Papyrus Berolinensis 20 915)1
SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION IN A PARTIALLY RESTORED COPTIC CODEX (PAPYRUS BEROLINENSIS 20 915)1
For about a century, the Papyrus Collection of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin has had among its holdings the remnants of a mysterious papyrus codex that has simply been referred to as the “Coptic Book.” Its highly standardized Sahidic text is written in a fine literary hand of the 4th century. However, it was always a closed book. There has been a mystery not only as to its author and its contents, but also as to the circumstances of its discovery. No record about its provenance or original acquisition seems to exist. As to its state of preservation, the “book” did not look like a book at all, since it consisted almost entirely of a big pile of about 2500 unassembled, more or less small individual fragments. It might have been due to these discouraging circumstances that, for decades, the manuscript — after initial transcriptions of a few fragments — was abandoned and almost completely forgotten. But in more recent years, extensive work has been done in order to prepare it for publication2. Though the reconstruction of the text is still far from complete, light at the end of the tunnel is slowly emerging. For the now- restored 246 fragmentary pages give a fairly clear impression about the character and content of the text. They support the view that this is not only a difficult text, but also a quite interesting and probably very im- portant witness to the development of early Christian theology. There- fore it seems to be both advisable and prudent not to wait until the task is completed — and hold this manuscript back until its editio princeps is ready — but to make accessible already certain pages with especially
1 This essay is based on a speech given at the 1998 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Orlando, Florida. 2 See the previous reports presented at the fifth and sixth meetings of the Internatio- nal Association of Coptic Studies (IACS) in Washington, D.C., 1992, and Münster, Germany, 1996: G.S. ROBINSON, Codex Berolinensis P 20915: An Initial Survey, in D.W. JOHNSON (ed.), Acts of the Fifth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Washing- ton, D.C., August 12-15, 1992, vol. 2, Rome, 1993, p. 369-379; and G.S. ROBINSON, Codex Berolinensis P 20915: A Progress Report, in S. EMMEL, M. KRAUSE, S.G. RICH- TER, S. SCHATEN (eds.), Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit: Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses, Münster, 20.-26. Juli 1996, Band 2 (Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, Band 6, 2), Wiesbaden, 1999, p. 169- 177. 240 G. ROBINSON interesting phenomena or problems, and to ask the scholarly public for help in solving at least some of the many mysteries3. The difficulties of this text are mainly due to its fragmentary state of preservation, not to mention the loss of the original sequence of the leaves (since no pagination is extant except the number 152 on one of the fragments). The pages now at hand still do not result in a coherent text. What we have really makes sense only on the assumption that it was originally a much larger work. Judging by the remnants, it must have been a theological treatise that betrays highly speculative philo- sophical thinking on a great variety of topics, mainly connected with problems that result from interpreting Scripture. Its cardinal themes ap- pear to be God’s creation and God’s wrath. This raises the question as to whether the entire codex could have been composed of more than one tractate. There is indeed one page that shows a break in the text with horizontal lines inserted as separation. This could be where one tractate ends and another begins. The other al- ternative would be that this treatise simply had two cardinal points that are somehow linked to each other, since God’s wrath might have been discussed as the consequence of the transgression after creation. That God had second thoughts over having created humans is at least ex- pressed on one page by quoting Gen 6:7. This could make it appear more likely that the break indicates two different chapters of the same tractate. However, the attempts to restore the original sequence of thought, that is to say the sequence of the pages, has thus far not been very successful4. In addition to these problems, we neither know the author nor the title of the work, nor do we know of allusions to it in some other work, much less do we have an actual copy of the same text. One would, of
3 In this regard, there has already been prepared an article as a pre-publication of certain pages: H.-M. SCHENKE, Der Barnabasbrief im Berliner “Koptischen Buch” (P. Berol. 20915), in Enchoria, 25 (1999), p. 53-75 (= SCHENKE, Barnabas). See also H.-M. SCHENKE, Das Berliner “Koptische Buch” (P. 20915) und seine Geheimnisse, in ZÄS, 126 (1999) p. 61-70 (= SCHENKE, Koptisches Buch). 4 Of course, it is always possible to group some leaves together, not only by the simi- larity of their profiles — that is to say by the shape of the fragments where the breakage occurs — but also by their content. But for the entire codex, there is no conclusive result in sight, since on the one hand certain motifs occasionally overlap or seem to be repeated in different contexts, and on the other hand the profiles of the pages often do not comply with the sequence based on the content. At least any attempt to reconcile both ordering systems (according to the profiles and to the content) have failed thus far. The possibility that the pages might have been out of order already in antiquity (before most of the break- age occurred) only complicates the potential difficulties faced in restoring the manuscript. It is, of course, also conceivable that some single leaves even within the extant part of the codex are completely lost. SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 241 course, understand the extant fragments much better, and could recon- struct much more of the codex, if the complete text were at our disposal in any language5. As far as we know, this work, originally composed in Greek, is extant only in this one copy of the Coptic translation. Perhaps a colleague will be able to identify it elsewhere. One would hope that such strange and provocative thoughts as our text contains would ring a bell, if anyone has encountered them somewhere else. All the evidence gathered thus far points to a world of thought in the vicinity of Alexandria. Indeed, the text seems to give rather early testimony to some variety of Alexandrian Christian theology. Perhaps it falls somewhere in the trajectory of Philo → Valentinus → Cle- ment → Origen → Silvanus (in its final version as found in NHC VII,4). Even though we do not know the author, we do get a glimpse of him from the way he quotes not only what is now normative Scrip- ture, but also — on the same level of authority — what are now consid- ered non-canonical texts. Some of these quotations are quite unusual. There is, for instance, one from the Kerygma Petri, if our restoration of the text here is indeed correct6. Only Clement, Valentinus’ pupil Heracleon, and Origen appear to have known the Kerygma Petri at all. Clement uses it as an authentic writing of Peter — as did Hera- cleon, according to Origen — whereas Origen himself doubted its au- thenticity7. In general, the author not only discusses his often very speculative problems by appealing to Scripture itself, he also argues in terms of many other theories of various theologians or schools of thought. However, precisely because of the extremely fragmentary state of the pages, it is not always obvious whether a teaching that comes to light through the restoration of the text is really a teaching by the author, or one that he only reports, in order to correct or repu- diate it later (in the lacunae of the text, or on the pages that are lost). One of these concepts is the “teaching of the Sethians,” a phrase that occurs on one of the larger fragments, together with some specific
5 Fortunately, the text does contain a large number of sometimes extensive quotations that — once identified — facilitate the reconstruction of the text of at least some of the pages. 6 For the exact quotation and the problems connected with it, see SCHENKE, Koptisches Buch, p. 67-68. 7 Other signs in our text, such as the occurrence of the word cektws (“culpable”), rather point to Origen. According to Liddell & Scott, this adverb is not unique in ancient Greek profane literature. Yet regarding patristic literature, Lampe lists only Origen, though the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae lists (next to eleven times attested in Origen) one instance each in four other authors of the patristic period, as follows: Eusebius Scr. Eccl. et Theol., Gregorius Nazianzenus, Eustathius Scr. Eccl., and Alexander Aphrodisiensis Phil. 242 G. ROBINSON names from the pantheon of this school. Such a surprising occurrence, of course, poses automatically the question of the relationship of our text to Gnosticism on the one hand, and to the heresiologists on the other, a question that only further research can answer. It seemed there- fore appropriate to select this immensely interesting passage with its im- mediate context for a special pre-publication. The context, however, is precisely the problem, since there are still so many uncertainties regard- ing the codicological reconstruction. The following five restored pages, therefore, are presented only in the sequence that seems the most prob- able according to our current understanding. Though the passage in question begins only in the middle of this first page (after the visible break between tractates or chapters mentioned above) and ends already in the middle of the fifth page with the reference to the Sethians, these pages are given in their entirety, so as to provide an impression of the state of preservation and interpretation as it now stands8. We will first discuss our author’s doctrine of creation as far as we can determine its scope and direction, and then try to understand the explicit Sethian refer- ence within the broader context of this teaching on creation. On the basis of the Sethian passage, we will further examine whether other passages could contain Sethian influences as well. Also of interest will be the question whether, and to what extent, our author appeals to other tradi- tions9.
8 The pages are presented here just as they look in the present status of our work. The numbers and letters on the first line at the top of each page reflect our ongoing codico- logical work; listed are all the fragments from which a particular leaf is restored. The first underlined letter and number of each page designate the restored leaf as it now stands within its series of leaves with similar profiles, followed by an arrow indicating the fiber direction of the papyrus; the numbers that follow are the initial glass-plate numbers; the raised numbers are the fragment numbers. The letter L with a raised number refers to fragments from additional folders (Lagen). The references to recto/verso assume that an extant margin of a page is the outer margin. 9 In documenting his further argumentation, only parts of the pages will be cited, since often the text is broken off just before and after the segment in question. Bold- face type in the citations draws attention to what particular part of the text will be dis- cussed. SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 243
D — 1 ↑: 481∞+∞223∞+∞L1217∞+∞L441∞+∞∞222∞∞+∞L316∞+∞L99∞+∞L450∞+∞644∞+661∞+∞L1075∞+∞L635∞+∞228∞+ L281 (verso)
d[e ] [] tbibl[os ] the book [ ] ntpoiysis NNtB[nooue Na] the creation of the irrational [animals.] logon· asNdoki n[an eöw auw] It seemed proper [for us to stop(?) and] eè Mpéwk MpeeI[kejaée mN] complete this [chapter, too.] However, Nsws de tNnaarx[ei eja] afterwards we will begin [to] talk about ée eprwme entau[tamiov ka] the man who was [created] according to ta qikwn Mpnout[e etbe paï] the image of God. But [because of this,] de Nqe nane tMt[rensaùwwn] as it is good that [we] not [depart] ebol Ntme all[a etrNkata] from the truth, but rather [to] [l]ambane Nne[s ] accept [its ] [taï te qe ] [so ] /∞∞[][] [] . [] [] [ ]
(empty space) eana[jaé]e etbe tk[ ] After my [words] about the [ ] poi eï[ . ] . . [p]meùvtoou []while I [ the] fourth [ ] me [t]Naz[i]ou Mpnou[te etrev] we ask God [that he will] è Noupro Mprwme . . [ ] give mankind a voice [ ] ja[ée ée]kas Nsbw [ ] talk, so that the teachings [ ] [ et]ounajaé[e ] [ about which] they will talk [ ] [ ]éw Mplog[os ] [ ] say the word [ ] []eua[gg]eliáe ùN o[u ] [ ] proclaim in a [ ] epws· ée[k]as eveè n[ ] about hers, so that he gives [ ] [ ]jorP men e[ ]po[]but first [ ] [ùw]ws . [ . ] etre[ ] [also] her [ ] on [ ] again [ ] ùw[ws ] also [her(?) ] av [ ]nn[ ] he has [ ] ep . nan [e]ùra[ï ùM p] us(?) upward [ as] trenpwjs ebo[l ] we were going astray [ ]
lower margin 244 G. ROBINSON
B — 5 ↑: 311 + 647 + 312 + L298 + 227 + 5334 + L1534 + L318 + 5340 + L1010 + 598 + 566 (recto)
upper margin
[ p]iqe de nan tenou [] But believe us now, [net]jine etbe prwme en[tav] [you who] ask about the man who [came] [jw]pe kata qikwn Mpnou[t]e [to be] according to the image of God [aéN ù]enöom è[na]éw de MpE [without (other)] powers. I [will] say what [tavsaùV Nöi mw]usys e[t]byytv: Moses [wrote] about him 1 [ùM pevéww]me (empty) peéav Nöi [in his book: “God] said: [pnoute] ée marNtamio Nou ‘Let us create a [rwme ka]ta tenùikwn auw [human] according to our image and [kata pen]E&Ine· auw marou [according to our] likeness. And let them [Réo]eis e[ù]raï eéN NtbT N have dominion over the fish of [teqa]la[ss]a nM Nùalate [the sea] and the birds [Ntp]e nM [N]tBnooue nM ne [of the sky,] and [the] cattle and the [qyrion Mpkaù] tyrv auw e [beasts of] all [the earth], and [éN éatve nim naï et]moo [over every creeping thing that] moves [je ùraï ùiéM pkaù· ] [upon the earth’.” ] [e]tbe Nka [nim ] [ ] about [all] things [ ] [ n]etjine [ ] [ you] who ask [] [ ] Nùouo ùN [] . [] [ ] more in [] [ ouj]aée rwj[e e]keleu [ a] word suffices [to] command [e ]pÛ evéw M[m]os ée [ ] saying: [ esej]wpe ere [p]éwk ouyù [ it shall] happen that [the] perfection [ùN ]euk . [ aéN] wsK’ e[] dwells [in without] delay [ ] [ ] . . . [ ] [] [ ]e de eukou[ï pe ] [ ] but since [it is] something small [ ] [ ]ronÛ tjor[p ] [ ] The first [ ] [ enta p]logos kaas Ns[w]v [ that the] Logos left [ ] [N]tlezis eto N[ka]ù [— (according) to] the reading — which is [ ta]mioÛ eéN peï . [ ] [terrestrial, ] creation. Upon this [ ] [] gar Nteïöot[ ] [ ] For [ ] of this kind [] [] tyrV a[] [ ] all [ ]
[] . [ . . . ] . j[Û ] eu . . [] [ 2mar]e ousterew [ “Let there be] a firmament [ma jwpe ùN tmy]te Noumoou [between] water [mN oumoou Nvpwr]é Noumoou [and water, and let it separate] water
lower margin
1 Gen 1:26; 2 Gen 1:6a SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 245
B — 5 →: 311 + 647 + 312 + L298 + L1534 + 5334 + 227 + L1010 + 5340 + L318 + 566 + 598 (verso)
upper margin
1[n]Moumoou· apùwb d[e ouaùV] and water.” The work [followed] it Nteunou Nswv· ùom[oiws de] immediately. [Likewise] eéN tsoo[u]ù\s/ eùoun N[te Mmou] about the gathering of [the many] ïooue e\t/na[jwou· ] j[antV] waters [until] the [dry land would] ouwnù ebol Nöi pe[tjouwou] appear. Since it was [still] covered with evùobS ùN Mmoou [on nejje] the waters, [it was necessary] for him etrevéoos ée 2mar[evswouù] to say: “Let the water [that is under] eùoun Nöi pmoou [etsapesyt] the sky [be gathered] into a [single] Ntpe eusoouùs [No]u[wt· auw] gathering, [and] let nVouwnù ebol N[öi] pet[jou] the dry land appear.” wou· apùwb de N[t]eun[ou avou] And the work followed immediately aùV Nsa tkeleus[is·] N[ ] upon the command. [] Nnentyö enta[ujwpe ] of the plants which [came about ] [ peéav] [ he said:] [ée 3mare p]kaù tao[uo ebol N] [“Let the] earth bring forth [ùenNty]ö Nxorto[s mN ou] [plants] of grass, [and a] [jy]n [ev]èkarpo[s evE&Ire N] fruitful [tree that bears] fruit,” [o]ukar[po]sÛ nM pk[eseepe] and the [rest (of it).] After mNNsa [tk]eleusis [nemmN] [the] command, [there was (?)] no (more) laau Né[p]o4 pùwb d[e entavjo] produce. But the work [which he] éne Mm[o]v javép[o ] considered(?), he does produce [ ]
[]k erov . . [ ] [ ] him [ ] [ ]e MmNte[v ] [ he] has not [ ] au[ e]véw Mmo[s ée 5ma] [ saying] as follows[:] roujwpe Nöi ùenou[oein (empty?)] “Let there be lights ùM pesterewma N[tpe etrou] in the firmament of [the sky, so that they] [Rou]oïn eéN pka[ù· auw Nteu] shine upon the earth.” [And] the [nou] atdymio\u/rg[ia ouaùS Nt] creation [followed immediately upon] [kel]eusis [ùomoiws de eéN] [the] command. [Likewise about]
[ auw t] [ and the] ajy NN . . [ ] swarms of the [(living creatures),] auw neïkyto[s etnaau auw] and these [great] sea monsters, [and] on Nùalate ù[N tpe auw NtBt] also the birds in [the sky, the fishes] ùN Mmoou· a[uw neqyrion Mpkaù] in the waters, [and the beasts of the earth.]
lower margin
1 Gen 1:6b; 2 Gen 1:9; 3 Gen 1:11; 4 correction mark (%) written above the line; 5 Gen1:14 246 G. ROBINSON
B — 4 →: 11 + L283 + L183 + L644 + 152 + L253 + L650 + L832+68 + L325 + L12143+2 + L697 + L95∞+∞L345∞+∞L7131 + 5324∞+∞6417∞+∞475∞+∞5922 (recto)
[] . [][] [ Ne]nergia [][ ] energies [ ] [ 1ma]re nmoou t[aouo] [ “Let] the waters [bring forth] [ebol Nùen]éatve Mcuxy e[u] soulful creeping things that are [alive,] [onù au]w ùenùalyt euùyl e and birds that fly [high] over [ùraï e]éM pkaù kata peste the earth across the firmament of [rewma] NtpeÛ af[wb ei] eéw[k e] the sky.” The [work came] to completion [bol ùN ∞o]urike ∞bbal∞ etbe∞∞ tkoo [in] an instant by the [(invincible) power] [bes N Mpy] etkeleueÛ auw [of that one] who commands. And [ ] nentaueï ebol ùM [ ] the ones who came from [ apet]jaée xrw Nteïou [ the one who] spoke used the same [sia No]uwt’ evéw Mmos ée [substance,] saying: [“Let the earth] bring 2[mare pkaù] ∞∞taouo ∞∞ebol∞∞ Noucu forth a [living] soul according to its kind: [xy esonÙ ∞k]ata ∞ genos ∞ NtBny cattle, [and creeping things] according [to] [mN ∞∞ Néatv]e3 auw∞ ∞ Nqyrion ∞ M [their kinds], and beasts of [the earth] [pkaù kata ∞ge]nosÛ ∞auw∞∞ NtBn[o] [according to] their kinds, and cattle [oue kata gen]os [Û a]uw a[sjw] [according to their] kinds.” And [it was] [pe ùinaï· ] [so. ] []sat . . an . [ ] [] [ a]pùwb éwk eb[ol ] [ ] The work was completed [ ] [ e]roo[u]:(empty) eé[N ] [ ] them. Upon [ [ ero]ou emate [][ ] them very much [ ] [ p]evswma p[e ] [] is his body [] []jibe Mpùeq[os ] [ ] changes the ethos(?) [ ] [ e]ntan[][ ] we who have [ ] [ etr]evjwpe [ ] [ ] so that it be [ ] [ e]soj ùwst[e ] [ ] plentiful, so that [ ] [ gnw]my ara ptaou a[ ] [ teaching.] Therefore, giving them [ ] [a]lla pevùwb [] [ ] rather his work [ ] [ na]u erov etev . [ ] [ ] saw, as his [ ] [ m]ejak Mpe p[ ] [ ] Perhaps the [ ] has not [] . sk[e]uaáe n[] [ ] prepared [ ] []os [][] [ ] Nöi paulos [ ] Paul(?) [ e]véw Mmos [ ] saying [o]urwme epma N [ a] human in place of [] é [] .[] [ ] . . treÛ apma e [ ] The place(?) has
lower margin4
1 Gen 1:20; 2 Gen 1:24; 3 correction mark (%) written above the line, and kat[a genos] written in the right margin; 4 traces of a correction in the lower margin SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 247
B — 4 ↑: 11 + L283 + L183 + L644 + 152 + L832 + L650 + L253 + L325 + L868 + L95 + L697 + L122+143 + 5324 + L345 + L7131 + 5922 + 475 + 6417 (verso)
[]a etev[ aùen] [ ] to his [ ] But [koou]e de éoos é[e aunoö de] [others] said: [“A great] [N]arxwn tamie pr[wmeÛ peïnoö] archon created man.” But [this great] de Narxwn etarxi e[éwou au] archon who rules over [them, they] moute erov Ntoou é[e ïA&L&D&A] called Jaldabaoth, [there being with] bA^W^Q ere [s]AB^ ^A^W^Q [joop ùaù] him also Sabaoth, tyvÛ1 ∞auw ∞ad^W^N^Aio[sÛ ∞ïA&W&QÛ e] and Adonaios, [Jaoth,] l^W^A^I^O^SÛ W^r^A^I^O^SÛ A^[^S^T^A^F^A^I^O^SÛ] Eloaios, Oraios, (and) [Astaphaios,] etreumetexe et[dymiour] so that they take part in the [creation] gia MprwmeÛ taï [öe te tegnw] of man. This [now is the] my NNsyqianos [][teaching] of the Sethians. But [ ] de véw Mmos ée [aparxwn] says: [“The archon(?)] Mpkake tamie p[rwme ùen] of the darkness created [man.”] But kooue de ée ou[aggelos pen] others (say): “It was an [angel(?) who] [tavtamiov ] [created him. ] [] . . . [ . ] et . . [ ] [] [] nvkaav t[][ ] and he put him [ ] []nys e[v]öee[t ] [ ] remaining [ ] [ o]uwmos No[u ] [ a] shoulder of [ ] [ ] . . ou o[u]kef[aly ] [ a] head(?) [ ] [] oun amaùt[e ] [ (one who)] has power [ ] [ poua] pouaÛ auw [ ] [ each] one, and [ ] [ e]Io Mpseep[e ] [ ] the rest [ ] [p]eïéw Mpoua pou[a ] [ ] this song(?) of each one [ ] [ ] de eE&Ine epk[e ] [ ] but to understand even [ ] [] evwj ùM péw[wme Náwro] [ ] when he reads in the [book of Zoro] [ast]rys auw avo[u ] [aster(?),] and he has [ ] [pé]wwme Napo[llwnios ] [the] book of Apollonios(?) [ ]
. . [o]uaj[y ] a multitude(?) [ ] tamie töo[m ] created the power [ ] Ntere ou[ ] when a [ ] . [ ] [] t[ ]r ùws eaáw[on nim ] [ ] as if [all] beings had [ ]
lower margin
% keoua avt[a]mie t[ecuxy]2 another one created the [soul(?)]
1 correction mark (%) written above the line; 2 correction written in the lower margin 248 G. ROBINSON
These five pages deal with a specific part of creation, the creation of humans. But it is apparently a very special aspect of their creation with which our author is here concerned. Prior to the creation of man, accord- ing to the creation story of Gen 1 quoted on the pages given above (B- 5→ and B-4→), God simply commanded the elements, which immedi- ately carried out the command. This is supported by a fragment on an- other page (B-10→), though the context there is less clear: [ ] ée marNtamio· evsyma [ ]: “Let us create”, referring [ne ep]saù· eéN pseepe men gar [to the] master. For concerning the rest of [NNgen]os Mpko[s]mos· avùw e [the items] of the world, it was enough [rov e]trevéoos ée mare[v]jw for [him] to say: “Let [each] one [pe Nöi poua] poua Nnaï []of these come about.”
Yet for the creation of man, God seems to confer first with others, or at least with somebody else, when in Gen 1:26 he says: “Let us make man” (see B-5↑). Who this somebody is, and to whom therefore the plural refers, is a well-known problem which becomes a central issue in this text's teaching on creation. Two aspects are obviously important to our author: the presupposition that the entire creation took place solely for the sake of humans, and the fact that it was not a plurality who created man, but God alone. Both aspects come to expression on page B-8↑: [Nt]avtamie tpe nM [pkaù] He has created heaven and [earth,] he has [Nt]avtamie pry nM po[ù nM] created the sun and the moon [and the] [Nsiou] auw
The text is concerned to show that, in spite of the plural, only God himself was the creator. The theme: “Not many, but God alone” is clearly brought out in a number of fragments10. In this regard, one pas- sage on another page (B-2→) looks like the point of departure for the whole discussion:
10 On page B-9→, the author applies no less than three quotations (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Ps 103:24), one after the other, in order to make this point! SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 249
[ te]gnwmy pbol . [ ] [ the] teaching outside [of ] []taouoou empou[ ] proclaim it without having [understood] [Ntle]zis: eaùaù öe pla[s]s[e Mp] [the] reading, as if many had made [the] [tu]pos auw auéi Nouaf[ormy] model. And they got an incentive from [e]bol ùN tlezis etoj t[e]t[éw] reading the phrase which [says]: Mmos ée marNtamio Nourw “Let us make man,” meÛ euéw Mmos ée paùaù pe saying: The task of many is [the] [p]ùwb MprwmeÛ tNmeu[e] é[e] making of man. We think that [o]uanagkaion pe ejine e it is necessary to find out more about [ùo]uo etbe peïtopos etr[eu] this topos in order to put it(s meaning) [su]nùista Mmov ée Mpaùaù [an] together. For the creation of man is [not] [pe] tpoiysis Mprwme al[la ] the task of many but [(of God alone)]
It is difficult to know the position of this leaf within the codex, espe- cially since the leaves given above (see B-5 and B-4), after quoting Gen 1:26 (on B-5↑), continue with the creation story in Gen 1, whereas on the verso of this particular leaf (B-2), the author supports his argument by moving away from Gen 1. He concedes that the context of Gen 1 does not provide adequate proof that God alone is the creator of humans, for which reason he quotes Gen 5:1-2 (B-2↑): [] ée apnout[e ta] [ ] that God [created] [mio Mprw]meÛ ebol de ùN te[ï] [man.] However, [it is] not [possible] from [lezis Njj]e an eneIme ée ou p this [reading] — though we know [ent]avt[a]mïe prwme al’la [who] it is that created man —, but rather [ebo]l NtN keperik[o]py ùN t[eï] by way of another passage in the same biblos Nouwt Ntgenesi[s taï] book of Genesis. [There] it is etsyù NteïùeÛ paï pe peéww written as follows: “This is the book me Mpeépo NRrwme Mpeùoo[u] of the birth of men on the day enta pnoute tamie adam[· ] on which God had created Adam. kata qikwn Mpnoute avt[a] According to the image of God did he miov ouùoout nM ousùim[e] create him. Male und female avtamioou auw avmoute [e] he created them. And he named [pevr]an é[e] adam· Mpeùo[ou] [him] Adam on the day [ent]avtam[ioou Nùyt]V . [ ] he had created [them].”
Yet for a specific answer to the question about who it is with whom God first confers, the author has to turn away from the Genesis story altogether. It is the Letter of Barnabas that provides the main proof for the argument that it is God alone who not only creates by himself but also — in speaking to his son — speaks, for all practical purposes, to himself. The Letter of Barnabas is clearly understood as part of Scripture. It is three times quoted in our codex11. In the context of creation, the focus is
11 For a presentation of the Coptic pages in question ( B-6 →/↑; D-2 →/↑; B-11 →/↑) as well as a detailed analysis of the text, see SCHENKE, Barnabas. 250 G. ROBINSON on Barn. 6:11-12, quoted even twice (B-6→ and D-2→). Both leaves are fragmentary, but the extant portion of the quotation on one page makes it possible to reconstruct much of the missing portion of the other page. Of special importance are the two phrases: légei t¬ç uï¬ç· Poißswmen ktl. and taÕta pròv tòn uïón. Unfortunately, the second, that belongs closely to the first, is not extant in the Coptic text, but it can at least be reconstructed (on B-6→, where the quotation is much longer) on the ba- sis of the Greek text. The first phrase, on the other hand, is extant on both pages, though fragmentary, but the context makes absolutely clear what is meant: “… that he says to his son: ‘Let us create man…’” The fact that we have a doublet suggests the significance of this reference for our author. B-6→: - - - ev]éw M[mos] | [Mpevjyre ée m]a[r]Nta[m]io | [Nourwme - - - D-2→: - - - evéw Mmos M[pevjyre ée] | marNtamio Nour[wme - - -
After the quotation of the Letter of Barnabas on D-2→, there follows on the same page, as further proof, a quotation from the Sibylline Ora- cles (Sib. Or. VIII 264-267 + 259-262). Here one is also taught that only the son is addressed by the request: Let us create man, thus rejecting the teaching of multiple creators. At the end of the page, in applying these quotations to his argument, the author immediately transposes the word “son” into his own terminology, by putting “Logos” in its place: empv[é]oos ée aùaù tamio[v] not having said that many created [him], alla [é]e pnoute mauaa[v pen] but rather that [it is] God alone [who] tavtamiov ùM pevlog[os naï] created him through his Logos. gar enta pnout[e éoou epev] For [these things] that God [said to his] [lo]gos Ntavé[oou ] Logos, he said [(to himself) ] The concept of the “many” is further rejected on another page (B- 7↑), where there is again a twofold Scriptural proof, but now from the New Testament (Luke 11:40 / Gos. Thom. # 89 and Matt 19:5): [ oua p]e entavtamie p[rwme] It is [one] who created [man], [auw N]ùaù an neÛ péoei[s ùM] [and] not many. The Lord [peu]aggelion véw Mmo[s] says [in] the Gospel [etb]e ppoiytys entavtam[ie] [about] the creator who has made [psanù]oun nM psabbol Mpr[w] [the] inside and the outside of [man:] [me] my pentavtamie psabbo[l] “Is not the one who made the outside [Ntov a]n pe Ntavtamie psanù[o] the same who made the inside?” [unÛ auw] MpetNwj ée pentav [And:] “Have you not read that the [swnt é]in teùoueIte Ntavta [creator] made at the beginning [mie ouù]oout’ nM ousùimeÛ (empty) [a] man and a woman?” This evidence from the New Testament might be worth some consid- eration in still another regard. It is in itself already interesting that what is said in Luke 11:40 and Gos. Thom. # 89 regarding a cup or regarding SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 251 a cup and plate receives in the context of our text a direct anthropologi- cal application. According to this application, the inside can only refer to the soul, and then the outside refers to the body. Since this view is here connected with the pericope on divorce (Matt 19:3-9), perhaps our au- thor interprets “man” as the soul, and “woman” as the body. This un- derstanding is supported by a sentence on yet another page (D-8↑): [p]eïayr öe euNtav M [ ] While indeed this air has [mau Nqikw]n NtmnTùoout [the image] of maleness, [the] bodily [ousùime te ts]wmatiky Nùuly substance [is something female.]
To return to the adversaries presupposed on B-7↑: Their view seems to be that a plurality created the body, regardless of whether the soul also was created by many or by one. But it is important to our author to argue that God alone created not only the body, but both soul and body. In fact, it is so important to him that he even calls the devil12 as a witness (on the verso, B-7→): [ Nn]ekdiabale naù[rM pkos] [ ] you shall not slander regarding [mo]s penta pnoute [tamiov] [the world] that God had [created] [ùN t]evöomÛ pdiabolo[s ùw] [in] his power. Even the slanderer wv [o]n vùomologi ée pn[oute] himself confesses that it was [God] alone mauaav pentavtamie [ptyrV] who created [the All]. With that, eveIre de Mmov ùwwv [Nallo] however, he distances himself · trios etevkataskeuy [ ouN ùo] from his (God’s) creation. Yet eIne de meue erov ùN [keùe an] some think [differently] about that. [We] jrPjaée eroou· véw [de Mmos] already talked about them. He (the devil) NteïùeÛ Ntok pe éin [teùou] says the following: “It is you who made eIte entakplasse M[pjorp N] [the first] human in [the beginning]. rwme adam pentak[tamiov] It is Adam whom you have [created], and akè nav Noucuxy [ ] to whom you have given a soul.”
The actual confession of the devil is presumably a quotation of an un- known apocryphal text. We have not been able to identify this quotation, but it could very well have been taken from the same apocryphal text that is quoted in Jude 9, where the archangel Michael argues with the devil. There also no one knows where it came from, but our author might still have known the text! It is conceivable that the devil’s confes- sion itself had its place there in the story of Satan’s refusal to worship Adam, a being that was just created, whereas Satan himself was there before, and therefore felt superior to Adam. It is a slightly different story than the one with which we are concerned in our text, but it still seems to provide a proper background — and it could explain the failure to identify the quotation.
12 In our translation we rendered the term diáboloˇ literally as “slanderer,” since we tried to bring out the obvious play on words in the terms diabale and pdiabolos. 252 G. ROBINSON
Due to the fragmentary state of the codex, it is not quite clear how many teachings of a pluralistic creation are really contested. One of those, however, is certainly the teaching of the Sethians, referred to on page B-4↑. The Sethians, as a Gnostic school which traces itself back to Adam’s son Seth, have been known to us already from the heresy-hunt- ers of the ancient church. But their true importance in terms of the his- tory of religion came to light only with the discovery and scholarly evaluation of the Nag Hammadi texts13. It is the same school that in scholarly literature is sometimes called Barbelo-Gnostic. Presupposed is here a typical topos of the Sethian myth, based on the Gnostic reinterpretation of Gen 1:26f and other readings from Genesis. It was the demiurge Jaldabaoth with his sons who is said to have been responsible for the creation of man. The whole cosmological topos is best documented in the “gospel” of the Sethians, the so-called Apo- cryphon of John, that is to say, the “Secret (Gospel) according to John”14. However, this topos is rather complicated and subdivided in Ap. John, since Jaldabaoth has many more sons than only the seven rul- ers of the planets15; according to Ap. John, many more could have as- sisted him with the creation of man. Therefore the question might arise whether our author just summarized this form of the Sethian concept, or whether he had at his disposal a much simpler Sethian teaching from some source unknown to us16. Since there is no hint of a malicious con-
13 Regarding the Sethians as a clearly defined Gnostic school, see H.-M. SCHENKE, The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism, in B. LAYTON (ed.), The Redis- covery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28-31, 1978, vol. 2, Sethian Gnosticism (Studies in the History of Religions, 41, vol. 2), Leiden, 1981, p. 588-616. This Sethian gnosis corre- sponds to what for Layton are simply the classical “Gnostics” in distinction to the Valentinians; see especially his “Historical Introduction” in B. LAYTON, The Gnostic Scriptures: A new Translation with Annotations and Introductions, Garden City, 1987, p. 5-21. 14 For the Sethian doctrine of creation in Ap. John, BG 8502, p. 44,9-55,18 parr., see M. WALDSTEIN and F. WISSE (eds.), The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1: III,1 and IV,1, with BG 8502,2, (The Coptic Gnostic Library, in Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies [NHMS], 33), Leiden/New York/Köln, 1995, p. 78- 123 (= Synopsis). 15 The names of the demiurge and the seven rulers of the planets below him are to be found in BG 8502, especially p. 38,13-14 parr. and p. 41,16-42,7 parr. See Synopsis, p. 62-63 and 70-73. 16 Though the Nag Hammadi tractate “On the Origin of the World” has the same names in almost the same order as our text (NHC II,5 p. 101,29-34), there the context is again very complicated, and its Sethian provenance is at least contested. See B. LAY- TON (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7 together with XIII,2, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1) and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655, vol. 2 (The Coptic Gnostic Library, in Nag Hammadi Studies [NHS], 21), Leiden/New York/København/Köln, 1989, especially p. 37 (= LAYTON, Nag Ham- madi Codex II,2-7). SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 253 demnation, the alternative of his having taken it already from a here- siological textbook is rather slight. However, the Sethians might function only as one instance of the many who draw the wrong polytheistic inference from the plural in Gen 1:26. Other traces in our text seem to point also to the tradition of Zoroaster, for this name crops up on one of the fragments (page B-3↑): [ kata] pevdogmaÛ nete [ according] to his doctrine. Those who []ö oude Ntdiakrisis· al [ ] nor the differentiation, [la ouNj]öom Mmoou ediakrine ée but they are able to distinguish whether [keoua pe] pswtyr epjyre M the Soter [is a different one] than the son [prwm]e nevo Ntexria Nou of [man]. He had the need of a [á]wroastrys entav [] Zoroaster who
Though the context is anything but clear, the surprising occurrence of this name was the basis for reconstructing it also on the page that has the reference to the Sethians (B-4↑). It might even be possible that in the view of our author, the tradition of Zoroaster and the Sethian teaching had already merged. Such a fusion is conceivable, since the name Zoroaster is to be found in the cryptographic subtitle of the Sethian Nag Hammadi tractate “Zostrianos” (NHC VIII,1)17. In that case, we would simply have detected another instance of Sethian influ- ence in our text. On the verso (B-3→) of the page where the name Zoroaster is extant, the text apparently speaks of yet two other groups, though it is not clear whether they are repudiated or accepted. There also seems to be a quota- tion of another saying not yet identified, though it sounds as if it could have been taken from the same apocryphal text that was quoted above (on B-7→). In this case, the speaker would again be the devil, maybe the same who is then called the adversary, the ântikeímenoˇ: [ Nùyt]V: ùenkooue [de ] [ in] him. [But] others [] [ ] . Mpdymiourgo[s Mpkos] [ ] to the demiurge [of the world.] mo[sÛ] atsofia Rmaa[u nav ka] Sophia became [its (the world’s)] mother— taroouÛ auw ebol ùM [plo] according to them. And from [the] Logos gos entavtamiov . [ peéav] who created it [ ] For [he said]: de ée pùwb Mpekt[amio etéyk] “The human is the [most perfect] work pe prwme petoum[oute erok] of your [creation, you] who are [called] ée kosmopoios e[te paï pe pen] ‘Cosmos-maker’,” [that is to say, the one] tavè pswma nM t[ecuxy nav] who gave [him] the body and the [soul.] ^Ùenkooue de éw [Mmos ée Nta] But others say [: ] pantikimenos . [ ] “The adversary [has ]
17 The subtitle is to be found NHC VIII,1 p. 132,6-9; see J.H. SIEBER (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex VIII (The Coptic Gnostic Library, in NHS 31), Leiden/New York/ København/Köln, 1991, p. 224. 254 G. ROBINSON
However, there is another peculiar passage (on page F-15↑) that could betray Sethian influence. It has to do with the striking concept of two kinds of earths. According to this concept, humans are made out of both a visible earth and an invisible one, which gives them their twofold con- stitution. This teaching seems to come to expression here as a logical consequence of John 3:6 (a quotation that crops up three times in our codex!): [ e]bolÛ pentauépov [ ] “That which is born [ebo]l ùN [ts]arz ousarz peÛ pen of [the] flesh is flesh, but that which [tauépo]v d[e e]bol ùM peP^N^A ou [is born] of the spirit is spirit.” [pne]uma p[e· a]uè öe nan Nkaù We, then, [have] been given [two] [snauÛ] jo[rp] oukaù men Naùo earths: first an invisible earth, but [raton o]uk[aù] de Nùoraton· ée a visible earth as well, so [that] [kaas p]eïsnau eueéwk ebol these two might be perfect [and] [auw euejwpe n]Mneueryu Û ée [bound] together.
This concept of two different earths seems to be available to us only in one other text, and that is the Sethian Nag Hammadi tractate “The Hypostasis of the Archons” (NHC II,4). The idea that, next to our well- known earth, there is also a “spiritual” earth from which the spiritual soul of man originated, is presented there in the form of a mythical nar- rative. After the portrayal of the creation of Adam, who was an earthly being that was not able to stand up, but was only crawling on the ground18, the spirit made him into a living, upright human who is subse- quently called upon to name all the animals that the rulers gathered in front of him. The decisive phrase reads (p. 88,13-16): auw apP&N&A ei ebol ùM pkaù Nadaman’tiny’ avei epitN avouwù Nùytv’ aprwme etMmau jwpe aucuxy’ esonù (“And the spirit came forth from the Adamantine earth; it descended and came to dwell within him, and that man became a living soul”)19. The “Adamantine earth” is the steely and therefore sky-blue earth, e.g. the heavenly earth, here con- nected by etymology to the name “Adam.” The doctrine of two kinds of earths can best be understood on the ba- sis of a more general concept: Since Scripture narrates two creation sto- ries, there must have been two different creations. These two different
18 See NHC II,4, especially p. 87,11-88,24, in LAYTON, Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7, p. 236-238. This particular passage gives the impression of being a shortened version of the corresponding passage in Ap. John. 19 Text and translation are, in principal, taken from LAYTON, Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7, p. 238-239. The concept of the two different earths might also be connected to the concept of an ethereal earth as a specific element of the heavenly area within the world of eons that is typical of the more philosophically oriented Sethian texts, such as the Three Steles of Seth (NHC VII,5), Allogenes (NHC XI,3), and Zostrianos (NHC VIII,1). SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 255 creations, therefore, might be rationalized as implying two different earths, where these two different creations originated. Since in Gen 2 man is molded from earth, it is presupposed that already in Gen 1:26f man is made from earth, but here from another kind of earth, an invisible one that brings forth souls. However, according to our text, Gen 1 speaks of the creation of the souls or spirits not only of humans, but also of the souls of animals (whereas Gen 2, of course, speaks of the creation of the bodies of both humans and animals). Half of this concept is not new at all, since it is in principle already known from Philo. However, the inser- tion also of animals into the Philonic concept of two creations of humans seems to be the decisive point of our text. Since in Gen 1 it is said that the land animals are brought forth from the earth, our author assumes that this is the same invisible earth out of which man’s soul is made, and therefore an earth which produces souls for animals as well as humans20. On one leaf (C-11), there seems to be a commentary on Gen 1:24-25 quoted on its recto, and on Gen 2:19 quoted on its verso. The verso (C- 11→) reads: [> auw apéoeis pnoute] [ “And the Lord God] [> pla]sse on [Nkesop ebol ùM pkaù] also formed [again from the earth] > Nneqyrion tyrou N[tswje nM] all the beasts of [the field and] all > Nùalate tyrou Ntp[e· aveIne M] the birds of the sky. [He brought] them > moou eratV Nadam [enau ée v] to Adam [to see] what [he] would call > naè rinou eouÛ auw [Nran enta] them. And [the names which] Adam > adam taau ecuxy [nim etonÙ] gave [every living] soul, that was their > paï pe peuranÛ ùM p[aï öe pe] name.” It was on [this (day),] they said, éau Ntavtamie Ns[wma Nalo] that he had created the [bodies as] gon NáwonÛ ùM p[aï ùencu] irrational beings; on the [other (day),] xy Mmate neÛ eau[jwpe nM] that it was only souls that [came into] neueryu [][being] altogether. []
Our author seems here to presuppose that not only the souls of the animals preexist, but with them also their names, that is to say, the giv- ing of names is identical with the giving of souls. This presupposition, as well as apparently his complete agreement with the view-point of those to whom he refers on C-11→, comes to expression on yet another page (F-10↑): [ n]eeIranÛ NtB [ (he gave them)] these names: The [nooue auw Nt]etrapodon [beasts and the] four-legged animals, [and] [auw N ] auw Néatve [the ] and the creeping things, [and the]
20 This may seem strange, but it could after all just be based on a rather literalistic use of the LXX, according to which the earth is invisible (Gen 1:2), and the created animals are indeed called “souls” (Gen 1:20.21.24). However, our author appears to have build his whole concept around this topic. 256 G. ROBINSON
[auw Nùalate· Nr]an de eujo [birds.] But [the] names have been there [op ùaqy Ntsunteli]a Nneusw [before the completion] of [all] their [ma tyrou · ] Ntetra [bodies. Namely] the four-legged animals, [podon de euNto]u vto Nou [since they have] four [legs] [eryte Mmau ] []
The fragment breaks off, but the text continues later on the same page: [apkaù] de snj . . [ ] But [the earth] fed(?) [ ] [ a]uw Néatve a[u]w N[ùa]late [ ] and the creeping things and the birds. [vmou]te eroou Nteïùe· marou [He names] them so. The souls, therefore, [moute ù]wwv enran Nnecuxo shall be [called] by (that) name. [oue· all]aÛ MpRtoutaouo n^N [However,] not recited shall be the
Thus it seems clear that the names of the animals as well as their souls existed already on the invisible earth of Genesis 1. The emphasis on an invisible earth prior to the visible earth may be an Urzeit/Endzeit motif, since on the verso of the same leaf (F-10→) there is suggested an eschatological return to that primal immaterial world. éNtaukaau maua[au ùM peeima] since they themselves have been put [in] Nqe ùN oujteko [ eau] [this place] as in a prison [] wtp eùoun Mpeïla[os ty] this entire people [being] imprisoned. rvÛ peéau gar ée mN[Nsa tsun] For they said that after [the] completion telia Mpjorp Nkos[mos ere] of the first world, there [shall] come kekosmos jwpe a[uw mN] about another world. [And] after Nsa kenoö Nouoeij [ere texri] another long time, there is [the necessity] a joop etre keko[smos jw] that another world will come about. pe etb[e ne]cux[ooue de ] [But] regarding the souls [ ]
In view of this quotation, life on earth as we know it is no better than imprisonment. It remains quite unclear whether this is only the view of some opponents or whether it is a view shared by our author. For the ref- erence to imprisonment could pose the question as to whether our text itself may be closer to Gnosticism, at least beneath its surface, than we had reason to assume thus far. This might also explain the irenic attitude toward views that are in fact rejected. Such a growing edge of research deserves further study, especially in relation to our author’s doctrine of the soul which has thus far seemed so complicated and hard to under- stand, given the fragmentary state of the codex.
* * *
In order to show the original handwriting of the codex, as well as the actual make-up of the five pages that have been presented above, a com- SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 257 puter printout of facsimiles of these pages will follow. In the facsimiles, the fragments are put together only electronically, taking advantage of technological advances in computer imaging21. This technology makes it possible to reassemble the fragments and figure out the lettering by us- ing digital imaging tools which have never before been applied to papyrological research22. The pages shown here will be a model for the edition that is planned in CSCO, where each computer-based facsimile will also have a transcription on its facing page.
Claremont Graduate University Gesine SCHENKE ROBINSON The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity 831 North Dartmouth Avenue Claremont, CA 91711-6178 U.S.A.
21 I am very grateful to the Aziz S. Atiya Fund for Coptic Studies at the University of Utah which awarded me a grant in 1997 to acquire the necessary computer equipment. 22 The computer imaging can avoid a repositioning of the fragile fragments, as well as an expensive reglassing and photographing of all the pages to produce traditional facsimi- les. With regard to the decipherment of the text, this technology is of enormous help, since not only the brightness of the different fragments and the contrast between papyrus and ink can be manipulated electronically, but the letters themselves can be incredibly magnified, so that the text is in some instances more readable than the original. 258 G. ROBINSON
D-1 ↑ (verso) SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 259
B-5 ↑ (recto) 260 G. ROBINSON
B-5 → (verso) SETHIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION 261
B-4 → (recto) 262 G. ROBINSON
B-4 ↑ (verso)