r. mcl. wilson (1959). some recent studies in gnosticism.pdf

New Testament Studieshttp://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

Some Recent Studies in Gnosticism

R. McL. Wilson

New Testament Studies / Volume 6 / Issue 01 / October 1959, pp 32 - 44DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500001302, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500001302

How to cite this article:R. McL. Wilson (1959). Some Recent Studies in Gnosticism. New Testament Studies, 6,pp 32-44 doi:10.1017/S0028688500001302

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 130.88.90.140 on 23 Mar 2015

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 23 Mar 2015 IP address: 130.88.90.140

New Test. Stud. 6, pp. 32-44.

R. McL. WILSON

SOME REGENT STUDIES INGNOSTICISM

The study of Gnosticism is about to enter upon a new phase. Of this we areconfidently assured by those who have had opportunity to examine thedocuments discovered some thirteen years ago at Nag Hammadi, and to saythe least the publication not of one or two only but of no less than forty-threehitherto unknown texts cannot but bring a considerable accession to ourknowledge.1 As yet only one has been made available in an edited form,2

although preliminary studies of some others have already appeared in print,3

and from these it is evident that if the new texts provide the answers to someof our problems they will also raise fresh problems for investigation. If wemay judge from the example of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is probable that thepublication of these documents will be followed by a steady flow of books andarticles for some years to come, and in these circumstances it may be thatsome useful purpose will now be served by a review of recent studies in thisfield, if only by indicating the current state of research and the literature atpresent available.

The problem of Gnosticism is complicated at the outset by questions ofdefinition :4 What exactly is Gnosticism? How far are Gnosis and Gnosticismthe same thing, and how far are they distinct? To these questions varying

1 For an account of these texts cf. The Jung Codex (ed. F. L. Cross, London, 1955) and the litera-ture referred to there, to which should be added the article 'Le quatrieme ficrit du Codex Jung'by H. C. Puech and G. Quispel in Vig. Chr. ix (1955), 658". The most detailed survey of the contentsof the Nag Hammadi library is that of Puech, in Coptic Studies in Honor of W. E. Crum (Boston, 1950),pp. 9iff. The circumstances and date of the discovery appear to be obscure: Puech in Crum Studies,p. 93, gives the date as 1946 (cf. Quispel, Gnosis als Weltreligion (Zurich, 1951), p. 2), but in TheJung Codex, p. 14 puts it c. 1945.

2 Evangelium Veritatis, ed. Malinine, Puech, Quispel (Zurich, 1956).3 See the literature cited in The Jung Codex, p. 130. The first volume of a photographic edition of

the texts now in the Coptic Museum in Cairo has been published by P. Labib: Coptic Gnostic Papyriin the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo (Cairo, 1956). One of these texts, the Gospel of Thomas, has beenfound to contain the sayings of the famous Oxyrhynchus collection (Puech, The Jung Codex, pp. 21 f.).A Latin translation of the passages corresponding to the Oxyrhynchus sayings is provided byG. Garitte, Le Musdon, LXX (1957), 59ff. Garitte also translated some 'parables of the kingdom'examined by Cerfaux in Musdon, LXX, 3O7ff. Quispel in Vig. Chr. xi (1957), i8gff. discusses thepossibility that these Agrapha may have been taken from a Jewish-Christian Gospel originallywritten in Aramaic. It should be noted that this document has nothing to do with the InfancyGospel printed in James, Apoc. JV.T. pp. 4gff. See also Puech in Rev. Hist. Rel. CLI (1957), 269^

An edition of the Gospel of Thomas was promised for 1958 (Quispel, p. 189 n., cf. Till, B.J.R.L. XL(1957), 252 n. 2; Till's article provides a comprehensive survey of Coptic literature, with abundantreferences). Not all the Nag Hammadi texts are Gnostic. Four are Hermetic, and Van Unnik inVig. Chr. x (1956), I4gff. has argued that another may be more or less orthodox.

4 For fuller discussion of some of these questions see Vig. Chr. ix (1955), 1936.; xi (1957), 93ff.,and references there.
http://journals.cambridge.org


SOME RECENT STUDIES IN GNOSTICISM 33

answers have been given, and it has been said with some justice that no twowriters use the terms in the same sense.1 On the one hand there are thosewho employ Gnosis as the more general term, and reserve Gnosticism for theChristian heresy in its various forms. Here there is scope for endless variationin determining the point at which Gnosis passes into Gnosticism. On theother hand there are some scholars for whom Gnosis and Gnosticism areidentical; but this group must be divided into those who employ the terms asa description of the Christian heresy of the second century only, and thosewho give them a wider application. It may be that the question is, asCullmann has observed,2 simply one of words, or in the phrase of W. D.Davies3 a matter of terminological inexactitude; but it would seem none theless to be a question of some importance, since without an agreed terminologythere is bound to be endless confusion.

From the point of view of history Gnosticism first appears as a heresywithin the Church,4 a heresy combated by such men as Irenaeus andHippolytus towards the end of the second century and at the beginning of thethird, and it was as a Christian heresy that it was regarded until the rise ofthe religionsgeschichtliche school, when such scholars as Reitzenstein and Boussetpointed to similar phenomena in other fields.5 Following to a large extentin their footsteps, Bultmann and his followers have argued that Gnosticism,so far from being a merely Christian heresy, is in fact pre-Christian, andmoreover was a significant factor in the early development of Christianityitself. Where Harnack in a famous phrase could speak of Gnosticism as ' theacute Hellenisation of Christianity', the tendency of more recent studies hasbeen to stress the oriental element, although scholars are not wanting whowould maintain a considerable influence upon the ideas of the Gnostic sectsfrom the side of Greek philosophy. Here again is a question still in debate:Is Gnosticism the result of an attempt to translate the theology of the Gospelinto the categories of Greek philosophy, and are the Gnostics therefore theearliest theologians of the Church? Or is it a resurgence of primitive orientalmythology? Again, is Gnosticism fundamentally pagan, or a perversion ofChristianity? Here however another question arises: How far can we speakof Gnosticism as a unity, under a single comprehensive definition? Hippolytusin particular endeavoured to show the affinity of Gnosticism with thephilosophy of ancient Greece, but he did so by attempting to prove that the

1 Schoeps, Urgemeinde, Judenchristentum, Gnosis (Tubingen, 1956), p. 30.2 Bultmannfestschrift, p. 37, quoted by Schoeps, loo. cit.3 H.T.R. XLVI (1953), p . 139 n. 77. Gf. Schlier, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den

Ignat\usbriefen (BeiheftezurJV.W. vm, Giessen, 1929), p. 32 n. 1: '"Gnosis" im religionsgeschicht-lichen, nicht dogmengeschichtlichen Sinn gebraucht, ein Unterscheid, der, wenn er im Augebehalten worden ware, C. Schmidt viel Polemik gegen Bousset erspart hatte'. The problem is byno means new.

4 Bultmann, Theol. N.T. (Tubingen, 1948), pp. 169f. Cf. Primitive Christianity (E. T. London,1956), p. 162.

5 Cf. Casey in The Background of the N.T. and its Eschatology (ed. Davies and Daube, Cambridge,956), PP. 52ff-


34 R- MCL. WILSON

theories of the several sects derived from the teachings of several differentschools of thought. And it may well be that this is the line that should befollowed, that the search for comprehensive definitions should for the presentgive place to a closer scrutiny of particular sects, in order to trace theirhistory and their mutual relationships.1 In point of fact there are differencesbetween the various sects which are no less evident than the similarities, andif Valentinus, for example, began as a Christian there are others who may bebetter described as pagans who adopted some elements of Christian teachinginto a fundamentally heathen system.2 If it may be objected that our resourcesfor this closer scrutiny have in the past been quite inadequate, the newmaterial promises to make such a study possible at least for one group andmoreover, as will appear, some recent researches have demonstrated howmuch can be done by a careful examination even of the limited evidencealready at our disposal.

For the sake of clarity and of precision it would seem advisable to beginwith the definitely Gnostic sects of the second century and take these as thestandard of definition. At a later period we have Manicheism and Mandeism,3

and later still the gnosticizing tendencies on the one hand in the Cabbala4

and on the other in the medieval Cathari and similar groups.5 These are tosome extent, however, separate fields of study, and ought surely to be classedapart. At an earlier period it is clear that Ignatius had to face opponents of aGnostic type,6 and indeed we can trace back Gnosticism of a kind related tothat of the second century into the New Testament period itself, in the heresyat Colossae for example, or that combated in the Johannine epistles. Earlierstill, there are at least suggestions of a form of Gnosticism in the heresy atCorinth.

Thus far there would probably be a fairly widespread agreement, but atthis point we reach a parting of the ways. On the one hand the school ofBultmann, as already indicated, maintains that Gnosticism is pre-Christian,and has in fact influenced the development of Christianity. On the otherhand R. P. Casey has sought to counter the vague 'general and generalizedimpression' that Gnosticism was somehow an important factor in thedevelopment of Christian doctrine in the New Testament period.7 A closerexamination of the opposing theories suggests that, at the risk perhaps ofadding to the confusion, a third possibility deserves consideration, for inpoint of fact both would appear to be right up to a point, and on each side

1 Cf. Van Unnik in The Jung Codex, pp. 84 f., and references there to de Zwaan and Kretschmar.2 Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 97ff., esp. p. 101.3 See Puech, Le Manichtisme: sonfondateur, sa doctrine (Paris, 1949), and for the Mandeans Dodd,

op. cit. pp. 1158".4 Cf. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (3rd ed. New York, 1954).6 Cf. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (Cambridge, 1947); Obolensky, The Bogomils (Cam-

bridge, 1948).6 For Ignatius, cf. Schlier, op. cit., and Molland. J.E.H. v (1954), 1 ff.' Op. cit. pp. 55 ff.



concessions are made which seem to play into the hands of the opposition.Bultmann, for example, observes that in so far as Christian preaching remainedtrue to its Jewish and Old Testament roots definitive differences between itand Gnosticism are at once apparent.1 Jonas likewise finds himself con-strained to note a number of important points of distinction.2 And Schmithals,in the course of a study of Paul's Corinthian letters from the point of view ofthe Bultmann school, admits on more than one occasion that despite his useof Gnostic terminology Paul betrays little exact knowledge of the ' Gnosticmyth' ;3 indeed, on Schmithals's showing Paul was not even aware that hehad to deal with Gnostics. On the other hand Casey's use of the phrase 'theChristian gnosis', as a description of the knowledge of God which is pre-supposed in and fundamental to the teaching of the New Testament, wouldappear to lend some weight to the views of those who would regard Christianityitself as only one variety of a much more widespread phenomenon. Noragain does he seem to have taken sufficient account of the heresies at Corinthand Colossae, or those combated in the First Epistle of John and referred toin the Revelation; for in these we do seem to have the precursors, to say nomore, of the definitely Gnostic sects of the second century. The third possi-bility would accordingly be to draw the line of demarcation on this sidesomewhere in the middle of the first century A.D., recognizing the affinitieswith ' Gnosticism proper' which exist for example in the writings of Philo,but reserving the designation 'Gnostic' for those phenomena which areclearly and indisputably of the same type as those of the second-centurysects.4

1 Theol. N.T. pp. i67ff.2 Gnosis und spatantiker Ceist (Gottingen: vol. 1, 1934, 1954; vol. 11, 1, 1954). Cf. Grant's review in

J.T.S. n.s. VII (1956), 308ff.3 Die Gnosis in Korinth (Gottingen, 1956), p. 73: 'Paulus, der trotz seiner zahlreichen gnostischen

Termini hier ebensowenig wie anderswo eine direkte Kenntnis des gnostischen Mythos verrat.'Cf. ibid. p. 124: 'An solchen kleinen und gewiB unbewuBten Anderungen der uberkommenenTerminologie zeigt sich die ganz andere Orientierung der paulinischen Theologie.' See also pp.52 n. 1, 121, 161 n. 2, 176. Schmithals begins with the presupposition that Paul's opponents inCorinth were Gnostics, which is true in a sense, but it is surely legitimate to ask if he does notapproach from the wrong end, and read the material through the spectacles of second-centuryGnosticism. The difficulty is that we have to reconstruct this heresy from what Paul says in reply.Since clear evidence for the existence of a full-scale Gnosticism at an earlier period is still lacking,it would seem more accurate to think of the Corinthian heresy as at most an incipient Gnosticism.There would seem to be more in favour of the view that Paul's use of terms which were later to becomethe catchwords of the Gnostics accounts at least in part for his temporary eclipse in the post-apostolicperiod (cf. Bauer, Rechtgldubigkeit und Ketzerei (Tubingen, 1934), pp. 88f. et at.).

4 This is not of course to exclude the possibility of a pre-Christian Gnosticism, but to restrict theuse of the term to those cases which are clearly Gnostic in the second-century sense. We must asknot how a passage could be read, but how it was meant to be read by the author when he wrote it.Again, what exactly is the relationship between Gnosticism and Hellenistic syncretism in general?Or between Gnosticism and the philosophy of the second century A.D.? For Jonas (op. cit. i. 77ff.)Gnosis is something new, which is 'nicht selber der Synkretismus noch in irgendeinem Sinne seinProdukt', but as Grant observes (op. cit. p. 313) his investigation 'neglects the extent to whichelements regarded by Jonas as mythical can actually be explained as philosophical'. Quispel hasargued that, in so far as Gnosticism is pre-Christian, it goes back to Jewish speculation (The JungCodex, pp. 62 ff., Eranos Jahrbuch, xxn (Zurich, 1954), igsfT.), although this was not the only elementor the only source (see next note).

3-2


36 R. MCL. WILSON

One difficulty here is that of rinding a description for those elements whichappear in Paul or John or Philo, and also in the Gnosticism of the secondcentury. The obvious course is to call them 'Gnostic', but this has thedisadvantage of suggesting that they were already Gnostic in the full sensewhen they were employed by Paul or John or Philo; which may comedangerously near to begging the question. It is beyond question that manyideas and concepts which later found their place in the developed Gnosticsystems were already current in the religions and philosophies of their originprior to the Christian era, but when were they first brought together into acoherent system of the Gnostic type? What was the impulse that promptedmen thus to bring them together? It is one thing to trace back a particularidea to its presumptive source in Egypt, Babylon or Persia, or in Greekphilosophy; but how did it find its way into the Gnostic system? Why was itthus combined with elements from other sources? Babylonian astrology,Greek philosophy, various primitive mythologies of the Middle East in ahellenized form, Judaismpossibly of a heterodox type, all have made somecontribution, but no single one of them can be claimed as the sole source andorigin of the Gnostic movement.1 Where did it begin, and when? And howdid it develop? These are the questions which require to be examined, andexamined not merely from the point of view of similarities but with dueattention to the differences which are also present. And here a furtherquestion has possibly not yet been sufficiently considered: At what periodand under what circumstances is the peculiarly Gnostic attitude towardsthis world most likely to have developed? Not, surely, in the reign of Augustus;rather in a time of stress and anxiety, when men were a prey to namelessfears and sought assurancesuch a period, in fact, as the last years of theRepublic or under the later Caesars of the Julian house. It has been saidthat the tide was turning from scepticism to faith by the first century B.C.,2

and the end of the Republic may be too early; but if the hopes raised by thetriumph of Augustus were rudely dashed under a Caligula, a Claudius, aNero, may this not have contributed to a despair of the things of this life?A study of the social history of these centuries from this point of view mightprove rewarding.

It is, however, fully time to return to the literature on the subject andconsider not what needs to be but what has been done. Here one major workof a general character calls for attention. The work of Hans Jonas, alreadyreferred to, is all too little known in the English-speaking world, although it

1 Jonas, op. at. 1. 77; cf. Quispel, Gnosis als Weltreligion, pp. gf., Ned. Theol. Tijdschrift, xi, 178(where a timely warning is entered against regarding Jewish heterodoxy as the sole source ofGnosticism). On pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism see also Goppelt, Christentwn und Judentum(Giitersloh, 1954), pp. i25ff., but cf. Schoeps, Urgemeinde, pp. 33ff. It would probably be better toregard this strand in Judaism as pre- or proto-Gnostic (Quispel, Grant). Jonas's neglect of theJewish contribution was noted long ago by Nock {Gnomon, XII (1936), 6o5ff.).

2 Cf. Nock in Essays on the Trinity and Incarnation (ed. A. E. J. Rawlinson, London, 1928), p. 68.



has been widely influential in Germany. The first volume appeared in 1934and it was expected then that the second would follow within a year; but itwas not to be. Returning to Germany after the Second World War, afteryears of exile, the author found the publishers still eager to proceed, and thefirst volume was accordingly reprinted, with a new preface, in 1954. Part ofthe second volume appeared at the same time, but here there was a change ofplan: much work remained to be done on Plotinus, but the discussion ofOrigen was complete, and moreover was sufficient to make something of abook in itself; this section was accordingly published as a separate halfvolume. For a final estimate of the book we must therefore await the finalsection of the second volume, with the indexes promised for the whole work,but in the meantime the purpose of an index is served by the full tables ofcontents to each volume.

The book has been somewhat severely handled by R. M. Grant,1 but isnot for that reason to be lightly dismissed. A book of which Bultmann cansay, as he does in a foreword,2 that he has learned more from it than from anyother, is not simply to be neglected. On the other hand, if Bultmann is rightin saying that Jonas has modified a difficult style, the reader is sometimestempted to wonder what the earlier style was like. It is not easy to read,which is the more unfortunate in that Jonas does have something to say.

To put the matter briefly, the two volumes so far published seem to havetwo fundamental flaws. In the first place, Jonas attempts to interpretGnosticism in terms of Heidegger's existentialism, which for many will involvea case of obscurum per obscurius; and secondly he takes as his standard ofGnosticism the doctrines of the Mandeans. The latter group may be a finaldevelopment of Gnostic theory, but it is surely erroneous to make theirtheories the norm, and seek to read them back into earlier thought. The factthat an idea occurs in Mandean texts does not make it Gnostic if it occurs inPaul; we must ask if Paul used it in the Gnostic manner, and in point of fact itmay well be that the Mandeans borrowed from Christianity. Gnosticism surelygrew, and in growing absorbed into itself much that had been originally any-thing but Gnostic.3 Jonas indeed draws attention to differences which mark offGnosticism from syncretism, from Christianity, from Greek philosophy, butdoes not appear to give to these differences sufficient weight in the develop-ment of his argument. Moreover, many will find it difficult to concur in theinclusion of Origen and Plotinus in the Gnostic category, to name no others.In this connexion it should be added that, despite Jonas and Bultmann, the

1 J.T.S. n.s. vn (1956), 3o8ff. Cf. also the reviews by Nock in Gnomon, xn (1936), 6c>5ff., xxvm(1956), I24ff.; Van Moorsel in Vig. Chr. x (1956), 239 ff.

2 'Mochte ich sagen, daB ich, der ich seit Jahren einen groBen Teil meiner Arbeit dem Studiumder Gnosis gewidmet habe, aus keiner der bisherigen Untersuchungen iiber dieses Gebiet . . . so vielfur eine wirkliche Erkenntnis des geistesgeschichtlichen Phanomens der Gnosis gelernt habe, wieaus dieser.'

3 Cf. Bultmann in J. T.S. n.s. m (1952), 22, where it is suggested that themes are already germinantin later Hellenistic philosophy and in Philo which reach their full expression in Gnosis.


38 R. MCL. WILSON

present trend appears to be towards excluding the Mandeans from thediscussion of Gnostic origins.1

It has been said above that some recent researches have shown how muchcan be done by careful use of the evidence already at our disposal. The firstexample is a series of articles first published some thirty years ago, butmentioned here because they have recently been republished together, andalso because they do not seem as yet to have attracted the attention theydeserve. In his study of the Simonian system,2 Mgr L. Cerfaux has gatheredup and sifted all the material in patristic sources, in an attempt to reconstructthe account in Justin's lost Syntagma and to trace something of the develop-ment of the system. He finds in the later versions traces of Valentinian andBasilidian influence, and alsoperhaps more important for present purposesnotes a point of significant change in the development of Simonian theory:in its origin, Simon's system was ' une gnose a base de mythes pa'iens et demagie', but at this point of transition 'les themes gnostiques apparurent'.3

Inevitably not all his conclusions will be acceptable, but Cerfaux has at anyrate shown that the pessimism of some writers in regard to such a study iswithout foundation. Also devoted to the Simonian system is an article byErnst Haenchen,4 who endeavours to demonstrate that Simon was a Gnosticeven before he came into contact with Christianity, and thereby to strengthenthe case for the existence of a pre-Christian Gnosticism. On a smaller scalethan the work of Cerfaux, this article is in its own way admirable, but forone reader at least the evidence is defective at the crucial point5althoughhere consideration must also be given to Haenchen's views on the compositionof Acts, as expressed in his commentary.6

Other studies of particular systems include two papers by G. Quispel,one on the doctrine of Basilides and the other on that of Valentinus.7 Quispelhas also attempted to reconstruct the original doctrine of Valentinus, andhas edited the Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora.8 In addition he has been pro-minent in the preparation of preliminary studies of the Nag Hammadi texts,and it was through his initiative that the Jung Codex was acquired for theJung Institute in Zurich. At this point it may also be appropriate to referto the one book on this subject so far published in English: a volume editedby F. L. Cross and containing papers by Quispel, H. C. Puech and W. C. vanUnnik.9 Quispel has strongly urged the connexion between Gnosticism and a

1 Cf. Schmithals, op. cit. p. 87 n. 1, Goppelt, op. cit. p. 35.8 Recueil Cerfaux (Gembloux, 1954), 1, ig4ff. ( = R.S.R. xv (1925), 48gff., xvi (1926), 5 $ , 265^ ,

481 ff., XXVII (1937), 6158".). See also his study 'La gnose, essai theologique manqu6', ibid. pp. 263 ff.{ = Irinikon, xvn (1940), 3ft).

3 Recueil Cerfaux, 1, 256. * Z-Th.K. XLIX (1952), 316 ff.5 Cf. Vig. Chr. xi (1957), i07ff. 6 Die Apostelgeschichte (Gottingen, 1956).7 'L'homme gnostique: doctrine de Basilide', Eranos Jahrbuch, xvi (1948), 89ff.: 'La conception

de rhomme dans la gnose valentinienne', ibid, xv (1947), 249 ff.8 'The Original Doctrine of Valentine', Vig. Chr. 1 (1947), 43 ff. Ptolemy to Flora, in the series

Sources chrttiennes (Paris, 1949). The Jung Codex (London, 1955). See N.T.S. 1 (1955), 39ff-



Judaism of a more or less heterodox kind, particularly in his study Dergnostische Anthropos and die judische Tradition,1 but it should be added that thetendency now would appear to be to exclude the Dead Sea Scrolls from the'Gnostic' sphere.2 This does not, however, invalidate Quispel's position,since the sect of the Scrolls is by no means the only form of Jewish heterodoxy;moreover, if the sect itself is not Gnostic, it may well stand near to the originsof the Gnostic movement.

Among studies of particular systems reference must be made finally to theexhaustive study by F. M. M. Sagnard of Valentinianism.3 Here all theevidence is carefully brought together and meticulously examined. Theconclusions reached by Foerster in his volume Von Valentin zu Heracleon* arelargely confirmed by this more extensive and detailed study, and moreparticularly the essential reliability of Irenaeus is abundantly vindicated.Written before the Nag Hammadi texts became even partly available forstudy, this book must remain a standard work for the evidence on Valen-tinianism provided by the Greek Fathers. Little need be said of it here, inthat there is little to criticize; it is essential reading for any who would masterthe subject. Reference should also be made to Houssiau's study of theChristology of Irenaeus,5 not only for its contribution to the understandingof the thought of Irenaeus himself but also for its discussion of the Christologyof the Ptolemaeans whom he sought to refute. Finally, the essentially Biblicalcharacter of Irenaeus' refutation is well brought out in an article by R. A.Markus.6

1 Eranosjahrbuch, XKII (1953), 195 ff. See also The Jung Codex, pp. 6iff. On Quispel's earlier bookGnosis als Weltreligion Turner observes that Quispel can even reverse Harnack's famous judgement.' The leading Gnostics do not so much hellenize Christianity as themselves hellenize and christianizethe dominant Oriental mysticism of their respective systems' (The Pattern 0/Christian Truth (London,1954), p. 115). Turner's own work treats of Gnosticism in the context of a comprehensive survey ofthe relations between orthodoxy and heresy in the early centuries.

2 Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (London, 1956), pp. 252 ff. See also Notscher, Zur theologischenTenninologie der Qumran-Texte (Bonn, 1956). Bultmann says (Theol. N.T. pp. 361 n. 1): 'Konnte einvorchristliches gnostisierenden Judentum bisher nur aus spateren Quellen erschlossen werden, sowird es jetzt durch die neugefundenen Handschriften in Palastina bezeugt' But what does'gnostisierend' mean in this context? Schmithals {op. cit. pp. 99 f.) admits that we have no directevidence for the presence of a Jewish Gnosis in which Messiah and Son of Man are identified in thepre-Christian period: original documents 'sind den vereinten Anstrengungen der judischen undchristlichen Ketzerbekampfer zum Opfer gefallen'. On such a basis one could prove almost anything.But he continues: ' Auch die neuen Funde vom Toten Meer. . . gehoren keiner judischen Gnosis,sondern einem gnostisierenden Judentum an.' If this implies that the Scrolls are not yet Gnostic,although they show certain affinities with Gnosticism, there might be fairly general agreement;but is this what Bultmann meant?

On Schubert's attempt to find Gnosticism in the Manual of Discipline (T.L.Z- LXXVHI (1953),495ff.) see Vig. Chr. xi (1957), ggff. For a possible line of connexion, see Z.R.G.G. ix (1957), 21 ff.(cf. Quispel, Gnosis, pp. 7f.). Braun (Spdtjiidisch-hdretischer u. friichristlicher Radkikalismus (Tubingen,1957)) claims the presence of'Gnostic' terminology in the Scrolls (1, 23 n. 3, cf. pp. 19 n. 2, 20 n. 4,21 n. i), but notes that in the Damascus document the'gnostisch-dualistischLinie... tritt spiirbarzuriick' (pp. 93f.).

3 La gnose valentinenne et le timoignage de saint Irenie (Paris, 1947). Sagnard has also edited theExcerpta ex Theodoto in the Sources chrttiennes series (Paris, 1948).

Beihefie zur Z-N.W. vn (Giessen, 1928).6 La christologie de saint Irtnie (Gembloux, 1955). 6 Vig. Chr. vm (1954), 1938".


40 R. MCL. WILSON

Reference has already been made to the publication of one of the textsfrom Nag Hammadi, a treatise which has been identified with some con-fidence as the Gospel of Truth referred to by Irenaeus.1 If this identificationis correct, the document is not, as might be expected, a Gospel in the acceptedsense of the word, but rather a meditation or homily. It is perhaps as yettoo early to look for studies of this document, although some have alreadyappeared. One fundamental contribution is that of W. C. van Unnik,2

who has examined the New Testament allusions and after careful examina-tion draws two main conclusions: that this is probably the work of Valentinushimself, at an early period in his career and before the development of thepeculiarly Gnostic theories; and that at this time, c. A.D. 140-5, there wasalready in existence in Rome a body of documents, recognized as authorita-tive, which was substantially the same as our New Testament. It may beopen to question how far this evidence is really significant for the history ofthe canon, but what is undoubtedly important is that this document is somuch nearer to Christianity than other forms of Gnosticism, even than theValentinianism represented by the account in Irenaeus. If Van Unnik's firstconclusion is not correct (and certainly it is very attractive),3 this documentmust represent a later attempt to christianize Valentinianismand thismight be even more difficult to reconcile with what we know of the historyof the school.

The published edition is a truly sumptuous volume, and no pains havebeen spared to make it worthy of the significance which the editors ascribeto the document. Unfortunately this has involved a commensurate cost,and more unfortunately still the four pages missing from the printed texthave now been found in the collection of documents awaiting publicationin the Coptic Museum in Cairo.4 And finally the English reader must besorely disappointed by the English version provided. The French, by Puech,is admirable; the German, by Quispel, is so far as the reviewer can determinelikewise all that could be desired; but the English appears to have been madenot from the Coptic but from the French, and not by a student of Gnosticismat that. Such phrases as 'the Gnose' for 'Gnosis' or 'Knowledge', and'the Verb' for 'the Logos' or 'the Word', speak for themselves. Moreover,the attempt to match the English line for line with the Coptic, while laudablein some respects, has sometimes had unfortunate results, for example in thevery first lines. This is the more unfortunate in that it was so unnecessary:any one of the three modern languages would have been enough (cf. TilPs

1 See p. 3211. 2, above, and reviews by Leipoldt in T.L.Z- LXXXII (1957), 425 ff., and Barrettin Exp. Times, LXIX (1958), i67ff. Also the notes by Till, Orientalia, xxvn (1958), 2698".

2 The Jung Codex, pp. 8iff.3 Cf. Barrett (op. cit. p. 169): 'While I should wish to share Dr van Unnik's caution and to regard

his hypothesis as tentative, I am bound to add that, within these limits, it appears to me convincing.'The editors of the published edition are (very properly) rather more reserved.

4 See Puech in R.H.R. CLI (1957), 269.



edition of the Berlin Codex, on which see below), and if all three had to beincluded there are many scholars who would have been glad to have colla-borated in a revision.

Apart from the English translation (and the price!) the edition is all thatcould be desired: a brief introduction, with a judicious reservation of judge-ment by the editors and ample references to the studies so far published, acomplete collection of excellent photographs, a transcription of the Coptic,and a set of notes which is professedly incomplete but no less useful on thataccount. Where so much is given it may seem ungracious to complain, butwas it really necessary to be so lavish in an admittedly provisional edition?And are all the other texts to be published on the same scale? The poor scholar,Chaucer's ' clerk of Oxenford', is by no means a figure only of the past!

A better example for emulation, although by no means inexpensive, isprovided by W. C. TilPs admirable edition of the Berlin Codex 8502.1 Thiscodex has long been known, and one of the documents it contains wasidentified some fifty years ago as the source employed by Irenaeus in hisaccount of the Barbelognostics,2 but through various misfortunes it was onlyin 1955 that the full text was at last made available. The documents are theGospel according to Mary, of which a Greek fragment is extant, the ApocryphonJohannis, of which three copies are included among the Nag Hammadi texts,and the Sophia Jesu Christi, which will offer problems for investigation whenthe Cairo texts are published.3 In one sense the delay of some sixty years inthe publication of this manuscript has been of advantage, since the editorwas able to make use of the parallel Nag Hammadi texts; but two of theversions of the Apocryphon are reported to differ considerably from the Berlintext, and were therefore not taken into account.

Some studies of these texts have aready appeared: an article on theUrmensch-Adam speculation by K. Rudolph makes use of the Apocryphon,*while the use of Genesis in this document has been examined in a Danishstudy.5 A study of the New Testament allusions in the Gospel according toMary has also appeared in print.6 Till's edition is in itself everything that

1 Die gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 (T.U. 60, Berlin, 1955). Cf. K. H .Kuhn in J.T.S. n.s. vin (1957), i62ff.

2 Schmidt in Philotesia. Paul Kleinert.. .dargebracht (Berlin, 1907), pp. 3158!".3 Cf. Doresse in Vig. Chr. 11 (1948), I37ff., but see also Till, op. tit. p. 54.4 'Ein Grundtyp gnostischer Urmensch-Adam Spekulation', ^.R.G.G. ix (1957), iff. For a

summary of the Apocryphon see Till in J.E.H. ill (1952), 14E6 Soren Giversen: 'Johannes' Apokryfon og Genesis', Dansk Teol. Tidskrift, xx (1957), 658". My

thanks are due to Dr Till for the loan of an off-print, and to the Rev. G. W. Anderson for its inter-pretation. 1

6 N.T.S. m (1957), 236ff. Quispel subsequently drew attention to an oversight: an allusion to the'Gospel according to the Hebrews' in Ev. Mariae, 10. I5f. (Till, op. cit. pp. 68f.). See Vig. Chr. xi(1957), 139 ff. QuispeFs suggestion of an influence from the Gospel of the Hebrews on the early textualtradition of the Gospels, while in some ways attractive, must be treated with reserve. The Neutesta-mentler will recall Von Soden's theory of the 'widespread and deleterious' influence of the Diates-saron. For one thing, our knowledge of the Gospel of the Hebrews would appear as yet too slight tojustify any far-reaching conclusions. In Vig. Chr. xi, i8gff. Quispel has attempted to link the


42 R. MCL. WILSON

could be desired: a careful introduction, with studies of the language and thecontent of the texts, a transcription of the Coptic and a German translation,complete with critical apparatus showing the variant readings of the paralleltexts, and a series of extended notes to deal with special points of interpreta-tion. This is, however, an edition of the texts, and does not attempt to trace indetail the relation of these texts to our other evidence. Here much stillremains to be done. At this point reference should also be made to an articleby Till in La Parola del Passato,1 in which the seven original Gnostic docu-ments, all in Coptic, which were known before the discovery of the NagHammadi texts are examined, and placed in their chronological sequence.

It has already been indicated that the relationship between Gnosticismand the New Testament is still a subject of some debate. The question iscomplicated by the fact that no full-scale study of the New Testamentappears to have been undertaken from this point of view, with the object ofdetermining how far Gnosticism is actually present in the New Testamentitself or in the heresies opposed by New Testament writers.2 The tendencyhas been rather to begin with certain general assumptions, and accordinglyto describe certain concepts and ideas as 'Gnostic'. There is thus a con-siderable amount of material buried in numerous commentaries which wouldrequire to be sifted and examined. Of fundamental importance here, ofcourse, are Bultmann's Theology and his Urchristentum, both now availablein English as well as in German,3 although not all would accept all his con-clusions. For the Fourth Gospel the basic works are on the one side Bultmann'scommentary, and on the other Dodd's Interpretation, but other studies suchas Barrett's commentary would also require to be taken into account;4

Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi with the Hebrderevangelium, but here again the same holdsgood. Moreover, the Gospel of the Hebrews, from what we know of it, would appear to have been amore or less complete Gospel. The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings, and might be morenaturally linked with the hypothetical Q_.

1 'Die Gnosis in Agypten', La Parola del Passato, iv (1949), 230ff.2 The writer has begun to collect material in preparation for a study to remedy this deficiency.

The use of the N.T. by the Gnostics is another question altogether (see C. Barth, T.U. 37. 3, VanUnnik in The Jung Codex, pp. 81 ff., and the study of the Gospel of Mary referred to above).

3 Bultmann, Theol. N.T. (Tubingen, 1948-53); (E.T. London), vol. 1 (1952), vol. 11 (1955).Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken Religionen (Zurich, 1949); E.T. Primitive Christianity in itsContemporary Setting (London, 1956).

* Bultmann, Johannesevangelium (13th ed. Gottingen, 1953); Dodd, The Interpretation of the FourthGospel (Cambridge, 1953); Barrett, The Gospel According to St John (London, 1955). Cf. also Bultmannin N.T.S. 1 (1954), 77ff; Grossouw in Novum Testamentum, 1 (1956), 358?., and in Vig. Chr. x (1956),236ff.; and Quispel in Ned. Theol. Tijdschrift, xi, I73ff. Reference should also be made to studies onthe relation between the Fourth Gospel and the Dead Sea Scrolls, such as those of Braun, Rev.Biblique, LXII (1955), 5ffi, and Albright, in The Background of the N.T. and its Eschatology, pp. I53ff.On Becker's study Die Reden des Johannesevangeliums und der Stil der gnostischen Offenbarungsrede(Gottingen, 1956), see Barrett's review in T.L.Z- LXXXII (1957), 91 if. Barrett considers it 'moreprobable that the gospel represents the expansion of the primitive Christian message into a (partially)gnostic environment, than the Christianizing of originally gnostic material'. Similarly Quispelargues (loc. cit.) that the Fourth Gospel is not Gnostic, and that the Valentinian use of it representsa transposition of Johannine ideas into a Gnostic key. In a recent study (Jesus and His Coming(London, 1957)), J. A. T. Robinson has argued for the view that the Fourth Gospel in fact representsa tradition independent of, and in some respects more original than, that of the Synoptics.



indeed the problem is to know where and how to begin. Again, for Paulthere is Schmithals's study of the Corinthian correspondence,1 which forthose who uphold the positions of the Bultmann school will probably re-present the last word on the subject, but to others may seem to depend toolargely upon conjecture insufficiently grounded, or at times upon the choiceof a single interpretation where others are no less possible, if not indeed moreprobable. One feature of this book is an extensive excursus devoted to themyth of the Gnostic Redeemer, a theme which constantly recurs in thetheories of this school but which has not apparently been fully set out before.2

This myth, as Schmithals says, is the product of the combination of twobasically disparate myths, that of a Primal Man and that of a HeavenlyRedeemer. That each of these myths separately can be traced far back inthe history of religion may be admitted, but it is not so clear that Schmithalshas succeeded in showing that they had been combined in a single myth ofthe redeemed Redeemer prior to the Christian era. He points to the associa-tion of Messiah and Son of Man in later Judaism, but this in itself is stillsomething of a debated question,3 and one must beg leave to doubt if hisevidence will bear the weight that is put upon it. Moreover, in view of hisadmission that by the end of the first century A.D. the myth was no longeranywhere represented in its 'pure' form,4 it is legitimate to ask if this 'pure'form ever in fact existed except as a scholar's reconstruction.

1 Die Gnosis in Korinth (Gottingen, 1956).2 Op. cit. pp. 82-134. To single out but one point for criticism, Schmithals takes the formula

fr/cb A\a XpioToO to be the watchword of the Corinthian Gnostics, understanding the genitive aspartitive and so reaching the conclusion that these Gnostics claimed to be Lichtfunken or Pneumafunken,portions of the divine Christ. The four genitives of I Cor. i. 12, in his view, represent not four partiesbut two: Apostelleute and Christusleute ( = Gnostics). If it be objected that it is difficult to take thegenitive in different senses in the same context, thrice as 'belonging to' and once as 'a portion of,Schmithals has his answer (p. 170): Paul, with the vast majority of his readers ever since, took thefourth genitive wrongly. This is most ingenious, but it would seem that Schmithals is reading backthe situation of the second century into the first. There appears to be no real proof of the idea ofsouls as parts of a cosmic ounce XpioroO prior to Paul's development of the doctrine of the Body ofChrist, although such an idea could be read into Paul's metaphor later by any who chose to takewords out of context. Schmithals notes (p. 161 n. 2) how firmly Paul holds on to his own theology,and 'wie wenig er sich trotz seiner erstaunlich weitgehenden Obernahme hellenistisch-gnostischerVorstellungen und Begriffe der eigentlichen Gnosis genahert hat oder sie auch nur versteht. Nur ausdiesem Grand kann er auch derartig unbefangen in der Verwendung der gnostischen Terminologiesein, wie das faktisch der Fall ist.' If Schmithals is correct, Paul was guilty of a highly reprehensiblefailure to ascertain the facts of the situation, but there is another and a simpler solution: that Paul'swords were seized upon later by Gnostic leaders who wrested them from their context, choosing justthose elements which suited their own theories and thereby, as Irenaeus complained of the Valen-tinians, distorting the sense.

For criticism of the Urmensch-Redeemer myth theory, cf. W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah (London,'943)1 pp. I74ff., and Quispel in The Jung Codex, pp. 76ff. Cf. also Duchesne-Guillemin in Anthro-pologie Religieuse (ed C. J. Bleeker, Leiden, 1955), pp. iosf. Schlier'sstudy, 'Der Mensch im Gnosti-zismus', in the latter volume concentrates on the Naassene doctrine (op. cit. pp. 60 ff.).

3 Cf. most recently Mowinckel, He that Cometh (trans. G. W. Anderson, Oxford, 1956): alsoDuchesne-Guillemin, loe. cit.

4 Op. cit. p. 111:' So bin ich dertJberzeugung, daB als Folge der friih beginnenden Auseinander-setzung zwischen gnostischem und "orthodoxem" Christentum schon vor der Wende zum 2.Jahrhundert der reine Mythos von Christus als erlostem Erloser nirgendwo mehr vertreten wurdeund die entsprechende Terminologie nur unverstanden oder modifiziert tradiert worden ist.'


44 R- MCL. WILSON

Three other studies may be briefly mentioned. In his volume Gnosis,1

J. Dupont has examined in exhaustive detail the references to yvcocns and thecognate terms in the Pauline letters, and seems to have demonstrated formost of them the thoroughly Jewish, and often indeed Old Testament, back-ground of Paul's use of these words. L. Goppelt in his study of the relationsbetween Christianity and Judaism in the early centuries adopts Jonas'sdefinition of Gnosticism, but is on the whole more conservative in his appli-cation of the term.2 Finally, in a contribution to the Dodd Festschrift markedby an astonishing array of references, E. Schweizer has minutely examinedthe concept of TR/EOUCC.3

In the words of Hebrews, 'What shall I more say? For time would failme'nothing has been said of the Ebionites, whom H. J. Schoeps4 wouldregard not as Gnostics but as an anti-gnostic group, or of the Hermetica,now available in a new edition prepared by A. D. Nock and A. J. Festugiere.5

It must suffice to mention the four large volumes of the study of Hermeticdoctrine by Festugiere,6 and the slighter but still useful study by VanMoorsel,7 the latter marked at times by a curious, although often enter-taining, use of the English language. Here once more we touch uponproblems of definition: are the Hermetica Gnostic, as many hold, or onlysemi-Gnostic, as Van Moorsel suggests?

That there are gaps in this survey is certain, and inevitable; but it shouldbe apparent that we have here a field of study in which much is being doneand much remains to be done, even apart from the problems which may beposed by the new discoveries. And it should be apparent also that progresswill be sadly retarded without some measure of clarity in the definition ofterms, and a greater degree of precision and exactness in the prosecution ofthe study.8

1 Gnosis: la connaissance religieuse dans les lipitres de saint Paul (Louvain, 1949). See Bultmann'sreview in J. T.S. n.s. m (1952), ioff., also Lyonnet in Biblica, xxxv (1954), 489-502; xxxvn (1956),1-38.

2 Christentum und Judentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert (Giitersloh, 1954).3 ' Gegenwart des Geistes und eschatologische Hoffnung bei Zarathustra, spatjudischen Gruppen,

Gnostikern und den Zeugen des Neuen Testamentes', The Backround of the N. T. and its Eschatology,pp. 4828".

1 See most recently Urgemeinde, Judenchristentum, Gnosis (Tubingen, 1956).6 Paris, 1945, 1954.6 La Rtv&lation a"Hermes Trismigiste (Paris, 1944-54).7 The Mysteries of Hermes Trismegistus (Utrecht, 1955).8 Since this article went to press, M. J . Doresse has published an introductory survey of the new

material: Les livres secrets des gnostiques d'gypte (Paris, Plon, 1958), and a French translation, withcommentary, of the Gospel of Thomas (Paris, 1959). Further references on the Gospel of Thomaswill be found in N.T.S. v (1959), 273ff., to which should be added Puech's important con-tribution to Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apokryphen, 1 (Tubingen, 1959), 199 ft". On the NagHammadi Library as a whole see the literature cited in Scottish Journal of Theology, xn (1959), 161 ff.Jonas' new work The Gnostic Religion (Beacon Press, Boston, 1959) adheres to the general point ofview of his earlier book but avoids its technicalities, and may be commended as a valuable con-tribution to our understanding of the essence of Gnosticism.

r. mcl. wilson (1959). some recent studies in gnosticism.pdf

Documents

coptic studies

crum studies

new texts

preliminary studies

heresome recent studies

review of recent studies

new testament studieshttp

new phase