The Epiphany of Gnosis 2004

The Epiphany of GnosisAuthor(s): EINAR THOMASSENSource: Illinois Classical Studies, Vol. 29, Diving Epiphanies in the Ancient World (2004), pp.217-226Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23065349 .

Accessed: 01/11/2014 07:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to IllinoisClassical Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.177.32.128 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 07:36:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23065349?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


12

The Epiphany of Gnosis

EINAR THOMASSEN

The apostles went upon the mountain called the Mount of Olives, where they used to gather with the blessed Christ when he was in the body. Together they fell on their knees and prayed: "Father, Father, Father of light, possessor of the

incorruptible, hear us, just as you took pleasure in your holy child Jesus Christ.

For he became for us an illuminator in the darkness. Hear us!"

And they prayed a second time: "Son of life, Son of immortality who is in

the light, Son, immortal Christ, our Redeemer, give us power, for they seek to

kill us."

Then a great light appeared so that the mountain shone from the sight of

that which appeared. And a voice called out to them: "Listen to my words that I

may speak to you! Why do you seek me? I am Jesus Christ who am with you forever."

The apostles answered: "Lord, we wish to understand the deficiency of the

aeons and how they are perfected. Also: How are we detained in this dwelling

place? How did we get here? How shall we depart? How do we acquire boldness and authority? And why do the powers attack us?"

Then a voice came to them out of the light: "You are yourselves witnesses

that I have already spoken all these things to you. But because of your unbelief

I shall speak again. First, with regard to the deficiency of the aeons,..."

This text comes from the beginning of a short tractate from the Nag

Hammadi Library called The Letter of Peter to Philip.1 The tractate is not

actually a letter; it only begins with a brief letter from Peter summoning

Philip to meet with the rest of the disciples. The main part of the tractate is

in fact an account of what happened after the disciples had come together

on the Mount of Olives. An epiphany of Jesus took place, and he proceeded

to instruct the disciples on a set of well-defined questions.

1 NHC VIII,2 132. 10 - 140. 27. The text quoted is found at 133. 13 - 135. 9. The

translation (somewhat free) is my own.



218 Illinois Classical Studies 29 (2004)

The genre is a familiar one in Gnostic literature. It is the so-called revelation discourse, a literary vehicle for presenting Gnostic truths

dramatically as revelations coming from the mouth of the Redeemer

himself. A number of Nag Hammadi tractates exhibit the same pattern. In

the famous Apocryphon of John, for example, John the disciple has retreated to "a desert place." Crushed by doubt and despair, he asks himself a series of questions: "How was the Saviour appointed, why was he sent

into the world by his Father, and who is his Father who sent him . .etc., whereupon the heavens open, the Saviour appears in several forms, and

starts answering John's questions.2 Other examples are provided by the Corpus Hermeticum. In the

Poimandres, "an enormous being completely unbounded in size" appears to

the narrator, asks him what he desires to know, and proceeds to instruct him

about "the things that are" and about God.3

In all the revelation discourses, the revealer's instruction is interrupted

every now and then by new questions, or remarks from his audience. In this

sense, the formal requirements of the dialogue genre are maintained. On the

other hand, real debate or argument never takes place; we are a long way from the style and the idea of the Socratic dialogue, where the exchange between the interlocutors serves the gradual and shared discovery of a truth

that none of them possessed at the outset.4 The genre of the revelation

discourse is evidently not sufficiently defined by identifying it as a

dialogue. The exchange is one that takes place between two unequal parties; the element of revelation—or even epiphany—seems to be an essential

feature of the genre.

Relevant to the question of the history of the genre, is the fact that the revelation discourse framework in certain cases can be shown to be a

secondary feature of a document. The text called Eugnostos (NHC 111,5) is

a treatise on the generation of the transcendent world. It is prefixed by the

words "Eugnostos, the Blessed, to those who are his," a feature that makes

it, perhaps, a letter—though there are no epistolary characteristics in the

text—or a homily. A version of Eugnostos however, was used as the main

raw material in another text, the Sophia of Jesus Christ (NHC 111,4 and BG,5), where it was turned into a revelation discourse spoken by the

Saviour to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee after the resurrection. To serve this purpose, the original treatise was cut up into a series of replies

2NHC 11,2 I. 18-2.9. 3

Corp. herm. 1. 1 ff. 4 Cf. Rudolph 1968, especially p. 87.



Einar Thomassen 219

made by the Saviour to various questions asked in turn by the disciples Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Mary, and Bartholomew.

In that case we have an instructive example of how a treatise was at a

later stage converted into a dialogue. Similar processes may be assumed to

have taken place with certain other revelation discourses, although in those

cases we no longer possess the material in treatise format. The Apocryphon

of John is one likely candidate for being a treatise where the framework of a revelation situation and a dialogue has been secondarily added (Kragerud 1965; Logan 1996: 72-74). In the case of another Nag Hammadi text, the

Apocryphon of James (NHC 1,2), the raw materials do not, on the other

hand, have the characteristics of a treatise, but are rather sayings of the Lord

that have been dramatized by being turned into lines spoken by him in an

exchange with James and Peter in the course of a post-resurrection

epiphany. In this case we may envisage a trajectory starting from the genre of sayings collections, such as Q and the Gospel of Thomas, and leading towards the revelation discourse (Cameron 1984; Koester 1990: 187-200). An intermediate stage may be found in the canonical gospels, which have

also framed in narratives sayings attributed to Jesus, and sometimes in

dialogues. At all events it should be possible to discern, as a general phenomenon, a growing trend to frame what were originally instruction

materials, such as wisdom sayings, homilies and treatises, in the dramatic form of discourses spoken by a revealer figure in the course of a

supernatural epiphany and in dialogue with an audience of one or more

disciples. It is interesting to note that in the latest preserved specimens of

Gnostic literature such as the Pistis Sophia and the Books of Jeu, the genre

looks as if has become the normal vehicle for Gnostic instruction.

This trend may be interpreted in terms of a more general observation

about the nature of the knowledge imparted in these documents: Putting this

knowledge into the mouth of a revealer not only enhances its prestige, but

also transforms the knowledge itself from being "rational," i.e. accessible

by the exercise of common human faculties, to being revealed knowledge

and thus dependent on faith in the revealer's superhuman status. I shall

argue, however, that it is important not to think of this dichotomy as an easy

one, but that the most interesting feature of the revelation dialogue genre is

the dialectical tension between the claims to inherent rationality of the

instruction materials and their postulated revealed status. I shall come back to that point. First, I should like to take a somewhat

closer look at the question of the history of the genre. Festugiere, in 1942, commented on the Hermetic "logos" of instruction in an article that was




later incorporated in volume two of La Revelation d'Hermes Trismegisle.5

Here, he argued that the dialogue form of the Hermetic tractates had arisen

from, and reflected, the situation of teaching in intimate philosophical circles: They are basically didactic and edifying homilies spoken by a teacher to a small number of pupils, whereby the pupils make their presence

felt by posing occasional questions. At the same time, however, the

discourses also have an element of revelation, which he identified as

belonging to a Platonic tradition of discourse as well, exemplified by the

speech of Diotima in the Symposium. More recently, however, Jean-Pierre Mahe has argued for a different

affiliation for the Hermetic revelation discourse. He describes it as a descendant of the ancient Egyptian wisdom text, which often takes the form

of a dialogue between a father and his son. In fact, there is often a

father/son relationship between the revealer and his interlocutor in the

Hermetic texts (Mahe 1982: 278-305). Another approach was that of Heinrich Dorrie (1966: 346-347; cf. also

Rudolph 1968: 87-88, 104-105) who related the Hermetica to the literary model of erotapokriseis—a scholastic form of exposition in the question

and-answer form used originally in ancient philological exegesis but later

extended to be used with other forms of technical knowledge as well. He

admits, however, that in the Hermetica this genre is conflated with the style of oracular divination. Here, it may be pointed out that exegetical issues do in fact form part of the subject matter in certain Gnostic revelation

discourses—notably the Apocryphon of John—though in the Hermetica, on the other hand, the exegesis of texts does not seem to be discussed.

If we turn to the Judaeo-Christian tradition, to which the Gnostic texts

belong, still other models may be found. In apocalyptic texts, a visionary is

regularly given instruction by an angel—the angelus interpres—about the

course of history and secrets of the heavenly realm (see, e.g., Himmelfarb

1983). Here, too, a question-and-answer form is frequent. And, of course,

the canonical Gospels offer several instances of dialogues between Jesus

and the disciples, as, for example, the discussion in the Synoptic Gospels about whether those who are rich will enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:23-30, and parallels; Majercik 1992: 187).

As we can see, a bewildering variety of antecedents for the Gnostic and Hermetic revelation dialogue may be, and have been, proposed, and no

agreement exists regarding the origins of the genre. It would seem, in fact, that any notion of a single genealogy is here misplaced, and that we have to

5 Festugiere 1942, corresponding to Festugiere 1949: 28-59.



Einar Thomassen 221

be open to the likelihood that multiple strands of tradition have contributed to the genre: apocalyptic revelation, Near Eastern wisdom instruction,

Hellenistic scholasticism, philosophical diatribe, and the literary model of the rabbi Jesus. No doubt the ratio of the individual ingredients varies from one case to the next; thus the apocalyptic elements and traditions about

Jesus are, naturally, stronger in the Gnostic dialogues than in the Hermetic ones. But this situation may very well be another of those instances where

Wittgenstein's well-worn metaphor of "family resemblance" is useful in order to grasp the unity as well as the diversity of the phenomenon.

Genealogical derivation is, in any case, an insufficient approach for

explaining any phenomenon in the history of human thought and institutions. To explain origins, it is not enough merely to answer the

question, "where does this come from?" We also need to ask about

structural causes—the internal mechanisms of the phenomenon that

produce its outward shape. It is in this connection that we should look at the fact that these dialogues are set in the context and the literary frame of an

epiphany. The structural pertinence of this setting—its "function," if you like—is not simply the fact that it provides added authority for the doctrines

expounded in the course of the dialogue; it is also intimately related to an essential element of these doctrines themselves. In brief: the revelation

dialogues not only tell about the revelation of gnosis, they are in an

essential way a revelation of gnosis themselves.

There is what one might describe as a kind of self-referential circularity in much of Gnostic writing. In the mythical narratives unfolded in the texts, the turning point invariably occurs when a Saviour figure is sent down from

the transcendent realm to help, instruct and make whole again the spirit lost

in the darkness and deficiency of matter. This act of revelation is, of course,

itself an epiphany: the revealing saviour is the outward manifestation of the

invisible and unknown supreme deity. His (sometimes her) revelation not

only consists of imparting information but is also a visual demonstration of

the transcendent, a theoria or an epopteia with connotations of initiation

and of a transformation of those who are granted the vision of the epiphany.

This epiphany, which occurs as an event in the Gnostic narrative itself, is

reflected and duplicated in the epiphany that sets the context of the

revelation dialogues, and also provides its deeper systematic justification. The instruction given by the revealer in the course of his dialogue with his

disciples is evidently identical to the gnosis that is revealed by the Saviour

figure to the fallen spirit in the narrative which forms the subject matter of

the revealer's instruction. We thus have here something like a Chinese




boxes situation, or a self-referential textuality which, like the ouroboros

snake, bites its own tail.6 This perspective may be carried one step further if we contemplate that

gnosis is given not only by the Saviour in his revelation discourse with the

disciples, but that the text which describes and relates this revelation discourse may itself be considered a vehicle of gnosis. Thus the encounter between the text and its reader is, as well, analogous to the situation of

saving revelation described in the Gnostic narrative. In this sense, the text

itself is a revealer, the Gnostic tractate itself an epiphany.

If we adopt this perspective on the Gnostic text, and on the experience

of reading it, we may in turn add the observation that the revelation of

gnosis in the Gnostic myths of salvation itself sometimes takes the form of

the revelation of a piece of writing: a letter from heaven, for example, as in

the Hymn of the Pearl:7

The letter flew like an eagle, the king of all birds; it flew and alighted beside me, and became all speech. At its voice and the sound of its

rustling, I started and arose from my sleep. I took it up and kissed it, and

began to read it. And according to what was traced on my heart were the

words of my letter written. I remembered that I was a son of royal parents, and my noble birth asserted its nature.

Another example: In the Gospel of Truth the appearance of the Saviour

in the world is described as the manifestation of "the living book of the

living," in which are written the names of the spiritual elect.8 The revelation

of the Saviour is the same as opening that book, and in that book you see

who you really are; from it you obtain your true self (cf. Thomassen 2002). So the book, the dialogue and the manifestation event of the Gnostic

Saviour in the mythical narrative are homologous—they are conceived

under the same schema of thought. Moreover, that schema corresponds, I

6 Hans Jonas expressed this insight long ago, with incomparable precision: "Im Mythos selbst namlich ist die Idee seines Wissens als ein Moment seines gegenstandlichen Inhaltes thematisch exponiert, und hierdurch ist er spezifisch "gnostischer" Mythos. Dessen berichtende Mitteilung wird so zum vorgesehenen Akt innerhalb des mythischen Horizontes, ja zur Peripetie seines ganzen inhaltlichen Geschehens, das mit diesem Ereignis seiner selbst in den neuen Modus der Offenbarung, der Erkenntnis, also des Se/fofbewusstseins hiniibertritt. Insofern diese Offenbarung in seiner Erzahlung auch als Szene vorkommt, erscheint sich der

gnostische Mythos selbst und ist eigentiimlich auf sich riickbezogen, in sich riickverschlungen. Anstatt einfach, wie sonst Mythos, von seinen Gegenstanden zu reden, gehort der gnostiche vielmehr selber, unter dem Titel der 'Gnosis', zu seinen ausgezeichneten Gegenstanden" (Jonas 1954: 14).

7 Lines 51-56 in Acts Thorn. 111. 8 NHC 1,5 19.34-21.25.



Einar Thomassen 223

now suggest, to an essential structure of Greek philosophical anthropology,

namely the relationship between mind and soul. In each case, the revealer is

cast in the role of the Nous, or the Logos, whereas the receiver of the

revelation occupies the correlative position of Psyche. In this sense,

therefore, what you have in the revelation discourses, is a soul conversing

with and receiving instruction from its own mind—a conversation driven by

the simultaneous division and unity of the two, which is also what forms the essential subject matter of the conversation. We see a divided self that

speaks to itself about its own division in a discourse that simultaneously articulates and purports to heal that division.

Now, what lesson can be drawn from such observations as far as the

notion of epiphany is concerned? One is that the epiphany in the revelation discourses is a textual device that provides authority for a text whose author is constructed by the text itself as being in a state of fallenness and

deficiency. Since the story told in the text discredits the voice of its author as being in essence imperfect, another, transcendent voice has to be

introduced to recover the credibility of the text.

Another lesson could be that the gnostic epiphanies represent an

internalization of the epiphany experience if this experience is compared to

historical antecedents in either the Greek or the apocalyptic tradition. Thus

the epiphany of Poimandres is described as follows:

Once, when thought came to me of the things that are and my thinking

soared high and my bodily senses were suspended ..., an enormous being

completely unbounded in size seemed to appear to me and call my name

and say to me: "What do you want to hear and see; what do you want to

learn and know from your understanding?" "Who are you?" I asked. "I am

Poimandres," he said, "mind of sovereignty; 1 know what you want, and 1

am with you everywhere." (Corp. herm. 1. 1-2; tr. Copenhaver, slightly

modified.)

The epiphany of Poimandres, though in one of its aspects described in

accordance with traditional epiphanies—the enormous size of the god—

does not originate in some distant Olympus, but is the speaker's own Mind

emerging from inside himself. The presence of the god is evoked by an

introspective meditation carried out by the human person. I would suggest

that the epiphanies of the Gnostic revelation dialogues should be regarded in the same way. They are not simply copies and extensions of the pre- and

post-resurrection teaching situations with Jesus narrated in the gospels, nor

is their primary Sitz im Leben a setting of instruction in schools. Rather, these epiphanies are generically typical elements of mystical tracts intended

for the edification of the solitary individual, describing an experience of

illumination to be re-enacted by the reader in the encounter with the book.




"Mystical" is the best word I can think of to describe this particular, ambiguous form of epiphany, which is internal and introspective, but at the same time describes itself as something coming from the outside, as from a transcendent source. There the matter will have to remain, with an epiphany

that is at the same time internal and external, a subjective experience as

well as an objective event, discursive and textual in form while ineffable in

meaning. For there seems to be a way in which mysticism, for all its

preoccupation with the mystic's own self, always requires an epiphany, just

as every epiphany may be said to contain an essential element of the

mystical. After all, Wittgenstein said: "Es gibt allerdings Unaussprechliches. Dies zeigt sich, es ist das Mystische" (Tractatus 6. 522).

Bergen, Norway



Einar Thomassen

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cameron, R. 1984. Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James.

Harvard Theological Studies 34. Philadelphia. Copenhaver, B. P. 1992. Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and

the Latin Asclepius in a New English Translation. Cambridge. Dorrie, H. 1966. "Erotapokriseis A." In Reallexikon fiir Antike und

Christentum, 6.342-47. Stuttgart.

Festugiere, A. J. M. 1942. "Le 'logos' hermetique d'enseignement." Revue des Etudes Grecques 55, 77-108.

. 1949. La Revelation d' Hermes Trismegiste, Volume 2: Le Dieu

cosmique. Paris.

Himmelfarb, M. 1983. Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature. Philadelphia.

Jonas, H. 1954. Gnosis und spatantiker Geist, II: Von der Mythologie zur

mystischen Philosophie. Erste Halfte. Reprinted in H. Jonas. 1993.

Gnosis und spatantiker Geist, II: Von der Mythologie zur mystischen

Philosophie. Erste und zweite Halfte. Forschungen zur Religion und

Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 159. Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.

Koester, H. 1990. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and

Development. Philadelphia. Kragerud, A. 1965. "Apocryphon Iohannis: En formanalyse." Norsk

Teologisk Tidsskrift 66, 15-38.

Logan, A. H. B. 1996. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the

History of Gnosticism. Edinburgh.

Mahe, J.-P. 1982. Hermes en Haute-Egypte, II: Le Fragment du Discours

Parfait et les Definitions hermetiques armeniennes (NH VI, 8.8a).

Bibliotheque copte de Nag Hammadi 7. Quebec.

Majercik, R. 1992. "Dialogue." In D. N. Freedman, G. A. Herion, David F.

Graf, and J. D. Pleins (eds.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 2.185-88.

New York.

Rudolph, K. 1968. "Der gnostische Dialog als Literarisches Genus." In P.

Nagel (ed.), Probleme der koptischen Literatur. Wissenschaftliche

Beitrage der Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg 196. Second

edition, 85-107. Halle.



Illinois Classical Studies 29 (2004)

Thomassen, E. 2002. "Revelation as Book and Book as Revelation:

Reflections on the Gospel of Truth." In S. Giversen, T. Petersen, and J.

P. Sorensen (eds.), The Nag Hammadi Texts in the History of Religions: Proceedings of the International Conference at the Royal

Academy and Sciences and Letters in Copenhagen, September 19-24,

1995, On the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Nag Hammadi

Discovery. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab: Historisk

filosofiske Skrifter 26, 35-45. Copenhagen.



The Epiphany of Gnosis 2004

Documents

Transcript of The Epiphany of Gnosis 2004