[1] άρхηγòν καί τελειωτήν are firmly linked by a single article, τóν, so that (as Dr M. E. Thrall has suggested in a private communnication) τελειωτές might conceivably be itself a christological title. I am more inclined to make it adjectival and thus epexegetic. Note the connection of τελεισαι at Heb. 2. 10. Jesus too put his faith in God, as bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.

[1] Hans-Martin Schenke in a paper read to the International Conference on Gnosticism held at Yale University in March, 1978, entitled ‘Phänomen und Bedeutung des gnostischen Sethianismus.’ The paper will be published in the forthcoming collection The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (ed. Bentley Layton; Studies in the History of Religions [Supplements to Numen]; Leiden: Brill). The name under consideration figures in Schenke's list of characteristic elements that bind the tractates he gathers under the label ‘Sethian’ together as a group representing a single coherent system.

[2] CG II, 1 Ap. John 8. 28–35 in Frederik Wisse's translation for The Nag Hammadi Library in English (gen. ed. James Robinson; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977; hereafter abbreviated NHLE),103, somewhat modified. Wisse preserves in translation an orthographic peculiarity in Ap. John's form of the name: the doubling of the first alpha ([Pigeraadamas]). This is somewhat misleading, if not incorrect, because the normal form of the expression (in the Greek nominative) is. In CG II, 1 Ap. John the word is broken in two by the end of one line (8. 34) and the beginning of the next (8. 35), and the doubling occurs precisely at the juncture, thus:. The doubling is probably to be considered a dittography resulting from the scribe's wish to preserve the familiar name Adamas intact when he started to pen line 35. That he continues the supralinear stroke in this line beginning over the delta, and not over the reduplicated alpha (which is almost totally in lacuna, but the space over it is not), may be his way of indicating that the second alpha is only cosmetic and is not to be read. The forms attested by the other three tractates James Robinson and John Sieber, in their translations of Steles Seth and Zost., respectively, for NHLE 362–367 and 368–393, offer ‘Geradamas’ for the expression (pp. 363, 371, 372 and 381) because Codices VII and VIII consistently use III-, † III- (Walter Till's ‘Demonstrativartikel’: see his Koptische Grammatik; 3rd ed.; Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1966, § 202) as a simple definite article. Thus it was in accordance with Coptic usage for them to omit it in translating the expression. Codices II and IX, on the other hand, employ the regular II-, T-, II- definite article. In Ap. John and Melch., then, the expression stands out for its use of the ‘Demonstrativartikel’, and that is why Wisse, and Søren Giversen and Birger Pearson in their translation of what is left of Melch. for NHLE (p. 400), simply transliterated the whole Coptic expression as it stood.

[3] By suffixion of a Greek inflection -āς typical of popular hypocoristically abbreviated names and frequently applied in the Hellenistic period to names of Semitic origin: see BDF § 125. Irenaeus' Barbeloite sect and Hippolytus' Naassenes know a punning etymology for the name ‘Α§αμāς, as though it were Greek ά§άμας ‘indomitable’, ‘unsubduable’ – so adamantine is the heavenly Man (Adversus Haereses 1. 27. 1 quem – the primal Man – et Adamantem vocant: quoniam neque ipse domatus est, neque ü ex quibus erat; and Elenchos 5. 7. 6 compared with 7; 5. 7. 35). In the Sethian system Adamas' son Seth and his ‘seed’ enjoy the same enviable quality.

[4] Apocryphon Johannis (Acta Theologica Danica 5; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1963), 60–1 with the commentary 186–7.

[5] Codex II is no exception to this rule: see Peter, Nagel, ‘Grammatische Untersuchungen zu Nag Hammadi Codex II’, in Franz, Altheim and Ruth, Stiehl, eds., Die Araber in der alten Welt (5 vols. in 6; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1964-1969), 5. 2 (‘Das Christliche Aksqm’) 401. Furthermore, Giversen assumes the presence of the necessary prolongation of the supralinear stroke over the space that the nu would have occupied, but in fact this assumption is false.Google Scholar

[6] Les Trois Stèles de Seth, un écrit gnostique retrouvé à Nag Hammadi’, RSPT 57 (1973) 545–75. The translation of 118. 26 cited here is from p. 567.

[7] See LSJ s.v. γέρаς.

[8] ‘Das Sethianische System nach Nag-Hammadi-Handschriften’, Studia Coptica (ed. Peter, Nagel; Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten 45; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1974), 165–72.Google Scholar

[9] The two representatives of the short recension of Ap. John offer simply δλδℳδ∁ (CG III, 1 at 13. 4) and δλδℳ (BG 8502, 2 at 35. 5) where CG II, i has ∏ı⌈ερδ/δλδℳδ∏ In CG IV 1 Ap. John the passage is in lacuna. The long recension's reading looks like a case of lectio difflcilior.

[10] ‘Sethianische System’ 170. Is this a tacit objection to Tardieu's solution?

[11] Alexander, Böhlig, ‘Zum “Pluralismus” in den Schriften von Nag Hammadi: die Behandlung des Adamas in den Drei Stelen des Seth und im Ägypterevangelium’, Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Pahor Labib (ed. Martin, Krause; NHS 6; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 26 n. 1.Google Scholar

[12] ‘“Pluralismus”’ 25–6.

[14] ‘“Die drei Stelen des Seth”: Die fünfte Schrift aus Nag-Hammadi-Codex VII’, TLZ 100 (1975) 571–80. His argument touching the name is set out on col. 573.Google Scholar

[14] See note 1 (col. 580) to Wekel's translation ‘o Heiliger Adamas’ (col. 574) for ∏ı⌈εραλδℳδ at 118. 26.

[15] Walter, Crum, Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939), 49b9.Google Scholar

[16] Iεουλ is Codex Alexandrinus' rendition of the Hebrew name. ıε⌈ο℘λ is a reading preserved only by a Sahidic fragment (Sa¹⁰ in the Göttingen LXX), but it must stem from an otherwise unattested Greek form. The other two examples of intrusion of gamma listed by Crum are equally irrelevant to the case at hand. They both concern orthographic differences peculiar to Coptic itself and not to the bridging of hiatus by gamma in the transcription of Greek loanwords. Such a practice did not exist.

[17] Die drei Stelen des Seth (NHC.VII, 5), Text-Übersetzung-Kommentar (Berlin, 1977, unpublished), 87–88.Google Scholar

[18] ‘Memorandum to James M. Robinson and Konrad Wekel’ dated 5.4.1974, unpublished, on CG VII, 5; 118. 26.

[19] Wisse holds that this derivation is ‘correct in form and makes good sense contrasting the primal Adamas with the earthly one’. By ‘correct in form’ he evidently means that this solution does not involve the necessity of positing corruption or mutilation as the Schenke-Wekel derivation of –ı⌈ερ from ίερóς does. This has force, but for the reasons set out in discussing Böhlig's solution I feel some reservation about the ‘good sense’ that depiction of Adamas as γέρων makes.

[20] Did he have in mind Böhlig's objection to the Schenke solution, that a hori is required to preserve the Greek spiritus asperi He makes no allusion to it.

[21] Wisse claims that, as against the example in CG II, 1 Ap. John, the stroke in the two examples from Zost. runs only over ⌈ερδλδℳδ∁. In fact in these two cases, and in that in Melch. as well, the stroke begins over the iota, but this neither supports Wekel nor refutes Wisse. The scribes were not at all consistent in this regard, and the position of the stroke proves nothing as to what exactly beneath it was meant to be article and what proper name. All the more so if the scribes seem themselves to have been puzzled by the names they were transcribing; the CG II, 1 Ap. John instance to which Wisse refers in contrast shows the stroke fully covering the whole expression, and yet, as Böhlig (‘“Pluralismus”’ 25 n. 1) remarks, that is no indication that the article (whatever the scribe conceived it to be) was intended to be part of the name.

[22] And so III- is the article. It is possible, though the argument should not be pressed because we lack knowledge of the original context in which the Coptic translation of the Greek that underlies the expression was made, that the ‘Demonstrativartikel’ prefixed to the name has that special force in this case that Polotsky, in his review of Till's Koptische Grammatik in OLZ 52 (1957), 230, defines as follows: ‘Schliesslich scheint III-, †, in- eine Bedeutung zu haben, die man wohl nur als affektiv bezeichnen kann: es findet sich bei Ausdrücken, die etwas Grosses, Gewaltiges, Staunens- und Bewunderungswertes, Schreckliches oder Abscheuliches bezeichnen.’

[23] This would hardly be exceptional with figures encountered in the Sethian system. The names of the four luminaries, for example – Armozel (Harmozel), Oroiael (Oriel, Oroiel), Daveithe (Davithe, Daveithai), and Eleleth – while not perfectly translucent to etymological analysis, are undoubtedly of Semitic origin. So too – notoriously – are the names laldabaoth, and Barbelo.

[24] Aramaic, both from a root verb. For other Semitic languages see BDB, or DISO.

[25] Epiphanius, Panarion 40. 7. 1. τòν εθ öν καίη˜ κаλο Αλλογενūσι and 40. 7. 4–5. For a thorough treatment of the evidence see Puech, H.-C., ‘Fragments retrouvés del’ Apocalypse d'Allogène’ (reprinted in Enquéte de la Gnose I; Paris: Gallimard, 1978), 271–300. The identity of the revealer that gives his name to the tractate CG XI, 3 Allogenes is unfortunately never stated in the text as it is preserved.Google Scholar

[26] CG VII, 5 Steles Seth 120. 5–6, Robinson's translation,NHLE 363.

[27] CG V, 5 Apoc. Adam 64. 1–69. 24. George MacRae's translation for NHLE 256–64 is cited.

[28] See, most conveniently, Frank, Benz, Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (Studia Pohl 8; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972), 103–7, 434, 442 and 450. This type of name belongs to the category that Benz (Personal Names 225–8) designates ‘Construct-Phrase Names’, the element ℸℷ being the nomen regens and the divine name the nomen rectum. New discoveries and discussions may be found in the Bulletin d'dpigraphie sémitique published in Syria: see, for example, 49 (1972) 432 (no. 109, from the temple of Eshmun, Sidon, mid-fifth century B.C.E.) and 53 (1976) 330–1 (no. 151, from Carthage, c. 400 B.C.E., a report on the battle of Agrigentum).Google Scholar

[29] The uses of ℸℷ in Phoenician are not fully and exactly understood see Benz, Personal Names 228 and 298, and DISO s.v. ℸℷ, but as the nomen regens in the proper names under discussion its meaning is clear enough. Dormer and Röllig (KAI 2. 53 on no. 36. 3, for example) translate ‘Schutzbefohlener’. This sense of the word ℸℷ is probably a development of the common ancient practice of taking asylum in the sanctuary of a god or goddess. Such is the word's meaning in the phrase gr bt èl in the Ugaritic legend of Aqhat (I. iii. 47: see Driver, G. R., Canaanite Myths and Legends, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956, 62–3), as the context shows. Note too the use of ℸıℷ in Pss 15.1 and 61. 5.Google Scholar

[30] In Latin ı⊂οℸℷ (which was Hamilcar's father's name) becomes Gisgo or Gisco, in Greek Гεοκων, Гωκων, or Гωγων for references see Benz, , Personal Names 298,Google Scholar or Harris, Z., A Grammar of the Phoenician Language (New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society, 1936), 92–3.Google Scholar

[31] Гηροστος (i.e. ∏ℸ∏ωλℸı), king of Arad: Arrian, Anabasis 2. 20. 1.

[32] Josephus, , Ag. Ap. 1.157, cites a Phoenician chronicle that lists Гεραστρτος as a vassal-king of Tyre in the sixth century B.C.E. Orthographically there is no problem with a Greek form γερ for Hebrew ℸℷ both eta and epsilon are in use in the transcription of ℸℷ in the Phoenician and Punic names. So too with Hebrew names in the LXX. While οωℸℷ (which popular etymology derived from ℸℷ Ex. 2. 22) is transcribed Гηρσαωμ or Кηρσωμ the related name ııωℸℷ appears mostly in the form Гεδσων.Google Scholar

[33] Such is the first stele of Steles Seth; note in particular 119.13–15 ‘I bless thee as God; I bless thy divinity’ (Robinson's translation, NHLE 363), and Hippolytus' statement about the Naassenes in Elenchos 5. 6. 4–5.

[34] The word, and the verb ıℷ as well, never lost this basic meaning, even in late Hebrew. Examples from Rabbinic sources are cited by Jastrow, M. in his Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babliand Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature s.vv. ℸℷ and ℸℷ.Google Scholar

[35] See 2 Kgs. 17. 24–41, biased as this account is. Josephus (whose hatred for the Samaritans is but thinly veiled) remarks, at the end of his version of the passage in 2 Kgs. (Ant. 9.14. 3 [§] 288–291), as often elsewhere, that when the Samaritans see the Jews prospering they call them συνγενίς, but when the Jews are in trouble the Samaritans disavow all connection with them, claiming to be μετοίκνς άγγοεθνείς

[36] Josephus, Ant. 11. 8. 6 (§§ 340–344) and 12. 5. 5 (§§ 257–264), reports that the Shechemites claimed Sidonian origin.

[37] ‘Sethianische System’ 171–2.

[38] In the as yet unpublished article cited in note 1.

[39] One direct parallel is speculation about the ‘Standing one’. See CG VII, 5 Steles Seth 119. 4, 15–18; 121. 9–10 and Stanley, Isser, The Dositheans (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 17; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 19–25Google Scholar on the famous passages from the pseudo-Clementines, and 138–140. Refer further to Hans, Gebhard Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode (RGVV 30; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 122–137 and 328–349Google Scholar on Samaritan gnosis generally, and 124–5,131 n. 199, 319 n. 72 and 347 n. 136 on ò έστώς Walter, Beltz, ‘Samaritanertum und Gnosis’ in Gnosis und Neues Testament: Studien aus Religionswissenschaft und Theologie (ed. Troger, K.-W.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973), 94–5Google Scholar discusses other possible points of contact. On the role of Seth in Samaritan literature see Klijn, A., Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 46; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 29–32. Interestingly enough, Klijn proposes (p. 105 n. 137) a Semitic derivation for the troublesome prefix in the name Pigeradamas. He thinks that the source may be Aramaic ℵℸℷω or its Syrian cognate (‘corpse’, ‘body’ - Hebrew ℸℷω) and that its function in the expression is to designate Adam as the ‘corporeal one’. The overriding difficulty with this explanation is that in the texts Pigeradamas is always the name of the celestial, incorporeal Adam, not the terrestrial Adam that one would expect if Klijn's solution were correct. And what of the Coptic article?CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[40] The same response to persecution is visible in 1 Pet. 2. l l' characterisation of Christians as παρίκονς καί παρεπιδήμονς

[41] The Gospel of John, with its strong anti-Jewish and gnostic leanings, its supra-cosmic Christology, a soteriology based on alienation and persecution in the world and election out of it (see John 15. 18–19 and 17. 14–16 in particular), and with extensive parallels in the possibly Sethian CG XIII, 1 Trimorphic Protennoia (see James, Robinson, ‘Sethians and Johannine Thought - the Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Gospel of John’, forthcoming in the collection of essays referred to in note 1), may well be of Samaritan origin itself. See most recently the balanced article by James Purvis, ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans’,NovT (1975), 161–98.Google Scholar