Barbelo-Gnostic Marsanes, c.200 AD?

Discuss the world of the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Barbelo-Gnostic Marsanes, c.200 AD?

Post by billd89 »

I wonder where Marsanes was active, where his school was? (Link is to John Turner's excellent essay.) I doubt he was centered in Egypt. Any thoughts?

Reference
NHC 9

Marsanes (150?-210? AD) probably lived two generations before Plotinus (205-270 AD), who argued against his known teachings (c.250 AD). I presume Martiades (175?-235? AD) was a student and proponent of Marsanes -- not vice versa --, active (c.230 AD) somewhat before Ammonius Saccas (175-242 AD), so Marsanes might have taught as early as 175 AD.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Barbelo-Gnostic Marsanes, c.200 AD?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Marsanes is probably contemporary to Theodore of Asine c 300 CE.
See for example Marsanes

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: The Problems w/ Late Dating

Post by billd89 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 10:53 pm Marsanes is probably contemporary to Theodore of Asine c 300 CE.
See for example Marsanes

Andrew Criddle
Theodore of Asine looks to be a late descendent.

Yes I saw John D. Turner's dubious Late Date: "one might date Marsanes to the late third or early fourth century, contemporary with Iamblichus and Theodore." Plotinus, however, was probably addressing (c.250 AD) older material (c.175-200? AD) and not smthg published just yesterday. Given a reasonable lag-time, the widespread notice of "Marsanes' writings" might have begun several decades or even generations after the Founder's death. See how posters here typically date Xtian material, +150yrs after Jesus' death!

As with Philo's Therapeutae (DVC 29), the prophet should be (conservatively) deceased ~50-100 years, if not longer:
They have also writings of ancient men, who having been the founders of one sect or another have left behind them many memorials of the allegorical system of writing and explanation, whom they take as a kind of model, and imitate the general fashion of their sect


Birger A. Pearson's comments on the prophet Marsanes also suggest he's older than 300 AD and had a School lasting several generations. A "disciple" (like Paul) might never have met the Founder! On the Nag Hammadi tractate Marsanes:
"In this tractate Marsanes gives advanced instruction to a group of his followers who have already been initiated into gnosis. The author of the tractate may be the Gnostic prophet Marsanes himself; alternatively he may be an otherwise unknown teacher who claims to be writing in the name of the prophet Marsanes." (Ancient Gnosticism, pp. 92-93)

Origen wrote Contra Celsum at the request of Ambrosius, in response to Celsus’ True Logos, an attack on Christianity. Celsus was dead by this stage, and True Logos had been composed 70 to 80 years previously. The fact that it was still in circulation may have worried Christians like Ambrosius, but there must have been a lag-time of several decades for many works to become 'popular'. In this famous case, it took nearly 3 generations!
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Timeframe for Book Publication & Reception, in Antiquity

Post by billd89 »

Survivorship Bias of Key Texts forces 'Late Dating Fallacy' into perspective.

We can reasonably assume Xian theologians responded within about a decade to Emperor Julian's criticism (work destroyed). Even the First Surviving Mention of the work is one generation later, though Julian's criticism must have been widely 'known about' by Xians not long after Inception/ Publication. This link helped set dates.

Hypothetical Model: Estimation of Time-Progression for Famous Novel Religious Work's Dissemination in Antiquity
Teaching. Year 0.
Teaching First Published. Year 1.
Book First Mentioned. Year 5?-15
First Surviving Mention. Year 35.
Book generates Refutations. Year 10?-75.
First Surviving Refutation. Year 65-75.


437 AD : Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Iulium, (Late Estimation)
--
--
--
--
--
--
430 AD
--
--
--
--
--
424 AD : Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Iulium, 'Earliest Surviving Refutation' (Early Estimation)
--
--
--
420 AD
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
410 AD
--
--
--
406 AD : Jerome, Commentary on Hosea MENTION
--
? 404 AD: Philip of Side, 'Refutation, Untitled' ??
--
--
--
400 AD
--
398 AD : Jerome, Letter 70 (to Magnus) MENTION
--
--
? 395 AD : Theodore of Mopsuestia 'Refutation, Untitled' ??
--
--
--
--
390 AD : Five Unknown Refutations, Unknown Dates.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
380 AD: Cyril of Alexandria born.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
370 AD : Five Unknown Refutations, Unknown Dates.
--
--
--
--
365 AD
--
363 AD: Contra Galilaeos, written. Emperor Julian is Age 32.
--
.....

User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Barbelo-Gnostic Marsanes, c.200 AD?

Post by billd89 »

Outside Fact#1: Sethians were well-established and known in the time of Josephus, ergo 3 generations at least (before 10 BC). However, nothing suggests to me this Untitled Text of Bruce Codex is any earlier than 150-200 AD. The text was found in Egypt and - since Xian themes permeate and overwhelm Egyptian Gnostic literature after c.300 AD - we might expect it dates closer to 200 AD than +275 AD. Uncertain. I suspect this material might be too overworked, interpolated to clearly date 'levels' of the text.

Outside Fact#2: Epiphanius' Panarion (375 AD) describes Marsanes as long dead and legendary (2-3 generations). But Porphyry (c.260 AD) makes no mention of him, so it's likely they were contemporaries (even if P. didnt know of M. in this context.)

REVISION: Plotinus (205-270 AD) probably argued against teachings of Nikotheus' SCHOOL (c.250 AD): N., who was older & named by Porphyry. Porphyry's point was that Plotinus despised sectaries who read Nikotheus; Marsanes was N.'s student. I assume M. lived from c.220-270 AD.

I would therefore date the terminus 'Untitled Text of Bruce Codex' c.270-280 AD. Which seems LATE, I think. ??? The core material may well date c.225-250 AD. In other words, THIS is the teaching which Plotinus despised; it may come from Coastal Syria. I havent read these papers, however.

A few thoughts:
1) Marsanes was likely dead when this was composed, although he should have been alive recently: a decade or so prior.
2) Nikotheus was deceased: of the same sect, forebearer, a generation before.
3) Apparently, Post-Sethian; Setheus feels like (Late) Sethianism divorced from Judaism, w/ very little 'Jesus' attached.
4) Post-Valentinian, but caveat: much of the Gnostic material is indiscriminately labelled 'Valentinian'.
5) Hermes Trismegistus is name-checked but this doesnt feel Hermetic at all. (Hermeticism was dead OR this originates from an uninfluenced, distant cult.)
6) Where Theodorus of Asine (275-360 AD) may echo Marsanes c.270 AD, again a scholar is referencing material +60yrs older, ideas from one already long dead.

The powers of all the great aeons have given homage to the power which is in Marsanes (Marsianos). They said : "Who is this who has seen these things before his face, that he has thus revealed concerning him?" Nikotheus spoke concerning him; he saw that he was that one. He said: "The Father exists, surpassing every perfection. He has revealed the invisible, triple-powered, perfect one." Each of the perfect men saw him, they spoke of him, giving glory to him, each one in his own way. ... This is the only-begotten one hidden in the Setheus; this is he whom they called the light-darkness.

Leucius_Charinus
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:03 pm

Re: Barbelo-Gnostic Marsanes, c.200 AD?

Post by Leucius_Charinus »

Three points perhaps of interest to the chronology of Marsanes:

1) The Sethians appear to be incorporating some version of Platonism into the biblical creation accounts:

For example see:
Gnosticism as Platonism: With Special Reference to Marsanes (NHC 10,1)
Author(s): Birger A. Pearson
Source: The Harvard Theological Review , Jan., 1984, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 55-72
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/1509519

2) At least one scholar supports a later dating for the three Sethian texts Zostrianos, Three Steles of Seth and Allogenes by identifying references in these texts as attributable to Porphyry. For example see:

Porphyry and Gnosticism
Author(s): Ruth Majercik
Source: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 1 (May, 2005), pp. 277-292
Published by: on behalf of Cambridge University Press Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556255


3) Andrew Criddle post #2:
Is the Platonism in Marsanes (and other Sethian material) actually Plotinic? i.e. "Neo-Platonism" = "LATE".

"The Unknown Silent One, which transcends the Invisible Spirit" ---- This sounds like Plotinus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marsanes.html
  • John D. Turner writes, "All scholars who have had occasion to comment on Marsanes in relation to other Sethian literature have called attention to its unique postulation of a new supreme principle, the Unknown Silent One, which transcends the Invisible Spirit, who is otherwise the supreme principle of all the other Sethian treatises. This modification of Sethian theology is parallel to a similar phenomenon that occurs in Iamblichus (cf. Damascius On First Principles 1.21,11-14; 25,21-22) and his disciple Theodore of Asine (Proclus Commentary on Plato's Timaeus 2,274,10-20), who placed an ineffable One absolutely unrelated to anything else at the summit of all reality - including Plotinus's supreme One, which was at least 'present to' subsequent reality.
"
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Plotinus follows the Barbelo-Gnostics, chronologically

Post by billd89 »

Leucius_Charinus wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:06 pm "The Unknown Silent One, which transcends the Invisible Spirit" ---- This sounds like Plotinus.
Plotinus ripped off esoteric material that was 200-300 years older. We know which came first! Josephus attests to the great Antiquity of the Sethians.

Hear Dylan Burns on Sethian Gnosticism @ link:
When the Nag Hammadi Coptic library was discovered and published, however, we suddenly had versions of a number of important, highly-Platonistic religious texts, one of which – Zostrianos – is mentioned by name by Porphyry as circulating among Plotinus’ students. Study of the Zostrianos and related texts from Nag Hammadi has led to scholars coining the term ‘Sethian’ to describe a number of works with common features.

Then something unexpected happened: it turned out that there were a number of ideas in Plotinus’ thought which were also in the Sethian texts, and a number of scholars have now made the case that Plotinus was more ‘Gnostic’ than he would himself have admitted. But before we can assess the Gnosticism that may be found in Plotinus, we need as good an idea as possible about the ideas circulating among Plotinus’ Gnostic friends. Cue an episode on Sethianism.

User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Plotinus follows the Barbelo-Gnostics, chronologically

Post by Leucius Charinus »

billd89 wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 8:19 pm
Leucius_Charinus wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:06 pm "The Unknown Silent One, which transcends the Invisible Spirit" ---- This sounds like Plotinus.
Plotinus ripped off esoteric material that was 200-300 years older. We know which came first!
Do we? I am not so sure. The early chronology for the Sethian texts in the NHL relies on heresiological narratives and also upon Porphyry's “Life of Plotinus” (Chapter 16). The late chronology proposed by some investigators (see above references) relies on analysis of the texts themselves.

We have an earliest possible date and a latest possible date. But no way of confidently knowing which of these is closer to the historical truth.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Plotinus follows the Barbelo-Gnostics, chronologically

Post by andrewcriddle »

billd89 wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 8:19 pm
Leucius_Charinus wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:06 pm "The Unknown Silent One, which transcends the Invisible Spirit" ---- This sounds like Plotinus.
Plotinus ripped off esoteric material that was 200-300 years older. We know which came first! Josephus attests to the great Antiquity of the Sethians.

Hear Dylan Burns on Sethian Gnosticism @ link:
When the Nag Hammadi Coptic library was discovered and published, however, we suddenly had versions of a number of important, highly-Platonistic religious texts, one of which – Zostrianos – is mentioned by name by Porphyry as circulating among Plotinus’ students. Study of the Zostrianos and related texts from Nag Hammadi has led to scholars coining the term ‘Sethian’ to describe a number of works with common features.

Then something unexpected happened: it turned out that there were a number of ideas in Plotinus’ thought which were also in the Sethian texts, and a number of scholars have now made the case that Plotinus was more ‘Gnostic’ than he would himself have admitted. But before we can assess the Gnosticism that may be found in Plotinus, we need as good an idea as possible about the ideas circulating among Plotinus’ Gnostic friends. Cue an episode on Sethianism.

Plotinus may have been using older Sethian material but not much older. We know from Porphry that Plotinus et al challenged the antiquity of the Platonic Sethian texts
Plotinus fequently attacked their position at the Conferences and finally wrote the treatise which I have headed Against the Gnostics: he left to us of the circle the task of examining what he himself passed over. Amelius proceeded as far as a fortieth treatise in refutation of the book of Zostrianus: I myself have shown on many counts that the Zoroastrian volume is spurious and modern, concocted by the sectaries in order to pretend that the doctrines they had embraced were those of the ancient sage.
On internal evidence Zostrianos is later than the Chaldaean Oracles which seem to date from the reign of Marcus Aurelius. See e.g. Pagans and Christians...

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Plotinus follows the Barbelo-Gnostics, chronologically

Post by DCHindley »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:28 am Plotinus may have been using older Sethian material but not much older. We know from Porphry that Plotinus et al challenged the antiquity of the Platonic Sethian texts
Plotinus fequently attacked their position at the Conferences and finally wrote the treatise which I have headed Against the Gnostics: he left to us of the circle the task of examining what he himself passed over. Amelius proceeded as far as a fortieth treatise in refutation of the book of Zostrianus: I myself have shown on many counts that the Zoroastrian volume is spurious and modern, concocted by the sectaries in order to pretend that the doctrines they had embraced were those of the ancient sage.
On internal evidence Zostrianos is later than the Chaldaean Oracles which seem to date from the reign of Marcus Aurelius. See e.g. Pagans and Christians...
While looking at the Zoroastrian Avesta recently, I started to think about possible parallels with both Rabbinic Judaism and the Chaldean Oracles. I believe the Chaldean Oracles only survive in fragments, preserved by their opponents, a problem shared with studies of Gnosticism although the latter has much more preserved examples. Our knowledge about the Ch. Oracles, unfortunately, is scanty.

Are you aware of any studies that look at seemingly common ideas shared by Zoroastrians, Neoplatonists, Gnostics, and whoever wrote the Chaldean oracles? I am aware that the Avestas were final-edited into the form we have them now in the 1st half of the 3rd century CE. Also that the NeoPlatonists sometimes cited the Ch. Oracles as support for their own Platonic interpretations, but from what I have read about it, the Ch. oracles were not based on a Platonic world view. So I wonder about the Zoroastrian world view having influenced the Ch. oracles.

Well, enough of my ramblings,

DCH
Post Reply