New Book on Sethian Gnosis

[Blood]

I'm not outraged. It's just stupid.

[Peter Kirby]

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't see that there are any particular assumptions necessarily inherent to the mere use of the word "pagan" by modern historians. If I did, then I might agree with you.

[DCHindley]

Blood,

I'll have to admit that this is the first time my attention has been called to this book by John D Turner, but I am sure glad it was.

A good portion of it is online at Google Books. So far, the only review I've seen is that by Philip Tite (RBL, July 2003, reprinted it seems as a book review in JBL 123-3, Autumn 2004, and both available online), which was overall quite positive. I wonder how Turner's very specific and far reaching conclusions have held up under the scrutiny of others.

DCH

I just purchased Turner's 800 page Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition, so it will be awhile before I can get to another book on the Sethians, the only ancient sect that actually made Christianity interesting. "Second Treatise of the Great Seth" is still one of the most mindblowing things I've ever read.

[andrewcriddle]

Blood,

I'll have to admit that this is the first time my attention has been called to this book by John D Turner, but I am sure glad it was.

A good portion of it is online at Google Books. So far, the only review I've seen is that by Philip Tite (RBL, July 2003, reprinted it seems as a book review in JBL 123-3, Autumn 2004, and both available online), which was overall quite positive. I wonder how Turner's very specific and far reaching conclusions have held up under the scrutiny of others.

DCH

The main controversy over Turner's work is the direction of dependence between the Neoplatonists such as Plotinus and Porphyry and the surviving Platonic Sethian texts. Turner regards Allogenes and Zostrianos as both pre-Plotinian. Dylan Burns for example regards Allogenes (but not Zostrianos) as post-Plotinian, Majercik for example regards both as post-Plotinian.

FWIW I did some blog posts on the issue some years ago. I may try and add an update.

Andrew Criddle

[Blood]

Most Bible scholars don't know diddley about Plato or Neoplatonism and are therefore in a total fog about Gnosticism. Turner actually teaches classes on Platonism and Gnostocism, so I figured he'd be equipped to write about the Sethians in a knowledgeable way. Most of the book is available online and from what I've read there, he knows his stuff.

I picked up a copy of Karen King's commentary on the Apocryphon of John yesterday. Boy, is that tough sledding. I hope Turner makes more sense.