1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

1/19

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toNovum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

The Gnostics: The Undominated RaceAuthor(s): Francis T. FallonSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 21, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1979), pp. 271-288Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560836Accessed: 08-08-2014 14:21 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:21:33 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1560836http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1560836http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/

8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

2/19

Novum

Testamentum,

Vol.

XXI,

fasc.

3

THE GNOSTICS: THE UNDOMINATED RACE

BY

FRANCIS T. FALLON

Lawrence

Many

and

varied are the

ways

in

which the

gnostics

expressed

their disaffection with the world in which they lived. One particu-

larly striking

way

is their use of

the motif

of

kinglessness.

In

order

to see their

use

of

this motif

in

its

proper

context,

we

shall first

consider the

relatively

rare

occurrences

of

the

term

in

classical and

Greco-Roman literature

and then turn to the

gnostic

appropriation

of

the term

1).

HELLENIC

AND

GRECO-ROMAN

ORLD

Xenophon

is

the

first classical author to

use the term

kingless

a,pocLXuToc.

n

his Hellenica

5.2.II

ff

Xenophon

presents

the

meet-

ing

of

the

ambassadors

of

Acanthus

and

Apollonia

with

Lacedae-

mon

and its allies on

the

occasion

of

the

threat of the

Olynthians

2).

In

this context

(5.2.I7)

the

Olynthians

are

said to

have as

their

neighbors

the

Thracians,

who are

not

ruled

by

a

king

or

who are

kingless

(apaatXeuroL).

The Macedonians, however, do have a

king,

Amyntas (5.2.12).

On the

other

hand,

the

Olynthians,

as

Hellenes,

are under

the

laws

of

their

fathers and

citizens

of

their

own

city

(5.2.14).

The term

kingless,

then,

is

used in a

political

sense

in

a

context in

which

the

Hellenes are

governed

by

a con-

stitution

and

in

which the

non-Hellenes

may

or

may

not be

ruled

by

a

king.

Thucydides

also

uses

the term in

a

political

sense.

In

his

History

of

the

Peloponnesian

War

2.80.5-7,

Thucydides

lists the forces

fighting

with

Athens

3).

First,

he lists

the

troops

of

the Hellenes

and then

the

troops

of

the

barbarians.

Among

the

barbarians are

1)

For

their

helpful

comments

on

this

paper,

I

express my

thanks to

Dr.

Harold

ATTRIDGE

and

Prof.

George

MACRAE.

2)

Xenophon,

Hellenica

(trans.

Carleton L.

BROWNSON

[New

York,

Put-

nam,

I918]

414

ff.).

3)

Thucydides,

History

of

the

Peloponnesian

War

(trans.

C.

FOSTER

SMITH;

LCL [New York, Putnam, 19I9] I.408-09).

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

3/19

FRANCIS

T.

FALLON

the

Chaonians,

who have no

king (Xa&PoXturo1),

and also some

Thesprotians,

who

likewise

have no

king

(ocaCXouToL).

In

addition

from the barbarians there was a force from the Paraveans, whose

king

was Oroedus.

In

an

earlier

passage Thucydides

had

already

discussed

the

usual

sequence

of

rule,

which had occurred

in

the

Hellenic

cities;

the

transition

was

from

hereditary

kingships

to

tyrants

to

a constitution

4).

Thus the

contrast

here,

just

as in

Xenophon,

is

between the

Hellenes

with their

constitution and the

barbarians

who have no constitution

but

may

or

may

not have

a

king.

In the

later,

Greco-Roman

period

the term is still used in a

political

sense but now

in

association with

religious

themes in two

authors.

Plutarch,

first of

all,

at

the

beginning

of

the

second cen-

tury

C.E. uses

the term in

his

reply

to

Colotes,

the

Epicurean.

According

to

Plutarch Colotes had

praised

the men who

established

the

government

of

cities

by

kings

and

magistrates

and laws.

But,

in

the

opinion

of

Colotes,

if

these were

taken

away,

there

would

be

chaos since men would follow their brutal instincts and devour one

another. As

a

consequence

of

this

desire

to

avoid contact with

these brutal

instincts and to

maintain an untroubled

spirit,

Colotes

then is

said to exhort

his followers not to

become involved

in

public

life. Plutarch states the matter

as

follows:

But who are the men

that

nullify

these

things, overthrowing

the

state

and

utterly

abolishing

the laws? Is it not

those who

say

that the crown of

an untroubled

spirit

is

a

prize

beyond

all

comparison

with success in

some

great command? Is it not those who say that to be a king is a fault and a

mistake?

Who write

in

these

words:

'We

must

proceed

to tell how

a

person

will best

uphold

the

purpose

of

his nature

and

how of

his

own

free will he

is

not to

present

himself for

public

office at

all'

?

5).

In

response,

Plutarch too

praises

the men who

have

established

kings, magistrates,

and

laws,

but he

vigorously

denies

that the

absence

of

these will

lead

to

chaos in

these words:

For if someone

takes

away

the laws but

leaves us with

the

teachings

of

Parmenides, Socrates, Heracleitus, and Plato, we shall be

very

far from

devouring

one another and

living

the

life

of wild

beasts;

for

we

shall

fear

all that

is shameful and shall honour

justice

for its intrinsic

worth,

holding

that in

the

gods

we have

good

governors

(0eo0u5

cpXovTaoc?

a0Oo6)

and

in

the

demons

protectors

of our

lives

(xoc

8aoctovocaq

ev

'roi

ou

qp6Xaxoca)

4)

Thucydides,

History

1.13-18

(trans.

SMITH;

LCL,

1.24-35).

5)

Plutarch,

Reply

to

Colotes,

Moralia

II24D-II25A

(trans.

B.

EINAR-

SON and P. H.

DELACY;

LCL

[Cambridge,

Harvard

University, 1967]

I4.294-97).

272


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

4/19

THE

GNOSTICS: THE UNDOMINATED RACE

accounting

all the

gold

on

earth

and under it a

poor

exchange

for

virtue,

and

doing

freely

at

the

bidding

of our

reason,

as

Xenocrates

says,

what

we

now

do

perforce

at the command

of

law.

Then when will our life be that

of a

beast,

savage

and without

fellowship?

When

the

laws

are

swept away,

but

the

arguments

that summon us to a life of

pleasure

are left standing, when

the

providence

of

heaven

is not believed

in,

and when men take

for

sages

those

who

'spit

on

excellence,

unless

pleasure

attends it'

6).

The basis then for Plutarch's

optimism,

even

if

the

kings,

magis-

trates and

laws

were

removed,

is man's belief

in the

gods

and his

power

of

reason.

In a

passage,

which further underscores

Plutarch's

position

that

religion and belief in the gods are the foundation of society, Plu-

tarch considers some

possible,

barbarian

cities as

opposed

to

civilized cities. Even

here he

finds belief

in

the

gods,

whether

these cities have a

king

or are

kingless.

Plutarch writes as

follows:

Again

the

very legislation

that

Colotes

praises

provides

first and fore-

most for

our

belief

in

the

gods,

a faith

whereby Lycurgus

made the

Spartans

a

dedicated

people,

Numa the

Romans,

Ion of

old

the

Athenians,

and

Deuca-

lion

well

nigh

the whole

Greek

nation,

using hope

as

well

as fear to establish

in them by means of prayers, oaths, oracles and omens, a lively sense of

the divine.

In

your

travels

you

may

come

upon

cities

without

walls,

writing,

king

(7c6?Xs

&:XreL'ouS&dcYpa.tL&ouS

aocaLXe6TouS),

ouses,

or

property,

doing

without

currencey, having

no

notion

of

a theatre

or

gymnasium;

but

a

city

without

holy places

and

gods,

without

any

observance of

prayers,

oaths,

oracles,

sacrifices

for

blessings

received or rites

to avert

evils,

no

traveller has ever seen or will

ever see.

No,

I

think a

city might

rather be

formed without

the

ground

it stands

on than a

government,

once

you

remove

all

religion

from under

it,

get

itself

established

or once established

survive.

Now it is this

belief,

the

underpinning

and

base

that holds all

society

and

legislation together, that the Epicureans, not by encirclement or covertly

in

riddles,

but

by

launching against

it the first of their most Cardinal

Tenets,

proceed directly

to demolish

7).

One

cannot

help

but contrast the

view of the

gnostics

with

this

view

of

Plutarch.

The

gnostics

retain belief

in

the

gods

and

the

heavenly

archons,

but

they

are consideredto be evil

and

oppressive.

The

focus

of

gnostics

is

upon

knowledge

rather than

reason,

and

the

tendency

of

their

thought

is to avoid involvement

in

this evil

world.

6)

Plutarch,

Moralia

II24D-II25A

(trans.

EINARSON and

DELACY;

LCL,

I4.294-97).

7)

Plutarch,

Moralia

II25C-F

(trans.

EINARSON

and

DELACY;

LCL,

14.298-303).

For

a

discussion

of the

role

of

religious

belief

in

constructing

a

sound

society,

see Harold

W.

ATTRIDGE,

he

Interpretation

of

Biblical

History

in

Antiquitates

Judaicae

of

Flavius

Josephus,

Harvard

Dissertations

in

Religion 7

(Missoula,

Scholars'

Press,

I976)

6o-66.

x8

273


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

5/19

FRANCIS

T.

FALLON

A

second,

pagan

author

in

the

Greco-Roman

world to

use

the

term

kingless

in a

political

sense but also in

association with

a

religious theme is Artemidorus Daldianus, the second century

C.E.

investigator

of

dreams

8).

In

his

treatise

Oneirocriticon,

n a

discussion about

the common

customs

of

mankind

and

contrary

to

Plutarch,

he

asserts

simply

that

just

as

one will not

find a nation

without

gods,

so one will

not

find a

nation without

a

king

((BaccL-

Xeutoq) 9).

Among

Jewish

authors in the

Greco-Roman

world,

Josephus

is

the

only

one who uses the term

kingless .

He

uses

it

twice

in

its

political

sense. In the first

instance,

Josephus

discusses the suc-

cession

to the Parthian throne

after

the

death

of

Phraataces.

According

to him the Parthian

nobles considered a

government

without

a

king

as

an

impossibility

and thus

set

about to

search

for

a

successor

in

the

Arsacid

lineage 10).

The

kingship

then is

evaluated

positively by

the

Parthians. Chaos seems

to

be

the

implied

alternative to

kingship

as far as the Parthians

were

con-

cerned.

The second instance

in

Josephus

occurs

in

the

report concerning

the assassination

of Gaius

Caligula. Caligula

was accused

of

being

a

tyrant

who had robbed the

people

of

freedom

by suspending

the

wise laws

and

ruling

by

whim

11).

As a

result,

he was assassinated.

Then,

however,

the soldiers

decided

against

democracy

as an

unworkable mode

of

government

and

instead

elected Claudius

12).

In

the

meantime and

unaware

of

the election of

Claudius,

Sentius

delivered

a

speech

to

the senate and the

people,

who were

for

democracy.

After the

speech

of

Sentius,

Josephus

reports

as follows:

8)

J.

D.

DENNISTON,

Artemidorus,

Oxford

Classical

Dictionary

(2d

edi-

tion;

1970)

I26.

9)

Artemidori Daldiani

Onirocriticon

1.8

(edidit Roger

A.

PACK,

[Leipzig,

Teubner,

1963]

I7).

10)

He

(Phraataces)

was detested on both

counts,

for his

subjects

con-

sidered the incest with his mother no less abominable than the murder of

his

father,

so

that

before

he

gathered

much

strength

he was

caught up

in a

civil

war,

banished from

the

throne,

and

so died. Those of

the

Parthians

who

were of

the

highest

birth

were of one

mind that no form

of

government

but

the

monarchical

was

manageable (6Q

&paaLcxeuot&q

tiv

Od'AaZCvov

roXte6ea0r0x),

and

that

it

was

necessary

that the

occupant

of the

throne should

belong

to

the

lineage

of the

Arsacidae

since custom did not

permit

others to

rule.

Josephus,

Antiquities I8.43-44

(trans.

L. H.

FELDMAN;

LCL

[Cambridge,

Harvard

University,

I969]

9.34-37).

11)

Josephus,

Antiquities I9.I72-75

(trans.

FELDMAN;

LCL,

9.294-95).

12)

Josephus, Antiquities I9.I62-66 (trans. FELDMAN; LCL,

9.288-91).

274


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

6/19

THE

GNOSTICS:THE

UNDOMINATED

RACE

And

now,

with

the

night

far

advanced,

Chaerea asked the consuls for the

watchword

and

they

gave

'Liberty'.

This ritual

filled them with

wonder,

and

they

were

almost

unable

to believe

their

ears,

for

it

was

the hundredth

year since they had first been robbed of the democracy to the time when

the

giving

of

the

watchword reverted

to the

consuls. For before

the

city

came

under

a

tyranny,

it was

they

who had commanded the armies.

Chaerea,

having

received

the

watchword,

passed

it on to

such

of

the

soldiers

as had

joined

the

side of

the

senate;

there were

a

total of four

cohorts

who

regarded

freedom

from

imperial

rule as more honourable

than

tyranny (o6 apacLXeuTov

,TILLCTs,pOv

T4

Tupavvt8oq).

These

cohorts now

left

with

their

tribunes.

By

this

time the

people

were also

withdrawing,

overjoyed

and

full of

hope

and

pride

because

they

had

acquired

selfgovernment

(T,v

jy?ovtlv

'e

oU

oSoxit

,

ix

tr6

eapeq x6TL)

and no

longer

were under a master.

Chaerea was

everything

to them

13).

For

our

purposes

this

passage

is

notable for

its

portrayal

of

the

kingship

as

tyranny

and

kinglessness

as freedom from

tyranny

as

well as

its

portrayal

of

kinglessness

in the

civilized

Roman

Empire

in

this

case as

democracy

and

self-government.

Thus

far,

the

examples

we

have

considered

all

use the term

kingless

in

its

proper,

political

sense.

Usually

the term

has

a

negative connotation and refers to the barbarians;in one example

we have seen

that the term has

a

positive

connotation and refers

to the Romans.

In

the

example

that

we shall now

consider,

king-

less is used

in

a

metaphorical

sense. It refers not to the absence

of a

king

but to a

person's

freedom

rom subjection

o the rule of

a

king.

Lucian,

the second

century

satirist,

says

in a

treatise

con-

cerning

the

historian and

his need

to

be

independent

and

subject

only

to the truth that the

historian

should also be

aBaL[Xeutoq,

i.e.

undominated

14).

In

order to catch

the

metaphorical

sense

intended

here,

the

translation undominated is

preferable

rather

than

kingless , although

it

should be

noted

that in this

passage

the freedom involved is

freedom

from

the rule

of

a

real,

earthly

king.

The

term

then,

as used

by

Lucian,

refers

not

to

the

absence

of an

external,

political

form of

organization

but rather to the

presence

of an

internal,

spiritual

attitude

on

the

part

of

the

person.

In this case, clearly, the term has a positive connotation. Lucian

writes as follows:

13) Josephus,

Antiquities

I9.I86-89

(trans.

FELDMAN;

LCL,

9.300-o3).

For

an extended discussion

of

aristocratic

antipathy

to

the

principate,

see

R. MAC

MULLEN,

Enemies

of

the Roman

Order

(Cambridge;

Harvard Univer-

sity

Press,

I966).

14)

This

passage

was

first called

to

my

attention

by

B.

LAYTON

in his article

The

Hypostasis

of the Archons: or 'The

Reality

of

the

Rulers',

HTR

69

(1976) 79.

275


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

7/19

FRANCIS

T.

FALLON

That, then,

is the sort of man the

historian

should

be:

fearless,

incor-

ruptible,

free,

a

friend of

free

expression

and the

truth, intent,

as

the

comic

poet

says,

on

calling

a

fig

a

fig

and a

trough

a

trough, giving nothing

to

hatred or to friendship, sparing no one, showing neither pity nor shame nor

obsequiousness,

an

impartial judge,

well

disposed

to

all men

up

to the

point

of not

giving

one side more than its

due,

in

his

books a

stranger

and

a man

without a

country, independent,

subject

to no

sovereign

(&cacLXsu?TOq),

ot

reckoning

what

this or

that

man

will

think,

but

stating

the

facts

15).

We

have seen

that the term

patocaXruuos,

hich

originally

had

a

proper,

political

sense

( kingless )

and

usually

had a

negative

connotation,

assumed

in

later literature a

metaphorical

sense

( undominated ), which was based on an inner attitude and

bore

a

positive

connotation. We

shall

see that

it

was this

metaphori-

cal

sense and

positive

connotation that the

gnostics appropriated.

Further,

for them the basis was

not

only

an inner

attitude but more

so

an

inner,

different nature.

In

addition,

they transposed

the

framework

under consideration

from

the

earthly

to

the

cosmic

realm and

especially

included the

religious

realm,

the realm

of

the

gods,

in

their

view.

Also their concern was

more

generic,

i.e. a

concern for freedomfrom

subjection

to

any

rule whether identified

as

kingly

or

not

and

especially-but

not

exclusively-freedom

from the

rule of the

heavenly powers

which were considered

as

tyrannical.

In

this

regard

probably

a further

point

of

association

was that

the

heavenly

ruler

in

pagan

and

Jewish

sources

(e.g.

Zeus

and

God)

16)

and

then also

in

gnostic

sources

17)

was sometimes

identified

as

a

king. Although

the term

&oCalXzuToq

nvolved

only

an earthly king in the Hellenic and Greco-Roman literature, it

would

understandably

nvolve

a

heavenly

ruler

when

that

ruler

was

considered

a

king

and when the

framework under consideration

changed

to

the

cosmic realm.

GNOSTICISM

As

we

begin

to

consider

the

Gnostic

literature,

we shall first

treat

those instances

in

which the

gnostics

use

the term in the

phrase

the undominated race and then those instances in which the

term is

applied

to

other

items.

15)

Lucian,

How to Write

History

41

(trans.

K.

KILBURN;

LCL

[Cambridge,

Harvard

University,

I959]

6.56-67).

16)

See

H.

KLEINKNECHT, Basileus,

TDNT

(I964)

1.564-7I.

17)

TriProt

(CG

XIII,

2:

43.I5-I7);

Heracleon,

Fragment

40,

in

W.

VOELKER,

Quellen

zur

Geschichte der

christlichen

Gnosis

(Sammlung

Aus-

gewahlter

Kirchen- und

Dogmengeschichtlicher

Quellenschriften 5;

Tiibin-

gen,

Mohr,

I932)

80.

See

also

ApocryJn

BG

8502

4I.I2-I5

in

which

Ialda-

baoth appoints seven kings over the world and five over the underworld.

276


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

8/19

THE GNOSTICS:THE

UNDOMINATEDRACE

The first document

in

which

the

phrase

the undominated

race occurs

is The

Apocalypse of

Adam

(ApocAd

CG

V,

5)

18).

The text stems from Sethian Gnosticism19)and probablyevidences

an

early

form

of

Jewish

Gnosticism,

not

yet

influenced

by

Christi-

anity 20).

In its

literary genre

ApocAd

is a

testament,

in

which

Adam instructs

his

son Seth

concerning

the

experiences

which he

himself and

Eve

have

undergone

and

concerning

the revelation

which he has received.

In

this instruction Seth

and his race

are

said not

to

belong

to this

world but

to the

great

aeons

(65[59].3-9;

64[63].I-25).

The

God

of

this

world,

the

creator,

is

opposed

to

the

knowledge

of

the

greater

aeons

(64[58].5-28).

As the

evil

God,

he

will

seek to

destroy

all

flesh

from the

earth

and

especially

those

descended

from Seth

(69[63].I-I8).

Again,

as the

evil

God,

he will

18)

A.

B6HLIG

and P.

LABIB,

Koptisch-gnostische Apokalypsen

aus

Codex

V

von

Nag

Hammadi im

koptischen

Museum

zu A

It-Kairo

(Wissenschaftliche

Zeitschrift der

Martin-Luther-Universitat,

Halle-Wittenberg, I963)

86-I

7.

19)

B6HLIG-LABIB,

Koptisch-gnostische

Apokalypsen

aus

Codex

V,

86-87;

F.

WISSE,

The

Sethians

and the

Nag

Hammadi

Library,

The

Society of

Biblical

Literature,

One Hundred

Eighth

Annual

Meeting,

Seminar

Papers

(ed.

Lane

C.

McGAUGHY;

SBL,

I972)

2.6o0-07.

20)

B6HLIG n his

introduction to the

edition

(Koptisch-gnostische

Apoha-

lypsen

aus

Codex

V,

90

ff.)

and

subsequently

has

expressed

the view that

ApocAd

is

not a

Christian document: i.e. A.

BOHLIG,

Die

Adamapokalypse

aus Codex

V

von

Nag

Hammadi

als

Zeugnis jiidischiranischer

Gnosis,

Oriens

Christ

48

(I964)

44-49;

and

A.

B6HLIG,

Jiidisches

und iranisches

in

der

Adamapokalypse

des Codex

V

von

Nag

Hammadi,

Mysterion

und

Wahrheit

(Arbeiten

zur

Geschichte

des

spateren

Judentums

und

des

Ur-

christentums Band 6; Leiden, Brill, I967) I49-6I. G. MACRAEhas also

supported

this view

in

his articles

The

Coptic

Gnostic

Apocalypse

of

Adam,

Hey

J

6

(1965)

27-35

and

The

Apocalypse

of

Adam

Reconsidered,

The

Society

of

Biblical

Literature,

One

Hundred

Eighth

Annual

Meeting,

Seminar

Papers

(ed.

Lane

C.

McGAUGHY;

SBL,

I972) 573-80.

See also

P.

PERKINS, Apocalyptic

Schematization

in

the

Apocalypse

of Adam

and

The

Gospel

of

the

Egyptians,

The

Society

of

Biblical

Literature,

One Hundred

Eighth

Annual

Meeting,

Seminar

Papers

(ed.

Lane C.

MCGAUGHY;

BL,

1972)

2.591-95.

W.

BELTZ

in

his

Habilitationsschrift

Die

Adam-Apokalypse

aus Codex

V von

Nag-Hammadi:

Jiidische

Bausteine

in

gnostischen

Systemen

(Humboldt-Universitat; Berlin, I970) has argued for a late date for ApocAd.

He claims that

ApocAd

is

contemporaneous

with

the

acknowledgedly

late

GEgypt,

since

the

obscure

elements

in

ApocAd

can

be

clarified

by

the

fuller

GEgypt.

However,

it

is

equally

possible

that

GEgypt

is

a later

develop-

ment

of

material

in

ApocAd.

He has

secondly

argued

for a

late date because

of

Manichaean

material,

which

he

finds

in

82.4-83.4.

However,

this material

could

just

as

well be

pre-Manichaean

material,

which

was taken over

by

the

Manichaeans

rather than

vice

versa.

See

also most

recently

P.

PERKINS,

The Genre and

Function of

the

Apocalypse

of

Adam,

CBQ

39

(I977)

382-95,

who

argues

that

ApocAd may

not

be

as

early

as

originally

argued by

some scholars.

277


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

9/19

FRANCIS T. FALLON

spare

Noah

and

place

him and

his

sons

in

charge

of the

entire

earth.

Noah and his sons are

to

rule the earth as

kings (7I[65].

I-4)

21).

In an inversion of the biblical account, Noah's sons Ham

and

Japheth,

who must

represent

the

gentiles,

fashion twelve

kingdoms

(73[67].25-27)

22).

Although

it is not

explicitly

stated,

it

seems

clear

that Noah's

other

son

Shem

is considered

to

fashion

another,

a

thirteenth

kingdom.

This seems clear since

Shem

also

receives

the

command

to rule

(7I[65].I-4)

and

since twice

a

distinc-

tion is made between Ham and

Japheth

on

the one side and the

seed

of Noah

through

his

son

on the

other side

(74[68].8-2I;

76[7o].8-I5) 23).

The

race descended from

Seth,

on the

other

hand,

are those

who

do not

belong

to

this

evil,

creator God or to

these

kings

or to

their thirteen

kingdoms.

Rather,

they

are taken to

a

special place,

a

special

land after the

flood,

where there

is

no

men-

tion of

king

or

kingdom

(69[63]'.I-25

and

72[65].I-I5).

In

addition

400,000

from

the seed

of

Ham and

Japheth

are taken to

this

special

land and

protected

by

the

glory

of

that race

(73[66].I3-20).

The

type of place is made clear by the references to the great aeons

(65[59].3-9)

and

to their

becoming

like

angles

(76[7o].I-6);

it is

the transcendent area that

is

being

referred o.

In

this revelation

concerning

the

future,

Seth

is also told

that

a

third

time

the

Enlightener

of

knowledge

will

appear

in

order to

save those who

have the

knowledge

of

the eternal

God

in

their

heart

whether

they

are from the

seed

of

Noah or the

seed

of

Ham

and

Japheth (76[70].8-26).

After

this

discussion

of

the

coming

of

the

Enlightener,

there

is a

section with

fourteen

sayings concerning

this

Enlightener,

thirteen

from the

thirteen

kingdoms

and

the

fourteenth from

the

un-

dominated

race

(tigenea

de

nnatr rro

ehrai

ejos

(77[7I].27-83[77].

4) 24).

Because

of

the

distinct nature of

the

material,

Boehlig

entitled this

section as an

excursus

in

his edition.

Subsequent

21)

Therefore, I shall give you the earth, to you and your sons. Royally

will

you

rule

over

it,

you

and

your

sons.

B6HLIG-LABIB,

Koptisch-gnostische

Apokalypsen

aus

Codex

V,

Io3

(translation

is

mine).

22)

See

BELTZ,

Die

Adam-Apokalypse

aus Codex

V

von

Nag-Hammadi,

87.

At

Qumran

in

IQM 2.I3-I4

Ham and

Japheth

represent

the

non-Jewish

peoples,

the

impure godless,

the sons

of

darkness;

Shem

represents

the true

and

pure

children of

light.

23)

See

PERKINS,

Apocalyptic

Schematization

in

the

Apocalypse

of

Adam

and

the

Gospel

of

the

Egyptians,

592-93.

24)

As the

subsequent

discussion will

show,

the

Greek

underlying

this

Coptic probably included both 1 yeve&and opacatXeuoq..

278


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

10/19

THE

GNOSTICS:

THE UNDOMINATED

RACE

commentators

have

suggested

that

the section

may

be an inter-

polation

25).

However,

even

if

this section

is

a later

addition,

it

must be from the same circle of gnostics, since it shares the same

terminology

and

concepts

with the main document. The

revealer

figure

is

called

an

Enlightener

(pcorjp

82[76].28

and

76[70].8-9).

The term

for the transcendent area

is

the

great

aeon or

aeons

(82[76].26-27

and

72

[65].II-I3).

The

saving

knowledge

is

know-

ledge

of the

undefiled

of truth

(82[76].23-24)

and

knowledge

of

the

God

of truth

(65[59].Io-II).

Lastly,

the number of

kingdoms

is

the same

in

both

the main document and

this

section,

i.e.

thirteen.

Therefore,

it seems valid to

interpret

this smaller section in the

light

of

the main

document

and thus

to

see

the

thirteen

kingdoms

as

the

earthly

realms established

by

the

evil God

and ruled over

by

the

kings

who are descendants

of

Shem,

Ham,

and

Japheth

and

then

to

see the undominated

race

as

the

gnostics,

i.e. the descen-

dants

of Seth and those who

have

come to

knowledge

26).

As

one

might

expect,

the thirteen

kingdoms

are erroneous n their

sayings

about the Enlightener. It is only the undominatedrace, who truly

know his

identity.

If

we

are correct

in

this

interpretation,

then

ApocAd

uses the

term undominated

in

a

metaphorical

sense and even

extends

its

meaning.

The

framework

under

consideration has been

expan-

ded;

not

only

earth

but also

heaven and the

transcendent

aeon

are considered.

The claim is

not

made that there

is a

city

or

a

nation but

that there is

a race

which dwells

in a

special place,

a

special

land,

and which is

not

subject

to rule. The

basis

for

this lack

25)

B6HLIG,

Koptisch-gnostische

Apokalypsen,

Io9;

R.

KASSER,

Textes

Gnostiques:

Remarques

A

Propos

des

Editions R6centes du

Livre

Secret

de

Jean,

et

des

Apocalypses

de

Paul,

Jacques,

et

Adam,

Le

Musdon

78

(1965)

91-92;

MACRAE,

The

Apocalypse

of

Adam

Reconsidered,

2.574;

BELTZ,

Die

Adam-Apokalypse

aus Codex

V

von

Nag-Hammadi,

Io6-07.

26)

SCHOTTROFF

has seen

that

the

kingdoms

are

under the

rule

of the

demiurge

but

incorrectly

ascribes the

statements

to

the

demonic

powers;

L. S.

SCHOTTROFF,

Animae naturaliter salvandae: Zum Problem der himm-

lischen Herkunft

des

Gnostikers,

Christentum und

Gnosis,

hrsg.

W.

ELTES-

TER,

(Berlin, Topelmann,

I969) 74-78.

BELTZ,

Die

Adam-Apokalypse

aus

Codex V

von

Nag-Hammadi,

Io6,

has

seen

that the

twelve

kingdoms

are

those of Ham

and

Japheth

and that

Shem

represents

another

kingdom

but

he

erroneously

evaluates

the

twelve

kingdoms

from

Ham

and

Japheth

to

be an

anti-Jewish polemic against

the idea

of

the

twelve tribes of Israel.

The

motif

here

may

indeed

be

anti-Jewish,

but

nevertheless all

the

king-

doms

are

descended

from Noah and

subject

to the

demiurge

and

thus

evil.

See

PERKINS,

Apocalyptic

Schematization

in

the

Apocalypse

of Adam

and

the

Gospel

of

the

Egyptians, 2.592.

279


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

11/19

FRANCIS T. FALLON

of

subjection

is

not that there

is an

absence

of

political

develop-

ment or

a death

of

the

king

or

even

that

an

inner attitude is

present

but that this racebelongs to the transcendentaeon and thus cannot

be

subject

to

a

king

of this evil world

or

its God.

Further,

insofar as

the

seed

of

Shem,

Ham and

Japheth

has come

to

knowledge,

they

are included

in

the undominated and are

no

longer

subject

to

the

kings

of

this

world who are descended

from

Shem,

Ham and

Japheth 27)

or

to the evil God

who

installed

them in

their

power.

What is

particularly striking

in

ApocAd

and

perhaps

a further

sign

of its

early

date is that

it

retains

a

reference

to

the

earthly

realm

in

its

use of undominated .

The

language

of

ruling

as

a

king

and

kingdom

apply

to

Shem,

Ham

and

Japheth,

whereas the God

of the heavens

is not

identified

as a

king.

The

gnostic,

then,

as one

who is not

dominated,

is free

from

subjection

to

the

earthly

rulers

as well as to

the

heavenly

rulers. We shall see that the

other,

later

documents

do not

refer

explicitly

to

earthly

rule.

But

why

the term

yevezo

n

this

phrase

and

why

the

translation

the undominated race rather than the undominated genera-

tion ?

To

answer this

question

it

is

helpful

to

consider some devel-

opments

in

Hellenistic

Judaism.

The term

yvso&

had been used

in

classical Greek

to refer

to

a

family,

an

offspring,

a

race,

a

generation

or an

age

28).

In the

Septuagint

the

term

was used

to

refer

to an

age

or

generation, especially

in

phrases

such as the crooked

generation

(e.g.

Wis

iii

I9)

or the

righteous generation

(e.g.

Isa

lxi

3)

29).

In

one

passage,

Philo

uses the term with less

emphasis

on those

born

at

the

same time

and more

emphasis

on

those

sharing

in the

same

family lineage.

In

this

section

he

is

contrasting

Pharaoh

and

Joseph,

the

body

with the

soul,

pleasure

with

virtues,

and

the

company

of

irrational

men with the

better

yevea

which the virtues

have taken

as

their

heritage.

Philo

writes as follows:

We

must, then,

let alone the irrational and

truly

lifeless

company

of

such

men

as

these,

and

scan well

that of those who

practise looking

and

finding. Our first example shall be the man who takes part indeed in public

life,

but is

very

far from

having

a mad

thirst for fame: his ambition is

for

27)

See

H. G.

KIPPENBURG,

Versuch

einer

soziologischen Verortung

des

antiken

Gnostizismus,

Numen

17

(I950)

2II-3I,

who

considers the Roman

Empire

to

be the real

oppressive

earthly

rule referred to

by gnostics, although

he

notes that

there

is no direct

pointing

to

the Roman

Empire

in

the

gnostic

documents.

28)

LIDDELL and

SCOTT,

Greek-English

Lexicon

(1966)

342;

BAUER,

ARNDT,

and

GINGRICH,

A

Greek-English

Lexicon

of

the New

Testament

(I957)

I53.

29) See F. BUECHSEL, yevec, TDNT (I964) 1.662-63.

280


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

12/19

THE

GNOSTICS:

THE

UNDOMINATED

RACE

that

better

family

(Trj

&p?evovoq

yvecqs),

which the

virtues have taken

as

their

heritage,

and

he is

presented

as both

seeking

and

finding

it. For we

are

told that

a

man

found

Joseph

wandering

in

the

plain,

and asked

him,

'What art thou seeking?' and he said 'I am seeking my brethren; tell me,

where are

they feeding

their flocks?' And

the man

said

to

him,

'They

have

departed

hence,

for

I heard them

saying,

Let

us

go

to Dothan

(Gen.

xxxvii

I5-I7).

Dothan

means

'a

thorough

forsaking,'

and is the

symbol

of

a

soul

that has

in no half measure but

completely

run

away

from those

empty

notions

which

resemble

the

practices

of

women rather

than

those

of

men.

Accordingly

it

is

finely

said

that

Sarah,

who is

Virtue,

'forsakes

the

ways

of

women'

(Gen.

xviii

II),

those

ways

on

which we toil who

follow after the

unmanly

and

really

feminine life.

But the wise

man too

'forsaking

is

added'

(Gen.

xxv

8),

as Moses

says

in

perfect

accord

with the

nature

of

things:

for

the subtraction of vainglory is the addition of reality. If a man, while spend-

ing

his

days

in this

mortal

life

full

of such

diverse elements

and

assuming

so

many

phases,

and

while he has at his

disposal

abundant material

for

a

life

of

luxury,

makes that

better

family,

which

has an

eye only

for what is

morally

excellent

(7rpt

.-

&eE?vovoq

aoc

Tp60

6 x&Xov

6vov

&yop6oavq

Esva&),

his

study

and

quest,

he

is

worthy

of

approbation,

if

the

dreams

and

phantoms

of

things

that have

the

name

and

appearance

of

good

things

do

not

rise

to

the

surface

again

and

get

the better of him. For

if

he continues

in that

soul

inquiry

and

keeps

it free

from

alloy,

he will

not

give

up

walking

in the

track of the

objects

of his

quest,

and

following

them

up

until

he

has

reached

those for whom he yearns. But none of them will he find among the worth-

less.

Why

so? Because

'they

have

departed

hence,'

forsaking

all

that

we

care

about,

and have

removed

into the abode

of

the

pious

where

no evil

men are found.

The

speaker

is the true

'man',

the

Monitor,

set over

the

soul,

who,

seeing

its

perplexity,

its

inquiring,

its

searching,

is

afraid

lest

it

go

astray

and

miss the

right

road

30).

The translation

family

is

suggested

by

the

reference

to

Joseph

seeking

his brethren .

For

our

purposes,

however,

it

is

important

to note that the term yevocis used metaphorically to refer to all

those,

whom

the

virtues

have

taken

as their

heritage,

to

refer

to

the

pious

as

opposed

to

evil men. It is the

usage

of the

term

in

this

sense-i.e. a

reference

not to

those

born at the same

time

(e.g.

generation)

but to

those

sharing

some

religious

and/or

ethical

quality-which

is a

step

toward the

gnostic

usage.

Obviously,

though,

the

focus for

the

gnostic

is

possession

of

knowledge

rather

than

virtue. The

dualism

of

body

and soul

is

also

accompanied

30)

Philo,

De

fuga

et

inventione

123-31

(trans.

F.

H.

COLSON

and

G.

H.

WHITAKER;

LCL,

[Cambridge,

Harvard

University,

I958]

5.76-8I).

One

should

note the

exegetical

play

that is involved

in this

passage.

In

Gen.

xxv 8

Abraham

is

added

to

his

people

in

the

sense that

he

died,

whereas

Philo

interprets

the

terms

in

the

sense

of

receive

an

addition.

Further,

xXehtco,

ranslated as

forsake

here,

means that Abraham left

off

or

died,

whereas

Philo

interprets

the term as

giving

up something.

Lastly,

the

ex-

pression

soul

inquiry

is

a

very

literal

translation

which refers

to

inquiry

concerning the soul.

28I


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

13/19

FRANCIS T. FALLON

by

an

anti-cosmic

dualism

for the

gnostic;

and in the case

of

ApocAd

a

lineage,

an ultimate

descending

from

Seth,

is also

pro-

posed

31).

According

to

Hippolytus

in his

Refutatio

omnium

haeresium

there is

another

sect,

the

Naassenes,

who twice use the

phrase

the undominated

race

to

refer

to

the

gnostics

themselves. In

the

context

of

the first

occurrence,

there

is

an

allegorical

discussion

concerning

Ocean and the

Jordan

River,

flowing

down as the

origin

of

man,

and

flowing

up

as

the

origin

of the

gods.

Flowing up

then

is

equal

to

escape

from the earth

to the

heavenly

Jerusalem,

the

mother of

the

living,

and

spiritual

birth

as a

god.

Thus,

for

the

Naassenes those who ascend and

are the undominated race are

the

gnostics.

Hippolytus

writes as

follows:

They say,

'He who

says

that the universe

proceeds

from one

(principle)

is

mistaken;

he who

says

it is from

three,

speaks

the truth and will

give

the

description (or,

proof?)

of all

things.

For

one,

he

says,

is the blessed

nature

of

the blessed

Man on

high,

Adamas;

and one the mortal

(nature)

here

below;

and one is

the

undominated

race

(

&ocaczXeuzo0q

?vec)

that

ascends to that

place

where, he

says,

is Miriam who was

sought

after and

Jethro,

the

great

sage, Zipporah

the

seer,

and

Moses,

whose

generation

is

not

in

Egypt,

for there were born to him

children in Midian'

32).

In

a

second

passage

the

context is that

of

the

interpretation

of

the

parable

of the

Sower.

Again

the

gnostics

are the ones

who

are

undominated,

as

Hippolytus

writes:

That

means,

he

says:

No one has become a hearer of

these

mysteries

saving only the gnostics who are 'fulfilled' (or 'perfect'). This, he says, is

the fair

and

good

(land),

of which Moses

says,

'I will

bring you

into

a land

which

is fair and

good,

a land

flowing

with milk and

honey

(Deut.

xxxi

20).

Now

the

milk

and

honey,

he

says,

are

that

whose

taste

makes

the

perfect

become

undominated

(&aalXeuroq)

and attain

the

pleroma (or

'fullness').

The

pleroma,

he

says,

is that

through

which

all

originate beings

that

come

into

being,

come to

be,

and

are filled from

that which is

unoriginate 33).

31)

See

also

Philo,

De

Praemiis

I58-6I

(trans.

F. H.

COLsON;

LCL,

[Cam-

bridge, Harvard University, I960] 8.412-I5) in which the soul receives the

divine

seed

and

begets

a

blameless

generation

(yeve&

&?vtrX?Tvoq),

i.e.

the

virtues. Here the

translation of

yeve&

is

appropriately

rendered as

generation

rather

than

race,

since

the

reference

is to

a

y?ve?

of

virtues

which

redresses

the

yevea

of

vices which went

before.

32)

Hippolytus,

Refutatio

omnium

haeresium

5.8.I-2

(trans.

W.

FOERSTER,

Gnosis:

a

Selection

of

Gnostic

Texts

[English

trans. R. Mc

L.

WILSON;Oxford,

Clarendon

Press,

I972]

1.270-7I).

Text ed. P.

WENDLAND,

GCS 26

(Leipzig,

Hinrichs,

1916)

89.

33)

Hippolytus,

Refutatio

5.8.30

(ed.

WENDLAND,

GCS

26,

94;

trans.

FOERSTER,

I.275-76).


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

14/19

THE GNOSTICS: THE

UNDOMINATED

RACE

It

is noticeable

that in

this

account

concerning

the

Naassenes

there

is

no

explicit

reference

to

earthly

rule as

in

ApocAd.

Rather,

the

freedom of the gnostic is freedom from subjection to the heavenly

ruler,

the evil

demiurge

34).

This

freedom

is attained

by

him

by

participation

in

the divine

realm,

the

pleroma.

Within

gnostic

writings

the

phrase

the undominated race

is

applied

not

only

to the

gnostics

but

also to

pleromatic

beings.

Our

first instance

of

this

usage

occurs

in

the

Letter

of

Eugnostos (Eug

CG

III,

3

and

V,

I)

and

its

parallel

work The

Sophia

of

Jesus

Christ

(SJC

CG

III,

4

and

BG

3)

35).

The Letter

of Eugnostos

is a

dogmatic epistle

and

the

Sophia

of

Jesus

Christ

is a revelation

dialogue

of

the risen Christ

to his

disciples

36).

Although

it has been

argued

that

Eug

is

a dechristianized

version of

SJC

37),

it is more

probable

that

the

literary dependence

is

in the other

direction

and

that

SJC

is a Christianized

version

of

Eug

38).

Within the context

of

a

presentation

of

the

pleromatic

realm both

Eug

and

SJC

term

the

highest

principle

the First-Father.

He

brings

to

appearance

a

Self-Father who is equal in age but not in power (Eug III, 3:

74.20-75.I2//SJC

BG

90.I5-9I.I6).

Then

the

highest

principle

brings

to

appearance

a multitude

of

self-begotten

ones who in a

literal

translation

of

Eug,

are

the race which has

no

kingdom

over

it

from the

existing

kingdoms 39).

On the

basis

of

ApocAd

and the

Naassenes,

one

may

conclude

that

the

same

phrase

the

kingless

race ,

although

expanded,

is

being

rendered

by

this

Coptic

trans-

34)

See

Hippolytus,

Refutatio

5.7.30-40

(ed.

WENDLAND,

GCS

26,

85-88;

trans.

Foerster,

1.269-70).

35)

W. C.

TILL,

Die

gnostischen

Schriften

des

koptischen

Papyrus

Beroli-

nensis

8502,

TU

60,

(Berlin,

Akademie

Verlag, I955).

36)

K.

RUDOLPH,

Der

gnostische

'Dialog'

als literarisches

Genus,

Pro-

bleme der

koptischen

Literatur

(bearbeitet

von P.

NAGEL;

Wissenschaftliche

Beitrage

der

Martin-Luther-Universitat

Halle-Wittenberg

1968/I

[K

2],

Halle)

85-IO7.

37) H. M. SCHENKE, Nag Hammadi Studien II: Das System der Sophia

Jesu

Christi,

ZRGG

14

(I962)

263-78.

38)

M.

KRAUSE,

Das

literarische

Verhaltnis der

Eugnostosbriefes

zur

Sophia

Jesu

Christi,

Mullus

Festschrift

Theodor

Klauser

1964,

Jahrbuch

fur

Antike

und

Christentum,

Erganzungsband

i

(hrsg.

A.

STUIBER

und

A.

HERMANN;

Miinster, Westfalen,

Aschendorffsche

Verlagsbuchhandlung,

I964)

215-23;

P.

PERKINS,

The Genre Gnostic

Revelation

Dialogue

(Ph.

D.

dissertation,

Harvard

University,

I972)

21-33.

39)

tgenea

ete mn

mntrro

hijos

nhrai

hn mmntrrai etke ehrai

(Eug

III,

3:

75.I7-19);

TILL,

Die

gnostischen

Schriften

des

koptischen

Papyrus

Berolinensis,

224-25.

283


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

15/19

FRANCIS

T. FALLON

lation

40).

In the

parallel

passage,

SJC

has the same

Coptic

phrase

but

omits the

expansion

fromthe

existing

kingdoms

41).

It is noteworthy that within these documents a later emanation,

the

immortal

Man,

is termed the

king

of

kings

(Eug

III,

3:

77.II-

78.3//SJC

BG

95.5-96.II)

42)

and that

ultimately

these

later

emanations

including

their

kingdoms

evidence

a

defect,

the

defect

of

femaleness

or

woman

(Eug

III,

3:

85.7-9, 23-24//SJC

BG

I07.II-I3

and

I09.7-8)

43).

Once

again

there is no reference

to

earthly

rule in the

usage

of the undominated

race .

Rather,

the

phrase

refers

to those

of

the

highest

realm

of

the

pleroma

and

their

freedom from

subjection

to

any

rule

or

defect

whether

of the lower

world

or even of later emanations

within

the

pleroma.

The next

instance

of

the

usage

of

the

undominated

race in

reference to transcendent

beings

occurs in

The Nature

of

the Archons

(NatArch

CG

II,

4).

The

context is

that of the revelation

dialogue

of the

angel

Eleleth to

Norea,

the

sister of

Seth and wife

of

Noah.

When

she asks

how

long

the divine element

which has come from

above will be trappedin matter, he respondsthat it will be until the

True

Man

appears

in

a

creaturely

form

(NatArch

96[I44].20-35).

Eleleth

then

adds these words:

Then

he will teach them about

everything:

and

he will

anoint

them with

the

unction of iife

eternal,

given

him from

the undominated

generation

(or,

preferably,

the undominated

race)

44).

Here

the undominated race must refer

to

those

divine

beings

who are above and free from the created and evil world. Again

there

is no

explicit

reference to

earthly

rule.

The

rulers

from

which

these

divine

beings

are

free

are the

powers

of the evil

heavens

and

particularly

their

leader

Sabaoth

(94[I42].34-96[I44].II),

who is

portrayed

as

ruling

from

the seventh heaven

45).

40) The Greek

original may

have been

T)

eve&

&dcaralXeuo

sv

aYc 3c

ctXCcat;

41)

BG 92.6-7; TILL, Die gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus

Berolinensis,

224-25.

42)

TILL,

Die

gnostischen

Schriften

des

koptischen Papyrus

Berolinensis,

230-33.

43)

TILL,

Die

gnostischen

Schriften

des

koptischen Papyrus

Berolinensis,

254-55

and

258-59.

44)

NatArch

97

(I45).I-4;

ed.

B.

LAYTON,

The

Hypostasis

of the

Archons:

or

'The

Reality

of the

Rulers',

HTR

67

(I974)

422-23.

The

phrase

in

Coptic

is

tgenea

tetmmntes

rro.

45)

See

F.

FALLON,

The Enthronement

of

Sabaoth:

Jewish

Elements in

Gnostic Creation Myths (Nag Hammadi Studies io; Leiden, Brill, I978).

284


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

16/19

THE

GNOSTICS: THE

UNDOMINATED

RACE

The

idea,

if

not

the

phrase,

of

the

undominated

race is

prob-

ably

also

applied

to

the

gnostics

in

this

document. At

93(I4I).

25-32 it is stated that he (the revealer) appearedat the last time,

that the

powers

will

be ruled

over,

and that

the

powers

will not

be

able to

defile Norea

of that

race

(tgenea etmmau),

since their

abode

is in

Incorruptibility. Clearly

the

point

of

association is that

the

members

of the

undominated race

share

in

the divine

nature

whether

they

are

in

their true

abode

or

temporarily

enmeshed in

matter.

The idea of the true

gnostics

as

the

undominated race

(but

only

the term

undominated )

is also found

in

the tractate

entitled

On

the

Origin

of

the

World

(OnOrgWld

CG

II,

5)

46).

In

the docu-

ment the author had

consistenly

maintained that

there were three

races

(yevea)

of

men:

the

pneumatic,

the

psychic,

and the

earthly

(I22[I7o].6-9).

But

after a

discussion

of

the

Angel

of

Gnosis and

the

innocent

spirits

who are sent into the world

(124 [I72].4-32),

the

author states that there

are some who are

undominated and that

there are thus four kinds (yevoS).By introducing a fourth cate-

gory

above and

beyond

that of

the

pneumatics,

who would nor-

mally

be considered the

gnostics,

the

author is

moving

in

the

direction of

Manichaeism,

which also

distinguished

two

grades

within

its

gnostic

community:

the elect

as the more

perfect

and

then

the

catechumens

or

hearers.47)

The author

wrote

as follows:

For the

Savior fashioned each one of them all

and the

spirits

of

these

are

manifest

as

chosen

and

blessed

and

different

according

to their

elections

and

many

other

kingless

ones

(are

manifest)

as more chosen than all

before

them.

Therefore,

there are four

kinds. Three

belong

to the

kings

of the

Eighth.

But the fourth kind

is

a

perfect, kingless

one,

which

is above them

all. For

these will

go

into the

holy place

of their father

and will be at

ease

in rest with

their

eternal,

unspeakable

glory

and

with an

unceasing

joy.

But

they

are

kings

among

the mortal

as immortal.

They

will

judge

the

gods

of chaos

and their

powers

(I24[I72].32-I25[I73].I4)

48).

It

is clear that the

kings

of

the

Eighth

are the

rulers of the

lower,

evil world

49).

The true gnostics are not ruled by them. Along with

this

negative

reference,

the

passage

develops

a

positive

aspect;

the

true

gnostics

are also

kings.

In the

example

cited from

Josephus

46)

A. B6HLIG

and

P.

LABIB,

Die

koptisch-gnostische

Schrift

ohne

Titel

aus

Codex II von

Nag

Hammadz

(Berlin,

Akademie

Verlag,

I962).

47)

See H.

J.

POLOTSKY,

Manichaeismus,

PW

(Sup

6;

I935)

259,

262-64.

48)

The

Coptic

for

kingless

is

atrro

in

each

case;

B6HLIG,

Die

koptisch-

gnostische

Schrift

ohne

Titel,

IOO-03.

49)

See the

kingdom

of

Sabaoth at

I04

(152).23

and io6

(I54).9.

285


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

17/19

FRANCIS T.

FALLON

above

we

saw

that freedom from the

tyranny

of

the

king

meant

self-government,

democracy.

Here the

gnostic

author takes

a

further step when he identifies that freedom from a king as equiva-

lent to

being

a

king

oneself.

Thereby,

he

takes over

the

common

Stoic

idea

of

the wise man as

king 50)

and

applies

it

to the

true

gnostic

51).

The

author

of

OnOrgWld

completes

his

thought concerning

lack

of

domination

and continues

his

thought

on

the various

grades

of

election

by

his

teaching

on the

consummation.

According

to him

those

who are

kings

and are

perfect

will

enter into the

Light,

but

those

who are not

perfect

will remain

in

their

aeons and

in

the

immortal

kingdoms

but never

attain to a

lack

of

domination

(tmntatrro:

I27[I75].8-I4) 52).

Lack

of

domination here

then is

an

epithet

for

the

completely

transcendent

realm,

which

is above the

lower

world and even the

realm

of

the

middle

(cf.

II2[I6o].IO-22).

Once

again

there

is no

reference

to

an

earthly

king

but

rather a

reference

to

the evil

heavenly

rulers

and

to the

gnostic's

freedom

from subjection to this rule.

There are three further

instances

in

which the term

undomina-

ted is used

in

gnostic

literature, without,

however,

a

reference to

the undominated race . The

first

occurs

in

Eug

and its

parallel

in

SJC.

The

context

is the

presentation

of

the aeons. The first aeon

is that

of

the immortal man

and the

second aeon

is that

of the Son

of Man

(Eug

III,

3:

85.8-15) 53).

However,

the ruler of

these aeons

in

a literal translation is

said to

be the aeon of the

eternal, boundless

God

over

which there is no

kingdom

(Eug

III,

3:

85.I5-I9//SJC

BG

I08.II-I6)

54).

Since

the

Coptic

here is

the

same

as that

of

50)

See E.

R.

GOODENOUGH,

The Political

Philosophy

of

Hellenistic

Kingship,

Yale

Classical Studies

I

(I928)

55-Io2;

E.

R.

GOODENOUGH,

he

Political

Philosophy

of

Philo

Judaeus

(New

York,

Yale

University

Press,

1938)

87-II9;

and

W.

A.

MEEKS,

Moses

as

God and

King,

Religions

in

Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough (ed. J. NEUSNER;Leiden,

Brill,

1968) 354-7I.

51)

The motif that

the

gnostics

become

kings

is found

in

other circles of

Gnosticism:

e.g.

ApocryJas 3.25-27; IO.I-5;

GTh

Sayings

2, 8i;

ThCon

I45.I4;

DialSav

138.11-15.

52)

B6HLIG,

Die

koptisch-gnostische

Schrift

ohne

Titel,

IO8-09.

53)

The

parallel

in

SJC

BG

IO8.I-II

ascribes

the first

aeon to the Son of

Man

and the second

aeon to

Adam;

TILL,

Die

gnostischen

Schriften

des

koptischen

Papyrus

Berolinensis,

256-57.

54)

TILL,

Die

gnostischen

Schriften

des

koptischen

Papyrus

Berolinensis,

256-57.

286


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

18/19

THE GNOSTICS:

THE UNDOMINATED RACE

the

undominated

race

referred

to earlier

55),

the Greek

original

here

was also

probably

t

aocXeuroq;,

and thus

the

Coptic

can

be

translated more freely as undominated . The aeon referred to is

the aeon

of

the First Father

and the Self-Father

and their emana-

tions

(Eug

III,

3:

7I.I3-76.I2//SJC

BG

83.5-93.I2)

56).

Clearly

there is

no

reference

to an

earthly

ruler here.

Rather,

the undomi-

nated aeon

refers

to the

highest

realm

of

the

pleroma

and its

freedom

from

subjection

to

any

rule.

The

second

passage

in

which

the term

undominated but

not

the

phrase

the

undominated

race is

used occurs

in

SJC

(there

is no

parallel

in

Eug

at this

point).

The Savior

proclaims

to his

disciples

how he has

overcome the evil

powers

and released the

immortal

man so that

all

who

come to

know the

Father

or the

invisible

Spirit

would come to rest

in

the

Father.

He

further states

that he

has

taught

them

in order that the

male

host

(i.e.

the

gnostics) might

be

manifest

in all the aeons

from

the boundless

to

those

which arose

in

the unsearchable

richness

of

the

Great,

In-

visible Spirit, and that they might all receive from his goodness

and the undominated richness

of

their

resting

place (tmntrmmao

ete mn mntrro

hijos:

121.13-125.9)

57).

The

epithet

undominated

is

applied

here

then

not to a race

of

transcendent

beings

but

to

the

divine

aeon,

which

in

essence

is the Father and his

Spirit.

Again

the

significance

of

the term undominated

is to stress not so much

that

this aeon

has no

king

but rather

the freedom

of

this aeon from

subjection

to

any

rule.

The second

instance

of

the

epithet

undominated occurs

in

the

untitled

work of

Codex

Brucianus. Here

the

first-born

Son

estab-

lishes a

world,

an

aeon,

and

a

city

which is called

imperishability,

Jerusalem,

the new

land,

independent,

and also undominated

(aB[CnXleut0xo:

.I2)

58).

This land is also

said to

be

god-begetting

and

life-giving.

It

is the

land

in

whose

image

the

perceptible

man

55)

ete mn mntrro hij6f. TILL, Die gnostischen Schriften des koptischen

Papyrus

Berolinensis,

256-57.

56)

The

First-Father

is

referred

to as

eternal, boundless,

and

God within

this

section.

TILL,

Die

gnostischen

Schriften

des

koptischen

Papyrus

Beroli-

nensis,

206-7.

57)

TILL,

Die

gnostischen

Schriften

des

koptischen

Papyrus Berolinensis,

282-91.

58)

Text

C.

SCHMIDT,

Gnostische

Schriften

in

koptischer Sprache

aus

dem

Codex

Brucianus

(Leipzig,

Hinrichs'sche

Buchhandlung,

1892)

249;

tr.

C. SCHMIDT and W.

TILL,

Koptisch-gnostische

Schriften

I,

GCS

45

(Berlin,

Akademie Verlag, I962) 352.

287


8/10/2019 1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

19/19

FRANCIS

T.

FALLON

was

fashioned

and

the land which the first-born

has saved

by

his

own

dispersion

(c. 12).

Clearly

then

what

is

being

termed

un-

dominated here is not so much a place-as in the example cited

above

from Plutarch-but rather a further emanation of

the

divine,

a

part

of the

divine

nature

itself,

which is free

from

subjec-

tion

to

any

rule.

CONCLUSION

In

conclusion,

then,

the term

&poicsXeuos

ad

been used

in

clas-

sical

and Greco-Roman

literature with reference to the

earthly

king. It indicated in a propersense lack of having a king (kingless)

or in

a

metaphorical

sense lack of

subjection

to

a

king (undomi-

nated).

For the

gnostics

then

the term

became an

apt

means

of

expres-

sing

their

particular

theology.

Just

as the term

patcLXe'q

had been

applied

in

the Greco-Roman world

to

both the

earthly

ruler

and

the

heavenly

ruler,

so too the term

Cao3aLXeuToq

1560836_190_122_240_19_08_08_2014_14_21.pdf

Documents