Parthenogenesis among Nag Hammadi Texts

Based primarily on the theme of invisible origin, Rudolf Bultmann argues that it is “clear” that John 3:8 is traceable to Gnostic tradition.^[446] Whether or not this claim can be sustained, it is nevertheless true that a concerted interest in creation and/or origins (e.g., Genesis 1 versus Genesis 2) makes generation an important theme among Nag Hammadi texts.

Sophia herself was linked both to Pistis (below) and to the Pleroma (above). The “upper” (or “interior”) Sophia was the last and youngest of the twelve aeons. Instead of uniting with her misnamed consort Θελητος (i.e., the “willed one”) in order to generate, she fell in love with the perfect Father. Since she did not succeed in her audacity (τόλμη) and could not unite with the Father, she “experienced passion” (έπαθε πάθος·) without a con­sort. In other words - and here is a Valentinian reformulation of the original Gnostic myth - “she wished to comprehend the magnitude of the Father,” or to imitate him, since he who was uncreated, could procreate without a consort. This was Sophia's tragic mis­take or sin, since she herself was a created being, the fruit of her parthenogenesis was bound to be a shapeless and unformed substance (only her male consort could have given the fetus its “form”). This offspring - who was in some cases the demiurge or the world itself - is also said to be the “lower” Sophia (also called the “exterior” Sophia, η εξω σοφία, i.e., outside of the Pleroma and prevented by the Limit from entering it).

In this passage Sophia attempts to emulate the Father's parthenogenetic generative capability. She does not fail (as some surmise), but succeeds. Sophia is impregnated and gives birth. The child, however, is aborted. Nevertheless, the passage exemplifies parthenogenesis as a natural func­tion of God. God begets without a consort.

Other examples show that, according to some so-called “gnostic” Chris­tian texts,^[448] God does not give birth to children as a woman with a womb, rather God begets as a farmer with land and seeds, that is, asexually. On the Origin of the World (II,5) features three variations on this theme. The first excerpt narrates propagation of flowers by Psyche and other virgins.

(1) And the first soul (Psyche) loved Eros, who was with her, and poured her blood upon him and upon the earth. And out of that blood the rose first sprouted up, out of the earth, out of the thorn bush, to be a source of joy for the light that was to appear in the bush. Moreover, after this the beautiful, good-smelling flowers sprouted up from the earth, different kinds, from every single virgin of the daughters of Pronoia. (Orig. World 111:9— 29; ET: Bethge/Layton)^[449]

The second excerpt is of particular interest insofar as a parallel is drawn between the parthenogenetic procreation of a phoenix and the new “self” that emerges from a person committed to justice.

(2) And the worm that has been born out of the phoenix is a human being as well. It is written (Ps 91:13 LXX) concerning it, “the just man will blossom like a phoenix.”^[450] And the phoenix first appears in a living state, and dies, and rises again, being a sign of what has become apparent at the consummation of the age.

Confluence of generation theories between the Gospel of John and various Nag Hammadi manuscripts is not surprising if, as Jeffrey Trumbower ar­gues, these texts share complexes of anthropological ideas.^[451] Whether or not a full-blown myth of origins lies behind the Fourth Gospel (as one finds in the Gospel of Truth, for example), John 3:8 is probably more than a passing allusion.^[452] Interestingly, Gospel of Truth 36,35 too suggests par­thenogenesis of disciples: “He [God] is good. He knows his plantings [fol­lowers], because it is he who planted them in his paradise.”^[453]

F. Conclusion

Adele Reinhartz and Turid Karlsen Seim propose that “Aristotelian epi­genesis” constitutes the background for “birth” in the Gospel of John. In this essay I explore the validity of this thesis, arguing, rather, that the an­cient scientific theory of plant generation known as parthenogenesis better explains the evidence. Medical theories attempting to explain animal and plant generation loom in the background of a wide range of ancient theo­logical and philosophical texts. Although the argument must be made, not assumed, the latter often demonstrate reliance on the former. John 1:12-13 (sans Variante) presents a principle of divine generation for Jesus and his followers that is built on a model of plant parthenogenesis. John 3:3-10 offers a pedagogical illustration of the generation theory and John 1:14, 3:16 and 18 feature an adjective (μονογενής) denoting it. In terms of the tradition’s origin, it may be possible to trace a connection to the Synoptic Gospels. That is, the Fourth Gospel may shift parthenogenesis from an ex­planation of Jesus’s biological birth (attested in Matthew and Luke) to an explanation of Jesus’s divine birth. Of note, for those seeking a theory supportive of feminist approaches,^[454] modern science demonstrates that the offspring of parthenogenesis are exclusively female.

Works Cited

Betz, H.D. Galatians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

Bovon, Francois. Luke 1:1-9:50. Hermeneia. Translated by Christine M. Thomas. Edited by Helmut Koester. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002.

Bremmer, Jan N. The Early Greek Concept of the Soul. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf K. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley- Murray. General Editors R. W. N. Hoare and J. K. Riches. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971 (1964).

Buell, Denise Kimber. Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria and the Rhetoric of Legitimacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Cadbury, H. J. “The Ancient Physiological Notions Underlying John 1.13 and Hebrews XI.11.” The Expositor 9/2 (1924): 430-39.

Darwin, Charles. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. 2 vols. Lon­don: John Murray, 1868.

Driesch, Hans Adolf Eduard. “The Science and Philosophy of the Organism, vol. 1 1906­1908.” The Gifford Lectures. No pages. Cited 9 March 2009. Online http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPSAPO&Volume=0&Issue=0& ArticleID=3.

Droge, Arthur. “Sabbath Work/Sabbath Rest: Genesis, Thomas, John.” History of Reli­gions 47 (2007): 112-41.

Dunderberg, Ismo. Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Val­entinus. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

Frey, Jorg, Jan Van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, eds. Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language. Wis­senschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Guthrie, W. K. C. Orpheus and Greek Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993 (1952).

Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. London: SCM and Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.

Hogan, Karina Martin. “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4 Ezra.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, forthcoming.

Lagrand, James.

Lange, Lynda. “Woman Is Not a Rational Animal: On Aristotle’s Biology of Reproduc­tion.” Pages 1-15 in Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Edited by Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka. Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel, 1983.

Lesky, Erna. Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihr Nachwirken. Ab­handlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse Jahrg.; Mainz: 1950. Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur; Wiesbaden: in Kommis­sion bei F. Steiner, 1951.

Lieu. Judith. “The Mother of the Son in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Litera­ture 117 (1998): 61-77.

Lloyd, G. E. R. Science, Folklore and Ideology: Studies in the Life Sciences in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Luz, Ulrich Matthew 1-7: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Wilhelm C. Linss. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992.

Maienschein, Jane. “Epigenesis and Preformationism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. No pages. Cited 29 March 2010. Online http://plato. stanford.edu/entries/ epigenesis/.

Magner, Lois. A History of the Life Sciences. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2002.

Martin, Emily. “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles.” Signs 16 (1991): 485-501.

Mayhew, Robert. The Female in Aristotle’s Biology: Reason or Rationalization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

McFague, Sallie. Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language. Phila­delphia: Fortress, 1982.

Morrison, J. S. “Four Notes on Plato’s Symposium.” The Classical Quarterly 14 (1964): 42-55.

Needham, Joseph. A History of Embryology. New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1959.

Omanson, Roger L. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

Onians, R. B. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, World, Time, and Fate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.

Preus, Anthony. “Science and Philosophy in Aristotle’s Generation of Animals.” Journal of the History of Biology 3/1 (Spring 1970): 1-52.

-. “Galen’s Criticism of Aristotle’s Conception Theory.” Journal of the History of Biolo­gy 10/1 (1977): 65-85.

Reinhartz, Adele. “‘And the Word Was Begotten’: Divine Epigenesis in the Gospel of John.” Semeia 85 (1999): 83-103.

Seim, T. K. “Roles of Women in the Gospel of John.” Pages 56-73 in Aspects on the Jo- hannine Literature. Edited by L. Hartman, B. Olsson. Coniectanea neotestamentica or Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series 18. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987.

-. “Descent and Divine Paternity in the Gospel of John: Does the Mother Matter?” New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 361-75.

-. “Motherhood and the Making of Fathers in Antiquity: Contextualizing Genetics in the Gospel of John.” Pages 99-123 in Women and Gender in Ancient Religion: Interdisci­plinary Approaches. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tü­bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

Singh, Yii-Jan. “Semen, Philosophy, and Paul.” Journal of Philosophy and Scripture (2007): 32-45.

Spiller, Elizabeth A. “Poetic Parthenogenesis and Spencer's Idea of Creation in the Fae­rie Queen.” Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 (Winter, 2000): 1-11.

Stroumsa, Gedaliahu A. G. Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology. NHS 24. Lei­den: Brill, 1984.

Thompson, Marianne Meye. “‘The Living Father.'” Semeia 85 (1999): 19-31.

Tress, Daryl McGowan. “The Metaphysical Science of Aristotle's Generation of Animals and its Feminist Critics.” Pages 30-50 in Feminism and Ancient Philosophy. Edited by Julie K. Ward. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Trumbower, Jeffrey A. Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John. Her­meneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988.

Van der Horst, Pieter Willem. “Sarah's Seminal Emission: Hebrews 11:11 in the Light of Ancient Embryology.” Pages 287-302 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Van der Watt, J. Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John. Biblical Interpretation Series. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Du­bious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Zimmermann, Ruben. “Vom Hätschelkind zur Himmelsbraut.” Biblische Zeitschrift 44 (2000): 77-91.

-. Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium. Die Christopoetik des vierten Evan­geliums unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Joh 10. Wissenschaftliche Unter­suchungen zum Neuen Testament 171. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.