Intertextuality and Conceptual Blending

in the Apocryphon of John

di
Zlatko Pleše

In modern scholarship, the Apocryphon of John has often been viewed as a paradigmatic instance of
1
the ‘classic’ (non-Valentinian) Gnostic semiosis . It appears that the text already attained the status
of a master-narrative among its ancient readers, as suggested by the prominent placement of its
2
extant copies in the multiple-work Coptic codices . What distinguishes the Apocryphon of John
from other first-hand ‘Gnostic’ treatises is its carefully planned and detailed linear exposition of a
complex myth of origins: first, the nature of the supreme god and its gradual devolution into
multiplicity; next, the creation of physical reality; and lastly, the origin, present state, and final
destiny of the human race. The comprehensive scope of this distinct example of early Imperial
Offenbarungsliteratur appears to serve two opposite yet complementary purposes. One is
accommodating, in the sense that the work purports to resonate with a well attested religious
tendency of the early Imperial period to intertwine the problem of personal salvation with
cosmological speculation. The other is emulative, seeking to produce a revisionist counterpoint to
the analogous grand narratives of Judaism (Genesis and sapiental literature) and Greek philosophy
(Plato’s Timaeus and its Middle Platonist reverberations). As the frame narrative of the Apocryphon of
John transitions into a revelatory monologue by the resurrected Savior, the reader, very much like
John, the original recipient of this heavenly proclamation of truth, must adjust to a discourse that
employs at once three different languages: the language of speculative (Platonist) philosophy; the
symbolic language of Jewish Wisdom theosophy; and the Biblical language of historical
contingency.

1
For the synoptic edition of all four Coptic manuscript witnesses of the Apocryphon of John, see
M. WALDSTEIN, F. WISSE (eds.), The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1
with BG 8502,2 (NHMS 33), Leiden-New York-Köln 1995. Though its significance is often acknowledged,
the Apocryphon of John has received only a handful of book-length treatments, mostly in the commentary
form; for a shorter redaction preserved in the Berolinensis Gnosticus 8502 (BG), see W. TILL, H.-M. SCHENKE
(eds.), Die gnostische Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 2nd ed. (TU 60), Berlin 1972, and
M. Tardieu, Écrits gnostiques. Codex de Berlin (Sources gnostiques et manichéennes 1), Paris 1987; for the
long recension (NHC II,1), cf. S. GIVERSEN, Apocryphon Johannis: The Coptic Text of the Apocryphon
Johannis in the Nag Hammadi Codex II with Translation, Introduction, and Commentary, Copenhagen 1963.
Two monographs dealing exclusively with this text were published in 2006: Karen KING’s The Secret
Revelation of John, Cambridge (MA) 2006, and my own book, a thoroughly revised version of my 1996 Yale
doctoral dissertation, entitled Poetics of the Gnostic Universe: Narrative and Cosmology in the Apocryphon of
John (NHMS 52), Leiden-Boston 2006. For the recent Laval edition of and commentary on two extant
Coptic witnesses of the shorter redaction cf. B. BARC, W.-P. FUNK (eds.), Le livre des secrets de Jean: recension
brève (NH III,1 et BG,2) (BCNH.T 35), Québec-Louvain-Paris-Walpole 2012.
2
The text occupies the initial position in the Nag Hammadi codices II, III, and IV (NHC II,1; III,1; IV,1);
in the Berlin codex (BG 8502), however, it is assigned the second place (BG,2). Various hypothetical
patterns of ordering in the multi-textual Nag Hammadi codices are discussed in M. WILLIAMS, Rethinking
«Gnosticism»: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, Princeton 1996, 235-262, 306-310.

118
 ZLATKO PLEŠE – Intertextuality and Conceptual Blending

The purpose of this contribution is to identify and briefly describe some of the ways in which these
3
three leading ‘voices’ (‘Plato’ – ‘Sophia’ – ‘Moses’) speaking within the Apocryphon of John became
partly integrated at its narrative, thematic, doctrinal, and linguistic levels. The first section examines
a set of compositional and exegetical devices that facilitate this interaction and forge multiple
linkages between the constitutive ‘voices’. The second part, in turn, discusses the impact of this
intertextual poetics on the language and style of the cosmological section in the Apocryphon of John –
more specifically, on its loftiness and intentional obscurity which seem to result from the fusion and
condensation of concepts, metaphors, and analogies borrowed from the three aforementioned
discursive domains. The title of my contribution refers to this particular sort of linguistic and
conceptual interplay as ‘conceptual blending’, described by cognitive psychologists as the mental
4
operation of matching separate experiential inputs and integrating them into complex new ideas .
An ancient term that describes the same phenomenon equally well is the metaphor by analogy – a
mode of thinking and a type of diction that relies on various kinds of conceptual displacement and,
5
when taken to extremes, creates the effect of riddling obscurity .

Intertextuality in the Apocryphon of John

Intertextual referencing begins as early as the opening lines of the revelatory catechesis where the
heavenly messenger, variously called «Savior», «Lord», or «Christ», discloses to John the purpose of
his appearance (BG,2 p. 22,2-8; cf. II,1 p. 2,16-19):
[Now I have come] to teach you [what] is, what has come to be, and what [must come] to pass, so
that you may [understand] the things invisible [and the things] visible.

3
‘Plato’ stands both for the ancient Platonic corpus and for later eclectic brands of imperial Platonism (1st
ct. BCE–2nd ct. CE). The voice of ‘Sophia’ comprises both Hellenistic Jewish wisdom literature and the
extant work of two Alexandrian Jewish exegetes, Aristobulus and Philo. ‘Moses’, of course, refers to the
Pentateuch, and especially to the Book of Genesis.
4
G. FAUCONNIER, M. TURNER, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden
Complexities, New York 2002. This model has recently found its way into studies of Gnostic poetics and
ritual praxis; cf. R. U RO, Gnostic Rituals from a Cognitive Perspective, in: P. LUOMANEN, I. PYYSÏÄINEN,
R. U RO (eds.), Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Social and Cognitive
Studies, Leiden-Boston 2007, 115-137; H. LUNDHAUG, Images of Rebirth: Cognitive Poetics and
Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul (NHMS 73), Leiden-Boston
2010; see also Z. PLEŠE, op. cit., 107-138. While acknowledging the value of a fourfold schema of conceptual
blending designed by FAUCONNIER and TURNER (a minimum of two input spaces, a generic space that
collects their common transfer features – e.g. their relational commonalities, common properties, or a
common genus—and a blended space into which these transfer features are selectively projected), I will
not follow this model in full detail, let alone draw the integration network diagrams. Many of the rules that
constitute a so-called «conceptual integration network» were intuited by Aristotle, whom I consider
contextually more relevant for this study; cf. esp. Aristotle’s Poetics 21 and Rhetoric, passim; see also U. ECO,
The Scandal of Metaphor: Metaphorology and Semiotics, Poetics Today (1983) 217-257.
5
For Aristotle’s definition of the riddle see Poet. 22.1458a18-27; for obscurity as a literary device and a
rhetorical tool, see P. MEHTONEN, Obscure Language, Unclear Literature: Theory and Practice from
Quintilian to the Enlightenment, Saarijärvi 2003. For obscurity as a technical term in ancient exegesis cf.,
e.g., J. BARNES, Metacommentary, OSAP 10 (1992) 267-281; A. LANGE – Z. PLEŠE, Transpositional
Hermeneutics: A Hermeneutical Comparison of the Derveni Papyrus, Aristobulus of Alexandria, and the
Qumran Pesharim, Journal of Ancient Judaism 3 (2012) 14-66.

119
 ADAMANTIUS 18 (2012)

Viewed from a form-analytical perspective, the statement represents the classic ancient
Mediterranean formula describing the office of a prophet as one who has knowledge of things past,
present, and future. The Savior, however, inverts the formula’s word order. Rather than
distinguishing between the three dimensions of physical time in their natural succession, he
rearranges the formula according to the Platonic priority of Being over Becoming, as outlined in the
Timaeus (37c6-38a8):
We say that it [i.e. eternal Being] was and is and shall be (wJ~ h\n e[stin te kai; e{stai). But ‘is’ alone
really belongs to it and describes it truly; ‘was’ and ‘shall be’ are properly used of Becoming that
proceeds in time (peri; th;n ejn crovnw/ gevnesin ijou`san). For they are motions, while that which is
forever in the same state immovably (to; d’ ajei; kata; taujta; e[con ajkinhvtw~) cannot be becoming
older and younger by lapse of time, nor can it ever become so. Neither can it now have been, nor will
it be in the future. And in general nothing belongs to it of all that Becoming attaches to the moving
things of sense; but these have become as forms of time, which imitates eternity and revolves
according to number ( crovnou tau`ta aijw`na mimoumevnou kai; kat j ajriqmo;n kukloumevnou gevg onen ei[dh).
The revised formula of prophecy outlines the central themes that will be covered in the Savior’s
revelatory monologue. In his ensuing exposition, the heavenly narrator will first derive a multiple-
tiered realm of Being, or «what is», from the unfathomable divine principle beyond Being and
intellection. Next, he will proceed to discuss the realm of Becoming in its two constitutive
dimensions: the past, or «what has become», which stands for the formation of the physical world as
well as the creation and early history of the human race; and the future, or «what must come to
6
pass», where the promise of the final salvation of humanity is given .
The summary of these three main thematic sections and their respective subsections is given in the
left column of the synoptic table below. The first section comprises the ‘apophatic’ encomium of a
solitary divinity in the initial state of involution as well as a detailed recounting of its gradual
devolution into a plurality of spiritual entities called «aeons». This spiritual domain represents
God’s thought-content – a personified set of his mental dispositions, also inhabited by true

6
At the narrative level, these three thematic blocks of the Apocryphon of John are articulated as three
distinct moments in a typical folktale sequence: (i) initial order, (ii) violation of order and the ensuing act
of villainy, and (iii) restoration of order. Each of these three narrative sections consists of a series of
individual episodes, each characterized in turn by a specific chain of actions. The pervading logic of the
whole narrative is a complicated game of giving and not-giving, taking and not-taking. Thus, in the first
section (i), the procession of spiritual entities («aeons») from the first principle unfolds in an orderly
threefold pattern: one entity requesting the gift, another granting the request, and the first entity taking
the gift. The spiritual reality resembles an ideal version of Hellenistic monarchy, where the king governs
through a limited number of functionaries, each appointed to the rank of «attendant» following the
petition by a superordinate courtier (e.g. Barbelo) and the king’s nodding approval; cf. BG, 2 p. 28,4-11:
«Barbelo requested from him to grant her Foreknowledge. When he had consented, Foreknowledge came
forth and stood firm…glorifying the invisible one». In the second section (ii), this monotonous rhythm of
reciprocal giving and taking comes to an abrupt end. First, the main hero in the story, viz. Sophia,
requests the gift of knowledge (or union with her male consort) which is flatly denied, but then begins to
act on her own as though the permission was given. Next, in yet another violation of the orderly pattern
prescribed in the first section, the main villain of the story, Ialdabaoth, steals from Sophia her spiritual
power, one which he has neither requested nor been granted. The section then continues with Sophia’s
request for help (which is granted), followed by the repeated attempts on the part of various spiritual
emissaries, none fully successful, to take back what was previously stolen. Finally, in the third section (iii),
the theft is compensated and the initial order restored. For a detailed analysis of the Savior’s narrative,
which combines the formalist and structural methods of analyzing literary texts, see PLEŠE, op. cit., 7-51.

120
 ZLATKO PLEŠE – Intertextuality and Conceptual Blending

humanity, from the spiritual Adam and his son Seth to the offspring of Seth and the separate class of
«repentant souls». The second thematic section introduces the liminal figure of Sophia, a feminine
personification of God’s rational disposition, whose impetuous desire to mediate and rationally
articulate the unfathomable ground of God’s transcendent nature entails a series of unfortunate
events, from her miscarriage of a dark material residue and the appearance of its malformed and
irrational ruler, identified with the biblical creator-god, to his forced removal from the higher realm
and, finally, his creation of the physical world and the human race. This long section concludes with
a revisionist remake of the Genesis version of early human history, which the Savior presents as a
continuous struggle between the spiritual and cosmic powers for dominion over earthly humanity.
Salvation is thus embedded in the historical process from its very inception, but its fulfillment has
yet to take place, as shortly alluded to in the shorter redaction and elaborated in greater detail in the
soteriological Pronoia-hymn of the longer version.
Apocryphon of John Timaeus Genesis (LXX)
I. WHAT IS
A. Transcendent Monad God: patêr kai poiêtês (28c– God: omnipotent creator ‘ex
(light/spirit) 30c) nihilo’
B. Spiritual plêrôma of aeons Eternal living being contain- Gen 1:1a: «In the beginning
(including ideal humanity) ing all intelligible forms God made the heaven …»;
(30c–31b) Gen 1:3: «Let there be light»
II. WHAT HAS BECOME

A. Sophia the liminal aeon World-Soul (35a-37c) Spirit of God

(a) Deliberation (enthumêsis)
(b) Miscarriage of dark matter
(c) Miscarriage “cast away”
B. Ialdabaoth fabricates:
(a) Fiery realm
Discursive logos (37a-c)
Primeval chaos (48e-51b) Gen 1:1b-2a: Invisible earth/
darkness/abyss
Gen 1:4: «God separated light
from darkness»
The craftsman fabricates: God creates:
World-body (31a-34b) Gen 1:7-9: Visible firmament
and earth

(b) Twelve signs of Zodiac Heavenly gods (stars) Gen 1:14-19: Two luminaries
in the sky
Gen 1:14.18: Signs for seas-
(c) Seven planets Planets ons, days, years

(d) Other ‘chronocrators’ Time (37c-40d)

D. Sophia’s adventures Descent and ascent of the Divine spirit as mediator in

soul creation
(a) Descent into matter Immortal soul in body (41a
-42a)
(b) Agitated motion Disorderly movement (42a Gen 1: 2b: «Spirit of God
(metanoia) –44d) moved upon waters»
(c) Rescue from matter Soul returns to heaven (42
b–c)

121

D. Creation of Adam by archons
(a) Seven parts of Adam’s
animate body molded
(b) Spirit blown into Adam
(c) Adam in matter (hulê)
(d) «Counterfeit spirit»
E. Biblical History
(a) Trees in Paradise
(b) The snake
(c) Adam’s ekstasis-insensi-
tivity
(d) Creation of the first
woman
(e) Adam’s self-recognition
(f) Adam and Eve expelled
from Paradise, clothed
in darkness
(g) Birth of Cain and Abel
(h) Birth of Seth
(i) Spiritual posterity begins
to descend into bodies
(j) Fate of souls; destiny
(k) Noah in the luminous
cloud
(l) Angels and daughters of
men; «counterfeit spirit»
122
ADAMANTIUS 18 (2012)
Making of Man by Lesser Gods:
Building of mortal soul (69c-d)
and sevenfold bodily frame
(73b-76e)
Immortal soul embodied (69c)
Mortal soul fitted into body
(69d-72d)
Irrational part of mortal soul
(70d-72c)
Immortal souls implanted
into bodies (41e-42a)
Laws of destiny (41b-42d)
Double formation of Adam:
Gen 1:26: «Let us make a
human being»
Gen 2:7: «God . . . inbreathed
a breath of life»
Gen 2:7: «God formed man,
dust from earth»
Gen 2:9.15-17: Tree of life
vs. knowledge
Gen 3:1-7: «You will not die
by death»
Gen 2:21: «God cast an ekstasis,
and he slept»
Gen 2:22: Adam’s rib «molded
into a woman»
Gen 2:23: «This now is bone
of my bones…»
Gen 3:24: «He drove Adam
out»
Gen 3:21: «He made leather
tunics for» them
Gen 4:1-2: «I have acquired a
man through God»
Gen 4:25: «God has raised up
another offspring»
Gen 5:1-32: Genealogy of the
Sethite line
Gen 6:5-7:16: Noah in the ark
Gen 6:1-2.4: Sons of God and
daughters of men
Gen 6:3: «My spirit shall not
abide in these humans
forever, for they are flesh»
 ZLATKO PLEŠE – Intertextuality and Conceptual Blending
III. WHAT MUST COME
TO PASS

A. Final diakrisis God’s handiwork is indisso-

luble, save with his consent
(41a)
B. Spiritual posterity restored Becoming like God (90a-d)

The central and right columns in the synoptic chart contain the outlines of two narrative templates
for the revelatory account in the Apocryphon of John: Plato’s exploration of the origins of the universe
and humanity in the Timaeus and the first six chapters of the Mosaic account of creation in Genesis.
As indicated in the table, these two primary referential texts, or intertexts, are sometimes employed
separately and sometimes in conjunction with one another. The metaphysical section («what is»)
addresses the same themes as the opening part of Timaeus’ speech and mirrors its order of
exposition. The next section («what has become ») gradually introduces the Mosaic story, first in
evocative allusions and then in overt references and verbatim quotations, following for some time
the narrative line of both Genesis and the Timaeus. At several points – for instance, in the
description of Sophia’s fall and her agitated movement of repentance, or in the episode dealing with
the molding of a threefold human being – the two intertexts are brought together, filling each
other’s fissures and gaps. Starting with the historical section, Plato’s voice fades away, resurfacing
only in the philosophically intoned discussions on the varying fates of human souls and their
submission to the ineluctable laws of cosmic destiny, and the story line closely follows the biblical
order of events. Constant meandering between the two referential narratives creates a parallax effect,
forcing the reader (and John as the original recipient of the revelatory message) to operate
simultaneously on two different semantic registers and to uncover new signifying relations resulting
from their partial overlapping.
The relationship that the Apocryphon of John establishes between Genesis and the Timaeus is that of
subordination and mutual readjustment. Plato’s voice is dubbed over Moses’, not just as a necessary
metaphysical supplement but also as a transformative framework for a thorough reinterpretation of
the biblical story of creation. The Platonizing hermeneutical stance assumed by the Savior is
revisionist, contesting not so much the facticity of events recorded by Moses as his limited
materialist perspective. In a handful of brief dialogical interchanges which occasionally interrupt the
Savior’s monologue, John is repeatedly reminded of the serious gaps and interpretive shortcomings
in the Mosaic record of primeval history: «Do not suppose that it means…as Moses said…», or «It
7
is not as you have heard that Moses wrote…but rather…» . Moses is the prophet of a blind and
foolish god («Samael-Saklas») and so cannot discern the preordered spiritual template of the
material world in which he is imprisoned; nor can he fathom the providential plan of salvation
underlying the succession of human generations, which he presents in Genesis as the conflict
8
between the righteous servants of Yahweh and their wicked opponents . On some occasions,

7
NCH II,1 p. 13,19-21 and BG,2 p. 45,8-10; NHC II,1 p. 22:22-24; III,1 p. 29,4-6, and BG,2 p. 58,16-18; NCH
II,1 p. 23,3-4; III,1 p. 29,21-23, and BG,2 p. 59,17-18; NCH II,1 p. 29,6-7; III,1 p. 37,22-23, and BG,2 p. 73,4-5.
8
This providential ordering of history through Sophia’s occasional awakening of some of the incarnate
souls is patterned on the account of Wisdom’s purposeful guidance of Israel in the Wisdom of Solomon,
esp. 9:13-10:14. The Apocryphon of John postulates the spiritual preexistence of these (immortal) souls,
which are sent down to the physical world to rectify the deficiency of human constitution (material
body, the mortal soul, and the «counterfeit» spirit). As explained in the longer version (NCH II,1 p. 24,26-

123
 ADAMANTIUS 18 (2012)

however, ambiguous expressions or unexpected word combinations in Mosaic verses – for instance,
the spirit of God’s «moving upon the water» (Gen 1:2b) or Adam’s e[kstasi~ (2:21) – signal the
presence of other ‘voices’ in the text, urging the reader to change the observational stance, engage in
9
allegorical interpretation, and uncover their hidden meaning .
At the same time, the superimposed framework of Plato’s Timaeus also undergoes various narrative
and conceptual adjustments. The counter-pressure of the biblical narrative entails some degree of
tampering with the Platonic presentation of events. Thus, while in the Timaeus the fashioning of
the «mortal» human soul by the lesser gods occurs after the «immortal principle of soul» has already
been inserted into a physical body (Tim. 69c-d), the Apocryphon of John retains the Genesis sequence
of the double creation of Adam and places the molding of his sevenfold «psychic body» by the
celestial archons (Gen 1:27) before his acquisition of the immortal spiritual power and the material
body (Gen 2:7). Another major inversion of the Timaeus’ order of exposition is the relocation of the
episode outlining the inexorable rules of destiny and the necessary descent of all immortal souls into
bodies (41b-42d) only after a detailed description of the fashioning of man (69c-72c), probably to
correlate Plato’s discussion of the shortcomings of the incarnate human condition with the account
of a progressive deterioration of the post-Adamic lineage in «the book of the origin of human
beings» (Gen 5:1-32).
In addition to these narrative readjustments, the Apocryphon of John makes a number of substantial
revisions to the central tenets of the Timaeus’ cosmological construct. Plato’s schema of ordering,
chosen for its superordination of intelligible over sense-perceptible, implies the plurality of
independent and coeternal principles – a position that is hardly compatible with the biblical
monotheistic doctrine of God’s absolute priority and the capacity to create ex nihilo. Unlike his
divine counterpart in Genesis, the demiurge of the Timaeus encounters in his work the limitations
imposed by both the preexistent pattern of eternal ideas and the unruly material factor. In the
Apocryphon of John, these necessary preconditions for the demiurge’s production of the visible world
are made derivative of two higher causes, both dependent on a single transcendent source of
absolute unity: on the one hand, a self-thinking intellect, figuratively presented as Self-Originate

25,9), «And to the present day sexual intercourse (sunousiva ), which originated from the first ruler
(prwtavrcwn, i.e. Ialdabaoth), has remained. And in her who belonged to Adam (i.e. the carnal Eve) he
sowed a seed (sporav) of desire (ejpiqumiva ); and through sexual intercourse he caused birth in the image
of the bodies (sw`ma ); and he supplied ( cwrhgei`n) them with his counterfeit spirit (ajntivmimon pneu`ma). …
Likewise (oJm oivw~), the mother (Sophia) also sent down her spirit ( pneu`ma) in the image of the female
being that resembled her and as a counterpart (ajntivtupon) of her who is in the fullness (plhvrwma ); for
she was going to prepare a dwelling place for the aeons (sc. immortal souls) that were going to descend.
And they were made to drink water of forgetfulness by the first ruler, so that they might not know where
they had come from. And the posterity (spevrma ) remained like this for a while, rendering service
(uJpourgei`n), so that whenever the spirit (pneu`ma) would descend from the holy aeons it might rectify it
and heal it from the deficiency; so that the entire fullness (plhvrwma) might become holy and without
deficiency».
9
For a similar theory of multiple sources of individual biblical verses, see the Valentinian rationale for
allegorical exegesis in Iren. Haer. I,7,3: «They also explain that this (spiritual) seed spoke many things
through the prophets, inasmuch as it was of a more exalted nature; and the mother (sc. Achamoth), too,
spoke many things about the superior aeons, but also through the demiurge and the souls generated by
him». Cf. also the Valentinian Tripartite Tractate (NHC I,5), p. 100,30-35: «The logos made use of him (sc.
the demiurge) like a hand to arrange and work on the things below, and he used him like a mouth to
speak of the things to be prophesied». The problem was thoroughly discussed in A. ORBE, Inspiración de
los profetas, in ID., Cristología gnostica 1, Madrid 1976, 69-88.

124
 ZLATKO PLEŠE – Intertextuality and Conceptual Blending

Christ, whose positive thought-content is manifested as the ideal structure of twelve «aeons» and,
on the other, the rational cosmic soul, personified as Sophia, which articulates a rational «likeness»
of the aeonic realm as a template for the demiurge’s activity, generating in addition the necessary
material substrate for his subsequent creation of phenomenal reality. In this new ontological
hierarchy, the demiurge no longer performs a double role of planning and producing as in the
Timaeus. Deprived of the rational planning capacity, now attributed to Sophia, and completely
separated from the ideal model, he can only work on a distant «likeness» of this model, as reflected
in the mirror-surface of the material substrate, and fabricate the visible world as a third-rank
10
semblance of the spiritual world .
Many of these refinements of the Platonic world-hypothesis have notable precedents in various
11
contemporary interpretations of the Timaeus, particularly those of ‘Neopythagorean’ provenance .

10
As explained in a gloss supplied by the longer redaction (NHC II,1 p. 12,33-13,5), «he (sc. Ialdabaoth)
ordered ( tseno) all things according to the likeness (kata pine n+n+yor_p [n+aiwn) of the original aeons
which had come into being, with the intention to fabricate (tamio) them (sc. all things) in the
incorruptible manner. Not that he had seen the incorruptible ones, but the power within him, which he
had taken from his mother (sc. Sophia), produced in him the semblance of the ordered world ( pine
m+ptseno)”. Plato’s celebrated trichotomy of the ideal model, its well-founded resemblance, and its false
semblance or simulacrum (cf. Soph. 235e-236a, 239b-242c) is conveyed in the above quoted passage as the
hierarchy of (i) the spiritual aeons, (ii) their rational likeness conceived by Sophia, and (iii) their distorted
reflection contrived by the power of Ialdabaoth’s imagination. The distinction between accurate
resemblance (eijkwvn) and perverted semblance (favntasma, eijvdwlon) is obscured in Coptic rendition,
which has the same noun (ine) in both cases. But the immediate context makes it clear that, in the first
case, the term designates the likeness of Sophia’s rational conception to its superior model and, in the
second, the remote likeness of Ialdabaoth’s cosmos. Earlier in the text (NHC II,1 p. 9,25-29; cf. BG,2 p.
36,16-37,1; NHC III,1 p. 14,9-14), Sophia was said to «have conceived a thought from herself and her
rational consideration (ejnquvmhsi~) of the invisible spirit and foreknowledge … and wanted to show forth
a likeness (eine) out of herself». This «likeness», conceived by Sophia’s rational consideration, is hardly
the same as the cosmos created by means of Ialdabaoth’s image-making power. Sophia and Ialdabaoth
represent two aspects or powers of the cosmic soul (or perhaps even two separate souls): one
transcendent, rational, and capable of deliberation, and the other immanent in matter, irrational, and
driven by mere representations. Ialdabaoth is thus relegated to the status of Plato’s «painter» (Rep.
10.597b-598d), the producer of deceiving simulacra, of the «sophist» engaged in «the craft of semblance-
making» (Soph. 239c-142b), and of the appetitive and imaginative part of the «mortal» soul (Tim. 70d-72b,
86b2-4). His terrifying composite appearance as a «lion-faced serpent» (NHC II,1 p. 10,8-9; BG,2 p. 37,19-
21; NHC III,1 p. 15,10-11) is probably based on Plato’s image of a «multiform beast», the metaphor of the
irrational soul in its two constitutive aspects, spirited (lion) and appetitive (serpent); cf. Rep. 9.590a8.
11
The derivational model of the Apocryphon of John reveals striking structural similarities to the
metaphysical system of Moderatus of Gades, as sketched in Simplicius’s summary (In Arist. Phys. 230,34-
231,24 Diels): «He (sc. Moderatus) declares that…the first One is above Being and all essence; the second
One, which is truly real and intelligible, is on his account the forms; and the third, which is the level of
soul, participates in the One and in the forms; following this, the last nature, which is that of sensible
things, does not even partake (of the higher levels) but is ordered according to their reflection
(κατ’ ἔµφασιν ἐκείνων); and matter in them is a shadow (skivasma) of Not-Being, whose primary form is
Quantity, but this matter has descended still further even from that (sc. Quantity)». Simplicius next
adduces a passage from Porphyry’s On Matter, which clarifies Moderatus’s distinction between Quantity
as the formal expression of Not-Being and the derivative (corporeal) «matter» as its «shadow». The former
stands for the intelligible or prime matter, bearing the characteristics of Plato’s «receptacle of becoming»
from the Timaeus, and is «conceived by privation of the unitary Logos (kata; stevrhsin tou' eJniaivou lovg ou)

125
 ADAMANTIUS 18 (2012)

By adopting and further refining the revisions that pushed the Timaeus in a monistic direction, the
Apocryphon of John purports to resolve numerous tensions inherent in the biblical conception of an
omnipotent anthropomorphic deity, which is simultaneously transcendent and immanent, both
impassive and passionate, and capable of creating good as well as evil. While, in this complex
interextual game, Plato’s demiurge becomes subordinate to a higher chain of causes and undergoes
differentiation into two separate agents, one designing and the other merely productive, the god of
Genesis also finds himself split from within into a transcendent providential ruler and an immanent
12
(and inferior) creative power . We are dealing here, in short, not with a unidirectional Platonist
revision of the biblical doctrine, but rather with a two-way movement of accommodation and the
simultaneous revision of both doctrinal positions.
A third dominant ‘voice’ in the Apocryphon of John is that of Sophia, or Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom
tradition, which resonates throughout the Savior’s revelatory account, often obliquely and in
evocative allusions. A narrative function assigned to this ‘voice’ is similar to a role played by Sophia
in cosmogony, history, and eschatology. In the same way that Sophia acts as an intermediary
between the spiritual realm and the physical world, philosophically intoned Wisdom sayings serve as
a connective text (‘inter-text’) bridging the gaps between the Mosaic story of creation and the
revised Platonic model grafted upon it. The passage that best illustrates this mediating role of
Wisdom literature is the description of Sophia’s agitated movement of repentance following her
tragic production of a malformed offspring, soon to become the creator and ruler of the visible
world (Ialdabaoth). According to the text of the shorter redaction (BG,2 p. 44,19-45,19), the
dialogue between John and the heavenly Savior proceeds as follows:
«Then the mother began to “move upon” (Gen 1:2b ejpifevresqai), as she recognized her deficiency;
for her consort had not agreed with her as she was blamed by her perfection.» But I said, «Christ,
what does it mean to “move upon” (ejpifevresqai)»? And he smiled and said, «Do you think that it is
as Moses said, “over the waters” (Gen 1:2b)? No, but she saw the evil and the coming separation of
her son, and she repented (metanoei'n). And moving to-and-fro in the darkness of ignorance, she
began to feel ashamed, and she did not dare (tolma'n) to return, but she kept moving to-and-fro.
Now, her moving to-and-fro, this is to “move upon” (ejpifevresqai)».
In the overall organization of the Savior’s revelatory account, the passage functions as an important
transitional point. First, this is the earliest instance of a close encounter between an agent belonging
to the spiritual domain and the lower material realm. As we are informed by a gloss inserted in the
longer redaction, the «darkness of ignorance» in which Sophia moves to-and-fro is synonymous
with matter (II,1, p. 21:7-8: «matter, which is the ignorance belonging to darkness»). Second, this is
the first time that the Savior’s monologue comes to a halt and resumes the form of a catechetical

who comprises in himself all rational principles (lovgoi) of beings». The latter, in turn, is «the matter of
bodies, also called quantity…yet not as a form but rather by privation and dissolution and extension and
dispersion and on account of deviation from Being», so that it «also seems evil since it flees from the
Good». The main points of divergence between Moderatus and the Apocryphon of John concern the
activity of the ordering rational principle (Moderatus’s «unitary Logos» shows no traces of misguided
calculation and does not get swayed by passions as Sophia) and the status of corporeal matter (fully
responsible for evil according to Moderatus inasmuch as it does not partake of forms and has an innate
‘dyadic’ propensity to «dissolution, extension, and dispersion»; only a necessary condition of evil for the
Apocryphon of John inasmuch as dominated by the irrational soul as a positive evil force).
12
Cf. M. WALDSTEIN, The Primal Triad in the Apocryphon of John, in: J.D. TURNER and A. MCGUIRE
(edd.), The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature
Commemoration (NHMS 33), Leiden 1995, 154-187.

126
 ZLATKO PLEŠE – Intertextuality and Conceptual Blending

dialogue. Finally, this is the point at which the Savior makes the first explicit biblical reference –
ejpifevresqai or «move upon» from Genesis 1:2b – which strikes John as a riddling obscurity that
requires explanation. In its original Mosaic context, the verb denotes the local movement of a
physical entity (divine pneuma or «breath» in Gen 1:2b; Noah’s ark in Gen 7:18) over material
substance (water in both cases). John is unable to see how this biblical term, loaded with
materialistic connotations, fits the spiritual portrayal of the repentant Sophia, and so he poses a
simple question: «What is “moving upon”»?
The Savior’s response begins with the disclosure of another part of the biblical lemma – «over the
water» (Gen 1:2b) – and with his simultaneous rejection of its literal meaning: «Do you (really)
think that it means as Moses said…? No, but…» Literalist interpretation of Genesis is rejected in
favor of a systematic matching of biblical words and phrases with compatible elements of a
philosophically intoned interpretive framework. The selected framework is made up of textual
fragments borrowed from Plato’s Timaeus and from Stoic and Platonist accounts of human
passions. As a result, Sophia’s «movement upon the water» is given a double psychological
interpretation – one based on the Platonic topos of the individual soul suffering violent motions
upon its descent into the flowing13 tide of matter (cf. Tim. 42d-44e), and the other informed on the
Platonized Stoic conception of metanoia as a fluttering motion of the soul stirred by the
acknowledgment of a misjudgment or a wrongdoing14.
The curious thing about the Savior’s interpretive strategy is that it never reveals the full wording of
the biblical verse. His lemma, in fact, is an already initialized interpretation of the Mosaic verse, in
which Sophia is substituted for the «spirit of God». This tacit identification of Sophia with the
biblical pneuma, already present in Hellenistic Wisdom literature15, represents the first moment in a
stepwise progression of the Savior’s exegesis. Philosophical understanding of the Genesis verse is not
simply imposed on John (and the reader), but rather mediated through the intercession of analogous
phrases and passages from Jewish Wisdom tradition. Among these passages, there is one that, for its
structural and thematic affinities with Gen 1:2b, seems to have served as a catalyst for the Savior’s
philosophical interpretation. This is the last verse of Wisdom’s self-proclamation in Sirach 24:5: «I

13
Identification of the «waters» of Genesis with matter is effected by reference to their common «flowing»
property. Numenius of Apamea, for instance, qualifies (prime) matter as «a violent and unstable current»
(fr. 3 DES PLACES) «having an appetitive and ever-flowing character» (fr. 11); he also compares matter to
«the sea», probably alluding to Plato’s «boundless ocean of dissemblance» (Pol. 272e-273a). The image of a
«flowing» substrate is Platonic, referring both to a pre-cosmic mélange of elemental traces in the
«receptacle of becoming» (Tim. 52d-53b) and to the «flowing and ebbing tide» of distinct elemental
bodies in which all individual immortal souls are destined to descend (ibid. 43a5-6). Sophia’s ordeals take
place in prime matter, at the pre-cosmic stage, prior to the segregation of corporeal elements, but her
disorderly movement corresponds to the condition of a newly incarnated individual soul at the cosmic
stage; see the ensuing note.
14
Application of human psychology to the cosmological domain and the resulting homologation of the
human soul and its cosmic counterpart are the central postulates of Gnostic semiosis, as repeatedly
pointed out by ancient polemicists. Cf. Plot. Enn. II.9 [33] 7.4-15: «But to assume, starting from our soul,
homology with the Soul of the All is as if somebody were to take the class of potters and smiths in a well-
ordered city and make them a reason for blaming the whole. But one must consider the differences
between the universal soul and ours, in its management of body; for it does govern it in the same manner
and is not bound to it. … The Soul of the All could not be bound by the things it binds itself because it
dominates them. Therefore it is unaffected by them while we, in turn, are not their masters».
15
Cf. esp. Sap 7:22-24: «For there is in her (sc. Wisdom) a spirit (pneu`m a) intelligent and holy, unique of its
kind yet manifold, subtle, agile, lucid, and unsullied...».

127
 ADAMANTIUS 18 (2012)

walked around (periepavthsa) in the depth of the abyss»16. The whole exegetical procedure
amounts to a nesting of homologous textual fragments from various traditions, in which the
symbolic language of Wisdom sayings fills the gap between the materialistic imagery of Genesis and
the abstract discourse of Platonist philosophy17.

Conceptual Blending in the Apocryphon of John

The Savior’s interpretation of Genesis 1:2b is complex and obscure. But its obscurity has little to do
with the principles of the adopted exegetical procedure. Elucidation of textual passages (lemmas) by
way of juxtaposing analogous statements taken from different texts, or from different sections of the
same text, was a procedure commonly employed by ancient philologists, philosophers, and scriptural
exegetes in their running commentaries (uJpomnhvmata). The procedure also resonates with the
practices of Midrashic authors and the rhetorical precepts for conducting the ‘legal issue’ (stavsi~
nomikhv, status legalis) of assimilation or analogous extension (sullogismov~, collectio, ratiocinatio).
Had the Savior chosen to follow a full-fledged template for this type of exegesis, he would have cited
in full both the biblical lemma and the textual segments that make up his interpretive frame:
Moses: The spirit of God moved upon (ejpifevr esqai) upon the waters (Gen. 1:2b).
Wisdom: I (sc. Sophia) walked around (peripatei'n) in the depth of the Abyss (Sir. 24:5).
Plato: The individual soul moves in a disorderly fashion when falling into matter/body (Tim. 42e-44d).
Stoicized Plato: The human soul experiences distress and repentance upon recognizing its wrongdoing.
Savior: Sophia moved to and fro in the darkness of matter.
Sophia) repented (metanoei'n) in the darkness of her ignorance.

Such a systematic and analytic procedure was not to the Savior’s taste, as we have already witnessed
in his allusive treatment of Genesis 1:2. An orderly juxtaposition of full citations is abandoned in
favor of a riddling technique of conjoining their individual elements, either single words or short
phrases. The Savior is an allusive revealer18, who expects the reader (and John) to reconstruct his

16
Assuming that Sirah 24:5 indeed played the role of a connective referent, the last lacuna in the parallel
text of the longer version (NHC IV,1 p. 21,12-15) may be restored as follows: «And she began to be
ashamed; [and she did not dare to] return, but [she walked (Sir 24:5 periepavthsa) in] agitation.» The
Coptic equivalent of peripatei`n, viz. mooye, fits the size of the lacuna. This conjecture, proposed
already in my doctoral dissertation, was first published in WALDSTEIN-WISSE, ed. cit., 81; see PLEŠE, op. cit.,
237.
17
This, of course, is not the only passage where we can discern the ‘voice’ of Jewish Wisdom. As will be
shown in the second part of this contribution, various analogies describing the procession of the spiritual
realm in the Apocryphon of John were already employed in Proverbs, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon to
convey the all-pervasive creative power of divine Wisdom – for instance, a ray of light streaming forth
from its divine source, a current of water flowing from the spring, and an intelligent spirit (pneuma)
permeating the world and humanity; cf. Wis 7:22b-8:1 and the comments ad loc. by D. WINSTON, The
Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New Haven-London 1977,
178-190. As mentioned above, n. 8, Jewish Wisdom literature seems to have informed the Apocryphon’s
account of Sophia’s providential guidance of history and the orderly rhythm of revelatory visitations, by
Sophia and other feminine emissaries, to chosen representatives of the human race. See esp. Wis 9.13-
10:4, which narrates Wisdom’s election of seven righteous men, one for each human generation, as the
privileged vehicles of her saving message.
18
This allusive nature of the Savior’s diction brings to mind numerous instances of double entendre and
other kinds of opacity that pervade Jesus’ ‘empty’ revelation in the Gospel of John; cf. W. MEEKS, The
Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism, JBL 91 (1972) 44-72.

128
 ZLATKO PLEŠE – Intertextuality and Conceptual Blending

interpretive framework and sort out different traditions and semantic registers within which he
operates.
This complex technique of atomization and partial integration of various input texts is not
confined solely to the exegetical (dialogical) sections. Consider, for instance, the following extract
from the Savior’s monologue which narrates the chain of Sophia’s misconceived actions leading to
her disorderly movement of repentance ( NHC II,1 p. 9,25–35; 13,13–17, 23–26):
And the Wisdom (sofiva) of afterthough (ejpivnoia), being an aeon, conceived a thought from herself
and from her discursive consideration (ejnquvmhsi~) of the invisible Spirit (ajovraton pneu`ma) and
Foreknowledge (provgnwsi~). She wanted to show forth an image out of herself, without the Spirit’s
will – for he had not approved (suneudokei`n) – and without her consort, and without his consent.
And although he had not approved (suneudokei`n), namely the person (provswpon) of her maleness,
and she had not discovered her partner, she assented (mokmek, kataneuvein) without the will of the
Spirit and the knowledge of her partner, and she brought forth. …Then the mother began to move.
She recognized her deficiency as the radiation of her light was diminishing. And she grew darker, for
her consort had not come in harmony (sumfwnei`n) with her. …She repented (metanoei`n). And
forgetfulness came to her in the darkness of ignorance. And she began to be ashamed with a
movement.
Passages of this kind irritated ancient anti-Gnostic polemicists for their complete disregard of
19
logical argument and their impenetrable manner of writing . The decisive moment in the plot of
the Apocryphon of John – that is, Sophia’s violation of order and Ialdabaoth’s ensuing villainy – is not
articulated in a univocal language but conveyed instead through a mixture of condensed analogies
borrowed from physical, biological, and psychological domains: the movement from light to dark in
measurable shades («radiation of light», «growing dark»; «darkness»); physical causation (Sophia’s
«movement» in matter); biological reproduction (Sophia’s desire to «show forth» her «likeness»
without the «consent» of her male «consort»), and human cognitive processes («foreknowledge»,
«wisdom», «rational consideration», «afterthought», «wanting», «consent», «recognition of
deficiency», «forgetfulness», «shame», «repentance»). The last analogy clearly dominates the passage,
attributing Sophia’s misfortune to a rash and precipitate assent to her imperfect rational
representation (ejnquvmhsi~) of the unfathomable first principle. But this intellectualist account of
Sophia’s wrongdoing does not explain her impulse to «show forth» this imperfect «likeness». In a
shift from cognitive to biological metaphors, this wrongful impulse is blamed on Sophia’s irrational
(female) desire to assume the impossible role of an active (male) cause in creation. Sophia’s tragic
miscarriage of matter and its irrational evil ruler is conveyed through multiple analogies and their
20
selective projection on a single narrative thread of the Savior’s story .

19
Cf. e.g. Plot. Enn. II,9 [33] 10,1-17:«We feel a certain regard for some of our friends who happened upon
this way of thinking (lovgo~) before they became our friends and, even though I cannot understand how
they manage it, continue in it. … But we have addressed what we have said so far to our own intimate
pupils – not to them (sc. Gnostics), for we could not make further progress toward convincing them – so
that they may not be troubled by these latter, who do not bring forward proofs (ajpovdeixi~). Indeed, how
could they? Another style of writing (trovpo~) would be appropriate to repel those who have dare to pull
to pieces ( diasuvrein) what godlike men of the past have said nobly and in accordance with the truth».
20
For its blending of the epistemological and biological domains, the description of Sophia’s situation
leading to her fatal miscarriage closely resembles the Platonic image of the soul’s «travails of birth» in
Plato’s Theaetetus (147c-151d) and the state of Socrates’ disreputable students who abandon their teacher,
a sort of «spiritual midwife», and «give birth to a phantom and falsehood». Cf. Socrates’ words in 150b9-c3:
«The highest point of our art (of midwifery) is the power to test, by any means, whether the though
(diavnoia) of a young man gives birth to a phantom and falsehood (ei[dwlon kai; yeu`do~) or something

129
 ADAMANTIUS 18 (2012)

Similar merging of heterogeneous analogies can be traced as far back as the initial section of the
revelatory monologue, where the Savior communicates the nature of a solitary first principle and
21
the subsequent unfolding of the spiritual realm . This first principle, as the Savior explains in his
poetically intoned ‘apophatic’ discourse, can neither be grasped by intellect nor articulated by
discursive reasoning, but only mediated through evocative analogies (BG,2 p. 22,17-26,14; cf.
NHC II,1 p. 2,26-4,19). Individual analogies are chosen for their capacity to supply an intuitive
insight into the paradox of a transcendent unity which, while remaining unchanged and simple,
externalizes itself into a plurality of subordinate and ever deteriorating levels of reality. One group
of analogies, all taken from the physical domain, portrays the first principle as infinite,
indeterminate, and continuous substance which naturally contracts and expands (light, water,
pneuma). The second and more diverse group of analogies (sexual, political, craft-related
psychological) emphasizes, in turn, the irreducible tension within the first principle between the
two antagonistic drives of self-preservation and self-differentiation, of rejecting any
determination and striving to become an autonomous entity (father, providential ruler, active
cause, rational subject). All of these analogies can be found in the following sections from the
Savior’s praise of the absolute unity (BG,2 p. 22,17-26,19; cf. NHC II,1 p. 2:26-4,21):
The [monad], inasmuch as it22 is monarchy (monarciva ) and nothing rules ( a[rcein) over it, is the
god and the father of the entirety, the holy one, the invisible one, which is above the entirety,
which exists in its incorruptibility (ajfqarsiva ), [existing as] pure light into which no eye-light is
able to gaze. It is spirit (pneu`m a ) … It is light … This is the immeasurable light, the holy and
undefiled purity … And it is without need ( creiva ). There is nothing prior to it. It searches
(aijt ei`n) for its own self in the fullness of the light. It shall conceive ( noei`n) the unmixed
(ajkevraion) light, the immeasurable greatness … It conceives (noei`n) its own self in its own (i[dion)
light that surrounds it, the fountain (phghv) of the living water, the light full of purity.
These seven analogical domains, to which we should also add that of a simple folktale plot (initial
order, violation, villainy, recovery) and its set of stable characters (the hero, the victim, the villain, the

fertile and true». The same theme of the individual soul’s passage from the fixed state of unity with God
to the unbalanced and alienated state of an autonomous subject producing false value-judgments about
God is scattered throughout the exegetical work of Philo of Alexandria. The following passage illustrates
Philo’s distinction between the virginal soul living in the organic unity with god and the soul living in the
state of an impious «self-love» and self-conceit, constantly asserting its epistemological autonomy (Leg.
I,52): «One has to think of God as without qualities and one and incorruptible and unchangeable.
Whoever does not conceive in this way fills his soul with a false and godless opinion. Did you not see that,
even if He brings us into virtue and even if, when brought in, we plant no fruitless thing but “every tree
good for food, He yet bids us ‘thoroughly to cleanse its uncleanness” (Lev 19:23)? Indeed, he demands the
cutting away of self-conceit (ajpotemei`n oi[hsin); and self-conceit is in its nature unclean».
21
As has already been shown supra, pp. 124-126, the whole section is based on Plato’s account of the
demiurge and his never-changing ideal model in the Timaeus (28c-30c), but it redefines their mutual
relationship according to a strong monistic hypothesis.
22
This unity beyond being and intellection is strictly speaking not «he» but «it»; for, as repeatedly stated
in the ‘apophatic’ sections of the Savior’s praise of the unknown unity, the first principle is not an ousia to
accept any limitative determination. It is also inappropriate to call it «god» or «father», except
proleptically, in the sense of its future other-related causality. Just as the first principle refuses all
definitional attributes, so does its first hypostatic actualization, the second principle Barbelo, comprise
them all at once, being portrayed as «male-and-female» (BG,2 p. 28,2; NHC III,1 p. 8,3; NHC II,1 p. 5,9;
NHC IV,1 p. 7,23-24).

130
 ZLATKO PLEŠE – Intertextuality and Conceptual Blending
23
helper, etc.), constitute a paradigmatic semantic repertoire for articulating the emerging
hierarchies of the spiritual realm and the eventual appearance of its entropic material residue. Each
stage in this process of devolution is conveyed by either a full or a selective deployment of available
analogous inputs, as shown in the following table:

Dramatis Reproduc- Kingship Light / Pneuma- Water Epistemo- Craft-

Personae tion Darkness Analogy logy Analogy
(Causation) 24

Invisible Father Monarch Pure light Pneuma in Fountain Self- Final cause
Spirit contraction of water searching
gaze
Barbelo Mother Queen Image of Pneuma in Ennoia Intelligible
(«Womb of light expansion Pronoia matter
Entirety») Exemplary
cause
Autogenes Son Viceroy Spark of Pneuma as Nous / Intelligent
(Christ) light intellect Logos designer

23
Philo of Alexandria deploys the same analogies, often in similar clusters or ‘blends’ as the Apocryphon of John.
The following Philonic passages are so strikingly similar to the Savior’s portrayal of the first principle that
metaphysical realm that it would be very hard to explain them away as purely accidental: Leg. II,1-3: «But God,
being One, is alone of his own accord and there is nothing similar to God … For there is absolutely nothing that
he needs … God is alone and one, and his nature is simple, not a composite … God has been ranked in
accordance with the one and the monad, or rather the monad has been ranked in accordance with the one
God; for every number is younger than the cosmos, as is time also, but God is older than the cosmos»; Fug. 197-
198: «And now we have to speak of the supreme and most excellent spring, which the Father of All declared by
the mouth of prophets; for he said somewhere, “Me they forsook, a spring of life, and dug for themselves
broken cisterns which shall fail to hold water” (Jer 2:13). God, therefore, is the primordial spring, and well may
be so called, for he showered forth this whole universe»; Spec. I,13-15: «Wisdom is the court and royal palace of
the all-ruler and the sole absolute king; and this a dwelling place attainable only by intellect». Philo, of course, is
not as assertive as the Apocryphon of John about the extreme transcendence of the first principle; his conception
of god is closer to a typical Middle-Platonist formula of an all-perfect and self-thinking intellect, endowed with
the impregnable stability of its thoughts and acting through its intermediaries as the final and paradigmatic
cause of the universal order. The Apocryphon of John, in contrast, highlights a pre-conceptual and even pre-
perceptual nature of god’s primal state of involution and «self-searching» (BG,2 p.25,9-10) – a state that closely
resembles the initial moment in human «self-conciliation» (oijkeivwsi~), characterized by the natural drive of self-
love and self-preservation according to Antiochus of Ascalon’s revision of the Stoic theory of oikeiôsis (Cic. Fin.
V,41). Application of cognitive analogies to the inner life of god is a trademark of Gnostic theology. Gnostics
were often blamed by their pagan and Christian opponents for «declaring (God) to be unknown to all … yet
still endowing him with human dispositions and passions» (Iren. Haer. II,13,3). Back to Philonic ‘echoes’ in the
Savior’s monologue, an in-depth literary and philosophical comparison of Philo’s corpus and the Apocryphon of
John remains a desideratum.
24
The «swarm» of causes (turba causarum) in the Apocryphon of John is reminiscent of a complex Middle
Platonist theory of causes, a revised version of Plato’s craft-analogy from the Timaeus, for which see
Seneca, Ep. 65; cf. also B. INWOOD, Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters, Oxford 2007, 136-155. For various
Gnostic refinements of this theory, see esp. A. ORBE, En los albores de la exégesis iohannea (Ioh. I, 3): Estudios
Valentinianos II, Rome 1955.

131
 ADAMANTIUS 18 (2012)
Sophia Mother Disobe- Light Pneuma as Enthumesis Rational
alone dient darkened rational Epinoia planner
princess soul Metanoia

Ialdabaoth Miscarriage Tyrant Fiery Counterfeit Anoia Irrational

realm pneuma Phantasia demiurge

Irrational
soul
Darkness Waters Corporeal
of chaos matter

Read vertically, column by column, the table captures the extent of application for each analogous
input. The light-darkness analogy, for instance, is deployed at each stage of the downward-moving
25
procession . The first principle is a pure and immeasurable light-substance capable of limitless
extension and infinite division – a contemplating gaze whose rays of vision, following the Platonic
optical theory (cf. Tim. 45b-46c), are assimilated with rays of light. The primal effulgence of light is
Barbelo, the second principle, described as «the likeness of light» (BG,2 p. 27,12; cf. NHC II,1 p.
4,33), while the offspring of her union with the first principle, Self-Originate Christ, is only a
«luminous spark» (spinqhvr BG,2 p. 30,1-2; II,1 p. 6,13). This portion of light is next divided among
«the four great luminaries» (fwsthvr BG,2 p. 33,2-4; NHC II,1 p. 7,32-33), each presiding over their
respective three aeons. As the process reaches Sophia, the lowest aeon in the spiritual realm, the
light-substance has lost so much of its original intensity that Sophia «grows darker» (II,1 p. 13,15-16).
Some of her remaining light then blends with darkness to become a fiery realm of Ialdabaoth, the
ignorant demiurge (BG,2 p. 39,1-4; NHC II,1 p. 10,23-25). The formation of various levels of reality
is thus consistently explained as the increasing degradation (condensation) of light into darkness, in
26
accordance with the Stoic continuist conception of elemental change .
The blank slots in the table columns indicate that certain analogies are not fully exploited in the
extant redactions of the Apocryphon of John. Particularly conspicuous in this regard is the absence of
intermediate stages between the supreme «spring of living water» (BG,2 p. 26,17-27,1; NHC II,1 p.
4,21-22) and a turbulent welter of the lower waters of chaos (BG,2 p. 45,8-9; 48,8-9; NHC II,1 p.
13,20-21; 14,27-34). The longer redaction, however, shows a consistent tendency to supply some
missing terms and even to engage in further refinement of certain analogies – most notably, those
27
pertaining to cognition and causality . The interplay of light and darkness is also made more
prominent in some sections of the longer redaction, and especially in the episodes dealing with
28
Ialdabaoth’s creation of phenomenal reality and the modeling of the first human being .

25
For a complete reconstruction of all analogies deployed in the Savior’s discourse of procession, see
PLEŠE, op. cit., 107-138.
26
Plut. De facie 15, 928C-D CHERNISS: «(The Stoics) say that the luminous and tenuous part of the ether
by reason of its subtle nature became sky and the part which was condensed and compressed became
stars, and that of these the most sluggish and turbid is the moon».
27
For example, the addition of the Pronoia-hymn at the end of the Savior’s monologue in the longer
redaction prompted manifold revisions of the shorter version and heightened the providential role of
Barbelo-Pronoia in various sections of the narrative; cf. B. BARC - L. PAINCHAUD, La réécriture de
l’Apocryphon de Jean à la lumière de l’hymne final de la version longue, Muséon 112 (1980) 317-333.
28
Cf. the following respective sections in the shorter and longer versions: BG,2 p. 41:12-15 and NHC II,1
p. 11,4-15; BG,2 p. 44,19-45,5 and NHC II,1 p. 13,13-17; BG,2 p. 48,4-16 and NHC II,1 p. 14,24-15,5; BG,2 p.
51,17-52,2 and NHC II,1 p. 19,25-20,1. The synopsis of these sections is available in PLEŠE, op. cit., 134-136. A

132
 ZLATKO PLEŠE – Intertextuality and Conceptual Blending

A synoptic review of individual rows in the table shows that each episode in the downward
movement of procession is constructed by mapping from several analogous domains. Some
episodes combine elements from all analogies while some exploit their different subsets. An
important feature that cannot easily be discerned from the table is the systematic avoidance of
a separate development of specific analogies. As has already been shown in our analysis of
29
Sophia’s miscarriage and of the Savior’s ‘positive’ description of the first principle ,
individual elements of one analogy are always fused with the elements taken from others,
creating almost impenetrable blends of metaphors and resulting in an enigmatic obscurity of
the whole discourse of procession.
What may have been the reasons for such a deliberate cultivation of obscurities and for
conjoining a series of seemingly unrelated analogies? The most obvious explanation is that the
Savior’s riddling monologue follows the genre conventions of contemporary revelatory
literature. Divine revelation must be obscure – partly because of its sublime subject matter,
and partly because it ought to remain hidden from vulgar cobblers. The value of concealment is
also a common theme in philosophical treatises and allegorical commentaries of the period,
reflecting a growing conviction among the philosophers, too, that the highest truths can only
30
be expressed obliquely and through analogical deferral . In this sense, the Apocryphon of John is
a typical product of the Zeitgeist and the common tendency of its literati to blur the
boundaries between the discursive modes of philosophy and religion. What sets this text apart
from other contemporary revelatory accounts (Platonist, Hermetic, ‘Chaldean’) is a marked
predilection for the ‘hybrid’ diction of Jewish Wisdom literature and its particular
amalgamation of analogical metaphors and philosophical concepts. As already indicated in a
number of previous footnotes, the whole semantic repertoire informing the Savior’s discourse
of procession has already been deployed, often in the same clusters or ‘blends’, in Proverbs,
Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon. Philo of Alexandria, as we have seen, also operates within
31
the same conceptual and linguistic framework , and we can find a short but powerful defense
of this evocative way of speaking in the extant fragments from Aristobulus’s writings32. Just as,
at the level of an overall narrative organization of the Apocryphon of John, various excerpts from

similar refinement of the light-darkness analogy can be seen in the expanded Greek version (G II) of
Sirach (1:10c-d, 3:19.25, 11:15-16, 17:18.26b, and 25:10-11); cf. G.L. PRATO, La lumière interprète de la sagesse
dans la tradition textuelle de Ben Sira, in: M. GILBERT (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancient Testament (BEThL 51),
Leuven 1990, 317-346.
29
Cf. supra, pp. 128-130.
30
See G.R. BOYS-STONES, The Stoics’ Two Types of Allegory, in ID. (ed.), Metaphor, Allegory and the Classical
Tradition, Oxford 2003, 189-216; Z. PLEŠE, Platonist Orientalism, in Historical and Biographical Values of
Plutarch’s Works: Studies devoted to Professor Philip A. Stadter, Málaga-Utah 2005, 355-382.
31
Cf. supra, n. 20 and 23.
32
See esp. fr. 5 (Eus. P.E. XIII,12,10-11a): «And the same thing (i.e. the beginning of light in Gen 1:3-5) can
be applied to wisdom as well, for all light emanates from it. And some members of the Peripatetic school
have said that it holds the position of a lamp; for, by following it continually, they will remain
undisturbed throughout their entire life. Now one of our ancestors, Solomon, said in clearer and finer
fashion (safevsteron de; kai; kavllion) that it (wisdom) existed there before heaven and earth (cf. Prov
8:22-25); and this is indeed in agreement with what was previously said». Aristobulus’s claim that
Solomon’s symbolic discourse is superior to philosophy is probably grounded in the Stoic preference for
the poetic mode of expression in matters pertaining to theology; cf. Cleanthes’ statement in Philod. Mus.
4.17 (SVF 1.486), and E. ASMIS, Myth and Philosophy in Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, GRBS 47 (2007) 413-429.

133
 ADAMANTIUS 18 (2012)

Jewish Wisdom literature supply an intertextual link between the Mosaic account of creation
and Plato’s Timaeus, so too, at the discursive level, the evocative allusiveness of Wisdom oracles
bridges the gap between the speculative language of philosophy and the mythological mode of
the opening chapters of Genesis33.
But the preference for allusive diction and analogical metaphors in the Apocryphon of John
cannot just be explained in terms of literary influences and intertextual motives. Accumulation
and homologation of dynamic analogies is the symptom of a profound mistrust of univocal
language and its adequacy to address the metaphysical problematic of the first principle beyond
being and intellection. This unfathomable unity cannot be rationally defined, nor can
dialectical deduction explain the transition from its pre-symbolic stage of pure potentiality to
a finite multitude of subordinate layers of reality. Analogy is the only cognitive instrument that
can evoke this transition, put it before the eyes so to speak, however darkly, and cause the spark
of gnôsis to leap across from the known to the unknown, providing an instantaneous and non-
discursive insight into the nature of divinity and its gradual self-devolution.

Conclusion
What are the net gains of reading the Apocryphon of John through the lens of intertextuality and
cognitive poetics? In my opinion, there are quite a few. Most significantly, these two
approaches allow us to shift the investigative focus from the search for sources, a hypothetical
Grundschrift, or different redactional layers in the Apocryphon of John to examination of its
revisionist poetics and transformative integration of dominant religious and philosophical
traditions of the period. To begin with specific linguistic choices and the adopted discursive
mode, we have observed a consistent deployment of analogies from various experiential
domains in the ontological and cosmological sections. Instead of being developed separately
from one another, these analogies are selectively projected and condensed into hardly
penetrable metaphorical blends. Such a systematic cultivation of obscurity is not just a
concession to the genre conventions of contemporary Offenbarungsliteratur. It also signifies a
strong conviction that the hidden nature of a single first principle and its self-devolution into a
multiple-tiered reality can only be intuited through analogical transferal. The passage from
unity to plurality is portrayed in terms of irradiation, emanation, procreation, elemental
expansion and condensation, causal differentiation, and mental development. The same
amalgamation of analogical metaphors and philosophical concepts characterizes the hybrid
mode of Jewish Wisdom theosophy and the Alexandrian Jewish commentators of the
Pentateuch (Aristobulus, Philo), pointing to the Apocryphon’s profound indebtedness to
religious and exegetical traditions of Hellenistic Judaism.
Even though the central and longest section of the Apocryphon of John is written, for the most
part, as a revelatory monologue, the work bears hardly any trace of monological unity. The

33
While embracing the hybrid diction of Hellenistic Jewish literature, the Apocryphon of John rejects its
underlying hypothesis of the rational order built into the structure of phenomenal reality. This
profoundly negative attitude toward the physical universe betrays close affinities with the apocalyptic
view of the world as corrupt and so irreparably flawed that not even Wisdom could have «found a
dwelling place» in it, but «returned to her place and took her seat among the angels» (1 Enoch 42). The
descending-ascending movement of Wisdom resembles Sophia’s descent into matter and her
(temporary) ascent to «the ninth heaven above her son» (NHC II,1 p. 14,9-13; BG,2 p. 47,8-13), but the
Enochic figure of Wisdom is not blamed for the imperfection of this world as her ‘fallen’ counterpart in
the Apocryphon of John.

134
 ZLATKO PLEŠE – Intertextuality and Conceptual Blending

Apocryphon of John is an intertextual enterprise, with various ‘voices’ speaking through the
mouth of the heavenly messenger, some at full strength (Plato, Sophia, and Moses) and some
intermittently (Hellenistic astrology and magic, various eclectic brands of imperial Platonism,
the Gospel of John). The relationship between the three leading voices is that of subordination
and mutual adjustment. Plato’s Timaeus is superimposed on the Genesis story of creation both
as its narrative supplement and as the corrective interpretive model. Wisdom literature is
assigned the role of an inter-textual link, in the same way in which the figure of Sophia acts as
a mediator between the (Platonic) spiritual world and the (Mosaic) physical world. This
complicated strategy of multiple grafting creates profound changes in each of the affected
traditions. The highest god is no longer the Platonic active intellect endowed with the
everlasting stability of its thoughts. The creator of this world is not the rational craftsman from
the Timaeus, let alone the omnipotent god of Genesis, but an incompetent pretender driven,
very much like Plato’s tyrant, or Satan, by incontrollable impulses of his irrational soul. In
contrast to Exodus and Deutero-Isaiah, the biblical god has no claim to make for his unity.
Jewish Wisdom is no longer wise, acting instead like a disoriented and self-willed human soul
from Platonic (and Philonic) treatises, and even displaying the same wantonness as her
opposite number, Dame Folly, from the Book of Proverbs. Physical reality is not a faithful
replica of the ideal order, but is relegated to the rank of a deceptive (Platonic) simulacrum. In
short, all master narratives of Greek and Jewish culture are flawed, incomplete, and in need of a
thorough revision. This kind of transformative integration of Greek philosophy and Jewish
scriptural and exegetical traditions can best be explained by acculturative yet polemical
tendencies within the second-century Christianity.
Zlatko Pleše
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
plese@email.unc.edu

Abstract
This essay examines the Apocryphon of John through the lens of intertextuality and cognitive poetics,
shifting the investigative focus from the search for its hypothetical Grundschrift and different redactional
layers to exploration of its revisionist poetics and its transformative integration of the master narratives of
Judaism (Genesis and sapiental literature) and Greek philosophy (Plato’s Timaeus and its diverse Middle
Platonist reverberations). The first section analyzes the ways in which the three leading voices speaking
within the Apocryphon of John (‘Plato’ – ‘Sophia’ – ‘Moses’) became partly integrated at its narrative,
thematic, and doctrinal levels. The Platonist model of the universe is superimposed on the Genesis story
of creation both as its narrative supplement and as the corrective interpretive model. Special importance
is assigned to Jewish wisdom literature, whose philosophically intoned oracles play the role of an inter-
textual link between ‘Plato’ and ‘Moses’, in the same way in which the figure of Sophia acts as a mediator
between the (Platonic) spiritual realm and the (Mosaic) physical world. The second section discusses the
impact of this intertextual poetics on the language and style of the Apocryphon of John – more specifically,
on its systematic blending and condensation of analogical metaphors and philosophical concepts. The
same strategy of ‘conceptual blending’ characterizes the hybrid diction of Jewish wisdom theosophy and
of the Alexandrian Jewish commentators of the Pentateuch (Aristobulus, Philo), signaling a profound
indebtedness to religious and exegetical traditions of Hellenistic Judaism. This sort of revisionist
integration of Greek philosophy and Jewish scriptural and exegetical traditions in the Apocryphon of John
can best be explained by acculturative yet polemical tendencies within the second-century Christianity.

135