THE ORIGIN IN ANCIENT INCANTATORY VOCES MAGICAE

OF SOME NAMES IN THE SETHIAN GNOSTIC SYSTEM

BY

HOWARD M. JACKSON

for Christi and Morton Smith

Anyone who delves into the group of Gnostic texts for which the label
"Sethian" has been adopted-among which are, for example, CG II,
7 Apocryphon of John; III, 2 Gospel of the Egyptians; VIII, 1
Zostrianos; XI, 3 Allogenes; and the Untitled Treatise of the Bruce
Codex-enters a realm peopled by a bewildering plethora of beings
whose names try the patience of even the most devoted devotee of
onomastics.' Sometimes, as with the long list of the framers of Adam's
psychic and material body in CG II, I ApocJohn 15.1-19.6, one gets the
distinct but, as we shall see, mistaken impression that the author simply
let his own imagination run riot in an orgy of what might aptly be called
Gnostic glossolalia, for the names are impervious to analysis along any
lines whatever, whether Indo-European, Semitic, or Hamitic. At other
times, however, the names are Greek- or Hebrew/Aramaic-looking
enough to tempt scholars to walk cautiously, if not to rush, in where
even Sethian angels might fear to tread and to proffer attempts at
analysis of the names along one of the linguistic lines. Some of the
names, for example, are explicable, or partly explicable, from Greek; to
choose but one of the above-mentioned tractates, CG VIII, 7 Zost, the
names of celestial beings like Allogenios (128.7), Ambrosios (126.13-
14), Antiphantes (54.24; 126.16-7), Aphropais (129.3), Apophantes
(129.2), Deiphaneus (86.16), Doxomedon (126.8), Eideos (128.4),
Eidomeneus (47.21), Epiphanios (128.3-4, 6-7) or Epiphaneus (86.20),
Eurumeneus (47.21), Euthrounios (127.22-23), Mirothea (6.30; 30.14),
Mnesinous (47.4), Noetheus (88.13), Orneos (127.22), Plesithea (51.12),
and Theopemptos (47.16-17) all are at least partially susceptible to inter-
pretation from Greek roots. Yet others are sufficiently Semitic-looking
to seduce one into grubbing around for Hebrew or Aramaic roots from
70

which they might be explained-so, for instance, with the four Sethian
Illuminators Harmozel, Oroiael, Daveithe, and Eleleth (and their
variants).'
One factor in this situation, however, has not received the attention
it deserves, and that factor accounts for why some of the Gnostic names
are maddeningly only Semitic-looking and why yet others may not be
explainable along any linguistic lines whatever, as with the framers of
Adam's psychic and material body in CG 11, 1 ApocJohn. It has long
been appreciated that the Pistis Sophia, for many of the names which
it bestows upon its various personages, has drawn upon the magic tradi-
tion, and specifically upon the many incantatory voces magicae and
nomina barbara that abound in that tradition.3 A tally of such names
would include the following:
?8ep?MeNew (chap. 141; 367.22 Schmidt-MacDermot);
xBepxNeNew (chap. 139; 360.5); xBepxNeNewp (chap. 136;
354.8), a name of Jesus: from the <x?ep<x?ev8Mou?p8?<xv palindrome
(PGM 1.294; 36.7-8, 10-13; 59.6, and elsewhere),' usually a proper
name, as in the Pistis Sophia, and perhaps of Egyptian origin
= imntt/x M e NTe? )5
xrpxm m xxxmxpe (chap. 136; 354.12), a name of the Invisible God:
a common vox magica or nomen barbarum (PGM 7.311-313, 316
where the form is aypayyaxayapi with a gamma, as in the Pistis
Sophia, though normally spelled with a kappa; 36.43-44, 227-229;
Audollent # 267.12 from Hadrumetum in Africa; Delatte-
Derchain # # 284, 416, 460, 510), again usually a proper name (as
further in Audollent # 242.7-8 from Carthage: lpxl§m aer6v Asov ?ov
'twv ou'pavtwv ô?cr1tó'tr¡vAxpayaxayapii) and explained by
Gershom Scholem from Aramaic with the meaning "Uproot the
6
magic spells! "6
8?TNXWWWX (chap. 147; 382.1); X?TNXWWWX (chap. 137; 356.22),
the name of one of the Triple-powered gods: often part of the XUX-
fiaxvx formula (PGM 3.53-55; 9.3-4; 10.42-48; Audollent # 253.22-
30 from Carthage; Delatte-Derchain # # 94, 122, 248, 290, 403,
429), again usually a proper name, either of a god or of the magi-
cian himself (so PGM 4.973, 1017; 5.18; 9.1, and elsewhere), and
commonly explained as Egyptian in origin ("Souls of darkness")1
and the list could be greatly expanded.
I think that we can indeed be quite sure that the direction of the bor-
rowing runs, as in the Sethian texts to which I shall return momentarily,
 71

from the magicians to the author of the Pistis Sophia and not the
reverse, for, as in the three cases above, where any meaning at all has
been wrung from them, the words are quite peculiar and appropriate to
a magical context but not to their Gnostic one.'
If this is true, that the borrowing was from the magicians by the
Gnostics, one may, in some cases, be able to make out an Egyptian or
Hebrew/Aramaix original behind the apparent galimatias of the incan-
tatory words, but for the most part, and especially in the case of the
Semitic-looking ones, I think what F. C. Burkitt has to say of them
holds quite true:'
"... the nomenclature does not suggest any real acquaintance with Semitic
languages or Semitic alphabets, but only a superstitious veneration for Hebrew
names found in the Greek versions of the Old Testament, eked out by scraps
of ill-digested bits of Hebrew supplied (no doubt) by Jews."
Is so, one needs to fortify oneself against the typically scholarly tempta-
tion to expect to discover behind each and every Semitic-looking word,
as Scholem does with axpayyaxayapi, a perfectly pellucid Semitic
original. Anyone equally familiar both with Semitic languages and with
the Graeco-Egyptian magic literature of the ancient Mediterranean
world knows full well that by far the vast majority of words in -im or
- oth, which pullulate in that literature, supports what Burkitt has to say
of them, and all the more so as variants commonly abound. In what
must be the vast majority of instances the magician has simply used,
with the help of an active imagination, what few tidbits of Semitic infor-
mation he has managed to acquire in the course of his practice.
As I averred just now, the Sethian Gnostic documents to which I
referred at the outset attest the same phenomenon as does the Pistis
Sophia: the origin of some of the names of their celestial beings in the
magic tradition's incantatory voces magicae and nomina barbara. While
some names are of Greek or pseudo-Greek origin and yet others perhaps
the product of the Sethians' own phantasmagoric fantasy, some of the
key names and not a few of the others stem from their pillaging the
"glossolalia" of the sorcerers. I would like to begin with two names that
have bedeviled scholars for a much longer time than others because they
were known from patristic sources long before the discovery of the Nag
Hammadi codices, namely Ialdabaoth and Barbelo.
In the Sethian documents to which I have restricted the discussion the
attested forms for the former name are, most commonly I
more seldom ixxTxBxwe, and once (CG II, 1 ApocJohn 23.36)
72

I do not need to rehearse the litany of all the attempts

that have been made at deciphering the name, including the new Gnostic
one in CG II, 5 On the Origin of the World 100.10-24, as Scholem has
done a marvelous job of that in his essay "Jaldabaoth Reconsidered." 10 I
Of these solutions he justifiably remarks: "The oldest attempts at
explaining the name are only a little more phantastic than many of the
later ones."" Scholem himself offers a solution which assumes that the
name was created by a heretical Jew from the active participle of the
Aramaic verb yld and an abridged form of the name Sabaoth, namely
Abaoth, common in the magic papyri, and concludes that the name's
meaning is "Begetter of (S)abaoth."' He may be right, but I strongly
doubt that he is; his recourse to the magic tradition should have given
him pause. Caution is warranted about the context from which Scholem
claims the name derives as well as about its supposed meaning because,
though Scholem knows that Origen states that the name Ialdabaoth,
and Astaphaios and Horaios as well, derive from the magic tradition
(Against Celsus 6.32; 102.19 Koetschau), he claims:
"The statement ... is, however, not supported by the evidence of the
magical papyri .... To judge from Preisendanz' indices to the papyri, it
occurs only once in a corrupt variant Iah6abam (sic), in a single passage,
and never in the original form."
From this Scholem concludes: "It is, thus, difficult to accept the view
that the name was taken over directly from the heritage of syncretistic
3
magic ...... 11
There are two things wrong with the statements upon which
Scholem's conclusion is based, the first being that in claiming a single
occurrence of the name in the magic papyri Scholem is quite mistaken,
and the second that in assuming "Ialdabaoth" to be the original form
and the form attested in the one passage from PGM known to him to
be corrupt he is begging the question. Even presuming that Gnostics
were the originators of the name, one could not without further ado
assume "Ialdabaoth" to be necessarily the original form since in
Gnostic sources there are variant forms of the name attested. As for
holding Gnostics or heretical Jews (unless they were heretical Jewish
magicians) to have originated the name, it is more likely, as I argued on
what I believe to be firm grounds and as Scholem's own appeal to the
magic tradition suggests, that one or all of the forms attested in the
magic papyri are the original(s), of which those that occur in Gnostic
literature are derivatives. Scholem's conclusion is not, therefore, com-
 73

pelling, and Origen, who was in as good, if not better, a position than
we to know the facts (with due allowance made for his bias), may well
have been right after all.
In PGM Scholem's I<x\8<x?xM(so, not laX6a?aw) in fact occurs three
times as the first word of a standard incantatory formula which begins
(with the usual variation) or ocX8aCocw (this form, without the
initial iota, matches the form xxaxBxwe in CG II, 1 ApocJohn
23.36) and continues ?ÀOteOtfl flOtX<ÙP and the rest; it includes the similar
word L<XÀe?fl?OtX? (PGM 1.203-205; 4.1195-1199; 13.970-974, where the
formula is introduced by wç 8E M<ùÜcriíçEv In the
instance in PGM 4 the formula is actually connected with a demiurgic
'I<XM/Yahweh in the words x6ayov xTiaTa, r'a xupn, 9EE9&MV,
MOtPflOtPL6> 'I&cw ... 6 xiiaas 9eou<;xai &pXaYY€?ov5 xai 8exavo6q (1200-1203),
exactly as in the Sethian system 'Ic?Sa?xM/Ialdabaoth is demiurge of the
world below him as well as a begetter of subordinate archons (the
papyrus' One can well imagine that a Gnostic combing magic
sources (or listening to sorcerers!) for mysterious names for his
demiurge would latch onto the first word/name in an incantatory
sequence that occurs in intimate conjunction with invocation of the
"creator of the world, creator of all things, lord, god of gods, Mar-
mario lao, ... the creator of gods, archangels and decans," especially
when that first word/name resembles "Iao" and has a nice Semitic look
to it. Furthermore, in addition to the <.<x\8<x?<xM formula, there are four
passages in PGM 13 (84, 153, 462, 596) in which the world-creator's
name OtLrU1t'tLcr'tL (!) is said to be 'A?Sa?3aEy or a form (again
without the initial iota) even closer to the forms attested in the Sethian
Gnostic system. The variation -oth for the papyrus' -eim is surely no
problem, as forms in -oth are far more common in magic contexts, and
such a fact might well prompt a Gnostic borrower to bring the word into
conformity with the norm.
As far as the meaning of the name is concerned, PGM 13's claim in
lines 970-971 to have found the ?a?8a?aw formula in what may have been
a Jewish pseudepigraphon cannot be said to bolster Scholem's case, not
only for its proposal as to the meaning of "Ialdabaoth," but also for
its argument for derivation by a heretical Jew outside the magic tradi-
tion. Even if the document was a Jewish pseudepigraphon and it was
the source of the formula, these facts would still not imply enough
knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic on the part of its author, not even
or especially as a magician, to allow him to coin the word/name
74

with Scholem's meaning. If what Burkitt claims

or 'I<x\8<xp<xM6
about the magicians' knowledge-even Greek-speaking Jewish magi-
cians' knowledge-of Semitic languages is true, it is as useless to expect
to find a fully rational meaning behind the name Ialdabaoth and its
variants as it is to expect to find one in ?ÀOt80tflyaxmp and the rest of
the iaXla§am formula, or, for that matter, in Abaoth, Abrathiaoth, Bar-
baraoth, Iabaoth, Marmaraoth, and all the other words/names in -oth
with which the magic tradition swarms. In such forms about all one can
say is that the magicians know the name Sabaoth and perhaps the
Aramaic words bar and mar (though not necessarily their meaning), but
that is all. Beyond that, variation is due to the magicians' enormous and
untiring ingenuity in evolving Semitic-sounding incantation. Hence I am
inclined to agree with Burkitt when he avers: "I find it difficult to
dissociate Ialdabaoth from D1K3S and "IAAA may have arisen
from a confusion between the initial syllables of IA(Q) and of
AA(QNAI)," and even more to agree with Wolfgang Fauth when he
agrees with an earlier view of Scholem himself in holding "dass es sich
vielmehr um eine der zahlreichen durch 'Sabaoth' angeregten Bildungen
auf -aoth, abaoth handelt," going on to add: "Vielleicht ist der vordere
Bestandteil des Namens nach magischem Usus aus Elementen von Jao,
Elohim und Adonai zusammengesetzt."'°
In the case of Barbelo the form most commonly attested by our
Sethian documents is B?rBHÀW, although BxpBHxoN occurs three
times in CG III, 2 GosEg, and B?pB?A.0) once in CG IX, 3 Allogenes
46.34; Epiphanius gives BocppTlp6as an alternative form (Medicine Chest
26.10.10; 288.17 Holl). I do not need to rehearse the litany of attempts
that have been made to decipher this name either, as that is adequately
done by Soren Giversen in the commentary of his edition of CG II, 1
ApocJohn. `' It is fair to say that Scholem's judgment on the attempts
to explain the name Ialdabaoth justly applies in this case as well. Again,
as in many other cases to be taken up later, the name Barbelo can be
shown to be likely to derive from the incantatory voces magicae and
nomina barbara of the sorcerers. It is well known to anyone familiar
with the magic tradition of the ancient Mediterranean world that it
teems with words/names in bar- and barbar-, in which case, moreover,
dissimilation of the liquids lambda and rho (as with BxpBHxw and
Epiphanius' BappTlp6) is common. These facts are in themselves signifi-
cant, as the commonness of forms in bar- and barbar- may well indeed
have been a factor in influencing the Gnostic borrower to make such a
 75

choice and to alternate the form "Barbelo" with "Barbero." Among

the forms attested by the magic tradition there are some that are very
close to the normative (if that is what it was) Sethian spelling
"Barbelo." There is, for example, the word ?iEp?3alcor ?3E??ia?cin a for-
mula that occurs many times in PGM 13 (75, 198, 205-206, 529-530,
549-550, 587), in all of which cases it is important to note that, just as
is the case with the name AÀÔOt?Ot?Lfl in the same papyrus, the formula
in which ?iEp?3alcoccurs is actually the proper name of a divinity ((D6po;)
who figures in the famous cosmogony contained in PGM 13. Closer still
to the form "Barbelo" are the voces magicae PappappeX(oX(xin PGM
12.157 and in PGM 5a, I , where the word occurs in the context
of an invocation of Helios and may be intended as one of the god's
secret names.
The case for derivation of the Sethian Gnostic names laldabaoth and
Barbelo from the magic tradition is strengthened by the sheer number
of other cases in which names in the Sethian Gnostic system either
undeniably or at least quite possibly derived from the incantatory voces
magicae and nomina barbara of the magicians. What follows is a listing
of these names in alphabetical order.
ÀBPÀNÀ, the angelic creator of the toes of Adam's left foot (CG II, 1
ApocJohn 17.29): afipava in PGM 12.117
one of the ministers of the four Illuminators (CG III, 2
GosEg 52.26; 53.9-10; 65.1; CG VIII, 7 Zost 47.13): extremely
common in the magic tradition as a divinity (so, e.g., in PGM
1.302; 3.213; 4.332; 5.363; 13.156, 466 and on countless gem
amulets in Delatte-Derchain, sometimes in the form and
well known as the isopsephic lord of the 365 heavens in the Basili-
dean Gnostic system, which is likely, itself as well, to have bor-
rowed the name from the magic tradition
ÀÀWNÀIOC (CG III, 2 GosEg 58.13-14); ÀÀWNÀIOY (CG II, 7 Apoc-
John 10.33 with the variants aa cu N i N in 11.32 and aa cu NE i N in
12.23), one of the archontic powers: of frequent occurrence in the
magic papyri (PGM 1.310; 4.1560, 1735; 12.264, for example) and
on gem amulets (Delatte-Derchain # # 297, 485, 517, for example)
ÀPX£NT£X8À, the angelic creator of the toes of Adam's right foot and
apxeNaeKTa, one of the overseers of Adam's senses (CG II, 1
ApocJohn 17.27 and 33, respectively): in PGM this vox magica
occurs as `ApXsv8EX6ain the ?Apyiovb formula (7.362), amongst
other voces magicae (4.2003; 7.403), and as a proper name-if it is
 76

not also such in the foregoing cases-(4.2355; 7.252), Egyptian in

6
origin 111
4CT4CP410C (CG II, I ApocJohn 11.29); 4CTp4CP41W (CG II, 1
ApocJohn 12.19), one of the archontic powers, the second of the
names which Origen held his Gnostics to have derived from the
magic tradition: in PGM 12 the nomina barbara ocarpacpat (186-
note the spelling with rho as in the second attestation in CG II, 1
ApocJohn) and 'AaTacpaioS (288, a form which matches the first
. attestation in CG II, 1 ApocJohn), in the latter case occurring in
a string of proper names of a god invoked as 8?È ?.€Yca?s, Bq
1t&crOtV8uva?.w and whose names begin with 'I6;<ù,
LOt?Ot6>e and
B4NHNecppoYM, the angelic creator of Adam's lips (CG II, 1 Apoc-
John 16.1): probably a deformation through multiple metathesis of
part (j3<x<ppeve[jLouv)of the common LOt?<ù?OtCPP?V?flouvo8LÀOtpLXpLcp palin-
drome (PGM 1.140-141; 3.59-62; 4.398-399 and elsewhere; Delatte-
Derchain # # 100, 122, 194, 330, 432, 509, 516, 521)
B4PB4P, the angelic creator of Adam's left breast (CG II, 1 ApocJohn
17.15): the simplest of the barbar- forms, attested in PGM 4.1555;
12.90
B4PCP4p?rrHc (CG VIII, I Zost 6.12 and the Bruce Codex's Un-
titled Treatise chap. 20; 263.27 Schmidt-MacDermot);
cecerrCN4).xp.xrrHN (CG III, 2 GosEg 64.18), a power at the
celestial source of baptismal water: both are parts of the common
asaevyev ?3apcpapaYY?Sformula (PGM 2.122, 174; 3.110, 155, 217,
436; 4.364, 1025; 36.310 and elsewhere; Audollent # # 16.19 from
Apheca in Syria; 267.14 from Hadrumetum; Delatte-Derchain
# # 416, 434, 510, 516, 520, 521), often, as originally, a proper
name" 7
BiccoyM, the angelic creator of Adam's left ear (CG II 7 ApocJohn
15.34); Biaaovy in the same string of names as that in which
'Aaiacpaios occurs (PGM 12.289)
eawaioy (CG II, 7 ApocJohn 11.27-28); e;\'W4IW (CG II, 1 Apoc-
John 12.18), one of the archontic powers: common in the magic
tradition, in a variety of forms, as the name of a divinity (PGM
1.311; 4.321, 1577; 5.481; 7.400, 564; 35.21; 45.5, 6; Audollent
# 270.14 from Hadrumetum; Delatte-Derchain # 365 and others)
iacu, one of the archontic powers (CG II, 7 ApocJohn 11.30; 12.20):
'I&w multitudinously invoked in the magic tradition
 77

ioyHx, an angelic revealer who crops up often in CG III, 2 GosEg;

VIII, 7 Zost; and XI, 3 Allog: in PGM 5.55-56; 36.173
an angelic figure connected with the celestial waters of baptism
(CG III, 2 GosEg 44.27; 65.23; VIII, 7 Zost 57.15; 62.12): in
PGM 4.3010; 5.132; 36.173
KoaHPH, one of the other names of the Illuminator Eleleth (CG VIII,
7 Zost 128.6): part of the Tiaaiyiyalmv or 'Op8<ù Baupw formula
(PGM 5.424-427; 7.680-683, 895-897; Audollent # 295.1-4 from
Hadrumetum), used as a proper name again in the series of names
in which and Biaaovy figure (PGM 12.291)
and one might add another of the archontic nameS-C?B?we (CG II,
1 ApocJohn 10.34; 11.31); C?NB?we (CG II, I ApocJohn 12.22)-to
the list.
This tally, which could, perhaps, with wider scrutiny of the magic
tradition be augmented, suffices, in those cases where derivation from
the magic tradition is certain, to establish that tradition as one of the
sources drawn upon by the Sethian Gnostics, and not only their own
overheated imaginations. The fact of their debt to the magicians is,
moreover, reinforced by the presence in some of the Sethian documents
under consideration (CG III, 2 GosEg 44.3-9; 49.6-7; 66.8-22; 67.14, 17;
VIII, 1 Zost 127.1-3, 5, for example) of meaningless, mostly vocalic
sequences either identical with or at least quite reminiscent of similar
sequences in the magicians' incantatory "glossolalia." It comes as no
surprize, then, to find Plotinus, in refuting Gnostics who, Porphyry
tells us (Life of Plotinus 16), touted documents widely acknowledged to
be identical with two of our Sethian ones, informing us that his Gnostics
composed magic chants and claimed that their songs and
noises (T1xouÇ) and breathings (1tpocr1tV?úcr?L?) and hissings exerted
magical power upon the transcendental world (Enneads 2.9.14), a prac-
tice manifestly adopted from the hissings and mouth-poppings and
whatnot with which the rituals of the magic papyri are replete.
Why the Sethian Gnostics did the borrowing is likely to have been the
opportunity to enhance the otherworldliness of the denizens of their
celestial realms, to impart to them the aura of mystery to be had from
the very unintelligibility of the magicians' voces magicae and nomina
barbara. In the specific case of the Semitic-looking names their motive
may rather, or additionally, have been the desire to endow the
possessors of the names with the flavor of authenticity lent by the
Hebrew/Aramaic look of the names, which the Sethians used, after all,
78

to designate divine beings with similar functions and origins as those to

whom the names are given in the magic papyri. Where they did the bor-
rowing may have been Egypt, though it could just as well have been else-
where in the Near East-or anywhere in the Roman world, for that
matter-for the widespread distribution of the curse tablets and gem
amulets shows that the traditional names and incantatory sequences
were part and parcel of magic as it was practiced throughout the Roman
empire, and even beyond.

NOTES
' To make matters worse, the Sethian system, too, is often maddeninglydifficult to sort
out. One readily sympathizeswith Wilhelm Bousset when the great philologian remarks
of the last-named text with a nearly audible sigh of frustration: "Wir können nur sagen
dass in ihm die Gnosis in ihrer gänzlichenEntartung erscheint, dass die gnostischePhan-
tasie hier ihren wildesten Hexentanz aufführt, und dass man in diesem zum System
erhobenen Unsinn nirgends festen Fuss fassen kann" (Hauptprobleme der Gnosis. Göt-
tingen :Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1907; 189).
2 See, for example, Søren Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis (ATDan 5; Copenhagen:
Munksgaard) 183-185.
3 Note, again for example, what F. C. Burkitt has to say on this matter in his articles
"Pistis Sophia," JTS 23 (1922)278-280,and "Pistis Sophia Again," JTS 26 (1925)397-
399). I am pleased to say that I am mostly in agreementwith the general viewsexpressed
there by the great historian of early Eastern Christianity.
4 For simplicity'ssake I shall use only three sourceshere for the magic tradition: Papyri
Graecae Magicae ( = PGM)(ed. and trans. Karl Preisendanz; 2nd ed. Albert Henrichs;
Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973-1974)for the papyri; Augustus Audollent, Defixionum Tabellae
(= Audollent)Frankfurt/Main: Minerva, 1967,originally 1904)for the curse tablets; and
A. Delatte and Ph. Derchain, Les intailles magiques gréco-égyptiennes( = Delatte-
Derchain) (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1964) for the gem amulets. Countless other
sources could be drawn upon, published in periodicalsand less encyclopedicworks, but
these three will sufficeto make my point. I cite the vocesmagicaein one, perhaps the most
frequent, form; many variants are attested in most cases.
5 Michel Tardieu ("Aberamentha�,"Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions
presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday; ed. R. van den Broek
and M. J. Vermaseren;Leiden: Brill, 1981;412-418)ventures (p. 416) what seems to me
an implausibleinterpretation based partly on Hebrew and partly on Greek.
6 Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (2nd ed.; New
York: Jewish TheologicalSeminary, 1965)97.
7 See, for example, Theodor Hopfner, "Orientalisch-religionsgeschichtliche aus den
griechischen Zauberpapyri Aegyptens," ArOr 10 (1931) 329; "Ein neues
ΘΥMOKATOXON,"ArOr 10 (1938) 134; Griechisch-äagyptischerOffenbarungszauber
(Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1974,originally 1921)sections 153 (pp. 76-77)and 739 (p. 453).
 79

8 On the other hand, when the Sethian Illuminators, the Semiticbackground of whose
names does not suggesta magicalcontext, commonlyappear as divinitiesinvoked in Cop-
tic magical texts (AngelicusM. Kropp, AusgewählteKoptische Zaubertexte I-II; Brux-
elles : Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1931; passim) the borrowing was
evidentlyfrom SethianGnosticismby the magicians,who may, for all we know, have been
Sethian Gnostics.
9 "Pistis Sophia" 279.
10 Mélanges d'histoire des religions offerts à Henri-Charles Puech (Paris: Presses
Universitairesde France, 1974)405-421.
11 "Jaldabaoth Reconsidered" 406.
12 "Jaldabaoth Reconsidered" 418-421.
13 "Jaldabaoth Reconsidered" 406.
14 "Pistis Sophia" 280; Scholem,Jewish Gnosticism71 n. 23; WolfgangFauth, "Seth-
Typhon, Onoel und der eselsköpfige Sabaoth. Zur Theriomorphie der ophitisch-
barbelognostischenArchonten," OrChr 57 (1973)91 n. 75.
15 Apocryphon Johannis 165-166.Add the proposal by Bousset (Hauptprobleme der
Gnosis 14) that the name is "eine Verstümmelungvon ."
16 See, for example, K. Fr. W. Schmidt in the (Berliner)Philologische Wochenschrift
41/42 (1935) 1178.
17 On this formula see Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism94-100.

Classics Department, Pomona College, Claremont, California