Journal of Coptic Studies 14 (2012) 33^4-5

doi: 10.2143/JCS. 14.0.2184686

APOKATASTASIS IN COPTIC GNOSTIC TEXTS

FROM NAG HAMMADI AND CLEMENT’S
AND ORIGEN’S APOKATASTASIS:
TOWARD AN ASSESSMENT OF
THE ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF
UNIVERSAL RESTORATION
By Ilaria L.E. Ramelli

The present essay sets out to analyse the notion of apokatastasis or res-
toration/reintegration in Coptic Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi
library such as the treatise On the Origin of the World, the Exegesis of
the Soul, the Valentinian Treatise on the Resurrection, a didactic letter
addressed to a pupil, the Apocryphon of John, and the Gospel of Philip.
I shall draw a comparison with the notion of apokatastasis that is found
in Philo of Alexandria (the restoration of the soul to virtue, spiritual
health, and spiritual life) and with the Christian doctrine of apokatastasis
as universal restoration of rational creatures to God that is attested in
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Bardaisan of Edessa in a time that
is close to that of our Coptic texts.
Profound similarities will emerge between the Coptic Nag Hammadi
texts and especially Philo and Clement (both close to Middle Platonism),
but also remarkable differences, in particular between these Coptic Gnostic
texts and Origen — and Clement, too, in various respects. Such an inves-
tigation will help shed welcome and needed light on the complex history
of the Christian doctrine of apokatastasis,1 and principally on its genesis.
In the assessment of this question, philosophical (Stoic and Platonic) ele-
ments and Scriptural elements must be taken into account as well.
When speaking of Gnosticism, one should always be aware of
the variety of tendencies that underlie this umbrella-term.2 Now, the

1 On this doctrine and its development from the New Testament to John the Scot
Eriugena a monograph is forthcoming, to which I refer readers. See also Ramelli, “Origen,
Bardaisan, and the Origin of Universal Salvation”,135-168.
2 The often puzzling complexity of this category is underlined by King, What Is Gnosti-
cism?, with my review inInvLuc 25 (2003), 331-334; Ramelli, “Gnosticismo”, 2364-2380;
Plese, “Gnostic Literature”, 163-198, who objects to a total deconstruction of the Gnostic
34 ILARIA L.E. RAMELLI

understanding(s) of apokatastasis in “Gnosticisms” seem to substantially

differ from Origen ’s and his followers’ notion of apokatastasis. For the
“Valentinians” — who never designated themselves with this heresio-
logical term, but rather called themselves “Christians”, as Justin testifies
in Dial, cum T1\ 35 —3‫ י‬the use of άποκατάστασις is attested, and this
not only in Greek heresiological sources, but also (in transliteration) in
the Coptic texts from Nag Hammadi, which represent an invaluable term
of comparison and means of verification of the heresiologists’ lore. But,
differently from what happens in Origen and Gregory Nyssen, and even
in Bardaisan of Edessa and Clement of Alexandria beforehand,4 the
concept of apokatastasis, such as it emerges in the Coptic Gnostic texts
available to us, does not coincide with that of universal salvation. Indeed,
the υλικοί, those belonging to the “material” nature, and a part of the
ψυχικοί were excluded from salvation, so that the latter cannot possibly
be universal — as it is in Bardaisan’s, Origen’s, and Gregory’s view.

category. Dundenberg, Beyond Gnosticism, builds upon Williams’ and King’s arguments
and regards the term “Gnostic” as misleading in particular for Valentinianism, on which
he focuses. He sees the school of Valentinus, like those of Basilides and Justin, as a
philosophical school. Likewise, Tite, Valentinian Ethics and Paraenetic Discourse, denies
the accuracy of umbrella-terms such as “Gnosticism” and even “Valentinianism”. On the
other hand, Weiß, Frühes Christentum und Gnosis studies the reception of the New Testa-
ment in “Gnosticism”, accepts this category, and regards Gnosticism as a religion of its
own (510), consistent in itself, and opposed to Christianity as a different religion; it used
the New Testament only in order to confirm its own, non-Christian, ideas (434, 456 and
passim). An opposite view is held by Aland, Was ist Gnosis ?, who thinks that Gnosticism
(“Gnosis” in her terminology) is a Christian phenomenon, relatively unitary, and unthink-
able outside Christianity. See also Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism,
esp. 109-127, in which Gnosticism is described as a kind of inverted Judaism. Brakke, The
Gnostics, besides providing a useful history of scholarship on “Gnosticism”, adopts a
middle position between the rejection of this category altogether and its uncritical use;
this category “must be either abandoned or reformed” (19), but Irenaeus used it taking
the designation γνωστικοί from the Sethians, who, Brakke argues, first applied it to
themselves. Edwards, Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church, 11-34, too, considers
the term “Gnostic” not heresiological, but used by some Gnostics whom exponents of the
Great Church deemed “falsely so called.”
3 Within Valentinianism itself, different trends can be noticed, as well as common
features. See only Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus? ; idem, “Valentinian Gnosticism”,
401-438; Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, who rightly remarks on the term “Valentinian”
as heresiological (4); Dundenberg, “The School of Valentinus”, 64-99; idem, Beyond
Gnosticism. On the distinction of a Western and an Eastern Valentinianism (Hippolytus
Ref. 6,35; Tertullian Cam. 15) see Kaestli, “Valentinisme italien et valentinisme oriental”,
391-403; Dundenberg, Beyond Gnosticism, 1-31; now Kalvesmaki, “Italian versus Eastern
Valentinianism?”, 79-89, and Ramelli, Bardaisan of Edessa, 62-70. In the last monograph
it is also argued that Bardaisan himself was not a Valentinian or a “Gnostic”, but was
closer to Middle Platonism and to Origen’s positions.
4 A detailed discussion of the doctrine of apokatastasis in Bardaisan, Clement, Origen,
and Gregory Nyssen will be found in Ramelli, Apokatastasis.
 APOKATASTASIS IN COPTIC GNOSTIC TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 35

Apokatastasis in Valentinianism rather coincides with the restoration of the

πνευματικοί, those belonging to the “spiritual” nature, to their original
abode.5 The treatise On the Origin of the World (NHC II 5; XIII 2),
perhaps stemming from Alexandria between the end of the third and the
beginning of the fourth century, in its final section shows very well that
the “Gnostic” apokatastasis is the restoration of each category of humans
to its own original nature, which is not the same for all human beings
(or for all rational creatures, as Origen maintained precisely against the
“Valentinians”): “Each one must return to the place from which it came.
Indeed, everyone will make one’s own nature known through one’s
actions and knowledge” (127,14-17).
Another element that sharply differentiates the notion of apokatastasis
that is found in the Coptic Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi and that
which is found in Clement, Origen, and the latter’s followers, is that
apokatastasis in our Coptic texts is the restoration of the soul, and does
not include the resurrection of the body as well. This non-holistic concept
of apokatastsis is shown very well in the Exegesis of the Soul (NHC II 6,
134,7-12), in which the resurrection from the dead is said to consist in
the apokatastasis of the soul, which returns to its original abode, whereas
the resurrection of the body is excluded:
It is appropriate that the soul be regenerated and return to be as it was at
the beginning [...] restored to the place in which it had originally been.
This is the resurrection from the dead.

The resurrection of the body is ruled out precisely because the incarnation
of the soul is considered to be a damage for the latter, whose restoration
cannot but imply a separation from the body. This is evident from ibidem
137,5-10: “When the soul leaves her6 perfect bridegroom because of the
seductive arts of Aphrodite, who exists here in the act of generation, then
she will be damaged. But if she weans and repents, she will be restored
to her homed' This notion of the apokatastasis of the soul is not too dif-
ferent from Philo’s concept of apokatastasis (which entails the restoration
of the soul to virtue, knowledge, spiritual health, and life, as opposed to
the death of the soul in which sin has become ingrained). In the exclusion

5 The very expression “saved by nature” (φύσει) is attested for Valentinianism by

Clement, Exc. Theod. 56,3: τον πνευματικόν φύσει σωζώμενον. Markschies, however,
commenting on Strom. 2,20,115,1 doubts that Valentinus ever used the phrase “saved by
nature” (Valentinus Gnosticus, 58; 8182‫)־‬.
6 I usually employ the neuter for the soul, but here I use the feminine because of the
imagery of the soul as a bride used in this passage.
36 I LARI A L.E. RAMELLI

of the body from apokatastasis the “Gnostics” agreed not only with
Philo, but also with Plotinus, who famously thought that the resurrec-
tion is not of the body, but from the body. Interestingly, Plotinus seems
to have written much of his Enneads in dialogue with the “Gnostics”.7
On the other hand, Origen, followed by Methodius, Gregory Nyssen,
Maximus the Confessor, and other Fathers, entertained a holistic concep-
tion of resurrection-restoration, which encompassed both the resurrection
of the body for all human beings and the restoration of all rational créa-
tures to the Good.
In perfect line with the non-holistic notion of apokatastasis in the
Exegesis of the Soul, the Valentinian Treatise on the Resurrection, a
didactic letter addressed to a pupil, Rheginos (NHC I 4), offers an inter-
pretation of the resurrection, not as a resurrection of the flesh, but as a
spiritual resurrection that can be experienced even in the present, accord-
ing to a realised eschatology that is attested for Valentinianism in Tertul-
lian and Irenaeus as well.8 This resurrection coincides with a restoration
to the Pleroma which is made possible by Christ qua Son of the Human
Being and Son of God at the same time. In this way, he embraced both
humanity and divinity; therefore, being Son of God, Christ could van-
quish death, and being Son of the Human Being he rendered human
beings’ restoration or apokatastasis to the Pleroma possible (44,23-33).
This — and not the resurrection of the body — is the true resurrection,
which is defined as “the revelation of those who have risen” (48,4-5),
“the revelation of what is” and a transformation into imperishability,
light, and fullness, that is, the Pleroma, which will fill up all deficiencies
(48,34-49,8).
Consistently with this notion of a spiritual resurrection that excludes the
resurrection of the body, the restoration at stake is described as the return
from union with a body to separation from any body. The same is indi-
cated in another Coptic text, the Gospel of Maty (P. Berolinensis 8502,1),
originally written in Greek in the second century.9 In its first part, the

7 See now Narbonne, Plotinus in Dialogue with the Gnostics, who argues that Plotinus’s
debate with the “Gnostics” was an ongoing one, which started early (at least with Trea-
tise 6), continued with what is known as the Großschrift against the Gnostics (Treatises
27-39), and went on later, e.g. in Treatises 47-48 and 51. Cf. my review of Narbonne in
BMCR 2011.
8 Tert. Praescr. 33,7; Resurr. 19,2-7; Iren. AH 2,31.
9 Tuckett, The Gospel of Mary, argues that the Gospel was written in Greek and the
Coptic version is later than the extant Greek fragments, but it preserves readings that are
more original. He also argues (42-54) that the Gospel of Mary is “Gnostic”, at least in the
broad sense given to “Gnosticism” by Pearson and Markschies.
 APOKATASTASIS IN COPTIC GNOSTIC TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 37

risen Saviour explains to the disciples that everything will be restored to

its original root: “all creatures [...] will be resolved again into their own
roots [...] God came timong you, to the substance of every nature, in
order to restore it to its root” (p. 7,5-6; 18-20). Restoration is universal
here, but not uniform: every nature returns to its own origin, different
from that of the others. Instead, Origen thought that all rational creatures,
who are of one and the same nature, will be restored to the same state,
namely, union with God.
A form of apokatastasis is also detectable in the so-called Apocryphon
of John (NHC II 1; III 1; IV 1), a Gnostic mythological treatise of the
second half of the second century, but it does not entail universal salvation.
Christ — it is explained there — came to save humanity, which was
created in the image of God the Father by the evil demiurge Yadalbaoth,
the son of Sophia. Christ saves humans by reminding them of their
heavenly origin. Some, who have knowledge and practice asceticism,
can be saved immediately; others must first go through reincarnations
until they too acquire saving knowledge; some others, however, never
attain restoration: they are cast into the place where there is no repentance
and will be punished with eternal punishment (26,24-27,30). Therefore,
here restoration is not universal. The notion that some souls will never
be restored to their original abode, not even after several reincarnations,
but will endure punishment forever, is very close to Plato’s position
(some souls, due to the gravity of their sins, become “incurable” and will
never be restored to the contemplation of the Ideas, but will be punished
in Tartarus forever10), which Origen wanted to correct by remarking that
“no being is incurable for the One who created it.”11
The Valenti ni an understanding of apokatastasis is clarified by the
Gospel of Philip (NHC II 2), probably from the third century. The very
term (in its Coptic transliteration, which clearly renders Greek άποκα-
τάστασις) refers to the mystery of the bridal chamber, which is related
to the redemption and the revelation of truth.12 It is remarkable that here
apokatastasis is again connected with a “resurrection”, but not the resur-
rection of the body :

10 Phaed. 1 13E2; Gorg. 525C2; Resp. 615E3.

11 Nihil enim omnipotenti impossibile est, nec insanabile est aliquid Factori suo
(Princ. 3,6,5).
12 On the “bridal chamber” and its relation to redemption in “Valentinianism” see
most recently Thomassen, “Baptism among the Valentinians”, 895-915, praes. 899 and
905-908.
38 I LARI A L.E. RAMELLI

Truth did not come to the world naked, but in figures and images. For the
world would not have received it in any other way. There is a rebirth and
an image of rebirth; it is certainly necessary to be born again through the
image. Which? Resurrection. The image must be resurrected through the
image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter truth through the
image: this is the apokatastasis. (67,919‫)־‬

Fleresiological accounts of Valentinian doctrine also testify to the

notion of the apokatastasis of Sophia, that is, her restoration after her
fall (which is the work of the Saviour, through the Cross). In particular,
Irenaeus AH 1,2,4 attests that the Valentinians “maintain that thanks to
this limit [sc. the Cross] Sophia has been purified [κεκαθάρται] and
strengthened, and will be restored [άποκατασταθήναι] to her syzygy.”
The very notion of a purification that must precede one’s apokatastasis
was abundantly developed by Clement and Origen, and subsequently
Gregory of Nyssa and most supporters of the Christian doctrine of
apokatastasis.
In AH 1,14,2 Irenaeus is speaking of “other” heretics, who seem to be
again Gnostics, but no specification is given. I shall argue in a moment
that they probably were “Valentinians.” These claimed that the name
assumed by Jesus for the sake of redemption is “the name of the apokatas-
tasis”, and they proclaimed it during their initiation rites.13 The expression
εις λύτρωσιν αγγελικήν corresponds exactly to the Coptic “redemption
of angels” in the Tripartite Tractate (NHC I 5), which is usually regarded
as a document of a revised form of Valentinianism — in which the role
of Sophia is played by a double Logos — and dated to the first half of the
third century. It is especially momentous, in that it is the only Valentinian
systematic treatise that is preserved wholly and directly, in a Coptic ver-
sion.14 The process of restoration is there explained at 123,3ff. and is
presented as the return of the perfect human being to the place from
which it came, and the restoration of its members into the Pleroma, when
they have been manifested as the whole body. At 125,19-20 the Son, who
makes restoration possible, is called “the redemption of the angels of the

13 5'Αλλοι δέ πάλιν την λύτρωσιν έπιλέγουσιν ούτως‫ ־‬Τό όνομα τό άποκεκρυμ-

μένον από πάσης θεότητος, και κυριότητος, και αλήθειας, ο ένεδύσατο ,Ιησούς ό
Ναζαρηνός έν ταις ζωαΐς τού φωτός τού Χριστού, Χριστού ζώντος διά Πνεύματος
αγίου εις λύτρωσιν άγγελικήν. 'Όνομα το της άποκαταστάσεως‫ ־‬Μεσσία ούφαρέγ
ναμεμψαιμάν χαλδαίαν μοσομηδαέα άκφραναί ψαούα, ,Ιησού Ναζαρία. Και τούτων
δέ ερμηνεία έστι τοιαύτη‫ ־‬Ού διαιρώ τό πνεύμα, την καρδίαν, καί τήν υπερουρά-
νιον δύναμιν, την οίκτίρμονα‫ ־‬όναίμην τού ονόματος σου, Σωτήρ αλήθειας. Καί
ταύτα μέν έπιλέγουσιν οί αύτοί τελούντες.
14 See the analysis of Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 166-187.
 APOKATASTASIS IN COPTIC GNOSTIC TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 39

Father.” The correspondence with Irenaeus’s passage is striking. The

very terminology of apokatastasis is repeatedly employed in the whole
passage (123,3ff.):
When the redemption was proclaimed, the perfect man received knowledge
immediately, so as to return in haste to his unitary state, to the place from
which he came, to return there joyfully, to the place from which he came, to
the place from which he flowed forth. His members, however, needed a place
of instruction [...] until all the members of the body of the church are in a
single place and receive the restoration (apokatastasis) at one time, when
they have been manifested as the whole body, namely the restoration
(apokatastasis) into the Pleroma. [...] The restoration is at the end, after the
totality reveals what it is, the Son, who is the Redemption, that is, the path
toward the incomprehensible Father, that is, the return to the pre-existent.15 16

The elements in this account that are similar to Origen,s and his followers’
notion of apokatastasis are many: for instance, the idea that apokatastasis
will be the return to the rational creatures’ original condition; that it will
be the telos or ultimate end and goal; that it will be a return to perfect
unity; that it will have to be preceded by instruction; and the very notion
of the body of the church as that which is restored in the end. But for
Origen the eschatological church or body of Christ will be all humanity,
not only one class or nature or kind within humanity. Moreover, while
this “Valentinian” passage speaks of a restoration given at one and the
same time to all those who will experience it, Origen and his followers,
especially Gregory of Nyssa, will insist on the order with which the
various rational creatures will attain the eventual restoration. This order
will be based on their merits and degrees of spiritual advancement.
Interesting traces of the doctrine of apokatastasis are also found, I think,
in another Coptic text from Nag Hammadi that has been recently attached
to a later (fourth-century) and revised form of Valentinianism: the Dia-
logue of the Saviour }6 Indeed, Valentinianism in the fourth century seems
to have been different from how it was in the second and the first half of
the third. In the fourth, it tried to come to terms with the newly established
“orthodoxy” and to soften those aspects which were most unacceptable
to it, such as the tripartition of the human beings into predestined classes,
the attribution of creation to Sophia or an inferior or even evil entity, and
the system of the aeons. This is clear from works such as the above-
mentioned Dialogue of the Saviour, Treatise on the Resurrection {Letter

15 I used here the translation by Attridge and Müller, with minor modifications.
16 See Létoumeau, “The Dialogue of the Savior as a Witness to the Late Valentinian
Tradition”, 74-98.
40 ILARIA L.E. RAMELLI

to Rheginos) or Tripartite Tractate}1 In the Dialogue of the Saviour,

although there is no focus on the term άποκατάστασις itself, never-
theless some key characteristics of apokatastasis are present: the notion
of restoration to the “bridal chamber” (121,5-9 and 18-24; 138,14-20),
the concept that the final restoration will be characterised by a state of
equality (136,17-137,1 ; cf. Clement Exc. ex Th. 63,2), and the idea that
this restoration will be preceded by the διόρθωσις or rectification of
all (125,2-3 and 18-22; cf. Hippolytus Ref 6,31). The Pleroma is the
αρχή and the τέλος of the elect, which in this treatise, just as in other
expressions of later Valentinianism, are not only the “pneumatic” people,
but also the “psychic” people.
The fact that a doctrine of apokatastasis is found in some Gnostic
works as well, such as the Tripartite Tractate from Nag Hammadi, which
admits of it not only for the πνευματικοί, but also for the ψυχικοί, very
probably contributed to foment accusations of “Gnosticism” against
Origen in the Origenistic controversy.17 18 It is worth noticing in this con-
nection that the Tripartite Tractate offers one of the best and most explicit
examples of the Valentinian division of humanity into three natures
or kinds/races (γένη, rendered into Coptic with genos), which Origen
spent his life in contrasting.19 What is more, in this treatise it is evident
that this tripartition has necessitarian soteriological implications for the
“spiritual kind”, the “psychic kind”, and the “material kind” of persons
( 118,14-122,12), all implications that Origen could not endorse. The very
same terminology is found in Irenaeus’s account of the Valentinian sys-
tern in AH 1,1-8: the three “kinds” of human beings are the “spiritual”,
who are saved, the “psychic”, who are the object of the saving mission
of the Saviour, being endowed with free will,20 and the “material”, who
will perish, since “matter is incapable of being saved.” That the spiritual
kind is saved “by nature” is discussed in scholarship; at any rate, this
is attested in Clement Exc. ex Theod. 56,3 (φύσει σωζόμενον) and
Irenaeus AH 1,6,2.21 In the Tripartite Tractate, it is clear that the eventual
apokatastasis will include the spiritual people (“the Election”) and, as it

17 See Edwards, “The Epistle to Rheginus: Valentinianism in the Fourth Century”, 78.
18 This is rightly suggested by Prinzivalli, Magister, 76.
19 See Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 50-52.
20 According to Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 493 and passim (esp. Part One), a shift
occurred rather early in Valentinian soteriology, when Western Valentinianism changed
its soteriological focus from the “spiritual” people to the “psychic” people; a psychic
body was assigned to the Saviour, for him to be able to redeem the “psychic” people,
while the “spiritual” people were considered not even to be in need of redemption.
21 See the discussion in Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 67-72.
 APOKATASTASIS IN COPTIC GNOSTIC TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 41

seems, at least a portion of the psychic people (“the Calling”), while the
material people will be destroyed. Indeed, the spiritual people instantly
recognise the Saviour, while the material people, who have proved unable
to receive him, will be eliminated (118,14-119,20). Thus, they will be
definitely excluded from salvation and restoration. Apokatastasis as unity
with the Pleroma in the bridal chamber with the Saviour is certainly the
fate of the spiritual people (122,12-129,34). As for the psychic people,
who have been uncertain whether to accept the Saviour, the door is left
open for their salvation, if they will finally choose the Saviour (118,37-
122,12). In the eventual apokatastasis they will attain unity with the
Pleroma, as it seems, but this is uncertain, also due to the lacunary state
of the text in this passage (129,34-136,24). What is entirely clear from
132,20-21 is that the eventual apokatastasis, albeit certainly not universal,
will be characterised by perfect unity: “For the end will receive a unitary
existence, just as the beginning is unitary.” Indeed, “the restoration /
apokatastasis to that which used to be is a unity” (133,7). In Origen’s
view also the eventual apokatastasis will be a perfect unity, but it will be
fully universal and there will be no exclusion from there of “material
people”, who remain unconverted; only in this way, for Origen, will that
unity be perfect.
It is interesting that the notion of the eventual apokatastasis as a return
to unity — which will be so prominent a theme in the eschatology of
supporters of the apokatastasis doctrine such as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa,
Evagrius, and up to Eriugena22 — appears very clearly in a report by
Irenaeus, which he ascribes to “Mark the Magician” (AH 1,14,1) and which
Einar Thomassen, in his invaluable study on Valentinianism, included in
the testimonia of Valentinian thought:23
Τότε δέ και την άποκατάστασιν των όλων έφη γενέσθαι,
όταν τα πάντα κατελθόντα εις το εν γράμμα μίαν και την αυτήν έκφώ-
νησιν ήχήση.24
Then — he said — the universal apokatastasis will also take place,
when all beings return to the one letter and resound one and the same utterance.

22 See Ramelli, “Harmony between arkhë and telos in Patristic Platonism and the
Imagery of Astronomical Harmony Applied to the Apokatastasis Theory”, forthcoming in
the International Journal of the Platonic Tradition.
23 The Spiritual Seed, 241-247.
24 This is the context: Έκαστον γάρ αύτών μέρος ον τού ολου, τον ίδιον ήχον ώς
τό πάν όνομάζειν, και μή παύσασθαι ήχούντα, μέχρι οτου επί τό έσχατον γράμμα τού
έκάστου [Hipp, εσχάτου] στοιχείου μονογλωσσήσαντος καταστήσαι [Hipp, μονο-
γλωττήσαντι καταντήσαι]. Τότε δέ και την άποκατάστασιν των όλων έφη γενέσθαι,
δταν τά πάντα κατελθόντα εις το εν γράμμα, μίαν και την αυτήν έκφώνησιν ήχήση.
42 ILARIA L.E. RAMELLI

Thomassen translates κατελθόντα with “descend” (instead of my

“return”), which of course is one of the meanings of the verb κατέρχομαι.
As a consequence, he takes τα πάντα to mean the Pleroma which descends
onto a letter that is lost, as an image of Sophia.25 But κατέρχομαι also
means “to return”, a meaning that is very well attested from Herodotus
onward, especially for the return from an exile.26 The same is the case
for κάτειμι, an exact parallel: it does not only mean “to descend”, but
also “to return”, for instance from an exile.27 The verb κατέρχομαι was
therefore perfectly suited to expressing the return of all beings (τα πάντα)
that takes place with the eventual apokatastasis, all the more in that the
return from an exile is precisely one of the examples that Origen used to
illustrate the meaning of άποκατάστασις and άποκαθίστημι and to
show that άποκατάστασις έστι εις τά οικεία {Horn, in 1er. 14,18).28
This is why, rather than the descent of the Pleroma (as Thomassen inter-
prêts τά πάντα) onto one letter that is lost, I would read in Irenaeus’s
report a reference to the return of “a// beings” (τά πάντα) to unity,
symbolised by the “one and the same letter” and the “one and the same
sound” that all will utter in unison. And this is precisely described as
“universal apokatastasis” or restoration of all beings: την άποκατάστα-
σιν των όλων. This is depicted as a symphony, as the return of all to the
unity of one single sound. Origen and Gregory of Nyssa will insist on the
notion of the eventual apokatastasis as a unity of will and a symphony or
harmony (essentially in that the wills of all shall be oriented toward the
same point, i.e. God the Good); their concept of apokatastasis, though,
universal and holistic as it is, seems to differ from most “Gnostic” attes-
tations of apokatastasis.
However, in the genesis of the Christian doctrine of apokatastasis the
contribution of the Coptic Nag Hammadi texts must be taken into account
as an important factor, along with:
1) the New Testament (especially Acts 3:2021‫־‬, which introduces the
notion of “the times of universal restoration,” χρόνοι άποκαταστά-
σεως πάντων, and 1 Cor 15:28);
2) Philo and his idea of the (non-eschatological) apokatastasis of the soul;

25 Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 244 (translation) and 245 (interpretation).

26 See, for instance, Herodotus 4,4 and passim; Aeschylus Ag. 1647; Ch. 3; Bum. 462;
Sophocles Ant. 200; Oed. Col. 601; Aristoph. Ran. 1165, 1167; Plato Apol. Socr. 21A;
Thucydides 8,68. Cf. p. 925 Liddell s.v. κατέρχομαι.
27 See, for instance, Homer Od. 13,267; 15,505; Herodotus 1,62; 3,45; 4,3 and passim;
Aeschylus Ag. 1283; Thucydides 8,48. Cf. p. 923 Liddell s.v. κάτειμι.
28 Analysis of this passage in Ramelli, Apokatastasis.
 APOKATASTASIS IN COPTIC GNOSTIC TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 43

3) the philosophical (especially Stoic) notion of apokatastasis, which

worked at a cosmological level with an infinite succession of identical
aeons (but Origen criticised its necessitarianism and was keen on dis-
tinguishing his own doctrine of apokatastasis from it),
4) and authors such as Pantaenus and Bardaisan, with whose doctrine of
apokatastasis Clement and Origen were acquainted.29

Origen will construct his own doctrine of apokatastasis, universal, holis-

tic, and non-deterministic, on the basis of a debate with both the Stoic
and the “Gnostic” (Valentinian) apokatastasis doctrines. The result, the
Christian doctrine of universal restoration in Origen, Gregory of Nyssa,
Evagrius and other Patristic thinkers, will differ from the “Gnostic” con-
cept of apokatastasis essentially in that it will be universal (not restricted
to a class of rational beings) and holistic (involving the whole of the
human being, not only its soul).
But in the very process of formation of the Christian doctrine of
apokatastasis the role played by the definition of apokatastasis in the
Nag Hammadi texts and in Gnostic texts in general is pivotal and must
be taken into full account, something that has never been done so far
in scholarship. In particular, the core role of Christ in this restoration,
the process of rectification that will precede it, and the state of equality
and union that will obtain in the eventual apokatastasis are all aspects
that will be taken over by non-“Gnostic” supporters of the doctrine of
apokatastasis as well, such as Bardaisan, Clement, Origen, and Orige-
nian thinkers like Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius, and even Maximus the
Confessor. I thus hope that the present investigation will contribute to
casting light on the so far obscure genesis of the Christian doctrine of
apokatastasis.

Bibliography

Aland, B. Was ist Gnosis? Tübingen, 2009.

Brakke, D. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity.
Cambridge, 2010.

29 On the probable presence of the doctrine of apokatastasis in Pantaenus, Clement of

Alexandria’s teacher, see Ramelli, Apokatastasis. I am grateful to Bas van Os, Nicola
Denzey, and the participants in the Nag Hammadi and Gnosticism session at the SBL
International Meeting, London, July 2011, for discussing an earlier draft of this essay.
Special thanks to Karlheinz Schtissler for accepting my study in this Journal, which pro-
foundly honoured me.
44 ILARIA L.E. RAMELLI

Dundenberg, I. “The School of Valentinus.” In: A Companion to Second-Century

Christian “Heretics”, eds. A. Marjanen - P. Luomanen. Leiden 2005,
64-99.
—. Beyond Gnosticism. New York 2008.
Edwards, M.J. Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church. Fanham-Burlington
2009.
—. “The Epistle to Rheginus: Valentinianism in the Fourth Century.” NT 37 (1995).
Grabbe, L.L. An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism. London-New York 2010.
Kaestli, J.D. “Valentinisme italien et valentinisme oriental.” In: The Rediscovery
of Gnosticism, ed. B. Layton. Vol. 1, Leiden 1980, 391-403.
Kalvesmaki, J. “Italian versus Eastern Valentinianism?” VigChr 62,1 (2008),
79-89.
King, K. What Is Gnosticism ? Cambridge, MA, 2003.
Létoumeau, P. “The Dialogue of the Savior as a Witness to the Late Valentinian
Tradition.” VigChr 65 (2011), 74-98.
Markschies, Chr. Valentinus Gnosticus ? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen
Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentinus. Tübingen
1992.
—. “Valentinian Gnosticism: Toward the Anatomy of a School.” In: The Nag
Hammadi Library after Fifty Years, eds. J.D. Turner - A. McGuire. Lei-
den 1997, 401-438.
Narbonne, J.-M. Plotinus in Dialogue with the Gnostics. Leiden 2011.
Plese, Z. “Gnostic Literature.” In: R. Hirsch-Luipold, H. Görgemanns, M. von
Albrecht (eds.), Religiöse Philosophie und philosophische Religion der
frühen Kaiserzeit. Tübingen 2009, 163-198.
Ramelli, I. Review of K. King, What is Gnosticism? In: InvLuc 25 (2003), 331-334.
—. “Galeno e i Cristiani: una messa a punto.” InvLuc 25 (2003), 276-297.
—. “Gnosticismo.” In: A. Di Berardino (ed.), Nuovo Dizionario Patristico e di
Antichità Cristiane. Vol. 2, Genoa 2007 (new English edition forthcom-
ing in Chicago), 2364-2380.
—. “Origen, Bardaisan, and the Origin of Universal Salvation.” HThR 102
(2009), 135-168.
—. Bardaisan of Edessa: A Reassessment of the Evidence and a New Interpre-
tation. Also in the Light of Origen and the Original Fragments from De
India. Eastern Christian Studies 22, Piscataway, NJ, 2009.
—. Review of Narbonne, Plotinus in Dialogue with the Gnostics. BMCR 2011
(.BMCR 2011.10.25).
—. “Harmony between arkhë and telos in Patristic Platonism and the Imagery
of Astronomical Harmony Applied to the Apokatastasis Theory.” Forth-
coming in the International Journal of the Platonic Tradition.
—. The Development of the Doctrine of Apokatastasis in Christianity: A Critical
Assessment From the New Testament to Eriugena. Forthcoming.
Thomassen, E. The Spiritual Seed. The Church of the Valentinians. Leiden 2008.
 APOKATASTASIS IN COPTIC GNOSTIC TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI 45

—. “Baptism among the Valentinians.” In: Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism,

ed. D. Hellholm et al., vol. 2, Berlin-New York 2011, 895-915.
Tite, Ph.L. Valentinian Ethics and Paraenetic Discourse: Determining the Social
Function of Moral Exhortation in Valentinian Christianity. Leiden 2009.
Tuckett, Chr. The Gospel of Mary. Oxford, 2007.
Weiß, H.F. Frühes Christentum und Gnosis: Eine rezeptionsgeschichtliche
Studie. Tübingen 2008.

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli

Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
Largo A. Gemelli 1
1-20123 Milan
Italy
[email protected]
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at [email protected].

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.