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 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 ChristianGnostic 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 Proten- 1. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971 ), 9; cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951 and 1955), esp. 2.3-14. For a discussion of the hermeneutical principles involved in this proposal, see Michael Waldstein, "The Foundations of Bultmann's Work," Communio 14 (1987): 115-45. 2. See Wolfgang G. Röhl, Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums in christlichgnostischen Schriften aus Nag Hammadi (Europäische Hochschulschriften 13.428; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991). Röhl offers detailed analyses of the use of John in the Apocryphon of James (NHC I, 3), the Gospel of Truth (NHC I, 3), the Gospel of Philip (NHC II, 3); the Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC VIII, 2) and the Testimony of Truth (NHCIX, 3). Journal of Early Christian Studies 3:4,369-402 © 1995 The Johns Hopkins University Press. 370 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES nota 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 (πϕ όνοια) which resembles the Prologue both in style and content.5 Its relation to the Trimorphic 3. See Gesine Schenke, "Die dreigestaltige Protennoia: Eine gnostische Offen- barungsrede in koptischer Sprache aus dem Fund von Nag Hammadi eingeleitet und übersetzt vom Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften," ThLZ 99 (1974): 731-46; Carsten Colpe, "Heidnische, Jüdische und Christliche Ãœberlieferung in den Schriften aus Nag Hammadi, III," JAC17 ( 1974): 107-25; Craig A. Evans, "On the Prologue of John and the Trimorphic Protennoia," NTS 27 (1981): 395-401; James M. Robinson, "Sethians and Johannine Thought: The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Gospel of John," in Bentley Layton, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, II: Sethian Gnosticism (SHR 41; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 643-62; discussion, 662-70; Gesine Schenke, Die dreigestaltige Protennoia herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert (TU 132; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1984); John D. Turner, "Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History," in Charles Hedrick and Robert Hodgson Jr., eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986), 5586, esp. 65-66; Gesine Robinson, "The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel," in James E. Goehring, Charles W. Hedrick, Jack T. Sanders, and Hans Dieter Betz, eds., Gnosticism and the Early Christian World: In Honor of James Robinson (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1990), 37-50; John Turner, "Introduction to NHC ΧΙΙΙ,Ι: Trimorphic Protennoia," in Charles W. Hedrick, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII (NHS 28, Leiden: Brill, 1990), 371-401; esp. 385-86. 4. Yvonne Janssens, "Une source gnostique du prologue?" inMarinusdeJonge, ed., L'Évangile de Jean: Sources, rédaction, théologie (Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1977), 35558; Yanssens later withdrew her hypothesis in favor of a shared sapiential background; see Yvonne Janssens, "The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Fourth Gospel," in Alasdair H. Logan and Andrew J. Wedderburn, eds., The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honor of Robert McL. Wilson (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1983), 229-44; Edwin Yamauchi, "Jewish Gnosticism? The Prologue of John, Mandean Parallels, and the Trimorphic Protennoia," in Roelof van den Broek and Maarten J. Vermaseren, eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (EPRO 91; Leiden: Brill, 1981 ), 467-97; Michel Tardieu, Ecrits Gnostiques: Codex de Berlin (Sources Gnostiques et Manichéennes 1; Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1984), esp. 340; Peter Hofrichter, Im Anfang war der "Johannesprolog": Das urchristliche Logosbekenntnis—die Basis neutestamentlicher und gnostischer Theologie (Biblische Untersuchungen 17; Regensburg: Pustet, 1986), esp. 215-21; Alasdair Logan, "John and the Gnostics: The Significance of the Apocryphon of John for the Debate about the Origins of the Johannine Literature, " JSNT 43 ( 1991 ): 41-69, esp. 58-59. 5. The Apocryphon of John is transmitted in four Coptic manuscripts: Nag Hammadi Codices II, III and IV; and a pocket-size papyrus codex, BG 8502, acquired in 1896 in Egypt for the papyrus collection of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. NHC III, 1 and BG 8502,2 are independent Coptic translations of substantially the same Greek original. II, 1 and the fragmentary IV, 1 are substantially identical copies of a Coptic translation of a thoroughly re-edited longer Greek version of the Apocryphon. The Providence Monologue is attested only in the longer version, NHC II, 1 30.11-31.27; NHC IV, 1 WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 371 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 anal- ysis 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, SJ., 46.25-49.8. The Monologue probably existed first as a separate piece, perhaps as a baptismal hymn, and was inserted later into the Apocryphon of John by the redactor responsible for the longer Greek version; see section two below. 6. The contacts between the Providence Monologue and the Trimorphic Protennoia in both organization and wording are so close that one must posit literary dependence one way or the other. Either the Trimorphic Protennoia expands the Monologue or the Monologue summarizes the Trimorphic Protennoia. The former is more likely; see Turner, "Introduction to the Trimorphic Protennoia," 385-86. 7. Brief discussions of it can be found in the three commentaries on the Apocryphon of John written to date: Soren Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis: The Coptic Text of the Apocryphon Johannis in the Nag Hammadi Codex II with Translation, Introduction and Commentary (Acta Theologica Dánica 5; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1963), 27073; Andreas Werner, "Das Apokryphon des Johannes in seinen vier Versionen synoptisch betrachtet und unter besonderer Berücksichtigung anderer Nag-Hammadi Schriften in Auswahl erläutert" (Th.D. thesis, Humboldt Universität Berlin, 1977), 225-31; Michel Tardieu, Ecrits Gnostiques: Codex de Berlin (Sources Gnostiques et Mani- chéennes 1; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1984), 40-43, 339-44. John Turner has dealt with basic issues: the Monologue's relation to the Apocryphon of John and the Trimorphic Protennoia, its literary history, position in the history of Sethian writings and ritual aspects: "The Gnostic Threefold Path to Enlightenment," NovT 22 (1980): 324-51, esp. 326-28; "Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History," 55-86, esp. 60-63; "Introduction to the Trimorphic Protennoia," 384-93; "Ritual in Gnosticism," in Eugene H. Lovering, ed., SBLSP 33 (1994): 136-81, esp. 139-42. See also the brief treatment in Michael Waldstein, "The Mission of Jesus in John: Probes into the Apocryphon of John and the Gospel of John" (Th.D. thesis, Harvard, 1989), 75-81, 100-112. 8. There is no compelling reason to assume that the Monologue is pre-Christian—or post-Christian. The Wisdom of Solomon is similarly difficult to date. Turner's dating of the Monologue, first to second century c.e., is a conservative estimate that allows for the development of a more elaborate mythical scheme by the end of the second century (Irenaeus); see Turner, "Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History," 62-63. 372 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES . . . (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 1:1, therefore, the perfect Providence (πϕ όνοια) of the All, took form11 in my seed (σπÎ-Ï• μα), for (γαϕ ) I existed first, going on every road. 2: For (γάϕ ) I am the richness of the light; I am the remembrance of the pleroma (πλήϕ ωμα). 3: And (δÎ-) I went12 into the realm of darkness, and I endured (άνÎ-χειν) till I entered the middle of the prison. 4: And the foundations of chaos (χάος) 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. 7:1 came13 forth from those who belong to the light, which is I, the remembrance of the Providence (πϕ όνοια). 8:1 entered into the midst of darkness and the inside of Hades, since I was seeking (to accomplish) my task (οικονομία). 9: And the foundations of chaos (χάος) shook, 9. George W MacRae, "Gnosticism and the Church of John's Gospel," in Charles Hedrick and Robert Hodgson Jr., eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986), 89-96, here 95-96. 10. Text: Michael Waldstein and Frederik Wisse, The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices 11,1111,1 and IV1I with BG 8502,2 (NHMS 33; Leiden: Brill, 1995). Departures from the translation contained in this volume are specified in the notes. The division of the Monologue into twenty-three verses is introduced for the purposes of this article. 11. Verse la: "I took form" (aiuibt ). Waldstein/Wisse: "I, therefore, the perfect Pronoia of the All, changed myself into my seed." See more detailed discussion of "take form" below. In place of the reflexive first person object suffix, the parallel IV 46.25 has the third person [AiU)]BTq, "I changed him (or it)," probably already a reference to the listener who is transformed into the likeness of Providence (verses 15-22). "I, therefore, the perfect Providence of the All, transformed him (the initiate) into my seed." The reading of IV is probably secondary (see below). 12. Verse 3: "I went" (AeiMOotye), First Perfect. The parallel IV 47.2 reads ei'M[oou>e], Circumstantial ("For I am the richness of the light . . . but (δÎ-) walking in the darkness") or Second Present ("I am the richness of the light. But (δÎ-) it is in the darkness that I walk"). 13. Verse 7: "I came" (Aeiei). The length of the lacuna in IV 47.10 suggests that IV has a shorter reading here, without Aeiei: "Again I returned, [for the] second [time]. I [went forth from] those who belong to the light." WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 373 that they might fall down upon those who are in chaos (χάος) and might destroy them. 10: And again I14 ran up to my root of light lest they be destroyed before the time. 11: Still (Î-τι) for a third time I went 12:—I am the light which exists in the light, I am the remembrance of the Providence (πϕ όνοια)— 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 (συντÎ-λεια) of their aeon (αιών). 14: And I entered into the midst of their prison, which is the prison of the body (σώμα). 15: And I said, "He who hears, let him get up from the deep sleep." 16: And he wept and shed tears, bitter tears he wiped from himself. 17: And he said, "Who is it that calls my name, and from where has this hope (Î-λπίς) come to me, while I am in the chains of the prison?" 18: And I said, "I am16 the Providence (πϕ όνοια) of the pure light; I am the thinking of the virginal (παϕ θενικόν) Spirit (πνεϕ μα), who raises you up to the honored place (τόπος).17 19: Arise and remember that it is you who hearkened, and follow your root, which is I, the merciful One, 20: and guard (άσφαλίζειν) yourself against the angels (άγγελος) of poverty 14. Verse 10: "And again I ran," (Αγω on Aenruvr). The length of the lacuna in IV 47.19 suggests a longer reading, such as [Αγω on anok] Aemuvr, "And again, as for me, I ran. ..." 15. Verse 13: "I filled" (ΑΕ Ήογζ). Alternate translation, "I glowed in my face with the light ..." from μου? = burn, glow, shine (Crum 210a), instead of Μθγ? = fill (Crum 208a); see Werner, "Apokryphon des Johannes," 229. 16. Verse 18: "I am the Providence" (anok τε Ï„Ï€^ονοια). The feminine copula is probably due to the feminine predicate Ï„Ï€^ονοια. The parallel in IV 48.14 has the masculine copula instead, Anok πε Ï„Ï€^ΟΕ ΟιΑ, which specifies unambiguously that the subject (Anok) is masculine, Jesus in the Monologue's present context. IV is not consistent; it uses the feminine copula in verse 2, following the gender of the predicate. Neither II nor IV contain a text which unambiguously specifies the speaker's gender as feminine, e.g., by the use of a feminine copula in an "I am" statement with masculine predicate. According to Schottroff, "It is fruitless to ask oneself whether this figure is a male or female redeemer. . . .The titles of the redeemer alternate between male and female. . . . Determining the figure's gender is not one of the text's concerns." Luise Schottroff, Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium (WMANT 37; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 101 with note 4. Yet, the close parallels with Jewish Wisdom speculations suggest that Providence is a development of the feminine Sophia secondarily identified in the Monologue's present setting with the masculine Jesus. 17. Waldstein/Wisse use the past tense: "who raised you up to the honored place." The text has simple relative, neTCO?e mmok. 374 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES and the demons (δαίμων) of chaos (χάος) and all those who ensnare you, 21: and beware of the deep sleep and the enclosure of the inside of Hades." 22: And I raised him up and sealed (σφϕ αγίζειν) him in the light of the water with five seals (σφϕ αγίς), in order that death might not have power over him from this time on. 23: And behold, now I shall go up to the perfect (Ï„Î-λειον) aeon (αΕ ών). 1. STRUCTURE AND MEANING 1.1. Three-Step Rhythm In its present setting in The Apocryphon of John, the Providence Monologue is spoken by Jesus, "the savior," to tell of three trips he took as the divine Forethought or Providence.18 The Monologue is divided into three parts by these three trips (1-5, 6-10, 11-23). The first two parts are closely parallel, both consisting of five verses with similar thematic distribution. The third part follows the same pattern, but includes a new element, namely, an extensive and detailed account of what Providence came to do (call of awakening and baptism-sealing, verses 1522). Each of the Monologue's three parts has a three-step rhythm. In the first recurring element (1,6-7 and 11 ) Providence makes a general reference to her travels, "going on every road" (1) or to the first phase of her travels, "I returned ... I went about ... I came forth" (6-7), "for a third time I went" (11). In the second recurring element (2, 7b, 12) Providence describes herself. In the third recurring element (3-5, 8-10, 13-23) she describes the completion of her downward journey and her return.19 The third recurring element just noted consists, in turn, of three elements. In the first (3, 8, 13-14), Providence describes her entry into the lower world; in the second (4, 9,15-22) she describes the effect of her trip and in the third (5, 10, 23) she mentions her return. The regularity of recurring elements is counterbalanced by an increase of dramatic intensity from trip to trip. While Providence's self-descrip18. The term "savior" occurs only in the Apocryphon's narrative frame and in the interspersed dialogue elements, i.e., in what are probably the latest elements of the document's redaction: II 1.1, 21; 22.10, 12, 21; 25.5; 31.32; 32.5. 19. There are thus three sets of three interlocking phases of Providence's trips: the beginning or first phase of her trip (1, 6-7,11), her entry into the lower world (3, 8,1314) and her return (5, 10, 23). First Trip 1:1, therefore, the perfect Providence of the all, took form in my seed, for I existed first, going on every road. Second Trip A: First Phase of the Trips 6: Again I returned, for the second time, and I went about. 7:1 came forth from those who belong to the light, B: Self-Descriptions 2: For I am the richness of the light; I am the remembrance of the which is I, the remembrance of the pleroma. Providence. Third Trip 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— 1 : Entry of darkness, and I endured till I entered the middle of 8:1 entered into the midst of darkness and the inside of Hades, since I was seeking (to accomplish) my task. 13: that I might enter into the midst of darkness and the inside of Hades, and I filled my face with the light of the completion of their aeon. 14: And I entered into the midst of the prison. their prison, which is the prison of the body. 2: Effect 4: And the foundations of chaos shook. 9: And the foundations of chaos shook, that they might fall down upon those who are in chaos and might destroy them. Call of Awakening and Sealing verses 15-22 10: And again I ran up to my root of light lest they be destroyed before the time. H H X m TS !» O < O HH m Z η m o Z O r O O G m 3: Return 5: And I hid myself from them because of their wickedness, and they did not recognize me. r O m C: Entry, Effect, Return 3: And I went into the realm S 23: And behold, now I shall go up to the perfect aeon. 376 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES tions are relatively constant,20 there is a clear progression in the other elements. First Trip. On her first trip Providence travels "into the realm of darkness" and continues or endures "to the midst of the prison" (3). Her entry has the effect of shaking the visible cosmos to its very foundations: "the foundations of chaos shook" (4).21 She does not reveal herself, however, but hides because of "their" wickedness and goes unrecognized (5). It is not immediately clear to whom "their" refers. One could suppose it refers to the archons of the cosmos: after shaking the foundations of their realm, Providence hides from the wicked archons and escapes unrecognized.22 The parallel pronoun in the second trip, however, "lest they be destroyed before the time" (10b) and the parallel position occupied by "the listener" in the third trip (16-22) suggest that Providence's own seed, potential initiates, are meant.23 Although she is able to shake the very foundations of chaos, Providence is not able to reveal herself to her potential followers, because they are wicked. She is forced to hide and thus fails to achieve what she set out to do.24 Second Trip. "For a second time" she enters into "the midst of the darkness" (8a), now more graphically described as "the inside of Hades" (8a),25 and with an added dramatic note she seeks to accomplish her 20. A description of herself as the remembrance of the pleroma, "I am the re- membrance of the pleroma (anok' πε πϕ πΜεεγε ΜπεπΛΗ^ωΜΑ)" (2b), or as the remembrance of herself, Providence (7b, 12b), is preceded in each trip by a reference to light: 2a: "For I am the richness of the light"; 7a: "I came forth from those who belong to the light"; 12a: "I am the light which exists in the light." A similar sequence of light and thought is found in the formula describing Providence's benefits in the call of awakening: "I am the Providence of the pure light. I am the thinking (πΜεε γε) of the virginal Spirit" (18). See Pheme Perkins, "Gnostic Christologies and the New Testament," CBQ 43 (1981):590-606, esp. 603. 21. Parallels in the body of Apocryphon of John: in the opening frame story, when Jesus appears to John, "the cosmos shook" (II 1.33); in the account of creation, when the human image is projected onto the lower waters, "the foundations of the abyss shook" (II 14.26). 22. See George MacRae, "Sleep and Awakening in Gnostic Texts," in Ugo Bianchi, ed., Le origini dello gnosticismo: Colloquio di Messina 13-18 Aprile 1966 (SHR 12; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 496-507, esp. 500. 23. Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis, 270. Turner, "Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History," 62; Werner, "Apocryphon des Johannes," 226, 228; Schottroff, Der Glaubende, 100, note 2. 24. Werner, "Apocryphon des Johannes," 226. 25. The use of Hades imagery for the entire visible world is found in many Gnostic WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 377 οικονομία, the task of ruling her own household (8b). Again the foundations of chaos shake (9a), but now with more malicious intent, "that they might fall down upon those who are in chaos and might destroy them" (9b-c). The problem has shifted. No longer is Providence foiled merely by the wickedness of her potential followers; she is foiled by the material cosmos as a whole, which threatens the very existence of these followers. In order to protect them, "lest they be destroyed before the time" (10b), before they have a chance to awaken and be saved, she hastens back once again, returning to her luminous root (10a). "And again I ran up," shows that Providence's first two trips are conceived spatially as descents and ascents. The same spatial schema forms the backdrop of Providence's words to the initiate, "I am . . . (she) who raises you up to the honored place," a place in the world of light from which she comes,26 and it concludes the Monologue, "now I shall go up to the perfect aeon" (23). Third Trip. Having returned without success from earth on her first two trips,27 Providence finally succeeds on her third trip. What accounts for this difference? What is special about the third trip? 1.2. The Third Trip Werner proposes that the third trip, in contrast to the first two, is effective because it is an "incarnation" of Providence in Jesus, analogous to the incarnation of the Word (John 1.14). ... in Providence's threefold arrival there is a certain differentiation: the first two arrivals do not lead to success. To put it bluntly and pointedly, they end in Providence's defeat and withdrawal into the world of light. ... It is only the third arrival that brings revelation to its goal, and it does so, apparently, because the revealer enters into the "middle of the prison," i.e., into a human body. This remarkable insistence on the idea of incarnation is clearly parallel to the use of a Gnostic hymn about the Logos in the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel.28 texts; see Hans Jonas, Gnosis und spätantiker Geist: Erster Teil, Die Mythologische Gnosis (FRLANT 33; 4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 113. 26. The term "raises" probably has ritual associations as well; see below p. 386. 27. Various attempts have been made to identify the savior's point of arrival in the first two trips on the basis oÃ- Apocryphon of John as a whole; see esp. MacRae, "Sleep and Awakening," 498-502; John Turner, "Introduction to the Trimorphic Protennoia, 390. However, this context is secondary and the Monologue itself does not provide sufficient details that could support such identifications. 28. Werner, "Apokryphon des Johannes," 226-27; cf. Hans-Martin Schenke, "Nag Hammadi Studien III: Die Spitze des dem Apokryphon Johannis und der Sophia Jesu 378 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES In its present context in the longer version of the Apocryphon of John the Monologue is delivered by Jesus as part of his answer to a question formulated by John, his beloved disciple, in characteristically Johannine lan- guage, "Why was he (the Savior) sent into the world by his Father who sent him?" (II1, 22-24).29 With these Johannine echoes in mind the reader is likely to connect the Monologue with the Johannine Prologue, including John 1.14, "And the Word became flesh." As noted above (see p. 370, note 5) the Providence Monologue is found only in the longer version of the Apocryphon of John (attested by NHC II and IV). Section 2 below (pp. 388-93) argues that the longer version is secondary, i.e., that the Monologue was secondarily inserted into the shorter version (attested by NHC III and BG 8502). The Johannine resonances of the frame-story should, therefore, not be imported too quickly into the Monologue itself. The question whether the Monologue itself, apart from its present context, affirms an incarnation is best addressed by a detailed analysis of Providence's three entries into the world. If anywhere, here is where one would expect the idea of incarnation to show up. As one moves from the first through the second to the third entry, one can observe a deliberate crescendo. Each description begins with "darkness," a rather general reference to the material cosmos, and continues with more particular images. In the first entry Providence arrives in the "middle of the prison," probably not a particular area within the cosmos, but a poetically more intense description of it as a whole as experienced by imprisoned persons. In the second entry she arrives in the inside of Hades, apparently not the underworld in contrast to the world of daylight, but an image for the entire visible cosmos. As an image, "Hades" is considerably stronger than "prison." Like "prison," "Hades" expresses the experience of persons trapped in the visible cosmos, but now with the added note, "abode of the dead." The description of the third entry combines "Hades" and "prison," adding the qualification "their prison" which points more sharply to the predicaChristi zugrundeliegenden gnostischen Systems," ZRGG 14 (1962): 352-61, esp. 357. Werner does not explain why incarnation is more effective than Providence's other modes of appearing. Werner adopts the thesis of a Gnostic source of the Prologue to John from Hans-Martin Schenke, "Die neutestamentliche Christologie und der gnostische Erlöser," in Karl-Wolfgang Tröger, ed., Gnosis und Neues Testament: Studien aus Religionswissenschaft und Theologie (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973), 205-29, here 226-27. 29. The longer version, which inserts the Monologue, places it without any apparent break at the end of Jesus' revelation to John. The Johannine question is found in the shorter version as well: BG 20.9-11. $ r O H First Entry 3: And I went into the realm of darkness Second Entry I entered into the midst of darkness and the inside of hades. Third Entry 13: that I might enter into the midst of darkness and the inside of hades. And I filled my face with the light of the completion of their aeon. and I endured till I entered the middle of the prison. 14: And I entered into the midst of their prison, which is the prison of the body. m H X m !» O < O m Z η m o Z O r O O C m â– vi ve 380 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES ment of future initiates. The description also adds two new clauses: "I filled my face with the light of the completion of their aeon" and "which is the prison of the body." The first clause highlights the revealer's role in bringing about the end of the world.30 When she fills her face with "the light of the completion of their aeon," i.e., when she openly reveals herself as the light of the divine world (2, 7,12), Providence brings about the end of the aeon in which her potential followers are imprisoned. Her self-revelation not only shakes the foundations of chaos (4, 9); it destroys the power of the material cosmos altogether and thereby liberates those imprisoned in it. Although such a revelation within the material cosmos implies some kind of arrival in it, the Monologue's center of attention does not lie in the mode of the revealer's arrival, incarnation or otherwise, but in the efficacy of her revelation. The second phrase added in the third trip, "And I entered into the midst of their prison, which is the prison of the body," (14) specifies where Providence addresses her potential followers. She addresses them at the point where their inner spark is held captive, in their own prison, the body. She visits a prison in which others are imprisoned, not she herself. If anything, her journey here resembles the "proclamation to the spirits in prison" (I Peter 3.19), rather than "the Word became flesh" (John 1.14), although the contacts with I Peter are not close enough to argue for dependence either way. In sum, when Providence describes her trips into the cosmos she appears to be primarily interested in what she does when she arrives, namely, reveal herself, and in the effect of her trips, the salvation of her listeners. She does not dwell on the mode of her travels, incarnation or otherwise. In this respect the Providence Monologue resembles the Wisdom of Solomon, which also knows of saving arrivals of the divine spirit or Wisdom without specifying the exact way in which the revealing savior arrives (e.g., Wis 9.17-18; see below).31 30. The term συντÎ-λεια is attested in such an eschatological sense in the Septuagint: Dan 4.32, 8.19, 9.26-27; etc. The phrase συντÎ-λεια τοϋ αιώνος is attested in Matt 13.39, 13.40, 13.49, 24.3, 28.20, Heb 9.26. 31. More detailed information on the way in which the savior arrives is found in a hymnic fragment contained in the Letter of Peter to Philip which has points of contact with both the Providence Monologue and the Johannine Prologue: "I am the one who was sent down in the body because of the seed which had fallen away. And I came down into their mortal mold. But they did not recognize me; they were thinking of me that I was a mortal man. And I spoke with him who belongs to me, and he harkened to me just as you too who harkened today. And I gave him authority in order that he might enter into the inheritance of his fatherhood. And I took [. . .] they were filled [. . .] in his salvation. And since he was a deficiency, for this reason he became a pleroma" (NHC WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 381 The analysis of Providence's three entries into the lower world just offered does not bear out Werner's claim that the third trip, in contrast to the first two, consists of an incarnation. The Monologue itself, apart from its secondary context in the Apocryphon of John, does not suggest incarnation. Werner claims that Providence's opening statement should be read as a reference to incarnation as well, as a topic statement anticipating the third trip. "I, therefore, the perfect Providence of the all, changed myself into my seed, Aïujbt £ϕ Αϊ £m πλοπεϕ Μλ" i.e., I changed myself into a human being, I became human, I underwent an incarnation.32 This opening statement, it will be argued below, does not belong originally to the Providence Monologue, but to the shorter version of the Apocryphon of John. It is a secondary transformation of a third person statement found in both translations of the shorter version (NHC III, 1 and BG 8502, 2) into a first person statement attached to the beginning of the Monologue. It is not, therefore, immediately relevant to the question, "Does the Monologue itself, apart from its secondary context in the Apocryphon of John, affirm an incarnation?" Still, one may ask, does the opening statement, in fact, speak of an incarnation? Werner's reading of it is possible and plausible. Comparison with the third person statement found in the shorter version suggests, however, that a different interpretation is possible and perhaps more likely. The term used by the shorter version, Ai Μοϕ φΗ, "take form, be formed" (probably a translation of μοϕ φωθήναι), appears in a number of Gnostic writings, both Valentinian and non-Valentinian, as a synonym of "being perfected, restored, rectified," partly under the influence of Gal 4.19: "My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ takes form in you (μÎ-χϕ ις οϕ μοϕ φωθη Χϕ ιστός εν Ï• μίν; Sahidic: φλΕ τεTrexc ai Μοϕ φΗ n2htthytñ)."33 The interpretation of ai Μοϕ φΗ in III and VIII 136.16-137.4). See Marvin Meyer, The Letter of Peter to Philip: Text, Translation, and Commentary (SBLDS 53; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 128-35. 32. Werner, "Apokryphon des Johannes," 225. 33. "Jesus answered and said, 'Thou also, Mary, thou hast received form which is in the Barbelo' (Ε το ?ωωτε MAf ια· tai 8ntacai Μοϕ φΗ ετ?Ε tbap-bhau))," Pistis Sophia 1.59, Schmidt-MacDermot 116.25-26; "And then he (the forefather) cried out, saying, 'My children, with whom I am in travail until the Christ take form in you (ψΑΕ τε πεχο ai Μοϕ φΗ Ε ΖΗΤΤΗγτΕ )," untitled text in the Bruce Codex 14, Schmidt-MacDermot 254.16-18 quoting Gal 4.19; cf. ibid. 1, Schmidt-MacDermot 226.8-9; "They (the aeons who come forth from the Father like newborns) knew that they had not yet received form (Ε εΜπΑτογΑΕ Μοϕ φΗ) nor yet received a name, each one of which the Father begets. Then, when they receive form (εγψΑΕ ΛΕ φοϕ ΜΗ: either Latin "forma" or scribal metathesis of consonants) by his knowledge, though truly within him, they do 382 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES BG is confirmed by a passage a few lines later in the same texts that describes the Mother's activity by the verb "rectify", τΑ£θ epATq: Verse la of the Providence Monologue can be read similarly as affirming that Providence takes form in her seed, i.e., that she restores or rectifies her seed. Providence's opening statement need not be understood as, "I changed myself into my seed," in the sense of "I underwent an incarna- tion." "I changed," Aïujbt, can be a translation of the Greek Î-μοϕ φώθην, equivalent to Αϊαι Μοϕ φΗ: I, therefore, the perfect Providence of the all, took form in my seed; I perfected and rectified it.34 1.3. Call of Awakening and Sealing When telling of her third trip, in which dramatic intensity reaches its climax, Providence no longer contents herself with a brief description of the effects of her travels but offers a detailed narrative of how she awakened the paradigmatic listener (15-21 ) and ritually sealed him against the power of death (22). In length and weight this section almost equals what precedes it, leading some interpreters to posit a basic bipartite structure of the not know him. But the Father is perfect, knowing every space within him. If he wishes, he manifests whomever he wishes by giving him form (e<ff Μοϕ φΗ Neq) and giving him a name ..." Gos. Truth, NHC127.15-28 (Attridge 97); "She (Wisdom) was outside the light and the pleroma, without form and shape (άμοϕ φος και άνείδος) . . . Christ took pity on her and, extending himself by the Cross, he formed her formation (μοϕ φώσαι μόϕ φωσιν) by his own power ..." Irenaeus, Haer. 1.4.1; "The end of the world will occur when all that is spiritual has taken on form through knowledge, (όταν μοϕ φωθή και τελειωθη γνώσει παν Ï„ÏŒ πνευματικόν)," Irenaeus, Haer. 1. 6.1; "Then they will know that what they are they are by the Father's grace: the unnameable name, form and knowledge (όνομα άνωνόμαστον, μοϕ φή και γνώσις)," Clement, Exe. Theod. 31.1; "There occurs, then, among these three races, the formation (μόϕ φωσις) of the spiritual . . . from slavery to freedom," Exc. Theod. 57; ". . . it (the spiritual seed) little by little takes on form through knowledge (μοϕ φοϋται δια γνώσεως)," Exc. Theod. 59.1; see Sasagu Arai, "Zur Christologie des Apokryphons des Johannes," NTS 15 (1968): 302-18, esp. 309-12. In the non-gnostic Teachings of Silvanus, "Man has taken shape from the substance of God (πϕ ωΜε NTAqAi Μοϕ φΗ εβΟΛ <?n> τογαΑ ΜπΕ θγτε)," Teach. SiIv. NHC VII 93.26-27, NHLE 385. 34. The reading of IV 46.25 ([AiU)]BTq "I changed him") understands the passage in this very way. "I changed my potential follower into my seed. " I gave him the knowledge necessary to realize that he is my offspring and to live accordingly. Since la entered the Monologue from the shorter version (III and BG) and since II is closer at this point to the shorter version than IV, the reading of II is probably more original. Tardieu (Codex de Berlin, 340) proposes that the Greek underlying the reading of II, aïujbt, was μετÎ-βαλον, corrupted by metathesis to μετÎ-λαβεν in the Greek behind the reading Ai Μοϕ φΗ in BG and III. ΜετÎ-λαβεν can account for ai (Crum 748a) but not for the entire expression Ai Μοϕ φΗ. > r O 1st Person in Longer Version 1130.11-13 I, therefore, the perfect 3rd Person in the Two Translations of the Shorter Version III 39.11-13 BG 75.10-13 The blessed Providence of the All, Mother-[Father], therefore, took form in my seed. [takes] form with her seed. anok. öe τεττϕ οΕ ΟΕ Α ετ Arne.' εβΟΛ Ε τε πτΗϕ ςν aïujbtv ζϕ Αϊ 2Îœ TTACTtepMA who is rich in her mercy, TMAKApioc ογΕ ΜΜΑΑγ [Ε εκυ]τ· τετεΕ Αο>ε ττεΟΕ Αε nac ε[ΑΕ μο]Ï• Φ[η] MN ττεεεττεϕ ΜΑ The Blessed One, therefore, namely, the Mother-Father, who is rich in mercy takes form in her seed. τετε NAiATC οε ετε τΜΑΑγ Ε ειωτ τε ετε Ε Αο>ε ττεεΕ Α εεΑΕ Μοϕ φΗ 2Îœ ττεοεττεϕ ΜΑ H H !Γ m !» O < O m Z Ci m S O Z O r O O G O G !» Z > r O Tl > !» Ci Ill 39.18-21 This Mother had come [another time before me. Everything which she had done in the world (κόσμος)she was [rectifying] the defect (υστÎ-Ï• ημα). BG 76.1-5 But (δÎ-) the Mother had come another time before me. Now, these are the things she had done in the world (κόσμος): she had rectified the seed (σπÎ-Ï• μα). X 2 in H > Z in H G O m in WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 385 Monologue, three trips versus call of awakening, rather than a tripartite structure, three trips.35 This structural imbalance underlines the poetic crescendo observed above: the third trip is the Monologue's goal and high point. Call of Awakening: 15: And I said, "He who hears, let him get up from the deep sleep." 16: And he wept and shed tears, bitter tears he wiped from himself. 17: And he said, "Who is it that calls my name, and from where has this hope come to me, while I am in the chains of the prison?" 18: And I said, "I am the Providence of the pure light; I am the thinking of the virginal Spirit, who raises you up to the honored place. 19: Arise and remember that it is you who hearkened, and follow your root, which is I, the merciful One, 20: and guard yourself against the angels of poverty and the demons of chaos and all those who ensnare you, 21: and beware of the deep sleep and the enclosure of the inside of Hades." Ritual Raising and Sealing: 22: And I raised him up and sealed him in the light of the water with five seals, in order that death might not have power over him from this time on. The first of these two sections has a tripartite structure, signaled by the shift of the grammatical subject from Providence ("And I said ..." 15) to the listener ("And he wept . . ." 16) back to Providence ("And I said ..." 18). An initial call limited to the barest essentials, "He who hears, let him get up from the deep sleep" (15), is unfolded by a more detailed call (1821) with the listener's reaction (16-17) sandwiched between. In his analysis of Gnostic calls of awakening, Jonas notes the typical presence of three elements. The call does not as a rule limit itself to the mere imperative, "Awake!" but includes remembrance of the origins and early history of the human race, promise of salvation (part of which is the savior's self-presentation and the narrative of his mission and descent), and practical exhortation about the behavior in the world which is required as an expression of wakefulness and ... as a condition of eventual salvation. These three aspects con- tain ... i« nuce the entire Gnostic myth.36 35. Jean-Marie Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien: Etudes sur la sacramentaire gnostique (BCNH Etudes 2; Quebec: Université Laval, 1986), 33. 36. Jonas, Gnosis und spätantiker Geist, 1.127; emphasis by the author. 386 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES Jonas's analysis, which relies mainly on Mandean and Manichean texts, applies remarkably well to the Providence Monologue.37 The expanded call begins with Providence's self-presentation in the "I am" style (18a-b) together with the announcement of salvation, "who raises you up to the honored place" (18c). It continues with exhortations (19-10). These exhortations, in turn, contain teachings on the origins of the human race: Providence is the listener's "root" (19), a root that has become trapped by a system of hostile powers (20) in the prison of the body (21). The call also resembles the tripartite model of Gnostic revelation discourses constructed by Bultmann and Becker in their work on the Johannine discourses: self-predications in the "I am" style; summons to a decision; and promise of reward and/or threat of punishment.38 The call is followed by a ritual of raising and sealing which accomplishes what the call commands. Taken by itself, "raising" could simply be a metaphor for " awakening. " The parallel position of two actions, however, "I raised him up and sealed him," suggests a rite with two main elements, raising and sealing, perhaps a baptismal rite in which the initiate is raised out of the water and anointed.39 The indicative "And I raised him up" (22a) accomplishes the imperative "Arise!" (19, cf. 15), and the indicative "I sealed him in the light of the water with five seals, in order that death might not have power over him from this time on" (22b-c) accomplishes the imperative, "Guard yourself against the angels of poverty . . . (and) beware of . . . Hades!" (20-22). "I raised him up" probably has additional overtones in the vertical cosmic schema that forms the backdrop of Providence's descents and ascents. The initiate is to be raised, ultimately, to the sphere of light from which Providence herself descends. Behind this mythic ritual, in which Providence herself paradigmatically raises and seals the paradigmatic listener, there probably stands an actual rite.40 Five seals are attested in several Sethian texts in cultic con- 37. See MacRae, "Sleep and Awakening in Gnostic Texts," 497. 38. See Heinz Becker, Die Reden des Johannesevangeliums und der Stil der gnostischen Offenbarungsrede (edited by Rudolf Bultmann; FRLANT 50; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1956); George MacRae, "Nag Hammadi and the New Testament," in Daniel J. Harrington and Stanley B. Marrow, eds., Studies in the New Testament and Gnosticism (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987), 165-83, esp. 182. 39. See Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien, 34-35. 40. The three elements contained in the statement, "I sealed him in the light of the water," are attested in early Christian baptismal language. Baptism as a whole came to be called "seal," perhaps by analogy to the Jewish use of "seal" for circumcision. "The seal, then, is the water" (Hermas, Sim. 9.16.4); see Gottfried Fitzer, "σφϕ αγίς," TDNT 7.939-53, esp. 951-53. Baptismal water was linked with the light of faith. "This washing is called illumination (φωτισμός)" (Justin, Apol. 1.61.11-12). WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 387 texts.41 Cultic references are clearest in a Sethian text closely related to the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of the Egyptians. Here one has a series of references to certain gestures and verbal performances capable of ritual enactment: renunciation, invocation, naming of holy powers, doxological prayer to the living water, receipt of incense, manual gestures, as well as baptismal immersion itself.42 Some Sethian texts reject outward rites in favor of a purely spiritualized symbolic understanding. The Apocalypse of Adam, for example, rejects polluted physical baptism in favor of a purely spiritual baptism consisting of knowledge.43 The mythic-paradigmatic form of the ritual in the Providence Monologue could be taken as evidence of such spiritualizing.44 On the other hand, the paradigmatic myth may simply be a way of describing the essential spiritual event which is enacted in the enactment of an outIt has been suggested, with good reasons, that the Apocryphon of John stems from Syria; see Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament II: History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 212; more cautiously, Birger Pearson, Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity (SAC 5; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 200. If this hypothesis is correct, one would expect a close kinship between the ritual language of the Providence Monologue and Syrian baptismal language. Such is not the case, however; see the analysis of Syrian baptismal imagery attested in the Gospel of Thomas, saying 37, in Jonathan Z. Smith, "The Garments of Shame," Map is not Territory: Studies in the History of Religion (SJLA 23; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 1-23. Sealing with oil, it has been asserted, is an important feature of the early Syrian baptismal traditions attested in the Acts of Thomas, 49,131; see Han J. Drijvers, "The Acts of Thomas: Introduction," in Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols.; translated by Robert McL. Wilson; Westminster: John Knox, 1992), 2.322-38, here 333. Winkler has shown, however, that this claim is based on an inaccurate transla- tion: "The oldest Syriac sources of the third and fourth centuries regularly call the prebaptismal anointing of the head rusma (sign, mark) [footnote to Acts of Thomas 49; Aphraates, Demonstratio 23; Ephrem, De virginitate VII.6], whereas the term 'seal' (hatma) is normally reserved for the postbaptismal anointing that was introduced by the end of the fourth century. Great confusion was created by the inaccurate translation of rusma as 'seal' instead of 'sign' or 'mark'." Gabriele Winkler, "The Original Meaning and Implications of the Prebaptismal Anointing," Worship 52 (1978): 24-45, here 27. 41. Trim. Prot. XIII 49.26-32, 50.9-12; Gos. Eg. Ill 55.12, 65.26-66.8; untitled work in the Bruce Codex 5; Schmidt-MacDermot, 232,10; see John D. Turner, "Ritual in Gnosticism," in Eugene H. Lovering, ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 136-81, esp. the discussion of Sethian baptism, 139-47. In the Naasene Psalm the savior says, "Bearing seals I shall descend" (Hippolytus, Ref. 5.10.2) which is probably also a sacramental reference; see Jonas, Gnosis und spätantiker Geist, 207, note 1. 42. Turner, "Ritual in Gnosticism," 144. 43. NHC V 84.4-22; 85.22-31; see Charles Hedrick, The Apocalypse of Adam: A Literary and Source Analysis (SBLDS 46; Chico: Scholars, 1984), 192-201. 44. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 343. 388 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES ward ritual.45 The Monologue itself does not offer sufficient details to decide between these alternatives, but it is remarkable that it alludes to many elements of initiation rites apparently alluded to in other Gnostic works.46 A cultic setting fits the call of awakening well.47 2. COMPOSITION AND INSERTION INTO THE APOCRYPHON Trim. Prot. (NHC XIII) appears to know the Providence Monologue without knowing The Apocryphon of John as a whole.48 Together with the absence of the Providence Monologue from the shorter version of The Apocryphon of John, this evidence suggests that the Monologue existed once as an independent piece. The structural imbalance introduced into the schema of three trips by the call of awakening, it was argued above, can be understood as a poetic device which underlines the call of awakening and its sacramental accomplishment. Still, one may wonder whether such strong imbalance is likely in an original, unitary composition. In fact, additional and independent signs suggest a literary seam between verses 1-14 and 15-22. In verses 1- 14 Providence refers to her followers in the third person plural (5, 9-10, 13-14); in the call she uses the third person singular throughout (1522 ).49 Immediately before the call there is a phrase which looks like an explanatory gloss, "I entered into the mist of their prison, which is the 45. Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien, 36-37; Robinson, "The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel," 41; Turner, "Trimorphic Protennoia," 386. 46. For a reconstruction of baptism and ethronement on the basis of the Naassene Psalm (Hippolytus, Ref. 5.10.2) and Justin's Book of Baruch, see Geo Widengren, "Baptism and Enthronement in Some Jewish-Christian Gnostic Documents," in Samuel G. F. Brandon, ed., The Savior God: Comparative Studies in the Concept of Salvation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1963), 205-17, esp. 212-13; on the basis of the Naasene Psalm and Hermetic sources, esp. tractates I (Poimandres) and XIII, Petr Pokorny, "Epheserbrief und gnostische Mysterien," ZNW 53 (1962): 160-94, esp. 179-80. 47. "The most satisfactory explanation seems to me to be that it is a Gnostic liturgical fragment probably recited at a ceremony of initiation much in the manner of a Christian baptismal homily or hymn." MacRae, "Sleep and Awakening in Gnostic Texts," 502. 48. The parallels between Trim. Prot, and Apocryphon of John are limited to the theogony and cosmogony section of the work which appears to be the only section known by Irenaeus (Haer. 1.29); see Turner, "Trimorphic Protennoia," 384-90. For the argument that Irenaeus did not know the entire Apocryphon of John but only the theogony-cosmogony section, see Hans-Martin Schenke, "Nag Hammadi Studien I: Das literarische Problem des Apokryphon Johannis," ZRGG 14 (1962): 57-63. 49. See Turner, "Literary History," 62. WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 389 prison of the body" (14). The redactor of the Monologue probably united two originally independent pieces, a hymn of Providence's three trips and a liturgical fragment consisting of a call of awakening and its sacramental consummation, and added an explanatory gloss between them.50 The question whether the Monologue was inserted into The Apocryphon of John to produce the longer version (II and IV) or deleted from it to produce the shorter version (III and BG) is complicated by the presence in BG and III of parallels to the first and last sentence of the Monologue. The parallels are highlighted in the following synoptic table. Some argue that the parallels to the Providence Monologue contained in the shorter version do not make sense in themselves. They must be ex- plained in terms of the longer version as a "very brief—and incomplete— digest" of the Monologue51 or as a way of quoting a very well known text by incipit and explicit.52 These hypotheses overlook important differences between the two versions and the internal coherence of the shorter version. In both versions there is a shift from the third person, which dominates the main narrative including the marriage between angels and women, to the first person of the Savior. In the longer version the shift takes place already in II 30.11: "I, therefore, the perfect Providence of the All, took form in my seed." In the parallel passage of the shorter version the subject is still in the third person: "The blessed one, therefore, namely, the MotherFather, who is rich in mercy, takes form in her seed" (BG 75.10-13). The Mother-Father is probably Sophia,53 at any rate a figure distinct from the Savior, as the second reference to her shows: "But the Mother had come another time before me" (BG 76.1-5). The statement that she "takes form in (III: with) her seed" (BG 75.10-13; III 39.11-13) in the sense of "rec50. Turner goes a step further by excluding only the call of awakening from the original three-stanza hymn while retaining Providence's self-predications ( 18 ) as well as the sacramental raising and sealing (22), transposed into the third person plural; see Turner, "Literary History," 62. Yet the call and raising-sealing should probably not be separated; they belong together as existential imperative and its sacramental accomplishment. 51. Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis, 272-73; see also Birger Pearson, "Jewish Sources in Gnostic Literature," in Michael Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia - Assen: Fortress - Van Gorcum, 1984), 443-81, esp. 459, note 106; Takashi Onuki, "Wiederkehr des weiblichen Erlösers Barbelo-Pronoia: Zur Verhältnisbestimmung der Kurz- und Langversionen des Apokryphon des Johannes," Annual of the Japanese Bibical Institute 13 (1987): 85-143, esp. 94-95,115-16. 52. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 339-40; followed by Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien, 33. 53. See Schenke, "Spitze des Systems," 356; Arai, "Christologie des Apokryphons," 308-9. Onuki ("Wiederkehr des weiblichen Erlösers Pronoia- Barbelo," 94, with note 21) argues for an identification with Providence. II 30.7-31.34 And they (the angels; cf. Gen 6.1-4) took women and begot children out of the darkness according to the likeness of their spirit. And they closed their hearts, and they hardened themselves through the hardness of the despicable spirit until now. "I, therefore, the perfect Providence of the All, took form in my seed, for I existed first, going on every road. BG 75.3-76.9 They took them (and) begot children out of the darkness by means of their counterfeit spirit. He (Yaldabaoth) closed their hearts (and) they became hard through the hardness of the counterfeit spirit until now. The blessed one, therefore, namely, the Mother-Father, who is rich in mercy, takes form in her seed. "!first immovable race." went up to this perfect aeon. G !» Z > O Tl Tl > η X H > Z in And I am saying these things to you that you might write them down and give them secretly to your fellow spirits, for this mystery is that of the immovable race. But the Mother had come another time before me. Now, these are the things she had done in the world: she had rectified her seed. And the savior presented these things to him that he might write them down and keep them secure. O 2 in Providence Monologue, verses 2-22 And behold, now I shall go up to the perfect aeon. I have completed everything for you in your hearing. And I have said everything to you that you might write them down and give them secretly to your fellow spirits, for this is the mystery of the o I will teach you (pi.) about what will happen. For indeed I presented these things to you that (you) might write them down and that they be kept secure.' H C σ in WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 391 tifying her seed" (BG 76.1-5) or its "defect" (III 29.21) functions as the high point of the main narrative in the shorter version. The final extremity of evil is reached in the sexual mingling between angels and women. The prime agent of evil, the counterfeit spirit, is created at this point and for this purpose. Yet there is hope at least for the Mother's seed. She takes form in/with them. "The subject is eschatology, and with this subject the secret teaching of The Apocryphon of John has reached its conclusion."54 It is only after this point that the frame story of the shorter version begins, signaled by the shift to the first person. The Savior points to his Ascension which legitimates his revelation to John. "I first went up to this perfect aeon. And I am saying these things to you that ..." (BG 75.1416). He continues with instructions about preserving the revelation. These instructions are interrupted, somewhat surprisingly, by a second reference to the Mother's activity and an announcement of further revelations in the future, "But the Mother had come another time before me . . . I will teach you (pi.) about what will happen" (III 39.18-21; BG 76.1-5). In the longer version the shift to the first person of the frame story comes earlier, at the very beginning of the Providence Monologue, "I, therefore, the perfect Providence of the all took form in my seed" (II 30.11-13). Jesus himself identifies himself as the savior figure. He himself, not the Mother or Mother-Father, is the one who overcomes the extremity of evil reached in the mingling between angels and women. These observations on the internal coherence of the shorter version and on the differences between the two versions suggest that the longer version is secondary. An already existing Monologue was inserted into the shorter version exactly at the point where the shorter version already spoke of a savior figure. Four changes accompanied this insertion. First, the third person statement, "The blessed one, therefore, namely, the Mother-Father, who is rich in mercy, takes form in her seed," was transformed into the Monologue's first person style and added on to the beginning of the Monologue, "I, therefore, the perfect Providence of the all, took form in my seed." Second, the beginning of the frame story of the shorter version, in which Jesus refers in the past tense to his ascension, "I first went up to this perfect aeon," was transformed into the conclusion of the Providence Monologue, into a future tense announcement of his departure after his third arrival as Providence, "And behold, now I shall go up to the perfect aeon." Third, a note was added that the Providence Monologue concludes the savior's revelation, "I have completed everything for you in your hearing." Fourth, the second reference to the Mother's coming, "But the 54. Arai, "Christologie des Apokryphons," 311. 392 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES Mother had come another time before me ..." and the announcement of further revelations, "I will teach you (pi.) about what will happen" (III 39.18-21; BG 76.1-5) were left out, yielding a smoother continuation of the frame story. All four of these changes are more difficult to explain if the shorter version is secondary. The insertion of the Providence Monologue fits into a pattern that can be observed throughout the longer version. Of the fourteen mentions of "Providence" in the longer version, the following seven are without parallel in the shorter version. • Barbelo, the first revelatory aeon, is Providence (II 6.5); • the source of Barbelo's son Autogenes is Providence (II 7.22); • the divine image which is reflected on the waters is Providence (II 14.20); • the source of the knowledge enjoyed by Adam and Eve is Providence (II 23.24); • the tree of knowledge is the Epinoia derived from Providence (II 23.29); • the one who saves Eve's Life from defilement by Yaldabaoth is Providence (II 24.13); • the prime agent of raising up the perfect race is Providence (II 28.2). In each of these cases it is probable that the longer version inserted a reference to Providence consistent with the Monologue: the prime agent of revelation is Providence.55 While the insertion of the Monologue is thus part of a general pattern of emphasis on Providence as the prime agent of revelation in the longer version, there is something distinctive about the Monologue. It identifies Providence with Jesus. The body of The Apocry55. See Onuki, "Wiederkehr des weiblichen Erlösers Barbelo-Pronoia," 86-110; idem, Gnosis und Stoa: Eine Untersuchung zum Apokryphon des Johannes (NTOA 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1989), 108-132; Michael A. Williams, "Higher Providence, Lower Providences and Fate in Gnosticism and Middle Platonism," in Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman, eds., Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 483-507, esp. 486-88. There are four instances in which a reference to Providence is found in the shorter version and not in the longer, but they point in the same direction. In III 8.5 ( = BG 28.4) Barbelo comes forth from the Father's Providence. The longer version, which identifies Barbelo and Providence quite strictly, would be likely to omit this text. In III 12.7 ( = BG 33.16) Providence appears in a list of minor aeons attending the second light, Oroiael. The change from "Providence" to "Epinoia" in the longer version is consistent with the general upgrading of Providence to prime agent of revelation. The absence of a parallel to III 21.10 ( = BG 47.6) is probably a textual corruption, omission by homoioteleuton from the longer version. In III 39.4 ( = BG 75.3) Providence is conceived not as an agent of revelation, but as the destiny of individual human beings. WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 393 phon of John (in both versions) identifies Jesus consistently with AutogenesChrist, the son of Barbelo-Providence. By placing the Providence Monologue on the lips of Jesus, the longer version thus secondarily identifies an originally feminine revealer figure with Jesus. The insertion of the Providence Monologue at the end of the Apocry- phon of John makes much sense. It expands an original brief reference to salvation into a poetically powerful hymn that brings the Apocryphon^ entire narrative to a cosmic, existential and cultic high point. Filled with a power that shakes the very foundations of chaos and, on his final trip, with "the light of the completion of their aeon" (cosmic high point), JesusProvidence awakens those trapped in the aeon of darkness (existential high point) and accomplishes their salvation in a ritual of initiation (cultic high point). The redactor, who is also responsible for the narrative frame that describes John, son of Zebedee, as the recipient of the revelation (II 1.6), may have had the Gospel of John in mind. As the Gospel opens with a hymnic Prologue that applies a number of sapiential motifs to Jesus, so the more definitive revelation offered in the Apocryphon ends with a hymnic Epilogue rooted in a similar sapiential milieu, a Providence aretalogy placed on the lips of Jesus. 3. HISTORY OF RELIGIONS SETTING: JEWISH WISDOM TRADITIONS The connection between Jewish wisdom traditions and Gnostic speculations has been highlighted by a number of scholars.56 The Providence 56. See George W. MacRae, "Some Elements of Jewish Apocalyptic and Mystical Tradition and their Relation to Gnostic Literature" (Ph.D. thesis, 2 vols., University of Cambridge, 1966), esp. Part Three, "Personified Wisdom," 1.247-96; idem, "The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth," in Harrington and Marrow, eds., Studies in the New Testament and Gnosticism, 184-202; Hans-Martin Schenke, "Die Tendenz der Weisheit zur Gnosis," in Barbara Aland, ed., Gnosis: Festschrift für Hans Jonas (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1978), 351-72; Kurt Rudolph, "Sophia und Gnosis: Bemerkungen zum Problem der 'Gnosis und Frühjudentum'," in KarlWolfgang Tröger, ed., Altes Testament, Frühjudentum, Gnosis (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1980), 221-37; John Sieber, "The Barbelo Aeon as Sophia in Zostrianos and Related Tractates," in Layton, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, II: Sethian Gnosticism, 788-95. For a strong voice critical of the use of Jewish traditions in the discussion of Gnostic texts, see Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, "The Jewish Factor in the Development of the Gnostic Myth of Origins," in Tjitze Baarda, G. P. Hilhorst, Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, and A. S. van der Woude, eds., Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn (Kämpen: J. H. Kok, 1988), 152-61; idem, "Intertextual References in Readers' Responses to the Apocryphon of John," in Sipke 394 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES Monologue is a particularly striking example of this connection. Its narrative strongly resembles Jewish stories about the descent and re-ascent of pre-existent Wisdom.57 According to / Enoch 42, Wisdom cannot find a place to dwell "but a place was found for her in the heavens" (/ Enoch 42.1).58 The text goes on to tell the story of her descent to the people and her re-ascent:59 Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling place. (So) Wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels (I Enoch 42.2).60 It is likely that the background of the Providence Monologue lies in such Jewish stories about Wisdom,61 recast in terms of πϕ όνοια, Provi- dence.62 Yet, it would be insufficient merely to point to a fixed story about Draisma, ed., Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1989), 117-26. 57. See Rudolf Bultmann, "Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund des Prologs zum Johannesevangelium," in Rudolf Butmann, Exegetica (E. Dinkier, ed.; Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1967), 10-35, esp. 13-21; George MacRae, "The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth," NovT 12 (1970): 86-101; repr. in George MacRae, Studies in New Testament and Gnosticism, ed. Harrington and Marrow, 184-202, esp. 190-91. An extensive collection of texts on pre-existent Wisdom and her various activities is provided by Max Küchler, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des früh jüdischen Jahweglaubens (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 1979), esp. 46-61 (biblical texts; Alexandrian speculation, esp. Aristoboulos and Philo; Rabbinic texts), 76-79 (apocalyptic texts), 100-105 (Qumran). 58. For the motif of Wisdom's place, see Job 28.12, 20; Baruch 3.15; I Enoch 84.3. For the motif of Wisdom seeking a place, see Sir 24.7. 59. For the motif of Wisdom dwelling with the people, see Prov 8.31; Sir 24.8; Wis 7.27; 9.10; Bar 3.38. For her removal, see IVEzra 5.10; II Baruch 48.36; cf. Prov 1.28. In Sir 24.5 she "travels through the depth of the abyss." 60. For an early dating of this fragment in the Book of Similitudes, see Küchler, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen, 65 note 14, 77-78. 61. See Schenke, "Nag Hammadi Studien III," 355-56; MacRae, "The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth," 190; Kurt Rudolph, "Sophia und Gnosis," 230. The genre of the Providence Monologue is indebted to the self-praises of wisdom in the Jewish tradition, see MacRae, "Discourses of the Gnostic Revealer," 115-16, Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 41. 62. πϕ όνοια and πϕ ονοÎ-ω (lat. Providentia and providere) play an important role in Hellenistic philosophy and political life; see Williams, "Higher Providence,"483-84 and 500-503; Takashi Onuki, "Die dreifache Pronoia: Zur Beziehung zwischen Gnosis, Stoa und Mittelplatonismus," Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 19 (1991): 10749; there is a close link between providentia and the emperor cult, see Martin P. Charlesworth, "Providentia and Aeternitas," HTR 29 (1936): 107-32; for Hellenistic Judaism in particular see TDNT, s.v. πϕ ονοÎ-ω, πϕ όνοια, 4.1009-17, esp. 1014-16; WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 395 Wisdom which reappears in the Providence Monologue. The question is how and why certain stories are used, recast and reinterpreted.63 A comparison between the Providence Monologue and the Wisdom of Solomon shows that the many motifs shared by these two texts are de- ployed in the Monologue with a sharper dualistic edge and a new claim of consubstantiality between the self and the divine spirit. 3.1. The Sharpened Dualistic Edge In the Providence Monologue, the body is a cause of ignorance, salvation is made possible by knowledge, and this knowledge is brought by a revealer who comes from the divine sphere. A similar constellation of motifs is found in the Wisdom of Solomon. What man can know the plan of God? And who can understand what the Lord wishes? For the reasonings of mortals are wretched, And precarious are our thoughts. For a perishable body weighs down the soul, And the tent of clay presses down the mind. . . . Who would have known your plan, had you not given wisdom, And sent your holy spirit from on high. Thus have the paths of those on earth been straightened And people have been taught what pleases you, And have been saved, by Wisdom (Wis 9.13-15, 17-18). The tent of clay inhabited by the soul prevents access to the knowledge of divine plans necessary to walk on straight paths. In this desperate situation Wisdom is sent as a savior who teaches human beings what is pleasing to God. For the Providence Monologue, the body is not merely a "tent of clay," but a hellish thing, "the enclosure of the inside of Hades" (21 ). The condition of the self in this prison is not merely one of being weighed down and hindered from knowing God's plan and will, but one of complete alienation from itself, as expressed in the image of sleep. The self is trapped in a system of power, entwined with the sphere of darkness, apparently domiHarold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 71-76. The functions of personified Wisdom closely resemble those of Providence, see, e.g., the parallel use of πϕ όνοια and σοφία in Wisdom 14.3 and 14.5. 63. See Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, "Wisdom Mythology and the Christological Hymns of the New Testament," in R. Wilken, ed., Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University, 1975), 17-41, esp. 33, cf. 18, 29. 396 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES nated by "the angels of poverty and the demons of chaos" (20) far from the sphere of light from which Providence comes. Since a benevolent creator created all things, the ruling forces in the cosmos, according to the Wisdom of Solomon, are being, life and salvation. The power of Hades is limited to the underworld. God created all things for existence, And the generative powers of the cosmos are conducive to salvation, And there is no pernicious poison in them, Nor does Hades have kingship on the earth, For justice is immortal (Wis 1.14-15).64 Despite all evils, such as the weight of "clay" on the soul, the cosmos of the Wisdom of Solomon remains a medium of salvation. When taught by Wisdom, human beings can understand the structure of the world and its history and adapt to it. Philosophically cogent arguments for the existence of one creator God can be gleaned from the cosmos (Wis 13.1 -9 ) and that same creator's benevolent providence for his people can be clearly seen in the narratives of the Pentateuch (15.14-19.21). For in everything, O Lord, you have exalted and glorified your people, and you have not neglected to help them at all times and in all places (Wis 19.22). In comparison with the muted dualism of the Wisdom of Solomon, the apocalyptic picture of Wisdom attested in / Enoch 42 is considerably more dualistic. Wisdom has withdrawn and is found only in the angelic world. She can no longer be known from the world, but only through special revelation.65 In a spectrum which includes the Wisdom of Solomon and / Enoch 42, the Providence Monologue moves into an increased alienation from the visible cosmos. 3.2. The New Claim to Consubstantiality Increased alienation from the visible cosmos goes hand in hand with a second important difference, namely, increased claim to identity with the divine. According to the Wisdom of Solomon the content of Wisdom's saving revelation is God's plan and will. Except for a greater cosmological emphasis, the picture of Wisdom in the Wisdom of Solomon is thus similar to the identification of Wisdom with the Mosaic Law in texts such as 64. For the translation "conducive to salvation," see John J. Collins, "Cosmos and Salvation: Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Hellenistic Age," HR 17 (1977/78): 121-42, esp. 124 with note 16. 65. Collins, "Cosmos and Salvation," 128,140; Küchler, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen, 547-49. WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 397 Sirach 24.23 and Baruch 4.1. Salvation lies in the "straight paths" made possible by Wisdom's revelation, i.e., in justice, which leads to immortal life.66 The beginning of Wisdom is the truest desire for learning, And concern for learning is love of her, And love of her is keeping of her laws, And adherence to the laws is the assurance of incorruption, And incorruption makes one near to God (Wis 6.17-19). Wisdom leads her disciples from love of learning to knowledge of the law and thus into incorruptible life near God. Providence, by contrast, urges her listener, "Follow your root, which is I" (19). Her revelation brings the listener to a knowledge of the self, described as awakening, and this knowledge coincides with knowledge of the divine. It is on the basis of this understanding of salvation as awakened identity of the inner self with the divine, that one can interpret Providence's relation to the "virginal Spirit," the highest divine principle. She functions as the bond of continuity which reaches from the "virginal Spirit" all the way into the self of the listener. Her root is the first light (10), just as she is the root of the listener (19). This bridging function explains her selfpredications such as "the light which exists in the light" (12) and "the thinking of the virginal Spirit" (18). All her true listeners become aware that their inner identity, concealed and imprisoned in their bodies, is nothing but Providence herself. Their salvation consists in coming to know their inner unity of being with her, "Follow your root, which is I ... " (19). Although its understanding of salvation differs, the Wisdom of Solomon contains elements capable of being developed into such a claim of unity with God. Wisdom stands in quasi-substantial continuity with God as "the vapor of God's power, the pure emanation of God's glory . . . the reflection of the eternal light" (Wis 7.25-26). At the same time, like the Stoic Logos, she "pervades and permeates all things" (Wis 7.24). In particular, "generation after generation she descends into holy souls and makes them friends of God and prophets" (Wis 7.27). On the basis of these and similar texts Georgi argues that the Wisdom of Solomon conceives the Divine Spirit as one and consubstantial in God and the just.67 Whether one 66. See Collins, "Cosmos and Salvation," 125-26. 67. See Dieter Georgi, "Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil 2, 6-11," in Erich Dinkier, ed., Zeit und Geschichte (FS R. Bultmann; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1964), 263-93, esp. 272, 277-78; idem, "Das Wesen der Weisheit nach der 'Weisheit Salomos'," in Jacob Taubes, ed., Gnosis und Politik (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1984), 66-81, esp. 80. 398 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES agrees with Georgi's reading or not, it is suggestive for the possibility of moving from a text like the Wisdom of Solomon to the consubstantiality of spirit in the Providence Monologue. In deploying motifs shared with the Wisdom of Solomon in these two distinctive directions, increased alienation from the cosmos and increased claim to identity with the divine, the Providence Monologue moves into close kinship with texts commonly classified as "Gnostic."68 4. THE MONOLOGUE AND THE PROLOGUE A foundation has now been laid for discussing the relation between the Providence Monologue and the Johannine Prologue. Michel Tardieu has proposed a detailed analysis which can serve as a point of departure. In its utter failure to establish what it sets out to establish, it can point in the right direction. 4.1. The Monologue as a "Gnostic Pastiche of the Prologue" According to Tardieu, the Apocryphon of John is entirely a product of the left wing of the Johannine school.69 Due to its conviction that eschatological hopes had been realized in Jesus, he argues, the Johannine school was torn by disputes over the role of the Law.70 One group, which he calls "Jewish Christian in the strict sense," continued to accept the Law both as "norm" and as "text." Another group, which he calls "Christian" and which he sees represented by the Gospel of John, rejected it as norm, but accepted it as text. The Apocryphon of John represents the third option: it rejects the Law both as norm and as text. The Book of Secrets, of John is one of these [options]. Produced essentially from the materials of the Gospel itself, it became the manifesto of those opposed to the compromise and, so to speak, the Bible of the anti-biblicists.71 68. On the conjunction of these two aspects (cosmic dualism with an underlying monism of divine substance) as a characteristic hallmark of texts classified as "Gnostic," see Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (translated by Robert McL. Wilson; San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 57-59. 69. See Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 10, 37-39. Tardieu attempts to substantiate this claim by pointing to numerous contacts between the Apocryphon of John and the Gospel of John; see the apparatus of his translation under * * (sources) and pp. 427-28 of the index. Upon close inspection, almost all of these contacts turn out to be doubtful or non-existent. ". . . (D)espite the useofthe name'John,'nothing points toacontinuation of the traditions of the Johannine community." Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 213. 70. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 10. 71. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 10. In this respect the Apocryphon of John is more WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 399 The Providence Monologue in particular, he claims, stems from a "lost Johannine collection" of hymns72 "analogous to that of the Odes of Solomon."73 The Monologue stood "at the beginning of this corpus of hymns."74 It recasts a hymn contained in an earlier (pre-Gospel) form of the same collection, namely, the Johannine Prologue.75 The Monologue is, in short, "a Gnostic pastiche of the Johannine Prologue."76 The dependence of the Providence Monologue on the Johannine Pro- logue, Tardieu claims, is evident in the use of a schema of three descents found in the Prologue. In the Prologue the Logos descends: • First "... to the entire world and to all human beings, as forming a whole ("coming into the world" John 1.9-10), • then to Israel ("he came to his own" John 1,11) • and finally "among us" (John 1.14), i.e., now."77 The first descent of Providence is likewise to all human beings, as evidenced by the "quote"78 of Job 28.21 ("She is hidden from the eyes of all living things") in the statement "I hid myself from them" (5). The reader, this appears to be Tardieu's understanding, sees "I hid myself" as the beginning of the well-known text, "She is hidden from all living things" and therefore recalls the end, "from all living things." It is on the basis of being reminded of "all living things" by "I hid myself" that the reader understands Providence's first descent to be a descent to "all living things," i.e., to all human beings, parallel to the Johannine phrase "into the world" (John 1.9). Her second descent is to Israel in particular, as evidenced by the "allusion" to / Enoch 42.2b, "Wisdom returned to her place," in the statement, "And again I ran up to my root of light" (10). Tardieu's argument is structurally similar to the argument for "all human beings" in the first descent. The allusion to / Enoch 42.2b reminds the reader of this well- Johannine or Christian than the Gospel of John: "The 'Gnosticism' of the author of the Apocryphon of John is certainly nothing but a form of Christian radicalism by the elimination of heterogeneous and non-specific elements." Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 38. 72. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 40. 73. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 43. 74. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 339. 75. See the stemma of sources, Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 45. 76. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 340. 77. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 341; emphasis added. 78. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 341. 400 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES known text and therefore recalls the immediately preceding statement, "Then Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people" (in / Enoch 42.2a). It is on the basis of this allusion to / Enoch 42.2a by means of the allusion to / Enoch 42.2b that the reader understands Providence's second descent to be a descent to Israel in particular. Her third descent, finally, correlates with John 1.14 ("The Word became flesh") because it alludes to the descent of Providence into the body as the prison of the soul.79 Again, as in the first two descents, the reader recalls the entire passage, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." It is on the basis of the allusion to "among us" by means of "I entered into the midst of their prison, which is the prison of the body" ( = "The Word became flesh") that the reader understands Providence's third descent to be a descent "among us," i.e., the members of the Johannine school. The Providence Monologue uses the third trip to score its main point off the Johannine Prologue: "... the Word becoming flesh is replaced by Providence becoming word" in the call of awakening.80 "Two ideas of salvation confront each other here. In John, a physical interpretation of the descent (incarnation); in the hymn quoted in the Apocryphon of John a psychological interpretation (gnosis)."81 4.2. The Independence of the Monologue and the Prologue Tardieu's argument for the dependence of the Monologue on the Prologue hinges on the close parallel between the destinations of the three trips in both texts: (1) to all human beings; (2) to Israel in particular; (3) to us now in the Johannine school. Whether the Johannine Prologue contemplates three distinct trips with these destinations or merely mentions one and the same incarnation of the Word three times (John 1.9-10,1.11,1.14, alternately: John 1.5,1.9-11,1.14) is an issue that can be left open here. Tobe shut is the issue whether three descents with the above three destinations are found in the Providence Monologue. Tardieu presupposes the ability of the Monologue's readers to pass through three interlocking phases of reading: First, as they read three specific phrases in the Monologue, namely, "I hid myself," "And again I ran up to my root of light," and "I entered into . . . the prison of the body," readers recall specific parallel phrases in other texts they are familiar with, namely "she is hidden" (Job 28.21), "Wisdom returned to her 79. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 341. 80. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 43. 81. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin, 342. WALDSTEIN/THE PROVIDENCE MONOLOGUE 401 place" (¡Enoch 42.2b) and "the Word became flesh" (John 1.14). Second, as they recall these three phrases readers also recall phrases adjacent to them, namely, "from the eyes of all living things" (Job 28.1), "Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people" (I Enoch 42.2a) and "dwelt among us" (John 1.14). Third, as they recall these adjacent phrases, readers divine that it is by these adjacent phrases that the Mono- logue identifies the three distinct destinations of Providence's travels, namely, all human beings, Israel, and the Johannine school. One wonders how many readers would accomplish such a remarkable feat. In addition, the allusions are not at all as clear and specific as Tardieu makes them out to be. First trip, to all human beings: Providence's statement, "I hid myself from them" is only vaguely similar to Job 28.21 ("She is hidden from the eyes of all living things" ), not similar enough to speak of a quote. It is no less similar to IVEzra 5.9-10 ("Then shall Reason hide itself and Wisdom shall withdraw into its chamber, and she shall be sought by many but shall not be found"—no mention of all human beings) and If Baruch 48.36 ("Where did the multitude of Intelligence hide itself and where did the multitude of Wisdom depart?"—again no mention of all human beings). One cannot conclude that Providence's first descent has all human beings as its goal. Second trip, to the Jewish people in particular: Tardieu rightly points to / Enoch 42 as a parallel of the descent-return pattern found in the second trip. This pattern is, however, found in all three trips.82. The explicit statement of re-ascent in the second trip uses the adverb "again, on, prob, a translation of Greek πάλιν," "again I ran up" (10) and thus implies that Providence ran up at the end of the first trip as well. An explicit statement of re-ascent is also found in the third trip, "I shall go up to the perfect aeon" (23). One cannot conclude, therefore, that in her second descentreturn Providence is traveling, like Wisdom in / Enoch 42, to the Jewish people in particular, as opposed to humanity in general. Third trip, into flesh: The contact between "I entered into the midst of their prison which is the prison of the body" (14) and "The Word became flesh" (John 1.14) is too vague to demonstrate intentional use of the Johannine Prologue in the Providence Monologue. As argued above, Providence's statement, "I entered into the midst of their prison, which is the prison of the body," resembles the "proclamation to the spirits in prison" (I Peter 3.19), rather than "the Word became flesh" (John 1.14). Tardieu's understanding of the third trip as Providence's "becoming word" in the 82. See above pp. 374-77. 402 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES effective call of awakening, rather than "becoming flesh," does much greater justice to the text. Despite a striking overall similarity, there are, in fact, no literary contacts between the Prologue and the Monologue close enough to indicate literary dependence of the Monologue on the Prologue. The closest contact exists between Providence Monologue, verse 5b "they did not recognize me MTTOγοογωΕ Τ," and John 1.10-11 "but the world did not recognize him (αυτόν ουκ εγνω) . . . but his own did not receive him." This contact can be explained by the shared motif of "hidden Wisdom" attested in the texts quoted above (Job 28.21; IVEzra 5.9-10; JJ Baruch 48.36). The most natural way of explaining the similarity between the Providence Monologue and the Johannine Prologue is their common root in Jewish sapiential traditions. The argument against Tardieu cuts both ways. If the similarities between the Providence Monologue and the Johannine Prologue are not close enough to indicate dependence of the former on the latter, they are also not close enough to indicate dependence of the latter on the former. The argument employed by Robinson to show that the Johannine Prologue depends on the Trimorphic Protennoia hinges on the manner in which motifs concentrated in the Prologue appear widely dispersed in the more detailed and elaborate mythical scheme of the Trimorphic Protennoia where they seem to find their "natural context."83 The Providence Monologue does not provide sufficient grounds for such an argument—mainly, perhaps, because it is so short, only about one fourth longer than the Prologue.84 What the Providence Monologue can provide is a benchmark, more similar in style and length to the Johannine Prologue than the Trimorphic Protennoia, by which one can measure the proximity or distance of the Prologue to or from a Gnostic recasting of Jewish sapiential motifs. This article has attempted to establish that benchmark. Measurement of the Prologue is a further task, contingent on exegesis of John. Michael Waldstein is an Assistant Professor in the Program of Liberal Studies, University of Notre Dame 83. Robinson, "The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel," 45; see also 38 where Robinson pinpoints what she considers "the heart of the argument." 84. Prologue 305 words in the NRSV translation, 253 words in Greek; Providence Monologue 401 words in the translation offered above, 270 words in Coptic.