CHAPTER ONE

RETHINKING

As Hans-Martin Schenke’s theory of Sethian seems to reveal only part of a larger whole to which the Ophite evidence belongs as an organic component, I argue that without this Ophite evidence, Sethianism and its origins cannot be properly understood. The pur- pose of this chapter is to construct a new and wider category to replace Schenke’s Sethian one and thus to provide a framework and justifica- tion for the study of the Ophite evidence. In order to do this, and especially since the terms, Ophite and Sethian, have been used in sev- eral different and confusing ways in heresiological and scholarly litera- ture, it is necessary to go through four specific steps in this chapter. First, I will discuss the heresiological reports on the Ophites, since the previous research on Ophitism to date has drawn almost solely upon these reports. The main features in those accounts that con- tain reliable information about Ophite teaching (most heresiological reports merely reproduce earlier ones or add slanderous claims) will be used to provide a preliminary typological model for Ophite mythol- ogy. This model will then be elaborated in the course of the study. Second, heresiological reports and previous research on Sethians, as well as those documents that have been included in various construc- tions of Sethian Gnosticism, will be examined. Schenke’s theory and recent modifications to it will be discussed here, together with the shift in scholarly interest from Ophite to Sethian Gnosticism due to the Nag Hammadi findings. This brings us to the third step: I will argue that the Nag Hammadi codices contain texts that have features of the Ophite mythology, too, but that these texts are also intimately linked with Schenke’s Sethianism. This, in turn, brings us to the fourth and final step of this chapter, namely, the construction of a new category to replace Schenke’s Sethian one, by reorganizing and extending his corpus to also include the Ophite evidence. 10 chapter one

1.1 Ophites in Heresiological Literature and Previous Scholarship

The term, Ophite, is artificial and was secondarily applied to ’ description of a “Gnostic” myth in Adv. haer. 1.30, by later heresiolo- gists and copyists of Irenaeus’ work.1 , for his part, applied the term, Ophian, to a “Christian” diagram described by Celsus in True Doctrine (which survives only in Origen’s ). As will be seen, descriptions of this diagram—a drawing representing a map of the universe—shares many features with Irenaeus’ Adv. haer. 1.30, and Origen may well have identified the diagram as Ophian (i.e., Ophite) due to its similarity with Adv. haer. 1.30; the latter had already been identified as Ophite by Origen’s time.2 The other heresiological reports of the Ophites are mostly dependent on Irenaeus and do not seem to add any new reliable information. Thus, Irenaeus’ Adv. haer. 1.30 and Origen’s Cels. 6.24–38 are our main heresiological sources concerning the mythology that became known as Ophite. I will next discuss the content and nature of the heresiological reports about the Ophites, as well as the sources behind them, starting with Irenaeus’ account (Adv. haer. 1.30) as this is the most extensive report of the so-called Ophite teaching. The reader gets the impression that, in Adv. haer. 1.30, Irenaeus is summarizing a written source, not unlike Hyp. Arch., Orig. World or the second half of Ap. John (approximately II 10,1–30,11 parr.). This source has a clear but problematic relationship to Ap. John, which has led some scholars to suggest that Adv. haer. 1.30 should be included in the Sethian Gnostic corpus even though it lacks actual Sethian fea- tures.3 Adv. haer. 1.30 has also been included in attempts to account for the literary history of Ap. John.4 Irenaeus’ catalog of heresies cul- minates in two extensive chapters describing Gnostics par excellence

1 The text in Adv. haer. 1.30.1 simply has “others (alii),” but it refers to the begin- ning of the previous chapter, 1.29.1, which introduces the opinions of the “multitude of Gnostics (multitudo Gnosticorum).” The title “Ophite” (or the like) in the manu- scripts is a later addition to Irenaeus’ text. See Rousseau and Doutreleau 1979, 30ff., 157–164, 296–300. 2 It is not certain whether Origen knew Irenaeus’ Adv. haer., or Hippolytus’ Syn- tagma, but he was, in any case, aware of heresiological traditions concerning the “Ophites.” See Chapter 8.5. 3 Turner 2001, 61; Pearson 2007, 56–58. 4 Logan 1996; Turner 2001.