Review of Crégheur, Books of Jeu

Book review 1 Éric Crégheur (ed. and tr.), « Les Deux Livres de Iéou » (MS Bruce 96,1–3). Les livres du grand discours mystérique, Le livre des connaissances du Dieu invisible, Fragment sur le passage de l’âme (Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section « Textes » 38), xxviii + 522 pp., ISBN 978-90-429-3279-1, Québec – Louvain-Paris-Bristol, CT: Les Presses de l’Université Laval – Éditions Peeters 2019, € 138 (pb). Our most important primary sources regarding the thought and practices of the ancient Gnostics are found in Coptic codices of late antiquity that bear translations of their works. Foremost among this corpus of Coptic Gnostic books are those found in the Nag Hammadi hoard, discovered in 1945. However, at the time of the Nag Hammadi discovery, other Coptic artefacts containing ancient Gnostic writings were not just known to scholars, but had already been edited, translated, disseminated, and digested. These are of course the dizzying revelation discourses of Pistis Sophia, preserved in the Askew Codex, and the strange and alluring cosmological and sacramental texts contained in the Bruce Codex, all of which arrived in Europe in the late eighteenth century and were first translated in the mid-nineteenth century. The Nag Hammadi bonanza and its new, sensational contents (such as the Gospel of Thomas) drew scholarly and popular attention away from the Askew and Bruce Codices, whose works are opaque, repetitive, and difficult. Yet recent research has shown that, during the years prior to the Nag Hammadi discovery, Pistis Sophia and the texts in the Bruce Codex (hitherto commonly designated the Books of Jeu and an anonymous Untitled treatise) were influential works that fascinated scholars and religious innovators alike, playing fundamental roles in shaping scholarly discourse about ‘Gnosticism’ and enjoying florid and varied reception in esoteric and occult-minded milieux.1 1 On the importance of the Askew and Bruce Codices in early scholarly work on Gnosticism, see recently David G. Robertson, Gnosticism and the History of Religions (Scientific Studies of Religion: Inquiry and Explanation; London; New York; Dublin: Bloomsbury Academic 2021), 20–21, 185 n. 68. On the reception of the Askew and Bruce Codices in esoteric and/or occult circles, see now Anne Kreps, “Reading History with the Essenes of Elmira,” in New Antiquities: Transformations of Ancient Religion in the New Age and Beyond, edited by Dylan M. Burns and Almut-Barbara Renger (London: Equinox Press 2019), 149–74, 167; Franz Winter, “Studying the ‘Gnostic Bible’: Samael Aun Weor and the Pistis Sophia,” in New Antiquities: Transformations of Ancient Religion in the New Age and Beyond, edited by Dylan M. Burns and Almut-Barbara Renger (London: Equinox Press 2019), 224–53; Jay Johnston, “Binding Images: The Contemporary Use and Efficacy of Late Antique Ritual Sigils, Spirit-Beings, and Design Elements,” in New Antiquities: Transformations of Ancient Religion in the New Age and Beyond, edited by Dylan M. Burns and Almut-Barbara Renger (London: Equinox Press 2019), 254–74, Dylan M. Burns, “Weren’t the Christians Up Against a Gnostic Religion? G. R. S. Mead at the Dawn of the Modern Study of Gnosticism,” in Hermes Explains: Thirty-One Questions about Vigiliae Christianae Published with license by Koninklijke Brill NV | doi:10.1163/15700720-12347527 © Dylan M. Burns, 2023 | ISSN: 0042-6032 (print) 1570-0720 (online) 2 Book review The Askew and Bruce Codices thus offer crucial evidence not just for our understanding of ancient Gnostic thought, but the very notion of Gnosticism itself and its genealogy, and their neglect of late by scholars is lamentable. Very welcome indeed, then, is Éric Crégheur’s new critical edition of the Books of Jeu in the Bruce Codex, the first in over a century, since the long-canonical edition established by Carl Schmidt in 1892.2 Crégheur’s « Les Deux Livres de Iéou » adopts the structure common to the series Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section « Textes », beginning with a comprehensive introduction, followed by a diplomatic edition of the Coptic facing a French translation, and including philological notes, indices, and appendices. (A full-blown commentary is absent.) These will be elucidated presently. In short, this is a game-changing study; Crégheur shows that we have to completely rethink how we talk about “the Books of Jeu in the Bruce Codex,” for ‘the Bruce Codex’ is not a single manuscript, the ‘Books of Jeu’ are not a single text (nor do they bear this title in the manuscripts), and the ordering of the pages in which we have been reading this material is all mixed up. We have to start over, and Crégheur gives us the foundation we need to begin anew in working on ‘the Bruce Codex.’ Crégheur’s introduction is substantial, and constitutes a key scholarly contribution in its own right, covering the research history of the Bruce Codex; its codicology and palaeography; linguistic analysis of the Coptic dialect; and thorough discussion of its texts’ contents. Given the readership of this journal, I will focus here on the research history, codicology, and contents.3 Indeed, in the case of the Bruce Codex these subjects are intertwined, for Crégheur’s demonstrates that the early research history of this evidence is important for understanding how Carl Schmidt’s work took the shape that it did, with all its problems, and how one might improve on his work today. Crégheur begins with the account of James Bruce himself, who seems to have acquired the artefact in Thebes or its vicinity between 7 and 17 January 1769 (Crégheur 2019, 6). Western Esotericism, ed. Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Peter Forshaw, and Marco Pasi (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2019), 60–69; Paul Linjamaa, “The Reception of Pistis Sophia and Gnosticism: Uncovering the Link Between Esoteric Milieus and Contemporary Academia,” Aries: Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism 23:2 (2023): 262–300; Robertson, op. cit., 32, 34, 119 (following Winter, op. cit.). 2 Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus (Texte und Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Literatur 8; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung 1892). 3 The palaeographical discussion identifies four hands in the material designated Books of Jeu by Schmidt (Crégheur 2019, 55), whose style is discussed with reference to photos of the letters (a nice touch). The dialect of the texts may be described as Sahidic, although each has some distinguishing southern (and in one case Mesokemic) features (Crégheur 2019, 67–70). 10.1163/15700720-12347527 | Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1–11 Book review 3 He describes a papyrus codex in good condition, with text in black ink that is very much legible. “I gave it Dr Woide leave to translate it at Lord North’s desire: it is a gnostic book, full of their dreams” (Crégheur 2019, 5 n. 17). “Dr Woide” is Charles Godfrey Woide (1725–1790), the first European scholar to study the artefact in detail, whose 1776 report gives reason to believe that already at this point the pages of the manuscript had become disordered and some leaves had gone missing. Woide was the first to distinguish two treatises in the manuscript: the Book of the Knowledge of the Invisible and the Book of the Great λόγος κατὰ μυστήριον, a frame that would be followed by many subsequent interpreters (Crégheur 2019, 7–13). About two generations later, in 1843, the Bodleian acquired the artefact. In 1847 Moritz Gotthilf Schwartze of the University of Berlin traveled to London to copy Coptic manuscripts, and it is here that he produced his Latin translation of Pistis Sophia (1847); he transcribed the Bruce Codex somewhere between 1847 and 1848. This transcription was important, as it was made when the artefact was still in relatively good condition, and it was employed by Schmidt a half century later but is now lost to us (Crégheur 2019, 14–16). By 1882, the folios had been placed between sheets of tracing paper and bound in cardboard. The Bodleian’s organization of the folios was a mess, and seems to have introduced a number of the problems that confront researchers today (Crégheur 2019, 9). Pages were arranged out of order, upside-down, and ‘inside-out.’4 The cardboard frames encasing the folios did not fit them and sometimes lay over the bottom of certain pages, probably resulting in damage to seven folios of the manuscript (six pages from the Books of Jeu and eight pages of the Untitled text). Crégheur also discusses the early projects undertaken on the codex by Eugène Révillout (1871; he didn’t get far) and Émile Amélineau (1882, 1887), whose 1891 edition includes the first translation of the text into a modern language. Meanwhile, Schmidt had received Schwartze’s transcription of the text from his mentors Adolf Erman and Adolf Harnack, and consulted the manuscript in Oxford in 1890 with reference to it (a departure from Amélineau, who made a fresh transcription, replete with errors – Crégheur 2019, 23). In his 1892 Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus (1892), Schmidt completely reorganized the folios, noting that the Bruce Codex actually contained two manuscripts: first, the works identified by Woide – which Schmidt in turn identified with the Books of Jeu mentioned in Pistis Sophia – and second, an anonymous work without title 4 I.e., a page in two pieces was displayed with the recto facing front next to a piece from the same page with the verso facing front. Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1–11 | 10.1163/15700720-12347527 4 Book review related in some way to the school of Plotinus (Crégheur 2019, 26).5 This is the text of the Bruce Codex that most scholars have since been using in some form. Crégheur’s discussion of scholarship into the Bruce Codex after Schmidt is also of considerable interest. Writing in 1933, Charlotte Baynes observed lacunae and mildew spots on the leaves that seem to have resulted from a paste used on the pages by the Bodleian in 1928, when they also rearranged the pages to fit the sequence suggested by Schmidt (Crégheur 2019, 10). It is after Baynes and the Nag Hammadi discovery that Violet MacDermot enters the picture. MacDermot was a neurologist at Oxford and King’s College Hospital, who was interested in Egyptology, studied Egyptian with the great Jaroslav Černý, and became involved in various Egyptological projects affiliated with University College London in the 1960s and 70s. Crégheur has been unable to determine how MacDermot landed the task of translating for James M. Robinson’s Coptic Gnostic Library project (Crégheur 2019, 29–30), but his prodigious archival work offers the first substantial scholarly reflection known to this reviewer on where the widely-used English translations of the Bruce and Askew Codices made by MacDermot actually come from.6 MacDermot’s rendering of the Coptic leans heavily on Schmidt’s German, but introduced for the first time notes taking into account the (then-new) discoveries from Nag Hammadi. Meanwhile, it offered the text of Schmidt 1892, while incorporating corrections from subsequent editions and translations, most immediately the third edition of Koptisch-gnostische Schriften, revised by Walter Till.7 These improvements notwithstanding, there are deficiencies to both the text of Schmidt and translation of MacDermot, and in his review of Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b, Hans Quecke simply stated “daß eine allseits befriedigende Ausgabe des Codex Brucianus noch aussteht.”8 The “satisfactory edition” for which Quecke yearned has arrived in Crégheur 2019, whose primary breakthrough is achieved through a thorough codicological treatment of the Bruce Codex, to which the second section of 5 For Schmidt’s thesis identifying the Book of the Knowledge of the Invisible God and the Book of the Great λόγος κατὰ μυστήριον as the ‘Books of Jeu’ mentioned in Pistis Sophia 2.99, see Schmidt 1892, 342. For his pioneering discussion of the relationship of the Untitled text to the school of Plotinus – the inauguration of the modern study of the relationship between Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, over fifty years prior to the discovery of the ‘Platonizing’ Sethian texts from Nag Hammadi – see ibid., esp. 602–48. 6 Carl Schmidt (ed.) and Violet MacDermot (rev. and tr.), Pistis Sophia (Nag Hammadi Studies 9; Leiden: Brill 1978) = Schmidt/MacDermot 1978a; idem, The Books of Jeu and the Untitled Treatise in the Bruce Codex (Nag Hammadi Studies 13; Leiden: Brill 1978) = Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b. 7 Carl Schmidt (ed.) and Walter Till (rev.), Koptisch-gnostische Schriften (Koptisch-gnostische Schriften 1; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1962). 8 Hans Quecke, Biblica 123 (1980): 123–26, at 123. 10.1163/15700720-12347527 | Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1–11 Book review 5 the introduction is devoted. This is a discussion that is technical but crucial: here, Crégheur seeks to undo many of the errors introduced by Schmidt. He begins with inventory. The ‘Bruce Codex’ preserved at the Bodleian encompasses 71 folios of 142 pages. 88 pages (44 folios) belong to the Books of Jeu and 54 pages (27 folios) belong to the Untitled work. The pages are not numbered (with some exceptions), and are usually written on both sides. Since the pages are not numbered and papyrus codicology was effectively nonexistent in the nineteenth century, Schmidt was only able to sort the pages into two groups; six textual units for Jeu and two units for Untitled. Schmidt’s labors were admirable, but he also introduced errors, such as numbering the manuscript continuously (and thus giving the misleading impression of an uninterrupted running order to the pages he had numbered), even though his reconstruction assumed missing pages between the units that he had assembled for each codex (Crégheur 2019, 41–42). Crégheur starts over, going at the ordering of the folios through analysis of the fibers and reconstruction of the papyrus rolls (kollēseis) from which the folios were made, and arriving at a very different picture of the materials that Schmidt dubbed the Books of Jeu, and indeed of the Bruce Codex itself (Crégheur 2019, 53–54). In the evidence housed at the Bodleian under the call number ‘MS Bruce 96,’ we then find at least three manuscripts (here referred to as ⲁ, ⲃ, ⲅ, and [ⲇ+] – Crégheur does not name the MSS), containing four textual units: the Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse (in MS ⲁ); the Book of Knowledges of the Invisible God (possibly also from ⲁ, but more likely in Crégheur’s opinion belonging to two additional MSS – thus [ⲇ+]); a Fragment on the Passage of the Soul (in MS ⲃ); and finally, the Untitled work related to the school of Plotinus (in MS ⲅ). In other words, the Bruce Codex contains multiple manuscripts, and if we are to make use of what titles have been preserved for us in the manuscripts, we are not really talking about the Books of Jeu at all, but rather the single text (in two parts) that encompasses most of what Schmidt called the ‘Books of Jeu’: the Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse, which is impossible to read in a straightforward sequence, since there are two lacunae of missing pages in the running text, compounding our loss of the beginning and end of the text. This material was more likely than not bound in antiquity as a single quire, although this is not certain. Meanwhile, at least 62 pages of the Books of Jeu have been lost, giving us a total reconstruction of 144 pages for the original Books of Jeu to which the additional manuscript(s) was added. Thus, the manuscript of the Books of Jeu was, prior to the loss of its pages, comparable in size to some of the larger Nag Hammadi codices (Crégheur 2019, 49–53). Seeing how Crégheur breaks down the Bruce Codex so differently from Schmidt, it is only appropriate that he introduces a new system of citing it. Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1–11 | 10.1163/15700720-12347527 6 Book review The new system is jarring enough to merit discussion below, but altogether, it is a feature, not a bug, and is eased by an invaluable index providing a synoptic key to the citation systems of the codex devised by Crégheur, Schmidt, Woide, and Amélineau. The Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse are punctuated by two lacunae of several pages each in the text, so the three bodies of text to which it belongs are dubbed by Crégheur ‘A,’ ‘B,’ and ‘C,’ with numeration of pages assigned to each section beginning from ‘1.’ The Book of Knowledges of the Invisible God includes two versions (possibly from two different MSS) of an introduction to an otherwise lost text; these two groups are cited as ‘D’ and ‘D(a),’ accordingly. The Fragment on the Passage of the Soul is cited as ‘E.’ In the critical edition, the Coptic text includes a page number of Crégheur’s devising, followed in parentheses by the page number given by Schmidt. Thus, on page 260 of this edition, we find “C1 (5),” which means “the first page of section ‘C’ of the Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse, found in Schmidt’s editions under page ‘5’.” The pages with diagrams set apart from the text (in ‘C’) are treated as having a separate column, marked with a ‘0.’ While the rows of zeros befit our digital age, the apparatus and notes may really seem to be written ‘in code’ to new or casual users of this text. The rest of the introduction is devoted to discussion of the contents of the material designated by Schmidt as the Books of Jeu, mostly the Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse. Crégheur considers the genre of the Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse and the Book of the Knowledges of the Invisible God to be revelation-dialogues (Crégheur 2019, 70) – i.e., apocalypses without a heavenly journey.9 As is well known, the Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse is a cosmological work focused on the makeup of the celestial realm through which the soul will ascend after death, particularly sixty ‘treasuries,’ twelve (or fourteen) aeons, an intermediary realm, and their various denizens, whose names and sigils are enumerated. Crégheur’s contribution here is to elucidate, in painstaking detail, what this cosmology looks like, and some of the problems – surely there are more, as Crégheur himself readily admits – one encounters when attempting to make sense of it.10 9 10 In the nomenclature of John J. Collins, “Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre.” Semeia 14 (1979): 1–19. The genre of the Fragment is uncertain, but probably also a revelationdialogue (Crégheur 2019, 71, n. 293). For instance, one passage that seems on first glance to be simply repetitive – the two procedures for navigating the ‘Treasury of Light,’ (Crégheur 2019, B31 [69],12–B38 [76],9 = Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b, 117.25–126.3), is taken by Crégheur as evidence that the redactor of the text had two versions of it before him, and simply included them both in the text we have today, rather than preferring one (Crégheur 2019, 81–82). 10.1163/15700720-12347527 | Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1–11 Book review 7 The most distinctive personages related by Jesus in the Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse are of course IĒOU and the Iēous, the heavenly being and his permutations who are the main focus of the soul in ascent.11 Amazingly, the text is not particularly clear about how and why IĒOU emanates the Iēous, but it describes at length their shapes (ⲧⲩⲡⲟⲥ), names, and the ‘treasuries’ in which the Iēous abide, proper navigation of which is essential for the soul to reach its home in the ‘Fullness’ (ⲡⲗⲏⲣⲱⲙⲁ).12 Crégheur gives an exhaustive description of these treasuries, together with an illustrated anatomy of one (!), which should satisfy even the most thesauro-curious of ouranonauts (Crégheur 2019, 100–109). To pass through a treasury, the soul must present a seal (ⲥⲫⲣⲁⲅⲓⲥ), which is illustrated in the MS, then pronounce its name, and show a token/cipher (ⲯⲏⲫⲟⲥ). Once one has done this three times, the guardians, ranks (of angels, presumably), and veils retreat. The soul proceeds to the father of the treasury, Iēou, who shares his seal and his name, which are used to depart the treasury.13 Jesus also explains also special sacraments (here called “mysteries”) that one must undertake in order to journey to the treasuries, such as the famous triple baptism meant to protect one from the archons.14 Crégheur’s introduction concludes by providing historical context to the artefact and the text. He hypothesizes that the Bruce Codex was produced at a Coptic monastery, probably in the region of Thebes – the Coptic city of Djeme is an attractive option – around the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century CE (Crégheur 2019, 130–36).15 The Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse have Encratite features, and offhand remarks belie production within a community that included both men and women. The presence of a few declined Greek words indicate translation from a Greek original (Crégheur 2019, 132, 137). Thematically, the work is original, but it largely deals with themes, concerns, and mythologoumena characteristic of the Gnostic dossier of evidence, synthesizes features known from both the Valentinian and Sethian traditions, and seems to have a strong relationship with Pistis Sophia 11 12 13 14 15 The name IĒOU only appears elsewhere in the Coptic Gnostic corpus in Pistis Sophia; it probably is a Greek variation on the tetragrammaton (Crégheur 2019, 102–3). Crégheur 2019, B20 (58),23–B21 (59),26 (cf. Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b, 104.12–105.18). Crégheur 2019, 75, on B1 (39),1–B5 (43),24 (cf. Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b, 83.5–88.7). Explained first at Crégheur 2019, B16 (54),1–B21 (59),26 (cf. Schmidt/MacDermot 99.6–105.18), with the procedures following at Crégheur 2019, B21 (59),26–B31 (69),12 (cf. Schmidt/MacDermot 105.19–117.24). See also Crégheur 2019, 118, 128. The date follows from the reasoning that single-quire papyrus codices are characteristic of only the earliest phase of Coptic literary production (Crégheur 2019, 131), although given our uncertainty of the binding procedure, one cannot rest too much on this datum. Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1–11 | 10.1163/15700720-12347527 8 Book review (Crégheur 2019, 138–43).16 He acknowledges the text’s proximity to the world of ancient magic, particularly in its sacramental sections (Crégheur 2019, 143), but does not explore it. The text and translation follow. The text is a definite improvement on Schmidt, and takes into account all available editions, making wide use even of Woide and Schwartze (to the extent that we can recover his transcription from Schmidt’s notes). While most improvements are minute, they can be significant. Take for example a recipe Jesus offers for incense to keep away archons: we read in Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b 114, “Jesus offered the incense of the mystery which took away the evil of the archons from the disciples. He caused them to build an incense-altar among the thalassia plants (?). He laid upon it vine branches, and juniper and betel and kuoschi (?), and asbestos and agate-stone and frankincense …” The ingredients of whose names Schmidt is unsure are the “thalassia plants” (ⲑⲁⲗⲁⲥⲓⲁ) and “kuoschi” (ⲕⲟⲩⲱϣⲓ). In the former case, Crégheur makes a good case that there is no ingredient at hand: as is clear from the apparatus (Crégheur 2019, 219), Woide had read ⲑⲁⲗⲁⲥⲥⲁ (“sea”) here, while the transcription ⲑⲁⲗⲗⲁⲥⲓⲁ was first suggested by Amélineau, and taken up (dropping a lambda) by Schmidt. The codex is no longer legible here, so the editor must rely upon the hypotheses of earlier generations; Crégheur opts for Woide’s reading, and thus we have “he (Jesus) had them build an incense-altar by the sea” (cf. the phrasing of John 4:6; Acts 10:6, as discussed in the notes – Crégheur 2019, 373). As for ⲕⲟⲩⲱϣⲓ, Crégheur agrees with Crum (CD 151a) in preferring the reading of Amélineau (ⲕⲟⲩϣ︤ⲧ︥), translating “costos” (per LSJ 985, s.v. κόστος, “a root used as a spice” – see further Crégheur 2019, 373–74). Many such examples can be adduced. The translation thus marks a radical advance and renders those of Amélineau, Schmidt, and MacDermot obsolete. As these examples make clear, the philological notes are thorough and valuable. They also offer cross-references, both within and without the text, and some are more mysterious than others. To take a randomly-selected example, a note (Crégheur 2019, 388) providing a cross-reference to a flurry of nomina barbara in one of the diagrams looks like this: “C16 (20),0i–0o. ⲡ︤ⲣ︦ⲱ︦ⲁ︦ⲍ︦ⲁ︦ⲓ︦ⲉ︥ (…) ⲃ︤ⲁ︦ⲥ︦ⲁ︦ⲍ︦ⲁ︦ⲍ︥. Cf. C8 (12),0j.0k.0n.0o”; i.e., the cross-reference is to page 8 of the ‘C’ block of folios of the Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse (which Schmidt numbered as page 12), and specifically the text in a diagram, numbered as “0” but whose lines are identified by the letters ‘j,’ ‘k,’ ‘n,’ and ‘o.’ So far, so good. The reference checks out, although its point is not obvious to this reviewer; the names on C8 do not appear to be those from C16. The brevity of Crégheur’s 16 Cregheur 2019 is restrained on this topic, but see Steve Johnston, “Proximité littéraire entre les Codices Askew et Bruce,” Journal of Coptic Studies 17 (2015): 85–107. 10.1163/15700720-12347527 | Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1–11 Book review 9 notes makes good sense considering the already hefty girth of the volume, but in this case a little more would help. Meanwhile, the drawings of the sigils – the diagrams of the treasuries, the illustrations of their seals (ⲥⲫⲣⲁⲅⲓⲥ), and the figures (ⲧⲩⲡⲟⲥ) and charaktēres of the Iēous – are reproduced with great care and to terrific aesthetic effect. Part of the achievement of Schmidt’s editions was the reproduction of these wonder-inducing drawings; Crégheur’s edition, thankfully, gets them right, and in fact improves on Schmidt’s accuracy in rendering the images themselves.17 The indices are generous, too. Crégheur has divided up the nomina barbara and ‘magical words’ used in the text’s incantations among multiple indices, according to the taxonomy offered by the text; thus there is one index for names of emanations, another for names of Iēous, etc. This does mean that if one is looking for a particular name but does not know much about the Bruce Codex’s taxonomy of celestial beings, one will have to look through multiple indices, although this is done easily enough. The citation system may take some getting used to, and longtime users of Schmidt’s editions, including Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b, will have to adapt. They will also need to be comfortable with Coptic. Crégheur rightly paginates his diplomatic edition according to the pages of the manuscripts of the Bruce Codex, and so the concordance of his pagination with that of other editions is based upon these same manuscript pages. The problem is that while Schmidt’s edition of the Bruce Codex is the standard reference, Schmidt’s numbering of the pages of manuscripts is not. Schmidt’s numbering of the pages of the manuscript(s) usually appear in somewhat larger, bold-faced Arabic numerals inserted into the Coptic text of Schmidt 1892; in Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b, they only appear on the Coptic side of the text.18 Thus, scholarly convention has been to refer to the page and line numbers of the edition in Schmidt 1892 and given again in Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b, rather than the page and line numbers of the manuscripts.19 While Schmidt’s pagination of the Bruce Codex makes a reasonable reference point in the context of Crégheur’s discussion of codicology, it may have been useful to also offer a key to citation systems that also accommodate the page and line numbers of Schmidt 1892 and Schmidt/MacDermot 1978, since it is with reference to the latter that scholars have of late been working with Schmidt’s text. 17 18 19 Cf. e.g. the charaktēr in Crégheur 2019, C4 (8),0a–0h with that in Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b 50.13–21; a comparison with reference to the microfilm of this leaf shows that Crégheur’s depiction is more accurate. Only sometimes with a ‘p.’ preceding – cf. Schmidt 1892 47.6 and 50.12 (also in Schmidt/MacDermot 1978). Recent examples include David Brakke, “The Body as/at the Boundary of Gnosis,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17:2 (2009): 195–214; Meyer and Smith 1994 (infra). Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1–11 | 10.1163/15700720-12347527 10 Book review The problem is best illustrated by a routine example. Let us say, for instance, that a researcher is intrigued by the “Gnostic fire baptism” described by Richard Smith in Ancient Christian Magic,20 and wishes to check Smith’s work against the new edition in Crégheur 2019. Smith gives the source as the Second Book of Jeu, preserved in the “Bruce Codex, Bodleian Library, Oxford; page 108, line 23 to page 112, line 6 (according to the edition of Carl Schmidt)” (Meyer and Smith 1994, 63). For bibliography, Smith gives Schmidt 1892 and Schmidt/ MacDermot 1978, and indeed, the Coptic text of the passage that Smith renders does begin at line 23 of page 108, line 23 of Schmidt 1892 and Schmidt/ MacDermot 1978, page 108. Note that, as can be seen on line 11 of page 108 in both editions, Schmidt numbered the page of the manuscript as “p. 62.” This “62” is the number that one must use in order to use the key in Crégheur 2019, 404–7 so as to locate Smith’s “Gnostic fire baptism” in the new edition; according to the key, “Schmidt 62” corresponds to “Crégheur B24,” thus page 24 of section ‘B’ of the Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse. Turning to Crégheur 2019, 210 (home to B24), one finds the Coptic text that Schmidt designated “p. 62,” but one is unable to effortlessly orient oneself to Schmidt’s “108.23,” where the “Gnostic fire baptism” begins. Noting that there are approximately twelve lines of Coptic text (in Schmidt’s edition) between the beginning of “p. 62” and that of the “Gnostic fire baptism,” one can estimate that the passage sought after probably begins somewhere halfway down the page B24 in Crégheur 2019, 210 – and indeed, it is found at the end of line 12. Finally, the seeker of the Gnostic fire baptism may begin to check Schmidt 108.23 (in Smith’s translation) against Crégheur’s B24.12. A detailed key may have been onerous, but this reviewer found it helpful to lay out for himself even the bare minimum information: where in Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b one finds the texts and manuscripts described by Crégheur 2019. Crégheur 2019 Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse A1–4 Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse B1–48 Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse C1–30 Book of Knowledges of the Invisible God D1–D4 Book of Knowledges of the Invisible God D1a–D4a Fragment on the Passage of the Soul, E1–E2 20 Schmidt 1892, Schmidt/MacDermot 1978b 79.7–82.26 83.5–138.4 47.9–78.23 39.1–44.4 44.6–47.7 140.15–141.21, 139.2–140.14 Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith (eds.), Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco 1994), 63–66. 10.1163/15700720-12347527 | Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1–11 Book review 11 Onerous indeed, but worth it. Crégheur has pushed the ‘reset’ button on the study of the Bruce Codex, all subsequent research of which begins with this book. His edition presents the materials formerly known as the Books of Jeu at last in a proper diplomatic edition with the Coptic text laid out page by page, and with the treatises named with reference to the titles given in the manuscript. Crégheur’s reference system accurately relates the reality of the state of the preserved folios and should be adopted by scholars. Nor should we persist using Schmidt’s titles: First and Second Jeu are dead, long live the Books of the Great Mysterious Discourse!21 Crégheur also provides ample discussion of the intricate cosmology and soteriology of this text, offering a solid foundation for future work into the fascinating and long-neglected material – work which this reviewer hotly anticipates, alongside Crégheur’s treatment of the Untitled work in the Bruce Codex, in the Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section « Textes ».22 Dylan M. Burns Geschiedenis van de Hermetische filosofie en verwante stromingen, Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands d.m.burns@uva.nl 21 22 That is to say, while the Books of Jeu mentioned in Pistis Sophia remain lost or fictional, ‘First and Second Jeu’ are simply a mistake. In the meantime, scholars may already benefit from Crégheur’s confirmation of Charlotte Baynes’s ordering of the pages in the Untitled work in the Bruce Codex. Reading the Untitled work in the order suggested by Baynes and Crégheur lends the text considerably more coherence. See Éric Crégheur, “The Manuscript and the Coptic Text of the Untitled Text of the Bruce Codex.” Chronique d’Égypte 92/184 (2017): 397–407; for an example of this policy in practice, see Ellen Muehlberger, “Preserving the Divine: αὐτο-Prefixed Generative Terms and the Untitled Treatise in the Bruce Codex,” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011): 311–28. Vigiliae Christianae (2023) 1–11 | 10.1163/15700720-12347527