Burns - Sethian Eschatology and Christian Platonism

Zugänge zur Gnosis Akten zur Tagung der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft vom 02.-05.01.2011 in Berlin-Spandau

herausgegeben von Christoph Markschies und Johannes van Oort

PEETERS 2013 LEUVEN – WALPOLE, MA

INHALT

Christoph Markschies Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

Christoph Markschies Von Afrika bis China – Varietäten von Gnosis . . . . . . . . .

1

Jens Halfwassen Gnosis als Pseudomorphose des Platonismus: Plotins Gnosiskritik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

Klaus Herrmann Jüdische Gnosis? Dualismus und „gnostische“ Motive in der frühen jüdischen Mystik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

Holger Strutwolf Theologische Gnosis bei Clemens Alexandrinus und Origenes

91

Ismo Dunderberg Valentinian Theories on Classes of Humankind . . . . . . . .

113

Einar Thomassen Saved by nature? The question of human races and soteriological determinism in Valentinianism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129

Katrine Brix Kosmoskreuz oder Holzkreuz im Evangelium Veritatis NHC I,3? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151

Dylan M. Burns Cosmic Eschatology and Christian Platonism in the Sethian Gnostic Apocalypses Marsanes, Zostrianos, and Allogenes . . . .

169

Uwe-Karsten Plisch (K)ein Buch des Allogenes. Einige Beobachtungen zur vierten Schrift des sogenannten Codex Tchacos (Al Minya-Codex) . .

191

VI

INHALT

Hugo Lundhaug Shenoute of Atripe and Nag Hammadi Codex II . . . . . . . .

201

Glenn W. Most Do Gnostics Tell Stories Differently From Other People? Narratological Reflections on Gnostic Narratives . . . . . . . . . .

227

Nils Arne Pedersen Die Manichäer in ihrer Umwelt. Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion über die Soziologie der Gnostiker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

245

Desmond Durkin-Meisternst Die Orientierung der Bilder in manichäischen Bücherfragmenten in der Turfansammlung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

277

Myriam Krutzsch Beobachtungen zur Herstellungstechnik früher gnostischer Kodizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

285

Peter Koslowski Gnosis: Philosophie des Absoluten und absolute Philosophie. Theosophische Gnosis und Gnostizismus als Typen der Aufhebung der Differenz von Philosophie und Theologie . . . . .

295

Indices Antike und mittelalterliche Autoren, Personen und Personifikationen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neuzeitliche Autoren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

319 322

Abbildungen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

329

Cosmic Eschatology and Christian Platonism in the Sethian Gnostic Apocalypses Marsanes, Zostrianos, and Allogenes

DYLAN M. BURNS (The University of Copenhagen)

INTRODUCTION: THE “PLATONIZING” SETHIAN APOCALYPSES One of our most important pieces of evidence about Gnosticism is that of Porphyry, star pupil of the great Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus. Porphyry writes that there were “Christians” in Plotinus’ circle, who read “apocalypses”, written by sages such as, “Zostrianos”, “Zoroaster”, “Allogenes”, “Messos”, and others1. Texts with titles identical to several of those mentioned by Porphyry – Zostrianos and Allogenes – have been unearthed in Coptic translation at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. Although they are revelatory works, they are also deeply implicated in contemporary Neoplatonism; scholars generally agree that at least one of these texts, Zostrianos, was brandished by Plotinus’ opponents2. 1

2

Porph., Plot. 16 (cf. Plotinus in seven Volumes with an English Translation by A.H. Armstrong, Vol. 1: Porphyry on the Life of Plotinus and the Order of his Books. Enneads I,1-9, LCL 440, Cambridge 1989), following the translation of M. Tardieu. Les gnostiques dans la vie de Plotin, in: Porphyre: La vie de Plotin, ed. par L. Brisson, Vol. 2: Études d’introduction, texte grec et traduction française, commentaire, notes complémentaires, bibliographie, Histoire des doctrines de l’antiquité classique, Paris 1992, 503-546. Thus K. Corrigan, Platonism and Gnosticism: The Anonymous Commentary on the Parmenides: Middle or Neoplatonic?, in: Gnosticism and Later Platonism. Themes, Figures, and Texts, ed. by J.D. Turner and R.D. Majercik, SBL Symposium Series 12; Atlanta 2000, (141-177), 168-171; J.D. Turner, Victorinus, Parmenides Commentaries and the Platonizing Sethian Treatises, in: Platonisms: Ancient, Modern, and Postmodern, ed. by K. Corrigan and J.D. Turner, Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition 4, Leiden 2007, 55-96. Others have argued that the Nag Hammadi texts are translations of later, post-Plotinian redactions of the texts known to Plotinus. (L. Abramowski, Marius Victorinus, Porphyrius und die römischen Gnostiker, ZNW 74, 1983, [108-128] 123-214; R. Majercik, Porphyry and Gnosticism, CQ 55, 2005, [277-292], 277-278). I have argued elsewhere that the Coptic Zostrianos from Nag Hammadi is probably a translation of a pre-Plotinian text, but that Allogenes’ ideas are more intelligible in the context of Platonism of the fourth century C.E., cf. D. Burns, Apophatic Strategies in Allogenes (NHC XI,3), HThR 103, 2010, 161-79.

170

DYLAN M. BURNS

These apocalypses belong to a branch of Gnosticism called “Sethian”, chiefly due to its focus on the figure of Seth as revealer and savior3. Zostrianos (NHC VIII,1), Allogenes (NHC XI,3), Marsanes (NHC X,1; probably related in some way to the Apocalypse of Nikotheos mentioned by Porphyry), and The Three Steles of Seth (NHC VII,5) stand out within the Sethian literature as particularly exotic. Excepting the Three Steles, they are apocalypses of the “cosmological” stripe of 1 Enoch, describing their eponymous seers’ heavenly journey and acquisition of heavenly secrets4. Yet scholars have generally assigned the texts to a “Pagan” or “non-Christian” provenance, because they do not refer to Scripture or to biblical figures besides Adam and Seth5. Moreover, they are replete with the jargon of Neoplatonism, that school of thought so strongly associated with the last of the Hellenes. In his classic study of Sethianism, John D. Turner has argued that the texts, which he calls the “Platonizing” Sethian treatises, represent a turn of the Sethian school away from Christianity towards Paganism6. It is true that the “Platonizing” Sethian texts were written by trained Platonic philosophers, but they also hold positions that could not have been acceptable to any Hellenic7 Platonist, but agree strongly with 3

4

5

6

7

The seminal studies remain H.-M. Schenke, Das sethianische System nach Nag-Hammadi-Handschriften, in: Studia Coptica, hg. von P. Nagel, BBA 45, Berlin 1974, 165172; id., The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism, in: The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28-31, 1978, ed. by B. Layton, Vol. 2: Sethian Gnosticism, SHR 41.2, Leiden 1981, 588-616. For criticisms, see F. Wisse, Stalking those Elusive Sethians, in: The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (see note 3), 563-576; and now T. Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking. Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence, NHMS 68, Leiden 2009. Following the discussion of “apocalypse” by J.J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse – the Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14, 1979, (1-19), 9. Most recently, see for instance L. Abramowski, Nicänismus und Gnosis im Rom des Bischofs Liberius. Der Fall des Marius Victorinus, ZAC 8, 2004, (513-566), 561; B.A. Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism. Traditions and Literature, Minneapolis 2007, 99-100. J.D. Turner, Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition, BCNH Section Études 6, Louvain/Paris 2001, (179-182), 293; also in various articles and the introductions to the BCNH editions of the Sethian texts. See also B.A. Pearson, Introduction: Marsanes, in: Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, ed. by B.A. Pearson, NHS 15, Leiden 1981, (229-250), 248. I eschew the term “Pagan” for discussing the various non-Abrahamic religions of the ancient world as an obfuscating negative definition. Since here we are only concerned with philosophers committed to Greek language and literature, we can simply refer to them by the term they used to define themselves, “Hellenes”. Where others have used the term “Pagan” in this context, I have not changed their nomenclature.

COSMIC ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

171

contemporary Christian Platonism. In the present contribution, I will address one of the most significant of these positions, which deals with the end of the world, or “cosmic eschatology”.

SETHIAN ESCHATOLOGIES, “COSMIC” AND “PERSONAL” As I just mentioned, the “Platonizing” Sethian treatises known to Plotinus and his circle were apocalypses, revelatory narratives describing the visions and heavenly secrets acquired by a seer from an angelic intermediary. The literary genre of “apocalypse” was commonly used in antiquity to explore important but “unverifiable” speculations about cosmology and the postmortem fate of the soul. Today, biblical scholarship tends to lump these topics under the term “eschatology” – “cosmic” and “personal”8. Eschatology is central to debate over defining the “apocalyptic genre”. Scholars ask about the relative importance of “historical eschatology”, characterized by ex eventu prophecy and reviews of history (e.g. Daniel), and “cosmological speculation”, characterized by cosmological lore and the revelation of secrets (e.g. 1 Enoch). Like Michael Stone, John J. Collins simply acknowledges that the literary genre deals in both eschatology and cosmology9, particularly the post-mortem fate of the soul. In Semeia 14, he distinguishes these two types of eschatology with the prefixes “cosmic” and “personal”, noting a shift towards the latter in later Jewish but especially Christian and Gnostic texts10. Thus, “it is this hope 8

9

10

On eschatology in the Old Testament and ancient Judaism, see D.L. Petersen, Art. Eschatology (Old Testament), AncB Dictionary 2, 1992, 575-579; G. Nickelsburg, Art. Eschatology (Early Jewish), AncB Dictionary 2, 1992, 579-594. For eschatology in early Christianity, see D. Aune, Art. Early Christian Eschatology, AncB Dictionary 2, 1992, 594-609; D. Allison, Art. Eschatology of the New Testament, The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 2, 2007, 294-299. J.J. Collins, Cosmos and Salvation. Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Hellenistic Age, HR 17, 1977, (121-142), 136; id., The Apocalyptic Imagination. An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, The Biblical Resource Series, Grand Rapids 21998, 13; M.E. Stone, Apocalyptic Literature, in: Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. by M.E. Stone, CRI Sect. 2: The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud 2, Assen/Philadelphia 1984, (383-442), 383. J.J. Collins, Morphology (see note 4), 17-18; D. Allison, Eschatology of the New Testament (see note 8), 298-299. Some scholars, however, are reluctant to use the term “eschatology” to talk about individuals. Cf. D.L. Petersen, Eschatology (see note 8), 576; D. Aune, Early Christian Eschatology (see note 8), 594. Nickelsburg contrasts focus on personal immortality with the need for a “consummation” of history and resurrection of the dead. G. Nickelsburg, Eschatology (see note 8), 589-590.

172

DYLAN M. BURNS

for the transcendence of death (of the individual) which is the distinctive character of apocalyptic eschatology over against Old Testament eschatology”11. A spike of interest in the afterlife of the individual, instead of nations, was corroborated by the studies in the same volume of Adela Yarbro Collins and Francis Fallon12. Gnostic apocalypses, meanwhile, traffic in a highly diverse variety of eschatologies, both cosmic and personal13. The Sethian texts also exhibit this diversity, with clearly “historical/cosmic” apocalypses in the Apocalypse of Adam (NHC V,5), the Egyptian Gospel (NHC III,2/IV,2) and the Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII,1), while the “Platonizing” treatises tend to focus on “personal” eschatology, that is the salvation of souls. Turner (and Pearson, with respect to Marsanes) has argued further that there is no sense of cosmic or historical eschatology in the latter texts, evidence of a movement away from Christian apocalypse towards Pagan Platonism14. However, I will argue that the treatises Marsanes and 11

12

13

14

J.J. Collins, Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death, in: Seers, Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism, by J.J. Collins, Leiden 2001, (75-98), 84. “The more or less systematic review of history, so dominant in some forms of Jewish apocalypses, is virtually absent in the early Christian apocalypses … (but) certain past events are explicitly recalled as past and recounted as particularly significant for the present …” A.Y. Collins, Early Christian Apocalypses, in: Apocalypse, ed. by J.J. Collins (see note 4), (61-121), 67. This absence is not extended to cosmic eschatology, however; on the other hand, “the otherworldly journey is used more frequently to express expectations regarding personal afterlife, although it can also be used as a vehicle for cosmic hopes as well.” (Ead., 95). See also F.T. Fallon, Gnostic Apocalypses, in: Apocalypse, ed. by J.J. Collins (see note 4), (123-158), 125. M.L. Peel, Gnostic Eschatology and the New Testament, NT 12, 1970, (141-165), 156-159; thus also H.G. Kippenberg, Ein Vergleich jüdischer, christlicher und gnostischer Apokalyptik, in: Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and Near East. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979, ed. by D. Hellholm, Tübingen 1983, (751-769), 751; H.W. Attridge, Valentinian and Sethian Apocalyptic Traditions, Journal of Early Christian Studies 8, 2000, 173-211. Cf. above for J.D. Turner, Sethian Gnosticism (see note 6); also id., Introduction: Zostrianos, in: Zostrien. (NH VIII,1), éd. et tr. par C. Barry/W.-P. Funk/P.-H. Poirier/J.D. Turner, BCNH.T 24, Québec/Louvain 2000, (1-224), 50: “Phenomena found in most apocalypses but missing in Zostrianos are generally matters of social and cosmic eschatological conflict … Most of the dozen or so texts that have been identified as Sethian indeed do make great use of Jewish scripture and tradition and cosmic eschatological motifs, but Zostrianos and the texts associated with it do not … The eschatology of Zostrianos is focused on neither cosmos nor society, but on the individual. This focus is atypical of most Jewish apocalyptic.” See also id., Introduction: Marsanes, in: Marsanès, ed. et tr. par W.-P. Funk/P.-H. Poirier/J.D. Turner,

COSMIC ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

173

Zostrianos presume exactly the sense of cosmic eschatology that are in the other Sethian treatises; like Jesus of Nazareth, they held that the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD AND SOULS IN MARSANES AND ZOSTRIANOS The central passage for the problem is in Marsanes, where the eponymous seer states that “the entire defilement (éwùM) [was saved (tyr[V ouée]ei)]… have come to know it, the intelligible (noßtov) world; 15, as I was deliberating that in every way is the sensible (aîsqjtóv) world worthy of being saved entirely (atrevouéeei [ty]rV). [For] I have not ceased speaking [of the] Autogenes”16. Pearson and Poirier simply affirm that the passage is a remarkable example of Platonic monism in a Gnostic text, without mentioning the world’s eternity17. So far, so good. As Turner points out, the statement is followed by the reminder that the author is still discussing Autogenes, who in Marsanes appears to take upon the Thrice-Male Child’s role as a preserver of the world18.

15

16 17

18

BCNH.T 27, Québec/Louvain 2000, (1-248), 27.29-30; id., Introduction: Allogenes, in: L’allogène. (NH XI,3), éd. et tr. par W.-P. Funk/P.-H. Poirier/M. Scopello/ J.D. Turner, BCNH.T 30, Québec/Louvain 2004, (1-175), 29. Cf. H.W. Attridge, Valentinian and Sethian Apocalyptic Traditions (see note 13), 196: “Texts cast in the form of narratives of ‘ascent’ experiences have less apocalyptic eschatology, as well as less direct connection with biblical figures and themes, than the rest of the Sethian tradition.” Agreeing with Pearson’s assumption of the text’s corruption and provisional restorations; it is hard to make sense of the original (tr. Poirier): “et le monde intelligible, il a connu, en distinguant, que, de toute manière, ce monde sensible [est digne] d’être préservé tout entier”. Mar, NHC X,1 p. 5,15-26. B.A. Pearson, Notes: Marsanes, in: Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (see note 6), 264; id., Gnosticism as Platonism. With Special Reference to Marsanes (NHC X,1), HThR 77, 1984, (55-72), 71; J.D. Turner, Introduction: Marsanes (see note 14), 41 (see also ibid., 231); P.-H. Poirier, Commentaire: Marsanès, in: Marsanès (see note 14), 389 (recalling Plot., Enn. II 4 [12] 4,7-9; II 9 [33] 8,8-10.16-20 [unconvincing parallels]). Poirier (ibid.,) continues: “Elle rejoint un lieu commun platonicien, à savoir que le monde sensible, quoiqu’inférieur, est bon et même admirable.” Mar, NHC X,1 p. 3,25-4,2; on the problematic state of the text (irrelevant to the present argument), see J.D. Turner, Introduction: Marsanes (see note 14), 112 n. 52. See also ibid., 115, 212.

174

DYLAN M. BURNS

However, Turner, followed by Poirier, goes on to conjecture that this in turn reveals Autogenes as a “commander” in Zostrianos who “perfects” Sophia following the creation of the world19. The passage cited – the bottom of page ten and top of page eleven of Nag Hammadi Codex VIII – is lacunous, and requires extensive conjectural restoration on Turner’s part (left blank by Layton, and Barry/Funk/Poirier) to yield the desired meaning: Synopsis of Zostrianos NHC VIII,1 p. 10,28-11,2 Text and tr. Turner And [again he said, Sophia became] perfect through [the will of] [the commander] through whom [the atmospheric] [realm perseveres], having [immutably averted] the destruction of the world. au[w on p]eéa[v ée èsovia asR] tel[io]s ebol ùit[M piouwj nte] pire[V^Réw]é paï e[te pikaù Na] yr m[oun] ebol Ù^Ito[o]T^V eav[pw]wn[e ebol M]pita[k]o Ntepkosmos Ù^No[u]mN[t]atou[w]tB ebol

Text Barry/Funk/Poirier, Layton/ Sieber; tr. mine [ perfect through [ [ ] it [ [ ] by means of it, as it [revealed] the destruction of the world by means of its immutability. au [ tel[ios ebol ùit[ pir . [ ]é paï e[ yr M[ ] ebol Ù^Ito[o]T^V. eav[ou]wn[Ù ebol M]pita[k]o Ntepkosmos ùNo[u]mN[t]atou[w]tB ebol.

In Turner’s reading, the text states that Sophia’s repentance ensures the longevity of creation, contra Plotinus’ opponents, for whom repentance for creation connotes its destruction20. Thus Turner, followed by Poirier, reads Marsanes and Zostrianos as supporting a Neoplatonic position about cosmic eschatology against that of the Christian Gnostics attacked in Enn. II 9, where Plotinus asks:

19

20

J.D. Turner, Introduction: Marsanes (see note 14), 115; P.-H. Poirier, Commentaire: Marsanès, in: Marsanès (see note 14), 389. Oddly, Poirier here refers to the BFP text of Zostrianos, which does not support Turner’s point. J.D. Turner, Commentary: Zostrianos, in: Zostrien (see note 14), 514-515; re: Plot., Enn. II 9 [33] 4,15-19.

COSMIC ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

175

“When is it (the demiurge) going to destroy it (the world)? For if it was sorry it had made it, what is it waiting for? If it’s not sorry now for creating the world, then why will it be sorry later? Or, if it is waiting for the souls of the elect, then why haven’t they all come yet?”21 “… They (that is, the Gnostics) introduce all sorts of comings into being and passings away (genéseiv kaì fqoráv)…”22

Turner extends this reading to Zostrianos based upon his restoration of pages ten and eleven of Nag Hammadi Codex VIII. This approach is unsatisfactory for several reasons. The first of them is internal: by Turner and Poirier’s reasoning, 1) the Christian Gnostics known to Plotinus read and rejected the Sethian perspective on cosmic eschatology in Zostrianos and perhaps (depending on how one dates it) Marsanes, 2) and expressed their own views to Plotinus along with the text of Zostrianos. 3) He subsequently rejected their views, although 4) he must have agreed on this point with Zostrianos, 5) which he quotes on other matters in his polemic23, but ignores with respect to cosmic eschatology, focusing instead on the text’s readers in his circle. This is a convoluted scenario that supposes that the Sethian treatises were, on the issue of cosmic eschatology, of virtually no importance to any of their readers in Plotinus’ circle! Moreover, Turner’s reading is based off of restorations to Zostrianos that are not made in the editions of Layton/Sieber and Barry/Funk/ Poirier, which here agree on the text. The question is whether one should restore [..]wnÙ as [pw]wnÙ (“avert”) or [ou]wnÙ (“reveal”). Paleographically speaking, both readings are possible, although the latter is preferable on grounds that the word pwwnÙ does not appear in any of the “Platonizing” Sethian treatises. Moreover, the word “immutability (mNtatouwtB)” is a common epithet in Zostrianos for the Protophanes and Kaluptos sub-aeons of Barbelo and their inhabitants24; 21

22 23

24

Plot., Enn. II 9 [33] 4,14-23. Cf. also the “Gnostic claim” that it creates for honor and arrogance and rashness (II 9 [33] 11,22-24). Plot., Enn. II 9 [33] 6,58-60; see also II 1 [40] 4,29-33. Zostr, NHC VIII,1 p. 9,9-22; M. Tardieu, Les gnostiques (see note 1), 528; J.D. Turner, Commentary: Zostrianos (see note 20), 519-520. Zostr, NHC VIII,1 p. 48,8; 114,6; 116,19; 122,9; 130,24.

176

DYLAN M. BURNS

it is hard to see how they could have this quality in common with the world, which in Zostrianos is formed of “evil matter”. Rather, the fate of the dissoluble world is contrasted and revealed by providence and its “immutability”, for providence is what holds the world together, as discussed below. Thus, at the end of his sermon, Zostrianos invites his hearer/reader to “look at the dissolution (ouwtB) of this place, and follow the indissoluble unbegottenness (èmNtatmise) … Dissolve (bal ebol) yourselves, and that which has bound you will be dissolved. Save yourselves so that it (that is the soul) will be saved! The loving Father has sent you the Savior (swtßr) and he has strengthened you. Why do you hesitate? Seek, when you are sought. Listen, when you are invited. For time (xrónov) is short. Do not be deceived; great is the aeon of the aeon of the living, (and great are) the punishments of those who remain unpersuaded. Many are the bondages and the torturers that seek you. Flee quickly, before destruction reaches you. Look to the light, and flee from the darkness. Do not be led astray to your destruction!”25

Finally, Marsanes’ references to saving “the entire defilement” and “the sensible world” are too vague to refer to an eternal cosmos. The passage does not say that the world will be “sustained”, or “preserved” eternally. It does appear to have some kind of monistic view of cosmic eschatology; what view this might be – whether Marsanes actually esteems matter itself26, and how that position might be philosophically (in)defensible – is not clear. I would hypothesize instead that the passage is in keeping with the common Judeo-Christian idea of a “new earth”, in which the created world will be destroyed but replaced by a new, eternal “heavenly” realm27. In this sense, the world is “saved”. This “new earth” was apparently 25 26

27

Zostr, NHC VIII,1 p. 130,21-132,5. See (on TractTrip NHC I,5) A.H. Armstrong, Dualism Platonic, Gnostic, and Christian, in: Plotinus amid Gnostics and Christians. Papers Presented at the Plotinus Symposium Held at the Free University, Amsterdam on 25 January 1984, ed. by D.T. Runia, Amsterdam 1984, (29-52), 45: even if all matter could be saved, this does not mean that it is esteemed in the first place (on the contrary, it requires divine intervention for salvation). Rev 21,1-2; 2Pe 3,13. See also Isa 65,17; 66,22; 4Ezr 7,89-101; 2Bar 49-52; 72-74. In the untitled treatise in the Bruce Codex (p. 249 cf. C. Schmidt/V. MacDermot, ed. and trans., The Books of Jeu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex, NHS 13, Leiden 1978), it is a “city, Jerusalem”, on which see also L. Abramowski, Nag Hammadi 8,1 “Zostrianos”, das Anonymum Brucianum, Plotin, Enn. 2,9 (33), in: Platonismus und Christentum. Festschrift für Heinrich Dörrie, ed. by H.-D. Blume and F. Mann, JAC.E 10, Münster 1983, (1-10), 7.

COSMIC ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

177

known to Plotinus’ Christian Gnostics and the “Untitled” text in the Bruce Codex28. A hypothesis which accommodates cosmic destruction and elect soteriology makes sense of other passages in the text. Marsanes refers to the “end times”, and the eschatological rewards of the elect: “… It is necessary [for you, (Marsanes), to know] those that are higher than these and tell them to the powers. For you (sg. masc.) will become [elect] with the elect ones (netsatP) [in the last] times ([anù]aeeu Nneouaeij)…”29 “Those who have received you will be given their choice reward (beke) for their endurance (üpomonß), and he will protect them from evils. But let none of us be distressed … For (the Great Father) looks upon them all [and] takes care of them all.”30 “… And the reward (beke) which will be provided for this one (sing. masc.) in this manner is salvation (ouéeei); but (≠) the opposite will befall there whoever commits sin. [The one who commits] sin by himself […] … But you shall examine who is worthy (ãziov) of revealing them, knowing that [those] who commit sin…”31

These passages contrast the elect, who will receive their reward of salvation, with the non-elect, or sinners. The universalist statement that the Great Father “takes care of them all” is tempered by the non-universalist reference to an “opposite” reward for sinners, that is a lack of salvation. The simplest solution is to assume that membership in the elect is open to all, but certainly not accepted by all. In this way, the Father “takes 28

29

30

31

Plotinus says that the Gnostics identify a “new earth” as the “rational form of the world” (lógov kósmou [Plot., Enn. II 9 [33] 5,26-27] = Unt. p. 249 cf. C. Schmidt/V. MacDermot, The Books of Jeu [see note 27]); cf. Plot., Enn. II 9 [33] 11,11-12; VI 7 [38] 11. Mar, NHC X,1 p. 10,13-18, agreeing with Poirier (P.-H. Poirier, Commentaire: Marsanès, in: Marsanès [see note 14], 400) that the use of [pa]éev indicates a change of speaker, probably a supernatural authority (i.e. an agent of the Barbelo), who addresses, in the first-person masculine singular, Marsanes. B.A. Pearson, Notes: Marsanes (see note 17), 278, sees Marsanes as talking to his audience, with the use of the singular instead of the plural as a textual corruption. Turner recognizes the eschatological import of the passage but simply states that “it is quite unclear whether this reflects a scene of a final cosmic judgment, or merely the periodic judgment of individual that occurs between successive reincarnations of the soul.” J.D. Turner, Introduction: Marsanes (see note 14), 38-39. Mar, NHC X,1 p. 1,14-25. P.-H. Poirier, Commentaire: Marsanès, in: Marsanès (see note 14), 365-366., stresses the paraenetic context and recalls the elect at p. 10,16-23. Mar, NHC X,1 p. 40,2-23.

178

DYLAN M. BURNS

care of them”, the sinners, but some will not repent and inherit only the “opposite reward”. As mentioned above, Zostrianos and Allogenes also speak of the fate of the non-elect. As for those who have material existence, “because they did not know God, they shall pass away (bwl ebol)”32. (This is almost certainly the “dead” kind of humanity that winds up in fire.) During a discussion of negative theology in Allogenes, the “luminaries” declare that someone who mistakenly identifies God with his attributes “has not known God” and is “liable to judgement”33. In a comment on one of these passages, Turner remarks that the souls “pass away” without judgment, but this is unlikely, given references to “judges” and “judging” in Zostrianos and Allogenes34. Clearly, the “Platonizing” Sethian treatises have not only a conception of the elect, but also of the non-elect. In terms of personal eschatology, the texts are non-universalist; in terms of cosmic eschatology, they presume that the cosmos will be destroyed. In the passages discussed here, it is clear that there will be an “end time” where nonelect souls “pass away” and others are “judged”. Thus, to return to Marsanes’ ostensibly universalist monism, one must ask what the “entire perceptible world is worthy of being saved” from. As Pearson and Turner have already noted, Autogenes here seems to care for the world, or, in the parlance of Allogenes, “rectify its faults by nature”, in a demiurgical way35. The idea referred to here is likely the dissoluble character of the cosmos which must be maintained by God via divine providence, an idea

32 33 34

35

Zostr, NHC VIII,1 p. 128,13-14. Allog, NHC XI,3 p. 64,14-25. J.D. Turner, Commentary: Zostrianos (see note 20), 650 on Zostr, NHC VIII,1 p. 128,13-14; for “judges”, see ibid., 9,6-15; for “judgment” of souls not knowing God, see Allog, NHC XI,3 p. 64,14-25. Cf. also his reading of the “dead souls” in “fire” at Zostr, NHC VIII,1 p. 42,6-19. J.D. Turner, Sethian Gnosticism (see note 6), 565-67; id., Commentary: Zostrianos (see note 20), 650. Allog, NHC XI,3 p. 51,25-32; B.A. Pearson, Notes: Marsanes (see note 17), 264 (recalling the demiurgic gods at Pl., Ti. 41a-42a); id., Gnosticism as Platonism (see note 17), 71; J.D. Turner, Sethian Gnosticism (see note 6), 577; id., Introduction: Marsanes (see note 14), 111-112.

COSMIC ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

179

common amongst philosophers Hellenic36, Jewish37, and Christian. Given the close association of Autogenes with salvific activity and its root in the Barbelo, the “first thought” of the Invisible Spirit, it is no surprise that ancient philosophers usually regarded this cosmic maintenance as the work of providence. Thus, the passage referring to the “salvation” of the whole world is concerned with God’s providential care that maintains the foundation of its cosmos, here via the demiurgical activity of the Autogenes aeon. However, Christians such as Athenagoras and Origen held that God could also allow the world to eventually pass away38. Marsanes’ references to the “end-times” and the fate of sinners appear to agree. There is therefore no reason to assume that Marsanes is not in keeping with the soteriology of the other “Platonizing” treatises, wherein salvation is open to anyone who receives the Gnostic call, while those who refuse to acknowledge it will be destroyed. None of the Sethian documents are universalist39. This reading of the texts harmonizes much better with other evidence about Sethianism, both from Nag Hammadi and from Plotinus. Each of the non-“Platonizing” Sethian treatises contains a “mini-apocalypse” describing the end of the world. In the “Pronoia Hymn” at the end of The Apocryphon of John, the final descent of providence elicits an awakening of man’s divine nature which is tantamount to the “completion (suntéleia) of their aeon”40. The second part of the Trimorphic Protennoia, entitled “On Fate”, is the revelation of Protennoia 36

37

38

39

40

Pl., Ti. 41a-c; more generally, Lg. X 901d-903b. For the sublunary spheres as corruptible and in need maintenance, see Arist., Cael. II 3,286a3f.; GC II 10,336a24– 32; Metaph. L 6,1072a10, cit. R.W. Sharples, Alexander of Aphrodisias on Divine Providence. Two Problems, CQ 32, 1982, (198-211), 200 n. 20. See also Athenag., leg. 19,3 (cf. Legatio and De Resurrectione, ed. and trans. by W.R. Schoedel, OECT, Oxford 1972). Philo, opif., 2.10 (cf. Philo, Works, Greek and English Translation, ed. by F.H. Colson/G.H. Whittaker, Vol. 1-10, Cambridge 1949-1962); for many other passages in Philo, see D.T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, PhAnt 44, Leiden 1986, 240-241; also ibid., 153-154; D. Winston, Philo’s Theory of Eternal Creation. Prov 1.6-9, PAAJR 46, 1979-1980, (593-606), 599. Athenag., res. 18,3 (cf. Legatio and De Resurrectione [see note 36]); Or., princ. I 4,3 [cf. Origenes, Werke, hg. von P. Koetschau, Bd. 5: De Principiis, GCS 22, Leipzig 1913]; id., Cels. V 26 [cf. Origenes, Contra Celsum, Transl. with an Introduction and Notes by H. Chadwick, Cambridge 1953]. Pace J.D. Turner (Commentary: Zostrianos [see note 20], 554), conjecturing that “most Sethian texts seems to entertain the prospect of universal salvation, except for those who entirely reject the doctrine”, i.e. AJ NHC II,1 p. 25,16-27; 30. AJ, NHC II,1 p. 31,2.

180

DYLAN M. BURNS

(providence) herself describing the confusion of the archons and the demiurge (or “Archigenetor”). The “coming end of the aeon (qa[ù]y Mpaiwn etnajwpe)” is to be followed by a harrowing of hell and an aeon “without change (paï ete mNtav Mmau Noujibe)”41. The Apocalypse of Adam features three cataclysms that befall the world: flood and fire are sent by the demiurge to wipe out the seed of Seth, but the real eschaton arrives with the coming of the “Illuminator”, at which point “the whole creation that came from the dead earth will be under the authority of death”42. In The Egyptian Gospel as well, there are two cataclysms of flood (a “type [túpov] of the consummation [suntéleia] of the aeon”) and fire: “these things will happen for the sake of the great, incorruptible race. For the sake of this race, temptations (peirasmoí) will come, an error of false prophets…”43 After recognizing that these disasters were sent by the devil against his people, Seth summons “guardians” who bring about a third parousía, the judgment of the archons and consummation (suntéleia) of the aeon44. In fact, Seth was created exactly for this purpose at the request of Adam, to found the immovable race “and that, because of it, [the] silence [and the] voice might appear, so that the [dead] aeon [may raise itself,] [and](finally) dissolve (katalúein)”45. While Plotinus does not directly attack his Christian Gnostic opponents’ conception of cosmic eschatology, he clearly thinks they affirm 41

42

43 44

45

Protennoia, NHC XIII,1 p. 42,1-45,2; 42,19-21. The redactional relationship of this apocalypse to the rest of the text and Sethian tradition is not clear. Turner hypothesizes that it is a secondary “doctrinal” addition, drawing on Hellenistic “Nekyia traditions” to the earlier, aretological stratum of the text (cf. J.D. Turner, NHC XIII,1: Trimorphic Protennoia, in: Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII, ed. by C.W. Hedrick and E. Pagels, CoptGnL, NHS 28, Leiden 1990, 371-454). ApcAd, NHC V,5 p. 68-70; 75,9-16; 76,17-20; for background and interpretation, see G.G. Stroumsa, Another Seed. Studies in Gnostic Mythology, NHS 24, Leiden 1984, 83.106; D. Brakke, The Seed of Seth at the Flood. Biblical Interpretation and Gnostic Theological Reflection, in: Reading in Christian Communities. Essays on Interpretation in the Early Church, ed. by C.A. Bobertz and D. Brakke, CJAn 14, Notre Dame 2002, (41-62), 46-60. Gos. Eg., NHC IV,2 p. 72,22-27 = III,2 p. 61,12-15. Gos. Eg., IV,2 p. 72,4 = III,2 p. 61,20.4; IV,2 p. 73,27-75,24 = III,2 p. 63,13-64,9; see also A. Böhlig/F. Wisse, Commentary: The Gospel of the Egyptians, in: Nag Hammadi Codices III,2 and IV,2. “The Gospel of the Egyptians”, ed. with Translation and Commentary by A. Böhlig and F. Wisse, NHS 4, Leiden 1975, (169207), 189. Gos. Eg., NHC IV,2 p. 63,3-8 = III,2 p. 51,10-14, transl. A. Böhlig/F. Wisse, Nag Hammadi Codices III,2 and IV,2 (see note 44), modified.

COSMIC ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

181

that the world both begins in time and eventually ends. As noted at the beginning of this section, he expends great energy on attacking their conception of the creator, who will destroy the world. He argues that they do not understand that the demiurge creates not through discursive thought (diánoia) but contemplation (qewría); “(This confusion comes from) the people who assume a beginning for what is eternal; then, they think that the cause of the creating was a being who turned from one thing to the next and thus changed.”46

Furthermore, Plotinus vigorously insists on the eternal existence of matter, which cannot dissolve unless it has something to dissolve into47. Two problems are embedded in this complex of evidence. First, Plotinus defends a non-literal reading of the Timaeus where the demiurge does not actually create the world in time, against the literal reading apparently used by the Gnostics and mocked by Epicureans48. Second, and more relevant for the present discussion, Plotinus does not accept the idea that the world can be destroyed since he considers the world eternal and because it would require an intervention by what is eternal in that which is temporal49. If the “Platonizing” Sethian treatises did indeed circulate in Plotinus’ seminar, it would be unlikely that he would have leveled the aforementioned criticisms against them and their readers if they in fact affirmed that the world was uncreated and eternal.

IN

THE BACKGROUND OF SETHIAN ESCHATOLOGY CONTEMPORARY HELLENIC, CHRISTIAN, AND GNOSTIC THOUGHT

At this point, it is worth pausing to consider the Platonic philosophical context of Sethian eschatology. The eternity of the world was an issue that ancient philosophers staked a great deal of importance upon. The 46 47 48

49

Plot., Enn. II 9 [33] 8,2-5; see also V 8 [31] 7; VI 7 (38) 1,38; III 2 [47] 2,16-21. Plot., Enn. II 9 [33] 3,7-21. For a fine survey of passages and the issues at hand, see D.J. O’Meara, Gnosticism and the Making of the World in Plotinus, in: The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28-31 1978, ed. by B. Layton, Vol. 1: The School of Valentinus, SHR 41.1, Leiden 1980, 365-378. Rightly emphasized by E.P. Meijering, God Cosmos History. Christian and NeoPlatonic Views on Divine Revelation, VigChr 28.4, 1974, (248-276), esp. 253-254; see also C. Schmidt, Plotins Stellung zum Gnosticismus und kirchlichen Christentum, TU N.F. 5, Leipzig 1901, 68-71.

182

DYLAN M. BURNS

central concern for Platonists was the eternity of the soul. In an influential discussion followed by Cicero, Maximus of Tyre, and Macrobius, Plato states in the Phaedrus that “all soul is immortal”; it has no beginning, or rather is a beginning for all else, an unmoved mover. The same goes for the soul of the world itself, which moves all things in it50. The Timaeus, meanwhile, says the world is incorruptible, a proof-text used by Alcinous51. While Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Macrobius did allow for the occasional destruction of civilizations, this was never tantamount to the destruction of the cosmos52. Other thinkers to defend the eternity of the world included Plutarch53, the Hermetists54, and of course Plotinus himself55. With the rise of Christian intellectuals and their debates with Hellenic interlocutors, the topic became a central and bitterly-debated locus of Hellenic-Christian polemics. Like Plato and Aristotle, Celsus defended the eternity of the world56, but believed that there had been prior world-cycles of floods and conflagrations; they had been garbled by Christians, who came to think that “God will descend bringing fire in

50

51 52

53

54

55

56

Pl., Phdr. 245c-246a; see also Ti. 41b; Cic., Somn. Scip. 8-9 (cf. De Re Publica, ed. and transl. by C.W. Keyes, LCL 213, Cambridge 1977); id., Tusc. I 53-54 (cf. Tusculan Disputations, transl. by J.E. King, LCL 141, London 1960); Max.Tyr., Or. 10,4 (cf. The Philosphical Orations, transl. with an Introduction and Notes by M.B. Trapp, Oxford 1997). Pl., Ti. 41b; Alcin., Epit. 15.2. Pl., Plt. 269c-274e; Ti. 29a; Arist., Cael. 1,10; Macr., Comm. Somn. Scip. II 10,9-16 (cf. Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, transl. with an Introduction and Notes by W.H. Stahl, RoC 48, New York 1952). Plu., de E Delph. 393f. (cf. Plutarchs Moralia in sixteen Volumes, Vol. 5: 351C-438E, transl. by F.C. Babbitt, LCL 306, London 1936); (cf. Plot. Enn., II 9 [33] 6,58-7,3); de def. Orac. 415f-416a, 433e-f. Ascl. 29 (cf. Hermetica, The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a New English Translation with Notes and Introduction, ed. and transl. by B.P. Copenhaver. Cambridge 1995): “if the world was and is and will be a living thing that lives forever, nothing in the world is mortal.” Ibid., 31; Corp. Herm. XI 3, 5, 15. Plot., Enn. IV 4 [28] 10,5-7. Probably not (as suggested by C. Schmidt, Plotins Stellung zum Gnosticismus [see note 49], 69) a rebuttal of Rev 4, ö ¡n kaì ö ¥n kaì ö êrxómenov; a better candidate would be III 7 [45] 3,31-34. 12,13-29; II 1 [40] 1-2.4-5; III 7 [45] 6). While Plotinus defended the world’s eternity, he also adopted the Stoic idea of the recurrence of events (presumably following the kind of incomplete destructions described in Plato and Aristotle – Enn. V 7 [18]). Or., Cels. III 39; IV 79; cf. Minuc., Octavius 11,1 (ANF); J.G. Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism, Peabody 2002, 99.

COSMIC ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

183

the manner of a torturer”57. Macrobius, too, emphasized that while floods and conflagrations may nearly devastate the world, the world is never destroyed. Nothing ever perishes, but is simply changed. He favorably contrasts Cicero’s words about a “world that is mortal in part” with the “popular belief that some things seem to perish within the universe”58. Alexander of Lycopolis mocked the unintelligible physics of Manichaean eschatological fire59. Other approaches focused, like Plotinus, on how Christian conceptions of creation complicated temporality and the goodness of the demiurge: Sallustius states that “the universe itself must be imperishable and uncreated; imperishable, because if it perishes God must necessarily make either a better or a worse or the same or disorder”60. Macarius Magnes’ Hellenic interlocutor in his Apocriticus criticizes 1Co 7,31 (“the present form of the world is passing away”), asking how the demiurge could have created the world poor enough to pass away in the first place61. Later, he attacks descriptions of stars falling and the heavens rolling up (drawn from the “Apocalypse of Peter” and Isa 34,4), saying

57

58 59

60

61

Or., Cels. I 19-20, IV 9,11. Origen responds that Moses and the prophets didn’t get this idea from anyone else (ibid., IV 12; cf. Clem., str. V 14,4 [cf. Clemens Alexandrinus, hrsg. von O. Stählin, Bd. 2: Stromata; Buch I-VI, GCS 52, Leipzig 1960]) and that the cycle is not unlimited (see also Cels. IV 62, 67-78, V 20; A.F.J. Klijn, Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature, NT.S 46, Leiden 1977, 122; J.G. Cook, New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism [see note 56], 98). Macr., Comm. Somn. Scip. II 12,12-16. Alex. Lyc., Man. (cf. P.W. van der Horst and J. Mansfeld, An Alexandrian Platonist against Dualism. Alexander of Lycopolis’ ‘Critique of the Doctrines of Manichaeus’, translated with an Introduction, Leiden 1974, 95-97; ch. 26 in: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio, ed. A. Brinkmann, BSGRT, Stuttgart 1989, 38-40). Sallust., De diis et mundo 7 (cf. Sallustius, Concerning the Gods and the Universe, ed. with Prolegomena and Translation by A.D. Nock, Cambridge 1996); also 13: “everything made in virtue of a function comes into being with the possessor of the function, and things so made cannot ever perish, unless their maker is deprived of the functional power. Accordingly, those who suppose that the universe perishes deny the existence of gods, or, if they assert that existence, make the Creator powerless.” See also “Prolegomena”, in: Sallustius, Concerning the Gods (see note 60), (xvii– cxxiii) lx-lxii. Mac. Mgn., apocr. IV 158 (cf. Macarius Magnes, Le Monogénès. Macarios de Magnésie, introd. générale, éd. critique, traduction française et commentaire par R. Goulet, 2 Vols., Textes et Traditions 7, Paris 2003); for discussion, see J.G. Cook, New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (see note 56), 222 (seeing the parallel with Plotinus’ critique at Enn. II 9 [33] 4), 230 n. 383.

184

DYLAN M. BURNS

that whoever could believe such things must be âpaídeutov … ânaísqjtov: heaven cannot change and cannot be judged, for it does not sin62. Sethian cosmic eschatology appears instead most intelligible alongside the developments of contemporary second and third-century Christian and Gnostic thought. The New Testament, apocalyptic literature, and the Apostolic Fathers generally held a philosophically naïve belief in a final judgment separating the righteous from the sinner63, the physical destruction of the world, usually through fire64, and its subsequent reconstitution as a perfect, eternal kingdom65. This perspective was also supported in third-century Christianity, as by Tertullian, Hippolytus, or the Montanist prophet Maximilla66. 2 Enoch proposes that time is finite and divided, as opposed to the undivided “single aeon” that will follow the Final Judgment67.

62

63

64 65

66

67

Mac. Mgn., apocrit. IV, 164. Cook’s recollection (232) of Plotinus’ defense of the stars at Enn. II 9 [33] 8 is probably far-fetched. 1En. 1,4-7.38; 2En. 46; 65,5-10; 2Bar. 51,1-6; 54,20-22; 83; Apoc. Abr. 29-31; Apoc. Petr. (Eth.) 4; Apoc. Elij. 5,30-35; Rev 20,12-15; 1Clem. 23-28. Deu 32,22; Mat 5,22; 18,8; Mar 9,43; Rev 20,14; 21,8. For discussion and survey of sources, see H. Kraft, Art. Eschatologie. V. Christliche Eschatologie, dogmengeschichtlich. RGG3 2, Tübingen 1957, (672-680), 675-676; G. May, Art. Eschatologie. V. Alte Kirche, TRE 10, Berlin/New York 1982, (299305), 300-303; D. Aune, Early Christian Eschatology (see note 8), 595; H.W. Attridge, Valentinian and Sethian Apocalyptic Traditions (see note 13), 184-185; A.Y. Collins, thouhts on New Testament Eschatology in: Aspects of New Testament Thought, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. by R.E. Brown, J.A. Fitzmyer and R.E. Murphy, London 1990. Examples of the reconstitution of the world as a new kingdom include Isa 65,17; 66,22; 2Pe 3; Rev 21; 1En. 45,4-5; 2Bar., 32,7; 44; 2Clem. 11f.; Herm., mand. 3,8-9. The most egregious examples are Chiliasm: Rev 20,6; Apoc. Elij. 5,36-9; Iren., haer. V 28,3 (on the latter, see further C.R. Smith, Chiliasm and Recapitulation in the Theology of Irenaeus, VigChr 48.4, 1994, 313-331). Tert., Marc. III 24; id., An. 55 (cf. ANF: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. by A. Roberts and A.C. Coxe, Vol. 3-4, Grand Rapids 1976); Hipp., Dan. 2,4 (cf. ANF: Translations ot the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. by A. Roberts and A.C. Coxe, Vol. 5, Grand Rapids 1978); Eus., h.e. V 16,18-19 (cf. The Ecclesiastical History, ed. and transl. by K. Lake and J.E.L. Oulton, 2 Vols., LCL 153/265, Cambridge 1973/1975); similarly, Hom. Clem. II 15,1-3. See further G. May, Art. Eschatologie (see note 65), 302-303. 2En. 65; for discussion in light of contemporary Zoroastrian and Greek concepts of time, see S. Pines, Eschatology and the concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch, in: Types of Redemption. Contributions to the Theme of the Study-Conference held at Jerusalem 14th to 19th July 1968, ed. by R.J. Zwi Werblowsky and C.J. Bleeker, SHR 18, Leiden 1970, (72-87), 77-82.

COSMIC ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

185

More philosophically-inclined apologists, however, attempted to nuance their views in hopes of engaging Hellenic thought. Often this amounted to attempts to rethink biblical concepts of the world’s destruction in Stoic terms. Justin Martyr argued that if man had free will, he must receive eternal reward or punishment as merited; this punishment would be a fire that would also consume the entire world68. He charges that the Stoics robbed the doctrine of the cosmic conflagration from the Jews, while mistakenly loading it with determinism as well as the idea of a re-birth of another material universe69. Clement never explicitly denounces the eternity of the world, but he agrees with Justin that the Stoic êkpúrwsiv is a scrambled version of Mosaic teaching about the end70. Although he affirmed (limited) successive rebirths of the cosmos71, Origen thought that the cosmos as known by humans was finite and would be destroyed. In his polemic with Celsus as well as in his commentaries, he is quite clear that the world is created, destroyed, and judged72. In “On First Principles”, Origen offers three answers to the question but doesn’t settle on any of them, proposing that 1) only the material world will be destroyed; 2) it would be transformed into a spiritual world; 3) everything will be annihilated73. The tension between the Platonic and Christian perspectives is 68

69

70 71

72

73

Just., 1 apol. 20. 28. 60; 2 apol. 7. 9 (cf. ANF: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. and transl. by A. Roberts and A.C. Coxe, Vol. 1, Grand Rapids 1977). See G. May, Art. Eschatologie (see note 65), 301; E. Osborn, Justin Martyr, BHTh 47, Tübingen 1973, 149-153. See Heraclitus ap. D.L. 9.8 (cf. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, transl. by R.D. Hicks, 2 Vols., LCL 184/185, London 1972/1979); for the eternal return, see the sources collected in: A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 Vols., Cambridge 1987, §52. Clem., str. V 1,554. Or., princ. II 3,4-5, III 5,3; for an eventual end to the succession of worlds, see comm. in Rom. VI 8,8 Scheck. Or., Cels. IV 10. On final judgment in his commentaries, see hom. in Jer. 12,5 (cf. Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah. Homily on 1 Kings 28, transl. by C. Smith, FaCh 97, Washington D.C. 1998); hom. in Lev. 14.4 (cf. Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, transl. by G.W. Barkley, FaCh 83, Washington D.C. 1990). Or., princ. II 3,6. See also G. May, Art. Eschatologie (see note 65), 302; D.Y. Dimitrov, Synesius of Cyrene and the Christian Neoplatonism: Patterns of Religious and Cultural Symbiosis, in: What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria?, ed. by M. el-Abbadi and O. Mounir Fathallah, Library of the Written Word 1.3, Leiden 2008, (149-170), 155. Origen also denies the eternity of the world at comm. in Mt. 13.1 (cf. Origenes Werke, hg. von E. Klostermann, Vol 10-12, GCS 38.40.41, Leipzig 1933-1955 cit. J.W. Trigg, Origen. The Bible and Philosophy in the ThirdCentury Church, Atlanta 1983, 213).

186

DYLAN M. BURNS

perhaps most distinctly observed in the person of Synesius of Cyrene, who, on account of his training in Greek philosophy, simply refused to admit that “the world, with all its parts, must perish”74. As Peel showed in his survey of eschatological passages in Gnostic texts75, most Gnostic thinkers also presumed that the world would be destroyed, whether by means of a “restoration (âpokatástasiv)”76, the “consummation (suntéleia) of the aeon”77, “dissolution (bwl ebol)”78, fire79, or cosmic war80. Excepting the Epistle to Rheginos, these texts evince little interest in Greek thought or philosophically-palatable notions of eschatology. However, contemporary Christian interest in articulating the end-time terms of the Stoic “conflagration (êkpúrwsiv)” was strong amongst Valentinians. For Ptolemy, as with Justin and Clement, final destruction was favored over the Stoic doctrine of its repeated cycles of birth and destruction; unlike contemporary “proto-orthodox” thinkers, he also stressed the destruction of matter81. For many Gnostics as well as 74

75

76

77

78 79

80

81

tòn kósmon oû fßsw kaì tãlla mérj sundiafqeíresqai (Synes., ep. 105,87-88 [cf. Synésius de Cyrène, trad. et commenté par D. Roques, ed. par A. Garzya, CUFr 397, Paris 2000]; see also J. Bregman, Synesius of Cyrene. Philosopher-Bishop, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 2, Berkeley 1982, 159-160; cf. H.-I. Marrou, Synesius of Cyrene and Alexandrian Neoplatonism, in: The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century: Essays, ed. by A. Momigliano, Oxford 1963, [126-150], 147). M.L. Peel, Gnostic Eschatology (see note 13), 157-158, to which I am indebted for many of the following citations. Basilides ap. Hipp., haer. VII 26-27 (cf. ANF [see note 66]; A. Méhat, }Apokatástasiv chez Basilide, in: Mélanges d’histoire des religions offerts à Henri-Charles Puech, Paris 1974, 365-374, emphasizing continuity with “proto-orthodox” thinkers like Irenaeus and Clement); Epiph., haer. LXVI 31-37 (cf. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, transl. by F. Williams, 2 Vols., NHS 35/36, Leiden, 1987/1994); Rheg, NHC I,3 p. 40; Apoc. Petr., NHC VIII,3 p. 73-74. OW, NHC II,5 p. 110-11; 114,24; 121-22; 123,19.30-31; 125,32-33; Gos. Eg., NHC IV,2 p. 72,22-27 = III,2 p. 61,12-15; Par. Sem., NHC VII,1 p. 4,2-20; 48,1822. See also Codex Tchacos Gospel of Judas p. 54,16-57,19. Dial, NHC III,5 p. 122,2-3; Apoc. Petr., NHC VIII,3 p. 76-77. Noema, NHC VI,4 p. 36,3-8; 46.29-32; Pistis Sophia, 106 (cf. Pistis Sophia. Text ed. by C. Schmidt with Notes by V. MacDermot, NHS 9, Leiden 1978; The Books of Jeu [see note 27]; Megale Apophasis ap. Hipp., haer. VI 9,10; Kephalaia 16 [cf. The Kephalaia of the Teacher. The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translation with Commentary, ed. by I. Gardner, NHMS 37, Leiden 1995]). OW, NHC II,5 p. 125,32-34; 126,4-127,4; 126,10-11.14-21; Par. Sem, NHC VII,1 p. 29,7-14; 31,11-22; 43,21-44,25; TractTrip, NHC I,5 p. 137. Ptolemy ap. Iren., haer. I 7,1 (on which see H.W. Attridge, Valentinian and Sethian Apocalyptic Traditions [see note 13], 184f.); see also Clem., exc. Thdot. 48,4 (cf. Extraits de Théodote. Clément d’Alexandrie, Texte grec, introd. trad. et notes de F. Sagnard, SC 23, Paris 1970).

COSMIC ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

187

Christians and Jews, the eschaton would be accompanied by a final judgment82. It is in this context that Sethian cosmic eschatology should be understood. Despite clear interest in contemporary Stoic and Platonic thought, the non-“Platonizing” Sethian treatises (the Apocryphon of John, Trimorphic Protennoia, Apocalypse of Adam, and the Egyptian Gospel) all hold to unphilosophical Judeo-Christian notions of cosmic eschatology. As noted above, all of the texts assert a “consummation” of the world or present aeon; only the Apocryphon fails to explicitly mention a final judgment. While the “Platonizing” treatises are not primarily focused on cosmic but personal eschatology, references to the dissolution of souls, shortness of the present age (Zostrianos), judges of souls (Allogenes), the “end-times”, and lack of salvation for sinners (Marsanes) make it clear that these texts presume, like the other Sethian treatises, that the cosmos will be destroyed. Broadly speaking, then, all the Sethian texts agree with contemporary Christian and Gnostic thought on the destruction of the world. There are also important differences between the cosmic eschatology of the Sethian texts and many of their Judeo-Christian contemporaries. First, although the doctrine of the êkpúrowsiv clearly was central to the thought of educated Christians and Gnostics (Justin, Clement, Origen, the Valentinians), Sethians appear to have eschewed it entirely, possibly excepting the mutilated passage in Zostrianos that appears to associate the “dead” type of humanity with fire83. More interestingly, the soteriological schema of Zostrianos simultaneously affirms the doctrines of reincarnation84 and the end of the world. From a Platonic standpoint, this is impossible; the doctrine of the transmigration of souls presupposes that 82

83

84

Ptolemy ap. Iren., haer. I 13,6; AJ, NHC II,1 p. 27,22-31; GV, NHC I,3 p. 37,3438,6; Dial, NHC III,5 p. 127,16-19; Apoc. Petr., NHC VII,3 p. 73,20-74,9; 80,2729; Silv, NHC VII,4 p. 102,19-22; Pistis Sophia, chs. 106, 108, 111. Zostr, NHC VIII,1 p. 42,10-26. It is also possible that the “fire” in question here is that which purifies sinners: thus Heb 12; 18,29; 2Pe 3; 7; Rev 14,10; 17,16; Apoc. Elij. 5,22-24; Orac. Sib. 2,196-213; 4,171-78; 7,117-31; 8,225-30. Reading the aeon of the paroíkjsiv (“sojourn, exile”), with Sieber and Turner, as a locale of metempsychosis. (Zostr, NHC VIII,1 p. 5,8-9; 11-12; 24-27; 43-45; Sieber’s note ad loc. in the CGL edition of Zostr NHC VIII,1 p. 5,24–25, re: LSJ 1342a; J.D. Turner, Commentary: Zostrianos [see note 20], 534-544) Abramowski is correct to point out the Christian valence of the term (L. Abramowski, Nag Hammadi 8,1 “Zostrianos” [see note 27], 3), which probably constitutes a development of the Christian “resident alien motif”. (See B.H. Dunning, Aliens and Sojourners. Self as Other in Early Christianity, Divinations: Rereading Late Antique Religion, Philadelphia 2009.) Cf. Plot., Enn. II 9 [33] 6,1-3; Unt. 263,16-23; C. Schmidt, Plotins Stellung zum Gnosticismus (see note 49), 61-62; M. Tardieu, Les gnostiques (see note 1), 527-528 n. 60;

188

DYLAN M. BURNS

1) there is a finite number of souls but 2) the universe is eternal85. Nonetheless, metempsychosis was adopted by a few Christian writers associated with Gnosticism, including Basilides, the Ophites, Elchasai, Mani, and the author(s) of Pistis Sophia86. Together with these thinkers, the Sethians adopted a tenet identified amongst later “proto-orthodox” Christians as an integral feature of Hellenic Platonism: not the salvation of all souls or the eternity of the world, but reincarnation87.

85

86

87

J.D. Turner, Sethian Gnosticism (see note 6), 570. I explore this complex of evidence at length in my Yale dissertation. There cannot be an infinite number of souls in an eternal universe because, as Alcinous argues, with an infinite number of free souls, the possible number of acts these souls could perform would be infinite, and since these acts are under the governance of fate, i.e. divine knowledge, the divine would have to have knowledge of an infinity of acts. But that is not possible, because infinity is unknowable. (Arist., Metaph. 2A 2,994b22; B 4,999a27; for additional references, see R. Sorabji, Time, Creation, and the Continuum [see note 71], 186 n. 48). Therefore there cannot be an infinite number of souls in existence, unless the universe is finite. (cf. Alcin., Epit. 26,1; Der Platonismus in der Antike: Grundlagen – System – Entwicklungen, begründet von H. Dörrie, fortgeführt von M. Baltes, Teil 6: Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus, 2 Bde., Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt 2002, 2. Bde., 259; R. Sorabji, Time, Creation, and the Continuum [see note 71], 188; also adduces Sallust., de diis et mundo 20 and Olymp., in Phd. 10,1,2-5 [cf. Olympiodorus, ed. by L.G. Westerink, The Greek Commentaries on Platos’ Phaedo 1, VNAW.L N.R. 92, Amsterdam 1976].) In his defense of the idea that there are Platonic forms of individuals, Plotinus agreed that the number of individual souls must be finite (even if they, as according to the Stoics, recur infinitely). (Enn. V 7 [18]; W. Stettner, Die Seelenwanderung bei Griechen und Römern, TBAW 22, Stuttgart/Berlin 1934, 72) See further the sources collected in Dörrie/Baltes, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus (see note 85), 1. Bd.: 431; 2. Bd.: 350 n. 72. Basilides: Clem., str. IV 165,3 = frg. E Layton = frg. 12 Löhr; id.: Or., comm. in Rom. V 1,27 Scheck = frg. 17 Löhr (omitted by Layton). (Following B.A. Pearson, Basilides the Gnostic, in: A Companion to Second-Century “Heretics”, ed. by A. Marjanen and P. Luomanen, SvigChr 76, Leiden 2005, [1-31], 18; pace P. Nautin, Les fragments de Basilide sur la souffrance et leur interprétation par Clement d’Alexandrie et Origène, in: Mélanges d’histoire des religions offerts à Henri-Charles Puech [see note 76], [393-404], 394-398). Ophites: Iren., haer. I 30,14; Epiph., haer. XXVI 10,8; Or., Cels. VI 33; AJ, NHC II,1 p. 26,36-27,11. Elchasai: Hipp., haer. IX 9. Mani: see Kephalaia 90, 92, 99, and the collection of sources in: G. Casadio, Manichaean Metempsychosis. Typology and Historical Roots, in: Studia Manichaica 2. Internationaler Kongreß zum Manichäismus, 6.-10. August 1989 St. Augustin/ Bonn, hg. von G. Wießner und H.-J. Klimkeit, StOR 23, Wiesbaden 1992, 105-130. See also Pistis Sophia, 283, p. 381,17-383,11. Nemes., nat. hom. II 34,17-18 (cf. Nemesii Emeseni de natura hominis, ed. M. Morani, BSGRT, Leipzig 1987).

COSMIC ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

189

CONCLUSION To sum up, the eschatology of Marsanes and Zostrianos describes the end of the world and the destruction of souls; references to judgment in Allogenes probably presume a similar position. The “Platonizing” Sethian treatises thus engage Neoplatonic metaphysics and mysticism, but actively reject Hellenic Platonic eschatology. The Sethian Gnostics met Neoplatonism head-on and may have even contributed to its development, but they also rejected key cosmological doctrines of Hellenic Platonism, most likely in the interests of maintaining a Judeo-Christian identity. Hellenic philosophers like Plotinus and Porphyry, meanwhile, here drew a line in the sand against Christian and Gnostic intellectuals that would set the stage for Hellenic-Christian polemics until Justinian’s closing of the Academy in 529 C.E. The Sethian Gnostics thus played a crucial role in the differentiation of Judeo-Christian and Hellenic thought in Late Antiquity.