Apokatastasis in Coptic Gnostic Texts

Journal of Coptic Studies 14 (2012) 33–45 doi: 10.2143/JCS.14.0.2184686 APOKATASTASIS IN COPTIC GNOSTIC TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI AND CLEMENT’S AND ORIGEN’S APOKATASTASIS: TOWARD AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL RESTORATION BY ILARIA L.E. RAMELLI The present essay sets out to analyse the notion of apokatastasis or restoration/reintegration in Coptic Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi library such as the treatise On the Origin of the World, the Exegesis of the Soul, the Valentinian Treatise on the Resurrection, a didactic letter addressed to a pupil, the Apocryphon of John, and the Gospel of Philip. I shall draw a comparison with the notion of apokatastasis that is found in Philo of Alexandria (the restoration of the soul to virtue, spiritual health, and spiritual life) and with the Christian doctrine of apokatastasis as universal restoration of rational creatures to God that is attested in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Bardaisan of Edessa in a time that is close to that of our Coptic texts. Profound similarities will emerge between the Coptic Nag Hammadi texts and especially Philo and Clement (both close to Middle Platonism), but also remarkable differences, in particular between these Coptic Gnostic texts and Origen — and Clement, too, in various respects. Such an inves- tigation will help shed welcome and needed light on the complex history of the Christian doctrine of apokatastasis,1 and principally on its genesis. In the assessment of this question, philosophical (Stoic and Platonic) elements and Scriptural elements must be taken into account as well. When speaking of Gnosticism, one should always be aware of the variety of tendencies that underlie this umbrella-term.2 Now, the 1 On this doctrine and its development from the New Testament to John the Scot Eriugena a monograph is forthcoming, to which I refer readers. See also Ramelli, “Origen, Bardaisan, and the Origin of Universal Salvation”,135-168. 2 The often puzzling complexity of this category is underlined by King, What Is Gnosti- cism?, with my review in InvLuc 25 (2003), 331-334; Ramelli, “Gnosticismo”, 2364-2380; Plese, “Gnostic Literature”, 163-198, who objects to a total deconstruction of the Gnostic 995694_JOCS_14_2012_03_Ramelli.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_03_Ramelli.indd 3333 119/12/129/12/12 111:431:43 34 ILARIA L.E. RAMELLI understanding(s) of apokatastasis in “Gnosticisms” seem to substantially differ from Origen’s and his followers’ notion of apokatastasis. For the “Valentinians” — who never designated themselves with this heresiological term, but rather called themselves “Christians”, as Justin testifies in Dial. cum Tr. 35 —,3 the use of âpokatástasiv is attested, and this not only in Greek heresiological sources, but also (in transliteration) in the Coptic texts from Nag Hammadi, which represent an invaluable term of comparison and means of verification of the heresiologists’ lore. But, differently from what happens in Origen and Gregory Nyssen, and even in Bardaisan of Edessa and Clement of Alexandria beforehand,4 the concept of apokatastasis, such as it emerges in the Coptic Gnostic texts available to us, does not coincide with that of universal salvation. Indeed, the ülikoí, those belonging to the “material” nature, and a part of the cuxikoí were excluded from salvation, so that the latter cannot possibly be universal — as it is in Bardaisan’s, Origen’s, and Gregory’s view. category. Dundenberg, Beyond Gnosticism, builds upon Williams’ and King’s arguments and regards the term “Gnostic” as misleading in particular for Valentinianism, on which he focuses. He sees the school of Valentinus, like those of Basilides and Justin, as a philosophical school. Likewise, Tite, Valentinian Ethics and Paraenetic Discourse, denies the accuracy of umbrella-terms such as “Gnosticism” and even “Valentinianism”. On the other hand, Weiß, Frühes Christentum und Gnosis studies the reception of the New Testa- ment in “Gnosticism”, accepts this category, and regards Gnosticism as a religion of its own (510), consistent in itself, and opposed to Christianity as a different religion; it used the New Testament only in order to confirm its own, non-Christian, ideas (434, 456 and passim). An opposite view is held by Aland, Was ist Gnosis?, who thinks that Gnosticism (“Gnosis” in her terminology) is a Christian phenomenon, relatively unitary, and unthink- able outside Christianity. See also Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism, esp. 109-127, in which Gnosticism is described as a kind of inverted Judaism. Brakke, The Gnostics, besides providing a useful history of scholarship on “Gnosticism”, adopts a middle position between the rejection of this category altogether and its uncritical use; this category “must be either abandoned or reformed” (19), but Irenaeus used it taking the designation gnwstikoí from the Sethians, who, Brakke argues, first applied it to themselves. Edwards, Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church, 11-34, too, considers the term “Gnostic” not heresiological, but used by some Gnostics whom exponents of the Great Church deemed “falsely so called.” 3 Within Valentinianism itself, different trends can be noticed, as well as common features. See only Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus?; idem, “Valentinian Gnosticism”, 401-438; Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, who rightly remarks on the term “Valentinian” as heresiological (4); Dundenberg, “The School of Valentinus”, 64-99; idem, Beyond Gnosticism. On the distinction of a Western and an Eastern Valentinianism (Hippolytus Ref. 6,35; Tertullian Carn. 15) see Kaestli, “Valentinisme italien et valentinisme oriental”, 391-403; Dundenberg, Beyond Gnosticism, 1-31; now Kalvesmaki, “Italian versus Eastern Valentinianism?”, 79-89, and Ramelli, Bardaisan of Edessa, 62-70. In the last monograph it is also argued that Bardaisan himself was not a Valentinian or a “Gnostic”, but was closer to Middle Platonism and to Origen’s positions. 4 A detailed discussion of the doctrine of apokatastasis in Bardaisan, Clement, Origen, and Gregory Nyssen will be found in Ramelli, Apokatastasis. 995694_JOCS_14_2012_03_Ramelli.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_03_Ramelli.indd 3434 119/12/129/12/12 111:431:43 APOKATASTASIS IN COPTIC GNOSTIC TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 35 Apokatastasis in Valentinianism rather coincides with the restoration of the pneumatikoí, those belonging to the “spiritual” nature, to their original abode.5 The treatise On the Origin of the World (NHC II 5; XIII 2), perhaps stemming from Alexandria between the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century, in its final section shows very well that the “Gnostic” apokatastasis is the restoration of each category of humans to its own original nature, which is not the same for all human beings (or for all rational creatures, as Origen maintained precisely against the “Valentinians”): “Each one must return to the place from which it came. Indeed, everyone will make one’s own nature known through one’s actions and knowledge” (127,14-17). Another element that sharply differentiates the notion of apokatastasis that is found in the Coptic Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi and that which is found in Clement, Origen, and the latter’s followers, is that apokatastasis in our Coptic texts is the restoration of the soul, and does not include the resurrection of the body as well. This non-holistic concept of apokatastsis is shown very well in the Exegesis of the Soul (NHC II 6, 134,7-12), in which the resurrection from the dead is said to consist in the apokatastasis of the soul, which returns to its original abode, whereas the resurrection of the body is excluded: It is appropriate that the soul be regenerated and return to be as it was at the beginning […] restored to the place in which it had originally been. This is the resurrection from the dead. The resurrection of the body is ruled out precisely because the incarnation of the soul is considered to be a damage for the latter, whose restoration cannot but imply a separation from the body. This is evident from ibidem 137,5-10: “When the soul leaves her6 perfect bridegroom because of the seductive arts of Aphrodite, who exists here in the act of generation, then she will be damaged. But if she weans and repents, she will be restored to her home.” This notion of the apokatastasis of the soul is not too different from Philo’s concept of apokatastasis (which entails the restoration of the soul to virtue, knowledge, spiritual health, and life, as opposed to the death of the soul in which sin has become ingrained). In the exclusion 5 The very expression “saved by nature” (fúsei) is attested for Valentinianism by Clement, Exc. Theod. 56,3: tòn pneumatikòn fúsei swhÉmenon. Markschies, however, commenting on Strom. 2,20,115,1 doubts that Valentinus ever used the phrase “saved by nature” (Valentinus Gnosticus, 58; 81-82). 6 I usually employ the neuter for the soul, but here I use the feminine because of the imagery of the soul as a bride used in this passage. 995694_JOCS_14_2012_03_Ramelli.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_03_Ramelli.indd 3535 119/12/129/12/12 111:431:43 36 ILARIA L.E. RAMELLI of the body from apokatastasis the “Gnostics” agreed not only with Philo, but also with Plotinus, who famously thought that the resurrection is not of the body, but from the body. Interestingly, Plotinus seems to have written much of his Enneads in dialogue with the “Gnostics”.7 On the other hand, Origen, followed by Methodius, Gregory Nyssen, Maximus the Confessor, and other Fathers, entertained a holistic concep- tion of resurrection-restoration,

Load more