‘The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnosties Hans Jonas The Journal of Religion, Vol. 42, No.4 (Oct., 1962), 262-273. Stable URL: http flinksjstor.orgsici?sick=0022-4 189% 28196210%2042%%3A4%9C2623 ATSBOTE®SE2.0.COPBL-Y The Journal of Religion is curtently published by The University of Chicago Press Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at flip: feworwjtor org/aboutterms.htmal. ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in par, that unless you fave obtained pcior permission, you may not dowaload an cnt isus of @ journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial uss. Please contact the publisher cegarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at bhupsferww.jstoc.org/joumals‘ucpresshtel. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transtnission. ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact support @jstor.org- up:thrwwjstor.orgy Mon Aug § 17:12:26 2005THE SECRET BOOKS OF THE EGYPTIAN GNOSTICS' HANS JONAS® one discovery, about 1945, at Nag Hamadi_ in Egypt (the ancient Chenoboskion), of what was prob- ably the complete sacred library of a Gnostic sect is one of those sensational events in the history of religious-his- torical scholarship that archeology and accident have so lavishly provided since the beginning of this century. It was preceded (speaking of written relics only) by the enormous find, early in the century, of Manichaean writings at Turfan in Chinese Turkistan and by the further unearthing, about 1930 in the Egyptian Fayum, of parts of a ‘Manichaean library in Coptic. It was closely fallowed by the discovery of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls in Palestine. If we add to these new sources the Mandaean writings—whose progressive coming to light since the latter part of the last cen- tury is owed not to the digging of archeologists or the scavenging of shep- ‘Professor Jonas at present a member of the Graduate Facaliy of Polieal and Socal Science al the New Schoo for Social Research, New Vor ity, eceteed bie education at Pretorg, Betty, ‘Marburg, and Heidchers, taking «PhD. deere from Macburg ix 1928. "Phe varios gosto ‘he held before and since coming to the New School include visting leturer at Princeton (19583 196t~ (2) and Colembia (1861) universities andthe Tngersol! Lecturer at Harvard Univerty (1960- 61). Hs published earperinlades such books a8 Auturtie und xs paulicke Breikeitsproblen (1980), Gnowls wad spateniher Gest (2 val 834) 1984), and The Gnostic Reinlon? The Merge of the Alen God and the Detieaings of Chrctianisy, and artes appesring in. nimetoas scholarly pecodials which indude. Theolgiche Zech, Sefer Vohanan Lets, Philosophy end Phonanencogtat Reterch, Gnomon, Fowrn of Philosophy, Measure, Seis! Research, American Tours of Psychoovalysi, and many others. herds and peasants hut to contacts with the still-living, long-forgotten sect it- self—we find ourselves now in posses- sion of a massive literature of “lost causes” from thase crucial five or so centuries, from the first century n.c. gious destiny of the Western world took shape: the voice of creeds and flights of thought which, part of that creative process, ‘were to-become obliterated in the con- solidation of official creeds that fol- Towed upon the turmoil of novelty and boundless vision, Unlike the Dead Sea finds of the same years, the Gnostic find from Nag Hamadi has been beset from the be- ginning and to this day by a persistent curse of political roadblocks, litigation, and, worst of all, scholarly jealousies and “firstmanship” (the last factor has grown by now into a veritable chronique scandaleuse of contemporary acade- mia), the combined upshot of which is that fifteen years after the first recog- nition of the natute of the documents only two of the forty-six (forty-nine)? ings have been properly edited! three additional ones have been trans- lated in full," and two (four) more® are available from a different papyrus that also contains them and has recently been published (in its Gnostic. parts) after having been in the Berlin Museum. for sixty years.* For all the rest, about which fragmentary information has been seeping out aver the years, we have now, and probably for quite some time, to be content with the provisional 262THE SECRET BOOKS OF THE EGYPTIAN GNOSTICS descriptions, excerpts, and summaries offered in the book under review. Its author happened, as a young Egyptolo- t from Paris, to be on the spat when, in 1947, the first of the thirteen papyrus codices’ comprising the find was ac- quired by the Coptic Museum in Cairo. He recognized its significance and was from then on intimately connected with, the unfolding story of further acquisi- tion, inventorying, commenication to the’ scientific community—and the aforementioned intramural feuds? By hiis own account, Jean Doresse is, as of now, the only scholar who has had di- rect access {0 the complete Cairo treas- ure, has at least leafed through i of its twelve codices,* catalogued the writ- ings composing them, and taken notes (of varying copiousness and not always at leisure} of their contents, Whatever the ultimate merits in the scramble, the practical fact for the general student is that by embodying those first-hand notes the present book fs in mere terms of information indeed unique and plain- ly indispensable. ‘The monopolistic situation, unhealthy in itself, could have fallen into less worthy hands. Doresse shows himself a ‘competent scholar who joins enthusiasin for the subject with extensive command of the field of Gnostic and related stud- fes and with a lively sense for relevance and interconnection. With this general praise T pass over the valuable general account of gnosticism and its hitherto extant documents (chap. i, fi), as well as the narration of the discavery, to the crucial chapter v, “Forty-four Secret [and hitherto unknown] Books.” This is the real raison d’étre of the book and at the same time the reason by which it is legitimately meant for superses- sion;* the one hundred pages of this 263 chapter contain, one by one, the ré- ‘sumés or at least listings of all the writ ings of which we hope for more com- plete and more direct knowledge in the not-too-distant future. It is provisional information by its very natute, for the serjous student exciting and tantalizing to the highest degree. The résumés range from the fairly detailed to the very bare: some are enriched by direct quotations, some enlarged into inter- pretations and comparisons with older material; sometimes far-reaching con- jectures are ventured; sometimes a writing rates no more than a catalogue title. “My examination... was... unequal and incomplete,” says Doresse (p. 249), calling his notes “rather hur- tied.” The reader, grateful though sometimes vexed, has to take what is offered. On the whole, he feels ably in- formed wherever the information is substantial. With the obvions reservations dictated by the state of airs, some crtial and supple: mentary conuents may be voiced at this stage, Doresse finds (p. 160) the teaching of the Parapivase of Shem, the longest of the revelations in the whale Kbraty (No. 27 by his ousting, which is adopter here forall f= ences), “ential at nearly so" with what Mippolytus reports of 2 “Pareprase of Seth" Rojas, v. 18°22). To elaborate the qulicn- tion, th fst spe in the Masichacun mae ner of a rsiogrup of the primordia! Darkness {o the Light, while the later speaks of the Light's being attracted downward ta the Darke ness, & catceal dilerence. Seeing that none- theless the two works seem to be close rela~ tives indeed, this {5 a good example of how much saverlng—or shall we say permissive play of varition?—there was on Such basic points of doctrine within the same sect, and ‘ith no apparent cuarel. If, by contrast, we just thine of the biter cxnianan battles in Contemporary ecelesastic Chrstendam, we realize. 'what the presence or absence of “chureW” meant ig such matters. Doresse’s ideatcation of No, 14, Discourse of Truth264 by Zostrian . . . (and) Zoroaster, with the “revelations” (drovahigess) tepocted by Por phiyey a8 ging under these two names (p. 156; 1p. 157, a 19), seems to me quite Untense ble; by no artifice can Porphyry’s text be amended {0 refer to ove work anly, as be is very exit about tro diferent works’ being Tefined by two diferent scars (one being himself). Tn No, 40 (“Origin”) the demviurge Talda- baoth, when rebuked by Sophis for his boast- ing, is adresse with the allemative name Samael,” which #© ati to sean “the Blind god" (2. 166)29 The plausible ctymology (xenon) exslaine the appellation “the ‘blind ome" for the demiurge found in Hippol- yrs account of he Paratic, phere It ls dnerely based on an allegory of the Esau story (Befut, v.16. 10), we now leatn that the predicate was mote than an exegetical impro- ‘snion "Another interesting Hlebeew etymol- cay found inthe tame eats js Teel, "the ran who sees God” (Di 171 WN). This is very well known from Philo,!? where it as- umes great doctrinal sigsfcance’® A con- fondanee pairing the cdueated Hellenist with the obscure sectarian tesles €o a common ‘dackground of wetl-esteblished Jewish exe~ gesissTncidestally, he eatie (OF an angen falor) twice makes reference to a “preceding Book of Nore,” which Darewe hives Is found fm the writing actualy preceding in the cacex (No. 39), Hypostase of the Archont, bout his owe account of the Tater's content fardly agrees with what those relerences state “thou wit fing” there (p. 166}. The compare son of the full texts, now possible through Schenke’s translations, ules the conjecture defnitely out. Also Puech identification of the Zypostasis with the book Nori sumtcae rized by Epiphanius (Pawar. 26. 1. 3-9) does fot seem t0_ past closer etamination (cf. Schenk, op. city 83, cl. 662). The simple fact of the mater is tt both consecutive writings in the Nag Hamadi codex belong ta the Bar belognosis in which the fire of Noces eo- joys special atention, cBut its Gnostic domain serch wider and includes the Mandacan.) ‘The altesative file of Nos. 2 = 1, Gospel of the Egyptians, given a the end of a work af this character, shows the extreme latitude mith Thich the title “gospel” was used and should once for all set at rest the doubts steed on {hat seore with regard co the famous writing THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION fof the Jung Codes, i,, whether oF nat it can be the Gospel of Truth that Irenaeus ascribes to the Vatertinians, This text speaks of the “living water" in a manner reminiscent of the Mandaeans and afterward has a passage hich to Doresse recalls a baptismal liturgy’ “T have kaown thee; F mingled myself with him who changes not (ets.)" (pp. 175-80). To me it rather recalls in style and content some of the pass formulas for the ascending soul (the two interpretations are not incom- patible) No. 12, Revelation of Adam to His Son Seth, presents the (originally Manian?) doce trine of a succession (Qhiteer, or more?) of Enlighteners caming down into the world in ‘the course of its history, through the miracu lous births of prophets, Variations of this theme occur in the Pseuda-Clementizes, Mani, and elsewhere in gnosticism—the frst concep” Hon of one “world history” as a divinely helped progress of gnosis, The author of our treatise [s unaware of a clash between ¢his idea of intermittent revelation and that of a continuous secret (ransmission of the "secrets of Adam” through Seth and his descendants, which he professes in the same bresth (p 183). Ta the latter doctrine Doresse quotes (p. 185) 2 parallel froma a later Syriac Chron- ‘la* hut misses in the analogy the salient point of difference. In the Christin rendering of the Chronicle, Adam, when imparting rev- lations to his son Seth, shaws him his origical areatness before his transyression and his ex paulsion from Paradise and admonishes. him never to fail in justice as he, Adam, had done; in the Gnostic rendering, Adam is not the sin niet but the victim of archontic petsecution, ultimately of the primordial Fall to which the world’s existence and his own ate due, Here is one simple criterion for what is “Christian” {orthodox} or “Gnostic” (heretical)? whether ‘the guilt ig Adam's of the archon’s, whether human oF divine, whether arising in or before creation. The diference goes ta the heart of the Guostic problem. In Nos, $= 8, Epistle of Eugnostos the Blessed, Doresse ‘In the fush of discovery claims ‘for this eponymical Eugnostos, also called Gogessos, that “he is, up to the present, the only Gnostic doctor who was certainly 2 historical reality and fs also directly known ta ts throught his writings” (p. 197). This is fan- tastic and hezewith referred to the author for second thoughts. But as regards the questionTHE SECRET BOOKS OF THE EGYPTIAN GNOSTICS of “rect Knowledge” in genecal, it prompts ‘the almost trivial reminder that nothing in the new sources, being taslations one. and all, eqanls in dvecess of testinony the di rect quotations in the Greek fathers (such a, fa Pralemy's Latter to Para), hich render {he Greek originals. themshveeeven if a longer line of copyists. then intervenes bee toon them and cut oldest manvscript, Ths spect is exaly forgotten in the elation over the mete physical age of the wating, which bappens to come into our hands No. 19 (title missing), interesting as a po- lemic of Marcionie wehemence against the Ta, also laches a staring attack pon the baptism of John: “The river Jordan i the strength of the body, that i the exence ‘of pleasures, and the water of Jordan is the deste for chew! cohabitation”; John inset is “the archon of the muftitude” (pp. 719- 40)! This i eninly unique Could it bea re fort ta the Mandscans—the other sige of the bitter quatrel of which we have the ‘Mane daean site in their writings? ‘The account too sketchy to permit more than the sunges Son of this compting possibilty. ‘Dorete's eomparion af the “lose” versions af the Apocrypha of Jobe (Nes. 6, 36) with the “shart” (No. 1 and Cod. Herol.) suffers from inconsistency a8 to whether the excess tang of the former is an action oF its a sence in the latter a mutilation (as on the whole he seems ta think (pp. 209, 211, 217]) ‘The answer cannot be in doubt: his seP-ac count by a saving deity of her descent into the depth of Darkness to awoken Adam isn ie terpolation from different variety of Got. te though ex idetifed by such passages 5, "T penetrated (o the midst of the prison © and Taig, Let him who hears wake up froin heavy slumber? ‘Then Adam wept and shed envy teats: Who called ty name? ‘And frome whence comes this hope, wile Kam in the chains of the prison?” ‘Stand up, and remember that it is thyséif thou hat heard, and ret toy ot. «Take rege from =the demons of Chaos =» and rouse Saysel out of the heay sleep of the feral ‘dwelling.’ ” The close paraliels in Manichaean (aiso Mandaean) wetings tel that we have here an intrusion of “Iranian” gnosis into a otherwise “Sian” context. far the ret I forego comment on the writ: ings now available in fll, camely, the Apoe- ‘yphon of John, Sophia of Tesus, Gospel of 265 Philip, Gospel of Phowas, and Gospel of ‘Truth, Theit study is independent of Dorese's ‘mediation and indeed far advanced beyond the stage represented generally by his book. In the case of the ‘Thomas gospel the advanced stage appears in the ook itself; Appendix TT ives the complete text in English with intro ‘uetion and notes. This is now part of a grow- ing specialist literature, and a discussion has no place in this review, But how awkward it is to be at the mercy of one man’s mind, Bow: ever competent, can be seen from Doresse’s judgment on the published Gospel of Truth, fn which fortunately everyone ean form his cow opinion: “,.. full of bad thetoric while otherwise particularly empty. .. «TF this work was really representative of [Valentizus] we should have to admit that he was a pretty, poor weiter! (pp, 239-49). But then, the Jung Codex isnot one of “his” codices. What do the new finds! add to our knowledge and understanding of Chris- tian gnosticism? At present, the an- swer must be given on the basis of the very preliminary state of the public record. It is, of course, simply not the case that our evidence hitherto was scanty. The patristic testimony is rich and stands vindicated with every test by newly recovered originals (i.e, texts preserved on their own and not through doxography). But of these there were few hitherto, and none from the classi- cal period of Gnostic production, name- ly, the second and third centuries. Of these we now possess a whole library. A priori, and quite apart from ques- tions of doctrine, it is obvious that so large an accretion of original writings will afford usa much more full-blooded, full-bodied experience of the authentic flavor of Gnostic literary utterance, a more Intimate view of the working and manner of self-communication of the Gnostic mind, than any doxogcaphic excerpts or renderings of doctrinal sub- stance can convey, As has happened before, in the case of the Manichaean2665 documents, the form and tone of state- ment in all its profusion now add their tundimmed evidence to the abject “con- tent,” the “themes,” as it were, which the heresiolagists could for purposes of debate detach from the din of theit polyphonous treatment; and the latter is of the substance, even if it should not show it to advantage. If the picture be- comes more blurred instead of more clear, this would be part of the truth of the matter. We learn, further, what was the read~ ing matter of a Gnostic community" of the fourth century, probably typical for the Coptic area and possibly well beyond it, From the relative weight of Sethian documents in the total we may ‘conclude that the community was Seth- ian, But the presence of many writings ‘of quite different affiliations‘ shows the openmindedness, or mutual inter- penetration, which must have been the rule among the Gnostics at large. Real- ly surprising in this respect is the in- clusion of five Hermetic treatises in an otherwise “Christian"-Gnostic collec- tion; the mere fact proves a greater proximity, or at any rate feeling of proximity, at this time between the twa streams of speculation than is usually conceded. On the other hand, as Do- resse points out (p. 250), none of “the great heretical teachers” of patristic lit- erature “makes any explicit appearance in the writings from Chenoboskion.”"* The fact has some significance, but it ‘bears not, as Doresse seems to think, upon the value of patristic testimony but upon such questions as the intellec- tual Tevel of the Chenohoskion group and its likes in the fourth century, the survival of conscious doctrinal differ- entiation and of the individual names representing it from the second cen- tury, the preference for pseudepigra- ‘THE JOURNAL OF REUGION, phy, anonymity, and superhuman au- thorship over humanly identifiable speculation, and the like. ‘To the Sethians, no historical teach~ ex is attributed by the heresialogists anyway. Theit teaching itself is now richly documented. The (Iranian) doc- rine of “three roots”—that they shared with the Peratae, Justin, and others—stands forth clearly and in full accord with Hippolytus’ account. [ts relative prominence in the present col- tection (which, as noted, had its Sethian emphasis) seduces the discoverer into declaring this, quite specific, feature to be among “the essential fundamentals without which the Gnostic doctrine could not have existed” (p, 265}. He then must wonder “But how this doc- rine of the three primordial roots could have been harmonized with. . the formation of the higher world by successive pairs of emanations . . . is still not clearly apparent” (p. 260). The answer is, of course, that the two docttines wete indeed not harmonized and did not ask for harmonization: they belong to two different strains of Gnostic thought, each complete in it- self (which T have distinguished nearly thirty years ago as “Tranian™ and “Syr- ian-Egyptian,” respectively), While the whole acon- and Sophia-speculation of the emanationist, Syrian-Egyptian ‘gnosis has plainly no room for it, the three-root doctrine is nat even vital for the “Tranian’” gnosis to which it be- longs: neither Mani nor, long before him, the teachers cited by Tasilides (Acta Archelai 67. 5) make use of it but make their systems work on the rigor- ‘ous ¢wo-root hypothesis, And in the Sethian case Itself, the speculative role of the intermediate principle is in fact slight; the real meaning, here tao, Gualistic; and in general the third prin-THE SECRET BOOKS OF THE EGYPTIAN GNOSTICS ciple either affords—as “Space” —the mete topological meeting ground for ‘the opposites or in its substantial de- scription—as “‘Spirit”—is an attenu- ated form (notwithstanding the assur- ance of co-primacy) of the higher prin- ciple, susceptible of intermingling. This susceptibility is called for in Gnostic speculation; the various alternatives show that its provision does not really require a separate, aboriginal principle. Bypassing what to the New Testa- ment scholar must be the most exciting aspect of the whole find—the “Logia” collection in the Gospel of Thomas—t turn in conclusion to some doctrinal features that can be provisionally gleaned from the new material and re- late them to the older evidence. One thing this reader is impressed with is the persistent recurrence of certain mo- tifs which, well documented as they were before, now receive added acered- itation as basic articles of faith from the sheer weight of numerical and even verbal constancy. 1, Prominent among them is the theme that, for short, I will call the pride of the demiurge, that is, the story of his ignorance, perversity, and con- ceit, The ubiquity of this theme, with an almost stereotyped repetition of its formulas throughout the cosmogonic writings of our collection, is a striking though not surprising fact of the new evidence, Tt agrees with the patristic testimony down to the literal phrasing of (a) the demiurge’s thinking that he alone exists and there is nothing above him; (8) his boasting about his crea- tion, issuing in the cry, “Tam God and there is no other God than P"; (¢) his humbling by the retort from on high, “Thou art mistaken (or “don’t lie") 1 There is above thee... .” This nearly Invariant cluster of features— 267 already famitiar from Irenaeus (Adv. hace; €8, i. 30. 6), Hippolytus (Re- fut.; eg, vii. 28. 3), Epiphanius (Pa- nar; €., 26.2), and attributed by them toa variety of Sects—is found in no less Chenobaskion library: No. 27, Para- Phrase of Shem (p. 149); No. 39, Hy- bostasis of the Archons (134:27-135:4; 142:21-26; 143:4-7); No. 40, Origin of the World (148:29-33; 151:3-28; 188:17-34}; Nos. 2 = 7, Sacred Book of the Invisible Great Spirit ox Gospet of the Egyptians (p. 178); No. 4, Sophia of Jesus (BG 125:10-126:5); Nos. 1, 6, 36, Apocryphon of John (BG 44:9-16; cf. 45:11 05 45:20-46:9). ‘These, if Tam not mistaken, are all the ‘cosmoganic tractates of the collection which Daresse has surmarized. Some particulars are worth mention- ing. Concerning (2), the assertion by the demiurge of his arrogant claim always takes the form of an “exclamation” in the unmistakably Old Testament style of divine self-predication (recalling, eg, Isa, 45:5, 46:9), sometimes add- ing to the profession of tniqueness that of jealousy. Except for the special psychological twist in Apocryphon of Jokn, the trait is familiar from patris- tic reports and is now shown to be one of the true “invariants” of that whole type of Gnostic casmogony in which the “lower” represents a defection from the “higher.” The anti-Jewish ani- mus of these transparent identifications of Taldabaoth (etc.) with the Judaic od is one of the elements one has to consider in forming any hypothesis on the origins of gnosticésm, Concerning (c), the rebuke from on high, mostly by his mother Sophia, re- veals to the demiurge, and to the lower powers at large, the existence of the higher God “who is above the universe”268 (BG_126:1-5), thus undeceiving him and humbling his pride; but its most telling form is “Man exists [above thee = before thee] and so does the Son of ‘Man. This formula, too, which shows “Mfan” elevated to a supracosmie deity, is known from patristic testimony (e.g., ren. 1.30. 6), and there some of the sys- tems listed even go so far as to equate him outright with the first and supreme God himself Now this elevation— whether going that far or not—of “Man” to a transmundane deity, prior and superior to the creator of the uni- verse, or the assigning of that name to such a deity, is one of the most signif- icant traits of Gnostic theology in the ‘general history of religion, uniting stich widely divergent speculations as those of the Poimandtes and of Mani, It sig- nifies a new metaphysical status of man in the order of things, and by being advised of itis the creator of the world put in his place. Join to the theological concept the fact that the very name in- sures—namely, that terrestrial man can identify his innermost being (“spirit,” “light,” ete.) with this supracosmic power, can therefore despise his cos- mic oppressors and count on his ulti mate triumph over them—and it be- comes visible that the doctrine of the god Man (in the creation story specif- ically: the humiliation of the demiurge in his name) marks the distinetly rev olutionary aspect of gnosticism on the cosmic plane, which on the moral plane shows itself in the defiance of anti- nomianisi and on the sacramental plane in the confidence of defeating fate and outwitting the archons. The element of revolt, with its affective tone, is recognized only when taken to- gether with the element of oppression and the consequent idea of liberation, that is, of reclaiming a freedom last THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION ‘We must remember that the role of the demiurge is not exhausted in his feat of creation, but that, through his “Law” as well as through cosmic Pate, hhe exercises a despotic world rule aimed mainly at enslaving man. In the Rev- elation of Adam to His Son Seth (No. 12, p. 182), Adam tells how, after he had Tearned (from Eve?) about “the eternal angels” (aeons), who were higher than the god who hed created us, ++ the Archon, in anger, cut us off from the agons of the powers... the ory that was in us decored us... the primordial knowledge that had breathed in vs abandoned ws, It was then that we knew the gods who had cre- ated us and we were serving Kim i fear cand ality ‘What relish, then, to learn that, even before, the archon himself had been humiliated by the disclosure that above him is “Man”! 2. Practically coextensive in occur= rence with the “pride of the demiurge” is the theme I shall briefly call the folly of Sophia, that is, the story of her aber- ation and fall from the higher divine order, of which she is and continues to be a member even during her exile of guilt. Tm the sequence of the myth this topic precedes the pride of the demi- urge—in fact, Sophia's fall is the gen- erative cause of the demiurge’s exist- ence and of his ab initio inferior na- ture. But historically the figure is of different provenance. The Jewish refer- ence and thus the anti-Judaic sting are absent; and in spite of the genealogi- cal connection and even culpable re- sponsibility, the affective tone of the symbol is different: she evokes tragic “fear and compassion,” not revolt and contempt. The presence of this theme™ is an infallible sign that we deal with the “Syeian-Egyptian” type of Gnostic speculation, in which the cosmogonic process engulfing parts of divinity isTHE SECRET BOOKS GF THE EGYPTIAN GNOSTICS originated by a self-caused descensus from the heights, and not, as in the “Iranian” type, by the encroachment of a primordial darkness from without. ‘The Origin of the World (40) provides by its polemical opening telling proof that the proponents of the Sophia myth were well aware of this doctrinal point: “Since they all, the gods of the world and men, say ‘Nothing existed before the Chaos’ I shall prove that they all are mistaken, for they never knew the origin of Chaos, nor its root.” The Chaos (so the treatise goes on), far from being aboriginal, emerged out of a “Shadow” which itself resulted from 2 “primordial work,” undertaken by Pis- tis-Sophia outside the realm of the “Im- mortals” (who at first existed alone) whence she strayed (p. 165). Thus the very existence of darkness is here the ‘consequence of a divine failing. Sophia, “Wisdom,” is the agent and vehicle of this failing (not the least of the para- doxes in which gnosticism delighted); her soul-drama before time prefigures the predicament of man within ctea- (though it has pre-empted “guilt” for the precosmic phase alone); and the various possibilities of motivation ‘open to choice make for considerable freedom in the actual psychological ‘evolution of the transcendental adven- ture tale. OF this freedom, the number of variations found in the Titerature bears witness; even for the one Valen- tinian school, two alternative concep- tions of the first cause and nature of Sophia's fault are recorded. Thus we have here, with all sameness of the basic idea, not the same rule of stereo- type as in the “demiurge” theme. We list a few instances from the new sources and relate them to their coun- terparts in the old. ‘The Hypostasis of the Archons and 269 the Origin of the World both tell us that (a) Pistis Sophia desired to produce alone, sithout her consort, a work that would be like unto the first-existing Light: it came forth as a celestial image which (6) constituted a curtain be- tween the higher realms of fight and the later-born, inferior aeons; and a shad- ow extends beneath the curtain, that is, cn its outer side which faces away from the light. The shadow, which was called “Darkness,” becomes matter; and out of this matter comes forth, as an abor- tion, the lion-shaped Taldabaath. A. Nature of the fault —“Without consort": the same motif occurs in Apocrypkon of Jokn* and in No. 4, Sophia of Jesus,” and is fully explained in Hippolytus’ version of the Valentin- ian myth, namely, as impossible imita- tion of the Father's creativity.” Thus Sophia's fault is bere presumption, Ay- bris, leading ditectly 10 failure but in- directly in the further chain of conse- quences (via the demiurge, in whom the Aydris reappears compounded by ignorance and amor dominandt) to the becoming of the material world. This, therefore, and with it our condition, is the final fruit of the abortive attempt of an erring sub-deity to be creative on het own, The student of Valentinian- ism knows from Irenaeus (Ptolemy: Italian school) and the Fxcerpta ex Theadoto (Anatolian school) of a dif- ferent and more sophisticated motiva- tion of Sophia’s error: excessive desire for complete knowledge of the Abso- lute (the result, of course, is the same). To this variant there seems to be no parallel in the new documents, any more than there was in the older ones. And in the light. of the Coptic testi- ‘mony it is now safe to essume what ternal evidence, by the criterion of sub- tlety and crudity, always suggested:270 Hippolytus’ version, which agrees so well with the now attested Gnostic Vulgate, represents within Valentinian literature an archaism, preserving cur- reney from the established Gnostic So- phia mythology, whereas the version prevalent in the school itself represents @ uniquely Valentinian refinement. 2. Consequence of the jault—The “curtain,” in the above examples ob- viously a ditect effect of Sophia’s work as such, is in the Sophia of Jesus a cre- ation of the Father in response to this “work”: he spteads separating screen “between the Immortals and those that came forth after them,” so that the “fault of the woman” may live and she may join battle with Error (BG 118:-17)" This recalls the “Limit” ( apes) of the Valentinians, in the second of his roles.*? In this version, then, the “curtain” or “limit” was or- dained with the intent of separation and protection: while in the other ver- sion, where it arises with Sophia’s work itself, it becomes the unintended cause of the “darkness” heneath itself, which becomes “matter” in which Sophia then carries on her “work” (No. 39); in this unintended aspect it rather recalls the “fog” of the Gospel of Truth which in its turn recalls the Valentinian doc- trine that Sophia, falling into ignorance and farmlessness, “braught into being the Void-of-Knowledge, which is the Shadow [ie., the cone of darkness pro- duced by her blocking the light] of the Name” (Exc. Thead. 31. 5-4), Thus, where the “curtain’” is not spread by the Father but directly resulis from Sophia's error, it forms a link in the genealogical deduction of darkness from that primordial error, if by a somewhat extraneous kind of causali- ty. We have here the incipient or cruder form of that derivation of mate THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION ter from the primal fault whose per- fected form we meet in the Valentin- jan doctrine of the origin of psychic and hylic substance out of—not merely Because of—the mental affections of Sophia herself. In the Gospel of Truth, this subtle doctrine seems presup- posed.** Again the new texts permit us to measure the step which Velentinian- ism took beyond the more primitive level of its general group. 3. The passion of Sophia —This step is also apparent in the meaning given the suffering of Sophia, that is, in whether it is incidental (however mov- ingly told) or, as a second phase, cru- cial to the casmogonic process. As that process was initiated by the “error” which somehow gave rise, in the first phase, to a darkness and chaos that were not before (thus providing the monistic turn in the theory of dualism}, there was ample cause, without further purpose, for distress, remorse, and ath- er emotions on the part of the guilty Sophia, It is obvious that these formed part of the story before their specula- tive use was seized upon. What da the Coptic sources tell us in this respect? In Apocryphon oj Toke, Sophia’s dis- tress arises over the creative doings of the demiurge, her son®—a comment ‘on, not an originative factor in, the cos- mogonic process, by now well under way (though a factor in her own con- version and provisional redemption). In the Pistis Sophia, let us remember, the Tong-drawn-out,” dramatic epic of this suffering is wholly for its own emo- tional sake. But in No. 40, noted be- {ote for its awareness of the theoretical implications of the Sophia theme, a substantive and originative role is as- signed to her very distress, which ace cordingly here precedes the demiurgical stage: Sophia, beholding the ‘“dark-THE SECRET BOOKS OF THE EGYPTIAN GNOSTICS ness" and the “waters devoid of spitit” (ie, Chaos), is dismayed at these products of her initial fault; and her consternation turns into the apparition (upon the waters?)** of a “work of fright,” which flees away from her into Chaos (147:23-34): whether this is the male-female Archon, later men- tioned himself or his first adumbration, the future creator of the world is either mediately or ditecily a projection of the despaic of “Wisdom”! This comes closest to the hypostasizing role which the “affects” of Sophia assume in Val- entinian speculation; also the two-step development (first Chaas, then demi- urge) adumbrates the differentiation in- toa higher and lower Sophia. Yet it is still a marked step hence to the def- nite derivation of the several psychic and hylic elements of the universe from those passions; and nothing so far in the new texts suggests the existence of something as subtle outside the Valea- tinian circle. ‘The latter’s originality stands forth again and again. To return once more from intra- Gnostic docteinal matters to the subject of “foreign relations,” of which we had am instance in the inclusion of Hermet- ic writings in the Nag Hamadi collec- tion, it is almost irresistible to ask the question whether there is any link be- tween the Nag Hamadi codices and the Dead Sea Scrolls, between “Chenabos- kion” and “Qumrén”—the two groups whose relics, by one of the greatest co- incidences imaginable, have come to ight at almost the same time, Indeed there may have been, according to a fascinating section in’ Doresse’s book (pp. 295 ff.), whose main finding, in all brevity, is this: Qumrén could be Go- morroh, a hypothesis first suggested by F. de Sauley on linguistic and topo- graphical grounds, Gomorsah and Sod- mn om are named by ancient writers as places of Essenian settlements, and in this connection the Biblical conncta- tions of the two names do not seem to matter, No. 2 of the Nag Hamadi texts, the Sacred Book of the Invisible Great Spirit, or Gospel of the Bgyptians, has the following passage: “The great Seth came and brought his seed, and sowed it in the aeons that have been engen- dered and of which the number is the number of Sodom. Some say: ‘Sodom is the dwelling place of the great Seth, which [or, who?] is Gomorrah.’ And others say: ‘The great Seth took the seed of Gomorrah, and he has trans- planted it to the second place which has heen called Sodom’ (p. 298). Do- resse suggests that, late as the text is relative to the date of the cessation of the Qumran community, it may refer to it (or else to some neighboring group) as “the seed of the great Seth” and even allude to its reconstitution further south, at Socom, after the catastrophe that overtook Qumrin. ‘There would then be some kind of continuity be- tween the disappearing Essenian move- ment and an emerging Sethian gnosis Pending more data, it is impossible to assess the merits of this bold conjece ture. Certainly, the implications of such a linkage between Essenes and Gnostics, as here intimated by a my- thologized “historical” memory, would be vast and intriguing, Finally, « remark in conection with Majee's translation (Which i good on the whole): it should be made mandatory for ‘ranslatrs of scholatly material to have (2) Iibiographia) references and (8) quotations alecady inthe orignal translated from third Tanguage checked for adequacy in the new metium, Ble the Boglsh reader is tested ‘Suck French pravinialisms a (p.9, 34, and passin), "Plotinus, Bvrcadet, text revised in French translation by E. Brier, Paris, 1926,7a seq," where for translations the reference should now be to MacKenna's English one and for tile, to the Enneads); ot (p. 5, 8. 23), “Batrits de Théodote, edn, F. Ssgnacd, 1946," instead of “The Excerpte ex Theadato, ed, and trans. R, P, Casey, 1984; ot (p, (0, 1 36, and passin) HT Lelsegang, “La Gnose (Gans. J. Goullard), Paris, 1951," instead of "Die Gnosis (Lipa, 1924), 42h ed., 1955"; andthe worst example—(p, 288 and pasion), GG. Scholem, “Zes Gronds couraxts do le myntique juise (Wrass. by MM. Davy), 1950": the book, wnitten ix English, appeated 4 this eountry in 1941 under the title Major Trends in Jewish ifysticiom and has had sev- eral editions sizee, THE JOURNAL OF REUGION As for retranslation of translated texts, the request that the origival be consulted exnco, ‘of course, in the present case apply to Do- reste’s ceanslations from “his” Coptic texts; ‘but with easily accessible material in the bet ter-known languages the hazards of transla tian 31-4 second remove shauld be avoided by ‘checking with, for example, the Greek orig sal, Thus (p. ix), “T will denounce the ap- pearance: of the gods" vould have heen ree- ognized as “E shall reveal che forms of the gods"; and quotations from Scholem's classic (02 above) would not be offered us (pp. 177, 790) In approximate retranslations from thelt Feench translation fut in their original Eng- lish, NOTES 1. Jean Dorese, Phe Secret Bovks of the Bey- tian Grasticss Ax Inlraducion 20 the Gnostic Coie Manascabs Discovered at Chensborbion «New Work: Viking Pres, 1940) 2. One wring occurs vice and one thee times te the coetion. 3. Buangaliam Veitatis, ed. M. Malisine, H-Ch, Pech, and G. Quispel (Zurich, 1956); Supper ‘mentum, ed M, Malinine, H.-Ch. Pueeh, G.Quispel, ard W. Til Zovich, 1951). The Gospel Accords ing to Phomas, ed. A. Gullaumont, H.-C. Puce, G-Quiepe, W. Til, and. Ad al-Mas 58) 4, The Hypostasis of the Archon, the Gospel According 9 Philip, ard an untitled cosmagary Ne. 40 of the callcian by Dorese’s counting, No. t¢ hy Puech’s)—all three translated Into Ger: rman by HM. Schenke in Pheologiche Liters laoreitung, LXXXIT (1958), 10, eols 661-70; EXXXIV (359), 1, cals 1-26; ial, No. 4, cok 143-58, These tranclations were made. from photographie reproduction of the texts in Pahor Labib, Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Stu seam at Old Cara, Wol. 1 (Cairo, 1986) (the be- finbicg of 2 planned, provisions! publistion of all the manueripts). Far the mising tle of the ‘osmageny (No. #0), Schenke proposes “liscourse fom the Origin of the World” which we shall ere adopt for short: Origin of the World. 5. The Sophia of Jesus (No. 4) 20d The Steves Book of Joka (Nos 1, 6, and 36, the inst te ‘ing lege versions) 6..W. Til) Die guastichon Schrjten des hope Aischen Pepyrus Borolinanss 8802 (Berlin, 1955). ‘The codex wil be quoted a8 BG. 7 ‘These sometimes shoW the boot with at- periy, as an pp. siv-xv, 122, 125, 127 (a. 17), and 268 (a. 19}. One hears that matters have Since gone ftom bad to wore and in a direction which not even the studious homage paid. to Pusch io this volume was able to. prevent. Jo aime to the rorely embatded scholar, the out sider may observe that publication eleven years ater the Ara dlacovery does not beiray indecent haste (the Bretch original of this hook came out 1958), 1 One codex found its way iegaly to Zurope and was acquired by the Jung Enstituto in Zurich 9, With respect to the three welings Ganated by HAM Schenke (see above, a. ¢), obsolescence das already overtaken the book in the tao years that capsed between the publications of the ‘Freach original and che English version. [ei 2 ply that the author bas taken ro account of e hanged situation in the preparation ofthe present Solum To. We now know fcom Schenke's trndations shat the ides secure not only in this work, vin, the Origin of the World (15:17 £), bot re peatedly also in ke cove velatve, the preceding No. 29, Hypoutacs of the Arokous (i8:27-135:4; 228%), HL Indeed, che very description of the azchons fn dhe Hpostaie begins thurs “Their lord. fe Dod, Because of He power, ignorance, and can- ait, he says in the midst of his ereaion ‘Tame God." (i84:27-31; ch. also Sophie of Jesus, BG teins) 12, Bg, Procm. et poen. 46, de Abr. $9, fag et Intent 108, de ebr. 82, de som i125 15. CEH. Jonas, Gir und spatentier Get, Pare 196 8 1. Frem the Zugnin monastery near Amida, Snished about a2. 7743 quotes in O. Mommesee de Villard, Le ieggendo ovinia sud Mag eval, pp.27-38, 1S. include im these the waitigs of he Berlin Pepys, the publication of whieh ¢ Jong at, in 1985, was ined prompted by the Nag. Hamad Alscovery. 16. eis of course, perfect posible that the collection was that of = wealthy individual, but Ihe teo muse have belonged to some hind of roa, whatever It form of coherenceTHE SECRET BOOKS OF THE EGYPTIAN GNOSTICS 11 Baty the Apocr, Je is Barbelognoates the Gospel of Truth, Discourse to Resines, and Goo- fel of Philip are Valentinian, et. 18, How with this observation we ate to eee fncile the curious statement (p. 252) "hat we have fin this collection) nearly ll he tteatare ‘thar the ancient enemies of the Gnostles bad ‘ead of” Teannot guess. As forthe “eat teach er” Chey are though indead oot named, parkaps fot wholly absent: for the Gospel of Trath, per haps also the Discourre to Reginos, 2 case can be made that they are by Valetinus; the untitled fourth writing of the Jung Codex (No, 43) may bbe traceable to Heradeon; and Doras. himself ‘ie Cin Appendix 1) to identify Simon Danes ia Nos. 72 and 34 (not convincing to ie). Tnei= dentally, could it e that the otherwise unknown Papsrcateres quoted in the untied work of the Bruce Codes. (Dorese, p85) hides nasitemna? ‘The content of the quotation is compattle with the guess. 19. Also In ein Coptic Papyrus No. #502 20. Ea, in Nos. 2 and 1, "Tam jealous God and there (no other beside me"; ldeodea! In Nos. 1, 6, 26 (Apoer. Tofa), where the exclara- floss’ neaty torned into proof of his awareness jt there is another Goce for if there were sore of whom should he be jealous?” (BC 44:14— 1). 11, This not, however, confined to tht type: i the Paraphrace o} Shem (No, 27) the trait ap- peas fm a content which the doctine of “thee foots? pute squarely within the Teanlan ype. Doreste's sutomary does pot show how in this case the damiurge (as al Soptia) originated. But fom some other Urstances it appears that Takiabacth could ako be conezived as & whally cvil power rather than. the son of the fallen Sophia. Mythographically, the figure ig inded i ependent of the Inter and. became secondarily combined with ber. 22, Nos. 2=7 (p. 198); Origin of the World, 151-182 “an toumortal Man of Light”; Agecr, John, in all versions; there apperentiy af a voice coming to Sophia herself fom above but so heard by Taleabaoth, 28. CL, eg, len. i, 12. 4 for one branch of the Valentnians; they say that * "Man? (the name of the Focebegioning, the Pre- and Us thinkable; and this isthe great and hidden mys (ery that the name of the power that ie above all" thiogs, the forebeginning of everything, Is ‘Man’ csi. 30.1 forthe Opbies: the primal light in'the Abyss blesed, eternal, and inte, is tthe Father ofa, and bis ame is Flet Man", ch albo the Neassnts and the Arab Moaimoe in Hlippolyins’ roport, Refat, v. 7; vil, 12. OF the new souresy the 4poer. Jah and the Oriie of the Warid, both Bachclognontic, sce accord to "Man" the same supreme postion 24, CL ato No. 26, Gospel of Philip 102229-s0: 273 “They [the Archons} wanted to take the fee ote ard make him ther slave in eterity.” 15, The fst in spite of the name Achameth (Hebrew choke). 2 pagan. female deity, a6 Bouset has shown, provided the mythological cabetratom for the faure 26, In the Chenohoskion callection so far vide ble in the following writings: Hypactovie of the Archons; Oriain of the World; Sophis of Feeus; Apocr Toh. 71, Oriin ofthe World 148:24-148:7. 28, “Our sister Sophia. « coaeeived a thousht rom herself. sbe willed to let copy arene cout of here her works came forth, imper- feet and agly (aldabaoth), because she bad made fe without er consort” (RM. Grant, Gnartie ‘hsm, ¢ Sourcebook [New York, 1961], pp. 14-75 BG 36:16-97516}. 429. "Without a male partner” (Doreste,p, 700: cf Til, p 277, uote to BG 1184-7}. 4n. Bereiving that the Father alone generates cout of himself, whereas all the hegotter aeons generate by paling, Sophia wants to ermuite Bim and al to generate out of bese? without con- forty #0. that she might no! Jal short of the Pethers adhievernent She filed to perceive that this fs the power soldy of the Unbegotten One, and 40 sie managed only to bring forth 4 form Fes entity (Refs. vi. $0 6). 31, Cl. also Che eschatological speculation on the renting af the curtein” i No. 36, Gael of Philip 13220. (el 17238 3%. Egy Hippol. vi 31, 6, “that nothing of the deficieney might come near che Ason®sethin the Pherama” 138. “The Anguish cordensed like = fog, s0 that ro one could see, Became of this, Eerar gained ‘Hrength and set to work upon her own malier ia the void (17-11-14) 34. See above and 25:22. The world isthe “shape” Cchems} of the “éeAciency” [thus "dee ficiency” its matter], and “detelency™ arate be- ‘ause of the primordial Ignorance of the Father 136. She sow the wickedness and the apostasy which ues to ber son, She repented, ane while she wect to and fro in the darkest of her Ig. Aovance, she began to be ashamed «and gcleved ‘xscedinaly" (Grant, op, ety. 97 BO ee tt 4618). 46. The bogeting of the demiurge through & reflection upop the waters af the Abyss Je 2 well- ‘atablished Mandaesa tople (eee Fons, The Gna tae Religion Toston, 1988), p- 164, 16); ef, he ‘feneral reracks on the motl f the mirror image, id, pp. 2 37. Ta our collection fully present im No. 3, Gospet of Philip 108:10-28: "Another ie Bh rath, and another is Fkhmoth. Blhamoth isthe Sophia simply CaraGs), but Pkhmoth i the Sophts of Death.» ho. ie called ‘the ite Sophia” The Gospel of Philip is by all sceounte #8 Valentinian composition,