Zostrianos a gnosis of Middle Platonism

General Introduction

Zostrianos (NHC VIII,I) is the pseudonymous account of an otherworldly journey by Zostrianos, a kinsman of Zoroaster. Probably written late in the second century C.E. or early in the third, perhaps in Alexandria, it reflects a non-Christian Sethian gnosis heavily influenced by Middle Platonism.
The tractate opens with a narrative section, told in the first person, that introduces Zostrianos as a possessor of the truth and knowledge of life. In despair over his bondage in this world, he asks how this evil world came into existence from the eternal, non-existing Spirit. Interpreting angels then lead Zostrianos through the heavenly world and reveal to him its secret gnosis. At each level of his ascent he undergoes a ritual baptism through which he is transformed; then, knowledge suitable to that stage of his perfection is revealed to him. The content of the knowledge consists of the names and the interrelationships of the heavenly beings of each level. When all has been revealed to him, he descends to the perceptible world and writes his newly-acquired knowledge on three wooden tablets for the benefit of those to be saved. The tractate concludes with Zostrianos preaching a short homily in which he urges his readers to escape their bondage to matter and to return to the Spirit from which they have come.

Dramatis Personae

1. Zostrianos and the interpreting angels
a. Zostrianos: The reputed kinsman of Zoroaster and the central character of the narrative. He makes a journey through the heavenly realms, returns, and leaves his teachings as a saving knowledge for the seed of Seth. He is a “redeemed redeemer” figure and supposedly the author of the tractate.
b. Authrounis: The angelic interpreter who leads Zostrianos through the lowest levels of the Autogenes aeon; perhaps he is to be identified with the Light Harmozel (see 127,7).
c. Ephesech: The angelic interpreter who for most of the first half of the book provides the knowledge about the Autogenes aeon; perhaps he is to be identified with the heavenly Seth. He is also called the “Perfect Child.”
d. Yoel/Youel: The angelic interpreter who leads Zostrianos through the Protophanes aeon; she is also called the “male virgin glory” and “she who belongs to the glories.” She may be the consort of the Kalyptos aeon.
e. Salamex: The angelic interpreter for the last half of the book; he is also one of the “Lights in Thought.”
2. The Heavenly World
a. The Invisible Spirit: The name for the chief deity from which all else has emanated, hence the frequent designation Three-Powered.
b. The Barbelo Aeon: The collective name for the intermediate realm between the Spirit and the physical world; she is one aeon yet has or is three aeons (see 2.c.d.e). She is usually called the virgin Barbelo, but also Thought, First Thought, and gnosis of the Spirit as she is the first emanation from the Spirit.
c. The Kalyptos Aeon: The first aeon of Barbelo; the name means the “hidden” or “veiled” one and is abbreviated as ⲕ̅ⲗ̅ⲥ̅. Described as “unborn,” he is identified with the philosophical category “Existence.” He has four constituent Lights: Harmedon, Diphanes, Malsedon, and Solmis.
d. The Protophanes Aeon: The second aeon of Barbelo; the name means “first-visible” or “first-appearing.” He is often called the male perfect Mind and is identified with the philosophical category “Mind.” He has four Lights: Solmis, Akremon, Amrosios, and [Seldao].
e. The Autogenes Aeon: The third aeon of Barbelo; the name means “self-begotten.” He is often called “divine” and is identified with the philosophical category “Life.” He has four Lights: Harmozel, Oroiael, Daveithe, and Eleleth. As the aeon who occupies the lowest level in Barbelo he is responsible together with Sophia (his consort?) for the creation of the physical universe. His lower “levels” are called the ethereal Earth, the Exile, and the Repentance. The heavenly Adam (Geradamas) and Seth (Setheus) are also constituent parts of the Autogenes.

Outline

1. Introduction (1,1-2,7)
Zostrianos introduces himself as an ascetic seeking the separation of spirit (light) from matter (darkness) and struggling with adversaries.
2. The Call, Redemption and Ascent of Zostrianos (2,7-7,22)
The Perfect Child Ephesech appears to him in a vision. Zostrianos raises philosophical questions about the origin of this world from the nether world. With Ephesech as a guide his soul begins its heavenly journey and ascends through the ethereal Earth into the Autogenes aeon. At each level of his ascent he is baptized and transformed.
3. The Revelations from Authrounios (7,22-13,6)
After his initiation into the Autogenes aeon, Zostrianos asks a new set of questions about the levels through which he has passed. Authrounios’ replies introduce the concept that each lower level is a poorer copy of the one above it, a process that eventually produced the physical world. They also include a brief and fragmentary reference to the fall of Sophia and the creation of this world by its archon. Of particular interest is the way in which the emanation process explains the origin of different kinds of souls.
4. The Revelations from Ephesech (13,7-57,12)
Zostrianos calls upon Ephesech for further help in understanding the mixed nature of the All or Universe. The new revelation is a somewhat redundant description of the Autogenes, but it serves to introduce the philosophical categories of Existence, Mind, and Life with which the Barbelo aeons are identified. Anthropology is a major topic, i.e., a concern over the differences between the souls that can be saved and those that cannot be. The section concludes with the fifth baptism of Zostrianos in the Autogenes aeon, completing his identification with it.
5. The Revelations from Youel (57,13-63,17)
Youel next leads Zostrianos through the Protophanes aeon. A series of baptisms introduce him to its gnosis. The account is much briefer than that for the Autogenes aeon and is now very poorly preserved.
6. The revelations from Salamex (63,17-129,1)
Following the instructions of Youel, Zostrianos calls for further revelations. Although the poor condition of the manuscript makes it impossible to be certain, this is probably the final set of revelations in the tractate. The contents include a description of the Kalyptos aeon, of Barbelo and her aeons, and of the Spirit. It concludes with a review of the Barbelo aeons. At the end Zostrianos is told that he has now learned things of which even the gods are ignorant.
7. The Descent of Zostrianos and Deposit of the Gnosis (129,2-132,5)
Zostrianos descends through the aeons and writes his gnosis on three tablets for the use of the elect. Finally he re-enters his physical body and preaches a Gnostic homily in which he urges rejection of the material world and acceptance of a kind father.
8. Titles (132,6-9)
Two subscript titles provide the title Zostrianos and the link with the traditions concerning the magus Zoroaster.

Genre and Title

Genre

Zostrianos is a non-historical, otherworldly apocalypse. Unlike Jewish and Christian apocalypses which have the secrets of history as their main concern, non-historical apocalypses have as their prime interests life after death and knowledge of the otherworld. The earliest such story extant in Greek literature is that of Er (Plato, Resp., X). The purpose of the revelation received by Zostrianos is to provide an otherworldly gnosis as the means of salvation for the chosen race of Seth. Towards this end the book describes the mystical experiences of Zostrianos, and the names and relationships of the inhabitants of the otherworld through which every soul must pass. At the same time a negative judgment is pronounced against this world and its ruler, and their ultimate destruction is affirmed. This combination of a primary concern for cosmology with a secondary one for personal eschatology is typical for apocalypses of this type (see Collins, “Morphology,” 15; Fallon, “Gnostic Apocalypses,” 137-138; Perkins, Gnostic Dialog, 25-73; cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1, 210-218).
In terms of genre, though not in content, Zostrianos is quite like some later Jewish apocalypses from the O.T. Pseudepigrapha. It provides some close parallels to chapters 17-36 of I Enoch and to the Books of Adam and Eve. It seems to share with II Enoch (Slavonic) not only a general heavenly journey framework but also specific phrases and formulas, although the lack of consensus about a date and provenance for II Enoch makes the value of this evidence uncertain. The Paraphrase of Shem (NHC VII, I) and Apocalypse of Paul (NHC V, 2) provide the close genre parallels from Nag Hammadi. (See Scopello, “Zostrianos and the Book of the Secrets of Enoch,” 376-85; Perkins, Gnostic Dialog, 25 n. 1; Anderson, “2 Enoch”; cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1, 202-206; the Apocalypse of Seth which is briefly quoted in the Mani Codex (50,8-52,7) may also have belonged to this genre.)

Title

The title Zostrianos is provided by two subscript titles, the first of which reads simply “Zostrianos” (132,6). That name appears five other times in the extant text (1,2; 3,31; 14,1; 64,11; 128,15), as well as once more in the second subscript title. It is a fitting title for the work as Zostrianos is presented as its central character and author.
The second subscript (132,7-9) is in the form of a cryptogram. It immediately follows the first subscript and is separated from it by decorative marks. The solution to the cryptogram was recognized by Doresse as one used in Theban convents of a later period. When deciphered it reads: “Teachings of Zostrianos. God of Truth. Teachings of Zoroaster.” (Doresse, “Les apocalypses de Zoroastre,” 255-263). The purpose of this second subscript title was to certify the teachings of the book as authentic wisdom from the East and thus to enhance the authority of the book. It did so by linking the unfamiliar name of Zostrianos with that of his famous ancestor Zoroaster (see Sieber, “Introduction to Zostrianos,” 233-236; Puech, “Plotin et les gnostiques,” 167; Colpe, “Heidnische, jüdische und christliche Überlieferung VI,” 155-157; Berliner Arbeitskreis, “Die Bedeutung,” 65; see also Ziegler, “Zostrianos,” col. 853; Bidez-cumont, Zoroastre, Ostanes et Hystaspe, 1.41-55; Jackson, Zoroaster; Hinz, “Zoroaster,” 19A, cols. 774-784; cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1,211-213).
Doresse’s early conclusion that this second subscript gives the tractate the title “Apocalypse of Zoroaster and Zostrianos” cannot be maintained. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.15) mentions secret books of Zoroaster which were in use in Alexandria in his time by the followers of Prodicus. The Apocryphon of John (NHC II 19,8-10) also knows a book of Zoroaster, but Zostrianos does not furnish the type of information which it ascribes to that work. Thus, the book of Zoroaster must have been a totally different work from this Nag Hammadi tractate. That conclusion is supported further by evidence from Porphyry’s Vit Plot. 16 (quoted below). He tells of certain Gnostic books known to and opposed by Plotinus, his teacher. Among them were “Revelations” in the names of Zoroaster, Zostrianos, Nicotheos, Allogenes, and Messos. Since Plotinus assigned a different pupil to refute each of these books, the titles Zostrianos and Zoroaster in his list certainly refer to two books, not one.
A second ancient testimony to the name Zostrianos is from Arnobius’ The Case Against the Pagans. It refers to him as a relative of Zoroaster and calls him a magus (for the Latin text see Bidez-cumont, Zoroastre, Ostanes, et Hystaspe, 2.15; for its interpretation see McCracken, Arnobius of Sicca, 1,294, nn. 258-60; Orelli in PL, 5, 788, understood Pamphylius as a fourth Zoroaster and emended the unfamiliar name Zostrianos to Ostanes). The passage which is dated to the late third or early fourth century C.E. says (my translation):
Well, then! Let there come through the fiery region, I beg you, a Zoroaster, a magician from a remote land, provided that we accept Hermippus as an authority. Also let that Bactrian come along, about whose affairs Ctesias expounds in the first book of his histories; and Armenius, the grandson of Zostrianos and Pamphylian friend of Cyrus
...
Although the passage is a confusing one, it is clear that Arnobius thought of Armenius and Zostrianos as part of the lineage of Zoroaster. Thus, placing the name Zoroaster in the second subscript served to present the tractate to readers of late antiquity as part of the ancient, secret teachings of the East. The Zoroaster-Armenius tradition was in turn connected to the story of Er in Plato (Resp., X, 614b-621d). Er, a fallen warrior, is said to have travelled in the spirit to the nether world. He returns to his body just prior to its burial to relate his knowledge about the immortality of the soul. Clement of Alexandria understood Er to be the same person as the magician Armenius/Zoroaster (Strom. V, 14). It is possible that the same traditions which linked the name of Zostrianos to those of Zoroaster and Armenius also provided the suggestion that Zostrianos’ secret knowledge had been acquired on an otherworldly journey.

The Gnostic Character of the Tractate

The transmission of gnosis or knowledge was the primary purpose of the tractate. The narrative of the heavenly journey provided a framework in which that knowledge could be communicated. The world-view of the text is thoroughly Gnostic in character as it assumes a basic dualism between matter which is inherently evil, and spirit which is inherently good. In Zostrianos this basic dualism is explicitly expressed in terms of contrasts between matter and spirit, darkness and light, body and soul, femaleness and maleness. Humanity is viewed as a microcosm of the universe, having souls or spirits trapped in material bodies. The release of the soul from its painful bondage in matter is to be obtained through the knowledge conveyed to Zostrianos who had previously prepared himself through extreme ascetic disciplines. This gnosis sent from above was intended to awaken the realization that one is an alien here and belongs to another world. Zostrianos is both a lost soul and a redeemer who brings gnosis back after his salvation. Since the Gnostic message was one of spirit saving spirit, the exhortations of the concluding homily in Zostrianos to awaken one’s inner-self (god) to god are typical of the intention of the entire book (see Jonas, Gnostic Religion ; Jonas, Gnosis und Spätantikergeist; Jonas, “Delimitation of the gnostic phenomenon”; Rudolf, Gnosis; Widengren, Gnostic Attitude; Widengren, “Les origines du gnosticism,” 37-42).
The fundamental Gnostic attitude was that matter in and of itself is evil and the cause of all other evils. In Zostrianos this conviction finds expression in a variety of ways. The imprisonment of the soul within a physical body is one of the most frequent. The body is said to bring darkness (1,10-11); pain and suffering (46,2-15); powerlessness (26,9-11); death (123,6-8); and ignorance (130,7). Another familiar theme is bondage to the perceptible world (3,22-23); to femaleness (1,13; 131,6); and to the body (46,6-9; 131,10-12). Matter is changeable (5,9) and without limits (46,5-6). Those who are in this world think that matter is eternal when in truth it is perishable (9,4-6). The world and its creator are under condemnation (1,16-19; 9,12-15; 128,7-14; 131,23-24). The meaning of salvation is to be rescued from the body (4,24-25); the world (4,26; 46,15-31); and its ruler (4,25-31; 130,10-12). Spirit is good. In Zostrianos the ultimate good, the Three-Powered Invisible Spirit, is the source of all that is (17,12-13); it is perfection and silence (24,12-17), simple and undivided (79,16-24; 87,6-19), unseen, and self-existent (128,20-25). Souls can find their true selves by setting themselves straight (1,30-31; 2,8); by discovering the infinite part of their matter (1,15-16); and by seeking a resting place worthy of spirit (2,13; 3,20-21). In their escape souls use the knowledge revealed to Zostrianos by the angels (4,11-17); Seth (30,9-14); powers and glories (24,6-9.18-20; 46,15-31); and a savior (131,14-16).
The mythological aeons occupy spatial positions in the heavenly world between spirit and matter and represent an attempt to bridge the gulf between them. From the opening questions of Zostrianos to those near the end, a major concern of the book is to explain how the manifold universe has derived from one non-existing source (2,24-30; 8,1-17; 20,4-15; 22,2-4; 45,1-30; 48,3-29; 64,11-22; 117,15-19; 128,19-22). The aeon systems in Zostrianos provide a mythological solution to that puzzle. Each aeon is produced by an overflow or emanation from the one above it; each is created in the image of its source; each successive image is a somewhat less than perfect representation of its source. In the first step the Barbelo aeon comes forth from the Spirit (81,8-83,1). As the First Thought of the Spirit, Barbelo knows Spirit as her source (81,19-20; 118,9-11); yet, she herself divides into three aeons, a sign of imperfection (82,13-83,1), while Spirit remains undivided (118,1-5). The first aeon, the Kalyptos (The Hidden or Veiled One), is the pattern for the other two (20,4-15). The Protophanes aeon (The First-Visible One) ranks higher than the Autogenes aeon (the Self-Begotten One), as is shown by the hierarchically structured blessings which are located throughout the text. Each of these major aeons in turn has a multitude of constituent parts called powers, glories, waters, lights, and the like. Much of the gnosis concerns the Autogenes aeon. Sophia (Wisdom), a part of Autogenes, produces through her error the physical world (9,16-11,14); at the same time salvation comes from the Autogenes in the form of Seth (30,9-14). Thus, Zostrianos represents the kind of Gnosticism which Jonas called Syrian or Alexandrian (see Jonas, Gnostic Religion, 105,130-32,236-237; cf. Widengren, Gnostic Attitude, 18-20). Prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, this type of Gnosticism was represented by the Hermetic literature and by several varieties of Christian Gnosticism. Its major features are its conviction that evil has its origin in the divine itself and the resulting speculation about how that could be so; its typical solution for this dilemma is the kind of emanation theory contained in Zostrianos which thus provides us with a philosophical exemplar for Syrian Gnosticism.
The gnosis is a secret knowledge partly because it came through revelations and partly because it was intended only for a select group. That group is described by several designations within the text: it is the “living elect” (1,7; 130,4); the “male race” (7,6), the “all-perfect race” (20,2-3). In terms of Zostrianos’ story the group is referred to as “those of my age and afterwards” (1,5-6) and “my race” (3,15; cf. 4,14). It is “this race” (24,23) when contrasted with those who are not part of the elect; they are called “others” or “the others” (27,19). More specifically, the elect are identified as the “children of Seth” (7,8-9) or the “seed of Seth” (130,16-17). The heavenly Seth is the “father” of the group (30,9-14; 51,14-16), while his father Adam is referred to as “forefather” (6,22). That this group evidently participated in cultic practices is shown by the liturgical materials that are scattered throughout the book. The homily at the end of the book reads like a model sermon for such a community (130,16-132,5). Elsewhere are formulas for giving blessings (e.g., 6,21-26), words of acclamation and praise such as the phrase “you are one” which is to be repeated three times (e.g., 51,23-25), and magical vowel combinations (e.g., 118,18.21). Furthermore, one evidently became a member of the group by means of baptisms similar to those reported for Zostrianos. If so, each level of Zostrianos’ ascent represents one stage in the initiation process. A discussion of the meaning of the waters (22,3-23,17) equates the attainment of a specific level of knowledge with a washing in the waters of each of the Barbelo aeons. This combination of baptism and new self understanding is what is reported of Zostrianos: he is baptized, receives revelations, and is transformed (e.g., 6,7-21) at each stage of his ascent. After his fourth baptism Zostrianos is said to have become a “perfect angel (7,19).” The term τέλειος (perfect) is one used in some of the mystery religions for the first stage of the initiation process (see BAG 2, s.v., 809,2b; cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 260, n. 58; Angus, Mystery Religions and Christianity, 76-107). Taken together, the two sections on baptism in Zostrianos (5,11-7,22; 15,1-25,22) suggest a cultic background for some of the contents of Zostrianos (see Schenke, “Gnostic Sethianism,” 602-607; Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien, 224-251; Robinson, “Three Steles of Seth,” 538-539; Scopello, “Un rituel idéal d’intonisation”; cf. Nicklesburg, “Traditions in the Apocalpyse of Adam”).
The larger question of how Zostrianos’ Gnostic views are related to what is known from other writings is quite complex. Its answer is clearest with respect to three other tractates from Nag Hammadi with which Zostrianos shares mythologoumena and a philosophical orientation, The Three Steles of Seth (NHC VII, 5), Marsanes (NHC X), and Allogenes (NHC XI, 3). These four tractates have in turn some strong mythological ties to several of the Christian Gnostic works, especially the Gospel of the Egyptians (NHC III, 2 and IV, 2) and the Apocryphon of John (NHC II, I; III, I; IV, I; BG8502, 2). Similar but less clear parallels are found between them and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex.
Allogenes, the Three Steles of Seth, and Marsanes have heavenly worlds quite similar to that of Zostrianos (see Pearson, “Marsanes”; Robinson, “Three Steles of Seth”; Turner, “Gnostic Threefold Path”; Sieber, “Barbelo aeon as Sophia”). The chief deity in Allogenes is called the Invisible Spirit (e.g., Allogenes XI 66,34; cf. Marsanes X 4,15-17), although its Three-Powered One seems to be a separate entity (e.g., Allogenes XI 47,9; cf. Marsanes X 6,18-19). In the Three Steles of Seth the chief deity is not named but is addressed as “Spirit” (Steles Seth VII 125,6-25) and Three-Powered One (Steles Seth VII 121,31). From Spirit comes the Barbelo aeon (Steles Seth VII 121,25-30; Allogenes XI 45,28-30) who is herself the source of three aeons named Kalyptos, Protophanes, and Autogenes (Steles Seth VII 122,4-123,5; Marsanes X 9,1-3; Allogenes XI 45,31-46,35). In Allogenes these aeons are specifically identified with the philosophical triad of Existence-Mind-Life, just as in Zostrianos (see below). Even lists of rather esoteric heavenly beings are similar (e.g., Steles Seth VII 126,1-17; Zost. VIII 88,9-13; and Allogenes XI 54,26-31). Group designations and the roles of the respective revealers are also comparable. The Three Steles of Seth refers to Seth as the father of the elect, living, immovable race (Steles Seth VII 118,13.17). Allogenes receives a gnosis for the “worthy generation” (Allogenes XI 52,21-25; cf. Zost. VIII 1,5-7 and 130,3-4; Marsanes X 6,15-16) and “for those who are worthy after you” (Allogenes XI 68,16-20). Like Zostrianos, Allogenes ascends in order to bring knowledge to earth (Allogenes XI 58,26-69,20; cf. Marsanes X 8,18-25). Youel, one of the major interpreting angels in Zostrianos, also speaks to Allogenes, and she is called “the one who belongs to all the glories” in both books (e.g., Zost. VIII 53,13-14; 57,13-15; Allogenes XI 50,20-25; 55,17-20). In addition these tractates use similar types of liturgical materials; for example, Allogenes XI 52,13-15 has anointings comparable to the washings of Zost. VIII 62,11-24, while Marsanes has seals to break (Marsanes X 2,12-4,23). The Three Steles of Seth has prayers and words of praise including especially the thrice repeated “you are one” (e.g., Steles Seth VII 125,23-25). Though the parallels between these four tractates are not totally consistent, they are of sufficient number and depth to conclude that all four are representatives of the same Gnostic tradition, especially since they also share an intention to understand gnosis in philosophical ways.
The Gospel of the Egyptians (NHC III, 2 and IV, 2) shares some of the same mythologoumena, in particular many of the names connected with the Autogenes and Barbelo aeons and with the Invisible Spirit (Gos.Eg. III 52,1-54,11; III 61,23-62,11; cf. Zost. VIII 127,15-128,7). It also speaks of the immovable, living race of Seth (e.g., Gos.Eg. III 51,5-9; cf. Zost. VIII 30,4-14), of baptisms and purifying waters (Gos. Eg. III 64,9-20), of a light-cloud and Sophia (Gos.Eg. III 56,22-57,5; cf. Zost. VIII 4,20-5,10), of Youel and Esephech (Ephesech in Zostrianos) as interpreting angels (e.g., Gos .Eg. III 50,16-56,2; cf. Zost. VIII 56,24-57,20). At the same time there are significant differences between these two works. Two aeons of the Barbelo in Zostrianos, Kalyptos, and Protophanes, do not appear at all in the Gospel of the Egyptians, and the Autogenes in the Gospel of the Egyptians is an independent aeon, not part of the Barbelo. Also the tripartite character of Barbelo is lacking; instead, there is a triad consisting of Spirit (Father), Barbelo (Mother), and Autogenes (Son) (Gos.Eg. III 41,23-48,8). This Son is identified with Christ (e.g., Gos.Eg. III 44,23), and other Christian terms frequently appear, often as further titles for mythological beings. Although a detailed comparison of these two tractates remains to be done, they appear to represent a non-Christian and a Christianized version of the same Gnostic traditions (see Hedrick, “Christian Motifs”; Bohlig-Wisse, Gospel of the Egyptians, 46).
The Apocryphon of John (NHC II, I; III, I; TV, I; BG8502, 2) also has a few parallels with Zostrianos. The presentation of the Spirit, Barbelo, and Autogenes in its opening pages (Ap.John II 2,25-9,25) provides in Christian dress some of the cosmology found in Zostrianos, but the extensive interest in Yaldabaoth, Adam and Eve, and the Genesis creation accounts that occupy the succeeding sections of the Apocryphon of John are at best only alluded to Zostrianos. To a still smaller degree Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII, I); Melchizadek (NHC IX, I); Hypostasis of the Archons (NHC II, 4); the Apocalypse of Adam (NHC V, 5); and the Thought of Norea (NHC IX, 2) show some similarities. Finally, Zostrianos bears some resemblance to several sections of the Untitled Text from the Bruce Codex (Schmidt’s text, Gnostische Schriften, is reprinted in Schmidt-MacDermott, Jehu and the Untitled Text, 214-317, with a less useful English translation; see also Baynes, Coptic Gnostic Treatise). The Untitled Text refers to Setheus, the Three-Powered One, the places of the Autogenes, and the names of the watchers Gamaliel and Strempsuchos (see Schmidt-MacDermot, Jehu and the Untitled Text, 238,26-239,27). Another passage mentions Michar and Micheus and the copies called the ethereal Earth, the Exile, and the Repentance (see Schmidt-MacDermot, Jehu and the Untitled Text, 263,11-264,6). In chapter 15 the Kalyptos aeon appears but as an aeon of the self-father having ten powers and nine enneads (see SAmidt-McDermot, Jehu and the Untitled Text, 255,15-26). Such major differences with Zostrianos are so often the case that the mythological world of the Untitled Text is, in the end, quite unlike that of Zostrianos.
The writings of the Christian heresiologists prove to be of little value in helping to identify the group of Gnostics from which Zostrianos and its related books may have come (see Wisse, “Nag Hammadi and the Heresiologists”; Wisse, “Sethians and the Nag Hammadi Library”; Wisse, “Stalking those Elusive Sethians”; cf. Sdunidt, “Ireneus und seine Quelle in Adv. Haer. I. 29”). Ireneus (Adv. Haer. I, 29) identifies as Barbeloites a group with teachings somewhat like those in the Apocryphon of John, yet much of what he describes is quite unlike Zostrianos. The same can be said of the information from Ireneus’ Adv. Haer. I, 30 and its expansion in Epiphanius’ Pan. II, 39, “On the Sethians.” Epiphanius says, for example, that the Sethians trace their race from Seth, Adam’s son, and that they have books in the name of Seth, Allogenes, and other men. But serious problems arise if one attempts to identify this Sethian group as the one that produced and/or used tractates such as Zostrianos. The new texts speak of a heavenly mother, for example, but Epiphanius does not refer to Mirothea or Barbelo. The interest of Epiphanius’ Sethians in the Cain-Abel and Noah cycles from Genesis is applicable to the Apocalypse of Adam (NHC V, 5), or the Hypostasis of the Archons (NHC II, 4), but not to Zostrianos. Epiphanius’ account adds to the problem by reporting much the same information about his next group the Archontics (Pan., II, 40). (See Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften, 602, who concluded that the Untitled Text was produced by the Archontics.) On the other hand, an account in Hippolytus (Ref. V) ascribes totally different teachings to the Sethians, teachings related to those found in the Paraphrase of Shem (NHC VII, I). Such contradictory sets of evidence indicate that the Fathers often wrote on the basis of scanty information; however, to conclude as Wisse does that these books were literary productions with no connections to specific Gnostic groups is improbable (see Wisse, “Stalking those Elusive Sethians,” 571-76).
Schenke and others have isolated from these tractates a set of common traits for a sect based on the sharing of cultic materials, the names divine figures and of the group designation “the seed of Seth” (see Schenke, “Gnostic Sethianism”; Schenke, “Das sethianische System”; Pearson, “Marsanes,” 241-244; Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism”; cf. Colpe, “Heidnische, jüdische und christliche Überlieferung VI,” 161-70). The evidence from Zostrianos supports that conclusion: 1) its liturgical materials are best understood as cultic in origin; 2) it gives a name (the seed or race of Seth) to its adherents; 3) its traditions about the heavenly world are shared in substantive ways with several other tractates. There must not have been an organized Sethian Gnostic “church” or a system of “orthodox” doctrine as none of the texts Schenke identifies as Sethian have all the traits he identifies, some do not even mention Seth. Rather, there must have been different groups of Gnostics who used in a free way a common set of Gnostic traditions for the description of the other world. Since personal revelations and experience were more authoritative for Gnostic Christians than adherence to Churchly tradition, perhaps pagan Gnostics were not so faithful to their traditions either (cf. Pagels, “Visions, Appearances, and Apostolic Authority,” 427-429). Some of these Gnostics evidently intended to be Christians, others Platonic philosophers, others Hermeticists, etc. Together they shared some common cultic and mythological conceptions. Whether these disparate groups also shared a feeling of kinship or a common self-designation such as “Sethians” with one another is still unclear.
At present it is sufficient to say that Zostrianos bears a close relationship to several other documents from Nag Hammadi and that their common contents provide help in understanding each of the respective books. Since most of them make reference to Seth in some way, it is convenient to designate them as “Sethian,” even though the persons and groups that produced the individual texts may not have had ties with one another.

The Philosophical Traditions

Zostrianos presents its mythological gnosis as philosophical knowledge. The key philosophical text for the mystical ascent of the soul came from Plato’s Symposium (210a-212), and the topic was a common one for Middle Platonism. The concerns about the emanation of matter from spirit in Zostrianos also depend largely on philosophical categories that derive ultimately from Plato. Many of the Greek loan words in the Coptic of Zostrianos are familiar as technical terminology to those who know the writings of Plotinus and his predecessors, and Zostrianos identifies the mythological aeons of Barbelo with the philosophical triad of Existence, Life, and Mind, known best from later neo-Platonic writers. In order to understand Zostrianos, therefore, it is necessary to explore the philosophical milieu to which it was related.
The discussion must begin with Chapter 16 of Porphyry’s Vit. Plot. (see Henry-Schwyzer, Plotinus: Opera 1.21-22, for the Greek text). The relevant passage reads (my translation):
At that time there were many Christians and some others, and they (the others) were sectarians who had withdrawn from the ancient philosophy, students of Adelphius and Acquilinus. They possessed most of the writings of Alexander the Libyan, Philocomes, Demostratus, and Lydos and cited revelations by Zoroaster, Zostrianos, Nikotheos, Allogenes, Messos, and other such men. They have deceived many, yet it is they themselves who are deceived by thinking that Plato did not approach the depths of intellectual being. Therefore, after he himself had produced many refutations for the benefit of his associates and had also written a book “Against the Gnostics,” he assigned the rest to us for criticism. Amelius put forward almost forty books in writing against the book of Zostrianos. As for me, I Porphyry produced many refutations against that one called Zoroaster, showing it altogether to be an illegitimate and recent book, constructed by those who were members of the sect to give them the distinction of being the teachings of the ancient Zoroaster which they had chosen to venerate.
As Porphyry explicitly mentions Christians, previous interpreters have often assumed that the entire paragraph referred to Gnostic Christians and so translated “At the time of Plotinus there were Christians and others, and they (i.e., Christians) were sectarians...” (γεγόναι δὲ κατ̓ αὐτὸν τῶν χριστιανῶν πολλοὶ μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι, αἱρετικοὶ δὲ ἑκ τῆς παλαιᾶς φιλοσοφίας). However, since neither Allogenes nor Zostrianos is explicitly Christian (see below), the Greek must now be understood as referring to two groups, many Christians (χριστιανῶν πολλοί μὲν), and others who are sectarian philosophers (αἱρετικοὶ δὲ) (cf. Puech, “Plotin et les Gnostiques,” 175-77; Schmidt, Gnostische Scriften, 614). The dispute between Plotinus and those Gnostic sectarian philosophers was largely one about canonical authority. Plotinus argued that true philosophers cite only Plato as the ultimate authority, while his Gnostic opponents depended on books ascribed to other authorities. Porphyry says that they “brought forward” (πρφεροντες) their books. Although in the light of his later statement that he refuted Zoroaster as recent and illegitimate this term could mean that they wrote the books, the more likely sense is that they cited them as authorities against Plato (cf. Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften, 614). Since everyone assumed that only ancient books were authoritative, it was important to show that the sources of his opponents were of recent origin.
Zostrianos is certainly the book of that name known to Porphyry (so also Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 121; Perkins, Gnostic Dialog, 12-13, 40; Dillon, “Pleroma and Noetic Cosmos”; Wallis, “Numenius and Gnosticism”; Pearson, “Marsanes,” 244-250). He knew of a book titled Zostrianos which contained secret revelations and which pretended to be philosophical in orientation, an accurate description of NHC VIII, I. Although Porphyry himself does not provide us with specific information about the contents of the books which he names, the frequent use of philosophical vocabulary in Zostrianos provides one type of evidence for identifying our Zostrianos with the one Prophyry knew. Among the more frequently occurring technical terms in Zostrianos are ἀρχή (principle or origin), οὐσία (substance or essence), εἶκον (image), εἶδος (form or species), τάξις (arrangement or order), κόσμος αἰσθητός/αἴσθησις (perceptible world), τέλειος (perfect). Sometimes this technical vocabulary is preserved in Coptic translation, such as ⲡⲓⲟⲛⲧⲱⲥ ⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ for τὸ ὄντως ὄν (the really existing one). These terms and others like them are part of the common vocabulary of the Middle Platonists and Plotinus (cf. Zandee, Terminology of Plotinus; Tardieu, “Les trois steles de Seth,” 565-567). M. Williams (The Immovable Race, pp. 69-102) has pointed out another significant contact between Zostrianos and those same Platonists, the concept of “standing.” After each of Zostrianos’ five baptisms he receives a new identity, then he stands, and finally he blesses. Williams has traced the idea of “standing” back to Plato (esp. to Phaedo 83A; Phaedrus 246Aff) and shown that its use by Plotinus and others describes the stability of the soul during its ascent into the transcendent realms. Plotinus in particular uses the term in the sense of “stand at rest” for the soul which in its mystical ascent has left behind discursive reasoning and has turned towards the One (e.g., Enn. III. 8.6.). Though Zostrianos may also draw on a Jewish apocalyptic background for this idea, its appearance is another piece of evidence that Zostrianos comes from Plotinus’ philosophical milieu. Fortunately, Plotinus himself in his essay “Against the Gnostics” (Enn. II.9) provides us with fairly specific information about the teachings of his Gnostic opponents. A comparison of its contents with Zostrianos reveals several striking comparisons. The “ethereal Earth” (e.g., Zost. 5,18; 8,11) is that new earth which Plotinus condemns at Enn.II. 9.5.23-26. A little later (Enn. II. 9.6.1-6) Plotinus argues that the Gnostics have spoiled the perfection of the three hypostases and invented a new terminology by introducing extraneous emanations called παροικησείς (Exiles), ἀντίτυποι (Copies), and μετάυοιαι (Repentances). This unusual combination of terms occurs together several times in Zostrianos (5,17-29; 8,13-17; 12,11-15; 27,15-28,5; 31,6-9; 43,12-19). In connection with these new hypostases the Gnostics discuss the differences in souls (Enn. II. 9.6.28-62) instead of counting the World Soul as the third hypostasis. At Zost. 26,19-28,30 (cf. 42,20-46,18) the topic is the differences of soul and the context that of the souls that exist in the Exile and Repentance. According to Enn. II. 9.6.59-63 the Gnostics wrongly censure the maker of this world, just what one finds at Zost. 9,12-15. The Gnostics make wisdom (Sophia) the cause of the origin of this world (Enn. II 9.10.19-24) as Zostrianos does (9,16-17; 27,9-12). When they do so, they speak of forming the world as “the reflection of a reflection” (Enn. II. 9.27-28); Zost. 10,4 uses precisely those terms to describe the work of the archon of this world. Both the closeness of these parallels between Zostrianos and Plotinus’ Enneads and the fact that the terms involved often appear in the same order in both texts make it certain that this tractate was the book (or a version of the book) known to Plotinus’ school and refuted his student Amelius.
The philosophical intention of Zostrianos and its use by Gnostics known to Plotinus might suggest that it was written by someone with close ties to Plotinus. He himself indicates that there were Gnostics within his own circle of friends (Enn. II 9.10); however, it would seem that forgeries of a very recent origin would have been easier to refute than the prodigious efforts required by Plotinus and his students. More significantly, a comparison of Zostrianos’ content with Plotinus’ writings reveals little that suggests that its author was in active conversation with Plotinus. The particular genius of Plotinus’ thought was the understanding that there are three, and only three, levels of reality. Beyond everything that makes up the physical world, he postulated an utterly transcendent First Principle called The One (tὸ ἕν), a term used earlier by the Neopythagoreans. From the One emanated a second level called Mind (νοῦς) which is both Thought and the object of Thought. As the latter, it contains the individual Platonic forms (εἶδος) from which all particulars in this world derive. Soul (ψνχή), the third level, is derived from Mind. As the intermediary between Mind and the perceptible world in which we live, Soul looks both towards Mind and Nature. These three levels of being are, according to Plotinus, logically or hierarchically structured, but they are not be to understood as being separated in time or space. All three are present in everything at the same time. Although Zostrianos shares a considerable vocabulary and a general viewpoint with Plotinus, there is no evidence that it was written in direct opposition with positions held by him. Like Plotinus, Zostrianos posits a transcendent First Principle and occasionally uses the terms “the one” (79,25; 81,20; 118,15) and “the good” (117,15-17). Nonetheless, Zostrianos does not argue against Plotinus’ insistence on the complete separation of Spirit and Mind, for at 58,16-20 the Spirit is called an intellectual power, a knower and a fore-knower. That kind of first principle is more like those known from Plotinus’ predecessors, the Middle Platonists, than from Plotinus himself. The same is true of the use of terms such as “unreachable” and “ineffable.” A similar result is obtained in searching for evidence that the concept of Barbelo in Zostrianos was influenced by the Plotinian hypostasis called Mind. Barbelo is called Thought (83,9-10), First Thought (24,12), knowledge (118,11), and one of her constituent aeons (Protophanes) is identified with Mind. But her other two aeons, the Kalyptos and the Autogenes, as well as a myriad of other constituent beings neither reflect Plotinus’ thinking, nor are they offered as substitutes for it. Plotinus’ third level of being, Soul, is not mentioned in Zostrianos. The Autogenes aeon is something like Soul in that it is responsible for the perceptible world, yet the Autogenes is clearly not a separate hypostasis on the order of Soul. The concern in Zostrianos is not over Soul, but over the different kinds of souls imprisoned in this world. Furthermore, the entire emanation process is seen by Zostrianos as evil (1,16-19; 9,6-15; 10,4-17). Plotinus’ contention (e.g., Enn. II 9.13) that the process must be good because each lower level depends on the higher level above it is not refuted by logical argument in Zostrianos.
Even in those philosophical areas where Zostrianos and Plotinus are in general agreement, there are significant differences between them. They agree in general about using the process of emanation to understand the relationship of matter to spirit, but they do not employ the same analogies to describe it. Plotinus favors analogies based on the sun giving off light or fire heat (e.g., Enn. II. 7.20-50; II 1.8.1-15); Zostrianos refers to a fountain that overflows (17,4-13). Moreover, Plotinus wishes to understand emanation logically (e.g., Enn. II 9.14.37-43), not temporally or spatially as does Zostrianos, and for him all three hypostases are everywhere present (e.g., Enn. II 9.16.15-33). The aeons in Zostrianos, its stories about the creation and destruction of this world, and its additions of other hypostases are all aimed at providing as much spatial distance as possible between the Spirit and matter (e.g., 129,22-130,7). Thus, while there are many similarities of thought between Zostrianos and that of Plotinus, they do not appear to be the result of an immediate confrontation between its author and Plotinus (vs. Perkins, Gnostic Dialog, 71, who thinks Zostrianos may have originated as a critique of Plotinus’ mysticism).
It is much more likely that Zostrianos’ author was part of the same late Middle Platonic era from which Plotinus emerged. Its agreement with the terms and issues raised by Albinus, Moderatus, and Numenius from about 150 C.E. and on are especially striking. These similarities extend along four basic lines: the attempt to distinguish a god higher than the world of forms or ideas; speculation about the four elements; acceptance of demons as lower gods; uneasiness over calling this world good. In each case Zostrianos reveals a concern both for the type of question under debate and for the terminology being employed in it (see esp. the articles by Merlan, Chadwick, and Armstrong in Armstrong, Cambridge History; Dillon, Middle Platonists; Armstrong “Gnosis and Greek Philosophy”; Dodds, “Numenius and Ammonius”; Dodds, Pagan and Christian; Wallis, Neoplatonism, 12-36). The attempt to distinguish a chief deity from the world of forms is known from about the middle of the second century C.E. on. Albinus anticipated Plotinus’ triad of the One, Mind, and Soul by accepting without argument the proposition that ideas are the thoughts of god, who is ineffable and unreachable. Yet at other times Albinus evidently identified god with active intelligence so that he did not make this an absolute distinction (see Dillon, Middle Platonists, 267-306). Moderatus and Numenius both pursued the question by attempting to reconcile Plato with Pythagorean thought. Moderatus understood Plato to have posited three realms other than the physical world: the One which is above all being and substance, the ideas, and the psyche. The matter of which the physical world consists is a reflection or a shadow of the One and the Ideas. Numenius also understood Socrates and Plato to have taught a doctrine of three gods, and he sought to bolster his arguments with teachings from eastern sources such as Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Numenius called the chief deity goodness, first intelligence, the one-that-is. His second god is a duality that contemplates the chief deity on the one hand and uses the “ideas” to create the physical world on the other. Indeed the role of Numenius’ second god is almost identical to that of Barbelo in Zostrianos, although Barbelo is a triad, not a duality. In Zostrianos the Spirit, as knower and fore-knower, is also more like the chief deity of these Middle Platonic philosophers, than like the One of Plotinus. Although these philosophers may not have conceived the doctrine of this chief deity as clearly as Plotinus was to do later, the Gnostics of the period (such as Valentinus) were already doing so in their own terms. Therefore, we find the closest parallels to these concepts from Zostrianos in late second century philosophers and Gnostics.
The task of interpreting Plato’s talk about the creation of this world by a demiurge in Tim. 28c began with Aristotle and continued on through the Neoplatonists. Most Middle Platonists accepted Aristotle’s opinion that the cosmos was eternal. The question of how the physical world could participate in the intellectual was a major concern. As we have seen, Zostrianos also wrestles with this problem (e.g., 2,24-3,13). The use of the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) as an aid in explaining the process was one of the ways in which Aristotelian and Stoic elements were blended to interpret the demiurge passage (see Schweizer, “Slaves of the Elements,” esp. 456-464). In Zostrianos these four elements appear in the sections which discuss the vast array of ideas in each of the Barbelo aeons (e.g., 48,3-7; 55,13-19; 113,9-10). The belief in lower gods or spirits, called demons (daimons), was a part of Platonic philosophy from the fourth century B.C.E. These spirits served as the intermediaries between this world and the world of ideas. Some demons were thought to be evil (and hence were the cause of evil in the world); others were good. Some had always been incorporeal; others were the souls of the dead who had once inhabited bodies. Zostrianos makes several references to such demons (e.g., 43,1-12). Although the world was considered as mostly good by the majority of Platonists, from at least the second century C.E. some writers were not very eager to affirm its goodness. Numenius, taking a position later rejected by Plotinus, argued for an evil cosmic soul identified with matter, while Celsus believed that matter itself was the source of evil. Although these philosophical positions differ from the Gnostic attitude (i.e., that both matter itself and the entire process leading to it is evil), they serve to show that the question about the goodness of the world was being addressed by Middle Platonists. The negative evaluation of the cosmos and its creator in Zostrianos is a Gnostic view of the same issue.
As a representative of the Middle Platonic period, Zostrianos provides evidence for the pre-Plotinian origin of the triad Existence-Mind-Life employed by later Neoplatonic writers to explain the functioning of Plotinus’ second hypostasis, Mind. E.R Dodds discussed its appearance in the works of Proclus, who wrote in the fifth century C.E. (see Dodds, Proclus:Theology, 90-91, 252-53). More recently Hadot traced it back into the fourth century in the writings of Marius Victorinus (see Hadot, Marius Victorinus). Then, in a 1977 essay Hadot reviewed the evidence for this triad in the writings of Plotinus and argued that it was not something new in his thought (see Hadot, “Etre, vie, pensée chez Plotin,” 107-141). Instead, he suggested that the triad was part of the standard summaries of Platonic thought available at that time. The main objection to his thesis at that time was that he lacked documentary evidence for the pre-Plotinian existence of the triad. James M. Robinson was the first to suggest that the Nag Hammadi Library had supplied the evidence that Hadot had lacked (see Robinson, ‘Three Steles,” 132-142). In discussing the appearance of the triad in Allogenes and Zostrianos he argued that the proceedings at which Hadot’s paper had been presented would have greatly benefited from an earlier publication of those Nag Hammadi materials. Further study has substantiated that opinion (see Sieber, “Barbelo aeon as Sophia”; Turner, “Gnostic Threefold Path”; Wire-Turner, “Allogenes”; Pearson, “Marsanes”; Pearson, “The Tractate Marsanes”). Key passages in Zostrianos identify the Barbelo aeons with the philosophical triad as follows: the Kalyptos aeon is Existence, the Protophanes aeon is Mind (also called Blessedness and Knowledge), and the Autogenes aeon is Life or Vitality (see esp. 15,1-18,10). They are three and yet one, as they are in those later Neoplatonic authors.

The Composition of the Tractate

Date

The close relationships between Zostrianos and Middle Platonism demonstrate that it must have been written either in the last half of the second century C.E. or quite early in the third century. It cannot have been composed much later than 215 C.E. since according to Porphyry it was in use in Rome sometime between years 244 and 265-266 C.E. (265 C.E. marks Plotinus’ arrival in Rome, and in 266 he assigned the tractate to Amelius for refutation). Other considerations make a late second century dating more likely. Groups of Gnostics were being refuted as early as 150 C.E. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I.15) mentions both Alexander and Prodicus who use the book of Zoroaster. None of the Gnostic authors mentioned by Porphyry can be identified with certainty, although it is possible that Porphyry’s Alexander the Libyan may be identified with the Alexander mentioned by Clement (cf. Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften, 629-630). In ca. 185 C.E. Ireneus knew of Gnostic teachings in which the names for aeons and lights similar to those found in the Apocryphon of John and Zostrianos. Moreover, the other Gnostic books with which Zostrianos is most closely allied have been independently dated in the latter half of the second century or early in the third.

Provenance

While one cannot be certain about the matter of provenance, Alexandria in Egypt is a likely place for its composition (cf. Perkins, Gnostic Dialogue, 40). That city was a “melting pot” for a wide variety of religious and philosophical thought during this period, as the Christian writings of Justin, Clement, and Origen demonstrate. Platonic philosophy was popular there; Plotinus studied it there under Ammonius early in the third century C.E. We know also that some of the Gnostics living in Alexandria probably came from Syria, and that the city had a large Jewish population.
The original language of Zostrianos was Greek. A number of constructions in the Coptic text can only be understood on the assumption of a Greek original. First, there are several instances in which the Coptic definite article is separated from its noun by several words or phrases (e.g., 5,26-27; 12,12-13), a familiar Greek construction but “impossible” in Coptic. Second, ⲁⲩⲱ is used as the indicator of the apodosis of a condition in the way the Greek καί functions (e.g., 31,18-19). Third, ϣⲟⲣⲡ is used to translate προ ̄̄, as in ϣⲟⲣⲡ ⲛ ϣⲟⲟⲡ = προεῖναι (2,31) and ϣⲟⲣⲡ ⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ for προπάτωρ (3,18). Fourth, many literal translations from the Greek are employed such as placing the Coptic definite article before a Greek preposition as in ⲛⲓⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲟⲩⲁ = οἱ καθ’ ἕν (127,3.11-12.14). The Coptic of Zostrianos deviates considerably from later standard Sahidic usage, and its translation of the Greek quite literal. The translator prefered to translate Greek participles with the Coptic circumstantial (e.g., 2,28-33) even when at times temporal forms (rare in Zostrianos) could have been used. Often the Coptic is confused as if translator had lost his way (the Greek original was probably somewhat obtuse because of its philosophical bent). The difficulties of the Coptic translation plus the loss of text due to lacunae combine at times to produce nearly untranslatable sections in the manuscript. Because of these several problems, the English translation offered for this edition is often quite literal as well.
Zostrianos appears to be the work of a single author. There is considerable continuity of thought and construction between the opening narrative of the book and that at its conclusion. The contents of the revelations are arranged in a logical order which corresponds to the aeon levels, first in an ascending order, then a descending one. The repetitious nature of the body of the text is evidently due to the use for didactic reasons of sets of traditional materials to expand the description of the heavenly world. The most evident example of the use of such a source by the author of the text is the addition of the revelatory material between 7,22 and 53,15. At 7,22, after a series of four baptisms narrated in a concise, formulaic style, Zostrianos begins to ask a series of philosophical questions. These questions—there are seven sets of them in all in the tractate—are themselves probably derived from Gnostic traditions (Perkins, Gnostic Dialog, 55-56, 86-88). Only after the lengthy revelations from Authrounios and Ephesech about the Autogenes aeon system do we come at 53,15 to a fifth baptism, yet it is reported using the same formula as that used earlier on pages 6-7, and this fifth baptism is followed by still another description of the Autogenes aeon. Thus it appears that into an account of an ascent with five baptisms the author has inserted additional materials. This pattern of composition seems to have been followed in the later sections of the book as well, although it cannot be clearly traced because of the extensive damage to the middle portion of the manuscript. Other sources are difficult to detect with so much of the tractate missing. Many of the hymnic and magical elements may have been appropriated from elsewhere and adapted for use in this work. The concluding homily was probably borrowed from another source since it makes a general appeal to gnosis without a single specific reference to the aeon system revealed in the tractate, while references in the homily to a “gentle father” and to his sending of a redeemer are found only in the homily. The homily’s rhetorical style and its balance between parensis and proclamation suggest that it may have been a model homily which the author appropriated and adapted.
As he intended, the author’s identity remains a mystery. His use of the pseudonym Zostrianos enabled him to claim access to a tradition of truth more ancient and authoritative than that of Plato. Our most certain conclusion about him is that he must have been a Gnostic who sought to understand his gnosis philosophically. Some have argued that the author might have been a Christian. Layton, basing his opinion on the traditional understanding of Porphyry’s passage, thinks that the author could have been a Christian writing in a “pseudo-Zoroastrian mode” (see Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 121-122). Perkins sees the warning against being baptized with death in the concluding homily as an attack on Christian baptism (see Perkins, Gnostic Dialogue, 25-26, 89-90). Yet on the whole, there is very little in the text to indicate an active interest in things Christian on the part of the author. Not once in the extant text is Christ named (the ⲭ̅ⲣ̅ⲥ̅ of 131,14 is for χπηστός), not even in those Autogenes passages that have explicitly Christian parallels in other tractates. A brief mention of one who cannot suffer but does so at 48,27-29 could be a reference to Christ’s suffering, but it is not explicitly so. Apart from a few allusions to the N.T. the author betrays no special interest in it. The best of those allusions, a reference to the Pauline triad of faith, hope, and love at 28,20-22, reveals only the kind of non-Christian knowledge of the N.T. that began to appear at the middle of the second century (cf. Dodds, Pagan and Christian, 102-138). Since the contents of Zostrianos reveal so little interest in Christianity, it is unlikely that its author was a Christian (see Sieber, “Introduction to Zostrianos”; cf. Tuckett, Nag Hammadi, 14-15). Nor does the author seem to have been Jewish since the tractate betrays no particular interest in Judaism. Although some of the names of the heavenly beings are obviously Hebrew in their origin (e.g., Daveithe and Gamaliel), this book contains none of the midrashic material that appears in some of the other Nag Hammadi tractates. The author knows and repeats some Jewish ideas, such as the creation of the world by a word (9,2-4), but he does not allude the Genesis accounts of creation. He seems familiar with the form of the Enoch literature yet does not use its content. As both the Christian and Jewish elements in Zostrianos survive only in a secondary way, they probably came to its author through the general culture, although they may be the residue from earlier stages of Sethianism (see Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism,” 59-85, who argues that the Sethians originated as a Jewish baptismal sect, then successively became Christians and Platonists). In any case, the book itself is most accurately described as the representative of a non-Christian, non-Jewish, philosophical Gnosticism.
The author wrote for an audience that interpreted its cultic experience in terms of traditional Greek philosophy. Such an attempt at a syncretism of religion and philosophy was typical for the late second century CE. Justin Martyr’s attempt to use philosophical categories provides a Christian example of the same tendency. In this instance the author tried to combine a tradition of mythological aeons from Gnostic circles with philosophical categories, although the stress remained on the mythological. Aeons are blessed and addressed, and possession of their names is understood to provide magical access to the otherworld, while intellectual argument of the type known from Plotinus is mostly lacking. Though the author of Zostrianos certainly believed himself a true and faithful interpreter of Plato, modern readers will undoubtedly find themselves sympathetic to Porphyry’s complaint that he had in fact abandoned the ancient philosophy.