The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by andrewcriddle »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:44 am fwiw, albeit modified


The Gospel of Judas...is a unique depiction of Judas...as the favourite disciple of Jesus. [It] records how Jesus revealed to him secret knowledge that was withheld from the other apostles; this special revelation concerns the nature of the cosmos and the transcendent God, the creation of angels and other celestial beings, and the creation of humankind. The gospel also includes an account of conversations between Jesus and Judas that took place, according to the opening passage, “during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover.” In these dialogues, Judas emerges as the close confidant of Jesus, who tells him: “You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.” In this way, Jesus appears to ask Judas to help him liberate his spiritual self from his material body. Thus, the Judas of th[is] gospel is...Jesus'...most important collaborator.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gospel-of-Judas


This is how the Gospel of Judas was originally interpreted by scholars, later study makes it doubtful whether Judas is really close to Jesus.

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

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Are there two groups (proto-orthodox and proto-heretical) or one group (proto-Christian)? If two groups then did one group borrow stuff (including the nomina sacra) from the other? I see these as important questions to answer.
The Gospel of Judas: Its Polemic, Its Exegesis, and Its Place in Church History
Author(s): Frank Williams
Source: Vigiliae Christianae , 2008, Vol. 62, No. 4 (2008), pp. 371-403
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/20474877


p.375

The language of our document is observably reminiscent of that of the four
gospels. The version of Jesus' arrest which we have designated as item VIII
is a pastiche of adapted gospel lines. Gos. Judas 35,27-36,4, which is
intended to explain away Jesus' condemnation of Judas at Matt 26:24,
does so by using material which can have been drawn only from Acts 1.
Thus it seems clear that, at least for the portions of our work which are
meant to be historical, the four catholic gospels and the Book of Acts were
the chief literary sources.

So here the author says whoever wrote Judas (and other Sethian tracts) used the four catholic gospels and the Book of Acts as the chief literary sources. Ergo Judas - the proto-heretical borrows from the four gospels and acts - the proto-orthodox.

The author of Judas inveighs against (the author/s of the) 4 gospels:

FWIW:

Abstract

The Gospel of Judas is a Sethian gnostic revelation dialogue which contains an unusual amount of narrative movement and casts Judas as recipient of the revelation. It is in large part polemic and is comparable to other early polemics, both of the gnostics and of their opponents. It inveighs against the eucharist and the clergy who celebrate it, attempts to substitute, for the supposedly inaccurate passion narrative of the four gospels, an account of the events as they really transpired, and sharply contrasts the character and fate of gnostic with those of catholic Christians. We treat first of its attack on the eucharist, next of its handling of the gospel narratives, and then of its polemic stance, comparing this with that of three other gnostic polemics, 'The Testimony of the Truth, The Apocalypse of Peter, and The Second Treatise of the Great Seth. In the light of this comparison we conclude with suggestions concerning the sort of situation our document might reflect, and the reasons for the selection of Judas as its protagonist.

my formatting

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

Re: G. Stroumsa on Sethians

Post by billd89 »

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Stroumsa here.

See GEDALIAHU A. G. STROUMSA (Guy Stroumsa): Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology [1984].
https://www.academia.edu/9114426/Guy_G_ ... rill_1984_
https://epdf.pub/another-seed-studies-i ... es-24.html

Image
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: G. Stroumsa on Sethians

Post by lsayre »

billd89 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:57 am I'm surprised no one has mentioned Stroumsa here.
I just completed reading Chapter 1, and I must thank you for providing the links.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Sethians Drink Water, Not Wine

Post by billd89 »

billd89 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 7:45 am ...
Yesse = Latin Iesse; ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲩⲥ ; Ιεσσαι/ϊσεσσαι, Ἰεσσαιος, ϊσεσσεδεκεύς

We can readily see how this ‘Yesseus-Sacrifice-of-the-Righteous Jessaeans’ might be all promises of the Messiah: a Therapeut (Servant of God), God’s Agent (intermediary, to men), Judge, Redeemer, a Righteous Savior with a Death & Resurrection (‘Arise!’ = Anatole in Philo). In other words, to be baptized in the Living Water (presumably: under the Y-M-Y holy name) is to take on the attributes of Sethic Man, in this divinization process.

As the presumed Founder of the 'Sethian cult,' this Yesseus- was a mortal (or two: Father-Son) who became an Illuminator of the Race, the Attendant (Therapeut) of 'Baptism in the Living Water': a divine figure with messianic features.
...
In 90 AD, Josephus knew of the 'progeny of of Seth' from the Siriad of Egypt. They were ancient, several hundred years old. So, to hypothetically date the Founders of sect - ‘Yesseus of the Righteous God’ (perhaps as a Judeo-Samaritan Egyptian 250 BC) and ‘Yesseus the Sacrifice’ one or two generations later - the cult had established their monuments as reported by the First Century.
Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijn, Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature [1977], p.26:
In his De Posteritate Caini, Philo mentions Seth several times. The observations made in this book are usually in agreement with those that he makes in Quaestiones in Genesim 1.78, according to which the name Seth means the one "who drinks water". In De Posteritate Caini 10.124, 125, Philo says several times that his name means ποτισμός {watering}

Quaestiones in Genesim 1.78
Wherefore nature separated from him his twin, and made the good man worthy of immortality, resolving him into a voice interceding with God; but the wicked man it gave over to destruction. But 'Seth' is interpreted as "one who drinks water,"* in accordance with the changes that take place in plants which by watering grow and blossom and bear fruit. And these are symbols of the soul. But no longer may one say that the Deity is the cause of all things, good and evil, but only of the good, which alone properly puts forth live shoots."

* As though from Hebrew sth "to drink" -- ὑδροπότης?

Recall the Sethians' prayer was to a Founder, the Branch/Shoot: 'Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus' as Yesseus, Host of the Righteous Jessaean or: Y., Sacrifice of the Righteous Jessaean; Y., Branch of the Righteous Jessaean.

Water is a vital commodity; Baptism starts with water-management rituals in arid zones. These 'Easterners' -- worshippers of Seth-Baal to some, Rechabites to others -- moved in from the Sinai Desert over centuries. By the First Century, 'Sethians' are rich Judaic gardeners, descendants of Semite canal-builders in the Delta: intensive irrigators of the Sethrum. And (since everyone drinks water) we may presume they actually 'abstain from wine' -- they're another(?) species of Aquarii, Jewish water-men!

'Just like' Philo's Therapeutae, or one and the same? The Judeo-Egyptian Soul-Healers were Sober (=Perfected), literally Water-Drinkers, and they (Philo's A. A.) also practiced 'Rebirth' (i.e. psychic change) as anagogy & henosis ... 'after Seth': their Founder, their Paradigm? How many Jewish sobriety cults can we realistically imagine existed during Philo's own lifetime in Egypt??

I assert Philo's 'Therapeutae', a Judaic mystery-cult (i.e. Gnostics), were probably the very Sethians who Jospehus refers to in 90 AD.

See Robert Alan Kraft, Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts [2009], p.210:
Seth represents a “new beginning” (παλιγγενεσία) in relation to Abel, who came from above (so Quaestiones in Genesim) to below and now has returned above [[458]] (Post 173); Seth is ἀρχή (“beginning”) of another γένεσις (“creation”; Quaestiones in Genesim), starting from human virtue and “growing” (as a plant that is watered; Seth = ποτισμός [“watering”]) towards the perfect and uncreated (see De Posteritate Caini 124, 172–173). Seth is ἀρχηγέτης (“originator”) of those who acknowledge God's gift (ENOCH = “gift”) of all good things and who flee a life full of evils so that God translates/removes them (as was done to ENOCH) from a corruptible to an immortal γένη (“race”; De Posteritate Caini 42–43)6.

Painting by C.Jung from The Red Book, “Watering Hades” with the inscription: “This the holy caster of water. The Cabiri grow out of the flowers which spring from the body of the dragon. Above the temple.”
Image

Ed. Bentley Layton, The Rediscovery of Gnosticism [1981], Vol. 2
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by billd89 »

Abraham P. Bos, "Cosmic and Meta-Cosmic Theology in Greek philosophy and gnosticism" in Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response Within the Greco-Roman World[1994], p.9:
We have solid grounds for reformulating the problem of the origin of Gnosticism as the problem of the origin of this "double theology." Given the apparent lack of a plausible alternative, the attempts of G. Quispel, R. M. Grant and others who looked to Judaism for an origin are certainly to be appreciated. Yet, as W.C. Van Unnik has argued, crucial aspects of Judaic religion — the unity of God, Torah as a guide for life, the Messiah, the Passover and the covenant — are absent in gnostic writings. And where Sophia/Wisdom is disguised as an independent hypostasis responsible for creation, no recognizable passages from Judaic writings are quoted. 38 H.Jonas and J.Danielou also regard Gnosticism as anti-Judaic.

Thus, if we had such a credible alternative, we would gladly abandon the constructions of Quispel and others. I do believe that such an alternative can be found, namely among the Greek philosophers to whom all Christian authors from the period of the early church referred. That alternative is Aristotle. Specifically it is Aristotle as he was known to and as he influenced classical antiquity before the first century BCE: the Aristotle of the lost works, of the dialogues, and the exoterikoi logoi.

Now I would be the first to admit that this sounds improbable, for no modern scholar has argued this position. Aristotle plays no role at all in the entire modern debate on the gnostic world view. However, the modern view of Aristotle has been seriously distorted, not only through the loss of all the writings which he published during his lifetime, but perhaps even more because Jaeger, who first 39 paid extensive attention to the fragments of the lost works Cosmic and Meta-cosmic Theology at the same time underestimated them because he regarded them as evidence of a superseded Platonizing phase of Aristotle's philosophy. In contrast, I would like to argue that all the ingredients for the gnostic conception were to be found in Aristotle's Eudemus or On the Soul, his Protrepticus, his De philosophia, and the (Aristotelian) treatise De mundo. An important consequence of the distortion caused by the defective transmission of Aristotle's works is the central position usually given to the doctrine of Ideas in the debate between Plato and Aristotle.

Of course, "Gnosticism" does not emerge directly from Judaism. Sethians were Judaic but syncretistic, heterodox and philosophical: they had moved far beyond a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch. Josephus says they had separated from Judaism after seven generations, whether that has any truth they must have been held as a people apart, much like Samaritans. Since we know some (later) Gnostics were Sethians, it is logical that these quasi-Jews or 'Old Jews' or Egyptian Israelites -- whatever they may be called -- brought other (limited) aspects of Judaic religion into earlier Hermetic and Gnostic groups. Renegade 'Jews' and Proto-Gnostic Sethians in Alexandria and other Egyptian cities c.300 BC could well have incorporated Stoic philosophy before Platonic ideas: there was no cultural 'purity' and it's absurd to presume anything of the sort in a metropolis.

I'm not convinced the "double theology" must derive from Aristotle in the first place, but I see hints of it in the Pentateuch and that's not surprising. The OT is an amalgam of different Jewish myths especially -- of course there will be inconsistencies.

Re: Sobriety as a KEY Sethian Motif

Posted above. The proclamation of the Hermetic evangelist is a command: ‘Become sober and end your drunken sickness, for you are enchanted by irrational sleep’ (see C.H. I 27. CH VII 1-2; CH X 15; CH IV 4; CH VII.1). The same ‘Valentinian’ motif is echoed in Clement’s Excerpta ex Theodoto 53.2 {And Adam’s sleep was the Soul’s oblivion, restrained from dissolution}, which has a likely source, exemplified in the Sethian Apocryphon of John (c.130 AD): "And he (Adam) saw the woman beside him. And in that moment the luminous Epinoia appeared, and she lifted the veil which lay over his mind. And he became sober from the drunkenness of darkness.”

Epinoia as a Spirit (Goddess?) of Sophia reads as a sophistication of a more pagan Judaic myth -- a Serpent motif seems likely, syncretized to an Aristotelian theme. I wonder how the Snake brought Sobriety; was the snake-bite a kind of Chaldaean Sobriety-test? See Abraham P. Bos, "'Aristotelian' and 'Platonic' Dualism in Hellenistic and Early Christian Philosophy and in Gnosticism" in Vigiliae Christianae 56 [2002], p.291:
W. Foerster makes a good point when he argues that the ‘call to awaken’ forms the origin of Gnosticism. But we should consider here that this concept builds on the philosophical foundation laid by Aristotle when he distinguished between the presence of soul ‘as sleeping’ and ‘as wakened’.

Wm. Blake, 1796:
Image
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by Leucius Charinus »

The Gnostic Sethians and Middle Platonism: Interpretations of the "Timaeus" and
"Parmenides"
Author(s): John D. Turner
Source: Vigiliae Christianae , Feb., 2006, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 9-64
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/20474740

ABSTRACT

One may construe the Sethian Gnostic picture of the world and its origins as an interpretation of the biblical protology of the book of Genesis in the light of the Platonic distinction between an ideal, exemplary realm of eternal stable being and its more or less deficient earthly and changeable copy, in which the principal Platonic dialogues of reference are the Timaeus and the Parmenides. Various Sethian treatises offer us accounts of the origin and generation of both these realms; while their portrayal of the origin and deployment of the earthly realm is unmistakably influenced by their readings of Plato's Timaeus, their account of the origin and deployment of the ideal realm is noticeably influenced by readings of Plato's Parmenides. This article attempts to show that the shift from the Timaeus as the primary Platonic dialogue of reference for the Middle Platonic thought of the first two centuries to the Parmenides as the primary dialogue of reference for the emerging Neoplatonism of the third century is also visible in the Sethian treatises. In mid- to later second-century Sethian treatises, the cosmology of the Timaeus serves as an exegetical template to interpret the Genesis protology, but with the turn to the third century, the Sethian treatises that circulated in Plotinus' circle have abandoned all interest in the Genesis protology in favor of a theology of transcendental ascent.

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

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by billd89 »

Here is an intriguing, intelligent summary:
http://malankazlev.com/kheper/topics/Gn ... l_man.html

Cain = Beastly Man (Physical - Hylic)
Abel = Moral Man (Mental - Psychic)
Seth = Spiritual Man (Spiritual - Pneumatic)
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by MrMacSon »

billd89 wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:41 pm
Here is an intriguing, intelligent summary:
http://malankazlev.com/kheper/topics/Gn ... l_man.html

Cain = Beastly Man (Physical - Hylic)
Abel = Moral Man (Mental - Psychic)
Seth = Spiritual Man (Spiritual - Pneumatic)

Cheers! The naming or association of Hylic (physical/material), Psychic (mental) and Pneumatic (spiritual) as or with Cain, Abel and Seth is interesting.

Also from that webpage:


On the level of the first Light or Angel, called "Armozel", stands the Celestial Adam, "Pigeraadamas", referred to in in other texts as the Geradamas, the "Old Adam" or original Archetypal Man ("Man" in this sense referring to human, as opposed to Anthropos, the Godhead) together with Autogenes itself. This Celestial pre-creation Adam is described as the Light or the Eye of Autogenes:


"...Adamas is a light which radiated from the light, he is the eye of light... This is the first man, he through whom and to whom everything became, and without whom nothing became"

[ The Gospel of the Egyptians, in the Nag Hammadi Library, p.198 ]


On the level of the second Light or Angel, Oroiel, is the Celestial Seth, the son of Geradamas [the 'Old Adam']. In The Gospel of the Egyptians, Seth is "the father and savior of the incorruptible race" (ie. the Divine Souls, who possess Gnosis) who "comes from heaven, puts on Jesus as a garment, and accomplishes (the) work of salvation on behalf of his children" [p.195]. [To rephrase the following out-of-date statement: To some early Christian groups, Seth was what Jesus was to others]

On the level of the third Light or Angel, Daveithai, is "the seed of Seth"; ie. the Liberated Gnostic souls, who have transcended phenomenal existence.

And on the level of the fourth Light or Angel, Eleleth, are those souls "who do not know the Pleroma"; or in other words, who lack Gnosis.
...< . . snip . . >
"Seth" came to mean not to the earthly Seth, but to a heavenly prototype on a transmundane, pre-cosmic plane. The heavenly Seth is then regarded as the "Son" of a heavenly Adam [p.483]


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

Re: Nazorean Gnosis ?

Post by billd89 »

Raoul Vaneigem, Resistance to Christianity. Heresies up to the Beginning of the 18th Century [1993]:
The Sethians called themselves 'Pneumatics' in opposition to the 'Hylics', the Sons of Cain, and the 'Psychics', the Sons of Abel.

I suppose Nazoreans were an offshoot of the ancient Sethians of the Sethrum: Palestinian students (descendants/cousins) of the Judeo-Egyptian 'Therapeutae'. Church Fathers (Eusebius et al.) were basically correct, though garbling the lineage somewhat.

I have not seen this Nazorean-Sethian hypothesis developed (not saying it hasn't: just that I'm unaware, ignorant of anyone's theory, etc.) so any suggestions to assist my line of inquiry will be much appreciated.

I am well-aware there's some fringe-y material out there. I have not read E.S. Drower, The Secret Adam: A Study of Nasoraean Gnosis [1960]; however, Lady Ethel Stefana Drower was a respected Mandaean scholar. And ahhhh a Mills & Boon novelist.

Summary here; the entire Drower [1960], here.

A startling conclusion (after Drower) on a blog page:
The root of this Dositheus/Simon Magus quarrel seems to be related to leadership of the John the Baptist sect. There were several historical links between the John the Baptist sect and the Nazoreans, including even the Haran Gawaita, a Mandaean text; it specifically calls Jerusalem Mandaeans 'Nazoreans'. Epiphanius of Salamis referred to them as the Nazarenes. The root of Nazorean appears to come from Nasirutha, which means “secret knowledge,” which was probably in parallel to the notion of Christian Gnosis.

Jungian interpretation, see Robert B. Clarke An Order Outside Time: A Jungian View of the Higher Self from Egypt to Christ [2005], p.622:
As to the religious knowledge of Jesus, it has always been a matter of contention as to which sect he belonged, indeed, if to any. The disciples in the Gospels seem ordinary workers and orthodox Jews, and Jesus intimates that there are mysteries beyond their knowledge and understanding. It has been suggested that Jesus may have been an Essene, the devout group of ascetic worshippers and healers devoted to holiness, but this seems doubtful. One reason is that while Jesus used oil for certain ritual purposes,the Essenes used only pure water. Nevertheless, Epiphanius, fourth-century Bishop of Salamis, stated that Christians were universally called Nazoreans and Iesseaens (Essenes), though Philo Judaeus, the 'hierophant of the Jewish Mysteries,' a contemporary of Christ who was perhaps a type of Essene, did not mention Christ in his writings. As for the Nazoreans, or Nazarenes, some believe that Jesus may have been one, therefore Jesus the Nazarene.

Joan Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea [2012], p.183:
One candidate for possible hidden Essenes in Epiphanius comes with his mention of Iessaeans in Pan. 1:29:1:3 4; 1:29:4: 9 5:7, identified as a Jewish-Christian sect deriving their name from Jesus (rather than more correctly from Jesse), which according to Epiphanius means healer, physician, and saviour (Pan. 1: 29: 4: 9). He then leaps to Philo s treatise De Vita Contemplativa to identify them though his source is clearly Eusebius, who had presented the Therapeutae as Christians in his history (Hist. Eccles. 2: 17). 59 The Iessaeans are then the Therapeutae. Epiphanius words do indicate knowledge of Aramaic, a language he may well have spoken as an inhabitant of southern Palestine: y#y (Jesse) is linked with Jesus (w#y (Yeshu), which is linked to healer, )s), and this happens to be a possible underlying Aramaic term behind Greek š óóæeïò, but Epiphanius instead looks to Eusebius ŁåæÆðåıôÆß ( healers in later Greek). At the heart of this is the identification of a group that could be called Ny)s), assayyin, but the wider context of their placement is vague. When Epiphanius discusses the Essenes specifically as a named group, he states that they were one of four schools of the Samaritans (Pan. 1: 1: 10 13; 1: 10: 1: 1), along with the Gorothenes, Sebueans, and Dositheans, 60 which might seem baffling, though he has at the heart of this definition a story concerning the disputes between Jews and Samaritans regarding times of festivals (Pan. 1: 11: 1: 1). Since Epiphanius knew Samaritans to be (in his day) champions of a different calendar, then it is possible that a recorded discussion in which Essenes dispute the operative Temple calendar could have led Epiphanius to put them in the Samaritan camp. [...] His seven schools are: the Sadducees, Scribes, the Pharisees, the Hemerobaptists, the Ossaeans, Nasaraeans, and Herodians. Of these seven schools the name of the Ossaeans is initially suggestive.


58 For full translation see Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2009).
59 See Simon Mimouni, Qui sont les Jesseens dans la notice 29 du Panarion d Epiphane de Salamine? NT 43 (2001):

Also, Mark went to preach to the Nazirites and Nasareans, perhaps a corruption of 'Nazorean'?


Independent scholarship. Apocalypse and Armageddon, The Secret Origins of Christianity [2015], p.178
These early pre-Christian Sethians may be related to or identical to the Nazoreans, the Ophites, or even the 'heretics' mentioned by Philo. Later Sethian texts, such as Zostrianos and Allogenes, draw upon the previous Sethian texts and all extensively utilize Platonism and show no traces of what we call Christianity. Still, later Sethianism did incorporate Christianity as it grew, but Platonism was always clearly most important for them.

Independent scholar Andrew Phillip Smith, The Gnostics: History, Tradition, Scriptures, Influence [2012], p.31
Epiphanius connects Peter's Gnostic conversion with time spent in Arabia, possibly with Ebionites and Nazoreans, neither of which groups were Gnostic per se but were Jewish-Christian sects with strong ascetic or encratite leanings. No orthodox Christian mystic could approve of the inversionary tactics of the Sethians.


Image
Post Reply