Epistle of Eugnostos (50-150 AD) Authorial Question (SOLVED)

[rakovsky]

Question: Does the inclusion of Eugnostos' Epistle in the Codex (collection of writings) with "Apocryphon of John" written on the back of the front flyleaf suggest that the Epistle was written about the same period or century as the Apocryphon of John?
"Eugnostos" means something like good/well known, and so "Eugnostos" could be a kind of nickname or title for the Epistle's attributed author. For example, the real author of the Epistle could have wanted his readers to imagine that the author was someone like John the Evangelist, and instead called the author "Eugnostos". The Epistle shows up in Codex III of the Nag Hammadi Library. Book 1 in the COdex is the Apocryphon of John, Book 2 is the "Gospel of the Egyptians" AKA "The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit", which says that it's written by "Eugnostos the Beloved", Book 3 is the Epistle of Eugnostos, and Book 4 is the Sophia of Jesus Christ, which scholars believe was written based on Eugnostos' Epistle.
As Madeleine Scopello writes,

In Greek, eugnostos is an adjective composed of eu, 'good' or 'well,' and gnostos, 'known,' and so Eugnostos means 'well known,' 'familiar' (cf. Plato Lysias, frag. 17.3) or even 'easy to understand' (cf. Plato Sophist 218e). ...
Here in the title of our text, this adjective is treated as a proper name, indicating the name of the author of the tractate. The name Eugnostos also appears in another Nag Hammadi document, the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (NHC III,2; IV,2). In the final portion of this text (the colophon or copyist's note), the author introduces himself with his two names: Eugnostos, his spiritual name, and Gongessos, his ordinary, everyday name."
(Madeleine Scopello, "The Nag Hammadi Scriptures", p. 272)

The copyist's note at the end of the Gospel of the Egyptians includes the words: "Grace, understanding,perception, (and) prudence (be) with him who has written it - Eugnostos the beloved, in the Spirit- in the flesh, my name is Gongessos - and my fellow lights in incorruptibility."

Douglas Parrot writes in his chapter in The Nag Hammadi Library in English:

In Codex III the Sophia of Jesus Christ immediately follows Eugnostos the Blessed, and a connection is made between the two at the end of Eugnostos. There it is predicted that one will come who will speak the words written by Eugnostos 'joyously and in pure knowledge.'
The scheme of thought in the original document (as reflected in Eugnostos the Blessed), with the unbegotten Father and the three divine men, resembles most closely the theology of the Sethian-Ophite Gnostics describes by Irenaeus.

The Nag Hammadi Library in English has an interesting format, because it lines up the passages in Eugnostos the Blessed with the matching ones in Sophia of Jesus Christ so that the reader can easily see the differences and matches.
books.google.com/books?id=L9Y3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA207

Rene Falkenburg in Snapshots of Evolving Traditions sees "John as Implied Author of Codex III" based on an opening statement, or colophon, in the Codex. She notes that

"John is, in the epilogue of the Apocryphon of John, presented as the writer of both that text and the Wisdom of Jesus Christ. When we take the colophon into considertation he may also be construed as the author of the Gospel of the Egyptians, if Eugnostos the loving one in fact refers to the beloved disciple of the Gospel of John. If Eugnostos in the colophon is John, the author of the following text, Eugnostos the Blessed, can be identified with John as well. The fact that the colophon also presents Eugnostos as a spiritual person in the flesh matches a similar idea (proposed by the implied author of the Wisdom of Jesus Christ) in a passage referring to the transfiguration account in the synoptic gospels, where the third disciple is John. So even if John is explicitly identified only as the author of the first text in Codex III, the scribe also seems to identify him as the author of the following three texts.
...
That John was regarded as the author of all the texts of the codex is also indicated by the fact that the Apocryphon of John carries a title prominently on the back of the front flyleaf as the only two lines written on that entire page.
...
The... title, Eugnostos the Blessed, refers to John as role model for readers who should strive to reach such divine blessedness themselves.

Falkenburg in her essay The Making of A Secret Book of John (https://www.academia.edu/18517789/The_Making_of_a_Secret_Book_of_John) notes that the Apocryphon of John ends with a promise of more future teachings. I note that Eugnostos the Blessed and the other books in the Codex do give more teachings, so I think that the Apocryphon could be alluding to those other works in Codex III.

Does the Epistle's inclusion in a Codex with "Apocryphon of John" written on the back of the front flyleaf suggest that Eugnostos the Blessed, Sophia of Jesus Christ, and the Apocryphon of John were all written in around the same time or century? Apocryphon of John is commonly dated to 120-180 AD.
The others are dated:
50-150 Eugnostos the Blessed
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ

[Dave]

Question: Does the inclusion of Eugnostos' Epistle in the Codex (collection of writings) with "Apocryphon of John" written on the back of the front flyleaf suggest that the Epistle was written about the same period or century as the Apocryphon of John?

No - it only means that they were collected together circa the same time period

Falkenburg in her essay The Making of A Secret Book of John (https://www.academia.edu/18517789/The_Making_of_a_Secret_Book_of_John) notes that the Apocryphon of John ends with a promise of more future teachings. I note that Eugnostos the Blessed and the other books in the Codex do give more teachings, so I think that the Apocryphon could be alluding to those other works in Codex III.

Why does this have to refer to a written document?
Jesus teaches throughout the agl (ancient Greek Language) of the "future teaching" by the spirit

The Nag Hammadi Library in English has an interesting format

I have my copy in front of me. The Gospel of the Egyptians is high-lighted / underlined / notes all over the margin
As a multi-dimensionalist, I love the way this text describes the "thrice-male child"

Seth -
Incorruptible Adamas and incorruptible Child Seth are not mortal beings.
Seth gives rise to Salka

Isn't this just a retelling of the story of the creation of the Chief Archon - (Hypostasis of the Archons)
Leading to the the chaos that needs to be ruled over - some one must rule in hell

Again - I see Seth in a deception role

Eugnostos the Blessed with the matching Sophia of Jesus Christ

As I said, my English Nag Hammadi is well worn. Several books within have been gone through over and over. Some books I have totally skipped over / disregarded / didn't include the answers that I was seeking at the time

My study of these txt went like this - 2 pages in I have a note in the margin that i wrote at the time (Christ and Sophia siblings?)
But across the page I have "As I said earlier, among the thing that were created, the monad is first, The dyad follows it, and the triad, up to the tenths." highlighted and use this passage in my book indicating validating my belief in the 10 dimensions of space (10 heavens)

Then I have three circled references to the 72 Rulers / Heavens / whatever! -- Which is Koran

Let me explain

The Gnostic concept of the Great Contest - requires a paradigm of opposing forces testing humanity

Moses had Pharaoh
Israel vrs the Canaanites
me against the world

Look at current events - Islam is playing a Biblical role as the tester of Israels faith.
In the ahl (ancient Hebrew language - OT) Israel was surrounded by tribes that all worship a different god
What has changed? NOTHING

Either Jesus died upon the cross and was resurrected - or he wasn't
There is always a duality of information - because we are trapped within the Great Contest between the TOV and the RA

[Dave]

Gnostic Literature - and the manipulative power of the Archon and - The "Simon Magnus" effect

The First Century - was no different any other time - people are people
Being a Priest was a good living - just as it is today
Simon Magnus was a religious con-man that had already made his living as a mystic

If your an American - the Name Jimmy Baker comes to mind - and many others
making their living as "Priest"

What did Jesus say about the Sadducees? Money lenders / vipers

Can the volume of so-called Gnostic literature be any different?

What do you say of the Gospel of Judas? - worth studying?

[rakovsky]

When I asked the question ("Does the Epistle's inclusion in a Codex with "Apocryphon of John" written on the back of the front flyleaf suggest that Eugnostos the Blessed, Sophia of Jesus Christ, and the Apocryphon of John were all written in around the same time or century?"), I wasn't trying to ask necessarily if the writing of the back of the front flyleaf was itself intended by the author to label these works as all being written at the same time. Rather, I meant to ask whether as a matter of archaeological detective work, a scholar would take away from the words on the flyleaf that the writings were probably made at the same time.

In other words, I understand your point that having the writings bound together with the same flyleaf name only proofs necessarily that the writings were collected at the same time. But I am thinking about whether the writing on the flyleaf is a circumstantial piece of evidence that suggests that they were written at the same time.

Synonyms for flyleaf are frontispiece and "title page".

[Dave]

As serious as I can be - I am not a linguistic scholar
For many years I was a member of the Ancient Hebrew Research forum
That does not mean anything other than I signed up - I sure was there to teach. I benefitted just by reading past conversations. It is fun on a forum with so many differing viewpoints.

I am so drawn to the Nag Hammadi - for many reasons - and timing is one of them
Several of the text say - saved for the generation of the end of days - are we?
1945, 1947, 1948 and the return of Israel - am I an 'end-timer' - not necessarily a promoter, just not a denier

Why was the Nag Hammadi found as a complete collection
because ancient writing were valuable and held as libraries - don't forget it is the Nag Hammadi Library. and Libraries contain everything. Therefore the Nag Hammadi texts represent more than one group of 'First Christians' - and these different groups were not in total agreement.

I take this subject very seriously - as seriously as I would any Biblical Scripture
FOR ME - IMO - 1st Thes 5:52 say us to test it all and keep the good
To discard the Nag Hammadi as non-valid is as big of error as - thinking it divine as the Torah.

My study has taken me to the works of John, James, Peter, Phillip, even Thomas

WHY THEM? - I weight written material as to authorship
If God said it - I like it
If Jesus said it - I like it
If Moses said it (in / or out) of the Tanak - I like it
If the Gospel authors said something (in / or out of the NT / agl) - I like it
If it was written by people who knew these people - that's weighty - Luke / Mark
Commentaries by Rabbis are more appreciated because of their open discussion format. Reading the Talmud or Zohar you are overwhelmed by Rabbi A says this, but Rabbi B says something else, and Rabbi C from long ago said
Commentaries by Christian’s often seem closed - I am right - it's my way only attitude (I call this Romanism)

Why the agl authors? They walked with Jesus both before and after His resurrection?

I love to discuss these writings as to depth – Authoritative Teaching, Gospel of the Egyptians, Exegesis of the Soul – all consistent in theme

[rakovsky]

Apr 16, 2019 20:54:54 GMT -5 Dave said:

Question: Does the inclusion of Eugnostos' Epistle in the Codex (collection of writings) with "Apocryphon of John" written on the back of the front flyleaf suggest that the Epistle was written about the same period or century as the Apocryphon of John?

No - it only means that they were collected together circa the same time period

...

The Nag Hammadi Library in English has an interesting format

I have my copy in front of me. The Gospel of the Egyptians is high-lighted / underlined / notes all over the margin
As a multi-dimensionalist, I love the way this text describes the "thrice-male child"

Seth -
Incorruptible Adamas and incorruptible Child Seth are not mortal beings.
Seth gives rise to Salka

Isn't this just a retelling of the story of the creation of the Chief Archon - (Hypostasis of the Archons)
Leading to the the chaos that needs to be ruled over - some one must rule in hell

Again - I see Seth in a deception role

Eugnostos the Blessed with the matching Sophia of Jesus Christ

As I said, my English Nag Hammadi is well worn. Several books within have been gone through over and over. Some books I have totally skipped over / disregarded / didn't include the answers that I was seeking at the time

My study of these txt went like this - 2 pages in I have a note in the margin that i wrote at the time (Christ and Sophia siblings?)

Certainly, Dave, the inclusion of Eugnostos' Epistle in the Codex with "Apocryphon of John" on the back of the front flyleaf only necessarily proves that the Epistle was collected into the Codex at the same time as the Apocryphon, so that since the Nag Hammadi Codex was collected together in the 4th century AD, then the books in it must have been authored at some point earlier. Nonetheless, I am trying to draw inferences from the book's inclusion in the Codex behind the flyleaf that only carries the name of the first book of the Codex. It seems like there is an implication or suggestion that the books in the Codex are connected to the Apocryphon (Book #1) mentioned in the Flyleaf, since Flyleafs usually introduce the contents of a physical book (codex).

You asked:

"Falkenburg in her essay The Making of A Secret Book of John notes that the Apocryphon of John ends with a promise of more future teachings. I note that Eugnostos the Blessed and the other books in the Codex do give more teachings, so I think that the Apocryphon could be alluding to those other works in Codex III.
"


Why does this have to refer to a written document?

Jesus teaches throughout the agl (ancient Greek Language) of the "future teaching" by the spirit

After reading the end of the Apocryphon of John for myself, I agree with your skepticism. It does not look like Jesus' teachings, according to the Apocryphon, must necessarily have been given in writing such as the writings in the Codex. The Apocryphon in fact ends by talking about Jesus giving teachings to John that John shared with the other disciples later, but this need not necessarily refer to teachings and sayings written down outside the Apocryphon. At most, the epilogue of the Apocryphon implies that John or others could have written down Jesus' wisdom in books such as Books 2-4 of the Codex.

You asked about the reference to Seth in The Gospel of the Egyptians: "Isn't this just a retelling of the story of the creation of the Chief Archon - (Hypostasis of the Archons)". My guess is that No, the story was not seeing Seth as the Chief Archon, because Seth is seen as a figure whom the Sethians adored, whereas they saw the Chief Archon as a negative figure. Seth is instead a person/being who directly birthed the race of people/humans, albeit perhaps through the Aeons.

You asked, "Christ and Sophia siblings?" If Sophia and Christ are both beings produced by the Father, then in a sense they would be siblings. But maybe even in the Gnostic concept, there are ways in which they exist that are not a brother-sister relationship. For instance, perhaps in the Gnostic literature, Christ could be combined with Sophia as a single being, such that Christ is Sophia.

[rakovsky]

Apr 16, 2019 21:06:26 GMT -5 Dave said:

What do you say of the Gospel of Judas? - worth studying?

I think it is worth studying in the course of learning about the views of the broader community of followers of Jesus in the time when people who may have known the apostles were still alive.
But as I understand it, it is a forgery that is far from how things would have happened. ie. in the Biblical story, Judas is a traitor whom Jesus knows ahead of time will betray him. Judas in the Gospel of Judas is apparently Jesus' confidant to whom Jesus gives secret saving Gnostic knowledge to. I would have to check if this Judas is meant as the traitor or as another, good Judas, like the apostle "Jude" or like "Judas/Jude Matthias". So both the portrayal of the traitor Judas as a confidant and the use of secret Gnosis by Jesus make me think that the text is a very misleading forgery. Scholars consider it from about c.130 AD or later, according to the Early Writings website list, so apparently it's not some kind of secret early insight into Jesus' own beliefs.

[rakovsky]

Jan 30, 2020 14:05:12 GMT -5 Dave said:

I am so drawn to the Nag Hammadi - for many reasons - and timing is one of them
Several of the text say - saved for the generation of the end of days - are we?
1945, 1947, 1948 and the return of Israel - am I an 'end-timer' - not necessarily a promoter, just not a denier

My guess is that we are not the last 120 year generation of the End of Days, because so many generations have past since these texts were written and the world did not end in a literal way.
To asnwer your question, "Why the agl authors? They walked with Jesus both before and after His resurrection?", sure, the agl authors of the Bible would have walked with Jesus, although some of them might not have literally if their writings came after the apostles and they didn't know Jesus. For instance, some writers today theorize that 2 Peter was not really written by Peter. So if it was written in 100 AD, maybe it was not written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.

[rakovsky]

My initial impression was that the Flyleaf is one more piece of circumstantial evidence that Eugnostos' Epistle was written about the same period or century as the Apocryphon of John
. Such evidence includes:

1) "Eugnostos" means something like good/well known, and so "Eugnostos" could be a nickname or title for the Epistle's attributed author, such as the well-known, good, apostle John. By "attributed author", I mean the person whom the text presents as the author.

2) Book 1 in Nag Hammadi Codex III is the Apocryphon of John, Book 2 is the "Gospel of the Egyptians"/"The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit", which says that it's written by "Eugnostos the Beloved", Book 3 is the Epistle of Eugnostos, and Book 4 is the Sophia of Jesus Christ, which scholars believe was written based on Eugnostos' Epistle.

So the three last books in the Codex (Books 2-4) appear internally linked based on (A) attributed author (ie. Eugnostos), (B) their contents, or both. Specifically:

    (A) The colophon of Book 2 says that it's written by Eugnostos, who is the narrator of Book 3.

    (B) At the end of Book 3 it is predicted that one will come who will speak the words written by Eugnostos 'joyously and in pure knowledge.'

        This is potential evidence that Book 3 is pointing to Book 4 ("Sophia of Jesus Christ") as a sequel.

    (C) Jesus and His "Sophia" would be a good match for one who will come and speak Eugnostos' words "in pure knowledge." This would go along with the concept of Jesus explaining Old Testament teachings.

    (D) Scholars see Book 4 (Sophia of Jesus Christ) as written based on Book 3. There is major overlap in content between them as The Nag Hammadi Library in English shows.

So since Books 2-4 are linked based on a pseudonymous attributed author (Eugnostos), their placement in the Codex after the book of an explicit author (John) serves as evidence that John is the attributed, implied author of those last 3 Books (the only other books in the Codex besides the Apocryphon of John).

3) (A) Book 4 refers to a spiritual person in the flesh in the context of Jesus' Transfiguration, which Biblically was witnessed by John among two other apostles. By comparison, Book 2's colophon may refer to Eugnostos as a spiritual person "in the flesh". This designation of a spiritual person in the flesh may connect John with Eugnostos.

    (B) Rene Falkenberg implies that Book 4's reference to Eugnostos as the loving one alludes to John, the Biblical "Beloved Disciple."

4) The flyleaf or title page of a book is normally meant to give the book's contents. But the flyleaf of Codex III only mentions The Apocryphon of John. This suggests that in some major way, The Apocryphon of John is significantly connected to the 3 books that follow it, such as those books being sequels to The Apocryphon of John.

5) Rene Falkenberg claims that

"John is, in the epilogue of the Apocryphon of John, presented as the writer of both that text and the Wisdom of Jesus Christ.
"

If true, Book 4's link to John would in turn link Book 2 with John, per Evidence #2(B)-2(D) and #3 above.
But (A) in fact the epilogue of the Apocryphon doesn't clearly say that John wrote Book 4 as Falkenberg claims. The epilogue of the Apocryphon says,

"And the savior presented these things to him [John] that he might write them down and keep them secure... And he went to his fellow disciples and related to them what the savior had told him.

Jesus Christ, Amen."

Sure, Jesus gives John secret wisdom in Book 1, and John writes it down, but the reference to John writing the wisdom could just refer to the contents of the Apocryphon where Jesus is explicitly quoted. It doesn't necessarily mean, as Falkenberg takes it, that Jesus was promising more such teachings. So Jesus' sharing wisdom with John in Book 1 is only indirect evidence that John wrote Book 3 "Wisdom of Jesus Christ". It implies that the character of John could have written it, but it is not proof that he did in the author's view.
And (B), in the Sophia of Jesus Christ, the resurrected Jesus answers His disciples' questions to Him, which contradicts The Sophia of Jesus Christ as being John's writing down of the secret things that Jesus told John per Book 1's epilogue, since in Book 1's epilogue, John goes and tells the other disciples what Jesus had told him. He would not have told them the secret things if the secret things were what Jesus had already told the disciples in The Sophia of Jesus Christ.



At the least, based on Evidence # 2 and 4 above, you can conclude that Books 2-4 are closely connected by authorship and scribal copying (Books 2-3) and by their contents (Books 3-4), and that their inclusion as the sole other books in Codex III besides the Apocryphon of John, with the latter being the only book mentioned on the flyleaf, implies that all four books are probably somehow connected, especially with Books 2-4 being appended literature sharing authorship or substance with Book 1.



BUT as to Evidence #1 (the anonymous identity of the author "Eugnostos") some scholars theorize that he is the Gongessos who identifies himself at the end of Book 2 ("The Gospel of the Egyptians"). Madeleine Scopello notes about Book 2:

"In the final portion of this text (the colophon or copyist's note), the author introduces himself with his two names: Eugnostos, his spiritual name, and Gongessos, his ordinary, everyday name."

On the other hand, Rene Falkenberg in her article "The Making of a Secret Book of John" in the anthology Snapshots of Evolving Traditions theorizes that the colophon at the end of Book 2 (the "Gospel of the Egyptians") actually suggests that Eugnostos was the author, and Gongessos was the scribe. She theorizes that Eugnostos was in fact depicted as the apostle John. She notes that the punctuation in the colophon literally runs:

Grace, sagacity, perception, prudence with him who wrote it down · Eugnostos the loving one in the spirit in the flesh · My name is Gongessos together with my fellow lights in incorruption.

I think that there is ambiguity in the meaning of this colophon. It isn't clear if Eugnostos is Gongessos and which of them is the author and which is the scribe who "wrote it down." At the least, they are the document's authors or scribes, or both. This is because the meaning of the interpunct · is not clear.

Bohlig took it like Madeleine Scopello did to mean "prudence with him who wrote it down, Eugnostos the loving one in the spirit. In the flesh, my name is Gongessos." ie., Eugnostos' worldly name was Gongessos. But Falkenberg took it to mean that Eugnostos was in the spirit and in the flesh, and that Gongessos was the copyist who wrote the text down.



Nonetheless, it is hard for me to see the attributed author of Book 2 as being John. The book begins "The holy book of the Egyptians about the great invisible Spirit..." and then near the end says, "*** This is the book which the great Seth wrote, and placed in high mountains on which the sun has not risen..." It is only in a final section that it says,

"* * * The Gospel of <the> Egyptians. The God-written, holy, secret book. Grace, understanding, perception, (and) prudence (be) with him who has written it - Eugnostos the beloved, in the Spirit - in the flesh, my name is Gongessos - and my fellow lights in incorruptibility."

So it looks like Book 2 is attributing its authorship to "the great Seth" and then presenting Eugnostos in the Spirit, in the flesh Gongessos, as the person who wrote down the great Seth's book. It makes it sound like Eugnostos is Gongessos' spiritual name, like how Peter is the disciple Simon's spiritual name.



It is worth noting that Eugnostos and/or Gongessos were apparently Christians, as James Robinson writes in The Nag Hammadi Library in English:

The acrostic “fish” symbol standing for the creed “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior” occurs in two scribal notes (in codices III and VII). In the first case the name of the scribe is preserved in the comment “in the flesh my name is Gongessos,” which is probably the Latin name Concessus. He also had a spiritual name or title of Eugnostos. Thus he had some spiritual status, and referred to his “fellow lights in incorruptibility.” Within this spiritual circle he described the text as “God-written.”

He is referring to the ending in Book 2 ("The Gospel of the Egyptians"), which runs:

“The Gospel of the Egyptians. The God-written, holy, secret book. Grace, understanding, perception, (and) prudence (be) with him who has written it – Eugnostos the beloved, in the Spirit – in the flesh, my name is Gongessos – and my fellow lights in incorruptibility. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, Ichthus. God-written (is) the holy book of the great, invisible Spirit. Amen.”

In The Monastic Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices
, Hugo Lundhaug and Lance Jenott theorize that Eugnostos/Gongessos is the scribe who is writing down Book 2 (The Gospel of the Egyptians) because his name is in a colophon in Book 2 and because another edition of The Gospel of the Egyptians does not have the colophon mentioning Eugnostos:

Since the colophon does not seem to be an integral part of the Gospel of the Egyptians on a compositional level, and is absent from the copy of this text found in Nag Hammadi Codex IV, it appears to be the creation of a scribe at some stage of the text's transmission. That stage might well be close to the copying of Codex III, if indeed the colophon was not composed by the scribe of Codex III himself.

In "Influence and Interpretation of the Gospel of John in Ancient Christianity: The Example of Eugnostos", Anne Pasquier argues that the version of Eugnostos' Epistle in Codex V (different than in Codex III) has possible connections to the Gospel of John and has "integrated and interpreted Johanine passages." However, she also notes that in the version of Eugnostos in Codex III, the author has "only a few verbal reminisciences" of John's Gospel. If Eugnostos incorporated ideas from John's Gospel, it would imply that Eugnostos wrote his Epistle after the writing of John's gospel in the late 1st century AD. Since papyrus copies of the Sophia of Jesus Christ (SJC) have been found in Egypt dating from the 3rd century, and Eugnostos' Epistle was written apparently in the 1st-3rd centuries AD.



So in conclusion, the answer to the OP Question is that:
A) The Apocryphon of John was known to Irenaeus, so it must have been written sometime from the mid-1st century to 180 AD, whereas Eugnostos' Epistle must have been written from the mid-1st century to the 3rd century AD. Thus they were written within at least about 2 1/2 centuries of each other.

B) The attributed authors of the Apocryphon of John and the Epistle of Eugnostos are different, since Eugnostos identifies himself as having the secular name of Gongessos.

C) The flyleaf to Codex III mentioning only the Apocryphon of John serves only as weak circumstantial evidence that the books were written in the same period or 100 years, because a book's flyleaf presents the book's contents. This weakly implies that Books 2-4 in that Codex serve as appendices or sequels to the Apocryphon, or share some major commonality like being written by the same group of authors or having shared contents or themes.

[rakovsky]

Anne Pasquier in "Influence and Interpretation of the Gospel of John in Ancient Christianity: The Example of Eugnostos",
sees the concept of the Logos in Philo's philosophy as showing up in Eugnostos' Epistle. Philo would have written in c. 30-50 AD. 
She also writes about the resemblances of John's writing in the Gospel of John to the Epistle of Eugnostos. This in turn suggests the Christian Gnostic Eugnostos' familiarity with the Gospel of John, which was written in 90-100 AD. A second piece of evidence that Eugnostos' Epistle was written after John's Gospel is how the Epistle shows up in Nag Hammadi Codex III after the Apocryphon of John, along with the Apocryphon of John being the only work mentioned on Codex III's flyleaf, suggesting a major connection between the Apocryphon and Eugnostos' Epistle, like the former being a source of ideas for the latter.
Pasquier writes:

[That] Man the Son of Man is described as being the "Light which illuminates," a designation which in itself is reminiscient of the creation of light in Gen 1:3, as well as in Gen 1:14-15... However, the fact that he is presented as a spiritual star is also suggestive of John 1:5 ("the light shines in the darkness") and especially John 1:9 ("the light... which illuminates all men")... Other expressions like "the [Only-]be[gotten]" (monogenes (Eugnostos III 77,2: "The Only-begot[ten], the Only [Son]"), could also have been taken from the Fourth Gospel. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the Codex III version of Eugnostos is not based upon the writings of the New Testament, but particularly upon the first three chapters of Genesis of which a spiritual interpretation is given.

In The Woman Jesus Loved, A. S. Marjanen comments about Book IV ("Sophia of Jesus Christ"): "The second part of the Savior's greeting in 91,20-23 ("my peace I give to you") is so peculiarly Johanine see (John 14,27; cf. also 16,33) that its occurrence in the Sophia of Jesus Christ must be taken as an indication of Johanine influence on its author."

I am posting images of two paragraphs where Pasquier also connects the Epistle of Eugnostos to two writings of the early 2nd century AD: a Valentinian list of philosophical movements from the period and Aristides' Apology (Pasquier, "Influence and Interpretation of the Gospel of John", p. 213, books.google.com/books?id=mCmwCQAAQBAJ). She theorizes that they or a common source influenced Eugnostos' Epistle, or the other way around, which she sees as evidence that Eugnostos' Epistle was written in the early or mid-2nd century AD.









Unfortunately, I don't see her logic in these two paragraphs as proving that the Epistle was written in the early to mid-second century. That is because the Epistle could have used a source, or served as a source, before either of those other writings (the Valentinian list and Aristides' Apology) were written, so that it was written in the 1st century; alternately, the Epistle could have used those two sources long after they were written. eg. the Epistle could have been written in the 3rd century and used those two second century sources.

Attachments:

[Dave]

Feb 9, 2020 19:20:11 GMT -5 rakovsky said:

1- Eugnostos' Epistle. Philo would have written in c. 30-50 AD. 
2- the Gospel of John, which was written in 90-100 AD. A second piece of evidence that Eugnostos' 3-3-3- Epistle was written after John's Gospel
4- former being a source of ideas for the latter.

5- She theorizes that they or a common source influenced Eugnostos' Epistle, or the other way around, which she sees as evidence that Eugnostos' Epistle was written in the early or mid-2nd century AD.

Unfortunately, I don't see her logic in these two paragraphs as proving that the Epistle was written in the early to mid-second century. That is because the Epistle could have used a source, or served as a source, before either of those other writings

1, 2, 3, 4 - the idea of one percect origional circulating - then built upon is too narrow

5- I am more in the line of the origional was shared all over the place
However - do to source material - that copy only lasted 30 years or so
100 - 200 years laters copies remerge from multiple sources
One source - many origins of copies 100-200 years later