THE EGYPTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF GNOSTIC THOUGHT

equates the notion of “evil Demiurge” with the Gnostics which is far too simplistic.
There are numerous examples, especially in the mitigated Valentinian system, where
the Demiurge is not at all evil per se, rather he is seen to be ignorant, attempting to do
the best that he can with limited resources, or guilty of simple hubris. Other similar
Gnostic demiurgic depictions abound.
In the following exposition of various Platonic thinkers we must keep in mind
that the primary influence among the Greek philosophers of the time was the
Timaeus. 20
Speusippus (c.407-339 B.C.E.) accepted the existence of two opposite
principles, emphasising their functions as “seeds” or “potencies” of all differentiation
from the Primal Source 21
The Indefinite Dyad accomplishes all theogonic
manifestations, and Speusippus’ concept of the One is reminiscent of Parmenides in
the sense that the One remains a “blank” as it were, beyond all values. By means of “a
certain persuasive necessity” 22
multiplicity is effected amidst matter, a material
principle which is evil, and which responds to the Good. On the lower levels, his
fourth and fifth realms of Soul and the physical world respectively, this problem
arises as a by-product. 23
An important point here is that Speusippus places the One
above Intellect, and is thus “at variance not only with Aristotle, but with all official
Platonism up to Plotinus”. 24
It need only be added that he is in agreement with
numerous Gnostic cosmologies on this point.
Xenocrates headed the Athenian Academy as the direct successor of
Speusippus in 339 B.C.E. Without doubt, he is the most profound philosophical
precursor of Gnostic thought on the Greek side of the divide. 25
Many of the details of
his thought can be seen to be in accord with the Chaldean system and with the Gnostic
Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII,1). For Xenocrates, a Monad is at the centre of all
reality, quite possibly not transcendent but within the cosmological realm, an
ambiguity also found in the Chaldean system. Below this is the Dyad, a female
20
Dillion, The Middle Platonists, 8: “The Timaeus remained the most important single
dialogue during the Middle Platonic period, supported by chosen texts from the Republic,
Phaedrus, Thaetetus, Phaedo, Philebus, and Laws.”
21
Ibid., 12.
22
Ibid., 14.
23
Ibid., 17: “an inevitable failure to master completely the substratum.”
24
Ibid., 18. Pace Simone Pétrement, A Separate God: the Christian Origins of Gnosticism,
trans. Carol Harrison (1984; reprint, New York: HarperCollins, 1990), 32, who claims that
“the fact remains, however, that the expression “unknown God” is not found in Plato or in
the Platonists up to Numenius.” This exact expression may not be extant in our sources, but
the philosophical position it implies certainly is. Pétrement completely misconstrues the
sense of this concept which can be traced back to Parmenides. It is patently not a question of
temporal progression, of denoting god (the “true god” as her hegemonic hermeneutic insists)
as being “hitherto unknown”, but is a depiction of an ineffable source, beyond the
phenomenological, beyond the ability of language to express it. This goes back to ancient
Egyptian concepts of Atum, Amun, and Ptah; it is found in Parmenides, Speusippus, and
Eudorus of Alexandria (ca. 60 B.C.E), the Chaldean Oracles, and numerous Gnostic texts.
25
Jensen, Dualism and Demonology, 103, sees Xenocrates as an absolute dualist as held up
against the relative dualism of Plato.