Ophites

1

Ophites TUOMAS RASIMUS

Certain fathers of the early church gave the name “Ophites” or “Ophians” (from the Greek ophis, snake) to a group that supposedly worshipped the serpent and advocated a mythology that reinterpreted the events of Genesis 1–3 by assigning a positive role to the serpent and a demonic character to the creator. On the one hand, IRENAEUS (Adv. haeres. 1.30) paraphrased a written source that finds close parallels in the Nag Hammadi and Berlin Codex 8502 treatises Eugnostos, On the origin of the world, Hypostasis of the archons, and the Apocryphon of John. On the other hand, Celsus (see CELSUS, PHILOSOPHER) and ORIGEN (both in C. Cels. 6.22–38) knew and described a diagram, a map of the universe with ritual instructions that accompanied anointment, administered either at one’s initiation or deathbed. A central feature of the instruction was a set of passwords one had to learn and deliver at heavenly gates guarded by seven theriomorphic archons called Yaldabaoth, Yao, Sabaoth, Adonaios, Astaphaios, Eloaios, and Horaios. These are, in reality, the seven archangels led by Michael (= Yaldabaoth), who has here become a demonized caricature of YAHWEH. In Ophite mythology, the animal shapes of the archons stand in stark contrast to the anthropomorphism of the true, androgynous God, after whose image the demonic archons created Adam and Eve. The name “Ophite” or “Ophian” does not appear in the earliest descriptions by Irenaeus (who calls them “other gnostics”) and Celsus (who simply identified them as Christians, although Origen later specified that the users of the diagram are heretical “Ophians”), both from ca. 180 CE, but appears in heresiological literature a generation later, accompanied by new claims of snake-worship. HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME, in his now lost Syntagma, which essentially survives in a Latin translation as Pseudo-Tertullian, paraphrased Irenaeus’

account, added information about the alleged snake-worship, and labeled the teaching as that of “snake-people,” that is, Ophites. The name and allegations were picked up by virtually all later heresiologists, but they cannot be corroborated by earlier reports or the closely related Nag Hammadi material. In fact, a close reading of the texts reveals that the serpent of Genesis 3 was never itself praised, only its advice to Adam and Eve, which the serpent was able to offer due to its temporary possession by a higher power (Wisdom or Life of the true God). It is therefore highly unlikely that the advocates of the teaching in question called themselves Ophites or engaged in serpent-handling or -worship of any kind. Some of the Nag Hammadi texts (Hypostasis of the archons and Apocryphon of John) that closely parallel Irenaeus’ “Ophite” source are traditionally included in the Sethian gnostic corpus, as defined by Schenke (1981), while others (On the origin of the world and Eugnostos) contain no Sethian features. Yet these texts share close doctrinal and literary links. It has therefore been suggested (Rasimus 2009) that Schenke’s influential theory of Sethian gnosticism only reveals an incomplete picture of the evidence it describes and consequently needs to be complemented by the so-called Ophite material, resulting in a wider, “classic gnostic” corpus. On this hypothesis, the earliest, “Ophite,” form of classic gnosticism did not yet contain speculation about Seth, but focused on the creation and paradise stories of Genesis, specifically on the serpent’s role as an unwitting medium of revelation. SEE ALSO:

Gnosis, gnostics, gnosticism; Nag Hammadi Library; Sethianism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS DeConick, A. D. (2013) “The road for the souls is through the planets: the mysteries of the Ophians mapped.” In A. D. DeConick, G. Shaw, and J. D. Turner, eds., Practicing Gnosis: ritual, magic,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25059

2 theurgy and liturgy in Nag Hammadi, Manichaean and other ancient literature. Essays in honor of Birger A. Pearson: 37–74. Leiden. Rasimus, T. (2009) Paradise reconsidered in gnostic mythmaking: rethinking Sethianism in light of the Ophite evidence. Leiden. Rasimus, T. (2013) “The Archangel Michael in Ophite creation mythology.” In L. Jenott and

S. Kattan Gribetz, eds., Jewish and Christian cosmogony in Late Antiquity: 107–25. Tübingen. Schenke, H.-M. (1981) “The phenomenon and significance of gnostic Sethianism.” In B. Layton, ed., The rediscovery of gnosticism, vol. 2, Sethian gnosticism: 588–616. Leiden. Welburn, A. (1981) “Reconstructing the Ophite diagram.” Novum Testamentum 23: 261–87. Leiden.