Paradise Reconsidered : A Study of the Ophite Myth and Ritual and their Relationship to Sethianism

This thesis examines the mythology in and social reality behind a group of texts from the Nag Hammadi and related literature, to which certain leaders of the early church attached the label, Ophite, i.e., snake people. In the mythology, which essentially draws upon and rewrites the Genesis paradise story, the snake's advice to eat from the tree of knowledge is positive, the creator and his angels are demonic beasts and the true godhead is depicted as an androgynous heavenly projection of Adam and Eve. It will be argued that this unique mythology is attested in certain Coptic texts from the Nag Hammadi and Berlin 8502 Codices (On the Origin of the World, Hypostasis of the Archons, Apocryphon of John, Eugnostos, Sophia of Jesus Christ), as well as in reports by Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 1.30), Origen (Contra Celsum 6.24-38) and Epiphanius (Panarion 26). It will also be argued that this so-called Ophite evidence is essential for a proper understanding of Sethian Gnosticism, often today considered one of the earliest forms of Gnosticism; there seems to have occurred a Sethianization of Ophite mythology. I propose that we replace the current Sethian Gnostic category by a new one that not only adds texts that draw upon the Ophite mythology alongside these Sethian texts, but also arranges the material in smaller typological units. I also propose we rename this remodelled and expanded Sethian corpus "Classic Gnostic." I have divided the thesis into four parts: (I) Introduction; (II) Myth and Innovation; (III) Ritual; and (IV) Conclusion. In Part I, the sources and previous research on Ophites and Sethians will be examined, and the new Classic Gnostic category will be introduced to provide a framework for the study of the Ophite evidence. Chapters in Part II explore key themes in the mythology of our texts, first by text comparison (to show that certain texts represent the Ophite mythology and that this mythology is different from Sethianism), and then by attempting to unveil social circumstances that may have given rise to such myths. Part III assesses heresiological claims of Ophite rituals, and Part IV is the conclusion.

The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel

The Lucianic text of the Septuagint of the Historical Books witnessed primarily by the manuscript group L (19, 82, 93, 108, and 127) consists of at least two strata: the recensional elements, which date back to about 300 C.E., and the substratum under these recensional elements, the proto-Lucianic text. Some distinctive readings in L seem to be supported by witnesses that antedate the supposed time of the recension. These witnesses include the biblical quotations of Josephus, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, and the Old Latin translation of the Septuagint. It has also been posited that some Lucianic readings might go back to Hebrew readings that are not found in the Masoretic text but appear in the Qumran biblical texts. This phenomenon constitutes the proto-Lucianic problem. In chapter 1 the proto-Lucianic problem and its research history are introduced. Josephus references to 1 Samuel are analyzed in chapter 2. His agreements with L are few and are mostly only apparent or, at best, coincidental. In chapters 3 6 the quotations by four early Church Fathers are analyzed. Hippolytus Septuagint text is extremely hard to establish since his quotations from 1 Samuel have only been preserved in Armenian and Georgian translations. Most of the suggested agreements between Hippolytus and L are only apparent or coincidental. Irenaeus is the most trustworthy textual witness of the four early Church Fathers. His quotations from 1 Samuel agree with L several times against codex Vaticanus (B) and all or most of the other witnesses in preserving the original text. Tertullian and Cyprian agree with L in attesting some Hebraizing approximations that do not seem to be of Hexaplaric origin. The question is more likely of early Hebraizing readings of the same tradition as the kaige recension. In chapter 7 it is noted that Origen, although a pre-Lucianic Father, does not qualify as a proto-Lucianic witness. General observations about the Old Latin witnesses as well as an analysis of the manuscript La115 are given in chapter 8. In chapter 9 the theory of the proto-Lucianic recension is discussed. In order to demonstrate the existence of the proto-Lucianic recension one should find instances of indisputable agreement between the Qumran biblical manuscripts and L in readings that are secondary in Greek. No such case can be found in the Qumran material in 1 Samuel. In the text-historical conclusions (chapter 10) it is noted that of all the suggested proto-Lucianic agreements in 1 Samuel (about 75 plus 70 in La115) more than half are only apparent or, at best, coincidental. Of the indisputable agreements, however, 26 are agreements in the original reading. In about 20 instances the agreement is in a secondary reading. These agreements are early variants; mostly minor changes that happen all the time in the course of transmission. Four of the agreements, however, are in a pre-Hexaplaric Hebraizing approximation that has found its way independently into the pre-Lucianic witnesses and the Lucianic recension. The study aims at demonstrating the value of the Lucianic text as a textual witness: under the recensional layer(s) there is an ancient text that preserves very old, even original readings which have not been preserved in B and most of the other witnesses. The study also confirms the value of the early Church Fathers as textual witnesses.