Trimorphic Protennoia Research Articles

Intertextuality, Isiac Features, and the Shaping of the Sacred Feminine in Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII, 1)

The aim of this paper is to bring to light through intertextual analysis some dimensions of continuity between the Hellenistic and Imperial theology of Isis and the figure of the Sacred Feminine as it appears in the Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII 1). Instead of attempting to establish a diachronic (=historical) relationship of dependence between sources (e.g., borrowing, allusion, influence), this study establishes correspondences that can be traced on the literary level. Through a reception-oriented analysis, it will be possible to show the continuity between the Isiac religion and the late ancient mysticism of the Trimorphic Protennoia. A late ancient reader would have experienced the Nag Hammadi text in dialogue with Isiac traditions, and this literary dialogue with the Isiac religion would have nurtured and shaped their understanding of the sacred feminine described in the Trimorphic Protennoia.

Book Review: Linguistic Revelation in Two Nag Hammadi Texts: Tilde Bak Halvgaard, Linguistic Manifestations in the Trimorphic Protennoia and the Thunder: Perfect Mind

Book Review: Linguistic Revelation in Two Nag Hammadi Texts: Tilde Bak Halvgaard, <i>Linguistic Manifestations in the Trimorphic Protennoia and the Thunder: Perfect Mind</i>

Gnostic Sources and the prehistory of the Descensus ad inferos

The scope of this paper is to revisit the attestations of the theme of the Descensus ad Inferos in some Gnostic sources, direct or indirect, (among them, Trimorphic Protennoia [NHC XIII,1], Teachings of Silvanus [NHC VII,4] and Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses), in order to evaluate their relationship to the “classical” witnesses of the Descensus, including the so-called Gospel of Nicodemus (or Acta Pilati).

Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition

Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition, by John D. Turner. Bibliotheque Copte de Nag Hammadi Section «Etudes» 6. Quebec: Les Presses de l' Universite Laval; Paris: Peeters, 2001. Pp. xix + 844. euro80.00 (paper). ISBN 2763778348 (Laval); 9042910887 (Peeters). John Turner (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is no stranger to students of ancient Gnosticism. Indeed, he has been one of the leading scholars in this field for almost three decades, perhaps best known for his translation work of Nag Hammadi Codices as well as his work on Sethian Gnosticism. In this monumental and exhaustive work, Turner continues to add to our understanding of Sethianism, especially as it is discernible in the Nag Hammadi material. As indicated by the title, Turner sets out to explore the relationship between Sethianism and Platonism. Turner is not the first to see a strong connection between Gnosticism and Platonism. In the first chapter he lays out three explanations of such a connection posited by earlier scholars: Gnosticism as a form of Platonism (i.e., Platonism run wild); Platonism as incipient Gnosticism; and Gnosticism and Platonism as interdependent, indices of the social and conceptual development of each tradition (e.g., Sethianism as an index for the reemergence of a Speusippian four-level metaphysic). Turner's work would fall under this third alternative. After the introductory chapter, the book falls into three major parts. Part 1 offers a delimitation of the Sethian tradition. Part 2 lays out the development of Platonism from Plato to Plotinus. Part 3 explicitly compares the Sethian tradition with Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. Following H. M. Schenke's lead, Turner claims that the presence of key mythologoumena, along with the witness of the church fathers and Plotinian material collected by Porphyry, indicates that Sethianism actually existed in the second to fourth centuries as a viable alternative to Christianity. The features identifying Sethianism, as Schenke had suggested, are: (1) a pneumatic seed of Seth; (2) Seth as heavenly redeemer; (3) the trinity of Father (Invisible Spirit), Mother (Barbelo), and Son (Autogenes); (4) Barbelo as triadic Kalyptos, Protophanes, and Autogenes; (5) the Four Luminaries (Harmozel, Oroiael, Daveithai, and Eleleth); (6) the demiurge Yaldaboath as opponent of the seed of Seth; (7) the three ages of history with the appearance of a savior figure in each; (8) a special prayer; (9) a negative theology; (10) a specific philosophical terminology; (11) a secondary Christianization; (12) a triad or tetrad of ministers of the Four Luminaries (Gamaliel, Gabriel, Samblo, Abrasax); (13) the Coptic designation of Pigeradamas for Adamas; and, added to Schenke's list, (14) the baptismal rite of the Five Seals (pp. 63-64). Turner's own historical analysis, however, explicates this religious tradition in more depth. He begins by establishing the literary evidence for Sethianism, placing a strong emphasis upon the sources underlying and interconnecting the Nag Hammadi material, including the following texts: the Apocryphon of John (longer and shorter versions); the Hypostasis of the Archons; Gospel of the Egyptians; the Apocalypse of Adam; the Three Steles of Seth; Zostrianos; Marsanes; Melchizedek; the Thought of Norea; Allogenes; and the Trimorphic Protennoia. (Other possible candidates for a Sethian corpus might also include the Thunder, Perfect Mind, On the Origin of the World, Hypsiphrone, and the Untitled Treatise of the Bruce Codex.) Turner divides the Sethian material into two broad categories: those of the ascent pattern and those of the descent pattern. Those of the descent pattern highlight the descent of a revelatory figure (such as Pronoia/Barbelo in the Providence Monologue) in three divine epiphanies (during the molding of the earthly Adam; spiritual light to Eve initially hidden in Adam, birth of Seth, Noah escaping the flood; resurrected Christ who reveals the entirety of Sethian history). …

Genesis Traditions in Conflict?: The Use of Some Exegetical Traditions in the "Trimorphic Protennoia" and the Johannine Prologue

Genesis Traditions in Conflict?: The Use of Some Exegetical Traditions in the "Trimorphic Protennoia" and the Johannine Prologue

Genesis Traditions in Conflict?: the Use of Some Exegetical Traditions in the Trimorphic Protennoia and the Johannine Prologue

L'article compare le prologue de l'Evangile de Jean et la Protennoia Trimorphe decouverte a Nag Hammadi. L'A. etudie les similitudes, la relation a la gnose, et propose d'abandonner l'explication par la dependence a des traditions sapientiales, et suggere que le Protennoia peut etre compris comme mythe soteriologique usant de l'interpretaion traditionnelle de Genese I.

The Providence Monologue in the Apocryphon of John and the Johannine Prologue

The Providence Monologue in the Apocryphon of John and the Johannine Prologue Michael Waldstein (bio) John's relation to the Gnostics has been a subject of intense debate ever since Bultmann proposed that John used a Gnostic revelation discourse source to express his "pointed anti-Gnostic theology."1 The Nag Hammadi texts have put this debate on a more solid historical basis. It had been commonly assumed on the basis of heresiological reports that John was a favorite text of Christian Gnostics. Nag Hammadi evidence now suggests otherwise. John's role in the clearly Christian-Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts is marginal.2 All the more tantalizing are the points of contact between John and some of the non-Christian or only marginally Christian texts grouped together as Sethian, particularly the contacts between the Johannine Prologue and the Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII, 1). Scholars have proposed opposed hypotheses to explain these contacts: the Prologue depends on the Trimorphic Protennoia [End Page 369] or on one of its sources;3 the Trimorphic Protennoia depends on the Prologue.4 At the end of the longer version of the Apocryphon of John one finds a brief poetic Monologue of personified Providence (πρόν οια) which resembles the Prologue both in style and content.5 Its relation to the Trimorphic [End Page 370] Protennoia is even closer. It appears to be the literary Vorlage on the basis of which the Trimorphic Protennoia was written.6 Although the Providence Monologue is thus relevant to the debate surrounding the Johannine Prologue, no detailed analysis of it has been published yet.7 Such an analysis is what the present article intends to supply. Section one of the article analyzes the Monologue's structure and meaning; section two turns to its composition history and insertion into the Apocryphon of John; section three, to its history of religions setting; and the conclusion, section four, to its relation to the Johannine Prologue. The Providence Monologue, the article concludes, is a non-Christian text rooted in Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom speculations which it recasts in recognizably Gnostic fashion.8 It has no direct literary connections with the Johannine Prologue. Nevertheless it can contribute to the understanding of the Prologue. It can provide a benchmark for addressing an issue formulated by George MacRae, S.J., [End Page 371] . . . (T)he root problem in identifying the background of the Fourth Gospel is the fact that the Jewish wisdom tradition can be used to account for much of what some interpreters regard as Gnostic. The real issue then becomes: is the Fourth Gospel an independent development from the wisdom tradition or part of a larger movement of speculation in which Gnosticism also interprets wisdom? I suggest that this remains the central issue in Johannine studies. . . .9 The Providence Monologue10 1. I, therefore, the perfect Providence (πρόν οια) of the All, took form11 in my seed (σπέρμα), for (γάρ) I existed first, going on every road. 2. For (γάρ) I am the richness of the light; I am the remembrance of the pleroma (πλήρωμα). 3. And (δέ) I went12 into the realm of darkness, and I endured () till I entered the middle of the prison. 4. And the foundations of chaos (χά ος) shook. 5. And I hid myself from them because of their wickedness (κακία), and they did not recognize me. 6. Again (πάλιν) I returned, for the second time, and I went about. 7. I came13 forth from those who belong to the light, which is I, the remembrance of the Providence (πρόν οια). 8. I entered into the midst of darkness and the inside of Hades, since I was seeking (to accomplish) my task (). 9. And the foundations of chaos (χά ος) shook, [End Page 372] that they might fall down upon those who are in chaos (χά ος) and might destroy them. 10. And again I14 ran up to my root of light lest they be destroyed before the time. 11. Still () for a third time I went 12. —I am the light which exists in the light, I am the remembrance of the Providence (πρόν οια)— 13. that I might enter into the midst of darkness and the inside of Hades, and I filled15 my face with the light of the completion (συντέλεια) of their aeon (). 14. And I entered...

John and the Gnostics: the Significance of the Apocryphon of John for the Debate About the Origins of the Johannine Literature

Irenaeus of Lyons (flor. AD 180), the first orthodox Christian writer to utilize the Fourth Gospel, claimed that it was written to refute heretics, particularly the Gnostics he describes in Adversus haereses 1.29 and 30. This article contends that careful analysis of the Gnostic myth underlying Adv. haer. 1.29 and the Apocryphon of John leads to the conclusion that it is fundamentally Christian and has already been influenced by Johannine ideas. It goes on to argue that Irenaeus's version represents a more original form which has been developed by the Apocryphon, whose myth, in turn, is reflected by the Trimorphic Protennoia, which has recently been claimed as the natural pre-Christian matrix of the Prologue. Thus, far from the Gnostic myth generating or influencing the Fourth Gospel and its Prologue in particular, it has been influenced by the Fourth Gospel.