Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
BOX
Two gnostic interpretations of the Jewish-Christian Biblical
character Eve
Introduction Page 3
Bibliography Page 73
2
Introduction
In the originally Hebrew story of cosmogony in the book of Genesis in the Bible, the story of
the creation of Adam and Eve, their disobedience and their subsequent removal from
paradise takes a prominent place (Genesis 2:4-3:24). Even though they were forbidden by
God to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Eve was the one who was deceived
by the serpent (Satan) to eat the fruit, by which act they changed and corrupted the nature of
the universe. And it was Eve who convinced Adam to eat it as well. Hence, Eve is the reason
why human beings were expelled from paradise and why they have to work hard to be able to
sustain themselves in this tough world. Eve is also the reason why women have to go through
great pains at labour and are subordinated to their husbands1.
Since the earliest beginnings of Christianity, theologians have blamed Eve for being
deceived and seducing Adam and this had had an enormous effect on the conception of
women in later Christianity. According to Christian theology, all human beings are burdened
with this original sin, which originated in the actions of Eve and is passed on to her
descendants – a sin for which there was no possible cure until the advent of Christianity.
Especially from the third century CE onwards, many Christians increasingly viewed women
as evil, even though baptism could redeem this original sin for them just as well as for men2.
Combining this with the views on the dependent social situation of women in the Hellenistic
period of antiquity3 when Christianity first arose, the development of the Christian position
that women should be subservient to men is understandable.
The Catholic Church has been virtually unchallenged in being the single most important
authority on ethics and morals for the people in Christian Europe from about 500 until 1500
CE and has exerted much influence since. The position, as poetically expressed by the apostle
Paul, is that, ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ,
κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός4, whence man is subject to Christ and woman to man. It is
becoming increasingly clear why, for instance, it took until the first decades of the 20th
century CE for women to get equal rights to men in Western democratic countries5.
But even as times and the Catholic Church are changing, it is still loyal to her heritage of
inequality between the sexes. In 1987 ‘Let us look once more at the example of marriage. In adopting
her husband’s name, the wife at the same time surrenders her own name. She leaves behind what is hers and
belongs henceforth no longer to herself. And this surrender of the old is, for both spouses, the condition of the
new that is opening to them. Behind this more external act of renouncing one’s name, of losing one’s
independence, is the deeper mystery of life and death that is love itself.’ was written by Joseph Ratzinger,
the same person who would a few years later be elected pope Benedict XVI, the current
leader of the Catholic Church.6 This interpretation, however, turns out not to have been the
only alternative. There were different religious groups who could be defined as Christians or
had affinity with Jewish-Christian thought in a similar manner. They had different ideas about
Eve and the creation story and this thesis will examine some of them.
1 See Pagels (1989), Adam, Eva en de Slang, pp. 195-226, on the development of the idea of original sin and the
acceptation thereof in the theology of the proto-orthodox Christian Church.
2 See for instance Tertullianus De Cultu Feminarum I.1.2. All references are quoted in the appendix.
3 This position is clearly stated by Aristoteles in his Πολιτικῶν, 1254b3-15.
4 1 Corinthians 11:3. All quotations from the New Testament are taken from Aland, Black, , Martini, Metzger, &
Tradition, pp. 72-96 and their influence on modern Christian traditions and traditional positions, pp. 125-225.
6 Ratzinger (1987), Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 33.
3
1. Objectives and research questions
In the first few centuries after the life of Jesus there was no official (Catholic or other)
Christian doctrine regarding the message Jesus had really meant to convey nor a central
church in Rome – or elsewhere – to propagate and control it7. No wonder the stories about
Jesus’ life, his acts and his sayings and the acts and the sayings of his disciples were diversely
interpreted in the different places where His apostles came to ‘spread His word’. Jesus’
message, or at least the message his apostles spread all over the Mediterranean (whatever it
might have been originally), was connected to other current religious and philosophical ideas
by the people who heard it. Many may not have completely understood it and some who did
probably altered it to make it more likeable, fitting or acceptable to themselves or their
communities. The apostles’ meaning of the stories – even if their beliefs had been uniform
when they set out on their journeys – came to be changed in many different ways. One group
of interpretations of a more mystical nature is commonly called ‘gnosticism’. The promoters
of another interpretation eventually became the orthodox interpretation of the Christian
community of Rome. This church, which would eventually come to lead the Catholic Church,
made sure that other variants of early Christianity did not, or only marginally, survive.
The central objective of this master thesis is to investigate the most current and well-
documented gnostic interpretations of the Jewish-Christian biblical character of Eve in the
late second and third centuries CE (Sethian and Valentinian gnosticism). These are
substantially different from the ‘proto-orthodox8’ Christian communities, which would start
to get a more or less definite form in the third and fourth centuries CE. The questions which
will be asked about these interpretations are
a) which influential interpretations of Eve existed among these gnostic movements;
b) who (which religious, social or political groups) adhered to these interpretations;
c) where these different interpretations came from (fusion with other religious or
philosophical ideas, misunderstanding of the message etc.);
d) what the influence of these interpretations was on their theology, social philosophy
and religious life
e) in what respects these interpretations are different from those of the proto-orthodox
communities (and thenceforth from the later ‘orthodox’ doctrine of the Catholic
church9);
f) why these interpretations were discarded in favour of others in the unification process
of Christian thought which was to determine the position of the later Catholic Church
and its ‘orthodox’ doctrine.
7 On the historical Jesus see Meier (1991-2001), A Marginal Jew, pp. 372-382 for an argument for the chronology of
his life.
8 Proto-orthodox Christian is the term which will throughout this thesis be used for the early Christian sect which
would eventually turn out victor of the battle and whose doctrine would become the orthodox doctrine of the
Catholic Church.
9 As stated in the introduction.
4
2. Preliminary notes
2.1 State of research
Intensive research on gnosticism is mainly a development of the second half of the 20th
century and the academic debate is far from being concluded. Scholars are still debating
different theories and opinions about this subject, even on fundamental issues such as the
determination of different gnostic sects and assigning the gnostic writings to them.
Reasonably satisfying answers to these questions and main outlines of the different sects have
only recently appeared, but much work is still to be done on a more detailed level. As a result
of this situation there is a sufficient amount of literature on gnosticism as a phenomenon
speculating on its history and its relation to Christianity, but extensive research on the
different gnostic sects has yet to be done. The existing research on these movements with
their different theologies and cosmogonies, which is fundamental to this thesis, has mainly
focused on whether or not it is possible, based on the available information, to divide the
different gnostics and their writings into cohesive systems of thought and, if so, which criteria
should be used. Therefore, philological and philosophical interpretation of these writings is
still a work in progress and detailed literature on elements, such as on the character Eve, is
rare.
Since the early proto-orthodox Christian polemicists are not objective historians, but wrote in
order to refute the gnostics and other early Christian religious sects, they cannot be trusted
without caution to give accurate information on their enemies’ theologies or religious
practice. As Frederik Wisse states ‘One cannot expect that the position of the other side has
been represented fairly and completely in the heat of the controversy. What is claimed about
the opponents may well have been quoted out of context, misconstrued, wrongly inferred or
slanderous’10. Therefore, this thesis will mostly focus on the primary writings by the gnostics
themselves, of which a substantial number have appeared in the course of the 20th century.
These writings will be the basic source material. The works of the polemicists will be cited as
sources when they provide information on gnostics or gnostic thought of which we no longer
have first-hand testimonies. They will also occasionally be referred to in order to provide
contrast or (possible) clarification.
The next two chapters of this thesis will provide a historical and cultural setting for the
development of gnostic thought and a literary and social history of the character Eve. As they
are introductory chapters, a full, thorough discussion of all subjects mentioned would be
impossible. Therefore, they will mainly be based on the works of some influential researchers
without thorough criticism or much discussion of different viewpoints. They will merely
focus on giving an overview of the history and society of the earliest Christian era to create a
framework in which to study gnostic thought in the early Christian era and the gnostic
10
See Wisse (1986), The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner Diversity and Conflict, p. 180 and
Williams (1996), Rethinking Gnosticism, p. 165.
5
interpretations of the character Eve. I will, however, treat subjects with a more direct
relevance in more detail and have sometimes taken the liberty to briefly explore some related
subjects or theories which I find interesting and rewarding to keep in the back of my head
while studying this subject.
Like every historical or literary character, the character of Eve, the main subject of this thesis,
has to be considered within its context. In the gnostic movements and proto-orthodox
Christianity alike, Eve is a part of intricate cosmological and theological systems and any
study of this character must take these into account. Eve is also often regarded as a prototype
of women and an example for (female) behaviour and this function therefore needs to be
considered in the interpretation of this character as well. Thence the thought, practice and
origin of the different gnostic sects and the formative influences on them will be treated
before the character of Eve can be fully studied as part of these systems.
This thesis focuses on gnostic sects in the late second and third centuries CE, but there
probably were gnostics before this time. Several religious thinkers and sects dating from the
first two centuries of the Christian era were at some point denounced as heretics by the
proto-orthodox polemicists and we know little about them. Except for some fragments, none
of their writings have survived, but from the information available from the polemicists’
works it appears they may have expressed gnostic tendencies. Some of their mythologies and
theologies, as described by the polemicists, appear to be earlier versions of gnostic thought,
which were expanded and appropriated by the gnostics in the centuries that followed. For
instance, there were those who taught a division between a higher transcendent god and a
lower evil demiurge who created the universe (such as Simon Magus, Menandros of Antioch,
Satornilos or Saturninus of Antioch, Kerdon of Syria and his followers the Cerdonians,
Markion of Sinope and his followers the Marcionites and Kerinthos of Asia) or the Cainites,
who probably believed in Cain as their saviour. Most of these ‘heretics’ were Christian,
though some of them were docetists, some denied the Old Testament should be included in
Christian scripture, some clung expressly to Mosaic law and some were thoroughly influenced
by Hellenistic philosophical thought. These possibly gnostic groups will not be treated in this
thesis because of a lack of trustworthy sources11. However, some gnostics or possible
gnostics from the first two centuries (such as Valentinus or the original author of The
Apocryphon of John) will be discussed because their followers would continue to use, expand
and elaborate on their teachings in the centuries that followed. Due to the limitations to time
and length which must be applied to a master thesis, I have chosen to focus on the influential
and well-documented Sethian and Valentinian gnostic movements and briefly treat their
culmination in Manichaeism. Other gnostic sects of this period, such Basilides and his school,
Justinus Gnosticus, the Hermeticists, the adherents of Thomas Christianity and Bardaisan or
Bardesanes12, are unfortunately left aside.
11 For information on these possibly gnostic heretics and the connections between their thought and later gnostic
mythology see Roukema, Gnosis and Faith in early Christianity, pp. 13-25, 32-36, 126-129, 134-137.
12 For in introduction to these (possible) gnostics see Roukema, pp. 127-129, 134-136, King (2003), What is
6
3. Historical and social background
The aim of this chapter is to give some relevant information about the historical and cultural
setting in which early Christian ideas about Eve developed. This background will be useful to
understand these developments and will be referred to for clarification and illustration.
Alexandros the Great (356-323 BCE) had great intentions when he set out on his journey to
conquer the known world. His father Philippos II13 had become the leader of the Greek
πόλεις or city-states by diplomacy and military force and when he was murdered in 336 BCE
Alexandros took over in his stead. After he had ended some insurrections in Greek πόλεις,
which used this opportunity to try and recover their independence, he gathered the soldiers
of Macedon, added some Greeks and set out in 334 BCE.
The official pretext for this expedition was to take revenge on the Persians for the Persian
wars some 150 years earlier, but it was clear that this was just a façade. In reality, Alexandros
had much more exalted plans. Some have argued that he wanted to create a universal empire
consisting of Greece, the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, in which he wanted to
unify the peoples of the civilized known world in culture and language14. This is probably
untrue, but he may well have become more and more stimulated by the sequence of his
successes. After a 13 year campaign he succeeded in establishing an empire that extended
from Greece to Egypt and to the Indus river and contained the former Persian empire and
the whole Middle East with the exception of the Arabic peninsula. However, he did not live
long enough to enjoy the fruits of his labour, as he died in Babylon in 323 BCE. His only son
was murdered and his empire was divided by his generals, who were called διάδοχοι by later
historians because they succeeded Alexandros as kings15. They and their descendants divided
his empire into several kingdoms which would be the promotors of Hellenism. Some of these
kingdoms lived in peace with each other and their non-Hellenistic neighbouring states for
long times in a row and some constantly waged war on them16. Kingdoms fell and kingdoms
rose until the Roman empire obtained control over the eastern Mediterranean completely
either directly or through vassal states. The last Hellenstic realm which they conquered was
Egypt17.
Since (mainly following Grimal (1970) for the rest of this subchapter) the διάδοχοι and
their soldiers were mainly Macedonian or Greek, they introduced Greek culture into their
courts in Egypt and western Asia18. Some of the members of the higher social layers of these
areas quickly grasped the opportunities they would have by learning Greek and a number of
rich and powerful people in these countries became oriented on Greek culture. Greek
became the official language in these newly formed states and Greek presence resulted,
among other things, in the building of palaces and temples in Greek style and a desire for
13 All ancient Greek and Latin names are given as literal transcriptions of the words in the nominative clause. Greek
names have not been Latinised.
14 Martin (1987), Hellenistic Religions, p. 4.
15 διάδεχοµαι means ‘’to succeed’ or ‘to take over from a predecessor’.
16 The Greek rulers did not last everywhere, cf. the rise of Parthian empire around 140 BCE, which came to
conquered countries is mainly based on Grimal (1970), Hellenism and the Rise of Rome, pp. 21-64.
18 Green (1990), Alexander to Actium, provides corrections to Grimal’s views based on more recent insights.
7
more and more people to learn Greek. In several places, such as Babylon, Persia and
Palestine, the influence of the Greeks was far less intensive and they mainly maintained their
old cultures19. Additionally, the lower layers of the Hellenized societies mostly kept their own
language and cultural identity even though the aristocratic top layer adopted Greek language
and culture. In fact, concerning cultural identity, the influence of the Eastern cultures on the
elite Greek minority was probably much greater than the other way around.
The impact of Alexandros’s empire and the kingdoms of his successors shook the world
of the eastern Mediterranean. The people who had been used to live in the small independent
societies of the πόλεις were now confronted with a world that was larger than they might
have imagined. The introduction of Greek as the lingua franca in these new kingdoms was an
impulse for contact between different peoples. Trade between the peoples of Greece, the
Middle East and Egypt intensified and with trade came cultural exchange. As a result, sharing
a common language also facilitated in the exchange of ideas as diverse as ways of building,
art, social practices, rituals and religious as well as philosophical thought20.
This expansion of Greek culture and the creation of the larger Hellenistic political units
also had a large impact on people’s world view. The constant wars and upheavals during the
unification processes in Greece and in the states of the διάδοχοι led to fear and insecurity
amongst the inhabitants of these countries21. The πόλις, the classical independent city state,
had ceased to exist and all of a sudden people were part of an unknown empire or kingdom.
The political and cultural centres of these new states were far away for most people and they
had trouble identifying with their new rulers. This was especially evident in the Hellenistic
nations in the Eastern Mediterranean where the people had not had much experience with
great kingdoms before, whereas the Middle East had known the Babylonian and Persian
empires.
For many people these developments caused a change in their sense of social identity and
they needed to redefine themselves and find a place in this new social context. They were no
longer a part of the κοινωνία, the familiar closely-knit community of the πόλις, as they had
been in classical times. Before, the focus had always been on the welfare of the πόλις, which
was reflected in the moral philosophy of those days. The ideal of happiness had been to
belong to a πόλις which was independent and rich, to respect the traditions of that πόλις and
to do one’s duties as a citizen to work together for its welfare and produce offspring to
sustain the race22. But now there was no independent πόλις anymore, no small and
understandably arranged community of which one felt a part and on which one could
exercise influence (or at least one thought one could).
The focus law on the individual rather than on the πόλις community and this raised
questions such as ‘How should one act if one is acting for one’s own good?’ The state
religion and the old philosophies could not answer that ethical question. In the new melting
pot of Hellenism many more religions, philosophocal theories and doctrines became widely
available and philosophical thought could mix with religion. Hellenism saw the birth of moral
philosophy in stoicism, epicurism, scepticism and many more ways of thought. These
doctrines focused less on speculation on the origin and workings of the universe and the
explanation of natural phenomena, but more on the ways humans should live – each doctrine
naturally in its own distinctive way. With a tendency to escapism they all defined virtuous
ideals one could live by without influence of the material world around oneself. For instance,
8
the Stoa taught to cling to a reason which was immanent in us all and Epicurism regarded the
whole universe as incidental and thus unimportant. Both regarded to reach a state of
ἀταραξία or ἀπαθεία, not being bothered by emotions or worldly desires anymore, as the
highest goal23.
Religion underwent a similar change of direction. While the πόλις cults were by no means
abandoned, they did not offer the personal familiar relationship with the gods which mystery
religions could. Mystery religions require initiation into the secret knowledge of the god or
gods worshipped, through which one could come into direct contact with the divine and
acquire special protection. In Greece, the popular orgiastic ‘Bacchic’ or ‘Maenadic’ cults of
Dionusos worship experienced a surge of popularity, as did the Eleusinian mysteries of
Demeter near Athens24. These cults gradually spread through the Hellenistic states and many
eastern mystery religions did the same, although the functions of the worshipped gods were
changing. Through interaction with each other these different religions came to merge
and/or share elements. This cultural interaction, which is the main characteristic of Hellenism
and exerted influence on all aspects of society, is called syncretism25. Just as what would
happen in early Christianity, the rituals of and stories about these gods were often adapted to
fit general needs. The spread of these religions was a very gradual process at first, but when
the Roman empire had conquered many Hellenistic states they reached the peak of their
dissemination. The Hellenistic world with its distinct culture eventually became an integral
part of the Roman Empire, except for Southern Mesopotamia and Persia (which came to be
under Parthian rule from around 140 BCE).
To illustrate the wide-spread area from which these syncretistic gods who became a part
of the new Hellenistic pantheon originated, I will mention some representatives of the
different areas of the hellenized world26. There were Syrian gods, such as Hadad (who could
be equated with Zeus) and Atargatis (a fertility goddess related to Astarte) who shared a
temple on Delos and the cult of Syrian Adonis, who died every year and was reborn the next.
He became immensely popular. The Phrygian Kybele, the mother of all the gods, and her
consort Attis were honoured with extreme reverence, the Persian and/or Indian god Mithras
was very popular among soldiers, especially those of Rome later on, and the Lampsacian
Priapos was included in the Bacchic entourage of Dionusos. Finally, the Egyptian gods Isis
and Osiris became extremely powerful allies to have at one’s side27.
A good example of these syncretistic religions was the god Sarapis who was deliberately
invented by either Ptolemy Soter or Ptolemy Philadelphos, both kings of Ptolemaic Egypt.
This god was a composite of elements of Greek Dionusos, Egyptian Osiris and Hellenic
Plouto, the god of the underworld, and was a fertility god who also received the souls of the
dead and promised eternal life through initiation in his mysteries28. Ptolemy wanted to make
Egyptian belief attractive to the Greek world by hellenizing it and in doing this he provided
us with the perfect example of the development of syncretic religion in Hellenism.
23 For a complete description of the formation of Hellenistic philosophy and the different doctrines see Algra,
Barnes, Mansfeld & Schofield (1999), Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy.
24 Grimal, pp. 202-203, for an argumentation for and sources of Dionusos worship in Greece from classical times on
see Versnel (1990), Ter Unus, pp. 131-155 (especially 150-155 on the mystic rites).
25 Martin, pp. 10-11.
26 For a fuller introduction of the Greek and Eastern mystery religions and their development see Martin, pp. 58-118.
27 For an introduction to the Isis cult see Versnel, pp. 39-52.
28 Grimal, pp. 203-204.
9
During the first decades after the death of Jesus, very few people knew who he had been or
guessed what he would mean for the world in the future. Because of the almost complete
absence of contemporaneous sources about his life all theories about who he was and what
he wanted are mainly speculation; there is no historical evidence. The version of the modern
Catholic Church29 is not to be trusted, because it did not become the main doctrinal version
until the fourth century CE and became the way it is after centuries of debates, concessions
and deliberations.
Over the last few decades numerous books have appeared with theories about ‘the real
life of Jesus’ and some of them postulate eccentric and very intriguing questions30. This
interest in other explanations of the life and the teachings of Jesus is prompted by research
on the origins of Christianity, a subject which has become more popular in the second half of
the 20th century. It is now generally acknowledged that early Christianity was not a very
homogeneous religion but that there were many different interpretations of this ‘prophet’
Jesus. As Karen L. King puts it very appropriately: ‘It is becoming increasingly clear that the
early Jesus tradition generated a variety of responses, not all of which would later become
“orthodox”’31.
In the first century CE Palestine was under Roman rule32 and was part of the Roman
province of Syria. Many of the Jews were unhappy with this situation and several factions or
sects existed who each had a different view to change their situation. It was a period of
religious reform and sects, such as the Essenes and several Baptist circles, interpreted the
religious scripture in a revolutionary apocalyptic way. Some of these factions held the view
that the Roman oppression suggested that, since they obeyed the law of their god but were
not liberated as promised, there must be something wrong in their way of life. They wanted
to change the conservative policies in religion and politics33. The concept of life after death,
for instance, and the division of that afterlife in a heaven and a hell were Hellenistic
introductions, which had had no place in Old Testament literature. This idea, which would
eventually become an important point of difference between Christian, Judaic and gnostic
theologies, and other ideas were still under heavy discussion in Palestine at this time34.
In early Greek and Aramaic texts from the centuries after his life and death we find the
phrase Jesus the Nazarene, which is usually interpreted as Jesus of Nazareth but may mean
something different. The Nazarenes were one of these revolutionary factions and Jesus was
probably at least at one point in his life associated with them or held views similar to theirs.
The word Nazarene was in any case associated with Christians in the very early days of
Christianity35. Jesus was probably a religious teacher and activist emerging from a Baptist
sect36 who wanted to make changes in Jewish conservative thought and practices in Palestine.
He was someone who considered himself as a chosen one or prophet of YHWH and either
29 This naturally also applies to possible different versions of any of the other churches in this day and age, but since
the modern Catholic Church is the direct descendent of the proto-orthodox faction in early Christianity, it therefore
such most useful for the comparison.
30 For instance Freke & Gandy (1999), The Jesus Mysteries. Was the ‘Original Jesus’ a Pagan God? on possible pagan
mystical origins of Christianity and Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln (1983), Holy Blood, Holy Grail on possible descendants
of Jesus.
31 King (2003), p. 228. Orthodox is derived the Greek words ὄρθος and δόξα, which mean ‘right belief’.
32 Since Pompeius Magnus had conquered it in 63 BCE.
33 See, for instance, Josephus, De Bello Iudaico II.163-16 and Antiquitates Iudaicae XIX.14, for disagreements between
28, and Cumont (1959), Afterlife in Roman Paganism, pp. 1-43 and 170-213.
35 See Pritz (1988), Nazarene Jewish Christianity, pp. 11-18 and 95-110.
36 For a good account of the historical Jesus, see Flusser (1998), Jesus, pp. 24-55. This book has mainly been the basis
of this argument.
10
proclaimed himself, or was considered by others, to be Messiah37. This was a historical title
of Jewish kings and high priests, who were anointed as a form of crowning, a title which had
no divine connotations at all38. As a religious leader, he could incite people to become his
followers by his message of salvation and healing and because he appeared to fulfil some
prophecies about the coming of a redeemer. One of these prophecies was that the redeemer
would be of the house of David39 and as such connected to the line of famous good kings of
yore. One of the reasons for Jesus’ popularity may also have been that he could make a
seemingly historically based promise of reform because of this, although Flusser argues his
descent of David is a later fabrication by his followers. The sign on his cross proclaiming him
King of the Jews and references by the crowd watching his crucifixion, as described in the
canonical Gospels40, may have been much more than a simple joke or humiliation or mere
reference to his being considered Messiah, but a serious accusation because he had become a
political threat41. The reformation message he propounded, which was originally meant to
function within the context of Judaism, was to become the basis of Christian thought.
There are very few sources about what happened to Jesus’ followers in the first few
decades after his death, but apparently his disciples dissented about the future. For instance,
in the apocryphal Gospel of Mary and Pistis Sophia42 we find clear references to differences of
opinion – maybe even while Jesus was still alive – between Andrew and Peter, Jesus’ main
disciple, on the one hand and Mary of Magdala on the other hand. She apparently occupied a
special place among Jesus’ disciples, although the interpretations of what place this exactly
was are varied and still subject to much discussion43. This gospel was probably written in the
second century CE but illustrates fairly well one way the split might have happened, since,
even though this argument is mainly between Peter and Mary, we also read that another
disciple Levi supports her instead of Peter. Besides this, there may not have been much time
to decide what to do next, since (at least a part of) the disciples were probably expelled from
Palestine for having followed a revolutionary who had been considered a dangerous threat to
the state – which may well have been an incentive to start preaching among non-Jewish
people. The reference to prophets never being recognized as prophets in their own country in
the Gospel of Luke could also be interpreted in this context44. In any case, important topics
such as whether to keep operating within the Jewish religion or to include the gentiles in their
preaching were probably not resolved. The different disciples went their different ways and
the variants of early Christianity were born.
However, to treat this extensively is a completely different subject and would go beyond
the scope of this thesis. Following the main outline of King (2003) and Ehrman (1999) for
the rest of this subchapter, the important point is that several of Jesus’ disciples became his
apostles and were either sent by him, or decided themselves, to spread their version or
versions of Jesus’ message to the gentile peoples45. They preached in the pagan cities, made
converts and moved on to other cities. The people who converted to Christianity, most of
37 This is the Hebrew word for ‘anointed one’ and in basic meaning similar to Χριστός, Christ, the translation of this
word as used by the Greeks.
38 Maccaby (2003), Jesus the Pharisee, pp. 70-71.
39 Jesus may merely have been of the same tribe as king David had been but could even as such claim him as an
Lincoln, see pp. 313-315 and 344-347, but Flusser disagrees with them.
42 The Gospel of Mary 17:10-18:21 and Pistis Sophia I.36. All quotations from texts found at Nag Hammadi at taken
11
whom could not read, were left with the words of the apostle and their own imagination.
They had probably misunderstood or not understood much of what was said by the apostles
and it is no wonder that different explanations of their stories came into existence and
debates followed. From these different explanations arose different and often contradicting
texts all claiming to describe the true acts and words of Jesus or his apostles.
These differences in interpretation often concerned fundamental points and were present
from the earliest periods46. This is proven by the fact that the apostle Paul (who died in 64 or
67 CE) already felt the necessity to write several letters to Christian communities because of
their difference in thought47. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul is warning them against false
gospels48 and in his letters to the Corinthians he hints at other disagreements in doctrine49. In
those days before the council of Nikaia (323 CE), the questions that were raised and
answered differently were of a very fundamental nature. For instance, they discussed whether
or not Jesus had been divine, whether or not to consider the god about whom Jesus preached
to be the Jews’ YHWH, whether or not to adhere to the Jewish law, whether the Christian
god was singular or plural et cetera. One can imagine the differences and the strife that arose
from it.
To trace the differences back to their sources is an extremely difficult task and the goal is
often impossible to achieve. For when the initially relatively small Christian sects were still in
the formation process of their interpretations of the stories, they often came into contact
with each other, as well as with the pagan religions and philosophies which were current in
those days. The different doctrines influenced each other. Some merged and some separated
and went off in a completely different direction. This constant interaction between the
variants of Christianity with each other and with pagan thought created an enormous range
of substantially different doctrines out of which the ‘orthodox’ Christian Catholic Church
eventually rose to become the dominant doctrine. On the other hand, there were Christian
groups which had lost their original Christian identity and initially pagan sects which had
taken over some Christian elements, such as Mani’s Christianity which was strongly
influenced by Persian and Indian myths50. This thesis will centre on two of the so-called
‘gnostic’ interpretations, a widespread movement which interpreted the life and sayings of
Jesus in a mystical way. This will be the subject of the next chapter.
There is a large corpus of works which are very heterogeneous in nature, purpose and ideas,
but are classified ‘under the umbrella term gnosticism’51. These works were most probably
originally written in Greek but many of them have been discovered in Coptic translations at
Nag Hammadi in Egypt, where they were translated for local use. Since this thesis will
concern itself with a variety of ‘gnostic’ ideas and interpretations of the life, acts, sayings and
ideas of Jesus and his apostles and the cosmogony, cosmology, ethics and rites different
‘gnostic’ groups inferred from them, it is paramount to define this term. However, the
academic debate on what gnosticism is and whether or not this term is appropriate to the
46 Ehrman (2003), The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths we never Knew, pp. 176-177.
47 For more information on the differences in thought between churches in apostolic times see Brown (1984), The
Churches the Apostles Left Behind.
48 Galatians 1:6-9.
49 See, for instance, 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 or 2 Corinthians 13:2.
50 For a brief survey of the most important early variants of Christianity dubbed ‘gnostic’ see Roukema, R. (1999).
12
material and/or correctly applied to these writings is far from being concluded and this term
and its derivations have to be treated with care52.
So what can we say about gnosticism and how can this term be used as an important
denominator the movements treated in this thesis53? Γνῶσις or gnosis is the Greek word for
inquiry or investigation and the result of it: rational knowledge or insight54. Within the
context of religion it seems to mean an ‘esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth’55. This spiritual
truth must be understood as a direct acquaintance with and knowledge of the true god56. This
knowledge leads to knowledge of oneself, the true nature of one’s inner being or soul and its
position in the universe. To acquire this knowledge also means acquiring knowledge of the
universe itself, knowledge of why it is the way is and how it came to be this way57. It is an
explanation of the hardships of life and a promise of something better, which in this sense
offers the same comfort as the promise of heaven in Catholic Christianity. The gnostics,
however, were not waiting for a better eternal life after this one, as would be the later
orthodox Catholic doctrine, but considered the attainment of γνῶσις itself and becoming of
one of the elect few of the true god as the ultimate redemption.
The attainment of γνῶσις presumably happened by means of an initiation ritual into a
mystery cult as well as through revelations and sacraments58. The attained knowledge was a
secret and truer knowledge and the gnostics believed a saviour, such as Jesus Christ, or his
apostles, had originally revealed it to them. Consequently, a number of gnostic gospels, secret
books and other works were attributed to apostles to claim higher authority59, such as the
Apocryphon of John, the Apocalypses of James, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary. What the
gnostics actually did was interpreting the life of Jesus in the light of the mystery religions
which were current in the Mediterranean area in the first few centuries CE60. However, the
gnostics were not the only ones to claim apostles as the founders of their religious systems
and authors of their sacred texts. Different Christian sects or factions did this as unknown
authors had been claiming to be famous historical or literary characters for centuries to
increase the status of their work61. But not all variants of Christianity were gnostic sects and
not all gnostic sects were Christian.
Gnosticism was a product of the melting pot of Hellenism, which was not a
homogeneous religion but is merely the ‘umbrella’ under which different religious sects with
one aspect in common were grouped. The sects may have originated as gnostic variants of
the Christian, Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, Syrian or Indian religions or somewhere else, but
came into contact with and exerted influence on each other and non-gnostic sects62. Because
of this constant evolution of ideas, not many doctrines were firmly fixed. Disciples could
52 Recent studies by King (2003) and Williams (1996), which have been mentioned, provide thorough introductions
stated.
55 King (2003), p. 5 quoting Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.
56 Layton (1987), The Gnostic Scriptures, p. xv.
57 Ehrman, p. 114 illustrated by a quotation from Theodotos in Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 78.2.
58 King (2003), p. 97 and Ehrman, p. 113-114.
59 Ehrman, p. 113.
60 See for instance The Gospel of Philip 67:27-30, Trimorphic Protennoia 48:30-35 and Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.23.4 to
πολιτείας
62 For different theories on the origin of Gnosticism see for instance Pétrement (1984), Le Dieu Séparé, pp. 14-39, for
a Christian origin, Dahl (1981), The Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia, for a Jewish origin or Schenke (1981),
The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism, for an unspecified non-Christian origin (on Sethian
gnosticism).
13
easily expand their teacher’s doctrine and incorporate elements from other sects and/or deny
elements from it. Therefore not even members of the same ‘school’ can be trusted to
proclaim the same views. Gnosticism was merely one of the many possible answers to the
need for individual ethical religious regulations that had been devised in the Hellenistic world.
Since gnosticism and Christianity (and Judaism) may be considered as – colourfully yet
somewhat bombastically stated – ‘neighboring, indeed overlapping and repeatedly cross-
fertilizing, hybrid, multifarious, ever-shifting, co-emergent discourses participating in a
broader ‘Hellenistic’ field of cultural hybridity’63, the boundaries between them are and were
not always clear. As it took Christianity several centuries to decide and negotiate the
formation of a uniform view by heated discussions and concessions between the numerous
factions, it is no wonder scholars are confused today and early Christians did not always see
much difference. The connections between Christianity and Gnosticism are evident, since
early Christian texts use the language of mystery cults the same way the gnostic writings do64.
Early proto-orthodox Christian writers even used the term γνωστικός to denote spiritually
and philosophically advanced Christians65 and the apostle Paul, who had grown up in Tarsus,
where mystic cults such as that of Mithras were immensely popular, has been proven to be
much influenced by gnostic thought66. Looking at it from this perspective, it is not surprising
to find that Christian gnostics often did not have their own churches but could simply and
easily be a part of the Christian communities. These gnostics thought of themselves as
Christians but with a higher understanding of the secret meanings of the religious texts,
sacraments and creeds. They considered themselves the spiritual elite of Christianity and
professed their own, higher, form of Christianity from within the churches, which was one of
the reasons the proto-orthodox Christians had such difficulty in locating and eradicating
them67.
So why did the proto-orthodox Christians end up victorious and in a position to force their
theological doctrine on others as the right and only theological doctrine? The formation of a
uniform doctrine and of the later ‘orthodox’ Catholic Church and the elements influencing
this development are still subject to much research and it is impossible and irrelevant to treat
it here extensively. In the next few pages I will mention the facts about this process which are
relevant to the subject of this thesis basing myself on researchers who have studied this
subject more extensively.
Even though sources are few and many things remain uncertain, logic may take us a
reasonably long way (following Ehrman (2003) for the first two paragraphs). In an age of
Christian diversity without limitations, there were many positions to take on the spectrum of
theological possibilities. Since Christianity was still a relatively new and not yet firmly
established religion, it was still manoeuvring to find a position in harmony with – but
evidently distinguished from – other religious and philosophical movements. Unlike some
factions who positioned themselves on the extreme ends of the spectrum, such as the
Ebionites who defined Christianity within the Judaism and clung to Judaic law or the
14
Marcionites who denied all historical ties to Judaism and pagan religion, the proto-orthodox
Christians were moderate Christians68. They recognized their connection to Judaism but also
defined Christianity as an independent religion. Moreover, proto-orthodox Christianity was
not elitist like most gnostic mystic cults which were available only to initiates and was not
locally focused but remained in continuous contact with other Christian groups and was
concerned with the development of Christianity and the fate of Christians worldwide69. To
simplify contact between different churches, they were proponents of monepiscopacy, i.e.
having one bishop at the head of each church, which contributed immensely to the
propagation of their own ideas70. Additionally, the proto-orthodox polemicists were very
successful in their refutation of other doctrines, because those other doctrines did not put
much effort in defending themselves. Their attacks were also very effective because they used
the polemical method of ad hominem attacks, by which they tried to discredit the teachers of
the gnostic doctrines and thus rendering their teachings unreliable instead of attacking their
doctrines directly71. The moderation and globalizing tendency of the proto-orthodox faction
were very successful: by the end of the third century CE their view and organization became
the dominant variants of Christianity in most cities connected to Rome72.
Why Rome? Because it was the logical place to position the centre of a globalizing
network of religion. Rome was already the central city of the Roman Empire and the proverb
‘all roads lead to Rome’ was literally true at this time. The infrastructure had been very good
for a long time and there was constant traffic between Rome and all other major cities and
important areas of the Empire. Other great cities such as Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem,
Edessa, Ephesos, Carthage and later Constantinople similarly exerted much influence and
remained influential until the 7th and 8th centuries CE. They all had the ambition and
opportunity to become the centre of uniform Christianity and the bishops of these cities
contended for the top position in the church. The emperor, however, was based in Rome and
he was to meddle in the affairs of the Christians in due course.
In 313 CE the emperor Constantinus the Great proclaimed his famous Edict of Milan in
which he legitimised Christianity as a religion (following Frend (1965)) for the next
paragraph)73. The story goes he had converted to Christianity the year before after having had
a vision in which he was told that if he put the Christian symbols chi and rho74 on the shields
of his soldiers he would win the battle of the Milvian Bridge he would fight the next day.
After he had won, he allegedly renounced his old worship of Sol and became a devout
Christian. In reality, Constantinus had probably not become a religious Christian at all, but
simply used Christianity as a political strategy. The third century CE had been hard on the
Roman Empire, because it had been attacked severely from the outside, was weakened from
internal struggle and suffered from economic depression. To solve these problems,
Constantinus’ predecessor Diocletianus had enlarged the army and the administrative
apparatus and the lower and middle classes, who supplied most of the government officials
and most of the soldiers, had acquired more influence than before. The composition of these
classes was now very diverse, since Roman citizenship had been granted to virtually all free
68 King (2003), p. 7.
69 Ehrman, pp. 179-180.
70 Ehrman, p. 175, basing his argument on the works of Walter Bauer.
71 For more information about the attack method of the proto-orthodox Christians and their position among other
factions in the first three centuries CE, see Wisse (1986), The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner
Diversity and Conflict.
72 Ehrman, p. 175.
73 Frend (1965), Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, pp. 536-568 (chapter XVI).
74 In Greek χ and ρ are the first two letters of the name Χρὶστος, the Latin Christus, Chadwick (1967), The Early
Church.
15
men and manumitted slaves had very good opportunities to prosper and climb the social
ladder. The empire was under stress and Constantinus was in need of well-spread means to
unify the heterogeneous Roman people.
Christianity was one of the religions which by this time had become very popular among
the lower and middle classes, presumably because of its optimistic promise in the hard times
people had faced, and he used it to unite the people (following Chadwick (1967) for the next
paragraphs). After apparently having tried to use the Sol cult, which was very popular among
the military, he eventually decided on Christianity as the best means to this end, or at least on
some kind of mixture between both religions. Both religions were or have become very alike
in message and imagery. Apparently, the difference between the Sol Cult and Christianity was
not very great and a conversion was not very radical.
It is unclear whether Constantinus actually became fully Christian or whether his
convictions and actions have later been interpreted as Christian75. He was not a theologian
but a practical man and was consequently probably not even interested in the differences
between the religions or knew much about them76. It is clear, however, that he supported
Christian thought and helped it secure its position as a religion and was mainly responsible
for the kick-start of the formation of its central hierarchical organization based in Rome, the
promotion of its juridical position and the enormous growth of its popularity and material
wealth. It is also clear that his support to the Christian community fortified his imperial
power because he himself came to be regarded as God’s chosen one on earth and because he
was now able to use the proto-orthodox Christians, who had spread all over his empire, for
political means through its bishops and councils77.
But for Christianity to be able to unite the Roman people it should at first be united itself.
Constantinus himself presided over the council of Nikaia in 325 CE, which was organised
because of a dispute between the proto-orthodox and Arian Christians78. The Arians held
that Jesus was a part of the creation of God and as such not divine but of a different
(material) substance. It was the first council where bishops from all over the empire came
together (although mostly from the East) in a massive number (220) and where the Nicene
Creed about the Son being ‘of one and the same substance with the Father’ was first formed
and recognized79. The bishops were almost unanimous (218 out of 220 attendants) in signing
the creed, probably because of its ambiguous character. This council is essentially regarded as
the start of the official unification process of Christian thought, which was to develop very
fast after this. Constantinus supported the Roman bishop in his claims to be the highest-
ranking authority among the Christian communities and it was clear that ‘the final decisions
about church policy’80 would from this time be made by the emperor.
The unification of Christian doctrine and centralization of Christian authority in Rome
was achieved by several arguments formulated in defence of the proto-orthodox point of
view81. The practice of the formulation of a κάνων, an exclusive list of scriptures, which
should be considered authoritative, had been in use for centuries among the contending
Christian factions as a means of clarifying their views. The proto-orthodox Christian created
their own, which would become the Christian Bible, consisting of both the Old and the New
Testaments. Another argument was the claim of apostolic succession. Jesus was supposed to
have instructed his apostles about the tradition they were to uphold after his resurrection and
75 For doubts about the Constantine’s Christianity see Frend, pp. 542-543.
76 Chadwick (1967), pp. 126-127.
77 Chadwick (1967), pp. 127-128.
78 This section is mainly based on Chadwick (1967), pp. 130-132.
79 For an early version of this creed, see Athanasios, De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi 33.4-6.
80 Chadwick (1967), p. 132.
81 These arguments are based on Chadwick (1967), pp. 41-45.
16
to found churches where they should propagate this message. The apostles Peter and Paul
had both come to Rome and founded churches there and their traditions were still supposed
to be upheld by the Roman bishops. The Christian could consider the bishops in other cities
who shared their views as contemporary authorities. A third argument was the formulation of
the Regula Fidei, a short summary of the basic principles in which the proto-orthodox
Christians believed such as the unity of God, the trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost
and the parthenogenesis of the virgin Mary82. A fourth influential argument was the
genealogy of heresy: how all ‘unorthodox’ views were initially descended from a common
demonic origin, which was usually Simon Magus83.
The idea of heresy will be briefly discussed here (following King (2003)). The Greek word
αἵρησις originally meant ‘choice’ but in Christian terms it was redefined as ‘the choice to
believe something else than the correct view’. What the proto-orthodox polemicists actually
did was to propagate the fiction that gnostic and other non-orthodox views were another
religion in complete opposition to early ‘orthodox’ Christianity. According to them the
gnostics were people who falsely called themselves Christians, but believed and practiced
things contrary to the instructions of Christ. Heretics were the people positioned on the
outside of Christianity, not as dissenting factions within it84. One important difference stated
by the polemicists was that true Christians have faith (πίστις) in their saviour and are saved
by his grace because of this, while the gnostics trust in their direct knowledge (γνῶσις) of or a
revelation by their saviour85. Since for the proto-orthodox polemicists truth must always be
prior to falsification, all ‘heretical’ non-orthodox beliefs were said to be deviations from the
right doctrine handed down by Jesus to his apostles. It naturally followed from this, that the
‘orthodoxy’ of the proto-orthodox early Christian factions was the original right form of
Christian belief and all believers in gnostic or other heresies were in error, because these were
later deviations and hence simply wrong. And thus ‘what we call orthodoxy is not orthodoxy
because it is right, but because it won’86.
Once supremacy had been achieved by the proto-orthodox faction, it was very thorough in
erasing all traces of earlier dissent in the centralizing Church and in propagating its normative
doctrine while rewriting history (following the arguments made by King (2003) and Ehrman
(2003) in this subchapter). The official doctrine eventually became that Christianity had
developed in a steady, increasing way from Jesus and his apostles under the leadership of the
central proto-orthodox Christian Church in Rome87. To prove this, the Roman bishops
referred to their own (probably engineered) unbroken line of descent from the apostle Peter,
who was supposedly the first bishop of Rome. All the churches founded by the apostles were
said to have lived in peace with each other and, although admittedly some people had been
seduced by heretical views, most people were said to have always remained converts of the
true orthodox Christian faith88. The writings of other (not necessarily gnostic) Christian sects
82 See Layton (1987), pp. XIX-XXII. Markion, for instance, had already composed one, denying validity to the Jewish
Old Testament books about 145 CE and the gnostic sects had their own.
83 King (2003), pp. 32-33.
84 King (2003), pp. 23-25.
85 King (2003), p. 30.
86 Right Reverend John Shelby Spong, bishop of Newark, taken from the praise section on the first page of Freke &
Gandy.
87 Ehrman, pp. 4-5.
88 Ehrman, p. 167.
17
were suppressed and the only information about gnosticism available for centuries were the
writings of the (proto-) orthodox polemicists.
The proto-orthodox polemicists had written that the gnostic religion (although not
actually called a religion) was a singular non-Christian and anti-Christian religion founded by
the first heretic Simon Magus and all the variants of gnostic heresy were descended from it
through his disciples. Simon Magus is therefore pictured as the arch nemesis of Christianity
and the scion of Satan who with his disciples had founded a religion with many subsects very
similar to the way Christianity itself had initially developed89. They were very successful and
hence there was little doubt this was the true history of Christianity until the end of the 19th
century. The term ‘gnosticism’, however, was not coined until in the 17th century, probably by
Henry More in 1669, as a reformative Protestant anti-Catholic polemic. Ironically, the
orthodox Catholic Church, which had fought so vehemently against the gnostics, was now
itself accused of being ‘a spice of the old abhorred gnosticism’90.
When in the 19th century scholars began to doubt the orthodox doctrine and serious
research into gnosticism commenced, the absence of sources and centuries of indoctrination
still had an enormous influence. Since this time scholars have tried to reconstruct the history
of gnosticism in historical, genealogical and typological ways, starting from the ancient
assumption that it was a single coherent religion. But because gnosticism is not a
homogenous religion and the different gnostic sects do not originate from a common source,
many attempts that have been made to classify gnosticism as a religion opposed to
Christianity, Judaism or the different pagan religions and philosophical theories have
eventually resulted in failure.
Although this method of research has mostly been abandoned and scholars are now
studying the gnostic sects for their individual worth and mutual interrelations instead of
attempting to reconstruct them to a genealogically sound coherent whole, remnants of earlier
generalizations, which have now been proven false, still persist. Even in recent studies, one
may still find broad generalizations about gnosticism of which the most important and
persisting ones are mentioned here91:
Gnostic thought is based on an anticosmic dualism in which the material world and
the human body are regarded as ‘an object of hate, contempt, and fear’ and the true
god is completely alien to and transcended from the world.
Anticosmic dualism can never promote moral life in the material world since it is evil
and thence gnostic ethics are extremes. Strict asceticism and libertinism (or complete
amoralism) are the only options for the true gnostic.
Gnostic Christology is docetic92. Christ was so divine that he could not possible have
had a material human body. Either Jesus’ body was a phantasm created by the divine
Jesus or the divine Jesus temporally inhabited the body of a human Jesus, but left it
again before the mortal Jesus’ death. Without a real body he cannot really have died
on the cross and hence cannot have lifted original sin from humanity.
These untrue generalizations are either fabrications by the early proto-orthodox polemicists
or have been postulated by research on a possible common descent for a single gnostic
religion93. Pitfalls like these have put experienced scholars on the wrong track, which is a
89 Ehrman, p. 192, King (2003), pp. 7-8 and for example Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.23.2 en I.23.4.
90 King (2003), p. 7 and Layton (1995), p. 335.
91 For these generalizations, see King (2003), pp. 199-203 and Ehrman, pp. 15-16.
92 ‘Docetic’ and ‘docetism’ are derivatives of the Greek δοκέω, ‘to seem’ or ‘to appear’, and δόκησις, ‘appearance’.
93 See for instance Williams (1996), pp. 54-79 and 96-212, on the common misconceptions of the gnostic anticosmic
worldviews, negative perception of the body, soteriological predestination and subsequent lack of interest in ethics
18
good example of the difficulties one encounters while researching gnosticism. I will do my
best to avoid them in this thesis and meander through them. Although new first-hand gnostic
sources have come to light, the suppression of true evidence for gnostic thought and
adherence to the orthodox Catholic doctrine for centuries has left its mark on the possibilities
for research. But they have also made it a challenge.
being general elements of all gnostic movements and a survey of the differences between the movements. The
Valentinians, as pictured below in chapter 6.1.2 and 6.2.1, provide ample contrast.
19
4. The Eves of yore
In this second chapter I will give a brief survey of interpretations of the character of Eve
before the dawn of Christianity. Eve is obviously an ancient Jewish character, but she may be
much older than her first appearance in Judaism as we know it. These interpretations are
meant as a general chronological background and discussed as far as they are, or may be,
relevant to the development of gnostic interpretations in the late second and third centuries
CE.
In the Biblical account of the book Genesis, the first man Adam calls the first woman ‘Eve’, a
name he explains as ‘the mother of all living’94. This can be explained by the fact that she will
be the mother of his children and consequently the ancestor of the whole human race, but
there are other possibilities. The book of Genesis is obviously a collection of different stories,
which did not originally belong together, and the product of many revisions through the ages.
The fact that the story of Adam and Eve is told twice95 in a completely different fashion is a
proof of this96. But does this prove that the story used to be different?
The classical scholar and mythologist Robert Graves seems to think so and in the rest of
this subchapter I will explain his theory as far as it is relevant. In his The White Goddess, he
explains and adduces arguments for his theory that there was a common widespread religious
pattern in Bronze Age Europe, Western Asia and North Africa in which a mother goddess
was worshipped in different shapes and under different names. This white goddess was a
moon goddess who presided over the waxing and waning course of the year and was
consequently also a goddess of the circle of life, an agricultural goddess and a fertility deity.
On the one hand, she was the goddess of wisdom, but on the other hand the fickle goddess
of changing fortune. In its original form in this religion, the myth about this goddess stated
that she had no male counterpart but did have twin lovers: the spirits of the waxing and the
waning year. The twins, a sun god or divine star-child and a serpent of wisdom respectively,
were rivals and each one killed the other at one of the turning points of the year. The sun
god, who is born to the goddess at the winter solstice, when the sun is in its most south
station and is most weak, is murdered at the summer solstice by the divine serpent, his tanist
or counterpart, who takes his place as her lover. He is, however, in turn destroyed by her at
the winter solstice when she gives birth to the sun god. However, the serpent is immediately
reborn from his ashes and at the spring equinox lays an egg, which the goddess eats.
Consequently, she becomes impregnated by him of the sun god, to whom she will give birth
next winter solstice97.
This goddess, according to Graves, was worshipped in an era when societies were still
mainly matriarchal and as such worshiped a feminine deity as the creator of all things and
ruler of the world. With the rise of patriarchy came the rise of masculine gods who started to
rival the goddess for her absolute power. The patriarchal nations, which invaded the societies
with matriarchal religions, influenced them, identified their masculine god with the sun god
and started to attribute more and more power to him. In Graves’ interpretation, the Greek
94 Genesis 3:20. All quotations from the Old Testament are taken from Suggs, Sandenfeld & Mueller (1992), The
Oxford Study Bible.
95 Genesis 1:26-29 and 2:7-3:24.
96 Norris (2000), Het verhaal van Eva, pp. 21-22.
97 Graves (1984), The White Goddess, pp. 387-388.
20
sun god Apollo seems originally to have been a star-child, who after the invasion of
patriarchal tribes usurped the power of his mother, the white goddess. This event is
symbolized in Greek myth by the story of his definite slaying of his former tanist, the Python.
The different aspects of the goddess were at first multiplied into triads and later into enneads
of goddesses, of which the three Μοῖραι, the three ὲρινύες, the three γρᾶιαι, and the nine
muses (the µοῦσαι) are expressions in later Greek culture. Still later, all aspects of her were
divided among several gods and goddesses, each with one or more of her former functions.
The families of gods, which now came into existence, were the divine families of antiquity
such as the Greek Olympians or the Akkadian or Sumeric Igigi98. In his research Graves tries
to deduce a common origin from the gods and goddesses of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians,
Akkadians, Sumerians and the Germanic and Celtic peoples and fit them into his above-
mentioned pattern as the remnants of the ancient struggles of Bronze Age society in later
religion.
Graves thinks that flocks of priestesses of the goddess used to hold mystical orgiastic
initiation rites in worship of her at her shrines and temples. As an earthly incarnation of the
white goddess, the head priestess would every year take a new priest-king as her husband who
would rule as this priestess-queen’s consort. After a year his successor, the new priest-king
and favourite of the goddess incarnate in the priestess, would ritually murder him, and the old
king would live on as an oracular spirit. Either under the influence of the rise of the
patriarchy or maybe without any connection to this but merely because of its impractical
consequence of having to replace the king on a yearly basis, the rule of the king could
eventually be extended to a period of seven or eight, or still later, to nineteen years. This
could be done by the yearly sacrifice of a child who had ruled in the king’s stead for a day as a
surrogate and, still later, an animal would be substituted for the child. After the victory of the
patriarchy, the kingship was completely detached from the yearly cycles and became a
hereditary affair. Graves finds numerous clues of his theory in later mythology, for instance in
the myths of Herakles who kills his children in a rage until he is killed by his wife Deianeira
and Achilles, the seventh son of Peleus, who was the only one to survive the immortalisation
process his mother Thetis performed on him (as a consequence Achilles did not become
completely immortal but reigned as king of the Myrmidons). He also notes the amount of
Greek myths describing various young princes who were burned to death after a short
temporary kingship usurped from the reigning sun god (e.g. Phaethon, the son of Helios,
who drove his father’s carriage for a day and died; Ikaros, the son of Daidalos, who flew too
close to the sun; Demophoon, the son of Keleus, whom Demeter (who Graves points out
repeatedly as an incarnation of the white goddess) was trying to immortalize; the Cretan
Dionusos Zagreus who was made king for a day; and the sacrifice of Isaac by his father
Abraham in the Bible99). According to Graves, the initiation mysteries, which persisted up to
classical Greek times and which enjoyed such renewed popularity in the Hellenistic period,
preserved a great deal of these prehistoric myths, rituals and mysticism.
Graves recognized Eve as an incarnation of his supreme deity as an oracular snake
goddess worshipped by one or more of the nomadic proto-Judaic tribes in ancient Palestine.
He believes the story of the creation of Adam and Eve and their subsequent expulsion from
paradise by God is an iconotropic misinterpretation of an older representation of the myth of
the goddess. According to him, the fruit which Eve offers Adam was originally the apple, the
fruit of immortality, and the story of the creation of Eve out of Adam’s rib is derived from an
icon depicting the sun king being murdered by his tanist who stabs him in his ribs with a
21
knife while the goddess watches the scene100. On another level, Cain and Abel are the twins
fighting for the favour of the goddess, instead of that of the Hebrew YHWH, and Cain the
serpent slays his brother Abel the sun god. This is a very interesting theory, but can we find
any other proof of its truth besides Graves’ own deductive logic?
Although this theory is controversial and sources are few there seems to be some
evidence to support it. The early books of the Bible make it evident that the Jews have not
been monotheists forever (this argument is mainly based on Patai (1968) 101). YHWH, the
Jewish god, used to be merely one of the gods in the Jewish pantheon of which Astarte, a
fertility goddess of the common type (almost identical with Babylonian Ishtar), and Asherah,
an earth goddess and mother of the gods, were also a part102. Astarte, or Anath, was the
daughter of Canaanite Asherah and El, and the consort of the god Baal103. Both these male
gods were often identified by the Jews with YHWH. As king Solomon (who ruled from 961
until 922 BCE) arranged several political marriages to strengthen his alliances with
neighbouring nations, the worship of Asherah was actually introduced as an official part of
the royal household cult at the introduction of a princess from Phoenician Sidon104. When
the idea of monotheism was embraced by the Jewish people105, the Bible has been accurately
surveyed and adapted to make sure no traces of the other gods remained. Although the
reviewers and rewriters have been very successful in their undertakings, there are still
instances in the Bible that show the popularity of these earth and fertility goddesses, since the
writers of these Bible books felt the need to disapprove of the practice of their rituals by the
Jews and especially by Jewish women106. Graves equates Astarte to the goddesses Ishtar,
Ashtaroth, Isis and Aphrodite as incarnations of the original white moon goddess in her
function as goddess of love and fertility107 and, although he does not mention her, he would
probably equate Asherah to Hera, Belili and Isis as goddesses of earth and motherhood.
These fertility and mother goddesses were often pictured as accompanied by serpents108 and
this suggests a connection to the story of Adam and Eve, who were deceived by one.
The name Hawwah or Chawwah (The Hebrew version of the name Eve), said by Jewish
commentators to derive from the Hebrew hayah, life, is also etymologically related to the
Aramaic hiwya and Arabic hayyatun, both meaning snake (following Phillips (1987) in this
argument). This might imply that Eve does not only mean ‘Mother of all living’, but may also
imply something along the lines of ‘snake-mother’, ‘mother of snakes’ or even ‘mother of
wisdom’, since snakes are the creatures of magic, immortality and fertility109. There may also
be a reference to Tiamat, the dragonlike or snakelike monster from whose body the universe
is created by the god Marduk in the Babylonian Enuma Elish110, which would equate Eve with
the original creatrix of the world, who is the white goddess again. Graves concluded from this
that Eve was originally an oracular serpent goddess like the Libyan Lamia111 and an
incarnation of the universal goddess. According to him, her story has been adapted to fit into
and 47-48.
110 Norris, pp. 30-31 and Phillips, p. 50.
111 Graves, p. 230.
22
the later monotheistic patriarchal story of the creation of the universe by YHWH under the
revision of the Jews, who made her subject to him as part of his creation.
Graves’ theory is based on very little evidence and, consequently, very daring. He presents
his theory as being the logical consequences of interpretation of European myths, but his
reasoning is based on his own, very subjectice, interpretations. His anthropological model is
also relatively old and becoming obsolete. The relevance to this thesis is to be found in the
possibility that there may have been remnants of different interpretations of the character
Eve available in the early centuries of the Christian era, which the gnostics may have used112.
This is a very intriguing theory, which I would very much like to investigate further, and it
would be interesting topic for further research. However, since the limits of its relevance to
this thesis have been reached, I must finish here and end the discussion with a question mark.
In the Tanakh, the Hebrew canonical literature, which also forms a large part of the Christian
Old Testament113, no literature written by women has survived. Although most of the books
are anonymous and several of them are attributed to great historical or mythical characters,
such as the books of Moses, they are all evidently written from or revised to a dominant male
point of view114. As a result, all the sources are biased and since the Bible is a religious
document – which are documents which have a tendency to distort historical facts, since they
are occupied with bringing a certain message across and making it sound convincing, whence
truth and fact are always secondary to this goal – we cannot possibly deduce a trustworthy
account of the role of women in early Judaic society from it. Some comments can be made,
however, and we may comment on the literary use made of female characters and the
character of Eve in the Bible.
Woman was subordinated to man (in the next two paragraphs I follow Evans (1983)).
This is not surprising in a patriarchy and was general practice in Western Semitic societies in
the latter half of the second and in the first millennium BCE. Being married was the normal
position for a woman, as soon as she was able to fulfil her wifely duties. Marriage was rarely
for love but usually a business arrangement, in which the woman was transferred from the
power of her father or brother to the power of her husband. Women had their own domain
within the house and her functions were childbirth and housekeeping. The ideal woman was
considered to be hardworking and earned profit by her labour115, which shows she had an
economic function as well116.
Even though YHWH is presented in the Tanakh as non-sexual, he is relatively often
described through the means of female metaphors, for instance as midwife, nurse or mother,
as well as through male ones. The masculine view won out in the end, no doubt under the
influence of the organizational structure of patriarchal society. Since the god was then
considered to be male, there was a natural difference between the religious relationships of
women with him and those of men and in later times the maleness of YHWH was a means of
112 See Versnel, pp. 206-251, for clues of possible remnants of a triad in Hellenistic times which may still carry some
elements of Graves’ goddess theory.
113 The Tanakh consists of the Torah or Pentateuch (the five books of Moses), the Nevi’im (the prophets) and the
Ketuvim (hagiographa). The Catholic Christian Old Testament is based on the Greek translation, the Septuaginta, and
consists of these works and also includes some Hellenistic writings which are called Apocrypha.
114 Norris, pp. 45-47.
115 As is shown in the final saying in Proverbs 31:10-31.
116 For an extensive description of the position of the woman in ancient Semitic culture see Marsman (2003), Women
23
legitimisation of female subordination and male dominance. Therefore, it is not surprising
that in this androcentric society the early books of the Bible mainly centre on the actions and
words of the patriarchs and all the women are merely considered as relative to the men in
their life117.
The story of Adam and Eve was in all probability read as an etiological myth because it
explains how this subordination of women came into existence. Eve was deceived by the
serpent to eat from the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and persuaded
Adam to do the same118, even though YHWH had forbidden this. For this disobedience
YHWH cursed Eve with great pains in labour and submission to her husband and Adam
with hard work to provide his family with a living and banished them from paradise. The
suitable partner, whom YHWH had created for Adam, had now become his submissive. One
can imagine that it was a powerful picture: if the subordination of women to men was caused
by the first couple’s own mistake and ordained by their god, how could it not be acceptable
to the people who should be ashamed of their ancestors’ actions and take care to be obedient
to the commands of their god in order to prevent making the same mistakes?
The unequal relation of men and women was illustrated by an ingenious metaphor (this
argument is based on Marsman (2003)). Marriage between a man and a woman was usually
considered as a business contract and covenant in a personal as well as in a social context,
since bride and groom were both representatives of their families and their marriage was
often a political liaison119. The Hebrew writers consistently presented the relationship of
YHWH to the people of Israel, metaphorically also represented by the land Israel but usually
by its capital city Jerusalem, as a covenant as well. In the imagery in the Bible, YHWH is
often likened to a ‘husband’ who assumes a protective and caring role towards his ‘wife’,
Israel, who should devote herself to him. It had been common practice for ages in the West
Semitic cultures in the ancient Middle East to present their city as the wife of their patron
deity. But instead of personifying Jerusalem as a goddess and the divine wife of their god, the
Hebrew writers, and especially the prophets, pictured her as a sinning woman, an adulteress
and a harlot120. Even though YHWH is a faithful husband, their marriage is failing because
his wife, Jerusalem or Israel, is being disloyal to him by making alliances with foreign peoples
and worshipping other gods than him121. As Adam and Eve, the very first people, had been
disloyal to the god who made them, so was their progeny, which despite their ancestors’
disobedience had been singled out by YHWH and had been allowed to form a covenant with
him. The land and the people of Israel are here being compared to their devious ancestor
Eve, who had not only misled her husband but also disobeyed her maker.
This negative imagery about Eve as the prototype and representative of women was to
have a long tradition. Since early times there had been a rabbinical tradition of Midrash, the
exegesis of and criticism on Hebrew religious scripture, and these works were written down
after an oral tradition at a much later time, for instance in the Mishnah (about 200 CE).
Among these authors, the general consensus on the subject of women was that they should
be protected from causing harm to Israel and her people. Women were supposed to be easily
distracted and lascivious and should be controlled by the wiser and more temperate men. The
enormous amount of discussions about the position of women in marriage and in a family
combined in the Mishnah shows the preoccupation of the religious and juridical
commentators with this subject. It also shows the tendency to increasingly restrict women in
117 Evans (1983), Woman in the Bible, p. 21-31, the references are to Isaiah 42:14, Psalms 22:9-10 and 71:6.
118 The references are to Genesis 3:1-6, 2:16-17, 3:16, 3:17-19, 3:23-24 and 2:18 respectively.
119 Marsman, pp. 112-114.
120 Marsman, pp. 114-116, for examples see for instance Hosea 1:2, Isaiah 54:5-6, Jeremiah 2:1-3.
121 Marsman, pp. 115, for examples see for instance Jeremiah 2:33-3:20 and Isaiah 1:21.
24
their freedom and confine them to their houses as the last millennium BCE progressed122.
Eve’s actions had had a disastrous effect on the lives of her daughters.
Hellenism also had its impact on Palestine. The Jews now came into contact with Greek,
Egyptian and oriental religions, philosophies and theories which were bound to effect their
own, especially when Jews would migrate to other Hellenistic cities such as Alexandria or
Rome in the Diaspora. Alexandria in Egypt was very attractive to Jews, presumably because it
was a centre of commerce and culture and situated near Palestine. Since this city eventually
became one of the great centres of science, arts and literature of the Hellenistic world, all this
information was easily accessible to the Jews.
The exposure to new and different kinds of culture, thought, ethics and ways of living
scared a number of traditional Jews and was an incitement to conservatism (this argument is
mainly based on Van der Horst (1994)123). Fear and conservatism are dominant in Jewish
scriptures from the third century BCE onwards and the views on the position of women as
stated in the last subchapter, were maintained and possibly even reinforced. These views on
women were that they were the source of all evil, because they had seduced the angels of
YHWH and produced demons124, which was proven by the part Eve played in the deception
of Adam. Women were considered as extremely sexual beings who were seductresses and
temptresses of men and had remained evil and dangerous ever since. This was the reason why
women should remain under the control of their men as before and should never have any
access to power. Women should not be educated, because knowledge might hand them a
weapon with which they would be able to continue or restart their evil ways. Works like the
deutero-canonical Biblical book of Yeshua ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), the writings of
Josephus and Philo Alexandrinus and the anonymous Testament of Reuben all give numerous
examples of the negative attitude towards, and fear of, women125.
There are, however, some more positive records about women and about Eve126. The
discussion about the origin of all evil which was current in the second century BCE did not
always consider Eve’s persuasion of Adam and their subsequent disobedience as the origin of
evil. On the contrary, as stated in another deutero-canonical Biblical Book of Jubilees127, evil did
not enter the world until the angels of YHWH, or ‘watchers’, mated with the daughters of
men128. Pseudo-Philo Alexandrinus tells us that women have often played an important role
in the history of Israel and the Jewish people129. Similarly, in the part of the Greek Apocalypsis
Mosis where Eve tells her own story of the events leading to their expulsion from paradise130,
it is evident that, although she is pictured as one who acted naïvely and wrongly, she is
certainly not considered to be the originator of all evil. Since archaeological finds of epitaphs
on the graves of Jewish women seem to imply that in the Diaspora women could be leaders
25
of local synagogues and educated students, their position may not always have been as
subjected as the conservative male Jewish writers might have wanted them to be131. They may
very well have been the authors of some of the writings mentioned in the last paragraphs.
Philosophy was an important part of Hellenistic society with which the Jews came into
contact (the rest of this argument is based on Sterling (2005)132). When the intellectuals read
the works by the Greek philosophers, especially those by the Stoics and Middle Platonists, it
influenced the Jewish exegetical tradition, sometimes completely and sometimes merely in
certain areas. Jewish authors had gradually sought to combine their religion with philosophy,
as is evident from the works of Aristoboulos (second century BCE), Josephus and the author
of 2 Enoch. Philo Alexandrinus (first half of the first century CE) actively tried to explain the
Jewish religion in terms of Middle Platonic philosophy and make it accessible to the
Hellenistic community. In his mind YHWH was a transcendent and perfect god who had
created the visible universe as a reflection of the ideal universe through his word or λόγος, by
considering the forms in his mind. This god had made humans as a composite of dust (the
mortal body) and the immortal soul, which he had given us through the demiurge λόγος. An
important detail is that Philo states that YHWH first created perfect, heavenly people in his
own image and only created the earthly humans after their image, by which he explains why
the creation of mankind is told twice in Genesis133.
With the advent of Hellenism, mystery religions also seem to have arrived among the
Jews. Already in the Tanakh, there is mention of the presence of Asian mystery cult in
Palestine134, and Tacitus notes the worship in the temple in Jerusalem has reminded some of
the cult of Dionusus135. In Philo Alexandrinus, we find references to Moses having been an
initiate of a mystery cult136, which is probably an expression of Hellenistic reinterpretation of
Jewish scripture. He also mentions a religious group in Egypt, whom he calls the Θεραπευταί
or Θεραπευτρίδες and who are a members of a mystery cult137. Although Eusebios, the
church historian of the fourth century CE, argues that the members of this religious group
were early (proto-orthodox) Christians138, this is quite impossible because this tractate was
written before Jesus is supposed to have taught139. The references to their Sabbath worship,
however, and the division of men and women in religious ceremony indicate that this is a
mystery cult that has many Jewish influences and probably arose from Judaism140. This
syncretism of Judaism and mystery religions was going to play an important part in the
development of gnosticism141.
In the works of Philo and some of the other Hellenising Jewish philosophers, one may
find some interesting concepts, which were to play an important part in Christianity and the
cosmologies of certain gnostic factions. There is the Word142, which in Hebrew thought is
not just a word but also the active principle of YHWH, but which was understood in Philo as
the demiurge in Platonic sense who acts out the thoughts of the perfect transcendent god143.
There is also the wisdom of YHWH which, though presented as the principle of unity, truth
131 Van der Horst, pp. 92-95.
132 Sterling (2005), The Jewish philosophy pp. 131-153.
133 Philo Alexandrinus, De Opicio Mundi 134-135.
134 For instance, Ezekiel 8:14
135 Tacitus, Historiae V.5
136 Philo Alexandrinus, De Gigantibus 54 and De Vita Mosis II.71.
137 Philo Alexandrinus, De Vita Contemplativa 25 and 28.
138 Eusebios of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesastica II.17.3-4.
139 It was probably written between 5 and 15 CE. See Mead, pp. 64.
140 Philo Alexandrinus, De Vita Contemplativa 30-32.
141 See Williams (1996), pp. 234.
142 The Greek λόγος was used as a translation for this concept by Jews writing in Greek.
143 Sterling, p. 145.
26
and righteousness in god in the older books of the Tanakh, is also already presented as semi-
detached from him144. As early as in the works of Yeshua Ben Sirach145, there are traces of its
being personified in a non-poetical way but as a completely separate entity from god and
created by him before all other things. Wisdom, a female principle (as da’at in the Hebrew
Tanakh and in the Septuaginta, the Greek translation of the Tanakh, as σοφία), here springs
from the mouth of YHWH and is as such associated with the Word146. In the gnostic
interpretations, these concepts would have an important influence on the interpretation of
the creation of humankind, the story of the first couple and the interpretations of the
character Eve.
144 For instance Job 28:23-28 and in Wisdom of Solomon 9:4 where she sits next to YHWH’s throne.
145 Yeshua ben Sirach 1:1, 24:3.
146 For an overview of early Hellenistic interpretations of the word and wisdom of YHWH in the Old Testament and
the deutero-canonical books see Drummond (1969), Philo Judaeus, pp. 131-166.
27
5. Eve in Sethian gnosticism
The first interpretation of Eve which I will examine is that of the gnostic category called
‘Sethian’ gnosticism. Even though this name is derived from the works of the proto-
orthodox polemicists, a number of scholars have argued for a unity between several ancient
works deemed gnostic, based on their common content which may very well be called
‘Sethian’147. They consider these works, most of which have been found at Nag Hammadi, as
belonging to one or more Sethian sects because of their adherence to a specific mythology
(Schenke), their specific (set of) rituals (Logan) or their self-designation as gnostic (Layton).
Based on their different approaches and findings, all three scholars have concluded on a
more or less similar corpus of gnostic works which is now considered to be the product of a
specific, yet developing, faction called Sethian gnosticism148. The works on which they all
agree are: The Apocryphon (or Secret Book) of John, The Hypostasis of the Archons, The Gospel of the
Egyptians, The Apocalypse of Adam, The Three Steles of Seth, Zostrianos, The Thought of Norea,
Marsanes, Allogenes, Melchidezek, The Trimorphic Protennoia and The Untitled Treatise149. As the
discussion about which other gnostic works may be a part of the same category has by no
means been concluded, I will limit myself to the works about which there is consensus.
Consequently, only the writings mentioned above will be considered as the sources for
Sethian gnosticism here.
According to Hans-Martin Schenke, the initial proposer of the Sethian category, Sethian
gnosticism was initially not Christian. He states that most Sethian writings give evidence of
no, or hardly any, Christian influences and Christian elements can only be found in late
writings or as later insertions into pre-existing works150. The Apocryphon of John is one of the
most Christian or Christianized works in the Sethian category of gnosticism151. It is also
clearly an important work, because of its early dating (probably early second century CE)152
and most other Sethian writings mentioned regularly refer to it in content. Another sign of its
importance is that it has been handed down to us in several manuscripts and in two different
versions, which indicates its widespread use and its development over time153. In this writing,
Sethian cosmogony is explained through a revelation of Christ to one of his disciples, John
the son of Zebedeus154, and its content was well known and very similar to the work
Eirenaios of Lyons knew and criticized155. The importance of this work indicates that its
147 For instance, Schenke (1981), pp. 588-607, Logan (1996), Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy or Layton (1987), pp.
xv-xvii.
148 Other names, which are now more or less dated, are ‘Ophite gnosticism’ or ‘Ophitism’, see Stroumsa, p. 5-6 or
Barbeloite-Gnosticism, see Schenke (1981), p. 6. As an alternative word for Sethian, ‘Sethite’ is also used.
149 Layton adds The Book of Zoroaster and Thunder Perfect Mind to the list, for a useful summary of the research and
probably sects of a Sethian character, see Williams (1996), pp. 90. Schenke (1981) supposes that Eirenaios knew an
28
content applies to the thought of most, or all, Sethian factions. Consequently, it is the best
source of Sethian cosmogony and cosmology that is to be found in the corpus. Consequently,
it is the best example to use here, even though other Sethian writings give or hint at different
accounts of some elements. The story is an interpretation of, and an elaboration on, the
creation story in Genesis (1:1-5:30)156. In the footnotes, comparisons are drawn between this
account and the accounts of the polemicists Eirenaios of Lyons, Hippolutos of Rome and
Epiphanios of Salamis of several sects which should probably be regarded as Sethian157.
In The Apocryphon of John, Christ, who calls himself the Father, the Mother and the Son158
among other things, reveals how at the beginning of time the Father, a transcendent perfect
being also called the invisible virginal Spirit and the Pure Light among other things, created
Barbelo, the Mother also called the perfect power and Foreknowledge, by thinking of, and
looking at, the reflection of his own image in the light or water159. Barbelo subsequently
conceived by the Pure Light and bore the Son, who is also called ‘the Only Begotten One of
the Father’ and Αὐτογενής160 and who was anointed Christ by the Father. Together they
formed a Triad161. Autogenes ‘created everything’162 by the word of the invisible Spirit and
from him arose four lights or αἰῶνες163, (H)armozel, Oriel, Daveithai and Eleleth, with three
additional αἰῶνες each, who are Autogenes’ twelve helpers164. Next, Adamas, the perfect
man, appeared by the joint effort of the Spirit and Autogenes. The Spirit ‘set him over’
Armozel, Adamas’ son Seth over Oriel, Seth’s seed (the souls of the saints) over Daveithai
and the souls who did not know the πλήρωµα165 and did not repent at once, over Eleleth166.
earlier, less Christianized, version of the work found at Nag Hammadi. For easy reference Eirenaios’ work will be
quoted by its Latin title throughout this thesis.
156 As a helpful commentary in interpreting the story, I have used Roukema, pp. 36-49.
157 See Layton (1996), p. 42.
158 The Apocryphon of John 2:14.
159 Descriptions of god, such as this one, are also found in inscriptions dating from the second century CE, for
instance in Oinoanda: ‘Self-born untaught, motherless, unshakeable, giving place to no name, many-named, dwelling in fire, such is
god…’ (translation by Lane-Fox), quoted from Ras (1993), Het Dagelijkse Leven in Oinoanda in de Tweede en Derde Eeuw
na Christus, p.97.
160 Autogenes is Greek for ‘self-procreated’.
161 According to Epiphanius, the Phibionites worshipped the same triad and the Archontics at least agreed on the
Father being the highest principle, see Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.26.10.4 and I.40.2.8. According to Eirenaios,
however, the Barbelo-Gnostics taught Barbelo was the higher power and did not postulate a trinity but taught the
divine powers were made in pairs, in syzygy. In his account of the Ophites or Sethites, he explains their trinity as
consisting a First Man (Ἄνθρωπος), his creation Ennoea (Ἔννοια or ‘Thought’), who is the Second Man, and
Spiritus sanctus or πνεῦµα, who is also called First Woman and Mother of the Living, see Eirenaios of Lyons,
Adversus Haereses I.29.1 and I.30.1. According to Hippolutos, the Sethians whom he had encountered taught that their
godhead was a trinity consisting of a high light, a deep darkness and πνεῦµα in between, see Hippolutos of Rome,
Refutatio Omnium Haeresium V.19.1-6.
162 It is unclear what this ‘everything’ means but it does not denote the material universe at this point.
163 The Greek aion (in Latin aeon) means ‘eternity’, but also ‘heavenly sphere’, ‘heavenly realm’ or ‘heavenly power’ in
this context.
164 In contrast, Eirenaios’ Barbelo-Gnostics did not equate Autogenes with Christ, but taught that Christ had been
created first and Autogenes after this. His four lights are there called Armozel, Raguhel, David and Eleleth. The
Ophites or Sethites taught that their First and Second Men slept with the First Woman and generated Third Man,
who is called Christ and lives with his mother in Church (Ἐκκλησία), the highest αἰών. See Eirenaios of Lyons,
Adversus Haereses I.29.2 and I.30.1-2.
165 The Greek Pleroma means ‘fullness’ and ‘the fullness of the aeons’ is a term often used to denominate all the
αἰῶνες together.
29
After this creation of the heavenly world, Sophia or Wisdom, one of the αἰῶνες of
Eleleth, conceived by thinking a thought herself, without the approval of the Father or the
consent of her consort, left the πλήρωµα and bore an imperfect monster. She named him
Yaldabaoth or Yaltabaoth (he is also called Sakla(s) or Sammael in other writings167) and hid
him far away in a luminous cloud. Yaldabaoth stole a power from his mother and became the
first ἄρχων or ruler. He created his own twelve lower αἰῶνες after the model of the higher
heavenly world, of which he was ignorant besides his knowledge of his mother, and filled it
with 365 angels. After his creation of this lower universe, Yaldabaoth became arrogant and
exclaimed ‘I am a jealous God and there is no other God beside me’168. Sophia now saw what
her unpermitted deed had caused, repented and was allowed back into the πλήρωµα 169.
In reaction to Yaldabaoth’s statement, a voice was emitted from the true αἰῶνες saying
‘The Man exists and the son of Man’ and the Father showed the first man Adamas, who had
been created in His likeness. Thinking the voice had come from his mother, Yaldabaoth and
his angels, together called the ἄρχοντες, created Adam ‘in the likeness of the likeness of’ the
Father. This Adam was still an immaterial soul body, which they could not cause to live.
Sophia asked the Mother-Father to give her back the power Yaldabaoth had taken from her
and He sent Autogenes to tell Yaldabaoth to blow some of his spirit into the man.
Yaldabaoth complied and blew the power he had stolen from his mother into the lifeless
body, which instantly began to live and was far more intelligent than Yaldabaoth and his
angels170. They became jealous at the sight and hid Adam’s soul body, which shone
luminously because of this power, in a material body. The Mother-Father, however, took pity
166 The Apocryphon of John 2:26-9:24. According to Eirenaios, the Barbelo-Gnostics taught that Autogenes had created
Adamas, the perfect Man (Ἄνθρωπος) and Γνῶσις, who as a pair generated Lignum or ‘wood’ also called Γνῶσις, See
Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.29.3.
167 Explained as ‘fool’ and ‘blind’ respectively by Roger A. Bullard in his introduction in the Nag Hammadi Library in
English.
168 A quotation from the words of YHWH in the Old Testament in Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9 and Isaiah 45:5-6
and 46:9.
169 According to Eirenaios, the Barbelo-Gnostics agreed with this account, but said Sophia fell because there was no
consort for her in the πλήρωµα and she went into the world below it to find one. They said that Sophia repented
after the creation of the demiurge and that she became Ogdoas (Ὀγδοάς), the heaven between the material world
and the πλήρωµα, see Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.29.4. Epiphanius’ Ophites taught that Sophia was weak
and ignorant when she created the demiurge, but agreed on Sophia becoming Ogdoas or heaven above the seven
heavens of the ἄρχοντες, as did the Archontics, see Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.37.3.2-5 and I.40.2.3. Eirenaios
explains this by telling the Ophites taught that Sophia or Prunicus (Προύνικος, ‘lewd’ or ‘low’) attracted material
things by her humectatio luminis or ‘moisture of light’ and that, being burdened by her material body, she placed it
between the πλήρωµα and the earth to hide the perfect light. They also said that her son, the demiurge, not only
created the material universe and his ἄρχοντες but also Nus (Νοῦς), who is the serpent, see Eirenaios of Lyons,
Adversus Haereses I.30.3-5. Epiphanius’ Ophites agreed the serpent is a creation of Yaldabaoth, see Epiphanius of
Salamis, Panarion I.37.4.4, but Hippolutos’ Sethians taught that the attractions of light, dark and πνεῦµα created the
Platonic forms or ideas, after which the material world was created, see Hippolutos of Rome, Refutatio Omnium
Haeresium V.19.6-13.
170 Eirenaios’ Ophites or Sethites told a very similar story, but they taught the ἄρχοντες did not make Adam after the
image of Adamas but based on a thought given them by Sophia in order to empty them of their power, see Eirenaios
of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.30.6. Epiphanius’ Ophites taught that Adam was made in the likeness of Yaldabaoth and
stressed Sophia’s deception of him to blow his power into Adam in order to give him a soul, see Epiphanius of
Salamis, Panarion I.37.3.6-4.3. Hippolutos’ Sethians, however, taught that a wind moved the waters of the darkness
and trapped the light and πνεῦµα in a wave, which was the god Νοῦς trapped in a material body. The wind, which
had the shape of a winged serpent, created humans out of this wave in his own image, see Hippolutos of Rome,
Refutatio Omnium Haeresium V.19.13-20.
30
on the power of Sophia, which was in Adam, and sent his beneficent Spirit, Ἐπίνοια171,
which he hid inside of him172.
After this the ἄρχοντες placed Adam in paradise with its ‘tree of life’, which was actually
the road to godlessness and death, and its ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’, which is
here called the ἐπίνοια of the light, of which Adam was told not to eat. The serpent merely
taught Adam procreation through ‘lust and destruction’, but, at the instigation of Christ,
Adam outsmarted the ἄρχοντες by the power of the Ἐπίνοια173 inside him. Jealous
Yaldabaoth now attempted to retake the power he had given Adam and veiled his senses to
extricate it from him by taking out his rib. Although the Ἐπίνοια (of the light) stayed hidden
in Adam, Yaldabaoth did manage to get part of it and created woman. When Adam sobered
up, he recognized the woman as ‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ and this is the
reason given ‘why a man will leave his father and mother and he will cleave to his wife and
they will both be one flesh’174. After this, Sophia and Christ (Autogenes or the Son), who
took the form of an eagle, descended to paradise to teach the couple to eat of the tree of
knowledge175. The angry Yaldabaoth now cursed the earth which he had created and
banished Adam and Eve from paradise, but they were afraid to curse him back. After this, he
(Yaldabaoth) seduced Eve and fathered two sons on her: Eloim and Yave, who were also
called Cain and Abel. Probably through this act, he implanted sexual desire in Eve and hence
procreation has happened through sexual acts ever since. Adam and Eve then had Seth, into
whom the mother (Yaldabaoth’s mother Sophia is probably meant) sent her spirit or divine
spark. This divine element remained active in his descendants (‘his seed’) in order to assist in
the curing of the universe of its imperfection and the return of humanity to the realm of the
light176.
Yaldabaoth and his angelic powers had conceived fate in adultery with Sophia out of
jealousy of the race of the perfect man. Fate has made the whole creation blind and produced
every imaginable sort of sin. After this act, Yaldabaoth repented of the evil he had caused and
sent a flood of darkness over the Earth. The Mother, however, had informed Noah and he,
and most of his race, saved themselves by hiding in a luminous cloud177. Yaldabaoth then
171 The Greek Epinoia means ‘thought’ or ‘notion’, but may also denote ‘purpose’ or ‘intelligence’.
172 The Apocryphon of John 9:24 - 21:16.
173 Ἐπίνοια is spelled with a capital letter in the rest of the work.
174 The reference is to Genesis 2:23-24.
175 As a variant of the story, Eirenaios’ Ophites or Sethites taught that Eve was created from Adam’s thought and
that the ἄρχοντες tried to rape her afterwards, but Sophia took the divine power out of her before they succeeded
(which is apparently the variant of the story found in The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:12-29). Sophia then used
Yaldabaoth’s son, the serpent, to instruct Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge to acquire γνῶσις (See
The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:31-90:2), see Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.30.5 and I.30.7. Epiphanius’
Borborites and Ophites agreed that the serpent was the first couple’s instructor in the attainment of γνῶσις and the
Ophites taught that it was also thrown out of paradise, see Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.26.2.6 and I.37.5.3-4.
Hippolutos’ Sethians considered the serpent as evil, see Hippolutos of Rome, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium V.19.18-20.
176 The Apocryphon of John 21:16-25:16. Eirenaios’ Ophites or Sethites taught Yaldabaoth wanted Eve to conceive of
Adam after their expulsion from paradise, but Sophia outsmarted him by taking the humectatio luminis out of her and
thus helped them escape from the power of Yaldabaoth. Because they were now in the material world, the couple
changed into material substance, but Sophia returned their humectatio luminis, by which they realized this and their
nakedness. Adam and Eve then proceed to have Cain and Abel, but the serpent, who was also expelled from
paradise and bears a grudge to Adam and Eve because of this, made Cain kill Abel. Sophia, however, helped Adam
and Eve to have Seth and Norea to compensate for this loss, see Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.30.8.
Epiphanius’ Sethians state Cain and Abel had unspecificied different fathers, but the Archontics taught they were the
children of the devil, the son of the demiurge, and that they killed each other in rivalry for the favours of their sister,
see Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.39.2.1-7 and I.40.5.1-4.
177 Eirenaios’ Ophites or Sethites agreed with this myth about Noah, see Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses
I.30.10. Epiphanius’ Borborites, however, taught that Yaldabaoth wanted to destroy the immovable race and would
not let his servant Noah’s wife Norea board the ark, because she had γνῶσις. His Sethians taught that Sophia sent
31
wanted his angels to raise offspring with the daughters of men and changed their appearance
into men, but they did not succeed to make them conceive. Yaldabaoth first needed to create
a counterfeit spirit, which looks like the real Spirit, to achieve his goal. This counterfeit spirit
leads the people astray from the knowledge of the god of Truth and this situation has
continued up to the present day178. Therefore Christ, the perfect πρόνοια179 of the all,
‘changed himself into his seed’ (became human) and went into the realm of darkness, the
underworld, and released the souls there and raised them up to the light180.
Only those of ‘the immovable race’ (the seed of Seth), ‘on whom the Spirit of life will
descend’ and who have fought against the evil impulses of their fleshly body, will acquire this
eternal life. Other humans, on whom the counterfeit spirit has descended, are drawn to works
of evil and forget the light, but they keep their soul. The soul, however, has the power to
become stronger than the counterfeit spirit. When this human has died, his or her soul, which
is bound with chains and imprisoned by the angels of Yaldabaoth181, can still achieve
knowledge182 and liberation by following another soul which has the Spirit of life in it (i.e.
one of the immovable race). Only the souls which have gained the true insight, but have
turned away from it, ‘will be punished with eternal punishment’183.
Sethian cosmology and theology naturally had an enormous influence on their way of life. As
King (2003) argues very clearly184, Sethians considered the world as a product of evil,
conceived without the permission of the true god. It is ruled by an evil, tyrannical, arrogant
and ignorant world creator and his minions, who are completely inferior to the true triple
god. They are constantly actively malevolent and try to deceive and enslave humans in order
to keep them away from γνῶσις of the true god185. Humans have to spend their lives not only
battling those evil forces which rule the material world, but are also attacked from the inside
by fleshly desires and passions which have been implanted there by an evil deceptive spirit.
This negative world view probably resulted in a tendency to abstain from most worldly
emotions and passions. As is illustrated by The Apocryphon of John, a select few, the elect
initiates, who ‘endure everything and bear up under everything, that they may finish the good
fight’, will really acquire eternal life without suffering beforehand186. Others may only be
saved by the benevolent soul of an initiate after a time of suffering in several material
reincarnations or be punished forever. Although we have little knowledge of Sethian ethics,
we might infer from the writings that the Sethians, or at least a number of the Sethian groups,
the flood to wipe out all humanity except the seed of Seth, but the ἄρχοντες hid their servant Ham on the ark, see
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.26.1.4-9 and I.39.3.1-3.
178 Eirenaios’ Ophites or Sethites taught that not the ἄρχοντες, but the evil serpent and his sons cause evil for human
beings, see Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.30.9. In contrast, Epiphanius’ Sethians taught that evil remained in
the world because of Ham’s survival of the flood, which is why Christ, who is Seth, was sent by Sophia, see
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I Pan I.39.3.4. Hippolutos’ Sethians, however, taught that human beings experience
evil because they are trapped in a material body and that the Λόγος was the saviour, see Hippolutos of Rome,
Refutatio Omnium Haeresium Ref. V.19.20-21.
179 The Greek provoia means ‘forethought’ or ‘prescience’.
180 The Apocryphon of John 27:31-31:25.
181 This probably means it is reborn in another material body.
182 The original Greek probably had γνῶσις.
183 The Apocryphon of John 25:16-27:30.
184 See King (2003), pp. 157-162.
185 A good example is the wilful deception of humans by the angels of YHWH in The Apocryphon of John 29:16-31
32
promoted rigorous asceticism as the only protection against the evil forces of Yaldabaoth and
the only way of ascension to the true light. Direct redemption may only be achieved
individually and the ideal of a spiritual and moral state, in which one must persevere until the
end of life in order not to be reborn again, points towards a tendency to total abstinence of
worldly goods187. This invokes the image of rigorous meditational cults and the hermetic
ascetics of early Christianity, as described, for instance, in the stories about the early saints
Antonius or Tekla.
Even the saviour is merely an episode in the continuous struggle of the human soul with
the forces of evil and does not negate the importance of individual zeal. In The Gospel of the
Egyptians, the saviour, who is here portrayed as the divine Seth, created out of the divine
Λόγος, Autogenes, and Adamas, and who is equated with Christ, has descended to Earth,
wrapped himself in the body of the earthly Jesus and has taught the knowledge of his truth to
the seed of Seth188. But this does not constitute redemption. The Sethian saviour has not, like
the later orthodox Catholic Jesus, redeemed humanity from its original sin by his coming.
Humans still live in the universe created by the evil and lesser god Yaldabaoth and his angels,
and each person still has to fight his or her own battle to achieve ascension into the world of
light. The function of the saviour is necessary for the attainment of γνῶσις through his
revelation, but he is merely exemplary and can be used as a ‘guiding light’ on the way. Every
human being possesses the ability to do this, but making the effort to follow the road to the
light is still a matter of choice189.
The writings seem to suggest that the cultic practice derived from this view of the world
contained two mysteries, baptism and ascension, in which the Sethians – or at least some
Sethians – had to be initiated in order to achieve this final goal190. There was an earthly
baptism which was probably an actual rite191 and which was seen in connection to a heavenly
baptism by the baptists Micheus, Michar and Mnesinous in the Water of Life called Yesseus
Mazareus Yessedekeus192. The frequent occurrence of baptism in the Sethian writings
indicates that it was an important part of Sethian practice, although much is still unclear
about the actual execution of it193. In the rite of baptism, ‘five seals’194 are often mentioned,
which are a part of the procedure of the rite195. It has been suggested these were the
passwords needed to be able to complete the road to the light by passing through the five
stages of the mystery ritual. It is also unclear of what the ascension ritual consisted, but it was
definitely some sort of mystical experience and may well have been the final initiation rite. In
Marsanes196, mention is made of thirteen seals which may in this case be connected to the
passwords needed to ascend through the thirteen αἰῶνες of the universe and to be allowed to
pass the heavenly creatures, such the ἄρχοντες, who are the rulers of the αἰῶνες197.
According to Schenke, the work The Three Steles of Seth is a liturgical text and provides us with
187 On Sethian asceticism and other ways of world renunciation see Williams (1985), The Immovable Race, pp. 193-197.
188 The Gospel of the Egyptians 61:16-64:9.
189 On free will in Sethian thought, see Pétrement, pp. 27-30.
190 The rest of the argument in this chapter is mainly based on Schenke (1981), pp. 601-607.
191 Although not necessarily literally a water baptism but it may also have been a spiritual metaphor since material
water is part of the evil creation of the lesser god (Williams, (1985), pp. 192-193).
192 See Trimorphic Protennoia 45:16-20, 48:18-21, Zostrianos cannot enter the realm of light without becoming a
baptismal prayer (which according to Birger A. Pearson’s introduction in the Nag Hammadi Library in English may
have been part of a Sethian liturgy), The Gospel of the Egyptians 65:26-66:8 or The Apocalypse of Adam 85:19-31
194 For instance, see Trimorphic Protennoia 48:30-35 or The Gospel of the Egyptians 62:24-64:3 and 65:26-66:8.
195 Schenke (1981), pp. 603-604.
196 Marsanes 2:12-4:23.
197 For more on passwords in ascent rituals, see Roukema, pp. 49-53.
33
three prayer formulas for the ascension rite198. The last words of the text state that those who
‘remember these (words?)’ will become perfect (i.e. ascend to the world of light) and descend
again to the world below199. If these are the prayer formulas for the ascension rite, the
ascension should probably be regarded as a metaphorical ascension and as a symbol of the
experience of attaining true γνῶσις and eternal redemption.
34
5.2 The Sethians and their origins
Having now discussed the Sethian creation myth and their religious ethics and practice, what
can we say about the Sethians themselves? Who were they? And where did they come from?
Although Schenke admits that the Sethian gnostics were probably not a homogeneous
group200, Frederik Wisse has criticised him for portraying them as too uniform201. According
to him, Schenke postulates relationships between works, although he has no evidence these
works were ever used together as part of a unified teaching method and he opposes
Schenke’s suggestion of a liturgy. He convincingly argues that the Sethian writings are the
products of different stages of development in thought and that, as a result of this, it is
impossible to reconstruct a complete, coherent doctrine from them. He thinks that they are
independent products of autonomous esoteric groups, which used and appropriated known
‘free-floating’ mythological and theological ideas to use in private meditation. To corroborate
his conviction he points towards the differences between the Sethian writings on important
subjects, such as the saviour function of Seth202, the equations of the λόγος with different
characters203 and the descriptions of important characters, such as Yaldabaoth or the divine
triad of the Father, the Mother and the Son204. He also states that the references to Sethian
Gnostics by the polemicists all go back to one author, Hippolutos of Rome (about 170-235
CE), basing himself on the studies on literary interrelationship between the polemicists by
Lipsius, Harnack and Hilgenfeld in the 19th century205. He argues that the repeated
mentioning of Sethians in the works of the polemicists may have deceived modern scholars
into thinking they were a uniform group, although all reports were based on merely one,
presumably incorrect account206.
Wisse definitely is very convincing in his argument that the polemicist sources on
(Sethian) gnosticism need to be treated with caution and that the Sethian works are products
of different stages of development of thought and do not form an official Sethian canon used
in uniform liturgies. It is, however, possible that there were several heterogeneous Sethian
sects with beliefs, which were largely overlapping, but differed in detail and which have each
developed in different directions. The conclusions of several other scholars (Schenke, Layton,
Logan), that there was a sect or group of sects which can be considered as belonging to more
or less the same system and which could all be called Sethian based on theological or
mythological similarities, induce me to regard this as the more plausible explanation207.
proclaiming the truth. In The Apocryphon of John 2:9-20, however, Christ or Autogenes is the saviour who is part of the
trinity and Seth is merely the son of the divine Adamas or of the human Adam. In The Thought of Norea, Seth is not
even present but Norea has taken over the saviour function.
203 For instance in The Gospel of the Egyptians 53:13 it is equated to the original transcendent Father Autogenes and in
Trimorphic Protennoia 37:4-9 it is equated to the Son but in The Apocryphon of John 7:4-11 it is a power of the Father by
means of which Christ has created the universe.
204 In The Gospel of the Egyptians 40:15-41:12 the triad originates from and is described as the three powers of
Autogenes, the father, but in The Apocryphon of John 2:26-6:18 the father creates the Mother and the Son and
Autogenes is equated with the son.
205 Lipsius (1865), Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, Harnack (1873), Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus and
35
Nevertheless, Wisse’s criticism causes scholars to be very cautious about what they can say
about who the Sethian gnostics were and what religious rites and cultural practices they
observed. Based on their cosmological and ethical writings we can, nonetheless, agree with
Schenke on one thing and conclude that they were probably not initially Christian and were
therefore not part of the Christian communities, but that at least some Sethian sects may have
become christianized over time208.
On the other hand, we can say something about the history of Sethian thought which, by
analogy, might perhaps give some clues about the origin of the Sethians themselves, although
in Hellenistic society the origin of a doctrine need not necessarily reflect the origin of its
adherents anymore. Investigating this subject in an article (1986), John D. Turner
distinguished influences of different doctrines which have contributed to the development of
Sethian thought: Hellenistic-Jewish speculation on the figure of Sophia or Wisdom, several
midrashic interpretations and motifs of Genesis 2-6, a baptismal doctrine, the developing
theology of the early Christian factions and Neopythagorean and Middle Platonic
philosophy209.
Affinities with Jewish literature and thought are indeed the first things that stand out and
the Sethian gnostics seem to be very dependent on Judaism. Naturally, the first clue for this is
the fact that Sethian cosmogony and cosmology is not a completely different story but a
reinterpretation and appropriation of the creation story in Genesis, one of the oldest and
most fundamental works of Judaic religion. A second clue is the abundance of Jewish and
Jewish-sounding names one encounters in the Sethian writings. The name Yaldabaoth or
Yaltabaoth immediately reminds one of the Biblical Yahweh el Sabaoth, ‘YHWH, lord of hosts’,
although it may also originate from the Hebrew yld or yalad and baoth, which would mean ‘son
of Chaos’, or from yald and Abaoth (an equivalent of Sabaoth), which would mean ‘Begetter of
Sabaoth’210. The imagery surrounding this character also seems to imply he is to be equated
with the Old Testament god YHWH, for instance in his portrayal as (resembling) a lion211
and sitting on a throne or being within a fiery cloud212. Other names, characters and places
also look distinctly Jewish or are subject to theories about possible Jewish connotations213.
The important character of Seth, which is so prominent in Sethian writings, is also Jewish
and his function as either the saviour and/or the first gnostic points to further Jewish
influences. In this regard, Birger A. Pearson has thoroughly summarised the evidence for a
Jewish background of, or at least a strong Jewish influence on, Sethian Gnosticism in a article
(1981)214. Firstly, the critical treatment and appropriation of the Biblical cosmogony and
anthropology stories in the Sethian writings – including references to the birth of Seth – are
208 See Schenke (1981), pp. 607-612 (see the introduction to chapter 5.1) and Turner, pp. 56-59. They agree in seeing
Christianisation of Sethian gnosticism as a development started in the second century CE. The next subchapter will
corroborate this by showing a far more direct dependance on Judaic literature and thought and an appropriation of
more and different material than proto-orthodox Christianity did.
209 Turner, pp. 55-59.
210 See Pétrement (1984), pp. 67-70, and Fallon (1978), The Enthronement of Sabaoth, pp. 31-33.
211 The Hypostasis of the Archons 94:16, cf. Job 10:16 or Isaiah 38:13.
212 The Apocryphon of John 10:14-19 cf. 1 Kings 22:19 or Exodus 13:21-22.
213 See for some examples Pétrement, pp. 67-68 and Roukema, p. 41-42 and notes or Barker (1992), The Great Angel,
pp. 48-69, on the possibility of Sophia being a manifestation of the Jewish mother goddess Asherah who was
worshipped before the change to henotheism.
214 Pearson (1981), The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature, pp. 478-500, is the basis for this argument.
36
very much alike in form to the midrashic writings of the Jewish tradition215. Secondly, there is
some evidence that at least some gnostic writers knew Hebrew versions of the Old
Testament, since they use words reminiscent of ancient Hebrew wordplay on the name ‘Seth’
rather than the translations of these words in the Septuagint216. Thirdly, as to content, the
references to either Cain or Cain and Abel not being the offspring of Adam but of an evil
angel217 are already found in Jewish exegetical and apocryphal Biblical works218. The motif of
salvation from the hardships of life brought about by the revelation of a saviour is evidently
taken over from the Jewish apocalyptic literature, which was also put to use by the
Christians219. As to the specific role of Seth, the use of Allogenes as an alternative for his name
goes back to the description of Seth as ἕτερον σπέρµα in Genesis220, and Seth as a symbol of
the Jewish nation and possibly the progenitor of an elect race is also found in earlier
Hellenistic Jewish literature221. In the anonymous Vita Adae et Eva (transmitted in Slavonic)
Seth is already portrayed as the first recipient and revealer of γνῶσις222, and hints to Old
Testament patriarchs taking on a human body long after they are dead to reveal a message
occur in other places as well223. The idea of a divine saviour becoming human, as Seth is
incarnated in Zostrianos, Melchizedek or Jesus Christ, had already been explored in Jewish
literature224. This is of course to a certain extent also present in the proto-orthodox Christian
and modern Catholic interpretation of the character Jesus, although the Christians naturally
criticize the Sethian adaptation of the concept225. Some of these appropriations were
undoubtedly more influential than others, but the examples suffice to show the Sethians were
intensely dependent on Judaism.
Despite this dependency on Jewish religion and literature, the Sethians show an extremely
negative attitude towards Judaic religion. When one takes into account the historical situation
of the competition between the different gnostic sects, the varieties of early Christianity and
orthodox Judaism, this attitude is not a very surprising result. This naturally generated
extreme responses of which the writings of the polemicists are good examples. Nils A. Dahl
(1981) assumes that the anti-Jewish character of Sethian gnosticism and several other gnostic
sects is caused by its development as a radical reaction of Hellenised Jews to strict normative
monotheistic Judaism226. Schenke and Turner suggest the importance of baptism in Sethian
literature may point to an origin in, or at least influence of, non-orthodox Judaic baptist
circles in Palestine227. Williams (1996) suggests the possibility historical crises, such the
conflicts between the Jews and the Roman, may have prompted a negative worldview and a
reinterpretation of Judaic Scripture228. Whatever the origin of Sethian gnosticism may be,
215 Although the gnostics went much further in their (re)interpretations of the creation story as what should have
been said in the Jewish Bible as opposed to interpreting what was said, see Dahl, pp. 698-699.
216 See Pearson (1981), pp. 488-489.
217 For instance, The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:19-28, 91:11-14 and The Apocryphon of John 24:15-26 respectively.
218 For instance, Vita Adae et Evae 10:1-2, 21:3 and 23:1, 1 Enoch 85:3-9, see Klijn (1977), Seth in Jewish, Christian and
Gnostic Literature, pp. 1-28 for interpretations of the character Seth in Jewish literature during the first millennium
BCE.
219 Cf. the Apocalypse of John in the New Testament.
220 Genesis 4:25. Based on this passage, Philo Alexandrinus already made a difference between ‘the seed of Seth’,
who are the righteous men in the Bible, and ‘the seed of Cain’, who are the wicked, see Klijn, pp. 25-28.
221 For instance, 1 Enoch 85:3-9 and Philo Alexandrinus De Posteritate Caini 42 and 171-173.
222 Vita Adae et Evae 25:1, 49:1-3.
223 For instance, Gospel of Matthew 16:13-14 or 11:10-14 and see Midrash Genesis Rabbah 23:5 for a mention of Seth
37
there are more factors than Judaism which have contributed to its development as an
independent movement229. The Sethian trinity of the Father, Barbelo and the Son has, for
instance, been linked to the Egyptian divine family of Osiris, Isis and Horus230.
Unfortunately, very little research has yet been done in this area, wherefore the influence
must at this time remain unclear.
Sethian Gnosticism is obviously influenced by Hellenistic philosophy. The creation of a
material and visible, ‘sense-perceptible’, universe by lower creatures as a lesser copy of a
divine and invisible, ‘intelligible’, universe created by the true god and the ascent of the soul,
which originated in the world of the divine, to achieve true knowledge231, are typically
Platonic232. The figure of the immovable transcendent Father233, who is completely detached
from the world but creates the sense-perceptible universe through his emanations by thinking
of the most perfect thing, himself, corresponds to the Stoic immovable mover in a Middle
Platonic guise234. These ideas were combined with the creation story and other elements of
Jewish mythology, as Philo Alexandrinus, the orientalising Middle Platonist, had already done
in his De Origine Mundi, and are here presented as an etiological creation myth. In the
Sethian cosmologies, however, several intermediate spheres (ὑποστάσεις or αἰῶνες) exist
between the earthly sense-perceptible spheres and the intelligible spheres where the highest
beings live235, although the different Sethian authors applied this idea in different ways. In
Marsanes, for instance, there are thirteen αἰῶνες, of which the first three are Earthly, the sixth
to the thirteenth are heavenly creatures236, and the fourth and the fifth are probably αἰῶνες
ruled by the ἄρχοντες237. As another example, in The Apocryphon of John, Autogenes or Christ
(the active principle of the triad Father, Mother and Son) creates twelve αἰῶνες as his helpers,
which would make a total of thirteen αἰῶνες, including the αἰών of the trinity, and the ἄρχων
Yaldabaoth does the same for himself in imitation238.
As Michael A. Williams has shown, even the Sethian self-designation ‘the immovable
race’ is very dependent on a combination of Judaic and Greek philosophy and literature239.
After all, for the Greeks, ‘immovable’ could, besides being a divine quality denoting
perfection (as the Stoic immovable mover), also be a human quality of people who have
achieved their ultimate potential, such as heroes, wise men or prophets. In Jewish literature,
the concept of standing immovable before god was already a topos and the Christians
borrowed this as well. By calling themselves ‘the immovable race’, the Sethians defined
themselves not only as perfect and godlike, but also as humans who in their devotion and
religious experience had achieved the maximum of their abilities. This combination of
229 For some other views on the origin of (Sethian) gnosticism in a Jewish context, see among others Colpe (1981),
Sethian and Zoroastrian Ages of the World on similarities of Jewish influences on Sethianism and Zoroastrianism or
Stroumsa, pp. and 45-49 on interpretations of the seduction of Eve.
230 See, for instance, Mead (1906), Fragments of a Fate Forgotten, pp.334.
231 Such as the ascent of Zostrianos or any Sethian in the final initiation ritual.
232 As in Platon’s Timaios 28c-30a and Phaedon 64c-69c and 75c-77a respectively, see Roukema, pp. 75-92, and
Lumpe (1952), Die Philosophie des Xenophanes von Kolophon, pp. 17-22.
235 Which may vary, as we have seen, and could, for instance, be Autogenes in The Gospel of the Egyptians or the trinity
of the Father, the Mother and the Son in The Apocryphon of John.
236 The thirteenth αἰών is inhabited by ‘The Silent One’ who is described as sort of an immovable mover.
237 Marsanes 2:12 – 4:23. This writing has been preserved very badly and some parts are too fragmentary to
understand.
238 The Apocryphon of John 7:31-8:28 and 10:24-11:7, see also The Gospel of the Egyptians 63:17-18.
239 Williams (1985), pp. 8-34.
38
religious and philosophical ideas shows the Sethians as a perfect example of typical
Hellenistic syncretism.
39
5.3 Sethian Eve
Having written about Sethian thought and life, it is time to turn our attention to the main
subject of this thesis. What does all this show about the Sethian use of the character Eve?
Moreover, what does it mean for the position of women in the Sethian sects?
As we have seen in The Apocryphon of John, the ἄρχοντες became jealous after Yaldabaoth had
been deceived into blowing the power he had stolen from his mother Sophia into Adam,
because the man now came to exceed them in intelligence240. After this, they cover him in a
material body to enable themselves to exert power over him, but the Mother-Father has
mercy on him and sends luminous Ἐπίνοια as ‘a helper to Adam… who is called Life’241,
which is a clear reference to Eve in Genesis242. Subsequently, when Adam is placed in
paradise, he receives instructions about what he may and may not do, but the prohibitions
pertaining to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are addressed to him in plural243.
Even though the creation of Eve has not yet taken place, these clues indicate that she is
already present. Before her actual creation, Eve pre-exists in or as the Ἐπίνοια which the true
god has sent Adam and which he now carries within him. And not only does she exist inside
Adam, but she has been sent to him to teach him about his true origin and about how to
ascend to the realm of the light again in order to correct ‘the deficiency of the mother’,
Sophia244. Eve is in fact the first saviour and the first revealer of γνῶσις to the first material
man Adam245. At this point in the story, she is still completely a part of the pure realm of the
light and clearly acts as the rational principle in Adam, making him more intelligent than the
ἄρχοντες246. But then, jealous Yaldabaoth wants his power back and tries to extract it from
Adam. He can, however, get only a small part of it from which he forms the corporeal Eve,
and according to The Hypostasis of the Archons and The Apocalypse of Adam, this constitutes the
loss of the divine element and the pure rational principle for Adam247. In The Hypostasis of the
Archons, he describes Eve as his teacher, his mother and his healer and as such expresses
recognition of the loss of his divine helper, Ἐπίνοια. In The Apocalypse of Adam, he states they
both became bereft of knowledge [γνῶσις ] and lived in slavery under the ἄρχοντες because
of this248. Therefore, Sophia and Christ come down to mend the situation and to show the
now completely corporeal Adam and Eve the tree of perfect knowledge (the tree of
knowledge of good and evil), the Ἐπίνοια. After they have eaten its fruit Adam and Eve are
now both fully human and have also attained γνῶσις again, for which they are thrown out of
paradise by Yaldabaoth.
Yaldabaoth now wishes to rape Eve, in his ignorance drawn to the Ἐπίνοια inside her. In
The Apocryphon of John, the Mother or Foreknowledge of the All foresees what will happen and
has ‘the life’ removed from Eve, by which the Ἐπίνοια249 is probably meant. In The Hypostasis
40
of the Archons, however, a more interesting story enfolds itself before Adam and Eve eat from
the tree of knowledge of good and evil250. At this point of the story, Eve has become human,
but she is apparently still very much a creature of the realm of the light, even after her
transformation into a material woman. As the spiritual part of Eve foresees the plans of
Yaldabaoth and his angels to rape her, she splits herself up and leaves her material body
behind to be raped. After this, she turns her spiritual self into a tree, the Ἐπίνοια or tree of
knowledge of good an evil, and hence remains pure and undefiled by the ἄρχοντες. The work
then states that ‘the female spiritual principle’ enters the serpent, which subsequently acts as
an instructor to the material Adam and Eve to eat its fruit and is Sophia’s instrument of the
revelation of γνῶσις251. By analogy to The Apocryphon of John, this ‘female spiritual principle’
may be equated to Sophia as they both have the same function in the story252.
However, the equation does not end there. Ἐπίνοια, Eve, was sent down into Adam
from the αἰῶνες of the light to correct the deficiency of Sophia by revealing true γνῶσις to
him, whereas Sophia revealed253 γνῶσις to Adam and Eve by having them consume the fruits
of the tree Ἐπίνοια, which was the spiritual Eve. Pagels (1979 and 1986), Layton (1987) and
Stroumsa (1984)254 argue this text must be based on an Aramaic pun on the etymology of the
words ‘Eve’ or (C)hawwah (etymologically related to ‘life’), ‘serpent’ or hiwya and ‘to instruct’
or hawa, a pun Robert Graves also partly recognised and used as evidence for his theory255.
According to them, Eve is equated here with the instructing serpent and must therefore be
equated with ‘the female spiritual principle’, Sophia. As evidence, they compare The Hypostasis
of the Archons to another gnostic treatise, On the Origin of the World, where Eve is described as
the daughter and emanation of Sophia and can hence easily be equated with her256. Although
scholars recognise these two writings are related on literary and theological grounds257, On the
Origin of the World is not considered a Sethian writing. But although the connection between
Sophia and Eve may be less obvious in The Hypostasis of the Archons and the other Sethian
writings, it is nevertheless there. In The Apocryphon of John, the helper sent to Adam by the
Mother-Father, theἘπίνοια, which is the spiritual Eve, is also called ‘Life’, which is the name
given to Sophia’s daughter in The Hypostasis of the Archons258. Sophia and Eve are both defined
by the use of the same word Ἐπίνοια and Sophia is said to have instructed the material Adam
and Eve through the spiritual Eve259. This shows a certain connection, but both tractates
have to be read together to make their family relationship concrete. The same could be said
for the separate identifications of Ἐπίνοια with Eve260 and Sophia, which is found in
Trimorphic Protennoia261. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Greek or Coptic Sethian
gnostics would have understood the etymological references based on an Aramaic pun. The
authors of these tractates may have known Hebrew or Aramaic, but this was probably not the
case with its readers. Although they would see the connection between Eve and Sophia, they
from Nag Hammadi, Layton (1987), pp. 70-71 and Stroumsa, p. 47.
255 As we have seen above in chapter 3.1.
256 On the Origin of the World 115:30-116:8.
257 See for instance the introductions to these works in The Nag Hammadi Library in English.
258 The Apocryphon of John 20:14-19 and The Hypostasis of the Archons 95:4-6.
259 The idea of Sophia acting as protector and instructor of Adam is probably based on Wisdom of Solomon 10:1-2.
260 As in The Apocryphon of John 20:14-19.
261 Trimorphic Protennoia 39:29-32.
41
would probably not notice the etymological connection to the serpent or the instruction
scene.
In Sethian thought, Eve was the instrument or weapon employed by the Mother-Father,
the triad of the true god of the light and the truth, the god of the highest αἰῶνες, to wrestle
humanity away from the power of the ἄρχοντες262. As the daughter of Sophia, she is sent by
the Father to correct the deficiency of the universe caused by her mother’s production of
offspring without permission or consent. This means that, according to the Sethians, the
material Adam and Eve were merely disobedient to the evil creator or demiurge of the lesser
universe and not to the divine triad of truth and light. Therefore, their disobedience cannot
possibly be the origin of evil or have caused original sin as in proto-orthodox Christian
tradition. In conclusion, in Sethian theology, Eve is actually the catalyst of the first revolt
against evil and the initiator of humanity’s first steps on the way to the true light.
But if evil did not originate from the fall of the first human couple, where did it come from?
May it have been the serpent, who in orthodox Christian theology is often equated with the
devil? In The Hypostasis of the Archons, it may be the instrument of the revelation of γνῶσις, but
not all Sethians seem to have agreed on this. In The Apocryphon of John, Christ tells John that
he himself taught Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and
that the serpent played no part in their attainment of γνῶσις. The serpent actually taught
them lust and destruction in order to make Adam of use to him263, but in no Sethian writing
is it associated with the origin of evil. Moreover, this story about the serpent is told outside of
Christ’s otherwise chronological tale as a very short reaction to a question posed by John and
the identity of the serpent remains obscure here. It is not associated with the ἄρχοντες, but
remains a solitary evil character. It plays no part in the main body of the narrative and is not
mentioned again in frame of the story. As this passage is part of the Christianising frame of
the story, it might be a later interpolation264. Perhaps the serpent should in this case be
equated to, or considered as, a minion of Yaldabaoth as a result of a Christian redaction,
although this point cannot be proven.
So where does evil originate according to the Sethians? The logical answer would be with
the ἄρχοντες, the evil creators of the universe. Since they are lesser gods than the true triad of
the highest αἰῶνες, their material creation is far from perfect. Only human beings are
creatures with at least a spark of theἘπίνοια of the light inside of them and we have already
seen that the ἄρχοντες became very jealous of this. At first they tried to pervert humans by
enclosing them in a material body, but Sophia and/or Christ provided the material humans
with another way of attaining spiritual knowledge, the true γνῶσις, by having them eat of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil. The perversion caused by the ἄρχοντες is effected by the
addition of matter to spiritual beings, since matter as a product of the ἄρχοντες is inherently
evil. However, most attention is given to the second way of corrupting humanity: the
introduction of sexual desire and material sexuality. As Pagels (1986) has shown265, sexuality
is always depicted in the Sethian writings as completely opposite to spirituality. The ἄρχοντες,
however, cannot see the difference between sexual (material) and spiritual knowledge, which
262 See The Apocryphon of John 20:9-28 and The Hypostasis of the Archons 88:10-15.
263 The Apocryphon of John 22:9-15, see Stroumsa, pp. 45-49.
264 See Turner, pp. 71-74 for the Christianisation of this writing. See also Schenke (1981), pp. 607-612 and Turner,
42
is a sign of their imperfection and the reason why truly spiritual beings, such as Eve and
Norea, can escape them by divine help. But because of this inability to ‘know spiritually’, their
attempts to know female beings are always material and sexual in nature and by their sexual
acts they often succeed in their design to keep humans from reuniting with the realm of the
light.
On two occasions the ἄρχοντες made attempts to pervert humans by sexual acts, the first
time almost immediately after the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise266. The rape of
the material Eve by the ἄρχοντες resulted in a pregnancy, of which two accounts are given.
According to The Apocryphon of John, Eve bore Yaldabaoth Cain and Abel who were impure
and ugly like himself, but according to The Hypostasis of the Archons, Eve bore him only Cain.
Abel, however, was the first pure child of Adam and Eve who was subsequently slaughtered
by his half-brother267. Through this act of rape Yaldabaoth implanted sexual desire in Eve,
who subsequently coupled with Adam and bore the material Seth, the first pure product of
their union according to The Apocryphon of John and the replacement of Abel according to The
Hypostasis of the Archons. Sophia sent her spirit into him for assistance and by his name and the
description of his conception (in Adam’s likeness), he is associated with the heavenly Seth268.
Seth as the first (surviving) product of the pure union between Adam and Eve, who also had
the Spirit of the mother inside of him as seed and was untouched by the evil of the ἄρχοντες,
became the progenitor of the immovable race and the gnostic saviour.
The second attempt is based on the appropriation of new ideas that developped in
Hellenistic Judaism, as described in chapter 4.3. The Sethian gnostics copied the notion of
evil being descended from the sexual union of the angels of YHWH with the daughters of
men269. As described in The Apocryphon of John, Yaldabaoth sent his angels to engender
offspring with human women and they created a counterfeit spirit to make this work. This
counterfeit spirit corrupted the souls of the mortal humans and made them liable to the many
deceptions of the ἄρχοντες. This is the reason why humankind has become enslaved and
separated from the divine light and truth270 and by this action the ἄρχοντες have succeeded in
their design to keep most of the human race away from the realm of light. Only the Sethian
elect escape. Placing the origin of evil in the world in matter and sexuality, provides a strong
clue for the probability of theories of Sethian total abstinence of sexual acts as part of the
practice of a rigorous asceticism among the elect271.
As we have seen, Sethian mythology consists of many female or androgynous characters. The
importance of characters, such as Barbelo, the Mother and (sometimes male) virgin, Sophia,
the cause of the creation of the universe, or Eve, the first saviour and revealer of truth sent
from the highest god as a helper to material humans, may be an indicator of the position of
women in Sethian societies. Throughout the creation story, the female, or not completely
male, characters are very prominent performers, often performers of the designs of the true
266 On the seduction of Eve and Cain, Abel and Seth see Stroumsa, pp. 38-45 and 49-53.
267 The Apocryphon of John 24:15-25 and 10:26-36 and The Hypostasis of the Archons 91:11-30 based on Genesis 4:25b.
268 The Apocryphon of John 24:26-25:16, The Hypostasis of the Archons 91:30-33 and The Apocalypse of Adam 65:5-9.
269 Based on an interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4. On the seduction of the daughters of men, see Stroumsa, pp. 35-38.
270 The Apocryphon of John 29:16-30:11.
271 As mentioned in chapter 5.1.2.
43
god in order to remedy the imperfection of the universe272. Nevertheless, when translating
religious thought into social and cultic practice, what relevance should be given to this fact?
In The Thought of Norea, a female character asks and receives help from the true god and
attains γνῶσις. This is Norea, the daughter of the spiritual273 Adam and Eve and, according
to the polemicist Epiphanios of Salamis, either Seth’s sister-wife274 or Noah’s wife275. The
myth about this character, who is also called Orea, Horaia, Nora and (N)huraita and which
originates in Jewish rabbinic literature, has been interpreted in different ways and appears to
have developed as a blend of two Biblical characters both called Na’amah276. In Sethian
gnosticism, she is called Norea or Orea and she is presented as the pure virginal daughter of
Adam and Eve in The Hypostasis of the Archons. As a true daughter of the light, she opposes the
ἄρχοντες and destroys the ark their follower Noah was building to survive the coming flood.
The ἄρχοντες then try to rape her in order to pollute her, in the same manner as they had
polluted her material mother. At her outcry to the true god, the angel Eleleth comes down
and reveals the true γνῶσις to her, by which act she is saved from the attack277.
As both Norea’s material body and spiritual soul remain undefiled, she may be regarded
as a new Eve who stays pure and part of the world of light. In The Thought of Norea, she is
saved by the help of the four helpers who usually aid the saviour figure and she is the one
bringing γνῶσις to ‘the Adams’, her spritual descendants comparable to ‘the seed of Seth’278.
There is no mention of Seth in this work and Norea has obviously completely taken over the
saviour function which is usually given to him. When we interpret the picturing of female
characters as gender symbolism, we may draw some conclusions about the position of
women in Sethian gnostic societies279. Pearson seems to hint at the fact that, as Norea (and
thus Eve)280 can be pictured as a saviour figure and bringer of γνῶσις, women were regarded
as able to individually achieve this highest possible religious goal for Sethians. If this was the
case and they considered women equally capable of religious development as men, then
(continuing this same line of thought) they most probably also considered them fully capable
of religious practice and leadership and accepted them as preachers and revealers. As such,
Pearson says it is very possible a tractate such as The Thought of Norea was written by a Sethian
gnostic woman. Perhaps he is correct in his view, but as it stands it is based on very little
evidence and we cannot accept it without doubt281.
Elaine Pagels has argued that the difference between the social position of women in
gnostic sects and proto-orthodox Christianity has been one of the main reasons for the
rejection of gnostic thought by the proto-orthodox Christian faction282. She thinks that the
272 See King (2003), p. 161, for instance Barbelo requesting power from the Father in The Apocryphon of John 5:11-6:2,
Sophia being disobedient to the invisible Spirit and conceiving a thought of her own in The Apocryphon of John 9:25-35
or Eve teaching Adam in The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:11-17.
273 Since sexuality is evil, as is stressed in The Hypostasis of the Archons, Seth and Norea could not have been the pure
individuals they if they had been created through sexual procreation, see Pagels (1986), pp. 268-277.
274 According to Epiphanios of Salamis Panarion I.39.5.2.
275 According to Epiphanios of Salamis Panarion I.26.1.3-6.
276 See Stroumsa, pp. 53-61 and Pearson (1977), The Figure of Norea in Gnostic Literature for the background of
this character.
277 The Hypostasis of the Archons 91:34-93:13.
278 The Thought of Norea 28:24-29:5.
279 See the introduction to this tractate by Birger A. Pearson in The Nag Hammadi Library in English and Pearson
of redemption.
281 This tractate was probably written in Egypt and the important mother goddess cults with their influential
priestesses in Egypt and the Middle East may have exerted influence on the character Norea. For introductions to
these goddess cults see King (1997), Women and Goddess Traditions, and Merkelbach (1995), Isis Regina, Zeus Sarapis.
282 See Pagels (1979), pp. 48-69.
44
subordination of women to men in proto-orthodox Christian society was mainly a reaction to
the relative freedom women enjoyed in the gnostic societies283. Although (at least the
reputation of) relative freedom allowed to the gnostic women may have been one of the
reasons for the enmity, it is incorrect to consider all the gnostic sects alike. Sethian gnosticism
may have been one of the more ‘feminist’ sects that had female preachers, prophets and
deacons and sometimes even utters criticism towards the subordination of women to men284,
but the Valentinian gnostics, for instance, preferred androgynous mythological characters
where the Sethians often postulate females285. Additionally, Sethian cosmology is in essence
still a patriarchal cosmology. The highest original principle of the Sethian divine triad is called
Father and has thence obvious male connotations. The creation of the evil universe is caused
by the unlawful action of Sophia, a specifically female character. Although the Sethian texts
certainly show a tendency to a sort of feminism avant la lettre and may have allowed women
in higher positions on the social ladder than other gnostic movements, one should not expect
a complete absence of discrimination. Furthermore, attributing a more favourable position to
women in myth may indicate, but does not necessarily prove, the same position was assigned
to the female Sethian elect in reality. As such, all the evidence is merely deduction from
religious literary writings and more extensive research should be done before this assertion
could be stated with reasonable certainty.
283 Which would be the reason for the proto-orthodox position. See, for instance, Tertullianus, De Praescriptione
ignorant evil creator in The Hypostasis of the Archons 90:19-33, see King (2003), p. 161, for the main part of this
argument.
285 See next chapter.
45
6. Eve in Valentinian gnosticism
In this chapter, I will examine the interpretation of the character Eve made by the gnostic
Valentinian ‘school’. The term ‘school’ will be used merely as a denomination of the
successive authors and thinkers who are called Valentinians after Valentinus, a mid-second
century philosopher and theologian286. Valentinus was either a progressive reformer within
Christianity who started to appropriate non-proto-orthodox Christian gnostic myths and
ideas287, or a theologian who was not a gnostic but sought to combine proto-orthodox
Christianity with orientalising philosophy and is as such closer to Philo or Clemens
Alexandrinus than to the gnostics288. Whichever may have been the case, his disciples were
innovative thinkers who expanded on his teaching. Under their guidance, Valentinian thought
certainly drifted away from proto-orthodox Christianity and became a separate Christian
faction with progressively stronger gnostic tendencies289. During the development of
Valentinian thought, the Valentinians did not always agree with each other and a separation
into Western (founded by Ptolemaios and Herakleon) and Eastern (founded by Theodotos
and Markos Gnostikos) subfactions within Valentinianism seems to have occurred at a
certain point290. Although there is still much discussion about several writings, scholars have
mostly reached a consensus on a specific set of works as Valentinian, based on unity of
thought and practice and their genealogical dependence on Valentinus291. The works on
which most of them agree are: The Gospel of Truth (probably by Valentinus), The Prayer of the
Apostle Paul, The Treatise on the Resurrection, The Tripartite Tractate, The Gospel of Philip, The
Interpretation of Knowledge, A Valentinian Exposition (all anonymous), Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora
(probably by Ptolemaios), Summer Harvest (by Valentinus) and several fragments of
Valentinus’ lost works292. Another important source is the Excerpta ex Theodoto recorded by
Clemens Alexandrinus. Only these writings will be considered as the sources for Valentinian
gnosticism here.
In the corpus of Valentinian writings as defined above, there are two accounts of Valentinian
cosmogony, which differ in several ways and are as such good illustrations of the diversity
within Valentinian thought, which was not even necessarily bound to the mentioned
subfactions293. The Tripartite Tractate is apparently a writing of the Western faction294 and A
Exposition 27:30-37
290 See for instance the introduction by Elaine H. Pagels to A Valentinian Exposition in The Nag Hammadi Library in
English.
291 See King (2003), pp. 154-156 speaking of Layton, Desjardins, Koschorke, Tardieu, Van Unnik and Thomassen.
292 Desjardins adds The First Apocalypse of James, The Second Apocalypse of James and The Letter of Peter to Philip, Koschorke
The First Apocalypse of James and The Testimony of Truth, Tardieu The Apocryphon of James and The Testimony of Truth and
Thomassen adds The First Apocalypse of James, Eugnostos the Blessed and possibly Authentic Teaching and The Exegesis on the
Soul.
293 See the introductions by Harold W. Attridge and Elaine H. Pagels to The Tripartite Tractate and by Elaine H. Pagels
46
Valentinian Exposition of the Eastern. Among other things, they differ in opinion on the unity
of the highest god and the cause of the rupture in the divine world. The cosmologies of both
tractates will be treated simultaneously below to give an account of at least two versions of
Valentinian cosmology in its diverse appearances. These accounts are by no means complete
representatives of Valentinian thought, but act as examples of the diversity of thought within
the subfactions inside the Valentinian ‘school’295. As Valentinian cosmology shares many
elements with the Sethian account as treated above296, only the differences will be treated
extensively in the context of the creation story and only different terms and names will be
annotated. In the footnotes, comparisons are drawn between these accounts and the accounts
of Eirenaios of Lyons, Tertullianus, Clemens Alexandrinus (on Theodotos) and Epiphanios
of Salamis of different Valentinians.
Both tractates agree that everything began with the Father, who is completely unique and
unbegotten and who is also called Monad, Root of the All and the ineffable one. From this
point, however, they disagree. A Valentinian Exposition297 postulates that the Father reposes in
a state of silence298 and manifests himself through his Thought, called the Son, Mind299 of the
All, Father of the All and Μονογενής 300, who dwells with him in silence. The Son, the active
principle and manifestation of the godhead, becomes the ‘projector of the All’ and the
‘hypostasis of the Father’ and creates the first Dyad301 (Mind (himself) and probably Truth302)
and the first Tetrad303 (Father, Silence, Mind and probably Truth)304. The principle of the
universe as presented in this writing is duplicity: everything must be in pairs, in ‘syzygy’305,
which is the will of the Father306. The Father then creates ὅρος307 to set the boundaries of the
πλήρωµα and separate it from βυθός308. He then reveals himself through the Son309, the high-
priest of the Holy of Holies310, who presents the praise of the αἰῶνες to the Father. This first
Tetrad projects a second Tetrad, consisting of Word, Life, Man and Church311. From Word
and Life spring ten αἰῶνες and from Man and Church twelve, which completes the πλήρωµα
at thirty αἰῶνες312.
295 As commentaries I have used Hedrick (1990), Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII, pp. 89-105 and 153-172, for A
Valentinian Exposition and Attridge (1985), Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex) Vol. I, pp. 159-190, and Vol. II, pp.
217-497 for The Tripartite Tractate.
296 See chapter 5.1.1.
297 A Valentinian Exposition 22:1-26:22 and 29:25-30:38.
298 The Greek probably had σιγή.
299 The Greek probably had νοῦς.
300 The Greek monogenes means ‘only-begotten’ or ‘unique’.
301 δυάς or ‘pair’.
302 The Greek probably had ὰλήθεια.
303 τετρακτύς or ‘foursome’.
304 See Hedrick, pp. 154-156 for a discussion of the Son’s partner in the Dyad.
305 From the Greek συζυγία ‘conjunction’ or ‘union’, the participant whereof are called σύζυγος, which means
‘consort’ or ‘comrade’.
306 A Valentinian Exposition 36:28-31.
307 The Greek horos means ‘limit’ or ‘border’
308 The Greek buthos means ‘depth’
309 Who, according to On Baptism A 40:30-34, is to be equated with Christ.
310 The πλήρωµα.
311 λόγος, probably ζωή, probably ἄνθρωπος and ἐκκλησία in their respective syzygies.
312 The accounts of the exact compositions of the members of the initial trinity and formation of the Tetrads,
Ogdoad and Triacontad may vary, but the creation accounts of the Valentinian πλήρωµα, as provided by the
polemicists, agree with this version, see, for instance, , and Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.33.1.3-7, on Ptolemaeus,
47
In The Tripartite Tractate313, however, the Father creates ‘a first-born and only son’314, who
‘exists from the beginning’, and their love produces the Church, which also ‘existed from the
beginning’ and is equated with either the whole πλήρωµα or the highest level of αἰῶνες. The
principle of the universe as presented in this writing is triplicity: the world is ordered in triads.
The Father then produces all the αἰῶνες, which had already existed potentially in his mind as
his thoughts (‘as seeds’), into actual existence by having them recognise him as the Father.
The Father, however, withholds perfection from them315, but reveals to them through the
Son ‘the perfect idea of beneficence’, the knowledge that the Father granted them existence.
By giving glory to the Father these αἰῶνες emanate other αἰῶνες, which produce a third level
of αἰῶνες independently. All these αἰῶνες, which are constantly searching for perfection (the
Father), are not independent beings nor specific in number, but are actually all ‘properties and
powers of the Father’316.
The two Valentinian writings also reinterpret the story about Sophia’s fall, the cause of
the creation of the material universe317, in an imaginative and innovative manner. A
Valentinian Exposition318 retains the character of Sophia, who is presented here as the thirtieth
and lowest αἰών of the πλήρωµα. She tries to ‘leave the Thirtieth’ and ‘surpass the
Triacontad’ (leave her proper place) in order to either behold or imitate ‘the Uncontainable
One’ (probably the Father)319. By this act of ὕβρις, she falls from the πλήρωµα and out of
syzygy in violation of the will of the Father, but she creates Christ who, being a perfect
creature, immediately ascends into the πλήρωµα. This Christ, however, feels sorry for his
mother, who is suffering from her passions, and the αἰῶνες request him to heal her, since he
is the only one who can correct her deficiency. But ὅρος (the bonds of his syzygy) detains
him and he can only descend to bring Sophia γνῶσις by willing himself in bodily form as
Jesus. Sophia now repents and becomes aware of the passions she suffers in her isolation and
Jesus separates her passions from her, in the same manner as ὅρος had separated the
πλήρωµα from βυθός. Sophia had conceived seeds by herself which were ‘incomplete and
formless’, because they were female and lacked the male component, since they had been
conceived out of syzygy. Jesus and Sophia then create the demiurge in imitation of the
πλήρωµα, as ‘a shadow of pre-existing things’, who sorted Sophia’s passions into the
pneumatic and sarkic. Πρόνοια320 causes the demiurge to construct the material world as a
dwelling place for the psychic321 seed, in which he brings them to believe in Jesus. Jesus then
Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.11.1, and Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.31.2.6 and I.31.5.3-6.1 on Valentinus,
Tertullianus, Adverus Valentinianos VII.3-VIII.2 on a similar account, Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.11.3 and I.11.5, on
unnamed Valentinians, I.12.1 on followers of Ptolemaios, I.16.1 on Markos Gnostikos, Clemens Alexandrinus,
Excerpta ex Theodoto 7.1-3 and 29 on Theodotos.
313 The Tripartite Tractate 51:1-74:18.
314 The Greek probably had πρωτότοκος and µονογενής.
315 As the transcendent world is a soteriological model for the material world, perfection for the αἰῶνες will come
always became part of the system of Tetrads and was of a limited number (thirty). The Father, the Son and the
Church are usually a part of these systems, but they are not found in this composition as a trinity.
317 In contrast to the Sethian myth recounted in chapter 5.1.1.
318 A Valentinian Exposition 26:22-27:37 and 31:34-37:31.
319 For a discussion of Sophia’s reasons for her transgression, see Hedrick, pp. 101-103 and 161-163. If her objective
is to behold the Father whose true form is disguised from her sight, this may be reminiscent of Semele wanting to
see her lover Zeus in full glory in the Greek myth of the birth of Dionusos, see Campbell (1964), Occidental Mythology,
pp. 26.
320 The Greek pronoia means ‘forethought’ or ‘foresight’.
321 The Greek probably had πνευµατικός, ‘spiritual’ or ‘of the spirit’, σαρκικός ‘carnal’ or ‘of the flesh’ and ψυχικός,
48
creates the ἄρχοντες and they all enter the material world, which is to serve as a ‘school …
for doctrine and form’.
In contrast to this, The Tripartite Tractate322 does not mention Sophia, but the last of the
third level αἰῶνες, which wishes to ‘grasp the incomprehensibility’ of the Father and give
glory to it, is called Λόγος. All in conformity with the will of the Father, this Λόγος, having
received wisdom323, acting freely and intending good, ‘acted magnanimously, from an
abundant love’, but was not able to complete this perfect action. The πλήρωµα then
withdrew and ὅρος was established between them and Λόγος, so the lower world could
become ‘an organization which has been destined to come about’. Just as Sophia in A
Valentinian Exposition had done, Λόγος likewise produces a perfect creature, the masculine
part of himself, which ascends into the πλήρωµα, and the lower Λόγος becomes weak,
having merely his feminine component left. He then creates lesser, hylic324 things, ‘likenesses,
copies, shadows and phantasms’. After realising the imperfection of this creation, the lower
Λόγος actively converts himself to good things. He now prays to the πλήρωµα and his
prayers become good, psychic powers, which start to fight against the lower, hylic world.
Subsequently, the lower Λόγος separates himself from the hylic things and the heavenly Λόγος
intercedes on behalf of the world below. In response, the αἰῶνες create the (lower) Son, also
called the Saviour and the Christ, who is a manifestation of the heavenly Son325. The Saviour
instructs the lower Λόγος who acquires the ability to cast off disobedient hylic things, which in
turn become the material for the universe. The lower Λόγος, now illumined by γνῶσις,
creates his own (lower) πλήρωµα called the (lower) Church, which is below the heavenly
πλήρωµα but above the material world of his offspring. The Λόγος then begins to order the
third realm, the material world, and the beings within it into psychic and hylic beings. He creates
the ἄρχοντες to rule this world including the chief ἄρχων, who is called ‘demiurge’ and
‘father’ among other things. This ἄρχων acts as the active principle of the Logos and, though
the ἄρχοντες are ignorant of everything above, they are never described in a negative
manner326.
Although these accounts differ in many ways, the story of the creation of man and the
manner of redemption presented in both writings are very similar again and indicate that
these two writings do belong to two – rather distinct – branches of the same movement. In
and stressed Sophia’s ὕβρις, but shared the idea of the αἰῶνες not being allowed to know the Father and their
subsequent desire producing the ὕβρις with The Tripartite Tractate. He also states that Ptolemaios taught that Christ
was not Achamoth’s (another name for the lower Sophia) son but sent by the αἰῶνες in communion to bring her
γνῶσις and later sends Jesus and his angels, in whose image Achamoth produces the demiurge. See Eirenaios,
Adversus Haereses I.2.1-6 and 4.1-5, this is apparently also the version Tertullianus criticized, see Tertullianus, Adverus
Valentinianos IX.1-X.5, XII.4, XIV.1-2 and XVI.1-XVII.2. According to Clemens Alexandrinus, however, Theodotos
taught that Christ was Sophia’s first perfect child who ascended into the πλήρωµα, but returned by the wish of the
αἰῶνες in communion, Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 23.1-2 and 30.2-31.1.
326 The accounts of the polemicists agree on the demiurge being the offspring of or created by the lower Sophia also
called Achamoth and his creating the material universe from the passions Christ had separated from her. The
material universe, which is a reflection of the πλήρωµα, exists of seven heavens and the lower Sophia inhabits the
eighth. See Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.11.1, and Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.31.4.1-5, on Valentinus,
Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.17.1-2 on the Marcosians and Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 32.2-33.4,
45.1-3, 47.2 and 48.1, on Theodotos. Some also attribute the creation of the devil, the active ruler of the material
world, to the demiurge, although the accounts of his malice vary, see, for instance, Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.5.1-
6, on Ptolemaios, and Tertullianus, Adverus Valentinianos XVIII.2, XX.1-2 and XII.2.
49
A Valentinian Exposition327, the demiurge creates man from Sophia’s passions as a dwelling
place for the seeds. The devil, probably the active ruler of the material universe328, ‘expels his
root’ into Adam’s body. Therefore, Adam’s sons Abel and Cain angered and killed one
another, because the demiurge had breathed his spirit into them. This causes a struggle
between the ἄρχοντες and humanity, which can be seen as a struggle between the σαρκίον
and the πνεῦµα329. Therefore, in order to rejoin the male and female components back into
syzygy, the pneumatic ἄρχοντες lusted after the psychic daughters of men. Sophia, Jesus, the
seeds and the angels are now back in syzygy and the All is in a state of unity and
reconciliation again. At judgment day, this same redemption of reuniting will be granted to
‘the angels of the males’ and ‘the seminal ones of the females’, those in touch with the
pneumatic and psychic parts of the soul330.
In The Tripartite Tractate331, the ἄρχοντες create mankind, but they were invisibly moved by
Λόγος. Mankind is constructed with a composite soul, consisting of hylic parts from the
powers of the left, a psychic part from the demiurge and the powers of the right and a pneumatic
part from the Λόγος, which it acquires through the demiurge who is ignorant of this332. This
mixed human (Adam) is placed in paradise where the ἄρχοντες tell him that he may not eat
of the trees of life (πνεῦµα) or knowledge (ψυχή) but only of the material trees (ὕλη). The evil
serpent leads him astray by appealing to his psychic and hylic parts and man subsequently
transgressed the command and ate from the tree of knowledge. Because of this Adam died,
which means that he and his offspring became subject to the psychic and hylic levels of being.
This means he became unable to attain γνῶσις and achieve redemption due to this ignorance.
Through his expulsion from paradise, however, man is being denied the hylic and psychic
enjoyments and can only participate in their evils333. No intermediate level of enjoyment now
prevents his participation in the greater enjoyment, the return to the pneumatic state by
attaining γνῶσις. Everything that happened to humanity happened according to the will of
the Father334.
21.1-3.
331 The Tripartite Tractate 104:4-108:12.
332 The accounts of the polemicists agree with the importance of the tripartition of the human soul propounded in
The Tripartite Tractate, which is neither denied nor explicitly emphasized in A Valentinian Exposition, see Eirenaios,
Adversus Haereses I.5.1-6, on Ptolemaios, Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 2.1-2 and 50.1-53.4, on
Theodotos and Tertullianus, Adverus Valentinianos XXIV.2-XXV.3.
333 See Hedrick, pp. 413-417 for the interpretation of this fragmentary and cryptic section.
334 The accounts of the polemicists agree on the different fates of the different kinds of humans and on the notion
that the psychic or animal ordinary Christians have the will to choose and may be saved by the instruction of the
pneumatic Valentinians, see Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.6.1, on Ptolemaios, Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex
Theodoto 26.2-3 and 56.3-57, on Theodotos and Tertullianus, Adverus Valentinianos XXVI.1-2. The marriage metaphor
of the bridal chamber is also used often, although there are differences of opinion on whether the marriage is
between the pneumatic and the psychic souls to get back into syzygy (Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 17.1,
21.1-3 and 34.2-35.1, on Theodotos), between the psychics and the angels for correction while the pneumatics have no
need for this and are saved directly (Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.31.7.8.11, on Valentinus), or between the
pneumatics and the angels while the psychics have to place in the πλήρωµα (Eirenaios, Adversus Haereses I.7.1 and I.7.5,
on Ptolemaios).
50
One difference between Sethian and Valentinian thought is eminent when studying the
Valentinian creation myth and comparing it to the Sethian one: the Valentinians do not
consider the material universe to be evil335. The differences between these movements,
clearly explained by King (2003)336, can, for instance, be found in the actions of the
Valentinian godhead, who actively tries to remedy the deficiency of the material world. Either
the Father plans the fall of the Λόγος and thus the creation of the demiurge and the material
world337, or Christ creates the demiurge and the pneumatic, male angels in order to bring
Sophia’s imperfect, psychic, female seeds (humanity) back into perfect androgyny (syzygy)338.
As such, the demiurge or ἄρχων is not the evil lower god he is in Sethian gnosticism, but
merely ignorant of the world above him339. In this world, created by an ignorant creator, it is
no wonder that humanity is pictured in a state of ignorance and error as well. The saviour,
who in Valentinianism is always portrayed as Jesus Christ, the (lower) Son, descends to
overcome the ‘evil’ of the material universe, which is merely a deficiency in its creation. By
revealing to humanity the true γνῶσις, Christ ends ignorance and thus abolishes the evil that
subjects it340.
Another sharp contrast between Valentinian and Sethian gnosticism is the Valentinian
communal spirit. As the Sethian elect seemed to tend to asceticism and general renunciation
of the material world, the Valentinians feel the need to embrace the world and reach out to
others to help them in their suffering341. Whether the saviour has descended from the
πλήρωµα in bodily form and actually suffered during his passion or not342, he came as a
revealer of γνῶσις and the Valentinian gnostic must spread this message343. The Valentinians
are also less elitist than the Sethians, because they suppose that of the three classes of souls
between which they distinguish, the hylic, psychic and pneumatic souls, two categories will be
saved: the pneumatic and the psychic. The three parts of the soul are described as three
potentialities, of which merely one is actualised according to its reaction to the coming of the
saviour’s revelation of γνῶσις344. The pneumatics are the elect, the Valentinian gnostics
themselves, who have received γνῶσις, have been redeemed directly, and assist in the
redemption of the others. The psychics, however, who are also called ‘the calling’, are the
ordinary Christians who believe in Christ, but have not yet been redeemed by the revealing
γνῶσις 345. They too will be saved in the end, but they will have to wait for the ‘union of the
bridal chamber’, when they will join the elect346. According to some Valentinians, however,
the redemption of the psychics was not an automatic and irreversible response to the revelation
of the saviour or the teachings of the pneumatics, but this merely gave them the possibility to
335 For Sethian ethics and practice, see above in chapter 5.1.2.
336 See King (2003), pp. 159-162.
337 As in The Tripartite Tractate 76:23-27 and 86:15-23.
338 As in A Valentinian Exposition 35:10-30, 36:20-24 and 38:34-39:16.
339 See for instance The Tripartite Tractate 105:29-35 or Ptolemaios, Epistula ad Floram 33.7.3-5.
340 For instance The Gospel of Truth 18:7-11 and 24:20-32.
341 See Pagels (1980), Gnostic and Orthodox Views of Christ’s Passion, pp. 262-264 and 275-283 and Attridge
5:30-33 and 10:27-30,The Treatise on the Resurrection 44:21-35 and The Tripartite Tractate 113:38 and 114:33-115:11, but
the Eastern faction that he did not, see Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 1.1-2, 26.1 and 42.1-3.
343 See for instance The Gospel of Truth 32:31-33:8.
344 For instance The Tripartite Tractate 106:18-31, 118:14-17 and 118:21-28.
345 They are the ‘angels of the males’, ἡ ἐκλογή, and ‘the seminal ones of the females’, ἡ κλῆσις, respectively.
346 See for instance The Tripartite Tractate 123:16-22 and 132:16-28 or Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 58.1,
63.1-2.
51
choose and pursue salvation347. Valentinians who believed this must have been even more
inclined to teaching in order to save as many psychics as possible.
Just as we know very little of Sethian cultic practice, Valentinian liturgical rites and other
ritual practices remain for the most part a mystery to us. The Gospel of Philip is the Valentinian
writing which provides the most information, even though it is very reluctant to go into
details348. We are told that Christ practiced five mysteries: baptism, chrism, eucharist,
redemption and bridal chamber349, which were probably the mysteries pertaining to the five
steps of initiation. The baptism was probably a literal water baptism which involved total
immersion in flowing water – as opposed to a mere sprinkling – and included the litany of
calling oneself a Christian350. How the baptism precisely worked and who performed it
remains unclear, but it appears that the person who was baptised was supposed to be naked
in order to be able to ‘put on the living man’351. In The Gospel of Truth, water is equated with
something hylic, whereas the chrism is the ritual which makes one a true psychic Christian352.
Both rituals are considered true rebirths and every Valentinian trying to attain γνῶσις
probably had to experience each of them only once in the initiation process353. The further
references in the writings indicate that the ointment used was warm, perfumed and fragrant
olive oil and that a sign of the cross may have played a part in the ceremony354. The third
mystery is the ritual of the eucharist, which appears familiar and similar to the Catholic
Eucharist, and was probably a repeated ceremony. The text speaks of a priest who
consecrates bread, which is said to be from heaven, and a cup, which is said to contain wine
mixed with water. The consecrated food is presented as food suitable to an initiate as ‘the
flesh and blood of Jesus’355. The fourth mystery, called redemption356, remains a mysterious
ritual. We find no details in the Valentinian writings and, though Eric Segelberg has found
possible clues for a connection to the ritual of εὐχέλαιον or ‘anointing of the sick’ in the
manner it is still practiced today in the Eastern Orthodox Church357, there is little proof of
this. The mystery of the bridal chamber is the final initiation ceremony and the ultimate
attainment of γνῶσις. As the last threshold before becoming perfect, there are numerous
references to this mystery in many Valentinian texts. We do not know the details about the
ceremony itself, but it was probably a mystery experienced only once in the initiation process
and might have had something to do with a kiss358. The Tripartite Tractate describes it as the
final baptism and redemption, the Excerpta ex Theodoto as the place where the pneumatic and the
psychic are reunited and A Valentinian Exposition probably regards it as the final reunion of the
male and female components of Sophia’s seed into syzygy359. The Gospel of Philip is, however,
very clear about what the ritual does not consist of: it does not concern itself with human
sexuality or the physical consummation of marriage. Physical sexuality defiles human beings
52
and the bridal chamber must be viewed as a spiritual marriage and a returning to a state of
balance360. The spiritual marriage is pure and actually frees humans from the attacks of evil
spirits who wish to defile them361.
Valentinian thought and practice were obviously very different from those of the Sethians.
But who were these Valentinians? Moreover, where did they come from?
Just as we had to conclude we know very little about the actual Sethians and their way of life
and could merely deduce some clues from their mysterious religious writings, we also know
very little about the Valentinian way of life. The Valentinian view of Christianity362 supposed
themselves to be the pneumatic elect who had been initiated into the deeper mysteries and
were to act as teachers to the other psychic Christians – those who had γνῶσις versus those
who believed. This indicates there was, at least in the early centuries, no clear distinction
between Valentinianism and Christianity363. Valentinians saw themselves as the spiritual elite
within the Christian church community and called themselves, as well as the psychic, ordinary
Christians, ‘Christian’364. The denomination ‘Valentinian’ is not found in their own writings
and seems to be a term invented by the polemicists to define them as distinct from proto-
orthodox Christians. Assisting others in their suffering is naturally something easiest
achieved, when one is living near to the others and as such it is probable that the Valentinians
did not live in separate communities but were very much a part of the larger Christian
ἐκκλησία or church community. They may very well have been among the intellectuals of the
Christian community and exerted influence on the development of Christian thought. At
some point, however, this began to change and proto-orthodox Christians started to object to
the Valentinians’ presence and teaching365. This rejection of the Valentinians was a gradual
process and during the course of the fourth century CE they came to be regarded as heretics
in general366. It is possible this was a response generated as a reaction to the Valentinians’
elitist attitude of ‘knowing better’ or perhaps to their speculative attitude to the teachings of
Jesus and the development of Christian theology, but we have no proof to corroborate this.
Having stated all we know about the relationships between Valentinians and proto-
orthodox Christians, perhaps a few words about the relations among the Valentinians are
appropriate. As most information we have is from the Valentinian mystic texts, we can hardly
say anything about the auditores, but may make some comments on the elect. As noted in the
introduction to this chapter, the Valentinian elect theologians were often innovative thinkers
and hardly ever agreed with each other367, which is hardly surprising for people presenting
themselves as intellectuals in continuous development of theological and philosophical
thought. We can discern at least two branches of thought within Valentinian gnosticism, a
360 See The Gospel of Philip 55:25-29, 81:34-82:20, 74:13-16 and 74:18-21.
361 See The Gospel of Philip 65:1-23.
362 As stated above in chapter 6.1.2.
363 This paragraph is mainly based on Layton (1987), pp. 267-274 and Roukema, p. 168-169.
364 See for instance The Gospel of Philip 64:22-24.
365 For instance Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.prologue.2 around 200 CE.
366 For instance, we find Valentinians in a list of heretics forbidding them to organize meetings published by the
emperor Constantinus in 326 CE and know of the destruction of a Valentinian chapel in Callinicum in 388 CE.
367 This paragraph is mainly based on Hedrick, pp. 95-105, and Layton, pp. 267.
53
Western and an Eastern branch. The Eastern branch seems to have been more conservative
and the Western one to have developed a more rigorously progressive line of thought. They
disagreed on a number of subjects, such as whether or not Christ had come down into the
material world as the saviour in a material body or merely as a spiritual being368, whether the
Father was of a monadic nature or if there was an original dyad369 and whether or not
Sophia’s or Λόγος ’ fall was the result of this character wanting to comprehend the greatness
of the Father or attempting to imitate Him370.
So how did Valentinian thought develop? We may not be able to say much about the
Valentinians themselves, but we can comment on the religious and cultural elements which
have influenced their thought and are found in their writings. Like the Sethians, the
Valentinians are clearly dependent on Hellenistic Jewish literature, which did not become part
of proto-orthodox Christianity371. For instance, we find comparable speculation on the
independent actions of the character of Sophia, who was already depicted as semi-dependent
of YHWH in Jewish literature, or on the Λόγος and its function as His active principle372. In
A Valentinian Exposition, we also find the notion of Cain and Abel not being the children of
Adam but of one of the ἄρχοντες, here identified with the devil373. In The Tripartite Tractate374,
we also find the association of the hylic and psychic powers as ‘the Left’ and ‘the Right Ones’. It
is plausible this distinction refers to a Jewish apocalyptic tradition where ‘the left’ is associated
with evil and ‘the right’ with the good375. The same theme is also found in the writings of
other gnostic sects and the New Testament376. However, Jewish thought and tradition seem
to have exerted a much smaller direct influence on Valentinian than on Sethian thought. It is
very well possible that the similarities arise from an indirect influence of Jewish sources, due
to the Valentinian tendency to appropriate non-proto-orthodox Christian gnostic thought
into their own.
The general influence of Hellenistic philosophy is also much the same as on Sethian
gnosticism and has already been treated extensively in chapter 5.2.2377. We find the same
duality between a ‘sense-perceptible’ universe of the αἰῶνες and its copy, the ‘intelligible’
material universe, and the same figure of the immovable mover in the Father378. The
tripartition of humanity based on the ruling components of their soul, in which Valentinian
and Sethian thoughts differ, is also a Platonic idea379. On a more detailed level, the influences
368 See The Gospel of Truth 18:24, The Interpretation of Knowledge 5:30-33 and 10:27-30,The Treatise on the Resurrection 44:21-
35 and The Tripartite Tractate 113:38 and 114:33-115:11, for the views of the Western faction , see Clemens
Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 1.1-2, 26.1 and 42.1-3, for those of the Eastern faction.
369 Compare A Valentinian Exposition 22:18-27 with The Tripartite Tractate 51:1-11.
370 Compare A Valentinian Exposition 31:34-37 and 36:28-31 with The Tripartite Tractate 75:15-22.
371 See Pearson (1981), Turner, pp. 55-59, pp. 478-500, Sterling, pp. 131-153 and Drummond, pp. 131-166 (See also
Pearson (1981), pp. 478-500and Drummond, pp. 131-166 (See also chapters 4.3 and 5.2.2).
373 See A Valentinian Exposition 38:13-27. Compare, for instance, Vita Adae et Evae 10:1-2, 21:3 and 23:1, 1 Enoch
85:3-9, see Klijn (1977), Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature, pp. 1-28 for interpretations of the character Seth
in Jewish literature during the first millennium BCE ( See also chapter 5.2.2).
374 See The Tripartite Tractate 98:12-20 and 105:29-106:5 and Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 47.2.
375 See Fallon, pp. 62-67. Compare for instance The Testament of Abraham 12:3-18, The Apocalypse of Abraham 21:7-22:5
54
of and interactions between the philosophical schools of the early Christian era and
Valentinian gnosticism are naturally very different from those with Sethian gnosticism, but
considering the objective of this thesis it would be too much of an digression to investigate
this much further. However, in order not to do injustice to Valentinian thought, we must
acknowledge that the Valentinians did not just blindly copy the philosophical systems, but
have made some original adaptations. Instead of differentiating between two universes, The
Tripartite Tractate describes three: beneath the immaterial πλήρωµα exists the lower πλήρωµα
of the Λόγος called ἐκκλησία, in which copies of the creatures of the higher πλήρωµα are
generated380 and from which the material universe underneath it is created381. This same
writing, however, retains the Platonic duality by postulating duplicates of the same characters
in the heavenly and the middle universe. We read, for instance, about the heavenly Church
and the lower Church382 and about the Λόγος dividing itself into a heavenly and lowly part
when he leaves the πλήρωµα383. Finally, A Valentinian Exposition seems to question the unity
of the Father by making him part of a syzygy384.
The Valentinians also derived their doctrine of guardian angels from Platonic sources385.
Already in Plato, we find the notion of a guardian angel, a higher spiritual power guiding
Socrates in important decisions386. This guardian angel, or δαίµων, is actually the immortal,
heavenly part of oneself which the lower, mortal part, or εἴδωλον, perceives as a guardian
angel, but who is actually one’s heavenly double or twin. This δαίµων is given to us by god
for guidance, but is in itself also a part of god and thus the divine, perfect part of ourselves387.
This means that to know (the divine part of) oneself is to know god. According to Freke and
Gandy (1999), this concept had become an important part of the pagan mystery religions. In
Valentinian theology, the εἴδωλον and the δαίµων became the psychic and the pneumatic parts
of the human soul respectively, which were separated and needed to be reunited through the
attainmant of γνῶσις, the realisation of one’s connection to the true god. When one has
achieved this unification and perfection, one becomes one’s angel and truly is a Christ388. The
saviour, Jesus Christ, functions as the revealer to the dead human beings (i.e. those subjected
to the hylic and psychic components of their souls) of the γνῶσις which they need to be able to
reunite with their pneumatic δαίµων389. This reunion then makes human beings bisexual or
consubstantial by the rejoining of their male πνεῦµα and their female ψυχή 390. The πνεῦµα
and ψυχή are symbolically presented as bridegroom and bride and the reunion happens, as we
have seen, in a bridal chamber391. This wedding symbolism may also provide a clue for a
connection with the pagan mystery cults, since the initation ceremonies of the Orphic
mysteries also seem to have applied it392. The sources mention the use of a bridal chamber or
55
Νυµφών and those about to be initiated were called the brides of Dionusos393. The Platonic
concept of reuniting the εἴδωλον and the δαίµων has also influenced the thought of other
gnostics394.
Independent of whether or not Valentinus himself was a gnostic395, neither Markschies
nor Quispel denies that he was a Christian. It is unclear how the ‘Valentinian school’ actually
came into existence, since, as Markschies points out, there is hardly any evidence to postulate
continuity in contact between Valentinus and his ‘school’ in terms of teacher-student
relationships396. However, whether or not genealogically a school, the Valentinians share a
common theological tendency in which they distinctly characterise themselves as Christians397
and the many Christian elements in Valentinian thought and practice provide strong clues
that Valentinian gnosticism was much more Christian in nature than Sethian gnosticism – and
possibly a genuinely Christian gnostic movement. Of course, the most obvious element is of
course the Valentinian preoccupation with Jesus Christ as the saviour and revealer of γνῶσις,
although not necessarily defining his nature in a proto-orthodox Christian way, as noted
above398. In The Gospel of Philip, for instance, there are also many references to Christian
stories about Jesus’ life and the people around him, or stories very similar to those399. We
read about Jesus appearing to his disciples as larger than life while uttering a revelation on a
mountain, his three female companions called Mary and his preference for Mary
Magdalene400. We also encounter combinations of words, which sound very familiarly
Christian, such as the denomination of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit401 or the idea of
the resurrection for all Christians. The Valentinians, however, did not teach the resurrection
of the body but merely of the soul and not in an afterlife but directly at the attainment of
γνῶσις 402. Even the self-definitions of the Valentinians as pneumatic and ‘perfect’ echo
Christian literature403, although we cannot prove whether proto-orthodox Christianity
influenced Valentinianism, if it was exactly the opposite of that, or if it was a simultaneous
development.
There appears to have been an interesting connection between the Valentinians and the
Gospel of John404. Eirenaios of Lyons states that the Valentinians preferred this gospel,
probably as it was most suitable to support their own theological views405. We know of three
different Valentinian interpretations of the introduction to this gospel, two of which use the
Johannine idea of God’s creation of the world through the λόγος406, his active principle.
Theodotos and Ptolemaios (according to Eirenaios of Lyons) taught that the πλήρωµα had
393 For instance Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio II.11.3 and Firmicus Maternus, De Errore Profanorum Religionum 19.1 on a
Mithraic greeting to the initiated.
394 Compare for instance The Teachings of Silvanus 92:10-93:24 and Hippolutos of Rome, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium
VI.9.4-5.
395 See the introduction to this chapter.
396 See Markschies, pp. 392-402.
397 For instance The Gospel of Philip 74:12-14 or The Gospel of Truth 18:11-18
398 In chapters 6.1.2 and 6.2.1.
399 See for instance the introduction by Wesley W. Isenberg to The Gospel of Philip in The Nag Hammadi Library in
English.
400 See The Gospel of Philip 57:28-58:10, 59:6-11 and 63:32-36 respectively.
401 See for instance The Tripartite Tractate 127:30-32.
402 For instance, The Treatise on the Resurrection 45:39-46:2 and 47:31:48-3, which may be dependent on I Corinthians
15:35-44. See the introduction by Malcolm L. Peel to The Treatise on the Resurrection in The Nag Hammadi Library in
English and in Layton (1987), pp. 316-317.
403 πνευµατικοί cf. I Corinthians 2:15 and τέλειοι cf. Gospel of Matthew 19:21. See Layton (1987), pp. 267.
404 This paragraph is based on Pagels (1973), The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, pp. 23-35. See MacRae (1986),
Gnosticism and the Church of John’s Gospel, for possible gnostic influences on the Gospel of John.
405 See, for instance, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses III.11.1-2.
406 Gospel of John 1:1-4.
56
been created through the λόγος, who in turn had been created by the Son, who was also
called ὰρχή and Μονογενής and who was an emanation from the Father407. Theodotos,
however, also said that the third verse πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
οὐδὲ ἕν does not allude to the λόγος, but to the saviour bringing γνῶσις to Sophia who is in
the κένωµα outside the πλήρωµα. Through his revelation Sophia and all her passions ‘come
into existence’ after her repentance and this verse refers to the formation of Sophia’s passions
into material bodies408. The third interpretation is found in Herakleon’s work (according to
Origenes) and Ptolemaios’ Letter to Flora, where – in contrast to Eirenaios’ statements about
Ptolemaios mentioned above – they refer to this verse as pertaining to the saviour who is the
λόγος in the story of the creation of the material universe409. These different interpretations
are probably the products of the theological debate between the two Valentinian ‘schools’
and possibly some Valentinians who did not belong to either ‘school’. It is plausible that the
account of the creation of the world through the λόγος in The Tripartite Tractate410 is based on
this same passage. The casual mentioning of the λόγος being endowed with wisdom
(Σοφία)411 and thus connecting or maybe equating these characters, may point towards an
attempt to reconcile the proto-Christian and Valentinian creation accounts.
But where is Eve? Although this thesis is about Eve, she has not even been mentioned at all
in this chapter. She was not a part of the Valentinian creation myth, but does that mean this
character was not important for the Valentinians? Moreover, what we can say about the
position of Valentinian women if we do not have Eve as their prototype?
As has been stated referring to A Valentinian Exposition412, at least the Eastern faction of the
Valentinians considered Cain and Abel the sons of the devil and not of Adam413. Theodotos,
however, did regard Cain and Abel as the sons of Adam, just like Seth, and, echoing the
Sethians, even added that the pneumatics were the sons of Seth414! It is not very clear what the
ideas of the Western faction were on this matter, but Herakleon was apparently of the same
opinion415. The Gospel of Philip416 merely comments on Cain being the offspring of the devil
but is silent about the paternity of Abel. All these references to Adam and to whether or not
his children were biologically his, imply the existence of sexual reproduction and the
existence of their mother Eve, but she is never mentioned by name nor described in any way.
407 See Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 6.1-4, and Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.8.5.
408 See Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 45.1-3. The Greek kenoma means ‘empty space’ or ‘vacuum’ and is
presented as the complete opposite of the πλήρωµα, where the perfect αἰῶνες exist.
409 See Origenes, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis 2.14.100 and 2.14.102-103 and Ptolemaios, Epistula ad Floram
33:3:5-6.
410 See, for instance, The Tripartite Tractate 78:13-17.
411 The Tripartite Tractate 75:27-28.
412 A Valentinian Exposition 38:13-27.
413 See above in chapter 6.1.1 and A Valentinian Exposition 37:32-39:39. This comparison is based on Stroumsa, pp.
45-46.
414 See Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 54.1-2.
415 See Origenes, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis 20.20.168-170 and 20.24.211 and 20.24.213-214.
416 The Gospel of Philip 61:3-11.
57
So what happened to this character? A consideration of the fact that the Valentinians
appropriated non-proto-orthodox Christian mythical material may shed some light on this.
The Sethians equated Eve with the Ἐπίνοια, the beneficent Spirit of the Father sent to assist
Adam in Sethian mythology, and described her as functioning as the rational and spiritual
principle in Adam417. Comparing the Valentinian creation story with the Sethian myths
mentioned above and other writings like On the Origin of the World418, it becomes clear that
many gnostic groups made this equation of Eve with the Ἐπίνοια of the Father. As such,
they equated her with Sophia herself and used this in different ways in their own creation
myths. As we have seen in The Apocryphon of John and The Hypostasis of the Archons, the Sethians
differentiated between a heavenly and a material Eve419. This heavenly Eve was depicted as a
spiritual power with the freedom to enter and leave material bodies at will. It appears the
Valentinians have interpreted this spiritual power solely as a power and obviously
appropriated this image as the pneumatic component of the human soul. This component was
either sent directly into Adam, by the Λόγος, at the creation of his material body, or rejoined
with the psychic human seeds of Sophia at their union with the pneumatic ἄρχοντες, who had
been created by Jesus exactly for this purpose420.
Eve is no longer a character of the plot of the Valentinian creation myth but presented as
a completely abstract being. The different representations between the Sethian and
Valentinian creation myths may be explained by the difference in their worldviews. Sethians
usually lingered in the past, seeking there the origin of all evil and the reasons why this evil
world was so hostile towards human beings and why they had to endure the hardships they
felt imposed upon themselves. The Valentinians, on the other hand, had a more positive
interpretation of the world in which they lived. Whereas the only way to achieve γνῶσις and
thus perfection for the Sethians was to free themselves from this world created out of evil
long ago, the Valentinians valued the current situation and taught that this life and this world
were the one time and place where γνῶσις could be attained.
On the other hand, the close ties between Valentinian gnosticism and proto-orthodox
Christianity may have played a part in this. In my view, the creation story and the story of
Eve are important motifs in proto-orthodox and later Catholic Christian theology, since the
idea of original sin would eventually be derived from it421. The Valentinian interpretation or
reinterpretation of this character of the originally Jewish creation myth, however, is
fundamentally different and may have had a negative influence on the position of the
Valentinians in proto-orthodox Christian societies. This may have been one of the reasons
for the silence the extant Valentinian sources display on the part this character played in their
version of the story of anthropogony. However, does this mean Eve was not important at all
to the Valentinians?
We have already seen that in Sethian mythology, Eve was also called Life or Ζωή. Though
perhaps reluctant to use the character Eve, some Valentinians did attribute an important role
to Ζωή 422. According to Eirenaios, Ptolemaios taught that the syzygy Λόγος and Ζωή had
created the syzygy ῎Ανθρωπος and᾿Εκκλησία, together with whom they formed the second
Tetrad. This description of the creation of the first αἰῶνες of the πλήρωµα is an idea we have
58
also found in A Valentinian Exposition423. Theodotos also calls Λόγος and Ζωή a syzygy and
equates them as such, since a syzygy is a perfect unity and functions as a single entity424. A
possible conclusion would be that the saviour who came down into the material world in
order to reveal γνῶσις to humanity is in fact Ζωή and that Christ the Λόγος should be
equated with Eve. This would mean that in comparison to the Sethian doctrine, the
Valentinian Eve is, according to Theodotos, a representative of the conservative Eastern
branch, not only the first revealer of γνῶσις, but the one and only saviour. However, since
there is no specific connection between Eve and Ζωή in Valentinian literature, it is
improbable that the Valentinians would have understood this equation and this theory is
consequently far-fetched and unconvincing.
The Gospel of Philip, however, refers to the story of Adam and Eve and is the only extant
Valentinian writing which mentions her425. It does not give us the whole story, but focuses on
the separation of Eve from Adam in relation to the coming of the saviour. In his extensive
commentary, Hans-Martin Schenke concludes this writing is referring to the rape of Eve by
the devil and her subsequent conception of Cain426, but I think there is another layer of
meaning. The writing states that death did not yet exist when Eve was still in Adam and the
separation of their original unity, which ‘was from the beginning’, is presented as the origin of
evil for humanity in the world. Christ came to mend this situation and to reunite Adam and
Eve in the bridal chamber in order to abolish death. The four references to the creation myth
are set within a framework of descriptions of and references to Valentinian cultic rites427. The
writing is a Valentinian exegetical work meant to attract new auditores and contains many
exhortations to initiation. I think the references to the creation myth should be seen as a part
of this writing, as explained in the next paragraph.
When mention is made of the reuniting of Adam and Eve in the bridal chamber, the
reference is probably to the initiation rite of the bridal chamber, the final initiation rite the
aspiring Valentinian elect must go through. With this rite, the elect attains γνῶσις and
becomes perfect. Adam and Eve should be allegorically interpreted as the male and the
female part of the soul, the psychic and the pneumatic part respectively, which are at that point
finally reunited in syzygy. We have seen that male stands for pneumatic and female for psychic in
the story of the transgressions of Sophia and the Λόγος in A Valentinian Exposition and The
Tripartite Tractate respectively428, but in this allegory the equation should be exactly reversed as
it was Eve who left Adam and is described as passive in their transgression429. In A
Valentinian Exposition, Jesus and Sophia labour in order to achieve this same goal of bringing
‘the angels of the males’ and the ‘the seminal ones of the females’ back into syzygy430. The
death, which the union in the bridal chamber is said to abolish, is the death inflicted by the
eating of the tree of knowledge in paradise, which made humanity subject to the hylic and
psychic parts of his soul, as we have seen in The Tripartite Tractate431. By allegorically interpreting
the story of Adam and Eve as the struggles of the two parts of the human soul and making
423 See Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.8.5 and A Valentinian Exposition 29:25-30:20.
424 See Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 6.3-4, where the Λόγος calls himself ζωή.
425 The Gospel of Philip 61:3-11, 68:22-26, 70:9-26 and 71:22-27.
426 See Schenke (1997), Das Philippus-Evangelium, pp. 299-301, 391-393, 411-413 and 423-425.
427 See chapter 6.1.2.
428 See A Valentinian Exposition 35:10-17 and The Tripartite Tractate 77:37-78:13. This was apparently not a specific
59
them prototypes of all human beings, the Valentinians bring a powerful message of
redemption across.
We have now also found the answer to the unde malum question of Valentinian gnosticism.
The Valentinians did not teach that the world was made by evil ἄρχοντες, like the Sethians
did, nor do they show an abhorment nor a rigorous abstinence of sexuality as the Sethian
elect did. The Valentinians locate the source of evil in the universe in the loss of the pneumatic
male part of the soul and humanity’s subsequent life in ignorance and error. This either
happened by Sophia’s unpermitted fall against the will of the Father, which caused her to lose
the male component of her syzygy and made her produce the incomplete, formless and
female offspring which was to be moulded into humans, or by Adam and Eve’s432 seduction
by the serpent and eating of the the tree of knowledge in paradise. This seduction was
executed by the devil or serpent, but happened according to the will of the Father to be a way
of learning by experience. In both cases, there is no mention of any responsibility on Eve’s
part nor of an original sin. Although the Valentinian origin of evil is completely different
from the Sethian one, Eve’s role is surprisingly similar. She is the part of the human soul
which is the spiritual principle and the way of attainment of γνῶσις.
On a cosmic transcendent scale, the Valentinians interpreted male and female figures as
allegorical characters symbolising the separation and necessary reunion of the two non-
material components of the human soul. However, what can we infer from these myths
about the social position of women according to Valentinian standards? For the same reasons
as when we tried to translate Sethian myth to practice, caution is warranted here as well433.
The Valentinian ideal of androgyny and their pursuit of it seem to imply equality between
man and woman and a certain interdependence of the male and female sexes. This would
indicate that the Valentinians promoted marriage and monogamous sexual relations.
However, in the Valentinian writings this androgyny is something achieved either by
supernatural, divine and mythological creatures, or by the different components of the
human soul. When the writings refer to human beings in this light, they refer to either Adam
and Eve, who may very well be meant as allegorical characters representing the psychic and
pneumatic parts of the soul434, to Mary of Magdala as the consort of the saviour435, or to the
final reunion of the male and female parts of the human soul in the bridal chamber and not
to physical human beings436. So what can we say?
Gilles Quispel (1996) argues that, as according to the Valentinians the material universe is
created as a reflection of either the πλήρωµα of the αἰῶνες or the πλήρωµα of the Λόγος,
the ideal position for humanity is to be in syzygy as a reflection the αἰῶνες as well437. He
corroborates this statement with an affirming quote found in the proto-orthodox Christian
polemicist Clemens Alexandrinus438. This confirms the Valentinians’ positive view on
monogamous marriage. Clemens is openly against sexual pleasures439 and attacks sexual
libertinism, but allows pleasureless sexuality since it is necessary for procreation440. His
432 Only Adam’s transgression is mentioned, see The Tripartite Tractate 107:10-18 and The Gospel of Philip 71:22-27.
433 See above in chapter 5.3.3.
434 See above in chapter 6.3.1. The references are The Gospel of Philip 61:3-11, 68:22-26, 70:9-26 and 71:22-27.
435 The Gospel of Philip 63:32-64:5.
436 For instance Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 63.1-2.
437 Quispel, pp. 334-336.
438 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata III.1.1.1.
439 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata III.4.27.1-28.1.
440 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata III.7.58.2.
60
judgment of the Valentinians, however, is less severe – though nonetheless repudiating –
since they consider sexual intercourse a pneumatic act441 and a spiritual activity exclusively for
the pneumatic elect442. The Valentinian position on equality between men and women, which
seemed so obvious from their own writings, turns out to apply only to the elect. This seems
to confirm some of the accusations of the polemicists about Valentinian sexual libertinism443,
but their accusations show many inconsistencies with the doctrine expounded above. These
accusations probably arise from a misunderstanding of the rite of the bridal chamber444. For
the Valentinians, the ability to have and enjoy sexual intercourse in the right manner is
something which needs to be acquired. Only those who have learned to control sexual desire
and understand that its purpose is to elevate oneself to a spiritual and thus divine level, are
able to practice it as it was intended. Only at this point, when a man and a woman have
attained γνῶσις and have become pneumatic beings, they are equal and are the reflection of the
divine syzygy complementing each other completely. According to Quispel, the Valentinian
ideal may have been equality between men and women on earth as a reflection of the divine
syzygy, but in reality, this was only reserved for the elitist elect who were they only ones
meeting the conditions to be considered as that reflection.
Although Quispel bases his theory almost exclusively on the writings of the polemicists,
his line of reasoning is convincing445. It would also explain the paradoxes in the Valentinian
writings, because there does seem to be a hierarchy of the sexes for the Valentinians. As we
have seen446, the divine pneumatic part of the soul is always associated with masculinity as is
the psychic part with femininity. After the pneumatic part has left Sophia or the Λόγος in the
Valentinian creation stories by having given birth to their perfect offspring directly after their
fall from the πλήρωµα, they are described as weak, lonely and feminine and their further
offspring is formless447. It is obvious that, though the Valentinians do not automatically
subordinate women to men and allow for the possibility of equality between the sexes in an
ideal situation, they still retain much of the patriarchal system of their surroundings. And how
possible were those possibilities? We do not yet know enough of the Valentinians to be able
to state anything about the chances of becoming part of the elect and the hardships of the
initiation process with any certainty. This must for now remain a mystery.
They argue the ritual consists of a double marriage, a spiritual one between a human and one’s δαίµων and a material
one between a man and a woman. The material marriage is a support of the spiritual marriage and is actually a
protection from the seductions of demons and material sexuality.
446 In chapter 6.1.1.
447 See A Valentinian Exposition 34:23-35:13 and The Tripartite Tractate 77:25-78:13. Compare The Tripartite Tractate
91:17-18.
61
7. Further development of gnostic ideas
Studying the three, most influential and well-documented gnostic movements (Sethianism,
Valentinianism and Manichaeism) would take more time and effort than is appropriate for a
master thesis and would probably produce a document exceeding the limitations commonly
applied to it. For these reasons, I have decided to focus on the Sethian and Valentinian
varieties of gnosticism and to leave the subject of Manichaeism to further research. As
Manichaeism can be considered to be the culmination and synthesis of different varieties of
earlier gnostic thought, it is briefly treated below as an epilogue on the further development
of the thought of the two gnostic movements discussed above. The information is based on
the works of Böhlig (1995) and Lieu (1992)448.
Mani was born in Babylonia and lived from 216 until 274 or 276 CE. He wrote seven works
expounding his teachings in the Aramaic dialect of Southern Mesopotamia. He also wrote a
summary of his teachings in Persian, which he presented to the Shapur I, the Sassanian king
of Persia, with whom he apparently had a cordial relation. His thought is obviously related to
the tradition of gnostic movements and his writings are full of mysticism and revelatory spirit.
He also appropriates Eastern thought, such as Zoroastrian imagery and philosophy, and the
Christian tradition. In his writings, he states that he derives his teachings from a divine
revelation, which he himself had received and which had reunited him with his Divine Twin.
Manichaeism divides time in three eras: Beginning, Middle and End. At the beginning,
there were two separate realms, the homes of two contrasting principles. The five worlds of
the Region (or Kingdom) of the Light are ruled by the good Light, also called the Father of
Greatness, the Tree of Life and Four-Faced (since his majesty consisted of the four powers
Divinity, Light, Power and Wisdom). He is accompanied by twelve Αἰῶνες, who are grouped
in tetrads and who emanate the other Αἰῶνες of Αἰῶνες, who are all described as hypostases
of the Father. The Father’s consort is the Great Spirit, which provides life to this ‘πλήρωµα’.
The Tree of Life is adorned with everything beautiful and covered with flowers. As an exact
antithesis, the evil Realm of Darkness consists of five worlds or caverns housing different
kinds of infernal creatures. This realm does not have one ruler, but every world has its own
ἄρχων and the five ἄρχοντες are collectively called the Prince (or Ruler) of Darkness. The
inhabitants are base creatures, completely subjected to lust, desire and unregulated passion.
The five trees from these five worlds are collectively called the Tree of Death, on which all
that is evil flourishes, and it is described as having, for instance, war and cruelty as branches.
The Middle Period started when the Prince of Darkness saw the Kingdom of Light and
established contact between the two worlds. In the subsequent war, the Father produces
further emanations to resist the forces of evil, among whom are the Mother of Life and the
Primal Man with his garment of the five elements of the Kingdom of Light (Air, Wind, Light,
Water, Fire), which is sometimes called the Maiden of Light. According to the will of the
Father, the Primal Man is defeated and captured by the Prince of Darkness. The ἄρχοντες are
attracted to the light and swallow the elements of the garment. Having now trapped portions
of the Light inside them, the ἄρχοντες are satisfied and end war. The Primal Man prays to the
Father for help and Call and Answer (together called the Instinct of Life), the hypostasized
448See Böhlig (1995), Die Gnosis III. Der Manichäismus, pp. 5-70, and Lieu (1992), Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire
and Medieval China, pp. 7-191, thorough introductions to and overviews of Manichaeism and Manichaean thought.
62
symbols of redeeming γνῶσις and the yearning for salvation, redeem the Primal Man who is
Νοῦς and returns to Kingdom of Light.
The material universe is created as a ‘hospital’ for the redeeming of elements of Light by
the Living Spirit, who is the Manichaean demiurge. The divine male and female powers
Third Messenger and Maiden of Light appear naked to the ἄρχοντες. The male ἄρχοντες
ejaculate the Light, which was trapped inside them, and this becomes seeds in the earth.
Third Messenger separates Sin from the pure Light, which becomes plant-life. The female
ἄρχοντες become pregnant by the sight of Third Messenger and give birth to aborted
foetuses, which became the animals. The emanated divine powers of the Light then leave to
live in an intermediate world in order to make certain the Kingdom of Light is not
contaminated again. The Prince of Darkness knows all the creatures with Light in it will
eventually be redeemed and he creates Ashqalun or Saclas and Namrael or Nebroel, a male
and female demon. They devour the offspring of the aborted foetuses, copulate, and produce
Adam and Eve after the image of Third Messenger in order to perpetuate the confinement of
the soul (which is of the Light) in the body (which is of the Darkness) through lust, sexuality
and procreation.
Next, the powers of the Light send Jesus the Luminous to bring Adam knowledge
(γνῶσις) of the Father and the Kingdom of Light and make him eat of the Tree of Life. He
tells Adam not to have sexual intercourse with Eve in order to keep his soul uncontaminated.
Saclas, however, does have intercourse with Eve and makes her have intercourse with their
son Cain to produce Abel. The ἄρχων also instructs Eve how to seduce Adam and the
couple has Seth, whom Saclas calls a stranger and wants to murder. Adam calls for aid and
the powers of the Light send the Crown of Splendour to protect him. Adam and Seth
eventually go to the East, to the Light and Wisdom of god, and are accepted into the
Kingdom of Light after their deaths. Eve and her offspring, however, end up in the hell of
Darkness.
Some of the ἄρχοντες, however, escape and introduce evil to the humans on earth. These
demons, which are also called ‘watchers’, assume the shape of men and hide themselves.
They are eventually destroyed along with the giants, their progeny with humans, by the
archangels sent by the powers of the Light. In order to assist humanity in (re)finding the road
to the Light, revealer figures come to earth on a regular basis. Seth, Noah, Abraham, Enoch,
Buddha, Zoroaster and Jesus the Messiah were all incarnations of Νοῦς, an emanation of
Jesus the Luminous. Mani presented himself as the ultimate manifestation of Νοῦς and was
called The Enlightener and the Apostle of Light by his followers.
In their prescriptions for keeping the soul pure and attaining of γνῶσις of the Kingdom
of the Light, the Manichaeans show their ascetic tendency. The Manichaean elect were not
allowed to speak blasphemy, did not eat meat, nor drank wine, refrained from sexual
intercourse and had no material possessions. They taught that the elect would go directly to
Kingdom of Light after their death, but that the auditores would reincarnate as fruit and finally
as elect. Those who did not believe in or practice Manichaeism would reincarnate as beasts
and suffer eternal damnation. When the third era of the universe, the End, arrives, there will
be a great war reducing everything to Matter, which is dominated by sin and strife. As the
Great King, Jesus will judge the souls and separate the righteous from the sinners and each
category will take its place in the Kingdoms of Light and Darkness respectively. The forces
holding up the universe will no longer perform their tasks and all will be consumed in fire.
During his lifetime, Mani attracted followers in Mesopotamia, Iran and the Middle
Eastern parts of the Roman Empire. After his death, his movement became immensely
popular all over the empire and was attacked as a Christian heresy. Manichaeism became a
term used by Christian polemicists to denote a number of sects which held the view that the
63
body is intrinsically evil and thus cannot possibly be the creation of a good god, such as the
medieval Cathars in Southern France and the Bogomils in Bulgaria. Its popularity attracted
rich and influential people, such as the Church Father Augustinus, who had been a
Manichaean auditor for years before converting to Christianity. It also probably inspired their
rigorous persecution by the Christians, which almost completely emptied the Roman Empire
of Manichaeans in the fifth and sixth centuries CE. Beyond the borders of the Roman
Empire, however, Manichaeism remained a popular and flourishing religion, especially in the
Middle East where it had originated. Manichaean thought gradually spread eastwards from
there to Iran, India and even China. Traces of Manichaean thought can be found in modern
day Buddhism and Taoism. In the course of history, several smaller sects in central and
Eastern Asia have also expressed thought reminiscent of Manichaean beliefs.
When reading the Manichaean creation myth and theology, several similarities and differences
with Sethian and Valentinian thought immediately come to mind. A brief and superficial
comparison of some central elements in their thought is given below.
The Manichaeans postulated the same duality in creation by teaching that a demiurge
other than the highest god has created the material universe. This world is very
different from the divine, perfect world of the Αἰῶνες. However, unlike the Sethians
and Valentinians who related the wickedness of the material world to the evil or
ignorant nature of their demiurges, the Manichaean demiurge is a power of the Light
who is good, has knowledge and is an emanation of the true god.
Besides the Platonic division of the material world from the perfect world, the
Manichaeans also borrowed from Hellenistic philosophy the notion of the completely
transcendent and unattached father, who does not act himself but emanates other
powers to execute his will. This is very similar to the use the Sethians and Valentinians
made of this Hellenistic philosophical material.
The Manichaeans expressed the same negative perception of the body as the Sethians
did and related their tendency to asceticism to this fact. The body is a creation of the
evil ἄρχοντες and is only a prison for the soul, which is part of the Kingdom of the
Light. However, they did not share the Sethian overall negative worldview, but taught
that the material universe has been created by a power of the light as a ‘hospital’ for
the souls trapped in the material bodies.
The Manichaeans shared the Sethian and Valentinian portrayal of Seth as the first
(surviving) child of Adam and Eve and the Sethian interpretation of this character as
the first human revealer of γνῶσις. Yet, Seth is not the universal saviour in
Manichaean thought, but merely one of the incarnations of Νοῦς, like Enoch or Jesus.
Manichaeism shared Valentinianism’s affinity with Christianity, of which at least the
appropriation of Jesus as two important saviour figures in myth and history is proof.
However, they obviously present Christianity as a religion arising from a prophet who
did not teach the completely perfected message and as superseded by Mani’s teaching.
The Manichaeans also shared their missionary spirit with the Valentinians. As those
who had not yet converted to Manichaeism would reincarnate into beasts and be
damned forever, the Manichaean was actively trying to convert the rest of the world.
As the Valentinians taught eventual salvation for their less advanced fellow Christians,
the Manichaeans included advanced auditores among the saved at judgment day.
The Manichaeans radically rejected the Sethian and Valentinian interpretations of the
creation myth and of the character Eve. Eve is an instrument of evil and one who
64
deceives Adam, definitely not the divine part of the human soul. The Manichaean
interpretation is reminiscent of the Christian interpretation.
65
8. Conclusions
In the foregoing chapters, we have studied the Sethian and Valentinian gnostic movements
and glimpsed briefly at Manichaeism. The extensive treatment of these first two movements
was meant to create a religious and social background of their thought in order to make some
useful conclusions on their different interpretations of the character Eve. The most
important original elements of their different interpretations are treated below.
In the Sethian creation myth449, Eve is the Ἐπίνοια, a positive force, sent by the god of the
perfect universe to assist the first human Adam who lived in an evil material universe created
by evil lower divine beings. She is an emanation of Sophia, sent to correct the imperfection in
the material universe she herself had caused. As this power, Eve is the active rational
principle inside Adam, his teacher and his helper. As Sophia or the spiritual Eve, she is the
one who reveals the saving γνῶσις to him. The Ἐπίνοια is also the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil and thence Eve in fact is γνῶσις. Only when Adam and Eve had attained
γνῶσις, they could reproduce their perfect offspring, Seth. The story of Adam and Eve is
also seen as an etiological myth and an instruction to followers. Because human beings have
lost their γνῶσις, their ability to know spiritually, like Adam and Eve, they are now subject to
the horrors of the evil world in which they live. In order to attain this saving spiritual
knowledge, human beings must renounce all material knowledge (knowing by the senses, i.e.
physical pleasures such as the possession of worldly goods, sexuality and luxurious
nourishment). The positive picturing of Eve and other female characters in the Sethian
writings may be indications that the Sethian women enjoyed a relative freedom and that the
Sethians may have had women as religious and social leaders.
In the Valentinian accounts of their creation myths450, Eve is not mentioned at all. Instead,
Adam is sent an abstract divine power as his helper. At least some Valentinians taught that
Adam and Eve were originally a single androgynous creature, a reflection of the perfect
situation of the syzygy of the divine beings of the highest world. This story of Adam and Eve
is used as an allegory for the two higher parts of the soul. The divine pneumatic and psychic
powers, which were combined in the soul of the original human, Adam, are only in a state of
perfect syzygy when they are combined inside that soul, which happens through the
attainment of γνῶσις. The Valentinians also used this story as an etiological myth. When
Adam ate of the psychic Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he became subjected to the
psychic and hylic levels of existence and lost knowledge of Eve, the pneumatic part of his soul.
This is why humanity is ignorant and suffers evils in this ignorant world created by ignorant
lower divine beings. In my view, Adam is an allegory for a human being and Eve an allegory
for his divine twin, the divine part of his soul. This separation of the two parts of the soul
and the suffering of humanity is, however, according to the will of the highest god, who
wants human beings to learn about the true universe the hard way. Becoming initiated in the
ritual of the bridal chamber of the Valentinian cult means attaining γνῶσις, the regaining of
knowledge of the spiritual part of one’s soul, Eve. The pneumatic and psychic parts of one’s
66
soul, one’s allegorical Adam and Eve, are then restored to perfect syzygy. The positive
imaging of the pairing of men and women in the Valentinian writings may indicate positive
views on marriage and human sexuality. However, this is deceiving, since it was probably
reserved only for the elect.
It is obvious the Sethian and Valentinian interpretations were very different from the proto-
orthodox Christian one. However different from each other, both Sethians and Valentinians
allotted Eve a positive part in their theologies. In the end, Eve is the power which may save
human beings, or at least certain groups of them, from the horrors of an either evil (Sethian)
or ignorant (Valentinian) world. The Sethians regarded the attainment of γνῶσις as the final
detachment and release from the material world which was completely evil, basing themselves
on Hellenistic reintepretations of Jewish Biblical literature. For the Valentinians, however,
who were Christians appropriating gnostic thought, the attainment of γνῶσις was the
acquirement of the knowledge needed to teach and convert others and to obtain the perfect
life after their deaths. The negative role of Eve of the contemporaneous proto-orthodox
Christian interpretation, which would eventually lead to the development of the doctrine of
original sin and have an enormous impact on the position of women in later Catholic
Christian society, is completely absent from their ways of thinking. In my view, this
fundamental dissimilarity in their interpretations of the creation myth and the character of
Eve constituted an insuperable difference between the proto-orthodox Christians and the
two variants of gnosticism. It also shows a clear distinction between the Sethian and
Valentinian gnostic movements.
67
9. Concluding remarks
We have now studied the cosmologies, theologies, ethics, cultic practices and social life of the
Sethian and Valentinian gnostic movements and have tried to place them in their historical,
religious and social context. The main reasons for this were to determine the place and
function of the biblical character Eve in their respective theologies and to explore the
influence of this intriguing figure as an exemplary character and a prototype to their female
adherents in early Christian and related societies. This thesis did not aim to make statements
about the genealogical development of the phenomenon of gnosticism from proto-orthodox
Christianity or vice versa. Neither was its purpose to express any moral judgments on the
conflicts between the gnostic and proto-orthodox factions in the early Christian era, nor does
it take a preference to any position, but rather, it has strived to study the different gnostic
movements in their own right. The gnostics and their doctrines are therefore not conceived
of in definitions of orthodoxy and heresy, but as diverse interpretations of mythological,
theological and philosophical ideas in an atmosphere encouraging the development of
thought. The basic assumption has been that Christianity in all its forms arose from
speculation on the intentions of a visionary, whose message was probably not well
understood and perhaps highly ambiguous, in the context of Hellenistic syncretism. To
describe this situation, two relatively elaborate introductory chapters have been written. In
these chapters much attention has been given to the development of early Christianity in
connection to Hellenistic tendencies and phenomena, such as syncretism, the popularity of
mystery religions and the role of the Roman Empire in its development, and the literary and
social history of the character Eve451.
In order to achieve these objectives six research questions have been formulated452. The
chapters five and six tried to provide individual answers to the first five of these research
questions for Sethian and Valentinian gnosticism respectively. The most influential and well-
documented gnostic movements in the late second and third centuries CE were undeniably
Sethian gnosticism, Valentinian gnosticism and Manichaeism. Because discussing all three of
these subjects as extensively as they deserve is too much work for a master thesis, this thesis
has focused on the first two movements. Since Manichaeism is in many ways the
continuation of Sethian and Valentinian thought, this movement has only briefly been treated
in a chapter on further development of their thought.
However, we did already find worlds of difference between the two gnostic movements
on which this thesis has been able to focus. While the Sethians were not Christians but
probably developed from Judaism in parallel with proto-orthodox Christian thought, the
Valentinians saw themselves as the Christian intellectual and spiritual elite par excellence.
Consequently, Sethianism had its roots directly in apocalyptic Judaism mixed with Hellenistic
philosophy and Valentinianism originated in proto-orthodox Christianity but appropriated
pagan gnostic thought and that same Hellenistic philosophy, though both were clearly a part
of the tradition of pagan mystery religions. Although their creation myths are obviously part
of the same philosophical tradition, they are extremely different in their presentation of
divine beings and the assignment of the origin of evil. Sethians claimed the world was created
by a malignant creator, was ruled by him and his evil ἄρχοντες and was consequently
inherently evil. The Valentinians, however, portrayed the universe as in a state of deficiency,
which merely needed correction. The Sethians preached that the origin of all evil was sexual
in nature and introduced into humanity through sexual relations forced by the ἄρχοντες,
451 Chapters 3. Historical and social background and 4. The Eves of yore.
452 In chapter 1. Objectives and research questions.
68
whereas Valentinians placed the origin of evil in the separation of the rational, female, psychic
part and the divine, male, pneumatic part of the human soul and actually regarded the joining
of the ἄρχοντες and humans as an allegorical reunion of these. As a result, the Sethians
preached total abstinence of everything material and a devotion to the spiritual as the only
way of attaining redemptive γνῶσις, while the Valentinians embraced the world and its
people in order to stimulate its correction. The Sethians retained much of the Jewish-
Christian Biblical creation story, but, in contrast to proto-orthodox Christianity, interpreted
Eve not as disobedient to God’s command and the causer of original sin, but as a spiritual
power from the true god revealing γνῶσις to Adam and outsmarting the evil ἄρχοντες. The
Valentinians, on the other hand, excluded Eve from the creation myth where she was
replaced by an abstract power, but used her as an allegorical figure representing the pneumatic
part of the soul which humanity lost by eating from the psychic tree of knowledge of good and
evil.
However, differing as they may be, Sethian and Valentinian gnosticism were theologically
far more similar to each other than to proto-orthodox Christianity, though all three
movements shared their religious debt to Judaism and their appropriation of Hellenistic
philosophical thought. This leaves us with one research question left, which will be answered
below for both gnostic movements together. What were the reasons why the gnostic
interpretations of Eve – and the gnostic creation myths in general – did not become the
interpretation of the later orthodox Catholic Church? Because of the ad hominem attacks by
the polemicists453, this is not always evident from their writings, but we can infer several
possibilities by comparing Sethian and Valentinian theology, philosophy and morals with
proto-orthodox Christian thought. Obviously, the proto-orthodox Christians did mostly
reject the gnostic theological systems, of which the stories about Eve were a part, as a whole
and not solely the interpretation of this character or even just the creation myth.
Consequently, the reasons given below, which have probably influenced the rejection to a
greater or lesser extent, may sometimes pertain to the gnostics or their thought in general and
not specifically to Eve.
The other gods. The first reason is obviously related to the discrepancies in the
theological views on the nature of god. Whereas the proto-orthodox Christians,
although defining God in terms of a trinity, stressed their monotheism and the
omnipotent God’s unitary nature, the gnostics did not always agree. The Sethians did
present their god as a trinity, but the three figures it consisted of were not expressions
of a single power but clearly different characters with their own parts to play454. The
Valentinians, on the other hand, – probably due to their affinities with Christianity –
were equally zealous to stress the singleness of god the Father, emphasizing that he
was the only one who was uncreated. They either stressed that he was the only one
originally not a part of a syzygy, or that all the αἰῶνες were all ‘properties and powers
of the Father’455. Both Sethian and Valentinian gnostics, however, postulate several
other lower gods, among whom are the creators of the material world. Moreover,
these gods are not merely different and lower gods, but they are sometimes also
69
capable of disregarding the will of the highest god456. The proto-orthodox Christians
must have had difficulties accepting these elements in the Sethian and Valentinian
gnostics’ theologies and creation myths, because they denied their ideal of the
omnipotence of God.
The evil world457. The proto-orthodox Christians taught that the world has been
created by God, who is good, and humanity suffers evil because of their ancestors’
disobedience in paradise and the activity of the devil458. Because the Sethians taught
the creator of the world was not the true god but an evil demiurge, they regarded this
world as evil and probably propagated total abstinence of all material things459.
Although the Valentinians were not as extreme as the Sethians and take an
intermediate position, they still taught that due to the creation by an ignorant creator,
who was also not the true god, the world – and consequently humanity – is in a state
of ignorance. This ignorance needs to be corrected by attaining γνῶσις, which only
becomes possible after hearing and understanding the revelation of the saviour or the
Valentinian elect460. The proto-orthodox Christians, however, had no reason to regard
the world as evil or ignorant. It has been created by God and humanity knows it has
caused the hardships it must endure in this world itself. Jesus’ coming abolished
original sin and opened the gates of heaven to good Christians after death. He valued
material aspects of this world461, but neither his actions nor his message have changed
anything about this world462.
The interpretation of the story463. The proto-orthodox Christians stressed the literal
interpretation of the stories about the actions and teachings of Jesus. All that was
written in the early Christian writings they accepted as genuine was taken as historical
fact. Probably as a reaction to docetist gnostic movements such as the Eastern branch
of the Valentinians464, the proto-orthodox Christians paid especial attention to their
defence of the material nature of Jesus Christ and the reality of his passion465. The
gnostics were severe critics of this view and the proto-orthodox Christian theory of
bodily resurrection at judgment day. The Sethians and Valentinians regarded
themselves as having received a secret knowledge, the truth about the mysteries,
passed on from the saviour to a select few of his followers. Despite the difference
between the Sethians who had their own scripture and the Valentinians using the
Christian writings, they both regarded the stories about the saviour figure in the same
manner. These were the stories of the outer mysteries, meant to attract and interest
456 See The Apocryphon of John 9:25-35 and A Valentinian Exposition 34:23-34 and 36:28-31 on Sophia’s acting against
the will of the Father.
457 See Williams (1996), pp. 96-138 and 139-188, on different gnostic movements and their (negative) worldviews,
rejection of the material universe and (negative) imagery of the body and the consequences thereof in their ethical
practices. Many accounts of general gnostic asceticism and libertinism seem to be exaggerations and the result of
deliberate polemical strategies in the writings of the polemicists. Despite the exaggerations of the polemicists on
gnostic practice, however, the theoretical views of the different gnostic movements on the material world were still
negative to a greater or lesser extent and these were expounded in the writings the polemicists were refuting.
458 See Genesis 1-3.
459 See chapter 5.1.2.
460 See chapter 6.1.2.
461 He, for instance, sanctified material marriage and blessed children who were obviously produced by sexual
70
auditores and to be used as a starting point and a guideline for aspiring initiates466.
These stories were allegories and definitely not to be regarded as literal and historical
truth. Through initiation and the attainment of γνῶσις, one could rise above this life
and the uninitiated in the same manner as Christ had done and actually become divine
or a Christ oneself467. The gnostic myths were always in a state of development and
not static stories like the proto-orthodox Christian writings, because the gnostics
regarded the divine and the stories about it as a creation of human imagination468.
The method of redemption469. Proto-orthodox Christians taught that, now that Jesus
had opened heaven to humanity, Christians could achieve redemption there in an
afterlife by faith in God, good works and obedience to Christ’s instructions470. The
Sethians and Valentinians, however, taught a direct redemption and achievement of
perfection during one’s life through the attainment of γνῶσις471. The proto-orthodox
Christians regained paradise in heaven after death, but for the gnostics, paradise was
not an actual place, but a state of mind472. They taught that, if one did not achieve
perfection during one’s life, one would either have to wait a long time for perfection
or be excluded forever, according to the state of one’s soul (Valentinians)473 or one’s
soul is bound ‘in chains’ and cast ‘into prison’ (Sethians) – by which they presumably
mean resurrection in another material body474. The gnostics regarded faith as merely
the first steps on the road to redemption, which would be completed with the
attainment of γνῶσις475. The two soteriologies seem incompatible and reason enough
for the proto-orthodox Christians to reject the gnostic systems.
Mysticism. This attainment of γνῶσις and thus redemption is not something achieved
with ease. The mystic and esoteric nature of the gnostic movements may also have
been a factor contributing to the rejection of gnostic thought by the proto-orthodox
Christians. Becoming an initiate in a mystery cult and acquiring the secret and true
knowledge of, and a conscious relationship with, the divine is a state of mind one can
only achieve as the result of long and laborious effort476. The mystic needs an
overwhelming consciousness of himself and a perfect understanding of his or her
partaking in the divine. Such absolute self-control is something which requires
extensive training. Mysticism is obviously a form of religious experience meant for
intellectuals who have been educated well and have the time to spend on this path to
reach this spiritual maturity. Obviously, this is not the easiest path of religious
experience to choose and one would assume it to be impossible for many people due
to lack of time or education. The practical objections to the time and energy needed
466 See, for instance, The Treatise on the Resurrection 48:3-19, The Gospel of Philip 73:1-4, and Ptolemaios, Epistula ad
Floram 33.7.9.
467 See, for instance, The Gospel of Philip 61:29-35 and 67:26-27 and Allogenes 52:7-12.
468 See, for instance, The Gospel of Philip 71:35-72:4, The Apocryphon of John 14:13-15 and Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus
which had been developed in pagan mystery cults, to a far greater extent than the gnostic movements mentioned.
473 See, for instance, Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 58.1 and The Gospel of Philip 73:1-4.
474 See, for instance, The Apocryphon of John 26:32-27:11.
475 See, for instance, Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata VI.14.109.2, VII.10.55.1-2 and VII.10.57.1-3.
476 For the requirements the mystic must satisfy before achieving the highest goal, see Smith (1980), The Nature and
Meaning of Mysticism, pp. 19-25, and Underhill (1980), The Essentials of Mysticism, pp. 26-41. See, for instance,
Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos I.1.
71
to participate as initiates in the gnostic movements and misunderstanding of gnostic
thought and practice arising from the secrecy inherent to mystery cults have most
probably been of tremendous influence on the rejection of the gnostic way of life in
the religious unification process of the church communities477.
Elitism478. Related to the method of redemption and the mystic nature of the gnostic
movements, is the elitist attitude which they expressed in different ways. As we have
seen, the Sethians did not allow redemption to any but their own initiated479. The
Valentinians, however, did include (at least the possibility of) redemption for the
psychic proto-orthodox Christians, but they also presented themselves as the
intellectuals of the Christian society and the spiritual elite480. This elitist attitude is a
direct consequence of their mysticism. As they considered themselves to be the small
group of the current representatives of the line of disciples of those entrusted by Jesus
with his secret knowledge, they thought themselves to be a higher form of Christians.
They expressed that they had acquired the highest form of secret γνῶσις, while the
rest of the Christians were merely at the beginning of the path of knowledge481. In
contrast, the proto-orthodox Christians taught a general, collective faith and religious
experience. The collectivity of the church was the path to God and heaven and this
should be simple in order to be open to all482. Perhaps incited by objection to the
behaviour of the Valentinians483, a tendency arose among the proto-orthodox
Christians to prefer the simplicity of faith and to denounce the idea of higher
knowledge. They argued that, since faith and obedience are the necessary conditions
to achieve redemption, it was preposterous to suppose further knowledge or beliefs
could contribute to this484. The Sethians may have been inherently too different from
proto-orthodox Christianity to become a part of it, but the Valentinian attitude was
probably an important factor in its final rejection by the proto-orthodox church.
The leaders of the church485. The gnostic view of their intellectual superiority and the
individual experience of their initiations made Valentinians unlikely to accept proto-
orthodox Christian leadership. The Valentinians and other gnostic movements strove
towards equality among their elect few, but would not subject to a church hierarchy
because they considered themselves to be superiors of the ordinary proto-orthodox
Christians486. They reasoned that, as the material creation was subject to the demiurge,
the psychics were subject to their own leaders but the pneumatics were not487. The proto-
orthodox Christians, on the other hand, were fervent supporters of a church hierarchy
based on Apostolic succession and promoted obedience to bishops, priests and
deacons in their respective places in the church hierarchy as the only road to salvation.
477 Compare, for instance, Eirenaios of Lyons’ probably misunderstanding the rite of the bridal chamber in Adversus
Haereses I.13.3 in chapter 6.3.2.
478 See Pagels (1979), pp. 102-118 and 142-151, for more information on this subject. On the disproving of the
notion of a more rigorous general gnostic elitism based on soteriological predestination see Williams (1996), pp. 189-
212.
479 For instance The Apocryphon of John 25:16-26:7. See chapter 5.1.2.
480 For instance Origenes, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis 13.9.51-53. See chapter 6.1.2 and 6.2.1.
481 See, for instance, Matthew 13:11 and 22:14 and The Gospel of Philip 64:23-24.
482 See, for instance, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses III.4.1.
483 See Layton (1987), pp. 267-274.
484 See, for instance, Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum VII.9-13 and XI.6-10 and Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus
Haereses II.27.2.
485 See Pagels (1979), pp. 33-47 and 102-118, for more information on this subject.
486 See, for instance, Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum XLI.2-4 and XLI.8, and Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus
Haereses I.13.4.
487 See, for instance, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.13.6 and III.15.2 and The Apocalypse of Peter 79:22-30.
72
They considered the gnostics as dangerous, because their elitist attitude of superiority
led to insubordination, lawlessness and disobedience to the clerical authorities488.
Unde Malum?489 Despite the differences between the Sethian and Valentinian gnostic
movements, both interpret the Biblical creation myth from Genesis radically different
from the proto-orthodox Christians490. They consider Adam and Eve’s ‘fall’, the
proto-orthodox origin of evil in the universe, in a completely different light. The
Sethians taught Adam and Eve’s eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil at
the instigation of the Ἐπίνοια, Sophia or the heavenly Eve (and in Christianised
versions Christ), was their attainment of γνῶσις491. They considered evil to have
originated in sexual relations between human beings and the malicious ἄρχοντες 492. In
radical contrast to the idea of original sin, the Sethians considered the disobedience to
the creator’s command to be humanity’s first triumph over an evil god and the
beginning of hope to escape the material universe. The Valentinians did interpret the
eating from the tree of knowledge as a negative action because it enslaved humanity
to the hylic and psychic parts of their soul, but it still served as a stimulant to the
attainment of γνῶσις493. They considered evil to have originated either through this
action of Adam, but according to the Father’s plan, or at the transgression of Sophia
when the divine syzygy was broken494. So does this mean we can relate an important
reason for the rejection of gnostic thought into the theology of the proto-orthodox
Christians to their interpretations of the creation myths and to Eve? Humanity’s
disobedience to the true God and the original sin arising from it would eventually
become one of the cornerstones of proto-orthodox Christian beliefs – as it is in
Catholic Christianity today. This is the reason the Jesus Christ had to come down to
earth to redeem human beings, but it has no place in these two gnostic systems495. In
their theologies, Eve is either the spiritual power sent by the true god as an assistance
to Adam, or an allegorical figure representing the divine part of one’s soul496. She is
also sometimes associated with the serpent497, but this association is never presented
as a negative connection498. In conclusion, none of the Sethian or Valentinian writings
put any blame on Eve, but regard her as a highly positive power and a divine figure499.
Combining this with the gnostic theories of the creation of the universe by either an
evil or an ignorant demiurge, the reason for rejecting the Sethian and Valentinian
creation myths is not difficult to understand.
488 See, for instance, Clemens Romanus, 1 Πρὸς Κορινθίους 60.4-61.2, Ignatios of Antioch, Τραλλιανοῖς 3.3.1,
Σµυρναίοις 6.8.1-2 and Μαγνησίευσιν 2.6.1 and Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses III.3.2.
489 See Williams (1996), pp. 58-59 for more information on the gnostic interpretations on the creation story.
490 See chapters 5.3.2 and 6.3.1.
491 See, for instance, The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:31-90:19 or The Apocryphon of John 23:20-35 (although there is no
literal eating described, but it has ‘they have tasted the perfect Knowledge’).
492 See, for instance, The Apocryphon of John 29:16-30:11.
493 See, for instance, The Tripartite Tractate 107:1-108:6 and A Valentinian Exposition 38:13-27.
494 See, for instance, A Valentinian Exposition 38:34-39:16, A Valentinian Exposition 36:28-31 and The Tripartite Tractate
107:1-108:6.
495 The doctrine of original sin was given its definitive form by Augustinus in the fourth century CE. See, for
instance, Augustinus, Opus Imperfectum Contra Julianum 4.114.Aug.3, 6.25.Aug.5-6, 6.26.Iul.1, 6.27.Aug.1-2 and
6.30.Aug.4. The Biblical references are Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 5:13 and 8:3-4. See Pagels (1989), pp. 195-226.
496 See chapter 5.3.1 and 6.3.1.
497 For instance in The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:31-90:19
498 Could this be reminiscent of Eve’s origin as an oracular serpent goddess according to Robert Graves? See chapter
4.1.
499 If my allegorical interpretation of Eve in chapter 6.3.1 is correct.
73
Eve as a prototype500. Another probable reason contributing to the rejection of
gnostic thought and theology by the proto-orthodox Christians in unifying the
Christian doctrine also pertains to Eve directly. Similar to the use of the character Eve
as a prototype for women in a negative sense in proto-orthodox Christian theology,
the gnostics also gave her an exemplary role. The positive approach to female and
androgynous characters, which we have encountered in the Sethian and Valentinian
writings, should be linked directly to the function they attribute to her501. In
Hellenistic times, a relative emancipation of women seems to have been developed in
several parts of the empire (Egypt, Rome, Greece, Asia Minor) and the earliest
Christian literature reflects this phenomenon502. The proto-orthodox Christians,
however, developed a different philosophy on the social status of men and women
and denied women their roles as leading characters in society and religious
communities503. This patriarchalising tendency came to be very influential after 200
CE and its philosophy eventually gave rise to the doctrine of original sin. There were
of course exceptions, such as the proto-orthodox Clemens Alexandrinus (who
manifests much knowledge of, and an affinity for, gnostic thought) proclaiming the
equality of the sexes and there were also gnostic movements with negative views on
women504. Although these gnostic texts seem to be agitating against sexuality rather
than against women or their social position, they obviously value men above women.
As stated above505, we must remain cautious in deducing clues about the social
position of women from mythological and liturgical writings. The female and
androgynous characters who play an important part in Sethian and Valentinian
mythology do not necessarily reflect active social roles for women or equality between
the sexes. The statements of the proto-orthodox polemicists, however, do indicate at
least some gnostic groups acknowledged women as religious and social leaders506.
Independent of whether or not this was common practice among the Sethians and/or
Valentinians, their mythologies awarding feminine and androgynous characters an
active, independent and positive role may have been reason enough for rejection.
Having studied Sethian and Valentinian gnosticism, it is clear the gnostic movements were an
intriguing part of the Hellenistic and early Christian world, although it was not necessarily a
specifically Christian phenomenon. Unfortunately, very little knowledge of its history,
development, theology and philosophy remains today, as is the case with many phenomena
500 See Pagels (1979), pp. 48-69 and Fiorenza, pp. 30-70, for more information on this subject.
501 Which is either humanity’s first revealer of γνῶσις and divine rational principle in Sethian thought or the highest
divine part of a human’s soul according to the Valentinians. See, for instance, The Apocryphon of John 20:19-28 and
22:28-23:16, The Apocalypse of Adam 64:12-29 and The Hypostasis of the Archons 89:3-11 and The Gospel of Philip 68:22-26
and 70:9-12, The Tripartite Tractate 105:29-35 and A Valentinian Exposition 36:20-24 and 38:34-39:16 respectively. See
chapters 5.3.1 and 6.3.1.
502 See, for instance, Acts 2:17-19 and 21:9, 1 Corinthians 16:20, Galatians 3:27-28 and Philippians 4:2-3 for women
3:18, Clemens Romanus, 1 Πρὸς Κορινθίους 3.1, Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses I.13.3, Tertullianus, De
Virginibus Velandis IX.1 and De Cultu Feminarum I.1.2. It is interesting to note that most of these arguments are based
on the letters of the apostle Paul, who may not have promoted equality for men and women in social and political
terms, but did except women as his equals in religion.
504 For instance, Clemens Alexandrinus, Paidagogos I.4.10.1-11.2, The Dialogue of the Savior 144:15-21, The Book of Thomas
and I.13.4.
74
of the ancient world. The rediscovery of the Nag Hammadi gnostic texts in 1945, has
naturally caused much excitement and was an incentive to scientific research. It has also
recently encouraged the development of new, sometimes outrageous ideas, about the early
history of Christianity. Freke and Gandy (1999), for instance, proclaim they think that there
never has been a historical Jesus and that Christianity is an offshoot of the stories of the
outer mysteries of a gnostic sect which people subsequently started to believe as fact. They
profess to strive to reunite present day Christianity with its alleged gnostic origin in order for
it to grow and prosper by re-embracing its mystic side. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln (2004)
take the opposite view and, basing themselves on the gnostic texts, they claim to have found
proof of the actual existence of a historical Jesus, who was completely different from the
Christian account. They suppose he was married to Mary of Magdala and that their
descendants have played important parts in the development of the world ever since – thus
taking a fresh view of the world history of the last two thousand years507. Both are the
products of speculation on the emerging proof of enormous diversity within early
Christianity and its interaction with its surrounding cultures and societies. Their methods are
not always scientifically sound and they have thus deservedly been met with much criticism.
Nevertheless, something positive might be said in favour of them. Because they do not feel
bound to the rules of academic research or the boundaries between the sciences, as scholars
often are, they write their theories in a creative and exciting manner and may indulge in
artistic freedom. In this atmosphere of unlimited possibilities of thought, they develop new
ideas and take fresh views of old ones in an improvisational and artistic, but very fruitful,
manner. They share this syncretistic quality with the gnostics, who innovatively reinterpreted
Judaism and the life and teachings of Jesus in the context of pagan mystery religions.
Regardless of existing religious traditions and ethical values, they worked by no defined
method, but possessed an infinite imagination and a large supply of available sources and
schools of thought to use and appropriate. In this one respect these modern writers and the
gnostics of the early Christian era are similar: they all dare to think outside the box.
75
Bibliography
In the notes in this thesis works are cited by the last name of the author, the year they were
published and their title the first time they are mentioned. When mention is made of them at
a later point they are cited merely by the last name of the author. When more works by one
author are cited the year of publication is retained in the note. For the full references see
below.
Main References
- Attridge, H.W. (1985). Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex). Introductions, Texts,
Translations, Indices. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 22)
- Attridge, H.W. (1985). Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex). Notes. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
(Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 23)
- Böhlig, A. (1995), Die Gnosis III. Der Manichäismus. München: Artemis & Winkler.
- Brown, R.E. (1984). The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. New York: Paulist Press.
- Chadwick, H. (1980),.The Domestication of Gnosis. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The
Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 I: The School of
Valentinus (pp. 1-16). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Chadwick, H. (1967). The Early Church. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
- Dahl, N.A. (1981). The Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia. Jewish Traditions in
Gnostic Revolt. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the
Conference at Yale March 1978 II: Sethian Gnosticism, (pp. 689-712.) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Ehrman, B.D. (2003). The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths we never Knew. Oxford:
University Press.
- Evans, M.J. (1983). Woman in the Bible. Exeter: The Paternoster Press.
- Fallon, F.T. (1978). The Enthronement of Sabaoth. Jewish Elements in Gnostic Creation Myths.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Fiorenza, E.S. (1979). Word, Spirit and Power. Women in Early Christian
Communities. In: Ruether, R. & McLaughlin, E. (Eds.). Women of Spirit. Female
Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- Flusser, D. (1998). Jesus. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.
- Frend, W.H.C. (1965). Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church. A Study of a Conflict
from the Maccabees to Donatus. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- Graves, R. (1984). The White Goddess. Ahistorical Grammar of Poetic Myth. London: Faber
and Faber.
- Grimal, P. (Ed.). (1970). Hellenism and the Rise of Rome. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson.
- Hedrick, C.W. (Ed.). (1990). Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
(Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 28)
- Horst, P.W. van der (1994). Hellenism, Judaism, Christianity. Essays on their Interaction.
Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House.
- King, K.L. (2003). What is Gnosticism? Cambridge Mass.: Belknap Press.
- Klijn, A.F.J. (1977). Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Layton, B. (1987). The Gnostic Scriptures. London: SCM Press Ltd.
76
- Layton, B. (1995). Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism. In: White, L.M.,
Yarbrough, O.L. (Eds.). The Social World of the First Christians. Essays in Honor of Wayne
A. Meeks, (pp. 334-350). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
- Lieu, S.N.C. (1992). Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China.
Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament vol. 63)
- Maccaby, H. (2003). Jesus the Pharisee. London: SCM Press Ltd.
- Markschies, C.J. (1992). Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis
mit einem Kommentar zum den Fragmenten Valentins. Tübingen: J.C.B. Moht (Paul
Siebeck). (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, vol. 65)
- Marsman, H.J. (2003), Women in Ugarit and Israel. Their Social and Religious Position in the
Context of the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill. In: Moor, J.C. de (Ed.),
Oudtestamentische Studiën, band 49.
- Martin, L.H. (1987). Hellenistic Religions. An Introduction. New York: Oxford University
Press.
- Norris, P. (2000). Het verhaal van Eva. Een geschiedenis van vrouwelijke ongehoorzaamheid
(translation of Eve: A Biography). Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek (originally: New
York: New York University Press).
- Pagels, E.H. (1989). Adam, Eva en de Slang (translation of Adam, Eve and the Serpent).
Katwijk aan Zee: Servire Uitgevers B.V. (originally: New York: Random House).
- Pagels, E.H. (1986). Exegesis and Exposition of Genesis Creation Accounts in
Selected Texts from Nag Hammadi. In: Hedrick, C.W. & Hodgson, R. Jr. (Eds.). Nag
Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (pp. 257-285). Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson
Publishers.
- Pagels, E.H. (1980). Gnostic and Orthodox Views of Christ’s Passion: Paradigms for
the Christian’s Response to Persecution? In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The Rediscovery of
Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 I: The School of Valentinus (pp.
262-283). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Pagels, E.H. (1979). The Gnostic Gospels. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
- Pagels, E.H. (1973). The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis. Heracleon’s Commentary on
John. Nashville: Abingdon Press. (Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph Series 17)
- Patai, R. (1968). The Hebrew Goddess. New York: Ktav Publishing House.
- Pearson, B.A. (1977). The Figure of Norea in Gnostic Literature. In: Widengren, G.
(Ed.). Proceedings of the International Colloguium on Gnosticism. Stockholm, August 20-25,
1973, (pp. 143-152). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
- Pearson, B.A. (1981). The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature. In: Layton, B. (Ed.).
The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 II: Sethian
Gnosticism, (pp. 472-504.) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Pétrement, S. (1984). Le Dieu Séparé. Les Origines du Gnosticisme. Paris: Les Éditions du
Cerf.
- Phillips, J.A. (1987), Eva. Von der Göttin zur Dämonin (translation of Eve. The History of
an Idea). Stuttgart: Kreuz Verlag (originally: San Francisco: Harper & Row).
- Roukema R. (1999). Gnosis and Faith in early Christianity. An introduction to Gnosticism.
London: SCM.
- Quispel, G. (1996). The Original Doctrine of Valentinus the Gnostic. In: Vigiliae
Christianae. A Review of Early Christian Life and Language, 50(4), 327-352. Leiden: Brill
Academic Publishers. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from JSTOR. Website:
http://www.jstor.org/journals/00426032.html
77
- Schenke, H.M. (1997). Das Philippus-Evangelium (Nag Hammadi-Codex II, 3). Berlin:
Akademie Verlag. (Texte und Übersetzungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatuur Vol. 143).
- Schenke, H.M. (1981). The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism. In:
Layton, B. (Ed.). The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March
1978 II: Sethian Gnosticism, (pp. 588-616.) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Segelberg, E. (1990). The Coptic-Gnostic Gospel According to Philip and its
Sacramental System. In: Bergman, J., Hjärpe, J. & Ström, P. (Eds.). Gnostica – Mandaica
– Liturgica. Opera Eius Ipsius Selecta & Collecta Septuagenario Eric Segelberg, (pp. 21-30).
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
- Smith, M. (1980). The Nature and Meaning of Mysticism. In: Woods, R. (Ed.).
Understanding Mysticism (pp. 19-25). Garden City: Image Books.
- Sterling, G.E. (2005). “The Jewish Philosophy”. The Presence of Hellenistic
Philosophy in Jewish Exegesis in the Second Temple Period. Leiden: E.J. Brill. In:
Bakhos, C. (Ed.). Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context, vol. 95, pp. 131-153.
- Stroumsa, G.A.G. (1984). Another Seed. Studies in Gnostic Mythology. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
(Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 24)
- Turner, J.D. (1986). Sethian Gnosticism: a Literary History. In: Hedrick, C.W. &
Hodgson, R. Jr. (Eds.). Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (pp. 55-86).
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.
- Underhill, E. (1980). The Essentials of Mysticism. In: Woods, R. (Ed.). Understanding
Mysticism (pp. 26-41). Garden City: Image Books.
- Williams, M.A. (1996). Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’. An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious
Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Williams, M.A. (1985). The Immovable Race. A Gnostic Designation and the Theme of Stability
in Late Antiquity. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 29)
- Wisse, F. (1981). Stalking those Elusive Sethians. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The Rediscovery of
Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 II: Sethian Gnosticism, (pp. 563-
576). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Wisse, F. (1986). The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner
Diversity and Conflict. In: Hedrick, C.W. & Hodgson, R. Jr. (Eds.). Nag Hammadi,
Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (pp. 177-190). Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.
- Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C.M., Metzger, B.M. & Wikgren, A. (Eds.). (1968). The
Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society.
- Black, M., Vanderkam, J.C. & Neugebauer, O. (Eds.). (1985). The Book of Enoch or I
Enoch. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, vol. 7)
- Blanc, C. (Ed.). (1966). Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean. Tome Premier. Livres I-V. Paris:
Éditions du Cerf. (Sources chrétiennes vol. 120)
- Brox, N. (Ed.). (1993). Irenäus von Lyon. Adversus Haereses II. Freiburg: Herder. (Fontes
Christiani, Vol. 8/2)
- Brox, N. (Ed.). (1995). Irenäus von Lyon. Adversus Haereses III. Freiburg: Herder. (Fontes
Christiani, Vol. 8/3)
- Brox, N. (Ed.). (1993). Irenäus von Lyon. Epideixis. Adversus Haereses I. Freiburg: Herder.
(Fontes Christiani, Vol. 8/1)
78
- Burnet, J. (Ed.). (1967). Platonis opera, volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chapters:
Apologia Socratis and Phaidon.
- Burnet, J. (Ed.). (1967), Platonis opera, volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chapter:
Phaedrus.
- Burnet, J. (Ed.). (1967), Platonis opera, volume 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chapters:
Respublica and Timaeus.
- Camelot, P.T. (Ed.). (1969). Ignace d'Antioche. Polycarpe de Smyrne. Lettres. Martyre de
Polycarpe. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. (Sources chrétiennes vol. 10)
- Charlesworth, J.H. (Ed.). (1983). The Old Testmament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 1:
Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Chapters:
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the Three Patriarchs, Apocalypse
of Abraham.
- Charlesworth, J.H. (Ed.). (1985). The Old Testmament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 2:
Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers,
Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works.. London: Darton, Longman &
Todd. Chapter: Life of Adam and Eve.
- Cohn, L. & Wendland, P. (Ed.). (1962). Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. Band 1.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chapter: De Opificio Mundi.
- Cohn, L. & Wendland, P. (Ed.). (1962). Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. Band 2.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chapters: De Posteritate Caini and De Gigantibus.
- Cohn, L. & Wendland, P. (Ed.). (1962). Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. Band 4.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chapter: De Vita Mosis.
- Cohn, L. & Wendland, P. (Ed.). (1962). Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. Band 5.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chapter: De Specialibus Legibus.
- Cohn, L. & Wendland, P. (Ed.). (1962). Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. Band 6.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chapters: De Vita Contemplativa and Hypothetica.
- Fredouille, J.-C. (Ed.). (1980). Tertullien. Contre les Valentiniens. Paris: Les Éditions du
Cerf. (Sources Chrétiennes Vol. 280)
- Früchtel, L., Stählin, O. & Treu, U. (1970). Clemens Alexandrinus, volume 2. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag. (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller vol. 52)
- Henry, P. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1951-73). Plotini opera, 3 volumes. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Holl, K. (Ed.). (1933). Epiphanius, Bände 1-3: Ancoratus und Panarion. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
(Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller vols. 25 and 31)
- Jackson, J. & Moore, C.H. (Eds.). (1962). Tacitus. The Histories, books IV-V. The Annals,
books I-III. London: William Heinemann Ltd. (The Loeb Classical Library)
- James, M.R. & Feldman, L.H. (Eds.). (1971). The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. New York:
Ktav Publishing House.
- Jaubert, A. (Ed.). (1971). Clément de Rome. Épître aux Corinthiens. Paris: Éditions du
Cerf. (Sources chrétiennes vol. 167)
- Mahé, J.-P. (Ed.). (1975). Tertullien. La Chair du Christ. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.
(Sources Chrétiennes Vol. 216)
- Marcovich, M. (Ed.). (1986). Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter. (Patristische Texte und Studien vol. 25)
- Marcovich, M. (Ed.). (2001). Origines. Contra Celsum Libri VIII. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
(Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae vol. 54)
- Mondésert, C. (Ed.). (1949). Clément d'Alexandrie. Le protreptique. Paris: Les Éditions du
Cerf. (Sources chrétiennes vol. 2)
79
- Niese, B. (1955). Flavii Iosephi opera. Band 1-4. Berlin: Weidmann. Chapter: Antiquitates
Iudaicae)
- Niese, B. (1955). Flavii Iosephi opera. Band 5. Berlin: Weidmann. Chapter: Contra
Apionem)
- Niese, B. (1955). Flavii Iosephi opera. Band 6. Berlin: Weidmann. Chapter: De Bello
Iudaico)
- Opitz, H.-G. (Ed.). (1940). Athanasius Werke. Band 2.1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Chapter: De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi.
- Places, É. des (Ed.). (1973). Numénius. Fragments. Paris: Société d’Édition ‘Les Belles
Letttres’. (Budé).
- Preuschen, E. (Ed.). (1903). Origenes Werke. Vierter Band. Der Johanneskommentar.
Leipzig: Hinrichs. (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller vol. 10). Chapter: book
20).
- Preysing, K. von (Ed.). (1922). Des Heiligen Hippolytus von Rom Widerlegung aller Häresien
(Philosophumena). München: Josef Kösel & Friedrich Pustet. (Bibliothek der
Kirchenvater vol. 40)
- Quispel, G. (Ed.). (1966). Ptoleémée. Lettre a Flora. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. (Sources
Chrétiennes Vol. 24 bis)
- Rackham, H. (Ed.). (1998). Aristotle. Volume XXI. Politics London: Heinemann. (The
Loeb Classical Library)
- Rahlfs, A. (Ed.). (1971). Septuaginta. Id est, Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpres.,
Zweiter Band. Libri Poetici et Profetici. Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. (Chapter:
Wisdom of Solomon)
- Ras, M. (1993). Het Dagelijkse Leven in Oinoanda in de Tweede en Derde Eeuw na Christus.
Nijmegen: University Press.
- Robinson, J.M. (Ed.). (1996). The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Sagnard, F. (Ed.). (1948). Clément d’Alexandrie. Extraits de Théodote. Paris: Les Éditions
du Cerf. (Sources Chrétiennes Vol. 23)
- Schenkl, H. (Ed.)/ (1965). Epicteti dissertationes ab Arriano digestae. Leipzig: Teubner.
- Schleyer, D. (Ed.). (2002). Tertullian. De Praescriptione Haereticorum. Vom prinzipiellen
Einspruch gegen die Häretiker. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers. (Fontes Christiani, Vol. 42)
- Schmidt, C. & MacDermot, V. (Ed.). (1978). Pistis Sophia. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (The
Coptic Gnostic Library, vol. IX)
- Schulz-Flügel, E. & Mattei, P. (Eds.). (1997). Tertullien. La Voile des Vierges (De
Virginibus Velandis). Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. (Sources Chrétiennes Vol. 424)
- Spiro, F. (Ed.). (1967). Pausaniae Graeciae descriptio, Leipzig: Teubner.
- Suggs, M.J., Sandenfeld, K.D. & Mueller, J.R. (Eds). (1992). The Oxford Study Bible.
Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Website: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/inst/fontsel/
- Turcan, M. (Ed.). (1971). Tertullien. La Toilette des Femmes (De Cultu Feminarum). Paris:
Les Éditions du Cerf. (Sources Chrétiennes Vol. 173)
- Turcan, R. (Ed.). (2002). Firmicus Maternus. L’erreur des Religions Païennes. Paris: Société
d’Édition ‘Les Belles Lettres’. (Budé).
- Vanderkam (J.C.). (Ed.). (1989). The Book of Jubilees. Louvain: E. Peeters. (Corpus
Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 88)
- Williams, F. (Ed.). (1987). The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1-46).
Leiden: E.J. Brill. (Nag Hammadi Studies, vol. 35)
80
- Zelzer, M. (Ed.). (2004). Sancti Augustini Opera. Contra Iulianum (Opus Imperfectum).
Tomus Posterior. Libri IV-VI. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiastorum Latinorum, vol. 85.2)
- Algra, K, Barnes J., Mansfeld, J. & Schofield, M. (1999). Cambridge History of Hellenistic
Philosophy. Cambridge: University Press.
- Bagnall, R.S. & Derow, P. (Eds.). (2004). The Hellenistic Period. Historical Sources in
Translation. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing.
- Baigent, M., Leigh, R. & Lincoln, H. (2004). Holy Blood, Holy Grail. New York: Delta
Trade Paperbacks.
- Barker, M. (1992). The Great Angel. A Study of Israel’s Second God, London: Westminster
John Knox Press.
- Burkert, W. (1987). Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Campbell, J. (1964), Occidental Mythology. New York: Arkana.
- Colpe, C. (1981). Sethian and Zoroastrian Ages of the World. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The
Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 II: Sethian
Gnosticism, (pp. 540-552.) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Cumont, F.V.M. (1959). Afterlife in Roman Paganism. Lectures Delivered at Yale University
on the Silliman Foundation. New York: Dover Publications.
- Drijvers, H.J.W. (1966). Bardai.san of Edessa. Assen: Van Gorcum, Prakke & Prakke.
- Drummond, J. (1969). Philo Judaeus. The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development
and Completion. Amsterdam: Philo Press.
- Freke, T. & Gandy, P. (1999). The Jesus Mysteries. Was the ‘Original Jesus’ a Pagan God?
New York: Three Rivers Press.
- Green, P.M. (1990). Alexander to Actium. The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Harrison, J.E. (1961). Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. London: The Merlin
Press.
- King, K.L. (1997). Women and Goddess Traditions. In Antiquity and Today. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.
- Lewis, C.T. & Short, C. (1975). A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. & Jones, H.S. (1958). Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
- Lumpe, A. (1952). Die Philosophie des Xenophanes von Kolophon. München: Foth.
- MacRae, G.W. (1986). Gnosticism and the Church of John’s Gospel. In: Hedrick,
C.W. & Hodgson, R. Jr. (Eds.). Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (pp. 89-
96). Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.
- McCue, J.F. (1980). Conflicting Versions of Valentinianism? Irenaeus and the Excerpta
ex Theodoto. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference
at Yale March 1978 I: The School of Valentinus (pp. 404-416). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Mead, G.R.S. (1906). Fragments of a Fate Forgotten. Some Short Sketches among the Gnostics
Mainly of the First Two Centuries – A Contribution to the Study of Christian Origins. London:
The Theosophical Society.
- Meier, J.P. (1991-2001). A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York:
Doubleday.
81
- Merkelbach, R. (1995). Isis Regina, Zeus Sarapis. Die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den
Quellen dargestellt. Stuttgart: Teubner.
- Naerebout, F.G. & Singor, H.W. (2001). De Oudheid. Grieken en Romeinen in de context
van de wereldgescxhiedenis. Amsterdam: Ambo.
- Pagels, E.H. (1975). The Gnostic Paul. Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press.
- Pearson, B.A. (1986). The Problem of “Jewish Gnostic” Literature. In: Hedrick, C.W.
& Hodgson, R. Jr. (Eds.). Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (pp. 15-35).
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.
- Pritz, R.A. (1988). Nazarene Jewish Christianity. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.
- Ratzinger, J. (1987). Principles of Catholic Theology. Building Stones for a Fundamental
Theology. San Fransciso: Ignatius Press.
- Smith, M. (1981). The History of the Term Gnostikos. In: Layton, B. (Ed.). The
Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978 II: Sethian
Gnosticism, (pp. 796-807) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Tavard, G.H. (1973). Woman in Christian Tradition. London: University of Notre Dame
Press.
- Versnel, H.J. (1990). Ter Unus. Isis, Dionysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism. Leiden:
E.J. Brill.
- Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Website: www.wikipedia.org
82
Appendix: references
In this appendix the ancient literary and historical texts used as source and reference material
in this thesis are quoted alphabetically. The primary references are passages from the gnostic
writings considered and the secondary references are passages from other writings that have
been alluded to for comparison or clarification. When originally Greek or Latin texts are
extant in their original language they have been cited as such; if this is not the case a
translation is provided.
1. Primary references
1.1 Allogenes
83
1.4 The Apocryphon of John
84
And she requested again to grant her truth. And the invisible Spirit consented. (And [when he had]
consented) truth came forth, (35) and they attended and glorified the invisible, (6:1) excellent Spirit and his
Barbelo, the one for whose sake they had come into being. …
(10) And he looked at Barbelo with the pure light which surround the invisible Spirit and (with) his
spark, and she conceived from him. He begot a spark of light with a light resembling blessedness. But it does
not equal (15) his greatness. This was an only-begotten child of the Mother-Father who had come forth; it is
the only offspring, the only-begotten one of the Father, the pure Light.
85
1.4.8 The Apocryphon of John 14:13-15
And a voice came forth from the exalted aeon-heaven: ‘The Man exists and (15) the Son of Man.’
86
them and awaken them out of the depth of sleep. For they were both in a fallen state and they recognized their
nakedness. The Epinoia appeared to them as a light (and) she awakened (35) their thinking.
87
them for themselves and raise offspring (20) for their enjoyment. And at first they did not succeed. When they
had no success, they gathered together again and they made a plan together. They created a counterfeit spirit,
who resembles the Spirit whop had descended, (25) so as to pollute the souls through it. And the angels
changed themselves into the likeness of their [the daughters of men] mates, filling them with the spirit of
darkness, which they had mixed for them, and with evil. (30) They brought gold and silver and a gift and
copper and iron and metal and all kinds of things. And they steered the people who had followed them (30:1)
into great troubles, by leading them astray with many deceptions. They [the people] became old without having
enjoyment. They died, not having found truth and without knowing the God of truth. And (5) thus the whole
creation became enslaved forever, from the foundation of the world until now. And they took women and begot
children out of the darkness according to the likeness of their spirit. And they closed their hearts, (10) and
they hardened themselves through the hardness of the counterfeit spirit until now.
88
(24) Then the great Seth was (25) sent by the four lights, by the will of the Autogenes (63:1) and the
whole pleroma, through <the gift> and the good pleasure of the great invisible Spirit, and the five seals, and
the whole pleroma.
He passed through (5) the three parousias which I mentioned before: the flood, and the conflagration, and
the judgment of the archons and the powers and the authorities, to save her [the race] who went astray, through
the reconciliation of the world, and (10) the baptism through a Logos-begotten body which the great Seth
prepared for himself, secretly through the virgin, in order that the saints may be begotten by the holy Spirit,
through (15) invisible, secret symbols, through a reconciliation of the world with the world, through the
renouncing of the world and the god of the thirteen aeons, and (through) the convocations of the saints, and
(20) the ineffable ones, and the incorruptible bosom, and (through) the great light of the Father who preexisted
with his Providence and established through her the holy baptism that surpasses (25) the heaven, through the
incorruptible, (64:1) Logos-begotten one, even Jesus the living one, even he whom the great Seth has put on.
And through him he nailed the powers of the thirteen aeons, and (5) established those who are brought forth
and taken away. He armed them with an armor of knowledge of his truth, with an unconquerable power of
incorruptibility.
89
1.9 The Gospel of Philip
90
1.9.10 The Gospel of Philip 61:29-35
You saw the spirit, you (30) became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw [the Father, you]
shall become father. So [in this place] you see everything and [do] not [see] yourself, but [in that place] you do
see yourself – and what (35) you see you shall [become].
91
1.9.20 The Gospel of Philip 70:9-26
If the (10) woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became
the beginning of death. Because of this Christ came to repair the separation which was from the beginning (15)
and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation and unite them. But the
woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed those who have united in the bridal chamber
will (20) no longer be separated. Thus Eve separated from Adam because it was not in the bridal chamber
that she united with him.
The soul of Adam came into being by means of a breath. The partner of his soul is the spirit. His mother
(25) is the thing that was given to him. His soul was taken from him and replaced by a [spirit].
92
those who are anointed are present, those nearby also profit (from the fragrance). If those anointed with
ointment withdraw from them (5) and leave, then those not anointed, who merely stand nearby, still remain in
their bad odor.
93
Now all these (events) came to pass by the will of the father of the entirety. Afterwards, the spirit saw the soul-
endowed man upon the ground. And the spirit came forth from the Adamantine land; it descended and came
to dwell within (15) him, and that man became a living soul.
94
1.11.6 The Hypostasis of the Archons 91:30-33
And Adam [knew] his female counterpart Eve, and she became pregnant, and bore [Seth] to Adam. And
she said, ‘I have borne [another] man through God, in place [of Abel].’
95
1.13 Marsanes
1.14 Melchizedek
1.15 On Baptism A
96
which resembled the congregation in the eighth heaven; and a firstborn called Israel – which (25) is, ‘the man
that sees God’; and another being, called Jesus Christ, who resembles the savior above in the eighth heaven and
who sits at his right upon a revered throne, and at his left, there (30) sits the virgin of the holy spirit, upon a
throne glorifying him … (106:11) Now Pistis Sophia set him apart from the darkness and summoned him to
her right, and the prime parent she put at her left. Since that day, right has been called (15) justice, and left
called wickedness. Now because of this they all received a realm [κόσµος] in the congregation of justice and
wickedness…
97
1.18.3 Ptolemaios, Epistula ad Floram 33.7.9
Μαθήσῃ γάρ, θεοῦ διδόντος, ἑξῆς καὶ τῆν τούτων ἀρχήν τε καὶ γέννησιν, ἀξιουµένη τῆς
ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως, ἣν ἐκ διαδοχῆς καὶ ἡµεῖς παρειλήφαµεν, µετὰ καὶ τοῦ
κανονίσαι πάντας τοὺς λόγους τῇ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡµῶν διδασκαλίᾳ.
98
the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from
above, (35) a seed of the Truth…
99
inimitable and immutable. Because of this he is single in the proper sense (25) and is a god, because no one is
a god for him nor is anyone a father to him. He is unbegotten and there is no other who begot him, nor (30)
another who created him.
100
1.24.10 The Tripartite Tractate 86:15-23
They gathered together, asking the Father with beneficent intent that there be aid from above, from the Father,
for his glory, since the defective one could not become perfect in any other way, (20) unless it was the will of the
Pleroma of the Father, which he had drawn for himself, revealed, and given to the defective one.
101
1.24.17 The Tripartite Tractate 107:1-108:6
Only the enjoyment of the things which are evil did he [Logos] allow him [Adam] to taste, and from the other
tree with (5) the double (fruit) he did not allow him to eat, much less from the tree of life, so that [they would
not] acquire honor […] them and so that [they would not be…] (10) by the evil power [which] is called ‘the
serpent.’ And he is more cunning than all the evil powers. He led man astray [through] the determination of
those things which belong to the thought (15) and the desires. <He> made him transgress the command, so
that he would die. And he was expelled from every enjoyment of that place.
This is the expulsion which was made (20) for him, when he was expelled from the enjoyments of the things
which belong to the likeness and those of the representation. It was a work of providence, so that it might be
found that it is a short time until man will receive the enjoyments (25) of things which are eternally good, in
which is the place of rest. This is the spirit ordained when he first planned that man should experience the (30)
great evil, which is death, that is complete ignorance of the Totality, and that he should experience all the evils
which come from this and, (35) after the deprivations and cares which are in these, that he should receive of the
greatest (108:1) good, which is life eternal, that is, firm knowledge of the Totalities and the reception of all
good things. (5) Because of the transgression of the first man death ruled.
102
however, who (30) are proud because of the desire of ambition, and who love temporary glory and who forget
that it was only for certain periods and times which they have that they were entrusted with power, (35) and
for this reason did not acknowledge that the Son of God (121:1) is the Lord of all and Savior, and were not
brought out of wrath and the resemblance to the evil ones, they (5) will receive judgment for their ignorance and
their senselessness, which is suffering, along with those who went astray…
103
This, then, is the [Tetrad] begotten according to [the likeness] of the Uncreated (Tetrad). And [the] Tetrad is
begotten (30) […. (16) the Decad] from [Word and Life] and the Dodecad from Man, and [Church became
a] (20) Triacontad.
104
1.26 Zostrianos
2. Secondary references
2.2 Aristoteles
105
ἔχοντος, τὸ δ' ἐξ ἴσου ἢ ἀνάπαλιν βλαβερὸν πᾶσιν. πάλιν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις
ζῴοις ὡσαύτως· τὰ µὲν γὰρ ἥµερα τῶν ἀγρίων βελτίω τὴν φύσιν, τούτοις δὲ πᾶσι βέλτιον
ἄρχεσθαι ὑπ' ἀνθρώπου· τυγχάνει γὰρ σωτηρίας οὕτως. ἔτι δὲ τὸ ἄρρενπρὸς τὸ θῆλυ
φύσει τὸ µὲν κρεῖττον τὸ δὲ χεῖρον, καὶ τὸ µὲν ἄρχον τὸ δ' ἀρχόµενον.
2.3 Athanasios
2.4 Augustinus
106
cui respondes, quae tibi tamquam redarguenda proponis, ubi dixi: ‘Illud ergo peccatum quod ipsum hominem
in paradiso mutavit in peius, quia multo est grandius quam iudicare nos possumus, ab omni nascente
trahitur.’ Ut hoc non videatur grande peccatum, quo potuerit in deterius natura utari, leve ac prope nullum
supplicium contendis esse quod meruit. Hinc est quod maledictam terram in operibus praevaricatoris retorques
ad tui dogmatis pravitatem; hinc est quod spinas ac tribulos et antequam homo peccaret fuisse asseris
institutos, cum deus haec inter sua primitus instituta quod sudorem laborantis, ut non satis ad aerumnam
pertinere videretur, etiam naturale adiumentum esse dixisti, ut scilicet operantium artus sudore recreentur,
tamquam deus ista dicens non irrogaret supplicium pro peccato, sed daret insuper praemium.
107
τῆς δόξης· ὃν ἡµεῖς καταγγέλλοµεν νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα
ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ἵνα παραστήσωµεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ·
108
᾿Αλλὰ ἐρεῖ τις, Πῶς ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί; ποίῳ δὲ σώµατι ἔρχονται; ἄφρων, σὺ ὃ σπείρεις
οὐ ζῳοποιεῖται ἐὰν µὴ ἀποθάνῃ· καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶµα τὸ γενησόµενον σπείρεις
ἀλλὰ γυµνὸν κόκκον εἰ τύχοι σίτου ἤ τινος τῶν λοιπῶν· ὁ δὲ θεὸς δίδωσιν αὐτῷ σῶµα
καθὼς ἠθέλησεν, καὶ ἑκάστῳ τῶν σπερµάτων ἴδιον σῶµα. οὐ πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ,
ἀλλὰ ἄλλη µὲν ἀνθρώπων, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ κτηνῶν, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ πτηνῶν, ἄλλη δὲ ἰχθύων.
καὶ σώµατα ἐπουράνια, καὶ σώµατα ἐπίγεια· ἀλλὰ ἑτέρα µὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπουρανίων δόξα,
ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν ἐπιγείων. ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα
ἀστέρων· ἀστὴρ γὰρ ἀστέρος διαφέρει ἐν δόξῃ. Οὕτως καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν.
σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ· σπείρεται ἐν ἀτιµίᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δόξῃ·
σπείρεται ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δυνάµει· σπείρεται σῶµα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶµα
πνευµατικόν. εἰ ἔστιν σῶµα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευµατικόν.
109
2.5.23 Bible: New Testament: Gospel of John 6:53
ἐὰν µὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷµα, οὐκ ἔχετε
ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
110
καὶ εἰδὼς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὰς ἐνθυµήσεις αὐτῶν εἶπεν, ῾Ινατί ἐνθυµεῖσθε πονηρὰ ἐν ταῖς
καρδίαις ὑµῶν; τί γάρ ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν, ᾿Αφίενταί σου αἱ ἁµαρτίαι, ἢ εἰπεῖν,
῎Εγειρε καὶ περιπάτει; ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
ἀφιέναι ἁµαρτίαςᾲτότε λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ,᾿Εγερθεὶς ἆρόν σου τὴν κλίνην καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς
τὸν οἶκόν σου.
111
µε, ἠσθένησα καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθέ µε, ἐν φυλακῇ ἤµην καὶ ἤλθατε πρός µε. τότε
ἀποκριθήσονται αὐτῷ οἱ δίκαιοι λέγοντες, Κύριε, πότε σε εἴδοµεν πεινῶντα καὶ
ἐθρέψαµεν, ἢ διψῶντα καὶ ἐποτίσαµεν; πότε δέ σε εἴδοµεν ξένον καὶ συνηγάγοµεν, ἢ
γυµνὸν καὶ περιεβάλοµεν; πότε δέ σε εἴδοµεν ἀσθενοῦντα ἢ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ ἤλθοµεν πρός
σε; καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐρεῖ αὐτοῖς, ᾿Αµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, ἐφ' ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ
τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν µου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐµοὶ ἐποιήσατε. Τότε ἐρεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἐξ
εὐωνύµων, Πορεύεσθε ἀπ' ἐµοῦ [οἱ] κατηραµένοι εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἡτοιµασµένον
τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ· ἐπείνασα γὰρ καὶ οὐκ ἐδώκατέ µοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα
καὶ οὐκ ἐποτίσατέ µε, ξένος ἤµην καὶ οὐ συνηγάγετέ µε, γυµνὸς καὶ οὐ περιεβάλετέ µε,
ἀσθενὴς καὶ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ οὐκ ἐπεσκέψασθέ µε. τότε ἀποκριθήσονται καὶ αὐτοὶ
λέγοντες, Κύριε, πότε σε εἴδοµεν πεινῶντα ἢ διψῶντα ἢ ξένον ἢ γυµνὸν ἢ ἀσθενῆ ἢ ἐν
φυλακῇ καὶ οὐ διηκονήσαµέν σοι; τότε ἀποκριθήσεται αὐτοῖς λέγων, ᾿Αµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν,
ἐφ' ὅσον οὐκ ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων, οὐδὲ ἐµοὶ ἐποιήσατε. καὶ
ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
112
υἱὸν ἔχει. εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑµᾶς καὶ ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν οὐ φέρει, µὴ λαµβάνετε αὐτὸν
εἰς οἰκίαν καὶ χαίρειν αὐτῷ µὴ λέγετε· ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις
αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς.
113
2.6.4 Bible: Old Testament: Exodus 20:5
You must bow down to them in worship; for I, the lord your God, am a jealous God…
114
2.6.8 Bible: Old Testament: Genesis 4:25
Adam lay with his wife again. She gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, ‘for’, she said, ‘God has granted
me another son in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.’
115
2.6.18 Bible: Old Testament: Jeremiah 2:33-3:20
You pick your way so well in search of lovers; even wanton women can learn from you. Yes, and there is blood
on the corners of your robe – the life-blood of the innocent poor, though you did not catch them housebreaking.
For all these things I shall punish you. (35) You say, ‘I am innocent; surely his anger has passed away.’ But I
shall challenge your claim to have done no sin. Why do you so lightly change your course? You will be let down
by Egypt as you were by Assyria; you will go into exile from here with your hands on your heads, for the Lord
rejects those on whom you rely, and from them you will gain nothing. (3:1) If a man divorces his wife and she
leaves him, and if she then becomes another’s, may he go back to her again? Is not that woman defiled, a
forbidden thing? You have been unfaithful with many lovers, says the Lord, and yet you would come back to
me? Look up to the bare heights and see; where have you not been lain with? Like an Arab lurking in the
desert you sat by the wayside to catch lovers; you defiled the land with your adultery and debauchery. Therefore
the showers were withheld and the spring rain failed. But yours was a prostitute’s brazenness, and you were
resolved to show no shame. Not so long since you have called ‘Father, teacher of my youth,’ (5) thinking, ‘Will
he keep up his anger for ever? Will he rage to the end?’ This is how you spoke, but you have done evil and
gone unchallenged. In the reign of King Josiah the Lord said to me: Do you see what apostate Israel has done,
how she went to every hilltop and under every spreading tree, and there committed adultery? Even after she had
done all this I thought she would come back to me, but she did not. That faithless woman, her sister Judah,
saw it; she saw too that I had put apostate Israel away and given her a certificate of divorce because she had
committed adultery. She defiled the land with her casual prostitution and her adulterous worship of stone and
wood. (10) In spite of all this Judah, that faithless woman, has not come back to me in sincerity, but only in
pretence. This is the word of the Lord. The Lord said to me: Apostate Israel is less to blame than that
faithless woman Judah. Go and proclaim this message towards the north: Come back, apostate Israel, says the
Lord; I shall no longer frown on you. For my love is unfalling, says the Lord; I shall not keep up my anger for
ever. Only acknowledge your wrongdoing, your rebellion and the Lord your God, your promiscuous traffic with
foreign gods under every spreading tree, and your disobedience to my commands. This is the word of the Lord.
Come back, apostate people, says the Lord, for I am patient with you, and I shall take, one from each city
and two from each clan, and bring you to Zion. (15) There I shall give you shepherds after my own heart, and
they will lead you with knowledge and understanding. In those days, when you have increased and become
fruitful in the land, says the Lord, no one will speak any more of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord; no
one will think of it or remember it or resort to it; that will be done no more. At that time Jerusalem will be
called the Throne of the Lord, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honour the Lord’s name; never
again will they follow the promptings of their evil and stubborn hearts. In those days Judah will be united with
Israel, and together they will come from a northern land into the land I gave their fathers as their holding. I
said: How gladly would I treat you as a son, giving you a pleasant land, a holding fairer than that of any
nation! You would call me ‘Father’, I thought, and never cease to follow me. (20) But like a woman who
through illicit love has been unfaithful, so you, Israel, were unfaithful to me. This is the word of the Lord.
116
Thus the Israelites lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and
the Jebusites; they took their daughters in marriage and gave their own daughters to their sons; and they served
their gods. The Israelites did what was wrong in the eyes of the Lord: forgetting the Lord their God, they
served they baalim and the asheroth.
117
2.6.27 Bible: Old Testament: Psalms 71:6
On you I have leaned from birth; you brought me from my mother’s womb; to you I offer praise at all times.
118
things that the flood was on the earth, since (it was) due to fornication that the Watchers had illicit intercourse
– apart from the mandate of their authority – with women. When they married of them whomever they chose
they committed the first (acts) of uncleanness. They fathered (as their) sons the Nephilim. They were all
dissimilar (from one another) and would devour one another: the giant killed the Naphil; the Naphil killed
the Elyo; the Elyo mankind; and people their fellows. When everyone sold himself to commit injustice and to
shed innocent blood, the earth was filled with in justice. After them all the animals, birds, and whatever moves
about and whatever walks on the earth. Much blood was shed on the earth. All the thoughts and wishes of
mankind were (devoted to) thinking up what was useless and wicked all the time. (25) Then the Lord
obliterated all from the surface of the earth because of their actions and because of the blood which they had
shed in the earth.
119
2.9.5 Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta ex Theodoto 17.1
῎Εστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ ἡ ᾿Εκκλησία καὶ ἡ Σοφία δι' ὅλων κρᾶσις τῶν σωµάτων δυνατὴ κατὰ
τοὺς Οὐαλεντινιανούς.
120
ἐκράθη, ὥσπερ τοῖς ῞Ολοις, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τῷ Παρακλήτῳ. (33.1) Υἱόθετος µέντοι γέγονεν
ὁ Χριστός, ὡς πρὸς τὰ πληρώµατα < ᾿Εκλεκτὸς > γενόµενος καὶ < Πρωτότοκος > τῶν
ἐνθάδε πραγµάτων. … Χριστοῦ, φασί, τὸ ἀνοίκειον φυγόντος <καὶ> συσταλέντος εἰς τὸ
Πλήρωµα, ἐκ τῆς µητρῴας γενοµένου ἐννοίας, ἡ Μήτηρ αὖθις τὸν τῆς οἰκονοµίας
προηγάγετο ῎Αρχοντα, εἰς τύπον τοῦ φυγόντος αὐτήν, κατ' ἐπιπόθησιν αὐτοῦ, κρείττονος
ὑπάρχοντος, ὃς ἦν τύπος τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων. ∆ιὸ καὶ ἥττων γίνεται, ὡς ἂν ἐκ πάθους
τῆς ἐπιθυµίας συνεστώς. < ᾿Εµυσάχθη > µέντοι ἐνιδοῦσα τὴν
< ἀποτοµίαν > αὐτοῦ, ὥς φασιν αὐτοί.
121
< Λαβὼν χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς >, - οὐ τῆς ξηρᾶς, ἀλλὰ τῆς πολυµεροῦς καὶ ποικίλης ὕλης
µέρος, - ψυχὴν γεώδη καὶ ὑλικὴν ἐτεκτήνατο ἄλογον καὶ τῇ τῶν θηρίων ὁµοούσιον· οὗτος
<ὁ> < κατ' εἰκόνα > ἄνθρωπος. ῾Ο δὲ < καθ' ὁµοίωσιν >, τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ∆ηµιουργοῦ
ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὃν εἰς τοῦτον < ἐνεφύσησέν > τε καὶ ἐνέσπειρεν, ὁµοούσιόν τι αὐτῷ δι'
᾿Αγγέλων ἐνθείς. Καθὸ µὲν ἀόρατός ἐστι καὶ ἀσώµατος, τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ < πνοὴν ζωῆς
> προσεῖπεν· µορφωθὲν δέ, < ψυχὴ ζῶσα > ἐγένετο· ὅπερ εἶναι, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ταῖς
προφητικαῖς γραφαῖς ὁµολογεῖ. (51.1) ῎Ανθρωπος γοῦν ἐστιν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, ψυχικὸς ἐν
χοϊκῷ, οὐ µέρει µέρος, ἀλλὰ ὅλῳ ὅλος συνών, ἀρρήτῳ δυνάµει Θεοῦ. ῞Οθεν ἐν τῷ
Παραδείσῳ, τῷ τετάρτῳ οὐρανῷ, δηµιουργεῖται. … (52.1) Τοῦτο τὸ σαρκίον < ἀντίδικον
> ὁ Σωτὴρ εἶπεν καὶ ὁ Παῦλος < νόµον ἀντιστρατευόµενον τῷ νόµῳ τοῦ νοός µου >· καὶ
< δῆσαι > παραινεῖ καὶ < ἁρπάσαι ὡς ἰσχυροῦ τὰ σκεύη >, τοῦ ἀντιπολεµοῦντος τῇ
οὐρανίῳ ψυχῇ, ὁ Σωτήρ· καὶ < ἀπηλλάχθαι αὐτοῦ > παραινεῖ < κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν, µὴ τῇ
φυλακῇ περιπέσωµεν καὶ τῇ κολάσει > …(53.1) Τοῦτο < ζιζάνιον > ὀνοµάζεται συµφυὲς
τῇ ψυχῇ, τῷ χρηστῷ σπέρµατι· τοῦτο καὶ < σπέρµα τοῦ ∆ιαβόλου >, ὡς ὁµοούσιον
ἐκείνῳ, καὶ < ὄφις > καὶ < διαπτερνιστὴς > καὶ < λῃστὴς > ἐπιτιθέµενος κεφαλῇ
βασιλέως. ῎Εσχεν δὲ ὁ ᾿Αδὰµ ἀδήλως αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας ἐνσπαρὲν τὸ σπέρµα τὸ
πνευµατικὸν εἰς τὴν ψυχήν, < διαταγείς >, φησί, < δι' ᾿Αγγέλων, ἐν χειρὶ Μεσίτου· ὁ δὲ
µεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν· ὁ δὲ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν>. < ∆ι' ᾿Αγγέλων > οὖν τῶν ἀρρένων τὰ
σπέρµατα ὑπηρετεῖται, τὰ εἰς γένεσιν προβληθέντα ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας, καθὸ ἐγχωρεῖ
γίνεσθαι. ῞Ατε γὰρ ∆ηµιουργός, ἀδήλως κινούµενος ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας, οἴεται
αὐτοκίνητος εἶναι, ὁµοίως καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι.
122
῾Η µὲν οὖν τῶν πνευµατικῶν ἀνάπαυσις ἐν κυριακῇ, ἐν ᾿Ογδοάδι, ἣ Κυριακὴ ὀνοµάζεται,
παρὰ τῇ Μητρί, ἐχόντων τὰς ψυχάς, τὰ ἐνδύµατα, ἄχρι συντελείας· αἱ δὲ ἄλλαι πισταὶ
ψυχαί, παρὰ τῷ ∆ηµιουργῷ· περὶ δὲ τὴν συντέλειαν, ἀναχωροῦσι καὶ αὗται εἰς ᾿Ογδόαδα.
Εἶτα, τὸ δεῖπνον τῶν γάµων κοινὸν πάντων τῶν σῳζοµένων, ἄχρις ἂν ἀπισωθῇ πάντα καὶ
ἄλληλα γνωρίσῃ.
123
2.9.29 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata III.4.29.3
εἰ γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι καθάπερ οἱ ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου πνευµατικὰς ἐτίθεντο κοινωνίας, ἴσως τις
αὐτῶν τὴν ὑπόληψιν ἐπεδέξατ' <ἄν>·
124
2.10.2 Clemens Romanus, 1 Πρὸς Κορινθίους 60.4-61.2
∆ὸς ὁµόνοιαν καὶ εἰρήνην ἡµῖν τε καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν τὴν γῆν, καθὼς ἔδωκας τοῖς
πατράσιν ἡµῶν, ἐπικαλουµένων σε αὐτῶν ὁσίως ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, ὑπηκόους
γινοµένους τῷ παντοκράτορι καὶ παναρέτῳ ὀνόµατί σου, τοῖς τε ἄρχουσιν καὶ ἡγουµένοις
ἡµῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. (61.1) Σύ, δέσποτα, ἔδωκας τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῖς διὰ τοῦ
µεγαλοπρεποῦς καὶ ἀνεκδιηγήτου κράτους σου, εἰς τὸ γινώσκοντας ἡµᾶς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ
αὐτοῖς δεδοµένην δόξαν καὶ τιµὴν ὑποτάσσεσθαι αὐτοῖς, µηδὲν ἐναντιουµένους τῷ
θελήµατί σου· οἷς δός, κύριε, ὑγείαν, εἰρήνην, ὁµόνοιαν, εὐστάθειαν, εἰς τὸ διέπειν αὐτοὺς
τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ δεδοµένην αὐτοῖς ἡγεµονίαν ἀπροσκόπως. Σὺ γάρ, δέσποτα ἐπουράνιε,
βασιλεῦ τῶν αἰώνων, δίδως τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξαν καὶ τιµὴν καὶ ἐξουσίαν τῶν
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὑπαρχόντων· σύ, κύριε, διεύθυνον τὴν βουλὴν αὐτῶν κατὰ τὸ καλὸν καὶ
εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιόν σου, ὅπως διέποντες ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ πραΰτητι εὐσεβῶς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ
αὐτοῖς δεδοµένην ἐξουσίαν ἵλεώ σου τυγχάνωσιν.
125
πλάνης αὐτῶν, οἱ σεσιγηµένοι καὶ µὴ γινωσκόµενοι· τοῦτο τὸ ἀόρατον καὶ πνευµατικὸν
κατ' αὐτοὺς πλήρωµα, τριχῆ διεσταµένον εἰς ὀγδοάδα, καὶ δεκάδα, καὶ δωδεκάδα.
126
Τὸ δὲ ἓν Πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἐξισωθέντας αὐτοὺς πάντας εὐχαριστεῖν ἐδίδαξε, καὶ τὴν
ἀληθινὴν ἀνάπαυσιν εἰσηγήσατο. Οὕτως τε µορφῇ καὶ γνώµῃ ἴσους κατασταθῆναι τοὺς
Αἰῶνας λέγουσι... καὶ ἐµµελῶς ἑνώσαντας, προβαλέσθαι προβλήµατα εἰς τιµὴν καὶ δόξαν
τοῦ Βυθοῦ, τελειότατον κάλλος τε καὶ ἄστρον τοῦ Πληρώµατος, τέλειον καρπὸν τὸν
᾿Ιησοῦν, ὃν καὶ Σωτῆρα προσαγορευθῆναι, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Λόγον πατρωνυµικῶς, καὶ
κατὰ [καὶ τὰ] Πάντα, διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ πάντων εἶναι...
127
ἀφανισθῆναι, ὡς τὰ τῆς προτέρας, διὰ τὸ ἑκτικὰ ἤδη καὶ δυνατὰ εἶναι - ἀλλ' ἀποκρίναντα
χωρήσει τοῦ χωρὶς συγχέαι καὶ πῆξαι, καὶ ἐξ ἀσωµάτου πάθους εἰς ἀσώµατον τὴν ὕλην
µεταβαλεῖν αὐτά· εἶθ' οὕτως ἐπιτηδειότητα καὶ φύσιν ἐµπεποιηκέναι αὐτοῖς, ὥστε εἰς
συγκρίµατα καὶ σώµατα ἐλθεῖν, πρὸς τὸ γενέσθαι δύο οὐσίας, τὴν φαύλην <ἐκ> τῶν
παθῶν, τήν τε <ἐκ> τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς ἐµπαθῆ· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δυνάµει τὸν Σωτῆρα
δεδηµιουργηκέναι φάσκουσι. Τήν τε ᾿Αχαµὼθ ἐκτὸς πάθους γενοµένην, [καὶ]
συλλαβοῦσαν τῇ χαρᾷ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ φώτων τὴν θεωρίαν, τουτέστι τῶν ᾿Αγγέλων τῶν µετ'
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐγκισσήσασαν <εἰς> αὐτοὺς, κεκυηκέναι καρποὺς κατὰ τὴν <εἰκόνων>
διδάσκουσι, κύηµα πνευµατικὸν καθ' ὁµοίωσιν γεγονότως γεγονὸς τῶν δορυφόρων τοῦ
Σωτῆρος.
128
δαιµόνια, καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους, καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν πνευµατικὴν τῆς πονηρίας ὑπόστασιν. ᾿Αλλὰ
τὸν µὲν ∆ηµιουργὸν υἱὸν τῆς Μητρὸς αὐτῶν λέγουσι, τὸν δὲ κοσµοκράτορα κτίσµα τοῦ
∆ηµιουργοῦ· καὶ τὸν µὲν κοσµοκράτορα γινώσκειν τὰ ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν, ὅτι πνεῦµά ἐστι τῆς
πονηρίας· τὸν δὲ ∆ηµιουργὸν ἀγνοεῖν, ἅτε ψυχικὰ ὑπάρχοντα. Οἰκεῖν δὲ τὴν Μητέρα
αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν ὑπερουράνιον τόπον, τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ µεσότητι· τὸν ∆ηµιουργὸν δὲ εἰς τὸν
ἐπουράνιον τόπον, τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ ἑβδοµάδι· τὸν <δὲ> κοσµοκράτορα ἐν τῷ καθ' ἡµᾶς
κόσµῳ. ᾿Εκ δὲ τῆς ἐκπλήξεως καὶ τῆς ἀµηχανίας ὡς +ἐκ τοῦ στασιµωτέρου+ τὰ
σωµατικὰ, καθὼς προείπαµεν, τοῦ κόσµου στοιχεῖα γεγονέναι … ∆ηµιουργήσαντα δὴ τὸν
κόσµον, πεποιηκέναι καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν χοϊκόν· οὐκ ἀπὸ ταύτης δὲ τῆς ξηρᾶς γῆς,
ἀλλ' ἀπὸ τῆς ἀοράτου οὐσίας, ἀπὸ τοῦ κεχυµένου καὶ ῥευστοῦ τῆς ὕλης λαβόντα· καὶ εἰς
τοῦτον ἐµφυσῆσαι τὸν ψυχικὸν διορίζονται. Καὶ τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν κατ' εἰκόνα καὶ
ὁµοίωσιν γεγονότα· κατ' εἰκόνα µὲν τὸν ὑλικὸν ὑπάρχειν, παραπλήσιον µὲν, ἀλλ' οὐχ
ὁµοούσιον τῷ Θεῷ· καθ' ὁµοίωσιν δὲ τὸν ψυχικὸν, ὅθεν καὶ πνεῦµα ζωῆς τὴν οὐσίαν
αὐτοῦ εἰρῆσθαι, ἐκ πνευµατικῆς ἀπορ᾿ῥοίας οὖσαν. ῞Υστερον δὲ περιτεθεῖσθαι λέγουσιν
αὐτῷ τὸν δερµάτινον χιτῶνα· τοῦτο δὲ τὸ αἰσθητὸν σαρκίον εἶναι ?έ?ουσι. Τὸ δὲ κύηµα
τῆς µητρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς ᾿Αχαµὼθ, ὃ κατὰ τὴν θεωρίαν τῶν περὶ τὸν Σωτῆρα ἀγγέλων
ἀπεκύησεν, ὁµοούσιον ὑπάρχον τῇ µητρὶ, πνευµατικὸν, καὶ αὐτὸν ἠγνοηκέναι τὸν
∆ηµιουργὸν λέγουσι· καὶ λεληθότως κατατεθεῖσθαι εἰς αὐτὸν, µὴ εἰδότος αὐτοῦ, ἵνα δι'
αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ ψυχὴν σπαρὲν, καὶ εἰς τὸ ὑλικὸν τοῦτο σῶµα, κυοφορηθὲν <τε>
ἐν τούτοις καὶ αὐξηθὲν, ἕτοιµον γένηται εἰς ὑπο δοχὴν τοῦ τελείου <λόγου>. ῎Ελαθεν οὖν,
ὡς φασὶ, τὸν ∆ηµιουργὸν ὁ συγκατασπαρεὶς τῷ ἐµφυσήµατι αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας
πνευµατικὸς ἄνθρωπος ἀρρήτῳ <δυνάµει καὶ> προνοίᾳ. ῾Ως γὰρ τὴν µητέρα ἠγνοηκέναι,
οὕτω καὶ τὸ σπέρµα αὐτῆς· ὃ δὴ καὶ αὐτὸ ἐκκλησίαν εἶναι λέγουσιν, ἀντίτυπον τῆς ἄνω
᾿Εκκλησίας· καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἄνθρωπον ἀξιοῦσιν, ὥστε ἔχειν αὐτοὺς τὴν µὲν
ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ∆ηµιουργοῦ, τὸ δὲ σῶµα ἀπὸ τοῦ χοὸς, καὶ τὸ σαρκικὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης, τὸν
δὲ πνευµατικὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπὸ τῆς µητρὸς τῆς ᾿Αχαµώθ.
129
νυµφίον αὐτῆς τὸν Σωτῆρα, τὸν ἐκ πάντων γεγονότα, ἵνα συζυγία γένηται τοῦ Σωτῆρος
καὶ τῆς Σοφίας τῆς ᾿Αχαµώθ. Καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι νυµφίον καὶ νύµφην, νυµφῶνα δὲ τὸ πᾶν
πλήρωµα. Τοὺς δὲ πνευµατικοὺς ἀποδυσαµένους τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ πνεύµατα νοερὰ
γενοµένους, ἀκρατήτως καὶ ἀοράτως ἐντὸς πληρώµατος εἰσελθόντας νύµφας
ἀποδοθήσεσθαι τοῖς περὶ τὸν Σωτῆρα ἀγγέλοις. Τὸν δὲ ∆ηµιουργὸν µεταβῆναι καὶ αὐτὸν
εἰς τὸν τῆς µητρὸς Σοφίας τόπον, τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ µεσότητι· τάς τε τῶν δικαίων ψυχὰς
ἀναπαύσεσθαι καὶ αὐτὰς ἐν τῷ τῆς µεσότητος τόπῳ. Μηδὲν γὰρ ψυχικὸν ἐντὸς
πληρώµατος χωρεῖν.
130
῎Ανθρωπον καὶ ᾿Εκκλησίαν. ᾿Αλλὰ µὴν καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἐµήνυσε τετράδα· διηγούµενος
γὰρ περὶ τοῦ Σωτῆρος, καὶ λέγων πάντα τὰ ἐκτὸς τοῦ πληρώµατος δι' αὐτοῦ
µεµορφῶσθαι, καρπὸν εἶναί φησιν αὐτὸν παντὸς τοῦ πληρώµατος. Καὶ γὰρ φῶς εἴρηκεν
αὐτὸν τὸ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαινόµενον, καὶ µὴ καταληφθὲν ὑπ' αὐτῆς, ἐπειδὴ πάντα τὰ
γενόµενα ἐκ τοῦ πάθους ἁρµόσας ἠγνοήθη ὑπ' αὐτῆς. Καὶ υἱὸν δὲ, καὶ ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ζωὴν
λέγει αὐτὸν καὶ λόγον σάρκα γενόµενον· οὗ τὴν δόξαν ἐθεασάµεθά, φησι, καὶ ἦν ἡ δόξα
αὐτοῦ, οἵα ἦν ἡ τοῦ µονογενοῦς, ἡ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς δοθεῖσα αὐτῷ, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ
ἀληθείας. Λέγει δὲ οὕτως· Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡµῖν, καὶ
ἐθεασάµεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς µονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρὸς, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ
ἀληθείας. ᾿Ακριβῶς οὖν καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἐµήνυσε τετράδα· Πατέρα εἰπὼν, καὶ Χάριν, καὶ
τὸν Μονογενῆ, καὶ ᾿Αλήθειαν. Οὕτως ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης περὶ τῆς πρώτης καὶ µητρὸς τῶν ὅλων
Αἰώνων ὀγδοάδος εἴρηκε. Πατέρα γὰρ εἴρηκε, καὶ Χάριν, καὶ Μονογενῆ, καὶ ᾿Αλήθειαν,
καὶ Λόγον, καὶ Ζωὴν, καὶ ῎Ανθρωπον, καὶ ᾿Εκκλησίαν.
131
Ἀρρήτου τρίτῳ καὶ ἑβδόµῳ τόπῳ, Ἀνονόµαστον, ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἀοράτου <τετάρτῳ καὶ ὀγδόῳ
τόπῳ> Ἀγέννητον, πλήρωµα τῆς πρώτης Ὀγδοάδος.
132
ἓξ, τὴν δωδεκάδα ἀπέδειξε. Καὶ πάλιν ἀπὸ τῆς δυάδος ὁµοίως ἀριθµούντων ἡµῶν ἕως τῶν
δέκα, ἡ Τριακοντάς ἀνεδείχθη, ἐν ᾗ
ὀγδοὰς καὶ δεκὰς καὶ δωδεκάς.
133
Logon. Coniugationes autem fient Ennoiae et Logi, et Aphtharsias et Christi, et aeonia autem Zoe Thelemati
coniuncta est, et Nus Prognosi. Et magnificabant hi magnum Lumen et Barbelon.
134
Et sic quidem filium eorum solum Christum, quasi dextrum, et in superiora adlevaciticium, arreptum
statim cum matre in incorruptibilem Aeonem. Esse autem hanc et veram et sanctam Ecclesiam, quae fuerit
appellatio et conventio et adunatio patris omnium, Primi Hominis, et filii, Secundi Hominis, et Christi, filii
eorum, et praedictae feminae.
135
per eum evacuet eos a principali virtute, convenientes formaverunt hominem emmensum latitudine et
longitudine. Scarizante autem eo tantum, advexerunt eum patri eorum, et hoc Sophia operante uti et illum
evacuet ab humectatione luminis, uti non posset erigi adversus eos qui susum sunt, habens virtutem. Illo autem
insufflante in hominem spiritum vitae, latenter evacuatum eum a virtute dicunt; hominem autem indee
habuisse nun et enthymesin, et haec esse quae salvantur dicunt, et statim gratias agere eum Primo Homini,
relictis fabricatoribus.
136
2.11.37 Eirenaios of Lyons, Adversus Haereses II.22.4
Triginta quidem annorum exsistens cum veniret ad baptismum, deinde, magistri aetatem perfectam habens,
venit in Hierusalem, ita ut ab omnibus iuste audiret magister: non enim aliud videbatur et aliud erat, sicut
inquiunt qui putativum introducunt, sed quod erat, hoc et videbatur. Magister ergo exsistens, magistri quoque
habebat aetatem, non reprobans neque supergrediens hominem neque solvens [suam] legem in se humani
generis, sed omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsum erat similitudinem. Omnes enim venit per
semetipsum salvare: omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes et parvulos et pueros et
iuvenes et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, et <in> infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes; in
parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem, simul et exemplum illis pietatis effectus et
iustitiae et subiectionis; in iuvenibus iuvenis, exemplum iuvenibus fiens et sanctificans domino: sic et senior in
senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed et secundum
aetatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis quoque fiens; deinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit
“promogenitus ex mortuis, ipse primatum tenens in omnibus” (Colossians 1:18), princeps vitae (Acts
3:15), prior omnium et praecedens omnes.
137
1:10) Secundum autem Marcionem et eos qui similes sunt ei, neque mundus per eum factus est, neque in sua
venit, sed in aliena. … Secundum autem eos qui sunt a Valentino, iterum non per eum factus est, sed per
Demiurgum. Hic enim operabatur similitudines tales fieri ad imitationem eorum quae sunt sursum,
quemadmodum dicunt; Demiurgus autem perficiebat fabricationem conditionis. Emissum enim dicunt eum a
matre dominum et Demiurgum eius dispositionis quae est secundum conditionem, per quem hunc mundum
factum volunt, cum evangelium manifeste dicat quoniam per verbum, quod in principio erat apud Deum,
omnia sunt facta. Quod ‘verbum,’ inquit, ‘caro factum est, est inhabitavit in nobis.’ (Gospel of John 1:14)
2.12 1 Enoch
138
such wisdom as I have received, according to my powers of understanding (and) the good pleasure of the Lord of
spirits, from whom has been given to me the lot of eternal life.
2.13 Epiktetos
139
2.13.1 Epiktetos, Dissertationes ab Arriano Digestae I.14.11-13
Τοῦτο δέ σοι καὶ λέγει τις, ὅτι ἴσην ἔχεις δύναµιν τῷ ∆ιί; ἀλλ' οὖν οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ
ἐπίτροπον ἑκάστῳ παρέστησεν τὸν ἑκάστου δαίµονα καὶ παρέδωκεν φυλάσσειν αὐτὸν
αὐτῷ καὶ τοῦτον ἀκοίµητον καὶ ἀπαραλόγιστον. τίνι γὰρ ἄλλῳ κρείττονι καὶ
ἐπιµελεστέἀπαραλόγιστον. τίνι γὰρ ἄλλῳ κρείττονι καὶ ἐπιµελεστέρῳ φύλακι παρέδωκεν
ἡµῶν ἕκαστον; ὥσθ', ὅταν κλείσητε τὰς θύρας καὶ σκότος ἔνδον ποιήσητε, µέµνησθε
µηδέποτε λέγειν ὅτι µόνοι ἐστέ· οὐ γὰρ ἐστέ, ἀλλ' ὁ θεὸς ἔνδον ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ ὑµέτερος
δαίµων ἐστίν. καὶ τίς τούτοις χρεία φωτὸς εἰς τὸ βλέπειν τί ποιεῖτε;
140
2.14.4 Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion I.31.2.6
τριάκοντα γὰρ οὗτος, ὡς ἔφην, αἰῶνας βούλεται παριστᾶν, οὓς καὶ θεοὺς ὀνοµάζει,
δεκαπέντε ἄρρενας καὶ θηλείας τοσαύτας εἶναι λέγων. ἕκαστον δὲ αἰῶνα ἀρρενόθηλυν
καὶ ζεῦγός φησιν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ αὐτοῦ· δεκαπέντε δὲ δυάδας φασὶν εἶναι, ἃς συζυγίας
καλοῦσι. τὸν ἀριθµὸν δὲ εἶναι τριάκοντα αἰῶνας, ἑκάστην δὲ θήλειαν γεννᾶν ἀπὸ τοῦ
ἄρρενος τοὺς καθεξῆς αἰῶνας…
141
αὐτῶν ἀρρενοθηλύντων. οἱ µὲν ἄρρενές εἰσι· Βύθιος ᾿Αγήρατος Αὐτοφυὴς Μονογενὴς
᾿Ακίνητος (οὗτοι τὴν προσωνυµίαν <εἰς> τὴν δόξαν τοῦ πάντα περιέχοντος
<περι>εποιήσαντο), αἱ δὲ θήλειαι· Μῖξις ῞Ενωσις Σύγκρασις ῾Ενότης ῾Ηδονή, καὶ αὗται
τὴν προσωνυµίαν εἰς δόξαν τῆς Σιγῆς περιεποιήσαντο. (6.1) Τετελειωµένης οὖν τῆς κατὰ
Πατέρα ᾿Αληθείας τριακάδος…
142
ἐκτεταµένη ἔµεινε. κάτω µὲν γὰρ κατενεχθῆναι οὐκ ἠδύνατο, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν συγγενής· ἄνω δὲ
οὐκ ἠδύνατο χωρεῖν, διὰ τὸ βαρεῖσθαι ἐκ τῆς ὕλης ἧς προσέλαβεν.
143
ἐνθυµηθεῖσα ἐποίησε γεννηθῆναι τὸν Σὴθ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἔθετο τὴν αὐτῆς δύναµιν, [καὶ]
καταβαλοῦσα ἐν αὐτῷ σπέρµα τῆς ἄνωθεν δυνάµεως καὶ τὸν σπινθῆρα τὸν ἄνωθεν
πεµφθέντα εἰς πρώτην καταβολὴν τοῦ σπέρµατος καὶ συστάσεως. καὶ εἶναι
ταύτην σύστασιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἐκλογὴν σπέρµατος καὶ γένους, ὅπως διὰ τῆς
τ<οι>αύτης συστάσεως καὶ τούτου τοῦ σπέρµατος καθαιρεθῶσιν αἱ δυνάµεις τῶν
ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσµον πεποιηκότων καὶ τοὺς δύο ἀπ' ἀρχῆς ἀνθρώπους. διὰ ταύτην οὖν
τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τὸ γένος τοῦ Σὴθ ἀφορισθὲν ἐντεῦθεν κατάγεται, ἐκλογῆς ὂν καὶ
διακεκριµένον τοῦ ἄλλου γένους. προβαινόντων γὰρ τῶν καιρῶν, φασί, καὶ ὁµοῦ ὄντων
τῶν δύο γενῶν, τοῦ τε Κάϊν καὶ τοῦ ῎Αβελ, εἰς τὸ αὐτό <τε> συνελθόντων διὰ κακίαν
πολλὴν καὶ ὁµοῦ µιχθέντων, ἀποβλέψασα ἡ πάντων Μήτηρ καθαρὸν τὸ σπέρµα τῶν
ἀνθρώπων ἠβουλήθη ἀπεργάσασθαι, ὡς προεῖπον, διὰ τὸ τὸν ῎Αβελ ἀπεκτάνθαι,
καὶ τοῦτον τὸν Σὴθ ἐξελέξατο καὶ καθαρὸν ἔδειξεν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τὸ σπέρµα µόνῳ τῆς
αὐτῆς δυνάµεως καὶ καθαρότητος κατέθετο…
144
αὐτῶν δραµατουργίας καὶ µυθώδους µαταιοφροσύνης καὶ ἐπιπλάστου ληρολογίας. εἰσὶ
µὲν γὰρ ἄλλαι τινὲς αἱρέσεις, αἵτινες δύναµίν τινα εἶναι λέγουσιν, ἣν καλοῦσιν
ὀνοµα<σ>τικῶς ῾Ωραίαν· τὴν παρ' ἄλλοις τοίνυν νοµιζοµένην δύναµιν ῾Ωραίαν τε
καλουµένην οὗτοι γυναῖκα τοῦ Σὴθ λέγουσιν.
145
τῶν ἀπὸ κακίας παθῶν ἰατρῶν δίκην ἀπαλλάττοντας ἀκεῖσθαι καὶ θεραπεύειν, ἢ τῆς περὶ
τὸ θεῖον καθαρᾶς καὶ εἰλικρινοῦς θεραπείας τε καὶ θρῃσκείας ἕνεκα. εἴτ' οὖν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ
ταύτην αὐτοῖς ἐπιτέθειται τὴν προσηγορίαν, οἰκείως ἐπιγράψας τῷ τρόπῳ τῶν ἀνδρῶν
τοὔνοµα, εἴτε καὶ ὄντως τοῦτ' αὐτοὺς ἐκάλουν κατ' ἀρχὰς οἱ πρῶτοι, µηδαµῶς τῆς
Χριστιανῶν πω προσρήσεως ἀνὰ πάντα τόπον ἐπιπεφηµισµένης, οὔ τι πω διατείνεσθαι
ἀναγκαῖον·
2.17 Hippolutos
146
τῆς κινήσεως, µεµορφωµένην κατὰ τὴν συνδροµὴν [τῆς παραθέσεως] τῶν συνελθουσῶν
δυνάµεων. γίνεται γὰρ τῶν δυνάµεων ἡ συνδροµὴ οἱονεί τις τύπος ἀπὸ πληγῆς σφραγῖδος
[κατὰ συνδροµήν], παραπλησίως [πρὸς] τῷ <εἰς κηρὸν> ἐκτυποῦντι τὰς ἀναφεροµένας
οὐσίας. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἄπειροι µὲν κατ' ἀριθµὸν τῶν τριῶν ἀρχῶν αἱ δυνάµεις <εἰσίν>, ἐκ δὲ
τῶν ἀπείρων δυνάµεων ἄπειροι συνδροµαί, ἀναγκαίως γεγόνασιν ἀπείρων σφραγίδων
εἰκόνες. αὗται οὖν εἰσιν αἱ εἰκόνες αἱ τῶν διαφόρων ζῴων ἰδέαι. γέγονεν οὖν ἐκ <τῆς>
πρώτης τῶν τριῶν ἀρχῶν συνδροµῆς µεγάλης [µεγάλη τις] ἰδέα σφραγῖδος, οὐρανὸς καὶ
γῆ. σχῆµα δὲ ἔχουσιν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ µήτρᾳ παραπλήσιον, τὸν ὀµφαλὸν ἐχούσῃ
µέσον. καὶ εἰ, φησίν, ὑπὸ ὄψιν ἀγαγεῖν θέλει τις τὸ σχῆµα τοῦτο, ἔγκυον µήτραν ὁποίου
βούλεται ζῴου τεχνικῶς ἐρευνησάτω, καὶ εὑρήσει τὸ ἐκτύπωµα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς
καὶ τῶν ἐν µέσῳ πάντων ἀπαραλ<λ>άκτως ὑποκείµενον. γέγονε δὴ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς τὸ
(σ)χῆµα τοιοῦτον οἱονεὶ µήτρᾳ παραπλήσιον κατὰ τὴν πρώτην συνδροµήν· ἐν <δ'> αὖ τῷ
µέσῳ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆ<ς> γῆ<ς> γεγόνασιν ἄπειροι δυνάµεων συνδροµαί. καὶ ἑκάστη
συνδροµὴ οὐκ ἄλλο τι εἰργάσατο καὶ ἐξετύπωσεν ἢ σφραγῖδα οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆ<ς>
παραπλήσιον µήτρᾳ. ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ <τῇ γῇ> ἀνέφυσαν ἐκ τῶν ἀπείρων σφραγίδων δια
φόρων ζῴων ἄπειρα πλήθη. εἰς δὲ ταύτην πᾶσαν τὴν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν [ἐν] τῶν διαφόρων
ζῴων ἀπειρίαν κατέσπαρται καὶ καταµεµέρισται µετὰ τοῦ φωτὸς ἡ τοῦ πνεύµατος ἄνωθεν
εὐωδία.
147
αὐτοῦ> εἰληφότων. ᾿Επεὶ οὖν κατείληπται τὸ φῶς καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα εἰς τὴν ἀκάθαρτον, φησί,
καὶ πολυπήµονα µήτραν ἄτακτον, εἰς ἣν ὁ ὄφις εἰσερχόµενος, ὁ ἄνεµος τοῦ σκότους, ὁ
πρωτόγονος τῶν ὑδάτων, γεννᾷ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἄλλο οὐδὲν εἶδος οὔτε ἀγαπᾷ οὔτε
γνωρίζει ἡ ἀκάθαρτος µήτρα, ὁµοιωθεὶς οὖν ὁ ἄνωθεν τοῦ φωτὸς τέλειος λόγος τῷ θηρίῳ,
τῷ ὄφει, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ἀκάθαρτον µήτραν, ἐξαπατήσας αὐτὴν τοῦ θηρίου τῷ
ὁµοιώµατι, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ δεσµὰ τὰ περικείµενα τῷ τελείῳ νοΐ, τῷ γεννωµένῳ ἐν ἀκαθαρσίᾳ
µήτρας ὑπὸ τοῦ πρωτοτόκου <τοῦ> ὕδατος ὄφεως, ἀνέµου, θηρίου.
148
ἡγείσθω, ἡ ὑπὸ ἐπίσκοπον οὖσα ἢ ᾧ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐπιτρέψῃ. ῞Οπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ
τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω, ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ᾖ Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. Οὐκ ἐξόν
ἐστιν χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν· ἀλλ' ὃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος
δοκιµάσῃ, τοῦτο καὶ τῷ θεῷ εὐάρεστον, ἵνα ἀσφαλὲς ᾖ καὶ βέβαιον πᾶν ὃ πράσσεται.
149
2.21.2 Midrash Genesis Rabbah 23:5 (quoted from Pearson (1981)
And she called his name Seth, ‘For God has set me an alien seed,’ etc. Rabbi Tanhuma in the name of
Samuel Kozit said: (She set her eyes on) that same seed who will arise from an alien place. And who is this?
This is the Messianic King.
2.23 Origenes
150
2.23.4 Origenes, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis 20.20.168-170
῾Ο µέντοι γε ῾Ηρακλέων ὑπολαµβάνει αἰτίαν ἀποδίδοσθαι τοῦ µὴ δύνασθαι αὐτοὺς
ἀκούειν τὸν Ιησοῦ λόγον µηδὲ γινώσκειν αὐτοῦ τὴν λαλιὰν ἐν τῷ < ῾Υµεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ >. αὐταῖς γοῦν λέξεσίν φησι· < ∆ιατί δὲ οὐ δύνασθε ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον
τὸν ἐµόν, ἢ ὅτι ὑµεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ; > ἀντὶ τοῦ < ἐκ τῆς οὺσίας τοῦ
διαβόλου >, φανερῶν αὐτοῖς λοιπὸν τὴν φύσιν αὐτῶν, καὶ προσελέγξας αὐτοὺς ὅτι οὔτε
τοῦ ᾿Αβραάµ εἰσιν τέκνα (οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐµίσουν αὐτόν), οὔτε τοῦ θεοῦ, διὸ οὐκ ἠγάπων
αὐτόν. ... νυνὶ δὲ δῆλός ἐστιν ὁµοουσίους τινὰς τῷ διαβόλῳ λέγων ἀνθρώπους, ἑτέρας, ὡς
οἴονται οἱ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, οὐσίας τυγχάνοντας παρ' οὓς καλοῦσι ψυχικοὺς ἢ πνευµατικούς.
2.24 Pausanias
151
2.25.2 Philo Alexandrinus, De Opicio Mundi 134-135
Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτά φησιν ὅτι < ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, καὶ
ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς > (Genesis 2:7). ἐναργέστατα καὶ διὰ
τούτου παρίστησιν ὅτι διαφορὰ παµµεγέθης ἐστὶ τοῦ τε νῦν πλασθέντος ἀνθρώπου καὶ
τοῦ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγονότος πρότερον· ὁ µὲν γὰρ διαπλασθεὶς αἰσθητὸς ἤδη
µετέχων ποιότητος, ἐκ σώµατος καὶ ψυχῆς συνεστώς, ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνή, φύσει θνητός· ὁ δὲ
κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα ἰδέα τις ἢ γένος ἢ σφραγίς, νοητός, ἀσώµατος, ἀσώµατος, οὔτ’ ἄρρεν
οὔτε θῆλυ, ἄφθαρτος φύσει τοῦ δ' αἰσθητοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ µέρους ἀνθρώπου τὴν κατασκευὴν
σύνθετον εἶναί φησιν ἔκ τε γεώδους οὐσίας καὶ πνεύµατος θείου· γεγενῆσθαι γὰρ τὸ µὲν
σῶµα χοῦν τοῦ τεχνίτου λαβόντος καὶ µορφὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ διαπλάσαντος, τὴν δὲ
ψυχὴν ἀπ' οὐδενὸς γενητοῦ τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἡγεµόνος τῶν πάντων· ὃ
γὰρ ἐνεφύσησεν, οὐδὲν ἦν ἕτερον ἢ πνεῦµα θεῖον ἀπὸ τῆς µακαρίας καὶ εὐδαίµονος
φύσεως ἐκείνης ἀποικίαν τὴν ἐνθάδε στειλάµενον ἐπ' ὠφελείᾳ τοῦ γένους ἡµῶν, ἵν' εἰ καὶ
θνητόν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ὁρατὴν µερίδα, κατὰ γοῦν τὴν ἀόρατον ἀθανατίζηται.
διὸ καὶ κυρίως ἄν τις εἴποι τὸν ἄνθρωπον θνητῆς καὶ ἀθανάτου φύσεως εἶναι µεθόριον
ἑκατέρας ὅσον ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι µετέχοντα καὶ γεγενῆσθαι θνητὸν ὁµοῦ καὶ ἀθάνατον,
θνητὸν µὲν κατὰ τὸ σῶµα, κατὰ δὲ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀθάνατον.
152
ἐφαρµόζουσι, θηλείαις δὲ οἰκουρία καὶ ἡ ἔνδον µονή, παρθένοις µὲν εἴσω κλισιάδων τὴν
µέσαυλον ὅρον πεποιηµέναις, τελείαις δὲ ἤδη γυναιξὶ τὴν αὔλειον. διττὸν γὰρ πόλεων
εἶδος, µειζόνων καὶ βραχυτέρων· αἱ µὲν οὖν µείζους ἄστη καλοῦνται, οἰκίαι δ' αἱ
βραχύτεραι. τὴν δ' ἑκατέρων προστασίαν διειλήχασιν ἄνδρες µὲν τῶν µειζόνων, ἧς ὄνοµα
πολιτεία, γυναῖκες δὲ τῶν βραχυτέρων, ἧς ὄνοµα οἰκονοµία. µηδὲν οὖν ἔξω τῶν κατὰ τὴν
οἰκονοµίαν πολυπραγµονείτω γυνὴ ζητοῦσα µοναυλίαν µηδ' οἷα νοµὰς κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς ἐν
ὄψεσιν ἀνδρῶν ἑτέρων ἐξεταζέσθω, πλὴν εἰς ἱερὸν ὁπότε δέοι βαδίζειν, φροντίδα
ποιουµένη καὶ τότε µὴ πληθυούσης ἀγορᾶς, ἀλλ' ἐπανεληλυθότων οἴκαδε τῶν πλείστων,
ἐλευθέρας τρόπον καὶ τῷ ὄντι ἀστῆς ἐν ἠρεµίᾳ θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσα καὶ εὐχὰς εἰς
ἀποτροπὴν κακῶν καὶ µετουσίαν ἀγαθῶν.
153
µίµηµα τοῦ πάλαι συστάντος κατὰ τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν ἕνεκα τῶν
θαυµατουργηθέντων ἐκεῖ.
2.26 Platon
154
ἀκριβεῖς εἰσιν µηδὲ σαφεῖς, σχολῇ αἵ γε ἄλλαι· πᾶσαι γάρ που τούτων φαυλότεραί εἰσιν. ἢ
σοὶ οὐ δοκοῦσιν; Πάνυ µὲν οὖν, ἔφη. Πότε οὖν, ἦ δ' ὅς, ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς ἀληθείας ἅπτεται;
ὅταν µὲν γὰρ µετὰ τοῦ σώµατος ἐπιχειρῇ τι σκοπεῖν, δῆλον ὅτι τότε ἐξαπατᾶται ὑπ'
αὐτοῦ. ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις. ῏Αρ' οὖν οὐκ ἐν τῷ λογίζεσθαι εἴπερ που ἄλλοθι κατάδηλον αὐτῇ
γίγνεταί τι τῶν ὄντων; Ναί. Λογίζεται δέ γέ που τότε κάλλιστα, ὅταν αὐτὴν
τούτων Λογίζεται δέ γέ που τότε κάλλιστα, ὅταν αὐτὴν τούτων µηδὲν παραλυπῇ, µήτε
ἀκοὴ µήτε ὄψις µήτε ἀλγηδὼν µηδέ τις ἡδονή, ἀλλ' ὅτι µάλιστα αὐτὴ καθ' αὑτὴν γίγνηται
ἐῶσα χαίρειν τὸ σῶµα, καὶ καθ' ὅσον δύναται µὴ κοινωνοῦσα αὐτῷ µηδ' ἁπτοµένη
ὀρέγηται τοῦ ὄντος. ῎Εστι ταῦτα. Οὐκοῦν καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἡ τοῦ φιλοσόφου ψυχὴ µάλιστα
ἀτιµάζει τὸ σῶµα καὶ φεύγει ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, ζητεῖ δὲ αὐτὴ καθ' αὑτὴν γίγνεσθαι; Φαίνεται. Τί
δὲ δὴ τὰ τοιάδε, ὦ Σιµµία; φαµέν τι εἶναι δίκαιον αὐτὸ ἢ οὐδέν; Φαµὲν µέντοι νὴ ∆ία. Καὶ
αὖ καλόν γέ τι καὶ ἀγαθόν; Πῶς δ' οὔ; Ἤδη οὖν πώποτέ τι τῶν τοιούτων τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς
εἶδες; Οὐδαµῶς, ἦ δ' ὅς. ᾿Αλλ' ἄλλῃ τινὶ αἰσθήσει τῶν διὰ τοῦ σώµατος ἐφήψω αὐτῶν;
λέγω δὲ περὶ πάντων, οἷον µεγέθους πέρι, ὑγιείας, ἰσχύος, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑνὶ λόγῳ
ἁπάντων τῆς οὐσίας ὃ τυγχάνει ἕκαστον ὄν· ἆρα διὰ τοῦ σώµατος αὐτῶν τὸ ἀληθέστατον
θεωρεῖται, ἢ ὧδε ἔχει· ὃς ἂν µάλιστα ἡµῶν καὶ ἀκριβέστατα παρασκευάσηται αὐτὸ
ἕκαστον διανοηθῆναι περὶ οὗ σκοπεῖ, οὗτος ἂν ἐγγύτατα ἴοι τοῦ γνῶναι ἕκαστον; Πάνυ
µὲν οὖν. ῏Αρ' οὖν ἐκεῖνος ἂν τοῦτο ποιήσειεν καθαρώτατα ὅστις ὅτι µάλιστα αὐτῇ τῇ
διανοίᾳ ἴοι ἐφ' ἕκαστον, µήτε τιν' ὄψιν παρατιθέµενος ἐν τῷ διανοεῖσθαι µήτε [τινὰ]
ἄλλην (66) αἴσθησιν ἐφέλκων µηδεµίαν µετὰ τοῦ λογισµοῦ, ἀλλ' αὐτῇ καθ' αὑτὴν
εἰλικρινεῖ τῇ διανοίᾳ χρώµενος αὐτὸ καθ' αὑτὸ εἰλικρινὲς ἕκαστον ἐπιχειροῖ θηρεύειν τῶν
ὄντων, ἀπαλλαγεὶς κρινὲς ἕκαστον ἐπιχειροῖ θηρεύειν τῶν ὄντων, ἀπαλλαγεὶς ὅτι µάλιστα
ὀφθαλµῶν τε καὶ ὤτων καὶ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν σύµπαντος τοῦ σώµατος, ὡς ταράττοντος καὶ
οὐκ ἐῶντος τὴν ψυχὴν κτήσασθαι ἀλήθειάν τε καὶ φρόνησιν ὅταν κοινωνῇ; ἆρ' οὐχ οὗτός
ἐστιν, ὦ Σιµµία, εἴπερ τις [καὶ] ἄλλος ὁ τευξόµενος τοῦ ὄντος; ῾Υπερφυῶς, ἔφη ὁ Σιµµίας,
ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες. Οὐκοῦν ἀνάγκη, ἔφη, ἐκ πάντων τούτων παρίστασθαι
δόξαν τοιάνδε τινὰ τοῖς γνησίως φιλοσόφοις, ὥστε καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τοιαῦτα ἄττα
λέγειν, ὅτι ἃ κινδυνεύει τοι ὥσπερ ἀτραπός τις ἐκφέρειν ἡµᾶς [µετὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῇ
σκέψει], ὅτι, ἕως ἂν τὸ σῶµα ἔχωµεν καὶ συµπεφυρµένη ᾖ ἡµῶν ἡ ψυχὴ µετὰ τοιούτου
κακοῦ, οὐ µή ποτε κτησώµεθα ἱκανῶς οὗ ἐπιθυµοῦµεν· φαµὲν δὲ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ ἀληθές.
µυρίας µὲν γὰρ ἡµῖν ἀσχολίας παρέξει τὸ σῶµα διὰ τὴν ἀναγκαίαν τροφήν· ἔτι δέ, ἄν τινες
νόσοι προσπέσωσιν, ἐµποδίζουσιν ἡµῶν τὴν τοῦ ὄντος θήραν. ἐρώτων δὲ καὶ ἐπιθυµιῶν
καὶ φόβων καὶ εἰδώλων παντοδαπῶν καὶ φλυαρίας ἐµπίµπλησιν ἡµᾶς πολλῆς, ὥστε τὸ
λεγόµενον ὡς ἀληθῶς τῷ ὄντι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ φρονῆσαι ἡµῖν ἐγγίγνεται οὐδέποτε οὐδέν.
καὶ γὰρ πολέµους καὶ στάσεις καὶ µάχας οὐδὲν ἄλλο παρέχει ἢ τὸ σῶµα καὶ αἱ τούτου
ἐπιθυµίαι. διὰ γὰρ τὴν τῶν χρηµάτων κτῆσιν πάντες οἱ πόλεµοι γίγνονται, τὰ δὲ χρήµατα
ἀναγκαζόµεθα κτᾶσθαι διὰ τὸ σῶµα, δουλεύοντες τῇ τούτου θεραπείᾳ· καὶ ἐκ τούτου
ἀσχολίαν ἄγοµεν φιλοσοφίας πέρι διὰ πάντα ταῦτα. τὸ δ' ἔσχατον πάντων ὅτι, ἐάν τις ἡµῖν
καὶ σχολὴ γένηται ἀπ' αὐτοῦ καὶ τραπώµεθα πρὸς τὸ σκοπεῖν τι, ἐν ταῖς ζητήσεσιν αὖ
πανταχοῦ παραπῖπτον θόρυβον παρέχει καὶ ταραχὴν καὶ ἐκπλήττει, ὥστε µὴ δύνασθαι ὑπ'
αὐτοῦ καθορᾶν τἀληθές. ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι ἡµῖν δύνασθαι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ καθορᾶν τἀληθές. ἀλλὰ
τῷ ὄντι ἡµῖν δέδεικται ὅτι, εἰ µέλλοµέν ποτε καθαρῶς τι εἴσεσθαι, ἀπαλλακτέον αὐτοῦ καὶ
αὐτῇ τῇ ψυχῇ θεατέον αὐτὰ τὰ πράγµατα· καὶ τότε, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἡµῖν ἔσται οὗ ἐπιθυµοῦµέν
τε καί φαµεν ἐρασταὶ εἶναι, φρονήσεως, ἐπειδὰν τελευτήσωµεν, ὡς ὁ λόγος σηµαίνει,
ζῶσιν δὲ οὔ. εἰ γὰρ µὴ οἷόν τε µετὰ τοῦ σώµατος µηδὲν καθαρῶς γνῶναι, δυοῖν
θάτερον, ἢ οὐδαµοῦ ἔστιν κτήσασθαι τὸ εἰδέναι ἢ τελευτήσασιν· τότε (67) γὰρ αὐτὴ καθ'
αὑτὴν ἡ ψυχὴ ἔσται χωρὶς τοῦ σώµατος, πρότερον δ' οὔ. καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἂν ζῶµεν, οὕτως, ὡς
ἔοικεν, ἐγγυτάτω ἐσόµεθα τοῦ εἰδέναι, ἐὰν ὅτι µάλιστα µηδὲν ὁµιλῶµεν τῷ σώµατι µηδὲ
155
κοινωνῶµεν, ὅτι µὴ πᾶσα ἀνάγκη, µηδὲ ἀναπιµπλώµεθα τῆς τούτου φύσεως, ἀλλὰ
καθαρεύωµεν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, ἕως ἂν ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸς ἀπολύσῃ ἡµᾶς· καὶ οὕτω µὲν καθαροὶ
ἀπαλλαττόµενοι τῆς τοῦ σώµατος ἀφροσύνης, ὡς τὸ εἰκὸς µετὰ τοιούτων τε ἐσόµεθα καὶ
γνωσόµεθα δι’ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν πᾶν τὸ εἰλικρινές, τοῦτο δ' ἐστὶν ἴσως τὸ ἀληθές· µὴ καθαρῷ
γὰρ καθαροῦ ἐφάπτεσθαι µὴ οὐ θεµιτὸν ᾖ.ἆ τοιαῦτα οἶµαι, ὦ Σιµµία, ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι
πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγειν τε καὶ δοξάζειν πάντας τοὺς ὀρθῶς φιλοµαθεῖς. ἢ οὐ δοκεῖ σοι
οὕτως; Παντός γε µᾶλλον, ὦ Σώκρατες. Οὐκοῦν, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης, εἰ ταῦτα ἀληθῆ, ὦ
ἑταῖρε, πολλὴ ἐλπὶς ἀφικοµένῳ οἷ ἐγὼ πορεύοµαι, ἐκεῖ ἱκανῶς, εἴπερ που ἄλλοθι,
κτήσασθαι τοῦτο οὗ ἕνεκα ἡ πολλὴ πραγµατεία ἡµῖν ἐν τῷ παρελθόντι βίῳ γέγονεν, ὥστε
ἥ γε ἀποδηµία ἡ νῦν µοι προστεταγµένη µετὰ ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος γίγνεται καὶ ἄλλῳ ἀνδρὶ ὃς
ἡγεῖταί οἱ παρεσκευάσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν ὥσπερ κεκαθαρµένην. Πάνυ µὲν οὖν, ἔφη ὁ
Σιµµίας. Κάθαρσις δὲ εἶναι ἆρα οὐ τοῦτο συµβαίνει, ὅπερ πάλαι Κάθαρσις δὲ εἶναι ἆρα
οὐ τοῦτο συµβαίνει, ὅπερ πάλαι ἐν τῷ λόγῳ λέγεται, τὸ χωρίζειν ὅτι µάλιστα ἀπὸ τοῦ
σώµατος τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ἐθίσαι αὐτὴν καθ' αὑτὴν πανταχόθεν ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος
συναγείρεσθαί τε καὶ ἁθροίζεσθαι, καὶ οἰκεῖν κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ νῦν παρόντι καὶ
ἐν τῷ ἔπειτα µόνην καθ' αὑτήν, κλυοµένην ὥσπερ [ἐκ] δεσµῶν ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος; Πάνυ µὲν
οὖν, ἔφη. Οὐκοῦν τοῦτό γε θάνατος ὀνοµάζεται, λύσις καὶ χωρισµὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ
σώµατος; Παντάπασί γε, ἦ δ' ὅς. Λύειν δέ γε αὐτήν, ὥς φαµεν, προθυµοῦνται ἀεὶ µάλιστα
καὶ µόνοι οἱ φιλοσοφοῦντες ὀρθῶς, καὶ τὸ µελέτηµα αὐτὸ τοῦτό ἐστιν τῶν φιλοσόφων,
λύσις καὶ χωρισµὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώµατος· ἢ οὔ; Φαίνεται. Οὐκοῦν, ὅπερ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἔλεγον,
γελοῖον ἂν εἴη ἄνδρα παρασκευάζονθ' ἑαυτὸν ἐν τῷ βίῳ ὅτι ἐγγυτάτω ὄντα τοῦ τεθνάναι
οὕτω ζῆν, κἄπειθ' ἥκοντος αὐτῷ τούτου ἀγανακτεῖν; Γελοῖον· πῶς δ' οὔ; Τῷ ὄντι ἄρα,
ἔφη, ὦ Σιµµία, οἱ ὀρθῶς φιλοσοφοῦντες ἀποθνῄσκειν µελετῶσι, καὶ τὸ τεθνάναι ἥκιστα
αὐτοῖς ἀνθρώπων φοβερόν. ἐκ τῶνδε δὲ σκόπει. εἰ γὰρ διαβέβληνται µὲν πανταχῇ τῷ
σώµατι, αὐτὴν δὲ καθ' αὑτὴν ἐπιθυµοῦσι τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχειν, τούτου δὲ γιγνοµένου εἰ
φοβοῖντο καὶ ἀγανακτοῖεν, οὐ πολλὴ ἂν ἀλογία εἴη, εἰ µὴ (68) ἅσµενοι ἐκεῖσε ἴοιεν, οἷ
ἀφικοµένοις ἐλπίς ἐστιν οὗ διὰ βίου ἤρων τυχεῖνᾲἤρων δὲ φρονήσεωςᾲᾧ τε διεβέβληντο,
τούτου ἀπηλλάχθαι συνόντος αὐτοῖς; ἢ ἀνθρωπίνων µὲν παιδικῶν καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ ὑέων
ἀποθανόντων πολλοὶ δὴ ἑκόντες ἠθέλησαν εἰς ῞Αιδου µετελθεῖν, ὑπὸ ταύτης ἀγόµενοι
τῆς ἠθέλησαν εἰς ῞Αιδου µετελθεῖν, ὑπὸ ταύτης ἀγόµενοι τῆς ἐλπίδος, τῆς τοῦ ὄψεσθαί τε
ἐκεῖ ὧν ἐπεθύµουν καὶ συνέσεσθαι· φρονήσεως δὲ ἄρα τις τῷ ὄντι ἐρῶν, καὶ λαβὼν
σφόδρα τὴν αὐτὴν ταύτην ἐλπίδα, µηδαµοῦ ἄλλοθι ἐντεύξεσθαι αὐτῇ ἀξίως λόγου ἢ ἐν
῞Αιδου, ἀγανακτήσει τε ἀποθνῄσκων καὶ οὐχ ἅσµενος εἶσιν αὐτόσε; οἴεσθαί γε χρή, ἐὰν
τῷ ὄντι γε ᾖ, ὦ ἑταῖρε, φιλόσοφος· σφόδρα γὰρ αὐτῷ ταῦτα δόξει, µηδαµοῦ ἄλλοθι
καθαρῶς ἐντεύξεσθαι φρονήσει ἀλλ' ἢ ἐκεῖ. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχει, ὅπερ ἄρτι ἔλεγον, οὐ
πολλὴ ἂν ἀλογία εἴη εἰ φοβοῖτο τὸν θάνατον ὁ τοιοῦτος; Πολλὴ µέντοι νὴ ∆ία, ἦ δ'
ὅς. Οὐκοῦν ἱκανόν σοι τεκµήριον, ἔφη, τοῦτο ἀνδρός, ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς ἀγανακτοῦντα µέλλοντα
ἀποθανεῖσθαι, ὅτι οὐκ ἄρ' ἦν φιλόσοφος ἀλλά τις φιλοσώµατος; ὁ αὐτὸς δέ που οὗτος
τυγχάνει ὢν καὶ φιλοχρήµατος καὶ φιλότιµος, ἤτοι τὰ ἕτερα τούτων ἤ ἀµφότερα. Πάνυ,
ἔφη, ἔχει οὕτως ὡς λέγεις. ῏Αρ' οὖν, ἔφη, ὦ Σιµµία, οὐ καὶ ἡ ὀνοµαζοµένη ἀνδρεία τοῖς
οὕτω διακειµένοις µάλιστα προσήκει; Πάντως δήπου, ἔφη. Οὐκοῦν καὶ ἡ σωφροσύνη, ἣν
καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ ὀνοµάζουσι σωφροσύνην, τὸ περὶ τὰς ἐπιθυµίας µὴ ἐπτοῆσθαι ἀλλ'
ὀλιγώρως ἔχειν καὶ κοσµίως, ἆρ' οὐ τούτοις µόνοις προσήκει, τοῖς µάλιστα τοῦ σώµατος
ὀλιγωροῦσίν τε καὶ ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ ζῶσιν; ᾿Ανάγκη, ἔφη. Εἰ γὰρ ἐθέλεις, ἦ δ' ὅς, ἐννοῆσαι
τήν γε τῶν ἄλλων ἀνδρείαν τε καὶ σωφροσύνην, δόξει σοι εἶναι ἄτοπος. Πῶς δή, ὦ
Σώκρατες; Οἶσθα, ἦ δ' ὅς, ὅτι τὸν θάνατον ἡγοῦνται πάντες οἱ ἄλλοι τῶν µεγάλων κακῶν;
τῶν µεγάλων κακῶν; Καὶ µάλ', ἔφη. Οὐκοῦν φόβῳ µειζόνων κακῶν ὑποµένουσιν αὐτῶν
οἱ ἀνδρεῖοι τὸν θάνατον, ὅταν ὑποµένωσιν; ῎Εστι ταῦτα. Τῷ δεδιέναι ἄρα καὶ δέει
156
ἀνδρεῖοί εἰσι πάντες πλὴν οἱ φιλόσοφοι· καίτοι ἄλογόν γε δέει τινὰ καὶ δειλίᾳ ἀνδρεῖον
εἶναι. Πάνυ µὲν οὖν. Τί δὲ οἱ κόσµιοι αὐτῶν; οὐ ταὐτὸν τοῦτο πεπόνθασιν· ἀκολασίᾳ τινὶ
σώφρονές εἰσιν; καίτοι φαµέν γε ἀδύνατον εἶναι, ἀλλ' ὅµως αὐτοῖς συµβαίνει τούτῳ
ὅµοιον τὸ πάθος τὸ περὶ ταύτην τὴν εὐήθη σωφροσύνην· φοβούµενοι γὰρ ἑτέρων ἡδονῶν
στερηθῆναι καὶ ἐπιθυµοῦντες ἐκείνων, ἄλλων ἀπέχονται ὑπ' ἄλλων κρατούµενοι. καίτοι
καλοῦσί γε ἀκο- (69) λασίαν τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν ἡδονῶν ἄρξεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ὅµως συµβαίνει αὐτοῖς
κρατουµένοις ὑφ' ἡδονῶν κρατεῖν ἄλλων ἡδονῶν. τοῦτο δ' ὅµοιόν ἐστιν ᾧ νυνδὴ ἐλέγετο,
τῷ τρόπον τινὰ δι' ἀκολασίαν αὐτοὺς σεσωφρονίσθαι. ῎Εοικε γάρ. ῏Ω µακάριε Σιµµία, µὴ
γὰρ οὐχ αὕτη ᾖ ἡ ὀρθὴ πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἀλλαγή, ἡδονὰς πρὸς ἡδονὰς καὶ λύπας πρὸς λύπας
καὶ φόβον πρὸς φόβον καταλλάττεσθαι, [καὶ] µείζω πρὸς ἐλάττω ὥσπερ νοµίσµατα, ἀλλ'
ᾖ ἐκεῖνο µόνον τὸ νόµισµα ὀρθόν, ἀντὶ οὗ δεῖ πάντα ταῦτα καταλλάττεσθαι, φρόνησις,
[καὶ τούτου µὲν πάντα] καὶ µετὰ τούτου [ὠνούµενά τε καὶ [πιπρασκόµενα] τῷ ὄντι ᾖ καὶ
ἀνδρεία καὶ σωφροσύνη καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ συλλήβδην ἀληθὴς ἀρετή, µετὰ φρονήσεως,
καὶ προσγιγνοµένων καὶ ἀπογιγνοµένων καὶ ἡδονῶν καὶ φόβων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων
τῶν τοιούτων· χωριζόµενα δὲ φρονήσεως [καὶ] ἀλλαττόµενα ἀντὶ ἀλλήλων µὴ σκιαὲ
φρονήσεως [καὶ] ἀλλαττόµενα ἀντὶ ἀλλήλων µὴ σκιαγραφία τις ᾖ ἡ τοιαύτη ἀρετὴ καὶ τῷ
ὄντι ἀνδραποδώδης τε καὶ οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς οὐδ' ἀληθὲς ἔχῃ, τὸ δ' ἀληθὲς τῷ ὄντι ᾖ κάθαρσίς
τις τῶν τοιούτων πάντων καὶ ἡ σωφροσύνη καὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἀνδρεία, καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ
φρόνησις µὴ καθαρµός τις ᾖ. καὶ κινδυνεύουσι καὶ οἱ τὰς τελετὰς ἡµῖν οὗτοι
καταστήσαντες οὐ φαῦλοί τινες εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι πάλαι αἰνίττεσθαι ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀµύητος
καὶ ἀτέλεστος εἰς ῞Αιδου ἀφίκηται ἐν βορβόρῳ κείσεται, ὁ δὲ κεκαθαρµένος τε καὶ
τετελεσµένος ἐκεῖσε ἀφικόµενος µετὰ θεῶν οἰκήσει. εἰσὶν γὰρ δή, [ὥς] φασιν οἱ περὶ τὰς
τελετάς, < ναρθηκοφόροι µὲν πολλοί, βάκχοι δέ τε παῦροι >
157
των ὧν νυνδὴ ἐλέγοµεν; Βουλοίµην µεντἄν, ἔφη ὁ Σιµµίας· ἀλλὰ πολὺ µᾶλλον φοβοῦµαι
µὴ αὔριον τηνικάδε οὐκέτι ᾖ ἀνθρώπων οὐδεὶς ἀξίως οἷός τε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. Οὐκ ἄρα
δοκοῦσί σοι ἐπίστασθαί γε, ἔφη, ὦ Σιµµία, πάντες αὐτά; Οὐδαµῶς. ᾿Αναµιµνῄσκονται
ἄρα ἅ ποτε ἔµαθον; ᾿Ανάγκη. Πότε λαβοῦσαι αἱ ψυχαὶ ἡµῶν τὴν ἐπιστήµην αὐτῶν; οὐ
γὰρ δὴ ἀφ' οὗ γε ἄνθρωποι γεγόναµεν. Οὐ δῆτα. Πρότερον ἄρα. Ναί. ῏Ησαν ἄρα, ὦ
Σιµµία, αἱ ψυχαὶ καὶ πρότερον, πρὶν εἶναι ἐν ἀνθρώπου εἴδει, χωρὶς σωµάτων, καὶ
φρόνησιν εἶχον. Εἰ µὴ ἄρα ἅµα γιγνόµενοι λαµβάνοµεν, ὦ Σώκρατες, ταύτας τὰς
ἐπιστήµας· οὗτος γὰρ λείπεται ἔτι ὁ χρόνος. Εἶεν, ὦ ἑταῖρε· ἀπόλλυµεν δὲ αὐτὰς ἐν ποίῳ
ἄλλῳ χρόνῳ; ᾲοὐ γὰρ δὴ ἔχοντές γε αὐτὰς γιγνόµεθα, ὡς ἄρτι ὡµολογήσαµενᾲἢ ἐν τούτῳ
ἀπόλλυµεν ἐν ᾧπερ καὶ λαµβάνοµεν; ἢ ἔχεις ἄλλον τινὰ εἰπεῖν χρόνον; Οὐδαµῶς, ὦ
Σώκρατες, ἀλλὰ ἔλαθον ἐµαυτὸν οὐδὲν εἰπών. ῏Αρ' οὖν οὕτως ἔχει, ἔφη, ἡµῖν, ὦ Σιµµία;
εἰ µὲν ἔστιν ἃ θρυλοῦµεν ἀεί, καλόν τέ τι καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τοιαύτη οὐσία, καὶ ἐπὶ
ταύτην τὰ ἐκ τῶν αἰσθήσεων πάντα ἀναφέροµεν, ὑπάρχουσαν πρότερον ἀνευρίσκοντες
ἡµετέραν οὖσαν, καὶ ταῦτα ἐκείνῃ ἀπεικάζοµεν, ἀναγκαῖον, οὕτως ὥσπερ καὶ ταῦτα
ἔστιν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν ἡµετέραν ψυχὴν εἶναι καὶ πρὶν γεγονέναι ἡµᾶς· εἰ δὲ µὴ ἔστι ταῦτα,
ἄλλως ἂν ὁ λόγος οὗτος εἰρηµένος εἴη; ἆρ' οὕτως ἔχει, καὶ ἴση ἀνάγκη ταῦτά τε εἶναι καὶ
τὰς ἡµετέρας ψυχὰς πρὶν καὶ ἡµᾶς γεγονέναι, καὶ εἰ µὴ ταῦτα, οὐδὲ τάδε; ῾Υπερφυῶς, ὦ
Σώκρατες, ἔφη ὁ Σιµµίας, δοκεῖ µοι ἡ αὐτὴ ἀνάγκη εἶναι, καὶ εἰς καλόν γε καταφεύγει ὁ
λόγος εἰς (77) τὸ ὁµοίως εἶναι τήν τε ψυχὴν ἡµῶν πρὶν γενέσθαι ἡµᾶς καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἣν
σὺ νῦν λέγεις. οὐ γὰρ ἔχω ἔγωγε οὐδὲν τὴν οὐσίαν ἣν σὺ νῦν λέγεις. οὐ γὰρ ἔχω ἔγωγε
οὐδὲν οὕτω µοι ἐναργὲς ὂν ὡς τοῦτο, τὸ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτ' εἶναι ὡς οἷόν τε µάλιστα, καλόν
τε καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τἆλλα πάντα ἃ σὺ νυνδὴ ἔλεγες· καὶ ἔµοιγε δοκεῖ ἱκανῶς ἀποδέδεικται.
158
δεδηµιούργηται· τούτων δὲ ὑπαρχόντων αὖ πᾶσα ἀνάγκη τόνδε τὸν κόσµον εἰκόνα τινὸς
εἶναι. µέγιστον δὴ παντὸς ἄρξασθαι κόσµον εἰκόνα τινὸς εἶναι. µέγιστον δὴ παντὸς
ἄρξασθαι κατὰ φύσιν ἀρχήν. ὧδε οὖν περί τε εἰκόνος καὶ περὶ τοῦ παραδείγµατος αὐτῆς
διοριστέον, ὡς ἄρα τοὺς λόγους, ὧνπέρ εἰσιν ἐξηγηταί, τούτων αὐτῶν καὶ συγγενεῖς
ὄντας· τοῦ µὲν οὖν µονίµου καὶ βεβαίου καὶ µετὰ νοῦ καταφανοῦς µονίµους καὶ
ἀµεταπτώτουςᾲκαθ' ὅσον οἷόν τε καὶ ἀνελέγκτοις προσήκει λόγοις εἶναι καὶ ἀνικήτοις,
τούτου δεῖ µηδὲν ἐλλείπεινᾲτοὺς δὲ τοῦ πρὸς µὲν ἐκεῖνο ἀπεικασθέντος, ὄντος δὲ εἰκόνος
εἰκότας ἀνὰ λόγον τε ἐκείνων ὄντας· ὅτιπερ πρὸς γένεσιν οὐσία, τοῦτο πρὸς πίστιν
ἀλήθεια. ἐὰν οὖν, ὦ Σώκρατες, πολλὰ πολλῶν πέρι, θεῶν καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως,
µὴ δυνατοὶ γιγνώµεθα πάντῃ πάντως αὐτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς ὁµολογουµένους λόγους καὶ
ἀπηκριβωµένους ἀποδοῦναι, µὴ θαυµάσῃς· ἀλλ' ἐὰν ἄρα µηδενὸς ἧττον παρεχώµεθα
εἰκότας, ἀγαπᾶν χρή, µεµνηµένους ὡς ὁ λέγων ἐγὼ ὑµεῖς τε οἱ κριταὶ φύσιν ἀνθρωπίνην
ἔχοµεν, ὥστε περὶ τούτων τὸν εἰκότα µῦθον ἀποδεχοµένους πρέπει τούτου µηδὲν ἔτι πέρα
ζητεῖν. {ΣΩ.} ῎Αριστα, ὦ Τίµαιε, παντάπασί τε ὡς κελεύεις ἀποδεκτέον· τὸ µὲν οὖν
προοίµιον θαυµασίως ἀπεδεξάµεθά σου, τὸν δὲ δὴ νόµον ἡµῖν ἐφεξῆς πέραινε. {ΤΙ.}
Λέγωµεν δὴ δι' ἥντινα αἰτίαν γένεσιν καὶ τὸ πᾶν τόδε ὁ συνιστὰς συνέστησεν. ἀγαθὸς ἦν,
ἀγαθῷ δὲ οὐδεὶς περὶ οὐδενὸς οὐδέποτε ἐγγίγνεται φθόνος· τούτου δ' ἐκτὸς ὢν πάντα ὅτι
µάλιστα ἐβουλήθη γενέσθαι παραπλήσια ἑαυτῷ. ταύτην δὴ γενέσεως καὶ κόσµου µάλιστ'
ἄν τις ἀρχὴν κυριω- (30) τάτην παρ' ἀνδρῶν φρονίµων ἀποδεχόµενος ὀρθότατα
ἀποδέχοιτ' ἄν. βουληθεὶς γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγαθὰ µὲν πάντα, φλαῦρον δὲ µηδὲν εἶναι κατὰ
δύναµιν, οὕτω δὴ πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβὼν οὐχ ἡσυχίαν ἄγον ἀλλὰ κινούµενον
πληµµελῶς καὶ ἀτάκτως, εἰς τάξιν αὐτὸ ἤγαγεν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας, ἡγησάµενος ἐκεῖνο τούτου
πάντως ἄµεινον. θέµις δ' οὔτ' ἦν οὔτ' ἔστιν τῷ ἀρίστῳ δρᾶν ἄλλο πλὴν τὸ κάλλιστον·
2.27 Plotinos
159
κρυφθεῖσαν ἂν ἁπάντη καὶ οἷον ἀφανισθεῖσαν καὶ οὐκ οὖσαν µηδέποτε ὄντως οὖσαν. Νῦν
µὲν γὰρ θαῦµα ἔχει τῶν ἔνδον ἕκαστος διὰ τῆς ποικιλίας τῶν ἔξω, οἷόν ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ τὰ
γλαφυρὰ ταῦτα δρᾶσαι.
160
omnia fuisse dicatur. … Et tamen quem solum volunt, dant ei secundam in ipso et cum ipso personam,
Ennoian, quam et Charin et Sigen insuper nominant. Et forte accidit in illa commendatissima quiete movere
eum de proferendo tandem initio rerum a semetipso. Hoc vice seminis in Sige sua velut in genitalibus vulvae
locis collocat. Suscipit illa statim et praegnans efficitur et parit, utique silentio, Sige, et Nus est quem parit
simillimum patri et parem per omnia. Denique solus hic capere sufficit inmensam illam et incomprehensibilem
magnitudinem patris. Ita et ipse pater dicitur et initium omnium et proprie Monogenes. Atquin non proprie,
siquidem non solus agnoscitur. Nam cum illo processit et femina, cui Veritas <nomen>. Monogenes, quia
prior genitus, quanto congruentis Protogenes vocaretur! Ergo Bythos et Sige, Nus et Veritas prima quadriga
defenditur Valentinianae factionis, matrix et origo cunctorum. Namque ibidem Nus, simul accepit prolationis
suae officium, emittit et ipse ex semetipso Sermonem et Vitam. Quae si retro non erat, utique nec in Bytho.
Sed et haec soboles, ad initium universitatis et formationem pleromatis totius emissa, facit fructum: Hominem
et Ecclesiam procreat. Habes ogdoadem, tetradem duplicem, ex coniugationibus masculorum et feminarum,
cellas, ut ita dixerim, primordialium aeonum, fraterna conubia Valentinianorum deorum, census omnis
sanctitatis et maiestatis haereticae, nescio criminum an numinum turbam, certe fontem reliquae fecunditatis.
(VIII.1) Ecce enim secunda tetras, Sermo et Vita, Homo et Ecclesia, quod in patris gloriam fructicasset huic
numero, gestientes et ipsi tale quid patri de suo offerre, alios ebulliunt fetus, proinde coniugales per copulam
utriusque naturae. Hac Sermo et Vita decuriam aeonum simul fundunt, illac Homo et Ecclesia duos
amplius, aequiperando parentibus, quia et ipsi duo cum illis decem tot efficiunt, quot ipsi procreaverunt. …
Theletus et Sophia.
161
2.30.4 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Valentinianos XII.4
Igitur ex aere collaticio, quod aiunt, in honorem et gloriam patris pulcherrimum pleromatis sidus fructumque
perfectum compigunt, Iesum. Eum cognominant Soterem et Christum et Sermonem de patritis, et Omnia iam,
ut ex omnium defloratione constructum…
162
interim. Carnalem superficiem postea aiunt choico supertextam, et hance esse pelliceam tunicam obnoxiam
sensui. (XXV.1) Interat autem in Achamoth ex substantia Sophiae matris peculium quoddam seminis
spiritalis, sicut et ipsa Achamoth in filio Demiurgo sequestraverat, ne hoc quidem gnaro. … Ad hoc enim et
deposuerat et occultaverar ut, cum Demiurgus animam mox de suo afflatu in Adam communicaret, pariter et
semen illud spiritale quasi per carnalem animam derivaretur in choicum, atque ita feturatum in corpore
materiali velut in utero et adultum illic, idoneum inbeniretur suscipiendo quandoque sermoni perfecto. Itaque
cum Demiurgus traducem animae suae committit in Adam, latuit homo spiritalis flatu eius insertus et pariter
corpori inductus, quia non magis semen noverat matris Demiurgus quam ipsam. Hoc semen Ecclesiam dicunt,
Ecclesiae supernae speculum et Hominis censum…
163
2.30.16 Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum XLI.2-4
Imprimis quis catechumenus, quis fidelis incertum est, pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant; etiam
ethnici si supervenerint, sanctum canibus et porcis margaritas, licet non veras, iactabunt. Simplicitatem volunt
esse prostrationem disciplinae cuius penes nos curam lenocinium vocant. Pacem quoque passim cum omnibus
miscent. Nihil enim interest ilis, licet diversa tractantibus, dum ad unius veritatis expugnationem conspicerent.
Omnes tument, omnes scientiam pollicentur. Ante sunt perfecti catechumeni quam edocti.
164
2.32 Testament of Reuben
165