This chapter investigates the tripartite anthropology operating in TriTrac and sets the scene for the remainder of the study. How was the division between material, psychic, and pneumatic people envisaged? How does it function in the text and how does it relate to ethics? The anthropology must be viewed in light of the intricate cosmogony which precedes the discussion of different human categories, a cosmology which expounds upon the text’s ontology, epistemology, and cognitive theory. Thus, the anthropology will be studied with support from the conclusions of the previous three chapters, discussing TriTrac from the perspective of ancient theory on passions, epistemology, and the nature of human choice. I argue that the tripartite anthropology functions in three principal ways: (1) as a pedagogical schema to point out different roles and responsibilities humans have in relation to each other and to teaching and learning the message of the Savior; (2) to explain why people have different responsibilities and roles to play in the world; (3) and to create and sustain a hierarchy within the community. In the concluding part of the chapter we discuss the question of whether the anthropological categories should be understood as fixed or fluid, and what determinism could have looked like in practice, adding to the discussion of other scholars who have pointed out that, from a sociological perspective, the classes in TriTrac are best viewed as both fixed and fluid.
1 The Three Classes of Humans in TriTrac
The tripartite way the text presents humanity is one of the aspects of the text that has drawn most scholarly attention.1 There are a few key passages in the text that elaborate on the tripartite anthropology but the one that is most often quoted in scholarly works is probably the following:
Humankind came to be in three essential kinds, the pneumatic, the psychic, and the material, in accordance with the tripartite disposition of the Logos, from which were brought forth the material ones and the psychic ones and the pneumatic ones. Each of the three essential kinds is known by its fruit. And they were not known at first but only at the coming of the Savior, who shone upon the holy ones and revealed what each was.2
Here it is clear that there are three human types (ⲣⲏⲧⲉ). One way of differentiating between them is by looking at the “fruit” (ⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ) these humans produce.3 The fruit most likely refers to human action, or more specifically the result of human actions. Another way of distinguishing between the three types of humans is by scrutinizing the way they react to the Savior, a topic on which the text elaborates just after the quoted passage above. The pneumatic reacts instantly, the psychic needs convincing, while the material person shuns the Lord (118:28–119:15). This much is recognized by most scholars who have made closer studies of the text.4 But how do these categories and their reactions to the Savior relate to the ethics of the text?
A tripartite anthropology is something that the church fathers found most annoying about the Christians they called Valentinians. Irenaeus read the tripartite anthropology of his Valentinian opponents as interpretations of Pauline theology—erroneous in his mind. He wrote that his opponents thought of themselves as belonging to a higher order of humans who would receive a higher degree of salvation than ordinary Christians and that because they were destined for salvation they were not interested in ethics.5 Some Christians were without a doubt influenced by Paul’s distinctions between pneumatics, psychics, and fleshly people, but contrary to some church fathers’ claims—as has been discussed by, for example, Ismo Dunderberg and most recently by Alexander Kocar—the tripartite anthropology does not demonstrate an indifference toward ethical questions, quite the opposite.6 Benjamin Dunning has discussed anthropology in TriTrac in a very convincing way, advocating the fact that the tripartite different anthropologies are not solely soteriological indicators, but are intimately connected to the building blocks of the universe itself.7 I agree, and as argued in Chapter 1 above, these three substances (matter, psychê, pneuma) are fundamental not only for understanding the text’s ontology, but also epistemology. Additionally, one aspect that is often overlooked when discussing the text’s theory of substances is its ethical implications. As I will argue below, the ethics in TriTrac was very much a bodily matter. The above passage unequivocally indicates that the anthropology in TriTrac, which is connected to the three substances, is linked to ethical questions: the three classes of humans are clearly value-laden throughout the text and one’s behavior (for example regarding one’s reactions to the Savior and the fruit of one’s actions) indicates the category to which one belongs as well as one’s status vis-à-vis moral standing. In this chapter I look more closely at this aspect of the text’s tripartite anthropology, scrutinizing previously unnoticed aspects of the text’s ethics.
Paul writes in First Corinthians that psychic humans lack deeper understanding while pneumatic people are those who discern all things, because they have “the pneuma that is of God” (τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ) and the intellect (νοῦς) of Christ (1 Cor 2:12–16). Paul also adds that people who are on a very low level in terms of the knowledge of Christ are people of flesh (1 Cor 3:1–4). A tripartite anthropology is often presented as one of the characteristics of Valentinian Christianity;8 we find it in texts like TriTrac and ExcTheod, and in Christians like Heracleon as described by Origen or Ptolemy as described by Irenaeus, but as we can see, there is much of the same language in First Corinthians.9
Many scholars who have discussed the tripartite anthropology in TriTrac have done so in light of Ptolemy, Heracleon, ExcTheod, and other portrayals of a tripartite anthropology.10 Yet, even though TriTrac has a lot in common with these Valentinians, there are important differences to take into consideration concerning its anthropology,11 differences that are central for understanding the ethical systems presented in the text.12 Compare these two passages, for instance, that are often represented as exemplifying the same anthropology:
The word TriTrac uses to describe the psychics—where ExcTheod has free will (αὐτεξούσιον)—is ⲧⲱϣ, meaning determined, fixed, or bound, the very opposite of free will.15 I discuss in more detail below what it could mean to be determined to do both good and evil, but suffice it to state here that the role of and capacity for choice is one example of a fundamental principle where these two texts differ. These details should not be ignored when exploring the ethical stance of TriTrac. The nature of TriTrac’s tripartite anthropology and the way it relates to ethics should instead be understood in light of the intricate details of the text itself.
So, how is the tripartite anthropology conceived of in TriTrac? I agree with previous scholars who view it as most likely a development of Paul’s notion that there were different levels of understanding among Christians, what he called fleshly people, psychics, and pneumatics. But I will also argue that Paul, and by extension TriTrac, was part of a larger ancient discussion about the nature of moral development and anthropology. There were other ancient thinkers, apart from the Valentinians, who utilized similar language, and who also split humanity and the human composition into three categories based on moral worth. To make sense of TriTrac’s use of this motif, it needs to be placed in the context of the preceding narrative. The tripartite anthropology is chiefly discussed in the last third of TriTrac (104:4ff). We read in the above quote that the three human categories relate to “the triple disposition of the Logos” (ⲛ̄ϯⲇⲓⲁⲑⲉⲥⲓⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓϣⲟⲙⲛ̄ⲧ ⲛ̄ⲣⲏⲧⲏ ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ) (118:18–19). The way that tripartite anthropology relates to the first part of the text where the Logos’ creation is described is not often discussed when the ‘Valentinian’ anthropology is mentioned. Thus, I begin by identifying the foundations of the tripartite anthropology by scrutinizing the text’s first part (51:1–104:3), where we find the bulk of the cosmogony.
2 The Pedagogical Purpose of the Logos’ Organization and the Composition of Humans
One of the principal points that can be drawn from the very long first part of the tractate—which deals with the Logos’ fall and the subsequent formation of different powers and their relations—is that the organization of the Logos is divided into three levels. This has been discussed in detail in the preceding chapters, so there is little point in repeating the details here. Suffice it to say that each of these thee levels corresponds to a particular substance and the heavenly powers which are made up of that substance. Then we read of the creation of the first humans:
the first human was a mixed formation, and a mixed creation, and a deposit of those of the left and those of the right, and a pneumatic rationality, whose attention is divided between each of the two substances. It receives its becoming from these. Therefore, it is said that a paradise was planted for him, so that he might eat of the food of three kinds of trees, since it is a garden of the tripartite order, and since it is that which gives enjoyment.16
Here it becomes clear that humans consist of a composition of the three substances the Logos produced. Each human has parts that correspond to the three powers and levels in heaven. These three faculties correspond to the common conceptions of the workings of the mind, divided into a logical, an emotive, and a bodily part; the substance with which each person is chiefly associated becomes evident when the Savior appears among humans. However, this does not mean that pneumatic people do not have any material or psychic substance in them (or vice versa). This would be a rather unorthodox view: that some people lack material or psychic parts, or both, that some move on earth only in a spiritual guise. In light of the apostle Paul and especially the ancient anthropological theory of Plato and Aristotle as discussed in Part I above, it makes much more sense to view the pneumatic people as those who act guided by their pneumatic parts; the psychics as those who act according to their psychic part; and, lastly, the material people as those who are controlled by their material part.17
The pneumatic people have a specific mission to play out, and this, we read, is activated at the appearance of the Savior:
The seed of promise (i.e. the pneumatic substance) is kept back for some time, so that those who were destined to be sent out might be put forth by the coming of the Savior …18
The Logos’ pneumatic level above the two lower levels of powers exists in harmony as a collective but cannot show itself in its state to the lower levels, because they could not stand such awe. This is why the coming of the pneumatic seed is done sequentially and not immediately:
It was granted them (i.e. the pneumatic seed) to pass through the places which are below (i.e. psychic and material levels), because the places are not able to withstand their sudden, hasty arrival, unless (they come) individually, one by one. Their arrival is necessary, since everything will be perfected through them.19
The Logos organizes the three levels and then instigates the creation of the cosmos and humanity, made of three substances with the purpose of bringing everything back into a harmonious conclusion (expressed with the concept apokatastasis).20
What makes the pneumatic humans capable of instigating salvation? This is explained on page 94. Here we read of all the qualities that are associated with the pneumatic substance: “desire to be upright” (ⲟⲩⲱϣⲉ ⲁⲧ̣ⲣⲉϥⲧⲉϩⲟ ⲁⲣⲉⲧϥ̄); “openness for instruction” (ⲟⲩⲱⲣϩ̄ ⲁⲩⲥⲃⲟⲩ); “eye for vision” (ⲃⲉⲗ <ⲉ>ⲟⲩϭⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲩ); “wisdom for ones’ mind” (ⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ ⲁⲡⲉϥⲙⲉⲩⲉ); “word for speaking” (ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲁⲩϭⲛϣⲉϫⲉ); and “maleness” (ⲙⲛ̄ⲧϩⲁⲟⲩⲧ). The two lower substances are stuck within the sickness of “femaleness” (ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲥϩⲓ̈ⲙⲉ). These abilities clearly reflect the pedagogic nature of the Logos’ organization. ⲧⲉϩⲟ, which I translate with “upright”, is an equivalent of the Greek ἱστάναι, a word frequently used to signal moral, spiritual, and intellectual uprightness.21 Maleness symbolizes the opposite of ignorance, materiality, and passion, which is described as female in TriTrac.22 However, these abilities cannot be bestowed on their subjects in just any way since the lower levels and substances are weak and cannot sustain the pneumatic powers. Thus, it is done gradually by mixing the pneumatic seeds with psychic and material stuff, and then, through the coming of the Savior, those who are destined to spread the knowledge (associated with the pneumatic people) are awakened. It is by this organization that “everything will be perfected” (ϩⲱⲃ̣ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲩⲛⲁϫⲱⲕ) (95:15–16).23
But it is not just the pneumatic substance that has a pedagogical mission. We are told that the psychic substance is placed in materiality for its own sake, as well as for the sake of the whole system. The Logos takes the psychic substances and proceeds to:
… draw them into a material union, for the sake of their system and dwelling place and in order that they might also bring forth an impulse for diminution from their attraction of evil and might not any more rejoice in the glory of their wandering and turning, but might rather see their sickness in which they suffer, so that they might beget love and continuous searching after the one who is able to heal them of the inferiority.24
Here we get an indication that the material substance is like a two-edged sword. It lures people in, so they lose themselves, and become fixed in a life of “their wandering and turning” (ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩⲕⲱⲧⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲥⲉⲡⲱⲛⲉ)—with clear astrological connotations25—where they are tempted by the glories materiality can bring. Yet life in materiality, for some, also serves as a reminder that there is something better, that the glories of materiality are actually transitory and ultimately a sickness. The positive result of contact with matter, below called “the imitation” (ⲡⲓⲧⲁⲛⲧⲛ̄), is clarified in this following passage as well:
Also over those who belong to the imitation, he set the order of beauty, so that it might bring them into a form. He set over them the law of judgment. Furthermore, he set over them the powers, the roots of which are from the lust for command. He appointed them as rulers over them. So, thus—either by the establishment of the order that is beautiful, or by the threat of the law, or by the power of lust for command—the order is kept safe from those who (would) reduce it to evil. And the Logos is pleased with them, for they are useful for the oikonomia.26
Here we have a reference to the Law. Many Christians saw the Mosaic Law as provisory, set in place by God in order to keep Israel in check until the Messiah came.27 But this passage is also steeped in Platonism: matter is molded and brought into a certain form. The cosmos is created, a beautiful ordered system. This system is tripartite, as so much else in the text. Matter is kept in check by the ordered form it takes, and by the law of judgment, and lastly with the aid of the powers that come from the passion that is lust for command. As one would expect, the Demiurge enters the scene in this place, being the one who is ultimately responsible for carrying out the Logos’ oikonomia.
However, after humanity is created something goes wrong. The three trees which sustain the three substances of which each human consists are kept away from Adam and he only gets to eat from one of the trees: the one that nourishes materiality. We read that the lower powers and the serpent lure humanity into death. However, this too was planned, so that:
the human should experience that great evil which is death—that is, the complete ignorance of the All—and that he should also experience all the evils that come from this. After the impetuosity and anxieties that result from it, he will partake of the greatest good, this which is eternal life, that is, firm knowledge of the All and the reception of all good things.28
Again, we encounter a pedagogical theme in association with the three substances that make up humanity. Cosmic life is a learning experience. Creation as we know it is instigated to facilitate apokatastasis, the return of the pneumatic seed to the Pleroma in heaven. The psychic substance is rewarded with partial salvation while the material substance is destroyed.29 The creation of humanity should be understood in light of this grand narrative. The three substances are mixed and make up humanity; that is the way the Logos instigates salvation through a detailed pedagogic master plan.
As I made clear above, the pneumatic seed lies dormant in humans until the Savior appears on earth. On pages 109–111 the situation before the Savior’s appearance is discussed and Hebrews and Greeks are mentioned in relation to material and psychic powers. The tripartite anthropology is not used to designate ethnic categories, although psychics are associated with Hebrews and material people with Greeks and barbarians. Rather, the categories are used in association with these nations to highlight their connection to knowledge and truth. While the Greeks and barbarians are guided by the left material side of creation, resulting in error and contradictions among them, the Hebrews are prone to listening to the “unmixed” powers—the psychic powers that have managed to get untangled from their strife with their material counterparts—and thus retain partial knowledge. The passage dealing with material Greeks/barbarians and psychic Hebrews can be read in light of early Christian apologists’ views of ethnic categories as preparatory stages before the coming of Messiah.30 Further nuances become evident in the creation scene that precedes the mention of Greeks and Hebrews, a creation which paints a picture of a world made of three substances. All humans possess these three parts. However, before the coming of the Savior there can be no pneumatic people because they are defined by their reaction to the Savior. From a cognitive perspective, TriTrac presents the time before the Savior’s coming as a time when human decision making was guided without the finest and most rational part of one’s mind, which would explain why all human knowledge before the Savior’s teaching was lacking.
The tripartite anthropology in TriTrac is, from one perspective, very similar to what Paul meant by pneumatic and psychic: referring to different levels of knowledge. However, the distinctions are elaborated upon in a much more sophisticated way in TriTrac. As discussed in Part I, the tripartite anthropology of TriTrac fits well within ancient discussions of human cognition. The anthropology is fundamental for understanding the ethics of the text. Humans are built out of three substances. The substance by which one is guided is connected to one’s moral status. This is made clear throughout the text. Ethics is in this sense very much a bodily and cognitive matter. TriTrac presents this anthropology through the cosmogonic part of the text and the importance of instruction is highlighted in the parts of the text that deal with the organization of the cosmic system and the creation of humans (Part II and the end of Part I of TriTrac). This is indicated by (1) the description of the Logos’ pneumatic level, where the inhabitants possess pedagogic qualities (94:2–23); (2) by describing the cosmic system as made to attract psychic substance away from evil (98:29–99:4); (3) by describing death as a learning experience (107:29–30). The pedagogic theme is continued throughout the text. We read that before the Savior came, people were ignorant, because “those who were not instructed were unable to know the cause of the things which exist”.31 After the Savior’s appearance, the pneumatics begin their teaching mission and these people know the Savior and are, among other things, called “teachers of those who need teaching”.32 The psychic people are those who need to be convinced and “through a voice it (the psychic class) was instructed” (ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲛ̄ ⲟⲩⲥⲙⲏ ⲉⲩϯ ⲥⲃⲱ ⲛⲉϥ) (119:3). The material class, however, is identified as a people who “is hateful toward the Lord” (ⲟⲩⲙⲁⲥⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ· ϣⲁ ⲡϫⲁⲉⲓⲥ) (119:14–15), and they are associated with ignorance.
Next, we turn to a discussion of how the tripartite anthropology and the specific pedagogic vision in the text is sustained epistemologically and in light of the theory of passion presented in the text.
3 Three Categories of Humans According to TriTrac’s Epistemology and Theory of Passions
The distinction between pneumatic, psychic, and material people might have been inspired by Paul’s distinction between people with different degrees of understanding (as discussed above), yet it was not at all unusual in ancient times to imagine a tripartite anthropology; neither was it unusual to attach this tripartite anthropology to ethics and the ability to discern God. Philo resembles TriTrac in this respect, writing in On Abraham that “there are three different categories of humans” (τρεῖς εἰσιν ἠθῶν ἀνθρωπίνων τάξεις).33 These are differentiated by their natural ability to recognize the divine. The highest class of people, those “in the middle”, get their knowledge directly from the Logos, they have the sight of the true living God. The next best people are those who “stand on the right”, they have the ability to recognize God. Lastly, we have those “on the left”, people who need to be ruled because they recognize only the governing power of God, which is called Lord.34 Contrary to TriTrac, we do not find the key terms pneumatic, psychic, and material, and neither is the third and lowest category of humans lost; but we do find the distinction between the left and right powers of the Logos, powers that are associated with different people and ways to relate to God. Furthermore, and perhaps somewhat paradoxically, in TriTrac the psychic people are called those “in the middle” and at the same time associated with the powers on the “right side” (while for Philo the middle is the highest level of learning). The tripartite division of humanity is based on “the triple disposition of the Logos” (ⲛ̄ϯⲇⲓⲁⲑⲉⲥⲓⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓϣⲟⲙⲛ̄ⲧ ⲛ̄ⲣⲏⲧⲏ ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ) (118:18–19). Philo writes that to access the purest aspects of the living God, people need to be “unmixed” (ἀµιγῆ), to be perfect in virtue and dependent on nothing else than themselves. Some people can only experience a certain aspect of God, the kingly and governing power, or the creative aspect of God, identified as the left and right sides of God. These are the people who are “not yet made perfect in regards to the important virtues” (ὅταν µήπω τὰς µεγάλας τελεσθεῖσα τελετάς).35
Philo writes that people need to become unmixed but does not specify from what. One generation after Philo, a fellow Middle Platonist discusses this further. Plutarch writes in On the Sign of Socrates that people’s moral lives are determined by the relation between the three substances of which every person is made up: matter, soul, and intellect. Some people live under the total sway of matter and passion; others have managed to keep their souls above the control of the lower material with the aid of their nous:
Every soul partakes of understanding, none is irrational or unintelligent. But the portion of the soul that mingles with flesh and passions suffers alteration and becomes in the pleasures and pains it undergoes irrational. Not every soul mingles (µιχθῇ) to the same extent: some sink entirely into the body, and becoming disordered throughout, are during their life wholly distracted by passions; others mingle in part, but leave outside what is purest in them. This is not dragged in with the rest, but is like a buoy attached to the top, floating on the surface in contact with the man’s head, while he is as it were submerged in the depths, and it supports as much of the soul, which is held upright about it, as is obedient and not overpowered by the passions. Now the part carried submerged in the body (τῷ σώµατι) is called the soul (ψυχὴ), whereas the part left free from corruption is called by the multitude the understanding (νοῦν).36
In the next passage, Plutarch explains that those who are submerged in passion lead an uneven and unruly life, morally, and this is due to “lack of training” (ἀπαιδευσία). Some people can be trained, but only slowly and with great effort, while others are naturals, so to say, and listen to their nous from birth.37 Just as with Plutarch—and presumably also Philo—the negative influence of matter and the passions are associated with being unfavorably mixed.
As I have discussed in Chapter 1, the epistemology of TriTrac is based on the definition of true knowledge as being unmixed from materiality and instead merged with the Savior and Pleroma. This view can be seen as a combination of Stoic ideas of συµπάθεια—an integrated state (κρᾶσις) with the Logos—and the attitudes we find in Plutarch, Philo, and Aristotle,38 that the mind needs to be unmixed from the base body to discern divine things. In TriTrac the different compositions of people determine the powers that influence them and the level of learning they can achieve. As I made clear in Chapter 1, there are different levels of knowledge in TriTrac associated with the three substances of the Logos’ creation. Some people are rooted in their material part to the extent that they perceive with their bodily parts and material sense perception, and thus are only open to false impressions and a lowly imitation of the truth (ⲉⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ, ⲧⲁⲛⲧⲛ, and ⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ). For knowledge of the divine, one needs to perceive with the mind; and for this TriTrac uses different vocabulary. The words ϩⲓⲕⲱⲛ/ⲉⲓⲛⲉ are used for representations of heavenly existence, and these images are only accessible to pneumatics and partly to the psychic people (via the pneumatics) who first recognize the Savior (84:23–35, 104:18–20). TriTrac portrays a worldview where exalted people with access to pneumatic substance retain contact with the divine more immediately while others have to struggle and rely on help. Thus, there is an important difference between the way pneumatics and psychics retain their understanding. The psychic people are taught and imitate the behavior of those who are good while the pneumatics react instinctually to the good. The material people, on the other hand, are slaves to passion and their bodily senses. From this perspective, the pneumatics are experts in moral questions while the psychics are more firmly embedded in worldly affairs than in the finer questions of ethics. The psychic substance is connected to a middle position, and is associated with attributes such as honor and lust for command; yet psychics are not totally controlled by passions of the body, which is the lot of material peoples.
It is the configuration of the substances within one that determines one’s nature: whether one is a “blended” pneumatic person who can discern the divine instinctively and act as a teacher; a psychic who is more closely entangled with matter and in need of becoming unmixed and shown how to act; or a material person deeply mixed into the bodily aspect of existence and prone to passions. But what determines the composition of substances of each person? Let us now examine the tripartite anthropology from the perspective of a theory that restricts human choice and comment on the difference between pneumatic and psychic people.
4 Restricted Choice in Practice
As argued in Chapter 3, TriTrac rejects the doctrine of free will. Resembling how Stoics understood free will, TriTrac maintains that it is only viable for perfect beings. Contrary to the Stoics, however, TriTrac denies free will (αὐτεξούσιον) in the world and restricts it to the Pleroma where there does not exist any matter, impressions, or passions. In TriTrac it is one’s proairesis, one’s faculty of choice (ⲧⲡⲣⲟⲁⲓⲣⲉⲥⲓⲥ), which determines the ability to assent to the Savior, which also determines a person’s moral worth. Proairesis is determined by the composition of each person, which then also decides what impressions a person assents to. Everything happens according to “the will of the Father” (ⲡⲟⲩⲱϣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲱⲧ) (76:36–37), even the fall of the Logos, which instigated creation. The Logos’ organization happened in accordance with God’s providence (107:22). Material people are lost while pneumatics have a naturally good proairesis and assent to the Savior immediately. The psychics, however, need assistance. They are able to recognize the Savior because we read that the Logos placed in them a proairesis prone to seek and pray to the Father (83:18–21). We read that the psychic humans are saved if they work together with the ones with a good proairesis and if they are willing to abandon falsehood:
And those who were brought forth from the desire of lust for command— because they have the seed of lust for command inside them—will receive the reward of good things, they who have worked together with those who have the good proairesis, provided they, in opinion and will, abandon the desire for vain temporary glory.39
Even though TriTrac rejects free will in the world, there still seems to be room for some degree of choice for the psychics, or rather, in the terms of the anthropology presented in TriTrac: the composition of those people called the psychics make them susceptible to both matter and pneuma. The nature of the psychics “is double, in accordance with its determination for both good and evil”.40 Psychics have to prove their worth by not acting on temporary glory, that is, by not falling prey to false impressions. This doctrine, that one’s moral worth depended on the impressions to which the mind assented, was adopted by many Christians, like Origen and Clement, as well as those behind TriTrac. While Clement and Origen used the theory of assent to emphasize a capacity for free choice, TriTrac rather emphasizes that it is one’s composition that determines assent, and that one needs teaching and guidance from one’s peers in acting on good principles. For Origen and Clement, the term proairesis is not used as in TriTrac, as something other than a self-determining will.41 They maintained that all people possessed a self-determining (αὐτεξούσιον) will or choice (προαίρεσις), which we have seen does not fit TriTrac. In TriTrac, salvation and knowledge are not presented as things that can be chosen, only granted by God, and God did this by arranging each person’s composition. However, even though one could not influence the basic principles of existence, like the composition of one’s physical makeup, which determined access to knowledge, the psychics and pneumatics could still improve their moral standing, improve their character (proairesis). In the above passage the psychics are told to work together with the pneumatics (those who have a good proairesis). The psychics must abandon what are described as the emotions with which they are especially afflicted: vain temporal ambition and striving to accumulate transitory honor and glory (more on these afflictions in Chapter 6). Note here that the technical term for free will, the term that is applied for the will of the Aeons in the Pleroma, αὐτεξούσιον, is not used for the psychics (as in ExcTheod). TriTrac makes a distinction between free will (always being able to choose the good), and the ability to choose to follow those who are gifted with a good proairesis, that is, being able to give up worldly ambition and instead listen to the expertise of one’s moral betters. In this way TriTrac emphasizes the limitations of what humans can control. The doctrine of free will was a rare stance taken in the ethics of antiquity before Christians like Justin, Irenaeus, and then Origen began to advance it. TriTrac is much more traditional in maintaining that there were certain things humans just could not control, things that were fundamental to one’s moral ability, such as the constitution of one’s bodily and cognitive make up, and the mixture between material, psychic, and pneumatic substance. Thus, some people could influence their character, but this does not mean that they could change their nature.
Rather than exhibiting what Irenaeus claimed about Valentinian disinterest in ethical questions, from a sociological perspective, the worldview we encounter in TriTrac—where human choice is restricted—would have had great potential to generate the opposite result. Because there was no way one could always choose the good, the best that psychics could do was to listen to their moral superiors and act the part that was prescribed, as if they indeed had the right composition to do good. The psychic people were obliged, in fine Calvinist manner, to act the way people did who were unmixed from matter and, in that way, prove they had been chosen for salvation by being good subordinates to the pneumatics. People sunk into materiality and passion were controlled by their bodily senses and thus naturally acted on false impressions, that is, they were lost people. The pneumatics—who had access to a higher reality by virtue of being in tune with their pneumatic substance rather than their body—could see the higher order of reality and would thus naturally act on the good.
The psychics were, as Plutarch would have put it, like floating corks on the water, bobbing up and down in between matter and intellect. It was the pneumatics’ task to provide the psychic people with guidance and it is obvious that TriTrac is concerned with the fate of the psychic people. This is made clear for example in a passage at the end of the text:
as it is fitting to say, nonetheless, on the matter of those of the Calling (psychic people)—for those of the right are so named—it is necessary for us to return once again to them and it is not profitable for us to forget them.42
It is unclear if TriTrac was written from the point of view of the pneumatics or if the first-person plural is used here as an authorial plural (a topic I discuss in the next chapter more thoroughly). The need to discuss the salvation of the psychics is mentioned again one page later: “it is fitting that we say what we mentioned previously about the salvation of all those of the right”.43 A few lines later, we read about the relation between different psychics as well:
For they (the psychics) will receive the vision more and more by nature and not only by a little word, so as to believe, only through a voice, that this is the way it is, that the restoration to that which used to be is a unity. Even if some are exalted because of the oikonomia, since they have been appointed as causes of the things which have come into being, since they as natural forces are more active.44
Some are naturally exalted while others retain lower positions in life. Much of this is similar to the way the Stoics imagined the relation between the perfect sage and his student. The sage did everything effortlessly.45 Seneca called the people who were on the path of moral progress, but not yet sages, proficiens.46 The way you progressed was, according to Seneca, determined by your natural abilities, “to our natural gifts and by great and unceasing application to study”.47 Just like TriTrac seems to do, Stoics like Epictetus maintained that a good character (proairesis) comes from acting on the impressions that lead to the good and that this had to be demonstrated in action.48 Seneca wrote that once you have knowledge, “it is not sufficient merely to commit these things to memory, like other matters; they must be practically tested”.49 The proficiens who did not have sound mastery of moral questions should, Seneca makes clear, emulate and listen to their moral superiors.50 This comes very close to the way psychics are described in TriTrac. Those who did not excel in moral questions should emulate those who did, while those who had the ability should (and automatically did) devote themselves to moral questions and teach others. In TriTrac it is stated that the pneumatics were put on the earth so that “they might experience the evil things and might train themselves in them”.51
Stoics were said to have maintained that virtue was a disposition (διάθεσις) and that there were no degrees to virtue. Either one was virtuous or one was not. This understanding of the Stoic message resulted in the caricature by their opponents that Stoics did not entertain the possibility of moral progress, that all who were not virtuous sages were thought to be unvirtuous fools.52 This is reminiscent of the critique Irenaeus leveled at his Valentinian opponents. In TriTrac, the term disposition (ⲇⲓⲁⲑⲉⲥⲓⲥ) is used frequently. It appears 13 times in the Nag Hammadi texts overall, out of which 11 are in TriTrac.53 What is more, it seems that ⲇⲓⲁⲑⲉⲥⲓⲥ is used in much the same way some Stoics used διάθεσις, as a fixed category rather than a state (ἕξις) that could shift from being one thing to being something else.54
The term disposition (ⲇⲓⲁⲑⲉⲥⲓⲥ) is chiefly used in TriTrac for the attributes of the Father and Son and the Aeons. We read that God is “unchanging” (ϣⲃ̄ⲃⲓⲁⲓⲧ ⲉⲛ) (52:21–22), so it is not that strange that his attributes would most likely also be constant.55 The other times we encounter the term ⲇⲓⲁⲑⲉⲥⲓⲥ is to designate the three natures of the Logos: matter, psychê, and pneuma (118:14–28) and “goodness” (ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲟⲩ) that is found in the psychic powers and people and the pneumatics (120:7–8, 121:20–21, 130:19, 131:19). We read that the material powers are just an imitation of the disposition of what is from above.56
The way TriTrac employs the term disposition reinforces the view that we are indeed dealing with a deterministic system. The three categories of material, psychic, and pneumatic are described as dispositions; either you had a good disposition (pneumatic person), or a bad disposition (material), or you had a disposition that was able to imitate the good (psychics). Again, some people could influence their proairesis, but it was not possible to change the nature of one’s disposition. People could not decide to be born prone to be guided by material, psychic, or pneumatic substance, just as they did not have the ability always to choose the good (i.e. there was no free will). This was preordained in the organization of the Logos. Because the pneumatics are not described as possessing complete self-determination (αὐτεξούσιον)—a state only applicable to the Aeons in the Pleroma where there is not matter—they are not perfectly aligned with the will of God. Rather, they are exposed to matter and evil throughout their life in the body—in fact, we read, that is the very reason for their existence.57 The pneumatics are, nevertheless, known by the good disposition of their character (proairesis) and thus have natural affinities for moral behavior; because they lack a will that is self-determining, however, they would probably not have been open to the same criticism as the Stoics: that a moral person could never act erroneously. From a sociological perspective, as we further see below, the anthropological theory of TriTrac would have allowed for variation in human behavior, even within the categories, and even though the categories were fixed. There would have been ample opportunity to prove that you belonged to one of the two saved groups of people, which could only have been done by demonstrating that you did indeed possess the disposition of goodness, to demonstrate your belonging to either class of humans through your actions. As we read on page 108: “Each of the three essential kinds is known by its fruit”.58 Let us now explore in greater depth the sociological ramifications of TriTrac’s anthropological theory.
5 Fixed, Fluid, or in Flux? The Advantages of a Fixed Anthropology
Does the deterministic stance adopted in TriTrac mean that a person could move between the three ethical categories? How could you tell if a person was fated to be a pneumatic, psychic, or material? The only way to tell what class of human a person belonged to would have been through the person’s actions and behavior, which to a large extent would have been determined by the position the person had within society and within the group. As the text makes clear, the pneumatics are the leaders of the community and the teachers. The other members are psychics; they help the pneumatics, sing hymns, and act as servants to the pneumatics (120:8–14, 121:30–37, 135:3–10, 135:25–29). Everyone outside these categories is a material person ignorant of the Savior.
A fixed anthropology like the one in TriTrac would most likely have been as effective an instigator of moral improvement as one based on the theory of free will. The method is clear: one needed to act the part, and as we have seen, both of the in-group categories (pneumatic and psychic) are described as involved in perpetual ethical formation. The actions of psychics and pneumatics are clearly stated: pneumatics teach but also study moral questions. The psychics listen and learn. People who do not do these things—that is, the material—are lost. TriTrac’s tripartite anthropology explains social diversity and at the same time facilitates the implementation of moral improvement through a pedagogical system. As is argued in Chapter 6, it also sustains the hierarchy of the community while leaving room for members to be involved in everyday life.
TriTrac’s anthropology has been discussed by several scholars engaged with early Christian ethics and identity formation. In her study of early Christian attitudes to ethnicity and identity construction, Denise Kimber Buell has argued that the “fluidity among the three human genê is central to the text’s (TriTrac’s) soteriology”.59 Benjamin Dunning agrees with Buell while Ismo Dunderberg has suggested that TriTrac’s anthropology was partially fixed in theory, but would most likely have functioned fluidly in practice.60 Even if this is so, this does not mean that all humans have the potentiality to choose which of the three substances to follow, neither in theory or practice. Buell argues that the anthropology allowed for humans to move in between the categories, by changing one’s behavior one could change one’s nature.61 However, as the first part of this study made evident, TriTrac presents a theoretical view of human cognition and behavior that does not allow one to disregard one’s constitution; the human will is strictly limited. Furthermore, the way TriTrac describes pneumatics as ethical experts and moral role models devoted to training and perfection (positions that likely demanded learning and great discipline) makes this category inaccessible to most people, something you could not simply chose to become part of, because it presupposed insights into ethics and the foundational topics they were based on (as discussed in Part I).
Attridge and Pagels have, supported by Buell, argued that the church fathers must have “misunderstood” the Christian systems when they accused them of being deterministic.62 I would caution against drawing such a conclusion. Even though the church fathers did not usually take the time to elaborate on how a fixed anthropological system would actually sustain a viable ethical system—just as the Stoics’ opponents seldom took the time to explain how Stoics’ theories of causal determinism worked with their ethical outlook before rejecting them as unviable and unethical—it does not mean that they could not or did not work as ethical systems. The accusation of determinism may have been polemically effective, but it should not be reduced to a mere rhetorical invention.
TriTrac is an example, in my opinion, of a fixed Christian anthropological system that would have been a highly effective alternative to systems based on the doctrine of free will, and other systems with an openly fluid anthropology.63 Furthermore, a fixed anthropology would not necessarily have meant that social mobility was harder to explain, on the contrary.64 As stated above, I agree there would have been a certain degree of fluidity. It is conceivable that people left or that new people arrived, but this could easily have been explained by referring to the discovery of their true identity (more on this shortly). One could not simply choose one’s position in the group; indeed, in what society can a person do that? I argue that the fixed theory would, in fact, have had many advantages. There are a number of social circumstances that a fixed theory would have explained effectively, such as rigidity in social and economical mobility. Persecution is another example, which is possibly indicated on pages 121–122 of TriTrac.65 Only people unable to recognize truth would reject it, and furthermore persecute people who spread it. Social injustice and the varying degrees of education in ancient society would also have been effectively explained with a fixed theory. There is a great emphasis on teaching and learning throughout TriTrac, which is also made clear in the differences between the categories in the tripartite anthropology. The reason that not all have the same abilities—or indeed opportunities—could be easily explained by pointing to a fixed anthropology. A system that imagined that all humans could at any time recognize truth and choose the good, leading to a happy and ultimately eternal life, has the disadvantage of having to explain why people continuously acted against their own best interest. Another set of social circumstances that a fixed theory would have easily explained (while a fluid theory again has some drawbacks)66 occurs in times of schism, dropout of members, and exclusion—all challenges which most groups suffer on occasion. Unexpected conflicts would easily have been explained by reference to a fixed anthropology. If a person with a high position within the group suddenly decided to leave or if a schism occurred wherein people considered pneumatics were excluded, it would have been explained by claiming that they must have been material people all along. So, even though people were probably coming and going, as in all groups, a fixed theory would have been proficient in many ways from a sociological perspective.67
Thus, even though the anthropology is fixed in theory, it would have worked to explain social movement as well.68 In order to illuminate this further, we can imagine a third social classification: that of being in flux. It would likely have been difficult to firmly place young and new members into one of the two categories. The status of young and new members could have been undecided, and possibly changed more easily, until their real and fixed identities were actually discovered (or rather re-discovered).69 Thus, the anthropology was fixed in theory: one was born a pneumatic, psychic, or a material person; but it would partly have been fluid and in flux in practice: that is, allowing for additions and changes in the group, modifications that would have been explained with reference to a fixed theory. Thus, we are not dealing with a system where the goal is for all humans to develop into pneumatics. Each category of humans have an important role to play. Without the psychic people the pneumatics would not be able to do their work, and for this they are rewarded. The psychics are not encouraged to become pneumatics, rather they are encouraged to support the pneumatics and follow their example and the pneumatics in turn are encouraged to take care of the psychics (this is developed further in the next two chapters).
But how would a fixed anthropology encourage ethical behavior? As Max Weber already argued at the beginning of the twentieth century, a predetermined anthropology could be very effective in building up and implementing a particular range of ethical behavior, because the only way to be sure you were part of God’s chosen people was to act the part associated with a saved person.70 The deterministic system found in TriTrac would have worked socially like any non-deterministic system: the individual creates/gains his or her identity in relation to the other members of the group as well as in negotiation with the larger society wherein the group functions. The importance of acting the part was great in ancient society, especially in Roman culture, where much stock was placed on how a person carried themselves, with strict ideals for different social classes, including everything from dress and speech to manner of walking.71 Social mobility was difficult, which a fixed system would reflect well. However, it would not necessarily have denied it. Unexpected social mobility could also easily have been explained with reference to the fixity of a deterministic anthropology.
In order to visualize how the fixed system would have worked in TriTrac we must view it in light of how the text describes the different roles (at least for the two in-group categories). As we have seen, the way TriTrac presents human nature allows for moral development for both pneumatics and psychics; in other words, different people had different sets of standards they were expected to maintain. Pneumatics, due to the disposition of their good proairesis, were expected to behave as moral examples. The psychics, having the ability to retain partial knowledge and also due to their proairesis, which was disposed toward both good and bad choices, needed to assent to the Savior, disregard passions, and follow the lead of pneumatics in order to be saved. Note that this psychic ambiguity is not to be confused with free choice, which, I have argued, TriTrac defines as always doing the good. In the next two chapters, we explore in more depth the nature of these two categories and the group dynamic behind TriTrac. We read that pneumatics should act as teachers. How could this have worked? What did it entail to be a teacher in antiquity? Teacher of what? A psychic is described as someone who is driven by the pursuit of honor, but who must listen to advice and help pneumatics. What did this entail? From the perspective of power dynamics, the social structure favored in TriTrac is in clear favor of the pneumatics. Social background would surely have had great influence on one’s abilities to be a pneumatic moral expert—which would likely have demanded strenuous and expensive education.
6 Conclusions
The tripartite anthropology in TriTrac is a representation of an early Christian deterministic system. We are not dealing with hard determinism; there is room for personal improvement. In fact, moral improvement is an integral component in the nature of both the in-group categories: psychic and pneumatic. The pneumatics are told to gain expertise of good and evil, and the psychics should learn from the pneumatics. Thus, the rejection of the concept of free will and the fixity of the tripartite anthropology would not have led to an indifference to ethical questions.72 The logic of this is confirmed ontologically and epistemologically: only pneuma and psychê reflect true knowledge (the psychê only partially, compared to pneuma). The social dynamics also gain support from the specific theory of passions and cognition presented in the detailed cosmogony in the first part of TriTrac: the two in-categories are fixed but support one another, just as the emotive part supports the logical part in making decisions leading to the benefit of the whole.
As we have seen, it was not at all uncommon to envision an anthropology divided into three classes of humans defined by their relation to the composition of their bodily and mental make-up. Both Philo and Plutarch describe similar anthropologies to the one we find in TriTrac. However, TriTrac presents the three human categories as Stoic dispositions, categories that did not allow for the conversion from one to another. Yet, even though one could not change one’s nature, one could nevertheless improve within one’s category. The fixed theory would not have negated social mobility. For example, if a person previously thought to have been material joined the group, it could easily be explained that it was at that point of conversion that this person’s true nature was discovered. The same argument works for member dropout or changes within the group.
See, for example, Thomassen, Spiritual Seed; Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism; Kocar, “In Heaven”, 221–245; Elaine Pagels, “Conflicting Versions of Valentinian Eschatology: Irenaeus’ Treatise vs. the Excerpts from Theodotus”, Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974): 35–53; James McCue, “Conflicting Versions of Valentinianism? Irenaeus and the Excerpta ex Theodoto”, in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, vol. 1 (ed. Bentley Layton, Leiden: Brill, 1980), 404–416; Buell, Why This New Race, 116–137; Einar Thomassen, “Saved by Nature?: The Question of Human Races and Soteriological Determinism in Valentinianism”, in Zugänge zur Gnosis, eds. C. Markschies and J. van Oort (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 129–149.
118:14–28: ϫⲉ ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲱⲙⲉ· ⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲥⲟⲉⲓ· ⲛ̄ϣⲟⲙⲛ̄ⲧ ⲛ̄ⲣⲏⲧⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ ⲇⲉ ϯⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲓⲕⲏ ⲙⲛ̄ ϯⲯⲩⲭ<ⲓⲕ>ⲏ ⲙⲛ̄ ϯϩⲩⲗⲓⲕⲏ· ⲉⲥⲧⲟⲩϫⲟ ⲙ̄ⲡⲧⲩⲡⲟⲥ· ⲛ̄ϯⲇⲓⲁⲑⲉⲥⲓⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓϣⲟⲙⲛ̄ⲧ ⲛ̄ⲣⲏⲧⲏ ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ· {ⲧⲉ·} ⲧⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲉ· ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ̄ⲛⲓϩⲩⲗⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲛⲓⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲛ· ⲙⲛ̄ ⲛⲓⲡⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁⲧⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲉ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓϣⲟⲙⲛ̄ⲧ ⲛ̄ⲅⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲛ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲩⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲛ̄ϣⲟⲣⲡ̄ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡϭⲛ̄ⲉⲓ̂ ⲙ̄ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ· ⲡⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲣ̄ ⲟⲩⲁⲉⲓⲛ ⲁⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϣⲁⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲟⲩⲉⲉⲓ ⲡⲟⲩⲉⲉⲓ· ⲁϥⲟⲩⲁⲛϩϥ̄ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ· ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥ ⲡⲉ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
Possibly alluding to Matt 7:16 or Luke 6:43–45, that also mention humans being known by their fruit.
See for example Attridge and Pagels, “The Tripartite Tractate”, in Notes, 446; Thomassen, Le Traité Tripartite, 428–429; Dunderberg, Gnostic Morality, 142.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.1–8.
Dunderberg, Gnostic Morality, 137–148; Kocar, “In Heaven”, 221–255.
Dunning, Benjamin H. “Tripartite Anthropologies and the Limits of the Human in Valentinian Christian Creation Myths”, in The Bible and Posthumanism, ed. Jennifer L. Koosed (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 175–197. Dunning raises a question in the beginning of the passage dealing with TriTrac: “Does a ‘psychic’ or ‘pneumatic’ body differ from a ‘hylic’ body—and if so, in what way?” I assume Dunning is not referring to physiological differences, since all bodies are obviously made up of a mixture of these three substances. If we want to know how these three substances as human classes differed from one another we need to do this by looking at how they reveal different ethical, social and intellectual inclinations.
The term used for material people is often ὕλη in the Valentinian material, however, rather than σάρξ, which Paul uses in 1 Cor 3:1–4 (see also Gal 5).
Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.5.6; Origen, Commentary on John, I.7, X.22, XIII.15, XIII.20. Valentinians seem to have used the three categories in more fixed ways, more so than Paul appears to have done. For more on the tripartite anthropology of Valentinian theology, see Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, passim; Dunderberg, Gnostic Morality, 137–148; Kocar, “In Heaven”, 221–255.
See, for example, Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.1–8; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies VI.29–36.
Ismo Dunderberg has recently argued, convincingly in my opinion, that there was no unified Valentinian anthropology; we find both tripartite and a bipartite anthropology in texts usually classified as Valentinian. Furthermore, those who harbor a tripartite classification (TriTrac, ExcTheod, and Heracleon, for example) differ on many points, for example, on who belonged to these different groups. See Dunderberg, Gnostic Morality, 137–148.
One difference between Heracleon and TriTrac is that Heracleon identifies the groups as Greek, Jew, and Christian. TriTrac does not limit itself to this distinction; rather, it is obvious that the category of psychic, for example, includes Christians and that the three categories relate to a cognitive system. For a discussion of the anthropology of Heracleon and TriTrac see Manlio Simonetti, “Eracleone, gli psichici ed il Trattato Tripartito”, in Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 27 (1992): 3–34. Simonetti dates TriTrac to the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century, a rather late dating, and argues that the category of psychics represents the “Catholic Church” and that TriTrac seeks to revitalize the Valentinian doctrine in light of opposition from “Catholic” Christians and does this by opening up the possibility for Catholic Christians (read psychics) to receive salvation. However, this view of the psychics does not fit the parts of the text that state that the psychics are helpers of the community and that the pneumatics teach the psychics, which rather indicates that the psychics are viewed as a particular part of the community, not Christians with opposing theological views.
ExcTheod 56:3: Τὸ µὲν οὖν πνευµατικὸν φύσει σῳζόµενον• τὸ δὲ ψυχικόν, αὐτεξούσιον ὄν, ἐπιτηδειότητα ἔχει πρός τε πίστιν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν, καὶ πρὸς ἀπιστίαν καὶ φθοράν, κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν αἵρεσιν• τὸ δὲ ὑλικὸν φύσει ἀπόλλυται.
119:16–24: ϫⲉ ⲡⲓⲅⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁⲧⲓⲕⲟⲛ̣ ϥⲛⲁϫⲓ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩϩⲙⲉ· ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲣⲏⲧⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ· ⲡⲓϩⲩⲗⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ϥⲛⲁϫⲓ̣ ⲡⲧⲉⲕⲟ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲣⲏⲧⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ· ⲕⲁ<ⲧⲁ> ⲡⲣⲏⲧⲉ̣ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲉⲉⲓ ⲉϥϯ ⲁϩⲧⲏϥ ⲡⲓⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲇ̣[ⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲅⲉⲛⲟⲥ· ϩⲱⲥ ⲉⲩⲛ̄ ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ· ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲉϥϭⲛ̄ⲛⲧϥ̄ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉϥⲕⲱ ⲁ·ϩⲣⲏⲓ̈ ϩⲱⲱϥ ⲁⲛ ϥϩⲁⲧⲣⲉ· ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲉϥⲧⲱϣ ⲁⲡⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲡⲕⲁⲕⲟⲛ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
See also Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.6 for a discussion on a Valentinian stance where psychics are described as retaining free will.
106:18–31: ϫⲉ ⲡⲓϣⲁⲣⲡ̄ ⲇⲉ ⲛ̄ⲣⲱⲙⲉ· ⲟⲩ̣ⲡⲗⲁⲥⲙⲁ ⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲧⲏϩ ⲡⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲧⲥⲉ·ⲛⲟ ⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲧⲏϩ ⲡⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲕⲟⲩ ⲁϩⲣⲏⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ⲛⲓϭⲃⲟⲩⲣ ⲡⲉ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲡⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁⲧⲓⲕⲟ̄ⲥ ⲛ̄ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉϥⲅⲛⲱⲙⲏ ⲡⲏϣ ⲁⲡⲉⲥⲛⲉⲩ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲉ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲉ· ⲛⲛⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲛⲧⲁϩϫⲓ ⲡ{ⲣ}ⲉϥϣⲱⲡⲉ· ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲉⲓ· ⲥⲉϫⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲥ ⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲁⲩϫⲱ ⲛⲉϥ· ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲡⲁⲣⲁ·ⲇⲓⲇⲟⲥ ⲁⲧⲣⲉϥⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ· ϩⲛ̄ ⲧϩⲣⲉ· ⲛ̄ϣⲟⲙⲧⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̄ϣⲏⲛ ⲉⲩⲟⲩϭⲟⲙ ⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ϯⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ· ⲉⲥϩⲁⲧⲣ̄ ⲛ̄ϣⲟⲙⲛ̄ⲧ ⲛ̄ⲣⲏⲧⲉ· ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥ ⲡⲉⲧ·ϯ ⲛ̄ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲗⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
Thus, the passage that says that “he (the creator) also sent down souls from his substance” (ⲁϥⲧⲛⲛⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲱⲱϥ ⲁⲛ ⲁⲡⲓⲧⲛ̄ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲓⲣⲉϥⲥⲱⲛⲧ̄ ⲛ̄ϩⲛ̄ⲯⲩⲭ̣[ⲏ]ⲟⲩ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲉϥⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ ⲉⲩⲛ̄ⲧ[ⲉϥ]) (105:35–37), should in my view not be interpreted that there are some people who are made up of the substance of the Demiurge and thus are destined for destruction.
95:31–35: ⲡⲥⲡⲉⲣⲙⲁ ⲇⲉ ⲛ̄ϣⲡ ⲱⲡ· ⲉⲩⲣⲁⲉⲓⲥ ⲁⲣⲁϥ ⲁϩⲉⲛⲟⲩⲁⲉⲓϣ ⲁⲧⲣⲟⲩϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲁⲩⲧⲁϣⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩⲧⲁϣⲟⲩ ⲉⲩϫⲁⲩ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲛ̄ ⲧϭⲛ̄ⲉⲓ̅ ⲙ̄ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
95:9–16: ⲉⲁⲩⲛⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲣⲁⲩⲟ̣ⲩ ⲁⲧⲣⲟⲩϫⲱⲃⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲡⲥ[ⲁ] ⲛ̣[ⲡ]ⲓ̣ⲧ̣ⲛ̄ ⲉⲛⲥⲉⲛⲁϣ ϭⲙϭⲟⲙ ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ⲉⲛ ⲛ̄ϫⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲁϣⲱⲡ ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩϭⲛ̄ⲉⲓ ⲥⲉ̣ϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ϭⲗⲟⲙ· ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲟⲩⲉ̣[ⲉⲓ] ⲟⲩⲉⲉⲓ· ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲉⲉⲓ ⲡⲟⲩⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲩⲁ[ⲛⲁⲅ]ⲕⲁⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ· {ⲡⲉ} ⲡⲟⲩϭⲛ̄ⲉⲓ̂ ⲉⲡⲓⲇⲏ ϩⲱⲃ̣ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲩⲛⲁϫⲱⲕ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲟⲧⲟⲩ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
123:19–27, 128:30, 133:7.
This theme has been studied in Williams, Immovable Race.
See Chapter 2 above.
See also the discussion of the providential role of the “seed of Seth” in Sethian literature as spreaders of truth and justice, in Lance Jenott, “Emissaries of Truth and Justice: The Seed of Seth as Agents of Divine Providence”, in Gnosticism, Platonism, and the Late Ancient World: Essays in Honour of John D. Turner, eds. Kevin Corrigan et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 43–62.
98:29–99:4: ⲁⲧⲣⲉϥⲥⲁⲕⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲕⲟⲓⲛⲱⲛⲓⲁ ⲛ̄ϩⲩⲗⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩⲥⲩⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲉⲩ· ⲙⲛ̄ⲛ ⲟⲩⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲩⲛⲁϫⲡⲟ ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲁⲫⲟⲣⲙⲏ ⲛ̄ϭⲱϫⲃ̄ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲛ̄ ⲡⲥⲁⲕⲟⲩ ϣⲁ ⲛⲉⲧⲑⲁⲩ ϫ<ⲉ> ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲣ̄ ϩⲟⲩⲉ· ⲟⲩⲛⲁϥ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ ⲛ̄ϩⲣⲏⲓ̈ ϩⲛ̄ ⲡⲉⲁⲩ ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩⲕⲱⲧⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲥⲉⲡⲱⲛⲉ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲉⲩⲛⲁϭⲱ̣ϣ̣ⲧ̣ ⲁⲡⲟⲩϣⲱⲛⲉ ⲉⲛⲧⲁ̣ⲩⲙ̄ⲕⲁϩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁϥ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥⲉ ⲉⲩⲛⲁϫⲡⲟ· ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲙⲁⲉⲓⲉ ⲙⲛ̄ⲛ ⲟⲩϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲉⲩⲙⲏⲛ· ⲛ̄ⲥⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲟⲩⲛ̄ ϭⲟⲙ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲛ̄ⲗⲁϭⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲛ̄ ⲡⲓϭⲱϫⲃ̄. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
The image that life on earth is endless toil is common in antiquity and so is the metaphor that this toil takes the shape of circular motion, often attributed to fate and destiny. Plato connected the Moirai and Ananke to cosmic motions and the turning of time and ascribes the Moirai sisters’ work, especially Clotho’s spinning of her wheel, to the movement of the seven circles, the turning of the cosmos and of time. Plato also mentions the spindle of Necessity (Ananke) in this passage, on which all the revolutions turn (Plato, The Republic X.616–617). A goddess associated with weaving in Egyptian mythology was the sister of Isis, Nephtys. She was particularly associated with the linen bandages in which the dead were wrapped, Geraldine Pinch, Egyptian Mythology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 171. Zeno called fate “a moving power” (δύναµις κινητική) (SVF I.175, 176), an image which is also not uncommon in the Nag Hammadi collection. The name of the demiurge figure in GosTruth, ⲡⲗⲁⲛⲏ, has clear astrological connotations; at NHC I, 3.42:17–26 those who have reached the rest (ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ) of the Father are described as “not striving nor being entangled in wandering around for the truth” (ⲉⲩϩⲁⲥⲓ ⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲩϭⲗⲙ̄ⲗⲁⲙⲛⲧ̄ ⲉⲛ ⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲙ̄ⲧⲙⲏⲉ). In GosPhil 63:11–21, we read an anecdote of an ass that walks round and round a millstone, never going anywhere, and of humans who travel far and wide but never reach any destination. In InterpKnow the term ϩⲓⲥⲉ is used for the system that the lower Sophia brings about, a weariness that is also connected to the toils and circularity of earthly life (11:16–38:). For more on fate in TriTrac, see Chapter 2 above.
99:4–19: ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲇⲉ ϩⲱⲛⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲁ ⲡⲓⲧⲁⲛⲧⲛ̄ ⲛⲉ ⲁϥⲕⲱ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲥⲁⲉⲓⲟ· ⲁⲧⲣⲉϥⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲙⲟⲣⲫⲏ· ⲁϥⲕⲱⲉ ⲁϩⲣⲏⲓ̈ ⲁ̣ϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲁⲛ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲕⲣⲓⲥⲓⲥ̣ ⲉⲧⲓ ⲁⲛ ⲁϥⲕⲱⲉ ⲁϩⲣⲏⲓ̈ ⲁϫⲱⲟⲩ̣ ⲛ̣̄[ⲛⲓ]ϭⲟⲙ· ⲉⲧⲁⲛⲛⲟⲩⲛⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩ ⲁ̣ⲃ̣[ⲁⲗ ϩⲛ̄] ϯ̣ⲙ̣ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲁⲉⲓⲟⲩⲉϩ ⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ· ⲁϥ[ⲕⲁⲁ]ⲩ ⲉ̣ⲩⲁⲣⲭⲉⲓ ⲁϫⲱⲟⲩ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥⲉ ⲁⲃⲁ[ⲗ] [ϩⲓ̈]ⲧ̣ⲛ̣ ⲡⲥⲙⲓⲛⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ· ⲉⲧ<ⲧ>ⲥⲁ̣ⲉ̣[ⲓⲏ]ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ ⲏ͂ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲁⲡⲓⲗⲏ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛ[ⲟⲙⲟⲥ] ⲏ ⲁⲃⲟⲗ· ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲛ̄ ϯϭⲟⲙ· ⲙⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲁⲉ[ⲓ]ⲟⲩⲉϩ ⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ ⲁⲩⲁ<ⲁ>ⲣⲏϩ· ⲁⲧ·ⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧ·ⲁϩⲟⲩⲱⲙ· ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲑⲁⲩ ϣ̣ⲁⲛⲧⲉϥⲣ̄ ϩⲛⲉϥ ⲁⲣⲁⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ̣ ⲉⲩⲣ̄ ϣⲉⲩ ⲁⲧⲟⲓⲕⲟⲓⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
In the Valentinian Letter to Flora, we find an interesting exegesis of the Mosaic Law, which is viewed as delegated, not by God alone, but several different agents. The coming of Jesus is meant to fulfill the law. For other early Christian views on the meaning of the Mosaic Law, see Susan J. Wendel, “Torah Obedience and Early Christian Ethical Practices in Justin Martyr”, in Torah Ethics and Early Christian Identity, eds. Susan J. Wendel and David M. Miller (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 2016), 177–191; and Peter Widdicombe, “The Law, God, and the Logos: Clement and the Alexandrian Tradition”, in Wendel and Miller, Torah Ethics, 192–206.
107:29–108:4: ⲁⲧⲣⲉϥϫⲓ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲣⲉ{ⲛ} ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ· ⲡⲓⲛⲟϭ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲑⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉ ϯⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲧⲥⲁⲩⲛⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ̄ ⲧⲉⲗⲉⲩⲧⲏⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲧⲣ̄ⲛⲧϥ̄ϫⲓ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲣⲁ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲡⲉⲧϩⲁⲩⲟⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲧϣⲁⲣⲟⲩϣⲱⲡⲉ· ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲙⲛ̅ⲛ̅ⲥⲁ ⲛⲓϥⲱϭⲉ ⲉⲧϣⲟ̣ⲟ̣ⲡ· ϩⲛ ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲛⲓⲗ̣[ⲉ]ϩ ⲛ̄ϥϫⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲓⲛⲟϭ ⲙ̣ⲡⲉ̣ⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ· ⲉⲧⲉ [ⲡ]ⲉ̣ⲉⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲓ̣ⲱ̣ⲛϩ̄· ϣⲁ ⲛⲓⲉⲛⲏϩⲉ· ⲉⲇⲉ ⲡⲁⲉⲓ ⲡⲉ̣ ⲡⲥⲁⲩⲛⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ⲛⲓⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ̄· ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁϫ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡϫⲓ ⲁⲃⲟⲗ· ϩⲛ̄ⲛⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
For more on the different levels of salvation, see Kocar, “In Heaven”, 221–255.
Tatian, Address to the Greeks 21–22, 31, 36–40; Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel IV.19, VII.1, IX.1, X, XI.1. For more on the negotiation concerning ethnic categories among early Christians, see Buell, Why This New Race.
109:3–5: ⲉⲙⲡⲟⲩϭⲛϭⲟⲙ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉ ⲁⲧⲗⲁⲉⲓϭ̣[ⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲛϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ· ⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ· ⲛ̄ϫⲓ ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲧ[ⲉ]ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩⲧⲁⲙⲁⲩ.
116:19–20: ϩⲛ̄ⲥⲁϩ ⲇⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲩ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲉⲉⲓ· ⲉⲧⲣ̄ ⲭⲣⲉⲓⲁ ⲛ̄ⲥⲃⲟⲩ. The above translation differs from Attridge and Pagles, who interpret the sentence as the teachers being those in need of instruction. For a discussion of this passage, see page 201 below, note 71.
Philo, On Abraham 124. My translation. Text from F. H. Colson, Philo: On Abraham. On Joseph. On Moses (Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge M.A.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 64.
For the whole passage, see Philo, On Abraham 119–130. Translations from Colson, Philo: On Abraham, 63–67.
Philo, On Abraham 122. My translation.
Plutarch, On the Sign of Socrates 591d–e: ψυχὴ πᾶσα νοῦ µετέσχεν, ἄλογος δὲ καὶ ἄνους οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾿ ὅσον ἂν αὐτῆς σαρκὶ µιχθῇ καὶ πάθεσιν, ἀλλοιούµενον τρέπεται καθ᾿ ἡδονὰς καὶ ἀλγηδόνας εἰς τὸ ἄλογον. µίγνυται δ᾿ οὐ πᾶσα τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον· ἀλλ᾿ αἱ µὲνὅλαι κατέδυσαν εἰς σῶµα, καὶ δι᾿ ὅλων ἀναταραχθεῖσαι τὸ σύµπαν ὑπὸ παθῶν διαφέρονται κατὰ τὸν βίον· αἱ δὲ πῇ µὲν ἀνεκράθησαν, πῇ δὲ ἔλιπον ἔξω τὸ καθαρώτατον, οὐκ ἐπισπώµενον ἀλλ᾿ οἷον ἀκρόπλουν ἐπιψαῦον ἐκ κεφαλῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθάπερ ἐν βυθῷ δεδυκότος ἄρτηµα κορυφαῖον, ὀρθουµένης περὶ αὑτὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀνέχον ὅσον ὑπακούει καὶ οὐ κρατεῖται τοῖς πάθεσι. τὸ µὲν οὖν ὑποβρύχιον ἐν τῷ σώµατι φερόµενον ψυχὴ λέγεται· τὸ δὲ φθορᾶς λειφθὲν οἱ πολλοὶ νοῦν καλοῦντες ἐντὸς εἶναι νοµίζουσιν αὑτῶν. Text and translation from Phillip H. De Lacy and Benedict Einarson, Plutarch: Moralia, vol. 7 (Loeb Classicalal Library. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press, 1959), 470–471.
Plutarch, On the Sign of Socrates 592.
Aristotle, On the Soul III.4.429a18. For Plotinus on similar ideas of the need to become disentangled from matter, see Dillon, “An Ethic”, 320–322.
131:22–34: ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲉⲓⲉⲡⲓⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲁⲉⲓⲟⲩⲉϩ ⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ· ⲉⲩⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉⲩ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲥⲓⲧⲉ· ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲧⲉⲉⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙ<ⲛ̄>ⲧⲙⲁⲉⲓⲟⲩⲉϩ ⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁϫⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧϣⲃ̄ⲃⲓⲱ̂· ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲛⲁⲉⲓ̣ ⲉ̣ⲛⲧⲁϩⲣ̄ ϩⲱⲃ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲛⲁⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲉⲩⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉⲩ ⲛ̄ϯⲡⲣⲟⲁⲓⲣⲉⲥⲓⲥ· ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲟⲩ ⲉⲩϣⲁⲣ̄ ϩⲛⲉⲩ ϩⲛⲛ ⲟⲩⲅⲛⲱⲙⲏ ⲛ̄ⲥⲉⲟⲩⲱϣⲉ· ⲁⲕⲱⲉ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲁⲉⲓⲉⲁⲩⲟⲩ ⲉⲧϣⲟⲩⲉⲓⲧ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
119:23–24: ϥϩⲁⲧⲣⲉ· ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲉϥⲧⲱϣ ⲁⲡⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲡⲕⲁⲕⲟⲛ.
For example, On First Principles III.1.24; Stromata I.27. For an overview of how προαίρεσις is used in patristic literature, and for further references to Origen and Clement, see Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 1133–1134.
130:1–9: ⲁⲧⲣⲛ̄ϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲑⲉ ⲉⲧⲉϣϣⲉ ⲁ·ϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲉⲓ ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ϩⲁ· ⲡⲣⲁ· ⲛ̄ⲛⲁ ⲡⲓⲧⲱϩⲙⲉ· ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲣⲏⲧⲉ· ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ· ⲁⲛⲓⲟⲩⲛⲉⲙ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁϥ ⲟⲩⲁⲛⲁⲅⲕⲁⲓⲟ(ⲛ) ϭⲉ ⲡⲉ· ⲁⲧⲣⲛ̄ⲟⲩ{ϩ}ⲱϩ· ⲁⲧⲟⲟⲧⲛⲉ· ⲁϣⲉ ⲁⲣⲁⲩⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ϥⲣ̄ ϣⲉⲩ ⲉⲛ ⲁⲧⲙ̄ⲧⲛ̄ⲣ̄ ⲡⲟⲩⲙⲉⲩⲉ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
132:7–9: ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲉϣϣⲉ ⲡⲉ· ⲁⲧⲣⲛ̄ϫⲟⲩ· ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲛⲣ̄ ϣⲣⲡ̄ ⲛ̄ϫⲟⲟϥ· ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ⲡⲓⲟⲩϫⲁⲉⲓⲧⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲇⲉ ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲛⲉⲙ.
133:1–11: ⲥⲉⲛⲁϫⲓ ⲡⲛⲉⲩ ⲛ̄ⲅⲁⲣ· ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲩⲟ ϩⲛ̄ⲛ ⲟⲩⲫⲩⲥⲓⲥ ϩⲛⲛ ⲟⲩϣⲉϫⲉ ϣⲏⲙ·ⲟⲩⲁⲉⲉⲧϥ̄ ⲉⲛ ⲁⲧⲣⲟⲩⲛⲁϩⲧⲉ· ⲟⲩⲁⲉⲉⲧϥ̄ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲛ ⲟⲩⲥⲙⲏ· ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲣⲏⲧⲉ· ⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲉ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲱⲧ· ⲇⲉ· ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲧⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲡⲉⲧⲉⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ· ⲕⲁⲛ· ⲉⲩⲛ̄ ϩⲁⲉⲓⲛⲉ ϫⲁⲥⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲧⲟⲓⲕⲟⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ· ⲉⲁⲩⲕⲁⲩⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲗⲁⲉⲓϭⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲁϩϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲩⲣ̄ ϩⲟⲩⲉ· ⲉⲛⲉⲣⲅⲓⲁ ⲉϩⲛ̄ⲫⲩⲥⲓⲕⲏ ⲛⲉ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
This is skillfully discussed in Dunderberg, Gnostic Morality, 128–130.
This is discussed by Seneca in Epistle 75.
Seneca, Epistles 75.15.
On this, see Epictetus, Discourses I.26.3. For a similar case, see the discussion of Musonius Rufus in Thorstensson, Roman Christianity, 41–54.
Seneca, Epistles 75.8. Translation by Richard M. Gummere, in Seneca: Epistles, vol. 2 (Loeb Classicalal Library. Cambridge M.A.: Harvard University Press, 1925), 141.
Merely to be in the presence of a superior person, Seneca writes, was beneficial for a proficiens, as he himself had personally experienced (Epistle 94).
126:32–34: ⲉⲩⲛⲁϫⲓ ϯⲡⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲡⲉⲧⲑⲁⲩⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̄ⲥⲉⲣ̄ ⲅⲩⲙⲛⲁⲍⲉ· ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ ⲛ̄ϩⲣⲏⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ.
See, for example, Diogenes Laertius, Lives VII.120, 127; Plutarch also criticized Stoics on this account, in Progress of Virtues, 75a–f, 77a–b, 449f–450a. For details of Plutarch’s view of moral progress, see Richard A. Wright, “Plutarch on Moral Progress”, in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought, ed. John T. Fitzgerald (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), 135–150.
54:14, 59:2–3, 59:9–10, 63:34, 81:4, 97:13, 118:17–18, 120:7, 121:20, 130:26, 131:19. The other two times this term appears in the Nag Hammadi texts are in GosPhil 81:5 and OnOrigWorld 112:22.
These distinctions belong to the reception of Aristotle’s discussion regarding quality: whether the quality of a specific class of thing could intensify or diminish. There were three views of Aristotle’s work, according to Middle Platonic interpreters: (1) that material quality as well as the qualified thing could intensify and diminish. A thing could be more or less red, for example; (2) one had to separate the quality and the qualified thing. The qualified thing could intensify and diminish but not the quality that qualifies. The quality red was constant even though some things could be more or less red; (3) some qualities could change into different states (ἕξις), others stayed constant and always kept their disposition (διάθεσις). Stoics were identified as maintaining that virtue was a disposition that did not fluctuate. For more on the way Stoics were portrayed by their contemporaries, and for a view of the way quality could be interpreted in ancient time, see Katerina Ierodiakonou, “How Feasible is the Stoic Conception of Eudaimonia?”, in The Quest for the Good Life: Ancient Philosophers on Happiness, eds. Øyvind Rabbås et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 183–196.
54:14, 59:2–3, 59:9–10, 63:34.
The material powers are the “imitation of the disposition” ([ⲡⲧ]ⲁ̣ⲛⲧⲛ̄ ⲛ̄ϯⲇⲓⲁⲑⲉⲥⲓⲥ) of the existence above in the Pleroma (80:37–81:8), while the psychic powers are of the disposition of the good (see 121:20–21, 130:19). The only other time the term is used is to designate the categories “prayer” (ⲡϣⲗⲏⲗ) and “appeal” (ⲡⲥⲁⲡⲥⲡ̄) (97:12–14).
We read that the pneumatics have come to earth in order to “they might experience the evil things and might train themselves in them” (ⲉⲩⲛⲁϫⲓ ϯⲡⲉ· ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲡⲉⲧⲑⲁⲩⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̄ⲥⲉⲣ̄ ⲅⲩⲙⲛⲁⲍⲉ· ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ) (126:32–34).
118:21–23: ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲉ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓϣⲟⲙⲛ̄ⲧ ⲛ̄ⲅⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲛ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲩⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ. Translation by Attridge and Pagels, slightly modified.
Buell, Why This New Race, 126.
Dunning, “Tripartite Anthropologies”, 185–186. Dunderberg understands the anthropology as not entirely fixed. This is due to the text’s description of the Hebrews as people who are psychics but who seem to have pneumatic ability, since they predict the Savior’s appearance. However, in light of TriTrac’s epistemology and ontology, which presents psychic substance as retaining partial knowledge, the Hebrews can indeed be understood as psychic people. Dunderberg reads this passage in light of the statement that each person is a mixture until the Savior comes, pointing out that there was obviously already a separation between Greeks and Hebrews before the Savior’s appearance. However, this does not mean that the system is not deterministic, only that there were no pneumatic people before the Savior’s appearance, only partial knowledge, via the psychics’ ability to retain partial understanding. Dunderberg, Gnostic Morality, 142.
Buell, Why This New Race, 127–128. I do, however, agree with Buell that Valentinians in general cannot be described as determinists.
Attridge and Pagels, “The Tripartite Tractate”, in Notes, 446; Buell, Why This New Race, 127–128.
Thus, I am more in line with Einar Thomassen’s interpretation that ‘Valentinians’ would have answered, if accused of determinism, that nature was connected to action, that one showed one’s nature through one’s actions. Thomassen, Le traité tripartite, 428–429. Buell seems to reject this notion (Buell, Why This New Race, 128).
As Williams has noted concerning recruitment: “if a particular religious group held to a rigidly deterministic doctrine of salvation, this would not in principle rule out the group’s engagement in a vigorous program of recruitment. Those successfully converted might simply be regarded by the group as individuals predestined to salvation, while those completely refusing recruitment could be considered destined for destruction … every person newly contacted might be a potential member of the saved” (Williams, Rethinking, 208).
Here we read that the church and the members that it is made up of have suffered, and that it is the obligation of the psychic to share in this suffering. We also read that there are people who hate the church, are jealous and persecute it.
For example, it would not have been easy to explain why a person would choose damnation before salvation.
It is important to note that I am not arguing that a determinist theory is better or more effective overall, only that it would have worked just as efficiently as the basis on which to build a social and ethical model.
This has previously been suggested by Alexander Kocar. See Kocar, “Humanity”, 220, where Kocar argues in much the same way as I do here, that soteriological fixity does not negate social mobility.
One could argue that the pneumatics, being in possession of a good proairesis, would have had no trouble in recognizing a fellow pneumatic and would not have made mistakes. However, as I have argued above, contrary to Stoic presentations of a good proairesis as a completely free proairesis that could not act contrary to the good, TriTrac restricts complete freedom to the Pleroma. Thus, the work allows for mistakes to be made by pneumatics whose proairesis, even though it is good, is restricted by life in materiality, exposed to passion and false impressions.
Among early Protestants, this was demonstrated by success in business and commerce. Thus Weber argues that Protestant ethics resulted in the emergence of capitalism. See Weber, Protestant Ethics.
Theories were developed to study and analyze a person’s gait (incessus); how a person moved could reveal everything from gender and social standing to personal characteristics. See, for example, Timothy M. O’Sullivan, Walking in Roman Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), which is devoted to the importance of appearance, and what was communicated through it, in the Roman world.
Bobzien, “Stoic Concept”, 71–89.