¹ See Sieber, John H., ‘An Introduction to the Tractate Zostrianos’, NovT 15 (1973), 233–40Google Scholar; idem, ‘Introduction’ to Zostrianos (NHC VIII.1) in Sieber, John H. (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex VIII (Nag Hammadi Studies, 31) (Leiden, 1991), esp. pp. 19–25Google Scholar; Michel, Tardieu, ‘Les trois stèles Seth’, RSPT, 57 (1973), 545–75Google Scholar; Robinson, James M., ‘The Three Steles of Seth and the Gnostics of Plotinus’, in Widengren, G. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism (Stockholm, 1977), pp. 132–42Google Scholar; Birger, Pearson, ‘The Tractate Marsanes (NHC x) and the Platonic Tradition’, in Barbara, Aland (ed.), Gnosis: Festschrift für Hans Jonas (Göttingen, 1978), pp. 373–84Google Scholar; idem, ‘Gnosticism as Platonism: With Special Reference to Marsanes (NHC 10,1);’ HTR 77 (1984), 55–72Google Scholar; reprinted in idem, Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity) (Minneapolis, 1990), pp. 148–64Google Scholar; idem, ‘Introduction’ to Marsanes (NHC x) in Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (Nag Hammadi Studies, 15) (Leiden, 1981), esp. pp. 244–50Google Scholar; Turner, John D., ‘The Gnostic Threefold Path to Enlightenment’, NovT 22 (1980), 324–51Google Scholar; idem, ‘Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History’, in Hedrick, Charles W. and Hodgson, Robert Jr (eds.), Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (Peabody, MA, 1986), pp. 55–86Google Scholar; Paul, Claude, Les trois stèles de Seth (Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section ‘Textes’, 8) (Québec, 1983), esp. pp. 26–33Google Scholar; Wire, A., ‘Introduction’ to AllogenesGoogle Scholar (NHC XI.3) in Charles, Hedrick (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII (Nag Hammadi Studies, 18) (Leiden, 1990), esp. pp. 185–91.Google Scholar (The text, translation, and commentary of Allogenes are by J. Turner.)

² Other Nag Hammadi texts considered to be ‘Sethian’ are: The Apocryphon of John (NHC II.1, III.1, IV.1 and BG 8502.2); The Hypostasis of the Archons (NHC II.4); The Gospel of the Egyptians (NHC III.2, IV.2); The Apocalypse of Adam (NHC V.5); Melchizedek (NHC IX.1); The Thought of Norea (NHC IX.2)); Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII.1). The Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex is also included in this list. See, for example, Hans-Martin, Schenke, ‘The Phenomenon and Significance of Sethian Gnosticism’, in Bentley, Layton (ed.), The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Proceedings of the Conference at Yale, March 1978, ii: Sethian Gnosticism (Leiden, 1981), pp. 588–616.Google Scholar

³ See e.g. Turner, , ‘Sethian Gnosticism’, esp. pp. 85–6.Google Scholar

⁴ See e.g. Turner, , ‘Threefold Path’, p. 336Google Scholar; Robinson, ibid., p. 141; Pearson, , ‘Introduction’ to Marsanes, p. 246Google Scholar; idem, ‘Gnosticism as Platonism’, 1984, p. 66 = 1990, p. 158; Wire, ibid., p. 191. P. Claude, on the other hand (ibid., p. 31; cf. p. 27 n. 61), opts for a ‘common source’ behind the Enneads and Steles Seth to account for the triad. Cf. similarly Tardieu, ibid., pp. 562–3.

⁵ See Pierre, Hadot, ‘Être, vie, pensée chez Plotin et avant Plotin’, Les Sources de Plotin, Entretiens Hardt, V (1960), pp. 107–41Google Scholar and ‘Discussion’, pp. 142–57.

⁶ Allogenes, Steles Seth, and Zostrianos are variously dated from the end of the second century to the mid-third century, depending on whether the texts are viewed as influencing and/or influenced by Plotinus and his circle, or dependent on a source(s) common to gnostics and Neoplatonists. For the various views, see the titles mentioned in n. 1.

⁷ The term τριδ⋯ναμος is the most notable example; see discussion below.

⁸ See Hadot, , ‘Fragments d'un commentaire de Porphyre sur le Parménide’, REG 74 (1961), 410–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘La Métaphysique de Porphyre’ in Porphyre, Entretiens Hardt, xii (Genève, 1966), pp. 127–57Google Scholar; Porphyre et Victorinus, 2 vols. (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar. (Volume Two includes the text and translation of the Parmenides commentary and the ‘Porphyrian’ passages from Victorinus. Citations from Victorinus in this paper are noted as Hadot ii with the appropriate par. number.) Although, to date, there is still no universal consensus among scholars supporting Hadot's thesis, nevertheless it is generally conceded that if Porphyry was not the author of the commentary, the author – whoever he was – was strongly influenced by Porphyry. See, for example, Smith, A., ‘Porphyrian Studies since 1913’, ANRW II.36.2 (1987), 728–9, 737–41.Google ScholarCf. Dillon, J., Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides (Princeton, 1987), p. XXXGoogle Scholar: ‘On the whole, I am prepared to leave the Anon. Taur. with Porphyry on the basis of the analogies which Hadot has brought to light, while being unable to share Hadot's certainty that he has solved the puzzle.’

⁹ See Hadot, , Porphyre i.461, 474, 477Google Scholar; cf. Henry, P. and Hadot, P., Marius Victorinus: Traités théologiques sur la Trinité, i (Paris, 1960), p. 75Google Scholar. Hadot (Porphyre i.456) considers this source post-Plotinian (written after 268) because it reflects a clear development and critique of Plotinian ideas.

¹⁰ Citations from the Chaldean Oracles are from my edition, The Chaldean Oracles: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Leiden, 1989).Google Scholar The ordering of the fragments in my edition (with the exceptions of frr. 9, 9a, 210a–c) follows that of Des Places, É., Oracles Chaldaïques (Paris, 1971).Google Scholar

¹¹ Hadot, , Porphyre i, esp. 482–5.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. also fr. 26: ‘For the world, seeing you as a triadic-monad, has honoured you.’ This particular verse is cited by John, Lydus, de mensibus 23.10–12, who attributes it to Proclus, not to the Oracles (πρ⋯ς γ⋯ρ τ⋯ν ἅπαξ ⋯π⋯κεινα ⋯ Πρ⋯κλος οὕτω. μουν⋯δα γ⋯ρ σε τριο⋯χον ἰδὼν ⋯σεβ⋯σσατο κ⋯σμος). This is surely from a hymn of Proclus (lost), though it is ‘Chaldean’ in sentiment and phraseology. See my comments, The Chaldean Oracles, pp. 151–2.Google Scholar

¹³ See e.g. Dub. et sol. 1.87.9–10 Ruelle = Westerink-Combès, 2.3.5–6; 1.108.17–20 Ruelle = Westerink-Combès, 2.36.2–6; 1.131.15–20 Ruelle = Westerink-Combès, 2.71.1–6; 2.101.25–7 Ruelle.

¹⁴ Hadot, , Porphyre i.267–8.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See e.g. the discussions in Festugière, R., La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste, iv (Paris, 1954), p. 11 n. 1Google Scholar; Kahn, Charles H., ‘On the Terminology for Copula and Existence’, in Stern, S. M. et al. (eds.), Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition. essays presented to Richard Walzer (Columbia, SC, 1972), pp. 151–8.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Rist, J. M., ‘Mysticism and Transcendence in Later Neoplatonism’, Hermes 92 (1964), 213–25.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See e.g. Hadot, , Porphyre i. 112–13; 267ff.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The expression is Kahn's, art. cit. p. 155.

¹⁹ See Hadot, , Porphyre i.260–72.Google Scholar It should be noted that, according to Neoplatonic tradition, Porphyry was the first to give these triads a formal structure (e.g. Proclus, In Tim. 3.64.8–65.8). It is clear from what Proclus states here that this was accomplished, in part, as a result of Porphyry's reflections on the Oracles. See e.g. the discussion of John Dillon on this passage in his Iamblichi Chalcidensis Fragmenta (Leiden, 1973), pp. 356–8Google Scholar. Speculations on the Being, Life, Intellect triad ultimately derive from school interpretations of Plato's Sophist 248e.

²⁰ For a criticism of Porphyry's position see e.g. Damascius, , Dub. et sol. 1.86.3–10Google Scholar Ruelle = Westerink-Combès, 2.1.4–13; Proclus, In Parm. 1070.15–30 Cousin. These passages are cited by Hadot, , Porphyre i.96–8; 258–9.Google Scholar

²¹ This is the view of Turner, , ‘Sethian Gnosticism’, p. 85Google Scholar; cf. Pearson, , ‘Introduction’ to Marsanes in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 3rd ed. rev. (San Francisco, 1988), pp. 460–2,Google Scholar who now sees Marsanes as similarly close to Iamblichean ‘metaphysics’ and ‘ritual’ (contra his earlier view that Marsanes was one of the texts read in Plotinus' school; see ‘The Tractate Marsanes and the Platonic Tradition’, p. 375).Google Scholar See also idem, ‘Theurgic Tendencies in Gnosticism and Iamblichus' Conception of Theurgy’, in Wallis, R. T. (ed.), Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern, 5) (Stony Brook, NY, in the press).Google Scholar

²² This would also be true of the negation of this term in connection with the triad. In Allogenes XI.61.36–8, the Unknowable God is described as existing ‘without Intellect (νο⋯ς) or Life or Existence (ὕπαρξις) or non-Existence . Virtually the same triad of terms – ⋯ν⋯παρκτος, ⋯νο⋯σιος, ἄνους, ἄζων – is also found in Marius Victorinus: Adv. Ar. 4.23.23–6 = Hadot ii, §78; 4.25.9–10 = Hadot ii, §86 a; 1.49.17–18 = Hadot ii §36 b. See Hadot, , Porphyre i.421–3,Google Scholar for a discussion of these terms in the context of Porphyry's metaphysics.

²³ This is the opinion of Pearson, , ‘Gnosticism as Platonism’ (1984), p. 66Google Scholar = (1990), p. 158. Other gnostic texts (outside the Nag Hammadi group discussed in this paper) in which τριδ⋯ναμος (or τριδ⋯ναμις) occurs are: Pistis Sophia, chs. 14, 28, 29, 30, 55 and passim; 2 Jeu (Bruce Codex), chs. 42, 50, 52; Unlitled Text (Bruce Codex), chs. 8, 9, 10, 12 and passim; cf. Hippolytus, Ref. 5.12.4; 10.10.3.

²⁴ Abramowski, op. cit., pp. 111–12; cf. Pearson, ibid. (1984), p. 65 = (1990), p. 157; idem, ‘Introduction’ to Marsanes, p. 246.

²⁵ Damascius, Dub. et sol. 1.254.1 (Ruelle) and 2.62.19 (Ruelle): τριγλώχις ⋯νυμνεῖται ⋯ θε⋯ς; 2.95.23 (Ruelle): μ⋯α τριγλώχις μον⋯ς…⋯ νοητ⋯ς νους.

²⁶ Adv. Arium, 1.50.4–5 = Hadot ii, §41: ‘tripotens in unalitate spiritus’; 4.21.26–7 = Hadot, ii, §76: ‘Tριδ⋯ναμος est deus, id est tres potentias habens, esse, vivere, intellegere.’

²⁷ Adv. Arium, 1.56.4–5: ‘Animae autem quod alia substantia sit. manifestum. Facta enim a tripotenti spiritu, neque pure vox, neque verbum, sed sicut ⋯χώ, audit ut loquatur, imago magis vocis quam vox. Et hoc est Iohannis: “vox exclamantis in deserto: dirigite viam domini”.’

²⁸ See e.g. Philo, , De Abrahamo 52–4Google Scholar; Antiochus of Ascalon ap. Cicero, Tuscul. 5.8.2; Numenius, fr. 41 (Des Places). These and other sources are cited by Hadot, , Porphyre i.239–46;Google Scholar cf. idem, ‘Ȇtre, vie, pensée’, esp. pp. 123–7.

²⁹ The scholastic formulation of these principles in connection with this triad can be found in Proclus, , Elements of Theology 103Google Scholar: ‘All things are in all things, but in each according to its proper nature: for in Being there is life and intelligence; in Life, being and intelligence; in Intelligence, being and life’ (trans. Dodds).

³⁰ According to Hadot, , Porphyre i.287 n. 2,Google Scholar ‘unalitas’ = μ⋯νας in the writings of Victorinus. Cf. especially Adv. Arium 1.49.9–10 = Hadot ii, §36: ‘Before all those things which truly exist, there was the One or the Monad or the One itself…’ (‘ante omnia quae vere sunt unum fuit, sive unalitas, sive ipsum unum …’).

³¹ Ibid. 461–74.

³² Turner has emended the text to mean ‘{non}-Being’ , but the context surely demands the sense of ‘{non}-Substantiality’ especially given the parallel triad of terms in Steles Seth VII. 122.19–22.

³³ Abramowski, op. cit., p. 115, cites this passage as either a direct quotation from or summary of Porphyry's teaching.

³⁴ See the comments of Turner in his notes to this passage, 252–3. Turner refers to as a ‘strange neologism’ for νο⋯της.

³⁵ Hadot, , Porphyre i.361–75.Google Scholar

³⁶ Hadot, , ‘Fragments’, p. 431.Google Scholar

³⁷ The frequent use of ⋯ντ⋯της in Pseudo-Alexander of Aphrodisias, in Metaph. (e.g. 641.27, 642.3.8, 645.18, 658.30, 669.29, 724.35, 783.13 Hayduck) suggests that this word may have first been coined in the context of commentaries on Aristotle.

³⁸ On the concept of ontological ‘standing’ in Gnosticism and Platonism, see the excellent study of Michael, Williams, The Immovable Race (Leiden, 1985).Google Scholar

³⁹ See, also, Ad Cand. 21.5–9 = Hadot ii, §38; Adv. Arium 1.52.3–17 = Hadot ii, §44; 3.2.12–22 = Hadot ii, §28.

⁴⁰ Porphyre i.273.

⁴¹ Ibid. 287–93.

⁴² Ibid. 292 n. 4.

⁴³ Hadot (ibid. 293 and n. 2) regards this prose statement as an actual paraphrase of a Chaldean verse or verses because of the introductory words, ⋯ μνστικ⋯ς λ⋯γος, which were sometimes used by the later Neoplatonists when citing verses from the Oracles (see frr. 8, 59 and notes).

⁴⁴ See Hadot's comments on this passage, ibid. 132–8.

⁴⁵ See Cremer, F. W., Die Chaldäischen Orakel und Jamblich de mysteriis (Meisenheim am Glan, 1969), pp. 40–1.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This passage is cited by Hadot, , Porphyre i.286Google Scholar and n. 10: ‘Dyas, vero, ut theologoi asserunt, secundus est motus. Primus enim motus in monade stabilis et consistens in dyadem veluti foras egreditur.’ In Hadot's words (287): ‘Les theologoi dont parle Favonius sont probablement les Oracles chaldaïques et la doctrine qui leur est rapportée correspond à l'nterprétation des Oracles par Porphyre.’ Although there are several verses in the Oracles dealing with the monad and/or dyad (e.g. frr. 8, 11, 12, 26, 27), none of them uses the specific terminology utilised by Favonius. The closest in sense would be fr. 12: ‘For the monad is extensible which generates duality’ (τανα⋯ (γ⋯ρ) μον⋯ς ⋯στιν δ⋯ο γεννᾷ).

⁴⁷ On Porphyry's understanding of ‘idea’ and ‘logos’ as ‘generative powers’, see Hadot, ibid. 295.

⁴⁸ Cf. e.g. Porphyry, Sent. 31 (Lamberz): ⋯ θε⋯ς πανταχου ὅτι οὺδαμου.

⁴⁹ The facsimile edition reads (which I have emended to ). Sieber (Nag Hammadi Codex VIII) unnecessarily leaves a lacuna here. The sequence θει⋯της, οὐσι⋯της is first attested in Albinus, Didask. 164.30 Hermann.

⁵⁰ . Sieber, ibid., translates this phrase as ‘[the purity] of barrenness’. Elsewhere, however, he translates as ‘ingenerateness’ (VIII.121.22; 122.5). Cf. in Steles Seth VII.118.29; 120.23; 123.12–13.

⁵¹ . Cf. Steles Seth 124.4–5; 19: = ⋯ προών. It should be noted that the divine epithets listed here (e.g. divinity, blessedness, perfection, goodness) were common elements in Gnosticism and Hermeticism as well as in the school theology of Middle Platonism, suggesting (in Hadot's view) the existence of a common literary genre in which the Divine was praised in solemn, hymnic form with fairly fixed terms and expressions. What is of interest, however, is the inclusion of these terms in the framework of Neoplatonic metaphysics, especially the Existence–Life–Intellect triad (and variants), an innovation Hadot attributes to Porphyry (see Porphyre i.283–4; 457–61).

⁵² It is also possible, of course, that one (or more) of the authors of the gnostic texts has selectively borrowed from another; see e.g. Turner, , ‘Threefold Path’, p. 330;Google Scholaridem, ‘Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History’, pp. 79–85Google Scholar (Turner argues for the literary priority of Allogenes and thus refers to these texts collectively as the ‘Allogenes group’); cf. similarly Wire, op. cit., pp. 182–5. Robinson, op. cit., p. 138, notes either a literary dependence between Zostrianos and Allogenes or ‘a mutual dependence on some fixed text’. The Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex should also be mentioned here. Jean-Marie Sevrin refers to this text as an ‘extremely syncretistic’ and ‘artificial’ work which is dependent, in part, on Zostrianos; see Le Dossier baptismal Séthien: Études sur la Sacramentaire Gnostique, Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section ‘Études’, ii (Québec, 1986), pp. 204–21.Google Scholar

⁵³ On this point, Pearson observes – in the case of Marsanes – that the gnostic author of this text ‘is “bending over backwards” to make his teaching as palatable as possible to Platonist readers’ (‘Introduction’ to Marsanes, p. 248); cf. idem, ‘The Tractate Marsanes and the Platonic Tradition’, p. 384Google Scholar: ‘Gnostics modified their views in response to the doctrines of contemporary Platonists, perhaps in an attempt to achieve a more respectable standing in the Platonist schools’. On Porphyry's influence in the Latin West (where his works were known and cited even during his lifetime), see the excellent study of Pierre, Courcelle, Late Latin Writers and their Greek Sources, trans, by Wedeck, Harry E. (Cambridge, MA, 1969).Google Scholar Cf. Hadot, , Porphyre i.80–6;Google ScholarSmith, , ‘Porphyrian Studies’, pp. 764–73.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Hierocles, for example, uses the word τριδ⋯ναμος in connection with the three faculties or powers of the soul (In aur. carm. 20); he is also familiar with terminology from the Oracles on the ‘vehicle’ of the soul (In aur. carm. 26 = fr. 120). This terminology was most likely mediated through Porphyry. See e.g. Smith, A., Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition (The Hague, 1974), pp. 156–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Porphyre i.296.

⁵⁶ Cf. Porphyry, In Parm. 5.21–2: ⋯χώριστον…⋯αυτ‹ου› (as cited by Hadot, ibid. 296 n. 10; cf. ibid. 2.81 n. 3).

⁵⁷ This Chaldean expression is taken from a context in which Proclus describes the ‘Once Transcendent’ (ἅπαξ ⋯π⋯κεινα) in terms very close to Victorinus' description of the ‘Spirit’: In Crat. 159.1–5: ‘For he (sc. ἅπαξ ⋯π⋯κεινα) is, as the oracle says, “without parts” (⋯μιστ⋯λλευτος), a simple unity (⋯νοειδ⋯ς), indivisible (⋯δια⋯ρετος)… and he unifies all things and turns them toward himself while being purely separate from all things.’

⁵⁸ Porphyre i.297. Hadot suggests a Stoic-inspired source; see his comments on Adv. Arium 1.50.5–8 in Marius Victorinus: Trailés théologiques sur la Trinité ii.851.

⁵⁹ Abramowski, op. cit., p. 112 n. 27.

⁶⁰ See frr. 61, 104, 120, 129, 158, 201 and notes. On Porphyry's understanding of the ⋯χημαπνε⋯μα see e.g. Sent. 29 Lamberz; de regressu an. §7 Bidez (ap. Augustine, De civ. dei 10.27, ‘anima spiritalis’); Hadot, , Porphyre i. 178–206.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Abramowski (op. cit., pp. 123–4) suggests this possibility in the case of Allogenes (cf. similarly Smith, A., ‘Porphyrian Studies’, p. 763 n. 282).Google Scholar Since the Nag Hammadi Library was probably buried in the Egyptian desert c. 350 (see Robinson, J., ‘Introduction’ to the Nag Hammadi Library in English, p. 16),Google Scholar the terminus ad quem for the Greek versions of these texts could reasonably be any time during the first quarter of the fourth century.