The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 7:12 pm

The Sethian School of Gnostic Thought
< . . . snip . . >

".. many of these treatises refer to a special segment of humanity called “the great generation,” “strangers,” “another kind,” “the immovable, incorruptible race,” “the seed of Seth,” “the living and immoveable race,” “the children of Seth,” “the holy seed of Seth,” and “those who are worthy.” The terms “generation,” “race,” “seed,” and “strangers” are all plays on the tradition of Seth’s birth as “another seed” (sperma heteron) in Genesis 4:25 (J source) and as bearer of the same image and likeness to God as was his father Adam in Genesis 5:3 (P source):
  • Genesis 4:25, RSV
    And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another seed (Hebrew kyīšā tli elohīm zera’ ’ahēr; Greek exanestēsen gar moi ho theos sperma heteron) instead of Abel, for Cain slew him.”
  • Genesis 5:3, RSV
    When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image (Hebrew wayyōled bidm–utō ketsalmō; Greek egennēsen kata t–en idean autou kai kata tēn eikona autou), and named him Seth.
Sethian Gnostic thought had its roots in a form of Jewish speculation on the figure and function of Sophia, divine Wisdom, whom the Jewish scriptures sometimes personified as the instrument through whom God creates, nourishes, and enlightens the world (Proverbs 1–8; Sirach 24; Wisdom of Solomon 7)*

Seth’s status as bearer and transmitter (unlike Cain and Abel) and ultimately restorer of the authentic image of Adam, the original bearer of the divine image, was of great significance to the original composers and users of this literature, whether or not they called themselves Sethians or “the seed of Seth.” < . . . snip . . >

'The Sethian School of Thought', in 'Epilogue: Schools of Thought in the Nag Hammadi Scriptures', in turn, in Marvin W Meyer, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts, Harper Collins, 2010



Seth and Genesis 4:25 gets a mention in Philo's On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile


I. [1] “And Cain went out from the face of God, and dwelt in the land of Naid, over against Eden” [Gen. 4:16]. Let us here raise the question whether in the books in which Moses acts as God’s interpreter we ought to take his statements figuratively, since the impression made by the words in their literal sense is greatly at variance with truth. [2] For if the Existent Being has a face, and he that wishes to quit its sight can with perfect ease remove elsewhere, what ground have we for rejecting the impious doctrines of Epicurus [ie. that God has a human form], or the atheism of the Egyptians [ie. their worship of animals], or the mythical plots of play and poem of which the world is full? ...

II. [5] And whence does Cain “go out”? From the palace of the Lord of all? ...

[6] Again he that goes out from someone is in a different place from him whom he leaves behind. (If, then, Cain goes out from God), it follows that some portions of the universe are bereft of God. Yet God has left nothing empty or destitute of Himself, but has completely filled all things.
...< . . . snip . . >

III. [10] Adam, then, is driven out by God; Cain goes out voluntarily. Moses is showing us each form of moral failure, one of free choice, the other not so. The involuntary act, not owing its existence to our deliberate judgement, is to obtain later on such healing as the case admits of, for God shall raise up another seed in place of Abel whom Cain slew[Gen. 4:25]. This seed is a male offspring, Seth or 'Watering', raised up to the soul whose fall did not originate in itself. [11] The voluntary act, inasmuch as it was committed with forethought and of set purpose, must incur woes for ever beyond healing. For even as right actions that spring from previous intention are of greater worth than those that are involuntary, so, too, among sins those which are involuntary are less weighty than those which are voluntary.

IV. [12] Cain, then, has left the face of God to fall into the hands of Justice who takes vengeance on the impious. But Moses will lay down for his pupils a charge most noble “to love God and hearken to and cleave to Him” [Deut. 30:20]; assuring them that this is the life that brings true prosperity and length of days. And his way of inviting them to honour Him Who is the worthy object of strong yearning and devoted love is vivid and expressive. He bids them “cleave to Him,” bringing out by the use of this word how constant and continuous and unbroken is the concord and union that comes through making God our own ...



Seth : "raised up to the soul : whose fall did not originate in itself"

From the 'Analytic Introduction' of 'Philo,' Vol. II, by F.H. Colson and the Rev. G.H. Whitaker, 1929


At (§ 60) Philo illustrate[s], from the instance of Hebron, how names, like ‘Enoch,’ ‘Methuselah,’ ‘Lamech,’ can have two discrepant shades of meaning, as they have when borne by descendants of Cain and when borne by descendants of Seth. He is also led to give examples of that which is later in time being given precedence over what is earlier, as Hebron was placed above Zoan (60–65).


Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon May 23, 2022 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by Leucius Charinus »

The term "baptism" or "baptise" occurs 19 times in the text Zostrianos
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/zostrianos.html

I'm guessing that the Greek term may also be translated as "immersion" or "immerse"
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... y=bapti/zw

Did not the Graeco-Roman world have immersion rituals? (or "pagan baptism")

Need these terms have any explicit Christian significance in Zostrianos?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 6:15 am The term "baptism" or "baptise" occurs 19 times in the text Zostrianos
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/zostrianos.html

I'm guessing that the Greek term may also be translated as "immersion" or "immerse"
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... y=bapti/zw

Did not the Graeco-Roman world have immersion rituals? (or "pagan baptism")

Need these terms have any explicit Christian significance in Zostrianos?
ϫⲓ ⲱⲙⲥ is the phrase every single time in Zostrianos: take sinking, https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5490
Yes, the text doesn't have the N in between

https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5476 is the plain verb, identical to its noun form: to sink, dip
Zostrianos_TakeSinking-notBaptism.png
Zostrianos_TakeSinking-notBaptism.png (166.8 KiB) Viewed 1472 times
Yes, funny innit? Someone decided not to translate the Coptic words this time, that's a first...

Thomas has https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C8585, ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ
The Greek indeed means immersing: βαπτίζω, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... bapti%2Fzw

1.to dip in or under water; metaph., βεβαπτισμένοι soaked in wine, Plat.; ὀφλήμασι βεβ. over head and ears in debt, Plut.
2.to baptize, τινά NTest.:—Pass., βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς μετάνοιαν, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν id=NTest.:—Mid. to get oneself baptized, id=NTest.

And the avid reader likely will get tired of me saying so for the umpteenth time, but yet again we have a word that means X in all Greek texts yet Z in the NT

THE WORD MEANS TO IMMERSE - hence why Thomas can perfectly well speak of Zedekiah & sons immersing Jeremiah in mud. Which he does

Long story short: Zostrianos is clearly not relying on any textual source here, certainly not a Greek one, and once again the Churchian fable of Coptic being a copy of Greek hilariously falls through

And so good of you to ask! No, indeed, there is no baptism in Zostrianos:
Zostrianos_NoBaptism.png
Zostrianos_NoBaptism.png (158.78 KiB) Viewed 1470 times
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by mlinssen »

Having said that, I will also repeat my other favourite slogan: one can only study any of all this by looking at the original MS - disregarding and ignoring any and all biased translations - and that last phrase is a pleonasm

There's baptism in the NHL, even in Codex VII and VIII - but there's also simple immersion and only the context of a text can make clear whether ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲍⲉ or any other of its verbal forms, and its related nouns and adjectives, really do in fact mean baptism. Philip irrefutably speaks of baptism in those very letters even, but Zostrianos uses and entirely different verbal construction - while possibly referring to the same act, yes
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Chaldaean Oracles

Post by andrewcriddle »

billd89 wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:23 am I've translated Hans Lewy. The Chaldaean Oracles are irrelevant to Sethianism. Off-topic.

'Sethians' weren't 'Neo-Platonists' 'after Porphyry, Plotinus, etc.' - those heretical Egyptian Jews had disappeared long before the plagiarist librarians arrived in the 3rd C. AD.

ApAdam, a Sethian/Jessaean work, represents a much older Judeo-Egyptian theurgy.

Why would you knowingly post such misinformation on the internet?
Can I try and clarify what I am arguing ?
I quite agree that the early Sethian movement and its texts are earlier than the Chaldaean Oracles.
What I am talking about are the later Sethian texts the Platonizing Sethian texts of which Zostrianos is probably the oldest.
The ideas in these texts are linked to Platonic texts, such as the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s ‘Parmenides’ which explicitly refer to the Chaldaean Oracles.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 7:20 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 6:15 am The term "baptism" or "baptise" occurs 19 times in the text Zostrianos
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/zostrianos.html

I'm guessing that the Greek term may also be translated as "immersion" or "immerse"
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... y=bapti/zw

Did not the Graeco-Roman world have immersion rituals? (or "pagan baptism")

Need these terms have any explicit Christian significance in Zostrianos?
ϫⲓ ⲱⲙⲥ is the phrase every single time in Zostrianos: take sinking, https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5490
Yes, the text doesn't have the N in between

https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5476 is the plain verb, identical to its noun form: to sink, dip

Zostrianos_TakeSinking-notBaptism.png

Yes, funny innit? Someone decided not to translate the Coptic words this time, that's a first...
A someone wearing Christian glasses. Someone with a Christian confirmation bias decided to translate the Coptic with a poetic license. Again. And again. WTF is going on?

Thomas has https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C8585, ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ
The Greek indeed means immersing: βαπτίζω, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... bapti%2Fzw

1.to dip in or under water; metaph., βεβαπτισμένοι soaked in wine, Plat.; ὀφλήμασι βεβ. over head and ears in debt, Plut.
2.to baptize, τινά NTest.:—Pass., βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς μετάνοιαν, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν id=NTest.:—Mid. to get oneself baptized, id=NTest.

And the avid reader likely will get tired of me saying so for the umpteenth time, but yet again we have a word that means X in all Greek texts yet Z in the NT
BONUS POINTS: How many other words X yet Z are there in this class? If there are lots what are the "important ones" where the NT has Z as a "quasi-registered trade mark" of Christian monopoly, like "baptise".
THE WORD MEANS TO IMMERSE - hence why Thomas can perfectly well speak of Zedekiah & sons immersing Jeremiah in mud. Which he does
So Thomas does not have Jeremiah baptised in mud?
Long story short: Zostrianos is clearly not relying on any textual source here, certainly not a Greek one, and once again the Churchian fable of Coptic being a copy of Greek hilariously falls through
Setting aside the Churchian fables what were these Coptic authors and their editor(2) thinking in order to compose the NHL?

And so good of you to ask! No, indeed, there is no baptism in Zostrianos:

Zostrianos_NoBaptism.png
Nothing like a Zostrianos who has no interest in Christian baptism but rather has great interest in "take-sinking" - the classical notion of take-immersion ?

Has anyone entertained the notion that the author of Zostrianos is a pagan?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 7:34 am Having said that, I will also repeat my other favourite slogan: one can only study any of all this by looking at the original MS - disregarding and ignoring any and all biased translations - and that last phrase is a pleonasm
I was hoping you'd chime in. Thanks Martijn.
There's baptism in the NHL, even in Codex VII and VIII - but there's also simple immersion and only the context of a text can make clear whether ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲍⲉ or any other of its verbal forms, and its related nouns and adjectives, really do in fact mean baptism. Philip irrefutably speaks of baptism in those very letters even, but Zostrianos uses and entirely different verbal construction - while possibly referring to the same act, yes

The Gospel According to Philip says at 47 (in your translation):

Yet whomever he baptizes°, God immerses in an inundation of watersa

Am I mistaken in suggesting that again it is only Philip who juxtaposes "baptises" and "immerses" just as it only Philip who juxtaposes "Chrestian" and "Christian"?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by MrMacSon »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:51 pm Has anyone entertained the notion that the author of Zostrianos is a pagan?
MrMacSon wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:43 pm < . . snip . . >
As David Litwa said in the video LC posted upthread (and below [in this original post]), "the author is pretending to be a Persian sage who is living thousands of years before Jesus, so it wouldn't really be very logical for him to be mentioning Jesuses or Christ's left and right because, essentially, the life of Jesus hasn't happened yet and won't happen for another few thousand years.

"Yet Zostrianos has many Christian features eg. 'baptisms';* early Christian perceptions of Platonic daimones as demons; a reference to a being who 'suffers unsufferingly', a common way for Christians at some point in time to have referred to Jesus; and there's a coded reference to Jesus with the double mention of a figure called Yessus Mazareus Yessedekeus, a mystical name which apparently can be translated as 'Jesus of Nazareth the Just One'."

* Zostrianus is overwhelmingly positive about 'baptism' as the primary means of transformation in the heavens. There's a reference to faith, hope and love that are associated with the first three luminaries and these are [likely reflected in] the three theological virtues that appear in 1 Corinthians 13 (so there's potentially a knowledge of Paul in Zostrianus).

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:51 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 7:20 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 6:15 am The term "baptism" or "baptise" occurs 19 times in the text Zostrianos
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/zostrianos.html

I'm guessing that the Greek term may also be translated as "immersion" or "immerse"
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... y=bapti/zw

Did not the Graeco-Roman world have immersion rituals? (or "pagan baptism")

Need these terms have any explicit Christian significance in Zostrianos?
ϫⲓ ⲱⲙⲥ is the phrase every single time in Zostrianos: take sinking, https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5490
Yes, the text doesn't have the N in between

https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5476 is the plain verb, identical to its noun form: to sink, dip

Zostrianos_TakeSinking-notBaptism.png

Yes, funny innit? Someone decided not to translate the Coptic words this time, that's a first...
A someone wearing Christian glasses. Someone with a Christian confirmation bias decided to translate the Coptic with a poetic license. Again. And again. WTF is going on?
It's easy really, alas.
The texts are predesignated as Christian: IS is in it, or XS, or merely the word Lord or tree LOL, and there we go: we have a Christian text, perhaps pre-Christian, but Christian something it is - and the people that the text is entrusted to are academics so they're scientists so they're objective and reliable right?
WRONG
Thomas has https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C8585, ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ
The Greek indeed means immersing: βαπτίζω, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... bapti%2Fzw

1.to dip in or under water; metaph., βεβαπτισμένοι soaked in wine, Plat.; ὀφλήμασι βεβ. over head and ears in debt, Plut.
2.to baptize, τινά NTest.:—Pass., βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς μετάνοιαν, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν id=NTest.:—Mid. to get oneself baptized, id=NTest.

And the avid reader likely will get tired of me saying so for the umpteenth time, but yet again we have a word that means X in all Greek texts yet Z in the NT
BONUS POINTS: How many other words X yet Z are there in this class? If there are lots what are the "important ones" where the NT has Z as a "quasi-registered trade mark" of Christian monopoly, like "baptise".
Any other word really

The only way to do textual criticism in biblical academic, as I have learned in the past two years, is to read the native texts in their native language: the NT, the Church fathers, and the "apocrypha" - I have glanced at a bit of the Nag Hammadi Library and it is preposterous how those texts have been Christianised by their "translators". There are almost a dozen ocassions where 'wood' gets translated with 'cross':

ⲉⲓϣⲉ "crucify" NHL Codex III,2 77:15 (Gospel of the Egyptians IV,2)
ϣⲉ "cross" NHL Codex VII,2 58:13 (SECOND TREATISE OF THE GREAT SETH)
ϣⲉ "cross" NHL Codex VII,2 58:25 (SECOND TREATISE OF THE GREAT SETH)
ϣⲉ "cross" NHL Codex VII,3 81:11 (Apocalypse of Peter)
ϣⲉ "cross" NHL Codex VII,3 81:16 (Apocalypse of Peter)
ϣⲉ "cross" NHL Codex VII,3 82:6 (Apocalypse of Peter)
ⲉⲓϥⲧ "crucify" NHL Codex VII,3 82:21 (Apocalypse of Peter)
ⲁϣⲧ "crucify" NHL Codex VIII,2 139:16 (Apocalypse of Peter)
ⲁϣⲧ "crucify" NHL Codex IX,1 25:5 (Melchizedek)
ϣⲉ "cross" NHL Codex XI,2 33:18 (A VALENTINIAN EXPOSITION)

'Hang, suspend': https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C1010

Have you read my Crucifixion paper containing its Discussion Content? Martin Engel, the so much lauded expert on crucifixion, falsified the majority of his cases - and quite cunningly so.
We are simply overwhelmed by Christian propaganda and censorship - it's an almost perfectly binary situation where people either don't give a damn about Jesus or the major part of their soul
THE WORD MEANS TO IMMERSE - hence why Thomas can perfectly well speak of Zedekiah & sons immersing Jeremiah in mud. Which he does
So Thomas does not have Jeremiah baptised in mud?
It would be advantageous if you read Thomas in full.
Thomas merely points to all the offspring of Josiah, the last good king of the Judean kingdom, who all did bad - save for his first-born Johannan. The sons of Zedekiah let down Jeremiah in mud and then Zedekiah allows him to be pulled out again, and there are a dozen verses in between those two actions: Johannes the Immerser! it's what Thomas mockingly calls these last Judeans in the book of Chronicles, that starts with Adam in book 1, Chapter 1, verse 1, word 1. No one else who uses the Greek word speaks of baptism prior to the NT
Long story short: Zostrianos is clearly not relying on any textual source here, certainly not a Greek one, and once again the Churchian fable of Coptic being a copy of Greek hilariously falls through
Setting aside the Churchian fables what were these Coptic authors and their editor(2) thinking in order to compose the NHL?
They were telling stories about stories as everyone else always is, and their story was Chrestianity, all of which started with Thomas
And so good of you to ask! No, indeed, there is no baptism in Zostrianos:

Zostrianos_NoBaptism.png
Nothing like a Zostrianos who has no interest in Christian baptism but rather has great interest in "take-sinking" - the classical notion of take-immersion ?

Has anyone entertained the notion that the author of Zostrianos is a pagan?
Don't know, likely not many if any - but you can witness the current movement to resist what's in the NHL by a) the increased attempts at dating everything Christian as close to 0 CE as possible and b) labeling all of the NHL as Christian. Perhaps there are texts in there that date from after the hostile takeover but I doubt it. Yet I haven't made a study of them all so I can't make a full claim
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:11 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 7:34 am Having said that, I will also repeat my other favourite slogan: one can only study any of all this by looking at the original MS - disregarding and ignoring any and all biased translations - and that last phrase is a pleonasm
I was hoping you'd chime in. Thanks Martijn.
There's baptism in the NHL, even in Codex VII and VIII - but there's also simple immersion and only the context of a text can make clear whether ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲍⲉ or any other of its verbal forms, and its related nouns and adjectives, really do in fact mean baptism. Philip irrefutably speaks of baptism in those very letters even, but Zostrianos uses and entirely different verbal construction - while possibly referring to the same act, yes

The Gospel According to Philip says at 47 (in your translation):

Yet whomever he baptizes°, God immerses in an inundation of watersa

Am I mistaken in suggesting that again it is only Philip who juxtaposes "baptises" and "immerses" just as it only Philip who juxtaposes "Chrestian" and "Christian"?
Be very careful, Leucius - you know very, very well that this is not my translation. Why aren't you referring to the source post here?

What's more, you could have looked up the logion yourself: https://metalogos.org/files/ph_interlin/ph047.html

A screenshot from mobile - not the right font but anyone can see where it says baptize and where it doesn't. And the footnote by Paterson Brown is immensely helpful too, isn't it?
Philip_Logion47-PatersonBrown.jpg
Philip_Logion47-PatersonBrown.jpg (951.31 KiB) Viewed 1381 times
The translation is very wrong, as ⲙⲟⲟⲩ means water: https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C2165

Crum talks of Inundation of Nile but that's clearly as a theme and not a definition: https://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum- ... &tla=C2165

The poetic joke is that the Coptic says ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲛ ⲟⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩ: [dop] them in a-water, the words are ⲙⲙⲟ.ⲟⲩ ϩⲛ ⲟⲩ.ⲙⲟⲟⲩ. "An inundation of waters" is a falsification as only the last word is to be either translated as water or (incorrectly, given the context) interpreted as inundation of the Nile - the superlinear in Till on the first word designates it as ⲙⲙⲟ: https://metalogos.org/files/till/w-till-09.gif

One could even say, perhaps, "via/by water in a water" but then the nouns still are the same. I've never looked at this before but for the moment I'll go with either two grammatical breakdowns, tentatively, vastly preferring the former over the latter

You can also see how the Interlinear transcription AND translation has baptize twice yet the translation below it has the word only once - long live the falsification

What does Lundhaug have in his Images of Rebirth Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul?
But God dips those whom he dips in water.
ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲇⲉ ̄ ⲣⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲍⲉ ̄ ⲛⲛⲉⲧϥ ̄ ⲣⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲍⲉ ̄ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ϩ ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩ

Even worse. So now we have Lundhaug translating only 9 occurrences in Philip with bapti- whatever, whether verb or noun. How many are there then that start with ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓ? I count 10 in the diplomatic transcription alone and you can imagine that the word being broken across lines will not be found this way. Yet right here it EXPLICITLY says "to baptise" yet naturally our beloved and biased Lundhaug can't have his cherished Gawd doing any baptism now can he?

And I now feel inclined to translate the ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ not as ⲙⲙⲟ.ⲟⲩ but as ⲙ.ⲙⲟⲟⲩ, where the first ⲙ is an assimilated ⲛ due to it being directly followed by an ⲙ: ⲙ.ⲙⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲛ ⲟⲩ.ⲙⲟⲟⲩ - with.water in a.water, which is exactly what we see happening in the NT as well, where people physically place themselves in a body of water in order to be immersed in water.
Not fit for mass or pragmatic baptism of course as you'd always need a body of water to be around

I'm sure you have gotten the memo by now...
Post Reply