 588-
616.
Schmidt, C., ‘Irenaus und seine Quelle in adv. haer. I 29’
in Philotesia. Paul Kleinert turn 70 Geburtstag dargebracht,
ed. A. Harnack et al. (Berlin: Trowzisch, 1907), 317-36.
Schmidt, C., Plotins Stellung zum Gnostizismus und kirchlichen
Christentum (TU 20) (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901).
Schmidt, C., ‘Ein vorirenaisches gnostisches Originalwerk in
koptischen Sprache’, Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1896), 839-47.
Schmithals, W., Gnosticism in Corinth, tr. J. E. Steely (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1971).
Scholem, G., ‘Jaldabaoth Reconsidered’ in Melanges d’histoire des
religions offerts a H.-Ch. Puech, ed. A. Guillaumont and E.-M.
Laperrousaz (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1974),
405-21.
Scholem, G., ‘Die Vorstellung von Golem in ihrem tellurischen
und magischen Beziehungen’, Eranos Jahrbuch 22 (1953)
(Zurich, 1954), 237-43.
Scholer, D. M., Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1948-1969 (NHS 1)
(Leiden: Brill, 1971).
 Bibliography 337

Scholten, C., Martyrium und Sophiamythos im Gnostizismus nach den

Texten von NagHammadi (TbAC Erganzungsband 14) (Munster:
Aschendorff, 1987).
Schottroff, L., ‘Animae naturaliter salvandae: zum Problem der
himmlischen Herkunft des Gnostikers’ in Christentum und
Gnosis, ed. Eltester, 65-97.
Schottroff, L., Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt (WMANT 37)
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1970).
Schottroff, L., ‘Heil als innerweltliche Entweltlichung: Der
gnostische Hintergrund der johanneischen Vorstellung vom
Zeitpunkt der Erlosung’, NovTW (1969), 294—317.
Schweizer, E., ‘Gegenwart des Geistes und eschatologische
Hoffnung bei Zarathustra, spatjudischen Gruppen, Gnostikern
und den Zeugen des neuen Testaments’ in The Background to
the New Testament and its Eschatology (Studies in honour of
C. H. Dodd) (Cambridge, 1956), 482-508.
Scopello, M., ‘The Apocalypse of Zostrianos (NH VIII, 1) and the
Book of the Secrets of Enoch’ VC 34 (1980), 376-85.
Scopello, M., ‘Le mythe de la chute de anges dans l’Apocryphon
de jean (II,1) de Nag Hammadi’, RevScRel54 (1980), 220-30.
Scopello, M., ‘Youel et Barbelo dans le traite de VAllogene in
Colloque international sur les textes de Nag Hammadi, ed. Bare,
374-82.
Segal, A. F., Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about
Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25) (Leiden: Brill, 1978).
Segelberg, E. ‘The Baptismal Rite according to Some of the
Coptic-Gnostic Texts of Nag Hammadi’ in Studia Patristica 5,
ed. F. L. Cross (Berlin: Akademie, 1962), 117-28.
Sevrin, J.-M., Le dossier baptismal Sethien: Etudes sur la sacramentaire
gnostique (BCNH Section ‘Etudes’ 2) (Quebec: Universite
Laval, 1986).
Shellrude, G. M., ‘The Apocalypse of Adam: Evidence for a
Christian Gnostic Provenance’ in Gnosis and Gnosticism, ed.
Krause (NHS17), 82-91.
Sieber, J. H., ‘An Introduction to the Tractate Zostrianos from
Nag Hammadi’, NovT 15 (1973), 235-40.
Smith, M., ‘The History of the term Gnostikos’ in The Rediscovery
of Gnosticism 2, ed. Layton, 796-807.
Stead, G. C., ‘The Valentinian Myth of Sophia’, JTSn.s. 20 (1969),
75-104.
Stroumsa, G. A. G., Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (NHS
24) (Leiden: Brill, 1984).
338 Bibliography

Stroumsa, G. A. G., ‘Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron

and Christ’, HTR76 (1983), 269-88.
Stroumsa, G. A. G., ‘Polymorphic divine et transformation d’un
mythologeme: VApocryphon deJeanetses sources’, VC35 (1981),
412-34.
Tardieu, M., ‘Les livres mis sous le nom de Seth et les Sethiens de
l’heresiologie’ in Gnosis and Gnosticism, ed. Krause (NHS 8),
204-10.
Tardieu, M., ''Psychaios spinther. Histoire d’une metaphore dans la
tradition platoniciennejusqu’a Eckhart’, REA 21 (1975), 225-
55.
Tardieu, M., Trots mythes gnostiques: Adam, Eros et les animaux d ’Egypte
dans un ecrit de Nag Hammadi (11,5) (Paris: Etudes
Augustiniennes, 1974).
Tardieu, M., ‘Les trois steles de Seth: un ecrit gnostique retrouve
a Nag Hammadi’, RSPT57 (1973), 545-75.
Tardieu, M. and Dubois, J.-D., Introduction a la litterature Gnostique
1 (Paris: Editions du Cerf/Editions du CNRS, 1986).
Thornton, L. S., Confirmation: its place in the baptismal mystery
(London: Dacre, 1954).
Till, W. C„ ‘Die Gnosis in Agypten’, PP12 (1949), 233-8.
Till, W. C., ‘The Gnostic Apocryphon of'John’, JEH3 (1952), 14—
22.
Tripp, D. H., ‘The Sacramental System of the Gospel of Philip’ in
Studia Patristica 17/1, ed. E. A. Livingstone (Oxford:
Pergamon, 1982), 251-60.
Troger, K.-W. ed., Altes Testament — Friihjudentum — Gnosis: Neue
Studien zu ‘Gnosis und BibeT (Berlin: Evangelische Verlags-
anstalt, 1980).
Troger, K.-W. ed., Gnosis und Neues Testament: Studien aus
Religionswissenschaft und Theologie (Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1973).
Turner, J. D., ‘The Gnostic Threefold Path to Enlightenment: The
Ascent of Mind and the Descent of Wisdom’, NovT22 (1980),
324-51.
Turner, J. D., ‘Sethian Cmosticism: A Literary History’ in Nag
Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, ed. Hedrick and
Hodgson, 55-86.
Unnik, W. C. van, ‘Die “geoffneten Himmel” in der Offen-
barungsvision des Apokryphons des Johannes’ in Apophoreta:
Festschrift Ernst Haenchen (BZNW 30) (Berlin: Topelmann,
1964), 269-80.
 Bibliography 339

Unnik, W. C. van, ‘Gnosis und Judentum’ in GNOSIS, ed. Aland,

65-86.
Unnik, W. C. van, ‘Die Gotteslehre bei Aristides und in gnostischen
Schriften’, TZ17 (1961), 166-74.
Unnik, W. C. van, ‘Der Neid in der Paradiesgeschichte nach
einigen gnostischen Texten’ in Essays on the NagHammadi Texts
in Honour of Alexander Bohlig, ed. M. Krause (NHS 3) (Leiden:
Brill, 1972), 120-32.
Unnik, W. C. van, Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings (SBT 30)
(London: SCM, 1960).
Vielhauer, P., lANAPAUSIS: zum gnostischen Hintergrund des
Thomasevangeliums’ in Apophoreta: Festschrift Ernst Haenchen
(BZNW 30) (Berlin: Topelmann, 1964), 281-99.
Wedderburn, A. J. M., ‘Philo’s Heavenly Man’, NovT 15 (1973),
301-26.
Welburn, A. J., ‘The Identity of the Archons in the “Apocryphon
Johannis’”, VC 32 (1978), 241-54.
Welburn, A. J., ‘Reconstructing the Ophite Diagram’, NovT 23
(1981), 261-87.
Werner A., ‘Bemerkungen zu einer Synopse der vier Versionen
des Apokryphon des Johannes’ in Studia Coptica, ed. Nagel,
137-46.
Whittaker, J., ‘Self-Generating Principles in Second Century
Gnostic Systems’ in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism 1, ed. Layton,
176-89.
Widengren, G. ed., Proceedings of the International Colloquium on
Gnosticism, Stockholm, August 20-25, 1973 (Stockholm: Almqvist
8c Wiksell, 1977).
Williams, M. A., The Immovable Race: A Gnostic Designation and the
Theme of Stability in Late Antiquity (NHS 29) (Leiden: Brill,
1985).
Williams, M. A., ‘Stability as a Soteriological Theme in Gnosticism’
in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism 2, ed. Layton, 819—29.
Wilson, R. McL., ‘The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen. 1:26’
in Studia Patristica 1, ed. K. Aland and F. L. Cross (TU 63)
(Berlin: Akademie, 1957), 420-37.
Wilson, R. McL., Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford, 1968).
Wilson, R. McL., The Gnostic Problem (London: Mowbray,
1958).
Wilson, R. McL., ‘The Spirit in Gnostic Literature’ in Christ and
the Spirit in the New Testament, ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley
(Cambridge, 1973), 345-55.
340 Bibliography

Wilson, R. McL., ‘The Trials of a Translator: Some Translation

Problems in the Nag Hammadi Texts’ in Les textes de Nag;
Hammadi, ed. Menard (NHS 7) (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 32-40"
Wilson, R. McL., ‘The Trimorphic Protennoia in Gnosis and
Gnosticism, ed. Krause (NHS 8), 50-4.
Wilson, R. McL., ‘Twenty Years After’ in Colloque international sur
les textes de Nag Hammadi, ed. Bare, 59-67.
Wintermute, ()., ‘A Study of Gnostic Exegesis of the Old
Testament’ in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other
Essays. Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, ed. }. M.
Efird (Durham: Duke University Press, 1972), 241-70.
Wisse, F., ‘The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists’, VC
25 (1971), 205-23.
Wisse, F., ‘The Redeemer Figure in the Paraphrase of Shem’, NovT
12 (1970), 130-40.
Wisse, F., ‘The Sethians and the Nag Hammadi Library’, in SBL
1972 Proceedings: Seminar Papers (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars
Press, 1972), 601-7.
Wisse, F., ‘Stalking Those Elusive Sethians’ in The Rediscovery of
Gnosticism 2, ed. Layton, 563-76.
Yamauchi, E. M., ‘Jewish Gnosticism? The Prologue of John,
Mandaean Parallels, and the Trimorphic Protennoia’ in Studies
in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, ed. van den Broek and
Vermaseren, 467-97.
Yamauchi, F. M., Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed
Evidence (London: Tyndale Press, 1973).
Yamauchi, E. M., ‘Pre-Christian Gnosticism in the Nag Hammadi
Texts’, CH48 (1979), 129-41.
Yamauchi, E. M., ‘Some Alleged Evidences for Pre-Christian
Gnosticism’ in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed.
Longenecker and Tenney, 46-70.
Zaehner, R. C. Zuruan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford, 1955).
Zandee, }., ‘Gnostic Ideas on the Fall and Salvation’ Numen 11
(1964), 13-74.
Zandee, J., ‘Gnostische Eschatologie’ in XInternationaler Kongress
fur Religionsgeschichte 11—17 September 1960 in Marburg (Marburg,
1961), 94-5.
 Index of Names

Modem Authors

Adam, A. 126, 196n Burkitt, F. C. 99, 153n

Aland, B. 69n Carroll, S. T. 65n
Aland, K. 206n Casey, R. P. 4, 24n, 202n
Arai, S. 84, 109n, 157n, 214, 244n, 275, Chadwick, H. 124
276, 296n, 298n Charles, R. H. 292n
Bammel, E. 296n Colpe, C. 20, 100, 197n, 212, 241n,
Bare, B. xxi, 23n, 63n, 99n, 153n, 158n 279
Baur, F. C. 250 Cross, F. L. 206n
Baynes, C. 86, llOn, 115n Culianu, I. 59n, 279, 299n
Beausobre, I. de 99, 100 Dahl, N. A. 59n
Beltz, W. 48, 65n Danielou.J. xvi, xxii, 61n
Bergmeier, R. 17, 26n, 48-9, 64n, 67n, Davies, W. D. 286n
20 In Dindorf, G. 26n, 65n
Bezold, C. 197n, 246n Doresse, J. xxi, 51, 68n, 157n, 158n,
Bianchi, U. xxiv, 62n 163n, 274
Black, M. 127, 153n, 317n Doutreleau, L.-J. xxi, 23n, 24n
Blackstone, W. J. 103n and Rousseau, A. 23n, 24n, 163n,
Bohlig, A. 57n, 61n, 97, 98, 102, 116n, 197n
162n, 248n, 260, 284n, 286n, 291n, Drijvers, H. J. W. 59n, 299n
293n Dubois, J.-D. 24n, 25n
and Labib, P. 63n, 65n, 108n, 153n Dumraer, J. xxi
and Wisse, F. 67n, 113n, 155n, 157n, Edwards, M.J. 6, 25n, 51, 60n, 64n, 67n,
161n,201n,203n 68n,163n,201n,290n
Borsch, F. H. 175, 202n Eltester, W. 61n, 65n
Bousset, W. xvi, 4, 99, 126, 170, 171, Ferguson, A. S. 57n
197n,241n,295n and Scott, W. 196n, 204n, 246n, 249n,
Bradshaw, P. 59n 286n,290n
Broek, van den, R. xxiii, 88, 89, 90, 94, Fallon, F. T. 63n, 64n
105n,11 In,314n Filoramo, G. xxiv, 213, 241n, 301, 303,
Brox, N. 4, 5 315n
Buchanan, N. xxi Foerster, W. xxiii, 23n, 25n, 26n, 60n,
Bullard, R. A. 63n, 124, 152n, 158n, 194, 147n,163n,196n,197n, 211, 212,
207n,210n, 233, 251n, 254n, 303, 315n,316n
255n Frickel,J. 201n
Bultmann, R. 172, 199n, 212, 241n, 302, Gibson, M. D. 197n
303,315n Ginzberg, L. 197n,210n,254n,292n

341
342 Index

Giversen, S. 25n, 72, 79, 81, 86, 88, 90, Krause, M. xvi, 16, 23n, 25n, 61n, 72, 74,
92, 99, 102n, 105n, 106n, 107n, 102,103n,104n,105n,106n,108n,
110n-115n passim, 130, 131, 135, llln, 144, 163n, 165n, 201n, 208n,
141, 144, 146, 148n, 153n, 154n, 246n, 25In, 290n,291n
155n, 156n, 158n, 159n, 161n, 162n, Kroymann,A. xxi
164n, 165n, 205n, 208n, 244n, 247n, Labib, P. 252n
252n, 253n, 255n, 256n, 259, 261, and Bohlig, A. 63n, 65n, 108n, 153n
274, 285n, 288n, 289n, 290n, 293n Lampe, G. W. H. 27n, 38-9, 50, 67n,
Goedicke, H. 65n 109n,280
Goehring, J. E. 105n, 147n, 153n, 198n Layton, B. xviii, xxii, xxiii, 23n, 24n,
Good, D. 147n 57n,59n,62n,63n,69n,76, llln,
Grant, R. M. xvi, xxii, 62n, 105n, 127, 115n,199n
153n Leeper, E. A. 67n, 287n
Greer, R. A. 2, 23n, 75, 104n Leisegang, H. 98n
Haardt, R. 303, 315n Longenecker, R. N. xxiii
Harnack, A. von xiii, 26n Lewy, H. 98n
Martel, L. 246n Liddell, H. G.
Harvey, W. W. xxi, 91, 98, 113n, 126, and Scott, R. 150n
148n,153n, 200n, 250n Lindars, B. 286n
Hauschild, W.-D. 250n, 285n, 286n Lipsius, R. A. 3, 4, 7, 24n
Hedrick, C. W. xxiii, 47, 48, 58n, 68n, and Bonnet, 158n
148n,296n Livingstone, E. A. 58n
Hellholm, D. 314n Logan, A. H. B. 51, 57n, 60n, 64n, 105n,
Hembold, A. 71, 102, 103n, 155n 108n, 153n, 164n, 199n
Henrichs, A. MacDerrnot, V. xxii
and Koenen, L. 61 n and Schmidt, C. 57n, 60n, 62n, 103n,
Hennecke, E., Schneemelcher, W. and 107n, 114n, 115n, 152n, 159n,
Wilson, R. McL. 162n, 295n, 317n 205n,248n,254n,284n, 285n,
Hilgenfeld, A. xxi, 4, 62n 286n,288n,290n, 291n, 293n,
Hodgson, R. xxiii 316n,317n
Hyatt, J. P. xxiii MacRae, G. W. xvi, xxii, 32, 59n, 61 n,
Jackson, H. M. 99, 100, 101, 102, 114n, 65n,127, 147n,148n,240n,252n,
159n 267, 274, 275, 279, 280, 296n, 299n,
Janssens, Y. 77, 86, 95, 96, 105n, 107n, 314n,315n
108n, 1 lOn,llln,114n,115n,122, Malan, S. C. 197n
154n,161n,176, 197n, 200n, 204n, Markschies, C. 63n, 245n
217,233, 236, 245n, 247n, 248n, Matter, J. 98, 100, 126
249n,25In,252n, 253n,254n, Menard, J. 202n
257n,271, 280, 285n, 286n, 288n, Meyer, M. W. 150n, 151n
292n,296n,299n Moore, G. F. 199n
Jervell, J. 171, 206n Morard, F. 67n
Jonas, H. xvi, xix, 172, 184, 185, 190, Nagel, P. xxii, 23n, 63n, 65n, 103n
198n, 205n, 233, 274, 302, 303, Nilsson, M. P. 124
314n,315n Neusner,J. 241n
Kasser, R. 247n, 25In Orbe, A. 58n, 83, 109n, 147n
King, K. L. 25n, 58n, 64n, 252n, 253n, Pagels, E. 199n, 212
254n,255n,296n Parrott, D. M. 105n
Kippenberg, H. E. 299n Pasquier, A. 150n, 151n
Klijn, A. F. J. 16, 17, 18, 25n, 26n, 36 Pearson, B. A. xvi, xviii, xxiii, 34, 60n,
Koester, H. 65n 61n, 64n,68n,69n,98, 105n, 116n,
Kragerud, A. 25n 198n,246n,293n
 Index 343
Peel, M. L. 301, 302, 303, 311, 314n, Schneemelcher, W., 106n
315n Hennecke, E. and Wilson, R.
Perkins, P. xxiii, xxiv, 23n, 24n, 25n, 45, McL. 162n,295n, 317n
47, 48, 57n, 59n, 64n,65n, 116n, Scholem, G. 126, 127
149n,198n,293n Scholer, D. M. xxii
Peterson, E. 318n Scholten, C. 104n, 118, 119, 122, 147n,
Petrement, S. xvii, xix, xx, xxiv, 3, 4-22, 149n,150n, 151n, 152n,180
23n, 26n, 27n, 31-3, 37, 41, 59n, Schottroff, L. 48, 61n, 72, 143, 144,
60n,62n,64n,65n,67n,68n,72, 150n,164n,170, 172, 198n,199n,
86, 87, 94, 99, 100, 101, 114n, 124, 207n,212, 213, 241n, 245n, 256n,
126,127, 147n, 150n, 151n, 156n, 274, 302, 303, 304, 306, 309, 311,
169, 172, 177, 201n, 207n, 221, 315n
314n Schweizer, E. 301, 314n
Pokorny, P. 295n Scopello, M. 98n, lOOn
Poirier, P.-H. 20, 38, 100, 101 Scott, W. 57n, 150n
and Tardieu, M. 57n and Ferguson, A. S. 196n, 204n,
Preuschen, E. 126 246n, 249n, 286n,290n
Prigent, P. xxi Sevrin,J.-M. xvii, xviii, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21,
Puech, H.-C. 51, 68n, 140, 161n, 162n, 23n, 31, 35, 37, 38, 47-8, 50, 53,
254n, 273, 295n,310, 317n, 318n 57n, 60n, 61n, 65n, 78, 83, 84,
Quispel, G. xvi, xix, xxiii, 39, 99, 147n, 109n
171, 172, 197n, 199n,212,240n, Shellrude, G. M. 61n
24 In Sieber,J. H. 68n
Reitzenstein, R. xvi, 170, 171, 197n, Smalley, S. 286n
199n,241n Smith, M. 5, 6, 10
Robinson, J. M. xv, xxi, 65n, 68n, 69n Stead, G. C. 32, 59n, 125, 127, 147n
Romer, C. 61n Steely, J. E. 24In
Rousseau, A. xxi, 23n, 24n Stroumsa, G. A. G. xvi, xxiii, xxiv, 25n,
and Doutreleau, L.-J. 23n, 24n, 163n, 34,59n, 60n, 61n,98n,204n,233,
197n 254n,292n,293n
Rudolph, K. xvi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, 60n, Tardieu, M. xxiv, 13-16, 20, 21, 24n,
61n, 103n, 104n,147n, 172, 197n, 25n, 29, 30, 34, 38, 44, 45, 47, 57,
198n, 199n,213, 214, 240n, 241n, 60n, 63n, 64n, 67n,69n,71-8, 81,
245n,303, 304, 314n, 315n, 317n 83, 89, 90, 92, 94, 99, 100, 101, 102,
Sagnard, F.-M.-M. 147n 103n, 104n, 105n, 108n,llOn,
Schenke, H. M. xv, xvii, xviii, xx, xxii, 113n, 131, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139,
xxiv, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23n, 29, 140, 141, 146, 147n, 150n, 154n,
34-9, 50, 51, 57n, 60n, 62n, 64n, 155n,156n, 158n, 159n,161n,
65n, 67n, 68n, 69n, 71, 72, 74, 84, 162n,165n,189,190, 191, 200n,
100, 101, 112n, 143, 144, 149n, 170, 20In, 204n, 205n,207n,219, 222,
177, 181, 186, 197n, 198n, 199n, 224,231, 242n, 243n, 244n, 247n,
204n,213,214, 240n,241n,248n, 250n, 252n, 253n, 261, 262, 266,
257n, 261, 280, 281, 299n, 318n 271,275, 285n, 286n, 288n, 290n,
Schepss, G. 157n 291n,292n,294n,297n,318n
Scher, A. 157n and Poirier, P.-H. 57n
Schmidt, C. xv, xxii, 13, 16, 26n, 68n, Tenney, M. C. xxiii
87, 95, llln, 141, 143, 148n Till, W. C. xv, xxii, 25n, 78, 80, 88, 96,
and MacDermot, V. 57n, 60n, 62n, 105n,106n,107n, 108n, 109n,
103n,107n,114n,115n,152n,159n, llln,130, 154n, 155n,156n, 165n,
205n,248n,254n,284n,285n,286n, 243n,244n,248n,256n,291n
288n,290n,291n,293n,316n,317n Tripp, D. H. 58n
344 Index

Troger, K.-W. 198n Whittaker,J. 86

Turner, J. D. xvi, xviii, xxiii, xxiv, Williams, M. A. 25n, 64n, 285n
23n, 33-4, 36, 45-52, 57n, 59n, 60n, Willis, J. 162n
63n,64n,68n,69n,74, 78n,79n, Wilson, R. McL. xvi, xxii, xxiii, 23n,
148n, 199n, 275, 276, 277, 279, 61n, 65n,83, 84, 106n, 108n,112n,
296n 161n,202n,206n,286n
Unnik, W. C. van 104n, 105n, 205n, and Hennecke, E., Schneemelcher,
246n W. 162n, 295n,317n
Vielhauer, P. 316n Windengren, G. 68n
Wedderburn, A. J. M. 153n Wisse, F. xv, xxiii, 11, 23n, 35, 61n
Wekel, K. 102 and Bohlig, A. 67n, 113n, 155n, 157n,
Welburn, A. J. 131, 132, 134, 137, 138, 161n, 201n,203n
140, 156n, 160n, 162n Yamauchi, E. M. xxiii, 61n
Wendland, P. xxii, 202n Zaehner, R. C. 139, 161n
Werner, A. 23n ZandeeJ. 241n, 257n, 301, 303, 314n,
Wessely, C. 255n 315n

Ancient Authors

Basilides xix, 8, 12, 22, 30, 33, 41, 55, Philo 59n, 127, 205n
60n, 75, 101, 128, 149n, 185, 205n, Plato 5, 206n
315n,317n Plotinus 6, 10, 25n, 33, 51, 54, 55, 89,
Celsus 7, 9, 12, 55, 58n, 62n, 63n, 67n, 151n, 160n, 185
124, 137, 159n, 316n Porphyry 6, 10, 25n, 33, 51, 53, 64n, 86
Clement of Alexandria xiii, 6, 211, 212 Prodicus 6, 10
Elchasai xix, 34, 61n Pseudo-Tertullian xxi, 5, 17, 18, 187
Epiphanius ofSalamis xiii, xxi, xxii, 4, Ptolemy 19, 30, 55, 60n, 78, 86, 101,
5, 15, 17, 18, 55, 124, 136, 151n, 128, 168, 220, 255n, 303, 312
187, 308 Saturninus xvii, 12, 22, 30, 41, 55,
Filaster 4, 5, 187 62n, 128, 168, 169, 172, 179, 183-8
Gregory of Nyssa 109n passim, 191, 196n, 206n, 210n, 213,
Ignatius of Antioch 9, 30 214, 266
Irenaeus of Lyons xiii, 55 Servius 208n
Julius Africanus 18, 26n Simon Magus xiii, xvii, 2, 4, 8, 41, 213
Justin Martyr xiii, xxi, 4, 9, 32, 42, 55, Syncellus, G. 26n, 65n
59n,62n,196n,214, 299n, 316n Tatian 30, 245n, 318n
Hegesippus 9, 62n Tertullian of Carthage xiii, xxii, 55,
Hippolytus of Rome xiii, xxi, 5, 18, 26n, 116n,212, 299n
33, 49, 55, 75, 104n, 116n, 125, 169, Theodore 162n, 159n
178, 180, 185, 196n, 263, 299n Theodoret of Cyrrhus xiii, xxii, 77, 87,
Macrobius 140, 185 88, 101, 140, 141, 158n, 187
Mani xix, 11, 34, 47, 61 n Theodotus 149n,163n,264,301,
Marcellus of Ancyra 59 n 314n
Marcion xix Theophilus of Antioch 32, 44
Monoimus 178, 201n, 204n Valentinus xix, 4, 8, 11, 12, 22, 32, 34,
Nadim, ibn al 196n 39, 55, 60n, 61n, 125, 128, 149n,
Nicolaus 5, 23n 151n,152n,163n,175,176, 200n,
Origen 125, 126, 136, 137, 138, I51n, 220, 263
158n, 208n, 299n, 316n Zoroaster 53, 268
 Index of Ancient Sources

Biblical Books (with Apocrypha)

Genesis 2:18 192, 218, 222, 7:7 270

1-2 173, 186 243n 7:10 292n
1-4 14, 15, 216, 2:21 193, 194, 226, 7:15 270,292n
238 227, 228, 251n 7:23 270, 291n, 292n
1-5 32 2:2 If. 193, 228
1-6 36 2:23f. 229 Exodus
1-9 34, 35, 41 2:24 251n,252n 4:21 294n
1:1 255n 3 230, 243n 8:15 294n
1:2 33, 144, 151n, 3:4 224 8:32 294n
184 3:6f. 231 9:7 294n
1:2b 143, 144, 173, 3:6-7 231 9:34 294n
174 3:7 224 10:1 294n
1:3 174 3:7-13 253n 20:5 2, 127, 142,
1:26 168, 171, 173, 3:8 231 163n,174,
183, 186, 187, 3:16 231,253n 199n
188, 195, 198n, 3:17 231
Deuteronomy
202n,205n, 3:20 152n,218,
9:27 294n
206n,207n 242n,243n
1:26f. 41, 62n, 170, 3:21 222, 228, 242n, 2 Samuel
177, 181, 186, 250n,253n 7:14 181
188 3:23 232
1:27 173 3:23f. 224 Psalms
2 221, 230, 231 4:25 15, 17, 45, 236, 2:7 181
2:2 244n 238, 255n, 267, 2:9 204n
2:4b 234, 255n 290n 8:4-6 21
2-6 44 5-9 14, 262, 266, 8:5-7 181, 182
2:7 173, 186, 187- 278, 282 8:7 182
92, 195, 206n, 6 269 44:6 84
207n, 208n, 6:1 18, 47, 233 45:6-7 182
209n, 219, 6:1-4 xvi, 59n, 204n, 45:7f. 109n
244n,245n 293n 45:7-12 58n
2:7b 218, 242n, 6:2-4 269, 271 95 294n
243n 6:6 270 95:7-11 272
2:5 224 6:8 29 In 95:8 294n
2:15 248n 6:17 270, 291n 97:7 181
2:16f. 63n 7 269 102:25-7 182
2:17 224 7:4 29In,292n 110:1 182

345
346 Index

Proverbs Wisdom of Solomon 1:1-3 202n

3:19 291n 7 42 1:3 85, llOn, 115n,
7:4 147n 7:21-30 29 In 183
8 42 7:22f. 57n l:3c-4a 109n
8:1 113n 7:22-7 147n 1:5 228, 318n
8:22-31 29 In 7:25f. 116n,181 1:8b 11 In
8:27 154n 7:25-6 76 1:18 76, 82
7:26 29 In l:S2f. 285n
Ecclesiastes 9:1-3 29 In 3:4 288n
3:10 294n lOf. 299n 4:10 76
4:8 294n 10:4 29 In 4:14 76, 77
5:13 294n 17:2 294n 7:12 72
8:16 294n 17:7 291n 7:33f. 317n
8:14 72
Isaiah Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 12:37-42 72
6:2 160n 24:32 295n 12:40 294n
6:10 227, 251n, 40:1-10 294n 13:3 317n
294n 14:6 81
9: If. 203n Matthew 14:16 310
24 18 205n 3:16 285n 14:16-17 57n
41 25 204n 3:17 89 16:5 317n
42 6 203n 5:18 202n 16:23-34 297n
44 6 163n 8:29 318n 16:28 72,317n
45 5 142, 163n, 174, 11:27 202n 18:5 72
203n 12:31 288n,317n 20:17 317n
45:5f. 2, 127 13:15. 294n 21:2 72
45:7 127, 142 19:21 286n 21:17 72
46:9 2, 127, 142, 19:29 316n
158n,163n, 24:21 272, 294n Acts
174 25:41 317n 1:8 285n
49 6 203n 25:46 317n 2:36 84
60 19f. 203n 28:18 89 4:27 84
61 1 84,109n 28:20 310 8 xiii
10:38 84
Ezekiel Mark 11:26 31,62n
1:5 203n 1:9-10 109n 26:33 203n
1:5 -14 160n 1:10 285n 28:27 294n
1:26 203n 9:48 317n
Romans
10:17 286n
8:19-22 294n
Daniel
9:5 llln
2:23 113n Luke
9:18 294n
7:13 203n 2:14 114n
11:36 115n
9:23 203n 2:32 203n
10:16-21 203n 3:22 285n 1 Corinthians
12:1 272, 294n 10:25 286n 2:6ff. 29 In
16:17 202n 3:7 316n
Amos 18:18 286n 3:9 149n
4:13 203n 4:5 318n
John 8:6 115n
Habakkuk 1 32, 42, 47, 76, 12:23 293n
3:13 203n 85, 276, 295n 15:27-8 llln
 Index 347
2 Corinthians 2:8f. 203n 1 Enoch
4:4 294n 3 294n 1:5 205n
3:8-11 272 6-7 29 In
Ephesians
6-8 64 n
1:5 114n 1 Peter
6:2 292n
1:10 297n,318n 2:12 317n
6:2-8:4 293n
1:2 If. 89 3:18 295n
8:1 294n
1:22 11 In
2 Peter 9 21, 101
l:22f. 89
2:5 292n 10:12 270
3:2 318n
40 101
3:9 297n,318n 1 John 42:1-3 144
4:8-10 295n 2:18 293n 53:3 317n
6:12 207n 2:18-27 57n 54:6 317n
2:20 61n 56:1 3l7n
Philippians
2:22 293n 60:1 205n
2:9 89
2:27 61n 62:1 If. 317n
2:9f. 89
4:1-6 57n 63:lf. 317n
2:9-11 89,llln
4:3 293n 64 317n
Colossians 64: If. 29 In
2 John
1:15 82 65:6-8 294n
7 293n
1:15-17 76 66-7 317n
1:19 202n Jude 71 101
2:9 202n 7 317n
2:10 llln 2 Enoch
Revelation
2:11-15 67n 10 317n
1:1 318n
2 Thessalonians 1:4 318n
Jubilees
1:11 316n 1:9 318n
5:1 29 In
2 293n 4:1 318n
2:1—4 293n 4:6-8 160n Testament of Abraham
13:11 f. 293n 9:8-10:1 292n
1 Timothy
20:10 317n 12 317n
6:20 3
22:6f. 318n
2 Timothy Testament of Levi
2:10 286n,316n 3:2f. 317n
4:7 316n Jewish
Testament of Reuben
Pseudepigrapha
Hebrews 5:6f. 293n
1 182 Acension of Isaiah 5:6-7 29 In
1-2 32, 42, 94, 181, 2:12 155n
182, 182, 195 3:6 155n
Qumran and
1:1-2 181 3:13 158n
181 5:15 158n Related Documents
1:3
1:4-6 181 7:9 158n IQS
1:8 182 11:41 158n iii. 18 317n
l:8f. 84, 182 iv. 6 3l7n
1:10-12 182 Apocryphon of vi.12 317n
1:13 182 Zephaniah iv. 18-23 317n
2:5-10 181 4:1-7 317n
2:5-8 182 Josephus
2:6-8 89,llln Assumption of Mose Antiquities
2:7 21, 35 10:3f. 205n 1.3.1 292n
348 Index

Philo Christian Literature 47 60n,164n

Confusio linguarum 47-50 208n
171-5 205n,207n Acta Andreae et 48:2 207n
Matthaiae 49:1 203n
De fuga
18 317n 49-53 58n
68-70 207n
68-72 205n 50:1-52:3 196n
Acta Petri 50:2 245n
Opijido
20f. 317n 50:2-3 245n
75 205n, 207n
53:2 245n
146 209n
Acts of Philip 53:2-5 245n
19 103n 53:3f. 245n
Rabbinic Literature 53:4 203n
Apocalypse of Peter 53-55:1 196n
’Aboda Zara 54 208n
6f. 288n
8b 254n 54:1-3 66n,197n
10 288n
55: If. 250n
’Abot de Rabbi Nathan 55:1-56:2 210n
Athenagoras
176 254n 56:3 241n,287n
Legatio
10 59n, 56:3-58:2 287n
Babylonian Talmud, 57 287n
10:3 116n
Sanhedrin 62:2-65:2 315n
108ab 292n 67f. 287n
Augustine
67-8 147n
Debarim Rabbah De Genesi ad litteram
68 151n
11:10 158n 11.2.140 246n
78 314n
78:1-2 211, 287n
Genesis Rabbah 1 Clement
78:2 167
8:1 207n 7:6 292n 79 287n
8:4f. 205n
11:2 254n 2 Clement Protrepticus
12:6 254n 17:5-7 317n 67.123 109n
14:8 207n
30:7 292n Clement of Alexandria Stromateis
Excerpt a ex Theodoto 1.6.28 205n
Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 1:1-3 257n 2.8.36 163n,200n
21 254n 2:1 245n, 257n 2.8.36.2 245n
21: IF. 257n 2.8.36.2-4
Tanhuma Noah 21:1-3 210n 63n
5 292n 23: If. 257n 2.8.36.4 202n
26:1-3 257n 2.10.2 241 n
Targum Pseudo- 30:2 257n 2.14.18 109n
Jonathan 31:4 149n 2.20.114.3-6
Genesis 32:3-33:4 298n 287n
3:6 158n 33:3 149n 4.12.83.1 317n
4:1 210n 33:3-4 163n 4.13.89.6-90.3
5:3 210n 35:2 257n 152n
6:2 293n 35:2-4 245n 4.89.4 24 In
43:5 165n 5.3.2-3 24 In
Targum Yerushalmi 44:1 27n 5.33 241 n
Genesis 44:1-53:5 147n 6.6.53.4 240n
6:4 29 In 44-45 61n 115.1 241n
 Index 349

Cyprian 34.20.7f. 299n 5.7.6 209n

De zelo el livore 37.1. If. 23n 5.7.6-9 66n
4 246n 37.3.2 151n 5.7.9 66n
37.3.6 152n,160n 5.7.16-19 66n
Eusebius of Caesarea 37.6.2 151n 5.7.19 27n,58n,62n
Historia Ecclesiastica 39-40 68 n 5.7.30 152n,196n
4.7 xxii 39.1.3-3.5 5.7.32-3 66 n
4.22.5 62 n 17 5.7.36 196n
39.1.3f. 17 5.8.2 66n
Epiphanius 39.2.4-3.5 5.8.10 58n
Panarion 298n 5.8.21 58n
21.2.3-5 151n 39.3.5 24In,299n 5.8.24 58n
21.2.5-6 151n 39.5. If. 26n 5.8.30 20 In
23.1.1-10 206n 40.2.1-2 26n 5.8.37-8 58n
23.1.5f. 206n 40.2.3 165n 5.8.44 58n
24.5.5 62 n 40.2.6-8 66n 5.9.21-2 58n
24.7.6 209n 40.5.3 210n,254n 5.9.22 62n,299n
25.2.1 23n 40.7.1-2 27n 5.10.2 58,62n,63n
25.2.2 24n,151n, 40.7.1-3 26n 5.12f. 205n
165n 40.7.1-5 26n 5.12.3 1 lOn
25.2.2f. 152n 40.7.2-6 68 n 5.14.6 157n
25.2.3 23n,199n 5.19 205n
25.2.4 151n Epistula Apostolorum 5.19.11-22
25.3.2 151n 11-51 285n 26n
25.3.4 24n 5.19.22 26n
25.3.4f. 152n Fil aster 5.20.2 26n
25.4. If. 151n Diversarum hnereseon liber 5.22.1 xxiv
25.5.1-3 26n 31 206n 5.26.7f. 196n
26.1. If. 23n 5.26.15 199n
26.1.6 99 Hegemonius 5.26.22f. 254n
26.1.7-9 292n Acta Archelai 6.2 xxii
26.2.6-3.5 64n 67.2-11 205n 6.21.1-30.3
26.6.1-4 287n 10.1-8 317n 60 n
26.8.1 26n 6.29.2 104n
26.10.1-3 159n Hermas 6.30.5f. 148n
26.10.2f. 152n Similitude 6.30.6-7 150n
26.10.4 57n 9.18.2 317n 6.30.6-8 151n,152n
26.10.6 159n 6.31.2 164n
26.10.8 288n Hippolytus 6.31.5f. 257n
30.9 101 Apostolic Tradition 6.32.If. 318n
31.5.1-8.3105n 19-22 67n 6.32.2-5 257n
31.5.4f. llOn 6.32.4f. 257n
31.5.5 202n,203n, Refutatio 6.33 23n,156n,
204n 5.6.4 58n,201n 161n,203n
31.5.7-9 151n 5.6.4f. 58n 6.34.6 287n
31.5.8 113n,148n 5.6.4-7 66n,203n 6.37.6-8 60n,61n
31.7.6-11 24 In 5.6.5 66n,203n 6.42.2 61n
31.7.8 287n 5.6.5f. 205n 6.7.30 154n
31.20.7 287n 5.6.5-11.1 7.6 203n
33.7.3-7 163n 204n 7.20.2-21.1
33.7.7 255n 5.6.6f. 196n,201n 104n
350 Index

7.21.1-4 196n 2.1 284n 13.1 25 7n

7.26.2 315n 2.1-4 60 n 13.3 284n
7.27.4 315n 2.2 148n,150n, 13.6 284n
7.27.11 315n 152n,284n 14 26n
7.27.1 If. 196n 2.2-5.6 147n 14.1 315n
7.28.2 206n 2.6 27n,112n, 14.5 257n,284n
7.36 203n 318n 15.2 314n
8.2-4 196n 4.1-5.3 60n 15.3 204n
8.10 66 n 4.1-5.6 149n 18.1 164n
8.12.1-13.4 4.5 27n,61n,63n, 19.2 284n
202n,204n 165n 21.1 1 lOn
8.12.2 201n 4.33.9 317n 21.1-5 67n
8.12.4 20 In 5.1 66n,298n 21.3 315n
8.12.6-13.4 5. If. 156n 21.3f. 299n
20 In 5.1-6 208n 21.3-5 27n,62n,
8.13.3 20 In 5.2 160n 109n
8.14 66 n 5.2-4 163n 21.4 24n,58n,
8.21 66n 5.3 149n 240n,284n
9.1 66n 5.4 23n,161n, 21.5 58n,62n
9.1-4 66n 163n,199n, 22.2f. xxii, 23n
9.13-15 61n 203n, 207n, 23 1
9:21f. 27n 208n 23.4 24n,57n
9.21-10.2 66n 5.5 196n,208n, 23.5-7 57n
10.1 66n 250n 24.1 196n,197n,
10.9.1 20 In 5.5-6 245n 202n, 206n,
10.9. If. 203n 5.6 58n, 63n, 209n,244n,
10.17.1 20 In 206n,210n, 250n
245n,257n, 24.1-2 62n,197n
Ignatius 316n 24.2 197n
Ephesians 6.1 197n,241n, 24.3 60n
16.2 317n 287n,315n 24.3f. 60n
18.1 297n 6.2 287n 24.6 62n
20.2 297n 6.2f. 241n 25.1-4 317n
6.4 257n,287n 25.4 315n
Magnesian s 7.1 287n,315n, 25.6 8
4-10 57n 316n 28 1, 24n
4.1 62 n 7. If. 257n 29 If.
8-10 62 n 7.5 66n, 197n,208n, 29.1 8, 23n, 24n,
241n,287n, 57n, 60n, 74,
Smymeans 315n,316n 78, 99, 106n,
5-7 57n 8.11-12 8 107n-llOn
8.4 315n passim,
Irenaeus 8.5 57 115n,116n,
Adversus Haereses 11.1 7, 24n, 60n, 152n
1 149n,152n, 29. If. 57n,58n,108n
1.1 60n, 106n, 153n,298n 29.1-2 60n,108n
110n, 200n, 11.3 8, 9, 104n 29.1-3 115n
284n 11.5 8, 9, 104n 29.1-4 60 n
1.2 llln, 113n, 12.4 9, 177, 200n, 29.2 108n,llln,
148n 201n, 202n, 112n,113n,
1.1-3 60n 204n 149n,245n
 Index 351
29.3 8,21,2511,5711, 30.1 If. 256n 12.9 58n
58n, 63n, 94, 30.11-12 148n 26 xxi
114n,115n, 30.1 lb-14 33 59 n
161n,202n, 281 46 316n
203n,205n, 30.12 242n,257n, 46.4 109n
249n 297n
29.4 27n,57n,63n, 30.13 201n,203n, 2 Apology
317n 2.6 109n
131, 147, 148n,
196n 5 29 In
149n,150n, 30.13f.
151n,152n, 30.14 285n,288n, 6.3 58n,109n
315n,316n, 8 24 In
153n,154n,
317n 10 24 In
162n,163n,
13 241n,316n
165n,199n, 30.15 3, 7
209n 31.1 3 Dialogue with Trypho the
30.1 3, 164n, 20In, 31.2 3, 26n Jew
205n 31.3-4 23n 35 62 n
30. If. 58n 31.3 3, 7,9 56ff. 24 In
30.2 316n,317n 61 1 lOn
149n,151n, 2
30.3 62 207n
209n 9.2 203n
63 58n, 109n
30.3-1 la 214, 281 13.8 8
86.3 109n
30.3f. 163n 13.10 8, 24n
100 llOn
136 14.3 60 n
30.4f. 113 203n
156n 31.1 24n
30.4-5 126 203n
152n,153n, 31.2 314n
30.5 127-8 llOn
159n,163n, 35.2f. 24n
249n,250n Lactan tius
3
30.5f. 163n Divinae inslituliones
4.2 24n
30.6 8, 199n,200n, 4.13.9 109n
10.4 24n
209n,210n,
11.1 24n Novatian
242n,245n,
11.2 24n De Trinitate
296n
12.12 24n 29.14 106n
30.6-7 250n
30.6-8 245n 4 Origen
30.6-12 257n,276 6.4 24n Commenlarium in
30.6-13 149n 33.3 24 n johannem
30.7 210n, 243n, 35.1 24n 2.14 24 In
250n,25In,
253n,254n, Contra Celsum
5
297n 24n 5.6 If. 7
26.2
30.8 199n,254n 6.24-38 315n
30.8-12 297n Jerome 6.27 58n,62n,63n,
30.9 157n, 158n, Quaestiones in librum Gen 67n,317n
163n,210n, Gen 2:15 248n 6.30 159n,254n
243n,250n, 6.31 153n,159n,
255n,257n Justin Martyr 160n,208n
30.10 136, 156n, / Apology 6.3 If. 152n,159n
292n 5f. 24 In 6.33 159n
5.46 241n 6.33-6 315n
30.10-11 25n,203n
59n,203n, 6.1 109n 6.34f. 151n
30.11
317n 8.28 317n 6.35 316n
352 Index

De Principiis Praescriptio Anonymous Treatise in

3.4.4f. 24 In 7 xxii the Bruce Codex
13 290n
Theodore bar Konai 46.4 115n
In Rom.
Fiber Scholiorum
5.1 317n
11 157n,159n, Apocalypse of Adam
Priscillian
162n,196n, 64.6- 19 25n
First Tractate
208n,210n, 64.6- 66.8 257n
17.29 157n 254n 64.6- 67.14
21.6 157n 210n
Theodoret
Haereticarum fabularum
64.9- 12 65n
Pseudo-Clement
compendio
64.12f. 65 n
Homilies 64.14-65.25
1.3 206n
3.6.1 288n 250n
1.13 101, 106n,
3.6.4f. 288n 65.3- 9 66n
107n,108n,
8.12.2-13.If. 109n,llOn, 65.5-9 65n
293n 65.18f. 66 n
llln,112n,
8.14.1-3 294n 114n,115n, 66.3- 8 66n
12-13 292n 148n 66.4- 8 65n
66.23-5 253n
Pseudo-Hippolytus Theophilus of Antioch 69.4- 76.7
Contra Graecos Ad Autolycum 26n
1 317n 1.7 116n 69.17f. 66 n
If. 317n 1.10 109n 69.19- 25 285n,292n
3 317n 1.1.12 58n, 62n, 109n 70.10- 71.8
2.10 59n, 1 lOn 292n
Pseudo-T ertullian 2.15 116n 73.13-27 66n
Adversus Omnes Haereses 2.18 116n 74.3-75.16
1 206n 2.22 59n, 1 lOn 65 n
2 65n 74.3f. 157n
2 17 74.8-26 66n
Gnostic Texts 75.17- 76.7
Tatian Acta Johannis 292n
Oratio ad Graecos
73 317n 75.17- 76.24
5 59n 88 317n 66 n
8.1 29 In 75.21- 3 67n
12-15 245n Allogenes 76.8 65 n
26.1 318n 45.1- 57.23 77.27- 82.19
51 157n
Tertullian 47.7- 38 57n 77.27- 84.3
Ad nationes 54.11-37 69n 65 n
1.3 109n 57.27- 64.19 82.19- 83.23
52 319n
Adversus Valenlinianos 58.7- 60.12 84.5f. 67n
5 60n 26n 84.5- 8 65n
62.27- 63.23 85.22- 9 62n
Apologelicum xxiv 85.22- 31 246n
3.5 109n 62.28- 63.23 85.30f. 67n
68n
De baptismo 63.1- 5 105n First Apocalypse of James
5f. 67n 64.19-23 163n 28.29-30.13 285n
 Index 353
Apocalypse of Paul 25.14f. 105n 29.12-16 107n
20.2-3 315n 26.1-6 105n 29.12 106n
21.17-21 315n 26.6-8 106n 29.14 108n
22.1-10 317n 26.6-9 317n 29.14-16 163n
26.6-14 105n 29.17f. 107n
Apocryphon of John 26.15-27.4 29.18f. 284n
Berlin Coptic Papyrus 106n 29.20 108n
8502,2 26.18f. 284n 30.4-7 148n
19.6- 20.3 26.19f. 57n 30.4-9 108n
294n 26.19-35.20 30.4-17 108n
19.6- 22.16 58n 30.6 107n,llOn,
103n 26.22 77 242n,294n
19.10-16 317n 27.4-7 107n 30.7-9 108n
19.15f. 298n 27.4-8 106n 30.8 284n
20.1 294n 27.4-19 248n 30.15 108n
20.3-19 103n 27.5-7 106n 30.17 108n
20.12-19 298n,317n 27.8-10 115n 30.19 109n
20.19-21.2 27.8-28 106n 30.20-31. 1
205n 27.10 107n 106n
20.19- 21.3 27.10f. 106n 31.2-5 57n
103n 27.13-28.4 31.5-9 1 lOn
20.19- 22.9 104n 31.5-18 107n
297n 27.14f. 295n 31.1 Of. 1 lOn
20.20- 21.2 27.17 107n 31.11 106n
297n 27.17-28.4 31.1 If. llOn
21.1 103n 107n,201n 31.11-15 1 lOn
21.3-13 103n,317n 27.18 106n 31.11-18 116n
21.13 103n 27.19f. 107n,201n 31.12f. 1 lOn
21.13-22.5 297n 31.15f. 1 lOn
103n 27.20f. 57n 31.16-18 llOn
21.18-22.9 27.21 297n 31.18 llOn
297n 27.21-28.4 31.18f. 1 lOn
22.2-6 295n 64n 31.19 llln
22.8-17 103n 28.4 106n 31.19-32.2
22.10-16 295n 28.4-7 106n 11 In
22.15f. 285n 28.7-10 106n 32.5 1 lOn
22.16f. 13 28.7-13 106n 32.8-14 llln
22.17-25.22 28.9 78 32.9 llOn
104n 28.10 107n 32.7f. 106n
22.17- 19 104n 28.13f. 78 32.8-14 108n
22.18- 23.5 28.13-21 106n 32.14-17 108n
57n 28.19 107n 32.14-18 108n,112n
22.19- 23.3 28.21-29.6 32.18f. 112n
104n 107n 32.19-33.2
23.5-24.6 104n 29.6f. 108n 112n
24.6f. 105n 29.7f. 107n 32.19-33.3
24.13-15 105n 29.8f. 107n 150n
24.7-25.13 29.8-14 106n 33. If. 284n
xxiv 29.9-18 107n 33.3f. 112n
24.9-25.19 29.10 20 In 33.4f. 112n
68 n 29.10-12 297n 33.5-7 112n
354 Index

33.7 246n 36.16 243n,247n 39.10-44.9

33.7-10 113n 36.16f. 14,147n 57n
33.7-34.1 112n 36.16-37.1 39.18-40.'1
33.9 113n 149n 154n
33.9f. 148n 36.16-44.9 40.4-9 154n
33.10-12 113n 60 n 40.5 136, 155n,
33.12-17 113n 36.16-47.14 156n
33.16 148n 58n 40.9 156n
33.17-34.1 37.1-6 150n 41.1-12 156n
113n 37.3-16 148n 41.6f. 157n
34.1-7 113n 37.5f. 106n 41.12-15 156n
34.2-7 57n,245n 37.6-10 150n 41.13 156n
34.6f. 112n 37.6-39.18 41.15 156n
34.7 246n 58n 41.16f. 156n,165n
34.7-13 113n 37.10f. 123, 243n 41.16-42.7
34.9f. 155n 37.10-13 244n 158n
34.10-18 1 lOn 37.11 124 41.16-44.9
34.12f. 113n 37.12-16 151n 156n
34.13-15 113n 37.13f. 152n 41.18 136, 155n,
34.15 113n 37.14 151n 156n,159n
34.15-18 114. 37.16-38. 1 41.19 159n
34.17 152n 152n 42.2 159n
34.19-35.5 37.17 256n 42.2f. 136
114n,150n 37.20f. 159n 42.3 160n
34.20-35.2 38.1-15 152n 42.5 160n
114n 38.5 152n 42.6 136
35.2f. 114n 38.5f. 152n 42.7-10 156n
35.3 1lOn,290n 38.6-13 292n 42.8 165n
35.3ff. 104n 38.7-13 242n 42.9f. 158n
35.3-5 20 In 38.9-13 242n 42.9-43.6
35.4 114n 38.10-13 25 In 58n
35.5 94 38.12f. 152n 42.1 Of. 157n,160n
35.6-9 115n 38.13f. 157n 42.10-13 160n
35.6-10 115n 38.14f. 63n 42.10-43.6
35.8 115n 38.15 154n 206n
35.10-13 115n 38.15ff. 164n 42.13-18 158n,160n
35.11-20 161n 38.15-39. 1 42.13-43.2
35.13-16 115n 154n 157n
35.17 1 lOn 38.15-39.10 42.15 160n
35.17-20 115n 164n 42.15-43.4
35.18 96 38.17 256n 284n
35.20-36.2 38.17-39.4 42.17f. 256n
115n 165n 42.18-43.2
35.20-36.15 39. If. 63n 160n
63n,67n, 39.1-4 154n 43.2 256n
113n,318n, 39.4-10 114n 43.2-6 161n
318n 39.4-40.4 43.3 161n
36.2-5 284n 154n 43.6-8 161n
36.2-15 115n 39.5 154n 43.9f. 161n
36.7ff. 315n 39.6f. 141 43.9-11 161n
36.7-15 57n,149n 39.6-18 162n 43.11 162n
 Index 355
43.11-44.4 46.10 152n,164n 49.16 139
139, 160n, 46.13-20 164n 50.2 139
208n 46.15-47.14 50.4 139
43.12f. 139 164n 50.6-14 208n
43.13 136, 155n, 46.18ff. 256n 50.6-51.1 207n
156n 46.19 152n 50.11-52.1
43.14f. 139 46.20-47.14 244n
43.15 159n 164n 50.15-51.1
43.15-17 139 47.1-13 257n 209n
43.16 162n 47.3-7 150n 50.15-52.8
43.17 139, 159n 47.4-14 295n 157n
43.18-43.6 47.11-14 242n 50.15-54.11
158n 47.13f. 257n 209n
43.19 159n 47.14-16 199n,200n 50.18ff. 156n
43.20 153n,160n 47.15-16 20In 51.1-7 242n,243n
44. If. 139 47.16-20 199n 51.1-14 253n
44.3 139 47.20 204n 51.1-52.1 27n, 63n, 209n
44.4 136 47.20-48.5 51.1-52.3 296n
44.5f. 163n,165n 242n 51.1-52.8 284n
44.5-9 157n,165n 47.20-48.10 51.1-52.15
44.7-9 156n 204n 58n
44.9-15 163n 47.20-48.14 51.2 256n
44.9-45.19 200n 51.3 150n
164n 47.20-49.9 51.3f. 243n
44.14 23n 115n 51.4f. 149n,243n
44.14f. 161n, 199n 48.1 204n, 294n 51.5 242n
44.15-19 164n 48.2 107n,242n 51.5f. 289n,294n
44.19 143 48.6ff. 208n 51.5-10 219
44.19f. 256n 48.6-50.6 157n 51.6 107n
44.19ff. 242n 48.10-14 205n 51.7 243n,244n
44.19-45.5 48.10-49.9 51.8-52.15
149n,164n 206n 149n,251n
44.19-45.19 48.14 196n 51.9 1 lOn
164n,316n 48.14-50.11 51.9-14 26n
45.2-5 148n,164n 207n 51.10 244n
45.5-19 164n 48.14-52.1 51.10-12 244n
45.11-13 164n 206n 51.12-52.11
45.11-19 164n 48.16-50.6 244n
45.13-19 164n 284n 51.14 256n
45.19-46.9 48.17-49.6 51.14-52.1
164n 208n 286n
45.19-46.15 49.5ff. 104n 51.15 244n
164n 49.6-9 205n,246n 51.19 256n
256n 49.9-50.6 208n 51.20 219
46.1
46.6-9 205n 49.9-50.14 51.20-52.1
xxiv z4bn
46.6-15 164n
46.9 256n 49.11 139 52.1-11 246n
49.11-50.4 52.8f. 290n
46.9-13 164n
139 52.8ff. 247n
46.9-47.14
148n,149n, 49.13 139, 162n 52.8-15 290n
316n 49.14f. 139 52.9f. 246n
356 Index

52.11-15 246n 55.13 196n 60.12- 14 257n

52.13-15 246n 55.13f. 246n 60.12- 16 25In
52.15-17 246n 55.13- 15 248n 60.13- 61.5
52.17f. 289n 55.15-18 248n, 250n, 316n
52.17- 53.10 289n,295n 60.16ff. 249n
246n 55.16 248n 60.16- 19 252n
52.17- 54.3 55.18- 56.3 60.16- 61.4
257n 248n 249n
52.17- 54.4 55.18- 57.19 60.16-61.7
63n,242n 248n 63 n
52.17-54.9 55.19 63n 60.17-19 292n
296n,297n 56.3f. 249n 60.18f. 252n
52.17-55.18 56.3- 10 249n 60.18-61.4
293n 56.5 249n 252n
52.18 107n,242n 56.10- 17 249n,316n 60.18-61.5
52.18f. 294n 56.17- 57.8 253n
53.4-10 210n,242n 249n 61.2-9 316n
53.4-17 257n,293n 57.8- 12 115n 61.5f. 253n
53.4-18 316n 57.8- 19 249n, 250n, 61.5-7 253n
53.4-54.4 148n, 242n, 316n 61.7f. 250n
250n 57.8- 58.1 63n, 252n 61.10-15 253n
53.6 297n 57.20 249n 61.16 253n
53.6-9 255n 57.20- 58.7 61.16-19 253n
53.10-18 246n 249n 61.18f. 253n
53.18 150n 57.20- 58.10 61.19-62.3
53.18-20 293n 252n 253n
53.18-54.4 58.4- 7 255n, 62.3fT. 250n
247n,316n 58.8 250n 62.3-8 254n
54.1-3 295n 58.8- 10 250n 62.3-63.2
54.1-4 147n 58.8- 12 251n 210n
54.2-4 257n 58.10- 12 250n 62.4 290n
54.5-9 247n,251n 58.10- 60.16 62.6 254n
54.7f. 290n 210n 62.8-10 254n
54.7-11 290n 58.12- 14 25In 62.1 Of. 254n
54.9-11 247n 58.14- 59.6 62.13-15 254n
54.11-55.13 25 In 62.15-18 254n,256n
208n,256n 59.6- 9 25 In 62.16 254n
54.11-55.15 59.6- 61.7 297n 62.16f. 254n
209n 59.7- 9 250n 62.18-63.2
54.14-55.1 59.9- 12 25 In 254n
247n 59.12- 16 250n 63.2 255n
54.18-55.4 59.12- 19 210n 63.2-6 249n,255n
242n 59.17- 19 250n 63.3 255n
55.2-9 248n 59.20f. 25 In 63.5-9 286n
55.2-13 209n, 286n, 59.20- 60.16 63.6-9 255n
288n 243n,25In 63.9-12 255n,256n
55.3-11 286n 59.21- 60.2 63.12f. 255n
55.3-13 256n 242n 63.12-16 256n
55.8f. 248n 60.3-16 25 In 63.12-18 256n
55.9-13 248n 60.3f. 251n, 255n 63.14f. 256n
55.12f. 248n 60.12 150n 63.14-18 256n
 Index 357
63.14-64.13 68.13-69.13 ■ 73.14f. 292n
289n,293n, 287n 73.16-75.1
316n 68.13-70.8 294n
63.16- 64.3 284n,315n 73.18-74.6
293n 69.12f. 285n 293n
63.16- 64.13 69.14-70.8 74. If. 293n
296n 288n 74.6- 10 286n, 293n
63.18 256n 70.8-15 317n 74.11- 13 293n
63.18-64.3 70.8-71.2 287n 74.12f. 293n
256n 70.16 317n 74.13-16 293n
64.3-5 257n 70.16-71.2 75.1 294n
64.3-8 316n 317n 75.1- 3 294n
64.3-13 58n,245n, 71.1-5 296n 75.3-7 294n
284n,316n 71.2ff. 286n 75.7- 10 103n, 294n
64.6-13 249n 71.2-5 284n,289n 75.10-13 294n,298n
64.13f. 14 71.2-75.10 75.11 107n, 242n
64.13-71.2 64 n 75.12- 76.1
64n,284n 71.5f. 294n 103n
64.14-16 284n 71.5-10 152n 75.14f. 295n, 317n
64.16-65.3 71.5-13 257n 75.15-76.1 295n
285n 71.5-14 242n,289n 75.20ff. 285n
65.2f. 104n 71.5-72.2 284n, 293n 75.20-76.1
65.3f. 285n 71.6 107n,242n 104n
65.3-6 284n 71.6f. 242n 76.1 256n
65.3-11 316n 71.6-75.10 76.1- 5 64n, 242n,
65.3-66.13 57n 249n,257n,
245n,286n 71.7-14 289n 275, 295n,
65.4f. 286n 71.10 64 n 298n
65.4-6 284n 71.12fF. 104n 76.4f. 295n
65.8-19 316n 71.13f. 290n 76.5f. 295n, 318n
65.11-66.1 71.14-72.2 76.6 318n
286n 290n 76.7- 77.5 295n
65.20-66.12 71.15 63 n
316n 72.2-4 157n,290n Codex II

65.33ff. 287n 72.2-12 208n 1.1- 2.25 103n

66.13-67.14 72.4-12 29 In 1.5-17 294n
287n 72.6-8 29 In 1.8- 11 317n
66.14-67.2 72.6-10 290n 1.1 If. 298n
285n 72.8-10 29 In 1.17-29 103n
67.1-14 245n 72.1 If. 29 In 1.24-9 317n
67.4-7 284n,286n 72.12f. 29 In 1.27-9 298n
67.7-13 285n,286n 72.12-17 29 In 1.30 103n
67.12f. 289n 72.16f. 29 In 1.30- 2.20 297n
67.14-17 72.17-73.2 1.31- 3 205n, 297n
287n 29 In 2.1- 9 103n, 317n
67.14-18 57n,286n 73.2-4 292n 2.9 103n
67.18-68.13 73.4-7 292n 2.9- 18 103n
316n,317n 73.7-12 292n 2.12- 20 297n
68.4f. 318n 73.8-10 285n 2.16-18 295n
68.12ff. 315n 73.9f. 64n,104n 2.19- 25 103n
68.13-16 285n 73.12-18 292n 2.20- 5 295n
358 Index

2.24f. 285n 6.23 108n 8.27f. 152n

2.25f. 13 6.23-6 llln 8.28f. 256n
2.26f. 104n 6.26f. llln 8.28-33 114n
2.26-4.10 104n 6.29 152n 8.30f. 114n
2.28-32 104n 6.33-7.3 1 lOn 8.31f. 114n
3.17 105n 7.3-6 1 lOn 8.32f. 201n
3.18-35 68 n 7.4 106n,1lOn 8.33 114n
3.22 105n 7.4-8 llOn 8.34 106n,102
4.1-10 105n 7.9 1 lOn 8.34f. 94
4.10 105n 7.1 Of. 1 lOn 8.35-9.3 115n
4.10-13 317n 7.11-15 llln 9.2 115n
4.10-19 105n 7.15-17 llln 9.4f. 115n
4.19 106n 7.15-24 108n 9.5-8 115n
4.26-9 106n,107n 7.16 152n 9.9-11 115n
4.29-5.11 106n 7.19 106n 9.10 96
4.3 If. 107n 7.20-2 llln 9.11-14 115n
4.35 106n 7.22 294n 9.14-24 115n,318n
5.4 106n 7.22-4 llln 9.20 115n
5.4-10 20 In 7.23 106n 9.25 119, 147n,
5.4-11 107n 7.25f. 108n 243n
5.5f. 296n 7.25-7 108n 9.25f. 14
5.5-11 107n 7.25-9 112n 9.25-9 149n
5.7 201n,297n 7.30-3 112n 9.29-33 150n
5.7f. 152n 7.32f. 115n,284n 9.30 150n
5.11 115n 7.34 112n 9.33-5 150n
5.11-13 106n 7.34-8.1 112n 9.35-10.1 123, 243n
5.11-14 106n 8.1 112n 10.2-5 151n
5.14-18 106n 8. If. 112n 10.4 151n
5.14-20 106n 8.2-4 112n 10.6-11 152n
5.16 107n 8.4 112n 10.11-20 152n
5.20-6 106n 8.4-6 113n 10.13 152n
5.24 106n 8.4-16 112n 10.17f. 243n,25In
5.24-6 107n 8.5 113n,115n 10.18 152n
5.26-32 107n 148n 10.20 154n
5.32-4 107n 8.6-8 113n 10.20-4 154n
5.35 107n 8.7 113n 10.24 165n
5.35-6.2 107n 8.8f. 113n 10.24-6 154n
6.2-10 106n,107n 8.8-12 113n 10.25 154n
6.3f. 20 In 8.9 115n 10.26-8 114n
6.3-5 297n 8.11 113n,148n 10.26-11.4
6.5 107n,294n 8.12f. 115n 154n
6.6 106n 8.12-16 113n 10.28-11.4
6.8 107n 8.15 113n 154n
6.8-10 107n 8.16-20 113n 10.29 136, 155n,
6.1 Of. 284n 8.18 115n 156n
6.10-18 108n 8.19 113n 10.29f. 155n
6.15-22 llln 8.20f. 115n 10.32 155n
6.16 20In,242n 8.22-5 113n 10.33 156n
6.16f. 296n 8.24f. 113n 10.33f. 160n
6.18 284n 8.25f. 113n 10.33-6 155n
6.19 106n 8.26-8 114n 11.2 155n
 Index 359

11.3 156n 12.16 136, 155n 14.19ff. 296n

11.4f. 165n 12.17f. 139 14.20 294n
11.4-6 165n 12.18f. 139 14.23- 30 207n
11.4-10 156n, 12.19 159n 14.24- 30 296n
11.7-10 135, 157n, 158n 12.19f. 139 14.24- 34 205n
11.8-10 160n 12.20 159n 14.25 63n
11.10-15 157n 12.21f. 139 14.26-30 205n
11.10-22 154n,156n 12.22 153n,160n 14.30f. 208n
11.11-15 164n 12.22f. 139 14.31 63 n
11.15-18 157n 12.23 160n 15.1- 5 205n,242n
11.15-22 157n 12.24f. 139 15.3-5 246n
11.16 157n 12.25 136 15.5- 11 208n
11.18-22 158n 12.25f. 157n 15.9-11 208n
11.19-22 135,158n 12.26-33 156n 15.10 20 In
11.20f. 164n 12.29 154n 15.11-13 205n,208n,
11.2 If. 161n 12.33-13.1 246n
11.22-5 154n,156n 114n, 15.13- 23 208n
11.22.9 249n 157n 15.14 139
11.23 159n 12.34-13.5 15.14- 23 139, 161n
11.26 136, 155n, 294n 15.15f. 139
156n 12.35-13.5 15.17 139
11.26-34 158n 154n,156n 15.18 139
11.26-12.26 13.1-5 158n 15.21 139
156n 13.5-7 163n 15.22f. 139
11.27 159n 13.9-13 164n 15.23- 19.2
11.29 159n 13.14-17 164n 208n
11.30 159n 13.21-3 164n 15.23- 29 208n
11.30f. 136 13.23-6 164n 15.29f. 14,57n
11.31 153n,156n, 13.26-32 164n 15.29- 19.10
160n 13.30-14.1 157n
11.32 160n 164n 15.29- 19.15
11.33 136 14.1-6 165n 64 n
11.34f. 156n 14.4 106n 18.2- 6 247n
11.35-12.4 14.5f. 145 19.2- 15 207n
160n 14.5-13 164n,257n 19.3 156n
12.1 160n 14.7-9 150n,165n 19.6- 10 209n
12.3f. 160n 14.9-13 165n 19.13-15 209n
12.4f. 156n,160n 14.11 165n 19.15- 18 242n,243n
12.4ff. 158n 14.13f. 200n 19.16f. 63 n
12.5 113n 14.13-15 199n 19.17 242n
12.5-8 160n 14.14f. 200n 19.17f. 289n, 296n
12.8 161n 14.15f. 63 n 19.17ff. 242n
12.8-10 158n,161n 14.15-18 199n 19.18f. 219
12.9 113n 14.18 200n 19.20f. 244n
12.10-13 161n 14.18-24 205n,242n, 19.21-20.5
12.11 113n 297n 244n
12.12f. 161n 14.18-15.2 19.25 244n
12.13-15 161n 200n 19.27f. 244n, 255n
12.14 161n 14.18-15.13 19.27- 32 244n
12.15-25 139,161n, 115n 19.28- 32 294n
208n 14.19 204n,242n 19.32f. 246n
360 Index

19.34-20.5 22.3-9 249n 23.37-24. 4

246n 22.7 316n 253n
20.3-7 290n 22.9 249n,252n 24.4f. 255n
20.5-7 246n 22.9-15 249n 24.4-6 253n
20.7-9 246n 22.15f. 250n 24.6-8 253n
20.9f. 242n,289n, 22.15-18 250n 24.8-13 254n
296n 22.16f. 25 In 24.9 63n
20.9ff. 242n 22.16-18 24.11 25 In
20.9-19 246n 250n,254n 24.13 289n
20.9-31 297n 22.18 63n 24.13f. 222,294n
20.10 295n 22.18-10 250n 24.13ff. 254n
20.12 63 n 22.18-23.26 24.13-15 254n
20.14-19 242n,254n 210n 24.14f. 107n
20.14-24 25 7n 22.20f. 25 In 24.15-17 254n
20.17-19 243n 22.21f. 149n 24.16 63n
20.19 289n 22.21-8 25 In 24.18f. 254n
20.191'. 257n 22.28ff. 250n 24.19f. 254n
20.19-24 246n 22.28-30 25 In 24.20-4 254n
20.24-8 242n 22.28-23.36 24.22 254n
20.25 248n 297n 24.24-7 254n
20.25-8 247n 22.29f. 63 n 24.26 255n
20.28-31 247n 22.31f. 251n 24.26-9 255n
20.30-3 290n 22.32-6 294n 24.27 63n,255n
20.32f. 247n 22.32-23.2 24.29 255n
20.33 247n 250n 24.29-32 255n
20.33-21.2 22.34-23.2 24.3 If. 248n
247n 255n 24.32-4 255n,256n
20.33-21.13 23.4-26 251n 24.34-25. 2
208n 23.5-24 243n 256n
20.33-21.14 23.9 25 In 25.2 256n
209n 23.9-24 25 In 25.2f. 256n
20.35-21.4 23.14-22 150n 25.2-4 256n
247n 23.17ff. 252n 25.2-7 256n
21.4-9 248n 23.18-24 25 In 25.2-16 242n,289n,
21.6ff. 255n 23.20-2 247n,257n 316n
21.9 248n 23.20-4 242n, 243n, 25.3fT. 293n
21.9-12 248n 316n 25.7-9 257n
21.12 248n 23.24 107n,289n, 25.9-11 257n,289n
21.12-14 248n 294n 25.14-16 316n
21.13f. 246n 23.24-6 252n,254n 25.16f. 14
21.13-16 242n 23.24-31 252n 25.16-27.31
21.14-16 248n 23.24-35 249n 284n
21.16-19 249n 23.28 292n 25.18-23 285n
21.16-22.9 23.28f. 252n 25.23f. 285n
248n 23.29 107n,289n 25.23ff. 287n
21.19-24 249n 23.30f. 252n,253n 25.23-5 284n
21.24-9 249n 23.31-3 253n 25.23-9 316n
21.26-9 253n 23.33-35 253n,254n 25.23-26.7
21.29-22.2 23.34-25. 3 286n
249n 256n 25.24 286n
22.3-10 252n 23.37 253n,254n 25.26 287n
 Index 361
25.30 316n 28.30-2 29 In 31.13f. 317n,318n
25.36-26.3 28.32-29. 1 31.16 295n,296n
298n 29 In 31.16-25 318n
26.3f. 298n 28.35 29 In 31.18 298n
26.6 287n 29.1-3 29 In 31.18f. 317n
26.7-19 287n 29.3-6 292n 31.20f. 298n
26.10-19 245n 29.6-8 292n 31.22-5 298n
26.12-14 286n 29.8-12 292n 31.23-5 60n,285n
26.15-17 285n 29.9f. 285n 31.24-7 242n
26.15-18 286n 29.12-15 292n 31.25-7 295n,317n
26.20 248n 29.13f. 292n 31.27-32 295n
26.20-2 286n 29.16f. 293n 31.28-32 103n
26.22-32 287n,316n 29.16-21 293n 31.31f. 285n
26.26 289n 29.21-6 286n,293n 31.32-32. 6
26.27 248n,293n 29.24 248n,293n 295n
26.32-5 285n 29.25f. 293n 32.6 295n
26.32-27.11 29.26-8 293n
287n 29.26-30 294n
26.32-27.21 29.28-30 293n Codex III
284n,315n 29.30-4 294n 1.4-10 317n
26.36 248n,293n 29.33-30.7 1.4-15 294n
27.8 288n 294n 1.9 298n
27.9-11 285n 30.7-9 294n 5.2f. 105n
27.11-21 288n 30.9-11 103n,294n 6.6f. 105n
27.21-7 317n 30.11 293n 6.8-10 105n
27.25 298n 30.11-13 298n 6.13-19 105n
27.27-31 317n 30.11-15 289n 6.19-21 317n
27.28 317n 30.11-16 297n 6.19-7.2 105n
27.31-33 284n,289n 30.11.24 297n 7.2-12 106n
27.32f. 248n,293n 30.11-31.25 7.5 284n
27.33f. 242n, 289n, 104n,295n 7.7f. 77
296n 30.11.33-35 7.12-14 107n
27.33ff. 242n 297n 7.12-15 106n
27.33-28.5 30.12 294n 7.12-23 248n
257n, 289n, 30.15f. 292n 7.15-8.5 106n
295n 30.15-31.2 7.16f. 106n,107n
27.34-28.3 297n 7.19 295n, 295n
289n 30.16 318n 7.22-8.5 107n,20In
27.35 289n,295n 30.16-20 296n 7.23f. 20 In
28. If. 289n 30.21-32 289n,318n 8.7-13 106n
28.1-11 289n 30.24 292n 8.8-10 106n
28.1-15 157n 30.27 297n 8.10 107n
28.2 294n 30.33f. 292n 8.13 106n
28.3f. 290n 31.If. 318n 8.18f. 107n
28.4 289n 31.5 295n 8.20-9.3 107n
28.5-10 290n 31.5f. 252n,298n 9.1-3 107n
28.6f. 290n 31.10 298n 9.3f. 107n
28.8ff. 285n 31.11 289n 9.3-10 106n
28.9-11 290n 31. Ilf. 292n 9.4f. 20 In
28.11-16 290n 31.11-16 297n 9.4-10 107n
28.11-31 29 In 31.12f. 252n 9.6-8 107n
362 Index

9.10-12 284n 12.24-13.1 16.13 154n

9.10-19 108n 114n 16.15-19 154n
9.15-19 108n 12.25 244n 16.19-17.5
9.17 242n,294n 12.25f. 114n 154n
9.19 284n 13.1 114n 16.20 136, 156n
9.24 108n 13. If. 290n 16.23 155n
10.2 108n 13.1-3 201n 16.23-17 155n
10.9-14 llOn 13.2 114n 16.24 156n
10.14 109n 13.4 94 16.25-17.1
10.14f. llOn 13.4-9 115n 155n
10.15-18 llOn 13.5 115n 17.4 155n
10.15-20 1 lOn 13.9-11 115n 17.5-12 155n
10.20f. 11 On 13.11-13 115n 17.7-17 156n
10.21-3 1 lOn 13.14-17 115n 17.12-17 155n
10.23-11.2 13.15 96 17.15 155n
11 In 13.17-19 115n 17.19f. 156n
11.3-6 11 In 13.17-14.9 17.20-5 156n
11.4 86 318n 17.20f. 156n
11.6-11 108n,11In 13.19-14.9 17.20-18.7
11.11 112n 115n 158n
11.12f. 108n,112n 14.4 115n 17.22 106n,136,
11.13f. 112n 14.9f. 147n,243n 156n,159n
11.14-19 112n 14.9-14 149n 17.23 159n
11.16 244n 14.14 150n 17.24 159n
11.17 284n 14.14-19 150n 18.1 159n
11.19 112n 14.19-23 150n 18.2 136, 159n
11.20 112n 14.23-15.2 18.3 156n,160n
11.20f. 112n 150n 18.6 136, 254n
11.21-3 112n 15.2f. 123 18.7-9 156n
11.23-12. 1 15.3 243n 18.8f. 158n
113n 15.3f. 150n 18.9f. 160n
11.23-12.11 15.4-9 150n 18.9-12 160n
112n 15.6f. 151n 18.12-16 160n
11.24-12. 1 15.8-12 152n 18.12-19 157n
148n 15.11 160n 18.13 254n
12.1-3 113n 15.12 254n 18.16-19 160n
12.3-8 113n 15.13-23 152n 18.19-22 161n
12.5 115n 15.15 152n 18.20 161n
12.9 115n 15.19-21 25 In 18.22-4 I61n
12.12f. 115n 15.21 152n 18.24f. 161rt
12.8-11 113n 15.23 154n 18.25 161n
12.1 If. 113n 15.23-16.4 21.2-15 164n
12.11-16 113n 154n 21.4-13 257n
12.16-22 113n 16.4-6 154n 21.6-16 164n
12.19 244n 16.5 254n 21.7f. 164n
12.19f. 114n 16.7 154n 21.8-11 150n
12.19-20 113n 16.7-11 114n 21.16-18 199n
12.20 113n 16.7-19 154n 21.17f. 200n
12.21 244n 16.8f. 141 21.18-21 199n
12.2 If. 113n,114n 16.8-15 162n 21.21-22.6
12.22-4 113n 16.9 130 200n
 Index 3'

21.21-24 204n,242n 25.8 63n 30.10-12 150n,254n

21.21-22.6 25.12 289n 30.10-14 25 In
204n 25.12-17 246n 30.1 If. 257n
22. If. 208n 25.17-23 242n,247n 30.14-17 252n
22.3-6 205n 25.20-2 295n 30.14-19 249n
22.6-23.11 25.20-3 147n 30.16-19 252n
207n 25.23-26.3 30.16-20 253n
22.9-14 208n 247n 30.18f. 253n
22.14-18 208n 26.2-6 290n 30.20 316n
22.15-18 205n,246n 26.3-6 247n 30.20-2 253n
22.18-23.7 26.4f. 247n 30.24-31.2
208n 26.6-25 208n 253n
22.19-23.6 26.6-27.1 209n 30.23 253n
139 26.8-13 247n 31.2 253n
22.21 139 26.10 254n 31.2-4 253n
22.22f. 139 26.16 254n 31.4-6 253n
23. If. 139 26.13-19 248n 31.6-9 254n
23.2f. 139 26.19 248n 31.9 290n
23.4 139 26.20-3 248n 31.12f. 254n
23.5 139 26.23 248n 31.14-16 254n
23.7-14 208n 26.23-27.1 31.16-19 254n
23.7-19 207n 248n 31.18 254n
23.14-19 209n 26.25f. 246n 31.19-21 254n
23.19-24.1 27.2-4 248n,289n 31.20f. 254n
242n,243n 27.4-8 248n 31.21-32.1
23.21 150n,243n 27.4-28.16 255n
23.21f. 149n 248n 31.22 255n
23.22 242n 27.9f. 249n 32.1-3 255n
23.22f. 289n,294n 27.9-14 249n 32.3-6 255n,256n
23.22-24.3 27.14-21 249n 32.6f. 256n
219 27.21-28.6 32.6-9 256n
23.23 243n,244n 249n 32.6-10 256n
24.2 244n 28.6-16 249n 32.8-10 256n
24.2f. 244n 28.16f. 249n 32.8-22 289n,296n,
24.3f. 244n 28.16-23 249n 316n
24.4-20 244n 28.23-5 250n 32.9 256n
24. Ilf. 63n,219 28.24 250n 32.9f. 289n
24.12-14 246n 28.25-29.1 32.10-14
24.14-20 246n 250n 256n
24.17-23 290n 28.25-30.14 32.14f. 257n
24.18f. 246n 210n 32.22-36.15
24.20-2 246n 29. If. 25 In 284n
24.21-3 246n 29.2-12 25 In 32.25-33.3
24.23f. 246n 29.12-15 25In 285n
24.25 242n 29.15-17 25In 33.4f. 285n,286n
24.25-25.1 29.18-21 250n 33.4-6 284n
289n,294n 29.18-24 210n 33.4-9 316n
24.25-25.11 29.21-24 250n 33.4-23 286n
246n 30.1-14 25 In 33.5 286n
24.26-8 246n 30.3f. 251n, 255n 33.7 287n
25.6-17 257n 30.3-14 25 In 33.7-15 316n
364 Index

33.23-34.15 38.20-2 293n 9.11-23 108n

287n 38.22-4 293n 9.19f. 20 In
33.25-34.5 38.25-39.3 9.22f. 284n
285n 294n 10.12-18 1 lOn
34.3-15 245n 39.3 294n 10.18-22 1 lOn
34.7-9 286n 39.4f. 294n 10.20-5 1 lOn
34.9-14 285n,286n 39.5-8 294n 10.26 1 lOn
34.13f. 289n 39.8-11 103n,294n 10.27-9 1 lOn
34.15-18 286n 39.1 If. 107n,242n 10.29-11.5
34.16 248n 39.11-13 275, 294n, 11 In
34.18-35.2 298n 11.5f. 284n
287n,316n 39.13f. 295n,317n 11.6-9 11 In
35.2-5 285n 39.14 295n 11.11-14 11 In
35.2-18 287n 39.14-18 295n 11.13f. 11 In
35.2-36.3 315n 39.15-18 103n 11.14 294n
35.2-36.4 284n 39.18 285n 11.15-18 11 In
35.18-36.4 39.18-21 64n,242n, 11.18-21 108n
288n 249n,295n, 11.18-22 108n
36.4-10 317n 298n,316n 11.18-24 112n
36.10 317n 39.19 256n 11.21-3 112n
36.10-15 317n 39.19-21 257n, 275, 12.2-6 112n
36.15-17 284n,289n 296n 12.9f. 113n
36.18ff. 294n 39.21f. 295n,318n 12.9-11 113n
36.18-37.1 39.22 318n 12.10f. 148n
289n 39.22-40.9 12.11-14 113n
36.19f. 242n 295n 12.12 113n
36.20-5 257n 12.14-20 113n
36.23f. 289n Codex TV 12.18 113n
36.23-37.1 4.28-5.1 105n, 12.19 148n
290n 5.25-6.9 105n 12.20-6 113n
36.24f. 104n,285n 5.6 105n 12.24 113n
37.1-6 290n 6.9 105n 12.26-13.3
37.6f. 157n,290n 6.10-13 317n 113n
37.8-14 29 In 6.10-20 105n 13.2 113n
37.9 290n 6.20-7 106n 14.If. 115n
37.1 If. 291n 7.1-5 106n 14.2-6 115n
37.13f. 29 In 7.5-27 106n 15.1-4 149n
37.14-18 29 In 7.17 201n 15.4-9 150n
37.17f. 29 In 7.20-7 107n,20In 15.5 150n
37.18-21 291n 7.27-8.1 106n 16.1-6 152n
37.19f. 29 In 8.1-4 107n 17. If. 155n
37.21f. 292n 8.4f. 107n 17.16f. 156n
37.22-38.1 8.1-8 106n 17.17-23
292n 8.2-7 106n 157n
38.1-5 292n 8.20-4 107n 17.18-18.6
38.2f. 285n 8.24-7 107n 156n
38.5-8 292n 8.27 107n 17.24-18.2
38.5-10 292n 8.27-9 107n 157n
38.10-16 293n 9.3 201n 17.24-18.6
38.1 If. 293n 9.8-11 107n 157n
38.16-20 286n,293n 9.11-13 284n 18.2-6 158n
 Index 365
18.18-20.1 23.9f. 208n 33.17-24 290n
156n 23.14-20 205n,242n 33.21-34.5
18.18-24 158n 23.16-20 246n 249n
18.24f. 156n 23.20-8 208n 34.5-9 249n
18.26-19.2 23.26-8 208n 34.15-21 249n
160n 23.27f. 201 n 34.20f. 254n
18.28 160n 23.29-24.2 34.26-8 250n
19.2 160n 205n,208n, 34.28f. 25 In
19.3f. 160n 246n 34.29-35.7
19.4-6 160n 24.2-4 208n 251n
19.10-13 161n 24.3-14 161n 35.9-36.21
19.12f. 161n 24.4f. 139 210n
19.13-15 161n 24.7 139 35.14-22 250n
19.14 161n 24.10 139 35.26-36.17
19.15-26 161n,208n 24.13 139 243n
19.17 155n 24.15-21 208n 36. Iff. 25 In
19.23 160n 24.15-29.5 36.17 294n
20.2-10 156n 208n 36.17ff. 252n
20.5 154n 27.34-28.4 36.17-29 252n
20.10-18 154n,156n 257n 36.17-37 249n
20.18-24 163n 29.2f. 289n 36.24-6 292n
20.24-9 164n 29.22-4 209n 36.29-37.1
20.30-21.3 29.24-7 242n,243n 253n
164n 29.27 242n 37.1-4 253n,254n
21.8-10 164n 29.27-30. 1 37.6 253n
21.10-15 164n 219 37.7-11 253n,
21.16-22 164n 30.2f. 244n 37.15-17 253n
21.20-22. 1 30.3-26 244n 37.17-23 254n
164n 30.17f. 246n 37.23-6 254n
22.1-7 165n 30.19-26 246n 37.24f. 294n
22.5f. 145 30.24 289n 37.27-9 254n
22.5-15 257n 31.1-3 246n 38.1-3 254n
22.6-15 164n 31.3-5 289n 38.4-6 254n
22.8-11 150n,165n 31.3-8 246n 38.6-10 254n
22.11-15 165n 31.5 295n 38.8 254n
22.13 165n 31.7 247n 38.10-14 254n
22.14 165n 31.16-23 246n 38.14 255n
22.17-19 200n 31.24-7 247n 38.17 255n
22.17-20 199n 31.27-31. 1 38.17-21 255n
22.19f. 200n 246n 38.21-4 255n,256n
22.21-5 199n 31.27-32.5 38.24-30 256n
22.24f. 200n 247n 38.24-31 256n
22.23-23.2 32.3-7 290n 38.29 256n
242n 32.5-7 247n 38.29ff. 293n
22.25 204n,294n 32.7-27 208n 38.29-39.15
22.25-23.2 32.16-22 248n 289n
205n 33.1 248n 38.30-2 256n
22.25-23.18 33.1-5 249n 38.30-39.4
200n 33.1-34.9' 248n 256n
23.3-14 205n 33.5-14 249n 39.7-9 257n,289n
23.5-9 205n 33.14-21 249n 39.13-15 316n
366 Index

39.16-43.6 43.29-44.17 Eugnostos

284n 290n Codex III
39.19-25 285n 44.18-20 29 In 71.13- 73.3
39.21f. 295n 44.25f. 29 In 104n
39.25ff. 287n 44.27-45.1 73.5 284n
39.25-7 285n 292n 74.20- 75.9
39.25-8 284n 45.1-5 292n 1 lOn
39.25-40.3 45.5-9 292n 76.19- 24 204n
316n 45.6f. 285n 76.23f. 202n
39.25- 40.20 45.14-21 293n 77.13- 78.2
286n 45.2 If. 289n 204n
39.27 285n 45.21-7 293n 77.17 284n
39.30 287n 45.25 293n 81.10- 12 203n
40.4 316n 45.26f. 293n 81.12 114n,201n
40.11-16 298n 45.27-9 293n 81.13 202n
40.19 287n 45.30-46.2 81.21- 82.3
40.20- 41.6 293n 204n
287n 46.2-10 294n 81.21- 85.9
40.21- 6 285n 46.19-23 148n
40.25- 41.6 294n 82.7- 15 1 lOn
245n 46.22 293n 82.7- 83.2 148n
40.29- 32 286n 46.23-9 289n 83.10- 84.8
40.32-41.4 46.23-49.6 155n
285n,286n 295n 85.10- 12 20In
41.6- 10 286n 47. If. 318n 86.5f. 284n
41.10- 20 287n,316n 47.8-22 289n 88.1 Of. 284n
41.10- 42.23 47.13-17 289n
315n 47.15 297n Codex V
41.15f. 293n 47.29-48.2 3.6 284n
41.21- 4 285n 3l8n 5.30-6.4 204n
41.21- 42.10 48.6f. 298n 6.19- 7.2 204n
287n 48.8-12 318n 6.23 284n
41.25f. 293n 48.13 298n 8.27-9.13 204n
41.29- 42.1 48.14-17 289n 9.21- 25 203n
298n 48.14-18 249n 9.24 20 In
42.5 298n 48.17f. 317n,318n 10.5-10 204n
42.11- 23 288n 48.22 295n 13.12f. 202n
42.24- 43.1 48.22-49.6
317n 318n Exegesis on the Soul
42.29 298n 48.24f. 298n,317n 127.19- 129.5
43.2 317n 48.28f. 298n 164n
43.6- 8 284n, 289n 49.1-6 298n
43.8 293n 49.6f. 289n Gospel of the Egyptians
43.8-17 289n 49.6-8 295n,317n Codex III
43.9 289n 49.8-13 295n 40.12-55.16
43.9f. 242n 49.12f. 285n 49
43.12- 24 289n 49.13-26 295n 40.15-41.4
43.24- 9 157n 49.26 295n 203n
43.24- 30 290n 41.7- 12 68n
43.24- 44.19 Book of Thomas 41.7- 42.4 107n
291n 145.13 315n 42.2 llOn
 Index 367
42.3f. 57n 57.16-58.5 64.9- 65.26
42.5-11 107n 155n 67 n
42.7-10 1 lOn,1lln 57.16-58.22 64.9- 68.1 49
42.12f. 57n 157n 64.14- 20 65n
44.1 Of. 57n 57.20f. 155n 65.4 316n
44.22-4 58n 57.20-58.22 65.1 If. 108n
44.23 109n 163n 65.12 284n
44.23-4 109n 57.21-58.2 65.12- 22 113n, 114n,
44.26f. 68 n 161n 318n
49.1-16 202n 58. If. 163n 65.25- 66.8
49.8f. 20 In 58.7-22 154n 58n
49.8-12 115n,201n 58.8-10 155n 65.26- 66.8
49.8-16 203n,204n 58.12 155n 67n,298n,
49.19 114n 58.13-15 160n 318n
50. If. 68 n 58.15 155n 66.22- 67.4
50.17-51.19 58.18 155n 246n
113n 58.20 155n 66.22- 68.1
50.17-51.22 58.21f. 155n 58n,61n,62n,
114n 58.22 156n 318n
50.17-55.11 58.24-6 163n,164n, 66.3 60n
106n 199n 67.15- 68.1
50.20f. 114n 58.25f. 23n 299n
51.8f. 104n,285n 58.26f. 161n 67.19-21 318n
52.8-10 113n 59 200n 67.22- 4 58n
52.9-13 113n 59.1-9 207n 67.25f. 318n
52.19-53.10 59.2 200n 68.1- 69.5 50
65 n 59.4-10 200n
52.30-53.1 59.9-60.2 149n,298n Codex FV
284n 59.13-15 104n,285n 50.1- 67.1 49
53.24f. 68 n 60.2-66.8 319n 50.6-15 203n
54.19f. 284n 60.30-61.18 50.23- 51.22
55.2-6 316n 202n 107n
55.12 60 n 61.3 318n 51.19f. 1 lOn
55.15-69.9 61.5f. 68n 51.20f. 57n
49 61.19f. 104n,285n 51.22-52.2
56.8f. 98 61.8-10 20 In 107n
56.22-57.1 62.21 318n 51.25- 52.1
245n 62.24ff. 244n I lOn,11In
56.22- 57.5 62.24-63.9 51.26- 52.1
57n 65 n II In
56.22- 57.16 62.24-64.3 58.6 60n
152n 298n 59.13- 60.11
56.22- 57.18 62.24-64.9 108n
148n 58n,246n, 59.22f. 68 n
56.22- 57.21 299n 60.1- 11 11 In
27n 63.3 60n 60.2f. 108n
56.22- 60.2 63.4-64.9 65n 60.30-61.10
67n 63.9- 64.9 67n 114n
56.25 156n 63.10- 18 256n 61.8- 14 115n,201n
56.26-57.1 63.18 157n 61.8- 16 203n
149n 64.9 58n 61.8- 18 204n
368 Index

62.16- 63.14 67.23-30 67n 36 245n,257n

113n 70.9-22 210n 42 315n
62.16- 66.25 71.4 202n 46 287n
106n 74.12- 21 58n, 67n,62n
62.19 114n 74.12- 22 299n Hypostasis of the
63.2f. 285n 74.12- 24 27n Ar chons
63.2- 6 113n 75.25-76.4 86.25 207n
64.15-23 284n 202n,204n 86.27-87.11
66.7 284n 75.35-76.4 203n
66.14- 19 316n 203n 86.27-87.23
66.19 315n 77.7-78.12 63n,204n,
67.2- 75.24 288n 205n
49 81.14-21 202n, 204n 86.28-32 161n
67.18 315n 86.28-88. 16
68.5-10 148n, 245n Gospel of Truth 197n
69.1- 3 148n 16.31-17.4 86.30 23n
69.1- 5 155n 240n 86.30f. 199n
70-71.11 298n 17.24 257n 87.3f. 158n
70.1 155n 17.33 257n 87.11-20 207n
70.1- 5 154n 17.36 257n 87.11-33 200n,296n
70.4 155n 18.1 257n 87.15-20 207n
71.11-78.10 18.1-11 24n, 87.20-23 207n
319n 18.4-11 240n 87.23-6 207n
72.12 318n 18.6 257n 87.24-33 208n
73.3f. 285n 18.8 257n 87.27f. 204n
74.9ff. 244n 18.11 257n 87.27-9 159n
74.9- 75.17 18.18 257n 87.27-88. 1
298n 20.38 257n 207n
74.9- 75.24 21.14-23 257n 87.30-35 204n
299n 21.36 257n 87.30-88.3
74.9- 78.10 22.2-20 240n 242n
27n, 24.25-33 257n 87.33-88.1
74.11 284n 24.28ff. 240n 206n
74.16 60n 24.28-32 314n 88.3-10 207n
75.24- 77.20 24.37-25.3 88.3-17 207n,209n
67n 257n 88.6-17 207n
75.24- 80.15 30.14-23 257n 88.17-19 297n
49 30.31 27n 88.11-15 206n,243n
77.7 284n 35.8-36.3 257n 88.11-19 297n
77.7-19 318n 40.30-41.14 88.16f. 209n
77.9 108n 315n 88.24-32 249n
78.1- 10 298n, 318n 42.14 284n 88.26-89.3
79.3- 80.15 250n
62n, 318n Heracleon fragments 89.3-7 25 In
80.15- 81.2 12 315n 89.3-11 210n
50 13 287n 89.3-15 25 In
16 257n 89.3-31 25 In
Gospel of Philip 27 287n 89.1 Of. 207n
63.29f. 202n 32-4 315n 89.11-17
65.1- 66.4 287n 34 315n 65n,210n,
67.19-30 27n 35-6 245n 243n,297n
 Index 369
89.11- 20 297n 94.23f. 199n 28.24-29.5
89.11- 90.18 94.21f. 23n, 199n 245n
25n 94.23f. 205n 28.26-30 242n
89.17- 31 210n,250n, 94.25f. 158n 28.29- 29.5
251n,254n 94.28-33 205n 66n
89.18- 31 25In 94.34- 96.14 29.1- 5 202n
89.21 254n 24n
89.24f. 254n 94.35- 95.1 On the Origin of the
89.31ff. 210n 154n World
89.31- 90.10 95.1 284n 98.1- 100.10
250n 95.5 199n 151n
89.31- 90.12 95.5- 96.3 98.11-106.27
115n,210n, 243n 147n
243n 95.7 158n 98.16-18 149n
89.31- 90.18 95.8 152n 98.23- 100.10
207n 95.1 If. 152n 153n
90.12 210n 95.33f. 165n 100.7 152n
90.13-29 253n 96.3f. 152n 100.10-29
91.3-5 253n 96.15-97.21 205n
91.11-14 255n 285n 100.12f. 153n
92.4f. 63n 96.17-97.9 100.14 152n
92.4-14 292n 246n 100.19 152n
92.4-18 292n 96.31-97.9 100.24 152n
92.11 292n 58n 100.25f. 159n
92.27-94.2 96.33- 97.4 100.25- 7 159n
27n, 297n,299n 100.26- 33
92.32-93.13 96.33- 97.9 163n
26n 62n,201n, 100.29- 101.2
92.32-93.2 204n 164n
242n 101.9- 102.2
92.33-93.13 Letter of Peter to Philip 160n
27n 134.18-138.3 101.9- 107.1
93.2-94.33 285n 24n
149n 101.10- 22
93.8f. 148n,149n Melchisedek 159n
93.18f. 148n 6.2f. 114n 101.23- 102.2
93.21f. 57n 6.5f. 104n, 202n, 162n
94.2-97.21 203n,290n 101.26- 34
245n 6.6 102, 114n 208n
94.3 148n 101.26- 102.2
94.4-10 149n Norea 162n
94.5-96.15 27.11 66n,243n 101.33f. 162n
147n 27.11- 19 66n 102.11 154n
94.5-17 151n 27.11- 22 242n 102. Ilf. 152n
94.8-95.13 27.11- 28.12 102.26 29 In
203n 243n 102.35-103.4
94.10-19 153n 27.21- 29.4 29 In
94.15 152n 149n 103. If. 152n
94.17 152n,159n 28.5- 11 66n 103.2-32 197n, 203n,
94.19-23 161n 28.21- 29.1 205n,296n
94.19-33 205n,296n 202n 103.4f. 154n
370 Index

103.8- 15 161n 112.13 317n 116.33-117.15

103.8- 24 202n 112.20 165n 210n
103.11- 13 112.2 If. 317n 117.15fT. 254n
23n,199n 112.25 201n, 205n 117.28 205n
103.18 158n 112.25- 113.2 117.28f. 20 In
103.19 290n 206n 117.28-30
103.19- 28 112.25- 113.5 204n
201n, 202n, 242n 117.28-118.3
204n 112.25- 113.10 20 In
103.24 153n 197n 118.1 317n
103.28-32 112.25- 113.12 118.24-119.19
200n,205n 200n 250n
103.30 284n 112.33-113.1 119.19-120.3
104.3- 6 296n 208n 253n
104.11- 13 113.5-10 202n,242n 120.7f. 253n
164n 113.21-114.15 121.4f. 253n
104.12 154n 210n 121.5-125 .23
104.30f. 165n 114.7- 11 151n 204n
105.22f. 165n 114.7- 15 298n 121.13-20
106.7f. 165n 114.8- 15 64n 29 In
106.13 154n 114.24 318n 121.26f. 318n
106.19 154n 114.29- 35 122.6-8 318n
107.17- 108.25 208n 122.6-9 20 In
296n 114.34f. 162n 123.4-25 29 In
107.17- 108.31 114.36-115.1 123.30f. 318n
200n 208n 123.31-125.32
107.17- 109.1 115.1-3 207n 297n
203n 115.3- 5 208n 125.4-7 66n
107.25-108.25 115.3- 15 209n 125.8f. 316n
197n, 202n, 115.5 208n 125.23-30
204n 115.9- 15 206n 29 In
107.30f. 23n, 199n 115. lOf. 208n 125.28f. 29 In
107.34f. 158n 115.11-116.33 125.32f. 318n
107.36-108.13 297n
205n 115.13f. 208n Paraphrase of Shem
108.3- 13 205n 115.27-9 249n 1.25-4.21
108.2-13 205n 115.30- 116.8 205n
108.20- 4 20In 210n
108.21 114n, 205n 115.30- 116.10 Pistis Sophia
108.23 114n 297n Book 1
108.23-5 115n 115.30- 116.25 2-3 205n
108.24f. 207n 210n,251n 4 317n
108.32 207n 115.31- 117.15 22 291n
109. If. 202n 25 In 22-3 284n
110.12f. 317n 115.34 208n 31 152n
110.13 318n 116.8- 33 25In 39 248n
112.1-10 29In 116.8- 117.15
112.10 201n, 205n 250n,254n Book 2
112.10-113.10 116.25- 9 250n 66 152n,159n,
203n,204n 116.25- 117.15 160n
112.12 165n 25 In 100 316n
 Index 371
Book 3 86. Ilf. 284n 118.22- 119.8
102 152n 88.8f. 104n,105n, 204n
104 288n 285n
111 260, 286n, 95.14 284n The Testimony of Truth

00

Oi
o
> H
288n,290n, 48.4-8 199n

c
1
291n,293n 100.12- 16
111-12 284n 203n The Three Steles of
111-17 248n 100.14 114n,201n Seth
112 260,284n 103.10- 104.7 118.Ilf. 104n,
126 159n,254n 242n 118.12f. 104n, 285n
131 284n,286n 103.17 248n 118.24-121.25
132 209n, 248n, 109.16 284n 202n
288n 113.18 284n 118.26 102, 104n,
117.12- 124.9 114n
Book 4 285n 118.26- 8 114n
141 286n 118.1-121.13 118.26- 119.11
143 285n 147n 20In '
147 260, 286n, 118.10-■119.16 118.26- 119.18
288n 151n 203n
147-8 284n 119.14f . 154n 121.14ff. 104n
148 260 119.16 152n 125.23- 126.17
121.13--127.2 69 n
Second Treatise of the 285n 127.20f. 247n, 319n
Great Seth 125.16 154n
50.25- 30 164n,243n 125.19--126.16 Trimorphic Protennoia
50.25- 51.7 204n 37.3- 38.16
147n 57n
50.25- 51.20 Codex III 37.3- 40.29
147n 91.4 297n 58n
50.27- 30 149n 95.23f. 284n 37.18-20 114n
50.28 151n 97.8f. 104n,285n 37.20f. 57n
51.20- 54.15 97.9 105n 37.20-30 68n, 104n
205n 102.5 284n 37.30-3 109n
51.20- 54.16 104. If. 20 In 37.30-34 58n
199n 105.11--14 38.1-7 203n
51.20- 56.20 203n 38.1 Of. 57n
2432n 105.12f. 20 In 38.16-39. 13
51.24-31 205n 105.14 114n 114n,244n
53.13f. 152n 106.24-107.11 38.17-24 108n
53.27- 31 23n 242n 38.22f. 11 In
53.27- 33 161n 107.5f. 248n 38.30-39. 13
53.30f. 199n 112. lOf. 284n 64 n
56.21- 7 244n 114.8-118.3 39.13-32 27n,148n,
64.17- 26 23n 285n 158n
64.17- 33 161n 114.13- 18 39.13-40. 4
64.19-26 199n 150n 27n, 57n,64n
68.29 152n 114.13- 25 39.13-40. 19
149n 243n
Sophia of Jesus Christ 114.14- 25 39.13-40. 29
B 151n 58n,114n
78.4f. 297n 118.20 154n 39.21-6 151n
372 Index

39.26- 32 154n, 243n 49.28- 32 246n 119.16-18287n

39.26- 40.8 49.28- 38 318n 119.33 287n
158n 49.28- 50.9 123.19 315n
39.27f. 152n 58n 123.21 315n
39.29 149n, 164n, 50.9f. 60 n 123.27 315n
246n 50.17f. 64n 127.23-5 315n
39.32- 40.4 50.17-20 65n,114n 127.25-128.19
149n 51.1- 55.40 60n
39.32- 40.8 104n 133.7 315n
163n
39.32- 40.19 Treatise on the Valentinian Exposition
148n Resurrection 33.28-38 147n
39.35-40.4 44.31 315n 33.35ff. 298n
165n 48.38-49.6 34.21-38 152n
40.4- 8 156n 257n 34.23-37 147n
40.15 149n, 164n, 34.25-38 150n
246n Tripartite Tractate 37.20-38 58n
40.19- 22 296n 51.1- 11 104n
40.22-9 242n 52.26 284n Valentinus fragments
40.23 154n 53.1 284n 1 257n
40.24 156n 54.20 284n
40.8-22 205n 56.31-57.35 Zostrianos
41.4- 20 114n 60 n 3.23-7.22 60n
42.4- 27 104n 76.2- 77.36 6.7f. 61n
42.17f. 244n 152n 6.7-7.22 27n,69n,
42.17- 45.2 77.23 257n 114n,318n
289n 77.37-78.8 6.7-7.28 113n
43.33- 44.2 298n 6.21-29 202n
23n 80.11-81.35 6.23 102,114n
44.33f. 318n 165n 6.23ff. 104n
45.12- 20 114n,246n 86.4- 87.31 6.23-6 114n
45.29ff. 256n 165n 6.26 114n
47.28- 48.35 86.8-87.17 6.27 285n
27n,246n 257n 7.7-17 62n
47.29- 34 147n 86.19- 23 257n 9.1-11.9 69 n
47.33f. 149n 86.23-87.23 lO.lOf. 149n
47.34- 48.35 318n 13.1-6 202n
298n 87.1-4 257n 13.1-14.14
48.12- 35 60n, 246n, 87.8 27n 69n
318n 87.8f. 27n 13.6 102, 203n
48.18- 20 67n 97.5- 9 316n 17.1 If. 57n
48.26- 35 114n 98.3 257n 29.1-20 113n,114n,
48.27ff. 67n 100.19- 30 318n
48.28f. 284n 66n 29.1-30.14
48.30f. 60 n 100.19- 105.35 69n
49.6f. 244n 58n 29. Ilf. 149n
49.15-17 244n 112.35-113.1 30.4 114n
49.20- 36 246n 207n 30.4f. 104n
49.20- 50.20 118.14-23 30.4-9 114n
27n 197n 30.5f. 114n
49.26ff. 60n 119.16fT. 24In 33.17 114n
 Index 373

51.7 102 Macrobius 1.21 240n

51.14 114n Commentarium de Somnio 1.24-6 208n,29In
51.15 104n Sdpionis 1.26 165n
51.15f. 285n 1.6.79 162n
51.24-54.24 2.11 205n Porphyry
69 n Vita Plotini
86.13f. 69 n Papyri Graecae 16 64n,68n, 291
127.14- 128.7 Magicae
244n 5a. 1 99 Servius
127.15- 129.16 12.157 99 in Aen
69n XIII 161-206 6.714 208n
128.20f. 57n 159n
129.8f. 57n, Plato
Plotinus Timaeus
Enneads 42E-43A 209n
Manichaean Texts 2.9 68 n 48B 256n
Cologne Mani Codex 2.9.1 69 n 69B-71A 197n
2.9.4 164n 69C 206n
50.7-52.7 65n
2.9.5 160n 73B-D 197n
Kephalaia 2.9.6 61n,69n
2.9.8 160n,164n Zosimus
33.9 159n
42 162n 2.9.10 149n,151n, On the Letter Omega
154n,205n 8 290n,293n
65 196n
2.9.11 151n 10-12 57n
11 205n,209n
Pagan and
Poimandres (Corpus Ilf. 293n
Hermetic Texts 12 196n, 209n,
Hermeticum 1)
Coptic Magical 1.9 157n,160n, 246n,290n
Papyrus 208n,29In 14 204n,290n
XLVH.38ff. 159n 1.12-14 208n 14f. 293n
1.12-17 197n 16 246n,249n,
Discourse on the Eighth 1.15 196n,291n 286n
and Ninth 1.16 29 In 16-18 57n, 290n,
57.13-18 1 lOn 1.18 240n 293n
-