THE

LETTER
OF EUGNOSTOS
ORIGINS
OF GNOSTICISM

AND

THE

by
JERRY

L. SUMNEY
Ferrum, VA

There

has come to be a broad consensus

that Gnosticism
in
some
on its
with Judaism,
perhaps
relationship
emerged
One question,
however, vexes this hypothesis.
'fringes'.
Quispel
puts the question this way: "It seems to me that the real issue is
this: most Gnostics were against the Jewish God who created the
world and gave the Law. Is it possible that this doctrine is of Jewish
origin?"' I Scholars have responded to this concern in various ways.
as a revolt against Judaism.2
In someMany speak of Gnosticism
of the
thing of this vein, Segal discusses the historical development
idea of the evil demiurge.3
softens
this
Layton
position, seeing the
of
Gnosticism
as
a
revision
of
rather than a
beginnings
Judaism
revolt.4 The other basic approach is to see Gnosticism
as a revolt
and Tr6ger hold this view.5 5
against the cosmos. Jonas, Robinson,
1 Gilles
Quispel, "The Origin of the Gnostic Demiurge," in GnosticStudiesI
(Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1974), p. 213.
2
E.g. Quispel, Ibid., pp. 218-219; George W. MacRae, "The Jewish
Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth," Novum Testamentum12 (1970): 97;
Birger A. Pearson, "The Problem of 'Jewish Gnostic' Literature," in Nag
Hammadi, Gnosticism,and Early Christianity,eds. Charles W. Hedrick and Robert
Hodgson, Jr. (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986), p. 16; Nils Dahl,
"The Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia: Jewish Traditions in Gnostic
Revolt," In TheRediscovery
of Gnosticism,Vol.2, ed. Bentley Layton, Studies in the
History of Religions, 12 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), pp. 689, 691, 701. Dahl is
more cautious than some, identifying the controversy with "strict Jewish
monotheism" as "one factor in the gnostic revolt" (Ibid., p. 692).
3 Alan F. Segal, Two Powersin Heaven:Early RabbinicReportsabout Christianityand
Gnosticism,Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, no. 25 (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1977).
4
Bentley Layton, "The Riddle of the Thunder (NHC VI,2): The Function of
Paradox in a Gnostic Text from Nag Hammadi," in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism,and
Early Christianity, eds. Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr. (Peabody,
Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986), p. 54.
5 Hans
Jonas, The GnosticReligion: The Messageof theAlien Godand the Beginnings
of Christianity,2nd ed. (Boston: Beacon Books, 1963), pp. 101, 251, passim; James

173
the recent work of Henry
Stroumsa
may also belong here and
of Roman Egypt lends support
Green'
on the social environment
to this view.
that the radical rejection of
Both of these camps acknowledge
Jewish tradition and the Jewish God developed over time.8 But the
unanswered.
of how this development
began remains
question
the
of
considered
of
the
works
Apocryphon
quite early (e.g.
Many
a
radical
contain
and
fairly
already
Sophia Jesus Christ),
John
So while these are early in relation to
inversion of Jewish tradition.
most writings of the Nag Hammadi
library, they represent a time
when the revolt had a good deal of momentum.
This paper asserts that the Letter of Eugnostos (Eug) belongs to
was first emerging.9 We will contend
the period when Gnosticism
on the
could and did originate
that Eug shows how Gnosticism
Eug shows us Gnostic ideology in the making,
fringes of Judaism.
to
took place. Eug's relationship
at a time before its radicalization
the Sophia of Jesus Christ (SJC) also allows us to see how more
radical Gnostics could adopt and adapt these less radical views.1O
While the connections between Eug and Jewish traditions are not
as obvious as they are in some texts, most agree that they are presM. Robinson, "Introduction: The Dismantling and Reassembling of the
Categories of New Testament Scholarship," in TrajectoriesthroughEarly Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), p. 15; Karl-Wolfgang Trger, "The Attitude
of the Gnostic Religion towards Judaism as Viewed in a Variety of Perspectives,"
in ColloqueInternationalsur les Textesde Nag Hammadi, ed. Bernard Barc (Quebec:
Les Presses de L'Universit Laval, 1981), pp. 88-89.
6 Gedaliahu A. G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in GnosticMythology,Nag
Hammadi Studies, no. 24 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984), p. 17. However, see p. 172.
7
Henry A. Green, The Economicand Social Origins of Gnosticism,Society of
Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 77 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985).
8 So
e.g. Dahl, "Arrogant Archon," pp. 700-712; Stroumsa, AnotherSeed, pp.
17-18, 62-55, 172; Segal, Two Powers, pp. 246-247, 255ff., 266.
9 There is a
general consensus that Eug is early.
10 Most
agree that SJC is dependent on Eug. See the discussions of M. Krause,
"Das Literarische Verhltnis des Eugnostosbriefes zur Sophia Jesu Christi: Zur
Auseinandersetzung Jesu Christi," in Mullus, ed. A. Stubier and A. Hermann
(Mnster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964), pp. 215-223; HansMartin Schenke, "Nag-Hammadi Studien II: Das System der Sophia Jesu
Christi," ZRGG 14 (1962): 263-278; idem, "Nag-Hammadi Studien III: Die
Spitze des dem Apokryphon Johannis und der Sophia Jesu Christi
zugrundeliegenden gnostischen Systems," ZRGG 14 (1962): 352-353, 361;
Douglas Parrott, "The Significance of the Letter of Eugnostos and the Sophia of
Jesus Christ for Understanding the Relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity," Societyof Biblical Literature 107th Annual Meeting Seminar Papers, 1971
(Missoula: SBL, 1971), pp. 397-416.

174
ent." Eug's use of Adam (81, 12)'2 clearly points to familiarity with
and use of Jewish traditions. 13 The way Eug uses its Jewish sources
is what is significant here. Parrott asserts that Gen. 5:1-3 stands
behind Eug 76, 13-85, 19 and that Gen. 1-3 stands behind Eug 85,
is telling.
Parrott's
19-90,
way of referring to this relationship
between these Genesis passages and
He finds "correspondences"
speculations.15
Eug's cosmological
Eug uses these passages as the
This use of Genesis is not unlike what we
basis for its speculations.
often lead him into
find in Philo. Philo's allegorical interpretations
speculations
cosmological
(see e.g. Conf. 34-36). This use does not
or scripture
on his part.
imply a rejection of Jewish traditions
Rather,
Similarly, Eug is not rejecting or inverting these traditions.
the
view
as
basis
of
function
the
Thus,
Eug's speculation.
they
traditions is different in Eug from that in most
taken toward Jewish
Gnostic works. There is no revolt against them in Eug, even
parthough, as Parrott puts it, Eug has freed itself of "Judaism's
ticularistic tradition."'6
Indeed, Philo moves in that direction with
of scripture.
his interpretation
11 Douglas Parrott, "The Significance of the Letter of Eugnostos," p. 410;
Stroumsa, AnotherSeed, p. 79; Birger A. Pearson, "Jewish Sources in Gnostic
Literature," in Jewish Writings of the Second TemplePeriod, Compendia Rerum
Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.2, ed. M. E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984), p. 461, n. 115.
12 All references to the text of
Eug will be from Codex III of the Nag Hammadi
library unless otherwise noted. Even though the version in codex V is older, its
fragmentary state makes it difficult to cite consistently. If there are significant differences between codex III and V in the passages cited, that will be noted. On the
priority of the version in codex V see Douglas Parrott, "Evidence of Religious
Syncretism in Gnostic Texts from Nag Hammadi," in ReligiousSyncretismin Antiquity, ed. Birger Pearson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1975), p. 180; Deirdre J. Good,
the Traditionof sophiain GnosticLiterature,SBL Monograph Series, no.
Reconstructing
32 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), pp. xvii f.
13
Douglas Parrott, "Gnostic and Orthodox Disciples in the Second and Third
Centuries," in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism,and Early Christianity, eds. Charles W.
Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr. (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers,
1986), p. 196. The use of "Son of Man" may also indicate a Jewish background
for Eug. See the discussion of Frederick H. Borsch, The Christian and GnosticSon
of Man, Studies in Biblical Theology, second series, no. 14 (Napierville, Ill.: Alec
R. Allenson, 1970), pp. 94-100; and Douglas Parrott, "Evidence of Religious
Syncretism in Gnostic Texts from Nag Hammadi," p. 180.
14 Parrott, "The
Significance of the Letter of Eugnostos," pp. 410-411, esp. n.
2. See also Stroumsa, AnotherSeed, p. 79.
15 Parrott, "The
Significance of the Letter of Eugnostos," pp. 410-411, esp. n.
2. Again Stroumsa agrees that Genesis supplies the pattern for Eug's speculations
(AnotherSeed., p. 79).
16 Parrott, "Gnostic and Orthodox,"
p. 200. Bentley Layton comments on the

175
for
Another point worth noting is that there are few appellations
God taken from the Hebrew Scriptures. 17 The only example of such
seems to be "King of kings" (78, 2-3).IS This title is
a borrowing
who is not the highest God, but an
Man"
used of "Self-Father
It is difficult to know what to
Man".
of "Immortal
emanation
make of the use of this title at this level (except that it is a fitting
of this being, given those beings who come from him).
description
of him. This
But it is significant that there is no explicit denigration
stands in contrast to other, later Gnostic works which denigrate the
demiurges
given biblical names for God, including SJC. SJC uses
the names Almighty (107, 3, 9; 119, 9) and Yaldabaoth
(119, 15)
for a low "arrogant"
Clearly,
Eug does not revolt
demiurge.
against the Jewish God in the way (or at least to the extent) that
SJC and other Gnostic works do.
Eug's attitude toward the cosmos also points to an early stage of
It is much less radical in its rejection of the world than
Gnosticism.
other Gnostic works. This is very clear in 74,7-20 and 83,21-84,12.
after and truly reflects the
In these passages the world is patterned
and
hours are based on the
The
aeons.
months,
year,
upper
and the number of beings in the aeon just above the
"Heavens"
and 84,11-85,9.
world in 83,20-84,11
Eug says explicitly that each
a type" of the various powers. It
of these time divisions exists "as
aeon came to be as a type in relation to Immortal
says further, "our
and 84,17b-85,6a.
Man" (83.20-22).
SJC deletes Eug 83,20-84,11
Good asserts that SJC deletes these passages because they are based
on the lunar calender which was obsolete at the time of SJC . 19 But
more may be involved. SJC does not see the world as a place that

tension present in The Hypostasisof the Archonsas it both inverts the meaning of
passages in the Hebrew Scriptures and is deeply dependent on them ("The
Hypostasis of the Archons," Harvard TheologicalReview67 (1974): 273).
17
Eug's "negative theology" in relation to the highest God may contribute to
this phenomenon.
18 In the same passage Eug uses the title, "god of Gods," using NOYTE rather
than JOEIC. The tendency of the author of Eug seems to be to prefer predicate
adjectives rather than names to describe the highest being; see 71,14-72,1. In the
parallel passage in SJC (94,5-22) a name seems to be given to the highest being.
The impression that one receives when reading Eug is that in comparison with
other Gnostic works, this author is reluctant to give a name to God. This may
point to close contact with and respect for the Jewish custom of not using the name
of God.
19 Good, Reconstructing,p. 22.

176
reflects

the divine order. So the cosmogonical

remarks of these
conflict
with
view
of
the
world.
passages
SJC's
Eug 74,7-20 is an especially revealing passage when compared
with its parallel in SJC (98,13-20).
According to Eug 74 the invisible things can be known from the visible world.2 This is only possible if the world truly reflects the divine. If the world were the creation of a demiurge who failed in copying the upper realms (of which
he was fairly ignorant),
the divine could not be known from the
visible world.2' The parallel in SJC alters this passage so that the
invisible world is revealed, not in the world, but in the Gnostics
in "those that belong to the Unbegotten
Father."
themselves,
SJC
includes various other expressions not found in Eug which show its
more radical rejection of the world. For example, SJC speaks of the
world as "the poverty of the robbers"
and refers to sexual intercourse as the "unclean
rubbing."22
Thus, we have a considerably
higher view of the world in Eug
than in SJC and most Gnostic texts. The world does have an order
which reflects the divine. This understanding
of the world is one
that Philo and Plotinus could accept.23 Plotinus's complaint that the
Gnostics drain the world of its order and beauty is without point for
Eug's view of the world.
A most important
feature of Eug which points to less radical
of
the
is the absence of a Fall within the divine
world
rejection
realm .24 The only hint that Eug may know of this myth is the
20 Parrott also
gives this interpretation of the passage ("The Significance of the
Letter of Eugnostos," pp. 401-402). Good remarks, "Without recourse to
soteriology, Eugnostospresented a positive teaching about the origins of the world
from the one true God" (Reconstructing,p. xvii).
21 See Hans
Jonas, "Delimitation of the Gnostic Phenomenon-Typological
and Historical," in Le OriginidelloGnosticismo;Colloquiodi Messina13-18 Aprile1966
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), p. 97 and GnosticReligion, p. 251.
22 Pheme Perkins remarks that
SJC recognizes the goodness of God in creation
only in the Pleroma (The GnosticDialogue;TheEarly Churchand the Crisis of Gnosticism
[New York: Paulist Press, 1980], p. 95. Cf. Ibid., p. 98).
23 See Dominic O. O'Meara, "Gnosticism and the
Making of the World in
Plotinus," in The Rediscovery
of Gnosticism,Vol. 1, eds. M. Heerma Van Voss, E.
J. Sharpe, R. J. Z. Werblowsky (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), pp. 373-378 for a
discussion of Plotinus and the Gnostics' view of the world. Cf. Perkins, Gnostic
Dialogue,pp. 169, 173. Others have noted the similarities (including parts of their
cosmological speculations) between Eug and Philo. See Good, Reconstructing,
pp. 68-71 and R. H. Charles, Pseudepigrapha(Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), p. 426
(cited by Good).
24 Good
(Reconstructing)argues convincingly that there is no Fall of Sophia in
Eug.

177
defect in the female" (85,8-9). Some see this as an
expression, "the
reference
to the Fall of Sophia.25 However,
Good and
oblique
Williams have recently argued, on different grounds, against this
of the phrase.
Noting that a Fall of Sophia coninterpretation
tradicts the other comments about her in Eug, Good argues that the
deficiency has to do with the lunar month. The lunar month is
spoken of as incomplete in the second Pseudo-Clementine
Homily
(23,2), and Jubilees and 1 Enoch each discuss the 360 day year in
with other calenders.26 Thus, Eug accepts this criticism
comparison
of the lunar month.
Williams understands
this deficiency to refer to movement,
as
he
to
at
rest.
In
the
tradition,
Pythagorean-Platonic
opposed
being
was seen as superior
to movement.
The
immovability
argues,
former was associated with maleness, the latter with femaleness.2'
the creation
of
If Good
is correct
that
"initiates
Sophia
28 and that she "is the means
the
whereby
multiplicity
everything"
of creation is derived from a God whose first generative act simply
mirrors himself,29 then Williams's
may be very fitting.
argument
In any case, good alternatives
for understanding
the "defiseem
the
of Eug
are
available
and
to
fit
outlook
ciency" passage
and the position of Sophia in Eug better than finding a reference
to a Fall here. The defect may indeed point to the creation of the
world.3 But this does not necessitate the myth of a Fall or a break
scheme.
within the emanation
have
a
Fall
of Sophia. This fits well with its radical
does
SJC
of
the
world
and
its deletion of the material of Eug that
rejection
sees the world as a reflection of the divine aeons. Jonas and Perkins
of beings in the realm above
see the function of the multiplication
25 So MacRae, "Jewish Background," pp. 100-101. Dahl ("Arrogant
Archon," p. 692, n. 2) gives this interpretation to the parallel in SJC. This interpretation is probably correct for SJC, as Good acknowledges (Reconstructing,p. 27).
26 See Good's discussion,
Reconstructing,pp. 26-29.
27 Michael A. Williams, The ImmovableRace; A GnosticDesignationand the Theme
of Stability in Late Antiquity, Nag Hammadi Studies, no. 29 (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1985), pp. 100-102, 157. The number speculation in Eug is probably to be traced
to Neopythagorian number speculation. If this is correct, it strengthens Williams's
position and may point to a link between Eug and Alexandrian Judaism.
28 Good,
Reconstructing,pp. 15-16.
29 Ibid.,
p. 31. Good does overstate the case a bit since Sophia is part of an
androgynous being whose male name is Genetor, to match her female name
Genetress.
30 See below the discussion of
Eug 76,13.

178
the world (like what we find in Eug) as a way to separate God and
the world." This is no doubt correct. However, having a Fall which
creates a disjuncture
between the upper and lower realms produces
distance
a much greater,
one might say qualitatively
different,
between God and the world. Like Philo and Plotinus, Eug does not
want God in direct contact with the world. But again like them,
Eug does not separate God entirely from the structures and order
of the world. Thus Eug's cosmogony is significantly different from
SJC (and most Gnostic writings) because it does not have a Fall of
Sophia.3z Eug's cosmology is not even compatible with SJC's. The
latter's author recognized this and made the alterations (e.g. 98,13necessary to include the
20) and deletions (e. g. Eug 82,7-84,12)
Fall of Sophia, as well as adding the myth of the Fall itself (SJC
with the Sophia myth).
replaces Eug 82,7-84,12
All of this is not to imply that Eug embraces the world. It is only
that its rejection of the world is less radical than what we find in
other Gnostic texts. Eug refers to the world as "the chaos" (85,20with seeing the world as a reflection
21). This seems incongruous
of the divine realm, but it is not unique. Again we may look to
Philo for a parallel. Philo sees the goodness of God in creation and
in that dwelling
yet speaks of bodily existence as being "imprisoned
33 As we mentioned
of
the multiendless
calamities.
"
above,
place
the
immovable
of
between
contemplating,
plication
beings
highest
God and the world does function to distance him from the world.
So the view of the world in its relation to God is similar to that of
Philo.
31
Jonas says this when speaking of Basilides's 365 heavens (GnosticReligion, p.
43). Perkins says, "The poetic effect of descending through the ranks of aeons as
in ApocryJn or SJC or of journeying through heaven after heaven as in Zostr
removes the divine as far as possible from the world as we know it" (Gnostic
Dialogues,p. 169-emphasis mine). It is the "as far as possible" that we are taking
issue with.
32 For a discussion of the functions of
Sophia in Eug, see Good, Reconstructing,
pp. 1-31, esp. pp. 15-16, 57, 68-69. Cf. Perkins, GnosticDialogues, pp. 95-97.
Good comments,
Even in the present text of Eugnostosthe "denial theology" of the opening
passage explicitly dissociates the Supreme Being from any human form (B
[i.e. codex III] 73.4-5). Yet the association of noetic powers with this Being,
and the subsequent revelations of this figure in different forms endowed with
similar noetic powers, tends to mitigate the isolation of the Unknown God
(Reconstructing,pp. 68-69).
33
Conf. 35. Trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Loeb Classical Library
(Harvard University Press, 1932).

179
indication of the world denying aspect of Eug comes in
73,21-74,7 where it says that whatever comes from the perishable
and that what is from the imperishable
is itself
is perishable
to
the
world
is
made
in
either
No direct reference
imperishable.
Eug or the parallel in SJC. But it is said that humans die because
and the
they do not know the difference between the perishable
So
the
world
is
a
of
certainly
place
ignoimperishable
(74,4-6).
rance.
about the world in
Thus, it seems that there is some ambiguity
Another

Eug. On the one hand, it is a place of ignorance and is perishable.

On the other hand, it is a reflection of the order of a higher aeon.
This kind of ambiguity
about the world is not unique,
it is also
found in Jewish apocalyptic.3
At this point we may wonder whether anything in Eug makes it
a particularly
Gnostic work. I believe so; there are elements in it
which show that we are moving
into Gnosticism.
First, the
of
in
the
aeons
is
a
beings
higher
necessary
multiplication
of the Sophia myth. The comment about the defect of
predecessor
the female may even have assisted the entrance of the Sophia myth
into Gnosticism.
the personalization
of the divine powers is also a
Second,
for
Gnosticism
to emerge.35 Eug takes up the
necessary
step
in Jewish
task which could have been accepted
mythologizing
circles, but which others might resist. Plotinus rejected such a move
in Plato's
in arguing
about the interpretation
of the demiurge
comments
that Eug's
of
Timaeus.36 Perkins
"personification
abstract
terms for the aeons resembles oral personification.
But
have no personality. " 37
unlike genuine stories, these abstractions
If
In her view, this puts Eug typologically
close to oral tradition.
to Gnosticism,
as
this is correct, we may be seeing the transition
are written down.
such speculations

34
Jewish apocalyptic holds out no hope for the structures of the world and sees
the world as a place under the control of the Evil One. And yet, in some works
from this tradition social ethics are important and the messianic kingdom is to be
established on the earth.
35 See
Jonas, "Delimitation of the Gnostic Phenomenon," pp. 93-95.
36 See O'Meara, "Gnosticism and the
Making of the World in Plotinus,"
pp. 365-374 with his references to the Enneads.
37 Perkins, Gnostic
Dialogues,p. 35.

180
between the first and second
an interesting
difference
Third,
scheme. In the
levels of the Pleroma emerges in Eug's emanation
that
of
each being is
the
aeon,
highest
"unbegotten"
(75,20ff.),
a discussion
"revealed"
At
we
move
to
76,13
EBOL).
(OYONH
of those who are "begotten".
Here the "First"
forth"
"brings
being. This is the first time in Eug
(EINE) the first androgynous
of divine beings. While
that activity is predicated in the production
still
refers
to
various
as
the more active
revealed,
Eug
beings
also
used
seems
to
be
more
dominant
is
and
language
(e.g. 76,16,
Man"
"Self-Father
created [AFTAMIO]).
Creation,
then, is a
a
of
nature
result
the
of the
process of divine decision, not simply
various beings which create. Plotinus opposes this view, arguing
that the world comes into existence without thought on the part of
the divine. It simply emanates
from the nature of the preceding
being.
This difference in the mode of creating
at the different levels of
the Pleroma lends some credence to Williams's
focus on the difference between the movable and immovable,
with the movable
being inferior and female. For it is here, at the second level, where
creation
that we begin
Eug begins
using
language,
having
We
are
in
a
as
androgynous
beings.
clearly
process of devolution,
the decreasing power of beings at each level also shows (78,11-15;
75,10-13). So a bit less of the higher God is found in each descending level.
This account of the Pleroma prepares for V 8,6-1238 where Eug
states that the world was created by a being who was created. This
remark betrays a devaluation
of the world beyond
cosmogonical
what we expect outside of Gnosticism.
This goes past anything
Philo would allow. Philo can acknowledge that God sometimes used
assistants in creation (Conf. 35), but God is still involved. That is
not the case in Eug. The creation of the world by a creature shows
a lower valuation of the world and moves us toward, if not into, the
Gnostic ideology.
the initial stages of Gnostic
cosmoEug, then, represents
It
creates
the
for
us
logical/cosmogonical
speculation.
bridge
(and
its second and third century readers) between the cosperhaps
in the Hellenistic
found
mological/cosmogonical
speculations
of the Hebrew
and later
philosophical
interpretation
Scriptures
38 This section of codex III is not extant.

181
Gnosticism.39
Eug seems to come from a time before the polemic
Gnosticism
moved it toward the radicalized
against
interpretation
and inverting of the Hebrew Scriptures.
first steps in the direction
of
Eug also shows us Gnosticism's
world denial. The world is not only distant from God, it is created
This
by a being that is itself "created"
(not even "revealed").
increases the distance between God and the world, but does not
sever the ties the way a fall of Sophia and creation by an evil
demiurge does. The absence of a fall of Sophia points us to an early
time, perhaps a time when alienation was not felt as acutely as it
soon would be felt. Either that or the cosmological
and cosmohad simply not developed in that direction yet.
gonical speculations
But obviously,
as calling the
they were headed in that direction,
world "the chaos" and identifying
the creator of the world as a
creature demonstrate.
The evidence of Eug seems to point us to a revolt against the
of earliest Gnostic speculation.
cosmos as the primary
motivator
We see a movement
toward Gnostic cosmology,
but it is not the
result of problems with texts of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Rather,
these speculations
to
the
texts
of
Genesis.
If
"correspond"
speculations like those in Eug met opposition
within Judaism,
the
radicalization
of interpretation
would have begun then. The situation of Roman
would be an
Egypt as described
by Green
for
the
in
There
we find a
appropriate
setting
speculations
Eug.
context
in
and
tension
the
social
and
Jewish
increasing
religious
spheres. Eug manifests an attempt to come to terms with a world
which is increasingly hostile by using and reinterpreting,
not rejectthe ancient traditions
of Judaism.
ing or inverting,
In comparing
Codex V and III of Eug and then SJC and the
of
"What we have before us
Apocryphon
John, Parrott comments,
is the evidence of a faith in the process of being metamorphized. " "0
This study supports this understanding
of the relationship
of Eug
and SJC and attempts to push our vision of that process back one
step. In Eug we see the emergence of the Gnostic perspective from
the Hellenistic-philosophical
of the Hebrew Scripinterpretation
tures.
39
Similarly, Layton ("The Hypostasis of the Archons," p. 373) sees the later
Hypostasis of the Archons as a union of popular Platonism and " 'apocryphal'
Judaism."
40 Parrott, "Evidence of
Religious Syncretism in Gnostic Texts from Nag
Hammadi," p. 183.