If You Should Know Him, Un–know Him:

(Un–) Knowing the Unknowable Deity in Allogenes (NHC XI,3)

and the Paradox of Transcendental Epistemology in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

 

Zeke Mazur

Universit Laval (Qubec)

ajmazur@uchicago.edu

 

              Among the mechanisms by which the eponymous aspirant is said to attain the ultimate apprehension of the Unknowable deity in Allogenes (NHC XI,3), we find mention of the paradoxical act of un–knowing; thus, for instance, at 59.30–31: If you should know him, un–know him (eshpe ekshaneime erof ariateime erof); other examples occur at 60.10–12, 61.12, 17–18, 64.11–14. This remarkable expression–– a prime example of what has come to be called learned ignorance–– situates Allogenes at a crucial moment in the history of negative–theological discourse. Similar exhortations to a supra–intellectual un–knowing may be found among the first generation of Neoplatonists–– e.g., Plotinus (VI.9[9].7.17–21), Porphyry (Sententiae 25), and the Anonymous Turin Commentary on Platos Parmenides (2.14–31)–– whence the concept reached later Neoplatonically–influenced Christian authors such as Pseudo–Dionysius.

              Since the chronology of the extant Platonizing Sethian corpus relative to Plotinus and Porphyry has been the subject of some controversy, the intention of this paper is to demonstrate that the concept of mystical un–knowing in Allogenes derives not from Plotinus, Porphyry or their successors, but rather vice versa, i.e., that intellectual priority must be granted to Allogenes. The argument is that Allogenes transcendental epistemology must be understood not only in connection with the themes evident in the closely related Platonizing Sethian tractate Zostrianos (NHC VIII,1) and with pre–Plotinian Platonist thought such as that of Clement of Alexandria and the Chaldaean Oracles, but also must be seen as a development of certain topoi that already had a long history in Gnostic speculation on transcendental ontogenesis. These topoi include [1] the self–apprehension of the absolutely transcendent deity, who is frequently said to be unknowable and yet nevertheless paradoxically to know itself, albeit through some extraordinary reflexive faculty superior to intellection (e.g., Ap. John  NHC III,1 6.24–7.4; Eug. NHC III,3 72.6–13, 19–21), and [2] the introduction of principles mediating the transcendent deity to the human intellect, principles which are themselves understood as the reflexive manifestation of the unmanifest deity and described with paradoxical terms that juxtapose positive and negative elements in tension with each other. Thus, for example, according to Hippolytus (Refutatio VI.44.3.3), Marcus Tetraktus is a mouth of taciturn Silence; the eponymous savior of the Trim. Prot. (NHC XIII,1) is simultaneously hidden and revealed within humans (35.8–10); and the aspirant of the Gos. Eg. (NHC III,2) addresses the indwelling deity, I see you, you who are invisible before everyone (66.25–26). In the case of un–knowing knowing–– just as with other Sethian mechanisms of transcendental apprehension, such as first thought (prt ennoia or protennoia) and primary manifestation (mntshrp ounh ebol)–– the human aspirant was thought to be able to apprehend the unknowable deity only through the replication of that deitys own, supra–intellectual self–apprehension. This thesis supports the working hypothesis that a substantial number of apparent innovations in Neoplatonism are in fact tacitly dependent on the profoundly unfettered creativity inherent in contemporaneous Gnostic thought.