-153-

less remote from the spiritual than is hylē. (The Father Himself is once spoken of as having psychē— 42:37, perhaps only a naïve anthropomorphism.)

⁴³⁹

The verb is problematical. The first hand wrote wte, perhaps the same verb which Crum, 531b books as wt, meaning unknown. But above the w I read a faint 4 (and perhaps a second letter which I cannot make out). The suggested translation is based upon reading 4te and taking it as a variant of 4ta "be deficient, lacking" (cf. Crum, 593b; Allberry in Manichaean Psalm-Book, vocabulary: "wane").

⁴⁴⁰

I.e. shallow, thin.

⁴⁴¹

It is so shallow that it cannot really be called soil.

⁴⁴²

Farther down the slope where soil conditions change.

⁴⁴³

Literally "melt" (cf. Ps. 96:5 Sah. [97:5 Eng.]).

⁴⁴⁴

Perhaps only "not cold"— warm. This presupposes a warm climate— not of Egypt, but of Italy, where the original was presumably written.

⁴⁴⁵

From the Father or from the place of the Father. (The edge of the page has broken off carrying away a letter and most of another, but the word was clearly the same as that in 34:29.)

⁴⁴⁶

The broken edge of the page took the middle out of the word p.no[u]te (-te begins the next line), but the restoration seems certain. The word "God" occurs once again, at 37:33. How "God came" is not said here, but elsewhere we learn that He came by His "Name"— his Son.

⁴⁴⁷

The same verb, though now transitive, as that behind "flow" 34:24.

⁴⁴⁸

It would perhaps be better not to transliterate here, but to translate, the fullness, because it scarcely refers to the technical concept Pleroma.

⁴⁴⁹

ne3.swte (for swt, repeat, continue) a.4wpe in the sense of Ps. 39:13 (which is 38:14 in LXX and Sah.). This

is the only case I have observed in the meditation of the conjunctive tense spelled ne3.

⁴⁵⁰

The union or reunion (with God and his place) is the antithesis and the abolition of the separation 34:27.

⁴⁵¹

This is the only time that the native Coptic word for Gospel is used: 4mnou3e (Crum, 570a).

⁴⁵²

Cf. Phil. 3:13, where however both Sahidic and Bohairic use synonyms of this verb. See also 42:14.

⁴⁵³

Here begins Plate 6 of Coptic Gnostic Papyri (Labib).

⁴⁵⁴

Literally "this which. . . ," "this" being feminine. Yet the antecedent must be the Coptic masculine, "salvation," behind which probably stands, feminine. Once more a Greek pronoun's gender prevails over the grammar of the Coptic.

⁴⁵⁵

Abstract for the concrete, the hoped-for, that for which they hope— as at 17:3.

⁴⁵⁶

Or resemblance. I.e. they resemble the light, but the resemblance is probably not to be thought of as a fortuitous one but as an inherent one: they resemble it because they are akin to it, because they came from it and are now coming to it.

⁴⁵⁷

Cf. I John 1:5, James 1:17.

⁴⁵⁸

Unfortunately vague: at what time? The allusion appears to go back to 34:27-30, where no definable time is indicated. 35:6 cannot mean the time of the historical Incarnation because it uses the "habitual present" tense in 35:7. One condudes, then, that "that time" is whenever a man in his human lack and neediness recognizes his need and receives the saving light. ( Schenke divides the letters differently and gets m-.p.sa pet.m-meu "from that direction" (sc. Heaven). But it is the habit of the meditation to use p.et. as a substantive, not as a relative clause or an attributive adjective. Further, sap is a form used about ten times for Sah. sop, once exactly as here— 37:30. Finally "time ouaei4 of the lack" in 35:11 is

more readily understandable, if a synonymous "time" has already occurred early in the sentence.

⁴⁵⁹

A completely redundant verb, probably an awkward reflexion of some Greek idiom.

⁴⁶⁰

If correctly written, 4t4- is either an unknown word or a strange variant of 4ta, "lack" (cf. the relationship between 4ot4t and 4wwt). It may be a sheer blunder of the scribe for 4ta, but there seems to be no paleographical explanation for it.

⁴⁶¹

Literally lack of matter— epexegetical genitive.

⁴⁶²

This confirms Malinine's conjecture that mn-t.arh`s-, 24:8 and 31:19, should contain the privative prefix. Here it finally is, correct: mn-t.at.arh`s-. The idea may involve the reflection that infinitude and lack are so antithetical that the latter could not arise from the former.

⁴⁶³

The sentence as a whole is obscure but seems to argue (against unspecified opponents) that the lack cannot be the creation of the Father because while the lack is in full effect the Father comes to abolish the lack. (Cf. 17:2-3 concerning forgetting, another name of the lack.)

⁴⁶⁴

Schenke finds a superfluous e in a.3.a4ee.ei and reads "Rich (i.e. a4ai) was the Depth . . ." I propose to drop the second a, as a later addition (it stands farther out in the right margin than any other letter on the page and has its long stroke less vertical than most on the page) and read a.3.4e: "proceeded to come"— cf. the similar expression in 35:7.

⁴⁶⁵

The photograph appears to read: n-t.eiwwt. "Father" is once again spelled this way (40:29), but never again lacks the definite article.

⁴⁶⁶

The first three words (two in Coptic) of this line the scribe had prematurely copied into line sixteen, then he crossed them out and wrote them in their correct place.

⁴⁶⁷

Cf. 18:1 for a very similar and probably synonymous

denial. Planē's forgetting, 17:36, imposed upon men was precisely the content of her thought, 35:18, or plot.

⁴⁶⁸

Assuming that the Coptic word stands for fronhma or nohma, one might well choose a more specific word— scheme or plot. For the plot of Planē see 17:15-18:20.

⁴⁶⁹

Meaning obscure. Does it mean a matter (viz., salvation) to fall down from heaven without human speculation or assistance? Or does it mean a matter before which one can only fall down (in amazement and awe)?

⁴⁷⁰

Also obscure. Perhaps: inactive until he sees fit to activate it.

⁴⁷¹

n.se6w.3, see soo6e (Crum 380b).

⁴⁷²

Probably for Greek objective genitive: at one's finding the Redeemer.

⁴⁷³

The antecedent is probably the preceding word, "him," which otherwise would be vague. However, this relative clause may be parallel to "who came to him"; i.e.: of him who will cause him to return. The latter would better fit the statement in 35:25-27, but the former seems more natural.

⁴⁷⁴

From the context beginning with 34:15 one understands: return to the Father, the Father's place— and understands it almost spatially, unprepared for the surprise of the next sentence.

⁴⁷⁵

This is an amazing sentence to find here. Did the author know Hebrew? For Greek metanoia (repentance) has no obvious connection with "returning." But Hebrew shūb (to return) and theshbāh (a return) became the technical rabbinic terms for repent and repentance in post-biblical Hebrew. (The Septuagint did not yet use metanoia for these Hebrew terms.) For Christian knowledge of Hebrew outside of Palestine in the second century, we have very little information. Pupils of Valentinus must have known some Hebrew— think of Achamoth, Pneuma, a female (ruakh), Jao, Jaldebaoth, and

such tantalizing gibberish as Iren. I.21.3* Little as it is, this may be some evidence that Valentinus himself was acquainted with Hebrew. This sentence also makes clear that the eschatology of the preceding pages is not simply futuristic, since the "return" is already essentially realized in repentance.

⁴⁷⁶

Abstract for concrete: the Imperishable One.

⁴⁷⁷

The papyrus is blurred here. From the photograph it appears to read nibe. The upright of the third letter is on the left side, not the right: b for 3. (Cf. the opposite shift at 35:18, 19, and 39:21.) The allusion appears to be to the insufflation of the Spirit (John 20:22), but seen here from the divine side as "exsufflation."

⁴⁷⁸

Cf. the similar aid of the Spirit in 30:16 ff.

⁴⁷⁹

In The Jung Codex, p. 126, van Unnik says, ". . . the word 'sin' is not here mentioned." He had overlooked 32:37 and could not know pp. 33-36. His remark now needs twofold qualification.

⁴⁸⁰

As usual the reference of the pronoun is ambiguous. I take the verb to be transitive and to have an object distinct from the subject, which, though technically feminine, stands for the Father. One cannot be dogmatic about it; this verb is often reflexive and may be so here. In that case: "in order that he [the human recipient] might rest himself." In either case, his rest is not self-attained but conferred from above.

⁴⁸¹

This is the sole occurrence of an expression for forgiveness (such would need to occur in a context that mentioned or implied sin). Following upon the previous sentence "forgiveness" implies that the "rest" in the same line was meant as respite from sin.

⁴⁸²

Cf. John 15:4 and all through that chapter; also I John 2 and 3 many times.

*

Cf. Epiphanius I.2.36, a list of barbarous names for the Eons, almost certainly corrupt, of which some may be Semitic.

483	Or "to," in the sense of a dative of possession. Cf. I John 2: 10.
484	Since "the lack" is one of the chief characteristics of the world, "the lack" may be used here simply for "the world." If it is, we have a remarkable parallel to John 17:11, 15, 18-the prayer of the departing Redeemer (cf. "remain behind").
485	Since 35:30 begins a new sentence and a new subject, this phrase must belong to this sentence— apparently in apposition to light, without repetition of the preposition. Cf. John 8:31, 5:38.
486	After this word the photograph shows a modern question mark. Someone who could read Coptic must have been puzzled by the syntax (see previous note). But it is almost incredible that a scholar would make any mark on an ancient papyrus. Cf. notes 98 and 424.
487	Through the next seven lines runs a bad strip of papyrus which in the photograph practically obliterates the fourth to seventh or the fifth to eighth letter in each line. So far as I can decipher it, these lines read: a There is room for more than one letter. b One space left blank. c There may be six letters here.
488	Generic article: any physician.
489	I.e. the will to hasten to the sick is the characteristic will of physicians.

-165-

-167-

-169-

Magazine, CV.13 [Jan. 1954]. I owe this reference to my pupil, Don E. Marietta.)

⁵⁰⁹

Or loosened.

⁵¹⁰

Literally, "lacks." But in translation this verb must take on the coloration of the dominant verbs, which are future.

⁵¹¹

Does this sentence belong to the preceding parable or to the following application of the parable (which in 36:30 has clearly begun)? If it belongs to the parable, this probably means that a wind draws (evaporates) the leaking fluid— but the last remark in the sentence cannot very well belong to the application because the loss of the jar's anointing has been depicted as a misfortune— a misfortune which would then lead to the ultimate of good fortune: to be drawn up by a breath (the Spirit). No, the sentence belongs to the parable and is meant of literal jars.

⁵¹²

Both this word and the last word in the sentence might be rendered "him."

⁵¹³

The preposition mn- = mne sometimes means "in." (In John Sah. a demon is often said to be "with" a man who is possessed. Cf. John 7:20, 8:48, 49). Perhaps this whole phrase is only an awkward way of saying: a wind by the evaporating power of the air in it.

⁵¹⁴

"Without lack" is the same adjective as that translated "flawless" in 31:12.

⁵¹⁵

Cf. Mark 10: 18 and parallels. See also 43:19.

⁵¹⁶

Cf. Matt. 15:13.

⁵¹⁷

The Greek word corruptly spelled (also in 36:38) paradissos. The author evidently knew that this word (Old Persian) really means "an enclosed garden, grove, park," therefore an appropriate association with "plantings." The NT does not make this association, but the Septuagint of Gen. 2:15 does, from which it was picked up by the Epistle to Diognetus 12:1-8.

-173-

Ennoia because the Father's words had originally existed only in his (the Father's) Ennoia.

⁵³¹

Again the Father's words.

⁵³²

Resumes the discussion at the point left in 37:9 by repeating some of its words. The subject is the Logos.

⁵³³

Perhaps intentionally, the author does not make clear whether he means the emergence of the logos from the mind of the Father in the eternity before creation or whether he means the emergence of the incarnate Logos. The word "moment" 37:17 better fits the latter.

⁵³⁴

The time of the Father's self-revealing is absolutely contingent, depending only upon his own free will.

⁵³⁵

This pedantic parenthesis is quite likely an interpretative interpolation.

⁵³⁶

matn, which EvVer, Vocab., considers to be the qualitative of mtan "rest" in spite of the fact that it always occurs with a reflexive object— and hence is not qualitative. Perhaps it is a new form of the absolute infinitive of moutn, "set at rest." Then the parenthesis reads literally, now the will (is) that which the Father sets himself at rest in it (in which the Father contents [or satisfies] himself) and that which pleases him. The two clauses are synonymous.

⁵³⁷

Both here and in the next line 4wpe could mean "come into existence", "become"; but since the discussion in 37:25 ff. seems to imply human observers, it probably means "happen." Cf. Matt. 10:29.

⁵³⁸

Either the Father or the Logos; since Logos was implied in 37:16, probably the latter. Otherwise the following clause would be tautologous.

⁵³⁹

An obscure expression. Literally, "a (thing) that cannot be set on its feet." To set on the feet— to establish. "Not establishable," in view of what follows, would seem to mean "not predeterminable." Since this adjective is unattested in

Crum, one can only guess at its meaning. The rendering "incomprehensible" at EvVer is also a conjecture which assumes that at.te6.eret.3- equals at.te6a.3 (but this, too. could mean "unattainable," i.e., unattainable beforehand). I take it to imply: the Father's will is unpredictable.

⁵⁴⁰

i`nos, certainly for ixnos (Greek). The strange thing is not (see "probablement" EvVer, p. 58) that ` is here used for x, but that this occurs only twice in the meditation (see 34:18). In the A² version of John arciereuV is always ar`iereus; cf. pas`a 6:4, s`isma 9:16, 10:19, `imarros 18:1 and `iliarxos 18:12. "Footprint" was chosen by the author as that which one can only leave behind one. God's will is never "ahead of" his deed but always only "behind him," to be deduced from his "footprint." I take the word to be predicate, not subject, placed ahead of the subject in Greek for emphasis and imitated by the Coptic.

⁵⁴¹

This is strangely like the words Kierkegaard puts into Nebuchadnezzar's mouth, "Spies he hath none to spy him out an opportunity, so that one might catch them, for he sayeth not, 'Tomorrow!' but 'Today!' sayeth he. For he maketh not preparations like a man, and his preparations give the enemy no breathing-spell, for he sayeth; 'Let it happen!' and it happeneth. He sitteth still and speaketh with himself, none knoweth whether he be there or no before it hath happened." ("Stadier paa Livets Vei" in Samlede Vaerker, VI, p. 381— my translation.)

⁵⁴²

Cf. what Ireneus (IV.20.5) says in refutation of the Gnostics of his time: "For man of himself does not see God. But when He Himself wills it, He is seen by men— by whom He will, when He will, and as He will." With Ireneus, Valentinus here agrees against his own later pupils.

⁵⁴³

Completely indefinite— men, those concerned.

⁵⁴⁴

The word '"God" only here and 34:28.

-179-

own by receiving his proffered salvation (who henceforth exist to the glory and joy of his name) — they shall return to him.

⁵⁵¹

This sentence, both in form and content, looks like another interpolation. The feeling that 38:8-9 requires this sentence in the text to supply antecedents for some pronouns in 38:8 may be only a Western prejudice.

⁵⁵²

Evidently the Father.

⁵⁵³

In mild disregard of English idiom I have consistently so rendered 5.ren (better: 5ren) when no article, not even the indefinite, or no possessive precedes the noun element in the composite verb. The English verb "name" was avoided, in order not to separate "give name" from "give a or the or his name," all of which also occur.

⁵⁵⁴

Surely the pre-existent Son.

⁵⁵⁵

This is as nearly literal as possible. One might also render: "he (the Son) being the same (with himself: the Father)." It is the same paradox as in John 1:1: there the Logos is with God and therefore distinct from him, but also is God and therefore one with him. Here he came out of the Father (distinct) and yet is the same (identical).

⁵⁵⁶

In spite of the lack of any temporal designation parallel to "in the beginning" 38:8, probably not simply the converse to "came out of him" 38:9 but an allusion to the Incarnation in time.

⁵⁵⁷

Probably no specific name, in our sense, such as "Jahweh" or "Lord" or "God," but name in a deeper, ultimately Hebraic sense: essential nature.

⁵⁵⁸

Preceded by n-2i— a noteworthy use of the word which is supposed to introduce only the delayed nominal subject of an earlier verb. This is important because the Coptic translator violates this "rule" again in 40:26.

⁵⁵⁹

Both "name" and "Son," masc. singulars, are possible

as the antecedent, but 38:16 eliminates "name." This "he" therefore is the Son, whose visibility confirms the impression that 38:10 was already speaking of the Incarnation.

⁵⁶⁰

The conjunction is doubled, once in Greek, once in Coptic; perhaps both should be expressed: "but on the contrary . . ."

⁵⁶¹

Or "secret," see note at 18:15.

⁵⁶²

Preceded by the indefinite pl. article; perhaps: "to certain (unnamed) ears . . ."

⁵⁶³

Or "it through him." But "him through it" is preferable because the secret of the name, embodied in the Son, is the instrument of revelation.

⁵⁶⁴

Probably the ineffable name Jahweh. It still is not spoken but is embodied.

⁵⁶⁵

"Sons of the Name" has a very Semitic sound. Its addition does not really contradict "him alone," because the sons of the name are a sort of extension of him; they are his own.

⁵⁶⁶

Cf. Ireneus 1.21.3, quoting from some Gnostic initiation ritual: "Peace to all upon whom this Name rests." "Rested" 38:29 and 31 is exactly the same expression as at 37:19-20, but "those with whom the Name of the Father was content and who likewise were content with His Name" does not seem very satisfactory.

⁵⁶⁷

ou.at.4wpe for agenhtoV (or agennhtoV with same meaning) uncreated, unoriginated, without beginning.

⁵⁶⁸

Here the precosmic origin of the Son is already called a begetting.

⁵⁶⁹

Ambiguous. It need not mean the population of the Pleroma, but may, even in the plural, mean simply "the world, the universe" as at Heb. 1:2 and perhaps I Tim. 1:17 (see Dibelius in Lietzmann, Handbuch zum NT).

⁵⁷⁰

Since the name is given to the Logos, this appears to teach that the Logos is Lord of creation. Contrast with this

Ireneus' sweeping statement that the Gnostics did not deign to call Jesus "Lord."

⁵⁷¹

"Name" is the nearest possible antecedent and probably the intended one. "He" might be intended, in which case the relative should be rendered "who." But the difference would be only grammatical, not also logical, for "name" and "he" are predicated to be one.

⁵⁷²

"The name," here, seems to be distinguished from "his name" in 39:5. I take the definite article to be generic and emphasize this conception by the insertion of "(concept)."

⁵⁷³

Literally "is not from among words."

⁵⁷⁴

The Greek lexiV (with Coptic pl. indef. article) is used. The author is not, of course, denying that names are incidentally words. What he denies is that they are mere words. The name of a thing is the real essence behind, and denoted by, its name. Such was already the implication of the earlier discussion of the name 21:30 ff.

⁵⁷⁵

Specifically, his name is no mere word or "appellation" mn-t.taei.ren (a new abstract noun, from 5.ren, "to name", Crum, 298a), for it is his very being.

⁵⁷⁶

This is not the adjective one expects, for nothing visible has been mentioned (surely 39:4, 5 mean spoken, not written words). One expects something like: "— but expresses his invisible nature." However "invisible" as a predicate of the name is further assured by 38:16-17 and by 39:8.

⁵⁷⁷

ouaeet.3-, “alone, only" (Crum, 470a) occurs in lines 7, 8, and 9 but in puzzling positions: in 7 and 8 just after the "object" (a.), in 9 just before the relative phrase. In most cases in this meditation this word modifies the immediately preceding word; following this "rule" one would have to decide that in 7 it modifies the indirect object, in 8 the object "it," in 9 the subject. However, 22:30, 39:23 (and perhaps 40:19) use the

word more loosely in predicate position referring to the subject. So I take a clue from 39:9 and assume that the word in all three cases is rhetorical iteration representing a nominative μόνος in the Greek and referring in all three cases to the subject (the Father).

⁵⁷⁸

petn.3-.4oop en, which EvVer translates exactly as it does oua t.4wpe (38:33): l'Inengendré, der Ungewordene, the Unengendered (God). But that contradicts the whole passage. God verily has a name (albeit ineffable) which he bestows. I take the sentence, therefore, to be a general, intentionally absurd, rhetorical question. "He who does not (truly) become" is the non-Gnostic, for only through Gnosis does illusory being become true being. Naturally such a one has no name (cf. 21:37-22:1), for having a name is equivalent to truly being.

⁵⁷⁹

The answer to the absurd question is: None, of course! None should, none shall, none can. For giving implies a receiver; without a receiver there can be no giving.

⁵⁸⁰

Understand: every Gnostic, Jesus at their head.

⁵⁸¹

Apparently a poetic metaphor for Jesus. It suggests the strong trope Paul uses of Onesimus, Philemon 12, calling him his splagcna (K.J. translates literally: "mine own bowels"). Cf. Phil. 1:8. (The Coptic word is also anatomical intestines— with the same psychological-figurative use as the Heb. and Gk. equivalents.)

⁵⁸²

This easily goes back into Greek: alla pantwV, ereitiV tw plhsion autou, tiV esti ... Ultimately diatribē style?

⁵⁸³

The Coptic text adds "before him," which in English would be redundant.

⁵⁸⁴

Literally "the"— i.e. the name that falls to each one.

⁵⁸⁵

The verb mise means both "bear" and "beget" and hence is used of both parents.

⁵⁸⁶

The author agrees with the fictitious objection. It is

an absurd question requiring no answer. Of course there is no one in a position to do that.

⁵⁸⁷

I.e. the Name par excellence.

⁵⁸⁸

Jesus.

⁵⁸⁹

Surely for kurion onoma (see EvVer, p. 59), a Greek play on words involving the conventional phrase "proper name," hence "the name proper," but also suggesting kurioV, the title "Lord" shared by God and Jesus. Cf. Phil. 2:9-11.

⁵⁹⁰

This is the emphatic word; it contrasts with the rejected idea (40:10) of having it as a mere loan.

⁵⁹¹

By its position this word most naturally modifies "him" in keeping with the beginning of the sentence 40:15. Quite possibly, however, it belatedly modifies "he" 40:18 as in 39:7-10. (See note there.)

⁵⁹²

In the immediate context this could just as well mean "him" (the Son), but in the light of 38:15 ff. it must mean the Name. There it is explicitly said that the Son is visible to all-hence there would be no need here to say that the Father also can see him, but the name, as such, is invisible (40:23, then, simply adds that the invisibility even of the Name does not exist for the Father).

⁵⁹³

Before this word are two letters which do not seem to make sense. EvVer, p. 59, regards the text as corrupt and rejects these two letters; I can offer no better suggestion.

⁵⁹⁴

EvVer renders: "that His well-beloved Son should be His Name," understanding the verb to be ouw4 (desire, love) and arbitrarily transposing "name" and "Son" in the sentence to get an acceptable meaning. I analyze etoua4.3- differently: et.ou. (relative pronoun with third person pl. subject pronoun for the passive) a4 (from w4, cf. 23:6, "cry, utter" or perhaps "invoke," as at Acts 2:21 Sah.) ; then there is no need to alter the order. (Cf. the same prefix at 41:24.) I am aware that this is in conflict with Steindorff §392, but

there are several other "rules" of Coptic grammar that are violated by the meditation.

⁵⁹⁵

According to the grammatical "rules" this n-2i ought to identify the pronominal subject of "gave," but that is logically impossible here. It was clearly the Father who gave, but the Father did not "come out of the Depth," for the Depth is always explicitly or implicitly the depth of the Father— the Father himself. No, it is the Son who came out of the Depth. n-2i, therefore, must here, irregularly, identify "him" in 40:26. (Crum, 252ab cites four similar cases, and 38:14 has already furnished us another. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas offers a striking example at 81:18; see Labib.)

⁵⁹⁶

Literally "he," i.e., the Son who is the Name.

⁵⁹⁷

EvVer F and E paraphrase: "is absolute Goodness"; EvVer G is literal: "nicht-böse." ou.at.pe.qau is a privative of the adjective "evil." From its use (without the privative prefix) at Acts 13:10 to render radiourgia, "deceit, fraud," I take it to mean here "without cunning or trickery," such as he would have if he should resent the revelation of his secrets by the very one he sent to do so.

⁵⁹⁸

Here the Greek word; usually the Coptic word is used. This must be heaven, the transcendent world. This curious euphemism strongly suggests the rabbinic use of Mwqm— heaven — God, but it is unlikely that rabbinic influence is present.

⁵⁹⁹

It is not clear whether "each one" belongs in this sentence or at the end of the previous one. In the latter case it would mean "one by one." But 41:4-5 seems to lack a subject without it. Cf. EvVer.

⁶⁰⁰

Who? Probably "each one."

⁶⁰¹

The verb has no object. Apparently "him" ("each one") is to be supplied.

⁶⁰²

The verbs in both lines are II present perhaps referring back to the beginning of the sentence ("cause a return"),

or perhaps inexactly referring to the future which "return" implies.

⁶⁰³

Perhaps "savor" would be better as suggesting either taste or smell or both together. At any rate cf. 34:1-14, 27.

⁶⁰⁴

Literally "from," which is likewise to be supplied in the second part of the predicate 41:12.

⁶⁰⁵

The words of this simple sentence are easy to translate, but what does the statement mean? There are three ambiguities: (1) the antecedent of "his" 41:13; (2) ditto in 41:14; and (3) whether Pleroma 41:14 is subject or predicate. Consequently eight nuances of interpretation are possible. The next sentence would be more helpful, were it not that its subject is the unknown word 5h. But 41:5-12 helps reduce the nuances when we observe that the context is soteriological, describing the Son's mediatorial service to the man who is in process of being redeemed; also, that a deduction is drawn in 41:14 from 41:12-14. The mediatorial context is best continued if the antecedents of the two "his's" are different (this eliminates four nuances), but which one means of the Son? Probably 41:14, because we already know of a Pleroma associated with the Son (41:1), but not yet of one belonging to the redeemed. Tentatively, then, we paraphrase the sentence: the redeemed man's own (not merely the Son's but also his to whom he imparts it) place of repose is the Son's Pleroma: the Son's fullness of being, his perfection, his completeness. (Pleroma may very well be the subject, but it is only a matter of emphasis, whichever it be considered to be.)

⁶⁰⁶

Whatever the word means, the sentence declares that it has "roots" and that it "grows." This suggests that the unknown word is a synonym of `o (36:36) "plantings, plant, seed." As the Son not merely has but also is pleroma (fullness) when he imparts himself to them the consequence is that they, too, not merely have but are what he is: pleromata (fullnesses).

-195-

42:10 not having need to be taught.⁶¹⁷ This is the way of those who have (something) from on high through the immeasurable Greatness⁶¹⁸ as they stretch⁶¹⁹ 42:15 after the One, alone and perfect, who is there for them. And they are not wont to go down to Amente,⁶²⁰ and they have neither envy nor 42:20 groaning, nor is there death in⁶²¹ them, but they rest (refl.) in Him who rests (refl.), not toiling⁶²² nor writhing⁶²³ round about 42:25 the Truth. But they are, themselves, the Truth.⁶²⁴ And the Father⁶²⁵ is

Ireneus: "minimum arbitrantes eum"— "considering him (God) very small." (Iren. II.24.2)

⁶¹⁷

For the idea that God can not be taught, see Job 21:22. "Not needing to be taught" occurs in I John 2:27 but is predicated of the believer who has the "anointing" (cf. above 35:15 ff.).

⁶¹⁸

Cf. to megeqoV to ametrhten autou, "his (the Father's) immeasurable greatness" Iren. I.2.1; and IV.20.1: "for it is impossible for the Father to be measured."

⁶¹⁹

Cf. 34:37 ff.

⁶²⁰

I.e., emn-te, Sah. amn-te, literally "the West" (Crum, 056a, 008b), the Egyptian name for the abode of the dead which is usually substituted in Coptic biblical texts for Hades (Sheol).

⁶²¹

Or among. It is impossible to decide linguistically whether "in each individual" is meant or "a case of death among the living individuals." Both may well be meant. The Greek en autoV would be equally ambiguous.

⁶²²

Or "suffering" or "troubled," but as a contrast to "rest" in 42:21 ff. the context favors "toiling."

⁶²³

This is only approximate; the verb is used especially of coiling snakes and wrapped cloths. Perhaps literally twisted, tangled, contorted— at any rate some uncomfortable posture or activity figuratively parallel with "toiling" and signifying the vain search for truth, now ended. Perhaps Ireneus is once more turning a Valentinian phrase back against its originators when he says they "keep circling about those things which are below" (Iren. II.16.4).

⁶²⁴

One more example of the tendency of the meditation to identify the redeemed with abstracts which properly describe the transcendent realm. They are the perfect day 32:32, each is a pleroma 41:16, they are the understanding 33:8; so here they are the truth. This is probably more than hyperbole for "you are of the Truth." It seems to arise from identification

of the redeemed with the Redeemer and from the postulate, as old as the Gospel of John, that what the Redeemer bestows he is, and what he is he bestows. (Nevertheless cf. Matt. 5:13, 5:14, Eph. 5:8 [Gnostic?), II John 1:2).

⁶²⁵

The reciprocity formula of mysticism. Cf. John 14:10 f., 17:21 ff.

⁶²⁶

From the context this ought to be the meaning. More literally the sentence seems to say: "depriving no one at all but giving rest." But would that make sense in this context? (Cf., however, 33:5.) Cf. Iren. I.21.4: "in need of nothing else" and I.25.4: "not be wanting in any particular."

⁶²⁷

I.e., refreshed. Possibly this strengthens somewhat the intransitive version of 42:31-32.

⁶²⁸

Literally "listen to." This is not the first time that a verb of sense perception appropriate to one organ has been used where we would think of a different organ and its verb.

⁶²⁹

In some figurative sense, perhaps, be alarmed or disturbed. With the negative one may assume that it means be satisfied or pleased— in harmony with 43:22-24.

⁶³⁰

p.ke.4w`p (Plumley §111, Crum 616b). Singular collective with a plural verb; probably it refers to non-Christian mankind. But the ke could be taken more weightily and rendered "the other remnant"— a faction in the Church— or, if the author already wrote as a schismatic (which is by no means clear), the Church itself. But has he written anything that would have been a secret unknown to an orthodox Christian?

⁶³¹

Only here and three lines later do we unexpectedly encounter the author's first person singular. Likewise in the Gospel of John only in the epilogue do we encounter an author's "I," 21:25.

⁶³²

The author has been in the place of rest (once, 36:38, identified as the Father's paradise or garden) yet is alive to write a book. Either the author had had an experience like

Paul's (II Cor. 12:4), or the place is not exclusively heavenly bliss after death, but is also the condition of the redeemed this side of death. Since nowhere in the meditation is there visionary description (contrast the Revelation of John!) the latter is more likely.

⁶³³

This future is undefined— after death? Or henceforth in this life and beyond? Probably the latter, in view of 43:1. The Gnostic's true place is not here.

⁶³⁴

Or "flows." Cf. Rom. 5:5.

⁶³⁵

Plural: of the true brothers.

⁶³⁶

Cf. 32:26-30.

⁶³⁷

Cf. I John 3:9 and Iren. I.15.3.

⁶³⁸

Whose? Probably not the Father's, but the believer's. (In that case the author or the Coptic translator has forgotten that the sentence began in the plural. There have been similar lapses in regard to both number and gender.)

⁶³⁹

Not the Holy Spirit, but the believer's inner self.

⁶⁴⁰

The meditation begins (16:31) and ends on a note of joy.

⁶⁴¹

Or: in him (the Father).

⁶⁴²

Cf. 36:35 where the same predicate is found in Greek. See Ps. 106:1, 107:1, 118:1, 29.

Bibliography

Ancient Works

Modern Works

-203-

Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Begründet von H. A. W. Meyer, 9. Lieferung. Göttingen: 1937-41. Ergänzungshefte 1950 und 1957.

—. Theology of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Vol. I, 1951; Vol. II, 1955. German original 1948-53.

Cousteau Jacques Yves. "Fish Men Discover a 2,200-year-old Greek Ship," The National Geographic Magazine. CV (January, 1954), 1-36.

Cross F. L. (ed.). The Jung Codex. London: Mowbray and Company, 1955.

Crum W. E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939.

De Eugène Faye. Gnostiques et Gnosticisme. Paris: 1913. 2nd ed., 1925.

Dibelius Martin. "Die Pastoralbriefe," in Lietzmann Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: 1931.

Doresse Jean. Les Livres Secrets des Gnostiques d'Égypte. Paris: Librairie Plon, 1958.

—. "Nouveaux textes gnostiques coptes découverts en HauteÉgypte," Vigiliae Christianae (Amsterdam), III (1949), 129-41. La Bibliothèque de Chénoboskion.

—. "Trois livres gnostiques inédits," Vigiliae Christianae (Amsterdam), II (1948). 137-60.

—. "Une bibliothèque gnostique copte découverte en HauteÉgypte," Bulletin de la classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques. 5ème série, t. XXXV. Académie Royale de Belgique.

Giversen Soren. Sandhedens Evangelium, de gnostiske håndskrifter fra Nildalen. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gads Forlag, 1957. (Reached me too late to work into this book. It does for Scandinavia what I have attempted here. Its bibliography is particularly welcome.)

Harris and Mingana (eds.). "Odes of Solomon," The Odes and Psalms of Solomon. Manchester: 1916, 1920.

Hennecke. "Die Oden Salomos" (tr. Gressmann) in Neutestamentliche Apokyphen. 2nd ed., 1924, pp. 437 ff.

Heussi Karl. Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte. 7te Auflage. Tübingen: 1930.

Horner George W. (ed.). The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect Otherwise Called Memphitic and Bohairic. 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1898.

Jonas Hans. Gnosis und spätantiker Geist, I, 1934. 2nd ed., II.1, "Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophie," 1954.

—. The Gnostic Religion; the Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity. Boston: Beacon Press, 1958.

Kierkegaard Søren. "Stadier paa Livets Vei," Samlede Vaerker. 2nd ed., Vol. VI.

Kittel G. (ed.). Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: 1933.

Labib Pahor (ed.). Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo. Vol. I. Cairo: Government Press, 1956.

Lidzbarski Mark (tr.). Der Schatz Ginzā oder das Grosse Buch der Mandäer. Göttingen: 1925.

Malinine, Michel, Puech, Henri-Charles, and Quispel, Gilles. Evangelium Veritatis. Zürich: Rascher Verlag, 1956.

Marquardt Joachim. Handbuch der römischen Altertümer. Leipzig: 1876-88.

Menninger Karl. Zahlwort und Ziffer. Breslau: 1934.

Nestle. Novum Testamentum Graece. 17te Auflage. Stuttgart: 1941.

Nock A. D. (ed.), and Festugière A. J. (tr.). Corpus Hermeticum. Paris: 1945.

Polotzky Hans Jakob (ed.). Manichäishe Homilien. Stuttgart: 1934. In A².

Puech Henri-Charles. "The Jung Codex and the Other Gnostic Documents from Nag Hammadi." See Cross, The Jung Codex.

Puech Henri-Charles, and Gilles Quispel. "Le quartrième écrit gnostique du Codex Jung," Vigiliae Christianae (Amsterdam), IX (1955), 65-102.

—. "Les écrits gnostiques du Codex Jung," Vigiliae Christianae (Amsterdam), VIII (1954), 1-51.

Quispel Gilles. "The Original Doctrine of Valentine," Vigiliae Christianae (Amsterdam), I (1947), 48-73.

—. "The Jung Codex and Its Significance." See Cross, The Jung Codex.

Sagnard François-M. M. La Gnose Valentinienne et le témoignage de Saint Irénée. Paris: 1947.

Schenke Hans-Martin. "Die fehlenden Seiten des sog. Evangeliums"der Wahrheit,"

der Wahrheit," Theologische Literaturzeitung, LXXXIII, Nr. 7 ( July, 1958), 497-500.

Schmidt C. (ed.). Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift Nr. I. Leipzig: 1904.

—. (ed.). Die Beiden Bücher des Jeû. (Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften. Bd. I. in Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Kirchenväter-Kommission der königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.) Leipzig: 1905. (The volume also contains Schmidt translation of Pistis Sophia.)

— (ed.). Pistis Sophia. (Sahidic text in: Coptica consilio et impensis Instituti Rask-Oerstediana edita Hauniae.) Copenhagen: 1925.

Steindorff Georg. Lehrbuch der koptischen Grammatik. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.

Strack H. L., and Billerbeck P. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. München: 1922-28.

Thompson Sir Herbert (ed.). The Coptic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles. Cambridge: 1932.

— (ed.). The Gospel of John According to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript. London: 1924.

van W. C. Unnik "'The Gospel of Truth'and the New Testament." See Cross, The Jung Codex.