We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
From ancient times it has been averred that the Gnostics derived their basic ideas from the Greek philosophers, especially Pythagoras and Plato. For example, Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 2.14) argued that the Valentinian Gnostics borrowed their doctrines of the pleroma and kenoma from Democritus and Plato. Hippolytus (Ref. 1.11), more systematically, tried to show that the founders of the Gnostic heresies borrowed most of their ideas from Greek philosophy and religion. The Valentinian brand of gnosis, Hippolytus (Ref. 6.21–29) argues, is derived from the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato. Tertullian (Praesc. 7) claimed that all of the heresies were based on Greek philosophy. Valentinus is stated specifically to be “of the school of Plato.” Plotinus (Enn. 2.9.6), the reputed founder of Neoplatonism, claimed in a famous tract that his doctrinal opponents, whom he did not identify but who were obviously Gnostics, based their doctrines on a misunderstanding of Plato. Porphyry's Life of Plotinus 16 provides us with more information on the Gnostic opponents of Plotinus, and refers to them as αἱρετικοὶ ἐκ τῆς παλαιᾶς ϕιλοσοϕίας (“sectarians from the ancient philosophy,” i.e., Platonism).
1 As is well known, it was generally assumed in Hippolytus' time that Plato and Pythagoras taught the same basic doctrine, an opinion based to a large extent on Plato's own writings. See Merlan's, P. remarks in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 86. Hippolytus argues this point himself (Ref. 6.21).Google Scholar
2 It is Porphyry who attached the title Πρ⋯ς τοὺς γνωστικούς to Ennead 2.9. English translations, such as Armstrong's in the LCL edition, are misleading in that they tend to throw in here and there the designation “Gnostics” when, in fact, Plotinus’ Greek text leaves the opponents unnamed. Plotinus' polemic is comparatively irenic, for his intellectual opponents were also his personal friends (Enn. 2.9.10). There is a probable allusion to the self-designation of the opponents in the phrase τοὺς ἤδη ⋯γνωκότας (= τοὺς γνωστικούς at 2.9.15.
3 “Gott und Seele im kaiserzeitlichen Denken,” in Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1966) esp. 113. This terminology is unfortunate, in my view, for it implies something about the social class of the Gnostics which is misleading. The ancient Gnostics can hardly be classified as “proletarians”!Google Scholar
4 Le dualisme chez Platon, les Gnostiques et les Manichéens (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1947) 129.Google Scholar
5 “Gnosticism,” in Stewart, Zeph, ed., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972) 2. 949.Google Scholar
6 The Middle Platonists (London: Duckworth, 1977) 384–96.Google Scholar
7 Hans Joachim Kramer accords to Gnosticism, especially the Valentinian variety, an important role in the general history of Platonism from Plato to Plotinus. See Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik (Amsterdam: Schippers, 1964) 223–64.Google Scholar This view, of a historian of philosophy, should be compared with that of one of our most prominent historians of the Gnostic religion, Kurt Rudolph. Rudolph grants a certain degree of similarity between Gnostic and Platonic dualism, and the possible influence of the latter upon the former, but stresses the radical anti-cosmism of Gnosticism over against the “procosmic” nature of Platonic dualism. See Rudolph, Kurt, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (ed. Wilson, Robert McL.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; New York: Harper & Row, 1983) esp. 60–62.Google Scholar In my view Rudolph understates the relationship between Gnosticism and contemporary Platonism. Nevertheless, I consider Rudolph's book to be the best full-scale treatment of the Gnostic religion available today.
8 All of the tractates in the Nag Hammadi corpus are now available in English translation: Robinson, James M. and Meyer, Marvin W., eds., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Leiden: Brill; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977; 2d ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981).Google Scholar It is assumed that the reader has ready access to this volume. Except where otherwise noted, all quotations from the Nag Hammadi texts are taken from NHLE (2d ed.). For bibliography on Gnosticism and the Nag Hammadi Codices see Scholer, David M., Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1948–1969 (NHS 1; Leiden: Brill, 1971) updated annually, from 1971, in NovT.Google Scholar
9 See esp. Tardieu, Michel, “Les trois stèles de Seth: un écrit gnostique retrouvé à Nag Hammadi,” RSPhTh 57 (1973) 545–75Google Scholar; Robinson, James M., “The Three Steles of Seth and the Gnostics of Plotinus,” in Widengren, Geo, ed., Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism Stockholm August 20–25, 1973 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977) 132–42Google Scholar (treating also Zostrianos and Allogenes); Sieber, John H., “An Introduction to the Tractate Zostrianos from Nag Hammadi,” NovT 15 (1973) 233–40Google Scholar; Colpe, Carsten, “Heidnische, jüdische und christliche Überlieferung in den Schriften aus Nag Hammadi II,” JAC 16 (1973) 123–25Google Scholar (on Three Steles of Seth); “III,” JAC 17 (1974) 113–15Google Scholar (on Allogenes); VI, JAC 20 (1977) 149–59, 161–70 (on Zostrianos)Google Scholar; Turner, John D., “The Gnostic Threefold Path to Enlightenment,” NovT 22 (1980) 324–51Google Scholar (treating mainly the Apocryphon of John, Trimorphic Protennoia, Zostrianos, and Allogenes); and Scopello, Maddalena, “Youèl et Barbélo dans le Traité de l'Allogène,” in Barc, Bernard, ed., Colloque International sur les Textes de Nag Hammadi (Québec, 22–25 aout 1978) (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section “Études” 1; Québec: L'Université Laval; Louvain: Peeters, 1981) 374–82.Google Scholar Carsten Colpe has recently devoted some attention to Marsanes: “Überlieferung IX,” JAC 23 (1980) 124–27Google Scholar; “X,” JAC 25 (1982) 66, 89–91.Google Scholar Cf. also Böhlig, Alexander, “Die griechische Schule und die Bibliothek von Nag Hammadi,” in Böhlig, Alexander and Wisse, Frederik, eds., Zum Hellenismus in den Schriften von Nag Hammadi (Göttinger Orientforschungen 6; Reihe “Hellenistica” 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975) 16–17.Google Scholar
10 See now Pearson, Birger A., ed., Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (NHS 15; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 211–352Google Scholar; cf. NHLE, 417–26. See also idem, “The Tractate Marsanes (NHC X) and the Platonic Tradition,” in Aland, Barbara, ed., Gnosis: Festschrift für Hans Jonas (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 373–84.Google Scholar
11 See Schmidt, Carl, ed., and Violet MacDermot, trans., The Books of Jeu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex (NHS 13; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 235.Google Scholar
12 For a discussion of these testimonies see my introduction to Marsanes in Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, 230–33.
13 See, e.g., Turner, “Threefold Path,” 325 and passim. Turner seems to distinguish between what he calls the “Barbeloite” system and Sethianism (p. 327).
14 See esp. Schenke, Hans-Martin, “Das Sethianische System nach Nag Hammadi Schriften,” in Nagel, Peter, ed., Studia Coptica (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1974) 165–72Google Scholar; and “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism,” in Layton, Bentley, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the Conference at Yale March 1978, vol. 2: Sethian Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 588–616.Google Scholar
15 So Schenke, “Gnostic Sethianism,” 588. C. Colpe (“Überlieferung” II, 113) and Stroumsa, Gedaliahu G. (“Another Seed: Studies in Sethian Gnosticism” [Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1978] 13 n. 33)Google Scholar would include the Paraphrase of Shem (NHC 7,1) in this category. Louis Painchaud (Le Deuxième Traité du Grand Seth [Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section “Textes” 6; Québec: L'Université Laval, 1982] 6 and passim)Google Scholar has recently argued rather persuasively that the Second Treatise of the Great Seth (NHC 7,2) reflects a Sethian mythological background.
16 I prefer the designation “Sethian” to the other terms. We know that there were Gnostics who traced their spiritual ancestry to Seth. “Barbelo-Gnostic” is obviously a second-hand term invented by Irenaeus. In my view, Carl Schmidt was on the right track when he wrote at the turn of the century that “man statt Barbelo-Gnostiker auch den Namen ‘Sethianer’ einführen könnte, wenn man dabei die mannigfaltigen Schattierungen dieser grossen Gruppe im Auge behält” (Plotins Stellung zum Gnosticismus und kirchlichen Christentum [TU 20; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901] 63). Schmidt rightly included in this large group of Sethian Γνωστικοί the Gnostics described by Epiphanius in Pan. 39 and 40, the Gnostics known to Plotinus and Porphyry, and the Gnostics represented by the Apocryphon of John and Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.29, as well as the untitled text in the Bruce Codex. Of course, he did not know of the Nag Hammadi documents.Google Scholar
17 See Birger A. Pearson, “The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature,” in Layton, Rediscovery, 2. 472–504.
18 On this point see Pearson, “Seth,” 493–508, and the introduction to Marsanes in Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, 242–43.
19 See Pearson, B. A., “Jewish Elements in Gnosticism and the Development of Gnostic Self-Definition,” in Sanders, E. P., ed., The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 151–60.Google Scholar
20 The history of Sethian Gnosticism can be outlined as follows (according to my reconstruction of the evidence): (1) origins of Sethian Gnosticism in a Jewish milieu; (2A): Christianization of Sethianism; (2B): Platonization of Sethianism in a pagan milieu. Stage 2B should be seen as basically independent of 2A, but probably later than 2A, so that some minor influence from Christian Sethianism cannot be ruled out. On the Jewish origins of Sethian Gnosticism see esp. Stroumsa, “Another Seed.”
21 Zostrianos and Allogenes are mentioned by name by Porphyry Vit. Plot. 16; the other two are possibly to be reckoned among the “others” (ἄλλων τοιούτων) also mentioned. Porphyry mentions Nikotheos, too, who is closely associated with Marsanes in the Bruce Codex (see above, and n. 11).
22 Cristoph Elsas has devoted an important monograph to the Gnostic-Platonist discussions in Plotinus' school in Rome, based on an analysis of Plotinus' anti-Gnostic arguments (Enn. 3.8; 5.8; 5.5; 2.9): Neuplatonische und gnostische Weltablehnung in der Schule Plotins (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1975).Google Scholar Unfortunately these four important tractates from Nag Hammadi were not yet available to him when he wrote his book. He links the Gnostic opponents of Plotinus with the Elchasaites and downplays the Sethian connection. Bazán, F. G. (Plotino y la Gnosis [Buenos Aires: Fundacion para la Educacion, la Ciencia y la Cultura, 1981])Google Scholar thinks that Plotinus' Gnostic opponents were Valentinians, but I find his arguments unconvincing. He, too, wrote without access to the new texts (see his note, p. 11).
23 Quotations from Marsanes are taken from the translation in Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, which differs slightly from that published in NHLE. A glance at the facsimile of Codex 10 (see Robinson, James M., ed., The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices: Codices IX and X [Leiden: Brill, 1977] Pls. 87–144) will enable the reader to perceive some of the difficulties posed by this document in its extant form.Google Scholar
24 See esp. Zost. 5,24–27, also in connection with an ascent experience as here in Marsanes. These technical terms also occur in the untitled Sethian tractate in the Bruce Codex (chap. 20) and were terms used by the Gnostics known to Plotinus (Enn. 2.9.6).μετάνοια occurs explicitly in Marsanes 3,15. παροίκησις is not found in the text, but 
(3,17) probably translates the related Greek verb παροικεῖν in the participial form, οἱ παροικο⋯ντες.
25 The system of Marsanes is most closely related to that of Allogenes. On Allogenes and its relation to contemporary Platonism see Turner, “Threefold Path,” esp. 328–41.
26 Her name is restored in a lacuna in the text: 
(4,11); but there is no doubt that “the virgin Barbelo” occurred in the original text. Her name occurs also at 8,28 and probably at 43*, 21. It should be noted that asterisks are used in the pagination of Marsanes, from p. 13* on, to indicate that the page numeration is only postulated, not certain. There were probably more than the 68 pages of text now identifiable from the extant fragments of Codex X. See my introduction to Codex X, in Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, 211–27.
27 See, e.g., Dillon, Middle Platonists, 158–59; and Baltes, M., Timaios Lokros über die Natur des Kosmos und der Seele kommentiert (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 105.Google Scholar
28 Frg. 15 (des Places). On these and related terms and concepts in Three Steles of Seth see Tardieu, “Les trois stèles,” esp. 560. Tardieu cogently includes Three Steles of Seth among the “other” Gnostic texts discussed in Plotinus' school, according to Porphyry Vit. Plot. 16.
29 E.g., Allogenes 53,31–32; Zost. 79,7; Steles Seth 121,27; Bruce Codex, untitled text, chap. 2.
30 Hippolytus Ref. 6.42 (Marcus); 7.21 (Basilides).
31 On this passage in Plato see Whittaker, John, “ΕΠΕΚΕΙΝΑ ΝΟϒ ΚΑΙ ΟϒΣΙΑΣ,” VC 23 (1969) 91–104.Google Scholar
32 Proclus specifically rejects the possibility, that the Divine can be called ⋯νούσιος. For him matter is ⋯νούσιος divine transcendence is expressed with the word ὑπερούσιος See, e.g., Inst. theol. 121, 197 in Dodds, E. R., ed., Proclus: The Elements of Theology (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1963) 106, 172. Cf. n. 39.Google Scholar
33 For further discussion of this point, with additional texts, see Pearson, “Tractate Marsanes.”
34 See Turner's excellent treatment in “Threefold Path,” esp. 332–41.
35 Ursprung, esp. 193–223.
36 κοσμικός and ὑλικός (seals 1–3) seem to be used synonymously, something presumably impossible for Platonists for whom the concept of kosmos has no negative connotations. See, however, σ⋯μα τ⋯ κοσμικόν in frg. 68 of the Chaldean Oracles (des Places), which Lewy takes to be based on Plato Tim. 32C (τ⋯ το⋯ κόσμου σ⋯μα) and which he equates with πολυποίκιλος ὕλη (“variegated matter”) in frg. 34 (des Places). See Lewy, Hans, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy (2d ed. Tardieu, M.; Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1978) 120 n. 204.Google Scholar For a new edition of the Chaldean Oracles, with extensive commentary, see Majercik, Ruth, “Chaldean Oracles: Text, Translation, Commentary” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1982).Google Scholar
37 See esp. Ap. John 2,2,25–27 and 30.
38 Turner identifies Kalyptos, Protophanes, and Autogenes in Allogenes as νο⋯ς νοητός νο⋯ς θεωρητικός and νο⋯ς διανοούμενος respectively. See “Threefold Path,” 334. Cf. Plotinus' discussion in Enn. 2.9.6 concerning the distinctions made by the Gnostics between ⋯ νο⋯ς ⋯ν ⋯συχίᾳ, ⋯ νο⋯ς θεωρ⋯ν, and ⋯ νο⋯ς διανοούμενος
39 See esp. his Inst. theol. and E. R. Dodds' admirable commentary: Proclus: The Elements of Theology.
40 It is used of the supreme God in Steles Seth 121,31–32; of Barbelo in Steles Seth 121,32–33 and Ap. John 5,8; BG 27,19–28,2; of Monogenes = Christ in the untitled text in the Bruce Codex chap. 4 and passim; of Christ in the “Peratic” system described by Hippolytus Ref. 5.12 (τριϕυ⋯ς … τρισώματος … τριδύναμος ἄνθρωπος); and of the “self-willed” Authades and other hostile powers in Pistis Sophia chap. 29 and passim.
41 Cf. Pierre Hadot's comments in Henry, P. and Hadot, P., eds., Marius Victorinus: Traités théologiques sur la Trinité (SC 68; Paris: Cerf, 1960) 1.Google Scholar 81–83. Hadot sees possible parallels to τριδύναμος in the terms τριγλώχις and τριο⋯χος used in the Chaldean Oracles (frgs. 2 and 26 [des Places]); see Pierre Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, n.d.) 1. 294 n. 2. For the triad τ⋯ ⋯ν, ζωή, and νο⋯ς and νο⋯ς in Proclus see Inst. theol. 103 (Dodds, Proclus, 92).
42 See Porphyre et Victorinus, esp. 1. 293–94; 2. 48.
43 For discussion of the Neoplatonic triad in relation to Three Steles of Seth, Zostrianos, and Allogenes see Robinson, “Three Steles,” 133–41; Tardieu, “Les Trois stèles,” 559–64; and Turner, “Threefold Path,” 334–36.
44 On the ⋯χημα of the soul in Neoplatonism see esp. Appendix II in Dodds, Proclus, 313–21. Cf. also Majercik, “Chaldean Oracles,” 57–75.
45 See Macrobius In somn. 1.10–12, based essentially on Numenius, according to Dodds, E. R.: “Numenius and Ammonius,” in Les sources de Plotin (Entretiens sur L'antiquité classique 5; Geneva: Hardt, 1960) 8Google Scholar; and de Ley, H., Macrobius and Numenius: A Study of Macrobius, In Somn. I c. 12 (Brussels: Latomus, 1972).Google Scholar Porphyry is also sometimes credited as the source for Macrobius’ description; see, e.g., van den Broek, R., “The Authentikos Logos: A New Document of Christian Platonism,” VC 33 (1979) 263 and n. 15Google Scholar
46 On Gnostic ascent in Allogenes, Three Steles of Seth, and Zostrianos, and Platonic ascent traditions, see Turner, “Threefold Path,” 341–46.
47 Armstrong's translation in the LCL edition, somewhat modified.
48 The passage in 31*,23–29 is derived from a school exercise. See my notes to the text and translation in Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X.
49 Cf. Majercik's discussion in “Chaldean Oracles,” esp. 79–85. Majercik makes an explicit connection between the Chaldean use of “passwords” (συνθήματα) and voces mysticae as ascent techniques, and similar phenomena reflected in the Sethian Gnostic texts, including Marsanes.
50 Nicomachus apud Janus, C., Musici Scriptores Graeci (Leipzig: Teubner, 1895; Hildesheim: Olms, 1962) 276–77, my translation. On the use of the term “the theurgists” (οἱ θεουργοί) in this passage, see E. R. Dodds, “New Light on the ‘Chaldean Oracles,’” in Lewy-Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles, 700 n. 31.Google Scholar
51 Some examples: Marsanes' use of the term “incorporeal” (⋯σώματον) as an attribute of the intelligible (νοητόν) realm (3,8–9 and 20; 5,13 and 21; 36*,20), for which see, e.g., Numenius frg. 7 (des Places); Marsanes' use of the term ⋯πλο⋯ς (“simple”) as a divine attribute (5,8–9), for which see Numenius frg. 11 (des Places); Marsanes' references to “sameness” and “difference” as qualities built into the world (4,27–28), for which see esp. Plato Tim. 35A. For these and numerous other examples see my notes to the text and translation of Marsanes in Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X.
52 There is a possible allusion to the “salvation of Sophia” in Marsanes 4,2; the text is ambiguous.
53 The text is restored at 5,25 as 
“it (the sense-perceptible world) is worthy.”
54 For discussion of this tradition see esp. Kübel, Paul, Schuld und Schicksal bei Origines, Gnostikern, und Platonikern (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1973) 15–27.Google Scholar
55 See, e.g., Philo Plant. 16–27; Leg. all. 3.100–102; Vit. Mos. 2.69–70; Mut. nom. 54–56; Somn. 2.226; Macrobius In somn. 1.14. On this tradition see the important monograph by Wlosok, Antonie, Laktanz und die philosophische Gnosis: Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Terminologie der gnostischen Erlöservorstellung (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften 2; Heidelberg: Winter, 1960).Google Scholar
56 E.g., Ap. John BG 39, 6–12; Exc. ex Theod. 69–74; Cf. Rudolph, Kurt, “Coptica-Mandaica: Zu einigen Übereinstimmungen zwischen koptisch-gnostischen und mandäischen Texten,” in Krause, Martin, ed., Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Pahor Labib (NHS 6; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 204–5.Google Scholar Rudolph refers to Marsanes, but gives the wrong page reference and misunderstands the text. For an interesting discussion of the cosmic “rulers” in the Apocryphon of John as planetary and Zodiacal beings, see Welburn, A. J., “The Identity of the Archons in the ‘Apocryphon Johannis,’” VC 32 (1978) 241–54.Google Scholar
57 In Gnosis: Festschrift für Hans Jonas, 87–124.
58 Ibid., 109.
59 Armstrong allows for Gnostic influence on Numenius (ibid., 106–9).
60 Cf. Pearson, “Tractate Marsanes,” 384; cf. also n. 20 above. The second volume of Hans Jonas' monumental work on Gnosis is subtitled “Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophic” (Gnosis und spätantiker Geist [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954]).Google Scholar
61 Cf. Colpe, Carsten, “Überlieferung IX,” JAC 23 (1980) 125.Google Scholar
